Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

AENSI Journals
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

Journal home page: www.ajbasweb.com

Behaviour of Vertical Loop Bar Connection in Precast Wall Subjected To Shear Load
1
Nabila Rossley, 1Farah Nora Aznieta Abdul Aziz, 2Heng Chiang Chew, 3Nima Farzadnia
1
1Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
2
Baxtium Construction Company, 63A, Jalan BPU2, Puchong Utama,47100 Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia.
3
Housing Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Background: Connection design is one of the most important considerations for a
Received 21 November 2013 successful construction of precast reinforced concrete structures in terms of the
Received in revised form 18 structural behaviour. The main purpose of the structural connection is to transfer forces
January 2014 between the precast concrete elements in order to obtain structural interaction once the
Accepted 29 January 2014 system is loaded. Therefore, the structural connections should design properly as the
Available online 25 February 2014 same for the precast concrete elements. Objective: The main objectives of this
experimental study are: a) to determine the maximum shear stress and b) to investigate
Keywords: failure mode of vertical connection using loop bars under shear load. Results: The
Loop bar, shear loading, shear stress, average maximum shear stress obtained from the test is 1.83 N/mm2, which exceeded the
wall to wall connection. allowed maximum shear stress of 1.8 N/mm2. From the visual observation, most concrete
crushing and spalling, were concentrated at the joint and the adjacent wall. Basically, the
wall panel was failed under brittle failure mode, however the lab test proved that the loop
connection was able to give crack lines at the interface before failure occurred. The
critical stage was when inclined cracks formed near the loop bar connection as it almost
reached its failure stage. Conclusion: In economic point of view, use of 6 mm diameter
loop bar can be considered in order to achieve 1.8 N/mm2 for prototype scale of the
precast panels that typically used for medium rise construction. To increase the
ductility of the connection, the ratio of the transverse bar, overlapping length and
concrete joint strength should be increased.

2014 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.

To Cite This Article: Nabila Rossley, Farah Nora Aznieta Abdul Aziz, Heng Chiang Chew, Nima Farzadnia., Behaviour of Vertical Loop
Bar Connection in Precast Wall Subjected To Shear Load. Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 8(1): 370-380, 2014

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the construction trend has moved from the traditional to prefabricate manufacturing (Nor et
al., 2012; Lovell & Smith, 2010; Tam et al., 2007). In Malaysia, according to the Survey on the Usage of
Industrialised Building Systems (IBS) in Malaysian Construction Industry in 2003, the most popular IBS types
and structure components were steel beams and columns as well as portal frames and cold-rolled roof trusses
followed by precast concrete framing, panel and box systems. Nowadays, due to the high cost of structural steel
sections, precast concrete construction has gained popularity among engineers and architects (Abd Rahman et
al., 2006).
The precast concrete structural systems have shown advantages in concrete structure constructions such as,
providing easy standardisation, cost saving, efficient use of materials, speedier construction and improved
quality control (Megally, S., F. Seible, M. Garg, 2002). However, the conventional wet cast in situ
constructions, which relatively require more construction space at site, labour, longer pending time for concrete
curing and hardening process and poorer quality control seem to be replaced with the precast concrete systems
at a slow pace, but at a wide scale (Tiong et al., 2011).
There are three types of precast building systems which are skeletal structure, portal frame, and wall frame
(Farsangi, 2010). Precast skeletal structure referred to as skeletal because it resembles a skeletal of rather small
but very strong components of columns, beams, floors, staircases and sometimes structural walls (Elliot, 2002).
A second category of precast building is the portal frame which consisting of columns and roof rafters. This type
of system is normally used in industrial buildings and warehouses. This research merely focussed on the last
category of the precast structure, wall frame, which consists of walls and slabs. This system depends on load
bearing walls to resist vertical and horizontal loads. The precast wall frame structures provide an economical
solution when compared to cast in situ walls and can increase the speed of the construction(Freedman 1999;
Bhuskade & Mundhada, 2011). Precast wall frame structures may often be faster to build especially if the
external walls are furnished with thermal insulation and decorative finishes at the factory (Elliot, 2002).
Corresponding Author: Nabila Rossley, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
Ph:06 0132646224. E-mail:nabila88888@gmail.com
371 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Connection design is one of the most important considerations for a successful construction of precast
reinforced concrete structures in terms of the structural behaviour (Tiong et al., 2011; Sadrnejad & Labibzadeh,
2006; Loo & Yao, 1995). The main purpose of the structural connection is to transfer forces between the precast
concrete elements in order to obtain structural interaction once the system is loaded. By the ability to transfer
forces, the connections should secure the intended structural behaviour of the superstructure and the precast
subsystems that are integrated in it. Therefore the structural connections should be regarded as an essential part
of the structural system and they should be designed properly as the same for the precast concrete elements. For
the precast wall frame structures, the connections between load bearing wall panels are essential parts of the
structural support system as the stability of the structure relies on their performance. According to Freedman
(Freedman, 1999), it is desirable to design load bearing precast concrete structures with connections which
allow lateral movement and rotation.
Two methods can be used to tie precast wall panels with other panels namely: continuity reinforcement bar
and protruding bar. Continuity reinforcement bars can be utilized when steel bars are placed across the joint by
which the shear forces can be transferred between elements by dowel action. Example of continuous tie bars is
the spliced steel reinforcing bars. However, this connection is susceptible to corrosion which could lead to
deterioration of the strength of the structure if exposed to sodium chloride present in marine environments (J.
Tibbetts et al., 2009). Furthermore, in Malaysia, the splices steel available in the market is proprietary and this
type of connection can be only purchased from foreign companies. Therefore, the cost of this connection is
higher compared with protruding bar. Due to that, this type of connection is not widely used in Malaysia.
Protruding tie bar is used to connect the walls by bolting, welding or loop connection filled with grout or
concrete. In bolted connections the anchor precast concrete walls are connected directly to the adjacent panels
(Ertas et al., 2006). Bolted connections could transmit a combination of moment, shear force and axial force
between the panels(Mansur et al., 2010). The main advantage of this connection is that this connection can be
made immediately but it has restricted tolerance required for mating, in which oversize holes are not allowed
because of a significant slippage of the bolt (Yu et al., 2011).
Welded connections can be used to connect elements by heating the protruding bars. The behaviour of the
welded connections is satisfactory, but the construction of these specimens requires accurate welding of the
reinforcement (Ertas et al., 2006). However, the bond of steel bars could be damaged by heat generated from
welding and may result in cracking of the adjacent precast concrete, so the use of welded connections needs to
be minimised (Ochs, J. E., 1993; Stanton et al., 1991). Naito et al. (2012) found out that welding through
surface wetness has the potential to increase micro discontinuities and create visible cracking. Malaysia
experiences wet and humid tropical climate throughout the years (Jamaludin & Jemain, 2007) and hence
welding connection may need to be minimised. Other than that, the quality of the weld is totally dependent on
the skill of the welder.
As for the loop bar connections, loop bars that are protruding from the elements can be connected by lap
splicing in the intermediate joint. The connection is activated as the joint is filled with grout or concrete. The
splitting effect is large in the plane of the loop. To prevent premature brittle failure of the connection, transverse
reinforcement should be placed through the overlapping part of the loop (CEB-FIP, 2008). In this research,
protruding reinforcement with loop bar was chosen because the connection is easy to fix on site due to the
higher tolerances allowed. Other than that, it also provides protection for the loop bar from corrosion (Hao,
2004).
It is well established that every precast concrete element has to transfer compressive forces such as self
weight and live loads down to the foundations. Lateral loads change the compressive forces into tensile forces,
or horizontal shear load. So far some studies targeted the behaviour of different wall to wall connections but
they were merely concentrated on the behaviour of the connection subjected to lateral shear load due to
earthquake induced loads (Arturo et al., 1994; Perez et al., 2004; Soudkl et al., 1996). Shear force can also be
transferred across joints where the structure has differential settlement or uneven load (Zheng & Burgoyne,
1994). Until today, no research has been conducted to investigate loop connections under shear loading. The
overarching purpose of this study is: a) to determine the maximum shear stress and b) to investigate the
behaviour of vertical connections using loop bars in medium rise constructions under shear load. The main
purpose of determining the maximum shear stress is to make sure that shear loads could be effectively
transferred between precast walls through in situ joints. Other than that, it is important to understand its
behaviour in terms of mode of failure since the connection plays a vital role in structures stability.

Experimental Work:
Specimen Detailing:
This experimental consists of two identical specimens denoted as WWC1 and WWC2 throughout the study.
Each specimen consisted of two walls connected together using loop bars. The height, width and thickness of
wall panels were 1200 mm, 600 mm and 125 mm, respectively. The dimensions correspond to a prototype scale
of the precast panels typically used for medium rise construction. The diameter of loop bars was 8 mm. Bar with
372 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

a diameter of 10 mm were inserted into the loops and the gap between the walls was filled with concrete. A
double layer steel reinforcement mesh (BRC-7) with dimension of 200 mm x 200 mm vertically and
horizontally was used for both walls. The detailing for wall to wall connection is shown in Figure 1 and 2.

Fig. 1: Top view of wall to wall connection.

Fig. 2: Front view of wall to wall connection.

Test Material:
The specimen was ready-mixed concrete with grade of 30 N/mm2 in both walls and concrete joint. High-
tensile reinforcements were used to connect the walls side by side. Steel reinforcement mesh was used as a
replacement of reinforcement bars in both precast walls to resist the flexural and shear induced on the wall.
Loop bar of 10 mm and the transverse bar of 12 mm placed at the centre inside the loop were used. For each
type of rebar, four tensile strength tests were done and average value of the test results was taken as shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Properties of reinforcements.

Type Diameter Cross Section Yield Strength (N/ mm2) Tensile Strength
(mm) (mm2) (N/ mm2)
BRC 7 38.49 467.25 496
Loop bar 8 78.54 483.25 549.75
Transverse Bar 10 113.01 586.25 607

Sample Preparation:
The construction process of the specimen was divided into two stages. Firstly, the precast concrete
components were cast and secondly, the precast components were assembled with cast in situ concrete. Plywood
was used as a formwork. The formwork was greased prior to concrete casting, to prevent concrete moisture loss
and to ease up formwork removal. Subsequently, the BRC steel fabric was installed inside the formwork with
spacer blocks of 20 mm thick to define the nominal concrete cover. The construction of the specimen was
started by preparing the formwork, pouring the concrete and then followed by 28 days curing period.

Test set-up:
In order to determine the shear stress at the interface of the connection, the wall was rotated to a horizontal
position, and a shear loading was applied horizontally to the top panel. Top panel and bottom panel are denoted
as wall 1 and wall 2 respectively. To prevent any unwanted movement of the bottom panel, wall 2 was
restrained by a fixed support while wall 1 was set free by putting a roller support. The main reason the roller
support was used is to allow the top wall to move in order to determine the displacement or slip of the
connection in the direction of the applied load. The test setup is shown in Figure 3.
373 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

A load actuator was positioned horizontally in order to apply the shear load on the sample. The load
actuator was bolted to a strong wall. To transfer the load accurately, the steel plate was placed in between the
actuator and sample so that the load could be applied at the interface between the joint and wall. A total number
of three Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDT) were placed on both side of the wall panels in order
to record the displacement when the load was applied to the specimen. The location of LVDT is shown in
Figure 4. LVDTs 1, 2 and 3 were used to determine the displacement of specimen once load was applied. In this
test, the load was progressively increased up to the failure of the specimens when no further load could be
sustained. At every load interval, the crack patterns, width and length of cracks were marked. Damage crack
pattern was highlighted during testing and captured using a camera.

Fig. 3: Experimental set-up. Fig. 4: Location LVDT on the specimen.

A total number of three strain gauges were attached to the loop bars as shown in Figure 5. Strain
gauges were installed to read the changes in strain of reinforcement due to alternate tension and compression
stress during the experiment (Arturo et al. 1994).

Fig. 5: Location of strain gauges on loop steel bars.

Ten strain gauges were also placed on the concrete surface of sample WWC1 as shown in Figure 6. For
further clarification of the connection behavior, five additional concrete strain gauges were placed on the
concrete joint in sample WWC2 to measure the strain at the damage area as shown in Figure 7. This was
because the formation of the shear cracks was expected to occur near the loop joint due to high stress level in
this area. All strain gauges were placed at 45 degree since the shear cracks were expected to occur in the
specimens.

Experimental Result and Discussion:

In this research, loop bar connection was used to connect adjacent walls. The specimens were subjected to a
direct shear force as explained in details in previous section. The structural behaviour of this type of wall to wall
connection is discussed in terms of shear stress, displacement, strain , and crack pattern.

Wall Displacement:
Figures 8 and 9 show load-lateral displacement curves of wall to wall loop connections as can be seen from
figures, LVDT 1 has the highest displacement followed by LVDT 2 and 3. This stipulates the incurred rotation
of the wall 1 as the load was applied. It is safe to state that when the load was applied on the wall 1, loop bars in
374 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

wall 1 transferred the load to the adjacent wall through the middle pin bar which pulled out the loop bars in wall
2 and let the specimen rotate. The roller support stationed at the top right corner of the setting constrained the
vertical displacement, nonetheless, the wall had the freedom to rotate. Therefore, in order to acknowledge the
rotation occurred, the shear displacement of the wall should be converted to shear deformation based on
Equation 1 as according to (Gkgz, 2008).

Fig. 6: Location of concrete strain gauges (WWC1). Fig. 7: Location of concrete strain gauges (WWC2).

Shear deformation = (Eq. 1)

The shear stress versus shear deformation of WWCs are shown in Figure 10 and 11. It Could be seen that
two walls deformed as stress reached up to 0.64 N/mm2 in WWC1 and 0.77 N/mm2 inWWC2. As the loading
increased, cracks propagation initiated and caused different displacement rate in the panels. In precast concrete
frames rotation of less than 0.02 rad will be applied in the connection design process in order to control the
shear failure (Kitayama et al., 1991). In these specimens, the maximum rotation of WWC1 and WWC2 is 0.011
rad and 0.0129 rad which are below the maximum limit.

Fig. 8: Shear Stress vs. Lateral Displacement of WWC1.

Fig. 9: Shear stress vs. Lateral Displacement of WWC2.

375 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Fig. 10: Shear Stress - Shear Deformation WWC1.

Fig. 11: Shear Stress - Shear Deformation WWC2.

Although the shear deformation was within the allowed limits, maximum shear stress exceeded the range.
According to BS 8110 (1997), the maximum design shear stress for grade 30 in situ concrete should be between
1.2 N/mm2 to 1.8 N/mm2. The maximum shear stress of WWC1 and WWC2 specimens is 1.71 N/mm2 and 1.95
N/mm2, respectively and these give an average of 1.83 N/mm2. This shows that the shear stress of the loop bar is
at the high end of the range as the connection was tested up to failure. Shear transfer between precast wall and
cast in situ joint is only possible when the shear stress at the interface is limited as stated in BS 8110. Since the
shear stress exceeded the maximum shear stress, the amount of steel required should be reduced according to
Eq. 62 in Clause 5.4.7.4 (BS 8110:1997). In economic point of view, use of 6 mm diameter loop bar can be
considered in order to achieve 1.8 N/mm2 for 125 mm thickness and 1200 mm height of wall in medium size
constructions..

Shear stress-strain steel loop bars and concrete:

Figure 12 and 13 illustrate the steel strain values of the connections. Locations of strain gauges at the
connection is given in Figure 5. The results have shown that yielding strain of about 2000 s was measured on
SG (S1) that was placed the nearest to the applied load. This confirmed that the loop bar had achieved its yield
strain before failure. It also shows that SG (S1) absorbed more energy than the other two strain gauges because
it located near the applied load. In other words, when the load pushed the wall, loop bar in SG (S1) resisted the
load experiencing elongation more than the other loop bars. When higher load applied, crack width increased
and more cracks formed due to the increasing tensile stress. The crack underwent a wide opening when reached
the maximum capacity and this may well explain the increasing the strain value for all strain gauges.
Ten strain gauges were placed on the concrete surface of WWC1 specimens to measure the concrete strain
during the test. The positions of these strain gauges are shown in Figure 6 and 7. Some data of these strain
gauges were such as SG (C5) of WWC1, and SG (C7) and SG (C12) of WWC2 not plotted because the strain
gauges had damaged before the test. Theoretically, concrete is considered ro yield when the strain reached 3000-
3500 s. As shown in Figure 14 and 15, none of the strain gauges on WWC1 specimens reached the yield strain.
This is explained by cracks that mostly concentrated on the joint. However, concrete in wall 2 experienced more
damage as seen from figure 15.
376 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Fig. 12: Stress -Strain Curve of Steel (WWC1).

Fig. 13: Stress -Strain Curve of Steel (WWC1).

Fig. 14: Shear stress vs Concrete Strain Wall 1 (WWC1).

Fig. 15: Shear stress vs Concrete Strain Wall 2 (WWC1).

377 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

In order to scrutinize the behaviour of concrete in the connection, five additional concrete strain gauges
were placed in the joint area for WWC2. The strain gauges on both walls confirmed that the concrete is still
intact in both panels as shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17. Results from additional strain gauges on the joint
revealed that the concrete yielded in the joint as shown in Figure 18. As the shear stress almost reached its
ultimate level, concrete strain increased drastically due to the increase of crack width. SG (C11) and SG (C13)
reached the concrete yield strain as the cracks passed through it. Results from SG (C14) and SG (C15) showed
that concrete did not yield in that area.

Fig. 16: Shear stress versus Concrete Strain Wall 2 (WWC1).

Fig. 17: Shear stress versus Concrete Strain Wall 1 (WWC2).

Fig. 18: Shear stress versus Concrete Strain for Joint (WWC2).

From this research, it was stipulated that the cast in-situ joints are weak zones in precast systems as higher
concrete strain could be seen in the wet joint compared to precast elements. Only strain gauges located in the
joint yielded, meanwhile quite high strain values in Wall 2 was observed due to the induction of the inclined
crack from the interface to the wet joint and Wall 2. Wall 2 experienced minor damage while severe damage
was seen in the joint. There was no damage in Wall 1 because the load was transferred from Wall 1 to the joint
and Wall 2.
378 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Crack patterns:
The post-test observations showed that the shear force from one precast element to the other was transferred
by the friction along the interface between precast wall and cast in-situ joint. When shear loading was applied,
slip developed along the joint interface and caused joint separation at the interface. Consequently, the loop bar
was tensioned due to this joint separation. The tensile force in the loop bar was balanced by compression at the
joint interface.
Figure 19 and 20 show WWC specimens at failure. WWC1 and WWC2 show similar failure pattern with
the first hairline crack initiated from sides of the top wall where the actuator was located and later propagated
along the interface between the walls and the joint. This may be associated with the load transferred between the
walls that occurred at shear stress of 0.64 N/mm2 and 0.77 N/mm2 for WWC1 and WWC2, respectively. After
which, the load was transferred by the continuity bars that increased the resistance due to dowel action effect.
As shear stress increased to 1.63 N/mm2 and 1.89 N/mm2 for specimen WWC1 and WWC2, the interface
crack continued until it reached to the vicinity of the loop bar, then an inclined crack developed at the interface
and went down along the joint and the bottom wall. The tension force developed in one of the bars that formed
the splice and was transferred to the concrete through inclined forces. This may be associated with the radial
compressive strength that occurred and gave rise to tensile stresses by which the concrete in the joint was split
(Johansson, 2000). Therefore, cracks were formed near loop bar region.
Concrete crushing and spalling occurred in the latter stage of loading (1.71 N/mm2 and 1.95 N/mm2 for
WWC1 and WWC2) which concentrated at the joint and the lower wall as shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20.
Although this type of connection undergo a brittle failure mode, the lab test showed that the loop connection
was able to give crack lines at the interface before failure occurred. The critical stage was when inclined crack
formed near the loop bar connection because it almost reached its failure stage.
Research done by B. Joergensen & C. Hoang (2013) shows that the ductility of the connection could also
be increased if ratio of the transverse bar and overlapping length of the loop bar increase, and spacing between
overlapping loop bar decreases. Other research done by He Qi et al. (2013) also mentioned that the ductility
could be increased by increasing the concrete joint strength.

Fig. 19: WWC1 specimen at failure.

Fig. 20: WWC2 specimen at failure.

379 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Conclusions:
This experimental study was conducted to determine maximum shear stress and the behaviour of the loop
bar in wall to wall connections for medium rise constructions. To do so, the wall to wall connection was
subjected to shear loading up to the failure. The average maximum shear stress obtained from the test was 1.83
N/mm2, which exceeded the allowed maximum shear stress of 1.8 N/mm2. In economic point of view, use of 6
mm diameter loop bar can be considered in order to achieve 1.8 N/mm2 for prototype scale of the precast panels
that typically used for medium rise construction. This loop bar connection is categorise as brittle connection. To
increase the ductility of the connection, the ratio of the transverse bar, overlapping length and concrete joint
strength should be increased.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research from the Baxtium Construction
Company and RUGS, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

REFERENCES

Abd Rahman, A.B., et al., 2006. Hybrid Beam-To-Column Connections For Precast Concrete Frames.
Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (APSEC 2006), 5-6
September 2006, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia., pp: A281-A290.
Anon, B.S., 1997. Structural use of concrete - Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction.
Arturo, E.S., K.T. Maher, A.M. Rafael, 1994. Seismic Resistance of Vertical Joins in Shear Walls.
Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (FIP). Proceedings of the 12th Congress, 1: E23-E27.
Joergensen, B.H., C.L. Hoang, 2013. Tests and limit analysis of loop connections between precast concrete
elements loaded in tension. Engineering Structures, 52, pp.558569. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0141029613001387 [Accessed July 10, 2013].
Bhuskade, S.R., A.R. Mundhada, 2011. Mechanized Construction In Indian Scenario (Precast Wall Panel
System. Journal Of Information, Knowledge And Research In Civil Engineering, 2(1): 83-90.
CEB-FIP, 2008. Structural connections for precast concrete buildings First Edit., Sweden: International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib).
Elliot, K.S., 2002. Precast Concrete Structures, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann: Elsevier Ltd.
Ertas, O., S. Ozden, T. Ozturan, 2006. Ductile Connections in Precast Concrete Moment Resisting Frames.
PCI Journal, pp: 2-12.
Farsangi, E.N., 2010. Connections Behaviour in Precast Concrete Structures Due to Seismic Loading. Gazi
University Journal of Science, 23(3): 315-325.
Freedman, S., 1999. Loadbearing Architectur al Precast Concrete Wall Panels. PCI Journal, (September-
October), pp: 92-115.
Gkgz, E., 2008. Experimental Research On Seismic Retrofitting Of R/C Exterior Beam-Column-Slab
Joints Upgraded With Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Sheet. Thesis For The Degree Of Master of
Science. Boazii University.
Hao, J., 2004. Structural behaviour of precast component joints with loop connection. National University
of Singapore.
He Qi, Z., et al., 2013. Longitudinal Joints with Accelerated Construction Features in Decked Bulb-Tee
Girder Bridges: Strut-and-Tie Model and Design Guidelines. Journal of Bridge Engineering, (May), pp: 372-
379.
Tibbetts, J.A., G.M. Oliva, C.L. Bank, 2009. Durable Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bar Splice Connections for
Precast Concrete Structures by Objectives of the Research Abstract. American Composites Manufacturers
Association, pp: 1-12.
Jamaludin, S., A.A. Jemain, 2007. Fitting the Statistical Distribution To The Daily Rainfall Amount in
Peninsular Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi, 46(C): 33-47.
Johansson, M., 2000. Structural Behaviour in Concrete Frame Corners of Civil Defence Shelters. Non-
linear Finite Element Analyses and Experiment. University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden.
Kitayama, K., S. Otani, H. Aoyama, 1991. Development of Design Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column
Joints. American Concrete Institute, pp: 97-123.
Loo, Y., B. Yao, 1995. Static and Repeated Load Tests on Precast Concrete Beam-to-Column..pdf. PCI
Journal, (March-April), pp: 106-115.
Lovell, H., S.J. Smith, 2010. Agencement in housing markets: The case of the UK construction industry.
Geoforum, 41(3): 457-468. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016718509002085
[Accessed May 24, 2013].
380 Nabila Rossley et al, 2014
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 370-380

Mansur, M.A., K.L. Tan, A.E. Naaman, 2010. Strength of bolted moment connections in ferrocement
construction. Cement and Concrete Composites, 32(7): 532-543. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0958946510000600 [Accessed July 10, 2013].
Megally, S., F.M. Seible, R.K.D. Garg, 2002. Seismic performance of precast segmental bridge
superstructures with internally bonded prestressing tendons. PCI Journal, pp: 4-18.
Naito, C., et al., 2012. Effect of environmental conditions on field welding of precast concrete connections.
PCI Journal, pp: 142-161.
Nor, M., et al., 2012. The Perspective View Of Malaysian Industrialized Building System (IBS) Under IBS
Precast Manufacturing. The 4th International Engineering Conference Towards Engineering Of 21st Century.
Ochs, J.E. and M.R.E., 1993. Moment Resistant Connections in Precast Concrete Frames for Seismic
Regions. PCI Journal, pp: 64-75.
Perez, F.J., et al., 2004. Seismic Design of Unbonded Concrete Walls with Vertical Joint Connectors. PCI
Journal, pp: 58-79.
Sadrnejad, S.A., M. Labibzadeh, 2006. Dynamic Solution Code for Structural Analysis upon Joint Element.
Journal of Computer Science, 2(5): 401-409.
Soudkl, K.A., et al., 1996. Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete Shear Wall Panels Under Cyclic
Shear Loading. PCI Journal, pp: 1-35.
Stanton, J.F., M.N. Hawkins, R.T. Hicks, 1991. PRESSS Project 1.3: Connection Classification and
Evaluation. PCI Journal, pp: 62-71.
Tam, V.W.Y., C.M. Tam, W.C.Y. Ng, 2007. On prefabrication implementation for different project types
and procurement methods in Hong Kong. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 5(1): 68-80.
Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/17260530710746614 [Accessed July 10, 2013].
Tiong, P. et al., 2011. Performance of IBS Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections Under Earthquake
Effects: A Literature Review. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(1): 93-101.
Yu, C. et al., 2011. Bearing Strength of Cold-Formed Steel Bolted Connections Using Oversized Holes
without Washers. Journal Of Structural Engineering ASCE, 137(January), pp: 156-159.
Zheng, L.X., C.J. Burgoyne, 1994. Shear Load Transfer by Double Dowe.pdf. 19th Conference on Our
World in Concrete and Structures, pp: 239-247.