- 1 -

Seismic Design of Precast Concrete

Diaphragms
S. K. Ghosh
S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc.
Palatine, IL and Aliso Viejo, CA
www.skghoshassociates.com
- 2 -
IBC Seismic Design
Provisions
2003 NEHRP Provisions
Seismic design provisions of
ASCE 7-05
Seismic design provisions of
the 2006 IBC and
the 2009 IBC
- 3 -
2009 NEHRP
Provisions
- 4 -
2009 NEHRP
Provisions
Part 1:Adopts seismic design provisions of ASCE
7-05
Makes a number of modifications to those
Modifications automatically considered for
adoption into ASCE 7-10
Part 2: Commentary on seismic design provisions
of ASCE 7-05
Part 3: Resource Papers (1-13)
Developed by Issue Teams (ITs)
- 5 -
2009 NEHRP Provisions
Part 3 Resource Paper 10
Replace with
Multi-part
Resource Paper in
the 2014 NEHRP
Provisions
- 6 -
Scope of IT 6 on
Diaphragms
Reexamine and refine seismic design provisions for
cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete (with or
without topping), metal, and wood diaphragms,
focusing on objectives with regards to performance
in the design earthquake.
- 7 -
Multi-Part Resource
Paper
Global (ASCE 7) Issues
Topped Metal Deck Diaphragms
Untopped Metal Deck Diaphragms
Wood Diaphragms
Cast-in-Place Concrete Diaphragms
Precast Concrete Diaphragms (topped and
untopped)
- 8 -
Global (ASCE 7) Issues
- 9 -
Diaphragms, Chords,
and Collectors
12.10.1.1 Diaphragm Design Forces. Floor and
roof diaphragms shall be designed to resist design
seismic forces from the structural analysis, but not
less than the following forces:
Where
F
px
= the diaphragm design force
F
i
= the design force applied to Level i
w
i
= the weight tributary to Level i
w
px
= the weight tributary to the
diaphragm at Level x
- 10 -
Diaphragm Design
Force
F
n
F
i
i, w
i
x, w
px
n
h
n
h
i
- 11 -
Diaphragm Design
Forces
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 50 100 150 200
Fpx
Fx
Force (kips)
F
l
o
o
r

L
e
v
e
l
- 12 -
Diaphragm Design
Forces
Recommendations in PCIs Seismic Design Manual,
based on results of research:
For structures assigned to SDC B or C, if every floor
diaphragm is designed for the force at the
uppermost level derived from the IBC, additional
load factors are not required for elastic diaphragm
response under the design earthquake.
- 13 -
Diaphragm Design
Forces
Recommendations in PCIs Seismic Design Manual,
based on results of research:
For structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F, if lateral
forces are resisted entirely by special moment
frames, additional load factors are not required if
every floor diaphragm is designed for the force at
the uppermost level derived from ASCE 7.
- 14 -
Diaphragm Design
Forces
Recommendations in PCIs Seismic Design Manual,
based on results of research:
For structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F, if shear
walls are part of the lateral force-resisting system, it
is sufficient to apply a diaphragm load factor of 2 to
the force at the uppermost level derived from ASCE
7 and to design each floor for that force.
- 15 -
Diaphragm Design
Forces
IT 6, after much deliberation and debate, has
agreed on a design force level proposed by Jose
Restrepo of UC San Diego and Mario Rodriguez of
UNAM.
- 16 -
Each modes contribution is reduced by R
( )
2
1
,
n
i
j j j
i
F f w |
=
| |
=
|
\ .

( )
a i
S T
g R
F
j
j
j
j
j
ASCE 7 Method
F
j
w
j
j
F
p
j
Floor Accelerations
for Diaphragm Design
and
02 0 4 0 4
05
05 Acceleration "Magnification" 10
DS e px px DS e DS
e px px e
e e
PGA
. S I F / w . S I but . S
g
PGA PGA
. I F / w I
g g
or . I . I
s s ~
s s
s s
SRSS
- 17 -
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Peak ground acceleration (g)
F
l
o
o
r

m
a
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
RC Frames n 5
RC Frames 5< n 10
RC Frames 10 < n 20
Walls 5 < n 10
Walls 10 < n 20
Steel Frames n 5
Steel Frames 5 < n 10
Steel Frames 10 < n 20
Steel Frames n > 20
Braced Frames n 5
Braced Frames 5 < n 10
Braced Frames 10 < n 20
Braced Frames n > 20
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7-story building
Northridge Earthquake Data
Repaired PCI building
?
Floor Accelerations
for Diaphragm Design
ASCE 7 Method
ASCE 7 Range, I
e
=1
05 Acceleration "Magnification" 10
e e
. I . I s s
The upper and lower limits in ASCE7 do not seem to be rational
The computation of floor acclerations based on the assumption that all modes
are equally reduced by plasticity does not seem rational
-
-
either
Northridgeearthquakeandshaketable testdata
- 18 -
Test Structure 1
7-story building slice with a bearing
wall as the lateral force resisting
system
Single axis of input ground motion
in the plane of the wall
Phase 1 Testi ng:
12ft l ong rectangul ar wal l
Phase 2 Testi ng:
16ft l ong T-wal l
- 19 -
Test Regime
Testing at the NEES@UCSD Large High-Performance Outdoor Shake
Table between October 2005 and May 2006
Structure tested under increasing-intensity historical earthquake
records and with low-intensity band-clipped white noise in between
earthquake tests
0 10 20 30
-1
0
1
G
r
o
u
n
d

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
t (sec)
EQ1
SF-vnuy-l ng
0 10 20 30
t (sec)
EQ2
SF-vnuy-tr
0 10 20 30
t (sec)
EQ3
NOR-whox-lng
0 10 20 30
t (sec)
EQ4
NOR-Sylmar-OV-360
DBE
- 20 -
Acceleration Response
Spectra, Damping=5%
=5%
- 21 -
Floor Acceleration
Questions
1
3
5
7
Ground
?
?
?
?
EQ3
- 22 -
Measured Floor
Acceleration Responses
1
3
5
7
Ground
EQ3
- 23 -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 0.5 0 0.5 1
L
e
v
e
l
Totalacceleration(g)
()PGA
(+)PGA
()PRA
(+)PRA
()ENV
(+)ENV
EQ3
Floor Acceleration Profiles at
Specific Times During Testing and
Envelopes
- 24 -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
F
l
o
o
r
|Total Acceleration|, g
Floor Total Acceleration
Envelope
EQ3
- 25 -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Factor de Amplificacin
P
i
s
o
PGA = 0.34g
Magnification Factor
F
l
o
o
r
Floor Acceleration
Magnification
EQ3
- 26 -
Test Structure 2
ASCE7requiredF
px
/W
px
=0.65attheupperfloor
diaphragm
DiaphragmdesignedforF
px
/W
px
=0.94basedon
nonlinearanalyses
BERDBE
SEADBE
BERMCE
- 27 -
Test Structure 2
DrychordweldedbarsfracturedimmediatelyafteryieldingduringtheSEADBEtest:
Demandwashigherthananticipated
Coldweld
Weldeccentricity
Diaphragmrepairedfirstwithacastinplacechordwithweldedheadedbars,fractureoftheweld
occurredduringrepetitionoftheSEADBEtest
Asecondrepairwasundertakenwithacontinuouscastinplacechord,whichworkedsatisfactorily
undertheSEAandBERDBEtests
- 28 -
Test Structure 2
BER DBE
Flooraccelerationenvelope
Atdiaphragmmidspan andend
0
1
2
3
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
L
e
v
e
l
MagnificationFactor
BEDBE Trial1
Diaphragmend
Midspan
1000
800
600
400
200
0
200
400
600
800
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M
d
i
a
(
k
i
p

f
t
)
Floorspan(x/L)
BEDBE Trial1
()Floor1
(+)Floor1
()Floor2
(+)Floor2
()Floor3
(+)Floor3
BendingmomentenvelopeinDiaphragms
- 29 -
Roof (Floor) Pseudo-
Acceleration Spectra
Response of a SDOF excited by the roof (floor) acceleration time history, i.e.
the roof (floor) acceleration is taken as input.
The buildings first mode is strongly affected by inelasticity whereas higher
modes are not greatly affected (i.e. they remain essentially elastic)
UIUC Test ES1
- 30 -
Diaphragm Design
In 2001 Rodriguez et al. noted that inelastic response
in multi-story buildings tended to cause an important
reduction in floor accelerations contributed by the first
mode of response but had a much lesser effect on
those contributed by the higher modes of response.
They proposed the First Mode Reduced method, in
which the roof acceleration could be determined by a
square root sum of the squares combination in which
the first mode contribution was reduced for inelasticity
and the higher modes were left unreduced.
- 31 -
Diaphragm Design
F
px
= C
px
w
px
/R
s
0.2S
DS
I
e
w
px
C
px
comes from C
p0
, C
pi
, C
pn
- 32 -
Diaphragm Design
- 33 -
Diaphragm Design
C
p0
= 0.4 S
DS
I
e
C
pi
is greater of values given by:
C
pi
= 0.3 S
DS
I
e
C
pi
= 0.9 I
m1
O
0
C
S
pn
= I
m1
O
0
C
S
2
+ I
m2
C
S2
2
- 34 -
Diaphragm Design
C
S
= V/W or V
t
/W
C
S2
= min (0.15n + 0.25, 1) I
e
S
DS
) 1 n ( 03 . 0
S I
1 D e

s
- 35 -
Consistent Look into the
Design Spectra C
s
R
For the Second mode, R = 1
C
S
(T
2
) = min(0.15n+0.25, 1)I
e
S
DS
I
e
S
D1
/ [0.03(n-1)]
n: number of levels above ground, n 2
- 36 -
Diaphragm Design
I
m1
= 1 + 0.5z
S
(1 1/n)
I
m2
= 0.9z
S
(1 1/n)
2
where z
S
= modal contribution coefficient modifier
dependent on seismic force-resisting system,
- 37 -
Diaphragm Design
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0 5 10 15 20 25

m1
Eq.3.1zs=1
Eq.3.1zs=0.7
Wallbuildings
Framebuildings
Number of levels, n
- 38 -
Diaphragm Design
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25

m2
Eq.3.1zs=1
Eq.3.1zs=0.7
Wallbuildings
Framebuildings
Number of levels, n
- 39 -
Diaphragm Design
Force multiplier for flexible diaphragms:
4 . 1 75 . 0
8
1
s +
A
=
ADVE
MDD
f
o
o
- 40 -
Diaphragm Design
- 41 -
Diaphragm Design
- 42 -
Comparison of
Results
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
hi/h
ne
Acceleration(g)
DE(Sylmar) PGA=0.91g
RRPGA =0.72g
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
hi/h
ne
Acceleration/PGA
DE(Sylmar)PGA=0.91g
RRPGA=0.72g
(RR for ASCE7 and Measured)
7-story bearing wall building
- 43 -
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
hi/h
ne
Acceleration(g)
DE(Seattle) PGA=0.47g
RRPGA =0.42g(rigid)
Flexible(af=1.2)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
hi/h
ne
Acceleration/PGA
DE(Seattle) PGA=0.47g
RRPGA =0.42g(rigid)
Flexible(af=1.2)
(RR for ASCE7 and Measured)
3-story PCI building
Comparison of
Results
- 44 -
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
hi/h
ne
Acceleration(g)
T1 YPGA =0.32g
T3YPGA=0.31g
RRPGA=0.32g
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
hi/h
ne
Acceleration/PGA
T1 YPGA =0.32g
T3YPGA=0.31g
RRPGA=0.32g
(RR for ASCE7 and Measured)
NEES Wood Capstone Building
(data Processed by R Hanson)
Comparison of
Results
- 45 -
Diaphragm Design Force
Comparison: DSDM + Factors
and Restrepo & Rodriguez
Proposal
Robert Fleischman and Dichuan Zhang
University of Arizona
9-27-2012
- 46 -
Comparison using Updated
DSDM Equations
B
e
r
k
e
l
e
y

(
S
D
C

E
)
S
e
a
t
t
l
e

(
S
D
C

D
)
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n

(
S
D
C

D
)
K
n
o
x
v
i
l
l
e

(
S
D
C

C
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Stories
RR
+
E
+
D
+
R
ASCE7 DSDM

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Stories
RR
+
E
+
D
+
R
ASCE7
DSDM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
UCSD
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Stories

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
RR
+
E
+
D
+
R
ASCE7
DSDM
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Numer of Stories
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Stories
ASCE7
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
RR
+
E
+
D
+
R
DSDM
- 47 -
Inertial Forces in
Diaphragms
Existing diaphragms may carry seismic inertial
forces through:
(a) inherent overstrength in the floor system,
including the floor plate and framing elements, that
permit the transfer of higher than code design
forces,
- 48 -
Inertial Forces in
Diaphragms
or
(b) inherent ductility or plastic distribution qualities
within the diaphragm (or at the boundaries of the
diaphragm) that limit the amount of inertial forces
that can develop, without significant damage or
failure.
- 49 -
Diaphragm design force reduction factor, R
s
- 50 -
Diaphragm Design
Flexure-controlled diaphragm: Diaphragm which
has a well-defined flexural yielding mechanism,
which limits the force that develops in the
diaphragm. The factored shear resistance shall be
greater than the shear corresponding to flexural
yielding.
- 51 -
Diaphragm Design
Shear-controlled diaphragm: Diaphragm that
does not meet requirements of flexure-controlled
diaphragm.
- 52 -
Diaphragm Design
Diaphragm System Shear Control Flexure Control
CIP Concrete
1.5 2
Precast concrete
EDO 0.7 0.7
BDO 1.0 1.0
RDO 1.4 1.4
Untopped Steel Deck Ductile
3.0 NA
Low ductility
2.0 NA
Topped Steel Deck
Reinforced topped
Steel Deck with shear
stud connection to
framing
2.0 2.5
Other topped Steel
Deck with structural
concrete fill
1.5 2.0
Wood Typical 3.0 NA
When R
s
is greater than 1, such a diaphragm should have a well-defined,
ductile shear yielding mechanism which limits the force that develops in
the diaphragm.
- 53 -
Precast Concrete
Diaphragm Design Options
(a) Basic Design Option (BDO) targets elastic
diaphragm response in the design earthquake,
(b) Elastic Design Option (EDO) targets elastic
diaphragm response in the maximum considered
earthquake, or
(c) Reduced Design Option (RDO) permits limited
diaphragm yielding in the design earthquake
PCI/NSF/CPF
54 of 116
NEES/EERI Webinar
April 23 2012
EDO
Diaphragm lateral displacement
Current design force
F
px
RDO
LDE
MDE
HDE
Connector Classification
BDO
DSDM Design Philosophy
PCI/NSF/CPF
55 of 116
NEES/EERI Webinar
April 23 2012
Design Procedure
Step 4: Reinforcement Classification
High deformability element (HDE):
Moderate deformability element (MDE):
Low deformability element (LDE):
Step 4: Determine required Diaphragm Reinforcement Classification
Three Classifications:
Comments:
Classification of diaphragm reinforcement determined through cyclic testing protocols
in the Precast Diaphragm Reinforcement Qualification Procedure (See PART 2)
In meeting the required maximum deformation capacity using the above testing
protocols, the required cumulative inelastic deformation capacity is also met.
An element demonstrating a reliable and stable
maximum joint opening deformation capacity:
of greater than0.6
of between 0.3and 0.6
not meeting others (<0.3)
- 56 -
Expectations
Design force level proposal will be in Part 1 of the
2014 NEHRP Provisions, as an alternative to the
current provisions in Section 12.10 of AC 7-10.
In that case, it will be in ASCE 7-16 and,
therefore, will be part of the 2018 IBC
- 57 -
Expectations
The rest of Diaphragm Seismic Design
Methodology (DSDM) will be part of the precast
chapter of the Part 3 Resource Paper of IT 6 in
the 2014 NEHRP Provisions.
It will, hopefully, also be part of Chapter 14 of
ASCE 7-16.
- 58 -
Thanks to ANIPPAC
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SHARE THE EXCITEMENT
- 59 -
Thank You!!
For more information
www.skghoshassociates.com
Chicago Main Office
334 East Colfax Street, Unit E
Palatine, IL 60067
Phone: (847) 991-2700
Fax: (847) 991-2702
Email: skghoshinc@gmail.com
Southern California Office
43 Vantis Drive
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Phone: (949) 215-6560
Fax: (847) 991-2702
Email: susandowty@gmail.com
Follow us on: