Seismic Rehabilitation of Structures

Durgesh C. Rai
Assistant Professor

Department of Earthquake Engineering

University of Roorkee
Roorkee 247 667
 Rehabilitation Strategies & Measures

Recover Original Repair damage and deterioration

Performance

Stiffen existing structure

Seismic
Strengthen existing structure
Rehabilitation Upgrade original
performance
Reduce irregularity and

Structural
Enhancements Using supplemental damping devices

Reduce masses
Reduce seismic
response
Isolate existing structure
 Repair Methods

Cosmetic Repairs Surface Coating,

Repointing
Repairs
Crack injection with epoxy

Structural Repair
Crack injection with grout

Cosmetic repairs only improve the visual

appearance of component damage and Spall repair
may restore non-structural properties
(weather protection) but any structural
benefit is negligible. Rebar replacement

Structural repairs intends to restore

Wall replacement
structural properties.
 Repair Methods

Cosmetic Repairs Surface Coating,

Repointing
Repairs
Crack injection with epoxy

Structural Repair
Crack injection with grout

Cosmetic repairs only improve the visual

appearance of component damage and Spall repair
may restore non-structural properties
(weather protection) but any structural
benefit is negligible. Rebar replacement

Structural repairs intends to restore

Wall replacement
structural properties.
 Seismic Strengthening

Increase strength Backup Peripheral frames

structure Buttresses
Strengthening

Increase strength Infill Cast-in-situ concrete

& ductility existing Precast concrete panels
Seismic

frames Brick/block infills

Increase ductility Brace Comp. / tens. Braces

existing Comp. And tens. Braces
frames Steel or concrete

Install Cast-in-situ concrete

shear Precast concrete panel
walls

Steel encasement
Jacket Steel straps
existing Concrete or mortar
members Carbon fibre
 Choice of a Seismic Strengthening Scheme

The strengthening solution

• must correct known seismic deficiencies of the system

• must be structurally compatible with the existing system
• must be functionally and aesthetically compatible
• must meet the expected performance goal such as life-
safety or limited damage.
• must minimize the disruption to occupants
• must be cost-effective and use available materials and
equipment
 Adding New Shear Walls

Applications
• For strengthening RC frames, especially open storeys
• Complete shear walls with boundary elements and
foundation
Advantages
• Adds significant strength and stiffness to framed
structures
Disadvantages
• Add considerable mass to the structure
• New footings are required and can be a major problem
on soft soils and in pile-supported structures
Design Guidelines
• Locate so that they align full height of the building,
minimize torsion and can be easily tied with existing
frame
• Maximize the dead weight that wall can mobilize to
resist overturning uplift.
FEMA-172
 Adding New Shear Walls

Design Guidelines
• It is economical to locate shear walls along
existing framing lines in order to provide
boundary members, collectors and dead load to
help resist overturning forces.
• On the interior the shear wall continues through
the slab and it should be cast in 2 pours 48 hours
apart to avoid sagging away of concrete from the
underside of the concrete slab.
• The initial pour is stopped at 450 mm from the
slab soffit to allow enough space to form shear
keys and prepare the surface for next pour up to
the top of the slab.
• Functional consideration dictate the location as
they break up the interior space
FEMA-172
 Adding Infill Walls

Applications
• For strengthening RC frames, especially open
storeys
• Most applicable for upto 5 storeyed buildings
Advantages
• Adds significant strength and stiffness to framed
structures
Disadvantages
• Add considerable mass to the structure and need
new footings between existing spread footings
• Existing columns may become weak link
Design Guidelines
• Locate so that they align full height of the
building, minimize torsion and can be easily tied
with existing frame
• Maximize the dead weight that wall can mobilize
to resist overturning uplift.
• Insure concrete/mortar is placed tight to overhead
beam else column shearing my result.
 Filling Openings

Applications
• For URM buildings significantly weak in in-plane
shear strength due to openings
• Most applicable for upto 5 storeyed buildings
Advantages
• Adds significant strength and stiffness
Disadvantages
• Add considerable mass to the structure and need
new footings between existing spread footings
over the increased shear wall
Design Guidelines
• Fill in openings with RC or masonry
• The technique is very economical if no foundation
enhancement is required.
• Concrete overlay (shotcrete) on the entire wall may
be necessary after filling the opening

FEMA-172
 Adding Shotcrete to Existing Masonry

Applications
• Ideal for URM when masonry is not strong or its
in-plane shear strength is weakened by large
openings
Advantages
• Comparable stiffness to existing URM walls
• With epoxied dowels at about 600 mm each way,
shotcrete and URM will work compositely
enhancing its out-of-plane stability as well
Disadvantages
• Messy with rebound on the inside face and
transferring through floor system is difficult and
may require review of foundation details
Design Guidelines FEMA-172

• Provide enough shotcrete so that failure of

unreinforced section can be prevented
• Design shotcrete (thickness and reinforcement) for
shear demand ignoring masonry contribution
 Adding Jackets to RC Frame Members

Applications
• For strengthening non-ductile RC frame members
where functional use prohibits new shear walls
Advantages
• Minimum loss to floor area
• Wide variety of choices for jacketing materials
Disadvantages
• Easy procedure for columns, but cumbersome for
beams and joints
• No significant increase in building stiffness
JBDPA, 1990
Design Issues
• Correcting one deficiency may cause other
components vulnerable
• A narrow gap at the end column jacket ensures
undesired increase of shear forces resulting from
increase flexural capacity.
Hagio et al 2000
 Adding Jackets to RC Beams

Design Issues
• Flexural capacity of frame is increased
with jacket and long. And transverse
reinforcement
• Beam jackets provide confinement,
enhance shear capacity and provide for
missing long. Bars
• Difficult to jacket the top of beam and
slab may have to be drilled

FEMA-172
 Adding Jackets to RC Columns

Design Issues
• Flexural capacity of
frame is increased
with jacket and long.
And transverse
reinforcement
• Column jackets
provide confinement
and can remedy short
lap splices of existing
column
reinforcement.

FEMA-172
 Adding Wing (Side) Walls

For strengthening columns of non-ductile

RC frames
Characteristics similar to new shear wall

JBDPA, 1990

Roach & Jirsa, 1986

 Adding Buttresses

Applications
• For strengthening non-ductile RC and URM
structures weak in shear strength
Advantages
• Exterior work results in minimal disruption to
functional use
Disadvantages
• Need large vacant space adjacent to building
• Significantly affect the aesthetics
• Large resistance from the piles or foundation
of the buttress as it will not be able to
mobilize the dead weight
Design Issues
• A load path to transfer shear forces from the
building to buttress is required such as
collectors on the interior of the building
• Capacity required to resist overturning forces FEMA-172
is small for buttresses away from the building
 Adding Braces

Applications
• For strengthening almost all types of RC, URM and
steel structures
Advantages
• Lightweight causing minimum influence on
foundation and structures mass
• Many configurations possible which can allow for
openings, passages, services, etc.
Disadvantages
• Steel bracing is usually less stiff than masonry or
concrete buildings, therefore, they have to crack
significantly before steel braces are effective
Design Issues
• Place braces where significant dead weight can be
mobilized to overcome overturning forces
• Bracing bays will require columns as well horizontal
members as collectors to form complete truss FEMA-172

• Avoid tension only braces

Steel Structures

Concentric Braced Frames

Bracing Configuration
• CBFs are most efficient system for resisting lateral loads
as they provide complete truss action
• Many configuration to choose from
• Popular chevron bracing impose large flexural demand
on floor beams after buckling of the compression brace.
• K bracing is not suitable for resisting seismic loads
because buckled braces cause column to deform
horizontally leading to buckling and collapse.
Effects of Brace Buckling
• Rapid loss of strength and tension brace overload
• Excessive rotation of brace ends and local connection
failure
• Local or torsional buckling at near mid span
• Out-of-plane deformation (bowing)
• Non-symmetrical deformation induce large torsional
response
• Energy dissipation is deficient
Steel Structures

CBFs and Connections

Design Objectives
• Hysteretic behaviour of CBFs is characterized with
severely pinched loops. However, reasonable stable
deformation can be achieved to protect against brittle
failures.
Braces
• Stockier braces dissipate more energy than slender
ones. Use Kl/r less than 1900/ fy
• Use compact sections to avoid local instability
Brace Connections
• Connection should be adequate against out-of-plane
failure of gusset plate and brittle fracture
• Gusset Plate is most critical component of connection:
• Enough strength when brace buckles in plane of
the frame
• Provide for formation of hinge line if brace
buckles out-of-plane
 Underpinning the Footing

Applications
• Increase bearing capacity of the footing
Advantages
• Most effective procedure for excessive soil
pressure due to overturning forces
• Many configurations possible which can
allow for openings, passages, services, etc.
Disadvantages
• Expensive and disruptive
• Cost effective to change strengthening
scheme so that foundation strengthening is
not required
Design Issues
• The new footing is constructed in staggered
increments each increment should be
preloaded by jacking prior to transfer of load
from the existing footing

FEMA-172
 Adding Drilled Piers

Applications
• Increase vertical capacity of footing when
soil bearing pressure and uplift is excessive
Advantages
• Most effective procedure for excessive soil
pressure due to overturning forces
Disadvantages
• Expensive and disruptive
Design Issues
• RC piers should be cast-in-situ in uncased
holes so as to develop both tension or
compression else use under-rimmed piles
• Each RC pier extend above the existing
footing and connected by RC beam through
FEMA-172
the existing wall
 Upgrading Pile Foundation

Applications
• For excessive tensile and compressive loads
due to lateral and gravity loads
Disadvantages
• Expensive and disruptive
Design Issues
• Large footing overlay will be required to
create new pile cap so that forces can be
transferred to new piles

FEMA-172
 Efficacy of Shear Enhancements

Qualitatative indication of improvement in strength and ductility

Sugano 1989

Compared with original bare frame, cast-in-situ wall provides higher strength
and the framed steel brace contributes to both strength and ductility
 Efficacy of Column Enhancements
Qualitatative indication of improvement in strength and ductility

Sugano 1996

Any jacketing technique significantly increased strength and ductility

Jacketing without end gaps resulted in decrease of strength after a higher peak
 Selected References

1. CEB (1995). Fastenings for Seismic Retrofitting: State-of-the-Report, ComiteEuro-

International Du Beton, Thomas Telford, London

2. BSSC(1992). NEHRP handbook for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,

FEMA-172, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

3. FEMA 308 (1999). Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.

4. BIS (1993). IS:13935-1993 Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings-

Guidelines, Bureau of Inidan Standards, New Delhi

5. Sugano S. (1996). “State-of-the-Art in Techniques for Rehabilitation of Buildings,”

11 WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper no. 2179 on CD-ROM, Elsevier.

6. Wyllie, L.A.(1996). “Strengthening Strategies for Improved Seismic Performance,”

11 WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper no. 1424 on CD-ROM, Elsevier.