Seismic Performance of Precast Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Walls

TLDR

A code‑compliant, conventionally reinforced precast wall was used to emulate the behavior of ductile cast‑in‑place concrete walls. Two geometrically identical half‑scale precast concrete cantilever walls were tested under quasi‑static reversed cyclic lateral loading; one was a conventionally reinforced unit, while the other incorporated post‑tensioned unbonded carbon‑fiber tendons, steel‑fiber reinforced concrete, and low‑yield tapered reinforcement acting as a fuse to dissipate energy. The conventional precast reinforced wall achieved 2.5 % drift before significant strength degradation, whereas the partially prestressed wall attained over 3 % drift with no visible panel damage before failure, indicating superior ductility and energy absorption.

Abstract

Two geometrically identical half-scale precast concrete cantilever wall units were constructed and tested under quasi-static reversed cyclic lateral loading. One unit was a code compliant conventionally reinforced specimen, designed to emulate the behavior of a ductile cast-in-place concrete wall. The other unit was part of a precast partially prestressed system that incorporated post-tensioned unbonded carbon fiber tendons and steel fiber reinforced concrete. Hysteretic energy dissipation devices were provided in the latter unit in the form of low yield strength tapered longitudinal reinforcement, acting as a fuse connection between the wall panel and the foundation beam. The conventional precast reinforced wall performed very well in terms of the ductility capacity and energy absorption capability, reaching 2.5% drift before significant strength degradation occurred. The precast partially prestressed wall unit achieved drift levels well in excess of 3% with no visible damage to the wall panel prior to failure. Test results and performance comparisons between the precast partially prestressed wall system and the precast conventionally reinforced unit are presented.