May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009

Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

Vol. 6, No. 2 (2012) 1250009 (16 pages)
c World Scientic Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S1793431112500091
SEISMIC PROTECTION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS
USING FUSE ELEMENTS
WAIEL MOWRTAGE (VAIL KARAKALE)
Civil Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering, Marmara University
Goztepe Kampusu, Kadikoy, Istanbul, 34722, Turkey
vail.karakale@marmara.edu.tr
waiel.mowrtage@boun.edu.tr
Received 14 January 2011
Accepted 19 May 2011
This paper presents a new concept on collapse prevention of existing RC buildings during
a seismic event. The idea is to install steel panels in specied locations in the structure
to reduce inter-story drifts. The panels are expected to work as a fuse in an electric
circuit when a major earthquake occurs; the panels will attract the seismic forces and
they may totally damaged but they will prevent severe damage in the main structural
system. The proposed panels are light-weight, easy to handle, and can be constructed
very quickly. Moreover, they are cheap and do not need formwork or skilled workers. To
test the concept, a half-scale, single-story 3D reinforced concrete frame specimen was
constructed at the shake-table laboratories of the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Research Institute of Bogazici University, and subjected to recorded real earthquake
base accelerations. The amplitudes of base accelerations were increased until a moderate
damage level is reached. Then, the damaged RC frames was retrotted by means of
steel panels and tested under the same earthquake. The seismic performance of the
specimen before and after the retrot was evaluated using FEMA356 standards, and
the results were compared in terms of stiness, strength, and deformability. The results
have conrmed eectiveness of the proposed retrot scheme.
Keywords: Seismic; RC buildings; steel panel; shake table.
1. Introduction
Surveys carried out in the aftermath of several destructive earthquakes worldwide,
as in case of Haiti 2010 (M
w
= 7.0) disastrous earthquake, shows that many low-rise
reinforced concrete buildings have suered heavy damages due to inadequate lateral
stiness and unsuitable design and construction as shown in Fig. 1. Although,
about one third of the existing buildings at present were built before 1971 and
still remains vulnerable as constructed, seismic evaluation and retrot of these
buildings have progressed very slowly and are still urgently needed to reduce loss-
of-life due to major earthquakes. Under a major earthquake, the columns in some
old reinforced concrete buildings lose their gravity-load carrying capacity due to
inadequate amount of conning hoops or shear reinforcement causing collapse such
1250009-1
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Story and pancake collapse of RC buildings during major earthquakes: (a) story collapse
in the 2009 LAquila (Italy) Earthquake and (b) pancake collapsed apartment block, 1999 Golc uk.
as the so-called pancake [Langenbach, 2007] as shown in Fig. 1(b). To avoid such
unpleasant incident, retrot of weak members would be necessary. However, the
seismic retrot of an old building is still so expensive that the progress of retrot
is too slow-paced worldwide [Kabeyasawa, 2005].
In research, there are two main concepts for seismic retrot of existing RC build-
ings. The rst concept depend on enhancing the seismic resistance (i.e., increasing
the strength or ductility or both strength and ductility) of the structure by adding
new structural members or by strengthen some of the existing structural mem-
bers as shown in Fig. 2(a). Some of the most widely used techniques based on
this concept are construction of new RC shear walls and jacketing existing beams,
columns, or joints with new reinforced concrete, steel, or (FRP or CF ) ber wrap
overlays [Balsamoa et al., 2005]. However, constructing a new RC shear wall in an
existing building needs to evacuate the occupants, which makes the rehabilitation
technique complicated and not very practical; and the use of FRP or CF in column
or beam wrapping need special anchor details and skilled labors, which increase
the retrot costs. The second seismic performance enhancement concept depends
on reducing the earthquake aects on the structure by changing the dynamic char-
acteristics of the structure using seismic isolation and damping device [Di Sarma
and Manfredi, 2010] as shown in Fig. 2(b). One of the most widely used techniques
based on the second concept is base isolation technique [Chen and Jeng, 2001].
This technique is most eective for relatively sti low-rise buildings with large
mass compared to light, exible structures. However, base isolation is technically
1250009-2
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
Adding new
RC shear wall
Jackting columns
or wrap by FRP
(a)
Base isolation using siesmic
isolators devices (ex :LRB )
increasing damping using
dampers
(b)
Adding slender steel wall to
increase damping through out of
plane buckling
Existing RC columns need to be
jacketed or wrapped by FRP to
increase its ductility in order to
withstand the inter story drifts
needed to excite the out of plane
buckling of the slender steel wall
(c)
Fig. 2. Seismic retrot concepts: (a) rst retrot concept (aims to increase strength and duc-
tility), (b) second concept (aims to reduce earthquake aects on the structure by changing the
dynamic characteristics of the structure), and (c) use of rst and second concepts (i.e., increasing
the damping and jacketing existing columns).
complex and costly to implement and can be considered for historic structures or
where a performance level greater than life safety is required.
In the literature, some other retrot techniques based on the rst and second
concepts use thin steel shear walls as shown in Fig. 2(c). The wall sheets are installed
in the structure and works to increase the structural damping (i.e., using second
1250009-3
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
concept) by getting out of plane buckling during the earthquake [Hitaka and Mat-
sui, 2003]. However, the existing RC columns need to be conned (i.e., using the
rst concept) to withstand the high level of inter-story drifts, which are required
to satisfy the out of plan buckling of the steel sheets. As a result, this technique
has a higher fabrication cost. Hence developing an economical way of retrot for
the existing seismic vulnerable buildings is one of the most important technological
targets in earthquake engineering. In this paper, a new economical concept for seis-
mic protection of existing RC buildings is proposed. In this concept, a lightweight
fabricated steel panels which can be t easily inside a RC reinforced concrete frame
are proposed for retrotting low-rise RC frame structures. The panels may consists
of simple steel truss or may consists of a thin steel plate of 3 mm thickness welded
in between two 40 mm box section steel proles as shown in Figs. 3 and 9. To
reduce material costs, the 3 mm thick steel plate of the panel can be perforated and
shear stieners may be added to increase the panel shear strength. At each story
of the building the panels are rigidly connected to the upper level RC beams and
semi-rigidly connected to the lower level RC beams in the story. The panels will
be designed to have higher lateral stiness than the lateral stiness of the exist-
ing RC columns. During an earthquake, it is expected that the panels will work
as an electric fuse in an electric circuit by attracting more seismic forces than the
existing RC columns and they may totally damaged but they will prevent severe
damage in the main structural system by reducing inter-story drifts. Moreover, the
semi rigid connections at the bottom of the panels will help in reducing story oor
accelerations and results in reducing inter-story drifts and prevent possible collapse
(i.e., prevent possible pancake or story collapse). The panels are light weight, easy
to handle, and can be constructed very quickly. Moreover, they are cheap, and do
not need formwork or skilled workers. In this paper, a shaking table tests on a
1/2 scale 3D RC frame model specimen are performed to investigate the seismic
Lightweight Steel panels
Panel stiffness is higher than existing
column stiffness K
panel
> K
column
Semi rigid
connection
rigid
connection
3mm thick
steel sheet
Box or pipe steel profile
steel plate
holes
Stiffeners
Fig. 3. Proposed retrot concept.
1250009-4
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
behavior of the frames before and after the retrot by the proposed fabricated steel
panels. The paper documents the details of the test program, including specimen
properties, test setup, instrumentation, and test procedure. Test results and major
observations are also presented and discussed.
2. Shaking Table Tests
2.1. Test specimen and test setup
Two 1/2 scale reinforced concrete bare frames were constructed in the laboratory
and connected by I-shape steel beams to form 3D model specimen shown in Fig. 4.
Average compressive strength of concrete obtained from standard cylinder tests
after 28 days was 20 MPa. Articial mass simulation [Harris and Sabnis, 1999] has
been applied as a method for model design of the specimen. Table 1 show the
dynamic similitude requirements used in scaling the model specimen, where S is
the ratio of prototype to model properties, or similitude factor. S

and S
L
are the
two controlling similitude factors for scaling, respectively, the stress and length.
Each RC frame specimen had an identical reinforcement layout. No. 8 bars with
50 mm
2
cross-sectional area and 8 mm nominal diameter were used as longitudinal
225 cm
300 cm
200 cm
300 cm
R.C.Beam
R.C. Column
R.C. Column
Earthquake Direction
RC Frame
I160
EQ
Steel Plate
(215/225/5)
Top View
Front View
Steel Beam
I160
Steel Beam
225 cm
RC Frame
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
20 cm
Column cross section
Beam cross section
Longitudinal Reinforcement: 8 8
Stirups : 8 /10-5
Stirups : 8 /10-5
Longitudinal Reinforcement: 6 8
Note :
1 in = 2.54 cm
Fig. 4. Dimensions and reinforcement details for 3D RC frame model specimen.
1250009-5
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
Table 1. Similitude factors for 1/2 scaled RC frames (S = similitude
factor).
Physical quantity Similitude equation Similitude factor
Length L S
L
2
Strain S

= 1 1
Stress S

= S
E
1
Poisson ratio S

1 1
Youngs modulus S
E
S
E
= S

1
Density S

S
E
/S
L
0.5
Time S
T
S
1/2
L
1.414
Acceleration S
a
1 1
Area of reinforcement A
s
S
2
L
4
Moment of inertia S
4
L
16
reinforcement. The stirrups were 8 mm in diameter and it was 100 mm spaced. To
simulate the mass of the model to satisfy the mass density scale factor S

given in
Table 1, the beams of the RC frames were connected to 50-mm-thick steel plate by
means of shear connectors, and additional mass of steel blocks were added on the
top of the steel plate making the total weight of the specimen equal to 36 kN.
By using the shake table at the Earthquake Engineering Department of Kandilli
Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University, specied uni-
axial earthquake motions were applied to the 3D specimen. The shake table is a
uniaxial horizontal vibration shake table driven by a servo-hydraulic actuator. It is
3m 3 m in plan and capable of shaking 100 kN payload with 2-g acceleration (i.e.,
two times the acceleration of gravity in the horizontal direction). Table motion and
data acquisition are carried out by a Data Physics 550 WIN digital data control
and acquisition system. Three displacement transducers (LVDT) were placed at
the top of the model specimen to measure the top displacements (i.e., mid top dis-
placements, right top displacement, and left top displacement), two displacement
transducers were used to measure the column rotations at support joint and one
displacement transducer were place at the shaking table level to measure the shake
table displacement as shown in Fig. 5. Seven capacitive accelerometers were placed
at several points of the specimen to measure the dynamic response of the specimen,
specially the top acceleration and out of plane accelerations.
2.2. Testing and results
The model specimen have been subjected to the El Centro earthquake 1940 (EW
component) applied in the longitudinal direction of the specimen. Because of the
similitude requirements the time scale (S
T
) and the intensity of earthquake records
have been altered to ensure that the shaking table motion will produce the required
inelastic behavior of the model. The original record consisting of 1,562 points with
time step of 0.02 s has been changed to the time step increment of 0.0141s as it is
1250009-6
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
Two RC frames
LVDT
I-Shape steelbeam
Two LVDT
to Measure
column joint
Rotations
Shear Connectors
Shake Table
Fig. 5. Testing setup.
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Scaled El Centro EQ
EL Centro EQ 1940
Fig. 6. Shake table time history.
required by the time simulation factor in Table 1 (S
T
model = S
T
prototype/1.414
= 0.02/1.414 = 0.0141 s). Therefore, the total span of the earthquake applied on
the shaking table was 22 s as shown in Fig. 6. The acceleration values of the record
were not scaled because the scale factor for the acceleration S
a
is equal to unity as
given in Table 1 (S
a
= 1).
The amplitude of the scaled record was increased up to (0.33 g) at which a mod-
erate damage level was reached (i.e., plastic hinges occurs in the columns), and the
base sheartop displacement hysteresis loops were recorded and presented in Fig. 7.
The moderately damaged specimen were retrotted by adding to each RC frame
two 350-mm-wide fabricated steel panels near its columns and connect them with
1250009-7
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
Max Base accelertaion 0.3 G
Max Base acceleration 0.33G
Envelop Curve
Fig. 7. Base sheartop displacement hysteresis curves of the RC frame.
rubber layer
The steel panel
10 cm diameter
anchor bolts
Steel plate
RC beam
Rigid
connection
Semi rigid
connection
Semi rigid connection details
1 cm thick
0.5 cm thick
Fig. 8. Retrotted specimen.
the upper and lower RC beams by means of epoxy anchored shear connectors as
shown in Fig. 8. The cross-sectional details of the steel panel are shown in Fig. 9.
Each steel panel was rigidly connected to the upper beam; however, it was semi
rigidly connected to the lower beam (i.e., base beam) by inserting a piece of rubber
in between the steel panel connecting plate and the RC base beam. The retrotted
specimen were tested after 1 day of installation under the same scaled earthquake
1250009-8
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
Units in mm
Panel Cross section details
Fig. 9. Steel panel cross-sectional details.
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
max base acceleration 0.33G
Fig. 10. Base sheartop displacement hysteresis curves of one of retrotted RC frames.
used before retrotting, and the base sheartop displacement hysteresis loops were
recorded and presented in Fig. 10.
From Figs. 10 and 7, it can be observed that the inter-story drift of the retrotted
frame reduced four times compared with the nonretrotted frame under the earth-
quake excitation. Moreover, rotations of one of the RC column joint near the base
were measured in case of nonretrotted and retrotted specimens and the results
are plotted in Figs. 11(a) and 11(b), respectively. From rotation measurements and
according to FEMA356 standard [FEMA356, 2000], it is clear that the insulation of
the lightweight steel panels inside the RC frame will enhance its seismic performance
by shifting the performance level from collapse prevention CP level (column joint
rotations 0.03 rad) to immediate occupancy IO level (column joint rotations 0.005).
1250009-9
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Sec
R
o
t
a
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
i
a
n
s
)
Max Base Acceleration 0.33 G
(a)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Sec
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
R
o
t
a
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
i
a
n
s
)
Max Base Acceleration 0.33 G
(b)
Fig. 11. Measured RC column rotations of the specimen before (a) and after (b) retrot.
In order to obtain the lateral load carrying capacity of the retrotted specimen,
base acceleration amplitude were increased up to 0.56 G at which a shear failure
occurred in the upper connection between the panels and the RC beams. In the
end of tests, the base sheartop displacement hysteresis curves of the retrotted
specimen were plotted and presented in Fig. 12.
The hysteretic damping of the specimen before and after retrot were calculated
from the hysteretic loops and given in Fig. 13 [de Silva, 2000]. It was observed
that the retrotted specimen by the proposed fuse-type steel panels increased the
structural damping of the specimen by 50% (i.e., from 18% to 33% as a percent of
1250009-10
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
Envelop Curve
Max baseacc 0.26 G
Max baseacc 0.33 G
Max Base Acc 0.42 G
Max baseAcc 0.56 G
0
Fig. 12. Base sheartop displacement curves of one of retrotted RC frames under 0.56 G max
base acceleration.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50
Top displacement (mm)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

%
damaged frame strengthned bysteel
panels
RCFrame only
Fig. 13. Hysteretic damping of the specimen before and after retrot.
critical damping). This is due to the energy dissipation provided by the simi-rigid
connection of the steel panels with the frame beam, at which a piece of rubber were
inserted in between the steel panel connecting plate and the RC base beam.
The tests were stopped when a damage occur at the top connection of the steel
panel with the RC frame as shown in Fig. 14(a). During tests, it was observed that
the panels were rocking at its bottom connection with the frame, and no damage
occur at the bottom connection as shown in Fig. 14(b).
1250009-11
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
Anchor bolts failure
occur at top connection
(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Damage pattern: (a) top connection and (b) bottom connection (semi rigid).
3. Theoretical Work
3.1. Nonlinear pushover analysis
To evaluate the expected performance of the proposed fuse element in increasing
the seismic resistance of the RC frame in the real size (i.e., full scale), nonlin-
ear pushover analysis were performed using SAP2000 [2007] nite element pro-
gram. Two nite element models were created. The rst model represent the 1/2
scale specimen and the second model represents the real size case. The models
consist of frame elements are shown in Fig. 15. Nonlinear hinge properties were
assigned at the ends of each frame element. These properties depend on the axial
forcemoment interaction diagrams of the frame sections. The axial forcebending
moment interaction diagrams for the column, beams, and steel panel were obtained
using X-TRACT software [2003]. Some of these diagrams are shown in Fig. 16.
Frame elements
Spring elements
Hinge supports
Fixed supports
Fig. 15. SAP2000 nite element model.
1250009-12
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 16. Axial forcebending moment interaction diagrams for real size and scaled model frame
element sections: (a) half-scale steel panel, (b) half-scale RC column, (c) full-scale steel panel, and
(d) full-scale RC column.
Sectional dimension of the fuse steel panel in real size can be fund using moment
of inertia similitude factor given in Table 1. From the table, it is clear that the
moment of inertia of the prototype is 16 times the moment of inertia of the 1/2
scale model. In the beginning, pushover analysis were preformed for the two model
frames (i.e., 1/2 scale and the full scale) without strengthening by the fuse panels,
and the base sheartop displacement curves were obtained. Then the fuse panels
were added. The bottom semi-rigid connection of the fuse panel with the foundation
were dened by hinge support and spring element with rotational stiness, K

. The
K

value were assumed to be equal to moment capacity of the steel panel divided by
1250009-13
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(

k
N
)
1/2 scale RC frame
1/2 scale RC frame with fusepanels
Full scale RC framewith fusepanels
Full scale RC frame
Fig. 17. Base sheartop displacement curves obtained from nonlinear analysis.
the measured rotation from the experiment (i.e., K

= M/, where = 0.003 rad

obtained from Fig. 11(b)). This assumption relay of the fact that before the moment
capacity of the panel reached the bottom connection of the panel will start to rotate
and the panel will start to rack. From Fig. 16 it is shown that the moment capac-
ity of the steel panel in half scale is 2.7 kNm, so K

values for half scale model

is = 2.7/0.003 = 900 kNm/rad, and for full scale model the moment capacity of
the steel panel is 12 kNm which give K

= 12/0.003 = 4,000 kNm/rad. The base

sheartop displacement pushover curves were obtained for the strengthened models
and presented with the nonstrengthened results in Fig. 17. The pushover curves of
the 1/2 scale models shows good agreements with the experimental results. From
Fig. 17, it is clear that the strength of the full scale RC frame increased by 67%
(from 60 to 100 kN) when strengthened by the fuse steel panels. Moreover, at the
same load level, the displacements (i.e., story drifts) reduced in half.
4. Conclusions
Based on the results of these experimental and theoretical works, the following
conclusions are drawn:
(1) Comparing the behavior of the specimen before and after retrotting when they
subjected to the same base excitation of maximum acceleration of 0.33 G (i.e.,
see Figs. 7 and 10), it is clear that adding the fabricated panels to the RC frame
specimen results in four times reduction of story drift and an increase of the
stiness.
(2) From measured joint column rotation and according to FEMA356, Tables 6
8, the performance of the RC columns of the test specimen were improved
from CP (collapse prevention, i.e., column joint rotations 0.03 rad) in case of
1250009-14
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
Seismic Protection of Existing RC Buildings Using Fuse Elements
nonretrotted specimen to IO (immediate occupancy, column joint rotations
0.005 rad) in case of retrotted specimen.
(3) It is clear from Figs. 13 and 7 that the strength of specimen was increased two
times after retrotted it by the proposed fabricated steel panels.
(4) Inserting 1 cm thick rubber layer at the panel-frame bottom connection makes
the panels racking and dissipate energy, as a result the retrotted specimen
damping increased by 50% compared with the nonretrotted specimen.
(5) At the end of retrotted specimen tests, failure occurs in the upper rigid con-
nections of the panels with the RC beams and not in the RC columns which
indicate that the panels works as an electric fuse in an electric circuit by attract-
ing the seismic forces and they fail but they prevent RC columns collapse. In
future research, more tests are required to test the concept in multistory RC
frame case (i.e., two- and three-story cases).
(6) The fuse steel panels can be modeled easily as frame elements in nite ele-
ment programs and a rotational spring constant stiness related to the moment
capacity of the panel (i.e., K

= Panel moment capacity/0.003rad) can be used

to dene the semi-rigid connection between the panel and the RC frame.
(7) From pushover nonlinear analysis results it is clear that the strength of the full
scale RC frame increased by 67% (from 60 to 100 kN) when strengthened by
the fuse steel panels. Moreover, at the same load level, the displacements (i.e.,
story drifts) reduced in half.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Prof. Ozal Yuzugullu for his valuable comments
and suggestions during specimen preparation. Tests were conducted at Bogazici
University shake table laboratory their contributions are acknowledge.
References
Balsamoa, A., Colombob, A., Manfredic, G., Negrod, P. and Protac, A. [2005] Seismic
behavior of a full-scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates, Eng. Struct. 27,
769780.
Chen, S.-T. and Jeng, V. [2001] Seismic assessment and strengthening method of existing
RC buildings in response to code revision, Earthquake Eng. Eng. Seismol. 3(1),
6777.
de Silva, C. W. [2000] Vibration Fundamentals and Practice (CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton,
FL).
Di Sarno, L. and Manfredi, G. [2010] Seismic response of reinforced concrete buildings
retrotted with dissipative steel braces, J. Civil Eng. Archit. 4(2) (Serial No. 27),
ISSN 19347359, USA.
FEMA356 [2000] Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Build-
ings. November 2000, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Harris, H. G. and Sabnis, G. M. [1999] Structural Modeling and Experimental Techniques,
2nd Edition (CRC Press LLC, New York).
1250009-15
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
May 30, 2012 16:46 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250009
W. Mowrtage
Hitaka, T. and Matsui, C. [2003] Experimental study on steel shear wall with slits,
J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 129(5), 586595.
Kabeyasawa, T. [2005] Seismic evaluation and economical strengthening of reinforced
concrete buildings, Asian J. Civil Eng. (Build Hous) 6(6), 457476.
Langenbach, R. [2007] Preventing pancake collapses: Lessons from earthquake-resistant
traditional construction for modern buildings of reinforced concrete, Int. Conf.
Forensic Engineering Failure Diagnosis and Problem Solving, 6th to 9th December
2007, Mumbai, India.
Santhi, H. M., Knight, G. M. S. and Muthumani, K. [2005] Evaluation of seismic per-
formance of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames, J. Perform. Constr.
Fac., ASCE 19(4), 277282.
SAP2000 Version 11.0.8 Software [2007] Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley.
X-TRACT Sotware [2003] Imbsen and Associates, USA.
1250009-16
J
.

E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

a
n
d

T
s
u
n
a
m
i

2
0
1
2
.
0
6
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
w
o
r
l
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.
c
o
m
b
y

1
8
8
.
1
6
5
.
1
7
9
.
1
2
7

o
n

0
2
/
1
5
/
1
3
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.