D

uring the last decade, major

changes have been made to the
seismic design provisions in
the model codes of the United States.
These changes have largely come
from the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provi-
sions,
1
sponsored by the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA)
and developed through the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC).
The NEHRP Provisions, first pub-
lished in 1985, have been updated
every three years since then. The 1997
NEHRP Provisions formed the basis
of seismic design provisions in the
first edition (2000) of the Interna-
tional Building Code (IBC).
2
The 2000
NEHRP Provisions form the basis
of the seismic design provisions of
the 2003 IBC as well as the just-pub-
lished first edition (2003) of the NFPA
Building Code.
3
A number of features of the 1997
(and subsequent) NEHRP Provisions
have had a profound impact on seismic
design by the above model codes:
First, the design-basis earthquake
is no longer an earthquake with a 10
percent probability of non-exceedance
in 50 years (or an earthquake with a
return period of approximately 500
years). The design earthquake of the
1997 (and subsequent) NEHRP Provi-
sions is two-thirds of the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE), which
for coastal California is the largest
earthquake that can be delivered by
the known seismic sources. Elsewhere
in the country, the Maximum Consid-
ered Earthquake is an earthquake with
a 2 percent probability of non-exceed-
Untopped Precast Concrete
Diaphragms in High-Seismic
Applications
94 PCI JOURNAL
S. K. Ghosh, Ph.D.
President
S. K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.
Northbrook, Illinois
This article indicates how code-complying untopped
precast concrete diaphragms may be designed for
buildings assigned to high Seismic Design Categories
(D and above) by the International Building Code or the
NFPA 5000 Building Code.
Ned M. Cleland, Ph.D., P.E.
President
Blue Ridge Design, Inc.
Winchester, Virginia
ance in 50 years (or an earthquake
with a return period of approximately
2500 years).
Second, the ground motion param-
eters input in seismic design are now
spectral accelerations at periods of 0.2
second (S
s
) and 1 second (S
1
), cor-
responding to the MCE, on soft rock
typical of the western United States
(Site Class B).
Third, the ground motion parameters
S
s
and S
1
are modified by a short-pe-
riod site coefficient, S
s
, and a long-pe-
riod site coefficient, S
1
, respectively,
both of which are functions not only
of the Site Class (soil characteristics),
but also of seismicity at the site of the
structure (F
a
is a function of S
s
, while
F
v
is a function of S
1
).
Fourth, and perhaps most impor-
tantly, the level of detailing required
for a structure (as well as height lim-
its on structural systems, whether dy-
namic analysis is required as the basis
of design, and other decisions) is de-
termined by the Seismic Design Cat-
egory (SDC) to which the structure is
assigned. The SDC combines the oc-
cupancy of the structure, the seismicity
at the site of the structure (short-period
seismicity represented by S
s
as well as
long-period seismicity represented by
S
1
), and also the soil characteristics (or
Site Class) at the site of the structure.
Seismic Design Categories A, B re-
quire ordinary detailing in compliance
with the applicable requirements of
Chapters 1 through 18 of ACI 318-99
or -02,
4
as is required by ACI 318 for
regions of low seismicity (Uniform
Building Code or UBC Seismic Zones
0 and 1). SDC C requires intermediate
detailing which necessitates ordinary
detailing plus compliance with the ap-
plicable requirements of Section 21.10
of ACI 318-99 or Sections 21.12 and
21.13 of ACI 318-02, as is required by
ACI 318 for regions of moderate seis-
micity (UBC Seismic Zone 2).
SDC D, E and F require special de-
tailing in compliance with the applica-
ble requirements of Chapters 1 through
17 of ACI 318-99 or -02, plus Sections
21.2 through 21.8 of ACI 318-99 or
Sections 21.2 through 21.10 of ACI
318-02, as is required by ACI 318 for
regions of high seismicity (UBC Seis-
mic Zones 3, 4).
Because of the soil-dependence of
November-December 2002 95
the Seismic Design Category, moder-
ate- or high-seismic-zone detailing is
no longer a problem confined to the
West Coast and certain other parts
of the country. Particularly for struc-
tures founded on softer soils, moder-
ate- or even high-seismic-zone detail-
ing may now be required for buildings
designed for such unlikely places as
Cincinnati, Ohio, Atlanta, Georgia,
and Charleston, South Carolina.
SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS
FOR PRECAST CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
The ACI 318 standard, through its
1999 edition, did not contain precast-
specific provisions in Chapter 21 (Spe-
cial Provisions for Seismic Design).
Precast moment frames in regions of
moderate to high seismicity and pre-
cast shear walls in regions of high
seismicity could be designed under
the provisions of ACI 318 only using
the equivalency provision of Section
21.2 which requires a precast concrete
structure to be equivalent to a compa-
rable monolithic concrete structure in
terms of strength as well as toughness
(an inclusive term for quantities re-
lated to deformation as well as energy
dissipation).
Specific seismic design provisions
for precast concrete structures in re-
gions of moderate to high seismic-
ity were first introduced in the 1994
NEHRP Provisions by way of amend-
ments to Chapter 21 of ACI 318-89
(Revised 1992). The provisions, with
modifications, were adopted into the
1997 UBC
5
by way of amendments
to ACI 318-95. The 1997 NEHRP
Provisions as well as the 2000 IBC
contains essentially the same seismic
design provisions for precast concrete
structures as the 1997 UBC. The 1997
NEHRP Provisions makes amend-
ments to Chapter 21 of ACI 318-95,
while the 2000 IBC amends Chapter
21 of ACI 318-99.
The 2000 NEHRP Provisions con-
tains the most comprehensive design
requirements for precast concrete
structures in regions of moderate to
high seismicity. Included are design
provisions for precast concrete struc-
tures that emulate cast-in-place con-
struction (emulative design) and those
that do not (non-emulative design or
jointed precast). Emulative design of
special moment frames may be done
using strong connections that remain
elastic while inelastic displacements in
the design-basis earthquake take place
at locations remote from the connec-
tions.
Alternatively, such a design may
be accomplished using ductile con-
nections that have adequate nonlinear
response characteristics, so that earth-
quake energy may be dissipated in the
connections themselves. Emulative
design of special shear walls may be
done using ductile connections. Non-
emulative design of special moment
frames as well as special shear walls is
also permitted. Non-emulative design
of special moment frames requires
compliance with ACI Standard T1.1.
6

Such design of special shear walls re-
quires compliance with portions of
T1.1 and other criteria that are mod-
eled after or are modified versions of
those in T1.1.
The 2002 edition of ACI 318 for the
first time has specific seismic design
provisions for precast concrete struc-
tures in regions of moderate to high
seismicity. The NEHRP 2000 precast
provisions were used as a starting
point. Emulative design requirements
for an intermediate precast shear wall
for use in regions of moderate seismic-
ity were added. Non-emulative design
requirements for special shear walls
were dropped. Other modifications
were made that are not particularly rel-
evant to discussion in this article.
UNTOPPED DIAPHRAGMS
FOR BUILDINGS IN
HIGH SEISMIC DESIGN
CATEGORIES
For the 2000 NEHRP Provisions,
design requirements were also devel-
oped for untopped diaphragms for use
in buildings assigned to high Seismic
Design Categories (D and above). To
gain consensus, compromises were
made that included very conservative
diaphragm design forces intended to
ensure that the diaphragms would re-
main elastic during the design seismic
event.
It may be argued that the same force
levels should be used in the design of
96 PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 1. Cast-in-place pour strips as part of untopped precast diaphragms.
November-December 2002 97
all diaphragms (including topped pre-
cast and cast-in-place diaphragms) that
are supposed to remain elastic through
the design seismic event. The Provi-
sions Update Committee of the BSSC
chose not to include the untopped dia-
phragm requirements in the main body
of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions; they
chose, instead, to place them in an Ap-
pendix to the Concrete chapter, for trial
design and comments.
The diaphragm design provisions
of ACI 318 underwent significant
changes in the 1999 edition and have
remained unchanged since then. Sec-
tion 21.9 of ACI 318-02 contains de-
sign requirements for two types of
precast diaphragms. The cast-in-place
composite topping slab diaphragm
transmits lateral forces to vertical el-
ements of the lateral-force-resisting
system through composite action of
precast double tees or hollow-core
slabs and a cast-in-place topping slab.
Note that in a cast-in-place non-
composite topping slab diaphragm, the
topping acting alone as the diaphragm
transmits lateral forces to vertical el-
ements of the lateral-force-resisting
system. Both types of diaphragms ob-
viously require a cast-in-place topping.
Although there is no specific provision
that prohibits the use of an untopped
(or pretopped) diaphragm, such a de-
sign does not comply with the require-
ments of Section 21.9.
In order to use untopped precast
double tees or hollow-core slabs as the
structural diaphragm in a high Seismic
Design Category design, the authors
believe it to be necessary to apply ACI
318-02 Section 21.2.1.5:
A reinforced concrete structural
system not satisfying the requirements
of this chapter shall be permitted if it
is demonstrated by experimental evi-
dence and analysis that the proposed
system will have strength and tough-
ness equal to or exceeding those pro-
vided by a comparable monolithic re-
inforced concrete structure satisfying
this chapter.
This provision has been part of
Chapter 21 of ACI 318 for several edi-
tions and, as mentioned, has been the
primary basis used to qualify precast
wall and frame systems before pre-
scriptive provisions were developed to
describe in detail how these systems
should be designed to meet the re-
quirement of equivalency. In the ab-
sence of a consensus for specific pre-
scriptive provisions, it is necessary to
demonstrate that an untopped precast
diaphragm satisfies this equivalency
requirement.
In our view, there are four key parts
to the requirements: (1) experimental
evidence; (2) analysis; (3) equal to or
exceeding; and (4) comparable mono-
lithic reinforced concrete structure. To
show compliance, it is probably easi-
est to treat these in reverse order.
Comparable Monolithic Reinforced
Concrete System
The comparable monolithic rein-
forced concrete system is the cast-in-
place topping slab diaphragm of ACI
318-02 Section 21.9.3. This is a cast-
in-place topping slab proportioned and
detailed to act alone as the diaphragm,
resisting the entire diaphragm design
forces. The use of cast-in-place pour
strips at the ends of the untopped pre-
cast elements, designed for the ten-
sion and compression chord forces,
essentially provides this cast-in-place
topping system for that part of the un-
topped diaphragm (see Fig. 1).
In Section 21.9.7.2, the ACI Code
requires that the entire shear in the
diaphragm be carried by the reinforc-
ing steel [Eq. (21-11)] and that no reli-
ance be placed on any shear strength
contributed by the concrete. The shear
transfer for the untopped system must
be comparable to that provided by the
shear reinforcement designed by Eq.
(21-11).
At this point, we are not aware of
specific tests that have been made to
demonstrate the equivalent strength
and ductility of mechanically welded
connections to replace continuous
chord reinforcing. This might be done
in the future, but for now it would ap-
pear that pour strips with continuous
reinforcement for the chords should be
used for high seismic design.
Equivalent Performance
The equal to or exceeding provi-
sion is generally addressed by a con-
sensus in the industry that precast con-
crete diaphragms should be designed
to remain essentially elastic through
Fig. 2. Equivalent lateral forces for (a) lateral-force-resisting system, (b) diaphragm.
98 PCI JOURNAL
the design seismic event. It is impor-
tant to understand that the model code
requirements for diaphragm design are
not consistent with this implied intent
of the code. This apparent anomaly
deserves more discussion than can be
provided here.
The code values for response modi-
fication and displacement amplifica-
tion factors are based on the assump-
tion that it is the vertical elements of
the lateral-force-resisting system that
will yield and dissipate energy. If the
yielding occurs in the diaphragm, the
design load path may be compromised
and the inelastic characteristics of the
vertical elements of the lateral-force-
resisting system may not be mobilized.
The code-prescribed design forces,
however, are at a level that is compa-
rable with the reduced forces used for
the design of the vertical lateral-force-
resisting system (see Fig. 2) and could
result in yielding in the diaphragm in
the design-basis earthquake. We rec-
ognize this deficiency and recommend
that the code-prescribed diaphragm
design forces be amplified by a fac-
tor for diaphragm design purposes, to
prevent inelastic diaphragm response
in the design-basis earthquake.
There has been a significant dis-
agreement on what this factor should
be. Some suggest that it should be
the system overstrength factor,
o
,

assigned to each seismic-force-resist-
ing structural system defined in the
IBC. These values range from 2
1
/
2
to
3 for concrete systems. Others believe
that

o
multiplied by the redundancy
Fig. 3. Shear-to-shear displacement relationships of plain carbon steel connectors
under cyclic horizontal shear with joint opening. Courtesy: JVI Inc., Lincolnwood,
Illinois.
factor, , should be used as the mul-
tiplier. This, in fact, is required by the
untopped diaphragm appendix of the
2000 NEHRP Provisions. The redun-
dancy factor varies from 1 to 1
1
/
2
, so
that the multiplier could be as high as
4
1
/
2
.
Research on precast diaphragms
after the Northridge earthquake, how-
ever, suggests that a value of about
2 is sufficient as long as the design
for the most severely loaded floor is
applied to every floor to protect the
lower floors from higher mode ef-
fects.
7
Where the diaphragm span is
not excessive, the use of a multiplier
of 2 or higher on code-prescribed dia-
phragm design forces will ensure that
vertical elements of the lateral-force-
resisting systems will yield before the
diaphragm.
Analysis
The question of equal or greater
toughness leads to the third part, the
analysis. With the design of precast
diaphragms, much of the analysis fol-
lows a horizontal plate girder analogy
that is not unique to precast concrete.
With precast jointed systems, how-
ever, it has been recognized by Na-
kaki
8
that the strain related to deforma-
tion is concentrated at the joints.
This realization is recognized em-
pirically by ACI 318-02 Section
21.9.5.1, where it is requires that wires
in welded wire fabric in topping slabs
be spaced at not less than 10 in. (250
mm) on center. The idea is to provide
a longer length between wire anchor-
ages so that the strain from joint open-
ing is spread over a longer distance
to avoid fracture in the wires as they
stretch. Nakaki suggests that the joint
spread be checked by analysis and
compared to the wire strain capacity in
topped systems and to the connection
strain capacity in untopped systems.
If necessary, the chord reinforcement
may need to be increased to control
this joint opening, beyond the calcu-
lated requirements for chord strength.
To some degree, this extra analysis
may be avoided if the welded shear
connections used in place of the wire
fabric across the joint are shown to
have sufficient deformation capac-
ity. They must sustain their design
November-December 2002 99
strength through the maximum an-
ticipated joint opening to demonstrate
sufficient toughness of the system.
Experimental Evidence
Tests have been carried out by
Oliva
9
on many prototype flange con-
nectors to determine their strain ca-
pacity at the University of Wiscon-
sin in Madison. Many of the common
plant-fabricated connectors designed
with reinforcing bars butt-welded
to the backs of plates failed to show
sustained capacity or strain tolerance
under reversed cyclic loading. A cou-
ple of commercial flange connections,
including JVIs Vector connector that
was designed specifically to have im-
proved strain capacity, showed that
they have sustained shear capacity
even with a
1
/
4
in. (6 mm) or more
joint opening and under reversed cy-
clic loading (see Fig. 3). The test re-
sults for their connector are available
from JVI.
This addresses the fourth part of
meeting the requirements of Section
21.2.1.5: experimental evidence. With
the selection of tested welded con-
nections as the replacement for the
steel reinforcing to provide the shear
strength required in Section 21.9.7.2,
where the deformation reflected as
joint opening is analyzed and con-
trolled, it is possible to demonstrate
equivalency of the untopped system.
We have made calculations for com-
mon diaphragm conditions with rea-
sonable spans and aspect ratios that
show that these connections did not
need additional chord reinforcement
for protection against joint strains.
This might not be true if the diaphragm
spans get long or the span-to-depth
ratio gets large. Therefore, the dia-
phragm probably needs to be checked
if the aspect ratio is larger than 3.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is suggested in this article that it
is possible to design untopped precast
concrete diaphragms for buildings as-
signed to high Seismic Design Catego-
ries (D and above) under the equiva-
lency clause of Section 21.2.1.5 of
ACI 318-02. The paper outlines how
such equivalency is to be achieved.
1. BSSC, NEHRP (National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program) Recom-
mended Provisions for New Buildings
and Other Structures, Building Seis-
mic Safety Council, Washington, DC,
1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000.
2. ICC, International Building Code, International Code Council,
Falls Church, VA, 2000, 2003 (to be published).
3. NFPA, NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2003.
4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete, ACI 318-99, ACI 318-02, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 2002.
5. ICBO, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
6. ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators, Acceptance
Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing,
ACI T1.1-01, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2001.
7. Fleischman, R. B., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Rhodes, A. B.,
Seismic Behavior of Precast Parking Structure Diaphragms,
PCI JOURNAL, V. 43, No. 1, January-February 1998, pp. 38-
53.
8. Nakaki, S. D., Design Guidelines for Precast and Cast-in-
Place Concrete Diaphragms, Technical Report, EERI Profes-
sional Fellowship, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA, April 2000.
9. Oliva, M., Testing of the JVI Flange Connector for Precast
Concrete Double-Tee System, Structures and Materials Test
Laboratory, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI, June 2000.
REFERENCES
100 PCI JOURNAL