Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

The effects of retrofitting RC frames by X-bracing on the seismic T

performance of columns
⁎
A Rahimi, Mahmoud R. Maheri
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the common method for retrofitting RC frames is to use steel braces. The majority of reported research
Seismic retrofitting related to steel bracing of RC frames have highlighted the positive effects of bracing such as improving structural
Steel X-bracing performance, increasing shear capacity, reducing displacements and decreasing drifts. Very little is reported on
RC frame the possible side effects of the technique on the RC members, particularly those of columns. This papers aims at
RC column
evaluating, through time history analyses, the behaviour of RC columns before and after retrofitting with steel X-
Seismic response
Performance level
bracing and examining possible complications, increased demands and side effects of such a retrofitting method.
Fatigue life The effects on the level of column shear and axial force, as well as, column performance level and low cycle
fatigue life are investigated. As a general conclusion, it is found that retrofitting low-rise RC frames with steel X
bracing is beneficial to the performance of frame columns in almost every aspect; however, for mid to high-rise
frames, the adverse effects of retrofitting, particularly on columns attached to the bracing system, are con-
siderable and should be taken into consideration and if needed, local strengthening of columns should si-
multaneously be undertaken.

1. Introduction
To enhance the performance of an existing RC frame, there are a
number of retrofitting methods which can be employed. In the past
three decades, using different types of steel bracing to increase the
seismic capacity of RC frames has been a popular subject for in-
vestigation. The bracing methods adopted fall into two main categories,
namely (i) external bracing and (ii) internal bracing. In external bra-
cing, steel bracing system is attached globally to the side of RC frame
[1–5]. Architectural concerns and difficulties in providing appropriate
connections between the steel bracing system and the RC frame are two
of the shortcomings of this method, making the technique rather un-
popular. In the internal bracing method, the bracing system is placed
inside the individual bays of the RC frame. The bracing may be attached
to the RC frame either indirectly or directly. In the indirect internal
bracing, a braced steel frame is positioned inside the RC frame. As a
result, the transfer of load between the steel bracing and the concrete
frame is achieved indirectly through the steel frame [6–13]. The in-
direct internal bracing method can be costly and connecting the sup-
porting steel frame to the RC frame is technically inhibiting and re-
quires much interference with the existing RC frame. In the direct
internal bracing, first proposed by Maheri and Sahebi [14,15], the
bracing system is directly connected to the RC frame, so fewer
connections between the bracing system and RC frame is needed, hence
less interference with the existing RC frame. It is comparatively cheaper
and easier to perform. Abou-Elfath and Ghobarah [16,17] investigated
the performance of low rise RC frames before and after retrofitting by
direct steel bracing. Maheri et al. [18] conducted pushover tests on
scaled RC frames retrofitted with X and Knee bracing systems and
showed the effectiveness of X-bracing when increased capacity and
stiffness was required and Knee-bracing when improved ductility was of
prime concern. Pincheira and Jirsa [19], Viswanath and Prakash [20]
also reported the effectiveness of this method in increasing shear ca-
pacity and lateral stiffness and decreasing the global displacement of
the RC frame. Maheri and Akbari [21] presented the seismic behaviour
factor for X-braced and Knee-braced RC frames. Jain [22], also reported
pushover result of retrofitted RC frames by X and Knee steel bracing and
reported on better performance of X-bracing to enhance capacity
compared with Knee-Bracing. To improve the performance of the X-
bracing system by avoiding buckling of compression brace, Ghaffar-
zadeh and Maheri [23] suggested using a mechanical compression re-
lease device in the brace to make it tension only. Later, Maheri and
Ghaffarzadeh [24] investigated the brace-frame connection over-
strength and presented design procedure and details for X-braced RC
frames at design stage. Rahai and Lashgari [25] reported experimental
and numerical results of retrofitting of RC frames by BRB and showed

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maheri@shirazu.ac.ir (M.R. Maheri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.003
Received 1 August 2017; Received in revised form 14 March 2018; Accepted 1 July 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Fig. 1. (a) Modelling beam and column cross section, (b) modelling steel brace cross section, (c) Kent-Scott-Park concrete model, (d) Giuffré-Menegotto-Pinto steel
model.

Fig. 2. (a) Dimensions and reinforcement detail of the model RC frames. (b) Detail of the X-bracing system and its connection to the RC frame [18]

an improvement in the seismic performance. Ozel and Guneyisi [26],
investigated the seismic fragility curves of mid-rise RC frames retro-
fitted by eccentric steel braces and showed a decrease in fragility after
retrofitting. To address the important subject of connections between
steel bracing and RC frame, an experimental investigation was con-
ducted by Maheri and Hadjipour [27]. They adopted the Uniform Force
Method (UFM) provisions for designing brace-steel frame connections
to design their connection specimens. They showed that the
connections and their elements were strong enough to withstand the
forces and that the brace failure and rupture preceded the failure of the
connection elements. Later Maheri and Yazdani [28,29] carried out an
extensive numerical investigation and presented the necessary con-
siderations for design of different components of the brace-frame con-
nection.
The majority of reported research related to steel bracing of RC
frames have highlighted the positive effects of bracing such as:

814
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri
Fig. 3. Experimental [18] and numerical pushover response curves for the model unit frame; (a) unbraced frame, (b) braced frame.
improving structural performance, increasing shear capacity, reducing
displacements and decreasing drifts. Very little is reported on the pos-
sible side effects of the technique and the level of new demands on the
existing RC frame members, particularly those of columns. The present
work aims at evaluating, through time history analyses, the behaviour
of RC columns before and after retrofitting with steel X-bracing and
examining possible complications, increased demands and side effects
of such retrofitting on columns.
2. Numerical modelling of steel braced RC frame
In this study, the OpenSEES software [30] is used to perform time-
history dynamic nonlinear analysis of the RC frame-steel brace assem-
blage. Based on the needs, the nonlinear beam-column element was
selected from the large library of finite elements available in the soft-
ware. The integration along the element is based on Gauss-Lobatto
quadrature rule. This element can record force (global and local), dis-
placement (include curvature) and stress-strain of element materials.
Fibre cross sections were employed, enabling creation of different cross
sections compatible with plane strain assumption.
2.1. Beams and columns
As shown in Fig. 1(a), the cross section of beams and columns is
divided into concrete core and concrete cover plus steel rebar. Confined
concrete is employed for core and unconfined concrete is used for
cover. For more accuracy, the concrete core is divided into 20 (in
width) by 20 (in length) fibre segments and cover is divided into 2 (in
thickness) by 20 (in length) discrete fibres.
2.2. Brace
Steel Braces are also modelled with fibre sections as shown in
Fig. 1(b). The required number of the fibres in the cross section of the
brace is chosen based on the work carried out by Hsiao et al. [31] as
four fibres along the thickness in each direction at each of the eight
quadrilateral patches. For modelling post buckling behaviour of steel
braces, it is generally more accurate to use a continuum model; how-
ever, this model is time consuming and computationally expensive.
Hsiao et al. [31] suggested a more simplified and relatively accurate
nonlinear model which can be developed in OpenSEES using beam-
column elements. In this method, the braces are modelled with initial
imperfections to capture their post buckling behaviour. Initial im-
perfection is modelled as a sine function with the apex equal to 1/500
of the length of the brace [31]. Gunnarsson [32] showed that accurate
simulation of brace buckling behaviour is achieved using ten or more
815
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830
nonlinear beam–column elements along the length of the brace;
therefore, in the present study, each brace is modelled using ten ele-
ments.
2.3. Material constitutive models
In this work, Kent-Scott-Park [33] constitutive model is used to
model both confined and unconfined concrete with fˊc = 28 MPa. As the
stress-strain curve shown in Fig. 1(c) indicates, the constitutive model
has tensile strength and linear tension softening and can model de-
gradation of strength during unloading. Also, the concrete cover and
core are modelled as different materials, using the same material type
but different stress and strain characteristics. The reinforcement and
steel braces in the model are defined by the Giuffré-Menegotto-Pinto
constitutive model [34] shown in Fig. 1(d). It can simulate stiffness
degradation and buckling of steel. Yield stresses of reinforcements and
steel braces are considered as 400 MPa and 240 MPa, respectively and a
strain-hardening ratio of 0.01 is used.
2.4. Validation of numerical simulation
In order to verify the accuracy of numerical simulation, two X-
braced unit RC frames tested by Maheri et al. [18] were numerically
simulated with the OpenSEES. Model unit frames constructed for ex-
perimental investigations were 1:3 scaled models of a typical 3 m × 3 m
unit ductile frame. The full size unit frame was selected from a typical
4-storey, 3-bay portal frame of a building and was designed and de-
tailed according to the ACI-89 code provisions for ductile RC frames.
Also, the X-bracing system was designed according to the LRFD method.
The two unit frames tested by Maheri et al. [18] consisted of an RC
frame without bracing (unbraced frame) and another identical RC
frame, retrofitted with steel bracing (braced frame). Details of the RC
frame and bracing system are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively
[18]. They reported formation of multiple plastic hinges in the beams of
unbraced frame as the step-by-step pushover loading increased and the
maximum load recorded was 34 kN [18]. In the braced frame, failure
initiated by buckling of compression brace followed by multiple hinge
formations in the RC beams. The maximum load recorded for the
braced frame was 119 kN.
In the present study, to model the RC frame nonlinear beam-column
element was used. The nonlinear pushover response of the unbraced RC
frame from the numerical simulation is compared with the experi-
mental response in Fig. 3(a). It can be seen that the numerical simu-
lation has predicted the nonlinear pushover response well. For the
braced model, steel braces were modelled with an initial imperfection
as described in Section 2.2, using nonlinear beam-column elements and
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

storey Retrofitted frame

Section b h As
b (cm) h (cm) t (cm)
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (cm2)
1 10 10 0.7
C1 60 60 36 -
2 10 10 0.7
C2 60 60 59 -
3 10 10 0.7
C3 50 50 25 -
4 9 9 0.7
B1 60 60 13 20
5 8 8 0.7
B2 60 60 16 24
6 7 7 0.7
B3 60 60 17 25
7 6 6 0.7
B4 50 50 12 22
8 5 5 0.5
B5 50 50 12 22
B6 50 50 9 19
B7 50 50 7 14
B8 50 50 4.5 9

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Details of the 8-Storey frame; (a) RC frame, (b) steel bracing.

fibre sections. The numerical nonlinear pushover simulation is com-
pared with the experimental pushover curve [18], as well as numerical
pushover simulation carried out by Maheri and Akbari [21] using
DRAIN-2DX software, in Fig. 3(b). It can be seen that the present si-
mulation matches well with both the experimental results and numer-
ical results of reference [21].
2.5. Design details of the braced RC frames
To conduct the necessary examinations, three planar RC frames all
having three bays but different heights (4-storey, 8-storey and 12-
storey) are selected. The 8-storey frame the details of which are shown
in Fig. 4, is a benchmark frame first designed and used by Maheri and
Akbari [21] and later by Niroomandi et al. [35] and a number of other
researchers. The 12-storey frame (Fig. 5) and the 4-storey frame (Fig. 6)
were also first designed and used by Maheri and Akbari [21]. In de-
signing the three moment resisting frames, the design dead load and
live load were assumed to be 30 kN/m and 10 kN/m, respectively. The
compressive strength, fˊc and tensile strength, ft of concrete were taken
as 28 MPa and 3.17 MPa, respectively. In addition, the elastic modulus
of the concrete Ec was taken as 27.6 GPa and the yield stress of steel
reinforcement was assumed to be 412 MPa. Design base shears were
determined for a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.3 g. In esti-
mating the equivalent static earthquake load, the weights of the frames
were taken as the dead load plus 20% of live load, based on the Iranian
seismic code [36]. The intermediate moment resisting frames were
designed using ACI-02 Code [37] as a new building and the steel bra-
cing systems were designed using AISC-360 Code [38]. Steel braces
were designed to sustain 100% of storey shear of the original (un-
braced) RC frames based on recommendations made by Maheri and
Akbari [21] and Niroomadi et al. [35]. Since in each storey one brace
element is always in tension and the other in compression, the hor-
izontal component of compressive strength (ϕPn) of one brace and
tensile strength of the other (ϕTn) should be equal to the storey shear of

816
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Storey Retrofitted frame

Section b h As As b (cm) h (cm) t (cm)
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (cm2) 1 11 11 0.7
C1 60 60 60 - 2 11 11 0.7
C2 60 60 36 - 3 10.5 10.5 0.7
C3 50 50 25 - 4 10.5 10.5 0.7
B1 60 60 15 21 5 10 10 0.7
B2 60 60 17 26 6 9.5 9.5 0.7
B3 60 60 15 25 7 9.5 9.5 0.6
B4 50 50 11 20 8 9 9 0.6
B5 50 50 8 17 9 8 8 0.6
B6 50 50 7 14 10 7 7 0.6
B7 50 50 4.5 8 11 6 6 0.6
12 6 6 0.6

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Details of the 12-Storey frame; (a) RC frame, (b) steel bracing.

the original frame as in Eq. (1).
Vi = (ϕTn + ϕPn ) ∗cos(α )
where Vi is ith storey shear of the original frame and α is the inclination
angle of braces. Details of shear reinforcements and shear capacities of
columns for the three frames are shown in Fig. 7. In this figure, S1 and
S2 are tie spacing in L0 and central parts of the columns, respectively
and φVn-1 and φVn-2 are shear capacities inside and outside L0 regions,
respectively.
2.6. Selection of earthquake records
The earthquake records used for time history analysis are selected
based on the ASCE/SEI 7-10 provisions [39] stating that: “Appropriate
ground motions shall be selected from events having magnitudes, fault
distance, and source mechanisms that are consistent with those that
control the maximum considered earthquake”. The selection was made
(1)
in such a way that records with different frequency contents are among
the records. Details of the selected earthquake records are listed in
Table 1. Both horizontal and vertical components of the earthquakes
are used.
3. Shear and axial forces in columns
To examine the demand on RC columns of the selected frames due
to retrofitting and to investigate their performance, they are divided
into two types namely: middle columns and side columns. Middle col-
umns are those columns with direct connections to steel braces. The
side columns are those located at the far sides of the frames with no
connections to steel bracing. Since no tensile force develop in the side

817
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Section b h As As
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (cm2)
C1 50 50 25 - storey Retrofitted frame
C2 40 40 16 - b (cm) h (cm) t (cm)
C3 40 40 20 - 1 5.5 5.5 0.5
B1 50 50 8 16 2 5.1 5.1 0.5
B2 40 40 7 16 3 4.7 4.7 0.5
B3 40 40 5.5 10 4 4 4 0.5

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Details of the 8-Storey frame; (a) RC frame, (b) steel bracing.

columns and as the results of Section 3.3 indicate, the number of cycles
in which tensile forces develop in the middle columns of the 8-storey
and 12-storey frames are very few and their cumulative duration is only
a fraction of a second, the effect of tensile force on reducing the shear
capacity of columns is ignored.
3.1. Shear in middle columns
The maximum shear in central columns of the three frames before
retrofitting and after retrofitting, subjected to the selected earthquake
records were extracted. Typical variations in storey shears of the 8-
storey frame subjected to Kobe and Northridge records are shown in
Fig. 8. It is noted that retrofitting has increased column shear at lower
storeys, but has resulted in a decrease in column shear at higher storeys,
except at storeys where a change in column cross section has occurred
(such as storey No. 6 in the 8-storey frame of Fig. 8).
To gain a complete picture of the effect of retrofitting on the shear in
middle columns, the member’s shear demand-capacity ratio (D/C) is
evaluated for all middle columns in all storeys of the three frames under
different earthquake records and are plotted in Fig. 9. In this figure, the
‘Average’ lines represent average values for the 20 earthquake records.
The variation in data are also plotted as average ± standard deviation
(AVG ± STDV) in the figure. For all the three frames, a general de-
creasing value of D/C is noted as we move from the lower stories up-
wards; exceptions being when there is a change in the cross section of
the column, where shear D/C may increase. In the 12-storey frame, this
happens in stories 9 and 10 (Fig. 9a), in the 8-storey frame it is the 6th
storey (Fig. 9b) and in the 4-storey frame it is the 3rd storey (Fig. 9c).
The high D/C ratios at lower stories of the taller frames indicate that the
middle columns at these storeys need further attention. The increase in
D/C may be as high as 45% as seen in the 2nd storey of the 12-storey
frame. The low-rise, 4-storey frame, however, seems to fair better after
retrofitting as shear D/C for all columns are below unity.
With reference to the results of the 12-storey frame (Fig. 9a), it is
also noted that by adding the steel braces, the average shear D/C ratio
of column in the first three storeis are increased. The trend changes to
decreasing shear D/C due to retrofitting at higher stories (4th storey
upwards). However, in the 9th and 10th storeis at which locations there
is a change in columns cross section, an increase in shear D/C is seen
under some earthquake records.
Similarly, the average column shear D/C in the 1st and 2nd stories
are above unity. The average column shear, however, reduces to under
unity as we move towards higher storeys. This general trend is inter-
rupted in the sixth storey which is the location of change in columns
cross section. The condition of the middle columns of the 4-storey frame
due to retrofitting appear to be better than those of the 8-storey and 12-
storey frames. The column shear D/C in all 4 stories are below unity
and they follow a sharp reducing trend at higher stories (Fig. 9c). It
seems that in all frames, the possible increase in the middle column
shear due to retrofitting occurs in the lower stories and as we go higher
up, the column shears are reduced. Also, an increase in column shear
may occur at locations of change in column cross section. These two
issues need special attention since local, secondary retrofits may be
required to enhance shear capacity of mid-columns. Regarding the first
issue, a possible explanation may be that; by adding steel bracing, the
effects of higher modes on the response is reduced, hence the shear

818
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Typical
Storey Column L0 (mm) S1 (mm) S2 (mm) -1 (kN) -2 (kN)
section
C1 B 500 100 150 467 361
4-Storey C2 A 500 100 150 258 203
C3 A 500 100 150 258 203
C1 C 600 150 200 477 413
8-Storey C2 C 600 150 200 477 413
C3 B 500 100 150 467 361
C1 C 600 150 200 477 413
12-Storey C2 C 600 150 200 477 413
C3 B 500 100 150 467 361

Fig. 7. Details of shear reinforcement and shear capacity in columns of the frames.

Table 1 force distribution pattern moves from an exponential form towards a

List of selected earthquake records. linear form [39], resulting in reduced shear in the upper stories. Re-
ID No. Earthquake Record PGA (g) PGV Magnitude Significant
garding the second issue, it appears that by adding steel braces, natural
(cm/s) duration (s) period of vibration of the frame decreases, resulting in an increase in
spectral acceleration, in turn causing an increase in the base shear.
1 FRIULI 0.35 22 6.5 4.24 However, as it will be discussed later, the increase in base shear for 8-
2 IMPERIAL VALLEY 0.31 31.5 6.4 8.92
3 IMPERIAL VALLEY 0.23 26.3 6.4 51.4
storey and 12-storey frames is around 130%, whereas, for the 4-storey
4 KOBE 0.34 27.7 6.9 12.86 frame it is 55%. Since the bracing systems were designed to sustain
5 KOBE 0.225 31.3 6.9 10.35 100% of the storey shear, in the 8-storey and 12-storey frames, 30%
6 KOCAELI 0.35 62 7.6 15.62 extra base shear must be transferred through columns to the base.
7 KOCAELI 0.21 13.93 7.6 11.05
However, in the 4-storey frame the 55% extra demand can be easily
8 LANDERS 0.78 31.6 7.3 13.73
9 LANDERS 0.42 43 7.3 8.24 sustained by the bracing system alone.
10 LOMA PRIETA 0.36 44.7 6.9 11.37
11 LOMA PRIETA 0.56 36.3 6.9 6.37
12 NORTHRIDGE 0.56 51.8 6.7 9.06 3.2. Shear in side columns
13 NORTHRIDGE 0.47 41.1 6.7 5.58
14 DUZCHE 0.73 55.9 7.5 8.55 The D/C for shear in side columns of the three retrofitted frames
15 MANJIL 0.51 42 7.4 28.6
16 HECTOR 0.32 44.7 7.1 9.65
subjected to different time history records are plotted in Fig. 10. Similar
17 SAN FERNANDO 0.22 21.7 6.6 13.15 to the trend observed for the middle columns, in all three frames, for
18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 0.39 109 7.6 26.48 side columns a general decreasing value of shear D/C is noted as we
19 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 0.47 50 7.6 11.34 move from the lower stories upwards; again, exceptions being when
20 Superstition Hills 0.35 48.07 6.5 28
there is a change in the cross section of the column, where shear D/C
may increase. With reference to Fig. 10 it is noted that, unlike the
middle columns, all shear D/C in side columns of the three frames

819
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5
Storey

Storey
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Column shear (kN) Column shear (kN)

ORIGINAL FRAME Retrofitted frame ORIGINAL FRAME R2

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Middle column shear in (a) Kobe and (b) Northridge earthquakes.

12 8 Average
11 Avg+STDV
7
10 AVG-STDV
9 6 4
8
5
Storey

7
Storey

6 3
4 Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1
1
0.40 0.70 1.00 1.30 1.60 0.40 0.70 1.00 1.30 1.60
0.40 0.70 1.00 1.30 1.60
Shear D/C ratio Shear D/C ratio Shear D/C ratio

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Shear D/C in middle columns of: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey (c) 4-storey frames.

(except for the first storey in the 8-storey and 12-storey frames) fall
below unity; indicating positive effects of brace retrofitting on reducing
demand on side columns. In the first storey of 12-storey frame, average
shear demand of side columns is only 7% greater than the shear ca-
pacity and the maximum shear demand, occurring in Friuli earthquake,
is 18% higher than capacity. However, the situation in the first storey
side columns of the 8-storey frame is more critical. The average and
maximum shear demands are respectively 25% and 46% greater than
the shear capacity.
3.3. Axial force in middle columns
To evaluate the effects of X-brace retrofitting on axial force demand
of middle columns, the compressive axial Retrofitted/Original demand
ratios for these columns are plotted in Fig. 11. The average demand
ratio for the first storey of the 8 and 12-storey frames is about 2.4,
indicating a substantial increase in compressive axial force due to ret-
rofitting. For the 4-storey frame, the average increase in demand for the
first storey columns is around 58%. A general decreasing in Retrofitted/
Original demand ratio may be noted for all three frames as we move to
higher stories. In the 4-storey frame, the average Retrofitted/Original
demand ratio reaches unity for the top storey, whereas, in the 8 and 12-
storey frames the increase in demand is still notable even for the top
storey.
Also, in earthquake returning cycle, the columns may undergo
tensile loads. Table 2 shows the maximum and minimum axial loads
excreted on the first storey middle columns of both the original frame
and the retrofitted frame, subjected to different earthquake records. It
can be seen that, for the 8 and 12-storey frames while in the original
frame the axial force remains always compressive, in the retrofitted
frame, the middle columns also undergo substantial tensile loads of up
to 89% of their tensile strength. This is due to the fact that in retrofitted
frames under lateral loading, the bracing system exerts large axial
tensile forces on the columns connected to the bracing system. In taller
frames, due to increased overturning moment, these tensile forces may
become larger than the compressive forces present due to gravity,

820
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

12 8 Average
11 AVG+STDV
7
10
AVG-STDV
9 6 4
8
5
Storey

Storey
6 3
4

Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2 2

1
1 1
0.40 0.70 1.00 1.30 1.60
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Shear D/C ratio Shear D/C ratio Shear D/C ratio

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Shear D/C in side columns of: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey (c) 4-storey frames.

12 8 Average
11
Avg+STDV
7
10
AVG-STDV
9 6
4
8
5
Storey

7
Storey

6 3
4
Storey

5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Retrofitted/Original axial Retrofitted/Original axial Retrofitted/Original axial

force force force
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 11. Retrofitted/Original compressive axial force demand in middle columns of: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey (c) 4-storey frames.

therefore, the net effect would be traction in these columns.
For the shorter, 4-storey frame, however, axial forces after retro-
fitting remain compressive. The maximum tensile forces in the middle
columns in all stories of the 8 and 12-storey frames under different
earthquake records are plotted in Fig. 12. It may be noted that for these
taller frames, middle columns undergo tensile forces. Tensile force is
expectedly maximum at the first storey, being as much as 1150 kN in
the 8-storey frame and 1550 kN in the 12-storey frame. The tensile force
reduces gradually as we move up the frames with the top three storeys
showing almost zero values. The occurrence of tensile forces in middle
columns by such considerable amounts is alarming since lap splice
failure at the lower storeys may occur. With respect to force transfer
mechanism at lap splice region, the presence of high tensile forces can
adversely affect this mechanism and reduce the splice performance. The
situation for the middle columns in the 4-storey frame is somewhat
different. Although adding steel bracing increases the axial load de-
mand, the demand increase is much less than those in the 8 and 12-
storey frames. Also, as it was stated, no tensile forces develop in the
middle columns due to retrofitting.
3.4. Axial force in side columns
The Retrofitted/Original demand ratios for compressive axial forces
in side columns of the three frames under investigation are plotted in
Fig. 13. For the 12-storey frame, the increase in demand in side columns
due to retrofitting is relatively small; averaging around 5% up to storey
9 and increasing to a maximum average of 20% in the 12th storey. This
is in sharp contrast with the middle columns discussed above. The in-
crease in demand is even less for the 8-storey frame (Fig. 13b), starting
from 2% and reaching a maximum of 15% at the top storey. The

821
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Table 2
Axial force in the middle columns of the first storey of the three frames (kN). (Note: Negative value indicate tensile force.)
4 Storey 8 Storey 12 Storey

Original Retrofitted Original Retrofitted Original Retrofitted

Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

FRIULI 795 667 1275 235 1785 1648 4581 −1128 2717 2472 6327 −1305
IMPERIAL 824 687 1285 294 1805 1619 4503 −961 2766 2472 6416 −1521
IMPERIAL 2 811 690 1266 249 1796 1598 4395 −978 2723 2395 6157 −1350
KOBE 795 667 1256 255 1815 1619 4483 −981 2747 2462 6200 −1256
KOBE 805 698 1293 283 1749 1600 4386 −913 2782 2511 6733 −1374
KOCAELI 804 697 1285 245 1884 1501 4444 −981 2747 2472 6475 −1128
KOCAELI 802 693 1240 253 1820 1533 4311 −981 2749 2497 6275 −1295
LANDERS 814 706 1246 265 2090 1265 4238 −834 2757 2472 6023 −1138
LANDERS 2 815 715 1290 295 1923 1395 4427 −995 2813 2450 6324 −1200
LOMA 804 687 1246 334 1766 1599 4365 −775 2727 2482 5700 −912
LOMA 2 819 710 1213 305 1850 1560 4165 −895 2694 2535 5910 −1000
NORTHRIDGE 824 667 1285 275 1756 1658 4513 −1010 2757 2462 6308 −1226
NORTHRIDGE 2 827 696 1309 268 1776 1597 4403 −921 2827 2531 6938 −1107
DUZCHE 830 716 1310 303 1785 1604 4558 −761 2787 2513 6763 −1277
MANJIL 809 722 1275 329 1783 1595 4012 −565 2771 2528 5712 −697
HECTOR 835 719 1298 242 1802 1565 4488 −1028 2796 2530 6050 −627
SAN FERNANDO 825 678 1310 280 1799 1586 4611 −864 2779 2540 7057 −1382
Chi-Chi 820 690 1287 278 1764 1634 4238 −794 2745 2438 6532 −875
Chi-Chi 813 687 1279 269 1842 1554 4652 −1005 2680 2497 6872 −994
Superstition 814 701 1305 253 1765 1589 4352 −971 2795 2518 6369 −1154

12 Average clear that in the original frame the axial forces in the middle columns
11 Avg+STDV are almost constant and do not greatly fluctuate during the earthquake
10 (Fig. 14(a)). However, after retrofitting by steel braces, the axial force
AVG-STDV
histories considerably fluctuate around a constant value in a number of
9
8 cycles as seen in Fig. 14(b). The level of tensile forces has a profound
8
7 effect on the performance of lap splices. However, as it is stated in JSCE
Storey

7 [40], as loading cycles increase, the state of lap splices in columns also
6
6 becomes critical. As a result, in the present study the number of load
Storey

5 5 cycles are also considered to evaluate lap splice performance in col-

4 umns. In counting the number of cycles, it was decided to remove cycles
4
3 3
2 2
1 lected as significant peaks. This is shown graphically for the first storey
1
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00
0 500
Axial tensile force (kN) Axial tensile force (kN)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Tensile axial force in middle columns after retrofitting: (a) 12-storey
and (b) 8-storey frames.
situation in the 4-storey frame is the reverse in the sense that retro-
fitting results in a sharp decrease in demand for the side columns by as
much as 24% at the top storey.
4. The effects on lap splice in middle columns
Specifications regarding the use of lap splice in columns vary in
different codes of practice. ACI 318-02 code of practice [37] prohibits
the use of lap splice in tensile members and Japan Society of Civil
Engineering (JSCE) [40] prohibits their use in members subjected to
cyclic loads in which the axial force undergoes considerable changes
from large compression to pure tension. In Section 3.3, it was noted that
middle columns in the taller frames (8 and 12 storeys) may be subjected
to large tensile forces, which violates the code requirements for lap
splice. Regarding the effects of large axial load fluctuation, the number
of fluctuations of the axial force in middle columns of the three frames
is evaluated. As shown in Fig. 14, by comparing axial force histories of
the first storey of the 8-storey frame before and after retrofitting, it is
with small amplitudes. For this purpose, the mean value of the max-
imum tensile and maximum compressive responses is first evaluated.
Then, the peaks with values 50% higher than the mean value are se-
of the 8-storey frame under Kobe earthquake record in Fig. 14. It can be
1000 1500
seen that in the original frame (Fig. 14a), axial force in middle column
has relatively small variations; therefore, no peaks 50% larger than the
mean axial force exists. However, in the retrofitted frame, a large
number of peaks are considered significant as they have values more
than 50% higher or lower than the mean axial force (Fig. 14b).
Similarly, the number of significant peaks for middle columns in all
storeys of the three selected frames undergoing different earthquake
excitations are evaluated and plotted in Fig. 15. This figure indicates
that there are a large number of significant peaks in the lower storeys of
the 8 and 12-storey frames, the numbers reducing gradually in higher
storeys with the exception of the top storey of the 8-storey frame, in
which the number of significant peaks increase again. The situation in
the 4-storey frame is again somewhat different. Very few significant
peaks occur in the 1st and 2nd storeys and no significant peaks occur
higher up. The results of this investigation point to the fact that in mid
to high-rise buildings, X-bracing of the frame may result in violation of
some code requirements regarding lap splices, whereas, in short frames
(4-storey), retrofitting the frame does not affect the performance of lap
splices.
5. Examination of columns performance level
In this section, a novel representation of performance curves for
columns is first presented and then the performance of different col-
umns of the three selected frames before and after retrofitting,

822
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

12 8 Average
11
7 AVG+STDV
10
AVG-STDV
9 6
4
8
5
Storey

Storey
7
6 3
4

Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Retrofitted/Original axial Retrofitted/Original axial Retrofitted/Original axial

force force force

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13. Retrofitted/Original compressive axial force demand in side columns of: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey (c) 4-storey frames.

Fig. 14. Axial force history of first storey middle columns of 8-storey frame under Kobe earthquake record: (a) before and (b) after retrofitting.

subjected to different earthquake records is evaluated.
5.1. Column performance diagram
To examine the effects of X-bracing retrofit on the performance le-
vels of columns, both the axial forces and bending moments should be
considered. Considering that the columns performance under axial
loading is evaluated using force-controlled technique, the value of axial
force is considered as the parameter to control performance. However,
performance under bending moment is evaluated using displacement-
controlled method. Since, after formation of plastic hinges the bending
moment remains constant at these locations, the value of bending
moment cannot be a suitable parameter for determining performance
point; instead, the curvature is used. As a result, the column perfor-
mance evaluation is carried out by examining the column axial force
and the end curvature.
To achieve this objective, it is needed to determine the curvature
corresponding to the performance level under consideration.
Considering that moment-curvature curve is a function of axial load of
the column, the column compressive and tensile capacities are first
calculated. These capacities are divided into a number of finite levels
and the moment-curvature curve corresponding to different levels of
compressive and tensile axial loads are then evaluated. Fig. 16 shows
moment-curvature curves for column section C1 of the 8-storey frame
(see Fig. 4) for Collapse Prevention (CP) performance level under two
different axial force levels. The next step is to find a curvature corre-
sponding to the specified performance level for each moment-curvature
curve. In this study, curvature corresponding to 80% of the maximum
moment is considered as the CP performance level curvature.
By using this procedure, we find a couple of mirror points (P-ϕ) for
every axial force level. By joining these points together we obtain the
performance curve for the column under study (see Fig. 17).
5.2. Typical performance diagrams for 8-storey frame
Different performance levels for structures and structural members
are defined in codes of practice. The three main levels include:
Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention
(CP). The evaluation of curvature corresponding to CP level (φCP ) was
discussed above. To evaluate curvature corresponding to the other two

823
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

12 8 Average
11
7 AVG+STDV
10
AVG-STDV
9 6
4
8
5
Storey

Storey
7
6 3
4

Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

Number of significant Number of significant Number of significant

peaks peaks peaks
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 15. Number of significant peaks in retrofitted frame: (a) 12-storey, (b) 8-storey and (c) 4-storey.

1000 1000
800 800
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
Curvature (1/cm) Curvature (1/cm)
a. Moment-curvature with 230 Ton axial force b. Moment-curvature with 620 Ton axial force
Fig. 16. Finding curvature corresponding to CP performance level (Column section C1 of 8-storey frame).

performance levels (LS and IO), the relations given by FEMA 356 [41]
are used:

θLS ∗φCP
φLS =
θCP (2)

θIO ∗φCP
φIO =
θCP (3)

where φLS , φCP and φIO correspond to curvature of LS, CP and IO per-
formance levels, respectively. Also, θLS , θCP and θIO respectively corre-
spond to rotation of LS, CP and IO performance levels.
Fig. 18 shows the performance diagrams for middle columns of the
1st, 2nd and 6th storey of the 8-storey frame before and after retro-
fitting under Imperial Valley earthquake record. In these diagrams the
performance curves for IO, LS and CP levels are drawn (see Fig. 18a).
Also drawn in the diagrams is the demand curve (obtained for the
Imperial Valley record). Fig. 18 an indicates that the middle columns of
the 1st storey before retrofitting do not satisfy any of the three IO, LS
and CP performance levels, whereas, after retrofitting (Fig. 18b), the
Fig. 17. Typical performance curve.
columns satisfy the CP performance level, but fail the IO and LS levels.
The situation for the 2nd storey is somewhat different. Before retro-
fitting, the middle columns in this storey satisfy all three performance
levels (Fig. 18c), however, after retrofitting, they fail the IO and LS
levels and only satisfy the CP level. In the 6th storey, before retrofitting

824
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

(a) Original frame, 1st Storey (b) Retrofitted frame, 1st Storey

(c) Original frame, 2nd Storey (d) Retrofitted frame, 2nd Storey

(e) Original frame, 6th Storey (f) Retrofitted frame, 6th Storey
Fig. 18. Performance diagrams of middle columns in 1st, 2nd and 6th storeys of 8-storey frame under Imperial valley earthquake.

825
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

12 8 Average
11
AVG+STDV
7
10
AVG-STDV
9 6
4
8
5
Storey

Storey
7
6 3
4

Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00
Performance number Performance number Performance number

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 19. Performance of middle columns of original frames: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey and (c) 4-storey.

12 8 Average
11 AVG+STDV
7
10
AVG-STDV
9 6 4
8
5
Storey

7
Storey

6 3
4
Storey

5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.50 2.00 8.00

Performance number Performance number Performance number

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 20. Performance of middle columns of retrofitted frames: (a) 12-storey, (b) 8-storey and (c) 4-storey frame.

middle columns fail the IO level but satisfy the LS and CP levels, that: φ < φpl . In this study, the performance number for CP level is first
whereas, after retrofitting they satisfy all three performance levels evaluated. Then, with reference to Eqs. (2) and (3), the following re-
(Fig. 18f). lations are derived and used to evaluate the other two performance
levels (IO and LS) without the need to separately evaluate the perfor-
5.3. Quantifying column performance mance numbers for these two performance levels.
φ
It is evident that for every column in every storey of each frame CP performance levelφ < φcp → < 1.0LS performance level φ
φCP
subjected to any of the earthquake records, a different performance
θLS ∗φCP φ θ
diagram may be obtained. This would make comparisons rather diffi- < → < LS IO performance levelφ
cult. To quantify the performance levels in order to facilitate the θCP φCP θCP
comparison of different columns performances, a new parameter in the θIO ∗φCP φ θ
< → < IO
form of φ is defined, in which φ is the demand curvature, which is θCP φCP θCP (4)
φpl
experienced by columns during earthquake and φpl is the curvature φ
Therefore, if the evaluated CP performance number ( ) is less than
corresponding to the desired performance level as defined previously φCP

(Eqs. (1) and (2)). This parameter is termed ‘performance number’ and unity, it is the CP performance level; if the CP performance number is
its values higher than unity represent failure to satisfy the specified larger than θIO and smaller than θLS , it is the LS performance level and if
θCP θCP
θIO
performance level. To reach the desired performance level, it is evident the CP performance number is smaller than it is accepted as the IO
θCP

826
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

8.00
4.00
2.00

Performance number
1.00
0.50 Average (Retrofitted)
0.25 Average (Original)
0.13 CP LEVEL
0.06
IO LEVEL
0.03
LS LEVEL
0.02
0.01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Storey
(a)
8.00 8.00
4.00 4.00

Performance number
Performance number

2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.25 0.25
0.13 0.13
0.06 0.06
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4
Storey Storey

(b) (c)
Fig. 21. Comparison the performance level of mid-column between original and retrofitted frame (a) 12 storey (b) 8 storey (c) 4 storey.

10000 storeys of the three frames before retrofitting and subjected to different
earthquake records are thus evaluated and plotted on semi log axes in
Number of cycle to failure

1000 Fig. 19 and those for the frames after retrofitting are plotted in Fig. 19.
Also plotted in these figures are the performance numbers for the three
IO, LS and CP performance levels, with CP level being taken as the base
100 level (performance number = 1.0). The dotted lines in the figures also
Nf

10
1 satisfy LS level and middle columns of the 3rd storey upwards satisfy all
0.1
0.002 0.022
Strain amplitude
Fig. 22. Number of cycles to failure in constant strain amplitude.
performance level. CP performance numbers greater than unity are
considered as failure. The procedure to evaluate the performance
number is as follows. The column performance at every levels of
loading is considered, which includes a pair of (P, φ ); moreover, using
the value of P and evaluating the performance curve defined in the
previous section, the value of φpl is obtained. Next, φ parameter is
computed for that specific loading. This process is repeated for the
entire period of time history analysis and the maximum value of φ is
reported as the performance number.
The performance numbers evaluated for the middle columns in all
represent the average values for different earthquake records. Fig. 19a
shows that in the 12-storey frame only middle columns of the 1st storey
do not satisfy any of the performance levels; those of the 2nd storey
three performance levels. Similar results are noted for the 8-storey
frame (Fig. 19b) and the 4-storey frame (Fig. 19c), with the exception
that in the 4-storey frame, columns of the 3rd storey also do not satisfy
0.042 0.062 0.082 the IO and LS levels.
In order to have a better comparative view of the effects of retro-
fitting on the performance levels of middle columns, the average per-
formance numbers for different earthquake records (shown in Figs. 19
and 20 as dotted lines) for the three frames before and after retrofitting
are compared in Fig. 21. With reference to Fig. 21a, it is clear that by
adding steel X braces to the 12-storey RC frame, the average perfor-
mance number in storeys 1–7 and storey 10 actually increases, it is
unchanged in storeys 8, 9 and 11 and reduces only in storey 12. The
increases in the lower storeys are substantial, such that in the 3rd to 5th
storeys the column performance levels have changed from a high per-
φpl
formance IO level. This indicates the adverse effects of X-braced ret-
rofitting on the performance of middle columns in taller frames. A si-
φpl
milar trend can be seen in the 8-storey frame (Fig. 21b). Retrofitting the
frame has somewhat improved the performance of the 1st storey

827
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

Fig. 23. Strain time history of the 1st storey middle columns of the 8-storey frame under Imperial Valley earthquake.

12 8
Average
11
7 Avg+STDV
10
AVG-STDV
9 6
4
8
5
Storey

7
Storey

Storey
6 3
4
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.063
0.250
1.000
4.000

0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.063
0.250
1.000
4.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.063
0.250
1.000
4.000

Fatigue damage Fatigue damage Fatigue damage

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 24. Fatigue damage in the original frames: (a) 12-storey, (b) 8-storey and (c) 4-storey.

columns by 34% but it is still not sufficient to satisfy the CP perfor- due to retrofitting may be different and need to be separately in-
mance level. However, retrofitting has substantially reduced the per- vestigated.
formance of middle columns in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th storeys, reducing
the level from IO to LS. The situation in the 4-storey frame is again 6. Fatigue
different to that of the 8 and 12 storey frames. In the 4-storey frame,
after retrofitting the performance of middle columns in almost all Earthquake loading is cyclic loading in nature and in cyclic beha-
storeys has improved. The average performance number for the 1st viour degradation of stiffness and strength are inevitable, resulting in a
storey columns is reduced by 52%, bringing it down to satisfy the CP cumulative reduction in service life. Under cyclic loading, one of the
performance level. In the 2nd storey, performance number is somewhat most important factors in accumulation of damage is the effect of fa-
increased, but the performance level remains LS and substantial per- tigue intensity of which depends on the amplitude of loading and the
formance enhancement is observed for the 3rd and 4th storey bringing number of cycles. However, the number of cycles induced by earth-
them to well within IO level. quake loading is relatively low, but the amplitude of some of cycles is
Based on the above discussion, it can be stated that in mid to high large and sometimes beyond the elastic range, therefore, so low-cycle
rise RC frames, retrofitting the frame with X bracing system generally fatigue is possible.
reduces the performance level of the middle columns. The 1st storey
fairs better due to retrofitting, but any improvements in the 1st storey is
associated with deterioration in the upper storeys. It appears that ret- 6.1. Fatigue life
rofitting shifts the problem from the 1st storey further up in the frame.
In the shorter frames (4-storey), on the other hand, retrofitting gen- In order to estimate fatigue life of steel rebar in an RC frame, several
erally improves the performance levels of the middle columns. It should relationships have been proposed in literature, predicting the number
be noted that in this section only the performance of middle columns, as of cycles to failure at a given strain amplitude. In this regard, the
structural members, is discussed. The overall performance of the frames Mander relationship, as the first relationship proposed for low-cycle
fatigue behaviour of reinforcing bars, states that [42]:

828
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830

12 8 Average
11 AVG+STDV
7
10
AVG-STDV
9 6 4
8
5
Storey

Storey
6 3
4

Storey
5
4 3
2
3
2
2
1 1 1
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.063
0.250
1.000
4.000

0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.062
0.250
1.000
4.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.016
0.063
0.250
1.000
4.000
Fatigue damage Fatigue damage Fatigue damage

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 25. Fatigue damage in the retrofitted frames: (a) 12-storey (b) 8-storey and (c) 4-storey frame.

εa = 0.0795(2Nf )−0.448
As show in Fig. 22, by increasing strain amplitude (εa ) number of
cycles to failure (Nf ) decreases considerably, especially for inelastic
strains greater than 2%.
By adding steel braces, reinforcement strain amplitude increases,
consequently the number of cycles to failure decreases, increasing the
chance of low-cycle fatigue. Fig. 23 shows strain history in middle
column of the first storey of 8-storey frame under Imperial Valley
earthquake. As it can be seen, the amplitude of strain in earthquake
loading is not constant and it changes from cycle to cycle.
6.2. Palmgren-Miner damage rule
Since Mander’s relationship is based on constant strain amplitude,
Palmgren-Miner [43] damage rule is used to account for the changing
strain. This rule simply states that; the fatigue life of a structure or an
element is exhausted when the sum of all the fatigue fractions at dif-
ferent loading amplitudes from a random fatigue loading is equal to
unity. In this paper the number of cycle to failure (Nf ) in each cycle is
calculated by the Mander’s relationship and then by using Palmgren-
Miner damage rule the cumulative fatigue damage of longitudinal re-
inforcement is calculated as follows:
(5) 1st storey and damage in higher storeys is not significant, except for
locations of high stress concentration, caused by a change in column
cross section.
The fatigue damages for middle columns of the frames after retro-
fitting by steel X braces are plotted in Fig. 25. It can be noted that by
adding steel braces, fatigue damage in the 12-storey frame increases in
almost all storeys compared to the original frame. The maximum da-
mage is again observed in the 1st storey (average 73%) which shows a
43% increase in damage compared to the original frame. Also, fatigue
damage increases by 46% in the 2nd storey and 59% in the 3rd storey.
In a number of cases, in the first three storeys, damage values become
larger than 100%, which means longitudinal reinforcements fail in fa-
tigue while in the original frames it only occurs in the 1st storey. It is
clear that retrofitting the 12-storey frame is not successful in reducing
fatigue damage and also make it worst especially in the first three
storeys. Fatigue damage in first storey is worrying.
Fig. 25b shows that the maximum fatigue damage occurs in the 2nd
storey of the 8-storey frame (averaging 35%) which is 32% higher than
in the original frame. Also, after retrofitting, fatigue damage in the first
storey decreases by 8%, whereas, damage in the 3rd and 4th storeys
increase up to an average of 12%. Retrofitting the 4-storey frame by
steel braces, however, results in reduced fatigue damage in all storeys
(see Fig. 25c) with maximum reduction occurring in the 1st storey.

N1 N N N
+ 2 + 3 + ….= ∑ i = 1 7. Conclusions
Nf 1 Nf 2 Nf 3 Nfi (6)
The possible adverse effects of retrofitting RC frames with steel X
The fatigue damage ratios, calculated as per Eq. (6), for the middle
bracing on the RC columns were explored numerically. The results of
columns of different storeys of the three frames before retrofitting are
the investigation lead to the following conclusions:
plotted on semi log axes in Fig. 24. The results for the 12-storey original
frame show that the maximum fatigue damage has occurred in the 1st
1. In the low-rise, 4-storey frame, the shear in middle columns (col-
storey, averaging around 30%. However, fatigue damage higher up the
umns attached to the steel bracing) decrease due to retrofitting
frame is not significant. Similarly, the results of 8-storey original frame
which is desirable. However, in the 8 and 12-storey frames it in-
show the maximum fatigue damage occurs in the 1st storey averaging
creases, particularly in the lower storeys. It appears that as the
around 38%, with the most fatigue occurring in Kocaeli earthquake by
height of the frame increases, the adverse effect of retrofitting on the
82%. The second most damaged storey (with 6% average accumulative
shear in middle columns increases. The same pattern is noted for
damage) is the 6th, which is the location of change in the column cross
shear in side columns, but with less intensity.
section. In the 4-storey frame, fatigue damage is also localized in the
2. After retrofitting, the axial compression force in the middle columns
first storey by a large amount (136% in average) and the 3rd storey,
increase significantly and as the number of storeys increases, this
being the location of change in column cross section, by 20%. The re-
effect is intensified.
sults of the three frames show that the fatigue damage is localized in the

829
A. Rahimi, M.R. Maheri
3. In taller, 8 and 12 storey frames, the middle columns may experi-
ence large axial tensile forces (up to 1500 kN) after retrofitting. Such
considerable tensile forces are alarming as lap splice failure at the
lower storeys of the frame may occur.
4. The axial force in side columns does not show any significant change
after retrofitting.
5. Under earthquake loading, the number of cycles with large fluc-
tuations of axial force are considerable in the retrofitted 8 and 12-
storey frames. This has a negative effect on lap splice performance,
as well as, on low-cycle fatigue. The 4-storey frame shows a different
behaviour in this regard and performs better after retrofitting.
6. Retrofitting RC frames with steel X braces, increases the perfor-
mance level of all columns in the 4-storey frame. However, retro-
fitting the 8-storey and 12-storey frames decreases the performance
level of the lower storeys.
7. In the 4-storey frame, after retrofitting, the fatigue damage of
middle columns decreases in almost all storeys. However, in the 8
and 12-storey frame, retrofitting increases the fatigue damage in
lower storeys of the frame.
8. As a general conclusion it can be stated that retrofitting low-rise RC
frames with steel X bracing is beneficial to the frame in almost every
aspect; however, for mid to high-rise frames, the adverse effects of
steel bracing retrofitting, particularly on columns attached to the
bracing system (middle columns), are noticeable and should be
taken into consideration. Retrofitting these columns by Steel or RC
jacketing prior to bracing may be necessary to overcome the latter’s
side effects.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.003.
References
[1] Sekiguchi I. Seismic strengthening of an existing steel reinforced concrete city office
building in shizuoka. In: Proc. 9th world conference. Earthquake. Eng. Tokyo-Kyoto
1988:2:439–444.
[2] Del Valle Calderon E, Foutch A, Hjelmstad KD, Figueroa-Gutierrez, Tena-Colunga A.
Seismic retrofit of a RC building: a case study. In: Proc. ninth world conference.
Earthquake. Eng. Tokyo-Kyoto 1988;2:451–456.
[3] Badoux M, Jirsa O. Steel bracing of RC frames for seismic retrofitting. Struct. Eng
1990;116(1):55–74.
[4] Bush TD, Jones EA, Jirsa JO. Behaviour of RC frame strengthened using structural
steel bracing. Struct Eng 1991;117(4):1115–26.
[5] Nateghi-Alahi F. Seismic strengthening of eight story building using steel braces.
Eng Struct 1995;17(6):455–61.
[6] Sugano S, Fujimura M. Seismic strengthening of existing reinforced concrete
buildings. In: Proc.7th world conference. Earthquake. Eng, Istanbul
1980;5:449–456.
[7] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimizu Y. Experimental studies on retrofitting of reinforced
concrete structural members. In: Proc 2nd Seminar on repair and retrofit of struc-
tures, Ann Arbor, Michigan, National Science Foundation; 1981:126–55.
[8] Kawamata S, Ohnuma M. Strengthening effect of eccentric steelbraces to existing
reinforced concrete frames. In: Proc 2nd seminar on repair and retrofit of structures,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, National Science Foundation; 1981:262–9.
[9] Usami H, Azuchi T, Kamiya Y, Ban H. Seismic strengthening of existing reinforced
concrete buildings in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In: Proc 9th world conf.
Earthquake. Eng, Tokyo-Kyoto 1988;2:421–6.
[10] Ohishi H, Takahashi M, Yamazaki Y. A Seismic strengthening design and practice of
an existing reinforced concrete school building in shizuoka city. In: Proc. Ninth
world conference. Earthquake. Eng. Tokyo-Kyoto 1988;2:415–420.
[11] Wylli LA, Dal Pino JA, Cohen J. Seismic upgrade preserves architecture. Modern
830
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 813–830
Steel Const 1991;4:20–3.
[12] Hjelmstad KD, Foutch DA, Del Valle E, Downs RE. Forced vibration studies of an RC
building retrofit with steel bracing. In: Proc 9th world conf. Earthquake. Eng,
Tokyo-Kyoto 1988;2:469–74.
[13] Tagawa Y, Aoki H, Huang T, Masuda H. Experimental study of new seismic
strengthening method for existing RC structures. In: Proc 10th world conf. Earthq.
Eng, Rotterdam 1992:5193–5198.
[14] Maheri MR, Sahebi A. Experimental investigation on the use of steel bracing in
reinforced concrete frames. In: Proc 2th World Conf. Earthquake. Eng., Iran
1995:775–784.
[15] Maheri MR, Sahebi A. Use of steel bracing in reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct
1997;19(12):1018–24.
[16] Abou-Elfath H, Ghobarah A. Behaviour of reinforced concrete frames rehabilitated
with concentric steel bracing. Can J Civ Eng 2000;27:433–44.
[17] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H. Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete frames using
eccentric steel bracing. Eng Struct 2001;23:745–55.
[18] Maheri MR, Kousari R, Razazan M. Pushover test on steel X-braced and knee-braced
RC frames. Eng Struct 2003;25:1697–705.
[19] Pincheira JA, Jirsa JO. Seismic response of RC frames retrofitted with steel braces
or walls. J Struct Eng 1995;121(8):1225–35.
[20] Viswanath KG, Prakash KB, Anant D. Seismic analysis of steel braced reinforced
concrete frames. Int J Civ Struct Eng 2010;1(1):114–22.
[21] Maheri MR, Akbari R. Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-
braced RC buildings. Eng Struct 2003;25:1505–13.
[22] Jain AK. Seismic response of RC frames with steel braces. J Struct Eng
1985;111(10):2138–48.
[23] Maheri MR, Ghaffarzadeh H. Mechanical compression release device in steel bra-
cing system for retrofitting RC frames. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2006;5(1):151–8.
[24] Maheri MR, Ghaffarzadeh H. Connection overstrength in steel-braced RC frames.
Eng Struct 2008;30(7):1938–48.
[25] Rahai A, Lashgari M. Seismic strengthening of nine-story RC building using con-
centric and buckling-restrained bracing. In: Proc 31st world conf. Concrete.
Structures. Singapore 2006;2:421–6.
[26] Ozel AE, Guneyisi EM. Effects of eccentric steel bracing systems on seismic fragility
curves of mid-rise R/C buildings: a case study. Struct Safety 2011;23(1):82–95.
[27] Maheri MR, Hadjipour A. Experimental investigation and design of steel brace
connection to RC frame. Eng Struct 2003;25(13):1707–14.
[28] Maheri MR, Yazdani S. Efficiency of the uniform force method in designing steel
brace connection to RC frame. Construct Steel Res 2016;116:131–40.
[29] Maheri MR, Yazdani S. Seismic performance of different types of connection be-
tween steel bracing and RC frames. Iranian J Sci Tech Trans Civil Eng (IJSTC)
2016;40(4):287–96.
[30] Mazzoni S, Mckenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. OpenSEES Command Languqage
Manual[Z]. http://OpenSEES. Berkeley.edu/OPENSEES/manuals/usermanual/
OpenSEES Command Languaeg Manual; June 2006.
[31] Hsiao P, Lehman D, Roeder CH. Improved analytical model for special con-
centrically braced frames. J Construct Steel Res 2012;73:80–94.
[32] Gunnarsson IR. Numerical performance evaluation of braced frame systems. Seattle:
University of Washington; 2004. [MSc thesis].
[33] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng
1971;97:1969–90.
[34] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis of cyclically loaded RC plane frames
including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under normal
force and bending. Preliminary Report, IABSE 1973;13:15–22.
[35] Niroomandi A, Maheri A, Maheri MR, Mahini SS. Seismic performance of ordinary
RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2326–36.
[36] Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings. Standard No.
2800. 4th. ed. 2014.
[37] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-
02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan.
[38] AISC 360-05. Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC); 2005.
[39] ASCE 7-10. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. In: ASCE
standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005.
[40] Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE). Standard specification for concrete
structures; 2007.
[41] American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA 356; 2000.
[42] Mander JB, Panthaki FD, Kasalanti A. Low cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing
steel. ASCE Mater Civil Eng 1994;6:453–67.
[43] Miner MA. Cumulative damage in fatigue. Appl Mech 1945;3:159–64.