Experimental investigation of seismic performance of a novel isostatic frame-cladding system

Abstract

A new connection measure between the precast concrete (PC) cladding panel and PC frame structure is proposed to realize a new kind of isostatic frame-cladding system. Three full-scale PC wall-frame substructures were tested under the quasi-static load. These substructures included a bare wall-frame specimen, a specimen with a cladding panel that has no opening, and a specimen with a cladding panel that has an opening in it. The damage evolution, failure mode, load-bearing capacity, deformation capacity, and energy dissipation capacity of three specimens were compared. The results indicated that the motions of the cladding panels and the main structures were uncoupled through the relative clearance of the bottom connections, and three specimens exhibited approximately identical failure modes and seismic performance. Thus, the reliability of this new isostatic system was validated.

Keywords

precast concrete wall-frame structure precast concrete cladding panel isostatic frame-cladding system seismic performance full-scale quasi-static loading test

Introduction

Precast concrete cladding panels were usually considered as non-structural components, implying that the interaction between the cladding panels and main structures is not considered. Hence, the connections between the main structure and cladding panels require only a local calculation. However, such an interaction has been widely proven to exist, and results in an unexpectedly large force acting on the connections, thereby causing failure of the connections and falling of the panels (Palsson et al., 1984; Cohen, 1995; McMullin et al., 2012; Toniolo and Colombo, 2012; Bournas et al., 2014; Magliulo et al., 2014; Belleri et al., 2015; Belleri et al., 2016; Casotto et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2018).

To address this issue, several new main structure-cladding panel systems have been proposed, including isostatic system (Biondini et al., 2013; Dal Lago, 2015; Pantoli et al., 2016; Dal Lago and Tornaghi, 2018a; Zoubek et al., 2018), integrated system (Colombo et al., 2014; Psycharis et al., 2018), and dissipative system (Biondini et al., 2013; Colombo et al., 2014; Dal Lago, 2015; Dal Lago et al., 2018). The isostatic system aims to realize a pure system of the main structure, and the cladding panel can largely move without reaction to the main structure. Hence, such a system can be easily designed, and the previous research has indicated that the system can be easily applied with sufficient reliability. To implement the isostatic system, there are three different design strategies: sliding frame, double hinged pendulum and rocking panel. Among these, sliding frame is considered to be the easiest way to disconnect frame and panels.

In Europe, North America and some other regions, one-story industrial or commercial buildings with vertical or horizontal panels are very common. In typical European practices, to achieve a sliding frame system, vertical panels are simply leant on the foundation, or better clamped to it, while the relative swaying of the frame must be allowed by sliders, which can ensure the stability of the panel in its out-of-plane direction at the same time. Horizontal panels are leant on top of steel brackets, and two sliders are then installed to allow the relative swaying (Metelli et al., 2011; Dal Lago, 2015).

Precast concrete cladding panels have been applied in multi-story or even tall residential and public buildings in some countries, recently. Because such buildings usually have a relatively small story height, large panels with a width of the entire or half the span have been adopted to improve the construction efficiency. In this case, traditional solutions for vertical or horizontal panels may not be feasible. Four-point connection manners were then proposed for this situation (Baird, 2014; Pantoli and Hutchinson, 2015). Two of the four connections are load-bearing ones, while the other two are flexible ones which have relative clearances to allow the sliding or rocking deformation of the cladding panels.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that for the abovementioned systems with four or even less connections, damage of the connections and falling of the cladding panels would still happen during earthquake if the connections are not designed or constructed properly or the clearance is not large enough. Consequently, to realize an isostatic system (specifically, sliding frame) for PC multi-story or high buildings with large cladding panels, and improve the safety redundancy meantime, a new kind of connection method as illustrated in Figure 1 is herein recommended. (1) At the top, the cladding panels are rigidly connected to the beam using protruding bars as well as shear keys along the beam length through which the self-weight of the cladding panels is transferred to the beam. Specifically, after the cladding panels being erected to the designated position, temporary steel braces will be utilized to fix them, and the connection reinforcing bars reserved in the panels will protrude into the upper part of the composite beam and slab. Then concrete will be poured in this part, thus the cladding panels and the structure would be rigidly connected. It is notable that a hanging manner is adopted here rather than the traditional seated manner typically adopted in one-story buildings. A critical issue is that the introduction of the cladding panels must not change the damage mode of the main structure, particularly the development of plastic hinges at the beam ends. Hence, protruding reinforcements and shear keys are recommended to be arranged avoiding the expected plastic hinge regions at the beam ends. (2) For the connection at the bottom, two or more slotted steel angles are adopted as sliders to enable the relative horizontal displacement between the main structure and panel. In addition, such angles can bear the out-of-plane load and prevent the out-of-plane displacement. It is worth mentioning that even if damage of the sliders would occur during earthquake, the rigid line connection at the top will prevent the panels from falling, and thus safety redundancy of the structure would be improved.

Figure 1.

An isostatic system for PC structures with cladding panels: (a) front view, (b) section 1-1 and (c) section 2-2.

To validate the reliability of the isostatic system and recommended connection method, three full-scale PC wall-frame substructures were tested under the quasi-static load. These substructures included a bare wall-frame specimen, a specimen with a precast concrete sandwich panel (PCSP, the cladding panel) that has no opening, and a specimen with a PCSP that has an opening in it. Note that a wall-frame structure is a specific shear wall structure with large openings and small depths of wall panels. Mechanical behavior of this kind of structure is similar with the frame structure. As a result, it can also be considered as a specific frame structure. The damage evolution, failure modes, bearing capacities, deformation capacities, and energy dissipation capacities of these specimens were compared in detail. Through these results, the reliability of such system and associated connection method was validated, which offer a valuable reference for the development of PC structures with cladding panels.

Specimen, test setup, and loading protocol

Specimen

To evaluate the seismic performance of the structural system with the proposed connection method, three full-scale PC wall-frame substructures named S-1, S-2, and S-3, were manufactured and tested. The dimensions and reinforcement details of these specimens are depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Among these specimens, S-1 is a bare wall-frame substructure, whereas S-2 and S-3 contain a PCSP without and with an opening, respectively. The story height of all specimens is 2800 mm, and the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam and wall are 200 mm × 450 mm and 200 mm × 600 mm, respectively. To consider the contribution of the slab, a slab for which the width is 500 mm and the thickness is 120 mm was prefabricated with the beam, leading to an L-shaped beam. To facilitate the fabrication, the concrete of the shear wall, beam, and slab of S-1 were integrally cast. For S-2 and S-3, the beam and slab were both composite components composed of the bottom part of the precast concrete and the top part of the cast-in-place concrete. Grout sleeves were adopted to connect the longitudinal reinforcements of shear wall and foundation.

Figure 2.

Dimensions and reinforcing details of S-1 (Unit: mm): (a) reinforcement details of the main structure, (b) section 1-1, (c) section 2-2, (d) section 3-3.

Figure 3.

Dimensions and reinforcement details of S-2 and S-3 (Unit: mm): (a) reinforcement details of the main structure, (b) section 1–1, (c) section 2–2, (d) section 3–3, (e) section 4–4, (f) details of the PCSP of S-2 and (g) details of the PCSP of S-3.

The thickness of the PCSP was 160 mm. The thicknesses of the outer wythe, inner wythe, and insulation wythe were 60, 50, and 50 mm, respectively. An opening for which the width is 1800 mm and the height is 1400 mm was located 450 mm from the top of the PCSP in S-3. At the top of the PCSP, double-row protruding reinforcements, for which the diameter is 10 mm and the spacing is 200 mm, were adopted and extended into the upper part of the L-shaped beam. Concrete was cast in this region to form a rigid line connection between the PCSP and the beam. The length of the expected plastic regions was about 450 mm (i.e., the beam height), therefore the length of the line connection and shear keys was 1800 mm.

At the bottom of the PCSP, two slotted steel angles were symmetrically arranged to connect the PCSP with the foundation. A bolt slot with a length of 120 mm, which was approximately four times the inter-story displacement limit (i.e., 28 mm with an inter-story drift of 1/100 under the maximum considered earthquake according to the Chinese code GB 50011-2010) was arranged on each steel angle. The bolt can be expected to freely slide in the two loading directions through this slot and accommodate the horizontal motion between the PCSP and the main structure, thus preventing the occurrence of an interaction between the PCSP and the main structure. In addition, a vertical gap with a height of 20 mm, which was filled with polyurethane waterproof sealant, was set between the PCSP and the foundation to investigate the performance of the sealant.

Material properties

C30 concrete (i.e., the cubic compressive strength is 30 MPa) and HRB400 reinforcements (i.e., the yield strength is 400 MPa) were used in all the specimens according to the Chinese code GB 50010-2010 (2010). The compressive strengths and standard deviations of the concrete measured by three 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm cubic specimens are presented in Table 1. Tensile tests were conducted to obtain the material properties of reinforcing bars of different diameters, as summarized in Table 2. In the table, D denotes the diameter, f_y denotes the yield strength, f_u denotes the ultimate strength, and δ denotes the rupture strain.

Table 1.

Mechanical properties of concrete.

Part	Compressive strength/MPa	Standard deviation/MPa
PC shear wall of S-1	43.92	2.50
PC shear wall of S-2 and S-3	41.98	0.88
Slabs, beams, and foundations	42.48	2.22
PCSP	37.79	0.49
Cast-in-place part of S-2	40.09	1.20
Cast-in-place part of S-3	27.32	1.20

Table 2.

Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars.

D/mm	f_y/MPa	f_u/MPa	δ/%
6	445.0	636.0	20.1
8	442.5	646.1	22.1
10	453.9	645.0	23.9
16	445.9	616.6	25.2
18	437.4	599.8	21.6
20	442.3	607.6	22.4

Test setup and loading protocol

The test setup for the three specimens was identical and is shown in Figure 4. A total vertical load with a constant value of 429 kN was applied using two hydraulic jacks at the top of each shear wall. The corresponding design and test axial loading ratios of the shear wall, which are calculated using equations (1) and (2), were 0.3 and 0.12, respectively

n_{d} = \frac{N_{d}}{f_{c} A}

(1)

n_{t} = \frac{N_{t}}{f_{c, t} A}

(2)

where

n_{d}

and

n_{t}

are the design and test loading ratios.

N_{d}

is the design axial load (i.e., the test constant axial load multiplied by a partial factor of 1.2, according to Chinese Load Code for the Design of Building Structures GB 50009-2012 (2012)).

f_{c}

is the concrete design axial compressive strength,

N_{t}

is the test axial load,

f_{c, t}

is the axial compressive strength calculated based on the measured cubic compressive strength, and A is the cross-sectional area of the shear wall.

Figure 4.

Test setup: (a) schematic diagram, (b) photograph.

The quasi-static load was applied by an MTS actuator, and a force-displacement control procedure was adopted. Specifically, the loading was controlled by force before yielding of the specimen, and by displacement after yielding of the specimen. At the latter loading stage, the loading cycles exhibited an increment of the yielding displacement. After the force dropped to 85% of the peak load, the test terminated according to the Chinese code JGJ/T 101-2015 (2015). The abovementioned loading protocol is illustrated in Figure 5, and amplitudes of the loading cycles and loading rates are presented in Table 3. Strain gauges were set on the reinforcing bars at the wall roots and the beam ends, as depicted in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 5.

Loading protocol of specimens.

Table 3.

Amplitudes of the loading cycles and load rates.

Loading protocol	Amplitudes of the loading cycles	Load rate
Force control	±25 kN, ±50 kN, ±75 kN, ±100 kN, ±125 kN, ±150 kN, ±175 kN, ±200 kN, ±250 kN	5 kN/s
Displacement control	±10 mm, ±20 mm, ±30 mm, ±40 mm, ±50 mm, ±60 mm	1 mm/s

Test results and failure modes

Test results

The detailed test phenomena of S-1, S-2, and S-3 are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The hysteretic curves, pictures of cracking pattern, deformation of the sealant, and schemes of the final crack distribution are depicted in Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively.

Table 4.

Test phenomena of S-1.

Load/displacement (inter-story drift)	Test phenomena
75 kN/1 mm (1/2800)	Two inclined cracks first appeared at the internal corner of the beam-wall joints, and the corresponding maximum width was approximately 0.04 mm
125 kN/3 mm (1/933)	A new vertical flexural crack was observed at the left beam end. Meanwhile, several horizontal flexural cracks appeared at the wall roots
220 kN/10 mm (1/280)	The longitudinal reinforcing bars at the beam ends yielded, and the maximum crack width at these locations increased to 0.3 mm
234.2 kN/20 mm (1/140)	The longitudinal reinforcing bars at the wall roots yielded
451.37 kN/40 mm (1/70)	The cover concrete at the roots of the walls and both ends of the beam spalled slightly
468.6 kN/50 mm (1/56)	The crushing of the cover concrete at the root of the wall and the ends of the beam was observed, as shown at point A and point B in Figure 6. The lateral load reached the maximum value (i.e., 468.6 kN)
377.7 kN/60 mm (1/47)	The crushing region of the concrete at the root of the shear walls increased. The load dropped to 80.6% of the peak load. At this point, the test was terminated. A picture of the final failure mode at point C is illustrated in Figure 6

Table 5.

Test phenomena of S-2.

Load/displacement (inter-story drift)	Test phenomena
50 kN/1 mm (1/2800)	Cracks were first observed at the internal corner of the beam-wall joints and at the root of the wall, and the correspondingly maximum width was approximately 0.10 mm
100 kN/2 mm (1/1400)	Slight sliding with a value of 1.6 mm of the bolts that connect the PCSP and the steel angle was observed
150 kN/4 mm (1/700)	Several flexural cracks were observed at the beam ends and the wall roots. Some of the cracks developed into inclined cracks. The sliding displacement of the bolts reached approximately 3 mm
280 kN/10 mm (1/280)	The longitudinal reinforcing bars at the right beam end yielded. The sliding displacement of the bolts further increased to 7 mm
298.7 kN/20 mm (1/140)	The longitudinal reinforcing bars at the left beam end and the wall roots yielded. Detachment of the sealant from the foundation was observed, as depicted in Figure 9(a)
476.8 kN/30 mm (1/93)	The cover concrete at the root of the walls spalled Significant detachment of the sealant and deformation of the sealant were observed, as depicted in Figure 9(b)
504.0 kN/50 mm (1/56)	Crushing of the concrete appeared at the beam ends and the wall roots, as shown at points A and B in Figure 7. The sliding displacement of the bolts further increased. The lateral load reached its maximum value (i.e., 504.0 kN)
416.9 kN/60 mm (1/47)	The crushing area of the concrete at the wall roots and the beam ends increased. The lateral load of the specimen dropped to 82.5% of the peak load. The test was then terminated. A picture of the final failure mode at point C is illustrated in Figure 7

Table 6.

Test phenomena of S-3.

Load/displacement (inter-story drift)	Test phenomena
25 kN/0.5 mm (1/5600)	The first two flexural cracks appeared at the internal corner of the beam-wall joint and the wall roots, and the corresponding maximum width was approximately 0.04 mm
50 kN/1 mm (1/2800)	Slight sliding with a value of 2 mm of the bolts that connect the PCSP and the steel angle was observed
327.95 kN/13 mm (1/216)	The longitudinal reinforcements at the beam ends and the root of the wall yielded
459.8 kN/40 mm (1/70)	The cover concrete at the root of the walls spalled. Significant detachment of the sealant and deformation of the sealant were observed
487.5 kN/50 mm (1/56)	The lateral load reached its maximum value (i.e., 487.5 kN). Crushing of the concrete was observed at both beam ends and at the wall roots, as shown at points A and B in Figure 8
390.5 kN/60 mm (1/47)	The lateral load of the specimen dropped to 80.1% of the peak load. Then, the test was terminated. A picture of the final failure mode at point C is illustrated in Figure 8

Figure 6.

Hysteretic curve and pictures of S-1.

Figure 7.

Hysteretic curve and pictures of S-2.

Figure 8.

Hysteretic curve and pictures of S-3.

Figure 9.

Test phenomena of the sealant: (a) detachment of the sealant at the displacement of 20 mm and (b) deformation of the sealant at the displacement of 30 mm.

Figure 10.

Crack patterns of the specimens: (a) S-1, (b) S-2, and (c) S-3.

Comparison of failure modes

Based on the phenomena described above, a similar failure mode was observed for the three specimens. In particular, plastic hinges successively developed at the beam ends and roots of the wall, and the concrete crushing in these hinges led to the failure of all the specimens. This indicates that the damage evolution and failure mode of the main structure are not affected by the introduction of the PCSP. This is attributed to the recommended line connections at the top avoiding the plastic hinge regions at the beam ends and sliding bolt connections at the bottom, thus validating the reliability of the recommended connection method.

During the test, the connecting bolts at the bottom of the panel could slide smoothly in the bolt slots as expected (as depicted in Figure 11(a)). Owing to this, no visible crack was observed in the PCSP of S-2, and only minor cracks were observed at the corners of the opening in the PCSP of S-3.

Figure 11.

(a) Horizontal sliding of the bolt in the bolt slot and (b) damage pattern of the wall root.

Meanwhile, for S-2 and S-3, the detachment of the sealant in the horizontal joints was not observed until the inter-story drift reached 1/140, indicating that the sealant could function well under the service level earthquake (SLE).

Besides, the experiment also indicates that the damage mode of the wall root in which longitudinal reinforcing bars are connected by grout sleeves is considerably similar to their cast-in-place counterpart (as depicted in Figure 11(b)).

Analysis of test results

Hysteretic responses and envelope curves

The lateral load–displacement hysteresis curves of the three specimens are depicted in Figure 12. They exhibited quite similar characteristics. All the specimens indicated good and stable energy dissipation capacities.

Figure 12.

Hysteresis curves: (a) S-1, (b) S-2 and (c) S-3.

The load–displacement envelope curves of the three specimens are compared in Figure13. S-2 and S-3 with a PCSP have higher stiffness and strength values than those of S-1.

Figure 13.

Envelope curves of the specimens.

Strength and ductility

The comparison of the load and displacement of three characteristic points in the envelope curves, and the corresponding deformation capacity parameters are presented in Table 7. The yield point was obtained through the energy equivalence procedure (Mahin and Bertero, 1976). The ultimate point was defined as the point where the load-bearing capacity dropped to 85% of the peak load, or the terminal point by the end of the test. In the table, P_y and Δ_y are the yield load and displacement, respectively; P_p and Δ_p denote the peak load and displacement, respectively; P_u and Δ_u denote the ultimate load and displacement, respectively.

Table 7.

Characteristic points of the envelope curves and deformation capacity parameters.

Specimen	Direction	Yield point		Peak point		Ultimate point		Ductility factor μ = Δ_u/Δ_y	Ultimate drift θ_u = Δ_u/H
Specimen	Direction	P_y (kN)	Δ_y (mm)	P_p (kN)	Δ_p (mm)	P_u (kN)	Δ_u (mm)	Ductility factor μ = Δ_u/Δ_y	Ultimate drift θ_u = Δ_u/H
S-1	Positive	342.6	16.81	468.6	47.04	459.2	56.60	3.37	1/49
	Negative	319.7	15.37	420.4	45.89	415.3	55.37	3.60	1/51
	Average	331.2	16.09	444.5	46.47	437.3	55.99	3.48	1/50
S-2	Positive	350.0	14.53	504.0	49.17	480.6	54.40	3.74	1/52
	Negative	296.3	11.34	413.0	38.84	368.8	58.17	5.12	1/48
	Average	323.2	12.94	458.5	44.00	424.7	56.29	4.35	1/50
S-3	Positive	353.6	14.71	487.5	47.57	455.0	56.06	3.81	1/50
	Negative	325.6	14.27	434.3	45.32	428.0	55.46	3.89	1/51
	Average	339.6	14.49	460.9	46.45	441.5	55.76	3.85	1/50

The average peak loads of S-2 and S-3 were 3.15% and 3.69% greater than that of S-1, respectively, indicating that PCSPs exhibited negligible influence on the main structure. It is noteworthy that this conclusion is consistent with other researcher’s finding about other kind of isostatic systems (Baird, 2014). Meanwhile, a slight difference exhibited between the ductility of the three specimens, and the ductility factor of the three specimens ranged from 3.48 to 4.35. The average ultimate drifts of the three specimens were all approximately 1/50, which is greater than the limit value (i.e., 1/100) stated in the Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings GB 50011-2010 (2010) under maximum considered earthquake (MCE), indicating that all the specimens exhibited a good deformation capacity.

Stiffness degradation and energy dissipation capacities

The effective stiffness is defined by the secant stiffness K_i in Chinese code JGJ/T 101-2015 (2015) calculated through Eq. (3)

K_{i} = \frac{| + F_{i} | + | - F_{i} |}{| + X_{i} | + | - X_{i} |}

(3)

where F_i, and X_i denote the peak load and peak displacement of the ith cycle, respectively.

The comparison of the relationships between K_i and the lateral displacement is depicted in Figure 14. A minor difference was observed in the degradation of the secant stiffness for the three specimens. The stiffnesses of S-1, S-2, and S-3 at 1 mm were 60.98, 74.93, and 72.34 kN/mm, respectively. Furthermore, the initial stiffnesses of specimens S-2 and S-3 with PCSPs were 22.9% and 18.6% larger than that of S-1, respectively. This is mainly because the PCSP contributes to the stiffness of the specimens when the lateral load was small. With the increase of the load, the friction force of the connecting bolts at the bottom of the PCSP was overcome, and the bolts began to slide along the bolt slot. In addition, the contact surfaces between the PCSP and the foundation which were bonded together got detached. As a result, the stiffnesses of the three specimens were approximately identical after a displacement of 20 mm.

Figure 14.

Stiffness degradation curves of the specimens.

As an important index to assess the seismic performance of structures, the energy dissipation factor E is defined with Eq. (4) as described in Figure 15 according to the Chinese code JGJ/T 101-2015 (2015). When the top displacement reached 60 mm, the energy dissipation factors of the three specimens were 0.88, 0.95, and 0.94, respectively. The results indicate that the E value of S-2, which contains a PCSP without an opening, increased by 7.9% in comparison with that of S-1. A negligible difference was observed between the E values of S-2 and S-3, indicating that the opening in the PCSP has little effect on the energy dissipation capacity.

E = \frac{S_{(A B C + C D A)}}{S_{(O B E + O D F)}}

(4)

Figure 15.

Calculation of energy dissipation coefficient E.

Conclusions

A new isostatic structural system was proposed herein for PC multi-story or high buildings with large cladding panels. To evaluate the feasibility and reasonability of this structural system and associated connection method, quasi-static tests of three full-scale PC wall-frame substructures (i.e., one without PCSP, one with PCSP, and one with PCSP having an opening) were conducted. The damage evolution, strength, deformation performance, and energy dissipation capacity were compared and identified. The following conclusions were obtained:

Three specimens exhibited similar damage evolution and failure modes. Specifically, plastic hinges were successively observed at both ends of the beams and the roots of the walls, and the crushing of concrete in these hinges led to the failure of the specimens, indicating that the failure modes of the main structure were not affected by the introduction of a PCSP. This is attributed to the recommended line connections at the top of the PCSP avoiding the plastic hinge regions at the beam ends and sliding bolt connections at the bottom of the PCSP, thus validating the reliability of this isostatic system and the recommended connection method.

Through a reasonable design of the length of the bolt slots at the bottom, the connection for PCSPs could deform freely even at a large inter-story drift (i.e., 2%). The function of the PCSPs can be well protected. No damage was observed in the PCSP without opening, and only minor cracks appeared in the PCSP with an opening after the inter-story drift reached 1/70, which was greater than the stated limit value under MCE (i.e., 1/100) in Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings GB 50011-2010 (2010). Furthermore, the detachment of the sealant was not observed until the inter-story drift reached 1/140, indicating that the sealant could function well under SLE.

The PCSPs have a negligible influence on the strength, deformation capacity, and energy dissipation capacity of the main structures. However, initial stiffnesses of the structures with PCSPs are higher than that of the bare wall-frame. Therefore, it is suggested that effect of the PCSPs on the stiffness of the main structures should be considered in the design of the structures, while the effect on the strength can be neglected. As for the design of the cladding panels and the connections of the isostatic system, only local loads are required to be considered.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No 51778201), the Pyramid Talent Training Project of Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (JDYC20200306).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Linlin Xie

Qing Jiang

References

Baird

(2014) Seismic Performance of Precast Concrete Cladding Systems. PhD Thesis. University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Belleri

Brunesi

Nascimbene

Pagani

Riva

(2015) Seismic performance of precast industrial facilities following major earthquakes in the Italian territory. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29(5): 04014135.

Belleri

Torquati

Marino

Riva

(2016) Horizontal cladding panels: in-plane seismic performance in precast concrete buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14(4): 1–27.

Biondini

Dal Lago

Toniolo

(2013) Role of wall panel connections on the seismic performance of precast structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11(4): 1061–1081.

Bournas

Negro

Taucer

(2014) Performance of industrial buildings during the Emilia earthquakes in Northern Italy and recommendations for their strengthening. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12(5): 2383–2404.

Casotto

Silva

Crowley

Nascimbene

Pinho

(2015) Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures. Engineering Structures 94: 122–136.

Cohen

(1995) Literature Review on Seismic Performance of Building Cladding Systems. London: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Colombo

Negro

Toniolo

(2014) The influence of claddings on the seismic response of precast structures: the Safecladding project. in Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 24-29 August, 2014, pp. 25–29.

Dal Lago

(2015) Seismic Performance of Precast Structures with Dissipative Cladding Panel Connections. PhD Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.

10.

Dal Lago

Bianchi

Biondini

Toniolo

(2018) Dissipative diaphragm connections for precast structures with cladding panels under seismic action. 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16ECEE), Santiago, Chile, 10-13 January, 2017, pp. 1–12.

11.

Dal Lago

Tornaghi

(2018a) Sliding channel cladding connections for precast structures subjected to earthquake action. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16(11): 5621–5646.

12.

GB 50009-2012 (2012). Load Code for the Design of Building Structures. Beijing, China: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (In Chinese).

13.

GB 50010-2010 (2010) Code for Design of Concrete Structure. Beijing, China: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (In Chinese).

14.

GB 50011-2010 (2010). Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Beijing, China: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (In Chinese).

15.

Huang

Mosalam

(2018) Shaking table testing of granite cladding with undercut bolt anchorage. Engineering Structures 171: 488–499.

16.

JGJ/T 101-2015 (2015). Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building. Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building Press (In Chinese).

17.

Magliulo

Ercolino

Petrone

Coppola

Manfredi

(2014) The Emilia earthquake: seismic performance of precast reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra 30(2): 891–912.

18.

Mahin

Bertero

(1976) Problems in establishing and predicting ductility in structural design. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earthquake Structural Engineering, St. Louis, MO, the United States of America, 19–21 August, 1976, pp. 613–628.

19.

McMullin

Ortiz

Patel

Yarra

Kishimoto

Stewart

Steed

(2012) Response of exterior precast concrete cladding panels in NEES-TIPS/NEESGC/E-Defense tests on a full scale 5-story building. ASCE Structures Congress, Chicago, Illinois, the United States of America, 29-31 March, 2012, pp. 1305–1314.

20.

Metelli

Bettini

Plizzari

(2011) Experimental and numerical studies on the behaviour of concrete sandwich panels. European Journal of Environment and Civil Engineering 15(10): 1465–1481.

21.

Palsson

Goodno

Craig

Will

(1984) Cladding influence on dynamics response of tall buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 12(2): 215–228.

22.

Pantoli

Hutchinson

(2015) Experimental and analytical study of the dynamic characteristics of architectural precast concrete cladding. Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, California, the United States of America, 10-12 December, 2015, pp. 560–574.

23.

Pantoli

Hutchinson

McMullin

Underwood

Hildebrand

(2016) Seismic-drift-compatible design of architectural precast concrete cladding: Tieback connections and corner joints. PCI Journal 11: 121–138.

24.

Psycharis

Kalyviotis

Mouzakis

(2018) Experimental investigation of the response of precast concrete cladding panels with integrated connections under monotonic and cyclic loading. Engineering Structures 159: 75–88.

25.

Toniolo

Colombo

(2012) Precast concrete structures: The lesson learnt from L'Aquila earthquake. Structural Concrete 13(2): 73–83.

26.

Zoubek

Fischinger

Isakovic

(2018) Seismic response of short restrainers used to protect cladding panels in RC precast buildings. Journal of Vibration and Control 24(4): 645–658.