Panel connection details in existing New Zealand precast concrete buildings

  • Pouya Seifi University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  • Richard S. Henry University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  • Jason M. Ingham University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand


Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes the seismic design of buildings with precast concrete panels has received significant attention. Although this form of construction generally performed adequately in Christchurch, there were a considerable number of precast concrete panel connection failures. This observation prompted a review of more than 4700 panel details from 108 buildings to establish representative details used in both existing and new multi-storey and low rise industrial precast concrete buildings in three major New Zealand cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Details were collected from precast manufacturers and city councils and were categorised according to type. The detailing and quantity of each reviewed connection type in the sampled data is reported, and advantages and potential deficiencies of each connection type are discussed. The results of this survey provide a better understanding of the relative prevalence of common detailing used in precast concrete panels and guidance for the design of future experimental studies.


Crisafulli FJ, Restrepo JI and Park R (2002). “Seismic design of lightly reinforced precast concrete rectangular wall panels”. PCI Journal. 47(4): 104-121. DOI:

PCI Industry Handbook Committee (2010). “PCI design handbook: precast and prestressed concrete. 7th Edition”. Prestressed Concrete Inst, Chicago, IL, 828 pp.

Park R (2002). “Seismic design and construction of precast concrete buildings in New Zealand”. PCI Journal. 34(4): 50-57. DOI:

Becker JM, Llorente C and Mueller P (1980). “Seismic response of precast concrete walls”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 8(6): 545-564. DOI:

Baird A, Palermo A, Pampanin S, Riccio P and Tasligedik AS (2011). “Focusing on reducing the earthquake damage to facade systems”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(2): 108-120.

Hamburger RO, McCormick DL and Hom S (1998). “The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987-Performance of tilt-up buildings”. Earthquake Spectra. 4(2): 219-254.

Mitchell D, DeVall HR, Saatcioglu M, Simpson R, Tinawi R and Tremblay R (1995). “Damage to concrete structures due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake”. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 22(2): 361-377. DOI:

Toniolo G and Colombo A (2012). “Precast concrete structures: the lessons learned from the L'Aquila earthquake”. Structural Concrete. 13(2): 73-83. DOI:

Cruz EF and Valdivia D (2011). “Performance of industrial facilities in the Chilean earthquake of 27 February 2010”. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 20(1): 83-101. DOI:

Henry RS and Ingham JM (2011). “Behaviour of tilt-up precast concrete buildings during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes”. Structural Concrete. 12(4): 234-240. DOI:

Bournas DA, Negro P and Taucer FF (2014). “Performance of industrial buildings during the Emilia earthquakes in Northern Italy and recommendations for their strengthening”. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 12(5): 2383-2404. DOI:

Baird A, Palermo A and Pampanin S (2012). “Façade damage assessment of concrete buildings in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake”. Structural Concrete, 13(1): 3-13. DOI:

Beattie JG (2007) “Design guide of slender precast concrete panels with low axial load”. ISSN: 01133675, BRANZ Study, Porirua, 65 pp.

Standards Association of New Zealand, (2006). “NZS 3101: Code of practice for the design of concrete structures. Part 1: The Design of Concrete Structures”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 309 pp.

Cement & Concrete Association of New Zealand (2004) “TM 34, Tilt-up technical manual”, Technical Manual 34, ISSN: 11710748, Wellington, 41 pp.

Department of Building and Housing (2004). Practice Advisory 1., (Accessed June 2005).

SESOC Interim Design Guidance 0.9 (2013). “Design of conventional structural systems following the Canterbury earthquakes”. Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand, Wellington, 49 pp.

Henry RS, Sritharan S and Ingham JM (2012). “Unbonded Tendon Stresses in Post-Tensioned Concrete Walls at Nominal Flexural Strength”. ACI Structural Journal, 109(2): 171-182.

Henry RS, Brooke NJ, Sritharan S and Ingham JM (2012). “Defining concrete compressive strain in unbonded post-tensioned walls”. ACI Structural Journal, 109(1): 101-111.

New Zealand Concrete Society & New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. (1999). “Guidelines for the use of structural precast concrete in buildings.” Centre for advanced engineering. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, ISBN 0-908993-20-X, 154 pp.

Zenunovic D and Folic R (2012). “Models for behaviour analysis of monolithic wall and precast or monolithic floor slab connection”. Engineering Structure. 40(July): 466-478.

How to Cite
Seifi, P., Henry, R. S., & Ingham, J. M. (2016). Panel connection details in existing New Zealand precast concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(2), 190-199.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>