1 TECHNICAL NOTE

2 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

3 Reinforced Concrete Buildings with
4 Seismic Isolation: A Case Study
5 D. Cardonea) and G. Gesualdia)

6 The use of seismic isolation for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings
7 is very attractive but often very tricky due to several aspects related to its imple-
8 mentation. In this paper, a case study of seismic rehabilitation of a high-rise resi-
9 dential building with seismic isolation is presented. The building under
10 consideration is located in southern Italy and it is placed next to another building
11 from which it is separated by a gap of 400 mm. In the paper, all the steps of the
12 seismic rehabilitation process are described. First, the target objective of the seis-
13 mic rehabilitation and the choice of isolation system type and location are dis-
14 cussed. The design of the isolation system, carried out following a direct
15 displacement-based approach, is then examined. Finally, the main phases fol-
16 lowed in the installation of the isolation system are described. Some comments
17 on costs and time needed to complete the intervention are also reported. [DOI:
10.1193/110612EQS323M]

18 INTRODUCTION
19 There are different strategies for the seismic rehabilitation of existing reinforced concrete
20 (RC) buildings (Calvi 2013). The basic strategy relies on the application of capacity design
21 principles, first to eliminate all possible sources of brittle failures and subsequently to
22 increase the ductile capacity of the critical sections of beams, columns, and walls. Typical
23 interventions are based on the external wrapping of selected structural elements (or parts of
24 them), using carbon/glass fibers, steel plates, or thin layers of reinforced concrete (Rodriguez
25 and Park 1994, Priestley et al. 1994). A conceptually different approach to seismic retrofitting
26 relies on the insertion of additional elements reacting to horizontal actions. This is normally
27 based on steel braces or concrete walls. If the original structural system was based on frames,
28 the introduction of much stiffer elements may completely change the response, arriving at the
29 limit such that the original frame can give a negligible contribution to the seismic response of
30 the structure. A major concern in that case is the capacity of existing foundations and hor-
31 izontal diaphragms to transmit seismic forces.
32 All the aforesaid strategies are effective in increasing the strength (and stiffness) of the
33 building. However, their implementation is very expensive, time demanding, invasive, and
34 can cause significant indirect losses (e.g., the cost of relocating the inhabitants of the building

a)
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy

1
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 30, No. 4, pages 1–24, November 2014; © 2014, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
 2 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

35 for the downtime required to realize the intervention or repair the building after a strong
36 earthquake).

37 Seismic isolation (Naeim and Kelly 1999) represents a completely different strategy for
38 the seismic retrofit of existing RC buildings, which is based on the reduction of the seismic
39 effects on the structure rather than on the increase of its lateral strength and/or ductile capa-
40 city. The use of seismic isolation permits to achieve enhanced rehabilitation objectives, by
41 designing the retrofit intervention either for target building performance levels or earthquake
42 hazard levels that exceed those related to the basic safety objective (FEMA 356 2000). The
43 key issue with the existing structure is finding a feasible technique to insert the isolation
44 system and, consequently, problems related to the relative movement between the isolated
45 part and the original part of the building (i.e., how to create the necessary gap) and interaction
46 with possible adjacent buildings (Cardone et al. 2012).
47 Different types of isolation systems are in use today and new solutions are continuously
48 being proposed and investigated (Higashino and Okamoto 2006). Most currently used iso-
49 lation systems are based on: (1) lead rubber bearings, (2) high-damping rubber bearings,
50 (3) curved surfaces friction isolators (once known as friction pendulum system), and (4) com-
51 binations of flat sliding bearings with rubber-based isolators. Sliding bearings used in seismic
52 isolation typically exploit the low friction between PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene or Teflon)
53 pads in contact with lubricated polished stainless steel surfaces.
54 Several numerical and experimental studies have definitely demonstrated the applicabil-
55 ity and potential of base isolation for the seismic protection of buildings designed for gravity
56 loads only or with substandard seismic details (Dolce et al. 2003, 2006, 2007). More impor-
57 tantly, throughout the world, there are several examples of the application of seismic isolation
58 for the seismic retrofit of existing (including historical) buildings (Clark and Mason 2005).
59 Probably the most important and renowned examples of buildings retrofitted with seismic
60 isolation can be found in California. They include the City Halls of Oakland, San Francisco,
61 and Los Angeles, and the U.S. Court of Appeals Building in San Francisco. The isolation
62 systems of the Oakland City Hall and San Francisco City Hall (Walters et al. 1995) are based
63 on lead-rubber bearings. The isolation system of the Los Angeles City Hall (Youssef et al.
64 1995) is based on a combination of high-damping rubber bearings and low-friction sliders,
65 and it is supplemented by a number of viscous dampers. In all the cases under consideration, a
66 moat was constructed around the building to provide the necessary seismic gap. The installa-
67 tion of the isolators proved to be very complicated and required shoring up the columns,
68 cutting the columns and transferring the column loads to temporary supports. The isolation
69 system of the U.S. Court of Appeals Building in San Francisco (Amin and Mokha 1995) uses
70 curved surface-friction isolators. The isolators were installed under the existing steel columns
71 with the construction of a new rigid diaphragm above the isolation level.
72 In recent years, the number of applications to residential buildings is rapidly increasing in
73 Italy, especially in the city of L’Aquila and its environs, after the 2009 earthquake that
74 destroyed the old city of L’Aquila, killing 310 people. There are now more than 30 residential
75 RC buildings in Italy retrofitted with either rubber isolators or friction isolators.

76 Seismic isolation is a very attractive strategy for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings
77 for at least three reasons: (1) enhanced rehabilitation objectives, compared to traditional
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 3

78 retrofit strategies, designing the building with seismic isolation for higher target building
79 performance levels or earthquake hazard levels; (2) drastic reduction of direct losses in
80 case of strong earthquakes; and (3) the drastic reduction of indirect costs (related to inter-
81 ruption of use and service, relocation of the inhabitants of the building, etc.) both during the
82 realization of the retrofit intervention and after strong seismic events. However, in many
83 cases, the practical implementation of the isolation system can result (or just appear) pro-
84 blematic, invasive, and expensive.
85 In this paper, an example of the seismic retrofit of an existing high-rise RC building with
86 seismic isolation is presented. The fundamental steps followed in the design and implemen-
87 tation of the seismic isolation system are discussed. Final remarks on the total cost and time
88 necessary to complete the intervention are also reported.

89 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

90 The retrofitted building is an 11-story RC frame building, with total height of approxi-
91 mately 40 m, featuring four levels partially underground (see Figure 1b–c). Each story in
92 elevation presents a floor area of approximately 360 m2 (see Figure 1a) and 3,200-ton seismic
93 mass. The RC frame in elevation presents 24 columns with cross-sectional dimensions ran-
94 ging from 500
500 mm to 400
1;000 mm at the first story, and equal to 300
400 mm at
95 the top story. The building is adjacent to another building, from which it is separated by a gap
96 of 400 mm.
97 Failure tests on concrete and steel specimens extracted from a number of elements of the
98 building under consideration pointed out an average compressive strength of concrete on the
99 order of 28.6 MPa and a yield stress of 440 MPa for steel reinforcement.

100 The building under consideration is located in Potenza, southern Italy, which, according
101 to the current Italian Seismic Code (NTC 2008), presents a peak ground acceleration (PGA)
102 with return period of 475 (975) years of approximately 0.29 g (0.36 g), considering the soil
103 characteristics and topographic conditions of the site.

104 The building under consideration was designed in the 1990s according to the old Italian
105 Seismic Code (DM 1996). A preliminary analysis of the structure pointed to a number of poor
106 seismic details (e.g., spandrel beams with very large widths compared to columns, no joint
107 reinforcing, stirrups and ties excessively spaced in the critical zones of beams and columns,
108 insufficient overlap lengths, etc.), which would result in poor ductile behavior of the structure
109 during seismic events.
110 Figure 2 shows the first three modes of vibration of the building in the as-built config-
111 uration. The fundamental periods of vibration of the building in the two horizontal directions
112 are on the order of 1 s. The dynamic response of the structure is characterized by significant
113 torsional effects, well-established by the mass participation factors in the X-direction (M x in
114 Figure 2) that splits in two comparable contributions between the first and third modes of
115 vibration. Modal analysis indicates that the deformations of the four (partially) underground
116 stories of the building are negligible compared to those of the superstructure. In a first
117 approximation, therefore, the superstructure’s dynamic behavior is similar to that of a
118 fixed-base seven-story building. Considering the aforesaid approximation, pushover analyses
119 have been carried out separately in the two horizontal directions, considering two vertical
 4 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

25

30.33
2.91 3.85 6.12 4.30 6.17 3.65 1.96 1.37
26 27

50 50 90 50
40

40
30x50
50

50
50
100
5 6

100
1 110x25 7
90

110x25 90 2 110x25 3 110x25 4 110x25 110x25

8
40 40 40

110x25

5.30
70x25

70x25
30x50

70x25

70x25
6.35

30x50
30x50
40

90
40 40 40 110x25
11.75

16
110x25 110x25 90 110x25 90 110x25 80 14 110x25
90

90
80

9 10 11 12 13 15

80
30x50
40

40

40

40

110x25

5.55
30x50
4.50

70x25

70x25
70x25

70x25

70x25

70x25
40 40 40 40
19 22 23 24
17 110x25 18 50 110x25 90 20 110x25 21 90 110x25 50 110x25 110x25
90

90
80

80
110x25
40

40
50

50

2.30
Y
2.76 3.80 6.25 4.40 6.25 3.95 2.66

(a)
X Δgap
(400mm)
R A B
S11
S10
S9
S8
S7
S6
S5
S4

S3
S2
S1
B

(b) (c)

Figure 1. Building geometry: (a) plan of a typical story in elevation; (b) lateral view and (c) front
view.

120 distributions of lateral forces, compatible with an inverted-triangular and a uniform story
121 acceleration pattern, respectively. The lateral force distributions proportional to story masses
122 turned out to be the most penalizing for the structure. For that reason, the associated capacity
123 curves are herein considered for some noteworthy considerations.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 5

Figure 2. First modes of vibration of the building w/o seismic isolation.

124 Figure 3a shows the capacity curve of the seven-story fixed-base building in the
125 X-direction, identified as the strong lateral resisting direction of the building. The base
126 shear corresponding to the occurrence of the first plastic hinge is equal to approximately
127 1,200 kN, and the ultimate base shear is approximately 3,200 kN. It is worth noting that
128 the structural behavior of the building in the X-direction is definitely fragile, being affected
129 by the shear failure of the short columns of the staircase, for a top displacement of 30 mm,
130 corresponding to a maximum interstory drift of 0.1% (see Figure 3b), followed by the shear
131 failure of many beams (approximately 70% of the total), for a top displacement of 70 mm,
132 corresponding to a maximum interstory drift of 0.17% (see Figure 3b). Figure 4a shows the
133 capacity curve of the building in Y-direction. In this direction, the structure features ductile
134 behavior characterized by a weak-beams/strong-columns inelastic mechanism.
135 Most approaches to the definition of building performance levels and related earthquake
136 hazard levels are derived from the scheme originally proposed for new constructions in the

Vbase (kN) Storey

5000 IO 7 Dp3
IO

Dp2
O
6
4000 Dp1
FO

O 5
3000
first plastic hinge
FO 4

2000 local shear column collapse

3
Vbase,u
global shear beam collapse
1000 2
performance point at
Vbase,y 1
PGA=0.29g (Tr 500years)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50%
Displacement (m) Inter-storey drift
(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Pushover curves in the X-direction and (b) associated story drifts.
 6 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

Vbase (kN) Storey 1.5

LS
5000 7 Serie
IO
3
O
6 Serie
4000
LS 2 FO
5
3000
IO
4

2000 O
3
FO
first plastic hinge
1000 2
performance point at
Vbase,y PGA=0.29g (Tr 500years)
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Displacement (m) Inter-storey drift
(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Pushover curves in the Y-direction and (b) associated story drifts.

137 Vision 2000 document (SEAOC 1995), further elaborated and extended in the FEMA 356
138 (2000) for existing buildings. Within this context, it is worth recalling the typical design
139 earthquake intensity levels, expressed in terms of probability of exceedance in a given inter-
140 val of time ( frequent: 50% in 30 years, occasional: 50% in 50 years, rare: 10% in 50 years,
141 very rare: 5% in 50 years, and maximum considered earthquake: 2% in 50 years) and the
142 attempt of numerically defining the expected performance of RC frame buildings as a func-
143 tion of a single parameter, such as the maximum interstory drift ( fully operational: 0.25%;
144 operational: 0.5%; immediate occupancy: 1%; life safety: 1.5–2%; and near collapse:
145 2.5–4%).
146 In Figures 3 and 4 the top displacements corresponding to the attainment of a fully opera-
147 tional (FO) limit state (max drift ≈ 0.25%), operational (O) limit state (max drift ≈ 0.5%),
148 immediate occupancy (IO) limit state (max drift ≈ 1%), and life safety limit state
149 (max drift ≈ 2%) are identified as ΔFO , ΔO , ΔIO , and ΔLS , respectively.

150 The performance point (PP) at PGA ¼ 0.29 g, corresponding to the earthquake hazard
151 level with probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years (T r ≈ 500 years) has been found by
152 applying the capacity spectrum method (ATC 1996; see Figure 5). As can be seen, the per-
153 formance point in the X-direction falls beyond the point of the capacity curve corresponding
154 to the shear collapse of the structure.
155 This implies that the building under consideration is not able to resist the design earth-
156 quake in the X-direction. Seismic retrofit is then needed. Obviously, a seismic retrofit aimed
157 at increasing the shear strength of the beams in the X-direction and of the columns of the
158 staircase would be very expensive and invasive, involving many structural elements at all the
159 stories of the building. From this point of view, seismic isolation seems to be a very attractive
160 seismic retrofit technique, since it drastically reduces the base shear transmitted to the super-
161 structure and (in principle) requires interventions concentrated to one story of the build-
162 ing only.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 7

0.40 0.40

0.35 0.35
=18%
0.30 0.30
Spectra l acceleration Sa (g)

Spectra l acceleration Sa (g)

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20
PP
0.15 0.15
PP
0.10 0.10
eq=5% eq=5%
0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Spectral Displacement Sd (m) Spectral Displacement Sd (m)
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Application of the capacity spectrum method in the (a) X- and (b) Y-direction
(PGA ¼ 0.29 g with T r ¼ 5000 years).

163 CHOICE OF ISOLATION LEVEL AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE

164 The level of the building in which to insert seismic isolation has been chosen by con-
165 sidering the lateral stiffness and seismic vulnerability of the structure along the height of the
166 building. The structure features a considerable change of lateral stiffness passing from the
167 third to the fourth levels of the building (see Figure 1b), due to an apparent in-plane dis-
168 continuity in the vertical lateral force–resisting elements. The fourth level, on the other
169 hand, is affected by soil interaction in the Y-direction, and by the presence of perimeter
170 RC walls in the X-direction. The fifth level of the building is porticoed, being used for stores
171 and offices, featuring large openings and windows. Moreover, from the 5th to the 11th stor-
172 ies, the building structure presents abundance of large-width spandrel beams, that makes this
173 portion of the building particularly vulnerable to the effects of seismic ground motions. All
174 that considered, the fifth level of the building has been selected as the isolation level, where
175 the isolation system has been inserted by cutting the RC columns.
176 According to the requirements of the Italian Seismic Code (NTC 2008), the seismic reha-
177 bilitation of the building under consideration has been designed to comply with a fully opera-
178 tional building performance level (see Figures 3 and 4), for an earthquake hazard level with
179 probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years (T r ≈ 500 years), and a Collapse Prevention
180 performance level of the isolation system only, for an earthquake hazard level with prob-
181 ability of exceedance of 5% in 50 years (T r ≈ 1;000 years).

182 DESIGN SPECTRA

183 The reference design spectra have been derived considering the results of recent studies
184 on probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) for Italy at long periods (Faccioli and
185 Villani 2009), carried out within the framework of the Project S5 “Seismic input in
186 terms of expected spectral displacements” funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protec-
187 tion. Specifically, this study proposed new hazard maps for Italy, that provide the
 8 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

188 displacement D10 (i.e., the 5% damped displacement response spectral ordinate at T ¼ 10 s)
189 and the period T D (i.e., the corner period defining the beginning of the constant displacement
190 branch of the spectrum) for three different return periods (i.e., T r ¼ 72, 475, and 975 years).
191 Figure 6 shows the 5% damped displacement response spectra for T r ¼ 475 years
192 (PGA ¼ 0.29 g on soil type B) and T r ¼ 975 years (PGA ¼ 0.36 g on soil type B) assumed
193 in the rehabilitation design. They are compared to the corresponding spectra provided by the
194 current Italian Seismic Code (NTC 2008).
195 In accordance with the Italian Seismic Code (NTC 2008), the vertical seismic component
196 has been neglected, being the vertical stiffness of the isolation system more than 800 times
197 greater than its effective horizontal stiffness.

198 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM

199 The preliminary design of the isolation system has been carried out following the direct
200 displacement-based design (DDBD) method proposed by Priestley et al. (1994, 2007) and
201 recently adapted for buildings with seismic isolation by Cardone et al. (2010). The funda-
202 mental step of the DDBD method is the definition of the so-called target displacement profile
203 (Δi ) of the building. According to the results of the studies by Cardone et al. (2010), in the
204 first approximation, a linear deformed shape of the superstructure can be assumed (see
205 Figure 6a). This leads to the following target displacement profile of the building (see
206 Figure 7a):
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;41;386 Δi ¼ Dis þ θFO
hi (1)

207 where hi is the height of the ith story measured from the isolation level; Dis and θFO are the
208 target displacements of the center of stiffness of the isolation system and the target interstory

Tr=475 years Tr=975 years

350 350

300 300

250 250

200 200
SD [mm]

SD [mm]

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period [sec] Period [sec]

Figure 6. Comparison between the design displacement spectra provided by the NTC2008 for
the site under consideration (soil B, PGA ¼ 0.29 g for T r ¼ 475 years and PGA ¼ 0.36 g for
T r ¼ 975 years) and the target displacement spectra assumed in the rehabilitation design,
which are derived from the results of PSHA studies for Italy at long periods.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 9

209 drift of the building, respectively. The values of Dis and θFO have been selected to guarantee a
210 fully operational (FO) performance level of the building, for an earthquake hazard level with
211 T r ≈ 500 years, and to avoid pounding with the adjacent fixed-base building. More precisely,
212 θFO has been taken equal to 0.25%, and Dis equal to 140 mm. To avoid pounding, indeed, the
213 distance between the two buildings must be greater (with adequate margin) than the sum of
214 the maximum top displacement of the fixed-base building and the maximum displacement of
215 the corresponding floor (S9 in Figure 7a) of the building with seismic isolation. In first
216 approximation (NTC 2008), the maximum (inelastic) displacement of the top of the adjacent
217 building can be related to the height of the building (H ¼ 21 m) and PGA of the expected
218 ground motion (Sag ¼ 0.29 g), resulting in this case on the order of 120 mm. Assuming pru-
219 dentially a reduced width of the available gap of approximately 300 mm (¼ 400 mm∕1.35),
220 to consider possible torsional effect and maintain an adequate safety margin with respect to
221 pounding for higher seismic hazard levels, a maximum acceptable displacement of approxi-
222 mately 180 mm is obtained for the building with seismic isolation. This latter includes two
223 contributions, that is, the maximum relative displacement of the floor corresponding to the
224 top of the adjacent building (0.0025
14 m ¼ 35 mm) and the maximum displacement of the
225 isolation system (Dis ¼ 140 mm).
226 The MDOF model of the structure is converted into an equivalent linear SDOF system
227 (see Figure 7b) based on the fundamental equations of the DDBD method customized to
228 buildings with seismic isolation (Cardone et al. 2010):

Figure 7. Fundamental steps of DDBD for building with seismic isolation.

 10 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

Pn
ðmi · Δi Þ2
Δd ¼ Pi¼1 (2)
i¼1 ðmi · Δi Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;41;640

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;41;602 ξeq ¼ Dis · ξis þ ðΔd  Dis Þ · ξs (3)

Pn
i¼1 ðmi · Δi Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;41;574 meq ¼ (4)
Dis

229 where Δd , ξeq , and meq are the design displacement, damping ratio and mass, respectively, of
230 the equivalent SDOF system; mi is the floor mass of the building (≈ 400 ton); ξis and ξs are
231 the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation system (in first approximation on the order of
232 15%) and superstructure (assumed equal to 3%).
233 Using Equations 2, 3, and 4, Δd ¼ 170 mm, ξeq ¼ 12.8%, and meq ¼ 3;160 ton are
234 obtained. Entering the 12.8% damped response spectrum associated with Δd ¼ 170 mm
235 (see Figure 7c) an equivalent period of vibration T eq ¼ 3.3 s is found. Similarly, an equiva-
236 lent lateral stiffness K eq ¼ 4π 2 meq ∕T 2eq ≈ 11.50 kN∕mm and a base shear V b ¼ K eq
Δd ≈
237 1;900 kN (see Figure 7d) are obtained. Finally, the total horizontal stiffness required to the
238 isolation system is computed as K is ¼ V b ∕Dis ≈ 13.6 kN∕mm. Assuming a behavior (i.e.,
239 force-reduction) factor q ¼ 1.5 (according to the Italian Seismic Code), a design base
240 shear of V d ≈ 1;250 kN is obtained, which can be deemed to be compatible with a fully
241 operational performance level of the building (see Figure 4a).
242 In first approximation, the expected maximum displacement of the isolation system at
243 0.36 PGA (earthquake hazard level with T r ≈ 1;000 years) can be estimated by applying a
244 series of amplification factors (Cardone et al. 2010) to the target displacement of the center of
245 stiffness of the isolation system (Dis ) at 0.29 g. The aforesaid amplification factors take into
246 account the higher PGA value (γ 1 ≈ 1.25), torsional and bidirectional seismic effects
247 (γ 2 ≈ 1.35), and a slight reduction of damping ratio (for rubber isolators) due to larger
248 shear deformations (γ 3 ≈ 1.1), leading to a design displacement of the isolation system
249 on the order of 260 mm.
250 Three different types of isolation systems have been considered. A first solution, based on
251 curved-surface friction isolators, was discarded since it required the strengthening of several
252 RC elements, due to the high friction force transmitted by the isolation system to the struc-
253 ture. In addition, the ratio between the design displacement and the radius of curvature of the
254 isolators was not compatible with the re-centring requirements typical of this type of isolation
255 system. A second solution, based on high-damping rubber bearings only, was discarded
256 because the required horizontal stiffness was too low compared to the necessary vertical
257 load capacity. A hybrid solution, based on a combination of high-damping rubber bearings
258 and flat sliding bearings, was finally adopted as a good compromise between the required
259 horizontal stiffness and necessary vertical load capacity.
260 The proposed isolation system consists of 14 high-damping rubber bearings (type SI-S
261 700/160, produced by FIP SpA, with displacement capacity equal to 300 mm), located along
262 the perimeter of the building and 10 flat steel-PTFE sliding bearings (type Vasoflon VM 300/
263 580/580, produced by FIP SpA, with displacement capacity equal to 250 mm) located below
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 11

264 the inner columns of the building (see Figure 8). Figure 9 shows the main mechanical and
265 geometric characteristics of the selected isolation devices. It is worth noting that the selected
266 high-damping rubber bearings feature a rubber shear modulus of 0.4 MPa and a nominal
267 viscous damping of 15% at 100% shear strain amplitude (see Figure 11). The lubricated
268 sliding bearings exhibit a friction coefficient of less than 1% based on the available test data.
269 The solution proposed for the RC walls of the elevator core and the staircase is based on
270 the use of PTFE-steel sliders (see Figure 16), purposely designed to accommodate (with
271 adequate margin) the maximum displacements resulting from the analysis.

272 Structural analysis has been performed with SAP2000_Nonlinear (release 15.0.1)
273 through linear dynamic analysis of an accurate 3-D finite element model of the structure
274 (see Figure 10), following the response spectrum method. The high-damping rubber bearings
275 have been modeled with an equivalent linear visco-elastic behavior, evaluating the effective
276 stiffness and effective damping from the available test data (see Figure 11) at all response
277 displacements of design interest. Reference to the uncracked stiffness has been made for the
278 structural members of both substructure and superstructure.
279 Response spectrum analysis has been performed using a damping value for the isolated
280 modes equal to the average effective damping of the isolation system at each Limit State. The
281 friction resistance of the steel-PTFE sliders has been neglected. The damping value assigned
282 to the higher modes of the superstructure has been taken equal to 3%.

Figure 8. Isolation system: location of HDRB and sliding devices.

 12 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Geometric characteristics of (a) HDRB and (b) sliding devices.

283 Peak modal responses have been combined by the complete quadratic combination
284 (CQC) rule. Maximum member forces and displacements have been derived by combining
285 the earthquake directions, considering 100% of the seismic effects in the Y-direction and 30%
286 of the seismic effects in the X-direction. In order to cover uncertainties in the location of
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 13

Figure 10. 3-D finite element model of the isolated structure.

287 masses, the calculated center of mass at each floor has been considered displaced from its
288 nominal location, in each direction, by an accidental eccentricity equal to 5% of the floor-
289 dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action.

290 Figure 12 shows the modal shapes of the building with seismic isolation. In this case, the
291 modes of vibration result well decoupled with mass participation factors in the X-direction
292 and Y-direction equal to approximately 98% at the first and second modes of vibration,
293 respectively.

294 The design displacement of the isolation system has been calculated as the vector sum of
295 the two orthogonal maximum displacement components. It is worth noting that passing from

Figure 11. (a) Viscous damping ratio and (b) secant shear modulus of rubber, as a function of
shear strain.
 14 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

Figure 12. First modes of vibration of the building with seismic isolation.

296 0.29 g PGA (T r ≈ 500 years) to 0.36 g PGA (T r ≈ 1;000 years) the maximum shear strain of
297 HDRB’s increases from approximately 80% to 160%. This brings about a reduction of their
298 viscous damping ratio on the order of 10% (see Figure 11a), from approximately 15.8% to
299 13.5%. The aforesaid damping values have been considered in the structural analysis with
300 SAP2000, using the damping reduction factor adopted in the Italian Seismic Code, which is
301 well-suited for structures with seismic isolation (Cardone et al. 2009):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
10
η¼ (5)
5 þ ξeq
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e5;41;381

302 In accordance with the Italian Seismic Code (NTC 2008), safety verifications of struc-
303 tural members have been performed assuming a behavior (i.e., force-reduction) factor q ¼ 1
304 for the substructure and q ¼ 1.5 for the superstructure. The analysis results show that all the
305 structural members of the superstructure largely satisfy the provisions of the Italian Seismic
306 Code (NTC 2008) for the verification of the life safety limit state of buildings with seismic
307 isolation. On the other hand, a number of structural members of the substructure need to be
308 strengthened. They include the perimeter columns of the fifth level (isolation level) where
309 HDRB are located and a few beams of the fourth floor beneath such columns.
310 As shown in Table 1, all the isolation devices satisfy the seismic code requirements for
311 the verification of the collapse prevention limit state (T r ≈ 1;000 years) of the isolation sys-
312 tem, Dmax being the maximum seismic displacement of the isolation devices (to be compared
313 to their displacement capacity, equal to 300 mm for SI-S700/160 and 290 mm for VM 300/
314 580/580); N min and N max being the minimum and maximum axial force under seismic con-
315 ditions (to be compared to their load capacity under seismic conditions, equal to 2,350 kN for
316 SI-S700/160 and 2,000 kN for VM 300/580/580); F z being the axial load at the ultimate limit
317 state due to gravity loads only (to be compared to the axial load capacity of the devices in
318 their undeformed configuration, equal to 8,610 kN for SI-S700/160 and 3,000 kN for VM
319 300/580/580). The maximum displacement obtained from response spectrum analysis with
320 SAP2000 is equal to 253 mm (isolation device n. 24 in Table 2) in good accordance with that
321 expected (260 mm) from the DDBD method.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 15

Table 1. Verification of isolation devices

Dmax N min N max Fz

ID Device type (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 SI-S 700/160 247 351 1,084 1,285
2 VM 300/580/580 237 985 1,358 1,920
3 SI-S 700/160 213 1,218 1,492 2,200
4 SI-S 700/160 198 680 2,011 2,171
5 SI-S 700/160 205 670 2,292 2,245
6 SI-S 700/160 211 1,211 1,525 2,210
7 VM 300/580/580 239 848 1,328 1,755
8 SI-S 700/160 243 204 1,354 1,275
9 SI-S 700/160 238 678 1,173 1,595
10 VM 300/580/580 227 1,147 1,204 1,840
11 VM 300/580/580 207 1,604 1,727 2,585
12 VM 300/580/580 184 884 2,241 2,524
13 VM 300/580/580 181 834 2,335 2,540
14 VM 300/580/580 201 1,617 1,799 2,625
15 VM 300/580/580 227 995 1,429 1,850
16 SI-S 700/160 244 1,266 1,602 2,190
17 SI-S 700/160 245 381 1,055 1,180
18 VM 300/580/580 237 1,007 1,376 1,750
19 SI-S 700/160 210 1,152 1,770 2,085
20 SI-S 700/160 199 1,458 1,786 2,340
21 SI-S 700/160 199 1,455 1,796 2,340
22 SI-S 700/160 209 1,183 1,913 2,210
23 VM 300/580/580 242 940 1,385 1,690
24 SI-S 700/160 253 736 1,180 1,500
25 VM 300/580/580 229 18 10.24 300
26 VM 300/580/580 219 50 50.02 360
27 VM 300/580/580 222 31 30.71 360

322 Although not strictly required by the Italian Seismic Code, nonlinear response-time
323 history analyses (NRTHA) have been performed considering the complexity of the structure
324 and the high value of the effective period of vibration of the building with seismic isolation.
325 The main scope of NRTHA was that of verifying the maximum displacements of the
326 isolation devices and the available gap with the adjacent (fixed-base) building. In the
327 NRTHA, the rubber isolators have been modeled with the Nonlinear Plastic-Wen
328 NL-Link elements of SAP2000, assuming a conventional yield displacement of approxi-
329 mately 35 mm, a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0.3 and a yielding exponent of 2. NRTHA
330 have been performed using a set of seven natural accelerograms (see Figure 13a), compa-
331 tible (on average) with the design displacement spectra (e.g., see Figure 13b). Figure 13c
332 shows the displacement-time histories at 0.29 g PGA of the 9th story of the isolated build-
333 ing (point A in Figure 1c) considered for the verification of the expansion joint with the
334 adjacent building.
 16 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

Figure 13. (a) Set of (normalized) accelerograms used for nonlinear response-time history ana-
lyses (NRTHA); (b) comparison between average and target displacement response spectrum at
0.29 g PGA (life safety limit state); (c) displacement-time histories of the 9th story of the isolated
building (point A in Figure 1c) at 0.29 g PGA, considered for the verification of the expansion
joint; (d) displacement response of the most critical isolator (HDRB n. 24 in Figure 8) at 0.36 g
PGA (collapse prevention limit state) and comparison with the corresponding maximum values
from response spectrum analysis (RSA).

335 As can be seen, the maximum displacement of the isolated building provided by NRTHA
336 results (on average) by about 6% (166 mm vs. 175 mm) lower than that derived from
337 response spectrum analysis (RSA; see Figure 13c). Moreover, the maximum displacement
338 of the isolated building, obtained from NRTHA, never exceeds the free gap with the adjacent
339 building (see Figure 13c). Figure 13d compares the displacement response (in the two hor-
340 izontal directions) of the most critical rubber isolator (HDRB n. 24 in Figure 8) derived from
341 NRTHA with the corresponding maximum displacements obtained from response spectrum
342 analysis (RSA). As expected, the NRTHA results turns out to be lower than the RSA pre-
343 dictions, on average by 15% (218 mm vs. 253 mm, considering the vector displacement) in
344 the case under consideration.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 17

345 IMPLEMENTATION OF SEISMIC ISOLATION IN PRACTICE

346 The procedure followed for the implementation of seismic isolation in the building can be
347 divided in nine steps:

348 1. Strengthening of RC elements. First, finishing, infills, and partition walls located at
349 the isolation level have been partially removed to allow for subsequent activities.
350 After that, a number of selected RC columns and beams below the isolation level
351 (see Step 5) have been strengthened with the beton plaquè technique, after removal
352 of plaster and surface treatment with primer. The structural strengthening of col-
353 umns, in particular, has been carried out using steel welded plates fixed to the con-
354 crete surface by epoxy mortar (type Emaco M1). At the bottom of the columns, the
355 steel jacket has been anchored to the underneath beams through a suitable number of
356 steel bolts (see Figure 14). Combinations of L-shaped steel sections and steel plates
357 have been used for beam strengthening;
358 2. Steel brackets and temporary support installation. A number of holes have been rea-
359 lized at the top of the columns of the isolation level, by concrete coring from side to
360 side of the RC columns, in the two perpendicular directions (see Figure 15a). Steel
361 brackets have been connected to the columns by means of threaded steel bars passing
362 through the holes (see Figure 15b). The steel brackets have been purposely designed to
363 permanently connect the isolation devices to the structure and temporarily accommo-
364 date the hydraulic jacks necessary to support the gravity loads during column cutting.
365 Figure 16 shows in detail the steel bracket configuration. A couple of Enerpac hydrau-
366 lic jack with 1,000 kN maximum load capacity have been used for each column.
367 3. Column cutting. The cutting of the RC columns has been realized using a rotating
368 diamond wire saw (see Figure 15c). The diamond wire has been wrapped around the
369 column and dragged by a rotating mechanism. In this way, cutting progressed along
370 a given direction from one side to another of the column.
371 4. Preparation of surfaces. After cutting, the concrete block has been pulled out. After
372 that, the cut surfaces of the columns have been carefully treated to ensure the correct
373 installation of the isolation device. First of all, the surfaces have been leveled. Sub-
374 sequently, possible protruding reinforcing bars have been removed. Finally, the cut
375 surfaces have been flattened smearing a layer of fast curing mortar.
376 5. Isolation device installation. The isolation devices have been inserted by hand (see
377 Figure 15d). A flat-jack has been accommodated in the gap between the bottom
378 plate of the device and the top surface of the RC column. After the installation
379 of the isolation device, the flat-jack has been inflated with epoxy grout and left
380 in place permanently. This has been done to distribute uniformly the gravity
381 load to the isolation device.
382 6. Temporary locking devices. For safety reasons, during the work, the upper and lower
383 portions of the cut columns have been connected by means of temporary steel sec-
384 tions, to prevent possible horizontal movements in case of earthquakes.
385 7. Stairs and elevator. The staircase and the RC walls of the elevator core have been
386 cut horizontally in correspondence of the isolation level (see Figure 17a). PTFE-
387 steel sliders have been then inserted to sustain gravity loads while allowing
388 large horizontal displacements (see Figure 17b).
 18 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

389 8. Lifelines and nonstructural elements. The lifelines crossing the isolation level have
390 been cut and then reconnected by extensible/deformable joints.
391 9. Building restoration. The temporary locking devices have been removed, and the
392 hydraulic jack supporting the gravity loads turned off. Isolation devices have been
393 protected from fire attack and thermal excursions by glass wool. Finally, infilled
394 walls, partitions, windows, and cladding have been restored.

Figure 14. Detail of RC column after strengthening with steel jacket.

 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 19

Figure 15. (a) Coring of RC column; (b) steel brackets; (c) column cutting; (d) device
installation.

395 TIMETABLE AND COSTS OF THE INTERVENTION

396 The retrofit of the selected building was carried out in approximately three months,
397 from 11 June 2012 to 15 September 2012, involving two working groups of four workers
398 each day. The construction site was very limited in space and shared by workers,
399 materials, equipment, temporary facilities, and other structures. It is worth noting that,
400 during the work, the functionality and operation of the building were completely main-
401 tained, with very little disruption to the inhabitants. Figure 18 shows the timetable of the
402 intervention.
403 A second important issue is an attempt at quantifying the cost of the intervention with
404 seismic isolation. Recently, some attempts have been done to give cost parameters for
405 strengthening interventions (Comerio 2006, Ramirez and Miranda 2009, Mitrani-Reiser
406 2007). For new buildings with seismic isolation, useful parametric costs (e.g., the percentage
407 cost of the isolation system with respect to the total cost of the building, the average cost of
408 the project per apartment and per square meter of living space, etc.) are provided in Calvi and
409 Spaziante (2009). In the case under consideration, the cost associated with the introduction of
 20 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

Figure 16. Steel bracket configuration.

410 the isolation system was in the range of €7,000 per column, including all related costs (device
411 furniture and testing, column cutting, steel brackets for the installation of isolation
412 devices, rehabilitation of staircase and RC walls of elevator core, cutting of nonstructural
413 elements, etc.). A total cost of approximately €170,000 is thus obtained. The need of struc-
414 tural strengthening has implied higher costs for substructure and nonstructural elements.
415 Obviously, the costs for strengthening a RC element vary significantly, as a function of
416 its geometry and applied technique. In the case under consideration (betòn plaque technique),
417 an average cost of €500 per meter of column and €200 per meter of beam, can be used for a
418 rough first estimate. An additional strengthening cost of approximately €30,000 is thus
419 obtained.
420 Heavy nonstructural interventions have been implemented at the isolation level, includ-
421 ing deviation of lifelines, reconstruction of claddings and partitions, etc. The related cost
422 can be assumed in the range of €100∕m3 , leading to a further additional cost of approximately
423 €100,000. As a consequence, the total cost of the intervention was on the order of €300,000
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 21

Figure 17. Rehabilitation of the elevator core: (a) Plan view and (b) detail of PTFE-Steel Slider.

Figure 18. Retrofit timetable.

424 (i.e., €15,000 per apartment), resulting on the order of 5% the replacement cost of the build-
425 ing, conventionally assumed to be on the order of €7,200,000 (i.e., €400∕m3 of building).

426 CONCLUSIONS
427 Seismic isolation is a very attractive strategy for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings
428 for three main reasons: (1) enhanced rehabilitation objectives, compared to traditional retrofit
 22 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

429 strategies, designing the building with seismic isolation for higher target building perfor-
430 mance levels or earthquake hazard levels, (2) drastic reduction of direct losses in case of
431 strong earthquakes, (3) drastic reduction of indirect costs (related to interruption of use
432 and service, relocation of the inhabitants of the building, etc.) both during the realization
433 of the intervention and after strong seismic events.
434 In this paper, a case study of the seismic retrofit of a high-rise residential building with
435 seismic isolation has been presented. The retrofitted building is an 11-story RC frame build-
436 ing, featuring four levels, partially underground. The building is adjacent to another building,
437 from which it is separated by a gap of 400 mm. In the paper, all the steps of the seismic
438 rehabilitation process have been described, including the choice of the target rehabilitation
439 objective, the selection of the isolation system type, and location.
440 Basically, the target rehabilitation objective was that of achieving a fully operational
441 building performance level for an earthquake hazard level with probability of exceedance
442 of 10% in 50 years (T r ≈ 500 years). A hybrid isolation system consisting of 14 high-
443 damping rubber bearings, located along the perimeter of the building and 10 flat sliding bear-
444 ings has been implemented, to get a fundamental period of vibration as high as 3.4 s. The
445 isolation system has been introduced at the fifth level of the building, which features large
446 openings and windows all around the perimeter, used for stores and offices. The main phases
447 followed in the realization of the intervention and some comments on the costs and time
448 needed to complete it have been reported in this paper.
449 The main lesson from this case study is that seismic isolation can be successfully imple-
450 mented in existing residential buildings within a reasonable time frame (approximately three
451 months in the case under consideration) and at an affordable cost (around 5% of the replace-
452 ment cost of the building in the case under consideration), with minimal disturbance to the
453 occupants and no interruptions in use.

454 REFERENCES
455 Amin, N., and Mokha, A., 1995. U.S. Court of Appeals Building: Seismic isolation implementa-
456 tion, Proc. Joint ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf. Seismic, Shock and
457 Vibration Isolation, Honolulu, HI, 319, 229–240.
458 Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
459 Buildings, Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
460 Calvi, G. M., 2013. Choices and Criteria for Seismic Strengthening, Journal of Earthquake
461 Engineering 17, 769–802.
q1 462 Calvi, G. M., and Spaziante, V., 2009. Reconstruction between temporary and definitive: The
463 CASE project, Progettazione Sismica 3, 221–250.
464 Cardone, D., Dolce, M., and Rivelli, M., 2009. Evaluation of reduction factors for high-damping
465 design response spectra, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 7, 273–291.
466 Cardone, D., Palermo, G., and Dolce, M., 2010. Direct Displacement-Based Design of
467 buildings with different seismic isolation systems, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14,
468 163–191.
q2 469 Cardone, D., Flora, A., and Gesualdi, G., 2013. Inelastic response of RC frame buildings with
470 seismic isolation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42, 871–889.
 SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION: A CASE STUDY 23

q3 471 Clark, W. D., and Mason, J. E., 2005. Base Isolation of an Existing 10-Storey Building to
472 Enhance Earthquake Resistance, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engi-
473 neering 38, 33–40.
474 Comerio, M. C., 2006. Estimating Downtime in Loss Modelling, Earthquake Spectra 22,
475 349–365.
476 Decreto Ministeriale (DM), 1996. Norme tecniche per il calcolo, l’esecuzione ed il collaudo delle
477 strutture in cemento armato, normale e precompresso e per le strutture metalliche (DM 1996),
478 Rome (in Italian).
479 Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Moroni, C., Nigro, D., Palermo, G., Ponzo, F. C., Santarsiero, G.,
480 Ventura, G., De Canio, G., Ranieri, N., Renzi, E., Goretti, A., Nicoletti, M., Spina, D.,
481 and Marnetto, R., 2006. TREMA Project: Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance
482 of a R/C scaled model upgraded with seismic isolation. Proceedings 2nd International fib
483 Congress. Naples, Italy.
484 Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Moroni, C., Nigro, D., Ponzo, F. C., and Nicoletti, M., 2003. Pseudo-
485 dynamic tests on a large scale base-isolated model. Proc. 8th World Seminar on Seismic
486 Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, Yerevan,
487 Armenia.
488 Dolce, M., Cardone, D., and Ponzo, F. C., 2007. Shaking-table tests on reinforced concrete
489 frames with different isolation systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
490 36, 573–596.
491 Higashino, M., and Okamoto, S., 2006. Response Control and Seismic Isolation of Buildings,
492 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
493 Faccioli, E., and Villani, M., 2009. Seismic hazard mapping for Italy in terms of broadband dis-
494 placement response spectra, Earthquake Spectra 25, 515–539.
495 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 356), 2000. Pre-standard and Commentary
496 for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers,
497 Reston, VA.
498 Mitrani-Reiser, J., 2007. An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-
499 based earthquake engineering, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
500 CA.
501 Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M., 1999. Design of seismic isolated structures, Wiley: New York.
502 Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC), 2008. Decreto Ministeriale 14/01/2008, Rome
503 (in Italian).
504 Priestley, M. J. N., 2003. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, IUSS Press, Pavia
505 Italy.
506 Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J., 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design
507 of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
q4 508 Priestley, M. J. N., Sieble, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R., 1994. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced
509 concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength – Part II: Test results and comparison
510 with theory, ACI Structural Journal 91, 537–551.
511 Ramirez, C. M., and Miranda, E., 2009. Building specific loss estimation methods and tools for
512 simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, Report 171, John A. Blume Center,
513 Stanford University, California.
q5 514 Rodriquez, M., and Park, R., 1994. Seismic Load Test on Reinforced Concrete Columns
515 Strengthened by Jacketing, ACI Structural Journal 91, 150–159.
 24 D. CARDONE AND G. GESUALDI

516 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1995. Vision 2000, Performance Based
517 Seismic Engineering of Buildings, California Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento, CA
518 (see also Appendix B of the 1996 SEAOC Blue Book or Appendix G of the 1999 SEAOC
519 Blue Book).
q6 520 Walters, M. T., Honeck, B., and Elsesser, E., 1995. Use of seismic isolation in new and retrofit
521 construction, Proc. Joint ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf. Seismic, Shock and
522 Vibration Isolation 319, 31–38.
523 Youssef, N., Nuttal, B., Rahman, A., and Hata, O., 1995. The role of reinforced concrete in the
524 stiffening and strengthening above base isolation for a tall historic landmark: Los Angeles City
525 Hall, 3rd National Concrete and Masonry Eng. Conf. 2, 729–735.
526 (Received 6 November 2012; accepted 28 September 2013)
 Queries
1. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference could
not be located in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask
that you check it so we can provide as many links to the referenced articles as possible.
2. A check of online databases revealed a possible error in this reference. The year has been
changed from ’2012’ to ’2013’. Please confirm this is correct.
3. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference could
not be located in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask
that you check it so we can provide as many links to the referenced articles as possible.
4. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference could
not be located in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask
that you check it so we can provide as many links to the referenced articles as possible.
5. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference could
not be located in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask
that you check it so we can provide as many links to the referenced articles as possible.
6. This query was generated by an automatic reference checking system. This reference could
not be located in the databases used by the system. While the reference may be correct, we ask
that you check it so we can provide as many links to the referenced articles as possible.