International Conference On Rehabilitation and Retrofitting of Structures

International Conference on Rehabilitation
and Retrofitting of Structures
Key note address:

Critical Analysis for Methods of Retrofitting
Dr. H M Rajashekhar Swamy
Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering and Associate Dean – PG
Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
Bangalore
1
©M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
Goals and objectives of retrofit
Retrofit strategy refers to options of increasing the strength, stiffness and ductility of the
elements or the building as a whole. Several retrofit strategies may be selected under a
retrofit scheme of a building.
The goals of seismic retrofitting can be summarized as follows (IS 13935:1993)
1. Increasing the lateral strength and stiffness number of lateral load resisting elements.
2. The retrofit scheme of the building.
3. Increasing the ductility and enhancing the energy dissipation capacity.
4. Giving unity to the structure.
5. Eliminating sources of weakness or those that produce concentration of stresses.
6. Enhancement of redundancy in the should be cost effective.
7. Each retrofit strategy should consistently achieve the performance objective.
2
• To decide the retrofit scheme, a performance based approach can be adopted. The
performance based approach identifies a target building performance level under an
anticipated earthquake level.
The building deficiencies can be broadly classified as:
• Local Deficiencies
• Global Deficiencies
3
Local Deficiencies
Local deficiencies lead to the failure of individual elements of the building. The observed
deficiencies of the elements are summarized.
Columns
a. Inadequate shear capacity.
b. Lack of confinement of column core. Lack of 135º hooks, with adequate hook length.
c. Faulty location of splice just above the floor, with inadequate tension splice length.
d. Inadequate capacity of corner columns under biaxial seismic loads.
e. Existence of short and stiff columns.
4
Beams and Beam-to-Column Joints
a. Shear reinforcement not adequate for flexural capacity.
b. Inadequate anchorage of bottom rebar.
c. Inadequate plastic hinge rotation capability due to lack of confinement.
Slab-to-Column Connections
a. Absence of drag and chord reinforcement.
b. Inadequate reinforcement at the slab-to-beam connections.
Structural Walls
a. Lack of adequate boundary elements.
b. Inadequate reinforcement at the slab-to-wall or beam-to-wall connections.
Unreinforced Masonry Walls
a. Lack of out-of -plane bending capacity
5
Precast elements
a. Lack of tie reinforcement.
Deficient Construction
a. Frequent volume batching.
b. Additional water for workability.
c. Inadequate compaction and curing of concrete.
d. Top 100 to 200 mm of column cast separately, leading to deficient plastic hinge region.
e. Inadequate side face cover, leading to rebar corrosion.
f. Poor quality control.
6
Global Deficiencies
Global deficiencies can broadly be classified as plan irregularities and vertical irregularities, as
per the Code. The items left out are listed under miscellaneous deficiencies. Some of the
observed irregularities are as follows.
Plan Irregularities
a. Torsional irregularity due to plan symmetry and eccentric mass.
b. Frequent re-entrant corners.
c. Diaphragm discontinuity due to large openings or staggered floors, along with the
absence of connector elements.
d. Out-of-plane offset for columns along perimeter.
e. Nonparallel lateral load resisting systems.
7
Vertical Irregularities
a. Stiffness irregularity, soft storey due to open ground storey.
b. Mass irregularity
c. Vertical geometric irregularity from set-back towers.
d. In-plane discontinuity for columns along the perimeter of the building.
e. Weak storey due to open ground storey.
8
The miscellaneous deficiencies are as follows:
Deficiencies in Analysis
a. Buildings designed as only gravity load resisting system.
b. Neglecting the effect of infill walls.
c. Inadequate geotechnical data to consider near source effects.
d. Neglecting the P-Δ effect.
Lack of integral action of the lateral load resisting elements
a. The building performance is degraded due to the absence of tying of the lateral load
resisting elements.
b. The beams are not framed into the elevator core walls and spandrel beams between
the perimeter columns are missing.
9
RETROFIT STRATEGIES
Retrofit strategies that are viable for the type of buildings considered, are grouped under local
and global strategies. These groups need not be watertight and strategies falling in either
group are expected.
Local Retrofit Strategies
• Local retrofit strategies include local strengthening of beams, columns, slabs, beam-to-
column or slab-to column joints, walls and foundations.
• Local strengthening allows one or more under-strength elements or connections to resist
the strength demands predicted by the analysis, without affecting the overall response
of the structure.
• This scheme tends to be the most economical alternative when only a few of the
building’s elements are deficient. The local retrofit strategies are grouped according to
the elements.
10
Column Strengthening
11
Concrete Jacketing
This method increases both strength and ductility of the columns. But, the
composite deformation of the existing and the new concrete requires adequate
dowelling to the existing column.
12
Steel Jacketing
Steel jacketing refers to encasing the column with steel plates and filling the gap with non-
shrink grout. It is a very effective method to remedy deficiencies such as inadequate shear
strength and inadequate splices of longitudinal bars at critical locations. But, it may be
costly and its fire resistance
13
Fibre Reinforced Polymer Sheet
Wrapping
FRP sheets are thin, light and flexible enough

to be inserted behind service ducts, thus
facilitating installation.
In retrofitting of a column there is no

significant increase in the size. The main
drawbacks of FRP are high cost, brittle
behavior and fire resistance
14
Beam Strengthening
Addition of Concrete .There are some disadvantages in this traditional retrofit strategy:
• First, addition of concrete increases the size and weight of the beam.
• Second, the new concrete requires proper bonding to the existing concrete.
• Third, the effects of drying shrinkage must be considered as it induces tensile stresses in
the new concrete. Instead of regular concrete, fibre reinforced concrete can be used for
retrofit.
Steel Plating
Gluing mild steel plates to beams is often used to improve the beam flexural and shear
performances. The addition of steel plate is simple and rapid to apply, does not reduce the
storey clear height significantly and can be applied while the structure is in use. Glued plates
are of course prone to premature debonding.
15
FRP Wrapping
Like steel plates, FRP laminates are attached to beams to increase their flexural and shear
capacities. The amount of FRP attached to the soffit should be limited to retain the ductile
flexural failure mode.
Use of FRP bars
FRP bars can be attached to the web of a beam for shear strengthening
FRP bars can be used as tendons for external prestressing.
16
17
Beam–To-Column Joint Strengthening
Concrete Jacketing
FRP Jacketing
Wall Strengthening
18
FRP Jacketing
Exhibit better efficiency in terms of strength, energy dissipation, lesser rate of stiffness
degradation and ductility levels.
Wall Strengthening
A concrete shear wall can be strengthened by adding new concrete with adequate
boundary elements.
For the composite action, dowels need to be provided between the existing and new
concrete. Steel braces or strips FRP or steel sheets, external prestressing or reinforced
grouted core can be employed for strengthening unreinforced masonary walls.
19
20
21
22
23
Global Retrofit Strategies
Global retrofit strategies aim to stiffen the building, by providing additional

lateral load resisting elements, or to reduce the irregularities or mass.
Structural Stiffening
Addition of Infill Walls
The addition of masonry infill walls increase strength and stiffness of the building, but do not
enhance the ductility. Infill walls with reinforced concrete masonry units can act as shear
walls.
For cast-in-place RC infill walls, the significant parameter that defines the lateral strength of
the frame is the presence of dowels between a wall and the bounding frame.
The use of modular precast panels involves minimal on-site casting and modest handling
equipment.
Use of infill steel panels is an alternative to bracing system.
24
Addition of Shear Walls
New shear walls can be added to control drift. Critical design issues involved in the addition of
shear walls are as follows.
a. Transfer of floor diaphragm shears into the new wall through dowels.
b. Adding new collector and drag members to the diaphragm.
c. Reactions of the new wall on existing foundations
Addition of Steel Braces
A steel bracing system can be designed to provide stiffness, strength, ductility, energy dissipation,
or any combination of these.
Connection between the braces and the existing frame is the most important aspect in this
strategy.
The uses of prestressed tendons and unbonded braces have been proposed by some
investigators to avoid the problems associated with the failure of connections and buckling of
the braces, respectively.
25
26
Reduction of Irregularities
Torsional irregularities can be corrected by the addition of frames or shear walls. Eccentric
masses can be relocated. Seismic joints can be created to transform an irregular building into
multiple regular structures.
Partial demolition can also be an effective measure, although this may have significant impact on
the utility of the building. Discontinuous components such as columns can be extended
beyond the zone of discontinuity.
As mentioned earlier, walls or braces can alleviate the deficiency of soft and weak storey.
Mass Reduction
Reduction of mass results in reduction of the lateral force demand, and therefore, can be used in
specific cases in lieu of structural strengthening.
Energy Dissipation Devices and Base Isolation
For the multi-storeyed buildings addressed in this paper, the use of energy dissipation and base
isolation devices is not cost effective at present. Hence, these devices are not addressed.
27
28
Methods for Seismic Retrofitting of Structures
•Conventional Strengthening Method
•Base Isolation
•Supplemental Energy Dissipation and Structural Control
29
Conventional Strengthening Method
30
Base Isolation
31
Supplemental Energy Dissipation and Structural Control
32
Case Study 1
Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC Building Retrofitted with
FRP Using Pushover Analysis
Mr. Daniel Yumnam ,
Dr. H.M. Rajashekhar Swamy
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
(HOD CIVIL DEPT.)
33
Aim
Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete building using pushover analysis specified
in ATC - 40 to identify weak joints so that retrofitting of those joints can be carried
out to improve the seismic performance of the building under consideration.
34
INTRODUCTION
• Pushover Analysis
 It is a nonlinear static procedure wherein monotonically increasing lateral loads are

applied to a structure subjected to gravity loading till a specified displacement is
achieved or the structure is unable to resist further loads.
 A plot of base shear versus top displacement in a structure is obtained that would
indicate any premature failure or weakness.
 It enables weakness in the structure to be identified. The decision to retrofit can be

taken in such studies.
35
INTRODUCTION
ILLUSTRATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
36
INTRODUCTION
 Performance levels describes the limiting damage

condition of the building. As per ATC 40, performance
levels are specified as follows: Point A: unloaded condition
Point A-B: elastic Range
Point B-C: inelastic range
Point C-D: initial failure of elements
Point D-E: residual resistance allows sustenance
of gravity loads
Beyond Point E: complete collapse with no
resistance to gravity loads.
Performance Levels Described by Pushover Analysis

37
Details of the Structure to be Analyzed
Plan of the Building : 20m x 10m
Length of each bay : 5m
Storey height : 3.5m
Total height : 14m
Number of Storeys : 4
Beam size : 0.3m x
0.5m
Column size : 0.3m x 0.3m
Load on beams : 25kN/m
38
1. To model the Structure in SAP 2000
3D Model of the Structure
39
Section Properties for Columns and Beams
40
Load Application on the Structure
41
2. Design as per IS 456:2000.
– Design of the structure is carried out in software.
– Load combination of 1.5D.L + 1.5 L.L is considered for the design.
Design Parameters
42
columns reinforcement Beams Reinforcement
Corner columns 4-20mm Ø All beams 2-16mmØ @ top

2L 10mmØ @ 200mm c/c 2-16mmØ @ bottom
2L-10mmØ @ 150mmc/c
Intermediate columns 4-20mmØ at corners

4-16mmØ in between corner bars
2-L10mmØ 200mm c/c
Middle columns 4-20mmØ at corners

4-16mmØ in between corner bars
2-L10mmØ 150mm c/c
Reinforcement details
43
3. STAAD Pro Modal Analysis
Load Case For Modal Analysis
44
STAAD Pro Modal Analysis
• As the structure is modeled as a 2
dimensional plane frame for mathematical
formulation, the mode shapes obtained from
analytical calculation will show mode only in
the direction in which the frame is modeled
i.e. X direction,
• However, in the software the structure is

modeled as a 3 dimensional element capable
of translating in three orthogonal direction
Staad Frequency / period Output and torsional modes can be also observed.
45
STAAD Pro Modal Analysis
Mode shape
46
First three Mode shapes of 3 Dimensional structure
47
Comparison
•Frequency Values
Analytical calculation Staad pro difference % decrease
1.0247 0.928 0.0967 9.43 

2.9460 2.736 0.21 7.128
4.5028 4.353 0.1498 3.33
5.5114 5.508 0.0034 0.06
•Mode shapes
48
Base shear calculation
Equivalent Static Lateral Force Method
description Details
Plan of the building 20m*10m
Bay length 5m
Story height 3.5m
Total storey height 14m
Beam size 0.3*0.5m
Column size 0.3m*0.3m
Load on beam 25kN/m
Seismic zone considered IV
Density of RCC 25kN/m3
Type of soil Medium
Grade of concrete 20N/mm2
Beams in x direction 3 nos.
Beams in z direction 5 nos.
Number of Columns in each storey 15 nos. 49
Base shear calculation-------contd
Equivalent Static Lateral Force Method as per IS 1893:2002
• Determination of seismic weight of the structure, W
Mass at top floor, m4 = mass of columns + mass of beams + 50% imposed load on beams
= 1834.13kN
Mass at 2nd floor, m3 =mass of columns + mass of beams + 50% imposed load on beams
= 1775.06kN
M3 = M2 = M1 = 1775.06kN
Seismic weight of the building, W = M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 = 7277.44kN
• Determination of fundamental natural period, Ta
Ta = 0.075 * h0.75 = 0.075 * 140.75 = 0.5428sec
50
Base shear calculation-------contd
Description details
Determination of design base shear, Vb Ah Design horizontal seismic co-efficient
Vb = Ah * W
Z Zone factor
Ah = (Z/2) * (I/R) * (Sa/g) 0.24
I Importance factor
Ah = 0.06 1
R Response reduction factor (OMRF)
Therefore, VB = 0.06 * 7277.44 = 436.64kN 5
Sa/g Avg response accn co-efficient

DESIGN BASE SHEAR, VB = 436.64kN 2.5
51
Lateral load calculation by Response spectrum method
•Determination of frequency, mode shape and time period
X=
0.0168 -0.0425 -0.0479 0.0311 x represents eigen vectors
0.0316 -0.0420 0.0173 -0.0478 Ws represents natural frequency in rad/sec
0.0425 0.0009 0.0417 0.0425 Wn represents natural frequency in Hz
0.0483 0.0429 -0.0324 -0.0175 Ts represents time period in seconds
Ws =
1.0e+03 *
0.0415 0 0 0
0 0.3426 0 0
0 0 0.8004 0
0 0 0 1.1992
Wn =
1.0247 0 0 0
0 2.9460 0 0
0 0 4.5028 0
0 0 0 5.5114
52
Mode Participation Factor
P1 25.752917
P2 -7.8624
P3 -3.787
P4 1.6553
Mode Modal Mass

M1 664.565
M2 61.945
M3 14.3728
M4 2.7456
53
• Determination of modal contribution of various modes Mode Modal Contribution (%)
Modal contribution to various modes is given by Mk/Mtotal * 100

1 89.58
Cl. 7.8.4.2 IS 1893:20002, modes to be considered – sum of
2 8.35
modal mass should be at least 90%.
3 1.94
4 0.37
• Determination of lateral force at each floor in each mode
Total 100%
Cl. 7.8.4.5 c of IS 1893:2002, states that the design lateral force (Qik) at floor i in mode k is given by
Qik = Ak * Øik * Pk * Wi
Where Ak = design Horizontal acceleration spectrum
Ak = (Z/2) * (I/R) * (Sa/g)
Mode T Sa/g I Z R Ak Values
1 0.976 1.3934 1 0.24 5 A1 0.0334416

2 0.339 2.5 1 0.24 5 A2 0.06
3 0.222 2.5 1 0.24 5 A3 0.06
4 0.181 2.5 1 0.24 5 A4 0.06 54
55
• Determination of Storey Shear Forces due to all Modes
The peak response quantities such as shear forces and base reactions are calculated by Square root of sum of squares (SRSS).
V1 = 220.6162kN V2 = 191.275kN V3 = 145.765kN V4 = 83.202kN
Determination of Lateral Forces at Each Storey

The lateral force at each storey due to all modes is also calculated using SRSS method.
F4 = 83.202kN F3 = 62.563kN F2 = 45.5096kN F1 = 29.3416kN
Design base shear Vb = F4 + F3 + F2 + F1 = 220.6162kN
As per IS 1893: 2002, Cl. 7.8.2, the design base shear obtained from response spectrum analysis Vb should be compared with
design base shear VB obtained using fundamental natural period and if Vb is less than VB, then all response quantities such as
storey shear and base shear should be multiplied by factor equal to VB/Vb.
Therefore, VB/Vb = 436.64 / 220.6162 = 1.9792
56
Revised storey shear forces
V1 = 436.6436kN
V2 = 271.970kN
V3 = 148.1455kN
V4 = 58.0729kN
Revised lateral forces at each storey level

F4 = 164.673kN
F3 = 123.825kN
F2 = 90.073kN
Vertical Base shear distribution
F1 = 58.073kN
The calculation will remain same for Y direction as the Square columns are considered for the structure.
57
3. Pushover analysis of the original bare frame structure.
•SAP2000 CSI software has been utilized which has in-built program to carry out non linear
static pushover analysis.
•The structure was loaded with gravity which is a combination of (dead load + 50% live load)
and lateral load obtained from response spectrum method has been used to provide lateral
load for pushover analysis.
•Hinge definition provided by ATC 40 and FEMA 356 were used for beams and columns. These
definitions are based on the sections of elements used and detailing of these elements.
•M3 (moment) hinge property was assigned to both ends of all the beams and P-M2-M3 (axial –
moment) hinge was assigned to both ends of all the columns. Theses hinge property are chosen
based on the recommendation provided in literature.
58
Pushover analysis of the original bare frame structure.
lateral loading condition
59
Gravity loading condition
Pushover loading condition
60
Beam hinge definition
Column hinge definition
61
Capacity Curve for Push in X direction
Performance point for Push in X direction
62
Capacity Curve table for Push in X direction
Hinges formed at performance point for Push in X

direction
63
Capacity Curve for Push in y direction
Performance point for Push in y direction
64
Capacity Curve table for Push in Y direction
Hinges formed at performance point for Push in Y

direction
65
Base shear and roof displacement at performance point
Push Base shear (kN) Displacement Design base shear
(mm) (kN)
X 474.391 51 436.64
Y 442.759 59.296 436.64
Discussions:
Plastic hinges in the range of life safety are formed in elements of the structure when
pushed in Y direction and towards the end, the load carrying capacity is also reduced.
When pushed in X direction, at the performance point, the structure shows no reduction
in its load carrying capacity and elements of the structure has not reached severe
damage state.
From the observations, it can be concluded that the structure requires retrofitting in Y
direction. 66
Modelling of Beam Column Joint
• ANSYS APDL software has been used for finite element modelling of beam column joint
of the structure under consideration.
• For modelling of concrete, solid element concret65 is used. It is capable of plastic
deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions and crushing.
• For reinforcement, LINK 180 is used which is a spar that can be used in a variety of
engineering applications. This element can be used to model trusses, sagging cables,
links, springs, reinforcements, etc.
• For FRP composites, Solid185 elements is used which is a layered solid element. The
element has plasticity, hyperelasticity, stress stiffening, creep, large deflection, and large
strain capabilities.
• Real constants are assigned for LINK 180, area of bars used for reinforcement are
specified.
67
Sl. No. Material Property Sl. No. Material Property
1 Solid 65 Isotropic property 3 Solid185 Orthotropic Property
Young's modulus 22360.6 Mpa Young's modulus X 62000MPa
Poisson's Ratio 0.2 Young's modulus Y 4800MPa
Multi linear Property Young's modulus Z 4800MPa
Stress (Mpa) Strain Poisson's Ratio XY 0.22
6 0.00026832 Poisson's Ratio YZ 0.3
13 0.0006485 Poisson's Ratio XZ 0.22
17 0.0010286 Shear Modulus XY 3270MPa
19 0.0014087 Shear Modulus YZ 1860MPa
20 0.00179 Shear Modulus XZ 3270MPa
Concrete property
Open shear transfer
co-efficient 0.3
Closed shear
transfer co-efficient 0.9 Properties of Material used for Modelling of Beam
Uniaxial cracking stress 2.21 MPa Column Joint
Uniaxial Crushing stress -1
2 link 180 Isotropic property
Young's modulus 200000 Mpa
Poisson's ratio 0.3
Bilinear Property
Yield Stress 415MPa
68
ANSYS Model
69
Displacement at Failure Stress at Failure
Cracks Strain
At at
Failure Failure
70
Displacement (mm) Force (kN)
0 0
0.1667 1.07479
0.333 2.14958 Load Deforamtion Curve
35
0.958 6.18003
1.52093 8.95821 30
2.6485 13.4984
25
3.2083 15.8387
Load (kN)
3.77 14.2146 20
5.1667 16.462 15 Without FRP

6 18.1087
10
7.667 19.5102
11.3 21.2111 5
13.5 22.4549 0
16 24.7072 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deformation (mm)
21 27.99933
26.833 29.9826
33.5 32.3009
35.1667 32.7246
35.5833 32.8105
71
2. FRP Design
FRP Application scheme
Based on literature, Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer is chosen for retrofitting purpose as it provides much
better results than any other FRP. (Umut Akguzel (2011), ‘Seismic Performance of FRP Retrofitted Exterior RC Beam-
Column Joints Under Varying Axial and Bidirectional Loading’, PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand)
72
3. Modelling of FRP Wrap in Beam Column Joint
fiber orientation for FRP

in beams
fiber orientation for FRP

in columns
Modelling of FRP in Beam Column Joint

73
3. Non linear analysis of FRP retrofitted joint
Displacement at Failure stress at Failure
Cracks at
Failure Strain at
Failure
(relocation of
plastic hinge)
74
Load Deformation Curve)
80
70
60
50
Load (kN) 40
Without FRP
30 With FRP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deformation (mm)
Comparison of Load deformation curve
Figure represents comparison of load deformation curve with and without FRP.
75
Data analysis
From the load deformation curve, the moment rotation of the joint can be easily determined using the following equations
Moment = Failure load * the length at which the beam is loaded
Rotation = displacement / beam length at which it is loaded.
With FRP
Displacement (mm) Force(N) Force (kN) Rotation(Ө) Moment (kN-m)

0 0 0 0 0
without FRP 0.1667 1195.4 1.1954 0.00006668 2.9885
Displacement 0.333 2390.8 2.3908 0.0001332 5.977
(mm) Force (N) Force (KN) Rotation(Ө) Moment (kN-m) 0.9583 6873.56 6.87356 0.00038332 17.1839
0 0 0 0 0 1.52 10471.9 10.4719 0.000608 26.17975
2.083 13939.6 13.9396 0.0008332 34.849
0.1667 1074.79 1.07479 0.00006668 2.686975
2.91667 17707.9 17.7079 0.001166668 44.26975
0.333 2149.58 2.14958 0.0001332 5.37395
4.583 21251.1 21.2511 0.0018332 53.12775
0.958 6180.03 6.18003 0.0003832 15.450075 6.52 24479 24.479 0.002608 61.1975
1.52093 8958.21 8.95821 0.000608372 22.395525 7.083 27028.5 27.0285 0.0028332 67.57125
2.6485 13498.4 13.4984 0.0010594 33.746 7.91667 25005.8 25.0058 0.003166668 62.5145
3.2083 15838.7 15.8387 0.00128332 39.59675 9.5833 29433.4 29.4334 0.00383332 73.5835
3.77 14214.6 14.2146 0.001508 35.5365 10.4167 31135.6 31.1356 0.00416668 77.839
5.1667 16462 16.462 0.00206668 41.155 12.0833 33737.3 33.7373 0.00483332 84.34325
13.75 37504.2 37.5042 0.0055 93.7605
6 18108.7 18.1087 0.0024 45.27175
16.25 40323.2 40.3232 0.0065 100.808
7.667 19510.2 19.5102 0.0030668 48.7755
17.9167 43401.6 43.4016 0.00716668 108.504
11.3 21211.1 21.2111 0.00452 53.02775 18.75 45339.4 45.3394 0.0075 113.3485
13.5 22454.9 22.4549 0.0054 56.13725 20.4167 48815.2 48.8152 0.00816668 122.038
16 24707.2 24.7072 0.0064 61.768 22.0833 51474.1 51.4741 0.00883332 128.68525
21 27999.33 27.99933 0.0084 69.998325 23.75 54090.5 54.0905 0.0095 135.22625
26.833 29982.6 29.9826 0.0107332 74.9565 26.25 56655.8 56.6558 0.0105 141.6395
27.9167 58661.2 58.6612 0.01116668 146.653
33.5 32300.9 32.3009 0.0134 80.75225
29.5833 60118.9 60.1189 0.01183332 150.29725
35.1667 32724.6 32.7246 0.01406668 81.8115
32.0833 62391.6 62.3916 0.01283332 155.979
35.5833 32810.5 32.8105 0.01423332 82.02625 34.5833 64466.7 64.4667 0.01383332 161.16675
37.0833 66235.5 66.2355 0.01483332 165.58875
39.5833 67745 67.745 0.01583332 169.3625 76
Moment Rotation Curve
180
Moment Rotation Curve
90
160
80
140
70
Moment (kN-m)
120
Moment (kN-m)
60
100
50
80 40
With FRP Without FRP
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
Moment Rotation Curve Moment Rotation capacity

180 90
160 80
140 70
MOment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
120 60
100 50
80 With FRP 40 additional moment rotation
60 30 capacity
Without FRP
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
77
Pushover Analysis of retrofitted structure
with FRP without FRP with FRP without FRP

Displacement (mm) Force (N) Force (N) Force (kN) Force (kN) Rotation (Ө) Equivalent Force (kN) Moment (kN-m)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.1667 1195.4 1074.79 1.1954 1.07479 0.00006668 0.12061 0.301525
0.333 2390.8 2149.58 2.3908 2.14958 0.0001332 0.24122 0.60305
0.958 6873.56 6180.63 6.87356 6.18063 0.0003832 0.69293 1.732325
1.52 10471.9 8958.21 10.4719 8.95821 0.000608 1.51369 3.784225
2.6485 16764.2 13498.4 16.7642 13.4984 0.0010594 3.2658 8.1645
3.77 18522.45 14214.6 18.52245 14.2146 0.001508 4.30785 10.769625
5.1667 21223.8 16462 21.2238 16.462 0.00206668 4.7618 11.9045
6 23612.4 18108.7 23.6124 18.1087 0.0024 5.5037 13.75925
7.667 25440.2 19510.2 25.4402 19.5102 0.0030668 5.93 14.825
11.3 32514.5 21211.1 32.5145 21.2111 0.00452 11.3034 28.2585
13.5 36450.2 22454.9 36.4502 22.4549 0.0054 13.9953 34.98825
16 41250.2 24707.2 41.2502 24.7072 0.0064 16.543 41.3575
21 49850.9 27999.33 49.8509 27.99933 0.0084 21.85157 54.628925
26.833 56950.4 29982.6 56.9504 29.9826 0.0107332 26.9678 67.4195
33.5 63567.51 32300.9 63.56751 32.3009 0.0134 31.26661 78.166525
35.583 65174 32810.5 65.174 32.8105 0.0142332 32.3635 80.90875
78
Pushover Analysis of retrofitted structure-------contd
• In SAP2000 software, non linear link elements are used to provide additional rotational
capacity of the beams in the joint.
• The multi linear moment rotation values are entered and the this property is provided for a
length equal to the length of FRP provided in the beam (i.e 500mm form the column face),
the effective damping is kept at 5%.
• Using the draw 1 joint link command, the link is provided in the joint of the structure.
• In this investigation, it was decided to retrofit all the corner joints of the structure in Y
direction as the structure was found to be deficient in that direction.
• The procedure adopted in objective 4 is used to perform pushover analysis.
79
Multi linear Link Elements
Provision of link elements in the

joint
80
Capacity curve of the retrofitted Structure
Performance point of the retrofitted

structure
81
Capacity curve table
Plastic hinge formation at performance level.
82
Capacity Curve in Y Direction
Comparison of results 700
600
Values at Performance Point 500
Base Shear (kN)

Base Shear 400
Model (kN) Displacement (mm)
300 with FRP
With FRP 511.945 50
without FRP
200
Without FRP 442.759 59.296
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)
83
Conclusions
• A structure designed as per IS 456:2002 without provision for earthquake detailing may
not necessarily be seismically deficient as evident from pushover analysis in X direction.
The base shear at the performance point is 1.09 times the design base shear.
• Retrofitting of structure with externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer is a viable
solution and it is more advantageous than other techniques of retrofitting. FRP, if
incorporated properly into a structure can improve its seismic performance.
• From the beam column joint analysis, FRP enables ductile failure of the elements. The two
load displacement curves of retrofitted and original joint show that the slope after the
elastic range for retrofitted joint is larger compared to that of original joint.
84
Case Study 2
Evaluation of Performance of RC Beam–Column Joint Externally
Strengthened with Steel Cages
Ms. Bindhu M
Mr. Manish Haveri
Dr. H.M. Rajashekhar Swamy
Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Technology
85
OBJECTIVES of the paper
• To model and analyze the existing structure for gravity load
• To increase the number of floors of the existing structure and carry out seismic
analysis and check its sustainability
• To analyse the retrofitted structural members by adopting relevant retrofitting

techniques based on the type of failure
• To propose suitable retrofitting techniques
86
Objective 2 - To model and analyze the existing structure for gravity load
Figure 20 :3D-Rendered
view of the Existing
structure modeled in
CYPECAD software
87
Objective 2 - To model and analyze the existing structure for gravity load (contd..)
Figure 21 - Reinforcement details of a beam as Figure 22 - Reinforcement details of a beam in

per software design existing structure
88
When three storeys were added to the
existing structure the following failures were
observed
Figure 23 : Plan showing failure of beams and columns

89
• The exterior columns are failing
• A total of 29 columns are failing
90
Numerical modelling and analysis of beam-column joint
91
Material Properties
Material Property
Isotropic Property
Young’s Modulus 22360.6N/mm2
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
Multilinear Property
Concrete – M20 grade Stress (N/mm2) Strain
6 0.00026832
13 0.0006485
17 0.0010286
19 0.0014087
20 0.00179
Isotropic Property
Young’s Modulus 200000N/mm2
Steel-
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Reinforcement
Bilinear Property
Yield Stress 500N/mm2
Tangent Modulus 0
92
Step 1: Pre-processing (Setting up the model)
Step 1A: Engineering Data
93
Step 1: Pre-processing
Step 1A: Engineering Data
94
Step 2B: Geometry
95
Step 2C: Model - Creating Contacts
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
Step 2C: Model - Discretization of the Finite Element Model
• The element adopted for discretization

of the concrete model is tetrahedral
element of element size 75mm.
• The reinforcements are also meshed
using tetrahedral elements with the
element mesh size of 30mm rebars and
concrete share the same node to
satisfy perfect contact condition.
104
Step 2C: Model - Loading, Boundary conditions and Solution controls
Steps Time(s) Displaceme

nt(in mm)
0 0 0
1 2 -10
2 3 -15
3 4 -30
4 5 -45
5 5 -60
Axial load on column = 2125kN
105
Results of non-retrofitted beam-column joint
Figure 24 Total Deformation of non-retrofitted beam-column joint

106
Results of non-retrofitted beam-column joint
Figure 25 Maximum principal stress of non-retrofitted beam-

column joint
107
Isotropic Property
Young’s Modulus 200000N/mm
2
Steel battens and angles Poisson’s Ratio 0.3

Bilinear Property
Yield Stress 275N/mm2
Tangent Modulus 0
Table 9 Material Properties of steel angles and steel battens
108
Modelling of retrofitted beam- column joint
Member Dimensions(in mm)
Steel angles 100*100*10
Battens 80*8
109
Results of retrofitted beam- column joint
Figure 26 Total Deformation retrofitted beam-column joint

110
Figure 27 Maximum Principal stress in Steel cage

111
Figure 27 Maximum Principal stress in Steel cage

112
Load vs Deflection Plot
400
350
300
250
Load in kN
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection in mm
Non-retrofitted beam-column joint Retrofitted Beam-column joint
Figure 28 Load vs Deflection Plot

113
Suitable retrofitting techniques
114
Basement
Type of failure Number of beams failing Number of columns failing Type of retrofitting
Shear Failure 2 CFRP – U wrapping

Flexural Failure 3 CFRP – wrapping at the
soffit of beam
Combined Flexural and 5 Steel Jacketing using steel
Shear Failure angles and steel battens
Combined Flexural and 4 CFRP – U wrapping
Shear Failure
115
Ground Floor

soffit of beam
Shear Failure
116
First Floor

soffit of beam
Shear Failure
117
Second Floor

soffit of beam
Shear Failure
118
Third floor
Shear failure 3 CFRP – U wrapping

Flexural failure 1 CFRP – wrapping at the
soffit of beam
Combined flexural and 4 Steel jacketing using steel
shear failure angles and steel battens
Combined flexural and 6 CFRP – U wrapping
shear failure
119
Roof

Flexural Failure CFRP – wrapping at the
soffit of beam
Shear Failure
120
Conclusions
1. The results of gravity load analysis obtained from CYPECAD software proved that the existing
structure is safe
2. It is possible to enhance the functional utility of the structure by proper planning and
strengthening of the existing structure
3. Analysis results after changing the functional utility of the structure indicated the failure of
structural members along with the type of failure
4. CYPECAD software has proved to been efficient in identifying types of failure in structural
members
121
Conclusions
5. For beam-column joint, steel jacketing retrofit strategy was adopted which improved the load
carrying capacity of the joint by 48.75%
6. For beam failing under flexure and shear, CFRP U-wrap retrofit strategy was adopted which
improved the shear capacity of the beam by 42.19% and load carrying capacity by 59.88%
7. For column failing under flexure and shear, steel jacketing retrofit strategy was adopted which
improved the load carrying capacity by 43.81%
122
References
1. Altun, F. 2004. An experimental study of the jacketed reinforced-concrete beams under bending. Construction and
Building Materials, ELSEVIER, Volume 18, pp. 611-618.
2. Ameli, M., Ronagh, H. R., and Dux, P. F. 2007. Behavior of FRP Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams under
Torsion. Journal of Composites for Construction © ASCE , 11(2), pp. 192-200.
3. E.Grande, 2009. Effect of Transverse Steel on the Response of RC Beams Strengthened in Shear by FRP: Experimental
Study. JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE, Volume 13, pp. 405-414.
4. Frosch, R. J., Wanzhi, L., Jirsa, J. O., and Kreger, M. E., 1996 Retrofit of non-ductile moment-resisting frames using
precast infill wall panels. Earth. Spectra, 12(4): 741–760
5. Kaplan, H., Yilmaz, S., Cetinkaya, N.,and Atimtay, E. 2011. Seismic strengthening of RC structures with exterior shear
walls. Indian Academy of Sciences, 36(1), pp. 17-34.
123
6. Navya, G., and Agarwal, P. 2015. Seismic Retrofitting of Structures by Steel Bracings. 12th International Conference on
Vibration Problems, ELSEVIER , pp. 1364-1372
7. Perera, C. 2007. Structural strengthening for optimizing floor space during retrofitting of high-rise office buildings,
2006. Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation.
8. Ranjan, P., and Dhiman, P., 2016. Retrofitting of Columns of an Existing Building by RC, FRP and SFRC Jacketing
Techniques. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 7(4), pp. 219-228.
9. Safarizkia, H. A., Kristiawanb, S. A., and Basuki, A. 2013. Evaluation of the Use of Steel Bracing to Improve Seismic
Performance of Reinforced Concrete Building., The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in
Civil Engineering,ELSEVIER.
124
10. Swamy, M., Sridhar, R., S and Amarnath 2017. Analysis and Design of Institutional Building by Cype.,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Management), Volume 4(6) pp. 33-39.
11. Tan, K. H., 2014. Beam strengthening by external post-tensioning: Design recommendations. The IES Journal Part
A: Civil & Structural Engineering, 7(4), pp. 219-228.
12. Truong, G. T., Kim, J. C., and Choi, K. K., 2016. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted by
various methods Engineering Structures,ELSEVIER, Volume 18, pp. 611-618.
13. Wang, D., Wang, Z., Yu, T., and Li, H. 2017, Seismic Performance of CFRP-Retrofitted Large-Scale Rectangular RC
Columns under Lateral Loading in Different Directions,Composite Structures
14. Xu, C. X., Peng, S., Deng, J., and Wan, C. 2017, Study on Seismic Behavior of Encased Steel Jacket strengthened
Earthquake-damaged Composite Steel-concrete Column, Journal of Building Engineering
125
References
• Onur Merter, Taner Ucar, (2013), ‘A Comparative Study on Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of RC Frame
Structures ‘, Journal of Civil Engineering and Science, vol.2 (3), pp. 155-162
• R.K. Goel , (2007), ‘Evaluation Of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures For Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, Structural
Engineering Research Frontiers, Structures Congress 2007, ISBN (print): 978-0-7844-0944-2, Publisher: American
Society of Civil Engineers
• Riza Ainul, Mohammed Sohaib Alama, Samir A. Ashour (2014), ‘Application of Pushover Analysis for Evaluating Seismic
Performance of RC Building’, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)Vol. 3 Issue 1,
Engineering Science Research Support Academy Publications Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India
• A. Kadid and A. Boumrkik (2008), ‘Pushover Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures’, Asian Journal Of Civil
Engineering (Building And Housing) Vol. 9, No. 1 Pages 75-83, published by BHRC, Republic of Iran
• H.R Ronagh et. al (2013), ‘Flexural strengthening of RC Building using GFRP/CFRP- A Comparative study’, Composites:
Part B 46 188-196, published by Elsevier
• Costas P. Antonopoulos Thanasis C. Triantafillou (2003), ‘Experimental Investigation of FRP Strengthened RC Beam-
Column Joints’, Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 7(1), pp. 39-49
126
• Seyed S. Mahini Hamid R. Ronagh (2009), ‘ Numerical Modeling of FRP Strengthened RC Beam- Column joints’, Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, impact factor: .93- DOI: 10.12989/ sem. 2009.32.5.649, published by Techno Press, South Korea ISSN
12254568
• R.V.S Ramakrishna and V.Ravindra (2015), ’Experimental Investigation of Rehabilitation of Reinforced Cement Concrete Exterior
Beam- Column Joints by using GFRP Materials’, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research, Issue 5,
Volumne 7, ISSN 2249-9954, published by RS Publication
• A. Pravin and P. Granata (2000), “Investigation on the Effects of Fiber Composites at Concrete Joints”, Composites: Part B 33 499-
509, Publisher- Elsevier
• Taranpreet Singh (2006) Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Master of Engineering Thesis, Thapar Institute Of
Engineering & Technology, (Deemed University), Patiala, India
• Umut Akguzel (2011), ‘Seismic Performance of FRP Retrofitted Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Under Varying Axial and
Bidirectional Loading’, PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
127
• Aswin Prabhut T (2013), ‘’Siesimic Evaluation of 4-Story Reinforced Concrete Structure by Non-Linear Pushover Analysis’’,
Bachelor of Technology Thesis, National Institue of Technology, Rourkela, Odhisa, India
• Applied Technology Council (ATC-40) (1996), “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings Volume 1”,
California
• Pauley T and Priestey M.J.N. (1975), Seismic design of Reinforced concrete and Masonry Buildings”, New York Wiley.
• Computers and Structures, Inc. (1998), “SAP2000: Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures”, Berkeley,
California, USA
• ANSYS Inc. (2013), ‘ANSYS Mechanical APDL Structural Analysis Guide’, Release 15.0 Canonsburg, PA 15317
128
Thank You
129

International Conference On Rehabilitation and Retrofitting of Structures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Conference On Rehabilitation and Retrofitting of Structures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Conference on Rehabilitation

and Retrofitting of Structures

Key note address:

The building deficiencies can be broadly classified as:

a. Inadequate shear capacity.

d. Inadequate capacity of corner columns under biaxial seismic loads.

e. Existence of short and stiff columns.

FRP sheets are thin, light and flexible enough

In retrofitting of a column there is no

Global retrofit strategies aim to stiffen the building, by providing additional

 It is a nonlinear static procedure wherein monotonically increasing lateral loads are

 It enables weakness in the structure to be identified. The decision to retrofit can be

ILLUSTRATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

 Performance levels describes the limiting damage

Performance Levels Described by Pushover Analysis

3D Model of the Structure

Corner columns 4-20mm Ø All beams 2-16mmØ @ top

Intermediate columns 4-20mmØ at corners

Middle columns 4-20mmØ at corners

Load Case For Modal Analysis

• However, in the software the structure is

1.0247 0.928 0.0967 9.43 

Sa/g Avg response accn co-efficient

Mode Modal Mass

Modal contribution to various modes is given by Mk/Mtotal * 100

1 0.976 1.3934 1 0.24 5 A1 0.0334416

Determination of Lateral Forces at Each Storey

Revised lateral forces at each storey level

lateral loading condition

Gravity loading condition

Pushover loading condition

Beam hinge definition

Column hinge definition

Performance point for Push in X direction

Hinges formed at performance point for Push in X

Performance point for Push in y direction

Hinges formed at performance point for Push in Y

Displacement at Failure Stress at Failure

5.1667 16.462 15 Without FRP

FRP Application scheme

fiber orientation for FRP

fiber orientation for FRP

Modelling of FRP in Beam Column Joint

Displacement at Failure stress at Failure

Comparison of Load deformation curve

Displacement (mm) Force(N) Force (kN) Rotation(Ө) Moment (kN-m)

Moment Rotation Curve Moment Rotation capacity

with FRP without FRP with FRP without FRP

Provision of link elements in the

Performance point of the retrofitted

Plastic hinge formation at performance level.

Base Shear (kN)

Department of Civil Engineering

• To model and analyze the existing structure for gravity load

• To analyse the retrofitted structural members by adopting relevant retrofitting

• To propose suitable retrofitting techniques

Figure 21 - Reinforcement details of a beam as Figure 22 - Reinforcement details of a beam in

Figure 23 : Plan showing failure of beams and columns

Step 1A: Engineering Data

• The element adopted for discretization

Steps Time(s) Displaceme

Figure 24 Total Deformation of non-retrofitted beam-column joint

Figure 25 Maximum principal stress of non-retrofitted beam-

Steel angles 10010010