Research on Seismic Rehabilitation of RC StructuresPast and Future

James O. Jirsa
University of Texas at Austin
USA

ABSTRACT
Ten years ago a similar symposium was held on the occasion of the completion of a large
national program in Japan on the seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures. The
symposium featured summary presentations of research and practice on rehabilitation of
buildings and civil structures. This workshop provides an opportunity to once again
exchange information on research and practice advances that have occurred in the past
decade. Some of the past collaborative efforts will be reviewed, various research
programs will be described, and the influence of the research on design guidelines and
standards will be discussed.

US-JAPAN SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 2000

The Symposium held in 2000 was organized to assess the state of seismic rehabilitation.
Sixteen overview papers were presented on a variety of topics. Through the dedicated
work of Dr. Shunsuke Sugano and other JCI members, the presentations at the
symposium as well as a number of additional papers were translated into English and
were compiled to develop IPS-2 Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures following
the symposium. IPS-2 made important research on seismic rehabilitation in Japan
available to designers and researchers in the US and worldwide. The topics included:
State of seismic rehabilitation
Target performance for rehabilitation
Rehabilitation of members by jacketing
Rehabilitation of frame structures
Response control rehabilitation
New seismic rehabilitation techniques
The field of rehabilitation has advanced substantially in the past decade. It is an
opportune time to meet again to share knowledge and renew acquaintances and I am
pleased to have the opportunity to open this workshop to reflect on the state of
rehabilitation research and practice.

PREVIOUS US-JAPAN COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES

There have been collaborative efforts in rehabilitation or structures between US and
Japanese practitioners and engineers since the 1970s when a program of large-scale
building research was initiated under US-Japan Cooperative Program in Natural
Resources (UJNR). The UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects organized the
Page 1 of 11

program to utilize the then newly-constructed Building Research Institute (BRI) facilities
at the Tsukuba Science City.
In connection with the UJNR program, a series of seminars and workshops began in the
1980s. In 1980-1982, three seminars organized by the University of Michigan were held
in Los Angeles, Tsukuba, and San Francisco. Funding was provided the National Science
Foundation. The workshops were intended to- Compare US and Japanese procedures
Solicit problems encountered in developing repair and retrofit designs and
construction
Focus attention on practical repair and retrofit techniques
Develop data on rehabilitation techniques and methods to evaluate their
effectiveness
That series was followed by second group of workshops from 1983-1885 organized by
Cornell University and held in Tsukuba, Berkeley, and Tokyo. It should be noted that the
first large structure in the UJNR program, a seven-story reinforced concrete building, was
tested in the BRI facility in Tsukuba. Since micro-computer based evaluation methods
were considered to become increasingly important in the near future, the emphasis in
these workshops was on evaluation techniques for existing structures. The objective was
to assess- What types of structures can be evaluated by a given method?
What is level of safety implied by method and what is acceptance/rejection
criterion?
How much effort is needed to conduct evaluation?
To calibrate evaluation procedures, instrumented benchmark structures were needed.
Two structures were selectedan instrumented hotel damaged in the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake (Fig. 1) and the seven-story RC building tested in Tsukuba

Holiday Inn, Southern Callifornia

Fig. 1 Selected benchmark structures

Page 2 of 11

In 1987, a seminar was held in Tsukuba on the Repair and Retrofit of Structures.
Presentations emphasized concerns related to performance of elements and connections,
need for quality control, and cost of construction. Similarities of current techniques for
repair and strengthening indicated that there were significant opportunities for exchanges
between the two countries. The most pressing research needs were determined to be
experimental verification of repair and strengthening techniques in the following areas:
Use of new materials
Development of innovative techniques
Evaluation of foundation effects
Influence of member response on structure response
Implementation of analytical techniques calibrated from experimental results
The participants concluded that there was a need to continue efforts to develop a common
understanding of the performance, design, and construction data. Studies related to
damage control for prevention of environmental hazards and for maintenance of
operations in existing structures were also felt to be needed. The importance of
benchmark structures was discussed. Several benchmark buildings (Fig. 2) in Japan were
discussed.
While there was agreement that similar workshops should be organized periodically,
none were held until the 2000 Symposium described above

Namioka Town Hospital

Page 3 of 11

Hachinohe Technical College

Fig. 2 Benchmark Buildings in Japan

SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF RC STRUCTURES

Progress in the art of rehabilitation seems to follow major events. The earthquakes listed
below triggered the development of design requirements and an increase in rehabilitation
projects.
Long Beach 1933
Tokachi-oki 1968
San Fernando 1971
Mexico City 1985
Loma Prieta 1989
Northridge 1994
Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) 1995
Damage to schools and hospitals made both the public and policy-makers aware of the
risks posed by inadequate buildings (Fig. 3). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake resulted
in passage of the Field Act for school safety in California. The 1968 Tokachi-oki event
resulted in similar measures in Japan for school buildings. The 1971 San Fernando
earthquake led to hospital safety measures in California and the US Veterans
Administration began a program to upgrade veterans hospitals.
The 1985 Mexico City earthquake devastated hospital facilities and other government
buildings and caused widespread damage to mid-rise office and apartment buildings.
Following the earthquake, many buildings were repaired and strengthened. The activity
in Mexico City provided valuable experience regarding problems associated with the
management of a major rehabilitation and repair effort. The experience gained from
collaboration with Mexican engineers and researchers emphasized the need for the US to
develop procedures for mitigating the risk of existing buildings before an emergency
arose. Interest in research related to hazard mitigation was stimulated and a number of
research projects were funded by the National Science Foundation.

Page 4 of 11

Damage to schoolLong Beach 1933

Damage to schoolTokach-oki 1968

Olive View HospitalSan Fernando 1971

Veterans Administration HospitalSan Fernando 1971

General Hospital-- 1985 Mexico City

Juarez Hospital1985 Mexico City
Fig. 3 Damage to schools and hospitals
Page 5 of 11

In Mexico City, a wide variety of different techniques were used to rehabilitate buildings.
An overview of some of the techniques is shown in Fig. 4.

Beam and column jacketing

Cable bracing systems

Page 6 of 11

New walls

Steel bracing systems

Fig. 4 Strengthening techniques used in Mexico City

REPAIR AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES

During the 1980s, the National Science Foundation and other governmental agencies
provided support for research on buildings and bridges. In 1990, NSF funded an
initiative on repair and rehabilitation that was guided by a steering committee of
researchers and practitioners that proposed a research agenda for each of the three years
of the initiative. The program was coordinated with programs at the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER at Buffalo), the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and the California Seismic Safety Commission. A number of projects related to
reinforced concrete structures were funded.
Evaluaton of Existing RC ColumnsUniversity of California, Berkeley
Evaluation and Repair of Tilt-Up Systems--University of Illinois
Seismic Rehab of Unreinforced Buildings using Post-Tensioned Steel Braces-Nabih Youssef & Associates
Retrofit Strategies for Non-ductile RC Flat Slab Buildings--Rice University
Innovative Techniques for Strengthening RC Frame BuildingsUniversity of
Texas at Austin
Evaluation of Seismic Retrofit Strategies for Non-Ductile Concrete Frame
StructuresLehigh University
Retrofit of Tilt-Up ConstructionUniversity of California, Irvine and Dames and
Moore
Page 7 of 11

With the development of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES), a number of projects were funded in the area of rehabilitation since
2004. The projects are multi-year and multi-institutional and involve the experimental
facilities developed under NEES. The common theme is the use of cutting-edge
experimental simulation tools and facilities to reduce earthquake risk. Most studies have
been conducted at large scale to better replicate nonlinear behavior and simulate collapse.
Several of the projects that include rehabilitation procedures are listed below.

Development of a Seismic Design Methodology for Precast Floor Diaphragms

The project is being conducted at the University of California, San Diego,
University of Arizona, Lehigh University, and the Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute. A -scale model of 3-story precast parking structure was tested on the
NEES outdoor shake table at UC San Diego.

Mitigation of Collapse Risk in Vulnerable Concrete Buildings

Axial failure of the columns is a primary cause of collapse during an earthquake.
A goal of this project is the development of tools to identify vulnerable columns
and to help understand how columns fail during earthquakes. The objective is
improvement of seismic rehabilitation standards such as ASCE-41. NEES
equipment sites and partner institutions include: University of Minnesota, UC
Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara field sites, the UCLA mobile lab, Purdue University,
University of Kansas, University of Puerto Rico, University of Washington, and
the Concrete Coalition of EERI.

Seismic Risk Mitigation for Port Systems

Seismic risks faced by ports are unique. The objectives are to understand the
complex soil-foundation-structure systems typical of ports and to develop
geotechnical and structural mitigation strategies the will reduce risk of port
systems. Large-scale tests were conducted to assess the expected performance of
existing container cranes. A 1/20th scale model of a container crane was tested
on the NEES shake table at the University at Buffalo. Project team includes the
Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Texas at Austin, University of
California-Davis, University of Washington, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Drexel University, and a
number of practicing engineers.

More information on these and other projects can be found at the NEES Project
Warehouse (https://nees.org/home).

Page 8 of 11

EVALUATION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS IN THE US

The details of various developments in evaluation and design procedures in the US will
be discussed in other presentations at this workshop. A brief overview of the
development of those activities is provided here.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a program in 1985 to
reduce the risks posed by the existing building inventory in the US. The first document
FEMA published in 1992, FEMA 172 NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 1992), provided practical approaches to
seismic rehabilitation. This document included all building types but was primarily
directed at wood frame buildings and non-structural elements. The document did not
receive much attention until after FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 1997) was published. At that time, it was
realized that FEMA 172 was inadequate in providing the design guidance needed for a
variety of building types and an update of FEMA 172 was initiated under the auspices of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The techniques were grouped by
building type or elements common to various types and included results from the
research activity described previously. The resulting document was published as FEMA
547 Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 2006).
FEMA 172 was updated with the publication of FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Buildingsa Prestandard (FEMA 1998). The document was standardized
by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and published as ASCE/SEI 31-03
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2003). FEMA 310 was intended to be
consistent with FEMA 273 which was also updated and published as FEMA 356
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 2000).
ASCE standardized the document and published ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2006). The chapter of ASCE/SEI 41-06 that covers
concrete buildings was updated by a supplement issued in 2009 (ASCE 2009).
Two additional documents for buildings with walls were published: FEMA 306
Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (FEMA
1998) and FEMA 308 Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings (FEMA 1999). FEMA 306 provides guidance for evaluating earthquake
damage through damage classification guides. FEMA 308 provides guidance for the
repair and upgrade of earthquake-damaged wall buildings. It includes guides for typical
repair procedures.
It is likely that efforts to update these documents will continue as their usage increases.
The results from additional research and the experience gained by engineers
implementing the standards will need to be considered in such updates. In the US, there
have been very few rehabilitated buildings, especially using the standards described
above, that have been subjected to significant earthquake motions. When that happens, it
will provide a means of calibrating and improving rehabilitation documents.

Page 9 of 11

CHALLENGES
In the US, there is no impetus for rehabilitation on a broad basis. While excellent
experimental facilities have been developed through the NEES program, there has not
been a commensurate commitment to conduct research using those facilities. The current
economic difficulties at all levels of government do not bode well for research activity.
Considerable research has already been conducted on rather simple test specimens or
assemblages. More realistic tests on large-scale structures and on shake-tables is needed
but will be very expensive.
The rehabilitation of structures that are most vulnerable and lead to most fatalities and
injuries is needed. Although the experience in Haiti is an extreme example, vulnerable
systems have been identified in every country. The will of governments, lenders, and
insurers to reduce the risks posed by such buildings is lacking. Investment in seismic
rehabilitation will continue to lag even for critical structures such as hospitals.
To make rehabilitation a more viable option, the cost of rehabilitation must be reduced.
New materials that are inexpensive, easily installed, lightweight, and durable offer
opportunities for development of innovative rehabilitation techniques. The use of
industrial techniques to produce rehabilitation elements that can be quickly and
conveniently installed with a minimum of disruption to the occupants of the building
should also reduce the cost of rehabilitation.
Finally the education of stakeholders affected by the risk of inadequate buildings must be
accelerated so that they are aware of developments in rehabilitation design and
technology. Associated with this is a need to develop methods to assure quality in the
construction processes associated with rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS
While developments in evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings in the ten years
since the previous meeting between JCI and ACI have been significant, much remains to
be done. The opportunity to meet and exchange views and share experience gained is an
important activity that will be of value to both organizations and the profession.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to close by thanking the organizers, Profs. Shunsuke Sugano and Kenneth
Elwood, for their efforts to make this workshop possible and successful. NEES support
enabled several of the participants to attend the workshop and is greatly appreciated.

Page 10 of 11

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2002. Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE 31-03, Reston, VA.
ASCE, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06,
Reston, VA.
ASCE, 2009, Supplement to ASCE 41-06, Reston, VA
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1985, An Action Plan For Reducing
Earthquake Hazards of Existing Buildings (FEMA 90), Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 1992 NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings (FEMA 172), Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 1997, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
(FEMA 273), Washington, D. C.
FEMA, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of BuildingsA Prestandard (FEMA
310), Washington, D. C.
FEMA, 1998, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings
(FEMA 306), Washington, D. C.
FEMA 1999Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings
(FEMA 308) Washington, D. C.
FEMA, 2000 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA356), Washington, D. C.
FEMA, 2006, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, FEMA
547, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

Page 11 of 11