Received: 15 April 2019 Revised: 30 December 2019 Accepted: 26 February 2020

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201900146

TECHNICAL PAPER

Seismic performance assessment of two-storey precast

reinforced concrete building

Ajay Chourasia1,2 | Yogesh Kajale3 | Shubham Singhal1,2 | Jalaj Parashar1

1
CSIR—Central Building Research
Institute, Roorkee, India
Abstract
2
Academy of Scientific and Innovative In precast construction, standardized concrete elements are manufactured in a
Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, India controlled environment followed by onsite installations. One such precast sys-
3
BG Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. tem is 3S building system (Strength, Safety, and Speed), which consists of RCC
Ltd., Pune, India
hollow columns with notches; RCC solid beams (“T” shape/“L” shape/Square
Correspondence Shape), RCC Stair flights, RCC shear walls, and Autoclave Aerated Concrete
Ajay Chourasia, CSIR—Central Building (AAC) or RCC precast slab. The current study focuses on seismic performance
Research Institute, Roorkee 247667, India.
Email: ajayc@cbri.res.in of this system, where a full-scale two storey, “3S” precast RC building, was
subjected to quasi-static lateral loading. The experimental results show that
the structure responded within elastic range at Life Safety (LS) performance
level with minimal damage to the joints. The results are further compared to
an analytical model in SAP2000 subjected to pushover analysis. Both the
experimental and analytical results were found to be in agreement. Therefore,
it is inferred that the 3S building system can perform satisfactorily under seis-
mic loads.

KEYWORDS
3-S building system, damage ranking, precast building, push-over analysis, seismic performance

1 | INTRODUCTION construction, in contrast Sweden, Netherland, Japan and

The demographic trend suggests that India is on the
verge of large-scale urbanization over the next few
decades; posing demand of 110 million of housing units
by the year 2022. To meet the vision, precast building
construction system is a strategic choice as compared to
conventional cast-in-situ systems due to its quality assur-
ance, speedy construction, economic benefits, environ-
mental friendliness, impressive design flexibility, energy
efficiency, among other notable benefits. Although, India
has only 0.1% of existing building stocks in precast
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the
print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along
with the authors’ closure, if any, approximately nine months after the
print publication.
Germany has 84%, 20%, 15%, and 9% precast buildings.
Precast building technology is the significant solution to
meet the growing demand of the affordable and high
quality mass housing in developing countries, however
its seismic performance need to be studied.
The “3-S” (strength, safety and speed) precast build-
ing system, is an innovative sustainable industrialized
precast construction technique wherein majority of con-
crete structural elements are standardized and produced
at/nearby site in centralized plants conforming to provi-
sions of relevant Indian Standards and then transported
for on-site installation. The 3S System comprised of major
precast components such as RCC hollow core columns
with notches; RCC solid beams (“T” shape/“L” shape/
square shape); RCC Stair flights; RCC shear walls; and
Autoclave Aerated Concrete (AAC) or RCC precast slab.

Structural Concrete. 2020;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2020 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 CHOURASIA ET AL.
In this system, precast dense concrete hollow core col-
umns of modular sizes are used in combination with
RCC shear walls (as per the design demand) inter-
connected with precast dense concrete rectangular/“T”
shape/“L” Shape beams with precast slabs for floors and
roofs. The top region of the beam having depth of precast
slab and in-situ screed thickness, along with hollow cores
of precast columns are grouted with appropriate grade of
in-situ self-compacting concrete. The jointing of various
precast components is accomplished through on-site con-
creting along with secured embedded design reinforce-
ment of appropriate length and configuration to ensure
monolithic continuous, resilient, ductile, and durable
behavior. The building frame system is either “column-
beam-slab frame” or “dual (frame and shear wall)” as the
case may be since the provision of shear wall is mainly
governed by design demand. Precast slabs (AAC/RCC)
are used as floor/roof slabs with overlay of 40 mm
(1.57 in.) thick, M20 grade of screed concrete with nomi-
nal reinforcement over the entire area of slab immedi-
ately after erection. The technology has been widely
implemented in India since 1974 for mid-rise and high-
rise residential buildings.
Despite the increasing growth of precast construction,
it is often looked upon with skepticism due to lack of
knowledge about its seismic behavior.1 Failure of connec-
tions, insufficient diaphragm action by precast slabs and
roof system, insufficient ductility of columns are often
the major causes of failure of precast buildings during
earthquake.2–4 Generally, precast beams and columns are
connected with dry moment-resisting connections, cast-
in-place and welded connections. Pseudo dynamic test on
prefabricated two-bay frames were conducted, where
results showed precast columns exhibited cantilever
behavior and the seismic resistance was offered by the
flexural resistance of the bottom edge sections only.5
Cyclic loading test on a full-scale two-story Autoclaved
Aerated Concrete Assemblage Specimen was carried
out.6 No damage was observed in the AAC floor slabs or
their connection to the walls. The test results showed that
the failure of the assemblage was flexure-dominated and
behavior of the assemblage was governed by the behavior
of the vertical walls. Half scaled specimens for industrial
and residential types of prefabricated composite with
welded beam-column connections were studied, where
the connections were reported to show improvement in
seismic behavior with change in diameter of the beam
reinforcement; development length and increase in num-
ber of stirrups in the connection zone.7 Ductile moment-
resisting connections were investigated to enhance the
flexural strength, energy dissipation capacity and ductil-
ity of the precast beam-column connections.8,9 The test
result showed that the connections exhibited higher
flexural strength to similar monolithic specimen. The
structural performance of 1:5 scale-down prefabricated
hybrid Industrialized Building System (IBS) sub-frame
subjected to cyclic lateral loads was evaluated.10 The
maximum displacement ductility and energy dissipation
demand of the system was obtained as 3.99 and
132.25 kN mm, respectively. Nonetheless, scaled-down
specimens can have limitations particularly when multi-
ple aspects of the system are to be studied. For economic
testing of comparatively large number of variables and
careful monitoring, full-scale tests are preferred.11
2 | CURRENT RESEARCH FOCUS
In recent years, research interest in investigating the
response of different seismic force resisting system have
been shifting from component-level to system-level pre-
cast buildings, preferably on full-scale. The current paper
focuses on investigation of seismic performance of full-
scale two storey, “3-S” precast RC building. “3-S” precast
building system consist of assemblage of innovative pre-
cast RC column, beam and slab components, and on-site
installations using dowel rebar and in-situ concrete of
appropriate grade. To evaluate the seismic performance,
the 3S precast building was tested under a fully reversed
displacement controlled quasi-static cyclic lateral loading.
The seismic performance of “3-S” system need to be
investigated to study its connection's behavior and struc-
tural failure mode when subjected to lateral cyclic loads.
The seismic performance of the system is evaluated based
on ASCE-4112 and FEMA-356.13 The characteristics rela-
tionship between load to deflection, stiffness, ductility,
crack pattern, failure mode and performance levels are
studied to understand seismic performance of “3-S” pre-
cast system.
3 | EXPERIM ENTA L PR OGR AM
3.1 | Geometry and design of specimen
A full-scale two-storied “3-S” precast building system
having footprint of 4.5 mm × 2.9 mm and overall height
of the building was 5.38 m, with each floor height equal
to 2.69 m, founded on 150 mm thick RC raft slab
(6.2 m × 4.1 m) adequately anchored to test floor using
700 mm MS length of 32 mm diameter high-tension
anchor bolts 12 nos. The system consisted of precast
dense concrete hollow core column shell in combination
with precast dense concrete rectangular/“T” shape/“L”
shape beams, with precast slab panels for floors and roofs
having 40 mm (1.57 in) thick in-situ screed concrete laid
CHOURASIA ET AL.
over entire floor/roof. The layout and reinforcement
assemblage of precast components of the proposed build-
ing system is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respec-
tively. The reinforcement details in precast beams and
columns are given in Table 1 and Table 2. The floor slab
comprised of 600 mm wide autoclaved light weight cellu-
lar concrete (AAC). The jointing of various elements was
accomplished through on-site concerting along with
secured embedded reinforcement of design length, diam-
eter, and configuration to ensure monolithic continuous
resilient, ductile, and durable behavior. Tongue and
groove arrangement of joint was used in joining all the
precast slabs. The joints between slab panels were filled
with 1:5 cement mortar and 40 mm thick reinforced in-
situ screed concrete of grade M20 is overlaid on the AAC
slab panels (Figure 3). Nevertheless, following capacity
design principles, all elements were designed to fail in
flexure and were detailed to meet the requirements for
ductile detailing as per IS-13920:2016.14 The structural
design was done in accordance with IS 456:200015 and IS
1893:2016.16
3.2 | Connection details
The connection between precast structural components
have been established through the reinforcement bars
protuding from the two adjacent panels. Figures 4 and 5
respectively show the connection detail between precast
slab to slab and precast beam to slab, where reinforcement
F I G U R E 1 Layout of
columns and beams of “3-S”
precast building system at
(a) first floor level; (b) second
floor level
3
bars from the supporting beam protude between the pre-
cast slabs and the joint region is filled with the in-situ con-
crete. Light-weight reinforced autoclaved cellular concrete
slabs were placed in between the beams over their flanges
with adequate bearing. The slabs components were fitted
sidewise with tongue and groove joints. Reinforcement of
6 mm at 230 c/c both ways was placed over the slabs;
which was suitably anchored into peripheral beams. Deck
concrete of 40 mm thickness was then poured on top of
slab. Self-compacting concrete was used for column cores
and beam tops concreting operations. Figure 6 demon-
strates the connection details between precast beam to col-
umn and column to column. In beam to column joints,
appropriate notches were provided in the shell of hollow
columns wherein the precast concrete beams were placed.
Mechanical anchorage was provided for the bottom rein-
forcement of beams as per the requirement of structural
design. Design reinforcement was placed at the top surface
of beam passing through the protruding rings of precast
beam and anchored into the core of hollow columns. The
top portion of beam was then concreted along with col-
umn core concreting. In column to column joints, Dowel
bars were provided with required development length,
over which the stem was casted and hollow column shell
was erected, followed by in-situ concreting of hollow core
with appropriate mix. Figure 7 shows the joint connection
detail between precast beam to beam, wherein connection
was achieved through precast miter joint and reinforce-
ment embedded into in-situ concrete. Figure 8 demon-
strates the 3D views of various precast connections.
4 CHOURASIA ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Reinforcement arrangement in two storey “3-S” precast building

TABLE 1 Reinforcement details of “3-S” precast beams

Top extra
Longitudinal Longitudinal reinforcement
reinforcement reinforcement @ supports Transverse
Beam Id Length (mm) B (mm) D (mm) (bottom throughout) (top-mid span) near-end & far-end reinforcement
FB1/RB1 3,270 200 465 2–12 TOR 2–8 TOR 2–12 TOR 8 TOR @ 200 c/c
FB2/RB2 3,720 200 465 2–12 TOR 2–8 TOR 2–12 TOR 8 TOR @ 200 c/c
FB3/RB3 2,420 200 465 2–10 TOR 2–8 TOR 2–12 TOR 8 TOR @ 200 c/c
FB4/RB4 2,490 200 465 2–10 TOR 2–8 TOR 2–12 TOR 8 TOR @ 200 c/c
FB5/RB5 2,120 150 465 2–10 TOR 2–8 TOR 2–12 TOR 8 TOR @ 200 c/c

TABLE 2 Reinforcement details of “3-S” precast columns

Dowel reinforcement in
Column Id B (mm) D (mm) Longitudinal reinforcement column-beam joint
GA2/A2 600 300 4–20 TOR +2–12 TOR 4–20 TOR +2–12 TOR
GA3/A3 600 300 4–20 TOR +2–12 TOR 4–20 TOR +2–12 TOR
GB1/B1 750 300 6–20 TOR 8–20 TOR

3.3 | Material properties concrete column shells were filled with self-compacting
concrete of M35 grade having 280 mm slump to ensure
The M30 concrete mix was used for RCC precast column complete filling. The surface joints between precast
and beam components. The hollow cores of precast column-beam were filled with mortar having dry
CHOURASIA ET AL.
FIGURE 3 Reinforcement detailing in precast beam, columns and in-situ slab
FIGURE 4 Longitudinal joint between precast slabs
proportion by weight 1:0.21:3.83 (Portland cement, lime,
and sand). The water-cement ratio in mortar was
adjusted to achieve target mortar flow of 125%. M20
grade concrete mix was used as screed concrete over the
entire area of slab. Eight millimeters, 12 mm, 16 mm,
and 20 mm diameter reinforcing steel bars conforming
to IS: 1786–200817 of Fe415 grade were used in precast
RC elements 12 mm and 20 mm diameter dowel steel
reinforcing bars having yield strength of 415 MPa were
used as additional reinforcement in column-beam
junctions. The details of the material properties are
given in Table 3, which were obtained from randomly
selected samples and tested in accordance with ASTM
C1077-16.18
5
FIGURE 5 Precast beam to slab connection
3.4 | Test set-up
The “3-S” precast building system was subjected to lateral
cyclic displacement-controlled loading under quasi-static
condition, on columns at first and second story floor levels.
Loading frames were located at each story level to generate
reverse cyclic lateral loading. The loading frame consist of five
box-section on each end and four horizontal steel I-sections
along the longer span braced adequately to limit the maxi-
mum buckling in frame to 5 mm, when subjected to the max-
imum load of 500 kN, designed using linear-elastic theory as
per IS:800–2007.19 The lateral load at two story levels was
applied by means of servo-hydraulic actuators based on
6 CHOURASIA ET AL.
FIGURE 6 Precast beam to column and column to column connection
predicted maximum lateral load to produce significant change
in the behavior of the system such as flexural cracking and
yielding of the reinforcement. The swivel-head of the actuator
was bolted to a 32 mm thick steel plate which in-turn fixed to
the vertical members of rigid load distribution frame. The
actuators were supported on a reaction wall as shown in
Figure 9. The weight of assemblage on the floors (45 kN) com-
pensates the expected live load on each floor 40 kN.
3.5 | Load specifications and
instrumentation
The system was subjected to cyclic lateral displacements
with monotonically increasing amplitudes (ASTM 2126).20
Statically, the frequency of 0.004 Hz (fst) was considered
while programming displacement time histories. Within
FIGURE 7 Precast beam to beam
connection
this displacement control loading, the initial six cycles
were performed only once whereas subsequent cycles were
reported thrice in order to document any degradation in
strength and/or stiffness. The lateral load was applied by
programmable, two-way acting, 500 and 100 kN capacity
servo-hydraulic actuators. The cyclic lateral load from
actuator was uniformly distributed over two points at each
floor levels on two opposite sides of building by roller-type
ball bearing attached to load distribution frame, providing
restrained boundary condition, simulating actual condi-
tion of rigid diaphragm in building. The instrumentation
was selected to characterize the global and local behavior
of the system. The global behavior of the system was char-
acterized by its overall load–displacement behavior in the
direction of loading. The applied load was measured using
pin-load cells of the actuators. The displacement response
of system at critical locations was measured using linear
CHOURASIA ET AL. 7

FIGURE 8 3D views of different connections

TABLE 3 Material properties variable displacement transducer (LVDTs) as shown in

Material tests
Concrete (for precast components)
Compressive strength (MPa)
Young's modulus (MPa)
Poisson ratio
Density (kN/m3)
Concrete (for floor screeding)
Compressive strength (MPa)
Young's modulus (MPa)
Poisson ratio
Density (kN/m3)
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
Compressive strength (MPa)
Density (kN/m3)
Reinforcement
Yield strength (MPa)
No. of Average
Figure 9 and acquired using data-acquisition system at a
samples values sampling rate of 200 Hz to capture flexural and shear
deformations, base uplift, and relative sliding. The defor-
mation pattern were recorded for both stories of the
6 34.6
building- vertical displacements at each end; vertical dis-
6 27,386.9 placements at each storey level; torsion effect of the build-
6 0.19 ing along the height, length, and reaction wall.
6 25.2
6 21.5
4 | T E S T RE S U L T S
6 24,400
4.1 | Observed response
6 0.18
6 24.0 The load–displacement hysteresis curves from the maxi-
mum response of each storey when subjected to cyclic
6 4.7 lateral loads are presented in Figure 10a,b along with
6 8 their superimposed force-displacement envelope obtained
by joining peak of each hysteresis loop. Mainly, the
cracks were noted in the connection interface (beam-
425
column and beam-slab) and at the toe region of walls as
8 CHOURASIA ET AL.

F I G U R E 9 Test set-up for two

storey “3-S” precast building

shown in Figure 11. As can be seen that initially the

behavior of the “3-S” system was linear-elastic up to lateral
displacement of 15 mm which was increasing in propor-
tion to the applied load. At 6 mm lateral displacement,
cracks up to 2 mm wide was noticed in mortar grout at a
few filled-in beam-column surface joints which becomes
invisible on reversal of load. In subsequent cycles, horizon-
tal cracks in end region of columns in lower storey with
spalling of cover concrete and shear cracks in end region
of beams at first elevation level were noticed. The stable
flexural hysteresis with an increase in peak load up to 8%
of the previous cycle was observed until the ultimate load
is attained. These flexure controlled repeated cycles were
verified through observed cracks up to 3 mm wide in
beam-column junctions, columns, and beams of lower sto-
rey. No significant cracks or damage observed till the load
of 300 kN at corresponding displacement of 23 mm. Crack
in the mortar filled in the gaps of precast column shell-
beam junction at first slab level observed at ±23.10 mm
displacement. However, the cracks closed when load was
released. Mortar cracks widened further at all the four
junctions of first slab level at a cycle of ±25.41 mm dis-
placement. The cracks closed when load was released
as observed in the previous cycle. Minor interface
FIGURE 10 (a) Hysteresis and backbone curve for “3-S”
cracks appeared at the junction of pedestal and column
precast building at first floor level; (b) load–displacement hysteresis
at ±32.34 mm cycle. At the cycle of ±34.65 mm; hair-
curve for “3-S” precast building at second floor
line cracks at the joints of beam and columns widened
to around 2 to 2.5 mm. Cracks were also perceived in
columns at first floor level at a cycle of ±35.805 mm. 46 mm. Later, separation of screed concrete from AAC
Out of the four columns, cracks were observed in the floor panels and partial uplift over secondary cross-
mid height for three columns while one column, hav- beam, perpendicular to loading direction was seen at
ing comparatively less stiffness along the loading second elevation level at the load corresponding to the
direction, cracked at the bottom. Cracks were seen in lateral roof displacement of 94 mm. Onset of attain-
beam column joints at top storey at ±36.96 mm cycle. ment of maximum load, decreasing trend in peak load
Similar behavior was observed in bottom storey at of flexural hysteresis loop up to 10% of the previous
±39.25 mm cycle. The in-plane beams at first elevation cycles have been noticed causing buckling of reinforce-
level suffered yielding at lateral displacement of ment at base of the column at higher displacement
CHOURASIA ET AL. 9

F I G U R E 1 1 Crack pattern in 3-S

precast building at (a) crack at beam-
column junction- outer face; (b) wide
cracks at beam-column junction- inner
face; (c) minor horizontal cracks at
junction of pedestal and column;
(d) cracks on mid-span of column at
higher drift

levels. This designates that the design objective of flex-

ural failure was achieved, in spite of flexural/shear
cracks and buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement
at lower storey columns. Excessive spalling and
crushing of concrete at ends, buckling of reinforce-
ment in columns, beams, and beam-column junctions
rendered unstable behavior, due to which the test was
halted at ultimate roof displacement of 116 mm. Hys-
teresis behavior including drift level and displacement
ductility would have improved had the shear cracks in
columns and flexible diaphragm of slab being elimi-
nated. Figure 11 illustrates the presence of satisfactory
performance of the system in compliance with the seis-
mic resistant design philosophy. Deflection from
LVDTs placed in out-of-plane direction was measured
for determining the torsion. The maximum displace- F I G U R E 1 2 Capacity curve for the “3-S” precast building
ment at first floor level was found to be less than 1.5 with performance levels
times the minimum horizontal displacement, thus the
building was found to be torsionally regular as per IS
1893:2016.16 Figure 12. The damage suffered by the “3-S” Precast dur-
ing the test was identified and converted to four perfor-
mance levels—O (Operational), Immediate Occupancy
4.2 | Capacity curve (IO), Life Safety (LS), Collapse Prevention (CP), in com-
pliance to ASCE-4112 and FEMA-356.13
The capacity curve of the tested “3-S” precast building As seen from the Figure 12 that the lateral strength
system was generated by normalizing the hysteresis cur- (544 kN) was recorded corresponding to 96 mm (1.78%
ves in positive (push) and negative (pull) directions by drift) roof displacement. In terms of acceleration due to
summation of base shear for individual storey. The curve gravity (g), “3-S” precast system resisted lateral load equiv-
characterizes the global performance of the tested build- alent to 0.67 g of its mass. The elastic crack limit is
ing in linear and non-linear states. In the present test the described at initiation of first significant crack in grout
curve was also utilized for representing performance material at beam-column joint. The lateral load resistance
levels. The capacity curve of the “3-S” precast building at elastic limit was obtained as 110 kN with corresponding
with the defined performance levels is shown in roof displacement of 4 mm. The ultimate roof
10
displacement of the system was 116 mm with lateral load
of 340 kN.
4.3 | Performance levels
Figure 12 shows the defined performance levels for the
“3-S” precast RC building based on damage pattern. The
Operational (O) level, shows the point on the capacity
curve where the building starts to behave nonlinearly.
Minor cracks were observed in the tested building up to
this level, at a lateral roof displacement of 7 mm. In IO
level, the structure undergoes light damages in the form
of minor cracks in beams and columns at first story. Sub-
sequently 2 mm to 2.5 mm wide cracks were observed in
filled grout of beam-column surface joints at higher dis-
placement cycles corresponding to LS level. Concrete
crushing and spalling were also noticed in beams and
minor shear cracks in column with 4 mm residual defor-
mation of the building. In addition, separation of screed
concrete from AAC panels and partial uplift at mid-span
of slab was also observed. In CP level, the overall build-
ing suffered extensive damage, mostly shear/flexure
cracks with large permanent drift, showing some of the
beams on the verge of partial or complete collapse. Col-
umns suffered extensive concrete crushing at the end
region of first storey and horizontal cracks at the mid-
span of column. The C performance level showed wide
cracks with excessive crushing of screed concrete and
buckling of reinforcement in beams and columns render-
ing instability in building, as a result the test was termi-
nated to avoid damage to instruments.
4.4 | Structural stiffness capacity
The tri-linear curve was utilized to calculate structural
lateral stiffness based on equal energy principle that is,
the area above and below the curve were approximated
equal. The effective lateral stiffness (Ke) was calculated as
50 kN/mm. The calculated effective post-yield tangent
TABLE 4 Dissipated hysteretic energy and input energy ratios for the “3-S” precast building system
Lateral
Performance levels displacement (mm)
Operational (O) 7 230
Immediate occupancy (IO) 47
Life safety (LS) 72
Collapse prevention (CP) 96
Collapse (C) 116
CHOURASIA ET AL.
stiffness (Ks) and effective post-capping tangent stiffness
(Kps) was obtained 2.09 and 10.2 kN/mm, respectively.
This shows that the building has considerable stiffness
degradation in post-yield state. This in turn has effect of
reducing dissipated energy due to decrease in the area
under load–displacement curve. The stiffness degradation
of the “3-S” system was attributed to crushing of concrete
and cracking of grout material filled-in beam column sur-
face joints.
4.5 | Structural displacement ductility
The ductility of the structural system is an important
characteristic to withstand lateral loads with sufficient
deformability without any significant loss in strength and
avoid premature failure. The global ductility is expressed
as μ = du/dy, where dy and du are the displacement at ide-
alized elastic limit and at ultimate limit of the structure.
Based on the ductility capacity, structure need not be
designed to remain in elastic range while the inelastic
capacity considering energy conservation principle, can
be utilized until decrease in load by 20–25% of ultimate
load is achieved.21 The ductility for the tested “3-S” pre-
cast building system was obtained as 3.00.
4.6 | Seismic force reduction factor
Seismic-force reduction factor (R) allows the designer to
use conventional linear elastic analysis procedure while
accounting for non-linear behavior and deformation
limits. Thus, the seismic-force reduction factor is used in
seismic codes to scale-down or normalize elastic response
of buildings for determination of ultimate designed seis-
mic force. Based on the displacement ductility the
seismic-force reduction factor is an approximation of the
ratio of the seismic forces that the structure would experi-
ence if its response is completely elastic with 5% viscous
damping. Following the definition, the R factor in terms
of force, may be expressed as:
Edis/Einp
Base shear (kN) First storey Second storey Total
0.18 0.09 0.27
510 0.30 0.16 0.56
520 0.40 0.25 0.65
540 0.60 0.22 0.82
340 0.65 0.09 0.74
TABLE 5 Damage description and ranking for “3-S” precast building system
Structural elements
Performance
Damage ranking level Column
1. No damage Operational (O) No flexural/shear cracks
2. Minor Immediate No flexural/shear cracks
occupancy
(IO)
3. Moderate Life safety (LS) Horizontal cracks—2 to
2.5 mm wide at end
region of lower storey
column, with spalling of
cover concrete
4. Severe Collapse 3 mm wide horizontal
prevention cracks in lower storey at
(CP) mid height in columns
having less stiffness
along the direction of
loading. Spalling of
concrete cover, exposure
of reinforcement, shear
cracks in end region,
and initiation of
buckling of longitudinal
bars.
5. Collapse Collapse (C) Excessive spalling and
crushing of cover
concrete at ends;
bending of longitudinal
rebar
Beam Beam-column junctions Slab
CHOURASIA ET AL.
No flexural/shear cracks No flexural/shear cracks No flexural/shear cracks
No flexural/shear cracks Spalling/cracks in mortar No flexural/shear cracks
grout at a few filled-in
joints of precast beam-
column (crack
width < 2 mm, becomes
zero at load reversal;
zero residual
displacement
Shear cracks 2 to 3 mm Spalling/cracks in mortar 2 mm wide horizontal
wide with crushing of grout at a few filled-in cracks perpendicular
concrete at ends of all joints of precast to loading, separation
beam beam-column (crack of screed concrete
width up to 3 mm. from AAC panels and
partial uplift at
midspan
Wider shear cracks (up to Wide cracks (>5 mm), Crushing of screed
5 mm). Extensive crushing of core concrete and exposure
spalling of cover concrete, exposure and of nominal
concrete and exposure buckling of reinforcement of
of rebars, crushing of reinforcement screed floor with
core concrete excessive separation
and uplift.
Excessive spalling and Wide cracks (>5 mm), Crushing of screed
crushing of cover crushing of core concrete and exposure
concrete at ends; concrete, exposure and of nominal
bending of longitudinal buckling of reinforcement of
rebar reinforcement screed floor with
excessive separation
and uplift.
11
12 CHOURASIA ET AL.

R=
H le,max ð 1  X
n
! 

 
H de E inp =  mi ai ðτÞ vi ðτÞdτ
0 i=1 
By considering equal energy based calculations,
Seismic-force reduction factor is calculated as areas of Dissipated hysteretic energy, Edis, has been estimated
lateral load–displacement relationship below ideal as the area of hysteresis loop between two consecutive
elastic and idealized elastic–plastic structure. Thereby, displacement peaks.
the structural-force reduction factor (R) may be repre-
sented in terms of displacement ductility (μ), and is n ð uðt Þ
X
expressed as: E dis = H it dui
i=1 0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R= ð2μ −1
The results indicate that the specimen exhibited lin-
ear behavior up to Immediate Occupancy (IO) level,
As none of the columns, beams or beam-column joints and the energy has been dissipated by viscous
attained their failure loads at the end of the test, the damping. On attainment of significant damage state
seismic-force reduction factor was calculated for maximum (Collapse level), around 74% input energy was been
displacement level attained (this can be lower bound dissipated by hysteretic behavior. The ratio of the dissi-
values). The equal displacement based R value for “3-S” pated energy to input energy was low in the upper sto-
precast building system was obtained as 5.6 whereas equal rey even at the Collapse performance level. Table 4
energy based R value is found to be 6.8. shows the ratios of dissipated hysteretic and input
energy for the tested “3-S” precast building at different
defined performance levels.
4.7 | Energy dissipation

Energy dissipation capacity of the tested “3-S” precast
building system is obtained at the defined performance
points of hysteresis envelope (O, IO, LS, CP, C) by com-
paring the cumulative input energy to the dissipated hys-
teretic energy. The input energy (Einp) induced by the
hydraulic actuator to the tested building specimen, has
been estimated by the following equation (ATC 40).22
4.8 | Proposed damage ranking
The damage ranking of “3-S” precast system is proposed
based on damage pattern at different performance state
as defined in Table 5 which shows damage description in
precast column, beam, beam-column junctions and slab
for the proposed ranking.

FIGURE 13 (a) Pushover curve from SAP2000; (b) Capacity-demand curve from SAP2000
CHOURASIA ET AL. 13

TABLE 6 State of the hinges in the pushover analysis in SAP2000

Step Displacement (m) Base force (kN) A to B B to IO IO to LS LS to CP CP to C C to D D to E Beyond E Total

0 −0.000527 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
1 0.002473 73.27 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
2 0.004286 117.557 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
3 0.007973 187.476 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
4 0.012123 252.908 34 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
5 0.015123 282.821 34 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
6 0.020478 331.118 32 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
7 0.023478 348.548 32 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
8 0.026478 365.978 32 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
9 0.029478 383.408 32 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
10 0.032478 400.837 32 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
11 0.035478 418.267 32 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 44
12 0.038478 435.684 32 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 44
13 0.041478 453.113 32 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 44
14 0.044478 470.542 32 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 44
15 0.047478 487.971 32 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
16 0.050478 505.391 31 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
17 0.053478 519.592 30 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
18 0.05703 536.225 30 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
19 0.059078 545.836 28 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
20 0.062078 550.772 28 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 44
21 0.065078 555.727 28 8 5 3 0 0 0 0 44
22 0.068078 559.266 28 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 44
23 0.071078 562.801 27 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 44
24 0.074078 564.459 27 9 2 6 0 0 0 0 44
25 0.077078 566.118 27 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 44
26 0.07904 567.202 27 9 0 6 0 2 0 0 44
27 0.078995 539.322 27 9 0 6 0 0 2 0 44
28 0.079133 541.509 27 9 0 6 0 0 2 0 44
29 0.080045 546.999 27 9 0 6 0 0 2 0 44
30 0.080931 550.415 27 9 0 5 0 1 2 0 44
31 0.080925 538.188 27 9 0 5 0 0 3 0 44
32 0.080918 537.37 27 9 0 5 0 0 3 0 44
33 0.079615 517.147 27 9 0 5 0 1 2 0 44

5 | ANALYTICAL STUDIES uncertainties in the assessment of actual response of the

5.1 | Non-linear static analysis
The performance based design for structures explicitly
evaluates a structure to perform subjected to the poten-
tial hazard, considering several uncertainties inherent
in the quantification of the potential hazard and various
structure. In performance based design, identifying and
assessing the performance ability of a building is an
integral part of the design process. It is an iterative pro-
cess that begins with the selection of performance objec-
tives, followed by the development of a preliminary
design, an assessment as to whether or not the design
meets the performance objectives, and finally redesign
14
and reassessment, if required, until the desired perfor-
mance level is achieved. In the present study, the experi-
mental model is replicated in SAP2000, for the result
comparison and validation. The geometric dimensions
and the material properties are assumed to be the same
for the beams and columns as given in Tables 1–3. The
load definition consists of dead load equal to the weight
of the AAC planks and the screed concrete and the live
load is taken as 45 kN as per the actual model. The load
on the slab is converted to equivalent uniform load to be
applied to the framing beams. It is to be noted that a
combination equal to full dead load +30% of the Live
load is defined as per FEMA 356 for pushover analysis.13
Auto hinges as predefined in SAP2000, according to the
provisions of FEMA 356 are inserted at each joint, to
allow for development of the plastic capacity. The beams
and columns are assumed as cracked sections. Pushover
analysis is carried out on the structure, with the direc-
tion of loading being parallel to the span length
along 4.2 m.
Modal analysis for the Pushover load case showed
that the fundamental time period of the structure is
0.20161 s. Figure 13a shows the pushover curve for the
structure and the state of hinges at each step of the analy-
sis, corresponding to the displacement and base shear as
F I G U R E 1 4 Comparison of load displacement curve for
experimental and analytical study
TABLE 7 Comparison of the experimental and analytical
results
Quantities Experimental Analytical Error %
Ultimate collapse load 544 kN 567.2 kN
Displacement at 96 mm 79 mm
ultimate load
Inter-storey drift at 1.78% 1.69%
collapse load
CHOURASIA ET AL.
summarized in Table 6. In Table 6, it is observed that at
the second step, one hinge exceeds the elastic state, at the
base shear of 73.27 kN, with a displacement of 4.28 mm.
The performance level of immediate occupancy (IO) is
exceeded at the 11th step, corresponding to a base shear
of 418.267 kN, with a displacement of 35.5 mm. The life
safety (LS) level is exceeded at the 21st step, at a base
shear value of 555.727 kN, with a displacement of
65 mm. Finally, the collapse prevention (CP) level is
exceeded at the 26th state, with the ultimate base shear
value of 567.2 kN, at a displacement of 79 mm. It is also
evident from the pushover curve, that this is the point
where the global collapse of the structure occurs, after
which the capacity of the structure falls steeply.
The capacity-demand curve of the structure, which is
assumed as Type B, according to the provisions in FEMA
356 is given in Figure 13b. The single ADRS curve, meets
the capacity curve at the performance point defined at
values of base shear of 146.218 kN, displacement of
5.8 mm and at a time period of 0.143 s. On further
inspection, as seen in Table 6 of pushover curve demand-
capacity, according to ATC 40,22 it is observed, that the
performance point lies between the steps 2 and 3. Looking
at the hinge formation between these states, it is seen
that in both steps, only immediate occupancy (IO) state is
exceeded by the hinges, which indicates that there is
probably no local failure and hence the structure will be
safe under the incumbent earthquake demand on the
structure.
The results thus obtained from experimental and ana-
lytical studies are compared in Figure 14 and Table 7. It is
observed that the results are in agreement. However, the
difference in the results may be explained by the fact that
in the experiment the dowel bars are present only at the
4.26
17.7
5.06
FIGURE 15 Base shear v/s displacement and inter-storey
drift
CHOURASIA ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 6 (a) Modeling of
precast building in ATENA; (b) Cracks
observed from FEA. FEA, finite element
analysis
F I G U R E 1 7 Lateral load–displacement curve from FEA.
FEA, finite element analysis
beam-column connections, whereas in the analytical
model, the dowel bars are present throughout the col-
umns. This makes the analytical model stiffer than the
experimental one, thereby leading to higher collapse load,
lower lateral displacement and hence lower inter-storey
drift ratio (%). Similarly, Figure 15 shows base-shear vis-à-
vis lateral displacement and inter-storey different for the
tested structure.
5.2 | Finite element analysis
In order to study the in-depth structural behavior of pre-
cast RC frame building, finite element analysis (FEA) in
ATENA was carried out on precast RC frame building
and the seismic parameters obtained experimentally and
numerically are compared. Pushover analysis and cyclic
load analysis is done and results are compared. The finite
15
element method is well suited for superimposition of the
material models for the constituent parts of a composite
material. Several constitutive models covering these
effects are implemented in the computer software
ATENA, which is a finite element package designed for
computer simulation of concrete structures. The present
investigation of the non-linear response to failure of pre-
cast RC frame under the cyclic load analysis and the push-
over analysis is initiated with the intent to investigate the
relative importance of several factors in the non-linear
finite element analysis of RC frame. These include the var-
iation in load displacement graph, damage pattern, propa-
gation of the cracks, crack width and the effect of size of
finite element mesh on the analytical results.
Element geometric modeling of concrete has been
done using 3D solid brick element with 8–20 nodes in
ATENA. This element is capable of plastic deformation,
cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing.
The most important aspect of this element is the treat-
ment of nonlinear material properties. Reinforcement
modeling could be discrete or smeared. Here, a discrete
modeling of reinforcement has been done. The reinforce-
ment has been modeled using bar elements in ATENA.
Reinforcement steel is modeled as 3D bar element, which
has three degrees of freedom at each node; translations
in the nodal x, y, and z direction. Bar element is a uniax-
ial tension-compression element. The stress is assumed to
be uniform over the entire element. Also plasticity, creep,
swelling, large deflection and stress-stiffening capabilities
are included in the element. For meshing of elements,
structured mesh is used as it consists only of brick element.
Figure 16a portrays finite element model of two-storey pre-
cast RC frame building. FME (first major event) from is
16 CHOURASIA ET AL.

observed at 3.5 mm corresponding to 325 kN load. The Research Institute (CSIR-CBRI), Roorkee, India, for per-
building attained a maximum lateral load of 432 kN at mitting to publish the paper.
15 mm deflection. Subsequently after each cycle of loads,
the load kept degrading due to stiffness degradation and the
final load is observed to be 383 kN at 28 mm deflection. NOTATION
Figure 16b shows the crack formation, while Figure 17 pre- measured acceleration time history at ith floor
ai(τ)
sents the lateral load–displacement curve from FEA. level
C collapse
CP collapse prevention
6 | C ON C L U S I ON S de deformation at ultimate designed earth-
quake load
A full-scale two storey precast RC frame building was evalu- de − di deformation at initiation of cracks
ated under displacement controlled reverse cyclic quasi- dle,max deformation at maximum elastic earthquake load
static lateral loading. Non-linear static analysis (push-over) dmax roof displacement at maximum load
was carried out in SAP to compare the experimental results. du ultimate deformation
Moreover, FEA was conducted in ATENA to study the in- dui story displacement increment
depth structural behavior of precast RC frame building and dy effective yield deformation
to validate the results. Chief conclusions derived from the dτ time increment
present research program are: Hde ultimate designed earthquake load
Edis hysteretic dissipated energy from initial time to t
1 The test observations that “3-S” precast structure Einp input energy from initial time to t
responded to the simulated seismic cyclic loads in sim- g acceleration due to gravity
ilar manner as that of engineered conventional cast in- Hi strength at initiation of crack
situ structure. Lateral load resisted by the structure Hdu load capacity at ultimate displacement
under LS (life safety) is almost 1.65 times of the seis- Hit measured base shear at ith floor level
mic weight of the structure. The maximum resisted Hmax maximum load
cyclic lateral load at LS performance level of the struc- Hle, maximum earthquake load developed in a
ture corresponds to 0.67 g of its mass. max completely elastic structure
2 The diaphragm comprising of floor panels of precast con- Hy effective yield strength
crete having 40 mm thick reinforced in-situ deck con- IO immediate occupancy
crete was effective in cyclic lateral load transfer Ke effective elastic stiffness
mechanism during LS performance level. All joints and Kpc effective post-capping tangent stiffness
connections observed intact during LS performance level Ks effective post-yield tangent stiffness
thereby confirming that the manufacturers' detailing for LS life safety
the “3-S” precast structural elements and connections mi concentrated mass at ith floor level
conforms to the performance requirements. n number of stories
3 The structure responded in elastic range at LS perfor- O operational level
mance level exhibiting displacement ductility value of R seismic-force reduction factor
3.00 and seismic force reduction factor “R” value of 5.6. ui measured story displacement at ith floor level
4 In FEA, stress concentration is seen at the middle part vi(τ) velocity time history at ith floor level
of ground floor columns, and at first floor diaphragm # diameter of the reinforcement
members. Few minor cracks however observed at the μ displacement ductility factor
connections of in-situ beams and AAC slab panels,
and same disappeared at zero loads. ORCID
5 The experimental and analytical results on “full-scale Ajay Chourasia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6595-2465
precast building structure” were found to be in good
agreement, thus establishing the desired performance RE FER EN CES
and behavior of “3-S” precast building system under 1. Singhal S, Chourasia A, Shermi C, Parashar J. Precast
design load conditions including seismic loading. reinforced concrete shear walls: state of the art review. Struct
Concrete. 2019;20(3):886–898.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T 2. Negro P, Bournas DA, Molina FJ. Pseudodynamic tests on full-
scale 3-storey precast concrete building: Global response. Eng
The authors gratefully acknowledged Director, Council
Struct. 2013;57:594–608.
of Scientific and Industrial Research- Central Building
CHOURASIA ET AL. 17

3. Ozden S, Meydanli H. Seismic response of pre-cast industrial 22. ATC, A. 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete build-
buildings during 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake. International Con- ings. Applied Technology Council, report ATC-40. Redwood
ference in Earthquake and Successful City Reconstruction, SE City; 1996.
40EEE, Skopje and Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia; 2003.
4. Posada M, Wood SL. Seismic performance on precast industrial
buildings in Turkey. In 17th international congress of the pre- AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
cast concrete industry, 1–4 May, Istanbul, Turkey; 2002.
5. Colombo LFA, Negro P, Toniolo G. Precast vs. cast-in –situ Ajay Chourasia
reinforced concrete industrial buildings under earthquake loading:
Academy of Scientific and Innovative
An assessment via pseudo dynamic tests. 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada 743; 2004.
Research (AcSIR)
6. Tanner JE, Varela JL, Klingner RE. Design and seismic testing Ghaziabad
of two–story, full-scale autoclaved aerated concrete assemblage India
specimen. ACI Struct J. 2005;1:102-S12. CSIR—Central Building Research
7. Karadogan F, Yuksel E, et al. The seismic behavior of an asym- Institute
metric exterior precast beam-column connection. Proceedings of Roorkee
the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2012.
India
8. Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I, Ramezani R. A new ductile moment-
ajayc@cbri.res.in
resisting connection for precast concrete frames in seismic regions
an experimental investigation. Eng Struct. 2014;70:144–157.
9. Xue W, Yang X, Hu X. Full-scale tests of precast concrete Yogesh Kajale
beam-column connections with composite T-beams and cast-
BG Shirke Construction Technology
inplace columns subjected to cyclic loading. Struct Concrete.
2019;21:1–15.
Pvt. Ltd.
10. Wong J-Y, Marsono AK, et al. Performance-based pushover Pune
cyclic test for innovative prefabricated hybrid industrialised India
building system sub-frame. Jurnal Teknologi. 2015;74(1):91–103. ypkajale@shirke.co.in
11. Chourasia A, Battacharyya SK, et al. Seismic performance of
different masonry buildings: Full–scale experimental study.
J Perform Constr Facil. 2016;30:04016006. Shubham Singhal
12. ASCE/SEI 41–06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Academy of Scientific and Innovative
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007. Research (AcSIR)
13. Prestandard, FEMA. Commentary for the seismic rehabilita- Ghaziabad
tion of buildings (FEMA 356). Vol 7. Washington, DC: Federal India
Emergency Management Agency, 2000.
CSIR—Central Building Research
14. Bureau of Indian Standards. Ductile detailing of reinforced
Institute
concrete structures subjected to seismic forces- code of practice.
New Delhi, India: IS 13920, 2016. Roorkee
15. Bureau of Indian Standards. Plain and reinforced concrete- India
code of practice. New Delhi, India: IS 456, 2002. shubham.singhal092@gmail.com
16. Bureau of Indian Standards. Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures- code of practice. New Delhi, India: IS 1893,
2016. Jalaj Parashar
17. Bureau of Indian Standards. High strength deformed steel bars CSIR—Central Building Research
and wires for concrete reinforcement- code of practice. New Institute
Delhi, India: IS 1786, 2008. Roorkee
18. ASTM, C. 1077-05b. Standard practice for laboratories testing India
concrete and concrete aggregates for use in construction and jalajp@cbri.res.in
criteria for laboratory evaluation. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International, 2006.
19. Bureau of Indian Standards. General construction in steel- code
of practice. New Delhi, India: IS 800, 2007.
20. ASTM. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for
shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral force How to cite this article: Chourasia A, Kajale Y,
resisting systems for buildings. West Conshohocken, PA: Singhal S, Parashar J. Seismic performance
ASTM 2126, 2009. assessment of two-storey precast reinforced
21. Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, et al. Displacement-based seismic concrete building. Structural Concrete. 2020;1–17.
design of structures. In 3rd National Conference on Earth- https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900146
quake Engineering and Engineering Seismology; 2008.