See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239388123

Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Gravity Load Designed Reinforced

Concrete Frames

Article  in  Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · November 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2005)19:4(277)

CITATIONS READS
32 386

3 authors:

M.Helen Santhi G. M. Samuel Knight

VIT University, Chennai Campus Anna University, Chennai
31 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   272 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

K. Muthumani
CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre
90 PUBLICATIONS   269 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

“Engineering Properties of POFA-GGBS-based Fibre Reinforced Structural Lightweight Geopolymer Concrete” View project

CONSTaFORM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Muthumani on 18 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Gravity Load
Designed Reinforced Concrete Frames
Helen M. Santhi1; G. M. Samuel Knight2; and K. Muthumani3

Abstract: The seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames designed for gravity loads is evaluated experimentally using a shake
table. Two 1:3 scale models of one-bay, three-storied space frames, one without infill and the other with a brick masonry infill in the first
and second floors, are tested under excitation equivalent to the spectrum given in IS 1893-2002. From the measured response of the
models during excitation, the shear force, interstory drift, and stiffness are evaluated. The effect of masonry infill on the seismic
performance of reinforced concrete frames is also investigated. Then, the frames are tested to failure. Severe damage is observed in the
columns in the ground floor. The damaged columns are strengthened by a reinforced concrete jacket. The frames are again tested under
the same earthquake excitations. The test results showed that the retrofitted frames could sustain low to medium seismic forces due to a
significant increase in strength and stiffness.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0887-3828共2005兲19:4共277兲
CE Database subject headings: Space frames; Brick masonry; Shake table tests; Strength; Stiffness; Seismic effects; Concrete,
reinforced.

Introduction load-designed reinforced concrete column members under seis-

Central and south India are assumed to be relatively safe from
major earthquakes. However, the damaging earthquakes of Killari
共1993, magnitude of 6.2兲, Jabalpur 共1997, magnitude of 6.0兲,
Chamoli 共1999, magnitude of 6.6兲, Bhuj 共2001, magnitude of
7.7兲, and Pondichery 共2001, magnitude of 5.6兲 have demonstrated
that no region in India may be protected from such earthquakes.
Most of the buildings in India are constructed with reinforced
concrete frames with brick infill and are normally designed to
resist only gravity loads. The behavior of these classes of building
during an earthquake is still not well understood. It is difficult to
develop a reliable “scenario” of the events that lead to collapse,
and it is almost impossible to create the different stages of re-
sponse of a building from a heap of rubble on the ground. There-
fore, experimental evidence is required to understand the behavior
of these types of buildings. Testing on small-scale models of real
structures appears to offer an attractive alternative procedure for
evaluating the seismic performance of structures.
Several researchers have investigated the dynamic behavior of
reinforced concrete frames under seismic loads. Aycardi et al.
共1994兲 conducted experiments to study the behavior of gravity
1
PhD Research Scholar, Anna Univ., Chennai 600 025, India. E-mail:
mhelensanthi@yahoo.com
2
Professor of Civil Engineering, Anna Univ., Chennai 600 025, India.
E-mail: gmsk@annauniv.edu
3
Deputy Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai
600 113, India. E-mail: kmm@sercm.csir.res.in
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 30, 2003; approved on May 28, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 19, No. 4, November 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2005/4-
277–282/$25.00.
mic loading. The failure of all columns was flexurally dominated,
resulting from either concrete crushing or buckling of the longi-
tudinal steel. Stoppenhagen et al. 共1995兲 conducted cyclic tests on
repaired and strengthened reinforced concrete frames. Test results
showed that the governing failure mechanism of the frame was
successfully shifted from column shear failure to flexural hinging
of the beams. Shake table tests were conducted on two small-
scale reinforced concrete bare frame models by El-Attar et al.
共1997兲. The models were a 1:6 scale two-story, one bay by one
bay office building and a 1:8 scale three-story, one bay by three
bays office building. Both models were designed to resist purely
gravity loads without lateral loads. Test results indicated that re-
inforced concrete buildings designed for gravity loads without
walls would experience very large deformations associated with
considerable stiffness degradation during a moderate earthquake.
The seismic response of reinforced concrete plane frames with
strength and stiffness irregularities was studied by Lu et al.
共1999兲. Two six-story, three-bay reinforced concrete frames, one
having a tall first story and the other having a discontinuous in-
terior column, were designed, and their 1:5.5 scale models were
constructed and tested on an earthquake simulator. It was con-
cluded in general that the model behaved in a manner as expected
for a full-scale structure. Significant stiffness degradation was ob-
served during the course of the tests, and that resulted in a con-
sistent increase of the yield displacement and a decrease in energy
dissipation through hysteresis during subsequent earthquake
simulations. Zarnic et al. 共2001兲 tested two 1:4 scale models of
masonry infilled concrete building frames using a shake table.
The models were shaken with a series of horizontal sinusoidal
motions with gradually increasing amplitude. The model re-
sponses showed that buildings designed according to the Euro-
codes were able to sustain relatively high dynamic excitations due
to a significant level of structural overstrength.
The effect of masonry infill on the seismic behavior of
low-rise reinforced concrete frames with nonseismic detailing
was investigated by Lee and Woo 共2002兲. A series of earthquake

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 277

Table 1. Target Yield Force for Prototype and Model
Prototype Model

Yield Yield
Grade force Diameter Grade force Diameter
of steel 共kN兲 共mm兲 of steel 共kN兲 共mm兲 Scale
Fe 415 83.4 16 Fe 550 10.8 5 1:2.8

simulation tests were conducted on a 1:5 scale reinforced concrete

model, and the test results were compared with a bare frame. It
was concluded that the masonry infill could be beneficial to the
seismic performance of the structure in terms of increase in Fig. 2. Test setup: 共a兲 bare frame; 共b兲 infilled frame
strength and reduction in the global lateral displacement. Al-
Chaar et al. 共2002兲 conducted static tests on half-scale, single-
story models of masonry infilled reinforced concrete plane frames space framed structures with heavily damaged members. There-
with a different number of bays. The results indicated that the fore, this study concentrates on the actual responses of reinforced
infilled frames exhibit significantly higher ultimate strength, re- concrete space frames with and without masonry infill subjected
sidual strength, and initial stiffness than bare frames without to dynamic loading using a shake table.
promising any ductility in the load-deflection response. Further-
more, the number of bays appeared to be influential with respect
to the strength and residual capacity, the failure mode, and the Experimental Investigation
shear stress distribution.
Conventional methods for seismic retrofitting of reinforced
Fabrication of Model
concrete frames were explained by Seth 共2002兲. The parameters
that govern the retrofit evaluation, the retrofit strategies, and the Two one-bay, three-story space frames, one with masonry infill,
procedures for retrofitting were clearly discussed. Seismic retro- and the other without infill, were selected as prototype structures.
fitting of buildings analyzed using pushover analysis was pre- The infill chosen was brick masonry. The frames were analyzed
sented by Jain and Srikant 共2002兲. The pushover analysis was using the STAAD package and designed according to IS 456–
done for a four-storied flat slab building to evaluate the seismic 2000. The grade of concrete used in the prototype was M 20. The
performance and for development of a retrofitting methodology.
Most of these studies are based on the results of either quasi-
static or pseudodynamic tests conducted on reinforced concrete
plane frames. The dynamic behavior of reinforced concrete
frames cannot be simulated with sufficient accuracy in so far as
these quasi-static experimental techniques are used. Also, limited
research is available on the seismic response of irregular infilled

Fig. 1. Reinforcement details of frame Fig. 3. Retrofitting details of frame

278 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005


Fig. 4. Natural frequency of bare and infilled frame
grade of steel used was Fe 415 for the main bars and Fe 250 for
secondary bars. Because smaller aggregates were used for the
model, concrete mix design was done according to ACI 211 to
achieve the required design strength.
The test models were fabricated to a scale of 1:3 and the law
of similitude was followed. The scale was chosen based on the
capacity and dimension of the shake table. Models were designed
by scaling down the geometric and material properties from the
prototype. Each model was 2.9 m high. Bay width along the lon-
gitudinal direction was 1.6 m and that along the transverse direc-
tion was 0.85 m between column centerlines. The frames con-
sisted of 100⫻ 100 mm columns and 77⫻ 100 mm beams. A
lintel beam of size 77⫻ 77 mm was provided in the first and
second floors. Model bricks of size 77⫻ 36⫻ 22 mm were con-
structed with 1:5 cement mortar in English bond in the first and
second floors.
Ordinary portland cement of grade 53 was used. The maxi-
mum size of the coarse aggregate used was 8 mm and the water-
cement ratio adopted was 0.5. The area of steel used in the model
did not conform exactly to the law of similitude, so the yield
forces were selected as the target to be achieved, instead of the
yield stresses. Reinforcing bars of 16 mm ␾ with a grade of steel
of Fe 415 in the prototype were reduced to 5 mm ␾ Fe 550 steel
Fig. 5. Mode shapes of frames
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 279
in the model. The target yield force derived from the similitude
requirement is given in Table 1. The longitudinal reinforcement
was continuous throughout the structure. The first-story column
reinforcement was anchored to the base girder. Reinforcement
details of the frame are shown in Fig. 1.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation consisted of accelerometers and linear vari-
able differential transducers 共LVDT兲 to measure the accelerations
and horizontal displacements of the frames, respectively. All the
accelerometers used during the test were fixed on the base plate of
the shake table. The shake table was slightly excited and the
corresponding data from the accelerometers were compared. The
accelerometers were calibrated by tuning their ratio to 1. The
accelerometers were fixed on the shake table and at each floor
level to measure the response accelerations.
Three LVDTs of ±20, ±20, and ±50 mm capacity were used to
measure the horizontal displacement at floor levels 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The data received from the accelerometers and
LVDTs were transformed into a voltage by compatible signal con-
ditioners and sent to the two-band fast Fourier transform analyzer.
The test setup of the bare frame and the infilled frame is shown in
Fig. 2.
Test Procedure
Each test model was subjected to simulated earthquake motions
of varying intensity. A low amplitude sweep sine test was carried
out for both the frames along the transverse direction to determine
the natural frequency of the models. Then the frames were excited
with an intensity of earthquake motion specified by IS 1893-2002
共Bureau of Indian Standards 2002兲. The time scale of the original
 Fig. 6. Damping ratio for frames
earthquake record was compressed by a factor of 冑3. The re-
sponses of the frames were collected by accelerometers and
LVDTs and were directly fed into a digital computer, thus giving
time histories of the acceleration and displacement at each story
level of the frames. From the displacement and acceleration time
history at each story level, the other dynamic characteristics, such
as interstory drift, shear force, energy dissipation, etc., were
computed.
Next, the frames were excited with higher intensities of earth-
quake motions to failure. The sweep sine test was again con-
ducted to study the changes in the dynamic characteristics. A
hinge was formed at the top and bottom of the ground floor col-
umns in both frames, and shear 共diagonal兲 cracks were also seen
at the beam-column joints on the first floor. Because the failure
was by flexural mode, it was necessary to improve the flexural
strength of the frame. Concrete jacketing was done to strengthen
the damaged columns. Fig. 3 shows the retrofitting details of the
frame.
Holes were drilled in the base girder to half its depth and
additional longitudinal reinforcements were inserted near the ex-
isting reinforcements. These were provided for a distance of one-
third the height of the column. The additional reinforcement was
properly joined to the existing reinforcement. Shear reinforce-
ment was provided in between the existing shear reinforcement
such that their spacing was reduced by 50%. The section was
finished by the addition of concrete jacket of 20 mm thickness.
Additional shear reinforcement was provided at the beam column
joints in the first floor and was grouted with 1:2 cement grout.
Results and Discussion
Single-bay, three-storied 1:3 scale models of reinforced concrete
frames both with and without infill were tested under a simulated
earthquake. The interstory drift, shear force, and stiffness of the
frames both before and after the earthquake simulation were
Fig. 7. Stiffness of frames
280 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005
Fig. 8. Displacement time history of frames
evaluated. The effect of masonry infill on the seismic perfor-
mance of reinforced concrete frames was also studied. The dam-
aged frames were repaired, retrofitted, and then again tested and
the behavior was studied.
The natural frequencies of the bare frame and infilled frame
were measured by conducting a sweep sine test on the shake
table, and the results are given in Fig. 4. It was observed that the
fundamental frequency of the bare frame was higher than that of
the infilled frame. Similar observations were found prior to and
after the seismic forces were applied. This implies that the infill
has a significant effect in reducing the fundamental frequency of a
structure. The drastic reduction in fundamental frequency after
the main tests was attributed to the excursions of the system into
the inelastic range. After the retrofit, the bare frame regained 75%
of the natural frequency of the original bare frame, while in the
case of the infilled frame the increase in the natural frequency was
about 120%.
Experimental mode shapes of the bare frame and the infilled
frame before and after retrofitting are shown in Fig. 5. It was
observed that there was a change in the shape of the first mode for
both frames in the first and second floors. This shows the first
mode domination in the energy dissipation capacity of the frames
and provides evidence of more damage in the upper floors.
Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the damping ratio of the bare
frame and the infilled frame before and after retrofitting for the
three modes. It was observed that the damping ratio for the in-
filled frame was increased by more than twice over that of the
bare frame in the first mode. For the second and third modes, the
increase was twice that of the bare frame. This shows that the first
mode contributes to energy dissipation even after retrofitting.
The stiffness of the frames before and after retrofitting is
shown in Fig. 7. It was found that the initial stiffness of the
infilled frame was three times greater than that of the bare frame.
After failure, the stiffness of the bare frame was reduced to four
Fig. 9. Drift profile of frames

Fig. 10. Hysteretic behavior of frames
times, whereas in the case of the infilled frame the reduction was
only one and a half times. This is attributed to the brick masonry
infill.
After retrofitting, the bare frame gained 60% of its original
stiffness in the ground floor and first floor and 40% in the second
floor. In the case of the infilled frame, the stiffness was 120% in
the ground floor and 80% in the first and second floors. It is thus
evident that a retrofit using concrete jacketing is an effective
method for restoring and enhancing the structural stiffness.
The displacement time history during the excitation is shown
in Fig. 8. The bare frame showed a significant reduction in the top
displacement after retrofitting, on the order of three times,
whereas in the case of the infilled frame, the top displacement
was reduced to more than one and a half times. This may be due
to the damage suffered by the infill panel during the previous test.
The interstory drift profile for both the bare frame and the
infilled frame is shown in Fig. 9. In the bare frame the drift was
considerably larger in the second story and the retrofitting re-
duced the drift on the order of 3 times. For the infilled frame, the
effect of retrofitting was minimal for all stories.
The hysteretic loops for both the frames at the first-story level
are shown in Fig. 10, which also gives the energy dissipation
characteristics of the frames. In the case of the bare frame, the
Fig. 11. Comparison of base shear of frames
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005 / 281
hysteretic behavior was shallower than that of the retrofitted bare
frame. In the case of the infilled frame, retrofitting did not signifi-
cantly change the hysteretic behavior except that the energy ab-
sorbed was higher before retrofitting.
Though the bare frame attracted almost same amount of forces
before and after retrofitting, there was a significant reduction in
the drift level after retrofitting, about 65%. The retrofitted infilled
frame attracted forces 1.5 times lower than that before retrofitting,
and the drift level was decreased by 25%.
Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the base shear of the bare and
infilled frames. The ratio of the base shear to the seismic weight
for both frames was larger than the design seismic coefficient of
0.067. The base shear of the infilled frame was 2.75 times that of
the bare frame under the same level of earthquake motion,
whereas after retrofitting, the increase was about two times.
Cracking Pattern
In the bare frame, a few cracks were seen at the bottom of the
column in the ground floor and no cracks were seen in the first
and second floor after the excitation. In the case of the infilled
frame, cracks were seen at the top and bottom of the ground floor
column and no cracks in the first and second floor.
During excitations of higher intensity, in the bare frame, a
hinge was formed at the top and bottom of the column in the
ground floor; spalling of concrete cover at the base of column in
the first floor was also seen. In the case of the infilled frame,
severe damage was observed in the columns in the ground floor,
horizontal cracks in the brick infill extended vertically in the first
floor, and minor cracks were also seen in the infill in the second
floor.
After retrofitting, hairline cracks were observed in the ground
floor columns of the bare frame. In the case of the infilled frame,
the cracks were seen in the ground floor columns and widening of
cracks in the brick infill was observed in the first and second
floors.
Conclusion
Single-bay, three-storied 1:3 scale models of reinforced concrete
frames both with and without infill were tested using a shake
table. The dynamic characteristics of the model frame, such as the
natural frequency, mode shape, and damping, were evaluated.
From the measured response of the models during excitation, the
shear force, interstory drift, and stiffness were estimated. The
effect of masonry infill on the seismic performance of reinforced
concrete frames was also analyzed. The damaged frames were
retrofitted and again tested with the same earthquake intensities.
From the experiments conducted, the following conclusions are
drawn:
1. Provision of brick masonry infill into the moment resisting
frames of a building with a soft story reduces the fundamen-
tal frequency by 30%. After retrofitting, the fundamental fre-
quency of the infilled frame is increased by 20%.
2. The value of the damping ratio for the infilled frame is
greater as compared with the bare frame. However, the
damping ratio of both frames is greater in the first mode
before and after retrofitting, which shows the first mode
domination in energy dissipation.
3. The initial lateral stiffness at different story levels of the
infilled frame is about three times the lateral stiffness of the
 bare frame. In the case of retrofitting of repaired frames, this
lateral story stiffness is over four times greater.
4. The interstory drift of the infilled frame is less than that of
the bare frame before and after retrofitting. However, the
maximum interstory drift in both frames during excitation is
less than the allowable drift specified in the code.
5. The strength demand due to the addition of infills to the bare
frame increases on the order of three times. In the case of a
retrofitted frame, the increase in the seismic demand is re-
duced to two times.
References
Al-Chaar, G., Issa, M., and Sweeney, S. 共2002兲. “Behavior of masonry-
infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames.” J. Struct. Eng.,
128共8兲, 1055–1063.
Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B., and Reinhorn, A. M. 共1994兲. “Seismic
resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed only for
gravity loads: Experimental performances of subassemblages.” ACI
Struct. J., 91共5兲, 552–563.
282 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2005
View publication stats
Bureau of Indian Standards. 共2002兲. “Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures.” IS–1893 (Part-I), New Delhi, India.
El-Attar, A. G., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. 共1997兲. “Behavior of grav-
ity load designed reinforced concrete buildings subjected to earth-
quakes.” ACI Struct. J., 94共2兲, 133–145.
Jain, S. K., and Srikant, T. 共2002兲. “Analysis for seismic retrofitting of
buildings.” Indian Concr. J., 76共8兲, 479–484.
Lee, H. S., and Woo, S. W. 共2002兲. “Effect of masonry infills on seismic
performance of a 3-story reinforced concrete frame with non-seismic
detailing.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 353–378.
Lu, Y., Tassios, T. P., Zhang, G. S., and Vintzileou, E. 共1999兲. “Seismic
response of reinforced concrete frames with strength and stiffness
irregularities.” ACI Struct. J., 96共2兲, 221–229.
Seth, A. 共2002兲. “Seismic retrofitting by conventional methods.” Indian
Concr. J., 76共8兲, 489–495.
Stoppenhagen, D. R., Jirsa, J. O., and Wyllie, L. A. 共1995兲. “Seismic
repair and strengthening of a damaged concrete frame,” ACI Struct. J.,
92共2兲, 177–187.
Zarnic, R., Gostic, S., Crewe, A. J., and Taylor, C. A. 共2001兲. “Shaking
table tests of 1:4 reduced-scale models of masonry infilled rein-
forced concrete frame buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30,
819–834.