1

START

HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Evaluate SeIsmic Hazard at the site of the building
by site specific hazard analysis or by available
seismic micro-zonationlmacro-zonation maps
I

\.

GOALS
Decide the goals in terms of Performance Levels expected
from' the building, or in terms of MSR

INVESTIGATION
Investigate building through visual inspection, study of the
drawings and documents and in-situ investigation

Client exp~tations
Funds Available
Importance of
Building

ANALYSIS
Does building satisfy
the decided goals?

Yes

>-----+@

}NO

[-----+-----~-RE--T-R--O-F~IT~D-E-S-IG--N--~.--~

Technological feasibility
.. Hindrance to normal
usage of building
.. Availability of materiai
.. Economy

Fig. 7.1 Seismic Evaluation and Retrojitrillg Process

the fact that existing structures have been built in different periods of time, they have
different behaviour (Response Reduction) .factor, \vhich depends to a certain degree on
lhe ductility or deformation capacity of the b.uildings. From earthquake resistance view
rnillt such periods may be identified in Ind~~: 1947 to 1%2. 1962-1970, 1970-1984 and

(Tj\Cn

~\

l
l

124

C
L

--

----------~-----.--

1984 - 2002, that)s, in those years in which the seismic codes changed; provided that the
code was "actually used in design and construction of buildings.

Capacity or Available Seismic Resistance (ASR)I Demand (MSR)

196612002

1962/2002

VB

ahW
0.25

197512002

1970/2002

VB == CahW
0.48

VB

CahPW . VB =CahW
0.53 .- 0:66

198412002

VB

= KCahW
1.00

The Minimum Seismic Resistance (MSR) is a value, which is defined by the codes and
implemented. The basic criterion of this decision is that the once-in-life earthquake
intensity should not result in the total col/apse of the building. It can be observed that
buildings constructed before 1984 using the codes are quite deficient and will need
upgradation, however, buildings constructed after 1984 using codes are adequat~.

7 .2.2 AVAILABLE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OR .CAPACITV

The Available Seismic Resistance (ASR) or Capacity of a -building is expressed

quantitatively by the earthquake force under which the first of the columns of any building
storey will reach its ultimate limit strength, when the remruning structure remains Hi the
undamaged state" ASR refers to the condition of the building priQr to any earthquake
occurrence. For this purpos~, the concrete quality and the reinforcement of the vertical
structural elements must be known.

In the seismicaiIy weak buildings, usually the Available Seismic Resistance, (ASR) or
Capacity is found less than the Minimum Seismic Resistance (MSR) or Demand for several
reasons such as the-following:

--

i)

The design provisions have not been fully implemented during the construction
of the building as far as the quantity of reinforcement, the quality of concrete
and detailing are concerned.

ii)

The structure was deSIgned and built on the basis of design seismic aGtions less
ilian tl~ose specified by the upgraded codes ,..after the construction of the
building.

iii)

The usage of the buildings has been changed, and therefore the gravity loads
have been increased.

iv)

"Environmental attacks, such as corrosion of the reinforcing steel bars, have

caused a decrease in the load-carrying capacity of members"

\
"

'It

7.2.3 RESTORATION

The tenn 'restoration' means Ihal the structural or non-structural members, if damaged for

- any reason, again reach the minimum strength, stiffness and ductility they ought to have

125

before the damage. This means that 'restoration' is limited orily to the damaged elements
and in this sense 'restoration' must.be considered as a local intervention.

7.2.4 STRENGTHENING OR RETROFITTING

The term 'strengthening' means the increase of the seismic resistance of the structure with
interventions beyond restoration, so that the available seismic .resistance (ASR)' becomes
equal to the required minimum seismic resistance 'MSR' or to a predefined percentage ofit
-which may-be related to the remaining useful life of the ouilding. This means that in
- adaitio:g Jo the local interventi.o1JS to the damaged elements, interventions of global type
may be- carried out, so that the overall structuraJ behaviour of the building will be
improved.

7.2.4.1 Criteria for Restoration or Strengtbening

llasic Principles
If a reliable v~e of ASR could be determined analytically, the ratio ASRJMSR would be a
safe indication of the expected damage. The reliability of the value of ASR is questionable
because of the dynamic character of the problem, the inelastic behaviour of the structure,
the materials, the infills and so on. For tills reason the ratio ASRJMSR often has a smaller
value due to initial deficiencies. Therefme, in the case of an existing undamagea structure
before an earthquake, tl~e retrofitting must be based on ASRJMSR so. as to remove the
deficiency of design and construction based on the best-estimated value oj ASR. _

Tbe UNIDO!UNDF Procedure

The procedure. which is suggested in the UNIDOIUNDP/PR.RER/791015 (1985) manual,
takes into account!<'iur factors in order to determine the type of intervention as follows:

I
.. ( I
(

.(d)

The arrangement of the structural elements

The strength of the struc~re
The flexibility of the structure _
The ductility

(r
(

(a)
(b)
(c)

- - - Arrangement of the Structural Etements

The structural s:ysfern of the building! depending on the layout of the structural members,
can be classified as:
(i)

Good
the arrangement of the structural members is clear, _without any
megulantics in plan or elevation; and th horizontal forces an: carried by
clearly defined structural systems of frames or walls in both main directions.

(1i)

Acceptahlc - the building in general has a good structural system except for

some weaknesses, such as large stiffness eccentricity] discontinuity of stiffness

111 elc\alwn (e.g. open ground floor) and so on.

126

(iii)

Unelear ~ the horizontal forces are carned by systems ofsttucfurar' "l'-'lU"Ul

which are not clearly defined.
I;

Strength of tbe Structure

Three levels of ratio ASRJ MSR are adopted for decision-making purposes. The limit
values adopted are to be considered as guidelines and not ~ strict limit conditions.
(i)

ASR m6fe than 75% ofMSR

Here the seismic resistance is considered satisfactory with the probability of somewhat

deeper.incursions into the inelastic range, without approaching the failure limits. Themore,

retrofitting may beiaken 'not needed'.

(ii)

Ratio ASRlMSR in the range 0.75 to 0.50

Here the Available Seismic Resistance is much less than the required Minimum Resistance.

However, if enough ductility exists, the building could have safety against collapse in a

strong earthquake, but this type of structure. could reach the failure limits al.o. Therefore,

t~e structure needs to be strengthened by retrofitting.

(iii)

ASR less than halfofMSR

T-he safety of the structure is clearly unsatisfactory, hence it will require retrofitting or
upgrading the strength as well as ductility.
Combining the estimation for the layout' of the structural system with thatfor the strength,
the actual structural quality may be graded.

Ductility of the structure

The ductility requirements specified by Indian Standard Code IS: 13920 -1993 are met only
by a very small number of recently built structures. The main provisions (i) strong
_columns-weak beams; (ii) adequate shear reinforcement (ties) so that bending mode of
failure be secured; and-{iii) confined compression zones with closely spaced hoops or ties,
.are requirements which are set for achieving ductile performance. The engineer has to
choose between lar:ge-scale inte:,:ventions to_increase ductility. -something that is uprealistic .
in most cases, or to enh~nce lateral strength to .the level of MSR specified with lower_
ductility.
Decision for the degree am:Hhe type of i~ltcr:>.'entjon
As already mentioned above, four factors are considered for the degree and the type of.
intervention. The type of strengthening, depending on the s~riousness of the situation, may
be one of the following:
~:

Improvement

of the ductility and the energy-dissipation mechanism through
upgrading of existing structural elements (e.g. using thin jackets on columns
with closely spaced ties)

Type II: IncreaSe. of the strength arid. stifmess"thidtigh srrengtheri:ihg of existing

structutal elements (e.g. increasing the thlckness of walls).
TypeIII: Increase of the strength,stiffi1ess ahd ductility through strengthening of
existIng structural elements (e.g., increasing the thickness of walls and
jacketing the columns)
TypeIV: Increase of the strength, stiffuess and ductility through addition of new
structural elements (e.g. addition of new walls, diagonal braces in panels,.
jackets on col~~ jacke~ or one-sided strengthening of walls).
Type V Reducing the seismic input
isolators.

III

the structure by introducing seismic base

The retrofitting level (Rreq) can be determined through probabilistic relationship of seismic
risk, which takes into account the remaining life of the building Trem in relation with the
design life of the building !.des' Thus the de$ign seismic force for the retrofitting Rsrr can be
derived from the following relationship:
l...

R<,r / MSR

= (Trem !Tde,)0.5 , but

~ 0.75 in any case

where, Rs,r is the seismic force for the reanalysis and redesign of the building under
strengthening, and MSR the code-specified Minimum Seismic Force for new buildings of
the same importance and ductility class.

7.3 RETROFIT DESIGN FOR EXISTING MASONRY BUILDINGS

The masonry buildings cover brick, random rubble stone masonry, cut stone masonry and
block masonry constructions. For achieving safety of buildings against collapse in a severe
earthquake, the following ret.rofitting actions are recQrnmendea. The amount and placing of
the retrofitting element depends upon the "seismic zone, the importance ofbuildin.g and the
-stiffness of the base soil. The categorization of buildings is given In Table 7.l.
Jests 011 retrofit biiiIQIngs on shock table have clearly Brought out that life safety
performance level can be achieved if th~ simple techniques of using seismic belts in
horizontal and vertical directions are used in various masonry buildings, their seismic
resistance can be improved to an extent that none of these houses \,'111 totally collapse. It
has been shown that in practical buildings, the cost of such retrofitting measures does not
exceed 4% in seismic zone III, 6-7% in seismic zone IV and 8-1 0% in Seismic Zone V of
the replacement cost of the buildingl.

i28

C
C
C.

Tag!e 7.1 ~!(J!Il,ti/J~4IJl}i!ding Categories

.,--.*.:,." ~'" ,-.

s'dSrilic nope

Ordinary Bui1~ings

Important Buildings

IV

III

II

..
3

Table 7.2 Types ofDamage and Restoration Procedure in Masonry Buildings

Damage Observed

Action for Restoration

a)

Differenttypes of cracks seen in

masonry walls

a) i, ii. Cracks to be fully filled using appropriate

grout or mortar.

1.

Vertical cracks

11.

Inclined cracks

iii. Cracks at the comers or T -junctions to be

filled as above but before that the walls at right
angles to be connected using ferro-cement comer
plates.

111.

Cracks at the comers or Tjunctions, and separation of the

- cross w.aUs

b)

At some places, occurrence of

many cracks close together in
the walls, OR tilting of some
wall portions out of plumb 2fter
separation OR bulging of stone
wall after delamination, OR
falling of some wall portions.

b) This type of cracked, fallen, tilted 01'" bulged

wall portion to be reconst:rticted using 1:6 or
richer cement mortar after partial demolition of
wall as required...

c)

Shifting of roofing tiles or

rafters OR falling down and
being broken

c) The roofing tiles to be removed for further

work and-the rafters to be properly positioned.
The opposite...rafters to be tied together by
horizontal braces; the purlins to be adjusted and
tiles to be placed b~ck p'roper1~.

d)

Breaking of AC Sheets

d) Replacement of the sheets, increasing-number

o [ fastenings.

The IS Code provisions will determine the minimum seismic resistance or demand in a
specified zone. The available seismIC resIstance or capacity needs to be worked out to draw'
a retrofitting scheme. The main causes 0 f damage to masonry buildings are
(i)

Poorly constructed buildli1gs

(ii)

Collapsing of walls due cracb

III

poor mortar, collapsing either totally or partially

In

comer joints

1:'.9

..

_-_

...

_ ...... _--

(iii)

Transfer of heavy roono.ad on walls develops comerjointcracks in wall which

leads tocolhipseof wall and the house
.

(iv) Loss of integrality between the roof and wall, and wall and cros::; walls, and
walls antl;foundation.
Failure of ga;ble walls due to thrust of roof load

(v)

7.3.1 RESTORATION OF MASONRY BUILDINGS

The types of damage generally observed in various masonry builaings during the
earthquake are listed in Table 7.2. Alongside, the actions t6 be laken_tor restoration of the
lost strength are a]so suggested. Det;;rils of e3;chsuch action are described in the fonowing
paragraphs.

7.3.2 RETROFITTING

7.3.2.1 Control of lengtb, height, and thickness of walls

Random Rubble Stone masonry: The wall length should not exceed 5m etween cross
walls in case of mud mortar and 6min case of cement mortar. If length exceeds these,
provide internal waH at spacing not farther than 4m. The wall height should not exceed 2.7
m In mud mortar and 2.9m in cement mortar (see Table 7.3).

-,

Block Masonry: The wall length should not exceed 35t and the height should not exceed
15t, where t = thickness of wall (see Table 7.3).

~"'''-~-----'-''''-------'-------------'r---------------,

Type of Masonry

-Maximum Length of
Wans in Room

Maximum Height of
Storey__

5m

2.7 m

6W

2.9.m

RR:- Stone Masonry

in Mud Mortar

111

cement Mortar

Rectangl~lar

Unit Walls

35tbut

1i1 Cement ivl0l1ar

7.0m

15

{buL~

3.5 m

t = thickness of wall

7.3.2.2' Prmisioll of Seismic Belts

Horizontal Seismic Belt

Seismic helts should be provided on all walls on both the faces just above lintels of door
and windo\\ openings and below floor or rcof. If RC floor is prcvided. seismic roof belt is
not rcqullcd, however, seismic belt should be provided at eaves level in case of .sloping

130

roof. Seismic belt at plinth level may not be provided' ifthtr;plinth heighi is less than 900
mm.

The reinforcement may be of mesh type as suggested in Table 7Aor any other mesh of
equivalent longitudinal wires. The weld mesh has to be provided continuously. If splicing
is required, there should be minimum overlap of 300 mm.

Vertical Seismic Belt

Vertical reil).forcing is required at the comers of rooms and junctions of walls as per Table
5. Alternatively, MW 21 welded mesh or mesh of equivalent longitudinal area could be
used. The width of mortar in the belt on each side of the comer has. to be kept25 mm extra
to the width of the mesh. This reinforcement should start 300mm below the plinth level and
continued into the roofl eave level horizontal band ..

Seismic Belts Around DoorlWindow Openings

The jambs and piers between window and door openings require vertical reinforcement in

the following situations:

_ i) In category D and Ebuildings for resistance against earthquake forces.

ii) For restoring the strength of the piers in any building category when badly damaged
in an earthquake.
The following mesh reinforcement is recommended to be used for covering the jamb area
on both sides of an opening or for covering the pier between the onsecutive openings. _
i) In Cac-D & E buildings

Mesh of gauge 10 with 10 wires in vertical direction spaced at 25 mm in a belt width of

280mm.
ii) In Cat.. C buildings

Mesh of gauge 12 with 9 wires in vertical direction space<.Lat 25 mm in a belt width of

250mm.
:t\4etbod of Fixing Seismic Belts
The reinforcement specified as above IS to be finally attached to the stonewall by nails or
connector~and cement mortar. For this purpose either 1:3 cement-coarse sand mortar Qr
micro-concrete 1:1.5:3 is used. h is (}.pplied in two layers like plaster as described below. ~
Step 1 Remove plaster in the height of the belt
Step 2 Rake out morlar juints to 12-15 mm depth
Step.-3 Clean the surface and

weI

it with water

I
\

131

I
1

II

Table 7.4 Mesh ReinJorcement in Seismic Belts in Various Building Categonei

Cat.B

Length of

Wall

Cat.D -

Cat. C

>

Gauge 'N

Cat. E

:::; 5.0

g13

225 gl3

6.0

gl3

250 gl3

10 275

7.0

g13

10

275 g 13
10 275 gl3
10 275
+3 bars of6
+ 2 barsof6

gl3
10 275
+4 bars of6

8.0

10 275
g\3
10 275 gl3
10 275 g\3
+ 2 bars of6
+3 bars of6
+ 4 bars of6

gi3
12 325
.+ 5 bars of6

Gauge

10

gl3

250

Gauge

(m)

275

Gauge

g13
10 275
+ 2 bars of6

g\3
10 275
10 275 -g 13
+ 2 bars of6
+ 3 barsof6

r Gauges.' gJO=;;3.25 mm, gJ 1=2.95 mm, gJ 2=2.64 mm, gJ 3=2.34 mm

2. N = Number oj main longitudinal wires in the belt at spacing oj 25 mm. Additional
longitudinal bars will be 6 mm dia mild steel tied to mesh at J50 mm clc.
3. H = Height oJbelt on wall in micro-concrete, mm.
4. The traps verse wires in the mesh could be spaced upto J50 mm.
5. The mesh should be galvanized to save it Jrom corrosion
Table 7.5 Ve;ical Bar or Mesh Reinforcement in Vertical Belt at Comers ojRooms3
Cat.R

No. of Storey
Storeys

Single
Bar
mm

Mesh

One

Onl

Top

-J::"
l
Three

Top

Middle

Cat.C

I
IBottom

(g \3)

NIB

....
-

l.

(g 13)

Single
Bar
(mm)

12
16

1.0

20 500
20 500

lQ..
12

20 500
28 700

12
16

12

28 700

12

28 700

10

Mesh
(g\3)
N
B
28 700
28 700
28 700
+lT8

12

28

,7.00

28 700
+1-'+8 -

---

16
i

28 700
+lT8

13 (2.34 111111 dia) galvanized mesh with 25 mm Sp~lCil1g (~( wires shall be used.
150 mm clc.
Iddili{)lIullollgitudil1al har will be one Ttjifltnrii!r1 (HSD) tied to mesh
,'illlgle har, if used, shall be HSD or TOR type, If two bars are lIsed at a T-junction, the
diallleter can be as Jollows. For One oj TlO or TI 2 take 2 oJ 1'8, al1d fOI One of T/6 take 2
- ofT!;:

IV
.VWllher
ojlongitudinal
wires ill the mesh. T= HSD or TOR

3.
11
Wi,h!?
uf
the
micro
concrete
belt, halfon each wallll1eeling (l[ [he ('orner or T-junction.

J
nt' IldllSl'erse wires in the lnesh coulli be at spacing up to 15n 111111.

Ga1lge

Mesh

N B
20 500
20 500
28 700

'

Single
Bar
(mm)

Cat. E

10
10
12

J_

Mesh

"

Single
Bar
(mm)

Cat.D

132

Step-4 Apply ne~t cement slurry and apply first coat of 12 rom thiclQ:less. Roughen its
surface after initial set.
Step-5 Fix the mesh, with 150 mm long nails at about 300.nUlFapart while plaster is still
green. The mesh should pe continuous with 200 mm ovedai>afthe comer or elsewhere
....,Step-6 Apply second coat ofplaster of 16 mm thick
Note: Use galvanized binding wire, tie-up the roof rafters with the nails at the eave level
belt before applying the plaster over the mesh

7.A RETROFIT DESIGN OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS

The reinforced concrete buildings are considered; as engineered construction. These
buildings are normally designed following a detailed structural analysis for deaa loads, live
loads and seismic loads. In order to withstand the effect of earthquakes, reinforced concrete
buildings are required to be designed for both strength and ductility. These buildings often
get damaged in earthquakes because of lack ofgood design andfaulty detailing practice.

7.4.1 ENHANCEMENT OF STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY

From earthquake point of view ~trength" and DuctilitY' of a structure are considered as
the most important parameters. Strength is used to express the resistance of a stmcture, or a
meI!lber, or a particular section. A structureshould have sufficient strength to resist internal
forces generated due to earthquake. -Ductility of a structure, or its members, is the capacity
to undergo large inelastic deformation with(mt significant loss of strength and. stiffuess.
Generally, force arising due to earthquake is too high, and it is common to design for lesser
forces which are 11 fraction of elastic responoo, and the rest ofthe forces are expected to be
taken' care of by energy dissipation corresponding to large inelastic deformations. Ductility
is the property resulting in ability to sustain large deformation, and a capacity to absorb
energy by hysteretic behavior.

To achieve ductility in a building, it is required that its component members should-be

sufficiently ductile. Strength and_Ductility of a member depend on various factors such as
- material properties, sectional dimensions, workmanship and material degradation. In the
case -of reinforced concrete memb~rs, reinforcing steel is a ductile material, whereas

concrete is brittle in nature. To obtain a ductite behaviour of a member, it is desired

_ primarily that-failure of member :-&hould mitiate due to yielding in steel rather than in
concrete. Since failure of member occurs fi nally due to crushing of concrete, it is necessary
to increase ductility of concrete also. Concret<::: can be made ductile by confining it.
To enhance the strength and ductility of an existing building one or more of the following

techniques, described in details in Chapter :I. is to be used:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)

(iv)
(v)

Addition of shear walls

Addition of steel braces
RC jacketting of beams and columns
Steel jacketting ofb a ms and CO\W1111S
FRP jacketing ofbea[l1s and col~;ll1lls

!
~

1
!!
\

j'

(vi)
(vii)

Addition of confinement to beams and columns

Supplemental energy dissipation

The design of Retrofit Scheme using the above techniques is to be done according to the
available practice6-9 At the moment no standard code of practice is available on design of
retrofit based on various techniques. Description of design procedures for all the techniques
is beyond the scope ofthis monograph. However, the most commonly used techniques are
addition of RC shear walls and RC jacketting of existing beam and columns. The design of
shear walls is to be done according to the procedure for design of shear walls in new
buildings, whlcnhas been given in IS: 13920, Special design software or interaction charts,
as given in SP-16 for normal columns, are reguired for jacketed columns. Such charts have .
been developed an<faredescribed in the fono~ing section.

7.4.2 EFFECT OF JACKETTING ON STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF COLUMNS

Many times the' drawings of existing buildings are not available. Member sizes can be
measured at site but getting details of reinforcement inside the concrete members is very
_ very difficult. An estimate of the contribution of reinforcement in original column for
normal ranges of reinforcement can be worked out. Similarly the strength and ductility of
jacketed RC columns can also be ~orked out for different levels of ~xialloads.

\.

..c:

c..
.

'0

2.1'

Original width
."_.
:(Bo)

..-

_._--

-
e.

Original
Column

d"

.~

1'2

,---

-.-

-..e
.. .

...

pi

e"""'

Jacketc

'.

1.

.-.

- I d'
1

7.2 Design parameters ofjacketed colul1Ill

(
Strenglll u!/(/cketed columns

For guidance, an illustrative example of jacketed column is given to show the influence of
vanous parameters on the strength.

Th~

strength of original column of size 400mmx400mm with effective cover of 40mm can
be \.vorked out for M20 grade concrete and Fe415 considering. ]"'0 1()l1git~dinal steet'in

134

l_
{

original column which is denoted as p2 as shown in Fig. 7.2.. The strength of jacketed
column with varying percentage of jacket steel (1 %,2%,3% and 4% denoted as pI) based
on original column area is worked out for different sizes of'jacketed column considering
- - different depth ratio (dr= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 and 2). The depth ratio is defined as,
dr=

(7.1)

Do

..

where D is depth ofjacketed column and Do is original column depth before jacketting.
The strength of section with two different placements of steel has been compared with
strength of section with actual placement of steel in jacketed column. In one case the
-eXisting reinforcement has been ignored. This is the case when the details of existing
reinforcement are nol available to retrofit designer. The member capacities obtained in this
case have been compared with member capaclties obtained' with actual placement of steel
in jacketed column.
.
In the other case total reinforcement (pl+p2) has been considered in jacket as new steeL
This is the case when the design details of existing columns are available to retrofit
designer, it may so happen that the tools for designing jacketed columns such as software
or special design interaction curves for jacketed columns are not available. In this case it
may be considered by retrofit designer to consider total reinforcement in jacket and design
the jacketed column as 'trormal sectioILUsing normal interaction curves. f::apacities in this
case have also been compared with capacities ohtained with actual placement of steel in
jacketed eolumn. Axial Load~Moment interaction curves for this..case have been shown in
Fig. 7.3.

Tt is observed from figure that an error IS made in the estimation of strength if the

reinforcement in origi~al column is ignored, errot in moment capacity varies from 5% to

8% for different percentages of steel and different v..alues of dr. It can be concluded that this

error is marginal. Therefore, reinforcement in the original column can be ignored if the

details are not available. Considering total steel (pJ+p2) in jacket doesn't cause any error in

estimation of maximum axial load capacity but the error in bending moment at a given

axial load increases near the ba~ance failure point. This_error ranges from 10% to 12% for

the range of parameters selected in this- case. It can be concluded that, although the error in

this-case is more than that in previous casc, still it .9an be ignored.

The jacketed beam has shown that moment capacity increases as ratio dr increases. Effect

of dr on ductility is not significant. Forlackete<I be3ins with Rr = 0, the outer lay~r of

tenSIon reinforcement fails before failure of the inner layer. This gives rise to a peculiar

shape of Moment-Curvature curvc.

The strength and ductility of jacketed column" sections, significantly increase due to
confineme11 t. 11 has also been observed that, ductility is maximum at zerO' axial load, but
xed,-!ces drastically with increase in aXIal loads. For low percentage of steel there is hardly
any ductility available in columns subjected to axi"alloads. However the ductility improves
with increased percentage of steel. On the other hand, the ductility at zero axial load _
reduces with increase in percentage of steel.- Further, as percentage of steel is increased
ductility for zero axial load and bal-anee failure)oad approaches to be equal.

I
\

,
J
\

p2 l,pl 1,dr-l,2,2-layer

p2=O,pl=1.dr=1.2, 1~layer

p2;O,p1:;:,2,dr=1 ,2, 1-Iayer

-.- p2=l,pl=l,dr-l.4,2layer
,... p2=O,pl=l,dr-l,4, Hayer
-

P2=O,P1=2,dr=1.4.1-iayer

-p2=l,pl=l,dr=1,6,2layer

"

a.

._- p2=ll,pl~,d..l ,6,1-layer

p2=O.pl=2.dl"""1.6.1-ll!yer
p2;;1.pl=1.dr=1.8,2-layer

p2=O,pl=l,dr-l,e,l-laye,
. - p2=O.p1=2,dr=1.6, 1~layef

-._. p2:1,pl=-l,dr=2,,2layer
~-

200

400

600

800
Mu

1000

1200

1400

p2:Q,pl;;l,dr-2,J.-layer

1600

Fig, /,3 Axial Load-Moment interaction curves for steel placed in two layers (actual jacketed
column) (pl=l%, p2=1%), for only jacket steel (pl=l%. p2=O%) andIor total steel placed in
jacket (pI =2%, p2=O%)

f
\.
(

~
~

(
(

C
(.

c
C.

136

REFERENCES
1. Arya, AS., 2003, "Retrofitting of Buildings a Critical Step for Reducing Earthquake
Hazard Damage," Proc. of Workshop on Retrofitting of Structures, Oct. 10-11,
Roorkee, pp.I-16.
2. EERI, 1994, Expected Seismic Performance of Buildings, Earthquake Engineering
ResearchInstitute, Oakland, California, February.

3. Guidelines for Repair, Restoration and Retrofitting of Masonry Buildings in Kachchh

Enrthquake Affected Areas of Gujarat, Gujarat State Disaster management Authority
Government of Gujarat (GSDMA), March 2002.
4. IS: 13935-1993, Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings, Code of Practice,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
5. IS: 1893- 2002, Criteria fo:. Earthquake Resistant Design ofStructures, Part-l General
Provisions and Buildings, ~ureau ofIndian Standards, New Delhi, India.
6. Kent, I\.C. and Park, R., 1971, "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete,"Journal of
the Structural Division,
ASCE, 97(ST7), July, pp-1969-1990.
.
.
7. Park, R. and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.
8. Penelis, G.G. and.Kappos, AJ., 1992, Earthquake-resistant Concrete Structures," E &
FN Spon, London, U.K.
9. Sheikh,_S.A. and Uzumeri, S.M.., 19.80, "Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete
Columns," Journal ofthe StructuraL Division, ASCE, 106(ST5), May, pp- 1Q79-11 02.

137

(
(

( .
~..

("

8. CASE STUDIES

8.1 GENERAL

Each building has its unique deficiencies ancJ requires specialised attention. A large
number of retrofitting options are available, as discussed in previous Chapters. The
retrofit engineer has to weigh all the options applicable in a particular building and
select the most suitable and economical option. Care has to be taken regarding
minimum interruption in the nonnal usage ofthe building and the rent loss is also to
_ be considered while evaluation the relative cost of various options.
Here, three case studLe on ev~luation and retrofitting of two differenLtypes of
buildings are presented to demonstrate the application of the techniques discussed
in the previous Chapters. Tb.!!- first case study is of a lSg years old masonry building
sitllated at Roorkee. The building as a unique cavity wall type construction with the
cavity between two wythes filled with soil. The second case study is of a hospital
<building situated in Delhi. This building belongs to pre seismic code era, when the
buildings were designed only for gravity loads without any consideration of
earthquake loads. In third case study, evaluation and retrofitting of a contemporary
RC framed building with soft ground storey is presented. The RC Building is
situated at VasundhlIra in the outskirts of Delhi and represents a typical construction
practice being followed in Indian cities.

8.2 MASONRY BUILDING

The main building (Fig. 8.1) of Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee was
constructed during 1847-49, when the Roorkee College was established in 1847 to
train civil engineers from India and Europe to work in the Public Works
I
.
DeRartment of Country . The Roorkee College was later named as Thomson
College of Civil Engineering and after independence was converted into University
of Roorkee and later, Indian Institute of Technology in 200 l. The desigl1 of the
main building was prepared by L1. C;eorge Price, an Assistant Engineer on the
Ganga Canal Project.
The building has been serving for the-Iflst 150 years and appears to be in sound
condition. It has not shown any significant distress except corrosion of girders in
the jack-arch roof. Some minor damage to the building has been reported during

Kangra Earthquake of April 4, 1905 2 It has been reported that the walls lying N-S
cracked more than those lying in E- W side.
Fig 8.1 Maill Building ofllT Roorkee

At that time thennal comfort had been the main consideration in design ofJ!le
building, which resulted in cavity wall type construction with walls consisting of
two curtains and the gap in between has been filled with soil excavated in the c~anaL
High ceiling results in a large unsupported lengthslheights of walL The walls have
been found to be unsafe in out of plane horizontal force due to earthquake. The
Seismic evaluati()n and retrofitting mea~ures have been discussed in the fol1owing
sections.

8.2.1 THE B1HLDING

The building is having a plan area of about 10,000 sq. m. and has a rectangular plan
shape as shown in Fig. 8.2, It has a large courtyard enclosed by four wings of the
building. The wings are also rectangular in shape. The building has single storey
construction except a small portion shown in Fig. 8.2, which has two' storeys. The
building has high ceiling (6.4 m) and large size columns typical of roman style
architecture_

Fig 8.2 Plan ofBuilding

(
(,

C
L

--C.

Fig. 8. 3 Willi section

The walls of the building consist of two panels of 115 mm (4.5 inches) thickness
constructed in burnt bricks masonry in' Liine-Surkhi tnortar- The panels have a
cavity of 370 mm (15 inches) between them (Fig. 8.3); which is filled with sun
dried bricks at some places and excavated soil at othe~ p-l~ces.
140

The roofGfthe building is jack-arch type in most part of the building. It has a layer
of burnt bricks covered by a layer of lime-surkhi plaster at top. At some places
hollow tiles of burnt clay have been used in place of bricks in the roof. It is
supported()n steel gIrders of I-section at a spac.iiigof'l-1.5 ill. The roof of senate
hali is consisting of steel trusses and corrugated iron sheeting.
The most attractive feature of the building is a hemi-spherical dome over the front
wing, which houses a large clock at the top of it. The dome has been supported on
an octagonal prism, which is in tern supported on eight columns. The dimensions of
the dome have been measured using a Total Stat'ion:b'y computing distances and
elevation of several points on the dome. The -thicKness_5lf the dome has beeD
estimated from the internal and ext~rnal diameters of the dome.
The contour map of the area sbows that the building has been constructed on the
highest point of the terrain. This provides excellent drainage conditions. This has
helped in extending the life of the building without any problem related to
foundation.

8.2.2 SEISMIC EVALUATION

1. Estimation of earthquake forces: The seismic force on the building 'has been
computed as per IS: 1893-2002 3 . It was difficult to estimate the time period of the
building theoretically or experimentally. The elastic properties of the masonry soil
composite were very difficult to obtain to have a theoretical 'estimate of the time
period. Being a single storey rigid structure, experimental measurement of response
under ambient vibrations was also not possible. However, it is expected from the
experience That the fundamental time period of the building is expected to be in the
constant acceleration portion of the response spectrum. Further, it was the safest to
assume the time period or-the building in that range.
Dome being the most flexihle part of the building, a rough estimate of its
fundamental time period was made, modelling it as a cantilever with equivalent
moment of inertia and lumped mass. The computed time period was less than 0.1
sec.
The equivalent lateral force on the b~ilding was computed using ~odal procedure J
for assumed damping of 10% The force on individual components has been
computed considering their ttibutariareas lFlg'.8.4), as the jack-arch type of roof
will not be effective in rcdistnbution oflateral forces among different c-omponents.

2. Seismic safety pf 'JI.'o/ls The safety of the wall has been considered in in-plane
and out-of-plane action. The compressive and tensile stresses in _the walls due to
combind action of Dead Load, Live Load and Earthquake forces have been
calculated and compared with permissible stresses. The permissible stresses have
been taken in accordance \vitb the provisions of IS: 1905-19874 . The walls have
been found to be safe in eomhincd in-plane compression and bending and in-plane
shear.
In tlie out-of-plane action. the mertia forces due to soil filled between the two
panels of walls act as ~l ()ut~()r,plane thrust on the masonry panels. The hending
141

._-_._._--------

moment in th,e. walls has been

calculated cOl1sidenng them as
simply supported on the four
sides. The large heights and
lengths of wans and high lateral
load due to thrust from the
infilled soil result in large
bending stresses in the walls,
which are beyond the capacity of
the masoru-y. Therefore suitable.
retrofitting of the walls in out of
plane. bending is required.

_5r0nt elevation
----~

3.02 m wid e

err i d

3. Seismic safety of columns: The

forces in columns have been
obtained considering the tributary
masses and relative stiffness of
columns and walls. The columns
have a very large section and the
stresses due to earthquake force
on the tributary mass from the
roof and self mass of me column
combined with vertical forces haS"
been found to be _ within
pemlissible limits.

rI

J
I
7.30 x 112.0 tIt

4. Seismic safety of dome: The

dome has been modelled as a
vertical cantilever fixed at roof
, level with its mass lumped at 25
nodes, For this purpose the dome
has been divided into 20 strips_
columns @0.75mdiWleter
and the base prism in to 5 strips
along the height-The-stiffness of
Plan
each strip has been a&sumf;:d to be
unifoml and its mass luinped at
Fig 8.4 Tributary area ofwalls and columns
centre. The small dome a1 the toji
of the main dome 'has been
considered as a lumped mass, The natural time period of the dome has been
computed to be 0.035 sec., which is expected in the view of the large thicknes~
(more than 1 m). The stresses computed in the dome under combined action of
\crtlcal and lateral load have been found to be within pemllssible stresses.
Numben in the circles
represent the '\V2ll 1'10,

8.23 RETROFITTING OF BUILDING

[valuation of seismic safety of the building, has revealed thaI the walls are not ~afe
out-of-plane bending. Further, the integrity or the building and continuity a.t:the

111

142

C
"l

C.

J'

junctions of diffe~ent components needs to be irrlproved. The condition ofbricks in

the masonry is generally good, but at a few places the condition of mortar is not
good. Also at some places mud-mortar has been used. Tfiis requires strengLlu::ning
of masonry a.t a few locations. The following retrofitting measures have been
recommended:
' .
1. Strengthening of brick masonry: The portion of the walls constructed in mud
mortar has to be removed and reconstructed in 1:4 cement-sCl!ld mortar. The wall
surface is to be exposed and locations with loose pockets and degraded mortar are
to be marked. The loose pockets are to be filled with 1:4 cement-sand mortar ana
the pockets with degraded mortar are to be pressure grouted using shrinkage
compensated cement slurry.
2. Retrofitting of cavity walls: To improve theout of plane performance of cavity
walls, two alternative measures are suggested. In first case the behaviour of the
cavity wall panels is improved by integral action ofthe two panels. This is obtained
by providing RC prism members through the cavity walls as shown in Fig. 8.5. This
will result in the change of behaviour ofthe masonry wall panels on each side of the_
cavity wall from independent bending to combined bending (Fig.. 8.6). The
combined moment of inertia of the two panels is much higher and results in safe
bending stresses. The spacing and size of the RC prisms is calculated so that the
part oftlle wall panels between them, which bends in an independent bending mode
is safe in out of plane bending and the prism section is_sufficient to transfer the
shear between the two panels.

\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
Fig. 8.5 IntercollIlUr;1J1l lI(panels

Fig. 8.6 Bending modes ofpnnl.'!s

143

.--

...

---.~

....

-------

In the second. alternative, the panels are to be strengthened hy providing Ferro

cenierit plates on the outside surface (Fig. 8.7). The stresses in the brick masonry
and Ferro-cement have been computed considering. the ~uivalent composite
section (Fig.8.8) of the masonry, wire-mesh and plaster. The size of the wire-mesh
and the thickness of the pIaster have been worked out, so that the stresses are within
permissible limit. The two panels are interconnected by cross-ties so that these
share the lateral load reSUlting from the mass of the soil filled between them. The
cross-ties also improve the composite behaviour of the masonry and wire-mesh.
\.vin.:~

W'I=='l .

Fig. 8.7 Strengthening ofwalls with wire-mesh

M csJI\

SOl I

Fig. 8.8 Equivalent composite sec~ion

-' Improving the integrity of building: The overall lateral strength and stability of
the masonry buildings can be much improved by attaining the integral box action of
the building. This can be achieved by providing seismic belts of Ferro-cement on
both sides of walls above lintel level. Similar ~trip is als'o to be provideo iT]: the
'ioCrtical direction af'lhe corners and junctions of walls. In case of alternative-2' for
the strengthening of walls using wire mesh, is not required. To imErove the load
transfer between perpendkutar- walls, mild pre-stressing of cross walls is
r~conmrended, by providing two bars of 20 mm_ dia, as shown in Fig. 8.9, and
stretching therri by turn-buckle5 ,6.
"!'

During earthquake, the girders of the jack-arch ro.of have a tendency to separate. To
improve the integrity of jack-arch roof, the girders arc to be tiedlbraced together
llSll1g stripsfbars welded on the bottom of girders and anchored in the walls.

(he building has large openings with unreinforced masonry arches. Lintel
consisting of two channels/ I-beams is to be provided above the arches to relieve
them of the vertical load.

c
144

-c
l.

4. Retrofitting of columns: The evaluation has shown that the stresses in the
columns are less than the permissible stresses .in the masonry. However, the
masonry columns are known to be vulnerable to oorthquake. To improve the
strength, deformability and continuity of the columns, it is decided to enclose them
in four longitudinal bars of 12 mm dia and 8 mm circular ties at a spacing of 150
mm ctc (Fig. 8.10). To ensure the proper anchorage, the ties are to be welded and
the longitudinal reinforcement is to be grouted at the ends.

cli. bar

. Welded
connection

'y----'-/ .

clia b.. ~

8dia
12dia
Epoxy/Cement
Grouting '.

Ferro-Cement
Belt
Epoxy/Cement

Grouting

Fig. 8.9 PrestreSSing a/cross wails

Fig. 8.10 Retrofitting ojcolumns

8.3 RC BUILDINGS
Two case' studies of multistory RC buildings situated in Seismic Zone IV have been
presented. The first building was originally not designed for earthquake load, while
. the second building though designed for earthquake load, it is having severe
deficiency in the foml of a soft storey due to stilts at ground f100L

8.3.1 RC BUILDING-I
This building situated in Delhi was constructed around 1963. This has lO storyes (G
+9 Floors), however. the top storey is constructed on partial plan, as shown in Figs.
8.11 & 8.12. The nmth noor also has large size water tanks as shown in the plan.
The top 9 storeys ha\c equal height of 3.3 m while the bottom. storey has a height of
4.75 m (from foundalion level).
:

.
145

10'

II

-I~

2.44m

- -1-

,
I

.-

- -

S.94m

--,-"

2.44m

_1- _

I
I

5.94m
V
I
I

-,---I

I-----~I-

5.19
m

3.43

. -----.

- - -.--

5.94
m

-----.

----II

5.94

5.94

5.94

-,.,

7---

5.94
m-

- - - i

6.02

5.94
m

\..

(a)

-,,

-r

___ L

1
~----I-

10'

-----,-
,

.,

-1-

-_I_-

2.4'4

,
L _

5,94
m

5.94
m

I
1
----

-1- - -

5.19

3.43

5.94

rn

.
,-

-1----~

5.94
m

,
5.94
m

.,

----,

- - 'i ..

5.94

5.9l

5.94

I1l

-----j

6.02
m

(b)
Fig, 8.11 Plan (a) Up To Ninth Floors, (b) Tenth Floor

(
146

1
1I
1

(
L

',.'.

~_+-~r---r---~--~--~--+---+---~.3m

\--\-+--\---\----\--\---\----\---+--1.).3

~_+~L---~--~--~~~--+---+--~.3m
-----lr----J~.3

-----li----u.3 J1)
__--i----u.3 m

m
.75 m

\--\-+--\---\---+--+--+--+--+--1.).3

(a)

-l -

3.3m

r-,-,---~----+_--+_--_7----~

~r

!+------+-----l---+-- . ~~~~4

"
ill
i

! I
1I

I,

(b)

Fig. 8. J2 F}(:'\'iItioll ill (a) Longitudinal Direction. (b) Transverse Directioll

147

Fig. 8.13 Rebound Hammer Test

.~

I
Fig. 8.14 USPVTest
(

148

It

l
l,

.'

';~

First a detailed in-situ investigatiQn .Of the building was perfQrmed tQ estimate the
in-situ strength .Of material and the general cQnditiQn .Of the structure. The visual
inspectiQn .Of the building revealed that the general cQnditiQn QLthe building is
gQQd. HQwever at SQme IQcations spalling .Of flQQr slab cQver due tQ cQrrQsiQn has
been repQrted. CQrrQsiQn was also observed at a few IQcatiQns while making pat~hes
fQr Non-Destructive Testing (NDT).
Extensive NDT using Rebound Hammer and UltrasQnic Pulse VelQcity Tester was
alsQ perfQrmed (Figs. 8.1:3 & 8.14). The .Original drawings .Of the building suggest
that different CQncrete mixes,starting from 1: 1:2 at grQund flQQr, varying tQ
1: 1.75:3.5 at tQP flQQr have been used in the building. The NDT results suggest that
the quality .Of cQnstructiQn is medium tQ gQQdand carbQnatiQn has taken place to
cQnsiderable depth, which is suggested by relatively higher RebQund Numbers,
cQmpared tQ USPV values.
Linear Dynamic Analysis .Of the structures has been perfQrmed using the sQftware
STAAD Pro. Space frame m.Odel has been made cQnsidering rigid diaphragm actiQn
- .Of flQQr and roQf slabs. As there are n.O beams in transverse directiQn, slab actiQn
- has been mQdeled using rigid link elements. DiagQnal rigid link elements have been
used tQ mQdel the rigid diaphragm action .Of slabs. Shear walls have been mQdeled
as wide cQlumns. MQdal analysis with CQC mQde cQmbinatiQn has been used fQr
earthquake IQad analysis.
The.-time peri .Ods .Obtained fr.Om the bare fr-ame modelling in the cQmputer analysis
are-much longer than tho8e.Obtai~ by empirical formula.,-resulting in lower base
shears. TherefQre, all the earthquake IQad eff~cts have been mUltiplied by the factQr

VB
, as per CI. 7.8.2 QfIS: 1893-2002, where V B is the Base Shear calculated using
VB
the empirical time period and VB is the Base Shear .Obtained from the bare frame
analysis.'

--

S.afety

.Of

Existing Structure _

The-safety .Of the existing structure have b_een checked under gravity lQads (Dead
LDad and Live LDad), as well as under all the cQmbinatiQns as per cQde. It has been
fDund that the building is grQssly:tleficient against earthquake lQading. It appears
that the buildings were nQt designed fQr earthquake IQads, at all. This is in
accQrdance with the practice prevalent in early 60's.
It has been found that SQme .Of the cQlumns- are inadequate even fQr gravity loads.
One reaSQn for this is high slenderness ratiQ .Of the cQlumns in the transverse
direction, due to absence .Of beams. High slenderness results in high secQndary
moments and hence results in unsafe columns.

The large ma.ss of water tanks at roQf is also undesirable from seismic safety view
point. The \\;lIer tanks are simply placed over beams resting on raIsed pedestals.
OUTIng shaking due to eartHquake thes<:< water tanks are prone to sliding and falling

------------~~~--~~-----------------;.~---------------

- - _. . . . .

u'()l

upllUIl UJ

water sUP1?ly but. also in

severe darnage~o thc buildings.

Retrofitting Measures Suggested

As described above, the building is severely deficient against earthquake forces. As
there is no frame action availabiein transverse direction, the columns offer very
little resistau.ce to earthquake forces. Some resistance is provided by the existing
shear walls, but it is inadequate. Therefore the lateral resistance of the structural
system needs to be impro\&ed. Similarly in longitudinal direction also, although the
beams have been provided and frame action is available; it is inadequate and
. resistance needs to be improved in longitudinal direction, as well.
T()impr~ve the

lateral load resistance, following options are available:

(i)

Additional Shear Walls

{ii)

Strengthening of existing members by jacketing

(iii) Addition of RC/steel frames

(iv) Addition of steel bracings
Considering the importance of the building, it is essential to select a retrofit scheme,
which will cause miniqlUID hindrance to the normal usage of the bUilding. Further,
the chosen retrofit system should be compatible with the existing structure. Keeping
_these factors in view, addition of new shear wans and increasing the thickness of
existing shear walls, is evidently the most suitable option.
The building was analysed to estimate the required amount of shear w~ls. The
number, size and location of shear walls have been oecided considering the lateral
~sistance provided by existing structure and to enhance the torsional rigidity of the
structure. Another consideration in deciding the number of shear walls is the lateral
sway of buildings under earthquake loading and the limits provided by IS: 1893 on
inter-storey drift.

Figs. 8.15 show the location of the shear walls in the building .DIan. The
reinforcement detailing of the shear walls has beerr shown in Figs. 8.16 and 8.17_
The values of various parameters used in tbe detailing of shear walls have been
presented in tabular form. Table 8.1 shows one such typical Set of-values. It has
been..observed that even after providing the shear walls, which are alone sufficient
'to carry the entire earthquake load,the existing columns are inadequ-;'te. There are
two reasons for th!l-t (i) the columns have been originally designed just adequate (or
even inadequate, in some cases) for gravity loads, and even a slight lateral toad
snared by them results in failure; and (ii) due to frames-shear wall interaction, large
moments develop in columns, particularly at upper storeys. As perCl. 7.11.2, IS:
. 1893, it is to be ensured that columns should not loose their vertical load carrying
capacity under the induced rotations resulting during earlhquake. '(his necessitates
jacketing of existing columns. It is understood that jacketing of existing columns
will result in tremendous hindrance to the nonnal usage of the building, but there is
. no other option to ensure the safety of building against earthquake .

(
(

lSi)

\..

C
l

\I
I

-, T
l

tJ-,"""'-"""""'~'7

...

'6

50. 8

,,

IIw,
il

~I

:1

II,I

'5

iI

Ii

,4

~"""""'~~lT

il

II

~I
!!

, 3"f~ Existing Shear Wail

IJ

"

,2

5.1[m
.
'.".~'w~""'"~1

2A4m ~.

5.'14m

~~~

2.44m

Additional Shear

<.~ Ja~keted Shear Wa."

L--S.94m--.J

Fig.. 8 15 Location afExisting and Additional Shear Walls

151

Wall

0v @ Sv in two layers

Existing Column
-

-~~;,~[~

ig'

<c~

~ ~ (/

/;; li~
-::~

,:;::,01

il J

.'1' 1

fi~l\>
I

.1 1 I

-.11

.1

{'/r<

%//
.{/,,;.;

,
i

;:~,-::

:('<\,
. ~/,

~:.

'4:2'''-'
.i
~. ~:
..:.....:,.,..

~./
:Z:;'., ....

r-:

%,~.
,

f.2
."

"i/-

-~-.'"

I:';>;

'-

'f/,

~-

,-----

"

.,~

,1"",'

W'

~. 1;~Wc-~>( '/.
k~ ~r {'
. . ~ ~: ~c~':

ii# (i: ~,:6 I~

J .1 .1 .1 J I

I
I

5/:

.....;

.-..

/;;~~

:.... - :

ii,/'

t:;

,..---.-~

.',-,,;.
'/r,
',".

-~-~

..
'--.---_.

,
,

.....

___.w..
-.-_ ..

. ..

..

-~

...,.':.j

...0

e;:J

(/)

...

----8
e;:J

([)

CO
OJ)

I I
I J

.....
Ul

:..u
_\

.
I
I

I
I

J
I _L II

-'I

-.1 .l -.1 1 I J J .1
1 I .l J J I I I
-~

1-'

-~--

0h@Sh in two layers

-

I J J-.1
I .l Ll

....

Existing Raft

Fig 8.16 Reiry/orcemenl Detailing a/the Shear /rulls

152

Vertical Section

.. _._ ....... _...-

-~-r-

...

....

<I)

<L)

>-.

.E:!

~
c

<I)

'

<1)

:>

>-.

V)

<tI

:>

..c:

V)

@
..c:

v;

0...

gp ---;"'-1"'

C
C
--.J

Vl

x
ll.l

Fig 8./""' l/on:::oou,t! \'ec/wlI and Connection with Exisfing Columns

153

- ..

~-

-.-.---------

..

Table 8.1 Details ofShear Wall S3-S4

.-------~~-~-~-~-~-~--~--~--~--~-~

-~-~---.

Vertical
Horizontal
Boundary Elements
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Details
Details
Dia of No
Diaof
Dia of
Floor
Bar of
Thickness
Spacing
B
D
Bar.
Spacing
Bar
No.
(mm)
(mml~ __ i~f!l>-~..!!!L (m__(1ll!!11_!!!1m) (mm) Bars
nb
tw
Sh
Bb
_ <Ph
Do
Sv
<Pb
<P.
- 300
300
20
8
Ground
16
200
300
110
12
First
20
8
- -300
12
140
12
190
300
3.00
-190
20
Second
12
i2
190
300
300
8
300
--~--~----.

--~-----~-~-~-~-~-~----~---

'Ii...

Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Ninth

300
300
300
300

JOO
300

~~----------------

----~-.---.-

12
12
12
12
12
12

210
220
280
300
300
300

12
12
12
12
12

12

210 220
280
300
300
300

300

300

16

b
0
0
0

----~~~-~~---~------.---~--~-

------~------~------

In addition to .the strengthening of the lateral load resisting system, following

measures are afso necessary to ensure the seismic safety of the buildiQgS:
1.

It is desirable to remove the heavy water tanks form the rooftop and to
provide some alternative system for water supply.
"'

If it is not possible (0 remove these water tanks-lhese should be positively

anchored to the structure so that these do not slide during earthquake and
fall on the -roof. Preferably these tanks shou.ld be replaced by a large
number of smaller size tanks, properly anchored to the structure.

,,

2.

The separation between adjacent blocks should be cleared-and widened.

'fhe problem of locai corrosion in the slab, beam, and columns should be
treated using the procedure suggested by CP\VD H andbook2

Performance Evaluation of Retrofitted Building

:\. fter analyzing and retrofitting the existing buildings, tl~Glr safety has been assessed

u::;ing Performance Based Design and Non-Linear Static A.nalysis (Push-over)

"

Procedure, as per FEMA-273 and ATC-40. RAM Pel'f0!l11 3D software has been
used for Non-Linear analysis . ..Analysis has been pcrtclIlncd for DBE, 1.2 DBE,
\1CE and 1.2 MCE levels of seismic hazard.
\1gs 8.18 shows the typical pushover curves and performance point of the building
under DBE level of ground shaking. T.hese push-o,:cr curves and performance
pc)lllts have been obtained consideri}lg limit '-st~llC capacities of beams

(.

154

(,
it.

L
l

'.1

and columns imd ignoring the strength of infills. It can be expected that a lot .of
over-strength will be available due to these two factors and the performance shown
in Fig. 8.18 is on conservative side.

The Figs. Indicate that the 'expected performance level of the building is Immediate
occupancy, which is the desirable performance level in case of hospitals.

1
I

2""'' 1
2.00E+04 .

I
,

160E+04

j "~~f\1
i ::=[\
'.OOE<03

6.00E+03

400E+03 1

2~E'0l1

DRIFT

-~.

OL-'
0

....~~~~.~~.-.-~"

5.o0E03

100E0:::

P8fiod (sec)

1.36E+OO

1.821:+(10

Damping(%.)

1.57E+Ol

265E+01

~.OE02

2.00E-02

2.50E02

3.50E-02

4.00E02

4.50E-02

5.00(02

24E+00

2.60E+00

2 .9~+00---3.23e..oo-3.51 E+OO

3.78E+00

4.04E+OO

4.2:3E+OO

4.68E+01

4.78E+01

4.86E+0)

492E+01

:; 63E+01- 4.08E+01

4.36E+01

Beam LS
Column LS

3.00E-02

4.55E+01

5 Beam CP
7 - Column
6 - Drift 10____ 8 - Drift LS

-L~~~~~

.. _~

~~~~~~_

Fig R. /8 CUl'ulilr Sp,clrllln and Peiformance Point in Longitudinal direclion under

nBE level ofground shaking

I
I

155

5.50E-02

8.3.2 RC BUILDING-2
The second RC building studied is a CGHS Apartments at~Vasundbra, Ghaziabad.
" old code (IS: 1893
The building has been recently constructed according to the
1984). It is a four storey RC frame building with ground storey kept open for
parking. The upper storeys have masonry infills of one brick thick in the exterior
panels and half brick thick in the interior panels. The columns have isolated footing
and m:.e i!11erconn~cted by tie beams at plinth level. The plan of the building is
shown in-Fig. 8.19. The bearing capacity of soil at the depth of foundation (1.2 m)
has been repoped to be 110 kN/lli. -An overview of the structural drawings
indicates that ductile detailing guidelines of IS: 13920-1984.7 have been followed.

I--- .

..... -

~~

r--

"

Fig. 8.12 Plan olRe building-2

The building has been evaluated for the seismic f<:>rces and design philosophy of IS:
1893-2002. The building is expected to resist moderate earthquakes without
significant structural damage and a major
earthquake \vithout collapse. A Linear
Z-OIRECTION ORlfT --'t-atRWIOH DRIFT
Static analysis of the building is
perfonned under lateral loads calculated
as per IS: 1893-2002. The _stiffhess of
different storeys has also been obtained
o
by applying a point lateral load at theiop
z
_________ __._. __._
of the building (So that the storey shear in
all the storeys is same) and calculating" tlie
storey drifts.

......

4l

)~~_~~

"

ill

\.

o~--~----~--~----~--~

0.1

03

0.5

Storey Dri!l(cm)
Fig. 8.20 Storey drifts in the two
directions

(
(
\

..

(
156

c
..---

The safety of different components of

building has been evaluated for design
l~vel earthquake f<?rces. The moment
capacity of all the beams and columns has
been found to he more than the demand.
The axial force capacity of columns is

also more than the demand. -The shear .

capacity of heams and colutnns has been. =

checked not only for the applied forces,' .

but also for the shear capacity required _

for formation of trexural hinges in beams. All the beams and columns have been
found to be safe against shear except for one column near the centre of the building.
in size.
This column requires to be increased
11>
To study the st!ffness discontinuity of the building, storey drifts under point load at
top of building in the two horizontal directions is shown in Fig. 8.20. It can be seen
that the building has
E
F
extremely soft first
storey.

.J

To. Improve the

:-
seismic performance

of the building, two

alternatives
have

.~
B
A
I
. suggested. In the
first alternative shear
I
walls are to be
c
D
introduced at the
locations - shown in
Fig. 8.21 Location ofshear walls in plan

Fig. 8.21. In the

second - alternative,

the size of beams and columns of the ground storey are increased by jacketing.

Figure 8.2-2 shows the typic.al details of additional reinforcement in a column.

WELDED

ane: ~-

10 f/J@
75 clc

300

)0

(J@ _

75 cle

I
-

14-16

Fig. 8.22 Reinforcement details in jackflted columns

157
~

300

REFERENCES

..
'

1. Mittal, K.V., 1996, History of Thomson College of Engineering, University of

Roorkee, Roorkee, Second reprint
.

1:
n

2. Middlemiss, C.S., 1905, "Memoirs of Geological Survey of India," Vol. XXXVIII,

The Kangra Earthqua,ke of 4th April 1905.

tit
d

3. IS:1893-2002, Criteria for Earthquake resistant Design of structures, Part-l:

General Provisions and Buildings, fifth revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

ta

4. IS: 1905-1987, Code ofPractice for..structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry, third

revision,. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

5. Arya, AS., et at. (200 1), A Manual of Earthquake Resistant Non-Engineered

Construction, Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, pp. 145.
I,

6. IS: 13935 (1993), Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings - Guidelines,

Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

7. IS 13920-1993, Ductile Detailing of Iteinforced CQ...ncrete Structures Subjected to

Seismic Forces

Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian S@ndards, New Delhi.

(
(

/.

e
\

C
C
C.

158

.S

pt
'.

fc
t(
II