Manual On Seismic Evaluation Retrofit of Multistory RC Blds PDF

Manual on
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings
March, 2005
SHEAR
CONCRETE
WALL
STEEL JACKETING
BRACING
Retrofit of soft-storeyed building
Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
Indian Institute of Technology Madras Structural Engineering Research Centre

Chennai 600 036 Chennai 600 113
Prepared by
Structural Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai 600 036
In collaboration with
Structural Engineering Research Centre
Taramani, Chennai 600 113
Sponsored by
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
PREFACE
The Manual of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings is the

outcome of a research project, jointly undertaken by IIT Madras and SERC Chennai, with
the sponsorship of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.
The purpose of this Manual is to provide a methodology to enable a structural engineer to

assess the seismic vulnerability of existing multi-storeyed buildings in India and to select
suitable methods of retrofit, wherever required and possible. Thus, the Manual has been
organised into two major parts: the first part dealing with seismic evaluation (data
collection, preliminary evaluation and detailed analysis) and the second dealing with
seismic retrofit (global and local retrofit strategies). Various options of seismic retrofit
are possible, and the designer is required to re-analyse the retrofitted structure to ensure
that the desired performance is achieved. Some explanatory examples demonstrating the
prescribed procedure are given in the chapter on case studies. Detailed references are
also cited in this Manual for users interested in further research. Seismic retrofit is still in
a nascent stage, and considerable research and experience with practical real-life
applications is called for.
i
This Manual is intended primarily for use by the practising engineer, but is also useful for
academic purposes. Some background information on the basic theoretical concepts are
given, but for a full understanding, the user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge
of structural dynamics, earthquake engineering, reinforced concrete design and IS code
requirements. It is also assumed that the user has some exposure to the use of standard
finite element software packages (such as SAP 2000, STAAD Pro, etc.). As part of the
DST sponsored project, a software called SAVE (Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability
Evaluation), has also been developed (as an alternative to existing commercial packages)
and is now made freely available for users of this Manual. Details of SAVE (User
Manual and CD) are given separately, and are not included in the scope of this Manual.
This Manual in its present form represents a consolidation of several studies (theoretical
and experimental) and discussions undertaken by the coordinators of the DST-sponsored
project, which commenced in 2002. As part of the project, as many as 40 sample
buildings located in different parts of India (in Zones III, IV and V) were evaluated,
including the difficult process of data collection and field survey. It is observed from
these case studies that the majority of existing multi-storeyed buildings in India,
particularly residential apartment complexes, fail to meet the current code compliance
requirements and are in danger of damage (of varying degrees) in the event of a
earthquake of expected intensity.
Occupants of multi-storeyed apartment complexes were a worried lot in the aftermath of

the Gujarat earthquake in 2001, but this worry has gradually faded with time, and lessons
have not been learnt. It should not take another disastrous earthquake to make us act
proactively to avoid such disasters. Building owners have a responsibility of getting their
buildings properly evaluated and strengthened, before it is too late.
ii
Unfortunately, there are at present few structural engineers who have the expertise to
assess the seismic vulnerability and suggest appropriate retrofit measures. This Manual
is expected to enhance that number manifold. Workshops and training programmes
related to the use of this Manual are planned for this purpose.
Numerous persons have helped us in preparing this Manual. These include project
associates, Ph.D. and M.S. research scholars, M.Tech. and B.Tech. students, laboratory
technicians and secretarial staff. A list of all the major contributors is given in the
Acknowlegement page. We are also grateful to the Department of Science and
Technology for their funding and encouragement.
IITM –SERC Project Team

March 12, 2005.
iii
IITM – SERC Project Team
1 Dr. Devdas Menon 1 Mr. T S Krishnamoorthy

Principal Investigator Principal Investigator
2 Dr. Amlan K Sengupta 2 Dr. N Lakshmanan
3 Dr. V Kalyanaraman 3 Mr. C V Vaidyanathan
4 Dr. A Meher Prasad 4 Dr. K Muthumani
5 Dr. S R Satish Kumar 5 Mr. K Balasubramanian
6 Dr. P Alagusundaramoorthy 6 Dr. K Balaji Rao
7 Mr. V T Badari Narayanan 7 Mr. R Ravichandran
8 Mr. Gnanasekharan 8 Mr. N Gopalakrishnan
9 Mr. Pradip Sarkar 9 Mr. M Manjuprasad
10 Ms S Prathibha 10 Mr. K Satish Kumar
11 Mr. Rajib Chowdhury 11 Dr. B H Bharatkumar
12 Mr. Robin Davis P 12 Ms. P. Kamatchi
13 Dr. S R Uma 13 Ms. R Sreekala
14 Mr. A. Asokan 14 Mr. D Dhiman Basu
15 Mr. G Ravi Kumar 15 Mr. S. Avinash
16 Ms. K N S Susmitha 16 Mr. S Gopalakrishnan
17 Mr. Anand Gupta
18 Mr. Biju Kumar Patir
19 Mr. Lakki Reddy
20 Ms. Praseetha Krishnan
21 Mr. Rajesh Lal
22 Mr. Ramaseshan
23 Mr. Ramesh Pativada
24 Mr. Ravi Chugh
25 Mr. Santosh K Barnwal
26 Mr. Sheshu Reddy
27 Mr. Shiv Shanker
28 Mr. Srinivas, B.
29 Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy
iv
CONTENTS
Preface i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology
2. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 7
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Data Collection and Condition Assessment of Building
2.3 Rapid Visual Screening
2.3.1 Scores for a building
2.3.2 Cut-off Score
2.3.3 Building Type Descriptions
2.3.4 Score Modifier
2.4 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness
2.4.1 Column Shear
2.4.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
2.4.3 Axial Stress in Column
2.4.4 Frame Drift
2.4.5 Strong Column – Weak Beam Check
2.5 Evaluation Statements
2.6 Decision for Detailed Evaluation
vii
3. EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS 35

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Computational Model
3.2.1 Material properties
3.2.2 Structural element model
3.2.2.1 Beams and columns
3.2.2.2 Beam-column joints
3.2.2.3 Slabs
3.2.2.4 Appendages
3.2.2.5 Walls (structural and non structural)
3.2.3 Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation
3.2.4 Load Combinations
3.3 Linear Analysis Methods
3.3.1 Equivalent static method
3.3.1.1 Centre of mass
3.3.1.2 Centre of rigidity of storey
3.3.1.3 Effect of torsion
3.3.1.4 Seismic weight
3.3.1.5 Lumped mass
3.3.1.6 Calculation of lateral forces
3.3.2 Response spectrum analysis
3.4 Evaluation Results
4. EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 53

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Capacity Spectrum, Demand Spectrum & Performance Point
4.3 Pushover Analysis Procedure
4.3.1 Seismic Load Distribution
4.3.2 Load Deformation Behaviour of Elements
4.4 Performance Based Analysis
4.4.1 Performance Objective
4.4.2 Performance Levels of Structure and Elements
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels
4.4.4 Selection of Performance Objective
4.5 Evaluation Results
5. SEISMIC RETROFIT 63
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Goals of Retrofit
5.3 Definitions
viii
5.4 Steps of Retrofit

5.5 Performance Objectives
5.6 Retrofit Strategies
5.6.1 Global Strategies
5.6.2 Local Strategies
5.6.3 Energy Dissipation and Base Isolation
5.6.4 Mitigating Geological Hazards
6. BUILDING DEFICIENCIES 70
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Global Deficiencies
6.2.1 Plan Irregularities
6.2.2 Vertical Irregularities
6.3 Local Deficiencies
6.3.1 Columns
6.3.2 Beams and Beam-Column Joints
6.3.3 Slabs
6.3.4 Unreinforced Masonry Walls
6.3.5 Precast Elements
6.3.6 Deficient Construction
6.4 Miscellaneous Deficiencies
6.4.1 Deficiencies in Analysis
6.4.2 Lack of Integral Action
6.4.3 Failure of Stair Slab
6.4.4 Pounding of Buildings
6.4.5 Geotechnical Aspects
6.4.6 Inadequate detailing and documentation
7. GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES 84

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Structural Stiffening
7.2.1 Addition of Infill Walls
7.2.2 Addition of Shear Walls
7.2.3 Addition of Steel Braces
7.3 Reduction of Irregularities
7.4 Reduction of Mass
ix
8. LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES 90

8.1 Introduction
8.2 Column Strengthening
8.2.1 Concrete Jacketing
8.2.2 Steel Jacketing
8.2.3 Fibre Reinforced Polymer Wrapping
8.3 Beam Strengthening
8.3.2 Steel Plating
8.3.3 FRP Wrapping
8.3.4 Use of FRP Bars
8.3.5 External Prestressing
8.4 Beam-Column Joint Strengthening
8.4.2 Concrete Fillet
8.4.4 Steel Plating
8.4.5 Fibre Reinforce Polymer (FRP) jacketing
8.5 Wall Strengthening
8.6 Footing Strengthening
9. CASE STUDY I 129
10. CASE STUDY II 173
11. CASE STUDY III 211
APPENDIX A: MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE A1
APPENDIX B: MODELLING OF INFILL MASONRY WALL B1

B.1 Modelling of Masonry Infill
B.2 Effect of Openings
x
B.3 Strength of Equivalent Strut

B.3.1 Local Crushing Failure
B.3.2 Shear Failure
APPENDIX C: MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES C1

C.1 Flexural Hinges for Beams and Columns
C.1.1 Stress Strain Characteristics of Concrete
C.1.2 Stress Strain Characteristics of Steel
C.1.3 Moment-curvature Relationship
C.1.4 Modelling of Moment-curvature in Confined RC Sections
C.1.4.1 Assumptions
C.1.4.2 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-curvature for Beam Sections
C.1.4.3 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-curvature for Column Sections
C.1.5 Moment Rotation Parameters
C.2 Shear Hinges for Beams and Columns
C.3 Axial Hinges for Equivalent Struts
APPENDIX D: VULNERABILITY INDEX D1
APPENDIX E: ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES E1

E.1 Types of Bracing
E.2 Connection of Braces to RC Frame
E.3 Analysis and Design of Braces
E.4 Non-Buckling Braces
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Existing multi-storey buildings in earthquake prone regions of India are vulnerable

to severe damage under earthquakes, as revealed by the recent Gujarat earthquake.
There is urgent need for seismic evaluation and retrofit of deficient buildings.
There are experts in the country who can assist in the seismic evaluation and
retrofit of individual buildings on a case-to-case basis. The magnitude of the work,
however, is so large that it cannot be accomplished by limited number of experts,
and needs involvement of many structural engineers, who are properly trained.
Hence, there is a need to provide appropriate guidelines for seismic evaluation and
retrofit of existing buildings to the vast majority of structural engineers in our
country who lack the expertise. To address this problem, this manual has been
prepared to facilitate seismic evaluation and recommend strategies for retrofitting,
so that the risk of failure is minimised in the event of a future earthquake. This
manual addresses the seismic evaluation of existing RC multi-storey building. The
document is a part of a research project supported by Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India.
1
Indian codes of practice for earthquake resistant design (IS 1893: 2002) and
detailing (IS 13920: 1993) give guidelines to construct new buildings which are
expected to perform adequate in terms of load and deformation capacities. The
existing buildings constructed as per older codes are likely to show inherent
deficiencies and may not meet the demands as estimated by the current codes.
Hence, the task of seismic evaluation involves correlation between the imposed
demand level of earthquake and the expected performance level of building. The
code refers to two levels of earthquakes such as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The concept of seismic design
philosophy is to ensure life safety under DBE and prevent collapse of the building
under MCE. These are two performance objectives which are to be ascertained
with the existing buildings.
A systematic procedure is to be followed in assessing the vulnerability of existing

buildings. Firstly, a detailed survey of the building of interest should be
undertaken. The basic information would include a review of the building
configuration, soil profile and the period of construction. An evaluation is to be
performed based on the available documents, to ensure code compliance. This is
done with the help of quick checks and evaluation statements. The above tasks
form the essence of the preliminary evaluation procedure.
However, a detailed evaluation is necessary in order to identify the deficiencies

associated with the structural components with regard to the expected behaviour of
the building. The code compliance of the building can be ascertained only when
the available member capacities are compared with the respective demands due to
the earthquake. The demands in the structural members are determined for the
seismic forces estimated as per IS 1893-2002 through linear static analysis. The
member capacities are determined using the procedures prescribed in IS 456-2000.
The deficient members are identified when the Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR)
exceed unity indicating the need for retrofitting in order to establish compliance
with prevailing codes.
2
Chapter I - Introduction
In the case of deficient buildings, a more enhanced and sophisticated analysis

procedure is recommended to determine the load versus deformation behaviour of
the building taking into account of the non-linear behaviour of its components.
Non-linear static pushover analysis provides a basis to determine whether the
building can meet the imposed displacement demand at expected performance
level. It also indicates the likely mode of failure and the spatial distribution of
plastic hinges. If the performance is unsatisfactory various retrofit strategies can
be tried to achieve satisfactory performance.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the manual is to provide comprehensive guidelines for seismic

evaluation and retrofit based on the Indian code of practice. The followings are
the main objectives.
1. To give a well-defined procedure that enables a proper assessment of
the seismic vulnerability of a given (existing) multi-storeyed RC
building.
2. To propose various strategies for seismic retrofit that can be used for
buildings found to be deficient.
3. To develop software that facilitates Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability
Evaluation (“SAVE”) of RC buildings.
The work related to the first two objectives is covered in this manual. It may be
noted that any of the commercially available software can be used to carry out the
analysis. Details of the free software SAVE developed as part of this DST
sponsored project are given separately (user manual and CD), and are not included
in this manual.
3
1.3 SCOPE
This procedure aims at two seismic safety objectives, namely (i) life safety under
design basis earthquake and (ii) collapse prevention objective under maximum
considered earthquake. It does not address other performance objectives. The
buildings treated in this section are mid-rise (3 to 10 storeys) reinforced concrete
moment resisting framed buildings. The report deals only with structural aspects
of the building. Non-structural and geotechnical aspects lie outside the scope of
the report. Special attention should be taken for the evaluation of buildings
located in liquefiable soils.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation process essentially consists of two phases, viz., preliminary

evaluation and detailed evaluation. Preliminary evaluation is a quick procedure to
identify potential risks in buildings due to earthquakes. If the building satisfies
the requirements of preliminary evaluation, detailed analysis may not be
necessary.
The following are the methods recommended for detailed analysis:

1. Linear static analysis – Equivalent static analysis as per IS 1893: 2002
2. Linear dynamic analysis – Response spectrum analysis as per IS 1893:
2002
3. Non-linear static analysis – Push-over analysis
It is recommended that all the above methods be performed sequentially for a

proper assessment of the seismic vulnerability, as demonstrated in the case studies
given in Chapter XI. It may be noted that more rigorous analysis (nonlinear
dynamic time-history analysis) is possible, but this is not recommended as it is
more involved and time consuming and not recommended for normal building.
Figure 1.1 gives the flowchart explaining the evaluation and retrofit process.
4
Chapter I - Introduction
Preliminary evaluation
Deficiencies? NO
YES
Detailed evaluation
NO Retrofit not
Deficiencies?
necessary
YES
Development of retrofit scheme
Post-retrofit analysis
NO
Deficiencies? Report preparation
YES
Development of different retrofit

scheme
Figure 1.1: Flowchart summarizing the evaluation and retrofit process
The steps to be undertaken in the seismic evaluation of existing building are as

follows,
1. Preliminary evaluation
i) Data collection and condition assessment of building.
5
ii) Rapid Visual Screening (optional).

iii) Quick checks for strength and stiffness.
iv) Evaluation statements (structural checklist).
2. Detailed evaluation
i) Computational modelling.
ii) Perform linear static and dynamic analysis and check the code
compliance at critical section.
iii) Study DCR of structural components
iv) Perform non-linear (static) push-over analysis and assess the
performance.
v) Compare with performance objectives
i Code compliance
i Desired failure mechanism
i Drift capacity
The first two among these three performance objectives are mandatory
requirements to be satisfied whereas the third one is a desirable performance
objective.
3. Selection and design of retrofit strategies and subsequent verification of the

retrofit scheme.
Remodelling the structure according to the trial retrofit scheme and analysing the
building model. If the performance is not satisfactory different retrofit scheme is
to be selected.
4. Preparation of seismic evaluation and retrofit report.
6
CHAPTER II
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the preliminary evaluation is to identify the areas of seismic

deficiencies in a building under investigation. It is a ‘non-detailed’ analysis
consisting of the following procedures
i) Data collection and condition assessment of building.
ii) Rapid Visual Screening (optional).
iii) Quick checks for strength and stiffness.
iv) Evaluation statements (structural checklist).
The collection of all available data pertaining to the building structure, especially
related to the construction, as well as an on-site inspection of the building form the
first step in the preliminary evaluation procedure. The Rapid Visual Screening
procedure, adapted from FEMA 154∗ gives some preliminary idea, based on a
scoring system, of the seismic vulnerability of the building. However, this
screening is optional and not mandatory, as FEMA guidelines are not directly
applicable to Indian conditions.
∗
The RVS procedure was proposed by Applied Technology Council in the documents FEMA 154
and FEMA 155. In the present report, the data collection form shown in Table 2.1, is adapted from
FEMA 154 published in 2002. The form was modified to include the seismic zones and soil types
as per IS 1893: 2002 and to define the ‘pre-code’ and ‘post-benchmark’ criteria.
7
“Quick checks” are approximate checks for strength and stiffness of building
components. The evaluation statements are in the form of a simple questionnaire
that gives an overall idea of the building and identifies areas of potential weakness,
in terms of seismic performance. It also checks the conformity with seismic design
and detailing provisions.
2.2 DATA COLLECTION & CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

BUILDING
In order to facilitate a proper assessment, it is necessary to collect as much relevant

data of the building as possible through drawings, enquiry, design calculations and
soil report (if available), etc. It may be noted that physical evaluation (condition
survey and walk through) of the building is essential.
Condition survey and walk through of the building gives a general description of
the building. It notes the available drawings and reports, identifies the basic
architectural features, material properties and their deterioration and several
helpful information. A suggested form of the building survey data sheet is given in
Table 2.1 and 2.2 is modified from the proposed amendment in town and country
planning legislations, Regulations for Land Use Zoning in Natural Hazards Zone
of India (Draft version, 2005).
Table 2.1: Building survey data sheet: General data

S.No. Description Information Notes
1 Address of the building
• Name of the building
• Plot number
• Locality/Town ship
• District
• State
2 Name of owner
3 Name of builder
4 Name of Architect/Engineer
8
Chapter II – Preliminary Evaluation
Table 2.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data

5 Name of Structural Engineer
6 Use of building
7 Number of storeys above ground
level
8 Number of basements below ground
level
9 Type of structure
• Load bearing wall
• RC frame
• RC frame and shear wall
• Steel frame
10 Soil data IS 1893: 2002
• Type of soil IS 1904: 1986
• Design safe bearing capacity
11 Dead loads (unit weight adopted)
• Earth IS 875: Part 1:
• Water 1987
• Brick masonry
• Plain cement concrete
• Floor finish
• Other fill materials
12 Imposed (live) loads
• Floor loads IS 875: Part 2:
• Roof loads 1987
13 Cyclone/Wind IS 875: Part 3:
• Speed 1987
• Design pressure intensity
14 History of past earthquakes and
tremors
15 Seismic zone IS 1893: 2002
16 Importance factor, I IS 1893: 2002
17 Seismic zone factor, Z IS 1893: 2002
18 Response reduction factor, R IS 1893: 2002
19 Fundamental natural period, T IS 1893: 2002
9

20 Design Horizontal acceleration IS 1893: 2002
spectrum value (Ah)
21 Seismic design lateral force
22 Expansion/ Separation joints
Table 2.2: Building survey data sheet: Building Data (moment resisting frame)
1 Type of building IS 1893: 2002
• Regular frames
• Regular frames with shear
wall
• Irregular frames
• Irregular frames with shear
wall
• Open ground storey
2 Number of basements
3 Number of floors
4 Horizontal floor system
• Beams and slabs
• Waffle slab
• Ribbed floor
• Flat slab with drops
• Flat plate without drops
5 Soil data IS 1498: 1970
• Type of soil
• Recommended foundation
- Independent footings
- Raft
- Piles
• Recommended bearing
capacity
• Recommended type, length,
diameter and load capacity of
piles
• Depth of water table
• Chemical analysis of ground
water
• Chemical analysis of soil
10
Table 2.2 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: Building Data (MRF)
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level
• Type
− Independent
− Interconnected
− Raft
− Piles
7 System of interconnecting IS 1893: 2002
foundations Cl. 7.12.1
• Plinth beams
• Foundation beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different
parts of building
9 Method of analysis
10 Computer software used
11 Torsion included IS 1893: 2002
12 Base shear IS 1893: 2002
a) Based on approximate
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis
c) Ratio of a/b
13 Distribution of seismic forces along IS 1893: 2002
the height of building
14 The columns of soft ground storey IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
11
16 Ductile detailing of RC frame
• Type of reinforcement used IS 456, Cl. 5.6
• Minimum dimension of IS 13920, Cl. 6.1
beams IS 13920, Cl. 7.1.2
• Minimum dimension of
columns IS 456: 2000
• Minimum percentage of Cl. 26.5.1.1(a)
reinforcement of beams at IS 13920: 1993
any cross section Cl. 6.2.1 (a)
• Spacing of transverse
reinforcement at any section
of beam
• Spacing of transverse IS 13920: 1993
reinforcement in 2d length Cl. 6.3.5
of beam near the ends
• Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of
IS 456: 2000
reinforcement in column
Cl. 26.5.3.1
• Confining stirrups near ends IS 13920, Cl. 7.4
of columns and in beam-
column joints
− Diameter
− Spacing
• Ratio of shear capacity of IS 13920, Cl. 7.2.1
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey IS 13920, Cl. 6.3.5
• Column bar splices location
and spacing of hoops in the
splice
• Beam bar splices location
splice
However, in many cases, such drawings may not be available (or at best, partially
available). Tables 2.3 to 2.6∗ summarize the data collection process, relating to the
availability of the drawings and level of evaluation. The various data to be
collected when the original construction drawings are available are indicated in
∗
These items are from Table 5.1 to Table 5.4 of ATC-40 (Volume 1): “Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings,” Applied Technology Council, California.1996.
12
Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 should be followed when construction
drawings are not available. It is suggested, as shown in tables that in addition to the
visual inspection, it is recommended to carry out non-destructive testing to assess
the strength of concrete.
Table 2.3: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original

construction drawings are available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Structural calculations × Helpful but not essential
Site seismicity and Helpful but updated report should
×
geotechnical report be done.
Foundation report × Helpful but not essential
Prior seismic assessment
× Helpful but not essential
reports
Condition survey of building ×
Alteration and as built
×
assessment
Unless required by undocumented
Walk through dimensioning ×
alterations
Non-structural walk through × Identify falling hazards, weight
Unless concrete appears
Core testing ×
substandard
Unless concrete appears
Rebound hammer testing ×
substandard
Aggregate testing ×
Reinforcement testing ×
Reinforcement location Unless insufficient info. on
×
verification drawing
Non-structural exploration ×
13
Table 2.4: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Structural calculations × Could be helpful
Site seismicity and
geotechnical report
Prior seismic assessment
reports
Alteration and as built
×
assessment
Walk through dimensioning × Spot checking is appropriate
Non-structural walk through × Identify falling hazards, weight
Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per
Core testing ×
building
building
Aggregate testing × Each core
Reinforcement testing × Optional
Reinforcement location Pachometer @ 10% of critical
×
verification location, Visual @ 2 locations.
Verify anchorage and bracing
Non-structural exploration × conditions for components sensitive
to building performance.
It is desirable to do core testing, when the condition of the concrete is suspect.

Any evidence of deterioration, cracking and corrosion of reinforcement should be
noted. Testing of reinforcement for yield/ ultimate strength and ductility is
desirable. It is also desirable to ascertain the nature of reinforcement detailing,
especially anchorage of bars and hooks, spacing of stirrups/ ties to the extent
possible using device such as rebar locator.
14
Table 2.5: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original

construction drawings are not available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Could minimize scope of site
Structural calculations ×
work
Site seismicity and geotechnical Could minimize scope of site
×
report work
Foundation report ×
work
Prior seismic assessment reports ×
work
Alteration and as built assessment ×
Sufficient to define primary
Walk through dimensioning ×
element
Identify falling hazards,
Non-structural walk through ×
weight
Core testing (limited) ×
building
Could be helpful, especially
Rebound hammer testing × if concrete appears
substandard
Aggregate testing × Several cores
Reinforcement testing ×
Reinforcement location verification × Could be helpful
Unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the ductile detailing provision of
IS 13920: 1993 have been followed, it is judicious to assume non-compliance with
the code. Based on an assessment of reliability of the data collected, an
15
approximate “knowledge factor” should be applied to the material properties for

detailed analysis (Table 3.2).
Table 2.6: Information required for detailed seismic evaluation when original
construction drawings are not available.
Required
Item Comment
Yes No
Structural calculations × Could be helpful
Site seismicity and geotechnical
report
Prior seismic assessment reports × Helpful but not essential
Alteration and as built assessment ×
Must be done very
Walk through dimensioning × thoroughly, particularly if
structure will be retrofitted.
Identify falling hazards,
Non-structural walk through ×
weight
Core testing (limited) ×
building
building
Aggregate testing × Each core
Reinforcement testing × 2 per type
Pachometer for all critical
Reinforcement location verification ×
location, Visual on 25%.
Verify anchorage and
bracing conditions for
components sensitive to
building performance.
16
2.3 RAPID VISUAL SCREENING
The Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) was proposed by FEMA as a means of quickly
assessing, using a scoring system, the seismic vulnerability of buildings in a
locality, based only on visual inspection. Considerable research has gone into the
formulation of the RVS scoring system, and although the specific scores may not
be directly applicable to Indian conditions, the RVS does provide a rough guideline
for reference. Since the RVS is based on visual inspection, the results may vary
from that of a detailed analysis. In general, however, it is expected that the
building that passes the RVS cut-off score criterion, will be found to perform
adequately during an earthquake. If a large number of buildings need to be
evaluated, performing the RVS helps to minimise the number of buildings that
require a detailed analysis.
Table 2.7: Rapid Visual Screening data collection form

Region of High Seismicity Moderate Seismicity Low Seismicity
Seismicity (Zone V) (Zone IV) (Zone II and III)
URM URM URM
Building Type MRF SW MRF SW MRF SW
INF INF INF
Basic Score 2.5 2.8 1.6 3.0 3.6 3.2 4.4 4.8 4.4
Mid rise +0.4 +0.4 +0.2 +0.2 +0.4 +0.2 +0.4 -0.2 -0.4
High rise +0.6 +0.8 +0.3 +0.5 +0.8 +0.4 +1.0 0.0 -0.4
Vertical
-1.5 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.0
irregularity
Plan
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
irregularity
Pre-code -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 -1.0 -0.4 -1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Post-
+1.4 +2.4 N/A +1.2 +1.6 N/A +0.6 +0.4 N/A
benchmark
Soil Type I -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4
Soil Type II -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.0 -1.4 -0.8 -0.8
Soil Type III -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Final Score
Comments
17
In this procedure the building under consideration is compared with a benchmark

building through visual inspection. Table 2.7 represents the data collection form,
which quantifies the potential seismic hazard for any building based on the
seismicity level of the locality. The form addresses reinforced concrete (RC)
moment resisting frame buildings (MRF), concrete shear wall buildings (SW) and
concrete frame buildings with un-reinforced masonry infill walls (URM INF).
2.3.1 Scores for a Building
In the data collection form, for a particular type of building, the structural scoring
system consists of a basic structural hazard (BSH) score and a set of score
modifiers. The BSH score can be defined as negative logarithm of probability of
collapse of the benchmark building under maximum considered earthquake
(MCE). Thus a BSH score for moment resisting frame (MRF) in moderate
seismicity region of 3.0 implies that for every thousand (103) benchmark buildings
one building is likely to collapse.
Benchmark buildings are the representative building for which the structural
hazard scores (BSH score) were developed∗ for different seismic regions. A
Benchmark building is a low rise, ordinary building (not detailed as per seismic
detailing code) located on an average rock strata (Soil Type B of UBC 1997) and it
has no plan and vertical irregularity. The building is assumed to be designed as per
the current seismic code.
2.3.2 Cut-off Score
FEMA 154 recommends that if the final score is less than the cut off score of 2, a
detailed analysis of the building is required. In selected cases, in order to have a
safer environment (at a correspondingly higher cost) a higher cut-off value can be
used.
∗
The BSH scores are developed from fragility and capacity curves, generated by HAZUS
(developed by National Institute of Building Sciences, USA) based on seismic hazard maps.
18
2.3.3 Building Type Descriptions
There are three different building types mentioned in Table 2.7. The definitions of
these buildings are as follows.
(a) Concrete Moment Resisting Frame Buildings (MRF): The buildings with
reinforced concrete frame as the only lateral load resisting system.
(b) Concrete Shear Wall Buildings (SW): Buildings with shear walls are
considered in this type. It also includes buildings having shear walls and frames,
but where the frames are either not designed to carry lateral load or do not fulfil
the requirements of dual system. These buildings generally perform better than
concrete frame buildings and this is reflected in the magnitude of BSH score.
(c) Concrete Frames with Un-reinforced Masonry Infill Walls (URM-INF): In
this type of buildings, un-reinforced masonry infill walls are also part of the lateral
load resisting system.
2.3.4 Score Modifier
BSH scores were calculated for a standard benchmark building. For a specific
building, which may have different characteristics due to higher number of storeys
or structural irregularities or different soil type, it is necessary to modify the BSH
scores using score modifiers (SM)**. So a specific building will arrive at a final
score (S) after modifying the BSH score. The final score S is an estimate of the
probability that the building will collapse if a ground motion equal to or exceeding
the MCE ground motion occurs. S = BSH ± SM. Definitions∗ for the score
modifiers used in Table 2.7 are discussed below.
High-rise and Mid-rise Buildings: 4 to 7 storey buildings are categorised as mid-

rise building whereas buildings with 8 or more storeys are as high-rise building.
**
A positive modifier implies reduced probability of failure and vice versa.
∗
The following definitions of the score modifiers are from FEMA 154, changed suitably as per IS
1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993.
19
Plan irregularity and Vertical irregularity: This are defined in detail in Tables 2.9
and 2.10 in the section 2.5
Pre-code: Buildings designed for gravity loads only and not for lateral loads are
defined as pre-code buildings. In the absence of any mention of code in the
construction documents, it is difficult to judge ‘pre-code’. Then, if at the beam-
ends, the bottom steel is less than 50% of the top steel provided, the building can
be considered to be designed for gravity loads only. As the benchmark building is
assumed to be designed as per the current seismic code, pre-code buildings have a
negative score modifier.
Post-benchmark: Building designed and constructed as per the ductile detailing

requirements of IS 13920: 1993 are considered as post-benchmark buildings.
Values of the score modifier for post-benchmark buildings are positive as these
buildings perform better than the benchmark building under seismic loading.
Soil Type Definition∗∗: Score modifiers for three soil types are mentioned in the
data collection form.
Soil Type I (Rock or hard soil): well graded gravel and sand gravel mixtures with
or without clay binder, and clayey sands poorly graded or sand clay mixtures with
standard penetration count, N > 30.
Soil Type II (Medium soil): All soils with 10 ≤ N ≤ 30 poorly graded sands or
gravely sands with little or no fines with N > 15.
Soil Type III (Soft soil): All soils other than sands poorly graded with N < 10.
2.4 QUICK CHECKS FOR STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS
The ‘quick checks’ involve a set of initial calculations that checks the average
shear stress in the columns, shear walls etc and average axial stresses in columns
∗∗
The values of the score modifier for soil type were obtained by mapping the soil types given in
UBC-1997 to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002. The details of the mapping is
discussed in Appendix-A.
20
in each storey, due to the design lateral force determined from IS 1893-2002. This
includes a drift check which is a measure of the stiffness of the building and also a
strong column-week beam check recommended by IS 13920: 1993. The details of
the checks are given below.
2.4.1 Column Shear
The base shear (VB) is to be calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893: 2002. The
calculation of the base shear is explained in Section 3.3.1.5. The shear at each
storey (Vj) is calculated from the base shear as follows:
n
Vi = ∑ Qi (2.1)
i
where, Vi ≡ Storey shear at ith storey,

Qi ≡ Design lateral force at ith storey (Ref. Section
3.3.1.5),
n ≡ Total number of storeys above ground level,
i ≡ Number of storey level under consideration,
Wi ≡ Seismic weight of ith storey,
The average shear stress in the columns (assuming that nearly all the columns in
the frame have similar stiffness) is given by,
⎛ nc ⎞ ⎛ Vi ⎞
τ avg = ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.2)
⎜
⎝ nc − n f ⎠ ⎝ Ac ⎠
Where, nc ≡ Total number of columns in that particular storey,
nf ≡ Total number of frames in the direction of loading,
Ac ≡ Summation of the cross sectional areas of columns in
the storey under consideration,
Vi ≡ shear at storey, i.
21
⎛ n ⎞
The term ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ is based on the assumption that shear force carried by the
⎝ nc − n f ⎠
columns at the end of RC frames are typically half of those carried by interior
columns. However, this leads to a very conservative estimate of shear for one-bay
frame (twice of the correct value), but this discrepancy is not so serious for frames
which are typically more redundant.
If the average column shear stress (τavg) is greater than 0.4 MPa, a more detailed
evaluation of the structure should be performed.
2.4.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
The average shear stress in the walls at a storey can be calculated as follows.
Vi
τ avg = (2.3)
Aw
Where, Vi ≡ shear at the storey under consideration,

Aw ≡ summations of the horizontal cross sectional area
of all shear walls in the direction of loading. The
wall area should be reduced by the area of openings.
If the average shear stress in shear walls (τavg) is greater than 0.35 MPa or
0.074√fck MPa, a more detailed evaluation of the structure should be
performed.
2.4.3 Axial Stress in Column
The base shear VB is assumed to be distributed in a parabolic pattern, in accordance

with 1893: 2002. The overturning moment due to these forces develop axial forces
in the columns. This may be computed as
5⎛V ⎞⎛ h ⎞
P= ⎜ B ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.4)
8 ⎜⎝ n f ⎠⎝ L ⎠
22
Here, h is the total height of the building, L is the total length of a frame and nf is
the number of frames in the direction of lateral forces. The factor 5 8 accounts
for the height of the resultant lateral force above base level.
The axial stress calculated from the force should be less than 0.24 fck for
acceptance.
2.4.4 Frame Drift
The approximate storey drift ratio can be determined using the following equation.
It considers that the storey displacement is equal to the flexural displacement of a
representative column, including the effect of end rotation due to bending of a
representative beam.
kb + kc h
DR = VcC d (2.5)
k b k c 12 E
where, DR ≡ Inter storey displacement divided by the storey height,
kb ≡ I/L for a representative beam, kc ≡ I/h for a representative column, L ≡

Effective length of the beam, h ≡ Storey height, I ≡ Moment of inertia, E ≡
Modulus of elasticity, Vc ≡ Shear in column, Cd ≡ Deflection amplification factor
to include inelastic effect. For ordinary RC moment resisting frames, Cd = 2.
For the value of I, an equivalent cracked section moment of inertia equal to half of
the gross section can be used. The above equation can be applied to the ground
storey if the columns are fixed against rotation at the bottom (for pile and raft
foundations). If the columns are pinned at the bottom (for isolated footing), an
equivalent storey height equal to twice the storey height shall be used in
calculating the value of kc.
If the drift ratio exceeds the limiting drift ratio of 0.015, the structure needs to be
evaluated for full frame analysis using the design lateral forces.
23
2.4.5 Strong Column – Weak Beam Check
At a beam-column junction, according to good design principle, failure of the

column should not precede that of the beam, in order to avoid catastrophe (Global
failure). As shown in Figure 2.1, a strong column-weak beam combination is able
to sustain higher lateral loads through development of large number of plastic
hinges at the beam-ends prior to formation of collapse mechanism. In contrast
under strong beam-weak column construction, plastic hinging at the top and
bottom locations of the columns in a storey can bring down the entire building at
low lateral loads.
∆ ∆
(a) Strong Column-Weak Beam (b) Strong Beam-Weak Column
Figure 2.1: Failure mechanism in an RC frame
A quick check (in an overall sense) of ascertaining whether plastic hinges formed
first in the beam sections rather than the adjoining column sections is by checking
that the sum of the moment capacities of the columns shall be 20% greater than
that of the beams at frame joints.
i.e., ∑ Moment capacities of the columns > 1.2 ∑ Moment capacities of the beams
24
2.5 EVALUATION STATEMENTS
The evaluation statements seek clarification on a variety of structural seismic-

resistant features, which if non-compliant, suggest that detailed evaluation is
required. The evaluation statements depend on the type of lateral load resisting
systems. Here, only the statements relevant for concrete moment resisting frame
buildings, with or without shear walls, are listed. The evaluation statements∗ are
listed in Tables 2.8 to 2.15. Each of the statements should be marked as
“compliant” (C), “non-compliant” (NC) or “not applicable” (NA). “Compliant”
statements identify issues that are acceptable as positive seismic resistant qualities,
while “non-compliant” statements identify issues that need further investigation.
Certain statements that may not apply to the building under consideration can be
marked as “not applicable”.
Table 2.8: Evaluation statements − Building system

Statements C / NC / NA
Load path: The structure shall contain one complete load path for
seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to
transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
Adjacent buildings: An adjacent building shall not be located next
to the structure being evaluated closer than 4% of the height.
Mezzanines: Interior mezzanine levels shall be braced

independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the
lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Clause 7.3.4
IS 13920: 1993).
No deterioration of concrete: There shall be no visible

deterioration of concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the vertical-
or lateral-force-resisting elements.
∗
The evaluation statements are based on FEMA 310 and are modified to match the clauses of IS
1893: 2002 and IS 13920: 1993. The definitions of structural irregularities are as per IS 1893:
2002 and the detailing provisions are as per IS13920: 1993. The statements for the life safety
performance level are selected. The statements which are solely for immediate occupancy
performance level are disregarded.
25
Table 2.9: Evaluation statements − Vertical irregularities

Statements (Figure 2.2 and Table 5 of IS 1893: 2002) C / NC / NA
No weak storey: The lateral strength of a storey shall not be less

than 80% of the strength in the storey above.
No soft storey: The lateral stiffness of a storey shall not be less than
70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the average
lateral stiffness of the three storeys above.
No mass irregularity: There shall be no storey with seismic weight
more than 200% of that of its adjacent storeys. The irregularity
need not be considered in case of roofs.
No vertical geometric irregularity: There shall be no storey with
the horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting system more
than 150% of that in its adjacent storey.
No vertical discontinuities: All vertical elements in the lateral-load-
resisting system shall be continuous to the foundation.
Table 2.10: Evaluation statements − Plan Irregularities
Statements (Figure 2.3 and Table 4 of IS 1893: 2002) C / NC / NA
No Torsion irregularity: The distance between the storey centre of

rigidity and the storey centre of mass shall be less than 20% of the
width of the structure in either plan dimension.
No diaphragm discontinuity: There shall be no diaphragm with
abrupt discontinuity or variation in stiffness, including those having
cut out or open areas greater than 50% of the gross enclosed
diaphragm area. The diaphragms shall not be composed of split-
level floors.
No re-entrant corners: Both projections of structure beyond the re-
entrant corners shall not be greater than 15% of its plan dimension
in the given direction.
No out of plane offsets: There shall be no discontinuity in a lateral-
force-resisting path, such as out of plane offsets of vertical
elements.
No non-parallel system: There shall be no vertical element resisting
the lateral force, not parallel to or symmetric about major
orthogonal axes of the lateral-force-resisting system.
26
Table 2.11: Evaluation statements − Moment resisting frames
Statements (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5) C / NC / NA

Redundancy: The number of lines of moment frames in each
principal direction shall be greater than or equal to 2. The number
of bays of moment frames in each line shall be greater than or
equal to 2.
No interfering wall: All infill walls placed in moment frames shall
be isolated from structural elements.
Shearing stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of the
shear stress in the frame columns. (Section 2.4.1)
Axial stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of the
axial stress in the frame columns. (Section 2.4.3)
Drift check: The building satisfies the quick check of storey drift.
(Section 2.4.4.)
Short captive columns: There shall be no columns at a level with
height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio
of the typical columns at that level. (Clause 7.4.5, IS 13920: 1993)
No shear failures: The shear capacity (VuR) of a frame column shall
be greater than the shear demand which occurs when the column
attains the probable moment capacity (Mpr). i.e., VuR ≥ 2Mpr/L.
Consider Mpr = 1.4 MuR, where MuR is the moment of resistance in
absence of axial load. (Clause 7.3.4, IS 13920: 1993)
Strong column-weak beam: The building satisfies the quick check
of strong column weak beam. (Section 2.4.5).
Column bar splices: All column bar splices shall be provided only
in the central half of the member length and hoops provided at
spacing not exceeding 150 mm centre to centre. (Clause 7.2.1, IS
13920: 1993)
Column tie spacing: Frame columns shall have ties spaced at or
less than b/2 throughout their length and at or less than b/4 or 100
mm at all potential plastic hinge locations. (Clause 7.4.6, IS 13920:
1993)
Beam bars: At least two longitudinal top and two longitudinal
bottom bars shall extend continuously throughout the length of
each frame beam. At least 25% of the longitudinal bars provided at
the joints for either positive or negative moment shall be
continuous throughout the length of the members.
27
Fn Kn
Storey Strength Storey Stiffness

Fn-1 Kn-1
(lateral) (lateral)
Fn-2 Kn-2
F3 K3
F2 K2
F1 K1
F < 0.8 F ⎧
⎪ 0.7 ki+1
i i +1 ⎪
⎪
ki < ⎨⎪ ⎛ ki+1 + ki+2 + ki+3 ⎞⎟
(a) Weak storey ⎪⎪0.8⎜⎜ ⎟
⎪
⎩ ⎝
⎪
⎜ 3 ⎠⎟
(b) Soft storey

Wn
A
Storey weight Wn-1
Wn-2
W3
W2 A/L > 0.25
L
W1
Wi > 2.0 Wi+1 (or, 2.0Wi−1 )
(c) Mass irregularity
A A
A/L > 0.15 A/L > 0.1
L A L A
(d) Vertical geometric irregularity
Figure 2.2: Different types of vertical irregularity
28
1.2(∆1 + ∆ 2 )
∆2 >
2
∆2
∆1
EQ
(a) Torsional Irregularity
L L
A
A
A/L > 0.15
(b) Re-entrant Corner
Lateral load
Y Opening Area, A2
resisting system
θ
X A2 > 0.5 A
Total floor area, A
(c) Non-parallel System (d) Diaphragm Discontinuity
Figure 2.3: Different types of plan irregularity
29
Table 2.11 (contd.): Evaluation statements − Moment resisting frames
Statements (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5) C / NC / NA

Beam bar splices: The lap splices for the longitudinal
reinforcement shall not be located within 2d from the joint face and
within L/4 from the location of potential plastic hinges. (Clause
6.3.5, IS 13920: 1993)
Stirrup spacing: All beams shall have stirrups spaced at or less than
d/2 throughout their length. At potential hinge location, stirrups
shall be spaced at or less than the minimum of 8db or d/4. (Clause
6.3.5, IS 13920: 1993)
Bent-up bars: Bent-up longitudinal steel shall not be used for shear
reinforcement. (Clause 6.3.4, IS 13920: 1993)
Joint reinforcing: Column ties shall be extended at their typical
spacing through all beam column joints. (Clause 8.1, IS 13920:
1993)
Deflection compatibility: Secondary components shall have the
shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the elements.
No flat slab frames: The lateral-force-resisting system shall not be
a frame consisting of columns and a flat slab/plate without beams.
Prestressed frame elements: The lateral-load-resisting frames shall
not include any prestressed elements.
Diaphragm reinforcement: There shall be tensile capacity to
develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other
locations of irregularities. There shall be reinforcement around all
diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the gross enclosed
diaphragm area. (Table 4, IS 1893: 2002)
Anchorage: Stirrups should have 135 degree hook* with 10-
diameter extension (but not less than 75 mm) at each end,
embedded in the confined core
*
It is noted that unless the bend angle is mentioned as 135 degree and there is adequate extension
beyond the bend, the hook will be considered as “non-compliant”.
30
Table 2.12: Evaluation statements − Shear walls

Shearing stress check: The building satisfies the quick check of
shearing stress in the shear walls. (Section 2.4.2)
Reinforcing steel: The area of reinforcing steel for concrete walls
shall be greater than 0. 25% of the gross area of the wall along both
the longitudinal and transverse axes and the maximum spacing of
bars shall not exceed lw/5, 3tw and 450 mm. (Clauses 9.1.4 and
9.1.7, IS 13920: 1993)
Coupling beams: The stirrups shall be spaced at or less than 100
mm and shall be anchored into the core with 135° hooks. (Clause
9.5.2, IS 13920: 1993)
Diaphragm openings at shear walls: Diaphragm openings
immediately adjacent to the shear walls shall be less than 25% of
the wall length.
Table 2.13: Evaluation statements − Connections
Column connection: All column reinforcement shall be dowelled

into the foundation. (Clause 7.4.2, IS 13920: 1993)
Wall connection: Wall reinforcement shall be dowelled into the
foundation.
Transfer to shear walls: Diaphragms shall be reinforced and
connected for transfer of loads to the shear walls.
Lateral load at pile caps: Pile caps shall have top reinforcement
and piles shall be anchored to the pile caps.
31
Table 2.14: Evaluation statements − Geological site hazards
Liquefaction: Liquefaction susceptible, saturated, loose granular

soils that could jeopardise the building’s seismic performance shall
not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 15 m under the
building.
Slope failure: The building site shall be sufficiently remote from
potential earthquake induced slope failures or rock falls to be
unaffected by such failures or shall be capable of accommodating
any predicted movements without failure.
Surface fault rupture: Surface fault rupture and surface
displacement at the building site is not anticipated.
Table 2.15: Evaluation statements − Foundations
Foundation performance: There shall be no evidence of excessive

foundation movement such as settlement or heave that would affect
the integrity or strength of the structure.
Deterioration: There shall not be evidence that foundation elements
have deteriorated due to corrosion, sulphate attack, material
breakdown, or other reasons in a manner that would affect the
integrity or strength of the structure.
Overturning: The ratio of the effective horizontal dimension, at the
foundation level of the lateral-force-resisting system, to the
building height (base/height) shall be greater than 0.6 Sa/g.
Ties between foundation elements: The foundation shall have ties
adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, piers are not
restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Type I.
32
Lapping in middle half Spacing ≤ 150mm

of the column
Spacing ≤ B/4 or 100mm

≥ 75mm
Figure 2.4: Reinforcement detailing for column as per IS 13920: 1993
Spacing ≤ 8db or d/4 At least 2 bars at top and 2

bars at bottom should go full
Spacing ≤ d/2 length of the beam.
2d 2d
Lapping prohibited in regions where

longitudinal bars can yield in tension
Figure 2.5: Reinforcement detailing for beam as per IS 13920: 1993
33
2.6 DECISION FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
In this chapter the steps to be taken in order to carry out a preliminary evaluation
of seismic vulnerability of a given building have been outlined. At the end of the
preliminary evaluation a decision has to be taken whether to probe further and
carry out more rigorous detailed evaluation (described in Chapters III and IV).
Strictly, if the given building passes all the quick checks and satisfies all the
evaluation statements, detailed evaluation is not called for. Nevertheless it is good
practice to go ahead with the detailed evaluation, if an absolute confirmation
regarding safety and code compliance is desired. It may be noted that almost
every building out of 40 buildings randomly chosen for study under DST project
was found to be deficient in some manner or other during the stage of preliminary
evaluation. It is possible, as seen in some instances of the case studies carried out,
that a building found deficient in preliminary evaluation performs satisfactory
(without need for any retrofit) in the detailed evaluation. Thus, the preliminary
evaluation serves as a useful screening test for seismic evaluation and its outcome
is generally conservative.
34
CHAPTER III
EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
When a building fails to comply with the preliminary evaluation criterion, a

detailed structural analysis of the building should be carried out. Detailed analysis
includes developing a computational model on which linear / non-linear, static /
dynamic analysis is performed. Because of the difficulties and uncertainties in
non-linear dynamic analysis, this is not recommended in normal design practice.
This manual is confined to the other types of analysis. This chapter briefly
explains the linear static and linear dynamic analyses as recommended in the code
(IS 1893: 2002). The main purpose of these analyses, from the seismic evaluation
perspective, is to check the demand-to-capacity ratios of the building components
and thereby ascertain code compliance. The non-linear static analysis (pushover
analysis) is explained in the next chapter. Some of the important modelling issues
will also be discussed in this chapter.
35
3.2 COMPUTATIONAL MODEL
Modelling a building involves the modelling and assemblage of its various load-
carrying elements. A model must ideally represent the complete three dimensional
(3D) characteristics of the building, including its mass distribution, strength,
stiffness and deformability. Modelling of the material properties and structural
elements is discussed below.
3.2.1 Material properties
The material properties of concrete include mass, unit weight, modulus of

elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus and coefficient of thermal expansion.
The short-term modulus of elasticity (Ec) of concrete, as per IS 456: 2000, is given
by
Ec = 5000 f ck (3.1)
where f ck ≡ characteristic compressive strength of concrete at 28-days in MPa.
For the steel rebar, the properties required are yield stress (fy) and modulus of
elasticity (Es).
For assigning the material properties, the procedure outlined in section 2.2 shall be
followed. As the characteristic strength is a 5 percentile value of the actual
strength, the strength in analysis may be increased by the factors suggested in
Table 3.1 for seismic evaluation purpose. This is done to estimate the expected
capacities of the members.
Table 3.1: Factors to estimate the expected strength
Material property Factor
Concrete compressive strength (fck) 1.50
Steel yield stress (fy) 1.00
36
Chapter III – Evaluation based on Linear Analysis
However, the expected values need to be further modified to for the uncertainty
regarding the present condition of the material. A “knowledge factor” (mk) is used
to account for this uncertainty. Proposed values of the knowledge factor are
shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Knowledge factors∗
No Description of available information mk
1 Original construction documents, including material testing 1.0
report
2 Documentation as in (1) but no material testing undertaken 0.9
3 Documentation as in (2) and minor deteriorations of 0.8
original condition
4 Incomplete but usable original construction documents 0.7
5 Documentation as in (4) and limited inspection and material 0.6
test results with large variation.
6 Little knowledge about the details of components 0.5
3.2.2 Structural element model
3.2.2.1 Beams and columns
Beams and columns should be modelled by 3D frame elements. While modelling

the beams and columns, the important properties to be assigned are cross sectional
dimensions, reinforcement details and the types of material used. Plinth beams
should also be modelled as frame elements. The moment of inertia of a section
should be modelled properly to account for the effect of cracking and the
contribution of the flanges for T- or L- beam. The suggested effective moment of
inertia (Ieff) for the beams including the effect of cracking and flanges are listed in
Table 3.3
∗
The table is adopted from “IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of
buildings” prepared by Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
37
Table 3.3: Effective moment of inertia for the beam sections∗

Beam Sections Ieff
Rectangular 0.5 Ig
T - section 0.7 Ig
L - section 0.6 Ig
Here, the gross section moment of inertia (Ig) should be calculated considering the
rectangular area only as shown in Figure 3.1. In the case of columns, the
reduction in stiffness due to cracking is reduced by the presence of axial
compression. The suggested moment of inertia for column is: Ieff ≡ 0.7 Ig
T-Beam L-Beam
Figure 3.1: Rectangular area for the calculation of Ig
Total Length
Clear Length
Beam
End Offsets
Column
Figure 3.2: Use of end offsets at beam-column joint
∗
Factors recommended here are adapted from Paulay and Priestley (1991)
38
3.2.2.2 Beam-column joints
The beam-column joints should be modelled by giving end-offsets to the frame

elements, to obtain the moments and forces at the beam and column faces. The
beam-column joints can be assumed to be rigid (Figure 3.2).
3.2.2.3 Slabs
The slabs need not be modelled by plate elements to simplify modelling. The
structural effect of slabs due to their in-plane stiffness can be taken into account
by assigning ‘diaphragm’ action at each floor level. The weight of a slab can be
modelled separately as triangular and trapezoidal loads on the supporting beams.
In case of large openings or projections in slabs, different portions of the floor
may have differential translations, and in such cases, diaphragm action should be
assigned separately to the different sections.
3.2.2.4 Appendages
The effects of all significant appendages (for example, water tanks, stairways,
cantilever slabs) should be included in the model. Stairway slabs can be modelled
as inclined equivalent frame elements, with hinges at the ends. For water tanks
and cantilever slabs, the masses are lumped on the supporting elements.
3.2.2.5 Walls (structural and non structural)
Structural walls such as shear walls and walls in building core, which are
integrally connected to the floor slabs, can be modelled using equivalent wide
column elements. The ‘master’ node of the column element can be at the centre of
gravity of the shear wall or core and it should be connected to the ‘slave’ nodes of
the adjacent beams by rigid links (Figure 3.3). Non-structural walls such as infill
walls have weight and in-plane stiffness. They influence the behaviour of the
building under lateral load. The weight of an infill wall should be incorporated
39
separately as a uniform load on the supporting beam. The stiffness contribution of

an infill wall can be modelled using a simplified ‘equivalent strut’ approach.
Calculation of the properties of the equivalent strut is explained in Appendix B.
When the stiffness contribution of the infill walls is included, the natural period of
the building is reduced and the base shear increases. But, the moments in the
beams and columns may reduce due to the ‘truss’ action of the equivalent struts.
During an earthquake, the infill walls may fail due to out-of-plane bending. This
will increase the moments in the beams and columns. To calculate the demands in
the beams and columns, two extreme cases can be modelled. In the first model,
the lateral stiffness due to the significant infill walls is modelled by the equivalent
struts. In the second model, the stiffness is ignored. However, the weight of the
infill walls on the supporting beams should be considered in both the models.
(a) Shear Wall
Beam
Master Rigid
Node Links
Slave Node
(b) Core Wall
Figure 3.3: Modelling of shear wall and core wall
40
3.2.3 Modelling of Column Ends at foundation
The column end at foundation can be modelled by considering the degree of fixity
provided by the foundation. Depending on the type of footing the end condition
may be modelled as follows:
i) Isolated footing: A hinge is to be provided at the column end at the bottom
of the foundation. However, when it is founded on hard rock, the column
end may be modelled as fixed, with the level of fixity at the top of the
footing.
ii) Raft foundation: The column ends are to be modelled as fixed at the top of
the raft.
iii) Combined footing: Engineering judgement must be exercised in modelling
the fixity provided by the combined footings. If the footings are
adequately restrained by tie beams, the column ends can be modelled as
fixed.
iv) Single pile: Fixity of column is recommended at a depth of five to ten
times the diameter of pile, depending upon the type of soil, from the top of
pile cap.
v) Multiple piles: Assume fixity of column at top of the pile cap.
3.2.4 Load Combinations
The analysis results are to be for the following load combinations (IS 1893: 2002):
COMB1 = 1.5(DL+IL)
COMB2 = 1.2(DL+IL+EL)
COMB3 = 1.2(DL+IL − EL)
COMB4 = 1.5(DL+EL)
COMB5 = 1.5(DL − EL)
COMB6 = 0.9DL+1.5EL
COMB7 = 0.9DL − 1.5EL
41
Here, DL ≡ Dead load, IL ≡ Live load, and EL ≡ Earthquake Load. The dead load
and the live load are taken as per IS 875, 1987. When the lateral load resisting
elements are not orthogonally oriented, the design forces along two horizontal
orthogonal directions (X- and Y-) should be considered. One method to consider
this is the following.
(a) 100% of the design forces in X-direction and 30% of the design forces in Y-
direction.
(b) 100% of the design forces in Y-direction and 30% of the design forces in X-
direction.
An alternative method to consider the effect of the forces along X- and Y-
directions is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) basis.
EL = ELx 2 + ELy 2 (3.2)
The vertical component is considered only for special elements like horizontal
cantilevers in Zones IV and V. The maximum value of a response quantity from
the above load combinations gives the demand.
3.3 LINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS
The two different linear analysis methods recommended in IS 1893: 2002 are
explained in this Section. Any one of these methods can be used to calculate the
expected seismic demands on the lateral load resisting elements.
3.3.1 Equivalent static method
In the equivalent static method, the lateral force equivalent to the design basis
earthquake is applied statically. The equivalent lateral forces at each storey level
are applied at the design ‘centre of mass’ locations. It is located at the design
eccentricity from the calculated ‘centre of rigidity (or stiffness)’.
42
3.3.1.1 Centre of mass
The centre of mass is the point where the total mass of the floor level is assumed
to be lumped. The centre of mass can be calculated for each floor by taking
moments of the axial forces (from gravity load analysis of that floor only) in the
columns about an assumed reference axis.
=∑ CMy = ∑
Wi xi Wi yi
CMx ; (3.3)
∑W i ∑W i
where
CMx ≡ coordinate of the centre of mass along x-direction
CMy ≡ coordinate of the centre of mass along y-direction
∑W i ≡ sum of the weights of all components
∑W x ≡ sum of the moments of weights about an assumed reference axis along

i i
X- direction
∑W y i i ≡ sum of the moments of weights about an assumed reference axis along
Y-direction
3.3.1.2 Centre of rigidity of storey
The centre of rigidity is the point through which the resultant of the restoring
forces in a storey acts. The centre of rigidity for each storey should be found out
separately. There are different procedures to calculate the centre of rigidity. One
of the procedures is explained below.
The columns of the storey are assumed to be fixed at the bottom. A unit force
along X-direction and a unit moment about Z- axis (vertical axis) are applied at a
certain test point in the top of the storey and the corresponding rotations are noted
down. The distance of the centre of rigidity from the test point, along Y- direction,
is calculated from the ratio of the two rotations. Similarly the distance along X-
direction is found out by applying a unit force along Y- direction and a unit
moment.
43
Let the co-ordinates of the test point be (x, y). Let (θz)x, (θz)y and (θz)z be the
rotations about the Z-axis for the unit loads along X- and Y- directions and unit
moment about Z-axis, respectively. The co-ordinates of the centre of rigidity is
given as CRx,= x+x1, CRy = y+y1, where
x1 = -(θz)x/(θz)z (3.4a)
y1 = (θz)x/(θz)z (3.4b)
The static eccentricity of the centre of mass with respect of centre of rigidity is
given as follows.
esix = CMx−CRx (3.5a)
esiy = CMy−CRy (3.5b)
3.3.1.3 Effect of torsion
The design eccentricity of the centre of mass (edix, ediy) is calculated considering a
dynamic amplification factor and an additional eccentricity of 5% of the
dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of the seismic force. For
either of X- or Y- directions,
edi = 1.5esi + 0.05bi (3.6a)
or,
edi = esi − 0.05bi (3.6b)
There can be four possible locations of the design centre of mass. To reduce
computation, only two diagonal locations can be considered.
3.3.1.4 Seismic weight
The seismic weight of each floor of the structure includes the dead load and
fraction of the live load (as per Table 8 of IS 1893: 2002) acting on the floor. The
weight of the columns and walls (up to the tributary height) are to be included. The
tributary height is between the centreline of the storey above and centre line of the
storey below.
44
3.3.1.5 Lumped mass
The lumped mass is the total mass of each floor that is lumped at the design centre
of mass of the respective floor. The total mass of a floor is obtained from the
seismic weight of that floor.
3.3.1.6 Calculation of lateral forces
The base shear (V = VB) is calculated as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893: 2002.
VB = AhW (3.7)
⎛ Z ⎞ I Sa
Ah = ⎜ ⎟ (3.8)
⎝2⎠ R g
where W ≡ seismic weight of the building, Z ≡ zone factor, I ≡ importance factor,
R ≡ response reduction factor, Sa /g ≡ spectral acceleration coefficient determined
from Figure 3.4, corresponding to an approximate time period (Ta) which is given
by
Ta = 0.075h0.75 for RC moment resisting frame without masonry infill (3.9a)
0.09h
Ta = for RC moment resisting frame with masonry infill (3.9b)
d
The base dimension of the building at the plinth level along the direction of lateral
forces is represented as d (in metres) and height of the building from the support is
represented as h (in metres). The response spectra functions can be calculated as
follows:
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type I soil (rock or hard soil sites): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.40
g ⎪
1
⎪ 0.40 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩T
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type II soil (medium soil): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.55
g ⎪
1.36
⎪ 0.55 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩ T
45
⎧
⎪1 + 15T 0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10
Sa ⎪
For Type III soil (soft soil): = ⎨2.50 0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.67
g ⎪
1.67
⎪ 0.67 ≤ T ≤ 4.00
⎩ T
3.0
Spctral Acceleraion Coefficient
2.5 Type III (Soft Soil)
2.0 Type II (Medium Soil)

Type I (Rock,or Hard Soil)
(S a/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Period (s)
Figure 3.4: Response spectra for 5 percent damping (IS 1893: 2002)
W3
W2
h3
W1
h2
h1
Figure 3.5: Building model under seismic load
46
The design base shear is to be distributed along the height of building as per
Clause 7.7.1 of IS 1893: 2002.
The design lateral force at floor i is given as follows
Wi hi2
Qi = VB n (3.10)
∑W h
j =1
i i
2
Here Wi ≡ Seismic weight of floor i, hi ≡ Height of floor measured from base,
n ≡ Number of storeys in the building equal to the number of levels at which

masses is located (Figure 3.5).
The equations of motion associated with the response of a structure to ground

motion are given by:
(t ) + Cu (t ) + Ku(t ) = m x ugx (t ) + m x ugy (t ) + m x ugz (t )
Mu (3.11)
Here, M is the diagonal mass matrix, C is the proportional damping matrix, K is

the stiffness matrix, u , u and u are the relative (with respect to the ground)
acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors, respectively, mx, my, and mz are
the unit acceleration loads and ugx , ugy and ugz are the components of uniform
ground acceleration.
The objective of response spectrum analysis is to obtain the likely maximum

response from these equations. The earthquake ground acceleration in each
direction is given as a response spectrum curve*. According to IS 1893: 2002,
high rise and irregular buildings must be analysed by the response spectrum
method. However, this method of linear dynamic analysis is also recommended
for regular buildings.
*
The response spectrum is a plot of the maximum response (maximum displacement, velocity,
acceleration or any other quantity of interest) to a specified load function for all possible single
degree-of-freedom systems. The abscissa of the spectrum is the natural period (or frequency) of the
system and the ordinate is the maximum response. It is also a function of damping. Figure 3.3
shows the design response spectra given in IS 1893: 2002 for a 5% damped system.
47
Response spectrum analysis is performed using mode superposition, where free

vibration modes are computed using eigenvalue analysis. The maximum modal
response (λk) of a quantity (considering the mass participation factor) is obtained
for each mode of all the modes considered. Sufficient modes (r) to capture at least
90% of the participating mass of the building (in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions), have to be considered in the analysis. The modal responses of all the
individual modes are then combined together using either the square root of the
sum of the squares (SRSS) method or complete quadratic combination (CQC)
method. The SRSS method is based on probability theory and is expressed as
follows.
r
λ= ∑ (λ
k =1
k )2 (3.12)
If the building has very closely spaced modes then the CQC method is preferable.
The base shear is calculated for response spectrum analysis in the following
manner. The Sa/g value corresponding to each period of all the considered modes
is first calculated from Figure 3.4. The base shear corresponding to a mode is then
calculated as per Section 3.3.1.5. Each base shear is multiplied with the
corresponding mass participation factor and then combined as per the selected
mode combination method, to get the total base shear of the building.
If the base shear calculated from the response spectrum analysis (VB ) is less than
the design base shear (VB ) calculated from Equation 3.7, then as per IS 1893:
2002, all the response quantities (member forces, displacements, storey shears and
base reactions) have to be scaled up by the factor VB / VB .
3.4 EVALUATION RESULTS
The demands (moments, shears and axial forces) obtained at the critical sections
from the linear analyses are compared with the capacities of the individual
48
elements. The capacities of RC members are to be calculated as per IS 456: 2000,

incorporating the appropriate “knowledge factors” (Table 3.2). The demand-to-
capacity ratio (DCR) for each element should be less than 1.0 for code
compliance.
DCR = AB/AC
Pu
B
C
A
Mux Muy
Figure 3.6: Demand to capacity ratio for column flexure
For a beam, positive and negative bending moment demands at the face of the
supports and the positive moment demands at the span need to be compared with
the corresponding capacities. For a column, the moment demand due to bi-axial
bending under axial compression must be checked using the P-Mx-My surface
(interaction surface), generated according to IS 456: 2000. The demand point is to
be located in the P-Mx-My space and a straight line is drawn joining the demand
point to the origin. This line (extended, if necessary) will intersect the interaction
surface at the capacity point. The ratio of the distance of the demand point (from
the origin) to the distance of the capacity point (from the origin) is termed as the
DCR for the column (Figure 3.6).
49
wu = 1.2 (wDL + wLL)
ln
EL 1.4 M+uR, left
1.4 M –uR, right
plastic hinge
1.4 M –uR, left EL
1.4 M +uR, right

plastic hinge
(a) Loading on beam
0.5 wu ln 1.4(M+uR, left + M –uR, right)/ln
0.5 wu ln
(b) Shear force demand in beam (sway to right)

1.4(M –uR, left + M +uR, right)/ln
0.5 wu ln
0.5 wu ln
(c) Shear force demand in beam (sway to left)
Figure 3.7: Calculation of shear force demand in beams
The shear demand should be calculated as per IS 13920: 1993 recommendations.

For beam, the shear demand will be the larger of the shear force from analysis and
the shear force corresponding to the beam reaching its flexural capacity
(formation of moment hinges at both ends of the beam). This concept is called the
capacity based design.
50
The shear demands (Vu) at the support faces (left or right) are obtained as follows
(Clause 6.3.3, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu , left = 0.5wu ln + 1.4 ( M uR− ,left + M uR+ ,right ) ln (3.13a)
Vu , right = 0.5wu ln + 1.4 ( M uR+ ,left + M uR− ,right ) ln (3.13b)
Here, ln is the clear span, and wu is the factored load as shown in the Figure 3.7.
The factor 1.4 is intended to account for the higher flexural capacity than the
calculated value. The flexural capacity is higher because the actual yield strength
of the steel is higher than the characteristic strength and the steel undergoes strain
hardening.
Similarly for the columns, the shear demand should be calculated as the larger of
the shear force from analysis and the shear force in the column corresponding to
the beams (framing into the column) reaching their flexural capacities. The shear
demand (Vu) is given by the following expression (Clause 7.3.4, IS 13920: 1993).
Vu = 1.4 ( M uR ,b1 + M uR ,b 2 ) hst (3.14)
Here, MuR, b1 and MuR, b2 are the factored moments of resistance of beam ends ‘1’
and ‘2’ framing into the column from opposite faces, and hst is the storey height
(Figure 3.8).
The shear demands for beams and columns should be checked with the
corresponding shear capacities. The shear capacities for beams and columns can
be calculated using the procedure outlined in Appendix C.
The axial force demands for the ‘equivalent struts’ should be compared with their
capacities. The capacity of the equivalent strut can be calculated according to
Appendix B.
The storey drift for every storey due to the design lateral force, with partial load
factor of 1.0, should satisfy the limitation of 0.4% of the storey height (Clause
7.11.1, IS 1893: 2002).
51
Vu
1.4MuR, b2
hst
1.4MuR, b1
Vu
Figure 3.8: Shear force demand in columns
52
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the

lateral loads is incrementally increased, maintaining a predefined distribution
pattern along the height of the building. With the increase in the magnitude of the
loads, weak links and failure modes of the building are found.
∆
Base Shear (V)
Base Shear
(V)
Roof Displacement (∆)
a) Building model b) Pushover curve
Figure 4.1: Pushover analysis
53
Pushover analysis can determine the behaviour of a building, including the

ultimate load and the maximum inelastic deflection. Local nonlinear effects are
modelled and the structure is pushed until a collapse mechanism is developed
(Figure 4.1). At each step, the base shear and the roof displacement can be plotted
to generate the pushover curve. It gives an idea of the maximum base shear that
the structure is capable of resisting. For regular buildings, it can also give a rough
idea about the global stiffness of the building.
4.2 CAPACITY SPECTRUM, DEMAND SPECTRUM AND

PERFORMANCE POINT
Instead of plotting the base shear versus roof displacement, the base acceleration
can be plotted with respect to the roof displacement (capacity spectrum)
(Figure 4.2). The spectral acceleration and spectral displacement, as calculated
from the linear elastic response spectrum for a certain damping (initial value 5%),
is plotted in the Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format.
With increasing non-linear deformation of the components, the equivalent
damping and the natural period increase. The spectral acceleration and
displacement values can be modified from the 5% damping curve by multiplying a
factor corresponding to the effective damping (Table 3, IS 1893: 2002). Thus, the
instantaneous spectral acceleration and displacement point (demand point) shifts
to a different response spectrum for higher damping. The locus of the demand
points in the ADRS plot is referred to as the demand spectrum. The demand
spectrum corresponds to the inelastic deformation of the building.
The ‘performance point’ is the point where the capacity curve crosses the demand
curves. If the performance point exists and the damage state at this point is
acceptable, the structure satisfies the target performance level.
54
Chapter IV – Evaluation based on Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
Initial Structural
Period
Spectral Acceleration 5% Damping (Initial)
10% Damping
Performance Point
15% Damping
Capacity Spectrum
Demand Spectrum
Spectral Displacement
Figure 4.2: Demand and capacity spectra
It must be emphasised that the pushover analysis is approximate in nature and is

based on a statically applied load. It estimates an envelope curve of the behaviour
under the dynamic load. It must be used with caution while interpreting the actual
behaviour under seismic load.
4.3. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Pushover analysis involves the application of increasing lateral forces or

displacements to a nonlinear mathematical model of a building. The nonlinear
load-deformation behaviour of each component of the building is modelled
individually. In a force-controlled push, the forces are increased monotonically
until either the total force reaches a target value or the building has a collapse
mechanism. In a displacement-controlled push, the displacements are increased
monotonically until either the displacement of a predefined control node in the
building exceeds a target value or the building has a collapse mechanism. For
55
convenience, the control node can be taken at the design centre of mass of the roof
of the building. The target displacement is intended to represent the maximum
displacement likely to be experienced during the earthquake.
Initially, the gravity loads are applied in a force-controlled manner till the total
load reaches the target value. The target value can be same as the design gravity
load for the linear analysis. Next, the lateral loads are applied in the X- or Y-
direction, in a displacement controlled manner. The direction of monitoring of the
behaviour is same as the push direction. The effect of torsion can be considered.
As the displacement is increased, some beams, columns and ‘equivalent struts’
may undergo in-elastic deformation. The non-linear in-elastic behaviour in
flexure, shear or axial compression is modelled through assigning appropriate load-
deformation properties at potential plastic hinge locations. The development of the
load-deformation properties is explained in Appendices C, D and E.
4.3.1 Seismic Load Distribution
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with which the structure
will be displaced incrementally. Frequently, an inverted triangular shape or the
first mode shape is used. The importance of the load distribution increases for tall
buildings, whose earthquake response is not dominated by a single mode shape.
For such buildings, the load distribution based on the first mode shape may
seriously underestimate the loads on the intermediate floor levels. This manual
recommends the load distribution pattern given in IS 1893: 2002 for low to mid-
rise buildings (Equation 3.10).
Pushover analysis should be performed separately for the two orthogonal

directions in order to study the performance of the building in both the directions.
There are therefore three pushover cases for evaluating a building.
1. Gravity push, which is used to apply gravity load.
2. Push1 is the lateral push in X-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.
3. Push2 is the lateral push in Y-direction, starting at the end of gravity push.
56
4.3.2 Load-Deformation Behaviour of Elements
In pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the non-linear load-deformation

behaviour of the elements. Beams and columns should have moment versus
rotation and shear force versus shear deformation hinges. For columns, the
rotation of the moment hinge can be calculated for the axial load available from the
gravity load analysis. All compression struts have to be modelled with axial load
versus axial deformation hinges.
There are two approaches for specifying the hinge properties.

(i) Distributed plasticity model
(ii) Point plasticity model.
In the first model, the zone of yielding (plastification) is assumed to be spread over
a certain length (‘length of the plastic hinge’). In the second model, the zone of
yielding is assumed to be concentrated at a specific point in the element. The
calculation of the various hinge properties based on the point plasticity model is
explained in Appendix C.
An idealised load-deformation curve is shown in Figure 4.3. It is a piece-wise

linear curve defined by five points as explained below.
(i) Point ‘A’ corresponds to the unloaded condition.

(ii) Point ‘B’ corresponds to the onset of yielding.
(iii) Point ‘C’ corresponds to the ultimate strength.
(iv) Point ‘D’ corresponds to the residual strength. For the computational
stability, it is recommended to specify non-zero residual strength. In
absence of the modelling of the descending branch of a load-deformation
curve, the residual strength can be assumed to be 20% of the yield
strength.
(v) Point ‘E’ corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the
residual strength. To maintain computational stability, a high value of
57
deformation capacity equal to 15∆y can be assumed, where ∆y is the

deformation at the onset of yielding.
4.4 PERFORMANCE BASED ANALYSIS
The traditional approach to seismic design of a building is a force-based design.

The design lateral forces on the building are determined using the response
spectrum. The building is subsequently analysed to determine the member forces.
The members are designed to withstand those forces. In this approach, there is no
measure of the deformation capability of a member or of the building. At best, an
elastic drift is computed under the design forces and checked against an elastic
drift limit. Alternatively, an inelastic drift is estimated from the calculated elastic
drift by multiplying the later by a factor and checking the inelastic drift against an
inelastic drift limit.
The performance based analysis is based on quantifying the deformations of the

members and the building as a whole, under the lateral forces of an earthquake of
a certain level of seismic hazard. The deformations or strains are better quantities
to assess damage than stresses or forces. Since the deformations are expected to
go beyond the elastic values, a performance-based analysis requires a nonlinear
lateral load versus deformation analysis. The performance based analysis gives
the analyst more choices of ‘performance’ of the building as compared to the limit
states of collapse and serviceability in a design based on limit state method.
4.4.1 Performance Objective
The seismic performance of a building is measured by the state of damage under a

certain level of seismic hazard. The state of damage is quantified by the drift of
the roof and the deformation of the structural elements. Before the analysis of a
building, a target performance level of the building and a level of seismic hazard
are selected. A performance objective of an analysis constitutes the target
58
building performance level under the selected level of seismic hazard. The
selection of the two levels is based on recommended guidelines for the type of the
building, economic considerations and engineering judgment. The purpose of
developing a performance objective is to have a uniform risk in similar buildings.
4.4.2 Performance Levels of Structure and Elements
A building performance level is a combination of the performance levels of the

structure and the non-structural components. The performance levels are discrete
damage states identified from a continuous spectrum of possible damage states.
The structural performance levels are as follows.
i) Immediate Occupancy (IO)
ii) Life Safety (LS)
iii) Collapse Prevention (CP).
The three levels are arranged according to decreasing performance of the lateral
load and vertical load resisting systems. A target performance is defined by a
typical value of the roof drift, as well as limiting values of the deformation of the
structural elements. To determine whether a building meets a specified
performance objective, response quantities from the pushover analysis should be
compared with the limits for each of the performance level.
Typical values of roof drifts for the three performance levels are as follows
(FEMA 356).
i) Immediate Occupancy: Transient drift is about 1% with negligible
permanent drift.
ii) Life Safety: Transient drift is about 2% with 1% permanent drift.
iii) Collapse Prevention: 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent.
The performance levels of a structural element are specified in the load-

deformation curve (Figure 4.3). The values of the levels can be obtained from test
results. In absence of test data, the following values may be adopted (ATC 40).
59
i) Immediate Occupancy: 0.2∆ from Point B

ii) Life Safety: 0.5∆ from Point B.
iii) Collapse Prevention: 0.9∆ from Point B.
Here, ∆ is the length of the plastic plateau. The above recommendation is shown
in Fig. 4.3.
CP
LS
IO
Py B
0.2∆
Load
0.5∆
0.9∆
∆ D
0.2Py E
∆
A
Deformation
Figure 4.3: Performance Level
4.4.3 Seismic Hazard Levels
In a probabilistic method, an earthquake level is defined with a probability of

exceedance in a specified period. The following three levels are commonly
defined for buildings with a design life of 50 years (FEMA 356).
i) Serviceability earthquake: 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
ii) Design basis earthquake (DBE): 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years.
iii) Maximum considered earthquake (MCE): 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years.
In IS 1893: 2002, the zone factor Z corresponds to MCE. The values of Z were
evaluated based on a deterministic method. It cannot be directly related to the
definitions given above. A simplistic method was adopted to define the DBE. The
60
DBE is defined as ½ MCE and hence, Z/2 is substituted in place of Z. A partial

load factor of 1.5 is applied to DBE in the load combinations.
4.4.4 Selection of Performance Objective
A performance objective of an analysis is the selection of a building performance

level under a selected earthquake level. If the objective includes two building
performance levels under two earthquake levels, then it is a dual level
performance objective. Similarly, there can be multiple level performance
objectives. A basic safety objective (BSO) is defined as the dual requirement of
Life Safety under DBE and Collapse Prevention under MCE. The aim of BSO is
to have a low risk of life threatening injury during a moderate earthquake (as
defined by DBE) and to check the collapse of the vertical load resisting system
during a severe earthquake (as defined by MCE).
For analysis of multi-storeyed buildings in India, Collapse Prevention under MCE

can be selected. It is a partial performance objective as per FEMA 356. Unless the
earthquake level of DBE as per IS 1893: 2002 is comparable to the level defined
based on the probabilistic method, it is not prudent to check Life Safety under
DBE. Of course checking only one performance level will not meet the damage
control requirement for frequent earthquakes.
4.5 EVALUATION RESULTS
The output from the pushover analysis contains the pushover curve, the demand
and capacity spectra curves and their tabulated values. The pushover curve reveals
the base shear capacity and the inelastic roof displacement. A global ductility can
be calculated as the ratio of the roof displacement at ultimate base shear to the roof
displacement at the onset of yielding. From the demand and capacity spectra
curves, the existence of the performance point can be noted. If the performance
point does not exist, the structure fails to achieve the target performance level. If
61
the performance point is achieved at a roof drift which is substantially higher than
the typical value of the selected performance level, then the performance of the
building is unsatisfactory.
The other results of interest from the pushover analysis are the deflected shape, the
formation of hinges with increasing load and the performance levels of the hinges
at the performance point (if exists). The deflected shape and the concentration of
hinges in a storey can reveal a soft storey mechanism. The collapse of a building is
not physically shown in the deflected shape. From the displacement values of the
centres of mass of the storeys, the inelastic drift profile can be plotted. This can
also reveal a soft storey mechanism.
The number of hinges formed in the beams and columns at the performance point
(or at the point of termination of the pushover analysis) and their performance
levels can be used to study the vulnerability of the building. The vulnerability can
be quantified using the concept of ‘vulnerability index’. Appendix D explains the
calculation of ‘vulnerability index’.
62
CHAPTER V
SEISMIC RETROFIT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The strengthening and enhancement of the performance of deficient structural

elements in a structure or the structure as a whole is referred to as retrofitting.
Retrofitting of a building is not same as repair or rehabilitation. Repair refers to
partial improvement of the degraded strength of a building after an earthquake. In
effect, it is only a cosmetic enhancement. Rehabilitation is a functional
improvement, wherein the aim is to achieve the original strength of a building
after an earthquake. Retrofitting means structural strengthening of a building to a
pre-defined performance level, whether or not an earthquake has occurred. The
seismic performance of a retrofitted building is aimed higher than that of the
original building. The present report does not cover the repair techniques for a
damaged building or distressed elements.
A survey of existing residential buildings reveals that many buildings are not
adequately designed to resist earthquakes. In the recent revision of the Indian
earthquake code (IS 1893: 2002), many regions of the country were placed in
higher seismic zones. As a result many buildings designed prior to the revision of
the code may fail to perform adequately as per the new code. It is therefore
63
recommended that the existing deficient buildings be retrofitted to improve their

performance in the event of an earthquake and to avoid large-scale damage to life
and property.
5.2 GOALS OF RETROFIT
The goals of seismic retrofitting of a building can be summarized as follows (IS

13935: 1993; White, 1995).
1. Giving unity to the structure.
2. Eliminating sources of weakness or features that produce concentration of
stresses in members.
3. Enhancing the redundancy of the lateral load resisting systems, thereby
eliminating the possibility of progressive collapse.
4. Increasing the lateral strength and stiffness of the building.
5. Increasing the ductility (energy absorption) and damping (energy
dissipation). Avoiding the possibility of brittle modes of failure.
6. The retrofit scheme should be cost effective, should consistently and
reliably achieve the intended performance objective.
5.3 DEFINITIONS
i) Retrofit strategy
The options available for retrofitting individual elements or the building as a
whole is termed as retrofit strategies.
ii) Retrofit scheme

A combination of several retrofit strategies is termed as a retrofit scheme for a
building.
64
Chapter V – Seismic Retrofit
iii) Retrofit programme

The complete process involved in retrofit of a building is termed as a retrofit
programme.
5.4 STEPS OF RETROFIT
A retrofit programme consists of the following steps (Basu, 2002).

i) Seismic evaluation
The evaluation of a building involves data collection, visual inspection, in-situ
testing, examination of as-built information and structural analysis. The structural
analysis can be linear static (equivalent static method), linear dynamic (response
spectrum analysis or time-history analysis), nonlinear static (pushover analysis)
and nonlinear dynamic (nonlinear time-history analysis). If the demand-to-
capacity ratios of the components are greater than one or if the building fails to
achieve the target performance level, then retrofit becomes necessary.
ii) Decision to retrofit

Based on the extent of deficiency of the building, the economic viability, the
expected durability of the upgraded building and the availability of the materials,
a decision is taken whether to repair, retrofit or demolish the building.
iii) Selection and design of the retrofit scheme

The selection of the retrofit strategies from the options available and their design,
influence the decision to retrofit. Hence, knowledge of the retrofit strategies is
essential. The design and the detailing should address the transfer of load and the
compatibility of deformation between the existing elements, modified elements
and the new elements as per the assumptions in the analysis.
iv) Verification of the retrofit scheme

Structural analysis is necessary to justify the selected retrofit scheme. Alteration
of the load path, redistribution of the member forces and the changes in the failure
65
modes after retrofitting, need to be studied. The increase in strength at the cost of
a ductile failure mode changing to brittle is not desirable. The selection and
design of the retrofit scheme may need to be revised accordingly.
v) Construction
The effectiveness of the retrofit scheme greatly depends on the quality of
execution. Hence, the proper execution as per the suggested detailing and
specifications is imperative.
vi) Monitoring
Monitoring the performance of the retrofitted building is necessary to detect any
defect or remaining deficiency. This will lead to a refinement of the design
guidelines and the specifications for future retrofit projects.
5.5 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
For seismic retrofit of buildings, a performance-based analysis is preferred

whenever the necessary tools for the analysis are available. The decision to
retrofit and the choice of retrofit strategies are open-ended tasks, as compared to
seismic design of a new building. The performance-based analysis is a rational
method that aids the decision-making and selection of retrofit strategies in a
retrofit programme of a building. The definitions of performance levels are
explained in Chapter 4.
A performance objective in a performance-based analysis is the selection of a

building performance level under a selected earthquake level. The selection of a
performance objective in a retrofit programme is guided by the benefit from
improved safety, economic decisions, available technical expertise, inconvenience
during the intervention and other considerations. Depending upon the importance
of the structure, the building performance levels and earthquake levels are chosen.
For example, hospital buildings, relief and rescue centres, police stations, fire
66
stations etc. should be functional immediately after an earthquake. For retrofit of

multi-storeyed buildings in India, Collapse Prevention (CP) under maximum
credible earthquake (MCE) can be selected, as explained in Chapter 4.
A structure with a trial retrofit scheme needs to be re-analysed to check its

performance. If a performance point is achieved satisfying the above objective,
then the retrofit scheme is satisfactory. But for severely deficient structure a
performance point may not be achieved with an acceptable retrofit scheme. There
may be partial increase in strength and ductility. This can be accepted as a
reduced performance objective as compared to the basic safety objective.
5.6 RETROFIT STRATEGIES
Retrofit strategy refers to options of increasing the strength, stiffness and/or

ductility of the elements or of the whole building. For a building, a combination
of retrofit strategies may be selected under a retrofit scheme. Retrofit strategies
may be broadly classified as local strategies and global strategies. Retrofit of
individual members or elements is referred to as local retrofit, whereas the retrofit
of the building as a whole is termed as global retrofit. This classification need not
be watertight and strategies falling in either group are expected. It may be
necessary to combine both local and global retrofit strategies for an effective
retrofit scheme.
5.6.1 Global Strategies
The global retrofit strategies are applied to improve the overall behaviour of a
building. If a building has inadequate strength to resist lateral forces, it exhibits
inelastic behaviour at very low levels of ground shaking. Analysis of such a
building indicates large demand-to-capacity ratios in the components throughout
the structure. By providing supplemental elements to the building’s lateral force
resisting system, it is possible to raise the threshold of ground motion at which the
67
onset of damage occurs. Addition of shear walls and braced frames, for example,
is effective for this purpose. Reduction of plan and vertical irregularities,
reduction of mass and improving the connections between the elements are other
global retrofit strategies.
In buildings with a large number of deficiencies, it is usually more economical to

try a global retrofit strategy first and then if further strengthening becomes
necessary, local retrofit strategies can be adopted.
5.6.2 Local Strategies
Local strengthening allows the under-capacity elements or connections to resist

the demands predicted by the analysis, without significantly affecting the overall
response of the structure. This scheme tends to be economical when only a few of
the building’s elements are deficient. The local retrofit strategies discussed here
include strengthening of beams, columns, joints, walls and footings.
5.6.3 Energy Dissipation and Base Isolation
A number of technologies are available to allow the energy imparted to a structure

to be dissipated through the action of special devices such as viscous fluid
dampers, yielding plates or friction pads. These are called energy dissipation
devices.
Base isolation produces a system with a fundamental response that consists of

nearly a rigid body translation of the structure above the bearings. Most of the
displacement induced in the isolated system by the ground motion occurs within
the compliant bearings, which are specifically designed for the large
displacements. Most bearings also have excellent energy dissipation
characteristics.
68
The cost of energy dissipation and base isolation systems is high and at present
their use is limited to important structures like hospitals and monumental
structures in India. These devices are not covered in this manual.
5.6.4 Mitigating Geological Hazards
Some of the geological hazards are fault rupture, liquefaction, differential

compaction, landslide and earthquake induced tsunamis or flood. Mitigation of
geological hazards generally is expensive. Some schemes for the mitigation of
these hazards are described in FEMA 356 (2000).
69
CHAPTER VI
BUILDING DEFICIENCIES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Seismic retrofit of an existing building most often is more challenging than

designing a new one. The first step of seismic evaluation aims at detecting the
deficiencies of the building. It is a crucial step in a successful retrofit programme
and is analogous to the diagnosis of a patient. This chapter highlights some
common deficiencies observed in multi-storeyed reinforced concrete (RC) framed
buildings in India. Substantial part of the material is from the buildings evaluated
under the project “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Multi-storeyed
Buildings” and from reports on Bhuj earthquake (Sinha and Shaw, 2001; Murty et
al., 2002). The regional distribution of the buildings studied is shown in Figure
6.1.
Although the observations were made in the buildings studied, similar

construction practices are noticed in other parts of the country. The building
deficiencies can be broadly classified as Local Deficiencies and Global
Deficiencies.
70
Delhi
Guwahati
Ahmedabad
Mumbai
Vellore Chennai
Trivandrum
Figure 6.1: Regions where buildings were surveyed
6.2 GLOBAL DEFICIENCIES
Global deficiencies refer to the deficiencies of the building as a whole. Certain

structural design concepts that may work adequately in non-seismic areas perform
poorly when subjected to earthquake motions. Examples are frame structures with
strong beams and weak columns, or frame structures employing open ground
storeys. For either case, a single storey sway mechanism can develop under
lateral loading. Global deficiencies can broadly be classified as plan irregularities
and vertical irregularities, as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002. The items left out are
listed under miscellaneous deficiencies.
72
Chapter VI – Building Deficiencies
6.2.1 Plan Irregularities
Some of the observed plan irregularities are as follows.

a. Torsional Irregularity
Torsional irregularity is to be checked when the diaphragm is rigid. Torsional
irregularity arises due to the eccentricity between the centre of stiffness and centre
of mass of each floor. Poor layout of structural walls leads to significant
eccentricity. Even for a symmetric building, if the aspect ratio of length to width
is large, there can be torsional irregularity.
Under lateral loads, the torsional response modes will dominate, and large
displacement demands will be placed on the vertical elements farthest from the
centre of rigidity, for example the corner columns. The large cyclic motions
would typically put reversed biaxial displacement demands on these columns.
Even well detailed columns will typically fail under such extreme loading
conditions. Eccentric mass, for example due to overhead tanks or swimming
pools, aggravates the torsional irregularity.
Figure 6.2: A building with diaphragm discontinuity and re-entrant corners
73
b. Re-entrant Corners
To accommodate multiple dwelling units in one level and to have large number of
windows, re-entrant corners are frequently seen in apartment buildings (Figure
6.2). The layouts with re-entrant corners result in high demands in the corner
columns and in the corners of the diaphragms.
c. Diaphragm Discontinuity
Diaphragm discontinuity is observed when a stair case or a lift well is located at
the middle of the building. The connection of the two halves of the diaphragms is
inadequate (Figure 6.2). Staggered floors with absence of collector elements also
cause diaphragm discontinuity.
Figure 6.3: Examples of plan and vertical irregularities
74
d. Out-of-Plane Offset
Out-of-plane offsets of the lateral force resisting elements cause discontinuities in
the load path. Often columns in the ground storey are set back from the columns
above to reduce the built-up area (Figure 6.3). The floating columns above the
ground storey are supported on transfer cantilever beams. This leads to out-of-
plane offset when the direction of the lateral load is perpendicular to the direction
of the offset.
e. Non-parallel Systems
Non-parallel system is defined to exist when some of the vertical lateral force
resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the orthogonal axes of
the lateral force resisting system.
6.2.2 Vertical Irregularities
a. Stiffness Irregularity
The non-uniformity of the stiffness along the height of the building is referred to
as stiffness irregularity. To facilitate parking of vehicles, infill walls are avoided
in the ground storeys of residential buildings (Figure 6.3). Also, open shop front
demands the absence of infill walls in the front side of the ground storey. This
leads to a soft storey, resulting in a sway mechanism under lateral load. Inelastic
deformations will concentrate in this storey, with the remainder of the structure
staying in the elastic range of response. The transfer beam in the first floor is
stronger than the columns beneath, thus creating a situation of strong-beam–weak-
column joints. Even well detailed columns will lose strength, stiffness, and
energy absorption capacity due to the concentrated inelastic demand placed on
this single storey. Thus, collapse of the building is likely under moderate to
severe earthquake. Although lack of infill walls at the ground storey is due to
functional requirement, it needs special design of the columns.
The absence of plinth beams increases the vulnerability of the ground storey
columns.
75
b. Mass Irregularity
Mass irregularity may be caused by variation of mass between floors.
c. Vertical Geometric Irregularity

To avoid the monotony of a box type of structure, setback towers are provided.
But this may create a vertical geometric irregularity.
d. Weak Storey
The open ground storeys frequently observed are examples of weak storeys.
e. In-Plane Discontinuity
If the in-plane offset of a lateral force resisting element is greater than the length
of the element, an in-plane discontinuity exists. For a column set back in the
ground storey, although the offset is less than the length of the column, it is a case
of in-plane discontinuity when the direction of lateral load coincides with the
direction of offset.
6.3 LOCAL DEFICIENCIES
Local deficiencies are element deficiencies that lead to the failure of individual
elements of the building such as crushing of columns, flexural and shear failure of
beams, columns and shear walls etc. Unaccounted loads, inadequate confinement,
unauthorized alterations, poor quality of construction, poor detailing, lack of
anchorage of reinforcement, inadequate shear reinforcement, insufficient cover,
inadequate compaction and curing etc. and environmental deterioration are
reasons for local deficiencies. The observed deficiencies of the elements are
described next.
76
6.3.1 Columns
Columns are the primary gravity-load carrying members for most RC buildings.
Therefore, column failures have led to catastrophic collapses during the past
earthquakes. Buildings designed only for gravity loads may have several
inadequacies for seismic loads. The common deficiencies are discussed below.
a. Inadequate Shear Capacity

Typical gravity and wind load designs normally result in a design shear force
significantly lower than the shear force that can develop in a column during
seismic loading. Hence, columns in the buildings not designed for seismic forces
have inadequate shear capacity. The cross-sectional dimension of a column is
frequently limited to 230 mm to flush it with the wall. This may be inadequate for
seismic loading. Another common problem is artificial “shortening” of columns
by adding partial height partition walls that restrict the movement of the lower
part of the columns. The resulting short columns are stiff and attract much higher
shear forces than they were designed to carry.
b. Inadequate Confinement of Column Core

Although the frame structures are supposed to be designed using the strong-
column–weak-beam concept, the use of deep spandrel beams in the first floor
leads to stronger beams compared to the columns. The ground storey columns
often form plastic hinges during strong seismic loading. The concrete core in a
plastic hinging region must be adequately confined to prevent loss of the shear
and flexural strength of the column. The confinement requirement in a column is
more stringent because of the high axial load and shear that typically need to be
carried through the plastic hinging region. Frequently, 6 mm diameter ties are
placed at 200 to 225 mm spacing in the plastic hinging region. The ends of the
ties have 90º hooks with inadequate hook length instead of 135º hooks. Although
in the drawings the hook end is shown to be bent to about 135º, in practice 90º
hooks are provided. These hooks open, leading to loss of confinement. There are
77
numerous examples of failure of poorly confined columns during the Bhuj

earthquake.
c. Faulty splicing of rebar

It is a common practice in gravity load design to provide the column splice just
above the floor and that too designed for compression only (Figure 6.4). The
column may be subjected to large moments or subjected to tension under seismic
loading (especially when infill walls are added and the column serves as a
boundary element for the wall), resulting in pull-out of the rebar.
Figure 6.4: Examples of lack of seismic detailing

(ATC 40, 1996)
d. Inadequate Capacity under Biaxial Loading

The problems of shear strength and confinement are more severe in corner
columns, especially if the building has significant eccentricity between the centre
of mass and the centre of rigidity. Corner columns need to have a higher degree
of confinement if they are to survive the biaxial loading demands that are likely to
occur in them.
78
6.3.2 Beams and Beam-Column Joints
Deficiencies in beams and beam-column joints are frequently related to the

inadequate transverse reinforcement for shear strength and confinement.
Although the failures are local and may not lead to collapse, they affect the
performance of the building.
a. Inadequate Shear Capacity and Lack of Confinement

During severe seismic loading, plastic hinges will develop at the ends of the beam.
The shear in the beam during the formation of these hinges can be significantly
higher than the shear force the beam was designed for, leading to a shear failure.
The stirrups usually are not designed to resist the shear corresponding to the
development of the beam flexural capacity (capacity based design). However, a
more common problem is inadequate transverse confinement in the beam hinging
zones. The stirrups may not be closed stirrups. As the plastic hinge “works”
during the earthquake, the lack of adequate confinement will result in a steady loss
of the shear strength and stiffness in the hinging zone.
b. Inadequate Amount and Anchorage of Bottom Rebar

The connections can suffer a significant loss of stiffness due to inadequate amount
and anchorage capacity of the bottom longitudinal bars. The bottom bars at
supports are not designed for tension in a gravity load design. There are instances
when they are not laid continuous through the joint (Figure 6.4). Improper anchor
detail of the main reinforcement can lead to pullout of the bars. For exterior
columns, the beam rebar may not be bent properly with adequate hook length to
confine the concrete.
6.3.3 Slabs
The slab is assumed to act as a rigid diaphragm. In order to achieve this, it is

necessary to provide additional reinforcement at the edges of the slab. These are
79
known as the drag and chord reinforcements. None of the buildings that were
studied under the project had such reinforcement.
6.3.4 Unreinforced Masonry Walls
Unreinforced masonry infill walls are common in RC frames. They are weak in
out-of-plane bending. Their failure may also occur due to crushing of the corners
or due to in-plane shear along the joints of the masonry units. Some times low
quality mud mortar is used in the joints. The failure of the masonry infill leads to
reduction in stiffness and additional load and deformation demand on the frame.
This situation is critical if the columns were designed considering the performance
of the infill.
6.3.5 Precast Elements
The major issue for precast concrete construction is proper connections between
the various components of the structure in order to establish a load path from the
floor masses to the foundation. Failures have been reported in several school
buildings in Gujarat. The seismic forces to be transmitted through the connections
were not properly anticipated, resulting in failure.
6.3.6 Deficient Construction
Traditional practice of volume batching that disregards the moisture content of the
aggregates, and pouring of additional water to attain workability lead to poor
quality of concrete. Lack of proper compaction due to inadequate or excessive
vibration, results in honeycombed or layered concrete. To reuse the column
formwork, the top of the columns is cast separately along with the beams. The
concrete is poured from the top of the beam-column joints. The congestion of
reinforcement and inadequate vibration cause weak concrete in the potential
hinging zone of the columns. The side face cover may be inadequate due to
80
forced placement of the reinforcement cage within the formwork. This leads to
the corrosion of the rebar.
6.4 MISCELLANEOUS DEFICIENCIES
6.4.1 Deficiencies in Analysis
If a building is designed only as a gravity load resisting system, then there can be
severe deficiencies in the lateral load resistance. When the infill walls are
neglected in the analysis of a building, the calculated time period is high and the
design base shear is low. Hence, the effect of infill on the frame needs to be
carefully investigated.
Many of the multi-storeyed buildings are built without adequate geotechnical data.
If a site has soft soil (Type III) and the building is designed with the assumption of
hard soil (Type I) or medium soil (Type II), then the design base shear is lower
than the recommended value. The amplification and attenuation of the ground
shaking are neglected. When the site is close to a strike slip fault, constructive
interference of the earthquake waves leads to higher ground shaking. This is
termed as the near-source effect. When this effect is not considered, the design
base shear is further low.
The loss of stiffness during an earthquake and the consequent lengthening of the
building period, may lead to an increase in the displacement response. The
increased displacements mean higher eccentricity of the vertical loads, which can
lead to collapse of the building if P-∆ effect has not been accounted for in the
analysis.
81
6.4.2 Lack of integral action
The building performance is degraded due to the lack of integral action of the
lateral load resisting elements. The moment resisting frames are not well defined
in the building plan. Advantage is not taken of the elevator core walls due to lack
of connection with the building frame. The slabs are not provided with collector
elements or chord and drag reinforcement, which are required for a diaphragm
action. In such a case, the analysis is unconservative if the diaphragm action is
assumed.
6.4.3 Failure of stair slab
If the stair slab is simply supported without adequate bearing length, a collapse of
the slab closes the escape route for the residents.
6.4.4 Pounding of buildings
A thermal expansion joint between segments of a building or inadequate space

between adjacent buildings is inadequate to act as a seismic joint. When the space
is not adequate, the buildings may ‘pound’ against each other as they respond to
the earthquake excitation. Buildings are not designed to absorb pounding loads
from adjacent structures. Also, these impulsive pounding forces can significantly
alter the dynamic response of the buildings and can cause collapse of the
buildings. Such cases were observed in the Bhuj earthquake.
6.4.5 Geotechnical aspects
For buildings on firm soil, the loss of stiffness may lead to reduction in the
displacement response or at least no increase, because the period of the structure
tends to lengthen. However, for buildings on soft soils this loss of stiffness and
lengthening of the building period may lead to an increase in the displacement
82
response. The increased displacements can lead to collapse of the building. The
discussion of soil failure is beyond the scope of this manual.
6.4.6 Inadequate detailing and documentation
It was observed from the buildings studied that the documentation of design
procedure, the code that was followed, geotechnical and architectural information
was extremely poor. The detailing of rebar at the joints and at the splices was
incomplete. Any evaluation of a building without these information is subjected
to postulation and hence questionable.
83
CHAPTER VII
GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Buildings behave poorly in earthquakes because the existing lateral load resisting
components do not have adequate strength and ductility (energy absorption
capacity). Stiffening the structure by providing additional lateral load resisting
elements, thereby reducing the lateral deformation, is an effective method of
improving the performance of a building. Stiffening of the structure can be
achieved by the construction of new braced frames, infill walls or shear walls.
Reductions of irregularities or mass in a building are other methods of global
retrofit. The global retrofit strategies are described under the following
categories.
1. Structural stiffening
2. Reduction of irregularities
3. Reduction of mass.
7.2 STRUCTURAL STIFFENING
Structural stiffening can be achieved by the following methods.
84
1. Addition of infill walls

2. Addition of shear walls
3. Addition of steel braces
7.2.1 Addition of Infill Walls
The effect of adding infill walls and braces on the load versus deformation
behaviour of reinforced concrete frames is shown schematically in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Effect of adding infill walls and braces (Sugano, 1981)
The following are the different types of infill walls commonly used in residential
buildings.
• Masonry Infill Wall
• Cast-In-Place RC Infill Wall
• Precast Concrete Infill Wall
Steel infill panels have been investigated experimentally. The modelling of infill
walls is usually done by the equivalent strut method. The details of modelling of
masonry infill walls are given in Appendix B.
86
Chapter VII – Global Retrofit Strategies
7.2.2 Addition of shear walls
The addition of new shear walls is used to control excessive displacements in

buildings. Critical design issues involved in the addition of shear walls are as
follows (White, 1995).
• Determining the adequacy of existing floor and roof slabs to carry the
seismic forces.
• Transfer of diaphragm shears into the new shear walls through dowels.
• Adding new collector and drag members to the diaphragms.
• Reactions of the new shear walls on existing foundations.
The collector and drag members connect shear walls and frames to mobilise their
lateral load resistance simultaneously. The reactions of new shear walls on
existing foundations may cause serious problems to the foundations. This is a
strong disadvantage of adding shear walls. Another disadvantage is the closing of
formerly open spaces, which can have negative impact on interior building uses or
exterior appearance. The modelling of shear walls is given in Chapter 3.
7.2.3 Addition of steel braces
The seismic strength and stiffness of framed structures can be efficiently and
economically increased using steel braces or shear walls. Usually steel braces are
used in steel buildings. However, in recent years steel braces have been used in
RC buildings because of ease of construction and high strength to weight ratio.
Braces reduce flexure and shear demands on beams and columns and transfer the
lateral loads as axial loads (truss action).
The advantages of retrofitting an RC frame by steel braces are as follows.

• They block less floor space.
• Due to the efficiency of braces as axially loaded members, they are
economical.
87
• In a retrofit scheme, they are easy to use with minimal disruption to

functional use.
• The requirement of strength and stiffness can be achieved with steel
braces.
• The braces add very little to the existing mass to the building.
• The braces can be efficiently connected to existing RC frames using bolts.
A background and the application of steel braces are given in Appendix E.
7.3 REDUCTION OF IRREGULARITIES
The plan and vertical irregularities are common causes of undesirable

performance under an earthquake. In a linear analysis, the irregularities are
reflected in the distribution of structural displacements and Demand-to-Capacity
Ratios (DCRs) in the elements. In a nonlinear analysis, in addition to the above,
the irregularities are reflected in the inelastic deformation demands. If the values
of displacements, DCRs, or inelastic deformation demands predicted by the
analyses are unbalanced, with large concentrations of high values within one
storey or at one side of a building, then an irregularity exists. Such irregularities
are often, but not always, caused by the presence of a discontinuity in the
building, for example, termination of a wall above the ground storey. Removal of
the irregularity may be sufficient to reduce demands to acceptable levels.
Among plan irregularities, torsional irregularities can be corrected by the addition

of moment frames, braced frames, or shear walls to balance the distribution of
stiffness and mass within a storey. 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 corrective measure for
irregularities, although this may have significant impact on the appearance and
utility of the building.
88
Chapter VII – Global Retrofit Strategies
For vertical irregularities, portions of the building that create the irregularity, such
as setback towers, can be removed. Discontinuous components such as columns
or walls can be extended beyond the zone of discontinuity. As mentioned earlier,
walls or braces can alleviate the deficiency of soft and weak storey.
7.4 REDUCTION OF MASS
Two of the primary characteristics that control the amount of lateral force and
deformation induced in a building by ground motion are its stiffness and mass.
Reductions in mass result in direct reductions in both the force and deformation
demands produced by earthquakes, and therefore, can be used in lieu of structural
strengthening and stiffening. Mass can be reduced through demolition of upper
storeys, replacement of heavy cladding and interior partitions, or removal of
heavy storage and equipment loads, or change in the use of the building.
89
CHAPTER VIII
LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Local retrofit strategies include strengthening of beams, columns, slabs, beam-

column or slab-column joints (for flat plates), walls and foundations. Local
strengthening allows one or more under-strength elements or connections to resist
the demands predicted by the analysis. In the following sections, the local retrofit
strategies are grouped according to the type of elements. Some of the solved
examples were taken from the buildings analysed under the project.
8.2 COLUMN STRENGTHENING
Column strengthening techniques include the following.

1. Concrete jacketing
2. Steel jacketing
3. Fibre reinforced polymer wrapping
The design should specify to what extent the load on a column should be released
during the retrofit construction.
90
Concrete jacketing is a popular method of column retrofit. This involves addition

of a thick layer of reinforced concrete (RC) in the form of a jacket, using
longitudinal reinforcement and closely spaced ties with seismic detailing (Figure
8.1).
Figure 8.1: Concrete jacketing (Basu, 2002)
The method is comparatively straightforward and increases both strength and

ductility. But, the composite deformation of the existing and the new concrete
requires adequate dowelling to the existing column. The mix design of the new
concrete, surface preparation of the existing column and choice of appropriate
bonding material are also important. Also, the additional longitudinal bars need to
be anchored to the foundation and should be continuous through the slab. The use
of ferrocement jacket increases the shear strength and the ductility of RC columns.
92
Chapter VIII – Local Retrofit Strategies
The disadvantages of concrete jacketing are listed below.

a. Drilling of holes.
b. Increase in the size of the column.
c. Placement of ties at the beam-column joints
Analysis of Strengthened Columns

a. Flexural Capacity
The analysis of a strengthened column can be performed by the traditional method
of interaction curves. To get the moment versus curvature behaviour, the
equations of equilibrium and compatibility and the constitutive relationships have
to be satisfied. The analysis assumes that there is perfect bond between the new
and old concrete. An adequately confined core can be modelled with the stress
versus strain relationship of confined concrete.
An example of a deficient existing section from Building A08 (located in Zone V)

and the retrofitted section is presented. The existing section is 350×600mm, with
4-25mm diameter and 12-20mm diameter longitudinal bars and 8mm diameter ties
at 100mm on centre (Figure 8.2). The grade of concrete is M15 and the grade of
steel is Fe 415.
4-25 Φ and 12-20 Φ

600
X X
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
350
Figure 8.2: Existing cross-section
93
The section is analysed about X-X and Y-Y axes separately. The flexural strength
of the section is adequate about X-X but it is inadequate about Y-Y. A concrete
jacket is added with 75 mm thick concrete all around, 12-12 mm diameter
longitudinal bars and 8 mm diameter ties at 100 mm on centre (Figure 8.3).
Y
75
4-25Φ and 12-20Φ
X 750 600 12-12Φ X
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
8Φ @ 100 mm c/c
75
75 350 75
500
Y
Figure 8.3: Retrofitted cross-section
In the analysis, the concrete grade and the steel grade of the jacket were retained
same as those of the existing section. The dowels connecting the existing and the
new concrete are not shown in the figure. The number of dowels should be low to
have minimal drilling into the existing section. The interaction curves for the
existing and the retrofitted sections are shown in Figure 8.4. The moment versus
curvature curves, in presence of axial loads, are shown in Figure 8.5.
94
5000
4000
Axial load (kN)

3000
2000
1000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Moment (kN m)
Existing about X-X Existing about Y-Y Demand about X-X
Demand about Y-Y Retrofitted about X-X Retrofitted about Y-Y
Figure 8.4: Interaction curves for the existing and the retrofitted sections
700
600
500
Moment (kN m)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012
Curvature (rad)
Exisiting Retrofitted
Figure 8.5: Moment versus curvature curves for the

existing and the retrofitted sections
95
It is observed that the increase in flexural strength can be substantial with a

concrete jacket. Along with the increase in strength and stiffness, the ductility is
retained in the section after retrofit. The additional stirrups are provided to meet
the shear demand.
b. Confinement
The ends of a column are to be confined because of the potential plastic hinge
formation. Special confining reinforcement is required throughout the length of
plastic hinges in each end. The required amount of special confining
reinforcement as per IS 13920: 1993 is given below.
For a circular column

f ck ⎛ Ag ⎞
A sh = 0.09 S Dc ⎜ − 1.0 ⎟
fysp ⎝ Ac ⎠ (8.1)
where,
Ash total area of the bar cross sections of spiral or circular hoops
S pitch of spiral or spacing of hoops
Dc diameter of core measured to the outside of the spiral or hoop
fck cube compressive strength of the concrete
fysp yield strength of steel of hoop or spiral
Ag gross area of the column cross section
Ac area of the concrete core = π×Dc2/4.
For a rectangular column,

f ck ⎛ Ag ⎞
A sh = 0.18 S h ⎜ − 1.0 ⎟
fysp ⎝ Ac ⎠ (8.2)
Here, h is the longer dimension of the rectangular confining hoop measured to its
outer face. It shall not exceed 300mm.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) proposed an equation which incorporates the effect of
the axial load on the amount of confining steel for the required curvature ductility.
96
For a rectangular column,

⎛ f ' Ag ⎛ Pu ⎞⎞
Ash = S Dc ⎜ K c ⎜ − 0.08 ⎟ ⎟
⎜ fysp Ac f Ag
' ⎟ (8.3)
⎝ ⎝ c ⎠⎠
Here,
f c/ = cylinder compressive strength ≈ 0.8 fck
k = 0.35 for a required curvature ductility of µΦ = 20
k = 0.25 for µΦ = 10. Other values can be calculated by interpolation or
extrapolation.
Pu = design load in the column.
The required amount of additional stirrups for confinement (Ash,add) can be

calculated as follows.
A sh,add = A sh - A sh,pro (8.4)
Here, Ash,pro is the area of confining reinforcement provided in the existing

column.
c. Shear Capacity
The shear resistance (VuR) of a column can be expressed as follows.
VuR =Vc +Vs (8.5)
where, Vc is the concrete contribution and Vs is the steel contribution. The shear
strength enhancement by jacket is included as an additional term Vj to the shear
resistance.
VuR = Vc +Vs +Vj (8.6)
The design capacity VuR is to be greater than the demand Vu .
VuR ≥ Vu (8.7)
97
Here, Vu is the maximum value that is obtained from analysis with different load
combinations and the shear force corresponding to the development of the flexural
strengths of the connected beams (as per IS 13920: 1993). Thus, the required
strength from the jacket is
∴ Vj ≥ Vu - Vc - Vs (8.8)
The concrete contribution in a rectangular column is given as
Vc = δ τ c bd
(8.9)
where, the enhancement in shear capacity due to the axial load is given by the
factor δ.
⎛ 3 Pu ⎞
δ = ⎜0 + ≤ 0.5
⎝ Ag fck ⎟⎠ (8.10)
The design shear stress of concrete (τc) is available from Table 19 of IS 456: 2000.
The breadth (b) and the effective depth (d) can be taken for the retrofitted section.
For a circular section, a similar expression is used.
The steel contribution is as follows.
d
Vs = 0.87fy Asv cot θ
sv (8.11)
Here,
Asv Cross sectional area of ties
sv Spacing
fy Yield stress of ties
d Effective depth of section
θ Inclination of cracks to the column axis.
Usually θ is assumed to be 45°. This means cot θ = 1.
98
The expression of Vj is similar to Vs. The additional steel tie or spiral contribution
is as follows.
d
Vj = 0.87fy Asv add cot θ (8.12)
sv
Here, Asv,add is the total area of the additional stirrups.
The expressions for circular ferrocement jackets consider the area of the wire
mesh.
0.125 π 2 dw 2 fyj n D' (8.13)

Vj =
gw
Here,
n Number of layers of wire mesh.
dw Diameter of wire mesh.
gw Grid spacing.
fyj Allowable stress of steel in wire mesh, taken to be 0.4 fy, where fy
is the yield stress.
D' Core diameter of jacketed section.
Steel jacketing refers to encasing the column with steel plates and filling the gap
with non-shrink grout (Figure 8.6). Steel jacketing was originally developed for
circular columns. Steel jacketing is an effective method to remedy deficiencies
such as inadequate shear strength and inadequate splices of longitudinal bars at
critical locations, by providing confinement. The jacket is effective in passive
confinement, that is, confining stress is induced in the concrete as it expands
laterally. The jacket can be considered equivalent to continuous hoop
reinforcement. In most cases increase in strength and ductility due to confinement
alone may be adequate, so that composite action may not be necessary.
99
Figure 8.6: Steel jacketing (Seth, 2002)
If the flexural capacity of the original column is adequate, gaps are left at the top
and bottom of the jacket to avoid the following
a. The possibility of the jacket acing as compression reinforcement by
bearing against the supporting member at large drift angles
b. The increase of the stiffness of the column and hence, of the induced shear
force. When the jacketing steel is also needed for additional composite
strength it is necessary to provide continuity at the ends.
For rectangular columns, the recommended procedure is to use an oval jacket,

which provides a continuous confining action similar to that of a circular spiral.
The space between the jacket and columns is filled with concrete. For bridges,
rectangular columns so retrofitted have performed exceptionally well in flexure
and shear. Attempts to retrofit rectangular columns using rectangular jackets have
been less successful even when the jackets were extensively stiffened. This is
because the confining action of the rectangular jackets can only be developed as a
consequence of lateral bending of the jacket sides, which is a very flexible action
in comparison to the hoop tension action developed in an oval jacket. The steel
plates of a rectangular jacket need to be anchored to the column by means of shear
100
lugs or studs in order to enhance their effectiveness in providing confinement or in

the composite action.
Alternatively, steel jackets can also be made of vertical angles, plates or channel
shapes, tied together by welded transverse steel bands or lattice bars. When found
adequate, the plates are attached to the column by epoxy-grouted bolts or by
epoxy bond. The jacketing may not be needed over the full length of the column,
if the shear strength of the original column is sufficient in the unjacketed portions.
Analysis of Strengthened Columns

The required shear strength from the jacket (Vj) can be calculated as given for
columns strengthened with concrete jackets. Regarding Vj, for rectangular
columns, Aboutaha et al. (1999) considered the jacket to act as a series of
independent square ties of thickness and spacing tsj, where tsj is the jacket
thickness.
fsj dsj
Vj =Asj (8.14)
ssj
Here, Asj is the total area of the assumed square tie, Asj = tsj2 (expected to be 2tsj2),
fsj is the allowable stress of the jacket, dsj is the height of the jacket and ssj is the
spacing between the square ties, ssj = tsj. It was assumed that the shear cracks are
inclined at 45º to the column axis and the allowable stress in the jacket is fsj =
fysj/2, where fysj is the ‘yield’ stress. The required thickness tsj can be calculated
from the required value of Vj.
8.2.3 Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Wrapping
Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is a composite material consisting of a matrix of

polymeric material reinforced with unidirectional or multi-directional fibres.
Fibres can be classified as glass fibre reinforced polymers (GFRP), carbon fibre
reinforced polymers (CFRP) and aramid fibre reinforced polymers (AFRP). Glass
101
fibre has been the predominant fibre for applications in India, because of the
economical balance of cost and strength properties.
FRP is mechanically different from steel since it is anisotropic, linear elastic and
is usually of higher strength with a lower modulus of elasticity than steel. FRP
has desirable physical properties over steel, like corrosion and fatigue resistance
and high tensile strength (up to ~3000 MPa compared to ~400 MPa of steel) to
weight ratio. FRP sheets are thin, light and flexible enough to be inserted behind
pipes, electrical cables and other service ducts, thus facilitating installation.
FRP jackets are used in the retrofitting of columns. There is no significant

increase in the size of the column. In addition to passive confinement, a degree of
active confinement is achieved by pressure grouting between the jacket and
column. The main drawback of FRP is the high cost. Unlike steel, FRP is a
brittle material, which must be accounted for in design. The performance of bond
between FRP sheets and concrete over a long period of time is yet to be
established. The other disadvantages are susceptibility of FRP to moisture and
chemicals, degradation of properties at high temperatures, as in the case of fire,
and the damage from ultraviolet light.
External FRP jackets with horizontally oriented fibres can enhance both the shear
capacity and the ductility of columns against seismic forces. Under shear forces,
the tensile stresses in FRP contribute to the over all shear resistance of columns,
similar to its effect in shear strengthening of beams. Under flexure, the FRP
provides confinement, which enhances the strength and ultimate strain of
concrete. The enhancement to the ultimate concrete strain is particularly
important for seismic retrofit as it allows a much greater ductility level to be
achieved in inelastic deformations. For shear strengthening, the FRP jacket is
generally required to cover the entire column height. For plastic hinge
confinement and for lap splice clamping, the FRP jacket is only needed in the
plastic hinge and near by regions.
102
8.3 BEAM STRENGTHENING
Beam strengthening techniques include the following.

2. Steel plating
3. Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping
4. Use of FRP bars
5. External Prestressing

Concrete jacketing is one of the traditional methods of retrofit. Jacketing can be
effectively used to retrofit common deficiencies in beams such as discontinuity of
bottom bars at the supports and to increase the shear capacity. Several options are
available for adding concrete (Figure 8.7).
Figure 8.7: Concrete jacketing (IS 13935: 1993)
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. In the beam soffit, bleed water
from the new concrete creates a weak cement paste at the interface. Third, the
103
effects of drying shrinkage must be considered as it induces tensile stress in the

new concrete. Instead of regular concrete, fibre reinforced concrete can be used
for retrofit.
For the proper confinement of concrete and formation of plastic hinges, it is

essential to provide stirrups at close intervals especially near the supports. This
involves drilling of holes in the slab or in the beam or in both, at fairly close
intervals. Drilling of holes in the beam may lead to micro-cracking and hence,
weakening of the beam.
The surface of the beam is usually roughened for better bonding with the new
concrete. Recently, some patented cements are available to avoid hacking the
surface. In case the depth of the transverse beam is equal to the depth of the beam
to be retrofitted, or the width of the column is greater than that of the beam,
drilling becomes unavoidable. However, the engineer must endeavour to
minimise the amount of drilling in concrete, especially in the regions where there
is congestion of reinforcement.
It is imperative that the strength of the column must be greater than that of the
beam as per capacity based design. Also, the joint should not become weaker than
the beam after retrofit. The analysis of a strengthened beam can be performed by
the traditional method of beam analysis. To obtain the enhanced moment versus
curvature behaviour, the equations of equilibrium and compatibility and the
constitutive relationships have to be satisfied. The analysis assumes that there is
perfect bond between the new and old concrete.
Analysis of Strengthened Beams

An example of a beam section deficient in flexure in an existing building and the
retrofitted section is presented. The existing section is 250×600mm, with 4-16mm
diameter bars at the bottom and 4-16mm and 2-12mm diameter bars at the top,
near the support. The section is deficient both for the positive (sagging) and
negative moments, as shown in Table 8.1.
104
Table 8.1: Moment demands and capacities of example section
MuR+ (kN-m) MuR− (kN-m)

Mu+ Mu−
kN-m After kN-m After
Existing Existing
retrofit retrofit
253 152 267 261 194 267
Here, Mu represents the factored demand and MuR represents the ultimate
resistance (capacity). The size of the retrofitted section is 350×650mm, with 3-
16mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the bottom and 2-10 mm and
2-12 mm diameter bars as additional reinforcement at the top (at the level of the
soffit of the slab). The capacities after retrofit are also shown in the table. The
moment curvature behaviour is shown in Figure 8.8.
300
250
200
Moment (kN-m)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
curvature x 10e-3 (1/m)
Existing After retrofit
Figure 8.8: Moment versus curvature for positive moment
It is observed that with the increase in strength and stiffness, the reduction in the
ductility after retrofit is marginal. It is important to note that with the increase in
105
flexural capacity, the shear demand (based on the flexural capacity) also increases.
Additional stirrups are provided to meet the shear demand.
8.3.2 Steel Plating
The technique of gluing mild steel plates to beams is often used to improve their
flexural and shear capacities. It increases the strength and stiffness of the beams
and subsequently, reduces the crack width. 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 building is in use. Gluing plates requires adequate smearing of
adhesive on the existing surfaces. The cost is governed by that of the plates,
epoxy and labour. Glued plates are prone to premature debonding which can
severely limit the application of this technique. Providing bolts at the ends may
reduce the debonding, but it involves drilling into the existing concrete.
The advantages of steel plating are the following (Barnes, 2001).

1. Increase in strength and stiffness.
2. Increase in serviceability (lower deflection and reduced crack width).
3. It is possible to strengthen the structure while in use.
4. Relatively small increase in the size and weight of the existing section.
5. Accessibility for inspection and maintenance.
The disadvantages of steel plating are

1. Corrosion of the external plate.
2. Transporting, handling and installing the plates.
3. Cost of the steel plates.
Plating may be done either on the tension-face or on the side-face of the beams.
Tension-face plates are mechanically efficient as they act at the furthest extremity
from the compression zone and hence, accomplish the highest increase in flexural
strength and stiffness. Side-face plating increases the shear capacity and to a
106
limited extent, flexural capacity. A combination of the above methods is also

done.
a. Tension-Face Plated Beams

Steel plates or sheets are attached to the tension face of beams to increase the
flexural strength. Unlike concrete jackets, the plates are prone to premature
debonding. Failure in plated beams occurs due to the debonding of concrete
cover. There are four mechanisms of debonding of tension-face plated beams
(Oehlers and Moran, 1990).
1. Flexural peeling,
2. Shear peeling,
3. Reverse peeling and
4. Adhesive failure.
The peeling refers to the delamination of concrete cover. It has been observed
from experiments conducted on tension-face plated simply supported beams with
2-point loading that when the moment to shear (M/V) ratio is high, flexural
peeling initiates at the end of the plates. For intermediate M/V ratios, a
combination of shear and flexural peeling occurs. In specimens with low M/V
ratios, shear failure of the beam and debonding of the plate due to shear are
observed. The flexural peeling is induced by increasing curvature. It is a gradual
failure mode. The shear peeling is induced by the formation of diagonal shear
cracks and the peeling is rapid.
After the ultimate moment is reached, due to the rapid loss of longitudinal strain
in the plate, cracks can propagate in the reverse direction (towards the support).
The reverse peeling occurs only after the ultimate moment is reached and hence it
is not considered as a failure mode.
The adhesive failure is due to bad preparation of the concrete surface, or use of
poor quality adhesive, or bad workmanship. The failure occurs at the interface of
the glue line as compared to the flexural or shear peeling of the cover concrete.
107
Of late, the adhesive failure is not significant due to the good quality of adhesives
available.
Analysis of Tension-face Plated Beams

Near the location of plate cut-off, substantial normal stress (also termed as
‘peeling’ stress) and shear stress generate at the interface due to the sudden
change in the cross-section from plated to unplated. This cannot be predicted by
flexural theory. Roberts and Hazi-Kazemi (1989) explained this phenomenon by
theory of elasticity. Figure 8.9 shows a schematic representation of the stresses at
the location of plate cut-off.
RC Beam
Steel Plate
Shear Stress Normal Stress
Shear Stress
Tension Normal Stress
Compression Distance along plate
Figure 8.9: Shear and normal stresses at location of plate cut-off
Due to the high normal stress, the plate starts to peel at the location of cut-off.
When thick plates are used, the plate separation precedes the plate yielding.
When the tensile capacity of concrete is exceeded, a diagonal crack develops. The
formation of the diagonal crack magnifies the effect of peeling and the crack
108
extends rapidly to the bottom of tensile reinforcement. This relieves the bond
stresses at the end of the plate. The location of peeling of the plate ‘moves’
inwards into the region of higher moment. The process continues till the cover
concrete peels substantially (Ali and Oehlers, 2002).
In choosing the thickness of the steel plate, it is necessary to ensure that the
section does not become over-reinforced. The ultimate strength analysis was
proposed by Roberts (1989) and later modified by Ziraba et al. (1994). It is based
on satisfying the equilibrium and compatibility equations and the constitutive
relationships. It models the adhesive failure due to the stress concentration at the
location of plate cut-off. The essential features of the model are as follows.
1. The steel plate is assumed to act integrally with the concrete beam.
Conventional beam theory is used to determine the flexural capacity.
2. The normal and shear stresses are calculated to check the failure of the
adhesive.
The concrete stress block is modified as per IS 456: 2000. The stresses and strains
distribution of a tension-face plated beam is shown in Figure 8.10.
b
0.0035 0.447 fck
xu C
hs
hp D
dc st fst Tst
fpt Tpt
dp bp pt
Strains Stresses Forces
Figure 8.10: Strains and stresses in a plated beam
109
The depth of neutral axis (xu) can be found out from the equilibrium equation as
follows.
f st Ast + f pt b p d p
xu = (8.15)
0.36 f ck b
The ultimate moment capacity (MuR) of the plated section is given by the
following expression.
M uR = 0.36 f ck b x u ( h s -0.416 x u ) + f pt b p d p ( d c + d p 2 ) (8.16)
Here,
b, D, hs - Width, overall depth and effective depth of the original section
bp, dp, hp - Width, thickness and effective depth of the steel plate
fck - Characteristic cube strength (MPa)
fst, fpt - Stress in internal reinforcement and external plate, corresponding
to the strains εst and εpt. These can be calculated from the compatibility
equations.
The width of the plate is limited to the width of the beam. The limit on the
thickness of the plate is such that the section does not become over-reinforced.
The adhesive failure is checked by the following equation.
τ 0 + σ 0 tan28D ≤ c all (8.17)
τ0 = CR1 V0
Here, τ0 and σ0 are the expressions for shear and normal stresses at the interface at
adhesive failure. The allowable coefficient of cohesion is denoted as call. The
expression for peak shear stress τ0 is
5/4
⎛C V ⎞
τ 0 = α1 f t ' ⎜ R1 ' 0 ⎟ (8.18)
⎝ fc ⎠
110
where,
V0 - Shear force at the location of plate cut-off
α1 - Empirical regression constant (α1 = 35)
fc' - Cylinder compressive strength
ft' - Tensile strength of concrete.
CR1 is a constant given by the following expression.

⎡ ⎛ K ⎞ * ⎤ bp d p
1/2
CR1 = ⎢1+ ⎜ s
⎟⎟ a ⎥ (h p - x u )
⎜
⎢ ⎝ E p bp d p ⎥ I b
⎣ ⎠ ⎦ cr a
Here,
a* M0 / V0 at plate cut-off location
Icr Moment of inertia of equivalent transformed cracked steel section
Ks Shear stiffness of the adhesive layer (= Ga ba/da)
Ga, ba, da Shear modulus, width and thickness of the adhesive layer.
Ep Elastic modulus of the plate
The expression for the peak shear stress σ0 is
σ0 = α 2 CR2 τ0
(8.19)
CR2 is a constant given by the following expression.
1/4
⎛ Kn ⎞
CR2 = dp ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ 4 E p Ip
⎝ ⎠
where,
α2 Empirical regression coefficient (α2 = 1.1)
Ip Moment of inertia of the steel plate about its centroid
Kn Normal stiffness of adhesive layer (= Ea ba/da)
Ea Elastic modulus of adhesive.
111
The retrofit of a beam deficient in flexure under gravity loads is illustrated below.
A rectangular beam of length 4500mm and dimensions 230×400mm is reinforced
with 3-12mm bars at the top and bottom. The existing capacity is 40.9 kN-m and
the required capacity is 50.6 kN-m. Grade of concrete is M20 and grade of
reinforcing steel is Fe 415. The beam is retrofitted with a plate of grade Fe 250.
The beam is propped before plating so that after the prop is released, the
strengthened section carries the required moment.
Step 1: Flexural design.

A steel sheet of 150mm width and 1mm thickness is plated to the soffit of the
beam. Equating the compression and the tensile forces, xu = 55.3mm. The
positive moment capacity of the beam is 52.6kN-m.
Step 2: Interface stresses.

The properties of the adhesive used are given below.
Shear modulus of adhesive Ga 80N/mm2
Young’s modulus of adhesive Ea 250N/mm2
Allowable coefficient of shear cohesion call 2.6N/mm2
Icr is the section modulus of the cracked, equivalent transformed steel section
about the neutral axis (NA). The top reinforcement is very close to the NA and is
hence ignored in the calculation of Icr.
⎛E ⎞ b x 3u
+ A s ( h s -x u ) + A p ( h p -x u )
2 2
Icr = ⎜ c ⎟⎟
⎜ Ep
⎝ ⎠ 3
Ec 5000√20 = 22,360N/mm2
Ep 200,000N/mm2
Area of tension steel Ast 340mm2
Effective depth hs 360mm
Area of steel sheet Ap = 150×1 150mm2
112
Depth of steel sheet dp = 400+1/2 400.5mm

3
⎛ 22.36 ⎞ 230×55.3
+ 340 ( 360-55.3) + 150 ( 400.5-55.3)
2 2
Icr = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 200 ⎠ 3
= 50.89×106 mm 4
Moment of inertia of the steel sheet about its centroid is Ip.

Ip = 150×13/12 = 12.5mm4
Thickness of the adhesive da 1mm
Shear stiffness of the adhesive Ks = Ga(ba/da) = 80×150/1 = 12,000N/mm2
Normal stiffness of the adhesive Kn = Ea(ba/da) = 250×150/1 = 37,500N/mm2
1/4
⎛ Kn ⎞ ⎛ 37500 ⎞
1/4
CR2 = dp ⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1× ⎜ ⎟ = 0.2475
⎜ 4 E p Ip ⎝ 4×200000×12.5 ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Figure 8.11 shows the tension-face plated beam of span l subjected to a uniformly
distributed load w per m. Here, 'a' refers to the distance from the point of zero
moment (in this case, the supports) to the edge of the plate.
w /m
a l - 2a a
BMD
M0 M0
wl2/8
wl/2 V0
V0 wl/2
SFD
Figure 8.11: Bending moment and shear force diagrams
113
The plate must be terminated at such a point that the limits of interface stresses are
not exceeded.
⎛ wl wa 2 ⎞ w
⎟ = ( la-a )
2
Moment at the point of curtailment M 0 = ⎜ a -
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 2
wl ⎛ l -2a ⎞ w
The shear at the point of curtailment of the plates V0 = ⎜ ⎟ = ( l -2a )
2 ⎝ l ⎠ 2
M0 la - a 2
a* = =
V0 l - 2a
Using the expression for CR1, a* and V0,
⎡⎧ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ la-a 2 ⎞ ⎫⎪ b p d p
1/2
⎤
⎪ Ks w
⎢
CR1V0 = ⎨1+ ⎜
⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎬ (h p - x u ) ⎥
⎥ 2
( l -2a ) (8.20)
E b d ⎠ ⎝ l -2a ⎠ ⎪⎭ Icr ba
⎣ ⎪⎩ ⎝ p p p ⎦
5/4
⎛C V ⎞
'
Peak shear τ 0 = α f ⎜ R1 ' 0 ⎟
1 t
⎝ fc ⎠
4/5
⎛ τ ⎞
⇒ CR1V0 = ⎜ 0 ' ⎟ f c' (8.21)
⎝ α1 f t ⎠
fc' and ft' are the cylinder strength and tensile strength of concrete.
The expression for limiting the interface stresses is as follows.
τ 0 + σ 0 tan 28o ≤ call and σ 0 = α 2 CR2 τ 0
(
Hence, the limiting case is τ 0 1+α 2 CR2 tan28o = call)
call
∴ τ0 =
1+α 2 CR2 tan28o
This expression for τ0 can be substituted in equation (8.21). The resulting
expression is as follows.
114
4/5
⎡ call ⎤
CR1V0 = ⎢ ⎥ f c'
( )
⎢⎣ 1+α 2 CR2 tan28o α1f t' ⎥⎦ (8.22)
Equation (8.20) when equated with (8.22) results in a cubic equation in 'a', the
maximum distance of plate cut-off from the supports. The equation can be solved
by trial and error. The maximum distance of plate cut-off (amax) must not exceed
three times the depth of the beam.
⎡ ⎪⎧ ⎛ 20,000 ⎞ ⎛ 4500a-a 2 ⎞ ⎪⎫
1/2
150×1 ⎤
⎢ ⎨1+ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎬ 6
(400.5-55.28) ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎝ 200,000×150×1 ⎠ ⎝ 4500-2a ⎠ ⎭⎪ 50.89×10 ×150 ⎥⎦
4/5
20 ⎛ 2.6 ⎞
× ( 4500-2a ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ( 0.8×20 )
2
⎝ (
1+1.1×0.2812 tan28o
35×3.13 ⎟
⎠ )
Solving the equation by trial and error, 'a' = 70.6mm. The curtailment by 70mm
on either side would not result in any appreciable economy. However, in case of
beams of longer span and with higher loads, curtailment of plates or sheets
becomes necessary.
Step 3: Shear strength

Steel plating enhances the shear capacity of the section. However, as a
conservative measure, the increase in shear capacity may be ignored. If the beam
does not possess sufficient shear capacity, side-face plating becomes necessary.
Some authors contend that adhesive failure in plated beams is not of great
significance since the quality of adhesives presently available is good.
Oehlers and Moran proposed an empirical expression for the ultimate moment
capacity due to flexural peeling (Oehlers and Moran, 1990). The expression was
based on a number of experiments conducted on simply supported beams with 2-
point loading, with plates terminated in regions of constant moment.
115
b. Side-Face Plated Beams

Steel plates are attached to the side face of a beam to increase the shear strength.
Here also there may be premature failure before reaching the intended strength.
The failure modes of side-face plated beams are as follows.
i.) Fracture of bolts

The bolts may fracture if the slip at the beam–plate interface is large.
ii.) Buckling of Plates

The side-face plates may buckle under diagonal compression. Design rules were
developed for buckling of plates in both elastic and yielded states (Smith, 1999).
iii.) Splitting of concrete

The bolts can cause splitting of concrete due to bearing of the bolts against the
concrete.
Analysis of Side-face Plated Beams

Barnes et al. (2001) derived expressions for the enhancement of shear capacity of
side-face plated simply supported beams subjected to 2-point loading. The
formulation is based on satisfying the equilibrium of forces and compatibility of
deformations in the shear span region of a beam.
The forces of the free body at ultimate are shown in Figure 8.12. The inclined
section is due to the diagonal cracking from the support to the edge of the loading
point. The notations used are given below.
a' - Effective length of the shear span
db - Effective depth of the side-face plate
Pc - Compressive force across the compression zone
Pst - Tensile force in the bottom reinforcement
Pu - Ultimate load
St - Principal tensile force perpendicular to the failure plane
Vc - Shear force across the compression zone
116
Vd - Shear force across the bottom reinforcement

xs - Depth of the compression zone under the bearing plate
Z1, Z2 - Lever arm of the side-face plate and bond length function
α - Angle of inclination of the cracked section, ≥ 30°.
da a'
Vc
d' xs
Pc
Z2 O
Bonded Plate
Bolted Plate
d db Z1
db
D
St
bl
Pst
Vd
Pu / 2
Figure 8.12: Stress-distribution in a side-face plated beam
For bonded plates, db is taken up to the bottom of the plate, whereas for a bolted
plate, db is taken up to midway between the lower row of bolts and bottom of the
plate.
Applying equilibrium to the inclined section, the following equations can be

derived.
1. Vertical equilibrium
Pu
= St cos α + Vc + Vd
2 (8.23)
2. Horizontal equilibrium
Pc = St sin α + Pst (8.24)
117
3. Moment equilibrium about hinge 'O'
Pu a' ⎛ d - xs ⎞
= Pc ( 0.5 x s ) + Pst ( d - x s ) + St Z1 + Vd ⎜ ⎟ (8.25)
2 ⎝ tan α ⎠
For developing the displacement compatibility equations, the shear deformation of

the panel is related to the extension of the bottom bars. The strain in the bars due
to flexure is neglected. Compatibility of deformation between the plate and
concrete is assumed up to shear failure.
Figure 8.13: Compatibility of panel deformations
The strain compatibility is shown in Figure 8.13 and is expressed as
ε st = ε pt cos α (8.26)
(An accurate expression of the transformation of strain is εst = εpt cos2α + εpc sin2α)
Here,
εst Strain in the tension bars, corresponding to deformation δh
118
εpt Diagonal tensile strain in the plate corresponding to deformation δt.

εpc Diagonal compressive strain in the plate.
In the above derivation, any deformation of the adhesive layers is neglected.
Expressing the strains in terms of forces, the compatibility equation can be written
as
A st E s
Pst = St cos α
⎛ d -x ⎞ (8.27)
β1 t p ⎜ b s ⎟ Ep
⎝ sin α ⎠
where,
Ep Elastic modulus of the plate
tp Total thickness of the plate
β1 Factor to consider the parabolic strain distribution across the plate,
when it is not accounted for in the expression of St.
The value of St depends upon the relative capacities of the following.

1. The concrete-plate composite section at the tensile splitting of the concrete
2. Ultimate tensile capacity of the plate
3. Capacity at the tensile failure of the concrete at the adhesive-concrete
interface.
The thickness of the plates should be adequate to avoid Case 1.
For Case 2, the plate force St is given by the yielding of the plates.
⎛d -x ⎞
St = N f yp t p ⎜ b s ⎟ (8.28)
⎝ sinα ⎠
Here, N is the number of side-face plates. The value of β1 is equal to 0.67.
For Case 3, it is assumed that the failure occurs due to the concrete failing under
tension over the bonded area. The corresponding plate force St is given as below.
119
⎛d -x ⎞
St = N ( 0.67 Z2 fct ) ⎜ b s ⎟
(8.29)
⎝ sinα ⎠
where,
Z2 is the length of the bonded interface (Figure 8.12) and fct is the direct tensile
strength of concrete. Assuming α = 45o, Z2 is equated to the lever arm Z1 = ½(db
− xs)/sinα. The value of β1 is equal to 1. The value of St for bonded plates is the
lower of the above two expressions.
For bolted plates, only the value of St from Case 2 is used. It will govern provided
there is no shear or bearing failure of the bolts. The final stages of diagonal
splitting are characterized by failure of the compression zone beneath the point
load (Figure 8.14).
Pu
2
Pu
2 bl
xs xs
45o A
Vc (bl + xs)
45o
O
v
h
1 2
h
Stress state at point A Mohr's circle for stress at point A
Figure 8.14: Stress distribution beneath the point load
120
This occurs with either crushing of the concrete at the compression limit Pc,max or
splitting of the concrete at the shear limit Vc,max. These limits are calculated from
the state of stresses in the compression zone. The average values of the stresses
over the depth of the compression zone are used in the following formulation. The
tensile principal stress (σ2) is close to zero and the compressive principal stress
(σ1) is limited to fck.
Assuming σ1 = fck and σ2 = 0 in the Mohr’s circle, the normal and shear stresses at
half the depth of the compression zone (0.5 xs) at ultimate can be calculated as
follows.
σv =
( Pu 2 ) - Vc
b ( bl + x s ) (8.30)
σ h = f cu -σ v (8.31)
σh - σv
2θ = cos -1
f cu
f st
τ= sin 2θ
2 (8.32)
The limiting value of the compression (Pc,max) is given as
Pc, max = σ h ( x s b ) + Asc ( f yc - σ h )

(8.33)
Here, any contribution from the plates is neglected. In calculating the limiting
value of the shear (Vc,max), a transformed concrete section is used.
Vc, max = τ ( b x s + Asc ( m -1) )

(8.34)
The effect of the compression bars on the shear capacity of the compression zone
can be neglected. A nominal value of the dowel force across the tension
reinforcement (Vd) is given based on the transformed concrete section.
121
An algorithm was provided to solve the above equations and calculate the ultimate
load Pu. The depth of the compression zone (xs) is assumed. The value of xs
should be greater than da, the depth of the upper edge of the plates. The values of
St, Pst, Pc, Vc and Pu are calculated from the equations provided. The value of xs
can be modified till either Pc = Pc,max or, Vc = Vc,max. The shear strength is equal
to Pu/2. Material safety factors can be incorporated in fyp and fck.
To apply the above procedure to uniformly distributed loads and continuous

beams, the equilibrium equations need to be modified.
8.3.3 Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) plating
RC beams can be strengthened using epoxy bonded FRP plates or fabrics. The
advantages of using FRP are ease of fabrication and bonding, corrosion resistance
and lightweight. In the case of FRP plated beams, in addition to the usual failure
modes such as crushing of concrete, yielding of steel and rupture of FRP, local
failure may occur in the concrete beam due to stress concentration at the cut-off
point. An analysis procedure for beams strengthened with FRP plates was
suggested by Saadatmanesh and Malek (1998).
8.3.4 Use of FRP bars
FRP has been used not only as sheets, but also as reinforcing bars. FRP bars can
be attached to the web of a beam for shear strengthening (Lorenzis and Nanni,
2001, 2002). These near-surface mounted bars can be anchored to the flange of
the beam. The failure generates from the debonding of the bars due to splitting of
the epoxy paste in the grooves.
8.3.5 External Prestressing
Post-tensioned reinforcement is used to increase flexural capacity or to replace

damaged prestressed strands. Prior to post-tensioning, any flexural cracks must be
122
epoxy grouted for uniform distribution of compression force. Post-tensioning

provides the ability to relieve overstressed conditions, reduce excessive deflection
and convert discontinuous members into continuous members.
8.4 BEAM-COLUMN JOINT STRENGTHENING
Under seismic excitation, the beam-column joint region is subject to horizontal

and vertical shear forces whose magnitudes are generally many times higher than
in the interior region of the beam or column. Hence, the joint should be carefully
detailed to meet the shear strength requirements. The following are the most
common methods of retrofit of joints.
2. Concrete fillet
3. Steel jacketing
4. Steel plating
5. Fibre Reinforce Polymer (FRP) jacketing
Concrete jacketing is a common method of retrofitting a joint. Stoppenhagen et

al. (1995) strengthened the joints by placing horizontal ties through drilled holes
in the beam. Placement of such ties is difficult in existing buildings.
8.4.2 Concrete Fillet
Bracci et al. (1995) suggested the use of a concrete fillet at the beam-column joint
to shift the potential hinge region away from the column face to the beam-slab
near the end of the fillet.
123
Steel jacketing helps the beam-column joint in transferring moments. The jacket
provides increased flexural strength to the beam, especially where adequate
bottom reinforcement may not be present if the frame was designed for gravity
loads only. In a joint, the beam jacket needs to be connected to the column jacket.
Steel jackets can also enhance the shear strength and ductility of beams through
added strength of steel as well as through confinement of existing concrete.
8.4.4 Steel Plating
Steel plating is simpler as compared to steel jacketing, where plates in the form of
brackets are attached to the soffits of the beams and sides of the column. The
moment and plastic rotation capacities in beams with discontinuous bottom steel
can be improved by the use of steel plates. The retrofitted interior joint performs
well because: a) the pullout of the discontinuous bottom reinforcement is
prevented, b) the damage is transferred from the embedment zone to other parts of
the joint region, c) the column shear strength is enhanced and d) the deterioration
rate of the joint region under cyclic loadings is reduced. This approach is
unobtrusive, easy to implement and permits strengthening of exterior joints in
buildings without having to break the exterior facade.
8.4.5 FRP Jacketing
The bond-slip of the longitudinal reinforcement in a joint reduces the flexural

capacity. FRP sheets have been used to strengthen beam-column joints with
bond-slip as well as a replacement for inadequately anchored bars. In order to
prevent debonding of the fabric from concrete, mechanical anchors or FRP wraps
should be provided.
124
8.5 WALL STRENGTHENING
A concrete shear wall can be strengthened by adding new concrete with adequate
boundary elements (bolster columns). For the composite action, dowels need to
be provided between the existing and new concrete (Figure 8.15). The analysis of
a building with strengthened shear walls can be preformed using the equivalent
properties of the wall. The use of vertical and diagonal steel strips were
experimentally investigated by Taghdi et al., 2000.
Figure 8.15: Strengthening of a shear wall using concrete (Seth, 2002)
Retrofitting of a masonry infill wall is necessary when the failure of an infill wall
is a hazard. For example, the failure of infill walls in higher storeys facing a busy
footpath or above shop-fronts can lead to severe injury. IS 13935: 1993 gives
guidelines for repair and strengthening of walls using grout and wire mesh. FRP
or steel sheets can be used to strengthen walls for out-of-plane bending.
Retrofitting by steel sheets involves epoxy bonding of thin sheets on both sides of
the wall and addition of triangular corner plates in all the corners of the two sides
(Ramesh, 2003). This strategy increases the strength, stiffness and ductility of the
wall and the resistance to out-of-plane bending.
FRP has been used in the strengthening of infill walls. The FRP sheets can be
bonded over the full area or diagonally on both sides with triangular corner plates
125
(Ravichandran, 2003). In walls where the FRP sheet was bonded on the plastered
surface, spalling of the plaster made the FRP strengthening ineffective. The
sheets are more effective when they are bonded on the unplastered surface.
8.6 FOOTING STRENGTHENING
Figure 8.16: Strengthening of a footing (Basu, 2002)
The following measures may be effective in the rehabilitation of shallow footings.

1. New isolated or spread footings may be added to existing structures to
support new structural elements such as shear walls or frames.
2. Existing spread footings may be enlarged to increase the capacity as
shown in Figure 8.16.
3. Existing spread footings may be underpinned to increase bearing or uplift
capacity. Underpinning improves bearing capacity by lowering the depth
of the footing.
4. Uplift capacity may be improved by increasing the resisting soil mass
above the footing or by using anchor piles.
126
5. Providing interconnection with grade beams, RC grade slab or ties helps to

mitigate differential lateral displacement of the footings.
The design of the strengthening of the footing is based on the conventional

analysis of footings.
127
CHAPTER IX
CASE STUDY I
9.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone III. The
deficiency is due to open ground storey and shear carrying capacity of columns. A
retrofit scheme using non-buckling braces is illustrated.
9.1.1 Data collection and condition assessment of building
The chosen building is a seven storey residential building located in Seismic Zone
III. Table 9.1 presents a summary of the building parameters. The building is
symmetric about X-axis. The ground floor of the building has parking provision.
Table 9.1(a): Building survey data sheet - General data

S.No. Description Information
• Name of the building CS1
• Plot number -
• Locality/Town ship Ahmedabad
• District -
• State Gujarat
129
2 Name of owner -
3 Name of builder -
4 Name of Architect/Engineer -
5 Name of Structural Engineer -
6 Use of building Residential
7 Number of storeys above 6
ground level
8 Number of basements below -
ground level
9 Type of structure
• Load bearing wall RC frame
• RC frame
• RC frame and shear wall
Steel frame
10 Soil data
Medium
• Type of soil
Design safe bearing capacity (assumed)
• Earth
• Water
• Brick masonry 20kN/m3
• Plain cement concrete
• Floor finish 1kN/m2
Other fill materials
12 Imposed (live)loads
• Floor loads 2 kN/m2
Roof loads 1.5 kN/m2
13 Cyclone/Wind
-
• Speed -
Design pressure intensity
14 History of past earthquakes and tremors -
15 Seismic zone III
16 Importance factor, I 1
17 Seismic zone factor, Z 0.16
18 Response reduction factor, R 3
130
Chapter IX – Case Study I
19 Fundamental natural period, T Table 9.6

20 Design Horizontal acceleration spectrum value (Ah) Table 9.6
21 Seismic designed lateral force (percentage of weight 6.7%
of building)
22 Expansion/ Separation joints -
Table 9.1(b): Building survey data sheet - Building data (moment resisting frame)
S.No. Description Information
1 Regular
Type of building
frames
2 Number of basements -
3 Number of floors 6
4 Horizontal floor system
• Beams and slabs Beams and
• Waffle slab slabs
• Ribbed floor
• Flat slab with drops
• Flat plate without drops
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium
- Independent footings Independent
- Raft footings
- Piles
• Recommended bearing capacity
• Recommended type, length, diameter and load
capacity of piles
• Chemical analysis of ground water
• Chemical analysis of soil
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level 1.5m
• Type
− Independent Independent
− Interconnected
− Raft
− Piles
7 System of interconnecting foundations
• Plinth beams Plinth beams
131
8 Grades of concrete used M20

9 Method of analysis -
10 Computer software used -
11 Torsion included -
12 Base shear
a) Based on approximate fundamental period 2960kN
b) Based on dynamic analysis 939kN
c) Ratio of a/b 3.15
13 Distribution of seismic forces along the height of Parabolic
building
14 The columns of soft ground storey specially designed No
15 Clear minimum cover provided in
• Footing 40mm
• Column 30mm
• Beams 25mm
• Slabs 15mm
• Walls -
• Type of reinforcement used Fe 415
• Minimum dimension of beams 230mm
• Minimum dimension of columns 230mm
• Minimum percentage of reinforcement of 0.26%
beams at any cross section
• Spacing of transverse reinforcement at any 200mm
section of beam
• Spacing of transverse reinforcement in 2d 100mm
length of beam near the ends
• Ratio of capacity of beams in shear to less than 1 in
capacity of beams in flexure many sections
1.2%
• Maximum percentage of reinforcement in
column
-
• Confining stirrups near ends of columns and
in beam-column joints
− Diameter
− Spacing
• Ratio of shear capacity of columns to Section 9.2.2
maximum seismic shear in the storey
• Column bar splices location and spacing of -
hoops in the splice
• Beam bar splices location and spacing of -
hoops in the splice
132
Figure 9.1: Architectural plan for typical floor level of the building.
133
9.1.2 Structural system and members
9.1.2.1 Foundation
The foundation system is isolated footing. Depth of the foundation is 1.5m from
ground level.
9.1.2.2 Structural system
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 115 mm except for some
locations where it is 120 mm. Figure 9.2 shows the slab layout at a typical floor
level and their details are given in Table 9.2. The external walls are 230mm thick
and partition walls inside the building are 115mm thick. Figure 9.3 shows the
column layout and Table 9.3 shows the reinforcement details of the column
sections at a typical floor.
Table 9.2: Details of slabs at typical floor level

Slab Thickness Reinforcement (mm)
Remarks
Mark (mm) Short Span Long Span
S1 115 Y8 @ 150 c/c Y8 @ 150 c/c One Way
S2 115 Y8 @ 125 c/c Y8 @ 125 c/c Two Way
S3 120 Y8 @ 150 c/c Y8 @ 150 c/c Two Way
S4 115 Y8 @ 150 c/c Y8 @ 150 c/c Two Way
S5 120 Y8 @ 150 c/c Y8 @ 150 c/c Two Way
S6 120 Y8 @ 175 c/c Y8 @ 175 c/c Two Way
Table 9.3: Details of column reinforcements
Size (mm) Width × Depth Longitudinal Transverse

Column
Above Below Reinforcement Reinforcement
ID
Plinth Plinth (mm) (mm)
C1 230 × 450 300 × 533 8Y12 2 LGD 6φ @ 150c/c
C2 230 × 533 300 × 610 4Y16 + 4Y12 2 LGD 6φ @ 150c/c
C3 230 × 533 300 × 610 8Y16 2 LGD 6φ @ 150c/c
C4 230 × 610 300 × 686 4Y20 + 4Y16 2 LGD 6φ @ 150c/c
C5 230 × 610 300 × 686 6Y20 + 4Y16 3 LGD 6φ @ 150c/c
134
C6 230 × 610 300 × 686 12Y20 3 LGD Y8 @ 250c/c

C7 230 × 685 300 × 762 14Y20 3 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
Figure 9.4 shows the layout of beam sections at a typical floor level and Figure 9.5
shows the layout of beam elements. All floors have identical beam sections. Table
9.4 shows the beam section assigned to different beam elements.
Table 9.4: Details of beam reinforcements

Size (mm) Longitudinal Reinforcement at Transverse
Beam support (mm2)
Width × Reinforcement
Section
Depth Top Bottom (mm)
B6 230 × 457 703.7 339.3 Y8@100c/c
B7 230 × 457 414.0 306.0 Y8@127c/c
B8 230 × 457 502.0 402.0 Y8@127c/c
B9 230 × 457 615.5 603.2 Y8@100c/c
B10 230 × 457 816.0 515.2 Y8@127c/c
B11 230 × 457 615.8 100.5 Y8@100c/c
B15 230 × 230 502.0 226.0 Y8@150c/c
B16 230 × 457 703.7 339.3 Y8@127c/c
B17 115 × 571 100.5 100.5 Y8@127c/c
B19 230 × 381 414.5 339.3 Y8@127c/c
B21 230 × 457 753.0 716.3 Y8@100c/c
B22 230 × 495 502.5 339.0 Y8@100c/c
B25 230 × 381 515.0 515.0 Y8@127c/c
B26 230 × 267 615.5 402.0 Y8@100c/c
B27 230 × 381 615.0 314.0 Y8@127c/c
B35 230 × 381 414.0 339.0 Y8@150c/c
135
Figure 9 2: Slab section layout of typical floor level.
136
Figure 9.3: Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(Section ‘Cn’ and ‘CCn’ are having same properties but different orientation)
137
Figure 9.4: Beam section layout of typical floor level.
138
Figure 9.5: Beam element layout of typical floor level.

(‘N’ indicates the story level e.g. 3B46 element indicates third floor level)
139
Figure 9.6: Lateral load resisting frames along X-direction.
140
Figure 9.7: Lateral load resisting frames along Y-direction.

141
9.2 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
The preliminary evaluation was done as per the method in Chapter 2.
9.2.1 Rapid Visual Screening
The rapid visual screening results shown in Table 9.5 indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM - INF were considered, as the building is
primarily moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
Table 9.5: Rapid Visual Screening data collection

Seismicity (Zone V) (Zone IV) (Zone II & Zone III)
URM URM URM
INF INF INF
Basic Score 2.5 2.8 1.6 3.0 3.6 3.2 4.4 4.8 4.4
Mid rise +0.4 +0.4 +0.2 +0.2 +0.4 +0.2 +0.4 -0.2 -0.4
High rise +0.6 +0.8 +0.3 +0.5 +0.8 +0.4 +1.0 0.0 -0.4
Vertical
irregularity
-1.5 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.0
Plan irregularity -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
Pre-code -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 -1.0 -0.4 -1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Post-benchmark +1.4 +2.4 N/A +1.2 +1.6 N/A +0.6 +0.4 N/A
Soil Type I -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4
Soil Type II -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.0 -1.4 -0.8 -0.8
Soil Type III -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Final Score -0.5 -0.4
Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0, so detailed
Comments
analysis required
9.2.2 Quick Checks for strength and stiffness
9.2.2.1 Column Shear
The calculation details are given in the Table 9.6.
142
Table 9.6: Average column shear stress
Floor No nf nc Ac (m2) Vj (kN) τavg(MPa) Remarks

B 7 32 6.27 1685 0.344 < 0.4
G 7 32 4.24 1685 0.509 > 0.4
1 7 32 4.24 1669 0.504 > 0.4
2 7 32 4.24 1614 0.487 > 0.4
3 7 32 4.24 1494 0.451 > 0.4
4 7 32 4.24 1289 0.389 > 0.4
5 7 32 4.24 979 0.296 > 0.4
6 7 32 4.24 540 0.163 > 0.4
9.2.2.2 Shear stress in shear wall
Not applicable to this building.
9.2.2.3 Axial Stress in Column
The details are given in the Table 9.7.
Table 9.7 Details of axial stress in column
Axial
Vb(kN) nf h(m) L(m) P(kN)
stress
Left 1685 6 23.55 14.25 290 2.37
X dir
Right 1275 4 23.55 10.64 441 3.60
Left 1685 5 23.55 17.78 279 2.28
Y dir
Right 1392 5 23.55 17.78 230 1.88
Permissible limit is 0.24fck i.e. 0.24 x 20 = 4.8 N/mm2. Calculated axial stresses
are within the permissible limit.
9.2.2.4 Frame Drift
Since dimensions of columns are not changed from storey to storey in this
building, the Drift Ratio (DR) is calculated for ground storey and the first storey
only. Ground storey height is 3.45m and other storey height is 3.0. The DR value
is observed to be very less in the building i.e. 1.3×10-5 for ground storey and
143
1.15×10-6 for first storey. The limiting value of DR is 0.015. Hence, the storey
drifts are within the limit.
9.2.2.5 Strong column – weak beam
In the strong direction of the columns (about major axis)

∑ Moment capacities of the columns = 496 kNm
1.2 ∑ Moment capacities of the beams = 135 kNm.
In the weak direction of the columns (about minor axis)

The strong column and weak beam criteria is satisfied in the strong direction, but
not in the weak direction.
9.2.3 Evaluation statements
Table 9.8: Evaluation statements

Building system C / NC / NA
Load path: C
Adjacent buildings: NA
Mezzanines: C
No deterioration of concrete: NA
Vertical irregularities C / NC / NA
No weak storey: C
No soft storey: NC
No mass irregularity: C
No vertical geometric irregularity: NC
No vertical discontinuities: C
Plan Irregularities C / NC / NA
144
No Torsion irregularity: NC
No diaphragm discontinuity: NC
No re-entrant corners: NC
No out of plane offsets: C
No non-parallel system: C
Moment resisting frames C / NC / NA
Redundancy: C
No interfering wall: C
Shearing stress check: NC
Axial stress check: C
Drift check: C
No short captive columns: C
No shear failures: NC
Strong column-weak beam: NC
Column bar splices: NA
Column tie spacing: NA
Beam bars: C
Beam bar splices: NA
Stirrup spacing: NC
Bent-up bars: NC
Joint reinforcing: NC
Deflection compatibility: C
No flat slab frames: C
Prestressed frame elements: C
Diaphragm reinforcement: C
Shear walls C / NC / NA
Shearing stress check: NA
Reinforcing steel: NA
145
Coupling beams: NA
Diaphragm openings at shear walls: NA
Connections C / NC / NA
Column connection: C
Wall connection: NA
Transfer to shear walls: NA
Lateral load at pile caps: NA
Geologic site hazards C / NC / NA
No Liquefaction: NA
No slope failure: NA
No surface fault rupture: NA
Foundations C / NC / NA
Foundation performance: C
Deterioration: NA
Overturning: C
Ties between foundation elements: NA
Table 9.8 shows that the statements are non-compliant (NC) for most of the cases
because of poor detailing. There is no vertical or plan irregularity in the building.
146
9.3 EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS
The building modelled and analysed as per the guidelines given in Chapter 3.
9.3.1 Material Properties
The material properties considered for the analysis are given in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9: Materials properties
Characteristic Strength Modulus of Elasticity
Material
(MPa) (MPa)
Concrete (M 20) 20 22360
Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415) 415 2 × 105
Brick infill 1.65 1237.5
Figure 9.8: 3D computer model of the structure.
147
9.3.2 Structural Element Model
9.3.2.1 Infill Walls
Figure 9.9 shows the location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 9.10.
Table 9.10: Strut parameters

Equivalent Thickness Strength Yield Deformation
Strut
Width (m) (m) (kN) (mm)
S1 1.42 0.230 358 2.90
S2 1.21 0.230 435 4.98
S3 1.49 0.115 215 3.35
S4 1.31 0.230 353 2.99
S5 1.54 0.230 443 3.31
S6 1.54 0.230 457 4.25
S7 1.29 0.115 267 5.78
S8 1.48 0.115 213 4.15
S9 0.93 0.230 348 4.07
S10 1.11 0.115 173 2.99
S11 1.12 0.230 324 3.03
S12 1.09 0.230 318 3.06
S13 1.09 0.230 318 3.28
S14 1.36 0.230 348 2.98
9.3.3 Modelling of column ends at foundation
The foundation for the building is made up isolated footings. In the model, hinges
were assumed at the column ends at the bottom of footings. The effect of soil-
structure interaction was ignored in the analyses.
148
Figure 9: Location of infill walls

149
9.3.4 Design centres of mass
Since there is a discontinuity of the diaphragm in the building, two separate

diaphragms were considered at every floor level. Tables 9.11 and 9.12 give the
centres of masses and rigidity of the building for the equivalent static method.
Table 9.13 and Table 9.14 give the values for the response spectrum method.
edi1 = 1.5esi + 0.05b (for the equivalent static method)

= esi + 0.05b (for the response spectrum method)
edi2 = esi – 0.05b (for both the methods)
Table 9.11: Centres of mass and rigidity for the equivalent static method
(Without infill stiffness)
Floor CM CR esi edi1 edi2 DCM
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
Left
1 9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22 0.00 1.12 0.90 -0.57 -0.90 8.56 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21 0.00 1.10 0.90 -0.58 -0.90 8.59 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67 0.00 3.29 0.90 0.88 -0.90 6.92 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32 0.00 4.12 0.90 1.68 -0.90 29.40 9.21
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30 0.00 4.09 0.90 1.66 -0.90 29.35 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23 0.00 3.98 0.90 1.59 -0.90 29.17 9.21
Table 9.12: Structural parameters and Design Centre of Masses for Equivalent
static method (with infill stiffness)
Floor CM CS esi edi1 edi2 DCM
Left
1 9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42 0.00 1.41 0.90 -0.37 -0.90 8.68 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51 0.00 3.05 0.90 0.72 -0.90 8.15 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75 0.00 4.91 0.90 1.96 -0.90 8.05 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78 0.31 1.81 1.37 0.14 -0.59 26.31 11.17
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00 0.00 3.64 0.90 1.36 -0.90 26.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50 0.00 4.39 0.90 1.86 -0.90 27.08 9.21
150
Table 9.13: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Left
1 9.68 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.22 0.00 1.01 0.90 -0.57 -0.90 8.89 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 9.90 10.11 0.21 0.00 1.00 0.90 -0.58 -0.90 8.90 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 11.88 10.11 1.67 0.00 2.46 0.90 0.88 -0.90 9.42 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.32 0.00 2.96 0.90 1.68 -0.90 25.92 9.21
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.30 0.00 2.94 0.90 1.66 -0.90 25.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.96 10.11 2.23 0.00 2.87 0.90 1.59 -0.90 25.83 9.21
Table 9.14: Structural parameters and Design centre of masses for Response
spectrum method (without infill stiffness)
Left
1 9.68 10.11 10.10 10.11 0.42 0.00 1.20 0.90 -0.37 -0.90 8.89 9.21
2 to 6 9.69 10.11 11.20 10.11 1.51 0.00 2.30 0.90 0.72 -0.90 8.90 9.21
7 10.21 10.11 12.96 10.11 2.75 0.00 3.54 0.90 1.96 -0.90 9.42 9.21
Right
1 25.28 10.11 24.50 9.80 0.78 0.31 1.42 1.21 0.14 -0.59 25.92 11.0
2 to 6 25.26 10.11 23.26 10.11 2.00 0.00 2.64 0.90 1.36 -0.90 25.90 9.21
7 25.19 10.11 22.69 10.11 2.50 0.00 3.14 0.90 1.86 -0.90 25.83 9.21
9.3.5 Equivalent static analysis
9.3.5.1 Design Base Shear
Table 9.15 shows the calculations of base shear for the left and right portions of
the building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Typical
seismic load distribution for left portion of building with infill stiffness in X-
direction is shown in the Table 9.16. (Base shear is 1685kN)
151
Table 9.15: Details of calculations for base shear of the building
Width of Time Base

Weight
Building Period Sa/g ah Shear
(kN)
('d' in m) (s) (kN)
X dir N/A 0.80 1.70 0.045 25271 1143
Without Infill
Stiffness Y dir N/A 0.80 1.70 0.045 20876 944
X dir 15.78 0.53 2.50 0.067 25271 1685

Left
With Y dir 17.78 0.50 2.50 0.067 25271 1685
Infill
Stiffness X dir 12.74 0.59 2.29 0.061 20876 1275
Right
Y dir 17.78 0.50 2.50 0.067 20876 1392
Table 9.16: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight, Wi Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No.
(kN) (m) (kN)
Water tank 422 23.55 84
6 2767 21.45 457
5 3592 18.45 438
4 3626 15.45 310
3 3691 12.45 205
2 3720 9.45 119
1 3716 6.45 55
G 3737 3.45 16
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 9.17. The comparison is shown in Figure 9.10.
Table 9.18 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for the
first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table also
shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes were
considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass participation
in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 9.11 shows the first three mode shapes
152
of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and the response
spectrum methods are given in Table 9.19.
Table 9.17: Comparison of fundamental time periods

IS 1893: 2002 Computational model
T (s) Sa/g T (s) Sa/g
Without Infill X dir 0.80 1.70 1.64 0.82
Stiffness Y dir 0.80 1.70 1.52 0.89
Left 0.53 2.50

With X dir
Right 0.50 2.50
Infill 1.23 1.10
Left 0.59 2.29
Stiffness Y dir
Right 0.50 2.50
Table 9.18: Time periods and mass participation factors for the first five modes
Without infill stiffness With infill stiffness
Mode Mass Participation (%) Mass Participation (%)
T (s) T (s)
ux uy ux uy
1 1.64 86.74 0.03 1.23 7.94 31.39
2 1.52 0.07 89.95 1.14 39.62 47.87
3 1.30 1.87 0.44 1.09 46.36 16.59
4 0.54 8.59 0.00 0.39 0.24 1.66
5 0.49 0.01 6.99 0.35 5.23 0.24
Total 97.28 97.41 99.39 97.75
Table 9.19: Comparison of base shear

Vx (kN) Vy (kN) Vx (kN) Vy (kN)
Equivalent Static
(V )
B 2086 2086 2960 3077
Response Spectrum
(VB ) 913 1013 939 862
VB / VB 2.28 2.06 3.15 3.57
153
3
IS 1893 (Without infill stiffness)
IS 1893 (With infill stiffness)
2.5
a /g)
Computaional (w ithout inf ill stiffness)

Computational (w ith inf ill stiffness)
Spectral accelaration ( S
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s)
Figure 9.10: Comparison of time periods of the building models
Figure 9.11(a): First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
154
Figure 9.11(b): Second mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(c): Third mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
155
Figure 9.11(d): First mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
Figure 9.11(e): Second mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
156
Figure 9.11(f): Third mode shape of the building (with infill stiffness)
9.3.7 Evaluation results
Since the torsional mode is predominant for the model with infill stiffness, the
response spectrum method is important. The response spectrum analysis results
show that a number of elements do not satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios
(DCR). The deficient beam sections are given in Tables 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22. The
deficient column sections are given in Tables 9.23 and 9.24. The percentage of
deficient elements is the ratio of number of elements with DCR greater than 1, to
the total number of elements for the particular type of section.
Table 9.20: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (without infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m) DCR Percentage
Sl.
Section of deficient
No. M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) elements
1 B3 -54 15 -50 5 0.93 0.30 0
2 B6 -50 60 -260 214 5.20 3.57 74
3 B7 -60 45 -201 176 3.34 3.90 67
157
4 B8 -73 59 -237 166 3.25 2.82 83

5 B9 -89 87 -292 114 3.28 1.31 77
6 B10 -116 75 -301 164 2.59 2.19 73
7 B11 -82 25 -258 166 3.14 6.66 100
8 B15 -30 15 -78 52 2.58 3.50 78
9 B16 -96 49 -87 25 0.90 0.51 0
10 B17 -19 19 -91 68 4.80 3.60 75
11 B19 -49 40 -207 80 4.23 2.00 78
12 B21 -109 103 -244 148 2.24 1.44 100
13 B22 -79 54 -331 194 4.18 3.59 72
14 B25 -60 60 -148 52 2.47 0.87 60
15 B26 -46 31 -114 55 2.48 1.77 81
16 B27 -70 37 -194 84 2.77 2.28 55
17 B35 -49 40 -157 59 3.21 1.48 64
Table 9.21: Evaluation results for flexure in beams (with infill stiffness)
Capacity (kN-m) Demand (kN-m) DCR Percentage
Sl
Section of deficient
No. M(-ve) M(+ve) M(-ve) M(+ve) (+ve) (-ve) elements
1 B3 -54 15 -79 7 1.45 0.48 21
2 B6 -50 60 -486 378 9.71 6.31 93
3 B7 -60 45 -271 104 4.52 2.30 88
4 B8 -73 59 -332 296 4.55 5.02 95
5 B9 -89 87 -446 207 5.01 2.38 99
6 B10 -116 75 -411 243 3.54 3.24 88
7 B11 -82 25 -382 311 4.66 12.42 100
8 B15 -30 15 -132 75 4.40 5.00 89
9 B16 -96 49 -136 21 1.41 0.44 7
10 B17 -19 19 -143 46 7.52 2.44 100
11 B19 -49 40 -303 89 6.19 2.23 98
12 B21 -109 103 -325 300 2.98 2.91 100
13 B22 -79 54 -293 200 3.71 3.70 94
14 B25 -60 60 -225 82 3.75 1.37 71
15 B26 -46 31 -136 93 2.95 2.99 100
16 B27 -70 37 -57 93 0.82 2.51 52
17 B35 -49 40 -214 64 4.37 1.61 86
158
Table 9.22: Evaluation results for shear in beams

Demand (kN-m) Percentage of
Sl. Capacity DCR deficient
Section Analysis from elements
No. (kN-m) Flexure
WoIS WIS Capacity WOIS WIS WOIS WIS
1 B6 68 246 428 112 3.62 6.30 43 48
2 B9 68 187 257 132 2.75 3.78 62 78
3 B10 54 98 146 131 2.43 2.71 73 85
4 B11 68 96 129 99 1.46 1.89 12 15
5 B12 54 48 93 55 1.02 1.72 6 6
6 B15 45 207 257 52 4.61 5.71 19 24
7 B17 25 223 325 21 8.94 12.99 34 43
8 B19 54 132 161 84 2.45 2.98 46 56
9 B22 54 144 164 111 2.66 3.04 44 52
10 B25 54 119 89 86 2.20 1.65 43 41
11 B27 54 178 246 94 3.29 4.56 21 38
12 B35 45 264 457 94 5.88 10.15 32 43
Table 9.23: Evaluation results for flexure in columns

Percentage of
DCR
Sl. No. Section deficient elements
WOIS WIS WOIS WIS
1 CC1 4.10 6.35 83 88
2 CC3 3.71 5.97 73 81
3 CC4 5.32 6.72 72 71
4 CC5 3.74 6.77 73 72
5 C1 3.58 5.82 67 85
6 C2 4.77 8.91 64 59
7 C3 4.34 9.44 66 67
8 C4 5.31 10.32 69 90
9 C5 3.23 8.74 71 83
10 C6 3.70 9.03 54 62
11 C7 3.94 9.60 56 65
Table 9.24: Evaluation results for shear in columns

Capacity DCR Percentage of
Sl. (kN) deficient elements
Section WOIS WIS
No.
V2 V3 V2 V3 V2 V3 WOIS WIS
1 CC1 136 72 0.50 0.60 0.71 1.49 0 6
159
2 CC3 166 79 0.69 0.63 0.86 1.17 0 6

3 CC4 194 85 1.05 1.77 1.09 2.65 6 15
4 CC5 198 89 0.68 0.79 1.01 1.08 0 6
5 C1 71 136 0.55 0.49 0.65 0.71 0 0
6 C2 77 163 0.89 0.50 0.83 1.10 0 6
7 C3 79 167 0.75 0.71 0.90 1.33 0 7
8 C4 85 194 0.54 0.72 1.05 1.34 0 7
9 C5 88 199 0.88 0.52 0.93 1.31 0 7
10 C6 92 202 0.59 0.67 0.85 1.57 0 6
11 C7 98 230 0.77 0.64 2.08 1.35 0 8
The above results show that the beams are having lesser capacities than the
corresponding demands in both flexure and shear. The columns are having lesser
capacities than the demands in flexure. For shear, many columns are adequate
along the major dimension, but many are deficient along the minor dimension.
Major portion of the failure is observed in the ground, first and second storeys.
The storey displacements along the X- and Y- directions are presented in Figures
9.12(a) and 9.12(b). The deflection profiles for the cases of without infill stiffness
and with infill stiffness are plotted in the same graph for comparison. Since the
basement height is not same as storey height, the change in the profile at basement
level can be ignored. The calculated inter storey drifts are shown in Figures
9.13(a) and 9.13(b).
160
5
Storey Level
4
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement
Figure 9.12(a): Displacements along X-direction
5
Storey Level
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement
Without Infill Stiffness With Infill Stiffness
Figure 9.12(b): Displacements along Y-direction
161
5
Storey Level
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Inter Storey Drift (%)
Figure 9.13(a): Inter storey drift along X-direction of building
5
Storey Level
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Figure 9.13(b): Inter storey drift along Y-direction of building
162
9.4 EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4. Since the building is
irregular, 30 percent of lateral push was applied along with the push in the main
direction.
9.4.1 Pushover curves
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 9.14 and 9.15. The base shear from the equivalent
static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand based on
linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to be little
higher than the demand. The pushover curve is almost linear and it terminates
abruptly due to the formation of shear hinges in the columns.
3500
VB
3000
2500
VB
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Roof displacement (m)
Figure 9.14: Pushover curves for the building in X-direction.
163
9.4.2 Capacity spectrum, demand spectrum and performance point

Pushover analyses in either direction failed to give a performance point for both
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectrum
for the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in Figures 9.16
and 9.17. Many equivalent struts in the first and second storeys failed before the
formation of the mechanism.
9.4.3 Displacements and inter storey drifts

The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 9.18 and 9.19. The inter
storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in Figures 9.20
and 9.21.
4000
3500
VB
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2500
VB
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Roof displacement (m)
Figure 9.15: Pushover curves for the building in Y-direction.
164
X - Direction Y - Direction
Figure 9.16: Demand and capacity spectra (without infill stiffness)
Figure 9.17: Demand and capacity spectrum (with infill stiffness)
165
6
Storey Level
5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement
Figure 9.18: Displacement along X-direction.
6
Storey Level
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement
Figure 9.19: Displacement along Y-direction.
166
5
Storey Level
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Figure 9.20: Inter storey drifts for the building in X-direction.
5
Storey Level
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 9.21: Inter storey drifts for the building in Y-direction.
167
9.4.4 Vulnerability Index
Since the failure hinges are shear hinges, the value of vulnerability index is very
less. So, the damage in the building cannot be predicted by vulnerability index.
9.4.5 Summary of the results
(i) Linear analysis results show that almost all beam and column
sections are weak in flexure and shear. Pushover analysis also
reveals the same weakness of the structure and failed to give a
performance point for both the models, with and without infill
stiffness.
(ii) Building is not satisfying drift requirements under design lateral

force.
(iii) Inter storey drifts in ground storey is high in both linear and non-
linear analysis for with infill strut case.
168
9.5 RETROFITTING
9.5.1 Retrofitting
Since there is a severe global deficiency of a soft storey, a global retrofit strategy
is tested. In the ground storey, non-buckling braces are placed to stiffen the
storey. In the first and second storeys, the infill walls are replaced with non-
buckling braces at certain locations. Figure 9.25 shows the bracing locations in
the ground and the first two storeys. The modelling of the load-deformation
behaviour of the non-buckling braces is based on Appendix E. Along with the
global retrofit, the shear capacities of columns in the lower three storeys at
locations A, B and C and beams in the first and second floors at location D and E
need to be increased by 30%.
To achieve a performance point, the required number of braces is high. Also,

introduction of the braces in the ground storey reduces the functionality of the
space. The proposed retrofit scheme is for illustration of the change in behaviour
of the structure. The pushover curves in both X- and Y- directions are shown in
Figure 9.22. The base shear capacity of the building has increased after the
retrofitting with braces.
7000 8000
6000 7000
6000
5000
B ase Sh ear (kN )
B ase Sh ear (kN)
5000
4000
4000
VB VB
3000
3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Roof dis place m e nt (m ) Roof dis place m e nt (m )
Figure 22: Pushover curve along X and Y direction.
169
Figure 23: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
Figure 24: Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction.
170
The demand and capacity spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions
are shown in Figures 23 and 24. The building has achieved performance points in
both the directions. The building experiences a drift about 0.5% at the
performance point, which is acceptable. The inter storey drifts are within the
permissible limits at the performance point.
171
E C
Figure. 25: Location of non-buckling braces at first storey level

(Braces are shown by dotted lines are additional braces in Ground storey)
172
CHAPTER X
CASE STUDY II
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of a residential building in Zone V. The

deficiency due to open ground storey is highlighted. A retrofit scheme with
addition of infill walls and concrete jacketing is illustrated.
10.2 DATA COLLECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

BUILDING
The building is a five storey residential building located in Zone V. Tables 10.1
and 10.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building is symmetric
in both the directions. The ground storey of the building is an open ground storey
to accommodate car parking. Figure 10.1 shows a typical floor plan of the
building.
173
Figure 10.1: Typical floor plan of the building

S.No Description Information Notes
.
• Name of the building CS2
• Plot number
• Locality/Town ship Guwahati
• District
• State Assam
2 Name of owner −
3 Name of builder −
4 Name of Architect/Engineer −
5 Name of Structural Engineer −
6 Use of building Residential
ground level
8 Number of basements below 0
ground level
9 Type of structure RC frame
10 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium (Assumed)
• Design safe bearing capacity Not Available
174
Chapter X – Case Study II

• Earth
• Water 10 kN/m3
IS: 875 Part 1
• Brick masonry 20 kN/m3
• Plain cement concrete 25 kN/m3
• Floor finish 18 kN/m3
• Floor loads 2 kN/m2 IS: 875 Part 2
• Roof loads 1.5 kN/m2
13 Cyclone/Wind −
• Speed
14 History of past earthquakes and Earthquake
tremors Prone Area
15 Seismic zone V IS 1893: 2002
16 Importance factor, I 1.0 IS 1893: 2002
17 Seismic zone factor, Z 0.36 IS 1893: 2002
18 Response reduction factor, R 3.0 IS 1893: 2002
19 Fundamental natural period, T 0.38 s IS 1893: 2002
20 Design Horizontal acceleration 0.15 IS 1893: 2002
spectrum value (Ah)
21 Seismic design lateral force 2878 kN
22 Expansion/ Separation joints −
1 Type of building Regular
frames with
open ground
storey
2 Number of basements −
4 Horizontal floor system Beams and
slabs
175
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium
• Recommended foundation (assumed)
capacity
piles
• Chemical analysis of ground −
water
• Chemical analysis of soil −
−
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level 0.7 m Groups of
• Type Pile multiple pile
7 System of interconnecting No inter-
foundations connection
• Plinth beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different M15
parts of building
9 Method of analysis −
10 Computer software used −
11 Torsion included −
a) Based on approximate 2878 kN
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis 1768 kN
13 Distribution of seismic forces along Parabolic IS 1893: 2002
14 The columns of soft ground storey − IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in Not Available
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
176
beams 150 × 500
columns 400 × 450
• Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section 1.072
reinforcement at any section 100 mm c/c
of beam
reinforcement in 2d length 75 mm c/c
• Ratio of capacity of beams
in shear to capacity of −
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of
1.77
• Confining stirrups near ends
column joints
6 mm
− Diameter
100 mm
− Spacing
• Ratio of shear capacity of 1.04
columns to maximum
seismic shear in the storey
and spacing of hoops in the Not Available
splice
• Beam bar splices location Not Available
splice
177
10.3 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MEMBERS
10.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation with groups of 4 or 6 under reamed piles.
Each pile is of 300 mm diameter reinforced with 6Y12 longitudinal bars and Y6
links @ 175 c/c ties. Piles are more than 11m deep under the ground level as per
the drawing.
nB1 nB1 nB1

nB2
nB5
nB5
nB10
nB5
nB5 nB5 nB5 nB5

nB15
nB15
nB11
nB11
nB4
nB5
nB5
nB5
Y
nB5
nB9 nB9
nB5
nB7
nB10
nB7
nB10
nB6
nB5
nB5
nB8 nB8
nB6
nB13
nB13
nB4
nB13
nB6
nB12
nB10
nB12
nB3
nB12 nB12
nB1
X
Figure 10.2: Floor (all floors other than top floor) framing plan – Beam location
(Prefix ‘n’ represents floor number)
10.3.2 Structural system
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab is 150mm thick at every floor level.
The wall thickness is 120 mm for both the exterior and interior infill walls. The
floor plan is same up to fourth floor while at the roof level few beams are absent.
The beam layouts for the first four floors and the roof are shown in Figures 10.2
and 10.3, respectively. Figure 10.4 shows the column location. The size and
178
reinforcement details for beam and column sections (at beam and column faces)
are given in Tables 10.3 and 10.4, respectively. Figure 10.5 shows the
reinforcement details of different column sections.
5B1
5B2
5B5
5B5
5B10
5B10
5B5
5B5 5B5
5B15
5B15
5B11
5B11
5B4
5B5
5B5
5B5
5B5
5B9 5B9
5B5
5B10
5B7
5B7
5B10
5B8 5B6 5B8

5B5
5B5
5B13
5B13
5B4
5B10
5B10
5B13
5B3
5B12 5B12 5B1
Figure 10.3: Roof floor framing plan – Beam location (Roof)
nC25 nC27 nC28

nC24 nC26
nC22 nC23
nC20 nC18 nC19 nC21
nC15 nC16
nC14 nC17
nC12 nC13
nC8 nC9 nC6 nC7 nC10 nC11
nC1 nC2 nC3 nC4 nC5
Figure 10.4: Column location (Prefix ‘n’ represents floor number)
179
Table 10.3: Details of beam sections at column faces

Beam Longitudinal Reinforcement Transverse
Size (mm)
Number Top Bottom Reinforcement
B1 150 × 500 2Y20 2Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B2 300 × 500 6Y20, 1Y16 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B3 200 × 450 6Y20 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B4 250 × 500 4Y20, 2Y16 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B5 250 × 500 4Y16 2Y16 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B6 150 × 500 2Y16 2Y16 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B7 300 × 500 6Y20 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B8 250 × 500 4Y20, 2Y16 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B9 250 × 500 2Y16 3Y16 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B10 150 × 500 3Y16 4Y16 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B11 250 × 450 6Y20 2Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B12 250 × 500 4Y20 2Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B13 250 × 500 7Y20 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B14 300 × 500 6Y20 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B15 300 × 500 4Y20, 2Y12 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B16 300 × 500 4Y20, 2Y16 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B17 200 × 450 4Y20, 2Y12 4Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B18 250 × 500 4Y20, 2Y12 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
B19 300 × 500 4Y20, 2Y12 3Y20 2Y8 @ 75 c/c
Table 10.4: Details of column sections at the beam faces
Longitudinal Transverse
Column Number Size (mm)
Reinforcement Reinforcement
C1 400 × 450 8Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C2 400 × 450 6Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C3 400 × 450 4Y20, 4Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C4 400 × 500 8Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C5 400 × 500 6Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C6 400 × 500 4Y20, 4Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C7 400 × 450 10Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C8 400 × 450 8Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C9 400 × 500 10Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
C10 400 × 500 10Y20 6φ @ 100c/c
C11 400 × 500 8Y20, 2Y16 6φ @ 100c/c
180
400 mm 400 mm 400 mm
450 mm
450 mm
450 mm
2Y16 4Y16
C1 C2 C3
400 mm 400 mm 400 mm
500 mm
500 mm
500 mm
2Y16 4Y16
C4 C5 C6
400 mm 400 mm 400 mm

500 mm
450 mm
450 mm
2Y16
C7 C8 2Y16
C9
400 mm 400 mm
500 mm
500 mm
2Y16
C10 C11
Figure 10.5: Reinforcement details of the columns at the beam faces

(Bar diameter is 20 mm if not mentioned)
181
10.4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
The preliminary evaluation was done as per Chapter 2.
Rapid visual screening results, shown in Table 10.5, indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM-INF were considered as the building is a
moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
Table 10.5: Rapid visual screening data

URM URM URM
INF INF INF
Basic Score √ 2.5 2.8 1.6 3.0 3.6 3.2 4.4 4.8 4.4
Mid rise √ +0.4 +0.4 +0.2 +0.2 +0.4 +0.2 +0.4 -0.2 -0.4
High rise +0.6 +0.8 +0.3 +0.5 +0.8 +0.4 +1.0 0.0 -0.4
Vertical
-1.5 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.0
irregularity √
Plan
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
irregularity
Pre-code -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 -1.0 -0.4 -1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Post-
+1.4 +2.4 N/A +1.2 +1.6 N/A +0.6 +0.4 N/A
benchmark
Soil Type I -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4
Soil Type II √ -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.0 -1.4 -0.8 -0.8
Soil Type III -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Final Score 0.8 0.4
Comments Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0
182
10.4.2 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness
The fundamental periods of the building are Tax = 0.28s. and Tay = 0.36s. The
spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) corresponding to each of the periods is 2.5.

For a building is in Zone V, Z = 0.36. For an ordinary moment resisting frame, R
= 3.
ZIS a 0.36 ×1.0 × 2.5
Horizontal seismic co-efficient, Ah = = = 0.15 .
2 Rg 2×3
For residential building, I = 1.0.
Design seismic base shear, VB = Ah×W.

W = 19190 kN (calculated later)
Therefore, VB = 0.15×19190 kN ≅ 2878 kN.
Table 10.6 shows the distribution of the base shear over the height of the building.
Table 10.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight,
Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No Wi
(m) (kN)
(kN)
1 4250 3 65
2 4110 6 251
3 4110 9 564
4 4110 12 1003
5 2610 15 995
Tables 10.7 and 10.8 show the column shear stresses at each storey along X- and
Y- directions, respectively. The lateral load resisting frames along X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 10.6 and 10.7, respectively. The beams are having
eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the computational
model.
183
Table 10.7: Average column shear stress in X-direction
Floor No nf nc Ac (m2) V j (kN) vavg (MPa) Remarks

1 9 24 4.6 2878 1.00 > 0.4
2 9 24 4.6 2813 0.98 > 0.4
3 9 24 4.6 2562 0.89 > 0.4
4 9 24 4.6 1998 0.69 > 0.4
5 9 24 4.6 995 0.35 < 0.4
Table 10.8: Average column shear stress in Y-direction
Floor No nf nc Ac (m2) V j (kN) vavg (MPa) Remarks

1 8 18 3.48 2878 1.49 > 0.4
2 8 18 3.48 2813 1.46 > 0.4
3 8 18 3.48 2562 1.33 > 0.4
4 8 18 3.48 1998 1.03 > 0.4
5 8 18 3.48 995 0.51 > 0.4
Figure 10.6: Lateral load resisting frames along X-direction
184
Figure 10.7: Lateral load resisting frames along Y-direction
10.4.2.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
Not applicable for this building.
Details of the column axial stress calculation are given in Table 10.9. The
allowable axial stress in column is 0.24 fck = 0.24×15 MPa = 3.6 MPa.

Vb(kN) nf h (m) L (m) P (kN) Axial stress
X-direction. 2878 9 15 5.92 506.4 2.81 MPa
Y-direction. 2878 8 15 3.60 936.8 4.68 MPa
The column axial stress is more than the allowable stress when the load is in Y-
direction.
185
10.4.2.4 Frame Drift
The calculation details for the storey drift for X- and Y- directions are shown in
Tables 10.10 and 10.11, respectively. The allowable drift ratio in any storey is
0.015. For most of the storeys, the drifts are more than 0.015.
Table 10.10: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction

Storey Storey Height (m) Vc (kN) DR
1 3 200 0.016
2 3 196 0.016
3 3 178 0.014
4 3 138 0.011
5 3 70 0.006
Table 10.11: Frame Drift Ratio along Y-direction

1 3 298 0.022
2 3 292 0.021
3 3 266 0.019
4 3 206 0.015
5 3 102 0.007
10.4.2.4 Strong column – Weak beam


The strong column and weak beam criteria is not satisfied.
186
10.4.3 Evaluation Statements
The evaluation statements are presented in Table 10.12. A number of statements

are non-compliant because of the presence of open ground storey and poor
reinforcement detailing.

Load path: C
Adjacent buildings: −
Mezzanines: C
No deterioration of concrete: −
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey: NC
No soft storey: NC
No vertical geometric irregularity: C
Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity: C
No diaphragm discontinuity: C
No re-entrant corners: C
Moment resisting frames
Redundancy: NC
187
Table 10.12 (contd.): Evaluation statements

Axial stress check: NC
Drift check: NC
Short captive columns: C
No shear failures: C
Column bar splices: NC
Column tie spacing: C
Beam bars: C
Beam bar splices: NC
Stirrup spacing: C
Bent-up bars: C
Deflection compatibility: C
No flat slab frames: C
Prestressed frame elements: C
Diaphragm reinforcement: NC
Anchorage: NC
Shear walls
Coupling beams: NA
Diaphragm openings at shear walls: NA
Connections
Wall connection / Transfer to shear walls: NA
Lateral load at pile caps: C
188
Table 10.12 (contd.): Evaluation statements

Geologic site hazards
Liquefaction / Slope failure / Surface fault rupture NA
Foundations
Foundation performance: −
Deterioration: −
Overturning: C
Ties between foundation elements: NC
10.5 DETAILED EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
in Chapter 3.

Characteristic
Material Modulus of Elasticity
Strength
Concrete (M 15) 15 MPa 19365 MPa
Reinforcing Steel (Fe 415) 415 MPa 2 × 105 MPa
Brick infill 1237.5
Figure 10.8 shows the 3D model of the building.
189
Walls (Structural and non structural):
The lift core (surrounded by the staircase) made up of RC walls was ignored in the
model as it is not integrally connected either to the floor diaphragms or to the
lateral load resistant frames.
struts in a typical storey (except ground storey). The ground floor has only three
infill walls (1S10, 1S11, 1S12) surrounding the stair case. The calculated strut
parameters are shown in Table 10.14
Figure 10.8: 3D computer model of the building
190
Table 10.14: Calculated strut parameters
Equivalent Strut Section Width (m) Strength (kN)

S12, S13, S14 S1 1.65 230
S4, S5. S8, S9 S2 1.70 275
S1, S2, S3, S6, S7, S10, S11 S3 1.50 175
S15, S16 S4 1.40 140
nS16
nS15
nS14
nS13
nS12
nS11
nS10
nS8 nS9
nS6 nS7
nS4 nS5
nS3
nS1
nS2
Figure 10.9: Location of infill walls that were modelled as equivalent strut
(Prefix ‘n’ represents storey number)
Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation
The foundation system for the building is a pile foundation with groups of 4 or 6
piles. In the model, fixity was considered at the top of the pile caps. The effect of
soil-structure interaction was ignored in the analyses.
Design Centre of Masses
Tables 10.15 to 10.18 give the centres of masses and rigidity of the building. Only
two (CM1 and CM2) of the four calculated centres of mass were considered for
analysis.
191
Table 10.15: Structural parameters (with infill stiffness)
Seismic Lumped CM CR esi

Floor weight mass (m) (m) (m)
(kN) (Ton) X Y X Y X Y
5 2610 266 12.40 6.77 12.54 7.13 0.14 0.36
4 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12
3 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12
2 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12
1 4250 433 12.56 7.14 12.59 7.44 0.03 0.30
Table 10.16: Location of centres of mass (with infill stiffness)

CR esi Design CM1 Design CM2
Floor (m) (m) (m) (m)
X Y X Y X Y X Y
5 12.54 7.13 0.14 0.36 11.42 6.79 14.01 8.37
4 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12 11.30 6.68 13.83 8.14
3 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12 11.30 6.68 13.83 8.14
2 12.53 7.26 0.03 0.12 11.30 6.68 13.83 8.14
1 12.59 7.44 0.03 0.30 11.36 7.04 13.89 8.59
Table 10.17: Structural parameters (without infill stiffness)

Seismic Lumped CM CR esi
Floor weight mass (m) (m) (m)
5 2610 266 12.40 6.77 12.51 7.42 -0.11 -0.65
4 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.51 7.54 0.05 -0.40
3 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.51 7.54 0.05 -0.40
2 4110 419 12.56 7.14 12.51 7.54 0.05 -0.40
1 4250 433 12.56 7.14 12.59 7.44 -0.03 -0.30
192
Table 10.18: Location of centre of masses (without infill stiffness)

CR esi Design CM1 Design CM2
Floor (m) (m) (m) (m)
X Y X Y X Y X Y
5 12.51 7.42 0.11 0.65 11.36 7.37 13.93 9.09
4 12.51 7.54 0.05 0.40 11.30 7.24 13.84 8.84
3 12.51 7.54 0.05 0.40 11.30 7.24 13.84 8.84
2 12.51 7.54 0.05 0.40 11.30 7.24 13.84 8.84
1 12.59 7.44 0.03 0.30 11.36 7.04 13.89 8.59
10.5.3 Equivalent Static Analysis
Design Base Shear: Table 10.19 shows the calculations of base shear of the
building for both without infill stiffness and with infill stiffness cases. Seismic
load distribution for X-direction is shown in the Table 10.20.
Table 10.19 Details of calculations for base shear of the building

Time
W VB
Period Sa/g Ah
(kN) (kN)
(s)
Without infill X-direction 0.59 2.3 0.138 19190 2649
stiffness Y-direction 0.59 2.3 0.138 19190 2649
With infill X-direction 28 2.5 0.150 19190 2878

stiffness Y-direction 36 2.5 0.150 19190 2878
Table 10.20: Lateral force at different floor levels
Floor W h Qi (kN)
i i
no (kN) (m) With infill stiffness Without infill stiffness
1 4250 3 65 60
2 4110 6 251 231
3 4110 9 564 519
4 4110 12 1003 923
5 2610 15 995 916
193
10.5.4 Response Spectrum Analysis
The various fundamental time periods and the spectral acceleration coefficients
for the building are given in Table 10.21. The comparison is shown in
Figures 10.10 and 10.11.
Table 10.22 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 10.12 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shears for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are given in Table 10.23

Empirical formula Computational model
With infill Without infill With infill Without infill
stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness
T (s) 0.28 0.59 0.83 0.96
Sa/g 2.50 2.30 1.64 1.42
Table 10.22: Time periods and modal participation for the first five modes
Without infill With infill

Mass Participation
Mode Natural Natural Mass Participation (%)
(%)
Period (s) Period (s)
X Y X Y
1 0.96 88.78 0.31 0.83 92.91 0.20
2 0.88 0.35 86.81 0.76 0.23 90.51
3 0.43 0.23 0.38 0.39 0.11 0.52
4 0.30 8.05 0.03 0.25 5.39 0.04
5 0.27 0.03 9.55 0.24 0.03 7.07
194
Empirical formula
3.0
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)

2.5
Computational model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.10: Comparison of fundamental periods (with infill stiffness)
3.0 Empirical formula

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)
2.5
Computational model
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.11: Comparison of fundamental periods (without infill stiffness)
195
First mode (Translation X)
Second mode (Translation-Y)
Third mode (Rotation-Z)

Figure 10.12: First three mode shapes
196
Table 10.23: Comparison of base shears

With infill stiffness Without infill stiffness
Vx (kN) Vy (kN) Vx (kN) Vy (kN)
( )
Equivalent Static VB 2878 2878 2649 2649
Response Spectra (VB ) 1768 1871 1463 1576
VB / VB 1.63 1.54 1.81 1.68
10.5.5 Evaluation Results
The equivalent static analysis results show that a number of elements do not
satisfy the Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) for flexure. However the DCR for
shear is always less than one for both beams and columns. DCR for a few ground
floor beams and columns are given in Tables 10.24 and 10.25, respectively.
Table 10.24: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in Beams

Beams
DCR in Flexure DCR in Shear DCR in Flexure DCR in Shear
1B1 1.4 0.6 1.1 0.5
1B2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
1B3 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.8
1B4 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.4
1B5 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.8
1B6 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.8
1B7 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.4
1B8 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.8
1B9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
1B10 1.4 0.6 1.1 0.5
1B11 1.5 0.7 1.3 0.6
1B12 1.7 0.8 1.4 0.7
1B13 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.6
1B14 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.4
1B15 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.5
1B16 1.4 0.6 1.1 0.6
1B17 1.7 0.8 1.4 0.7
197
Table 10.25: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in columns

Columns DCR in DCR in Shear DCR in DCR in Shear
Flexure V2 V3 Flexure V2 V3
1C1 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.3 0.7
1C2 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.4 0.5 0.7
1C3 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.9
1C4 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.4 0.9 0.1
1C5 1.2 0.2 0.8 2.1 0.2 0.8
1C6 1.2 0.4 0.7 1.8 0.6 0.2
1C7 1.5 0.4 0.7 1.9 0.3 0.7
1C8 1.4 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.5 0.5
1C9 1.4 0.2 0.8 1.8 0.4 0.8
1C10 1.4 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.9 0.8
1C11 1.9 0.2 0.7 2.6 0.2 0.7
1C12 1.4 0.3 0.9 1.6 0.1 0.5
1C13 1.6 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.6 0.6
1C14 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.7
1C15 1.4 0.5 0.2 1.7 0.7 0.2
1C16 1.1 0.1 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.2
1C17 1.5 0.4 0.7 2.3 0.8 0.7
1C18 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.7
1C19 1.4 0.5 0.9 1.7 0.4 0.9
1C20 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.7 0.6 0.2
1C21 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.1
1C22 1.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.2
1C23 1.3 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.4 0.4
1C24 1.4 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.6 0.7
1C25 1.5 0.3 0.5 1.5 0.4 0.5
1C26 1.0 0.6 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.6
The storey drifts are shown in Figure 10.13. The values satisfy the IS 1893: 2002
limit of 0.4%.
198
Storey Level 3
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Storey Drift (%)
(a) Considering infill stiffness
4
Storey Level
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Storey Drift (%)
(b) Without considering infill stiffness
Figure 10.13: Storey drift under design seismic lateral force
199
The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4.
10.6.1 Pushover Curve
Pushover curves for the building with and without infill stiffness in X- and Y-
directions are shown in Figure 10.14 and 10.15. The base shear from the
equivalent static method is also plotted to compare the capacity with the demand
based on linear analysis. The capacity from the pushover analysis is observed to
be little higher than the demand.
4000
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Roof Displacement (m)
Figure 10.14: Pushover curve along X-direction
200
4000
3000
Base Shear (kN)
2000
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Figure 10.15: Pushover curve along Y-direction
10.6.2 Capacity Spectrum, Demand Spectrum and Performance Point
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectra for
the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in Figures 10.16 to
10.19.
10.6.3 Displacements and Storey Drifts
The displacements at ultimate are plotted in Figures 10.20 and 10.21. The inter-
storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in
Figures 10.22and 10.23. These figures show the soft storey mechanism.
201
1.0
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectral Displacement (m)
Figure 10.16: Capacity Spectrum along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.17: Capacity Spectrum along Y-direction (with infill stiffness)
202
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.18: Capacity Spectrum along X-direction (without infill stiffness)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.19: Capacity Spectrum along Y-direction (without infill stiffness)
203
4
Storey Level
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 10.20: Displacement along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
4
Storey Level
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 10.21: Displacement along X-direction (without infill stiffness)
204
Storey Level
3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift
Figure 10.22: Storey drift along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
4
Storey Level
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storey Drift
Figure 10.23: Displacement along X-direction (without infill stiffness)
205
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of storeys are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D. The vulnerability indices of the
buildings are given in Tables 10.26 and 10.27. The indices of storeys are given in
Tables 10.28 and 10.29.
Table 10.26: Vulnerability index of buildings (with infill stiffness)

LS-
Location B-IO IO-LS
CP
CP-C C-D D-E >E VIbldg
Column 0 0 46 0 1 5 4
X-
0.069
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Column 0 0 28 0 0 2 9
Y-
0.066
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Table 10.27: Vulnerability index of buildings (without infill stiffness)
Location Yielded B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E >E VIbldg
Column 0 0 21 0 0 1 1
X-
0.042
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Column 0 0 11 0 0 1 0
Y-
0.087
direction
Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
206
Table 10.28: Vulnerability indices of storeys (with infill stiffness) in X-direction

Storey
1 2 3 4 5
Level
B-IO 0 0 0 0 0
IO-LS 0 0 0 0 0
LS-CP 46 0 0 0 0
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 1 0 0 0 0
D-E 5 0 0 0 0
>E 2 2 0 0 0
VIstorey 0.656 0.036 0 0 0
Table 10.29: Vulnerability indices of storeys (with infill stiffness) in Ydirection

Storey
1 2 3 4 5
Level
B-IO 0 0 0 0 0
IO-LS 0 0 0 0 0
LS-CP 28 0 0 0 0
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 1 0 0 0 0
D-E 2 0 0 0 0
>E 4 4 1 0 0
VIstorey 0.438 0.071 0.018 0 0
10.7 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
(i) Linear analysis results show that a number of beams and columns are
deficient in flexure.
(ii) However, all the beam and column sections have adequate shear capacity.
(iii) Building complies with the drift requirement under design lateral force.
(iv) Pushover analyses in either direction fail to give a performance point before
the collapse. So the performance is not acceptable. Building needs to be
retrofitted.
10.8 RETROFIT
207
The selected retrofit scheme consists of global and local retrofit strategies. For the
global strategy, full brick walls (230 mm) were continued in the ground storey at a
few symmetrical locations of the building. Figure 10.24 shows the locations of the
new walls. This will cause least intervention in the functional requirement of car
parking. For the local strategy, all the ground storey columns were strengthened
by concrete jacketing. The modelling of the load-deformation behaviour of the
jacketed column is based on Chapter 8. The pushover curves in Y-directions for
the retrofitted building are shown in Figure 10.25. The pushover analyses in both
the directions give performance points. The building experiences a drift of about
1.0% at the performance point, which is acceptable. The demand and capacity
spectra for the lateral push along X- and Y- directions are shown in Figures 10.26
and 10.27. The scheme increases the stiffness of the building only marginally.
Figure 10.28 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the
corresponding spectral acceleration coefficients for the existing and the retrofitted
models of the building.
Figure 10.24: Locations of infill walls and column jacketing in ground storey
208
Existing Retrofitted
8000
6000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
2000
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Figure 10.25: Comparison of pushover curves along Y-direction
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.26: Capacity spectrum along X-direction
209
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.27: Capacity spectrum along Y-direction
3
Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g)
Retrofitted
2
Existing
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s)
Figure 10.28: Comparison of the fundamental period
210
CHAPTER XI
CASE STUDY III
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The present case study is an example of an office building in Zone III. The
deficiency due to inadequate shear reinforcement is highlighted. A retrofit scheme
with shear strengthening is illustrated.
11.2 DATA COLLECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

BUILDING
Figure 11.1: Typical floor plan of the building

(The dotted area is terminated above ground floor)
211
The building is a six storey office building with a basement, located in Zone III.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present a summary of the building parameters. The building
is symmetric in both X- and Y-directions. The basement is for parking. Figure 11.1
shows a typical floor plan of the building.

S.No Description Information Notes
.
• Name of the building B7
• Plot number
• Locality/Town ship Calicut
• District
• State Kerala
2 Name of owner −
3 Name of builder −
4 Name of Architect/Engineer −
5 Name of Structural Engineer −
6 Use of building Office
ground level
8 Number of basements below 1
ground level
9 Type of structure RC frame
10 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium (Assumed)
• Design safe bearing capacity Not Available
• Earth
• Water 10 kN/m3
IS 875 Part 1
• Brick masonry 20 kN/m3
• Plain cement concrete 25 kN/m3
• Floor finish 18 kN/m3
• Floor loads 4 kN/m2 IS 875 Part 2
• Roof loads 1.5 kN/m2
212
Chapter XI – Case Study III

13 Cyclone/Wind −
• Speed
14 History of past earthquakes and Earthquake
tremors Prone Area
15 Seismic zone III IS 1893: 2002
16 Importance factor, I 1.0 IS 1893: 2002
17 Seismic zone factor, Z 0.16 IS 1893: 2002
18 Response reduction factor, R 3.0 IS 1893: 2002
19 Fundamental natural period, T 0.49 IS 1893: 2002
20 Design Horizontal acceleration 0.067 IS 1893: 2002
spectrum value (Ah)
21 Seismic design lateral force 2150 kN
22 Expansion/ Separation joints −
1 Type of building Regular
frames
2 Number of basements −
4 Horizontal floor system Beams and
slabs
5 Soil data
• Type of soil Medium Assumed
capacity
piles
• Chemical analysis of ground
water −
• Chemical analysis of soil −
213
6 Foundations
• Depth below ground level −
• Type Pile Pile groups
7 System of interconnecting No inter
foundations connection
• Plinth beams
8 Grades of concrete used in different M20
parts of building
9 Method of analysis −
10 Computer software used −
11 Torsion included −
a) Based on approximate 2150
fundamental period
b) Based on dynamic analysis 891
13 Distribution of seismic forces along Parabolic IS 1893: 2002
14 The columns of soft ground storey − IS 1893: 2002
specially designed
15 Clear minimum cover provided in Not Available
• Footing
• Column
• Beams
• Slabs
• Walls
beams 200 × 750
columns 300 × 450
• Minimum percentage of
reinforcement of beams at
any cross section 0.536
reinforcement at any section 250 mm c/c
of beam
reinforcement in 2d length 150 mm c/c
214
• Ratio of capacity of beams −
in shear to capacity of
beams in flexure
• Maximum percentage of 1.54
• Confining stirrups near ends
column joints
− Diameter 8 mm
− Spacing 200 mm
• Ratio of shear capacity of
columns to maximum 2.51
seismic shear in the storey
splice
• Beam bar splices location
splice
11.3 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MEMBERS:
11.3.1 Foundation
The foundation system is pile foundation. The depths of the pile bottoms vary
between 21m to 30m, depending up on the soil strata.
11.3.2 Structural system
It is a RC framed structure. The concrete slab thickness is 120 mm except for some
locations where it is 150 mm. Waist slab for the staircase is 150 mm thick. The
external walls are 230mm thick and no partition walls are present inside the
building. The floor plan is similar for basement and ground floor. One corner is
215
terminated above the ground floor. Figure 11.2 shows the column layout at a
typical floor and Table 11.3 shows the reinforcement details of the columns
sections. Figure 11.3 shows the beam layout at a typical floor level. All floors
have identical beam sections. It can be noted from Table 11.3 that most of the
columns are of rectangular cross section with very high aspect ratio. However
columns are oriented in such a way that strength and stiffness in both X- and Y-
direction are comparable.
Table 11.3: Details of column reinforcements

Size (mm) Longitudinal Transverse
Column ID Width x Reinforcement Reinforcement
Depth (mm) (mm)
AC1 300 × 450 8Y16 2×2 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC2 300 × 600 8Y20 + 2Y12 2×6 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC3 300 × 750 8Y20 + 2Y12 2×6 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC4 300 × 900 12Y20 + 2Y16 2×8 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC7 700 × 700 14Y20 6×6 LGD Y8 @ 200c/c
AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3
AC7 AC4
AC2 AC7
AC2 AC7 AC7 AC4 AC4
AC3 AC7 AC7 AC3
AC3 AC4 AC4 AC4 AC1
Figure 11.2(a): Column section and their orientation layout

(basement and ground storey)
216
AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3
AC7 AC4
AC2 AC7
AC2 AC7 AC7 AC4 AC4
AC3 AC7 AC7 AC3
AC3 AC4 AC4 AC4
Figure 11.2(b): Column section and their orientation layout of typical storey.
(1st to 5th storey)
AB5
AB5
AB1
AB20
AB15
AB18
AB18
AB15
AB18
AB16
AB8
AB9
AB38
AB10 AB11
Figure 11.3: Beam section layout of typical floor level.

(Dotted beams are not present above first floor level)
Table 11.4 shows the reinforcement details of the beam sections. It can be noted
that all of the beams have b/d ratio more than 3.0.
217
Table 11.4: Details of beam reinforcements
Size (mm) Longitudinal Reinforcement at Transverse

Beam
Width × Depth support (mm2) Reinforcement
section
Top Bottom (mm)
AB1 200 × 750 2Y16 2Y16 Y8@250c/c
AB5 250 × 750 6Y25 4Y25 Y8@150c/c
AB8 250 × 750 3Y32+2Y25 4Y25 Y8@200c/c
AB9 250 × 750 2Y32+2Y25 3Y25 Y8@150c/c
AB10 250 × 750 5Y25 4Y25 Y8@150c/c
AB11 250 × 750 3Y25, 2Y25 2Y25 Y10@200c/c
AB15 250 × 750 2Y16+2Y20 4Y20 Y8@150c/c
AB16 250 × 750 4Y20 2Y20+1Y16 Y8@150c/c
AB18 250 × 750 2Y16+2Y20 3Y20 Y8@200c/c
AB20 250 × 750 2Y20+2Y25 3Y20 Y8@200c/c
AB38 250 × 750 2Y32+2Y25 2Y20+2Y25 Y8@150c/c
The lateral load resisting frames in the building are identified. Figures 11.4 (a) and
11.4(b) show the frames along X-direction and Y-directions, respectively. The
beams are having eccentric connection at the columns. This was neglected in the
computational model.
Figure 11.4(a): Load resisting frames along X-direction
218
Figure 11.4(b): Load resisting frames along Y-direction
11.4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
The preliminary evaluation was done as per the method in Chapter 2.
Rapid visual screening results shown in Table 11.5 indicate the requirement of
detailed analysis. Both MRF and URM-INF were considered as the building is a
moment resisting framed building with un-reinforced masonry infill.
219
Table 11.5: Rapid visual screening data

URM URM URM
INF INF INF
Basic Score √ 2.5 2.8 1.6 3.0 3.6 3.2 4.4 4.8 4.4
Mid rise +0.4 +0.4 +0.2 +0.2 +0.4 +0.2 +0.4 -0.2 -0.4
High rise √ +0.6 +0.8 +0.3 +0.5 +0.8 +0.4 +1.0 0.0 -0.4
Vertical
-1.5 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.0
irregularity
Plan
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
irregularity
Pre-code √ -1.2 -1.0 -0.2 -1.0 -0.4 -1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Post-
+1.4 +2.4 N/A +1.2 +1.6 N/A +0.6 +0.4 N/A
benchmark
Soil Type I -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4
Soil Type II √ -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.0 -1.4 -0.8 -0.8
Soil Type III -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Final Score 1.5 1.6
Comments Final Score is less than the cut-off score of 2.0
11.4.2 Quick Checks for Strength and Stiffness
Fundamental period of the building: Tax = 0.55s. and Tay = 0.49 s.
Sa/g = 2.50.
Z = 0.16; R = 3; I = 1.0
ZIS a 0.16 × 1.0 × 2.50
Ah = = = 0.067
2 Rg 2×3
VB = Ah×W. = 0.067×32257 kN ≅ 2128.96 kN.
Table 11.6 shows the distribution of the base shear over the height of the building.
These were calculated using IS 1893: 2002 recommended parabolic distribution
methods.
220
Table 11.6: Distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Seismic Weight,
Height, hi Lateral Force, Qi
Floor No Wi
(m) (kN)
(kN)
G 4901 3.60 19
1 4652 6.60 59
2 4709 10.2 143
3 4707 13.8 261
4 4979 17.4 438
5 4883 21.0 627
6 3426 24.6 604
Table 11.7 shows the column shear stress at each storey.
Table 11.7: Average column shear stress
Vj vavg
Storey No nf nc Ac (m2) Remarks
(kN) (MPa)
B 5 22 6.585 2580.52 0.507 >0.4
G 5 22 6.585 2462.04 0.484 >0.4
1 5 21 6.585 2270.40 0.446 >0.4
2 5 21 6.585 1979.46 0.389 <0.4
3 5 21 6.585 1594.63 0.313 <0.4
4 5 21 6.585 1080.25 0.212 <0.4
5 5 21 6.585 479.69 0.094 <0.4
10.4.2.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall
Not applicable for this building.
The details of the column axial stress calculations are given in Table 11.8. The
average axial stresses in column is within the allowable axial stress of 0.24 fck ( =
0.24×20 MPa = 4.8 MPa).
221

Vb(kN) nf h (m) L (m) P (kN) Axial stress
X-direction. 2150 5 24.6 15.95 442 0.9 MPa
Y-direction. 2150 4 24.6 20.6 428.8 0.9 MPa
11.4.2.4 Frame Drift
The calculation detail for the storey drift is shown in Tables 11.9. The frame drift
ratio at each storey level is considerably less than the allowable drift.
Table 11.9: Frame Drift Ratio along X-direction

B 3.6 653.7 0.00092
G 3.0 835.5 0.00092
1 3.6 731.9 0.00103
2 3.6 694.1 0.00097
3 3.6 633.7 0.00089
4 3.6 461.6 0.00064
5 3.6 532.2 0.00074
11.4.2.5 Strong column – Weak beam


The strong column and weak beam criteria is not satisfied.
222
11.4.3 Evaluation Statements
The evaluation statements are presented in Table 11.10. A number of statements

are non-compliant because poor reinforcement detailing.

Load path: C
Adjacent buildings: −
Mezzanines: NA
No deterioration of concrete: −
Vertical irregularities
No weak storey: C
No soft storey: C
No vertical geometric irregularity: C
Plan Irregularities
No Torsion irregularity: C
No diaphragm discontinuity: C
No re-entrant corners: C
Redundancy: C
Axial stress check: C
Drift check: C
223
Moment resisting frames C / NC / NA

No short captive columns: C
No shear failures: NC
Column bar splices: NC
Beam bars: C
Beam bar splices: NC
Stirrup spacing: NC
Bent-up bars: C
Deflection compatibility: NC
No flat slab frames: NA
Prestressed frame elements: NA
Diaphragm reinforcement: C
Shear walls
Coupling beams / Diaphragm openings at shear walls NA
Connections
Wall connection / Transfer to shear walls: NA
Lateral load at pile caps: C
Geologic site hazards

No Liquefaction/ No slope failure/ No surface fault rupture: −
Foundations
Foundation performance: −
Deterioration: −
Overturning: C
Ties between foundation elements: C
224
11.5 DETAILED EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS
The detailed evaluation based on the linear analysis was done as per the procedure
outlined in Chapter 3.

Modulus of Elasticity
Material Characteristic Strength (MPa)
(MPa)
Concrete 20 MPa 19365 MPa
Reinforcing Steel 415 MPa 2 × 105 MPa
Brick infill 1.65 1237.5
Figure 11.5 shows the 3D model of the building.
Figure 11.5: 3D computer model of the structure.
225
Infill Walls
struts. The calculated strut parameters are shown in Table 11.12
STR4 STR3 STR6
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR2
STR3
STR1
STR3
STR4 STR4 STR5
X
Figure 11.6(a): Location of infill walls (at the ground storey)

STR4 STR6
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR2
Y
STR3
STR1
STR4 STR4 STR5

X
Figure 11.6(b): Location of infill walls (at the ground storey)
226
STR4 STR3 STR6
STR2
STR2
STR3
STR3
STR5
STR2
Y
STR2
STR1
STR1
STR3
STR4 STR4
Figure 11.6(c): Location of infill walls at a typical storey (above ground storey)
Table 11.12: Strut parameters

Equivalent Strut Thickness (m) Width (m) Strength (kN)
STR1 0.23 1.933 485.159
STR2 0.23 1.502 455.389
STR3 0..23 2.408 639.265
STR4 0.23 2.023 391.378
STR5 0.23 1.753 326.540
STR6 0.23 1.846 513.724
Modelling of Column Ends at Foundation
The foundation system for the building is piles. In the model, fixity was
considered at the top of the pile caps. The effect of soil-structure interaction was
ignored in the analyses.
227
Design centres of mass
Tables 11.13(a) to 11.13(d) give the centres of mass and rigidity of the building.
Only two (CM1 and CM2) of the four calculated centres of mass were considered
for analysis.
Table 11.13(a): Centres of mass and rigidity (without infill stiffness)

Seismic Lumped CM (m) CR (m) esi(m)
Floor weight mass
X Y X Y X Y
(kN) (Ton)
6 3426.36 349.27 7.52 11.33 8.42 11.18 0.90 0.15
5 4883.30 497.79 7.49 11.48 8.59 11.18 1.10 0.30
4 4978.94 507.54 7.49 11.59 8.59 11.18 1.10 0.41
3 4706.50 479.77 7.52 11.51 8.47 11.18 0.95 0.33
2 4708.90 480.01 7.55 11.47 8.47 11.18 0.92 0.29
1 4652.10 474.22 7.55 11.45 8.42 11.15 0.87 0.30
G 4900.50 499.54 7.62 11.37 8.63 10.99 1.00 0.38
Table 11.13(b): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)

Design Design
CR (m) esi(m)
Floor CM1 (m) CM2 (m)
X Y X Y X Y X Y
6 8.42 11.18 0.90 0.15 9.66 12.58 5.38 10.08
5 8.59 11.18 1.10 0.30 9.94 12.97 5.04 10.00
4 8.59 11.18 1.10 0.41 9.94 13.23 5.04 9.95
3 8.47 11.18 0.95 0.33 9.75 13.02 5.30 9.99
2 8.47 11.18 0.92 0.29 9.73 12.93 5.36 10.01
1 8.42 11.15 0.87 0.30 9.65 12.92 5.44 9.97
G 8.63 10.99 1.00 0.38 9.92 12.97 5.32 9.77
228
Table 11.13(c): Structural parameters and design CM (without infill stiffness)

Seismic Lumped CM (m) CR (m) esi(m)
Floor weight mass
6 3426.36 349.27 7.52 11.33 7.57 11.15 0.05 0.18
5 4883.30 497.79 7.49 11.48 7.66 11.16 0.17 0.32
4 4978.94 507.54 7.49 11.59 7.62 11.17 0.13 0.42
3 4706.50 479.77 7.52 11.51 7.56 11.17 0.04 0.34
2 4708.90 480.01 7.55 11.47 7.56 11.17 0.02 0.30
1 4652.10 474.22 7.55 11.45 7.73 11.10 0.18 0.35
G 4900.50 499.54 7.62 11.37 8.08 11.30 0.46 0.07
Table 11.13 (d): Structural parameters and design CM (with infill stiffness)
Design Design
CR (m) esi (m)
Floor CM1 (m) CM2 (m)
X Y X Y X Y X Y
6 7.57 11.15 0.05 0.18 8.39 12.63 6.65 10.03
5 7.66 11.16 0.17 0.32 8.54 12.99 6.45 9.98
4 7.62 11.17 0.13 0.42 8.48 13.25 6.51 9.93
3 7.56 11.17 0.04 0.34 8.38 13.04 6.67 9.97
2 7.56 11.17 0.02 0.30 8.37 12.94 6.72 9.99
1 7.73 11.10 0.18 0.35 8.62 13.00 6.47 9.90
G 8.08 11.30 0.46 0.07 9.11 12.50 6.14 10.23
10.5.3 Equivalent Static Analysis
Design Base Shear: Design lateral forces at each storey level are applied at the
centre of mass locations independently in two horizontal directions. Table 11.14
shows lateral force distribution at different storey level.
229
Table 11.14: Typical distribution of lateral force over the height of the building
Lateral Force, Qi (kN)
Floor Seismic weight, Height, hi With infill
Stiffness Without infill
no Wi (kN) (m)
stiffness
X Y
6 3426.36 24.60 603.63 592.36 396.38
5 4883.30 21.00 626.93 615.23 411.68
4 4978.94 17.40 438.84 430.65 288.16
3 4706.50 13.80 260.93 256.06 171.34
2 4708.90 10.20 142.62 139.96 93.65
1 4652.10 6.60 58.99 57.89 38.74
G 4900.50 3.60 18.49 18.14 12.14
11.5.4 Response Spectrum Analysis
Table 11.15 shows the comparison of the fundamental periods and the spectral
accelerations for the building. Figure 11.7 shows the position of the periods in the
response spectrum.
Empirical formula Computational model

Without infill With infill Without infill
With infill stiffness
stiffness stiffness stiffness
T (s) 0.49 0.83 1.06 1.28
Sa/g 2.50 1.64 1.28 1.07
Table 11.26 represents the period and the predominant direction of vibration for
the first five modes of the building, with and without the infill stiffness. The table
also shows the mass participation for each of the five modes. The first five modes
were considered in the dynamic analysis, which give more than 90% mass
participation in both of the horizontal directions. Figure 11.8 shows the first three
mode shapes of the building. The base shear for the equivalent static method and
the response spectrum methods are compared in Table 11.17
230
3.0 3.0
Empirical formula
Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g )
Spectral Accelaration Coefficient (Sa/g )

2.5 2.5
Empirical formula
Computational
2.0 model 2.0 Computational
model
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period (s) Period (s)
(a) with infill stiffness (b) without infill stiffness
Figure 11.7: Comparison of time periods of the building models
Table 11.16: Time Period and Modal Participation Ratio for the first five modes
Mass Participation
Mode Mass Participation (%)
T (s) (%) T (s)
Ux Uy Ux Uy
1 1.27 6.12 70.27 1.06 74.89 0.18
2 1.20 69.99 6.53 0.92 0.18 78.29
3 0.60 0.31 1.16 0.39 0.08 1.35
4 0.41 0.42 11.50 0.33 15.10 0.07
5 0.38 13.54 0.37 0.30 0.07 11.19
Table 11.17: Comparison of base shear

With infill stiffness Without infill stiffness
Vx Vy Vx Vy
Equivalent static
(V ) B 2150 2110 1412 1412
Response spectrum
(VB ) 891 1030 745 693
VB / VB 2.37 2.05 2.88 3.10
231
(a) First Mode (b) Second Mode
(c) Third Mode
Figure 11.8: First mode shape of the building (without infill stiffness)
11.5.5 Evaluation results
The analysis results show that a number of frame sections are deficient.
Tables 11.18 and 11.19 shows the DCR for a few column and beam sections,
respectively.
232
Table 11.18: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in columns

Columns DCR in DCR in Shear DCR in DCR in Shear
Flexure V2 V3 Flexure V2 V3
GAC1 1.3 0.3 0.6 2.6 0.4 0.7
GAC2 1.2 0.4 0.5 3.1 0.8 0.6
GAC3 1.2 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.7 0.6
GAC4 1.9 0.5 0.6 2.1 0.7 0.9
GAC7 1.6 0.5 0.4 2.5 0.5 0.7
1AC1 1.8 0.4 0.5 2.4 0.6 0.6
1AC2 2.1 0.6 0.8 2.8 0.4 0.3
1AC3 1.9 0.3 0.8 2.6 0.4 0.7
1AC4 2.2 0.4 0.5 2.7 0.4 0.9
1AC7 2.4 0.5 0.4 2.9 0.5 0.4
2AC1 1.9 0.3 0.6 2.4 0.5 0.8
2AC2 1.6 0.4 0.2 2.5 0.6 0.3
Table 11.19: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios (DCR) in Beams

Beams DCR in DCR in
DCR in Shear DCR in Shear
Flexure Flexure
GAB1 1.05 1.37 2.20 1.17
GAB5 1.04 4.48 3.40 3.20
GAB8 1.26 4.30 3.45 5.21
GAB9 0.39 3.09 0.74 2.50
GAB10 0.23 3.07 0.65 4.10
GAB11 1.09 2.54 2.21 1.56
GAB15 0.09 1.99 0.12 2.00
GAB16 0.05 1.38 0.09 1.10
GAB18 0.01 1.22 0.09 1.01
GAB20 0.29 1.55 0.54 1.47
GAB38 0.53 2.42 0.70 2.31
1AB1 1.03 1.20 2.07 1.68
1AB5 1.07 4.82 2.60 2.51
1AB8 1.16 4.14 2.25 3.27
233
The storey drift for every storey is within the code limit of 0.4%. Figure 11.9
shows the storey drifts in X-direction.
4
Storey Level
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Storey Drift
Figure 11.9: Storey drifts along X-direction for design seismic base shear
The analysis was done as per the method in Chapter 4.
10.6.1 Pushover Curve
Figure 11.10 shows the pushover curves for the building with and without infill
stiffness. The building has sufficiently large strength and stiffness at the global
level when infill stiffness was modelled, but it does not show desired strength and
stiffness when the infill stiffness was ignored.
11.6.2 Capacity spectrum, demand spectrum and performance point
the models, with and without infill stiffness. The demand and capacity spectrum
234
for the lateral push along the two orthogonal directions are shown in
Figures 11.11(a) to 11.11(d).
Without Infill Stiffness (WOS) With Infill Stiffness (WS)
4500
4000
3500
Base Shear (kN)
3000
2500 V (WS)
B
2000
1500
VB (WOS)
1000
500
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure 11.10: Pushover curves (X- direction)
0.45
Spectral Acceleration/g
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.11(a): Demand and Capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(without infill stiffness)
235
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.11(b): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(Without infill stiffness)
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.11(c): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along X-direction
(With infill stiffness)
236
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.11(d): Demand and capacity spectra for lateral push along Y-direction
(With infill stiffness)
11.6.3 Displacements and inter-storey drifts
The inter-storey drifts corresponding to the displacement profiles are shown in

Figures 11.12(a) and 11.12(b).
4
Storey Level
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35
Storey Drift
Figure 11.12(a): Maximum storey drift along X-direction (with infill stiffness)
237
Storey Level
3
G0
-1
B
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35
Storey Drift
Figure 11.12(b): Maximum inter-storey drift along Y-direction (with infill

stiffness)
The vulnerability indices of the building and vulnerability indices of the stories are
separately calculated in both X- and Y- directions, for with and without infill
stiffness cases, according to Appendix D. Vulnerability index of the buildings are
given in Tables 10.20(a) and 10.20(b). The indices of storeys are given in
Tables 10.21(a) and 10.21(b).
Table 10.20(a): Vulnerability index of buildings (with infill stiffness)
X- Column 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.006
direction Beam 8 2 1 1 0 2 0
Y- Column 13 4 0 0 0 0 0
0.050
238
Table 10.20(b): Vulnerability index of buildings (without infill stiffness)
X- Column 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.053
Y- Column 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.043
Table 10.21(a): Vulnerability index of stories (with infill stiffness) in X direction

Storey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Level
B-IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IO-LS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS-CP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D-E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIstorey − − − − − − −
Table 10.21(b): Vulnerability index of stories (with infill stiffness) in Y direction

Storey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Level
B-IO 7 3 1 0 1 1 0
IO-LS 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
LS-CP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CP-C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D-E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIstorey 0.045 0.018 0.003 0 0.003 0.003 0
239
11.7 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
(i) The linear analysis results show that almost all the beam and column
sections are safe in flexure. But a few column sections and all beam
sections are deficient in shear. Pushover analysis also reveals the same
weakness of the structure.
(ii) The building complies with the drift requirement.
(iii) All the pushover analyses failed to give a performance point, except for Y-
direction with infill stiffness. So the performance is not acceptable. The
building needs to be retrofitted.
11.8 RETROFIT
A global retrofit strategy of placing walls inside the office space was not possible.
So, a local retrofit strategy was adopted. Two beam sections, AB5 and AB8, were
retrofitted to take additional 25% shear force. Figure 11.13 shows the location of
these beams in a typical floor. The beam sections can be retrofitted by concrete
jacketing or glass fibre reinforced polymer wrapping.
AB 5
AB 5
AB 8
Figure 11.13: Location of retrofitted beams
240
The shear strengthening is modelled in the structure by changing the shear hinge
properties. The re-analysis of the retrofitted structure shows that the building
achieves desirable performance in either direction. The drift at the performance
point is about 0.25% which is acceptable. Figures 11.14 (a) and 11.14(b) show
the pushover curves along X- and Y-directions, respectively. Figures 11.15(a) and
11.15 (b) shows the demand and capacity spectra for the retrofitted building along
X- and Y- directions, respectively.
6000
5000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 11.14(a): Pushover curves along X-direction for the retrofitted building
7000
6000
5000
Base Shear (kN)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 11.14(b): Pushover curves along Y-direction for the retrofitted building
241
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.15(a): Demand and capacity spectra for push along X-direction
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Figure 11.15(b): Demand and capacity spectra for push along Y-direction
242
APPENDIX A
MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE
The three soil types used in the data collection form of FEMA 154 are C, D and E.
The soil types are mapped to soil Types I, II and III as given in IS 1893: 2002, by
Table A1.
Table A1: Mapping of soil types

UBC 1997 IS 1893: 2002
Soil Type Criteria Soil Type Criteria
A– Hard rock vs > 1500 m/s
B – Rock 760 m/s < vs ≤ 1500 m/s
C – Dense soil 360 m/s < vs ≤ 760 m/s, Type I N > 30
and soft rock or, N > 50, (Rock or hard soil)
or, su > 100 kPa
D – Stiff Soil 180 m/s ≤ vs ≤ 360 m/s, Type II 10 ≤ N ≤30
or, 15 < N ≤ 50, (Medium soil)
or, 50 kPa< su ≤ 100 kPa
E – Soft Soil vs < 180 m/s, Type III N<10
or, a profile with more than (Soft soil)
3.05 m of soft clay
F – Poor Soil Requires site specific
evaluation
N: Standard penetration count, su: Un-drained shear strength, vs: Shear wave
velocity.
A1
APPENDIX B
MODELLING OF MASONRY
INFILL WALLS
B.1 MODELLING OF MASONRY INFILL
For an infill wall located in a lateral load-resisting frame, the stiffness and strength
contribution of the infill has to be considered. Non-integral infill walls subjected to
lateral load behave like diagonal struts. Thus an infill wall can be modelled as an
equivalent ‘compression only’ strut in the building model. The concept is shown in
Figure B1. It is a trussed frame model. Rigid joints connect the beams and
columns, but pin joints connect the equivalent struts to the beam-to-column
junctions. This section explains the procedure based on Smith and Carter (1969) to
calculate the modelling parameters (effective width, elastic modulus and strength)
of an equivalent strut.
The length of the strut is given by the diagonal distance (d) of the panel (Figure
B1c) and its thickness is equal to the thickness of the infill wall. The elastic
modulus of the strut is equated to the elastic modulus of masonry (Em). As per
IBC: 2000, Em is given as
Em = 750 f m/ (B.1)
B1
where f m/ is the specified compressive strength of the masonry in MPa. The
value of f m/ can be obtained by prism tests. As per FEMA 356 (2000), Em is
given as Em = 550 f m/ .
For the estimation of width (w) of the strut, a simple expression can be adopted
(Ramesh, 2003).
w = 1.477 + 0.0356λ h − 0.912 ( R / Rc ) (B.2)
w′
Here, the instantaneous value of w is expressed in terms of a parameter w/. The
expression of w/ is given as
⎛ w ' ⎞ 0.43sin 2θ
⎜ ⎟= (B.3)
⎝d ⎠ λh
Length of
contact
(a) Infill frame (b) Deformed shape (c) Equivalent strut
Figure B1: Behaviour of Infill Frames
The expressions are functions of λh, a non-dimensional quantity. Here, λ is the

relative stiffness of the infill to the frame. It is calculated as follows.
Emt sin 2θ
λ= 4 (B.4)
4 Ec I c h '
Here, Ec ≡ Modulus of elasticity of concrete in the column

h ≡ Height of column (between centrelines of beams)
B2
Appendix B – Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls
h' ≡ Clear height of infill wall

Ic ≡ Moment of inertia of the column section (lower of the two
bounding columns)
l ≡ Length of beam (between centrelines of columns)
t ≡ Thickness of infill wall
θ ≡ Slope of the infill diagonal to the horizontal = tan −1 (h / l )
R ≡ Instantaneous diagonal load in the strut
Rc ≡ Compressive strength of the strut
Figure B2: Infilled Frame
B.2 EFFECT OF OPENINGS:
In the presence of an opening, a simplified procedure was proposed by Al-Char

(2002). The effect of the opening is accounted for by reducing the effective
width, as per the following equation.
wopen = ρ w × w (B.5)
where, ρw ≡ Reduction factor for openings

The corresponding equivalent strut is assumed to act in the same manner as for an
infill without opening. The reduction factor ρw is calculated from the following
equation.
ρ w = 0.6 Ar 2 -1.6 Ar + 1 (B.6)
B3
where, Ar = ratio of opening area to the gross area of the panel
If Area of opening is greater than or equal to 60 percent of gross area of panel,

then the infill may be neglected. Reducing the strut width to account for an
opening does not represent the stress distribution in the infill properly. Yet, this
method was proposed based on its simplicity. Mondal (2003) suggested the
following equation to consider the reduction in effective width in the presence of
an opening.
ρ w = 1 − 1.25 Ar (B.7)
B.3 STRENGTH OF EQUIVALENT STRUT
The strength of the equivalent strut is governed by the lowest of the failure loads
corresponding to the following failure modes.
a) Local crushing of the infill at one of the loaded corners.
b) Shear cracking along the bedding joints of the brickwork.
The diagonal tensile cracking need not be considered as a failure mode, as higher
load can be carried beyond tensile cracking
B.3.1 Local Crushing Failure
The diagonal load causing local crushing (Rc) is given by the following equation
(Smith and Carter, 1969).
Rc = α c t sec θ f m (B.8)
The length of contact at the column (αc) at the compression diagonal corner is
calculated using the following formula.
αc π
= (B.9)
h 2λ h
Other variables are as defined earlier.
B4
Appendix B – Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls
B.3.2 Shear Failure
Following relationship of Rs proposed by Govindan (1986) using the curves given

by Smith and Carter (1969) is chosen, as it is simple and non-dimensional.
RS
= 1.65(l '/ h ')0.6 (λ h ) −0.05( l '/ h ')0.5 (B.10)
f 'bs ht
Where, f bs′ = The bond shear strength between the masonry and mortar. It is
varies from 0.24 MPa for low strength mortar to 0.69 MPa for high strength
mortar (Ramesh 2003). Again to be in conservative side f bs′ is taken as 0.24 in the
calculation.
B5
APPENDIX C
MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES
C.1 FLEXURAL HINGES FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS
C.1.1 Stress-Strain Characteristics of Concrete
The stress-strain curve of concrete in compression forms the basis of analysis and
design of any reinforced concrete section. Such curves are usually prescribed in
design codes and give details of the shape of the curve (often idealised as
parabolic in the initial ascending portion, and thereafter linearly descending or
flat). The ultimate peak strength (and corresponding strain level, usually 0.002)
and the ultimate compressive strain (in the range 0.003 to 0.004) are also
specified. However, the maximum compressive strength and strain gets enhanced
when the concrete is confined, and details of such effects are not available in the
prevailing codes.
The characteristic and design stress−strain curves specified by the IS 456: 2000,
for concrete in flexural compression are depicted in Figure C1. The maximum
stress in the ‘characteristic’ curve is restricted to 0.67 f ck . The curve consists of a
parabola in the initial region up to a strain of 0.002 (where the slope becomes
C1
zero), and a straight line thereafter, at a constant stress level of 0.67 f ck up to an

ultimate strain of 0.0035.
For the purpose of limit states design, the appropriate partial safety factor γ c has
to be applied, and γ c is equal to 1.5 for the consideration of ultimate limit states.
Thus, the ‘design curve’ is obtained by simply scaling down the ordinates of the
characteristic curve — dividing by γ c [Figure C1]. Accordingly, the maximum
design stress becomes equal to 0.447 f ck , and the formula for the design
compressive stress f c corresponding to any strain ε c ≤ 0.0035 is given by:
⎧ ⎡ ⎛ ε c ⎞ ⎛ ε c ⎞2 ⎤
⎪
fc = ⎨
0.447 f ck ⎢ 2 ⎜ ⎟−⎜ ⎟ ⎥ for ε c <0.002 (C1)
⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.002 ⎠ ⎝ 0.002 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎪
⎩ 0.447 f ck for 0.002 ≤ ε c ≤ 0.0035
0.67fck characteristic curve

Stress
0.447fck design curve
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 εcu = 0.0035

Strain
Figure C1: Characteristic and design stress-strain curves for concrete – IS 456
C2
Appendix C – Modelling of Plastic Hinges
The IS 456: 2000 model does not truly reflect the actual stress-strain behaviour in
the post-peak region, as (for convenience in calculations) it assumes a constant
stress in this region (strains between 0.002 and 0.0035). In reality, as evidenced
by experimental testing, the post-peak behaviour is characterised by a descending
branch, which is attributed to ‘softening’ and micro-cracking in the concrete.
Also, the IS code model does not account for strength enhancement and ductility
due to confinement.
The British code [BS 8110] model of stress-strain curve is similar to IS 456: 2000
model. ACI 318M-02 recognizes the inelastic stress distribution of concrete at
high stress. As maximum stress is approached, the stress is approached, the
stress-strain relationship for concrete is not a straight line but some form of curve
(stress is not proportional to strain). The general shape of a stress-strain curve is
primarily a function of concrete strength and consists of a rising curve from zero
to a maximum at compressive strain between 0.0015 to 0.002 followed by a
descending curve to an ultimate strain (crushing of concrete) ≡ 0.003. The ACI
code assumes relationship between concrete compressive stress distribution and
concrete strain to be rectangular.
Confined First
concrete hoop
' fracture
f cc
'
f co Unconfined
concrete
Ec Assumed for
Esec cover concrete
εt εco 2εco εsp εcc εcu
ft'
Figure C2: Stress-strain curves for concrete – Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988)
Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) proposed a stress-strain model for concrete
subjected uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement
C3
(Figure C2). The concrete section may contain any general type of confining
steel: either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops with or without
supplementary cross ties. These cross ties can have either equal or unequal
confining stresses along each of the transverse axes.
The salient strain locations in the model (Figure C2) are given by the ultimate
compressive strain (εcu), and the strains corresponding to the peak strength, viz.,
εcc in the case of confined concrete and εco (usually 0.002) in the case of
'
unconfined concrete. The corresponding peak strengths are f cc in the case of
'
confined concrete and f co in the case of unconfined concrete. The following
expressions for critical strains have been proposed:

1.4 ρ s f yhε sm
ε cu = 0.004 + (C2)
f 'cc
⎡ ⎛ f 'cc ⎞ ⎤
ε cc = ε co ⎢1 + 5 ⎜ '
− 1⎟ ⎥ (C3)
⎣⎢ ⎝ f co ⎠ ⎥⎦
where ρ s = volumetric ratio of confining steel, f yh = grade of the stirrup
reinforcement, and ε sm = steel strain at maximum tensile stress.
'
The following expression is proposed for f cc in the case of circular sections or
rectangular sections with effective confining stress f l ' applied equally in the two
orthogonal directions. The influence of various types of confinement is taken into
account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which is dependent on
the configuration of the transverse and lateral reinforcement.
⎛ 7.94 f l ' fl ' ⎞
f cc = f 'co ⎜ −1.254 + 2.254 1 +
'
−2 ' ⎟ (C4)
⎜ f 'co f co ⎟⎠
⎝
1
fl ' = ke ρ s f yh (C5)
2
where ke is the “confinement effectiveness coefficient”, having a typical value of
0.95 for circular sections and 0.75 for rectangular sections. In the more general
C4
case of a rectangular section with unequal lateral confining stresses in the X- and
' '
Y- directions, a chart has been proposed to calculate f cc / f co (Figure C3).
A single equation is proposed to generate the stress fc corresponding to any given

strain εc:
f 'cc x r
fc = (C6)
r −1 + x r
εc Ec f'
where x = ; r= ; Ec = 5000 f 'co ; Esec = cc .
ε cc Ec − Esec ε cc
f ' cc
K=
f 'co
1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0
Largest Effective Confining Stress ratio f 'lx /f 'co
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Smallest Effective Confining Stress ratio f 'ly /f 'co
Figure C3: Confined strength determination from lateral confining stresses for
rectangular sections
This model has the following advantages:

(a) A single equation defines both the ascending and descending branches of
stress-strain curve.
(b) The model can also be used for unconfined concrete sections.
C5
(c) The model can be applied to any shape of concrete member section
confined by any kind of transverse reinforcement (spirals, cross ties,
circular or rectangular hoops).
Fardis et al. (2001), proposed modifications to Mander’s et al. model. An

expression for f 'cc was proposed to simplify the modelling of Figure C3.
⎡ ⎛ 0.5ke ρ s f yh ⎞ ⎤
0.85
f cc = f co ⎢1 + 3.7 ⎜
' '
⎟ ⎥ (C7)
⎢⎣ ⎝ f 'co ⎠ ⎥⎦
The expression for ultimate compressive strain has also been modified as follows:
0.6 ρ s f yhε sm
ε cu = 0.004 + (C8)
f 'cc
It is seen that Modified Mander’s (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curve is
simple to use and gives realistic results. However it can be used only for normal-
strength concrete.
C.1.2 Stress-Strain Characteristics of Steel
The ‘characteristic’ and ‘design’ stress−strain curves specified by the Code for
various grades of reinforcing steel (in tension or compression) are shown in
Figure C4.
C.1.3 Moment-Curvature Relationship
Curvature (φ) is defined as the reciprocal of the radius of curvature (R) at any
point along a curved line. When an initial straight beam segment is subject to a
uniform bending moment throughout its length, it is expected to bend into a
segment of a circle with a curvature φ that increases in some manner with increase
in the applied moment (M). Curvature φ may be alternatively defined as the angle
⎛ 1 dθ ⎞
change in the slope of the elastic curve per unit length ⎜ ϕ = = ⎟ . At any
⎝ R ds ⎠
section, using the ‘plane sections remain plane’ hypothesis under pure bending,
C6
the curvature can be computed as the ratio of the normal strain at any point across
the depth to the distance measured from the neutral axis at that section (Figure
C5).
500
fy characteristic curve
400
0.87 fy design curve
300
stress (MPa)
200
Es = 2 × 105 MPa
100
εy = (0.87 fy) Es + 0.002
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
strain
Figure C4: Stress-strain relationship for reinforcement – IS 456: 2000
If the bending produces extreme fibre strains of ε1 and ε2 at top and bottom at any
section as shown in Figure C5 (compression on top and tension at bottom assumed
in this case), then, for small deformations, it can be shown that ϕ =

( ε1 + ε2 ) ,
D
where D is the depth of the beam. If the beam behaviour is linear elastic, then the
moment-curvature relationship is linear, and the curvature is obtained as
M
ϕ= (C9)
EI
where EI is the flexural rigidity of the beam, obtained as a product of the modulus
of elasticity E and the second moment of area of the section I.
C7
When an RC flexural member is subjected to a gradually increasing moment, its

behaviour transits through various stages, starting from the initial uncracked state
to the ultimate limit state of collapse. The stresses in the tension steel and
concrete go on increasing as the moment increases. The behaviour at the ultimate
limit state depends on the percentage of steel provided, i.e., on whether the section
is ‘under-reinforced’ or ‘over-reinforced’. In the case of under-reinforced
sections, failure is triggered by yielding of tension steel whereas in over-
reinforced section the steel does not yield at the limit state of failure. In both
cases, the failure eventually occurs due to crushing of concrete at the extreme
compression fibre, when the ultimate strain in concrete reaches its limit. Under-
reinforced beams are characterised by ‘ductile’ failure, accompanied by large
deflections and significant flexural cracking. On the other hand, over-reinforced
beams have practically no ductility, and the failure occurs suddenly, without the
warning signs of wide cracking and large deflections.
Centre of curvature
dθ
R
ds(1- ε1) y1
M M
y2
ds
Neutral Axis
ds(1+ ε2)
Figure C5: Curvature in an initially straight beam section
In the case of a short column subject to uniaxial bending combined with axial
compression, it is assumed that equation C9 remains valid and that “plane sections
C8
before bending remain plane”. However, the ultimate curvature (and hence,
ductility) of the section is reduced as the compression strain in the concrete
contributes to resisting axial compression in addition to flexural compression.
C.1.4 Modelling of Moment-Curvature in Confined RC Sections
Using the Modified Mander (Fardis et al.) model of stress-strain curves for
concrete and the stress-strain curve for steel as per IS 456: 2000, for a specific
confining steel, moment curvature curves can be generated for beams and columns
(for different axial load levels). The assumptions and procedure used in
generating the moment-curvature curves are outlined below.
C.1.4.1 Assumptions
1. The strain is linear across the depth of the section (‘plane sections remain
plane’).
2. The tensile strength of the concrete is ignored.
3. The concrete spalls off at a strain of 0.0035.
4. The initial tangent modulus of the concrete, Ec is adopted from IS 456:
2000, as 5000 f ck .
5. In determining the location of the neutral axis, convergence is assumed to

be reached within an acceptable tolerance of 1%.
C.1.4.2 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-Curvature for Beam Sections
1. Assign a value to the extreme concrete compressive fibre strain (normally

starting with a very small value).
2. Assume a value of neutral axis depth measured from the extreme
concrete compressive fibre.
3. Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of tension
and compression reinforcement.
C9
4. Determine the stress distribution in the concrete compressive region

based on the Modified Mander stress-strain model for the given volumetric
ratio of confining steel. The resultant concrete compressive force is then
obtained by numerical integration of the stress over the entire
compressive region.
5. Calculate the tensile force from the stress in tensile reinforcement and the
area of bar and compare with the net compressive force (Resultant
concrete force + compressive force in compression reinforcement). If the
difference lies within the specified tolerance, the assumed neutral axis
depth is adopted. The moment capacity and the corresponding curvature
of the section are then calculated. Otherwise, a new neutral axis is
determined from the iteration (using bisection method) and steps (3) to
(5) are repeated until it converges.
6. Assign the next value, which is larger than the previous one, to the
extreme concrete compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5).
7. Repeat the whole procedure until the complete moment-curvature is
obtained.
C.1.4.3 Numerical Algorithm for Moment-Curvature for Column Sections
1. Assign a value to the extreme concrete compressive fibre strain (normally

starting with a very small value).
2. Assume a value of neutral axis depth measured from the extreme
concrete compressive fibre.
3. Calculate the strain and the corresponding stress at the centroid of each
longitudinal reinforcement bar.
4. Determine the stress distribution in the concrete compressive region
based on the Modified Mander stress-strain model for the given volumetric
ratio of confining steel. The resultant concrete compressive force is then
obtained by numerical integration of the stress over the entire
compressive region.
C10
5. Calculate the axial force from the equilibrium and compare with the
applied axial load. If the difference lies within the specified tolerance, the
assumed neutral axis depth is adopted. The moment capacity and the
corresponding curvature of the section are then calculated. Otherwise, a
new neutral axis is determined from the iteration (using bisection method)
and steps (3) to (5) are repeated until it converges.
6. Assign the next value, which is larger than the previous one, to the
extreme concrete compressive strain and repeat steps (2) to (5).
7. Repeat the whole procedure until the complete moment-curvature is
obtained.
C.1.5 Moment-Rotation Parameters
Let us consider a simple cantilever beam AB shown in Figure C6(a) with a

concentrated load applied at the free end B. To determine the rotation between
the ends an idealized inelastic curvature distribution and a fully cracked section in
the elastic region may be assumed. Figures C6(b) and C6(c) represent the bending
moment diagram and probable distribution of curvature at the ultimate moment.
The rotation between A and B is given by

B
θ = ∫ ϕ dx ………………………………………………………..(C10)
A
where ϕ is the curvature and dx is an element length of the member
l
i.e., ultimate rotation, θu = ϕ y + (ϕu − ϕ y )l p …………………………………(C11)
2
l
where the yield rotation θ y = ϕ y …………………………………………..(C12)
2
or, plastic rotation, θ p = (ϕu − ϕ y ) l p …………………………………………(C13)
where ϕu is the ultimate curvature, ϕ y is the yield curvature and l p is the
equivalent length of plastic hinge over which plastic curvature is considered to be

constant.
C11
The physical definition of the plastic hinge length, considering the ultimate
flexural strength developing at the support, is the distance from the support over
which the applied moment exceeds the yield moment. The established practice is
to consider
l p = 0.5 D ……………………………………………………(C14)
Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001) proposed the length of plastic hinge as:
l p = 0.12 Ls + 0.014asl db f y ………………………………………..(C15)
A B
(a)
(b) lp
ϕu
ϕy
(c)
Figure C6: (a) cantilever beam, (b) Bending moment distribution, and (c)
Curvature distribution (Park and Paulay 1975)
The moment-rotation curve can be idealised as described in Chapter IV, and can
be derived from the moment-curvature model. While applying equations C11 and
C12 to determine the yield and ultimate rotations, care must be taken to adopt the
C12
correct value of the length l, applicable for cantilever action. In the case of a
frame member in a multi-storey frame subject to lateral loads, it may be
conveniently assumed that the points of contraflexure are located (approximately)
at the mid-points of the beams and columns. In such cases, an approximate value
of l is given by half the span of the member under consideration.
C.2 SHEAR HINGES FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS
Flexural plastic hinges will develop, along with the predicted values of ultimate
moment capacity, provided there is no prior failure in shear. In order to prevent
this occurrence, design codes prescribe specifications (e.g. ductile detailing
requirement of IS 13920: 1993) for adequate shear reinforcement, corresponding
to the ultimate moment capacity level.
However, in practice, shear failure are commonly seen to occur in beams and
columns in the event of a severe earthquake, owing to inadequate shear design. In
non-linear analysis, this can be modelled by employing ‘shear hinges’. These
hinges should ideally be located at the same points as the flexural hinges near the
beam column joints. If the shear hinge mechanism is triggered before the
formation of flexural hinge, the moment demand gets automatically restricted and
the full flexural hinge may not develop.
Shear force-deformation curves to assign shear hinges for beams and columns can
be calculated as follows. It is assumed to be symmetric for positive and negative
shear forces. A typical force-deformation curve is shown in Figure C7.
Yield shear strength (Vy) is calculated by adding strength of the shear

reinforcement (Vsy) to the shear strength of the concrete section (Vc) in case of
column. But for beam, when it is designed for medium and high ductility, shear
strength contribution of concrete is completely ignored as in cracked section
C13
concrete does not provide any shear resistance. Shear resistance carried by shear
reinforcement (Vsy) as per clause 40.4 of IS 456: 2000 is.
d
Vsy = 0.87 f y Asv (C16)
sv
Where, fy ≡ yield stress of the transverse reinforcement

Asv ≡ Total cross sectional area of one stirrup considering all the legs
d ≡ effective depth
Sv ≡ Spacing between two stirrup
Shear strength (V)
Vu = 1.05Vy
Vy
Residual
0.2 Vy Shear Strength
∆y 1.5∆y ∆m=15∆y
Shear deformation (∆)
Figure C7: Typical shear force-deformation curves to model shear hinges
For calculation of Vsy, above formula is used putting 1.00fy instead of 0.87fy for the
actual strain hardened reinforcement.
d
Vsy = 1.0 f y Asv (C17)
sv
In case of column shear strength in existing construction is calculated by the
following expression
Vy = Vc + Vsy (C18)
Shear resistance taken by the concrete (Vc) as given in the clause 40.2.2 of IS 456:
2000 is
C14
Vc = δτ c bd
3Pu 0.85 0.8 f ck ( 1 + 5β − 1)

where δ = 1 + ≤ 1.5 and τ c = (C19)
Ag f ck 6β
0.116 f ck bd
Here β = ≥ 1.0
100 Ast
3Pu
For moderate and high ductility of the column section δ = 0 + ≤ 0.5 is taken
Ag f ck
in calculation (ATC 40)
Shear deformation (∆) is to be calculated using the following formula.
Yield shear strength R

∆= = (C20)
Shear stiffness KV
Yield deformation should be calculated using shear stiffness of un-cracked

member as shown in Equation C21
1 ⎛ G × bW d ⎞
KV = (C21)
f ⎜⎝ l ⎟
⎠
Where G = Shear modulus of the reinforced concrete section
Ag = Gross area of the section
l = Length of member
f = Factor to account non-uniform distribution of shear stress. For
rectangular section, f = 1.2 and for T and I section f = 1.0.
Ultimate shear deformation can be calculated using shear stiffness of the cracked
member. Shear stiffness for the cracked member can be calculated using the
procedure given in Park and Paulay (1975). The expression for shear stiffness of a
rectangular section with 450 diagonal cracks and vertical stirrups is given in
Equation C22
ρv
K v ,45 = Es bw d (C22)
1 + 4n ρ v
C15
Asv E
Here, ρ v = ; n = s and bw = web width
sv bw Ec
Similar expression is available for other inclination of cracking and stirrups in

Park and Paulay (1975)
The ultimate shear strength (Vu) is taken as 5% more than yield shear strength (Vy)
and residual shear strength is taken as 20% of the yield shear strength for
modelling of the shear hinges as shown in Figure C7. Similarly maximum shear
deformation is taken as 15 times the yield deformation. The values were taken as
per FEMA recommendations.
C.3 AXIAL HINGES FOR EQUIVALENT STRUTS
The axial load versus deformation behaviour of the equivalent struts under
compression can be modelled with axial hinges. In absence for data, an elastic
behaviour up to the failure load can be assumed. Any tensile load carrying
capacity of the strut is neglected. Figure C8 shows a typical load-deformation
relation for the axial hinge in strut. R and ∆y represent the failure load and the
corresponding deformation, respectively, of the strut.
The failure load (R) is calculated from the lower of the failure loads
corresponding to local crushing and shear cracking. The expressions are given in
Appendix B.
The deformation corresponding to the failure load can be calculated based on the
initial stiffness as follows.
R R×d
∆y = = ……………………………. (C23)
⎛ AE ⎞ w × t × Em
⎜ ⎟
⎝ d ⎠
Here
Em = elastic modulus of the infill material
C16
t = thickness of infill wall

d = length of the strut between the beam-to-column joint nodes
w = effective width of the equivalent strut
The post peak behaviour is modelled with zero load capacity.
IO, LS, CP
Load
∆y
Deformation
Figure C8: A typical stress-strain relation for axial hinges in equivalent struts.
C17
APPENDIX D
VULNERABILITY INDEX
The vulnerability index is a measure of the damage in a building obtained from

the pushover analysis. The vulnerability index is defined as a scaled linear
combination (weighted average) of performance measures of the hinges in the
components. It is calculated from the performance levels of the components at the
performance point or at the point of termination of the pushover analysis.
Table D.1: Weightage factors for performance range

Sl
Performance range(i) Weightage factor(xi)
no.
1 <B 0
2 B – IO 0.125
3 IO – LS 0.375
4 LS – CP 0.625
5 CP – C 0.875
6 C – D, D – E, and >E 1.000
It is mentioned in Appendices C and D that the load-deformation curve for a

particular hinge is assumed to be piece-wise linear (Figure D1). The plastic
D1
plateau (B-C) in the load-deformation curve is sub-divided into the performance

ranges namely, B-IO, IO-LS, LS-CP, CP-C, C-D, D-E, and >E (also refer Section
4.6).
After the pushover analysis, performance ranges of the hinges formed in the
component can be noted from the deformed shape output. The number of hinges
formed in the beams and columns for each performance range are available from
the output. A ‘weightage factor’ (xi) is assigned to each performance range. The
proposed values of xi are given in Table D.1.
As columns are more important than beams in the global safety of a building, an
‘importance factor’ of 1.5 for column is additionally assigned.
The Building vulnerability index (VIbldg) is accordingly given by the following

weighted average.
1.5∑ N ic xi + ∑ N ib xi
VI bldg = (F.1)
∑N i
c
+ ∑ N ib
Here, N ic and N ib are the numbers of hinges in columns and beams respectively
for the i'th performance range. The summation ∑ is intended to cover the
performance ranges (i =1, 2, … 6).
0.875
0.625
0.375
0.125 C
B CP
LS
IO
Load
D E
A Deformation
Figure D1: Weightage factor for different level of hinges
D2
Appendix D – Vulnerability Index
VIbldg is measure of the overall vulnerability index for the building. A high value
of VIbldg reflects poor performance of the building components (i.e., high risk) as
obtained from pushover analysis. But this index may not reflect a soft storey
mechanism, in which a performance point may not be achieved.
A storey vulnerability index (VIstorey) can be defined to quantify the possibility of a

soft/weak storey with the formation of flexural hinges. For each storey the VIstorey
is defined as:
VI storey =
∑N x
c
i i
(D.2)
∑N i
c
where N ic is the number of column hinges in the storey under investigation for a
particular performance range. In a given building, the presence of soft / weak

storey is reflected by a relatively high value of VIstorey for that storey, in relation to
other storeys. If the analysis terminates by the formation of shear hinges, then the
above definition is not applicable.
D3
APPENDIX E
ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES
E.1 TYPES OF BRACING
The braces in a building may be either concentric or eccentric. Concentric

bracings may be of diagonal or X-brace type as shown in Figure E1. In X-
bracings at least one of the members in each floor is under tension and hence it is
preferred to diagonal bracings. The concentric bracings increase the lateral
stiffness of the frame and decrease the lateral drift. However, increase in the
stiffness may attract a larger inertia force due to earthquake. Further, while the
bracings decrease the bending moments and shear forces in columns, they increase
the axial compression and tension in the columns to which they are connected.
Since RC columns are strong in compression, it may not pose a problem to retrofit
in a RC frame using concentric steel bracings. However, it should be ensured that
there is adequate pre-compression in the columns due to gravity loads to offset the
tension generated due to earthquakes. The foundation uplift due to this tension
should be avoided. Concentric bracings usually have lower energy dissipation
capacity, especially under compression range of the cyclic loading. In order to
lessen the increase in the lateral stiffness of the frame and improve the energy
dissipation capacity, eccentrically braced frames (Figure E2) have been used.
E1
(a) Diagonal CBF (b) X-braced CBF
Figure E1: Types of Concentric Braced Frame (CBF)
(a) Diagonal EBF (b) Split-K braced EBF (c) V-type EBF
Figure E2: Types of Eccentric Braced Frame (EBF)
Due to eccentric connection of the braces to beams, the lateral stiffness of the
system depends upon the flexural stiffness of the beams and columns, thus
reducing the lateral stiffness of the frame. The vertical component of the bracing
E2
Appendix E – Addition of Steel Braces
force due to earthquake cause transverse concentrated load on the beams at the
point of connection of the eccentric bracings. Under this load, plastic hinges are
formed in the stub length of the beam, along with large shear. The beam should
have adequate ductility to dissipate energy through these plastic hinges. Although
eccentrically braced frames attract lesser base shear due to their lesser stiffness
compared to concentrically braced frame, they under go larger lateral drift.
Further, use of eccentric brace in RC frames is usually not appropriate due to the
low plastic hinge deformation capacity and low shear capacity of RC beams.
Steel braces have enough ductility in tension to dissipate energy, but are weak in
compression. Due to this reason, normally X-bracings are preferred over diagonal
bracings in seismic zones. Diagonal bracings can be used in the zones having
high intensity of wind particularly in one direction. Diagonal bracings in two bays
in each orthogonal direction in plan with opposite slopes in a given storey can be
used instead of X bracings.
E.2 CONNECTION OF BRACES TO RC FRAME
The connections are most important in braced frames, especially while retrofitting.
Forces in the braces transfer to frame beam-column joints though the connections.
The strength, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics of braced frame
under earthquake loading are often dictated by connections. Various types of
connections (Maheri and Sahebi, 1997 and Maheri and Hadjipour, 2003) are
shown in Figure E3.
E.2.1 Connection Type I (Figure E3-a)

This type of connection is suitable in new construction. While constructing the
concrete frame, anchor bolts should be placed at appropriate locations in concrete,
and designed to have enough anchorage strength. The forces in braces are
transferred through gusset plates and end plates to the concrete frame at beam
column junction through the anchor bolts.
E3
E.2.2 Connection Type II (Figure E3-b)

This type of connection requires special provisions at the concrete beam-column
intersection. The corner of the frame is built-up with concrete so that only one
connecting plate is used to transfer the brace load directly through the joint. It
creates a more direct load path for the transfer of the brace force and provides
ample space for anchor bolts. The connection is suitable when braces are
introduced in frames during construction so that special provisions for the built-up
corner can be made at design and construction stages.
E.2.3 Connection Type III (Figure E3-c)

This type of connection is identical to Type I, except for the method of anchoring
end plates into the RC joint. The plates are connected to the concrete members
using straight bolts introduced through holes in the members and anchored at the
opposite face with a bearing plate and nuts. In this method the width of
connecting plate and bearing plate is less than or equal to the width of beam or
column. Advantage of this method is that bolts can be placed in the concrete even
after frame construction. Hence, this method is applicable for retrofit of existing
RC frames using steel bracing.
E.2.4 Connection Type IV (Figure E3-d)

This type of connection is identical to Type III, but for the location of bolts. In the
earlier method, the width of the connecting plate and bearing plates are less than
the width of beam and column and the bolts were inserted through holes in the
members. In this method, the connecting plate and bearing plate project beyond
the width of the beam and column. The bolts are outside the members. Hence
drilling of holes through the reinforced concrete beam and column is avoided.
This method is useful for retrofit of existing RC frames.
E4
Gusset plate
Brace
Connecting
(a) Connecting bolts embedded (b) Connecting bolts embedded

in concrete. in concrete directly to joint.
Bearing
plate
(c) Bolts connected by bearing (d) Bolts connected by bearing

plate through concrete plate out side of the section.
Figure E3: Types of connections between brace to concrete frame
E5
E.3 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BRACES
The design of braces is an iterative process, because the forces in the braces
depend on the stiffness of the braces. The braces are subjected to alternative
tension and compression during the seismic loading and have to be designed for
both tension and compression. In X-bracing, at any instant, one brace is subjected
to tension while the other is subjected to compression. The stiffness and strength
of brace under compression is often neglected in design, and only stiffness of the
brace subjected to tension is considered. The braces are designed to resist only
tension.
The braces can be designed by analysing the frame by any of the following
methods
• Equivalent static method. (Linear static analysis)
• Response spectrum method. (Linear dynamic analysis)
• Non-linear static method. (Push over method)
An appropriate section for the brace has to be selected satisfying the maximum
value of effective slenderness ratio of the IS code. The design forces in a brace
from the analysis are used to calculate the required section. If the required section
is very different from the initial section, the analysis needs to be performed again
with the revised section properties of the brace. This process is repeated until the
section is adequate for the forces in the member.
In the nonlinear static method, the iterative procedure of selecting the brace
sections and modelling the brace is similar to the linear methods. In addition,
axial load versus deformation behaviour has to be modelled as axial hinge
properties.
E6
Approximate analysis
In this method the lateral force resisted by the frame is neglected and hence it is
conservative to find the forces in the braces. The following steps may be used to
calculate the brace forces rapidly and more conservatively (FEMA 172, 178).
Calculate the time period of building.
Calculate the horizontal seismic coefficient.
Calculate the base shear and distribute the base shear to storeys
Calculate the axial force in the diagonal brace (Fbr) by the following
expression.
⎛ Vj ⎞ Lbr
Fbr = ⎜ ⎟ (E.1)
⎝ N br ⎠ s
Here,
Vj = Storey shear in jth storey
Lbr = Average length of braces
Nbr = Number of braces in tension and compression, if the braces are
designed for compression.
Nbr = Number of braces in tension if the effectiveness of compression
brace is neglected.
s= Average span of braces.
Behaviour of Braces
The common modes of failure of braces system are as follows.
• Tension yielding of gross area of brace.
• Tension fracture of net area of braces at the end connections.
• Tension fracture of end gusset plate.
• Buckling failure under compression of braces between lateral supports.
• Buckling failure under compression of end gusset plate.
• Block-shear failure of braces at the end connection.
• Block-shear failure of end gusset plate.
• Bolt shear failure.
E7
• Bearing failure of bolts against the plates.

• Fracture of fillet welds between gusset plate and connecting end plate.
While conventional braces dissipate considerable energy by yielding under

tension (gross area yielding), they buckle under compression without much energy
dissipation. Figure E4-a shows a typical hysteresis plot for a conventional
concentric brace under cyclic loading (Ikeda and Madhin, 1985).
Axial force
Stress
Tension
Strain Displacement
Compression
(a). Conventional brace system (b). X brace system
Figure E4: Behaviour of conventional brace and X bracing under cyclic loading
The strength, stiffness and energy dissipation in compression reduced

progressively with each cycle and fracture at the plastic hinge location due to
buckling occurred within a few cycles. So single diagonal bracing is not desirable
to resist cycling loading under earthquake. X bracing in a single bay or bracing
with opposing slopes in multiple bays overcome this disadvantage, because when
one brace is under compression, the other is in tension. Even though the
individual brace behaviour is same as the conventional brace, the over all frame
behaviour meets the requirements of cyclic loading. The typical behaviour of X-
bracing under cyclic loading is shown in Figure E4-b. The degradation of
stiffness encountered in conventional braces during one half of the cycle
E8
corresponding to compression is not observed in X-braces. However, lower or

zero stiffness (pinching) at the stage of stress reversal is observed due to yielding
and plastic elongation of the member under tension and buckling of the member
under compression in the previous cycles.
E.4 NON-BUCKLING BRACES
Generally it is not economical to design a building to remain elastic under

earthquake loading. Steel members can dissipate considerable energy through
inelastic deformations, using the ductility of the material. The non-buckling
bracing system (Figure E5) is an innovative, patented concept (Indian patent No.
155036, dated April 30, 1981 and United States patent No. 5175972, dated
January 5, 1993), which overcomes the problem of buckling and low energy
dissipation in regular braces in the compression portion of the cycle.
Sleeve Grout
Core
Figure E5: Non- buckling braces
In this system, the two requirements in the design of compression members

(adequate material strength to resist compression and flexural rigidity to avoid
buckling) have been bifurcated between the core and sleeve elements. The space
between the core and the sleeve is filled with inert filler such as cement grout.
The bond between the core and the grout is eliminated to ensure that no part of
axial force directly applied on the core element is transferred to the sleeve.
E9
Projection of the core beyond the sleeve is to be designed such that the core does
not yield or buckle in that region.
Axial
Load Tension
Axial
Deformation
Compression
Figure E6: Non-prismatic core element
Extensive experimental and analytical studies have indicated that as long as the
sleeve is adequately stiff, the core can be subjected to a compressive strain well
beyond the yield stain, without the overall buckling of the strut. Hence the non-
buckling braces can dissipate energy both in tension and compression, as shown in
Figure E6.
The strength and stiffness of the non-buckling brace can be altered using cores
with non-prismatic cross-sections. Two parameters α, β are used to describe the
non-prismatic core properties as given below (Figure E7).
Ac Areduced
Lreduced
L
Figure E7: Behaviour of non-buckling brace under cyclic loading
E10
A reduced
α=
Ac
L reduced
β=
L
Where,
Ac Total area of core
Areduced Reduced area of core
L Full length of core element
Lreduced Length of the element over which the area of cross section
has been reduced
The strength is governed by the value of α, while the stiffness is governed by the
values of α and β. Changes in strength and stiffness of bracing lead to changes in
base shear and drifts of the building. Buildings can be designed at required
performance levels by changing the base shear and drifts of the building.
The reduced area of the core (α Ac) is chosen so as to have yield strength of the
reduced area equal to the bracing force. The sleeve flexural stiffness is chosen so
that its Euler buckling strength is at least 25% greater than the bracing force from
analysis. The enlarged area of the core at ends (Ac) is chosen so as to avoid
buckling of the core in the projection beyond the sleeve. The length of the core
with reduced area (β L) is chosen depending upon the desired lateral stiffness. In
the analysis an equivalent prismatic brace, corresponding to the non-prismatic
core element, is used to model the brace.
The load-deformation behaviour of steel brace in tension is taken from FEMA 273
(1997) and is shown in Figure E8. It consists of a loading curve with the elastic
axial stiffness until it reaches its yield capacity (fy = 250 N/mm2, εy = 0.00125).
Thereafter, it yields at a constant yield load until the deformation becomes 12
E11
times the yield deformation. At this deformation, the capacity is reduced to 80%
of the yield load until the deformation becomes 15 times the yield deformation
where the brace is assumed to fracture.
1.2
B C
1
0.8 IO LS CP
D E
P/Py
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
∆/ ∆y
Figure E8: Steel brace hinge property
Design Example of Non-Buckling Brace
Design a non-buckling brace for load of 300kN.

Frame inner dimensions are 5m × 3.5m, fy = 300N/mm2, E = 2 × 105N/mm2.
Beam size 230 × 350 mm.
Column size 230 × 400 mm.
Design of core
P 300000
Area of core = = =1000mm 2
fy 300
Choose 2 angle sections of ISA 45 × 45 × 6, having area of 507mm2 each.

Total area of core = 2 × 507 = 1014 mm2.
Yield load on core = 1014 × 300 = 304.2kN
Increase 25% load to design sleeve, other components and connections.
Design load = 1.25 × 304.2 = 380.25kN. ~ 380kN.
E12
Design of core at the end of sleeve

Core should not yield and should not buckle at the end of sleeve.
P = 380kN.
Approximate length = 150 + 30 + 200 = 380mm.
Sleeve
Gusset plate
150 200
30
Effective length = 2 × l = 2 × 380 = 760mm.

Load coming on each angle is 380/2 = 190kN.
Each angle can buckle individually.
190×103
To avoid buckling, area required is =1267mm 2
150
Try ISA 90 × 90 × 8 having I = 32 × 104mm4.

Radius of gyration r = 17.5 mm.
L 760
= =43.4 σ ac =160.2 N/mm 2
r 17.5
190×103
Area required is =1186mm 2 <1379mm 2 (provided)
160.2
Design strength due to yielding of gross section

The design strength of brace under axial tension Tdg, as governed by yielding of
gross section, is given by
f y Ag 300×1379
Tdg = = = 358kN > 190kN ( OK )
γ m0 1.15
E13
Design strength due to rupture of critical section

α An fu
Tearing strength of net section may be taken as Tdn =
γ m1
Take α = 0.7, fu = 450N/mm2
An = 1379 - 2 × 21.5 × 8 = 1035mm2
0.7×1035×450
Tdn = = 326kN >190kN ( OK )
1
Design of sleeve
Effective length of brace is length can be taken as length between to two gusset
plate corners.
L = 6100 – 2 × 200 = 5700mm.
170 mm
Moment inertia of sleeve

P×L2 380×103 ×57002
I required = 2
= 2 5
=6.254×106 mm 4
π ×E π ×2×10
Minimum inner dimension required for square tube is 175mm. Minimum inner
dimension required for circular tube is 220mm. Sleeve can be designed as square
tube or circular tube.
175 mm
220 mm
E14
1 ⎡
(175+2t ) - (175 ) ⎤ = 6.254×106
4 4
Thickness required for square tube
12 ⎣ ⎦
(175+2t ) = 6.254×106 ×12+ (175 )

4 4
2t = 3.4mm. Provide 2mm thick plate for square tube.
π ⎡
( 220+2t ) - ( 220 ) ⎤⎦ = 6.254×106
4 4
Thickness required for circular tube
64 ⎣
( 220+2t ) = 6.254×106 ×64/π+ ( 220 )

4 4
2t = 2.93mm. Provide 2mm thick plate for circular tube.
Connection of brace angles to gusset plate

Use HSFG bolts of 20mm diameter for the connection.
Hole diameter of bolt is 21.5mm.
Slip resistance capacity of the bolt is 1.1 Ks µ P0
1.1 × 1 × 0.45 × 144 = 71.28kN.
No. of bolts required for each angles 190/71.3 = 2.66 = 3bolts.
Pitch of bolts 2.5 × 20 = 50mm.
Length of angle required on gusset plate 2 × 50 + 2 × 30 = 160mm.
Design of gusset plate

Dimensions of plate to accommodate core (angles) and maintain the load passing
through the corners is shown below.
Assume thickness of gusset is 30mm.
E15
100
L = 1.2 × l
Dimensions of gusset plate & Modified Thornton width.
Check for compressive strength by modified Thornton method

Modified Thornton width = 110 + 2 × 100 tan45° = 110 + 200 = 310mm.
Effective length for buckling = 1.2 × 198 = 238mm.
30
r= = 8.66mm
12
L 238
= = 27.48
r 8.66
Design compressive stress, fcd for column buckling curve from table 7.4c of IS:
800 revised code is 242.3N/mm2
Load carrying capacity of gusset plate = 310 × 8 × 242.3 = 600.9kN > 380kN.
(OK.)
Check for tensile strength of gusset plate by Whitmore width concept

Whitmore width = 110 + 2 × 100 × tan30° = 226mm.
Design strength due to rupture of critical section

Tearing strength of net section may be taken as
α An fu 0.7× ( 226-2×21.5 ) ×30×450
Tdn = = =1383kN > 380kN ( OK )
γ m1 1.25
E16
Provide 50 x 8 mm stiffeners along free edges and along center line of load path
on outer sides of plates.
Connection between gusset plate and L-plate

Force coming on each gusset plate is 380kN.
Weld
218kN
380kN
3.5m
312kN
θ 270mm
5.0m
Cos θ = 5.0 / 6.1 = 0.819
320mm
Sin θ = 3.5 / 6.1 = 0.573
Connection of gusset plate to L-Plate
Welds are designed to resist taking axial load and transferring the force to bolts.
Thickness required for vertical weld:
311×103
t= = 7.48mm
2×270×0.7×110
Thickness required for horizontal weld:
218×103
t= = 4.4mm
2×320×0.7×110
Provide 8mm fillet weld for vertical and 6mm fillet weld for horizontal on both
sides of plates.
Design of bolt connecting frame and L-plate

Force in bolt connected to column is 156/4 = 39.0kN.
Force in bolt connected to beam is 109/4 = 27.25kN.
Provide 16mm HSFG bold having tensile capacity of 82.9kN.
Design of L-plate and back plates

Bending moment in the plate = 156 × 0.135 = 21.06kN-m.
Thickness required resisting bending moment
E17
M 21060000
Z required is = = 106.36×103 mm3
f 0.66×300
bt2/6 = 106.36 × 103mm3, b = 320mm
Hence, t = 44.6mm.
300mm
50mm
300mm
Check for shear at face of column in back plate

156000
Shear stress = = 9.75N/mm 2 < 0.45f y ( OK )
320×50
Two plate of L-plate connect by full depth single V-butt weld.
Non – prismatic core section

Length of core (L) 5300mm.
Full area of core 2758 mm2 (Area of core beyond
sleeve)
Area corresponding to yield for given load 1014mm2
α corresponding to yield for given load is 0.368. Initial β value is 0.9.
Choose α values 0.3 and 0.2.
β values 0.75 and 0.5
Stiffness can be changed with out changing the strength by changing β value
keeping a value constant. This can be observed by braces b, d, f. and c, e, g
required stiffness could be obtained by changing β value.
E18
Yield load Stiffness

Identifier α β
(kN) kN/m
a 0.367 0.90 304 40777
b 0.30 0.90 248 33573
c 0.20 0.90 165 22625
d 0.30 0.75 248 37846
e 0.20 0.75 165 26019
f 0.30 0.50 248 48035
g 0.20 0.50 165 34692
Bearing
Column
L - Plate
Gusset plate Gusset
Beam
Bolts
Sleeve
Connection model for non-buckling brace and its components
E19

Manual On Seismic Evaluation Retrofit of Multistory RC Blds PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual On Seismic Evaluation Retrofit of Multistory RC Blds PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual on

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings

Retrofit of soft-storeyed building

Indian Institute of Technology Madras Structural Engineering Research Centre

The Manual of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-storeyed RC Buildings is the

The purpose of this Manual is to provide a methodology to enable a structural engineer to

Occupants of multi-storeyed apartment complexes were a worried lot in the aftermath of

IITM –SERC Project Team

1 Dr. Devdas Menon 1 Mr. T S Krishnamoorthy

3. EVALUATION BASED ON LINEAR ANALYSIS 35

4. EVALUATION BASED ON NONLINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 53

5.4 Steps of Retrofit

7. GLOBAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES 84

8. LOCAL RETROFIT STRATEGIES 90

9. CASE STUDY I 129

10. CASE STUDY II 173

11. CASE STUDY III 211

APPENDIX A: MAPPING OF SOIL TYPE A1

APPENDIX B: MODELLING OF INFILL MASONRY WALL B1

B.3 Strength of Equivalent Strut

APPENDIX C: MODELLING OF PLASTIC HINGES C1

APPENDIX D: VULNERABILITY INDEX D1

APPENDIX E: ADDITION OF STEEL BRACES E1

Existing multi-storey buildings in earthquake prone regions of India are vulnerable

A systematic procedure is to be followed in assessing the vulnerability of existing

However, a detailed evaluation is necessary in order to identify the deficiencies

In the case of deficient buildings, a more enhanced and sophisticated analysis

The objective of the manual is to provide comprehensive guidelines for seismic

The evaluation process essentially consists of two phases, viz., preliminary

The following are the methods recommended for detailed analysis:

It is recommended that all the above methods be performed sequentially for a

Development of retrofit scheme

Development of different retrofit

Figure 1.1: Flowchart summarizing the evaluation and retrofit process

The steps to be undertaken in the seismic evaluation of existing building are as

ii) Rapid Visual Screening (optional).

3. Selection and design of retrofit strategies and subsequent verification of the

4. Preparation of seismic evaluation and retrofit report.

The purpose of the preliminary evaluation is to identify the areas of seismic

2.2 DATA COLLECTION & CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

In order to facilitate a proper assessment, it is necessary to collect as much relevant

Table 2.1: Building survey data sheet: General data

Table 2.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data

Table 2.1 (Contd.): Building survey data sheet: General data

Table 2.3: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original

It is desirable to do core testing, when the condition of the concrete is suspect.

Table 2.5: Information required for Preliminary evaluation when original

approximate “knowledge factor” should be applied to the material properties for

2.3 RAPID VISUAL SCREENING

Table 2.7: Rapid Visual Screening data collection form

In this procedure the building under consideration is compared with a benchmark

2.3.1 Scores for a Building

2.3.2 Cut-off Score

2.3.3 Building Type Descriptions

2.3.4 Score Modifier

High-rise and Mid-rise Buildings: 4 to 7 storey buildings are categorised as mid-

Post-benchmark: Building designed and constructed as per the ductile detailing

2.4 QUICK CHECKS FOR STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS

2.4.1 Column Shear

where, Vi ≡ Storey shear at ith storey,

2.4.2 Shear Stress in Shear Wall

Where, Vi ≡ shear at the storey under consideration,

2.4.3 Axial Stress in Column