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

net/publication/259289347

Steel bracing configurations for seismic retrofitting of a reinforced concrete

frame

Article  in  Structures & Buildings · January 2014

DOI: 10.1680/stbu.12.00072

CITATIONS READS

15 1,803

4 authors:

Ciro Faella Carmine Lima

Università degli Studi di Salerno Università degli Studi di Salerno
139 PUBLICATIONS   1,482 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   346 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Enzo Martinelli Roberto Realfonzo

Università degli Studi di Salerno Università degli Studi di Salerno
227 PUBLICATIONS   2,061 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   1,370 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic analysis of infilled rc structures View project

Bond behavior of CFRP-to-steel substrate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roberto Realfonzo on 19 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Structures and Buildings
Volume 167 Issue SB1
Steel bracing configurations for seismic
retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Structures and Buildings 167 January 2014 Issue SB1
Pages 54–65 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.12.00072
Paper 1200072
Received 25/09/2012 Accepted 18/07/2013
Keywords: concrete structures/seismic engineering/steel structures

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Steel bracing configurations

for seismic retrofitting of a
reinforced concrete frame
Ciro Faella MACI Enzo Martinelli PhD
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Italy Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno,
Carmine Lima PhD Italy
Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Roberto Realfonzo PhD, MACI
Italy Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Salerno, Italy

Steel bracings are among the most common and potentially effective technical solutions for enhancing the seismic
safety of existing reinforced concrete structures. Nevertheless, several issues dealing with both analysis and design
of steel bracings for retrofitting reinforced conrete frames remain unresolved. This paper presents a study inspired
by a practical retrofitting project of a reinforced concrete frame with concentric X-bracings. Specifically, it proposes a
discussion about the consequences and implications of assuming three different configurations for the steel
diagonals, chosen from among the architecturally compatible ones. A detailed description of the as-built reinforced
concrete frame is first presented, along with key information about the procedure followed to design the bracing
diagonals. Then, after having outlined the numerical models employed to simulate the mechanical response of both
concrete and steel members, the results of a series of non-linear time-history analyses are reported and discussed
with the aim of highlighting the key advantages and disadvantages of adopting the three alternative bracing
configurations. In this regard, particularly critical aspects, such as the actions transferred to foundations, the stresses
achieved in beam-to-columns joints and the distribution of forces throughout the existing reinforced concrete
members, are considered to compare the performance of the three alternative bracing patterns.

Notation NEd,existing axial force in structural elements in the existing

Asup , Ainf amount of steel reinforcement at the top and structure
the bottom of the beam passing the joint, Nt axial force in the beam
respectively Sa acceleration of natural spectra
Cb1 , Cb2 compressive stresses in the beam concrete Sa,e acceleration of the elastic spectrum
Cc1 , Cc2 compressive stresses in the column concrete Tb1 , Tb2 tensile stresses in the top and bottom beam
D axial force of the concrete strut in beam-to- reinforcement, respectively
column joint Tc1 , Tc2 tensile stresses in the left and right beam
Es elastic modulus of steel reinforcement, respectively
fcm yield stress of concrete Vcol,i , Vcol,s shear forces in the bottom and top columns,
fcu ultimate stress of concrete respectively
fsm yield stress of steel Vjh,E shear force acting beam-to-column joints in the
h interstorey height retrofitted structure
H total height of the structure Vjh,E,existing shear force acting beam-to-column joints in the
Mx Ed bending moment along the x-axes in structural existing structure
elements in the retrofitted structure Vy Ed shear force in structural elements in the
Mx Ed,existing bending moment along the x-axes in structural retrofitted structure
elements in the existing structure Vy Ed,existing shear force in structural elements in the existing
M y Ed bending moment along the y-axes in structural structure
elements in the retrofitted structure 1 , 2 slopes of the steel bracings
M y Ed,existing bending moment along the y-axes in structural ˜top top displacement of the structure
elements in the existing structure cu ultimate strain of concrete
Nb,1 , Nb,2 axial forces in the steel bracings c0 yield strain of concrete
NEd axial force in structural elements in the Ł slope of the concrete strut in beam-to-column
retrofitted structure joint

54
Structures and Buildings
Volume 167 Issue SB1
1. Introduction
Existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures built in the 70s and
80s of the past century in seismic regions, such as a wide area of
Italy and the Mediterranean region, are generally vulnerable to
earthquake actions and do not comply with the most advanced
seismic codes currently adopted in the same regions (EN 1998-1,
BSI, 2005a). Thus, their seismic performance needs to be care-
fully assessed with the aim of quantifying the actual safety levels
and possibly designing appropriate retrofitting interventions (EN
1998-3, BSI, 2005b).
Several models are available nowadays to simulate the behaviour
of existing RC beams and columns, which are often characterised
by particular material properties and structural details (fib, 2003).
Moreover, a certain emphasis has been placed on formulating
sound capacity models capable of quantifying the shear strength
of beam-to-column joints (Lima et al., 2012a, 2012b), as earth-
quake events have highlighted their critical role in the global
seismic response and the possible premature brittle failure of RC
frames. The accuracy and reliability of such models is of utmost
importance for simulating the actual seismic response of RC
frames in their as-built configuration (Lima, 2012).
A wide variety of seismic retrofitting techniques is currently
available and employed in practical applications, even though
several issues are still open (or not completely addressed)
regarding the rational design of these retrofitting interventions.
A thorough state-of-the-art report collecting the most well-
established techniques for seismic retrofitting of RC structures
can be found in fib bulletin 24 (fib, 2003). In particular, many
‘member-level techniques’ are described and functionally distin-
guished by the so-called ‘structure-level techniques’. The former
are basically aimed at enhancing the capacity in terms of
strength and/or ductility of single elements of the existing
structures, whereas the latter are mainly intended to reduce the
demand on the existing structure by introducing further elements
(i.e. RC shear walls) or substructures (e.g. steel bracings)
capable of contributing to the global seismic capacity (Pincheira
and Jirsa, 1995). A rational strategy for a possible synergetic
application of both techniques has been also conceived and
presented in the scientific literature (Faella et al., 2008).
Steel bracing systems are widely utilised in steel buildings and
several models are available to describe their response under the
cyclic actions induced by seismic excitations. However, the use
of steel bracing systems in seismic retrofitting of existing RC
structures is also an attractive technique, as it is often charac-
terised by high architectural and functional compatibility with
respect to the original purposes of the existing structure. Thus, a
series of studies have been recently aimed at formulating design
criteria for strengthening RC frames with dissipative steel
bracings (Bartera and Giacchetti, 2004; Tremblay, 2002).
As a matter of principle, the design of steel bracings in RC
frames can be approached according to the well-established
Steel bracing configurations for seismic
retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo
‘capacity design’ philosophy, originally formulated to design new
structures. Two fundamentally alternative approaches have been
followed so far in formulating design rules for steel bracing
systems in existing RC frames. They are usually referred to as
‘force-based’ (Park, 1997) and ‘displacement-based’ (Priestley et
al., 2007) approaches. Several design criteria and procedures have
been conceived by applying these dual approaches and a wide
discussion is still ongoing about their advantages and disadvan-
tages (Terán-Gilmore and Ruiz-Garcı́a, 2011).
However, despite the general design philosophy to be followed in
design of steel bracings for seismic retrofitting, much less
emphasis has been placed so far on the configuration of steel
braces throughout the existing RC frame. A few studies recently
addressed this topic by either proposing experimental and
numerical results on steel frames with different bracing config-
urations (Maheri and Ghaffarzadeh, 2008), or examining different
bracing patterns for a representative RC structure (Türker and
Bayraktar, 2011), or approaching the problem of defining an
optimal bracing configuration (Aydin and Boduroglu, 2008;
Komuro and Hirosawa, 2004).
This paper moves from a practical design experience and aims to
investigate the effect of different bracing configurations on the
seismic response of an existing RC structure. In particular, the
consequences of different patterns of concentric X-bracing sys-
tems throughout the RC frame under consideration are investi-
gated and discussed. Therefore, Section 2 presents the key
geometrical and structural aspects of the existing RC frame which
is considered as a case study. Section 3 reports the relevant steps
of the design procedure carried out for dimensioning the retro-
fitting intervention and describes the three bracing configurations
considered in this study. Section 4 outlines the key aspects of the
numerical models employed for simulating the behaviour of both
RC frames and steel bracings. Finally, Section 5 summarises and
discusses the results of the seismic analyses performed on the
retrofitted structures considered in this paper and points out the
influence of the bracing configuration on the seismic response of
the frame and the corresponding demand on the existing RC
members. Conclusions are presented in Section 6.
Finally, it is worth highlighting that the proposed results are
aimed at emphasising the influence of the bracing configuration
on both the resulting state of stress in existing RC members and
the values of forces that they transfer to foundations. Such
influence can be easily justified by recognising that the bracing
pattern significantly modifies the global stiffness (and more
generally the ‘capacity’) of the retrofitted frame under lateral
seismic-induced actions. It is also clearly evident that the influ-
ence of steel bracings on the force transferred to existing
members and foundations has a significant reverberation on the
cost of the retrofitting. Thus, this paper aims to highlight the
influence of bracing configuration on the seismic response of RC
frames and pave the way towards the formulation of more
general design strategies intended at optimising such a config-
55
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

uration to achieve cost-competitive and safe retrofitting solu-
tions.
2. Presentation of the case-study
A four-storey school building located in the neighbourhood of
L’Aquila is considered in this paper as a case study. In 2009 a
strong earthquake struck L’Aquila and its surrounding area. The
National Department of Civil Protection and the ‘ReLUIS’
Consortium were subsequently given the task of supervising a
wide seismic assessment and retrofitting programme, intended to
enhance the safety of public buildings in that area, with the aim
of complying with the modern seismic safety standards (EN
1998-1, BSI, 2005a; Ministerial Decree, 2008).
The building under consideration consists of an RC framed
structure, designed in the 1980s, according to the common rules
and practices in force at that time. It is rectangular in plan and
the horizontal floors are realised through a 24 cm thick one-way
concrete slab, with hollow clay bricks as lightweight elements.
Figure 1 shows the plan view of a typical floor and highlights the
key geometric information about the transverse sections of
columns and beams. Typical details for gravity load design (i.e.
short lap splices, largely spaced stirrups, no strong-column-weak-
beam arrangement, unreinforced beam-to-column joints) were
detected.
A nominal life of 50 years and a functional type III (Cu ¼ 1.5)
have been assumed to define the relevant seismic performance
objectives, according to the Ministerial Decree (2008) provisions
for school buildings. This entails a return period of 712 years for
the expected seismic actions to be considered in the life safety
checks of the structure. Moreover, according to the same code
provisions, a site class C and the topographic category T1 have
also been considered for defining the design spectra for the four
relevant limit states (Table 1).
Finally, as a result of the above, four elastic spectra have to be
considered to define the seismic actions of relevance for the four
limit states defined in the Italian (Ministerial Decree, 2008) and
European (EN 1998-1, BSI, 2005a) codes. The numerical values
of the parameters which define such spectra are presented in
Table 1.
3. Design of an X-bracing system for
retrofitting
Although the building under consideration did not suffer signifi-
cant damage after the seismic event which struck the L’Aquila
area in 2009, the assessment analyses, based on the results of the
material surveys and structural detail inspections, highlighted that
the structure does not meet the structural safety levels required
by the Italian Code (Ministerial Decree, 2008). The detailed
results of the assessment analyses are omitted herein because they
are beyond the focus of this work, the focus of which is the
discussion of the consequences of slightly different retrofitting
solutions.
To this end, an X-bracing steel system was designed according to
the common force-based approach, widely adopted by practition-
ers, although, in principle, it is much more appropriate for
designing new structures than for retrofitting existing ones. Table
2 presents the values of masses and horizontal static forces used
in designing steel bracings by adopting a force reduction factor
q ¼ 4 according to Ministerial Decree (2008). In this design
phase, the contribution of the steel diagonal in compression to
the horizontal response of the structure is neglected.
Table 3 summarises the key information about the design of steel
bracing diagonals. In particular, the second column reports the
horizontal forces applied to each floor of the structure according
to a force-based linear static analysis; the values reported therein
also take into account the magnification factor required by the

35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50
35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50
345

45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24
35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50
1035
345

45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24 45 ⫻ 24
35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50

35 ⫻ 50
345

35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50 35 ⫻ 50

y
350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
3500
x

Figure 1. Typical floor plan of the structure (dimensions in cm)

56
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Spectral data Limit states of service Ultimate limit states

SLO SLD SLV SLC

Probability PVr : % 81 63 10 5
Return period TR : years 45 75 712 1462
Acceleration ag : m/s2 0.908 1.155 2.792 3.574
Acceleration/gravity ag /g 0.093 0.118 0.285 0.364
Dynamic amplification F0 2.347 2.317 2.385 2.419
Period at constant velocity TC *: s 0.277 0.291 0.351 0.365
Coefficient of soil CC 1.60 1.58 1.48 1.46
Coefficient of stratigraphic amplification SS 1.50 1.50 1.29 1.17
Coefficient of site S 1.50 1.50 1.29 1.17
Period TB : s 0.148 0.153 0.174 0.178
Period TC : s 0.444 0.459 0.521 0.534
Period TD : s 1.970 2.071 2.739 3.058

Table 1. Parameters of the seismic design spectra

Floor Masses: t h: m H: m Forces: kN

4 239.40 3.80 13.90 936.60 T ¼ 0.36 s

3 388.43 3.80 10.10 1104.21 Sa,d (T) ¼ 2.15 m/s2
2 385.84 3.30 6.30 684.17 Fh ¼ 3038.88 kN
1 371.74 3.00 3.00 313.89
1385.41

Table 2. Masses and forces used for designing the steel bracings

The conventional design procedure followed so far to define the

Floor Forces: kN Bracings in Section Overstrength
key geometric and mechanical properties of the steel bracing
tension: kN ratio
system does not imply, as such, any information on the actual
4 304.40 409.55 HEA100 1.36 position of the steel diagonals within the existing RC frame. In
3 358.87 934.85 HEB140 1.20 fact, this study is just aimed at highlighting the main aspects of
2 222.36 1160.06 HEB160 1.22 the structural response of the frame under consideration, retro-
1 102.01 1293.17 HEB180 1.32 fitted by adopting different configurations of the steel diagonals
referred to in Table 3. Therefore, the three alternative patterns
Table 3. Relevant data about the steel bracings represented in Figure 2, chosen from among the architecturally
compatible ones, are considered in this study. They are perfectly
equivalent in terms of design criteria, but can lead to a
significantly different response of the retrofitted RC structure.
Italian seismic code to analyse a three-dimensional (3D) structure
as a system of plane frames (Ministerial Decree, 2008). The third 4. Structural models and seismic analyses
column lists the axial forces that are transferred to the tensile A finite-element (FE) model of the structure under consideration
diagonals of the steel bracing at each floor and the fourth column was implemented in OpenSEES (Mazzoni et al., 2007). The non-
highlights the profile section actually adopted to sustain such linear behaviour of RC members was simulated through a lumped
forces. Finally, the resulting overstrength ratios, namely the ratios plasticity element (the so-called ‘beamWithHinges’ element).
between the plastic axial strength of the diagonals and the actual Moreover, the stress–strain relationships Concrete01 and Steel01
stresses listed in the second column, are reported for the sake of were considered to simulate the non-linear behaviour of concrete
completeness. and steel in reinforcing bars, respectively (Mazzoni et al., 2007).

57
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Facade X Facade Y Bracing distribution

Pattern 1

Pattern 2

Pattern 3

Figure 2. Configurations of steel bracings in the two directions

Stress
The one-dimensional (1D) stress–strain laws employed for both
concrete and steel are shown in Figure 3, which reports the values εcu ⫽ 0·0035 εco ⫽ 0·0020
of the relevant mechanical parameters. Owing to the wide spacing Strain
of steel stirrups, the possible confinement effect on concrete was
neglected, and a unique stress–strain law was adopted for both
the core part and the cover layers of the transverse sections in RC
members. fcu ⫽ 0·7fcm

fcm ⫽ 19 MPa
Steel bracings were modelled through simple truss elements
connecting the nodes of the RC frame (Gomes and Appelton,
(a)
1997). The non-linear behaviour for the steel diagonals was
simulated by adopting the so-called ‘UniaxialHystereticMaterial’
Stress

available in OpenSEES (Mazzoni et al., 2007). In particular, an

asymmetric behaviour was considered in tension and compres- fcm ⫽ 430 MPa
Hardening 1%
sion to take into account the instability effects possibly induced
by the latter. For the sake of simplicity, the two elastic thresh-
olds in tension and compression were determined according to
Es ⫽ 205 000 MPa
the design formulae (with unit values of the partial safety
factors) provided by the Italian Ministerial Decree (2008).
Strain
Pinching factors equal to 0.8 and 0.2 were adopted for
simulating the reduction in displacement and force capacity,
respectively.

The general behaviour of the elements employed in OpenSEES fsm ⫽ 430 MPa
for simulating the cyclic response of dissipative elements taking
into account the pinching effect is described by Mazzoni et al. (b)
(2007). This general relationship has been specialised for the
steel braces under consideration and their cyclic response is Figure 3. Mechanical behaviour of (a) concrete and (b) steel
represented by the graph in Figure 4. A clearly asymmetrical

58
Structures and Buildings
Volume 167 Issue SB1
behaviour can be observed therein as a result of the reduced
strength in compression.
Non-linear time history (NLTH) analyses were performed with
the aim of simulating the seismic response of the retrofitted RC
structure for the four relevant limit states (immediate occupancy
‘SLO’, damage limitation ‘SLD’, life safety ‘SLV’ and collapse
prevention ‘SLC’) defined by Ministerial Decree (2008). There-
fore, four sets of seven (couples of) unscaled natural accelero-
grams matching the four design spectra defined in Section 3 were
selected by using Rexel (Iervolino et al., 2010). Moreover, the
NLTH analyses were first performed on the 3D model implemen-
ted in OpenSEES, to simulate the structural response in its
as-built state. Then, the three steel bracing patterns described in
Figure 2 were considered and three groups of NLTH analyses
were carried out on the same FE model enriched with the
aforementioned truss elements, which simulate the steel bracings
in their three alternative configurations.
Table 4 reports the key information about the natural accelero-
grams considered in NLTH analyses for the four aforementioned
limit states. Figures depicting the four linear elastic design
spectra and the corresponding spectra derived by the natural
records selected within the available databases are omitted owing
to space constraints. In fact, a total number of 56 accelerograms
were picked out from such databases for performing 14 analyses
for each limit states. Finally, it is worth highlighting that the
relevant response parameters, in terms of both force and displace-
ment demands, were evaluated as the mean of the seven NLTH
analyses output obtained for each limit state (in the two main
directions) of the structure under consideration (Ministerial
Decree, 2008).
5. Critical aspects of the seismic response
The results of the numerical analyses presented in Section 4 are
considered in the following subsections with the aim of high-
lighting the main consequences of adopting the three different
bracing patterns depicted in Figure 2 as alternative solutions for
achieving the seismic retrofitting objectives required by the
current codes of standards.
1400
1200
1000
Axial force: kN
800
600
400
200
0
⫺0·40 ⫺0·20 0 0·20 0·40 0·60 0·80
⫺200
Drift: %
⫺400
Figure 4. The hysteretic model adopted for steel bracings
Steel bracing configurations for seismic
retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo
5.1 Displacement demand
Figure 5 outlines the displacement demand evaluated on both the
existing RC frame and the structures retrofitted with the steel
bracings, distributed in the three alternative layouts described in
Figure 2. As clearly expected, the figure shows that displacements
obtained on the RC members of the retrofitted structures (regard-
less of the particular configuration adopted for the bracing
system) are much lower than the corresponding values obtained
in the as-built state.
Moreover, among the various retrofitted structures, the one
adopting the third bracing pattern (Figure 2) results in the lower
values of displacement demand. The better performance of the
same structure is also confirmed in terms of interstorey drifts.
Figure 6 reports the maximum interstorey drift values measured
in the X-direction for the four limit states under consideration: an
almost regular reduction of the interstorey drift demand can be
observed for the retrofitted structures with respect to the as-built
RC frames, the reduction factor being around 4 and 5. However,
the higher reduction is generally achieved by the retrofitted
structures with steel bracings arranged according to the so-called
pattern 3 of Figure 2. Similar considerations can be drawn out by
analysing the maximum interstorey drifts obtained in the Y-
direction and depicted in the two graphs of Figure 7, for the four
relevant limit states.
5.2 Actions transferred to foundations
Figure 8 shows the values of the base reactions beneath the first
floor columns. They were evaluated at the limit state of life
safety for each one of the three different bracing patterns
represented in Figure 2. In particular, the results are reported in
terms of the ratio between the axial force NEd in the braced
structures and the corresponding values NEd,existing evaluated for
the unstrengthened existing one. Such data are of interest for
investigating the different demand induced by the seismic action
on the foundations. Therefore, as the NEd /NEd,existing are lower for
the pattern 3 solution than for the other two patterns considered
in this study, the former confirms its superior performance also
under this less conventional standpoint. Obviously, the axial
forces determined for the braced structures are greater than those
evaluated for the existing structure (and, then, the ratios on the
y-axes of Figure 8 are often greater than the unit) because
retrofitting leads to significantly higher levels of horizontal force
capacity and for the structure. Further results in terms of actions
at the foundation level for other limit states are omitted herein
for the sake of brevity, but would confirm the general trend
emerged from Figure 8 related to the behaviour in the
X-direction at the limit state of life safety (SLV). However, the
behaviour in the y-direction confirms the observations reported
above, and no further results are reported herein for the sake of
brevity.
5.3 Actions on RC frames and steel bracings
The consequence of the different bracing patterns on the
resulting distribution of actions (namely NEd , Vy Ed , Mx Ed )
59
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Limit state of immediate occupancy (SLO)

Waveform ID Earthquake name Date Mw Epicentral PGA,xa: PGA,ya: Eurocode 8 soil

distance: km m/s2 m/s2 class

1911 Komilion 25/02/1994 5.4 15 1.3067 1.3452 C

378 Lazio Abruzzo 07/05/1984 5.9 16 1.4437 1.1158 C
600 Umbria Marche 26/09/1997 6.0 22 1.6852 1.0406 C
175 Volvi 20/06/1978 6.2 29 1.3649 1.4300 C
6335 South Iceland (aftershock) 21/06/2000 6.4 15 1.2481 1.1322 A
6326 South Iceland (aftershock) 21/06/2000 6.4 14 1.7476 1.1423 A
287 Campano Lucano 23/11/1980 6.9 23 1.3633 1.7756 A
Mean 6.2 19 1.4514 1.2831

Limit state of damage limitation (SLD)

Waveform ID Earthquake name Date Mw Epicentral PGA,xa: PGA,ya: Eurocode 8 Soil

distance: km m/s2 m/s2 class

600 Umbria Marche 26/09/1997 6.0 22 1.6852 1.0406 C

175 Volvi 20/06/1978 6.2 29 1.3649 1.4300 C
581 Komilion 25/02/1994 5.4 16 1.7162 1.9593 C
6335 South Iceland (aftershock) 21/06/2000 6.4 15 1.2481 1.1322 A
335 Alkion 25/02/1981 6.3 25 1.1437 1.1760 C
4677 South Iceland 17/06/2000 6.5 21 2.7316 2.2269 B
413 Kalamata 13/09/1986 5.9 10 2.1082 2.9095 B
Mean 6.1 20 1.7140 1.6964

Limit state of damage limitation (SLD)

Waveform ID Earthquake name Date Mw Epicentral PGA,xa: PGA,ya: Eurocode 8 Soil

distance: km m/s2 m/s2 class

413 Kalamata 13/09/1986 5.9 10 2.1082 2.9095 B

4674 South Iceland 17/06/2000 6.5 5 3.1176 3.3109 A
7329 Faial 09/07/1998 6.1 11 4.1204 3.7490 C
879 Dinar 01/10/1995 6.4 8 2.6739 3.1306 C
55 Friuli 06/05/1976 6.5 23 3.4985 3.0968 A
199 Montenegro 15/04/1979 6.9 16 3.6801 3.5573 B
74 Gazli 17/05/1976 6.7 11 6.0382 7.0650 D
Mean 6.4 12 3.6053 3.8313

Limit state of collapse prevention (SLC)

Waveform ID Earthquake name Date Mw Epicentral PGA,xa: PGA,ya: Eurocode 8 Soil

distance: km m/s2 m/s2 class

879 Dinar 01/10/1995 6.4 8 2.6739 3.1306 C

74 Gazli 17/05/1976 6.7 11 6.0382 7.0650 D
42 Ionian 04/11/1973 5.8 15 5.1459 2.4983 C
535 Erzincan 13/03/1992 6.6 13 3.8142 5.0275 B
6332 South Iceland (aftershock) 21/06/2000 6.4 6 5.1881 5.5698 A
196 Montenegro 15/04/1979 6.9 25 4.4530 2.9996 B
6349 South Iceland (aftershock) 21/06/2000 6.4 5 7.2947 8.2180 A
Mean 6.5 12 4.9440 4.9298

Table 4. Key information about the seismic signals considered in this study

60
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Existing Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 3 Pattern 2 Pattern 1 Existing

0·20 4
0·18
0·16 3
0·14
0·12
Δtop: m

Floor
0·10 2
0·08
0·06 1
0·04 SLD
0·02 SLO
0 0
SLO SLD SLV SLC SLO SLD SLV SLC 0 0·20 0·40 0·60 0·80 1·00 1·20 1·40
Interstorey drift – direction Y: %
Direction X Direction Y
(a)
Figure 5. Displacement demand
Pattern 3 Pattern 2 Pattern 1 Existing
4

3
Pattern 3 Pattern 2 Pattern 1 Existing
4
Floor

2
3
1
SLC
Floor

2 SLV
0
0 0·50 1·00 1·50 2·00
1
SLD Interstorey drift – direction Y: %
SLO (b)
0
0 0·20 0·40 0·60 0·80 1·00 1·20 1·40 Figure 7. Interstorey drifts (Y-direction)
Interstorey drift – direction X: %
(a)

Pattern 3 Pattern 2 Pattern 1 Existing

4 Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3
4·00
Direction X – SLV
3
3·00
NEd /NEd,existing
Floor

2
2·00
1
SLC 1·00
SLV
0
0 0·50 1·00 1·50 2·00 0
Interstorey drift – direction X: % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b) Base joint

Figure 6. Interstorey drifts (X-direction) Figure 8. Axial actions at the foundation level: X-direction

transferred to beams and columns is another relevant aspect to
be considered in designing a retrofitting solution. In particular,
the retrofitted-to-existing ratio in terms of such actions is
reported on the y-axis in terms of axial forces (Figure 9), shear
force (Figure 10) and bending moments (Figure 11, for the
bending moment around one of the two principal axes of the
transverse sections). As in all the aforementioned graphs,
the curve related to the retrofitting solution corresponding to the
‘pattern 3’ of bracing configuration is always below the other
two curves. These diagrams further confirm the superior per-
formance of the third solution represented in Figure 2 with
respect to the other two.
Finally, similar results were obtained by considering the seismic
response of the structure in the Y-direction and are omitted herein
for the sake of brevity.

61
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 joint region can be evaluated by the equilibrium of the bottom
4·00 part of the joint shown in Figure 12 as follows
Direction X – SLV

3·00 1: V jh,E ¼ C b1 þ T b2  V col,i

NEd /NEd,existing

2·00
in which Cb1 and Tb2 are respectively the compressive stress in the
1·00 beam concrete and the tensile stress in the bottom beam reinforce-
ment (assuming, as a reference, an earthquake load from the left
0 to the right) and Vcol,i is the shear force of the bottom column.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Frame However, by equilibrium of the internal force applied on a
transverse beam section in bending, the identity Cb1 ¼ Tb1 can be
Figure 9. Axial force (analysis in X-direction)
easily demonstrated. Furthermore, the development of plastic
hinges in the beams immediately connected to the column faces
is expected under seismic actions. Consequently, the ultimate
Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 strength is supposed to be achieved in the beam longitudinal steel
4·00 bars which are in tension. Thus, the following expression can be
Direction X – SLV
easily derived for determining Vjh,E if an elastic-perfectly plastic
3·00 behaviour is supposed for steel
VyEd /VyEd,existing

2·00 2: V jh,E ¼ (Asup þ Ainf ) f sm  V col,i

1·00
where Asup and Ainf are the amount of steel reinforcement at the
0 top and the bottom of the beam passing the joint, respectively
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 and fsm is the yield stress of the steel.
Frame
However, the joints of the RC frames retrofitted by steel bracings
Figure 10. Shear (analysis in X-direction)
are subjected to significant tension or compression forces trans-
ferred by the steel diagonals. These actions can be equilibrated
through an interior strut-and-tie mechanism. In Figure 13 the
Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3
4·00
Direction X – SLV

3·00
MxEd /MxEd,existing

Vcol,s
2·00
Cc1
Tc1
1·00
Tb1
Cb2
Di

0
ag

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

on
al

Frame
st
ru
t

Cb1
Figure 11. Bending-moment in X direction Tb2

Tc2 Cc2
Vcol,i
5.4 Forces transferred to beam-to-column joints
The presence of steel braces strongly affects the force demand on
RC beam–column joints under seismic actions. As matter of fact,
joints in RC frames are subjected to relevant shear actions
induced by both the shear force in the columns and axial actions
transferred by either the compressed zone or the yielded tensile Figure 12. Equilibrium for an interior joint
bars on beams. Basically, the horizontal shear force across the

62
Structures and Buildings Steel bracing configurations for seismic
Volume 167 Issue SB1 retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo

Nb,2

Brace in
Pattern 1 tension
Vcol,s β2
Cc1
Tc1
Cb2 Tb1

D
Nt Nt
Tb2 θ Cb1
Tc2
Cc2 β1
Vcol,i
Zoom
Nb,1

Brace in
compression

Pattern 2
Cc1 Vcol,s
Tc1
Cb2 Tb1

D
Nt Nt
Tb2 θ Cb1
Tc2
β2 Vcol,i Cc2 β1

Zoom
Nb,2 Nb,1

Brace in Brace in
tension compression

Brace in
compression
Nb,2
Pattern 3
Cc1 Vcol,s
β2
Tc1
Cb2 Tb1

D
Nt Nt
Tb2 θ Cb1
Tc2
Vcol,i Cc2 β1
Zoom
Nb,1

Brace in
compression

Figure 13. Forces transferred to joints directly connected to steel

bracings

63
Structures and Buildings
Volume 167 Issue SB1
configuration of a RC beam-to-column joint with a steel diagonal
connected to realise a concentric X-bracing system is depicted for
the three possible retrofitting solutions considered in this study
(Figure 2). Thus, the equilibrium of Equation 1 should be
rewritten by taking into account the axial forces of braces (Nb,1
and Nb,2 ), and the shear force transferred to beam-to-column joint
in the cases of patterns 1 and 3 can then be evaluated as follows
3: V jh,E ¼ (Asup þ Ainf ) f ys  V col,i þ N b,1 cos 1
Otherwise, for steel diagonals arranged as in pattern 2, the
equilibrium of the bottom part of the joint under consideration
also includes the axial force of the bracing in tension
V jh,E ¼ (Asup þ Ainf ) f ys  V col,i
4: þ N b,1 cos 1 þ N b,2 cos 2
Figure 14 shows the corresponding ratio between the same shear
forces obtained for the retrofitted structures and the correspond-
ing forces determined in the as-built state. The minimum and the
maximum values achieved in NTLH analyses for the same
quantities are also represented.
As expected, the steel bracing configuration referred to as pattern
2 in Figure 2 results in the highest shear force transferred to
beam-to-column joints. However, all retrofitting solutions under
consideration are characterised by a significant increase in shear
force demand, although the solution corresponding to the so-
called pattern 3 results in the lowest increase, and its superior
performance also under this standpoint is then confirmed.
6. Conclusion
This paper stemmed out of a practical design experience and was
intended to investigate the effect of alternative steel bracing
configurations considered as possible retrofitting solution of a RC
framed structure. A significant influence of the diagonal configura-
tion was actually demonstrated, even though the three alternative
4·00
3·50
3·00
Vjh,E /Vjh,E,existing
2·50
2·00
1·50
1·00
0·50
0 BSI, London, UK.
Pattern 1 Pattern 2
Figure 14. Shear force ratios in beam-to-column joints
64
Steel bracing configurations for seismic
retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo
solutions could have been considered as equivalent under the
force-based procedure, which led to their design. The advantages
of adopting one of the three considered solutions clearly emerged
by considering several aspects of the seismic response. In particu-
lar, the advantage of a bracing configuration according to the so-
called pattern 3 in Figure 2 can be briefly summarised as follows.
j The lateral stiffness of the structure retrofitted by adopting
the above-mentioned pattern 3 is significantly higher than
those obtained in the other cases. This effect is of key
importance, especially for the limit state of SLO and SLD.
j The axial stresses in beam–columns determined in the pattern
3 retrofitted frame are generally lower than those induced on
the same elements in the other retrofitted solutions. This
effect is also beneficial in terms of forces transferred to
foundations.
j As a general trend, pattern 3 leads to the lower values of
stresses (in terms of axial, shear and bending stresses) in the
RC members (and, then, to the lower costs expectedly
required for local strengthening interventions).
As a concluding remark, the influence of the bracing configura-
tion on the response of retrofitted RC frames is not negligible, as
it controls the actual lateral capacity of the retrofitted structure.
Although formulating general rules for a rational design of those
steel bracings is not an easy task (and this will be addressed in
future developments of this research), the implications in terms
of flexural and shear stiffening induced by the alternative
configurations of steel diagonal should always be carefully con-
sidered to avoid significant retrofitting costs owing to the
unfavourable configuration of bracings and their effects in terms
of forces transmitted to both existing members and foundations.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the DPC-ReLUIS 2010–2013 Research
Project (Task 1.1.2). The authors wish to acknowledge the
ReLUIS Consortium for the financial support of this research.
REFERENCES
Aydin E and Boduroglu MH (2008) Optimal placement of steel
diagonal braces for upgrading the seismic capacity of existing
structures and its comparison with optimal dampers. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 64(1): 72–86.
Bartera F and Giacchetti R (2004) Steel dissipating braces for
upgrading existing building frames. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 60(3): 751–769.
BSI (2005a) BS EN 1998-1: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic action and rules for
buildings. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2005b) BS EN 1998-3: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings.
Pattern 3
Faella C, Martinelli E and Nigro E (2008) A rational strategy for
seismic assessment of RC existing buildings. Proceedings of
the 14th WCEE, Beijing, China, paper 05–03–0208.
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 167 Issue SB1
fib (Fédération International du Béton) (2003) Seismic
assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings.
State-of-art report, bulletin 24. fib, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gomes A and Appelton J (1997) Nonlinear cyclic stress–strain
relationship of reinforcing bars including buckling.
Engineering Structures 19(10): 822–826.
Iervolino I, Galasso C and Cosenza E (2010) Rexel: computer
aided record selection for code-based seismic structural
analysis. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8(2): 339–362.
Komuro T and Hirosawa M (2004) Analysis on elasto-plastic
behaviour of an existing reinforced concrete building
retrofitted by steel-framed braces in different arrangements
and simplified evaluation method of horizontal bearing
capacity of the retrofitted building. Proceedings of the 13th
WCEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper no. 794.
Lima C (2012) Beam-to-Column Joints in RC Frames: Capacity
Models and Behaviour under Seismic Actions. LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, Germany.
Lima C, Martinelli E and Faella C (2012a) Capacity models for
shear strength of exterior joints in RC frames: state-of-the-art
and synoptic examination. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 10(3): 967–983.
Lima C, Martinelli E and Faella C (2012b) Capacity models for
shear strength of exterior joints in RC frames: experimental
assessment and recalibration. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 10(3): 985–1007.
Maheri MR and Ghaffarzadeh H (2008) Connection overstrength
View publication stats
Steel bracing configurations for seismic
retrofitting of a reinforced concrete frame
Faella, Lima, Martinelli and Realfonzo
in steel-braced RC frames. Engineering Structures 30(7):
1938–1948.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH et al. (2007) OpenSEES –
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California. Berkeley, CA, USA.
Ministerial Decree (2008) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
Ordinary Supplement n. 30 to the Italian Official Journal of
04 February 2008. C.S.LL.PP., Rome, Italy (in Italian).
Park K (1997) A static force-based procedure for the seismic
assessment of existing reinforced concrete moment resisting
frames. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 30(3): 213–226.
Pincheira AJ and Jirsa JO (1995) Seismic response of RC frames
retrofitted with steel braces or walls. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 121(8): 1225–1235.
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-
based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Terán-Gilmore A and Ruiz-Garcı́a J (2011) Retrofitting project
evaluated in regard to architectural usability of buildings. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(3): 478–490.
Tremblay R (2002) Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing
members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 58(5–8):
665–701.
Türker T and Bayraktar A (2011) Experimental and numerical
investigation of brace configuration effects on steel structures.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67(5): 854–865.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
65