You are on page 1of 8

SEISMIC REHABILITATION

YOGESH PALWANKAR
College Name: K.B.P. College of Engg.
Satara, Maharashtra
y1palwankar@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:
The paper presents the evaluation and rehabilitation solutions for buildings affected by seismic action. The
main problems discussed are: building characteristics and damages caused by earthquake; experimental
determinations; structural analysis; strengthening solutions. The main advantages of the rehabilitation solutions are:
save behavior at future seismic action, slight change of general structural stiffness, low rehabilitation cost
.considerations on seismic assessment and retrofit of unreinforced buildings are presented with special references to
the record research activity Attention is first paid to the study of response of simple walls with reference to the
fundamental failure mechanisms recent development for strength evaluations are presented the role of shear failure
mechanisms recent development for strength evaluations are presented the role of shear ratio in shear strength of
walls is put in evidence and strength formulas suitable for design and assessment are proposed .The deformations
behavior is also discussed showing how ultimate drift seems to be meaningful parameter for walls failing in shear
energy dissipations proportion are also discussed choice of retrofitting techniques is discussed with regard to the
general philosophy of seismic design emphasis is put on the increase of ductility.

INTRODUCTION:
Seismic risk evaluation and seismic upgrading is a complex and often intimidating task. Planning for a risk
that can come at any time, but happens infrequently is difficult. Earthquakes are unique in natural disasters in that
they can occur without warning, and thus can place people at risk in vulnerable structures that in other natural
hazards would be able to retreat to a safe location. This places an extra burden on building owners, and on local
government, to ensure that occupants and other users of facilities are not unduly exposed. Thus, the principle
purpose of hazard mitigation is the protection of life, even when the risk to a single individual at any one time is
comparatively small.
To gain an understanding of the "seismic rehabilitation process," it is best to subdivide the endeavor into a
series of steps, and identify the disciplines required for each step - from that of the building ownership and
management, to that of the architect and structural engineer. The seismic rehabilitation process is not entirely
concentrated in the discipline of structural engineering. It calls on the disciplines of Seismology, Public
Administration, Risk Analysis, Statistics, Economics, Building Conservation Technology, and Materials Testing and
Inspection, to name just a few. The decision for an owner may have to do with an evaluation of the risk and
economic viability of an asset. However, for a whole community, it is difficult decisions over where to place public
investment when limited resources are available.
One of the most important things to consider is that what may seem obvious at first glance may become
less obvious on more detailed examination. Buildings that, because of their age and the nature of their structural
system, may have been identified in overall surveys as hazardous (say, because they are constructed of unreinforced
masonry,) May on closer inspection, be found to be comparatively less risky than nearby newer structures of nonductile concrete frame. These newer buildings may be used by many more people in any given day, and thus
placing a far greater risk on the community than the older masonry building. If this is found to be the case, then
which do you upgrade? A prudent administrator in such a situation may find that the route to take is to fix the one
which combines high occupancy with collapse potential instead of the one with lower occupancy which none-theless may also be easily damaged, but may not be likely to collapse. Another factor may be the need to upgrade
facilities that are critically important use in a post-earthquake environment, such as fire stations and hospitals. All
such factors must be weighed when making the kinds of decisions that require the investment of comparatively large
sums of money to carry out tasks whose value will only become apparent when and if an earthquake indeed does
happen.

It is also important to understand one of the lesser known facts about the structural engineering design
process that can have a significant impact on the costs, whether they are with public funds or private investment. In
many cases involving the larger more complex structures, it has proven to be the case that any funds beyond the
minimum that is invested in engineering analysis up front, may have a large payoff in the end in terms of money
saved on construction costs. There are even examples of projects that cost one fifth or less of the originally
estimated costs as a result of in depth engineering analysis leading to a more creative design solution. The codes
often prescribe a set procedure, but these same codes allow other more time consuming and sophisticated analysis
techniques to be used in lieu of that procedure. It is important for the decision makers to understand that the
difference does not mean that such a design would fail to meet code, but that the standard code procedures tend to be
over conservative by comparison because, absent the more detailed analysis, one would have no scientifically
derived basis for the design decisions that are specific to the subject building.
In light of this, the decision maker on a given project is on the horns of a dilemma. He or she must decide
if the further investment in engineering analysis will bear fruit before it can be known that it will. This decision
comes at a time when access to funding for the project may be extremely difficult. Once construction is underway,
the funding sources are, of course, already identified, and the schedule set, but getting funds in place at the design
stage can be more difficult. The point is made only to emphasize the importance of careful and complete analysis in
the Seismic Rehabilitation Process if scarce resources are to be husbanded for the most cost effective results, either
on an individual project, or for a whole district of community.
1)

How Buildings Resist Earthquakes:

Earthquake forces can act in all directions. Unlike gravity loads that are transferred in a downward
direction, earthquake loads start at the supporting soil and are transmitted to the building. The horizontal and vertical
earthquake forces travel in different load paths and may result in tension, shear compression, bending or torsion
forces. Buildings experience horizontal distortion when subjected to earthquake motion. When these distortions get
large, the damage can be catastrophic. Therefore, most buildings are designed with lateral-force-resisting systems
(or seismic systems), to resist the effects of earthquake forces. In many cases seismic systems make a building stiffer
against horizontal forces, and thus minimize the amount of relative lateral movement and consequently the damage.
Seismic systems are usually designed to resist only forces that result from horizontal ground motion, as distinct from
vertical ground motion.
The combined action of seismic systems along the width and length of a building can typically resist
earthquake motion from any direction. Seismic systems differ from building to building because the type of system
is controlled to some extent by the basic layout and structural elements of the building. Basically, seismic systems
consist of axial-, shear- and bending-resistant elements.
In wood-frame, stud-wall buildings, plywood siding is typically used to prevent excessive lateral deflection
in the plane of the wall. Without the extra strength provided by the plywood, walls would distort excessively or
rack, resulting in broken windows and stuck doors. In older wood frame houses, this resistance to lateral loads is
provided by either wood or steel diagonal bracing.
The earthquake-resisting systems in modern steel buildings take many forms. In moment-resisting steel
frames, the connections between the beams and the columns are designed to resist the rotation of the column relative
to the beam. Thus, the beam and the column work together and resist lateral movement and lateral displacement by
bending. Steel frames sometimes include diagonal bracing configurations, such as single diagonal braces, crossbracing and K-bracing. In braced frames, horizontal loads are resisted through tension and compression forces in
the braces with resulting changed forces in the beams and columns. Steel buildings are sometimes constructed with
moment-resistant frames in one direction and braced frames in the other.
In concrete structures, shear walls are sometimes used to provide lateral resistance in the plane of the wall,
in addition to moment-resisting frames. Ideally, these shear walls are continuous reinforced-concrete walls extending
from the foundation to the roof of the building. They can be exterior walls or interior walls. They are interconnected
with the rest of the concrete frame, and thus resist the horizontal motion of one floor relative to another. Shear walls
can also be constructed of reinforced masonry, using bricks or concrete bloc

2) Buildings Characteristics And Damages:


Each building has stories and a sub basement. The structural composition of each building consists of:
vertical structure built of transversal and longitudinal masonry walls width for facades for interior walls; horizontal
structure made of R.C. prefabricated hollow strips, supported by transversal walls. The sub-basement was built of
transversal and longitudinal reinforced concrete walls, located under the masonry walls. The foundations, made of
concrete, have the foundation.
The main damages due to earthquake were: fracture of some prefabricated strips of the floor over the subbase; important damages of the longitudinal walls at the first floor; a lot of cracks on the interior longitudinal wall;
vertical cracks on the transversal walls near the joint with longitudinal walls; horizontal cracks on the transversal
walls, at the first level, under the floor. Some deterioration were observed due to the action of different hazard
factors as: reinforcement corrosion of the prefabricated strips of the floor over the sub-base; some cracks of concrete
walls as well as of masonry walls at sub-basement and first level; damages of wall bond; segregation of concrete;
geometric dimensions damages, etc.
3) Seismic Rehabilitation Of Beam-Column Joints:
During recent earthquakes, failure of beam-column joints was identified as the cause of many failures of
the 5 to 7 storey moment resisting frame buildings. Inadequate transverse reinforcement in the jointed weak columnstrong beam design were the principal reasons for the observed joint shear failures. It is important to develop
effective and economic rehabilitation techniques for the upgrade of the joint shear resistance capacity in existing
structures. The objective of this research is to develop effective selective rehabilitation schemes for reinforced
concrete beam-column joint using advanced composite materials. The study is mainly experimental in nature.
Several reinforced concrete beam-column joints were constructed. The joints were designed to simulate non ductile
detailing characteristic of pre-seismic code construction. No transverse reinforcement was installed in the joint The
beam and column above and below the joint represent the lengths to the point of contra flexure in the frame beams
and columns. The control specimen showed joint shear failure when subjected to cyclic load applied at the beam tip.
Different fiber wrap rehabilitation schemes were applied to the joint panel with the objective of upgrading the shear
strength of the joint. Cyclic load tests were conducted on the rehabilitated joints with increasing loads to failure. The
tested rehabilitation techniques for beam-column joints with the objective of upgrading the joint shear capacity were
successful in eliminating or delaying the shear mode of failure. Instead, the failure mode was transferred to flexural
hinging of the beam which is a ductile mode of failure. The rehabilitation technique was found to be effective,
simple to install and non disruptive to the function of the building.
4) Seismic Review Process Steps:
1) The Seismic Rehabilitation process can be subdivided into a series of steps. The first step is to
determine the rehabilitation objective. In order to do this, the subject building(s) need to be evaluated not only in
terms of engineering, but also in terms of the societal issues, from which one can determine the value of the
rehabilitated structure in both monetary and non-monetary terms. Considerations such as whether or not the
building is historic, is architecturally significant (which can be affected by the rehabilitation design), is used by
many people all the time, or for a short period of time (such as a church on Sundays, which is empty during the
week), etc.
2) This evaluation also must cover the technical issues - both the safety of the structure and the safety of the
building's non-structural features and contents. Following the evaluation of all of these elements, a "Rehabilitation
Objective" can be defined. This Rehabilitation Objective is an expectation of the performance of a building after a
seismic event of a particular magnitude. Building performance can be described qualitatively in terms of the safety
afforded building occupants during and after the event; the cost and feasibility of restoring the building to preearthquake condition; the length of time the building is removed from service to effect repairs; and economic,
architectural, or historic impacts on the larger community. These performance characteristics are directly related to
the extent of damage that would be sustained by the building. A more detailed discussion of the determination of a
Rehabilitation Objective can be found in.
3) In summary, the objective can be to achieve a performance level after rehabilitation that lies somewhere
on a continuum from "Collapse Prevention," through "Life Safety" and "Damage Control" to "Immediate
Occupancy." Above that - reserved for the most critical or hazardous facilities, would be "Operational" level. For
almost all buildings in ordinary public and private use, a performance level that presumes no damage is
economically impractical, and not necessary to meet public responsibilities and balance the risks of damage with the

costs of construction or upgrading. In reference to this, it is important to understand that the current codes for new
construction are based on an acceptance of damage from earthquake forces in a moderate to large earthquake. In a
large earthquake, that damage could be extensive. The code objective is to prevent collapse and minimize falling
debris, not to prevent damage.
4) On the issue of codes, it is also important to understand that most local codes are written to deal with
new construction. As such, their provisions may not be appropriate for the seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings. Existing buildings, particularly those constructed using technologies and construction methods which
have since gone out of use, are not suitable for redesign following the detailed proscriptive provisions of new
building codes. This does not mean that they cannot be made to meet the objectives of the current code in terms of
safety and performance as described in the previous paragraph, only that they cannot be assumed to be able to do it
in the same way as is done for new construction. In recent years, there have been a number of important codes, and
guidance documents prepared specifically to aid in the rehabilitation and seismic upgrading of existing buildings of
different types, including used as sources for this Handbook. In California, and other states, the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation has been incorporated into the state's model code. All of these sources are likely to be more
appropriate for rehabilitation design than are the standard codes for new construction.
CASE STUDY: LOS ANGELIS CITY HALL:
The City Hall structure is generally described as comprising three major components: the "base" (basement
to 4th floor), "midrise" (5th floor to 11th floor), and "tower" (12th floor to pyramid top at 32nd floor). The structure
base measures 476 feet on the north south longitudinal axis, by 250 feet on the east-west transverse axis. The tower
is 100 ft. square through the twenty-fifth floor and extends to a height of 452 ft. above Main Street. The Building's
skeleton contains 8,167 tons of structural steel assembled with 900,000 rivets. The volume is approximately 12
million cubic ft., containing almost 20 acres of floor space. Exactly 430 structural columns support the
approximately 200 million pounds of dead weight. Strengthening the building will add 30,000 cubic yards of
concrete, 3,000 tons of structural steel, 5,000 tons of reinforcing steel, and an additional 68,467 million pounds of
dead weight to the building.

During the past 70 years, regional earthquakes have caused significant damage to Los Angeles City Hall.
Terra cotta cladding has been cracked, broken or destroyed at portions of the building's exterior where the frame
succumbed to earthquake ground motion. With every significant earthquake, unanchored masonry debris breaks
loose and is scattered about the building's interior including the exit stairwell, obstructing passage.
Modern advancements in earthquake engineering and high-rise building technologies have resulted in
significant design and construction improvements for life and safety. Local, state and federal codes have been
significantly revised in the intervening years since City Hall was first opened on April 26, 1928, and new laws have
been added that mandate accessibility to a wide range of handicapped users.
Because City Hall's many large ceramic mosaics and decorative ceilings, marble columns and wood
finishes are particularly sensitive to earthquakes, a combination of technologies were chosen to protect City Hall
from the shaking and twisting motions resulting from a seismic event. First, a technology called "base isolation" was
chosen to dampen the energies let loose by an earthquake. Second, strengthening the building through the
installation of additional structural steel and of shear walls will make the building more rigid and less likely to cause
damage within the building during a seismic event. This combination of technologies maximizes the building's
opportunity to withstand future seismic events.

This project installs 526 isolators and sliders, 64 viscous dampers which are like huge shock absorbers,
30,000 cubic yards of concrete, 3,000 tons of structural steel, and 5,000 shear walls tons of reinforcing steel, and
12,500 linear feet of.
Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation Project - Base Isolation Technology

Reducing the forces transmitted to the building from the ground

this isolator has been installed

An isolator fully extended as it would be during a seismic event. Every isolator will extend in any direction
21 inches. These columns will carry between 500,000 pounds and 2.5 million pounds of load, depending upon the
column size and location. 526 isolators will eventually be installed.
City Hall has been placed atop a mechanical system of isolators, sliders and dampers called "base isolation
technology" that will dampen the violent movements of the earth during a seismic event. By using Isolators and
dampers the building is "decoupled" from the ground motion of any earthquake and the transmission of seismic
energy to the building is dampened. This is done by lowering the vibration frequency, allowing the building to move
or displace, and lowering the shock acceleration of the seismic event thus reducing the tendency for the upper floors
to move faster than the lower floors. In general, buildings that have been isolated in this way are subjected to 1/3 to
1/5 of the horizontal acceleration of conventional structures during a seismic event
The isolator is a sandwich of alternating layers of 1/4" steel plate and 1/4 inch rubber which are vulcanized
to form a single integrated unit. It is able to displace horizontally in any direction by 24 inches from the center. At
left is a cross section showing the inside of an isolator.

Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation Project - What are Dampers and sliders?
Dampers and sliders are assisting the isolators in dampening the impact of an earthquake on the building,
by fine tuning selected areas of the building.
Dampers are similar to the shock absorbers used in automobiles. They lessen the initial jolt or thrust of an
earthquake. There are 52 viscous dampers installed in the basement and 12 in the tower.
Sliders are a special type of isolator that "fine tunes" the isolator - damper system for optimal results.

Above: A mounted damper in the ceiling of the 26th floor.


Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation Project - How are the isolators installed?
The isolators were install one at a time. First temporary hydraulic jacks were fitted to a column in such a
way as to support the column so that it could not move, and then cutting a specific length out of the column at its
base. An isolator was then placed into this gap along with an empty bladder device which, when injected with an
epoxy resin would completely fill any remaining sp

After column bracing and shear pin installation were completed the basement was excavated in order to expose the
column footings. In some areas excavation went as much as eight feet below the level of the original basement floor.

Columns braced, the entire basement was excavated in order to enlarge the footings.
Over 20,000 cubic yards of earth was excavated from the basement.
Once the footings were exposed each footing was drilled to accommodate steel rebar which in turn became the steel
reinforcement for the enlarged footing.

One of the larger footings is shown with initial rebar installed.

5)

Predicting Performance

Buildings respond to earthquakes in a wide variety of ways, but always within the same patterns. As the
ground shaking begins, the building moves and develops distortions in proportion to its mass, stiffness, and the
frequency of the ground motion. The accelerations that are experienced join with the mass that is present and
generate forces that the building needs to resist. If the forces are within the strength of the building, little distortion
develops and only minor damage occurs. If the forces that are developed exceed the capacity of the building, then
the building starts to break up, the distortions increase, and damage becomes more severe. As the building breaks up,
it destroys its lateral strength and the building experiences extensive distortions and, in some cases, partial or
complete collapse.
The design guidelines for new buildings are set to prevent the breaking up process from starting in
moderate earthquakes, and to prevent the building from distorting to the point of pulling apart in extreme
earthquakes. The code uses the base shear to achieve the minimum strength required, and requires specific details of
construction to contain the breaking up process and achieve the desired performance for the buildings usage. The
required details provide the ductility needed to control the level of damage. The new building code has achieved
its purpose through a thoughtful balance of strength and ductility defined as prescriptive requirements.
Existing buildings may not have the required balance of strength and ductility that new buildings possess.
Attempts to apply the prescriptive requirements of the new code will lead engineers to the conclusion that most old
buildings need new lateral force resisting systems. That is, unfortunately, the key driver of the high rehabilitation
costs that often results. However, earthquake damage patterns illustrate that new lateral systems are not always
necessary, and ASCE 41 provides the tools to distinguish when strengthening is actually needed and to what extent.
It provides the ability to judge the adequacy of the ductility that is available given the strength that is present. As
such, ASCE 41 is a toolbox of procedures that can be applied as appropriate for the detailed evaluation and
rehabilitation of existing buildings in order to minimize the cost of strengthening. It provides a systematic process
that defines target performance levels, considers earthquakes of various sizes, and provides four distinct analysis
techniques and a wide variety of modeling techniques to guide the evaluating engineer into an appropriate
conclusion about a buildings rehabilitation needs.

CONCLUSION:
Having a new state-ofthe-art standard to evaluate and rehabilitate buildings is only part of what is needed
to achieve seismic safety. Allows the use of a variety of earthquake threats and defines three performance levels:
immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention process assists the engineer in determining the expected
performance, but seismic safety is achieved when a proper evaluation is done, the resulting options are understood,
and appropriate answers selected and implemented. Owners need to know what is going to happen in terms of life
threatening injuries, what it will cost to repair their buildings, and how long the buildings will not be usable.
Fortunately, this information can be deduced. When reporting the results to owners, it is best to focus on the
description of expected damage before and after the proposed rehabilitation, as opposed to the minutia of the
evaluation itself. In that way, owners will be able to relate the impact the performance will have on their use of the
buildings and they will have a basis for determining what to do.
As structural engineers, we need to advocate seismic safety in our communities and carry out the role of
earthquake engineers on every project. We need to develop a clear understanding of the difference between
designing a new building following the prescriptive requirements of the code and design existing buildings
following the performance-based evaluation approaches. The nations inventory of existing buildings that do not
meet minimum seismic safety levels is very large, and the cost to replace them is out of the question, not to mention

unnecessary. And, when applied properly, the necessary rehabilitation can be completed at a minimum cost for the
owners and without liability for the structural engineers.

REFERENCES:
1) FEMA EARTHQUAKE MIGRATION HANDBOOK
2) DRM INCREMENTAL INTEGRATED SEISMIC REHABILITATION
3) NEHRP GUIDELINES FOR SEISMIC REHABILITATION
4) BUREAU OF ENGINEERING
5) ASCE41 SEISMIC REHABILITATION