International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 147-159 Article ID: IJCIET_06_09_014

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication

PERFORMANCE OF RC BUILDING UNDER

DYNAMIC FORCES AND SUITABILITY OF
STRENGTHENING BY FRP JACKETING
G. D. LAKADE
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur
Dr. C. P. Pise
Associate Professor & H.O.D
Department of Civil Engineering
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur
S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur
ABSTRACT
In the recent years it has been observed many mass destruction due to
earthquakes which results into loss of lives also. Therefore, it is of great
importance that attention to be given to the evaluation of the adequacy of
strength in RC framed structures to resist strong ground motions. In this
project, a 15 year old four storey reinforced concrete structure has been
considered, which lies in Zone III according to IS 1893:2002 classification of
seismic zones in India. FRP jacketing is a most appropriate method of
retrofitting for the failing members in the given G+3 storied RC structure. The
norms stated in ACI 440-2R.08 have been followed for calculations and to
suggest the method and scheme of application of FRPs to the member and
also the number of plies/wraps to be used. The entire modelling, analysis and
design for the structure has been done using limit state design.
Key words: Equivalent Static Method, Demand Capacity Ratio, Flexural
Capacity, Shear Capacity, Reinforced Concrete Structure, FRP Strengthening
Cite this Article: G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D.
D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh. Performance of RC Building under Dynamic
Forces and Suitability of Strengthening by FRP Jacketing. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(9), 2015, pp. 147-159.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

147

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes around the world are predominantly responsible for the destruction to life
and property in large numbers. In the recent years, India has faced major destruction
due to failure of structures during earthquakes and because of this a lot of lives and
properties had been lost. Hence, in order to mitigate such hazards it becomes very
important that attention should be given to check the adequacy of strength in RC
framed structures to resist strong ground motions, also it is important to find out need
of seismic strengthening of structures that will enhance the seismic performance of
existing RC structures.
India is divided into four zones on the basis of seismic activities. As per Seismic
Zoning Map of IS: 1893-2002, they are Zone II, III, IV and V. The reinforced
concrete structure has been considered in this study lies in Zone III
A large number of existing buildings requires seismic evaluation due to various
reasons. However, the existing structure in earthquake region has to be provided by
some rehabilitation to sustain the expected performance level. Before rehabilitation
work, it is necessary to understand the capacity of the existing building to check if it
meets the intended performance level.

Methods used for Seismic

Equivalent Lateral Force: Seismic analysis of most of the structures is still carried
out on the basis of lateral force assumed to be equivalent to the dynamic loading. The
base shear which is the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on the basis
of structure mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding mode shape.
The base shear is distributed along the height of structures in terms of lateral forces
according to Code formula [14]. This method is usually conservative for low to
medium height buildings with a regular shape.
Response Spectrum Analysis: This method is applicable for those structures where
modes other than the fundamental one affect significantly the response of the
structure. In this method the response of Multi-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) system is
expressed as the superposition of modal response, each modal response being
determined form the spectral analysis of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system,
which are then combined to compute the total response. Modal analysis leads to the
response history of the structure to a specified ground motion; however, the method is
usually used in conjunction with a response spectrum. [22]
Capacity/Demand (C/D) Method: The method has been initially presented by
Applied Technology Council (ATC). The forces and displacements resulting from an
elastic analysis for design earthquake are called demand. These are compared with the
capacity of different members to resist these forces and displacements. A (C/D) ratio
less than one indicate member failure and thus needs retrofitting. When the ductility is
considered in the section the demand capacity ratio can be equated to section ductility
demand of 2 or 3. The C/D procedures have been subjected to more detailed
examination in the light of recent advances in earthquake response studies. The main
difficulty encountered in using this method is that there is no relationship between
member and structure ductility factor because of nonlinear behaviour.[22]

2. SEISMIC EVALUATION OF BUILDING

A four storey R.C. framed building is located in seismic zone III and on medium soil.
The dimensions of building are 42 m X 16 m in plan, floor to floor height of building

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

148

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing

is 3.2 m and slab thickness is 140 mm. Columns are of size (450 x 450) mm, size of
beam is (300 x 530, 300 x 450) mm. Material M20 and Fe415. Evaluate the building
for seismic resistance and provide strengthening options if required for the
deficiencies identified.[3]

2.1 Detailed Evaluation

The detailed evaluation includes linear and nonlinear analysis. Linear and nonlinear
analysis includes static and dynamic analysis. Linear static analysis is equivalent
static analysis and whereas Linear dynamic analysis includes response spectrum and
time history methods. Nonlinear static analysis is pushover method and corresponding
dynamic analysis is inelastic time history analysis.
In this study the equivalent static analysis of building was done under gravity
loads and seismic loads. Then compared the critical forces and moments of beams and
columns. The modelling and analysis was carrying out in ETABS 9.7. The
preliminary evaluation is a quick procedure to establish actual structural layout and
assess its characteristics that can affect its seismic vulnerability [28].

3. CALCULATION OF DEMAND CAPACITY RATIO (DCR)

From the analysis member forces are calculated and this is considered as Demand. By
existing structural data the capacity of members was also calculated and the members
that fail under earthquake loading are determined by calculating the Demand Capacity
Ratio (DCR) for each member individually. Determining which members will fail is
essential because it gives a rough idea about which retrofit technique is suitable.
The detailed evaluation of the building involves equivalent static lateral force
procedure, load with response reduction factors and Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR)
for ductility as in IS 13920:1993.
Checks done:

DCR for moments of resistance in sagging and hogging for beams

DCR for shear capacity in beams
DCR for moment of resistance in columns
DCR for shear capacity in columns

Steps for Finding DCR for Moments of Resistance in Sagging and

Hogging:
Obtain the maximum moment for the beam from design with earthquake loading. This
is the demand moment.

For finding depth of neutral axis Xu (from design without earthquake loading)

0.36fckbXu + fscAsc = 0.87fyAst

Where, fsc = 700 (1-d/xu)

In hogging, the capacity moment of resistance is found out by the formula-

Mr (H) = 0.36fckbXu (d- 0.44Xu) + fscAsc (d-d)

In sagging, the capacity moment of resistance is found out by the formulaMr (S) = 0.36fckbXu (d- 0.44Xu) + fscAst (d-d)

d = effective cover = 25 mm

DCR is calculated separately for both sagging and hogging.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

149

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

DCR = Demand/ Capacity

If DCR <1, the member is labelled PASS i.e. it can take the moment induced by the
seismic loading.
If DCR >1, the member is labelled FAIL i.e. it cannot take the moment induced by
the seismic loading.

Steps for finding DCR for moments of resistance in columns:

Obtain the maximum moment for the column from design with earthquake loading.
This is the demand moment.
The percentage of steel for the given section is calculated-

Ps= (As/bD)*100
The Interaction diagram in SP-16 has been used to find the value of Mu/fckbD2 for the
corresponding values of p/fck and Pu/fckbD
Value of capacity moment is found out from the above i.e. Mu
DCR = Demand/ Capacity
If DCR <1, the member is labelled PASS i.e. it can take the moment induced by the
seismic loading.
If DCR >1, the member is labelled FAIL i.e. it cannot take the moment induced by
the seismic loading.

Steps for finding DCR for shear capacity of beams:

Obtain the maximum shear for the beam from design with earthquake loading. This is
the maximum shear to be resisted (demand).
Note down the spacing Sv of the 2-legged stirrups from the concrete design for the
beam, without seismic loading.
Calculate the percentage of steel = 100As/bd.
For the corresponding percentage, find the value of c (design shear strength of
concrete) from table 19 of IS 456: 2000. The following are calculated-

Vus = 0.87 fyAsv d / Sv

Vu1 = Vus+ cbd
Vu2= 1.4 [Mr(H) + Mr(S)]/ Lc

Where, Lc = clear span of the member

Shear resisted (capacity) is given by the maximum of Vu1 and Vu2.

If DCR <1, the member is labelled PASS i.e. it can take the shear induced by the
seismic loading.
If DCR >1, the member is labelled FAIL i.e. it cannot take the shear induced by the
seismic loading

Steps for finding DCR for shear capacity of columns

Obtain the maximum shear for the column from design with earthquake loading. This
is the maximum shear to be resisted (demand).
Note down the spacing Sv of the links from the concrete design for the column,
without seismic loading.
Calculate the percentage of steel 100As/bd.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

150

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing

For the corresponding percentage, find the value of c(design shear strength of
concrete) from table 19 of IS 456: 2000. The following are calculated-

Vus = 0.87 fyAsv d / Sv

Vu1 = Vus+ cbd
Vu2= 1.4 [MR (L) + MR(R)]/ Hc

Where Hc= height of the member

Shear resisted (capacity) is given by the maximum of Vu1 and Vu2.

If DCR <1, the member is labelled PASS i.e. it can take the shear induced by the
seismic loading.
If DCR >1, the member is labelled FAIL i.e. it cannot take the shear induced by the
seismic loading.

4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

A Ground with three storied (G+3) existing reinforced concrete building located in
zone III of India was taken for the investigation. This existing building is designed
and constructed using IS 456-1978 only for the gravity loads i.e., without considering
the previous seismic code IS1893-1984.First the equivalent static analysis of building
was done under gravity loads and seismic loads. Then compare the critical forces and
moments of beams and columns at face of joint. The modelling and analysis was
carrying out first in ETABS 9.7. Modelling consisted of following steps.

4.1. Structural Discretisation

The beams and columns layout were available. Then the structure was discretised.
Discretisation includes fixing of joint coordinates and member incidences.

4.2. Property Specification and Support Condition

Properties were assigned to the members. The member properties were given. Then
support conditions were given to the structure. The support condition given was fixed.

4.3. Loading
The self-weight of the members will be taken automatically by the software. Live
loads of slabs were entered as floor loads. Live loads were considered as per IS: 875
(Part 2)-1987. The wall loads were provided to the beam based on provisions in IS:
875 (Part 1)-1987. Seismic loads were applied automatically by the software and is
based on IS 1893 (Part I)-2002.

Live load - 4 kN/m2

Dead load - Dead load includes self-weight of columns, beams, slabs, brick walls,
floor finish etc.
Seismic load - The seismic load values were calculated as per IS 1893-2002.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

151

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

Figure 1 Building Plan

4.4. Load Combinations

The load combinations used for analysis are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

DCON 1 = 1.5(DL)
DCON 2 = 1.5(DL + LL)
DCON 3 = 1.2(DL + LL + EQX)
DCON 4 = 1.2(DL + LL - EQX)
DCON 5 = 1.2(DL + LL + EQY)
DCON 6 = 1.2(DL + LL - EQY)
DCON 7 = 1.5(DL + EQX)
DCON 8 = 1.5(DL - EQX)
DCON 9 = 1.5(DL + EQY)
DCON 10 = 1.5(DL - EQY)
DCON 11 = (0.9DL + 1.5 EQX)
DCON 12 = (0.9DL - 1.5 EQX)
DCON 13 = (0.9DL + 1.5 EQY)
DCON 13 = (0.9DL - 1.5 EQY)

5. RESULTS
5.1. DCR Calculation for Beams
5.1.1. Moment Capacity of Beams
The Demand moment of beams was found out from seismic analysis results, and the
moment capacity of members was calculated form the existing building structural
data. This data is used to calculate the Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR), and the results
found are represented as follows;
From results obtained regarding DCR some members fails in flexure as the DCR
value is more than one; hence retrofitting of these members is required. These
members are suggested a retrofitting by FRP Sheet strengthening.
5.1.2. Shear Capacity of Beams
Also no beam fails in shear as the DCR value is less than one, it means that the
members are having enough shear resisting capacity. Hence no retrofitting is required
for increasing shear capacity of beams.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

152

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing

5.1.3. Capacity of Columns

No column fails in flexure as well as shear as the demand capacity ratio obtained was
less than one. Hence no retrofitting is required for columns also.

5.2. FRP DESIGN CALCULATIONS

From results obtained regarding DCR some members fails; hence retrofitting of these
members is required. These members are suggested a retrofitting by FRP Sheet
strengthening. Hence the number plies of Carbon fibre FRP sheet required are
calculated as shown below;
Table 5.2.1 Beams at Basement Level
Beam No.
B34
B40
B70

Demand
Moment
(kNm)
122.50
103.86
103.86

Mn (kNm)
344.19
344.66
156.92

fs,s (N/mm2)
74.59
41.27
140.46

No. of
plies

ff,s (N/mm2)
4.56
2.51
17.64

1
1
1

Figure 5.2.1 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Basement Beams for 1 CFRP Wrap
Table 5.2.2 Beams at Basement Level
Beam No.
B34
B40
B70

Demand
Moment
(kNm)
122.50
103.86
103.86

Mn (kN-m)

fs,s (N/mm2)

ff,s (N/mm2)

No. of
plies

371.50
371.61
371.61

73.94
40.91
40.91

4.44
2.44
2.44

2
2
2

Figure 5.2.2 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Basement Beams for 2 CFRP Wrap

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

153

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

Table 5.2.3 Beams at Plinth Level
Beam No.
B3
B4
B6
B7
B14
B32,56
B33,57
B37,53
B41,50
B44,47

Demand
Moment (kNm)
100.44
100.51
100.51
100.44
96.77
96.95
83.31
76.53
76.72
76.72

Mn (kN-m)

fs,s (N/mm2)

ff,s (N/mm2)

156.92
148.58
156.92
151.63
157.15
139.91
89.02
113.09
140.80
98.28

140.46
147.67
140.27
145.09
136.80
134.76
165.29
118.09
87.41
142.37

17.64
21.54
17.61
20.04
18.30
17.49
28.96
19.14
12.84
24.21

No. of
Wraps
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Figure 5.2.3 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Plinth Beams for 1 CFRP Wrap
Table 5.2.4 Beams at Plinth Level
Beam No.
B3
B4
B6
B7
B14
B32
B33
B37
B41
B44
B47
B50
B53
B56
B57

Demand
Moment (kNm)
100.44
100.51
100.51
100.44
96.77
96.95
83.31
76.53
76.72
76.72
76.72
76.72
76.53
96.95
83.31

Mn (kN-m)

fs,s (N/mm2)

ff,s (N/mm2)

174.64
166.30
174.64
169.35
174.12
153.64
102.09
125.79
154.55
111.18
111.18
154.55
125.79
153.64
102.09

135.38
141.11
135.20
75.78
131.65
128.72
147.07
109.22
82.99
128.94
128.94
82.99
109.22
128.72
147.07

16.63
20.14
16.59
18.80
17.23
16.25
25.16
17.29
11.92
21.42
21.42
11.92
17.29
16.25
25.16

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

154

No. of
Wraps
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing

Figure 5.2.4 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Basement Beams for 2 CFRP Wrap
Table 5.2.5 Beams at First floor Level
Beam No.
B4
B5
B6
B8
B9
B11
B12
B14
B15
B18
B19
B28
B33
B35
B38
B42
B47
B48
B53
B54
B58
B61
B63

Demand
Moment
(kNm)
96.03
96.03
95.99
92.89
92.88
92.89
98.46
98.46
92.89
92.89
98.46
95.99
95.99
77.67
71.82
71.98
71.99
90.25
71.99
90.25
71.98
71.82
77.67

Mn
(kN-m)

fs,s (N/mm2)

ff,s (N/mm2)

No. of
plies

153.64
111.22
153.64
169.35
169.35
169.35
153.65
169.36
169.35
169.35
169.36
153.64
153.64
96.24
102.09
102.09
91.62
235.86
91.62
235.86
102.09
102.09
96.24

159.65
245.74
159.90
139.47
139.00
139.47
164.71
143.38
139.47
139.47
143.38
159.90
159.90
159.59
144.14
143.97
168.23
67.30
168.23
67.30
143.97
144.14
159.59

22.91
40.93
22.96
18.86
18.78
18.86
24.17
19.90
18.86
18.86
19.90
22.96
22.96
27.78
24.61
24.58
29.64
5.63
29.64
5.63
24.58
24.61
27.78

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

155

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

Figure 5.2.5 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Basement Beams for 2 CFRP Wrap
Table
Table 5.2.6 Beams at Second floor Level
Beam
No.
B10
B13
B19
B45
B48
B49
B53
B61
B66
B67
B71

Demand
Moment (kNm)
82.00
87.95
82.00
79.73
59.87
79.73
59.90
59.90
59.87
79.73
79.73

Mn (kN-m)

fs,s (N/mm2)

ff,s (N/mm2)

147.12
153.64
125.83
157.40
111.18
157.40
91.62
91.62
111.18
157.40
157.40

168.67
175.00
207.80
143.68
125.15
143.68
164.65
164.65
125.15
143.68
143.68

25.05
25.79
33.00
21.17
20.75
21.17
29.00
29.00
20.75
21.17
21.17

No. of
plies
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Figure 5.2.6 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Second Floor Beams

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

156

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing
Table 5.2.7 Beams at Third floor Level
Beam No.
B10
B13
B45
B48
B49
B66
B67
B71

Demand
Moment (kNm)
65.78
64.53
55.23
42.66
55.23
42.66
55.23
55.23

Mn (kN-m)
147.12
158.08
162.07
113.71
162.07
113.71
162.07
162.07

fs,s (N/mm2)
168.64
143.42
117.37
127.66
117.37
127.66
117.37
117.37

No. of
plies

ff,s (N/mm2)
25.04
18.42
15.87
19.80
15.87
19.80
15.87
15.87

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Figure 5.2.7 Change in Moment after Strengthening at Third Floor Beams for 2 Wraps

5.3. Conclusion
Form the results obtained after thorough analysis of structure it was found that,
1.

Some of the beams failed in flexural capacity. The number of beams failed
in First floor is considerable and it goes on reducing in upper floors.

2.

No beam fails in shear, it means that the members are having enough shear
resisting capacity. Hence no retrofitting is required for increasing shear capacity
of beams.
No column fails in flexure as well as shear as the demand capacity ratio obtained
was less than one. Hence no retrofitting is required for columns also.
Based on the above observations, the need of reducing the deficiency of beams in
flexural capacity was identified and the FRP jacketing scheme was suggested
only for beams, failing in flexure.
Due to the high tensile strength and stiffness, stability under high temperatures
and resistance to acidic, alkali, organic environments the Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets was chosen as the FRP material to be used.
From chart 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 it was observed that for 1 CFRC wrap the increase in
moment is less as compared to 2 wraps. Also the value of fss is lower for 2 CFRC
wraps so it was recommended to provide 2 CFRC wraps in strengthening of
beams.
By providing CFRP wraps the Flexural capacity of beams have been changed
considerably. For this the beams are to be strengthened by providing U wraps of
CFRC on beam soffit, and sides.
For the FRP design essentially trial and error method used in this study, where
the value of the depth of neutral axis has to be assumed and compared with the

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

157

editor@iaeme.com

G. D. Lakade, Dr. C. P. Pise, S.S. Kadam, Y. P. Pawar, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh

value obtained. Thus, efforts were made so that the number of plies/wraps to be
applied to a continuous series of beams, say in the longitudinal or transverse
direction, would remain the same. This would ensure feasibility of application of
the FRP system to the beams.

5.4. Scope for Future Work

1.

FRP is a relatively new kind of materials used in the civil engineering and
its lot of properties are yet to be determined. Future work needs to be
done to determine its behaviour in specific conditions.

2.

The project can be extended by suggestions on how to strengthen columns. Also,

schemes for shear strengthening of the failing members should be developed.
The seismic analysis may be carried out by using other methods like Response
Spectrum analysis, Time History analysis to check the response of structure more
thoroughly.
Lastly, the same 4-storey RC structure can be retrofitted using some different
technique like base isolation, steel bracings, shear wall etc. and a comparative
study can be done to find out the most efficient technique with respect to cost,
aesthetics, durability and other such criteria.

3.

4.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]

Griffith, M. C. and Pinto, A. V. (2000), Seismic Retrofit of RC Buildings - A

Review and Case Study, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia and
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra Italy.
G. E. Thermou and A. S. Elnashai (2006) - Seismic retrofit schemes for RC
structures and localglobal consequences. Published online 19 December 2005 in
Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pse.208, Prog.
Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:115
Rai, Durgesh C. (2005) - Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing
Buildings, IIT Kanpur and Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority.
Abdullah, Katsuki Takiguchi (2003) - An investigation into the behavior and
strength of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with ferrocement jackets,
Cement
&
Concrete
Composites
25
(2003)
233242.
www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp
C.J. Athanassiadou (2008) - Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular
in elevation, Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1250 1261,
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
E. Senthil Kumar, A.Murugesan and G.S.Thirugnanam, Experimental study on
behaviour of Retrofitted with FRP wrapped RC Beam-Column Exterior Joints
Subjected to cyclic loading, International Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering, 1(1), 2010.
G. R. Pandey, H. Mutsuyoshi and R. Tuladhar (2008) - Seismic Retrofitting Of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Frames Using Externally Bonded FRP Sheets, The
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing,
China
E. Rakesh Reddy, Strengthening Of RC Beam Using FRP Sheet, International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), 4(7), 2014.
Mariamol Kuriakose, Preetha Prabhakaran, Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings in Karnataka, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 2(1), December 2013.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

158

editor@iaeme.com

Performance of RC Building Under Dynamic Forces And Suitability of Strengthening by FRP

Jacketing
[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]

[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]

M. D. Kevadkar and P.B. Kodag, Lateral load analysis of R.C.C. building,

International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 3(3), pp-1428-1434,
2013
V. T. Badari Narayanan, A. K. Sengupta and S. R. Satish Kumar (2012), Seismic
Retrofit of Beams in Buildings for Flexure Using Concrete Jacketing, 15 th
WCEE, Lisboa.
G. Campione, N. Miraglia and M. Papia (2004) - Strength and strain
enhancements of concrete columns confined with FRP sheets, Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, 18(6).
Nanni, A., and Bradford, N.M. (1995), FRP jacketed concrete under uniaxial
compression, Constr. Build. Master, 9 (2). Pp. 115-124.
IS 1893 (Part 1):2002- Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures
Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings.- BUREAU OF INDIAN
STANDARDS, NEW DELHI.
IS 456: 2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
IS 13920: 1993 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected
to Seismic Forces -Code of Practice.
IS 15988: 2013 - Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, Guidelines.
ACI 440.2R-02: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures- American Concrete Institute
effective from July 11, 2002.
ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. - American Concrete
Institute, adopted and published in July 2008.
ACI 318-99: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete- Code of
Practice, American Concrete Institute
ISIS Educational Module 4, (2004), an Introduction to FRP Strengthening of
Concrete Structures, Prepared by ISIS Canada. A Canadian Network of Centres
of excellence.
Pankaj Agrawal, Manish Shrikhande, Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
B. C. Punmia, A. K. Jain, Arun K. Jain Reinforced Concrete Structures Vol.1 &
Vol.2, Laxmi Publications.
R. W. Clough and Joseph Penziene Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill
Publication.
A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures - Theory and Application to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice- hall Publication.
James M. Kelly Earthquake Resistant Design with Rubber, Springler Verlag
Publication.
Roy Craig, Structural Dynamics, John-Wiley & Sons.
Panagiotis G. Asteris, Vagelis Plevris, Handbook of Research on Seismic
Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures.
R. M. Sawant, Junaid Khan, Jabeen Khan and Satish Waykar. Behavior of High
Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Shear. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 6(4), 2015, pp. 49-54.
Ananya John and Prof. S.Usha. Analytical Study on Stress-Strain Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Column. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 5(12), 2015, pp. 45-55.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

159

editor@iaeme.com