Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manual On Seismic Evaluation Retrofit of Multistory RC Blds PDF
Manual On Seismic Evaluation Retrofit of Multistory RC Blds PDF
March, 2005
SHEAR
CONCRETE
WALL
STEEL JACKETING
BRACING
Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
In collaboration with
Structural Engineering Research Centre
Taramani, Chennai 600 113
Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
PREFACE
i
This Manual is intended primarily for use by the practising engineer, but is also useful for
academic purposes. Some background information on the basic theoretical concepts are
given, but for a full understanding, the user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge
of structural dynamics, earthquake engineering, reinforced concrete design and IS code
requirements. It is also assumed that the user has some exposure to the use of standard
finite element software packages (such as SAP 2000, STAAD Pro, etc.). As part of the
DST sponsored project, a software called SAVE (Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability
Evaluation), has also been developed (as an alternative to existing commercial packages)
and is now made freely available for users of this Manual. Details of SAVE (User
Manual and CD) are given separately, and are not included in the scope of this Manual.
This Manual in its present form represents a consolidation of several studies (theoretical
and experimental) and discussions undertaken by the coordinators of the DST-sponsored
project, which commenced in 2002. As part of the project, as many as 40 sample
buildings located in different parts of India (in Zones III, IV and V) were evaluated,
including the difficult process of data collection and field survey. It is observed from
these case studies that the majority of existing multi-storeyed buildings in India,
particularly residential apartment complexes, fail to meet the current code compliance
requirements and are in danger of damage (of varying degrees) in the event of a
earthquake of expected intensity.
ii
Unfortunately, there are at present few structural engineers who have the expertise to
assess the seismic vulnerability and suggest appropriate retrofit measures. This Manual
is expected to enhance that number manifold. Workshops and training programmes
related to the use of this Manual are planned for this purpose.
Numerous persons have helped us in preparing this Manual. These include project
associates, Ph.D. and M.S. research scholars, M.Tech. and B.Tech. students, laboratory
technicians and secretarial staff. A list of all the major contributors is given in the
Acknowlegement page. We are also grateful to the Department of Science and
Technology for their funding and encouragement.
iii
IITM – SERC Project Team
iv
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CONTENTS
Preface i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology
2. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 7
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Data Collection and Condition Assessment of Building
2.3 Rapid Visual Screening
2.3.1 Scores for a building
2.3.2 Cut-off Score
2.3.3 Building Type Descriptions
2.3.4 Score Modifier
2.4 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness
2.4.1 Column Shear
2.4.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
2.4.3 Axial Stress in Column
2.4.4 Frame Drift
2.4.5 Strong Column – Weak Beam Check
2.5 Evaluation Statements
2.6 Decision for Detailed Evaluation
vii
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
5. SEISMIC RETROFIT 63
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Goals of Retrofit
5.3 Definitions
viii
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
6. BUILDING DEFICIENCIES 70
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Global Deficiencies
6.2.1 Plan Irregularities
6.2.2 Vertical Irregularities
6.3 Local Deficiencies
6.3.1 Columns
6.3.2 Beams and Beam-Column Joints
6.3.3 Slabs
6.3.4 Unreinforced Masonry Walls
6.3.5 Precast Elements
6.3.6 Deficient Construction
6.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies
6.4.1 Deficiencies in Analysis
6.4.2 Lack of Integral Action
6.4.3 Failure of Stair Slab
6.4.4 Pounding of Buildings
6.4.5 Geotechnical Aspects
6.4.6 Inadequate detailing and documentation
ix
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
x
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
xi
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Indian codes of practice for earthquake resistant design (IS 1893: 2002) and
detailing (IS 13920: 1993) give guidelines to construct new buildings which are
expected to perform adequate in terms of load and deformation capacities. The
existing buildings constructed as per older codes are likely to show inherent
deficiencies and may not meet the demands as estimated by the current codes.
Hence, the task of seismic evaluation involves correlation between the imposed
demand level of earthquake and the expected performance level of building. The
code refers to two levels of earthquakes such as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The concept of seismic design
philosophy is to ensure life safety under DBE and prevent collapse of the building
under MCE. These are two performance objectives which are to be ascertained
with the existing buildings.
2
Chapter I - Introduction
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The work related to the first two objectives is covered in this manual. It may be
noted that any of the commercially available software can be used to carry out the
analysis. Details of the free software SAVE developed as part of this DST
sponsored project are given separately (user manual and CD), and are not included
in this manual.
3
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
1.3 SCOPE
This procedure aims at two seismic safety objectives, namely (i) life safety under
design basis earthquake and (ii) collapse prevention objective under maximum
considered earthquake. It does not address other performance objectives. The
buildings treated in this section are mid-rise (3 to 10 storeys) reinforced concrete
moment resisting framed buildings. The report deals only with structural aspects
of the building. Non-structural and geotechnical aspects lie outside the scope of
the report. Special attention should be taken for the evaluation of buildings
located in liquefiable soils.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
4
Chapter I - Introduction
Preliminary evaluation
Deficiencies? NO
YES
Detailed evaluation
NO Retrofit not
Deficiencies?
necessary
YES
Post-retrofit analysis
NO
Deficiencies? Report preparation
YES
5
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
2. Detailed evaluation
i) Computational modelling.
ii) Perform linear static and dynamic analysis and check the code
compliance at critical section.
iii) Study DCR of structural components
iv) Perform non-linear (static) push-over analysis and assess the
performance.
v) Compare with performance objectives
i Code compliance
i Desired failure mechanism
i Drift capacity
The first two among these three performance objectives are mandatory
requirements to be satisfied whereas the third one is a desirable performance
objective.
6
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER II
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
∗
The RVS procedure was proposed by Applied Technology Council in the documents FEMA 154
and FEMA 155. In the present report, the data collection form shown in Table 2.1, is adapted from
FEMA 154 published in 2002. The form was modified to include the seismic zones and soil types
as per IS 1893: 2002 and to define the ‘pre-code’ and ‘post-benchmark’ criteria.
7
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
“Quick checks” are approximate checks for strength and stiffness of building
components. The evaluation statements are in the form of a simple questionnaire
that gives an overall idea of the building and identifies areas of potential weakness,
in terms of seismic performance. It also checks the conformity with seismic design
and detailing provisions.
Condition survey and walk through of the building gives a general description of
the building. It notes the available drawings and reports, identifies the basic
architectural features, material properties and their deterioration and several
helpful information. A suggested form of the building survey data sheet is given in
Table 2.1 and 2.2 is modified from the proposed amendment in town and country
planning legislations, Regulations for Land Use Zoning in Natural Hazards Zone
of India (Draft version, 2005).
8
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
9
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 2.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description Information Notes
1 Type of building IS 1893: 2002
• Regular frames
• Regular frames with shear
wall
• Irregular frames
• Irregular frames with shear
wall
• Open ground storey
2 Number of basements
3 Number of floors
4 Horizontal floor system
• Beams and slabs
• Waffle slab
• Ribbed floor
• Flat slab with drops
• Flat plate without drops
5 Soil data IS 1498: 1970
• Type of soil
• Recommended foundation
- Independent footings
- Raft
- Piles
• Recommended bearing
capacity
• Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
• Depth of water table
• Chemical analysis of ground
water
• Chemical analysis of soil
10
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level
• Type
− Independent
− Interconnected
− Raft
− Piles
7 System of interconnecting IS 1893: 2002
foundations Cl. 7.12.1
• Plinth beams
• Foundation beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
9 Method of analysis
10 Computer software used
11 Torsion included IS 1893: 2002
12 Base shear IS 1893: 2002
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
13 Distribution of seismic forces along IS 1893: 2002
the height of building
14 The columns of soft ground storey IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
11
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
• Type of reinforcement used IS 456, Cl. 5.6
• Minimum dimension of IS 13920, Cl. 6.1
beams IS 13920, Cl. 7.1.2
• Minimum dimension of
columns IS 456: 2000
• Minimum percentage of Cl. 26.5.1.1(a)
reinforcement of beams at IS 13920: 1993
any cross section Cl. 6.2.1 (a)
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
• Spacing of transverse IS 13920: 1993
reinforcement in 2d length Cl. 6.3.5
of beam near the ends
• Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of
IS 456: 2000
reinforcement in column
Cl. 26.5.3.1
• Confining stirrups near ends IS 13920, Cl. 7.4
of columns and in beam-
column joints
− Diameter
− Spacing
• Ratio of shear capacity of IS 13920, Cl. 7.2.1
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey IS 13920, Cl. 6.3.5
• Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
• Beam bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
However, in many cases, such drawings may not be available (or at best, partially
available). Tables 2.3 to 2.6∗ summarize the data collection process, relating to the
availability of the drawings and level of evaluation. The various data to be
collected when the original construction drawings are available are indicated in
∗
These items are from Table 5.1 to Table 5.4 of ATC-40 (Volume 1): “Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings,” Applied Technology Council, California.1996.
12
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 should be followed when construction
drawings are not available. It is suggested, as shown in tables that in addition to the
visual inspection, it is recommended to carry out non-destructive testing to assess
the strength of concrete.
13
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 2.4: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Structural calculations × Could be helpful
Site seismicity and
× Helpful but not essential
geotechnical report
Foundation report × Helpful but not essential
Prior seismic assessment
× Helpful but not essential
reports
Condition survey of building ×
Alteration and as built
×
assessment
Walk through dimensioning × Spot checking is appropriate
Non-structural walk through × Identify falling hazards, weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
Core testing ×
building
Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per
Rebound hammer testing ×
building
Aggregate testing × Each core
Reinforcement testing × Optional
Reinforcement location Pachometer @ 10% of critical
×
verification location, Visual @ 2 locations.
Verify anchorage and bracing
Non-structural exploration × conditions for components sensitive
to building performance.
14
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the ductile detailing provision of
IS 13920: 1993 have been followed, it is judicious to assume non-compliance with
the code. Based on an assessment of reliability of the data collected, an
15
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 2.6: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are not available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Structural calculations × Could be helpful
Site seismicity and geotechnical
× Helpful but not essential
report
Foundation report × Helpful but not essential
Prior seismic assessment reports × Helpful but not essential
Condition survey of building ×
Alteration and as built assessment ×
Must be done very
Walk through dimensioning × thoroughly, particularly if
structure will be retrofitted.
Identify falling hazards,
Non-structural walk through ×
weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
Core testing (limited) ×
building
Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per
Rebound hammer testing ×
building
Aggregate testing × Each core
Reinforcement testing × 2 per type
Pachometer for all critical
Reinforcement location verification ×
location, Visual on 25%.
Verify anchorage and
bracing conditions for
Non-structural exploration ×
components sensitive to
building performance.
16
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
The Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) was proposed by FEMA as a means of quickly
assessing, using a scoring system, the seismic vulnerability of buildings in a
locality, based only on visual inspection. Considerable research has gone into the
formulation of the RVS scoring system, and although the specific scores may not
be directly applicable to Indian conditions, the RVS does provide a rough guideline
for reference. Since the RVS is based on visual inspection, the results may vary
from that of a detailed analysis. In general, however, it is expected that the
building that passes the RVS cut-off score criterion, will be found to perform
adequately during an earthquake. If a large number of buildings need to be
evaluated, performing the RVS helps to minimise the number of buildings that
require a detailed analysis.
17
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
In the data collection form, for a particular type of building, the structural scoring
system consists of a basic structural hazard (BSH) score and a set of score
modifiers. The BSH score can be defined as negative logarithm of probability of
collapse of the benchmark building under maximum considered earthquake
(MCE). Thus a BSH score for moment resisting frame (MRF) in moderate
seismicity region of 3.0 implies that for every thousand (103) benchmark buildings
one building is likely to collapse.
Benchmark buildings are the representative building for which the structural
hazard scores (BSH score) were developed∗ for different seismic regions. A
Benchmark building is a low rise, ordinary building (not detailed as per seismic
detailing code) located on an average rock strata (Soil Type B of UBC 1997) and it
has no plan and vertical irregularity. The building is assumed to be designed as per
the current seismic code.
FEMA 154 recommends that if the final score is less than the cut off score of 2, a
detailed analysis of the building is required. In selected cases, in order to have a
safer environment (at a correspondingly higher cost) a higher cut-off value can be
used.
∗
The BSH scores are developed from fragility and capacity curves, generated by HAZUS
(developed by National Institute of Building Sciences, USA) based on seismic hazard maps.
18
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
There are three different building types mentioned in Table 2.7. The definitions of
these buildings are as follows.
(a) Concrete Moment Resisting Frame Buildings (MRF): The buildings with
reinforced concrete frame as the only lateral load resisting system.
(b) Concrete Shear Wall Buildings (SW): Buildings with shear walls are
considered in this type. It also includes buildings having shear walls and frames,
but where the frames are either not designed to carry lateral load or do not fulfil
the requirements of dual system. These buildings generally perform better than
concrete frame buildings and this is reflected in the magnitude of BSH score.
(c) Concrete Frames with Un-reinforced Masonry Infill Walls (URM-INF): In
this type of buildings, un-reinforced masonry infill walls are also part of the lateral
load resisting system.
BSH scores were calculated for a standard benchmark building. For a specific
building, which may have different characteristics due to higher number of storeys
or structural irregularities or different soil type, it is necessary to modify the BSH
scores using score modifiers (SM)**. So a specific building will arrive at a final
score (S) after modifying the BSH score. The final score S is an estimate of the
probability that the building will collapse if a ground motion equal to or exceeding
the MCE ground motion occurs. S = BSH ± SM. Definitions∗ for the score
modifiers used in Table 2.7 are discussed below.
**
A positive modifier implies reduced probability of failure and vice versa.
∗
The following definitions of the score modifiers are from FEMA 154, changed suitably as per IS
1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993.
19
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Plan irregularity and Vertical irregularity: This are defined in detail in Tables 2.9
and 2.10 in the section 2.5
Pre-code: Buildings designed for gravity loads only and not for lateral loads are
defined as pre-code buildings. In the absence of any mention of code in the
construction documents, it is difficult to judge ‘pre-code’. Then, if at the beam-
ends, the bottom steel is less than 50% of the top steel provided, the building can
be considered to be designed for gravity loads only. As the benchmark building is
assumed to be designed as per the current seismic code, pre-code buildings have a
negative score modifier.
Soil Type Definition∗∗: Score modifiers for three soil types are mentioned in the
data collection form.
Soil Type I (Rock or hard soil): well graded gravel and sand gravel mixtures with
or without clay binder, and clayey sands poorly graded or sand clay mixtures with
standard penetration count, N > 30.
Soil Type II (Medium soil): All soils with 10 ≤ N ≤ 30 poorly graded sands or
gravely sands with little or no fines with N > 15.
Soil Type III (Soft soil): All soils other than sands poorly graded with N < 10.
The ‘quick checks’ involve a set of initial calculations that checks the average
shear stress in the columns, shear walls etc and average axial stresses in columns
∗∗
The values of the score modifier for soil type were obtained by mapping the soil types given in
UBC-1997 to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002. The details of the mapping is
discussed in Appendix-A.
20
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
in each storey, due to the design lateral force determined from IS 1893-2002. This
includes a drift check which is a measure of the stiffness of the building and also a
strong column-week beam check recommended by IS 13920: 1993. The details of
the checks are given below.
The base shear (VB) is to be calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893: 2002. The
calculation of the base shear is explained in Section 3.3.1.5. The shear at each
storey (Vj) is calculated from the base shear as follows:
n
Vi = ∑ Qi (2.1)
i
The average shear stress in the columns (assuming that nearly all the columns in
the frame have similar stiffness) is given by,
⎛ nc ⎞ ⎛ Vi ⎞
τ avg = ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.2)
⎜
⎝ nc − n f ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
Where, nc ≡ Total number of columns in that particular storey,
nf ≡ Total number of frames in the direction of loading,
Ac ≡ Summation of the cross sectional areas of columns in
the storey under consideration,
Vi ≡ shear at storey, i.
21
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
⎛ n ⎞
The term ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ is based on the assumption that shear force carried by the
⎝ nc − n f ⎠
columns at the end of RC frames are typically half of those carried by interior
columns. However, this leads to a very conservative estimate of shear for one-bay
frame (twice of the correct value), but this discrepancy is not so serious for frames
which are typically more redundant.
If the average column shear stress (τavg) is greater than 0.4 MPa, a more detailed
evaluation of the structure should be performed.
The average shear stress in the walls at a storey can be calculated as follows.
Vi
τ avg = (2.3)
Aw
If the average shear stress in shear walls (τavg) is greater than 0.35 MPa or
0.074√fck MPa, a more detailed evaluation of the structure should be
performed.
5⎛V ⎞⎛ h ⎞
P= ⎜ B ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.4)
8 ⎜⎝ n f ⎠⎝ L ⎠
22
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Here, h is the total height of the building, L is the total length of a frame and nf is
the number of frames in the direction of lateral forces. The factor 5 8 accounts
for the height of the resultant lateral force above base level.
The axial stress calculated from the force should be less than 0.24 fck for
acceptance.
The approximate storey drift ratio can be determined using the following equation.
It considers that the storey displacement is equal to the flexural displacement of a
representative column, including the effect of end rotation due to bending of a
representative beam.
kb + kc h
DR = VcC d (2.5)
k b k c 12 E
For the value of I, an equivalent cracked section moment of inertia equal to half of
the gross section can be used. The above equation can be applied to the ground
storey if the columns are fixed against rotation at the bottom (for pile and raft
foundations). If the columns are pinned at the bottom (for isolated footing), an
equivalent storey height equal to twice the storey height shall be used in
calculating the value of kc.
If the drift ratio exceeds the limiting drift ratio of 0.015, the structure needs to be
evaluated for full frame analysis using the design lateral forces.
23
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
∆ ∆
A quick check (in an overall sense) of ascertaining whether plastic hinges formed
first in the beam sections rather than the adjoining column sections is by checking
that the sum of the moment capacities of the columns shall be 20% greater than
that of the beams at frame joints.
i.e., ∑ Moment capacities of the columns > 1.2 ∑ Moment capacities of the beams
24
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Load path: The structure shall contain one complete load path for
seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to
transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
Adjacent buildings: An adjacent building shall not be located next
to the structure being evaluated closer than 4% of the height.
∗
The evaluation statements are based on FEMA 310 and are modified to match the clauses of IS
1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993. The definitions of structural irregularities are as per IS 1893:
2002 and the detailing provisions are as per IS13920: 1993. The statements for the life safety
performance level are selected. The statements which are solely for immediate occupancy
performance level are disregarded.
25
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
26
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
27
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Fn Kn
F3 K3
F2 K2
F1 K1
F < 0.8 F ⎧
⎪ 0.7 ki+1
i i +1 ⎪
⎪
ki < ⎨⎪ ⎛ ki+1 + ki+2 + ki+3 ⎞⎟
(a) Weak storey ⎪⎪0.8⎜⎜ ⎟
⎪
⎩ ⎝
⎪
⎜ 3 ⎠⎟
W3
W2 A/L > 0.25
L
W1
A A
L A L A
28
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
1.2(∆1 + ∆ 2 )
∆2 >
2
∆2
∆1
EQ
L L
A
A
Lateral load
Y Opening Area, A2
resisting system
θ
X A2 > 0.5 A
29
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
*
It is noted that unless the bend angle is mentioned as 135 degree and there is adequate extension
beyond the bend, the hook will be considered as “non-compliant”.
30
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Statements C / NC / NA
31
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Statements C / NC / NA
Statements C / NC / NA
32
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
2d 2d
33
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
In this chapter the steps to be taken in order to carry out a preliminary evaluation
of seismic vulnerability of a given building have been outlined. At the end of the
preliminary evaluation a decision has to be taken whether to probe further and
carry out more rigorous detailed evaluation (described in Chapters III and IV).
Strictly, if the given building passes all the quick checks and satisfies all the
evaluation statements, detailed evaluation is not called for. Nevertheless it is good
practice to go ahead with the detailed evaluation, if an absolute confirmation
regarding safety and code compliance is desired. It may be noted that almost
every building out of 40 buildings randomly chosen for study under DST project
was found to be deficient in some manner or other during the stage of preliminary
evaluation. It is possible, as seen in some instances of the case studies carried out,
that a building found deficient in preliminary evaluation performs satisfactory
(without need for any retrofit) in the detailed evaluation. Thus, the preliminary
evaluation serves as a useful screening test for seismic evaluation and its outcome
is generally conservative.
34
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER III
3.1 INTRODUCTION
35
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Modelling a building involves the modelling and assemblage of its various load-
carrying elements. A model must ideally represent the complete three dimensional
(3D) characteristics of the building, including its mass distribution, strength,
stiffness and deformability. Modelling of the material properties and structural
elements is discussed below.
For the steel rebar, the properties required are yield stress (fy) and modulus of
elasticity (Es).
For assigning the material properties, the procedure outlined in section 2.2 shall be
followed. As the characteristic strength is a 5 percentile value of the actual
strength, the strength in analysis may be increased by the factors suggested in
Table 3.1 for seismic evaluation purpose. This is done to estimate the expected
capacities of the members.
36
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
However, the expected values need to be further modified to for the uncertainty
regarding the present condition of the material. A “knowledge factor” (mk) is used
to account for this uncertainty. Proposed values of the knowledge factor are
shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Knowledge factors∗
No Description of available information mk
1 Original construction documents, including material testing 1.0
report
2 Documentation as in (1) but no material testing undertaken 0.9
3 Documentation as in (2) and minor deteriorations of 0.8
original condition
4 Incomplete but usable original construction documents 0.7
5 Documentation as in (4) and limited inspection and material 0.6
test results with large variation.
6 Little knowledge about the details of components 0.5
∗
The table is adopted from “IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of
buildings” prepared by Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
37
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Here, the gross section moment of inertia (Ig) should be calculated considering the
rectangular area only as shown in Figure 3.1. In the case of columns, the
reduction in stiffness due to cracking is reduced by the presence of axial
compression. The suggested moment of inertia for column is: Ieff ≡ 0.7 Ig
T-Beam L-Beam
Total Length
Clear Length
Beam
End Offsets
Column
∗
Factors recommended here are adapted from Paulay and Priestley (1991)
38
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
3.2.2.3 Slabs
The slabs need not be modelled by plate elements to simplify modelling. The
structural effect of slabs due to their in-plane stiffness can be taken into account
by assigning ‘diaphragm’ action at each floor level. The weight of a slab can be
modelled separately as triangular and trapezoidal loads on the supporting beams.
In case of large openings or projections in slabs, different portions of the floor
may have differential translations, and in such cases, diaphragm action should be
assigned separately to the different sections.
3.2.2.4 Appendages
The effects of all significant appendages (for example, water tanks, stairways,
cantilever slabs) should be included in the model. Stairway slabs can be modelled
as inclined equivalent frame elements, with hinges at the ends. For water tanks
and cantilever slabs, the masses are lumped on the supporting elements.
Structural walls such as shear walls and walls in building core, which are
integrally connected to the floor slabs, can be modelled using equivalent wide
column elements. The ‘master’ node of the column element can be at the centre of
gravity of the shear wall or core and it should be connected to the ‘slave’ nodes of
the adjacent beams by rigid links (Figure 3.3). Non-structural walls such as infill
walls have weight and in-plane stiffness. They influence the behaviour of the
building under lateral load. The weight of an infill wall should be incorporated
39
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
When the stiffness contribution of the infill walls is included, the natural period of
the building is reduced and the base shear increases. But, the moments in the
beams and columns may reduce due to the ‘truss’ action of the equivalent struts.
During an earthquake, the infill walls may fail due to out-of-plane bending. This
will increase the moments in the beams and columns. To calculate the demands in
the beams and columns, two extreme cases can be modelled. In the first model,
the lateral stiffness due to the significant infill walls is modelled by the equivalent
struts. In the second model, the stiffness is ignored. However, the weight of the
infill walls on the supporting beams should be considered in both the models.
Beam
Master Rigid
Node Links
Slave Node
40
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
The column end at foundation can be modelled by considering the degree of fixity
provided by the foundation. Depending on the type of footing the end condition
may be modelled as follows:
i) Isolated footing: A hinge is to be provided at the column end at the bottom
of the foundation. However, when it is founded on hard rock, the column
end may be modelled as fixed, with the level of fixity at the top of the
footing.
ii) Raft foundation: The column ends are to be modelled as fixed at the top of
the raft.
iii) Combined footing: Engineering judgement must be exercised in modelling
the fixity provided by the combined footings. If the footings are
adequately restrained by tie beams, the column ends can be modelled as
fixed.
iv) Single pile: Fixity of column is recommended at a depth of five to ten
times the diameter of pile, depending upon the type of soil, from the top of
pile cap.
v) Multiple piles: Assume fixity of column at top of the pile cap.
The analysis results are to be for the following load combinations (IS 1893: 2002):
COMB1 = 1.5(DL+IL)
COMB2 = 1.2(DL+IL+EL)
COMB3 = 1.2(DL+IL − EL)
COMB4 = 1.5(DL+EL)
COMB5 = 1.5(DL − EL)
COMB6 = 0.9DL+1.5EL
COMB7 = 0.9DL − 1.5EL
41
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Here, DL ≡ Dead load, IL ≡ Live load, and EL ≡ Earthquake Load. The dead load
and the live load are taken as per IS 875, 1987. When the lateral load resisting
elements are not orthogonally oriented, the design forces along two horizontal
orthogonal directions (X- and Y-) should be considered. One method to consider
this is the following.
(a) 100% of the design forces in X-direction and 30% of the design forces in Y-
direction.
(b) 100% of the design forces in Y-direction and 30% of the design forces in X-
direction.
An alternative method to consider the effect of the forces along X- and Y-
directions is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) basis.
The vertical component is considered only for special elements like horizontal
cantilevers in Zones IV and V. The maximum value of a response quantity from
the above load combinations gives the demand.
The two different linear analysis methods recommended in IS 1893: 2002 are
explained in this Section. Any one of these methods can be used to calculate the
expected seismic demands on the lateral load resisting elements.
In the equivalent static method, the lateral force equivalent to the design basis
earthquake is applied statically. The equivalent lateral forces at each storey level
are applied at the design ‘centre of mass’ locations. It is located at the design
eccentricity from the calculated ‘centre of rigidity (or stiffness)’.
42
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
The centre of mass is the point where the total mass of the floor level is assumed
to be lumped. The centre of mass can be calculated for each floor by taking
moments of the axial forces (from gravity load analysis of that floor only) in the
columns about an assumed reference axis.
=∑ CMy = ∑
Wi xi Wi yi
CMx ; (3.3)
∑W i ∑W i
where
CMx ≡ coordinate of the centre of mass along x-direction
CMy ≡ coordinate of the centre of mass along y-direction
X- direction
Y-direction
The centre of rigidity is the point through which the resultant of the restoring
forces in a storey acts. The centre of rigidity for each storey should be found out
separately. There are different procedures to calculate the centre of rigidity. One
of the procedures is explained below.
The columns of the storey are assumed to be fixed at the bottom. A unit force
along X-direction and a unit moment about Z- axis (vertical axis) are applied at a
certain test point in the top of the storey and the corresponding rotations are noted
down. The distance of the centre of rigidity from the test point, along Y- direction,
is calculated from the ratio of the two rotations. Similarly the distance along X-
direction is found out by applying a unit force along Y- direction and a unit
moment.
43
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Let the co-ordinates of the test point be (x, y). Let (θz)x, (θz)y and (θz)z be the
rotations about the Z-axis for the unit loads along X- and Y- directions and unit
moment about Z-axis, respectively. The co-ordinates of the centre of rigidity is
given as CRx,= x+x1, CRy = y+y1, where
x1 = -(θz)x/(θz)z (3.4a)
y1 = (θz)x/(θz)z (3.4b)
The static eccentricity of the centre of mass with respect of centre of rigidity is
given as follows.
esix = CMx−CRx (3.5a)
esiy = CMy−CRy (3.5b)
The design eccentricity of the centre of mass (edix, ediy) is calculated considering a
dynamic amplification factor and an additional eccentricity of 5% of the
dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of the seismic force. For
either of X- or Y- directions,
edi = 1.5esi + 0.05bi (3.6a)
or,
edi = esi − 0.05bi (3.6b)
There can be four possible locations of the design centre of mass. To reduce
computation, only two diagonal locations can be considered.
The seismic weight of each floor of the structure includes the dead load and
fraction of the live load (as per Table 8 of IS 1893: 2002) acting on the floor. The
weight of the columns and walls (up to the tributary height) are to be included. The
tributary height is between the centreline of the storey above and centre line of the
storey below.
44
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
The lumped mass is the total mass of each floor that is lumped at the design centre
of mass of the respective floor. The total mass of a floor is obtained from the
seismic weight of that floor.
The base shear (V = VB) is calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893: 2002.
VB = AhW (3.7)
⎛ Z ⎞ I Sa
Ah = ⎜ ⎟ (3.8)
⎝2⎠ R g
where W ≡ seismic weight of the building, Z ≡ zone factor, I ≡ importance factor,
R ≡ response reduction factor, Sa /g ≡ spectral acceleration coefficient determined
from Figure 3.4, corresponding to an approximate time period (Ta) which is given
by
Ta = 0.075h0.75 for RC moment resisting frame without masonry infill (3.9a)
0.09h
Ta = for RC moment resisting frame with masonry infill (3.9b)
d
The base dimension of the building at the plinth level along the direction of lateral
forces is represented as d (in metres) and height of the building from the support is
represented as h (in metres). The response spectra functions can be calculated as
follows:
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type I soil (rock or hard soil sites): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.40
g ⎪
1
⎪ 0.40 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩T
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type II soil (medium soil): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.55
g ⎪
1.36
⎪ 0.55 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩ T
45
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type III soil (soft soil): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.67
g ⎪
1.67
⎪ 0.67 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩ T
3.0
Spctral Acceleraion Coefficient
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Period (s)
Figure 3.4: Response spectra for 5 percent damping (IS 1893: 2002)
W3
W2
h3
W1
h2
h1
46
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
The design base shear is to be distributed along the height of building as per
Clause 7.7.1 of IS 1893: 2002.
The design lateral force at floor i is given as follows
Wi hi2
Qi = VB n (3.10)
∑W h
j =1
i i
2
ground acceleration.
*
The response spectrum is a plot of the maximum response (maximum displacement, velocity,
acceleration or any other quantity of interest) to a specified load function for all possible single
degree-of-freedom systems. The abscissa of the spectrum is the natural period (or frequency) of the
system and the ordinate is the maximum response. It is also a function of damping. Figure 3.3
shows the design response spectra given in IS 1893: 2002 for a 5% damped system.
47
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
If the building has very closely spaced modes then the CQC method is preferable.
The base shear is calculated for response spectrum analysis in the following
manner. The Sa/g value corresponding to each period of all the considered modes
is first calculated from Figure 3.4. The base shear corresponding to a mode is then
calculated as per Section 3.3.1.5. Each base shear is multiplied with the
corresponding mass participation factor and then combined as per the selected
mode combination method, to get the total base shear of the building.
If the base shear calculated from the response spectrum analysis (VB ) is less than
the design base shear (VB ) calculated from Equation 3.7, then as per IS 1893:
2002, all the response quantities (member forces, displacements, storey shears and
base reactions) have to be scaled up by the factor VB / VB .
The demands (moments, shears and axial forces) obtained at the critical sections
from the linear analyses are compared with the capacities of the individual
48
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
DCR = AB/AC
Pu
B
C
A
Mux Muy
For a beam, positive and negative bending moment demands at the face of the
supports and the positive moment demands at the span need to be compared with
the corresponding capacities. For a column, the moment demand due to bi-axial
bending under axial compression must be checked using the P-Mx-My surface
(interaction surface), generated according to IS 456: 2000. The demand point is to
be located in the P-Mx-My space and a straight line is drawn joining the demand
point to the origin. This line (extended, if necessary) will intersect the interaction
surface at the capacity point. The ratio of the distance of the demand point (from
the origin) to the distance of the capacity point (from the origin) is termed as the
DCR for the column (Figure 3.6).
49
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
ln
plastic hinge
0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln
50
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
The shear demands (Vu) at the support faces (left or right) are obtained as follows
(Clause 6.3.3, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu , left = 0.5wu ln + 1.4 ( M uR− ,left + M uR+ ,right ) ln (3.13a)
Here, ln is the clear span, and wu is the factored load as shown in the Figure 3.7.
The factor 1.4 is intended to account for the higher flexural capacity than the
calculated value. The flexural capacity is higher because the actual yield strength
of the steel is higher than the characteristic strength and the steel undergoes strain
hardening.
Similarly for the columns, the shear demand should be calculated as the larger of
the shear force from analysis and the shear force in the column corresponding to
the beams (framing into the column) reaching their flexural capacities. The shear
demand (Vu) is given by the following expression (Clause 7.3.4, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu = 1.4 ( M uR ,b1 + M uR ,b 2 ) hst (3.14)
Here, MuR, b1 and MuR, b2 are the factored moments of resistance of beam ends ‘1’
and ‘2’ framing into the column from opposite faces, and hst is the storey height
(Figure 3.8).
The shear demands for beams and columns should be checked with the
corresponding shear capacities. The shear capacities for beams and columns can
be calculated using the procedure outlined in Appendix C.
The axial force demands for the ‘equivalent struts’ should be compared with their
capacities. The capacity of the equivalent strut can be calculated according to
Appendix B.
The storey drift for every storey due to the design lateral force, with partial load
factor of 1.0, should satisfy the limitation of 0.4% of the storey height (Clause
7.11.1, IS 1893: 2002).
51
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Vu
1.4MuR, b2
hst
1.4MuR, b1
Vu
52
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER IV
4.1. INTRODUCTION
∆
Base Shear (V)
Base Shear
(V)
Roof Displacement (∆)
53
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Instead of plotting the base shear versus roof displacement, the base acceleration
can be plotted with respect to the roof displacement (capacity spectrum)
(Figure 4.2). The spectral acceleration and spectral displacement, as calculated
from the linear elastic response spectrum for a certain damping (initial value 5%),
is plotted in the Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format.
With increasing non-linear deformation of the components, the equivalent
damping and the natural period increase. The spectral acceleration and
displacement values can be modified from the 5% damping curve by multiplying a
factor corresponding to the effective damping (Table 3, IS 1893: 2002). Thus, the
instantaneous spectral acceleration and displacement point (demand point) shifts
to a different response spectrum for higher damping. The locus of the demand
points in the ADRS plot is referred to as the demand spectrum. The demand
spectrum corresponds to the inelastic deformation of the building.
The ‘performance point’ is the point where the capacity curve crosses the demand
curves. If the performance point exists and the damage state at this point is
acceptable, the structure satisfies the target performance level.
54
Chapter IV – Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
Initial Structural
Period
10% Damping
Performance Point
15% Damping
Capacity Spectrum
Demand Spectrum
Spectral Displacement
55
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
convenience, the control node can be taken at the design centre of mass of the roof
of the building. The target displacement is intended to represent the maximum
displacement likely to be experienced during the earthquake.
Initially, the gravity loads are applied in a force-controlled manner till the total
load reaches the target value. The target value can be same as the design gravity
load for the linear analysis. Next, the lateral loads are applied in the X- or Y-
direction, in a displacement controlled manner. The direction of monitoring of the
behaviour is same as the push direction. The effect of torsion can be considered.
As the displacement is increased, some beams, columns and ‘equivalent struts’
may undergo in-elastic deformation. The non-linear in-elastic behaviour in
flexure, shear or axial compression is modelled through assigning appropriate load-
deformation properties at potential plastic hinge locations. The development of the
load-deformation properties is explained in Appendices C, D and E.
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure
will be displaced incrementally. Frequently, an inverted triangular shape or the
first mode shape is used. The importance of the load distribution increases for tall
buildings, whose earthquake response is not dominated by a single mode shape.
For such buildings, the load distribution based on the first mode shape may
seriously underestimate the loads on the intermediate floor levels. This manual
recommends the load distribution pattern given in IS 1893: 2002 for low to mid-
rise buildings (Equation 3.10).
56
Chapter IV – Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
57
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
58
Chapter IV – Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
building performance level under the selected level of seismic hazard. The
selection of the two levels is based on recommended guidelines for the type of the
building, economic considerations and engineering judgment. The purpose of
developing a performance objective is to have a uniform risk in similar buildings.
The three levels are arranged according to decreasing performance of the lateral
load and vertical load resisting systems. A target performance is defined by a
typical value of the roof drift, as well as limiting values of the deformation of the
structural elements. To determine whether a building meets a specified
performance objective, response quantities from the pushover analysis should be
compared with the limits for each of the performance level.
Typical values of roof drifts for the three performance levels are as follows
(FEMA 356).
i) Immediate Occupancy: Transient drift is about 1% with negligible
permanent drift.
ii) Life Safety: Transient drift is about 2% with 1% permanent drift.
iii) Collapse Prevention: 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.
59
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CP
LS
IO
Py B
0.2∆
Load
0.5∆
0.9∆
∆ D
0.2Py E
∆
A
Deformation
60
Chapter IV – Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
The output from the pushover analysis contains the pushover curve, the demand
and capacity spectra curves and their tabulated values. The pushover curve reveals
the base shear capacity and the inelastic roof displacement. A global ductility can
be calculated as the ratio of the roof displacement at ultimate base shear to the roof
displacement at the onset of yielding. From the demand and capacity spectra
curves, the existence of the performance point can be noted. If the performance
point does not exist, the structure fails to achieve the target performance level. If
61
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
the performance point is achieved at a roof drift which is substantially higher than
the typical value of the selected performance level, then the performance of the
building is unsatisfactory.
The other results of interest from the pushover analysis are the deflected shape, the
formation of hinges with increasing load and the performance levels of the hinges
at the performance point (if exists). The deflected shape and the concentration of
hinges in a storey can reveal a soft storey mechanism. The collapse of a building is
not physically shown in the deflected shape. From the displacement values of the
centres of mass of the storeys, the inelastic drift profile can be plotted. This can
also reveal a soft storey mechanism.
The number of hinges formed in the beams and columns at the performance point
(or at the point of termination of the pushover analysis) and their performance
levels can be used to study the vulnerability of the building. The vulnerability can
be quantified using the concept of ‘vulnerability index’. Appendix D explains the
calculation of ‘vulnerability index’.
62
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER V
SEISMIC RETROFIT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A survey of existing residential buildings reveals that many buildings are not
adequately designed to resist earthquakes. In the recent revision of the Indian
earthquake code (IS 1893: 2002), many regions of the country were placed in
higher seismic zones. As a result many buildings designed prior to the revision of
the code may fail to perform adequately as per the new code. It is therefore
63
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
5.3 DEFINITIONS
i) Retrofit strategy
The options available for retrofitting individual elements or the building as a
whole is termed as retrofit strategies.
64
Chapter V – Seismic Retrofit
65
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
modes after retrofitting, need to be studied. The increase in strength at the cost of
a ductile failure mode changing to brittle is not desirable. The selection and
design of the retrofit scheme may need to be revised accordingly.
v) Construction
The effectiveness of the retrofit scheme greatly depends on the quality of
execution. Hence, the proper execution as per the suggested detailing and
specifications is imperative.
vi) Monitoring
Monitoring the performance of the retrofitted building is necessary to detect any
defect or remaining deficiency. This will lead to a refinement of the design
guidelines and the specifications for future retrofit projects.
66
Chapter V – Seismic Retrofit
The global retrofit strategies are applied to improve the overall behaviour of a
building. If a building has inadequate strength to resist lateral forces, it exhibits
inelastic behaviour at very low levels of ground shaking. Analysis of such a
building indicates large demand-to-capacity ratios in the components throughout
the structure. By providing supplemental elements to the building’s lateral force
resisting system, it is possible to raise the threshold of ground motion at which the
67
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
onset of damage occurs. Addition of shear walls and braced frames, for example,
is effective for this purpose. Reduction of plan and vertical irregularities,
reduction of mass and improving the connections between the elements are other
global retrofit strategies.
68
Chapter V – Seismic Retrofit
The cost of energy dissipation and base isolation systems is high and at present
their use is limited to important structures like hospitals and monumental
structures in India. These devices are not covered in this manual.
69
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER VI
BUILDING DEFICIENCIES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
70
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Delhi
Guwahati
Ahmedabad
Mumbai
Vellore Chennai
Trivandrum
72
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
Under lateral loads, the torsional response modes will dominate, and large
displacement demands will be placed on the vertical elements farthest from the
centre of rigidity, for example the corner columns. The large cyclic motions
would typically put reversed biaxial displacement demands on these columns.
Even well detailed columns will typically fail under such extreme loading
conditions. Eccentric mass, for example due to overhead tanks or swimming
pools, aggravates the torsional irregularity.
73
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
b. Re-entrant Corners
To accommodate multiple dwelling units in one level and to have large number of
windows, re-entrant corners are frequently seen in apartment buildings (Figure
6.2). The layouts with re-entrant corners result in high demands in the corner
columns and in the corners of the diaphragms.
c. Diaphragm Discontinuity
Diaphragm discontinuity is observed when a stair case or a lift well is located at
the middle of the building. The connection of the two halves of the diaphragms is
inadequate (Figure 6.2). Staggered floors with absence of collector elements also
cause diaphragm discontinuity.
74
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
d. Out-of-Plane Offset
Out-of-plane offsets of the lateral force resisting elements cause discontinuities in
the load path. Often columns in the ground storey are set back from the columns
above to reduce the built-up area (Figure 6.3). The floating columns above the
ground storey are supported on transfer cantilever beams. This leads to out-of-
plane offset when the direction of the lateral load is perpendicular to the direction
of the offset.
e. Non-parallel Systems
Non-parallel system is defined to exist when some of the vertical lateral force
resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the orthogonal axes of
the lateral force resisting system.
a. Stiffness Irregularity
The non-uniformity of the stiffness along the height of the building is referred to
as stiffness irregularity. To facilitate parking of vehicles, infill walls are avoided
in the ground storeys of residential buildings (Figure 6.3). Also, open shop front
demands the absence of infill walls in the front side of the ground storey. This
leads to a soft storey, resulting in a sway mechanism under lateral load. Inelastic
deformations will concentrate in this storey, with the remainder of the structure
staying in the elastic range of response. The transfer beam in the first floor is
stronger than the columns beneath, thus creating a situation of strong-beam–weak-
column joints. Even well detailed columns will lose strength, stiffness, and
energy absorption capacity due to the concentrated inelastic demand placed on
this single storey. Thus, collapse of the building is likely under moderate to
severe earthquake. Although lack of infill walls at the ground storey is due to
functional requirement, it needs special design of the columns.
The absence of plinth beams increases the vulnerability of the ground storey
columns.
75
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
b. Mass Irregularity
Mass irregularity may be caused by variation of mass between floors.
d. Weak Storey
The open ground storeys frequently observed are examples of weak storeys.
e. In-Plane Discontinuity
If the in-plane offset of a lateral force resisting element is greater than the length
of the element, an in-plane discontinuity exists. For a column set back in the
ground storey, although the offset is less than the length of the column, it is a case
of in-plane discontinuity when the direction of lateral load coincides with the
direction of offset.
Local deficiencies are element deficiencies that lead to the failure of individual
elements of the building such as crushing of columns, flexural and shear failure of
beams, columns and shear walls etc. Unaccounted loads, inadequate confinement,
unauthorized alterations, poor quality of construction, poor detailing, lack of
anchorage of reinforcement, inadequate shear reinforcement, insufficient cover,
inadequate compaction and curing etc. and environmental deterioration are
reasons for local deficiencies. The observed deficiencies of the elements are
described next.
76
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
6.3.1 Columns
Columns are the primary gravity-load carrying members for most RC buildings.
Therefore, column failures have led to catastrophic collapses during the past
earthquakes. Buildings designed only for gravity loads may have several
inadequacies for seismic loads. The common deficiencies are discussed below.
77
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
78
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
6.3.3 Slabs
79
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
known as the drag and chord reinforcements. None of the buildings that were
studied under the project had such reinforcement.
Unreinforced masonry infill walls are common in RC frames. They are weak in
out-of-plane bending. Their failure may also occur due to crushing of the corners
or due to in-plane shear along the joints of the masonry units. Some times low
quality mud mortar is used in the joints. The failure of the masonry infill leads to
reduction in stiffness and additional load and deformation demand on the frame.
This situation is critical if the columns were designed considering the performance
of the infill.
The major issue for precast concrete construction is proper connections between
the various components of the structure in order to establish a load path from the
floor masses to the foundation. Failures have been reported in several school
buildings in Gujarat. The seismic forces to be transmitted through the connections
were not properly anticipated, resulting in failure.
Traditional practice of volume batching that disregards the moisture content of the
aggregates, and pouring of additional water to attain workability lead to poor
quality of concrete. Lack of proper compaction due to inadequate or excessive
vibration, results in honeycombed or layered concrete. To reuse the column
formwork, the top of the columns is cast separately along with the beams. The
concrete is poured from the top of the beam-column joints. The congestion of
reinforcement and inadequate vibration cause weak concrete in the potential
hinging zone of the columns. The side face cover may be inadequate due to
80
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
forced placement of the reinforcement cage within the formwork. This leads to
the corrosion of the rebar.
If a building is designed only as a gravity load resisting system, then there can be
severe deficiencies in the lateral load resistance. When the infill walls are
neglected in the analysis of a building, the calculated time period is high and the
design base shear is low. Hence, the effect of infill on the frame needs to be
carefully investigated.
Many of the multi-storeyed buildings are built without adequate geotechnical data.
If a site has soft soil (Type III) and the building is designed with the assumption of
hard soil (Type I) or medium soil (Type II), then the design base shear is lower
than the recommended value. The amplification and attenuation of the ground
shaking are neglected. When the site is close to a strike slip fault, constructive
interference of the earthquake waves leads to higher ground shaking. This is
termed as the near-source effect. When this effect is not considered, the design
base shear is further low.
The loss of stiffness during an earthquake and the consequent lengthening of the
building period, may lead to an increase in the displacement response. The
increased displacements mean higher eccentricity of the vertical loads, which can
lead to collapse of the building if P-∆ effect has not been accounted for in the
analysis.
81
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The building performance is degraded due to the lack of integral action of the
lateral load resisting elements. The moment resisting frames are not well defined
in the building plan. Advantage is not taken of the elevator core walls due to lack
of connection with the building frame. The slabs are not provided with collector
elements or chord and drag reinforcement, which are required for a diaphragm
action. In such a case, the analysis is unconservative if the diaphragm action is
assumed.
If the stair slab is simply supported without adequate bearing length, a collapse of
the slab closes the escape route for the residents.
For buildings on firm soil, the loss of stiffness may lead to reduction in the
displacement response or at least no increase, because the period of the structure
tends to lengthen. However, for buildings on soft soils this loss of stiffness and
lengthening of the building period may lead to an increase in the displacement
82
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
response. The increased displacements can lead to collapse of the building. The
discussion of soil failure is beyond the scope of this manual.
It was observed from the buildings studied that the documentation of design
procedure, the code that was followed, geotechnical and architectural information
was extremely poor. The detailing of rebar at the joints and at the splices was
incomplete. Any evaluation of a building without these information is subjected
to postulation and hence questionable.
83
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER VII
GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Buildings behave poorly in earthquakes because the existing lateral load resisting
components do not have adequate strength and ductility (energy absorption
capacity). Stiffening the structure by providing additional lateral load resisting
elements, thereby reducing the lateral deformation, is an effective method of
improving the performance of a building. Stiffening of the structure can be
achieved by the construction of new braced frames, infill walls or shear walls.
Reductions of irregularities or mass in a building are other methods of global
retrofit. The global retrofit strategies are described under the following
categories.
1. Structural stiffening
2. Reduction of irregularities
3. Reduction of mass.
84
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The effect of adding infill walls and braces on the load versus deformation
behaviour of reinforced concrete frames is shown schematically in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Effect of adding infill walls and braces (Sugano, 1981)
The following are the different types of infill walls commonly used in residential
buildings.
• Masonry Infill Wall
• Cast-In-Place RC Infill Wall
• Precast Concrete Infill Wall
Steel infill panels have been investigated experimentally. The modelling of infill
walls is usually done by the equivalent strut method. The details of modelling of
masonry infill walls are given in Appendix B.
86
Chapter VII – Global Retrofit Strategies
The collector and drag members connect shear walls and frames to mobilise their
lateral load resistance simultaneously. The reactions of new shear walls on
existing foundations may cause serious problems to the foundations. This is a
strong disadvantage of adding shear walls. Another disadvantage is the closing of
formerly open spaces, which can have negative impact on interior building uses or
exterior appearance. The modelling of shear walls is given in Chapter 3.
The seismic strength and stiffness of framed structures can be efficiently and
economically increased using steel braces or shear walls. Usually steel braces are
used in steel buildings. However, in recent years steel braces have been used in
RC buildings because of ease of construction and high strength to weight ratio.
Braces reduce flexure and shear demands on beams and columns and transfer the
lateral loads as axial loads (truss action).
87
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
88
Chapter VII – Global Retrofit Strategies
For vertical irregularities, portions of the building that create the irregularity, such
as setback towers, can be removed. Discontinuous components such as columns
or walls can be extended beyond the zone of discontinuity. As mentioned earlier,
walls or braces can alleviate the deficiency of soft and weak storey.
Two of the primary characteristics that control the amount of lateral force and
deformation induced in a building by ground motion are its stiffness and mass.
Reductions in mass result in direct reductions in both the force and deformation
demands produced by earthquakes, and therefore, can be used in lieu of structural
strengthening and stiffening. Mass can be reduced through demolition of upper
storeys, replacement of heavy cladding and interior partitions, or removal of
heavy storage and equipment loads, or change in the use of the building.
89
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER VIII
LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The design should specify to what extent the load on a column should be released
during the retrofit construction.
90
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
92
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
350
93
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The section is analysed about X-X and Y-Y axes separately. The flexural strength
of the section is adequate about X-X but it is inadequate about Y-Y. A concrete
jacket is added with 75 mm thick concrete all around, 12-12 mm diameter
longitudinal bars and 8 mm diameter ties at 100 mm on centre (Figure 8.3).
Y
75
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
75
75 350 75
500
Y
In the analysis, the concrete grade and the steel grade of the jacket were retained
same as those of the existing section. The dowels connecting the existing and the
new concrete are not shown in the figure. The number of dowels should be low to
have minimal drilling into the existing section. The interaction curves for the
existing and the retrofitted sections are shown in Figure 8.4. The moment versus
curvature curves, in presence of axial loads, are shown in Figure 8.5.
94
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
5000
4000
2000
1000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Moment (kN m)
Existing about X-X Existing about Y-Y Demand about X-X
Demand about Y-Y Retrofitted about X-X Retrofitted about Y-Y
Figure 8.4: Interaction curves for the existing and the retrofitted sections
700
600
500
Moment (kN m)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012
Curvature (rad)
Exisiting Retrofitted
95
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
b. Confinement
The ends of a column are to be confined because of the potential plastic hinge
formation. Special confining reinforcement is required throughout the length of
plastic hinges in each end. The required amount of special confining
reinforcement as per IS 13920: 1993 is given below.
Here, h is the longer dimension of the rectangular confining hoop measured to its
outer face. It shall not exceed 300mm.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) proposed an equation which incorporates the effect of
the axial load on the amount of confining steel for the required curvature ductility.
96
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
Here,
f c/ = cylinder compressive strength ≈ 0.8 fck
k = 0.35 for a required curvature ductility of µΦ = 20
k = 0.25 for µΦ = 10. Other values can be calculated by interpolation or
extrapolation.
Pu = design load in the column.
c. Shear Capacity
The shear resistance (VuR) of a column can be expressed as follows.
VuR =Vc +Vs (8.5)
where, Vc is the concrete contribution and Vs is the steel contribution. The shear
strength enhancement by jacket is included as an additional term Vj to the shear
resistance.
VuR ≥ Vu (8.7)
97
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Here, Vu is the maximum value that is obtained from analysis with different load
combinations and the shear force corresponding to the development of the flexural
strengths of the connected beams (as per IS 13920: 1993). Thus, the required
strength from the jacket is
∴ Vj ≥ Vu - Vc - Vs (8.8)
Vc = δ τ c bd
(8.9)
where, the enhancement in shear capacity due to the axial load is given by the
factor δ.
⎛ 3 Pu ⎞
δ = ⎜0 + ≤ 0.5
⎝ Ag fck ⎟⎠ (8.10)
The design shear stress of concrete (τc) is available from Table 19 of IS 456: 2000.
The breadth (b) and the effective depth (d) can be taken for the retrofitted section.
For a circular section, a similar expression is used.
d
Vs = 0.87fy Asv cot θ
sv (8.11)
Here,
Asv Cross sectional area of ties
sv Spacing
fy Yield stress of ties
d Effective depth of section
θ Inclination of cracks to the column axis.
98
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
The expression of Vj is similar to Vs. The additional steel tie or spiral contribution
is as follows.
d
Vj = 0.87fy Asv add cot θ (8.12)
sv
The expressions for circular ferrocement jackets consider the area of the wire
mesh.
Here,
n Number of layers of wire mesh.
dw Diameter of wire mesh.
gw Grid spacing.
fyj Allowable stress of steel in wire mesh, taken to be 0.4 fy, where fy
is the yield stress.
D' Core diameter of jacketed section.
Steel jacketing refers to encasing the column with steel plates and filling the gap
with non-shrink grout (Figure 8.6). Steel jacketing was originally developed for
circular columns. Steel jacketing is an effective method to remedy deficiencies
such as inadequate shear strength and inadequate splices of longitudinal bars at
critical locations, by providing confinement. The jacket is effective in passive
confinement, that is, confining stress is induced in the concrete as it expands
laterally. The jacket can be considered equivalent to continuous hoop
reinforcement. In most cases increase in strength and ductility due to confinement
alone may be adequate, so that composite action may not be necessary.
99
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
If the flexural capacity of the original column is adequate, gaps are left at the top
and bottom of the jacket to avoid the following
a. The possibility of the jacket acing as compression reinforcement by
bearing against the supporting member at large drift angles
b. The increase of the stiffness of the column and hence, of the induced shear
force. When the jacketing steel is also needed for additional composite
strength it is necessary to provide continuity at the ends.
100
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
Alternatively, steel jackets can also be made of vertical angles, plates or channel
shapes, tied together by welded transverse steel bands or lattice bars. When found
adequate, the plates are attached to the column by epoxy-grouted bolts or by
epoxy bond. The jacketing may not be needed over the full length of the column,
if the shear strength of the original column is sufficient in the unjacketed portions.
fsj dsj
Vj =Asj (8.14)
ssj
Here, Asj is the total area of the assumed square tie, Asj = tsj2 (expected to be 2tsj2),
fsj is the allowable stress of the jacket, dsj is the height of the jacket and ssj is the
spacing between the square ties, ssj = tsj. It was assumed that the shear cracks are
inclined at 45º to the column axis and the allowable stress in the jacket is fsj =
fysj/2, where fysj is the ‘yield’ stress. The required thickness tsj can be calculated
from the required value of Vj.
101
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
fibre has been the predominant fibre for applications in India, because of the
economical balance of cost and strength properties.
FRP is mechanically different from steel since it is anisotropic, linear elastic and
is usually of higher strength with a lower modulus of elasticity than steel. FRP
has desirable physical properties over steel, like corrosion and fatigue resistance
and high tensile strength (up to ~3000 MPa compared to ~400 MPa of steel) to
weight ratio. FRP sheets are thin, light and flexible enough to be inserted behind
pipes, electrical cables and other service ducts, thus facilitating installation.
External FRP jackets with horizontally oriented fibres can enhance both the shear
capacity and the ductility of columns against seismic forces. Under shear forces,
the tensile stresses in FRP contribute to the over all shear resistance of columns,
similar to its effect in shear strengthening of beams. Under flexure, the FRP
provides confinement, which enhances the strength and ultimate strain of
concrete. The enhancement to the ultimate concrete strain is particularly
important for seismic retrofit as it allows a much greater ductility level to be
achieved in inelastic deformations. For shear strengthening, the FRP jacket is
generally required to cover the entire column height. For plastic hinge
confinement and for lap splice clamping, the FRP jacket is only needed in the
plastic hinge and near by regions.
102
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
There are some disadvantages in this traditional retrofit strategy. First, addition of
concrete increases the size and weight of the beam. Second, the new concrete
requires proper bonding to the existing concrete. In the beam soffit, bleed water
from the new concrete creates a weak cement paste at the interface. Third, the
103
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The surface of the beam is usually roughened for better bonding with the new
concrete. Recently, some patented cements are available to avoid hacking the
surface. In case the depth of the transverse beam is equal to the depth of the beam
to be retrofitted, or the width of the column is greater than that of the beam,
drilling becomes unavoidable. However, the engineer must endeavour to
minimise the amount of drilling in concrete, especially in the regions where there
is congestion of reinforcement.
It is imperative that the strength of the column must be greater than that of the
beam as per capacity based design. Also, the joint should not become weaker than
the beam after retrofit. The analysis of a strengthened beam can be performed by
the traditional method of beam analysis. To obtain the enhanced moment versus
curvature behaviour, the equations of equilibrium and compatibility and the
constitutive relationships have to be satisfied. The analysis assumes that there is
perfect bond between the new and old concrete.
104
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
Here, Mu represents the factored demand and MuR represents the ultimate
resistance (capacity). The size of the retrofitted section is 350×650mm, with 3-
16mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the bottom and 2-10 mm and
2-12 mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the top (at the level of the
soffit of the slab). The capacities after retrofit are also shown in the table. The
moment curvature behaviour is shown in Figure 8.8.
300
250
200
Moment (kN-m)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
It is observed that with the increase in strength and stiffness, the reduction in the
ductility after retrofit is marginal. It is important to note that with the increase in
105
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
flexural capacity, the shear demand (based on the flexural capacity) also increases.
Additional stirrups are provided to meet the shear demand.
The technique of gluing mild steel plates to beams is often used to improve their
flexural and shear capacities. It increases the strength and stiffness of the beams
and subsequently, reduces the crack width. The addition of steel plate is simple
and rapid to apply, does not reduce the storey clear height significantly and can be
applied while the building is in use. Gluing plates requires adequate smearing of
adhesive on the existing surfaces. The cost is governed by that of the plates,
epoxy and labour. Glued plates are prone to premature debonding which can
severely limit the application of this technique. Providing bolts at the ends may
reduce the debonding, but it involves drilling into the existing concrete.
Plating may be done either on the tension-face or on the side-face of the beams.
Tension-face plates are mechanically efficient as they act at the furthest extremity
from the compression zone and hence, accomplish the highest increase in flexural
strength and stiffness. Side-face plating increases the shear capacity and to a
106
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
The peeling refers to the delamination of concrete cover. It has been observed
from experiments conducted on tension-face plated simply supported beams with
2-point loading that when the moment to shear (M/V) ratio is high, flexural
peeling initiates at the end of the plates. For intermediate M/V ratios, a
combination of shear and flexural peeling occurs. In specimens with low M/V
ratios, shear failure of the beam and debonding of the plate due to shear are
observed. The flexural peeling is induced by increasing curvature. It is a gradual
failure mode. The shear peeling is induced by the formation of diagonal shear
cracks and the peeling is rapid.
After the ultimate moment is reached, due to the rapid loss of longitudinal strain
in the plate, cracks can propagate in the reverse direction (towards the support).
The reverse peeling occurs only after the ultimate moment is reached and hence it
is not considered as a failure mode.
The adhesive failure is due to bad preparation of the concrete surface, or use of
poor quality adhesive, or bad workmanship. The failure occurs at the interface of
the glue line as compared to the flexural or shear peeling of the cover concrete.
107
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Of late, the adhesive failure is not significant due to the good quality of adhesives
available.
RC Beam
Steel Plate
Shear Stress
Tension Normal Stress
Due to the high normal stress, the plate starts to peel at the location of cut-off.
When thick plates are used, the plate separation precedes the plate yielding.
When the tensile capacity of concrete is exceeded, a diagonal crack develops. The
formation of the diagonal crack magnifies the effect of peeling and the crack
108
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
extends rapidly to the bottom of tensile reinforcement. This relieves the bond
stresses at the end of the plate. The location of peeling of the plate ‘moves’
inwards into the region of higher moment. The process continues till the cover
concrete peels substantially (Ali and Oehlers, 2002).
In choosing the thickness of the steel plate, it is necessary to ensure that the
section does not become over-reinforced. The ultimate strength analysis was
proposed by Roberts (1989) and later modified by Ziraba et al. (1994). It is based
on satisfying the equilibrium and compatibility equations and the constitutive
relationships. It models the adhesive failure due to the stress concentration at the
location of plate cut-off. The essential features of the model are as follows.
1. The steel plate is assumed to act integrally with the concrete beam.
Conventional beam theory is used to determine the flexural capacity.
2. The normal and shear stresses are calculated to check the failure of the
adhesive.
The concrete stress block is modified as per IS 456: 2000. The stresses and strains
distribution of a tension-face plated beam is shown in Figure 8.10.
b
0.0035 0.447 fck
xu C
hs
hp D
dc st fst Tst
fpt Tpt
dp bp pt
109
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The depth of neutral axis (xu) can be found out from the equilibrium equation as
follows.
f st Ast + f pt b p d p
xu = (8.15)
0.36 f ck b
The ultimate moment capacity (MuR) of the plated section is given by the
following expression.
Here,
b, D, hs - Width, overall depth and effective depth of the original section
bp, dp, hp - Width, thickness and effective depth of the steel plate
fck - Characteristic cube strength (MPa)
fst, fpt - Stress in internal reinforcement and external plate, corresponding
to the strains εst and εpt. These can be calculated from the compatibility
equations.
The width of the plate is limited to the width of the beam. The limit on the
thickness of the plate is such that the section does not become over-reinforced.
The adhesive failure is checked by the following equation.
τ 0 + σ 0 tan28D ≤ c all (8.17)
τ0 = CR1 V0
Here, τ0 and σ0 are the expressions for shear and normal stresses at the interface at
adhesive failure. The allowable coefficient of cohesion is denoted as call. The
expression for peak shear stress τ0 is
5/4
⎛C V ⎞
τ 0 = α1 f t ' ⎜ R1 ' 0 ⎟ (8.18)
⎝ fc ⎠
110
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
where,
V0 - Shear force at the location of plate cut-off
α1 - Empirical regression constant (α1 = 35)
fc' - Cylinder compressive strength
ft' - Tensile strength of concrete.
CR1 = ⎢1+ ⎜ s
⎟⎟ a ⎥ (h p - x u )
⎜
⎢ ⎝ E p bp d p ⎥ I b
⎣ ⎠ ⎦ cr a
Here,
a* M0 / V0 at plate cut-off location
Icr Moment of inertia of equivalent transformed cracked steel section
Ks Shear stiffness of the adhesive layer (= Ga ba/da)
Ga, ba, da Shear modulus, width and thickness of the adhesive layer.
Ep Elastic modulus of the plate
σ0 = α 2 CR2 τ0
(8.19)
CR2 is a constant given by the following expression.
1/4
⎛ Kn ⎞
CR2 = dp ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ 4 E p Ip
⎝ ⎠
where,
α2 Empirical regression coefficient (α2 = 1.1)
Ip Moment of inertia of the steel plate about its centroid
Kn Normal stiffness of adhesive layer (= Ea ba/da)
Ea Elastic modulus of adhesive.
111
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The retrofit of a beam deficient in flexure under gravity loads is illustrated below.
A rectangular beam of length 4500mm and dimensions 230×400mm is reinforced
with 3-12mm bars at the top and bottom. The existing capacity is 40.9 kN-m and
the required capacity is 50.6 kN-m. Grade of concrete is M20 and grade of
reinforcing steel is Fe 415. The beam is retrofitted with a plate of grade Fe 250.
The beam is propped before plating so that after the prop is released, the
strengthened section carries the required moment.
Icr is the section modulus of the cracked, equivalent transformed steel section
about the neutral axis (NA). The top reinforcement is very close to the NA and is
hence ignored in the calculation of Icr.
⎛E ⎞ b x 3u
+ A s ( h s -x u ) + A p ( h p -x u )
2 2
Icr = ⎜ c ⎟⎟
⎜ Ep
⎝ ⎠ 3
Ec 5000√20 = 22,360N/mm2
Ep 200,000N/mm2
Area of tension steel Ast 340mm2
Effective depth hs 360mm
Area of steel sheet Ap = 150×1 150mm2
112
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
CR2 = dp ⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1× ⎜ ⎟ = 0.2475
⎜ 4 E p Ip ⎝ 4×200000×12.5 ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Figure 8.11 shows the tension-face plated beam of span l subjected to a uniformly
distributed load w per m. Here, 'a' refers to the distance from the point of zero
moment (in this case, the supports) to the edge of the plate.
w /m
a l - 2a a
BMD
M0 M0
wl2/8
wl/2 V0
V0 wl/2
SFD
113
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The plate must be terminated at such a point that the limits of interface stresses are
not exceeded.
⎛ wl wa 2 ⎞ w
⎟ = ( la-a )
2
Moment at the point of curtailment M 0 = ⎜ a -
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 2
wl ⎛ l -2a ⎞ w
The shear at the point of curtailment of the plates V0 = ⎜ ⎟ = ( l -2a )
2 ⎝ l ⎠ 2
M0 la - a 2
a* = =
V0 l - 2a
Using the expression for CR1, a* and V0,
⎡⎧ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ la-a 2 ⎞ ⎫⎪ b p d p
1/2
⎤
⎪ Ks w
⎢
CR1V0 = ⎨1+ ⎜
⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎬ (h p - x u ) ⎥
⎥ 2
( l -2a ) (8.20)
E b d ⎠ ⎝ l -2a ⎠ ⎪⎭ Icr ba
⎣ ⎪⎩ ⎝ p p p ⎦
5/4
⎛C V ⎞
'
Peak shear τ 0 = α f ⎜ R1 ' 0 ⎟
1 t
⎝ fc ⎠
4/5
⎛ τ ⎞
⇒ CR1V0 = ⎜ 0 ' ⎟ f c' (8.21)
⎝ α1 f t ⎠
fc' and ft' are the cylinder strength and tensile strength of concrete.
The expression for limiting the interface stresses is as follows.
τ 0 + σ 0 tan 28o ≤ call and σ 0 = α 2 CR2 τ 0
(
Hence, the limiting case is τ 0 1+α 2 CR2 tan28o = call)
call
∴ τ0 =
1+α 2 CR2 tan28o
This expression for τ0 can be substituted in equation (8.21). The resulting
expression is as follows.
114
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
4/5
⎡ call ⎤
CR1V0 = ⎢ ⎥ f c'
( )
⎢⎣ 1+α 2 CR2 tan28o α1f t' ⎥⎦ (8.22)
Equation (8.20) when equated with (8.22) results in a cubic equation in 'a', the
maximum distance of plate cut-off from the supports. The equation can be solved
by trial and error. The maximum distance of plate cut-off (amax) must not exceed
three times the depth of the beam.
⎡ ⎪⎧ ⎛ 20,000 ⎞ ⎛ 4500a-a 2 ⎞ ⎪⎫
1/2
150×1 ⎤
⎢ ⎨1+ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎬ 6
(400.5-55.28) ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎝ 200,000×150×1 ⎠ ⎝ 4500-2a ⎠ ⎭⎪ 50.89×10 ×150 ⎥⎦
4/5
20 ⎛ 2.6 ⎞
× ( 4500-2a ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ( 0.8×20 )
2
⎝ (
1+1.1×0.2812 tan28o
35×3.13 ⎟
⎠ )
Solving the equation by trial and error, 'a' = 70.6mm. The curtailment by 70mm
on either side would not result in any appreciable economy. However, in case of
beams of longer span and with higher loads, curtailment of plates or sheets
becomes necessary.
Some authors contend that adhesive failure in plated beams is not of great
significance since the quality of adhesives presently available is good.
Oehlers and Moran proposed an empirical expression for the ultimate moment
capacity due to flexural peeling (Oehlers and Moran, 1990). The expression was
based on a number of experiments conducted on simply supported beams with 2-
point loading, with plates terminated in regions of constant moment.
115
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The forces of the free body at ultimate are shown in Figure 8.12. The inclined
section is due to the diagonal cracking from the support to the edge of the loading
point. The notations used are given below.
a' - Effective length of the shear span
db - Effective depth of the side-face plate
Pc - Compressive force across the compression zone
Pst - Tensile force in the bottom reinforcement
Pu - Ultimate load
St - Principal tensile force perpendicular to the failure plane
Vc - Shear force across the compression zone
116
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
da a'
Vc
d' xs
Pc
Z2 O
Bonded Plate
Bolted Plate
d db Z1
db
D
St
bl
Pst
Vd
Pu / 2
For bonded plates, db is taken up to the bottom of the plate, whereas for a bolted
plate, db is taken up to midway between the lower row of bolts and bottom of the
plate.
Pu
= St cos α + Vc + Vd
2 (8.23)
2. Horizontal equilibrium
Pc = St sin α + Pst (8.24)
117
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Pu a' ⎛ d - xs ⎞
= Pc ( 0.5 x s ) + Pst ( d - x s ) + St Z1 + Vd ⎜ ⎟ (8.25)
2 ⎝ tan α ⎠
ε st = ε pt cos α (8.26)
(An accurate expression of the transformation of strain is εst = εpt cos2α + εpc sin2α)
Here,
εst Strain in the tension bars, corresponding to deformation δh
118
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
Expressing the strains in terms of forces, the compatibility equation can be written
as
A st E s
Pst = St cos α
⎛ d -x ⎞ (8.27)
β1 t p ⎜ b s ⎟ Ep
⎝ sin α ⎠
where,
Ep Elastic modulus of the plate
tp Total thickness of the plate
β1 Factor to consider the parabolic strain distribution across the plate,
when it is not accounted for in the expression of St.
For Case 2, the plate force St is given by the yielding of the plates.
⎛d -x ⎞
St = N f yp t p ⎜ b s ⎟ (8.28)
⎝ sinα ⎠
For Case 3, it is assumed that the failure occurs due to the concrete failing under
tension over the bonded area. The corresponding plate force St is given as below.
119
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
⎛d -x ⎞
St = N ( 0.67 Z2 fct ) ⎜ b s ⎟
(8.29)
⎝ sinα ⎠
where,
Z2 is the length of the bonded interface (Figure 8.12) and fct is the direct tensile
strength of concrete. Assuming α = 45o, Z2 is equated to the lever arm Z1 = ½(db
− xs)/sinα. The value of β1 is equal to 1. The value of St for bonded plates is the
lower of the above two expressions.
For bolted plates, only the value of St from Case 2 is used. It will govern provided
there is no shear or bearing failure of the bolts. The final stages of diagonal
splitting are characterized by failure of the compression zone beneath the point
load (Figure 8.14).
Pu
2
Pu
2 bl
xs xs
45o A
Vc (bl + xs)
45o
O
v
h
1 2
h
120
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
This occurs with either crushing of the concrete at the compression limit Pc,max or
splitting of the concrete at the shear limit Vc,max. These limits are calculated from
the state of stresses in the compression zone. The average values of the stresses
over the depth of the compression zone are used in the following formulation. The
tensile principal stress (σ2) is close to zero and the compressive principal stress
(σ1) is limited to fck.
Assuming σ1 = fck and σ2 = 0 in the Mohr’s circle, the normal and shear stresses at
half the depth of the compression zone (0.5 xs) at ultimate can be calculated as
follows.
σv =
( Pu 2 ) - Vc
b ( bl + x s ) (8.30)
σ h = f cu -σ v (8.31)
σh - σv
2θ = cos -1
f cu
f st
τ= sin 2θ
2 (8.32)
Here, any contribution from the plates is neglected. In calculating the limiting
value of the shear (Vc,max), a transformed concrete section is used.
121
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
An algorithm was provided to solve the above equations and calculate the ultimate
load Pu. The depth of the compression zone (xs) is assumed. The value of xs
should be greater than da, the depth of the upper edge of the plates. The values of
St, Pst, Pc, Vc and Pu are calculated from the equations provided. The value of xs
can be modified till either Pc = Pc,max or, Vc = Vc,max. The shear strength is equal
to Pu/2. Material safety factors can be incorporated in fyp and fck.
RC beams can be strengthened using epoxy bonded FRP plates or fabrics. The
advantages of using FRP are ease of fabrication and bonding, corrosion resistance
and lightweight. In the case of FRP plated beams, in addition to the usual failure
modes such as crushing of concrete, yielding of steel and rupture of FRP, local
failure may occur in the concrete beam due to stress concentration at the cut-off
point. An analysis procedure for beams strengthened with FRP plates was
suggested by Saadatmanesh and Malek (1998).
FRP has been used not only as sheets, but also as reinforcing bars. FRP bars can
be attached to the web of a beam for shear strengthening (Lorenzis and Nanni,
2001, 2002). These near-surface mounted bars can be anchored to the flange of
the beam. The failure generates from the debonding of the bars due to splitting of
the epoxy paste in the grooves.
122
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
Bracci et al. (1995) suggested the use of a concrete fillet at the beam-column joint
to shift the potential hinge region away from the column face to the beam-slab
near the end of the fillet.
123
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Steel jacketing helps the beam-column joint in transferring moments. The jacket
provides increased flexural strength to the beam, especially where adequate
bottom reinforcement may not be present if the frame was designed for gravity
loads only. In a joint, the beam jacket needs to be connected to the column jacket.
Steel jackets can also enhance the shear strength and ductility of beams through
added strength of steel as well as through confinement of existing concrete.
Steel plating is simpler as compared to steel jacketing, where plates in the form of
brackets are attached to the soffits of the beams and sides of the column. The
moment and plastic rotation capacities in beams with discontinuous bottom steel
can be improved by the use of steel plates. The retrofitted interior joint performs
well because: a) the pullout of the discontinuous bottom reinforcement is
prevented, b) the damage is transferred from the embedment zone to other parts of
the joint region, c) the column shear strength is enhanced and d) the deterioration
rate of the joint region under cyclic loadings is reduced. This approach is
unobtrusive, easy to implement and permits strengthening of exterior joints in
buildings without having to break the exterior facade.
124
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
A concrete shear wall can be strengthened by adding new concrete with adequate
boundary elements (bolster columns). For the composite action, dowels need to
be provided between the existing and new concrete (Figure 8.15). The analysis of
a building with strengthened shear walls can be preformed using the equivalent
properties of the wall. The use of vertical and diagonal steel strips were
experimentally investigated by Taghdi et al., 2000.
Retrofitting of a masonry infill wall is necessary when the failure of an infill wall
is a hazard. For example, the failure of infill walls in higher storeys facing a busy
footpath or above shop-fronts can lead to severe injury. IS 13935: 1993 gives
guidelines for repair and strengthening of walls using grout and wire mesh. FRP
or steel sheets can be used to strengthen walls for out-of-plane bending.
Retrofitting by steel sheets involves epoxy bonding of thin sheets on both sides of
the wall and addition of triangular corner plates in all the corners of the two sides
(Ramesh, 2003). This strategy increases the strength, stiffness and ductility of the
wall and the resistance to out-of-plane bending.
FRP has been used in the strengthening of infill walls. The FRP sheets can be
bonded over the full area or diagonally on both sides with triangular corner plates
125
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
(Ravichandran, 2003). In walls where the FRP sheet was bonded on the plastered
surface, spalling of the plaster made the FRP strengthening ineffective. The
sheets are more effective when they are bonded on the unplastered surface.
126
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
127
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER IX
CASE STUDY I
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone III. The
deficiency is due to open ground storey and shear carrying capacity of columns. A
retrofit scheme using non-buckling braces is illustrated.
The chosen building is a seven storey residential building located in Seismic Zone
III. Table 9.1 presents a summary of the building parameters. The building is
symmetric about X-axis. The ground floor of the building has parking provision.
129
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
2 Name of owner -
3 Name of builder -
4 Name of Architect/Engineer -
5 Name of Structural Engineer -
6 Use of building Residential
7 Number of storeys above 6
ground level
8 Number of basements below -
ground level
9 Type of structure
• Load bearing wall RC frame
• RC frame
• RC frame and shear wall
Steel frame
10 Soil data
Medium
• Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity (assumed)
11 Dead loads (unit weight adopted)
• Earth
• Water
• Brick masonry 20kN/m3
• Plain cement concrete
• Floor finish 1kN/m2
Other fill materials
12 Imposed (live)loads
• Floor loads 2 kN/m2
Roof loads 1.5 kN/m2
13 Cyclone/Wind
-
• Speed -
Design pressure intensity
14 History of past earthquakes and tremors -
15 Seismic zone III
16 Importance factor, I 1
17 Seismic zone factor, Z 0.16
18 Response reduction factor, R 3
130
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Table 9.1(b): Building survey data sheet - Building data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description Information
1 Regular
Type of building
frames
2 Number of basements -
3 Number of floors 6
4 Horizontal floor system
• Beams and slabs Beams and
• Waffle slab slabs
• Ribbed floor
• Flat slab with drops
• Flat plate without drops
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium
• Recommended foundation
- Independent footings Independent
- Raft footings
- Piles
• Recommended bearing capacity
• Recommended type, length, diameter and load
capacity of piles
• Depth of water table
• Chemical analysis of ground water
• Chemical analysis of soil
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level 1.5m
• Type
− Independent Independent
− Interconnected
− Raft
− Piles
7 System of interconnecting foundations
• Plinth beams Plinth beams
• Foundation beams
131
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
132
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Figure 9.1: Architectural plan for typical floor level of the building.
133
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
9.1.2.1 Foundation
The foundation system is isolated footing. Depth of the foundation is 1.5m from
ground level.
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 115 mm except for some
locations where it is 120 mm. Figure 9.2 shows the slab layout at a typical floor
level and their details are given in Table 9.2. The external walls are 230mm thick
and partition walls inside the building are 115mm thick. Figure 9.3 shows the
column layout and Table 9.3 shows the reinforcement details of the column
sections at a typical floor.
134
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Figure 9.4 shows the layout of beam sections at a typical floor level and Figure 9.5
shows the layout of beam elements. All floors have identical beam sections. Table
9.4 shows the beam section assigned to different beam elements.
135
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
136
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Figure 9.3: Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(Section ‘Cn’ and ‘CCn’ are having same properties but different orientation)
137
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
138
Chapter IX – Case Study I
140
Chapter IX – Case Study I
The rapid visual screening results shown in Table 9.5 indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM - INF were considered, as the building is
primarily moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
142
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Axial
Vb(kN) nf h(m) L(m) P(kN)
stress
Left 1685 6 23.55 14.25 290 2.37
X dir
Right 1275 4 23.55 10.64 441 3.60
Left 1685 5 23.55 17.78 279 2.28
Y dir
Right 1392 5 23.55 17.78 230 1.88
Permissible limit is 0.24fck i.e. 0.24 x 20 = 4.8 N/mm2. Calculated axial stresses
are within the permissible limit.
Since dimensions of columns are not changed from storey to storey in this
building, the Drift Ratio (DR) is calculated for ground storey and the first storey
only. Ground storey height is 3.45m and other storey height is 3.0. The DR value
is observed to be very less in the building i.e. 1.3×10-5 for ground storey and
143
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
1.15×10-6 for first storey. The limiting value of DR is 0.015. Hence, the storey
drifts are within the limit.
Load path: C
Adjacent buildings: NA
Mezzanines: C
No deterioration of concrete: NA
Vertical irregularities C / NC / NA
No weak storey: C
No soft storey: NC
No mass irregularity: C
No vertical geometric irregularity: NC
No vertical discontinuities: C
Plan Irregularities C / NC / NA
144
Chapter IX – Case Study I
No Torsion irregularity: NC
No diaphragm discontinuity: NC
No re-entrant corners: NC
No out of plane offsets: C
No non-parallel system: C
Moment resisting frames C / NC / NA
Redundancy: C
No interfering wall: C
Drift check: C
No shear failures: NC
Beam bars: C
Stirrup spacing: NC
Bent-up bars: NC
Joint reinforcing: NC
Deflection compatibility: C
Diaphragm reinforcement: C
Shear walls C / NC / NA
Reinforcing steel: NA
145
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Coupling beams: NA
Connections C / NC / NA
Column connection: C
Wall connection: NA
No Liquefaction: NA
No slope failure: NA
Foundations C / NC / NA
Foundation performance: C
Deterioration: NA
Overturning: C
Table 9.8 shows that the statements are non-compliant (NC) for most of the cases
because of poor detailing. There is no vertical or plan irregularity in the building.
146
Chapter IX – Case Study I
The building modelled and analysed as per the guidelines given in Chapter 3.
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9: Materials properties
Characteristic Strength Modulus of Elasticity
Material
(MPa) (MPa)
Concrete (M 20) 20 22360
Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415) 415 2 × 105
Brick infill 1.65 1237.5
147
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Figure 9.9 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 9.10.
The foundation for the building is made up isolated footings. In the model, hinges
were assumed at the column ends at the bottom of footings. The effect of soil-
structure interaction was ignored in the analyses.
148
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 9.11: Centres of mass and rigidity for the equivalent static method
(Without infill stiffness)
Floor CM CR esi edi1 edi2 DCM
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
Left
1 9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22 0.00 1.12 0.90 -0.57 -0.90 8.56 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21 0.00 1.10 0.90 -0.58 -0.90 8.59 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67 0.00 3.29 0.90 0.88 -0.90 6.92 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32 0.00 4.12 0.90 1.68 -0.90 29.40 9.21
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30 0.00 4.09 0.90 1.66 -0.90 29.35 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23 0.00 3.98 0.90 1.59 -0.90 29.17 9.21
Table 9.12: Structural parameters and Design Centre of Masses for Equivalent
static method (with infill stiffness)
Floor CM CS esi edi1 edi2 DCM
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
Left
1 9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42 0.00 1.41 0.90 -0.37 -0.90 8.68 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51 0.00 3.05 0.90 0.72 -0.90 8.15 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75 0.00 4.91 0.90 1.96 -0.90 8.05 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78 0.31 1.81 1.37 0.14 -0.59 26.31 11.17
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00 0.00 3.64 0.90 1.36 -0.90 26.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50 0.00 4.39 0.90 1.86 -0.90 27.08 9.21
150
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Table 9.13: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Floor CM CS esi edi1 edi2 DCM
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
Left
1 9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22 0.00 1.01 0.90 -0.57 -0.90 8.89 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21 0.00 1.00 0.90 -0.58 -0.90 8.90 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67 0.00 2.46 0.90 0.88 -0.90 9.42 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32 0.00 2.96 0.90 1.68 -0.90 25.92 9.21
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30 0.00 2.94 0.90 1.66 -0.90 25.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23 0.00 2.87 0.90 1.59 -0.90 25.83 9.21
Table 9.14: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Floor CM CS esi edi1 edi2 DCM
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
Left
1 9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42 0.00 1.20 0.90 -0.37 -0.90 8.89 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51 0.00 2.30 0.90 0.72 -0.90 8.90 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75 0.00 3.54 0.90 1.96 -0.90 9.42 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78 0.31 1.42 1.21 0.14 -0.59 25.92 11.0
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00 0.00 2.64 0.90 1.36 -0.90 25.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50 0.00 3.14 0.90 1.86 -0.90 25.83 9.21
Table 9.15 shows the calculations of base shear for the left and right portions of
the building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Typical
seismic load distribution for left portion of building with infill stiffness in X-
direction is shown in the Table 9.16. (Base shear is 1685kN)
151
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 9.16: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight, Wi Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No.
(kN) (m) (kN)
Water tank 422 23.55 84
6 2767 21.45 457
5 3592 18.45 438
4 3626 15.45 310
3 3691 12.45 205
2 3720 9.45 119
1 3716 6.45 55
G 3737 3.45 16
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 9.17. The comparison is shown in Figure 9.10.
Table 9.18 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for the
first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table also
shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes were
considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass participation
in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 9.11 shows the first three mode shapes
152
Chapter IX – Case Study I
of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and the response
spectrum methods are given in Table 9.19.
Table 9.18: Time periods and mass participation factors for the first five modes
Without infill stiffness With infill stiffness
Mode Mass Participation (%) Mass Participation (%)
T (s) T (s)
ux uy ux uy
1 1.64 86.74 0.03 1.23 7.94 31.39
2 1.52 0.07 89.95 1.14 39.62 47.87
3 1.30 1.87 0.44 1.09 46.36 16.59
4 0.54 8.59 0.00 0.39 0.24 1.66
5 0.49 0.01 6.99 0.35 5.23 0.24
Total 97.28 97.41 99.39 97.75
153
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
3
IS 1893 (Without infill stiffness)
IS 1893 (With infill stiffness)
2.5
a /g)
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s)
Figure 9.11(a): First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
154
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Figure 9.11(b): Second mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(c): Third mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
155
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Figure 9.11(d): First mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(e): Second mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
156
Chapter IX – Case Study I
Figure 9.11(f): Third mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
Since the torsional mode is predominant for the model with infill stiffness, the
response spectrum method is important. The response spectrum analysis results
show that a number of elements do not satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios
(DCR). The deficient beam sections are given in Tables 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22. The
deficient column sections are given in Tables 9.23 and 9.24. The percentage of
deficient elements is the ratio of number of elements with DCR greater than 1, to
the total number of elements for the particular type of section.
Table 9.20: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (without infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m) DCR Percentage
Sl.
Section of deficient
No. M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) elements
1 B3 -54 15 -50 5 0.93 0.30 0
2 B6 -50 60 -260 214 5.20 3.57 74
3 B7 -60 45 -201 176 3.34 3.90 67
157
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 9.21: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (with infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m) DCR Percentage
Sl
Section of deficient
No. M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) (+ve) (-ve) elements
1 B3 -54 15 -79 7 1.45 0.48 21
2 B6 -50 60 -486 378 9.71 6.31 93
3 B7 -60 45 -271 104 4.52 2.30 88
4 B8 -73 59 -332 296 4.55 5.02 95
5 B9 -89 87 -446 207 5.01 2.38 99
6 B10 -116 75 -411 243 3.54 3.24 88
7 B11 -82 25 -382 311 4.66 12.42 100
8 B15 -30 15 -132 75 4.40 5.00 89
9 B16 -96 49 -136 21 1.41 0.44 7
10 B17 -19 19 -143 46 7.52 2.44 100
11 B19 -49 40 -303 89 6.19 2.23 98
12 B21 -109 103 -325 300 2.98 2.91 100
13 B22 -79 54 -293 200 3.71 3.70 94
14 B25 -60 60 -225 82 3.75 1.37 71
15 B26 -46 31 -136 93 2.95 2.99 100
16 B27 -70 37 -57 93 0.82 2.51 52
17 B35 -49 40 -214 64 4.37 1.61 86
158
Chapter IX – Case Study I
159
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The above results show that the beams are having lesser capacities than the
corresponding demands in both flexure and shear. The columns are having lesser
capacities than the demands in flexure. For shear, many columns are adequate
along the major dimension, but many are deficient along the minor dimension.
Major portion of the failure is observed in the ground, first and second storeys.
The storey displacements along the X- and Y- directions are presented in Figures
9.12(a) and 9.12(b). The deflection profiles for the cases of without infill stiffness
and with infill stiffness are plotted in the same graph for comparison. Since the
basement height is not same as storey height, the change in the profile at basement
level can be ignored. The calculated inter storey drifts are shown in Figures
9.13(a) and 9.13(b).
160
Chapter IX – Case Study I
5
Storey Level
4
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement
Figure 9.12(a): Displacements along X-direction
5
Storey Level
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement
161
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
5
Storey Level
5
Storey Level
162
Chapter IX – Case Study I
The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4. Since the building is
irregular, 30 percent of lateral push was applied along with the push in the main
direction.
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 9.14 and 9.15. The base shear from the equivalent
static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand based on
linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to be little
higher than the demand. The pushover curve is almost linear and it terminates
abruptly due to the formation of shear hinges in the columns.
3500
VB
3000
2500
VB
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Roof displacement (m)
Without Infill Stiffness With Infill Stiffness
Figure 9.14: Pushover curves for the building in X-direction.
163
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
4000
3500
VB
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2500
VB
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Roof displacement (m)
Without Infill Stiffness With Infill Stiffness
Figure 9.15: Pushover curves for the building in Y-direction.
164
Chapter IX – Case Study I
X - Direction Y - Direction
Figure 9.16: Demand and capacity spectra (without infill stiffness)
X - Direction Y - Direction
Figure 9.17: Demand and capacity spectrum (with infill stiffness)
165
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
6
Storey Level
5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement
6
Storey Level
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement
166
Chapter IX – Case Study I
5
Storey Level
5
Storey Level
167
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Since the failure hinges are shear hinges, the value of vulnerability index is very
less. So, the damage in the building cannot be predicted by vulnerability index.
(i) Linear analysis results show that almost all beam and column
sections are weak in flexure and shear. Pushover analysis also
reveals the same weakness of the structure and failed to give a
performance point for both the models, with and without infill
stiffness.
(iii) Inter storey drifts in ground storey is high in both linear and non-
linear analysis for with infill strut case.
168
Chapter IX – Case Study I
9.5 RETROFITTING
9.5.1 Retrofitting
Since there is a severe global deficiency of a soft storey, a global retrofit strategy
is tested. In the ground storey, non-buckling braces are placed to stiffen the
storey. In the first and second storeys, the infill walls are replaced with non-
buckling braces at certain locations. Figure 9.25 shows the bracing locations in
the ground and the first two storeys. The modelling of the load-deformation
behaviour of the non-buckling braces is based on Appendix E. Along with the
global retrofit, the shear capacities of columns in the lower three storeys at
locations A, B and C and beams in the first and second floors at location D and E
need to be increased by 30%.
6000 7000
6000
5000
B ase Sh ear (kN )
B ase Sh ear (kN)
5000
4000
4000
VB VB
3000
3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
X - Direction Y - Direction
Figure 22: Pushover curve along X and Y direction.
169
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Figure 23: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
Figure 24: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction.
170
Chapter IX – Case Study I
The demand and capacity spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions
are shown in Figures 23 and 24. The building has achieved performance points in
both the directions. The building experiences a drift about 0.5% at the
performance point, which is acceptable. The inter storey drifts are within the
permissible limits at the performance point.
171
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
E C
172
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER X
CASE STUDY II
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The building is a five storey residential building located in Zone V. Tables 10.1
and 10.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building is symmetric
in both the directions. The ground storey of the building is an open ground storey
to accommodate car parking. Figure 10.1 shows a typical floor plan of the
building.
173
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
174
Chapter X – Case Study II
Table 10.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description Information Notes
1 Type of building Regular
frames with
open ground
storey
2 Number of basements −
3 Number of floors 5
4 Horizontal floor system Beams and
slabs
175
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium
• Recommended foundation (assumed)
• Recommended bearing
capacity
• Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
• Depth of water table
• Chemical analysis of ground −
water
• Chemical analysis of soil −
−
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level 0.7 m Groups of
• Type Pile multiple pile
7 System of interconnecting No inter-
foundations connection
• Plinth beams
• Foundation beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different M15
parts of building
9 Method of analysis −
10 Computer software used −
11 Torsion included −
12 Base shear IS 1893: 2002
a) Based on approximate 2878 kN
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis 1768 kN
c) Ratio of a/b 1.63
13 Distribution of seismic forces along Parabolic IS 1893: 2002
the height of building
14 The columns of soft ground storey − IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in Not Available
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
176
Chapter X – Case Study II
Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
• Type of reinforcement used Fe 415
• Minimum dimension of
beams 150 × 500
• Minimum dimension of
columns 400 × 450
• Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section 1.072
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section 100 mm c/c
of beam
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length 75 mm c/c
of beam near the ends
• Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of −
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of
1.77
reinforcement in column
• Confining stirrups near ends
of columns and in beam-
column joints
6 mm
− Diameter
100 mm
− Spacing
• Ratio of shear capacity of 1.04
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey
• Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the Not Available
splice
• Beam bar splices location Not Available
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
177
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
10.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation with groups of 4 or 6 under reamed piles.
Each pile is of 300 mm diameter reinforced with 6Y12 longitudinal bars and Y6
links @ 175 c/c ties. Piles are more than 11m deep under the ground level as per
the drawing.
nB5
nB5
nB10
nB5
nB15
nB11
nB11
nB4
nB5
nB5
nB5
Y
nB5
nB9 nB9
nB5
nB7
nB10
nB7
nB10
nB6
nB5
nB5
nB8 nB8
nB6
nB13
nB13
nB4
nB13
nB6
nB12
nB10
nB12
nB3
nB12 nB12
nB1
X
Figure 10.2: Floor (all floors other than top floor) framing plan – Beam location
(Prefix ‘n’ represents floor number)
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab is 150mm thick at every floor level.
The wall thickness is 120 mm for both the exterior and interior infill walls. The
floor plan is same up to fourth floor while at the roof level few beams are absent.
The beam layouts for the first four floors and the roof are shown in Figures 10.2
and 10.3, respectively. Figure 10.4 shows the column location. The size and
178
Chapter X – Case Study II
reinforcement details for beam and column sections (at beam and column faces)
are given in Tables 10.3 and 10.4, respectively. Figure 10.5 shows the
reinforcement details of different column sections.
5B1
5B2
5B5
5B5
5B10
5B10
5B5
5B5 5B5
5B15
5B15
5B11
5B11
5B4
5B5
5B5
5B5
5B5
5B9 5B9
5B5
5B10
5B7
5B7
5B10
5B5
5B13
5B13
5B4
5B10
5B10
5B13
5B3
5B12 5B12 5B1
nC15 nC16
nC14 nC17
nC12 nC13
179
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Longitudinal Transverse
Column Number Size (mm)
Reinforcement Reinforcement
C1 400 × 450 8Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C2 400 × 450 6Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C3 400 × 450 4Y20, 4Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C4 400 × 500 8Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C5 400 × 500 6Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C6 400 × 500 4Y20, 4Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C7 400 × 450 10Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C8 400 × 450 8Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C9 400 × 500 10Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C10 400 × 500 10Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C11 400 × 500 8Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
180
Chapter X – Case Study II
450 mm
450 mm
450 mm
2Y16 4Y16
C1 C2 C3
500 mm
500 mm
500 mm
2Y16 4Y16
C4 C5 C6
450 mm
2Y16
C7 C8 2Y16
C9
400 mm 400 mm
500 mm
500 mm
2Y16
C10 C11
181
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Rapid visual screening results, shown in Table 10.5, indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM-INF were considered as the building is a
moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
182
Chapter X – Case Study II
The fundamental periods of the building are Tax = 0.28s. and Tay = 0.36s. The
Table 10.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight,
Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No Wi
(m) (kN)
(kN)
1 4250 3 65
2 4110 6 251
3 4110 9 564
4 4110 12 1003
5 2610 15 995
Tables 10.7 and 10.8 show the column shear stresses at each storey along X- and
Y- directions, respectively. The lateral load resisting frames along X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 10.6 and 10.7, respectively. The beams are having
eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the computational
model.
183
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
184
Chapter X – Case Study II
Details of the column axial stress calculation are given in Table 10.9. The
allowable axial stress in column is 0.24 fck = 0.24×15 MPa = 3.6 MPa.
The column axial stress is more than the allowable stress when the load is in Y-
direction.
185
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The calculation details for the storey drift for X- and Y- directions are shown in
Tables 10.10 and 10.11, respectively. The allowable drift ratio in any storey is
0.015. For most of the storeys, the drifts are more than 0.015.
186
Chapter X – Case Study II
187
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
188
Chapter X – Case Study II
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
in Chapter 3.
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 10.13.
189
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The lift core (surrounded by the staircase) made up of RC walls was ignored in the
model as it is not integrally connected either to the floor diaphragms or to the
lateral load resistant frames.
Figure 10.9 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts in a typical storey (except ground storey). The ground floor has only three
infill walls (1S10, 1S11, 1S12) surrounding the stair case. The calculated strut
parameters are shown in Table 10.14
190
Chapter X – Case Study II
nS16
nS15
nS14
nS13
nS12
nS11
nS10
nS8 nS9
nS6 nS7
nS4 nS5
nS3
nS1
nS2
Figure 10.9: Location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent strut
(Prefix ‘n’ represents storey number)
The foundation system for the building is a pile foundation with groups of 4 or 6
piles. In the model, fixity was considered at the top of the pile caps. The effect of
soil-structure interaction was ignored in the analyses.
Tables 10.15 to 10.18 give the centres of masses and rigidity of the building. Only
two (CM1 and CM2) of the four calculated centres of mass were considered for
analysis.
191
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
192
Chapter X – Case Study II
Design Base Shear: Table 10.19 shows the calculations of base shear of the
building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Seismic
load distribution for X-direction is shown in the Table 10.20.
Floor W h Qi (kN)
i i
no (kN) (m) With infill stiffness Without infill stiffness
1 4250 3 65 60
2 4110 6 251 231
3 4110 9 564 519
4 4110 12 1003 923
5 2610 15 995 916
193
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 10.21. The comparison is shown in
Figures 10.10 and 10.11.
Table 10.22 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 10.12 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shears for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are given in Table 10.23
Table 10.22: Time periods and modal participation for the first five modes
194
Chapter X – Case Study II
Empirical formula
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.10: Comparison of fundamental periods (with infill stiffness)
2.5
Computational model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.11: Comparison of fundamental periods (without infill stiffness)
195
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
196
Chapter X – Case Study II
The equivalent static analysis results show that a number of elements do not
satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) for flexure. However the DCR for
shear is always less than one for both beams and columns. DCR for a few ground
floor beams and columns are given in Tables 10.24 and 10.25, respectively.
197
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The storey drifts are shown in Figure 10.13. The values satisfy the IS 1893: 2002
limit of 0.4%.
198
Chapter X – Case Study II
Storey Level 3
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Storey Drift (%)
(a) Considering infill stiffness
4
Storey Level
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Storey Drift (%)
(b) Without considering infill stiffness
199
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 10.14 and 10.15. The base shear from the
equivalent static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand
based on linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to
be little higher than the demand.
4000
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Roof Displacement (m)
200
Chapter X – Case Study II
4000
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Roof Displacement (m)
Pushover analyses in either direction failed to give a performance point for both
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectra for
the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in Figures 10.16 to
10.19.
The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 10.20 and 10.21. The inter-
storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in
Figures 10.22and 10.23. These figures show the soft storey mechanism.
201
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
202
Chapter X – Case Study II
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
203
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
4
Storey Level
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
4
Storey Level
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
204
Chapter X – Case Study II
Storey Level
3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift
4
Storey Level
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift
205
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of storeys are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D. The vulnerability indices of the
buildings are given in Tables 10.26 and 10.27. The indices of storeys are given in
Tables 10.28 and 10.29.
Column 0 0 46 0 1 5 4
X-
0.069
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Column 0 0 28 0 0 2 9
Y-
0.066
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Location Yielded B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E VIbldg
Column 0 0 21 0 0 1 1
X-
0.042
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Column 0 0 11 0 0 1 0
Y-
0.087
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
206
Chapter X – Case Study II
(i) Linear analysis results show that a number of beams and columns are
deficient in flexure.
(ii) However, all the beam and column sections have adequate shear capacity.
(iii) Building complies with the drift requirement under design lateral force.
(iv) Pushover analyses in either direction fail to give a performance point before
the collapse. So the performance is not acceptable. Building needs to be
retrofitted.
10.8 RETROFIT
207
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The selected retrofit scheme consists of global and local retrofit strategies. For the
global strategy, full brick walls (230 mm) were continued in the ground storey at a
few symmetrical locations of the building. Figure 10.24 shows the locations of the
new walls. This will cause least intervention in the functional requirement of car
parking. For the local strategy, all the ground storey columns were strengthened
by concrete jacketing. The modelling of the load-deformation behaviour of the
jacketed column is based on Chapter 8. The pushover curves in Y-directions for
the retrofitted building are shown in Figure 10.25. The pushover analyses in both
the directions give performance points. The building experiences a drift of about
1.0% at the performance point, which is acceptable. The demand and capacity
spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions are shown in Figures 10.26
and 10.27. The scheme increases the stiffness of the building only marginally.
Figure 10.28 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the
corresponding spectral acceleration coefficients for the existing and the retrofitted
models of the building.
Figure 10.24: Locations of infill walls and column jacketing in ground storey
208
Chapter X – Case Study II
Existing Retrofitted
8000
6000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
2000
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Roof Displacement (m)
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
209
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 10.27: Capacity spectrum along Y-direction
3
Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g)
Retrofitted
2
Existing
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
210
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
CHAPTER XI
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of an office building in Zone III. The
deficiency due to inadequate shear reinforcement is highlighted. A retrofit scheme
with shear strengthening is illustrated.
211
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The building is a six storey office building with a basement, located in Zone III.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building
is symmetric in both X- and Y-directions. The basement is for parking. Figure 11.1
shows a typical floor plan of the building.
212
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Table 11.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description Information Notes
1 Type of building Regular
frames
2 Number of basements −
3 Number of floors 7
4 Horizontal floor system Beams and
slabs
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium Assumed
• Recommended foundation
• Recommended bearing
capacity
• Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
• Depth of water table
• Chemical analysis of ground
water −
• Chemical analysis of soil −
213
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level −
• Type Pile Pile groups
7 System of interconnecting No inter
foundations connection
• Plinth beams
• Foundation beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different M20
parts of building
9 Method of analysis −
10 Computer software used −
11 Torsion included −
12 Base shear IS 1893: 2002
a) Based on approximate 2150
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis 891
c) Ratio of a/b 2.31
13 Distribution of seismic forces along Parabolic IS 1893: 2002
the height of building
14 The columns of soft ground storey − IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in Not Available
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
• Type of reinforcement used Fe 415
• Minimum dimension of
beams 200 × 750
• Minimum dimension of
columns 300 × 450
• Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section 0.536
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section 250 mm c/c
of beam
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length 150 mm c/c
of beam near the ends
214
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description Information Notes
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
• Ratio of capacity of beams −
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of 1.54
reinforcement in column
• Confining stirrups near ends
of columns and in beam-
column joints
− Diameter 8 mm
− Spacing 200 mm
• Ratio of shear capacity of
columns to maximum 2.51
seismic shear in the storey
• Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the Not Available
splice
• Beam bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the Not Available
splice
11.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation. The depths of the pile bottoms vary
between 21m to 30m, depending up on the soil strata.
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 120 mm except for some
locations where it is 150 mm. Waist slab for the staircase is 150 mm thick. The
external walls are 230mm thick and no partition walls are present inside the
building. The floor plan is similar for basement and ground floor. One corner is
215
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
terminated above the ground floor. Figure 11.2 shows the column layout at a
typical floor and Table 11.3 shows the reinforcement details of the columns
sections. Figure 11.3 shows the beam layout at a typical floor level. All floors
have identical beam sections. It can be noted from Table 11.3 that most of the
columns are of rectangular cross section with very high aspect ratio. However
columns are oriented in such a way that strength and stiffness in both X- and Y-
direction are comparable.
AC7 AC4
AC2 AC7
216
Chapter XI – Case Study III
AC7 AC4
AC2 AC7
Figure 11.2(b): Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(1st to 5th storey)
AB5
AB5
AB1
AB20
AB15
AB18
AB18
AB15
AB18
AB16
AB8
AB9
AB38
AB10 AB11
Table 11.4 shows the reinforcement details of the beam sections. It can be noted
that all of the beams have b/d ratio more than 3.0.
217
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The lateral load resisting frames in the building are identified. Figures 11.4 (a) and
11.4(b) show the frames along X-direction and Y-directions, respectively. The
beams are having eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the
computational model.
218
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Rapid visual screening results shown in Table 11.5 indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM-INF were considered as the building is a
moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
219
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Sa/g = 2.50.
Z = 0.16; R = 3; I = 1.0
ZIS a 0.16 × 1.0 × 2.50
Ah = = = 0.067
2 Rg 2×3
VB = Ah×W. = 0.067×32257 kN ≅ 2128.96 kN.
Table 11.6 shows the distribution of the base shear over the height of the building.
These were calculated using IS 1893: 2002 recommended parabolic distribution
methods.
220
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Table 11.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight,
Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No Wi
(m) (kN)
(kN)
G 4901 3.60 19
1 4652 6.60 59
2 4709 10.2 143
3 4707 13.8 261
4 4979 17.4 438
5 4883 21.0 627
6 3426 24.6 604
Vj vavg
Storey No nf nc Ac (m2) Remarks
(kN) (MPa)
B 5 22 6.585 2580.52 0.507 >0.4
G 5 22 6.585 2462.04 0.484 >0.4
1 5 21 6.585 2270.40 0.446 >0.4
2 5 21 6.585 1979.46 0.389 <0.4
3 5 21 6.585 1594.63 0.313 <0.4
4 5 21 6.585 1080.25 0.212 <0.4
5 5 21 6.585 479.69 0.094 <0.4
The details of the column axial stress calculations are given in Table 11.8. The
average axial stresses in column is within the allowable axial stress of 0.24 fck ( =
0.24×20 MPa = 4.8 MPa).
221
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The calculation detail for the storey drift is shown in Tables 11.9. The frame drift
ratio at each storey level is considerably less than the allowable drift.
222
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Load path: C
Adjacent buildings: −
Mezzanines: NA
No deterioration of concrete: −
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey: C
No soft storey: C
No mass irregularity: C
No vertical geometric irregularity: C
No vertical discontinuities: C
Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity: C
No diaphragm discontinuity: C
No re-entrant corners: C
No out of plane offsets: C
No non-parallel system: C
Moment resisting frames
Redundancy: C
No interfering wall: C
Drift check: C
223
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
No shear failures: NC
Beam bars: C
Stirrup spacing: NC
Bent-up bars: C
Joint reinforcing: NC
Deflection compatibility: NC
Diaphragm reinforcement: C
Shear walls
Shearing stress check: NA
Reinforcing steel: NA
Connections
Column connection: C
Foundations
Foundation performance: −
Deterioration: −
Overturning: C
224
Chapter XI – Case Study III
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
outlined in Chapter 3.
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 11.11.
225
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Infill Walls
Figure 11.6 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 11.12
STR4 STR3 STR6
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR2
STR3
STR1
STR3
STR4 STR4 STR5
X
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR2
Y
STR3
STR1
226
Chapter XI – Case Study III
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR5
STR2
Y
STR2
STR1
STR1
STR3
STR4 STR4
Figure 11.6(c): Location of infill walls at a typical storey (above ground storey)
The foundation system for the building is piles. In the model, fixity was
considered at the top of the pile caps. The effect of soil-structure interaction was
ignored in the analyses.
227
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Tables 11.13(a) to 11.13(d) give the centres of mass and rigidity of the building.
Only two (CM1 and CM2) of the four calculated centres of mass were considered
for analysis.
228
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Table 11.13 (d): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)
Design Design
CR (m) esi (m)
Floor CM1 (m) CM2 (m)
X Y X Y X Y X Y
6 7.57 11.15 0.05 0.18 8.39 12.63 6.65 10.03
5 7.66 11.16 0.17 0.32 8.54 12.99 6.45 9.98
4 7.62 11.17 0.13 0.42 8.48 13.25 6.51 9.93
3 7.56 11.17 0.04 0.34 8.38 13.04 6.67 9.97
2 7.56 11.17 0.02 0.30 8.37 12.94 6.72 9.99
1 7.73 11.10 0.18 0.35 8.62 13.00 6.47 9.90
G 8.08 11.30 0.46 0.07 9.11 12.50 6.14 10.23
Design Base Shear: Design lateral forces at each storey level are applied at the
centre of mass locations independently in two horizontal directions. Table 11.14
shows lateral force distribution at different storey level.
229
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Table 11.14: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Lateral Force, Qi (kN)
Floor Seismic weight, Height, hi With infill
Stiffness Without infill
no Wi (kN) (m)
stiffness
X Y
6 3426.36 24.60 603.63 592.36 396.38
5 4883.30 21.00 626.93 615.23 411.68
4 4978.94 17.40 438.84 430.65 288.16
3 4706.50 13.80 260.93 256.06 171.34
2 4708.90 10.20 142.62 139.96 93.65
1 4652.10 6.60 58.99 57.89 38.74
G 4900.50 3.60 18.49 18.14 12.14
Table 11.15 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the spectral
accelerations for the building. Figure 11.7 shows the position of the periods in the
response spectrum.
Table 11.26 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 11.8 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are compared in Table 11.17
230
Chapter XI – Case Study III
3.0 3.0
Empirical formula
Computational
2.0 model 2.0 Computational
model
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s) Period (s)
(a) with infill stiffness (b) without infill stiffness
Table 11.16: Time Period and Modal Participation Ratio for the first five modes
Without infill stiffness With infill stiffness
Mass Participation
Mode Mass Participation (%)
T (s) (%) T (s)
Ux Uy Ux Uy
1 1.27 6.12 70.27 1.06 74.89 0.18
2 1.20 69.99 6.53 0.92 0.18 78.29
3 0.60 0.31 1.16 0.39 0.08 1.35
4 0.41 0.42 11.50 0.33 15.10 0.07
5 0.38 13.54 0.37 0.30 0.07 11.19
231
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Figure 11.8: First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
The analysis results show that a number of frame sections are deficient.
Tables 11.18 and 11.19 shows the DCR for a few column and beam sections,
respectively.
232
Chapter XI – Case Study III
233
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The storey drift for every storey is within the code limit of 0.4%. Figure 11.9
shows the storey drifts in X-direction.
4
Storey Level
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Storey Drift
Figure 11.9: Storey drifts along X-direction for design seismic base shear
Figure 11.10 shows the pushover curves for the building with and without infill
stiffness. The building has sufficiently large strength and stiffness at the global
level when infill stiffness was modelled, but it does not show desired strength and
stiffness when the infill stiffness was ignored.
Pushover analyses in either direction failed to give a performance point for both
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectrum
234
Chapter XI – Case Study III
for the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in
Figures 11.11(a) to 11.11(d).
4500
4000
3500
Base Shear (kN)
3000
2500 V (WS)
B
2000
1500
VB (WOS)
1000
500
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Roof Displacement (m)
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.11(a): Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(without infill stiffness)
235
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.11(b): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(Without infill stiffness)
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.11(c): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(With infill stiffness)
236
Chapter XI – Case Study III
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.11(d): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(With infill stiffness)
4
Storey Level
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35
Storey Drift
Figure 11.12(a): Maximum storey drift along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
237
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Storey Level
3
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35
Storey Drift
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of the stories are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D. Vulnerability index of the buildings are
given in Tables 10.20(a) and 10.20(b). The indices of storeys are given in
Tables 10.21(a) and 10.21(b).
Location Yielded B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E VIbldg
X- Column 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.006
direction Beam 8 2 1 1 0 2 0
Y- Column 13 4 0 0 0 0 0
0.050
direction Beam 58 2 1 11 0 2 16
238
Chapter XI – Case Study III
Location Yielded B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E VIbldg
X- Column 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.053
direction Beam 19 3 3 3 0 3 32
Y- Column 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.043
direction Beam 44 1 3 7 0 1 18
239
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
(i) The linear analysis results show that almost all the beam and column
sections are safe in flexure. But a few column sections and all beam
sections are deficient in shear. Pushover analysis also reveals the same
weakness of the structure.
(ii) The building complies with the drift requirement.
(iii) All the pushover analyses failed to give a performance point, except for Y-
direction with infill stiffness. So the performance is not acceptable. The
building needs to be retrofitted.
11.8 RETROFIT
A global retrofit strategy of placing walls inside the office space was not possible.
So, a local retrofit strategy was adopted. Two beam sections, AB5 and AB8, were
retrofitted to take additional 25% shear force. Figure 11.13 shows the location of
these beams in a typical floor. The beam sections can be retrofitted by concrete
jacketing or glass fibre reinforced polymer wrapping.
AB 5
AB 5
AB 8
240
Chapter XI – Case Study III
The shear strengthening is modelled in the structure by changing the shear hinge
properties. The re-analysis of the retrofitted structure shows that the building
achieves desirable performance in either direction. The drift at the performance
point is about 0.25% which is acceptable. Figures 11.14 (a) and 11.14(b) show
the pushover curves along X- and Y-directions, respectively. Figures 11.15(a) and
11.15 (b) shows the demand and capacity spectra for the retrofitted building along
X- and Y- directions, respectively.
6000
5000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 11.14(a): Pushover curves along X-direction for the retrofitted building
7000
6000
5000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 11.14(b): Pushover curves along Y-direction for the retrofitted building
241
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.15(a): Demand and capacity spectra for push along X-direction
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 11.15(b): Demand and capacity spectra for push along Y-direction
242
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
APPENDIX A
The three soil types used in the data collection form of FEMA 154 are C, D and E.
The soil types are mapped to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002, by
Table A1.
A1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
APPENDIX B
MODELLING OF MASONRY
INFILL WALLS
For an infill wall located in a lateral load-resisting frame, the stiffness and strength
contribution of the infill has to be considered. Non-integral infill walls subjected to
lateral load behave like diagonal struts. Thus an infill wall can be modelled as an
equivalent ‘compression only’ strut in the building model. The concept is shown in
Figure B1. It is a trussed frame model. Rigid joints connect the beams and
columns, but pin joints connect the equivalent struts to the beam-to-column
junctions. This section explains the procedure based on Smith and Carter (1969) to
calculate the modelling parameters (effective width, elastic modulus and strength)
of an equivalent strut.
The length of the strut is given by the diagonal distance (d) of the panel (Figure
B1c) and its thickness is equal to the thickness of the infill wall. The elastic
modulus of the strut is equated to the elastic modulus of masonry (Em). As per
IBC: 2000, Em is given as
Em = 750 f m/ (B.1)
B1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
given as Em = 550 f m/ .
For the estimation of width (w) of the strut, a simple expression can be adopted
(Ramesh, 2003).
w = 1.477 + 0.0356λ h − 0.912 ( R / Rc ) (B.2)
w′
Here, the instantaneous value of w is expressed in terms of a parameter w/. The
expression of w/ is given as
⎛ w ' ⎞ 0.43sin 2θ
⎜ ⎟= (B.3)
⎝d ⎠ λh
Length of
contact
Emt sin 2θ
λ= 4 (B.4)
4 Ec I c h '
B2
Appendix B – Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls
B3
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The strength of the equivalent strut is governed by the lowest of the failure loads
corresponding to the following failure modes.
a) Local crushing of the infill at one of the loaded corners.
b) Shear cracking along the bedding joints of the brickwork.
The diagonal tensile cracking need not be considered as a failure mode, as higher
load can be carried beyond tensile cracking
The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following equation
(Smith and Carter, 1969).
Rc = α c t sec θ f m (B.8)
The length of contact at the column (αc) at the compression diagonal corner is
calculated using the following formula.
αc π
= (B.9)
h 2λ h
Other variables are as defined earlier.
B4
Appendix B – Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls
Where, f bs′ = The bond shear strength between the masonry and mortar. It is
varies from 0.24 MPa for low strength mortar to 0.69 MPa for high strength
mortar (Ramesh 2003). Again to be in conservative side f bs′ is taken as 0.24 in the
calculation.
B5
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
APPENDIX C
The stress-strain curve of concrete in compression forms the basis of analysis and
design of any reinforced concrete section. Such curves are usually prescribed in
design codes and give details of the shape of the curve (often idealised as
parabolic in the initial ascending portion, and thereafter linearly descending or
flat). The ultimate peak strength (and corresponding strain level, usually 0.002)
and the ultimate compressive strain (in the range 0.003 to 0.004) are also
specified. However, the maximum compressive strength and strain gets enhanced
when the concrete is confined, and details of such effects are not available in the
prevailing codes.
The characteristic and design stress−strain curves specified by the IS 456: 2000,
for concrete in flexural compression are depicted in Figure C1. The maximum
stress in the ‘characteristic’ curve is restricted to 0.67 f ck . The curve consists of a
parabola in the initial region up to a strain of 0.002 (where the slope becomes
C1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
For the purpose of limit states design, the appropriate partial safety factor γ c has
to be applied, and γ c is equal to 1.5 for the consideration of ultimate limit states.
Thus, the ‘design curve’ is obtained by simply scaling down the ordinates of the
characteristic curve — dividing by γ c [Figure C1]. Accordingly, the maximum
design stress becomes equal to 0.447 f ck , and the formula for the design
compressive stress f c corresponding to any strain ε c ≤ 0.0035 is given by:
⎧ ⎡ ⎛ ε c ⎞ ⎛ ε c ⎞2 ⎤
⎪
fc = ⎨
0.447 f ck ⎢ 2 ⎜ ⎟−⎜ ⎟ ⎥ for ε c <0.002 (C1)
⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.002 ⎠ ⎝ 0.002 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎪
⎩ 0.447 f ck for 0.002 ≤ ε c ≤ 0.0035
Figure C1: Characteristic and design stress-strain curves for concrete – IS 456
C2
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
The IS 456: 2000 model does not truly reflect the actual stress-strain behaviour in
the post-peak region, as (for convenience in calculations) it assumes a constant
stress in this region (strains between 0.002 and 0.0035). In reality, as evidenced
by experimental testing, the post-peak behaviour is characterised by a descending
branch, which is attributed to ‘softening’ and micro-cracking in the concrete.
Also, the IS code model does not account for strength enhancement and ductility
due to confinement.
The British code [BS 8110] model of stress-strain curve is similar to IS 456: 2000
model. ACI 318M-02 recognizes the inelastic stress distribution of concrete at
high stress. As maximum stress is approached, the stress is approached, the
stress-strain relationship for concrete is not a straight line but some form of curve
(stress is not proportional to strain). The general shape of a stress-strain curve is
primarily a function of concrete strength and consists of a rising curve from zero
to a maximum at compressive strain between 0.0015 to 0.002 followed by a
descending curve to an ultimate strain (crushing of concrete) ≡ 0.003. The ACI
code assumes relationship between concrete compressive stress distribution and
concrete strain to be rectangular.
Confined First
concrete hoop
' fracture
f cc
'
f co Unconfined
concrete
Ec Assumed for
Esec cover concrete
εt εco 2εco εsp εcc εcu
ft'
Figure C2: Stress-strain curves for concrete – Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988)
Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) proposed a stress-strain model for concrete
subjected uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement
C3
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
(Figure C2). The concrete section may contain any general type of confining
steel: either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops with or without
supplementary cross ties. These cross ties can have either equal or unequal
confining stresses along each of the transverse axes.
The salient strain locations in the model (Figure C2) are given by the ultimate
compressive strain (εcu), and the strains corresponding to the peak strength, viz.,
εcc in the case of confined concrete and εco (usually 0.002) in the case of
'
unconfined concrete. The corresponding peak strengths are f cc in the case of
'
confined concrete and f co in the case of unconfined concrete. The following
⎡ ⎛ f 'cc ⎞ ⎤
ε cc = ε co ⎢1 + 5 ⎜ '
− 1⎟ ⎥ (C3)
⎣⎢ ⎝ f co ⎠ ⎥⎦
where ρ s = volumetric ratio of confining steel, f yh = grade of the stirrup
'
The following expression is proposed for f cc in the case of circular sections or
rectangular sections with effective confining stress f l ' applied equally in the two
orthogonal directions. The influence of various types of confinement is taken into
account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which is dependent on
the configuration of the transverse and lateral reinforcement.
⎛ 7.94 f l ' fl ' ⎞
f cc = f 'co ⎜ −1.254 + 2.254 1 +
'
−2 ' ⎟ (C4)
⎜ f 'co f co ⎟⎠
⎝
1
fl ' = ke ρ s f yh (C5)
2
where ke is the “confinement effectiveness coefficient”, having a typical value of
0.95 for circular sections and 0.75 for rectangular sections. In the more general
C4
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
case of a rectangular section with unequal lateral confining stresses in the X- and
' '
Y- directions, a chart has been proposed to calculate f cc / f co (Figure C3).
εc Ec f'
where x = ; r= ; Ec = 5000 f 'co ; Esec = cc .
ε cc Ec − Esec ε cc
f ' cc
K=
f 'co
1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0
Largest Effective Confining Stress ratio f 'lx /f 'co
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Smallest Effective Confining Stress ratio f 'ly /f 'co
Figure C3: Confined strength determination from lateral confining stresses for
rectangular sections
C5
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
(c) The model can be applied to any shape of concrete member section
confined by any kind of transverse reinforcement (spirals, cross ties,
circular or rectangular hoops).
⎡ ⎛ 0.5ke ρ s f yh ⎞ ⎤
0.85
f cc = f co ⎢1 + 3.7 ⎜
' '
⎟ ⎥ (C7)
⎢⎣ ⎝ f 'co ⎠ ⎥⎦
The expression for ultimate compressive strain has also been modified as follows:
0.6 ρ s f yhε sm
ε cu = 0.004 + (C8)
f 'cc
It is seen that Modified Mander’s (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curve is
simple to use and gives realistic results. However it can be used only for normal-
strength concrete.
The ‘characteristic’ and ‘design’ stress−strain curves specified by the Code for
various grades of reinforcing steel (in tension or compression) are shown in
Figure C4.
Curvature (φ) is defined as the reciprocal of the radius of curvature (R) at any
point along a curved line. When an initial straight beam segment is subject to a
uniform bending moment throughout its length, it is expected to bend into a
segment of a circle with a curvature φ that increases in some manner with increase
in the applied moment (M). Curvature φ may be alternatively defined as the angle
⎛ 1 dθ ⎞
change in the slope of the elastic curve per unit length ⎜ ϕ = = ⎟ . At any
⎝ R ds ⎠
section, using the ‘plane sections remain plane’ hypothesis under pure bending,
C6
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
the curvature can be computed as the ratio of the normal strain at any point across
the depth to the distance measured from the neutral axis at that section (Figure
C5).
500
fy characteristic curve
400
0.87 fy design curve
300
stress (MPa)
200
Es = 2 × 105 MPa
100
εy = (0.87 fy) Es + 0.002
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
strain
If the bending produces extreme fibre strains of ε1 and ε2 at top and bottom at any
section as shown in Figure C5 (compression on top and tension at bottom assumed
C7
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Centre of curvature
dθ
R
ds(1- ε1) y1
M M
y2
ds
Neutral Axis
ds(1+ ε2)
In the case of a short column subject to uniaxial bending combined with axial
compression, it is assumed that equation C9 remains valid and that “plane sections
C8
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
before bending remain plane”. However, the ultimate curvature (and hence,
ductility) of the section is reduced as the compression strain in the concrete
contributes to resisting axial compression in addition to flexural compression.
Using the Modified Mander (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curves for
concrete and the stress-strain curve for steel as per IS 456: 2000, for a specific
confining steel, moment curvature curves can be generated for beams and columns
(for different axial load levels). The assumptions and procedure used in
generating the moment-curvature curves are outlined below.
C.1.4.1 Assumptions
1. The strain is linear across the depth of the section (‘plane sections remain
plane’).
2. The tensile strength of the concrete is ignored.
3. The concrete spalls off at a strain of 0.0035.
4. The initial tangent modulus of the concrete, Ec is adopted from IS 456:
2000, as 5000 f ck .
C9
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
C10
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
5. Calculate the axial force from the equilibrium and compare with the
applied axial load. If the difference lies within the specified tolerance, the
assumed neutral axis depth is adopted. The moment capacity and the
corresponding curvature of the section are then calculated. Otherwise, a
new neutral axis is determined from the iteration (using bisection method)
and steps (3) to (5) are repeated until it converges.
6. Assign the next value, which is larger than the previous one, to the
extreme concrete compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5).
7. Repeat the whole procedure until the complete moment-curvature is
obtained.
C11
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The physical definition of the plastic hinge length, considering the ultimate
flexural strength developing at the support, is the distance from the support over
which the applied moment exceeds the yield moment. The established practice is
to consider
l p = 0.5 D ……………………………………………………(C14)
Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001) proposed the length of plastic hinge as:
l p = 0.12 Ls + 0.014asl db f y ………………………………………..(C15)
A B
(a)
(b) lp
ϕu
ϕy
(c)
Figure C6: (a) cantilever beam, (b) Bending moment distribution, and (c)
Curvature distribution (Park and Paulay 1975)
The moment-rotation curve can be idealised as described in Chapter IV, and can
be derived from the moment-curvature model. While applying equations C11 and
C12 to determine the yield and ultimate rotations, care must be taken to adopt the
C12
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
correct value of the length l, applicable for cantilever action. In the case of a
frame member in a multi-storey frame subject to lateral loads, it may be
conveniently assumed that the points of contraflexure are located (approximately)
at the mid-points of the beams and columns. In such cases, an approximate value
of l is given by half the span of the member under consideration.
Flexural plastic hinges will develop, along with the predicted values of ultimate
moment capacity, provided there is no prior failure in shear. In order to prevent
this occurrence, design codes prescribe specifications (e.g. ductile detailing
requirement of IS 13920: 1993) for adequate shear reinforcement, corresponding
to the ultimate moment capacity level.
However, in practice, shear failure are commonly seen to occur in beams and
columns in the event of a severe earthquake, owing to inadequate shear design. In
non-linear analysis, this can be modelled by employing ‘shear hinges’. These
hinges should ideally be located at the same points as the flexural hinges near the
beam column joints. If the shear hinge mechanism is triggered before the
formation of flexural hinge, the moment demand gets automatically restricted and
the full flexural hinge may not develop.
Shear force-deformation curves to assign shear hinges for beams and columns can
be calculated as follows. It is assumed to be symmetric for positive and negative
shear forces. A typical force-deformation curve is shown in Figure C7.
C13
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
concrete does not provide any shear resistance. Shear resistance carried by shear
reinforcement (Vsy) as per clause 40.4 of IS 456: 2000 is.
d
Vsy = 0.87 f y Asv (C16)
sv
Vu = 1.05Vy
Vy
Residual
0.2 Vy Shear Strength
∆y 1.5∆y ∆m=15∆y
Shear deformation (∆)
For calculation of Vsy, above formula is used putting 1.00fy instead of 0.87fy for the
actual strain hardened reinforcement.
d
Vsy = 1.0 f y Asv (C17)
sv
In case of column shear strength in existing construction is calculated by the
following expression
Vy = Vc + Vsy (C18)
Shear resistance taken by the concrete (Vc) as given in the clause 40.2.2 of IS 456:
2000 is
C14
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
Vc = δτ c bd
0.116 f ck bd
Here β = ≥ 1.0
100 Ast
3Pu
For moderate and high ductility of the column section δ = 0 + ≤ 0.5 is taken
Ag f ck
Ultimate shear deformation can be calculated using shear stiffness of the cracked
member. Shear stiffness for the cracked member can be calculated using the
procedure given in Park and Paulay (1975). The expression for shear stiffness of a
rectangular section with 450 diagonal cracks and vertical stirrups is given in
Equation C22
ρv
K v ,45 = Es bw d (C22)
1 + 4n ρ v
C15
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Asv E
Here, ρ v = ; n = s and bw = web width
sv bw Ec
The ultimate shear strength (Vu) is taken as 5% more than yield shear strength (Vy)
and residual shear strength is taken as 20% of the yield shear strength for
modelling of the shear hinges as shown in Figure C7. Similarly maximum shear
deformation is taken as 15 times the yield deformation. The values were taken as
per FEMA recommendations.
The axial load versus deformation behaviour of the equivalent struts under
compression can be modelled with axial hinges. In absence for data, an elastic
behaviour up to the failure load can be assumed. Any tensile load carrying
capacity of the strut is neglected. Figure C8 shows a typical load-deformation
relation for the axial hinge in strut. R and ∆y represent the failure load and the
corresponding deformation, respectively, of the strut.
The failure load (R) is calculated from the lower of the failure loads
corresponding to local crushing and shear cracking. The expressions are given in
Appendix B.
The deformation corresponding to the failure load can be calculated based on the
initial stiffness as follows.
R R×d
∆y = = ……………………………. (C23)
⎛ AE ⎞ w × t × Em
⎜ ⎟
⎝ d ⎠
Here
Em = elastic modulus of the infill material
C16
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
IO, LS, CP
Load
∆y
Deformation
Figure C8: A typical stress-strain relation for axial hinges in equivalent struts.
C17
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
APPENDIX D
VULNERABILITY INDEX
D1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
After the pushover analysis, performance ranges of the hinges formed in the
component can be noted from the deformed shape output. The number of hinges
formed in the beams and columns for each performance range are available from
the output. A ‘weightage factor’ (xi) is assigned to each performance range. The
proposed values of xi are given in Table D.1.
As columns are more important than beams in the global safety of a building, an
‘importance factor’ of 1.5 for column is additionally assigned.
Here, N ic and N ib are the numbers of hinges in columns and beams respectively
for the i'th performance range. The summation ∑ is intended to cover the
performance ranges (i =1, 2, … 6).
0.875
0.625
0.375
0.125 C
B CP
LS
IO
Load
D E
A Deformation
D2
Appendix D – Vulnerability Index
VIbldg is measure of the overall vulnerability index for the building. A high value
of VIbldg reflects poor performance of the building components (i.e., high risk) as
obtained from pushover analysis. But this index may not reflect a soft storey
mechanism, in which a performance point may not be achieved.
VI storey =
∑N x
c
i i
(D.2)
∑N i
c
where N ic is the number of column hinges in the storey under investigation for a
D3
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
APPENDIX E
ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES
E1
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
(a) Diagonal EBF (b) Split-K braced EBF (c) V-type EBF
Due to eccentric connection of the braces to beams, the lateral stiffness of the
system depends upon the flexural stiffness of the beams and columns, thus
reducing the lateral stiffness of the frame. The vertical component of the bracing
E2
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
force due to earthquake cause transverse concentrated load on the beams at the
point of connection of the eccentric bracings. Under this load, plastic hinges are
formed in the stub length of the beam, along with large shear. The beam should
have adequate ductility to dissipate energy through these plastic hinges. Although
eccentrically braced frames attract lesser base shear due to their lesser stiffness
compared to concentrically braced frame, they under go larger lateral drift.
Further, use of eccentric brace in RC frames is usually not appropriate due to the
low plastic hinge deformation capacity and low shear capacity of RC beams.
Steel braces have enough ductility in tension to dissipate energy, but are weak in
compression. Due to this reason, normally X-bracings are preferred over diagonal
bracings in seismic zones. Diagonal bracings can be used in the zones having
high intensity of wind particularly in one direction. Diagonal bracings in two bays
in each orthogonal direction in plan with opposite slopes in a given storey can be
used instead of X bracings.
The connections are most important in braced frames, especially while retrofitting.
Forces in the braces transfer to frame beam-column joints though the connections.
The strength, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics of braced frame
under earthquake loading are often dictated by connections. Various types of
connections (Maheri and Sahebi, 1997 and Maheri and Hadjipour, 2003) are
shown in Figure E3.
E3
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
E4
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Gusset plate
Brace
Connecting
Bearing
plate
E5
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
The design of braces is an iterative process, because the forces in the braces
depend on the stiffness of the braces. The braces are subjected to alternative
tension and compression during the seismic loading and have to be designed for
both tension and compression. In X-bracing, at any instant, one brace is subjected
to tension while the other is subjected to compression. The stiffness and strength
of brace under compression is often neglected in design, and only stiffness of the
brace subjected to tension is considered. The braces are designed to resist only
tension.
The braces can be designed by analysing the frame by any of the following
methods
• Equivalent static method. (Linear static analysis)
• Response spectrum method. (Linear dynamic analysis)
• Non-linear static method. (Push over method)
An appropriate section for the brace has to be selected satisfying the maximum
value of effective slenderness ratio of the IS code. The design forces in a brace
from the analysis are used to calculate the required section. If the required section
is very different from the initial section, the analysis needs to be performed again
with the revised section properties of the brace. This process is repeated until the
section is adequate for the forces in the member.
In the nonlinear static method, the iterative procedure of selecting the brace
sections and modelling the brace is similar to the linear methods. In addition,
axial load versus deformation behaviour has to be modelled as axial hinge
properties.
E6
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Approximate analysis
In this method the lateral force resisted by the frame is neglected and hence it is
conservative to find the forces in the braces. The following steps may be used to
calculate the brace forces rapidly and more conservatively (FEMA 172, 178).
Calculate the time period of building.
Calculate the horizontal seismic coefficient.
Calculate the base shear and distribute the base shear to storeys
Calculate the axial force in the diagonal brace (Fbr) by the following
expression.
⎛ Vj ⎞ Lbr
Fbr = ⎜ ⎟ (E.1)
⎝ N br ⎠ s
Here,
Vj = Storey shear in jth storey
Lbr = Average length of braces
Nbr = Number of braces in tension and compression, if the braces are
designed for compression.
Nbr = Number of braces in tension if the effectiveness of compression
brace is neglected.
s= Average span of braces.
Behaviour of Braces
The common modes of failure of braces system are as follows.
• Tension yielding of gross area of brace.
• Tension fracture of net area of braces at the end connections.
• Tension fracture of end gusset plate.
• Buckling failure under compression of braces between lateral supports.
• Buckling failure under compression of end gusset plate.
• Block-shear failure of braces at the end connection.
• Block-shear failure of end gusset plate.
• Bolt shear failure.
E7
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Axial force
Stress
Tension
Strain Displacement
Compression
Figure E4: Behaviour of conventional brace and X bracing under cyclic loading
E8
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Sleeve Grout
Core
E9
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Projection of the core beyond the sleeve is to be designed such that the core does
not yield or buckle in that region.
Axial
Load Tension
Axial
Deformation
Compression
Extensive experimental and analytical studies have indicated that as long as the
sleeve is adequately stiff, the core can be subjected to a compressive strain well
beyond the yield stain, without the overall buckling of the strut. Hence the non-
buckling braces can dissipate energy both in tension and compression, as shown in
Figure E6.
The strength and stiffness of the non-buckling brace can be altered using cores
with non-prismatic cross-sections. Two parameters α, β are used to describe the
non-prismatic core properties as given below (Figure E7).
Ac Areduced
Lreduced
L
E10
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
A reduced
α=
Ac
L reduced
β=
L
Where,
Ac Total area of core
Areduced Reduced area of core
L Full length of core element
Lreduced Length of the element over which the area of cross section
has been reduced
The strength is governed by the value of α, while the stiffness is governed by the
values of α and β. Changes in strength and stiffness of bracing lead to changes in
base shear and drifts of the building. Buildings can be designed at required
performance levels by changing the base shear and drifts of the building.
The reduced area of the core (α Ac) is chosen so as to have yield strength of the
reduced area equal to the bracing force. The sleeve flexural stiffness is chosen so
that its Euler buckling strength is at least 25% greater than the bracing force from
analysis. The enlarged area of the core at ends (Ac) is chosen so as to avoid
buckling of the core in the projection beyond the sleeve. The length of the core
with reduced area (β L) is chosen depending upon the desired lateral stiffness. In
the analysis an equivalent prismatic brace, corresponding to the non-prismatic
core element, is used to model the brace.
The load-deformation behaviour of steel brace in tension is taken from FEMA 273
(1997) and is shown in Figure E8. It consists of a loading curve with the elastic
axial stiffness until it reaches its yield capacity (fy = 250 N/mm2, εy = 0.00125).
Thereafter, it yields at a constant yield load until the deformation becomes 12
E11
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
times the yield deformation. At this deformation, the capacity is reduced to 80%
of the yield load until the deformation becomes 15 times the yield deformation
where the brace is assumed to fracture.
1.2
B C
1
0.8 IO LS CP
D E
P/Py
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
∆/ ∆y
Design of core
P 300000
Area of core = = =1000mm 2
fy 300
E12
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Sleeve
Gusset plate
150 200
30
E13
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
Design of sleeve
Effective length of brace is length can be taken as length between to two gusset
plate corners.
L = 6100 – 2 × 200 = 5700mm.
170 mm
Minimum inner dimension required for square tube is 175mm. Minimum inner
dimension required for circular tube is 220mm. Sleeve can be designed as square
tube or circular tube.
175 mm
220 mm
E14
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
1 ⎡
(175+2t ) - (175 ) ⎤ = 6.254×106
4 4
Thickness required for square tube
12 ⎣ ⎦
π ⎡
( 220+2t ) - ( 220 ) ⎤⎦ = 6.254×106
4 4
Thickness required for circular tube
64 ⎣
E15
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
100
L = 1.2 × l
Design compressive stress, fcd for column buckling curve from table 7.4c of IS:
800 revised code is 242.3N/mm2
Load carrying capacity of gusset plate = 310 × 8 × 242.3 = 600.9kN > 380kN.
(OK.)
E16
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Provide 50 x 8 mm stiffeners along free edges and along center line of load path
on outer sides of plates.
Weld
218kN
380kN
3.5m
312kN
θ 270mm
5.0m
Cos θ = 5.0 / 6.1 = 0.819
320mm
Sin θ = 3.5 / 6.1 = 0.573
Connection of gusset plate to L-Plate
Welds are designed to resist taking axial load and transferring the force to bolts.
Thickness required for vertical weld:
311×103
t= = 7.48mm
2×270×0.7×110
Thickness required for horizontal weld:
218×103
t= = 4.4mm
2×320×0.7×110
Provide 8mm fillet weld for vertical and 6mm fillet weld for horizontal on both
sides of plates.
E17
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
M 21060000
Z required is = = 106.36×103 mm3
f 0.66×300
bt2/6 = 106.36 × 103mm3, b = 320mm
Hence, t = 44.6mm.
300mm
50mm
300mm
Stiffness can be changed with out changing the strength by changing β value
keeping a value constant. This can be observed by braces b, d, f. and c, e, g
required stiffness could be obtained by changing β value.
E18
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
Bearing
Column
L - Plate
Beam
Bolts
Sleeve
E19