Displacement-Based Seismic Rehabilitation of Non-Ductile RC Frames With Added Shear Walls (2010) - Thesis PDF

DISPLACEMENTBASEDSEISMICREHABILITATIONOF
NONDUCTILERCFRAMESWITHADDEDSHEARWALLS
ATHESISSUBMITTEDTO
THEGRADUATESCHOOLOFNATURALANDAPPLIEDSCIENCES
OF
THEMIDDLEEASTTECHNICALUNIVERSITY
BY
CANKARAGEYK
INPARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHE
DEGREEOFMASTEROFSCIENCE
IN
THEDEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
FEBRUARY2010
Approvalofthethesis:
SubmittedbyCANKARAGEYKinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegree
ofMasterofScienceinCivilEngineeringDepartment,MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity
by,
Prof.Dr.Cananzgen
__________________
Dean,GraduateSchoolofNaturalandAppliedSciences
Prof.Dr.Gneyzcebe
__________________
HeadofDepartment,CivilEngineering
Prof.Dr.HalukSucuolu
__________________
Supervisor,CivilEngineeringDept.,METU
ExaminingCommitteeMembers:
Assoc.Prof.Dr.AhmetYakut
__________________
CivilEngineeringDept.,METU
Prof.Dr.HalukSucuolu
__________________
Assoc.Prof.Dr.BarBinici
__________________
Asst.Prof.Dr.MuratAltuErberik
__________________
M.S.JosephKubin
__________________
PROTA
DATE:____05/02/2010_____
Iherebydeclarethatallinformationinthisdocumenthasbeenobtainedandpresented
inaccordancewithacademicrulesandethicalconduct.Ialsodeclarethat,asrequiredby
theserulesandconduct,Ihavefullycitedandreferencedallmaterialandresultsthatare
notoriginaltothiswork.
Name,Lastname:CanKARAGEYK
Signature:
iii
ABSTRACT
Karageyik,Can
M.S.,DepartmentofCivilEngineering
Supervisor:Prof.Dr.HalukSucuolu
February2010,126pages
Nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings constitute an important part of the

vulnerable buildings in seismic regions of the world. Collapse of nonductile multi story
concretebuildingsduringstrongearthquakesinthepastresultedinseverecasualtiesand
economic losses. Their rehabilitation through retrofitting is a critical issue in reducing
seismicrisksworldwide.
A displacementbased retrofitting approach is presented in this study for seismic

retrofitting of medium height nonductile concrete frames. A minimum amount of shear
wallsareaddedformaintainingthedeformationlevelsbelowthecriticalleveldictatedby
theexistingcolumnsinthecriticalstory,whichisusuallyatthegroundstory.Detailingof
shearwallsarebasedonconformingtothereduceddeformationdemandsoftheretrofitted
frame/wall system. Memberend rotations are employed as the response parameters for
performance evaluation. Initial results obtained from the proposed displacement based
approachhaverevealedthatjacketingofcolumnsandconfiningtheendregionsofadded
shear walls are usually unnecessary compared to the conventional forcebased approach,
where excessive force and deformation capacities are provided regardless of the actual
deformationdemands.
Keywords:displacementbaseddesign,retrofit,shearwalls,reinforcedconcreteframe
iv
SNEKOLMAYANBETONARMEEREVELERNDEPREMEKARI
PERDEDUVARLARLADEPLASMANESASLIGLENDRLMES
Karageyik,Can
YksekLisans,naatMhendisliiBlm
TezYneticisi:Prof.Dr.HalukSucuolu
ubat2010,126sayfa
Dnyann depremsellii yksek blgelerindeki depreme kar riskli yaplarn nemli bir
ksmn snek olmayan betonarme ereveli binalar oluturmaktadr. Snek olmayan ok
katlbetonarmebinalarngemitekidepremlerdeyklmasarcanvemalkayplarnayol
amtr. Bu tr yaplarn depreme kar glendirilmesi deprem riskini azaltmak
bakmndantmdnyaiinnemlibirmeseledir.
Bu
almada,
orta
ykseklikteki
betonarme
erevelerden
oluan
binalarn
glendirilmesine deplasman esasl bir yaklam sunulmutur. En az miktarda eklenen

perde duvarlar ekil deitirme seviyelerini genellikle kritik olan zemin kattaki mevcut
kolonlarn dikte ettii seviyeye indirmek iin mevcut sisteme eklenir. Perde duvarlarn
donatlandrlmasduvarerevesistemininazaltlmekildeitirmeistemleriniesasalr.
Eleman ularndaki dnmeler ise performans deerelendirilmesinde kullanlr. nerilen
deplasmanesaslyntemileekildeitirmeistemlerinigzardederekaryktamave
ekil deitirme kapasitelerinin saland geleneksel kuvvet esasl yntemlerin
karlatrlmas, mevcut kolonlarn betonarme mantolarla sarlmasnn ve glendirme
perdelerinde sarlm u blgesi oluturulmasnn genellikle gereksiz olduunu
gstermitir.
Anahtar kelimeler: deplasman esasl tasarm, glendirme, perde duvar, betonarme

ereve
Tomyfamily
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Prof.Dr. Haluk Sucuolu for

hissupport,guidanceandinsightsthroughoutthestudy.
Mr.AliengzandDr.SelimGnayarehighlyacknowledgedfortheirpricelesssupport
andguidanceinthethesisstudy.
IwouldliketothankmyfriendsMr.EfeGkeKurt,Mr.Emrezkk,andMr.Mehmet
EmrahEryaarfortheirsincerefriendshipandcommunion.
My family deserves my deepest gratitude for their complimentary devotion, endless love
andintimateconcern.
vii

TABLEOFCONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... iv
Z........................................................................................................................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................vii
TABLEOFCONTENTS ................................................................................................................viii
LISTOFTABLES............................................................................................................................... x
LISTOFFIGURES ............................................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER
1INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.StatementoftheProblem .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2.ReviewofPastStudies............................................................................................................... 2
1.3.ObjectiveandScope ................................................................................................................... 8
2ADISPLACEMENTBASEDRETROFITDESIGNMETHODOLOGYFORSEISMIC
REHABILITATION......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.UniformDriftApproach ......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1.PreliminaryRetrofitDesign................................................................................................. 12
2.1.2.TargetDisplacementDemand............................................................................................. 12
2.1.3.MemberDeformationDemands ......................................................................................... 15
2.1.4.MemberDeformationCapacities ........................................................................................ 17
2.1.5.FinalRetrofitDesign ............................................................................................................. 18
2.1.6.CheckingTheFailureModes............................................................................................... 19
2.2.ImplementationoftheProposedMethodologyonanExampleFrame............................ 19
2.2.1.DisplacementBasedRetrofittingofTheExistingFrame................................................. 23
3VERIFICATIONOFTHEDISPLACEMENTBASEDRETROFITDESIGN
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.VerificationofRetrofitDesignandUniformDriftApproach............................................ 29
3.2.ForceBasedRetrofitSolution ................................................................................................. 33
3.3.ComparisonofForceBasedandDisplacementBasedRetrofitSolutions........................ 36
viii
4CASESTUDYISEISMICREHABILITATIONOFAFOURSTORYSCHOOLBUILDING
........................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.1.ExistingCaseoftheBuilding.................................................................................................. 40
4.2.ImplementationoftheRetrofitDesignMethodologyTheVerificationofDesign.......... 50
4.3.VerificationoftheProposedRetrofitDesignMethodology............................................... 59
4.4.ForceBasedRehabilitationoftheBuilding .......................................................................... 72
4.5.ComparisonofDisplacementBasedandForceBasedRetrofitSolutions........................ 73
5CASESTUDYIISEISMICREHABILITATIONOFAFOURSTORYDORMITORY
BUILDING ....................................................................................................................................... 77
5.1.ExistingCaseoftheBuilding.................................................................................................. 77
5.2.ImplementationoftheRetrofitDesignMethodology......................................................... 87
5.3.VerificationoftheProposedRetrofitDesignMethodology............................................... 96
5.4.ForceBasedRehabilitationofTheBuilding ....................................................................... 110
5.5.ComparisonofDisplacementBasedandForceBasedRetrofitSolutions...................... 111
6DISCUSSIONOFRESULTSANDCONCLUSIONS............................................................. 115
6.1.DiscussionofResults ............................................................................................................. 115
6.1.1.UniformDriftAnalysisvs.PushoverAnalysis............................................................... 115
6.1.2.DisplacementBasedRetrofitSolutionsvs.ForceBasedRetrofitSolutions................ 117
6.1.3.ModelingoftheShearWallsasFixedBaseandFlexibleBase ..................................... 120
6.2.Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 122
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 124
ix

LISTOFTABLES
TABLES
Table2.1Materialstrainlimitsforunconfinedmembersectionsusedinchordrotation
capacitycalculations ....................................................................................................................... 18
Table3.1Globalseismicperformancesofexistingandretrofittedcasesoftheframe .......... 31
Table3.2Globalseismicperformancesoftheretrofittedframe ............................................... 34
Table4.1Globalperformanceoftheexistingbuilding .............................................................. 50
Table4.2Globalperformanceoftheretrofittedbuilding.......................................................... 64
Table5.1Globalperformanceoftheexistingbuilding ............................................................. 87
Table5.2Globalperformanceoftheretrofittedbuilding........................................................ 100
Table6.1Comparisonofreinforcementratiosaccordingtodisplacementandforcebased
designs ............................................................................................................................................ 119
Table6.2Comparisonofmomentcapacitiesofthewallsdesignedaccordingto
displacementbasedandforcebasedapproaches .................................................................... 120
LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURES
Figure2.1Accelerationdisplacementresponsespectrumrepresentation .............................. 14
Figure2.2Imposeddeflectedshape ............................................................................................. 15
Figure2.3Calculationofchordrotationsfromjointdisplacementsforlinearelastic
structuralmembers ......................................................................................................................... 16
Figure2.4Planviewoftheexamplebuilding............................................................................. 20
Figure2.52Dframemodeloftheexamplebuilding.................................................................. 20
Figure2.6Sectiondetailsofatypicalcolumnandbeam........................................................... 21
Figure2.7Damagelevelsofthecolumns .................................................................................... 22
Figure2.8Damagelevelsofthebeams ........................................................................................ 22
Figure2.9Planviewoftheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuilding....................................... 23
Figure2.102Dframemodeloftheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuilding.......................... 23
Figure2.11Reinforcementdetailingoftheretrofitshearwall ................................................. 25
Figure2.12MomentCurvaturecurveoftheretrofitshearwallgiveninFigure2.11........... 25
Figure2.13Straindistirbutionofcompositeshearwallsection ............................................... 26
Figure2.14Chordrotationdemandsvs.chordrotationcapacitiesofcolumns ..................... 26
Figure3.1Capacitycurvesoftheexistinganddisplacementbasedretrofittedframes........ 29
Figure3.2Plastichingedistributionsalongtheexistingandretrofittedbuildingsatthe
performancepoints ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure3.3Damagelevelsofthecolumns .................................................................................... 31
Figure3.4Damagelevelsofthebeams ........................................................................................ 32
Figure3.5a.Displacement,b.interstorydriftdistributionsoftheexistingandretrofitted
framespredictedwithuniformdriftandpushoveranalyses ................................................... 32
Figure3.6Chordrotationdemandsofthecolumns.................................................................. 33
Figure3.7Designandcodespectraforanearthquakehaving2%probabilityofexceedance
in50years......................................................................................................................................... 35
xi
Figure3.8Momentenvelopeusedinshearwalldesign............................................................ 36
Figure3.9Shearwalldetailingaccordingtodisplacementbasedandforcebasedretrofit
designs .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure3.10Axialforcemomentinteractiondiagramsaccordingtodisplacementbasedand
forcebasedretrofitdesigns............................................................................................................ 38
Figure3.11Momentcurvaturediagramsofforcebasedanddisplacementbaseddesign
solutionsortheshearwallP1........................................................................................................ 38
Figure3.12Capacitycurvesofforcebasedanddisplacementbasedretrofittedframes...... 39
Figure4.13DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryexistingschoolbuilding ...................... 41
Figure4.2Planviewofthefourstoryexistingschoolbuilding ............................................... 41
Figure4.3Capacitycurvesoftheexistingbuilding ................................................................... 42
Figure4.4DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading....................................... 43
Figure4.5DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading .......................................... 45
Figure4.6DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading....................................... 46
Figure4.7DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirectionloading .......................................... 48
Figure4.83DMathematicalmodeloftheretrofittedfourstoryschoolbuilding .................. 50
Figure4.9Planviewoftheretrofittedbuilding.......................................................................... 51
Figure4.10i.Storydisplacements,ii.InterstorydriftdistributionsinXdirection................ 52
Figure4.11i.Storydisplacements,ii.InterstorydriftdistributionsinYdirection................ 52
Figure4.12ComparisonofchordrotationdemandsandcapacitiesforcolumnsintheX
directionforsignificantdamageperformancelevel................................................................... 53
Figure4.13ComparisonofchordrotationdemandsandcapacitiesforcolumnsintheY
Figure4.14MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallTP01...................................................... 58
Figure4.15DetailingofTP01......................................................................................................... 58
Figure4.16MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallTP05...................................................... 58
Figure4.17DetailingofTP05......................................................................................................... 59
Figure4.18Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedandexistingbuildings ..................................... 59
Figure4.21ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading ................... 61
xii
Figure4.22ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading ................... 62
Figure4.23DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading..................................... 64
Figure4.24DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading ........................................ 66
Figure4.25DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheXdirectionloading ................................ 68
Figure4.26DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirection ................................................... 69
Figure4.27DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirection....................................................... 69
Figure4.28DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheYdirectionloading ................................ 71
Figure4.29Planviewoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding .................................................. 72
Figure4.30DetailingoftheshearwallTP01accordingtothedisplacementbasedandforce
baseddesigns................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure4.31PMInteractiondiagramsoftheshearwallTP01accordingtothedisplacement
basedandforcedbaseddesigns ................................................................................................... 74
baseddesigns................................................................................................................................... 75
basedandforcedbaseddesigns ................................................................................................... 75
Figure4.34Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedbuildingaccordingtodisplacementbasedand
forcebasedapproaches .................................................................................................................. 76
Figure5.13DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryexistingdormitorybuilding................ 78
Figure5.2Planviewofthefourstoryexistingdormitorybuilding ........................................ 78
Figure5.3Capacitycurvesoftheexistingbuilding ................................................................... 79
Figure5.4DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading....................................... 80
Figure5.5DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading .......................................... 82
Figure5.6DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading....................................... 83
Figure5.7DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirectionloading .......................................... 85
Figure5.83DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryretrofitteddormitorybuilding............ 87
Figure5.9Planviewoftheretrofittedbuilding.......................................................................... 88
xiii
Figure5.14MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallP4 .......................................................... 95
Figure5.15DetailingofP4............................................................................................................. 95
Figure5.16MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallP1 .......................................................... 95
Figure5.17DetailingofP1............................................................................................................. 95
Figure5.18Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedandexistingbuildings ..................................... 96
Figure5.21ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading ................... 97
Figure5.22ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading ................... 99
Figure5.23DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading................................... 101
Figure5.24DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading ...................................... 103
Figure5.25DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheXdirectionloading .............................. 105
Figure5.26DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading................................... 105
Figure5.27DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirectionloading ...................................... 107
Figure5.28DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheYdirectionloading .............................. 109
Figure5.29Planviewoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding ................................................ 110
Figure5.30RCjacketdetailofthecolumn1S17 ....................................................................... 111
Figure5.31DetailingoftheshearwallP4accordingtothedisplacementbasedandforce
baseddesigns................................................................................................................................. 112
Figure5.32PMInteractiondiagramsofshearwallP4accordingtodisplacementbasedand
forcedbaseddesigns .................................................................................................................... 112
Figure5.33DetailingoftheshearwallTP05accordingtodisplacementbasedandforce
baseddesigns................................................................................................................................. 113
Figure5.34PMInteractiondiagramsoftheshearwallP1accordingtodisplacementbased
andforcedbaseddesigns............................................................................................................. 113
Figure5.35Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedbuildingaccordingtodisplacementbasedand
forcebasedapproaches ................................................................................................................ 114
Figure6.1Chordrotationdemandsattheshearwallbasescalculatedfromuniformdrift
andpushoveranalyses ................................................................................................................. 116
xiv
Figure6.2Footingunderthenewshearwallsinplan............................................................. 118
Figure6.3Chordrotationdemandscalculatedfromtheuniformdriftandthepushover
analysesfortheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuildingwithspring................................... 121
Figure6.4Chordrotationdemandsandcapacitiescalculatedfromtheuniformdriftandthe
pushoveranalysesfortheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuildingwithspring................. 122
xv
CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 StatementoftheProblem
Nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings constitute an important part of the

vulnerablebuildingsinseismicregionsoftheworld.Substandardbuildingscannotsatisfy
the basic safety requirements of modern seismic codes because of insufficient material
strength,poordetailingandlackofseismicdesignwhicheventuallyleadtobrittleresponse
underseismiceffects.Collapseofnonductilemultistoryconcretebuildingsduringstrong
earthquakesinthepastresultedinseverecasualtiesandeconomiclosses.
Therehabilitationofnonductileconcretebuildingsthroughretrofittingisacriticalissuein
reducing seismic risks worldwide. Retrofitting of these buildings in the past had been
mostly based on adding new reinforced concrete shear walls. New walls improve base
shear capacity of existing frame system as well as increasing lateral rigidity. Increase in
both lateral load capacity and lateral stiffness results in decreasing the deformation
demands.Transitionfromshearframebehaviorintoshearwallbehaviorisanotherfeature
thatfurtherreducesthedemandsonexistingcolumnsatthelowerstories.Thisisindeeda
rationalapproachbecausethealternativeapproachofincreasingthedeformationcapacity
of a nonductile frame system composed of nonductile structural members is usually
unpracticalanduneconomical.
In the conventional forcebased retrofitting of nonductile RC frame buildings in severe

seismic regions, a preliminary retrofit design is made first by adding shear walls to the
existing frame structure. Then a response reduction factor is assumed for the entire
retrofitted building based on the code recommendations, and internal member forces are
calculatedaccordinglyunderthegravityandseismicdesignforcesreducedbytheresponse
reductionfactor.Thecapacityoftheexistingstructuralmembersarecheckedunderthese
reduced forces, and increased if necessary by proper interventions. New members are
designed for the capacities exceeding the internal force demands under reduced seismic
forces. Finally, ductility requirements conforming to the employed response reduction
factor are implicitly satisfied by providing special seismic detailing. This detailing
primarilyconsistsofconfiningthecriticalendregionsofcolumns,beams,andshearwalls,
without considering however whether such deformation capacity is deemed necessary or
not.
Utilizationofdisplacementbasedseismicdesignprinciplesisthealternativeapproachfor
retrofit design. This approach basically relies on estimation of peak inelastic deformation
demandsonexistingcomponents.
1.2 ReviewofPastStudies
Fundamentals of the displacement based seismic design date back to 1960s with notable
studies of Veletsos and Newmark (1960) and Muto, et al. (1960). Although any design
recommendationwasnotstatedinthesestudies,adequacyofstructureswasexaminedin
terms of displacements and displacement ductility with the help of equal displacement
principle.Moehle(1992)comparedductilitybasedanddisplacementbasedapproachesto
present a general methodology for displacement based design. In his study it was stated
that displacementbased approach is a more effective design tool since it employs
displacement or deformation information directly. Furthermore in his study a relation
between drift ratio and shear wall detailing was established. It was suggested that if
shearwalls are sufficient to limit the drift ratio to a certain value, confined regions at the
wallboundariesmaybeunnecessary.
WallaceandThomsen(1995)publishedatwopartstudyinwhichanewcodeformatfor
seismicdesignofreinforcedconcretestructuralwallsanditsapplicationswerepresented.
A displacementbased approach was developed in order to determine the transverse
reinforcementamountattheboundariesofshearwallshavingrectangular,Tshapedand
Lshapedcrosssections.Amountoftransversereinforcementrequiredwasdeterminedby
computingastraindistributionnormaltothewallsectioninwhichmaximumcompressive
strain at extreme concrete fiber (Wallace, 1994) was estimated. It was concluded that no
special transverse reinforcement is required at wall boundaries if the maximum
compressive strain at the outermost concrete fiber is less than 0.004. Through the
applicationpartofthestudy,designcalculationswereaccomplishedfortwodifferentten
storyshearwallbuildings.
Priestley (1997) studied a displacementbased seismic assessment procedure which

employedeffectivestiffnessandeffectiveviscousdampingofexistingreinforcedconcrete
structures. In his study, flexural capacities of plastic hinges, which are likely to form at
memberends,werecalculated.Indeterminingflexuralcapacities,strainbasedlimitstates
weresuggested.
Inadditiontodisplacementbaseddesignandassessmentofreinforcedconcretestructures,
effectsofshearwallsinstalledtotheexistingsystemswereinvestigated.Kongoli,Minami,
and Sakai (1999) examined the effect of structural walls on the elasticplastic response of
framewallbuildings.Baseshearcoefficientsofframesandwallswereintroducedtogether
with response ductility factors to express structural damage. Base shear coefficients were
defined as the ratio of yield strength to the weight of building. Effects of the number of
walls on the elasticplastic response of framewall buildings were additionally stated. It
was concluded that as the number of walls increases in a system in which base shear
coefficientsofframesarerelativelysmallandwallsfailinshear,framemayundergoalarge
plastic deformation. In addition, empirical formulas were suggested to estimate the
required base shear coefficients of frames and walls to satisfy predefined displacement
responses.
Panagiotakos and Fardis (1999) attempted to estimate inelastic chord rotation demands
from elastic analysis procedures namely equivalent static or multi modal response
spectrumanalysisinwhichreinforcedconcretememberswereconsideredwiththeirsecant
stiffnesses. Mean and 95 percent characteristic values of chord rotations were calculated
frombothlinearandnonlinearanalysestobecompared.Itwasconcludedthatconversion
factorsaroundonecouldbeintroducedforcloserestimationsofnonlinearchordrotations.
Theoryofthestudyliesbeneathwellknownequaldisplacementruleandtheassumption
of fundamental period of cracked elastic mid rise reinforced concrete buildings falling
beyondthecornerperiodofresponsespectrum.PanagiotakosandFardis(1999)published
a further study on the deformation controlled earthquake resistant design of reinforced
concrete buildings based on the findings of their former research. Aiming life safety
performance,afourstoryreinforcedconcretebuildingwasdesignedtomeetpeakinelastic
memberdeformationdemandswhichwereestimatedthroughelasticprocedures.Inelastic
deformation demands were defined as chord rotations. Besides, the demand expressions
were proposed for chord rotation capacities. Results of monotonic and cyclic tests were
employedtointroducetheseexpressions.Indesign,5%characteristicvaluesofexpressions
were preferred. It was finally stated that employing a displacement design procedure
resultsineconomicsolutionsintermsofsignificantsavingsinreinforcement.
Kowalsky (2001) examined forcebased seismic provisions of the 1997 UBC from
performance based earthquake engineering point of view. His study mainly focused on
structuralwalldesign.ItwasnotedthatUBCintroducesstrainanddriftbaseddeformation
limits in structural wall design. To investigate the forcebased design methods of UBC, a
numberofmidrisereinforcedconcretebuildingsweredesignedfollowingUBCprovisions
and analyzed. It was concluded through the analyses that strength and stiffness are
dependentoneachother,andrequiredbaseshearcapacityfordisplacementbaseddesign
increasesasthestiffnessdecreases.Moreoversignificanceofwellpredictedpeakinelastic
deformationdemandswasemphasizedinordertousestrainlimitsasdamagelimitstates.
Seismicresponseofstructuralwallsdefinedwithbilinearforcedisplacementrelationships
was studied by Paulay (2001). In this sense analytical expressions for stiffness and yield
displacement profile of wall components were established. As an essential aspect of

displacementbased seismic design, significance of the reliable estimation of ultimate
inelasticdeformationdemandswasemphasized.Ductilitycapacitiesbothatthecomponent
and system levels were examined from the perspective of limiting strains and
displacements.Itwasconcludedthatdisplacementductilitydemandscanberelatedwith
displacement ductility capacities with the help of yield displacements of critical
components.
A methodology for direct displacementbased design of framewall structures was

proposed by Sullivan, Priestley, and Calvi (2006). The methodology starts with
computation of design displacement profile. In this sense equivalent single degree of
freedom system properties were determined to obtain wall inflection height. Then, the
substitutestructureapproach(GulkanandSozen,1974;ShibataandSozen,1976)wasused
to obtain effective period and stiffness. Equivalent viscous damping was determined as
anothersubstitutestructurecharacteristicinordertoreachdesignductilityvalues.Itwas
emphasizedthathighcurvatureductilitydemandsarelikelytodevelopatthejoiningends
of link beams to shearwalls. Design displacement profile was then computed by making
use of equivalent single degree of freedom system properties, wall inflection height and
yield deformation capacities of walls and frames. Final step was stated as to compute
designbaseshearandmemberstrengthdemands.
Tjhin, Aschheim, and Wallace (2006) presented a paper in which a stepbystep

performancebased seismic design procedure was proposed. Proposed procedure for
ductile reinforced concrete structural wall buildings relies on estimation of the yield
displacement through Yield Point Spectra (YPS). YPS was used either for estimation of
peak displacement demand of an equivalent single degree of freedom system having a
knownyieldpointandductilitydemand,ordeterminationoftheyieldstrengthrequiredto
meet performance objectives. YPS can be constructed for code spectrum representing
differentperformancelimitsorforparticulargroundmotionrecords.Inthisstudyadesign
example was also presented, in which a six story reinforced concrete building was
designedbyemployingtheproposedmethod.
Another study making use of YPS was conducted by Thermou, Pantazopoulou, and
Elnashai (2006). This study utilizes YPS together with direct displacementbased design
approach for seismic rehabilitation of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Seismic
behavior of existing buildings was manipulated in order to have uniform distribution of
interstory drift. Proposed methodology was explained in steps. Throughout these steps
mostremarkableonescanbesummarizedastheselectionofatargetresponseshapeand
ductility level together with determination of stiffness demand through YPS. To achieve
the selected target response shape, computed stiffness demand was distributed along the
height of the building. Rehabilitation scenario was then determined in compliance with
target response shape and stiffness demand. As verification of the procedure a full scale
testedstructurewasused.
Additionally, seismic design and rehabilitation guidelines are reviewed herein from the
perspective of performancebased seismic design. In ATC40 Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (1996), determination of inelastic seismic demands being a
crucialstepofperformancebasedseismicdesignwassuggestedtobecalculatedthrougha
method known as The Capacity Spectrum method which was originally developed by
Freemanetal.,(1975).FollowingTheCapacitySpectrummethod,displacementdemandof
the structure is estimated by comparing capacity curve with a demand curve. Capacity
curveisbasicallyforcedisplacementrelationshipofthestructureobtainedbyconductinga
nonlinearstaticanalysis.Ontheotherhandthedemandcurveiscomputedbyreducingthe
elasticspectruminviewoftheexpectedhystereticnonlinearbehavior.
An alternative approach known as The Coefficient Method for determination of inelastic

seismicdemandsispresentedinFEMA356PrestandardandCommentaryfortheSeismic
RehabilitationofBuildings(2000).TheCoefficientMethodsimplyemployscoefficientsin
ordertoconvertmaximumelasticdisplacementdemandofanequivalentsingledegreeof
freedomsystemrepresentingamultidegreeoffreedomsystemintothemaximuminelastic
displacement demand. Coefficients simply stand for modal participation, nonlinearity,
hysteretic behavior, and P effects. FEMA 356 additionally covers linear and nonlinear
proceduresforrehabilitationofexistingreinforcedconcretestructures.Underthescopeof
nonlinear procedures, performance levels of members are determined in terms of plastic

rotationswhichareassumedtobelumpedatmemberends.
Limitstatesrepresentingdamagelevelsarepresentedforductileandbrittlemembersalso
intermsofplasticrotation.
ThroughthecoverageofEurocode8Part3AssessmentandRetrofittingofBuildings(2005),
linearandnonlinearproceduresarepresentedtocarryoutseismicperformanceassessment
ofexistingreinforcedconcretebuildings.Intheseguidelinesnonlinearproceduresemploy
chord rotation as measure of damage in order to determine performances of ductile
members. Expressions are proposed to determine ultimate chord rotation capacities.
Moreoverlimitstatescorrespondingtoperformancelevelsaredefinedintermsofultimate
chord rotations and chord rotations at yielding. Chord rotation demands are compared
withchordrotationcapacitiescalculatedinaccordancewithdamagestates.
The recently added Chapter 7 of the Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) involves seismic
performance assessment and intervention methods for existing reinforced concrete
buildings. Similar to the abovementioned guidelines, Turkish Earthquake Code suggests
linear and nonlinear methods. Following nonlinear methods, inelastic displacement
demand of a multi degree of freedom system is computed by modifying the elastic
displacementdemandofequivalentsingledegreeoffreedomsystemthroughaniterative
graphical procedure.Nonlinear procedures define performancelimits of ductile members
intermsofstrains.Predefinedstrainlimitscorrespondingtodamagestatesarecompared
with the strain demands of yielded sections of ductile members. Strain limits depend on
presenceoftransversereinforcementwhichprovidesconfinementactionatcriticalsections
ofmembers.
CalviandSullivan(2009),aseditors,developedaModelCodefortheDisplacementBased
Seismic Design of Structures. The essence of the draft code relies on the book on direct
displacementbased design by Priestley et al. (2007). Additionally Eurocode 8 serves as a
referenceprovision.TheCodecoversparticulartypesofstructuresandbuildingsincluding
moment resisting frame buildings, reinforced concrete wall buildings, and reinforced
concretedualframewallbuildings.ThroughthecoverageoftheModelCodetwotypesof
seismiczonesareconsideredtogetherwiththreelevelsofdesignperformance.Maximum
andresidualdriftsandmaximumstrainsthatoccurataperformancelevelareexpressedas
performance criteria. To compute maximum inelastic deformation demands design
displacement profiles are proposed for various types of buildings which are vertically
regular.Togetherwiththedesigndisplacementprofileandothercharacteristicsbelonging
to the equivalent single degree of freedom structure (i.e. the substitute structure) are
defined in order to determine required base shear force. The design base shear force is
simply calculated by multiplying the effective stiffness by the design displacement. Floor
masses and design displacements are used to distribute the base shear force along the
building. The Model Code finalizes the displacementbased design as satisfying the
capacitydesignrequirementstoavoidunintendedinelasticmechanisms.
1.3 ObjectiveandScope
As an alternative approach to forcebased retrofit design, a simple displacementbased

procedure is proposed for medium rise concrete buildings. The proposed displacement
basedandtheconventionalforcebasedretrofitdesignsareappliedonahypotheticalfive
storybuilding,afourstoryschoolbuilding,andafourstorydormitorybuilding.Retrofit
designsolutionsarecomparativelyevaluatedforeachbuilding.
Member deformation demands were expressed in terms of chord rotations in this study
which are determined from an elastic analysis in which uniform drift distribution is
assumed along the building height. Different retrofit schemes can be achieved from
displacementbasedandforcebasedapproaches.Comparisonofachievedretrofitschemes
was presented for each case study building. The objective is studying the simplicity of
displacementbased seismic design principles in the rehabilitation of existing buildings
aiming to satisfy seismic performance level objectives together with investigating
deficiencies of forcebased approaches which usually offer less economical results due to
courage in formation of confined boundaries at shear wall ends and employment of
reducedelasticforcesindesign.
Thisthesisiscomposedofsixmainchapters.Briefcontentsaregivenasfollows:
Chapter1
Statementoftheproblemandliteraturesurveyonthedisplacementbased
seismicdesignandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebuildingstogether
withseismicresponseofshearwallbuildings.Objectivesandscope.
Chapter2
Explanationandimplementationoftheproposedprocedureindetailona
hypotheticalfivestoryreinforcedconcretebuilding.
Chapter2
Verificationofthemethodology
Chapter4
Case study I: Four story school building, nonlinear seismic assessment of

the existing building, retrofit design with the proposed procedure as well
aswiththeforcebasedprocedure,comparisonofretrofitsolutions.
Chapter5
CasestudyII:Fourstorydormitorybuilding,nonlinearseismicassessment
of the existing building, retrofit design with the proposed procedure and
theforcebasedprocedure,comparisonofretrofitsolutions.
Chapter6
Abriefsummaryandconclusions.
CHAPTER2
ADISPLACEMENTBASEDRETROFITDESIGNMETHODOLOGY
FORSEISMICREHABILITATION
A simplified displacementbased procedure for retrofit design of medium rise reinforced

concrete buildings is proposed in this chapter. The proposed methodology relies on
estimating the nonlinear deformation demands of existing and new members through a
linear elastic analysis in which a preassumed displacement response is imposed to
retrofitted system. Basic steps and implementation of the methodology on an example
buildingarepresentedthroughoutsubsectionsofthischapter.
2.1. UniformDriftApproach
Uniform Drift approach is a displacementbased methodology for retrofit design of

mediumriseRCbuildings.Basicstepsoftheproposedmethodologycanbelistedas
preliminaryretrofitdesign,
computationoftargetdisplacementdemand,
memberdeformationdemands,comparedwithcapacities
finalretrofitdesign.
In the uniform drift approach, preliminary retrofit design only involves decision on the
location and size of the shear walls to be added to the existing frame system. Target
displacement demand is calculated by employing the coefficient method of FEMA356
10
(3.3.1.3.1) (ASCE,2000) where anRfactor is not directly required. Fundamental period is

estimatedbyemployingcrackedsectionstiffnessesofreinforcedconcretemembers.
Member deformation demands are expressed in terms of chord rotations at the member
ends. Chord rotation demands are computed by imposing a uniform drift distribution
compatible with the target displacement demand. They represent maximum nonlinear
deformationdemands.
Chord rotation capacities are calculated by employing momentcurvature analysis and

momentareatheorem.Axialloaddemandsofcolumnsareobtainedfromgravityanalysis
whereasshearspanlengthsaretakenfromlinearelasticanalysisunderimposeduniform
drift distribution. Strain limits stated in Chapter 7 of the Turkish Earthquake Code 2007
(TEC2007)areusedinchordrotationlimitstatecalculations.
At the final retrofit design stage, reinforcement detailing of the new shear walls are
finalized in order to satisfy deformation demands. Seismic detailing of confined regions
mayormaynotberequired.
Tocontrolfailuremodesofreinforceconcretemembersforpreventingbrittlefailure,shear
capacities are compared with the lesser of demands compatible with moment capacities
anddemandsatperformancepoint.
Adisplacementbasedapproachisdevelopedbyemployingadeformationcontrolledlinear
elasticanalysisproceduretoestimatetheinelasticdeformationdemandsintermsofchord
rotations.TheUniformDriftapproachreliesonimposingauniformdriftdistributionwith
an inverse triangular displaced shape to the retrofitted wallframe system where roof
displacement is equal to the target roof displacement demand computed for the desired
performancelevel.Auniformdriftdistributionisawellfittingapproximationtoestimate
the inelastic deformation behavior of midrise reinforced concrete wallframe systems.
Assuming the shear wall yields at its base, drift response of the wallframe system
convergestouniformdriftdistributionasthewalldominatesthebehavioraswell.Cracked
stiffnessesofreinforcedconcretemembersareusedintheproposedlinearelasticanalysis
11
procedure. Details of retrofit design procedure utilizing the uniform drift approach are
explainedindetailinthefollowingsubsections.
2.1.1. PreliminaryRetrofitDesign
Preliminaryretrofitdesignstageinvolvesonlylocatingandsizingthenewshearwallsto
be installed. Since fundamental mode behavior is utilized to represent seismic response
basedontheassumptionofmediumriseconcretebuildingssymmetricinplanandhaving
amassparticipationratiomorethan70%inthefundamentalmodearemorelikelytohave
fundamentalmodeshapedominantbehavior,itisnotonlyessentialbutalsopreferableto
locate new shear walls not to disturb symmetry and regularity of the structure. On the
otherhandarchitecturalconsiderationsaretakenintoaccountnottodisruptserviceability
ofthebuilding.
Size of shear walls gains importance as it affects global lateral stiffness of the retrofitted
structure. Increase in stiffness results in decrease in displacement demand of midrise
reinforced concrete buildings. Thus, size and number of shear walls to be added can be
accounted as the control parameters of retrofit design. For preliminary design, chord
rotation capacities at the bottom ends of columns are compared with chord rotation
demand at the target performance objective calculated after addition of the shear walls
whichisindeedequaltotheinterstorydriftratioofthefirststory.Usually,thecrosssection
areaofshearwallsintheearthquakedirectionshouldnotexceedonepercentofthetotal
floorareainmediumriseconcretebuildings.
2.1.2. TargetDisplacementDemand
Preliminary design is followed by computation of the target displacement demand

correspondingtothemaximumexpecteddisplacementresponseforadesiredperformance
level. Seismic performance levels are defined as follows; Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life
Safety(LS)andCollapsePrevention(CP).Eachperformancelevelhasitsownacceptability
criteria which are defined in the Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007. For example a school
12
buildingshouldsatisfyLSperformancelevelforanearthquakehavingareturnperiodof
2475 years that corresponds to the linear elastic design spectrum with a return period of
475yearsfactoredby1.5.
Target displacement demand for a selected performance level is calculated by employing
the coefficient method i.e. Equation 2.1. Coefficients to convert maximum elastic
displacement demand to maximum inelastic demand are defined in FEMA 356 (ASCE,
2000)asstatedbelow.
t = C0 C1 C2 C3 S a
Te
g
4 2
(2.1)
:Targetdisplacementdemandcomputedattherooflevel.
C0
:Thefirstmodalparticipationfactorcomputedattherooflevel( 1,roof 1 )
C1
: Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to

displacementscalculatedforlinearelasticresponse.
C2
: Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness

degradationandstrengthdeteriorationonmaximumdisplacementresponse.
C3
: Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P

effects.
Sa
:Spectralacceleration,attheeffectivefundamentalperiodanddampingratioofthe
buildinginthedirectionunderconsideration.
Te
:Effectivefundamentalperiodofthebuildinginthedirectionunderconsideration,
sec.
TS
: Characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period associated

with the transition from the constant acceleration region of the spectrum to the
constantvelocityregionofthespectrum.
EffectiveperiodTeistakenaselasticfundamentalperiodofthebuildingcomputedthrough
eigenvalue analysis using cracked stiffnesses of reinforced concrete members. Cracked
section stiffnesses of reinforced concrete members can be calculated by employing
paragraph7.4.13oftheTurkishEarthquakeCode,2007.
13
According to this paragraph effective flexural stiffnesses of beams are taken as 40% of
uncracked flexural stiffnesses. In case of columns and shear walls, the relation given in
Equation 2.2 is used where ND is axial load effect under gravity loading, i.e. dead and
factoredliveloads,Ac isthecrosssectionalareaofcolumn,andfcmiscompressivestrength
ofexistingconcrete.
IfND/(Acfcm)0.10:(EI)e=0.40(EI)o
(2.2)
IfND/(Acfcm)0.40:(EI)e=0.80(EI)o
LinearinterpolationispermittedfortheintermediatevaluesofND/(Acfcm).
Sincecapacitycurveisnotavailableintheuniformdriftapproach,coefficientC1givenin
Equation2.1istakenfromparagraph3.3.1.3.1ofFEMA356(ASCE,2000)inwhichRfactor
isnotrequired.IfthefundamentalperiodofstructureislongerthanthecornerperiodTSof
the response spectrum, equal displacement rule is applicable and maximum elastic and
inelastic displacement demands are equal to each other (Figure 2.1). If the fundamental
periodfallsonconstantaccelerationplateauoftheresponsespectrum,thenC1iscalculated
throughEquation2.3bylinearinterpolationbetweenthevaluesof1to1.5.
0.1<Te<Ts;1.5C1 1.0
Te = Ts ;C1 =1.0
Te Ts ;C1 =1.0
Sa
we2
0.01
0.02
0.03
Sd0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Figure2.1Accelerationdisplacementresponsespectrumrepresentation
14
C1=1.5forTe<0.10second
(2.3)
C1=1.0forTeTS
After obtaining the maximum expected inelastic roof displacement demand of MDOF
system,anassumeddeformedshapepattern,whichrepresentsthedisplacementresponse
of the wallframe system when the roof reaches target displacement, is computed for the
selected performance objective. Displacement demand of each story is calculated from
Equation2.4.
i = t
hi
ht
(2.4)
Elastically imposed deflected shape which corresponds to uniform interstory drift

distributionisillustratedinFigure2.2.
mt
ht
mi+1
i+1
hi+1
mi
hi
Figure2.2Imposeddeflectedshape
2.1.3. MemberDeformationDemands
Memberdeformationdemandsaredefinedintermsofchordrotationsatthememberends.
Inthissense,chordrotationdemandsarecalculatedateachendofcolumnsbyemploying
the proposed deformationcontrolled linear elastic analysis by using cracked flexural
stiffnesses ofreinforced concrete members. Chord rotationsare measuredfrom the chord
15
connectingthetwoendsofamember,tothetangentofdeformedshapeattheconcerned
memberend.Ifchordrotationandjointrotationareinthesamedirection,jointrotationis
subtractedfromdriftratio.CalculationofchordrotationisgivenanalyticallyinEquation
2.5;
where
CRi
:Chordrotationdemandatiendofthemember.
CRj
:Chordrotationdemandatjendofthemember.
:Swaydisplacementbetweentwoendsofthememberatthedeformedpattern.
lc
:Clearlengthofthemember.
:Jointrotationdemandatiendofthemember.
:Jointrotationdemandatjendofthemember.
CRi =
i , CR j = j
lc
lc
(2.5)
ChordrotationsattheendsoflinearelasticframemembersareshowninFigure2.3.
llc
l
i
lc
CRi
CRj
Figure2.3Calculationofchordrotationsfromjointdisplacementsforlinearelastic
structuralmembers
16
2.1.4. MemberDeformationCapacities
The chord rotation capacity of a structural member depends on the strain capacity of its
extreme fibers and its deflection shape. The relationship between chord rotation capacity
andlimitstatestrainscanbeestablishedthroughthecurvatureattheendsection(Priestley
etal,2007):
CRi ,cap = yi + pi yi = y
lv
pi = ( u y ) L p
3
(2.6)
CRj ,cap = yj + pj yj = y
(l c l v )
pj = ( u y ) L p
3
Intheaboveexpressions(Equation2.6),yandparetheyieldrotationandplasticrotation
capacities, and y and u are the yield curvature and ultimate curvature capacities at a
memberend,respectively.Lpistheplastichingelength,lcistheclearspanlengthandlvis
theshearspanlengthfortheassociatedmemberend.PlastichingelengthLpistakenashalf
of the section dimension parallel to the loading direction as stated in Chapter 7 of TEC
2007.lvforacolumnmemberintheinelasticstatecanbeestimatedfromitsendmoments
MiandMjobtainedfromlinearelasticanalysisthroughEquation2.7.
Mi
lv = lc
M +M
j
i
(2.7)
Finally,therelationbetweencurvaturecapacityandstraincapacityisdeterminedfromthe
momentcurvature analysis of the associated memberend section. Keeping effect of axial
loadlevelonductilityinmind,axialloadlevelcalculatedundergravityloadingi.e.dead
and factored live loads is used in ultimate rotation capacity calculations. In case of
earthquakeloadingaxialloadleveloncolumnschanges.Duetoearthquakeloadingaxial
loadlevelsontheexteriorcolumnscanincreaseordecrease.However,intheuniformdrift
approachthevariationinaxialloadlevelsduetoearthquakeloadingisneglected.
Another significant parameter on which chord rotation performance depends is strain

performance limits defined in accordance with the desired performance objective and
17
damagelevels.Strainlimitsusedincapacitycalculationsaretakenfromparagraph7.6.9of
the Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007. In case of minimum damage, ultimate compressive
strain at the outermost concrete fiber should not exceed 0.0035 whether any confinement
reinforcement is present or not. If the rotation capacity corresponding to significant
damage level is investigated, then the ultimate compressive strain at the level of stirrups
enclosing the section should not exceed 0.0035. However, this limit is modified with the
amount of confinement reinforcement present in the section. The upper strain limit for
significant damage level is 0.0135. For severe damage level, ultimate compressive strain
limit for unconfined sections is 0.004. This limit is modified with the amount of
confinement reinforcement present in the section as well. Ultimate strain limits for
reinforcement steel are 0.01, 0.04, and 0.06 corresponding to minimum, significant, and
severedamagelevels,respectively.Strainlimitsforreinforcedconcretematerialswithand
without confinement are tabulated in Table 2.1 in accordance with the damage levels
definedintheTurkishEarthquakeCode(2007).
Table2.1Materialstrainlimitsforunconfinedmembersectionsusedinchordrotation
capacitycalculations
DamageLevel
Minimum
0.0035(outermostfiber)
0.01
Significant
0.0035+0.01(s/sm)0.0135(stirruplevel)
0.04
Severe
0.004+0.014(s/sm)0.018(stirruplevel)
0.06
2.1.5. FinalRetrofitDesign
At the final retrofit design stage, chord rotation demands computed from uniform drift
analysisarecomparedwiththechordrotationscorrespondingtoperformancelimitstates
for the existing columns. According to the obtained results, interventions to increase
ductility,orstrengthandstiffness,orallmaybeappliedtodeficientexistingcolumns.
18
Chordrotationdemandsattheiends(lowerend)ofthefirststorycolumnsandshearwalls
areequaltotheinterstorydriftratiosincejointrotationiszeroatthefixedbase.Moreover
for shear walls it is assumed that all plastic action occurs at the base which is the most
likely case for medium rise reinforced concrete wallframe systems. Thus, interstory drift
ratio demand of the first story computed from the imposed uniform drift pattern is the
designparameterforshearwallstobeaddedtotheexistingsystem.Initialgravityloading
onthecolumnsformingboundaryelementsofthenewshearwallsisconsideredaswell.If
damage level objective is not satisfied with the existing unconfined column section, then
boundary columns are confined by either FRP wrapping or reinforced concrete jacketing.
Anotheroptionistoformconfinedboundariesattheinneredgesoftheshearwallendsby
ignoring existing columns. However the consequences of this practical choice have to be
examinedwell.
2.1.6. CheckingTheFailureModes
Tocompleteretrofitdesign,failuremodesofstructuralmembersaredeterminedinorder
to prevent brittle behavior. Capacity shears or internal shear force demands at the
performance point can be compared with member shear strengths in order to determine
failure modes. In capacity shear method, maximum shear force demand is calculated in
compliancewithendmomentcapacities.Forexamplemaximumshearforcedemandofa
beamisdevelopedwhenitsbothendsreachtheirmomentcapacities.Ifshearstrengthofa
member is greater than lesser of calculated capacity shear force or shear demands
calculatedattheperformancepoint,memberisclassifiedasductile.Membersdetermined
as brittle, in other words members having shear dominated failure mode has to be
retrofittedinordertopreventbrittlebehaviorduringseismicresponse.
2.2. ImplementationoftheProposedMethodologyonanExampleFrame
Areinforcedconcretestructurecomprisedoffivestoryfameswasusedtodemonstratethe
application of the proposed methodology. 2D modeling was employed and only +X
directionwasconsideredincalculations.PlanviewisshowninFigures2.4and2.5together
19
with the equivalent 2D frame. The building was intentionally designed to represent poor
quality and seismic deficiency of existing substandard buildings. Characteristic
compressivestrengthofconcretewaschosenas12MPa.Yieldstrengthoflongitudinaland
transversereinforcementsteelwastakenas420MPaignoringstrainhardening.
K104
K105
K106
K107
K108
A
4.00 m
K103
S6
S7
S8
S9 S10
S1
S2
S3
S4 S5
3.00 m
3.00 m
3.00 m
3.00 m
4.00 m
K102
C
4.00 m
K101
D
5
Figure2.4Planviewoftheexamplebuilding
K101
S1
K102
S2
K103
S3
K105
K104
S4 S5
S6
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
K106
S7
K107
S8
K108
S9 S10
3.50 m
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
Frames A+D
Frames B+C
Figure2.52Dframemodeloftheexamplebuilding
All columns were designed with cross section dimensions of 300x600 mm having a
longitudinalreinforcementratioofsequalto0.009.Additionallyallbeamsweredesigned
as 300x500mm having tension reinforcement ratio of s equal to 0.007 and compression
reinforcementofsequalto0.005atthesupports.Noconfinedzoneswereformedatcritical
sectionsofmembers.10/200mmstirrupswithhookangleof135wereusedastransverse
20
reinforcement in all members and considered as confinement reinforcement. Thus s/sm

ratiowascalculatedas0.17whichyieldsastrainlimitatstirruplevelcorrespondingtothe
significantdamagelimitstateof0.0052.Detailingofcolumnsandbeamsareillustratedin
Figure2.6.
Seismicperformanceoftheexistingbuildingwasevaluatedthroughtheinelasticprocedure
of the Turkish Earthquake Code 2007. Life Safety performance level for school buildings
wasselectedastheperformanceobjective.Accordingtothespecificationsstatedwithinthe
scope of Life Safety objective, a response spectrum represents an earthquake intensity
whichhas2%/50yearsprobabilityofexceedanceorareturnperiodof2475years.Atarget
roof displacement demand of 170 mm was calculated for the existing building under the
2%/50yearsearthquakeresponsespectrumforZ2soiltypebyemployingthecoefficient
method.
300 mm
416
300 mm
318
15
570
10/200
stirrup
470
15
10/200
stirrup
418
15
416
15
Beam Section
Column Section
Figure2.6Sectiondetailsofatypicalcolumnandbeam
Seismic performance of columns and beams were evaluated separately by following the
nonlinearassessmentproceduresofTEC07inthe+XdirectionandsummarizedinFigures
2.7and2.8.Allofthecolumnsatthefirststoryexceedseveredamagelimitstate.Inother
wordsallstorysheariscarriedbydeficientcolumns.Moreover37.5%ofbeamsatthefirst
story exceed significant damage limit state. At the second story 42% of the story shear is
carriedbycolumnsexceedingsignificantdamagelimit.Columnsoftheupperthreestories
satisfyminimumdamagelimitstate.
21
AccordingtotheTurkishEarthquakeCode2007notmorethan20%ofstoryshearshallbe
carriedbycolumnsexceedingsignificantdamagelimitatanystory.Additionallydeficient
beams exceeding significant damage limit shall not be more than 30% of beams at any
story. Thus it can be concluded that existing building does not satisfy Life Safety
performance.
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
OutermostConcreteFiberStrain
StirrupLevelConcreteFiberStrain
SignificantDamageLimitState
SevereDamageLimitState
MinimumDamageLimitState
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
3S3
3S2
2S9
2S8
2S7
2S6
2S10
3S3
3S2
2S10
2S9
2S8
3rdStory
2S7
2S6
2S5
2S4
2S3
2S2
2S1
1S10
1S9
1S8
2ndStory
1S7
1S6
1S5
1S4
1S3
1S2
1S1
1st Story
2S5
2S4
2S3
2S2
2S1
1S9
1S10
1S8
1S7
1S6
1S5
1S4
1S3
1S2
1S1
0
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
OutermostSteelStrain
Figure2.7Damagelevelsofthecolumns
MaxConcreteStrain
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
K206
K207
K208
K206
K207
K208
K205
K201
K108
K107
2 ndStory
K106
K105
K104
K101
1st Story
K205
K201
K108
K107
K106
K105
K104
K101
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure2.8Damagelevelsofthebeams
22
2.2.1. DisplacementBasedRetrofittingofTheExistingFrame
Existing frame system was retrofitted by employing the uniform drift approach.
Implementationoftheprocedureisexplainedinfollowingparagraphs.
Two shear walls having dimensions of 300x2400 mm were installed into interior frames
symmetrically. Characteristic concrete strength of retrofitting members was chosen as 20
MPa. Only X direction was considered in calculations, hence the added shear walls were
installedonlyintheXdirection.Shearwallareatototalfloorareawascalculatedas0.015.
PlanandframeviewsoftheretrofittedbuildingareshowninFigures2.9and2.10.
K103
K104
K105
P1
K107
K108
S9 S10
S1
S2
3.00 m
3.00 m
S3
3
C
4.00 m
S6
A
4.00 m
K102
4.00 m
K101
S4 S5
3.00 m
3.00 m
D
5
Figure2.9Planviewoftheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuilding
K101
S1
K102
S2
K103
S3
K105
K104
S4 S5
S6
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
K107
P1
S9
K108
S10
3.50 m
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m
Frames A+D
Frames B+C
Figure2.102Dframemodeloftheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuilding
23
2.2.1.1. TargetDisplacementDemand
An eigenvalue analysis was conducted by considering cracked stiffnesses of members in

order to compute effective fundamental period of the building. Masses including dead
loads and 30 % of live loads were lumped at mass centers of each story. Effective
fundamental period of the retrofitted building was determined as 0.47 seconds which is
longer than 0.40 second corner period of the response spectrum constructed for Z2. Thus
equaldisplacementruleisvalidandcoefficientC1isequalto1(Equation2.3).Employing
Equation2.1maximuminelasticroofdisplacementdemandoftheretrofittedbuildingwas
calculatedast=0.105m.Thiswas0.170mfortheexistingbuilding.
Adisplacementprofilehavinganinvertedtriangularshapeconformingtoauniformdrift
distributionthatiscompatiblewiththecalculatedroofdisplacementdemandwasimposed
elasticallytothewallframesystemforcalculatingthememberdeformationdemands.
2.2.1.2. MemberDeformationDemands
Employinglinearelasticuniformdriftanalysisinwhichtargetdisplacementresponsewas
adopted, chord rotation demands were calculated at column lower and upper ends. Asa
demonstration, chord rotation at lower end of column 1S1 is shown below referring to
Figure2.3andEquation2.5.
CR1S 1,i =
0.0206
i =
0 = 0.0068
3
lc
2.2.1.3. MemberDeformationCapacities
Chordrotationcapacitycalculatedatacolumnendisthesumofyieldandplasticrotation
capacitiesatthatsection.Rotationcapacityiscalculatedbyemployingmomentcurvature
analysisinwhichaxialloadeffectistakenintoaccount.Axialloadlevelswereassumednot
tovarysignificantlyduetoearthquakeloading.Thusaxialloadsoncolumnsundergravity
loadingi.e.deadandreducedliveloadswereusedincapacitycalculations.
24
Plasticrotationorplasticcurvaturecapacityiscontrolledbystrainlimitscorrespondingto
particular seismic performance damage levels. Since chord rotation capacity is calculated
by employing the moment area theorem, another parameter, namely column shearspan
length is needed. Column end moments are taken from uniform drift analysis using
Equation 2.7 in which shearspan lengths were defined. In addition to the damage limit
states,curvaturevalueonsetofbarbucklingcalculatedbyabarbucklingmodelsuggested
by Moyer and Kowalsky (2003) is also shown but not used for performance evaluation.
This model establishes a relation between flexural tension strains and reinforcement bar
buckling.
In the case of shear walls added to the existing system, a composite section formed by
(existing columnshear wallexisting column) combination was considered (Figure 2.11).
Initialstrainsduetogravityloadingonexistingcolumnsweretakenintoaccount.
300 mm
600 mm
570
600 mm
570
2400 mm
816
212
10/200
Existing Column
816
10/200
Existing Column
212
1810
New Shear Wall
Figure2.11Reinforcementdetailingoftheretrofitshearwall
On Figure 2.12 MomentCurvature analysis and particular damage limits in terms of

curvatures are summarized. Figure 2.13 shows strain distribution on the composite wall
sectionwithinitialstraindistributionsontheexistingcolumnsduetogravityloading.
6000
Moment(kNm)
5000
4000
3000
MKDiagram
IdealizedMKDiagram
MoyerKowalskyBarBucklingLimit
CurvatureDemand
2000
1000
0
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040
Curvature(rad/m)
0.0050
0.0060
0.0070
0.0080
Figure2.12MomentCurvaturecurveoftheretrofitshearwallgiveninFigure2.11
25
SectionDepth(cm)
200
Straindistributionatsignificantdamagelimitstate
150
Initialstraindistribution
100
50
0
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
50 0
0.005
0.01
100
150
Strain
200
Figure2.13Straindistirbutionofcompositeshearwallsection
2.2.1.4. FinalRetrofitDesign
Chordrotationdemandsofexistingcolumnscorrespondingtoanearthquakehaving2475
yearsofreturnperiod,underwhichLifeSafetyperformancewasrequired,werecompared
withcalculatedchordrotationcapacities.Figure2.14illustratesthecomparisongraphically.
All capacities exceed demands, hence the design is verified. Columns not meeting chord
rotationdemandscanbestrengthenedinordertoincreaseductilitythroughinterventions
likeFRPwrapping.
0.030
ChordRotation
0.025
0.020
0.015
Chordrotationdemand(retrofitted)
Chordrotationcapacityatlimitstate
ChordrotationYieldLimit
0.010
0.005
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
1S5
1S6
1S9
1S10
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
2S5
2S6
2S9
2S10
3S1
3S2
3S3
3S4
3S5
3S6
3S9
3S10
4S1
4S2
4S3
4S4
4S5
4S6
4S9
4S10
5S1
5S2
5S3
5S4
5S5
5S6
5S9
5S10
0.000
ColumnID
Figure2.14Chordrotationdemandsvs.chordrotationcapacitiesofcolumns
26
2.2.1.5. CheckingtheFailureModes
Inordertofulfillretrofitdesign,noneofthestructuralmemberscanbepermittedtofailin
shear. In this sense failure modes of members were determined by comparing shear
capacitiesandsheardemands.Sheardemandofamemberwastakenthelesserofcapacity
shearcompatiblewithmomentcapacities,andsheardemandcalculatedfromuniformdrift
analysis at the performance point. Members anticipated to fail in brittle mode have to be
retrofitted in order to increase their shear capacities. Most common intervention method
forthispurposeistowrapdeficientmemberwithRCjackets.Inthisparticularanalytical
case, shear capacities of columns and beams were calculated together with the
correspondingsheardemands.Itwasobservedthatnobrittlebehaviorwasanticipatedfor
anyexistingmemberintheretrofittedcase.
27
CHAPTER3
VERIFICATIONOFTHEDISPLACEMENTBASEDRETROFITDESIGN
METHODOLOGY
Successintheestimationofnonlineardeformationdemandsiscrucialinverifyingaretrofit
designmethodology.Inthisstudydeformationdemandsintermsofchordrotationswere
estimatedbyemployingalinearelasticanalysiswhichwereutilizedasdesignparameters
for developing retrofit solutions in member or system level. Pushover analyses results of
frame systems retrofitted with shear walls reveal that displacement responses
approximately fit to uniform drift distribution. Assuming that drift response of the
retrofitted system is uniformly distributed over the height, an equivalent linear elastic
analysis of the retrofitted building is carried out to calculate the member chord rotation
demands.
As a verification and check of the methodology proposed herein, pushover analysis was
conductedfortheretrofittedcaseoftheanalyticalframeexaminedinthepreviouschapter.
Improvement in seismic performance after retrofitting was examined by employing
assessment procedures of TEC 2007. Chord rotation demands were calculated at the
performancepointforLifeSafetyperformancelevel.Deformationdemandsobtainedfrom
twodifferentapproacheswerecomparedinordertovalidatetheuniformdriftapproach.
Additionally, another comparative study is presented in this chapter that involves force
based retrofit solution of the investigated building. Displacementbased and forcebased
28
solutionswerecomparedtoobservethedifferencesbetweenconventionalandalternative
displacementbasedapproaches.
3.1. VerificationofRetrofitDesignandUniformDriftApproach
In order to verify the retrofit design conducted by employing uniform drift approach,
improvementinseismicperformancethroughretrofittingwasexaminedfirst.Inthissense
changeinloadcarryingcapacitiesanddisplacementresponseswerecompared.Moreover
seismic performance of the retrofitted frame was evaluated for Life Safety performance
objectivebyemployingnonlinearmethodsofTEC2007.Thusretrofittedwallframesystem
designed in accordance with uniform drift approach was pushed nonlinearly to a target
roof displacement demand where nonlinearity was defined with lumped plasticity at
memberends.Targetroofdisplacementdemandoftheretrofittedframewascalculatedas
0.105 m by employing the coefficient method. Since effective fundamental period of the
building was longer than the corner period of the spectrum constructed for stiff soil
conditions, equal displacement rule is valid and inelastic roof displacement demand was
taken equal to inelastic roof displacement demand. In Figure 3.1, representative capacity
curves of the existing and retrofitted buildings are shown together with target roof
displacementdemandscalculatedfortheearthquakehavingareturnperiodof2475years.
4000
BaseShear(kN)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
RetrofittedFrame(DisplacementBased)
1000
ExistingFrame
500
TargetRoofDisplacementDemand
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.25
0.30
Figure3.1Capacitycurvesoftheexistinganddisplacementbasedretrofittedframes
As can be seen in the Figure 3.1 added shear walls improved both lateral load carrying
capacity and lateral rigidity significantly. Behavior of the structural system transformed
29
fromsheartoflexuralbehavioraswellsincetheshearwalldominatesthebehaviorofthe
building. Moreover formation of plastic hinge at the shear wall bases affects the drift
response of the wallframe system. Change in behavior and nonlinearity can be followed
through the distribution of plasticity and drift responses of existing and retrofitted
buildings. Plastic hinge mechanism of the existing and retrofitted buildings at the
performance points are compared in Figure 3.2. It can be observed on Figure 3.2.1 that
plasticitywascondensedatthefirsttwostoriesoftheexistingframe.Sincestrongcolumn
weakbeamprinciplewasviolated,yieldingofcolumnendstookplacebeforethespanning
beamsreachtheircapacities,leadingtoamechanismatthelowertwostories.
S1
S2
S3
S4
Frames A+D
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S1
Frames B+C
S2
S3
S4
Frames A+D
a.) EXISTING BUILDING
S5
S6
P1
S9
S10
Frames B+C
b.) RETROFITTED BUILDING
Figure3.2Plastichingedistributionsalongtheexistingandretrofittedbuildingsatthe
performancepoints
Additionally, the nonlinear assessment procedure of TEC 2007 was followed in order to
evaluate the seismic performance of the retrofitted building. Damage levels for columns
and beams deformed beyond elastic limits are presented in Figures 3.3 and 3.4,
respectively.Allmemberswereclassifiedasductilesincenoshearfailurewasanticipated
attheperformancepoint.EvaluationresultsofglobalseismicperformanceforLifeSafety
level are summarized in Table 3.1. On this table, percentage of beams and percentage of
story shear force carried by columns which are not capable of meeting the significant
damagelimitstatearegivenforeachstory.
30
Table3.1Globalseismicperformancesofexistingandretrofittedcasesoftheframe
EXISTING
Story Vn
No. (kN)
RETROFITTED
VNC
%NC
%NC
Vn
VNC
%NC
%NC
(kN)
shear
beams
(kN)
(kN)
shear
beams
2193
2193
100.00
37.5
3491
2
3
4
5
1986
1590
1033
366
841
0
0
0
42.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
3288
2792
1954
794
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NC:Membersfailingtosatisfytherequiredperformance
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
5S9
5S6
5S2
5S3
5S4
4S9
5S9
5S6
4S9
5thStory
5S2
5S3
5S4
4S2
4S3
4S4
4thStory
4S2
4S3
4S4
3S2
3S3
3S4
3rdStory
3S2
3S3
3S4
2S6
2ndStory
1S6
1P1
1S9
1S1
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
1stStory
2S6
1S6
1P1
1S9
1S1
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
MaxConcreteStrain
0
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure3.3Damagelevelsofthecolumns
In order to evaluate the validity of uniform drift approach, results of pushover analysis
were utilized. Evaluation of the basic assumption of uniform drift approach, which
assumes drift response of the retrofitted system as uniformly distributed along building
height, was made by comparing story displacement and interstory drift distributions
obtainedfromuniformdriftandpushoveranalyses.Figure3.5summarizescomparisonof
drift responses of the existing and retrofitted cases. As the behavior of building system
transforms into flexurefrom shear, interstory drift demandsdecrease in thelower stories
significantly and increase slightly at the higher stories which can be observed in Figures
31
3.5.Howeverincreaseindriftdemandsistolerableduetothelateralrigidityincreasewith
newwalls.Yieldingatthewallbasealsoplaysroleintransformationofdriftresponseto
uniform. Drift responses calculated from uniform drift and pushover analysis are
compared in Figure 3.5 as well at the same roof displacement at which the shear wall is
onset of yielding. As observed in Figure 3.5, uniform drift assumption is satisfactory to
catchdriftdemandsespeciallyforthefirststorywhichiscriticalfortheretrofitdesign.
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
K507
K505
K408
5thStory
K407
K405
K507
K505
K408
K407
K405
K308
K308
4thStory
K307
K305
K208
K207
K205
K201
K108
K107
K307
K305
K208
3rdStory
2ndStory
K105
1stStory
K207
K205
K201
K108
K107
K105
MaxConcreteStrain
0
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure3.4Damagelevelsofthebeams
0.0220
Story
0.0092
0.0050
0.067
0.044
0.046
OnsetofwallyieldingUDAnalysis
0.154
0.136
OnsetofwallyieldingPOAnalysis
2
1
0.085
0.024
0.00
0.000
ExistingFramePOAnalysis
0.024
a.
0.164
0.064
0.0076
0.0030
RetrofittedFrameUDAnalysis
RetrofittedFramePOAnalysis
0.087
0.0135
0.170
0.085
0.0177
0.0178
0.0128
0.105
Story
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.000
b.
StoryDisplacement(m)
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
InterstoryDriftRatio
Figure3.5a.Displacement,b.interstorydriftdistributionsoftheexistingandretrofitted
framespredictedwithuniformdriftandpushoveranalyses
32
Deformationdemandsintermsofchordrotationswerecalculatedforthecolumnendsat
theperformancepointbyemployingEquation2.5.Asacomparativepresentationofhow
added shear walls affected the chord rotation demands of existing column ends, chord
rotationdemandswerealsocalculatedfortheexistingandretrofittedcasesofthebuilding
at its performance point by employing pushover analysis. Chord rotation demands
computedfromuniformdriftandpushoveranalysesoftheexistingandretrofittedframes
are compared at the same target roof displacement in Figure 3.6. It should be noted that
thesecolumnshavenotbeenretrofittedintheretrofitdesign.
0.025
ChordrotationdemandUDAnalysis(Retrofitted)
ChordrotationdemandPOAnalysis(Retrofitted)
ChordrotationdemandPOAnalysis(Existing)
ChordRotation
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
1S5
1S6
1S9
1S10
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
2S5
2S6
2S9
2S10
3S1
3S2
3S3
3S4
3S5
3S6
3S9
3S10
4S1
4S2
4S3
4S4
4S5
4S6
4S9
4S10
5S1
5S2
5S3
5S4
5S5
5S6
5S9
5S10
0.005
ColumnID
Figure3.6Chordrotationdemandsofthecolumns
Itisobservedthattheresultsareusuallyreasonablyclose;howeversignificantdifferences
occur only at the ends of columns in tension adjacent to the shear wall. Considering this
observation,columnsdenotedasS6andS9needfurtherattention.Onecanfollowonthe
chart illustrated in Figure 3.6 that changing the existing shear frame system into a wall
framesystemi.e.flexuredominantwallbehavior,chordrotationdemandsatthefirsttwo
stories decreased considerably whereas at the top story a slight increase in deformation
demandswasobservedasitwasindriftdistributionsaswell.
3.2. ForceBasedRetrofitSolution
After verifying uniform drift approach as a simplified displacementbased retrofit design

methodology, the example frame was retrofitted by employing a forcebased method as
33
wellinordertocompareretrofitsolutionssuggestedbythetwoalternativeapproaches.By
thisway,efficiencyandeconomyofthemethodswereinvestigated.
In order to employ forcebased retrofit methods, seismic performance of the retrofitted

framewasevaluatedtosatisfyLifeSafetyobjective.Inthissenselinearelasticprocedures
defined in TEC 2007 were used. According to these specifications, cracked stiffnesses of
reinforcedconcretememberswereusedintheanalysis.MoreoverforcereductionfactorR
was taken as unity and calculated base shear was factored by 0.85 representing the first
mode mass participation ratio. Failure modes of existing members were determined. In
case of the retrofitted frame all columns and beams were classified as ductile. Seismic
performancesofductilememberswereevaluatedbycomparingtheirdemandtoreserved
capacityratiowithparticularlimitsspecifiedfordamagelevels.Evaluationresultsgivenin
Table3.2yieldedinaglobalsensethatadditionofshearwallsbarelywasenoughtosatisfy
the Life Safety objective. No more interventions were needed for existing columns to
improveperformance.
Table3.2Globalseismicperformancesoftheretrofittedframe
LinearElasticAssessmentResultsoftheRetrofittedFrame
Story
No.
%NC
%storyshear
beamsperstory
carriedbyNCcolumns
1
2
3
4
5
0
14
14
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
NC:Membersfailingtosatisfytherequiredperformance
DemandtoreservedcapacityratioofshearwallP1wascalculatedas3.67.Theratioisless
than4whichisthevaluecorrespondingtothesignificantdamagelevellimitstatedinTEC
2007forshearwallswithunconfinedboundaries.
34
2
RSfor2%probabilityofexceedancein50
yrs.earthquake
DesignSpectrum(R=4.5)
S(g)
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
T(sec.)
1.5
Figure3.7Designandcodespectraforanearthquakehaving2%probabilityofexceedance
in50years
Concludingtheseismicperformanceevaluationofexistingmembers,shearwallsaddedto
theexistingframesystemweredesignedbyemployingforcebasedproceduresdefinedin
TEC2007.Assumingthebuildingresponseisdominatedbythefirstmodeandnotorsional
irregularity is anticipated, equivalent static lateral loads were calculated under a design
spectrumconstructedforanearthquakehaving2%probabilityofexceedancein50years.
Figure3.7illustratesthedesignspectrumusedinthedesignofaddedshearwalls.Design
spectrum was obtained by reducing the code spectrum by R = 4.5. Nonlinear analyses of
mediumrisereinforcedconcretebuildingsretrofittedwithshearwallsrevealthatreducing
elastic forces by 4.5 is reasonable to estimate ductility demands. Following specifications
definedinTEC2007forductileshearwalls,confinedendswereformedwithinthewalls.
Reducedelasticforcescalculatedbyusingthedesignspectrumwereemployedincapacity
designofthenewshearwalls.Momentenvelopeoftheshearwallsusedindesignisshown
inFigure3.8.
35
MomentDiagramAnalysis
(R=4.5)
DesignEnvelope
Story
1
Hcr=3.5m
0
1250
250
750
1750
2750
3750
4750
5750
6750
7750
Moment(kNm)
Figure3.8Momentenvelopeusedinshearwalldesign
3.3. ComparisonofForceBasedandDisplacementBasedRetrofitSolutions
Deficient frame presented in Chapter 2 was retrofitted following the two different
approachesexplainedinSections2.2.1and3.2.Indisplacementbasedapproach,inwhicha
proposed linear elastic analysis method was used, deformation demands and limit states
wereemployedasdesignparameters.Ontheotherhand,inforcebasedapproachreduced
elastic forces and conventional design specifications for new buildings of TEC 2007 were
used. Considering the results of retrofit design solutions for the two approaches, it was
concludedthatnointerventionsforcolumnsweresuggestedinbothapproaches.However
differences were observed in shear wall detailing. In displacementbased design, no
confined ends were formed at wall boundaries whereas existing columns were used as
boundaryelements.Existingcolumnswerealsoincludedincapacitycalculations.Inforce
based retrofit design, following the specifications for shear walls defined in TEC 2007,
shearwallsaddedtotheexistingframesystemwasclassifiedasslenderwallsconsidering
total height to length ratio of the walls. Along the critical height of the walls which was
determinedas3.5m,confinedendzoneswereformed.
Longitudinalreinforcementratioof0.0025whichisacodeminimumvaluewassufficient
for the infill portion of the new shear wall in order to meet deformation demands
determined with uniform drift analysis. On the other hand in forcebased design the
36
amount of longitudinal reinforcement in terms of volumetric ratio increased to 0.0121.

DetailingofshearwallssuggestedbytwodesignapproachesarecomparedinFigure3.9.
300 mm
Displacement-Based Design
2400 mm
600 mm
570
816
212
10/200
Existing Column
1810
New Shear Wall
600 mm
570
816
10/200
Existing Column
212
300 mm
Force-Based Design
600 mm
570
816
10/200
600 mm
1022
Existing Column
2400 mm
1012
New Shear Wall
600 mm
1022
600 mm
570
816
10/200
Existing Column
Figure3.9Shearwalldetailingaccordingtodisplacementbasedandforcebasedretrofit
designs
Axial load moment capacity at the base of shear wall P1 obtained for forcebased and
displacementbaseddesignsareshowninFigure3.10.AdditionallyinFigure3.11moment
curvature analysis results are compared for the forcebased and displacementbased
designs of the shear wall P1. Although displacementbased design gives lower moment
capacity values due to no confinement at boundaries and less longitudinal reinforcement
amount, it is capable of meeting the deformation demands and shear demands at the
performance point. It can be stated that forcebased design results in unrealistic force
demands and excess amounts of reinforcement. Shear demands differ as well since shear
demandistakenasthedemandattheperformancepointhavingavalueof1105kNwhich
yieldsaminimumtransversereinforcementratioof0.0025.Inforcebaseddesignthisratio
becomes0.0045duetoacapacitysheardemandof2509kN.
37
30000
DisplacementBasedDesign
Force_BasedDesign
25000
DisplacementBasedLoadDemand
ForcedBasedLoadDemand
AxialForce(kN)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
5000
10000
Moment(kNm)
Figure3.10Axialforcemomentinteractiondiagramsaccordingtodisplacementbasedand
forcebasedretrofitdesigns
10000
9000
8000
Moment(kNm)
7000
6000
5000
4000
MKDiagramDisplacementbaseddesign
MKDiagramForcebaseddesign
CurvatureDemand
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040
0.0050
Curvature(rad/m)
0.0060
0.0070
0.0080
Figure3.11Momentcurvaturediagramsofforcebasedanddisplacementbaseddesign
solutionsortheshearwallP1
Due to different longitudinal reinforcement amounts, shear walls have different moment
capacitiesobviously.InFigure3.12,capacitycurvesofforcebasedanddisplacementbased
retrofittedbuildingsreflectthedifferenceinlateralloadcarryingcapacities.Althoughboth
of the cases have the same lateral rigidity, their target roof displacement demands are
different due to different load carrying capacities. Having a lesser lateral load carrying
capacity,targetroofdisplacementdemandofthedisplacementbasedretrofittedbuildingis
38
more as shown in Figure 3.12. In case of the forcebased retrofit design target roof
displacement demand was calculated as same in displacementbased design since equal
displacementruleisvalidandbothbuildingshavesamefundamentalperiod.
4500
4000
BaseShear(kN)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
RetrofittedFrame(DisplacementBased)
1000
RetrofittedFrame(ForceBased)
500
TargetRoofDisplacementDemand
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.20
0.25
0.30
Figure3.12Capacitycurvesofforcebasedanddisplacementbasedretrofittedframes
39
CHAPTER4
CASESTUDYISEISMICREHABILITATIONOFAFOURSTORY
SCHOOLBUILDING
Afourstoryschoolbuildingcomposedofreinforcedconcreteframesystemwasexamined
as a case study. Seismic performance of the existing building was evaluated first and
deficiencies were determined in both member and system levels. Then the existing
structural system was retrofitted by following the proposed displacementbased retrofit
design methodology. As a comparative study, forcebased retrofit solution is also
presented. In order to verify design, inelastic seismic performance evaluation of the
displacementbasedretrofittedbuildingisgiveninthischapteraswell.
4.1. ExistingConditionoftheBuilding
ExistingschoolbuildingshowninFigure4.1iscomposedoffourstoryreinforcedconcrete
framesystem.InXdirectiontherearefourframes.ColumnsofframeslocatedonBandC
axesareorientedintheXdirectionwhereascolumnsofframeslocatedonAandDaxesare
orientedintheYdirection.Crosssectiondimensionofcolumnsatthefirstthreestoriesare
300x600mm,andtheyare300x500mmatthefourthstory.Allbeamsare300x700mmin
dimension.Heightsofthefirstthreestoriesare3.15manditreducesto3.1matthefourth
story.PlanviewofthebuildingisshowninFigure4.2.
Existing material strengths were obtained by field and laboratory tests. Existing concrete
strength wasobtained as low as 7 MPa and characteristic yield strength of reinforcement
40
bars was determined as 220 MPa. Volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in

columns was measured as 0.017. In case of beams, tension reinforcement ratio was 0.009
and compression reinforcement ratio was 0.006 at the supports. In all member sections
8/200mmstirrupswithahookangleof90wereused.Thuscompressiveconcretestrain
limitatthestirruplevelforsignificantdamagelimitstatewastakenas0.0035.
Figure4.13DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryexistingschoolbuilding
Figure4.2Planviewofthefourstoryexistingschoolbuilding
41
Localsoilconditionswereclassifiedasstiffsoil,correspondingtoZ2soiltypeaccordingto
TEC 2007. Since Life Safety performance objective was selected, response spectrum was
constructed for Z2 soil type for an earthquake having 2% probability of exceedance in50
years,whichcorrespondstoa2475returnperiodevent.AccordingtoLifeSafetycriteriafor
schoolbuildingsstatedinTEC2007,notmorethan20%ofstoryshearshouldbecarriedby
deficientcolumnsinastoryexceptthetopstoryandnotmorethan30%ofthebeamsina
storyshouldbeclassifiedasdeficientintheconsideredearthquakedirection.
InordertoevaluateseismicperformancewhetherthebuildingsatisfiesLifeSafetyobjective
or not in the X and Y directions, nonlinear assessment procedure of TEC 2007 was
followed. Pushover analysis was conducted in +X and +Y directions using cracked
stiffnessesofreinforcedconcretemembers.CapacitycurvesoftheexistingbuildingintheX
and Y directions are shown in Figure 4.3. Effective fundamental periods in the X and Y
directions were computed as 0.61 seconds and 0.80 seconds, respectively. Target roof
displacementdemandsundertheconsidereddesignearthquakewerecalculatedforXand
Y directions as 0.132 m and 0.186 m, respectively. Existing building was pushed in both
directionsseparatelyuntiltherooflevelreachedthetargetroofdisplacement.
7000
6000
BaseShear(kN)
5000
4000
3000
CapacityCurve+XDirection
CapacityCurve+YDirection
RoofDisplacementDemand
SoftStoryFormation
2000
1000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.25
0.30
0.35
Figure4.3Capacitycurvesoftheexistingbuilding
Due to low material strength and lack of proper seismic detailing, existing columns and
beams were observed not to meet deformation demands anticipated at the performance
42
point.Damagelevelsofreinforcedconcretemembersgoingbeyondelasticdeformationat
the performance point computed by pushover analysis in the X and Y directions are
presentedinFigures4.4,4.5,4.6,and4.7.ConsideringXdirection,plasticityspreadsover
the first two story members. All of the first story columns were classified as deficient in
meeting the limit of significant damage level in both directions. Additionally, more than
30%ofthebeamsdeformedbeyondsignificantdamagelimitintheconsideredearthquake
direction at the first and second stories. Global performance evaluation of the existing
buildingissummarizedinTable4.1forbothXandYloadingdirections.
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1S50
1S51
1S52
1S53
1S54
1S52
1S53
1S54
1S46
1S51
1S45
1S46
1S49
1S44
1S45
1S50
1S43
1S44
1S48
1S42
1S43
1S49
1S41
1S42
1S47
1S40
1S41
1S48
1S39
1S40
1S47
1S38
1S39
1S37
1S38
1S36
1S35
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S27
1S26
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S22
1S21
1S20
1S19
1S18
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
0
st
1S37
1S36
1S35
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S27
1S26
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S22
1S21
1S20
1S19
1S18
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
1 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.4DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading
43
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S45
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
2S54
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S45
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
2S54
2S37
2S38
2S36
2S35
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S27
2S26
2S25
2S24
2S23
2S22
2S21
2S20
2S19
2S18
2S17
2S16
2S15
2S14
2S13
0
nd
2S37
2S36
2S35
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S27
2S26
2S25
2S24
2S23
2S22
2S21
2S20
2S19
2S18
2S17
2S16
2S15
2S14
2S13
2 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.4DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading(continued)
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
3S47
3S16
0
rd
3S47
3S16
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
44
0.015
0.010
K149
K150
K151
K152
K153
K154
K157
K150
K151
K152
K153
K154
K157
K165
K148
K149
K147
K148
K146
K143
K142
K141
K140
K139
K138
K137
K136
K135
0.000
K133
0.005
K125
MaxConcreteStrain
0.020
st
K165
K147
K146
K143
K142
K141
K140
K139
K138
K137
K136
K135
K133
K125
1 StoryBeams
0.00
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.5DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading
0.015
0.010
K249
K250
K251
K252
K253
K254
K257
K249
K250
K251
K252
K253
K254
K257
K248
K247
K246
K243
K242
K241
K240
K239
K238
K237
K236
0.000
K235
0.005
K225
MaxConcreteStrain
0.020
nd
K248
K247
K246
K243
K242
K241
K240
K239
K238
K237
K236
K235
K225
2 StoryBeams
0.00
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.5DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheXdirectionloading(continued)
45
On the other hand, in Y direction yielding of columns and beams were observed at the
thirdstoryinadditiontothefirsttwostories.Accordingtoassessmentresultstheexisting
building was not able to satisfy Life Safety performance level. Global performance
evaluationofthebuildingissummarizedinTable4.1.
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1S54
1S53
1S52
1S51
1S50
1S49
1S48
1S47
1S44
1S46
1S43
1S44
1S45
1S42
1S43
1S41
1S42
1S39
1S40
1S38
1S39
1S37
1S38
1S36
1S35
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S27
1S26
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S22
1S21
1S20
1S19
1S18
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
0
st
1S54
1S53
1S52
1S51
1S50
1S49
1S48
1S47
1S46
1S45
1S41
1S40
1S37
1S36
1S35
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S27
1S26
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S22
1S21
1S20
1S19
1S18
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
1 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.6DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading
46
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S37
2S38
2S36
2S35
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S27
2S26
2S25
2S24
2S23
0
nd
2S37
2S36
2S35
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S27
2S26
2S25
2S24
2S23
2 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.6DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading(continued)
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S42
3S43
3S44
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S42
3S43
3S44
3S37
3S36
3S35
3S32
3S31
3S30
3S29
3S28
3S27
3S26
3S25
3S24
3S23
0
rd
3S37
3S36
3S35
3S32
3S31
3S30
3S29
3S28
3S27
3S26
3S25
3S24
3S23
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
47
0.015
0.010
K187
K188
K190
K191
K193
K194
K190
K191
K193
K194
K185
K185
K188
K184
K184
K187
K182
K181
K182
K179
K178
K176
K177I
K174J
K174I
K172
K171
K169
0.000
K168
0.005
K166
MaxConcreteStrain
0.020
K181
K179
K178
K177I
K176
K174J
K174I
K172
K171
K169
K168
K166
st
1 StoryBeams
0.00
0.01
MaxSteelStrain
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.7DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirectionloading
0.015
0.010
K288
K289
K291
K294
K288
K289
K291
K294
K285
K285
K286
K283
K283
K286
K282
K282
K280
K279
K277J
K277I
K275
K274J
K273
K272
K270
K269
0.000
K267
0.005
K266
MaxConcreteStrain
0.020
K280
K279
K277J
K277I
K275
K274J
K273
K272
K270
K269
K267
K266
nd
2 StoryBeams
0.00
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.7DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirectionloading(continued)
48
0.008
0.006
0.004
K389
K384
K384
K386
K383
K383
K381
K377J
K376
K373
0.000
K371
0.002
K370
MaxConcreteStrain
0.010
K389
K386
K381
K377J
K376
K373
K371
K370
rd
3 StoryBeams
0.00
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.008
0.006
0.004
K490
K491
K493
K494
K490
K491
K493
K494
0.000
K488
0.002
K488
MaxConcreteStrain
0.010
th
4 StoryBeams
0.00
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
49
Table4.1Globalperformanceoftheexistingbuilding
XDirection
Story Vstr VNC
%NC
No. (kN) (kN)
1
2
3
4
5900 5900 100.00

5213 4877 93.55
3640 0
0.00
1364 0
0.00
%NC
Beams
55.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
Story
No.
1
2
3
4
YDirection
VNC
%NC
(kN) (kN)
%NC
Beams
100.00
46.41
52.84
0.00
31.25
31.25
0.00
6.25
Vstr
4775 4775
4256 1975
2993 1581
1121
0
4.2. ImplementationoftheRetrofitDesignMethodologyTheVerificationofDesign
Considering the calculated deficiencies, retrofit strategy should intend to reduce

deformationdemandsatlowerstorymembers.Inthissense,fourshearwallshavingcross
sectiondimensionsof300x3250mmandtwoshearwallshavingcrosssectiondimensions
of300x6900mmwereaddedintheXandYdirections,respectively.Theratioofthecross
sectionareaofshearwallsintheconsideredearthquakedirectiontothefloorareais0.008
in the X and 0.007 in the Y direction. 3D mathematical model and plan view of the
retrofittedbuildingareshowninFigure4.8andFigure4.9,respectively.
Figure4.83DMathematicalmodeloftheretrofittedfourstoryschoolbuilding
50

Figure4.9Planviewoftheretrofittedbuilding
Characteristic concrete strength was taken as 20 MPa in compression and characteristic

yieldstrengthofreinforcementbarswastakenas420MPafornewmembers.
Shear walls were located not to disturb symmetry in plan and not to intervene with the
architecturalfunctions.Effectivefundamentalperiodsinbothdirectionswerecomputedby
usingcrackedstiffnessesofreinforcedconcretemembers.Effectivefundamentalperiodsin
theXandYdirectionswerecomputedas0.29sec.and0.23sec.respectively.Theseperiods
were 0.61 and 0.80seconds before retrofitting with the added walls. Employing Equation
2.1,targetroofdisplacementdemandswerecomputedas0.053mand0.036mfortheXand
Ydirections,whichwere0.132mand0.186mbeforeretrofitting.Targetroofdisplacements
andcorrespondinguniformdriftdistributionscomputedforthedesignearthquakehaving
2%probabilityofexceedancein50yearsareshowninFigures4.10and4.11togetherwith
the drift profile of the existing and retrofitted buildings at the associated performance
points.
51
0.132
RetrofittedBuildingUD
Analysis
0.053
Story
0.106
0.027
0.124
0.040
Story
0.058
0.013
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
0
0.000
i.
0.020
0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

0.120
0.000
0.140
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Figure4.10i.Storydisplacements,ii.InterstorydriftdistributionsinXdirection
0.186
0.036
Analysis
0.027
0.172
0.018
0.134
0.069
0.009
i.
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
Story
Story
0.000
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.000
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Figure4.11i.Storydisplacements,ii.InterstorydriftdistributionsinYdirection
Imposing the drift distributions shown in Figures 4.10 and 4.11 by employing a linear
elasticanalysis,chordrotationdemandswerecalculatedandpresentedinFigures4.12and
4.13 together with the chord rotation capacities at the significant damage limit of the
columnsinordertodeterminedeficientcolumns.Interventionsmayberequiredinorderto
increasetheirdeformationcapacitiesorshearstrengths.
52
1stStoryColumns
0.0090
0.0080
ChordRotation
0.0070
0.0060
0.0050
0.0040
0.0030
0.0020
ChordrotationdemandUDAnalysis
0.0010
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S20
1S21
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S38
1S39
1S40
1S41
1S46
1S47
1S48
1S49
1S50
1S51
1S52
1S53
0.0000
ColumnID
directionforsignificantdamageperformancelevel
2ndStoryColumns
0.0120
ChordRotation
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S20
2S21
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
0.0000
ColumnID
directionforsignificantdamageperformancelevel(continued)
53
3rdStoryColumns
0.0160
0.0140
ChordRotation
0.0120
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S20
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S46
3S47
3S48
3S49
3S50
3S51
3S52
3S53
0.0000
ColumnID
4thStoryColumns
0.0300
ChordRotation
0.0250
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S18
4S19
4S20
4S21
4S22
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S38
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S46
4S47
4S48
4S49
4S50
4S51
4S52
4S53
0.0000
ColumnID
54
1stStoryColumns
0.0090
0.0080
0.0070
ChordRotation
0.0060
0.0050
0.0040
0.0030
0.0020
0.0010
0.0000
0.0010
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S20
1S21
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S38
1S39
1S40
1S41
1S46
1S47
1S48
1S49
1S50
1S51
1S52
1S53
0.0020
ColumnID
2ndStoryColumns
0.0120
ChordRotation
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S20
2S21
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
0.0020
ColumnID
55
3rdStoryColumns
0.0160
0.0140
ChordRotation
0.0120
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S20
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S46
3S47
3S48
3S49
3S50
3S51
3S52
3S53
0.0020
ColumnID
4thStoryColumns
0.0450
0.0400
ChordRotation
0.0350
0.0300
0.0250
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S18
4S19
4S20
4S21
4S22
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S38
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S46
4S47
4S48
4S49
4S50
4S51
4S52
4S53
0.0050
ColumnID
56
It can be observed from Figures 4.12 and 4.13 that none of the column chord rotation
demandsexceedschordrotationcapacitiescalculatedatthesignificantdamagelimitstate.
Adding shear walls successfully limited the deformation demands in columns due to
increasedlateralrigidity.
In order to prevent brittle failure of reinforced concrete members, shear demands occur
werecomparedwithshearcapacities.ColumnsS24,S25,S30,S31,S38,S39,S40,andS41at
thefirststoryoftheretrofittedbuildingwereclassifiedasbrittle.Thus,thesecolumnswere
wrapped with FRP sheets to increase shear capacity. FRP design was made by following
theproceduresstatedinTEC2007.DetailsofFRPdesignforcolumnS25isgivenbelowas
an example.Shear demand of the column S25at the first storywas calculated as191kN,
howevershearcapacityofthecolumnwas164kN.Inordertoincreaseitsshearcapacity,
FRPsheetshavingthicknessof0.165mmwerewrappedaroundthecolumnwithaspacing
of150mm.
nf
tf(mm)
wf(mm)
Ef(MPa)
f
d(mm)
sf(mm)
u
Vf(kN)
Vc(kN)
Vs(kN)
Vr(kN)
Vmax(kN)
1
0.165
85
230000
0.004
585
0.165
0.01
47.5
93.1
49.4
191.6
336.6
where
nf
t f
w f
Ef
sf
f
d
Vf
Vc
Vs
Vr
NumberofFRPlayers
ThicknessofonelayerFRPsheet
WidthofFRPsheets
ElasticmodulusofFRPsheets
SpacingbetweenFRPsheets
StrainlimitofFRP
Depthofsection
IncreaseinshearcapacityduetoFRPwrapping
Shearcapacitybyconcrete
Shearcapacitybysteel
Shearcapacityofretrofittedcolumn
Detailing of shear walls intends to satisfy the computed chord rotation demands at the
bases of walls. Existing columns were taken into account as boundary elements of the
walls.Barbucklingphenomenonintheexistingcolumnswasalsoconsideredasalimiting
state of deformation capacities. Moment curvature analysis results and particular limit
statesin terms of curvaturesare presented for shearwalls TP01 and TP05 in Figures 4.14
and4.16togetherwithreinforcementandsectiondetailingofthewallsinFigures4.15and
57
4.17. Longitudinal reinforcement ratio in web section of shear walls TP01 and TP05 is
0.0025 corresponding to the minimum ratio stated in TEC 2007. In case of shear, lateral
reinforcementratiois0.0025aswell,whichistheminimumratiostatedinTEC2007.This
amount of minimum lateral reinforcement was sufficient to meet the shear demands of
1551kNforTP01and2941kNforTP05.
7000
Moment(kNm)
6000
5000
MKDiagram
IdealizedMKDiagram
CurvatureDemand
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020 0.0025 0.0030

Curvature(rad/m)
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
Figure4.14MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallTP01
300 mm
600 mm
570
600 mm
570
3250 mm
424+420
8/200
424+420
8/200
3210
Existing Column
Existing Column
TP01
Figure4.15DetailingofTP01
18000
Moment(kNm)
15000
12000
MKDiagram
IdealizedMKDiagram
CurvatureDemand
9000
6000
3000
0
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
Curvature(rad/m)
0.0020
Figure4.16MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallTP05
58
0.0025
6900 mm
424+420
8/200
570
600 mm
300 mm
424+420
8/200
600 mm
570
7010
Existing Column
Existing Column
TP05
Figure4.17DetailingofTP05
4.3. VerificationoftheProposedRetrofitDesignMethodology
Retrofit design was verified through nonlinear evaluation of seismic performance at Life
Safety in both X and Y directions of loading. Thus, pushover analysis was conducted.
CapacitycurvesofexistingandretrofittedbuildingsareshowninFigure4.18.Increasein
bothlateralloadcarryingcapacityandlateralstiffnessisclearlyobservedinFigure4.18as
aresultofnewaddedshearwalls.
14000
12000
BaseShear(kN)
10000
8000
6000
RetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
RetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
4000
ExistingBuilding+XDirection
ExistingBuilding+YDirection
2000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
RoofDisplacement(m)
Figure4.18Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedandexistingbuildings
59
0.30
DriftdistributionsofexistingandretrofittedbuildingsareshowninFigures4.19and4.20
whereas chord rotation demands calculated by employing uniform drift and pushover
analyses are compared in Figures 4.21 and 4.22. Following Figures 4.21 and 4.22, it is
observed that addition of shear walls decreased chord rotation demands of the existing
columns significantly. Additionally, comparing chord rotation demands calculated from
uniformdriftandpushoveranalyses,itcanbeconcludedthatresultsarecompatiblewith
each other. Especially for the first story columns uniform drift results estimate the chord
rotationdemandsobtainedfromthepushoveranalysisquitewell.
0.058
0.053
0.040
Story
0.027
0.132
0.044
Analysis
0.029
0.106
0.013
0.014
RetrofittedBuildingPO
Analysis
0.124
Story
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
2
0.058
0.000
i.
0.020
0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

0.120
0.000
0.140
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Story
0.027
0.018
0.186
0.044
0.036
0.172
0.033
RetrofittedBuilding
POAnalysis
0.134
0.022
RetrofittedBuilding
UDAnalysis
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
Story
0.009
i.
0.069
0.010
0.000
0.000
0
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.000
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
60
0.025
1stStoryColumns
ChordRotation
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
ChordrotationdemandPOAnalysis
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S20
1S21
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S38
1S39
1S40
1S41
1S46
1S47
1S48
1S49
1S50
1S51
1S52
1S53
ColumnID
Figure4.21ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading
2ndStoryColumns
ChordRotation
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S20
2S21
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
ColumnID
Figure4.21ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading(continued)
3rdStoryColumns
ChordRotation
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S20
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S46
3S47
3S48
3S49
3S50
3S51
3S52
3S53
ColumnID
61
4thStoryColumns
0.007
ChordRotation
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S18
4S19
4S20
4S21
4S22
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S38
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S46
4S47
4S48
4S49
4S50
4S51
4S52
4S53
ColumnID
1stStoryColumns
0.004
ChordRotation
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0.001
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S20
1S21
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S38
1S39
1S40
1S41
1S46
1S47
1S48
1S49
1S50
1S51
1S52
1S53
0.002
ColumnID
Figure4.22ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading
2ndStoryColumns
0.006
ChordRotation
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S20
2S21
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S38
2S39
2S40
2S41
2S46
2S47
2S48
2S49
2S50
2S51
2S52
2S53
0
ColumnID
Figure4.22ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading(continued)
62
3rdStoryColumns
0.006
ChordRotation
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S20
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S38
3S39
3S40
3S41
3S46
3S47
3S48
3S49
3S50
3S51
3S52
3S53
0
ColumnID
4thStoryColumns
0.007
ChordRotation
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S18
4S19
4S20
4S21
4S22
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S38
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S46
4S47
4S48
4S49
4S50
4S51
4S52
4S53
0.001
ColumnID
Asaverificationofretrofitdesign,nonlinearassessmentresultsoftheretrofittedbuilding
isgivenfortheXandYdirectionsinFigures4.23,4.24,4.25,4.26,4.27and4.28foryielded
columns,beamsandshearwallsseparately.Globalperformanceoftheretrofittedbuilding
issummarizedinTable4.2.AccordingtoTable4.2fourstoryschoolbuildingsatisfiesthe
LifeSafetyperformanceleveldefinedinTEC2007foranearthquakehavingareturnperiod
of2475years.
63
Table4.2Globalperformanceoftheretrofittedbuilding
Story
No.
1
2
3
4
XDirection
VNC
%NC
(kN) (kN)
Vstr
9884
9125
6938
3115
191
0
0
0
%NC.
Beams
1.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Story
No.
1
2
3
4
YDirection
VNC
%NC
(kN) (kN)
Vstr
7910
7283
5535
2488
0
0
0
0
%NC
Beams
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
1S51
1S51
1S41
1S41
1S49
1S40
1S40
1S49
1S38
1S38
1S30
1S25
1S24
1S21
1S20
1S16
1S15
0
st
1S30
1S25
1S24
1S21
1S20
1S16
1S15
1 StoryColumns
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
64
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
2S38
2S40
2S38
2S40
2S30
2S24
0
nd
2S30
2S24
2 StoryColumns
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S38
3S40
3S38
3S40
3S30
3S24
0
rd
3S30
3S24
3 StoryColumns
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
65
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S39
4S40
4S41
4S53
4S38
4S38
4S31
4S24
4S23
0
th
4S53
4S31
4S24
4S23
4 StoryColumns
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.008
MaxConcreteStrain
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
K150
K152
K154
K150
K152
K154
K148
K146
K143
K142
K141
K139
K137
K136
K135
0.001
st
K148
K146
K143
K142
K141
K139
K137
K136
K135
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
66
0.008
MaxConcreteStrain
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
K250
K252
K254
K250
K252
K254
K248
K246
K243
K241
K239
K237
K235
0.001
nd
K248
K246
K243
K241
K239
K237
K235
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.008
MaxConcreteStrain
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
K350
K352
K354
K350
K352
K354
K348
K346
K343
K341
K339
K337
K335
0.001
rd
K348
K346
K343
K341
K339
K337
K335
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
67
0.008
MaxConcreteStrain
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
K450
K452
K454
K450
K452
K454
K448
K446
K441
K437
K439
0.001
th
K448
K446
K441
K439
K437
4 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.008
0.006
0.004
TP04
TP03
TP03
TP04
TP02
TP02
TP01
0.002
TP01
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.25DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheXdirectionloading
68
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
1S53
1S46
0
st
1S53
1S46
1 StoryColumns
0.000
MaxSteelStrain
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
Figure4.26DamagelevelsofthecolumnsintheYdirection
0.008
0.006
0.004
K191
K194
K194
K191
0.002
K167
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
K167
st
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.27DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirection
69
0.008
0.006
0.004
K291
K291
K289
0.002
K289
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
nd
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.27DamagelevelsofthebeamsintheYdirection(continued)
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
K387
K389
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
K389
K387
rd
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
70
0.008
0.006
0.004
K487
K487
K485
0.002
K485
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
th
4 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.008
0.006
0.004
TP08
TP08
TP05
0.002
TP05
MaxConcreteStrain
0.01
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure4.28DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheYdirectionloading
71
4.4. ForceBasedRehabilitationoftheBuilding
The existing four story school building was retrofitted by employing a forcebased linear
elasticprocedureaswell.Firststoryplanoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuildingisshownin
Figure 4.29. In order to determine deficient columns in the retrofitted system, linear
assessmentmethodsdefinedinTEC2007wereused.ColumnsS23,S24,S31,S32,andS38
41atthefirststorywerenotcapableofmeetingdemandcapacityratiolimitsofsignificant
damage level stated in TEC 2007. In this sense these columns were strengthened by
wrappingwithRCjacketshavingathicknessof150mm.
Figure4.29Planviewoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding
Inthedesignofnewshearwalls,designspectrumwasobtainedbyreducingtheresponse
spectrumusedforseismicperformanceevaluationwhichrepresentsanearthquakehaving
areturnperiodof2475yearsbyR=4.5.AccordingtoTEC2007,TP0104wereclassifiedas
slenderwalls.Thus,alongthecriticalheightwhichwastakenas3.5m,confinedendswere
formedatthewallboundaries.Longitudinalreinforcementrationeededforshearwallsin
theXdirectionwasdeterminedas0.01byfollowingthedesignproceduresforshearwalls
giveninTEC2007.Ontheotherhand,shearwallsTP05andTP08wereclassifiedassquat
72
walls and detailed accordingly. For these shear walls, no confined ends were needed
according to TEC 2007. Longitudinal reinforcement ratio was determined as 0.0068 for
TP05andTP08.Incaseofsheardesign,sheardemandwascalculatedas3223kNforTP01
and 7266 kN for TP05. These demands yielded transverse reinforcement ratios of 0.0072
and 0.0078 for TP01 and TP05 respectively. Detailing and axial PM interaction diagrams
forshearwallsTP01andTP05arepresentedinFigures4.30,4.31,4.32,and4.33.
4.5. ComparisonofDisplacementBasedandForceBasedRetrofitSolutions
Displacementbased and forcebased retrofit solutions for the school building were
compared in system and member levels. Considering the retrofitted columns in the
displacementbasedretrofittedcase,FRPwrappingwasdeterminedassufficienttoincrease
shearstrength and deformation capacity. On the other handin the forcebased design, in
ordertodecreaseaxialforcedemandsandincreasebothshearanddeformationcapacities,
deficient columns were strengthened by RC jackets. However, nonlinear analysis results
revealed that FRP wrapping is sufficient as a retrofit solution. According to linear elastic
procedures,columnsS2324,S3132,S3839,andS4041atthefirststoryweredeficient.In
caseofthedisplacementbasedprocedurecolumnsS2425,S3031,S3841atthefirststory
were strengthened with FRP sheets due to lack of deformation and shear capacities. For
other columns deformation demands were computed as less than the deformation
capacities.Nonlinearassessmentresultsalsoconfirmthisresult.
Detailing of the added shear walls in the X and Y directions according to displacement
based and forcebased designs are compared in Figures 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, and 4.33 for two
walls along with the corresponding PM interaction diagrams and PM demands for the
forcebaseddesign.
73
300 mm
600 mm
570
600 mm
570
3250 mm
424+420
8/200
424+420
8/200
3210
Existing Column
Existing Column
TP01
300 mm
Force-Based Design
600 mm
570
424+420
8/200
600 mm
570
3250 mm
1812
1022
Existing Column
1022
424+420
8/200
Existing Column
TP01
baseddesigns
ForceBasedDesign
30000
AxialForce(kN)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
5000 0
10000
5000
10000
Moment(kNm)
15000
basedandforcedbaseddesigns
Inforcebaseddesign,confinedendregionswereformedattheboundariesofslendershear
walls by following TEC 2007. In displacementbased design, deformation demands were
satisfiedwiththegivendetailinginFigures4.30and4.32withoutanyconfinedends.Itcan
beconcludedthat,displacementbaseddesigngivesmoreeconomicsolutionsconsidering
thelongitudinalreinforcementusedintheshearwalls.
74
6900 mm
424+420
8/200
570
600 mm
600 mm
570
424+420
8/200
300 mm
7010
Existing Column
Existing Column
TP05
7016
Existing Column
570
600 mm
424+420
8/200
8/200
6900 mm
424+420
300 mm
Force-Based Design
600 mm
570
Existing Column
TP05
baseddesigns
ForceBasedDesign
60000
AxialForce(kN)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
10000 0
20000
10000
20000
30000
40000
Moment(kNm)
50000
basedandforcedbaseddesigns
Inordertocompareretrofitsolutionsinsystemlevel,nonlinearanalysiswasconductedfor
both retrofit cases of the school building. Capacity curves in the X and Y directions are
shown in Figure 4.34 for both retrofit cases. It is apparent in Figure 4.34 that forcebased
retrofitdesignoffersmorestrength.However,roofdisplacementdemandsofbothcasesdo
notdiffermuch.Targetroofdisplacementdemandsoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding
are 0.054 m in X direction and 0.041 m in Y direction for an earthquake having a return
period of 2475 years. On the other hand, target roof displacement demands of the
75
displacementbasedretrofittedbuildingwerecalculatedas0.058mintheXdirectionand
0.044mintheYdirectionunderthesamedesignearthquake.
16000
14000
BaseShear(kN)
12000
10000
8000
6000
DisplacementBasedRetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
4000
DisplacementBasedRetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
ForceBasedRetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
2000
ForceBasedRetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
RoofDisplacement(m)
Figure4.34Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedbuildingaccordingtodisplacementbased
andforcebasedapproaches
76
CHAPTER5
CASESTUDYIISEISMICREHABILITATIONOFAFOURSTORY
DORMITORYBUILDING
A four story dormitory building composed of reinforced concrete frame system was
examinedasthesecondcasestudy.Flowofthischapterissameasthatofthepreviousone.
5.1. ExistingConditionoftheBuilding
Existing dormitory building shown in Figure 5.1 is composed of four story reinforced
concreteframesystem.AllcolumnsareorientedintheYdirection.Crosssectiondimension
ofallcolumnsexceptS14,S20,S25andS31is300x600mm.SquarecolumnsS14,S20,S25
andS31are300x300mm.AllbeamsonA,B,CandDaxesare300x500mm.Otherbeams
are300x700mm.Storyheightalongthebuildingis3meters.3Dmathematicalmodeland
planviewofthebuildingareshowninFigures5.1and5.2,respectively.
Existing concrete strengthwas takenas 8.5 MPaand yield strength of reinforcement bars
was taken as 420 MPa. Volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in columns was
taken as 0.01. In case of beams, tension reinforcement ratio was 0.008 and compression
reinforcementratiowas0.004atthesupports.8/200mmstirrupswithhookangleof135
were used as transverse reinforcement in all members and considered as confinement
reinforcement.Thuss/sm ratiowascalculatedas0.58whichyieldsastrainlimitatstirrup
levelcorrespondingtothesignificantdamagelimitstateof0.0093.
77
LocalsoilconditionswereclassifiedasZ2soiltypeaccordingtoTEC2007.SinceLifeSafety
performanceobjectivewasselected,responsespectrumwasconstructedforZ2soiltypefor
anearthquakehaving2%probabilityofexceedancein50years,whichcorrespondsa2475
returnperiodevent.LifeSafetyperformancerequirementsaresameasthatforschooltype
buildings.
Figure5.13DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryexistingdormitorybuilding
S36
K132
S31
K129
S32
K130
S33
K171
S40
K136
S41
K137
S42
K138
S43
K139
S22
K120
K172
K163
S39
K135
S19
K173
K170
S30
K128
S38
K134
S29
K127
R
G
S18
K160
K157
K154
S37
K133
S28
K126
S17
K169
K153
K151
S35
K131
K118
S20
K119
S21
K117
K168
K150
K148
K145
S34
S11
K110
K167
S27
K125
S10
K109
K116
S16
K166
S26
K124
11
3.6 m
K165
S25
K123
S9
K108
K164
S24
K122
S8
K107
10
3.6 m
K162
S23
K121
S7
K106
9
3.6 m
K161
K152
K115
8
3.6 m
K159
K149
K114
K147
K146
S15
S6
K105
K144
K143
S5
K104
7
3.6 m
S14
K113
S13
K111
K142
6.7 m
S4
K103
6
3.6 m
K112
S12
S3
K102
5
3.6 m
K141
6.7 m
B
2.3 m
S2
K101
4
3.6 m
K158
S1
3
3.6 m
K156
2
3.6 m
K155
S44
K140
10
11
Figure5.2Planviewofthefourstoryexistingdormitorybuilding
78
InordertoevaluateseismicperformancewhetherthebuildingsatisfiesLifeSafetyobjective
or not in the X and Y directions, nonlinear assessment procedures of TEC 2007 were
followed. Pushover analysis was conducted in +X and +Y directions using cracked
stiffnesses of reinforced concrete members. Capacity curves are shown in Figure 5.3.
Effective fundamental periods in the X and Y directions were computed as 0.84 seconds
and 0.56 seconds, respectively. Target roof displacement demands under the considered
design earthquake were calculated as 0.185 m for the X direction and 0.116 m for the Y
direction. Existing building was pushed in both directions separately until the roof level
reachedthetargetroofdisplacements.
9000
8000
BaseShear(kN)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
CapacityCurve+XDirection
CapacityCurve+YDirection
SoftStoryFormation
2000
1000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.25
Figure5.3Capacitycurvesoftheexistingbuilding
Mostoftheexistingcolumnsandbeamswereobservednottomeetdeformationdemands
at the performance point. Damage levels of reinforced concrete members at the
performancepointscomputedbypushoveranalysisintheXandYdirectionsarepresented
inFigures5.4,5.5,5.6,and5.7.ConsideringtheXdirection,allofthecolumnsatthefirst
storyweredeterminedtofail.IntheYdirectionmorethan80%ofthestoryshearofthe
first story is carried by deficient columns. Global performance evaluation of the existing
buildingissummarizedinTable5.1forbothdirections.
79
MaxSteelStrain
0.06
80
2S8
2S9
2S43
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S41
2S42
2S7
2S8
2S9
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S40
2S41
2S38
2S39
2S4
0.06
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
0.03
2S36
2S37
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S35
2S27
2S28
2S29
2S3
2S30
2S25
2S26
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S20
2S21
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S2
0.04
2S34
2S35
2S36
2S37
2S32
2S33
2S29
2S3
2S30
2S31
2S24
2S25
2S26
2S27
2S28
2S22
2S23
2S19
2S2
2S20
2S21
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S18
1S8
1S9
1S43
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S41
1S42
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S34
1S35
1S36
1S37
1S32
1S33
1S29
1S3
1S30
1S31
1S24
1S25
1S26
1S27
1S28
1S22
1S23
1S19
1S2
1S20
1S21
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S13
1S14
1S7
1S8
1S9
1S42
1S43
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S40
1S41
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S36
1S37
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S35
1S27
1S28
1S29
1S3
1S30
1S25
1S26
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S20
1S21
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S2
1S14
1S15
1S11
1S12
1S13
1S1
1S10
0.05
2S14
2S15
1S1
1S10
1S11
1S12
MaxConcreteStrain
0.06
2S11
2S12
2S13
2S1
2S10
MaxSteelStrain
0.07
2S13
2S14
2S1
2S10
2S11
2S12
MaxConcreteStrain
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1 StoryColumns
st
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
2 StoryColumns
nd
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
3S9
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
3S9
3S42
3S43
3S38
3S39
3S38
3S39
3S4
3S40
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S35
3S36
3S37
3S35
3S36
3S37
3S31
3S32
3S3
3S30
3S26
3S27
3S28
3S29
3S24
3S21
3S18
3S19
3S2
3S16
3S17
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S1
3S10
0
rd
3S43
3S41
3S42
3S32
3S29
3S3
3S30
3S31
3S26
3S27
3S28
3S24
3S21
3S19
3S2
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S18
3S13
3S14
3S1
3S10
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
4S30
4S31
4S3
4S14
0
th
4S31
4S3
4S30
4S14
4 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
81
0.015
0.01
K125
K126
K127
K128
K129
K130
K131
K133
K135
K137
K139
K140
K125
K126
K127
K128
K129
K130
K131
K133
K135
K137
K139
K140
K123
K122
K121
K120
K119
K118
K117
K116
K115
K114
K113
K112
K111
K110
K109
K107
K105
K103
0.005
K101
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
K123
K122
K121
K120
K119
K118
K117
K116
K115
K114
K113
K112
K111
K110
K109
K107
K105
K103
K101
st
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K229
K231
K233
K235
K237
K239
K229
K231
K233
K235
K237
K239
K223
K222
K221
K219
K215
K213
K211
K209
K207
K205
K203
0.005
K201
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
nd
K223
K222
K221
K219
K215
K213
K211
K209
K207
K205
K203
K201
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
82
0.015
0.01
K303
K339
0.005
K329
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
K329
K303
K339
rd
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1S7
1S8
1S9
1S42
1S43
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S40
1S41
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S36
1S37
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S35
1S27
1S28
1S29
1S3
1S30
1S25
1S26
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S20
1S21
1S16
1S17
1S18
1S19
1S2
1S14
1S15
1S11
1S12
1S13
1S1
1S10
0
st
1S7
1S8
1S9
1S43
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S40
1S41
1S42
1S39
1S4
1S37
1S38
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S35
1S36
1S30
1S31
1S29
1S3
1S26
1S27
1S28
1S22
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S18
1S19
1S2
1S20
1S21
1S16
1S17
1S11
1S12
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S1
1S10
1 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
83
MaxConcreteStrain
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
2S9
2S7
2S8
2S9
2S40
2S41
2S41
2S42
2S43
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S36
2S37
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S35
2S27
2S28
2S29
2S3
2S30
2S25
2S26
2S22
2S23
2S24
2S20
2S21
2S16
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S2
2S14
2S15
2S11
2S12
2S13
2S1
2S10
0
nd
2S37
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
2S34
2S35
2S36
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S3
2S30
2S24
2S25
2S26
2S27
2S28
2S29
2S2
2S20
2S21
2S22
2S23
2S17
2S18
2S19
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S11
2S12
2S13
2S1
2S10
2 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
3S5
3S7
3S8
3S5
3S7
3S4
3S32
3S33
3S30
3S31
3S28
3S29
3S26
3S27
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S24
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S2
3S16
3S12
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S10
0
rd
3S8
3S4
3S33
3S31
3S32
3S30
3S29
3S26
3S27
3S28
3S24
3S21
3S22
3S23
3S2
3S17
3S18
3S19
3S15
3S16
3S12
3S13
3S14
3S10
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
84
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
4S5
4S7
4S5
4S7
4S31
4S25
4S2
4S1
4S10
4S11
0
th
4S31
4S25
4S2
4S11
4S1
4S10
4 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K168
K170
K171
K173
K170
K171
K173
K165
K165
K167
K164
K164
K168
K162
K162
K167
K161
K161
K159
K158
K156
K155
K153
K152
K150
K149
K147
K146
K144
K143
0.005
K141
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
st
K159
K158
K156
K155
K153
K152
K150
K149
K147
K146
K144
K143
K141
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
85
0.015
0.01
K270
K271
K273
K270
K271
K273
K264
K264
K268
K262
K262
K268
K261
K261
K259
K258
K256
K255
K253
K252
K250
K247
K246
K244
K243
0.005
K241
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
nd
K259
K258
K256
K255
K253
K252
K250
K247
K246
K244
K243
K241
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K364
K368
K370
K371
K373
K364
K368
K370
K371
K373
K362
K358
K356
K352
K346
K344
K343
0.005
K341
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
rd
K362
K358
K356
K352
K346
K344
K343
K341
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
86
Table5.1Globalperformanceoftheexistingbuilding
XDirection
V
str
VNC
Story
%NC
No. (kN) (kN)
1
2
3
4
4542 4542
4082 3762
3036
0
1498
0
100.00
92.16
0.00
0.00
%NC
Beams
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
YDirection
VNC
Story
%NC
No. (kN) (kN)
Vstr
1
2
3
4
8065 6633
7322 4082
5507 735
2751
0
82.24
55.75
0.00
0.00
%NC
Beams
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.2. ImplementationoftheRetrofitDesignMethodology
Six shear walls having cross section dimensions of 300x3300 mm and two shear walls
having cross section dimensions of 300x5800 mm were added in the X and Y directions,
respectively.Theratioofthecrosssectionareaofshearwallsintheconsideredearthquake
direction to the floor area is 0.012 in the X direction and 0.007 % in the Y directions. 3D
mathematicalmodelandplanviewoftheretrofittedbuildingareshowninFigure5.8and
Figure5.9,respectively.
Characteristic concrete strength was taken as 25 MPa and characteristic yield strength of
reinforcementbarswastakenas420MPafornewmembers.
Figure5.83DMathematicalmodelofthefourstoryretrofitteddormitorybuilding
87
S32
K129
P1
P2
6.7 m
S33
K130
K171
K168
S44
K138
8
K120
2.3 m
S31
K169
K170
S21
K166
K167
K163
S20
K119
S41
K137
7
K118
K128
S40
K136
6
K110
K164
S30
K127
K159
K135
5
K160
S39
S38
K134
4
K126
S11
K108
K161
K157
S29
3.6 m
P5
P6
K116
K153
K133
P8
K158
K154
K150
K147
K144
S37
K131
X
1
P7
S28
K125
3.6 m
S8
K107
S17
K115
3.6 m
S7
K106
S16
K123
S34
K114
3.6 m
S6
K105
K155
S15
K151
K152
S25
K122
S14
K113
K148
K121
K141
Y
K145
K142
C
S23
S24
K112
S5
K104
K149
K146
S13
3.6 m
K172
K103
K111
3.6 m
S4
K101
3.6 m
6.7 m
3.6 m
P4
K165
3.6 m
K162
3.6 m
S1
K140
P9
9
10
11
Figure5.9Planviewoftheretrofittedbuilding
Effective fundamental periods in both directions were computed by using cracked

stiffnesses of reinforced concrete members. Effective fundamental periods in the X and Y
directions were computed as 0.43and 0.33 sec. respectively. These periods were 0.84and
0.56secondsbeforeretrofittingwiththeaddedwalls.EmployingEquation2.1,targetroof
displacementdemandswerecomputedas0.09mand0.065mfortheXandYdirections,
which were 0.185 m and 0.116 m before retrofitting. Target roof displacements and
correspondinguniformdriftdistributionscomputedforthedesignearthquakehaving2%
probabilityofexceedancein50yearsareshowninFigure5.8togetherwiththedriftprofile
oftheexistingandretrofittedbuildingsattheassociatedperformancepoints.
88
0.175
Analysis
0.090
Story
0.152
0.045
0.168
0.068
Story
0.085
0.023
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
0.000
i.
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.000
0.200
0.005
ii.
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.110
0.062
Analysis
0.047
0.031
0.016
0.100
0.085
0.048
0.000
i.
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
Story
Story
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.000
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Imposing the drift distributions shown in Figures 5.10 and 5.11 by employing a linear
elasticanalysis,chordrotationdemandswerecalculatedandpresentedinFigures5.12and
Figure5.13togetherwiththechordrotationcapacitiesatthesignificantdamagelimitofthe
columnsinordertodeterminedeficientcolumns.Interventionsmayberequiredinorderto
increasetheirdeformationcapacitiesorshearstrengths.
89
1stStoryColumns
0.016
0.014
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S20
1S21
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S28
1S29
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
0
ColumnID
2ndStoryColumns
0.016
0.014
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S20
2S21
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S28
2S29
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S37
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
2S41
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
0
ColumnID
90
3rdStoryColumns
0.018
0.016
ChordRotation
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S20
3S21
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S28
3S29
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S33
3S34
3S37
3S38
3S39
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S44
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
0
ColumnID
4thStoryColumns
0.06
ChordRotation
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S20
4S21
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S28
4S29
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S33
4S34
4S37
4S38
4S39
4S4
4S40
4S41
4S44
4S5
4S6
4S7
4S8
0
ColumnID
91
1stStoryColumns
0.01
ChordRotation
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S20
1S21
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S28
1S29
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
0
ColumnID
2ndStoryColumns
0.016
0.014
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S20
2S21
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S28
2S29
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S37
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
2S41
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
0
ColumnID
92
3rdStoryColumns
0.016
0.014
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S20
3S21
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S28
3S29
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S33
3S34
3S37
3S38
3S39
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S44
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
0
ColumnID
4thStoryColumns
0.025
ChordRotation
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S20
4S21
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S28
4S29
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S33
4S34
4S37
4S38
4S39
4S4
4S40
4S41
4S44
4S5
4S6
4S7
4S8
0
ColumnID
93
Following the Figures 5.12 and 5.13, chord rotation capacities of the columns S1314,S17,
S2021,S2425,S28andS3132weredeterminedaslowerthanthechordrotationdemands.
For other columns in the building, chord rotation demands do not exceed the chord
rotation capacities calculated at the significant damage limit state. Rectangular columns
S13,S17,S21,S24,S28andS32werewrappedwithFRPsheetsatthefirststoryinorderto
increasetheirdeformationcapacities.Wrappingofsquarecolumnsweremadeforfirsttwo
stories. FRPdesign wasmade by following the procedures stated in TEC 2007. Details of
FRP design of column S14 is given below as an example. 1 mm thickness of FRP sheets
wereusedforacontinuouswrap.
CR demand
CR cap,FRP
0.0075
0.0105
300 mm
300 mm
rc
=
30
m
m
E f (MPa)
nf
t f (mm)
min
sig
sev
230000
1
1
0.004
0.0129
0.0172
where
nf
tf
Ef
min
sig
sev
NumberofFRPlayers
ThicknessofonelayerFRPsheet
ElasticmodulusofFRPsheets
Strainlimitforminimumdamage
Strainlimitforsignificantdamage
Strainlimitforseveredamage
Detailingofshearwallswasintendstosatisfythecomputedchordrotationdemandsatthe
bases of walls. Existing columns were taken into account as boundary elements of the
walls.Barbucklingphenomenonintheexistingcolumnswasalsoconsideredasalimiting
state of deformation capacities. Moment curvature analysis results and particular limit
statesintermsofcurvaturesarepresentedforshearwallsP4andP1arepresentedtogether
withreinforcementandsectiondetailingofshearwallsinFigures5.14,5.15,5.16,and5.17.
Longitudinalreinforcementratiowas0.0025inwebportionsofP4andP1.Incaseofshear,
lateralreinforcementratiowas0.0025inP4anditwas0.003inP1.Theseamountsoflateral
reinforcementweresufficienttomeetsheardemandsof962kNforP4and3242kNforP1.
94
Moment(kNm)
10000
8000
6000
MKDiagram
IdealizedMKDiagram
SignificantDamageLimit
SevereDamageLimit
CurvatureDemand
4000
2000
0
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040 0.0050 0.0060

Curvature(rad/m)
0.0070
0.0080
0.0090
0.0100
Figure5.14MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallP4
3300 mm
300 mm
916
916
8/200
3210
8/200
Existing Column
P4
600 mm
570
300 mm
Existing Column
Figure5.15DetailingofP4
25000
Moment(kNm)
20000
15000
MKDiagram
IdealizedMKDiagram
SignificantDamageLimit
SevereDamageLimit
CurvatureDemand
10000
5000
0
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040
Curvature(rad/m)
0.0050
0.0060
0.0070
Figure5.16MomentcurvatureanalysisofshearwallP1
300 mm
600 mm
570
5800 mm
600 mm
570
916
8/200
5610
916
8/200
Existing Column
P1
Figure5.17DetailingofP1
95
Existing Column
5.3. VerificationoftheProposedRetrofitDesignMethodology
Retrofit design was verified through nonlinear evaluation of seismic performance at Life
Safety in both X and Y directions of loading. Thus, pushover analysis was conducted.
CapacitycurvesofexistingandretrofittedbuildingsareshowninFigure5.18togetherwith
roof displacement demands. Increase in both lateral load carrying capacity and lateral
stiffnessisclearlyobservedinFigure5.18asaresultofnewaddedshearwalls.
18000
RetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
RetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
ExistingBuilding+XDirection
ExistingBuilding+YDirection
16000
BaseShear(kN)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.20
0.25
Figure5.18Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedandexistingbuildings
DriftdistributionsofexistingandretrofittedbuildingsareshowninFigures5.19and5.20
whereas chord rotation demands calculated by employing uniform drift and pushover
analyses are compared in Figures 5.21 and 5.22. It is observed from the Figures 5.21 and
5.22thatadditionofshearwallsdecreasedchordrotationdemandsoftheexistingcolumns
significantly. Additionally, comparing chord rotation demands calculated from uniform
driftandpushoveranalyses,itcanbeconcludedthatresultsareapproximateespeciallyfor
thefirststorycolumns.However,uniformdriftanalysismayleadunappreciatedresultsfor
columnsintension.
96
0.090
0.066
Story
Analysis
0.152
0.045
RetrofittedBuildingPO
Analysis
0.168
0.068
0.042
0.175
Story
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
2
0.020
0.085
0.023
0.000
i.
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.000
0.200
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.062
0.047
Story
0.031
0.065
0.048
0.032
0.110
0.100
Story
0.085
RetrofittedBuilding
UDAnalysis
RetrofittedBuilding
POAnalysis
ExistingBuildingPO
Analysis
0.015
0.016
0.048
0.000
0.000
i.
0
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.000
ii.
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
st
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S20
1S21
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S28
1S29
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
ChordRotation
1 StoryColumns
ColumnID
Figure5.21ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheXdirectionloading
97
nd
2 StoryColumns
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S20
2S21
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S28
2S29
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S37
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
2S41
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
ChordRotation
0.012
ColumnID
rd
3 StoryColumns
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S20
3S21
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S28
3S29
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S33
3S34
3S37
3S38
3S39
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S44
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
ColumnID
th
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S20
4S21
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S28
4S29
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S33
4S34
4S37
4S38
4S39
4S4
4S40
4S41
4S44
4S5
4S6
4S7
4S8
ChordRotation
4 StoryColumns
ColumnID
98
st
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0.002
0.004
1S13
1S14
1S15
1S16
1S17
1S20
1S21
1S23
1S24
1S25
1S28
1S29
1S30
1S31
1S32
1S33
1S34
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
ChordRotation
1 StoryColumns
ColumnID
Figure5.22ChordrotationdemandsofthecolumnsintheYdirectionloading
nd
2 StoryColumns
0.02
ChordRotation
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2S13
2S14
2S15
2S16
2S17
2S20
2S21
2S23
2S24
2S25
2S28
2S29
2S30
2S31
2S32
2S33
2S34
2S37
2S38
2S39
2S4
2S40
2S41
2S44
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
0.005
ColumnID
rd
ChordRotation
3 StoryColumns
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
3S13
3S14
3S15
3S16
3S17
3S20
3S21
3S23
3S24
3S25
3S28
3S29
3S30
3S31
3S32
3S33
3S34
3S37
3S38
3S39
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S44
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
ColumnID
99
4thStoryColumns
0.014
ChordRotation
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
4S13
4S14
4S15
4S16
4S17
4S20
4S21
4S23
4S24
4S25
4S28
4S29
4S30
4S31
4S32
4S33
4S34
4S37
4S38
4S39
4S4
4S40
4S41
4S44
4S5
4S6
4S7
4S8
ColumnID
Asaverificationofretrofitdesign,nonlinearassessmentresultsoftheretrofittedbuilding
is given for the X and Y directions in Figure 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, and 5.28. Global
performanceoftheretrofittedbuildingissummarizedinTable5.2.AccordingtoTable5.2
fourstorydormitory building satisfiesLife Safety performancelevel definedin TEC2007
foranearthquakehavingareturnperiodof2475years.
Table5.2Globalperformanceoftheretrofittedbuilding
Story
No.
1
2
3
4
XDirection
VNC
%NC
(kN) (kN)
Vstr
11418
9439
8675
4800
201
120
0
0
1.76
1.27
0.00
0.00
%NC
Beams
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
Story
No.
1
2
3
4
YDirection
VNC
%NC
(kN) (kN)
Vstr
11971
11186
8931
4888
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
%NC
Beams
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
1S4
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
1S39
1S40
1S38
1S39
1S40
1S37
1S38
1S4
1S34
1S37
1S33
1S34
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S21
1S20
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
0
st
1S33
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S21
1S20
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
1 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
2S40
2S41
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
2S40
2S41
2S5
2S6
2S7
2S8
2S39
2S39
2S4
2S38
2S38
2S4
2S37
2S37
2S32
2S31
2S29
2S28
2S25
2S21
2S20
2S17
2S15
2S14
0
nd
2S32
2S31
2S29
2S28
2S25
2S21
2S20
2S17
2S15
2S14
2 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
101
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
3S4
3S40
3S41
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
3S41
3S5
3S6
3S7
3S8
3S39
3S39
3S40
3S38
3S38
3S4
3S37
3S37
3S32
3S31
3S29
3S28
3S25
3S21
3S20
3S17
3S15
3S14
0
rd
3S32
3S31
3S29
3S28
3S25
3S21
3S20
3S17
3S15
3S14
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
4S5
4S6
4S7
4S8
4S6
4S7
4S8
4S40
4S5
4S4
4S40
4S4
4S44
4S39
4S39
4S41
4S38
4S38
4S44
4S37
4S37
4S41
4S34
4S34
4S32
4S31
4S29
4S28
4S25
4S21
4S20
4S17
4S15
4S14
4S13
0
th
4S32
4S31
4S29
4S28
4S25
4S21
4S20
4S17
4S15
4S14
4S13
4 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
102
0.015
0.01
K135
K136
K138
K140
K138
K140
K131
K131
K136
K130
K130
K135
K126
K126
K133
K125
K125
K133
K123
K123
K121
K120
K118
K116
K111
K110
K108
K106
K104
K103
0.005
K101
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
st
K121
K120
K118
K116
K111
K110
K108
K106
K104
K103
K101
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K238
K240
K238
K240
K231
K231
K235
K230
K230
K235
K226
K226
K233
K225
K225
K233
K223
K223
K221
K220
K218
K216
K211
K210
K208
K206
K203
0.005
K201
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
nd
K221
K220
K218
K216
K211
K210
K208
K206
K203
K201
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
103
0.015
0.01
K338
K340
K331
K331
K340
K330
K330
K338
K326
K326
K333
K325
K325
K333
K323
K323
K320
K318
K316
K310
K308
K303
0.005
K301
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
rd
K320
K318
K316
K310
K308
K303
K301
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K423
K425
K431
K433
K438
K440
K423
K425
K431
K433
K438
K440
K418
K416
K410
K408
K403
0.005
K401
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
th
K418
K416
K410
K408
K403
K401
4 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
104
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
P9 P9
P8 P8
P7 P7
P6 P6
P5 P5
P4 P4
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure5.25DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheXdirectionloading
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
1S34
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
1S37
1S38
1S39
1S4
1S40
1S41
1S44
1S5
1S6
1S7
1S8
1S33
1S34
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S21
1S20
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
0
st
1S33
1S32
1S31
1S30
1S29
1S28
1S25
1S24
1S23
1S21
1S20
1S17
1S16
1S15
1S14
1S13
1 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
105
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
2S33
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S25
2S24
2S23
2S20
2S14
0
nd
2S33
2S32
2S31
2S30
2S29
2S28
2S25
2S24
2S23
2S20
2S14
2 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
3S33
3S32
3S31
3S30
3S29
3S28
3S25
3S24
3S23
3S20
3S14
0
rd
3S33
3S32
3S31
3S30
3S29
3S28
3S25
3S24
3S23
3S20
3S14
3 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
106
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
4S33
4S32
4S31
4S30
4S29
4S28
4S25
4S24
4S23
4S21
4S20
4S13
0
th
4S33
4S32
4S31
4S30
4S29
4S28
4S25
4S24
4S23
4S21
4S20
4S13
4 StoryColumns
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K163
K163
K172
K160
K160
0.005
K142
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
st
K172
K142
1 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
107
0.015
0.01
K272
K263
K242
0.005
K241
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
nd
K272
K263
K242
K241
2 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.015
0.01
K372
0.005
K342
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
rd
K372
K342
3 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
108
0.015
0.01
K472
0.005
K442
MaxConcreteStrain
0.02
th
K472
K442
4 StoryBeams
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.02
MaxConcreteStrain
0.015
0.01
0.005
P1
P2
P1
P2
MaxSteelStrain
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Figure5.28DamagelevelsoftheshearwallsintheYdirectionloading
109
5.4. ForceBasedRehabilitationofTheBuilding
FirststoryplanoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuildingisshowninFigure5.29.Inorderto
determinedeficientcolumnsintheretrofittedsystemlinearassessmentmethodsdefinedin
TEC2007wasused.ColumnsS13,S14,S17,S20,S21,S24,S25,S31,andS32atthefirststory
were not capable of meeting demandcapacityratio limits of significant damage level
stated in TEC 2007. In this sense these columns were strengthened by wrapping withRC
jackets having a thickness of 150 mm. Additionally S15 and S30 were wrapped with FRP
sheetsinordertopreventbrittlefailure.
K129
P2
6.7 m
S33
K130
K171
K168
S44
K138
8
K120
2.3 m
S32
S41
K137
7
S21
K119
K169
S31
K128
S40
K136
K170
S39
K135
5
K127
K118
K166
S30
K163
S38
K134
K110
S20
K159
K126
K153
K150
K147
S29
S11
K108
P6
K116
K160
S28
K125
S37
K133
P8
K115
K157
P7
K123
S34
K114
K154
K151
K148
S25
K113
K107
3.6 m
P5
K167
K158
S17
3.6 m
K164
K155
S16
K112
3.6 m
S8
K161
K152
S15
K122
K131
X
K106
S14
K144
K141
Y
D
K105
K149
K121
K104
3.6 m
S7
S13
K145
S24
3.6 m
S6
K146
K142
C
S23
K111
3.6 m
S5
K172
K103
P1
K101
3.6 m
S4
6.7 m
3.6 m
P4
K165
3.6 m
K162
3.6 m
S1
K140
P9
9
10
11
Figure5.29Planviewoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding
Inthedesignofnewshearwalls,designspectrumwasobtainedbyreducingtheresponse
spectrumusedforseismicperformanceevaluationwhichrepresentsanearthquakehaving
a return period of 2475 years by R= 4.5. According to TEC 2007, P49 were classified as
slenderwalls.Thus,alongthecriticalheightwhichwastakenas3.5m,confinedendswere
formedatthewallboundaries.Longitudinalreinforcementrationeededforshearwallsin
theXdirectionwasdeterminedas0.01byfollowingthedesignproceduresforshearwalls
giveninTEC2007.Ontheotherhand,shearwallsP1andP4wereclassifiedassquatwalls
anddetailedaccordingly.Fortheseshearwalls,noconfinedendswereneededaccordingto
110
TEC2007.Longitudinalreinforcementratiowasdeterminedas0.012forP1andP4.Incase
ofsheardesign,sheardemandwascalculatedas1427kNforP4and4421kNforP1.These
demands yielded transverse reinforcement ratios of 0.0025 and 0.0049 for P4 and P1
respectively. Detailing and axial forcemoment capacity interaction diagrams for shear
wallsP4andP1arepresentedinFigures5.31,5.32,5.33,and5.34.
5.5. ComparisonofDisplacementBasedandForceBasedRetrofitSolutions
Displacementbased and forcebased retrofit solutions for the dormitory building were
compared.Consideringtheretrofittedcolumnsinthedisplacementbasedretrofittedcase,
FRP wrapping was determined as sufficient to increase shear strength and deformation
capacity of square columns. On the other hand in the forcebased design, in order to
decreaseaxialforcedemandsandincreasebothshearanddeformationcapacities,deficient
columns were strengthened by RC jackets. However, nonlinear analysis results revealed
thatFRPwrappingissufficientasaretrofitsolution.Accordingtolinearelasticprocedures
columnsS13,S15,S17,S21,andS303132atthefirststoryandcolumnsS14,S20,S25,and
S31atthefirsttwostoriesweredeficient.ExceptcolumnsS15andS30,deficientcolumns
arestrengthenedwithRCjacketshavingthicknessof15cm.Infigure5.30RCjacketdetail
of the column 1S17 is shown. In case of the displacementbased procedure, only square
columnsS14,S20,S25,andS31atthefirsttwostorieswerestrengthenedwithFRPsheets
duetolackofdeformationcapacity.Additionally,columnsS13,S17,S21,S24,S28,andS32
werewrappedwithFRPsheetsonlyatthefirststoryinordertoincreasetheirdeformation
capacities. For other columns deformation demands were computed as less than the
deformationcapacities.
600 mm
900 mm
1616
12/100 mm
Figure5.30RCjacketdetailofthecolumn1S17
111
Detailing of the added shear walls in the X and Y directions according to displacement
basedandforcebaseddesignsarecomparedinFigures5.31,5.32,5.33,and5.34alongwith
thecorrespondingPMinteractiondiagramsandPMdemandsfortheforcebaseddesign.
600 mm
570
300 mm
3300 mm
300 mm
916
916
8/200
3210
8/200
Existing Column
P4
Existing Column
Force-Based Design
600 mm
570
300 mm 700 mm
1900 mm
700 mm 300 mm
916
8/200
916
1022
1818
Existing Column
1022
P4
8/200
Existing Column
Figure5.31DetailingoftheshearwallP4accordingtothedisplacementbasedandforce
baseddesigns
ForceBasedDesign
40000
AxialForce(kN)
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
5000 0
10000
5000
10000
Moment(kNm)
15000
20000
Figure5.32PMInteractiondiagramsofshearwallP4accordingtodisplacementbased
andforcedbaseddesigns
Inforcebaseddesign,confinedendregionswereformedattheboundariesofslendershear
walls by following TEC 2007. In displacementbased design, deformation demands were
112
satisfiedwiththegivendetailinginFigures5.31and5.32withoutanyconfinedends.Itcan
beconcludedthat,displacementbaseddesigngivesmoreeconomicsolutionsconsidering
thelongitudinalreinforcementusedintheshearwalls..
300 mm
600 mm
570
5800 mm
600 mm
570
916
8/200
5610
916
8/200
Existing Column
P1
Existing Column
300 mm
Force-Based Design
600 mm
570
5800 mm
600 mm
570
916
8/200
5622
916
8/200
Existing Column
P1
Existing Column
Figure5.33DetailingoftheshearwallTP05accordingtodisplacementbasedandforce
baseddesigns
ForceBasedDesign
60000
AxialForce(kN)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
10000 0
20000
10000
20000
30000
Moment(kNm)
40000
50000
Figure5.34PMInteractiondiagramsoftheshearwallP1accordingtodisplacementbased
andforcedbaseddesigns
Inordertocompareretrofitsolutionsinsystemlevel,nonlinearanalysiswasconductedfor
both retrofit cases of the school building. Capacity curves in the X and Y directions are
showninFigure5.35forbothretrofitcases.ItisapparentintheFigure5.34thatforcebased
retrofitdesignoffersmorestrength.However,roofdisplacementdemandsofbothcasesdo
notdiffermuch.Targetroofdisplacementdemandsoftheforcebasedretrofittedbuilding
113
are 0.079 m in X direction and 0.057 m in Y direction for an earthquake having a return
period of 2475 years. On the other hand, target roof displacement demands of the
displacementbasedretrofittedbuildingwerecalculatedas0.090mintheXdirectionand
0.065minYthedirectionunderthesamedesignearthquake.
20000
18000
16000
BaseShear(kN)
14000
12000
10000
8000
DisplacementBasedRetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
DisplacementBasedRetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
ForceBasedRetrofittedBuilding+XDirection
ForceBasedRetrofittedBuilding+YDirection
6000
4000
2000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
RoofDisplacement(m)
0.20
0.25
Figure5.35Capacitycurvesoftheretrofittedbuildingaccordingtodisplacementbased
andforcebasedapproaches
114
CHAPTER6
DISCUSSIONOFRESULTSANDCONCLUSIONS
A displacementbased retrofit design methodology is proposed in this study for seismic

rehabilitation of medium rise reinforced concrete buildings. Throughout this study
implementation and validity of the procedure are investigated and results of several
comparative studies are presented. Results obtained from the examples and case studies
areevaluatedinthischapter.
6.1. DiscussionofResults
6.1.1. UniformDriftAnalysisvs.PushoverAnalysis
The proposed methodology relies on estimation of inelastic chord rotation demands by a

linear elastic analysis in which a preassumed deformation pattern is imposed to the
building for a target seismic performance level. This deformation pattern is chosen as a
uniform drift profile along the building height since drift profiles of nonductile medium
heightRCframebuildingsretrofittedwithnewshearwallsareapproximatelyuniform.A
uniform drift distribution calculated for a target roof displacement is imposed to the
building elastically together with gravity loading. Then chord rotation demands are
calculated at member ends. Figure 6.1 compares chord rotation demands calculated from
the uniform drift and pushover analyses for lower ends of the first story columns at the
retrofitted building. It can be concluded by following Figure 6.1 that uniform drift
115
assumption is successful in estimating the inelastic chord rotation demand at basement

level.
Inthecaseofshearwalldesign,theobjectiveistosatisfythecalculatedrotationdemandat
the basement at a given performance level. A significant observation is that confined
boundaries are not necessary in most cases in order to satisfy the deformation demands.
Moreoverexistingcolumnsaretakenintoaccountasboundaryelementsforbothpractical
andanalyticalpointsofview.
0.008
ChordRotationDemandfromPOanalysis
ExampleBuilding
CaseStudyIXDirection
CaseStudyIYDirection
CaseStudyIIXDirection
0.006
CaseStudyIIYDirection
0.004
0.002
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
ChordRotationDemandfromUDanalysis
0.008
Figure6.1Chordrotationdemandsattheshearwallbasescalculatedfromuniformdrift
andpushoveranalyses
Thus they are included in calculations by forming a composite wall section of new wall
betweentheexistingboundarycolumns.Initialstressesduetogravityloadingonexisting
columnsaretakenintoaccountaswell.Limitstatesarecalculatedintermsofstrainvalue
attheonsetofbarbuckling.
Additionally,existingcolumnsintheretrofittedsystemsareexaminedbycomparingchord
rotation demands calculated fromuniform drift analysis with chord rotationcapacities at
limitstatesforparticulardamagelevels.InterventionslikeFRPwrappingorRCjacketing
116
are applied to columns having lower capacities than demands in order to increase their
deformation capacities. Chord rotation demands calculated from the uniform drift and
pushover analyses were compared at the performance points. It is concluded from the
results for the case study buildings and example building that uniform drift analysis is
successful in capturing the inelastic chord rotation demands calculated from pushover
analysis.However,asnonlinearityincreasesalongthebuilding,uniformdriftassumption
loses proximity to estimate deformation demands. Variation between chord rotation
demands calculated from the uniform drift and pushover analyses is more apparent for
upperstories.Additionallyuniformdriftanalysisunderestimateschordrotationdemands
for columns in tension at the performance point. These columns are adjacent columns to
shear walls in most of the cases. Although story drifts are well estimated by the uniform
driftanalysis,variationsoccurinjointrotationsresultingdifferentchordrotationdemands.
Nevertheless it is observed that true chord rotation demands calculated from pushover
analysisarelessthanthecalculatedcapacitiesatsignificantdamagelevelformostofsuch
columns. Ignorance of variation in axial load levels of the columns due to earthquake
loading can be stated as another short coming. For chord rotation capacity calculations,
axial loads due to gravity loading are taken into account. However, in the case of
earthquake loading axial load levels of the columns can change. This situation may be
criticalfortheexteriorcolumnswhichcanbeloadedexcessivelyincompressionortension.
6.1.2. DisplacementBasedRetrofitSolutionsvs.ForceBasedRetrofitSolutions
Anothercomparativestudyonthealternativesolutionsofretrofitdesignmethodologiesis
presented for the case study and example buildings. Forcebased retrofit design basically
employs linear elastic methods and reduced elastic forces calculated for particular
performancelevels.However,nonlinearassessmentresultsrevealedthatmoreeconomical
and efficient retrofit design is achievable in case of a displacementbased approach.
Differencebetweentheretrofitdesignsolutionsintermsofeconomyismainlycausedby
the methodology employed in design. In forcedbased procedure, capacity design is
conducted and reduced elastic forces are employed causing need of more load carrying
capacity.
117
In order to evaluate differences between retrofit solutions, forcebased and displacement

based retrofitted buildings are compared in both member and system levels. In member
level, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios of wall sections including existing
columnsarecomparedinTable6.1forcasestudyandexamplebuildings.
Obviouslyusingdifferentamountofreinforcementcausesdifferentmembercapacitiesand
lateral load carrying capacities of entire systems. Following the comparison of capacity
curves presented throughout this study, moment capacities of new shear walls directly
affect the lateral load carrying capacities of the buildings. On the other hand design of
footingsunderthenewshearwallsarecontrolledbythemomentcapacitiesofthewalls.In
practical design, footings under the shear walls are continued to the adjacent columns as
illustratedinFigure6.2fortheexamplebuildingexaminedinChapter2.
Inordertomakethewallworkefficientlyunderlateralloading,footingsshouldhavemore
momentcapacitysincetheyshouldstayelasticwhenyieldingoccursatthewallbase.Thus
in case of footing design, capacity design is employed and sufficient moment capacity is
supplied to the footing. As moment capacity of the added shear wall increases, design
momentcapacityofthefootingincreasesaswell.Table6.2comparesmomentcapacitiesof
shear walls at the performance points designed by employing displacement and force
basedapproaches.
A
Strip Footing under Shear Wall
D
5
Figure6.2Footingunderthenewshearwallsinplan
118
Table6.1Comparisonofreinforcementratiosaccordingtodisplacementandforcebased
designs
ExampleBuilding
Wall
P1
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
0.0047
0.0025
0.0111
0.0045
CaseStudyI
Wall
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
TP01
0.0065
0.0025
0.0118
0.0072
TP02
0.0065
0.0025
0.0118
0.0072
TP03
0.0065
0.0025
0.0118
0.0072
TP04
0.0065
0.0025
0.0118
0.0072
TP05
0.0048
0.0025
0.0083
0.0078
TP08
0.0048
0.0025
0.0083
0.0078
CaseStudyII
Wall
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
P1
0.0038
0.0030
0.0119
0.0049
P2
0.0038
0.0030
0.0119
0.0049
P4
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
P5
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
P6
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
P7
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
P8
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
P9
0.0052
0.0030
0.0135
0.0025
Inadditiontotheobservationsmadebycomparingdisplacementandforcebasedretrofit
design approaches, it can be added that since deformation demands are employed as
design parameters, the relation between target and obtained performance is more
transparent in displacementbased retrofit design. Utilizing deformation demands and
deformationcapacitiesatparticularlimitstatesgivesadvantageofexaminingbehaviorand
performanceofmembersindividuallyinaperformancebasedunderstanding.
119
Table6.2Comparisonofmomentcapacitiesofthewallsdesignedaccordingto
displacementbasedandforcebasedapproaches
ExampleBuilding
Wall
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
MomentCapacity(kNm) MomentCapacity(kNm)
P1
4780
8470
CaseStudyI
Wall
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
TP01
6401
11085
TP02
6401
11085
TP03
6401
11085
TP04
6401
11085
TP05
15501
24860
TP08
15501
24860
CaseStudyII
Wall
DisplacementBased
ForceBased
P1
20332
31927
P2
20332
31927
P4
8587
9457
P5
8587
9457
P6
8587
9457
P7
8587
9457
P8
8587
9457
P9
8587
9457
6.1.3. ModelingoftheShearWallsasFixedBaseandFlexibleBase
For a better estimation of inelastic chord rotation demands, a more realistic approach in
which the effect of soil and footing flexibility under the shear wall is modeled with a
rotationalspringwasanalyzedaswell.Retrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuildingexamined
in Chapter 2 was solved in this sense. Paragraph 4.4.2.1.2 of FEMA 356 was followed in
order to calculate spring stiffness holding properties of stiff soil and footing stiffness
120
parameters of the building. Target roof displacement demand of the retrofitted building
was calculated as 0.126 m corresponding to an effective fundamental period of 0.56
seconds.Uniformdriftprofilecompatiblewiththisdemandwascalculatedandimposedto
the building. Besides, pushover analysis was conducted for the computed target roof
displacementdemand.InFigure6.3chordrotationdemandscalculatedfromtheuniform
and the pushover analyses are compared for the retrofitted building which was modeled
withrotationalspring.
0.015
ChordrotationdemandUDAnalysis(Flexiblebase)
RetrofittedFramePOAnalysis(Flexiblebase)
ChordRotation
0.012
0.009
0.006
0.003
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
1S5
1S6
1S9
1S10
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
2S5
2S6
2S9
2S10
3S1
3S2
3S3
3S4
3S5
3S6
3S9
3S10
4S1
4S2
4S3
4S4
4S5
4S6
4S9
4S10
5S1
5S2
5S3
5S4
5S5
5S6
5S9
5S10
0.000
ColumnID
Figure6.3Chordrotationdemandscalculatedfromtheuniformdriftandthepushover
analysesfortheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuildingwithspring
InFigure6.4chordrotationdemandscalculatedfrommodelswithandwithoutrotational
springstogetherwithchordrotationcapacitiescalculatedforsignificantdamagelevelare
given. From Figures 6.3 and 6.4, the model with spring gives greater chord rotation
demandsthanthemodelhavingnospring.Thisisbasicallyduetoincreaseddriftratioand
targetdisplacementdemands.Ontheotherhandlevelofproximitybetweentheuniform
driftandpushoveranalysesisnotaffectedsignificantlybyincludingtherotationalsprings.
Moreover weakness in estimation of chord rotation demands of the columns in tension,
namely1S6and2S6,isnotimprovedinthemodelwithsprings.
121
0.040
0.035
ChordRotation
0.030
ChordrotationdemandUDAnalysis(Flexiblebase)
ChordrotationdemandPOAnalysis(Fexiblebase)
ChordrotationdemandUDAnalysis(Fixedbase)
ChordrotationdemandPOAnalysis(Fixedbase)
Chordrotationcapacitiesatlimitstate
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
1S1
1S2
1S3
1S4
1S5
1S6
1S9
1S10
2S1
2S2
2S3
2S4
2S5
2S6
2S9
2S10
3S1
3S2
3S3
3S4
3S5
3S6
3S9
3S10
4S1
4S2
4S3
4S4
4S5
4S6
4S9
4S10
5S1
5S2
5S3
5S4
5S5
5S6
5S9
5S10
0.000
ColumnID
Figure6.4Chordrotationdemandsandcapacitiescalculatedfromtheuniformdriftand
thepushoveranalysesfortheretrofittedcaseoftheexamplebuildingwithspring
6.2. Conclusions
A displacementbased seismic retrofit design methodology is proposed in this study for

mediumheightconcretebuildings.Themainfeatureofretrofitdesignisaddingnewshear
walls to the deficient system. Although this is a well known retrofitting method,
displacementbased approach brings new insight in developing a sound design solution.
Thebasicdifferencesobtainedbyfollowingadisplacementbasedapproachascomparedto
aforcebasedapproacharethefollowing.
1.
Addedshearwallsreducedeformationdemandsonthedeficientmembersofthe
existingsystemsignificantly.Theexistingflexuraldeformationcapacitiesofcritical
members mostly become sufficient in meeting the reduced demands, although
theirflexuralstrengthsareinsufficienttocarrytheinternalforcescalculatedfrom
forcebasedevaluationoftheretrofittedsystem.
2.
Those members which remain insufficient in the retrofitted system in terms of

flexural deformation capacities require intervention only for increasing their
deformation capacities. This is usually achieved by external confinement,
preferablybyFRPwrapping,whichispractical.
122
3.
Strength capacity increase in the retrofitted system is only required for members
andcomponentsfailinginshear.
4.
Addedshearwallsinamediumheightconcretebuildingaresubjectedtoquitelow
deformation demands. Hence, they may not require special seismic detailing for
enhancedductility.Minimumwebreinforcementisusuallysufficientforthenew
shearwalls,withoutaneedfortheconfinedendregions.
5.
Accordingly,lower capacity designforces are obtained for thefoundations ofthe

addedwallscomparedtotheforcebasedcapacitydesign.
6.
The relationship between the target performance level and the obtained
performanceismoretransparentindisplacementbasedretrofitting.
123
REFERENCES
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(2000).PrestandardandCommentaryfortheSeismic
RehabilitationofBuildings,ReportNo.FEMA356,Washington,D.C.
AppliedTechnologyCouncil,ATC401996,SeismicEvaluationandRetrofitofConcrete
Buildings,Volume12RedwoodCity,California.
Berry,M.,Eberhard,M.,PerformanceModelsforFlexuralDamageinReinforcedConcrete
Columns,PacificEarthquakeEngineeringResearchCenter,PEER2003/18.
Calvi G.M. and Sullivan. T.J. Editors (2009) A model code for the DisplacementBased
Seismic Design of Structures, DBD09 Draft Issued for Public Enquiry , IUSS Press, 80
pages.
ComputersandStructuresInc.(CSI),1998,SAP2000ThreeDimensionalStaticandDynamic
FiniteElementAnalysisandDesignofStructuresV7.40N,Berkeley,California.
European Committee for Standardization (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for

earthquake resistance Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings Final Eurocode 8,
Brussels.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000, Prestandard and Commentary

fortheSeismicRehabilitationofBuildings,FEMA356.
FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2005,ImprovementofNonlinearStatic
SeismicAnalysisProcedures,FEMA440.
Kongoli, X., Minami, T., Sakai, Y., Effects of Structural Walls on The ElasticPlastic
Earthquake Responses of FrameWall Buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics,28,No4,1999,Pages479500.
124
Kowalsky, M. J., RC Structural Walls Designed According to UBC and Displacement

BasedMethods,JournalofStructuralEngineering,Volume127,No.5,May,2001.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (2007). Turkish Earthquake Code: Specifications
forBuildingstobeConstructedinEarthquakeZones,Ankara,Turkey.
Moehle, J. P., DisplacementBased Design of RC Structures Subjected to Earthquakes,

EarthquakeSpectra,Vol.8,No.3,1992,Pages403428.
Moyer,M.J.,Kowalsky,M.J.,InfluenceofTensionStrainonBucklingofReinforcementin
ConcreteColumns,ACIStructuralJournal,JanuaryFebruary2003,Pages7585.
Panagiotakos, T. B., Fardis, M. N., DeformationControlled EarthquakeResistant Design

ofRCBuildings,EarthquakeEngineeringandStructuralDynamics,28,No4,1999,Pages
501528.
Panagiotakos, T. B., Fardis, M. N., Estimation of Inelastic Deformation Demands In

Multistorey RC Frame Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, No 4, 1999,
Pages495518.
Paulay,T.,Seismicresponseofstructuralwalls:recentdevelopments,CanadaJournalof
CivilEngineering,Volume28,2001,Pages922937.
Priestley, M. J. N., DisplacementBased Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete

Buildings,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.1,No.1,1997,Pages157192.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007). DisplacementBased Seismic
DesignofStructures,IUSSPress,Pavia,Italy.
Sucuolu,H.,2007DepremYnetmeliiPerformansEsaslHesapYntemlerininKarlkl
Deerlendirilmesi,naatMhendileriOdas(MO)TrkiyeMhendislikHaberleri,Say:
4444452006/45.
engz Ali, Quantitative Evaluation of Assessment Methods in The 2007 Turkish

Earthquake Code, MSc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical
University,Ankara,2007.
125
Thermou,G.E., Pantazopoulou, S. J., Elnashai, A. S., Design Methodology for Seismic

Upgrading of Substandard Reinforced Concrete Structures, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering,Volume11,Issue4July2007,pages582606.
Thomsen,J.H.,Wallace,J.W.,DisplacementBasedDesignofSlenderReinforcedConcrete
Structural Walls Experimental Verification, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130,
No.4,2004,618630.
Tjhin, T. N.,Ascheim, M. A., Wallace, J. W., Yielddisplacementbased seismic design of

RCwallbuildings,EngineeringStructures,29,2007,29462959.
126

Displacement-Based Seismic Rehabilitation of Non-Ductile RC Frames With Added Shear Walls (2010) - Thesis PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Displacement-Based Seismic Rehabilitation of Non-Ductile RC Frames With Added Shear Walls (2010) - Thesis PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DISPLACEMENTBASEDSEISMICREHABILITATIONOF

Nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings constitute an important part of the

A displacementbased retrofitting approach is presented in this study for seismic

glendirilmesine deplasman esasl bir yaklam sunulmutur. En az miktarda eklenen

Anahtar kelimeler: deplasman esasl tasarm, glendirme, perde duvar, betonarme

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Prof.Dr. Haluk Sucuolu for

Nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings constitute an important part of the

In the conventional forcebased retrofitting of nonductile RC frame buildings in severe

Priestley (1997) studied a displacementbased seismic assessment procedure which

displacement profile of wall components were established. As an essential aspect of

A methodology for direct displacementbased design of framewall structures was

Tjhin, Aschheim, and Wallace (2006) presented a paper in which a stepbystep

An alternative approach known as The Coefficient Method for determination of inelastic

nonlinear procedures, performance levels of members are determined in terms of plastic

As an alternative approach to forcebased retrofit design, a simple displacementbased

Case study I: Four story school building, nonlinear seismic assessment of

A simplified displacementbased procedure for retrofit design of medium rise reinforced

Uniform Drift approach is a displacementbased methodology for retrofit design of

(3.3.1.3.1) (ASCE,2000) where anRfactor is not directly required. Fundamental period is

Chord rotation capacities are calculated by employing momentcurvature analysis and

Preliminary design is followed by computation of the target displacement demand

: Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to

: Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness

: Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P

: Characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period associated

Elastically imposed deflected shape which corresponds to uniform interstory drift

Another significant parameter on which chord rotation performance depends is strain

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

reinforcement in all members and considered as confinement reinforcement. Thus s/sm

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m 3.00 m

An eigenvalue analysis was conducted by considering cracked stiffnesses of members in

On Figure 2.12 MomentCurvature analysis and particular damage limits in terms of

a.) EXISTING BUILDING

b.) RETROFITTED BUILDING

After verifying uniform drift approach as a simplified displacementbased retrofit design

In order to employ forcebased retrofit methods, seismic performance of the retrofitted

amount of longitudinal reinforcement in terms of volumetric ratio increased to 0.0121.

bars was determined as 220 MPa. Volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in

5900 5900 100.00

Considering the calculated deficiencies, retrofit strategy should intend to reduce

Characteristic concrete strength was taken as 20 MPa in compression and characteristic

0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

0.0020 0.0025 0.0030

0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100

Effective fundamental periods in both directions were computed by using cracked

0.0040 0.0050 0.0060

A displacementbased retrofit design methodology is proposed in this study for seismic

The proposed methodology relies on estimation of inelastic chord rotation demands by a

assumption is successful in estimating the inelastic chord rotation demand at basement

In order to evaluate differences between retrofit solutions, forcebased and displacement

A displacementbased seismic retrofit design methodology is proposed in this study for

Those members which remain insufficient in the retrofitted system in terms of

Accordingly,lower capacity designforces are obtained for thefoundations ofthe

European Committee for Standardization (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000, Prestandard and Commentary

Kowalsky, M. J., RC Structural Walls Designed According to UBC and Displacement

Moehle, J. P., DisplacementBased Design of RC Structures Subjected to Earthquakes,

Panagiotakos, T. B., Fardis, M. N., DeformationControlled EarthquakeResistant Design

Panagiotakos, T. B., Fardis, M. N., Estimation of Inelastic Deformation Demands In