###### Abstract
In precast construction, each structural component is produced independently, necessitating the re-establishment of continuity at beam-column connections on-site. A variety of connection types, such as wet joints, mechanical couplers, post-tensioning, and hybrid steel-concrete interfaces, have been investigated to simulate the performance of monolithic frameworks. The difficulty arises because any inadequacy or flaw at a precast connection could jeopardize the integrity of the entire lateral load-resisting system [3]. Beam-column connections play a crucial role in precast skeletal frames, serving as the most significant type of connection within this structural system. Typical beam-column connection types are presented in Figure 1. The engineering community often perceives these connections as challenging to specify, design, and construct, particularly when they are concealed within the beam itself. These connections fundamentally influence the behavior of the beam under flexural loads by regulating deflection and the functional performance of structural floor zones. Additionally, they impact the stability of the frame and the buckling resistance of the column. As shown in Figure 1, the vertical component may be continuous with horizontal elements affixed to it (Type I), or the vertical component may be discontinuous while the horizontal elements may exhibit structural continuity or be distinct across the interface (Type II). Type I connections can be further classified into two distinct categories: concealed connections (A), of which there is a considerable variety, and apparent connections (B), which encompass shallow and deep corbels or nibs. Type II connections are also divided into two categories: the ends of beams that are simply supported and dowelled at the column head (C) and continuous beams that are supported and dowelled at the column head (D). A beam-beam half joint is constructed at a distance from the face of the column, or, alternatively, the beam may project as a cantilevered balcony. For further information, the reader is directed to [PERSON] [4]. Seismic events impose significant challenges on structural connections by applying cyclic lateral forces that induce alternating tensile and compressive stress within beams and columns. In a cast-in-place structure, when a beam is compelled to form plastic hinges adjacent to the column faces, the inelastic deformation capacity is predominantly influenced by the ductility of the longitudinal reinforcement and the confinement of the concrete in the hinge area. In contrast, within a precast framework, the formation of plastic hinges may occur at unintended locations, often contingent upon the specifics of the connector design, the lengths of anchorage, and the degree to which the assembled components mimic monolithic behavior. Historical seismic events have documented suboptimal performance of precast connections, most notably during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake, 1999 Izmit earthquake, 2009 L'Aquila earthquake [5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10], and more recently during the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake in Turkey [11]. Post-disaster field evaluations have consistently highlighted deficiencies in connection details, inadequate ductility of the connection components, and the prevalence of brittle failure mechanisms within the joint region. The susceptibility of beam-column junctions highlights the imperative for design methodologies that concentrate on averting undesirable brittle failures at the interfaces. A multitude of investigations has examined the failure characteristics of precast beam-column connections subjected to seismic forces. Notable shortcomings encompass slippage of reinforcement attributable to inadequate anchorage, premature shear failure of joints, and concrete crushing or spalling at the column interface, where unintentional plastic hinge formation frequently occurs. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [12] noted that the integration of L-shaped  
Figure 1: Typical beam–column connections.