You are on page 1of 294

Manual on

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

March, 2005

SHEAR
WALL

STEEL
BRACING

CONCRETE
JACKETING

Retrofit of soft-storeyed building

Sponsored by

Department of Science and Technology


Government of India

Indian Institute of Technology Madras


Chennai 600 036

Structural Engineering Research Centre


Chennai 600 113

Prepared by
Structural Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai 600 036

In collaboration with
Structural Engineering Research Centre
Taramani, Chennai 600 113

Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India

PREFACE

The Manual of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings is the


outcome of a research project, jointly undertaken by IIT Madras and SERC Chennai, with
the sponsorship of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.

The purpose of this Manual is to provide a methodology to enable a structural engineer to


assess the seismic vulnerability of existing multi-storeyed buildings in India and to select
suitable methods of retrofit, wherever required and possible. Thus, the Manual has been
organised into two major parts: the first part dealing with seismic evaluation (data
collection, preliminary evaluation and detailed analysis) and the second dealing with
seismic retrofit (global and local retrofit strategies). Various options of seismic retrofit
are possible, and the designer is required to re-analyse the retrofitted structure to ensure
that the desired performance is achieved. Some explanatory examples demonstrating the
prescribed procedure are given in the chapter on case studies. Detailed references are
also cited in this Manual for users interested in further research. Seismic retrofit is still in
a nascent stage, and considerable research and experience with practical real-life
applications is called for.

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.

Occupants of multi-storeyed apartment complexes were a worried lot in the aftermath of


the Gujarat earthquake in 2001, but this worry has gradually faded with time, and lessons
have not been learnt. It should not take another disastrous earthquake to make us act
proactively to avoid such disasters. Building owners have a responsibility of getting their
buildings properly evaluated and strengthened, before it is too late.

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.

IITM SERC Project Team


March 12, 2005.

iii

IITM SERC Project Team

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Dr. Devdas Menon


Principal Investigator
Dr. Amlan K Sengupta
Dr. V Kalyanaraman
Dr. A Meher Prasad
Dr. S R Satish Kumar
Dr. P Alagusundaramoorthy
Mr. V T Badari Narayanan
Mr. Gnanasekharan
Mr. Pradip Sarkar
Ms S Prathibha
Mr. Rajib Chowdhury
Mr. Robin Davis P
Dr. S R Uma
Mr. A. Asokan
Mr. G Ravi Kumar
Ms. K N S Susmitha
Mr. Anand Gupta
Mr. Biju Kumar Patir
Mr. Lakki Reddy
Ms. Praseetha Krishnan
Mr. Rajesh Lal
Mr. Ramaseshan
Mr. Ramesh Pativada
Mr. Ravi Chugh
Mr. Santosh K Barnwal
Mr. Sheshu Reddy
Mr. Shiv Shanker
Mr. Srinivas, B.
Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

iv

Mr. T S Krishnamoorthy
Principal Investigator
Dr. N Lakshmanan
Mr. C V Vaidyanathan
Dr. K Muthumani
Mr. K Balasubramanian
Dr. K Balaji Rao
Mr. R Ravichandran
Mr. N Gopalakrishnan
Mr. M Manjuprasad
Mr. K Satish Kumar
Dr. B H Bharatkumar
Ms. P. Kamatchi
Ms. R Sreekala
Mr. D Dhiman Basu
Mr. S. Avinash
Mr. S Gopalakrishnan

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CONTENTS

Preface

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology

2. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

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

3. EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS

35

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Computational Model
3.2.1 Material properties
3.2.2 Structural element model
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.2.3
3.2.2.4
3.2.2.5

Beams and columns


Beam-column joints
Slabs
Appendages
Walls (structural and non structural)

3.2.3 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation


3.2.4 Load Combinations
3.3 Linear Analysis Methods
3.3.1 Equivalent static method
3.3.1.1
3.3.1.2
3.3.1.3
3.3.1.4
3.3.1.5
3.3.1.6

Centre of mass
Centre of rigidity of storey
Effect of torsion
Seismic weight
Lumped mass
Calculation of lateral forces

3.3.2 Response spectrum analysis


3.4 Evaluation Results

4. EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

53

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Capacity Spectrum, Demand Spectrum & Performance Point
4.3 Pushover Analysis Procedure
4.3.1 Seismic Load Distribution
4.3.2 Load Deformation Behaviour of Elements
4.4 Performance Based Analysis
4.4.1 Performance Objective
4.4.2 Performance Levels of Structure and Elements
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels
4.4.4 Selection of Performance Objective
4.5 Evaluation Results

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

5.4 Steps of Retrofit


5.5 Performance Objectives
5.6 Retrofit Strategies
5.6.1

Global Strategies

5.6.2

Local Strategies

5.6.3

Energy Dissipation and Base Isolation

5.6.4

Mitigating Geological Hazards

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

7. GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES


7.1 Introduction
7.2 Structural Stiffening
7.2.1

Addition of Infill Walls

7.2.2

Addition of Shear Walls

7.2.3

Addition of Steel Braces

7.3 Reduction of Irregularities


7.4 Reduction of Mass

ix

84

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

8. LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES

90

8.1 Introduction
8.2 Column Strengthening
8.2.1

Concrete Jacketing

8.2.2

Steel Jacketing

8.2.3

Fibre Reinforced Polymer Wrapping

8.3 Beam Strengthening


8.3.1

Concrete Jacketing

8.3.2

Steel Plating

8.3.3

FRP Wrapping

8.3.4

Use of FRP Bars

8.3.5

External Prestressing

8.4 Beam-Column Joint Strengthening


8.4.1

Concrete Jacketing

8.4.2

Concrete Fillet

8.4.3

Steel Jacketing

8.4.4

Steel Plating

8.4.5

Fibre Reinforce Polymer (FRP) jacketing

8.5 Wall Strengthening


8.6 Footing Strengthening

9. CASE STUDY I

129

10. CASE STUDY II

173

11. CASE STUDY III

211

APPENDIX A: MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE

A1

APPENDIX B: MODELLING OF INFILL MASONRY WALL

B1

B.1 Modelling of Masonry Infill


B.2 Effect of Openings

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

B.3 Strength of Equivalent Strut


B.3.1 Local Crushing Failure
B.3.2 Shear Failure

APPENDIX C: MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES

C1

C.1 Flexural Hinges for Beams and Columns


C.1.1 Stress Strain Characteristics of Concrete
C.1.2 Stress Strain Characteristics of Steel
C.1.3 Moment-curvature Relationship
C.1.4 Modelling of Moment-curvature in Confined RC Sections
C.1.4.1 Assumptions
C.1.4.2 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-curvature for Beam Sections
C.1.4.3 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-curvature for Column Sections

C.1.5 Moment Rotation Parameters


C.2 Shear Hinges for Beams and Columns
C.3 Axial Hinges for Equivalent Struts

APPENDIX D: VULNERABILITY INDEX

D1

APPENDIX E: ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES

E1

E.1 Types of Bracing


E.2 Connection of Braces to RC Frame
E.3 Analysis and Design of Braces
E.4 Non-Buckling Braces

xi

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1

BACKGROUND

Existing multi-storey buildings in earthquake prone regions of India are vulnerable


to severe damage under earthquakes, as revealed by the recent Gujarat earthquake.
There is urgent need for seismic evaluation and retrofit of deficient buildings.
There are experts in the country who can assist in the seismic evaluation and
retrofit of individual buildings on a case-to-case basis. The magnitude of the work,
however, is so large that it cannot be accomplished by limited number of experts,
and needs involvement of many structural engineers, who are properly trained.
Hence, there is a need to provide appropriate guidelines for seismic evaluation and
retrofit of existing buildings to the vast majority of structural engineers in our
country who lack the expertise. To address this problem, this manual has been
prepared to facilitate seismic evaluation and recommend strategies for retrofitting,
so that the risk of failure is minimised in the event of a future earthquake. This
manual addresses the seismic evaluation of existing RC multi-storey building. The
document is a part of a research project supported by Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India.

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.

A systematic procedure is to be followed in assessing the vulnerability of existing


buildings.
undertaken.

Firstly, a detailed survey of the building of interest should be


The basic information would include a review of the building

configuration, soil profile and the period of construction. An evaluation is to be


performed based on the available documents, to ensure code compliance. This is
done with the help of quick checks and evaluation statements. The above tasks
form the essence of the preliminary evaluation procedure.

However, a detailed evaluation is necessary in order to identify the deficiencies


associated with the structural components with regard to the expected behaviour of
the building. The code compliance of the building can be ascertained only when
the available member capacities are compared with the respective demands due to
the earthquake. The demands in the structural members are determined for the
seismic forces estimated as per IS 1893-2002 through linear static analysis. The
member capacities are determined using the procedures prescribed in IS 456-2000.
The deficient members are identified when the Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR)
exceed unity indicating the need for retrofitting in order to establish compliance
with prevailing codes.

Chapter I - Introduction

In the case of deficient buildings, a more enhanced and sophisticated analysis


procedure is recommended to determine the load versus deformation behaviour of
the building taking into account of the non-linear behaviour of its components.
Non-linear static pushover analysis provides a basis to determine whether the
building can meet the imposed displacement demand at expected performance
level. It also indicates the likely mode of failure and the spatial distribution of
plastic hinges. If the performance is unsatisfactory various retrofit strategies can
be tried to achieve satisfactory performance.

1.2

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the manual is to provide comprehensive guidelines for seismic


evaluation and retrofit based on the Indian code of practice. The followings are
the main objectives.
1. To give a well-defined procedure that enables a proper assessment of
the seismic vulnerability of a given (existing) multi-storeyed RC
building.
2. To propose various strategies for seismic retrofit that can be used for
buildings found to be deficient.
3. To develop software that facilitates Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability
Evaluation (SAVE) of RC buildings.

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.

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

The evaluation process essentially consists of two phases, viz., preliminary


evaluation and detailed evaluation. Preliminary evaluation is a quick procedure to
identify potential risks in buildings due to earthquakes. If the building satisfies
the requirements of preliminary evaluation, detailed analysis may not be
necessary.

The following are the methods recommended for detailed analysis:


1.

Linear static analysis Equivalent static analysis as per IS 1893: 2002

2.

Linear dynamic analysis Response spectrum analysis as per IS 1893:


2002

3.

Non-linear static analysis Push-over analysis

It is recommended that all the above methods be performed sequentially for a


proper assessment of the seismic vulnerability, as demonstrated in the case studies
given in Chapter XI. It may be noted that more rigorous analysis (nonlinear
dynamic time-history analysis) is possible, but this is not recommended as it is
more involved and time consuming and not recommended for normal building.
Figure 1.1 gives the flowchart explaining the evaluation and retrofit process.

Chapter I - Introduction

Preliminary evaluation

NO

Deficiencies?

YES
Detailed evaluation

NO

Deficiencies?

Retrofit not
necessary

YES
Development of retrofit scheme

Post-retrofit analysis

NO

Deficiencies?

Report preparation

YES
Development of different retrofit
scheme
Figure 1.1: Flowchart summarizing the evaluation and retrofit process

The steps to be undertaken in the seismic evaluation of existing building are as


follows,
1.

Preliminary evaluation
i)

Data collection and condition assessment of building.

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

2.

ii)

Rapid Visual Screening (optional).

iii)

Quick checks for strength and stiffness.

iv)

Evaluation statements (structural checklist).

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

Desired failure mechanism

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.

3.

Selection and design of retrofit strategies and subsequent verification of the


retrofit scheme.

Remodelling the structure according to the trial retrofit scheme and analysing the
building model. If the performance is not satisfactory different retrofit scheme is
to be selected.

4.

Preparation of seismic evaluation and retrofit report.

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER II
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

2.1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the preliminary evaluation is to identify the areas of seismic


deficiencies in a building under investigation.

It is a non-detailed analysis

consisting of the following procedures


i)

Data collection and condition assessment of building.

ii)

Rapid Visual Screening (optional).

iii)

Quick checks for strength and stiffness.

iv)

Evaluation statements (structural checklist).

The collection of all available data pertaining to the building structure, especially
related to the construction, as well as an on-site inspection of the building form the
first step in the preliminary evaluation procedure. The Rapid Visual Screening
procedure, adapted from FEMA 154 gives some preliminary idea, based on a
scoring system, of the seismic vulnerability of the building.

However, this

screening is optional and not mandatory, as FEMA guidelines are not directly
applicable to Indian conditions.

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.

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.

2.2

DATA COLLECTION & CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF


BUILDING

In order to facilitate a proper assessment, it is necessary to collect as much relevant


data of the building as possible through drawings, enquiry, design calculations and
soil report (if available), etc. It may be noted that physical evaluation (condition
survey and walk through) of the building is essential.
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).
Table 2.1: Building survey data sheet: General data
S.No. Description
1

Address of the building

Name of the building


Plot number
Locality/Town ship
District
State
Name of owner

Name of builder

Name of Architect/Engineer

Information

Notes

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

Table 2.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data


S.No. Description

Information

Notes

Name of Structural Engineer

Use of building

Number of storeys above ground


level
Number of basements below ground
level
Type of structure

10

Load bearing wall


RC frame
RC frame and shear wall
Steel frame
Soil data

IS 1904: 1986

11

Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
Dead loads (unit weight adopted)

IS 875: Part 1:

12

Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live) loads

IS 1893: 2002

1987

IS 875: Part 2:

Floor loads
Roof loads

1987

13

Cyclone/Wind

IS 875: Part 3:
1987

14

Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors

15

Seismic zone

IS 1893: 2002

16

Importance factor, I

IS 1893: 2002

17

Seismic zone factor, Z

IS 1893: 2002

18

Response reduction factor, R

IS 1893: 2002

19

Fundamental natural period, T

IS 1893: 2002

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 2.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data


S.No. Description
20

Information

Design Horizontal acceleration

Notes
IS 1893: 2002

spectrum value (Ah)


21

Seismic design lateral force

22

Expansion/ Separation joints

Table 2.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description
1

Information

Type of building
Regular frames
Regular frames with shear
wall
Irregular frames
Irregular frames with shear
wall
Open ground storey
Number of basements

Number of floors

Horizontal floor system


Beams and slabs
Waffle slab
Ribbed floor
Flat slab with drops
Flat plate without drops
Soil data
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

Notes
IS 1893: 2002

IS 1498: 1970

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
6

8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

Information

Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
Independent
Interconnected
Raft
Piles
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls

11

Notes

IS 1893: 2002
Cl. 7.12.1

IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002

IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16

Information

Ductile detailing of RC frame


Type of reinforcement used
Minimum dimension of
beams
Minimum dimension of
columns
Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length
of beam near the ends
Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
Maximum percentage of
reinforcement in column
Confining stirrups near ends
of columns and in beamcolumn joints
Diameter
Spacing
Ratio of shear capacity of
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey
Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
Beam bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice

Notes
IS 456, Cl. 5.6
IS 13920, Cl. 6.1
IS 13920, Cl. 7.1.2
IS 456: 2000
Cl. 26.5.1.1(a)
IS 13920: 1993
Cl. 6.2.1 (a)

IS 13920: 1993
Cl. 6.3.5

IS 456: 2000
Cl. 26.5.3.1
IS 13920, Cl. 7.4

IS 13920, Cl. 7.2.1


IS 13920, Cl. 6.3.5

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.
Table 2.3: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Item
Structural calculations

Required
Yes
No

Site seismicity and

geotechnical report
Foundation report
Prior seismic assessment
reports
Condition survey of building
Alteration and as built
assessment

Helpful but not essential


Helpful but updated report should
be done.

Helpful but not essential

Helpful but not essential

Walk through dimensioning


Non-structural walk through

Comment

Unless required by undocumented


alterations
Identify falling hazards, weight

Core testing

Rebound hammer testing

Aggregate testing

Reinforcement testing

Reinforcement location

verification
Non-structural exploration

13

Unless concrete appears


substandard
Unless concrete appears
substandard

Unless insufficient info. on


drawing

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 2.4: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Item
Structural calculations

Required
Yes No

Site seismicity and


geotechnical report
Foundation report
Prior seismic assessment
reports
Condition survey of building
Alteration and as built
assessment

Helpful but not essential

Helpful but not essential

Helpful but not essential

Spot checking is appropriate

Non-structural walk through

Core testing

Rebound hammer testing

Aggregate testing

Reinforcement testing
verification

Could be helpful

Walk through dimensioning

Reinforcement location

Comment

Identify falling hazards, weight


Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
building
Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per
building
Each core

Optional
Pachometer @ 10% of critical

location, Visual @ 2 locations.


Verify anchorage and bracing

Non-structural exploration

conditions for components sensitive


to building performance.

It is desirable to do core testing, when the condition of the concrete is suspect.


Any evidence of deterioration, cracking and corrosion of reinforcement should be
noted.

Testing of reinforcement for yield/ ultimate strength and ductility is

desirable. It is also desirable to ascertain the nature of reinforcement detailing,


especially anchorage of bars and hooks, spacing of stirrups/ ties to the extent
possible using device such as rebar locator.

14

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

Table 2.5: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original


construction drawings are not available.
Item

Required
Yes

Structural calculations

Site seismicity and geotechnical

report
Foundation report

Prior seismic assessment reports

Condition survey of building

Alteration and as built assessment

Walk through dimensioning

Non-structural walk through

Core testing (limited)

Comment

No

Could minimize scope of site


work
Could minimize scope of site
work
Could minimize scope of site
work
Could minimize scope of site
work

Sufficient to define primary


element
Identify falling hazards,
weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
building
Could be helpful, especially

Rebound hammer testing

if concrete appears
substandard

Aggregate testing

Several cores

Reinforcement testing

Reinforcement location verification

Non-structural exploration

Could be helpful

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

approximate knowledge factor should be applied to the material properties for


detailed analysis (Table 3.2).
Table 2.6: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are not available.
Item

Required
Yes

Structural calculations

Comment

No

Could be helpful

Helpful but not essential

Foundation report

Helpful but not essential

Prior seismic assessment reports

Helpful but not essential

Site seismicity and geotechnical


report

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

Core testing (limited)

Rebound hammer testing

Aggregate testing

Each core

Reinforcement testing

2 per type

Reinforcement location verification

weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
building
Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per
building

Pachometer for all critical


location, Visual on 25%.
Verify anchorage and

Non-structural exploration

bracing conditions for


components sensitive to
building performance.

16

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

2.3

RAPID VISUAL SCREENING

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.
Table 2.7: Rapid Visual Screening data collection form
Region of
Seismicity

High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score

2.5

2.8

1.6

3.0

3.6

3.2

4.4

4.8

4.4

Mid rise

+0.4

+0.4

+0.2

+0.2

+0.4

+0.2

+0.4

-0.2

-0.4

High rise

+0.6

+0.8

+0.3

+0.5

+0.8

+0.4

+1.0

0.0

-0.4

-1.5

-1.0

-1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

Pre-code

-1.2

-1.0

-0.2

-1.0

-0.4

-1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

Postbenchmark

+1.4

+2.4

N/A

+1.2

+1.6

N/A

+0.6

+0.4

N/A

Soil Type I

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.4

Soil Type II

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-1.0

-1.2

-1.0

-1.4

-0.8

-0.8

Soil Type III

-1.2

-0.8

-0.8

-1.6

-1.6

-1.6

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

Vertical
irregularity
Plan
irregularity

Final Score
Comments

17

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

In this procedure the building under consideration is compared with a benchmark


building through visual inspection. Table 2.7 represents the data collection form,
which quantifies the potential seismic hazard for any building based on the
seismicity level of the locality. The form addresses reinforced concrete (RC)
moment resisting frame buildings (MRF), concrete shear wall buildings (SW) and
concrete frame buildings with un-reinforced masonry infill walls (URM INF).

2.3.1

Scores for a Building

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.

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.

2.3.2

Cut-off Score

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

2.3.3

Building Type Descriptions

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.

2.3.4 Score Modifier


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.
High-rise and Mid-rise Buildings: 4 to 7 storey buildings are categorised as midrise building whereas buildings with 8 or more storeys are as high-rise building.

**

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 beamends, 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.
Post-benchmark: Building designed and constructed as per the ductile detailing
requirements of IS 13920: 1993 are considered as post-benchmark buildings.
Values of the score modifier for post-benchmark buildings are positive as these
buildings perform better than the benchmark building under seismic loading.

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.

2.4

QUICK CHECKS FOR STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS

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.

2.4.1 Column Shear


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)

where, Vi

Qi

Storey shear at ith storey,


Design lateral force at ith storey (Ref. Section
3.3.1.5),

Total number of storeys above ground level,

Number of storey level under consideration,

Wi

Seismic weight of ith storey,

The average shear stress in the columns (assuming that nearly all the columns in
the frame have similar stiffness) is given by,

nc

nc n f

avg =

Vi

Ac

(2.2)

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

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 (avg) is greater than 0.4 MPa, a more detailed
evaluation of the structure should be performed.

2.4.2

Shear Stress in Shear Wall

The average shear stress in the walls at a storey can be calculated as follows.

avg =
Where, Vi

Aw

Vi
Aw

(2.3)

shear at the storey under consideration,


summations of the horizontal cross sectional area
of all shear walls in the direction of loading. The
wall area should be reduced by the area of openings.

If the average shear stress in shear walls (avg) is greater than 0.35 MPa or
0.074fck MPa, a more detailed evaluation of the structure should be
performed.

2.4.3

Axial Stress in Column

The base shear VB is assumed to be distributed in a parabolic pattern, in accordance


with 1893: 2002. The overturning moment due to these forces develop axial forces
in the columns. This may be computed as
5V
P= B
8 n f

h

L

22

(2.4)

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.

2.4.4

Frame Drift

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.

DR =

kb + kc h
VcC d
k b k c 12 E

(2.5)

where, DR Inter storey displacement divided by the storey height,

kb I/L for a representative beam, kc I/h for a representative column, L


Effective length of the beam, h Storey height, I Moment of inertia, E
Modulus of elasticity, Vc Shear in column, Cd Deflection amplification factor
to include inelastic effect. For ordinary RC moment resisting frames, Cd = 2.
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

2.4.5

Strong Column Weak Beam Check

At a beam-column junction, according to good design principle, failure of the


column should not precede that of the beam, in order to avoid catastrophe (Global
failure). As shown in Figure 2.1, a strong column-weak beam combination is able
to sustain higher lateral loads through development of large number of plastic
hinges at the beam-ends prior to formation of collapse mechanism. In contrast
under strong beam-weak column construction, plastic hinging at the top and
bottom locations of the columns in a storey can bring down the entire building at
low lateral loads.

(a) Strong Column-Weak Beam

(b) Strong Beam-Weak Column

Figure 2.1: Failure mechanism in an RC frame

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

2.5

EVALUATION STATEMENTS

The evaluation statements seek clarification on a variety of structural seismicresistant features, which if non-compliant, suggest that detailed evaluation is
required. The evaluation statements depend on the type of lateral load resisting
systems. Here, only the statements relevant for concrete moment resisting frame
buildings, with or without shear walls, are listed. The evaluation statements are
listed in Tables 2.8 to 2.15.

Each of the statements should be marked as

compliant (C), non-compliant (NC) or not applicable (NA). Compliant


statements identify issues that are acceptable as positive seismic resistant qualities,
while non-compliant statements identify issues that need further investigation.
Certain statements that may not apply to the building under consideration can be
marked as not applicable.
Table 2.8: Evaluation statements Building system

Statements

C / NC / NA

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.
Mezzanines: Interior mezzanine levels shall be braced
independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the
lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Clause 7.3.4
IS 13920: 1993).
No deterioration of concrete: There shall be no visible
deterioration of concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the verticalor lateral-force-resisting elements.

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

Table 2.9: Evaluation statements Vertical irregularities

Statements (Figure 2.2 and Table 5 of IS 1893: 2002)

C / NC / NA

No weak storey: The lateral strength of a storey shall not be less


than 80% of the strength in the storey above.
No soft storey: The lateral stiffness of a storey shall not be less than
70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the average
lateral stiffness of the three storeys above.
No mass irregularity: There shall be no storey with seismic weight
more than 200% of that of its adjacent storeys. The irregularity
need not be considered in case of roofs.
No vertical geometric irregularity: There shall be no storey with
the horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting system more
than 150% of that in its adjacent storey.
No vertical discontinuities: All vertical elements in the lateral-loadresisting system shall be continuous to the foundation.

Table 2.10: Evaluation statements Plan Irregularities

Statements (Figure 2.3 and Table 4 of IS 1893: 2002)

No Torsion irregularity: The distance between the storey centre of


rigidity and the storey centre of mass shall be less than 20% of the
width of the structure in either plan dimension.
No diaphragm discontinuity: There shall be no diaphragm with
abrupt discontinuity or variation in stiffness, including those having
cut out or open areas greater than 50% of the gross enclosed
diaphragm area. The diaphragms shall not be composed of splitlevel floors.
No re-entrant corners: Both projections of structure beyond the reentrant corners shall not be greater than 15% of its plan dimension
in the given direction.
No out of plane offsets: There shall be no discontinuity in a lateralforce-resisting path, such as out of plane offsets of vertical
elements.
No non-parallel system: There shall be no vertical element resisting
the lateral force, not parallel to or symmetric about major
orthogonal axes of the lateral-force-resisting system.

26

C / NC / NA

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

Table 2.11: Evaluation statements Moment resisting frames

Statements (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5)

Redundancy: The number of lines of moment frames in each


principal direction shall be greater than or equal to 2. The number
of bays of moment frames in each line shall be greater than or
equal to 2.
No interfering wall: All infill walls placed in moment frames shall
be isolated from structural elements.
Shearing stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of the
shear stress in the frame columns. (Section 2.4.1)
Axial stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of the
axial stress in the frame columns. (Section 2.4.3)
Drift check: The building satisfies the quick check of storey drift.
(Section 2.4.4.)
Short captive columns: There shall be no columns at a level with
height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio
of the typical columns at that level. (Clause 7.4.5, IS 13920: 1993)
No shear failures: The shear capacity (VuR) of a frame column shall
be greater than the shear demand which occurs when the column
attains the probable moment capacity (Mpr). i.e., VuR 2Mpr/L.
Consider Mpr = 1.4 MuR, where MuR is the moment of resistance in
absence of axial load. (Clause 7.3.4, IS 13920: 1993)
Strong column-weak beam: The building satisfies the quick check
of strong column weak beam. (Section 2.4.5).
Column bar splices: All column bar splices shall be provided only
in the central half of the member length and hoops provided at
spacing not exceeding 150 mm centre to centre. (Clause 7.2.1, IS
13920: 1993)
Column tie spacing: Frame columns shall have ties spaced at or
less than b/2 throughout their length and at or less than b/4 or 100
mm at all potential plastic hinge locations. (Clause 7.4.6, IS 13920:
1993)
Beam bars: At least two longitudinal top and two longitudinal
bottom bars shall extend continuously throughout the length of
each frame beam. At least 25% of the longitudinal bars provided at
the joints for either positive or negative moment shall be
continuous throughout the length of the members.

27

C / NC / NA

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Kn

Fn
Storey Strength
(lateral)

Storey Stiffness
Kn-1
(lateral)
Kn-2

Fn-1
Fn-2
F3
F2

K3
K2

F1

K1

F < 0.8 F
i
i +1

0.7 ki+1

ki < ki+1 + ki+2 + ki+3


0.8

(a) Weak storey

(b) Soft storey


Wn
A
Storey weight

Wn-1
Wn-2
W3
W2

A/L > 0.25


L

W1
Wi > 2.0 Wi+1 (or, 2.0Wi1 )
(c) Mass irregularity
A

A
A/L > 0.1

A/L > 0.15


L
(d) Vertical

geometric irregularity

Figure 2.2: Different types of vertical irregularity

28

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

2 >

1.2(1 + 2 )
2

EQ
(a) Torsional

Irregularity

A
L

L
A

A
A/L > 0.15
(b) Re-entrant Corner

Lateral load
resisting system

Opening Area, A2

A2 > 0.5 A

Total floor area, A


(c) Non-parallel

System

(d) Diaphragm Discontinuity

Figure 2.3: Different types of plan irregularity

29

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 2.11 (contd.): Evaluation statements Moment resisting frames

Statements (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5)

C / NC / NA

Beam bar splices: The lap splices for the longitudinal

reinforcement shall not be located within 2d from the joint face and
within L/4 from the location of potential plastic hinges. (Clause
6.3.5, IS 13920: 1993)
Stirrup spacing: All beams shall have stirrups spaced at or less than
d/2 throughout their length. At potential hinge location, stirrups

shall be spaced at or less than the minimum of 8db or d/4. (Clause


6.3.5, IS 13920: 1993)
Bent-up bars: Bent-up longitudinal steel shall not be used for shear

reinforcement. (Clause 6.3.4, IS 13920: 1993)


Joint reinforcing: Column ties shall be extended at their typical

spacing through all beam column joints. (Clause 8.1, IS 13920:


1993)
Deflection compatibility: Secondary components shall have the

shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the elements.


No flat slab frames: The lateral-force-resisting system shall not be

a frame consisting of columns and a flat slab/plate without beams.


Prestressed frame elements: The lateral-load-resisting frames shall

not include any prestressed elements.


Diaphragm reinforcement: There shall be tensile capacity to

develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other


locations of irregularities. There shall be reinforcement around all
diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the gross enclosed
diaphragm area. (Table 4, IS 1893: 2002)
Anchorage: Stirrups should have 135 degree hook* with 10-

diameter extension (but not less than 75 mm) at each end,


embedded in the confined core

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

Table 2.12: Evaluation statements Shear walls

Statements

C / NC / NA

Shearing stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of

shearing stress in the shear walls. (Section 2.4.2)


Reinforcing steel: The area of reinforcing steel for concrete walls

shall be greater than 0. 25% of the gross area of the wall along both
the longitudinal and transverse axes and the maximum spacing of
bars shall not exceed lw/5, 3tw and 450 mm. (Clauses 9.1.4 and
9.1.7, IS 13920: 1993)
Coupling beams: The stirrups shall be spaced at or less than 100

mm and shall be anchored into the core with 135 hooks. (Clause
9.5.2, IS 13920: 1993)
Diaphragm openings at shear walls: Diaphragm openings

immediately adjacent to the shear walls shall be less than 25% of


the wall length.

Table 2.13: Evaluation statements Connections

Statements
Column connection: All column reinforcement shall be dowelled

into the foundation. (Clause 7.4.2, IS 13920: 1993)


Wall connection: Wall reinforcement shall be dowelled into the

foundation.
Transfer to shear walls: Diaphragms shall be reinforced and

connected for transfer of loads to the shear walls.


Lateral load at pile caps: Pile caps shall have top reinforcement

and piles shall be anchored to the pile caps.

31

C / NC / NA

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 2.14: Evaluation statements Geological site hazards

Statements

C / NC / NA

Liquefaction: Liquefaction susceptible, saturated, loose granular

soils that could jeopardise the buildings seismic performance shall


not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 15 m under the
building.
Slope failure: The building site shall be sufficiently remote from

potential earthquake induced slope failures or rock falls to be


unaffected by such failures or shall be capable of accommodating
any predicted movements without failure.
Surface fault rupture: Surface fault rupture and surface

displacement at the building site is not anticipated.

Table 2.15: Evaluation statements Foundations

Statements
Foundation performance: There shall be no evidence of excessive

foundation movement such as settlement or heave that would affect


the integrity or strength of the structure.
Deterioration: There shall not be evidence that foundation elements

have deteriorated due to corrosion, sulphate attack, material


breakdown, or other reasons in a manner that would affect the
integrity or strength of the structure.
Overturning: The ratio of the effective horizontal dimension, at the

foundation level of the lateral-force-resisting system, to the


building height (base/height) shall be greater than 0.6 Sa/g.
Ties between foundation elements: The foundation shall have ties

adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, piers are not
restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Type I.

32

C / NC / NA

Chapter II Preliminary Evaluation

Lapping in middle half


of the column

Spacing

150mm

Spacing B/4 or 100mm


75mm

Figure 2.4: Reinforcement detailing for column as per IS 13920: 1993

Spacing 8db or d/4


Spacing d/2

At least 2 bars at top and 2


bars at bottom should go full
length of the beam.

2d

2d

Lapping prohibited in regions where


longitudinal bars can yield in tension
Figure 2.5: Reinforcement detailing for beam as per IS 13920: 1993

33

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

2.6

DECISION FOR DETAILED EVALUATION

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
EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS

3.1

INTRODUCTION

When a building fails to comply with the preliminary evaluation criterion, a


detailed structural analysis of the building should be carried out. Detailed analysis
includes developing a computational model on which linear / non-linear, static /
dynamic analysis is performed. Because of the difficulties and uncertainties in
non-linear dynamic analysis, this is not recommended in normal design practice.
This manual is confined to the other types of analysis.

This chapter briefly

explains the linear static and linear dynamic analyses as recommended in the code
(IS 1893: 2002). The main purpose of these analyses, from the seismic evaluation
perspective, is to check the demand-to-capacity ratios of the building components
and thereby ascertain code compliance. The non-linear static analysis (pushover
analysis) is explained in the next chapter. Some of the important modelling issues
will also be discussed in this chapter.

35

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

3.2

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL

Modelling a building involves the modelling and assemblage of its various loadcarrying 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.

3.2.1 Material properties

The material properties of concrete include mass, unit weight, modulus of


elasticity, Poissons ratio, shear modulus and coefficient of thermal expansion.
The short-term modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete, as per IS 456: 2000, is given
by
Ec = 5000 f ck

(3.1)

where f ck characteristic compressive strength of concrete at 28-days in MPa.


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.
Table 3.1: Factors to estimate the expected strength
Material property

Factor

Concrete compressive strength (fck)

1.50

Steel yield stress (fy)

1.00

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

Original construction documents, including material testing

1.0

report
2

Documentation as in (1) but no material testing undertaken

0.9

Documentation as in (2) and minor deteriorations of

0.8

original condition
4

Incomplete but usable original construction documents

0.7

Documentation as in (4) and limited inspection and material

0.6

test results with large variation.


6

3.2.2

Little knowledge about the details of components

0.5

Structural element model

3.2.2.1

Beams and columns

Beams and columns should be modelled by 3D frame elements. While modelling


the beams and columns, the important properties to be assigned are cross sectional
dimensions, reinforcement details and the types of material used. Plinth beams
should also be modelled as frame elements. The moment of inertia of a section
should be modelled properly to account for the effect of cracking and the
contribution of the flanges for T- or L- beam. The suggested effective moment of
inertia (Ieff) for the beams including the effect of cracking and flanges are listed in
Table 3.3

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

Table 3.3: Effective moment of inertia for the beam sections


Beam Sections

Ieff

Rectangular

0.5 Ig

T - section

0.7 Ig

L - section

0.6 Ig

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

Figure 3.1: Rectangular area for the calculation of Ig

Total Length
Clear Length
Beam

End Offsets
Column

Figure 3.2: Use of end offsets at beam-column joint

Factors recommended here are adapted from Paulay and Priestley (1991)

38

Chapter III Evaluation based on Linear Analysis

3.2.2.2

Beam-column joints

The beam-column joints should be modelled by giving end-offsets to the frame


elements, to obtain the moments and forces at the beam and column faces. The
beam-column joints can be assumed to be rigid (Figure 3.2).

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.

3.2.2.5

Walls (structural and non structural)

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

separately as a uniform load on the supporting beam. The stiffness contribution of


an infill wall can be modelled using a simplified equivalent strut approach.
Calculation of the properties of the equivalent strut is explained in Appendix B.

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.

(a) Shear Wall

Beam
Rigid
Links

Master
Node

Slave Node
(b) Core Wall
Figure 3.3: Modelling of shear wall and core wall

40

Chapter III Evaluation based on Linear Analysis

3.2.3

Modelling of Column Ends at foundation

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.

3.2.4

Load Combinations

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 Ydirection.

(b)

100% of the design forces in Y-direction and 30% of the design forces in Xdirection.

An alternative method to consider the effect of the forces along X- and Ydirections is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) basis.
EL = ELx 2 + ELy 2

(3.2)

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.

3.3

LINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS

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.

3.3.1

Equivalent static method

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

Centre of mass

3.3.1.1

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.
CMx

Wi xi

CMy =

Wi yi

(3.3)

where
CMx

coordinate of the centre of mass along x-direction

CMy

coordinate of the centre of mass along y-direction

sum of the weights of all components

W x sum of the moments of weights about an assumed reference axis along


i i

X- direction

W y
i

sum of the moments of weights about an assumed reference axis along

Y-direction

3.3.1.2

Centre of rigidity of storey

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 Xdirection 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 (z)x, (z)y and (z)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 = -(z)x/(z)z

(3.4a)

y1 = (z)x/(z)z

(3.4b)

The static eccentricity of the centre of mass with respect of centre of rigidity is
given as follows.

3.3.1.3

esix = CMxCRx

(3.5a)

esiy = CMyCRy

(3.5b)

Effect of torsion

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.

3.3.1.4

Seismic weight

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

3.3.1.5

Lumped mass

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.

3.3.1.6

Calculation of lateral forces

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 =
2 R g

(3.8)

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


Ta =

0.09h
for RC moment resisting frame with masonry infill
d

(3.9a)
(3.9b)

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:

For Type I soil (rock or hard soil sites):

1 + 15T 0.00 T 0.10


Sa
0.10 T 0.40
= 2.50
g
1

0.40 T 4.00
T

For Type II soil (medium soil):

1 + 15T 0.00 T 0.10


Sa
0.10 T 0.55
= 2.50
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
0.10 T 0.67
= 2.50
g
1.67

0.67 T 4.00
T

For Type III soil (soft soil):

Spctral Acceleraion Coefficient


(S a/g)

3.0
2.5

Type III (Soft Soil)


Type II (Medium Soil)

2.0

Type I (Rock,or Hard Soil)


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

Figure 3.5: Building model under seismic load

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
Qi = VB

Wi hi2

(3.10)

W h
j =1

2
i i

Here Wi Seismic weight of floor i, hi Height of floor measured from base,


n Number of storeys in the building equal to the number of levels at which
masses is located (Figure 3.5).

3.3.2

Response spectrum analysis

The equations of motion associated with the response of a structure to ground


motion are given by:
(t ) + Cu (t ) + Ku(t ) = m x ugx (t ) + m x ugy (t ) + m x ugz (t )
Mu

(3.11)

Here, M is the diagonal mass matrix, C is the proportional damping matrix, K is


the stiffness matrix, u , u and u are the relative (with respect to the ground)
acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors, respectively, mx, my, and mz are
the unit acceleration loads and ugx , ugy and ugz are the components of uniform
ground acceleration.

The objective of response spectrum analysis is to obtain the likely maximum


response from these equations. The earthquake ground acceleration in each
direction is given as a response spectrum curve*. According to IS 1893: 2002,
high rise and irregular buildings must be analysed by the response spectrum
method. However, this method of linear dynamic analysis is also recommended
for regular buildings.

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

Response spectrum analysis is performed using mode superposition, where free


vibration modes are computed using eigenvalue analysis. The maximum modal
response (k) of a quantity (considering the mass participation factor) is obtained
for each mode of all the modes considered. Sufficient modes (r) to capture at least
90% of the participating mass of the building (in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions), have to be considered in the analysis. The modal responses of all the
individual modes are then combined together using either the square root of the
sum of the squares (SRSS) method or complete quadratic combination (CQC)
method. The SRSS method is based on probability theory and is expressed as
follows.
=

(
k =1

)2

(3.12)

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 .

3.4

EVALUATION RESULTS

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

elements. The capacities of RC members are to be calculated as per IS 456: 2000,


incorporating the appropriate knowledge factors (Table 3.2). The demand-tocapacity ratio (DCR) for each element should be less than 1.0 for code
compliance.

DCR = AB/AC
Pu

B
C

Muy

Mux

Figure 3.6: Demand to capacity ratio for column flexure

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

wu = 1.2 (wDL + wLL)

ln

EL

1.4 M+uR, left


1.4 M uR, right
plastic hinge

1.4 M uR, left

EL

1.4 M +uR, right


plastic hinge

(a) Loading on beam


1.4(M+uR, left + M uR, right)/ln

0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln

(b) Shear force demand in beam (sway to right)


1.4(M uR, left + M +uR, right)/ln
0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln

(c) Shear force demand in beam (sway to left)

Figure 3.7: Calculation of shear force demand in beams

The shear demand should be calculated as per IS 13920: 1993 recommendations.


For beam, the shear demand will be the larger of the shear force from analysis and
the shear force corresponding to the beam reaching its flexural capacity
(formation of moment hinges at both ends of the beam). This concept is called the
capacity based design.

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)

Vu , right = 0.5wu ln + 1.4 ( M uR+ ,left + M uR ,right ) ln

(3.13b)

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

Figure 3.8: Shear force demand in columns

52

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

4.1.

INTRODUCTION

Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the


lateral loads is incrementally increased, maintaining a predefined distribution
pattern along the height of the building. With the increase in the magnitude of the
loads, weak links and failure modes of the building are found.

Base Shear (V)

Base Shear
(V)
Roof Displacement ()
a) Building model

b) Pushover curve

Figure 4.1: Pushover analysis

53

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Pushover analysis can determine the behaviour of a building, including the


ultimate load and the maximum inelastic deflection. Local nonlinear effects are
modelled and the structure is pushed until a collapse mechanism is developed
(Figure 4.1). At each step, the base shear and the roof displacement can be plotted
to generate the pushover curve. It gives an idea of the maximum base shear that
the structure is capable of resisting. For regular buildings, it can also give a rough
idea about the global stiffness of the building.

4.2

CAPACITY SPECTRUM, DEMAND SPECTRUM AND


PERFORMANCE POINT

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

Spectral Acceleration

Initial Structural
Period

5% Damping (Initial)
10% Damping

Performance Point

15% Damping

Capacity Spectrum

Demand Spectrum

Spectral Displacement

Figure 4.2: Demand and capacity spectra


It must be emphasised that the pushover analysis is approximate in nature and is
based on a statically applied load. It estimates an envelope curve of the behaviour
under the dynamic load. It must be used with caution while interpreting the actual
behaviour under seismic load.

4.3.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Pushover analysis involves the application of increasing lateral forces or


displacements to a nonlinear mathematical model of a building. The nonlinear
load-deformation behaviour of each component of the building is modelled
individually. In a force-controlled push, the forces are increased monotonically
until either the total force reaches a target value or the building has a collapse
mechanism. In a displacement-controlled push, the displacements are increased
monotonically until either the displacement of a predefined control node in the
building exceeds a target value or the building has a collapse mechanism. For

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 Ydirection, 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 loaddeformation properties at potential plastic hinge locations. The development of the
load-deformation properties is explained in Appendices C, D and E.

4.3.1

Seismic Load Distribution

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 midrise buildings (Equation 3.10).
Pushover analysis should be performed separately for the two orthogonal
directions in order to study the performance of the building in both the directions.
There are therefore three pushover cases for evaluating a building.
1. Gravity push, which is used to apply gravity load.
2. Push1 is the lateral push in X-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.
3. Push2 is the lateral push in Y-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.

56

Chapter IV Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis

4.3.2 Load-Deformation Behaviour of Elements


In pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the non-linear load-deformation
behaviour of the elements.

Beams and columns should have moment versus

rotation and shear force versus shear deformation hinges.

For columns, the

rotation of the moment hinge can be calculated for the axial load available from the
gravity load analysis. All compression struts have to be modelled with axial load
versus axial deformation hinges.
There are two approaches for specifying the hinge properties.
(i)

Distributed plasticity model

(ii)

Point plasticity model.

In the first model, the zone of yielding (plastification) is assumed to be spread over
a certain length (length of the plastic hinge). In the second model, the zone of
yielding is assumed to be concentrated at a specific point in the element. The
calculation of the various hinge properties based on the point plasticity model is
explained in Appendix C.
An idealised load-deformation curve is shown in Figure 4.3. It is a piece-wise
linear curve defined by five points as explained below.
(i)

Point A corresponds to the unloaded condition.

(ii)

Point B corresponds to the onset of yielding.

(iii)

Point C corresponds to the ultimate strength.

(iv)

Point D corresponds to the residual strength. For the computational


stability, it is recommended to specify non-zero residual strength.

In

absence of the modelling of the descending branch of a load-deformation


curve, the residual strength can be assumed to be 20% of the yield
strength.
(v)

Point E corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the


residual strength. To maintain computational stability, a high value of

57

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

deformation capacity equal to 15y can be assumed, where y is the


deformation at the onset of yielding.

4.4

PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS

The traditional approach to seismic design of a building is a force-based design.


The design lateral forces on the building are determined using the response
spectrum. The building is subsequently analysed to determine the member forces.
The members are designed to withstand those forces. In this approach, there is no
measure of the deformation capability of a member or of the building. At best, an
elastic drift is computed under the design forces and checked against an elastic
drift limit. Alternatively, an inelastic drift is estimated from the calculated elastic
drift by multiplying the later by a factor and checking the inelastic drift against an
inelastic drift limit.
The performance based analysis is based on quantifying the deformations of the
members and the building as a whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of
a certain level of seismic hazard. The deformations or strains are better quantities
to assess damage than stresses or forces. Since the deformations are expected to
go beyond the elastic values, a performance-based analysis requires a nonlinear
lateral load versus deformation analysis. The performance based analysis gives
the analyst more choices of performance of the building as compared to the limit
states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on limit state method.

4.4.1

Performance Objective

The seismic performance of a building is measured by the state of damage under a


certain level of seismic hazard. The state of damage is quantified by the drift of
the roof and the deformation of the structural elements. Before the analysis of a
building, a target performance level of the building and a level of seismic hazard
are selected.

A performance objective of an analysis constitutes the target

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.

4.4.2 Performance Levels of Structure and Elements


A building performance level is a combination of the performance levels of the
structure and the non-structural components. The performance levels are discrete
damage states identified from a continuous spectrum of possible damage states.
The structural performance levels are as follows.
i)

Immediate Occupancy (IO)

ii)

Life Safety (LS)

iii)

Collapse Prevention (CP).

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.

The performance levels of a structural element are specified in the loaddeformation curve (Figure 4.3). The values of the levels can be obtained from test
results. In absence of test data, the following values may be adopted (ATC 40).

59

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

i)

Immediate Occupancy: 0.2 from Point B

ii)

Life Safety: 0.5 from Point B.

iii)

Collapse Prevention: 0.9 from Point B.

Here, is the length of the plastic plateau. The above recommendation is shown
in Fig. 4.3.

IO

Load

Py

CP

LS

B
0.2
0.5
0.9

0.2Py

Deformation
Figure 4.3: Performance Level
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels

In a probabilistic method, an earthquake level is defined with a probability of


exceedance in a specified period.

The following three levels are commonly

defined for buildings with a design life of 50 years (FEMA 356).


i)

Serviceability earthquake: 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

ii)

Design basis earthquake (DBE): 10% probability of exceedance in 50


years.

iii)

Maximum considered earthquake (MCE): 2% probability of exceedance


in 50 years.

In IS 1893: 2002, the zone factor Z corresponds to MCE. The values of Z were
evaluated based on a deterministic method. It cannot be directly related to the
definitions given above. A simplistic method was adopted to define the DBE. The

60

Chapter IV Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis

DBE is defined as MCE and hence, Z/2 is substituted in place of Z. A partial


load factor of 1.5 is applied to DBE in the load combinations.

4.4.4 Selection of Performance Objective

A performance objective of an analysis is the selection of a building performance


level under a selected earthquake level. If the objective includes two building
performance levels under two earthquake levels, then it is a dual level
performance objective.

Similarly, there can be multiple level performance

objectives. A basic safety objective (BSO) is defined as the dual requirement of


Life Safety under DBE and Collapse Prevention under MCE. The aim of BSO is
to have a low risk of life threatening injury during a moderate earthquake (as
defined by DBE) and to check the collapse of the vertical load resisting system
during a severe earthquake (as defined by MCE).
For analysis of multi-storeyed buildings in India, Collapse Prevention under MCE
can be selected. It is a partial performance objective as per FEMA 356. Unless the
earthquake level of DBE as per IS 1893: 2002 is comparable to the level defined
based on the probabilistic method, it is not prudent to check Life Safety under
DBE. Of course checking only one performance level will not meet the damage
control requirement for frequent earthquakes.

4.5

EVALUATION RESULTS

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

The strengthening and enhancement of the performance of deficient structural


elements in a structure or the structure as a whole is referred to as retrofitting.
Retrofitting of a building is not same as repair or rehabilitation. Repair refers to
partial improvement of the degraded strength of a building after an earthquake. In
effect, it is only a cosmetic enhancement.

Rehabilitation is a functional

improvement, wherein the aim is to achieve the original strength of a building


after an earthquake. Retrofitting means structural strengthening of a building to a
pre-defined performance level, whether or not an earthquake has occurred. The
seismic performance of a retrofitted building is aimed higher than that of the
original building. The present report does not cover the repair techniques for a
damaged building or distressed elements.

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

recommended that the existing deficient buildings be retrofitted to improve their


performance in the event of an earthquake and to avoid large-scale damage to life
and property.

5.2

GOALS OF RETROFIT

The goals of seismic retrofitting of a building can be summarized as follows (IS


13935: 1993; White, 1995).
1. Giving unity to the structure.
2. Eliminating sources of weakness or features that produce concentration of
stresses in members.
3. Enhancing the redundancy of the lateral load resisting systems, thereby
eliminating the possibility of progressive collapse.
4. Increasing the lateral strength and stiffness of the building.
5. Increasing the ductility (energy absorption) and damping (energy
dissipation). Avoiding the possibility of brittle modes of failure.
6. The retrofit scheme should be cost effective, should consistently and
reliably achieve the intended performance objective.

5.3

DEFINITIONS

i)

Retrofit strategy

The options available for retrofitting individual elements or the building as a


whole is termed as retrofit strategies.

ii)

Retrofit scheme

A combination of several retrofit strategies is termed as a retrofit scheme for a


building.

64

Chapter V Seismic Retrofit

iii)

Retrofit programme

The complete process involved in retrofit of a building is termed as a retrofit


programme.

5.4

STEPS OF RETROFIT

A retrofit programme consists of the following steps (Basu, 2002).


i)

Seismic evaluation

The evaluation of a building involves data collection, visual inspection, in-situ


testing, examination of as-built information and structural analysis. The structural
analysis can be linear static (equivalent static method), linear dynamic (response
spectrum analysis or time-history analysis), nonlinear static (pushover analysis)
and nonlinear dynamic (nonlinear time-history analysis).

If the demand-to-

capacity ratios of the components are greater than one or if the building fails to
achieve the target performance level, then retrofit becomes necessary.

ii)

Decision to retrofit

Based on the extent of deficiency of the building, the economic viability, the
expected durability of the upgraded building and the availability of the materials,
a decision is taken whether to repair, retrofit or demolish the building.

iii)

Selection and design of the retrofit scheme

The selection of the retrofit strategies from the options available and their design,
influence the decision to retrofit. Hence, knowledge of the retrofit strategies is
essential. The design and the detailing should address the transfer of load and the
compatibility of deformation between the existing elements, modified elements
and the new elements as per the assumptions in the analysis.

iv)

Verification of the retrofit scheme

Structural analysis is necessary to justify the selected retrofit scheme. Alteration


of the load path, redistribution of the member forces and the changes in the failure

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.

5.5

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

For seismic retrofit of buildings, a performance-based analysis is preferred


whenever the necessary tools for the analysis are available. The decision to
retrofit and the choice of retrofit strategies are open-ended tasks, as compared to
seismic design of a new building. The performance-based analysis is a rational
method that aids the decision-making and selection of retrofit strategies in a
retrofit programme of a building.

The definitions of performance levels are

explained in Chapter 4.

A performance objective in a performance-based analysis is the selection of a


building performance level under a selected earthquake level. The selection of a
performance objective in a retrofit programme is guided by the benefit from
improved safety, economic decisions, available technical expertise, inconvenience
during the intervention and other considerations. Depending upon the importance
of the structure, the building performance levels and earthquake levels are chosen.
For example, hospital buildings, relief and rescue centres, police stations, fire

66

Chapter V Seismic Retrofit

stations etc. should be functional immediately after an earthquake. For retrofit of


multi-storeyed buildings in India, Collapse Prevention (CP) under maximum
credible earthquake (MCE) can be selected, as explained in Chapter 4.

A structure with a trial retrofit scheme needs to be re-analysed to check its


performance. If a performance point is achieved satisfying the above objective,
then the retrofit scheme is satisfactory. But for severely deficient structure a
performance point may not be achieved with an acceptable retrofit scheme. There
may be partial increase in strength and ductility. This can be accepted as a
reduced performance objective as compared to the basic safety objective.

5.6

RETROFIT STRATEGIES

Retrofit strategy refers to options of increasing the strength, stiffness and/or


ductility of the elements or of the whole building. For a building, a combination
of retrofit strategies may be selected under a retrofit scheme. Retrofit strategies
may be broadly classified as local strategies and global strategies. Retrofit of
individual members or elements is referred to as local retrofit, whereas the retrofit
of the building as a whole is termed as global retrofit. This classification need not
be watertight and strategies falling in either group are expected.

It may be

necessary to combine both local and global retrofit strategies for an effective
retrofit scheme.

5.6.1 Global Strategies

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 buildings 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.

In buildings with a large number of deficiencies, it is usually more economical to


try a global retrofit strategy first and then if further strengthening becomes
necessary, local retrofit strategies can be adopted.

5.6.2 Local Strategies

Local strengthening allows the under-capacity elements or connections to resist


the demands predicted by the analysis, without significantly affecting the overall
response of the structure. This scheme tends to be economical when only a few of
the buildings elements are deficient. The local retrofit strategies discussed here
include strengthening of beams, columns, joints, walls and footings.

5.6.3 Energy Dissipation and Base Isolation

A number of technologies are available to allow the energy imparted to a structure


to be dissipated through the action of special devices such as viscous fluid
dampers, yielding plates or friction pads. These are called energy dissipation
devices.

Base isolation produces a system with a fundamental response that consists of


nearly a rigid body translation of the structure above the bearings. Most of the
displacement induced in the isolated system by the ground motion occurs within
the compliant bearings, which are specifically designed for the large
displacements.

Most bearings also have excellent energy dissipation

characteristics.

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.

5.6.4

Mitigating Geological Hazards

Some of the geological hazards are fault rupture, liquefaction, differential


compaction, landslide and earthquake induced tsunamis or flood. Mitigation of
geological hazards generally is expensive. Some schemes for the mitigation of
these hazards are described in FEMA 356 (2000).

69

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER VI
BUILDING DEFICIENCIES

6.1

INTRODUCTION

Seismic retrofit of an existing building most often is more challenging than


designing a new one. The first step of seismic evaluation aims at detecting the
deficiencies of the building. It is a crucial step in a successful retrofit programme
and is analogous to the diagnosis of a patient. This chapter highlights some
common deficiencies observed in multi-storeyed reinforced concrete (RC) framed
buildings in India. Substantial part of the material is from the buildings evaluated
under the project Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Multi-storeyed
Buildings and from reports on Bhuj earthquake (Sinha and Shaw, 2001; Murty et
al., 2002). The regional distribution of the buildings studied is shown in Figure
6.1.
Although the observations were made in the buildings studied, similar
construction practices are noticed in other parts of the country. The building
deficiencies can be broadly classified as Local Deficiencies and Global
Deficiencies.

70

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Delhi
Guwahati

Ahmedabad
Mumbai

Vellore

Chennai

Trivandrum

Figure 6.1: Regions where buildings were surveyed

6.2

GLOBAL DEFICIENCIES

Global deficiencies refer to the deficiencies of the building as a whole. Certain


structural design concepts that may work adequately in non-seismic areas perform
poorly when subjected to earthquake motions. Examples are frame structures with
strong beams and weak columns, or frame structures employing open ground
storeys. For either case, a single storey sway mechanism can develop under
lateral loading. Global deficiencies can broadly be classified as plan irregularities
and vertical irregularities, as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002. The items left out are
listed under miscellaneous deficiencies.

72

Chapter VI Building Deficiencies

6.2.1 Plan Irregularities


Some of the observed plan irregularities are as follows.
a. Torsional Irregularity
Torsional irregularity is to be checked when the diaphragm is rigid. Torsional
irregularity arises due to the eccentricity between the centre of stiffness and centre
of mass of each floor.

Poor layout of structural walls leads to significant

eccentricity. Even for a symmetric building, if the aspect ratio of length to width
is large, there can be torsional irregularity.
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.

Figure 6.2: A building with diaphragm discontinuity and re-entrant corners

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.

Figure 6.3: Examples of plan and vertical irregularities

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-ofplane 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.

6.2.2 Vertical Irregularities


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-beamweakcolumn 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.
c. Vertical Geometric Irregularity
To avoid the monotony of a box type of structure, setback towers are provided.
But this may create a vertical geometric irregularity.
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.

6.3

LOCAL DEFICIENCIES

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.
a. Inadequate Shear Capacity
Typical gravity and wind load designs normally result in a design shear force
significantly lower than the shear force that can develop in a column during
seismic loading. Hence, columns in the buildings not designed for seismic forces
have inadequate shear capacity. The cross-sectional dimension of a column is
frequently limited to 230 mm to flush it with the wall. This may be inadequate for
seismic loading. Another common problem is artificial shortening of columns
by adding partial height partition walls that restrict the movement of the lower
part of the columns. The resulting short columns are stiff and attract much higher
shear forces than they were designed to carry.
b. Inadequate Confinement of Column Core
Although the frame structures are supposed to be designed using the strongcolumnweak-beam concept, the use of deep spandrel beams in the first floor
leads to stronger beams compared to the columns. The ground storey columns
often form plastic hinges during strong seismic loading. The concrete core in a
plastic hinging region must be adequately confined to prevent loss of the shear
and flexural strength of the column. The confinement requirement in a column is
more stringent because of the high axial load and shear that typically need to be
carried through the plastic hinging region. Frequently, 6 mm diameter ties are
placed at 200 to 225 mm spacing in the plastic hinging region. The ends of the
ties have 90 hooks with inadequate hook length instead of 135 hooks. Although
in the drawings the hook end is shown to be bent to about 135, in practice 90
hooks are provided. These hooks open, leading to loss of confinement. There are

77

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

numerous examples of failure of poorly confined columns during the Bhuj


earthquake.
c. Faulty splicing of rebar
It is a common practice in gravity load design to provide the column splice just
above the floor and that too designed for compression only (Figure 6.4). The
column may be subjected to large moments or subjected to tension under seismic
loading (especially when infill walls are added and the column serves as a
boundary element for the wall), resulting in pull-out of the rebar.

Figure 6.4: Examples of lack of seismic detailing


(ATC 40, 1996)
d. Inadequate Capacity under Biaxial Loading
The problems of shear strength and confinement are more severe in corner
columns, especially if the building has significant eccentricity between the centre
of mass and the centre of rigidity. Corner columns need to have a higher degree
of confinement if they are to survive the biaxial loading demands that are likely to
occur in them.

78

Chapter VI Building Deficiencies

6.3.2 Beams and Beam-Column Joints


Deficiencies in beams and beam-column joints are frequently related to the
inadequate transverse reinforcement for shear strength and confinement.
Although the failures are local and may not lead to collapse, they affect the
performance of the building.
a. Inadequate Shear Capacity and Lack of Confinement
During severe seismic loading, plastic hinges will develop at the ends of the beam.
The shear in the beam during the formation of these hinges can be significantly
higher than the shear force the beam was designed for, leading to a shear failure.
The stirrups usually are not designed to resist the shear corresponding to the
development of the beam flexural capacity (capacity based design). However, a
more common problem is inadequate transverse confinement in the beam hinging
zones. The stirrups may not be closed stirrups. As the plastic hinge works
during the earthquake, the lack of adequate confinement will result in a steady loss
of the shear strength and stiffness in the hinging zone.
b. Inadequate Amount and Anchorage of Bottom Rebar
The connections can suffer a significant loss of stiffness due to inadequate amount
and anchorage capacity of the bottom longitudinal bars. The bottom bars at
supports are not designed for tension in a gravity load design. There are instances
when they are not laid continuous through the joint (Figure 6.4). Improper anchor
detail of the main reinforcement can lead to pullout of the bars. For exterior
columns, the beam rebar may not be bent properly with adequate hook length to
confine the concrete.

6.3.3 Slabs
The slab is assumed to act as a rigid diaphragm. In order to achieve this, it is
necessary to provide additional reinforcement at the edges of the slab. These are

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.

6.3.4 Unreinforced Masonry Walls


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.

6.3.5 Precast Elements


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.

6.3.6

Deficient Construction

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.

6.4

MISCELLANEOUS DEFICIENCIES

6.4.1 Deficiencies in Analysis


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

6.4.2 Lack of integral action


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.

6.4.3 Failure of stair slab


If the stair slab is simply supported without adequate bearing length, a collapse of
the slab closes the escape route for the residents.

6.4.4 Pounding of buildings


A thermal expansion joint between segments of a building or inadequate space
between adjacent buildings is inadequate to act as a seismic joint. When the space
is not adequate, the buildings may pound against each other as they respond to
the earthquake excitation. Buildings are not designed to absorb pounding loads
from adjacent structures. Also, these impulsive pounding forces can significantly
alter the dynamic response of the buildings and can cause collapse of the
buildings. Such cases were observed in the Bhuj earthquake.

6.4.5 Geotechnical aspects


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.

6.4.6 Inadequate detailing and documentation


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.

7.2

STRUCTURAL STIFFENING

Structural stiffening can be achieved by the following methods.

84

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

1. Addition of infill walls


2. Addition of shear walls
3. Addition of steel braces

7.2.1

Addition of Infill Walls

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

7.2.2 Addition of shear walls

The addition of new shear walls is used to control excessive displacements in


buildings. Critical design issues involved in the addition of shear walls are as
follows (White, 1995).

Determining the adequacy of existing floor and roof slabs to carry the
seismic forces.

Transfer of diaphragm shears into the new shear walls through dowels.

Adding new collector and drag members to the diaphragms.

Reactions of the new shear walls on existing foundations.

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.

7.2.3

Addition of steel braces

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).

The advantages of retrofitting an RC frame by steel braces are as follows.

They block less floor space.

Due to the efficiency of braces as axially loaded members, they are


economical.

87

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

In a retrofit scheme, they are easy to use with minimal disruption to


functional use.

The requirement of strength and stiffness can be achieved with steel


braces.

The braces add very little to the existing mass to the building.

The braces can be efficiently connected to existing RC frames using bolts.

A background and the application of steel braces are given in Appendix E.

7.3

REDUCTION OF IRREGULARITIES

The plan and vertical irregularities are common causes of undesirable


performance under an earthquake.

In a linear analysis, the irregularities are

reflected in the distribution of structural displacements and Demand-to-Capacity


Ratios (DCRs) in the elements. In a nonlinear analysis, in addition to the above,
the irregularities are reflected in the inelastic deformation demands. If the values
of displacements, DCRs, or inelastic deformation demands predicted by the
analyses are unbalanced, with large concentrations of high values within one
storey or at one side of a building, then an irregularity exists. Such irregularities
are often, but not always, caused by the presence of a discontinuity in the
building, for example, termination of a wall above the ground storey. Removal of
the irregularity may be sufficient to reduce demands to acceptable levels.

Among plan irregularities, torsional irregularities can be corrected by the addition


of moment frames, braced frames, or shear walls to balance the distribution of
stiffness and mass within a storey. Eccentric masses can be relocated. Seismic
joints can be created to transform an irregular building into multiple regular
structures. Partial demolition can also be an effective corrective measure for
irregularities, although this may have significant impact on the appearance and
utility of the building.

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.

7.4

REDUCTION OF MASS

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

Local retrofit strategies include strengthening of beams, columns, slabs, beamcolumn or slab-column joints (for flat plates), walls and foundations.

Local

strengthening allows one or more under-strength elements or connections to resist


the demands predicted by the analysis. In the following sections, the local retrofit
strategies are grouped according to the type of elements. Some of the solved
examples were taken from the buildings analysed under the project.

8.2

COLUMN STRENGTHENING

Column strengthening techniques include the following.


1. Concrete jacketing
2. Steel jacketing
3. Fibre reinforced polymer wrapping
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

8.2.1 Concrete Jacketing


Concrete jacketing is a popular method of column retrofit. This involves addition
of a thick layer of reinforced concrete (RC) in the form of a jacket, using
longitudinal reinforcement and closely spaced ties with seismic detailing (Figure
8.1).

Figure 8.1: Concrete jacketing (Basu, 2002)

The method is comparatively straightforward and increases both strength and


ductility. But, the composite deformation of the existing and the new concrete
requires adequate dowelling to the existing column. The mix design of the new
concrete, surface preparation of the existing column and choice of appropriate
bonding material are also important. Also, the additional longitudinal bars need to
be anchored to the foundation and should be continuous through the slab. The use
of ferrocement jacket increases the shear strength and the ductility of RC columns.

92

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

The disadvantages of concrete jacketing are listed below.


a. Drilling of holes.
b. Increase in the size of the column.
c. Placement of ties at the beam-column joints
Analysis of Strengthened Columns
a. Flexural Capacity
The analysis of a strengthened column can be performed by the traditional method
of interaction curves.

To get the 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. An adequately confined core can be modelled with the stress
versus strain relationship of confined concrete.
An example of a deficient existing section from Building A08 (located in Zone V)
and the retrofitted section is presented. The existing section is 350600mm, with
4-25mm diameter and 12-20mm diameter longitudinal bars and 8mm diameter ties
at 100mm on centre (Figure 8.2). The grade of concrete is M15 and the grade of
steel is Fe 415.
Y

4-25 and 12-20


600
X

8 @ 100 mm c/c

350

Figure 8.2: Existing cross-section

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

4-25 and 12-20


X 750

600

12-12

8 @ 100 mm c/c
8 @ 100 mm c/c
75
75

350

75

500
Y

Figure 8.3: Retrofitted cross-section

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

Axial load (kN)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Moment (kN m)
Existing about Y-Y
Retrofitted about X-X

Existing about X-X


Demand about Y-Y

600

700

Demand about X-X


Retrofitted about Y-Y

Figure 8.4: Interaction curves for the existing and the retrofitted sections

700
600

Moment (kN m)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

Curvature (rad)
Exisiting

Retrofitted

Figure 8.5: Moment versus curvature curves for the


existing and the retrofitted sections

95

0.00012

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

It is observed that the increase in flexural strength can be substantial with a


concrete jacket. Along with the increase in strength and stiffness, the ductility is
retained in the section after retrofit. The additional stirrups are provided to meet
the shear demand.
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.


For a circular column
A sh = 0.09 S Dc

f ck Ag

1.0

fysp Ac

(8.1)

where,
Ash

total area of the bar cross sections of spiral or circular hoops

pitch of spiral or spacing of hoops

Dc

diameter of core measured to the outside of the spiral or hoop

fck

cube compressive strength of the concrete

fysp

yield strength of steel of hoop or spiral

Ag

gross area of the column cross section

Ac

area of the concrete core = Dc2/4.

For a rectangular column,


A sh = 0.18 S h

f ck Ag

1.0

fysp Ac

(8.2)

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

For a rectangular column,


f ' Ag Pu

Ash = S Dc K c
0.08

'
fysp Ac f Ag

(8.3)

Here,

f c/ = cylinder compressive strength 0.8 fck


k = 0.35 for a required curvature ductility of = 20
k = 0.25 for = 10. Other values can be calculated by interpolation or
extrapolation.
Pu = design load in the column.
The required amount of additional stirrups for confinement (Ash,add) can be
calculated as follows.
A sh,add = A sh - A sh,pro

(8.4)

Here, Ash,pro is the area of confining reinforcement provided in the existing


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 = Vc +Vs +Vj

(8.6)

The design capacity VuR is to be greater than the demand Vu .

VuR Vu

97

(8.7)

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)

The concrete contribution in a rectangular column is given as


Vc = c bd

(8.9)

where, the enhancement in shear capacity due to the axial load is given by the
factor .
3 Pu

= 0 +
0.5
Ag fck

(8.10)

The design shear stress of concrete (c) 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.
The steel contribution is as follows.
Vs = 0.87fy Asv

d
cot
sv

Here,
Asv

Cross sectional area of ties

sv

Spacing

fy

Yield stress of ties

Effective depth of section

Inclination of cracks to the column axis.

Usually is assumed to be 45. This means cot = 1.

98

(8.11)

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

The expression of Vj is similar to Vs. The additional steel tie or spiral contribution
is as follows.
Vj = 0.87fy Asv add

d
cot
sv

(8.12)

Here, Asv,add is the total area of the additional stirrups.


The expressions for circular ferrocement jackets consider the area of the wire
mesh.

Vj =

0.125 2 dw 2 fyj n D'


gw

(8.13)

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'

8.2.2

Core diameter of jacketed section.

Steel Jacketing

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

Figure 8.6: Steel jacketing (Seth, 2002)

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.
For rectangular columns, the recommended procedure is to use an oval jacket,
which provides a continuous confining action similar to that of a circular spiral.
The space between the jacket and columns is filled with concrete. For bridges,
rectangular columns so retrofitted have performed exceptionally well in flexure
and shear. Attempts to retrofit rectangular columns using rectangular jackets have
been less successful even when the jackets were extensively stiffened. This is
because the confining action of the rectangular jackets can only be developed as a
consequence of lateral bending of the jacket sides, which is a very flexible action
in comparison to the hoop tension action developed in an oval jacket. The steel
plates of a rectangular jacket need to be anchored to the column by means of shear

100

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

lugs or studs in order to enhance their effectiveness in providing confinement or in


the composite action.
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.
Analysis of Strengthened Columns
The required shear strength from the jacket (Vj) can be calculated as given for
columns strengthened with concrete jackets.

Regarding Vj, for rectangular

columns, Aboutaha et al. (1999) considered the jacket to act as a series of


independent square ties of thickness and spacing tsj, where tsj is the jacket
thickness.
Vj =Asj

fsj dsj
ssj

(8.14)

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 45 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.

8.2.3 Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Wrapping

Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is a composite material consisting of a matrix of


polymeric material reinforced with unidirectional or multi-directional fibres.
Fibres can be classified as glass fibre reinforced polymers (GFRP), carbon fibre
reinforced polymers (CFRP) and aramid fibre reinforced polymers (AFRP). Glass

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.
FRP jackets are used in the retrofitting of columns. There is no significant
increase in the size of the column. In addition to passive confinement, a degree of
active confinement is achieved by pressure grouting between the jacket and
column. The main drawback of FRP is the high cost. Unlike steel, FRP is a
brittle material, which must be accounted for in design. The performance of bond
between FRP sheets and concrete over a long period of time is yet to be
established. The other disadvantages are susceptibility of FRP to moisture and
chemicals, degradation of properties at high temperatures, as in the case of fire,
and the damage from ultraviolet light.
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

8.3

BEAM STRENGTHENING

Beam strengthening techniques include the following.


1. Concrete jacketing
2. Steel plating
3. Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping
4. Use of FRP bars
5. External Prestressing

8.3.1 Concrete Jacketing

Concrete jacketing is one of the traditional methods of retrofit. Jacketing can be


effectively used to retrofit common deficiencies in beams such as discontinuity of
bottom bars at the supports and to increase the shear capacity. Several options are
available for adding concrete (Figure 8.7).

Figure 8.7: Concrete jacketing (IS 13935: 1993)

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

effects of drying shrinkage must be considered as it induces tensile stress in the


new concrete. Instead of regular concrete, fibre reinforced concrete can be used
for retrofit.
For the proper confinement of concrete and formation of plastic hinges, it is
essential to provide stirrups at close intervals especially near the supports. This
involves drilling of holes in the slab or in the beam or in both, at fairly close
intervals. Drilling of holes in the beam may lead to micro-cracking and hence,
weakening of the beam.
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.
Analysis of Strengthened Beams
An example of a beam section deficient in flexure in an existing building and the
retrofitted section is presented. The existing section is 250600mm, with 4-16mm
diameter bars at the bottom and 4-16mm and 2-12mm diameter bars at the top,
near the support. The section is deficient both for the positive (sagging) and
negative moments, as shown in Table 8.1.

104

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

Table 8.1: Moment demands and capacities of example section

MuR+ (kN-m)

Mu+

MuR (kN-m)

Mu

kN-m

Existing

After
retrofit

kN-m

Existing

After
retrofit

253

152

267

261

194

267

Here, Mu represents the factored demand and MuR represents the ultimate
resistance (capacity). The size of the retrofitted section is 350650mm, with 316mm 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

Moment (kN-m)

250
200
150
100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

curvature x 10e-3 (1/m)


Existing

After retrofit

Figure 8.8: Moment versus curvature for positive moment

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.

8.3.2

Steel Plating

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.
The advantages of steel plating are the following (Barnes, 2001).
1. Increase in strength and stiffness.
2. Increase in serviceability (lower deflection and reduced crack width).
3. It is possible to strengthen the structure while in use.
4. Relatively small increase in the size and weight of the existing section.
5. Accessibility for inspection and maintenance.
The disadvantages of steel plating are
1. Corrosion of the external plate.
2. Transporting, handling and installing the plates.
3. Cost of the steel plates.
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

limited extent, flexural capacity. A combination of the above methods is also


done.
a. Tension-Face Plated Beams
Steel plates or sheets are attached to the tension face of beams to increase the
flexural strength.

Unlike concrete jackets, the plates are prone to premature

debonding. Failure in plated beams occurs due to the debonding of concrete


cover. There are four mechanisms of debonding of tension-face plated beams
(Oehlers and Moran, 1990).
1. Flexural peeling,
2. Shear peeling,
3. Reverse peeling and
4. Adhesive failure.
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.
Analysis of Tension-face Plated Beams
Near the location of plate cut-off, substantial normal stress (also termed as
peeling stress) and shear stress generate at the interface due to the sudden
change in the cross-section from plated to unplated. This cannot be predicted by
flexural theory. Roberts and Hazi-Kazemi (1989) explained this phenomenon by
theory of elasticity. Figure 8.9 shows a schematic representation of the stresses at
the location of plate cut-off.

RC Beam

Steel Plate
Shear Stress

Normal Stress

Shear Stress
Normal Stress

Tension

Distance along plate

Compression

Figure 8.9: Shear and normal stresses at location of plate cut-off

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
hp

hs

dc
dp

st

bp

pt

Strains

fst

Tst

fpt

Tpt

Stresses

Figure 8.10: Strains and stresses in a plated beam

109

Forces

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.

xu =

f st Ast + f pt b p d p
0.36 f ck b

(8.15)

The ultimate moment capacity (MuR) of the plated section is given by the
following expression.
M uR = 0.36 f ck b x u ( h s -0.416 x u ) + f pt b p d p ( d c + d p 2 )

(8.16)

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 st and pt. 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.
0 + 0 tan28D c all

(8.17)

0 = CR1 V0
Here, 0 and 0 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 0 is

C V
0 = 1 f t ' R1 ' 0
fc

110

5/4

(8.18)

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

where,
V0

- Shear force at the location of plate cut-off

- Empirical regression constant (1 = 35)

fc'

- Cylinder compressive strength

ft'

- Tensile strength of concrete.

CR1 is a constant given by the following expression.

K
s
CR1 = 1+

E p bp d p

1/2
* bp d p
(h p - x u )
a
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

The expression for the peak shear stress 0 is

0 = 2 CR2 0

(8.19)

CR2 is a constant given by the following expression.

CR2

Kn
= dp
4 E p Ip

1/4

where,
2

Empirical regression coefficient (2 = 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 230400mm 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.
Step 1: Flexural design.
A steel sheet of 150mm width and 1mm thickness is plated to the soffit of the
beam. Equating the compression and the tensile forces, xu = 55.3mm. The
positive moment capacity of the beam is 52.6kN-m.
Step 2: Interface stresses.
The properties of the adhesive used are given below.
Shear modulus of adhesive Ga

80N/mm2

Youngs modulus of adhesive Ea

250N/mm2

Allowable coefficient of shear cohesion call 2.6N/mm2


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
Icr = c
Ep

Ec

b x 3u
2
2
+ A s ( h s -x u ) + A p ( h p -x u )

500020 =

22,360N/mm2

Ep

200,000N/mm2

Area of tension steel Ast

340mm2

Effective depth hs

360mm

Area of steel sheet Ap = 1501

150mm2

112

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

Depth of steel sheet dp = 400+1/2

400.5mm

2
2
22.36 23055.3
Icr =
+ 340 ( 360-55.3) + 150 ( 400.5-55.3)

3
200
= 50.89106 mm 4

Moment of inertia of the steel sheet about its centroid is Ip.


Ip = 15013/12 =

12.5mm4

Thickness of the adhesive da

1mm

Shear stiffness of the adhesive

Ks = Ga(ba/da) = 80150/1 = 12,000N/mm2

Normal stiffness of the adhesive

Kn = Ea(ba/da) = 250150/1 = 37,500N/mm2

CR2

1/4

Kn
= dp
4 E p Ip

1/4

37500

= 1

420000012.5

= 0.2475

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

l - 2a

BMD
M0

M0

wl2/8
V0

wl/2
V0

wl/2
SFD

Figure 8.11: Bending moment and shear force diagrams

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
2
Moment at the point of curtailment M 0 = a = ( la-a )
2
2
2

The shear at the point of curtailment of the plates V0 =

a* =

wl l -2a w

= ( l -2a )
2 l
2

M0
la - a 2
=
V0
l - 2a

Using the expression for CR1, a* and V0,



Ks

CR1V0 = 1+

E b d
p p p

C V
Peak shear 0 = f R1 ' 0
fc

1/2

la-a 2 b p d p
w

(h p - x u )
( l -2a )

2
l -2a Icr ba

(8.20)

5/4

'
1 t


CR1V0 = 0 '
1 f t

4/5

(8.21)

f c'

fc' and ft' are the cylinder strength and tensile strength of concrete.
The expression for limiting the interface stresses is as follows.
0 + 0 tan 28o call and 0 = 2 CR2 0

Hence, the limiting case is 0 1+ 2 CR2 tan28o = call

0 =

call
1+ 2 CR2 tan28o

This expression for 0 can be substituted in equation (8.21).


expression is as follows.

114

The resulting

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

call

CR1V0 =
1+ 2 CR2 tan28o 1f t'

4/5

f c'

(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.
1/2

20,000
1501
4500a-a 2
1+

(400.5-55.28)


6
200,0001501 4500-2a 50.8910 150

20
2.6

( 4500-2a ) =
o

2
1+1.10.2812
tan28
353.13

4/5

( 0.820 )

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.
Step 3: Shear strength
Steel plating enhances the shear capacity of the section.

However, as a

conservative measure, the increase in shear capacity may be ignored. If the beam
does not possess sufficient shear capacity, side-face plating 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 2point loading, with plates terminated in regions of constant moment.

115

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

b. Side-Face Plated Beams


Steel plates are attached to the side face of a beam to increase the shear strength.
Here also there may be premature failure before reaching the intended strength.
The failure modes of side-face plated beams are as follows.
i.) Fracture of bolts
The bolts may fracture if the slip at the beamplate interface is large.
ii.) Buckling of Plates
The side-face plates may buckle under diagonal compression. Design rules were
developed for buckling of plates in both elastic and yielded states (Smith, 1999).
iii.) Splitting of concrete
The bolts can cause splitting of concrete due to bearing of the bolts against the
concrete.
Analysis of Side-face Plated Beams
Barnes et al. (2001) derived expressions for the enhancement of shear capacity of
side-face plated simply supported beams subjected to 2-point loading.

The

formulation is based on satisfying the equilibrium of forces and compatibility of


deformations in the shear span region of a beam.
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

Vd

- Shear force across the bottom reinforcement

xs

- Depth of the compression zone under the bearing plate

Z1, Z2 - Lever arm of the side-face plate and bond length function

- Angle of inclination of the cracked section, 30.

a'

da
d'

Vc

xs

Pc

Bolted Plate

db

Bonded Plate

Z2

O
Z1

db
St

bl
Vd

Pst

Pu / 2

Figure 8.12: Stress-distribution in a side-face plated beam

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.
Applying equilibrium to the inclined section, the following equations can be
derived.
1. Vertical equilibrium
Pu
= St cos + Vc + Vd
2

(8.23)

2. Horizontal equilibrium

Pc = St sin + Pst

117

(8.24)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

3. Moment equilibrium about hinge 'O'


d - xs
Pu a'
= Pc ( 0.5 x s ) + Pst ( d - x s ) + St Z1 + Vd

2
tan

(8.25)

For developing the displacement compatibility equations, the shear deformation of


the panel is related to the extension of the bottom bars. The strain in the bars due
to flexure is neglected.

Compatibility of deformation between the plate and

concrete is assumed up to shear failure.

Figure 8.13: Compatibility of panel deformations

The strain compatibility is shown in Figure 8.13 and is expressed as


st = pt cos

(8.26)

(An accurate expression of the transformation of strain is st = pt cos2 + pc sin2)


Here,
st

Strain in the tension bars, corresponding to deformation h

118

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

pt

Diagonal tensile strain in the plate corresponding to deformation t.

pc

Diagonal compressive strain in the plate.

In the above derivation, any deformation of the adhesive layers is neglected.


Expressing the strains in terms of forces, the compatibility equation can be written
as
Pst = St cos

A st E s
d -x
1 t p b s
sin

Ep

(8.27)

where,
Ep

Elastic modulus of the plate

tp

Total thickness of the plate

Factor to consider the parabolic strain distribution across the plate,


when it is not accounted for in the expression of St.

The value of St depends upon the relative capacities of the following.


1. The concrete-plate composite section at the tensile splitting of the concrete
2. Ultimate tensile capacity of the plate
3. Capacity at the tensile failure of the concrete at the adhesive-concrete
interface.
The thickness of the plates should be adequate to avoid Case 1.
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
sin

(8.28)

Here, N is the number of side-face plates. The value of 1 is equal to 0.67.


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
sin

(8.29)

where,
Z2 is the length of the bonded interface (Figure 8.12) and fct is the direct tensile
strength of concrete. Assuming = 45o, Z2 is equated to the lever arm Z1 = (db
xs)/sin. The value of 1 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

45o

xs

A
(bl + xs)

Vc

45o

v
h

Stress state at point A

Mohr's circle for stress at point A

Figure 8.14: Stress distribution beneath the point load

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 (2) is close to zero and the compressive principal stress
(1) is limited to fck.
Assuming 1 = fck and 2 = 0 in the Mohrs circle, the normal and shear stresses at
half the depth of the compression zone (0.5 xs) at ultimate can be calculated as
follows.

v =

( Pu 2 ) - Vc
b ( bl + x s )

h = f cu - v

2 = cos -1

(8.30)
(8.31)

h - v
f cu

f st
sin 2
2

(8.32)

The limiting value of the compression (Pc,max) is given as

Pc, max = h ( x s b ) + Asc ( f yc - h )

(8.33)

Here, any contribution from the plates is neglected. In calculating the limiting
value of the shear (Vc,max), a transformed concrete section is used.

Vc, max = ( b x s + Asc ( m -1) )

(8.34)

The effect of the compression bars on the shear capacity of the compression zone
can be neglected.

A nominal value of the dowel force across the tension

reinforcement (Vd) is given based on the transformed concrete section.

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.
To apply the above procedure to uniformly distributed loads and continuous
beams, the equilibrium equations need to be modified.

8.3.3 Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) plating

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).

8.3.4 Use of FRP bars

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.

8.3.5 External Prestressing

Post-tensioned reinforcement is used to increase flexural capacity or to replace


damaged prestressed strands. Prior to post-tensioning, any flexural cracks must be

122

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

epoxy grouted for uniform distribution of compression force. Post-tensioning


provides the ability to relieve overstressed conditions, reduce excessive deflection
and convert discontinuous members into continuous members.

8.4

BEAM-COLUMN JOINT STRENGTHENING

Under seismic excitation, the beam-column joint region is subject to horizontal


and vertical shear forces whose magnitudes are generally many times higher than
in the interior region of the beam or column. Hence, the joint should be carefully
detailed to meet the shear strength requirements. The following are the most
common methods of retrofit of joints.
1. Concrete jacketing
2. Concrete fillet
3. Steel jacketing
4. Steel plating
5. Fibre Reinforce Polymer (FRP) jacketing

8.4.1 Concrete Jacketing

Concrete jacketing is a common method of retrofitting a joint. Stoppenhagen et


al. (1995) strengthened the joints by placing horizontal ties through drilled holes
in the beam. Placement of such ties is difficult in existing buildings.

8.4.2 Concrete Fillet

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

8.4.3

Steel Jacketing

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.

8.4.4

Steel Plating

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.

8.4.5

FRP Jacketing

The bond-slip of the longitudinal reinforcement in a joint reduces the flexural


capacity. FRP sheets have been used to strengthen beam-column joints with
bond-slip as well as a replacement for inadequately anchored bars. In order to
prevent debonding of the fabric from concrete, mechanical anchors or FRP wraps
should be provided.

124

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

8.5

WALL STRENGTHENING

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.

Figure 8.15: Strengthening of a shear wall using concrete (Seth, 2002)

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.

8.6

FOOTING STRENGTHENING

Figure 8.16: Strengthening of a footing (Basu, 2002)

The following measures may be effective in the rehabilitation of shallow footings.


1. New isolated or spread footings may be added to existing structures to
support new structural elements such as shear walls or frames.
2. Existing spread footings may be enlarged to increase the capacity as
shown in Figure 8.16.
3. Existing spread footings may be underpinned to increase bearing or uplift
capacity. Underpinning improves bearing capacity by lowering the depth
of the footing.
4. Uplift capacity may be improved by increasing the resisting soil mass
above the footing or by using anchor piles.

126

Chapter VIII Local Retrofit Strategies

5. Providing interconnection with grade beams, RC grade slab or ties helps to


mitigate differential lateral displacement of the footings.
The design of the strengthening of the footing is based on the conventional
analysis of footings.

127

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER IX
CASE STUDY I

9.1

BUILDING DESCRIPTION

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.
9.1.1 Data collection and condition assessment of building
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.
Table 9.1(a): Building survey data sheet - General data
S.No.
1

Description

Information

Address of the building

CS1
Ahmedabad
Gujarat

Name of the building


Plot number
Locality/Town ship
District
State

129

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Name of owner

Name of builder

Name of Architect/Engineer

Name of Structural Engineer

Use of building

Residential

Number of storeys above


ground level

Number of basements below


ground level
Type of structure

Load bearing wall


RC frame
RC frame and shear wall
Steel frame

RC frame

10

Soil data
Medium

Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
11

(assumed)

Dead loads (unit weight adopted)


Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials

12

20kN/m3
1kN/m2

Imposed (live)loads
2 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2

Floor loads
Roof loads
13

Cyclone/Wind
-

Speed
Design pressure intensity
14

History of past earthquakes and tremors

15

Seismic zone

III

16

Importance factor, I

17

Seismic zone factor, Z

0.16

18

Response reduction factor, R

130

Chapter IX Case Study I

19

Fundamental natural period, T

Table 9.6

20

Design Horizontal acceleration spectrum value (Ah)

Table 9.6

21

Seismic designed lateral force (percentage of weight 6.7%


of building)

22

Expansion/ Separation joints

Table 9.1(b): Building survey data sheet - Building data (moment resisting frame)
S.No.
1

Description

Information

Number of basements

Regular
frames
-

Number of floors

Horizontal floor system


Beams and slabs
Waffle slab
Ribbed floor
Flat slab with drops
Flat plate without drops
Soil data
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
Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
Independent
Interconnected
Raft
Piles
System of interconnecting foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams

Type of building

131

Beams
slabs

and

Medium
Independent
footings

1.5m
Independent

Plinth beams

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

Grades of concrete used


Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along the height of
building
The columns of soft ground storey specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
Ductile detailing of RC frame
Type of reinforcement used
Minimum dimension of beams
Minimum dimension of columns
Minimum percentage of reinforcement of
beams at any cross section
Spacing of transverse reinforcement at any
section of beam
Spacing of transverse reinforcement in 2d
length of beam near the ends
Ratio of capacity of beams in shear to
capacity of beams in flexure

Maximum percentage of reinforcement in


column
Confining stirrups near ends of columns and
in beam-column joints
Diameter
Spacing
Ratio of shear capacity of columns to
maximum seismic shear in the storey
Column bar splices location and spacing of
hoops in the splice
Beam bar splices location and spacing of
hoops in the splice

132

M20
2960kN
939kN
3.15
Parabolic
No
40mm
30mm
25mm
15mm
Fe 415
230mm
230mm
0.26%
200mm
100mm
less than 1 in
many sections
1.2%
-

Section 9.2.2
-

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 Structural system and members

9.1.2.1

Foundation

The foundation system is isolated footing. Depth of the foundation is 1.5m from
ground level.

9.1.2.2

Structural system

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.
Table 9.2: Details of slabs at typical floor level
Slab Thickness
Mark
(mm)
S1
115
S2
115
S3
120
S4
115
S5
120
S6
120

Reinforcement (mm)
Short Span
Long Span
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 125 c/c
Y8 @ 125 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 175 c/c
Y8 @ 175 c/c

Remarks
One Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way

Table 9.3: Details of column reinforcements


Longitudinal
Reinforcement
(mm)

Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)

8Y12

2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c

C1

Size (mm) Width Depth


Above
Below
Plinth
Plinth
230 450
300 533

C2

230 533

300 610

4Y16 + 4Y12

2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c

C3

230 533

300 610

8Y16

2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c

C4

230 610

300 686

4Y20 + 4Y16

2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c

C5

230 610

300 686

6Y20 + 4Y16

3 LGD 6 @ 150c/c

Column
ID

134

Chapter IX Case Study I

C6

230 610

300 686

12Y20

3 LGD Y8 @ 250c/c

C7

230 685

300 762

14Y20

3 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

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.
Table 9.4: Details of beam reinforcements
Longitudinal Reinforcement at
Transverse
support (mm2)
Reinforcement
(mm)
Top
Bottom

Beam
Section

Size (mm)
Width
Depth

B6

230 457

703.7

339.3

B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B15
B16
B17
B19
B21
B22
B25
B26
B27
B35

230 457
230 457
230 457
230 457
230 457
230 230
230 457
115 571
230 381
230 457
230 495
230 381
230 267
230 381
230 381

414.0
502.0
615.5
816.0
615.8
502.0
703.7
100.5
414.5
753.0
502.5
515.0
615.5
615.0
414.0

306.0
402.0
603.2
515.2
100.5
226.0
339.3
100.5
339.3
716.3
339.0
515.0
402.0
314.0
339.0

135

Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@150c/c

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Figure 9 2: Slab section layout of typical floor level.


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

Figure 9.4: Beam section layout of typical floor level.


138

Chapter IX Case Study I

Figure 9.5: Beam element layout of typical floor level.


(N indicates the story level e.g. 3B46 element indicates third floor level)
139

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Figure 9.6: Lateral load resisting frames along X-direction.


140

Chapter IX Case Study I

Figure 9.7: Lateral load resisting frames along Y-direction.


141

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

9.2

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

The preliminary evaluation was done as per the method in Chapter 2.


9.2.1 Rapid Visual Screening
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.
Table 9.5: Rapid Visual Screening data collection
Region of
Seismicity
Building Type
Basic Score
Mid rise
High rise
Vertical
irregularity

Plan irregularity
Pre-code
Post-benchmark
Soil Type I
Soil Type II
Soil Type III
Final Score
Comments

High Seismicity
(Zone V)
URM
MRF SW
INF
2.5
2.8
1.6
+0.4 +0.4 +0.2
+0.6 +0.8 +0.3

Moderate Seismicity
(Zone IV)
URM
MRF SW
INF
3.6
3.0
3.2
+0.2 +0.4 +0.2
+0.5 +0.8 +0.4

-1.5

-1.0

-1.0

-2.0

-0.5
-1.2
+1.4
-0.4
-0.6
-1.2

-0.5
-1.0
+2.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

-0.5
-0.2
N/A
-0.4
-0.4
-0.8

-2.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5


-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
-1.0 -0.4 -1.0 N/A N/A N/A
+1.2 +1.6 N/A +0.6 +0.4 N/A
-0.6 -0.8 -0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.4
-1.4 -0.8 -0.8
-1.0 -1.2 -1.0
-1.6 -1.6 -1.6
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-0.5
-0.4
Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0, so detailed
analysis required

9.2.2 Quick Checks for strength and stiffness

9.2.2.1

-2.0

Low Seismicity
(Zone II & Zone III)
URM
MRF SW
INF
4.4
4.8
4.4
+0.4 -0.2 -0.4
+1.0 0.0
-0.4

Column Shear

The calculation details are given in the Table 9.6.

142

Chapter IX Case Study I

Table 9.6: Average column shear stress


Floor No

nf

nc

Ac (m2)

Vj (kN)

avg(MPa)

Remarks

B
G
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

6.27
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24

1685
1685
1669
1614
1494
1289
979
540

0.344
0.509
0.504
0.487
0.451
0.389
0.296
0.163

< 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4

9.2.2.2

Shear stress in shear wall

Not applicable to this building.

9.2.2.3

Axial Stress in Column

The details are given in the Table 9.7.


Table 9.7 Details of axial stress in column

X dir
Y dir

Left
Right
Left
Right

Vb(kN)

nf

h(m)

L(m)

P(kN)

Axial
stress

1685
1275
1685
1392

6
4
5
5

23.55
23.55
23.55
23.55

14.25
10.64
17.78
17.78

290
441
279
230

2.37
3.60
2.28
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.

9.2.2.4

Frame Drift

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. 1.310-5 for ground storey and

143

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

1.1510-6 for first storey. The limiting value of DR is 0.015. Hence, the storey
drifts are within the limit.

9.2.2.5

Strong column weak beam

In the strong direction of the columns (about major axis)


Moment capacities of the columns = 496 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 135 kNm.
In the weak direction of the columns (about minor axis)
Moment capacities of the columns = 196 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 216 kNm.
The strong column and weak beam criteria is satisfied in the strong direction, but
not in the weak direction.
9.2.3 Evaluation statements

Table 9.8: Evaluation statements


Building system

C / NC / NA
C

Load path:

NA

Adjacent buildings:

Mezzanines:

NA

No deterioration of concrete:
Vertical irregularities

C / NC / NA
C

No weak storey:

NC

No soft storey:

No mass irregularity:

NC

No vertical geometric irregularity:

No vertical discontinuities:
Plan Irregularities

144

C / NC / NA

Chapter IX Case Study I

No Torsion irregularity:

NC

No diaphragm discontinuity:

NC

No re-entrant corners:

NC

No out of plane offsets:

No non-parallel system:

Moment resisting frames

C / NC / NA

Redundancy:

No interfering wall:

C
NC

Shearing stress check:


Axial stress check:

Drift check:

No short captive columns:

No shear failures:

NC

Strong column-weak beam:

NC

Column bar splices:

NA

Column tie spacing:

NA
C

Beam bars:
Beam bar splices:

NA

Stirrup spacing:

NC

Bent-up bars:

NC

Joint reinforcing:

NC

Deflection compatibility:

No flat slab frames:

Prestressed frame elements:

Diaphragm reinforcement:

C
Shear walls

C / NC / NA

Shearing stress check:

NA

Reinforcing steel:

NA

145

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Coupling beams:

NA

Diaphragm openings at shear walls:

NA

Connections

C / NC / NA
C

Column connection:
Wall connection:

NA

Transfer to shear walls:

NA

Lateral load at pile caps:

NA

Geologic site hazards

C / NC / NA

No Liquefaction:

NA

No slope failure:

NA

No surface fault rupture:

NA
Foundations

C / NC / NA
C

Foundation performance:
Deterioration:

NA

Overturning:

C
NA

Ties between foundation elements:

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

9.3

EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS

The building modelled and analysed as per the guidelines given in Chapter 3.
9.3.1 Material Properties
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9: Materials properties
Material
Concrete (M 20)
Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415)
Brick infill

Characteristic Strength
(MPa)
20
415
1.65

Modulus of Elasticity
(MPa)
22360
2 105
1237.5

Figure 9.8: 3D computer model of the structure.

147

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

9.3.2

Structural Element Model

9.3.2.1

Infill Walls

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.
Table 9.10: Strut parameters
Strut

9.3.3

Equivalent Thickness Strength Yield Deformation


Width (m)
(m)
(kN)
(mm)

S1

1.42

0.230

358

2.90

S2

1.21

0.230

435

4.98

S3

1.49

0.115

215

3.35

S4

1.31

0.230

353

2.99

S5

1.54

0.230

443

3.31

S6

1.54

0.230

457

4.25

S7

1.29

0.115

267

5.78

S8

1.48

0.115

213

4.15

S9

0.93

0.230

348

4.07

S10

1.11

0.115

173

2.99

S11

1.12

0.230

324

3.03

S12

1.09

0.230

318

3.06

S13

1.09

0.230

318

3.28

S14

1.36

0.230

348

2.98

Modelling of column ends at foundation

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 soilstructure interaction was ignored in the analyses.

148

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Figure 9: Location of infill walls


149

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

9.3.4 Design centres of mass


Since there is a discontinuity of the diaphragm in the building, two separate
diaphragms were considered at every floor level. Tables 9.11 and 9.12 give the
centres of masses and rigidity of the building for the equivalent static method.
Table 9.13 and Table 9.14 give the values for the response spectrum method.
edi1

= 1.5esi + 0.05b
= esi + 0.05b
= esi 0.05b

edi2

(for the equivalent static method)


(for the response spectrum method)
(for both the methods)

Table 9.11: Centres of mass and rigidity for the equivalent static method
(Without infill stiffness)
Floor

CM
X

CR
Y

esi
Y

edi1

edi2
X

DCM

0.00
0.00
0.00

1.12
1.10
3.29

0.90
0.90
0.90

-0.57 -0.90 8.56 9.21


-0.58 -0.90 8.59 9.21
0.88 -0.90 6.92 9.21

0.00
0.00
0.00

4.12
4.09
3.98

0.90
0.90
0.90

1.68
1.66
1.59

Left
9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21
10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67
7

Right
25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30
25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23
7

-0.90 29.40 9.21


-0.90 29.35 9.21
-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
X

CS
Y

esi
Y

edi1

edi2
X

DCM

0.00
0.00
0.00

1.41
3.05
4.91

0.90
0.90
0.90

-0.37 -0.90 8.68 9.21


0.72 -0.90 8.15 9.21
1.96 -0.90 8.05 9.21

0.31
0.00
0.00

1.81
3.64
4.39

1.37
0.90
0.90

0.14
1.36
1.86

Left
9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51
10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75
7

Right
25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00
25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50
7

150

-0.59 26.31 11.17


-0.90 26.90 9.21
-0.90 27.08 9.21

Chapter IX Case Study I

Table 9.13: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Floor

CM
X

CS
Y

edi1

esi
Y

edi2
X

DCM

0.00
0.00
0.00

1.01
1.00
2.46

0.90
0.90
0.90

-0.57 -0.90 8.89 9.21


-0.58 -0.90 8.90 9.21
0.88 -0.90 9.42 9.21

0.00
0.00
0.00

2.96
2.94
2.87

0.90
0.90
0.90

1.68
1.66
1.59

Left
9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21
10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67
7

Right
25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30
25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23
7

-0.90 25.92 9.21


-0.90 25.90 9.21
-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
X

CS
Y

esi
Y

edi1

edi2
X

DCM

0.00
0.00
0.00

1.20
2.30
3.54

0.90
0.90
0.90

-0.37 -0.90 8.89 9.21


0.72 -0.90 8.90 9.21
1.96 -0.90 9.42 9.21

0.31
0.00
0.00

1.42
2.64
3.14

1.21
0.90
0.90

0.14
1.36
1.86

Left
9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51
10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75
7

Right
25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00
25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50
7

-0.59 25.92 11.0


-0.90 25.90 9.21
-0.90 25.83 9.21

9.3.5 Equivalent static analysis


9.3.5.1

Design Base Shear

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 Xdirection is shown in the Table 9.16. (Base shear is 1685kN)

151

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 9.15: Details of calculations for base shear of the building


Width of Time
Building Period
('d' in m)
(s)
Without Infill
Stiffness

With
Infill
Stiffness

Left

Right

Sa/g

ah

Base
Weight
Shear
(kN)
(kN)

X dir

N/A

0.80

1.70

0.045

25271

1143

Y dir

N/A

0.80

1.70

0.045

20876

944

X dir

15.78

0.53

2.50

0.067

25271

1685

Y dir

17.78

0.50

2.50

0.067

25271

1685

X dir

12.74

0.59

2.29

0.061

20876

1275

Y dir

17.78

0.50

2.50

0.067

20876

1392

Table 9.16: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Floor No.
Water tank
6
5
4
3
2
1
G

9.3.6

Seismic Weight, Wi
(kN)

Height, hi
(m)

Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)

422

23.55

84

2767

21.45

457

3592

18.45

438

3626

15.45

310

3691

12.45

205

3720

9.45

119

3716

6.45

55

3737

3.45

16

Response spectrum analysis

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 9.17: Comparison of fundamental time periods
IS 1893: 2002
Without Infill
Stiffness

With
Infill
Stiffness

X dir
Y dir

Computational model

T (s)

Sa/g

T (s)

Sa/g

X dir

0.80

1.70

1.64

0.82

Y dir

0.80

1.70

1.52

0.89

Left

0.53

2.50

Right

0.50

2.50

Left

0.59

2.29

1.23

1.10

Right

0.50

2.50

Table 9.18: Time periods and mass participation factors for the first five modes
Mode
1
2
3
4
5

Without infill stiffness


Mass Participation (%)
T (s)
ux
uy

With infill stiffness


Mass Participation (%)
T (s)
ux
uy

1.64

86.74

0.03

1.23

7.94

31.39

1.52

0.07

89.95

1.14

39.62

47.87

1.30

1.87

0.44

1.09

46.36

16.59

0.54

8.59

0.00

0.39

0.24

1.66

0.49

0.01

6.99

0.35

5.23

0.24

97.28

97.41

99.39

97.75

Total

Table 9.19: Comparison of base shear


Without infill stiffness
Vx (kN)
Vy (kN)

With infill stiffness


Vx (kN)
Vy (kN)

Equivalent Static

(V )

2086

2086

2960

3077

(VB )

913

1013

939

862

VB / VB

2.28

2.06

3.15

3.57

Response Spectrum

153

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

a /g)

IS 1893 (Without infill stiffness)


IS 1893 (With infill stiffness)

2.5

Computaional (w ithout inf ill stiffness)

Spectral accelaration ( S

Computational (w ith inf ill stiffness)

1.5

0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time period (s)

Figure 9.10: Comparison of time periods of the building models

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)
9.3.7 Evaluation results
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)
Percentage
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m)
DCR
Sl.
of deficient
Section
No.
M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) elements
1

B3

-54

15

-50

0.93

0.30

B6

-50

60

-260

214

5.20

3.57

74

B7

-60

45

-201

176

3.34

3.90

67

157

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

B8

-73

59

-237

166

3.25

2.82

83

B9

-89

87

-292

114

3.28

1.31

77

B10

-116

75

-301

164

2.59

2.19

73

B11

-82

25

-258

166

3.14

6.66

100

B15

-30

15

-78

52

2.58

3.50

78

B16

-96

49

-87

25

0.90

0.51

10

B17

-19

19

-91

68

4.80

3.60

75

11

B19

-49

40

-207

80

4.23

2.00

78

12

B21

-109

103

-244

148

2.24

1.44

100

13

B22

-79

54

-331

194

4.18

3.59

72

14

B25

-60

60

-148

52

2.47

0.87

60

15

B26

-46

31

-114

55

2.48

1.77

81

16

B27

-70

37

-194

84

2.77

2.28

55

17

B35

-49

40

-157

59

3.21

1.48

64

Table 9.21: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (with infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m)
Sl
Section
No.
M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve)

(+ve)

(-ve)

Percentage
of deficient
elements

DCR

B3

-54

15

-79

1.45

0.48

21

B6

-50

60

-486

378

9.71

6.31

93

B7

-60

45

-271

104

4.52

2.30

88

B8

-73

59

-332

296

4.55

5.02

95

B9

-89

87

-446

207

5.01

2.38

99

B10

-116

75

-411

243

3.54

3.24

88

B11

-82

25

-382

311

4.66

12.42

100

B15

-30

15

-132

75

4.40

5.00

89

B16

-96

49

-136

21

1.41

0.44

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

Table 9.22: Evaluation results for shear in beams


Sl.
Capacity
Section
No.
(kN-m)

Demand (kN-m)

from
Flexure
Capacity WOIS WIS WOIS WIS

Analysis
WoIS

WIS

Percentage of
deficient
elements

DCR

B6

68

246

428

112

3.62

6.30

43

48

B9

68

187

257

132

2.75

3.78

62

78

B10

54

98

146

131

2.43

2.71

73

85

B11

68

96

129

99

1.46

1.89

12

15

B12

54

48

93

55

1.02

1.72

B15

45

207

257

52

4.61

5.71

19

24

B17

25

223

325

21

8.94

12.99

34

43

B19

54

132

161

84

2.45

2.98

46

56

B22

54

144

164

111

2.66

3.04

44

52

10

B25

54

119

89

86

2.20

1.65

43

41

11

B27

54

178

246

94

3.29

4.56

21

38

12

B35

45

264

457

94

5.88

10.15

32

43

Table 9.23: Evaluation results for flexure in columns


Sl. No.

Percentage of
deficient elements
WOIS
WIS

DCR

Section

WOIS

WIS

CC1

4.10

6.35

83

88

CC3

3.71

5.97

73

81

CC4

5.32

6.72

72

71

CC5

3.74

6.77

73

72

C1

3.58

5.82

67

85

C2

4.77

8.91

64

59

C3

4.34

9.44

66

67

C4

5.31

10.32

69

90

C5

3.23

8.74

71

83

10

C6

3.70

9.03

54

62

11

C7

3.94

9.60

56

65

Table 9.24: Evaluation results for shear in columns


Sl.
No.

Section

CC1

Capacity
(kN)

DCR

V2

V3

WOIS
V2
V3

136

72

0.50

159

0.60

WIS
V2
V3
0.71

1.49

Percentage of
deficient elements

WOIS

WIS

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CC3

166

79

0.69

0.63

0.86

1.17

CC4

194

85

1.05

1.77

1.09

2.65

15

CC5

198

89

0.68

0.79

1.01

1.08

C1

71

136

0.55

0.49

0.65

0.71

0
0

6
0

C2

77

163

0.89

0.50

0.83

1.10

C3

79

167

0.75

0.71

0.90

1.33

C4

85

194

0.54

0.72

1.05

1.34

C5

88

199

0.88

0.52

0.93

1.31

10

C6

92

202

0.59

0.67

0.85

1.57

11

C7

98

230

0.77

0.64

2.08

1.35

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

8
7

Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Displacement

Figure 9.12(a): Displacements along X-direction

8
7

Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Displacement

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.12(b): Displacements along Y-direction

161

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

7
6

Storey Level

5
4
3
2
1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Inter Storey Drift (%)

Figure 9.13(a): Inter storey drift along X-direction of building

7
6

Storey Level

5
4
3
2
1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Inter Storey Drift (%)

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.13(b): Inter storey drift along Y-direction of building

162

Chapter IX Case Study I

9.4

EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

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.
9.4.1

Pushover curves

Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Ydirections 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

Base Shear (kN)

2500

VB
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

9.4.2 Capacity spectrum, demand spectrum and performance point


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
for the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in Figures 9.16
and 9.17. Many equivalent struts in the first and second storeys failed before the
formation of the mechanism.
9.4.3 Displacements and inter storey drifts
The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 9.18 and 9.19. The inter
storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in Figures 9.20
and 9.21.

4000
3500

VB

Base Shear (kN)

3000
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

9
8
7
Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Displacement

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.18: Displacement along X-direction.

9
8
7
Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Displacement

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.19: Displacement along Y-direction.

166

Chapter IX Case Study I

Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Inter Storey Drift (%)

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.20: Inter storey drifts for the building in X-direction.

Storey Level

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Inter Storey Drift (%)

Without Infill Stiffness

With Infill Stiffness

Figure 9.21: Inter storey drifts for the building in Y-direction.

167

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

9.4.4

Vulnerability Index

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.
9.4.5 Summary of the results

(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.

(ii)

Building is not satisfying drift requirements under design lateral


force.

(iii)

Inter storey drifts in ground storey is high in both linear and nonlinear 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 nonbuckling 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%.
To achieve a performance point, the required number of braces is high. Also,
introduction of the braces in the ground storey reduces the functionality of the
space. The proposed retrofit scheme is for illustration of the change in behaviour
of the structure. The pushover curves in both X- and Y- directions are shown in
Figure 9.22. The base shear capacity of the building has increased after the

7000

8000

6000

7000

5000

B ase Sh ear (kN )

B ase Sh ear (kN)

retrofitting with braces.

4000
3000

VB

2000
1000
0
0.00

6000
5000
4000
3000

VB

2000
1000

0.05

0.10

0.15

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

Roof dis place m e nt (m )

Roof dis place m e nt (m )

X - Direction

Y - Direction

Figure 22: Pushover curve along X and Y direction.

169

0.15

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

A
D
B

Figure. 25: Location of non-buckling braces at first storey level


(Braces are shown by dotted lines are additional braces in Ground storey)

172

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER X
CASE STUDY II

10.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone V. The
deficiency due to open ground storey is highlighted.

A retrofit scheme with

addition of infill walls and concrete jacketing is illustrated.

10.2

DATA COLLECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

BUILDING
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

Figure 10.1: Typical floor plan of the building

Table 10.1: Building survey data sheet: General data


S.No

Description

Information

Notes

.
1

Address of the building

Name of the building


Plot number
Locality/Town ship
District
State

CS2
Guwahati
Assam

Name of owner

Name of builder

Name of Architect/Engineer

Name of Structural Engineer

Use of building

Residential

Number of storeys above


ground level
Number of basements below
ground level
Type of structure

10

Soil data

Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity

174

0
RC frame
Medium
Not Available

(Assumed)

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data


S.No. Description

Information

Notes

11

Dead loads (unit weight adopted)

12

Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live)loads

13

Floor loads
Roof loads
Cyclone/Wind

2 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2

15

Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors
Seismic zone

Earthquake
Prone Area
V

IS 1893: 2002

16

Importance factor, I

1.0

IS 1893: 2002

17

Seismic zone factor, Z

0.36

IS 1893: 2002

18

Response reduction factor, R

3.0

IS 1893: 2002

19

Fundamental natural period, T

0.38 s

IS 1893: 2002

20
21

Design Horizontal acceleration 0.15


spectrum value (Ah)
Seismic design lateral force
2878 kN

22

Expansion/ Separation joints

14

10 kN/m3
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
18 kN/m3

IS: 875 Part 1

IS: 875 Part 2

IS 1893: 2002

Table 10.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description

Information

Type of building

Number of basements

Regular
frames with
open ground
storey

Number of floors

Horizontal floor system

Beams
slabs

175

and

Notes

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
5

8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

Information

Soil data
Type of soil
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
Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
Ductile detailing of RC frame

176

Notes

Medium
(assumed)

0.7 m
Pile
No interconnection

Groups of
multiple pile

M15

IS 1893: 2002
2878 kN
1768 kN
1.63
Parabolic

IS 1893: 2002

IS 1893: 2002

Not Available

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16

Information

Ductile detailing of RC frame


Type of reinforcement used
Minimum dimension of
beams
Minimum dimension of
columns
Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length
of beam near the ends
Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
Maximum percentage of
reinforcement in column
Confining stirrups near ends
of columns and in beamcolumn joints
Diameter
Spacing
Ratio of shear capacity of
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey
Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
Beam bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice

177

Fe 415
150 500
400 450
1.072
100 mm c/c
75 mm c/c

1.77

6 mm
100 mm
1.04

Not Available
Not Available

Notes

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.3

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MEMBERS

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.

nB1
nB5

nB12

nB4

nB12

nB3

nB10
nB8

nB13

nB13

nB6

nB5

nB5
nB13

nB6
nB12

nB11

nB15
nB9
nB7

nB5

nB5

nB5

nB5

nB7

nB10

nB8

nB10

nB5

nB5

nB4

nB9

nB1

nB5

nB15

nB5

nB5

nB5

nB5

nB2

nB11

nB10

nB1

nB6

nB12
nB1

Figure 10.2: Floor (all floors other than top floor) framing plan Beam location
(Prefix n represents floor number)

10.3.2 Structural system


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.

5B12

5B11

5B15

5B5

5B10

5B5
5B5

5B10

5B7
5B13

5B4

5B12

5B10

5B5
5B3

5B8

5B5

5B6
5B13

5B10

5B13

5B5

5B8

5B9

5B5

5B7

5B9
5B10

5B5

5B4
5B5

5B11

5B15

5B5

5B5

5B10

5B2

5B5

5B1

5B1

Figure 10.3: Roof floor framing plan Beam location (Roof)

nC25

nC24

nC23

nC22
nC20

nC18

nC16

nC9

nC1

nC2

nC17

nC13

nC12
nC8

nC21

nC19

nC15

nC14

nC28

nC27

nC26

nC6
nC3

nC7

nC10
nC4

nC11
nC5

Figure 10.4: Column location (Prefix n represents floor number)

179

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 10.3: Details of beam sections at column faces


Beam
Number
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19

Size (mm)
150 500
300 500
200 450
250 500
250 500
150 500
300 500
250 500
250 500
150 500
250 450
250 500
250 500
300 500
300 500
300 500
200 450
250 500
300 500

Longitudinal Reinforcement
Top
Bottom
2Y20
2Y20
6Y20, 1Y16
4Y20
6Y20
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
4Y20
4Y16
2Y16
2Y16
2Y16
6Y20
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
3Y20
2Y16
3Y16
3Y16
4Y16
6Y20
2Y20
4Y20
2Y20
7Y20
3Y20
6Y20
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
3Y20

Transverse
Reinforcement
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c

Table 10.4: Details of column sections at the beam faces


Column Number

Size (mm)

Longitudinal
Reinforcement

Transverse
Reinforcement

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11

400 450
400 450
400 450
400 500
400 500
400 500
400 450
400 450
400 500
400 500
400 500

8Y20
6Y20, 2Y16
4Y20, 4Y16
8Y20
6Y20, 2Y16
4Y20, 4Y16
10Y20
8Y20, 2Y16
10Y20, 2Y16
10Y20
8Y20, 2Y16

6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c

180

Chapter X Case Study II

400 mm

4Y16

2Y16
C1

C2

4Y16

2Y16
C4

C5

C6
400 mm

400 mm

450 mm

500 mm

400 mm

450 mm

400 mm

500 mm

500 mm

500 mm

C3

400 mm

400 mm

2Y16
C7

C8

2Y16
C9

400 mm

400 mm

500 mm

500 mm

400 mm

450 mm

450 mm

450 mm

400 mm

C10

2Y16

C11

Figure 10.5: Reinforcement details of the columns at the beam faces


(Bar diameter is 20 mm if not mentioned)

181

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.4

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

The preliminary evaluation was done as per Chapter 2.

10.4.1 Rapid Visual Screening


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.

Table 10.5: Rapid visual screening data


Region of
Seismicity

High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score

2.5

2.8

1.6

3.0

3.6

3.2

4.4

4.8

4.4

Mid rise +0.4

+0.4

+0.2

+0.2

+0.4

+0.2

+0.4

-0.2

-0.4

High rise

+0.8

+0.3

+0.5

+0.8

+0.4

+1.0

0.0

-0.4

-1.0

-1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

+0.6

Vertical
-1.5
irregularity
Plan
-0.5
irregularity
Pre-code

-1.2

-1.0

-0.2

-1.0

-0.4

-1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

Postbenchmark

+1.4

+2.4

N/A

+1.2

+1.6

N/A

+0.6

+0.4

N/A

Soil Type I

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.4

Soil Type II -0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-1.0

-1.2

-1.0

-1.4

-0.8

-0.8

Soil Type III

-1.2

-0.8

-0.8

-1.6

-1.6

-1.6

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

Final Score

0.8

Comments

0.4
Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0

182

Chapter X Case Study II

10.4.2 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness


The fundamental periods of the building are Tax = 0.28s. and Tay = 0.36s. The

spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) corresponding to each of the periods is 2.5.


For a building is in Zone V, Z = 0.36. For an ordinary moment resisting frame, R
= 3.
Horizontal seismic co-efficient, Ah =

ZIS a 0.36 1.0 2.5


=
= 0.15 .
2 Rg
23

For residential building, I = 1.0.


Design seismic base shear, VB = AhW.
W = 19190 kN (calculated later)
Therefore, VB = 0.1519190 kN 2878 kN.
Table 10.6 shows the distribution of the base shear over the height of the building.

Table 10.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building

Floor No
1
2
3
4
5
10.4.2.1

Seismic Weight,
Wi
(kN)
4250
4110
4110
4110
2610

Height, hi
(m)

Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)

3
6
9
12
15

65
251
564
1003
995

Column Shear

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 Ydirections 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

Table 10.7: Average column shear stress in X-direction

Floor No

nf

nc

Ac (m2)

V j (kN)

vavg (MPa)

Remarks

1
2
3
4
5

9
9
9
9
9

24
24
24
24
24

4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6

2878
2813
2562
1998
995

1.00
0.98
0.89
0.69
0.35

> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
< 0.4

Table 10.8: Average column shear stress in Y-direction

Floor No

nf

nc

Ac (m2)

V j (kN)

vavg (MPa)

Remarks

1
2
3
4
5

8
8
8
8
8

18
18
18
18
18

3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48

2878
2813
2562
1998
995

1.49
1.46
1.33
1.03
0.51

> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4

Figure 10.6: Lateral load resisting frames along X-direction

184

Chapter X Case Study II

Figure 10.7: Lateral load resisting frames along Y-direction

10.4.2.2

Shear Stress in Shear Wall

Not applicable for this building.


10.4.2.3

Axial Stress in Column

Details of the column axial stress calculation are given in Table 10.9.

The

allowable axial stress in column is 0.24 fck = 0.2415 MPa = 3.6 MPa.
Table 10.9 Details of axial stress in column

Vb(kN)

nf

h (m)

L (m)

P (kN)

Axial stress

X-direction.

2878

15

5.92

506.4

2.81 MPa

Y-direction.

2878

15

3.60

936.8

4.68 MPa

The column axial stress is more than the allowable stress when the load is in Ydirection.

185

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.4.2.4

Frame Drift

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.
Table 10.10: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction

Storey
1
2
3
4
5

Storey Height (m)


3
3
3
3
3

Vc (kN)
200
196
178
138
70

DR
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.011
0.006

Table 10.11: Frame Drift Ratio along Y-direction

Storey
1
2
3
4
5

10.4.2.4

Storey Height (m)


3
3
3
3
3

Vc (kN)
298
292
266
206
102

Strong column Weak beam

In the strong direction of the columns (about major axis)


Moment capacities of the columns = 484 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 536 kNm.
In the weak direction of the columns (about minor axis)
Moment capacities of the columns = 328 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 408 kNm.
The strong column and weak beam criteria is not satisfied.

186

DR
0.022
0.021
0.019
0.015
0.007

Chapter X Case Study II

10.4.3 Evaluation Statements

The evaluation statements are presented in Table 10.12. A number of statements


are non-compliant because of the presence of open ground storey and poor
reinforcement detailing.

Table 10.12: Evaluation statements

Building system

C / NC / NA

Load path:

Adjacent buildings:

Mezzanines:

No deterioration of concrete:

Vertical irregularities
No weak storey:

NC

No soft storey:

NC

No mass irregularity:

No vertical geometric irregularity:

No vertical discontinuities:

Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity:

No diaphragm discontinuity:

No re-entrant corners:

No out of plane offsets:

No non-parallel system:

Moment resisting frames


Redundancy:

NC

No interfering wall:

Shearing stress check:

NC

187

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 10.12 (contd.): Evaluation statements

Moment resisting frames


Axial stress check:

NC

Drift check:

NC

Short captive columns:

No shear failures:

Strong column-weak beam:

NC

Column bar splices:

NC

Column tie spacing:

Beam bars:

Beam bar splices:

NC

Stirrup spacing:

Bent-up bars:

Joint reinforcing:

NC

Deflection compatibility:

No flat slab frames:

Prestressed frame elements:

Diaphragm reinforcement:

NC

Anchorage:

NC
Shear walls

Shearing stress check:

NA

Reinforcing steel:

NA

Coupling beams:

NA

Diaphragm openings at shear walls:

NA

Connections
Column connection:

Wall connection / Transfer to shear walls:


Lateral load at pile caps:

NA
C

188

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.12 (contd.): Evaluation statements

Geologic site hazards


Liquefaction / Slope failure / Surface fault rupture

NA

Foundations
Foundation performance:

Deterioration:

Overturning:

Ties between foundation elements:

10.5

NC

DETAILED EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS

The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
in Chapter 3.

10.5.1

Material Properties

The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 10.13.

Table 10.13: Materials properties

Material

Characteristic
Strength

Modulus of Elasticity

Concrete (M 15)

15 MPa

19365 MPa

Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415)

415 MPa

2 105 MPa

Brick infill

10.5.2

1237.5

Structural Element Model

Figure 10.8 shows the 3D model of the building.

189

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Walls (Structural and non structural):


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

Figure 10.8: 3D computer model of the building

190

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.14: Calculated strut parameters

Width (m)

Strength (kN)

S12, S13, S14

S1

1.65

230

S4, S5. S8, S9

S2

1.70

275

S1, S2, S3, S6, S7, S10, S11

S3

1.50

175

S15, S16

S4

1.40

140

nS14
nS9
nS7

nS3

nS5
nS2

nS6

nS1

nS4

nS11

nS10

nS13
nS8

nS12

nS16

Section

nS15

Equivalent Strut

Figure 10.9: Location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent strut
(Prefix n represents storey number)

Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation


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.

Design Centre of Masses


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

Table 10.15: Structural parameters (with infill stiffness)

Seismic Lumped
mass
Floor weight
(Ton)
(kN)

CM
(m)

CR
(m)

esi
(m)

2610

266

12.40

6.77

12.54

7.13

0.14

0.36

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

4250

433

12.56

7.14

12.59

7.44

0.03

0.30

Table 10.16: Location of centres of mass (with infill stiffness)

CR
(m)

Floor

esi
(m)

Design CM1
(m)

Design CM2
(m)

12.54

7.13

0.14

0.36

11.42

6.79

14.01

8.37

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

11.30

6.68

13.83

8.14

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

11.30

6.68

13.83

8.14

12.53

7.26

0.03

0.12

11.30

6.68

13.83

8.14

12.59

7.44

0.03

0.30

11.36

7.04

13.89

8.59

Table 10.17: Structural parameters (without infill stiffness)

Seismic Lumped
mass
Floor weight
(Ton)
(kN)

CM
(m)

CR
(m)

esi
(m)

2610

266

12.40

6.77

12.51

7.42

-0.11

-0.65

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.51

7.54

0.05

-0.40

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.51

7.54

0.05

-0.40

4110

419

12.56

7.14

12.51

7.54

0.05

-0.40

4250

433

12.56

7.14

12.59

7.44

-0.03

-0.30

192

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.18: Location of centre of masses (without infill stiffness)

CR
(m)

Floor

Design CM1
(m)
X
Y

esi
(m)

Design CM2
(m)
X
Y

12.51

7.42

0.11

0.65

11.36

7.37

13.93

9.09

12.51

7.54

0.05

0.40

11.30

7.24

13.84

8.84

12.51

7.54

0.05

0.40

11.30

7.24

13.84

8.84

12.51

7.54

0.05

0.40

11.30

7.24

13.84

8.84

12.59

7.44

0.03

0.30

11.36

7.04

13.89

8.59

10.5.3 Equivalent Static Analysis

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.
Table 10.19 Details of calculations for base shear of the building

Without infill
stiffness
With infill
stiffness

Time
Period
(s)

Sa/g

Ah

W
(kN)

VB
(kN)

X-direction

0.59

2.3

0.138

19190

2649

Y-direction

0.59

2.3

0.138

19190

2649

X-direction

28

2.5

0.150

19190

2878

Y-direction

36

2.5

0.150

19190

2878

Table 10.20: Lateral force at different floor levels

Floor
no
1
2
3
4
5

W
i
(kN)
4250
4110
4110
4110
2610

h
i
(m)
3
6
9
12
15

Qi (kN)
With infill stiffness
65
251
564
1003
995

193

Without infill stiffness


60
231
519
923
916

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.5.4 Response Spectrum Analysis

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 10.21: Comparison of fundamental time periods

T (s)
Sa/g

Empirical formula
With infill
Without infill
stiffness
stiffness
0.28
0.59
2.50

2.30

Computational model
With infill
Without infill
stiffness
stiffness
0.83
0.96
1.64

1.42

Table 10.22: Time periods and modal participation for the first five modes

Without infill
Mode

Natural
Period (s)

With infill

Mass Participation
(%)
X

Natural
Period (s)

Mass Participation (%)


X

0.96

88.78

0.31

0.83

92.91

0.20

0.88

0.35

86.81

0.76

0.23

90.51

0.43

0.23

0.38

0.39

0.11

0.52

0.30

8.05

0.03

0.25

5.39

0.04

0.27

0.03

9.55

0.24

0.03

7.07

194

Chapter X Case Study II

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)

3.0

Empirical formula

2.5

Computational model

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)

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)

3.0

Empirical formula

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

First mode (Translation X)

Second mode (Translation-Y)

Third mode (Rotation-Z)


Figure 10.12: First three mode shapes

196

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.23: Comparison of base shears

( )

With infill stiffness


Vx (kN)
Vy (kN)

Without infill stiffness


Vx (kN)
Vy (kN)

Equivalent Static VB

2878

2878

2649

2649

Response Spectra (VB )

1768

1871

1463

1576

VB / VB

1.63

1.54

1.81

1.68

10.5.5

Evaluation Results

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.
Table 10.24: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in Beams

Beams
1B1
1B2
1B3
1B4
1B5
1B6
1B7
1B8
1B9
1B10
1B11
1B12
1B13
1B14
1B15
1B16
1B17

Without infill stiffness


With infill stiffness
DCR in Flexure DCR in Shear DCR in Flexure DCR in Shear
1.4
0.3
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.5
0.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.7

0.6
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8

197

1.1
0.3
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4

0.5
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 10.25: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in columns

Without infill stiffness


Columns

DCR in
Flexure

1C1
1C2

1.1
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.0

1C3
1C4
1C5
1C6
1C7
1C8
1C9
1C10
1C11
1C12
1C13
1C14
1C15
1C16
1C17
1C18
1C19
1C20
1C21
1C22
1C23
1C24
1C25
1C26

DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7

With infill stiffness


DCR in
Flexure
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.7

DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6

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

4
3
2
1
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Storey Drift (%)


(a) Considering infill stiffness
5

Storey Level

4
3
2
1
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Storey Drift (%)


(b) Without considering infill stiffness
Figure 10.13: Storey drift under design seismic lateral force

199

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.6

EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4.

10.6.1

Pushover Curve

Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Ydirections 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.

Without infill stiffness

With infill stiffness

4000

Base Shear (kN)

3000

2000

1000

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Roof Displacement (m)


Figure 10.14: Pushover curve along X-direction

200

0.08

Chapter X Case Study II

Without infill stiffness

With infill stiffness

4000

Base Shear (kN)

3000

2000

1000

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Roof Displacement (m)


Figure 10.15: Pushover curve along Y-direction
10.6.2

Capacity Spectrum, Demand Spectrum and Performance Point

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.

10.6.3

Displacements and Storey Drifts

The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 10.20 and 10.21. The interstorey 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

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.16: Capacity Spectrum along X-direction (with infill stiffness)

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.17: Capacity Spectrum along Y-direction (with infill stiffness)

202

Chapter X Case Study II

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.18: Capacity Spectrum along X-direction (without infill stiffness)

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.19: Capacity Spectrum along Y-direction (without infill stiffness)

203

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Storey Level

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Displacement (mm)

Figure 10.20: Displacement along X-direction (with infill stiffness)

Storey Level

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Displacement (mm)

Figure 10.21: Displacement along X-direction (without infill stiffness)

204

Chapter X Case Study II

Storey Level

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Storey Drift

Figure 10.22: Storey drift along X-direction (with infill stiffness)

Storey Level

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Storey Drift

Figure 10.23: Displacement along X-direction (without infill stiffness)

205

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

10.6.4

Vulnerability Index

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.
Table 10.26: Vulnerability index of buildings (with infill stiffness)

Xdirection

Ydirection

Location

B-IO

IO-LS

LSCP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

Column

46

Beam

Column

28

VIbldg
0.069

0.066
Beam

15

Table 10.27: Vulnerability index of buildings (without infill stiffness)


Location Yielded
Xdirection

Ydirection

Column

B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

21

VIbldg
0.042

Beam

14

Column

11

0
0.087

Beam

206

65

Chapter X Case Study II

Table 10.28: Vulnerability indices of storeys (with infill stiffness) in X-direction


Storey
Level
B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

46

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

VIstorey

0.656

0.036

Table 10.29: Vulnerability indices of storeys (with infill stiffness) in Ydirection


Storey
Level
B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

28

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

VIstorey

0.438

0.071

0.018

10.7

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

(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

Base Shear (kN)

6000

4000

2000

0
0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 10.25: Comparison of pushover curves along Y-direction

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.26: Capacity spectrum along X-direction

209

0.5

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Spectral Displacement (m)

Figure 10.27: Capacity spectrum along Y-direction

Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g)

Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.0

Retrofitted
2

Existing

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period (s)
Figure 10.28: Comparison of the fundamental period

210

0.5

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

CHAPTER XI
CASE STUDY III

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.

11.2

DATA COLLECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

BUILDING

Figure 11.1: Typical floor plan of the building


(The dotted area is terminated above ground floor)

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.
Table 11.1: Building survey data sheet: General data
S.No

Description

Information

Notes

.
1

Address of the building

Name of the building


Plot number
Locality/Town ship
District
State

B7
Calicut
Kerala

Name of owner

Name of builder

Name of Architect/Engineer

Name of Structural Engineer

Use of building

Office

Number of storeys above


ground level
Number of basements below
ground level
Type of structure

10

Soil data

11

Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
Dead loads (unit weight adopted)

12

Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live)loads
Floor loads
Roof loads

212

1
RC frame
Medium
Not Available

10 kN/m3
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
18 kN/m3

4 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2

(Assumed)

IS 875 Part 1

IS 875 Part 2

Chapter XI Case Study III

Table 11.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data


S.No. Description

Information

Notes

13

Cyclone/Wind

14
15

Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors
Seismic zone

Earthquake
Prone Area
III

IS 1893: 2002

16

Importance factor, I

1.0

IS 1893: 2002

17

Seismic zone factor, Z

0.16

IS 1893: 2002

18

Response reduction factor, R

3.0

IS 1893: 2002

19

Fundamental natural period, T

0.49

IS 1893: 2002

20
21

Design Horizontal acceleration 0.067


spectrum value (Ah)
Seismic design lateral force
2150 kN

22

Expansion/ Separation joints

IS 1893: 2002

Table 11.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description

Information

Type of building

Number of basements

Regular
frames

Number of floors

Horizontal floor system

Beams
slabs

Soil data
Medium
Type of soil
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

Notes

and
Assumed

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
6

8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15

16

Information

Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
Ductile detailing of RC frame
Type of reinforcement used
Minimum dimension of
beams
Minimum dimension of
columns
Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length
of beam near the ends

214

Pile
No inter
connection

Notes

Pile groups

M20

IS 1893: 2002
2150
891
2.31
Parabolic

IS 1893: 2002

IS 1893: 2002

Not Available

Fe 415
200 750
300 450
0.536
250 mm c/c
150 mm c/c

Chapter XI Case Study III

Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16

11.3

Information

Ductile detailing of RC frame


Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
Maximum percentage of
reinforcement in column
Confining stirrups near ends
of columns and in beamcolumn joints
Diameter
Spacing
Ratio of shear capacity of
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey
Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
Beam bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice

Notes

1.54

8 mm
200 mm
2.51
Not Available
Not Available

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MEMBERS:

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.

11.3.2 Structural system

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 Ydirection are comparable.
Table 11.3: Details of column reinforcements
Column ID

Size (mm)
Width x
Depth

Longitudinal
Reinforcement
(mm)

Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)

AC1

300 450

8Y16

22 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

AC2

300 600

8Y20 + 2Y12

26 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

AC3

300 750

8Y20 + 2Y12

26 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

AC4

300 900

12Y20 + 2Y16

28 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

AC7

700 700

14Y20

66 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c

AC3

AC2

AC3

AC3

AC7

AC7

AC4

AC2

AC7

AC7

AC4

AC3

AC7

AC7

AC3

AC4

AC4

AC4

AC3

AC3

AC4

AC1

Figure 11.2(a): Column section and their orientation layout


(basement and ground storey)

216

Chapter XI Case Study III

AC3

AC3

AC2

AC3

AC3

AC7

AC7

AC4

AC2

AC7

AC7

AC4

AC3

AC7

AC7

AC3

AC3

AC4

AC4

AC4

AC4

Figure 11.2(b): Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(1st to 5th storey)
AB5

AB5

AB20

AB18

AB8

AB15

AB18

AB18

AB15

AB16

AB1

AB9

AB10

AB38

AB11

Figure 11.3: Beam section layout of typical floor level.


(Dotted beams are not present above first floor level)
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

Table 11.4: Details of beam reinforcements


Beam
section
AB1
AB5
AB8
AB9
AB10
AB11
AB15
AB16
AB18
AB20
AB38

Size (mm)
Width Depth
200 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750

Longitudinal Reinforcement at
support (mm2)
Top

Bottom

Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)

2Y16
6Y25
3Y32+2Y25
2Y32+2Y25
5Y25
3Y25, 2Y25
2Y16+2Y20
4Y20
2Y16+2Y20
2Y20+2Y25
2Y32+2Y25

2Y16
4Y25
4Y25
3Y25
4Y25
2Y25
4Y20
2Y20+1Y16
3Y20
3Y20
2Y20+2Y25

Y8@250c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y10@200c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@150c/c

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.

Figure 11.4(a): Load resisting frames along X-direction

218

Chapter XI Case Study III

Figure 11.4(b): Load resisting frames along Y-direction

11.4

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

The preliminary evaluation was done as per the method in Chapter 2.

11.4.1 Rapid Visual Screening


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

Table 11.5: Rapid visual screening data


Region of
Seismicity

High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score

2.5

2.8

1.6

3.0

3.6

3.2

4.4

4.8

4.4

Mid rise

+0.4

+0.4

+0.2

+0.2

+0.4

+0.2

+0.4

-0.2

-0.4

High rise
Vertical
irregularity
Plan
irregularity

+0.6

+0.8

+0.3

+0.5

+0.8

+0.4

+1.0

0.0

-0.4

-1.5

-1.0

-1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

Pre-code
Postbenchmark

-1.2

-1.0

-0.2

-1.0

-0.4

-1.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

+1.4

+2.4

N/A

+1.2

+1.6

N/A

+0.6

+0.4

N/A

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.4

Soil Type II -0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-1.0

-1.2

-1.0

-1.4

-0.8

-0.8

Soil Type III

-0.8

-0.8

-1.6

-1.6

-1.6

-2.0

-2.0

-2.0

Soil Type I

-1.2

Final Score
Comments

1.5

1.6

Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0

11.4.2 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness


Fundamental period of the building: Tax = 0.55s. and Tay = 0.49 s.

Sa/g = 2.50.
Z = 0.16; R = 3; I = 1.0
Ah =

ZIS a 0.16 1.0 2.50


=
= 0.067
2 Rg
23

VB = AhW. = 0.06732257 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,
Wi
(kN)
4901
4652
4709
4707
4979
4883
3426

Floor No
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
11.4.2.1

Height, hi
(m)

Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)

3.60
6.60
10.2
13.8
17.4
21.0
24.6

19
59
143
261
438
627
604

Column Shear

Table 11.7 shows the column shear stress at each storey.


Table 11.7: Average column shear stress

Storey No

nf

nc

Ac (m2)

B
G
1
2
3
4
5

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

22
22
21
21
21
21
21

6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585

10.4.2.2

Vj

vavg

(kN)

(MPa)

2580.52
2462.04
2270.40
1979.46
1594.63
1080.25
479.69

0.507
0.484
0.446
0.389
0.313
0.212
0.094

Remarks
>0.4
>0.4
>0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4

Shear Stress in Shear Wall

Not applicable for this building.


10.4.2.3

Axial Stress in Column

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 ( =
0.2420 MPa = 4.8 MPa).

221

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 11.8 Details of axial stress in column

Vb(kN)

nf

h (m)

L (m)

P (kN)

Axial stress

X-direction.

2150

24.6

15.95

442

0.9 MPa

Y-direction.

2150

24.6

20.6

428.8

0.9 MPa

11.4.2.4

Frame Drift

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.
Table 11.9: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction

Storey
B
G
1
2
3
4
5
11.4.2.5

Storey Height (m)


3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6

Vc (kN)
653.7
835.5
731.9
694.1
633.7
461.6
532.2

Strong column Weak beam

In the strong direction of the columns (about major axis)


Moment capacities of the columns = 1974 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 2054 kNm.
In the weak direction of the columns (about minor axis)
Moment capacities of the columns = 1974 kNm
1.2 Moment capacities of the beams = 691 kNm.
The strong column and weak beam criteria is not satisfied.

222

DR
0.00092
0.00092
0.00103
0.00097
0.00089
0.00064
0.00074

Chapter XI Case Study III

11.4.3 Evaluation Statements

The evaluation statements are presented in Table 11.10. A number of statements


are non-compliant because poor reinforcement detailing.

Table 11.10: Evaluation statements

Building system

C / NC / NA

Load path:

Adjacent buildings:

NA

Mezzanines:

No deterioration of concrete:
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey:

No soft storey:

No mass irregularity:

No vertical geometric irregularity:

No vertical discontinuities:

Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity:

No diaphragm discontinuity:

No re-entrant corners:

No out of plane offsets:

No non-parallel system:

Moment resisting frames


Redundancy:

No interfering wall:

C
NC

Shearing stress check:


Axial stress check:

Drift check:

223

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Table 11.10: Evaluation statements

Moment resisting frames

C / NC / NA
C

No short captive columns:


No shear failures:

NC

Strong column-weak beam:

NC

Column bar splices:

NC
C

Beam bars:
Beam bar splices:

NC

Stirrup spacing:

NC
C

Bent-up bars:
Joint reinforcing:

NC

Deflection compatibility:

NC

No flat slab frames:

NA

Prestressed frame elements:

NA

Diaphragm reinforcement:

Shear walls
Shearing stress check:

NA

Reinforcing steel:

NA

Coupling beams / Diaphragm openings at shear walls

NA

Connections
C

Column connection:
Wall connection / Transfer to shear walls:

NA
C

Lateral load at pile caps:


Geologic site hazards
No Liquefaction/ No slope failure/ No surface fault rupture:

Foundations
Foundation performance:

Deterioration:

Overturning:

Ties between foundation elements:

224

Chapter XI Case Study III

11.5

DETAILED EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS

The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
outlined in Chapter 3.

11.5.1

Material Properties

The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 11.11.
Table 11.11: Materials properties

Material

Characteristic Strength (MPa)

Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Brick infill

20 MPa
415 MPa
1.65

11.5.2

Modulus of Elasticity
(MPa)
19365 MPa
2 105 MPa
1237.5

Structural Element Model

Figure 11.5 shows the 3D model of the building.

Figure 11.5: 3D computer model of the structure.

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
STR3

STR6

STR3

STR2
STR1

STR3

STR3

STR2

STR2

STR4

STR4

STR3

STR4

STR5

Figure 11.6(a): Location of infill walls (at the ground storey)


STR4

STR3

STR2
STR1

STR3

STR3

STR2

STR2

STR6

STR4

STR4

STR5

Figure 11.6(b): Location of infill walls (at the ground storey)

226

Chapter XI Case Study III

STR4

STR6

STR3

STR3

STR2

STR2

STR3

STR2
STR1

STR1

STR2

STR5

STR3

STR4

STR4

Figure 11.6(c): Location of infill walls at a typical storey (above ground storey)

Table 11.12: Strut parameters


Equivalent Strut

Thickness (m)

Width (m)

Strength (kN)

STR1

0.23

STR2

0.23

1.933
1.502

485.159
455.389

STR3

0..23

2.408

639.265

STR4

0.23

2.023

391.378

STR5

0.23

1.753

326.540

STR6

0.23

1.846

513.724

Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation


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

Design centres of mass


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.
Table 11.13(a): Centres of mass and rigidity (without infill stiffness)

Floor

Seismic
weight
(kN)

Lumped
mass
(Ton)

3426.36

CM (m)

CR (m)

esi(m)

349.27

7.52

11.33

8.42

11.18

0.90

0.15

4883.30

497.79

7.49

11.48

8.59

11.18

1.10

0.30

4978.94

507.54

7.49

11.59

8.59

11.18

1.10

0.41

4706.50

479.77

7.52

11.51

8.47

11.18

0.95

0.33

4708.90

480.01

7.55

11.47

8.47

11.18

0.92

0.29

4652.10

474.22

7.55

11.45

8.42

11.15

0.87

0.30

4900.50

499.54

7.62

11.37

8.63

10.99

1.00

0.38

Table 11.13(b): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)


CR (m)

Floor

Design
CM1 (m)

esi(m)

Design
CM2 (m)

8.42

11.18

0.90

0.15

9.66

12.58

5.38

10.08

8.59

11.18

1.10

0.30

9.94

12.97

5.04

10.00

8.59

11.18

1.10

0.41

9.94

13.23

5.04

9.95

8.47

11.18

0.95

0.33

9.75

13.02

5.30

9.99

8.47

11.18

0.92

0.29

9.73

12.93

5.36

10.01

8.42

11.15

0.87

0.30

9.65

12.92

5.44

9.97

8.63

10.99

1.00

0.38

9.92

12.97

5.32

9.77

228

Chapter XI Case Study III

Table 11.13(c): Structural parameters and design CM (without infill stiffness)


Seismic
weight
(kN)

Lumped
mass
(Ton)

3426.36

349.27

7.52

11.33

7.57

11.15

0.05

0.18

4883.30

497.79

7.49

11.48

7.66

11.16

0.17

0.32

4978.94

507.54

7.49

11.59

7.62

11.17

0.13

0.42

4706.50

479.77

7.52

11.51

7.56

11.17

0.04

0.34

4708.90

480.01

7.55

11.47

7.56

11.17

0.02

0.30

4652.10

474.22

7.55

11.45

7.73

11.10

0.18

0.35

4900.50

499.54

7.62

11.37

8.08

11.30

0.46

0.07

Floor

CM (m)

CR (m)

esi(m)

Table 11.13 (d): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)

esi (m)

CR (m)

Floor

Design
CM1 (m)
X
Y

Design
CM2 (m)
X
Y

7.57

11.15

0.05

0.18

8.39

12.63

6.65

10.03

7.66

11.16

0.17

0.32

8.54

12.99

6.45

9.98

7.62

11.17

0.13

0.42

8.48

13.25

6.51

9.93

7.56

11.17

0.04

0.34

8.38

13.04

6.67

9.97

7.56

11.17

0.02

0.30

8.37

12.94

6.72

9.99

7.73

11.10

0.18

0.35

8.62

13.00

6.47

9.90

8.08

11.30

0.46

0.07

9.11

12.50

6.14

10.23

10.5.3 Equivalent Static Analysis

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)


With infill
Without infill
Stiffness
stiffness
X
Y

Floor
no

Seismic weight,
Wi (kN)

Height, hi
(m)

3426.36

24.60

603.63

592.36

396.38

4883.30

21.00

626.93

615.23

411.68

4978.94

17.40

438.84

430.65

288.16

4706.50

13.80

260.93

256.06

171.34

4708.90

10.20

142.62

139.96

93.65

4652.10

6.60

58.99

57.89

38.74

4900.50

3.60

18.49

18.14

12.14

11.5.4 Response Spectrum Analysis

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 11.15: Comparison of fundamental time periods

Empirical formula

Computational model

With infill stiffness

Without infill
stiffness

With infill
stiffness

Without infill
stiffness

T (s)

0.49

0.83

1.06

1.28

Sa/g

2.50

1.64

1.28

1.07

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

Empirical formula

Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g )

Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g )

3.0
2.5

Computational
model

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Empirical formula

2.5
2.0

Computational
model

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

0.5

Period (s)

1.0

1.5

Period (s)

(a) with infill stiffness

(b) without infill stiffness

Figure 11.7: Comparison of time periods of the building models


Table 11.16: Time Period and Modal Participation Ratio for the first five modes

Without infill stiffness


Mass Participation
(%)
T (s)
Ux
Uy
1.27
6.12
70.27
1.20
69.99
6.53
0.60
0.31
1.16
0.41
0.42
11.50
0.38
13.54
0.37

Mode
1
2
3
4
5

With infill stiffness


T (s)
1.06
0.92
0.39
0.33
0.30

Mass Participation (%)


Ux
74.89
0.18
0.08
15.10
0.07

Uy
0.18
78.29
1.35
0.07
11.19

Table 11.17: Comparison of base shear

With infill stiffness

Without infill stiffness

Vx

Vy

Vx

Vy

2150

2110

1412

1412

(VB )

891

1030

745

693

VB / VB

2.37

2.05

2.88

3.10

Equivalent static

(V )
B

Response spectrum

231

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

(a) First Mode

(b) Second Mode

(c) Third Mode

Figure 11.8: First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)

11.5.5

Evaluation results

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

Table 11.18: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in columns

Without infill stiffness


Columns

DCR in
Flexure

GAC1
GAC2
GAC3

1.3
1.2
1.2

DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3

GAC4
GAC7
1AC1
1AC2

1.9
1.6
1.8
2.1

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6

1AC3
1AC4
1AC7
2AC1

1.9
2.2
2.4
1.9

2AC2

1.6

With infill stiffness


DCR in
Flexure
2.6
3.1
3.2

DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6

0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8

2.1
2.5
2.4
2.8

0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4

0.9
0.7
0.6
0.3

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3

0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6

2.6
2.7
2.9
2.4

0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.7
0.9
0.4
0.8

0.4

0.2

2.5

0.6

0.3

Table 11.19: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in Beams

Beams
GAB1
GAB5

Without infill stiffness


DCR in
DCR in Shear
Flexure
1.05
1.37
1.04
4.48

With infill stiffness


DCR in
DCR in Shear
Flexure
2.20
1.17
3.40
3.20

GAB8
GAB9
GAB10
GAB11

1.26
0.39
0.23
1.09

4.30
3.09
3.07
2.54

3.45
0.74
0.65
2.21

5.21
2.50
4.10
1.56

GAB15
GAB16
GAB18
GAB20

0.09
0.05
0.01
0.29

1.99
1.38
1.22
1.55

0.12
0.09
0.09
0.54

2.00
1.10
1.01
1.47

GAB38
1AB1
1AB5
1AB8

0.53
1.03
1.07
1.16

2.42
1.20
4.82
4.14

0.70
2.07
2.60
2.25

2.31
1.68
2.51
3.27

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.

6
5

Storey Level

4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1

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
10.6

EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4.

10.6.1

Pushover Curve

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.

11.6.2

Capacity spectrum, demand spectrum and performance point

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).

Without Infill Stiffness (WOS)

With Infill Stiffness (WS)

4500

Base Shear (kN)

4000
3500
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)

Figure 11.10: Pushover curves (X- direction)

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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)

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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)
11.6.3

Displacements and inter-storey drifts

The inter-storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in


Figures 11.12(a) and 11.12(b).
6
5

Storey Level

4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1

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

6
5

Storey Level

4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1

0.00

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Storey Drift

Figure 11.12(b): Maximum inter-storey drift along Y-direction (with infill

stiffness)

10.6.4

Vulnerability Index

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).


Table 10.20(a): Vulnerability index of buildings (with infill stiffness)

Location Yielded

B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

Column
Xdirection Beam

Column
Ydirection Beam

13

58

11

16

238

VIbldg
0.006

0.050

Chapter XI Case Study III

Table 10.20(b): Vulnerability index of buildings (without infill stiffness)

Location Yielded

B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

Column
Xdirection Beam

19

32

16

44

18

Column
Ydirection Beam

VIbldg
0.053

0.043

Table 10.21(a): Vulnerability index of stories (with infill stiffness) in X direction

Storey
Level

B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

VIstorey

Table 10.21(b): Vulnerability index of stories (with infill stiffness) in Y direction

Storey
Level

B-IO

IO-LS

LS-CP

CP-C

C-D

D-E

>E

VIstorey

0.045

0.018

0.003

0.003

0.003

239

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

11.7

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

(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 Ydirection 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

Figure 11.13: Location of retrofitted beams

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

Base Shear (kN)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 11.14(a): Pushover curves along X-direction for the retrofitted building

7000
6000

Base Shear (kN)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 11.14(b): Pushover curves along Y-direction for the retrofitted building

241

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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

Spectral Acceleration/g

0.45

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
MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE

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.
Table A1: Mapping of soil types
UBC 1997
Soil Type

IS 1893: 2002
Criteria

Soil Type

A Hard rock
B Rock
C Dense soil
and soft rock

Criteria

vs > 1500 m/s


760 m/s < vs 1500 m/s
360 m/s < vs 760 m/s,
Type I
N > 30
or, N > 50,
(Rock or hard soil)
or, su > 100 kPa
D Stiff Soil
180 m/s vs 360 m/s,
Type II
10 N 30
or, 15 < N 50,
(Medium soil)
or, 50 kPa< su 100 kPa
E Soft Soil
vs < 180 m/s,
Type III
N<10
or, a profile with more than
(Soft soil)
3.05 m of soft clay
F Poor Soil
Requires site specific
evaluation
N: Standard penetration count, su: Un-drained shear strength, vs: Shear wave
velocity.

A1

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

APPENDIX B
MODELLING OF MASONRY
INFILL WALLS

B.1

MODELLING OF MASONRY INFILL

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/

B1

(B.1)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

where f m/ is the specified compressive strength of the masonry in MPa. The


value of f m/ can be obtained by prism tests. As per FEMA 356 (2000), Em is
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 + 0.0356 h 0.912 ( R / Rc )


w

(B.2)

Here, the instantaneous value of w is expressed in terms of a parameter w/. The


expression of w/ is given as

w ' 0.43sin 2
=
h
d

Length of
contact

(B.3)

(a) Infill frame

(b) Deformed shape

(c) Equivalent strut

Figure B1: Behaviour of Infill Frames

The expressions are functions of h, a non-dimensional quantity. Here, is the


relative stiffness of the infill to the frame. It is calculated as follows.

Emt sin 2
4 Ec I c h '

Here, Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete in the column

h Height of column (between centrelines of beams)

B2

(B.4)

Appendix B Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls

h' Clear height of infill wall


Ic Moment of inertia of the column section (lower of the two
bounding columns)

l Length of beam (between centrelines of columns)


t Thickness of infill wall

Slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal = tan 1 (h / l )


R Instantaneous diagonal load in the strut
Rc Compressive strength of the strut

Figure B2: Infilled Frame

B.2

EFFECT OF OPENINGS:

In the presence of an opening, a simplified procedure was proposed by Al-Char


(2002). The effect of the opening is accounted for by reducing the effective
width, as per the following equation.

wopen = w w

(B.5)

where, w Reduction factor for openings


The corresponding equivalent strut is assumed to act in the same manner as for an
infill without opening. The reduction factor w is calculated from the following
equation.
w = 0.6 Ar 2 -1.6 Ar + 1

B3

(B.6)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

where, Ar = ratio of opening area to the gross area of the panel


If Area of opening is greater than or equal to 60 percent of gross area of panel,
then the infill may be neglected. Reducing the strut width to account for an
opening does not represent the stress distribution in the infill properly. Yet, this
method was proposed based on its simplicity.

Mondal (2003) suggested the

following equation to consider the reduction in effective width in the presence of


an opening.

w = 1 1.25 Ar

B.3

(B.7)

STRENGTH OF EQUIVALENT STRUT

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

B.3.1

Local Crushing Failure

The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following equation
(Smith and Carter, 1969).

Rc = c t sec f m

(B.8)

The length of contact at the column (c) at the compression diagonal corner is
calculated using the following formula.

c
h

2 h

Other variables are as defined earlier.

B4

(B.9)

Appendix B Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls

B.3.2

Shear Failure

Following relationship of Rs proposed by Govindan (1986) using the curves given


by Smith and Carter (1969) is chosen, as it is simple and non-dimensional.
RS
= 1.65(l '/ h ')0.6 ( h ) 0.05( l '/ h ')0.5
f 'bs ht

(B.10)

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
MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES

C.1

FLEXURAL HINGES FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS

C.1.1

Stress-Strain Characteristics of Concrete

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 stressstrain 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

zero), and a straight line thereafter, at a constant stress level of 0.67 f ck up to an


ultimate strain of 0.0035.
For the purpose of limit states design, the appropriate partial safety factor c has
to be applied, and 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 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 c 0.0035 is given by:

c c 2
0.447
f

ck 2

for c <0.002
fc =
0.002 0.002

for 0.002 c 0.0035


0.447 f ck

Stress

0.67fck

characteristic curve

0.447fck

(C1)

design curve

0.001

0.002

0.003

cu = 0.0035

Strain

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
concrete

'
f cc

First
hoop
fracture

Unconfined
concrete

'
f co

Ec
Esec
t co 2co sp
ft'

Assumed for
cover concrete
cc

cu

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 (cu), and the strains corresponding to the peak strength, viz.,
cc in the case of confined concrete and co (usually 0.002) in the case of
'
unconfined concrete. The corresponding peak strengths are f cc
in the case of

'
in the case of unconfined concrete. The following
confined concrete and f co

expressions for critical strains have been proposed:

cu = 0.004 +

1.4 s f yh sm

f 'cc
f 'cc
1
'
f co

cc = co 1 + 5

(C2)

(C3)

where s = volumetric ratio of confining steel, f yh = grade of the stirrup


reinforcement, and sm = steel strain at maximum tensile stress.
'
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 '
2 '
f cc = f 'co 1.254 + 2.254 1 +

f 'co
f co

'

1
fl ' = ke s f yh
2

(C4)

(C5)

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
'
'
/ f co
(Figure C3).
Y- directions, a chart has been proposed to calculate f cc

A single equation is proposed to generate the stress fc corresponding to any given


strain c:
fc =
where x =

f 'cc x r
r 1 + x r

(C6)

c
Ec
f'
; r=
; Ec = 5000 f 'co ; Esec = cc .
cc
Ec Esec
cc
K=

Largest Effective Confining Stress ratio f 'lx /f 'co

1.0

f ' cc
f 'co

1.5

2.0

0.0

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
This model has the following advantages:
(a)

A single equation defines both the ascending and descending branches of


stress-strain curve.

(b)

The model can also be used for unconfined concrete 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).

Fardis et al. (2001), proposed modifications to Manders et al. model.

An

expression for f 'cc was proposed to simplify the modelling of Figure C3.
0.85

0.5ke s f yh
f cc = f co 1 + 3.7

f 'co


'

'

(C7)

The expression for ultimate compressive strain has also been modified as follows:

cu = 0.004 +

0.6 s f yh sm
f 'cc

(C8)

It is seen that Modified Manders (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curve is


simple to use and gives realistic results. However it can be used only for normalstrength concrete.

C.1.2

Stress-Strain Characteristics of Steel

The characteristic and design stressstrain curves specified by the Code for
various grades of reinforcing steel (in tension or compression) are shown in
Figure C4.

C.1.3

Moment-Curvature Relationship

Curvature () 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 that increases in some manner with increase
in the applied moment (M). Curvature may be alternatively defined as the angle

1 d

change in the slope of the elastic curve per unit length = =


. 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
design curve

stress (MPa)

0.87 fy

300

200
Es = 2 105 MPa

100

y = (0.87 fy) Es + 0.002


0
0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

strain

Figure C4: Stress-strain relationship for reinforcement IS 456: 2000

If the bending produces extreme fibre strains of 1 and 2 at top and bottom at any
section as shown in Figure C5 (compression on top and tension at bottom assumed
in this case), then, for small deformations, it can be shown that =

( 1 + 2 ) ,
D

where D is the depth of the beam. If the beam behaviour is linear elastic, then the
moment-curvature relationship is linear, and the curvature is obtained as
=

M
EI

(C9)

where EI is the flexural rigidity of the beam, obtained as a product of the modulus
of elasticity E and the second moment of area of the section I.

C7

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

When an RC flexural member is subjected to a gradually increasing moment, its


behaviour transits through various stages, starting from the initial uncracked state
to the ultimate limit state of collapse. The stresses in the tension steel and
concrete go on increasing as the moment increases. The behaviour at the ultimate
limit state depends on the percentage of steel provided, i.e., on whether the section
is under-reinforced or over-reinforced.

In the case of under-reinforced

sections, failure is triggered by yielding of tension steel whereas in overreinforced section the steel does not yield at the limit state of failure. In both
cases, the failure eventually occurs due to crushing of concrete at the extreme
compression fibre, when the ultimate strain in concrete reaches its limit. Underreinforced beams are characterised by ductile failure, accompanied by large
deflections and significant flexural cracking. On the other hand, over-reinforced
beams have practically no ductility, and the failure occurs suddenly, without the
warning signs of wide cracking and large deflections.

Centre of curvature
d
R

ds(1- 1)

y1
y2

ds
Neutral Axis

ds(1+ 2)

Figure C5: Curvature in an initially straight beam section

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.

C.1.4

Modelling of Moment-Curvature in Confined RC Sections

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
1.

Assumptions

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 .

5.

In determining the location of the neutral axis, convergence is assumed to


be reached within an acceptable tolerance of 1%.

C.1.4.2
1.

Numerical Algorithm for Moment-Curvature for Beam Sections


Assign a value to the extreme concrete compressive fibre strain (normally
starting with a very small value).

2.

Assume a value of neutral axis depth measured from the extreme


concrete compressive fibre.

3.

Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of tension

and compression reinforcement.

C9

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

4.

Determine the stress distribution in the concrete compressive region


based on the Modified Mander stress-strain model for the given volumetric
ratio of confining steel. The resultant concrete compressive force is then
obtained by numerical integration of the stress over the entire
compressive region.

5.

Calculate the tensile force from the stress in tensile reinforcement and the
area of bar and compare with the net compressive force (Resultant
concrete force + compressive force in compression reinforcement). 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.

C.1.4.3
1.

Numerical Algorithm for Moment-Curvature for Column Sections


Assign a value to the extreme concrete compressive fibre strain (normally
starting with a very small value).

2.

Assume a value of neutral axis depth measured from the extreme


concrete compressive fibre.

3.

Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of each
longitudinal reinforcement bar.

4.

Determine the stress distribution in the concrete compressive region


based on the Modified Mander stress-strain model for the given volumetric
ratio of confining steel. The resultant concrete compressive force is then
obtained by numerical integration of the stress over the entire
compressive region.

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.

C.1.5

Moment-Rotation Parameters

Let us consider a simple cantilever beam AB shown in Figure C6(a) with a


concentrated load applied at the free end B. To determine the rotation between
the ends an idealized inelastic curvature distribution and a fully cracked section in
the elastic region may be assumed. Figures C6(b) and C6(c) represent the bending
moment diagram and probable distribution of curvature at the ultimate moment.
The rotation between A and B is given by
B

= dx ..(C10)
A

where is the curvature and dx is an element length of the member


i.e., ultimate rotation, u = y

l
+ (u y )l p (C11)
2

where the yield rotation y = y

l
..(C12)
2

or, plastic rotation, p = (u y ) l p (C13)


where u is the ultimate curvature, y is the yield curvature and l p is the
equivalent length of plastic hinge over which plastic curvature is considered to be
constant.

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
l
(a)

(b)

lp

y
(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.

C.2

SHEAR HINGES FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS

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.
Yield shear strength (Vy) is calculated by adding strength of the shear
reinforcement (Vsy) to the shear strength of the concrete section (Vc) in case of
column. But for beam, when it is designed for medium and high ductility, shear
strength contribution of concrete is completely ignored as in cracked section

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.
Vsy = 0.87 f y Asv

d
sv

(C16)

yield stress of the transverse reinforcement

Where, fy
Asv

Total cross sectional area of one stirrup considering all the legs

effective depth
Spacing between two stirrup

Shear strength (V)

Sv

Vu = 1.05Vy

Vy

Residual
Shear Strength

0.2 Vy
y

1.5y

m=15y

Shear deformation ()

Figure C7: Typical shear force-deformation curves to model shear hinges

For calculation of Vsy, above formula is used putting 1.00fy instead of 0.87fy for the
actual strain hardened reinforcement.
Vsy = 1.0 f y Asv

d
sv

(C17)

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 = c bd
where = 1 +

0.85 0.8 f ck ( 1 + 5 1)
3Pu
1.5 and c =
6
Ag f ck
Here =

(C19)

0.116 f ck bd
1.0
100 Ast

For moderate and high ductility of the column section = 0 +

3Pu
0.5 is taken
Ag f ck

in calculation (ATC 40)

Shear deformation () is to be calculated using the following formula.


=

Yield shear strength


R
=
KV
Shear stiffness

(C20)

Yield deformation should be calculated using shear stiffness of un-cracked


member as shown in Equation C21
KV =

1 G bW d

f
l

(C21)

Where G = Shear modulus of the reinforced concrete section


Ag = Gross area of the section
l = Length of member
f = Factor to account non-uniform distribution of shear stress. For
rectangular section, f = 1.2 and for T and I section f = 1.0.
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
K v ,45 =

1 + 4n v

Es bw d

C15

(C22)

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Here, v =

Asv
E
; n = s and bw = web width
sv bw
Ec

Similar expression is available for other inclination of cracking and stirrups in


Park and Paulay (1975)
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.

C.3

AXIAL HINGES FOR EQUIVALENT STRUTS

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.

y =

R
Rd
=
. (C23)
AE w t Em

Here

Em = elastic modulus of the infill material

C16

Appendix C Modelling of Plastic Hinges

t = thickness of infill wall


d = length of the strut between the beam-to-column joint nodes
w = effective width of the equivalent strut
The post peak behaviour is modelled with zero load capacity.

Load

IO, LS, CP

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

The vulnerability index is a measure of the damage in a building obtained from


the pushover analysis. The vulnerability index is defined as a scaled linear
combination (weighted average) of performance measures of the hinges in the
components. It is calculated from the performance levels of the components at the
performance point or at the point of termination of the pushover analysis.

Table D.1: Weightage factors for performance range


Sl

Performance range(i)

Weightage factor(xi)

<B

B IO

0.125

IO LS

0.375

LS CP

0.625

CP C

0.875

C D, D E, and >E

1.000

no.

It is mentioned in Appendices C and D that the load-deformation curve for a


particular hinge is assumed to be piece-wise linear (Figure D1). The plastic

D1

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

plateau (B-C) in the load-deformation curve is sub-divided into the performance


ranges namely, B-IO, IO-LS, LS-CP, CP-C, C-D, D-E, and >E (also refer Section
4.6).
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.
The Building vulnerability index (VIbldg) is accordingly given by the following
weighted average.
VI bldg =

1.5 N ic xi + N ib xi

c
i

(F.1)

+ N ib

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).

0.625
0.375

0.125

Load

0.875

IO

LS

CP

Deformation

Figure D1: Weightage factor for different level of hinges

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.
A storey vulnerability index (VIstorey) can be defined to quantify the possibility of a
soft/weak storey with the formation of flexural hinges. For each storey the VIstorey
is defined as:
VI storey

N x
=
N

c
i i
c
i

(D.2)

where N ic is the number of column hinges in the storey under investigation for a
particular performance range. In a given building, the presence of soft / weak
storey is reflected by a relatively high value of VIstorey for that storey, in relation to
other storeys. If the analysis terminates by the formation of shear hinges, then the
above definition is not applicable.

D3

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

APPENDIX E
ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES

E.1

TYPES OF BRACING

The braces in a building may be either concentric or eccentric.

Concentric

bracings may be of diagonal or X-brace type as shown in Figure E1. In Xbracings at least one of the members in each floor is under tension and hence it is
preferred to diagonal bracings.

The concentric bracings increase the lateral

stiffness of the frame and decrease the lateral drift. However, increase in the
stiffness may attract a larger inertia force due to earthquake. Further, while the
bracings decrease the bending moments and shear forces in columns, they increase
the axial compression and tension in the columns to which they are connected.
Since RC columns are strong in compression, it may not pose a problem to retrofit
in a RC frame using concentric steel bracings. However, it should be ensured that
there is adequate pre-compression in the columns due to gravity loads to offset the
tension generated due to earthquakes. The foundation uplift due to this tension
should be avoided. Concentric bracings usually have lower energy dissipation
capacity, especially under compression range of the cyclic loading. In order to
lessen the increase in the lateral stiffness of the frame and improve the energy
dissipation capacity, eccentrically braced frames (Figure E2) have been used.

E1

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

(a) Diagonal CBF

(b) X-braced CBF

Figure E1: Types of Concentric Braced Frame (CBF)

(a) Diagonal EBF

(b) Split-K braced EBF

(c) V-type EBF

Figure E2: Types of Eccentric Braced Frame (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.

E.2

CONNECTION OF BRACES TO RC FRAME

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.
E.2.1 Connection Type I (Figure E3-a)
This type of connection is suitable in new construction. While constructing the
concrete frame, anchor bolts should be placed at appropriate locations in concrete,
and designed to have enough anchorage strength.

The forces in braces are

transferred through gusset plates and end plates to the concrete frame at beam
column junction through the anchor bolts.

E3

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

E.2.2 Connection Type II (Figure E3-b)


This type of connection requires special provisions at the concrete beam-column
intersection. The corner of the frame is built-up with concrete so that only one
connecting plate is used to transfer the brace load directly through the joint. It
creates a more direct load path for the transfer of the brace force and provides
ample space for anchor bolts.

The connection is suitable when braces are

introduced in frames during construction so that special provisions for the built-up
corner can be made at design and construction stages.
E.2.3 Connection Type III (Figure E3-c)
This type of connection is identical to Type I, except for the method of anchoring
end plates into the RC joint. The plates are connected to the concrete members
using straight bolts introduced through holes in the members and anchored at the
opposite face with a bearing plate and nuts.

In this method the width of

connecting plate and bearing plate is less than or equal to the width of beam or
column. Advantage of this method is that bolts can be placed in the concrete even
after frame construction. Hence, this method is applicable for retrofit of existing
RC frames using steel bracing.
E.2.4 Connection Type IV (Figure E3-d)
This type of connection is identical to Type III, but for the location of bolts. In the
earlier method, the width of the connecting plate and bearing plates are less than
the width of beam and column and the bolts were inserted through holes in the
members. In this method, the connecting plate and bearing plate project beyond
the width of the beam and column. The bolts are outside the members. Hence
drilling of holes through the reinforced concrete beam and column is avoided.
This method is useful for retrofit of existing RC frames.

E4

Appendix E Addition of Steel Braces

Gusset plate

Brace

Connecting

(b) Connecting bolts embedded


in concrete directly to joint.

(a) Connecting bolts embedded


in concrete.

Bearing
plate

(c) Bolts connected by bearing


plate through concrete

(d) Bolts connected by bearing


plate out side of the section.

Figure E3: Types of connections between brace to concrete frame

E5

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

E.3

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BRACES

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 =

N br s

(E.1)

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

Bearing failure of bolts against the plates.

Fracture of fillet welds between gusset plate and connecting end plate.

While conventional braces dissipate considerable energy by yielding under


tension (gross area yielding), they buckle under compression without much energy
dissipation.

Figure E4-a shows a typical hysteresis plot for a conventional

Stress

concentric brace under cyclic loading (Ikeda and Madhin, 1985).

Axial force

Tension

Displacement

Strain
Compression
(a). Conventional brace system

(b). X brace system

Figure E4: Behaviour of conventional brace and X bracing under cyclic loading

The strength, stiffness and energy dissipation in compression reduced


progressively with each cycle and fracture at the plastic hinge location due to
buckling occurred within a few cycles. So single diagonal bracing is not desirable
to resist cycling loading under earthquake. X bracing in a single bay or bracing
with opposing slopes in multiple bays overcome this disadvantage, because when
one brace is under compression, the other is in tension.

Even though the

individual brace behaviour is same as the conventional brace, the over all frame
behaviour meets the requirements of cyclic loading. The typical behaviour of Xbracing under cyclic loading is shown in Figure E4-b.

The degradation of

stiffness encountered in conventional braces during one half of the cycle

E8

Appendix E Addition of Steel Braces

corresponding to compression is not observed in X-braces. However, lower or


zero stiffness (pinching) at the stage of stress reversal is observed due to yielding
and plastic elongation of the member under tension and buckling of the member
under compression in the previous cycles.

E.4

NON-BUCKLING BRACES

Generally it is not economical to design a building to remain elastic under


earthquake loading. Steel members can dissipate considerable energy through
inelastic deformations, using the ductility of the material.

The non-buckling

bracing system (Figure E5) is an innovative, patented concept (Indian patent No.
155036, dated April 30, 1981 and United States patent No. 5175972, dated
January 5, 1993), which overcomes the problem of buckling and low energy
dissipation in regular braces in the compression portion of the cycle.

Sleeve

Grout

Core
Figure E5: Non- buckling braces

In this system, the two requirements in the design of compression members


(adequate material strength to resist compression and flexural rigidity to avoid
buckling) have been bifurcated between the core and sleeve elements. The space
between the core and the sleeve is filled with inert filler such as cement grout.
The bond between the core and the grout is eliminated to ensure that no part of
axial force directly applied on the core element is transferred to the sleeve.

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
Figure E6: Non-prismatic core element

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 nonbuckling 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 , are used to describe the
non-prismatic core properties as given below (Figure E7).

Ac

Areduced
Lreduced
L

Figure E7: Behaviour of non-buckling brace under cyclic loading

E10

Appendix E Addition of Steel Braces

A reduced

L reduced

Ac

Where,
Ac

Total area of core

Areduced

Reduced area of core

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 , while the stiffness is governed by the
values of and . 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 ( 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 ( 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, y = 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
1

B
LS CP

IO

0.8

P/Py

C
D

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

10

12

14

16

/ y

Figure E8: Steel brace hinge property

Design Example of Non-Buckling Brace


Design a non-buckling brace for load of 300kN.
Frame inner dimensions are 5m 3.5m, fy = 300N/mm2, E = 2 105N/mm2.
Beam size

230 350 mm.

Column size

230 400 mm.

Design of core
Area of core =

P 300000
=
=1000mm 2
fy
300

Choose 2 angle sections of ISA 45 45 6, having area of 507mm2 each.


= 1014 mm2.

Total area of core

= 2 507

Yield load on core

= 1014 300 = 304.2kN

Increase 25% load to design sleeve, other components and connections.


Design load

= 1.25 304.2 = 380.25kN. ~ 380kN.

E12

Appendix E Addition of Steel Braces

Design of core at the end of sleeve


Core should not yield and should not buckle at the end of sleeve.
P = 380kN.
Approximate length = 150 + 30 + 200

= 380mm.

Sleeve
Gusset plate

150

Effective length

30

200

= 2 l = 2 380

Load coming on each angle is 380/2

= 760mm.
= 190kN.

Each angle can buckle individually.


To avoid buckling, area required is

190103
=1267mm 2
150

Try ISA 90 90 8 having I

= 32 104mm4.

Radius of gyration r

= 17.5 mm.

L 760
=
=43.4 ac =160.2 N/mm 2
r 17.5
Area required is

190103
=1186mm 2 <1379mm 2 (provided)
160.2

Design strength due to yielding of gross section


The design strength of brace under axial tension Tdg, as governed by yielding of
gross section, is given by
Tdg =

f y Ag
m0

3001379
= 358kN > 190kN ( OK )
1.15

E13

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Design strength due to rupture of critical section


Tearing strength of net section may be taken as Tdn =

An fu
m1

Take = 0.7, fu = 450N/mm2


An = 1379 - 2 21.5 8 = 1035mm2

Tdn =

0.71035450
= 326kN >190kN ( OK )
1

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

Moment inertia of sleeve


I required =

PL2 380103 57002


=
=6.254106 mm 4
2
2
5
E
210

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

Thickness required for square tube

(175+2t )

= 6.254106 12+ (175 )

1
4
4
175+2t ) - (175 ) = 6.254106
(

12

2t = 3.4mm. Provide 2mm thick plate for square tube.

Thickness required for circular tube

( 220+2t )


4
4
( 220+2t ) - ( 220 ) = 6.254106

64

= 6.254106 64/+ ( 220 )

2t = 2.93mm. Provide 2mm thick plate for circular tube.


Connection of brace angles to gusset plate
Use HSFG bolts of 20mm diameter for the connection.
Hole diameter of bolt is 21.5mm.
1.1 Ks P0

Slip resistance capacity of the bolt is

1.1 1 0.45 144 = 71.28kN.


No. of bolts required for each angles

190/71.3 = 2.66

= 3bolts.

Pitch of bolts

2.5 20

= 50mm.

Length of angle required on gusset plate

2 50 + 2 30

= 160mm.

Design of gusset plate


Dimensions of plate to accommodate core (angles) and maintain the load passing
through the corners is shown below.
Assume thickness of gusset is 30mm.

E15

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

100

L = 1.2 l

Dimensions of gusset plate & Modified Thornton width.

Check for compressive strength by modified Thornton method


Modified Thornton width

= 110 + 2 100 tan45 = 110 + 200 = 310mm.

Effective length for buckling = 1.2 198 = 238mm.


r=

30
= 8.66mm
12

L
238
=
= 27.48
r
8.66
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.)
Check for tensile strength of gusset plate by Whitmore width concept
Whitmore width = 110 + 2 100 tan30 = 226mm.
Design strength due to rupture of critical section
Tearing strength of net section may be taken as
Tdn =

0.7 ( 226-221.5 ) 30450


An fu
=
=1383kN > 380kN ( OK )
m1
1.25

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.
Connection between gusset plate and L-plate
Force coming on each gusset plate is 380kN.

Weld

218kN
380kN

3.5m

5.0m

270mm

Cos = 5.0 / 6.1 = 0.819


Sin = 3.5 / 6.1 = 0.573

312kN

320mm
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:
t=

311103
= 7.48mm
22700.7110

Thickness required for horizontal weld:


t=

218103
= 4.4mm
23200.7110

Provide 8mm fillet weld for vertical and 6mm fillet weld for horizontal on both
sides of plates.
Design of bolt connecting frame and L-plate
Force in bolt connected to column is 156/4 = 39.0kN.
Force in bolt connected to beam is 109/4

= 27.25kN.

Provide 16mm HSFG bold having tensile capacity of 82.9kN.


Design of L-plate and back plates
Bending moment in the plate = 156 0.135 = 21.06kN-m.
Thickness required resisting bending moment

E17

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Z required is

M
21060000
=
= 106.36103 mm3
f
0.66300

bt2/6 = 106.36 103mm3, b = 320mm


Hence, t = 44.6mm.

300mm
50mm
300mm

Check for shear at face of column in back plate


Shear stress =

156000
= 9.75N/mm 2 < 0.45f y ( OK )
32050

Two plate of L-plate connect by full depth single V-butt weld.


Non prismatic core section
Length of core (L)

5300mm.

Full area of core

2758 mm2 (Area of core beyond

sleeve)
Area corresponding to yield for given load 1014mm2

corresponding to yield for given load is 0.368. Initial value is 0.9.


Choose

values 0.3 and 0.2.


values 0.75 and 0.5

Stiffness can be changed with out changing the strength by changing 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 value.

E18

Appendix E Addition of Steel Braces

Identifier

0.367

Yield load Stiffness


(kN)

kN/m

0.90

304

40777

0.30

0.90

248

33573

0.20

0.90

165

22625

0.30

0.75

248

37846

0.20

0.75

165

26019

0.30

0.50

248

48035

0.20

0.50

165

34692

Bearing

Column
L - Plate
Gusset plate

Gusset

Beam
Bolts
Sleeve

Connection model for non-buckling brace and its components

E19