SEMINAR ON

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFITTING OF RC FRAME BUILDINGS WITH OPEN GROUND STOREY

BY : TUSHAR V. PAJGADE (M.TECH. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS) PROJECT GUIDE DR. RATNESH KUMAR ASSTT. PROF. APPLIED MECHANICS DEPT. VISVESARAYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NAGPUR
1

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Introduction Literature Review on damages of RC frame building Literature Review on Retrofitting Objective Methodology Scope of work Comparative study Modelling of masonary infill
2

Pushover analysis of G+3, G+7 & G+15 storey building Determination of performance point Determination of Ductility Comparisons of inter story drift ratio Retrofitting techniques used References

INTRODUCTION
OPEN GROUND STOREY

Open ground storey is a storey in which ground storey is constructed without infilled walls In many countries its common practice to construct RC frame with OGS. Also local municipal / building bylaw direct same for solving parking problem.

Photo from eq tips (Murthy CVR)

Literature Review on
Behaviour of

Improperly Designed RC Frame

Buildings Open ground storey damages Infill wall damages National and International code provision for infill walls Retrofitting strategies Retrofitting techniques

Behaviour of Improperly Designed RC Frame Buildings

Brittle failure (Photo from: Housner & Jennings, Earthquake Design Criteria, EERI, USA)

Shear failure of RC columns due to short column effect (over view of chi chi eq 1999)

Dislodged Column due to Soft ground Floor effect (1999 Athens Earthquake)

Weak column strong beam failure three-story primary school in Gedikbulak village after collapse (photos: Erdil) Turkey Earthquake
7

Takashi, et al. (2002)

During Turkey earthquake of 17 august 1999

In Kocaeli city, 41317 RC frame building were heavily damaged or collapsed, 46961 were moderately damaged and 51233 were slightly damaged. In Sakarya city, 29844 RC frame building were heavily damaged or collapsed, 22170 were moderately damaged and 26772 were slightly damaged.
Takashi K., Fumitoshi K., Yoshiaki N., Quick inspection manual for damaged reinforced

concrete building due to earthquake 2002

<http://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdf> (June 25, 2012)
8

Eberhard, et al. (2010)

After 2010 Haiti earthquake eberhard, et al. survey 107 building in port-au-prince downtown indicated that 28% had collapsed and 33% were damaged enough to require repairs. Another survey held on Leogane city of 52 buildings, found that 62% had collapsed and another 31% required repairs.

Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdf>(July 15, 2012)

9

Jaiswal, et al.(2003)

Bhuj earthquake (India)

Damages not only related to epicentre. In Ahmadabad 75 RCC building collapsed and thousands others damaged. Clearly demonstrating the seismic vulnerability of this type of design

Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report Country India Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003 <http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/india_reinforced_concrete_frame.pdf>(July15, 2012)
10

Damages of open ground storey

Tung and George(2003)

Taiwan government enacted a law in 1984 to encourage contractor to build OGS Demanded 1st floor height at least 5m. In return they were awarded with extra floor area. And Result !

Chi Chi earthquake 1999 (photo from World Housing Encyclopedia Report)
Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopaedia Country Taiwan, Primary Reviewer: Durgesh Rai 2003`<http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdf>( June 26, 2012)
11

Murty (2005)

OGS adverse effect is observed during bhuj earthquake.

In Ahmadabad alone has about 25,000 five-storey buildings and about 1,500 eleven-storey buildings 100 RC frame buildings with open ground storeys are collapsed totally.

Bhuj earthquake (photo from EQ tips)

Murty C.V.R., IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips Learning Earthquake Design and Construction, National Information Centerof Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India, September 2005.
12

Damages of Infilled wall Corner crushing Shear slip of wall Toe crushing Diagonal tension

Behavior of masonry infill walls (photo from Klingner 1976)

13

National and International Code provision for Infill Walls

IS CODE 1893:2002
Ta=0.075h0.75 For RC frame without infill For RC Frame with infill

EUROCODE 8
4.3.6 Additional measures for masonry infilled frames

4.3.6.3 Irregularities due to masonry infills 4.3.6.4 Damage limitation of infills 5.9 Local effects due to masonry or concrete infills

6.10.3 Moment resisting frames with infills

14

FEMA-356 And ASCE-41

For how to model & calculating equivalent stiffness a= 0.175 (1 hcol ) -0.04 rinf

Where, a=Width of equivalent diagonal

compression strut

Model infill wall as a strut

(Photo from FEMA)

15

 Literature

Review on Retrofitting

Retrofitting strategies Retrofitting Techniques

16

Repair: The process to regain original strength of a damage

or deteriorated structure is called as Repair.

Seismic Retrofitting: The process to enhance original

strength of a deficient or damaged structure and enabling it to satisfactorily can perform its intended performance in future seismic event is called seismic retrofitting.

Retrofitting Strategies

Stiffness increase Strength increase Ductility increase Mass reduction

17

Retrofitting Techniques

Typical load-displacement relationships for different strengthening Techniques [Rodriguez et. al. (1991)]
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841.
18

Different Retrofitting Techniques

1. Addition of shear wall 2. Addition of bracing 3. Jacketing

4. Friction dampers

19

1. Addition of shear wall

Its an Effective method of increasing building strength and
stiffness Can form an efficient lateral-force resisting system With fulfilling functional requirements (ATC-40) In Japan, from 1933 to 1975 about 85% case of retrofitting was executed using shear walls [Rodriguez et al. (1991)]

Shear wall in RC frame (Murthy EQ Tips)

[Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips] Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Seismic Resistance, Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841. 20

Adverse effect
If large number of shear wall added then it result in increase in mass of the building Increase in seismic forces also demand i.e., requirement of strength increases It can effect into architectural impact through the loss of windows It require special foundation work which highly expensive as it produces large overturning forces at their base

Shear wall (Photo from Murthy, C.V.R. EQ tips)

[Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips]
21

2. ADDITION OF BRACING

Increases stiffness, strength and ductility Can construct with less disruption in building with very
small loss of lights

Its very difficult to attach braces with frame in seismic

retrofitting.

a)Concentric bracing b)Eccentric bracing c)Post-tensioned steel bracing d)Buckling restrained bracings

22

(a)

(b)

(a) Concentric bracing (Lorant G. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php>) (b) Eccentric bracing (Kiymaz, G. <http://web.iku.edu.tr/courses/insaat/ce007/> )

23

(d-1) Schematic of BRBs or UBs (d-2) Typical types of BRBs [Tsai et al.; 2004]

Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004), Proc., 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

24

3. JACKETING Jacketing adds both strength and stiffness to structure Increases cross section of member

Four types of jacketing

column jacketing beam jacketing column-beam joint jacketing infill jacketing

25

column jacketing

During 1970s earthquake many of the structural failures

due to inadequate shear strength and/or improper spacing in confinement in concrete columns Column jacketing improves strength and ductility and converting strong-beam weak-column into strongcolumn weak-beam mechanism (Choudhuri et al, 1992; Rodriguez
and Park, 1994; Bracci et al, 1997; Bush et al, 1990)

Jacketing of column (Photo from Famer group< http://www.famergroup.com/earthquake.html >) 26

4 FRICTION DAMPERS
Concept of Friction dampers

The Friction brake is widely used to extract kinetic energy from a

moving body as it is the most effective mean to dissipate energy. It is an effective way to control seismic response of structure and non structural damage. It does not impact the foundation design, increase stiffness of the frame until a certain shear level is reached, at which the dampers can be set to slip.

Pall Friction Damper ( Photo from Golafshani. A. A and Gholizad.A 2009)

Golafshani, A. A., and Gholizad, A. (2009).J. Of Const. Steel Research 65(1), 180-187.
27

Filistrault 1986

In 1985 a 3 storey frame equipped with friction-dampers was

tested on a shake table An earthquake record with peak acceleration of 0.9g did not cause any damage to friction- damped braced frame. While moment resisting frame & braced frame cause permanent deformation
Aiken 1988 1987, a 9 storey three bay frame, equipped with friction dampers, was tested on a shake table all members of the friction- damped frame remained elastic for 0.84g acceleration while the moment- resisting frame would have yield at about 0.3g acceleration
Filiatrault, A., Cherry, S.(1986).,Proc., 3rd conference on dynamic response of structure, ASCE, Held at Los Angeles. Aiken, I.D., Kelly, J.M., Pall, A.S. (1988)., Report No. UCB/EERC-88/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre of the university of California, Berkeley, 1-7 28

Disadvantage

It is very difficult to maintain its properties for long

time intervals expensive and the selection of the appropriate slip load is a critical

29

Objective
To compare period, base shear, bending moment & shear force of different frame like bare frame, infill frame, and open ground storey frame by IS code & SAP model. Performance of evaluation of these building by nonlinear static procedure.

Comparison of performance enhancement of these

building with different retrofitting techniques. Identification of most suitable retrofitting techniques.

30

Methodology
Generic plan of RC frame building selected. Building modeled for different height i.e.,G+3, G+7, G+15 Selection of suitable modeling techniques in SAP Modeling, design and comparison of base shear and period of vibration of these building. Performance of evaluation of these building by non-linear static procedure. Selection of retrofitting techniques & corresponding modeling

techniques in SAP.
Base on result will identify most suitable retrofitting techniques.
31

Scope of work
Work will be limited to one type of limited plan and three different height.

32

Selection of Generic plan

33

Comparison study
Period of vibration by IS 1893:2002 code Method
Period of vibration (with infill Period of vibration wall) (without infill wall) in in Sec. Sec. X-Direction Y-Direction X and Y-Direction

G+3 IS-1893
G+7 IS-1893 G+15 IS-1893

0.233
0.440 0.865

0.373
0.711 1.387

0.597
0.968 1.598

34

Comparison of Modal mass Participation factor by RSA in SAP 2000

Types of Building Direction Mode No.
Modal Load participation factor Modal Load participation factor Modal Load participation factor

Steps no.

X Bare frame
Y

0.83228
0.81587

0.0919
0.10453

0.02403
0.03005

1'4'7' 2'5'9' 3 7 11 146

X Full infilled
Y Open Ground storey X Y

0.8828
0.84107 0.92287 0.84133

0.07065
0.09706 0.02662 0.09694

0.01303
0.02433 0.0042 0.02422

3610 147
35

Comparison of Shear force and Bending moment in member shown in below photo by RSA in SAP 2000

5
5

2 3 3 1

36

Type of Building

Location 1

Combinations

Shear Force in kN

Combinations

Bending moment kN.M

Bare frame Bare frame with infill load Full infilled Open Ground storey Type of Building

1.5(DL+EQx)

41 77 56 176
Shear Force in kN

1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)

83 196 112 321

Bending moment kN.M.

Left side Corner ground storey column of 1st frame

1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)

1.5(DL+EQx)

1.5(DL+EQx)

Location 2

Combinations 1.5(DL+EQx)

Combinations 1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)

Bare frame Bare frame with infill load only

Left side Corner 1st storey column of 1st frame

30 60

61 122

1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)

Full infilled
Open Ground storey

33
56

83
211
37

1.5(DL+EQx)

1.5(DL+EQx)

Location
Type of Building Bare frame

Combinations
1.5(DL+EQx)

Shear Force in kN

Combinations
1.5(DL+EQx)

Bending moment kN.M.

Left side Bare frame with Corner 1st infill load only storey Full infilled slab Beam of Open Ground 1st frame storey
Type of Building Bare frame Bare frame with infill load only

59 126

110 173

1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQX)

1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQX)

105
129
Shear Force in KN

124
180
Bending moment KN.M.

Location

Combinations 1.2(DL+LL+EQx)

Combinations 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)

32 39

41 55

Full infilled
Open Ground storey

Left side Corner 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 3rd storey 1.5(DL+LL) slab beam of 1st frame 1.2(DL+LL+EQx)

33
28

1.5(DL+LL)

30
27
38

1.2(DL+LL+EQx)

Analysis used in present study

Non

linear static procedure

Capacity
Demand (displacement) Performance

39

Capacity
Capacity is representation of the structures ability to resist the seismic demand.

40

Demand (Displacement)
Demand is representation of the earthquake ground motion.

41

Performance
Its

dependent on a manner that the capacity is able to handle the demand OR Structure must have the capacity to resist the demand of earthquake such that performance of the structure is compatible with the objective of the design

42

Pushover analysis
Different code have described pushover analysis procedure, modelling & acceptable limits It generates capacity curve beyond the elastic limit Capacity Spectrum Method Displacement Coefficient Method

Photo from ATC40

43

Flow chart of Pushover analysis

Flow chart of capacity spectrum method (Photo from ATC-40)

44

Limitations
This analysis procedure consider only first mode shape of the Equivalent SDOF system. Predefined vertical distribution of the load along height in one direction at a time

45

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Column member, coupled axial force and biaxial bending moment hinges which are mention as PM2-M3 hinge. Beam members uncoupled moment hinges mention as M3. IO,LS,CP are structural performance level

Force- Deformation behaviour of a typical RC member

46

Non linear modelling of Masonary infill

No special provision for auto hinge for axial member given in SAP2000 V14.2.4 So provide manual hinges properties from FEMA356

47

Calculate yield force

Vine=Ani x fvie (N) Where, Py Vine Ani Fvie = maximum allowable yield force, = a design shear force, = a area of strut, = a expected shear strength of masonry infill,
48

Where, Astrut = Area of strut, Eme = Expected elastic modulus of masonry in compression, Linf = Length of infill, hinf = Height of infill, = Angle between infill diagonal and horizontal axis, tinf = thickness of infill, ESW = Equivalent strut width.

49

Nonlinear properties of infill

(Photo from FEMA 356)

Infill name

Yield Force Fy (kN)

Displacement control parameter Acceptance Criteria B 0 0 0 0 C 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083 D, E 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083 LS 0.063 0.069 0.016 0.063 CP 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083

S-J S-K S-L S-M

261.80 231.66 421.04 260.84

S-N

230.58

0.089

0.089

0.069

0.089

50

Nonlinear properties of axial hinge to be filled in SAP

51

Pushover curve of G+3 building in X - direction

14000 12000 Base shear in kN 10000 8000 6000 OGS full infill

4000
2000 0
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

Bare frame

0.1

0.2 Displacement in m

0.3

0.4

52

Pushover curve of G+3 building in Y- direction

10000

8000 Base shear in kN

Bare frame Infill

6000

4000

OGS
2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

0 0 0.1 0.2 Displacement in m 0.3 0.4

53

Pushover curve of G+7 building in X- direction

21000
18000 Base shear kN 15000 12000 9000 6000 3000 0
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

Bare frame

Full infill

OGS

0.1

0.2 0.3 Displacement in m

0.4

0.5
54

Pushover curve of G+7 building in Y- direction

12000 10000 Base shear in kN 8000 6000 4000 2000 OGS
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

Bare frame

Full infill

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacement in m 0.5 0.6

55

Pushover curve of G+15 building in X- direction

20000 18000 16000 Base shear in kN 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

Full infill

OGS

Bare frame

2000
0 0

0.2

0.4 Displacemnt in m

0.6

0.8

56

Pushover curve of G+15 building in Y- direction

7000 6000

Base shear in kN

5000

Full infill

4000
3000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

OGS

Bare frame

1000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacementi in m 0.5 0.6

57

Bi-Linearization of curve

(Photo from FEMA 356)

58

Ductility in X-Direction
G+3 Story Fy = 4300 Bare frame y = 70mm 5.214 Fu = 4486 u = 365mm Fy = 6556 Ductility = u/y G+7 Story Fy = 9800 Bare y =110mm frame Fu = 10000 u =470mm Fy =16000 4.273 Ductility = u/y G+15 Story Fy = 11997 Bare y =245mm frame Fu = 11997 u =740mm Fy = 17100 3.02 Ductility = u/y

Full y = 20mm infilled Fu = 6556 u = 20mm

Fy = 5400

Full y = 70mm infilled Fu =18388 u =390mm

Fy =15200

5.571

Full y =150mm infilled Fu = 19118 u =360mm

Fy = 14000

2.4

Open y = 30mm ground Fu = 5811 story

u = 48mm

1.6

Open y = 80mm ground story Fu =16633

u =160mm

Open y =125mm ground story Fu = 17346

u =250mm

59

Ductility in Y Direction
G+3 Story Fy = 4100 Bare frame y = 55mm 6.182 Fu = 4927 u = 340mm Fy = 6000 Bare frame Ductility = u/y Story G+7 Fy = 7950 y = 90mm 5.611 Fu =8708 u =505mm Fy = 8200 3 Fu = 7975 y = 50mm Full infilled Fu = 10319 6.8 Ductility = u/y Story G+15 Fy = 2050 Bare y=100mm frame Fu = 2182 u=980mm Fy = 6200 9.8 Ductility = u/y

Full infilled

y = 25mm

Full y = 95mm infilled Fu = 7136 u=400mm

Fy = 5400

4.211

u = 75mm
Fy = 5800

u=340mm
Fy = 7900kN 4

Open ground story

y = 30mm Fu = 7552 u = 120mm

Open y = 55mm ground Fu = 9963 story u = 315mm

Open y = 90mm 5.727 ground 2.167 story Fu = 6200 u = 195mm 60

DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT

Displacement modification method
2 t=C0C1C2Sa x 4 2

Target displacement

61

Comparison of Inter story drift ratio at MCE level

4.5 4 3.5

Story level

3 2.5 2 1.5
1 0.5 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 Inter Story Drift Ratio (%) 1.50

Bare frame Full infilled OGS

Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 4 story at MCE

62

Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 4 story at MCE

5

4
Story level

3
2 1 0 0.00

Bare frame Full infilled OGS

0.20

0.40 0.60 0.80 Inter story Drift Ratio (%)

1.00

1.20

63

Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 8 story at MCE

9

8
7 6 Story level OGS Bare frame Full infilled

5
4 3

2
1 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.20

64

Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 8 story at MCE

9 8

7
6 Story level 5 4 3 Full infilled OGS Bare frame

2
1 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.20
65

Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 16 story at MCE

18 16 14 12 Story level 10 8 6 4

Bare frame Full infill

OGS

2 0 0.00
0.50 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.50
66

Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 16 story at MCE

18 16 14 12 Story level 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 2.50 3.00
67

Bare frame Full infill OGS

Retrofitting Techniques
1) 2.5 times increasing design forces of
column & beam of a soft story

2) 2.5 times increasing design forces only in

column of a soft story

3) Friction dampers

4) Shear wall

68

Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
14000 12000 full infill OGS

10000
Base shear ( kN) 8000 6000 4000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

2.5 column 2.5 column & beam

69

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Displacement (m) 0.2

2.5 Retrofitting column & beam

2.5 Retrofitting column only

70

Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
12000

Full infill 10000

Base shear (kN) 8000 6000 4000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

OGS

2.5 column only 2.5 column & beam

2000 0

0.05

0.1 0.15 0.2 Displacement (m)

0.25

0.3
71

Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
21000
Full infill

18000
15000 Base shear (kN)

OGS

12000 9000 6000

BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

2.5 RET of Col in X 2.5 col & beam in X

72

3000
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Displacement (m) 0.4 0.5

Open ground story

2.5 Ret of column & beam

2.5 Ret of column only

73

Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
14000 12000 Full infill

10000
Base shear ( kN) OGS 8000 6000 4000 2000

2.5 Ret col

BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

0
0 0.1 0.2 Displacement (m) 0.3 0.4

2.5 Ret col & beam

74

Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
20000 18000 16000 14000 Base shear (kN) 12000 OGS Full infill

10000
8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.2 0.4 Displacemnt (m) 0.6 0.8
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

2.5 Ret of col only 2.5 Ret of col & beam

75

Open ground story

2.5 Ret of column & beam

2.5 Ret of column only

76

Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
9000 8000 7000 Base shear (kN) 6000 5000 4000 2.5 Ret column OGS Full infill

3000
2000 1000 0 0 0.1

B-

IO-

LS-

CP-

DBE-

MCE-

2.5 Ret column & beam 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacementi (m) 0.5 0.6
77

3. Friction dampers
Model as plastic (Wen) Non linear properties Yield strength (slip load) Post yield stiffness ratio Optimize position of dampers Optimize yield strength

Pall Friction Damper ( Photo from Golafshani. A. A and Gholizad.A 2009)

78

G+3 building retrofitting with friction dampers showing XZ plane & 3D view

79

Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with Friction dampers in X-direction

14000 12000 10000 Base shear (kN) 8000 OGS full infill

6000
4000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

2000 0

Ret with Fric damp.

0.05

0.1 0.15 Displacement (m)

0.2
80

Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with Friction dampers in X-direction

21000 18000 Base shear kN 15000 12000 9000 6000
B- IOLSCPDBEMCE-

Full infill OGS

Ret friction

3000

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Displacement in m 0.4 0.5

81

Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with Friction dampers in X-direction

21000 18000 Base shear (kN) 15000 12000 Full infill

OGS
9000 6000
BIOLSCPDBE MCE -

3000

Ret Frict dampers 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacemnt (m) 0.5 0.6

82

Ductility Improve after retrofitting with Friction damper

Type of building G+3 Ductility = y/u G+7 Ductility = y/u G+15 Ductility = y/u

Fy = 9000 OGS Retrofitti y= 33mm ng with friction Fu = 10000 dampers u=140mm Fy = 5400 Open ground story y= 30mm

Fy = 15800

17100

y =75mm

y=153mm

4.242
Fu = 18000 u =440mm Fy = 16633 y = 80mm

5.867
Fu =18800 u =500mm Fy = 5400 y=125mm

3.268

1.600
Fu = 5811 u =48mm Fu = 15200 u=160mm

2.000
Fu = 5811 u=250mm

2.000

83

4. SHEAR WALL Modelling of shear wall

Model shear wall as a wide column modelling.

To use auto hinge properties P-M2-M3. Compare analysis and design of a wide column model with thin shell model.

84

Wide column model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall

Thin shell model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall.

85

G+3 building retrofitting with shear wall showing 3D view of position of shear wall
Optimization of position

86

Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with shear wall in X-direction

14000 12000 Base shear in kN 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.05 0.1 Displacement in m 0.15 0.2
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

full infill

OGS

Shear wall

87

Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with shear wall in X-direction

21000 18000 15000 Base shear kN 12000 OGS 9000 Full infill

6000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

3000 0 0 0.1 0.2 Displacement in m 0.3 0.4

Ret Shear wall

88

Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with shear wall in X-direction

20000

18000
16000 Base shear in kN 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-

Full infill

OGS

Ret. Shear wall inX 0.8

89

0
0 0.2 0.4 Displacemnt in m 0.6

G+3 building retrofitted with shear wall in X-direction showing hinges formation.

90

Comparison of ductility, yield force &ultimate force in open ground story & retrofitting with shear wall model of different building in X- direction.
Type of building G+3 Fy=11105 kN Retrofitting with Shear wall Ductility= y/u G+7 Fy =14047 kN Ductility= y/u G+15 Fy=17389 kN Ductility= y/u

y =17mm Fu = 12647 kN u=121 mm Fy = 5400 kN

7.118

y = 46mm Fu = 15403 kN u=330 mm Fy = 16633 kN y = 80mm

1.600 Fu = 15200 kN u =160mm 2.000 7.174

y=113mm Fu =18964 kN u=799 mm Fy = 5400 kN y=125mm

Fu = 5811 kN u=250mm
91

7.071

Open ground story

y =30mm
Fu = 5811 kN u = 48mm

2.000

Conclusion
Considering ductility, strength capacity addition of shear wall
is best method of retrofitting, if properly analyze the building. Ductility is increased up to 3.5 times compare to OGS. Due to addition of friction damper ductility is increase 2.5 times compare to OGS.

In many cases, it could be difficult to achieve a single

retrofitting technique for attaining the desired performance of buildings so combination of some of the above mentioned

techniques may be required

92

Future work
Openings were not considered in infills. Suitability of the proposed strengthening schemes must be verified for masonaryinfilled frames with openings in walls. Non linear dynamic analysis (time history analysis) is a best method for analyzing the strengthening methods like friction dampers. The experimental work should be carried out on a reduced scale three story with first story without infilled wall under gradually increased cyclic lateral displacements to further verify the effectiveness of proposed strengthening schemes.

93

Reference (contd.)
Aiken, I.D., Kelly, J.M., Pall, A.S. (1988). Seismic Response of a nine-storey Steel frame with friction- damped cross-bracing, Report No. UCB/EERC88/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre of the university of California, Berkeley, 1-7. Applied Technology Council ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Rep. No. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Calif. Baboux, M., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990), Bracing System for Seismic Retrofitting, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 116(1), 55-74. Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Reihnorn, A.M., (1997). Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(1), 3-10. Bush, T.D., Jr., Talton, C.R., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990). Behavior of a structure strengthened using reinforced concrete piers, ACI Struct. J., 87(5), 557563. Bush, T.D., Jones, E.A. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991a). Behavior of RC Frame Strengthened Using Structural Steel Bracing, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE,117(4),1115-1126.
94

Reference (contd.)
Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000, version-14.2.4 Berkeley (CA, USA): Computer and Structures, Inc., 2000. Bush, T.D., Jr., Wyllie, L.A., Jr. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991b), Observations of Two Seismic Strengthening Scheme for Concrete Frames, Earthquake Spectra, 7(4), 511-902. Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010 Eurocode 8- Design of Structures for Earthquakes Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Pr-EN 1998-1 Final Draft Comit Europen de Normalisation. December 2003. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356). Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, D.C.,USA 2000. Golafshani, A. A., and Gholizad, A. (2009). Friction damper for vibration control in offshore steel jacket platforms. J. of Const. Steel Research 65(1), 180-187.
95

Reference (contd.)
IS 1893 (part1)Criteria For Earthquake Resistance Design Of Structures(Fifth Revison),BIS- New Delhi, India. 2002 Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report

Country India Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003. Klingner R.Y., Bertero V. Infilled frames in earthquake-resistant construction, University of California, Berkeley, Report No.EERC 76_32, December;
1976. Maheri, M.R., and Sahebi, A. (1997). Use of steel bracing in Reinforced Concrete Frame, Eng.Struct., 19(12), 1018-1024. Mortezaei1 A., Ronagh H. R., Kheyroddin A. and Ghodrati G. (2011). Effectiveness of modified pushover analysis procedure for the estimation of seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault earthquakes having forward directivity. Struct. Design of Tall Spec. Build. 20, 679699. Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips Learning Earthquake Design and Construction, National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India
96

Reference (contd.)
Pall, A.S., Pall, R. (1991). Friction Dampers used for seismic control of new existing building in Canada, Proc. ATC 17-1, Seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control, San Francisco, 2, 675-686. Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Seismic Resistance, Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R. (1994). Seismic load tests of reinforced concrete columns strengthened by jacketing, ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 150-159. Takashi K., Fumitoshi K., Yoshiaki N., Quick inspection manual for damaged reinforced concrete building due to earthquake 2002 Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004). Research and Application of Double-Core Buckling Restrained Braces in Taiwan, Proc., 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopedia Country Taiwan,

Primary

Reviewer: Durgesh Rai 2003`

97

Thank You

98