9 = Issues on the Seismic Retrofit of a Building near Resonant Response and Structural Pounding Arturo Tena-Colunga, M.EERI, Enrique Del Valle, M.EERI, and Dalila Pérez-Moreno Paper presents an analytical study on the possible application of commonly used retrofit schemes for an existing nine-story apartment building in Mexico City: The building, located in Mexico City's lake-bed region, was originally conceived as a RC waffle-flat slab structural system and was built in the late sixties. The building suffered important structural damage during the March 14, 1979 Petatlén Earthquake, primarily caused by structural pounding with neighboring structures due to its flexibility and resonant response with the ground. ‘The building was retrofitted shortly after the Petatlén Earthquake with steel bracing in the direction of pounding. The retrofitted building survived the September 19, 1985 Michoacén Earthquake with light structural damage. Some evidence of pounding with one neighboring structure was again observed. Because of the chronic pounding problems with adjacent structures, which are ted eight to fifteen cm from the apartment building, it is felt that an additional upgrade of the structure may be needed for the safety of the building if a strong earthquake similar to the 1985 Michoacén Earthquake may strike Mexico City soon again. Different retrofit schemes were studied, which can be grouped as follows: a) weight reduction, b) column and waffle-slab jacketing, c) addition of energy dissipation devices, d) removal of top floors, e) replacement of diagonal bracing with newer bracing and, f) a combination’ of previous solutions. The effectiveness of the studied retrofit schemes is discussed by comparing their dynamic structural response with respect to the response of the actual retrofitted structure using nonlinear dynamic analyses for a postulated M,=8.1 earthquake, as well as construction process, property value, and building use considerations. It is concluded that many aspects need to be evaluated in a seismic retrofit plan for a given building. structure and often, the best altemative from the structural viewpoint may not be the best alternative overall. INTRODUCTION, Mexico City is frequently affected by the action of moderate to severe earthquakes. Due to the local soil conditions of the lake-bed region of Mexico City, and the structural dynamics of medium to high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) and steel buildings, some of these structures are severely shaken during strong earthquakes because of a resonant response with the ground. In fact, several medium rise RC buildings were severely damaged during the 1985 Michoacén Earthquake. Therefore, there is a need to find 1 Centro de Investigacién mica, Carretera al Ajusco # 203, 14200 México, DF, MEXICO 867 (Earthquake Spectra, Volume 12, No.3, August 1996568 A. Tena-Colunga, E. Del Valle and D. Pérez-Moreno solutions forthe seismic upgrading ofthis class of building structures that would be both effective and economically feasible. Several retrofit techniques have been used in Mexico City for the seismic upgrading of medium to high-rise RC structures. Some of them have been addressed by Jirsa (1994). Among other solutions, the following have been used: a) Column and beam jacketing. An economical solution that primarily increases the strength and improves the ductility of the jacketed members, using either RC jackets (Alcocer, 1993), or steel jackets (Priestley et al, 1992). Although jacketing increases the overall strength and ductility of the retrofitted structure, it has litle influence on the overall vibrational characteristics of the structure when used alone. Then, it may not be the best solution for structures with possible resonant response with the ground. b) Addition of steel bracing. This technique considerably increases the lateral stiffness and the strength of the retrofitted structure, but global ductility is reduced. This solution has been successful in the seismic retrofit of RC buildings in Mexico City that survived the 1985 Michoacén Earthquake with practically no structural damage (Del Valle, 1980; Foutch et al, 1988 and Downs et al, 1991). Care must be taken in the dimensioning of the steel bracing as dynamic buckling may occur when subjected to accelerograms associated to an earthquake similar to the 1985 Michoacén earthquake (Vergara, 1995). ©) Addition of RC walls. This retrofit scheme increases the lateral stiffness and strength of the original structure, but considerably increases its mass and may decrease its global ductility. As the natural period of the retrofitted structure may not be drastically changed, this solution may not be the best for buildings near resonant response. d) Addition of infill RC or masonry walls. It was used primarily in exterior frames where there was a need to control lateral displacements and an increment on the strength of the frame was advised. This solution needs a careful detailing on the transfer of shearing forces to insure that the original elements will not be damaged and to prevent brittle failure modes. ©) Peripheral RC macroframes. A solution used for the retrofit of several fourteen- story RC buildings at Tlatelolco district in Mexico City after the 1985 earthquake (Tena, 1986). This solution improves the lateral stiffness and strength, but the mass is considerably increased and still has to be tested during a major earthquake. f) Post-tensioned steel bracing. A technique used in the retrofit of low-rise school buildings in Mexico after the 1985 Michoacdn earthquake. The major benefits are that the lateral stiffness and strength of the retrofit structure are considerably increased, leading to elastic responses when subjected to accelerograms associated to an earthquake similar to the Too earthquake (Miranda and Bertero, 1990; Tena-Colunga and Alvarez- Ruiz, 1995). g) Removal of top floors. This solution was used when the collapse of upper stories happened or in cases where a reduction of the weight of the structure was advised for structural dynamics and/or foundation considerations. This solution was taken when the owner could afford to loose the leasing space affected by the retrofit scheme and the resulting dynamic conditions were not close to resonant responses. h) Addition of passive energy dissipation devices. Recently, some structures have been upgraded in Mexico City using energy dissipation devices. Energy dissipation devices are attractive to use because they improve the overall behavior of the structure by increasing its internal damping through the energy dissipated by the inelastic deformation of these special devices. Consequently, the dynamic structural response is considerablySeismic Retrofit of a Building near Resonant Response and Structural Pounding. 569 reduced, specially in the original members of the structure. Because many of these systems have to’ be mounted on steel braces to be attached to the original structure, the lateral stiffness of the structure is also increased, making these systems particularly attractive for buildings that are suspicious of having resonant response with the ground in Mexico City lake-bed region. Up to now, there are two RC buildings upgraded with Added Damping and Stiffness (ADAS) energy dissipation devices in Mexico City (Martinez-Romero, 1993). In addition, a three-building complex is currently being retrofitted with this system (Martinez-Romero, 1993; Tena et al, 1994). Other energy dissipation devices which use has been studied in Mexico are the U-shaped mild steel strips elements (U elements), developed at Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, and known in Mexico as "dispositivos solera” (DS). These devices are usually placed on diagonal bracing and dissipate energy through the roller-bending of the mild steel strips. Aguirre and Sénchez (1992) have done extensive testing of DS elements that have allowed to define their load-deformation and fatigue characteristics when subjected to dynamic cyclic loading. Gonzdlez et al (1994) have conducted shaking table tests of a 3-D steel structure built with DS that have confirmed their usefulness. Parametric studies on idealized models and case studies of existing buildings have been done to compare the effectiveness of DS against more traditional techniques of retrofitting buildings in México such as the use of steel bracing for typical ground motions recorded at Mexico City during the 1985 Michoacén Earthquake (Vargas et al, 1995; Tena-Colunga and Pérez-Moreno, 1994 and Pérez, 1995). However, there is not a building structure in Mexico City retrofitted with DS 'yet. ‘This is due, in part, because these devices have not been made for commercial use still. The objective of this paper is to present an analytical study on the seismic upgrading of an existing nine-story apartment building at Mexico City using some of the retrofit schemes shortly introduced above and that some structural engineers may judge, a-priori, to be sound technical solutions for this building. The subject building has had chronic pounding problems and resonant response during past earthquakes. The retrofit schemes studied are a) weight reduction, b) RC column and waffle-slab jacketing, c) addition of DS energy dissipation devices, d) removal of top floors, e) replacement of diagonal bracing with newer bracing and, f)’a combination of previous solutions. SUBJECT BUILDING The structure is a nine-story apartment building, located in Mexico City's lake-bed region that was originally conceived as a RC waffle-flat slab structural system and was built in the late sixties. The building has an irregular plan that measures approximately 10.80 m x 17.45 m (Fig. 1) and is known as "Park Espafia" building in the literature (outch et al, 1988 and Downs et al, 1991). The elevation of the original N-S frames is presented in Fig. 2, where it can be seen that the typical story height is 2.65 m. Typical cross sections of columns are rectangular and square, having’ their larger dimension parallel to the E-W direction. Typical cross sections of the interior columns vary from 50 x 60 cm at the first floor to 30 x 40 cm at the eight floor, whereas the exterior columns vary from 35 x 50 cm to 30 x 30 cm at the same floors of reference. Steel ratios of columns, p, vary from 0.0042 to 0.0203. Yield strength of reinforcement stel is f 100 kg/em2 and the compressive strength of the concrete is fc = 210 kg/om2. The driginal structure had lightweight siporex walls 12.5 em thick on frames A y D (Fig. 1). Partition walls were made of this light material also. The floor system is a RC waffle flat-slab 5 cm thick with 15 cm wide ribs measuring either 40 cm (ground floor, PB) and 35 cm (floors 2 through roof). The “waffles” are formed by hollow weight concrete blocks. Foundation system is mixed, consists of a box-type foundation with a solid mat 15 cm thick over deep and slender foundation beams 140 cm deep.570 A. Tena-Colunga, E. Del Valle and D. Pérez-Moreno © @ o® @ © Dimensions in meters Figure 1. Plan view of the original Park Espafia building 2299 1.80 | PH Roof IC j 1.00 250] Roof 8th u 7th jo 6th 8@2.65 La sth 4th u a [ps u 2nd u Ist 2.701 PB TA IITTTIZ, 7. 140. wundation Beams DP DEVI concrete rites besotsataaet Dimensions in meters 3.45.1 3.45 Figure 2. Typical N-S frame for the original Park Espafia buildingSeismic Retrofit of a Building near Resonant Response and Structural Pounding 571 ‘Twenty-three concrete friction piles 45 cm in diameter and 24 m in length support the stiffening beams. A geotechnical investigation established that the soft clay layer at the Park Espafia site is about 32 m deep and is characterized by water content in the 150% to 300% range over most of the depth. The site period should be around 1.2 to 1.3 s if a shear wave velocity of 80 m/sec is assumed for the clay layer. The building suffered important structural damage during the March 14, 1979 Petatlin Earthquake, primarily caused by structural pounding with the neighboring structures in the N-S direction due to its flexibility and resonant response with the ground (Del Valle, 1980). The neighboring structures are a three-story and a four-story bearing wall buildings distant 12 to 15 cm and 8 to 10 cm from the sides of the apartment building respectively. The pounding caused severe damage of the infill walls of the longitudinal exterior frames (Frames A and D, Fig. 1). The pounding effects were particularly damaging to the fourth story level, where one column presented severe shear and axial compression failure (column’C3, Fig 1). Large story deformations were traduced in severe diagonal cracking to the longitudinal and transverse partition walls at several levels. © @ @ © T 1 shear wally @- 3.45 ®- 2 N 34s] 8 ' - Beeaoe ooo § a ©-+ 6" sso5d0 ™ Sooo5 o DODUQUUU00 OUUUO0G DOUG 390| | Ooo! 00 GOS00S0 S005c8 Oo0U HOU DOU e Q000 shar wat | X (ODDEN OBSO0O) 1.65 5.40 5.25 3.20 1.95 Dimensions in meters Figure 3. Plan view of the retrofitted Park Espafia building The building was retrofitted shortly after the Petatlén Earthquake with diagonal steel! cross-bracing in the central bay of frames 1 to 3 in the direction of pounding, as shown in Figs 3 and 4. The cross-bracing were fabricated by continuously welding two angles of (6 steel together toe-to-toe to form a structural box. Three different angle sizes were used: 2L 76x76x13 mm from the ground floor (PB) to the second story, 2, 76x76x10 mm for stories 3 to 5, and 2L 76x76x6 mm for stories 6 to 8. The columns of the three braced bays were encased in a steel lattice composed of 76x76x10 mm angles at the corners and 10x38 mm diagonal flat plates. This encasement provided the additional strength necessary to carry the increased axial forces anticipated in the columns of the braced bays. Steel collars fabricated from 127x127x13 mm angles were placed at the top and bottom of each372 A. Tena-Colunga, E. Del Valle and D. Pérez-Moreno column and were grouted and bolted to both the original concrete column and to the adjoining slab capitals to smooth out the transfer of forces between stories. To strengthen the buil cing in the E-W direction, a reinforced concrete layer 4 cm thick was added to the siporex walls of frames A and D (Fig. 3). The horizontal and vertical reinforcement were provided attaching welding wire reinforcing mats. The reinforcement ratios were 0095 from PB to the second story, .0064 from the third to fifth floors and 1.0048 from sixth to eight floor. Details on the design of the retrofit can be consulted elsewhere (Del Valle, 1980; Downs et al, 1991). rae