Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Precast concrete facilitates a construction method using durable and rapidly erectable prefabricated members to create cost-
effective and high-quality structures. In this method, the connections between the precast members as well as between the members
and the foundation require special attention to ensure good seismic performance. Extensive research conducted since the 1980s has led
to new precast concrete structural systems, designs, details, and techniques that are particularly suited for use in regions of high seismic
hazard. This paper reviews the state of the art of these advances, including code developments and practical applications, related to four
different systems: (1) moment frames; (2) structural walls; (3) floor diaphragms; and (4) bridges. It is concluded from this review that the
widespread use of precast concrete in seismic regions is feasible today and that the jointed connection innovation introduced through precast
research leads to improved seismic performance of building and bridge structures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001972. © 2018
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Code developments; Earthquake resistance; Emulated; Joints; Posttensioning; Precast prestressed concrete;
Prestressing; Pretensioning; Seismic design; Unbonded.
Introduction has often been attributed to poorly designed and/or poorly built
connections (fib 2003). Accordingly, the need to develop new
In precast concrete construction, structural members (e.g., beams, seismic building code requirements for precast construction that
columns, wall panels, and floor units) and architectural members specifically address the unique role of the precast connections
(e.g., cladding) are produced in a manufacturing facility, trans- was recognized in the United States and elsewhere beginning in the
ported to the structure site, and erected and connected in place. 1980s (e.g., Englekirk 1986; Hawkins and Englekirk 1987; Park
The cost effectiveness and high quality of this construction method 1995).
have resulted in its widespread use, including a number of countries In the United States, the first major research study with a focus
with high seismicity (e.g., New Zealand, Japan, and Chile). on the seismic performance of precast building structures was
The seismic behavior of precast building and bridge structures is undertaken during the 1990s at the National Institute of Standards
highly dependent on the characteristics (i.e., strength, stiffness, and and Technology (e.g., Cheok and Lew 1993). This study focused
deformation capacity) of the connections between the precast struc- specifically on building moment frames. A major U.S.–Japan co-
tural members and between the members at the base and the foun- operative research program on PREcast Seismic Structural Systems
dation. Poor performance of precast buildings in past earthquakes (PRESSS) was initiated in the early 1990s (Priestley 1991). This
program comprised many individual research projects, followed
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
by the design and testing of a culminating five-story precast build-
Earth Sciences, Univ. of Notre Dame, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, Notre Dame, ing structure (Nakaki et al. 1999). These efforts formed the basis of
IN 46556 (corresponding author). E-mail: ykurama@nd.edu a number of other subsequent research studies in the United States.
2 In the 2000s, a large research program was conducted on precast
Wilkinson Chair Professor in Engineering, Dept. of Civil, Construction
and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011. floor diaphragms (Fleischman et al. 2013). In comparison with
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, buildings, developments in seismic precast concrete bridges were
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. pursued less aggressively until advancements occurred in acceler-
4
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California at
ated bridge construction in nonseismic regions.
San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093.
5
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
Extensive research and development on seismic precast building
of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. structures have also been undertaken outside the United States
6
President, Blue Ridge Design, Inc., 3 W. Piccadilly St., Winchester, (again, research in bridge structures has been more recent). Among
VA 22601. these, significant research in Japan (since the U.S.–Japan PRESSS
7
President, S. K. Ghosh Associates, Inc., 334 East Colfax St., Unit E, program) includes the testing of a full-scale four-story building
Palatine, IL 60067. using precast posttensioned concrete members at the E-Defense
8
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidad Técnica Federico, shaking table facility (Nagae et al. 2014). In New Zealand, research
Santa María, Valparaiso, Chile.
programs in the 1980s and 1990s led to the development of guide-
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 21, 2017; approved on
August 22, 2017; published online on January 17, 2018. Discussion period lines for structural precast concrete (CAE 1999) and the implemen-
open until June 17, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for in- tation of precast construction into building design standards
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- (Park 1995). In addition, research into floor diaphragms resulted
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. in changes in diaphragm seismic design and connection detailing
lateral load
precast concrete buildings under earthquake loading (e.g., Negro wall
et al. 2013; Psycharis and Mouzakis 2012). China, which suffered
gap
significant precast building failures in the 1976 Tangshan earth-
quake (Housner and Lili 2002) and subsequently moved away from
precast, has recently been making efforts to revive this construction
foundation
form (Seeber 2014). lateral displacement
The previous research on seismic precast building and bridge
(a)
structures, spanning more than three decades, has in turn led to
changes to the relevant governing codes and successful implemen-
tations in regions of high seismicity. This paper, which provides a
review of these advances, is organized into the following major sec-
lateral load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Notre Dame on 01/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extensive wall
tions on seismic-resistant precast concrete: (1) general concepts; cracking
(2) development of seismic provisions in design codes; (3) connec-
tions, splices, and anchorages; (4) moment frames; (5) structural
walls; (6) floor diaphragms; and (7) bridges. Although this review
foundation
paper attempts to include all major relevant research advances in
lateral displacement
the United States and abroad, the discussion of code developments
is focused mostly on the United States. Furthermore, on-site precast (b)
(e.g., tilt-up) and architectural precast are outside the scope of the
paper. Fig. 1. Unique behavior of unbonded PT structures: (a) unbonded PT
wall with gap opening; (b) conventional monolithic cast-in-place
reinforced concrete wall
General Concepts
Precast concrete construction for seismic systems can be broadly little tensile stresses in the concrete. Second, the PT force provides
classified into two types, emulative and jointed. Emulative con- a large restoring effect that facilitates recentering of the structure at
struction uses connections that are designed and detailed to make the end of the seismic loading (often referred to as self-centering
the performance (in terms of lateral strength, stiffness, and energy capability).
dissipation) of the precast structure comparable to that of an equiv- Fig. 1 illustrates how an unbonded PT connection concentrates
alent, conventionally designed, and properly detailed cast-in-place rotations through the opening of a discrete gap at the joint (which is
monolithic reinforced concrete structure (Ericson and Warnes controlled by the tension resistance from PT) by comparing the
1990). Emulative connections are further divided into two types: behavior of a typical unbonded PT wall [Fig. 1(a)] with the devel-
ductile and strong. Structures with ductile connections are designed opment of extensive cracks (and associated yielding of reinforce-
to undergo flexural yielding and form ductile plastic hinges in the ment) in a conventionally reinforced concrete wall [Fig. 1(b)]. The
connections across precast member-to-member or member-to- changes in the neutral axis depth through this gap opening and, to
foundation joints, whereas structures with strong connections are some extent, the development of nonlinear-inelastic compressive
designed to experience flexural yielding within the precast mem- behavior of concrete in the extreme compression corners (toes)
bers at preselected and appropriately detailed locations adjacent to of the member, allow the moment-rotation behavior of the connec-
or away from the joints. This paper refers to the region at the in- tion to be nonlinear without causing significant inelastic behavior
tersection of (i.e., between) precast members as a joint, and refers to (i.e., damage) or strength degradation in the precast member. The
the assembly of hardware and anchors across a joint as a connec- gap opening initiates when the moment at the joint overcomes the
tion. Capacity-design principles are used to ensure that strong con- precompression from PT, and for vertical members (e.g., columns,
nections remain essentially in the linear-elastic range of behavior, walls, and piers), any gravity loads. The deliberate lack of bond
while plastic hinges fully develop elsewhere in the structure. between the PT steel and concrete along the precast members sig-
Jointed construction (also referred to as nonemulative detailing nificantly reduces the strain build-up in the tendon (by uniformly
in the literature) uses precast connection concepts that are distinctly distributing the steel strains over the length of the tendon). This
different from emulative connections. In this approach, the nonlin- allows the PT steel to remain essentially linear-elastic until the pre-
ear rotations of the structure are deliberately concentrated at the cast member/structure reaches a target lateral displacement, thereby
ends of the precast members in the joint regions (through controlled maintaining the initial prestress force when the structure returns to
rocking at the joint interface), without causing significant inelastic zero displacement after being subjected to large nonlinear displace-
behavior (i.e., damage) in the members. This unique behavior ments. Upon unloading, the force in the PT tendons (together with
has been achieved by using unbonded posttensioning (PT) steel any gravity loads if they are vertical members) facilitates closing of
(often using multistrand tendons) as the primary reinforcement this gap. When the loading is reversed, the gap opens in the other
in moment frames and walls, as demonstrated in the PRESSS pro- direction. The width of the gap is controlled by the tension resis-
gram (e.g., Nakaki et al. 1999; Priestley et al. 1999) and subsequent tance provided by the PT steel, causing controlled rocking at the
research. joint.
The objectives of jointed connections, in not attempting to em- When the jointed connection is established solely using un-
ulate the lateral load behavior of monolithic cast-in-place struc- bonded PT steel to provide tensile resistance, it leads to nearly
tures, are twofold. First, the concentrated rotations (also referred nonlinear-elastic behavior under reversed-cyclic loading [Fig. 1(a)],
to as rocking rotations) at the jointed connections significantly re- with little residual lateral displacements and limited hysteretic en-
duce (or eliminate) tension damage in the precast members by ergy dissipation. As a major disadvantage, the significantly smaller
allowing the structure to undergo large lateral displacements with energy dissipation may result in increased seismic displacement
neered cementitious composites (ECCs) in the vicinity of the joint, have not fully evolved. This lack of code provisions stems from the
steel or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) jacketing, steel armoring, infrequent use of precast concrete historically in seismic design of
and, more recently, by using rubber sheets, polymer joints, and bridges. Specifically, the use of precast girders in bridges has been
rubber bearing joints at the appropriate locations. hampered by two design criteria: (1) assuming that a positive mo-
ment connection between precast girders and the bent cap beam
cannot be reliably developed, formation of a plastic hinge at the
Development of Seismic Provisions column (or pier) top is not permitted, making this construction op-
in Design Codes tion less cost effective compared with the cast-in-place alternative
(Caltrans 2013; Vander Werff et al. 2015); and (2) a connection
Seismic design of precast concrete structures in most U.S. juris- involving mild steel reinforcement is required between the cap
dictions today is in accordance with the International Building beam and girders to ensure satisfactory shear transfer across the
Code IBC-15 (IBC 2014), which adopts two key standards, ASCE/ cap beam-to-girder joint when vertical acceleration exceeds 0.25 g
SEI 7-10 (ASCE 2013) and ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014). Other impor- (Caltrans 2013). As such, the use of precast girders in bridge struc-
tant resource documents are the National Earthquake Hazards tures, when it occurs, is often motivated by overcoming construc-
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions (BSSC 2015), PCI tion challenges associated with cast-in-place concrete.
Design Handbook (PCI 2010), and PCI Seismic Design Manual Research to address the aforementioned concerns and the use of
(Cleland and Ghosh 2012). other forms of precast concrete in seismic bridge design have been
completed in recent years. Outcomes of these studies and experi-
Seismic Force Resisting Systems for Building ences using precast concrete in selected prototype bridges have
Structures led to the development of design guidelines by state agencies
(e.g., Departments of Transportation in California, Utah, and
The ACI 318 code included seismic design provisions for precast Washington). Amalgamation of these guidelines can eventually
concrete for the first time in 2002, largely based on the 2000 lead to generalized seismic design provisions.
NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 2001). These provisions provided em-
ulative design specifications applicable to special moment frames
and structural walls. Design of moment frames involving jointed Connections, Splices, and Anchorages
connections was allowed based on a validation testing document,
the current designation of which is ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005). ACI Connections in seismic precast structural systems are typically
318-08 (ACI 2008) added jointed design provisions for special completed in the field during erection. A construction space is often
structural walls, based on another validation testing document, created at the joints for tolerances and alignment purposes. This
ACI ITG 5.1-07 (ACI 2007). Hawkins and Ghosh (2006), Ghosh space is filled with high-strength, nonshrink grout, sometimes in-
(2004), and D’Arcy et al. (2003) provided more information on the cluding synthetic fibers. The connections across the joints can be
historical evolution of precast seismic design provisions for build- made using an assortment of hardware embedded in the precast
ings in the United States. Specific code provisions for different seis- members, anchorage of deformed mild steel reinforcement, and/or
mic building structural systems appear in the sections “Moment bonded or unbonded PT (PCI 2010; PTI 2006). ACI 550R-96 (ACI
Frames” and “Structural Walls.” 2001) gives connection details specific to emulative construction.
Among other countries, the New Zealand Concrete Structures Hardware connections and bonded PT are typically used in em-
Standard, NZS 3101 (Standards New Zealand 2006), contains spe- ulative construction. Hardware connections, which can be bolted or
cific provisions for the seismic design of precast concrete members, welded, include various types of embedded plates and commercial
including both emulative and jointed construction. Appendix B of inserts. For many types of hardware connections, completing the
NZS 3101 includes special provisions for the seismic design of load path depends on anchorage to concrete, which is not discussed
ductile jointed precast structural systems, which were first intro- herein but is provided in Chapter 17 of ACI 318-14.
duced in the 2006 edition. In addition, there are guidelines specific Anchorage of deformed mild steel reinforcing bars is important
to precast concrete structures, such as CAE (1999) and the PRESSS in both emulative and jointed precast construction. Anchorage of
design handbook (Pampanin et al. 2010). these bars can be achieved using high-strength, nonshrink grout
(i.e., a prepackaged mixture of cement, sand, water, and admixtures
for bonding reinforcement in sleeves or ducts) or in-situ concrete, or
Floor Diaphragms for Building Structures
mechanical splicing in the field. Normally, the lap lengths required
With regard to precast floor diaphragms in the United States, the in accordance with Section 25.5 of ACI 318-14 are too long for the
ASCE/SEI 7-16 (ASCE 2016) standard adopted two new sections assembly of precast members. Thus, mechanical splice devices with
(i.e., Sections 12.10.3 and 14.2.4) based on significant updates to short projecting lengths of bars are often used across both horizon-
diaphragm design in the 2015 NEHRP provisions (BSSC 2015). tal and vertical joints. These splice devices are typically rigid;
in special moment frames, where they are not permitted closer than connections with deformed mild steel reinforcement, this framing
half the beam depth from the column face. According to Section concept provides reduced energy dissipation because of the use of
R18.2.7.1 of ACI 318-14, the requirements for Type 2 splices are PT steel. Furthermore, inelastic strains in the PT steel can cause
intended to result in a device that is “capable of sustaining inelastic prestress losses under cyclic loading. The plastic hinging in this
strains through multiple cycles.” However, grouted Type 2 splices system will occur at the beam ends and likely penetrate into the
have experienced failure under cyclic loading due to bond pullout joint (fib 2003). As a result, debonding of the strands within the
in jointed precast walls (Smith and Kurama 2014) tested in accor- plastic hinge region is possible, minimizing the loss of prestressing.
dance with ACI ITG 5.1-07 (ACI 2007). Research is currently Muguruma et al. (1995) reported that more than 150 moment
underway (Aragon et al. 2017) to validate an improved grouted frames designed with this concept performed well in the 1995 Kobe
connector for ductile reinforcing bars to not only meet Type 2 re- earthquake in Japan. Importantly, these frames recentered at the end
quirements, but also sustain extreme postyield cyclic bar strains of ground shaking, enabling buildings to be functional following
required in jointed precast seismic systems. the Kobe earthquake, despite the potential for prestress loss and
Unbonded PT is common in jointed construction. Anchorages low amount of energy dissipation.
for unbonded PT strands have been the subject for several studies
(Walsh and Kurama 2010, 2012; Sideris et al. 2014a; Musselman
et al. 2015). These studies have shown that premature wire fractures Moment Frames with Jointed Connections
of unbonded seven-wire strand can occur inside industry-standard According to Section 18.9.2.3 of ACI 318-14, special precast
PT anchorages. To prevent this behavior, the studies have recom- moment-resisting frames with jointed connections not satisfying
mended maximum allowable strand strains for use in the design of Sections 18.9.2.1 and 18.9.2.2 of ACI 318-14 are permitted, pro-
jointed precast structures. Walsh et al. (2015) showed that higher- vided they satisfy ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005). Section 18.9.2.3 im-
performing PT anchors that allow greater strand strains without poses additional criteria related to the use of representative details
fracture can be achieved by slightly changing the anchor wedge and materials if test validation is required, and provides a guiding
geometry. design procedure to identify the load path or mechanism by which
the frame resists gravity and earthquake effects.
Moment frames with jointed connections frequently use multi-
Moment Frames
story columns and single-bay beams, although use of single-story
This section summarizes the developments associated with using columns and multibay beams has also been suggested. Fully or
precast concrete in seismic design of moment frames. partially unbonded PT through the beams is the primary feature in
these frames, which are typically designed to remain linear-elastic
under the design-level earthquake. When the frames are constructed
Moment Frames with Emulative Connections with single-bay beams, unbonded PT is used to establish the con-
Sections 18.9.2.1 and 18.9.2.2 of ACI 318-14 provide emulative nections between the columns and beams. Because the PT steel is
design provisions for “special” precast concrete moment frames. designed to remain linear-elastic, a jointed frame provides lower
As with monolithic cast-in-place frames, column bases and beam energy dissipation capacity than frames with bonded prestressing
ends are typically selected as the plastic hinge locations in emula- (El-Sheikh et al. 1999). Consequently, supplemental damping for
tive precast frames. Providing adequate confinement reinforcement frames with unbonded PT has been tested (e.g., Nakaki et al. 1999;
in these critical regions ensures formation of ductile plastic hinges. Priestley et al. 1999; Morgen and Kurama 2004, 2007, 2008).
Nonlinear action in other regions is prevented by using capacity- The hybrid frame concept is the most successful jointed frame to
design principles. Designers must carefully select locations of date. The term hybrid refers to the combined use of unbonded PT
strong connections or take other measures, such as debonding of steel and deformed mild steel reinforcing bars to form the beam-to-
reinforcing bars in highly stressed regions, to avoid strain concen- column connections [Fig. 3(a)]. The PT steel is placed at or near the
trations that have the potential to cause premature fracture of midheight of the beam, whereas the mild steel bars are placed closer
reinforcement. to the top and bottom of the beam. Under lateral loads, gaps form at
Development of different emulative connection concepts the joints at the beam ends when the moment at the connection ex-
(e.g., Park and Bull 1986; Park 1990; Restrepo et al. 1995) and ceeds the decompression moment. The mild steel bars contribute to
related design documents (e.g., AIJ 2000; Park 1995; ACI the moment resistance and are designed to yield and provide energy
2001) have led to the frequent use of these systems in Japan, dissipation during the gap opening–closing behavior (i.e., rocking
New Zealand, and to some extent, in the United States. Frame struc- rotations) under cyclic loading. To control the maximum tension
tures may use cast-in-place or precast columns with precast or par- strain demands on the mild steel bars and prevent their premature
tially precast beams. Partially precast beams may use exposed low-cycle fatigue fracture, these bars are debonded over a short
reinforcement or a precast shell for the beams. Figs. 2(a–c) show length (stretch length) in or adjacent to the connection region.
Fig. 2. Example emulative and bonded PT beam-to-column connections: (a) emulative connection with in-situ concrete; (b) emulative connection
with grouted bars; (c) emulative corner beam-to-column connection; (d) bonded PT beam-to-column connection [(a, b, and d) adapted from fib
Bulletin 27: “Seismic design of precast concrete building structures“ (October 2003), with permission from the International Federation for Structural
Concrete (fib); (c) image by Jose I. Restrepo]
Rebar debonded
over a short length Grout with fiber
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Example of a jointed frame beam-to-column connection and its use in a system: (a) jointed hybrid beam-to-column connection
(image courtesy of S. Nakaki, Nakaki Structural Design, Tustin, CA); (b) three-story hybrid frame tested in the PRESSS building (image by
Sri Sritharan)
As part of the concept development, several interior hybrid mo- consisting of several different jointed connections was subjected
ment frames were tested at the National Institute for Standards and to pseudodynamic testing, which included a three-story, two-bay
Technology (Cheok and Lew 1993; Stone et al. 1995). Although hybrid frame [Fig. 3(b)] (Priestley et al. 1999; Sritharan 2002).
these tests used partially bonded PT strands, the strands were un- These tests validated the superior performance of this jointed sys-
bonded in the critical region that included the column and a short tem to provide (1) sufficient energy dissipation, (2) minimal struc-
distance within the beam on either side of the column. In the cul- tural damage, and (3) recentering capability. A design document,
mination of the PRESSS program, a five-story moment frame ACI ITG 1.2-03 (ACI 2003), was subsequently developed for
unbonded
PT anchorages PT tendon
wall panel
wall panel horizontal
joint
unbonded wire mesh wire mesh
PT tendon
fiber-reinforced
grout bonded mild
plastic sleeve steel bar
confined bonded mild
concrete steel bar confined
concrete plastic
fiber-reinforced plastic sleeve
grout sleeve base panel
foundation
(a) (b)
coupling
beam
coupling
connector
unbonded
PT tendon
(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Precast walls: (a) single panel wall; (b) multipanel wall; (c) coupled wall with vertical joint; (d) coupled wall with coupling beams
Fig. 7. Precast walls: (a) PRESSS coupled wall (image by Sri Sritharan); (b) PreWEC system; (c) hybrid wall (reprinted from Smith et al. 2015,
with permission from the American Concrete Institute)
ITG 5.1-07 (ACI 2007). These recommendations ensure that hybrid rather than dividing the wall length into shorter multiple wall panels
walls satisfy ACI 318-14 and ACI ITG 5.1-07 requirements for spe- with reduced flexural capacities.
cial RC structural walls. In multipanel walls with horizontal joints,
in addition to the design of the critical base-panel-to-foundation
connection, the upper panel-to-panel connections also must be de- Floor Diaphragms
signed adequately. Smith and Kurama (2014) described a method-
ology to prevent nonlinear behavior at the upper joints of hybrid Floor (and roof) systems play a key role by providing diaphragm
walls, thereby concentrating all gap opening at the base joint. action, thus uniting and transferring seismic forces to the lateral
Applications of unbonded PT wall systems have been realized in load-resisting members (walls and moment frames). A key consid-
the Dominican Republic and New Zealand. The New Zealand ap- eration for diaphragms in precast structures is the force transfer
plications include buildings throughout the country that have used across the joints between the precast floor units.
combinations of unbonded PT walls and frames. These systems Precast floor units are typically double tees for long spans,
have included single unbonded PT wall panels as well as vertically hollow core for medium spans, and can be ribs or flat slab sections
jointed walls and walls with steel coupling beams. A four-story for shorter spans. Floor systems in precast structures can be topped
medical building in Christchurch that used unbonded PT walls (i.e., provided with a cast-in-place topping over the precast units) or
and hybrid frames [Fig. 8(a)] survived the 2010–2011 Canterbury untopped (in which the precast floor units are often provided with a
earthquakes without any significant damage (Pampanin et al. thicker flange region). Precast floor construction in terms of cross
2011). A five-story building with a similar configuration was under sections and detailing practices varies around the world. Compar-
construction during the 2010 Chile Earthquake [Fig. 8(b)] (Ghosh isons of the state of practice worldwide were published by fib
and Cleland 2012). The erection of the lateral-load resisting system (2003, 2016).
for this building was complete, but the building was unfinished Diaphragm design involves providing load paths through the
at the time of the earthquake. Sritharan et al. (2015) argued that floor system [Fig. 9(a)] to carry the in-plane shear, flexure, and
the vertically jointed walls used in these buildings are not as collector forces associated with diaphragm action (Moehle et al.
cost efficient as cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls. The 2010). The joints between the precast units can act as locations
PreWEC system or uncoupled hybrid walls may be more efficient of weakness (for both topped and untopped systems). Thus the
because the wall panel length (and moment arm) is maximized critical regions are often the connections across these joints, which
Fig. 8. Precast building applications with walls: (a) Southern Cross Medical Building exterior, Christchurch, New Zealand, postearthquake (image
by Richard S. Henry); (b) building in Chile with unbonded PT walls and hybrid frames (reprinted from Ghosh and Cleland 2012, with permission
from the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
Fdia
6.4 102mm 8 216mm 8 216mm
Anchorage Beam
[see Fig. (d)] Shear 1~2.5m or wall
102mm
connectors 152mm
[see Fig.(b)]
432mm #5 317mm
Chord Shear
Collector connectors wall
10~30m [see Fig. (c)] U
P
FO
R Precast Face plates
units 216x51x9.6mm #3
Fig. 9. Precast floor/roof diaphragms (reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 86, Ge Wan, Dichuan Zhang, Robert B. Fleischman, and Clay J.
Naito, “A coupled connector element for nonlinear static pushover analysis of precast concrete diaphragms,“ pp. 58–71, Copyright Elsevier, 2015):
(a) plan; (b) shear connector; (c) chord connector; (d) wall connector
can include mechanical connectors between precast units (standard untopped diaphragms (Bockemohle 1981; Gates 1981; Menegotto
industry as well as proprietary connectors), topping slab reinforce- 1994; Zheng 2001; Cleland and Ghosh 2002) or topped composite
ment, or a combination of these components [Figs. 9(b–d)]. diaphragms (i.e., mechanical connectors between precast dia-
Precast floor diaphragms have in cases performed poorly in phragm units, acting in conjunction with a thin topping with mesh
past earthquakes (EERI 1989, 2010; Iverson and Hawkins 1994; or light reinforcing) (Fleischman et al. 2005b; Bull 2004; Fenwick
Saatcioglu et al. 2001; Ghosh and Cleland 2012; Toniolo and et al. 2010).
Columbo 2012; Fleischman et al. 2014; Belleri et al. 2014a; Corney Analytical research on precast diaphragms, which was moti-
et al. 2014a). These occurrences have limited the use of precast vated in large part by past diaphragm failures, has indicated that:
diaphragms in regions of high seismic hazard in the United States, (1) diaphragm design forces can significantly underestimate the in-
whereas more widespread use has been common in other countries ertial forces that develop in the floor system during strong earth-
with high seismicity (e.g., New Zealand). In the United States, ACI quakes (Rodriguez et al. 2007; Fleischman et al. 2002; Priestley
318-14 requires a cast-in-place topping over the precast floor units. et al. 1999) due to the effect of higher modes during nonlinear
UBC-97 (UBC 1997) further limits this usage to a topped noncom- structural response (Rodriguez et al. 2002); (2) nonductile load
posite diaphragm (i.e., the cast-in-place topping slab is designed for paths can develop in diaphragms designed with past design ap-
the full diaphragm force transfer, leading to a thicker topping slab proaches (Wood et al. 2000); (3) diaphragms can possess compli-
with two-way reinforcement, whereas the precast floor units are cated internal force paths (Clough 1982; Wood et al. 1995; Lee and
intended to carry gravity loads only), thereby limiting the economic Kuchma 2008; Bull 2004), leading to combined tension-shear ac-
effectiveness of precast construction. tions on individual diaphragm connectors (Farrow and Fleischman
As such, ongoing research has focused on new designs or de- 2003); (4) nonlinear demands can concentrate at certain key
tails that would permit the use, in high seismic hazard regions, of joints (Fleischman and Wan 2007; Wan et al. 2012); and (5) the
strength factor, Ω0 ) cannot ensure linear-elastic diaphragm action. strength and stiffness, but also reliable nonlinear deformation
Larger diaphragm design forces or improved diaphragm details that capacity. Based on the qualification procedure developed by Naito
permit reliable nonlinear deformations are needed. Furthermore, and Ren (2013), testing of new and existing connector concepts
for long-span diaphragms, as often occurs for precast concrete have commenced (Naito 2016). Ren and Naito (2013) provide a
(e.g., parking structures), the connections can increase diaphragm comprehensive database of existing tests on precast diaphragm
flexibility, leading to excessive interstory drifts of the gravity connectors.
system columns away from the primary lateral load system As discussed in more detail subsequently, results from the recent
(Fleischman and Farrow 2001). Thus, limits on diaphragm deflec- research on precast diaphragms (Fleischman et al. 2013) are being
tions are needed. Nakaki (2000) and Zheng and Oliva (2005) adopted into ASCE/SEI 7-16, including an alternative diaphragm
proposed methods to estimate in-plane diaphragm flexibility, design force calculation for general construction, new diaphragm
and Lee et al. (2007) investigated the estimation of interstory drifts design provisions to accompany the new diaphragm design force,
incorporating this flexibility. and precast diaphragm connection qualification testing protocols.
The design requirements for diaphragms are being continuously The qualification protocols are being developed into an ACI stan-
improved to reflect recent research findings from large-scale subas- dard for future reference by ACI 318.
sembly or full structure tests. These tests include simulation-driven The alternative determination of the diaphragm design force
testing of critical precast diaphragm regions [Fig. 10(a)] (Zhang based on rational methods (Rodriguez et al. 2002) can be found
et al. 2011; Fleischman et al. 2013), cyclic testing of single bay pre- in Section 12.10.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-16. The alternative design force
cast frame subassemblies (Dhakal et al. 2014; Fenwick et al. 2010; is calculated using an elastic acceleration coefficient determined by
Matthews 2004) and a wall system–untopped precast floor subas- the square root of sum of squares (SRSS) of the first-mode and
sembly (Liu et al. 2015), pseudodynamic testing of precast buildings higher-mode responses, in which only the first-mode response is
containing diaphragms (Blandón and Rodríguez 2005; Bournas reduced by the seismic response modification factor, R (and am-
et al. 2013), and shake table testing [Fig. 10(b)] of diaphragm- plified by the overstrength factor, Ωo ). This calculation tends to
sensitive precast buildings (Schoettler et al. 2009). In particular, produce higher elastic diaphragm forces than previous methods.
an industry-supported research program, the diaphragm seismic However, the alternative design force calculation also includes a
design methodology (DSDM) project (Fleischman et al. 2005a, diaphragm force reduction factor, Rs , to account for the inelastic
2013), has resulted in new seismic design recommendations (BSSC deformation capacity and overstrength of the diaphragm. In many
2009; Kelly and Ghosh 2014) and code changes for precast concrete cases, the resulting design force may not be significantly different
diaphragms in the United States, as described in more detail from that of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Sections 12.10.1 and 12.10.2, particu-
subsequently. larly if the diaphragm has large inelastic deformation capacity or
Extensive testing has also been conducted on diaphragm con- overstrength. Detailed explanation of Section 12.10.3 is given in
nections (e.g., flange-to-flange connectors, reinforcing across Part 2 (Commentary) to the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, which is also
Fig. 10. Precast diaphragm tests: (a) panel test (reprinted from Zhang et al. 2011, © ASCE); (b) system test (image courtesy of M. Schoettler,
University of California, San Diego)
lower design force). The testing qualification protocol follows pro- response for columns when subjected to seismic loading [Fig. 12(a)].
cedures in Naito et al. (2006, 2007) and Ren and Naito (2013), and In most studies discussed in the literature, the column is pre-
is required to establish the strength, stiffness, and deformation cast over the entire clear height and connected to the adjoining
capacity of any new connector under in-plane shear and tension member(s) using unbonded PT. As in buildings, special details
(note that certain connections are already prequalified in are used to avoid or minimize damage at the column-to-foundation
Section 14.2.4). and column-to-cap-beam joints and in the adjacent column critical
The seismic provisions in Chapter 18 of ACI 318-14 specify regions. To this end, Mander and Cheng (1997) investigated steel
composite as well as noncomposite topped precast diaphragms. plates at the column-to-foundation joint. Palermo et al. (2007) in-
The noncomposite diaphragm is intended for the cast-in-place top- cluded steel plates at the top of the foundation and armored the
ping slab to act alone, without the precast floor members contrib- column toes with steel angles. To ensure satisfactory shear transfer,
uting to diaphragm force transfer. Reinforcement at the edges of the they connected a hemispherical steel block to the steel plate.
cast-in-place topping is considered chord reinforcing to carry the Tobolski and Restrepo (2008), Cohagen et al. (2008), Restrepo
tension forces due to in-plane flexure. Care must be taken to iden- et al. (2011), Guerrini and Restrepo (2013), and Guerrini et al.
tify and address configurations where the chord action interacts (2014) investigated the types of bedding mortar that can withstand
with collector or moment frame action in the other orthogonal the impact and transfer shear at the joint between the column and
direction (DSDM TG 2014). The topping reinforcement over the the cap beam. Tobolski and Restrepo (2008) and Cohagen et al.
floor area provides diaphragm shear transfer. ACI 318-14 Section (2008) used spirals with a small pitch to confine the column ends.
18.12.7.4 requires Type 2 mechanical splices when mechanical Billington and Yoon (2004), Trono et al. (2014), and Tazarv and
splices are used to transfer forces between the diaphragm and the Saiidi (2015) replaced the column ends with a fiber-reinforced con-
vertical members of the lateral load-resisting system. Chapter 18 crete shell, left hollow or filled with self-consolidating concrete.
does not include diaphragms with mechanical connections across Tobolski and Restrepo (2008), Restrepo et al. (2011), Guerrini
the joints between precast units. and Restrepo (2013), and Guerrini et al. (2014) investigated col-
Low and moderate seismic risk regions may use untopped dou- umns built with a dual steel shell (with concrete cast in between
ble tees relying on mechanical connectors at the joints to transfer the shells) designed for composite action. Guerrini and Restrepo
diaphragm in-plane shear (as well as vertical shear), and dry chords (2013), Guerrini et al. (2014), and Trono et al. (2014) used headed
or often cast-in-place pour strips at the ends. The pour strips pro- reinforcing bars at the column end with matching headed bars em-
vide thickened regions in which continuous reinforcement with bedded in the foundation to transfer compression. ElGawady and
larger diameter can be installed to provide the chords. These sys- Sha’lan (2010) used thin neoprene pads at the column ends and
tems may be designed for high seismic applications on a project-by found that the sheets significantly reduced the lateral stiffness of
project basis (Cleland and Ghosh 2002) until new standards under the column. Motaref et al. (2014) used a laminated elastomeric
development are adopted. bearing at the column ends, where typically a plastic hinge would
develop in a conventional column. The use of these materials will
alter the dynamic characteristics of the column, which should be
Bridges given attention in determining the expected response. Furthermore,
This section summarizes the developments associated with using because these materials are Voigt-type, the strain rate effect may be
precast concrete in seismic design of bridges. Generally, research significant and should be included when determining the dynamic
in this topic was pursued less aggressively until advancements in response of the column.
accelerated bridge construction took place in nonseismic regions. Large columns or columns where the lifting capacity is limited
can be segmented and then posttensioned using unbonded tendons.
Hewes and Priestley (2002), Billington and Yoon (2004), Chou and
Bridge Columns Chen (2006), Shim et al. (2008), Wang et al. (2008), Ou et al. (2007,
The preferred location of inelastic action in bridges is at the ends of 2009, 2010), Taira et al. (2009), Yamashita and Sanders (2009),
columns or piers, thereby minimizing damage to the superstructure Sakai et al. (2009), Kim et al. (2010a, b, 2012), Motaref et al.
and foundation, and making the inspection and repair of damage (2014), and Dawood et al. (2012) investigated the response of pre-
related to inelastic action easier. In emulative construction, the cast segmental columns where all joints could undergo gap opening,
columns can be connected to precast or cast-in-place bent caps allowing the column to rock, while preventing (or minimizing) shear
and foundations through reinforcing bar couplers, grouted ducts, sliding. Sideris et al. (2014b, 2015) investigated a precast segmental
pockets, and sockets (Fig. 11). Socketed connections can allow method where nonlinear deformations could occur either due to
the entire precast column to be embedded in the cap beam or rocking or through sliding.
foundation (Osanai et al. 1996; Haraldsson et al. 2013; Mashal Mashal and Palermo (2015) and White and Palermo (2016) in-
et al. 2013; Torres Matos and Rodriguez 2014; Belleri and Riva vestigated unbonded PT bridge columns embedded in a socket in
Fig. 11. Different types of precast bridge column connections (reprinted from Marsh et al. 2011, with permission from the Transportation Research
Board): (a) rebar coupler connection; (b) grouted connection; (c) pocket connection; (d) socket connection
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Precast bridges: (a) kinematics of a bridge bent using unbonded PT columns (reprinted from Guerrini et al. 2014, © ASCE); (b) segmental
bridge construction—Otay Mesa Bridge in California (image courtesy of International Bridge Technologies, Inc.)
the foundation and armored with a steel jacket. Davis et al. (2012) Supplementary energy dissipation has been provided to jointed
and Eberhard et al. (2014) demonstrated that precast pretensioned bridge columns by partially debonded mild or stainless-steel
bridge columns incorporating partially debonded strands can also reinforcing bars (Cohagen et al. 2008; Tobolski and Restrepo
be used to ensure recentering. In these alternatives, the critical re- 2008; Ou et al. 2010; Restrepo et al. 2011; Guerrini and
gion at the column ends was confined with either spirals (Davis Restrepo 2013; Guerrini et al. 2014; Eberhard et al. 2014;
et al. 2012) or a hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete (HyFRC) shell Thonstad et al. 2016) or replaceable bars (Tazarv and Saiidi
(Eberhard et al. 2014). 2015; White and Palermo 2016). Marriot et al. (2009, 2011) and
Gates, W. E. (1981). “Seismic design considering for untopped precast assessment of precast segmental PSC bridge columns with precast con-
concrete floor and roof diaphragm.” Workshop on Design of Prefabri- crete footings.” Mag. Concr. Res., 62(11), 773–787.
cated Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Loads, Applied Technology Kim, T.-H., Seong, D.-J., and Shin, H. M. (2012). “Seismic performance
Council, Redwood City, CA. assessment of hollow reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete
Ghosh, S. K. (2004). “Update on the NEHRP provisions: The resource bridge columns.” Int. J. Concrete Struct. Mater., 6(3) 165–176.
document for seismic design.” PCI J., 49(3), 96–102. Kurama, Y. (2000). “Seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast
Ghosh, S. K. (2016). “Alternative diaphragm seismic design force level of walls with supplemental viscous damping.” ACI Struct. J., 97(4),
ASCE 7-16.” Structure Magazine, Mar., 18–23. 648–658.
Ghosh, S. K., and Cleland, N. M. (2012). “Performance of precast concrete Kurama, Y. (2001). “Simplified seismic design approach for friction-
building structures.” Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), S349–S384. damped unbonded post-tensioned precast walls.” ACI Struct. J.,
Guerrini, G., and Restrepo, J. (2013). “Seismic response of composite 98(5), 705–716.
concrete-dual steel shell columns for accelerated bridge construction.” Kurama, Y. (2002). “Hybrid post-tensioned precast concrete walls for use in
7th National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways, State Univ. of seismic regions.” PCI J., 47(5), 36–59.
New York, Buffalo, NY. Kurama, Y. (2005). “Seismic design of partially post-tensioned precast
Guerrini, G., Restrepo, J. I., Massari, M., and Vervelidis, A. (2014). concrete walls.” PCI J., 50(4), 100–125.
“Seismic behavior of posttensioned self-centering precast concrete Kurama, Y., Pessiki, S., Sause, R., and Lu, L. W. (1999a). “Seismic behav-
ior and design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls.”
dual-shell steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
PCI J., 44(3), 72–89.
541X.0001054, 04014115.
Kurama, Y., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L. W. (1999b). “Lateral load
Haber, Z. B., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H. (2014). “Seismic perfor-
behavior and seismic design of unbonded post-tensioned precast con-
mance of precast columns with mechanically spliced column-footing
crete walls.” ACI Struct. J., 96(4), 622–632.
connections.” ACI Struct. J., 111(3), 639.
Kurama, Y., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., and Lu, L. W. (2002). “Seismic response
Haraldsson, O. S., Janes, T. M., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F. (2013).
evaluation of unbonded post-tensioned precast walls.” ACI Struct. J.,
“Seismic resistance of socket connection between footing and precast
99(5), 641–651.
column.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000413,
Lee, H. J., Aschheim, M. A., and Kuchma, D. (2007). “Interstory drift es-
910–919.
timates for low-rise flexible diaphragm structures.” Eng. Struct., 29(7),
Hawkins, N. M., and Englekirk, R. (1987). “U.S.-Japan seminar on precast
1375–1397.
concrete construction in seismic zones.” PCI J., 32(2), 75–85.
Lee, H. J., and Kuchma, D. A. (2008). “Seismic response of parking struc-
Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K. (2004). “Acceptance criteria for special
tures with precast concrete diaphragms.” PCI J., 53(2), 71–94.
precast concrete structural walls based on validation testing.” PCI J.,
Liu, Q., Watkins, J., French, C., Sritharan, S., and Nakaki, S. (2015).
49(5), 78–92.
Rocking wall-floor-column subassemblage pseudo-static cyclic test at
Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K. (2006). “Codification of precast seismic NEES@UMN (MAST) specimen 2 [Data set], Network for Earthquake
structural systems: An update.” PCI J., 51(3), 46–49. Engineering Simulation, Austin, TX.
Henry, R. S., Brooke, N. J., Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J. M. (2012). Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C-T. (1997). “Seismic resistance of bridge piers
“Defining concrete compressive strain in unbonded post-tensioned based on damage avoidance design.” Technical Rep. NCEER-97-0014,
walls.” ACI Struct. J., 109(1), 101–112. State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY, 109.
Hewes, J. T., and Priestley, M. N. (2002). “Seismic design and performance Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., Bull, D., and Palermo, A. (2008). “Dynamic
of precast concrete segmental bridge columns.” Rep. No. SSRP-2001/25, testing of precast, post-tensioned rocking wall systems with alter-
Univ. of California, San Diego. native dissipating solutions.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 41(2),
Holden, T., Restrepo, J., and Mander, J. (2001). “A comparison of the seis- 90–103.
mic performance of precast wall construction: Emulation and hybrid Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2009). “Quasi-static and
approaches.” Rep. No. 2001-4, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge
New Zealand. piers with external replaceable dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Holden, T., Restrepo, J., and Mander, J. B. (2003). “Seismic performance Dyn., 38(3), 331–354.
of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls.” J. Struct. Eng., Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., and Palermo, A. (2011). “Biaxial testing of un-
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:3(286), 286–296. bonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replaceable
Holombo, J. M., Priestley, J. N., and Seible, F. (2000). “Continuity of pre- dissipaters.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(15), 1723–1741.
cast prestressed spliced-girder bridges under seismic loads.” PCI J., Marsh, M. L., Wernli, M., Garrett, B. E., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O.,
45(2), 40–63. and Weinert, M. D. (2011). “Application of accelerated bridge construc-
Housner, G. and Lili, X. (2002). The great Tangshan earthquake of 1976: tion connections in moderate-to-high seismic regions.” NCHRP Rep.
Overview volume, G. W. Housner and H. Duxin, eds., Earthquake 698, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Engineering Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Washington, DC, 54.
CA. Martin, L., and Korkosz, W. (1982). “Connections of precast prestressed
IBC (International Building Code). (2014). “2015 international building concrete buildings, including earthquake resistance.” Technical Rep.
code.” IBC-15, International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL. No. 2, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago.
36(4), 50–57.
hardware on the cyclic tensile response of unbonded monostrands.”
Priestley, M., Sritharan, S., Conley, J., and Pampanin, S. (1999). “Prelimi-
PCI J., 59(3), 60–77.
nary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast con-
Sideris, P., Aref, A. J., and Filiatrault, A. (2014b). “Large-scale seismic
crete test building.” PCI J., 44(6), 42–67.
testing of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge
Priestley, M., and Tao, J. (1993). “Seismic response of precast prestressed
system.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000961,
concrete frames with partially debonded tendons.” PCI J., 38(1), 58–69.
04014025.
Psycharis, I. N., and Mouzakis, H. P. (2012). “Shear resistance of pinned
connections of precast members to monotonic and cyclic loading.” Sideris, P., Aref, A. J., and Filiatrault, A. (2015). “Experimental seismic
Eng. Struct., 41, 413–427. performance of a hybrid sliding: Rocking bridge for various specimen
PTI (Post-Tensioning Institute). (2006). Post-tensioning manual, 6th Ed., configurations and seismic loading conditions.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
Farmington Hills, MI. /(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000742, 04015009.
Rahman, A., and Restrepo, J. (2000). “Earthquake resistant precast con- Smith, B., and Kurama, Y. (2014). “Seismic design guidelines for solid and
crete buildings: Seismic performance of cantilever walls prestressed perforated hybrid precast concrete shear walls.” PCI J., 59(3), 43–59.
using unbonded tendons.” Rep. No. 2000-5, Univ. of Canterbury, Smith, B., Kurama, Y., and McGinnis, M. (2011). “Design and measured
Christchurch, New Zealand. behavior of a hybrid precast concrete wall specimen for seismic
Rahman, M. A., and Sritharan, S. (2015). “Seismic response of precast, regions.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000327,
posttensioned concrete jointed wall systems designed for low- to mid- 1052–1062.
rise buildings using the direct displacement-based approach.” PCI J., Smith, B., Kurama, Y., and McGinnis, M. (2013). “Behavior of precast
60(2), 38–56. concrete shear walls for seismic regions: Comparison of hybrid and em-
Ren, R., and Naito, C. (2013). “Precast concrete diaphragm connector per- ulative specimens.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
formance database.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X .0000755, 1917–1927.
.0000598, 15–27. Smith, B., Kurama, Y., and McGinnis, M. (2015). “Perforated hybrid pre-
Restrepo, J. I. (2003). “Self-centering precast post-tensioned cantilever cast shear walls for seismic regions.” ACI Struct. J., 112(3), 359–370.
walls: Theory and experimental work.” Structures Congress, ASCE, Sritharan, S. (2002). “Performance of four jointed precast frame systems
Seattle. under simulated seismic loading.” 7th U.S. National Conf. on Earth-
Restrepo, J. I., Park, R., and Buchanan, A. H. (1995). “Tests on connections quake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
of earthquake resisting precast reinforced concrete perimeter frames of Oakland, CA.
buildings.” PCI J., 40(4), 44–61. Sritharan, S., Aaleti, S., Henry, R. S., Liu, K. Y., and Tsai, K. C. (2015).
Restrepo, J. I., and Rahman, A. (2007). “Seismic performance of self- “Precast concrete wall with end columns (PreWEC) for earthquake
centering structural walls incorporating energy dissipators.” J. Struct. resistant design.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(12), 2075–2092.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1560), 1560–1570. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (2001). “Seismic design and
Restrepo, J. I., Tobolski, M. J., and Matsumoto, E. E. (2011). “Develop- experimental verification of concrete multiple column bridge bents.”
ment of a precast bent cap system for seismic regions.” NCHRP Rep. ACI Struct. J., 98(3):335–346.
681, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 106. Standards New Zealand. (2004). “Structural design actions. Part 5:
Rodriguez, M., Restrepo, J. I., and Blandón, J. J. (2007). “Seismic design Earthquake actions—New Zealand.” NZS 1170.5, Wellington,
forces of rigid floor diaphragms in precast concrete building struc-
New Zealand.
tures.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1604),
Standards New Zealand. (2006). “Concrete structures standard:
1604–1615.
Amendment 2.” NZS 3101, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rodriguez, M., Restrepo, J. I., and Carr, A. J. (2002). “Earthquake induced
Stone, W. C., Cheok, G. S., and Stanton, J. F. (1995). “Performance of
floor horizontal accelerations in buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
hybrid moment-resisting precast beam-column concrete connections
Dyn., 31(3), 693–718.
subjected to cyclic loading.” ACI Struct. J., 92(2), 229–249.
Saatcioglu, M., et al. (2001). “The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey)
earthquake—Damage to structures.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 28(4), Taira, Y., Sakai, J., and Hoshikuma, J. (2009). “A study on restorable pre-
715–737. cast and prestressed hybrid piers.” Technical Rep. MCEER-09-0012,
Sakai, J., Unjoh, S., and Hoshikuma, J. (2009). “Development of seismic Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
design method for precast segmental concrete bridge column.” Techni- Buffalo, NY.
cal Rep. MCEER-09-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Tazarv, M., and Saiidi, M. (2015). “UHPC-filled duct connections for ac-
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY. celerated bridge construction of RC columns in high seismic zones.”
Schoettler, M. J., Belleri, A., Zhang, D., Restrepo, J., and Fleischman, R. B. Eng. Struct., 99, 413–422.
(2009). “Preliminary results of the shake-table testing for development Thonstad, T., Mantawy, I. M., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O., and Sanders,
of a diaphragm seismic design methodology.” PCI J., 54(1), 100–124. D. H. (2016). “Shaking table performance of a new bridge system with
Seeber, K. (2014). “The future use of PC in China.” Technical Presenta- pretensioned rocking columns.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE
tion, Southeast Univ., Nanjing, P.R. China. .1943-5592.0000867, 04015079.
Seifi, P., Henry, R. S., and Ingham, J. M. (2016). “Panel connection details Tobolski, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2008). “Development of rocking col-
in existing New Zealand precast concrete buildings.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. umn systems.” 6th National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways,
Earthquake Eng., 49(2), 190–199. M. Keever and L. Mesa, eds., Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000212, 1066–1077.
ing officials.” UBC-97, Whittier, CA. Weldon, B., and Kurama, Y. (2012). “Analytical modeling and design val-
Vander Werff, J., Snyder, R., Sritharan, S., and Holombo, J. (2015). “A idation of posttensioned precast concrete coupling beams for seismic
cost-effective integral bridge system with precast concrete I-girders regions.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000415,
for seismic application.” PCI J., 60(5), 76–95. 224–234.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. (2009). “Influence of vertical earthquake White, S., and Palermo, A. (2016). “Quasi-static testing of posttensioned
motion and pre-earthquake stress on joint response of precast concrete nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers.” J. Bridge
segmental bridges.” PCI J., 54(3), 99–128. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000872, 04016025.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2010). “Modeling of jointed connec- Wood, S. L., Stanton, J. F., and Hawkins, N. M. (1995). “Performance
tions in segmental bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943- of precast parking garages during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.”
5592.0000112, 139–147. 13th ASCE Structures Congress, ASCE, New York, 563–566.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2011). “Development of seismic design Wood, S. L., Stanton, J. F., and Hawkins, N. M. (2000). “New seismic
guidelines for segmental construction.” Rep. No. SSRP-10, Univ. of design provisions for diaphragms in precast concrete parking struc-
California, San Diego, 357–384. tures.” PCI J., 45(1), 50–65.
Venuti, W. J. (1970). “Diaphragm shear connectors between flanges of Yamashita, R., and Sanders, D. H. (2009). “Seismic performance of precast
prestressed concrete T-beams.” PCI J., 15(1), 67–78. unbonded prestressed concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 106(6),
Walsh, K., Draginis, R., Estes, R., and Kurama, Y. (2015). “Effects of 821–830.
anchor wedge dimensional parameters on post-tensioning strand perfor- Zhang, D., and Fleischman, R. B. (2016). “Establishment of performance-
mance.” PCI J., 60(3), 63–83. based seismic design factors for precast concrete floor diaphragms.”
Walsh, K., Henry, R., Simkin, G., Brooke, N., Davidson, B., and Ingham, J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 45(5), 675–698.
(2016). “Testing of reinforced concrete frames extracted from a building Zhang, D., Fleischman, R. B., Naito, C., and Ren, R. (2011). “Experimental
damaged during the Canterbury earthquakes.” ACI Struct. J., 113(2), evaluation of pretopped precast diaphragm critical flexure joint under
349–362. seismic demands.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
Walsh, K., and Kurama, Y. (2010). “Behavior of unbonded post-tensioning .0000352, 1063–1074.
monostrand anchorage systems under monotonic tensile loading.” Zheng, W. (2001). “Analytical method for assessment of seismic shear
PCI J., 55(1), 97–117. capacity demand for untopped precast double-tee diaphragms joined
Walsh, K., and Kurama, Y. (2012). “Effects of loading conditions on by mechanical connectors.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Wisconsin-
the behavior of unbonded post-tensioning strand-anchorage systems.” Madison, Madison, WI.
PCI J., 57(1), 76–96. Zheng, W., and Oliva, M. G. (2005). “A practical method to estimate elastic
Wan, G., Fleischman, R. B., and Zhang, D. (2012). “Effect of spandrel deformation of precast pretopped double tee diaphragms.” PCI J.,
beam to double tee connection characteristic of flexure-controlled 50(2), 44–55.