Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using Energy Dissipation Device

10 IV April 2022
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.41325
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue IV Apr 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using

Energy Dissipation Device
Shubham Tripathi1, Dr. Savita Maru2
1
Dept of Civil Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain, M.P., India
2
Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain, M.P., India
Abstract: This study examines the performance-based design of structure that is increasing commonly in earthquake resistance
design. to ensure any structure possess earthquake resistant design, certain minimum performance objective is desired at different
level of seismic excitation. With the help of some devices, Low to medium rise buildings are performing well for the seismic actions. In the
present work, originally deficient RC frame is analyzed with static analysis and after this static nonlinear analysis is performed in
which suitable energy dissipation devices are installed sequentially. first analyzed with Viscous fluid Damper then Lead- rubber
isolator is used has designed as per performance-based design criteria of G+6 RC frame building. These models are analyzed for
important residential use and located at seismic zone IV. Linear static and nonlinear static methods are used to analyze the
structure with help of CSI ETABSv18 software. Results which are discussed is minimum performance level, story drift, performance
point and performance objective.
After analysis of results, structure which is installed with Led-rubber bearing isolator is performed well during an earthquake
and satisfy with desired minimum performance level. In case of viscous fluid damper, it is not satisfactory to achieve desired
minimum performance up to this extent it helps to reduce floor acceleration.
I. INTRODUCTION
Seismic retrofitting is the modification of existing structures to make them more resistant to seismic activity, ground movement, or
ground breaking caused by earthquakes. With a better understanding of the seismic needs of structures, and with our recent
experiences with large earthquakes near urban centers, the need for seismic modernization is well recognized. Before the advent of
modern seismic codes in the late 1960s for developed countries (USA, Japan, etc.) and in the late 1970s for many other parts of the
world (Turkey, China, etc.), many structures have been designed without full details. and reinforced for seismic protection. In view
of the impending problem, various studies have been carried out. Modern engineering guidelines for seismic assessment,
modernization and recovery have been published worldwide, such as those from ASCE-SEI 41 and the New Zealand Society of
Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE).
These codes must be updated regularly; such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake highlighted the fragility of welded steel structures.
The retrofitting techniques described here can also be applied to other natural hazards such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, and
strong winds caused by thunderstorms. While the practice of modernizing earthquake resistance is primarily concerned with
improving the structureto reduce the seismic risks associated with the use of the structure, the reduction of risksand losses due to non-
trivial factors. It should also be noted that there is no such thing as a seismic structure, although seismic performance can begreatly
improved with a suitable initial design or subsequent modifications.
II. OBEJECTIVES
In this project, three building structure model are considered having irregularity in plan (L - shape) and which is originally deficient
to seismic loading. Static non-linear analysis i.e. (pushover analysis) is done using ETABS 2018 software. The objective of thesis
are: -
1) To estimate the capacity of the structure using nonlinear analysis.

2) To obtain the performance point of building.
3) To check, building meet the minimum performance level at the moderate seismic zone.
4) To reduce the demand of structure using energy dissipation devices.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1297
III. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF BUILDING

Retrofitting refers to providing something with a component or feature that was not present during design and
manufacture/construction. Often used in relations to installation of new building systems, such as heating systems etc.
Refurbishment implies to a process of improvement by cleaning, decorating, reequipping and may also contain elements of
retrofitting.
Renovation of a project refers to the process of returning something to a good state of repair. In terms of heritage constructions,
returning the project to its previous state throughretrofitting and refurbishment is called ‘Restoration’ or ‘Rehabilitation’.
The Differences between retrofitting and refurbishment A single project may include elements of retrofitting, refurbishment and
renovation. The whole process of renovating an old project into a new building containing elements of retrofitting and
refurbishment is called the Rehabilitation of the project. Retrofitting is usually done to an undamaged project as a preventive
measure, while on damaged and old buildings, the process of retrofitting is called Rehabilitation.
Structural retrofitting, in terms of buildings, can be broadly classified as Seismic Retrofit usually refers to modifications to make the
building more resistant to seismic activity, ground motion and soil failures due to earthquakes. These retrofit methods are also
applicable for other natural hazards as well. The techniques mostly achieve lateral bracing increasing lateral strength, ductility and
lateral stiffness in the building.
Non-Seismic retrofit encompasses all other kinds of retrofitting ranging from damages done due to deterioration by aging, error in
design, construction flaws etc. the techniques are varied, ranging from increase in size of beams and columns, to increasing concrete
cover by adding layer of concrete or plaster.
IV. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
This chapter explained that, the 3D building model is analyzed using the static nonlinear pushover analysis method. The residential
building models G+6 RCC is analyzed using CSIETABS v18 software. The seismic codes are unique to the country. In India, Indian
Standard for design of seismic structures IS 1893:2016 is the main standard that provides the outline for the calculation of seismic
design forces.
Table 1 Analyzed model description
S. No. Model Description Structure Description
01 Model 1 RCC Framed structure
02 Model 2 RCC Framed structure with viscous fluid damper
03 Model 3 RCC framed structure with laminated rubber bearingisolator
Table 2 General Specification of Building

Geometric Details
Structure Building Structure
Types of Buildings RC frame structure
Plan Area 540 M2
No. of Story G+6
Typical Story Height 3m
Bottom Story Height 3m
Material Properties (Concrete)
Grade of concrete M-30
2
Weight per unit Volume (KN/M ) 25 KN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity, E (MPa) 27386.12
Poisson’s Ratio U 0.3
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, α (1/℃) 5.5x10-06
Shear Modulus, G (MPa) 11410.89
Material Properties (Steel Rebar)
Grade of Steel Fe-500

2
Weight per unit Volume (KN/M ) 78.5 KN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity, E (MPa) 2x105
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 0.0000117
Member Properties(mm)
Slab Thickness 150 mm
Size of Beams 250x500
Size of column 450x450
Primary Load
Floor Finishing Load (Dead Load) 1.25 KN/m2
Live Load 2.0 KN/m2
Wall Load (on Each Beam) 12.5 KN/m
Seismic Properties
Seismic Zone IV
Zone Factor (Z) 0.24
Response Reduction Factor (R) 5
Importance Factor (I) 1.5
Soil Type II
Damping Ratio 0.05
Analysis Software: ETABS 2018
A. Plan And Three Dimensional View Of Building

The figure showing below the plan and three-dimensional view of all models with or without energy dissipation devices which is
considered for nonlinear analysis. To achieve the desired building performance objective in a deficient building structure.
Figure 1 Showing plan of RC Building Figure 2 Showing 3DView with VFD
Figure 3 Showing 3D view with base isolator
V. RESULT & DISCUSSION

After Modelling and analysis of above-mentioned structures following results are deduced for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 for
G+6 stories structure. Results are then compared to assess the structural responses on the basis of story displacements, base
shear, hinge results & performance point.
Figure 4 Showing story displacement of all three model in (X-direction)
Figure 5 Showing story displacement of all three model in (Y-direction)
Figure 6 Showing base shear of all three model
Figure 7 Showing performance point of all three model
VI. CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE

A. Conclusion
1) Deflection of the stories from the initial position is termed as story displacements and its maximum value is obtained at the top
story. the maximum value of story displacement in x-direction in model 3 is 27.43, where as in model 1 & model 2 are same.
2) The maximum value of story displacement in y-direction in model 3 is 26.589, where as in model 1 & model 2 are same.
3) The value of base shear under nonlinear static analysis are reduced about 1% in model 2 and 21% of model 3 as compare to
model 1.
4) The reduction of base shear is due to installed devices. Viscous fluid dampers ineffective to reduced base shear up to some
extent but are effective in controlling other story parameter. In model 3 base shear reduced considerably, due to installing led
rubber isolator.
5) The performance point, in first model taken as step 10 (which actually lies between steps 9 and 10), 99% of hinges are within
LS and 91% within IO performance level. A Δroof top of 0.246 m, with the height of the building up to roof top h (which
excludes the staircase tower room) being 22.2m, gives a Δroof top to h ratio of 0.01108 (in an average sense) which lies
within the performance level of IO.
6) The performance point, in second model taken as step 10, of hinge results (which actually lies between steps 9 and 10), 98% of
hinges are within LS and 91% within IO performance level. A Δroof top of 0.228 m, with the height of the building up to
rooftop h (which excludes the staircase tower room) being 22.2m, gives a Δroof top to h ratio of 0.010270 (in an average sense)
which lies within the performance level of IO.
7) The performance point, taken as step 11, of hinge results (which actually lies between steps 10 and 11), 100% of hinges are
within LS and 88% within IO performance level. A Δroof top of 0.300 m, with the height of the building up to rooftop h (which
excludes the staircase tower room) being 22.2 m, gives a Δroof top to h ratio of 0.01351 (in an average sense) which lies
within the performance level of IO.
8) After performing displacement control push over analysis on all model it is observe that, model which is deficient to lateral load
initially is not perform well. To satisfy the minimum performance criteria. After installing device (damper) in second model,
formation of hinges at collapse level is further increasing which are inappropriate.
9) In third model, hinges are formed in the immediate occupancy level (IO level), which is the minimum performance requirement
of any important structure to meet the essential services at the time of emergency.
10) The hinges at performance point of all model at different level are showing the structure performance against inelastic
responses.
a) In first model, 92% of hinges at(A-IO) level, 7% of hinges lies in the (IO- LS) range & 1% of hinges at CP level.
b) In second model, 92% of hinges at(A-IO) level, 7% of hinges lies in the (IO- LS) range & 1% of hinges at CP level.
c) In third model, 89% of hinges at(A-IO) level, 11 % of hinges lies in the (IO- LS) range & no hinges at CP level.
B. Scope of Future Work

The following enlist point work is taken under future to extend the topic further whichare as follows:
1) For the Viscous Fluid Damper and Led rubber bearing isolated model considered in these studies are inelastic and Nonlinear
static analysis; this provides a further scope tostudy this problem using an inelastic dynamic for all models.
2) Address dynamic analysis to simulate the site-specific other criteria which are not accommodated in nonlinear static analysis.
3) To meet the minimum performance level under the MCE/DBE case other requirement need to be checked.
4) Investigation of different EDD’s for finding the best suitability of seismic retrofitting technique.
5) Use the other combination of one or more energy dissipating device for achieved minimum performance level for given
guidelines of different manufactures and compare them.
C. Summary
The procedure of analysis using ETABS 2018 software to obtains results from the analysis. The considered models are analyzed and
comparative results were developed using pushover analysis. It is found that, the model in which dampers are installed are suitable
to reduce drift limit while the model in which base isolation is used. Base shear reduces significantly compare to other considered
model and performance objective are attained due to installation of such devices.
REFERENCES
[1] By Marc Badoux and James O. Jirsa, “STEEL BRACING OF RC FRAMES FOR SEISMIC RETROFITTING”, J. Struct. Eng. 1990.116:55-74.
[2] Niels Peter Høj, Marja-Kaarina Söderqvist, “Assessment of the Seismic Resistance and Structural Safety of Existing Multistory Residential Buildings”
Structural Engineering International 2/2009
[3] Miao Cao, liyu Xie, Hesheng Tang, Naoki Funaki and Songtao Xue, “Performance Study of an 8-story Steel Building Equipped with Oil Damper Damaged
During the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake”, DOI: http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.303.
[4] Y. Frank Chen, Junsheng Liu & Yun Shi, “Retrofitting of a seismically deficient building”, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2016.1211234.
[5] Corey T. Griffin, “Multi-performance retrofits to commercial buildings in seismic zones, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2017.1360171, 31 Aug 2017
[6] D. K. Baros and s. E. Dritsos, “A Simplified Procedure to Select a Suitable Retrofit Strategy for Existing RC Buildings Using Pushover Analysis”, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 12:823–848, Year 2008 DOI: 10.1080/13632460801890240.
[7] Fardad Haghpanah, Hamid Foroughi & Reza Behrou “Sustainable seismic retrofitting of a RC building using performance-based design approach” DOI:
10.3846/2029882X.2017.1380539 01 Oct 2017
[8] FABIO MAZZA and ALFONSO VULCANO (2009), “Nonlinear Response of RC Framed Buildings with Isolation and Supplemental Damping at the Base
Subjected to Near-Faul Earthquakes”
[9] Georgia e. Thermou, amr s. Elnashai, and stavroula j. Pantazopoulou (2010), “Design and Assessment Spectra for Retrofitting of RC Buildings” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 14:5,743-770, DOI: 10.1080/13632460903410764
[10] Stefano Pampanin and Umut Akguzel (2011), Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Bui ldings using Fibre-Reinforced
Polymers:Challenges and Solutions DOI: 10.2749/101686611X13049248220041
[11] Miao Cao, liyu Xie, Hesheng Tang, Naoki Funaki and Songtao Xue, “Performance Study of an 8-story Steel Building Equipped with Oil Damper Damaged
During the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake”, DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.303.
[12] Simi Hoque “Building Simulation Tools for Retrofitting Residential Structures”
[13] YOSHIRO KOBATAKE “A seismic retrofitting method for existing reinforced concrete structures using CFRP Min-Ho CHEY, J. Geoffrey CHASE, John
B. MANDER, Athol J. CARR, “innovative seismic retrofitting strategy of added stories isolation system, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(1): 13–23, DOI:
10.1007/s11709-013-0195-9
[14] Y. Daniel, O. Lavan, “Gradient based optimal seismic retrofitting of 3D irregular buildings using multiple tuned mass dampers”
[15] O. Lavan, M. ASCE, “Optimal Design of Viscous Dampers and Their Supporting Members for the Seismic Retrofitting of 3D Irregular Frame Structures” DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001261. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
[16] Antonio Formisano, Federico M. Mazzolani, “On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting.
[17] Hanan Al-Nimry, Musa Resheidat and Saddam Qeran, “Rapid assessment for seismic vulnerability of low and medium rise infilled RC frame buildings”,
earthquake engineering and engineering vibration 14: 275-293 Vol.14, No.2 June 2015.
[18] “Evaluation of different strengthening techniques efficiency for a soft storey building”
[19] Y. Frank Chen, Junsheng Liu & Yun Shi, “Retrofitting of a seismically deficient building”, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2016.1211234,
[20] Paolo Foraboschi, “Versatility of steel in correcting construction deficiencies and in seismic retrofitting of RC buildings.”
[21] Massimiliano Ferraioli and AlbertoMandara, “Base Isolation for Seismic Retrofitting of a Multiple Building Structure: Design, Construction, and Assessment.”
[22] Simon Petrovčič & Vojko Kilar (2016),” Seismic Retrofitting of Historic Masonry Structures with the Use of Base Isolation - Modelling and Analysis
Aspects” Modelling and Analysis Aspects, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2016.1190881.
[23] Antonio Di Cesare and Felice Carlo Ponzo (mar 2017), Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Hysteretic Bracing Systems:Design
Procedure and Behaviour Factor”
[24] Hindawi Shock and Vibration Volume 2017, Article ID 2639361, 20 pages:https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2639361.
[25] W. Leonardo Cortés-Puentes, Dan Palermo (sep 2017), “SMA tension brace for retrofitting concreteshear walls.”
[26] Georgia E. Thermou and Manousos Psaltakis (2017), “Retrofit design methodology for substandard R.C.buildings with torsional sensitivity”, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1277569
[27] André Furtado, Hugo Rodrigues, Humberto Varum and Aníbal Costa (dec 2015), Fardad Haghpanah, Hamid Foroughi & Reza Behrou (oct 2017),
“Sustainable seismic retrofitting of a RC building using performance-based design approach” Engineering Structures and Technologies,9:3,133-141, DOI:
10.3846/2029882X.2017.1380539.
[28] Shanshan Wang, A.M. ASCE, and Stephen A. Mahin , F.ASCE (2018),Seismic Upgrade of an Existing Tall Building Using Different Supplemental Energy
Dissipation Devices” DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943- 541X.000209.
[29] Jiuk Shina, Jong-Su Jeonb (2019), “Retrofit scheme of FRP jacketing system for blast damage mitigation of non-ductile RC building frames.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111328.
[30] Girish Chandra Joshib, Shailesh Ghildiyalb, Piyoosh Rautelaa (2019), “Seismic vulnerability of lifeline buildings in Himalayan province of Uttarakhand in
India” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101168
[31] Arun M. Puthanpurayila, Oren Lavanb, Rajesh P. Dhakala (2019)” Multi objective loss-based optimization of viscous dampers for seismic retrofitting of
irregular structures”,Soil dynamics and Earthquake engineering https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105765.
[32] Vui Van Cao, Son Quang Pham, “Comparison of CFRP and GFRP Wraps on Reducing Seismic Damageof Deficient Reinforced Concrete Structures.”
[33] Gobirahavan Rajeswaran & Anil C. Wijeyewickrema (2019) “An Alternative Design Method for the Seismic Retrofit of RC Moment Resisting Frame
Buildings with Viscous Dampers” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2019.1684400.
[34] Christos Giarlelis (Senior Structural Engineer), Dimitrios Koufalis (Structural Engineer) & Constantinos Repapis (Associate Professor), “Seismic Isolation: An
Effective Technique for the Seismic Retrofitting of a Reinforced Concrete Building” Structural Engineering International, DOI:
10.1080/10168664.2019.1678449.
[35] Jishuai Wang, Tong Guo, Lianglong Song, and Yongsheng Song, “Performance-Based Seismic Design of RC Moment Resisting Frames with Friction-Damped
Self-Centering Tension Braces” JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1785357.
[36] Mahesh Babu Addala, Suresh Bhalla & Alok Madan, “Controlling Dynamic Response of Structures Using Hybrid Passive Energy Dissipation Device” Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1792378.
[37] Vincenzo Manfredi, Giuseppe Santarsiero, Angelo Masi and Giuseppe Ventura,The High-Performance Dissipating Frame (HPDF) System for the Seismic
Strengthening of RC Existing Buildings” https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041864.

Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using Energy Dissipation Device

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using Energy Dissipation Device

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using Energy Dissipation Device

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 IV April 2022

Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frame Structure Using

1) To estimate the capacity of the structure using nonlinear analysis.

III. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF BUILDING

IV. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Table 1 Analyzed model description

S. No. Model Description Structure Description

01 Model 1 RCC Framed structure

02 Model 2 RCC Framed structure with viscous fluid damper

03 Model 3 RCC framed structure with laminated rubber bearingisolator

Table 2 General Specification of Building

Material Properties (Steel Rebar)

Grade of Steel Fe-500

A. Plan And Three Dimensional View Of Building

Figure 1 Showing plan of RC Building Figure 2 Showing 3DView with VFD

Figure 3 Showing 3D view with base isolator

V. RESULT & DISCUSSION

Figure 4 Showing story displacement of all three model in (X-direction)

Figure 5 Showing story displacement of all three model in (Y-direction)

Figure 6 Showing base shear of all three model

Figure 7 Showing performance point of all three model

VI. CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE

B. Scope of Future Work

You might also like