Impact of Performance Based Design and

Recent Subassembly Test Programs on

the Design of Precast Concrete Buildings

Robert E. Englekirk, Ph.D., S.E.

Chairman Emeritus, Englekirk Partners, Inc., Los Angeles
Adjunct Professor, UCSD, Department of Structural Engineering

September 25, 2008

1
 Presentation Objectives

• 21st Century Design Procedures

• Innovative Precast Design Solutions

2
 Presentation Goals

• Describe how Precast Concrete can become

the system of choice

3
 Design Methods

• 20th Century – Prescriptive and poor

• 21st Century – Performance as an objective
approach currently very poor

4
 Poor Design Procedures?
Basis
VE
Elastic Behavior
Force

“R” Ductility
Objective

Inelastic Behavior

Design Objective (Vo)

ΔE & Δi
Displacement 5
 The Strength Error!
Stronger is Better?
VE
Elastic Behavior

μ2
Force

“R” Ductility
Objective
Stronger Structure
μ1
Inelastic Behavior

Design Objective

ΔE & Δi
Displacement
6
 Performance ≠ Strength
Stronger ≠ Less Ductility Demand

• Performance ≠ Strength
• Stronger ≠ Less Ductility Demand
• Stronger ≠ Less Rotation Demand

7
 38-floor concrete frame beam rotation vs base
shear coefficient

0.035
0.03
Rotation (Radians)

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Vo/W

8
 20-floor concrete frame beam rotation vs base
shear coefficient

0.03

0.025
Rotation (Radians)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Vo/W

9
 20-floor concrete frame beam rotation vs base
shear coefficient

0.04
0.035
Rotation (Radians)

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Vo/W

10
Performance Based Design
Example

Slender Wall Design & Testing

American Concrete Institute

April 2, 2008
Los Angeles, California

11
Tests at UCSD

12
 Test Ground Motion – 1994 Olive View
a of Input Motions
Medical 360°
EQ4

PGA = 0.91G – table measured!

13
Test Ground Motion – 1994 Olive View
Medical 360°
EQ 4

Ground displacement – 10 inches

14
 Earthquake Intensity

• Average return period – 475 to 2,475 years

• Ground motion – impulse

15
Tests at UCSD

16
 Design Base Shear

• Test Wall – 0.14W

• Code – 0.28W 2x

17
 Design Focus Must Change to Displacement
Limit State

VE
Elastic Behavior
Force

“R” Ductility
Objective

Proposed Focus (Displacement)

Current Focus (Force)

18
 Performance Checks

• Deformation Limits
• Strain Limits

19
 Measured Response
Predicted

T = 1.5
T = 0.9

Recorded top relative displacement response

UCSD rectangular wall
20
 Strain States
200
West end
East End
180

160

140
εc = 0.003
120
)
n(i
n 100
oi
t
a
ve
80
el slab- level 1

60

40

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
strain (%)

Concrete strain states

21
 Strain States

0.03

Steel tensile strain envelopes

22
 Lessons Learned?

• Displacement Based Design

• Response is predictable
• Strain states are predictable
• Limit states if adhered to, attain performance
objectives

23
 Design Solution
Code Basis

• Add steel/thicken wall

– Boundary steel 8 – #9
– Wall thickness – 14 - 16 inches

NOT ECONOMICAL
Won’t be built

24
Bearing Wall Buildings Return

Ocean Villas, Long Beach, CA

25
Bearing Wall Buildings Return

26
 Bearing Wall Buildings Return

• Cost effective housing

– Savings $20/Square Foot
$200/Square Meter

27
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

28
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

29
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

30
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

31
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

32
Impact on Precast Concrete Industry

33
Cast in Place Wall
Tested in New Zealand

2.5% Drift Ratio

34
Precast Ductile Wall
Tested in New Zealand

3.0% Drift Ratio

35
Steel/Fiber Reinforced Precast Wall
Tested in New Zealand

3.0% Drift Ratio

36
 Conclusion

• Cost effective
• Performs better than cast-in-place concrete

Why not use it???

37
Frame Braced Buildings

Innovative Systems!?!

38
Paramount – Hybrid System

Courtesy of David Wakely Photography

39
Paramount – Hybrid System

40
Hollywood & Highland

41
Hollywood & Highland
(Shear Tower)

42
Hollywood & Highland

43
Hollywood & Highland

44
 Is Innovation Dead?

• Consider high-rise buildings!

45
 Design
2000 Criterion
(in./sec)

1980’s
Where are
We Now?
Pseudo-velocity

46
Impact of Minimum Base Shear – (Sv ,T)

Code (2x)
Pseudo Velocity (in./sec.)

90 Scientific
Basis

Period (sec.)
Design Spectrum (MCE) 47
The Wilshire Clubview

283’-0”

48
 Innovative Systems – Tall Buildings
UCSD Test Program (2008)

• Increase beam rotations

• Reduce damage
• Reduce cost
• Improve quality control

49
Proposed Code Design
Baseline

UCB Test Specimen 46

50
Current Code Design

51
UCSD Test Specimen

52
Quality Control Issues
Joint Flow Sketch

53
 Avoidance Schemes

Barrier

Overflow
54
Precast Column/Cast-in-Place Beam

55
Performance of Precast Column/
Cast-in-Place Beam
7%

56
Performance of Code Design Beam

2.5%
57
 Behavior Comparisons
3.5%
200
150
100
Proposed Code Behavior 50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200

58
Damage to Test Assembly @ 2.65%

59
Damage to Test Assembly @ 2.65%

60
Damage to Test Assembly @ 5.35%

61
Damage to Test Assembly @ 5.35%

62
Super Hybrid System

63
 Advantages

• Precast system
• Variable strength
• Restoring force
• Multi-story erection
• Assembly options

64
Assembly Options

65
Assembly
Options
Interior application:

Exterior application:

66
Super Hybrid Assembly

67
Super Hybrid Assembly

68
Damage to Super Hybrid @ 5.25%

69
Damage to Super Hybrid @ 7%

70
 Performance of Super Hybrid System
2.5%

Figure 1. Pankow specimen #2: DDC system with high strength

column, post-tensioning, and integral slab.
71
High Strength Reinforcing Steel

72
High Strength Reinforcing Steel

73
Performance of High Strength System

74
Damage to High Strength Reinforcing
Steel @ 2.65%

75
Damage to High Strength Reinforcing
Steel @ 5.25%

76
Strength Limit State – High Strength
Reinforcing Steel Buckling

77
Buckling Mediation Methods

Bar Restraint
78
 Where is Our Industry Going?

• Testing protocol – every considerable

configuration

ACI 374.1-05

79
 What happened to Engineering Solutions?
100% Predictable (5% +)

• Strength
• Deformation
• Strain
• Limit State

80
• What is our Obligation to Society?

81
 Current Provisions

• ACI 318-08
• NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief,
August 2008
• ITG-4.3R-07

82
83
84
85
• It is time we turned our knowledge into a
product
– Safer and more economical buildings!

86
 Who will take the lead?

• 40 years of frustration!
• We can and must do better.

87
The Englekirk Companies

88