International Journal of

Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012

Empirical relations for Indian code of precast concrete on the maximum

and minimum diaphragm forces in high seismic zones
BHRUTI SHARMA
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Shri G. S. Institute of Technology and Sciences, Indore, India.
Email: sbhruti@gmail.com
Abstract: Diaphragm action is responsible for distributing lateral loads arising due to seismicity and wind loads
among the lateral force resisting (LFR) members consisting of columns, bracings and shear walls in a typical
reinforced concrete structure. Hence, the role of diaphragms is to provide structural integrity, i.e., maintain the
floor systems gravity load carrying capacity while undergoing diaphragm action. Precast diaphragms could be
designed as rigid or flexible depending upon the site and seismicity requirements. Too much of rigidity or
flexibility is dangerous to structural behavior due to incompatible deflections and too large deflections
respectively. Damage to precast concrete diaphragms is observed in many past earthquakes across the globe.
About thirty large panel precast concrete roof panels sustained damage and collapse due to the failure of
generating sufficient diaphragm action in the 2001 Bhuj earthquake in India. So, there is an immediate need to
analyze and design the diaphragm for high seismicity. In our Indian Standard code of practice for precast
concrete, there are no provisions for load distribution in diaphragm systems in high seismic zones. Here in this
paper a formula for the distribution of loads in the diaphragms and an empirical formula for the maximum and
minimum diaphragm forces have been suggested for the Indian code of practice for precast concrete structures.

Keywords: Precast concrete, Diaphragms, Indian Standards, Structural integrity, Seismicity.

1. Introduction
Floor systems are generally designed to sustain
vertical loads. Lateral loads acting due to earthquakes
and wind require diaphragm action from these
structural elements. Such members thus tie the lateral
force resisting members in a seismic moment frame,
i.e., columns, bracings and shear walls and help in
distributing lateral load among them. Precast concrete
due to its several advantages is used frequently in
construction of large panel diaphragms. Seismic
design of such diaphragms is a relatively untouched
topic in Indian construction standards. The 2001 Bhuj
earthquake destroyed at least thirty such diaphragms
used as roof slabs in school buildings in the Gujarat
state (Murty et al. 2001). As precast concrete
construction is increasing in India in rapid pace due to
increased urbanization it is the need of the hour to
develop and include the relevant design guidelines for
precast concrete diaphragms and their connections
into Indian construction standards.

2. Diaphragm failure behavior

A diaphragm, based upon its behavior, can be
classified into rigid and flexible. We assume a
diaphragm to be rigid when its distribution of lateral
forces to the lateral force resisting members is Fig-1: Illustration showing diaphragm behavior. (a)
proportional to their respective stiffness. This needs Lateral loads on the diaphragm (b) Rigid diaphragm
an assumption of infinite in-plane stiffness for the behaviour (c) Flexible diaphragm behavior (d) Semi-
diaphragm and hence making its deflections rigid diaphragm behavior (from Naeim and Boppana,
insignificant as compared to the deflections of the 2008)
LFR members. The term flexible diaphragm is
applicable when the distribution of lateral forces to
the LFR members is independent of their relative
stiffness (fig-1).

IJASGE 010204 Copyright 2012 BASHA RESEARCH CENTRE. All rights reserved.
 BHRUTI SHARMA

In this case, the diaphragm would deflect
significantly larger than the LFR elements. Flexible
diaphragms cannot experience torsion as experienced
by the rigid body ones.
Having said this, there is an amount of both rigidity
and flexibility in all the diaphragms which is not just
dependent on the diaphragm design and connections
but also the dimensions of the LFR members relative
to the diaphragms. Almost all the building codes
(NZS 3101, cl. 13.3.4, UBC 1997 and IBC 2000):
give provisions for rigid diaphragm assumptions as
A rigid diaphragm assumption can be made where
the diaphragm lateral deformation is less than twice
the average inter storey drift in the corresponding
storey found in elastic analysis for the design of
seismic forces at the ultimate limit state. Barron and
Hueste (2004) conclude that flexible diaphragm
model should be considered in models where the floor
aspect ratios exceed 3.0. Pan et al. (2006) apply finite
element modeling to tall rectangular vertical frame
models with infill walls to conclude that the
diaphragm flexibility needs to be taken into account in
order to simulate the building behavior correctly.
Diaphragm rigidity or flexibility is governed by its
failure mode. An elastic failure mode assumes a rigid
behavior whereas a plastic failure mode assumes a
flexible behavior. Hence, to contain the deflection and
therefore relative force distribution among LFR
members, it is necessary that the diaphragm failure
modes are well defined and controlled. It is therefore
imperative to contain the diaphragm design loads to
control its behavior during failure. This requires a
limitation on maximum and minimum diaphragm
loads for diaphragm design.
3. Comparison of Indian standards to some
established standards
The design issues related to diaphragm action of
precast concrete floors can be divided into three
categories- structural integrity, ultimate limit state and
serviceability limit state. These issues can be
addressed with respect to the three types of
reinforcements observed in precast concrete
diaphragms, chord reinforcement for flexure, web
reinforcement for shear and collector reinforcement
for lateral system reaction load path.

Table-1: Table showing the different treatments given to diaphragm design in some relevant construction
standards across the world

UBC 1994 IS 1893:2002, IS 15916:2010 ASCE 7 -05/ IBC 2006

1. Distribution of base shear at 1. Distribution of base shear at 1. Distribution of base shear at
each storey: each storey: each storey:
(V Ft ) wx hx Wi hi
2 Fx = CvxV
Fx n Qi VB
wi hi
n

i 1
W h
j 1
j
2
j

2. Diaphragm force at each storey 2. No such provisions for force 2. Diaphragm force at each storey
level Fpx is given by: distribution on floor systems level Fpx is given by:
n n
Ft Fi Ft Fi
F px n
i x
w px F px n
i x
w px
w
i x
i w
i x
i

3. Minimum diaphragm load - 3. No such restrictions on lateral 3. Minimum diaphragm load -

Fpx = 0.35 x Z x I x Wpx loads on floor systems Fpx = 0.2 x SDS x I x Wpx
Maximum diaphragm load -Fpx= Maximum diaphragm load - Fpx=
0.75 x Z x I x Wpx 0.4 x SDS x I x Wpx

4. Empirical relation for Indian standards

Indian codes do not provide guidelines for diaphragm
force distribution at each storey. Hence we adapt the
UBC provisions due to their suitability to Indian
situations. Indian code also does not limit the
maximum and minimum diaphragm loads. Applying
the UBC provisions directly would underestimate the
loads for certain R values. This occurs due to the way
seismic loads are defined in IS 1893: 2002. Hence we
provide an empirical formula depending upon R for
this. Based on our design estimates using UBC
standards, we arrived at the following limiting factors
for kmin and kmax assuming Fmin and Fmax to be (1/
kmin*R)ZIWi and (1/ kmax*R)ZIWi (Table-2).

International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 55-58
 Empirical relations for Indian code of precast concrete on the maximum and minimum
diaphragm forces in high seismic zones
Table-2: Table showing the multiplication factors for
R to determine minimum and maximum diaphragm
loads.
R Minimum R factor Maximum R factor
2.5 0.5 1.3
3 0.42 1.08
5 0.25 0.65
10 0.125 0.325
And suitably we deduce the following relationships.
1.25
F pxmin ZIWi
R
3.25
F pxmax ZIWi
R Chaubey, S. K., and Jain, S. K. (2001). A national
These relationships are dependent upon R and Z and
hence vary zone to zone, and structure type to
structure type. These relations have been used to
analyze and design a diaphragm of a G+5 storey
structure (Bhruti et al., 2012).
5. Conclusions
Indian standards of construction on precast concrete
provide recommendations for most of the preliminary
issues to be considered while designing a precast
structure. But we find some issues in seismic design
of precast concrete structures still need an immediate
attention. Some of these issues are the diaphragm
lateral force distribution among different stories of the
structure from the base shear. The maximum and
minimum diaphragm loads need a provision in the
codes due to the procedure adapted to estimate
seismic loads in Indian codes, for which the relation
given in the present study can be used as a starting
point. These relations account for the changes in
structure type by including R factor and also the
seismicity by including Z. Not considering R in the
relations leads to same limitations on forces for
different construction types which are not desirable in
a country with varied construction practices.
The absence of updates on precast concrete
diaphragms in Indian codes is partly due to the
relatively low magnitude of such construction being
used in India. This also reflects by the relatively faster
updates in the relevant codes in countries with high
use of such construction practices. But with the
infrastructure growing like never before and the
demand for faster, innovative and safer construction
options are opening the doors to more number of such
construction practices. In this regard, it is high time
that Indian standards look into the seismic design
provisions of precast concrete floor systems due to
their vulnerability to lateral loads and potential to
cause severe structural damage.
International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering
ISSN 2319-5347, Vol. 01, No. 02, October 2012, pp 55-58
6. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. R. K. Khare, Professor,
SGSITS, for providing guidance and inputs in this
research. I would further extend my gratitude to Dr.
U. B. Choubey, Head of Department, Civil
Engineering and Applied Mechanics, SGSITS, Indore
for providing necessary facilities during the project.
7. References
[1] Bhruti, S., Bidwai, V. B., Patil, D. M. and Khare,
R. K. (2012). Seismic design and provisions of
precast concrete diaphragms for Indian standards
and practice, Indian Concrete Journal,
Manuscript under review.
[2] International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO). Uniform building code, 1994, Whittier,
Calif.
[3] Murty, C. V. R., Dayal, U., Arlekar, J. N.,
technological crisis, Construction Journal of
India, March, 23-27.
[4] Naeim, F., and Boppana, R. R. (2008). Seismic
design of floor diaphragms, The seismic design
handbook new by Farzad Naeim (ed.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, ch-8.
[5] Pan, T. C., You, X., and Brownjohn, J. M. W.
(2006). Effects of infill walls and floor
diaphragms on the dynamic characteristics of a
narrow-rectangular building, Earthquake
Engineering Structure Dynamics, 637-651.
[6] NZS 3101:1995 Concrete structures standard,
NZS3101:1995 (1995), Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ.
[7] Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures : Part 1 General provisions and
Buildings, IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[8] Indian standard for Building design and erection
using prefabricated concrete, IS 15916 : 2010.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] IBC, International Building Code, 2006 Edition,
International Code Council, Inc., Falls Church,
VA.
[10] NZS 3101:1995 Concrete structures standard,
NZS3101:1995 (1995), Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ.