EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS FOR REHABILITATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AFFECTED BY SEISMIC ACTION

Corneliu Bob1, Avram Jurca2, Ioan Scordaliu2, Liana Bob2, Dan Vasiliu2, Victor Florea3, Ionel Mircea3, Ioan Ro!u3, Ovidiu Mur#ra!u3, Cristian Palade3, Decebal Anastasescu4 ABSTRACT The paper presents the evaluation and rehabilitation solutions for two buildings affected by seismic action. The main problems discussed are: building characteristics and damages caused by earthquake; experimental determinations; structural analysis; strengthening solutions. The main advantages of the rehabilitation solutions are: save behaviour at future seismic action, slight change of general structural stiffness, low rehabilitation cost. Key Words: rehabilitation, seismic zones, existing structures, masonry structures, reinforced concrete structures, strengthening, CFRP 1. INTRODUCTION Existing structures built before the 1970s are gravity load designed with inadequate lateral load resistance because earlier codes specified lower levels of seismic loads and many of these structures are still in service beyond their design life. On the other hand, some deterioration of component parts of buildings are encountered in old structures due to the action of different hazard factors. On the May 24th 2002 an earthquake of 4.6 magnitude on Richter Scale was reported near the town MoldovaNoua, located in the south-west part of Romania. The seismic motion that was considered to have the local intensity of 7 grades affected many buildings. Among other buildings with important damages two blocks of flats were evaluated and rehabilitated. The blocks were built in 1960. ______________________________
1 2

Professor, University Politehnica and Manager, INCERC Timisoara Doctor Engineer, Building Research Institute INCERC - Timisoara 3 Civil Engineering, Building Research Institute INCERC - Timisoara 4 Emeritus Professor

2. BUILDINGS CHARACTERISTICS AND DAMAGES Each building have five stories and a sub basement with in plane dimensions of 70.6x11.5 m (Fig. 1). The structural composition of each building consists of: vertical structure built of transversal and longitudinal masonry walls of 30 cm width for facades and 25 cm for interior walls; horizontal structure made of R.C. prefabricated hollow strips, supported by transversal walls. The sub-basement was built of transversal and longitudinal reinforced concrete walls (40 cm for facades and 25 cm for interior), located under the masonry walls. The foundations, made of concrete, have the foundation plate with 130 cm width and 55 cm depth.

Fig. 1. The horizontal cross-section of a building The main damages due to earthquake were: fracture of some prefabricated strips of the floor over the sub-base; important damages of the longitudinal walls at the first floor; a lot of cracks on the interior longitudinal wall; vertical cracks on the transversal walls near the joint with longitudinal walls; horizontal cracks on the transversal walls, at the first level, under the floor (Fig. 2). Some deteriorations were observed due to the action of different hazard factors as: reinforcement corrosion of the prefabricated strips of the floor over the sub-base; some cracks of concrete walls as well as of masonry walls at sub-basement and first level; damages of wall bond; segregation of concrete; geometric dimensions damages, etc. 3. EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATIONS The quality of in the buildings existing concrete were obtained from some nondestructive determinations, performed in situ on structural members. The combined method based on rebound procedure and pulse velocity measurements method, have been used. The results of the non-destructive measurements are presented in Table 1. Table 1: The non-destructive measurements results Structural members Concrete at 1st level Concrete into sub-base Rebound index N 26 28 Pulse velocity V, [m/s] 3435 3507 Concrete strength [N/mm2] 10.1 11.4 Concrete class C 6/7.5 C 8/10

From the data presented in Table 1 it con be concluded: the concrete class is not sufficient for extreme loads.

Fig. 2. The damages due to earthquake

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The masonry structures analysis, before the earthquake action, were performed by using of the FEM and the results are presented in Table 2. Table 2.a: Bearing capacity of the vertical walls in longitudinal direction Wall 1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 Notes: Direction 2 E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W E E-W TCM 3 6.00 3.65 3.056 4.30 6.69 3.84 3.12 3.38 5.72 3.847 3.05 4.30 382.56 398.87 1189.86 1189.86 100.10 99.46 315.38 403.69 26.95 26.95 Shear capacity [kN] TCF TCP 4 20.35 20.35 22.60 22.60 24.96 24.96 23.82 23.82 26.05 26.05 22.60 22.60 200.80 200.80 411.20 411.20 123.80 123.80 211.80 211.80 48.64 48.64 5 33.33 42.61 50.75 35.46 40.44 62.79 48.04 48.04 38.94 37.33 50.75 35.46 416.00 440.00 838.70 838.70 292.40 292.40 444.50 416.00 74.66 74.66 Tmin 6 6.00 3.65 3.056 4.30 6.69 3.84 3.12 3.38 5.72 3.847 3.05 4.30 200.80 200.80 411.20 411.20 100.10 99.46 211.80 211.80 10.18 10.18 Axial force N[kN] 7 193.59 193.59 223.22 223.22 229.61 229.61 240.89 240.89 247.62 247.62 209.82 209.82 1358.37 1358.72 2582.32 2582.32 658.38 658.38 1432.96 1432.96 363.00 363.00 Seismic action S[kN] 8 23.23 23.23 26.79 26.79 27.55 27.55 28.91 28.91 29.71 29.71 25.18 25.18 163.00 163.00 309.90 309.90 79.01 79.01 172.00 172.00 43.56 43.56
R= Tmin S

9 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.17 1.23 1.23 1.33 1.33 1.27 1.26 1.23 1.23 0.23 0.23

TCM - shear capacity at bending and axial loads; TCF - shear capacity at horizontal stress in joints; TCP - shear capacity at main inclined stress; CS=0.12 - overall seismic coefficient; K=1.03 - buckling coefficient. Global action : N = 36118 kN Tmin = 1199.11 kN K S = 4464.21 kN
m MTmin = 0.21 K MS

R=

Table 2.b: Bearing capacity of the vertical walls in transversal direction Wall 1 MT1 MT2 MT3 MT4 MT5 MT6 MT7 MT8 Direction TCM Shear capacity [kN] TCF TCP Tmin 6 195.68 195.68 104.34 95.20 90.30 74.15 142.56 146.70 344.20 344.20 16.69 16.69 31.205 31.205 139.79 139.79 Axial force N [kN] 7 921.86 921.86 998.26 998.26 875.357 875.357 1080.32 1080.32 1878.77 1878.77 534.96 534.96 613.95 613.95 1225.84 1225.84 Seismic action S [kN] 8 110.62 110.62 119.79 119.79 105.04 105.04 129.64 129.64 225.45 225.45 64.195 64.195 73.674 73.674 147.10 147.10
R= Tmin S

2 3 4 5 N-S 308.61 195.68 696.88 S-N 308.61 195.68 696.88 N-S 104.34 177.44 377.10 S-N 95.20 177.44 289.29 N-S 90.30 150.37 200.35 S-N 74.15 150.37 200.35 N-S 142.56 243.50 329.05 S-N 146.70 243.50 329.05 N-S 641.90 344.20 696.89 S-N 641.90 344.20 696.89 N-S 16.69 69.09 160.11 S-N 16.69 69.09 160.11 N-S 31.205 98.46 221.97 S-N 31.205 98.46 221.97 N-S 139.79 267.64 470.74 S-N 139.79 267.64 470.74 Global action : N = 36118 kN Tmin = 3399.65 kN K S = 4550.90 kN m MTmin = 0.60 R= K MS

9 1.77 1.77 0.87 0.79 0.86 0.71 1.10 1.13 1.53 1.53 0.26 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.95 0.95

From data presented it can be noticed: - the values of the coefficient R, which represents the earthquake capacity ratio, for goth individual wall as well as for global action, is under the minimum value of Rmin=0.5 it means the buildings are very vulnerable to earthquake loads being in the class RS1 of the seismic risk; - the walls in the longitudinal direction are more vulnerable to seismic actions due to the reduced values of axial force which are transmitted to the transversal walls; - lack of the reinforced concrete straps at each level; - the overall lateral stiffness values along to the two main axis are different. 5. STRENGTHENING SOLUTIONS In accordance to the building damage assessment and structural analysis, the strengthening has been made as follows (Fig. 3 and 4). General strengthening of the perimeter walls with RC framed structures (concrete class C16/20 and steel grade PC 52), consisting of columns (20x40cm) and beams (20x40 cm) which were connected with the existing structure by steel anchors. The columns are supplementary embedded into the existing walls in vertical trench on 10 cm (Fig. 5). New reinforced concrete slab (monolith, 8 cm thickness) over the existing prefabricated strip at the first floor. The connection with the existing walls, the new RC slab has lateral grips which have to support on 5 cm.

Fig. 3. The horizontal distribution of the strengthening elements

Fig. 4. The vertical distribution of the strengthening elements

 On the other hand, the continuity between the slabs is achieved with RC concrete into the holes of 50 cm width over the wall thickness. Rehabilitation of the interior longitudinal wall using CFRP (Sika wrap), (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5. Detail of wall-column conection

Fig. 6. Wall strengthening with CFRP (prof.dr.eng. Valeriu Stoian and civ.eng.Tamas Nagy)

The strengthening of the building structure will assure an earthquake capacity ratio, in longitudinal direction, of R=0.73; it represents a class RS3 of seismic risk. 6. CONCLUSIONS The main ideas that emerge out from this study are summarized below: 1. The damages due to earthquake action affected the structural resistance and stability as function of the load magnitude as well as of existing building vulnerability. 2. The analysis and design procedures of buildings subjected to earthquake actions were adopted from those already used for existing structures in seismic zones. 3. The strengthening solutions have been selected in order to obtain technical and economical advantages: save behaviour at future seismic action; slight change of general structural stiffness; easy strengthening technology and short refurbishment period; low rehabilitation cost. 7. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Romanian Ministry of Public Works and Territory Planning, Code for Aseismic Design of Residential Buildings, Agrozootechnical and Industrial Structures, P100-92, English version. Technical University Bucharest, Code for Assessment of Existing Structures Safety to Seismic Actions, Project, 2001 (in Romanian). GHOBARAH A., "Seismic Assessment of Existing RC Structures", Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2000. KLZ E., BRGE M., "Priorities in Earthquake Upgrading of Existing Structures", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2001. PAULAY T., "A Re-definition of the Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Elements and its Implications in Seismic Design", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2001. PARK R., PAULAY T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley, New York, 1975. BOB C., DAN S., "The Increase of Building Performance to Seismic Actions", Bulletin AGIR, 5(4) (in Romanian), 2000. BOB C., "Rehabilitation of Existing Structures in Seismic Zones", Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2001. BOB C., DAN S., "Analysis, Redesign and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures in Seismic Regions", fib-Symposium: Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Athens, 2003.