Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFITTING OF RC FRAME BUILDINGS WITH OPEN GROUND STOREY
BY : TUSHAR V. PAJGADE (M.TECH. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS) PROJECT GUIDE DR. RATNESH KUMAR ASSTT. PROF. APPLIED MECHANICS DEPT. VISVESARAYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NAGPUR
1
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Introduction Literature Review on damages of RC frame building Literature Review on Retrofitting Objective Methodology Scope of work Comparative study Modelling of masonary infill
2
Pushover analysis of G+3, G+7 & G+15 storey building Determination of performance point Determination of Ductility Comparisons of inter story drift ratio Retrofitting techniques used References
INTRODUCTION
OPEN GROUND STOREY
Open ground storey is a storey in which ground storey is constructed without infilled walls In many countries its common practice to construct RC frame with OGS. Also local municipal / building bylaw direct same for solving parking problem.
Literature Review on
Behaviour of
Buildings Open ground storey damages Infill wall damages National and International code provision for infill walls Retrofitting strategies Retrofitting techniques
Brittle failure (Photo from: Housner & Jennings, Earthquake Design Criteria, EERI, USA)
Shear failure of RC columns due to short column effect (over view of chi chi eq 1999)
Dislodged Column due to Soft ground Floor effect (1999 Athens Earthquake)
Weak column strong beam failure three-story primary school in Gedikbulak village after collapse (photos: Erdil) Turkey Earthquake
7
Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010
Jaiswal, et al.(2003)
Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report Country India Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003 <http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/india_reinforced_concrete_frame.pdf>(July15, 2012)
10
Taiwan government enacted a law in 1984 to encourage contractor to build OGS Demanded 1st floor height at least 5m. In return they were awarded with extra floor area. And Result !
Chi Chi earthquake 1999 (photo from World Housing Encyclopedia Report)
Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopaedia Country Taiwan, Primary Reviewer: Durgesh Rai 2003`<http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/taiwan_high_rise.pdf>( June 26, 2012)
11
Murty (2005)
Damages of Infilled wall Corner crushing Shear slip of wall Toe crushing Diagonal tension
IS CODE 1893:2002
Ta=0.075h0.75 For RC frame without infill For RC Frame with infill
EUROCODE 8
4.3.6 Additional measures for masonry infilled frames
4.3.6.3 Irregularities due to masonry infills 4.3.6.4 Damage limitation of infills 5.9 Local effects due to masonry or concrete infills
compression strut
15
Literature
Review on Retrofitting
16
Retrofitting Strategies
17
Retrofitting Techniques
Typical load-displacement relationships for different strengthening Techniques [Rodriguez et. al. (1991)]
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841.
18
4. Friction dampers
19
Adverse effect
If large number of shear wall added then it result in increase in mass of the building Increase in seismic forces also demand i.e., requirement of strength increases It can effect into architectural impact through the loss of windows It require special foundation work which highly expensive as it produces large overturning forces at their base
2. ADDITION OF BRACING
Increases stiffness, strength and ductility Can construct with less disruption in building with very
small loss of lights
a)Concentric bracing b)Eccentric bracing c)Post-tensioned steel bracing d)Buckling restrained bracings
22
(a)
(b)
(a) Concentric bracing (Lorant G. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php>) (b) Eccentric bracing (Kiymaz, G. <http://web.iku.edu.tr/courses/insaat/ce007/> )
23
(d-1) Schematic of BRBs or UBs (d-2) Typical types of BRBs [Tsai et al.; 2004]
Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004), Proc., 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
24
3. JACKETING Jacketing adds both strength and stiffness to structure Increases cross section of member
25
column jacketing
4 FRICTION DAMPERS
Concept of Friction dampers
Filistrault 1986
Disadvantage
29
Objective
To compare period, base shear, bending moment & shear force of different frame like bare frame, infill frame, and open ground storey frame by IS code & SAP model. Performance of evaluation of these building by nonlinear static procedure.
30
Methodology
Generic plan of RC frame building selected. Building modeled for different height i.e.,G+3, G+7, G+15 Selection of suitable modeling techniques in SAP Modeling, design and comparison of base shear and period of vibration of these building. Performance of evaluation of these building by non-linear static procedure. Selection of retrofitting techniques & corresponding modeling
techniques in SAP.
Base on result will identify most suitable retrofitting techniques.
31
Scope of work
Work will be limited to one type of limited plan and three different height.
32
33
Comparison study
Period of vibration by IS 1893:2002 code Method
Period of vibration (with infill Period of vibration wall) (without infill wall) in in Sec. Sec. X-Direction Y-Direction X and Y-Direction
G+3 IS-1893
G+7 IS-1893 G+15 IS-1893
0.233
0.440 0.865
0.373
0.711 1.387
0.597
0.968 1.598
34
Steps no.
X Bare frame
Y
0.83228
0.81587
0.0919
0.10453
0.02403
0.03005
X Full infilled
Y Open Ground storey X Y
0.8828
0.84107 0.92287 0.84133
0.07065
0.09706 0.02662 0.09694
0.01303
0.02433 0.0042 0.02422
3610 147
35
Comparison of Shear force and Bending moment in member shown in below photo by RSA in SAP 2000
5
5
2 3 3 1
36
Type of Building
Location 1
Combinations
Shear Force in kN
Combinations
Bare frame Bare frame with infill load Full infilled Open Ground storey Type of Building
1.5(DL+EQx)
41 77 56 176
Shear Force in kN
1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQx)
Location 2
Combinations 1.5(DL+EQx)
30 60
61 122
1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
Full infilled
Open Ground storey
33
56
83
211
37
1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQx)
Location
Type of Building Bare frame
Combinations
1.5(DL+EQx)
Shear Force in kN
Combinations
1.5(DL+EQx)
Left side Bare frame with Corner 1st infill load only storey Full infilled slab Beam of Open Ground 1st frame storey
Type of Building Bare frame Bare frame with infill load only
59 126
110 173
1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQX)
1.5(DL+EQx) 1.5(DL+EQx)
1.5(DL+EQX)
105
129
Shear Force in KN
124
180
Bending moment KN.M.
Location
Combinations 1.2(DL+LL+EQx)
32 39
41 55
Full infilled
Open Ground storey
Left side Corner 1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 3rd storey 1.5(DL+LL) slab beam of 1st frame 1.2(DL+LL+EQx)
33
28
1.5(DL+LL)
30
27
38
1.2(DL+LL+EQx)
Capacity
Demand (displacement) Performance
39
Capacity
Capacity is representation of the structures ability to resist the seismic demand.
40
Demand (Displacement)
Demand is representation of the earthquake ground motion.
41
Performance
Its
dependent on a manner that the capacity is able to handle the demand OR Structure must have the capacity to resist the demand of earthquake such that performance of the structure is compatible with the objective of the design
42
Pushover analysis
Different code have described pushover analysis procedure, modelling & acceptable limits It generates capacity curve beyond the elastic limit Capacity Spectrum Method Displacement Coefficient Method
43
44
Limitations
This analysis procedure consider only first mode shape of the Equivalent SDOF system. Predefined vertical distribution of the load along height in one direction at a time
45
MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Column member, coupled axial force and biaxial bending moment hinges which are mention as PM2-M3 hinge. Beam members uncoupled moment hinges mention as M3. IO,LS,CP are structural performance level
46
47
Where, Astrut = Area of strut, Eme = Expected elastic modulus of masonry in compression, Linf = Length of infill, hinf = Height of infill, = Angle between infill diagonal and horizontal axis, tinf = thickness of infill, ESW = Equivalent strut width.
49
Infill name
Displacement control parameter Acceptance Criteria B 0 0 0 0 C 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083 D, E 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083 LS 0.063 0.069 0.016 0.063 CP 0.083 0.089 0.026 0.083
S-N
230.58
0.089
0.089
0.069
0.089
50
51
14000 12000 Base shear in kN 10000 8000 6000 OGS full infill
4000
2000 0
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
Bare frame
0.1
0.2 Displacement in m
0.3
0.4
52
6000
4000
OGS
2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
53
Bare frame
Full infill
OGS
0.1
0.4
0.5
54
Bare frame
Full infill
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacement in m 0.5 0.6
55
Full infill
OGS
Bare frame
2000
0 0
0.2
0.4 Displacemnt in m
0.6
0.8
56
Base shear in kN
5000
Full infill
4000
3000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
OGS
Bare frame
1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacementi in m 0.5 0.6
57
Bi-Linearization of curve
Ductility in X-Direction
G+3 Story Fy = 4300 Bare frame y = 70mm 5.214 Fu = 4486 u = 365mm Fy = 6556 Ductility = u/y G+7 Story Fy = 9800 Bare y =110mm frame Fu = 10000 u =470mm Fy =16000 4.273 Ductility = u/y G+15 Story Fy = 11997 Bare y =245mm frame Fu = 11997 u =740mm Fy = 17100 3.02 Ductility = u/y
5.571
2.4
1.6
59
Ductility in Y Direction
G+3 Story Fy = 4100 Bare frame y = 55mm 6.182 Fu = 4927 u = 340mm Fy = 6000 Bare frame Ductility = u/y Story G+7 Fy = 7950 y = 90mm 5.611 Fu =8708 u =505mm Fy = 8200 3 Fu = 7975 y = 50mm Full infilled Fu = 10319 6.8 Ductility = u/y Story G+15 Fy = 2050 Bare y=100mm frame Fu = 2182 u=980mm Fy = 6200 9.8 Ductility = u/y
Full infilled
y = 25mm
4.211
u = 75mm
Fy = 5800
u=340mm
Fy = 7900kN 4
Target displacement
61
Story level
3 2.5 2 1.5
1 0.5 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 Inter Story Drift Ratio (%) 1.50
62
4
Story level
3
2 1 0 0.00
0.20
1.00
1.20
63
8
7 6 Story level OGS Bare frame Full infilled
5
4 3
2
1 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.20
64
7
6 Story level 5 4 3 Full infilled OGS Bare frame
2
1 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.20
65
OGS
2 0 0.00
0.50 1.00 Inter story drift Ratio (%) 1.50
66
Retrofitting Techniques
1) 2.5 times increasing design forces of
column & beam of a soft story
3) Friction dampers
4) Shear wall
68
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
14000 12000 full infill OGS
10000
Base shear ( kN) 8000 6000 4000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
70
Pushover curve of G+3 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
12000
OGS
2000 0
0.05
0.25
0.3
71
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
21000
Full infill
18000
15000 Base shear (kN)
OGS
3000
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Displacement (m) 0.4 0.5
Pushover curve of G+7 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
14000 12000 Full infill
10000
Base shear ( kN) OGS 8000 6000 4000 2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 Displacement (m) 0.3 0.4
74
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in X- direction
20000 18000 16000 14000 Base shear (kN) 12000 OGS Full infill
10000
8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.2 0.4 Displacemnt (m) 0.6 0.8
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
75
76
Pushover curve of G+15 building retrofitting with 2.5 column & beam in Y- direction
9000 8000 7000 Base shear (kN) 6000 5000 4000 2.5 Ret column OGS Full infill
3000
2000 1000 0 0 0.1
B-
IO-
LS-
CP-
DBE-
MCE-
2.5 Ret column & beam 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacementi (m) 0.5 0.6
77
3. Friction dampers
Model as plastic (Wen) Non linear properties Yield strength (slip load) Post yield stiffness ratio Optimize position of dampers Optimize yield strength
78
G+3 building retrofitting with friction dampers showing XZ plane & 3D view
79
6000
4000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
2000 0
0.05
0.2
80
Ret friction
3000
OGS
9000 6000
BIOLSCPDBE MCE -
3000
Ret Frict dampers 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacemnt (m) 0.5 0.6
82
Fy = 9000 OGS Retrofitti y= 33mm ng with friction Fu = 10000 dampers u=140mm Fy = 5400 Open ground story y= 30mm
Fy = 15800
17100
y =75mm
y=153mm
4.242
Fu = 18000 u =440mm Fy = 16633 y = 80mm
5.867
Fu =18800 u =500mm Fy = 5400 y=125mm
3.268
1.600
Fu = 5811 u =48mm Fu = 15200 u=160mm
2.000
Fu = 5811 u=250mm
2.000
83
84
Wide column model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall
Thin shell model showing percentage of steel after addition of shear wall.
85
G+3 building retrofitting with shear wall showing 3D view of position of shear wall
Optimization of position
86
full infill
OGS
Shear wall
87
6000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
88
18000
16000 Base shear in kN 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000
BIOLSCPDBEMCE-
Full infill
OGS
0
0 0.2 0.4 Displacemnt in m 0.6
G+3 building retrofitted with shear wall in X-direction showing hinges formation.
90
Comparison of ductility, yield force &ultimate force in open ground story & retrofitting with shear wall model of different building in X- direction.
Type of building G+3 Fy=11105 kN Retrofitting with Shear wall Ductility= y/u G+7 Fy =14047 kN Ductility= y/u G+15 Fy=17389 kN Ductility= y/u
7.071
y =30mm
Fu = 5811 kN u = 48mm
2.000
Conclusion
Considering ductility, strength capacity addition of shear wall
is best method of retrofitting, if properly analyze the building. Ductility is increased up to 3.5 times compare to OGS. Due to addition of friction damper ductility is increase 2.5 times compare to OGS.
92
Future work
Openings were not considered in infills. Suitability of the proposed strengthening schemes must be verified for masonaryinfilled frames with openings in walls. Non linear dynamic analysis (time history analysis) is a best method for analyzing the strengthening methods like friction dampers. The experimental work should be carried out on a reduced scale three story with first story without infilled wall under gradually increased cyclic lateral displacements to further verify the effectiveness of proposed strengthening schemes.
93
Reference (contd.)
Aiken, I.D., Kelly, J.M., Pall, A.S. (1988). Seismic Response of a nine-storey Steel frame with friction- damped cross-bracing, Report No. UCB/EERC88/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre of the university of California, Berkeley, 1-7. Applied Technology Council ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Rep. No. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Calif. Baboux, M., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990), Bracing System for Seismic Retrofitting, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 116(1), 55-74. Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Reihnorn, A.M., (1997). Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 123(1), 3-10. Bush, T.D., Jr., Talton, C.R., and Jirsa, J.O. (1990). Behavior of a structure strengthened using reinforced concrete piers, ACI Struct. J., 87(5), 557563. Bush, T.D., Jones, E.A. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991a). Behavior of RC Frame Strengthened Using Structural Steel Bracing, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE,117(4),1115-1126.
94
Reference (contd.)
Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000, version-14.2.4 Berkeley (CA, USA): Computer and Structures, Inc., 2000. Bush, T.D., Jr., Wyllie, L.A., Jr. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991b), Observations of Two Seismic Strengthening Scheme for Concrete Frames, Earthquake Spectra, 7(4), 511-902. Eberhard Marc O.,Justin M., Walter M., Glenn J. Rix, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance team report v. 1.1 February 23, 2010 Eurocode 8- Design of Structures for Earthquakes Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Pr-EN 1998-1 Final Draft Comit Europen de Normalisation. December 2003. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Reference (contd.)
IS 1893 (part1)Criteria For Earthquake Resistance Design Of Structures(Fifth Revison),BIS- New Delhi, India. 2002 Jaiswal K.S., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., World housing encyclopaedia report
Country India Primary Reviewer: Craig Comartin 2003. Klingner R.Y., Bertero V. Infilled frames in earthquake-resistant construction, University of California, Berkeley, Report No.EERC 76_32, December;
1976. Maheri, M.R., and Sahebi, A. (1997). Use of steel bracing in Reinforced Concrete Frame, Eng.Struct., 19(12), 1018-1024. Mortezaei1 A., Ronagh H. R., Kheyroddin A. and Ghodrati G. (2011). Effectiveness of modified pushover analysis procedure for the estimation of seismic demands of buildings subjected to near-fault earthquakes having forward directivity. Struct. Design of Tall Spec. Build. 20, 679699. Murty, C.V.R. (2005). IITKBMTPC Earthquake Tips Learning Earthquake Design and Construction, National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India
96
Reference (contd.)
Pall, A.S., Pall, R. (1991). Friction Dampers used for seismic control of new existing building in Canada, Proc. ATC 17-1, Seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control, San Francisco, 2, 675-686. Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991), Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Seismic Resistance, Earthquake Spectra, 7(3), 817-841. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R. (1994). Seismic load tests of reinforced concrete columns strengthened by jacketing, ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 150-159. Takashi K., Fumitoshi K., Yoshiaki N., Quick inspection manual for damaged reinforced concrete building due to earthquake 2002 Tsai, K.C., Lai, J.W., Hwang, Y.C., Lin, S.L., and Weng, C.H. (2004). Research and Application of Double-Core Buckling Restrained Braces in Taiwan, Proc., 13th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Tung Su. Chi, George C. Yao, World housing encyclopedia Country Taiwan,
Primary
Thank You
98