.. ' .....-..

Copyright o 1996 Bsevler Science Ltd
paperNo. 2115. (quote when c/tlng this art/ele)
Beventh World Canterence on Earthquake Engineering
II WCBB
ISBN: O08 042822 3
STATE-OF-1HE-ART IN TECHNlQUES FOR
REHABILITATION OF BunDINGS
SHUNSUKE SUGANO
Senior ChiefResearcher, Research and Development Institute, Takenaka Corporation
1-5 Ohtsuka,Inzai-Machi, Inba-Oun, Chiba 270-13, Japan
ABSTRACT
An overviewofthe state-of-the-art in techniques for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings was presented
in this paper with emphasis on research and practice. First typical techniques used for reinforeed concrete, steel
and masonry buildings were summarized in accordance with the aims of rehabilitation. New approaches to
utilize seismic isolation and supplemental damping as well as conventional strengthening techniques to infill,
to brace and to jacket existing strueture were described. Over twenty years research data were reviewed to
discuss the improved behavior of rehabilitated structures and components with various techniques. Examples
ofboth postearthquake and preearthquake rehabilitations of existing buildings were deseribed in some detaiL.
Finally the observed behavior ofseveral rehabilitated bui1dings during particular earthquakes were introduced
to discuss the effect of rehabilitation.
KEYWORDS
seismic performance, repair, upgrading, retrofltting, strengthening, infill wall, bmces, jacketing. seismic isola­
tion, seismic damper
INTRODUCTION
in earthquake engineering, the tenn "rehabilitation
ll
is used as a comprehensive term to inc1ude all the concepts
of"repair
tl
, lIupgrading
tl
, "retrofitting" and "strengthening" that lead to reduce building earthquake vulnerabil­
ity. in early years ofthe world conference on earthquake engineering (WCEE), the major topic in the teehnical
session of rehabilitation was the development of techniques to repair and to strengthen existing ı
After experiences ofsignificant damage to buildings due to several destructive earthquakes, particularly, those
whicb bit highly densed urban areas (for examples, 1978 Miyagiken-oki, 1985 Mexico and 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquakes), many cases ofpractice ofrehabilitation as well as development ofrehabilitation techniques were
reported in the proceedings ofWCEE. Thus, the number of papers on seismic rehabilitation has been increas­
ing in the WCEE with the increase oftotal number oftechnical papers (Fig. 1), and the ratio ofthe number of
rehabilitation papers to the total has been also increasing, reaching at over 4% in the latest conference of
10WCEE in 1992. This indicates that the importance of seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings has been
recognized year after year in oor society. The recent two earthquakes, Le., the 1994 Northridge ı and
the ı 995 Kobe earthquake could have strongly pushed OUT society to recognize the importance of ı
- 1 ­
E
..
Number of SOO 1000
6WCEE (New Delhi 1971)
611
paperson
7WCEE (Istanbul 1980) rehabilitation of
buildings
8WCEE (San Francisco 1984
9WCEE (Tokyo, Kyoto 1988
IOWCEE (Madrid 1992)
Fig. i Number of papers on seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings in the proceedings ofWCEE
countenneasures for existing vulnerable buildings.
A large number ofexisting buildings in earthquake prone areas over the world need seismic rehabilitation due
to various reasons and motivations, such as code change or earthquake damage. Earthquake damaged buildings
may need strengthening along with repair ofdamaged portion for reuse (postearthquake rehabilitation). Gener­
ally. they are rehabilitated so that their improved ı ı may sa.tisfy the required performance by
current code. Seismically inadequate buildings. the design ofwhich do not comply with current code. may also
need rehabilitation (preearthquake rehabilitation) so that they meet the requirements ofthe code inforee. Many
rehabilitation techniques were investigated recent twenty or more years to apply to both preearthquake and
postearthquake rehabilitations. They are techniques to iniill. to brace and to back up ex:isting frames and to
jacket existing framing members so that lateral resistance and ductility of a building may be increased. in
addition to these conventional seismic resistant type techniques, another approaches to reduce seismic re­
sponse of a building have been recently adapted. Seismic isolation and supplemental damping are such new
techniques for rehabilitation. though they have been investigated for long time to use for new buildings.
This paper describes the present state of research and practice oftechniques for seismic rehabilitation of exist­
ing buildings. First typical techniques which have been used for reinforced concrete. steel and masonry build­
ings are summarized in accordance with the aims ofrehabilitation. Because ofthe large volume ofexisting data
available. most of the teehniques deseribed herein are those for reinforeed concrete buildings. Examples of
techniques used for both postearthquake and preearthquake rehabilitations are deseribed in some details. Re­
cent approaches to utilize seismic isolation and supplemental damping as well as conventional infilling. brac­
ing andjacketing techniques are described. Over twenty years research data have been reviewed to discuss the
improved seismic behavior of rehabilitated buildings and components with various techniques. Finally the
observed behavior of same rehabilitated buildings during particular earthquakes are introduced to discuss the
effect ofrehabilitation.
REHABILITATION STRATEGY AND TECHNIQUES
Rehabilitation Strategy
As shown in Fig. 2, the aims of seismic rehabilitation are;
1) to recover onginal structural performance,
2) to upgrade anginal ı performance, and
3) to reduce seismic response
so as to reduce building earthquake vulnerability. To recover anginal structural performance, damaged or
deteriorated portions of a building may be repaired with adequate material or replaced with newelement or
material. To upgrade original structural performance there are several approaches (Fig. 2). General approach to
-2­
seismic
rehabilitation
-
-
recover original
ı
upgrade original
performanee
reduee seismic
response
repair damage and deterioration
ro-­ stiffen ı strueture
:-­ strengthen existing structure
improve irregularity and/or discontinuity
-
supplement energy dissipating devices
r-­
H reduee masses
L....I isoIate ı structure
Fig. 2 Seismic İ strategy and measures
upgrade original performance is to strengthen existing strueture by the methods deseribed in the following
section. To reduee excessive response displacement, a building must be stiffened. lrreguIarity or discontinuity
of stiffness or strength distribution which may result in faHure or large distortion at particular portion of a
building must be eliminated by changing ı configuration. It is effective to supplement energy dissipat­
ing devices in the structure to enhanee the capability to dissipate seismic energy and as a ı to reduee
seismic response. Another eoncept to reduee seisroic response is to isoiate existing structu.re from the ground
(seismic isolation) as well as to reduce building masses. For important buildings which most be İ
after an earthquake or which must preserve expensive and valuable contents, for example, it is particularly
effective approach.
Strengthening Techniques
Manyapproches and techniques have been studied and practiced for recent twenty or more years to strengthen
existing struetures. Some of them include to stiffen existing structure and/or to improve irregolarity or
discontinuity in distributin of stiffhes or srength ofa building. The aims of seismic strengthening are to provide
1) increased strength, 2) inereased ductiIity, and 3) a proper combination ofthese two features, so as to satisfy
the required seismie ı (Fig. 3). The required ı is eva1uated in ı of strength and/or
ductility. The combination of mengtb and ductility involves the proper balancebetween strength and stiffness.
Providing inereased strength is the most promising approach for low- to medium-rise buildings. Even if
sufficient ductility is provided. adequate strength is required to reduce inelastic displacement Spandrel waIls
may be separated from a column to eliminate "captive column" to increase ductility.
provide
back-up
structure
seismic
strengthening
infiii
existing
frames
brace
existing
frames
place
side
walls
jacket
existing
membe
Required
Seismic
Performance
Ductility
Fig. 3 Typical strengthening methods
(b) increase strength
and ductility
(a) increase strength
(c) increase ductility
- 3 ­
peripheral frames
buttresses
cast-in-situ concrete
precast concrete panel
steel panel
concrete blocks
brickinfill
comp. or tens. braces
tens. & comp. braces
steel or concrete
post-tensioning cables
cast-in-situ concrete
precast concrete panel :
steel encasement
steel straps
concrete or mortar
camon fiber
----' _ L­
J
existing
/concret"e
ehipping
stud balt
steeJ frame
mortar
,'"
reinforcement
.

1
Typical strengthening teehniques are summarized in Figs. 3 through Fig. 9. Generaily. new elements are added
to existing frames to provide increased strength (Fig. 4(a», or existing framing elements are reinforced with
new materials to increase flexura1 capacity (Fig. 5(a» and/or to improve ductility (Fig. 5(b». Infill walls and
&ide wal1s are east-m-situ or precastwalI elements to be attached to ı or to beams. GeneralIy, walls are of
cast-in-situ concrete infil1mg existing bare frame. Steel panel mayalsa be a element to infill existing frame. It
is necessary to provide CODDectiOllS alang ı all the ı when as much strength as that ofmonolithic
wai.l is required. Spandrel walls inside the existing frame may be a part ofthe infill wall when the opening is
";.
f'--­
L
braees side walls infiJI wall
buttress
(a) strengthening element

expansion anchor adhesive anchor ,
b) steel to eoncrete (direct connection)
d) anchor

(b) Connection
_' , ,_ _F.ig. 4 Typical __­ "C,-­
existing
: new longitudinal
eX!sting new reinforcement i
ı reinforeement / angle at eaeh
concrete :f /' ., comer --­
concrete
ı ı

existing eove
..c.. ties beam " ' p'late
; '.' plate • column side
a) ı jacket b) Beam jaeket c) Joint confinement steel
(a) Jacketing techniques to increase frame flexuraI capacity
ties. or welqed existing steel
j,,:\j eXI'stin , ,," ı fabries eolumn
raps /
g
e
Bst el 1nereasr ı "1"':: co umrf i
ı ı __---,
; '.. mortaror
'conerete carbon fiber
i_,
ı i gap{ i ı
steel frame
-----­
new hoo ,', .. :
steel or
eonerete
jaeket
(b) Iacketing techniques to increase column shear capacity
Fig. 5 Typical member reinforeing techniques
- 4­




infilled with ı ı An existing StrUetUraI wal1 may be strengthened by placing new ı ı ı ı panel
along with the existing wat!.
Typical details of CODnections to existing ı ı are given in Fig. 4(b). Dowel connections in Fig. 4a) are
used for ı ı ı walls and side walls. The expansion and adhesive type anehors for dowel connection are
ı in Fig.4d). Steel elements may be simply attached to the existing conerete through mortar fill, as
shown in Fig. 4c), while they may be directly attached to the ı by bolting (Fig. 4b). Steel systems of
ı ı and panels with peripheral framewere studied by Yamamoto (1983, Fig.ll) and Aoki (1992) using the
connection in Fig. 4c). The steel elements were welded or bolted to the peripheral frame, and the steei ı
WLIS attached to existing frame through mortar ı ı Stud bolts were welded to steel ı and adhesive ı ı ı
were insta1led along the existing frame. These bolts and anehors acted as dowels through mortar fill, though
they were not connected each other. This connection tolerates more error in dimension of the steel system lo be
.Hacbed to existing frame than the direct eonnection.
F1exural capacity of ı may be increased with conerete or steel jaeket shown in Fig. 4(a) providing with
new ı ı and lateral reinforcements. it is importanl to adequately arrange lateral reinforcements to
aehieve ductile behavior. Beam-to-column eonnection may need continement with steel element, though the
ı is not easy (Aleoeer 1995, Hakulo, Park 1995). Column duetility may be improved with jacketing
ı shown in Fig. 5(b). An existing column is jaeketed with conerete or steel eneasemenl. in increasing
ductility ofcolumns with these tec:hniques, the aim is to inerease their shear capacity providing new conerete
and/or reinforcemenl. it is very important to provide a narrow gap at the end of steel or eonerete ı to
avoid undesired inerease of shear forces resulting from the increase of flexural eapacity.
Based on the lessons leamed from the damage to steel connections by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, some
modification methods for steel connection are proposed (FEMA 1995). The aim ofthe methods shown in Fig.
6 as examples is to shift the plastic hinge away from the connection using hauneh, cover plale or rib. These




L

altemate
ı
(a) Top and bottom haunch (b) Cover plate connection (c) Upstanding rib connection,
ı modification modifieation
Fig. 6 Examples of of steel connection 1995)
(a) Addilion of RC column
(Hidalgo 1995)
A
V
<>

<
>

y-
,
­ welded wire mesh
O( JI
shotcrete
existing slab or girder
bored hale i
,

steel profile
ii
,
h
00
steel tie
... ı ot
WNmosh
(b) Strengthening by (c) Confinement with
welded wire mesh steel seclion
(Alcocer 1994)
L
,
Fig. 7 Strengthening ı ı wall
- 5 ­

,
methods can be applied to new construction. Existing masonry ı walls may be strengthened by the addition
of new reinforced concrete coIumn (Hidalgo 1995, Fig. 7(a», by Jacketing with c<mcrete and welded wire
fabrlcs 1994, Fig. 7(b» or by confining wilh ı section (Fig. 7(c».
Recently seismic iso! ation has been adopted for rehabilitMian of critica! or essentiat facilities, buildings ı
expensive and valuable eontents, and stIUCtUres where superior seisrnic perfmmance is required. The seismic
',.e
no" 0__ .,','­ ••• ••• -mW _
(a) High-damping ruhber (b)Lcad core rubber (c) Frietion pendulum system
Fig. 8 Isolation bearings use<! for seismic rehabilitation
Di i O __?-.U...ll
i8 (; \ /
f:s center ) \ : 'i
'.!!l " .• .. plate .1..' ı ! II

j
ı ..__.__._.. 1- [l; ı at::' ;1
(a) shear yielding damper (b) vlscoelastlc damper (c) added damping and stiffness (ADAS)
(akade, Seki 1992) (ScholI1986, 500ng 1993) element (SehoIl1990, Kelly 1993)
Fig. 9 Dampers used fOf seisroic rehabilitatlan
isolatian system significantly reduces Ihe <cisroie impact on building strueture and assemblics. For isolation
bearings elastomeric systerns(high-damping rubber and Icad core rubber) or friction pendulum system are
presendy available (Fig. 8). In other cases, rubber bcanngs aceompany damping element such as viscous
damper Energy dissipation devices have been alsa adopted rerently LO ı ı inelastic ı demand
Many ideas are propose<! for new buildings, however, shear yielding damper (Okada, Seki 1992). viscoelastic
damper ı ı 1986, Sooog 1993) and added damping and stiffness (ADAS) elements (Scholl 1990, Kel1y
1993) are presently available for seisrole ı
BEHA ı OF REHABILITATF..D snUCTlJ'RES
ReW'reh Q!!..Rehabilitllted StfUetureS
The earliest tests in rehabilitarian research were aiming at repair of damaged S!nleture (Plecnic 1977, Gulkan
1977) and the improvement of column ductility by jacketingwith ,teel encasement, steel straps or welded wire
fabrics (Sasaki 1975, Higashi and Kokusho 1975, Kahn 1980) They were also ı at the ı of the
strength of frames by the addition of precast or east-m-sim ı ı ı and ı 1975, Kahn 1977,
Higashi and Ohkubo 1977) In addition, one-story infilled ı with vanaus connection details and bracing
systems werc exarnined (Higashi 1980, Sugano and fujimum 1980) Threc-story frames, strengmened by
infilling and bracing ı ı were ı tesred ı 1984). Further were those for ı walls
(Aoyama 1984, Ramirez 1992), steel braeing ''}'sterns (Yamamoto 1983, Katsumata 1989, Goel 1992, Aoki
- 6 ­
1992) andjacketed columns with steel straps (Arakawa 1980), with carbon fiber (Takeda and Katsumata 1988,
1992), with SteeI encasement (Yoshimura 1992, ı 1994) and with concrete (Park. Rodoriguez 1992).
ofjacketed frames were a1so tested by A1cocer 1992, and ı and Hakuto 1995.
Shear transfer at the connection between new ans existing elements was another issue in strengthening. The
behaviors of fasteners and connections were investigated by Eligehausem 1988, Jirsa 1988, Shimizu 1988,
ı 1992, Hosokawa 1992 and Valluvam 1994.
Behavior of Strengthened Frames
ı of the behavior of strengthened frames with various construction techniques are shown in Fig. i O
(Sugano and Fujimura 1980). Infill wal1 behaved similarly to monolithic wall, though the strengtb was s1ight1y
less. Concrete blocks alsa extensively increased the strength of original frame. Tension braces provided good
ductility properties while compression braces and steel panel did not develop their yield strength due to the
failure of existing columns or connections. The behavior of strengthened frames with steel systems are
summarized in Fig. 11 (Yamamoto 1983). Both the X and V braces and a panel with opening were capable of
significantly improving not only strengtb but a1so duc1ility oforiginal mme. The double K braees (Aoki 1992)
a1so indicated significantly improved both strength and ductility of original frame. Note that even a steel
peripheral frame a10ne could significant1y improve both the strength and ductility. Another ı ı test of V­
braces system with binge device at the joint to the steel frame (Okada, Seki 1992) indicated significant1y
increased energy dissipa1ing capability resulting from yielding of shear paneL.
Typical load-displacement relationships of strengthened mmes with various eonstruetion techniques are
iIIustrated in Fig. 12. This is only qualitative indication of the order of strengtb and duc1ility that ı be
attained using ditrerent techniques. The findings from the figure were summarized as follows. i) When
adequate connections were provide<!, ı walls exhibited almast the same strengtb as monolithic wall. 2)
Multiple precast panels provided good ductility properties, however as expected, much less strength was
attained. 3) The predominance of bending behavior in three story frame was observed in contrast to shear
dominance in one-story frames. 4) Steel framed braces indicated significantly increased both strength and
ductility. 5) Concrete blocies and brick masonry also significantly increased strength.
Behavior ofReinforrM Members
Fig. 13(a) shows the dramatic improvement of ductility attained by a column using welded wire fabric
wrapping and mortar (Kokusho 1975). Thick Iines in the figure show the brittIe failure of this type of short
coIumn that has been observed in many damaged buildings due to destructive earthquakes. Displacement
ductility larger that 6 couId be attained in this case. Alsa the significant improvement of ductility by steel
ı is shown in Fig. 13(b) for the test by Yoshimura 1992. While original columns with average and
heavy reinforeement failed in shear, jacketed columns could sustain the displacement larger than 2"/0.
Typical load-displacement relations ofreinforced columos with various techniques are shown in Fig. 14. This
is alsa qualitative indicalion of the order of strength and duclility that might be attained using ditrerent
techniques. The findings are summarized as follows. 1) Anyone of wrapping techniques to use steel
encasement, conerete encasement, carbon fiber and steel straps resulted in considerable inerease in ductility,
2) Columns with conerete jacket indicated significantly inereased both strength and duetility. 3) Steel
encasement without end gaps resulted in decrease of strengtb, though bigher strength was obtained. 4)
Separation of spandrel walls considerably increased ductility wbile the strengtb was significant1y reduce<!.
-7­
-- -
<XIIumn 20 x 20
ı ISx25 . il
_n I70cm f of­ ,r,
ı -1 il ,2.0 R t-.... -S.ll -1.11
- p ı (iOSN) -- ­ ,
original frame R : drift (!Ili) concrete blocks
f'
-5.0 1.0 it
posteast wall __ _ ___ tension braces
Fig. 10 Hysteretic behavior ı ı frames with various techniques (Sugano, Fujimura 1980)
X-braces
f--20Ocm
X 35crrl 8.0
panel
i H- BO x BO x 4.5 x 6 i

181
Gl
i!! 4.0
X - braces M - braces
1''1

EI
1\- braces K - braces
brace: H-80xBOx4.5x6
3.0
o 1.0 2.0
panel : F-PL-6xSO
W-PL-4.5 story drift index(%)
panel
Fig. ı i Behavior of strengthened frame with steel system.s_(yamamoto ı 983, Aoki ı 992)
-"------ --.- _._-----
lBil
KokuShO (1975), Sugano, Fujimura- (1980), '
Higashi (1980), Hayashi (1980), Aoyama (1984) i
monolithick wall
Vw ı wall
/' LJ
\
. .•.•_." .....•
steel framed bra L......c......c
concrete bloclcs
if.-=
....•
..
multi-story
]
.Hi ;\; (1980) infin wall
Abram (1993), Shuller (1994) ı
__ (1984)
J:DIIJL .... "''---- ı


t::.:
i
llftnstrengthened
ame
0.5 1.0 1.5
O
story drift index (%)
Fig. 12 Typical load-displacement relationships of strengthened frames with various techniques
- 8­
......---.--­ -------K-braces})
,/ M-braces (Aolei)!
1\-braces ,l
ı
!
steel frame .. i fra
ı ı me /

/,/ ./
//
0.60 -­ 1.00Vw
i
'-o __
v
.....j,!--=:::-=·F-i
d_ '
onginal column

1- ,v"LE-S ".=
/ CE-S
i i ol ...,...LE
'I CE CE-S ii k CE ,
. LE LE-S drift index(96) ,
8.0

Higashi, Ohkubo (1977)
-
Park, Rodriguez (1992)

side wall concrete jacket
steel
• /
,
jacket
,.
>
/
Yoshimura (1992)
Higashi, Kokusyo
CIL
Sasaki (1975)

t
/
(1975)
o
- _Arakawa

CIL
'\ (1980)
til
steel
jacket
'\
i\

ii: Takeda,
Katsumata
concrete steel
carbon ( 1988)
jacket straps
fiber
t

V
IIseparation of Aoyama,lchinose (1984)
5pandrel wall
,...
O
1.0 2.0 3.0
story drift index R ('Ko)
Fig. 14 TYl'icalload-displacement ş of eolumns. reinforeed with various techniques
SEISMIC REHABillTATION OF EXlSTING BUllDINGS
Postearthquake Rehabilitation
Recent over 25 years, many buildings were rehabilitated after the damage by destruetive earthquakes using
variOllS types oftechniques. The enteria how to restore adamaged building depends on the level ofits damage
and the intensity of the earthquake whieh caused the damage (Table I). GeneralIy they were rehabilitated to
upgrade their seismic performance so that they may meet the requirement of code in force. The major aims of
the rehabilitation are to recover onginal function of the building and to prepare measures ı ı possible
stronger ı Used techniques were in wide variety. in early cases, mostly conerete shear wa1ls were
selected because they were capable ofproviding large lateral resistance. The building in Pboto i W8S severely
damaged by the ı of 1968 (Tokachi-oki earthquake) and it was rehabilitaled one year after the
earthquake by placing eonerete walls a10ng with repair of damaged columns in shear. It was first experience
- 9­
Pboto 3 Strengthening ı ı
(after 1980 Livermore earthquake)
Photo 4 Conclllte jacketing
(after 1985 ı ı eartbquake)
Photo 5 ı jacketing
(after i 985 Mexico earthqua.ke)
Photo 6 Rehabilitation with seismic isolation
(after 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake)
for Japanese engineers to extensively strengthen ı ı for furure earthqua.ke. The shear wall
ı however. lakes ı due to 1) increased weight of the huilding, and 2) separation of
space Diagonal steel bracing is aoother solution to provide large lateral resistance of a building, in addition.
possible large displacement capacity. In the huilding in Photo 2 which suffered _'ere damage due to shear
[ailure of shon coIumns by the 1978 ı ı earthquake. steel diagonal hraces were plaeed a1ang both
longitudinal exterior ı through the stories The inereased lateral resistance and the ductility were veriHed
by labaratary tests (Kawamata 1980) The ı bracing can provide large lateral res;st8nce ond large opening
for lighting without incressed weigbt followed by the rehabililation.
Buttre5ses were used for the building in Photo 3 damaged by the Livermore eanbquake of 1980 (Freeland
1984). Sharpe 1990 ı another case ofbultress ı ı for ı building in the same site. The
- 10­
PlIHI-ifH- gouging
if
buttress does not disturb interlor building space and function., therefore, it is effective method when outer space
is sufficiently provided. Photos 4 and 5 show jaeketing of ı frame elements with conerete and steel
straps wbieh were seen in Mexico City after the earthquake of 1985. Because ofsignificantly increased design
seismic forces after the code revision, massiye jacketing was necessary to meet the code requirements. The
building in Photo 6, consisting ofwooden bearing walls, was affected by the Loma Priete ı of 1989
and &eismic isolation was adopted for rehabilitation. Friction pendulum system was used for isolation bearing.
ı ı ı ı ofPamaged Buildings in Kobe
A large number of reinforced concrete, steel reinforced conerete and steel buildings in Kobe City suffered
severe damage by the ı of 1995. ı ı damaged buildings needed repair for reuse while collapsed ol"
some of severely damaged buildings were demolished. The criterla for restoration depends on damage level
and the intensity of the earthquake which damaged the buildings. Table i shows a proposed eriteria for
restoration (Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association 1991). in the areas which reported seismic
ı ı VI (in JMA scale) or greater, restoration by only "repair" was underway in most of damaged
buildings. The restoration design and construetion for damaged buildings were achieved following existing
guidelines. Figure 15 shows examples of recommended repair techniques for reinforced concrete and steel
bui1dings (Building Center of Japan 1995).
Table i Criteria for restoration ofdamaged buildings
Dam e Level Li t Minor Medium
'or
CoIla se
Seismic lower than 5 ı X X X
1ntensity 5 O O .6.
X X
Scale(JMA) higherthan 5 O O O
.6. X
restoration by : Orepair, L>.repair or strengthening, X strengtheningor demolitian
JMAScale JMA:JopanMetoorological
Agency
Damage rank Rank ı or less RankIY
Sketch
u u
of
damage
Repair Repair cracks Grout mortar or cast concrete Jacket with conerete
method Repair cracks and Jacket withwelded wire Jacket with steel plate and grout
partial loss of concrete fabrics and morter mortar
Repair partia! lass of Jacket with steel plate and Jacket with steel plate, add vertical
conerete wout morter reinforcementand grout mortar
(a) Repair of damaged concrete columns
­
welding
'- ­

after

"
\,

i

i .. .. i
\\
ı ,
"
\\ tt'
stiffening
stiffening
plate
plate
Ruptured base metal
Buckled H-section
(b) Repair of damaged steel members
Fig. 15 Examples ofrepair techniques 1995 Kobe Earthquake (Building Center ofJapan 1995)
- , ­

Cracked welding portion
- 1 1 ­


preeartbquake Rehabilitation
Since the publication of the ı for Seismic Capacity Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Buildings" (Sapan Building Disaster Prevention Association 1977) a large number of existing buiidiags have
been evaluated in Sapan. ı several ı ı in charge ofadrninistration ofa number ofpublic build­
ings have performed the evaluation as a part ofseismic countenneasure program. The cases ofsuch evaluatiOll
of the Shizuoka Prefecture, Yokohama City and the Tokyo metropolis are ı in Table 2 (Hirosawa
1992). The Shizuoka ı ı where a magnitude 8 or more earthquake is ı has evaluated 1896
public buildings including schoals, city offices ı ete by the year of 1986. Sixty five or more ı ı
buiIdiags werejudged to be rebuilt or to need rehabilitation. 465 building were actually rehabilitated during the
Table2 Examples of ı project ofpublic buildings in Japan
Municipa1ity SeismicEvaluation Sei ı Retrofit
No ofBldgs Use Period No orBldgs Period Construction Technigues
Shizuoka 2078 '77-'86 465 '82-'87 infill walls. stee! braces and
Prefecture ı office. ete. panels, column ı
Yokobama 870 school, '82-'84 30-40"10 '87­ steel braces, columnjacket
City city office, etc. ofthe total underwav
Tokyo
Metropolis
48 ı
houses
'79-'81 46 '81-'83
ı walls, side walls,
columnjacket
reference: Hirosawa 1992, Usami et al 1988
Table 3 Seismicallylsolated Buildings for Rehabilitation
Building(city,counUy,yr.completed)
Salt Lake City and County Building
(Salt Lake City, ı USA 1989)
RockweIl Seal Beach Facility
(SeaI Beach, Califomia, USA 1991)
Mackay School ofMines
(Reno, Nevada, USA 1991)
Marina Apartments
(San Fmncisco, Califomia, USA ı 994)
ı Retirement Home
(palo AI to, California, USA 1994)
LongBeach Hospital
(LongBeach, California, USA 1995)
Oa1dand City Hall
(Oakland, California, USA 1995)
U.S. court of Appeals
(SanFrancisco, California, USA 1995)
KerckhoffHalI, UCLA (San Francisco,
Califomia, USA 1995)
SanFrancisco City Hall (SanFrancisco,
Califomia, USA 1996)
Los Angeles City Hall (Los Angeles,
California, USA ı 996)
Original Structural System
Steel bracedfrarne
RC moment frarne
URM bearingwall
Wood bearingwall i Steel
moment frame
RC frarne i RC shear wall
RC shear wall
Steel framel URM infill
Steel frarne i URM infill
RC frarne/URM infill
Steel frarnel URM
Steel framel RC shear wall
IURM ı
(of)
5/16000
8128000
3/4700
4/1900
11/19600
12/33000
18/14000
5/33000
6/9300
5156000
32/82000
lsolatiOll System
LRB
LRB
lIDR&PTFE
sliders
FPS
LRB
LRB
LRB
FPS
LRB
LRB
lIDR&PTFE
sliders
ParliamentHouse (Wellington,New­ URM bearing wall 5/26500 LRB
Zealand, 1995)
ParliamentLibrary (Wellington,New-
Zealand, 1995)
URM bearingwall 516500 LRB
Houtoku-Ninorniya Temple (Odawara, Wood frame LLL 12 Rubher Bearing
Japan, 1997) + V.Damper
RC : ReinforcedConcrete URM : Umeinforced Masamy lIDR : High Damping Ruhber Bearings
LRB: LeadRubberBearings FPS: Frietion Pendulum System PTEE: Poly-Tetra-Fluoro-Ethylane
Reference: Mayes 1995, Soong1992, KeIly 1992, Sapan Society of Seisrnic Isolation 1996
- 1 2­


period of 1982 to 1987. The major construction technique was to use concrete imin walls so that they may
provide very high lateral desistance against the presumed huge earthquake. However, in later part of the
projec::t, stee1 systems in Fig. 11 were alsa used to avoid the increased weight ofbuilding associated with the
ı ı ı and to provide large opening for lighting.
in the USA, also many bui1dings have been evaluated, particularly, since the Lama Prieta eartbquake of 1989.
The rehabilitatian project for UCLA campus buildings, for example, is reported (ingham 1994). Both dam­
aged or ı buildings may be rehabilitated using conventional techniques (for exarnple, Amin 1994).
New ı ı such as seismic isolation and supplemental damping, however, are used recently (Hart 1994,
Mayea 1995, Soong 1992). Particularly, seismic isolation has been selected in more than ten buildings for
rehabilitation (Table 3). The motivating factors for selecting seismic isolation are (Soong 1992);
1) ı bui1ding preservation,
2) Functionality,
3) Design economy
4) Investment proteetion, and
5) Content proteetion.
The adapted isolating bearings are l) high damping rubber bearings, 2) lead rubber bearings and 3) friction
pendulum system. The tecbniques has been used mainly for historical buildings or important building since it
was first applied to the historical Salt Lake City and County Building (Table 3).
BEHAVIOR OF REHABILlTATED BUll.-DING DURING BARmQUAKE
Most of extensively rehabilitaled buildings have not yet experienced strong ground motion. Only a couple of
cases ofbui1dings which experienced strong ground motion after rehabilitation were reported. The followings
are the bui1dings in such CBSes.
A twelve-story reinforced concrele frame bui1ding in Mexico City was repaired and strengthened after suffer­
ing extensive damage during a moderate earthquake that shook the city in 1979 (photo 7). The building suf­
fered no damage during the event of 1985 even though the shaking was mueh greater than that in 1979. The
results of forced vibration tests and ı studies indicated that the steel braced frarnes that were attaehed
to the building for strengthening stiffened the strueture, shifting its natural period away from the predominant
ground period of 2.0sec (Del Valle 1988). This is the case of successfu1 rehabilitation and similar successful
case with steel bracing was reported by Hjelmstad 1988.
A ı reinforeed eoncrete building in Photo 8, whieh is structurally ı ı to the building in Photo I,
suffered severe damage to first ı columns due to the earthquake of 1968. The building was rehabilitated
with shear walls at the damaged first Story only. Unstrengthened 2nd story columns suffered severe shear
cracks due to the recent earthquake of 1994. While adjacent building in Photo 1 which were rehabilitated up to
2nd ı did not suffer any severe damage. Importance ofbalanced configuration of strengthening elements is
indicated in this ease (Nakano 1995).
An old building in Photo 9 was eonstrueted in 1918 in Kobe and ten month before the event of 1995, construc­
tion for seismie rehabilitation was eompleted. Existing briek walls were eonfined by new concrete frarnes and
existing conerete frames were reinforeed with new steel frames arranged along with the emting frarnes. AB a
result of the countermeasure, the building did not suffer any damage while some other ı bui1dings
suffer severe damage in the same area. This is very encouraging ease to indicate the effeetiveness of
preearthquake rehabilitatian (Nikkei Architecture 1995).
-13­


ı 7 A rehabiliwed ı ı ı ı Mexico ı
betbre the ı of 1985
(nadamage)
Photo 9 An old building in Kobe ı
ten month bclore the earthqualce of
1995 (no damage)
Photo 8 A rehabilitated building v..,th concrele
walls after 1968 Tokachi-olci earth­
quake. Unstrengthened 2nd sl.Ory suf­
fered severe dam_ge by the earth­
quake of 1994
CONCLUDL"iG RE.YARKS
The present state of techniques for seismic reb_bilitation of existing buildings has been overviewed based on
the survey of ı data ofresearch and practice. The ı oft/.e revieware İ as folJows.
ı Because of the experience of ı ı damage and the data availabe, most teehniques described herein
are those for reinforced concrele buildings. Many typical teehniques LO strengthen existing ı ı have
been well investigated in terms of impmved penormance and they have been utilized A1though a few data
ı been availahle regarding me rehabilitaion of steel struetures, the recent ı ı ı the ı 994
Northiridge earthquake and the ı Kobe earrhquake would have .trongly ı ı the studies on
rehabilitarion of steel struetures, therefore, more data will be available in future. The concepts of
strengthening methods deseribed here for brick imll walls to contine ",ith COOcTete frame or with steel
elements. or to jacket witb concrete and lateral reinforcement can be commonly used, though m_terials,
design and eOllStrution may be different in eaeh region
2) in addilion to convenlional seismic ı ı type rebabilitalion techniques, another approach to isoIale the
exisling ı from the ground or to supplement energy dissipating devices to reduce seismic response
have been adopted. Seismic isolation can he applied to critica! or essential facilities, huildings with
expensive and valuable ı and structuTes where superior ı penormance is desired. TheiT
applicalions are only in ı numbers now, however. they ı ı be widely used for seismic rehabilitanon.
3) Rehsbiitalion techniques may be seleete<! in accorodance with required performance IeveL. Generally the
seismic ı is achieved to upgrade the origina1 penormance to current code leveL. However. the
codes do not dearly tigure out the ı ı rondition of designed ı ı Design approaches
corresponding to more detailed penormance level be ı
- 1 4­

REFERENCES
Akiyama, T., Hirosawa, M., Imai, K, Yamamoto, Y. and ı ı Y. (1992). A ı ı on ShearCapacity of
Post-installed Bonded Anchors. Proc. oflOWCEE, Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, pp.5253-5256.
Alcocer, S. M. (1992). Rehabilitation of RC Frame Connections Using Jacketing. Proc. of lthe lOth World
Con}i!re11el! anEarthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, pp.5235-5240.
Alcocer, S. M. and Klingner, R E. (1994). Masomy Research in the Americas. Masomy in the Americas,
American Concrete Institute, SP-147, pp.l27-169.
Alcocec. S. M. (1995). The Mexican Experience in Retrofit ofBuildings Since 1985. Prac.. ofthe 3rdNational
Cotrfrrence an Eorthquke Engineering, San Francisco, California, June 15-17, pp.867-888.
Amin, N. R and Fatehi, H. K (1994). Seisrnic Retrofit ofthe Sheraton Palace Hotel. Proc. of5NCEE, Chicago,
July 10-14, pp.551-560.
Aoyama, H., Kato, D., Katsumata, H. and Hosokawa, Y. (1984). Strength and Behavior of Postcast Shear
Walls for Strengthening ofExisting Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Proc. of8WCEE, f
P
.485-492.
Brandow, G., Han, G. C. and Elhassan, R M. (1995). Seismie Rehabilitation of a Tal Historie Concrete
Building by the Addition of Dampers. Proc. of the 3rd National Conference 011 Masonry ı ı ı
Engineering, June 15-17, pp.825-832.
Building Center of Japan. (1995). Damage and Retrofit Examples of RC, Steel, and Steel and Rcinforced
Conerete Buildings (io Japanese). Seminar 00 Rehabilitation Techniques for Damaged Buildings, Apri1.
Del Valle Caldemn, E., Foutch, D. A., Hjelmstad, K D., Figueroa-Gutierrez, E. and Tena-Colunga, A. (1988).
Seismie Retrotit ofRC Building: A Case Study. Proc. of9WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, pp.451-456.
Eligehausen, R. and Vinaeleou, E. (1988). Behavior ofMetallic Anchors under Generalized Excitations. Proc.
of9WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, ı
Federal Emergeney Management Ageney. (1995). Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design ofWelded Steel Moment Frame Structures. FFMA 267, August.
Free/and, G. E. and Sethi, M. (1984). Seismic Upgrade of Building 3 i ı Proc. of 8WCEE, san Francisco,
pp.533-540.
Goel, s. C. and Lee, H. S. (1992). Strengthening RC ı ı with Ductile Steel Bracing. Prac.. of ı ı
tiOnaJ Symposium 011 Eorthquake Disaster Preventian, Mexico City, May, pp.191- 199.
Gulkan, P. (1977). The Inelastic Response of Repaired Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections.
proc.. of6WCEE, NewDelhi, January 10-14, pp.55-60.
Halwto, S. (1995). Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames. Research Report, 95-4,
Department ofCivil Engineering, PhD Dissertation, University of Canterbury, August.
Bart, G. C. and Elhassan, R. M. (1994). Base Isolation of a Tali Historie Unreinforced Masonry Building.
proc.. oJ5NCEE, Chicago, July 10-14, pp.93 1-940. .
HnkrJI, G. O. (1994). Seismic Retrofit of a Seven-story Non-ductile Concrete Frame Buildiog ı URM
1Dfil1 ı ı Viscous Dampers. Proc. of5NCEE, Chicago, July 10-14, pp.677-686.
Hiülgo, P. A. (1995). Repair ofChilean Buildings after the 1985 Earthquake. Proc. of3NCEE, San Francisco,
Califomia, June 15-17, pp.833-848.
Diphi, Y., Ohkubo, M. and Fujimata, K. (1977). Behavior of Reinforeed Coocrete Columns and ı
Strengthened by Adding Precast Concrete Wal1s. Proc. of6WCEE, New Delhi, pp.85-90.
Digashi, Y., Endo, T. and Shirnizu, Y. (1984). Experimental Studies on Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete
Building Frames. Proc. of8WCEE, San Francisco, pp.477-484.
Bjelmstad, K D., Foutch, D. A., Del ı E. and Downs, R. E. (1988). Forced Vibration ı ı of an RC
Building Retrofited with Stee1 Bracing. Proc. of9WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, pp.469-474.
Hosokawa, Y. (1992). Post-installed Anchor Bolts Subjected to Tension. Proc. of lOWCEE. Madrid, Spain,
July 19-24, pp.5241-5246.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (1977 revised 1990). Standard for Evaluation of Seismic Ca­
pacity and Guidelines for Seismic Retrofit Design ofExisting Reinforeed Concrete Buildings (in Japanese).
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (1991). Standard for Inspection ofDamage Degree and Guide­
lines for Restomtion Techniques (in Japanese).
Japan Conerete Institute. (1984). Handbook for Seistnic ı ofExisting Reinforced Concrete Struc­
ı ı (in Japanese), Gihodo Shuppan Co. Ltd.
Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (1995). Introduction to Seismic Isolation (in Japanese). Ohmusha, Tokyo.
Jirsa, J. O. (1988). Behavior of Epoxy-grouted Dowels and Bolts Used for Repair or Strengthening of RC
Structures. Proc. of9WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, pp.371-376.
ı L. F. and Hanson, R. D. (1977). Reinforced Conerete Shear Walls for Aseismic Strengthening. Proc. of
6WCEE, New Delhi, January 10-14, pp.79-84.
ı L. F. (1980). StrengtheningExisting RC Columns for Earthquake Resistance. Proc. of7WCEE. Istanbul,
Turkey, September8-13, pp.327-334.
ı ı H., Kobatake, Y. and Takeda, T. (1988). A Study on Strengthening with Caroon Fiber for Earth·
quake-resistant Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns. Proc. of9WCEE, pp.5 17-522.
Kawabata, S., Kamiya, Y., Ramazaki, T. and Nagata, K (1984). A Case ı ı of Seismic Strengthening of
Existing Reinforced Concrele Buildings in Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan. Proc. of8WCEE, pp.549-556.
-1 S­
ir;
Kawamata, S. and Ohmura, M. (1980). Strengthening Mect ofEccentric Steel Braces to &isting Reinforced
Concrete Frames. Proc. of7WCEE, Istanbul, ı September 8-13, pp.513-520.
Mayes, R. L. (1995). Seismic Isolation: When Content Protection is as Important as the Structure. Proc. of
3NCEE, SanFrancisco, Califomia, JUDe 15-17, pp.56 1-582.
Me1i, R. (1992). Seismic Microzonation, Vulnerability and Rehabilitation in Mexico City. Proc. ofthe IDNDR
Inlernational SymposiIJm on Earthquake Disaster ı ı TecJuwlogy, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.337-369.
Machle, J. P., Nicoletti, 1. P. and Lehman, D. E. (1994). Review of Seismic Research Results on &isting
Buildings. Seismic Safety Commission State of Califomia, Report No. SSC 94-03, Fall.
ı S. (1995). Seismic Retrofit of San Francisco City Hall: the Role of Masonry and Concrete. Proc. of
3NCEE, san Francisco, Califomia, JUDe 15-17, pp.769-795.
Nakano, Y. (1995). Damage to Buildings due to 1994 ı earthquake (in Japanese). In: ı ı
ing Disafter, Vol.2U, August, pp.6-15. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association.
Obda, T., Nakano, Y and Kumazawa, F. (I 992). Experimenta! Study of 1/10 Scaled RIC Frames Retrofitted
with Steel Frarned Y-Shaped Bracing System. Proc. ofInternational ı on ı ı Disaster
Prevention, Mexico City, May, pp.200-209.
Plecoik, J. M., Arnrheim, J. E., Warner, 1., Jay, W. H. and Chelapati, C. V. (1977). Repair of Earthquake
Damaged Concrete Masonry Systems Subjected to Static and Dynamic Loads and Elevated ı ı
Proc. of6WCEE, New Delbi, ı 10-14, pp.73-78.
Reaveley, L. D., Shapiro, D., Moeble, J., et al. (1995). Rehabilitation Guidelines: How Does Your Building
Really Behave? Proc. of3NCEE, San Francisco, Califomia, June 15-17, pp.549-559.
Rioboo, J.M. (1992). Strengthening and Stiffening of Structures Using Prestressing Cables. Proc. ofIntema­
tional Symposium on Earthqua/ce Disoster Prevention, Mexico City, May, pp.210-221.
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1992). Lateral Load Response of R C Columns Strengthened by Jacketing. Proc.
ofInlemational ı ı on Earthquake Disaster ı Mexico City, May, pp. 148-156.
Romero, E. M. (1996). Innovative Retrofitting and Upgrading &isling Structures in High Seismicity Areas.
Proc. ofthe Seventh U.S-Japan Workshop on the Improvemenl ı ı Design andConstrlIctionPrac­
tices, Kobe, ı 18-20, pp.-22-1-22-25.
Scholl, R. E. (1990). Jmprove the Earthquake Performance of Structures with Added Damping and StiffDess
Elements. Proc. of4NCEE, Palm Springs, Califomia, May 20-24, pp.489-498.
Sharpe, R.L., Walters, M. T. and Chen, M. C. (1990). Seismic Upgrading ofa ı ı ı Building. Proc.
of4NCEE, Palm Springs, Califomia, May 20-24, pp.403-412.
Shimi7IJ, Y. (1988). Shear and Tensile Strength ofExpansion Anchor. Proc. of9WCEE, pp.511-516.
sooog, T. T. and Constantinou, M. C. (1992). Base Isolation and Active Control Technology-Case Studies in
the U.S.A.-. Proc. ofthe IDNDR Inremational ı on ı ı Disaster ı Technology,
ı Japan, December 15-17, pp.455-469.
ı ı T. T. and Shen, K. L. (1995). Seismic Upgrade of Reinforced Concrete ı Using Viscoelllstic
Oampers.Proc. of3NCEE, San Francisco, Califomia. June 15-17, pp.583-594.
ı ı S. and Fujimma, M. (1980). Aseismic Strengthening of Existing Reioforced Concrete Buildings.
Proc. of7WCEE, Istanbul, Turkey, September 8-13, pp.449-456.
Sugano, S. (1989). Study ofthe Seismic Behavior ı Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Proc., ı
tures Congress '89, ASCE, San Francisco.
Sugano, S. (1992). Research and Design for Seismic Retrotit of ı Building in Japan. Proc. ofI"tema­
tional ı on Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Mexico City, May, pp.91-106.
Tagawa, Y., Aoki, H., Huang, T. and Masuda, H. (1992). Experimeota! Study of New Seismic Strengtheoing
Method for Existing RC Structure. Proc. of IOWCEE, Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, pp.5193-5198.
Teran. A and Ruiz, J. (1992). Reinforced Concrete Jackeling of Existing Structures. Prac. of IOWCEE,
Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, pp. 5107-5113.
Tomazevic M. (1992). Seismic Rehabilitation of ı ı Buildings: Research and Practicallmplica­
tions. Proc. ofIntemationaI Symposium on Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Mexico City, pp.260-276.
Usarni, H., Amcbi, T., Kamiya, Y., et al. (1988). ı Strengtheoing of Existing Reinforeed Concrete
Buildings in Sbimob Prefeeture, Japan. Proc. of9WCEE., Tokyo, Kyoto, pp.421-426.
Valluvan, R., Kreger, M. E. and Jirsa, 1. O. (1994). Seismic Performance of Shear Joints in RIC Frames Retro­
fitted Using Jnfill Walls. Proc. of5NCEE, Chicago, July 10-14, pp.655-664.
Walters, M. and Honeek, W. C. (1995). The Complex Structura1 Systems of the Oakland City HalL. Proc. of
3NCEE, San Francisco, Califomia, JUDe 15-17, pp.749-767.
Way, D. Howard, J. (1990). Rehabilitation ofthe McKay School ofMines, Phase III, with Base Isolation. Proc.
of4NCEE, Palm Springs, Califomia, May 20-24, pp.609-618.
Yamamolo, Y. (1993). Strength and Ductility ofFrames Strengthened with Steel Bmcing. Earthquake Resis­
tance of Reinforced Concrete Structures, A Volume ı ı Aoyama, Nov. 25, pp.467-476.
Yoshimura, K., Kikuehi, K. and Iguchi, K. (1988). A Proposal of ı Shear Strengtheoing Method for RJ
CShort Columns in Existing Bnilding ı ı Proc. of9WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, pp.327-332.
Youssef, N., Nutta1l, B. and ı ı A. (1995). The Role of Reinforeed Concrete in the Stiffening and
Strengthening above Base Isolation for a Tall Historic Landmark: Los Angeles City HalL. Proc. of
3NCMEC, San Francisco, Califomia, June 15-17, pp.729-740.
-16­

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful