Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 38, No. 3, August-September 2011 pp.272-284

No.38-26

Seismic performance and design of precast concrete building structures: an

overview
R. K. Khare*, ,, M. M. Maniyar**, S.R. Uma*** and V. B. Bidwai*
, Email: rakeshkhare@hotmail.com

*Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics Department, SGS Institite of Technology & Science, 23, Park Road, Indore (MP), 452 003, India.
**Sardar Patel College of Engineering, Munshi Nagar, Andheri(W), Mumbai, 400 058, India.
***Earthquake Engineer, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Received: 03 March 2008; Accepted: 31 October 2010

Seismic performance and behaviour of precast concrete structures which were not designed and detailed as per existing
provisions in relevant standards was very poor during past earthquakes while the buildings constructed and designed
incorporating seismic design concepts performed remarkably well. A brief review of seismic performance and design of
precast concrete systems is presented to seek for the ways to improve and develop construction of precast concrete structures in India. This paper brings together the historical perspective on the performance of precast concrete structures so
that lessons can be learnt to avoid the poor performance of these systems. An extensive literature on experimental studies has been also reported here to demonstrate the improved seismic performance of precast concrete systems. Further,
a review and comparison of International code provisions on the design and construction of precast concrete systems is
presented to help in developing the provisions and practice of these systems in Indian perspective. Identification of areas
that need revision or attention in the current IS Code provisions are attempted in the light of International practice.
KEYWORDS: Seismic performance; precast concrete structures; earthquakes; seismic design concept; design and construction.

Precast concrete is significantly being used in

earthquake resisting structures in many parts of the
world. Main advantages of incorporating precast
concrete in construction are the possible increased speed
of construction, high quality of precast units, improved
durability, reduction in site labour and formwork, and
more importantly, social and environmental benefits.
Future prospects of these structures are high as having
no damage during earthquakes by using post-tensioning
with or without energy dissipating devices.
Due to the lack of understanding of the basic nature of seismic behaviour, the precast concrete structures were viewed with scepticism in seismic regions1.
Some countries considered the use of precast concrete
in earthquake resisting structures with suspicion because of their bad performance in major earthquakes.
Examples of poor behaviour of precast concrete building structures during 1976 Tangshan (China), 1985 Michoacan (Mexico), 1988 Armenian, 1994 Northridge
and 1999 Kocalli earthquakes due to improper design
272

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

and detailing of ductile element, inadequate diaphragm

action, poor joint and connection details, inadequate
separation of non-structural elements and inadequate
separation between structures are presented in the stateof-the-art report by Park and co-workers (fib, 2003).
Damage to precast school buildings at Gujarat in 2001
Bhuj earthquake is another example of failure due to the
poor connections between structural elements. It is reported2 that roof planks resting on the beam shifted due
to inadequate bearing area and lack of positive anchorage. A monolithic behaviour of frames, and diaphragms
action of floors could not be achieved due to poor connections.
The fast economic growth of the country in recent
past and the need of infrastructural development emphasize to use precast concrete structures. Advantages
of precast concrete construction from Indian point of
view, in addition to earlier mentioned are uniformity of
construction, planned and well managed cities. Standardisation of precast concrete elements will also be

able to control the non-engineered practice of Reinforced Concrete construction.

Countries like Japan, Canada, Italy, Chile, Mexico,
New Zealand and USA, which are well known for high
seismicity, adopt precast concrete construction practices.
In these countries, the design and construction practices
are usually supported by the results from experimental
investigations. This aspect of experimental investigation
due to known or unknown reasons is not to the desired
level in India, although premier institutes like IITs
and IISc are making their best effort in this direction.
Testing being an essential part to understand behaviour
of structures needs to be strengthened in the country.
Detailed guidelines for designing structures explaining
the codal provisions are also needed to be prepared.
Recent experimental investigations have mainly
focussed on developing techniques to reduce damage
in structures using precast elements. For example, with
reference to New Zealand, University of Canterbury
conducted tests to design connection details between
hollow-core floors with beams and walls35 that could
sustain up to 6% of inter-storey-drift. Also, innovative
techniques such as damage avoidance design (DAD)
and self-centring technique used post-tensioning
systems and developed rocking walls and columns6 that
performed with no damage even up to 4.7% drift level.
From the above discussion it is clear that the precast
concrete structures have shown good performance
under seismic conditions. The advancements and
advantages of precast concrete structures make such
structural systems a promising one to be advocated
in Indian context. Precast concrete building structures
include beam, column, frame, slab panels, folded plate
or shell, stairs and wall panels. These structures can
be very well designed as gravity load and seismic load
resisting systems. It can potentially prove to be an
appropriate structural system with additional research
and development of design guidelines. The main
objectives of this paper are:
i. Reporting a historical perspective on the
fronts of seismic behaviour of precast concrete
construction, developments in codal provisions
and experimental research.
ii. Discussing on international code provisions
supported with the experimental studies on precast
components and their connections.

iii. Identifying the areas within Indian standards

where potential improvement can be made to
enable the earthquake resistant precast concrete
construction.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Pioneering Efforts on Understanding the Behaviour
of Precast Concrete Structures

Literature explaining the seismic behaviour of precast

concrete structures is reported in following. These
papers help in understanding the development and
improvement in seismic resistant precast concrete
construction.
Some insight into the behaviour and earthquake
resistance of a large number and variety of precast
concrete structures subjected to severe earthquakes,
for the first time, was provided by Fintel7. He reported
after the observed seismic damage that occurred
in the earthquake of Bucharest, Rumania 1977. A
state-of-art report on seismic resistance of precast
concrete structures was first presented by Hawkins8,
in which results of analytical and experimental studies
concerning the seismic resistance of precast concrete
structures and their sub-assemblages were reviewed and
research needs for building industries were identified.
However, the lessons learnt in the above ways need to
be translated into design guidelines to help construction
of improved structures. Englekirk9 emphasized the need
of a design standard supported by a good technical data
base without which precast concrete buildings can not
be economically feasible in regions of high earthquake
intensity. The evolution of the precast industry in
seismically active regions of the United States and
other parts of the world, with an emphasis on the
need to develop technology compatible with precast
concrete construction, are discussed and presented
by Englekirk10. It was reported that precast concrete
construction is extensively used and being promoted in
Japan on high rise buildings even though Japan is not
having a specific national design standard on precast
concrete structures. The technical justification for
precast systems in Japan is provided by experimental
studies. Further research on the behaviour of precast
concrete elements and structures under seismic loading
is reported in references1115.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

273

Modifications in Codal Provisions to Improve Seismic

Performance

Design of precast members and connections need to

include loading and restraint conditions from initial
fabrication to end use in the structure, including form
removal, storage, transportation, and erection. Precast
concrete elements shall be connected to other precast
members, cast in place or steel elements or to the
foundation structure to ensure that effective load paths
for the transfer of forces to primary lateral force resisting
systems can be developed. Forces and deformations
occurring in and adjacent to connections are included
in the design. Tolerances are very important issue
in the construction of precast concrete structures in
particular in seismic resistant construction. The steps of
manufacturing and erection process govern the design
criteria. Any mistake in erection may lead to damage of
the precast element. Further knowledge of displacement
compatibility in relation to seismic separation and the
protection of brittle elements is important to ensure
that the structure will behave in the intended manner.
To limit the possibility of progressive collapse and to
obtain a monolithic action, structural integrity is taken
care of in precast concrete structures by means of
longitudinal and transverse ties connecting members to
a lateral load resisting system. Forces shall be permitted
to be transferred between members by grouted joints,
shear keys, mechanical connectors, reinforcing steel
connections, reinforcing topping, or a combination of
these means. The adequacy of connections to transfer
forces between members is determined by analysis
or by test. In designing a connection using materials
with different structural properties, their relative
stiffnesses, strengths, and ductilities are considered.
Provisions related to seismic design considerations
are continuously being improved and incorporated in
different international standards. Development in the
codal provisions and guidelines of American and New
Zealand construction practice are briefly discussed in
the following.
A brief history of building code provisions for
precast/prestressed concrete in the United States was
presented by DArcy, et al.16, in which it was reported that the first set of specific design provisions ever
developed in the United States for precast concrete
structures in regions of high seismicity appeared in
NEHRP17 Recommended Provisions. The NEHRP17
274

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

provisions presented two alternatives for the design of

precast lateral-force-resisting systems: one, emulation
(same as) of monolithic reinforced concrete connection
and the other, use of the unique properties of precast
concrete elements interconnected predominantly by
dry connections (jointed precast). Uniform Building
Code(1997)18 adopted monolithic emulation option for
frames only. For emulation of the behaviour of monolithic reinforced construction, two alternatives were
provided: structural systems with wet (ductile) connections and those with strong (elastic) connections.
The design provisions for precast structures in high
seismic regions were expanded in NEHRP (FEMA,
2001) Provisions19. The seismic-force resisting system
for high seismic regions suggested in NEHRP (FEMA,
2001) provisions19 are special moment resisting frames
and special structural walls with superior type dry connections. The ACI 318-0220, introduced design provisions for precast concrete structures located in regions
of moderate to high seismic risk or assigned to intermediate or high seismic design categories. Provisions for
non-emulative (jointed precast) design of precast wall
systems were not included in ACI318-0220.
A perspective on the seismic design of precast
concrete structures in New Zealand is presented by
Park21. Until 1995, the New Zealand concrete design
standard did not include seismic design provisions
covering all aspects of precast concrete structures.
Design provisions of UBC 199718 for precast structures
in regions of high seismicity supported by an example
of a 12-story precast frame building using strong
connections were discussed by Ghosh et al22. Hawkins
and Ghosh presented the NEHRP recommended
provisions23 for seismic regulations for precast concrete
structures with detailed seismic behaviour of special
moment frames, special structural walls, diaphragms
and their connections. Trends and developments in the
use of precast reinforced concrete in New Zealand for
floors, moment resisting frames and structural walls
of buildings with aspects of design and construction,
particularly the means of forming connections between
precast concrete elements were discussed and presented
by Park21.
Experimental Research to Improve Seismic Performance

After observing the failures in Northridge, a multi-stage

study was undertaken at the University of Canterbury,

to determine whether New Zealand designed and built

structures have similar problems, and if so, to what
extent these problems exist and what can be done
about them. At first, an extensive study that examined
the seismic demands on a variety of precast concrete
multi-storey buildings was examined by Matthews3.
Experimental studies were then performed in two
stages to determine the inter-storey drift capacities
of multi-storey RC buildings with precast concrete
hollow-core floors. A series of large scale experiments
were conducted on a full scale super-assemblage in
order to ascertain the inter-storey drift corresponding
to various damage states. Stage 1 of the experimental
study examined the then-existing precast concrete
detailing practice in New Zealand, as recommended by
the New Zealand concrete standard NZS3101:1995.
The collapse of hollow-core units during the
tests by Matthews3 in stage 1 flagged issues over
the performance of existing precast concrete frame
structures with hollow-core flooring structural systems.
In stage 2, Lindsay4 and MacPherson5 tested and
reported the improved performance of similar superassemblage incorporating the floor-frame connection
details as recommended in Amendment No. 3 to the
NZS3101:1995.
In major earthquake events of high seismicity, a
performance objective for buildings and structures is
to ensure life safety and continuous operations after
strong ground shaking. Structural components of
buildings must also satisfy serviceability limit states and
member strength limit state requirements. Widespread
damage and post-earthquake operational problems
have been observed in the recent earthquakes. Damage
Avoidance Design (DAD) philosophy is one approach
whereby higher performance objectives at different
level earthquakes can be achieved without causing any
structural damage to the constructed facilities. Such a
conceptual design approach was proposed by Mander
and Cheng24 for bridge substructures whereby rocking
columns form the seismic resistance mechanism.
Hamid25 adopted that approach of structural flexibility
and prestressed unbonded tendons in precast hollowcore walls for industrial/warehouse facilities. Precast
prestressed hollow-core wall panels were designed,
constructed and tested in the laboratory so that the
outcomes are applicable to seismic environment with
minimal damage to the structures.

An account of rocking structures with and without

prestressed unbonded tendons was presented by
Hamid25. Holden et al.26, Sudarno27, Liyanage28 and
Ajrab et al.29 have used and adopted their approach to
design and construct precast reinforced wall panels.
The experimental results carried out by Sudarno27 and
Liyanage28 showed that slender precast wall panels
may loose their stability at 0.4g and collapse under a
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). This issue is
of concern for designers, developers, builders, precast
manufacturers, and territorial authorities.
Hamid25 reported that most of the previous studies
focused on direct-displacement approach and unbonded
post-tensioned tendons precast wall panels using spiral
reinforcements and transverse reinforcement bars.
Limited studies on the application of rocking structures
in solid reinforced concrete precast wall panels using
the DAD philosophy26, 29 are available. Hamid25
investigated the overall seismic behaviour of precast
hollow core walls without horizontal reinforcing bars.
In particular, the connection interface between wallfoundation, the most efficient energy dissipators and
the combination of seismic and non-seismic wall as a
rocking wall system were investigated. An alternative
way of using hollow core units as precast wall panels
with the concept of DAD in tilt up construction was
provided.
On the basis of all these experimental work
conducted at University of Canterbury, New Zealand,
the modification in NZS3101:199530 were suggested
which were incorporated in NZS3101:200631.
CODAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF PRECAST
CONCRETE SYSTEMS
The provisions of American, New Zealand and Euro
codes and guidelines related to the seismic performance
of precast concrete systems are discussed in this
section. These provisions have demonstrated that how
the seismic performance of precast systems can be
improved. This study will help in framing the codal
provisions and guidelines in Indian perspective.
Failure of precast concrete buildings in 1964 Alaska,
1976 Tangshan, China, 1988 Armenia, 1994 Northridge,
2001 Bhuj and 2008 Wenchan china earthquakes was
mainly due to collapse of floors for some or other

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

275

reasons. One of the main reasons of collapse of floors

were loss of seat due to failure of support system, poor
connections, excessive deformation of support system
(beam elongation) and deformation incompatibility
between the support and floor. Typical detail of the
damage of seat of a floor resting on wall or beam
support due to the movement is shown in Fig. 1.
Movement

continuous reinforcement through the support. In this

case the unit will need transverse reinforcement also to
behave as a T-beam.

Crack in topping
Cast in place reinforced concrete topping

Spalling at end of precast concrete

floor unit
Spalling of cover concrete
Precast concrete beam

Fig. 1

Failure of floors due to inability of topping to transfer shear stress

A possible solution to avoid these failures can be by

providing the sufficient seating incorporating the effect
of all possible movements into account. Fig. 3 shows
such detail of required bearing length at the support
suggested by NZS 3101: 200631.
Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show the alternative special
reinforcing to transfer shear force and support precast
concrete floor units in the event of loss of bearing.
Continuous bottom reinforcement will transfer shear
force to beam in case of loss of seating. The other
alternative with hanger stirrups in the vicinity of support
can also help in the transfer of shear force. Another
possibility to support the floor unit in such event can be
to design the floor as a T-beam by providing an additional
tie at the middle to transfer floor load by providing
276

Required bearing length at the support of a member in relation to

its clear span (NZS 3101:Part 2:2006)

Damage of seat due to movement of floors

After this damage takes place, floors without topping

fall due to their own weight. Earthquake vertical
accelerations add on to this action. Floors with topping
are also failed during these earthquakes when the top
reinforcement could not transfer the shear force from
the precast flooring to the supporting beam as shown
in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

Fig. 4(a) Alternate continuous reinforcement through the beam at the level
of bottom of floor to support precast concrete floor units

Fig. 4(b) Alternate continuous reinforcement through the beam at the level
of bottom of floor and in the topping of slab floor to support precast
concrete floor units

Codal provisions related to these failures have

improved much after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
A comparison of the clauses related to the issues
responsible for failure of precast concrete structures
during earthquakes is attempted in following subsections. The clauses common to precast and cast-inplace concrete structures are not considered here.
Precast Concrete Floor Systems

A few common types of pre-cast concrete floors used

in New Zealand are discussed: (i) flat slab floor (ii)
hollow-core concrete slab floor and (iii) double-tee
floor. Flat slab floors (Fig. 5) can provide economic

solutions up to 6 m span. It consists generally of a series

of 75 mm thick precast, prestressed concrete slabs with
a reinforced concrete topping. The slabs are usually 1.2
m or 2.4 m wide, and require 75 mm end seating.

Fig. 5

Cross-section of a precast flat slab floor (Ref: IB 76, 2004).

Figure 6 shows a section of a precast, prestressed

concrete hollowcore floor panel with continuous
longitudinal voids to reduce self-weight. These floor
slabs can span up to 18 m (at 400 mm depth) and
provide a working platform immediately after being
positioned. Hollowcore slabs are generally un-propped
during the casting of the topping. Concrete topping on
precast floors can be of about 65mm to 75mm.

Fig. 6

Typical section of hollow-core concrete slab floor (Ref: IB 76,

CCANZ, 2004)

Another type of precast floor used for long spans is a

double tee unit consisting of two prestressed ribs with
an integral floor connecting top slab (Fig. 7). The ribs
can vary in depth from 200 to 600 mm, and the units are
generally 2.4 m wide, although units may vary in size
depending on the manufacturers. Double Tees typically
span up to 19 m, and provide a safe platform, directly
after placing, for subsequent work.
Three types of support for precast concrete hollow-core
or solid slab flooring units seated on precast beams,
identified by the New Zealand Guidelines are given
in Park24. It is desirable to resist the relevant design
forces by providing adequate connections by means
of reinforcement and shear transfer mechanisms from

precast concrete diaphragms to components of the

vertical primary lateral force resisting systems.

Fig. 7 Typical section of a Double Tee floor (Ref: IB 76, CCANZ, 2004)

Connections and Bearing

The codes permit a variety of methods for connecting

members in plane and out of plane. These are grouted
joints, shear keys, mechanical connectors, reinforcing
steel connections, reinforced topping, or a combination
of these. Codes suggest a minimum bearing length after
considering for tolerances to be as the clear span/180
from the edge of the support to the end of the precast
member. However this length should not be less than
50mm for solid or hollowcore slabs and 75mm for
beams or stemmed members as per ACI 318-0832.
NZS 3101 has a small change that for hollowcore slab
this length is 75mm. Codes have suggested to have a
clear distance of 15mm from the unarmored edges and
make allowances for concrete cover. Required length
of bearing at the support of a member in relation to its
clear span is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Connections that rely solely on friction caused by
gravity forces are not permitted by codes. NZS 3101
suggests in particular for hollow-core floor that the floor
should be mounted on low friction bearing strips with
a coefficient of friction less than 0.7 and a minimum
width of 50mm.
Structural Integrity

Structural integrity is necessary to improve the

redundancy and ductility in structures. This also helps to
avoid collapse of the structures in the event of damage to
major supporting element or an abnormal loading event
by maintaining overall stability. Codes suggest provisions
for precast concrete structures to achieve structural
integrity to the same extent as of monolithic structures.
Tension ties are provided in the transverse, longitudinal
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

277

and vertical directions and around the perimeter of the

structure to effectively tie precast concrete elements
together. This will also achieve the diaphragm action
of the floor and a seismic load path in the structure.
Recommendations are made for minimum provisions
of geometry and reinforcement detailing of horizontal
and vertical ties by the codes to achieve these actions. A
typical arrangement of tensile ties is shown in the Fig. 8.

Fig. 8 Typical arrangement of tensile ties in precast concrete floors

Diaphragm Action

Precast concrete floor could not transmit in plane

force induced by earthquakes to lateral load resisting
system adequately and failed during past earthquakes.
Codes have dealt with the design of precast concrete
diaphragms similar to the cast-in-place diaphragms.
Design and detailing provisions for both un-topped and
composite diaphragms with topping are given in the
codes. Codes have suggested the minimum thickness
of topping to be 50mm for 20mm cover and 25MPa
strength of concrete. It is further needed to be increased
depending on the size of reinforcement and clear cover
to be used.
ACI 318-0832 recommends minimum thickness
of topping slabs placed on precast concrete or roof
elements, acting as structural elements and not relying
on composite action to be 67.5mm. NZS 3105 relates the
minimum thickness of topping with the diameter of bars
used. Minimum thickness of topping for 6, 10, 12 and
16 mm stirrups, ties or spirals used is 50, 75, 90 and 105
mm respectively. It is also suggested that if the cover is
greater than 20mm then the thickness of topping should
be increased by the amount of additional cover.
Deformation compatibility of flooring systems

Elongation of plastic hinge regions in beams result

in the deformation incompatibility of floors with the
support system. This phenomena is much observed in
the collapse of hollow-core floors in 1988 Armenian
278

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. To overcome this

incompatibility issue and avoid the brittle failure, NZS
3101 have suggested for the precast floor systems to
be designed to have adequate ductility. The code has
suggested the connection details that have performed
well in analytical and experimental investigations.
Precast Concrete Frame and Wall Systems

Codes have suggested the design and detailing of

these systems to be same as cast-in-place system with
taking particular care in designing the connection to
emulate similar behaviour. Precast concrete frame
systems composed of concrete elements with ductile
connections are expected to experience flexural
yielding in connection regions. ACI 318-0832 has
recommended the reinforcement provisions and type of
mechanical splices to achieve the monolithic behaviour
of connections.
The arrangement commonly used in New Zealand
for strong column-weak beam designs with the
objective to achieve behaviour emulating a monolithic
structure is presented by Park21. Arrangement of precast
members for constructing moment resisting reinforced
concrete frame are divided into three systems. The
precast concrete beam elements of System 1 are placed
between the columns and the bottom longitudinal bars
of the beams are anchored by 90-degree hooks at the
far face of the cast-in-place joint core. For System 2,
the vertical column bars of the column below the joint
protrude up through vertical ducts in the precast beam
unit, where they are grouted, and pass into the column
above. The columns of the precast elements of System
3 are connected by longitudinal column bars which
protrude into steel sleeves or ducts in the adjacent
elements and are grouted. The beams are connected
using cast-in-place joint at mid span. Capacity
design procedure for these three systems ensures that
yielding of the column bars at the connections is kept
to a minimum. Figure 9 shows a further system using
pretensioned prestressed concrete U-beams and castin-place reinforced concrete. Figure 10 shows a typical
cross-section of such a beam and the arrangement of
cast-in- place beam along with pre-cast flooring.
Connections between the precast panel and the
cast-in-place foundation system are the most critical
connections in precast concrete structures. In tall
buildings, other wall panel-to-panel connections are
also equally important. Horizontal joints in panel-to-

panel connections are a combination of grout and spliced

vertical reinforcing bars for monolithic behaviour. The
grout provides continuity for compressive forces across
the joints and bars provide continuity for tensile forces.
Fig. 11 shows the joint where vertical reinforcement is
made continuous with the lapped bars in conduit.

Fig. 9

Over lapping bars in grout conduit are extended for

full-height through the structural element. ACI 318-08
recommends welded and lapped splices to be located
more than 2 times the floor thickness away from the
face of the wall. Overlapping bars can also be made
continuous by splicing bars with a threaded coupler.
In such case wall panel is first erected and held high.
Loose vertical bars in the panel being erected are
spliced to protruding bars from below. Panel is then
lowered to correct elevation and conduit is grouted by
gravity flow from top or optional grouting port from
bottom of panel. Special mechanical splices Type 2
are recommended to be used by ACI 318-08. A typical
mechanical splice for connection of walls and floors
is shown in Fig. 12. Many other possible connection
details are available in the report ACI 55033.

A structural system involving precast pretensioned prestressed

concrete U-beams and cast-in-place reinforced concrete (Ref:
CAE, 1999)

Fig. 10 Typical cross-sectional view of composite construction using

precast shell beam (Courtesy: website: www.stresscrete.co.nz)

Fig. 11 Section at a joint with lapped splices in large conduit (Ref: ACI
550, 2009).

Fig. 12 Section at a joint with mechanical splices in large conduit (Ref:

ACI 550, 2009).

Ideal locations for monolithic connections in

precast concrete frame systems are the sections of
minimum moments or point of inflection. H-shaped
and cruciform frame systems have connections at
the points of inflection likely to occur under lateral
loading. Connections are typically similar to wall and
floor connections shown in Figs. 6 and 7 by replacing
wall and floor by column and beam respectively. In that
case all the reinforcement crossing beam and column
will be spliced. A typical column-to-column connection
through conduits installed in a beam is shown in Fig.
13. Conduit diameter should be two to four times
the bar diameter for tolerance in field erection. This
connection can also be modified by cast-in-place
closure of beam at the joint of beam and column.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

279

Figuer 14 shows a typical connection of such type.

These connections are detailed to resist the earthquake
forces and deformation emulating cast-in-place
detailing of beam-column joints.

The ductile-jointed hybrid connections in precast

systems are permitted by codes with proper field, analytical or experimental evidences of good performance.
COMMENTS ON IS 11447: 1985 AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO INDIAN CODES OF
PRACTICE

Fig. 13 Column-to-column connection through conduits installed in a

beam (Ref: ACI 550, 2009).

Fig. 14 Connection at beams and columns with cast-in-place closure (Ref:

ACI 550, 2009).

Precast concrete systems composed of elements

joined using strong connections are recommended to
be designed using capacity design concept. Examples
of strong connections for beam-to-beam, beam-tocolumn and column-to-footing are illustrated by ACI
318-08. These connections are intended to experience
flexural yielding outside the connections.
Precast concrete wall systems are restricted the
yielding to reinforcement in connections between
wall panels or wall panels and the foundation.
The connections that are not designed to yield are
recommended to develop over strength using capacity
design concept.
280

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

The code (IS11447:1985)34 only discusses the seismic

design provisions of floors and load bearing walls in
large panel prefab structures. Some salient points
related to seismic design provisions as given in IS11447
are as under:
1. Code suggests designing the large panel prefab
structures which is stable for all possible situations
of precast construction.
2. Joints between members are recommended to
be designed to resist the forces acting on them
without excessive deformation and cracking. They
should also be able to accommodate the deviations
(tolerances) in the dimensions of the panels during
production and erection.
3. It is recommended to provide the tie-beams at
each floor level along all structural walls and
along the perimeter of the building to obtain a
monolithic action of walls and floors, and to limit
the possibility of progressive collapse. Tie-beams
may be designed as monolithic ones constructed
at site during assembly or hidden ones constructed
by connecting the bars placed on the floor panels.
4. Analysis and design of floors and walls is
recommended to be performed as per IS
1893:200235.
The above provisions indicate to achieve the
structural integrity and monolithic behaviour of
large panel prefab structures. Studying the code and
comparing with other international standards it is found
that following points need attention for reconsideration
or revision to achieve the good performance in seismic
zones:
1. The code permits the large panel prefab up to 6m
width which can be revised for large spans by
enhancing the minimum provisions.
2. Minimum specifications for anchorage, bearing
and topping are less than the other international
codes studied.
3. In high seismic zones only solid slab concrete
panels are recommended and their connection

is permitted between ribs only. While the other

codes of practice allow using composite or noncomposite topping slab (Figs. 4 to 8) reinforced
and detailed to provide for a complete transfer of
forces to the lateral-force-resisting system.
4. Specifications for joints detailing and ties are not
sufficient when compared to other national codes
of practice. Detailed study in last section is helpful
in specifying provisions to Indian standard in this
regard.
5. Deformation compatibility provision for flooring
system needs to be incorporated in the Indian
standard in line with NZ standards.
6. Statement, Joint which rely on friction only due
to the vertical forces should be avoided in seismic
regions is must and should be incorporated in
Indian standard.
7. Welding in seismic joints is not recommended in
high seismic zones and should be avoided; however
mechanical connections with ductile welds are
permitted with appropriate over strength.
8. Clarity in all the provisions with a commentary
explaining the behaviour is needed to be
incorporated in the code.
9. A guideline for connection details for high seismic
regions emulating cast-in-place construction is
needed to be prepared.
10. IS: 4326 and other precast codes in India are there
for small precast components only.
11. IS 13920 suggests that Precast and/or prestressed
concrete members may be used only if they can
provide the same level of ductility as that of
a monolithic reinforced concrete construction
during or after an earthquake.
12. There is no code for the construction of precast
frame buildings in India. Beams, columns and
moment resisting frames are now the part of
precast construction and need to be included in the
Indian code of practice.
It is suggested to include a chapter on general
provisions on precast concrete element and structures
in IS 456: 2000 and special provisions on seismic
design of precast concrete elements and structures in
IS 1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993, as is the practice in
ACI 318 08.

CONCLUSION
Failure of precast concrete buildings during past
earthquakes has raised a question mark in the
construction of precast concrete buildings in seismic
areas. A review of seismic performance and behaviour
of precast concrete structures indicates that the
buildings constructed and designed incorporating
seismic design concepts performed remarkably well.
This paper summarises the historical perspective on
the performance of precast concrete structures and
an extensive literature on experimental studies to
demonstrate the improved seismic performance of
precast concrete systems. A brief review of provisions
on the design and construction of precast concrete
systems in American, New Zealand and Euro codes
and practices is presented to help in developing the
provisions and practice of these systems in Indian
perspective. It is concluded that the provisions in IS
11447: 1985 for seismic design of large panel prefab
buildings are insufficient in general and from the
earthquake resistant point of view. It is recommended
to include a chapter on general provisions on precast
concrete element and structures in IS 456: 2000 and
special provisions on seismic design of precast concrete
elements and structures in IS 13920: 1993. As a future
scope of this paper, each precast concrete element can be
dealt separately for studying the seismic performance,
design and international codes of practice. Need of
experimental investigation, is also felt to study the
seismic performance of the structural element in Indian
environment. Based on the experimental investigations
and experiences on seismic performance a state-of-theart report can be prepared for the analysis and design of
precast concrete structures in the country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The first author wishes to thank National Programme
on Earthquake Engineering Education (NPEEE)
of Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, for awarding him a fellowship
for conducting this research. He also wishes to express
his gratitude to S. G. S. Institute of Technology and
Science, Indore, India and University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand for providing him all the
necessary facilities.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

281

REFERENCES
1.

Englekirk, Robert E., Seismic Design of

Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings. John
Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersy, 2003.
2. Earthquake Spectra, 2002. Bhuj, India Earthqauke
of 26 January, 2001 Reconnaisance Report,
Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to Vol 18, July
2002.
3. Matthews, J. G., Hollow-core floor slab
performance following a severe earthquake, Ph.
D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, 2004.
4. Lindsay, R., Mander, J. B. and Bull, D.K.,
Experiments on the seismic performance of
hollow-core floor systems in precast concrete
buildings, 13th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engg., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6,
2004, Paper No. 285.
5. MacPherson, C., Seismic performance and
forensic analysis of a precast concrete hollow-core
floor super-assemblage ME Thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2005.
6. Li, L., Further experiments on the seismic
performance of structural concrete beam-column
joints designed in accordance with the principles
of damage avoidance design, M.E. Thesis,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealanad, 2008.
7. Fintel, M., Performance of precast concrete
structures during rumanian earthquake of March
4, 1977, PCI Journal, Mar.-Apr. 1977, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp 1015.
8. Hawkins, Neil M., Seismic resistance of prestressed and precast concrete structures Part 2
Precast Concrete, PCI Jl., January February
1978, Vol. 23, No.1, pp 4058.
9. Englekirk, Robert E., Overview of ATC seminar
on design of prefabricated concrete buildings for
earthquake loads, PCI Jl., Jan Feb 1982, Vol.
27, No. 1, pp 8097.
10. Englekirk, Robert E., Seismic design considerations for precast concrete multistory buildings,
PCI Journal, May June 1990, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp 4051.
11. Martin, jose Ma. Rioboo, A precast prestressed
concrete structural system for building located in
282

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

high seismic zones, PCI Jl., March April 1990,

Vol. 35, No.2, pp 2249.
Martin, jose Ma. Rioboo, Design considerations
for precast prestressed concrete building structures
in seismic area, PCI Jl., May June 1991, Vol.
36, No.3, pp. 40-55.
Pekau, O. A. and Hum, Denis, Seismic response
of friction jointed precast panel shear walls, PCI
Jl., March April 1991, Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 56-71.
Ochs, Jay E. and Ehsani, Mohammad R., Moment
resisting connections in precast concrete frame for
seismic regions, PCI Jl., Sept. Oct. 1993, Vol.
38, No.5, pp. 64-75.
Restrepo, Jose I., Park, R. And Buchanan, Andrew
H., Tests on connections of earthquake resisting
precast reinforcd concrete perimeter frames of
buildings, PCI Jl., July - August 1995, Vol. 40,
No.4, pp. 44-61.
DArcy, Thomas J., Nasser, George D. And Gosh,
S. K., Building Code provisions for Precast/
Prestressed Concrete: A brief History, PCI Jl.,
Nov. Dec. 2003, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 116-124.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), NEHRP Recommended Provisions and
commentary, FEMA 303, Washington DC, 1995.
UBC, Uniform Building Code, Intl. Conf. of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997
Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures, 2000
Edidtion, Fema 368, May 1995; and Commentary,
FEMA 369, March 2001.
ACI 318-02, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary. ACI 31802. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2002.
Park, R., A perspective on the seismic design of
precast concrete structures in New Zealand, PCI
Jl., May June 1995, Vol. 40, No.3, pp. 40-60.
Ghosh, S.K., Nakaki, Suzanne Dow and
Krishnan Kosal, Precast structures in regions of
high seismicity: 1997 UBC Design Provisions.
PCI Jl., Nov. Dec. 1997, Vol. 42, No.6,
pp 7693.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), NEHRP Recommended Provisions and
commentary, FEMA 303, Washington DC, 1998.

24. Mander, J. B. And Cheng, C-T., Seismic resistance

of bridge piers based on damage avoidance design,
Tech. Rep. No. NCEER-97-0014, National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engg., State Univ. of
New York, Buffalo, N.Y, 1997.
25. Hamid, N. B. A., Seismic Performance of Precast
Hollow-core Wall Panels under Bi-Lateral
Reverse Quasi-Static Lateral Loading Simulated
with Gravity Loading, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2006
26. Holden, T. J., Restrepo, J. I., and Mander,
J. B. (2003). Seismic Performance of Precast
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Walls, Jl. of
Struct.Engg., Vol. 129, No. 3, ASCE, March 2003,
pp 286296.
27. Sudarno, I., Performance of Thin Precast Concrete
Wall panels Under Dynamic Loading, M.E.
Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, 2003.
28. Liyanage, L. U., Biaxial lateral loading behaviour
of thin concrete walls, M.E. Thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealanad, 2004.
29. Ajrab, J.J., Pekcan, G., and Mander, J.B., Rocking
Wall- Frame Structures with Supplemental Tendon
Systems, Jl. of Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 130,
No. 6, Jun 2, 2004, pp. 895903.
30. NZS 3101: 1995, Code of practice for the design
of Concrete Structures and Comentary. NZS 3101
Part-1 & 2:1995. Standards Association of New
Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1995.
31. NZS 3101: 2006, Code of practice for the design
of Concrete Structures and Comentary. NZS 3101
Part-1 & 2:2006. Standards Association of New
Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2006.
32. ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary. ACI 31808. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2008.
33. ACI ITG/T1.1-99, Acceptance Criteria for
Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing.
ACI ITG/T1.1-99 American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
34. IS11447:1985, Indian standard code of practice
for construction with large panel prefabricates,
IS11447:1985, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

35. IS1893: 2002, Indian standard code of practice

for criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures Part 1 General provisions and buildings, IS1893:2002, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
36. Hawkins, Neil M. and Gosh, S.K., Proposed
revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for seismic regulations for precast
concrete structures Part 2 Diaphragms, PCI Jl.,
Nov. Dec. 2000, Vol. 45, No.6, pp 5059.
37. Mander, J. B. And Cheng, C-T., Seismic resistance
of bridge piers based on damage avoidance design,
Tech. Rep. No. NCEER-97-0014, National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engg., State Univ. of
New York, Buffalo, N.Y, 1997.
38. CAE, 1999, Guidelines for the use of structural
precast concrete in buildings, Report of a study
group of the NZCS and NZSEE, Centre for
Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand, 144 pp, 1991.
39. Cheung P. C., Park R, Paulay T, 1991, Seismic
Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam Column
Joints with Floor Slab Support, Research Report
91-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 328
40. Cleland, N. And Ghosh, S. K., 2007, Seismic Design
of Precast/Prestressed Concrete Structures. Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI mannual), 2007.
41. Dhakal, R. P., Khare, R. K. and Mander, J. B.,
Economic payback of improved detailing for
concrete buildings with precast hollowcore floors,
New Zealand society of earthquake engineering
bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2006, pp 106119.
42. Eurocode 2: 1994, Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-3: General Rules Precast
Concrete Elements and Structures. EC2, European
Commitee for Standardisation, Brussels, 1994.
43. Eurocode 8: 1995, Eurocode 8 Design Provisions
for Earthquake Resistance of Structures Part 1-3:
Specific Rules for Various Materials and Elements.
EC8, European Commitee for Standardisation,
Brussels, 1995.
44. Matthews, J. G., Lindsay, R., Mander, J. B. and
Bull, D., The seismic fragility of precast concrete
buildings, ICOSSAR 2005, Millpress, Rotterdam
pp 247254.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

283

45. Hawkins, Neil M. and Gosh, S.K., Proposed

revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for seismic regulations for precast
concrete structures Part 1- Introduction, PCI Jl.,
May June 2000, Vol. 45, No.3, pp. 74-77.
46. Park, R., Seismic design and construction of
precast concrete buildings in New Zealand,
PCI Jl., Sept. Oct. 2002, Vol. 47, No.5, pp. 6075. 45.
NZS 4203: 1992, Code of practice for
general structural design and design loadings for
buildings. NZS 4203:1992. Standards Association
of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand,
1992.
47. Hawkins, Neil M. and Gosh, S.K., Proposed
revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for seismic regulations for precast
concrete structures Part 2 Seismic-forceresisting-systm, PCI Jl., Sept. Oct. 2000, Vol.
45, No.5, pp 4063.
48. IB 76: Precast Concrete Floors, Cement &
Concrete Association of New Zealand (CCANZ),
May 2004
49. ACI 550. 1R-09, Guide to Emulating Cast-inPlace Detailing for Seismic Design of Precast

284

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.3, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

Concrete Structures. ACI 550.1R-09 American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2009.
IS13920: 1993, Indian standard code of practice for
ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures
subjected to seismic forces, IS13920:1993, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS456: 2000, Indian standard code of practice
for plain and reinforced concrete, IS456: 2000,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Restrepo, Jose I., Park, R. And Buchanan, Andrew
H., Design of connections of earthquake resisting
precast reinforcd concrete perimeter frames, PCI
Jl., Sept. Oct. 1995, Vol. 40, No.5, pp. 68-80.
State-of-the Art Report on The Seismic Design of
Precast Concrete Building Structures. fib Commission 7, New Zealand , 2003.
Khare, R. K., Dhakal, R. P., Mander, J. B.,
Hamid, N. B. A., Maniyar, M. M.,(2007accepted)
Mitigation of seismic financial risk of reinforced
concrete walls by using damage avoidance design,
ISET Jl. of Earthquake Tech.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
November 30, 2011)