Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
March, 2005
SHEAR
WALL
STEEL
BRACING
CONCRETE
JACKETING
Sponsored by
Prepared by
Structural Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai 600 036
In collaboration with
Structural Engineering Research Centre
Taramani, Chennai 600 113
Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
PREFACE
This Manual is intended primarily for use by the practising engineer, but is also useful for
academic purposes. Some background information on the basic theoretical concepts are
given, but for a full understanding, the user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge
of structural dynamics, earthquake engineering, reinforced concrete design and IS code
requirements. It is also assumed that the user has some exposure to the use of standard
finite element software packages (such as SAP 2000, STAAD Pro, etc.). As part of the
DST sponsored project, a software called SAVE (Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability
Evaluation), has also been developed (as an alternative to existing commercial packages)
and is now made freely available for users of this Manual. Details of SAVE (User
Manual and CD) are given separately, and are not included in the scope of this Manual.
This Manual in its present form represents a consolidation of several studies (theoretical
and experimental) and discussions undertaken by the coordinators of the DST-sponsored
project, which commenced in 2002. As part of the project, as many as 40 sample
buildings located in different parts of India (in Zones III, IV and V) were evaluated,
including the difficult process of data collection and field survey. It is observed from
these case studies that the majority of existing multi-storeyed buildings in India,
particularly residential apartment complexes, fail to meet the current code compliance
requirements and are in danger of damage (of varying degrees) in the event of a
earthquake of expected intensity.
ii
Unfortunately, there are at present few structural engineers who have the expertise to
assess the seismic vulnerability and suggest appropriate retrofit measures. This Manual
is expected to enhance that number manifold. Workshops and training programmes
related to the use of this Manual are planned for this purpose.
Numerous persons have helped us in preparing this Manual. These include project
associates, Ph.D. and M.S. research scholars, M.Tech. and B.Tech. students, laboratory
technicians and secretarial staff. A list of all the major contributors is given in the
Acknowlegement page.
iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
iv
Mr. T S Krishnamoorthy
Principal Investigator
Dr. N Lakshmanan
Mr. C V Vaidyanathan
Dr. K Muthumani
Mr. K Balasubramanian
Dr. K Balaji Rao
Mr. R Ravichandran
Mr. N Gopalakrishnan
Mr. M Manjuprasad
Mr. K Satish Kumar
Dr. B H Bharatkumar
Ms. P. Kamatchi
Ms. R Sreekala
Mr. D Dhiman Basu
Mr. S. Avinash
Mr. S Gopalakrishnan
CONTENTS
Preface
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology
2. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Data Collection and Condition Assessment of Building
2.3 Rapid Visual Screening
2.3.1 Scores for a building
2.3.2 Cut-off Score
2.3.3 Building Type Descriptions
2.3.4 Score Modifier
2.4 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness
2.4.1 Column Shear
2.4.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
2.4.3 Axial Stress in Column
2.4.4 Frame Drift
2.4.5 Strong Column Weak Beam Check
2.5 Evaluation Statements
2.6 Decision for Detailed Evaluation
vii
35
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Computational Model
3.2.1 Material properties
3.2.2 Structural element model
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.2.3
3.2.2.4
3.2.2.5
Centre of mass
Centre of rigidity of storey
Effect of torsion
Seismic weight
Lumped mass
Calculation of lateral forces
53
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Capacity Spectrum, Demand Spectrum & Performance Point
4.3 Pushover Analysis Procedure
4.3.1 Seismic Load Distribution
4.3.2 Load Deformation Behaviour of Elements
4.4 Performance Based Analysis
4.4.1 Performance Objective
4.4.2 Performance Levels of Structure and Elements
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels
4.4.4 Selection of Performance Objective
4.5 Evaluation Results
5. SEISMIC RETROFIT
63
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Goals of Retrofit
5.3 Definitions
viii
Global Strategies
5.6.2
Local Strategies
5.6.3
5.6.4
6. BUILDING DEFICIENCIES
70
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Global Deficiencies
6.2.1
Plan Irregularities
6.2.2
Vertical Irregularities
Columns
6.3.2
6.3.3
Slabs
6.3.4
6.3.5
Precast Elements
6.3.6
Deficient Construction
Deficiencies in Analysis
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
Pounding of Buildings
6.4.5
Geotechnical Aspects
6.4.6
7.2.2
7.2.3
ix
84
90
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Column Strengthening
8.2.1
Concrete Jacketing
8.2.2
Steel Jacketing
8.2.3
Concrete Jacketing
8.3.2
Steel Plating
8.3.3
FRP Wrapping
8.3.4
8.3.5
External Prestressing
Concrete Jacketing
8.4.2
Concrete Fillet
8.4.3
Steel Jacketing
8.4.4
Steel Plating
8.4.5
9. CASE STUDY I
129
173
211
A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
Indian codes of practice for earthquake resistant design (IS 1893: 2002) and
detailing (IS 13920: 1993) give guidelines to construct new buildings which are
expected to perform adequate in terms of load and deformation capacities. The
existing buildings constructed as per older codes are likely to show inherent
deficiencies and may not meet the demands as estimated by the current codes.
Hence, the task of seismic evaluation involves correlation between the imposed
demand level of earthquake and the expected performance level of building. The
code refers to two levels of earthquakes such as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The concept of seismic design
philosophy is to ensure life safety under DBE and prevent collapse of the building
under MCE. These are two performance objectives which are to be ascertained
with the existing buildings.
Chapter I - Introduction
1.2
OBJECTIVES
The work related to the first two objectives is covered in this manual. It may be
noted that any of the commercially available software can be used to carry out the
analysis. Details of the free software SAVE developed as part of this DST
sponsored project are given separately (user manual and CD), and are not included
in this manual.
1.3
SCOPE
This procedure aims at two seismic safety objectives, namely (i) life safety under
design basis earthquake and (ii) collapse prevention objective under maximum
considered earthquake. It does not address other performance objectives. The
buildings treated in this section are mid-rise (3 to 10 storeys) reinforced concrete
moment resisting framed buildings. The report deals only with structural aspects
of the building. Non-structural and geotechnical aspects lie outside the scope of
the report. Special attention should be taken for the evaluation of buildings
located in liquefiable soils.
1.4
METHODOLOGY
2.
3.
Chapter I - Introduction
Preliminary evaluation
NO
Deficiencies?
YES
Detailed evaluation
NO
Deficiencies?
Retrofit not
necessary
YES
Development of retrofit scheme
Post-retrofit analysis
NO
Deficiencies?
Report preparation
YES
Development of different retrofit
scheme
Figure 1.1: Flowchart summarizing the evaluation and retrofit process
Preliminary evaluation
i)
2.
ii)
iii)
iv)
Detailed evaluation
i)
Computational modelling.
ii)
Perform linear static and dynamic analysis and check the code
compliance at critical section.
iii)
iv)
v)
Code compliance
Drift capacity
The first two among these three performance objectives are mandatory
requirements to be satisfied whereas the third one is a desirable performance
objective.
3.
Remodelling the structure according to the trial retrofit scheme and analysing the
building model. If the performance is not satisfactory different retrofit scheme is
to be selected.
4.
CHAPTER II
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
2.1
INTRODUCTION
It is a non-detailed analysis
ii)
iii)
iv)
The collection of all available data pertaining to the building structure, especially
related to the construction, as well as an on-site inspection of the building form the
first step in the preliminary evaluation procedure. The Rapid Visual Screening
procedure, adapted from FEMA 154 gives some preliminary idea, based on a
scoring system, of the seismic vulnerability of the building.
However, this
screening is optional and not mandatory, as FEMA guidelines are not directly
applicable to Indian conditions.
The RVS procedure was proposed by Applied Technology Council in the documents FEMA 154
and FEMA 155. In the present report, the data collection form shown in Table 2.1, is adapted from
FEMA 154 published in 2002. The form was modified to include the seismic zones and soil types
as per IS 1893: 2002 and to define the pre-code and post-benchmark criteria.
Quick checks are approximate checks for strength and stiffness of building
components. The evaluation statements are in the form of a simple questionnaire
that gives an overall idea of the building and identifies areas of potential weakness,
in terms of seismic performance. It also checks the conformity with seismic design
and detailing provisions.
2.2
Name of builder
Name of Architect/Engineer
Information
Notes
Information
Notes
Use of building
10
IS 1904: 1986
11
Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
Dead loads (unit weight adopted)
IS 875: Part 1:
12
Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live) loads
IS 1893: 2002
1987
IS 875: Part 2:
Floor loads
Roof loads
1987
13
Cyclone/Wind
IS 875: Part 3:
1987
14
Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors
15
Seismic zone
IS 1893: 2002
16
Importance factor, I
IS 1893: 2002
17
IS 1893: 2002
18
IS 1893: 2002
19
IS 1893: 2002
Information
Notes
IS 1893: 2002
22
Table 2.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description
1
Information
Type of building
Regular frames
Regular frames with shear
wall
Irregular frames
Irregular frames with shear
wall
Open ground storey
Number of basements
Number of floors
10
Notes
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1498: 1970
Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Information
Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
Independent
Interconnected
Raft
Piles
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
11
Notes
IS 1893: 2002
Cl. 7.12.1
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002
Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16
Information
Notes
IS 456, Cl. 5.6
IS 13920, Cl. 6.1
IS 13920, Cl. 7.1.2
IS 456: 2000
Cl. 26.5.1.1(a)
IS 13920: 1993
Cl. 6.2.1 (a)
IS 13920: 1993
Cl. 6.3.5
IS 456: 2000
Cl. 26.5.3.1
IS 13920, Cl. 7.4
However, in many cases, such drawings may not be available (or at best, partially
available). Tables 2.3 to 2.6 summarize the data collection process, relating to the
availability of the drawings and level of evaluation.
collected when the original construction drawings are available are indicated in
These items are from Table 5.1 to Table 5.4 of ATC-40 (Volume 1): Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, California.1996.
12
Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 should be followed when construction
drawings are not available. It is suggested, as shown in tables that in addition to the
visual inspection, it is recommended to carry out non-destructive testing to assess
the strength of concrete.
Table 2.3: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Item
Structural calculations
Required
Yes
No
geotechnical report
Foundation report
Prior seismic assessment
reports
Condition survey of building
Alteration and as built
assessment
Comment
Core testing
Aggregate testing
Reinforcement testing
Reinforcement location
verification
Non-structural exploration
13
Table 2.4: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Item
Structural calculations
Required
Yes No
Core testing
Aggregate testing
Reinforcement testing
verification
Could be helpful
Reinforcement location
Comment
Optional
Pachometer @ 10% of critical
Non-structural exploration
14
Required
Yes
Structural calculations
report
Foundation report
Comment
No
if concrete appears
substandard
Aggregate testing
Several cores
Reinforcement testing
Non-structural exploration
Could be helpful
Unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the ductile detailing provision of
IS 13920: 1993 have been followed, it is judicious to assume non-compliance with
the code.
15
Required
Yes
Structural calculations
Comment
No
Could be helpful
Foundation report
thoroughly, particularly if
structure will be retrofitted.
Identify falling hazards,
Aggregate testing
Each core
Reinforcement testing
2 per type
weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
building
Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per
building
Non-structural exploration
16
2.3
The Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) was proposed by FEMA as a means of quickly
assessing, using a scoring system, the seismic vulnerability of buildings in a
locality, based only on visual inspection. Considerable research has gone into the
formulation of the RVS scoring system, and although the specific scores may not
be directly applicable to Indian conditions, the RVS does provide a rough guideline
for reference. Since the RVS is based on visual inspection, the results may vary
from that of a detailed analysis. In general, however, it is expected that the
building that passes the RVS cut-off score criterion, will be found to perform
adequately during an earthquake.
evaluated, performing the RVS helps to minimise the number of buildings that
require a detailed analysis.
Table 2.7: Rapid Visual Screening data collection form
Region of
Seismicity
High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score
2.5
2.8
1.6
3.0
3.6
3.2
4.4
4.8
4.4
Mid rise
+0.4
+0.4
+0.2
+0.2
+0.4
+0.2
+0.4
-0.2
-0.4
High rise
+0.6
+0.8
+0.3
+0.5
+0.8
+0.4
+1.0
0.0
-0.4
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
Pre-code
-1.2
-1.0
-0.2
-1.0
-0.4
-1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Postbenchmark
+1.4
+2.4
N/A
+1.2
+1.6
N/A
+0.6
+0.4
N/A
Soil Type I
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-0.4
Soil Type II
-0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-1.0
-1.2
-1.0
-1.4
-0.8
-0.8
-1.2
-0.8
-0.8
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
Vertical
irregularity
Plan
irregularity
Final Score
Comments
17
2.3.1
In the data collection form, for a particular type of building, the structural scoring
system consists of a basic structural hazard (BSH) score and a set of score
modifiers. The BSH score can be defined as negative logarithm of probability of
collapse of the benchmark building under maximum considered earthquake
(MCE).
seismicity region of 3.0 implies that for every thousand (103) benchmark buildings
one building is likely to collapse.
Benchmark buildings are the representative building for which the structural
hazard scores (BSH score) were developed for different seismic regions.
Benchmark building is a low rise, ordinary building (not detailed as per seismic
detailing code) located on an average rock strata (Soil Type B of UBC 1997) and it
has no plan and vertical irregularity. The building is assumed to be designed as per
the current seismic code.
2.3.2
Cut-off Score
FEMA 154 recommends that if the final score is less than the cut off score of 2, a
detailed analysis of the building is required. In selected cases, in order to have a
safer environment (at a correspondingly higher cost) a higher cut-off value can be
used.
The BSH scores are developed from fragility and capacity curves, generated by HAZUS
(developed by National Institute of Building Sciences, USA) based on seismic hazard maps.
18
2.3.3
There are three different building types mentioned in Table 2.7. The definitions of
these buildings are as follows.
(a)
Concrete Shear Wall Buildings (SW): Buildings with shear walls are
considered in this type. It also includes buildings having shear walls and frames,
but where the frames are either not designed to carry lateral load or do not fulfil
the requirements of dual system. These buildings generally perform better than
concrete frame buildings and this is reflected in the magnitude of BSH score.
(c)
this type of buildings, un-reinforced masonry infill walls are also part of the lateral
load resisting system.
**
19
Plan irregularity and Vertical irregularity: This are defined in detail in Tables 2.9
and 2.10 in the section 2.5
Pre-code: Buildings designed for gravity loads only and not for lateral loads are
defined as pre-code buildings. In the absence of any mention of code in the
construction documents, it is difficult to judge pre-code. Then, if at the beamends, the bottom steel is less than 50% of the top steel provided, the building can
be considered to be designed for gravity loads only. As the benchmark building is
assumed to be designed as per the current seismic code, pre-code buildings have a
negative score modifier.
Post-benchmark: Building designed and constructed as per the ductile detailing
requirements of IS 13920: 1993 are considered as post-benchmark buildings.
Values of the score modifier for post-benchmark buildings are positive as these
buildings perform better than the benchmark building under seismic loading.
Soil Type Definition: Score modifiers for three soil types are mentioned in the
data collection form.
Soil Type I (Rock or hard soil): well graded gravel and sand gravel mixtures with
or without clay binder, and clayey sands poorly graded or sand clay mixtures with
standard penetration count, N > 30.
Soil Type II (Medium soil): All soils with 10 N 30 poorly graded sands or
gravely sands with little or no fines with N > 15.
Soil Type III (Soft soil): All soils other than sands poorly graded with N < 10.
2.4
The quick checks involve a set of initial calculations that checks the average
shear stress in the columns, shear walls etc and average axial stresses in columns
The values of the score modifier for soil type were obtained by mapping the soil types given in
UBC-1997 to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002. The details of the mapping is
discussed in Appendix-A.
20
in each storey, due to the design lateral force determined from IS 1893-2002. This
includes a drift check which is a measure of the stiffness of the building and also a
strong column-week beam check recommended by IS 13920: 1993. The details of
the checks are given below.
Vi = Qi
(2.1)
where, Vi
Qi
Wi
The average shear stress in the columns (assuming that nearly all the columns in
the frame have similar stiffness) is given by,
nc
nc n f
avg =
Vi
Ac
(2.2)
Vi shear at storey, i.
21
The term c is based on the assumption that shear force carried by the
nc n f
columns at the end of RC frames are typically half of those carried by interior
columns. However, this leads to a very conservative estimate of shear for one-bay
frame (twice of the correct value), but this discrepancy is not so serious for frames
which are typically more redundant.
If the average column shear stress (avg) is greater than 0.4 MPa, a more detailed
evaluation of the structure should be performed.
2.4.2
The average shear stress in the walls at a storey can be calculated as follows.
avg =
Where, Vi
Aw
Vi
Aw
(2.3)
If the average shear stress in shear walls (avg) is greater than 0.35 MPa or
0.074fck MPa, a more detailed evaluation of the structure should be
performed.
2.4.3
h
L
22
(2.4)
Here, h is the total height of the building, L is the total length of a frame and nf is
the number of frames in the direction of lateral forces. The factor 5 8 accounts
for the height of the resultant lateral force above base level.
The axial stress calculated from the force should be less than 0.24 fck for
acceptance.
2.4.4
Frame Drift
The approximate storey drift ratio can be determined using the following equation.
It considers that the storey displacement is equal to the flexural displacement of a
representative column, including the effect of end rotation due to bending of a
representative beam.
DR =
kb + kc h
VcC d
k b k c 12 E
(2.5)
23
2.4.5
A quick check (in an overall sense) of ascertaining whether plastic hinges formed
first in the beam sections rather than the adjoining column sections is by checking
that the sum of the moment capacities of the columns shall be 20% greater than
that of the beams at frame joints.
i.e., Moment capacities of the columns > 1.2 Moment capacities of the beams
24
2.5
EVALUATION STATEMENTS
The evaluation statements seek clarification on a variety of structural seismicresistant features, which if non-compliant, suggest that detailed evaluation is
required. The evaluation statements depend on the type of lateral load resisting
systems. Here, only the statements relevant for concrete moment resisting frame
buildings, with or without shear walls, are listed. The evaluation statements are
listed in Tables 2.8 to 2.15.
Statements
C / NC / NA
Load path: The structure shall contain one complete load path for
seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to
transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
Adjacent buildings: An adjacent building shall not be located next
to the structure being evaluated closer than 4% of the height.
Mezzanines: Interior mezzanine levels shall be braced
independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the
lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Clause 7.3.4
IS 13920: 1993).
No deterioration of concrete: There shall be no visible
deterioration of concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the verticalor lateral-force-resisting elements.
The evaluation statements are based on FEMA 310 and are modified to match the clauses of IS
1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993. The definitions of structural irregularities are as per IS 1893:
2002 and the detailing provisions are as per IS13920: 1993. The statements for the life safety
performance level are selected. The statements which are solely for immediate occupancy
performance level are disregarded.
25
C / NC / NA
26
C / NC / NA
27
C / NC / NA
Kn
Fn
Storey Strength
(lateral)
Storey Stiffness
Kn-1
(lateral)
Kn-2
Fn-1
Fn-2
F3
F2
K3
K2
F1
K1
F < 0.8 F
i
i +1
0.7 ki+1
Wn-1
Wn-2
W3
W2
W1
Wi > 2.0 Wi+1 (or, 2.0Wi1 )
(c) Mass irregularity
A
A
A/L > 0.1
geometric irregularity
28
2 >
1.2(1 + 2 )
2
EQ
(a) Torsional
Irregularity
A
L
L
A
A
A/L > 0.15
(b) Re-entrant Corner
Lateral load
resisting system
Opening Area, A2
A2 > 0.5 A
System
29
C / NC / NA
reinforcement shall not be located within 2d from the joint face and
within L/4 from the location of potential plastic hinges. (Clause
6.3.5, IS 13920: 1993)
Stirrup spacing: All beams shall have stirrups spaced at or less than
d/2 throughout their length. At potential hinge location, stirrups
It is noted that unless the bend angle is mentioned as 135 degree and there is adequate extension
beyond the bend, the hook will be considered as non-compliant.
30
Statements
C / NC / NA
shall be greater than 0. 25% of the gross area of the wall along both
the longitudinal and transverse axes and the maximum spacing of
bars shall not exceed lw/5, 3tw and 450 mm. (Clauses 9.1.4 and
9.1.7, IS 13920: 1993)
Coupling beams: The stirrups shall be spaced at or less than 100
mm and shall be anchored into the core with 135 hooks. (Clause
9.5.2, IS 13920: 1993)
Diaphragm openings at shear walls: Diaphragm openings
Statements
Column connection: All column reinforcement shall be dowelled
foundation.
Transfer to shear walls: Diaphragms shall be reinforced and
31
C / NC / NA
Statements
C / NC / NA
Statements
Foundation performance: There shall be no evidence of excessive
adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, piers are not
restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Type I.
32
C / NC / NA
Spacing
150mm
2d
2d
33
2.6
In this chapter the steps to be taken in order to carry out a preliminary evaluation
of seismic vulnerability of a given building have been outlined. At the end of the
preliminary evaluation a decision has to be taken whether to probe further and
carry out more rigorous detailed evaluation (described in Chapters III and IV).
Strictly, if the given building passes all the quick checks and satisfies all the
evaluation statements, detailed evaluation is not called for. Nevertheless it is good
practice to go ahead with the detailed evaluation, if an absolute confirmation
regarding safety and code compliance is desired. It may be noted that almost
every building out of 40 buildings randomly chosen for study under DST project
was found to be deficient in some manner or other during the stage of preliminary
evaluation. It is possible, as seen in some instances of the case studies carried out,
that a building found deficient in preliminary evaluation performs satisfactory
(without need for any retrofit) in the detailed evaluation. Thus, the preliminary
evaluation serves as a useful screening test for seismic evaluation and its outcome
is generally conservative.
34
CHAPTER III
EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
explains the linear static and linear dynamic analyses as recommended in the code
(IS 1893: 2002). The main purpose of these analyses, from the seismic evaluation
perspective, is to check the demand-to-capacity ratios of the building components
and thereby ascertain code compliance. The non-linear static analysis (pushover
analysis) is explained in the next chapter. Some of the important modelling issues
will also be discussed in this chapter.
35
3.2
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL
Modelling a building involves the modelling and assemblage of its various loadcarrying elements. A model must ideally represent the complete three dimensional
(3D) characteristics of the building, including its mass distribution, strength,
stiffness and deformability. Modelling of the material properties and structural
elements is discussed below.
(3.1)
Factor
1.50
1.00
36
However, the expected values need to be further modified to for the uncertainty
regarding the present condition of the material. A knowledge factor (mk) is used
to account for this uncertainty. Proposed values of the knowledge factor are
shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Knowledge factors
No
mk
1.0
report
2
0.9
0.8
original condition
4
0.7
0.6
3.2.2
0.5
3.2.2.1
The table is adopted from IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of
buildings prepared by Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
37
Ieff
Rectangular
0.5 Ig
T - section
0.7 Ig
L - section
0.6 Ig
Here, the gross section moment of inertia (Ig) should be calculated considering the
rectangular area only as shown in Figure 3.1.
T-Beam
L-Beam
Total Length
Clear Length
Beam
End Offsets
Column
Factors recommended here are adapted from Paulay and Priestley (1991)
38
3.2.2.2
Beam-column joints
3.2.2.3
Slabs
The slabs need not be modelled by plate elements to simplify modelling. The
structural effect of slabs due to their in-plane stiffness can be taken into account
by assigning diaphragm action at each floor level. The weight of a slab can be
modelled separately as triangular and trapezoidal loads on the supporting beams.
In case of large openings or projections in slabs, different portions of the floor
may have differential translations, and in such cases, diaphragm action should be
assigned separately to the different sections.
3.2.2.4
Appendages
The effects of all significant appendages (for example, water tanks, stairways,
cantilever slabs) should be included in the model. Stairway slabs can be modelled
as inclined equivalent frame elements, with hinges at the ends. For water tanks
and cantilever slabs, the masses are lumped on the supporting elements.
3.2.2.5
Structural walls such as shear walls and walls in building core, which are
integrally connected to the floor slabs, can be modelled using equivalent wide
column elements. The master node of the column element can be at the centre of
gravity of the shear wall or core and it should be connected to the slave nodes of
the adjacent beams by rigid links (Figure 3.3). Non-structural walls such as infill
walls have weight and in-plane stiffness. They influence the behaviour of the
building under lateral load. The weight of an infill wall should be incorporated
39
When the stiffness contribution of the infill walls is included, the natural period of
the building is reduced and the base shear increases. But, the moments in the
beams and columns may reduce due to the truss action of the equivalent struts.
During an earthquake, the infill walls may fail due to out-of-plane bending. This
will increase the moments in the beams and columns. To calculate the demands in
the beams and columns, two extreme cases can be modelled. In the first model,
the lateral stiffness due to the significant infill walls is modelled by the equivalent
struts. In the second model, the stiffness is ignored. However, the weight of the
infill walls on the supporting beams should be considered in both the models.
Beam
Rigid
Links
Master
Node
Slave Node
(b) Core Wall
Figure 3.3: Modelling of shear wall and core wall
40
3.2.3
The column end at foundation can be modelled by considering the degree of fixity
provided by the foundation. Depending on the type of footing the end condition
may be modelled as follows:
i)
Raft foundation: The column ends are to be modelled as fixed at the top of
the raft.
iii)
times the diameter of pile, depending upon the type of soil, from the top of
pile cap.
v)
3.2.4
Load Combinations
The analysis results are to be for the following load combinations (IS 1893: 2002):
COMB1 = 1.5(DL+IL)
COMB2 = 1.2(DL+IL+EL)
COMB3 = 1.2(DL+IL EL)
COMB4 = 1.5(DL+EL)
COMB5 = 1.5(DL EL)
COMB6 = 0.9DL+1.5EL
COMB7 = 0.9DL 1.5EL
41
Here, DL Dead load, IL Live load, and EL Earthquake Load. The dead load
and the live load are taken as per IS 875, 1987. When the lateral load resisting
elements are not orthogonally oriented, the design forces along two horizontal
orthogonal directions (X- and Y-) should be considered. One method to consider
this is the following.
(a)
100% of the design forces in X-direction and 30% of the design forces in Ydirection.
(b)
100% of the design forces in Y-direction and 30% of the design forces in Xdirection.
An alternative method to consider the effect of the forces along X- and Ydirections is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) basis.
EL = ELx 2 + ELy 2
(3.2)
The vertical component is considered only for special elements like horizontal
cantilevers in Zones IV and V. The maximum value of a response quantity from
the above load combinations gives the demand.
3.3
The two different linear analysis methods recommended in IS 1893: 2002 are
explained in this Section. Any one of these methods can be used to calculate the
expected seismic demands on the lateral load resisting elements.
3.3.1
In the equivalent static method, the lateral force equivalent to the design basis
earthquake is applied statically. The equivalent lateral forces at each storey level
are applied at the design centre of mass locations. It is located at the design
eccentricity from the calculated centre of rigidity (or stiffness).
42
Centre of mass
3.3.1.1
The centre of mass is the point where the total mass of the floor level is assumed
to be lumped. The centre of mass can be calculated for each floor by taking
moments of the axial forces (from gravity load analysis of that floor only) in the
columns about an assumed reference axis.
CMx
Wi xi
CMy =
Wi yi
(3.3)
where
CMx
CMy
X- direction
W y
i
Y-direction
3.3.1.2
The centre of rigidity is the point through which the resultant of the restoring
forces in a storey acts. The centre of rigidity for each storey should be found out
separately. There are different procedures to calculate the centre of rigidity. One
of the procedures is explained below.
The columns of the storey are assumed to be fixed at the bottom. A unit force
along X-direction and a unit moment about Z- axis (vertical axis) are applied at a
certain test point in the top of the storey and the corresponding rotations are noted
down. The distance of the centre of rigidity from the test point, along Y- direction,
is calculated from the ratio of the two rotations. Similarly the distance along Xdirection is found out by applying a unit force along Y- direction and a unit
moment.
43
Let the co-ordinates of the test point be (x, y). Let (z)x, (z)y and (z)z be the
rotations about the Z-axis for the unit loads along X- and Y- directions and unit
moment about Z-axis, respectively. The co-ordinates of the centre of rigidity is
given as CRx,= x+x1, CRy = y+y1, where
x1 = -(z)x/(z)z
(3.4a)
y1 = (z)x/(z)z
(3.4b)
The static eccentricity of the centre of mass with respect of centre of rigidity is
given as follows.
3.3.1.3
esix = CMxCRx
(3.5a)
esiy = CMyCRy
(3.5b)
Effect of torsion
The design eccentricity of the centre of mass (edix, ediy) is calculated considering a
dynamic amplification factor and an additional eccentricity of 5% of the
dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of the seismic force. For
either of X- or Y- directions,
edi = 1.5esi + 0.05bi
(3.6a)
or,
edi = esi 0.05bi
(3.6b)
There can be four possible locations of the design centre of mass. To reduce
computation, only two diagonal locations can be considered.
3.3.1.4
Seismic weight
The seismic weight of each floor of the structure includes the dead load and
fraction of the live load (as per Table 8 of IS 1893: 2002) acting on the floor. The
weight of the columns and walls (up to the tributary height) are to be included. The
tributary height is between the centreline of the storey above and centre line of the
storey below.
44
3.3.1.5
Lumped mass
The lumped mass is the total mass of each floor that is lumped at the design centre
of mass of the respective floor. The total mass of a floor is obtained from the
seismic weight of that floor.
3.3.1.6
The base shear (V = VB) is calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893: 2002.
VB = AhW
(3.7)
Z I Sa
Ah =
2 R g
(3.8)
from Figure 3.4, corresponding to an approximate time period (Ta) which is given
by
0.09h
for RC moment resisting frame with masonry infill
d
(3.9a)
(3.9b)
The base dimension of the building at the plinth level along the direction of lateral
forces is represented as d (in metres) and height of the building from the support is
represented as h (in metres). The response spectra functions can be calculated as
follows:
0.40 T 4.00
T
0.55 T 4.00
T
45
0.67 T 4.00
T
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Period (s)
Figure 3.4: Response spectra for 5 percent damping (IS 1893: 2002)
W3
W2
h3
W1
h2
h1
46
The design base shear is to be distributed along the height of building as per
Clause 7.7.1 of IS 1893: 2002.
The design lateral force at floor i is given as follows
Qi = VB
Wi hi2
(3.10)
W h
j =1
2
i i
3.3.2
(3.11)
The response spectrum is a plot of the maximum response (maximum displacement, velocity,
acceleration or any other quantity of interest) to a specified load function for all possible single
degree-of-freedom systems. The abscissa of the spectrum is the natural period (or frequency) of the
system and the ordinate is the maximum response. It is also a function of damping. Figure 3.3
shows the design response spectra given in IS 1893: 2002 for a 5% damped system.
47
(
k =1
)2
(3.12)
If the building has very closely spaced modes then the CQC method is preferable.
The base shear is calculated for response spectrum analysis in the following
manner. The Sa/g value corresponding to each period of all the considered modes
is first calculated from Figure 3.4. The base shear corresponding to a mode is then
calculated as per Section 3.3.1.5.
corresponding mass participation factor and then combined as per the selected
mode combination method, to get the total base shear of the building.
If the base shear calculated from the response spectrum analysis (VB ) is less than
the design base shear (VB ) calculated from Equation 3.7, then as per IS 1893:
2002, all the response quantities (member forces, displacements, storey shears and
base reactions) have to be scaled up by the factor VB / VB .
3.4
EVALUATION RESULTS
The demands (moments, shears and axial forces) obtained at the critical sections
from the linear analyses are compared with the capacities of the individual
48
DCR = AB/AC
Pu
B
C
Muy
Mux
For a beam, positive and negative bending moment demands at the face of the
supports and the positive moment demands at the span need to be compared with
the corresponding capacities. For a column, the moment demand due to bi-axial
bending under axial compression must be checked using the P-Mx-My surface
(interaction surface), generated according to IS 456: 2000. The demand point is to
be located in the P-Mx-My space and a straight line is drawn joining the demand
point to the origin. This line (extended, if necessary) will intersect the interaction
surface at the capacity point. The ratio of the distance of the demand point (from
the origin) to the distance of the capacity point (from the origin) is termed as the
DCR for the column (Figure 3.6).
49
ln
EL
EL
0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln
50
The shear demands (Vu) at the support faces (left or right) are obtained as follows
(Clause 6.3.3, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu , left = 0.5wu ln + 1.4 ( M uR ,left + M uR+ ,right ) ln
(3.13a)
(3.13b)
Here, ln is the clear span, and wu is the factored load as shown in the Figure 3.7.
The factor 1.4 is intended to account for the higher flexural capacity than the
calculated value. The flexural capacity is higher because the actual yield strength
of the steel is higher than the characteristic strength and the steel undergoes strain
hardening.
Similarly for the columns, the shear demand should be calculated as the larger of
the shear force from analysis and the shear force in the column corresponding to
the beams (framing into the column) reaching their flexural capacities. The shear
demand (Vu) is given by the following expression (Clause 7.3.4, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu = 1.4 ( M uR ,b1 + M uR ,b 2 ) hst
(3.14)
Here, MuR, b1 and MuR, b2 are the factored moments of resistance of beam ends 1
and 2 framing into the column from opposite faces, and hst is the storey height
(Figure 3.8).
The shear demands for beams and columns should be checked with the
corresponding shear capacities. The shear capacities for beams and columns can
be calculated using the procedure outlined in Appendix C.
The axial force demands for the equivalent struts should be compared with their
capacities. The capacity of the equivalent strut can be calculated according to
Appendix B.
The storey drift for every storey due to the design lateral force, with partial load
factor of 1.0, should satisfy the limitation of 0.4% of the storey height (Clause
7.11.1, IS 1893: 2002).
51
Vu
1.4MuR, b2
hst
1.4MuR, b1
Vu
52
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
4.1.
INTRODUCTION
Base Shear
(V)
Roof Displacement ()
a) Building model
b) Pushover curve
53
4.2
Instead of plotting the base shear versus roof displacement, the base acceleration
can be plotted with respect to the roof displacement (capacity spectrum)
(Figure 4.2). The spectral acceleration and spectral displacement, as calculated
from the linear elastic response spectrum for a certain damping (initial value 5%),
is plotted in the Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format.
With increasing non-linear deformation of the components, the equivalent
damping and the natural period increase.
54
Spectral Acceleration
Initial Structural
Period
5% Damping (Initial)
10% Damping
Performance Point
15% Damping
Capacity Spectrum
Demand Spectrum
Spectral Displacement
4.3.
55
convenience, the control node can be taken at the design centre of mass of the roof
of the building. The target displacement is intended to represent the maximum
displacement likely to be experienced during the earthquake.
Initially, the gravity loads are applied in a force-controlled manner till the total
load reaches the target value. The target value can be same as the design gravity
load for the linear analysis. Next, the lateral loads are applied in the X- or Ydirection, in a displacement controlled manner. The direction of monitoring of the
behaviour is same as the push direction. The effect of torsion can be considered.
As the displacement is increased, some beams, columns and equivalent struts
may undergo in-elastic deformation.
flexure, shear or axial compression is modelled through assigning appropriate loaddeformation properties at potential plastic hinge locations. The development of the
load-deformation properties is explained in Appendices C, D and E.
4.3.1
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure
will be displaced incrementally. Frequently, an inverted triangular shape or the
first mode shape is used. The importance of the load distribution increases for tall
buildings, whose earthquake response is not dominated by a single mode shape.
For such buildings, the load distribution based on the first mode shape may
seriously underestimate the loads on the intermediate floor levels. This manual
recommends the load distribution pattern given in IS 1893: 2002 for low to midrise buildings (Equation 3.10).
Pushover analysis should be performed separately for the two orthogonal
directions in order to study the performance of the building in both the directions.
There are therefore three pushover cases for evaluating a building.
1. Gravity push, which is used to apply gravity load.
2. Push1 is the lateral push in X-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.
3. Push2 is the lateral push in Y-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.
56
rotation of the moment hinge can be calculated for the axial load available from the
gravity load analysis. All compression struts have to be modelled with axial load
versus axial deformation hinges.
There are two approaches for specifying the hinge properties.
(i)
(ii)
In the first model, the zone of yielding (plastification) is assumed to be spread over
a certain length (length of the plastic hinge). In the second model, the zone of
yielding is assumed to be concentrated at a specific point in the element. The
calculation of the various hinge properties based on the point plasticity model is
explained in Appendix C.
An idealised load-deformation curve is shown in Figure 4.3. It is a piece-wise
linear curve defined by five points as explained below.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
In
57
4.4
4.4.1
Performance Objective
58
The
selection of the two levels is based on recommended guidelines for the type of the
building, economic considerations and engineering judgment. The purpose of
developing a performance objective is to have a uniform risk in similar buildings.
ii)
iii)
The three levels are arranged according to decreasing performance of the lateral
load and vertical load resisting systems. A target performance is defined by a
typical value of the roof drift, as well as limiting values of the deformation of the
structural elements.
ii)
iii)
The performance levels of a structural element are specified in the loaddeformation curve (Figure 4.3). The values of the levels can be obtained from test
results. In absence of test data, the following values may be adopted (ATC 40).
59
i)
ii)
iii)
Here, is the length of the plastic plateau. The above recommendation is shown
in Fig. 4.3.
IO
Load
Py
CP
LS
B
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.2Py
Deformation
Figure 4.3: Performance Level
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels
ii)
iii)
In IS 1893: 2002, the zone factor Z corresponds to MCE. The values of Z were
evaluated based on a deterministic method. It cannot be directly related to the
definitions given above. A simplistic method was adopted to define the DBE. The
60
4.5
EVALUATION RESULTS
The output from the pushover analysis contains the pushover curve, the demand
and capacity spectra curves and their tabulated values. The pushover curve reveals
the base shear capacity and the inelastic roof displacement. A global ductility can
be calculated as the ratio of the roof displacement at ultimate base shear to the roof
displacement at the onset of yielding. From the demand and capacity spectra
curves, the existence of the performance point can be noted. If the performance
point does not exist, the structure fails to achieve the target performance level. If
61
the performance point is achieved at a roof drift which is substantially higher than
the typical value of the selected performance level, then the performance of the
building is unsatisfactory.
The other results of interest from the pushover analysis are the deflected shape, the
formation of hinges with increasing load and the performance levels of the hinges
at the performance point (if exists). The deflected shape and the concentration of
hinges in a storey can reveal a soft storey mechanism. The collapse of a building is
not physically shown in the deflected shape. From the displacement values of the
centres of mass of the storeys, the inelastic drift profile can be plotted. This can
also reveal a soft storey mechanism.
The number of hinges formed in the beams and columns at the performance point
(or at the point of termination of the pushover analysis) and their performance
levels can be used to study the vulnerability of the building. The vulnerability can
be quantified using the concept of vulnerability index. Appendix D explains the
calculation of vulnerability index.
62
CHAPTER V
SEISMIC RETROFIT
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Rehabilitation is a functional
A survey of existing residential buildings reveals that many buildings are not
adequately designed to resist earthquakes. In the recent revision of the Indian
earthquake code (IS 1893: 2002), many regions of the country were placed in
higher seismic zones. As a result many buildings designed prior to the revision of
the code may fail to perform adequately as per the new code. It is therefore
63
5.2
GOALS OF RETROFIT
5.3
DEFINITIONS
i)
Retrofit strategy
ii)
Retrofit scheme
64
iii)
Retrofit programme
5.4
STEPS OF RETROFIT
Seismic evaluation
If the demand-to-
capacity ratios of the components are greater than one or if the building fails to
achieve the target performance level, then retrofit becomes necessary.
ii)
Decision to retrofit
Based on the extent of deficiency of the building, the economic viability, the
expected durability of the upgraded building and the availability of the materials,
a decision is taken whether to repair, retrofit or demolish the building.
iii)
The selection of the retrofit strategies from the options available and their design,
influence the decision to retrofit. Hence, knowledge of the retrofit strategies is
essential. The design and the detailing should address the transfer of load and the
compatibility of deformation between the existing elements, modified elements
and the new elements as per the assumptions in the analysis.
iv)
65
modes after retrofitting, need to be studied. The increase in strength at the cost of
a ductile failure mode changing to brittle is not desirable. The selection and
design of the retrofit scheme may need to be revised accordingly.
v)
Construction
specifications is imperative.
vi)
Monitoring
5.5
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
explained in Chapter 4.
66
5.6
RETROFIT STRATEGIES
It may be
necessary to combine both local and global retrofit strategies for an effective
retrofit scheme.
The global retrofit strategies are applied to improve the overall behaviour of a
building. If a building has inadequate strength to resist lateral forces, it exhibits
inelastic behaviour at very low levels of ground shaking. Analysis of such a
building indicates large demand-to-capacity ratios in the components throughout
the structure. By providing supplemental elements to the buildings lateral force
resisting system, it is possible to raise the threshold of ground motion at which the
67
onset of damage occurs. Addition of shear walls and braced frames, for example,
is effective for this purpose.
reduction of mass and improving the connections between the elements are other
global retrofit strategies.
characteristics.
68
The cost of energy dissipation and base isolation systems is high and at present
their use is limited to important structures like hospitals and monumental
structures in India. These devices are not covered in this manual.
5.6.4
69
CHAPTER VI
BUILDING DEFICIENCIES
6.1
INTRODUCTION
70
Delhi
Guwahati
Ahmedabad
Mumbai
Vellore
Chennai
Trivandrum
6.2
GLOBAL DEFICIENCIES
72
eccentricity. Even for a symmetric building, if the aspect ratio of length to width
is large, there can be torsional irregularity.
Under lateral loads, the torsional response modes will dominate, and large
displacement demands will be placed on the vertical elements farthest from the
centre of rigidity, for example the corner columns. The large cyclic motions
would typically put reversed biaxial displacement demands on these columns.
Even well detailed columns will typically fail under such extreme loading
conditions. Eccentric mass, for example due to overhead tanks or swimming
pools, aggravates the torsional irregularity.
73
b. Re-entrant Corners
To accommodate multiple dwelling units in one level and to have large number of
windows, re-entrant corners are frequently seen in apartment buildings (Figure
6.2). The layouts with re-entrant corners result in high demands in the corner
columns and in the corners of the diaphragms.
c. Diaphragm Discontinuity
Diaphragm discontinuity is observed when a stair case or a lift well is located at
the middle of the building. The connection of the two halves of the diaphragms is
inadequate (Figure 6.2). Staggered floors with absence of collector elements also
cause diaphragm discontinuity.
74
d. Out-of-Plane Offset
Out-of-plane offsets of the lateral force resisting elements cause discontinuities in
the load path. Often columns in the ground storey are set back from the columns
above to reduce the built-up area (Figure 6.3). The floating columns above the
ground storey are supported on transfer cantilever beams. This leads to out-ofplane offset when the direction of the lateral load is perpendicular to the direction
of the offset.
e. Non-parallel Systems
Non-parallel system is defined to exist when some of the vertical lateral force
resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the orthogonal axes of
the lateral force resisting system.
75
b. Mass Irregularity
Mass irregularity may be caused by variation of mass between floors.
c. Vertical Geometric Irregularity
To avoid the monotony of a box type of structure, setback towers are provided.
But this may create a vertical geometric irregularity.
d. Weak Storey
The open ground storeys frequently observed are examples of weak storeys.
e. In-Plane Discontinuity
If the in-plane offset of a lateral force resisting element is greater than the length
of the element, an in-plane discontinuity exists. For a column set back in the
ground storey, although the offset is less than the length of the column, it is a case
of in-plane discontinuity when the direction of lateral load coincides with the
direction of offset.
6.3
LOCAL DEFICIENCIES
Local deficiencies are element deficiencies that lead to the failure of individual
elements of the building such as crushing of columns, flexural and shear failure of
beams, columns and shear walls etc. Unaccounted loads, inadequate confinement,
unauthorized alterations, poor quality of construction, poor detailing, lack of
anchorage of reinforcement, inadequate shear reinforcement, insufficient cover,
inadequate compaction and curing etc. and environmental deterioration are
reasons for local deficiencies. The observed deficiencies of the elements are
described next.
76
6.3.1 Columns
Columns are the primary gravity-load carrying members for most RC buildings.
Therefore, column failures have led to catastrophic collapses during the past
earthquakes.
inadequacies for seismic loads. The common deficiencies are discussed below.
a. Inadequate Shear Capacity
Typical gravity and wind load designs normally result in a design shear force
significantly lower than the shear force that can develop in a column during
seismic loading. Hence, columns in the buildings not designed for seismic forces
have inadequate shear capacity. The cross-sectional dimension of a column is
frequently limited to 230 mm to flush it with the wall. This may be inadequate for
seismic loading. Another common problem is artificial shortening of columns
by adding partial height partition walls that restrict the movement of the lower
part of the columns. The resulting short columns are stiff and attract much higher
shear forces than they were designed to carry.
b. Inadequate Confinement of Column Core
Although the frame structures are supposed to be designed using the strongcolumnweak-beam concept, the use of deep spandrel beams in the first floor
leads to stronger beams compared to the columns. The ground storey columns
often form plastic hinges during strong seismic loading. The concrete core in a
plastic hinging region must be adequately confined to prevent loss of the shear
and flexural strength of the column. The confinement requirement in a column is
more stringent because of the high axial load and shear that typically need to be
carried through the plastic hinging region. Frequently, 6 mm diameter ties are
placed at 200 to 225 mm spacing in the plastic hinging region. The ends of the
ties have 90 hooks with inadequate hook length instead of 135 hooks. Although
in the drawings the hook end is shown to be bent to about 135, in practice 90
hooks are provided. These hooks open, leading to loss of confinement. There are
77
78
6.3.3 Slabs
The slab is assumed to act as a rigid diaphragm. In order to achieve this, it is
necessary to provide additional reinforcement at the edges of the slab. These are
79
known as the drag and chord reinforcements. None of the buildings that were
studied under the project had such reinforcement.
6.3.6
Deficient Construction
Traditional practice of volume batching that disregards the moisture content of the
aggregates, and pouring of additional water to attain workability lead to poor
quality of concrete. Lack of proper compaction due to inadequate or excessive
vibration, results in honeycombed or layered concrete. To reuse the column
formwork, the top of the columns is cast separately along with the beams. The
concrete is poured from the top of the beam-column joints. The congestion of
reinforcement and inadequate vibration cause weak concrete in the potential
hinging zone of the columns. The side face cover may be inadequate due to
80
forced placement of the reinforcement cage within the formwork. This leads to
the corrosion of the rebar.
6.4
MISCELLANEOUS DEFICIENCIES
neglected in the analysis of a building, the calculated time period is high and the
design base shear is low. Hence, the effect of infill on the frame needs to be
carefully investigated.
Many of the multi-storeyed buildings are built without adequate geotechnical data.
If a site has soft soil (Type III) and the building is designed with the assumption of
hard soil (Type I) or medium soil (Type II), then the design base shear is lower
than the recommended value. The amplification and attenuation of the ground
shaking are neglected. When the site is close to a strike slip fault, constructive
interference of the earthquake waves leads to higher ground shaking. This is
termed as the near-source effect. When this effect is not considered, the design
base shear is further low.
The loss of stiffness during an earthquake and the consequent lengthening of the
building period, may lead to an increase in the displacement response.
The
increased displacements mean higher eccentricity of the vertical loads, which can
lead to collapse of the building if P- effect has not been accounted for in the
analysis.
81
82
response. The increased displacements can lead to collapse of the building. The
discussion of soil failure is beyond the scope of this manual.
83
CHAPTER VII
GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
7.1
INTRODUCTION
Buildings behave poorly in earthquakes because the existing lateral load resisting
components do not have adequate strength and ductility (energy absorption
capacity). Stiffening the structure by providing additional lateral load resisting
elements, thereby reducing the lateral deformation, is an effective method of
improving the performance of a building. Stiffening of the structure can be
achieved by the construction of new braced frames, infill walls or shear walls.
Reductions of irregularities or mass in a building are other methods of global
retrofit.
categories.
1. Structural stiffening
2. Reduction of irregularities
3. Reduction of mass.
7.2
STRUCTURAL STIFFENING
84
7.2.1
The effect of adding infill walls and braces on the load versus deformation
behaviour of reinforced concrete frames is shown schematically in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Effect of adding infill walls and braces (Sugano, 1981)
The following are the different types of infill walls commonly used in residential
buildings.
Steel infill panels have been investigated experimentally. The modelling of infill
walls is usually done by the equivalent strut method. The details of modelling of
masonry infill walls are given in Appendix B.
86
Determining the adequacy of existing floor and roof slabs to carry the
seismic forces.
Transfer of diaphragm shears into the new shear walls through dowels.
The collector and drag members connect shear walls and frames to mobilise their
lateral load resistance simultaneously.
7.2.3
The seismic strength and stiffness of framed structures can be efficiently and
economically increased using steel braces or shear walls. Usually steel braces are
used in steel buildings. However, in recent years steel braces have been used in
RC buildings because of ease of construction and high strength to weight ratio.
Braces reduce flexure and shear demands on beams and columns and transfer the
lateral loads as axial loads (truss action).
87
The braces add very little to the existing mass to the building.
7.3
REDUCTION OF IRREGULARITIES
88
For vertical irregularities, portions of the building that create the irregularity, such
as setback towers, can be removed. Discontinuous components such as columns
or walls can be extended beyond the zone of discontinuity. As mentioned earlier,
walls or braces can alleviate the deficiency of soft and weak storey.
7.4
REDUCTION OF MASS
Two of the primary characteristics that control the amount of lateral force and
deformation induced in a building by ground motion are its stiffness and mass.
Reductions in mass result in direct reductions in both the force and deformation
demands produced by earthquakes, and therefore, can be used in lieu of structural
strengthening and stiffening. Mass can be reduced through demolition of upper
storeys, replacement of heavy cladding and interior partitions, or removal of
heavy storage and equipment loads, or change in the use of the building.
89
CHAPTER VIII
LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
8.1
INTRODUCTION
Local retrofit strategies include strengthening of beams, columns, slabs, beamcolumn or slab-column joints (for flat plates), walls and foundations.
Local
8.2
COLUMN STRENGTHENING
90
92
8 @ 100 mm c/c
350
93
The section is analysed about X-X and Y-Y axes separately. The flexural strength
of the section is adequate about X-X but it is inadequate about Y-Y. A concrete
jacket is added with 75 mm thick concrete all around, 12-12 mm diameter
longitudinal bars and 8 mm diameter ties at 100 mm on centre (Figure 8.3).
Y
75
600
12-12
8 @ 100 mm c/c
8 @ 100 mm c/c
75
75
350
75
500
Y
In the analysis, the concrete grade and the steel grade of the jacket were retained
same as those of the existing section. The dowels connecting the existing and the
new concrete are not shown in the figure. The number of dowels should be low to
have minimal drilling into the existing section. The interaction curves for the
existing and the retrofitted sections are shown in Figure 8.4. The moment versus
curvature curves, in presence of axial loads, are shown in Figure 8.5.
94
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Moment (kN m)
Existing about Y-Y
Retrofitted about X-X
600
700
Figure 8.4: Interaction curves for the existing and the retrofitted sections
700
600
Moment (kN m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
Curvature (rad)
Exisiting
Retrofitted
95
0.00012
f ck Ag
1.0
fysp Ac
(8.1)
where,
Ash
Dc
fck
fysp
Ag
Ac
f ck Ag
1.0
fysp Ac
(8.2)
Here, h is the longer dimension of the rectangular confining hoop measured to its
outer face. It shall not exceed 300mm.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) proposed an equation which incorporates the effect of
the axial load on the amount of confining steel for the required curvature ductility.
96
Ash = S Dc K c
0.08
'
fysp Ac f Ag
(8.3)
Here,
(8.4)
(8.5)
where, Vc is the concrete contribution and Vs is the steel contribution. The shear
strength enhancement by jacket is included as an additional term Vj to the shear
resistance.
(8.6)
VuR Vu
97
(8.7)
Here, Vu is the maximum value that is obtained from analysis with different load
combinations and the shear force corresponding to the development of the flexural
strengths of the connected beams (as per IS 13920: 1993). Thus, the required
strength from the jacket is
Vj Vu - Vc - Vs
(8.8)
(8.9)
where, the enhancement in shear capacity due to the axial load is given by the
factor .
3 Pu
= 0 +
0.5
Ag fck
(8.10)
The design shear stress of concrete (c) is available from Table 19 of IS 456: 2000.
The breadth (b) and the effective depth (d) can be taken for the retrofitted section.
For a circular section, a similar expression is used.
The steel contribution is as follows.
Vs = 0.87fy Asv
d
cot
sv
Here,
Asv
sv
Spacing
fy
98
(8.11)
The expression of Vj is similar to Vs. The additional steel tie or spiral contribution
is as follows.
Vj = 0.87fy Asv add
d
cot
sv
(8.12)
Vj =
(8.13)
Here,
n
dw
gw
Grid spacing.
fyj
D'
8.2.2
Steel Jacketing
Steel jacketing refers to encasing the column with steel plates and filling the gap
with non-shrink grout (Figure 8.6). Steel jacketing was originally developed for
circular columns. Steel jacketing is an effective method to remedy deficiencies
such as inadequate shear strength and inadequate splices of longitudinal bars at
critical locations, by providing confinement. The jacket is effective in passive
confinement, that is, confining stress is induced in the concrete as it expands
laterally.
99
If the flexural capacity of the original column is adequate, gaps are left at the top
and bottom of the jacket to avoid the following
a. The possibility of the jacket acing as compression reinforcement by
bearing against the supporting member at large drift angles
b. The increase of the stiffness of the column and hence, of the induced shear
force. When the jacketing steel is also needed for additional composite
strength it is necessary to provide continuity at the ends.
For rectangular columns, the recommended procedure is to use an oval jacket,
which provides a continuous confining action similar to that of a circular spiral.
The space between the jacket and columns is filled with concrete. For bridges,
rectangular columns so retrofitted have performed exceptionally well in flexure
and shear. Attempts to retrofit rectangular columns using rectangular jackets have
been less successful even when the jackets were extensively stiffened. This is
because the confining action of the rectangular jackets can only be developed as a
consequence of lateral bending of the jacket sides, which is a very flexible action
in comparison to the hoop tension action developed in an oval jacket. The steel
plates of a rectangular jacket need to be anchored to the column by means of shear
100
fsj dsj
ssj
(8.14)
Here, Asj is the total area of the assumed square tie, Asj = tsj2 (expected to be 2tsj2),
fsj is the allowable stress of the jacket, dsj is the height of the jacket and ssj is the
spacing between the square ties, ssj = tsj. It was assumed that the shear cracks are
inclined at 45 to the column axis and the allowable stress in the jacket is fsj =
fysj/2, where fysj is the yield stress. The required thickness tsj can be calculated
from the required value of Vj.
101
fibre has been the predominant fibre for applications in India, because of the
economical balance of cost and strength properties.
FRP is mechanically different from steel since it is anisotropic, linear elastic and
is usually of higher strength with a lower modulus of elasticity than steel. FRP
has desirable physical properties over steel, like corrosion and fatigue resistance
and high tensile strength (up to ~3000 MPa compared to ~400 MPa of steel) to
weight ratio. FRP sheets are thin, light and flexible enough to be inserted behind
pipes, electrical cables and other service ducts, thus facilitating installation.
FRP jackets are used in the retrofitting of columns. There is no significant
increase in the size of the column. In addition to passive confinement, a degree of
active confinement is achieved by pressure grouting between the jacket and
column. The main drawback of FRP is the high cost. Unlike steel, FRP is a
brittle material, which must be accounted for in design. The performance of bond
between FRP sheets and concrete over a long period of time is yet to be
established. The other disadvantages are susceptibility of FRP to moisture and
chemicals, degradation of properties at high temperatures, as in the case of fire,
and the damage from ultraviolet light.
External FRP jackets with horizontally oriented fibres can enhance both the shear
capacity and the ductility of columns against seismic forces. Under shear forces,
the tensile stresses in FRP contribute to the over all shear resistance of columns,
similar to its effect in shear strengthening of beams. Under flexure, the FRP
provides confinement, which enhances the strength and ultimate strain of
concrete.
confinement and for lap splice clamping, the FRP jacket is only needed in the
plastic hinge and near by regions.
102
8.3
BEAM STRENGTHENING
There are some disadvantages in this traditional retrofit strategy. First, addition of
concrete increases the size and weight of the beam. Second, the new concrete
requires proper bonding to the existing concrete. In the beam soffit, bleed water
from the new concrete creates a weak cement paste at the interface. Third, the
103
minimise the amount of drilling in concrete, especially in the regions where there
is congestion of reinforcement.
It is imperative that the strength of the column must be greater than that of the
beam as per capacity based design. Also, the joint should not become weaker than
the beam after retrofit. The analysis of a strengthened beam can be performed by
the traditional method of beam analysis. To obtain the enhanced moment versus
curvature behaviour, the equations of equilibrium and compatibility and the
constitutive relationships have to be satisfied. The analysis assumes that there is
perfect bond between the new and old concrete.
Analysis of Strengthened Beams
An example of a beam section deficient in flexure in an existing building and the
retrofitted section is presented. The existing section is 250600mm, with 4-16mm
diameter bars at the bottom and 4-16mm and 2-12mm diameter bars at the top,
near the support. The section is deficient both for the positive (sagging) and
negative moments, as shown in Table 8.1.
104
MuR+ (kN-m)
Mu+
MuR (kN-m)
Mu
kN-m
Existing
After
retrofit
kN-m
Existing
After
retrofit
253
152
267
261
194
267
Here, Mu represents the factored demand and MuR represents the ultimate
resistance (capacity). The size of the retrofitted section is 350650mm, with 316mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the bottom and 2-10 mm and
2-12 mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the top (at the level of the
soffit of the slab). The capacities after retrofit are also shown in the table. The
moment curvature behaviour is shown in Figure 8.8.
300
Moment (kN-m)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
After retrofit
It is observed that with the increase in strength and stiffness, the reduction in the
ductility after retrofit is marginal. It is important to note that with the increase in
105
flexural capacity, the shear demand (based on the flexural capacity) also increases.
Additional stirrups are provided to meet the shear demand.
8.3.2
Steel Plating
The technique of gluing mild steel plates to beams is often used to improve their
flexural and shear capacities. It increases the strength and stiffness of the beams
and subsequently, reduces the crack width. The addition of steel plate is simple
and rapid to apply, does not reduce the storey clear height significantly and can be
applied while the building is in use. Gluing plates requires adequate smearing of
adhesive on the existing surfaces. The cost is governed by that of the plates,
epoxy and labour. Glued plates are prone to premature debonding which can
severely limit the application of this technique. Providing bolts at the ends may
reduce the debonding, but it involves drilling into the existing concrete.
The advantages of steel plating are the following (Barnes, 2001).
1. Increase in strength and stiffness.
2. Increase in serviceability (lower deflection and reduced crack width).
3. It is possible to strengthen the structure while in use.
4. Relatively small increase in the size and weight of the existing section.
5. Accessibility for inspection and maintenance.
The disadvantages of steel plating are
1. Corrosion of the external plate.
2. Transporting, handling and installing the plates.
3. Cost of the steel plates.
Plating may be done either on the tension-face or on the side-face of the beams.
Tension-face plates are mechanically efficient as they act at the furthest extremity
from the compression zone and hence, accomplish the highest increase in flexural
strength and stiffness. Side-face plating increases the shear capacity and to a
106
107
Of late, the adhesive failure is not significant due to the good quality of adhesives
available.
Analysis of Tension-face Plated Beams
Near the location of plate cut-off, substantial normal stress (also termed as
peeling stress) and shear stress generate at the interface due to the sudden
change in the cross-section from plated to unplated. This cannot be predicted by
flexural theory. Roberts and Hazi-Kazemi (1989) explained this phenomenon by
theory of elasticity. Figure 8.9 shows a schematic representation of the stresses at
the location of plate cut-off.
RC Beam
Steel Plate
Shear Stress
Normal Stress
Shear Stress
Normal Stress
Tension
Compression
Due to the high normal stress, the plate starts to peel at the location of cut-off.
When thick plates are used, the plate separation precedes the plate yielding.
When the tensile capacity of concrete is exceeded, a diagonal crack develops. The
formation of the diagonal crack magnifies the effect of peeling and the crack
108
extends rapidly to the bottom of tensile reinforcement. This relieves the bond
stresses at the end of the plate. The location of peeling of the plate moves
inwards into the region of higher moment. The process continues till the cover
concrete peels substantially (Ali and Oehlers, 2002).
In choosing the thickness of the steel plate, it is necessary to ensure that the
section does not become over-reinforced. The ultimate strength analysis was
proposed by Roberts (1989) and later modified by Ziraba et al. (1994). It is based
on satisfying the equilibrium and compatibility equations and the constitutive
relationships. It models the adhesive failure due to the stress concentration at the
location of plate cut-off. The essential features of the model are as follows.
1. The steel plate is assumed to act integrally with the concrete beam.
Conventional beam theory is used to determine the flexural capacity.
2. The normal and shear stresses are calculated to check the failure of the
adhesive.
The concrete stress block is modified as per IS 456: 2000. The stresses and strains
distribution of a tension-face plated beam is shown in Figure 8.10.
b
0.0035
0.447 fck
xu
hp
hs
dc
dp
st
bp
pt
Strains
fst
Tst
fpt
Tpt
Stresses
109
Forces
The depth of neutral axis (xu) can be found out from the equilibrium equation as
follows.
xu =
f st Ast + f pt b p d p
0.36 f ck b
(8.15)
The ultimate moment capacity (MuR) of the plated section is given by the
following expression.
M uR = 0.36 f ck b x u ( h s -0.416 x u ) + f pt b p d p ( d c + d p 2 )
(8.16)
Here,
b, D, hs - Width, overall depth and effective depth of the original section
bp, dp, hp - Width, thickness and effective depth of the steel plate
fck
fst, fpt
to the strains st and pt. These can be calculated from the compatibility
equations.
The width of the plate is limited to the width of the beam. The limit on the
thickness of the plate is such that the section does not become over-reinforced.
The adhesive failure is checked by the following equation.
0 + 0 tan28D c all
(8.17)
0 = CR1 V0
Here, 0 and 0 are the expressions for shear and normal stresses at the interface at
adhesive failure. The allowable coefficient of cohesion is denoted as call. The
expression for peak shear stress 0 is
C V
0 = 1 f t ' R1 ' 0
fc
110
5/4
(8.18)
where,
V0
fc'
ft'
K
s
CR1 = 1+
E p bp d p
1/2
* bp d p
(h p - x u )
a
I
b
cr
a
Here,
a*
Icr
Ks
Ga, ba, da Shear modulus, width and thickness of the adhesive layer.
Ep
0 = 2 CR2 0
(8.19)
CR2
Kn
= dp
4 E p Ip
1/4
where,
2
Ip
Kn
Ea
111
The retrofit of a beam deficient in flexure under gravity loads is illustrated below.
A rectangular beam of length 4500mm and dimensions 230400mm is reinforced
with 3-12mm bars at the top and bottom. The existing capacity is 40.9 kN-m and
the required capacity is 50.6 kN-m. Grade of concrete is M20 and grade of
reinforcing steel is Fe 415. The beam is retrofitted with a plate of grade Fe 250.
The beam is propped before plating so that after the prop is released, the
strengthened section carries the required moment.
Step 1: Flexural design.
A steel sheet of 150mm width and 1mm thickness is plated to the soffit of the
beam. Equating the compression and the tensile forces, xu = 55.3mm. The
positive moment capacity of the beam is 52.6kN-m.
Step 2: Interface stresses.
The properties of the adhesive used are given below.
Shear modulus of adhesive Ga
80N/mm2
250N/mm2
E
Icr = c
Ep
Ec
b x 3u
2
2
+ A s ( h s -x u ) + A p ( h p -x u )
500020 =
22,360N/mm2
Ep
200,000N/mm2
340mm2
Effective depth hs
360mm
150mm2
112
400.5mm
2
2
22.36 23055.3
Icr =
+ 340 ( 360-55.3) + 150 ( 400.5-55.3)
3
200
= 50.89106 mm 4
12.5mm4
1mm
CR2
1/4
Kn
= dp
4 E p Ip
1/4
37500
= 1
420000012.5
= 0.2475
Figure 8.11 shows the tension-face plated beam of span l subjected to a uniformly
distributed load w per m. Here, 'a' refers to the distance from the point of zero
moment (in this case, the supports) to the edge of the plate.
w /m
l - 2a
BMD
M0
M0
wl2/8
V0
wl/2
V0
wl/2
SFD
113
The plate must be terminated at such a point that the limits of interface stresses are
not exceeded.
wl
wa 2 w
2
Moment at the point of curtailment M 0 = a = ( la-a )
2
2
2
a* =
wl l -2a w
= ( l -2a )
2 l
2
M0
la - a 2
=
V0
l - 2a
CR1V0 = 1+
E b d
p p p
C V
Peak shear 0 = f R1 ' 0
fc
1/2
la-a 2 b p d p
w
(h p - x u )
( l -2a )
2
l -2a Icr ba
(8.20)
5/4
'
1 t
CR1V0 = 0 '
1 f t
4/5
(8.21)
f c'
fc' and ft' are the cylinder strength and tensile strength of concrete.
The expression for limiting the interface stresses is as follows.
0 + 0 tan 28o call and 0 = 2 CR2 0
0 =
call
1+ 2 CR2 tan28o
114
The resulting
call
CR1V0 =
1+ 2 CR2 tan28o 1f t'
4/5
f c'
(8.22)
Equation (8.20) when equated with (8.22) results in a cubic equation in 'a', the
maximum distance of plate cut-off from the supports. The equation can be solved
by trial and error. The maximum distance of plate cut-off (amax) must not exceed
three times the depth of the beam.
1/2
20,000
1501
4500a-a 2
1+
(400.5-55.28)
6
200,0001501 4500-2a 50.8910 150
20
2.6
( 4500-2a ) =
o
2
1+1.10.2812
tan28
353.13
4/5
( 0.820 )
Solving the equation by trial and error, 'a' = 70.6mm. The curtailment by 70mm
on either side would not result in any appreciable economy. However, in case of
beams of longer span and with higher loads, curtailment of plates or sheets
becomes necessary.
Step 3: Shear strength
Steel plating enhances the shear capacity of the section.
However, as a
conservative measure, the increase in shear capacity may be ignored. If the beam
does not possess sufficient shear capacity, side-face plating becomes necessary.
Some authors contend that adhesive failure in plated beams is not of great
significance since the quality of adhesives presently available is good.
Oehlers and Moran proposed an empirical expression for the ultimate moment
capacity due to flexural peeling (Oehlers and Moran, 1990). The expression was
based on a number of experiments conducted on simply supported beams with 2point loading, with plates terminated in regions of constant moment.
115
The
db
Pc
Pst
Pu
- Ultimate load
St
Vc
116
Vd
xs
Z1, Z2 - Lever arm of the side-face plate and bond length function
a'
da
d'
Vc
xs
Pc
Bolted Plate
db
Bonded Plate
Z2
O
Z1
db
St
bl
Vd
Pst
Pu / 2
For bonded plates, db is taken up to the bottom of the plate, whereas for a bolted
plate, db is taken up to midway between the lower row of bolts and bottom of the
plate.
Applying equilibrium to the inclined section, the following equations can be
derived.
1. Vertical equilibrium
Pu
= St cos + Vc + Vd
2
(8.23)
2. Horizontal equilibrium
Pc = St sin + Pst
117
(8.24)
2
tan
(8.25)
(8.26)
118
pt
pc
A st E s
d -x
1 t p b s
sin
Ep
(8.27)
where,
Ep
tp
(8.28)
119
d -x
St = N ( 0.67 Z2 fct ) b s
sin
(8.29)
where,
Z2 is the length of the bonded interface (Figure 8.12) and fct is the direct tensile
strength of concrete. Assuming = 45o, Z2 is equated to the lever arm Z1 = (db
xs)/sin. The value of 1 is equal to 1. The value of St for bonded plates is the
lower of the above two expressions.
For bolted plates, only the value of St from Case 2 is used. It will govern provided
there is no shear or bearing failure of the bolts. The final stages of diagonal
splitting are characterized by failure of the compression zone beneath the point
load (Figure 8.14).
Pu
2
Pu
2
bl
xs
45o
xs
A
(bl + xs)
Vc
45o
v
h
120
This occurs with either crushing of the concrete at the compression limit Pc,max or
splitting of the concrete at the shear limit Vc,max. These limits are calculated from
the state of stresses in the compression zone. The average values of the stresses
over the depth of the compression zone are used in the following formulation. The
tensile principal stress (2) is close to zero and the compressive principal stress
(1) is limited to fck.
Assuming 1 = fck and 2 = 0 in the Mohrs circle, the normal and shear stresses at
half the depth of the compression zone (0.5 xs) at ultimate can be calculated as
follows.
v =
( Pu 2 ) - Vc
b ( bl + x s )
h = f cu - v
2 = cos -1
(8.30)
(8.31)
h - v
f cu
f st
sin 2
2
(8.32)
(8.33)
Here, any contribution from the plates is neglected. In calculating the limiting
value of the shear (Vc,max), a transformed concrete section is used.
(8.34)
The effect of the compression bars on the shear capacity of the compression zone
can be neglected.
121
An algorithm was provided to solve the above equations and calculate the ultimate
load Pu. The depth of the compression zone (xs) is assumed. The value of xs
should be greater than da, the depth of the upper edge of the plates. The values of
St, Pst, Pc, Vc and Pu are calculated from the equations provided. The value of xs
can be modified till either Pc = Pc,max or, Vc = Vc,max. The shear strength is equal
to Pu/2. Material safety factors can be incorporated in fyp and fck.
To apply the above procedure to uniformly distributed loads and continuous
beams, the equilibrium equations need to be modified.
RC beams can be strengthened using epoxy bonded FRP plates or fabrics. The
advantages of using FRP are ease of fabrication and bonding, corrosion resistance
and lightweight. In the case of FRP plated beams, in addition to the usual failure
modes such as crushing of concrete, yielding of steel and rupture of FRP, local
failure may occur in the concrete beam due to stress concentration at the cut-off
point.
FRP has been used not only as sheets, but also as reinforcing bars. FRP bars can
be attached to the web of a beam for shear strengthening (Lorenzis and Nanni,
2001, 2002). These near-surface mounted bars can be anchored to the flange of
the beam. The failure generates from the debonding of the bars due to splitting of
the epoxy paste in the grooves.
122
8.4
Bracci et al. (1995) suggested the use of a concrete fillet at the beam-column joint
to shift the potential hinge region away from the column face to the beam-slab
near the end of the fillet.
123
8.4.3
Steel Jacketing
Steel jacketing helps the beam-column joint in transferring moments. The jacket
provides increased flexural strength to the beam, especially where adequate
bottom reinforcement may not be present if the frame was designed for gravity
loads only. In a joint, the beam jacket needs to be connected to the column jacket.
Steel jackets can also enhance the shear strength and ductility of beams through
added strength of steel as well as through confinement of existing concrete.
8.4.4
Steel Plating
Steel plating is simpler as compared to steel jacketing, where plates in the form of
brackets are attached to the soffits of the beams and sides of the column. The
moment and plastic rotation capacities in beams with discontinuous bottom steel
can be improved by the use of steel plates. The retrofitted interior joint performs
well because: a) the pullout of the discontinuous bottom reinforcement is
prevented, b) the damage is transferred from the embedment zone to other parts of
the joint region, c) the column shear strength is enhanced and d) the deterioration
rate of the joint region under cyclic loadings is reduced.
This approach is
8.4.5
FRP Jacketing
124
8.5
WALL STRENGTHENING
A concrete shear wall can be strengthened by adding new concrete with adequate
boundary elements (bolster columns). For the composite action, dowels need to
be provided between the existing and new concrete (Figure 8.15). The analysis of
a building with strengthened shear walls can be preformed using the equivalent
properties of the wall.
Retrofitting of a masonry infill wall is necessary when the failure of an infill wall
is a hazard. For example, the failure of infill walls in higher storeys facing a busy
footpath or above shop-fronts can lead to severe injury. IS 13935: 1993 gives
guidelines for repair and strengthening of walls using grout and wire mesh. FRP
or steel sheets can be used to strengthen walls for out-of-plane bending.
Retrofitting by steel sheets involves epoxy bonding of thin sheets on both sides of
the wall and addition of triangular corner plates in all the corners of the two sides
(Ramesh, 2003). This strategy increases the strength, stiffness and ductility of the
wall and the resistance to out-of-plane bending.
FRP has been used in the strengthening of infill walls. The FRP sheets can be
bonded over the full area or diagonally on both sides with triangular corner plates
125
(Ravichandran, 2003). In walls where the FRP sheet was bonded on the plastered
surface, spalling of the plaster made the FRP strengthening ineffective. The
sheets are more effective when they are bonded on the unplastered surface.
8.6
FOOTING STRENGTHENING
126
127
CHAPTER IX
CASE STUDY I
9.1
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone III. The
deficiency is due to open ground storey and shear carrying capacity of columns. A
retrofit scheme using non-buckling braces is illustrated.
9.1.1 Data collection and condition assessment of building
The chosen building is a seven storey residential building located in Seismic Zone
III. Table 9.1 presents a summary of the building parameters. The building is
symmetric about X-axis. The ground floor of the building has parking provision.
Table 9.1(a): Building survey data sheet - General data
S.No.
1
Description
Information
CS1
Ahmedabad
Gujarat
129
Name of owner
Name of builder
Name of Architect/Engineer
Use of building
Residential
RC frame
10
Soil data
Medium
Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
11
(assumed)
12
20kN/m3
1kN/m2
Imposed (live)loads
2 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2
Floor loads
Roof loads
13
Cyclone/Wind
-
Speed
Design pressure intensity
14
15
Seismic zone
III
16
Importance factor, I
17
0.16
18
130
19
Table 9.6
20
Table 9.6
21
22
Table 9.1(b): Building survey data sheet - Building data (moment resisting frame)
S.No.
1
Description
Information
Number of basements
Regular
frames
-
Number of floors
Type of building
131
Beams
slabs
and
Medium
Independent
footings
1.5m
Independent
Plinth beams
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
132
M20
2960kN
939kN
3.15
Parabolic
No
40mm
30mm
25mm
15mm
Fe 415
230mm
230mm
0.26%
200mm
100mm
less than 1 in
many sections
1.2%
-
Section 9.2.2
-
Figure 9.1: Architectural plan for typical floor level of the building.
133
9.1.2.1
Foundation
The foundation system is isolated footing. Depth of the foundation is 1.5m from
ground level.
9.1.2.2
Structural system
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 115 mm except for some
locations where it is 120 mm. Figure 9.2 shows the slab layout at a typical floor
level and their details are given in Table 9.2. The external walls are 230mm thick
and partition walls inside the building are 115mm thick. Figure 9.3 shows the
column layout and Table 9.3 shows the reinforcement details of the column
sections at a typical floor.
Table 9.2: Details of slabs at typical floor level
Slab Thickness
Mark
(mm)
S1
115
S2
115
S3
120
S4
115
S5
120
S6
120
Reinforcement (mm)
Short Span
Long Span
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 125 c/c
Y8 @ 125 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 150 c/c
Y8 @ 175 c/c
Y8 @ 175 c/c
Remarks
One Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way
Two Way
Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)
8Y12
2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c
C1
C2
230 533
300 610
4Y16 + 4Y12
2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c
C3
230 533
300 610
8Y16
2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c
C4
230 610
300 686
4Y20 + 4Y16
2 LGD 6 @ 150c/c
C5
230 610
300 686
6Y20 + 4Y16
3 LGD 6 @ 150c/c
Column
ID
134
C6
230 610
300 686
12Y20
3 LGD Y8 @ 250c/c
C7
230 685
300 762
14Y20
3 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
Figure 9.4 shows the layout of beam sections at a typical floor level and Figure 9.5
shows the layout of beam elements. All floors have identical beam sections. Table
9.4 shows the beam section assigned to different beam elements.
Table 9.4: Details of beam reinforcements
Longitudinal Reinforcement at
Transverse
support (mm2)
Reinforcement
(mm)
Top
Bottom
Beam
Section
Size (mm)
Width
Depth
B6
230 457
703.7
339.3
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B15
B16
B17
B19
B21
B22
B25
B26
B27
B35
230 457
230 457
230 457
230 457
230 457
230 230
230 457
115 571
230 381
230 457
230 495
230 381
230 267
230 381
230 381
414.0
502.0
615.5
816.0
615.8
502.0
703.7
100.5
414.5
753.0
502.5
515.0
615.5
615.0
414.0
306.0
402.0
603.2
515.2
100.5
226.0
339.3
100.5
339.3
716.3
339.0
515.0
402.0
314.0
339.0
135
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@100c/c
Y8@127c/c
Y8@150c/c
Figure 9.3: Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(Section Cn and CCn are having same properties but different orientation)
137
9.2
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Plan irregularity
Pre-code
Post-benchmark
Soil Type I
Soil Type II
Soil Type III
Final Score
Comments
High Seismicity
(Zone V)
URM
MRF SW
INF
2.5
2.8
1.6
+0.4 +0.4 +0.2
+0.6 +0.8 +0.3
Moderate Seismicity
(Zone IV)
URM
MRF SW
INF
3.6
3.0
3.2
+0.2 +0.4 +0.2
+0.5 +0.8 +0.4
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-0.5
-1.2
+1.4
-0.4
-0.6
-1.2
-0.5
-1.0
+2.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.5
-0.2
N/A
-0.4
-0.4
-0.8
-2.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
9.2.2.1
-2.0
Low Seismicity
(Zone II & Zone III)
URM
MRF SW
INF
4.4
4.8
4.4
+0.4 -0.2 -0.4
+1.0 0.0
-0.4
Column Shear
142
nf
nc
Ac (m2)
Vj (kN)
avg(MPa)
Remarks
B
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
6.27
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
1685
1685
1669
1614
1494
1289
979
540
0.344
0.509
0.504
0.487
0.451
0.389
0.296
0.163
< 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
9.2.2.2
9.2.2.3
X dir
Y dir
Left
Right
Left
Right
Vb(kN)
nf
h(m)
L(m)
P(kN)
Axial
stress
1685
1275
1685
1392
6
4
5
5
23.55
23.55
23.55
23.55
14.25
10.64
17.78
17.78
290
441
279
230
2.37
3.60
2.28
1.88
Permissible limit is 0.24fck i.e. 0.24 x 20 = 4.8 N/mm2. Calculated axial stresses
are within the permissible limit.
9.2.2.4
Frame Drift
Since dimensions of columns are not changed from storey to storey in this
building, the Drift Ratio (DR) is calculated for ground storey and the first storey
only. Ground storey height is 3.45m and other storey height is 3.0. The DR value
is observed to be very less in the building i.e. 1.310-5 for ground storey and
143
1.1510-6 for first storey. The limiting value of DR is 0.015. Hence, the storey
drifts are within the limit.
9.2.2.5
C / NC / NA
C
Load path:
NA
Adjacent buildings:
Mezzanines:
NA
No deterioration of concrete:
Vertical irregularities
C / NC / NA
C
No weak storey:
NC
No soft storey:
No mass irregularity:
NC
No vertical discontinuities:
Plan Irregularities
144
C / NC / NA
No Torsion irregularity:
NC
No diaphragm discontinuity:
NC
No re-entrant corners:
NC
No non-parallel system:
C / NC / NA
Redundancy:
No interfering wall:
C
NC
Drift check:
No shear failures:
NC
NC
NA
NA
C
Beam bars:
Beam bar splices:
NA
Stirrup spacing:
NC
Bent-up bars:
NC
Joint reinforcing:
NC
Deflection compatibility:
Diaphragm reinforcement:
C
Shear walls
C / NC / NA
NA
Reinforcing steel:
NA
145
Coupling beams:
NA
NA
Connections
C / NC / NA
C
Column connection:
Wall connection:
NA
NA
NA
C / NC / NA
No Liquefaction:
NA
No slope failure:
NA
NA
Foundations
C / NC / NA
C
Foundation performance:
Deterioration:
NA
Overturning:
C
NA
Table 9.8 shows that the statements are non-compliant (NC) for most of the cases
because of poor detailing. There is no vertical or plan irregularity in the building.
146
9.3
The building modelled and analysed as per the guidelines given in Chapter 3.
9.3.1 Material Properties
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9: Materials properties
Material
Concrete (M 20)
Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415)
Brick infill
Characteristic Strength
(MPa)
20
415
1.65
Modulus of Elasticity
(MPa)
22360
2 105
1237.5
147
9.3.2
9.3.2.1
Infill Walls
Figure 9.9 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 9.10.
Table 9.10: Strut parameters
Strut
9.3.3
S1
1.42
0.230
358
2.90
S2
1.21
0.230
435
4.98
S3
1.49
0.115
215
3.35
S4
1.31
0.230
353
2.99
S5
1.54
0.230
443
3.31
S6
1.54
0.230
457
4.25
S7
1.29
0.115
267
5.78
S8
1.48
0.115
213
4.15
S9
0.93
0.230
348
4.07
S10
1.11
0.115
173
2.99
S11
1.12
0.230
324
3.03
S12
1.09
0.230
318
3.06
S13
1.09
0.230
318
3.28
S14
1.36
0.230
348
2.98
The foundation for the building is made up isolated footings. In the model, hinges
were assumed at the column ends at the bottom of footings. The effect of soilstructure interaction was ignored in the analyses.
148
= 1.5esi + 0.05b
= esi + 0.05b
= esi 0.05b
edi2
Table 9.11: Centres of mass and rigidity for the equivalent static method
(Without infill stiffness)
Floor
CM
X
CR
Y
esi
Y
edi1
edi2
X
DCM
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.12
1.10
3.29
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.12
4.09
3.98
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.68
1.66
1.59
Left
9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21
10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67
7
Right
25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30
25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23
7
Table 9.12: Structural parameters and Design Centre of Masses for Equivalent
static method (with infill stiffness)
Floor
CM
X
CS
Y
esi
Y
edi1
edi2
X
DCM
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.41
3.05
4.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.31
0.00
0.00
1.81
3.64
4.39
1.37
0.90
0.90
0.14
1.36
1.86
Left
9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51
10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75
7
Right
25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00
25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50
7
150
Table 9.13: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Floor
CM
X
CS
Y
edi1
esi
Y
edi2
X
DCM
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
1.00
2.46
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.96
2.94
2.87
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.68
1.66
1.59
Left
9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21
10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67
7
Right
25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30
25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23
7
Table 9.14: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Floor
CM
X
CS
Y
esi
Y
edi1
edi2
X
DCM
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
2.30
3.54
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.31
0.00
0.00
1.42
2.64
3.14
1.21
0.90
0.90
0.14
1.36
1.86
Left
9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42
1
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51
10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75
7
Right
25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78
1
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00
25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50
7
Table 9.15 shows the calculations of base shear for the left and right portions of
the building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Typical
seismic load distribution for left portion of building with infill stiffness in Xdirection is shown in the Table 9.16. (Base shear is 1685kN)
151
With
Infill
Stiffness
Left
Right
Sa/g
ah
Base
Weight
Shear
(kN)
(kN)
X dir
N/A
0.80
1.70
0.045
25271
1143
Y dir
N/A
0.80
1.70
0.045
20876
944
X dir
15.78
0.53
2.50
0.067
25271
1685
Y dir
17.78
0.50
2.50
0.067
25271
1685
X dir
12.74
0.59
2.29
0.061
20876
1275
Y dir
17.78
0.50
2.50
0.067
20876
1392
Table 9.16: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Floor No.
Water tank
6
5
4
3
2
1
G
9.3.6
Seismic Weight, Wi
(kN)
Height, hi
(m)
Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)
422
23.55
84
2767
21.45
457
3592
18.45
438
3626
15.45
310
3691
12.45
205
3720
9.45
119
3716
6.45
55
3737
3.45
16
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 9.17. The comparison is shown in Figure 9.10.
Table 9.18 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for the
first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table also
shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes were
considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass participation
in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 9.11 shows the first three mode shapes
152
of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and the response
spectrum methods are given in Table 9.19.
Table 9.17: Comparison of fundamental time periods
IS 1893: 2002
Without Infill
Stiffness
With
Infill
Stiffness
X dir
Y dir
Computational model
T (s)
Sa/g
T (s)
Sa/g
X dir
0.80
1.70
1.64
0.82
Y dir
0.80
1.70
1.52
0.89
Left
0.53
2.50
Right
0.50
2.50
Left
0.59
2.29
1.23
1.10
Right
0.50
2.50
Table 9.18: Time periods and mass participation factors for the first five modes
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
1.64
86.74
0.03
1.23
7.94
31.39
1.52
0.07
89.95
1.14
39.62
47.87
1.30
1.87
0.44
1.09
46.36
16.59
0.54
8.59
0.00
0.39
0.24
1.66
0.49
0.01
6.99
0.35
5.23
0.24
97.28
97.41
99.39
97.75
Total
Equivalent Static
(V )
2086
2086
2960
3077
(VB )
913
1013
939
862
VB / VB
2.28
2.06
3.15
3.57
Response Spectrum
153
a /g)
2.5
Spectral accelaration ( S
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Figure 9.11(a): First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
154
Figure 9.11(b): Second mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(c): Third mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
155
Figure 9.11(d): First mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(e): Second mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
156
Figure 9.11(f): Third mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
9.3.7 Evaluation results
Since the torsional mode is predominant for the model with infill stiffness, the
response spectrum method is important. The response spectrum analysis results
show that a number of elements do not satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios
(DCR). The deficient beam sections are given in Tables 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22. The
deficient column sections are given in Tables 9.23 and 9.24. The percentage of
deficient elements is the ratio of number of elements with DCR greater than 1, to
the total number of elements for the particular type of section.
Table 9.20: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (without infill stiffness)
Percentage
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m)
DCR
Sl.
of deficient
Section
No.
M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) elements
1
B3
-54
15
-50
0.93
0.30
B6
-50
60
-260
214
5.20
3.57
74
B7
-60
45
-201
176
3.34
3.90
67
157
B8
-73
59
-237
166
3.25
2.82
83
B9
-89
87
-292
114
3.28
1.31
77
B10
-116
75
-301
164
2.59
2.19
73
B11
-82
25
-258
166
3.14
6.66
100
B15
-30
15
-78
52
2.58
3.50
78
B16
-96
49
-87
25
0.90
0.51
10
B17
-19
19
-91
68
4.80
3.60
75
11
B19
-49
40
-207
80
4.23
2.00
78
12
B21
-109
103
-244
148
2.24
1.44
100
13
B22
-79
54
-331
194
4.18
3.59
72
14
B25
-60
60
-148
52
2.47
0.87
60
15
B26
-46
31
-114
55
2.48
1.77
81
16
B27
-70
37
-194
84
2.77
2.28
55
17
B35
-49
40
-157
59
3.21
1.48
64
Table 9.21: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (with infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m)
Sl
Section
No.
M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve)
(+ve)
(-ve)
Percentage
of deficient
elements
DCR
B3
-54
15
-79
1.45
0.48
21
B6
-50
60
-486
378
9.71
6.31
93
B7
-60
45
-271
104
4.52
2.30
88
B8
-73
59
-332
296
4.55
5.02
95
B9
-89
87
-446
207
5.01
2.38
99
B10
-116
75
-411
243
3.54
3.24
88
B11
-82
25
-382
311
4.66
12.42
100
B15
-30
15
-132
75
4.40
5.00
89
B16
-96
49
-136
21
1.41
0.44
10
B17
-19
19
-143
46
7.52
2.44
100
11
B19
-49
40
-303
89
6.19
2.23
98
12
B21
-109
103
-325
300
2.98
2.91
100
13
B22
-79
54
-293
200
3.71
3.70
94
14
B25
-60
60
-225
82
3.75
1.37
71
15
B26
-46
31
-136
93
2.95
2.99
100
16
B27
-70
37
-57
93
0.82
2.51
52
17
B35
-49
40
-214
64
4.37
1.61
86
158
Demand (kN-m)
from
Flexure
Capacity WOIS WIS WOIS WIS
Analysis
WoIS
WIS
Percentage of
deficient
elements
DCR
B6
68
246
428
112
3.62
6.30
43
48
B9
68
187
257
132
2.75
3.78
62
78
B10
54
98
146
131
2.43
2.71
73
85
B11
68
96
129
99
1.46
1.89
12
15
B12
54
48
93
55
1.02
1.72
B15
45
207
257
52
4.61
5.71
19
24
B17
25
223
325
21
8.94
12.99
34
43
B19
54
132
161
84
2.45
2.98
46
56
B22
54
144
164
111
2.66
3.04
44
52
10
B25
54
119
89
86
2.20
1.65
43
41
11
B27
54
178
246
94
3.29
4.56
21
38
12
B35
45
264
457
94
5.88
10.15
32
43
Percentage of
deficient elements
WOIS
WIS
DCR
Section
WOIS
WIS
CC1
4.10
6.35
83
88
CC3
3.71
5.97
73
81
CC4
5.32
6.72
72
71
CC5
3.74
6.77
73
72
C1
3.58
5.82
67
85
C2
4.77
8.91
64
59
C3
4.34
9.44
66
67
C4
5.31
10.32
69
90
C5
3.23
8.74
71
83
10
C6
3.70
9.03
54
62
11
C7
3.94
9.60
56
65
Section
CC1
Capacity
(kN)
DCR
V2
V3
WOIS
V2
V3
136
72
0.50
159
0.60
WIS
V2
V3
0.71
1.49
Percentage of
deficient elements
WOIS
WIS
CC3
166
79
0.69
0.63
0.86
1.17
CC4
194
85
1.05
1.77
1.09
2.65
15
CC5
198
89
0.68
0.79
1.01
1.08
C1
71
136
0.55
0.49
0.65
0.71
0
0
6
0
C2
77
163
0.89
0.50
0.83
1.10
C3
79
167
0.75
0.71
0.90
1.33
C4
85
194
0.54
0.72
1.05
1.34
C5
88
199
0.88
0.52
0.93
1.31
10
C6
92
202
0.59
0.67
0.85
1.57
11
C7
98
230
0.77
0.64
2.08
1.35
The above results show that the beams are having lesser capacities than the
corresponding demands in both flexure and shear. The columns are having lesser
capacities than the demands in flexure. For shear, many columns are adequate
along the major dimension, but many are deficient along the minor dimension.
Major portion of the failure is observed in the ground, first and second storeys.
The storey displacements along the X- and Y- directions are presented in Figures
9.12(a) and 9.12(b). The deflection profiles for the cases of without infill stiffness
and with infill stiffness are plotted in the same graph for comparison. Since the
basement height is not same as storey height, the change in the profile at basement
level can be ignored. The calculated inter storey drifts are shown in Figures
9.13(a) and 9.13(b).
160
8
7
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Displacement
8
7
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Displacement
161
7
6
Storey Level
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
7
6
Storey Level
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
162
9.4
The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4. Since the building is
irregular, 30 percent of lateral push was applied along with the push in the main
direction.
9.4.1
Pushover curves
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Ydirections are shown in Figure 9.14 and 9.15. The base shear from the equivalent
static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand based on
linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to be little
higher than the demand. The pushover curve is almost linear and it terminates
abruptly due to the formation of shear hinges in the columns.
3500
VB
3000
2500
VB
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
163
4000
3500
VB
3000
2500
VB
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
164
X - Direction
Y - Direction
Figure 9.16: Demand and capacity spectra (without infill stiffness)
X - Direction
Y - Direction
Figure 9.17: Demand and capacity spectrum (with infill stiffness)
165
9
8
7
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Displacement
9
8
7
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Displacement
166
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Storey Level
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
167
9.4.4
Vulnerability Index
Since the failure hinges are shear hinges, the value of vulnerability index is very
less. So, the damage in the building cannot be predicted by vulnerability index.
9.4.5 Summary of the results
(i)
Linear analysis results show that almost all beam and column
sections are weak in flexure and shear. Pushover analysis also
reveals the same weakness of the structure and failed to give a
performance point for both the models, with and without infill
stiffness.
(ii)
(iii)
Inter storey drifts in ground storey is high in both linear and nonlinear analysis for with infill strut case.
168
9.5
RETROFITTING
9.5.1 Retrofitting
Since there is a severe global deficiency of a soft storey, a global retrofit strategy
is tested. In the ground storey, non-buckling braces are placed to stiffen the
storey. In the first and second storeys, the infill walls are replaced with nonbuckling braces at certain locations. Figure 9.25 shows the bracing locations in
the ground and the first two storeys. The modelling of the load-deformation
behaviour of the non-buckling braces is based on Appendix E.
global retrofit, the shear capacities of columns in the lower three storeys at
locations A, B and C and beams in the first and second floors at location D and E
need to be increased by 30%.
To achieve a performance point, the required number of braces is high. Also,
introduction of the braces in the ground storey reduces the functionality of the
space. The proposed retrofit scheme is for illustration of the change in behaviour
of the structure. The pushover curves in both X- and Y- directions are shown in
Figure 9.22. The base shear capacity of the building has increased after the
7000
8000
6000
7000
5000
4000
3000
VB
2000
1000
0
0.00
6000
5000
4000
3000
VB
2000
1000
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
X - Direction
Y - Direction
169
0.15
Figure 23: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
Figure 24: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction.
170
The demand and capacity spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions
are shown in Figures 23 and 24. The building has achieved performance points in
both the directions. The building experiences a drift about 0.5% at the
performance point, which is acceptable. The inter storey drifts are within the
permissible limits at the performance point.
171
A
D
B
172
CHAPTER X
CASE STUDY II
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone V. The
deficiency due to open ground storey is highlighted.
10.2
BUILDING
The building is a five storey residential building located in Zone V. Tables 10.1
and 10.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building is symmetric
in both the directions. The ground storey of the building is an open ground storey
to accommodate car parking.
building.
173
Description
Information
Notes
.
1
CS2
Guwahati
Assam
Name of owner
Name of builder
Name of Architect/Engineer
Use of building
Residential
10
Soil data
Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
174
0
RC frame
Medium
Not Available
(Assumed)
Information
Notes
11
12
Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live)loads
13
Floor loads
Roof loads
Cyclone/Wind
2 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2
15
Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors
Seismic zone
Earthquake
Prone Area
V
IS 1893: 2002
16
Importance factor, I
1.0
IS 1893: 2002
17
0.36
IS 1893: 2002
18
3.0
IS 1893: 2002
19
0.38 s
IS 1893: 2002
20
21
22
14
10 kN/m3
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
18 kN/m3
IS 1893: 2002
Table 10.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description
Information
Type of building
Number of basements
Regular
frames with
open ground
storey
Number of floors
Beams
slabs
175
and
Notes
Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Information
Soil data
Type of soil
Recommended foundation
Recommended bearing
capacity
Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
Depth of water table
Chemical analysis of ground
water
Chemical analysis of soil
Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
Ductile detailing of RC frame
176
Notes
Medium
(assumed)
0.7 m
Pile
No interconnection
Groups of
multiple pile
M15
IS 1893: 2002
2878 kN
1768 kN
1.63
Parabolic
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002
Not Available
Table 10.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16
Information
177
Fe 415
150 500
400 450
1.072
100 mm c/c
75 mm c/c
1.77
6 mm
100 mm
1.04
Not Available
Not Available
Notes
10.3
10.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation with groups of 4 or 6 under reamed piles.
Each pile is of 300 mm diameter reinforced with 6Y12 longitudinal bars and Y6
links @ 175 c/c ties. Piles are more than 11m deep under the ground level as per
the drawing.
nB1
nB5
nB12
nB4
nB12
nB3
nB10
nB8
nB13
nB13
nB6
nB5
nB5
nB13
nB6
nB12
nB11
nB15
nB9
nB7
nB5
nB5
nB5
nB5
nB7
nB10
nB8
nB10
nB5
nB5
nB4
nB9
nB1
nB5
nB15
nB5
nB5
nB5
nB5
nB2
nB11
nB10
nB1
nB6
nB12
nB1
Figure 10.2: Floor (all floors other than top floor) framing plan Beam location
(Prefix n represents floor number)
178
reinforcement details for beam and column sections (at beam and column faces)
are given in Tables 10.3 and 10.4, respectively.
5B12
5B11
5B15
5B5
5B10
5B5
5B5
5B10
5B7
5B13
5B4
5B12
5B10
5B5
5B3
5B8
5B5
5B6
5B13
5B10
5B13
5B5
5B8
5B9
5B5
5B7
5B9
5B10
5B5
5B4
5B5
5B11
5B15
5B5
5B5
5B10
5B2
5B5
5B1
5B1
nC25
nC24
nC23
nC22
nC20
nC18
nC16
nC9
nC1
nC2
nC17
nC13
nC12
nC8
nC21
nC19
nC15
nC14
nC28
nC27
nC26
nC6
nC3
nC7
nC10
nC4
nC11
nC5
179
Size (mm)
150 500
300 500
200 450
250 500
250 500
150 500
300 500
250 500
250 500
150 500
250 450
250 500
250 500
300 500
300 500
300 500
200 450
250 500
300 500
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Top
Bottom
2Y20
2Y20
6Y20, 1Y16
4Y20
6Y20
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
4Y20
4Y16
2Y16
2Y16
2Y16
6Y20
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
3Y20
2Y16
3Y16
3Y16
4Y16
6Y20
2Y20
4Y20
2Y20
7Y20
3Y20
6Y20
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y16
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
4Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
3Y20
4Y20, 2Y12
3Y20
Transverse
Reinforcement
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
2Y8 @ 75 c/c
Size (mm)
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Transverse
Reinforcement
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
400 450
400 450
400 450
400 500
400 500
400 500
400 450
400 450
400 500
400 500
400 500
8Y20
6Y20, 2Y16
4Y20, 4Y16
8Y20
6Y20, 2Y16
4Y20, 4Y16
10Y20
8Y20, 2Y16
10Y20, 2Y16
10Y20
8Y20, 2Y16
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
6 @ 100c/c
180
400 mm
4Y16
2Y16
C1
C2
4Y16
2Y16
C4
C5
C6
400 mm
400 mm
450 mm
500 mm
400 mm
450 mm
400 mm
500 mm
500 mm
500 mm
C3
400 mm
400 mm
2Y16
C7
C8
2Y16
C9
400 mm
400 mm
500 mm
500 mm
400 mm
450 mm
450 mm
450 mm
400 mm
C10
2Y16
C11
181
10.4
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score
2.5
2.8
1.6
3.0
3.6
3.2
4.4
4.8
4.4
+0.4
+0.2
+0.2
+0.4
+0.2
+0.4
-0.2
-0.4
High rise
+0.8
+0.3
+0.5
+0.8
+0.4
+1.0
0.0
-0.4
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
+0.6
Vertical
-1.5
irregularity
Plan
-0.5
irregularity
Pre-code
-1.2
-1.0
-0.2
-1.0
-0.4
-1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Postbenchmark
+1.4
+2.4
N/A
+1.2
+1.6
N/A
+0.6
+0.4
N/A
Soil Type I
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
-1.0
-1.2
-1.0
-1.4
-0.8
-0.8
-1.2
-0.8
-0.8
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
Final Score
0.8
Comments
0.4
Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0
182
Table 10.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Floor No
1
2
3
4
5
10.4.2.1
Seismic Weight,
Wi
(kN)
4250
4110
4110
4110
2610
Height, hi
(m)
Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)
3
6
9
12
15
65
251
564
1003
995
Column Shear
Tables 10.7 and 10.8 show the column shear stresses at each storey along X- and
Y- directions, respectively. The lateral load resisting frames along X- and Ydirections are shown in Figure 10.6 and 10.7, respectively. The beams are having
eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the computational
model.
183
Floor No
nf
nc
Ac (m2)
V j (kN)
vavg (MPa)
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
9
9
9
9
9
24
24
24
24
24
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
2878
2813
2562
1998
995
1.00
0.98
0.89
0.69
0.35
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
< 0.4
Floor No
nf
nc
Ac (m2)
V j (kN)
vavg (MPa)
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
8
8
8
8
8
18
18
18
18
18
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
2878
2813
2562
1998
995
1.49
1.46
1.33
1.03
0.51
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
> 0.4
184
10.4.2.2
Details of the column axial stress calculation are given in Table 10.9.
The
allowable axial stress in column is 0.24 fck = 0.2415 MPa = 3.6 MPa.
Table 10.9 Details of axial stress in column
Vb(kN)
nf
h (m)
L (m)
P (kN)
Axial stress
X-direction.
2878
15
5.92
506.4
2.81 MPa
Y-direction.
2878
15
3.60
936.8
4.68 MPa
The column axial stress is more than the allowable stress when the load is in Ydirection.
185
10.4.2.4
Frame Drift
The calculation details for the storey drift for X- and Y- directions are shown in
Tables 10.10 and 10.11, respectively. The allowable drift ratio in any storey is
0.015. For most of the storeys, the drifts are more than 0.015.
Table 10.10: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction
Storey
1
2
3
4
5
Vc (kN)
200
196
178
138
70
DR
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.011
0.006
Storey
1
2
3
4
5
10.4.2.4
Vc (kN)
298
292
266
206
102
186
DR
0.022
0.021
0.019
0.015
0.007
Building system
C / NC / NA
Load path:
Adjacent buildings:
Mezzanines:
No deterioration of concrete:
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey:
NC
No soft storey:
NC
No mass irregularity:
No vertical discontinuities:
Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity:
No diaphragm discontinuity:
No re-entrant corners:
No non-parallel system:
NC
No interfering wall:
NC
187
NC
Drift check:
NC
No shear failures:
NC
NC
Beam bars:
NC
Stirrup spacing:
Bent-up bars:
Joint reinforcing:
NC
Deflection compatibility:
Diaphragm reinforcement:
NC
Anchorage:
NC
Shear walls
NA
Reinforcing steel:
NA
Coupling beams:
NA
NA
Connections
Column connection:
NA
C
188
NA
Foundations
Foundation performance:
Deterioration:
Overturning:
10.5
NC
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
in Chapter 3.
10.5.1
Material Properties
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 10.13.
Material
Characteristic
Strength
Modulus of Elasticity
Concrete (M 15)
15 MPa
19365 MPa
415 MPa
2 105 MPa
Brick infill
10.5.2
1237.5
189
190
Width (m)
Strength (kN)
S1
1.65
230
S2
1.70
275
S3
1.50
175
S15, S16
S4
1.40
140
nS14
nS9
nS7
nS3
nS5
nS2
nS6
nS1
nS4
nS11
nS10
nS13
nS8
nS12
nS16
Section
nS15
Equivalent Strut
Figure 10.9: Location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent strut
(Prefix n represents storey number)
191
Seismic Lumped
mass
Floor weight
(Ton)
(kN)
CM
(m)
CR
(m)
esi
(m)
2610
266
12.40
6.77
12.54
7.13
0.14
0.36
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
4250
433
12.56
7.14
12.59
7.44
0.03
0.30
CR
(m)
Floor
esi
(m)
Design CM1
(m)
Design CM2
(m)
12.54
7.13
0.14
0.36
11.42
6.79
14.01
8.37
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
11.30
6.68
13.83
8.14
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
11.30
6.68
13.83
8.14
12.53
7.26
0.03
0.12
11.30
6.68
13.83
8.14
12.59
7.44
0.03
0.30
11.36
7.04
13.89
8.59
Seismic Lumped
mass
Floor weight
(Ton)
(kN)
CM
(m)
CR
(m)
esi
(m)
2610
266
12.40
6.77
12.51
7.42
-0.11
-0.65
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.51
7.54
0.05
-0.40
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.51
7.54
0.05
-0.40
4110
419
12.56
7.14
12.51
7.54
0.05
-0.40
4250
433
12.56
7.14
12.59
7.44
-0.03
-0.30
192
CR
(m)
Floor
Design CM1
(m)
X
Y
esi
(m)
Design CM2
(m)
X
Y
12.51
7.42
0.11
0.65
11.36
7.37
13.93
9.09
12.51
7.54
0.05
0.40
11.30
7.24
13.84
8.84
12.51
7.54
0.05
0.40
11.30
7.24
13.84
8.84
12.51
7.54
0.05
0.40
11.30
7.24
13.84
8.84
12.59
7.44
0.03
0.30
11.36
7.04
13.89
8.59
Design Base Shear: Table 10.19 shows the calculations of base shear of the
building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Seismic
load distribution for X-direction is shown in the Table 10.20.
Table 10.19 Details of calculations for base shear of the building
Without infill
stiffness
With infill
stiffness
Time
Period
(s)
Sa/g
Ah
W
(kN)
VB
(kN)
X-direction
0.59
2.3
0.138
19190
2649
Y-direction
0.59
2.3
0.138
19190
2649
X-direction
28
2.5
0.150
19190
2878
Y-direction
36
2.5
0.150
19190
2878
Floor
no
1
2
3
4
5
W
i
(kN)
4250
4110
4110
4110
2610
h
i
(m)
3
6
9
12
15
Qi (kN)
With infill stiffness
65
251
564
1003
995
193
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 10.21. The comparison is shown in
Figures 10.10 and 10.11.
Table 10.22 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 10.12 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shears for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are given in Table 10.23
Table 10.21: Comparison of fundamental time periods
T (s)
Sa/g
Empirical formula
With infill
Without infill
stiffness
stiffness
0.28
0.59
2.50
2.30
Computational model
With infill
Without infill
stiffness
stiffness
0.83
0.96
1.64
1.42
Table 10.22: Time periods and modal participation for the first five modes
Without infill
Mode
Natural
Period (s)
With infill
Mass Participation
(%)
X
Natural
Period (s)
0.96
88.78
0.31
0.83
92.91
0.20
0.88
0.35
86.81
0.76
0.23
90.51
0.43
0.23
0.38
0.39
0.11
0.52
0.30
8.05
0.03
0.25
5.39
0.04
0.27
0.03
9.55
0.24
0.03
7.07
194
3.0
Empirical formula
2.5
Computational model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.10: Comparison of fundamental periods (with infill stiffness)
3.0
Empirical formula
2.5
Computational model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.11: Comparison of fundamental periods (without infill stiffness)
195
196
( )
Equivalent Static VB
2878
2878
2649
2649
1768
1871
1463
1576
VB / VB
1.63
1.54
1.81
1.68
10.5.5
Evaluation Results
The equivalent static analysis results show that a number of elements do not
satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) for flexure. However the DCR for
shear is always less than one for both beams and columns. DCR for a few ground
floor beams and columns are given in Tables 10.24 and 10.25, respectively.
Table 10.24: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in Beams
Beams
1B1
1B2
1B3
1B4
1B5
1B6
1B7
1B8
1B9
1B10
1B11
1B12
1B13
1B14
1B15
1B16
1B17
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
197
1.1
0.3
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
DCR in
Flexure
1C1
1C2
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.0
1C3
1C4
1C5
1C6
1C7
1C8
1C9
1C10
1C11
1C12
1C13
1C14
1C15
1C16
1C17
1C18
1C19
1C20
1C21
1C22
1C23
1C24
1C25
1C26
DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
The storey drifts are shown in Figure 10.13. The values satisfy the IS 1893: 2002
limit of 0.4%.
198
Storey Level
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Storey Level
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
199
10.6
10.6.1
Pushover Curve
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Ydirections are shown in Figure 10.14 and 10.15.
equivalent static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand
based on linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to
be little higher than the demand.
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
200
0.08
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Pushover analyses in either direction failed to give a performance point for both
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectra for
the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in Figures 10.16 to
10.19.
10.6.3
The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 10.20 and 10.21. The interstorey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in
Figures 10.22and 10.23. These figures show the soft storey mechanism.
201
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
202
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
203
Storey Level
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Displacement (mm)
Storey Level
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Displacement (mm)
204
Storey Level
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Storey Drift
Storey Level
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Storey Drift
205
10.6.4
Vulnerability Index
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of storeys are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D.
buildings are given in Tables 10.26 and 10.27. The indices of storeys are given in
Tables 10.28 and 10.29.
Table 10.26: Vulnerability index of buildings (with infill stiffness)
Xdirection
Ydirection
Location
B-IO
IO-LS
LSCP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
Column
46
Beam
Column
28
VIbldg
0.069
0.066
Beam
15
Ydirection
Column
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
21
VIbldg
0.042
Beam
14
Column
11
0
0.087
Beam
206
65
IO-LS
LS-CP
46
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
VIstorey
0.656
0.036
IO-LS
LS-CP
28
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
VIstorey
0.438
0.071
0.018
10.7
(i)
Linear analysis results show that a number of beams and columns are
deficient in flexure.
(ii)
However, all the beam and column sections have adequate shear capacity.
(iii)
Building complies with the drift requirement under design lateral force.
(iv)
10.8
RETROFIT
207
The selected retrofit scheme consists of global and local retrofit strategies. For the
global strategy, full brick walls (230 mm) were continued in the ground storey at a
few symmetrical locations of the building. Figure 10.24 shows the locations of the
new walls. This will cause least intervention in the functional requirement of car
parking. For the local strategy, all the ground storey columns were strengthened
by concrete jacketing. The modelling of the load-deformation behaviour of the
jacketed column is based on Chapter 8. The pushover curves in Y-directions for
the retrofitted building are shown in Figure 10.25. The pushover analyses in both
the directions give performance points. The building experiences a drift of about
1.0% at the performance point, which is acceptable. The demand and capacity
spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions are shown in Figures 10.26
and 10.27. The scheme increases the stiffness of the building only marginally.
Figure 10.28 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the
corresponding spectral acceleration coefficients for the existing and the retrofitted
models of the building.
Figure 10.24: Locations of infill walls and column jacketing in ground storey
208
Existing
Retrofitted
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
209
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.0
Retrofitted
2
Existing
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.28: Comparison of the fundamental period
210
0.5
CHAPTER XI
CASE STUDY III
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of an office building in Zone III. The
deficiency due to inadequate shear reinforcement is highlighted. A retrofit scheme
with shear strengthening is illustrated.
11.2
BUILDING
211
The building is a six storey office building with a basement, located in Zone III.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building
is symmetric in both X- and Y-directions. The basement is for parking. Figure 11.1
shows a typical floor plan of the building.
Table 11.1: Building survey data sheet: General data
S.No
Description
Information
Notes
.
1
B7
Calicut
Kerala
Name of owner
Name of builder
Name of Architect/Engineer
Use of building
Office
10
Soil data
11
Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity
Dead loads (unit weight adopted)
12
Earth
Water
Brick masonry
Plain cement concrete
Floor finish
Other fill materials
Imposed (live)loads
Floor loads
Roof loads
212
1
RC frame
Medium
Not Available
10 kN/m3
20 kN/m3
25 kN/m3
18 kN/m3
4 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2
(Assumed)
IS 875 Part 1
IS 875 Part 2
Information
Notes
13
Cyclone/Wind
14
15
Speed
Design pressure intensity
History of past earthquakes and
tremors
Seismic zone
Earthquake
Prone Area
III
IS 1893: 2002
16
Importance factor, I
1.0
IS 1893: 2002
17
0.16
IS 1893: 2002
18
3.0
IS 1893: 2002
19
0.49
IS 1893: 2002
20
21
22
IS 1893: 2002
Table 11.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description
Information
Type of building
Number of basements
Regular
frames
Number of floors
Beams
slabs
Soil data
Medium
Type of soil
Recommended foundation
Recommended bearing
capacity
Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
Depth of water table
Chemical analysis of ground
water
213
Notes
and
Assumed
Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Information
Foundations
Depth below ground level
Type
System of interconnecting
foundations
Plinth beams
Foundation beams
Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
Method of analysis
Computer software used
Torsion included
Base shear
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
Distribution of seismic forces along
the height of building
The columns of soft ground storey
specially designed
Clear minimum cover provided in
Footing
Column
Beams
Slabs
Walls
Ductile detailing of RC frame
Type of reinforcement used
Minimum dimension of
beams
Minimum dimension of
columns
Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
Spacing of transverse
reinforcement in 2d length
of beam near the ends
214
Pile
No inter
connection
Notes
Pile groups
M20
IS 1893: 2002
2150
891
2.31
Parabolic
IS 1893: 2002
IS 1893: 2002
Not Available
Fe 415
200 750
300 450
0.536
250 mm c/c
150 mm c/c
Table 11.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
S.No. Description
16
11.3
Information
Notes
1.54
8 mm
200 mm
2.51
Not Available
Not Available
11.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation. The depths of the pile bottoms vary
between 21m to 30m, depending up on the soil strata.
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 120 mm except for some
locations where it is 150 mm. Waist slab for the staircase is 150 mm thick. The
external walls are 230mm thick and no partition walls are present inside the
building. The floor plan is similar for basement and ground floor. One corner is
215
terminated above the ground floor. Figure 11.2 shows the column layout at a
typical floor and Table 11.3 shows the reinforcement details of the columns
sections. Figure 11.3 shows the beam layout at a typical floor level. All floors
have identical beam sections. It can be noted from Table 11.3 that most of the
columns are of rectangular cross section with very high aspect ratio. However
columns are oriented in such a way that strength and stiffness in both X- and Ydirection are comparable.
Table 11.3: Details of column reinforcements
Column ID
Size (mm)
Width x
Depth
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
(mm)
Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)
AC1
300 450
8Y16
22 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC2
300 600
8Y20 + 2Y12
26 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC3
300 750
8Y20 + 2Y12
26 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC4
300 900
12Y20 + 2Y16
28 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC7
700 700
14Y20
66 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC3
AC2
AC3
AC3
AC7
AC7
AC4
AC2
AC7
AC7
AC4
AC3
AC7
AC7
AC3
AC4
AC4
AC4
AC3
AC3
AC4
AC1
216
AC3
AC3
AC2
AC3
AC3
AC7
AC7
AC4
AC2
AC7
AC7
AC4
AC3
AC7
AC7
AC3
AC3
AC4
AC4
AC4
AC4
Figure 11.2(b): Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(1st to 5th storey)
AB5
AB5
AB20
AB18
AB8
AB15
AB18
AB18
AB15
AB16
AB1
AB9
AB10
AB38
AB11
217
Size (mm)
Width Depth
200 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
250 750
Longitudinal Reinforcement at
support (mm2)
Top
Bottom
Transverse
Reinforcement
(mm)
2Y16
6Y25
3Y32+2Y25
2Y32+2Y25
5Y25
3Y25, 2Y25
2Y16+2Y20
4Y20
2Y16+2Y20
2Y20+2Y25
2Y32+2Y25
2Y16
4Y25
4Y25
3Y25
4Y25
2Y25
4Y20
2Y20+1Y16
3Y20
3Y20
2Y20+2Y25
Y8@250c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y10@200c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@150c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@200c/c
Y8@150c/c
The lateral load resisting frames in the building are identified. Figures 11.4 (a) and
11.4(b) show the frames along X-direction and Y-directions, respectively. The
beams are having eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the
computational model.
218
11.4
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
219
High Seismicity
Moderate Seismicity
Low Seismicity
(Zone V)
(Zone IV)
(Zone II and III)
URM
URM
URM
Building Type MRF SW
MRF SW
MRF SW
INF
INF
INF
Basic Score
2.5
2.8
1.6
3.0
3.6
3.2
4.4
4.8
4.4
Mid rise
+0.4
+0.4
+0.2
+0.2
+0.4
+0.2
+0.4
-0.2
-0.4
High rise
Vertical
irregularity
Plan
irregularity
+0.6
+0.8
+0.3
+0.5
+0.8
+0.4
+1.0
0.0
-0.4
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
Pre-code
Postbenchmark
-1.2
-1.0
-0.2
-1.0
-0.4
-1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
+1.4
+2.4
N/A
+1.2
+1.6
N/A
+0.6
+0.4
N/A
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
-1.0
-1.2
-1.0
-1.4
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
Soil Type I
-1.2
Final Score
Comments
1.5
1.6
Sa/g = 2.50.
Z = 0.16; R = 3; I = 1.0
Ah =
220
Table 11.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight,
Wi
(kN)
4901
4652
4709
4707
4979
4883
3426
Floor No
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
11.4.2.1
Height, hi
(m)
Lateral Force, Qi
(kN)
3.60
6.60
10.2
13.8
17.4
21.0
24.6
19
59
143
261
438
627
604
Column Shear
Storey No
nf
nc
Ac (m2)
B
G
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
6.585
10.4.2.2
Vj
vavg
(kN)
(MPa)
2580.52
2462.04
2270.40
1979.46
1594.63
1080.25
479.69
0.507
0.484
0.446
0.389
0.313
0.212
0.094
Remarks
>0.4
>0.4
>0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
The details of the column axial stress calculations are given in Table 11.8. The
average axial stresses in column is within the allowable axial stress of 0.24 fck ( =
0.2420 MPa = 4.8 MPa).
221
Vb(kN)
nf
h (m)
L (m)
P (kN)
Axial stress
X-direction.
2150
24.6
15.95
442
0.9 MPa
Y-direction.
2150
24.6
20.6
428.8
0.9 MPa
11.4.2.4
Frame Drift
The calculation detail for the storey drift is shown in Tables 11.9. The frame drift
ratio at each storey level is considerably less than the allowable drift.
Table 11.9: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction
Storey
B
G
1
2
3
4
5
11.4.2.5
Vc (kN)
653.7
835.5
731.9
694.1
633.7
461.6
532.2
222
DR
0.00092
0.00092
0.00103
0.00097
0.00089
0.00064
0.00074
Building system
C / NC / NA
Load path:
Adjacent buildings:
NA
Mezzanines:
No deterioration of concrete:
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey:
No soft storey:
No mass irregularity:
No vertical discontinuities:
Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity:
No diaphragm discontinuity:
No re-entrant corners:
No non-parallel system:
No interfering wall:
C
NC
Drift check:
223
C / NC / NA
C
NC
NC
NC
C
Beam bars:
Beam bar splices:
NC
Stirrup spacing:
NC
C
Bent-up bars:
Joint reinforcing:
NC
Deflection compatibility:
NC
NA
NA
Diaphragm reinforcement:
Shear walls
Shearing stress check:
NA
Reinforcing steel:
NA
NA
Connections
C
Column connection:
Wall connection / Transfer to shear walls:
NA
C
Foundations
Foundation performance:
Deterioration:
Overturning:
224
11.5
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
outlined in Chapter 3.
11.5.1
Material Properties
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 11.11.
Table 11.11: Materials properties
Material
Concrete
Reinforcing Steel
Brick infill
20 MPa
415 MPa
1.65
11.5.2
Modulus of Elasticity
(MPa)
19365 MPa
2 105 MPa
1237.5
225
Infill Walls
Figure 11.6 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 11.12
STR3
STR6
STR3
STR2
STR1
STR3
STR3
STR2
STR2
STR4
STR4
STR3
STR4
STR5
STR3
STR2
STR1
STR3
STR3
STR2
STR2
STR6
STR4
STR4
STR5
226
STR4
STR6
STR3
STR3
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR2
STR1
STR1
STR2
STR5
STR3
STR4
STR4
Figure 11.6(c): Location of infill walls at a typical storey (above ground storey)
Thickness (m)
Width (m)
Strength (kN)
STR1
0.23
STR2
0.23
1.933
1.502
485.159
455.389
STR3
0..23
2.408
639.265
STR4
0.23
2.023
391.378
STR5
0.23
1.753
326.540
STR6
0.23
1.846
513.724
considered at the top of the pile caps. The effect of soil-structure interaction was
ignored in the analyses.
227
Floor
Seismic
weight
(kN)
Lumped
mass
(Ton)
3426.36
CM (m)
CR (m)
esi(m)
349.27
7.52
11.33
8.42
11.18
0.90
0.15
4883.30
497.79
7.49
11.48
8.59
11.18
1.10
0.30
4978.94
507.54
7.49
11.59
8.59
11.18
1.10
0.41
4706.50
479.77
7.52
11.51
8.47
11.18
0.95
0.33
4708.90
480.01
7.55
11.47
8.47
11.18
0.92
0.29
4652.10
474.22
7.55
11.45
8.42
11.15
0.87
0.30
4900.50
499.54
7.62
11.37
8.63
10.99
1.00
0.38
Floor
Design
CM1 (m)
esi(m)
Design
CM2 (m)
8.42
11.18
0.90
0.15
9.66
12.58
5.38
10.08
8.59
11.18
1.10
0.30
9.94
12.97
5.04
10.00
8.59
11.18
1.10
0.41
9.94
13.23
5.04
9.95
8.47
11.18
0.95
0.33
9.75
13.02
5.30
9.99
8.47
11.18
0.92
0.29
9.73
12.93
5.36
10.01
8.42
11.15
0.87
0.30
9.65
12.92
5.44
9.97
8.63
10.99
1.00
0.38
9.92
12.97
5.32
9.77
228
Lumped
mass
(Ton)
3426.36
349.27
7.52
11.33
7.57
11.15
0.05
0.18
4883.30
497.79
7.49
11.48
7.66
11.16
0.17
0.32
4978.94
507.54
7.49
11.59
7.62
11.17
0.13
0.42
4706.50
479.77
7.52
11.51
7.56
11.17
0.04
0.34
4708.90
480.01
7.55
11.47
7.56
11.17
0.02
0.30
4652.10
474.22
7.55
11.45
7.73
11.10
0.18
0.35
4900.50
499.54
7.62
11.37
8.08
11.30
0.46
0.07
Floor
CM (m)
CR (m)
esi(m)
Table 11.13 (d): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)
esi (m)
CR (m)
Floor
Design
CM1 (m)
X
Y
Design
CM2 (m)
X
Y
7.57
11.15
0.05
0.18
8.39
12.63
6.65
10.03
7.66
11.16
0.17
0.32
8.54
12.99
6.45
9.98
7.62
11.17
0.13
0.42
8.48
13.25
6.51
9.93
7.56
11.17
0.04
0.34
8.38
13.04
6.67
9.97
7.56
11.17
0.02
0.30
8.37
12.94
6.72
9.99
7.73
11.10
0.18
0.35
8.62
13.00
6.47
9.90
8.08
11.30
0.46
0.07
9.11
12.50
6.14
10.23
Design Base Shear: Design lateral forces at each storey level are applied at the
centre of mass locations independently in two horizontal directions. Table 11.14
shows lateral force distribution at different storey level.
229
Table 11.14: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Floor
no
Seismic weight,
Wi (kN)
Height, hi
(m)
3426.36
24.60
603.63
592.36
396.38
4883.30
21.00
626.93
615.23
411.68
4978.94
17.40
438.84
430.65
288.16
4706.50
13.80
260.93
256.06
171.34
4708.90
10.20
142.62
139.96
93.65
4652.10
6.60
58.99
57.89
38.74
4900.50
3.60
18.49
18.14
12.14
Table 11.15 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the spectral
accelerations for the building. Figure 11.7 shows the position of the periods in the
response spectrum.
Table 11.15: Comparison of fundamental time periods
Empirical formula
Computational model
Without infill
stiffness
With infill
stiffness
Without infill
stiffness
T (s)
0.49
0.83
1.06
1.28
Sa/g
2.50
1.64
1.28
1.07
Table 11.26 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 11.8 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are compared in Table 11.17
230
3.0
Empirical formula
3.0
2.5
Computational
model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Empirical formula
2.5
2.0
Computational
model
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
Period (s)
1.0
1.5
Period (s)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
Uy
0.18
78.29
1.35
0.07
11.19
Vx
Vy
Vx
Vy
2150
2110
1412
1412
(VB )
891
1030
745
693
VB / VB
2.37
2.05
2.88
3.10
Equivalent static
(V )
B
Response spectrum
231
Figure 11.8: First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
11.5.5
Evaluation results
The analysis results show that a number of frame sections are deficient.
Tables 11.18 and 11.19 shows the DCR for a few column and beam sections,
respectively.
232
DCR in
Flexure
GAC1
GAC2
GAC3
1.3
1.2
1.2
DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
GAC4
GAC7
1AC1
1AC2
1.9
1.6
1.8
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
1AC3
1AC4
1AC7
2AC1
1.9
2.2
2.4
1.9
2AC2
1.6
DCR in Shear
V2
V3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.2
2.5
0.6
0.3
Beams
GAB1
GAB5
GAB8
GAB9
GAB10
GAB11
1.26
0.39
0.23
1.09
4.30
3.09
3.07
2.54
3.45
0.74
0.65
2.21
5.21
2.50
4.10
1.56
GAB15
GAB16
GAB18
GAB20
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.29
1.99
1.38
1.22
1.55
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.54
2.00
1.10
1.01
1.47
GAB38
1AB1
1AB5
1AB8
0.53
1.03
1.07
1.16
2.42
1.20
4.82
4.14
0.70
2.07
2.60
2.25
2.31
1.68
2.51
3.27
233
The storey drift for every storey is within the code limit of 0.4%. Figure 11.9
shows the storey drifts in X-direction.
6
5
Storey Level
4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
Storey Drift
Figure 11.9: Storey drifts along X-direction for design seismic base shear
10.6
10.6.1
Pushover Curve
Figure 11.10 shows the pushover curves for the building with and without infill
stiffness. The building has sufficiently large strength and stiffness at the global
level when infill stiffness was modelled, but it does not show desired strength and
stiffness when the infill stiffness was ignored.
11.6.2
Pushover analyses in either direction failed to give a performance point for both
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectrum
234
for the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in
Figures 11.11(a) to 11.11(d).
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500 V (WS)
B
2000
1500
VB (WOS)
1000
500
0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.11(a): Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(without infill stiffness)
235
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.11(b): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(Without infill stiffness)
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.11(c): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(With infill stiffness)
236
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.11(d): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(With infill stiffness)
11.6.3
Storey Level
4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1
0.00
0.07
0.14
0.21
0.28
0.35
Storey Drift
Figure 11.12(a): Maximum storey drift along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
237
6
5
Storey Level
4
3
2
1
G0
B
-1
0.00
0.07
0.14
0.21
0.28
0.35
Storey Drift
stiffness)
10.6.4
Vulnerability Index
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of the stories are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D. Vulnerability index of the buildings are
given in Tables 10.20(a) and 10.20(b).
Location Yielded
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
Column
Xdirection Beam
Column
Ydirection Beam
13
58
11
16
238
VIbldg
0.006
0.050
Location Yielded
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
Column
Xdirection Beam
19
32
16
44
18
Column
Ydirection Beam
VIbldg
0.053
0.043
Storey
Level
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
VIstorey
Storey
Level
B-IO
IO-LS
LS-CP
CP-C
C-D
D-E
>E
VIstorey
0.045
0.018
0.003
0.003
0.003
239
11.7
(i)
The linear analysis results show that almost all the beam and column
sections are safe in flexure. But a few column sections and all beam
sections are deficient in shear. Pushover analysis also reveals the same
weakness of the structure.
(ii)
(iii)
All the pushover analyses failed to give a performance point, except for Ydirection with infill stiffness. So the performance is not acceptable. The
building needs to be retrofitted.
11.8
RETROFIT
A global retrofit strategy of placing walls inside the office space was not possible.
So, a local retrofit strategy was adopted. Two beam sections, AB5 and AB8, were
retrofitted to take additional 25% shear force. Figure 11.13 shows the location of
these beams in a typical floor. The beam sections can be retrofitted by concrete
jacketing or glass fibre reinforced polymer wrapping.
AB 5
AB 5
AB 8
240
The shear strengthening is modelled in the structure by changing the shear hinge
properties. The re-analysis of the retrofitted structure shows that the building
achieves desirable performance in either direction. The drift at the performance
point is about 0.25% which is acceptable. Figures 11.14 (a) and 11.14(b) show
the pushover curves along X- and Y-directions, respectively. Figures 11.15(a) and
11.15 (b) shows the demand and capacity spectra for the retrofitted building along
X- and Y- directions, respectively.
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Figure 11.14(a): Pushover curves along X-direction for the retrofitted building
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Figure 11.14(b): Pushover curves along Y-direction for the retrofitted building
241
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.15(a): Demand and capacity spectra for push along X-direction
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Figure 11.15(b): Demand and capacity spectra for push along Y-direction
242
APPENDIX A
MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE
The three soil types used in the data collection form of FEMA 154 are C, D and E.
The soil types are mapped to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002, by
Table A1.
Table A1: Mapping of soil types
UBC 1997
Soil Type
IS 1893: 2002
Criteria
Soil Type
A Hard rock
B Rock
C Dense soil
and soft rock
Criteria
A1
APPENDIX B
MODELLING OF MASONRY
INFILL WALLS
B.1
For an infill wall located in a lateral load-resisting frame, the stiffness and strength
contribution of the infill has to be considered. Non-integral infill walls subjected to
lateral load behave like diagonal struts. Thus an infill wall can be modelled as an
equivalent compression only strut in the building model. The concept is shown in
Figure B1. It is a trussed frame model. Rigid joints connect the beams and
columns, but pin joints connect the equivalent struts to the beam-to-column
junctions. This section explains the procedure based on Smith and Carter (1969) to
calculate the modelling parameters (effective width, elastic modulus and strength)
of an equivalent strut.
The length of the strut is given by the diagonal distance (d) of the panel (Figure
B1c) and its thickness is equal to the thickness of the infill wall. The elastic
modulus of the strut is equated to the elastic modulus of masonry (Em). As per
IBC: 2000, Em is given as
Em = 750 f m/
B1
(B.1)
(B.2)
w ' 0.43sin 2
=
h
d
Length of
contact
(B.3)
Emt sin 2
4 Ec I c h '
B2
(B.4)
B.2
EFFECT OF OPENINGS:
wopen = w w
(B.5)
B3
(B.6)
w = 1 1.25 Ar
B.3
(B.7)
The strength of the equivalent strut is governed by the lowest of the failure loads
corresponding to the following failure modes.
a) Local crushing of the infill at one of the loaded corners.
b) Shear cracking along the bedding joints of the brickwork.
The diagonal tensile cracking need not be considered as a failure mode, as higher
load can be carried beyond tensile cracking
B.3.1
The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following equation
(Smith and Carter, 1969).
Rc = c t sec f m
(B.8)
The length of contact at the column (c) at the compression diagonal corner is
calculated using the following formula.
c
h
2 h
B4
(B.9)
B.3.2
Shear Failure
(B.10)
Where, f bs = The bond shear strength between the masonry and mortar. It is
varies from 0.24 MPa for low strength mortar to 0.69 MPa for high strength
mortar (Ramesh 2003). Again to be in conservative side f bs is taken as 0.24 in the
calculation.
B5
APPENDIX C
MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES
C.1
C.1.1
The stress-strain curve of concrete in compression forms the basis of analysis and
design of any reinforced concrete section. Such curves are usually prescribed in
design codes and give details of the shape of the curve (often idealised as
parabolic in the initial ascending portion, and thereafter linearly descending or
flat). The ultimate peak strength (and corresponding strain level, usually 0.002)
and the ultimate compressive strain (in the range 0.003 to 0.004) are also
specified. However, the maximum compressive strength and strain gets enhanced
when the concrete is confined, and details of such effects are not available in the
prevailing codes.
The characteristic and design stressstrain curves specified by the IS 456: 2000,
for concrete in flexural compression are depicted in Figure C1. The maximum
stress in the characteristic curve is restricted to 0.67 f ck . The curve consists of a
parabola in the initial region up to a strain of 0.002 (where the slope becomes
C1
c c 2
0.447
f
ck 2
for c <0.002
fc =
0.002 0.002
Stress
0.67fck
characteristic curve
0.447fck
(C1)
design curve
0.001
0.002
0.003
cu = 0.0035
Strain
Figure C1: Characteristic and design stress-strain curves for concrete IS 456
C2
The IS 456: 2000 model does not truly reflect the actual stress-strain behaviour in
the post-peak region, as (for convenience in calculations) it assumes a constant
stress in this region (strains between 0.002 and 0.0035). In reality, as evidenced
by experimental testing, the post-peak behaviour is characterised by a descending
branch, which is attributed to softening and micro-cracking in the concrete.
Also, the IS code model does not account for strength enhancement and ductility
due to confinement.
The British code [BS 8110] model of stress-strain curve is similar to IS 456: 2000
model. ACI 318M-02 recognizes the inelastic stress distribution of concrete at
high stress. As maximum stress is approached, the stress is approached, the
stress-strain relationship for concrete is not a straight line but some form of curve
(stress is not proportional to strain). The general shape of a stress-strain curve is
primarily a function of concrete strength and consists of a rising curve from zero
to a maximum at compressive strain between 0.0015 to 0.002 followed by a
descending curve to an ultimate strain (crushing of concrete) 0.003. The ACI
code assumes relationship between concrete compressive stress distribution and
concrete strain to be rectangular.
Confined
concrete
'
f cc
First
hoop
fracture
Unconfined
concrete
'
f co
Ec
Esec
t co 2co sp
ft'
Assumed for
cover concrete
cc
cu
Figure C2: Stress-strain curves for concrete Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988)
Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) proposed a stress-strain model for concrete
subjected uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement
C3
(Figure C2). The concrete section may contain any general type of confining
steel: either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops with or without
supplementary cross ties. These cross ties can have either equal or unequal
confining stresses along each of the transverse axes.
The salient strain locations in the model (Figure C2) are given by the ultimate
compressive strain (cu), and the strains corresponding to the peak strength, viz.,
cc in the case of confined concrete and co (usually 0.002) in the case of
'
unconfined concrete. The corresponding peak strengths are f cc
in the case of
'
in the case of unconfined concrete. The following
confined concrete and f co
cu = 0.004 +
1.4 s f yh sm
f 'cc
f 'cc
1
'
f co
cc = co 1 + 5
(C2)
(C3)
rectangular sections with effective confining stress f l ' applied equally in the two
orthogonal directions. The influence of various types of confinement is taken into
account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which is dependent on
the configuration of the transverse and lateral reinforcement.
7.94 f l '
fl '
2 '
f cc = f 'co 1.254 + 2.254 1 +
f 'co
f co
'
1
fl ' = ke s f yh
2
(C4)
(C5)
C4
case of a rectangular section with unequal lateral confining stresses in the X- and
'
'
/ f co
(Figure C3).
Y- directions, a chart has been proposed to calculate f cc
f 'cc x r
r 1 + x r
(C6)
c
Ec
f'
; r=
; Ec = 5000 f 'co ; Esec = cc .
cc
Ec Esec
cc
K=
1.0
f ' cc
f 'co
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure C3: Confined strength determination from lateral confining stresses for
rectangular sections
This model has the following advantages:
(a)
(b)
C5
(c)
An
expression for f 'cc was proposed to simplify the modelling of Figure C3.
0.85
0.5ke s f yh
f cc = f co 1 + 3.7
f 'co
'
'
(C7)
The expression for ultimate compressive strain has also been modified as follows:
cu = 0.004 +
0.6 s f yh sm
f 'cc
(C8)
C.1.2
The characteristic and design stressstrain curves specified by the Code for
various grades of reinforcing steel (in tension or compression) are shown in
Figure C4.
C.1.3
Moment-Curvature Relationship
1 d
section, using the plane sections remain plane hypothesis under pure bending,
C6
the curvature can be computed as the ratio of the normal strain at any point across
the depth to the distance measured from the neutral axis at that section (Figure
C5).
500
fy
characteristic curve
400
design curve
stress (MPa)
0.87 fy
300
200
Es = 2 105 MPa
100
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
strain
If the bending produces extreme fibre strains of 1 and 2 at top and bottom at any
section as shown in Figure C5 (compression on top and tension at bottom assumed
in this case), then, for small deformations, it can be shown that =
( 1 + 2 ) ,
D
where D is the depth of the beam. If the beam behaviour is linear elastic, then the
moment-curvature relationship is linear, and the curvature is obtained as
=
M
EI
(C9)
where EI is the flexural rigidity of the beam, obtained as a product of the modulus
of elasticity E and the second moment of area of the section I.
C7
sections, failure is triggered by yielding of tension steel whereas in overreinforced section the steel does not yield at the limit state of failure. In both
cases, the failure eventually occurs due to crushing of concrete at the extreme
compression fibre, when the ultimate strain in concrete reaches its limit. Underreinforced beams are characterised by ductile failure, accompanied by large
deflections and significant flexural cracking. On the other hand, over-reinforced
beams have practically no ductility, and the failure occurs suddenly, without the
warning signs of wide cracking and large deflections.
Centre of curvature
d
R
ds(1- 1)
y1
y2
ds
Neutral Axis
ds(1+ 2)
In the case of a short column subject to uniaxial bending combined with axial
compression, it is assumed that equation C9 remains valid and that plane sections
C8
C.1.4
Using the Modified Mander (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curves for
concrete and the stress-strain curve for steel as per IS 456: 2000, for a specific
confining steel, moment curvature curves can be generated for beams and columns
(for different axial load levels).
Assumptions
The strain is linear across the depth of the section (plane sections remain
plane).
2.
3.
4.
5.
C.1.4.2
1.
2.
3.
Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of tension
C9
4.
5.
Calculate the tensile force from the stress in tensile reinforcement and the
area of bar and compare with the net compressive force (Resultant
concrete force + compressive force in compression reinforcement). If the
difference lies within the specified tolerance, the assumed neutral axis
depth is adopted. The moment capacity and the corresponding curvature
of the section are then calculated.
determined from the iteration (using bisection method) and steps (3) to
(5) are repeated until it converges.
6.
Assign the next value, which is larger than the previous one, to the
extreme concrete compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5).
7.
C.1.4.3
1.
2.
3.
Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of each
longitudinal reinforcement bar.
4.
C10
5.
Calculate the axial force from the equilibrium and compare with the
applied axial load. If the difference lies within the specified tolerance, the
assumed neutral axis depth is adopted. The moment capacity and the
corresponding curvature of the section are then calculated. Otherwise, a
new neutral axis is determined from the iteration (using bisection method)
and steps (3) to (5) are repeated until it converges.
6.
Assign the next value, which is larger than the previous one, to the
extreme concrete compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5).
7.
C.1.5
Moment-Rotation Parameters
= dx ..(C10)
A
l
+ (u y )l p (C11)
2
l
..(C12)
2
C11
The physical definition of the plastic hinge length, considering the ultimate
flexural strength developing at the support, is the distance from the support over
which the applied moment exceeds the yield moment. The established practice is
to consider
l p = 0.5 D (C14)
Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001) proposed the length of plastic hinge as:
A
l
(a)
(b)
lp
y
(c)
Figure C6: (a) cantilever beam, (b) Bending moment distribution, and (c)
C12
correct value of the length l, applicable for cantilever action. In the case of a
frame member in a multi-storey frame subject to lateral loads, it may be
conveniently assumed that the points of contraflexure are located (approximately)
at the mid-points of the beams and columns. In such cases, an approximate value
of l is given by half the span of the member under consideration.
C.2
Flexural plastic hinges will develop, along with the predicted values of ultimate
moment capacity, provided there is no prior failure in shear. In order to prevent
this occurrence, design codes prescribe specifications (e.g. ductile detailing
requirement of IS 13920: 1993) for adequate shear reinforcement, corresponding
to the ultimate moment capacity level.
However, in practice, shear failure are commonly seen to occur in beams and
columns in the event of a severe earthquake, owing to inadequate shear design. In
non-linear analysis, this can be modelled by employing shear hinges. These
hinges should ideally be located at the same points as the flexural hinges near the
beam column joints. If the shear hinge mechanism is triggered before the
formation of flexural hinge, the moment demand gets automatically restricted and
the full flexural hinge may not develop.
Shear force-deformation curves to assign shear hinges for beams and columns can
be calculated as follows. It is assumed to be symmetric for positive and negative
shear forces. A typical force-deformation curve is shown in Figure C7.
Yield shear strength (Vy) is calculated by adding strength of the shear
reinforcement (Vsy) to the shear strength of the concrete section (Vc) in case of
column. But for beam, when it is designed for medium and high ductility, shear
strength contribution of concrete is completely ignored as in cracked section
C13
concrete does not provide any shear resistance. Shear resistance carried by shear
reinforcement (Vsy) as per clause 40.4 of IS 456: 2000 is.
Vsy = 0.87 f y Asv
d
sv
(C16)
Where, fy
Asv
Total cross sectional area of one stirrup considering all the legs
effective depth
Spacing between two stirrup
Sv
Vu = 1.05Vy
Vy
Residual
Shear Strength
0.2 Vy
y
1.5y
m=15y
Shear deformation ()
For calculation of Vsy, above formula is used putting 1.00fy instead of 0.87fy for the
actual strain hardened reinforcement.
Vsy = 1.0 f y Asv
d
sv
(C17)
(C18)
Shear resistance taken by the concrete (Vc) as given in the clause 40.2.2 of IS 456:
2000 is
C14
Vc = c bd
where = 1 +
0.85 0.8 f ck ( 1 + 5 1)
3Pu
1.5 and c =
6
Ag f ck
Here =
(C19)
0.116 f ck bd
1.0
100 Ast
3Pu
0.5 is taken
Ag f ck
(C20)
1 G bW d
f
l
(C21)
1 + 4n v
Es bw d
C15
(C22)
Here, v =
Asv
E
; n = s and bw = web width
sv bw
Ec
C.3
The axial load versus deformation behaviour of the equivalent struts under
compression can be modelled with axial hinges. In absence for data, an elastic
behaviour up to the failure load can be assumed. Any tensile load carrying
capacity of the strut is neglected. Figure C8 shows a typical load-deformation
relation for the axial hinge in strut. R and y represent the failure load and the
corresponding deformation, respectively, of the strut.
The failure load (R) is calculated from the lower of the failure loads
corresponding to local crushing and shear cracking. The expressions are given in
Appendix B.
The deformation corresponding to the failure load can be calculated based on the
initial stiffness as follows.
y =
R
Rd
=
. (C23)
AE w t Em
Here
C16
Load
IO, LS, CP
y
Deformation
Figure C8: A typical stress-strain relation for axial hinges in equivalent struts.
C17
APPENDIX D
VULNERABILITY INDEX
Performance range(i)
Weightage factor(xi)
<B
B IO
0.125
IO LS
0.375
LS CP
0.625
CP C
0.875
C D, D E, and >E
1.000
no.
D1
1.5 N ic xi + N ib xi
c
i
(F.1)
+ N ib
Here, N ic and N ib are the numbers of hinges in columns and beams respectively
for the i'th performance range.
0.625
0.375
0.125
Load
0.875
IO
LS
CP
Deformation
D2
VIbldg is measure of the overall vulnerability index for the building. A high value
of VIbldg reflects poor performance of the building components (i.e., high risk) as
obtained from pushover analysis. But this index may not reflect a soft storey
mechanism, in which a performance point may not be achieved.
A storey vulnerability index (VIstorey) can be defined to quantify the possibility of a
soft/weak storey with the formation of flexural hinges. For each storey the VIstorey
is defined as:
VI storey
N x
=
N
c
i i
c
i
(D.2)
where N ic is the number of column hinges in the storey under investigation for a
particular performance range. In a given building, the presence of soft / weak
storey is reflected by a relatively high value of VIstorey for that storey, in relation to
other storeys. If the analysis terminates by the formation of shear hinges, then the
above definition is not applicable.
D3
APPENDIX E
ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES
E.1
TYPES OF BRACING
Concentric
bracings may be of diagonal or X-brace type as shown in Figure E1. In Xbracings at least one of the members in each floor is under tension and hence it is
preferred to diagonal bracings.
stiffness of the frame and decrease the lateral drift. However, increase in the
stiffness may attract a larger inertia force due to earthquake. Further, while the
bracings decrease the bending moments and shear forces in columns, they increase
the axial compression and tension in the columns to which they are connected.
Since RC columns are strong in compression, it may not pose a problem to retrofit
in a RC frame using concentric steel bracings. However, it should be ensured that
there is adequate pre-compression in the columns due to gravity loads to offset the
tension generated due to earthquakes. The foundation uplift due to this tension
should be avoided. Concentric bracings usually have lower energy dissipation
capacity, especially under compression range of the cyclic loading. In order to
lessen the increase in the lateral stiffness of the frame and improve the energy
dissipation capacity, eccentrically braced frames (Figure E2) have been used.
E1
Due to eccentric connection of the braces to beams, the lateral stiffness of the
system depends upon the flexural stiffness of the beams and columns, thus
reducing the lateral stiffness of the frame. The vertical component of the bracing
E2
force due to earthquake cause transverse concentrated load on the beams at the
point of connection of the eccentric bracings. Under this load, plastic hinges are
formed in the stub length of the beam, along with large shear. The beam should
have adequate ductility to dissipate energy through these plastic hinges. Although
eccentrically braced frames attract lesser base shear due to their lesser stiffness
compared to concentrically braced frame, they under go larger lateral drift.
Further, use of eccentric brace in RC frames is usually not appropriate due to the
low plastic hinge deformation capacity and low shear capacity of RC beams.
Steel braces have enough ductility in tension to dissipate energy, but are weak in
compression. Due to this reason, normally X-bracings are preferred over diagonal
bracings in seismic zones. Diagonal bracings can be used in the zones having
high intensity of wind particularly in one direction. Diagonal bracings in two bays
in each orthogonal direction in plan with opposite slopes in a given storey can be
used instead of X bracings.
E.2
The connections are most important in braced frames, especially while retrofitting.
Forces in the braces transfer to frame beam-column joints though the connections.
The strength, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics of braced frame
under earthquake loading are often dictated by connections. Various types of
connections (Maheri and Sahebi, 1997 and Maheri and Hadjipour, 2003) are
shown in Figure E3.
E.2.1 Connection Type I (Figure E3-a)
This type of connection is suitable in new construction. While constructing the
concrete frame, anchor bolts should be placed at appropriate locations in concrete,
and designed to have enough anchorage strength.
transferred through gusset plates and end plates to the concrete frame at beam
column junction through the anchor bolts.
E3
introduced in frames during construction so that special provisions for the built-up
corner can be made at design and construction stages.
E.2.3 Connection Type III (Figure E3-c)
This type of connection is identical to Type I, except for the method of anchoring
end plates into the RC joint. The plates are connected to the concrete members
using straight bolts introduced through holes in the members and anchored at the
opposite face with a bearing plate and nuts.
connecting plate and bearing plate is less than or equal to the width of beam or
column. Advantage of this method is that bolts can be placed in the concrete even
after frame construction. Hence, this method is applicable for retrofit of existing
RC frames using steel bracing.
E.2.4 Connection Type IV (Figure E3-d)
This type of connection is identical to Type III, but for the location of bolts. In the
earlier method, the width of the connecting plate and bearing plates are less than
the width of beam and column and the bolts were inserted through holes in the
members. In this method, the connecting plate and bearing plate project beyond
the width of the beam and column. The bolts are outside the members. Hence
drilling of holes through the reinforced concrete beam and column is avoided.
This method is useful for retrofit of existing RC frames.
E4
Gusset plate
Brace
Connecting
Bearing
plate
E5
E.3
The design of braces is an iterative process, because the forces in the braces
depend on the stiffness of the braces. The braces are subjected to alternative
tension and compression during the seismic loading and have to be designed for
both tension and compression. In X-bracing, at any instant, one brace is subjected
to tension while the other is subjected to compression. The stiffness and strength
of brace under compression is often neglected in design, and only stiffness of the
brace subjected to tension is considered. The braces are designed to resist only
tension.
The braces can be designed by analysing the frame by any of the following
methods
An appropriate section for the brace has to be selected satisfying the maximum
value of effective slenderness ratio of the IS code. The design forces in a brace
from the analysis are used to calculate the required section. If the required section
is very different from the initial section, the analysis needs to be performed again
with the revised section properties of the brace. This process is repeated until the
section is adequate for the forces in the member.
In the nonlinear static method, the iterative procedure of selecting the brace
sections and modelling the brace is similar to the linear methods. In addition,
axial load versus deformation behaviour has to be modelled as axial hinge
properties.
E6
Approximate analysis
In this method the lateral force resisted by the frame is neglected and hence it is
conservative to find the forces in the braces. The following steps may be used to
calculate the brace forces rapidly and more conservatively (FEMA 172, 178).
Calculate the base shear and distribute the base shear to storeys
Calculate the axial force in the diagonal brace (Fbr) by the following
expression.
Vj Lbr
Fbr =
N br s
(E.1)
Here,
Vj = Storey shear in jth storey
Lbr =
Behaviour of Braces
The common modes of failure of braces system are as follows.
E7
Fracture of fillet welds between gusset plate and connecting end plate.
Stress
Axial force
Tension
Displacement
Strain
Compression
(a). Conventional brace system
Figure E4: Behaviour of conventional brace and X bracing under cyclic loading
individual brace behaviour is same as the conventional brace, the over all frame
behaviour meets the requirements of cyclic loading. The typical behaviour of Xbracing under cyclic loading is shown in Figure E4-b.
The degradation of
E8
E.4
NON-BUCKLING BRACES
The non-buckling
bracing system (Figure E5) is an innovative, patented concept (Indian patent No.
155036, dated April 30, 1981 and United States patent No. 5175972, dated
January 5, 1993), which overcomes the problem of buckling and low energy
dissipation in regular braces in the compression portion of the cycle.
Sleeve
Grout
Core
Figure E5: Non- buckling braces
E9
Projection of the core beyond the sleeve is to be designed such that the core does
not yield or buckle in that region.
Axial
Load
Tension
Axial
Deformation
Compression
Figure E6: Non-prismatic core element
Extensive experimental and analytical studies have indicated that as long as the
sleeve is adequately stiff, the core can be subjected to a compressive strain well
beyond the yield stain, without the overall buckling of the strut. Hence the nonbuckling braces can dissipate energy both in tension and compression, as shown in
Figure E6.
The strength and stiffness of the non-buckling brace can be altered using cores
with non-prismatic cross-sections. Two parameters , are used to describe the
non-prismatic core properties as given below (Figure E7).
Ac
Areduced
Lreduced
L
E10
A reduced
L reduced
Ac
Where,
Ac
Areduced
Lreduced
The strength is governed by the value of , while the stiffness is governed by the
values of and . Changes in strength and stiffness of bracing lead to changes in
base shear and drifts of the building. Buildings can be designed at required
performance levels by changing the base shear and drifts of the building.
The reduced area of the core ( Ac) is chosen so as to have yield strength of the
reduced area equal to the bracing force. The sleeve flexural stiffness is chosen so
that its Euler buckling strength is at least 25% greater than the bracing force from
analysis. The enlarged area of the core at ends (Ac) is chosen so as to avoid
buckling of the core in the projection beyond the sleeve. The length of the core
with reduced area ( L) is chosen depending upon the desired lateral stiffness. In
the analysis an equivalent prismatic brace, corresponding to the non-prismatic
core element, is used to model the brace.
The load-deformation behaviour of steel brace in tension is taken from FEMA 273
(1997) and is shown in Figure E8. It consists of a loading curve with the elastic
axial stiffness until it reaches its yield capacity (fy = 250 N/mm2, y = 0.00125).
Thereafter, it yields at a constant yield load until the deformation becomes 12
E11
times the yield deformation. At this deformation, the capacity is reduced to 80%
of the yield load until the deformation becomes 15 times the yield deformation
where the brace is assumed to fracture.
1.2
1
B
LS CP
IO
0.8
P/Py
C
D
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
16
/ y
Column size
Design of core
Area of core =
P 300000
=
=1000mm 2
fy
300
= 2 507
E12
= 380mm.
Sleeve
Gusset plate
150
Effective length
30
200
= 2 l = 2 380
= 760mm.
= 190kN.
190103
=1267mm 2
150
= 32 104mm4.
Radius of gyration r
= 17.5 mm.
L 760
=
=43.4 ac =160.2 N/mm 2
r 17.5
Area required is
190103
=1186mm 2 <1379mm 2 (provided)
160.2
f y Ag
m0
3001379
= 358kN > 190kN ( OK )
1.15
E13
An fu
m1
Tdn =
0.71035450
= 326kN >190kN ( OK )
1
Design of sleeve
Effective length of brace is length can be taken as length between to two gusset
plate corners.
L = 6100 2 200 = 5700mm.
170 mm
Minimum inner dimension required for square tube is 175mm. Minimum inner
dimension required for circular tube is 220mm. Sleeve can be designed as square
tube or circular tube.
175 mm
220 mm
E14
(175+2t )
1
4
4
175+2t ) - (175 ) = 6.254106
(
12
( 220+2t )
4
4
( 220+2t ) - ( 220 ) = 6.254106
64
190/71.3 = 2.66
= 3bolts.
Pitch of bolts
2.5 20
= 50mm.
2 50 + 2 30
= 160mm.
E15
100
L = 1.2 l
30
= 8.66mm
12
L
238
=
= 27.48
r
8.66
Design compressive stress, fcd for column buckling curve from table 7.4c of IS:
800 revised code is 242.3N/mm2
Load carrying capacity of gusset plate = 310 8 242.3 = 600.9kN > 380kN.
(OK.)
Check for tensile strength of gusset plate by Whitmore width concept
Whitmore width = 110 + 2 100 tan30 = 226mm.
Design strength due to rupture of critical section
Tearing strength of net section may be taken as
Tdn =
E16
Provide 50 x 8 mm stiffeners along free edges and along center line of load path
on outer sides of plates.
Connection between gusset plate and L-plate
Force coming on each gusset plate is 380kN.
Weld
218kN
380kN
3.5m
5.0m
270mm
312kN
320mm
Connection of gusset plate to L-Plate
Welds are designed to resist taking axial load and transferring the force to bolts.
Thickness required for vertical weld:
t=
311103
= 7.48mm
22700.7110
218103
= 4.4mm
23200.7110
Provide 8mm fillet weld for vertical and 6mm fillet weld for horizontal on both
sides of plates.
Design of bolt connecting frame and L-plate
Force in bolt connected to column is 156/4 = 39.0kN.
Force in bolt connected to beam is 109/4
= 27.25kN.
E17
Z required is
M
21060000
=
= 106.36103 mm3
f
0.66300
300mm
50mm
300mm
156000
= 9.75N/mm 2 < 0.45f y ( OK )
32050
5300mm.
sleeve)
Area corresponding to yield for given load 1014mm2
Stiffness can be changed with out changing the strength by changing value
keeping a value constant. This can be observed by braces b, d, f. and c, e, g
required stiffness could be obtained by changing value.
E18
Identifier
0.367
kN/m
0.90
304
40777
0.30
0.90
248
33573
0.20
0.90
165
22625
0.30
0.75
248
37846
0.20
0.75
165
26019
0.30
0.50
248
48035
0.20
0.50
165
34692
Bearing
Column
L - Plate
Gusset plate
Gusset
Beam
Bolts
Sleeve
E19