Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com /locate/jestch

Review on Performance Based Design and Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Structures

P. V. Muleyb, Sureil Guptea* and A. S. Radkec

a PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering, DMCE, Mumbai University
b Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, DMCE, Mumbai University
c Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, DMCE, Mumbai University

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Earthquake also known as temblor are catastrophic events that leave behind immense devastation. It has been
Received observed in the recent years that the buildings constructed prior to the revision of seismic codes are exposed to
Received in revised form structural damage. Seismic assessment of such buildings becomes necessary before considering a retrofitting
Accepted technique to provide structural reliability and to avoid design flaws. This paper attempts to give a brief idea about
the application of Performance Based Design to the earthquake vulnerable structures and introducing various
Available online
retrofitting techniques confirming to relevant codes. This paper represents a wide range of studies in different
countries, different events and different aspects of how to combat the destruction caused by the seismic events all
over the world.

Keywords:
Performance Based Design
Seismic Retrofitting
Non-Linear Static Analysis
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction1 starting point. The engineer then engages creativity and innovation to
identify optimal solutions to multiple, and sometimes completing
The world has experienced mild to severe earthquakes over the last objectives.[29]
20 years. These events have resulted in loss of property as well as life.
Thus, the goal is to improve the performance of the buildings which
are vulnerable to earthquakes. This can be achieved by selecting
suitable retrofitting techniques based on the Performance Based Non-
Linear Static Analysis. Seismic Retrofitting is the modification made to
the existing structure or the structural components to make it resistant
during earthquakes. Retrofitting works on the principle of improving
the lateral strength and ductility of the structure to provide stability to
structure during seismic events.
Earthquake resistant design has been encountering a critical
reassessment over the last few decades, with prominence changing
from “Strength” to “Performance”. In the earlier years the concepts of
strength and performance have been considered as synonyms.
However, in the recent studies there has been a gradual shift from this
thought with the realization that increased strength may not enhance Figure 1. Typical Framework for Performance Based Design[1]

safety, nor necessarily reduce damage.

The design is completed by demonstrating complying performance
through analysis, simulation, testing or a combination thereof. [29]
1.1. Performance Based Seismic Design:

Performance Based Seismic Design is an emerging concept in the
design of seismic resistant buildings. Its main goal is to draft a plan
based on reliable predictions of earthquake shaking and building
behavior. It reverses the design process by defining the end goal as the
———
Sureil Gupte.
e-mail: guptesureil@gmail.com
1.2. Non-Linear Static Analysis:
Non-Linear Static Analysis or Pushover Analysis is a tool to evaluate the
seismic capacity of existing structures.[27] It is carried out under
permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral forces. The
lateral forces approximately represent the earthquake induced forces.
Pushover analysis is carried out on a building until the building fails with
respect to the target displacement. The total Base shear versus the Top
displacement is plotted in the form of a curve, called Pushover Curve.
 2 Sureil Gupte / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal
Figure 2. Typical Pushover Curve[1]
As shown in the above Figure, five points labeled A, B, C, D, and E
define the load demands and IO, LS and CP define the performance
criteria.
1.3. Seismic Retrofitting:
Traditional retrofit design techniques assume that the buildings
respond flexibly to earthquakes. Whereas, it is observed that large
earthquakes can severely damage buildings causing inelastic behavior
that dissipates energy.[30] The assumption that buildings remain
elastic simplifies the engineers work but conceals the actual
performance. [30] The classification of retrofitting techniques can be
as specified below
Figure 3. Different Retrofitting Techniques
2. Literature Review
The literature on Performance Based Analysis is discussed in brief
in the following section while focusing on Seismic Retrofitting using
Pushover analysis.
Achyut S. Naphade (2015) Introduction to soft storey was given
and the performance of buildings having soft storeys at different levels
was evaluated by Pushover analysis using SAP2000 software. [16]
Buildings can be categorized as having soft storey, if the level
immediately above the floor is stiff by less than 70% or if the average
stiffness of 3 floors above it is less than 80%.[16] Through the
SAP2000 model analysis it can be deduced that max yielding was
observed at the soft storey level. It was also observed that the yielding
significantly decreased as the soft storeys were shifted to higher floor
levels. It was also seen that the Pushover curve as well as the Capacity
Spectrum curve showed that the time period reduces from 0 716sec to
0.446 from 2nd floor soft storey to 8th floor soft storey which revealed
that soft storeys are safer at higher floors in high rise buildings.[16]
The Performance of a structure under these loadings is further used as a
basis for seismic retrofitting of existing structures.
Ahmed Ghobarah (2001) This article discussed the developing
state of Performance based seismic design over the years. It was stated
that the future seismic design criteria to be based on multiple
Performance objectives associated to the earthquake hazard levels.
[26] The advantage of Performance based design was stated to be the
possibility of achieving predictable seismic performances with uniform
risks.[12][26] However, it was also stated that the reliability of the
approach would ultimately depend on the development of
Performance criteria which may include parameters such as stress,
strain, displacements and accelerations.[26] But it was stated that
much research and development would be needed before such design
methodology could be implemented.[26]
Bharat D Daspute et al. (2020) The increasing proficiency and
the knowledge in earthquake resistant design and rehabilitation of
existing structures as well as to increase the familiarity of designing
and analyzing using software was the main motives behind the
investigation. The investigations were divided into 3 parts:
The responses of all three frames were scrutinized and the
following results were drawn:
• Analysis of bare frame
• Analysis of braced frame
• Analysis of frame with exterior shear walls[6]
The base shear was observed to be increasing from bare frame to
braced frame and it was even more for frame with shear wall in the X
and Z directions.
The safe limit for storey drift was observed to be 14mm. The inter-
storey drifts in bare frame were observed to exceed the safe limit and
were significantly reduced in braced frame and frames with shear walls
in X and Z directions. [6]
There was reduction is top storey deflection for frames having
bracing and shear walls in the X directions. [6] For the Z direction the
bracings were ineffective whereas there was remarkable reduction in
top storey drift due to presence on shear wall.
Bhavar Dadasaheb et al. (2013) Zone III according to Indian
codes is the second largest earthquake zone[5]. Nashik is one of the
cities that lie in this zone and therefore the seismic assessment of the
buildings as well as their retrofitting becomes compulsory to avoid
future damage and inconvenience. This paper focuses on the physical
and experimental examination of a health building at the heart of the
city. The investigations revealed that the building was either to be
demolished or retrofitted to increase its service life. The further steps
included use of Column Jacketing technique due to the feasibility and
the hassle-free execution. The building was physically examined and
later all the columns on all floors were suitably jacketed, the loose
pockets of concrete were re-concreted, the faulty slabs were opened
and the reinforcements were replaced by new ones as per the design
requirements and the slabs were re-casted with M25 grade of concrete.
The entire flooring in the basement was removed and replaced by raft
below it.[5]
Cetin Sahin (2014) The earthquake resistant design and
methodology about seismic evaluation and rehabilitation is presented
in this report.[21] Some aspects related to software modelling against
seismic loads and seismic upgradation in SMRF are also discussed.
Here a seven storey SMRF building was evaluated for its seismic
resistance using Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA), Response Spectrum
Analysis (RSA) and Time History Analysis (THA).[8] The mode
shapes, fundamental period and base shear for the building were
obtained through ESA and RSA. The SMRF is retrofitted with steel
braces for reducing the deformations up to acceptable limits and the
retrofitted structure was further analysed using the Non-Linear
Pushover Analysis. Serious Damage was noted when the structure was
pushed to a target displacement on 20 inches. The use of Pushover
analysis for the estimation od seismic assessment and retrofitting was
discussed and compared with the ESA, RSA and THA for its
advantages.[32]

Figure 4. Deformed Shape and Plastic Hinge formation for envelope analysis[21]
D. K. Baros et al. (2008) This paper introduced the evolution
and applications of Performance Based Design. They stated that
Performance-based nonlinear procedures have developed rapidly and
have widespread applicability in the field of structural assessment,
whereas linear analyses are mainly practiced in design of new
structures[4]. The proposed procedure was based on results from
Pushover analysis of the initial building and was applied to two
idealized buildings[4]. Group A’s objective was to improve the overall
ductility of the building by applying fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
jackets to existing elements[4]. Group B’s objective was system
strengthening and stiffening by adding new elements, such as concrete
shear walls, addition of wing walls[4]. Group C’s objective was
increasing a building’s strength and ductility by applying reinforced
concrete jackets to selected columns resulting increase in strength due
to the new concrete layer and reinforcement, and an increase in
ductility[4]. Out of the three groups, Group A and Group C’s
performance was satisfactory for both structural systems.
Dario De Domenico et al. (2019) Static non-linear analysis was
used to evaluate the seismic Performance of the Student Hall.[7]
Italian seismic codes NTC08 was used to establish the design loads
with the reference life of building as 75 years. After a preliminary
survey of the building the conditions of the Eurocode 8 about the
rigidity of diaphragm were satisfied. The non-linear response of the
masonry wall is modelled through an elastoplastic idealized behavior.
The structure is subjected to vertical loads and a set of monotonically
increasing lateral loads. Certain techniques of retrofitting were used to
reduce the seismic vulnerability of the building. [7] A set of additional
RC plates were connected to the existing inverted T-Beams to
strengthen the foundations. A set of BRB’s were added in specific
frames of the structures at all the floors as brick wall masonry
replacement. Pre-tensioned stainless-steel ribbons were used to
increase the shear capacity and compensate lack of adequate number
of stirrups.
Figure 5. 3D finite element model of the retrofitted building with BRB’s[7]
The above techniques improved the seismic performance of the
building notably. [15] It was further observed that the seismic capacity
of the retrofitted building exceeded the seismic demand remarkably
for all load combinations.[15]
Dongming Feng et al. (2020) 70% of the multi-span bridges
are simply supported steel bridges and 27% are continuous
bridges.[11] New York city has experienced high intensity earthquakes
which can cause severe damage to the structures. Since many of these
bridges are built several years back the damage caused by such high
intensity earthquakes would be more due to their seismic
vulnerability. A 3D finite element software ANSYS was used to analyze
the effects of DL, WL, LL and seismic loads on the model developed.
The model was designed based on existing drawings and all the
structural members were designed with 3D elements with six degrees
of freedom. The Seismic isolators were modeled using the COMBIN40
element. These seismic isolators were used to replace the existing
bearings. It was observed during the investigations that multi span
bridges are more susceptible to earthquake damage, hence retrofitting
becomes necessary. Based on the results obtained from the Time-
History analysis it was seen that the existing bridge was vulnerable in
pier columns and cap beams. [11] Seismic retrofitting of the existing
bearing with isolators eliminated the vulnerabilities by reducing the
D/C ratios for axial flexural and shear effects to less than 1[11]. The
paper was concluded by stating that providing seismic isolation
retrofitting technique was a cost-effective solution for the multi-span
simply supported bridges. [11]
G Navya et al. (2016) The study considered a G+6 OMRF
building situated in the Zone IV with respect to IS 1893 (Part 1):2002
with soil conditions as medium soil. [17] The total building height was
taken as 22m with Ground level as 4m and storey height as 3m. The
materials used were M20 grade concrete and Fe415 grade steel
reinforcements. The building was designed and analyzed in SAP2000
with beam size as 300mm×450mm and the column size as
500mm×500mm. [17] User defined plastic hinge parameters were
used for the Non-Linear static analysis of the building. The fragility
analysis conducted indicated that traditionally designed buildings
were more vulnerable to earthquakes compared to buildings designed
with seismic provisions. [17]
Figure 6. Flow chart of Vulnerability Assessment[17]
4 Engineering Sciences and Technology, an International Journal
The analysis showed that the chances of extensive damage under
earthquake forces was reduced substantially after the buildings are
retrofitted.
Massimo Marletta et al. (2005) The traditional strategies of
retrofitting were reviewed and their weak points were noted. Trendy
strategies and philosophies of retrofitting, base isolation and energy
dissipation devices were reviewed.[19] Ancient strategies of
retrofitting, one supporting the classic principles needing a rise in
strength and stiffness, and another supporting mass reduction. Free
vibration tests were performed by statically applying base
displacements of varied amplitudes and are released suddenly. The
conclusion reached was that the earthquake forces that were affecting
the retrofitted building were lower than assumed. The improved
resistance of the buildings to design seismic activity showed the
effectiveness of the tactic of retrofitting. [19][28]
Mrugesh D. Shah et al. (2011) The article introduced the use of
structural analysis and design software ETABS 9.7 for the conducting
Non-linear Pushover analysis on a RCC frame Structure. It stated the
basic steps involved for the analysis which consisted of the following:
• Modeling[22]
• Static Analysis[22]
• Designing[22]
• Pushover Analysis[22]
Further the steps for Pushover analysis for a three-dimensional
building were discussed in brief. The performance criteria of
Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse prevention were noted
for the structure.
Nicola Caterino et al. (2008) The article discussed the
application of an MCDM method for the selection of the optimal
retrofit strategy in the case of an under-designed RC building. The
decision process consisted of the following steps:[18]
• Assessment of the un-retrofitted structure[18]
• Definition of the set of alternatives[18]
• Design of the retrofit options[18]
• Selection of the evaluation criteria[18]
• Relative weighting of the criteria[18]
• Evaluation of the alternatives[18]
• Application of the chosen MCDM method to rank the alternatives
and to identify the best retrofit solution[18]
• Sensitivity analysis to investigate the stability of the solution in
respect to the weights of the criteria. [18]
The alternatives specified for the assessment were as follows
• Confinement by Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic[18]
• Steel Bracing[18]
• Concrete Jacketing[18]
• Base Isolation[18]
The results indicated the use of confinement of elements by FRP.
[18]The determination of the rank was made on the basis of the low
architectural impact on the building and the good score in respect to
required foundation upgrading. [18]
Nikos D. Lagaros (2010) An investigation was performed on the
influence of alternative static pushover methods for the seismic design
of new structures. [14]
Figure 7. Initial and total expected life-cycle cost for 3 SPO based designs.[14]
Figure 8. Contribution of the initial cost and limit state cost of the components to the
total expected life cycle cost[14]
A four storey RCC building with symmetrical and asymmetrical
plan which was optimally designed was used for the numerical
investigation. The current trend for considering the total life cycle cost
to evaluate the investment practices designed using the capacity
spectrum, the N2 method or the displacement coefficient method was
discussed.[14] Based on the study the three methods were compared
and the differences were noted.[14] The conclusion was stated as
increase in construction cost does not always mean that the Seismic
Safety of the structure also increases.[14]
Nivedita Raut et al. (2013) The steps involved in Pushover
analysis of a simple Three-dimensional building are presented in the
paper using the SAP 2000 software according to the procedures
described in ATC-40 and FEMA-273. Three frames were considered
for analysis of which:
• Bare frame considering only the Dead weight of the masonry infill
panels[2]
• Only the infill frame
• Open storey frame at Ground level
Open ground storeys were designed for the horizontal seismic base
shear which were calculated using Response spectrum Method. The
seismic performance of masonry infill was adversely and significantly
affected with an Open storey at the ground level. A ration non-linear
displacement base analysis was displayed for a more objective
performance-based analysis evaluation for the masonry infilled frame.
The formation of hinges was observed more in beam as compared to
the columns.[20]
Peter Fajfar (2000) This paper discusses about the development
of N2 method which was started in the mid 1980’s.[10][31] The basic
idea for N2 method came from the Q-del which was developed by
Saiidi and Sozen in 1981. [31] The method was gradually developed
into a nubile version. [10][31] The applicability was extended to
analyze bridges by 1997. It is a variant of the capacity spectrum
method of which the spectra were determined from a typical smooth
elastic design spectrum. The lateral load pattern in the pushover
analysis is related to the assumed displacement shape.[10][31] This
feature resulted in a transparent transformation from MDOF system to
SDOF system. [10][31] The main difference with the procedure
proposed compared to the procedure developed by Reinhorn in 1997
was its simplicity.[31] Reinhorn’s approach was found to be very
general and less restrictive whereas the proposed method allowed
various simplifications. [10][31]
Saif Usmani (2019) Two frames, a typical frame and a typical
frame with jacketing were compared analytically to evaluate the
Performance parameters due retrofitting technique. [24] The main
objective of the study was to study the increase in capacity of the frame
as well as the change is storey drift due to jacketing of the structural
elements. The jacketing was done using M25 grade of concrete and
Fe415 grade of steel reinforcement. Hinges were assigned as per FEMA
356. [24] The performance of the building after retrofitting was
enhanced as compared to the non-retrofitted building. The
vulnerability of the structure was reduced due to jacketing and it was
also observed that the target displacement was reduced substantially
which made the building safer than the bare frames.[24]
Sasan Babaei et al. (2019) Shape memory alloys and their
remarkable properties of providing stiffness in linear regions as well as
ductility and energy dissipation in Non-Linear regions were
introduced[3]. These properties were possible due to the phase
transformation between two crystalline structures of which one was
Austenite occurring at high temperatures and low stress and the other
being Martensite which is stable at low temperatures and high
stress.[25] The causes for transformation varied from stress, tension,
temperature, electrical of magnetic fields or light[3]. SMAs exhibit
special properties such as high damping ratio and also super elasticity.
These properties and a notable disadvantage of expensive material cost
were evaluated in low-rise and mid-rise concentrically braced frames.
Reliable performance owing to the uniform deformation along the
height was exhibited by the frames[3] with SMAs at all floor levels
which were subjected to two series of ground motions. It was observed
that Severe strain during cyclic loading was eliminated by the super
elasticity property of SMA.[3]
Figure 9. Details of SMA brace that were installed in the three-storey frame[3]
Suraj Shinde et al. (2020) Pushover analysis was conducted to
assess the Seismic vulnerability of the multistorey building.
Introduction to different analysis methods was given as:
• Standard Pushover analysis method (FEMA-356) [23]
• Capacity Spectrum method (ATC-40) [23]
• Non-Linear Time-History analysis[23]
• Modal Pushover analysis[23]
The performance of the buildings to different shear wall locations was
studied and the methodology adopted for the study was discussed to
check parameters like lateral displacement and storey drift to find out
the effect of shear wall locations of the building’s performance.
Equivalent static analysis and Non-Linear static analysis was
conducted on the following four models of the building:
• Building without Shear wall[23]
• Building with Shear wall at the three peripheral sides of the lift[23]
Figure 10. Various positions of shear walls used in the models[23]
• Building with Shear wall at the center of the structure[23]
• Building with Shear wall at the corners in L shape at the
structure’s periphery. [23]
Y. Fahjan et al. (2012) In this paper the need for rehabilitation
of buildings using Performance Based Design was considered due to
constant revision of Seismic codes especially for existing structures.
Three analysis models were considered using different modelling
techniques of the shear walls:
• Shear walls using multi-layer shell elements[9]
• Shear walls using mid-pier frame with plastic hinges defined
according to FEMA 356[9]
• Shear walls using mid-pier frame with plastic hinge computed
from fibre model[9]
3, 5 and 7- story RC frames of above properties were analysed with
nonlinear finite element method. The pushover curves for the fibre
model and the FEMA 356 model were identical. FEMA 356 model
overestimated the capacity of the structure for all cases and was
recommended for short time modelling.
Figure 11. Deformed Shape (a) Multi-layer shell element model (b) Shear wall with
mid-pier frame models[9]
Yogendra Singh et al. (2020) The Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital
a renowned Hospital in the NCR of India. The performance level of the
hospital was determined using target displacement method and
capacity spectrum method. DL was factored by 10% and LL was not
considered in combination with EQ Load assuming the LL during
earthquake will be considered in the 10% of DL. The pushover analysis
was carried out incrementally for gravity loads prior to which lateral
pushover analysis was carried out in X and Y directions of the
building. [15] The building was pushed to failure due to seismic forces
using the collapse mechanism. The capacity curves were plotted for the
X and Y directions. The analysis was performed for gravity loads by
assigning the loads to all the beams. After gravity load analysis,
pushover analysis was conducted and the structure was further
evaluated for their performance levels.
Figure 12. Storey drift for Maximum Calculated Earthquake[13]
6 Engineering Sciences and Technology, an International Journal

3. Conclusion: https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-
jmce/papers/NCIEST/Volume%201/17.100-108.pdf
The development in the design methods and procedures were 17. Navya, G., & Agarwal, P. (2016). Seismic retrofitting of structures by steel
bracings. Procedia Engineering, 144, 1364-1372.
discussed. The local and well as global methods of seismic retrofitting
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82649384.pdf.
were introduced and their effects on the retrofitted structures were 18. Nicola Caterino, Iunio Iervolino, Gaetano Manfredi & Edoardo
noted. Introduction to the emerging Performance Based Seismic Cosenza (2008) Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Seismic Retrofitting of
Design was Further investigated. The steps involved in conducting RC Structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12:4, 555-
different analysis were briefly stated and the results were carefully 583, DOI: 10.1080/13632460701572872
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13632460701572872.
scrutinized. Overall, it was observed that sincere efforts were taken in 19. Oliveto, G., & Marletta, M. (2005). Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete
the research for reducing the seismic vulnerability of the structures. buildings using traditional and innovative techniques. ISET Journal of
earthquake technology, 42(2-3), 21-46.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vinaykg/Iset454.pdf.
References and notes 20. Raut, M. N. N., & Ambadkar, M. S. D. (2013). Global Journal of Research In
Engineering. http://engineeringresearch.org/index.php/GJRE/article/view/817.
1. "ATC-40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.
21. Sahin, C. (2014). Seismic retrofitting of existing structures.
https://vdocument.in/atc-40-seismic-evaluation-and-retrofit-of-concrete-buildings-
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=cengin
5906cfc876dbc.html
_gradprojects.
2. Alok Madan, Arshad Hashmi,() Analytical predictions of the seismic 22. Shah, M. D., & Patel, S. B. (2011, May). In National conference on recent
performance of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to near trends in engineering & technology (pp. 1-6).
filled earthquakes https://www.bvmengineering.ac.in/misc/docs/published-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245305724_Analytical_Pre 20papers/civilstruct/struct/101063.pdf.
diction_of_the_Seismic_Performance_of_Masonry_Infilled_Reinfor 23. Shinde, S. (2020, July). APPLICATION OF PUSH OVER ANALYSIS FOR
ced_Concrete_Frames_Subjected_to_Near-Field_Earthquakes. STRUCTURAL ... https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2007338.pdf.
3. Babaei, S., & Zarfam, P. (2019). Optimization of shape memory alloy braces 24. Usmani, S., & Dabhekar, K. (2019). Seismic Retrofitting Of Under-Designed
for concentrically braced steel braced frames. Open Engineering, 9(1), 697- Indian RC Building ... http://www.ijies.net/finial-docs/finial-pdf/0905194616.pdf."
708.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338160715_Optimization_of_shape_memo Internet Sources
ry_alloy_braces_for_concentrically_braced_steel_braced_frames.
4. Baros, D. K., & Dritsos, S. E. (2008). A simplified procedure to select a 25. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence www.caeai.com
suitable retrofit strategy for existing RC buildings using pushover 26. Conference News www.confnews.um.ac.in
analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(6), 823-848. 27. Engineering Research Publications www.erpublication.org
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13632460801890240. 28. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Engineering
5. Dadasaheb, B., Dhake Pravinchandra, D., & Ogale Ramesh, A. (2013). www.ijarse.com
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Emerging 29. Performance based design https://www.structuralstalwarts.com/post/performance-
Technology, 1(5). http://www.raijmr.com/ijrmeet/wp- based-design-structural-stalwarts
content/uploads/2017/12/IJRMEET_2013_vol01_issue_05_01.pdf. 30. Scribd http://pt.scribd.com
6. Daspute, B. D., & Kalurkar, L. G. Seismic Retrofitting of RC Structures with 31. Semantic Scholar www.pdfs.semanticscholar.org
Exterior Shear Walls and Bracing. https://www.ijert.org/seismic-retrofitting-of- 32. Wiley Online Library www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
rc-structures-with-exterior-shear-walls-and-bracing.
7. De Domenico, D., Impollonia, N., Pianta, N., & Ricciardi, G. SEISMIC
RETROFIT OF THE STUDENT HALL OF RESIDENCE OF MESSINA
THROUGH BUCKLING RESTRAINED BRACES.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336775439_SEISMIC_RETROFIT_OF_T
HE_STUDENT_HALL_OF_RESIDENCE_OF_MESSINA_THROUGH_BUCKLI
NG_RESTRAINED_BRACES.
8. Rozaina Ismail (2018) A study of different positioning of reinforced concrete
Shear walls in soft storey buildings subjected to acheh earthquake event
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810714_A_Comparative_Stu
dy_of_Different_Positioning_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Shear_Walls_in_So
ft_Storey_Building_Subjected_to_Acheh_Eartquake_Event
9. Fahjan, Y., Doran, B., Akbas, B., & Kubin, J. (2012). In Proc., 15th World
Conf. on Earthquake Eng., International Association for Earthquake
Engineering (IAEE), Tokyo.
https://www.protayazilim.com/documents/publications/WCEE2012_4059_YF.pdf
10. Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based
seismic design. Earthquake spectra, 16(3), 573-592.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1193/1.1586128.
11. Feng, D., & Zhang, F. (2020). Seismic isolation retrofitting of typical multi-
span steel girder bridges in New York State. Transportation Research
Record, 2674(8), 785-798.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342272936_Seismic_Isolation_Retrofitting
_of_Typical_Multi-Span_Steel_Girder_Bridges_in_New_York_State.
12. Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering:
state of development. Engineering structures, 23(8), 878-884.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014102960100036
0.
13. Jarallah, H. K., Paul, D. K., & Singh, Y. (2020). SEISMIC EVALUATION
AND RETROFIT ON An EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDING. Journal of
Engineering and Sustainable Development, 24(6).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346705939_SEISMIC_EVALUATION_A
ND_RETROFIT_ON_AN_EXISTING_HOSPITAL_BUILDING.
14. Lagaros, N. D., & Fragiadakis, M. (2011). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 31(1), 77-90.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726110002113.
15. Mete Esra, (2005) A study on the seismic behavior of a retrofitted building
.... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11803-005-0035-6.
16. Naphade, A. S., & Patil, G. R. (2015). Pushover analysis of RCC building with
soft storey at different levels. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN, 2278-1684.