Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr.

035

ready for press

after correction ready for press

Articles
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201100035

Richard Henry* Jason Ingham

date, signature

Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes
The Christchurch region of New Zealand experienced a series of major earthquakes and aftershocks between September 2010 and June 2011 which caused severe damage to the citys infrastructure. The performance of tilt-up precast concrete buildings was investigated and initial observations are presented here. In general, tilt-up buildings performed well during all three major earthquakes, with mostly only minor, repairable damage occurring. For the in-plane loading direction, both loadbearing and cladding panels behaved exceptionally well, with no significant damage or failure observed in panels and their connections. A limited number of connection failures occurred due to large out-of-plane panel inertia forces. In several buildings, the connections between the panel and the internal structural frame appeared to be the weakest link, lacking in both strength and ductility. This weakness in the out-of-plane load path should be prevented in future designs.
Keywords: tilt-up, precast concrete, connections, earthquakes, seismic design

Introduction

Between September 2010 and June 2011, the Christchurch region of New Zealand was hit by a series of major earthquakes, including the initial Mw 7.1 earthquake on 4 September 2010, a Mw 6.3 aftershock on 22 February 2011 and another Mw 6.3 aftershock on 13 June 2011. These shallow earthquakes were located in close proximity to Christchurch City and caused extensive infrastructure damage, particularly the 22 February event. Full details of the Canterbury earthquake series have been published in a report by GNS Science [1]. The performance of precast concrete tilt-up-style buildings has been documented in order to assist in identifying both designs that performed successfully as well as design weakness that can be improved upon in the future. Tilt-up is a popular form of precast concrete construction that originated in the United States in the early 1900s [2]. The concept involves casting large concrete panels horizontally on top of the buildings foundation slab, often with additional panels stack-cast on top of each other. After the concrete has gained sufficient strength, the panels are lifted and tilted up vertically into position. The
* Corresponding author: rs.henry@auckland.ac.nz Submitted for review: 04 August 2011 Revised: 05 October 2011 Accepted for publication: 13 October 2011

panels are then connected to one another and to the foundation using either bolted or welded steel connections, or an in situ concrete stitch. The tilt-up construction technique is a fast and efficient method due to the construction of large, often full-height, wall panels that would otherwise be too large to transport to site. Tilt-up construction can also be referred to as site precasting, as opposed to factory precasting at an offsite location. Early tilt-up construction in California was observed to perform poorly during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The collapse of many tilt-up buildings was attributed to the lack of strength and ductility in the wall-to-roof connections, and subsequently led to major changes in seismic design previsions [3, 4]. The 1997 Whittier Narrows and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes highlighted further inadequacies in tilt-up construction, especially the wall anchorages and out-of-plane strength [3, 5]. Additionally, hundreds of tilt-up buildings were severely damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake [6, 7]. The damage to pre-1973 buildings was not surprising, but the numerous wall anchorage failures in post-1973 code buildings was of concern and led to further changes to the design seismic forces and connection details.

Tilt-up buildings in Christchurch

Tilt-up construction was first introduced into New Zealand in the 1950s with the construction of one- and two-storey buildings [8]. The late consulting Engineer W. J. (Bill) Lovell-Smith successfully implemented several tiltup concrete buildings in Christchurch throughout the 1950s [9]. Tilt-up construction has since become one of the dominant building types for low-rise commercial and industrial buildings, replacing reinforced masonry as the principal alternative for such buildings, particularly in Christchurch [10]. There are two main variations of tilt-up buildings that exist in Christchurch: Cladding panels attached to steel or concrete frames Loadbearing panels that also support the roof trusses Cladding panels do not carry vertical loads from the roof, but provide a weather and fire barrier and may be used as lateral bracing elements to support in-plane wind or seismic loadings in addition to out-of-plane loading from their own self-weight [11]. Loadbearing walls are used as both

2011 Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

the main structural and cladding elements, and must support vertical gravity loads in addition to resisting in-plane and out-of-plane seismic and wind loads [11]. Low-rise tiltup buildings are typically stiff structures with a fundamental period of < 0.4 s and are usually designed to resist seismic loads within the elastic limit, or with a limited ductile response (ductility factor < 3), in accordance with New Zealand concrete design standards [10, 12]. However, the design of tilt-up walls can often be governed by either fire or construction loads instead of seismic actions [9], and so extensive damage to panels and connections should not be expected following a design level earthquake. Capacity design principles are only considered when the building is designed for a ductile response and may have also been neglected when considering a buildings resistance to outof-plane panel inertial forces. Additionally, older tilt-up buildings were often designed with non-ductile welded steel connections that cannot easily withstand panel deformations, and cracking at connections can even arise due to temperature and shrinkage movement. The tilt-up building stock in Christchurch includes a large number of genuine site-cast tilt-up buildings as well as factory-cast precast panel buildings of the same style. Due to the similarities in the design and connection details, both site- and factory-cast tilt-up panel buildings were examined within the scope of this investigation. There are several geographical areas in Christchurch with a significant number of low-rise commercial and industrial tilt-up buildings. In the Hillsbrough and Heathcote Valley suburbs to the south-east of the Central Business District (CBD) there is a cluster of recently constructed tiltup buildings. These buildings are located within a few kilometres of the epicentre of the most damaging 22 February 2011 earthquake, but are also located on firm ground at the base of Port Hills. There are also a number of tilt-up buildings of varying age in the CBD and in the suburb of Bromley located to the east of the CBD. These two locations also experienced high ground accelerations during the 22 February 2011 earthquake, and were located on ground that experienced severe liquefaction during all three major earthquakes. Lastly, a number of industrial and commercial tilt-up buildings to the south-west of the CBD were subjected to less severe ground accelerations during each of the major earthquakes. Response spectra calculated from ground motion records in each of these areas have been published by GNS Science [1].

In most cases, the tilt-up panel response in the inplane loading direction did not result in any significant damage or failures. This finding is attributed to a combination of several factors: Ground motion records indicate that for the fundamental period of typical tilt-up buildings (< 0.4 s), the demand during the 22 February earthquake did not greatly exceed a design level event in the Christchurch CBD. All the earthquakes had a short duration. Tilt-up buildings are designed for an elastic or limited ductile response. Construction or fire loads can govern the design of tiltup buildings, instead of seismic actions. More noticeable damage to both panels and connections was observed in the out-of-plane loading direction, which is consistent with observations made following the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California [6]. Due to longer fundamental periods, the slender wall panels may have experienced accelerations in excess of the maximum earthquake loading considered in the out-of-plane loading direction.

3.1

Panel performance

With the exception of only a few buildings, damage to the concrete panels was confined to narrow cracks. Typical panel damage that was observed is shown in Fig. 1. Several panels were found to have diagonal cracks, indicative of in-plane diagonal shear effects, whereas other panels had horizontal cracks running along the length of the panel. These horizontal cracks were typically close to the midheight of the panel and were most likely caused by out-ofplane bending of the panels because panels are usually only supported at foundation and roof levels. In some cases the horizontal cracks were located adjacent to interior

Performance of tilt-up buildings

In general, tilt-up buildings performed well during all the Christchurch earthquakes, with mostly only minor damage observed which is easily reparable. The most severe damage to tilt-up buildings occurred in areas where liquefaction occurred. The buildings were not designed to accommodate the ground settlements that occurred due to liquefaction and therefore examination of these failures was not considered relevant to the structural performance of tilt-up buildings. Additionally, the performance of tilt-up buildings was comparable with other forms of precast concrete construction. Details of the performance of reinforced and precast concrete structures during the Canterbury earthquakes has been published separately [13].

Fig. 1. Four examples of minor cracking in panels (photos: Hossein Derakhshan, Dmytro Dizhur, John Marshall)

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Fig. 2. Out-of-plane panel buckling (photos: Liam Wotherspoon)

Fig. 4. Movement at a vertical joint between panels (photos: Rod Fulford)

Fig. 3. Panel failure (photos: Rick Henry)

floor diaphragms that would have contributed to the outof-plane loads the panels were subjected to. There was one example of significant out-of-plane buckling of a panel, as shown in Fig. 2. However, buckling of a slender wall due to in-plane loading was not observed in any building, which confirmed the findings of previous testing that has been conducted in New Zealand to confirm the panel slenderness limits [1417]. One of the few examples of tilt-up wall panels that failed catastrophically is shown in Fig. 3. In this building, the top section of the wall panel appears to have detached from the steel frame and folded in half. However, this response is most likely attributable to initial failure of the connections, which is discussed in more detail below.

Fig. 5. Excessive joint demand due to different heights (photos: Rick Henry)

3.2 Connection performance 3.2.1 Foundation connections

All types of moment-resisting connections at the wall-tofoundation interface appear to have performed exceptionally well. In some buildings it was evident that there had been movement and uplift of the panel, but the resulting damage was restricted to minor spalling or cracking at the base of the wall. This damage was in accordance with what should be expected for a tilt-up panel designed for an elastic or limited ductile response.

Fig. 6. Edge cracking at insert/connector location (photos: Pia Abercromby, Dmytro Dizhur)

3.2.2 Panel joints

On the strength of visual inspections, the vertical joints between concrete wall panels also performed reasonably well. In most cases there was evidence of relative deformations at the joints between panels, which was identified by the joint sealant condition and minor cracking of the panel edge as shown in Fig. 4. Additionally, irregularities

in structural form contributed to the poor performance of several buildings, and this is highlighted in Fig. 5, which shows damage at a joint between two sections of a building having different heights. The different dynamic characteristics of the two sections with different heights caused excessive demand at the joint which was revealed by the permanent opening and localized crushing and spalling of the concrete. The cast-in connection between the two panels was subjected to large deformations, but appeared to be largely intact.

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

Fig. 7. Three examples of deformations at panel corner joints (photos: Pia Abercromby, Dmytro Dizhur)

No catastrophic failures were observed for mechanical connections between precast panels. However, Fig. 6 shows an example of a threaded insert and an embedded steel plate connection that had cracks propagating out to the panel edge. The threaded inserts should be placed further from the panel edge to avoid this problem and prevent potential pull-out of the insert due to the out-of-plane seismic demand. Conversely, the embedded steel plate appears to have sufficient anchorage to prevent the connection pulling out abruptly. As with the in-plane panel joints, the corner joints between panels had also undergone significant deformation. As shown in Fig. 7, some minor spalling and cracking was typically observed at corner connections. However, anchorage of the bolted connections was generally sufficient to ensure that the steel angle yielded in a controlled manner as opposed to pull-out failure of the bolts.

3.2.3 Connection to portal frames

As stated earlier, only a small number of buildings had tiltup panels that completely failed and/or collapsed. Three such failures are shown in Fig. 8, where the panels became detached from the steel portal frames and subsequently collapsed. It is suspected that all three failures are attributable to large out-of-plane inertia forces acting on the panel and subsequent failure of the panel-to-steel frame connections. Detailed inspection of the failed connections was difficult due to the prompt removal of partially collapsed panels for safety reasons. However, the building in Fig. 8a had an in situ concrete connection around the steel columns, and the stirrups tied into the in situ stitch appear to have pulled out cleanly from the concrete panel. Additionally, for the building in Fig. 8c, the panel was connected to the steel portal frame using four expansion bolts. These bolts appear to have pulled out from the panel, as seen in the close-up insert.

Where the tilt-up panels were not loadbearing and were used as cladding panels only, failure of the panel connections did not result in collapse of the entire building. However, collapse of the large panels themselves still poses huge safety risks and is unacceptable in terms of seismic performance. The strength hierarchy of the components should be considered and the connections between the panel and the steel portal frame should either be designed with sufficient ductility and robustness or instead be designed to be stronger than the panel itself using capacity design principles. Using this design approach, if out-of-plane seismic inertia forces exceed the design level loads, as was probably the case during the 22 February 2011 earthquake, the panel should respond in a ductile manner rather than causing catastrophic failure of the connections and collapse of the entire cladding panel. The performance of different connection types was also investigated. In general, panel connections that included an in situ concrete encasement around the steel column performed in a robust manner, as shown in Fig. 9. Minor spalling occurred due to the movement of panel and column, but in most cases the connections remained undamaged. Steel bolted connections appeared to be less robust and a number of failures were observed. Fig. 10 shows a building with several failed bolted connections that led to the precast cladding panels leaning out from the building. Some of the bolts had torn out of the steel plate due to insufficient edge distance, whereas other expansion bolts had partially pulled out of the concrete panel due to insufficient anchorage. As discussed above, these types of bolted connections appear to be the weakest link in the out-of-plane load path, and should instead be designed to be stronger than the panel. Another poor clipplate connection detail was observed in several buildings, as shown in Fig. 11. The clip-plate detail uses a small L-shaped steel plate to hold the precast cladding panel onto the steel column, and is secured using a single bolt in the panel. During the earthquakes, the panel and column

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

(a)

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

(b)

Fig. 9. Concrete-cased steel column (photos: Jamie Lester)

(c)

Fig. 10. Failure of bolted connections (photos: Hossein Derakhshan)

Fig. 8. Three examples of connection failures causing complete panel collapse (photos: Rick Henry, Dmytro Dizhur)

movement caused the bolt to loosen, which allowed the plate to rotate downwards, as shown in Fig. 11b. Luckily, this deformation did not result in the panel detaching from the building, but the detail could easily be made more robust by using two bolts instead of one to prevent rotation of the steel clip.

3.2.4 Connection to roof diaphragms

In general, the performance of loadbearing tilt-up panels and their connections to roof diaphragms was good. As

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Failure of clip-plate connection (photos: Pia Abercromby) (a) as-built, (b) rotated

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

diaphragms had not yet been constructed at the time of the 22 February earthquake. Owing to the lack of support at roof level, several of the connections between the panels failed, but the temporary props were sufficient to prevent the panels collapsing.

Conclusions

Fig. 12. Examples of failure of roof truss-to-panel connections (photos: Hossein Derakhshan, Pia Abercromby)

with other types of connection, there was indication of relative movement that caused some localized damage to the panels, but no catastrophic failures were reported. Examples of observed damage are shown in Fig. 12, where roof beams and cross-bracing are attached to tilt-up panels.

3.3

Partially constructed building

An unusual situation occurred with a tilt-up building that was under construction at the time of the earthquake. As shown in Fig. 13, a number of the tilt-up panels were in place and temporarily propped, but the first floor and roof

Initial observations from an investigation into the performance of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the Christchurch earthquakes have been presented. Tilt-up is a popular form of concrete construction in Christchurch for low-rise commercial or industrial buildings, and in general this class of building behaved well during all three major earthquakes and subsequent aftershocks. Significant damage occurred in only a small proportion of tilt-up buildings, and details of these failures are described. Tilt-up buildings behaved exceptionally well in the inplane loading direction. Mostly, only minor cracking was observed in the wall panels and no significant damage occurred at the wall-to-foundation moment-resisting connections. The level of damage observed was consistent with a design level event and an elastic or limited ductile design philosophy. Several connection failures were reported, with the majority of these failures being associated with the out-ofplane loading of non-loadbearing cladding panels. In several cases the connections between panels and steel frames appeared to be the weakest link, which in a few cases resulted in catastrophic collapse of the wall panel. It is recommended that the ductility and strength hierarchy of the load paths be considered to ensure that the connections do not fail in a brittle manner prior to a more ductile failure of the panel occurring. Additionally, connections of the clip-plate variety between panels and steel columns should be avoided in future designs as they can potentially lead to the loss of the panel-to-frame connection during an earthquake.

Fig. 13. Partially constructed tilt-up building (photos: Rick Henry)

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4

Structural Concrete 04/2011: Nr. 035

R. Henry/J. Ingham Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of several engineers in Christchurch who helped gather information and photos. These include: Pia Abercromby, Hossein Derakhshan, Dmytro Dizhur, Rod Fulford, Jamie Lester, John Marshall, Len McSaveney and Liam Wotherspoon.
References
1. Webb, T. H., Bannister, S., Beavan, J., Berryman, K., Brackley, H., Cousins, J., Fry, B., Gerstenberger, M., Holden, C., Kaiser, A., McSaveney, E., McVerry, G., Pettinga, J., Reyners, M., Rhoades, D., Somerville, P., Stirling, M., Van Dissen, R., Villamor, P., Wallace, Zhao, L. J.: Canterbury earthquakes sequence and implications for seismic design levels, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2011/183 http://canterbury. royalcommission.govt.nz/Technical-Reports, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 2011, p. 88. 2. American Concrete Institute: Practitioners guide to tilt-up concrete construction. ACI International: Farmington Hills, MI, 1996. 3. Hamburger, R. O., McCormick, D. L., Hom, S.: Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987 performance of tilt-up buildings. In: Earthquake Spectra, 4(2), 1988, pp. 219254. 4. SEAONC, Guidelines for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of tilt-up buildings and other rigid wall/flexible diaphragm structures. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California and International Conference of Building Officials, 2001. 5. Shepherd, R., Holmes, W., Lizundia, B., Aiken, I., De Angelis, C., Bertero, V., Billings, L., Goodno, B., Guthrie, L., Laverty, G., Mahin, S., Martin, H., McKevitt, W., Meehan, J., Mehrain, M., Miranda, E., Moazzami, S., Nimms, D., Perry, A., Pickett, M., Poland, C., Scawthorn, C., Scholl, R., Staehlin, W., De Vall, R., Whittaker, A., Wyllie, L.: Loma Prieta Earthquake reconnaissance Report: Buildings. In: Earthquake Spectra, 6(S1), 1990, pp. 127149. 6. Adham, S., Tabatabi, H., Brooks, H., Brugger, L., Dick, G., Hamad, A., Kariotis, J., Nghim, D., Phillips, R., Salama, A., Sramek, C., Stanton, J., Wood, S., Cluff, L., Lizundia, B.: Northridge earthquake reconnaissance report, vol. 2: Tilt-up wall buildings. In: Earthquake Spectra, 12(S1), 1996, pp. 99123. 7. Brooks, H.: The tilt-up design and construction manual. 5th ed. Tilt-up Concrete Association: Mt. Vernon, IA, 2000.

8. Ellen, P. E.: Tilt-up design and construction. In: NZ Concrete Construction, 5(6), 1961, pp. 94101. 9. TM 34, Tilt-up technical manual, Cement & Concrete Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2004. 10. Restrepo, J. I., Crisafulli, F. J., Park, R.: Seismic design aspects for tilt-up buildings. In: Journal of the Structural Engineering Society New Zealand (SESOC), 9(2), 1996, pp. 924. 11. Beattie, G. J.: Design guide: Slender precast wall panels with low axial load, BRANZ Ltd., Judgeford, New Zealand, 2007. 12. NZS 3101:2006, Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, p. 646. 13. Weng, Y. K., Pampanin, S.: Seismic performance of RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In: Structural Concrete, 13(1), 2012. 14. Beattie, G. J.: Design of slender precast wall panels Experimental testing, BRANZ Study Report SR 129, BRANZ Ltd., Judgeford, New Zealand, 2004. 15. Chiewanichakorn, M.: Stability of thin precast concrete wall panels subjected to gravity and seismic forces. University of Canterbury, Dept. of Civil Engineering, ME. 1999 16. Davidson, B. J.: Unpublished report on testing of slender precast wall panels, University of Auckland, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2003. 17. McMenamin, A.: The performance of slender precast reinforced concrete cantilever walls with roof level lateral displacement restraint under simulated in-plane seismic loading. University of Canterbury, Dept. of Civil Engineering, ME. 1999

Richard Henry rs.henry@auckland.ac.nz

Jason Ingham Associate Professor University of Auckland Civil & Environmental Engineering Private Bag 92019 Auckland Mail Centre Auckland 1142 New Zealand

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 4