WISMA GLOBAL GLOBE

NO. 341 B&C, LORONG SARAWAK

TAMAN MELAWATI URBAN 1
53100 KUALA LUMPUR

ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF PRECAST CONCRETE FRAME

• The construc tion of con ventional
• reinforced conc rete frames re quires:

• The use of f ormwork

• Cast in-situ concrete
• Intensive Labour
 Types of Structural Systems in Precast
Concrete Str uctures

Wall System
(Load bearing system) Skeletal frame system
 Skeletal Structures

Unbraced Frames Braced Frames

In unbraced frame, the lateral forces In braced frame, the lateral

are resisted by its own lateral forces are resisted by lateral
stability such as cantilever columns supports such as bracing, core
or rigid frames. or shear wall.
 Frame Stability
The design against horizont al loads can be
performed as follows:
• Frame Action
• Independent lateral stability mechanism (shear
wall, core or bracing).
• Floor diaphragm action
 Frame Stability
Pinned
connections

Rigid core

Rigid core
Unstable frame

Frame is stabilized by rigid shear wall or RC core

 Frame Acti on –
Cantilever Columns
Frame Action - Cantilever column

Cantilever column:
• Low-rise skeleton structures are
normally stabilized through the
cantilever action of the col umns.
Frame Action - Cantilever column
Criteria for unbraced frames with cantilev ered columns
• Beam-to-column connections are assumed
as pinned.
Any partial restraints provided by
the beam-to-column connections, walls
or spandrel panels are ignored.
• Column-to-base connections are fixed.
The precast columns are fixed into the
foundations with moment-resisting
connections. As a result, columns can
be analyzed and designed as cantilevers

• No other independent lateral resisting

systems such as shear walls or cores.
Frame Action - Cantilever column
• The stability of unbraced
pin jointed frames is
provided entirely by
columns designed as
cantilevers for the full
height of the structures.

Typical example of unbraced

frame with cantilever columns
 Frame Action - Cantilever column

• Other examples where the stability of

unbraced frames against lateral forces
can be achieved by the designing the
columns as cantilevered. Pinned

Rigid base
 Frame Action - Cantilever column

Typical frame model

for analysis Pinned beam-to-column
connections

Continuous
columns

Fixed bases
 Frame Action - Cantilever column

Limitation:
• The maximum height of an unbraced frame with
cantilever action is 10m (i.e. up to about 3 storeys).
• Cantilever columns are designed using effective
length factor of 2.3, hence larger columns.

Advantages:
• No bracing
• Pinned beam-to-column connections – simple to
construct.
• Columns are manufactured in a single length,
column splices are not required.
 Frame Acti on –
Moment Re sistance Fr ame
System
Frame Action – Moment Resi stance Frame

Moment Resistance Frame System:

• In this system, the resistance to
horizontal loadings is provided by the
bending resistance of frame members
and their connections.
Frame Action – Moment Resi stance Frame
Rigid beam-to-column connection
Criteria for unbraced frames with
frame resistance action

• Beam-to-column connections are

assumed as rigid.
Restraints provided by
the beam-to-column connections are
considered in the analysis and design.

• Column-to-base connections are fixed.

• No other independent lateral resisting
systems such as shear walls or cores
when lateral deflections are not
excessive (I.e. in the case of low storey
frames).
 Frame Action – Moment Resi stance Frame
• The stability of unbraced rigid frames is
provided by the bending resistance and the
rigid connections.
 Frame Action - Moment Resi stance Frame

• Example of moment resisting frame system

Example of rigid
beam-to-column
connection
 Frame Action –
Moment Resi stance Frame

• Other examples of
rigid frames
 Frame Action - Moment Resistan ce Frame

Typical frame model for analysis of Moment

Resisting Frame System
Rigid
Floor floor
7 8
[9]
3500 [5] [6] 3500

2nd floor
5 [8] 6
3500 [3] [4] 3500

1st floor
3 4
[7]
4000 4000
[1] [2]
Ground floor
1250 1250
1 2
9500 9500
All dimensions are
in mm 2D – plane frame model
 Frame Action - Moment Resi stance Frame

• Example m oment resisting frame analysis

31.8 kN/m
15.75 kN

40.8 kN/m 3500

14.58 kN

3500 Load case 2:

52.8 kN/m
1.2G k + 1.2Q k + 1.2W k
13.1 kN

4000

1250

9500
 Frame Action - Moment Resi stance Frame

Results of analysis of bending moment

of resisting frames The resistance to
174.8
horizontal loadings is
140.7
provided by the
140.7 174.8 7 8
bending resistance of
frame members and
114.87
201.2
135.9 6
their connections
5
306.9
224.3

109.44 170.96

Y
194.7
166.01 210.65 4
3
57.3 158 X
223.3

368.7

299.7

10.2 117.1 1
BENDING MOMENT (kNm)
Load case 2:
1.2G k + 1.2Q k + 1.2W k
 Frame Action – Moment Resi stance Frame

Limitation:
• Rigid beam-to-column connections,
difficult to construct.
• Rigid base – foundation should be
designed considering the moment.

Advantages:
• No bracing such as shear walls or cores.
• Suitable for low rise frames.
• Suitable for buildings in seismic regions.
 Shear wall
• Shear walls act as vertical cantilever beams
• Shear walls transfer lateral forces from the
superstructure to the foundation.
• In most precast, it is desirable to resist lateral
loads with shear walls of precast or cast-in-place
concrete.
• Shear walls can consist of the following:
– Exterior wall system
– interior walls
– walls of elevator
– cores
• Precast skeletal
structures of more
than 3 storeys are Bracing
system
normally braced.
• Precast concrete
walls may be
classified as inf ill or
cantilever.
• In braced struct ures,
pinned beam-to-
column connections
may be employed,
hence connecti on
details, design and
construction ar e
greatly simplified.
Typical example of precast concrete frame analysis

FRAME MODEL:
1. Pinned beam-
to-column
connections.
2. Rigid base.
Bending moment results
Shear force results
Column axial force results
Deflection results
• To achieve stiffer
structures, rigi d
beam-to-column
connections
combined with
bracing eleme nts
may also be
employed.
• Infill walls without
beam framing
elements

• The beams are

replaced b y dowels
(starter bars) between
upper and low er walls

Wall-to-wall
connection
BRACING METHODS

Infill shear walls - Smith & Carter theory

• From the results, it can be suggested that in order to
achieve immediate stabilit y during the erection of
precast concrete frames, it is advisable to construct
the floor slabs of the lower storeys prior to erecting the
skeletal frame of the upper storeys.
• Introducing permanent slabs at the lower leve ls
increases the sti ffness of the global f rame and reduces
the flexibility of the frame. Eventually, this provides
additional sti ffness to maintain the stability during
erection.
Many Thanks
‘Simple the best’