Pseudo Dynamic Testing of An RC Frame Retrofitted With Chevron Braces

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/241727519
Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame Retroﬁtted with Chevron

Braces
Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · May 2012

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2011.653297
CITATIONS READS
20 514
3 authors:
Ramazan Ozcelik Baris Binici

Akdeniz University Middle East Technical University
21 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS 115 PUBLICATIONS 1,474 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Özgür Kurç
Middle East Technical University
68 PUBLICATIONS 413 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Development of The Buckling Restrained Braces and Investigation of The Seismic Retrofitting of Deficient RC Structures with The
Buckling Restrained Braces View project
TÜBİTAK 112M820 View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ramazan Ozcelik on 06 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi]
On: 16 May 2012, At: 00:43
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame

Retrofitted with Chevron Braces
a b b
R. Ozcelik , B. Binici & O. Kurç
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya,
Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey
Available online: 15 May 2012
To cite this article: R. Ozcelik, B. Binici & O. Kurç (2012): Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame
Retrofitted with Chevron Braces, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16:4, 515-539
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.653297
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16:515–539, 2012
Copyright © A. S. Elnashai & N. N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2011.653297
Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame

Retrofitted with Chevron Braces
R. OZCELIK1 , B. BINICI2 , and O. KURÇ2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 00:43 16 May 2012
Two-story three-bay reinforced concrete frames with and without chevron brace was tested using
pseudo dynamic test method. The chevron braces were implemented to the interior span of the RC
frame. Chevron-braced frame was observed to be effective to control inter-story drift demands. Based
on the observed damage state and dynamic response of the test frames, performance states were
discussed for different scales of Duzce ground motions. The test results were compared with the
results of the nonlinear time history analysis. The analysis results were capable of estimating the
base shear capacity and displacement demands with a reasonable accuracy.
Keywords Chevron Brace; Seismic Retrofit; RC Frame; Pseudo Dynamic Test
1. Introduction
Many of the existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures in the seismic zones are vulnerable
to earthquakes in many countries. Recent earthquakes (Northridge 1994, Kobe 1994,
Kocaeli 1999, India 2001, Taiwan 2003, Pakistan 2005, Haiti 2011, L’Aquila 2009, Van
2011) revealed this fact in the last two decades. Seismic retrofit of deficient reinforced con-
crete residential buildings with cost effective strengthening methodologies is a crucial step
in earthquake risk reduction. The need to develop practical, rapid, safe, and economical
retrofitting techniques still remains to be an important task of structural and earthquake
engineering. Some of the available strengthening methods for RC frames are the addi-
tion of structural walls [Altın et al., 1992; Frosch et al., 1996; Canbay et al., 2003], use
of steel braces [Badoux and Jirsa, 1990; Bush et al., 1991; Yamamoto and Umemura,
1992; Yamamoto, 1993; Pincheira and Jirsa, 1995; Masri and Goel, 1996; Maheri and
Sabebi, 1997; Fukuyama and Sugano, 2000; Ghobarah and Abou-Elfath, 2001; Maheri and
Hadjipour, 2003; Molina et al., 2004; Bartera and Giacchetti, 2004; Ozcelik and Binici,
2006, 2008; Youssef et al., 2007; Mazzolani, 2008; Di Sarno and Manfredi, 2009] and
application of FRP diagonal braces [Erdem et al., 2006; Ozden et al., 2006; Binici et al.,
2007] integrated to the infill walls.
Steel braces are effective in providing lateral strength and stiffness to the frame
systems. However, they experience severe strength degradation as a result of tension-
compression cycles after brace buckling [Tremblay, 2002; Marino and Nakashima, 2006].
This effect is reflected in the seismic codes through the use of relatively low response
modification (or behavior) factors compared to those used for other structural systems.
Received 27 April 2011; accepted 18 December 2011.

Address correspondence to R. Ozcelik, Department of Civil Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya,
Turkey; E-mail: rozcelik@akdeniz.edu.tr
515
516 R. Ozcelik, B. Binici, and O. Kurç
On the other hand, it was suggested that the use of steel braces is very economical for low
rise frame structures for seismic resistance [Tremblay and Robert, 2001]. Noting the fact
that most of the deficient RC frames lack deformation capacity, it is a sound approach to
use steel braces in controlling deformation demands within the range of moderate ductility
demands for structures less than four stories [Tremblay and Robert, 2001]. Furthermore, the
use of steel braces for seismic retrofit is worth evaluating due to advantages such as addi-
tion of minimal mass to the structure, little disturbance on the functioning of the building,
and its ability to accommodate openings for architectural purposes. In light of the litera-
ture review conducted it was observed that there was very limited, if not scarce, number of
pseudo dynamic (PsD) experiments conducted on chevron braces strengthened RC frames.
The objective of this study is to investigate the performance of chevron braces when they
are used in the upgrade of deficient RC frames having low strength concrete, plain bars, and
insufficient confining steel. This way, possible design methods and limitations of chevron
braces in seismic retrofits of low- to mid-rise frames can be examined.
2. Experimental Program
2.1. RC Frame Details

The test frames were approximately 1/2 scaled versions of a typical frame in the prototype
RC frame building shown in Fig. 1. Both the reference frame with infill walls [Ozcebe et al.,
2009; Kurt, 2010; Kurt et al., 2011] and the chevron brace strengthened frame had the same
RC frame details. Both live (250 kg/m2 ) and dead (300 kg/m2 ) loads were considered in
the design of prototype building. These loads produced about 13 and 23% column axial load
ratio (ratio between applied load and column axial load capacity) at the first story exterior
and interior columns, respectively. These ratios were 8 and 15% for the exterior and inte-
rior columns of the second story, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the reinforced concrete member
details of the test specimens. The RC frames consisted of 150 mm × 150 mm columns with
four 8-mm diameter plain longitudinal reinforcement resulting in about 1.0% longitudinal
FIGURE 1 Plan view of prototype building and RC test frame (color figure available
online).
Seismic Retrofitting of Non-Ductile RC Frames 517
reinforcement ratio (Fig. 1). The column longitudinal reinforcement was welded to a 25-
mm thick base plate. Welding may affect the deformations due to bar slip and base cracking.
It is known from the behavior of the laterally loaded columns that cracks can occur at the
foundation column interfaces. The extension and slip of the longitudinal reinforcement
can produce additional fixed-end rotations [Saatcioglu and Ozcebe, 1987; Sezen, 2002]
due to strain penetration inside the foundation. Hence, the total lateral displacement of a
column are due to the bar slip base rotations (approximately 30%) and inelastic action at
plastic hinge region for a column failing in a flexural mode. Consequently, longitudinal
rebars without any embedment inside the foundation may prevent bar-slip induced rota-
tions while increasing flexure-induced plastic hinge rotations. Moreover, in order to install
the RC columns to the force transducers, it was necessary to sacrifice the continuity of
the longitudinal bars. The base plates were fixed to the concrete foundation with anchor
rods placed before concrete casting in the foundation for columns C2 and C3 (Fig. 1). The
base plates of columns C1 and C4 were connected to the force transducer designed by
Canbay et al. [2004]. 4-mm diameter plain bars were used for stirrups of both columns and
beams (Fig. 1). Although the modern seismic resistance design codes [Turkish Earthquake
Code (TEC), 2007; American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08), 2008] require stirrups to
be anchored using 135◦ hooks, 90◦ hooks were used for all columns and beams to sim-
ulate the detailing deficiency of the old construction practice. The stirrup spacing of the
columns was 100 mm in the plastic hinge regions to mimic insufficient confining steel
reinforcement details. Furthermore, violation of strong column-weak beam concept and
lack of stirrup at the beam-column joints were the other deficiencies of the test frames.
2.2. Instrumentation and Loading System

Figure 2 shows the instrumentations and loading systems. Two computer controlled actua-
tors were used to impose lateral displacement demands to the RC frame (Fig. 2a). Pulling
on the RC frame was conducted by the help of four φ30 mm-high strength rods. These rods
were fastened to the 25-mm thick steel plates which were connected to the RC frame ends
(Fig. 2a,c.f). 500-kN-load cells were placed between actuators and RC frame to measure
the lateral force at each story level. Two Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs)
were used to measure the floor displacement at first and second floors (Fig. 2f). Two LVDTs
placed 150 mm apart from each other within the potential plastic hinge zone for each col-
umn base were used to measure the column curvatures (Fig. 2b,d). Two in-house fabricated
transducers (Fig. 2e) were placed under the exterior columns (columns C1 and C4; see Fig.
1) to acquire exterior column base moment, shear and axial force. The details about the
transducer production and calibration are available elsewhere [Canbay et al., 2004]. Strain
gauges were installed at the midspan of the braces to monitor brace elongations and mea-
sured strain readings were used to estimate brace forces. The axial load on the column was
applied by using steel blocks (Fig. 2c). Locations of the steel blocks serving as gravity loads
are shown in Fig. 2. Infill walls and chevron braces were only placed in the interior span of
the frame hence steel blocks were not placed in the interior span of the first story. A steel
frame was constructed around the RC frame to act as a safety during a possible sudden
collapse (Fig. 2a). The steel blocks were connected to the steel frame with adequate slack,
which enabled the RC frame to experience displacements without any artificial restraint.
2.3. Material Properties

The concrete had a maximum aggregate size of 12 mm with a target 28-day cylinder com-
pressive strength of 7.5 MPa. This simulated the concrete strength commonly observed
FIGURE 2 Loading and instrumentation: (a) computer-controlled actuators; (b) and (d)
LVDTs at the bottom of the column; (c) steel blocks;, (e) transducer; (f) LVDTs at the story
level (color figure available online).
in the existing deficient structures of the Turkish RC building stock as reported by the
field investigations [Tezcan and Ipek, 1995; Dogangun, 2004; Cagatay, 2005]. The concrete
strength of the each specimen during the testing day of specimens is indicated in Table 1.
The brace members were square hollow structural steel (HSS). It was a compact section
and its dimensions were 70x70x4 mm (HSS-70). The mechanical properties of the longitu-
dinal and transverse reinforcement, gusset plate (10 mm thick), and HSS-70 by conducting
uniaxial tension tests according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E8
[2004] are given in Table 2.
TABLE 1 Concrete strength (MPa)

Chevron
Ground motion Reference 1. Story 2. Story
50% 7.4 7.6 7.5
100% 7.4 7.8 7.5
140% 7.4 7.8 7.5
180% – 8.0 7.7
220% – 8.0 7.9
TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of steel members

Yield strength Ultimate strength Max. elongation

Steel member (Mpa) (Mpa) (%)
φ8 330 465 30
φ4 270 374 23
Brace Member (HSS-70) 350 382 31
Gusset Plate 265 429 33
φ12 1075 1136 24
φ10 900 1008 25
2.4. Chevron Brace Strengthening

Figure 3 shows the reference and chevron braced test frames. The strengthening started
after the placement of the steel blocks to simulate the presence of dead weight on the
existing structures. Chevron braces had three types of connections namely brace to column
(Fig. 4a,d), brace to beam (Fig. 4b,e), and brace to joint (Fig. 4c,f).
2.4.1. Brace to Column Connection. Base Plate 1 for the brace connection was anchored
on the foundation inside the interior span (Fig. 4a,d). The anchorage holes were drilled into
the RC columns. These holes were cleaned up in three steps: (i) air blowing; (ii) brushing;
and (iii) again air blowing. Then, epoxy primer was injected into these holes followed by the
insertion of the anchorage rods. The diameter of the anchorage rods and holes were 10 and
12 mm, respectively, whereas the depth of anchorages was 120 mm from the member face.
The gaps between the rods and holes were filled with epoxy to obtain flat and smooth
FIGURE 3 Test setup: (a) reference frame and (b) braced frame (color figure available
online).
FIGURE 4 Connection details (unit is mm). (a) and (d): brace-to-column connection;
(b) and (e): brace-to-beam connection; (c) and (f) brace to joint connection (color figure
available online).
bonding surfaces. Plates 1 and 2 were welded prior to their placement to prevent adverse
effect of the welding heat on the epoxy. Next, a thin layer of repair putty approximately
2 mm was applied to obtain a smooth bonding surface on the face of the column and epoxy
was wiped on both face of Plate 2 and RC column member. Anchor rods were tightened to
provide successful connection between Plate 2 and RC column. Plate 1 was welded to the
Base Plate 1 in placed followed by the welding of the stiffeners and brace members (Fig.
4a,d). The weld sizes were determined by using requirements suggested in the Turkish
Standard TS 3357 [1979].
2.4.2. Brace to Beam Connection. The connection at the mid span of the beam was initiated
by drilling anchor holes for RC beam from top surface to bottom surfaces followed by
Plates 4 and 5 according to this anchorage holes (Fig. 4b,e). Plate 3 was welded to Plate
4 and then stiffeners were welded to both Plates 3 and 4. Repair putty was smeared to top
and bottom surface of the beam to ensure a smooth attachment surface. Finally, Plates 4 and
5 were tightened by using anchorage rods.
2.4.3. Brace to Joint Connection. Firstly, the anchorage holes were drilled into RC column.
Then, epoxy primer was injected into these holes followed by the insertion of the anchorage
rods. The depth of anchorages was 120 mm from the joint face. Plates 6 and Plate 7 were
welded prior to the installation of the system to prevent adversely effect of the head on the
epoxy (Fig. 4c,f). Putty was smeared on the RC column face to provide a smooth bonding
surface. Plates 4 and 5 were already in their places during the connection at the mid-span
of the beam. Plate 6 was tightened to RC column by using the anchors and welded to the
Plate 5 followed by welding of the stiffener and brace member.
3. Testing Procedure
The continuous pseudo dynamic testing method proposed by Molina et al. [1999] was
utilized for the PsD experiments. PsD experiments were conducted by solving the following
equation of motion:
M × a i + C × v i + Ri = −M × l × ag i (1)
where M is the mass matrix, C is the viscous damping matrix, Ri is the restoring force
vector, ai , vi are the nodal acceleration and velocity vectors, respectively, l is the influence
vector, and ag i is the ground acceleration at time step i. A 2 × 2 lumped diagonal mass
matrix was used for M, where the masses of the first and second stories were 5,000 and
7,000 kg, respectively, in accordance with the mass of steel block used to apply the dead
weight. In this way, the weight applied to create the loads on members and the mass causing
inertia are compatible. Tests were conducted about 1,000 times slower than the real time
earthquake duration. Hence, steel blocks did not create any inertial effects. The hysteretic
damping of the structure was simulated by the physical testing of the specimens, therefore
the viscous damping matrix was assumed to be zero. This assumption is consistent with
Molina et al. [1999, 2011]. The equation of motion was solved by explicit Newmark time
integration and corresponding displacement command was sent to the actuators. An actual
ground motion was used to simulate the hazard levels that could be expected for the proto-
type building. Hence, for the PsD tests north-south component of 7.1 moment magnitude
1999 Duzce ground motion was used. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) of Duzce was
scaled at five different levels from low to high seismic intensity. 50%, 100%, 140%, 180%,
and 220% PGA scaling was used unless a component and structural failure was observed.
Such an incremental dynamic testing was preferred in order to clearly observe the damage-
deformation relations in the frames. With the employed scaling for 50%, 100%, and 140%,
the following response targets were aimed based on the estimated initial period of the
reference frame.
a. 50% Duzce: Spectral acceleration (Sa) value of the 50% Duzce earthquake is similar
to the base shear capacity of the reference frame at the structure’s fundamental
period. Hence, it is expected that structure will remain below yielding considering
the presence of infill walls [Kurt, 2010].
b. 100% Duzce: The use of actual Duzce ground motion of 1999 Duzce earthquake
represents a realistic hazard level of a seismically active region.
c. 140% Duzce: This hazard level may correspond to a severe and rare earthquake.
The 140% scaling corresponds to an Sa, which is roughly equal to the maximum
Sa value (1 g) used in the Turkish Earthquake Design Spectrum for Zone 1 on firm
soil conditions near the fundamental period of the structure [Kurt, 2010].
d. Similarly, based on the identified period (between 0.21 and 0.23 s) obtained from
the 140% Duzce test (see Sec. 4.4), Sa demand of the Duzce motion and Turkish
Earthquake Design Spectrum for Zone 1 on firm soil conditions was about 1g for
the braced frame. For the 180% and 220% Duzce test, it was aimed to increase the
Sa value to 1.4 g and 1.8 g in a gradual manner.
Figure 5 displays acceleration time series of the motion and pseudo acceleration spectrum
of the motion,
√ respectively. The original ground motions were compressed in time by a
factor of 1 2 to include scale effects with respect to similitude law [Bertero et al., 1984;
Elkhoraibi and Mosalam, 2007].
4. Test Results
Table 3 presents the base shear force, base shear ratio (ratio of the base shear capacity and
frame weight), maximum lateral displacement demand, and inter-story drift ratio (IDR).
The IDR can be defined as the ratio between relative story displacements to the story height.
In addition, plastic rotation demands at the bottom of the first story columns are presented
in Table 4. The physical damage correlated with IDR of the reference and braced frame
is presented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Figure 8 indicates force-deformation response
for reference frame and chevron braced. The yield displacement, y , was found by extend-
ing a line from the origin and passing through 75% of the ultimate lateral strength of the
reference and braced frame. Figure 9 presents the envelope response of the both frames.
Figures 10 and 11 show the moment curvature and moment interaction relation obtained
from the force transducers and LVDTs at the bottom of the columns C1 and C4, respec-
tively. Measurements were taken within the plastic hinge zone from the bottom 30 mm in
order to obtain pure flexural deformations of the potential plastic hinge zone. In this way,
the deformation of the bottom 30 mm was excluded from the measurements due to the
presence of the welded reinforcement in this region. Moment-curvature relations obtained
from sectional analysis under constant axial load (axial load ratios were 5 and 18%) is
also indicated in these figures. These axial load ratios in fact correspond to the axial load
bounds measures from the force transducers are also available on the interaction diagrams
(Fig. 11).
FIGURE 5 Spectrum of scaled ground motions and ground acceleration time history
(color figure available online).
TABLE 3 Summary of test results for reference and chevron-braced frame

Maximum displacement demand (mm) Maximum inter-story drift ratio (%)
Base shear force
(kN) Base shear ratio (%) 1. Story 2. Story 1. Story 2. Story
Ground motion Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron
50% Düzce 60.4 39.9 50.3 33.3 15.0 1.66 23.0 2.45 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.1
100% Düzce 67.9 89.1 56.6 74.3 35.0 4.69 49.0 7.29 1.8 0.2 1.1 0.2
140% Düzce 54.5 179.0 45.4 149.2 85.3 13.18 93.8 22.06 4.5 0.7 1.4 0.6
180% Düzce – 206.1 – 171.7 – 18.17 – 34.92 – 0.9 – 1.1
220% Düzce – 219.4 – 182.8 19.76 – 54.85 1.0 – 2.7
523
524
TABLE 4 Plastic rotation and curvature ductility of the reference and braced frame
Column plastic rotation demands

Column C1 Column C2 Column C2 Column C4
Plastic rotation (θp ) Plastic rotation (θp ) Plastic rotation (θp ) Plastic rotation (θp )
Curvature ductility (μφ ) Curvature ductility (μφ ) Curvature ductility (μφ ) Curvature ductility (μφ )
Ground motion Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron Reference Chevron
50% Düzce 0 0 0.003 0 0.001 0 0 0
0.3 0 1.9 0 1.5 0 0.6 0
100% Düzce 0.004 0 0.006 0 0.008 0 0.006 0
2.0 0 2.8 0 3.5 0 2.6 0
140% Düzce 0.038 0 0.055 0.011 0.025 0 0.036 0
9.4 0 16.9 4.4 8.3 0 11.5 0
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
180% Düzce 0 0.013 0.005 0
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
0 4.9 2.4 0
φ: curvature determined from bottom of the columns; μφ : curvature ductility (ratio between ultimate curvature (φ u ) and yield curvature (φ y )); θp : plastic
rotation (determined as (φ u -φ y ) × lp ), lp ; plastic hinge length, 150 mm (this length is the monitored length by the LVDTs for curvature estimation at
the bottom of the column, and is consistent with the plastic hinge length proposal of Priestley and Park, 1987); ∗ : not tested due to severe damage state.
FIGURE 6 Physical damage observed during all tests for the reference frame (color figure
available online).
4.1. Reference Frame

The reference frame test results were presented in detail previously [Ozcebe et al., 2009;
Kurt, 2010; Kurt et al., 2011], hence a brief summary of results will be provided herein to
serve as a basis of comparison with the chevron-braced strengthened frame test. The max-
imum base shear forces of the reference frame were 60.4 kN for 50% Duzce, 67.9 kN for
100% Duzce, and 54.5 kN for 140% Duzce test. The maximum IDRs of the first and second
story were 0.7 and 0.6% for 50% Duzce, 1.8 and 1.1% for 100% Duzce, and 4.5 and 1.4%
for 140% Duzce test. The damage observed during the tests is shown in Fig. 6. During the
50% Duzce test, cracks occurred at maximum moment regions of the first-story columns
and cracks were observed at the infill wall-frame boundaries and along diagonal. Besides
such cracking, only minor diagonal cracking damage was observed. Significant damage
was observed at 100% Duzce test. The main damage was the concrete crushing at the base
of interior columns followed by longitudinal bar buckling. In addition, significant diago-
nal cracking along the diagonals of the first story infill wall were observed. The lateral
strength of the test frame was sustained up to about 50 mm of top displacement. Curvature
measurements indicate that inelastic deformation occurred on all column bases of the first
story (Table 4). Severe pinching of the load-deformation curve occurred due to opening and
closing of diagonal cracks on the first story infill wall (Fig. 6). At the 140% Duzce test, the
maximum IDR of the first and second story was 4.5% and 1.8%, respectively. This indi-
cated the formation of a soft story. Lateral strength of the frame dropped to about 30% of
its lateral strength approaching similar to the bare frame capacity. The infill wall damage in
the form of diagonal cracking and separation of plaster from infill wall surface was the main
reason of the severe decrease of the lateral strength. In addition, at the top and bottom plas-
tic hinge regions of the interior columns, longitudinal bar buckling was observed (Fig. 6).
The test results indicated that the infill wall had significant effects on the seismic behav-
ior of the test frame. The fundamental period of the first mode of the test frame without
considering the infill walls was computed as 0.64 s using the numerical model explained
in Sec. 5. On the other hand, the fundamental period was identified as 0.16 s according
to the test results (Sec. 4.4). By using the two periods and the design response spectrum
(TEC-2007 Zone 1) given in Fig. 5, the Sa demands can be calculated as 1.0 g and 0.95 g
FIGURE 7 Physical damage observed during the all test for braced frame (color figure
available online).
for the frames with and without infill wall, respectively. This shows that the lateral load
demand that would be calculated for design purposes is similar for the two frames. On the
contrary, the infill wall had beneficial effect in increasing the base shear capacity of the test
frame. The design base shear capacity of the test frame (20 kN) was as low as about three
times when compared to the measured base shear capacity (67.9 kN). More importantly,
the infill wall was observed to result in additional damage on the boundary columns (in the
FIGURE 8 Force-deformation response for chevron-braced frame (color figure available

online).
FIGURE 9 Envelope response of the test frames (color figure available online).
form of shear cracks in the columns and bulging deformation of columns, Fig. 6) during
the 100 and 140% Duzce tests. A direct comparison of displacement ductility between the
frame with and without infill walls is not possible due to the absence of a bare frame test
specimen. However, a ductility-based comparison was attempted by using the pushover
analysis results of the bare frame as shown in Fig. 14 (Sec. 5). The results reveal that the
displacement ductility (μd is defined as the ratio of the top story displacement at 15% lat-
eral capacity drop to the top-story yield displacement as defined previously in Sec. 4) of
the RC frame without infill walls (μd =3, see Fig. 14) based on a pushover analysis is sim-
ilar to the displacement ductility of the test frame with infill walls (μd =3.1, see Fig. 8).
However, such similarities of Sa demands and displacement ductilities for the RC frames
with and without infill walls can not be generalized as they are specific to the frame under
investigation. It should be noted that the presence of infill walls substantially change the
base shear capacity, fundamental period of oscillation and failure modes of an RC frame as
evidenced from the test results.
4.2. Chevron-Braced Frame

There was no damage on braces, gusset plates, and RC members during the 50% Duzce test.
The braced frame remained elastic during this test. As presented in Table 4 and Fig. 10, no
FIGURE 10 Moment-curvature response of columns C1 and C4 for reference and braced

frame (color figure available online).
plastic rotations were recorded at the column ends. The base shear measured during this
test was about 39.9 kN. The maximum top displacement and IDR of the braced frame were
2.45 mm and 0.1%, respectively. Flexural cracking having width slightly less then 0.5 mm
were observed at the bottom of the interior columns C2 and C3 at the 100% Duzce test
(Fig. 7). During this test, no other damage on braces, gusset plates, and RC joints and
members were observed. The base shear measured during this test was about 89.1 kN.
The maximum top displacement and IDR of the braced frame were 7.29 mm and 0.2%,
respectively. At the 140% Duzce test, a number additional crack occurred along the first-
story interior columns C2 and C3 height. In addition, limited numbers of minor cracks were
observed at the RC joint and slab. As seen in Table 4, plastic hinging occurred at one of the
first story columns, where all others remained elastic during the test. The maximum base
shear force demand measured during this test was about 179.0 kN. It can be observed that
the base shear force demand is approximately doubled upon increasing the ground motion
scale from 100% to 140%. This phenomenon can be explained by examining the response
spectrum at structure’s fundamental period. The identified periods discussed in detail later
(Sec. 4.4) for 100% and 140% Duzce ground motion levels at the peak base shear demands
are about 0.18 and 0.22 s, respectively. In Fig. 5, it can be observed that the Sa of 140%
Duzce (1.05 g) is about two times that of 100% Duzce motion (0.55 g), resulting in twice the
force demand. The maximum top displacement and IDR of the braced frame were 22.1 mm
and 0.7%, respectively. Severe damage in the form of longitudinal bar buckling occurred at
the bottom of the column C3 at the 180% Duzce test. However, the base shear capacity was
unaffected. The base shear force demand measured during this test was about 206.1 kN.
FIGURE 11 Moment interaction response of columns C1 and C4 for reference and braced
frame (color figure available online).
The maximum top displacement and IDR of the braced frame were 34.92 mm and 1.1%,
respectively. The 220% Duzce test was terminated at 2.5 s because of the failure of column
C3 (Fig. 7). In addition to this column failure, brace buckling was initiated at this test. The
lateral strength dropped suddenly to about half of the maximum lateral capacity observed
during the test. The maximum base shear force demand of the braced frame was 219.4 kN.
The maximum IDR was about 1.0 and 2.7% for the first and second story, respectively. The
reason of such high IDR was the excessive damage on the RC columns. The main reason
of the column damage can be expressed as follows. The braces on the second story had
simultaneous tension and compression forces. When the second story brace was subjected
to compression, the vertical component of that brace produced high axial load demand on
the RC column C3. When the vertical total force on the column exceeded the axial load
capacity of the column C3, a sudden failure occurred as seen in Fig. 7.
4.3. Comparison of Reference and Braced Frame

Results summarized in Table 3 show that base shear capacity of the chevron brace retrofitted
specimen was about 3 times that of the reference frame. The maximum IDR at the end of
140% Duzce test was about 4.5% and 0.7% for the reference and retrofitted specimens,
respectively. Figure 9 compares the load deformation envelope results for the incremental
dynamic testing of the two frames. It can be observed that the reference frame exhibited
some ductility followed by a sudden loss of strength due to infill wall failure. Similarly,
the chevron brace retrofitted frame exhibited nearly elastic behavior up to 220% Duzce
ground motion. Table 4 compares the plastic rotation and curvature ductility values mea-
sured in the experiments. It was observed that plastic rotation at the column bases occurred
on all scale levels for the reference frame. Column base plastic rotations, however, were
apparent during 140% Duzce motion and afterwards for the retrofitted frame. This is an
indication of chevron braces relieving the demand on columns while effectively controlling
lateral deformations. The column failure in the 220% Duzce testing of the retrofitted frame
showed that failure mode was also brittle upon retrofitting. Hence, it can be concluded
that the main premise of chevron brace retrofits is the strength increase and drift control.
These two benefits can certainly be useful in economically retrofitting low rise (less than
4 stories as mentioned by Tremblay and Robert, 2001, for steel structures) deficient RC
frame structures having members with already low deformability due to existing deficien-
cies. For more ductile behavior with braces, buckling restrained braces, dissipative braces,
shear links, or panels can be investigated [Ghobarah and Abou-Elfath, 2001; Molina et al.,
2004; Mazzolani, 2008; Di Sarno and Manfredi, 2009].

Based on observed damage, engineering judgment, and obtained qualitative engineer-
ing demand parameters, the damage states of the test frames are as follows. The reference
frame sustained minimal damage (flexural cracking and infill wall diagonal cracking) dur-
ing the 50% Duzce test. The structure remains functional and it is observed to satisfy the
immediate occupancy damage level. The 100% Duzce test caused significant damage in
the first-story infill wall and column, however the load carrying capacity of the structure
was maintained. Hence, the deformation demands were met without any loss of capac-
ity. Structure can be called to satisfy the life safety performance criterion. Final 140%
Duzce motion for the reference frame brought the structure to a near collapse situation.
A soft story has formed, the infill wall was severely damaged, it was vulnerable to out
of plane collapse, and longitudinal bar buckling was observed for the first story interior
columns C2 and C3. Hence, the structure can be tagged as a near collapse stage. The
chevron brace retrofitted specimen sustained no visible damage during 50%, 100%, and
140% Duzce tests. Minor plastic rotations were measured at the column C3 base during
the 140% Duzce motion without calling for any immediate repairing. Hence, all the struc-
ture satisfied immediate occupancy level of damage. 180% Duzce test, on the other hand,
resulted in increase of column base plastic rotations accompanied by the visual damage
of cover spalling and longitudinal bar buckling. Although, no significant reduction in lat-
eral strength was observed, the serious visual damage requires tagging the structure with
life safe performance level. The 220% Duzce motion, on the other hand, exhibited all the
essentials of a near collapse situation, i.e., loss of lateral load carrying capacity due to a
sudden brittle failure.
4.4. Identified Dynamic Properties of the Test Frames

Time-dependent dynamic property, mainly the period and equivalent viscous damping of
the test frame, is determined according to the procedure proposed by Molina et al. [1999].
In a PsD experiment, the equation of motion was modelled at discrete time intervals as in
Eq. (2):
Ma (n) + r(n) = f (n), (2)
where M is the mass matrix of the structure, a(n) and f(n) are the acceleration and external
force for the nth time interval, and r(n) is the restoring force that represents the struc-
ture’s response to the corresponding displacement value. For a dynamic system modelled
by equivalent viscous damping approach, the restoring force at any time step can be thus
expressed as:
T
KT
u (n)
T
v (n)
T
1 . C = rT (n) , (3)
oT
where K and C are the secant stiffness and damping matrices, u and v are the displacement
and velocities at floor levels, and o is the offset force. It can easily be shown that Eq. (3) can
be solved for K and C using the data obtained at N time intervals as long as N > 2 × ndof
+1. By selecting a time window containing steps not less than N, least square solutions is
obtained for K and C. By using equations proposed by Molina et al. [1999], one can then
extract the frequency and damping coefficient by solving the general eigenvalue problem
defined in Eqs. (4) and (5):

K 0 C M
+λ φ=0 (4)
0 −M M 0

∗
λi , λi = wi ζi ± j 1 − ζi .
2
(5)
In Eqs. (4) and (5), j2 = −1, λ, and φ are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the system,
wi is the natural frequency, ζ i is the equivalent viscous damping ratio (or simply damping
ratio) of the ith mode. While computing the dynamic parameters, a moving window size
with 800 data points (corresponds to ∼1.2 s) and 50 data point interval (∼0.08 s) was
utilized. For the response of the reference frame under 140% Duzce motion, the size of
the window was increased to 1,500 (corresponds to∼2.25 s) data points to account for the
period elongation. Figure 12 presents the variation of fundamental period and damping
ratios in time along with the average values. The initial period of the reference and braced
frame (actual calculated value at the beginning of the ground motion) was about 0.16 and
0.13 s, respectively. Since the brace members remained elastic during 50%, 100%, and
140% Duzce tests, the variation of fundamental period was relatively insignificant. The
limited elongation of the fundamental period in the retrofitted frame was due to cracks
observed at RC columns and beams (Fig. 7). On the other hand, period of the reference
frame was closely related with the damage on RC members and infill wall. During the 50%
Duzce test, due to interface cracks on the infill wall and flexural cracking of the RC frame
members (these damage reduced the stiffness of the reference frame), the period elongated
to about 0.53 s. At the 100% Duzce test, further damage, infill wall diagonal cracks, resulted
in elongation of the period of the reference frame to about 0.86 s. Finally, heavy damage at
the infill wall and first-story RC columns as seen in Fig. 6 caused a fundamental period as
high as 2.6 s.
The identified damping ratio of the reference frame during the 50% Duzce test was
computed as about 7% (Fig. 12), which can be attributed to internal friction mechanisms.
As the scale of the earthquake increased, the input energy was dissipated in the form of
excessive damage to the first-story infill wall and RC columns of the reference frame result-
ing in a higher identified damping ratio (i.e., between 10–20% at 100% Duzce and 20–75%
at 140% Duzce tests). The spikes observed during 25–30 s of the ground motions corre-
sponding to the complete loss of infill wall lateral strength and formation of the soft story
mechanism. On the other hand, the identified damping ratio remained between 5–20% dur-
ing the ground motions for the chevron brace retrofitted frame. Some erroneous values of
identified damping especially between 8–10 s and around 15–19 s are thought to be due
FIGURE 12 (a) Identified period; (b) identified damping ratio; and (c) calculated acceler-
ation of the reference and braced frames (color figure available online).
to the numerical errors in low amplitude regions of force and displacement cycles. Since
very light damage was observed in the braced frame, the major source of damping can be
attributed mainly to the uplift of the gusset plates during displacement excursions.
4.5. Floor Accelerations

While drift demand was reduced through retrofitting, the total floor acceleration (ground
acceleration plus floor acceleration with respect to the base) demand is another important
factor that must be considered as it affects the response of non-structural elements and
occupants of a building. Figure 12 presents the total accelerations obtained from the exper-
iments for the two specimens during the 50%, 100%, and 140% Duzce motions to provide
a uniform basis of comparisons. The maximum total acceleration that was observed at the
reference specimen was equal to 5.73 m/s2 (0.58 g) for the 50% Duzce motion. On the
other hand, the total accelerations of the retrofitted specimen was about 0.6 times of this
value (0.34 g for chevron-braced frame). During the first 3 s of the 100% Duzce test, the
maximum total floor acceleration of the reference frame was 7.68 m/s2 (0.78 g) but after
the first 3 s, the total floor accelerations were much smaller, the maximum being 4 m/s2
due to period elongation caused by the bar buckling and diagonal cracks at the infill wall.
When 100% Duzce motion was applied to the braced frame, the total floor accelerations
were higher, maximum being 8.60 m/s2 and high acceleration continued to occur after the
first 3 s. At the 140% Duzce test, the observed maximum total acceleration of the braced
frame was equal to 16.65 m/s2 (1.7 g), where the maximum total floor acceleration of the
reference frame was about 4.8 m/s2 . The reduction in the total acceleration of the reference
frame in the 140 % Duzce motion compared to the 100% Duzce motion can be attributed
to high damping ratio and the formation of soft-story acting as an isolator for the sys-
tem. Conversely, chevron brace retrofit drastically increased total floor accelerations. Thus,
there may be a need for proper securing of the non structural components in a building
upon retrofitting.
5. Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Nonlinear time history analyses (NTHAs) of the reference and braced frames were per-
formed utilizing Opensees Simulation Platform [Mazzoni et al., 2009] to observe the
ability of estimating the dynamic response of the test frames. While more details about
the modeling strategy of the reference frame are available in elsewhere [Akpınar, 2010;
Kurt et al., 2011; Akpınar et al., 2011], a brief summary is mentioned in this study.
Modeling strategy and material models employed for the NTHA of the reference and
braced frames are summarized in Fig. 13. Force-based fiber frame elements (nonlinear-
BeamColumn) were utilized to model RC beams and columns. For the material model
used for beam and column concrete, confined and unconfined concrete models proposed
by Kent and Park [1971] with plastic offset rules proposed by Karsan and Jirsa [1969]
FIGURE 13 Modeling strategy of reference and chevron-braced frames (color figure

available online).
were used for NTHA (Fig. 13). The infill walls were modelled as truss members to simu-
late strut actions. To mimic the infill wall damage as observed during the test, an element
removal algorithm was used. In this algorithm, when the failure strain of the diagonal strut
is exceeded in one direction, the struts in both directions are removed from the model
[Talaat and Mosalam, 2009]. For RC columns, second-order effects were also taken into
account. Linear geometric transformation was used for RC beams due to insignificant effect
of geometric nonlinearity. Longitudinal bar buckling was modelled by employing the back-
bone curve of Dhakal and Maekawa [2002]. Force deformation relation of brace members
were modeled according to the ASCE/SEI 41-06 [2007] along with American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) [2005] recommendation for the brace tension and compression
capacities (Fig. 13).
LVDTs placed at brace-to-column connection locations indicated that significant uplift
(Fig. 13g) at the bottom of the first-story brace gusset plates occurred. This uplift was con-
sidered in the analysis to mimic the stiffness of the braced frame correctly. Figure 13h
indicates the calculated brace force from average strain readings and uplift deformations.
The brace base uplift movement was taken into account by using elastic springs between
column base and brace elements. Spring stiffness values employed for the tests calibrated
according to the experimental results are shown in Fig. 13h for each ground motion. In addi-
tion, the NTHA of the model without spring model was also analyzed in order to compare
the modeling of gusset plate uplift. Successive time history analysis was performed similar
to the performed experimental sequence. In between each time history analysis’s, appro-
priate stiffness values for the uplift springs were assigned. A Rayleigh damping of 2% with
considering the stiffness and mass-proportional damping factors was used for all NTHAs.
The Newmark integration was used for the NTHAs.
Figure 14 shows that both simulations were capable of tracing the displacement-time
and load-deformation response of the test specimens with a reasonable accuracy. Table 5
indicates the calculated errors of the maximum base shear and story displacements.
For the 50% Duzce test, the initial stiffness of the numerical simulation results was
observed to agree well with that observed in the test. The base shear force was estimated
with an error less than 8%. Likewise, numerical simulation was able to estimate the story
displacement well for both reference and braced frames with an error less than 14 and 10%,
respectively. The numerical simulation of both reference and braced frame were effective
to estimate the base shear force (an error less than 10%) but it was not very successful in
simulating the story displacement of the reference frame (an error about 25%) at the 100%
Duzce test. The reason of this mismatch can be attributed to the lack of detailed modeling
of the complicated damage process in the infill walls during the reversed cyclic displace-
ment excursions. A thorough calibration of the cyclic rules for the diagonal strut model
was not performed. Instead, a simple engineering model which was originally proposed for
modeling concrete was employed. Considering the possible uncertainties in the earthquake
engineering (ground motions, cyclic material behavior, etc.), the results can be accepted to
be somewhat at the limits of engineering accuracy according to the authors’ opinion. At the
140% Duzce test, the base shear force and story displacement estimations were quite well
by using element removal approach for the reference frame [Akpınar, 2010; Kurt et al.,
2011; Akpınar et al., 2011]. In addition, a small error (less than 7%) was obtained for
the base shear estimation of the braced frame analysis. The story displacement estima-
tion of the reference and braced frame had an error of less than 4 and 17% compared to
the measured test maximum displacement, respectively. It was observed that using ele-
ment removal algorithm during the numerical simulation of the reference frame provided
extremely close results with respect to the test results [Akpınar, 2010; Kurt et al., 2011;
Akpınar et al., 2011]. For the 180% Duzce test, the base shear force of the braced frame
FIGURE 14 Results of nonlinear time history analysis, top displacement vs. time, and
base shear vs. top displacement (color figure available online).
was estimated with an error about 5%. The highest error (30.3%) was observed during the
estimation of the story displacements at this scaled test. The main reason of this error was
the brace buckling which was not observed during the test. Obviously, such damage was not
visually observed in the tests. However, since ASCE/SEI 41-06 [2007] recommendations
were employed for brace modeling, such conservative estimates of brace deformations are
expected.
6. Conclusion
The response of deficient two-story three-bay RC frame strengthening with chevron braces
is examined by conducting pseudo dynamic test procedures. The following conclusions can
be drawn based on the observed response of test specimen
536
TABLE 5 Results of the analysis
Reference / Brace frame Reference / Brace frame
Ground motion Test max. base shear Analysis max. Test max. disp. Analysis max.
scale demand (kN) base shear (kN) Error (%) Story demand (mm) disp. (mm) Error (%)
50% 60.35 / 39.94 55.8 / 38.2 7.54 / 4.3 1 15.02 / 1.66 17.01 / 1.50 13.31 / 9.4
2 23.01 / 2.45 24.27 / 2.39 5.46 / 2.9
100% 62.24 / 89.13 57.67 / 97.7 7.34 / 9.6 1 31.22 / 4.69 23.25 / 4.47 25.52 / 4.6
2 47.98 / 7.29 36.22 / 7.18 24.51 / 1.5
140% 54.54 / 178.98 55.09 / 166.8 1.01 / 6.8 1 85.34 / 13.18 88.30 / 15.35 3.48 / 16.4
2 93.84 / 22.06 92.49 / 19.96 1.44 / 9.5
180% — / 206.06 — / 195.9 — / 4.9 1 — / 18.17 — / 23.67 — / 30.3
2 — / 34.92 — / 30.26 — / 13.4
● Chevron braces can increase the stiffness, lateral load, and energy dissipation capac-
ity of the deficient RC frame significantly. Hence, it can be stated that these systems
are possible candidates for retrofitting of deficient RC frame buildings.
● The IDR was controlled by the brace members effectively. However, the failure
mode of the retrofitted frame was brittle as a result of severe RC column damage.
Current results suggest that chevron brace can be used for merely displacement con-
trol and strength increase in the structural retrofit of weak and brittle RC frame
systems.
● Proposed modeling strategy was successful in simulating the dynamic test spec-
imens with a reasonable engineering accuracy. Results show that incorporating
events such as sudden infill wall failure, base uplift of braces, and brace buckling
models may have significantly effect on response results.
● Based on Duzce ground motion, the braced frame was within the immediate occu-
pancy performance level for 50, 100, and 140% Duzce test, life safety performance
level for 180% Duzce test, and beyond the collapse prevention performance level
for 220% Duzce test. This damage status was a significant improvement over the
damage levels observed in reference frame.
● Presence of infills had significant effect on the seismic behavior of the reference test
frame. The infill wall effect may be beneficial to consider during the design.
● This test results indicated that chevron braces were effective to control the IDRs.
Hence, the use of chevron brace systems seems to be effective, rapid, and economical to
upgrade the non ductile RC structures. Its application can also be appropriate for low- to
mid-rise building retrofits with architectural concerns that do not allow the use of other
retrofit methods such as post-installed structural walls. In the authors’ opinion, the num-
ber of brace retrofitting applications should increase especially for developing countries in
seismically vulnerable regions.
Acknowledgments
The research discussed in this article was conducted at Middle East Technical University
(METU)-Structural Mechanics Laboratory. Funding provided by TÜBİTAK (Project no:
106M493) and ÖYP program (supported by Akdeniz University) are greatly appreciated.
References
ACI [2008] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Farmington Hills,
MI.
AISC [2005] Steel Construction Manual (13th Edition), American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) Inc., Chicago.
Akpınar, U. [2010] “Nonlinear analysis of RC frames retrofitted with structural steel elements,” MS
Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Akpınar, U., Özçelik, R., Binici, B. [2011] “The effect of infill wall on seismic performance of
deficient RC structures,” Compdyn 2011 III Eccomas Thematic Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Corfu, Greece.
Altın, S., Ersoy, U., and Tankut, T. [1992] “Hysteretic response of reinforced-concrete infilled
frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 118(8), 2133–2150.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [2004] “E 8M standard test methods of tension
testing of metallic materials,” West Conshohocken, PA, United States.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) [2007] “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings,”
Report No.ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA.
Badoux, M. and Jirsa, J. O. [1990] “Steel bracing of RC frames for seismic retrofitting,” Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 116(1), 55–74.
Bartera, F. and Giacchetti, R. [2004] “Steel dissipating braces for upgrading existing building
frames,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60(19), 751–769.
Bertero, V. V., Aktan, A. E., Charney, F. A., and Sause. R. [1984] “Earthquake simulation tests and
associated studies of a 1=5th-scale model of a 7-storey reinforced concrete test structure,” Report
No. UCB=EERC-84=05, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Binici, B., Ozcebe, G., and Ozcelik, R. [2007] “Analysis and design of FRP composites for seismic
retrofit of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames,” Composites Part B: Engineering 38(5),
575–583.
Bush, T. D., Jones, E. A., and Jirsa, J. O. [1991] “Behavior of RC frame strengthened using structural
steel bracing,” Journal of Structural Engineering 117(4), 1115–1126.
Canbay, E., Ersoy, U., and Ozcebe, G. [2003] “Contribution of reinforced concrete infills to seismic
behavior of structural systems,” Structural Journal ACI 100(5), 637–643.
Canbay, E., Ersoy, U., and Tankut, T. [2004] “A three-component force transducer for RC structural
testing,” Engineering Structures 26(2), 257–265.
Çağatay, I. H. [2005] “Experimental evaluation of buildings damaged in recent earthquakes in
Turkey,” Engineering Failure Analysis 12(3), 440–452.
Dhakal, R. P. and Maekawa, K. [2002] “Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement,” Journal
of Structural Engineering 128(9), 1139–1147.
Di Sarno, L. and Manfredi, G. [2009] “Seismic retrofitting of existing RC frames with buckling
restrained braces,” ATC & SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing
Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, pp. 741–752.
Doğangün, A. [2004] “Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl
Earthquake in Turkey,” Engineering Structures 26(6), 841–856.
Elkhoraibi, T. and Mosalam, K. M. [2007] “Towards error-free hybrid simulation using mixed
variables,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 36(11), 1497–1522.
Erdem, I., Akyuz, U., Ersoy, U., and Ozcebe, G. [2006] “An experimental study on two different
strengthening techniques for RC frames,” Engineering Structures 28(13), 1843–1851.
Frosch, R. J., Li, W., Jirsa, J. O., and Kreger, M. E. [1996] “Retrofit of non-ductile moment-resisting
frames using precast infill wall panels,” Earthquake Spectra 12(4), 741–760.
Fukuyama, H. and Sugano, S. [2000] “Japanese seismic rehabilitation of concrete buildings after the
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake,” Cement and Concrete Composites 22(1), 59–79.
Ghobarah, A. and Abou-Elfath, H. [2001] “Rehabilitation of a reinforced concrete frame using
eccentric steel bracing,” Engineering Structures 23(7), 745–755.
Karsan, I. D. and Jirsa, J. O. [1969] “Behavior of concrete under compressive loading,” Journal of
Structural Division ASCE 95(ST12), 2543–2563.
Kent, D. C. and Park, R. [1971] “Flexural members with confined concrete,” Journal of Structures
Division ASCE 97(ST7), 1969–1990.
Kurt, E. [2010] “Investigation of strengthening techniques using pseudo-dynamic testing,” MS
Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kurt, E., Binici, B., Kurc, O., Canbay, E., Akpınar, U., and Ozcebe, G. [2011] “Seismic performance
of a reinforced concrete test frame with infill walls,” Earthquake Spectra 27(3), 817–834.
Maheri, M. R. and Hadjipour, A. [2003] “Experimental investigation and design of steel brace
connection to RC frame,” Engineering Structures 25(13), 1707–1714.
Maheri, M. R. and Sahebi, A. [1997] “Use of steel bracing in reinforced concrete frames,”
Engineering Structures 19(12), 1018–1024.
Marino, E. M. and Nakashima, M. [2006] “Seismic performance and new design procedure for
chevron-braced frames,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(4), 433–452.
Masri, A. C. and Goel, S. C. [1996] “Seismic design and testing of an RC slab-column frame
strengthened by steel bracing,” Earthquake Spectra 12(4), 645–666.
Mazzolani, F. M. [2008] “Innovative metal systems for seismic upgrading of RC structures,” Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 64, 882–895.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, H., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. [2010] OpenSees Manual, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkely, CA; http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Molina, F. J., Magonette, G., Pegon, P., and Zapico, B., [2011] “Monitoring Damping in Pseudo-
Dynamic Tests,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15, 877–900.
Molina, F. J., Pegon, P., and Verzeletti, G. [1999] “Time-domain identification from seismic pseu-
dodynamic test results on civil engineering specimens,” Proc. of the Second International
Conference on Identification in Engineering Systems, University of Wales, Swansea.
Molina, F. J., Sorace, S., Terenzi, G., Magonette, G., and Viaccoz, B. [2004]. “Seismic tests on rein-
forced concrete and steel frames retrofitted with dissipative braces,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 33(15), 1373–1394.
Molina, F. J., Verzeletti, G., Magonette, G., Buchet, P. H., and Geradin, M. [1999] “Bi-directional
pseudodynamic test of a full-size three-storey building,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 28(12), 1541–1566.
Ozcebe, G., Kurt, E., Binici, B., Kurc, O., Canbay, E., and Akpınar U. [2009] “performance com-
parisons of seismic assessment methods with PSD test results of a deficient RC frame,” ATC-SEI
Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures,
San Francisco, pp. 319–330.

Ozcelik, R. and Binici, B. [2006] “Application of steel retrofit schemes for deficient buildings in
Turkey,” Proc. of the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Ozcelik, R. and Binici, B. [2008] “Use of internal V braces for strengthening deficient reinforced
concrete frames,” CD Rom Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Civil
Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus.
Ozden, S. and Akguzel, U. [2006] “CFRP overlays in strengthening of frames with column rebar lap
splice problem,” Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban Risk Reduction NATO Science
Series, Earth and Environmental Sciences 66, 455–471.
Pincheira, J. A. and Jirsa, J. O. [1995] “Seismic response of RC frames retrofitted with steel braces
or walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 121(8), 1225–1235.
Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. [1987] “Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under
seismic loading,” ACI Structural Journal 4(1), 61–76.
Saatcioglu, M. and Ozcebe, G. [1987] “Effect of bar slip on hysteretic behavior of concrete columns,”
Proc. of the 5th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 833–839.
Sezen, H. [2002] “Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Talaat, K. and Mosalam, K. M. [2009] “Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete build-
ings using direct element removal,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 38(5),
609–634.
Tezcan, S. S. and İpek, M. A. [1995] “Reconnaissance report: 1995 Dinar, Turkey, earthquake,”
Engineering Structures 18(12), 906–916.
Tremblay, R. [2002] “Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research (AISC) 58, 665–701.
Tremblay, R. and Robert, N. [2001] “Seismic performance of low- and medium-rise chevron braced
steel frames,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27, 1192–1206.
Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC) [2007] “Specifications for structures to be built in seismic areas,”
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey. (in Turkish).
Turkish Standards Institute (TS 3357) [1979] “Building code for the design and execution of welded
connections in steel structures,” Ankara, Turkey. [in Turkish].
Yamamoto, Y. and Umemura, H. [1992] “Analysis of reinforced concrete frames retrofitted with
steel brace,” Proc. of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp.
5187–5192.
Yamamoto, Y. [1993] “Strength and ductility of frames strengthened with steel bracing,” Earthquake
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Structures, A volume Honoring Hiroyuki Aoyama 25, 467–476.
Youssef, M. A., Ghaffarzadeh, H., and Nehdi, M. [2007] “Seismic performance of RC frames with
concentric internal steel bracing,” Engineering Structures 29(7), 1561–1568.
View publication stats

Pseudo Dynamic Testing of An RC Frame Retrofitted With Chevron 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

Pseudo Dynamic Testing of An RC Frame Retrofitted With Chevron Braces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame Retroﬁtted with Chevron

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · May 2012

Ramazan Ozcelik Baris Binici

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

TÜBİTAK 112M820 View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame

Available online: 15 May 2012

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.653297

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame

R. OZCELIK1 , B. BINICI2 , and O. KURÇ2

Keywords Chevron Brace; Seismic Retrofit; RC Frame; Pseudo Dynamic Test

Received 27 April 2011; accepted 18 December 2011.

braces in seismic retrofits of low- to mid-rise frames can be examined.

2.1. RC Frame Details

2.2. Instrumentation and Loading System

2.3. Material Properties

TABLE 1 Concrete strength (MPa)

TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of steel members

Yield strength Ultimate strength Max. elongation

2.4. Chevron Brace Strengthening

Elkhoraibi and Mosalam, 2007].

TABLE 3 Summary of test results for reference and chevron-braced frame

Column plastic rotation demands

4.1. Reference Frame

FIGURE 8 Force-deformation response for chevron-braced frame (color figure available

4.2. Chevron-Braced Frame

FIGURE 10 Moment-curvature response of columns C1 and C4 for reference and braced

4.3. Comparison of Reference and Braced Frame

2004; Mazzolani, 2008; Di Sarno and Manfredi, 2009].

4.4. Identified Dynamic Properties of the Test Frames

Ma (n) + r(n) = f (n), (2)

defined in Eqs. (4) and (5):

4.5. Floor Accelerations

5. Nonlinear Time History Analysis

FIGURE 13 Modeling strategy of reference and chevron-braced frames (color figure

San Francisco, pp. 319–330.

View publication stats

You might also like