SEISMIC

RETROFITTING
Guided By:- Dr. Shilpa Pal (HOD Civil Dept.)
Presented By:- Priyanshu Varshney (14/ICE/042)
 PRECAP

EVALUATION CASE STUDY OF

BRIEF PRECAP FOR RETROFITTING
RETROFITTING USING FRP

PROBLEMS
CODES &
FACED BY
CONCLUSION GUIDELINES
STRUCTURAL
AVAILABLE
ENGINEERS
INTRODUCTION
Is our building safe against Earthquake?
Earthquake creates great devastation in terms of life, money and failures of structures.
Because earthquake do not kill; unsafe buildings do.
New buildings are in compliance with the revise new code and fairly perform better.
But what about the old buildings & monuments?
Thus where the Retrofitting is required.

WHAT IS RETROFITTING?
Retrofitting refers to the addition of new technology or features to the older systems.
Types of Retrofitting :
Power plant retrofitting
Home energy retrofitting
Seismic retrofitting
Our main objective is to discuss seismic retrofitting
CLASSIFICATION OF RETROFITTING
TECHNIQUES
Retrofitting
techniques

Global Local
Adding Shear Wall Jacketing of Beams

Adding Infill Wall

Jacketing of Columns
Adding Bracing
Jacketing of Beam
Column joints
Wall Thickening
Strengthening of
Mass Reduction Individual Footings

Base Isolation

Mass Dampers
 CASE STUDY
S.NO STRUCTURE EARTHQUAKE BRIEF ABOUT THE DAMAGES OCCUR RETROFITTING CONCLUSION
SITE RESPONSIBLE STRUCTURE MEASURES TAKEN

1 Mani Mandir M7.7, Bhuj It is an important Collapse of the Bracing in the The retrofitting work of
complex at Earthquake historic monument. element above roof form of truss for complex was carried
Morbi, 2001 Famous for its such as staircase diaphragm action out in such a manner
architecture. cap slabs, parapet, at the roof. that it is non intrusive
Gujrat, India
It comprises of shikhars, Additional and compatible with
ornate masonry arches,chhatris. reinforced existing material, it
building built in Partial collapse of concrete skin does not damage the
yellow sandstone. the bastions at the shear walls for integrity and
It has large central corner. the strengthening architecture of the
courtyard. Joists were of walls. structure.
Extensive damages corroded. Cross pinning
makes it Cornice stone with steel rods.
unoccupied. cracked. Horizontal
Below plinth it is All joints in arches reinforced bands
made of black and pillars are to masonry wall.
basalt stone. opened out. Stitching &
Cracks & tilt in grouting of
walls. columns.
RC skin wall is
introduce for
bastions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research Paper Authors Brief about Research Paper
Seismic Retrofit with H.Katsumata Paper is all about Carbon fiber winding vs
Carbon Fibers for steel jacketing retrofitting.
Reinforced Concrete Y.Kobatake Shear strength and deformation capacity are
Columns the parameters.
Two specimens are created one is retrofitted
with carbon fiber winding as transverse
reinforcement and other is ordinary
concrete with steel stirrups i.e. without
retrofitting.
Passed through various experiments in
order to come to conclusion.
AIJ(Architecture institute of Japan) helps in
the laboratory experiments.
Experiment
Shear Capacity Evaluation
Shear loading test
1. static loading test is carried out.
2. following test variable are
Quantity of carbon fibers , aspect ratio,
concrete strength.
Evaluation method for shear Capacity
Max shear force obtained from this test
compared to the predicted value of AIJ.
Deformation Capacity Evaluation
Ductility test
On 1200 mm long specimen anti symmetric
load is applied.
Evaluation of Ultimate Drift Angles
Evaluates in terms of shear safety margin,
columns with large safety margin have large
deformation capacity.
Large safety margins means large drift.
Evaluation of F index
EXPERIMENT RESULT
The non retrofitted specimen showed cracks along the diagonal direction
while the retrofitted specimens showed more inclined cracks.
Retrofitted specimens show truss action than arch action in non
retrofitted.
In the deformation test displacement of retrofitted is more up to(1oomm)
as compared to non retrofitted.
From the following experiments estimation methods of shear capacity &
deformation capacity were developed for the seismic retrofit with carbon
fibre for reinforced concrete columns.
CONCLUSION REMARK
Up to this point what are we learnt are concluded in following points:
All the methods above discuss has some advantage according to the condition & purpose and
some flaws.
Carbon fiber is the new advancement in the field of retrofitting.
Carbon fiber has immense strength in longitudinal direction but lack in transverse direction,
thus to overcome this mesh is prepared of crosslinking fiber.
Carbon fiber is the perfect element for retrofitting but has less disadvantage and has large
potential to easily use in any situation.
It is a perfect example for strengthening without increasing mass and size of structural
component.
Retrofitting with carbon fiber winding is superior than steel jacketing in terms of cost and
simplicity of construction.
2.EVALUATION FOR RETROFITTING
Steps involve in evaluation are:-
RVS (Rapid Visual As the name suggests, the Rapid Visual Screening involves a quick assessment of a building based on
Screening) visual inspection alone. It is a kind of statistical guideline to the inspectors to identify and inventory the
vulnerable buildings.

In order to facilitate seismic evaluation, it is

The purpose of the preliminary
evaluation is to identify the areas of
seismic deficiencies in an engineered
building before a detailed evaluation is
undertaken
Data Collection necessary to collect relevant data of a building
as much as possible through drawings,
enquiry, design calculations, soil report (if
available), inspection reports, reports of
previous investigation, previous repair works,
any complaints by the occupants etc. A site
Preliminary Evaluation visit is essential for data collection.

The detailed evaluation refers to the structural analysis of the

building. The method of analysis is to be finalized at this stage. The Detailed Evaluation
methods of structural analysis are briefly described in the chapter on
Structural Analysis for Seismic Retrofit.
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Some formulae used for preliminary analysis are:

Shear stress in reinforced concrete frame column Shear Stress in Shear Walls or Un-reinforced Masonry Bearing
The average shear stress in the Walls
columns

Axial Stress in Columns

DETAILED EVALUATION
Steps involve in detailed evaluation are:-

Develop a
computational
model of the
Applying the
building.
external force
in the
members of
the building.
Calculating
the
deformations
of the
members.

Finally interpreting the result.

FOLLOWING EXAMPLE PORTRAY ABOVE PROCESS OF EVALUATION
The building is a single storied load bearing masonry building. It is one of several such bungalow type residential buildings built in
Delhi by the British government during the early part of the 20th century. At present these buildings are considered as heritage
buildings and accommodate members of the parliament or senior government officials and their families. The building under study was
evaluated for seismic resistance as required by is 1893: 2002, and based on the provisions of is 1905: 1987.

Front view Rear view

a. RAPID VISUAL SCREENING
b. DATA COLLECTION
The building is considered as a heritage building.The building is a load bearing masonry structure. The walls are made of
unreinforced burnt-clay brick masonry. The plinth level of the building is at 0.45 m above the ground level. Since the
building was built prior to the development of seismic-resistant design guidelines, there are no beams or bands at the
plinth, lintel or roof levels. The roof is made of lime concrete and is in the form of jack arches in between steel joists.
The spaces above the arches are filled to have a flat roof. The roof is split into two levels. The two levels are at 3m and 5m
height from the base of the building.

Front

Rear

Plan of the building

Building survey data sheet: General data
c. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION : After calculation following statements are given as listed below.
d. DETAILED EVALUATION The detailed evaluation based on a linear analysis is done

Modelling of Roof & Wall should be carried based on below drawing

Equivalent Static Analysis

Dead Load Data
Dead load of roof = 5 kN/m2.
Dead load of wall = 5 kN/m2.

Live Load Data

Live load on roof = 1.0 kN/ m2.

Calculation of Seismic Weight

Total dead load at 5m level

1550.95 kN
Total dead load at 3m level 871.38 kN
Total wall load along north-south direction 2127.95 kN
Total wall load along east-west direction 2165.41 kN
Total =6715.69 kN
 Evaluation Results
Check for Stresses Load Case 1: (DL + LL)
Wall segment P1(kN) fa1(MPa) DCR = (fa1/Fa)

1 130.3 0.51 0.22

2 187.8 0.74 0.30

3 371.7 0.56 0.22

4 229.9 0.56 0.24

Load Case 2: 0.75(DL + LL + EL)

Wall segment P2 fa2 (fa2/Fa) M2 fb2 (fb2/Fb) (fa2/Fa) +

(kN) (MP) (kN-m) (MPa)
(fb2/Fb)

1 313.9 1.26 0.55 33.2 0.70 0.24 0.79

2 264.4 1.06 0.42 52.2 1.13 0.36 0.78

3 309.7 0.46 0.19 187.2 0.58 0.19 0.38

4 418.4 1.17 0.51 85.9 0.67 0.23 0.74

 Load Case 3: 0.75(0.9DL EL)

Wall segment P3 fa3 (fa3/Fa) M3 fb3 f3 = (f3/Ft)

(kN) (MPa) (kN-m) (MPa) fa3- fb3

1 -151.1 -0.60 8.57 33.2 0.70 1.30 18.57

2 -29.8 -0.12 1.71 52.2 1.13 1.25 17.86

3 154.8 1.23 0.09 187.2 0.58 0.35 5.00

4 -194.1 -0.47 6.71 85.9 0.67 1.16 16.57

Observations

The observations from the detailed evaluation are summarized:

a) Load Case 3 generates the critical the demand-to-capacity.
b) In each of the wall segment, the demand-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0.
c) The building needs to be retrofitted.
3.CASE STUDYOF RETROFITTING USING FRP
S.NO STRUCTURE SITE EARTHQUAKE RESPONSIBLE BRIEF ABOUT THE STRUCTURE DAMAGES OCCUR

1 School Building M6.9, 2011, Sikkim. Constructed in 1985 Cracks in the column of
located in Gangtok, (occurred on 18th complying to IS 1893:1975 corridor & bathroom area.
Assam, India. September). & IS 456:1978.
RCC frame building with
infill wall.
M15 concrete & Fe250 steel
is used.
Asymmetric & composed of
two blocks in longitudinal
direction.
Dimension of building block
is 49.1m x 9.5m.
Water tank is installed on the
roof.
Roof is covered with steel
truss.
Analysis Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis & Modal Analysis are carried out.

Pushover analysis is performed using software along X and Y directions and pushover curves are plotted.
The status of performance has also been evaluated in terms of number of hinges for DBE and MCE level
of earthquakes .
Location of formation of these hinges has been found in columns of bathroom areas and corridors
mostly
Hinges have appeared in column before formation of hinges in beam which shows reinforced concrete
frame designed as Weak column-Strong beam design concept.
For ductility in the structure design should be based on Strong column-Weak beam concept.
 Resulting Retrofitting

Following Procedure is suggested to carry out the retrofitting of the school building.

FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer) overlay on columns: Winding of high strength carbon/glass fiber around column surface at the
location of formation of hinges enhances lateral load resisting capacity of column .
Retrofitting is done for MCE level earthquake so that IO level performance can be achieved and IO-LS level hinges are brought
to B-IO level.
Total 22 number of columns are retrofitted in which IO-LS level hinges have appeared either in X or Y direction pushover
analysis.
Required thickness of CFRP is calculated and designed for hinge and non hinge regions based on the deficiency of lateral load
resisting capacity.

Vc, Vn and Vs contributes to seismic strength of unstrengthen column where Vc is shear

strength due to concrete depending on ductility, VN and Vs represents shear strength
contribution due to axial load and transverse steel
Thickness of FRP required in hinge and non hinge regions of columns
Column Id Additional shear Additional shear Thickness of frp Thickness of frp in
strength required in hinge region strength required in nonhinge region in hinge region nonhinge region (mm)
(kN) (kN) (mm)
C1-73 19.481 0.193 0.406 Not Required
C1-74 64.008 44.720 1.333 0.93
C1-75 52.533 33.245 1.094 0.69
C1-76 53.972 34.684 1.124 0.72
C1-77 19.855 0.567 0.414 0.01
C1-81 31.952 12.665 0.666 0.26
C1-84 80.639 61.351 1.680 1.28
C5-85 41.948 25.071 0.874 0.52
C5-87 29.466 12.590 0.614 0.26
C4-113 5.478 Not Required 0.065 Not Required
C5-136 13.655 Not Required 0.284 Not Required
C5-137 17.181 Not Required 0.358 Not Required
C1-138 30.094 10.807 0.627 0.23
C1-139 45.323 26.035 0.944 0.54
C1-140 38.85 19.57 0.81 0.41
C1-141 42.69 23.40 0.89 0.49
C1-142 45.75 26.46 0.95 0.55
C1-143 32.48 13.19 0.68 0.27
C1-144 22.25 2.96 0.46 0.06
C3-149 35.14 15.85 0.37 0.17
C3-150 54.11 34.83 0.56 0.36
C3 -151 55.21 35.92 0.58 0.37
CONCLUSIVE REMARK
School buildings have immense importance in pre and post earthquake scenario.
These structures have important role to play after devastating earthquake event and Immediate Occupancy (IO) level
performance is required for such important buildings.
In our country large numbers of school buildings are seismically deficient. Economical solutions for the safety these
important buildings are only in up gradation which makes these buildings resilient for future earthquake events.
Retrofitting is only technique through which earthquake resistant features can be incorporated in existing buildings.
using GFRP member level retrofitting is done for damaged columns and thickness of FRP is calculated.
CONCLUSION
Seismic Retrofitting is a suitable technology for protection of a variety of
structures.
It has matured in the recent years to a highly reliable technology.
But, the expertise needed is not available in the basic level.
The main challenge is to achieve a desired performance level at a
minimum cost, which can be achieved through a detailed nonlinear
analysis.
Optimization techniques are needed to know the most efficient retrofit for
a particular structure.
Carbon fiber winding is new technology in the field of retrofitting which
does prominently good and show far better result than other retrofitting
techniques but not enormous research work is carried out in this field thus
it seems that its has immense potential.

39
PROBLEMS FACED BY
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

Lack of standards for retrofitting methods

Effectiveness of each methods varies a lot depending upon
parameters like type of structures, material condition, amount
of damage , etc.
 CODES AND GUIDELINES AVAILABLE
1. International Code Council, Uniform Building Code, Vol. 2,USA,1997.

2. International Building Code, IBC 2006.

3. NZS1170.5:2004,Structural Design Actions, Part 5:Earthquake Actions New Zealand,

4. FEMA-273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings(1997).

5. FEMA-274, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic

6. Rehabilitation of Buildings(1997).
7. IS13935:2006, Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings
8. Handbook on Seismic Retrofit of the building, CPWD&IBC
9. Seismic Retrofitting of the deficient buildings, NDMA-Guidelines
10. IS13827:1993, Guidelines for improving earthquake resistance earthen buildings
11. IS13828:1993 ,Guidelines for improving earthquake resistance of low strength masonry buildings
REFERENCES
Agarwal, P. and Shrikhande, M., Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall of India
Private Limited, New Delhi,2006

IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures

IS 13935:1993, Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings-Guidelines

CPWD&IBC, Handbook on Seismic Retrofit of the building, 2007

Litvinov Artem, Applying carbon fiber in building structures Saimaa University of Applied Sciences, Lappeenranta
Technology, Degree Programme in Civil and Construction Engineering,2010.

Katsumata .H and Kobatake. Y, Seismic retrofit with carbon fiber for reinforced concrete column, Elsevier Science
ltd, Tokyo 204, Japan, 1995

Sheth. Alpa, Chaudhari.R, Khan.Ejaz and Gupta.Divay, Seismic retrofitting of Mani Mandir complex at Morbi,
GUJARAT, INDIA,13th WCEE,2004

Rani.Anusha, Paul.D.K, Seismic retrofitting of a damaged school building, IJRET: International Journal of Research
in Engineering and Technology, eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308.

FEMA 273 (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Applied Technology Council, USA

FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, USA
ANY QUESTIONS?