CE 222 Advanced Concrete Technology Institute of Civil Engineering

2nd Semester 2010-2011 under Dr. NB Diola University of the Philippines-Diliman

SEISMIC RETROFIT FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

Ian Howell S. Tungol

MSCE-Structural Student, Institute of Civil Engineering, UP Diliman

Assistant Engineer, AMH Philippines Inc., Quezon City

Abstract:
Seismic retrofitting has been prevalent globally. Countries like US, Europe and India are
still in the process of reinforcing their structures to strengthen against seismic load in order
to meet the present day seismic design requirements. Philippines on the other hand, located
on seismically active part of the earth, has limited appreciation on the seismic hazard on
reinforced concrete structures especially on residential structures on provinces which
mostly were designed not considering earthquake loads. Seismic retrofitting then is not so
much perceived as a necessity. It was identified that this is due to reasons such as cost,
applicability of code criteria, and lack of initiative on the government side. It became the
motivation of this research to address the lack of appreciation on structural retrofitting in
this country. Structural failures due to earthquake were then identified which includes
column, infill walls, joint connections and shear wall failures. It was stressed out that
structural assessment is critical in any retrofit work to come up with the most efficient
retrofit scheme. Design considerations such as economic, intervention scheme and local-
global structural effect were all as well discussed. A table was presented containing the
state of the art of seismic retrofitting with short description on each retrofit category
followed by its advantage or disadvantage and some specific examples were cited. Finally,
a case study proposal was presented. It was well understood that multiplicity of factors
influence the selection of the retrofit solution and therefore no general rules apply. It is
recommended that a study which could possibly provide a general procedure than can
assess and provide retrofit scheme for certain reinforced concrete residential house be
conducted. The paper ended realizing that the country needs not a thorough research but a
coordinated research similar to what other countries adopted in order to further establish
the success of addressing the incapability of residential structures against earthquake.

1
Keywords: earthquake, reinforced concrete, retrofit, seismic retrofit, residential structure

1. INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, retrofitting is considered as any modification done on an existing structure

to restore its capacity from the original design. In recent years, the term retrofitting or
rehabilitation could also refer to further strengthening of existing structures to make them
more resistant against applied loads. In the case of seismic retrofitting, structures are
modified in consideration with seismic activity, ground motion, or soil failure due to
earthquake.

Figure 1. Seismic retrofitting by increment of strength and stiffness provided by newly

inserted reinforced concrete cores (Oliveto, 2005)

2. MOTIVATION OF RESEARCH

Seismic retrofitting has been prevalent globally. In US, majority of buildings in regions of
high seismicity in the United States still do not meet current seismic code requirements,
and many of these buildings are vulnerable to damage and collapse in an earthquake.
(Moehle, US, 2000). Oliveto identified reasons why there exist reinforced structures which
are still vulnerable to earthquakes. Among his list were: historical events (e.g. wars,
epidemics and natural disasters), fading memory, greed, avarice, poverty and ignorance.
(Oliveto, India 2005). In European countries (e.g., Greece, Italy, and Portugal), reinforced
concrete frame building with brick masonry infill walls is typical and while designed
according to the state-of-the-art over 40 years ago, it does not meet the present day seismic
design requirements and contains a number of now well-recognized seismic design
deficiencies and problems. (Griffith, Europe, 2008)

Locally, recent events have triggered public awareness regarding seismic hazard mainly
due to the devastation caused by the 9.0-magnitude Great East Japan Earthquake. The
earthquake caused a tsunami and resulted to the world's worst nuclear disaster since
Chernobyl in 1986. For quite some time the media has focused on this topic both in
newsprint and in television. There were reports of immediate structural assessment of
buildings initiated by the government. The Department of Education (DepEd) stated that
there are a total of 12 schools alone in NCR with structural defects while a total of 107
were found with defects all over the country. The report also indicated that the latest
DepEd survey of schools outside the capital region revealed 671 out of 779 school

1
buildings were found with defects. DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. admitted
that "the bigger problem that was coming out was the low-cost buildings that tend to do
shortcuts or do not follow strictly to the National Building Code" in response to disaster
preparedness of our country. He explained further that "unlike well-constructed high rise,
low-cost homes and low-rise buildings that skew the National Building Code could not
withstand a powerful earthquake".

Philippines’ credentials to seismic activity were also an issue. The country sits on the most
seismically active part of the earth, characterized by a belt of active volcanoes and
earthquake generators. Currently, there are about 30 faults distributed around the country.
Since 1968, the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) has
recorded 12 destructive earthquakes in the Philippines which occur almost every five years
ranging from magnitudes 5.1 up to 7.9. One of the major active faults in Metro Manila, the
Western Valley Fault, was already tagged by PHIVOLCS as being "ripe" since historical
data indicates that the fault moves once every 200 to 400 years. PHIVOLCS Deputy
Director Bartolome Bautista said that its last recorded movement was 200 years ago.

The state-of-art of rehabilitation of reinforced building structures has advanced

prominently in the past two decades (Moehle, 2000). However, focus on residential
reinforced concrete structures has been rare especially in our country which could be
attributed to the following reasons:
1. Costly for household to retrofit using current innovative technologies
2. Residential houses commonly not designed for earthquake loads.
3. Lack of Government effort to address vulnerability of reinforced concrete
residential structures

With increasing population density, struggle for space has been observed in highly
populated areas such as Metro Manila and Baguio City. Instead of horizontal sprawl,
vertical expansion has been prominent in the said areas. This pattern may eventually lead
to residential houses occupying at least 2 - 3 floor levels in the near future. Moreover,
concrete hollow blocks (CHB) and non-structurally designed RC columns are still
prominent in houses mostly in provinces due to non-strict compliance to local laws and
structural codes. These scenarios have been the motivation of this paper and it is the
interest of the researcher to address these issues.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Seismic Effects on RC Structures

Griffith summarizes the governing failure for structures subjected to earthquake loadings

1. Column Failure - Most failures of reinforced

concrete buildings in past earthquakes have been
attributed to column failure (shear distress, spalling of
column end regions, buckling of column longitudinal
reinforcement and formation of soft stories). This type
of failure is commonly attributed to inadequacy of
column to flexural strength, inadequacy to shear
strength, or a combination of the two.

2
 2. Infill walls failure – caused by inadequacy of shear
strength or inadequacy of out-of-plane flexural strength
Figure 2. Column failure
3. Connection Failure –specifically on slab-column (Moehle, 2000)
and column-beam connections, mostly attributed to
inadequate joint reinforcement, improper anchorage of
longitudinal beam reinforcement and/or poor detailing.

4. Shear Wall – commonly caused by inadequate

reinforcement or inadequate connection to the
surrounding/adjacent frame members. Damage to shear
walls and to coupling beams, while costly and
disruptive, generally have not resulted in building
collapse and therefore have received less attention than
have columns, joints, and slab-column connections
(Griffith, 2008) Figure 3. Connection
Failure (Moehle, 2000)
3.2 Structural Assessment

Based on identified effects on structures, one can easily adapt a specific retrofitting
technique, however, there is no such thing as universal technique. In other words, each
structure requires different approach based on its current condition.

The importance of proper seismic assessment as part of the seismic upgrading process
cannot be underestimated (Bertero, 1992). In most papers, it has been emphasized that
structural assessment is deemed important prior to any seismic retrofit in general due to the
following reasons:
1. To apply the most efficient / most applicable type of retrofit.
2. To identify under what seismic action the structure is vulnerable is important
since vulnerability is not an absolute concept. (Same structure may not be
vulnerable to one class of earthquakes and yet be vulnerable to another).
3. To design of a global retrofit system should aim to control demands on the
existing framing system so that they do not exceed capacities.
4. One may always consider the possibility that the retrofitted structure will be
over-resistant to the seismic action or worst, could increase the seismic demand of
the structure.

3
Figure 4. Seismic Demand Spectrum. An attempt to add stiffness to
structure which consequently decrease the structural period may
however, increase the seismic demand of the structure. (Oliveto, 2005)

4
In industry practice, it is typical to first prepare the As-Built plans and drawings (through
site inspection and Field surveys such as Dimension survey, Alignment Survey and
Topographic Survey) followed by Materials Sampling and Testing (e.g. concrete strength,
reinforcement details and soil inspection reports) to characterize structural elements which
will then be used as an input for the structural modelling (usually software based). While
proven to yield accurate results, it is also costly to implement the procedure even for
simple structures. Cost is specially an issue when the retrofit project is the assessment of
structural integrity of a certain mass housing project or even an area covered by residential
houses. Moreover, the results yield only the general behaviour of the structure which in
effect limits the design of retrofit since some techniques need behaviour as local as
possible. Due to these reasons, a better approach should be considered. Following are
some methods for structural assessment used by researchers:

1. Bonacci (1994) used the substitute structure approach in calculating design forces
for drift and damage control is described.

2. Hassan and Sozen (1997) presented a simplified method of ranking RC, low-rise,
monolithic buildings according to their seismic vulnerability. This procedure
requires only the dimensions of the building structure and is based on the damage
that occurred during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake.

3. Some papers reported the use of capacity spectrum method for comparing
retrofitting strategies, seismic assessment as a low-cycle fatigue process, seismic
assessment of ancient churches and other historical monuments, and performance
evaluation of building during recent earthquakes. (Sucuoglu and Erberik, 1997;
Petrini et al, 1998; Olaru, 1998l Lagomarsino, 1998; Kratzig and Meskouris, 1998;
Badoux, 1998a)

3.3 Design Considerations

The aim of the retrofit strategy as an operational framework is to balance supply and
demand. The supply refers to the capacity of the structural system, which has to be
assessed in detail before selecting the intervention scheme. The demand is expressed by
either a code design spectrum or a site-specific set of records as a function of period and
shape of vibration characteristics of the upgraded system (Thermou, 2005).

In most retrofitting cases three most important seismic parameters are addressed: stiffness,
strength and ductility. Generally, there are two theoretical approaches for a retrofit project.

1. Force-based vs. Displacement-based. Force-based approach where force levels are

related to acceleration spectra, which checks to ensure adequate displacement
capacity exists, and the newer displacement-based design approach, where
displacements are the starting point in the design.

2. Stiffness reduction vs. Stiffness Magnification. The more classical principle is the
increase of strength and stiffness (increase in capacity) while the other is through
mass reduction (reduction of demand). Seismic resistance defined in terms of
effective PGA defined on a Design Spectrum represents a measure of maximum
ground motion that a building can withstand at the threshold of collapse. It should
be clear to a designer that any attempt to increase the seismic resistance capacity by

5
 decreasing natural period (increasing stiffness) of the structure could possibly
increase the seismic demand.

It is important to consider the level of intervention applicable to the current use and
condition of the structure. Local modification of isolated components of the structural and
non-structural system aims to increase the deformation capacity of deficient components
while global intervention is designed to disrupt load paths allowing the structure to be
more resistant to earthquake loading (Thermou, 2005). The designer should be aware that
any modification on strength could also contribute to global modification of structural
system even local modification of isolated components is applied. The problem lies that
for global modification there are additional structural requirements needs to be undertaken.
For instance, the foundation might require strengthening if the super-structure is
strengthened or the load-path altered. (Fardis, 1998).

Socio-economic issues are also a factor needed to be addressed and critically considered in
selecting the retrofit scheme. In the end, the most affordable scheme will always be the
more viable option regardless of efficiency especially for a residential house retrofit.

Finally, compatibility and interaction should be ensured in all cases of retrofit scheme
otherwise it will be useless and would pose more danger to the structure. It is important to
stress that retrofitting to one deficiency may only shift the problem to another location
and/or failing mode without necessarily improving the overall importance (Thermou,
2005).

6
 4. STATE OF THE ART
Table 1 lists five general classification of retrofitting done during the past decade. Each category is described followed by its advantage or
disadvantage and finally, the last column contains some specific example.
Table 1. State of the Art of structural retrofit for reinforced concrete structures
Type of Retrofit
1. Increase in member
Capacity / Strength
2. Increase in member Stiffness
3. Increase in member Ductility
Advantages /
Description Example
Disadvantages
Increasing cross-section.
Increase in capacity may Crack injection grouting
affect other members and
  Steel bracing systems.
the general behaviour of
the structures Addition of typical structural members to
existing structure
Integration of the new Infill walls
The general objective is to reduce
materials with existing
lateral drifts overall, as well as to Wing walls
materials. Difficulty in
avoid story mechanisms by adding
achieving designed Precast Panels
elements.
interaction.
A. Overlays i. Efficient in tension and Welding column splices
Confinement of reinforced can provide an Composite Overlays
concrete; limits crack extension alternative load path for Application of fiber reinforced polymers, FRP
and width and favors the closure the column tension (distinguishable by the type of fiber, Carbon,
of open cracks forces in the splice joint Glass or Aramidic)
region.
Thin carbon fiber composite sheets
B. Jacketing
Use of reinforced concrete, steel ii. Most widely accepted Concrete Jacketing
plates or fiber (carbon or glass) procedure however Composite jacketing
7

reinforced plastic (FRP) sheets
Produces period elongation and a
4. Reduction of member Stiffness /
consequent reduction of seismic
Mass reduction
strength demand
Damage Controlled structure
5. Recent Innovative Technology
Active Control
Steel jacketing
costly especially the use
Low stiffness results to
Seismic isolation and/or the use of energy
large displacements
dissipation devices
(inter-story drifts)
Primary structure will behave elastically under the most severe design
earthquake while the auxiliary structure (replaceable damage control
structural component) will respond to the seismic action
Performed by servo-actuated devices capable of applying opposite forces
to the seismic action utilizing sensors and computer programming

There have been a lot of papers published regarding seismic retrofitting specially with the developing knowledge on laboratory testing which
provides better insights on the effect of the retrofit scheme not just locally but on the global behavior of the structure in concern. Of one
important technique to note is the numerical and physical modeling of RC structures which is then compared through testing using a shaking
table which simulates actual earthquake excitation. The physical test can be done with either structural components only or the whole structure
itself.

Further information on seismic retrofitting can be found on the following published papers which contain a review on the current practice for
seismic retrofitting of RC structures:
1. Thermou et al, “Seismic Retrofit Schemes for RC Structures and Local-Global Consequences”. He summarized on a table the local and
global effect of each specific retrofit scheme to the structure. Provided also in the table is information on the construction methods as
well as design considerations.
2. Mike Griffith, “Seismic Retrofit of RC Frame Buildings with Masonry Infill Walls: Literature Review and Preliminary Case Study”. A
fairly comprehensive literature review was presented with the objective of providing better insight into the key issues relevant to seismic
retrofit of concrete frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls.
3. Oliveto et al, “Seismic Retrofitting Of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Traditional And Innovative Techniques”. He discussed the
traditional practice for seismic retrofitting of structures and categorized the innovative techniques at the time the paper was written.
4. Moehle, “State of Research on Seismic Retrofit of Concrete Building Structures in the US”. He briefly identified the typical configuration
and details of concrete buildings existing in the US and provided information on the usual failure of the buildings due to seismic

8
excitation. He then discussed researches done in US to address the failures identified.

Figure 5. In situ FRP-retrofit of the Figure 6. Cross-bracing providing additional stiffness to the structure
exterior faceof a corner beam-column joint

Figure 7. Use of Reinforced Plastic sheets for seismic retrofit (a) Material properties; application modes of

9
 (b) prefabricated shells; (c) FRP Sheets. (Thermou et al,2005)

Figure 8. (a) Steel Jacketing (b) Steel Cage technique Figure 9. Application of the (a) epoxy resin;
using steel straps or (c) steel plates (b) cement grout injection in beam-column joints

10
Figure 10. Reinforce concrete jacketing technique

11
5. CASE STUDY PROPOSAL

Given the available seismic retrofit schemes, a local research should be implemented to
identify seismic retrofit scheme applicable to local reinforced concrete housing structures
with in mind the feasibility on three design considerations:
1. Economic feasibility
2. Practical design (in terms of its applicability to residential households)
3. Can be evaluated on its structural performance

It is well understood that multiplicity of factors influence the selection of the retrofit
solution and therefore no general rules apply. It is therefore necessary to note that there is
a need that different cases be established. As of the moment it should be determined if it is
possible to perform a general procedure on certain project sites. Information gathered will
be analyzed and compared. The final objective is to generate evaluation criteria and
provide basic structural retrofit options which follow the three design considerations.

The following methodology could be implemented on each project sites:

1. Site investigation
2. Geological survey
3. Structural Assessment: Evaluation of seismic resistance, vulnerability and failure
mechanism
4. Identification of Seismic Retrofit
5. Modelling
a. Numerical Modelling
b. Physical Modelling
6. Testing (both numerical and physical models)
7. Comparison of Test Results
8. Conclusion and recommendation

6. CONCLUSION

The need for seismic retrofit as of the date is not yet felt on the country. However, there
are individuals/groups who greatly express their concern about the situation. Being a
developing country, little is expected from the government to address the issue without the
situation actually happening.

The following important conclusions can be drawn from literature review done:

• Structural assessment plays a critical role in seismic retrofitting. Cost, however, is

an issue that needs to be considered. There is a need therefore to come up with
structural assessment that is economically feasible with acceptable results.

• There is no universal retrofit scheme. It will be costly for household then to afford
their own structural assessment as well as retrofit design. It is recommended to
research on the feasibility of a study that will do series of retrofit projects on
residential houses. The study will aim to come up with a general methodology to
conduct seismic retrofit project applicable to local RC residential housing industry

12
 • The country needs not a thorough research but a coordinated research similar to
what other countries adopted. Needs are continually identified related to the
technology of seismic retrofit (physical implementation and efficacy of retrofit
measures) as well as methodologies to the numerical evaluation of performance
collaboration in retrofitting research is a necessary component of rapid
advancement in this field. ( Moehle, 2000)

REFERENCES

Mike Griffith, 2008, Seismic Retrofit of RC Frame Building with Masonry Infill Walls:
Literature Review and Preliminary Case Study, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports,
OPOCE, Europe, pp. 1- 72

Jack P. Moehle, 2000, State of Research on Seismic Retrofit of Concrete Building

Structures in the US, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of
California, Berkeley

Giuseppe Oliveto and Massimo Marletta, 2005, Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced

Concrete Building Using Traditional and Innovative Techniques, ISET Journal of
Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 451, Vol. 42, No. 2-3, June-September 2005, pp. 21-46

G.E. Thermou and A.S. Elnashai, 2005, Seismic Retrofit Schemes for RC Structures and
Local-Global Consequences, Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:
10.1002/pde.208

13