SEISMIC EVALUATION AND STRENGTHENING OF A 5 STORY BUILDING WITH

PILOTI, ACCORDING TO EC8 USING PUSHOVER NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

ASON GRIGORATOS
Summary
The present thesis examines an existing building of year 1993, with piloti plus 4 typical floors, which was
designed using triangular seismic distribution. The building was analysed using Pushover onlinear
!tatic "nalysis #$.%.&.'. The structure was chec(ed for !$ and % compliance criteria under the design
earth)ua(e and also for the $* criterion under an earth)ua(e with a return period of 4+ years. ,t was
then strengthened with - steel braces.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 SUB1ECT
The goal of the present thesis is the seismic evaluation of an existing multi-store building for
various compliance criteria and spectral accelerations. The effectiveness of diagonal steel braces
for the strengthening of the structure is also examined.
The analysis, the seismic evaluation and the redesign of the building were done according to
.!.", the #ree$ %ode for &epairs of &% 'tructures, in full compliance with (urocodes.
The software in use was by %ubus )#" *'tati$+, ,och+, -agus+, %edrus+..
1.2 DATA OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
The building was designed as a /0 frame according to the additional restrictions" of the 12+2
#ree$ )nti-seismic %ode 314. The total hori5ontal seismic force was ta$en e6ual to the total
weight 7 of the building multiplied with a coefficient 89:.:; and was distributed triangularly
with the maximum on top.
The <nowledge =evel is granted as -ull, because there are reliable and sufficient information
about the construction 3>4.
The building was designed with?
%oncrete? @>>+ *slabs A beams., @/:: *columns A walls.
'teel rebars? 't BBB, 'tirrups? 't B
+:C increase in the seismic forces on the piloti level
=ive loads? overall > $DEm
>
, staircases /.+ $DEm
>
, cantilevers + $DEm
>
Fverlay loads? overall :.; $DEm
>
, rooftop 1 $DEm
>
#round type? @
Bmportance %lass? BB *importance factor G
t
9 1.
'eismic ha5ard 5one? BB *'alonica.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1 ~
Bason #rigoratos
Figure 1.1: Formwork of the piloti level
Figure 1.2: Formwork of the typical floor
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ > ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
Beam
Cross
section
(cm
2
)
Span
middle
(mm)
Beam end
(mm)
Stirrups
(mm/cm)
B 1 J+xI: ;K>: ;K>: I legged K;E1>
B 2 J+xI: ;K>: ;K>: I legged K;E1>
B 3 J+xI: ;K>: ;K>: I legged K;E1>
B 4 +:xI: ;K>: ;K>: I legged K;E;
B 5 +:xI: ;K>: ;K>: I legged K;E;
B 6 +:xI: ;K>: JK>: K;EJ
B 7 +:xI: ;K>: JK>: K;EJ
B 8 >:xJ: 1/K>: 1:K>: K;EJ
B 9 /+xI: JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B10 /+xI: JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B11 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B12 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B13 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B16 >:xJ: JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B17 >+xL+ ;K>: ;K>: K;EJ
B18 >+xL+ ;K>: ;K>: K;EJ
B19 /:xL+ JK>: ;K>: K;EJ
B20 /+xI: JK>: +K>: K;EJ
B21 /+xI: JK>: +K>: K;EJ
B22 /+xI: JK>: +K>: K;EJ
B23 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B24 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B25 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
B26 >:xL+ +K>: +K>: K;EJ
Figure 1.1: Steel reinforcement of piloti beams
Beam
Cross
section
(cm
2
)
Span
middle
(mm)
Beam end
(mm)
Stirrups
(mm/cm)
B 1 /+xJ: 11>: LK>: K;EJ
B 2 /+xJ: 11K>: LK>: K;EJ
B 3 /+xJ: 11K>: LK>: K;EJ
B 6 >:xL+ JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B 9 /+xJ: JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B10 /+xJ: JK>: JK>: K;EJ
B20 >:xL+ JK>: +K>: K;EJ
B21 >:xL+ JK>: +K>: K;EJ
B22 >:xL+ JK>: +K>: K;EJ
Figure 1.2: Steel reinforcement of typical floor beams
Meams omitted from -igure 1.> are the same as in -igure 1.1.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ / ~
Bason #rigoratos
Column
PILOTIS:
Cross section &
rebars
FLOORS:
Cross section
& rebars
Stirrups
PILOTIS:
single legged
stirrups
TYP. FLOOR:
single legged
stirrups
C 1 T /+x/+ 1>K>: /+x/+ 1>K>: K;EJ - N
C 2 09++ >2K>: +:x/+ >>K>: K;EJ N N
C 3 09++ >2K>: +:x/+ >>K>: K;EJ N N
C 4 T /+x/+ 1>K>: /+x/+ 1>K>: K;EJ - N
C 5 /+x+: 1:K>: >:x+: ;K>: K;EJ - -
C 6 /:x+: 1:K>: >+x+: ;K>: K;EJ - -
C 7 /:x+: 1:K>: >+x+: ;K>: K;EJ - -
C 8 /+x+: 1:K>: >:x+: ;K>: K;EJ - -
C 9 +:x/+ ;K>: +:x/+ ;K>: K;EJ - -
C10 /+x/+ 1>K>: /+x/+ 1>K>: K;EJ N N
C18 ;:x/+ 1IK>: ;:x/+ 1IK>: K;EJ - N
Figure 1.3: Steel reinforcement of columns

Wall Cross
section
Total reinforc.
in confined
boundary
elements
Verctical
reinforc.
Horizontal
reinforc.
Stirrups
Single
legged
stirrups
W11 >:x1+: 1JK>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: N
W12 >:x1>: 1JK>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: N
W13 ! /JK>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: -
W14 >:x1>: 1JK>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: N
W15 >:x1>: 1JK>: K;E>: K;E>: ;E1: N
W16 >:x1:: >IK>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: -
W17 >:x1;: >:K>: K;E>: K;E>: K;E1: -
Figure 1.4: Steel reinforcement of walls

2. STRUCTURAL MODELLING
2.1 SIMULATION OF THE INFILL WALLS
Bnfill walls with an opening bigger than +:C of their frame bay dimensions are passed over.
#./0.121. 34.4.1'. Therefore, frame bays with -rench doors were not ta$en into account. )ll
inner walls *t91:cm. were also ignored, because of the buc$ling factor *OP/:.. O" is the
definition of the relative ratio of length to thic$ness. )s long as OQ1+ there is no decrease in the
strength capacity, while when 1+QOQ/: a decreasing coefficient R" is ta$en into account.
#./0.121. Table p. 4533'. )ll infill walls, that were passed over, are not mar$ed in -igure 1.>.
The self weight of the inner walls was granted J $DEm and of the outer walls 1: $DEm.
The infill walls are simulated as simply supported compressed diagonal friction members.
These members have thic$ness t" e6ual to the thic$ness of the infill walls and width b9:.1+S=,
=9*l
>
Th
>
.
:.+
the length of the diagonal. The strength of the infill walls is calculated according to
the mechanical properties 3/4 of the materials *mostly bric$s. that the wall is consisted of
#./0.121. formula 6.17'.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ I ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
Therefore? f
wc,s
91.>+S$S f
bc
:.L
S f
mc
:./
*1.
$9:./+, f
bc
911, f
mc,UVWXV
91.+L, f
mc,UVO.
9/.I/.
Bn the structural program 'T)TB< the friction members are simulated as diagonals with
Hushover hinges at both ends. The simulating material was %>.LE/.I unreinforced concrete
#./0.121. formula 6.17' with 5ero tensile capacity. -urthermore, the stiffness and modulus of
rigidity of the members were significantly reduced in order to avoid any bending or tor6ue
stresses. The input of the walls is done in a way that ensures that they are subYected only to
seismic and not to vertical loads. #./0.121. 3+.1.4.+#8''
Frame bay t (m) b (m)
X 4 :.>: :.I+ -
X 7 :.>: :.+: :.;:
Y 1 :.>: :.+: :.2:
Y 2 :.>: :.+: :.2:
Y 3 :.>: :.I+ -
Y 5 :.>: :.I: -
Y 6 :.>: :.I: -
Y10 :.>: :.+: :.2:
Y11 :.>: :.+: :.2:
Y12 :.>: :.I: -
Y13 :.>: :.+: :.;:
Figure 2.1: Infill walls properties

2.2 SIMULATION OF SLABS AND FOUNDATION
The building has a basement with &% walls in the perimeter. Therefore, the foundation is
simulated as rotation and translation fixed Yoints at the bottom end of all columns and walls of
the piloti level.
The slabs are not chec$ed, because they are not subYected to seismic loads and they have not
been damaged in any way. Their diaphragmatic function is imported into the model.
2.3 SIMULATION OF THE DIAGONAL STEEL BRACES
'6uare hollow diagonal steel braces were used in order to strengthen the building. )ccording to
the #ree$ Dational )nnex of (%; titled .!.", the diagonal braces are passed over under
compression, because of buc$ling #./0.121. 637.9.9.4:'. ,owever this instruction was
considered over conservative, because, after calculations 3I4 according to the axial forces
originated from the analysis, the chosen cross sections of paragraph +.> are more than sufficient
to avoid buc$ling.
The calculations were done ignoring the favourable instruction, according to which the
effective length of the Z bracing section bars can be reduced by +:C #./0.121. 6 37.9.9.4;'.
2.4 SIMULATION OF REBARS IN BEAMS
The &% beams contain cold bended rebars in order to sustain not only tension but also the
seismic shear forces in a region close to the columns. Mecause of the lac$ of detailed information
about the exact part of the beam that this angular rebars exist, their contribution to the shear
capacity of the &% beams is passed over.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ + ~
Bason #rigoratos
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SEISMIC EVALUATION THEORY
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PUSHOVER METHOD
The elastic-plastic pushover analysis is based on inelastic response spectrum. Bt is a non-linear
static analysis where the seismic deformations develop under constant gravity loads and
monotonically increasing hori5ontal loads. Hlastic hinges are gradually formed at the ends of the
structural elements resulting in a decrease of their stiffness and the distribution of forces to
neighbouring elements. )t the point that the inelastic deformations are such, that the construction
either cannot bear any more loads, or early shear failure in primary elements occurs, the building
collapses.
Bt should be pointed out that the elastic-plastic pushover analysis is ideal, because it ta$es into
account the behaviour of the structure only due to plastic hinges, ignoring any early shear
failures. Bn other words the final O-[" capacity curve *lateral seismic ratio - control
displacement. of the method is meaningful, only if the potential early shear failures are restored.
-inally, because of the very nature of the method, its application is not indicated if one of the
first two vibration modes of the building is torsional and not hori5ontal.
0iagrams relating the internal moment \ with the chord rotation ]" are used for chec$ing
the inelastic behaviour of the structural elements. The re6uired verifications are? ductility in
terms of deformations, resistance in terms of forces and deformations for functionality reasons
3+4.
Hrere6uisite for these verifications is the calculation of a target displacement [
^
". The
effective eigenperiod T
e
" of the building is calculated based on a bilinear approximation of the
capacity curve. )fterwards, the target displacement [
^
is calculated according to the spectrum.
#./0.121., formula 69.<'?
[
t
9 %
:
%
1
%
>
%
/
*T
e
>
E I_
>
. '
e*T.
*>.
The values of the coefficients were?
%
:
91.I:, since the building had + floors and is built after the year 12;+
%
>
91.::, since the building is built after the year 12;+ *type > structure.
%
/
91.::, since second order effects *H-delta. were not ta$en into account in the Hushover
method
%
m
9:.;+, since the analysis concerns a frame structure of &% concrete with `Q1s.
3.2 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA
The compliance criteria define the acceptable degree of structural damage in the event of the
design earth6ua$e. The three compliance criteria 3J4 are determined by the ultimate chord
rotation ]
u
and are?
0amage =imitation *0=.. The structure is only lightly damaged, with structural elements
prevented from significant yielding and retaining their strength and stiffness properties.
Don-structural components, such as partitions and infills, may show distributed crac$ing,
but the damage could be economically repaired. Hermanent drifts are negligible. The
structure does not need any repair measures.
'ignificant 0amage *'0.. The structure is significantly damaged, with some residual lateral
strength and stiffness, and vertical elements are capable of sustaining vertical loads. Don-
structural components are damaged, although partitions and infills have not failed out-of-
plane. \oderate permanent drifts are present. The structure can sustain after-shoc$s of
moderate intensity. The structure is li$ely to be uneconomic to repair.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ J ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
Dear %ollapse *D%.. The structure is heavily damaged, with low residual lateral strength
and stiffness, although vertical elements are still capable of sustaining vertical loads. \ost
non-structural components have collapsed. =arge permanent drifts are present. The
structure is near collapse and would probably not survive another earth6ua$e, even of
moderate intensity.
Mased on the existing steel reinforcement, program -agus+" calculates the actual resistance of
the cross sections and forms automatically the corresponding plastic hinge. The elements do not
fail, but continue to deform by forming plastic rotations and drifts.
There are two types of failure the program detects?
Mrittle failure in terms of forces.
0uctile failure, e.g. due to bending or drift, in terms of deformation *chord plastic rotation.
3+4.
0epending on the corresponding compliance criterion, the static program calculates different
ultimate chord rotations ]
u
as acceptable. The shear capacity of the elements, because it is the
only bear capacity that is chec$ed in terms of forces, is the same for all three compliance criteria.
Bn D% criterion the model actually develops bigger shear forces and inade6uacies, since the
contribution of the infill walls is passed over.
Mellow there is a table with the performance obYectives according to (%; for the ha5ard levels
of '()F% *1222..
Hrobability of
exceedance in
+: years
&eturn period
%ompliance %riteria
0amage
=imitation
'ignificant
0amage
Dear %ollapse
1:C I+L 1 @1 %1
11+C I> / @/ %/
Table 3.1
)n earth6ua$e, with a return period shorter than the life expectancy of the building, was included
in order to chec$ the behavior of the structure for performance obYective )/. Bn other words it is
chec$ed whether the building can be in immediate use after a fre6uent" earth6ua$e.
)s far as the present thesis is concerned and given the importance of the building, it did not
seem advisable to chec$ the structure for performance obYectives )1, M/, %/.
)ccording to ()<>::/" %ode 3L4 the design earth6ua$e *levels M1, %1. for the buildingas
region has a pea$ ground acceleration coefficient a9:.>I. )ccording to '()F% *1222. the
corresponding coefficient for a fre6uent" earth6ua$e *)/. is e6ual to :.:;.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ L ~
Bason #rigoratos
4. RESULTS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS
Figure 4.1: 3D representation of the building including infill walls
4.1 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS FOR B1 OB1ECTIVE
Figure 4.2: (ADRS) capacity curve for POx+ load
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ ; ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
The demand for ductility in the HFxT combination load is b9[
t
E[
y
e6ual to 1.;:.
Figure 4.3: (ADRS) capacity curve for POy+ load
The demand for ductility in HFyT combination load is b9[
t
E[
y
e6ual to 1.JL.
Figure 4.4: Deformation of the structural model for combinations loads POx+ and POx-
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 2 ~
Bason #rigoratos
Figure 4.5: Deformation of the structural model for combinations loads POy- in 3D
and POy+ in 2D (X-Z)
0espite the ominous combination of piloti with infill walls at floor levels, no soft-story
mechanism is observed.
Figure 4.6: Plastic strains (POy-) and plastic hinges (POy+) of infill wall elements
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1: ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
The wall strains are approximately 1Imm in /./m of length, namely 8
1
9Ic. )ccording to
\ohrds circle? GE>9Ic e G9;c. )s a result, the infill walls will not suffer any significant
damages.
The right side of -igure I.J indicates the immediate formation of plastic hinges at the infill
walls, due to tension, occurs after the very first step of HFyT.
The inade6uacies of the vertical and hori5ontal elements for '0 compliance criterion are
stated in the Table bellow.
BEAMS WALLS
'tirrups f 'tirrups f 'tirrups g
@>+
=1,>,/
M1;
=1,>,/
M12
=1,>,/
71L
=1,>
7 1/
=1
7 1>
=1,>,/
7 1+
=/
/ - /.I >.> / - /./ I - I.; I.J >.+ - / >./
Table 4.1: Inadequate ratios of beams and walls according to SD criterion
(L1 roof of piloti)
The inade6uacies are calculated as the ratio of the imposed forces to the allowable ones and have
as basis the number one. Therefore, the acceptable ratio for the plastic hinges of all structural
elements is h1. )s far as shear failure is concerned, the ade6uate-inade6uate ratios are calculated
for a strut inclination angle of I+ degrees. ,owever according to (%> 3;4 we can assume of a
strut inclination angle e6ual to /: degrees, regarding that it does not concern short beams or that
the shear forces are combined with tension. )s a result we accept the value > as the highest limit
for the shear failure of the structural elements.
inter alia, beam M>+ =1 has inade6uacy of shear capacity e6ual to /J>$D and wall 71/ =1
e6ual to 1/I:$D.
(vidently there are shear strength inade6uacies despite that the building does not develop
significant chord plastic rotations. The range of the brittle failures in primary structural elements
practically means that the building collapses under the design earth6ua$e.
4.2 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS WITH UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION
Bn the previous analysis *Table I.1. the model was submitted to hori5ontal triangularly
distributed loads. Bn this paragraph, loads originate from the same earth6ua$e as before, but with
a uniform distribution. That leads to slightly different results.
)s indicated in -igure I.L, the [
^
was slightly smaller both in x and y axis in comparison to
the triangular distribution *-igures I.> and I./.. )s far as the inade6uacies of the beams are
concerned, they remain the same. The inade6uacies of the columns are slightly smaller, while
those of the walls are slightly bigger. The smaller [
^
, in combination with the very small
diversifications in the results, led to the use of triangular distribution for the following analysis.
-igure I.; indicates that in the HFx load the uniform distribution causes more torsional
displacement and therefore there is a slightly smaller [
^
.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 11 ~
Bason #rigoratos
Figure 4.7: Capacity curves for uniformly distributed seismic loads
Figure 4.8: Deformation of the structural model for POx+, POy+ loads with uniform distribution
4.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS FOR OB1ECTIVE C1
Bn D% criterion the contribution of infill walls is passed over #./0.121. 34.4.1#:''. Meyond
that, the structural model and the response spectrum remain the same. The absence of the
diagonal bars of infill walls slightly reduces the total stiffness of the building and increases [
^
by
+mm in x direction and by Jmm in y direction.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1> ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
BEAMS WALLS
strirrups f strirrups f strirrups g
@>+
=1,>,/
M1;
=1,>,/
M12
=1,>,/
71L
=1,>
71/
=1,>
71>
=1,>,/
71+
=/
71I
=1,>,/
711
=1
/.> - /.J >.+ >.L - /./ I - I.; >.> - / >.+ - / >./ >.+ - /.1 >./
Table 4.2: Inadequacies in performance objective C1
)s a result of the bigger [
^
, the inade6uacies appear generally bigger and in more elements. That
ma$es criterion D% seem paradoxically more adverse than '0. Ff course this is misleading,
because any early shear failures lead to the collapse of the building, regardless of the selected
compliance criterion. Therefore, the criteria are meaningful, only if the building is strengthened
so that it will not collapse due to potential early shear failures.
4.4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS FOR OB1ECTIVE A3
Figure 4.9: Capacity curve regarding o0.08
Bn this performance obYective, the [
^
is smaller than the [
y
for all four directions of Hushover
loads. 0espite that, there is an exceedance in the verification of the chord rotations.
BEAMS COLUMNS
stirrups f Hlastic chord rotations
@>+
=1
%J
=>,/
%L
=>
>.> 1.> - 1.J 1.>
Table 4.3: Ratios of inadequacy in objective A3
inter alia, beam M>+ =1 *piloti roof. has inade6uacy of shear capacity e6ual to J:$D. Bt goes
without saying that for a less intense earth6ua$e, shear forces are significantly smaller. 0ue to
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1/ ~
Bason #rigoratos
the 0= criterion, the tolerance in chord rotations is dramatically reduced. Bnfill walls have a
maximum strain of 1.+mm and therefore they will not suffer any damage.
5. STRENGTHENING OF THE BUILDING FOR OB1ECTIVES B1, C1, A3
5.1 STRENGTHENING FOR OB1ECTIVES B1, C1
Muilding was strengthened using variable cross sections of Z bracing section bars, in different
combinations of frame bays, either only in piloti or across the full height of the building. Do
realistic combination dealt successfully with the shear inade6uacies of the beams and walls,
despite the fact that the [
^
was slightly reduced. The Table bellow indicates the crucial results of
the application of Z bracing steel ;:x;:x1: s6uare hollow elements in all perimeter frame bays
of the piloti level in y axis direction *-igure1.>.. This time, the steel section bars under
compression were not ta$en into account in the structural modelling.
BEAMS WALLS
stirrups f stirrups f stirrups g
@>+
=1,>,/
M1;
=1,>,/
M12
=1,>,/
71L
=1,>,/
71/
=1,>
71>
=1,>
71+
=/
71I
=1,>,/
/ - /.I >.1 / - /.1 >.I - /.J >.I - I >.+ - / >./ >.> - >.2
Table 5.1: Inadequacies of the strengthening with X bracing 80x80x10 section bars
for objective B1
The application of 11:x11:x1: s6uare hollow elements instead of ;:x;:x1: lead to negligible
improvements. The results were similar when the strengthening was applicated in the frame bays
of the piloti level in x direction. -inally, neither the application of Z braces allong the full height
of the building in frame bays g1, g/, gJ, g1:, g1/ *see -igure 1.>. dealt with the shear
capacity problems in the beams and the walls 71L, 71/, 71I.
Bn conclusion, Z steel braces, despite increasing the stiffness, are not suitable for dealing with
great inade6uacies in shear capacity. )s an alternative, the use of -&H in the problematic
elements is recommended #./0.121. 37.+.+'.
5.2 STEEL BRACING STRENGTHENING FOR OB1ECTIVE A3
Bn performance obYective )/, there are very small inade6uacies in shear capacity *Table I./. and
significant exceedancies in chord rotations. )fter parametric solving it is recommended to use
1/:x1/:x; hollow Z braces in frame bays of beams M1L and MI of the 1st floor roof *see -igure
1.>. and ;:x;:xJ in frame bay g1> in the same level,.
-or the reasons mentioned in j>./ above, the compressed diagonal steel section bars are not
ta$en into account in the process of the Hushover analysis.
BEAMS COLUMNS
stirrups f Hlastic chord rotations
@>+
=1
%J
=>,/
%L
=>
1.2; :.2/ :.2L
Table 5.2: The crucial elements for objective A3 after strengthening
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1I ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
Bt is inferred that, with the contribution of the steel braces, the inade6uacies in shear capacity and
chord ration are successfully dealt with.
Figure 5.1: 3D representation of L1 and L2 after strengthening, without infill walls
*The above drawing imperfections are due to the eccentricity of Yoints.
Figure 5.2: Capacity curves for objective A3 after strengthening
Bn perfect consistency with the calculations, no steel section bar in any load direction forms
plastic hinge.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1+ ~
Bason #rigoratos
6. FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The additional restrictions" of 12+2 #ree$ )nti-seismic Muilding %ode do not ensure
the ade6uacy of elements under shear stresses and do not exclude the collapse of the
structure under the design earth6ua$e. (ven though the restrictions for the spacing of
stirrups were sufficient as far as the ductility of the structure is concerned, the use of
smooth '>>: *'t B. stirrups lead to extended brittle failures. Bf the stirrups were 't BBB
*li$ewise with the hori5ontal rebars. the structural model could avoid collapsing under
the design earth6ua$e.
The +:C accretion rate in the seismic forces in the piloti level helped preventing any
soft-story mechanism, but did not protect the building from brittle failures.
0espite the ominous combination of piloti with infill walls at the floor levels, no soft-
story mechanism is observed. That is mainly because of the large number of walls in the
y direction *n
y
9;:C..
(ven though the seismic base shear ratio of &% walls is n
y
9;:C and n
x
9LJC, the
structure was unable to cope with an earth6ua$e of moderate to great intensity.
The short beams *Q1.+m. suffer from shear stresses, even under a fre6uentEwea$
earth6ua$e.
) building may not have problems concerning the exceedance of chord rotations for the
'0 performance criterion under the design earth6ua$e, but still faces problems for the 0=
criterion under a fre6uentEwea$ earth6ua$e.
Bf a building has enough ductility and does not exceed the acceptable chord rotations of
the obYective M1, the restriction ./0.121. 34.4.1#:' ma$es the obYective %1 seem at first
glance as more ominous. Ff course, as explained, the compliance criteria are meaningful
only if the building is already retrofitted so that it does not collapse due to early shear
failures.
The Z steel braces are more efficient in dealing with shear forces, when placed above the
crucial beam instead of underneath. This happens perhaps because the gravity loads of
the building are better distributed.
The use of Z steel braces increases the total stiffness of the building, but it is not
recommended for dealing with inade6uacies in shear strength in the absence of a soft-
story mechanism.
The simulation of the infill walls did not ma$e a great difference in the behaviour of the
building, mainly because their position was between frame bays with walls at both ends.
(ven though the ductility factor b" for the obYective M1 is P1.+, the building has enough
ductility to cope with the demands of the '0 criterion.
(ven though the ductility factor b" for the obYective M1 is Q1, two columns develop
unacceptable chord rotations.
The uniform distribution of the seismic loads does not lead to significantly different
conclusions in comparison to the triangular. ,aving said that, it does lead to more
torsional displacements due to the position of the elevator &% wall. This fact affects
badly the corner columns of the perimeter, but not the beams.
The instruction of paragraph j;.+.+.I of .!." %ode, i.e. that the compressed
diagonal steel section bars regardless of cross section are passed over due to buc$ling,
was proven over conservative, since, for the chosen hollow cross sections, no section bar
in any load direction forms plastic hinge.
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1J ~
'eismic evaluation and strengthening of a + story building with piloti, according to (%; using Hushover Donlinear
'tatic )nalysis
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
314 )dditional restrictions" of year 12;I to the #ree$ )nti-seismic %ode of year 12+2
3>4 .!. *>:1/.", #ree$ %ode for &epairs of &% 'tructures, in full compliance with
(urocodes and their #ree$ )nnexes
3/4 0r. #eorgia \pei, KklXVmn ^XopX_Xoqn n_r sbX_Oqt]XVu v &esearch and innovation in
#reece", Table / A I, library.tee.grEdigitalEm>/1JEm>/1Jwbei.pdf
3I4 (%/ j+.+.1.1
3+4 )ntonis H. <anellopoulos, (arth6ua$e resistant design and strengthening of reinforced
concrete buildings", cubus ,ellas, >::L. cubushellas.grE/:-H0-EHart-1-(D.pdf
3J4 %; Hart /
3L4 ()<>::/" #ree$ )nti-seismic %ode *>::/., Table >.1
3;4 %> jJ.>./
>:th )nnual 'tudent %onference? &einforcements-repairs of &.%. structures"
Hatras, -ebruary >:1I
~ 1L ~