Performance Evaluation of Retro Tting Strategies For Non-Seismically Designed RC Buildings Using Steel Braces

Bull Earthquake Eng (2013) 11:1129–1156
DOI 10.1007/s10518-012-9421-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Performance evaluation of retrofitting strategies

for non-seismically designed RC buildings using steel
braces
H. Varum · F. Teixeira-Dias · P. Marques ·

A. V. Pinto · A. Q. Bhatti
Received: 9 February 2012 / Accepted: 30 December 2012 / Published online: 20 January 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Recent major earthquakes around the world have evidenced that research in earth-
quake engineering must be directed to the vulnerability assessment of existing constructions
lacking appropriate seismic resisting characteristics. Their retrofit or replacement should be
made in order to reduce vulnerability, and consequent risk, to currently accepted levels. In this
work, the efficiency of ductile steel eccentrically-braced systems in the seismic retrofitting
of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is studied. The retrofit technique studied con-
sists in a bracing system with an energy dissipation device, designed to dissipate energy by
shear deformation. The numerical model was calibrated with cyclic test results on a full-scale
structure. The models used for the RC frame and masonry represent their real behavior and
influence in the global structural response. The steel bracing system was modeled with strut
rigid elements. The model for the energy dissipater device reproduces rigorously the behav-
ior of the shear-link observed in the cyclic tests, namely in terms of shear, drift and energy
dissipation. With the calibrated numerical model, a series of non-linear dynamic analyses
were performed, for different earthquake input motions, intending to study: the influence of
H. Varum (B) · A. Q. Bhatti

Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: hvarum@ua.pt
F. Teixeira-Dias · P. Marques
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: ftd@ua.pt
P. Marques
e-mail: pjslmarques@gmail.com
A. V. Pinto
ELSA Unit, Joint Research Centre, IPSC, 21027 Ispra, Varese, Italy
e-mail: artur.pinto@jrc.ec.europa.eu
A. Q. Bhatti
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
e-mail: bhatti-nit@nust.edu.pk
123
1130 Bull Earthquake Eng (2013) 11:1129–1156
the retrofitting system in the response of bare and infilled structures; the influence of the
location and strength of the retrofitting system.
Keywords Ductile steel eccentrically braced system (DSEBS) · Innovative design

concept · Strengthening and repair · Infill panels · Vulnerability analysis
1 Introduction
Recent earthquakes around the world have made it evident that research in earthquake engi-
neering should be directed to the vulnerability assessment of existing constructions lack-
ing appropriate seismic resisting characteristics. Older buildings, designed and built before
the introduction of earthquake provisions, constitute a significant risk in many countries
(Dolce et al. 2003; Bommer et al. 2004; Alam et al. 2009; Bhatti et al. 2011a). Their retrofit,
or replacement, should be made in order to reduce the associated risk to acceptable lev-
els. The development of retrofitting techniques for this kind of buildings represents a key
issue in order to avoid both casualties and economic losses in future events (Varum 2003;
Perera et al. 2004; Nikos 2007; Melo et al. 2011; Bhatti et al. 2011b).
Traditional retrofitting solutions often lead to a significant increase in the lateral strength
and stiffness. Consequently, such solutions may lead to increased foundation demands for
earthquake loadings. To avoid such effects, a new retrofit system was proposed and tested
based on a ductile steel eccentrically-braced system (DSEBS) by Bouwkamp et al. (2008).
In this paper, the efficiency of the DSEBS system in the retrofitting of non-seismically
designed RC buildings is numerically assessed. Firstly, the non-linear numerical model,
for structural response simulation, was calibrated against results of a cyclic test on a full-
scale frame structure. With the calibrated numerical model, a series of non-linear dynamic
analyses were performed, for different earthquake input motions, intending to study: the
influence of the retrofitting system in the response of bare and infilled structures; the influence
of the location and strength of the retrofitting system. From the results’ analysis are derived
conclusions that may guide engineers in the development and design of optimized retrofitting
solutions for seismic protection of existing RC buildings, with or without masonry infill panels
(Campos Costa et al. 2009; Durucan and Dicleli 2010; Rodrigues et al. 2010).
2 Cyclic test and results
As part of the Innovative seismic design concepts for new and existing structures (ICONS)—
Training and Mobility of Research (TMR) Network Project, from the Joint Research Centre
(JRC), European Commission, in Ispra, Italy, two full-scale four-story frame models, repre-
sentative of common reinforced concrete (RC) design and construction practices until the late
1970s in most southern European countries, were designed, constructed and tested pseudo-
dynamically (Pinto et al. 2002). This experimental study aimed to assess the capacity of
existing RC building structures with/without infill masonry and to compare the performance
of different retrofitting solutions. One of the tested retrofitting techniques was based on a
DSEBS system with a vertical shear-link.
2.1 Structure and materials properties
The tested RC frames, designed by the National Laboratory of Civil Engineering (LNEC),
are reinforced concrete 4-story plane frames with an overall length of 12.50 m and height
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2013) 11:1129–1156 1131
Table 1 Mechanical properties

of materials (average values) Steel Elastic modulus, E s 204.5 GPa
(Varum and Pinto 2001) Yield stress, f sy 343.6 MPa
Hardening strain, εsh 3.03 %
Ultimate strength, f su 451.5 MPa
Ultimate strain, εsu 22.9 %
Concrete In columns—compressive 13.80 MPa
strength, f c
In slabs and beams—compressive 17.40 MPa
strength, f c
Masonry Tensile strength, f t 0.575 MPa
Shear modulus, G 1.171 GPa
of 10.80 m (Carvalho et al. 1999). The structure has three bays, two of which with 5 m span
and one external with 2.5 m span. The inter-story height is 2.7 m for the four stories. Equal
beams and columns were constructed at all stories, in terms of dimensions and reinforcement
quantities and detailing. But, the stocky central column has a rectangular cross-section with
dimensions 0.25 m × 0.60 m on the first and second stories and 0.25 m × 0.50 m on the third
and fourth stories (Varum and Pinto 2001). A 0.15 m thick slab was casted with the beams
with 2 m span on each side of the beam.
The materials considered at the design phase for the RC frame structure were plain smooth
reinforcement steel bars as class Fe B22k, according to the Italian standards and a low strength
concrete as class C16/20, according to the Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004). Tests on samples of the
materials used in the construction of the frames (steel reinforcement and concrete) were
carried out and the main results are listed in Table 1. A detailed description of the test results
on materials’ specimens can be found in Pinto et al. (2002).
Italian ceramic hollow clay bricks were used in the construction of the infill masonry
walls. These unit bricks are horizontally perforated (62 % voids) and have the following
dimensions: 12 cm thick, 24.5 cm base-length and 24.5 cm height. The infill panels have a
1.5 cm thick plaster layer on both sides. The total thickness of the masonry wall panels is
15 cm. Tests on masonry panel specimens, in compression and diagonal compression, were
carried out. The more relevant mechanical properties of the masonry for this numerical study
are summarized in Table 1.
2.2 Retrofitting system and cyclic test
The DSEBS system tested consists in an eccentrically braced steel assembly with a vertical
shear-link, located at mid-span of the upper floor beam (Fig. 1a). The braced assembly
consists of a set of diagonal braces, arranged in an inverted-V, and two steel beams, one
of which with a short steel beam stub in the middle of the beam serving as vertical shear-
link. Vertical steel straps connected to the adjacent columns are also part of the assembly
(Bouwkamp et al. 2001; Varum and Pinto 2001). Detailed drawings of the bracing system,
shear-link and connections are presented in Fig. 1b.
In the retrofitting of existing buildings, the retrofit procedure for each story, limited to one
bay, may consist of the following three steps (Bouwkamp et al. 2001): (1) removing the brick
infill wall in a single bay; (2) installing the pre-fabricated DSEBS; and, (3) placing partition
walls to cover the steel retrofitting system.
123
Fig. 1 Testing setup and retrofitting system: a schematic representation and b details (Bouwkamp et al. 2001)
The installation of the DSEBS causes relatively little disturbance. Its design results in a
lateral load resistance similar to the original infill masonry resistance but with significantly
increased energy dissipating capacity (by means of ductile hysteretic behavior) and ductility.
The foundation overloading, and consequently its strengthening, can be avoided by using
this type of retrofitting system.
Prior to the DSEBS experimental study, the original four-story bare concrete frame was
tested pseudo-dynamically. After the assessment of the original frame, the damages were
repaired and infill masonry walls were built (with hollow bricks and plaster in both sides as
described in Sect. 2.1) in the two outer bays of the second story (as shown in Fig. 1). The
DSEBS assembly was then constructed into the middle-bay of the second story and anchored
to the surrounding beams and columns.
A cyclic quasi-static test was performed by introducing displacement-controlled demands
at the second story only. Thus, the test was carried out by keeping the first-floor actuator
unmovable and by introducing cyclic step-wise increasing horizontal displacements at the sec-
ond floor level. A series of cyclic displacements reflecting story-drifts of 0.04, 0.08, 0.16, 0.24,
0.32, 0.48, 0.64 and 0.80 % were imposed. Each displacement cycle was repeated three times.
123
Fig. 2 Total story and shear-link shear force versus inter-story drift
2.3 Test results
Cyclic test results in terms of shear versus drift at the vertical shear-link and at the global
story are represented in Fig. 2. The drift of the vertical shear-link is obtained dividing the
relative lateral displacement of the link extremities by its length. The link shear force is
derived from the sum of the horizontal components of the brace forces calculated from
strain-gauge measurements on both brace members. The maximum story shear capacity was
approximately 600 kN for an inter-story (IS) drift of about 0.5 %. The premature shear failure
of the outer frame column of the 2.5 m bay dictated that the test had to be stopped at a IS
drift of 0.80 % in order to avoid structure collapse (Bouwkamp et al. 2001).
Regarding the shear-link, test results show a typical stable-ductile behavior with the resis-
tance steadily increasing under repeated imposed displacement cycles. As predicted, yielding
was observed at a load of 100 kN. At the moment when the test was prematurely stopped,
cyclic shear-strain hardening resulted in an increase of the lateral load resistance of the link
to about 170 kN (at a link drift of 3.5 %, corresponding to only 40 % of the link design drift
of 9 %). At the end of the test, the link had dissipated 50 % of the total hysteretic energy
dissipated for the global structural system (RC structure, masonry and shear-link), as shown
in Fig. 3 (Bouwkamp et al. 2001). At the end of the cyclic test no damage was observed in
the bracings, neither in their connections to the reinforced concrete frame. In the shear-link
yielding was observed in the cells and flanges.
3 Structural and material numerical models
For a rigorous analysis of structural systems subjected to severe loadings, it is necessary to use
refined non-linear models that reproduce the behavior of each structural component (column,
beam, joint, infill panel, DSEBS) and/or material (concrete, steel, masonry). CASTEM was
the simulation tool used in these analyses (Millard 1993). CASTEM is a multi-purpose
123
Fig. 3 Hysteretic dissipated energy evolution at the global structural system and shear-link levels
l
lp lp
2 1 3 1 2
1 Sub-elements with non-linear behaviour - Fibre model

2 Joints (high stiffness) - Linear behaviour
3 Sub-elements with linear behaviour
Fig. 4 Generic finite element model: association of sub-elements with elastic linear behavior (joints and
central elements) and non-linear behavior (plastic hinge zones)
structural analysis finite element based code, developed by the Commissariat à l’Énergie
Atomique (CEA), France (Millard 1993).
3.1 Global frame model
The structure was modeled with Timoshenko 2D finite elements with three degrees of freedom
per node. The global frame model represents the plane frame with four stories and three bays.
Frequently, the joints in the frames are assumed to be rigid. In order to have a more realistic
model of the reinforced concrete frame, each element (beam or column) was modeled with
five sub-elements. Each structural element was modeled using two Timoshenko sub-elements
with non-linear behavior at the potential plastic-hinge zones (zone 1 in Fig. 4), two stiff linear
123
elastic sub-elements to simulate the joints (zone 2 in Fig. 4) and a linear elastic element in
the internal sub-element (zone 3 in Fig. 4).
The non-linear sub-elements (zone 1 in Fig. 4) are modeled using the fiber-model imple-
mented by Guedes et al. (1994). Each sub-element with uniaxial non-linear behavior is
divided in longitudinal fibers, each fiber behaving according to the material law it represents.
To accurately simulate the higher strength and stiffness of the joints due to the presence of
adjacent beams and columns, it were considered higher values for the material mechanical
properties at the joint elements (e.g. Young modulus of each joint was considered to be three
times higher than the corresponding nominal value).
Fifty-seven different sections with non-linear behavior were considered in the refined
model of the global structure. The section-types were defined in accordance to the geometrical
section properties, to the reinforcing steel quantities and to the axial load in columns.
Three section-types were used for each of the sixteen columns of the structure. Three addi-
tional section-types were considered for each of the three beam bays. Using this refinement,
it was possible to define different material properties for each casting phase of the columns,
corresponding to each story level. In fact, a considerable difference in strength was found for
each casting phase of the columns. Similar section-types for all stories were considered for
the beams, as these have similar geometrical characteristics, as well as steel quantities and
detailing, and even though the beams were cast in different phases (one casting phase for each
story), an analogous concrete strength was observed for the four beams/slab casting phases.
In order to simulate the actual behavior of the building, it is necessary to use refined models
that reproduce the actual behavior of the components and materials, namely: reinforcement
steel, concrete, masonry and the retrofitting steel system, as is described in the next sections.
3.2 Reinforced concrete elements
Seismic analysis of RC structures requires refined models that are able to represent the non-
linear stiffness and strength characteristics of members under cyclic loading. The fiber type
model is one of the most used to represent the non-linear behavior of RC structural elements
(Guedes et al. 1994).
3.2.1 Fiber model
In fiber models, the discretization of RC elements is made at the cross-section level. For
confined and unconfined concrete, as well as for the steel reinforcement positions, the cross-
section is divided in an adequate number of elements that represent the fibers. The fiber model
used in the numerical analyses here presented is implemented in CASTEM. This model was
implemented using a Timoshenko beam element, so that the distortional effect due to shear
forces can be considered. However, classical fiber models, such as the one implemented in
CASTEM, do not consider shear non-linear behavior. This is the most relevant restriction of
this model. But, in the present case-study, due to the slenderness of the structural elements,
and since shear failure was only observed at the end of the more severe test, the non-linear
shear behavior was not considered in the model.
To reduce computational costs, the cross-sections are considered to be composed of a
number of horizontal element fibers, as shown in Fig. 5. At the cross-section level, columns
and beams are represented at its top and bottom layers by non-confined concrete, in the center
by confined concrete and each steel group is represented by one centered fiber element. A
detailed description of the fiber model can be found in Guedes et al. (1994), namely the
123
steel element 1
concrete el. 1
εcr
d' d s1
d ci
x
M εci
hi
concrete
N h d dsn element i 1/r
steel element n s concrete el. n c

b
Fig. 5 Discrete elements used for the fiber model (Varum 2003)
Fig. 6 Schematic representation of the uniaxial constitutive model of concrete (Guedes et al. 1994)
algorithm, the compatibility and the equilibrium equations. The constitutive laws adopted in
these analyses for the materials, for monotonic and cyclic loadings were described by Varum
(2003).
3.2.2 Concrete behavior model
The uniaxial concrete model is schematically represented in Fig. 6. A parabolic curve is

assumed in compression, from the initial unloaded stage up to the maximum stress value,
with the initial tangent modulus being equal to the concrete Young modulus. A straight line,
with the slope depending on the confinement level, describes the softening branch. Under
tensile stress, the behavior is described by a linear elastic branch with subsequent softening,
which accounts for tension stiffening effects. The model representing the main features of
the behavior of concrete under cyclic loading considers secondary effects such as crack
closing. The constitutive law for cyclic loading is sketched in Fig. 6 together with the various
load-unload-reload paths (Varum 2003; Guedes et al. 1994).
123
Fig. 7 Uniaxial constitutive model for steel (Guedes et al. 1994)
As previously mentioned, relevant differences of strength were found in the concrete

between each casting phase. Therefore, different mechanical properties and specific model
parameters were adopted in the numerical model for each casting phase (storey columns and
beams-girder floor levels). The average value of the compressive strength was determined
from the peak strength of the unconfined concrete. The corresponding strain was considered
to be 0.25 %. In the numerical models, the tensile ultimate strength was assumed to be 1/10
of the corresponding compressive ultimate strength. The residual compressive strength is
assumed to be 1/5 of the compressive ultimate strength for confined concrete and zero for
unconfined concrete. Table 1 summarizes the relevant materials mechanical properties used
in the numerical model.
3.2.3 Steel behavior model
The adopted constitutive model for steel is based on an algebraic explicit stress-strain law,
formulated on the basis of experimental tests on steel bars under cyclic loading. Each steel
bar group is modeled with one fiber. This model, illustrated in Fig. 7, includes typical curves
for monotonic and cyclic loading, valid for both tension and compression. The monotonic
curve is characterized by an initial linear stage followed by a plateau and a hardening stage.
The steel uniaxial behavior law is defined by five parameters: the initial elastic modulus
(E s ), the yield stress ( f sy ), the hardening strain (εsh ), the ultimate strength ( f su ) and the
ultimate strain (εsu ). A detailed description of this model can be found in Guedes et al.
(1994).
3.3 Infill masonry model
Infilled frame RC structures consist of brick masonry panels interconnected by RC horizontal

and vertical elements. In order to model masonry infill panels it was used the strut model
(equivalent bi-diagonal struts) represented in Fig. 8, and implemented by Combescure and
Pegon (1996) in CASTEM.
Masonry panels have a high stiffness and strength to lateral forces, but a fragile behavior
below its elastic capacity. At lower levels of in-plane lateral force, the frame and infill panel
will act in a fully composite manner, as a structural wall with boundary elements, and the
123
Fig. 8 Masonry model: a equivalent truss model and b uniaxial cyclic behavior law (Combescure and Pegon
1996)
overall stiffness is very high. As the imposed drift increase, the behavior becomes more
complex because the frame attempts to deform in a flexural mode while the panel attempts
to deform in a shear mode. This leads to the separation of the frame from the panel at the
corners in the tension diagonal, and the development of a diagonal compression strut in the
compression diagonal. To model the infilled frames, the frame structure can be considered
as braced by equivalent diagonal braces, where the two diagonal compression struts are
connected to the frame joints. This equivalent strut model was used to model the non-linear
behavior of masonry infill panels in the global structural model (Fig. 8a). The option for
this model is justified, on one hand because most of the empirical expressions available
in the literature are developed for this type of models, and in other hand since this model
does not present a disproportional level of complexity. The uniaxial behavior law adopted in
the analysis (Fig. 8b) was implemented in CASTEM (Varum 2003; Combescure and Pegon
1996).
The phenomena reproduced by the masonry law are: (a) the stiffness degradation due to
cracking mainly at the surface between the frame and the panel; (b) the development of plastic
strain due to crushing; (c) the strength degradation under cyclic loading; and, (d) the pinching
associated with sliding. The behavior law is described hereafter, considering positive strain
and stress values for compression. In short, it is a general multi-linear model, which accounts
for cracking, compression failure and strength degradation due to either monotonic or cyclic
loading as well as for the pinching effects due the crack closing.
The model used assumes no tensile resistance and the behavior for monotonic compres-
sion is described by a multi-linear curve including a primary linear elastic behavior (de , Fe ),
a second branch approximating the cracking process (dc , Fc ) and two final branches rep-
resenting two stages of the masonry behavior. These can be considered as plastic behavior
(crushing of the masonry panel) with positive and subsequently negative strain hardening.
Cyclic behavior is characterized by a linear unloading-reloading law without plastic dis-
placement in the primary branches before reaching the elastic limit (dc , Fc ). After having
reached the elastic limit, this hysteretic behavior is also governed by a multi-linear curve
with specific rules to account for plastic deformations (d plastic ), crack closing (dsliding ) and
strength degradation (d pinching ) (Combescure and Pegon 1996).
123
Fig. 9 Global structure model

representation
The tested structure has two infill panels at second story, each one modeled by two diagonal
struts. Four strut elements constitute the masonry mesh in the model, as shown in Fig. 9. The
parameters for the masonry model where iteratively calibrated until an approximate response
of the experimental results is estimated with the structural numerical model.
3.4 Retrofitting system
Both the ductile bracing system and the vertical device for energy dissipation are modeled
with the steel fiber model described in Sect. 3.2.3. No yielding plateau is considered for
the link, although the same non-linear model is used. Elastic behavior is adopted for the
brace elements. The bracing system was simulated by bar elements in the bracings, and a
non-linear spring element was used to model the dissipater. A non-linear bi-linear model was
adopted to simulate the dissipaters’ response. The steel uniaxial model was used to represent
the constitutive uniaxial law of the dissipater, setting the model parameters according to the
relevant requirements, namely a sharp transition between the linear and the ‘post-yielding’
curves and the tangent of the asymptotic curve defining the post-yielding range.
4 Calibration of the structural model against the cyclic test results
The columns at the base of the ground floor of the tested structure have restricted displace-
ments and rotations. The structural model contemplates the strengthening system in the
central bay and masonry infill panels in the external bays of the second story. Cyclic dis-
placements corresponding to the inter-story drift were imposed in the test (vd. Sect. 2.3).
The RC frame model was calibrated by Varum (2003) with results of other pseudo-dynamic
seismic tests on the original structure. For the RC structure, the originally calibrated model
was adopted without any modifications. The retrofitting model was originally developed by
Teixeira-Dias et al. (2004) and subsequently improved and calibrated by Marques (2004).
It was necessary to adapt the infill masonry panel and retrofitting system models for the
calibration of the global structural model. Although each of these refined models has a huge
potential, the quantity of parameters and hysteretic rules involved on the global retrofitted
structure response made the calibration process a highly complex task. The numerical analysis
is based on an iterative non-linear incremental algorithm.
123
4.1 Masonry model
The masonry model was calibrated with experimental results from previous pseudo-dynamic
tests on one RC infilled frame. The equivalent axial stiffness and strength of each diagonal
strut were calculated according to the empirical expressions suggested by Zarnic and Gostic
(1997, 1998). The infill panels in the investigated building were made from hollow bricks
of 12 cm thickness laid with cement-lime mortar. Masonry wallet specimens were prepared
in the laboratory with similar mortar, and tested under compression. The mean gross com-
pressive strength obtained was 1.1 MPa and the mean modulus of elasticity was 991 MPa
for the direction parallel to the holes, and 1,873 MPa for the perpendicular direction. The
mechanical properties experimentally evaluated and the parameters for the empirical model
of Zarnic and Gostic (1997, 1998) are listed in Table 1, and they were considered in the
numerical analyses. From the calibration developed, the model parameters that proved to
have a significant influence in the masonry response are: (a) the global behavior uniaxial
law: (de , Fe ), (dc , Fc ) and (dmax , Fmax ); (b) the degradation mechanisms (parameter α)
and (c) the residual strength (θ ). To better reproduce the real test conditions, the vertical
quasi-static loads on the RC frame were applied on a first stage, not considering the exis-
tence of infill panels. Infill walls elements and models are introduced afterwards, being the
RC frame structure loaded with the vertical loads. The cyclic story displacements are then
imposed in the infilled structure, starting the infill elements with zero stress.
4.2 Strengthening system model
As mentioned before, in this calculation for calibration of the model, the retrofitting system
was modeled in the central bay of the second story. Braces are simulated with bars with
linear elastic behavior. The non-linear behavior of the vertical shear-link is simulated with
a horizontal bar element, linking the braces to the upper beam at its mid-point (Fig. 9).
So, in the model the link is axially loaded during the drift cyclically demand imposed to
the structure. Uniaxial behavior laws and hysteretic rules reproducing the non-linear shear
behavior of the link device were adopted for this element. The non-linear uniaxial model
for the steel elements (vd. Sect. 3.2.3; Fig. 7) was adopted to reproduce the behavior of the
shear-link observed in the experimental results (Varum and Pinto 2001). The behavior law
adopted corresponds to the best approximation to the yield (εsy , f sy ) and to the maximum
strength (εsu , f su ) points.
4.3 Comparison between the numerical and experimental results
Evolutions in terms of story displacements, inter-story drift, stories shear and hysteretic dissi-
pated energy were derived from the numerical analysis for comparison with results obtained
from the cyclic test performed on the full-scale structure (vd. Sect. 2). The experimental and
numerical shear-drift response diagrams at story level and in the shear-link are plotted in
Fig. 10. The calculated story response for the following components: RC frame structure,
masonry infill panels and retrofitting system are shown in Fig. 11 separately. The evolution
of the hysteretic dissipated energy at global and elementary structural components level,
calculated from the numerical results, is represented in Fig. 12.
From the analyses of the numerical results, it was verified that the shear-link dissipates
about 55 % of the total energy hysteretic dissipated at story level (Fig. 12). A similar result
was registered from the experimental cyclic test results, in which the shear-link is responsible
for the dissipation of about 50 % of the total energy (Fig. 13).
123
Fig. 10 Shear force-drift response: a dissipater (shear-link) and b global story
5 Vulnerability analyses
Three series of non-linear dynamic analyses were performed, for different earthquake input
motions, intending to study: the influence of the retrofitting system in the response of bare
and infilled structures, as well as the influence of the location and strength of the retrofitting
system.
Each non-linear numerical analysis is performed in two steps. Firstly, the vertical static
loads are imposed. Then, the accelerograms at the base of the structure for the dynamic
analyses are imposed.
123
Fig. 11 Story shear-drift response: total, retrofitting system, masonry and RC frame
Fig. 12 Dissipated energy evolution at each structural component (numerical results)
The earthquake action consists in artificially generated accelerograms with 15 s duration.

The input seismic motions were defined in order to be representative of a moderate-high
seismic hazard scenario (Carvalho et al. 1999). Hazard consistent time series of accelera-
tion (with 15 s duration) were artificially generated yielding a set of twelve uniform hazard
response spectra for increasing return periods. The return periods considered, and the cor-
responding values of peak acceleration are given in Table 2. The acceleration time histories
123
Fig. 13 Evolutions of the dissipated energy (numerical and experimental): a structural global system and
b shear-link
(accelerograms) corresponding to a RP of 475, 975 and 2,000 years are depicted in Fig. 14.
In Fig. 15, the 5 % damping linear-elastic pseudo-acceleration response spectra for RP of
475, 975 and 2,000 years are plotted.
5.1 Retrofitting efficiency
A comparative study of the efficiency of the retrofitting system was performed for the struc-
tures listed in Table 3.
123
Table 2 Seismic action: return

Return period Peak acceleration
periods and peak ground
(years) (m s−2 )
accelerations
(Varum and Pinto 2001)
100 1.060
475 2.180
975 2.884
1,370 3.265
2,000 3.728
3,000 4.273
Fig. 14 Ground motion acceleration time histories for RP = 475, 975 and 2,000 years
The vulnerability curves for each structure, in terms of the maximum drift values at each
story level, of the maximum storey shear, of the dissipated energy at the storey level and of
the total dissipated energy are shown in Figs. 16, 17, 18 and 19, respectively.
From the results shown in Fig. 16 it can be concluded that (1) the bare frame (BF) structure
exhibits in the first story high levels of deformation for seismic actions with a return period
(RP) higher than 2,000 years. The same can be seen for the third story for seismic actions
with RP higher than 475 years. This fact occurs due to the structural irregularity associated to
the reduction of cross-section dimensions of the strong column from the second to the third
floor; (2) the infilled frame (IN) structure presents an abrupt increase on the deformation in
the first story, for seismic actions with RP higher than 2,000 years. This is probably associated
to the failure of the masonry infill panels. The good behavior of the strengthening solution
was verified in the protection of the infilled frame with retrofit (IN_RET) structure; and (3)
the bare frame structure with strengthening (BF_RET) present a significant increase on the
first story drift demand for seismic actions with RP higher than 975 years.
123
Fig. 15 Response linear elastic pseudo-acceleration spectra for RP = 475, 975 and 2,000 years (5 % damping)
Table 3 Studied structures for

Label Structure
the comparative analysis in terms
of strengthening efficiency
BF Bare frame
IN INfilled frame
IN_RET INfilled frame with RETrofit
BF_RET Bare frame RETrofitted
From the results shown in Fig. 17 it can be concluded that (1) the IN structure in the
first story reaches its maximum shear strength for seismic actions with RP = 2,000 years.
Comparing with the drifts shown in Fig. 16, this reinforces the conclusion that infill masonry-
panels crush for this level of seismic demand; (2) a shear strength increase in the structure
IN_RET was observed in the first story, for a seismic demand with a RP of 2,000 years due
to the increase of the shear strength in the shear-link and (3) the BF_RET structure presents
higher shear strength than the BF structure, as expected.
From the results shown in Fig. 18, it can be concluded that (1) the IN structure exhibits
higher values of dissipated energy for seismic actions with RP > 2,000 years. Once again this
is due to the damage in the infill masonry panels; (2) with the retrofitting system installed
in the IN_RET structure there is an increase in the dissipated energy due to the shear-link
contribution, and its effect in protecting the infill masonry panels from crushing. The retrofit
system is also responsible for the increase of the global energy dissipation of the IN_RET
structure, as shown in Fig. 19.
The BF_RET structure presents the same top displacement that BF structure for increasing
seismic actions (see Fig. 20). This can be justified by the retrofitting strength. It can also be
123
3.5 3.5
BF BF
3.0 IN 3.0 IN
3 Storey drift [%]

1 Storey drift [%]
IN_RET IN_RET
2.5 BF_RET 2.5 BF_RET
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
rd
st
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2] ag [m s-2]
3.5 3.5
BF BF
3.0 3.0
4 Storey drift [%]

IN IN
2 Storey drift [%]
2.5 IN_RET 2.5 IN_RET

BF_RET BF_RET
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
nd
th
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s ]-2
ag [m s-2]
Fig. 16 Maximum inter-story drift
0.8 0.8 IN_RET

BF
3 Storey shear [MN]
1 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 0.7 IN BF_RET
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
rd
st
BF IN_RET 0.1
0.1
IN BF_RET
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2 -2
ag [m s ] ag [m s ]
0.8 BF IN_RET 0.8 BF IN_RET

4 Storey shear [MN]
2 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 IN BF_RET 0.7 IN BF_RET
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
nd
th
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2 -2
ag [m s ] ag [m s ]
Fig. 17 Maximum story shear
123
80 80
rd
st
Dissipated energy - 1
BF IN_RET BF IN_RET
storey [kNm] 70 IN BF_RET 70 IN BF_RET
storey [kNm]
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2] ag [m s-2]
80 BF IN_RET
nd
th
BF IN_RET 80
70 IN BF_RET
IN BF_RET 70
storey [kNm]
storey [kNm]
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2] ag [m s-2]
Fig. 18 Dissipated energy values for all stories
140
BF
IN
Total dissipated energy [kNm]
120
IN_RET
BF_RET
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2]
Fig. 19 Total dissipated energy
observed that the IN structure exhibits a higher top displacement for RP = 1,370 years. The
IN_RET structure showed lower values of maximum top displacement.
5.2 Retrofitting arrangement
As previously stated, the location of the retrofit system adopted in infilled building structures
may affect the building response, and so an analysis of the retrofitting system adopted only
in the first floor is done, and compared with other arrangements of the retrofitting system.
A comparative study of the location of the retrofit in the structure’ response, presented in
Table 4, is performed.
123
0.12
BF
IN
0.10 IN_RET
Top displacement [m]

BF_RET
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2]
Fig. 20 Top displacement for all structures

Label Structure
of strengthening location
IN INfilled frame
IN_RET INfilled RETrofitted panels
IN_RET_1st _storey INfilled frame with RETrofitting on 1st story
As can be observed in Fig. 21, for the first story, the IN_RET_1st_storey structure
exhibits a maximum drift demand identical to the IN structure for a seismic action with
RP < 1,370 years. But, for higher earthquake actions, IN_RET structure exhibits larger drift
demands in 2nd, 3rd and 4th stories than IN structure. In fact, IN structure concentrate the drift
demands at the ground story associated to the failure of infills, while the retrofitted structure
shows a better distribution of the drift demands in height and the soft-story mechanism does
not appear. For the seismic action with RP = 2,000 years there is an effective protection of the
IN_RET_1st_storey structure by the retrofit system. This becomes more evident after failure
of the infill panels.
Given the fragility of the structure for these levels of seismic action, the reinforcement does
not have the capacity to deform for seismic actions with RP = 3,000 years. In the remaining
floors the structure IN_RET_1st_storey shows a behavior identical to the IN structure. For
this structure the infill panel collapsed for seismic actions with RP > 1,370 years.
The IN_RET_1st_storey structure reached higher shear strength than the IN_RET structure
(see Fig. 22). Also, the IN_RET_1st_storey structure leads to higher shear strength in the first
floor than the IN_RET structure. This is due to the presence of the shear-link, which changes
the distribution of shear and deformation demands in all storeys. The IN_RET_1st_storey
structure leads to a maximum shear strength close to the shear strength value obtained for
the IN structure.
The IN_RET_1st_storey structure protects the first floor as well as the IN_RET structure for
seismic actions of up to 2,000 years, providing high capacity of energy dissipation. However,
the first floor presents an increase on the energy dissipation capacity for a seismic action
with RP = 3,000 years. In the remaining floors the levels of energy dissipation are similar to
the observed for the IN structure. In Fig. 23 can be observed that the IN_RET structure, due
123
1.8 1.8
IN IN
1.6 1.6
IN_RET IN_RET
3 Storey drift [%]

1 Storey drift [%]
1.4 IN_RET_1st_storey 1.4 IN_RET_1st_storey

1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
rd
0.4
st
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2
ag [m s ] ag [m s -2]
1.8 1.8
IN IN
1.6 1.6
IN_RET IN_RET
Storey drift [%]
4 Storey drift [%]

1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
th
nd
0.4 0.4
2
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s -2] ag [m s -2]
Fig. 21 Maximum inter-story drift results
0.8 0.8
3 Storey shear [MN]
1 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 IN 0.2 IN
rd
st
IN_RET IN_RET
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2
ag [m s ] ag [m s -2]
0.8 0.8 IN
Storey shear [MN]
4 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 0.7 IN_RET

IN_RET_1st_storey
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 IN 0.2
nd
th
IN_RET
0.1 0.1
2
IN_RET_1st_storey
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s -2] ag [m s -2]
Fig. 22 Maximum story shear results
123
80 80
IN
rd
IN
st
70 70
IN_RET
IN_RET
IN_RET_1st_storey 60 IN_RET_1st_storey
60
storey [kNm]
storey [kNm]
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
a g [m s ] -2 a g [m s-2]
80 80
IN IN
th
nd
70 IN_RET 70
IN_RET
IN_RET_1st_storey IN_RET_1st_storey
60 60
storey [kNm]
storey [kNm]
50 50
40 40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2 a g [m s-2]
a g [m s ]
Fig. 23 Maximum story dissipated energy
140
IN
Total dissipated energy [kNm]
120 IN_RET
IN_RET_1st_storey
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
a g [m s-2]
Fig. 24 Total dissipated energy
to the higher deformations observed when compared with other structures, presents higher
levels of energy dissipation in all floors.
The results in Fig. 24 show that the retrofit system used in the four floors leads to higher
levels of dissipated energy than the structure with retrofit applied only in the first story
(IN_RET_1st_storey), and that the infilled structure without retrofitting (IN).
From the results shown in Fig. 25 it can be concluded that the use of retrofit only in the
first floor (IN_RET_1st_storey) limits the displacement demand at the top of the building,
123
0.07
IN
0.06 IN_RET
IN_RET_1st_storey

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [m s-2]
Fig. 25 Displacement at the top of the building

Label Structure
of strengthening level
IN INfilled frame
IN_RET INfilled RETrofitted panels
IN_RET_0.5 INfilled frame with RETrofitting × 0.5
IN_RET_1.5 INfilled frame with RETrofitting × 1.5
but from certain demand levels this structure experiences larger displacement demands than
the IN_RET structure.
5.3 Strengthening level analysis
A sensibility study of the influence of the resistance of the device in the structural response
was made. Apart from the structure with the shear-link presented in previous sections, two
additional structures were studied with different shear-link strength, namely one with larger
yielding strength and another with inferior yielding strength. The structures that were com-
pared are listed in Table 5.
Thus, to analyze the effect of the yielding strength of the shear-link device in the structure
IN_RET response, a superior and inferior value of device strength were analyzed, correspond-
ing the 0.5 and 1.5 times the nominal value, respectively. In the modeling of the steel devices,
the yielding strength is the unique parameter adjusted in relation to the nominal tested device,
maintaining the other parameters in the model. The results shown in Fig. 26 represent the
maximum inter-story drift for each studied structure in this comparative analysis.
The IN_RET_1.5 structure develops larger shear demands in all floors higher than observed
for the IN_RET structure, as expected, due the adoption of a stronger retrofit system, as
the IN_RET_0.5 structure leads to lower shear demands in all floors. The results shown in
Fig. 27 represent the maximum story shear demand for the structures under analysis and for
all seismic demands.
The energy dissipated at storey level for each studied structure, IN_RET, IN_RET_0.5 and
IN_RET_1.5, and for each earthquake input motion, are shown in Fig. 28. The IN_RET struc-
ture is the one that presents a smoother evolution of the dissipated energy, when compared to
123
1.8 1.8
1.6 IN IN_RET_0.5 IN IN_RET_0.5
1.6
IN_RET IN_RET_1.5 IN_RET IN_RET_1.5
3 Storey drift [%]

1 Storey drift [%]
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
rd
st
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms -2] ag [ms -2]

1.8 1.8
IN IN_RET_0.5 IN IN_RET_0.5
1.6 1.6
Storey drift [%]
4 Storey drift [%]

1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
nd
th
0.4 0.4
2
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms -2] ag [ms -2]
Fig. 26 Maximum inter-story drift
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
3 Storey shear [MN]
1 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
rd
st
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms -2] ag [ms -2]

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
Storey shear [MN]
4 Storey shear [MN]
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
nd
th
2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms -2] ag [ms -2]
Fig. 27 Maximum story shear
123
50 IN IN_RET_0.5 50 IN IN_RET_0.5
rd
st
40 40
Storey [kN]
Storey [kN]
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms-2] ag [ms-2]
50 IN IN_RET_0.5 50 IN IN_RET_0.5
nd
th

40 40
Storey [kN]
Storey [kN]
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2
ag [ms ] ag [ms-2]
Fig. 28 Maximum story dissipated energy
the irregular evolution of the vulnerability curves of both the IN_RET_1.5 and IN_RET_0.5
structures. Even if the structures have different devices strength, the differences in the
response for the same earthquake demand level justifies the similarity in terms of energy
dissipation.
The IN_RET structure (see results in Fig. 29a) presents a smoother evolution of the total
dissipated energy. In the first floor (see results in Fig. 29b), it can be verified that only for a
seismic action with RP = 3,000 years was observed a quantity of energy dissipated directly
dependent of the devices’ strength.
It was observed that the top-displacement calculated for the structures does not depend
directly on the strength of the retrofit system. The IN_RET structure induces generally a
smaller value of top-displacement (see results in Fig. 30).
5.4 Natural frequencies
The retrofit system is responsible for an increase of 10–20 % in the natural frequencies of
the bare frame structure, and to a 5–40 % increase in the natural frequencies of the infilled
structure. The values in brackets on Table 6 represent the frequencies measured on the struc-
tures tested in laboratory. The frequencies measured are compared with the values obtained
with the numerical models, in order to demonstrate the capacity of this type of models to
represent the behavior of this type of structures.
6 Conclusions
A retrofitting bracing system with a shear-link for the protection of RC building structures
was numerically studied. A model was developed and calibrated with experimental cyclic
123
(a) 140
IN_RET
120 IN_RET_0.5
IN_RET_1.5
Total dissipated energy [kN]

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-2
ag [ms ]
(b) 2.4 IN_RET

IN_RET_0.5
IN_RET_1.5
dissipated energy [kN]
2.0
1 Storey shear-link
1.6
1.2
0.8
st
0.4
0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms-2]
Fig. 29 Dissipated energy: a total and b first story shear-link
0.06 IN
IN_RET
IN_RET_0.5
0.05
IN_RET_1.5
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ag [ms-2]
Fig. 30 Top-displacement
test results on a full-scale structure and, afterwards, the calibrated model was used for the
vulnerability study, based on a series of accelerograms. From the analyses performed and
the results obtained, it was concluded that:
123
Table 6 Natural frequencies of the structures (Hz)
Mode Structure
BF IN IN_RET BF_RET
1st 1.56 (1.57) 7.83 (7.22) 5.21 1.92

2nd 4.61 (4.69) 15.26 (20.83) 14.36 5.58
3rd 7.74 (7.83) 19.03 (24.93) 16.90 9.18
4th 10.92 30.58 (45.35) 17.53 12.29
• The masonry infill panels may play a fundamental role in the global response of existing
structures. The parameters that control the masonry panels behavior, and its influence
in the structural response are the masonry monotonic behavior law, the parameters defin-
ing the strength degradation and the residual masonry strength.
• The adopted model for the simulation of the infill panels proved to be able to repro-
duce the behavior of the masonry, particularly the non-linear response and the strength
degradation. However, it does not represent with accuracy the energy dissipation values
observed in the experimental test. Therefore, future research should be enforced in order
to develop and calibrate an improved model for the infill masonry, which accounts for
the interaction between the two struts.
• The adopted model for the dissipative device can rigorously reproduce the behavior of
shear-link retrofitting systems, as the one experimentally studied, and studied in this
work.
• The calibrated structural model, representative of existing RC buildings, can be extended
for the assessment of this kind of structures, as well as for the efficiency verification of
different retrofitting systems and arrangements.
• The pronounced non-linear behavior of this type of structures was verified in this vulner-
ability study. This justifies the use of non-linear models in the simulation of the buildings
structural behavior.
• The efficiency of the retrofitting in the improvement of the seismic response was observed.
The adoption of the retrofitting approach studied proved to increase significantly the
hysteretic dissipated energy, and may prevent old building structures to experience severe
damages or collapse, for moderate to high seismic actions.
• Sensitivity analyses were made in order to optimize not only the retrofit level but also its
distribution in the structure. The results obtained showed that the retrofit solution adopted
for the structure tested was appropriate and that its location in the structure may highly
influence the overall structural seismic response.
• The high sensitivity of the structural response to the location of the retrofitting system
and to the strengthening level, confirms that optimization tools may be needed to estimate
the most effective distribution, capacity and quantity of the strengthening elements for
RC building structures.
• It has to be mentioned that a generalization of the results and conclusions can only be
done based on an exhaustive analysis, using accelerograms representing other seismic
scenarios.
Acknowledgments The experimental test was carried out at the ELSA Laboratory, from the JRC (Joint
Research Centre), at Ispra, Italy, financed by the European Commission under the ICONS TMR-Network
research programme (contract No. FMRX-CT96-0022, DG 12 - RSRF), Topic 2—“Assessment, Strengthening
& Repair”.
123
References
Alam MS, Nehdi M, Amanat KM (2009) Modelling and analysis of retrofitted and un-retrofitted masonry-
infilled RC frames under in-plane lateral loading. Struct Infrastruct Eng 5(2):71–90
Bhatti AQ, Hassan SZ, Rafi Z, Khatoon Z, Ali Q (2011a) Seismic hazard analysis of Islamabad Pakistan.
J Asian Earth Sci 42(3):468–478
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N, Tan KH (2011b) Impact resistant behavior of an RC slab strengthened with FRP sheet.
Mater Struct 44(10):1855–1864
Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P (2004) The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic
response of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2(1):1–26
Bouwkamp J, Pinto AV, Molina J, Varum H (2001) Cyclic tests on RC frame retrofitted with K-bracing and
shear-link dissipater. EUR Report No. 20136 EN, ELSA, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Campos Costa A, Sousa ML, Carvalho A, Coelho E (2009) Evaluation of seismic risk and mitigation strategies
for the existing building stock: application of LNECloss to the metropolitan area of Lisbon. Bull Earthq
Eng 8(1):119–134
Carvalho EC, Coelho E, Campos-Costa A (1999) Preparation of the full-scale tests on reinforced concrete
frames—characteristics of the test specimens, materials and testing conditions. ICONS report, Innovative
Seismic Design Concepts for New and Existing Structures, European TMR Network—LNEC, Lisbon
CEN Eurocode 2 (2004) Design of concrete structures—part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings.
European EN 1992–1-1. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium
Combescure D, Pegon P (1996) Introduction of two new global models in CASTEM for seismic analysis of
civil engineering structures. Special Publication No. I.96.34, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M (2003) Earthquake damage scenario of the building stock of Potenza
(Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1:115–140
Durucan C, Dicleli M (2010) Analytical study on seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete buildings using
steel braces with shear-link. Eng Struct 32:2995–3010
Guedes J, Pegon P, Pinto AV (1994) A Fibre/Timoshenko beam element in CASTEM, Special Publication No.
I.96.31, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Marques P (2004) Análise do comportamento de estruturas existentes, sujeitas a carregamentos estáticos e
dinâmicos. Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade de Aveiro, July (in Portuguese)
Melo J, Fernandes C, Varum H, Rodrigues H, Costa A, Arêde A (2011) Numerical modelling of the cyclic
behavior of RC elements built with plain reinforcing bars. Eng Struct 33(2):273–286
Millard A (1993) CASTEM-2000, Guide de utilization, Rapport CEA 93/007, Saclay, France
Nikos DL (2007) Life-cycle cost analysis of design practices for RC framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng
5(3):425–442
Perera R, Gómez S, Alarcón E (2004) Experimental and analytical study of masonry infill reinforced concrete
frames retrofitted with steel braces. J Struct Eng 130(12):2032–2039
Pinto AV, Verzeletti G, Molina J, Varum H, Pinho R, Coelho E (2002) Pseudo-dynamic tests on non-seismic
resisting RC frames (bare and selective retrofit frames)—EUR Report No. 20244 EN, ELSA, JRC, EC,
Ispra
Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A (2010) Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. J Earthq Eng
14(3):390–416
Teixeira-Dias F, Oliveira JA, Varum H (2004) Estratégias de optimização numérica para o cálculo não-linear
de estruturas reticuladas, Actas do Congresso de Métodos Computacionais em Engenharia, LNEC - Lab-
oratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, 1:394/CD-ROM (arto 337), 31 May–2 June
(in Portuguese)
Varum H (2003) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. PhD Thesis, University
of Aveiro
Varum H, Pinto AV (2001) Utilização do aço na reabilitação e reforço de edifícios existentes: Avaliação da
sua eficiência em testes à escala real, III Encontro de Construção Metálica e Mista, Universidade de Aveiro
Varum H, Teixeira-Dias F, Marques P (2005) Reforço de edifícios existentes de betão armado com con-
traventamentos metálicos, Actas do Simpósio Ibero-Americano “O Betão nas Estruturas”, SIABE 05,
1:487/CD-ROM (paper no. 212), 5–7 July, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Science and Tech-
nology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
123

Performance Evaluation of Retro Tting Strategies For Non-Seismically Designed RC Buildings Using Steel Braces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Evaluation of Retro Tting Strategies For Non-Seismically Designed RC Buildings Using Steel Braces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bull Earthquake Eng (2013) 11:1129–1156

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Performance evaluation of retrofitting strategies

H. Varum · F. Teixeira-Dias · P. Marques ·

H. Varum (B) · A. Q. Bhatti

Keywords Ductile steel eccentrically braced system (DSEBS) · Innovative design

2 Cyclic test and results

2.1 Structure and materials properties

Table 1 Mechanical properties

2.2 Retrofitting system and cyclic test

2.3 Test results

3 Structural and material numerical models

1 Sub-elements with non-linear behaviour - Fibre model

3.1 Global frame model

3.2 Reinforced concrete elements

3.2.1 Fiber model

steel element n s concrete el. n c

3.2.2 Concrete behavior model

The uniaxial concrete model is schematically represented in Fig. 6. A parabolic curve is

Fig. 7 Uniaxial constitutive model for steel (Guedes et al. 1994)

As previously mentioned, relevant differences of strength were found in the concrete

3.2.3 Steel behavior model

3.3 Infill masonry model

Infilled frame RC structures consist of brick masonry panels interconnected by RC horizontal

Fig. 9 Global structure model

3.4 Retrofitting system

4 Calibration of the structural model against the cyclic test results

4.1 Masonry model

4.2 Strengthening system model

4.3 Comparison between the numerical and experimental results

Fig. 10 Shear force-drift response: a dissipater (shear-link) and b global story

Fig. 12 Dissipated energy evolution at each structural component (numerical results)

The earthquake action consists in artificially generated accelerograms with 15 s duration.

5.1 Retrofitting efficiency

Table 2 Seismic action: return

Table 3 Studied structures for

3 Storey drift [%]

4 Storey drift [%]

2.5 IN_RET 2.5 IN_RET

Fig. 16 Maximum inter-story drift

0.8 0.8 IN_RET

0.7 0.7 IN BF_RET

0.8 BF IN_RET 0.8 BF IN_RET

0.7 IN BF_RET 0.7 IN BF_RET

Fig. 17 Maximum story shear

Fig. 18 Dissipated energy values for all stories

Fig. 19 Total dissipated energy

5.2 Retrofitting arrangement

Top displacement [m]

Fig. 20 Top displacement for all structures

Table 4 Studied structures for

3 Storey drift [%]

1.4 IN_RET_1st_storey 1.4 IN_RET_1st_storey

4 Storey drift [%]

Fig. 21 Maximum inter-story drift results

4 Storey shear [MN]

0.7 0.7 IN_RET

Fig. 22 Maximum story shear results

Fig. 23 Maximum story dissipated energy

Fig. 24 Total dissipated energy

Top displacement [m]

Fig. 25 Displacement at the top of the building

Table 5 Studied structures for