RETROFITTING OF DAMAGED RC FRAME USING METALLIC

YIELDING DAMPER



 

 
Research Scholar Assistant Professor
-  :  -  : 

  % -  
  % - 
; )- ;-< ; )- ;-<

=
=


  , >   

  ? : ! - - $    
  B-  
: #
   ,      : 
  % !%#
% !,%#%* 
,%  C  
 @      )* <
:9 * : ;   B     -     : 
%  !;%#  @         %- 
@     : 
B-    -     :  %         , 
  
- @      
   structures, Fibre reinforced concrete, Seismic
    ,  :9 *                

   
7   
  
  +          

 
7 : 

  B   B  
 
@   


   
+     E  :  <)
  
 ;
structures <
  :  !;<:# -   
   
 %  !-%# -   
< :  !-<:# 
     : 

!:#

Abstract 
 
   
 
.   
 %   )
 
  
        

  
 
  
    
          
  
  
  
   
 
 
    
 

    "      
   

 
   
 
  
and the proposed connection scheme performed well
   
    !"#  
   
  /3(
  
   $ 
     
 
               Keywords: 7   
  7

   %     

   7  
7    

 &'(
)  * devices

    
       
  
+   

      
   Introduction

  
  
  !,-#    
    !#  


 

            
       
 
,-    
       
 9 *   
     
)        
      

86 Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer


 
      

  
    
   

 

         )    
       $ 9 *  )   9  
 !C
H3II#%    $       
   > 
     
     
  9           
 
  
   

J

    
     
     .       

     


J          $    

    %  
!B 
B  IKKH#%    supplemental devices dissipate/absorb the input

  9 
  
      J     
       
) *    
         

              
,   

      
   
  
 
  



        
   
        $

           

     
 %    

%  ! J  # 
! #  $  
 
  )
   
 
      

   
 J    

      
-  

   % *     
     
  
     !#
 
!#<

-
 !<-<#

     !#  

devices in which a series of steel plates of either
      !#    

Z      
 .    


     
!# 
(Alehashem et al., H33U7 % 
 @ IKKH#
      $ !L
 !#   *  )   )    


OH33/7,  H333#<    
 
 
       ! 
 
brittle failure of panel zone is also expected within the
H3I3#    % et al. !H3IY#
 

   $          

 
  
  !,-# 
(Pampanin et al.,H33H#
 .  
  )
%  

  

  

   " I!# ,-   Z
 
 !.   #
             
  ) ! #  


   
    
 * )       
  %     
          !@ IKTU# <   ,-)
 ) 
      W
 !#           )      
 )    
              bottom base plate is held in position so as to provide
 *         @  
!
# "I!#)   
            ,-  H3(
         
mixes can be used at these critical locations in order  )  ,-)
 
  
            )
 

B   
  )     * 
 )
 
    !"#        "I!#[       

  .     

     )     
.     
  !>et al.,H3I&#              Z  % 
techniques have been developed to improve the been carried out to maximize the utilization of material
        
   .   
%  
   

 
  
    9   
   ) 

   $* !X

-H33U#       
 
   O

  $*  !;
 et al. H33K#          
  
! H3IY7
H3I3#
  
    
    
 %  Z

 $* !Zet al.IKKK#[        
   
  9        W   
 
and stiffness of the RC frames, it is expected that    

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 87

 %       
     
the columns was 3.1% with 6 mm diameter stirrups
         IT' 
/
   '3
)   
  $   
 !# !# !#
)    ) 
I33
Fig. 1: (a) Component testing of CMD, (b) Damaged CMD  
 
after test, (c) Hysteretic behavior of CMD (Taraithia et al.,
2013)

Research Objectives
% 
   
        
a non-ductile RC frame with SFRC at the critical
locations and the evaluation of the effectiveness
 ,-     9  %    !# !#
$      
   !#      
      
         Fig. 2: (a) Reinforcement detailing of test frame, (b) Regions
of SFRC mixes used in the specimen
   ) "    $   
 !#
                Original (undamaged) Specimen


     
 ) ,- % 
"H!#) 

 )   "
     
   
    
mix was used in the test frame. It can be seen that

      
 
          
  
  
     
 
 
    
! 

#
 
 <
%        )


 
 
    
 
   
  !lp# 


  

 

 )  !B  
B  IKKH#_
 ) 
lp = 0.08l|0.022db fy  !I#
Experimental Program [  lp}  l}  
< 

  !3&_I#     db= diameter of main bar, fy} 
 
             )  <
        lp was
   
<    
 I/  
@   

                ) 

 I'    

                $ B   
)  
 
       3&        H' ,B ) 
  
        %        %          )
  
)
   )  *  computed as 31.6 MPa as per Indian standard (IS-
 HI33  
 YH33       I3H/H H33K#  >
 B
   
section of the column and beam were 160x160 mm !>B# ) 
   
 ) ~ 

 I/3IU3      %   
    [     
of the beam include 50 mm thick monolithic slab of ) *   3&/ )     3K
'33)
!>
H3I'#% 
 :
*      /3   
 3T' 

  
    
   
  !  }U3#)   
 "
    )"H!#% 
 %  
   
   
of reinforcement in the test frame was carried out )II33,B?
 
 ! 
   
 

 !&'/ H333#  
H3I&#  I3( "
%              

   
 %   
         
  )     )*"  W 
H&  I/  I3  
 U      3'(  ) 
   

88 Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer


 
%   ) $ 


    

    
&'(
  <   
        
     
  
      

   !
 
  # %      )
   
  ,-     


  %   $   ) 
          
  
           

  

  
CMD and test set-up
  
  ,-   ) Z

     .      
      % 
   
     
 )
   )      ) 
    ,-           )  " Y % 
 

 "   
     ,-)
 
   ,- )    
       
   
  
   >  
 


   
  )  
    

    <IH')    

  



   )   
   .    
 
   < '3'3/ 
      
  
) 
.   IH  * 
      H'3   


  
 % I W  I/3  )
 %) 
 

 9   )
  W          ,- 
  sections of 113.5 x 113.5 x 5.4 mm size were used
 
 %  .      )   ) 

     % ! J # 
base plates of 12 mm thick at both the sides. Since       )        
  )      )               ,- %   
  .       
  ) 
   )     

  
  

between the base and web plates was not carried 
  

out. Instead, 12 mm thick shear tabs were attached
Test Set-up and Loading History
       
) 
  
)     
 
     H'3 *;
)   
     U  
 *     H'3  ) 
 
W     ,- ) 
    
    
      )             %   )

  ?      ,- ) 
   
      .    
top of the brace, while the upper base plate was In order to avoid the out-of-plane movement of the
 
   IHW     
   )   
  )  
             
 
          
 
Table 1: Dimensions of various components of CMD 
 
 

 
     !<
/3/3U# )   

    $    

Components Length Width Thickness
  
 )     
 )    
(mm) (mm) (mm)
     %  )
Flexural plates 150 200 6.0   
         
    
Shear plate 200 200 3.2    
      )
 
  
Base plates 600 500 12.0    !"Y#<

TH*;)
   
     -  !"
&# < YT&I3'!<et al.H33/#
  
 )        
        : $
   )

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 ,H3I' UK

  
  )
 
    

  

 
 %   )  
 
          ; $ *
 /(
  "         were noticed in the columns unlike the RC frame.
     
   ) 
 %   ) ,-
  

&'(
  )
       )
    <   I3(

   *  
      
 )  ,-
 
) 
        )
     
*   "
/ )
  
     
  
     $ 
      /(
    * 
   
   ))    )


  
       

   

         
     
   
 ,-



  
  !
 
    )  # <
Y'(
  
    
)       
 < &'(

Fig. 4: Displacement history
   
  
   
Results And Discussion  

  
 

* </3(
  
%       
   !#   $   * )   

   
 !#    !#        " T )    
 
!#     
 !#  
 
      ,-     
  

   



 
 ; $     ,- ) 
   
  %     
 

 
  
 ) 

Overall Behavior
%  

    

  ) 
 
      
     

 " )  * )   
   
 3T'(
  <  
   Fig. 5: Details of cracking and damages observed in various
a number of minor cracks were noticed in the SFRC members of the original frame
    
 

<I3(
  $*)  

on the column faces and these cracks were widened
 H3   &'(
    < )  " '
$*)  
   
  ) "  .  
*)  
 
  Fig. 6: Details of cracking and damage observed in various
beam. In addition, multiple cracks were noticed in the     
$    )   
%             
  

% 

    )    
 
  !,-#   
     
   
  

   
 
 


    
 
 ,-        
      
 
  
 
)  
  " ) 
  
    

  9    
           
       
      

K3 X  &' Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
      
   

 "   
     
  
       )

 
!.   # ) 
         
    
    
   >   
  RC frame.
 
   .   ) 
 
    

    
  
 
)  
     
    U 
 IH 
 
  

I33% 
 )    
  

perfect bond between the bolts and beam concrete.
Because of the limited beam width available in the
!# !#
RC frame, the premature failure of anchored bolts
)

 
9     Fig. 8: Hysteresis response of (a) original (undamaged) and
available beam concrete. In order to avoid this failure,   
W
   
 
  Backbone Curves
so that the proper shear transfer between the RC frame
and damper can be achieved. %   *      
  
  
     
      )  "
K!#% *     )
    <  
       
  
 )    

  
  % 
  
       

 ) 
HT'(
)
 
!# !#  


    
)      *    
      ! "   #$   
@)      )    
frame, (b) Damaged beam due to anchorage failure of CMD
 
 
 @  
 
Hysteresis Response            
   
" U )     
 
        )    ,- 
    
!  #         %   
  
 

%  
  

        

    
  9           

  )   3T'( !IIH # 
 3'( !T' #       
       
    %    
  
    cracks were initiated in the members.
     )   THH *; 
 TT/ " K!# )         
kN in the pull and push directions at 4.5% drift   ) 
  %  
       %   
   )
        
   )  
 
maximum lateral resistance of 124.5 kN and -126.8 Y3(
  % 

kN in the respective directions at 2.75 % drift        )   
   
   % )        T3(     
   %        
  
  
    
 the RC frame was 3.0 kN/mm, whereas the maximum
  ?             
 )
,-


    ) found to be 4.4 kN/mm. At 2% drift level, a maximum

              
 difference in the lateral stiffness was noted between
  <     
       
    
   <  

  ,-  
      W
   
      
 ) 
     
                   
   

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 ,H3I' KI

!€&'(#       ,- <
     &'(     


with the frame.            '/H *; ) 
   
  

   I&Y *; 
%          
     % )
     

increases the initial frame stiffness where the braces
 

 H/    


 
  
  
  
      %       
     
 

     
   ) IT/
this case, the braces are attached in series with the
kNm at 6% drift level.
 
  

  
frame. Further, the brace sections are so chosen such O       


                9    
       


  
  
    )  
     

*    
 <      %  ) 9    

 
          
    
 ":,<Y'/!H333#) 
    9  
   
 
   

 )     1 Eloop
E eq
     !#      
  &'( 2S K  D   D  2 !H#
eq

 ) II*;J)   

[   %eq }:9    
 
 Eloop
        
   )  
}-
          

Y' *;J 
        
  Keq = Effective stiffness of the loop and D =
   HH3(
B *
        
   

    
 %  H )  
 9   


!# !#
Fig. 9: Comparison of (a) backbone curves and (b) lateral
stiffness of both frames

Energy Dissipationand Viscous Damping

% 
       
essential in order to avoid the complete collapse of
Fig. 10: Comparison of energy dissipation of both frames
      %   
    
     
   
     %  9    
  

    %           
  
    3H(



         
    level were 6.17% and 8.46%, while at 4.5% drift level
) 
     
 
 these values were increased to 17.80% and 38.87%,
     "I3)     
  

  

        ) 
  '&HI(
   
<  

   ) 
 
  9 
   
        %

   )
 
  
Conclusions
    
        
 %  )     
)  
  )           
_

KH X  &' Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
‚ +  
  
  References
    
      
I < YT&I3'!H33/#„<  
        @)   
Criteria for Moment Frames based on Structural
premature failure of the connection between the
%  
   < < 

…

    

  
  
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
    
   

   ) 
Michigan.
  
 
 
H <    ,  C  < 

‚ %   
   
     
B 
 @ !H33U# „?  


    
     "
  %   
      B        :9 
 [


  
H'  <-< † %<-< -  ! 
  ,-  
     
 )    #…The 14th World

  

  Conference Earthquake Engineering, ? $
China.
‚ %
)
 
  
technique can be adopted to improve the seismic Y   ƒ !H3IY# „  
  

   
   
 )   <  
 ? _
 )
         :      
 -  B
 …
practice. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, ASCE,IU!"  #I‡II
Table 2: Computation of equivalent damping
& ":,<Y'/ !H333# Prestandard and
potential of the test frames
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Drift Energy dissipated, Effective stiffness, Equivalent damping, Buildings. "
 :   ,  
Eloop Keq
level

ßeq  < [-
Original  Original  Original  ' @-L!IKTU#Fibre Cements and Fibre
0.20 UK/ 16.12 HUK Y'K 6.17 8.46 Concretes.[    ; )E*HIK
0.25 21.57 &IK3 2.84 3.74 KHI 13.55 / I3H/H!H33K#„  ,B
0.35 43.50 KT&T HK& 4.34 KIU 13.81 ƒ 
 …Bureau of Indian Standards, New
0.50 UK3T 221.24 3.01 4.25 UKI 15.54 - 
0.75 IK'T/ 442.40 2.66 3.81 K/K 15.37
T &'/!H333#„B
 
  
1.00 354.30 1086.73 2.41 3.77 10.82 21.86
‡
B …Bureau of Indian Standards,
1.40 671.50 HIK/YT 2.13 YKU 11.78 20.81
; )- 
1.75 1030.23 3854.33 IKY 4.10 12.16 23.21
2.20 1562.57 6345.33 1.77 3.81 13.13 25.82
U L  C 
 O   !H33/# „ 
- ?  L, 
2.75 HY/K/T KY&/33 1.58 3.20 14.18 30.78
 "   )
…Structural
3.50 3661.00 IIKH333 1.36 2.06 15.68 37.14
Engineering and Mechanics, HY!'#'TK‡'KT
4.50 5616.00 I&HK&YY 1.11 1.40 17.80 38.87
6.00 17585.33 3KK 35.87 K C @ 
  E !H3II# „ 
     
   
Acknowledgments ? 
… Earthquake-Resistant Structures
- Design, Assessment and Rehabilitation, A.
%  
  
-    

, 
% * &3T‡&HU
%  !-%# 
 ƒ    
 !ƒ>#
    *)

 I3 ,   L B !H333# „      
Authors are thankful to the staff members of     ? 
   
@      + -     in the US.” US-Japan Symposium and Workshop
: %-   
 
     
""&
      State of Research and Practice.

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 ,H3I' KY

II ;
 B  -  
  -   : 
 -  … Engineering
!H33K#„     Structures,:  +
YH!II#Y'&U‡Y''T
 :     … Earthquake
IT  -  
  < !H3I&# „: 
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, YU!<#
of Steel Fiber Content on Behavior of Concrete
1563–1586.
?  ) 
 )   … American
IH >  , 
  -  !H3I'# Concrete Institute Structural Journal, III!'#
„:  + -
 1157–1166.
;
   "   

 
, - …The Indian Concrete IU %    -  
 ,
 <
Journal,UK!I#U3‡U/ !H3IY# „:   
  

E 
, B -  :

IY >  ,  -  
 
  
:  -     … * + 
!H3I&# „     ;
  
Structural Steel Conference, U‡II
Frame with Steel Fibers at Beam-column
L 
 B @   … Journal of IK % C  
 @  B !IKKH# „ 
Earthquake Engineering,IU!/#K3U‡KHU % B : < :9 * 
14. Pampanin, S., Calvi, G. M., and Moratti, M.   ? 
… 1st World Congress on
!H33H# „  ?     ?  Constructional Steel Design, Mexico.
  L - 
  ƒ +
… H3 X
 C ƒ 
 -  : !H33U#
12th European Conference on Earthquake „   L*    - 
Engineering, 1–10. :    [     
I' B  % 
 B   , !IKKH# Seismic  …Construction and Building Materials,
Design Of Reinforced Concrete And Masonry HH!Y#H/&‡HT/
Buildings.L[ †; )E*
HI Z E [  @ 
 , ƒ  !IKKK#
744.
„B 
   L*   
I/  -  
  -  !H3I3# „   :
  …Journal
    ;
   
 of Structural Engineering, ASCE, IH'!,#
  "  <   +* 255–264.

K& X  &' Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer