Download - Tushar Final Ppt
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
1/98
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFITTINGOF RC FRAME BUILDINGS WITH OPEN
GROUND STOREY
1
BY : TUSHAR V. PAJGADE
(M.TECH. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS)
PROJECT GUIDE
DR. RATNESH KUMAR
ASSTT. PROF. APPLIED MECHANICS DEPT.
VISVESARAYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NAGPUR
SEMINAR
ON
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
2/98
Introduction
Literature Review on damages of RC frame
building
Literature Review on Retrofitting
Objective
Methodology
Scope of work
Comparative study
Modelling of masonary infill
2
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
3/98
Pushover analysis of G+3, G+7
& G+15 storey building
Determination of performance point
Determination of Ductility
Comparisons of inter story drift ratio
Retrofitting techniques used
References
3
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
4/98
4
INTRODUCTIONOPEN GROUND STOREY
Open ground storey is a storey in which ground storey is
constructed without infilled walls
In many countries its common practice to construct RC frame
with OGS.
Also local municipal / building bylaw direct same for solving
parking problem.
Photo from eq tips (Murthy CVR)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
5/98
5
Behaviour of Improperly Designed RC Frame
Buildings
Open ground storey damages
Infill wall damages
National and International code provision forinfill walls
Retrofitting strategies
Retrofitting techniques
Literature Review on
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
6/98
6
Brittle failure (Photo from: Housner &
Jennings, Earthquake Design Criteria,
EERI, USA)
Shear failure of RC columns due
to short column effect (over
view of chi chi eq 1999)
Behaviour of Improperly Designed RC Frame
Buildings
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
7/987
Weak column strong beam
failure three-story primary
school in Gedikbulak village
after collapse (photos: Erdil)
Turkey Earthquake
Dislodged Column due to Soft
ground Floor effect (1999 Athens
Earthquake)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
8/988
During Turkey earthquake of 17 august 1999
In Kocaeli city, 41317 RC frame building were heavily
damaged or collapsed, 46961 were moderately damaged
and 51233 were slightly damaged. In Sakarya city, 29844 RC frame building were heavily
damaged or collapsed, 22170 were moderately damaged
and 26772 were slightly damaged.
Takashi, et al. (2002)
Takashi K., Fumitoshi K., Yoshiaki N., Quickinspection manual for damaged reinforced
concrete building due to earthquake 2002
(June 25, 2012)
http://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdfhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/inter/keizai/gijyutu/pdf/risk_judge_j_08_1.pdf -
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
9/989
After 2010 Haiti earthquake eberhard, et al. survey 107building in port-au-prince downtown indicated that
28% had collapsed and 33% were damaged enough to
require repairs.
Another survey held on Leogane city of 52 buildings,
found that 62% had collapsed and another 31% required
repairs.
Eberhard, et al. (2010)
Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance
Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010
(July 15, 2012)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1048/of2010-1048.pdf -
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
10/9810
Bhuj earthquake (India)
Damages not only related to epicentre.
In Ahmadabad 75 RCC building collapsed and
thousands others damaged.Clearly demonstrating the seismic vulnerability of this
type of design
Jaiswal, et al.(2003)
Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report Country India
Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003
(July15, 2012)
http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/india_reinforced_concrete_frame.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/india_reinforced_concrete_frame.pdf -
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
11/9811
Taiwan government enacted a law in 1984 to encourage
contractor to build OGSDemanded 1st floor height at least 5m.
In return they were awarded with extra floor area.
And Result !
Damages of open ground storey
Tung and George(2003)
Chi Chi earthquake 1999 (photo from World Housing Encyclopedia Report)
Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopaedia Country Taiwan, Primary Reviewer:
Durgesh Rai 2003`( June 26, 2012)
http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdfhttp://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdf -
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
12/9812
Murty (2005)
OGS adverse effect is observed during bhuj earthquake.
In Ahmadabad alone has about 25,000 five-storey buildings
and about 1,500 eleven-storey buildings
100 RC frame buildings with open ground storeys are
collapsed totally.
Bhuj earthquake (photo from EQ tips)
Murty C.V.R., IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips Learning Earthquake Design and Construction,
National Information Centerof Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India, September 2005.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
13/9813
Damages of Infilled wall
Corner crushing
Shear slip of wall
Toe crushing
Diagonal tension
Behavior of masonry infill walls
(photo from Klingner 1976)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
14/98
14
For RC frame without infill
For RC Frame with infill
IS CODE 1893:2002
Ta=0.075h0.75
4.3.6 Additional measures for masonry infilled frames
4.3.6.3 Irregularities due to masonry infills
4.3.6.4 Damage limitation of infills
5.9 Local effects due to masonry or concrete infills
6.10.3 Moment resisting frames with infills
EUROCODE 8
National and International Code provision
for Infill Walls
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
15/98
15
Model infill wall as a strut
(Photo from FEMA)
FEMA-356 And ASCE-41
a=Width of equivalent diagonalcompression strut
For how to model & calculating equivalent stiffness
a= 0.175 (1 hcol ) -0.04 rinf
Where,
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
16/98
16
Literature Review on Retrofitting
Retrofitting strategies
Retrofitting Techniques
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
17/98
17
Repair: The process to regain original strength of a damage
or deteriorated structure is called as Repair.
Seismic Retrofitting: The process to enhance original
strength of a deficient or damaged structure and enabling it
to satisfactorily can perform its intended performance in
future seismic event is called seismic retrofitting.
Retrofitting StrategiesStiffness increase
Strength increase
Ductility increase
Mass reduction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
18/98
18
Retrofitting Techniques
Typical load-displacement relationships for different strengthening
Techniques [Rodriguez et. al. (1991)]
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991),Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
19/98
19
Different Retrofitting Techniques
1. Addition of shear wall
2. Addition of bracing
3. Jacketing
4. Friction dampers
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
20/98
20
1. Addition of shear wall
Its an Effective method of increasing building strength and
stiffness
Can form an efficient lateral-force resisting system
With fulfilling functional requirements (ATC-40)
In Japan, from 1933 to 1975 about 85% case of retrofitting was
executed using shear walls [Rodriguez et al. (1991)]
[Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips]
Shear wall in RC frame (Murthy EQ Tips)
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Seismic
Resistance,Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
21/98
21
Adverse effect
If large number of shear wall added then it result in increase
in mass of the building
Increase in seismic forces also demand i.e., requirement ofstrength increases
It can effect into architectural impact through the loss of
windows
It require special foundation work which highly expensive as
it produces large overturning forces at their base
[Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips]
Shear wall (Photo from Murthy, C.V.R. EQ tips)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
22/98
22
2. ADDITION OF BRACING
Increases stiffness, strength and ductility
Can construct with less disruption in building with verysmall loss of lights
Its very difficult to attach braces with frame in seismic
retrofitting.
a)Concentric bracingb)Eccentric bracingc)Post-tensioned steel bracing
d)Buckling restrained bracings
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
23/98
23
(a) Concentric bracing (Lorant G. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php>)
(b) Eccentric bracing (Kiymaz, G. )
(a) (b)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
24/98
24
Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004),Proc., 13th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
(d-1) Schematic of BRBs or UBs (d-2) Typical types of BRBs [Tsai et al.; 2004]
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
25/98
25
3. JACKETING
Jacketing adds both strength and stiffness to
structureIncreases cross section of member
Four types of jacketing
column jacketing
beam jacketing
column-beam joint jacketing
infill jacketing
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
26/98
26
column jacketing
During 1970s earthquake many of the structural failures
due to inadequate shear strength and/or improper
spacing in confinement in concrete columns
Column jacketing improves strength and ductility andconverting strong-beam weak-column into strong-
column weak-beam mechanism (Choudhuri et al, 1992; Rodriguez
and Park, 1994; Bracci et al, 1997; Bush et al, 1990)
Jacketing of column (Photo from Famer group)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
27/98
27
4 FRICTION DAMPERS
Concept of Friction dampers
The Friction brake is widely used to extract kinetic energy from a
moving body as it is the most effective mean to dissipate energy.
It is an effective way to control seismic response of structure and
non structural damage.
It does not impact the foundation design, increase stiffness of the
frame until a certain shear level is reached, at which the dampers
can be set to slip.
Pall Friction Damper ( Photo from Golafshani. A. A and Gholizad.A 2009)
Golafshani, A. A., and Gholizad, A. (2009).J. Of Const. Steel Research 65(1), 180-187.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
28/98
28
Filistrault 1986
In 1985 a 3 storey frame equipped with friction-dampers was
tested on a shake table
An earthquake record with peak acceleration of 0.9g did notcause any damage to friction- damped braced frame. While
moment resisting frame & braced frame cause permanent
deformation
Aiken 19881987, a 9 storey three bay frame, equipped with friction
dampers, was tested on a shake table all members of the
friction- damped frame remained elastic for 0.84g
acceleration
while the moment- resisting frame would have yield at about0.3g acceleration
Filiatrault, A., Cherry, S.(1986).,Proc., 3rd conference on dynamic response of structure, ASCE,
Held at Los Angeles.
Aiken, I.D., Kelly, J.M., Pall, A.S. (1988)., Report No. UCB/EERC-88/17, Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre of the university of California, Berkeley, 1-7
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
29/98
29
Disadvantage
It is very difficult to maintain its properties for longtime intervals
expensive and the selection of the appropriate slip
load is a critical
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
30/98
30
Objective
To compare period, base shear, bending moment & shear
force of different frame like bare frame, infill frame, and
open ground storey frame by IS code & SAP model.
Performance of evaluation of these building by non-
linear static procedure.
Comparison of performance enhancement of these
building with different retrofitting techniques.
Identification of most suitable retrofitting techniques.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
31/98
31
Methodology
Generic plan of RC frame building selected.
Building modeled for different height i.e.,G+3, G+7, G+15
Selection of suitable modeling techniques in SAP
Modeling, design and comparison of base shear and period of
vibration of these building.
Performance of evaluation of these building by non-linear static
procedure.
Selection of retrofitting techniques & corresponding modeling
techniques in SAP.
Base on result will identify most suitable retrofitting techniques.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
32/98
32
Scope of work
Work will be limited to one type of limited plan and
three different height.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
33/98
33
Selection of Generic plan
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
34/98
34
Period of vibration (with infill
wall)
in Sec.
Period of vibration
(without infill wall) in
Sec.
X-Direction Y-Direction X and Y-Direction
G+3 IS-1893 0.233 0.373 0.597
G+7 IS-1893 0.440 0.711 0.968
G+15 IS-1893 0.865 1.387 1.598
Period of vibration by IS 1893:2002 code Method
Comparison study
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
35/98
Comparison of Modal mass Participation factor by RSA in SAP 2000
35
Types of
BuildingDirection Mode No. 1 2 3 Steps no.
Bare frame
X Modal Load
participation
factor
0.83228 0.0919 0.02403 1'4'7'
Y 0.81587 0.10453 0.03005 2'5'9'
Full infilled
X Modal Load
participationfactor
0.8828 0.07065 0.01303 3 7 11
Y 0.84107 0.09706 0.02433 146
Open Ground
storey
X Modal Load
participation
factor
0.92287 0.02662 0.0042 3610
Y 0.84133 0.09694 0.02422 147
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
36/98
Comparison of Shear force and Bending moment in
member shown in below photo by RSA in SAP 2000
36
1
2
4
3
5
5
3
Bending
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
37/98
37
Type of Building Location 2 Combinations Shear Forcein kN
Combinations
Bending
moment
kN.M.
Bare frame
Left side
Corner 1st
storey
column of
1st frame
1.5(DL+EQx) 30 1.5(DL+EQx) 61
Bare frame withinfill load only
1.5(DL+EQx) 60 1.5(DL+EQx) 122
Full infilled 1.5(DL+EQx) 33 1.5(DL+EQx) 83
Open Ground
storey1.5(DL+EQx)
56 1.5(DL+EQx)
211
Type of Building Location 1 Combinations Shear Force inkN
Combinations
Bending
moment
kN.M
Bare frame
Left side
Corner
ground
storey
column of
1st frame
1.5(DL+EQx) 41 1.5(DL+EQx) 83
Bare frame with
infill load 1.5(DL+EQx) 77 1.5(DL+EQx) 196
Full infilled 1.5(DL+EQx) 56 1.5(DL+EQx) 112
Open Ground
storey1.5(DL+EQx) 176 1.5(DL+EQx) 321
L tiShear Bending
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
38/98
38
Type of BuildingLocation
3 CombinationsShear
Force in
kN
Combinations
Bending
moment
kN.M.
Bare frameLeft side
Corner 1ststorey
slab
Beam of
1st frame
1.5(DL+EQx) 59 1.5(DL+EQx) 110
Bare frame with
infill load only1.5(DL+EQx) 126 1.5(DL+EQx) 173
Full infilled 1.5(DL+EQx) 105 1.5(DL+EQx) 124
Open Ground
storey1.5(DL+EQX) 129 1.5(DL+EQX) 180
Type of BuildingLocation
5Combinations
Shear Force
in KNCombinations
Bending
moment
KN.M.
Bare frame
Left side
Corner
3rd storey
slab
beam of
1st frame
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 32 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 41
Bare frame withinfill load only
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 39 1.5(DL+EQx) 55
Full infilled 1.5(DL+LL) 33 1.5(DL+LL) 30
Open Ground
storey
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 28 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 27
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
39/98
Non linear static procedure
39
Capacity
Demand (displacement)
Performance
Analysis used in present study
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
40/98
40
CapacityCapacity is representation of the structures
ability to resist the seismic demand.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
41/98
Demand (Displacement)
41
Demand is representation of the earthquake
ground motion.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
42/98
Performance
Its dependent on a manner that the capacity is able to
handle the demand ORStructure must have the capacity to resist the demandof earthquake such that performance of the structure iscompatible with the objective of the design
42
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
43/98
Pushover analysis
43
Different code have described pushover analysis
procedure, modelling & acceptable limits It generates capacity curve beyond the elastic
limit
Capacity Spectrum Method
Displacement Coefficient Method
Photo from ATC40
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
44/98
Flow chart of Pushover analysis
44Flow chart of capacity spectrum method (Photo from ATC-40)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
45/98
45
Limitations
This analysis procedure consider onlyfirst mode shape of the Equivalent SDOF
system.
Predefined vertical distribution of the
load along height in one direction at atime
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
46/98
46
MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Column member, coupled axial force and biaxial
bending moment hinges which are mention as P-
M2-M3 hinge.
Beam members uncoupled moment hinges mention
as M3.
IO,LS,CP are structural performance level
Force- Deformation behaviour of a typical RC member
N li d lli f M i fill
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
47/98
47
Non linear modelling of Masonary infill
No special provision for auto hinge for axial member
given in SAP2000 V14.2.4So provide manual hinges properties from FEMA356
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
48/98
48
Calculate yield forceVine=Ani x fvie (N)
Where,
Py = maximum allowable yield force,
Vine = a design shear force,
Ani = a area of strut,
Fvie = a expected shear strength of masonry infill,
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
49/98
49
Where,
Astrut = Area of strut,
Eme = Expected elastic modulus of masonry in
compression,
Linf = Length of infill,hinf = Height of infill,
= Angle between infill diagonal and horizontal
axis,
tinf = thickness of infill,
ESW = Equivalent strut width.
Nonlinear properties of infill
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
50/98
50
Infill name
Yield
ForceDisplacement control parameter Acceptance Criteria
Fy (kN) B C D, E LS CP
S-J 261.80 0 0.083 0.083 0.063 0.083S-K 231.66 0 0.089 0.089 0.069 0.089
S-L 421.04 0 0.026 0.026 0.016 0.026
S-M 260.84 0 0.083 0.083 0.063 0.083
S-N 230.58 0 0.089 0.089 0.069 0.089
p p
(Photo from FEMA 356)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
51/98
51
Nonlinear properties of axial hinge to be filled in SAP
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
52/98
52
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Baseshearin
kN
Displacement in m
full infill
OGS
Bare
frameB- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building in X - direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
53/98
53
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Basesh
earinkN
Displacement in m
Bare
frame
Infill
OGS
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building in Y- direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
54/98
54
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Baseshe
arkN
Displacement in m
Bare
frame
Full
infill
OGS
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+7 building in X- direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
55/98
55
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
BaseshearinkN
Displacement in m
Bare
frame
Full
infill
OGSB- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+7 building in Y- direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
56/98
56
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Baseshear
inkN
Displacemnt in m
Full
infill
OGS
Bare
frameB- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+15 building in X- direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
57/98
57
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Basesheari
nkN
Displacementi in m
Full
infill
OGS
Bare
frameB- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+15 building in Y- direction
Bi Linear izat ion of curve
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
58/98
58
Bi-Linear izat ion of curve
(Photo from FEMA 356)
Ductility in X-Direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
59/98
59
G+3 StoryDuctility
= u/yG+7 Story
Ductility
= u/yG+15 Story
Ductility
= u/y
Bare
frame
Fy = 4300
5.214Bare
frame
Fy = 9800
4.273Bare
frame
Fy = 11997
3.02y = 70mm y =110mm y =245mm
Fu = 4486 Fu = 10000 Fu = 11997
u = 365mm u =470mm u =740mm
Full
infilled
Fy = 6556
1Full
infilled
Fy =16000
5.571Full
infilled
Fy = 17100
2.4y = 20mm y = 70mm y =150mm
Fu = 6556 Fu =18388 Fu = 19118
u = 20mm u =390mm u =360mm
Open
ground
story
Fy = 5400
1.6
Open
ground
story
Fy =15200
2
Open
ground
story
Fy = 14000
2y = 30mm y = 80mm y =125mm
Fu = 5811 Fu =16633 Fu = 17346
u = 48mm u =160mm u =250mm
Ductility in Y Direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
60/98
60
G+3 StoryDuctility
= u/yStory G+7
Ductility
= u/yStory G+15
Ductility
= u/y
Bare
frame
Fy = 4100
6.182Bare
frame
Fy = 7950
5.611Bare
frame
Fy = 2050
9.8y = 55mm y = 90mm y=100mm
Fu = 4927 Fu =8708 Fu = 2182
u = 340mm u =505mm u=980mm
Full
infilled
Fy = 6000
3Full
infilled
Fy = 8200
6.8Full
infilled
Fy = 6200
4.211y = 25mm y = 50mm y = 95mm
Fu = 7975 Fu = 10319 Fu = 7136
u = 75mm u=340mm u=400mm
Open
ground
story
Fy = 5800
4
Open
ground
story
Fy = 7900kN
5.727
Open
ground
story
Fy = 5400
2.167y = 30mm y = 55mm y = 90mm
Fu = 7552 Fu = 9963 Fu = 6200
u = 120mm u = 315mm u = 195mm
DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
61/98
61
DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT
Displacement modification method
t=C0C1C2Sa2
4 2x g
Target displacement
Comparison of Inter story drift ratio at MCE
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
62/98
p y
level
62Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 4 story at MCE
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Storyleve
l
Inter Story Drift Ratio (%)
Bare frame
Full
infilled
OGS
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
63/98
63
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Storylevel
Inter story Drift Ratio (%)
Bare
frame
Full
infilled
OGS
Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 4 story at MCE
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
64/98
64
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Storylevel
Inter story drift Ratio (%)
OGS
Bare
frame
Full
infilled
Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 8 story at MCE
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
65/98
65
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Story
level
Inter story drift Ratio (%)
OGS
Bare frame
Full
infilled
Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 8 story at MCE
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
66/98
66
Inter story Drift ratio in X-direction of 16 story at MCE
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1618
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Storylev
el
Inter story drift Ratio (%)
Bare
frame
Full infill
OGS
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
67/98
67
Inter story Drift ratio in Y-direction of 16 story at MCE
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Storylevel
Inter story drift Ratio (%)
Bare
frame
Full
infill
OGS
Retrofitting Techniques
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
68/98
Retrofitting Techniques
1) 2.5 times increasing design forces of
column & beam of a soft story
2) 2.5 times increasing design forces only in
column of a soft story
3) Friction dampers
4) Shear wall
68
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
69/98
69
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Baseshear(kN)
Displacement (m)
full
infill
OGS
2.5
column
2.5
column
& beam
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5
column & beam in X- direction
2 5 Retrofitting column & beam
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
70/98
70
2.5 Retrofitting column & beam
2.5 Retrofitting column only
P h f G+3 b ildi t fitti ith 2 5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
71/98
71
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Baseshear(kN)
Displacement (m)
Full infill
OGS
2.5
column
only
2.5
column
& beam
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5
column & beam in Y- direction
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
72/98
72
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Baseshear(kN)
Displacement (m)
Fullinfill
OGS
2.5 RET
of Col in
X
2.5 col
& beam
in X
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G 7 building retrofitting with 2.5
column & beam in X- direction
Open ground
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
73/98
73
Open ground
story
2.5 Ret of column &
beam
2.5 Ret of column
only
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
74/98
74
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Baseshear
(kN)
Displacement (m)
Full infill
OGS
2.5 Ret
col
2.5 Ret
col &
beam
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
g g
column & beam in Y- direction
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
75/98
75
0
20004000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Baseshear(k
N)
Displacemnt (m)
Full
infill
OGS
2.5 Ret
of col
only
2.5 Ret
of col &
beam
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
g g
column & beam in X- direction
Open ground 2.5 Ret of column & 2.5 Ret of column
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
76/98
76
p g
story beam.5 et o co u
only
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
77/98
77
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Baseshear
(kN)
Displacementi (m)
Full
infill
OGS
2.5 Ret
column
2.5 Ret
column
& beam
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
g g
column & beam in Y- direction
3 Friction dampers
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
78/98
78
3. Friction dampers
Model as plastic (Wen)
Non linear properties
Yield strength (slip load)
Post yield stiffness ratio
Optimize position of dampers
Optimize yield strength
Pall Friction Damper( Photo from Golafshani. A. A and Gholizad.A 2009)
G+3 building retrofitting with friction dampers showing XZ
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
79/98
79
plane & 3D view
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
80/98
80
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Baseshear
(kN
)
Displacement (m)
full infill
OGS
Ret withFric
damp.
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with Friction
dampers in X-direction
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with Friction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
81/98
81
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Baseshea
rkN
Displacement in m
Full
infill
OGS
Ret
friction
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with Friction
dampers in X-direction
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with Friction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
82/98
82
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Baseshe
ar(kN)
Displacemnt (m)
Full infill
OGS
Ret Frict
dampers
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE - MCE -
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with Friction
dampers in X-direction
Ductility Improve after retrofitting with Friction damper
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
83/98
Type of
building
G+3Ductility
= y/u
G+7Ductility
= y/u
G+15Ductility
= y/u
OGS
Retrofitti
ng withfriction
dampers
Fy = 9000
4.242
Fy = 15800
5.867
17100
3.268
y= 33mm y =75mm y=153mm
Fu = 10000 Fu = 18000 Fu =18800
u=140mm u =440mm u =500mm
Open
ground
story
Fy = 5400
1.600
Fy = 16633
2.000
Fy = 5400
2.000y= 30mm y = 80mm y=125mm
Fu = 5811 Fu = 15200 Fu = 5811
u =48mm u=160mm u=250mm
83
4 SHEAR WALL
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
84/98
84
4. SHEAR WALL
Modelling of shear wall
Model shear wall as a wide column modelling.
To use auto hinge properties P-M2-M3.
Compare analysis and design of a wide column
model with thin shell model.
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
85/98
85
Wide column model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall
Thin shell model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall.
G+3 building retrofitting with shear wall showing 3D view of
i i f h ll
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
86/98
86
position of shear wall
Optimization of position
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
87/98
87
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
BaseshearinkN
Displacement in m
full infill
OGS
Shear
wall
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with shear wall in
X-direction
P h f G+7 b ildi t fitti ith h ll i
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
88/98
88
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
BaseshearkN
Displacement in m
Full
infill
OGS
Ret
Shearwall
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with shear wall in
X-direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
89/98
89
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Baseshearin
kN
Displacemnt in m
Full
infill
OGS
Ret.
Shearwall in-
X
B- IO- LS- CP- DBE- MCE-
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with shear wall
in X-direction
G+3 building retrofitted with shear wall in X direction
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
90/98
90
G+3 building retrofitted with shear wall in X-direction
showing hinges formation.
Comparison of ductility, yield force &ultimate force in open
ground story & retrofitting with shear wall model of different
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
91/98
91
Type of
buildingG+3
Ductility=
y/uG+7
Ductility=
y/uG+15
Ductility=
y/u
Retrofitting
with Shear
wall
Fy=11105
kN
7.118
Fy =14047
kN
7.174
Fy=17389
kN
7.071
y =17mm y = 46mm y=113mm
Fu = 12647
kN
Fu = 15403
kN
Fu =18964
kN
u=121
mm
u=330
mm
u=799
mm
Open ground
story
Fy = 5400
kN
1.600
Fy = 16633
kN
2.000
Fy = 5400
kN
2.000
y =30mm y = 80mm y=125mm
Fu = 5811
kN
Fu = 15200
kN
Fu = 5811
kN
u = 48mm u =160mm u=250mm
ground story & retrofitting with shear wall model of different
building in X- direction.
Conclusion
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
92/98
92
Conclusion
Considering ductility, strength capacity addition of shear wall
is best method of retrofitting, if properly analyze the building.
Ductility is increased up to 3.5 times compare to OGS.
Due to addition of friction damper ductility is increase 2.5
times compare to OGS.
In many cases, it could be difficult to achieve a single
retrofitting technique for attaining the desired performance of
buildings so combination of some of the above mentioned
techniques may be required
Future work
O i t id d i i fill S it bilit f th
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
93/98
93
Openings were not considered in infills. Suitability of the
proposed strengthening schemes must be verified for masonary-
infilled frames with openings in walls.
Non linear dynamic analysis (time history analysis) is a best
method for analyzing the strengthening methods like friction
dampers.
The experimental work should be carried out on a reduced scale
three story with first story without infilled wall under gradually
increased cyclic lateral displacements to further verify theeffectiveness of proposed strengthening schemes.
Reference(contd.)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
94/98
Aiken, I.D., Kelly, J.M., Pall, A.S. (1988). Seismic Response of a nine-storey
Steel frame with friction- damped cross-bracing, Report No. UCB/EERC-
88/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre of the university of
California, Berkeley, 1-7.Applied Technology Council ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings. Rep. No. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, Calif.
Baboux, M., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990), Bracing System for Seismic Retrofitting,
J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 116(1), 55-74.
Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Reihnorn, A.M., (1997). Seismic
performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures, J.
Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(1), 3-10.
Bush, T.D., Jr., Talton, C.R., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990). Behavior of a structure
strengthened using reinforced concrete piers,ACI Struct. J., 87(5), 557-563.
Bush, T.D., Jones, E.A. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991a). Behavior of RC Frame
Strengthened Using Structural Steel Bracing, J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE,117(4),1115-1126.
94
Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000, version-14.2.4 Berkeley (CA,
Reference(contd.)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
95/98
95
p , ( ) , y ( ,
USA): Computer and Structures, Inc., 2000.
Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance
Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010
Eurocode 8- Design of Structures for Earthquakes Resistance Part 1: GeneralRules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Pr-EN 1998-1 Final Draft
Comit Europen de Normalisation. December 2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356). Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.,USA 2000.
Golafshani, A. A., and Gholizad, A. (2009). Friction damper for vibration
control in offshore steel jacket platforms.J. of Const. Steel Research
65(1), 180-187.
Bush, T.D., Jr., Wyllie, L.A., Jr. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991b), Observations of Two
Seismic Strengthening Scheme for Concrete Frames,Earthquake Spectra,7(4), 511-902.
Reference(contd.)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
96/98
96
Klingner R.Y., Bertero V. Infilled frames in earthquake-resistant construction,
University of California, Berkeley, Report No.EERC 76_32, December;
1976.
IS 1893 (part1)Criteria For Earthquake Resistance Design OfStructures(Fifth
Revison),BIS- New Delhi, India. 2002
Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report
Country India Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003.
Maheri, M.R., and Sahebi, A. (1997). Use of steel bracing in Reinforced
Concrete Frame,Eng.Struct., 19(12), 1018-1024.
Mortezaei1 A., Ronagh H. R., Kheyroddin A. and Ghodrati G. (2011).
Effectiveness of modified pushover analysis procedure for the estimation of
seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault earthquakes havingforward directivity.Struct. Design of Tall Spec. Build. 20, 679699.
Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips Learning Earthquake
Design and Construction, National Information Center of Earthquake
Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India
Pall, A.S., Pall, R. (1991). Friction Dampers used for seismic control of new
Reference(contd.)
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
97/98
97
Pall, A.S., Pall, R. (1991). Friction Dampers used for seismic control of new
existing building in Canada,Proc. ATC 17-1, Seminar on seismic isolation,
passive energy dissipation and active control, San Francisco, 2, 675-686.
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Repairand Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings for Seismic Resistance,Earthquake Spectra, 7(3),
817-841.
Rodriguez, M., and Park, R. (1994). Seismic load tests of reinforced concrete
columns strengthened by jacketing,ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 150-159.
Takashi K., Fumitoshi K., Yoshiaki N., Quick inspection manual for
damaged reinforced concrete building due to earthquake 2002
Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004).
Research and Application of Double-Core Buckling Restrained Braces
in Taiwan,Proc., 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopedia Country Taiwan,
Primary Reviewer: Durgesh Rai 2003`
Th k Y
-
7/28/2019 Tushar Final Ppt
98/98
Thank You