Journal Pre-proof

Assessment of seismic retrofitting interventions in reinforced concrete structures

Naveen Avulapalle, Chenna Rajaram, Jayaprakash Vemuri

PII: S2949-7418(23)00019-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ghm.2023.04.003
Reference: GHM 16

To appear in: Geohazard Mechanics

Received Date: 19 March 2023

Revised Date: 14 April 2023
Accepted Date: 26 April 2023

Please cite this article as: N. Avulapalle, C. Rajaram, J. Vemuri, Assessment of seismic retrofitting
interventions in reinforced concrete structures, Geohazard Mechanics (2023), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ghm.2023.04.003.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Liaoning University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co.
Ltd.
 1 Assessment of Seismic Retrofitting Interventions in Reinforced
2 Concrete Structures
3
4 Naveen Avulapalle1, Chenna Rajaram*2 and Jayaprakash Vemuri3

5 1
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering, Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering and

6 Technology, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, India

7 *2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering and

8 Technology, Nandyal 518 501, Andhra Pradesh, India

9 3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Mahindra University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

of
10
11 Abstract: Destruction of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, particularly non-ductile RC

ro
12 structures, in recent earthquakes demonstrate their vulnerability under lateral forces generated in
13 an earthquake. Despite the extensive literature on the subject and the wide variety of
14
15 -p
strengthening techniques available, there is no consensus on the efficiency of these techniques in
improving the seismic performance of RC structures. In this study, a five-storeyed RC-framed
re
16 building is considered to evaluate its seismic performance through static non-linear pushover
17 analysis. To examine the effect of various cases encountered in practice, the pushover analysis is
lP

18 carried out on the RC frame for various cases, i.e. a bare RC frame, an RC frame with masonry
19 infills but with an open ground storey, and RC frames with shear walls with a variety of
na

20 thicknesses and steel reinforcement ratios. Further, to investigate the effect of retrofitting, the RC
21 frame is strengthened using local jacketing and bracings. From the results, it is observed that the
22 initial stiffness and base shear of masonry infilled RC frame with an open ground storey exhibit
ur

23 an increase of 2.6%, and 19%, respectively, as compared to the bare frame. The use of shear
24 walls increases the initial stiffness and base shears, and they increase by 6-14% and 8-20%,
Jo

25 respectively, with an increase in the reinforcement ratio in the shear wall. Retrofitting with the
26 use of both diagonal bracings causes the base shear to increase by a factor of 7.7 as compared to
27 that of the open ground storey. Finally, the probability of damage to the RC frame in all cases
28 was compared using seismic fragility curves.
29
30 Key Words: Reinforced Concrete, Pushover Analysis, Base Shear, Retrofitting, Damage
31
32 INTRODUCTION
33 The Indian subcontinent has been subjected to a variety of natural hazards such as droughts,
34 cyclones, floods, fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis. So far, the analysis of pre-event data and
35 thereby taking preventive measures has been possible for many natural hazards, except
36 earthquakes. In the case of major earthquakes, which are very destructive, pre-event information,
37 which consists of an advance warning by a few seconds, is still considered insufficient to take
38 preventive measures. Thus, earthquakes still constitute a threat to the built environment and
39 contribute to a high level of damage as compared to other natural hazards. Further, the
40 significant effect of soil-structure interaction on the response of structures is still neglected due
41 to a lack of consensus [1]. Earthquakes impose severe lateral forces on structures, leading to
Page 1 of 13
42 structural damage or even collapse [2]. One possible way to reduce structural damage and the
43 consequent losses is to adopt earthquake-resistant seismic design philosophy in practice. In the
44 case of reinforced concrete structures, many retrofitting methods are available to decrease the
45 level of forces and stresses in the structural elements. However, a comparison of various
46 techniques for effectively mitigating the damage has not been sufficiently examined from a
47 seismic fragility framework.
48
49 In this study, a literature review of recent developments in the design and construction of
50 earthquake-resistant RC structures is first presented and key findings from several experimental,
51 numerical, and analytical studies are discussed. Next, a detailed methodology for performing
52 pushover analysis is discussed alongwith a presentation of the procedural framework for deriving
53 fragility curves. The study performs these analyses for a variety of RC frame buildings, both
54 with and without retrofitting, to evaluate the level of seismic damage in each case. A parametric
55 study is performed on the bare RC frame, masonry infilled RC frame with an open ground

of
56 storey, and finally an RC frame with a shear wall with a variety of thicknesses, and with a
57 variation of reinforcement percentages to understand the capacity curves in terms of initial

ro
58 stiffness and lateral strengths. The pushover analysis is further extended after performing
59 suitable retrofitting measures such as local jacketing and adopting various types of braces. The
60
61 -p
results from these analyses, for all the above cases, are represented using fragility curves to
visually assess the probability of exceedance of defined damage levels, with respect to spectral
re
62 acceleration.
63
lP

64 LITERATURE REVIEW
65 During an earthquake event, moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames are damaged primarily
na

66 at the beam-column joints due to the development of high levels of stresses and deformations
67 caused by dynamic loads. Specifically, in RC frames with open-ground storey structures, it has
68 been recommended that the column size be increased to improve lateral strength [3]. RC
ur

69 structures are primarily designed to resist gravity loads with inadequate seismic detailing and
70 ductility provisions [4,5]. It has been emphasized that such non-ductile RC structures need to be
Jo

71 protected against high stresses induced by severe lateral forces in major earthquakes as they have
72 insufficient lateral strength and stiffness and low energy dissipation capacity (Sahoo and Rai,
73 2010). There are two ways to improve structural performance under high seismic hazards: either
74 by reducing seismic demand on the structure and its various elements or by strengthening the
75 structure by adding new elements or retrofitting its deficient structural elements. It is understood
76 that the strengthening of deficient members improves the member performance but may not
77 drastically increase the structure’s capacity. In such cases, the addition of new damping devices
78 which dissipate energy is considered more useful, with an improvement in performance having
79 been demonstrated over the last few decades by several researchers [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Guidelines
80 for the evaluation and retrofitting of existing buildings are also provided by ASCE-41 [13].
81 Experimental studies have been conducted by researchers on various on both bare RC frames and
82 also masonry-infilled RC frames. Key findings from some relevant experimental, analytical, and
83 numerical studies are discussed below.
84 Experimental Studies:
85 Full-scale pseudo-dynamic tests were conducted on a four-storied building [14], both for bare
86 frames and also for RC frames with infill walls. The researchers concluded that the maximum
Page 2 of 13
 87 base shear of the infilled frame was twice that of the bare frame. Another study [15] was
88 performed on a two-storied two-bay steel frame with concrete infill and it was reported that
89 major cracks were observed in the infill at 0.5% of drift. An experiment [16] was performed for a
90 single bay single storied concrete bare frame and perforated brick infill. The researchers
91 observed that the initial stiffness of an infilled RC frame increases as compared to a bare RC
92 frame and observed that the lateral strength of the infilled RC frame was twice that of the bare
93 frame. A shake table experiment [17] was conducted on a three-bay four storied structure to
94 study the role of unreinforced infill walls in terms of strength and ductility and it was observed
95 that the presence of the infill wall increased the stiffness of the structure globally by a factor of
96 3.8 whereas the natural period of the test structure was shortened by 50% and there was an
97 increase in the damping coefficient. A dynamic shake table study was performed [18] on an RC-
98 infilled framed structure under real earthquake excitation to verify the applicability of a proposed
99 carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP) based retrofitting technique. The results from this
100 study indicate that the CFRP strip retrofitting technique significantly improved the seismic

of
101 behaviour of the structure. Experiments on bracing schemes have also been performed, and the
102 cross-diamond-bracing scheme was observed to be effective in improving the seismic

ro
103 performance of RC frames (Ozkaynak et al., 2010).
104
105
106
Analytical and Numerical Studies:
-p
Several numerical studies are available in the literature on the seismic behavior of RC structures,
re
107 however, only a few studies are available which propose simple analytical relations to determine
108 the strength and deformation characteristics of unreinforced masonry and masonry-infilled RC
lP

109 frames [20, 21, 22, 23]. Only a limited number of analytical models have been developed for the
110 compressive stress-strain curves for masonry [24,25,26]. A rational approach has been suggested
na

111 [27] for the analytical modeling of masonry infill panels and it was observed that the single-strut
112 model can be effectively used for masonry infill walls discontinued in the first-storey. Further, a
113 reduction factor was proposed [28] for the effective width of the diagonal strut to calculate initial
ur

114 lateral stiffness when a central window opening is present. A numerical study was done to
115 understand the effect of various parameters such as brick sizes, wall openings, mortar thickness,
Jo

116 and horizontal and vertical reinforcement using the Applied Element Method (AEM) [29].
117 Another study was performed to understand the effects of soft storey, weak storey, and short-
118 column effects due to the presence of brick infill walls using the same AEM methodology [30].
119 A numerical study was performed to study the effect of lintel bands [31] on the performance of
120 masonry-infilled RC frames. The energy approach has been investigated for its efficacy in
121 quantifying seismic damage to masonry buildings [32]. A non-linear time history analysis was
122 performed [33] for two existing RC buildings seismically damaged during the 2011 Van
123 earthquake, in Turkey. The researchers compared the observed damage with results from the
124 analytical approach and also evaluated the effect of shear walls on the seismic behavior of
125 buildings. An examination of the literature indicates that only a limited number of studies are
126 available which compute the seismic fragility curves for masonry-infilled RC buildings with and
127 without retrofitting.
128
129 NUMERICAL MODELING OF RC BUILDING
130 Geometry Details:

Page 3 of 13
131 For analysis, a G+4 RC framed building is considered with a uniform height of 3 m and bay
132 width of 3 m. The frame is modelled in a FORTRAN-based computer program, the Inelastic
133 Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete (IDARC2D) tool [34]. A dead load and live load of
134 100%, and 25% are considered in the analysis. Figure 1 shows the typical five-storey RC frame
135 which was designed as per provisions of IS 456:2000 [35]. The column size and beam size of
136 each member are 500 × 500 mm and 250 × 400 mm respectively. Figure 2 shows the
137 reinforcement details of the beams and columns. The details of the foundation reinforcement are
138 not considered and the columns are assumed to be fixed at ground surface level. Consequently,
139 the effect of soil-structure interaction is not considered in the analysis. The grade of concrete and
140 steel used in the analysis are M25 and Fe415 respectively. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 is used in the
141 analysis.
142 Material Model:
143 Figure 3 shows the stress-strain curves, for both concrete and steel materials, adopted in the
144 analysis. Table 1 lists the non-linear material properties. The initial modulus of elasticity (EC) for

of
145 concrete is taken as 28337 MPa. The material reaches a compressive strength (fc) of 35 MPa for
146 unconfined concrete at 0.2% strain. The analysis considers the effect of confinement on the

ro
147 negative slope of the stress-strain curve, as the effect is not significant on maximum compressive
148 stress. So, the factor ZF defines the shape of the descending branch. The expression for
149 calculating ZF is shown below [36].
-p 0.5
re
150 ZF = (1)
 50u +  50h −  0
151
lP

where,
3 +  0 f c1 b
152  50u = ;  50h = 0.75 s
na

f c − 1000
1
sh
153 The strength in the above equation is prescribed in psi; ρs is the volumetric ratio of confinement
ur

154 steel to core concrete; b is the width of the confined core, and sh is the spacing of hoops. The
155 analysis considered 12% of maximum compressive stress in the tension zone. For the steel
Jo

156 material, the positive slope of the modulus of elasticity is constant till it reaches yield strength
157 (fs). A plateau is continued till the strain reaches 0.03. A 1.6% of elastic modulus of steel is
158 assumed as the modulus of strain hardening and it continues till the ultimate strength of steel
159 (fsu). Calibrated models for unreinforced masonry are limited in literature and particularly
160 unavailable for soft brick masonry [37, 38, 39]. In IDARC, the contribution of the masonry infill
161 is considered using compression struts i.e. the struts are ineffective in tension. The properties of
162 the struts are calibrated to represent the masonry infills. The details of the modelling procedures
163 for degrading systems in IDARC are available in the literature [40].
164
165 Loading:
166 To calculate the seismic performance of the structure, the various RC frames are subjected to
167 displacement-controlled pushover analysis with a triangular distribution as shown in Figure 4
168 [41]. The drift ratio is defined as the ratio of maximum lateral drift to the total height of the
169 building. A drift ratio of 4.0 % is applied to obtain the capacity of the RC frames. For local
170 retrofitting of the RC frame, a jacketing of the column is applied, where a structural member has
171 cracked or the location of hinge formation during push-over analysis. The analysis considers the
172 following cases to obtain the seismic capacity of the RC frame under various configurations.
Page 4 of 13
173 Figure 5 shows the numbering scheme adopted for the beams and columns of the framed
174 structure.
175 1) Bare Frame
176 2) Open Ground Storey
177 3) Shear Wall with
178 a) Thickness Variation and
179 b) Percentage of Reinforcement Ratio
180 4) Retrofitting measures
181 a) Local jacketing and
182 b) Bracings
183 The description of pushover analysis is described in the following section.
184
185 METHODOLOGY
186 Methodology for Pushover Analysis:

of
187 The pushover analysis is a non-linear static analysis which uses to understand the capacity of the

ro
188 structure. The analysis can be done by imposing either force or displacement onto the structure in
189 uniform, triangular, or parabolic patterns. Displacement induced in the structure at the base

-p
190 generates inertial forces causing damage to the structure. It helps in understanding the formation
191 of flexural, shear cracks, and plastic hinges in the structure. The seismic resistant design does not
re
192 mean that structure will not incur any damage; if zero damage is required then it would be
193 uneconomical. Thus, some amount of damage is allowed and the extent of damage depends on
lP

194 the performance required. The structure must undergo damage to know its performance and
195 collapse pattern. In this study, non-linear static pushover analysis is performed using IDARC.
na

196 A step-by-step procedure of the moment-curvature relationship is implemented in the IDARC

197 and is as follows:
Step-1: A small incremental curvature k is applied onto a section to a previously known value
ur

198
199  k −1 . (i.e., k = k −1 + k )
Jo

200 Step-2: Compute the incremental centroidal strains based on the earlier stiffness, where ‘n’ is the
201 iteration number
202  0n = −k zn,−k1k / k An,−k1 (2)

203 Step-3: The new strains and curvatures are to be updated.

n −1
 o   o    o 
n n

204   =  +  (3)
  k   k  0 k
205 Step-4: Recompute the terms of the stiffness matrix using the equation below.
 N  k A ( 0,k ,  k ) k z ( 0,k ,  k )   o 
206   =    (4)
M  k  k z ( 0,k ,  k ) k zz ( 0,k ,  k ) k    k
207 Where,

Page 5 of 13
 NCC NSS
k A ( 0,k , k ) = E
i =1
ci ( 0,k , k ) Aci +  Esj ( 0,k , k ) Asj
j =1

208 NCC NSS

k z ( 0,k , k ) = E
i =1
ci ( 0,k , k ) Aci zi +  Esj ( 0,k , k ) Asj z j
j =1
NCC NSS
k zz ( 0,k , k ) = E
i =1
ci ( 0,k , k ) Aci zi2 +  Esj ( 0,k , k ) Asj z 2j
j =1

209 where NCC and NSS represent the number of concrete strips and steel areas considered in the
210 section, respectively; Eci and Esi are the concrete and steel section tangent moduli in the fibres ‘i’
211 and ‘j’, respectively; and, Aci and Asi are the areas of the concrete strip and steel, respectively.
212 Step-5: Find the unbalanced axial load from the equation below.
213 Nkn = k An, k  0n, k + k zn, k k (5)

of
214 Step-6: If, N kn   , where  is the tolerance limit value, then continue the iteration procedure

ro
215 by returning to step-2. Otherwise, calculate the moment increment and update the moment
216 capacity, continue to search for the moment-curvature relation by adding another increment

-p
217 k +1 to the process, and continue to step-1.

M k = k zn, k  0n, k + k zzn , k k

re
218 (6)

219 The results of push-over analysis and retrofitting of the frame with respect to the drift ratio are
lP

220 discussed below.

221
na

222 Methodology for Generation of Fragility Curves:

ur

223 The present analysis adopted the HAZUS methodology for generating the fragility curves. Fragility
224 curves are graphical representations which show the probability of exceedance of the identified
Jo

225 structural damage state. The procedure for generating the fragility curve is now described:

226 Step-1: The pushover curve (base shear vs roof displacement curve) is converted into a capacity
227 curve (spectral acceleration vs spectral displacement). A schematic diagram of the pushover and
228 capacity curve is shown in Figure 6. The spectral acceleration (Sa), and spectral displacement (Sd)
229 are calculated as,

V u
230 Sa = ; Sd = (6)
Mˆ 1,roof

231 where ‘V’ is the base shear of the building, effective modal mass Mˆ = i T
 T MR
, ‘u’ is the roof
( )
2

i Mi
232 displacement at each step, 1,roof is roof displacement at the top floor level in the first mode, and

Page 6 of 13
 iT MR
233 the value is taken as 1, as the first mode of the building is considered. i = T , and R is a unit
i Mi
234 vector. The effective modal mass, M̂ is independent of mode-shape scaling and i depends on
235 mode-shape scaling.

236 Step-2: The capacity spectrum curve is simplified as a bilinear curve as shown in Figure 10. The
237 yield displacement (Dy) and ultimate displacement (Du) values are taken from the bilinear curve.

238 Step-3: The spectral displacements are calculated for different damage states as shown below.

239 • Slight damage (Sd,1) – 0.7Dy

240 • Moderate damage (Sd,2) – Dy
•

of
241 Extensive damage (Sd,3) – Dy + 0.25 (Du - Dy)
242 • Collapse (Sd,4) – Du

ro
243 Step-4: The probability of damage occurrence of various damage states (slight, moderate,
244
-p
extensive, and collapse) can be calculated using the equation below.
re
ds  1 S 
245 P =   ln a 
 (7)
lP

Sa   ds S a ,ds 
na

246 where ‘ϕ’ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function, ‘Sa,ds’ is threshold spectral
247 acceleration at the required damage state (corresponding 'spectral acceleration' values for the
248 damage state 'spectral displacement' values), and ‘βds’ is the standard deviation of natural
ur

249 logarithmic of 'Sa'. The fragility curves for various damage states are drawn using Equation 7.
Jo

250
251 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
252 The push-over analysis is performed and the resulting curve is drawn for the base shear versus
253 the roof displacement for all cases considered in the study. The results of each are discussed
254 below.
255
256 Bare Frame:
257 The bare frame remains linear up to a drift ratio of 0.35% and attains a maximum lateral strength
258 is 1927 kN at a drift ratio of 1.1%. The initial stiffness of the bare frame is 7622 kN/m. As per IS
259 1893-2016, the drift ratio is limited to 0.4% and the corresponding base shear is 1684 kN. The
260 first flexural crack is started in the left part of beam-2 and the first plastic hinge is formed on the
261 right part of the same beam. A total of six plastic hinges are formed in beams when the drift
262 reaches 1%. Figure 7 shows pushover curves for the bare frame and open ground storey and
263 various cases of retrofitting techniques. The analysis is further carried out with the open ground
264 storey.
Page 7 of 13
265 Open Ground Storey:
266 A maximum base shear of 2354 kN was obtained at a drift ratio of 1.1%. The initial stiffness and
267 base shear of the open ground storey is increased by 2.6%, and 19%, respectively compared to
268 the bare frame. The base shear at a drift ratio of 0.4% is 2054 kN. The first flexural crack is
269 formed on the right part of beam-1 and the first plastic hinge is formed on the right part of the
270 same beam. Clearly, the presence of masonry infills improves the seismic performance of the
271 structure.
272 Shear Wall:
273 Further, the pushover analysis is continued with a variation of shear wall thickness and
274 percentage of reinforcement in the shear wall. Shear walls resist lateral loads, either by to
275 cantilever action or by truss action, based on their slenderness ratios. A parametric study has
276 been performed to understand the behavior of frames under pushover analysis. In this analysis,

of
277 two cases are considered i.e., thickness variation and percentage of reinforcement.
278 (i) Thickness variation

ro
279 The minimum thickness of the shear wall is specified as 150 mm to avoid lateral instability of

-p
280 thin sections and it can be extended up to 500 mm for practical considerations. The thickness of
281 the shear wall is considered as 0.1 m, 0.15 m, 0.2 m, 0.25 m, and 0.3 m in this analysis. Figure 8
re
282 shows the pushover curves obtained for various thicknesses of the shear wall. The maximum
283 base shear of 3200 kN was obtained for a thickness of 0.1 m at a drift ratio of 0.94%. As the
lP

284 thickness of the shear wall is increased by a factor of two, the base shear is observed to increased
285 by 65-70%. The first plastic hinge is formed at the right end of beam-5. Further, it is observed
286 that the drop in the peak values occurs at 1% drift, uniformly for all the cases, while the second
na

287 drop occurs at a 3.5% drift, which indicates that the change in the thickness of the shear wall
288 does not affect the drift % corresponding to drop in load. The observed drop is loads at various
289 % of drift correlates well with the standard expected pushover curve where the sequential plastic
ur

290 hinging mechanisms (first in the beam and later in the columns) formed in the structure cause a
291 reduction in the load carrying capacity.
Jo

292 (ii) Percentage of reinforcement

293 Next, the analysis is carried out by varying the percentage of reinforcement. The minimum
294 reinforcement ratio to be provided in the shear wall is 0.25% and it can be extended up to 2% for
295 practical considerations [42]. In this analysis, the ratio is increased to 0.85% at an interval of
296 0.15%. Figure 9 shows pushover curves obtained for various reinforcement percentages of the
297 shear wall. The maximum base shear of 3214 kN is obtained for a reinforcement ratio of 0.25%.
298 As the reinforcement ratio increases, the base shear also increases. The initial stiffness is
299 increased by 6-14% and the base shear is increased by 8-20% for each 0.15% increment in the
300 reinforcement ratio. Further, it is observed that the drop in the peak values occurs at varying drift
301 %, i.e. from 0.8% to 1.2%, which indicates that an increase in the percentage of steel
302 reinforcement in the shear wall causes an increase in the drift % corresponding to drop in load.
303 The load is redistributed to other elements after the failure or yielding of a element. The
304 observed drops in the load at various % of drift correspond to the loss of load-carrying capacity
305 of the structure due to sequential yielding (first in the beam and later in the columns) in the
306 framed structure.

Page 8 of 13
307
308 Retrofitting Measures:
309 Further, the analysis is carried out with retrofitting measures using local jacketing and bracings.
310 (i) Local jacketing
311 Retrofit seismically damaged buildings is essential to enable them to regain their strength and
312 stiffness. The jacketing of the column is a popular retrofitting technique for buildings where the
313 existing size of the damaged column is increased. In this study, the jacketing technique is utilized
314 for a column element. The analysis considered both the full and the partial jacketing of the
315 column. If the bottom column of the frame alone is strengthened, then it is termed partial
316 jacketing and if the complete column is strengthened, it is termed full jacketing. Figure 7
317 illustrates the pushover curves obtained for a partial and full jacketing of the column. It is
318 observed that both the strength and stiffness increase substantially with partial and full jacketing.

of
319 The maximum increase in the strength and stiffness is observed for full jacketing of the columnl.
320 The sequence of yielding observed in the structure changes due to the increased strength and

ro
321 stiffness of the jacketed columns, thus resulting in the pushover curves observed in Figure 7.

-p
322 (ii) Bracings
323 The analysis considered four types of bracings namely, chevron bracings, single diagonal
re
324 bracings, and double diagonal bracings. The maximum base shear of 2354 kN was obtained for
325 the open-ground storey case as discussed in the earlier sections. The base shear is observed to
lP

326 double and quadruple, with the provision for chevron bracings and diagonal bracings,
327 respectively. When double diagonal bracings are provided, the base shear is increased by a factor
328 of 7.7 as compared to the observed base shear for the open ground storey structure. It is observed
na

329 that the pushover curve remains similar if the single diagonal bracing is provided either from left
330 to right or vice-versa. A slight increase is observed in the resulting curve for the single brace
ur

331 when it is provided from the right-to-left direction. Figure 10 represents pushover curves for all
332 the bracing systems.
Jo

333 Finally, an analysis is carried out to estimate the damage through fragility curves. Fragility
334 curves characterize the conditional probability of a system reaching specified damage limit
335 states, which are stated regarding a parameter representing the ground motion intensity [43].
336 Mathematically, the seismic fragility curve is represented as:
337 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑃 [ 𝐿𝑆 |𝐼𝑀 = 𝑥] where 𝐿𝑆 = 𝑃(𝐶 = 𝐷) (8)
338 where 𝐶 is the capacity, 𝐷 is the demand, and 𝐼𝑀 is the measure of ground motion intensity (of
339 level 𝑥) and 𝐿𝑆 is the limit state. Fragility relationships may be derived by various techniques.
340 Three common approaches for developing fragility relationships include the empirical, the
341 judgmental, and the analytical fragility curves. The empirical fragility curves are derived from
342 the examination of reconnaissance data of damaged structures in historical earthquakes. Such
343 fragility assessments have been performed by several researchers [44, 45]. These are the most
344 accurate assessments since they use real damage data from field observations. However,
345 obtaining adequate data for various types of buildings for various regions is unrealistic. The
346 judgmental fragility curves are derived using expert opinion, and consequently are general [46].
347 It is not very accurate due to the wide range of opinions and judgment of human experts. The
348 uncertainty in the opinion is difficult to be quantified apart from the discrete level of structural
Page 9 of 13
349 classes. The analytical fragility curves are derived using numerical approaches to model the
350 behaviour of structures. The technique includes the variability both from structural capacity and
351 seismic demand and is used in the absence of field data on structural damage and recorded
352 ground motions. These curves may be developed either through nonlinear static analysis or
353 nonlinear time history analysis [47]. In deriving fragility curves, it is computationally expensive
354 to consider all combinations of all uncertain parameters. Since the derived fragility curves are
355 usually used subjectively, some variables can be assumed to be deterministic. So, the various
356 techniques in literature differ only in their approach to optimizing either computational time or
357 precision.Figure 11 shows fragility curves, for various cases of the framed building considered in
358 the present study, at the collapse limit state. The curves illustrate the improvement in seismic
359 fragility levels due to the use of various retrofitting techniques.
360
361 CONCLUSIONS

of
362 In the present work, an assessment of various seismic interventions of the lateral load response of

ro
363 a G+4 RC framed building with a uniform height of 3 m is performed. The various
364 configurations of the RC frame are modeled in a FORTRAN-based computer program, i.e. the

-p
365 IDARC2D tool. The results from the present study indicate that there is an increase in the base
366 shear of an RC frame with masonry infills having an open ground storey as compared to a bare
re
367 RC frame. The base shear further increases when the column size is increased. It is also observed
368 that the base shear increases when a shear wall is introduced and there is a substantial increase in
lP

369 the base shear with an increase in the thickness of the shear wall. Similarly, there is a substantial
370 increase in the base shear with an increase in the percentage of steel reinforcement in the shear
371 walls. As compared to a bare frame the base shear is almost three times higher in a frame having
na

372 a shear wall of thickness of 0.25 m. It is further observed that there is a enhancement in base
373 shear when single diagonal braces are used, which is further enhanced when both diagonal
ur

374 braces are used. The following specific conclusions are drawn from the analysis.

375 • The initial stiffness and base shear of the open ground storey is observed to increase by
Jo

376 2.6%, and 19%, respectively compared to the bare frame.

377 • As the thickness of the shear wall increases twice, the base shear increases by 65-70%.
378 The initial stiffness increases by 6-14% and the base shear increases by 8-20% as the
379 reinforcement ratio in the shear wall increases.
380 • The base shear increases by 7.7 times that of the open ground storey if double diagonal
381 bracings are provided.
382 Finally, it may be noted that the results from the pushover analysis and the derived fragility
383 curves in the present study are based on the analysis of a regular G+4 reinforced concrete
384 structure and are subject to the limitations of the assumptions during analysis. However, the
385 methodology employed in the study can be extended to various other RC building typologies.
386
387 Conflict of Interest:
388 On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
389
390 References
Page 10 of 13
391 1. Wani, F. M., Vemuri, J., & Rajaram, C. (2022). Effect of soil structure interaction on the
392 dynamic response of reinforced concrete structures. Natural Hazards Research, 2(4), 304-
393 315.
394 2. Vemuri, J., & Kolluru, S. (2020). Evaluation of ground motion scaling techniques.
395 In Advances in Computer Methods and Geomechanics: IACMAG Symposium 2019 Volume
396 1 (pp. 525-535). Springer Singapore.
397 3. Arlekar, Jain SK and Murty CVR, (1997) “Seismic response of RC frame buildings with soft
398 first storeys”, In Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on Natural Hazards in
399 Urban Habitat, New Delhi
400 4. Sahoo DR, Rai DC (2013a) Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques for
401 reinforced concrete frames with soft ground storey. Engineering Structures, 56, pp 1993–
402 1944
403 5. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2009) Effectiveness of Some Strengthening Options for
404 masonry Infilled RC Frames with Open First Storey. Journal of Structural Engineering,

of
405 135(8), pp 925–937
406 6. Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Seismic strengthening of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames using

ro
407 aluminum shear links as energy-dissipation devices. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):3548–57
408 7. Kelly JM, Skinner RI, Heine AJ (1972) Mechanisms of energy absorption in special devices
409
410 -p
for use in earth-quake resistance structures. Bull N.Z, National society for earthquake
Engineering, 5(3):63–88
re
411 8. Skinner RJ, Kelly JM, Heine AJ (1975) Hysterisis dampers for earthquake resistant
412 structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 5(3):287
lP

413 9. Tytler RG (1978) Tapered steel energy dissipaters for earthquake resistant structures. Bull
414 NZ Nat soc, Earthquake engineering 11(4): 282–294
na

415 10. Zhang RH and Soong TT (1992) " Seismic design of viscoelastic dampers for structural
416 applications ”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 1992, ASCE,118(5):1375–1392
417 11. Soong TT, Dargush GF (1997) Passive energy dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering.
ur

418 Wiley & Sons, Chichester

419 12. Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Hammel W, Siaher AN (2001) Toggle-brace-damper seismic
Jo

420 energy dissipation systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 127(2):105–112

421 13. ASCE (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings ASCE −41. ASCE,
422 Reston, VA
423 14. Negro P, and Verzeletti G, (1996), Effect of Infills on the Global Behavior of RC Frames:
424 Energy Considerations from Pseudo-dynamic Tests, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
425 Dynamics, 25, 753-773.
426 15. Mosalam K M, White R N, and Gergely P, (1997), Static Response of Infilled Frames using
427 Quasi-Static Experimentation, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 123, 1462-1469.
428 16. Colangelo F, (2005), Pseudo-dynamic seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled
429 with non-structural brick masonry, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,34,
430 1219-1241.
431 17. Alidad H, and Mosalam, K M, (2006), Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete
432 structure containing masonry infill wall, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
433 Dynamics,35, 1827–1852.
434 18. Mihali G, Viktor H, Kosta T, and Marta S, (2004), Experimental Investigations of 1/3 scale
435 RC Frame with Infill Walls Building Structures, Proc. of 13th World Conference on
436 Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver BC, Canada, Paper No. 772.
Page 11 of 13
437 19. Ozkaynak H, (2010), The earthquake behavior of RC frames with fiber polymer confined
438 infill walls and their structural damping properties, Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul Technical
439 University, Istanbul.
440 20. Grimm, T.C., (1975), Strength and Related Properties of Brick Masonry, Journal of
441 Structural Engineering (ASCE), 101, 217-232.
442 21. McNary, W S, Abrams D P., (1985), Mechanics of Masonry in Compression, Journal of
443 Structural Engineering (ASCE), 111, 857-870.
444 22. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N.,(1992),Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
445 buildings, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
446 23. Bennett, R. M., Boyd, K. A., and Flanagan, R. D., (1997), Compressive properties of
447 structural clay tile prisms, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 123, 920–926.
448 24. Priestley, M. J. N., and Elder, D. M. (1983), Stress-strain curves for unconfined and confined
449 concrete masonry,American Concrete Institute Journal., 80, 192–201.
450 25. Sawko, F., and Rouf, M. A. (1984), On the stiffness properties of masonry, Proc. Inst. Civ.

of
451 Eng., Part 2. Res. Theory, 77, 1–12.
452 26. Ewing, B. D., and Kowalsky, M. J., (2004), Compressive behavior of unconfined and

ro
453 confined clay brick masonry, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 130, 650–661.
454 27. Hemant, B. K., Durgesh, C. R., and Sudhir, K. J., (2006), Acase for use of dynamic analysis
455
456 -p
in designing for earthquake forces, Current science,91, 874-877.
28. Goutam, M, and Sudhir, K. J., (2008), Lateral Stiffness of Masonry Infilled RC Frames with
re
457 Central Openings, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 701-723.
458 29. Archanaa D, and Pradeep Kumar R, (2012), Inelastic Response of RC Moment Resisting
lP

459 Frames with URM Infills, Proc. of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
460 Lisbon, Portugal, Paper No. 1085.
na

461 30. Neelima P V S, (2013), Critical Issues in Design of RC Frames with Unreinforced Brick
462 Masonry Infills in Higher Seismic Zones in India, MS by Research Thesis, International
463 Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, India.
ur

464 31. Bhargavi S, (2015), Comparison of Seismic Performance of Brick Masonry RC Frames with
465 Lintel and Lintel Band, MS by Research Thesis, International Institute of Information
Jo

466 Technology, Hyderabad, India.

467 32. Chenna Rajaram, Aswini Reddy Teegala, Renuka Devi Kummara, and Ramancharla Pradeep
468 Kumar, (2017), Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Structure: A Case Study on Light
469 Houses, Journal of Institute of Engineers India, 98, 135-153.
470 33. Tulay, A. O., Ahmet, K., Muzaffer, B., Basak,Z., and Kocakc (2019), Effect of shear wall on
471 seismic performance of RC frame buildings, Engineering Failure Analysis,100, 60-75.
472 34. Reinhorn, A. M., Roh, H. S., Sivaselvan, M. V., Kunnath, S. K., Valles, R. E., Madan, A., Li,
473 C., Lobo, R., and Park, Y. J. (2009), IDARC2D Version 7.0: A Program for the Inelastic
474 Damage Analysis of Structures, Technical Report MCEER, University at Buffalo, SUNY.
475 35. Bureau of Indian Standards (2000) Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of
476 Practice, IS:456-2000, New Delhi.
477 36. Kent, D.C. and Park, R., (1971), Flexural members with confined concrete. Journal of the
478 Structural Division, 97(7), pp.1969-1990.
479 37. Vemuri, J., Anwar, T., & Subramaniam, K. V. (2022). Seismic fragility assessment of
480 load‐bearing soft‐brick unreinforced masonry piers. Journal of Safety Science and
481 Resilience, 3(4), 277-287.

Page 12 of 13
482 38. Vemuri, Jayaprakash, Syed Ehteshamuddin, Meharbabu Ravula, and Subramaniam Kolluru.
483 "Pushover analysis of soft brick unreinforced masonry walls using analytical and numerical
484 approaches." Materials Today: Proceedings 28 (2020): 420-425.
485 39. Vemuri, J., Ehteshamuddin, S., & Kolluru, S. (2018). Numerical simulation of soft brick
486 unreinforced masonry walls subjected to lateral loads. Cogent Engineering, 5(1), 1551503.
487 40. Sivaselvan, M. V., & Reinhorn, A. M. (2000). Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic
488 structures. Journal of engineering mechanics, 126(6), 633-640.
489 41. Repapis, C.C., and Zeris, C.A(2018), Seismic assessment of non-conforming infilled RC
490 buildings using IDA procedures,Front. Built Environ, 4, 88.
491 42. Bureau of Indian Standards (2016) Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete
492 Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces – Code of Practice, IS:13920-2016, New Delhi.
493 43. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1998). Evaluation of Earthquake
494 Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Technical Resource, FEMA 307, Applied
495 Technology Council, USA.

of
496 44. Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Lee, J. and Naganuma, T. (2000). Statistical Analysis of
497 Fragility Curves, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(12), 1224.

ro
498 45. Ellingwood B. and Galambos, T. (1980) Probability Based Load Criteria for American
499 National Standard, Washington, National Bureau of Standards.
500
501 -p
46. Miyakoshi, J., Hayashi, Y., Tamura, K. and Fukuwa, N. (1997). Damage ratio functions of
buildings using damage data of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake. In Proceedings of
re
502 the 7th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR), 349-354.
503 47. Orsini G (1999). A model for buildings’ vulnerability assessment using the parameter less
lP

504 scale of seismic intensity (PSI), Earthquake Spectra, 15(3), 463–483.

505 48. ATC (1985) Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13 Report, Applied
na

506 Technology Council, Redwood City, CA

507 49. Hwang, H., Liu, J. B., and Chiu, Y. H. (2001). Seismic fragility analysis of highway
508 bridges. Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 01-06.
ur

509
Jo

510
511
512

Page 13 of 13
 f
oo
Figure 1. A Typical Five storey RC frame (all dimensions are in ‘m’)

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 2. Reinforcement details of beam and column

 f
oo
(a)

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

(b)

Figure 3. Stress – Strain curve for unconfined (a) concrete, and (b) steel (Source: Reinhorn et
al., 2009)
 (a) Bare frame (b) Open ground storey

f
r oo
-p
re
(c) Shear wall (d) Diagonal bracings
lP
na
ur
Jo

(e) Single sided bracings (left to right) (f) Single sided bracings (right to left)

(g) Chevron bracings

Figure 4. Triangular lateral displacement distribution of framed buildings considered in the
analysis
 f
r oo
-p
Figure 5. Beam and column numbering of the framed structure
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of pushover curve and capacity curve

 f
r oo
-p
re
Figure 7. Pushover curves for various cases of RC frame
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 8. Pushover curves for various thicknesses of shear wall

 f
r oo
-p
re
lP

Figure 9. Pushover curves for various percentages of reinforcement for shear wall
na
ur
Jo

Figure 10. Pushover curves for various bracing systems

 f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na

Figure 11. Fragility curves for various cases of frame

ur
Jo

Table 1. Non-linear parameters used for concrete and steel

Material property Value
Unconfined compressive strength (fc) 35 MPa
Initial Young’s modulus of concrete (EC) 28337 MPa
Strain at maximum strength of concrete 0.2%
Stress at tension cracking 4.2 MPa
Modulus elasticity for steel (ES) 200 GPa
Yield strength of steel (fs) 415 MPa
Ultimate strength of steel (fsu) 580 MPa
Modulus of strain hardening (ESH) 3330 MPa
Strain at initial hardening 3%
Highlights
• Review of Earthquake Effects on the Reinforced Concrete Structures
• Numerical Modelling of G+5 Reinforced Concrete Structures
• Seismic Interventions to Enhance Performance of RC Structures
• Pushover Analysis on a Variety of RC Frames with Seismic Interventions
• Comparison of results from various Seismic Rehabilitation Techniques

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo