Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Structural Analysis Report
Structural Analysis Report
Structural Analysis Report
AND
RETROFITTING DESIGN OF EXISTING
OFFICE BUILDING
SUBMITTED BY:
MORPHOGENESIS
9. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................20
2. OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this structural report is to check existing building, whether
they could be considered earthquake safer building for Office or not. Detail Evaluation of
the existing building is done and Retrofitting design is to be carried out if it is found
vulnerable to earthquake force.
3. SCOPE OF THE WORKS
The scope of the works for detail seismic vulnerability assessment is as follows:
Site visit in order to conduct a survey to determine the structural characteristics of the
existing building.
Modeling of the existing building using the data for the Office Building.
Structural analysis of the modeled building.
Reinforced concrete design of the structural elements considering SAP results.
Compare the obtained & existing design of structural elements of the office building.
Recommend whether buildings are earthquake safer or not for the Office uses.
Retrofit design the members of building if found unsafe.
4. EVALUATION PROCESS
This existing building is checked whether it is designed in accordance with the
principles and philosophies and requirements of current seismic standards. The
evaluation procedure has followed as the steps suggested by the IS-15988, as given
below.
b) Detailed evaluation: It includes numerical checks on stability and integrity of the whole
structure as well as the strength of each member. Conventional design calculations for
these checks shall use modified demands and strengths.
The follows flow chart is used to further evaluation works:
5. DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING:
The detailed evaluation procedure is based on determining the probable strength of lateral
load resisting elements and comparing them with the expected seismic demands. The
probable strengths determined are modified with appropriate knowledge factor K.
The lateral force obtained from the IS 1893 (Part 1) calculation method is reduced by
useable life factor.
U=(Trem/Tdes)0.5
Where,
Trem = remaining life of the building = 45
Tdes = design useful life of the building = 60
U = 86 % =100%
7. CONCULSION
The following conclusions could be made based on the physical site survey, non
destructive test, SAP structural analysis & design of the existing buildings.
i) RETROFIT OPTION
From the design of existing building with the actual amount of concrete and
reinforcement, we obtained that most of the beam columns are overstressed. Although the
building is regular in plan and elevation, inadequate longitudinal reinforcement in column
is main cause that vertical member failed the most. It means either need to increase
number of column to support the induced load due to earthquake or need to retrofit the
column. The addition of shear wall is also helps to increase the global stiffness of the
building as well as to maintain the torsional criteria.
In this option, the column sections are enlarged according to the design section and
reinforcement.
The different sections for column and beam jacketing are provided below:
RCC Frame Sections are used to model the existing the Beam, Column.
Linear and elastic finite element Model was run for the Lateral load corresponding to the
basic seismic Coefficient as calculated below table of Base Shear Calculation.
The response reduction factor was assumed to 5 including there must be reserved
potential in structure to deform up to 5 times the maximum elastic deformation without
collapse.
Along X-direction
TABLE: Story Response
Story Elevation X-Dir
m Drift %
2 8.688
1 5.792 0.12
Ground 2.896 0.13
Base 0.00 0.00
Since, the drift ratio is less than 0.4% of storey height. Hence, check is satisfied for drift in X-
direction.
Along Y-direction
TABLE: Story Response
Story Elevation Y-Dir
m Drift %
2 8.688
1 5.792 0.15
Ground 2.896 0.16
Base 0.00 0.00
Since, the drift ratio is less than 0.4% of Storey height. Hence, check is satisfied for drift in Y-
direction.
I. DEMAND CAPACITY CHECK OF RETROFITTED MEMBERS:
Percentage of reinforcement,
p = 1.63%
p/fck = 0.11
Pu/(fckbD) = 777.165 x 1000/(15 x 345 x 345)
= 0.368
Referring to chart 48 of SP: 16,
Mu ′/ (fck b D2) = 0.15
Mu′ = 118.65 kNm
DCR = 0.31<1
Hence the check is satisfied.
Design of column:
L D
20mm or =17.64
500 30
Muy 1.0893 10 3
For Muy, ex= =
Pu 777.165
L D
= 1.4 mm <20mm or =17.64mm
500 30
Therefore, the column should be designed as compression member subjected to axial
load and biiaxial bending.
Assuming percentage of steel (p) = 1.65%
p/fck =0.11
Assuming Steel is distributed uniformly on four sides,
Biaxial moment capacity of the column about Y- axis,
d' 48
= =0.128
D 375
From code SP-16 (Chart No 48)
Pu 777.165 10 3
= = 0.368
fck bD 15 375 375
Muy
= 0.15
fck bD 2
M uy1 = 0.15×15×375×3752 /106 = 118.65 KN-m
Muy1 = Mux1 = 118.65 KN-m (Since the column section is square.)
Calculation of Puz,
For, p = 1.65 %, f y = 500Mpa, fck= 15 MPa
Puz 0.45 fck Ac 0.75 fy Asc (IS: 456-2000, Clause 39.6)
0.45 15 375 375) * (1 0.0165 0.75 500 0.0165 375 375
Puz = 1803.6
10 3
KN
Therefore,777.165 /1803.6= 0.43<1 ok
Now, n =1.38 (IS 456:2000 Clause 39.6)
n n
M ux M uy
1 (IS 456:2000 Clause 39.6)
M
M ux1 uy1
1.38 1.38
36.576 15.54
= 0.26<1 (Ok)
118.56 118.56
Hence reinforcement of 1.65 % will be sufficient for the column section of 345x345 mm.
So, Area of steel, Ast = 0.0165 ×345×345 = 2320.31 mm2
Now, Assuming 4 numbers of 16 mm Φ bars and 4 numbers of 12 mm Φ bars,
reinforcement is distributed equally on all four sides, A = 1256 mm2
Existing reinforcement A’=1030 mm2
Therefore, Total area of reinforcement = 2286 (Also area of steel obtained from SAP
design for column 2286 mm2, ok)
The above design also fulfills the standards of IS 13920: 1993, clause 7.1.1, clause 7.1.2,
clause 7.1.3, and detailing is done also considering the standards of code IS 13920: 1993,
clause 7.2, clause 7.3 and clause 7.4.
Figure: 3-D View of Beam Column Joint
9. CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES:
A. Columns Jacketing Methodology:
Figure: Typical Arrangement of Longitudinal Bars, Lateral Ties & Anchorage Bars
B. Beam-Column Joint Jacketing Methodology:
The most critical region of a moment resisting frame for seismic loading, the beam to the
column joint, is undoubtedly the most difficult to strengthen because of the great number
of elements assembled at this place and the high stresses this region is subjected to in an
earthquake. Under earthquake loading joints suffer shear and/or bond failures.
The retrofitting at the beam column joint is selected as the option like reinforced concrete
jacketing.
Figure: Vertical Sectional View of Jacketed Beam-Column Joint
1. Weld the added reinforcement with the existing bar nearer to the junction to hold
the bottom longitudinal bar of beam during construction. Welding details provided
below.
(Section A-A)
Figure: Sectional Elevation of Beam Column Joint
Figure: 3-D View of Beam Column Joint
10.CONCLUSION:
After the analysis of the office building, we conclude that the existing building has not sufficient
capacity to resist the seismic force during the seismic activities. So the seismic retrofitting works
are essential to this building.
11.CODES AND STANDARDS
The main design standards followed for existing structural design & retrofitting are given
below, indicating their area of application.
S.N. Code and Standards Description
1 IS 456: 2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice
2 IS 875 (Part 1): 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures: Part 1 Dead Loads – Unit Weights of
Building Material and Stored Materials (Second Revision)
3 IS 875 (Part 2): 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures: Part 2 Imposed Loads (Second
Revision)
4 IS 875 (Part 3): 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures: Part 3 Wind Loads (Second
Revision)
5 SP 34: 1987 Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing
6 IS 13920: 1993 Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected
to seismic forces - Code of practice
7 IS 1893: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures
8 IS 1786: 1985 Specification for high strength deformed steel bars and wires
for concrete reinforcement (superseding IS:1139 -1966)
9 IS 800: 2007 Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel (Third
Revision)
10 SP 16 : 1980 Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456 : 1978
REFERENCES
Jain, A.K. Reinforced Concrete, Limit State Design, fifth edition, Nem Chand and
Bros, Roorkee, 1999
Sinha, S. N. Reinforced Concrete Design, Second edition, Tata McGraw Hill
Publishing Company Ltd, New Delhi, 1996
Pillai,U.C. and Reinforced Concrete Design, Second edition, Tata McGraw Hill
Menon,D. Publishing Company Ltd, New Delhi, 2003