14

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

Structures are expected to deform inelastically when subjected to

severe earthquakes, so seismic performance evaluation of structures should be
conducted considering post-elastic behavior. Therefore, a nonlinear analysis
procedure must be used for evaluation purpose as post-elastic behavior cannot
be determined directly by an elastic analysis. Moreover, maximum inelastic
displacement demand of structures should be determined to adequately
estimate the seismically induced demands on structures that exhibit inelastic
behavior.

Various simplified nonlinear analysis procedures and approximate

methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demand of structures
are proposed in literature. The widely used simplified nonlinear analysis
procedure, pushover analysis is discussed in detail.

2.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is an approximate analysis method in which the

structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral force with an
invariant height-wise distribution until a target displacement is reached.
Pushover analysis consists of a series of sequential elastic analyses,
superimposed to approximate the force-displacement curve of the overall
 15

structure. A two or three dimensional model which includes bilinear or

trilinear load-deformation diagrams of all lateral force resisting elements is
first created and gravity loads are applied initially.

The structure is subjected to predefined lateral load patterns which

are distributed along the building height. The lateral forces are increased until
some members yield. The structural model is modified to account for the
reduced stiffness of yielded members and lateral forces are again increased
until additional members yield. The process is continued until a control
displacement at the top of building reaches a certain level of deformation or
structure becomes unstable. The roof displacement is plotted with base shear
to get the global capacity curve Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Illustration of a Pushover Analysis

(Rui Carneiro Barvos and Ricardo Almeida 2005)
 16

Pushover analysis can be performed as force-controlled or

displacement controlled. In force-controlled pushover procedure, full load
combination is applied as specified, i.e, force-controlled procedure should be
used when the load is known (such as gravity loading). Also, in force-
controlled pushover procedure some numerical problems that affect the
accuracy of results occur since target displacement may be associated with a
very small positive or even a negative lateral stiffness because of the
development of mechanisms and P-delta effects.

The published reports ATC 40 (1996) and FEMA 273 (1997)

highlighted the non-linear static pushover analysis. It is an efficient method
for the performance evaluation of a structure subjected to seismic loads. The
step by step procedure of the pushover analysis is to determine the capacity
curve, demand curve and performance point. These reports deal with
modeling aspects of the hinge behavior, acceptance criteria and procedures to
locate the performance point.

The seismic performance of non-ductile reinforced concrete framed

buildings, in regions of low to moderate seismic forces was evaluated by
Kunnath et al (1995). The detailing configurations included in the analysis
were discontinuous positive flexural reinforcement, lack of joint shear
reinforcement and inadequate transverse reinforcement for column core
confinement. When the buildings were subjected to a moderate level
earthquake, the buildings suffered significant but not severe damages. The
beams were more damages than the columns, except in the lower storey levels
of the nine storey structure.

Javeed Munshi and Satyendra Ghosh (1997) evaluated the seismic

performance of a code designed 12-storey reinforced concrete building. The
global and local inelastic behaviors of the building in the two orthogonal
 17

directions were studied under several earthquake ground motions. Nonlinear

concrete behavior, including stiffness degradation and strength loss caused by
cracking, crushing of concrete and yielding of steel was simulated by using
the fiber beam-column element of the DRAIN-2D program. Pushover
analysis was used to determine the global ductility of the structure. It was
found that weak coupling between the walls resulted in large ductility
demands, which can be directly reduced by increasing the wall strength.

Jaswant et al. (1997) studied nine different models of the building.

The buildings were considered to be located in seismic zone III. Linear elastic
analysis was performed for the models of the building using ETABs analysis
package. Two different analyses were performed on the models of the
building considered in this study, namely the equivalent static analysis and
the multi model dynamic analysis. Finally suggested that, the buildings are
located in Zone-III will exhibit poor performance during a strong earthquake.
This hazardous feature of Indian RC frame buildings needs to be addressed
immediately and necessary measures should be taken to improve the
performance of the buildings.

Helmut Krawinkler and Seneviratna (1998) discussed that, the

pushover analysis would be a great improvement over presently employed
elastic evaluation procedures and they also pointed out that a carefully
performed pushover analysis would provide insight into structural aspects that
control performances during severe earthquakes. Further it was concluded
that, for structures that vibrate primarily in the fundamental mode, the
pushover analysis would provide good estimates of global as well as local
inelastic, deformation demands. These analyses also expose design
weaknesses that may remain hidden in an elastic analysis.
 18

Ashraf Habibullah and Stephen (1998) described the use of

SAP2000 for the performing a pushover analysis of a simple three
dimensional building. SAP2000 is a state-of-the-art, general purpose, and
three dimensional structural analysis programs. SAP2000 has static pushover
analysis capabilities which were fully integrated into the program; allow
quick and easy implementation of the pushover procedures for both two and
three dimensional frames.

Mwafy and Elanashai (2000) owing to the simplicity of inelastic

static pushover analysis, a comparison study was made between inelastic
dynamic analysis and inelastic static pushover analysis for 12 reinforced
concrete buildings of different characteristics. The analysis was carried out
using natural and artificial earthquake records. It was found that the static
pushover analysis was more appropriate for low rise and short period framed
structures. For well designed buildings but with structural irregularities, the
result of the procedure also shows good correlation with the dynamic
analysis.

Sudhir K. Jain and Rahul Navin (2000) studied the seismic

strengthening of multistorey reinforced concrete frames which were assessed
by means of non-linear pseudo static analysis of four bays, three, six and nine
storey frames were designed for seismic zones I to V as per Indian codes. The
over strength increases as the number of storeys decreases; over strength of
the three storey frame was higher than the nine storey frame. Further, interior
frames have higher over strength as compared to exterior frames of the same
building. These observations were significant for seismic design codes which,
at present do not take into account the variation in over strength.
 19

Elnashai (2001) analyzed the dynamic response of structures using

static pushover analysis. The significance of pushover analysis as an
alternative to inelastic dynamic analysis in seismic design and assessment
were discussed. New developments towards a fully adaptive pushover method
accounting for spread of inelasticity, geometric non-linearity, full multi-
modal, spectral amplification and period elongation within a framework of
fiber modeling of materials were discussed and preliminary results were
given. These developments lead to static analysis results that were closer than
ever to inelastic time-history analysis.

A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic

demands for buildings was developed by Chopra and Goel (2002). The modal
pushover analysis was applied to a nine-storey steel building to determine the
peak inelastic response and it was compared with rigorous non-linear
response history analysis. It was concluded that the modal pushover analysis
was accurate enough for practical application in building evaluation and
design.

Santoshkumar et al. (2003) studied the evaluation of multistorey

buildings with and without considering the stiffness of infill located in
zone III. The study compromised of seismic loads, gravity load analysis and
lateral load analysis as per the seismic code for the bare and infill structure by
considering different analytical models, and their evaluation was carried out
using pushover analysis. The results in terms of natural periods, lateral
deformation and ductility ratio were compared for the different building
models. It was concluded that the performance point of all the building
models considered for the study falls before the life safety point. Hence the
buildings need not be retrofitted. Base shear capacity was observed to be
 20

greater than the design base shear; therefore the building has safe under
design basis earthquake.

Mela et al. (2003) a basilica type church was analysed in order to

assess its structural behaviour and seismic vulnerability. For this purpose, an
effective two step procedure was used, consisting of a) three dimensional
static and dynamic linear analysed of the structural complex, and b) two
dimensional non-linear pushover analysis of the single macro elements. The
comparison between demands versus capacity was carried out for all
transversal and longitudinal macro elements of the church, allowing a direct,
though approximate and assessment of the seismic safety level of the church.
The insertion of rigid diaphragms, which represents a widely used retrofit
technique, was also investigated.

Mehmet Inel and Hayri Baytan Ozmen (2006) studied the effect of
plastic hinges in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Pushover
analysis was carried out for four as well as seven storied reinforced concrete
buildings to represent low and medium rise buildings. The frames were
modeled with default and user defined hinge properties to study possible
differences in the results of pushover analysis. Comparison of response was
also made in terms of base shear capacity, displacement capacity and
deformation of hinges. User defined plastic model was found to be effective
than the default hinge model. From the above discussion it was concluded
that comparative studies were made between pushover analysis and inelastic
time history analysis in evaluating the performance of existing building but,
no comparison study was found between pushover analysis and Demand to
Capacity Ratio (DCR) method of analysis.
 21

Kasim Armagan Korkmaz et al. (2007) studied a three storied RC

frame structure with different amount of masonry infill walls were considered
to investigate the effect of infill walls on earthquake response of these types
of structures. Pushover curves were obtained for the structures using non-
linear analysis for SAP 2000. From the pushover curves, storey displacement,
relative storey displacement, maximum plastic rotations were determined.
Regarding the analysis results, the effects of irregularities were determined in
the structural behavior under earthquake.

Sadjadi et al. (2007) presented an analytical approach for seismic

assessment of RC frames using nonlinear time history analysis and pushover
analysis. The analytical models were validated against available experimental
results and used in a study to evaluate the seismic behaviour of these five
storied frames. It was concluded that both the ductile and the nominally
ductile frames behaved very well under the considered earthquake, while the
seismic performance of the ground floor structure was not satisfactory. After
the damaged ground floor frame was retrofitted the seismic performance was
improved.

Zine et al. (2007) conducted the Pushover analysis for reinforced

concrete structures designed according to the Algerian code. The main output
of a pushover analysis was in terms of response demand versus capacity. If
the demand curve intersected the capacity envelope near the elastic range,
Figure 2.2(a), then the structure had a good resistance. If the demand curve
intersects the capacity curve with little reserve of strength and deformation
capacity Figure 2.2(b), then it can be concluded, that the structure would
behave poorly during the imposed seismic excitation and need to be
retrofitted to avoid major damage or collapse in future.
 22

(a) Safe Design (b) Unsafe Design

Figure 2.2 Typical Seismic Demand versus Capacity (Zine et al. 2007)

Ramkumar and Baskar (2008) examined the structural evaluation

of RC building when located in various zones of India. Response spectrum
analyses were carried out for all seismic zones in India considering with and
without infill stiffness. Pushover analysis was carried out to produce a
pushover curve consisting of capacity spectrum, demand spectrum and
performance point. Pushover analysis showed that performance of the
building components and also the maximum base shear carrying capacity of
the structures for various zones.

Kadid and Boumrkik (2008) conducted study on three framed

buildings with five, eight and twelve storeys respectively were analyzed.
Most of the hinges developed in the beams and a few in the columns but with
limited damage as shown in Figure 2.3. The results obtained in terms of
demand, capacity and plastic hinges give an insight into the real behavior of
structures.
 23

Figure 2.3 Hinge Patterns of Five Storey Building for Different

Displacement Levels (Kadid and Boumrkik 2008)

Anil Babu et al. (2008) conducted vulnerability analysis on two

existing multistorey buildings. Gravity load analysis, response spectrum
analysis and pushover analysis were performed. The capacity of each member
was obtained and compared with the demand. The result showed the level of
vulnerability of the buildings. The first building, which was in zone III, was
able to sustain the gravity load. The second building, located in zone IV,
however was adequate under gravity load. But, under earthquake load,
demands on some of the members crossed their capacities.

Ramesh Kumar and Baskar (2008) evaluated a G+7 RC framed

building using linear and non-linear analysis under earthquake loading. Two
types of analysis were employed namely, response spectrum analysis and
pushover analysis. The building was assumed to be placed in various zones of
India. Response spectrum analyses were carried out for all seismic zones in
India considering with and without infill stiffness. Pushover analysis was
carried out to produce a pushover curve consists of capacity spectrum,
demand spectrum and performance point. Response spectrum analyses
showed that most of the building components (beams and columns) were
 24

failed in zone IV and V. Pushover analyses showed that the storey

displacement exceeded maximum permissible limit for zone IV and V. From
this evaluation, it was concluded that the structure must be retrofitted in zones
IV and V. The structure was provided with inverted V-bracing system and it
was again analyzed. The structure with inverted V-bracing system sustained
more lateral load and satisfied the codal requirements under those zones.

Mehdi Poursha et al. (2009) presented a new pushover procedure

which can take into account higher-mode effects. The procedure, which had
been named the consecutive modal pushover procedure, utilizes multi-stage
and single-stage pushover analyses. The final structural responses were
determined by enveloping the results of multi-stage and single-stage pushover
analyses. The procedure was applied to four special steel moment-resisting
frames with different heights. A comparison between estimates from the
consecutive modal pushover procedure and the exact values obtained by
nonlinear response history analysis, as well as predictions from modal
pushover analysis, had been carried out. It was demonstrated that the
consecutive modal pushover procedure was able to effectively overcome the
limitations of traditional pushover analysis, and to accurately predict the
seismic demands of tall buildings.

Mehanny and El Howary (2010) evaluated the seismic assessment

of ductile versions of low to mid-rise moment frames located in moderate
seismic zones was carried out through comparative trial designs of two
(4 and 8-story) buildings adopting both space and perimeter framed
approaches. Code-compliant designs, as well as a proposed modified code
design relaxing design drift demands for the investigated buildings, were
examined to test their effectiveness and reliability. Vulnerability curves for
the frames were generated corresponding to various code-specified
performance levels. However, the study suggested that more consistent
 25

reliability for designed structures would be achieved by disaggregating the

force reduction factor into its static and dynamic parts and that code default
values of this factor for some building types would be better reduced for a
more reliable performance.

Shahrin Hossain (2011) followed the procedures of ATC 40 in

evaluating the seismic performance of residential buildings in Dhaka. The
present study investigated as well as compared the performances of bare
frame, full infilled and soft ground storey buildings. For different loading
conditions resembling the practical situations of Dhaka city, the performances
of these structures were analysed with the help of capacity curve, capacity
spectrum, deflection, drift and seismic performance level. The performance of
an in filled frame was found to be much better than a bare frame structure. It
is found that, consideration of effect of the infill leads to significant change in
the capacity. Investigation of buildings with soft storey showed that soft
storey mechanism reduced the performance of the structure significantly
and makes them most vulnerable type of construction in earthquake prone
areas.

Dinesh J. Sabu and Pajgade (2012) concentrated on seismic

evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building. Seismic analysis was
carried out for existing reinforced concrete building. The reinforcement
provided in building was compared with all the three formats of modeling
i. e. bare frame modeling, brick infill frame modeling and infill + soil
effect interaction model. After all the study, the following conclusions were
drawn.

The strength of the existing structure could be enhanced to the

required level and it would definitely improve the seismic
resistance capacity of the building required for zone III.
 26

The concrete jacketing method was easy, effective and

economical method for improving the seismic resistance
capacity of the member and building as well.

About 30% to 40% less reinforcement required in building

with brick infill + soil interaction effect as compared to bare
frame in ground storey. And relatively less difference in
reinforcement in other upper storey.

Ramaraju et al. (2012) carried out the nonlinear analysis (pushover

analysis) for a typical six storey office building designed for four load cases,
considered three revisions of Indian (IS: 1893 and IS: 456) codes. In that
study, nonlinear stress–strain curves for confined concrete and user-defined
hinge properties as per Eurocode 8 were used. A significant variation was
observed in base shear capacities and hinge formation mechanisms for four
design cases with default and user-defined hinges at yield and ultimate. This
may be due to the fact that, the orientation and the axial load level of the
columns cannot be taken into account properly by the default-hinge
properties. Based on the observations in the hinging patterns, it was apparent
that the user-defined hinge model was more successful in capturing the
hinging mechanism compared to the model with the default hinge.

2.3 CONCLUSIONS

Many guidelines are reviewed for linear, non-linear analysis and

the seismic evaluations of the structures are also discussed. Most of the
researchers have reviewed that the buildings were assumed to be placed in
various zones of India and carried out the investigation on the non-linear
analysis (pushover analysis) and compared the performance of the building
components, maximum base shear capacity of the structures located in the
 27

various zones. Many papers considered different amount of masonry infill

walls to investigate the effect of infill walls on earthquake in response to the
structures. SAP2000, ETABS and IDARC-2D software’s were mainly used to
find out the seismic evaluation and performance of the structures. All these
studies require further research not based on assumptions, but in real terms it
is essential to consider existing reinforced concrete structures under seismic
evaluation.

2.4 SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF STRUCTURES

There are three types of deficiencies in a building, which have to be

accounted for by the retrofitting engineer: (i) inadequate design and detailing
(ii) degradation of material with time and use and (iii) damage due to
earthquake or other catastrophe. The retrofit engineer is expected to estimate
the deficiency resulting from all the three sources, suggest a retrofit scheme to
make up for the deficiencies and demonstrate that the retrofitted structure will
be able to safety resist the future earthquake forces expected during the
lifetime of the structure. These papers present a brief review of the available
methods and techniques for retrofitting of RC building.

ASCE (2000) the intent of this standard, Guideline for Condition

Assessment of the Building Envelope, is to provide a guideline and
methodology for assessing the condition and performance of existing building
envelope systems and components and identifying problematic and
dysfunctional elements. It applies equally to a building's envelope or portion
whose primary purpose may be to serve as the supporting structural system of
the building. This standard assists the investigator in developing a logical
approach to this assessment by establishing an assessment procedure
including investigation, testing methods and a form for the report of the
condition assessment. Since any evaluation will also involve "professional
 28

judgment", a section providing guidance is included. Both consultants and

clients will find this standard to be a useful source of information on
assessing building envelope systems.

FEMA 172 (1992) the handbook described the techniques

that engineers could use to solve a variety of seismic rehabilitation
problems in existing buildings, a broad spectrum of building types and
building components (both structural and nonstructural). Techniques are
illustrated with sketches and the relative merits of the techniques are also
discussed.

This publication FEMA 156 and FEMA 157 (1994 and 1995)
presented a methodology to estimate the costs of seismic rehabilitation
projects at various locations in the United States. The above edition was
based on a sample of almost 2,100 projects, with data collected by using a
standard protocol, strict quality control verification and a reliability rating. A
sophisticated statistical methodology applied to this database yields cost
estimates of increasing quality and reliability as more and more detailed
information on the building inventory is used in the estimation process.

FEMA 308 (1999) suggested practical guidance for the repair,

upgrade of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. Target
audiences were design engineers, building owners, officials, insurance
adjusters and government agencies. The publication contained sections on
performance based repair design, repair technologies, categories of repair and
nonstructural considerations. The last section included repair guides, which
provided outline specifications for typical repair procedures.

Murty (2002b) discussed how the existing buildings could become

seismically deficient when (a) seismic design code requirements are upgraded
 29

since the design of these buildings with an older version of the code;
(b) seismic design codes are deficient and (c) designers lack understanding of
the seismic behavior of structures. Indian buildings built over the past two
decades were deficient because of items (a), (b) and (c) above.

Three levels of improvement in the existing RC frame buildings

were possible, namely (a) repair (b) restore and (c) strengthen. The
consequence of any prescribed method of the retrofitting were (a) adding
brick masonry walls in all possible bays in ground storey (b) jacketing of all
RC columns in ground storey only, (c) adding steel diagonal braces in some
bays in ground storey and (d) infilling existing RC frame with RC structural
walls in some bays in ground storey only. In all cases, foundation
strengthening may be essential. The seismic capacity of the building should
be quantitatively evaluated based on its effectiveness from the points
of view of strength, stiffness and ductility Sometimes, a retrofit scheme
may have better performance than the damaged structure, but still may be
poor; the retrofit scheme that assures at least a basic ductility is preferable to
the others.

Sudhir K. Jain and Srikant (2002) concept of pushover analysis was

becoming a popular tool in the profession for design of new buildings,
seismic evaluation of existing buildings and developing appropriate strategy
for seismic retrofitting of buildings. It was shown how this analytical
technique could be useful in deciding seismic retrofitting strategy and
techniques.

Richard White and Khalid Mosalam (2002) evaluated the

procedures and retrofit strategies for existing reinforced concrete framed
buildings were designed primarily for gravity loads. Selected evaluation and
rehabilitation methods were reviewed, including portions of the 1996 NEHRP
 30

guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. New research resulted for

predicting the behaviour of masonry infilled frames was presented, and
general research issues were suggested.

Yogendra Singh (2003) studied and discussed that, a large number

of existing buildings in India were severely deficient against earthquake
forces and the number of such buildings was growing very rapidly. This was
highlighted in the past earthquake. Retrofitting of any existing building was a
complex task and requires skill, retrofitting of RC buildings was particularly
challenging due to complex behavior of the RC composite material. The
behavior of the buildings during earthquake depends not only on the size of
the members and amount of reinforcement, but also to a great extent on the
placing and detailing of the reinforcement. The construction practices in India
resulted in severe construction defects, which made the task of retrofitting
even more difficult.

Shailesh Agrawal and Ajay Chourasia (2003) performed the

nonlinear static analysis of RC building using pushover approach before and
after retrofitting. The comparison of strength parameters and pushover curve
indicated that there was increase in ductility. As regards to stiffness of the
building, it was seen that it remains more or less same up to linear stage,
while in nonlinear stage every point increased both in capacity and the
deformation after retrofitting. The strength of the building was correlated with
base shear, the net enhancement in strength after retrofitting.

Amar Prakash and Thakkar (2003) studied the seismic retrofitting

of an existing fourteen storied RC building frame located in seismic zone IV.
The study included seismic evaluation and retrofitting of RC framed building,
by using steel bracing and infill masonry walls. The seismic performance of
two retrofitting techniques such as steel bracing (V, diamond and cross
 31

pattern) and infill walls were relatively compared. Among three patterns of
steel bracing, cross pattern shows better performance than ‘V’ and diamond
bracing patterns.

Chandrasekaran et al. (2003) conducted studies on 150 year old

building, Ganga Mahal located in Assi Ghat and Sanskrit University of
Varanasi. The buildings were mathematically modeled and analyzed for its
structural behavior. The suggested measures of structural strengthening for
these heritage structures were based on the understanding of the detailed
studies conducted by the authors on the failure pattern of various structures
during earthquakes in India.

Ashutosh V. Mahashabde et al. (2003) identified an efficient

retrofitting method for reinforced concrete buildings. Two buildings such as
one open ground storey with infills and the other by partial open ground
storey with infills, which were damaged in the January 2001 Bhuj earthquake,
were subjected to static pushover analysis with code specified design shear
distribution. The observed failure modes conform to the actual structural
damages sustained by the buildings during that earthquake. The selected
methods of retrofitting were a) Jacketing of columns in the ground storey,
b) Structural walls in the ground storey of some selective panels, and
c) Structural walls for all the stories in some panels. These three basic
schemes were used in combination for ascertaining an economical method
giving the maximum strength and ductility. Of all the methods studied, the
combination of column jacketing in ground storey and shear wall throughout
the height of the building with selective strengthening of upper storey frame
members, give the most economic and desirable performance.

FEMA 395-397 (2003), FEMA 398 and FEMA 399 (2004)

described administrators with information to assess the seismic vulnerability
 32

of school buildings, hospital building, office building and apartment building,

retail building and to implement a program of incremental seismic
rehabilitation. Increase in the number of seismically resistant buildings in all
areas of identified earthquake risk.

The guidelines given by Durgesh C. Rai (2005) were intended to

provide a systematic procedure for the seismic evaluation of buildings, which
could be applied consistently to a rather wide range of buildings. This
document also discussed some cost effective strengthening schemes for
existing older buildings which were identified as seismically deficient during
the evaluation process.

Giusepe Oliveto and Massimo Marleta (2005) gave the traditional

methods of seismic retrofitting. Modern methods and philosophies of seismic
retrofitting, including base isolation and energy dissipation devices, were
reviewed. The presentation was illustrated by case studies of actual buildings,
where traditional and innovative retrofitting methods were applied.

The document by Durgesh C. Rai (2006) highlighted a higher

degree of damage in a building could be expected during an earthquake, if the
seismic resistance of the building was inadequate. The decision to strengthen
it before the occurrence of an earthquake depends on the building’s seismic
résistance. The structural system of the deficient building should be
adequately strengthened, in order to attain the desired level of seismic
resistance.

Lakshmanan (2006) conducted pushover analysis for the structures

using SAP 2000 evaluating the various repair strategies, for the improvement
of the seismic performance of RC structures. The behaviors of repaired beams
and beam column joints were discussed. It was observed that an inherent
 33

deficiency in the detailing of the beam-column joints gets reflected even after
repair, though the performance factors indicate significant improvement. Two
of the logical extensions show that the repair would not be as effective in
these cases.

Kaustubh Dasgupta and Murty (2006) identified an efficient

retrofitting method for existing open ground storey RC frame buildings.
A two dimensional RC frame has designed as non-ductile. Detailing was
subjected to nonlinear static pushover analysis. The RC frame was retrofitted
by three methods. a) Concrete jacketing of columns in the ground storey,
b) Brick masonry infill in the ground storey and c) RC structural wall in the
ground storey panel. Of all the methods studied the use of structural wall in
the ground storey panel gave the maximum strength and ductility.

Seki et al. (2007) gave the seismic evaluation and retrofitting

procedures of reinforced concrete buildings based on JICA technical
cooperation project in Romania. The content covered i) an outline of the
seismic evaluation; history and comparison of Romanian seismic design
codes with the Japanese seismic evaluation guidelines, ii) an outline of the
retrofitting techniques which were transferred from Japan to Romania and
structural tests for retrofitting techniques employed in Romania and
iii) retrofitting details that were used by JICA/NCSRR in the retrofitting
design of two vulnerable buildings in Bucharest.

Alexander G. Tsonos (2008) made a study to evaluate retrofitting

methods which address particular weaknesses that are often found in
reinforced concrete structures, especially older structures, namely the lack of
sufficient flexural and shear reinforcement within the columns and the lack of
adequate shear reinforcement within the joints. Thus, the use of a reinforced
concrete jacket and a high-strength fibre jacket for cases of post-earthquake
 34

and pre-earthquake retrofitting of columns and beam–column joints was

investigated experimentally and analytically. The effectiveness of the two
jacket styles was also compared.

Ei-Sokkary and Galal (2009) investigated analytically the

effectiveness of different rehabilitation patterns in upgrading the seismic
performance of existing nonductile RC frames structures. The study
investigated the performance of two RC frames (with different heights
representing low and high rise buildings) with or without masonry infill was
rehabilitated and subjected to three types of ground motion records. The
ground motion records represented earthquakes with low, medium and high
frequency contents. Three models were considered for the RC frames: bare
frame, masonry infilled frame with soft infill and masonry infilled frame with
stiff infill. Four rehabilitation patterns were studied namely; 1) introducing a
RC shear wall, 2) using steel bracing, 3) using diagonal FRP strips (FRP
bracings) in the case of masonry infilled frames, and 4) wrapping or partially
wrapping the frame members (columns and beams) using FRP composites.
Incremental dynamic analysis was conducted for the studied cases. The
seismic performance enhancement of the frames was evaluated in terms of the
maximum applied peak ground acceleration resisted by the frames, maximum
inter storey drift ratio, maximum storey shear-to-weight ratio and energy
dissipation capacity.

Ryan J. Williams et al. (2009) presented a methodology that can be

used to make informed decisions on whether or not to retrofit structures for
seismic events based on the expected economic benefit due to retrofitting.
The seismic fragility of a given structure as well as the seismic hazard at a
specific building location was incorporated into the decision-making process.
The prescribed methodology was used to study two identical reinforced
concrete buildings, one located in Memphis, Tennessee and one in
 35

San Francisco, California. The probabilities of failure and generalized

reliability indices were calculated for the identical structures in both
locations. A parametric analysis was performed to determine the effects that
achievable loss reduction, investment return period, and retrofit cost have on
the economic feasibility of seismic retrofitting in Memphis and San
Francisco. A case study was conducted to find the impact of a modest retrofit
strategy applied to the identical buildings in Memphis and San Francisco. The
probabilities of failure and generalized reliability indices were calculated for
the retrofitted building in both locations and compared to the corresponding
values for the original buildings. The results of the parametric analysis and
case study were used to determine the effects of building location on retrofit
feasibility.

Savitha et al. (2009) studied performance based seismic evaluation

of building models namely: bare frame, soft storey, retrofitted building with
unreinforced masonry infill and increased stiffness of columns and different
locations in open ground storey for G+2, G+5and G+ 8, storey’s located in
seismic zone III. The buildings were designed by gravity loads which were
analyzed by equivalent static method using ETAB and nonlinear version 9
software. The seismic vulnerability of building was assessed by carrying out
non linear static pushover analysis at immediate occupancy, life safety and
collapse prevention performance levels. Comparative study of two retrofit
techniques was made by comparing the values of natural period, base shear,
lateral displacement, storey drift, ductility and also performance of buildings
were checked at their respective failure modes and target displacement levels.
The investigation concluded that, the buildings designed as per IS: 456-2000
provisions using limit state method of design were inadequate for seismic
load combination as per IS: 1893-2002 (Part-I) code provisions. The
performance of the buildings having non- ductile moment resisting frames
could be improved by adding infill walls or increasing stiffness of ground
 36

columns. The retrofitting techniques addition of infill walls and increase in

stiffness of ground columns, out of three different locations at the
intermediate portion i.e. at the middle bays gave better performance than that
of at central core and peripheral bays.

Cengizhan Durucan and Murat Dicleli (2010) focused on a

proposed seismic retrofitting system configured to upgrade the performance
of seismically vulnerable reinforced concrete buildings. The proposed seismic
retrofitting system was composed of a rectangular steel housing frame with
chevron braces and a yielding shear link connected between the braces and
the frame. The retrofitting system was installed within the bays of an RC
building frame to enhance the stiffness, strength and ductility of the structure.
The proposed seismic retrofitting system and a conventional retrofitting
system using squat infill shear panels were used in an existing school and an
office building. Nonlinear time history analyses of the buildings in the
original and retrofitted conditions were conducted for three different seismic
performance levels to assess the efficiency of the proposed seismic
retrofitting system. The analyses results revealed that the building retrofitted
with the proposed seismic retrofitting system had a more stable lateral
force–deformation behaviour with enhanced energy dissipation capability
than that of the one retrofitted with squat infill shear panels

Niroomandi el al. (2010) reported on the results of an investigation

into the effectiveness of FRP retrofitting the joints in enhancing the seismic
performance level and the seismic behaviour factor (R) of ordinary RC
frames. The flexural stiffness of FRP retrofitted joints of the frame was first
determined using nonlinear analyses of detailed Finite Element models of
RC-joint–FRP composite. The results showed that the performance level and
the seismic behaviour factor of the FRP retrofitted RC frame were
significantly enhanced in comparison with the original frame and were
 37

comparable with those of the steel-braced frame. It was also found that using
FRP at joints may upgrade an ordinary RC frame to an intermediate and even
a high ductility frame.

Yuksel et al. (2010) conducted the experimental studies on the

behaviour of bare and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFPR)-retrofitted
infilled RC frames with different bracing configurations. Quasi-static
experimental results were presented and discussed on six 1/3 rd -scaled infilled
RC frames that were retrofitted using CFRP material in various schemes. The
test results showed a significant increase in the yield and ultimate strength
capacities of the frames with a decrease in relative story drifts, especially in
the cross-braced and the cross diamond-braced type of retrofitting schemes.
The energy dissipation capacities of the retrofitted frames turned out to be
more than those of the bare infilled frame, thus reducing the seismic demand
imposed on the frames. The cross diamond-braced type of retrofitting scheme,
which was positioned on the infill wall and outside the beam–column
connection regions of RC frame, showed the best behaviour among the other
schemes. This scheme not only prevented brittle shear failures of the infill
wall, but also prevented the transfer of additional forces to the weak and
brittle beam–column connections.

Chien-Kuo Chiu and Wen-Yu Jean (2011) proposed an estimating

procedure that can be used to set the optimal seismic level in the seismic
retrofit design for a low rise RC building was proposed. Along with damage
control, cost of maintenance over the remaining service life was also
considered in this estimating procedure. Furthermore, combination of
upgrading rates in terms of yielding acceleration and the ductility capacity of
the single degree of freedom system were also suggested to the designer of
the retrofit. Although the structure in the case study was limited to a low rise
RC building in Taipei, the optimal seismic retrofit level calculated via the
 38

same procedure can be derived and utilized when making decisions about
how to set the upgrading rates in structural capacities in the seismic retrofit
design based on economic considerations.

Yuichi Sato et al. (2011) presented a three-dimensional Finite

Element Analyses on all-frame model of a three-story reinforced concrete
(RC) building damaged in the 1999 Taiwan Chi-Chi Earthquake. Non-
structural brick walls of the building acted as a seismic resistant element
although their contributions were neglected in the design. Hence, the entire
structure of a typical frame was modelled and static and dynamic nonlinear
analyses were conducted to evaluate the contributions of the brick walls. The
results indicated that brick walls improved frame strength although shear
failures were caused in columns shortened by spandrel walls. Then, the
effectiveness of three types of seismic retrofits was evaluated. The maximum
drift of the first floor was reduced by 89.3%, 94.8% and 27.5% by Steel-
confined, Full-RC and Full-brick models respectively. Finally, feasibility
analyses of models with soils were conducted. The analyses indicated that the
soils elongate the natural period of building models although no significant
differences were observed.

Pavan Kumar et al. (2012) comprehensive review of materials and

techniques used for seismic retrofitting of RC framed building located in
seismic zone -V were discussed briefly using SAP 2000 software. The
document highlighted a higher degree of damage in a five storied building is
expected during an earthquake. Keeping the view of constant revision of the
seismic zones in India, lack of proper design and detailing of structures
against earthquake the methods of seismic retrofitting were reviewed by
identifying weak points. Modern methods and philosophies of seismic
retrofitting like energy dissipation devices and materials were reviewed.
Finally conclude that, wrapping techniques were prescribed in this study.
 39

which are light in weight, economical and to increase the ductility of elements
in order to prevent the progressive collapse of building such that people can
easily escape to outside from building with in safe time.

Gopen Paul and Pankaj Agarwal (2012) conducted an experimental

and analytical study on single storey RC model. A seismic evaluation of four
storeys two dimensional frames designed with previous IS codes had also
been carried out to investigate the effect of retrofitting technique. On the basis
of this study, the existing four storey RC frame building in seismic zone IV,
designed and constructed using previous Indian standards was found
inadequate to withstand the present day code requirement. The experimental
pushover analysis of the frame model showed that there was an increase in
effective stiffness, yield load and ultimate load of about 3.4, 2.9 and 2.7 times
respectively due to inclusion of infill wall whereas the above three parameters
increases about 17, 11.6 and 14.7 times respectively due to addition of steel
bracing. The analytical pushover analysis of the four storey frames also
showed that there was a increase in effective stiffness, yield load and ultimate
load of about 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8 times respectively due to inclusion of infill wall
whereas the above three parameters increases about 16, 4 and 5 times
respectively due to addition of steel bracing. For fully confined infill, the
equivalent strut model specified in FEMA 356 gives a reasonable prediction
on both un-cracked stiffness and lateral strength of masonry infilled panel
frame.

Hamood Alwashali and Masaki Maeda (2012) investigated the

damage of several low-rise RC buildings caused by the Great East Japan
earthquake in Sendai city. The selected building was evaluated to have high
seismic capacity, index (Is) > 0.7, using Japanese Standard for Seismic
Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings. Causes of the damage were discussed.
Moreover, pushover analysis was carried out to those buildings. In general,
 40

pushover analysis predicted well the damage level but there were some
differences in plastic hinge locations when compared to the actual damage.

Masaki Maeda et al. (2012) highlighted the investigation of

reinforced concrete building structures. Japanese RC building showed good
performance for saving lives on Great Japan Earthquake. However, a number
of retrofitted buildings and buildings that had been evaluated to be safe had to
be evacuated after the earthquake. Some of these buildings are going to be
demolished because the repairs are too costly. This issue is one that requires
attention. Good correlation was observed between calculated seismic capacity
Is-index and observed damage. Most of the buildings with Is-values lower
than 0.6 were vulnerable to moderate and severe damage. Most of the
buildings are with Is-values higher than 0.7 escaped severe damage.
Moreover, buildings designed according to current seismic design code had
minor damage in structural members.

Praval Priyaranjan (2012) attempted to evaluate an existing

building located in Guwahati (Seismic zone -V) using equivalent static
analysis. Indian Standard IS-1893:2002 (Part-1) was followed for the
equivalent static analysis procedure. Building was modeled in commercial
software STAAD Pro. Seismic force demand for each individual member was
calculated for the design base shear as required by IS-1893:2002.
Corresponding member capacity was calculated as per Indian Standard
IS456:2000. Deficient members were identified through demand-to-capacity
ratio. A number of beam and column elements in the first floor of the present
building were found to be deficient that needs retrofitting. A local retrofitting
strategy was adopted to upgrade the capacity of the deficient members. The
study showed that steel jacketing is an efficient way to retrofit RC members
to improve flexure as well as shear capacity.
 41

Waiel Mowrtage and Vail Karakale (2012) presented a new

concept on collapse prevention of existing RC buildings during a seismic
event. The idea is to install steel panels in specified locations in the structure
to reduce inter-story drifts. The panels are expected to work as a fuse in an
electric circuit when a major earthquake occurs; the panels will attract the
seismic forces and they may totally damaged but they will prevent severe
damage in the main structural system. The proposed panels were light-weight,
easy to handle and can be constructed very quickly. Moreover, they are cheap
and do not need formwork or skilled workers. To test the concept, a half-
scale, single-story three dimensional reinforced concrete frame specimen was
constructed at the shake-table laboratories of the Kandilli Observatory and
Earthquake Research Institute of Bogazici University and subjected to
recorded real earthquake base accelerations. The amplitudes of base
accelerations were increased until a moderate damage level is reached. Then,
the damaged RC frames was retrofitted by means of steel panels and tested
under the same earthquake. The seismic performance of the specimen before
and after the retrofit was evaluated using FEMA356 standards and the results
were compared in terms of stiffness, strength and deformability. The results
have confirmed effectiveness of the proposed retrofit scheme in future.

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

Many guidelines are reviewed regarding seismic rehabilitation

of buildings of different cases. Some of the researchers discussed the
various seismic retrofitting methods for existing building. The strengthening
methods carried out by most of the researchers were concrete jacketing of
columns of ground floor, brick masonry infill in the ground floor, X and V
bracing, shear wall, FRP of beams and columns. All these topics require
further research, as it is essential for seismic retrofitting of existing reinforced
concrete structures.