THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.

20, 271289 (2011) Published online 29 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.616

Experimental study for seismic retrot of non-seismic designed reinforced concrete structures
Tae Won Park1, Ung Jin Na2 and Lan Chung1*,
1 2

Department of Architectural Engineering, Dankook University, 126 Jukjeondong, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 448-701 Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime affairs. Juangang-dong, Gwacheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 427-712

SUMMARY An evaluation of seismic performance was conducted for a reinforced concrete (RC) structure designed without seismic considerations. The seismic performances of many existing structures are often inadequate based on the current seismic design codes, and it is sure that this is the general tendency in most countries. Six specimens were designed and constructed to simulate RC frames built in the 1980s, before the introduction of earthquake-resistance design provisions in South Korea. The specimens were composed of one control specimen without any retrot and ve specimens retrotted using wire-bracing, brick inll wall, steel bracing (X- and K-type) and corner gusset plate. All retrotted specimens show signicant increase in strength and ductility. The behaviours of each specimen are compared in the view of maximum strength, maximum moment, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity. Overall, efciency analysis was also demonstrated in this study. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION Seismic retrot of existing structures is one of most focused topics in earthquake engineering and structural dynamics. Because earthquakes result in signicant economic, social and physical hazards, most countries, even though they are located in low or mid seismic zone, have made new seismic codes and retrotted existing structures. Approximately 2030 earthquakes occur every year in and around the vicinity of Korea peninsula. According to the records, earthquakes with magnitude higher than 3.0 make up a considerable portion of earthquakes which happened after 1978 (National Earthquake Information System at Korean Meteorological Administration, http://web.kma.go.kr/eng/ weather/earthquake/trends.jsp). For this reason, earthquake resistance design has been set and implemented recently. In addition, the recent Wooljin earthquake (2004), with a magnitude of 5.2 has proven that Korea is exposed to the danger of serious earthquakes, and old existing buildings need to be retrotted to safe against possible earthquakes. The importance of seismic design for residence structures was emphasized after the Hyogoken Nanbu earthquake (Kobe earthquake, 1995). Researches performed by the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) after the earthquake showed that most buildings damaged by the earthquake were constructed before the regulation on the earthquake proof design. The rst regulation was set up in 1971 and it was modied in 1981. The following were the rates of damaged reinforced concrete (RC) structures: 70% of buildings constructed before 1971, 35% of buildings constructed between 1971 and 1981, and only 15% of buildings constructed after 1981 (Nakashima and Bruneau, 1995). In Korea, the seismic design regulation has been established since 1988 to minimize economic and human losses. It means that most existing building built before 1988, designed without seismic considerations, have signicant deciencies. These problems may exist in many other countries which have the probability of seismic activities (Otani and Kaminosono, 1999; Kitayama et al., 1991; Parung
* Correspondence to: Lan Chung, Department of Architectural Engineering, Dankook University, 126, Jukjeon dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, 448-701, Korea E-mail: lanchung@dku.edu Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

272

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

and Tjaronge, 2004). Seismic performance evaluation and subsequent retrotting of old existing structures are needed to resist seismic forces. The objective of this study is to evaluate the strength of existing RC buildings and to investigate several effective retrot methods for improving the seismic resistant capacity. Earthquake resistance can be improved by increasing lateral load resistance capacity and/or by improving the deformation capacity of a structure (Chiang, 2004). The lateral load resistance can be generally increased by placing of structural walls or steel bracings (Chen et al., 2001; Prota et al., 2002a). The deformation capacity of structural members can be improved by shifting brittle failure mode to ductile failure mode (e.g., columns may be jacketed by steel plates or wrapped by FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics) sheets to increase ductility (Long et al., 1995)). Energy dissipating devices or base isolation devices may also be installed. This research was carried out in three subject areas: (a) evaluation of current strength of RC building built without seismic considerations; (b) development of methods to strengthen structural members; and (c) nding most applicable and cost-effective way to retrot existing buildings. 2. EVALUATION FOR EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE 2.1. Case study building Case study building is a police station built in Korea before 1988, and thus, seismic load was not considered in the structural design. This structure can be classied as a very important building because it will take a crucial role when earthquakes happen. But, because the structure was not designed with seismic consideration, it does not have the appropriate details for seismic resistance. The plan of the structure and the details of columns and beams are shown in Figure 1, and Tables 1 and 2, respectively. D22 and D19 were used for longitudinal reinforcement of G1 and G3, respectively.

Figure 1. Case study building: (a) view of the case study building; and (b) plan of the case study building.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

273

Table 1. Details of columns.

Section
Reference Size (mm) Longitudinal Steel Hoop Cross-ties C1 400 400 8-D22 D10@300 D10@900 C2 400 600 8-D22 D10@300 D10@900 C3 400 500 8-D22 D10@300 D10@900

Table 2. Details of beams. Reference

G1,G2

A-A

B-B

C-C

Size (mm) G3, B1

400 600

Size (mm)

250 600

2.2. Seismic performance evaluation Seismic performance evaluation of case study building was achieved via capacity spectrum method as outlined in ATC-40 (Nakano, 1995). Pushover analysis on case study building was conducted to compute its capacity curve. The building were loaded rst with gravity loads, then pushed with the incrementally increased lateral load distribution until the specied level of roof drifts was reached. The capacity spectrum method (CSM) was utilized next to identify the performance level of the building according to ATC-40. The CSM is assumed to uniquely dene the structural capacity irrespective of the earthquake ground motion. In order to reach a comparable conclusion about the expected
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

274

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

demand of the structure under the design earthquake level, the capacity curve should be plotted on the same format with the specied demand spectrum. The demand curve is represented by earthquake response spectra, and 5% damped response spectrum is used to represent the elastic demand. The capacity curves were converted into the acceleration displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format for comparison with demand curves. In order to evaluate the 3D nonlinear seismic response of case study building, commercial nite element programme MIDAS Gen (MIDAS-IT CO, 2006) was used. Eigenvalue analysis was conducted at the rst step to determine fundamental period and mode shapes of the models needed later to convert the obtained load deection curves into the ADRS. The periods of prototype structure obtained from the eigenvalue analysis were 0.39 seconds in X direction and 0.44 seconds in Y direction, respectively. Case study building was pushed to 20 cm of displacement at the roof level in the pushover analysis. The corresponding seismic demand and capacity spectra are presented in ADRS format for comparison in Figures 2 and 3. The seismic demand was determined in accordance with the current Korean Building Code (Ministry of Construction and Transportation, 2005). The demand curves of Figure 2. are for earthquakes which have a return period of 200 years and those of Figure 3 are for earthquakes which have a return period of 2400 years. It is noted that the structure doesnt have enough strength level required to resist the code-specied seismic load corresponding to the Contingency Level Earthquake, while the structure has the strength level to resist the seismic load corresponding to the Operating Level Earthquake.

Figure 2. Demand and capacity curves for case study building using UBC-97 (seismic performance for the earthquake with return period of 200 years): (a) X direction; and (b) Y direction.

Figure 3. Demand and capacity curves for case study building using UBC-97 (seismic performance for the earthquake with return period of 2400 years): (a) X direction; and (b) Y direction.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

275

3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY The experimental study consists of six one-bay one-storey RC frame specimens simulating a threestorey RC building constructed in 1987. The reason for selecting this building constructed in 1987 is to represent buildings constructed right before the implementation of the earthquake resistance code. This building or similar type buildings have poor seismic performances in many details that can jeopardize the safety of RC structures subject to earthquake. The objective of this study is to investigate the seismic performance of typical RC frames built without seismic provisions. This case study building has also been investigated for seismic behaviour analysis of beamcolumn joint in 1998 (Kim, 1998). One-half scale models of a one-bay one-storey RC frame were used. The columns and beams of specimens have 200 mm width and 300 mm depth. The clear span of the beam was 2800 mm. The clear height of the column was 1550 mm. The concrete compressive strength was 210 kgf/cm2 and the yield strength of the steel rebar was 3200 kfg/cm2. The frame conguration and dimensions are shown in Figure 4. D6 steel rebars were used. 10-D6 bars were placed as longitudinal column reinforcement and D6 stirrups, spaced at 125 mm, were used as transverse reinforcement for the beams. Three D10 and ve D10 bars were placed, respectively, as negative and positive longitudinal reinforcement. D6 ties, spaced at 125 mm in the end part and spaced at 185 mm in the centre part of beams, were used as transverse reinforcement of beams. The concrete cover depth of columns and beams was equal to 30 mm. The maximum aggregate size was 13 mm and the targeted slump was 15 cm. Mixing design of concrete is shown in Table 3. Retrot methods were applied to each specimen after 28 days from concrete casting.

90mm- Sprial bar

B'

C'

A'
A- A'

Main 10- D10 Stirrup D6@150 Top3- D10 Bottom 5- D10 Stirrup D6@185 Top 5- D10 Bottom 3- D10 Stirrup D6@125

A- A'

A- A'

Figure 4. Reinforcement details of reinforced concrete frame.

Table 3. Mixing design of concrete. Design strength

210

Unit weight (kgf/m3) w/c (%)

54.4

Water
180.9

cement
335.0

sand
857.0

gravel
936.0

Additive (kgf/m3)
1.675

25d

Slump (cm)
15.0

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

40 d

276

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

Table 4. Retrot methods for each specimen. Specimen

EN EW EX EK EH EB

Retrot method
Control specimen Wire braces Diagonal braces Cross braces Corner gussets Inll brick wall

Materials for retrot

None 15.5 mm Strand wire Steel channel 100 5 7.5 Steel channel 100 5 7.5 6.0 mm gusset plates Standard cement brick

300

300

6mm steel plate

Figure 5. EW specimen strengthened by K-type steel bracing.

Figures 5 to 9 show ve retrot methods for each specimen. One control specimen (EN) was without any retrot and ve retrotted specimens used wire-bracing (EW, Figure 5), X-type steel bracing (EX, Figure 6), K-type steel bracing (EK, Figure 7), corner gussets plates (EH, Figure 8) and brick inll wall (EB, Figure 9) were tested. Detailed description of each specimen is in Table 4. As indicated from many previous researches (Prota et al. 2002b), the strength and ductility of RC frames are also dependent on axial load ratio, concrete strength and other various factors. However, because this study is for comparison between different retrot methods, other factors were not considered in this experiment study. 3.1. Specimen description 3.1.1. EW specimen As diagonal bracing in EW specimen, 15.5-mm strand wires were used. In order to anchor the strand wire, 6-mm thick steel plates, which have a 30-mm hole at the centre, were attached to each of the four corners of the frame (Figure 5). Steel plates were welded to joint connection plates. Joint connection plates were then connected to the beamcolumn joint using 16 anchor bolts (diameter, 13 mm) for each corner. 3.1.2. EX specimen Figure 6 shows X-type steel bracing. For most types of RC structures, X-type steel bracing is one of the effective retrot methods which cause minimum inuence on foundation and structure. However, because steel bracing is usually less stiff than masonry or concrete, signicant concrete crack will
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

277

13mm bolt 100x50x5x7.5 6mm steel plate

100x50x5x7.5

Figure 6. EX specimen strengthened by K-type steel bracing.

775

13mm bolt

400

100x50x5x7.5 775 250 13mm bolt

Figure 7. EK specimen strengthened by K-type steel bracing. happen in a structure before steel braces are effective. EX specimen involves steel sections to supply lateral force resisting system to the existing RC frame. Steel channel section with web height = 100 mm, ange width = 50 mm, web thickness = 5 mm and ange thickness = 7.5 mm is used. Unlike most other diagonal steel bracing systems, there was a gusset plate at the centre of the RC frame, at which four steel braces were welded. The purpose of this centre gusset plate system is to induce bracing failure at this location. In this case, it will be easy to notice the failure of strengthening members, and re-instalment of damaged members also will be easy. 3.1.3. EK specimen EK specimen had K-type steel bracing (Figure 7). The steel plates with same section detail with EX specimen were used. It is noted that arrangement of steel bracing like in Figure 7 will allow large opening in the wall.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

278

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

3.1.4. EH specimen In order to improve seismic performance of the joint, external reinforcement attachments such as bolted steel plates and corner gusset plate can be used. EH specimen has corner gusset plates at four corners of RC frame (Figure 8). Steel plate with 12-mm thickness is used for corner gusset, which is welded with joint connection plate. As is well known, most damages of buildings subjected to earthquakes are concentrated on the beam-column joint because of low shear stress. For this reason, EH retrot method might have positive effect in terms of shear reinforcement concept. This retrot method not only provides large opening space, but also doesnt ask buildings evacuated while procedures for retrot are going on. 3.1.5. EB specimen For EB specimen, one layer of 190 57 80 (length height width, mm) brick was laid inside of RC frame (Figure 9). Installation of new shear walls in existing frames is one of the most conven-

13mm bolt

12mm Steel Plate 450 450

Figure 8. EH specimen strengthened by corner gusset plates.

Figure 9. EB specimen strengthened by brick inll wall.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

279

tional and useful retrot scheme, which effectively increases the lateral strength of existing building. However, disadvantages of this scheme are increase in weight, less exibility in architectural design/ planning and difculties in providing natural lighting and ventilation. The newly added rigid inll walls act primarily as shear walls and reduce the shear demand on the existing frame. 3.2. Test setup Lateral loading is applied by Material Test System, which has a 500-kN capacity, at the centre of the beam. Displacement is measured by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) with maximum capacity of 100 mm and resolution of 0.01 mm. 7 LVDTs are set up around the specimen to measure lateral displacement and curvature. An additional LVDT is also set at the base of specimen to measure base movement. Experimental test setup is shown in Figure 10. Loading frame is connected with the specimen through a 50-mm hole at the centre of the beam. Positive loading direction means that displacement occurs towards the right-hand side direction, and negative loading direction indicates that displacement happened toward the left-hand side direction in Figure 10. Additional spiral reinforcement is placed around this centre hole. The load was applied under displacement control. Figure 11 shows

Figure 10. Test setup.

5 4 3 2

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0.5% 0.5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Step

Story drift [%]

1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Figure 11. Loading history.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

280

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

Figure 12. EX specimen test setup.

Table 5. Maximum strength for each specimen. Maximum strength (tonf) Specimen Name
EN EW EX EK EH EB

Maximum strength ratio () direction

1.00 1.52 2.52 1.65 1.27 2.81

() direction
7.51 11.45 18.90 12.43 9.57 21.08

(+) direction
7.97 12.25 20.40 10.57 9.48

(+) direction
1.00 1.54 2.56 1.33 1.19

loading history of the experiment. The test would be terminated when either the displacement of specimen is larger than 100 mm or the strength of the specimen reaches 70% of the maximum strength after peak. Figure 12 shows experimental test setup for EX specimen.

4. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Maximum strength The maximum strength of each specimen is compared in Table 5. In EB specimen case, out-of-plane displacement occurred in positive loading direction due to two hinge-type load actuator; therefore, the test results of negative loading direction are only available. So, representative strength enhancement is chosen based on the strength enhancement of the negative direction. Retrotted specimen using wire bracing (EW) showed 52% higher strength when compared with the control specimen (EN). K-type steel bracing specimen (EK) showed 65%, gusset plate specimen (EH) showed 27% higher strength than the control specimen (EN). About 27% increase in strength was achieved by only installation of corner gusset plates at the joints. EB and EX specimens showed 181% and 152% strength enhancements, respectively. 4.2. Load-displacement relationship The story drift is one of the reference parameters used to evaluate the ductility of RC frames (FEMA, 2000). Priestley et al. (1996) showed that the deciencies of seismic performance are mainly related to the lack of ductility. Since the test RC frame represents an extracted portion of the real building, story drift angles of the test frame are representative of the actual behaviour of the real structure.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

281

4.2.1. EW specimen As shown in Figure 13, the maximum strength increased 52% in negative direction and 54% in positive direction when compared with control specimen EN. Loading cycles were applied up to 16th step. EW specimen showed very ductile behaviour in post-peak region. 4.2.2. EX specimen The maximum strength increased up to 156 and 152% in positive and negative direction, respectively. Before steel bracing yields, maximum strength increased three times larger than that of the control specimen (Figure 14). It is clear that the hysteretic loops of the braced frame are very full and stable with dramatic increases in strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation over those of the original RC frame. However, load is decreased dramatically after sixth cycle of loading and centre gusset plate deformed in out of plane direction. Due to partial yielding of centre gusset plate, load decreased dramatically. After the sixth loading step, there was no further deformation at the centre gusset plate.

15

10

Load (tonf)

-5

---------- Wire retrofitting E-W

-10

Control specimen E-N

-15 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement(mm)

Figure 13. Load-displacement relationship of EW specimen.

20 15 10

Load (tonf)

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

---------- Steel bracing E-X Control specimen E-N

20 25 30 35 40

Displacement(mm)

Figure 14. Load-displacement relationship of EX specimen.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

282

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

Cracks concentrated at the beamcolumn joint region after sixth loading cycle. It was observed that the major damage was located in the RC frame joint. Also, ne exural cracks were observed in beam and column regions. 4.2.3. EK specimen Similar to EX specimen, EK specimen uses steel braces with different shapes of arrangements. Many different congurations are possible which can allow for openings, passages and services. The maximum strength increased 33 and 65% in positive and negative directions, respectively. As shown in Figure 15, load-displacement curve is similar to that of the control specimen. Although the effectiveness of the reinforcement is less than that of EX specimen, K-type retrot method is benecial to be able to make various opening in the wall. 4.2.4. EH specimen The load-displacement relationship of EH specimen is shown in Figure 16. Compared with other retrot methods, the maximum strength increase (19 and 27% in positive and negative directions,
15

10

Load (tonf)

-5

-10

---------- Steel bracing E-K Control specimen E-N

-15 -70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Displacement(mm)

Figure 15. Load-displacement relationship of EK specimen.

10

Load (tonf)

-5

---------- Conner gusset plate E-H

-10 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

Control specimen
20 30

E-N
40 50

Displacement(mm)

Figure 16. Load-displacement relationship of EH specimen.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

283

respectively) was not signicant. However, this retrot method is useful due to its relatively simple installation procedures and large opening space in the wall. It should be noticed that the gusset plates can be installed at the joint region without interrupting the use of a building or without signicant disturbance to the residents, such as noise and vibration.

4.2.5. EB specimen Retrot method for RC frame using inll wall (EB specimen) is one of most applicable methods for low-rise (usually up to ve stories) buildings. As mentioned before, negative direction of loaddisplacement relationship is only available, because out-of-plane deformation occurred in positive direction of loading (Figure 17). The maximum strength is () 21.08 tf, which is an increase of 181% compared with the control specimen. This retrot method adds signicant strength and stiffness to frame structures. However, many previous studies (Jung, 2004) showed that this method adds considerable mass to the structure and asks new footings to support additional mass. Also, existing columns may become the weak point of the structure. Also, tight concrete/mortar placement to overhead beam should be insured during installation. During fth and seventh cycles of loading, major cracks happened at the interface between the RC frame and the brick inll wall, and the load carrying capacity decreased dramatically after these loading stages. Figure 18 shows envelope curves of load-displacement relationship for each specimen. Compared with the control specimen (EN), Inll brick wall specimen (EB) and steel bracing specimen (EX) showed large amount of strength increase.

4.3. The maximum moment Comparing the maximum moment based on measured rotation for each specimen, strengthening effectiveness can be graded as EB, EX, EK, EW and EH specimens in the order of good to bad. This is the same trend shown in the maximum strength test results. The rotation of the beam at the joint is calculated based on the displacement measured at 20 cm apart from beamcolumn joint. The maximum moment of the column is calculated based on the displacement measured at 35 cm apart from base of beamcolumn joint. Table 6 illustrates retrot effectiveness in terms of maximum moment.

20 15 10

Load (tonf)

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

---------- Infill brick wall

E-B

Control specimen E-N

40 60 80 100

Displacement(mm)

Figure 17. Load-displacement relationship of EB specimen.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

284

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

25 20 15 10

Load [tonf]

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

Control specimen E-N Wire bracing E-W Steel bracing E-X Steel bracing E-K Corner gusset plate E-H In-filled brick wall E-B
20 40 60 80

Displacement [mm]

Figure 18. Load-displacement envelope curve for all specimens.

Stiffness comparison Control specimen E-N E-W (Wire) E-B (Brick) E-K (K-type Steel) E-X (X-type steel) E-H (corner gusset plate)

Stiffness [tonf/mm ]

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Step

Figure 19. Stiffness degradation for each specimen.

Table 6. Effectiveness in terms of maximum moment. Maximum moment (tonf m) Specimen name
EN EW EX EK EH EB

Strength effectiveness (%) Beam

37 122 42 14 158

Beam
2.15 2.95 4.78 3.06 2.44 5.54

Column
1.57 2.52 14.45 5.46 1.83 4.57

Column
60 800 247 17 191

4.4. Stiffness The stiffness was computed from load-displacement curves. Stiffness trends for all specimens are depicted in Figure 19. The control specimen showed the lowest stiffness up to the failure. It can be indicated that stiffness decreases as loading cycle increases. Initial stiffness of EB and EX specimens were two to three times higher than that of the control specimen (EN).
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

285

4.5. Energy dissipation capacity Energy dissipation capacity can be calculated from the area under load-displacement relationship curve. Comparison between initial energy dissipation capacities for each specimen calculated from the rst loading step to the fourth loading step is made in Figure 20. It appears that the brick inll wall (EB specimen) has the best energy dissipation capacity on fourth loading step. The increase in energy dissipation for increased loading cycles appears more distinct in EB and EX specimens, while a clear trend cannot be derived from EH specimen. For any given loading cycles, the lowest dissipation is achieved by the control specimen EN. The energy dissipations measured from each of all all the loading steps are shown in Figure 21. Each rectangular block means energy dissipations for each loading step. All strengthened specimens show about twice energy dissipation capacity when compared with the control specimen. As it is expected, EB specimen showed larger amount of energy dissipation capacity compared with other specimens. 4.6. Efciency analysis Figure 22 and Table 7 shows the efciency ratio of each retrot method. In this study, labour and construction cost, opening space and the strengthening level are used as parameters in the efciency analysis for comparing various retrot methods. The weights of each parameter are assumed as below.

Figure 20. Initial part of energy dissipation capacity.

12000

Energy dissipation capacity

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

E-N

E-W

E-X

E-K

E-H

E-B

Specimen name

Figure 21. Energy dissipation capacity.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

286

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

300

250

Efficiency ratio [%]

Strength enhancement Open space Labor and Cost

200

150

100

50

-0

-E-X

-E-K

-E-H

-E-B

E-W

Specimen name .

Figure 22. Efciency ratio of each retrot method: (a) crack pattern for EN specimen; (b) crack pattern for EW specimen; (c) crack pattern for EX specimen; (e) crack pattern for EH specimen; (e) crack pattern for EH specimen; and (f) crack pattern for EB specimen.

Table 7. Condition for decide of retrotting method. Condition for decide

Owner User Designer Constructor Low cost Open space Ductility and strength Easy for work

Application for this study

EW, EH EX or EK EB

First, in terms of the cost for each retrot, the efciency ratio of EB specimen, which required least labour and construction cost, was set as 100%. Second, opening space ratio was calculated by real opening space area, 0% for EB specimen and 92% for EH specimen. Finally, strength enhancement is indicated as the real maximum strength increase when compared with control specimen (EN). As mentioned earlier, although strength enhancement due to retrotting is largest in EB specimen, there is no open space for passage. In terms of overall performance of efciency, EX and EB specimens showed high efciency ratio. And EW specimen showed the smallest ratio of efciency. In these results, it should be noted that overall efciency can be changed as the selection of weights of each parameter. In addition, time constraints or the limit disruptions to building operations may also be the most important factor in retrotting. In this point of view, instalment of corner gusset plates can be the best way to simplify the construction process, reduce time, cost and the loss of function of a structure during retrotting construction. 4.7. Failure mode In EN specimen, plastic hinge occurs in the following order : (a) the bottom of column; (b) the top of column; and (c) the ends of beam. Cracks are investigated at the end region of each column and beam. Beamcolumn joint failure occurs showing X-shaped crack. For EW specimen case, plastic hinge occurs also in the order of column and beam (Figure 23(b)). Cracks occur at the concrete around the joint connection plate from the fourth cycle of loading and bolts between concrete and joint connection plate are separated from concrete at the eight cycle of loading. For EX specimen case, initial cracks were formed at the lower side of beam-column joint (Figure 23(c)). In the fourth cycle of loading, bolt between joint connection plate and concrete was failed unexpectedly, leading to connection material failure rather than strengthening material failure. For EK specimen case, cracks start at the middle of column instead of beam-column joint (Figure 23(d)). In E-H specimen, initial cracks
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

287

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 23. Crack patterns for each specimen.

were investigated at the beam-column joint and overall cracks are concentrated at the beam-column joint region (Figure 23(e)). For E-B specimen case, evenly distributed cracks were formed on beam and column (Figure 23(f)). At 5th cycles of loading, diagonal crack occurs suddenly, causing strength drop of 38%. So, specimen E-B shows very brittle descendent branch in load-displacement curve. This is due to the failure mechanism as well as reduction of deformability of the structure due to the brick inll wall. From overall observations, it is investigated that initial crack patterns of all retrotted specimens showed similar characteristics to control specimen (E-N) and cracks tend to be concentrated where strengthening materials are attached due to strength concentration. Finally, most failures occur at beam-column joint region except brick inll wall specimen (E-B).

5. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR RETROFITTED STRUCTURE As mentioned earlier, various retrot methods can be used for strengthening of existing structures. For the purpose of comparison, seismic performance evaluation for the retrotted building with K-type steel bracing was conducted with the CSM. The periods of the retrotted structure obtained from the eigenvalue analysis were 0.23 seconds in X direction and 0.25 seconds in Y direction, respectively. The results show that the retrotted structure has larger strength than the prototype structure. The seismic demand and capacity spectra of retrotted structure are presented in Figures 24 and 25. It can be obtained that this retrotted structure has enough strength to resist the seismic load corresponding to the earthquake level with return period of 2400 years. This retrotted structure possesses an energy dissipation capacity equivalent to 9.02 and 10.73% viscous damping in X and Y direction, respectively. These results verify that the retrotted building is capable of satisfying the code requirements. The capacity and demand curves intersect at a performance point where spectral displacement (Sd) is 1.35 and 1.26 cm for the X and Y direction. At this level, the buildings are considered to be satisfying the immediate occupancy performance level.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

288

T. W. PARK, U. J. NA AND L. CHUNG

Figure 24. Retrotted (K-type) building: (a) X direction and (b) Y direction.

Figure 25. Demand and capacity curves for the retrotted (K-type) building using UBC-97 (seismic performance for the earthquake with return period of 2400 years).

6. CONCLUSION Previous experiences showed that buildings which were not designed and constructed based on seismic considerations can be seismically insufcient and vulnerable to strong earthquakes. This study investigates retrot methods for existing low-rise RC structure to upgrade their seismic resistance capacity to meet increased seismic requirements. Brick inll wall, wire bracing, steel bracing (X-type, K-type) and corner gusset plate method were used. Based on the experimental investigations presented in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) Wire bracing specimen showed 35% strength enhancements, brick inll specimen 147%, X-type steel bracing 122%, K-type steel bracing 46% and corner gusset plate 12%, compared with the control specimen which was not designed for earthquake load. It is sure that the strength enhancements ratio will be changed depending on the level of enhancements for each method. (2) Stiffness of all strengthened specimens also showed higher values than that of the control specimen. It is also observed that retrotting makes signicant increase of ductility (156%, 181% for EX and EB specimens, respectively). (3) Efciency analysis was demonstrated with the parameters such as labour and construction cost, opening space, and the strengthening level, for comparing various retrot methods. According to the results of efciency analysis considering the weights of each parameter, Brick inll wall
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF NON-SEISMIC DESIGNED STRUCTURES

289

is the most efcient retrot method. The results can be changed depending on the weights of each parameter. For using as a decision-making tool to choose which retrot method is most efcient, the interests of building owner and other stakeholders can be introduced in this kind of analysis. (4) Numerical analyses via CSM were conducted. It is investigated that strengthened building shows signicantly improved seismic performance compared with existing structure without seismic retrot. (5) The experience gained from this study may help structural engineers to design retrot method for existing low-storey buildings. More studies need to be done to predict the strength enhancement for each of the retrot methods before the retrots. Formula or specic methods available for estimating the nominal strength of retrotted RC frames need to be investigated for the engineering design. More tests involving different levels of enhancement and different stories or bays are needed, in order to thoroughly investigate the effectiveness of the retrot systems. In addition, more studies that only focus on the response in very low drift (for example, below 1% drift) need to be worked over to deeply understand the seismic response of the retrotted structures in the small earthquakes with high probability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government [NRF-2009-353-D00057].
REFERENCES
Chen S-T, Jeng V, Chen S-J, Chen C-C. 2001. Seismic assessment and strengthening method of existing RC buildings in response to code revision. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology 3(1): 6777 Chiang J. 2004. International concrete design code of practices for adoption in Malaysia after 2008. In Proceeding of the 1st International Conference of Asian Concrete Federation, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2829. FEMA 356. 2000. Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Jung W. 2004. Advanced composite multi-inll panels for seismic retrotting. Seismic Design and Analysis of Nonstructural Building Components. NY, 1: 8188. Kim S-D. 1998. Estimation on earthquake damage of low-rise reinforced concrete structures in Korea. Ministry on Construction and Transportation in Korea, Report on December. Kitayama K, Otani A, Aoyama H. 1991. Development of design criteria for RC interior beam-column joints. Design of BeamColumn Joints for Seismic resistance. James O Jirsa editor. American Concrete Institute: Michigan, 97123. ACI SP-123. Ministry of Construction and Transportation. 2005. Korean building code. Nakano Y. 1995. Recent seismic retrot techniques of existing RC buildings in Japan. Report on January 1995, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan. Nakashima M, Bruneau M. 1995. Preliminary reconnaissance Report of the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. National Earthquake Information System at Korea Meteorological Administration website. Progress of earthquake in Korea, http://www.kma.go.kr/weather/earthquake/domestictrend.jsp 2009, National Earthquake Information System at Korea Meteorological Administration, Seoul, Korea. Otani S, Kaminosono T. 1999. Seismic retrotting technology for reinforced concrete buildings in Japan. In Ugur Ersov Symposium on Structural Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, July, 5980. Parung H, Tjaronge MW. 2004. Evaluation and proposal for repairing of deteriorated concrete trestle (study case: trestle substructure, Bajoe-Bone, Indonesia). In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Asian Concrete Federation, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2529. Phan LT, Cheok GS, Todd DR. 1995. Strengthening methodology for lightly reinforced concrete frames: recommended design guidelines for strengthening with inll walls. NISTIR 5682 report, July. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi M. 1996. Seismic Design and Retrot of Bridges. John Wiley & Sons: New York. Prota A, Manfredi G, Nanni A, Cosenza E. 2002a. Selective seismic strengthening of RC frames with composites. In Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, 2125 July. Prota A, Manfredi G, Nanni A, Cosenza E. 2002b. Cyclic behavior of RC subassemblages upgraded with composites, ICCI 02. In The Third International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, San Francisco, California, 1012 June.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 271289 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal