Seismic Design Recommendations

for Precast Concrete Diaphragms

in Long Floor Span Construction
Robert B. Flekchman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
The paper “Effect of Dimension and Detail on the Capacity of
Precast Concrete Parking Structure Diaphragms,” published in the
September-October 2003 PCI JOURNAL, presented the effect of
structural dimension and construction detail on the capacity of
precast concrete floor diaphragms, using parking structures as the
prototype structure. Parallel research by the authors has established
seismic demands for flexible diaphragm structures. In this paper, the
findings of these two research steps are interpreted to propose design
recommendations for precast concrete diaphragms in long floor span
construction. These recommendations include provisions for
diaphragm design strength, allowable flexibility, and ductility
capacity based on seismic performance requirements. The
provisions are incorporated into a design procedure employing
performance-based design concepts. Application of the procedure is
shown in a design example (Appendix B) for precast parking
structure diaphragms. Research on this subject will continue over
the next several years, with funding provided by both governmental
and industry organizations. *

recastJprestressed concrete con have responded with modifications to

p struction is commonly and ef

Kenneth T. Farrow, Ph.D.
Research Engineer
ExxonMobil Upstream Research
Company
Offshore Division Arctic and
—
Environmental Technology
Houston, Texas
fectively used for building sys
tems with long floor spans. These
structures create a demanding condi
tion for the diaphragm by virtue of
their configuration Unexpected per
formance in recent earthquakes of one
such long floor span structural system,
1 has led to a re
the parking structure,
examination of the seismic design pro
cedures in use for diaphragms in gen
2 and precast diaphragms in
eral,
3 While code-writing bodies
particular.
diaphragm design in recent code edi
tions, it is generally agreed among re
searchers and practitioners that current
design guidelines require further im
provement.
In particular, considerable discus
sion has centered around the approach
to take in the seismic design of di
aphragms, with prescriptive elastic
design emerging as the recommenda
4 Given the role inelastic di
tion.
aphragm response is perceived to
have played in poor seismic perfor

*
The National Science Foundation recently approved financial support in the amount of nearly $500,000
for a PCI-proposed Precast Diaphragm Research Program. This grant, combined with PCI’s R&D and
Producer Member conthbutions. will allow for an extensive research program in the range of $1 million
over three years. PCI awarded the project to a consortium of three universities the University of Arizona,
—

Lehigh University, and the University of California, San Diego. For more information on this program,
contact PCI Research Director Paul Johal at 312-786-0300 or pjohal@pci.org.

46 PCI JOURNAL
 mance of some parking structures,
this recommendation certainly seems
warranted. Indeed, results from a re
cently completed Daniel P. Jenny Re
search Fellowship indicate that non-
ductile failure modes are the
controlling limit state in the event of
inelastic diaphragm action.
5 However,
the research also indicates that pre
scriptive elastic design may be diffi
cult to achieve reliably, at least with
out large design force increases, and
even if obtained, may be no guarantee
of adequate drift performance for di
aphragms in long floor span construc
6
tion.
As a result of these issues, an ap
proach is described here for the seis
mic design of long-span diaphragms
using performance-based design con
cepts. In the approach, diaphragm
strength, dimension, and reinforcing
details are selected to meet force,
drift, and ductility requirements.
While several different performance
objectives are outlined, including elas
tic design, a basic performance objec
tive intended to provide a safe and
economical design is proposed.
The framework for a design proce
dure utilizing this basic objective is
presented toward the end of the paper.
The procedure is intended specifically
ELEVATION
Levein
- w
F Level x Fpx —h
Level 1
h
Vb=
Lateral System Diaphragm
Mb
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Equivalent lateral force (ELF): (a) Lateral system F,; (b) Diaphragm
applied to similar procedures in subse structure, F, is shown in Fig. la.
quent provisions.
0
”
9 These forces, which sum to the design
It is also noted that since the initia base shear, V, are used for the design
tion of this research, certain code of the vertical elements of the lateral
changes for precast diaphragm design force-resisting system.
have occurred (as described in the The diaphragm design forces at
next section). Thus, while the analyti each level, are specified by a dif
cal program was performed with re ferent distribution (see Fig. Ib) based
spect to the code in place at the time on the equivalent lateral forces:
(UBC 1994),hl the results are inter
preted in terms of subsequent design
changes, and the final recommenda = ,
1
w (2)
tions are made with respect to the later
--——

for precast concrete diaphragms in wi

long-floor-span structures. While it
can be applied generically, the proce
dure nevertheless possesses certain
features that are necessary only for
flexible diaphragms. The rationale for
the design approach is fully discussed.
BACKGROUND
Current Seismic Design of
Precast Diaphragms
The vertical elements of the lateral
force-resisting system and the floor
diaphragms in building structures are
typically designed for earthquake
forces using an equivalent lateral
force-based approach. The Uniform
Building Code (UBC) seismic design
7 which at the conclusion of
procedure,
the research was considered to be the
most 8conservative, is used to interpret
diaphragm designs in this paper. How
ever, conclusions made here can be
code (UBC l997).
The UBC specifies the total base
shear for structure design, V, as:
VrZ-’LW 25CaI
RT R ‘
where the terms appearing in the equa
tions are defined in the notation sec
tion (Appendix A). Lower limits on
this equation exist as well, and are
shown in the design example (Ap
pendix B). The seismic coefficients,
C and Ca, are obtained from a design
response spectrum corresponding to
what is termed the design basis
ground motion, representing the aver
age dynamic effect of a suite of earth
quakes having a 10 percent chance of
being exceeded in 50 years.
Different seismic zones exist, in
cluding high (Zone 4) and moderate
(Zone 2), which appear in this paper.
The distribution of equivalent lateral
force (ELF) over the height of the
where w is the weight of the floor
and the tributary elements at level x.
The values of differ from the
values of F 1 because the diaphragm
design forces need not occur simulta
neously; they represent estimates of
individual maximum values at each
level. As indicated in Fig. ib, the cur
rent code-prescribed distribution of
design forces, produces di
aphragm strength that increases with
floor level. Design minimum and
maximum values also limit the di
aphragm forces, as given in Eqs. (3a)
and (3b), respectively:
F 0.5CIw (3a)
(3b)
Fpx l.OCaIWpx
The diaphragm design forces,
are applied at each level as a dis
tributed in-plane load as indicated in
the structure floor plan schematic of

November-December 2003 47

Fig. 2. Diaphragm
forces using the
horizontal plate
girder analogy.
12
Fig. 2. The amount of flexural rein
forcement (chord steel), shear rein
forcement (web), and reinforcement
for the reaction load paths to the lat
eral system (collector steel) are typi
cally determined using a horizontal
plate girder analogy.
In this procedure, the chord steel is
designed for the entire in-plane bend
ing moment due to the web rein
forcement is designed for the entire in-
plane shear due to across panel
joints parallel to the seismic force.
Minimum reinforcement and connec
tions are provided to sustain the tribu
tary shear flow (VdQd/Id) across the
joints formed by the interior beams
(transverse to the loading direction).’
2 are based solely on the structural re
Current provisions for precast floor
diaphragms in high seismic zones re
quire a cast-in-place topping slab to
3 In the
provide continuity in the floor.’
past, some designers have used
welded wire fabric placed in the slab
for crack control to provide the entire
4 a
shear transfer for topped systems,’
practice now viewed with some con-
48
troversy.’ Therefore, diaphragm de
5 using an absolute measure of di
tailing approaches suggested in this
paper consider mechanical connectors
acting in conjunction with the welded
wire fabric (consistent with cast-in-
place composite diaphragms).
13
In moderate or low seismic zones,
pretopped systems are permitted in
which the mechanical connectors
alone provide the web reinforcement.
Alternate design criteria such as ther
mal loads can often control the design
of these connectors, and variable spac
ing may be provided for instance,
—
closer spaced connectors in parking
structure traffic lanes. The design ta
bles presented in the paper, however,
quirements for uniformly spaced con
nectors.
Codes typically measure diaphragm
flexibility relative to the lateral system
at a floor level, with a value greater
7 Recent
than 2 considered as flexible.
research on long floor span di
aphragms, however, has indicated that
seismic demands can be predicted
IPd
6VLs (b-s
1 )
1
3
b
Vdia
Mdia
6 This measure,
aphragm flexibility.
defined later, is used in the design pro
cedure.
Recent Modifications in Seismic
Design of Precast Diaphragms
Based in part on recommendations
of a task group investigating parking
structure performance immediately
following the 1994 Northridge earth
6 four code changes for precast
quake,’
concrete diaphragms were introduced
into the 1997 Uniform Building
: (1) minimum spacing, cover,
7
Code
and transverse reinforcing for chords
and collectors, (2) modification of the
strength reduction factor for precast
diaphragms in Seismic Zone 4 from
0.9 for flexure and 0.85 for shear to
0.6, (3) the use of an overstrength fac
) applied to collector reinforce
tor (Q
0
ment transferring the diaphragm reac
tion to the lateral-system elements,
and (4) a prescriptive requirement lim
iting the span-to-depth ratio of di-
PCI JOURNAL
 aphragms in buildings that contain
simply-connected precast gravity sys
tems to no more than 3:1.
Although not based on any conclu
sive results,
2 the objectives of the first
two code changes were to improve the
toughness of chords and collectors in
diaphragms and to ensure that these
elements do not yield in tension.
16 The
final provision is intended to minimize
excessive diaphragm deformations
under the design basis ground mo
7 Clearly, the writers of these
tion.’
code sections were concerned that dia
phragms, especially precast concrete
diaphragms, could be the weak link in
a structure if not properly designed
and detailed.
2 The reader is referred to
other code documents for developing
design rules for topped’
3 and pre
topped diaphragms.
9 trolled by either strength or stiffness
Proposed Elastic Seismic Design
Approach for Diaphragms
2 proposed an elastic seismic
Nakaki
design approach for diaphragms. The
procedure attempts to eliminate di
aphragm inelasticity, an action consid
ered unacceptable due to incompatibil
ity with behavior implicitly assumed
in the design code. In developing the
approach, Nakaki acknowledges the
code’s intention for elastic diaphragm
behavior but cites several inconsisten
cies.
Foremost among these are that cur
rent seismic designs for diaphragms
are based on the ultimate limit state,
and while the code does account for
lateral system overstrength for collec
tor elements, this overstrength factor
is not applied to the diaphragm flexure
or shear 7reinforcement. Nakaki points
to this inconsistency between code in
tent and realization as raising uncer
tainty as to whether current designs
will maintain elastic behavior for the
design basis ground motion (other fac
tors can contribute to this uncertainty,
as will be discussed later).
To obtain elastic behavior, Nakaki’s
procedure employs a capacity design
with respect to the lateral system by
(1) including a system overstrength
factor, £2 2.8, in the determination
of the diaphragm design forces, and
(2) designing to the diaphragm yield
moment rather than an ultimate state.
November-December 2003
Elastic limits are established for both
the chord and web reinforcement
through strain compatibility relation
ships using a strength reduction factor
= 0.9. An elastic force design alter
native is suggested for squat wall sys
tems due to the difficulty in determin
ing system overstrength. For the
alternative approach, the diaphragm is
designed with an R factor of unity.
The procedure also explicitly incor
porates diaphragm flexibility effects
through (1) the use of a period modi
fied for diaphragm deformation, and
(2) the inclusion of elastic diaphragm
deformation in a maximum inelastic
response displacement calculation
modified to eliminate inconsistent
handling of the diaphragm contribu
tion. Diaphragm reinforcement is con
requirements. It should be noted that
in using the proposed approach, stiff
ness-critical designs do occur for as
pect ratios less than 3:1.
The design approach is mtended to
allow relaxation of prescriptive detail
ing requirements for the diaphragm by
(1) eliminating the need to confine
concrete in the compression chord, (2)
preventing chord reinforcement from
buckling on load reversal, (3) improv
ing bar splice performance, and (4)
limiting inelastic diaphragm deforma
tion.
Related Research on Seismic
Design of Precast Diaphragms
Related research pertinent to the
topic is briefly summarized. Among
these are (1) NSF-PCI-PCA research
establishing critical force paths in
parking structure diaphragms in which
joints may not possess sufficient
strength to carry the seismic design
18 (2) NSF-PCI research estab
forces,
lishing the force and deformation ca
pacity of connecting hardware used in
the panel joints,’
20 and (3) an investi
’
9 As this approach differs fundamen
gation of diaphragm force distribu
’
2
tions.
Wood et al.’
8 determined that (1)
cast-in-place toppings do not provide
monolithic action due to cracking
along the joints, resulting in a signifi
cant decrease in shear strength, (2)
shear strength design equations based
on inclined cracking are inconsistent
for precast diaphragms, and (3) cur
rent design strengths are adequate with
respect to shear-friction calculations,
but strain compatibility is not consid
ered. This research has led to changes
in recent codes.
22
’
7
Pincheira et al.’
9 described the load-
deformation characteristics of me
chanical connectors under shear, ten
sion, and combined loading. These
experimental studies showed that me
chanical connectors can experience
considerable shear capacity reduction
if loaded simultaneously in shear and
tension. Oliva
° investigated improved
2
mechanical connectors with tension
compliance to allow the chord steel to
develop fully without distress to the
web reinforcement.
Rodriguez et al.
’ investigated the
2
magnitude and distribution with height
of absolute floor accelerations respon
sible for the development of inertia
forces in the diaphragm. On the basis
of a series of nonlinear time-history
analyses, it was concluded that current
building codes generally underesti
mate the magnitude of the inertia
forces. The researchers proposed a
new method for evaluating inertia
forces for the design of diaphragms.
The method employs a floor magnifi
cation factor, W, based on the vertical
location of the floor and the influence
of the higher modes of response.
RATIONALE FOR USE OF
PERFORMANCE-BASED
DESIGN CONCEPTS
In working toward a consensus on a
viable seismic design approach, practi
tioners have advocated prescriptive
elastic diaphragm design,
4 an excel
’
3
lent example of which was reviewed
in the previous section.
2 The design
approach proposed here for long-
floor-span diaphragms, however, uses
performance-based design concepts.
tally from an elastic design, a rationale
for its use is given in this section.
The choice of this design approach
is based on research findings from a
recently completed PCI Daniel P.
Jenny research project. The research
examined the seismic behavior of di
aphragms in precast concrete struc
tures with long floor spans, focusing
49
on parking structures. Both diaphragm
capacity and diaphragm demand were
investigated. The discussion that fol
lows relies heavily on the research
findings pertaining to diaphragm de
mand, reported previously by Fleis
6 The research findings
chman et al.
pertaining to diaphragm capacity, as
reported in the companion paper,
5 are
used to guide the detailing approach.
Issues Related to Elastic
Diaphragm Design
Elastic response has traditionally
been the preferred behavior for di
23 The preference originates
aphragms.
from recognition of the relationship
between efficient diaphragm action
and in-plane stiffness of the floor
24 However, for seismic design,
slab.
the need for elastic diaphragms stems
primarily from a desire to avoid non-
ductile failure in the floor system,
since this region of the structure is not
typically provided with special detail
ing. Clearly, designs in which the dia
phragm acts as the structure’s weak
8 since the ca
link should be avoided’
pacity reduction coefficients R in
— guarantee of sustained elastic di
Eq. (1) used in seismic design are
—
based on the expected ductility and
energy dissipation of the vertical ele
ments of the lateral force-resisting sys
tem and, thus, will not be valid for a
building with inelastic diaphragms.
2 loads in lower levels of the structure,
On the basis of the concepts de
scribed above, one might expect that
elastic diaphragm design would have
been an integral part of seismic codes.
However, as discussed earlier, even
with recent modifications, current
code provisions only imply elastic di
aphragm behavior and do not neces
2 Thus, the
sarily accomplish this goal.
recommendation that future versions
of the code include prescriptive elastic
diaphragm design.
34
A capacity design approach seems
the most appropriate way to achieve
25 The in
the elastic diaphragm design.
tent of a capacity design is to prevent
nonductile behavior by designing a
brittle component, not to an expected
force, but instead relative to the
strength of another (ductile) portion of
26 One could imagine
the structure.
using the equivalent lateral force
(ELF) pattern shown in Fig. 1 to de
50
sign the diaphragm stronger than the
vertical elements of the seismic sys
tem, thereby relying on the yielding of
the vertical seismic system as a struc
tural “fuse” to limit system (and hence
diaphragm) response.
However, as mentioned earlier, an
aspect of diaphragm behavior not elu
cidated in the codes, and thus possibly
not clearly understood, is the relation
ship of the design forces used in ELF
procedures to the inertial forces that
may actually occur in floor di
aphragms during a seismic event. 21
Evidence exists to show that the de
sign code ELF values may in some
cases significantly underestimate di
aphragm , 6 1 Uncertainty in
7
loads.
2 ing moments and shear forces during
quantifying the maximum diaphragm
force severely impacts the ability to
develop a reliable and economical ca
pacity design.
For wall structures in particular, ex
treme load events in the diaphragm are
driven by modifications to the struc
ture’s dynamic properties after base
27 As a result, even a
hinge formation.
capacity design that successfully initi
ates hinging in the shear wal1 is no
aphragm behavior throughout the seis
mic event. Frame structures do not de
velop the extreme diaphragm load
events; however, wall and frame struc
tures alike exhibit larger diaphragm
in direct opposition to the current ELF
27
distribution.
The significant discrepancy between
actual diaphragm force distributions
and the code-based ELF pattern
prompted a statistical examination of
Zone 4 seismic demands for code-de
signed structures with flexible di
6 Foremost among the find
aphragms.
ings was the indication that current
designs for diaphragms in high seis
mic regions do not prevent diaphragm
yielding for the design basis ground
motion. This result implies the need
for diaphragm design strength in
creases for these structures, an asser
tion shared by others.
3
’
2 aphragm failure or collapse of gravity
In the absence of a reasonable esti
mation of diaphragm force demands,
any proposed elastic diaphragm design
based solely on diaphragm capacity
may be unsafe. Further research on
diaphragm force demands can provide
the necessary calibration of an elastic
design such as that proposed by
2 However, for precast di
Nakaki.
aphragms in long-floor-span struc
tures, other issues exist, including
those related to drift performance, re
inforcing details, and internal force
paths as described next.
Issues Related to Performance
of Iong-Span Precast Diaphragms
In long-floor-span structures, the
distances between lateral force-resist
ing elements produce a diaphragm that
is at once flexible and also capable of
generating significant in-plane bend
seismic excitation. If irregularity ex
ists in the floor plan, complex force
paths can additionally produce unex
pected internal force combinations,
amplifying the internal actions.
28
In conjunction with the aforemen
tioned extreme load events, these ac
tions can combine to extend the di
aphragm behavior into the inelastic
range, and in so doing place ductility
demands on the reinforcing steel. In
elastic softening can also exacerbate
the effects of diaphragm flexibility
such that gravity system columns in
regions remote from the lateral force-
resisting system elements undergo am
plified drift demands.
29
In combination, the conditions re
lated to diaphragm force path, flexibil
ity, and loading have the potential to
produce severe demands on long-
floor-span structures during seismic
events. Analytical results indicated
drift profiles possessing severe con
centrations in the first story for wall
and frame structures alike and high in
elastic deformation demand in di
aphragms at the lower portion of wall
27 Based on comparisons
structures.
with expected behavior, it was con
cluded that current designs of long-
floor-span structures could produce in
adequate Zone 4 seismic performance,
possibly including nonductile di
6 Indeed, it is likely
system columns.
that some combination of these events
led to the poor performance of parking
structures in the Northridge earth
quake.’
It should be noted that the parking
PCI JOURNAL
 structure represents a particularly vul
nerable class of long-floor-span con Felas
struction. The presence of ramps and
openings provided for traffic flow not R n,elas
only serve to further increase di
aphragm flexibility to the point that
—

unacceptable drift performance may

occur even for elastic diaphragm be w
0
havior but also create complex load
—

paths for diaphragm forces.
None of the above-described condi
tions are necessarily unique to precast
construction. However, the heavy de
mancis they produce can be particu
larly problematic for paneled systems
in which diaphragm forces must be
carried across joints between precast
units. Reinforcing details and mechan
ical connectors at these joints were
originally developed without consider
ation of complex force combinations
and without the intention of providing
ductility.
Precast floor systems are also inher
ently more flexible than monolithic
floor systems. As precast construction
is commonly and effectively used for
long-floor-span structural systems, in
cluding parking structures, these di
aphragm performance issues hold sig
nificance for the precast community.
A key step in the Daniel P. Jenny re
search project, therefore, was to estab
lish the seismic demands for long span
diaphragms.
Seismic Demands on Structures
with Long-Span (Flexible)
Diaphragms
Seismic demands for structures with
long-span diaphragms were estab
lished for seismic hazard at two levels
corresponding to 10 and 2 percent
probabilities of exceedence in 50
years. The former is equivalent to the
design basis ground motion of the
UBC; the latter is not defined in the
UBC, but corresponds to what is
termed the maximum considered
earthquake in the NEHRP provisions
9 strength increases were required to en
and in codes based on the NEHRP
provisions, such as the International
Building Code (IBC).
°
1 of the structure not typically consid
The selection process for this hazard
level, taken for the most intense region
in the hazard map, is described in de
0
U
E
0)
0
ctS
diao 6
d ia,elas 6
dia,B.O.
Diaphragm Lateral Displacement
Fig. 3. Diaphragm load-deformation schematic showing effect of incremental
strength increase.
(design basis earthquake) and MCE
(maximum considered earthquake) are
used here to refer to the seismic haz
ard levels evaluated in the research.
Because the study by Fleischman et
6 found that Zone 2 diaphragm de
al.
signs remain essentially elastic at the
DBE and Zone 2 drift performance re
mains safely within acceptable MCE
limits for all diaphragm spans studied,
the discussion will focus on Zone 4.
The objective of the initial Zone 4
seismic demand study was to deter
mine the design strengths required to
provide elastic diaphragm behavior.
The results indicated that substantial
sure elastic behavior in the MCE.
Given that the diaphragm is a portion
ered for special costs, these design
force increases were viewed as eco
nomically unattractive. Furthermore,
dia,exisiting design
performance, as the beneficial drift re
duction produced by elastic dia
phragm action virtually disappears for
high diaphragm flexibility under the
6 For these reasons, it seemed
MCE.
appropriate to pursue a design in
which elastic diaphragm behavior is
enforced only up to the DBE.
This approach, which is not strictly
speaking a capacity design approach,
is nevertheless consistent with the de
sign basis ground motion intent of
other proposed approaches.
3 Accord
’
2
ing to the study, this outcome can be
realized through modest increases in
current design forces. In fact, for
many configurations, the modification
in the UBC topped precast diaphragm
0 factor noted earlier will be seen to
be sufficient. Clearly, however, this
design approach requires the accom
modation of inelastic behavior during
an MCE event i.e., it must include
—

tail in Fleischman et al.

6 To avoid con elastic diaphragm designs were found provisions for ductility. Given the typ
fusion with the UBC, the terms DBE to be no guarantee of adequate drift ical configurations of long-floor-span

November-December 2003 51
Table 1. Limit states summarized from companion paper.
5 and diaphragm strength in describing
Limit state Action
V V
I* Combined forces
V V VV
Shear failure
2
Tension failure
3a — -
failure
3 Tension
M: Monotonic failure
C: Cyclic
4 failure
Y: Yield point
*
This failure is particular to parking structures and not discussed here (see companion 5 .
structures, including parking struc
tures, the design must also address
gravity system drift performance. The
need to address multiple objectives re
garding elastic behavior, drift perfor
mance, and ductility demand lends it—
self to concepts associated with a
performance-based design approach.
Design Approach for Iong-Span
Diaphragms Based on
Performance Requirements
The design approach proposed for
long-floor-span diaphragms in high
seismic zones employs performance-
based design concepts. Performance
requirements were created using drift
and damage acceptance criteria based
in part on a recent document for the
rehabilitation of existing structures,
the NE1-IRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA
273).° These guidelines provide the
most explicit accounting yet of ex
pected performance for diaphragms.
Two main FEMA 273 structural
performance levels exist: life safety
and collapse prevention. As such, the
following performance was selected as
the basic objective in the design ap
proach: (1) elastic diaphragm behavior
is the DBE target, while exhaustion of
the diaphragm’s probable deformation
capacity is permitted in an MCE, and
(2) gravity-system elements remote
from the lateral force-resisting system
are to remain within life-safety drift
limits for the DBE and collapse-pre
vention drift limits for an MCE. Alter
nate performance objectives are also
possible including an elastic design
option, as subsequently presented.
Appropriate design strengths were
determined by performing analyses for
various diaphragm flexibilities at in-
52
Detail Location
Tributary shear
Sub-diaphragm interfaces
reinforcement
V
web reinforcement High shear region
Welded wire High bending region
fabric
Mechanical connectors High bending region
— Chord steel — High bending region
Chord steel High bending region
Chord steel High bending region
paper
)
crementally increased strength levels
6 until the performance
over nominal
requirements defined above were met.
Note that in order to isolate the effect
of increased strength, diaphragm stiff
ness was held constant. Full details of
the process are found in Fleischman et
6 The strength meeting the perfor
al.
mance requirements, Rn,req, defines
Freq = ibRnreq, and a corresponding de
sign overstrength factor £2 = Freq/Fpx
(see Fig. 3). The £2 factors are with re
spect to the 1997 UBC7 adjusted
from the 1994 UBC” used in the
research program (F l.4F). The
factor remains 0.9 for reasons to be
shown later.
Using this approach, the following
design recommendations are made for
flexible diaphragm structures in high
seismic regions: (I) provision of a
constant strength pattern within the
diaphragm based on the top-level
(maximum) lateral force, in the
7 (2) use of design equa
existing code;
tions expressing the overstrength fac
tor £2 as a function of diaphragm flex
ibility and story height for wall
structures; (3) an overstrength factor
for frame lateral systems of £2 = 1
provided the first criterion is met; (4)
the inclusion of the elastic deflection
contribution of the diaphragm in lat
eral force-resisting systems that are
drift controlled, as is typical of frame
structures; and (5) a restriction on cer
tain building configurations, compa
rable to the longest-span parking
structures of recent construction, as
adequate drift performance is not at
tainable regardless of design strength
increase. These recommendations
form the basis for the design proce
dure presented in the paper.
The £2 factors capture the important
interrelation of diaphragm flexibility
the seismic performance of long-span
diaphragm structures. These factors
are employed in the design procedure
to produce the desired DBE elastic be
havior and MCE drift performance.
The use of these factors will be mean
ingless, however, if nonductile limit
states circumvent the desired di
aphragm behavior. Thus, a detailing
philosophy compatible with achieving
ductile limit states is needed, as de
scribed next.
DUCTILE DETAILING OF
PRECAST DIAPHRAGMS
Diaphragms are not generally con
sidered to be part of a structure’s pri
mary energy-dissipating system.
Hence, special detailing requirements
have not been a traditional part of di
aphragm design. The basic perfor
mance objective of the approach pro
posed here, however, does require
detailing for the MCE event.
Nonetheless, the concepts about to be
discussed should not be viewed as
limited to the domain of a perfor
mance-based design.
Ductility demands, intended or not,
can occur in the diaphragm during a
seismic event. It may be prudent even
in an elastic diaphragm design to an
ticipate ductility demand rather than
count blindly on elastic response. As
an example, the New Zealand Code,25
while promoting elastic response
through capacity design concepts, still
recognizes that localized ductility de
mands may be difficult to avoid in cer
31 Re
tain regions of the diaphragm.
gardless of the intent of the approach,
then, a viable diaphragm design
should promote the formation of a de
sirable mechanism in the event of an
overload. It is stressed that diaphragm
ductility is being promoted to prevent
brittle failure, not for energy dissipa
tion.
Force-Based Versus
Deformation-Based Actions
The desired outcome for the di
aphragm in an overload situation is a
ductile mechanism i.e., one in which
—
large inelastic deformations will be ac
commodated prior to failure. Of the
PCI JOUINAL
failure modes identified in the com
panion paper
5 and repeated in Table 1,
only the chord reinforcement flexural
limit state is fully ductile. In contrast,
for standard web reinforcement, the
shear limit state can be considered
nonductile i.e., it will involve a near
—
immediate loss of load-carrying ca
pacity. Such local failure of the floor
system likely ends the diaphragm’s
ability to provide global force transfer,
and could lead to a progressive col
lapse of the entire structure.
An essential detailing requirement
for precast concrete diaphragms,
therefore, is the elimination of non-
ductile failure modes involving the
web reinforcement. However, the ten
sion limit state for web reinforcement
can also be nonductile. The detailing
approach to address this failure mode
will likely depend on the design intent.
To arrive at a consistent detailing
approach, it may be instructive to con
sider the nonductile limit states as
those caused by force-based actions
and the ductile limit states as those
caused by deformation-based ac
30 These concepts are readily il
tions.
lustrated in Fig. 4, a representation of
a topped diaphragm pushover curve
from the companion paper 5 with limit
state events indicated on the figure
using the numbering system in Table
I. Solid horizontal lines indicate
force-based limit states; solid vertical
lines indicate deformation-based limit
states. This figure will be used in the
following section for evaluating the
limit states identified in Table I in
terms of the target seismic demands
(indicated by the diamond markers).
The importance of the distinction be
tween force-based and deformation-
based limit states will become evident
in these evaluations.
Elimination of Non-Ductile
Shear Failure Mode
Limit State 2, the web reinforce
ment shear limit state, is caused by a
force-based action that is, it occurs
— the load is not expected to result in ul
when the diaphragm load reaches a
critical value. The pushover analyses
indicate that this nonductile failure can
occur at load levels below the design
strength (indicated by F ) due to the
2 failure becomes a possible outcome.
combination of tension and shear act-
November-December 2003
Diaphragm
Load
L_mJ c
2
Fig. 4. Load-deformation schematic showing precast diaphragm limit states and
target demand.
ing on the web reinforcement and top
ping mesh.
5 The force combinations
obtained in these analyses were in
large part a consequence of complex
load paths due to openings present in
diaphragms, in this case parking struc
ture ramp cavities. It could, therefore,
be argued that force combinations
should be addressed on a case-by-case
basis, possibly designing irregular
floor plans using a rational approach
such as the strut-and-tie method.
31
However, it is as important to realize
that even in cases where the shear
limit state does not occur prematurely
— for instance, in a simple diaphragm
where force combinations are absent
(indicated by F) it still will coincide
— the appropriate force associated with
with the diaphragm nominal design
strength (R
,).
1 event identified in the pushover
This situation occurs because de
signs have traditionally employed the
same strength reduction factors () for
the web reinforcement as the chord
steel. This practice would be harmless
for wind design, for instance, where
timate states. However, since no as
surance exists that diaphragm loads
will remain below design strength in
an earthquake, a nonductile diaphragm
The manner in which to obviate a
Diaphragm Deformation
force-based failure is to increase the
nonductile component’s strength to a
level greater than the forces that can
occur. This objective can be readily
accomplished with a capacity design.
Used here, capacity design refers to
the strength of the web reinforcement
relative to the chord reinforcement;
this is quite different from previous
discussions where it referred to the
strength of the diaphragm relative to
that of the lateral force-resisting sys
tem.
For capacity design, the web rein
forcement should possess sufficient
shear strength to develop the flexural
strength of the diaphragm. Selection of
this flexural strength is needed. The
5 with regard to flexural
studies
strength was the monotonic deforma
tion capacity of the chord reinforce
ment (indicated in Fig. 4 by Point 4M);
for reference, the initiation of chord
steel yielding is also indicated (Point
y). Given the nature of seismic load
4
ing, a more realistic measure of the di
aphragm maximum load is obtained by
modifying the monotonic value to a
cyclic deformation capacity.
An estimate of the cyclic deforma
tion capacity is indicated by Point 4.
53
Fig. 5. Alternate performance objectives: (a) limited; (b) enhanced; (c) elastic; (d) compliant.
This point is approximate, obtained
through classical strain-based cyclic
failure techniques applied to cycle-
counting data averaged over the suite of
32 A successful design
seismic analyses.
for the flexural (deformation based)
limit state will maintain öMCE < ö. As
4 represents a realistic estimate
such, F
of the largest diaphragm force likely to
develop in the diaphragm. An appropri
ate design force for the web reinforce
ment, therefore, is the maximum di
aphragm shear associated with F4. This
capacity design for the web reinforce
ment is included as a standard detailing
component in the design procedure.
Web Reinforcement Tensile
Deformation Capacity
Tensile deformation capacity is not
currently considered in the design of
54
shear reinforcement, 8 though clearly
the bending of the diaphragm subjects
this reinforcement to tensile deforma
tion. These strain-compatibility defor
mations do not become significant
until the chord steel yields (Point 4y)
and significant debonding initiates.
Thus, another consequence of di
aphragm loads reaching design
strength is that the web reinforcement
must meet tensile deformation de
mands compatible with the achieve
ment of the flexural limit state. As it
stands, standard web reinforcement,
intended simply for shear transfer, can
instead fail from exhaustion of its ten
sile deformation capacity (Limit State
3) in regions where the chord steel
yields.
Limit State 3 refers to the mechani
cal connector tension limit state; the
welded wire fabric tension limit state
is denoted as Point 3a. The pushover
5 involved designs with typi
analyses
cal reinforcement at the time: 6 x 6 in.
(152 x 152 mm) welded wire fabric
and standard flange-to-flange mechan
ical connectors. The welded wire fab
ric possesses poorer ductility charac
teristics and thus fails at a smaller
tensile deformation demand ( 3a vs.
6
53). Limit State 3a can be considered
force-based; Limit State 3 is essen
tially deformation-based, though of
limited ductility.’
9
3 re
The recent code modification
quiring 10 x 10 in. (254 x 254 mm)
welded wire fabric in lieu of 6 x 6 in.
(152 x 152 mm) mesh likely places the
welded wire fabric deformation capac
ity near that of a standard mechanical
connector. This modification has merit
in that it extends the upper plateau of
response (see curved dashed line to
PCI JOURNAL
 Point 3’ in Fig. 4). This modification
will be quite effective for an event that
produces seismic demands between
3a and 63’. However, for a more se
3 The Limit State 3 DBE performance
vere event, the limited-ductility mesh
will still simply fail (at 63’) with little
plastic force redistribution, and Limit
State 3 will occur at essentially the
same global diaphragm deformation.
More research is required to fully
evaluate the effectiveness of this de
sign modification, likely in conjunc
tion with improved connectors
° as
2 3a, 63’) nor standard mechanical con
discussed later.
The ramifications of the web rein
forcement tension limit state should be
clearly understood. First of all, the
flexural capacity of the diaphragm will
immediately decrease (Point 3a to
Point 3). Since the contribution of web
reinforcement to the diaphragm’s flex
ural strength is not typically included
in design, the force range to F3a
can be considered reserve strength;
thus, this force loss is not necessarily
of great concern. However, the shear
capacity of this portion of the dia
phragm will also diminish.
It can be argued that loss of web re
inforcement in high bending regions
of diaphragms has minimal conse
quence since this region (typically
midspan) theoretically attracts low
shear force (see Fig. 2). However, it
should be recognized that irregular
floor plans, end restraint, or lateral
loading from any seismic attack angle
other than purely transverse to the
long dimension may produce signifi
cant shear forces in high bending re
gions of the diaphragm;
5 high collec
tor actions can likewise produce
significant tension forces on the web
28
reinforcement.
As such, the strictest detailing ap
proach would not permit localized ten
sion failure in the diaphragm web
under any circumstances; the least
stringent approach would permit this
failure in any seismic event, counting
on different locations for maximum
shear and flexure as implied by the
simple beam representation shown in
Fig. 2. A basic performance target for
Limit State 3 is chosen between these
extremes, using the FEMA 273 ex
pected condition for precast di
aphragms as a guide: No web rein
forcement tension failure is to occur in
November-December 2003
a DBE event; localized web reinforce
ment failure can be accepted in high
bending regions for the MCE.
target is implicitly satisfied by the £2
factors because elastic diaphragm be
havior is the overall DBE target of the
basic design procedure (green dia
mond marker in Fig. 4). The Limit
State 3 MCE performance target, lo
calized web failure, is a likely out
come as neither welded wire fabric
6
( jective is shown in Fig. 5c, where suf
nectors (33) possess sufficient ductility
to meet the MCE tensile deformation
demands required of the web rein
forcement at the overstrengths pro
posed (yellow diamond marker in Fig.
4). However, alternative performance
objectives may be chosen by modify
ing the web reinforcement detailing
procedure. These alternatives can in
clude elastic design or the use of ten
sion-compliant web reinforcement,
and though not chosen for the basic
design procedure, are commented
upon next. Of course, any detailing
option pertaining to Limit State 3 is
only meaningful if Limit State 2 has
been obviated.
Alternative Performance
Objectives Including Elastic Design
Fig. 5 shows a design schematic
outlining four alternatives to the stan
dard performance objective: (1) a lim
ited performance objective (Fig. 5a);
(2) an enhanced performance objec
tive (Fig. 5b); (3) an elastic design
(Fig. 5c); and (4) the use of tension
compliant web reinforcement details
(Fig. 5d). These objectives can be de
signed for through calibration of the
diaphragm overstrength (2) factors.
The values required for these alternate
performance objectives can easily be
calibrated in the same fashion as was
done for the £2 factors used in the
basic design procedure.
6 the design force increases required to
Limited Performance Objective
— A limited performance objective is
realized by adjusting the DBE target
to the web reinforcement tensile defor
mation capacity and the MCE target to
the chord steel cyclic ductility (see
Fig. 5a).
Enhanced Performance Objective
— An enhanced performance objec
tive is realized by setting the MCE tar
get to the web reinforcement tensile
deformation capacity (see Fig. Sb).
Elastic Design — The reserve flex
ural strength provided by the welded
wire fabric and the mechanical con
nectors are typically ignored in design.
Clearly, one option is to include the
contribution of the web reinforcement
to the design flexural strength in an at
tempt to keep the diaphragm elastic in
an MCE event. This performance ob
ficient web reinforcement is provided
such that the elastic flexural capacity
(indicated in Fig. 4 as F a) is never
3
reached. The elastic approach is,
therefore, a force-based design.
The approach involves a consider
ably higher diaphragm design force
than the basic design procedure (2e).
However, the diaphragm design
strength will also be markedly higher
when augmented by the web rein
forcement contribution. Nakaki pro
vides a procedure to calculate this
higher strength for precast diaphragms
containing continuous or discrete web
2
reinforcement.
A consequence of the elastic design
is that in raising the flexural strength,
all diaphragm forces become signifi
cantly higher, including the shear
forces. Therefore, care should be taken
to include the combined effect of the
diaphragm shear forces (and gravity
loads) in the design of the web rein
forcement. Some risk is involved in
the elastic approach because if the en
ergy imparted to the diaphragm during
any earthquake pulse is greater than
the cross-hatched region shown in Fig.
5c, the elastic behavior will be lost.
However, it is plausible that the result
ing response will not violate the en
hanced performance objective.
Tension Compliant Web Rein
forcement Details — In the event lo
calized web failure is unacceptable but
eliminate this failure mode are unde
sired, new forms of web reinforcement
could be specified. In this approach,
the key feature of the web reinforce
ment is tensile deformation capacity,
not tensile strength. Mechanical con
nectors with improved tensile defor
mation compliance have been under
20 Use of these connec
investigation.
55
Table 2. Diaphragm elastic rigidity properties.
I -
t
Connector
Topped diaphragm
None #3
H E,(ksi)
(ksi)
1
G
1400
1150
1725
1200
1925
1250
Standard connector, not tension compliant connectors such as the JVT Vector, etc.
t Based on uniform spacing of 4 ft (1.2 m).
SRF: Stiffness reduction factor from initial elastic slope to secant stiffness at nominal design strength.
§ AR = Aspect Ratio.
Note: 1 ksi = 6895 MPa.
tors has been envisioned primarily for
pretopped construction;
2 their use in
topped construction would require
consideration of the welded wire fab
ric contribution. The special connec
tors would only be required in high in-
plane bending regions, and then only
placed between certain precast units
(e.g., at column lines where spandrel
beams terminate). Provided the con
nectors possess sufficient deformation
capacity to meet the local demands as
sociated with 6MCE (see Fig. 5d), de
signs could specify the basic over-
strength factors without the potential
for loss of web reinforcement.
SEISMIC DESIGN
PROCEDURE FOR
LONG-SPAN
PRECAST DIAPHRAGMS
A seismic design procedure for
long-span precast diaphragms is pre
sented. The procedure is intended to
realize the basic performance objec
tive proposed in this paper. The steps
in the procedure include (1) determi
nation of the diaphragm elastic flexi
bility, (2) selection of the diaphragm
design strength, and (3) specification
of the web reinforcement detailing re
quirements.
Elastic Flexibility Calculation for
Long-Span Precast Diaphragms
The design procedure requires a di
aphragm flexibility index. The index,
termed diaphragm drift ratio, or /3,
represents diaphragm deformation ex
pressed as a percentage of allowable
drift:
/3 = (4iiaoTh)1Pau
where ödiao is the maximum in-plane
diaphragm deflection at nominal de
56
where Pi is a tributary area factor, L,
is the maximum clear distance be
SRF
Pretopped diaphragni
#3 #4 #5 3
SRF tween the vertical elements of the lat
#4 #5
eral force-resisting system, ab is an ef
2150
1300
=AR
1
C
1
5 5
=057
2
C
°
2
950
3(10
1275
450
1600
580
=O.8
1
C
=0.67
2
C fective bending span coefficient, and
E and Gaff = CGei are effec
Eeff = C
1
tive elastic moduli determined from
5 and repeated in
the pushover analyses
Table 2.
The Pi factor is needed for floor
plans comprised of several portions or
sign strength h is floor-to-floor “subdiaphragms;” for regular floor
height, and is the allowable drift, plans it can be assigned a value of
assigned a value of 0.02 radians, the unity. The ab factor estimates the span
transient drift angle anticipated for between points of inflection and thus
concrete frames at the life safety struc would require an elastic analysis for
30 The value is
tural performance level. calculation in irregular floor plan
applicable to wall and frame lateral cases. (Values for parking structures
systems alike because /3 has perti are given in the companion paper;5
nence to the drift of the gravity sys they can be taken conservatively as
tem. The values and 6djcio are in unity.) The use of these factors is
dicated in Fig. 3. shown in the design example, Ap
The diaphragm drift ratio is used to pendix B. In Eq. (6), the diaphragm
select appropriate design forces in the dimensions b, d, and L, are to be pro
procedure. The ratio is also used to vided in feet, is used without the
provide an upper limit on diaphragm overstrength factor £2, and 0.9. Eq.
flexibility. This limit is meaningful (5) then gives 5 djuo in units of inches.
since the code-imposed 3:1 aspect Note that 5djao is an elastic diaphragm
ratio limit ignores the fact that di deflection at the design force level
aphragm flexibility is a result of both (see Fig. 3) and is not to be confused
span and aspect ratio. Diaphragm con with the maximum diaphragm deflec
figurations possessing a flexibility tion anticipated in a severe seismic
index /3 greater than 0.4 are not rec event (e.g., yellow diamond marker in
ommended for high seismic zones due Fig. 4), whose value may be consider
to the potential for excessive gravity ably larger.
6 In such cases, major re
system drifts.
design should be performed by adding Diaphragm Design Strength for
lateral system elements to the interior High Seismic Zones
of the floor plan, thus reducing di
In accordance with the basic perfor
aphragm flexibility within safe limits
mance objective (B.O.), an appropriate
(see Appendix B).
diaphragm design force level is deter
The diaphragm elastic deflection
mined by selecting the larger of the
can be expressed as:
values producing elastic DBE behav
ior and acceptable MCE drift perfor
diao
8 = [ffh 0
+ffJf (5)
30 For wall structures, di
mance.
aphragms with a flexibility index /3 <
where the diaphragm distributed load
0.25 were shown to be controlled by
0 at nominal design strength
f and
the former, while diaphragms with a
the flexibility factors for diaphragm
flexibility index of /3> 0.25 are con
flexure and shear, respectively, are:
trolled by the latter.
6
Içb)
0
(F Using the design equations devel
—
1
fo-p oped from this work, overstrength fac
tors appear in Table 3a for varying
)4
(abLCI story height and diaphragm flexibility.
6
if X)
(4) Eeff
3
d These values are based on a factor of
0.9 for flexure for reasons that will be-
=O.O2SOL_- (6) come apparent in the detailing proce
ff dure. For reference, configurations at
PCI JOURNAL
 Table 3. Overstrength values for different numbers of stories and diaphragm flexibility: (a) B.O.* (b) elastic.
(a) 2 (b) £2,
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
- Stories -

I - 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 155 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.7 1.6
2 1.2 1.3 1.45 1.7 1.85 2.3 2.25 2.15 2.05 1.95
3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.95 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3
4 1.6 1.7 1.95 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.75 2.6
5 1.8 1.95 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.45 - 3.35 — 3.25 3.15 2.9
6 2.0 2.15 2.45 2.8 3.0 3.8 -- 3.65 3.5 3.35 3.2
Basic performance objective.

which the 1997 code change (4) = 0.6)
alone meets the proposed design
strength appear in boldface type.
The overstrength values are applied
to the top-level equivalent lateral force
of the existing code;
7 this diaphragm
design force is to be used at all levels
of the structure. The 2 factors also
meet the chord steel ductility require
ment under the MCE; however, local
ized web reinforcement tension failure
may occur in an MCE event if stan
dard connectors are used. For refer
ence, the overstrength factors required
for elastic design, Lie, are shown in
Table 3b. For frame structures £2 =1,
provided a constant diaphragm force
pattern is used.
Ductile Detailing of Diaphragms in
High Seismic Zones
A capacity design of the web rein
forcement is enforced to prevent a
nonductile diaphragm shear failure.
This design is realized by lowering the
web reinforcement 4) factor with re
spect to the chord steel 4) factor. The
pushover analyses indicate that the
ratio of maximum shear force at Limit
State 4 to the design shear force is ap
proximated through a best-fit line by
the expression:
= 1.42— 0.5k (7)
‘1es
It is proposed, therefore, to use a 4)
factor equal to 0.6 for the web rein
forcement (and for the same reasons,
the collector steel and wall anchor
ages) while restoring the 4) factor for
the chord steel to 0.9 (i.e., 4) 0.6
and 4)” = 0.9, respectively). The 4)
factors are intended to be used in com
bination with the £2 factors for Zone 4
Table 4. Global ductility and local deformation demand as a function of
diaphragm flexibility
/3 0.2
5, (in.) 0.66
-
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm.
and alone for Zone 2. The ratio
= 1.5 is greater than any value
possible in Eq. (7), implying that the
web reinforcement will possess suffi
cient overstrength to fully develop the
precast diaphragm flexural strength.
Note that applying different 4) factors
to the chord and collectors is likely
tenable only for large aspect ratio
floor systems, such as parking struc
tures, where seismic loads in one di
rection will control.
The capacity design approach may
not be sufficient for cases in which
maximum shear occurs in the di
aphragm high-bending region since
web reinforcement would fail due to
compatibility-induced tension defor
mation regardless of shear strength. In
these cases, the elastic design ap
proach or the enhanced objective
seems most viable. The web reinforce
ment should be designed for
jv + t. In the absence of an
analysis, it seems reasonable to use
L = -fv i.e., to assume the need to
—
transfer a component of tension equal
to the design shear force. The use of
tension compliant web reinforcement
eliminates this particular concern.
Table 4 indicates the tensile deforma
tion capacity 6 required for this spe
cial web reinforcement in an MCE
event.
The shear-friction contribution of
welded wire fabric should not be in
cluded in high in-plane bending re
gions of the diaphragm unless the
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
ft63 0.61
- 0.5K 0.55
elastic design or enhanced objective is
selected. The high in-plane bending
regions typically occur within the
quarter-points of the diaphragm bend
ing spans. in low in-plane bending re
gions, the shear-friction contribution
of the welded wire fabric can be in
cluded.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results presented here,
the following recommendations are
made regarding the seismic design of
long floor span structure diaphragms:
1. Precast concrete diaphragms in
moderate and low seismic zones are
likely adequate as currently designed
and configured. The longest span
parking structure currently constructed
seems viable.
2. Long-span precast concrete di
aphragms in high seismic zones re
quire new designs. A possible pro
cedure has been outlined in this paper.
A design example using the procedure
appears in Appendix B.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Research funding was provided by
PCI through a 1996 Daniel P. Jenny
Fellowship. The authors are grateful
for this support. The authors also ex
press their appreciation to the PCI
JOURNAL reviewers for their
thoughtful and constructive comments.

November-December 2003 57
 REFERENCES
1. Iverson, J. K., and Hawkins, N. M., “Performance of
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Building Structures During
Northridge Earthquake,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 39, No. 2,
March-April 1994, pp. 38-55.
2. Nakaki, S. D., “Design Guidelines for Precast and Cast-in-
Place Concrete Diaphragms,” Technical Report, EERI Profes
sional Fellowship, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Berkeley, CA, April 2000.
3. Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K., “Proposed Revisions to
1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regula
tions for Precast Concrete Structures, Part 1: Introduction,”
PCI JOURNAL, V. 45, No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 74-77.
4. Ghosh, S. K., and Cleland, N. M., “Untopped Precast Concrete
Diaphragms in High-Seismic Applications,” PCI JOURNAL,
V. 47, No. 6, November-December 2002, pp. 94-99.
5. Farrow, K. T., and Fleischman, R. B., “Effect of Dimension
and Detail on the Capacity of Precast Concrete Parking Struc
ture Diaphragms,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 48, No. 5, September-
October 2003, pp. 46-61.
6. Fleischman, R. B., Farrow, K. T., and Eastman, K., “Seismic
Response of Perimeter Lateral-System Structures with Highly
Flexible Diaphragms,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18, No. 2, May
2002, pp. 25 1-286.
7. ICBO, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
8. PCI Ad Hoc Committee on Precast Walls, “Design for Lateral
Force Resistance with Precast Concrete Shear Walls,” PCI
JOURNAL, V. 42, No. 5, September-October 1997, pp. 44-64.
9. BSSC, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regu
lations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Parts 1 and 2,
FEMA 368 and FEMA 369, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC,
2001.
10. ICC, International Building Code 2000, International Code
Council, Falls Church, VA, 2000.
11. ICBO, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1994.
12. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete,
Fifth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
IL, 1999.
13. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc
tural Concrete (ACI 318-02),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
14. Bockemohle, L. W., “A Practical Paper on Design of Topped
Concrete Diaphragms and Precast Concrete Structures,” Pro
ceedings, Workshop on Design of Prefabricated Concrete
Buildings for Earthquake Loads, Applied Technology Council,
Washington, DC, 1981.
15. fib Commission 7 Task Group, “State-of-the-Art Report on the
Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Building Structures,”
Commission 7 Task Group, Fbdération Internationale du
Béton, R. Park (Editor), London, United Kingdom, 2002.
16. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Ad
Hoc Committee on Precast Concrete, Committee Correspon
dence, 1994.
17. Ghosh, S. K., Nakaki, S. D., and Krishnan K., “Precast Struc
tures in Regions of High Seismicity: 1997 UBC Design Provi
58
sions,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 42, No. 6, November-December
1997, pp. 76-93.
18. Wood, S. L., Stanton, I. F., and Hawkins, N. M., “New Seis
mic Design Provisions for Diaphragms in Precast Concrete
Parking Structures,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 45, No. 1, January-
February 2000, pp. 50-65.
19. Pincheira, J. A., Oliva, M. 0., and Kusumo-Rahardjo, F. I.,
“Tests on Double Tee Flange Connectors Subjected to Mono-
tonic and Cyclic Loading,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 43, No. 3,
May-June 1998, pp. 82-96.
20. Oliva, M. G., “Testing of the JVI Flange Connector for Precast
Concrete Double-Tee Systems,” Structures and Materials Test
ing Report, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI, June 2000.
21. Rodriguez, M. E., Restrepo, J. I., and Carr, A. J., “Earthquake
Induced Floor Horizontal Accelerations in Buildings,” Earth
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, V. 31, No. 3,
March 2002, pp. 693-7 18.
22. ACT Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc
tural Concrete (ACI 3 18-99),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
23. ACI-ASCE Committee 442, “Response of Concrete Buildings
to Lateral Forces,” ACT 442R-88, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1988.
24. Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applica
tions to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., Engle
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
25. Standards New Zealand, “Concrete Structures Standard: The
Design of Concrete Structures” and “Commentary on the De
sign of Concrete Structures,” NZS 3101, Parts 1 and 2, 1995,
and “Amendment No. 1 to NZS 3101,” 1997, Wellington, New
Zealand.
26. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Rein
forced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY, 1992.
27. Fleischman, R. B., and Farrow, K.T., “Dynamic Response of
Perimeter Lateral-System Structures with Flexible Di
aphragms,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
V. 30, No. 5, May 2001, pp. 745-763.
28. 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.
29. Fleischman, R. B., Sause, R., Rhodes, A. B., and Pessiki, S.,
“Seismic Behavior of Precast Parking Structure Diaphragms,”
Proceedings, XIV ASCE Structures Congress, Building an
International Community of Structural Engineers, S. K. Ghosh
(Editor), V. 2, Chicago, IL, April 15-18, 1996, pp. 1139-1146.
30. BSSC, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 273, Building Seismic Safety Council, Fed
eral Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 1997.
31. Bull, D. K., “Diaphragms,” Seismic Design of Reinforced Con
crete Structures, Technical Report No. 20, New Zealand Con
crete Society, 1997.
32. Farrow, K. T., “Dynamic Response of Perimeter Lateral-Sys
tem Structures with Flexible Diaphragms,” Master’s Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, December 2000.
PCI JOURNAL
 APPENDIX A — NOTATION
b = longitudinal dimension of floor in plan = diaphragm nominal strength at level x
Ca, C = seismic coefficients related to seismic zone Rn,req diaphragm nominal strength required to meet
and soil characteristics performance
, C
1
C 2 = stiffness reduction terms tsjab = topping slab thickness
d = depth (in plan) of subdiaphragm = tension force acting on one mechanical con
d’ = effective depth of subdiaphragm nector
Leff = effective Young’s modulus T = structure fundamental period of vibration
Eet = elastic Young’s modulus shear force acting on one mechanical connector
ffb flexibility factor for bending V = design base shear

ff, = flexibility factor for shear Vdec = design diaphragm shear

= diaphragm distributed load at design strength V = ultimate diaphragm shear
= total force acting on one mechanical connector Vd = diaphragm in-plane shear at joint

f = welded wire fabric yield stress W = total seismic weight

1
F = equivalent lateral force at level i 1
w = portion of W assigned to level i
= diaphragm design force at level x = diaphragm and tributary seismic weight at
F = diaphragm design force at level x, 1994 Uni level x
form Building Code ab = effective bending span coefficient
F, = diaphragm design force at level x, 1997 Uni /3 = diaphragm flexibility ratio
form Building Code diao
3 = maximum diaphragm deflection at
Freq = design force required to meet performance 3
1 11cE diaphragm displacement demand
F = reinforcemen t steel yield stress maximum tension deformation demand on me
FDBE = diaphragm force demand chanical connectors
, F, F3a, F = forces associated with limit states
2
F 4 = displacement capacities
ö
,

Geff = effective shear modulus £2 = proposed diaphragm overstrength factor

Get = elastic shear modulus e

2
£ = diaphragm overstrength factor, elastic
h story height = overstrength factors used by others
I building importance factor = code strength reduction factor
= diaphragm moment of inertia at joint = FEMA 273 allowable design level drift angle
au
L = transverse length of floor in plan limit
1
L = clear distance between lateral system elements = proposed strength reduction factor for flexure

Pi = tributary distributed load factor dia

= proposed strength reduction factor for shear
Qd = diaphragm first moment of area at joint p = steel reinforcement ratio
R = capacity reduction coefficient

November-December 2003 59
 APPENDIX B — DESIGN EXAMPLE
The following is a design example for a three-story park Step 2: Calculate diaphragm flexibility ratio, /3.
ing structure in a high seismic zone. The floor plan and ele A topped system with a 3 in. (76.2 mm) deep cast-in-place
vation are shown in Figs. Bla and Blb, respectively. The slab and No. 3 mechanical connectors spaced at 4 ft (1.22
structure has a total seismic weight of 21,684 kips (96.5 m) is to be used. Using Eqs. (5) and (6). and stiffness values
MN) and diaphragm seismic weight of 7228 kips (32.2 from Table 2, the diaphragm elastic displacement can be cal
MN).* In accordance with the 1997 UBC Equivalent Lateral
culated as follows (the subscript “3” indicates top level of
7 the design values are as follows:
Force procedure, structure; P = dia represents the portion of weight tributary
to one diaphragm “segment” (see Fig. Bla); and ab =0.88
Seismic design characteristics (exterior wall) as described in the companion paper:
5
• Seismic zone factor: Z = 0.4
[Table 16-I: Zone 4]
• Soil profile type: SD c ( 320
5d \5x63J
<l.0 Thus C =1.0
I
[Table 16-J: stiff soil]
• Importance factor: I 1.0 ff=CIE(=(1.0)(1725)=l725ksi(11890MPa)
5
E
[Table 16-K: std. occupancy] 1 = (0.57)(1200) = 684 ksi (4720 MPa)
G, = C
G
2
• Near-source factors: N, 1.0, N 1.0
5
[Tables 16-S, T: seismic source A; distance to I0
source >15 km] L ..haJ
• Seismic 0 = 0.44, C,, = 0.64
coefficient: C 63 ](2l69)
_(
[Tables 16-Q, R: using Z = 0.4] 320x189) (0.9)
• Structure period: T= 0.16 sec.
= 2.51 kips/ft (36.6 kN/m)
[Eq. (30-8)]
• Capacity reduction coefficient, R = 5.5 4
(ahLS.l) [(0.88)(320)]
[Table 16-N: RC shear wall] 1 = 0.03 1
if = 0.031
(63)(1725)

Step 1: Calculate forces. = 0.45 ft / kip-in. (7.832 x 1 0 rn/N-mm)

(320)2
Nominal base shear [Eqs. (30-4) and (30-5)]: if = 0.025—— = 0.025
dG (63)(684)
(0.64)(1.0)
(21,684) = 0.059 ft / kip-in. (1.027x l0” rn/N-mm)
RT (5.5)(0.159)
= 15,873 kips (70.6 MN) 0 =[0.45
=[if +ff]f + 0.0591(2.51)
v = 2.5CaI
w = 2.5(0.44)(1 .0) (21 684) = 1.28 in. (32.5 mm)
R (5.5)
= 4337 kips (19.3 MN) = governs Now, calculating /3 using Eq. (4):
(“5dia 1.28(
Nominal story shear, top story [Eq. (30-15)1: h 053
)1Ox12)
(0.02)
= (V—I)w
h = (4337—0)(7228)(30)
3
F The /3 value for this diaphragm is greater than 0.4 and,
. w,
h,
1 (7228)(1 0 + 20 + 30)
therefore, the configuration is not allowed for Zone 4. As a
remedy, the lateral system elements (in this case, shear
= 2169 kips (9.65 MN)
walls) are relocated to the interior of the floor plan such that
they flank the ramp/landing interface as shown in Fig. Bla.
Nominal diaphragm force, top floor [Eq. (33-1)]: The revised calculations for /3 are:
== 224
C =O.7ll
Sd 5x63}
0+ (2169)
= 3
‘=
(7228) Eeff = CiEei = (0.71 1)(1725)
wpi = (7228)
i=3 = 1227 ksi (8460 MPa)
2169 kips (9.65 MN)
4
(abLCl) [(0.94)(224)]
ifb=0.031 =0.031
Eeff
3
d (63) (1 227)
$
The parking structure top level has less mass than a typical level. The factor 2 is = 0.198 ft/kip-in. (3.446xl0 rn/N-mm)
applied to full (typical) floor mass.

60 PCI JOURNAL
 1 after relocation of shear walil
Lc

Relocated shear wall

7
:
1
nz::
4 ::z:
:::
I I I

I i
11 ,I 111111 I I II
I I 11111 I 111111 I I ii
11111 II 1111 I

11111 :11:11 I I 63 ft
I FIll I 11111 I I ii
11111 { I 111111 I I I
11111 III 11111111 III Ii IIj II II ii

30ft
I:
-J-
9
:
I
I
.1
ll
JJt;_t4JL’L’n
III Ii
11111111

ii I Ii I
II (11111
_L1J1J L1

-
‘I
i
-r- ,
dlii

i
ii

ii
—

‘I’ III ililillilli

1111111111111
liihlii 11111:
1
i
I
I
i i

Ii I
a= 189ft I I
I
4
r
1
8
I
’ \’Ir”t’
i1i: 1:::::
liii I I
63ft
I 1111111 i
1 III 1111 I
IIi11’111I1’I11ij1’
JLLJ —

LiJ-JLLLLiLtitJ_J4iJL
-

-
1
h
I 1111111 il liii I II
Ii I
I I! I I
I 111111111111
III! Iii! III!
II
II Ii
II

I I
I
II
I
I
II
Diaphragm Segment
I ilil ii Ii I II I
: I II
d = 63 ft
I 1111111 il TIll Iii I I II
II liii I I I II
I I I II
-I I
:: ::

66 ft
•1 32 ft

(a)

Lci = b = 320 ft

3rd Lvl

2nd LvI
1st Lvi

(b)

Fig. WI. Precast parkiRg structure for design example: (a) Floor plan; (b) Elevation.

1.48. Therefore, the diaphragm design force for all floor 1ev-
if, = 0.025—-_ = 0.025 (224) els is:
dGeff (63)(684)
= 0.029 ft/kip-in. (5.047 x i0
5 rn/N-mm) Fijes 3 =(1.48)(2169)
=QF,,
div = [fib + filL = [0.198 + O.029](2.5 1) =32lOkips(14.3MN)
0.572 in. (14.5 mm) 3
p,];;,
—
63
= (1.48)(3 ‘k2169
= (b)’
fdev
0.572 N 20x 189)
= = 3.34 kip/ft (48.7 kN/m)
5= (0.02)
= 0.238

Diaphragm internal forces for shear walls on interior col

Step 3: Calculate diaphragm design forces.
For /3 = 0.238 and a three-story structure, interpolating
Table 3a returns a diaphragm overstrength factor, £2, of
umn lines can be calculated according to procedures pro
vided in the PCI Handbook.’
2 This procedure conservatively
treats the clear sub-diaphragm span between the shear walls
as a simple beam (here used with a,,) and overhangs as can-

November-December 2003 61
2 An elastic finite element analysis can provide im
tilevers.’ Mdia
5 The design forces are as follows:
proved values. =(0.l2xl.96)=0.23
+J’/Iaia
Maximum sub-diaphragm positive moment:
Thus, taking shear-friction into account for this low in-
2
Lles(abLcl) 3.34(0.94x224)
2 —

plane bending region, the nominal shear strength of the di

+M
—

8 8— aphragm topping slab with 3.5 x 3.5 wwf (70 ksi, 483 MPa)
= 18,510 kip-ft (25.1 MN-rn) = governs spaced at 6 in. (152 mm) is:
bVSf = bPJyts1ab = 0.6(0.00154)(70)(3)(12)

Maximum sub-diaphragm negative moment: =2.33kips!ft(34kN/m)

= 3.34(48)2 Thus, the required nominal shear strength for the mechan
=
Mdza ical connectors is:
2 2
= 3848 kip-ft (5.22 MN-rn) Vco,rn = Vdia Vsf= 5.94—2.33
= 3.61 kips/ft (52.7 kN/m)
Step 4: Design the flexural reinforcement. Maximum sub-diaphragm shear in region of high in-plane
Assuming that the centroid of chord steel is 1.5 ft (0.46 bending (taken at quarter point):
m) from the exterior face of the panel:
= 3.34(224)
dia
17 = 187 kips (832 kN)
Maximum sub-diaphragm tensile force:
= +M = (18,510) Maximum shear force per foot of panel joint (counting on
a = 309 kips (1.37 MN)
(60) zero shear friction):
Required chord steel reinforcement:
=
“dia — (309) Vdia = --
= 2.97 kips/ft (43.3 kNIm)
Asreqcho,
—

— diaF — (0.9)(60)
Unit shear in low in-plane bending region [3.61 kips/ft
) r 10 No. 7 bars
= 5.72 sq in. (3690 mm
2
(52.7 kNIm)] controls the design.
This maximum flexural reinforcement should be com
Required mechanical connector reinforcement:
pared to the values of 12 No. 7 bars for the original shear
wall span using the 1994 UBC, and 7 No. 7 and 10 No. 7
Spacing = 4 ft = =
bars for the relocated shear walls using the 1994 and 1997 3.61
Vd
UBC, respectively.
onn = 14.44 kips (64.2 kN)
Step 5: Design the web reinforcement. — vconn
Asreq,conn —
450

Maximum sub- diaphragm shear: — 14.44

1 = 3.34(224)
fL 2(0.6)(60)(0.707)
vdia —

= 374 kips (1.66 MN)

—

2 2 = 0.284 sq in. (183

2)

No. 5 connectors @ 4 ft (1.22 m)

Maximum shear force per foot of panel joint:
ia — 374 This maximum shear reinforcement should be compared
Vdia = 5.94 kips/ft (86.7 kN/m)
to the values of No. 3 connectors for the original shear wall
— —

span using the 1994 UBC, and No. 3 and No. 4 connectors
Even though moment does exist at the interior wall, it is for the relocated shear walls using the 1994 and 1997 UBC,
not considered a high in-plane moment region: MdjaI+Mdja respectively. If needed, a design iteration can be performed
= 0.21. Compare this design moment ratio to values ob using the increased diaphragm stiffness resulting from the
tained in analyses of interior shear wall garages (Tables 4 increase from No. 3 to No. 5 mechanical connectors (J3 =
):
and 5 of the companion paper
5 0.20) to obtain lower design forces.

62 PCI JOURNAL