See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222362993

Use of steel bracing in reinforced concrete

frames
Article in Engineering Structures December 1997
DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00041-2

CITATIONS

READS

65

89,892

2 authors, including:
Mahmoud Reza Maheri
Shiraz University
91 PUBLICATIONS 634 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Mahmoud Reza Maheri

Retrieved on: 06 October 2016

~ ,

EngineeringStructures,Vol.
PII: S0141-0296(97)00041-2

19, No. 12, pp. 1018-1024, 1997

1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0141-0296/97 $17.()0 + 0.(x)

ELSEVIER

Use of steel bracing in reinforced

concrete flames
M. R. Maheri
Department o f Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, lran

A. Sahebi

Iranian Telecommunication Centre, Shiraz, Iran

(Received June 1995; revised version accepted October 1996)
In this paper the use of steel bracing in concrete-framed structures
is investigated. The investigation is carried out through a series of
tests conducted on a number of model frames. The object of the
tests was to determine the degree of effectiveness of different diagonal bracing arrangements to increase the in-plane shear strength
of the concrete frame and to observe the relative behaviour of tension and compression braces. The important question of the proper
connections between the steel braces and the concrete frame is
also considered. The test results indicate a considerable increase
in the in-plane strength of the frame due to steel bracing. As an
overall conclusion it is noted that, with proper connection between
the brace and the frame, the steel bracing could be a viable alternative or supplement to shear walls in concrete framed buildings in
seismic areas. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: steel bracing, RC frames, seismic resistance

1.

Introduction

1991, Bush et al. 6"7 used a complex steel frame-bracing system in a concrete frame and obtained a substantial increase
in the in-plane shear resistance of the frame.
In all the above investigations, bracing was applied to
the concrete frame indirectly through a steel-frame, itself
confined in the concrete frame. In this method an appropriate steel frame is first encased in, and fixed to, the concrete
frame, The steel bracing is then connected to this frame.
As a result the transfer of load between the concrete frame
and steel bracing is achieved indirectly through a steel
frame. This rather elaborate 'indirect bracing system' can
be costly and economically non-viable. When increasing
the shear resistance of an already existing concrete frame
is desired (e.g. seismic strengthening of existing buildings),
an additional steel frame within the concrete frame might,
in certain cases, be a necessity. This is because, due to the
increased seismic load, the concrete columns and beams
themselves may require strengthening. However, for a
frame yet to be designed and constructed, the extra seismic
load transferred through bracing can be included in the
design load for the concrete frame and the need for an
expensive steel frame is obsolete. Another shortcoming of
the indirect bracing system is that it is susceptible to the
diverse effects of dynamic interaction between the steel
frame and the concrete frame during earthquake dynamic
loading. In a 'direct bracing system' steel bracing is directly
connected to the concrete frame, on the other hand,

In order to increase the seismic strength of framed structures, steel bracing or shear walls are often used, It is cornmon to use steel bracing in steel-framed structures and
shear walls in reinforced concrete structures. However, in
recent years there have been suggestions for the use of steel
bracing in reinforced concrete structures. Considering the
ease of construction and the relatively low cost, steel bracing appears to be an attractive alternative to other shear
resisting elements such as concrete and masonry shear
walls or a rigid frame system. Reports of the use of steelbracing in RC structures can be found in the recent literature, but very little is known as to the level of effectiveness
of this strengthening system in RC structures,
In 1980, Sugano and Fujimura ~ conducted a number of
tests on some model RC frames braced with ' K ' and ' X '
bracing as well as similar model frames strengthened by
masonry and concrete in-fills. The aim of these investigations was to determine the level of effectiveness of each
system in increasing the in-plane strength and ductility of
the frame. In 1981 Higashi and Endo 2 and Kavamata and
Ohnuma 3 also carried out studies on the use of concentric
and eccentric bracing in concrete frames. The results indicated the possible effective use of these strengthening
methods. Ohishi et a l . 4 and Segiguchi et al. 5 carried out
similar investigations on the use of V-braces. In 1987 and

1018

Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi

dynamic interaction between the bracing system and concrete frame is very small. To provide an economically
attractive and technically simple steel bracing system,
therefore, this study concentrates on the use of direct
steel bracing.

1019

Table 1 Estimated load and mode of failure of different

model frames

UIt. strength
Frame

2.

Test models

The bracing system chosen for these investigations was the

common diagonal X-bracing. It was also decided that we
should study the behaviour of diagonal tension and compression braces separately. To this end, and for comparison
purposes, four model frames were selected namely: (i) a
concrete frame without bracing; (ii) a concrete frame
braced with a diagonal tension brace; (iii) a concrete frame
braced with a diagonal compression brace, and (iv) a concrete frame braced with X-bracing. The size of the model
frames selected for testing was limited to the geometric
capacity of the testing machine as 58 58 cm (Figure 1).
A square cross-section with a side equal to 10cm was
chosen for the models. The model frames, in effect, represent a unit panel of an arbitrary concrete frame, undergoing in-plane shear due to horizontal earthquake loads. In
resisting the in-plane seismic force, each of these unit
panels contribute to the overall resistance of the frame.
Since in actual structures the bracing is applied to each
panel individually, rather than the frame as a whole, it is
justified to investigate one unit panel to represent the effect
on a multi-bay frame. Having pre-determined the geometry
of the model frames and noting the generality of the model
frames, the necessary bending and shear reinforcements
were selected within the minimum and maximum requiremerits of the ACI-ultimate strength design as given in

Stress

(ACI-design) (P= 1000 kg)

Bending

33 075

Axial

Unbraced

Estimated
load at
failure

Elastic
analysis

2184

Shear

(tonne)

8485

3.9*

853

6.2

2440

353

6.9

Comp.braced

Bending
Axial
Shear

33 075
2184
2440

2237
93.2
93.2

14.8"
23.4
26.2

Tens.braced

Bending
Axial
Shear

35 700
11 550
2440

602
93.2

2523

14.1"
19.2
26.2

Bending
Shear

35 700
11 550
2400

313

1314
54.7

32.0

Axial

X-braced

27.2*

44.6

*Criticalload, indicating the dominance of bending stresses.

J
I

~
~"

Ill
"_/~~_

col

~b~

Figure2 Connection detail of: (a) the steel brace to concrete

frame; (b)the steel cross braces to each-other

Figure 1.
The diagonal cross-bracing system was designed to carry
about 75% of the total earthquake load (as recommended
by some seismic codes, although a design engineer may
change this percentage depending on the level of forces
involved, limitation of the frame size, etc.). The estimated
in-plane strength of the unbraced frame was 3.9 tonne
(Table 1). This is equivalent to a lateral load of about 2.7
tonne (to be assumed as 25% of the total earthquake load).
The cross-bracing was, therefore, designed to carry an equivalent of 8.1 tonne of the lateral load. To this end each of
the diagonal braces consisted of two equal angles
(25 25 mm) having a total cross-sectional area of
2.84 cm, welded edge-to-edge to each other. At the connection to the frame, the braces were welded to the sides of
an in-plane steel plate, itself welded to an equal angle positioned and pre-cast at the corners of the frame (Figure 2).
To reduce the buckling tendency of the compression brace

eq
t
'*" t
_~ ~
~
,~c , ,

"-- --~"
I

~,,.

,J
]

Figure I Detail of typical test model

in the X-brace system, the two diagonal braces were also

connected to each other at their cross-point via a steel plate
as indicated in Figure 2.
3.

Analytical estimate of strength

The test program was so arranged as to study the behaviour

of braces and the frames under different loading levels
which produce different ranges of elastic or plastic behaviour. It was, therefore, necessary to have an estimate of the
ultimate strength of the frame-braces system. To this end
an analytical study was first carried out. A rigorous nonlinear analysis would have obviously produced the best
estimate. However, as the theme o f the investigation has
been experimental and a rough estimate would have sufriced, it was decided to use a semi-linear method of estimating the ultimate strength as outlined in the following steps:
(i) A linear elastic analysis was carried out on each
frame system using the appropriate material properties, design parameters and the loading condition to
be used in the test. In these analyses a unit load (1.0
tonne) was applied and the corresponding compressive, tensile, shear and bending stresses in the members were noted.
(ii) The ultimate strength of the frame in shear and in
bending was estimated according to the ACI codeultimate strength method and the compressive and
tensile ultimate strength of braces determined.
(iii) By dividing the ultimate stresses which can be car-

Steel b r a c i n g in RC frames: M. R. M a h e r i a n d A. Sahebi

1020

II!1
I;
(a)

....
(b)

Figure 3 Shear force application to frames (a) shear force as

actually applied to a frame; (b) vertical force applied diagonally

ried by the members (obtained in stage (ii) by the

corresponding stresses determined in stage (i), an
estimate of the ultimate load for each mode of failure
(bending, shear, axial) was made and the minimum
calculated load was chosen as the ultimate load and
its mode of failure as the mode of failure of the
frame-brace system.

Figure 5 Test arrangement for deflection measurement

,~so-

~,,~ No.C~rve
1
Looai-Difllctio~
for Cllcle No.

The results of the analytical estimate of ultimate strength

of each frame-brace system are summarized in Table 1. It
is evident in these tables that in all four cases the bending
stresses in the concrete frame govern the strength of the
system and the expected mode of failure will be bending
failure. The ultimate load carriable by the frame without
bracing is estimated as 3.9 tonne, the frame with diagonal
tension brace as 14.1 tonne, the frame with diagonal compression brace as 14.8 tonne and the frame with X-bracing
is estimated as 27.2 tonne.
4. E x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t s

4. l. Test set-up
To investigate the in-plane shear strength of the frame it is
necessary to subject the frame to horizontal cyclic loading,
In the absence of a reaction-wall it was decided to use a
compression testing machine for application of the load. To
convert the compressive load of the test machine into a
shear load for the frame, the frames were, in turn, placed
diagonally at a 45 angle in the machine. The vertical diagonal, in this way, acted as a compression diagonal and the
horizontal diagonal acted as a tensile member, as illustrated
in Figure 3 and seen in Figure 4. In this way the applied
compressive load acts as an in-plane shear load on the
frame. In each test the shortening and elongation of diagonals due to the incrementally applied load was measured
through two strain gauges positioned on the diagonals

t500
-, ,25o
~ 1ooo
~

~5o
~0o
2 5 ~ o ~

i ~='Ii i ; ~ 2'~iz~'~
~';0 '~.~';

De/tecton (era)

0.0~5

Figure6 The second-cycle (p~ = 0.3p~), load-deflection

curve for unbraced frame

4.2. Testing of unbraced frame

The estimated ultimate capacity of this frame was determined as 3.9 tonne (Table 1). The frame was, therefore,
expected to behave in a semi-elastic manner for up to 30%
of this load or about 1.5 tonne. Two cycles of loading and
unloading were conducted on the frame within this range.
The load-deflection curve, as shown in Figure 6, demonstrates the near elastic behaviour of the frame. In the third
cycle the load was increased to 60% of the estimated ultimate load. The frame in this cycle shows some plastic
behaviour. The load-deflection curve for each of the compression and tension diagonals is plotted in Figure 7. The
curves are almost identical, indicating the equal deflection
on the compression and tension diagonals. In the fourth
2500.

(Figure 5).

2250

F~'~

No. 1

LooMi-Di~ctio~ C~rve

so~ cvol. No.,

J~
./y/"

000

175o
1500"
"~

1250
1000
150

500

25

'o:oVo. . . . .

z~

Deflect~ovt (c'm.)

Figure 4 Four test models: (1) unbraced, (2) cross-braced, (3)

compression-braced, (4) tension-braced

Figure 7 The third-cycle (p~= 0.6 p.), load-deflection curve

for unbraced frame

Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi

4500"

1021

Prcwae No. t

4500-

Load-D=.~c~;o~ Cu~e

4i
3500 ~
~

Pr(lm, e No. 2.B

Loo~-D=~c~,~

ecu~e

40002

3500 ~

3000

~5oo

3000:
25oo i

20O0!

2000 z

1500!

15002

1000!

10oo::

,OO,o

o:!Eo

o.ooo. . . . . . b.~'o'6 . . . . . b . ' ~ . . . . . o.'6'o'o. . . . . . &'a'~ . . . . . ;.'o'56 . . . . . E2'oo

Deflect~o~

"o'~

Co11~,1~'ess~ Go,lzge

IIII, 'S;;7:
----

~.b'o~' '

"o'.'o';~ ' o.o19

De.fZec~o'r,. ( c m )

(c~)

8
The final cycle (pma'= p.), load-deflection curve for
unbraced frame, indicating identical behaviour on tension and
compression diagonals

Figure
1 0 The final cycle (Pr~ax= P.) load-deflection curve for
cross-braced frame

cycle the frame was loaded to failure. The first cracks in

the concrete appeared at the load of 3.8 tonne and the ultimate load taken by the frame was measured at 4.0 tonne,
This is very close to the estimated ultimate load of 3.9
tonne. The deformations of the compression and tension
diagonals were also equal, in absolute value, up to failure,
Another point to note is that the frame shows a near linear
behaviour up to 60% of the ultimate load. At higher loads
the behaviour becomes non-linear (Figure 8). This is in
agreement with the known behaviour of reinforced concrete. The mode of failure of the frame is also similar to
the expected mode. The governing stresses, as indicated by
theory, were bending stresses at the four corners of the
frame and the flexure cracks that appeared at failure were
at these corners (Figure 9).

(iii) An important point of observation was the more

dominant behaviour of the tension brace, compared
to the compression brace, as with increasing load,
the tension brace carried a higher share of the load
than the compression brace. For example, at the load
of 3.0 tonne, the tension brace carried 30% more
load than the compression brace. At 4.0 tonne the
share of the tension brace was 58% more and the
increase in share of load borne by the tension brace
at 5.0 tonne was 63%. However, at higher loads the
system shows a distinctly non-linear behaviour and
the dominance of the tension brace starts to reduce
in such a way that at the ultimate load, the difference
in load-bearing of the two braces was only 15%

Figure

4.3. Testing of cross-braced frame

The ultimate load which can be carried by the frame was
estimated at 27.0 tonne (Table 1) and its mode of failure
as bending. However, since the estimation was based on a
semi-elastic behaviour, the frame was expected to fail at
loads below this value. For this reason the frame was tested
in nine cycles at the m a x i m u m loads of 2.0 tonne (twice),
3.0 tonne (twice), 4.0, 5.0 and 8.0 tonne, and the ultimate
load. The observations made during these tests can be summarized as follows:
(i) The m a x i m u m load carried by the frame was 12.5
tonne which is well below the estimated value,
Nevertheless, it showed a three-fold increase in the
shear resistance of the frame due to X-bracing.
(ii) Up to 60% of the ultimate load, the behaviour of the
system on the diagonals appears linear and changes
to non-linear at higher loads.

(Figure 10).
(iv) Another interesting observation was the manner in
which the two braces carried the load. With increasing load the rate of load-bearing of the tension and
compression braces was different. In other words, it
appears that the two braces take turns in carrying the
increased load, or as the rate of load-bearing of tension brace increased, the rate for compression brace
reduced and vice-versa. This point can be noted in
the load-deflection curve for the two braces shown
in Figure 11.
(v) The failure of the f r a m e - b r a c e system started with
the appearance of flexure cracks at the corners of the
tension diagonal at the load of 8.0 tonne. At higher
loads flexure cracks appeared at the corners of the
frame and eventually at the load of 12.5 tonne the
tension brace failed (Figure 12). The failure of the
tension brace occurred at its welded connection to
the mid-span plate. If the connection weld was more
9000=

F~'owtte No. 2.B

'

70002

8000 ~
5OOO~

40002
.....

3000 i

,,

# /"

--=--== Comp'tes~.o~

Di.agor,=~

,ooZ
De fleet~.o~z (c.rrQ

Figure 11 A t y p i c a l l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n
Figure9

Flexural failure at a corner of the unbraced frame

frame

curve

for

cross-braced

Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi

1022

Figure 12 Failure of tension brace at the central connection

Figure 13 Buckling failure of the compression brace immediately after the failure of tension brace

robust the frame would have endured higher loads.

However, immediately after the failure of the tension
brace the compression brace buckled under the
increased loading ( F i g u r e 13).

2500-

Loa~-Def~C~e
ctto~
~ , , ~ ~o. 3
Io" cyoz,so.

3000

~~On~

2600

4.4.

Testing o f c o m p r e s s i o n - b r a c e d f r a m e

2000

In this frame only the compression brace was provided

( F i g u r e 4 ) . The aim was to separately investigate the
~ ,500
behaviour of a compression brace. The estimated ultimate
,000
strength of the system was calculated to be 14.8 tonne. The
loading was carried out in six cycles. In the first three
5oo
cycles the frame was loaded up to 3.0 tonne. The reason
el ...............
~ 0.000 ~ 0 . 0 t 0'
~'o'~'i. . . . o'o',o
-0.020
-O.OfO
0.0,90
O.
for the repeat of the test was the unexpected behaviour of
~et,z,ct~o,~(~,,~)
the compression brace in this loading range. The deflection
on the tension diagonal was substantially more than on the
Figure 14 A typical load-deflection curve for the compressionbraced model (Pm~x= 0.3 p~)
compression brace. In fact, the deflection of the compression brace oscillated around zero ( F i g u r e 14). It
appears that in this elastic range the load was transferred
directly to the concrete frame and the share of load bearing
,oooo:
r~,,, u,. 3
Loom[-Defl, ect~'n C'u~,'ve
~
of the compression brace was almost zero. Only at higher
,000- so, cyo~.No. 6
~
loads as the behaviour of the frame (observed on the ten8oooi
sion d i a g o n a l ) m o v e d into non-linear range, did the c o m - , 0 o o
i
/ ~ , , , a , , , ~
~
pression brace start to participate in load-bearing. As the
~ ~ooo~
load increased the share of the compression brace increased
"d 5000:
in such a way that at ultimate load of 10.0 tonne (less than
~ ,ooo:.
the estimated value, as expected) the deflection on the cornsooo~
pression diagonal was only 20% less than the tension diag,a
~ooo~
/ /
- . ~ ~,.,,o,~0,~o~
onal ( F i g u r e 15). The failure of the system started with the
~ooo~
appearance of flexure cracks at the tension corners of the
~
~/"
concrete frame. With increasing load the cracks developed
-o.o,o -0.040 o.ooo o.o,o o.oso o ,eo o.,5o 0.20
and the strength of the frame reduced. As a result the corno~yz,~e~o,~(~r,)
pression brace started to carry the transferred load. The failFigure 15 The final cycle (p~ = Pu) load-deflection curve for
ure was completed with buckling of the compression brace,
the c o m p r e s s i o n - b r a c e d model

0 ~ , ........

, .

~..

.. .

.. .

. ..

. ..

.. .

.. .

. ..

. ..

..

i o

Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. M a h e r i and A. Sahebi

1023

4.5.

Testing of tension-braced frame

Four loading cycles completed the tests on this model

frame. In the first cycle the frame was loaded up to 2.5
tonne. The load-deflection curve (Figure 16) shows an
almost linear behaviour. Similar to the observation made
during the tests on the compression braced frame, the
majority of the load appeared to be taken by the concrete
frame, though unlike those tests, in the tension-braced
frame, the tension brace participated in the load-bearing
from the start of loading. In the second and third cycles the
load was increased to 5.0 tonne. The results still showed
more deformation on the compression diagonal than on the
tension brace. The load was ultimately increased to 9.0
tonne in which the frame failed. The dominance of the compression diagonal was noted up to failure. As the load
increased beyond 1/2 ultimate load, unexpectedly the share
of the tension brace reduced and at a certain load the gauge
showed a zero deflection. This behaviour was similar to the
bservatin made in the cmpressin-braced frame with the
difference that it happened in the non-linear range of the
load-deflection curve. The dominance of the concrete
frame in carrying the load up to the failure of the frame is
apparent in both systems.
The single tension or compression brace comes into
effect only after the loss of load-carrying capacity of the
concrete frame. The mode of failure showed initial failure
of the concrete frame followed by tensile failure of the tension brace, again at the welded connection to the corners
of the frame,

~it.___j!~
_

~~-~
~]
~,~>~

/.~
~

..

~
co~

(b~

~, ~,
l

~
~
-----~,~'/~1
~
~

--

II
~ , / ~ 1

1
--

-4
c:)

cd)

Figure 17 Details of some practical brace-frame connections:

5. Brace-frame connection
The advantage of joining steel bracing directly to the concrete frame is that the connection is easy to construct and
incurs little cost. However, the connection should be strong
enough to safely transfer the load between the brace and
the frame. This should be true for both connections, set-up
during the construction of the concrete frame and connections constructed after the construction of the frame. A
number of connection arrangements of both types are
shown in Figure 17. A series of tests on full-scale connection models were also carded out. Two connection types
(a) and (d) (Figure 17) were tested. Connection type (a)
is used to connect the bracing system to the frame prior to
the casting of concrete. In this system the connecting plates
and anchorage system are pre-cast in the frame. A test setup was arranged to apply a 45-angle tension on the connecting plate. The connection appeared to be capable of
2750:

,6ooi

F R A M E NO. 4
LOAD DRFI~CTION CURVE FOR

~v~

~ro. 1

zz6o

-" ~ooo
,~so
Inoo

,2so

1ooo

~o
see
~
o'.o'~b' . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - - ~,~s,o. =.~o~.~
Eb'ib' .............

blb'hb" . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eb~b' .............

b:b~

(~ )
Figure 16 A typical load-deflection curve for the tension~mr~cr~o~

b r a c e d m o d e l (Pm.x = 0.3 Pu)

(a) and (b) connection arrangement for frames under

c o n s t r u c t i o n s ; (c) a n d (d) c o n n e c t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s for

existing frames
carrying large loads. The 1 cm thick connection plate
buckled under the load, but the anchorage system remained
intact. The connection type (d), used for connecting steel
braces to an already existing frame, could carry a more
limited load in similar tests. The expanding anchor bolts
tended to either pull clean out of the concrete frame or pull
a section of concrete out with themselves, Further investigations are required for developing a more appropriate
anchorage system for connecting braces to already existing
concrete frames.
6.

Conclusions

The results of the investigations as discussed above can be

summarised as follows:
( 1) The test results indicate a large increase in the in-plane
shear strength of a concrete frame due to only one diagonal brace (acting either in compression or tension).
For the model frames tested the increase in shear
strength due to the brace was 2.5 times that of the
frame itself.
(2) In frames braced with one diagonal brace the concrete
frame itself appears to dominate the behaviour by carrying the majority of the applied in-plane load in bending.
(3) A substantial increase in the shear resisting capacity of
concrete frames can be achieved using diagonal steel
X-bracing. The strength of the X-braced model frame
was measured at four times that of the unbraced frame.
(4) The behaviour of the X-braced frame under loading

1024

Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi

s h o w s the d o m i n a n c e o f the t e n s i o n b r a c e as it carries

a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f the load. T h e failure o f the b r a c i n g
s y s t e m starts w i t h t e n s i l e failure o f the t e n s i o n b r a c e
a n d i m m e d i a t e l y after that the b u c k l i n g failure o f the
c o m p r e s s i o n brace,
( 5 ) In a X - b r a c e d f r a m e the rate at w h i c h the t w o b r a c e s
carry the l o a d is n o t equal. T h e y a p p e a r to carry the
e x c e s s l o a d in turn.
( 6 ) T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h the b r a c e s f a i l e d i n d i c a t e s the
i m p o r t a n c e o f the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the b r a c e a n d
f r a m e , as w e a k c o n n e c t i o n s do n o t a l l o w the full
c a p a c i t y o f t h e b r a c e s to b e utilized.

References
1 Sugano, S. and Fujimura, M. 'Seismic strengthening of existing
reinforced concrete buildings', Proc. 7th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Turkey, 1980, 4 (1), Turkey, 449-456

Higashi, Y., Endo, T. and Shimizu, Y. 'Experimental studies on retrofitting of reinforced concrete structural members', Proc. 2nd Seminar
on Repair and Retrofit of Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan, National
Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 126-155
3 Kawamata, S. and Ohnuma, M. 'Strengthening effect of eccentric
steel braces to existing reinforced concrete frames', Proc. 2nd Sereinar on Repair and Retrofit qf Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
National Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 262-269.
4 Ohishi, H. et al. 'A seismic strengthening design and practice of an
existing reinforced concrete school building in Shejuoka City', Proc.
9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. III.
5 Sekiguchi, I. 'Seismic strengthening of an existing steel reinforced
concrete city office building in Shijuoka, Japan', Proc. 9th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. Ill
6 Bush, T. D. 'Seismic strengthening of a reinforced concrete frame',
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Austin, Texas, 1987.
7 Bush, T. D., Jones E. A. and Jirsa J. O. 'Behaviour of RC frame
strengthened using structural steel bracing', Proc. ASCE, J. Struct.
Engng, 1991, 117 (4), 1115-1126