Masters Thesis by Partha Roy - 001410602001-Final

PARAMETRIC STUDY ON EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT
RETROFITTED SCHEMES USING NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER

ANALYSIS
THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
WITH SPECIALIZATION IN
‘STRUCTURAL REPAIR AND RETROFIT ENGINEERING’
By
PARTHA ROY
Examination Roll No. - M6CNE1701
Reg. No- 129443 of 2014-2015
Under the esteemed Guidance of
Prof. Dr. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA- 700098, INDIA
May-2017
PARAMETRIC STUDY ON EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT
RETROFITTED SCHEMES USING NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS
THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
WITH SPECIALIZATION IN
‘STRUCTURAL REPAIR AND RETROFIT ENGINEERING’
By
PARTHA ROY
Reg. No- 129443 of 2014-2015
Under the esteemed Guidance of
Prof. Dr. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY

JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA- 700098, INDIA
May-2017
(i)

JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA, INDIA
CERTIFICATE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘Parametric study on efficiency of different
retrofitted schemes using non-linear pushover analysis’ submitted by
Partha Roy Is absolutely based upon his own work under our supervision and neither
his thesis nor any part of the thesis has been submitted for any degree/diploma or any
other academic award anywhere before.
--------------------------------------------------------
Prof. (Dr.) Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Thesis Supervisor, Professor,
Department of Construction Engineering,
Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India.
Countersigned by,
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Prof. (Dr.) Kaushik Bandyopadhyay Dean,
Head, Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Department of Construction Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India.
Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India.
(ii)
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA, INDIA
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This foregoing thesis is hereby approved as a credible study of an engineering subject

carried out and presented in a manner satisfactory to warrant its acceptance as a
prerequisite to the degree for which it has been submitted. It is understood that by this
approval, the undersigned do not endorse or approve any statement made, opinion
expressed or conclusion drawn therein but approve the thesis only for the purpose for
which it has been submitted.
Final Examination for evaluation of thesis
Board of Examiners
--------------------------------
(Signature of Examiner)
--------------------------------
(Signature of Examiner)
(iii)
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA, INDIA
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND COMPLIANCE OF ACADEMIC

ETHICS
It is hereby declared that the thesis entitled ‘Parametric study on efficiency of

different retrofitted schemes using non-linear pushover analysis’ contains
literature survey and original research work done by the undersigned candidate, and
have been submitted for partial fulfillment of the continuous assessment of the course
of Master of Construction Engineering with specialization in ‘Structural Repair and
Retrofit Engineering’ of Jadavpur University.
All information in this document have been obtained and presented in accordance with
academic rules and ethical conduct.
It is also declared that, as required by these rules and conduct, all materials and
results that are not original to this work have been fully cited and referenced.
Name : PARTHA ROY
Examination Roll No. : M6CNE1701
Registration No. : 129443 of 2014-2015
Thesis Title : Parametric study on efficiency of different retrofitted

schemes using non-linear pushover analysis
Signature :
Dated :
Place : Kolkata
(iv)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am indebted and acknowledge my whole hearted gratitude and deepest respect towards my
project guide and our reverend Prof. Dr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay of Jadavpur University,
Construction Engineering Department for his motivation, able guidance, helpful suggestions
and persistent encouragement; besides his close and constant supervision throughout the
preparation and submission of this report. It is him, who despite his other commitments, could
find time to help me bringing this Thesis to its present shape.
It is my privilege to extend my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, Head,

Department of Construction Engineering, Jadavpur University for his cooperation and advice.
I also acknowledge my sincere gratitude towards Prof. Jafar Sadak Ali, Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Aliah University and visiting Lecturer of Jadavpur University,
Construction Engineering Department for the extensive help extended by him in
understanding and learning the software package ‘SAP 2000’, without which the submission
of this report would have been incomplete.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all the other respected teachers of this department
for their continuous encouragement, support and valuable advice they provided throughout my
work.
Everything in this nature is time bound; therefore, I am grateful to ‘The Almighty’ for successful
completion of my work in time.
Last but not the least, I am indebted to my family, specially my parents and my wife, without
whose support and sacrifices; the completion of this work would have been a distant dream.
(Partha Roy)
Reg. No- 129443 of 2014-15
(v)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__________________________________________________
Certificate of Recommendation…………………………………………………….…..…(ii)
Certificate of Approval……………………………………………………………………..(iii)
Declaration of Originality and Compliance of Academic ethics……………………(iv)
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………….…….….(v)
Table of contents………………………………………………………………..….…(vi to ix)
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….………….(x-xi)
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….………….(xii)
List of Appendices……………………………………………………………….....….….(xiii)
Abbreviations …………….…………………………………………………….………….(xiv)
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….……….…..(xv)
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..……….…..…....
1.1 General……………………………………..…………………….……..…….1
1.2 Objective of present study….…………………………..……….………….5
1.3 Scope of work………………………………………………..……...……….5
1.4 Methodology of the Study………………………………………….……….6
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………..

2.1 General……………….…………………..…………………..………………7
2.2 Critical Observations..…………………………………..…..………….….14
Chapter 3 NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS THEORY…….………………...........

3.1 General………………………..…………………………..…………….….16
3.2 Pushover Analysis……………………………………….……….....….…16
3.2.1 Evaluation Result……………………………………………..….18
3.3 Pushover Analysis Using FEMA 356 CM…………….………………...20
3.3.1 Basis of the procedure………………………………………..…20
(vi)
Table of Contents (Contd.) ……..…
3.3.2 Modeling and Analysis Considerations....…………………......20

3.3.2.1 Control Node Displacement………………………………......20
3.3.2.2 Lateral Load Distribution………………………………………20
3.3.2.3 Idealized Force-Displacement Curve....………..………..…..22
3.3.2.4 Period Determination…………………....………..……………23
3.3.3 Determination of Forces and Deformations………………..….23
3.3.3.1 Target Displacement………………………..……………..…..24
3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria…………………………..…………..…..…26
3.4 Pushover Analysis Using ATC 40……….………………………….......27
3.4.1 Capacity Spectrum Method…………………..…………..……..27
3.4.1.1 Basis of the procedure…………………………………....…...27
3.4.1.2 Modeling and Analysis Considerations………………..….…27
3.4.1.2.1 Capacity…………………………….…………………..…….27
3.4.1.2.2 Demand (displacement)……………………………..……...29
3.4.1.2.3 Conv. of Capacity Curve to Capacity Spectrum…….……30
3.4.1.2.4 Conv. of Demand Curve to the Response Spectrum in
ADRS format…………………………………………..…….31
3.4.1.2.5 Reduced Response Spectrum………………………..…….32
3.4.1.2.6 Performance……..…………………………………..……….32
3.4.1.2.7 Intersection of Capacity Spectrum and Demand
Spectrum…………………………………………..…………33
3.4.2 Displacement Coefficient Method…………………..…………..34
3.4.2.1 Calculating Demand Displacement using the Displacement
Coefficient Method……………………………………..………34
3.4.2.2 Effective fundamental period (Te) & Target displacement
(t )……………………………………………………...…….…35
3.4.2.3 Checking Performance at the Expected Maximum
Displacement……………………………………….…….…….35
3.5 Comparative chart for capacity spectrum & DCM…….………..……..37
3.6 Performance level of structure and element……………………..…….38
(vii)
Table of Contents (Contd.) ……
3.7 Types of non-linearity……...……..….………………..……………..…….39

3.7.1 Geometric non-linearity………………………………….…..…...39
3.7.2 Material non-linearity………………………………………..…….39
3.8 Pushover analysis solution control…..…….……………………….…….40
3.9 Limitations of Conventional Pushover Analysis..…….………….……...40
3.10 Vulnerability Index……………………………….………………….…….42
Chapter 4 NUMERICAL STUDY……………….………………………………………….........

4.1 General………………………………………………………………..……..44
4.2 Problem Definition……….…………….……………………………….…..45
4.2.1 Properties……………………………………………………..…...55
4.2.2 Loading……………………………………………….……….…...57
4.2.3 Idealised Structural Model………………………….……….…...57
4.2.4 Section Properties……………………………………….…….….58
4.2.5 Support Conditions……………………………………….……....63
4.2.6 Load Calculations/Primary Load Cases……………….…….....64
4.2.7 Load Combination………………………………………….…..…67
4.2.8 Floor diaphragm action………….…………………………..…...68
4.2.9 Control Node and Target Displacement…………………….….68
4.3 Post-processing of outputs……………………………………..….….….70
4.4 Results and Discussions…………….…………………………..….….…73
4.4.1 Comparative Results/Charts……………………………….…....74
4.4.1.1 Comb. No.1: Comparison of Design Normal Vs Design with
poor workmanship for OMRF models………….……………..74
4.4.1.2 Comb. No. 2: Comparison of Design, Global & Local
retrofitted all floors (complete) for OMRF models……….. ...76
4.4.1.3 Comb. No. 3: Comparison of all retrofitted scenarios
(partial/complete) with RCC jacket for OMRF models….…..80
4.4.1.4 Comb. No. 4: Comparison of all retrofitted scenarios
(partial/complete) with Steel jacket for OMRF models……..85
(viii)
Table of Contents (Contd.)……
4.4.1.5 Comb. No. 5: Comparison of Global & Local retrofitted

ground floor (complete and partial) for OMRF models……..89
4.4.1.6 Comb. No. 6: Comparison of Global & Local retrofitted all
floors (complete and partial) for OMRF models….……........93
4.4.1.7 Comb. No.7: Comparison of Design SMRF Vs OMRF
models………………….……………………………………..…98
4.4.2 Overall summary of results………………………….….……....102
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION…………………………………………….…………..………..….
5.1 Conclusion....……………….………………………………………..….….106
5.2 Future scope of work............................................................................109
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................110
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………….……...
Appendix-A…………………………………………………………….……..116
Appendix-B…………………………………………………………….……..119
(ix)
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION
Figure 1.1 - Earthquake devastation images
Figure 1.2 - Execution of Local Retrofit Measures at Beam Column Joint
Figure 3.1 - Typical pushover capacity curve
Figure 3.2 - Demand and Capacity Spectra
Figure 3.3 - Idealized Force Displacement Curves
Figure 3.4 - Capacity Curve
Figure 3.5 - Multiple Capacity Curves of strength degradation model
Figure 3.6 - Capacity curve with global model strength degradation
Figure 3.7 - Demand Spectrum
Figure 3.8 - Equal Displacement Approximation
Figure 3.9 - Capacity curve and capacity spectrum
Figure 3.10 - Response Spectra in Traditional and ADRS format
Figure 3.11 - Spectral acceleration and spectral displacement
Figure 3.12 - Capacity spectrum superimposed over response spectra
Figure 3.13 - Intersection point of Demand and capacity spectrums
Figure 3.14 - Intersection point of Reduced Demand and capacity spectrums
Figure 3.15 - Bilinear representation of Capacity Curve for DCM
Figure 3.16 - Roof drift and roof drift ratio
Figure 3.17 - Comparison of CSM and DSM
Figure 3.18 - Idealized load deformation curve and performance levels.
Figure 4.1 - Floor Plan of the Building Models
Figure 4.2 - Elevation along ‘X’ direction
Figure 4.3 - Elevation along ‘Y’ direction
Figure 4.4 - Idealized Building Frame models
(x)
Figure 4.5 - Details of composite section designer in SAP 2000
Figure 4.6 - Details of composite section properties in SAP 2000
Figure 4.7 -Stress-Strain Relationship curve of FRP Confined Concrete
Figure 4.8 - FRP confined concrete stress strain material properties adopted
Figure 4.9 - Details of Bracing Angle sections applied to the SAP models.
Figure 4.10 - Pushover load definition in SAP 2000 (Details- A through D)
Figure 4.11 - Primary Load Cases defined in SAP 2000
Figure 4.12 - Load combination table in SAP
Figure 4.13 - Floor Diaphragm action assigned in SAP
Figure 4.14 - Target point illustration assigned in SAP
Figure 4.15 - Typical plastic hinge state at different performance levels
Figure 4.16 - Typical Pushover curve obtained from SAP 2000
Figure 4.17 - ATC 40 Capacity Spectrum with performance point from SAP
Fig. 4.18 (A to D) -Comparative charts for Comb. No. 1
Fig. 4.19 (A to D) - Comparative charts for Comb. No. 2
Figure 4.25 -Graphical comparison of outputs from all models
Figure A1 - Model with original design case
Figure A2 - Model with member level retrofit with FRP
Figure A3 - Model with member level retrofitted columns (RCC/steel jacket)
Figure A4 - Model with partial/locally retrofitted column
Figure A5 - Model with structure level retrofit with steel braces at all floors
Figure A6 - Model with structure level retrofit with RCC shear walls
Figure B1 - Illustration of floor load distribution to the floor beams
(xi)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION
Table 3.1 - Values for Modification Factor C0
Table 3.2 - Values for Modification Factor C2
Table: 3.3 - Performance level and inter storey drift limits
Table 3.4 - Weightage factors for performance range
Table 4.1 - Summary of all the building models studied with description
Table 4.2 -Section properties for the RCC Elements
Table 4.3 -Grouping of the models
Table 4.4 -Comparative summary of outputs for Comb. No.1
Table B1 - Summary of beam loading intensity
(xii)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix-A- Figures from a few SAP models
Appendix-B- Trapezoidal loading intensity for floor beams
(xiii)
ABBREVIATIONS
ADRS Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum
B Basic Safety
CP Collapse Prevention
CSM Capacity Spectrum Method
DBE Design Basis Earthquake
DCM Displacement Coefficient Method
IO Immediate Occupancy
LDP Linear Dynamic Procedure
LS Life Safety
MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake
MDOF Multiple Degrees of Freedom
NSP Non-linear static procedure
OMRF Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames
PA Pushover analysis
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
SAP System, Applications and Products in data processing
SBWC Strong Beam Weak Column
SCWB Strong Column Weak Beam
SDOF Single Degree of Freedom
SMRF Special Moment Resisting Frames
VI Vulnerability Index
(xiv)
ABSTRACT
With the increase in awareness of earthquake hazard within the engineering fraternity and
educated population, the importance of repair and retrofitting of a damaged/weak structure is
gaining its popularity. As a result, the repair and retrofit industry is presently growing at a
steady pace. However, the repair and retrofitting solutions adopted in most of the cases are
not being developed considering a holistic approach and in general are being developed
looking at the problem within the particular distressed element in isolation. The post retrofit
structural performances are also not being monitored and adequately addressed everywhere.
Notwithstanding the above, the stiffness and mass distribution plays a significant role in
selection of the appropriate retrofit strategy and therefore no generalized retrofit solutions can
be proposed or established. Identification& establishment of case specific retrofit strategy is
particularly important in case of irregular & large height structures where the earthquake
response is essentially not dominated by a single mode.
As a result, many ill-retrofitted structures are presently in an endangered state and are
susceptible to failure in case of a design basis earthquake. It may also happen that a
particular distressed structural element that has been locally retrofitted or strengthened
without taking into account its effect on the global behavior may result in a weaker structure
than it was in the original or damaged state prior to its retrofit.
The thesis topic has therefore aimed at carrying out a comparative study of different retrofit
techniques presently practiced in the industry for RC framed buildings by identifying their
efficiencies/performances in terms of the damage parameters and vulnerability indices using
non linear static analysis with Structural package ‘SAP 2000’.
The structural engineering profession had been using the non-linear static procedure (NSP) or
pushover analysis since quite some time since it gives better understanding and more
accurate seismic performance of structural damage compared to the static procedures. This
report carries out pushover analysis of the RC framed buildings based on the FEMA-356 and
ATC-40 guidelines. The pushover analysis shows the pushover curves, capacity spectrum,
plastic hinges and performance level of the identified building models.
Keywords: Pushover analysis, Vulnerability Index, Retrofit techniques.
(xv)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
__________________________________________________
1.1 GENERAL
The term earthquake can be used to describe any kind of a seismic event which
generates seismic waves. Earthquake generally occurs by rupture of geological
faults but can also occur due some natural as well as unnatural activities like
volcanic activity, mine blasts, landslides and nuclear tests. A sudden release of
energy in the earth’s crust creates seismic wave which ultimately results into
earthquake.
The Buildings which appeared to be strong enough, may crumble like houses of
cards during an earthquake and deficiencies may be exposed.
Fig. 1.1: Earthquake devastation images (Source: Internet)
Experience gained from the ‘Bhuj’ earthquake of 2001 demonstrates that most of the
buildings collapsed were found deficient to meet out the requirements of the present
day codes.
One of the emerging fields in seismic design of structures is the Performance Based
Design. The subject is still in the realm of research and academics, and is only
slowly emerging out into the practitioner’s arena. The objective of performance-
based analysis is to produce structures with predictable seismic performance.
1
Performance based engineering is not a new concept. Automobiles, airplanes, and
turbines have been designed and manufactured using this approach for many
decades. But the applications of the same, to the buildings were limited. In order to
utilize performance-based analysis effectively and intelligently, one need to be aware
of the uncertainties involved in both structural performance and seismic hazard
estimations. A key requirement of any meaningful performance based analysis is the
ability to assess seismic demands and capacities with a reasonable degree of
certainty. In context of the above, seismic design is slowly transforming from a stage
where a linear elastic analysis for a structure was sufficient for both its elastic and
ductile design, to a stage where a specially dedicated non-linear procedure is to be
done, which finally influences the seismic design as a whole.
The basis for the linear approach lies in the concept of the Response Reduction
Factor R. When a structure is designed for a Response Reduction factor of, say, R =
5, it means that only 1/5th of the seismic force is taken by the Limit State capacity of
the structure. Further deflection is in its ductile behavior and is taken by the ductile
capacity of the structure. In Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures, the members (i.e.
beams and columns) are detailed such as to make sure that the structure can take
the full impact without collapse beyond its Limit State capacity up to its ductile
capacity. In fact, we never analyze for the ductile part, but only follow the
reinforcement detailing guidelines for the same. The drawback is that the response
beyond the limit state is neither a simple extrapolation, nor a perfectly ductile
behaviour with pre-determinable deformation capacity. This is due to various
reasons: the change in stiffness of members due to cracking and yielding, P-delta
effects, change in the final seismic force estimated, etc. Although elastic analysis
gives a good indication of elastic capacity of structures and shows where yielding
might first occur, it cannot account for redistribution of forces during the progressive
yielding that follows and predict its failure mechanisms, or detect possibility and
location of any premature failure. A non-linear static analysis can predict these more
accurately since it considers the inelastic behaviour of the structure. It can help
identify critical members likely to reach critical states during an earthquake for which
attention should be given during design and detailing. The need for a simple method
to predict the non-linear behaviour of a structure under seismic loads saw light in
2
what is now popularly known as the Pushover Analysis. It can help demonstrate how
progressive failure in buildings really occurs, and identify the mode of final failure.
Putting simply, PA is a non-linear analysis procedure to estimate the strength
capacity of a structure beyond its elastic limit (meaning Limit State) up to its ultimate
strength in the post-elastic range. In the process, the method also predicts potential
weak areas in the structure, by keeping track of the sequence of damages of each
and every member in the structure (by use of what are called ‘hinges’ they hold).
The purpose of the pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance of a

structural system by estimating its strength and deformation demands in designing
earthquake resistant buildings by means of a static inelastic analysis, and comparing
these demands to available capacities at the performance levels of interest. The
evaluation is based on an assessment of important performance parameters,
including global drift, inter-story drift, inelastic element deformations (either absolute
or normalized with respect to a yield value), deformations between elements, and
element and connection forces (for elements and connections that cannot sustain
inelastic deformations). The inelastic static pushover analysis can be viewed as a
method for predicting seismic force and deformation demands, which accounts in an
approximate manner for the redistribution of internal forces occurring when the
structure is subjected to inertia forces that no longer can be resisted within the
elastic range of structural behavior. The pushover is expected to provide information
on many response characteristics that cannot be obtained from an elastic static or
dynamic analysis.
Pushover analysis is the preferred tool for seismic performance evaluation of

structures by the major rehabilitation guidelines and codes because it is conceptually
and computationally simple. Pushover analysis allows tracing the sequence of
yielding and failure on member and structural level as well as the progress of overall
capacity curve of the structure. The detailed guidelines about how to perform a
nonlinear static pushover analysis has been discussed in detail in Chapter-3 of this
report.
3
With the increase in awareness of earthquake hazard within the engineering
fraternity in particular, the importance of repair and retrofitting of a damaged/weak
structure is gaining its popularity. As a result, the repair and retrofit industry is
presently growing at a steady pace. However, the repair and retrofitting solutions
adopted in most of the cases are not being developed considering a holistic
approach and in general are being developed looking at the problem within the
particular distressed element in isolation. The post retrofit structural performances
are also not being monitored and adequately addressed everywhere.
Fig.1.2: Execution of Local Retrofit Measures at Beam Column Joint
Notwithstanding the above, the stiffness and mass distribution plays a significant role
in selection of the appropriate retrofit strategy and therefore no generalized retrofit
solutions can be proposed or established. Identification& establishment of case
specific retrofit strategy is particularly important in case of irregular & large height
structures where the earthquake response is essentially not dominated by a single
mode shape.
As a result, many ill-retrofitted structures are presently in an endangered state & are
susceptible to failure in case of an earthquake. It may also happen that a particular
distressed structural element that has been locally retrofitted or strengthened without
taking into account its effect on the global behavior may result in a weaker structure
than it was in the original or damaged state prior to retrofit.
4
My thesis topic therefore aims to identify the importance of the selected retrofit
strategy by carrying out a comparison of the damage parameters and vulnerability
indices of a structure prior to retrofit vis-à-vis post retrofit.
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF PRESENT STUDY
The objective of the present study aims to identify the efficiency &
performances of various repair and retrofit schemes used for the RC building
frames using pushover analysis.
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
The broad scope of work as part of this study includes the following:
 Development of different RC building frame models with various

retrofit techniques. SAP 2000 V14 is used the software platform for
modeling these RC building frames.
 Evaluation of seismic performances of the above models by static
non-linear pushover analysis.
 Estimation of base shear capacity, roof displacement, spectral
acceleration, spectral displacement, global stiffness, global
ductility and vulnerability index of the building models based on
the results of pushover analysis.
 Comparison of performances of the different retrofit schemes of
the building models studied with respect to Capacities, Demand,
Performance point and other seismic resistant features.
 Assessment & comparison of seismic vulnerability of the
building at its design condition and retrofitted with various schemes
studied.
5
1.4 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
This study is carried out and organized in essentially five main chapters. The
highlights of the chapters with their contents are as those outlined below:
 Chapter-1 Introduction: Brief and general discussion of the appropriate work

methodology is carried out. The chapter highlights the objective and scope of
the present study.
 Chapter-2 Literature Review: An overview of the important literature relevant
to the area of my study is investigated. The discussion on certain gaps
identified from the literature review is also discussed.
 Chapter-3 Non-Linear Pushover Analysis Theory: Detailed discussion on
non-linear pushover analysis theory and its applications in context of the codal
provisions is presented in this chapter.
 Chapter-4 Results and Discussions of various numerical models of the
buildings: Definition of the problem with the analysis & outcomes. The major
findings from the study conducted together with the results and discussions
are presented in this chapter.
 Chapter-5 Conclusions: The most important findings of this research study
are summarized. Possible scope of future research areas is identified and
outlined in this chapter together with the main findings.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
__________________________________________________
2.1 GENERAL
It is important to review the research literatures on this particular field to get

acquainted with the state of the art prior to getting involved in the actual research.
The following referred literature reviews are therefore carried out in order to get an
understanding of what works have been carried out in the past on similar areas and
identify the potential areas where further research study can be done.
Vojko Kilar, Peter Fajfar (1996) [27] studied simplified push over analysis
methods for building structures. The paper attempts to present a simplified
method of non-linear static analysis of building structures subjected to
monotonically increasing horizontal loading (push over analysis). The method
used is based on an extension of the pseudo three- dimensional mathematical
model of the structure into the non-linear range. By a step-by-step analysis,
an approximate relationship between the global base shear and roof
displacement are computed. During the analysis, the development of plastic
hinges throughout the building can be monitored. The method discussed is
then applied for the analysis of a seven storied reinforced concrete framed
building. A symmetric and an asymmetric variant of the same structure are
analyzed.
L. Lam & J.G Teng (2003) [33] studied external confinement by the wrapping
of FRP sheets (or FRP jacketing), which provides a very effective method for
the retrofit of reinforced concrete (RC) columns subject to either static or
seismic loads. In this paper, a new design-oriented stress–strain model is
proposed for concrete confined by FRP wraps with fibers only or
predominantly in the hoop direction based on a careful interpretation of
existing test data and observations. This model is simple, so it is suitable for
direct use in design, but in the meantime, it captures all the main
characteristics of the stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by different
7
types of FRP. In addition, for unconfined concrete, this model reduces directly
to idealized stress–strain curves in existing design codes. In the development
of this model, a number of important issues including the actual hoop strains
in FRP jackets at rupture, the sufficiency of FRP confinement for a significant
strength enhancement, and the effect of jacket stiffness on the ultimate axial
strain, were all carefully examined and appropriately resolved. The predictions
of the model are shown to agree well with test data.
X.K. Zou, C.M. Chan (2005) [45] carried out optimal seismic performance-
based design of reinforced concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover
analysis. The paper presents an effective computer-based technique that
incorporates pushover analysis together with numerical optimization
procedures to automate the pushover drift performance design of reinforced
concrete (RC) buildings. Steel reinforcement, as compared with concrete
materials, appears to be the more cost-effective material that can be
effectively used to control drift beyond the occurrence of first yielding and to
provide the required ductility of RC building frameworks. In this study, steel
reinforcement ratios are taken as design variables during the design
optimization process. Using the principle of virtual work, the nonlinear inelastic
seismic drift responses generated by the pushover analysis can be explicitly
expressed in terms of element design variables. An optimality criteria
technique is presented in this paper for solving the explicit performance-based
seismic design optimization problem for RC buildings. Two building frame
examples are presented to illustrate the effectiveness and practicality of the
proposed optimal design method.
W. Wenwei, Li Guo (2005) [43] carried out structural strengthening of six

reinforced concrete beams in flexure using carbon fiber reinforced polymer
(CFRP) laminates subjected to different sustaining loads & were tested. The
main goal of the test was to examine the effects of initial load and load history
on the ultimate strength of strengthened reinforced concrete beams by
externally bonded CFRP laminates. The main experimental parameters
include different levels of sustaining load at the time of strengthening and load
8
history. To explain the experimental results in quantitative terms, a theoretical
model for flexural behavior of the strengthened reinforced concrete beam is
also developed. Test results in the current study show that sustaining load
levels at the time of strengthening have important influence on the ultimate
strength of strengthened reinforced concrete beams. If the initial load is
basically same, the ultimate strength of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with CFRP laminates is almost same regardless of load history
at the time of strengthening.
N. Lakshmanan (2006) [31] studied the different attempts to gather the

available information particularly on the nonlinear behavior and the various
approaches available to evaluate the seismic safety of buildings. It is
emphasized that the existing procedure is grossly approximate and hence
improving sections of the approach to high levels of accuracy would not
necessarily lead to a better result. The need for evaluating the various repair
strategies for use in the improvement of the seismic performance of reinforced
concrete structures has been highlighted. The behaviour of repaired beams
and beam-column joints has been discussed. It is observed that inherent
deficiencies in the detailing of the beam-column joints get reflected even after
repair, though the performance factors indicate significant improvement.
The paper also discusses methods to determine the seismic vulnerability
index for structures, which is a useful & approximate parameter to assess the
structural performance.
G. Kaliyaperumal and A. K. Sengupta (2009) [25]: This paper investigates

the effect of jacketing on the flexural strength and performance of columns.
First, slant shear tests were conducted to study the interface between the old
and new concrete. Second, column specimens were tested to study the
strength. Third, beam-column-joint sub-assemblage specimens were tested to
study the ductility (or energy absorption) and energy dissipation. Analytical
investigations were carried out to validate the experimental results. A lamellar
approach and a simplified method of analysis were used for the prediction of
the axial load versus moment interaction curves and moment versus
9
curvature curves for the retrofitted columns. An incremental nonlinear analysis
was adopted to predict the lateral load versus displacement behaviour for a
retrofitted sub-assemblage specimen. Guidelines for the retrofitting of
columns by concrete jacketing are also proposed.
Mehdi Poursha, Faramarz Khoshnoudian, A.S. Moghadam (2011) [38]

studied the consecutive modal pushover procedure for nonlinear static
analysis of one-way unsymmetrical-plan tall building structures. The paper
considers multi-stage and classical single-stage pushover analyses and
benefits from the elastic modal properties of the structure. Both lateral forces
and torsional moments obtained from modal analysis are used in the multi-
stage pushover analysis. The seismic demands are obtained by enveloping
the peak inelastic responses resulting from the multi-stage and single-stage
pushover analyses. To verify and appraise the procedure, it is applied to the
10, 15, and 20-storey one-way unsymmetrical-plan buildings including
systems with different degrees of coupling between the lateral displacements
and torsional rotations, i.e. torsionally-stiff (TS), torsionally-similarly-stiff (TSS)
and torsionally-flexible (TF) systems. The modal pushover analysis (MPA)
procedure is implemented for the purpose of comparison as well. The results
from the approximate pushover procedures are compared with the results
obtained by the nonlinear response history analysis (NL-RHA). The force
distribution over the height of the building in each stage of the multi-stage
pushover analysis is determined as the product of the mass matrix and
relevant elastic mode-shape including both lateral and rotational components.
The lateral forces are incrementally applied during the stages of the multi-
stage pushover analysis.
A. Kiran, G. Ghosh and Y.K.Gupta (2012) [30] studied application of push

over methods for building structures. In this study, a comparison was made
between the results of the pushover analysis with the dynamic time history
analysis, with a view to find out the most preferred pushover method. The
existing pushover analysis methods as per the literatures and codes have
been considered in the study. For the analysis purpose, two types of building
10
structures were considered. It was observed that in most of the cases,
pushover analysis results are conservative as compared to the time history
results. It was also observed that in most of the cases ELM method of FEMA
440 gives good result in comparison to time history analysis.
In the paper, the response of the symmetrical and asymmetrical building
structures has been determined by the nonlinear static (Pushover) analysis
and dynamic time history analysis and the results from both the methods have
been compared. Five different types of ground motions compatible to the
MCE and DBE response spectrums have been considered in the study.
G.Tarța, A.Pintea (2012) [42] studied Seismic evaluation of multi-storey

moment-resisting steel frames with stiffness irregularities using standard and
advanced pushover methods. The findings from the studies show that the
adaptive pushover methods give the best approximation in terms of medium
and maximum errors of the inter-storey drifts. As the considered earthquakes
grow in intensity and the structures are being pushed further in the post
elastic domain the error grows significantly. The inter-storey drift based
scaling adaptive pushover is more accurate than the force-based scaling
adaptive method, being the only method that gives superior approximation
than does the classical non-adaptive pushover method with a vertical
distribution after the first vibration mode. The method of modal combinations
for pushover analysis seems to lose its capacity to predict the structural
response as the seismic intensity grows and the structure gets taller.
A. Ismail (2013) [21] studied the non-linear static analysis of a retrofitted

reinforced concrete building. The paper attempts to investigate the seismic
behavior of a typical existing building in Cairo by performing static pushover
analysis before and after retrofitting the columns by either, reinforced
concrete, steel sections or carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite
jackets. To investigate the possibility and effectiveness of the use of these
systems, a comparative study was performed. A comparison was made
between a typical framed RC building and the same building after retrofitting
with CFRP confinement, steel elements and concrete jackets. By using
11
nonlinear static (pushover) analysis, the performance levels of structural
members were evaluated for all the structures.
The paper concluded that all retrofitting techniques improved the ductility
characteristics of the structure to some extent. In case of CFRP jacketing in
addition to significant enhancement in ductility, flexural strength also
increased slightly due to the contribution of CFRP jacketing with tensile
strength of the reinforcement. The columns retrofitted with reinforced concrete
jacketing or full steel jackets using steel plates developed the overall
structural performance in terms of ductility and lateral strength, strength being
more pronounced due to larger cross-sections and additional longitudinal
reinforcement. Dynamic characteristics of the retrofitted structure were
significantly reduced specially for the reinforced concrete jacketing due to the
increase in lateral stiffness. Consequently, reinforced concrete jacketing may
be more preferable when lateral drifts are needed to be limited, which in turn
limits the damage as well. However, when fewer disturbances are required
and a relatively higher level of damage is acceptable against severe
earthquakes, CFRP jacketing may be more preferable.
Adrian Fredrick C. Dyaa, Andres Winston C. Oretaa (2015) [13] studied

Seismic vulnerability assessment of soft story irregular buildings using
pushover analysis. Preliminary seismic risk assessment tools are used to
screen existing buildings against potential seismic hazards. Buildings that
perform poorly are prioritized for detailed evaluations to determine its
condition. The risk of a building can be defined as the product of Hazard,
Vulnerability, and Assets. Vertical irregularities such as soft stories are
considered in assessments but are much generalized. A static pushover
analysis is utilized to determine the performance of the building under
different irregularity conditions. Due to the limitations of a static pushover
analysis, the study only covers low-rise buildings as permitted by the NSCP.
Though it is recognized that a dynamic time history is more suitable, a
pushover analysis is sufficient due to the preliminary assessment nature of
the objective. The study has found that one of the primary concerns in vertical
irregularities is the localization of seismic demand. For soft story buildings, the
12
concentration of seismic demand is where the soft story is located. Data from
the pushover analysis is translated into score modifiers for the varying soft
story severity which has been used for preliminary risk assessment tools.
Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa (2015) [22] studied application of pushover

analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete
Moment-Resisting Frames. Modern seismic design codes stipulate a behavior
factor (q-factor) to reduce the earthquake loads which the structure is to be
designed for. This is in account for the inelastic behavior of the structure when
subjected to severe earthquakes. Inelastic dynamic analysis consumes long
time in the interpretation of its results. A popular and simple method for
studying the nonlinear response of the structure is pushover analysis. Static
type of pushover analysis is used in this research work where the loads
consist of permanent gravity loads and incremental horizontal forces at each
storey level. Capacity curves (base shear versus story total drift) obtained
from static pushover analysis using a commercially available software called
‘SeismoStruct’ is used for the calculation of some seismic demand
parameters such as behavior factor, q, over strength factor and ductility based
reduction factor, Rμ. Four reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames each
of 7, 5 and 3 stories are used in the analysis. The research work proved the
efficiency of the static pushover analysis in studying the nonlinear behavior of
structures and that the suggested behavior factor (q) by the Eurocode 8- Part
1 (Eurocode 8 Committee 2003) for non-dissipative structures presents an
acceptable lower limit.
Mohammed Azaz, Anshul R. Nikhade (2015) studied Pushover Analysis on

a G+10 Reinforced Concrete building for zone II and Zone III as per IS 1893
(2002). The paper emphasizes on pushover analysis on a reinforced concrete
structure in which a G+10 building was subjected to push in ‘x ‘and push in ‘y’
directions. The analysis was carried out in SAP 2000. Based on the
performance point obtained from the analysis, the performance of the
structure during seismic activities can be ascertained. If the performance point
obtain from the analysis are within collapsible range, the structure is expected
13
to perform well. The pushover curve has been plotted in terms of base shear -
roof displacement. The slope of pushover curve gradually changes with
increase of the lateral displacement of the building. This is due to the
progressive formation of plastic hinges in beams and columns throughout the
structure.
2.2 CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS
The referred literatures were highly informative and gave an insight of the
push over analysis methods and its applications to conduct different research
studies.
The review of the literatures referred earlier however identified a few

gaps/areas where further studies can possibly be done. The critical
observations that came up to me as part of these literature reviews are as
below:
1) Studies to compare regular buildings with the same building having some
local repair works carried out to the beams and columns at different floor
levels can possibly be done which are quite common these days. Typical
examples of a few local repair works may include the following:
a) Locally repaired part of a column by RCC jacketing without properly

anchoring the additional rebars into the foundations or carrying it
through the storey/slab/beam column joints etc.
b) Local strengthening of RC column with steel jackets, not extending

through the beam-column junctions.
2) Studies may also be done to assess the extent of seismic vulnerability of

deficient structures i.e. structures which have not been designed &
detailed to the codal stipulations or which have some inherent deficiencies
due to poor workmanship etc.
14
3) The empirical formula for calculating the vulnerability index as identified on
one of the referred literature can possibly be further modified to give more
importance to the hinges formed at different storey levels. That is, the
hinges formed at lower stories could be given different importance
factor/weightage than the hinges formed at the higher/upper stories. The
formula currently stipulated on one of the research paper allows equal
importance factor to the hinges formed on all stories; albeit it does
differentiate on the importance factors to be assigned for beams &
columns.
4) No clear comparative studies could be made available against the different

retrofitting methods in the context of Indian conditions in accordance with
the guidelines and recommendations of Indian standards, IS 15988: 2013.
15
CHAPTER 3
NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS THEORY
___________________________________________________________________
3.1 GENERAL
The present study tries to explore the applicability of non-linear static procedure
(NSP) for assessment of RCC building frame structures.
3.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The use of the nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) came in to practice in
1970s but the potential of the pushover analysis has been recognized for last two
decades. Pushover analysis, a widely used method for seismic performance
evaluation of a structure is a static nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the
lateral loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain predefined
pattern along the height of the building. With an increase in magnitude of loads,
weak links and failure modes of the building can be observed. Pushover analysis can
determine the behavior of the building including the ultimate load and maximum
inelastic deformation. The structure is pushed until a collapse mechanism develops.
Local non-linear effects are modeled in the pushover analysis. The roof
displacement against increased base shear may be plotted to generate the pushover
curve which gives an idea about the maximum base shear the structure is capable of
resisting. The NSP is generally a more reliable approach to characterize the
performance of a structure than are linear procedures. However, it is not exact, and
cannot accurately account for changes in dynamic response as the structure
degrades in stiffness or account for higher mode effects. When the NSP is utilized on
a structure that has significant higher mode response, the LDP is also employed to
verify the adequacy of the design. When this approach is taken, less restrictive
criteria are permitted for the LDP, recognizing the significantly improved knowledge
that is obtained by performing both analysis procedures.
Although an elastic analysis gives a good indication of the elastic capacity of
structures and indicates where first yielding will occur, it cannot predict failure
mechanisms and account for redistribution of forces during progressive yielding.
Inelastic analysis procedures help demonstrate how buildings really work by
16
identifying modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The use of
inelastic procedures for design and evaluation is an attempt to help engineers better
understands as how structures will behave when subjected to major earthquakes,
where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. This
resolves some of the uncertainties associated with code and elastic procedures.
Thus the pushover analysis is becoming a popular tool for seismic performance
evaluation of existing and new structures. The expectation is that the pushover
analysis will provide adequate information on seismic demands imposed by the
design ground motion on which the structural system and its component are located.
The aim of basic safety objective is to have a low risk of life threatening injury during
a moderate earthquake (DBE) and to check the collapse of vertical load resisting
system during severe earthquake (MCE). As per IS-1893(2002), the DBE is
assumed to be fifty percent that of MCE but not rationally defined based on
probabilistic approach. The collapse prevention level under MCE can be selected
which is only one performance level and though this does not meet the damage
control requirement for frequent earthquake, by pushover analysis the consequences
under MCE can be predicted. The reserve strength of building, nonlinear behavior
and the amount it can be pushed until collapse occurs are under the focus of this
study.
Fig. 3.1: Typical pushover capacity curve
17
3.2.1 Evaluation result: Amongst several other outputs, the pushover analysis
may provide the following as a minimum:
a) Pushover curve
b) Demand and capacity spectrum and their tabulated values
Pushover curve: It will provide base shear capacity and inelastic roof displacement.
Global ductility of the structure can be calculated as the ratio of roof displacement at
ultimate base shear to roof displacement at the onset of yielding.
Capacity spectrum: If the base acceleration is plotted with respect to the roof
displacement, it is termed as capacity spectrum. The spectral acceleration and the
spectral displacement, as calculated from linear elastic response spectrum for a
certain damping value is plotted as acceleration- displacement-response spectrum
(ADRS). With the increase of nonlinear deformation of the components, the
equivalent damping and the time period increases. The spectral acceleration and
displacement values can then be modified by multiplying by a factor determined as
per IS-1893: 2002.
Demand spectrum: The instantaneous spectral acceleration and displacement

point, which is called demand point, shifts to a different response spectrum for higher
damping. The locus of the demand point in the ADRS plot is referred to as demand
spectrum which corresponds to the inelastic deformation of the building.
Performance point: It is a point where the capacity curve crosses the demand
curve. If the performance point exists in the damage state and this point is
acceptable, the structure is assumed to satisfy the target performance level. If the
capacity spectrum is always less than demand spectrum, the performance point
could not be reached and the structure fails to achieve target performance level.
Again if the performance level is achieved at a substantially greater roof drift than the
typical specified value of the selected performance level then also the performance
of the structure shall be deemed to be unsatisfactory. Once the performance point is
found, the overall performance of the structure can be checked to see whether it
matches the desired performance level of IO, LS or CP, based on the drift limits.
18
Pushover analysis will also provide the deflected shape, formation of hinges with
increasing load and the performance levels of the hinges at the performance point.
The deflected shape and the concentration of hinges in a particular storey can reveal
soft storey mechanism. The inelastic drift profile can be plotted from the
displacement values of the center of mass of the storey, which can also reveal soft
storey mechanism. The no of hinges formed in the beams and the columns at the
performance point or at the point of termination of performance point of pushover
analysis can be used to study the vulnerability of the structure. The Pushover
analysis is approximate in nature and based on statically applied load. It estimates
an envelope curve of the behavior under dynamic loading and must be interpreted
with caution to understand the actual behavior under seismic loading.
Fig. 3.2: Demand and Capacity Spectra
19
3.3 Pushover Analysis Using FEMA 356 CM [17]:
3.3.1 Basis of the procedure:

For seismic analysis of the building by Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP), a
mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of individual components and elements of the building shall be
subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads representing inertia forces in an
earthquake until a target displacement is exceeded.
3.3.2 Modeling and Analysis Considerations:

The selection of a control node, the selection of lateral load patterns, the
determination of the fundamental period, and analysis procedures shall comply with
the requirements of this section. The relation between base shear force and lateral
displacement of the control node shall be established for control node displacements
ranging between zero and 150% of the target displacement, t.
The component gravity loads shall be included in the mathematical model for
combination with lateral loads as specified in this document. The lateral loads shall
be applied in both the positive and negative directions, and the maximum seismic
effects shall be used for design. The analysis model shall be discretised to represent
the load-deformation response of each component along its length to identify
locations of inelastic action. All primary and secondary lateral-force-resisting
elements shall be included in the model. The force-displacement behavior of all
components shall be explicitly included in the model using full backbone curves that
include strength degradation and residual strength, if any.
Alternatively, the use of a simplified NSP analysis shall be permitted. In a simplified
NSP analysis only primary lateral force resisting elements are modeled, the force
displacement characteristics of such elements are bilinear, and the degrading portion
of the backbone curve is not explicitly modeled. The simplified NSP analysis shall
only be used in conjunction with the acceptance criteria described in this document.
Elements not meeting the acceptance criteria for primary components shall be
designated as secondary, and removed from the mathematical model.
3.3.2.1 Control Node Displacement:

The control node shall be located at the center of mass at the roof of a building. For
buildings with a penthouse, the floor of the penthouse shall be regarded as the level
of the control node. The displacement of the control node in the mathematical model
shall be calculated for the specified lateral loads.
3.3.2.2 Lateral Load Distribution:

Lateral loads shall be applied to the mathematical model in proportion to the
distribution of inertia forces in the plane of each floor diaphragm. For all analysis, at
20
least two vertical distributions of lateral load shall be applied. One pattern shall be
selected from each of the following two groups:
1. A modal pattern selected from one of the following:

 A vertical distribution proportional to the values of Cvx given in Equation
below. Use of this distribution shall be permitted only when more than
75% of the total mass participates in the fundamental mode in the
direction under consideration, and the uniform distribution is also used.
𝐹𝑥 = 𝐶𝑣𝑥. 𝑉
𝑊𝑥. ℎ𝑥 𝑘
𝐶𝑣𝑥 = 𝑛
∑𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖. ℎ𝑖 𝑘
Where, Cvx = Vertical distribution factor

V = Pseudo lateral force = C1C2C3CmSaW
K = 2.0 for T ≥ 2.5 seconds
= 1.0 for T< 0.5 seconds
C1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic
displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic
response.
C2 = Modification factor to represent the effects of pinched
hysteresis shape, stiffness, degradation and strength
deterioration on maximum displacement response. For linear
procedures, C2 shall be taken as 1.0.
C3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements
due to dynamic P- effects.
Cm = Effective mass factor to account for higher mode mass
participation effects.
Sa = Response spectrum acceleration
W = Seismic weight of the building
Wi= Portion of the total building weight W located on or
assigned to ‘i’th floor level.
W x= Portion of the total building weight W located on or
assigned to ‘x’th floor level.
hi = Height from base to floor level ‘i’
hx = Height from base to floor level ‘x’
21
 A vertical distribution proportional to the shape of the fundamental mode
in the direction under consideration. Use of this distribution shall be
permitted only when more than 75% of the total mass participates in this
mode.
 A vertical distribution proportional to the story shear distribution
calculated by combining modal responses from a response spectrum
analysis of the building, including sufficient modes to capture at least 90%
of the total building mass, and using the appropriate ground motion
spectrum. This distribution shall be used when the period of the
fundamental mode exceeds 1.0 second.
2. A second pattern selected from one of the following:
 A uniform distribution consisting of lateral forces at each level proportional to

the total mass at each level.
 An adaptive load distribution that changes as the structure is displaced. The
adaptive load distribution shall be modified from the original load distribution
using a procedure that considers the properties of the yielded.
3.3.2.3 Idealized Force-Displacement Curve:
The nonlinear force-displacement relationship between base shear and

displacement of the control node shall be replaced with an idealized relationship to
calculate the effective lateral stiffness and effective yield strength of the building as
shown in Figure 3.3. This relationship shall be bilinear, with initial slope Ki and post-
yield slope . Line segments on the idealized force-displacement curve shall be
located using an iterative graphical procedure that approximately balances the area
above and below the curve. The effective lateral stiffness, Ke shall be taken as the
secant stiffness calculated at a base shear force equal to 60% of the effective yield
strength of the structure. The post-yield slope, , shall be determined by a line
segment that passes through the actual curve at the calculated target displacement.
The effective yield strength shall not be taken as greater than the maximum base
shear force at any point along the actual curve.
22
Fig 3.3: Idealized Force-Displacement Curves
The notations used in the above figure are as below:

Vy= Effective yield strength of the structure
Ki = Initial slope (lateral stiffness)
Ke = Effective lateral stiffness, shall be taken as the secant stiffness calculated at a
base shear force equal to 60% of Vy
= Post yield slope
3.3.2.4 Period Determination

The effective fundamental period in the direction under consideration shall be based
on the idealized force displacement curve. The effective fundamental period shall be
calculated by the following equation:
𝐾𝑖
𝑇𝑒 = 𝑇𝑖 √
𝐾𝑒
Where,
Ti = Elastic fundamental period (in seconds) in the direction under consideration

calculated by elastic dynamic analysis.
Ki = Elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration
Ke = Effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration
3.3.3 Determination of Forces and Deformations:
For buildings with rigid diaphragms at each floor level, the target displacement, t,
shall be calculated in accordance with Equation below or by an approved procedure
that accounts for the nonlinear response of the building.
23
3.3.3.1 Target Displacement
The target displacement, t, at each floor level shall be calculated from the Equation
below:
𝑇𝑒 2
𝜕𝑡 = 𝐶0 𝐶1 𝐶2 𝐶3 𝑆𝑎 2 g
4𝜋
Where,
𝐶0 = Modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equivalent SDOF

system to the roof displacement of the building MDOF system calculated using one
of the following procedures:
𝐶1 = Modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to

displacements calculated for linear elastic response:
=1.0 for 𝑇𝑒 ≥ 𝑇𝑠
= [1.0+(R-1)𝑇𝑠 /𝑇𝑒 ]/R for 𝑇𝑒 < 𝑇𝑠
𝑇𝑒 = Effective fundamental period of the building in the direction under consideration,

sec.
𝑇𝑠 = Characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period

associated with the transition from the constant acceleration segment of the
spectrum to the constant velocity segment of the spectrum
R = Ratio of elastic strength demand to calculated yield strength coefficient

calculated by,
𝑆
𝑅 = 𝑉𝑦 𝑎 . Cm
⁄
𝑊
𝑆𝑎 = Response spectrum acceleration, at the effective fundamental period and

damping ratio of the building in the direction under consideration
Vy = Yield strength calculated using results of the NSP for the idealized nonlinear
force displacement curve developed for the building
W = Effective seismic weight of the structure.
Cm = Effective mass factor from Table 3.1. Alternatively, Cm taken as the effective
model mass calculated for the fundamental mode using an Eigen value analysis.
𝐶2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness

degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response. Values
24
of for different framing systems and Structural Performance Levels shall be obtained
from Table 3.2. Alternatively, use of C2 = 1.0 shall be permitted for nonlinear
procedures.
𝐶3 = Modification factor to represent increased displacements due to dynamic P-

 effects. For buildings with positive post-yield stiffness, shall be set equal to 1.0.
For buildings with negative post-yield stiffness, values of shall be calculated using
Equation below but not to exceed the values set forth in
∝ (𝑅 − 1)1.5
𝐶3 = 1.0 +
𝑇𝑒
α = Ratio of post-yield stiffness to effective elastic stiffness, where the nonlinear

force displacement relation shall be characterized by a bilinear relation shown in Fig.
3.3
g = acceleration of gravity
Table 3.1: Values for Modification Factor C01

Shear Buildings2 Other Buildings
Number of Stories Triangular Load Uniform Load Any Load Pattern
Pattern Pattern
(1.1, 1.2, 1.3) (2.1)
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 1.2 1.15 1.2
3 1.2 1.2 1.3
5 1.3 1.2 1.4
10 + 1.3 1.2 1.5
1. Linear interpolation shall be used to calculate intermediate values.
2. Buildings in which, for all stories, inter story drift decreases with increasing height.
Table 3.2: Values for Modification Factor C2

Structural T ≤ 0.1 second3 T ≥ TS second3
Performance Framing Framing Framing Framing
Level Type 11 Type 22 Type 11 Type 22
Immediate
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Occupancy
Life Safety 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0
Collapse
1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0
Prevention
1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by
any combination of the following components, elements, or frames:
25
Ordinary moment-resisting frames, concentrically-braced frames, frames with
partially-restrained connections, tension-only braces, unreinforced masonry walls,
shear-critical, piers, and spandrels of reinforced concrete or masonry.
2. All frames not assigned to Framing Type 1.
3. Linear interpolation shall be used for intermediate values of T.
3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria:
Components and elements analyzed using the nonlinear procedures shall satisfy the
following requirements. Prior to selecting component acceptance criteria,
components shall be classified as primary or secondary, and actions shall be
classified as deformation-controlled or force-controlled.
Deformation-Controlled Actions for the Simplified Nonlinear Static

Analysis
Primary and secondary components modeled using the alternative simplified NSP
analysis shall meet the requirements of this section. Expected deformation
capacities shall not be less than maximum deformation demands calculated at the
target displacement. Primary component demands shall be within the acceptance
criteria for primary components at the selected Structural Performance Level.
Demands on other components shall be within the acceptance criteria for secondary
components at the selected Structural Performance Level.
Force-Controlled Actions
Primary and secondary components shall have lower bound strengths not less than
the maximum design forces. Lower-bound strengths shall be determined considering
all coexisting forces and deformations.
26
3.4 Pushover Analysis Using ATC 40 CSM [1]:
3.4.1 Capacity Spectrum method:

3.4.1.1 Basis of the procedure: The capacity spectrum method, a nonlinear static
procedure that provides a graphical representation of the global force-displacement
capacity curve of the structure (i.e., pushover) and compares it to the response
spectra representations of the earthquake demands, is a very useful tool in the
evaluation and retrofit design of existing concrete buildings. The graphical
representation provides a clear picture of how a building responds to earthquake
ground motion, and it provides an immediate and clear picture of how various retrofit
strategies, such as adding stiffness or strength, will impact the building's response to
earthquake demands.
3.4.1.2 Modeling and Analysis Considerations: Two key elements of a

performance-based design procedure are demand and capacity. Demand is a
representation of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is a representation of the
structure's ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance is dependent on the
manner that the capacity is able to handle the demand. In other words, the structure
must have the capacity to resist the demands of the earthquake such that the
performance of the structure is compatible with the objectives of the design.
3.4.1.2.1 Capacity: The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and
deformation capacities of the individual components of the structure. In order to
determine capacities beyond the elastic limits, some form of nonlinear analysis, such
as the pushover procedure, is required. This procedure uses a series of sequential
elastic analyses, superimposed to approximate a force-displacement capacity
diagram of the overall structure. The mathematical model of the structure is modified
to account for reduced resistance of yielding components. A lateral force distribution
is again applied until additional components yield. This process is continued until the
structure becomes unstable or until a predetermined limit is reached. For two
dimensional models, computer programs are available that directly model nonlinear
behavior and can create a pushover curve directly. The pushover capacity curve
approximates how structures behave after exceeding their elastic limit. This
27
represents the lateral displacement as a function of the force applied to the structure.
The capacity curve is generally constructed to represent the first mode response of
the structure based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration is the
predominant response of the structure. This is generally valid for buildings with
fundamental periods of vibration up to about one second. For more flexible buildings
with a fundamental period greater than one second, the analyst should consider
addressing higher mode effects in the analysis.
Fig 3.4: Capacity Curve
Figure 3.5: Multiple Capacity Curves of Strength Degradation Model
28
Fig 3.6: Capacity curve with global model strength degradation
3.4.1.2.2 Demand (displacement): Ground motions during an earthquake produce

complex horizontal displacement patterns in structures that may vary with time.
Tracking this motion at every time-step to determine structural design requirements
is -judged impractical. Traditional linear analysis methods use lateral forces to
represent a design condition. For nonlinear methods it is easier and more direct to
use a set of lateral displacements as a design condition. For a given structure and
ground motion, the displacement demand is an estimate of the maximum expected
response of the building during the ground motion.
Fig 3.7: Demand Spectrum Fig. 3.8: Equal Displacement Approximation
29
3.4.1.2.3 Conversion of the Capacity Curve to the Capacity Spectrum: To use
the capacity spectrum method it is necessary to convert the capacity curve, which is
in terms of base shear and roof displacement to what is
called a capacity spectrum, which is a representation of the capacity curve
in Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) format (i.e., S a versus Sd).
The required equations to make the transformation are:
Any point Vi, roof on the capacity curve is converted to the corresponding point S ai,
Sdi on the capacity spectrum using the above equations.
30
Fig 3.9: Capacity curve and capacity spectrum
3.4.1.2.4 Conversion of the Demand Curve to the Response Spectrum in ADRS

format: Every point on a response spectrum curve has associated with it a unique
spectral acceleration, Sa, spectral velocity, Sv, spectral displacement, Sd and period,
T. To convert a spectrum from the standard Sa Vs T format found in the building
code to ADRS format, it is necessary to determine the value of Sdi for each point on
the curve, Sai, Ti. This can be done with the equation:
Standard demand response spectra contain a range of constant spectral

acceleration and a second range of constant spectral velocity. Spectral acceleration
and displacement at period T are given by:
Fig 3.10: Response Spectra in Traditional and ADRS format
31
3.4.1.2.5 Reduced Response Spectrum: The equivalent viscous damping values
can be used to estimate spectral reduction factors (SR=1/B, B=Damping Coefficient)
using relationships developed by Newmark and Hall. As shown in Figure 3.11,
spectral reduction factors are used to decrease the elastic (5%damped) response
spectrum to a reduced response spectrum with damping greater than 5% of critical
damping. For damping values less than about 25 percent, spectral reduction factors
calculated using the eq from equation below:
1. CA & CV are seismic coefficients Where,

depending on Site geology & soil
characteristics, Site seismicity
characteristics & Site response
spectra.
2. SRA is spectral reduction value in

constant acceleration range of spectrum.
3. SRv is spectral reduction value in

constant velocity range of spectrum.
 =
Fig 3.11: Spectral acceleration and spectral displacement
3.4.1.2.6 Performance: Once a capacity curve and demand displacement is

defined, a performance check can be done. A performance check verifies that
structural and nonstructural components are not damaged beyond the acceptable
limits of the performance objective for the forces and displacements implied by the
displacement demand.
32
Fig 3.12: Capacity spectrum superimposed on response spectra
3.4.1.2.7 Intersection of Capacity Spectrum and Demand Spectrum: When the

displacement at the intersection of the demand spectrum and the capacity spectrum,
is within 5 percent (O.95dpi ≤di ≤ 1.05 dpi) of the displacement of the trial
performance point, api, dpi, dpi becomes the performance point. If the intersection of
the demand spectrum and the capacity spectrum is not within the acceptable
tolerance, then a new api, dpi point is selected and the process is repeated. Fig. 3.13
illustrates the concept. The performance point represents the maximum structural
displacement expected for the demand earthquake ground motion.
Figure 3.13: Intersection point of Demand and capacity spectrums
33
Figure 3.14: Intersection point of Reduced Demand and capacity spectrums
3.4.2 Displacement Coefficient Method:
3.4.2.1 Calculating Demand Displacement using the Displacement Coefficient

Method: The displacement coefficient method provides a direct numerical process
for calculating the displacement demand. It does not require converting the capacity
curve to spectral coordinates. A bilinear representation of the capacity curve is done
in this method. The post-elastic stiffness, Ks, by judgment is drawn to represent an
average stiffness in the range in which the structure strength has leveled off. The
effective elastic stiffness, Ks, is drawn by constructing a secant line passing through
the point on the capacity curve corresponding to a base shear of 0.6Vy, where Vy is
defined by the intersection of the Ke, and Ks, lines. The above process requires some
trial and error effort because the value for Vy is not known until after the Ke line is
drawn.
34
Figure 3.15: Bilinear representation of Capacity Curve for DCM
The bilinear curve constructed for the displacement coefficient method will generally
be different from one constructed for the capacity spectrum method.
3.4.2.2 Effective fundamental period (Te) & Target displacement (t ): Same as
calculated by using FEMA 356 [17] except in change of few notations though the
basis and concept are same.
3.4.2.3 Checking Performance at the Expected Maximum Displacement: The

following steps should be followed in the performance check:
1) For global building response verify the following:
 The lateral force resistance has not degraded by more than 20 percent of the
peak resistance
 The lateral drifts satisfy the limits given in Table below
Table: 3.3: Performance level and inter storey drift limits
Inter-storey drift Performance level
ratio limit (as a % Immediate Damage Life Safety Structural
of roof height) Occupancy Control stability
Maximum total drift 0.01 0.01-0.02 0.02 0.33Vi/Pt
Maximum inelastic
0.005 0.005-0.015 No limit No limit
drift
Vi = Total calculated lateral shear in storey ‘i’
Pt =Total gravity load used for the push load (Dead plus a % of live load)
35
Figure 3.16: Roof drift and roof drift ratio
2) Identify and classify the different elements in the building. Any of the following
element types may be present: beam-column frames, slab-column frames, solid
walls, coupled walls, perforated walls, punched walls, floor diaphragms and
foundations.
3) Identify all primary and secondary components. This classification is needed for
the deformation check in step 5.
4) For each element, identify the critical components and actions to be checked.
5) The strength and deformation demands at the structure's performance point shall
be equal to or less than their respective capacities considering all co-existing forces
acting with the demand spectrum.
6) The ·performance of structural elements not carrying vertical load shall be

reviewed for acceptability for the specified performance level.
7) Nonstructural elements shall be checked for acceptability for the specified

performance level.
36
3.5 Comparative chart for capacity spectrum & Displacement
Coefficient Methods:
Fig. 3.17: Comparison of CSM and DCM
37
3.6 Performance level of structure and element
The performance levels are discrete damaged states identified from a continuous
spectrum of possible damage states. The structural performance levels are:
i) Immediate Occupancy (IO)

ii) Life Safety (LS)
iii) Collapse Prevention (CP)
These three levels are arranged according to decreasing performance of lateral &
vertical load resisting system. A target performance is defined by a typical value of
roof drift, as well as limiting value of deformation of the structural element. To
determine whether a building meets a specified performance objective, response
quantities from the pushover analysis should be compared with limits for each of the
performance levels. According to FEMA 356 [17] & ATC 40 [1], typical values of roof
drift are as follows:
Performance level Limit as per FEMA 356 Limit as per ATC 40

IO Transient drift is about 1% with 20% of  from point B,
negligible permanent drift. where  is the length of
the plastic plateau.
LS Transient drift is 2% with 1% 50% of  from point B,
permanent drift.
CP Total 4% inelastic drift, whether 90% of  from point B,
transient or permanent
38
Figure 3.18: Idealized load deformation curve and performance levels
3.7 Types of non-linearity

Both geometric and material non-linear ties are considered in static non-linear
pushover analysis.
3.7.1 Geometric non-linearity: This is a type of non-linearity where the structure is

still elastic, but the effects of large deflections cause the geometry of the structure to
change; so that linear elastic theory breaks own. Typical problems that lie in this
category are the elastic instability of structures such as in the Euler buckling of struts
and the large deflection analysis of beam-column member. In general, it can be said
that for geometric non-linearity, an axially applied compressive force in a member
decreases its bending stiffness but an axially applied tensile force increases its
bending stiffness. In addition, P- effect is also included in this concept.
3.7.2 Material non-linearity: In this type of non-linearity, the material undergoes

plastic deformation. Material non-linearity can be modeled as discrete hinges at a
number of locations along the length of a frame (beam or column) element and a
discrete hinge for a brace element as discrete material fibers distributed over the
39
cross section of the element, or as a series of material points throughout the
element.
3.8 Pushover analysis solution control:

Pushover analysis will continue until any of the following three conditions are
satisfied:
i) Cumulative base shear is less than or equal to the base shear defined by
the user.
ii) Displacement at the control node in the specified direction exceeds the
specified displacement defined by the user.
iii) The structure becomes unstable
3.9 Limitations of Conventional Pushover Analysis

Although pushover analysis has advantages over elastic analysis procedures,
underlying assumptions, the accuracy of pushover predictions and limitations of
current pushover procedures must be identified. The estimate of target
displacement, selection of lateral load patterns and identification of failure
mechanisms due to higher modes of vibration are important issues that affect the
accuracy of pushover results.
Target displacement is the global displacement expected in a design earthquake.
Most of the time, roof displacement at mass center of the structure is used as target
displacement. The accurate estimation of target displacement associated with
specific performance objective affect the accuracy of seismic demand predictions of
pushover analysis.
In pushover analysis, the target displacement for a multi degree of freedom (MDOF)
system is usually estimated as the displacement demand for the corresponding
equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. The basic properties of an
equivalent SDOF system are obtained by using a shape vector which represents the
deflected shape of the MDOF system. Most of the researchers recommend the use
of normalized displacement profile at the target displacement level as a shape vector
but iteration is needed since this displacement is not known a priori but elastic
response spectrum can be used as first trial. Thus, a fixed shape vector, elastic first
40
mode, is used in conventional pushover analysis without regards to higher modes by
most of the approaches. Moreover, hysteretic characteristics of MDOF should be
incorporated into the equivalent SDOF model, if displacement demand is affected
from stiffness degradation or pinching, strength deterioration, P - ∆ effects. Lateral
loads represent the likely distribution of inertia forces imposed on structure during an
earthquake. The distribution of inertia forces vary with the severity of earthquake and
with time during earthquake.
However, in pushover analysis, generally an invariant lateral load pattern is used that
the distribution of inertia forces is assumed to be constant during earthquake and the
deformed configuration of structure under the action of invariant lateral load pattern
is expected to be similar to that experienced in design earthquake. As the response
of structure, thus the capacity curve is very sensitive to the choice of lateral load
distribution, selection of lateral load pattern is more critical than the accurate
estimation of target displacement.
It therefore must be emphasized that the pushover analysis is approximate in nature
and is based on statically applied load. The pushover analysis basically estimates an
envelope curve of the behavior under dynamic loads and must be used with
sufficient caution while interpreting the actual behavior under seismic load.
41
3.10 Vulnerability Index
Vulnerability function may be defined as test of repair/ damage against seismic
excitation. In case of pushover analysis, the formation of plastic hinges is considered
to be a measure of damage and non-linear push load is considered to be equivalent
to the seismic excitation.
The vulnerability index is a measure of the damage in a building obtained from the
pushover analysis. It is defined as a scaled linear combination (weighted average) of
performance measures of the hinges in the components, and is calculated from the
performance levels of the components at the performance point or at the point of
termination of the pushover analysis. It has been mentioned earlier that the load-
deformation curve for a particular hinge is assumed to be piecewise linear (Fig.
3.18).
The plastic plateau (B-C) in the load-deformation curve is subdivided into the
performance ranges, namely, B-IO, IO-LS, LS-CP, CP-C, D-E, and > E. After the
pushover analysis, performance ranges of the hinges formed in the component can
be noted from the deformed shape output. The number of hinges formed in the
beams and columns for each performance range are available from the output. A
‘weightage factor’ (xi) is assigned to each performance range. The proposed values
of xi are given in Table 3.4. As columns are more important than beams in the global
safety of a building, an ‘importance factor’ of 1.5 is additionally assigned for columns.
The building vulnerability index of the building model, VI,bldg is accordingly given by
the following weighted average.
Here, Nic and Nih are the number of hinges in columns and beams, respectively, for
the ith performance range. The summation sign is intended to cover the performance
ranges, i = 1, 2…….VI,bldg is a measure of the overall vulnerability of the building. A
high value of VI,bldg reflects poor performance of the building components
42
(i.e., high risk) as obtained from the pushover analysis. However, this index may not
reflect a soft storey mechanism, in which a performance point may not be achieved.
Table 3.4: Weightage Factors for Performance Range
PERFORMANCE RANGE (i) WEIGHTAGE FACTOR (Xi)

<B 0.000
B-IO 0.125
IO-LS 0.375
LS-CP 0.625
CP-C 0.875
C-D, D-E & >E 1.000
43
CHAPTER 4
NUMERICAL STUDY
___________________________________________________________________
4.1 GENERAL
The present study is intended to compare the structural efficiency of different

retrofitting schemes conventionally implemented on RC building frame structures as
per the present industry practice. A non-linear static procedure (NSP) based analysis
is carried out according to FEMA 356 CM, FEMA 440 DM, ATC40 CSM on (G+3)
storied RC building models using identical structural configuration in terms of the
gridline arrangements and elevation. The fundamental time period for the models
studied was found to be around one second, and as per ATC 40 [1]
recommendations, the pushover analysis is applicable for this building. The
structural forms are studied using theoretical simplified models, symmetrical about
their respective centers of gravity.
Reference to different retrofit scenarios considered for this paper is drawn from the
guidelines specified in IS 15988: 2013 titled ‘Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings — Guidelines’ and from a few live
example projects.
All the retrofit scenarios/schemes considered in the present study are further
classified under two general heads as below with an aim to diversify the study
further.
i) On RC building frame models with strong column and weak beam, defined
by ‘SCWB’ in the following pages.
ii) On RC building frame models with strong beam and weak column, defined
by ‘SBWC’ in the following pages.
The strong column/weak beam model is idealized in accordance to the definition in

Cl. 7.4 of IS 15988: 2013 such that the sum of the moment of resistance of the
columns shall be at least 1.1 times the sum of the moment of resistance of the
44
beams at each frame joint.
Nonlinear static procedure (pushover analysis) is carried out using SAP 2000 V14
software package on all the models studied. The gravity loads are initially applied in
a force controlled manner until the total load reaches the target value, which is same
as the design gravity load for linear analysis. The lateral loads are thereafter applied
separately in the two mutually orthogonal directions in a displacement controlled
manner. The distribution of lateral force is assumed to be model adaptive, equivalent
to the first mode shape.
Seismic performances of the models studied are compared in terms of certain

standard parameters obtained as outputs from the software package SAP 2000 and
presented using tables and graphs.
4.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
A non-linear static procedure (NSP) based analysis is carried out according to FEMA
356 CM, FEMA 440 DM, ATC40 CSM on (G+3) storied RC building models using
identical structural configuration in terms of the gridline arrangements and elevation
as shown in Fig. 4.1 & Fig. 4.2. The structural forms are studied using theoretical
simplified models, symmetrical about their respective centers of gravity. All the
theoretical structural models studied have similar arrangement/configuration.
45
Fig. 4.1: Floor Plan of the Building Models
The section properties for beams & columns of the different building models are
given in section 4.2.1
46
Fig. 4.2: Elevation along ‘X’ direction
Fig. 4.3: Elevation along ‘Y’ direction
47
The retrofit damage scenarios considered as part of this study are broadly classified
under the following heads in accordance with IS 15988: 2013:
 Retrofitting at Structural level (Ref. Cl. 8.2.3 of IS 15988 :2013) : Global

a) Using steel braced frames
b) Using RCC shear walls
 Retrofitting at Member level (Ref. Cl. 8.2.1 of IS 15988 :2013) : Local

a) Using RCC jacket
b) Using Steel jacket
c) Using FRP jacket
Models identified:
The different structural scenario & their corresponding structural models identified
and studied for carrying out the parametric study as part of this report are
summarized in Table 4.1 below.
For future reference on this report, an abbreviated model reference for each case
study is identified in Table 4.1 below. A 3 dimensional rendered image from SAP for
some of these models is also illustrated in figures and placed at Appendix-A. As a
general rule in order to simplify the nomenclatures, the following notations are used:
‘D’ stands for the design case.
“R’ stands for Retrofit
‘RC’ stands for retrofitting using concrete
‘RS’ stands for retrofitting using steel
‘RFRP’ stands for retrofitting using FRP
‘RB’ stands for global retrofitting using steel braces
‘RSW’ stands for global retrofitting using shear walls
‘C’ stands for SCWB models
‘B’ stands for SBWC models
‘A’ stands for all floors
‘G’ stands for ground floor
48
‘C’ stands for corner columns on any floor
‘A’ stands for all columns on any floor
‘N’ stands for randomly chosen columns (≈ 30%of total numbers) on any floor
‘C’ stands for complete/full retrofitting of the column
‘P’ stands for partial retrofitting of the column
‘O’ stands for OMRF models
‘S’ stands for OMRF models
Thus for example the model with model reference ’RCCGCCO’ denotes the case
study of Retrofit using concrete on SCWB model on the ground floor corner columns
under the OMRF case.
Table 4.1: Summary of all the building models studied with description
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Category 1: Original/ Design Case
M1 DCO SCWB OMRF - - - -
M2 DCS SCWB SMRF - - - -
M3 DBO SBWC OMRF - - - -
M4 DBS SBWC SMRF - - - -
M5 DCMO SCWB OMRF Material - - -

Imperfection at
beam-column
M6 DBMO SBWC OMRF location - - -
Category 2: Structure level retrofit with steel braced frames

RBCGO
At Gr. floor
M7 SCWB OMRF - - -
only
49
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
RBCAO
M8 SCWB OMRF At All floors - - -
Category 3: Member level retrofit with RCC jacket

RCCGCCO
For Gr. floor Corner Complete

M9 SCWB OMRF columns only Columns retrofit -
RCCGCPO
For Gr. floor All Complete

M10 SCWB OMRF columns only Columns retrofit -
RCCGAP4O
Gap of
For Gr. floor All Partial
400mm
M11 SCWB OMRF columns only Columns Retrofit from floor
level
RCCGAP8O
Gap of
For Gr. floor All Partial
800mm
M12 SCWB OMRF columns only Columns Retrofit from floor
level
RCCACCO
For All floor Corner Complete

M13 SCWB OMRF columns Columns retrofit -
Random
RCCANCO
For All floor Column Complete

M14 SCWB OMRF columns only (30% of retrofit -
total)
RCCAACO
For All floor All Complete

M15 SCWB OMRF columns Columns retrofit -
50
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
RCCAAP4O
Gap of
For All floor All Partial 400mm
M16 SCWB OMRF
columns Columns Retrofit from floor
level
RCCAAP8O
Gap of
M17 SCWB OMRF
level
RCBGCCO
For Gr. floor Corner Complete

M18 SBWC OMRF -
columns only Columns retrofit
RCBGACO
All
For Gr. floor Complete
M19 SBWC OMRF Columns -
columns only retrofit
RCBGAP4O
Gap of
All
For Gr. floor Partial 400mm
M20 SBWC OMRF Columns
columns only Retrofit from floor
level
RCBGAP8O
Gap of
For Gr. floor All Complete 800mm
M21 SBWC OMRF
columns only Columns retrofit from floor
level
RCBACCO
For All floor Corner Complete

M22 SBWC OMRF -
columns Columns retrofit
Random
RCBANCO
Complete
For All floor Column
M23 SBWC OMRF retrofit -
columns (30% of
total)
51
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
RCBAACO
Complete
For All floor All
M24 SBWC OMRF retrofit -
columns Columns
RCBAAP4O
Gap of
M25 SBWC OMRF
level
RCBAAP8O
Gap of
M26 SBWC OMRF
level
Category 4: Member level retrofit with Steel jacket

RSCGACO

M27 SCWB OMRF -
RSCGAP4O
Gap of
For Gr. floor All Partial 400mm
M28 SCWB OMRF
columns only Columns Retrofit from floor
level
RSCGAP8O
Gap of
M29 SCWB OMRF
level
RSCAACO

M30 SCWB OMRF -
52
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
RSCAAP4O
Gap of
M31 SCWB OMRF
level
RSBGACO

M32 SBWC OMRF -
RSBGAP4O
Gap of
M33 SBWC OMRF
level
RSBGAP8O
Gap of
M34 SBWC OMRF
level
RSBAACO

M35 SBWC OMRF -
RSBAAP4O
Gap of
M36 SBWC OMRF
level
Category 5: Member level retrofit with FRP jacket at the beam-column junctions
RFRPCO
For All floor All

M37 SCWB OMRF - -
columns Columns
53
Category-1
Category-2
Category-3
Category-4
Category-5
Category-6
Reference
Definition
Model
Model
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub
RFRPBO
For All floor All

M38 SBWC OMRF - -
columns Columns
Category 6: Structure level retrofit with RCC shear walls

RSWCAO
M39 SCWB OMRF At All floors - - -
54
4.2.1 PROPERTIES
The models studied use the following basic geometric and material properties:
GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES:
i) Depth of foundation = 1.2m below GL.

ii) Plinth height above GL = 0.6m.
iii) Floor to floor height = 3.1m
iv) Parapet height = 1.5m
v) Slab thickness = 150mm
vi) External wall thickness = 230mm
vii) Internal wall thickness = 150mm
viii) Parent building frame column size (B x D) = 400mm x 400mm (SCWB)
ix) Parent building frame beam size (B x D) = 300mm x 400mm (SCWB)
x) Parent building frame column size (B x D) = 300mm x 300mm (SBWC)
xi) Parent building frame beam size (B x D) = 300mm x 450mm (SBWC)
MATERIAL PROPERTIES:
 Concrete (Parent /Jacket):
i) Grade - M20
ii) Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
iii) Modulus of elasticity = 2.24x107kN/m2
iv) Poisson’s Ratio = 0.15
v) Coefficient of thermal expansion= 1.2x10-5/ degree C
vi) Shear modulus = 9.72x106kN/m^2
vii) Characteristic compressive strength (fc) = 20 MPa.
 Reinforcement:
i) Grade - Fe 500
ii) Unit weight of reinforcement =77.08 kN/m3
iii) Modulus of elasticity = 2x108kN/m2
iv) Poisson’s Ratio of concrete = 0.3
55
v) Coefficient of thermal expansion = 1.2x10-5/ degree C
vi) Shear modulus = 7.7x107kN/m2
vii) Yield strength (fy) = 500 MPa.
 Structural Steel plates:
i) Grade classification of steel- E250(Fe410W) A

ii) Unit weight of steel =77.08 kN/m3
iii) Modulus of elasticity of steel = 2.05x10^8kN/m2
iv) Poisson’s Ratio = 0.3
v) Coefficient of thermal expansion = 1.2x10-5/ degree C
vi) Shear modulus =8x10^7kN/m2
vii) Yield Stress, Min (fy) = 250 MPa.
viii) Plate thickness= 16mm.
 CFRP laminates(Ref.www.fosroc.com):
i) Ultimate tensile strength ffu = 3790 MPa

ii) Thickness per ply = 0.33mm
iii) No. of plies = 5
iv) Rupture Strain = 0.017
v) Modulus of elasticity = 4.3x10^8 kN/m2
COVER TO RC ELEMENTS:
The structure is assumed to be located in an environment with moderate conditions
of exposure to IS 456:2000 and cover to reinforcement is chosen in accordance to
Table 16 of the code for respective elements. For the present study, the following
nominal cover to the RCC elements has been considered:
 Beams- 30mm
 Columns- 50mm
56
4.2.2 LOADING
i) Dead loads- Applied using the self-weight command available in SAP

2000 based on the material densities assigned to the elements.
ii) Imposed load intensity on floors = 3kN/m^2
iii) Imposed load intensity on roof = 1.5 kN/m^2
iv) Site is assumed to be located in Zone-IV of IS 1893 (Part-I):2002.
v) The site is founded on medium soil (Type-II of IS 1893 (Part-I) :2002)
vi) Load intensity on floors, including finishes and plaster = 1 kN/m^2
vii) Load intensity on roof, including finishes and plaster/services = 1.5 kN/m^2
viii) Density of brick masonry = 20 kN/m^3
4.2.3 IDEALISED STRUCTURAL MODEL

The idealized RC building frame models considered for purpose of the present study
is shown in Fig. 4.4 below:
Fig. 4.4: Idealized Building Frame Models
57
4.2.4 SECTION PROPERTIES
The section properties used on all the models used for the present study are
presented below:
 RCC Sections- Design case and Local Retrofit with RCC jacket
Table 4.2: Section properties for the RCC Elements
Model Definition/ SECTION/ REINFORCEMENT

Element Width Depth Long. No. of Links dia Links spacing Reinf.
(B) in (D) in bar dia bars (In mm) (In mm) Ratio
mm mm (In (In %)
mm)
Details of Column
M1, M5, M7, M8,
M27 to M31, M37, 400 400 20 8 10 100 1.57
M39
75 (At the
M2 400 400 25 8 10 2.45
junctions)
M3, M6, M32 to
300 300 16 8 10 100 1.78
36, M38
75 (At the
M4 300 300 16 8 10 1.78
junctions)
M9 to M17
550 550 25 10 10 100 1.62
M18 to M26
450 450 20 10 10 100 1.55
Details of Beam
M1, M5, M7 to
M17, M27 to M31, 300 400 16 3 10 150 0.57
M37, M39
100
M2 300 400 16 3 10 (At the 0.57
junctions)
M3, M6, M18 to
M26, M32 to 36, 300 450 16 4 10 150 0.67
M38
100
M4 300 450 16 4 10 (At the 0.67
junctions)
Notes-
i) For model definition, reference may be drawn to Table 4.1.
58
ii) For SMRF models, the Mander confined advanced concrete properties
option available in SAP is taken into consideration for confined concrete
properties at the beam column junctions.
iii) The concrete jacket considered in terms of detailing is assumed to

conform to Cl. 8.5.1.1 of IS 15988: 2013.The jacket thickness considered
is 75mm in general.
iv) The reinforcement ratio worked out for jacketed column doesn’t consider
the reinforcement present in parent concrete into consideration.
 Local Retrofit with Steel jacket
The retrofitted section with steel jacketing is modeled using the section
designer facility available in SAP and is compared against manual
calculations to ensure correctness. A snapshot of the composite section from
SAP section designer is shown in Fig. 4.5. The model references where the
following section properties are used are M27 to M36.
Fig. 4.5: Details of composite section designer in SAP 2000
The composite properties used for the model in terms of equivalent concrete
are shown in Fig. 4.6:
Fig. 4.6: Details of composite section properties in SAP 2000
59
It is worth noting that in the above model, no confinement effects potentially
attributable due to the presence of these steel plates could be modeled. It is just the
section properties for the composite steel concrete section that was used for the
analysis.
 Local Retrofit with FRP
The retrofit models with CFRP confinement is modeled using the simplified stress-
strain curves for CFRP confined concrete sections obtained using the
recommendations & closed form relationship referred on paper by J.G. Teng &
L. Lam [33]. The model references where the following section properties are used
are M37 & M38. The extent of FRP application is considered for a length equal to
≈1/3rd of the length of beam and columns on either side of the joint in all directions.
The Stress-strain relationship for FRP confined concrete: are obtained using the
following formulations.
c = Ec c - (Ec - E2)2 c2 ; for 0 ≤c ≤ t

4(0.67fcu/c)
c = 0.67fcu/c + E2 c ; for t ≤c ≤ cc
cc1.75 co + 10 fLco

0.67fcu

t 2(0.67*fcu )
c (Ec - E2)
Ec = 1000 * 0.67fcu/c 

co
The confined concrete properties are worked out from the above formulations as
below:
 Cube strength of concrete (fcu): 20 Mpa

 Lateral Confining pressure (fL): 13.38 Mpa
 Factor of safety for FRP (frp): 1.25
 Modulus of elasticity after transition (E2): 2227.9 Mpa
 Minimum confinement ratio : 0.08
 Confinement ratio, fL/fc' : 0.836
 Peak Strain, cc : 0.02347
60
 Limiting Strain, co : 0.002
 Factor of safety for Concrete, c : 1.5
 Modulus of elasticity, Ec : 22360.7 Mpa
 Transition Strain, t : 0.0009
The CFRP material properties considered are using a standard supplier’s brochure
(Reference www.fosroc.com) and have been used for arriving at the above
confinement properties is as below. The other considerations are in accordance with
ACI 440.2R-08.
 Thickness per ply, tf : 0.33mm

 Ultimate tensile strength, ftu: 3790 Mpa
 Rupture Strain, fu: 0.017
 Modulus of elasticity, Ef : 4.3x105Mpa
 Effective strain in FRP, fe: 0.0040
 Concrete cylinder strength, fc’ :16 Mpa
 Environmental factor, Ce : 0.95
 Number of plies of FRP (considered): 5
 Coefficient of effective strain, ke : 0.55
Fig. 4.7 below represents the stress-strain curve of the FRP confined section
using the normally adopted design stress-strain relationship of Concrete from
IS 456: 2000 and the relationships proposed by Teng et al [33]
Stress
Strain
Fig. 4.7: Stress-Strain Relationship curve of FRP Confined Concrete
61
The above computed stress strain properties are then fed into the model using the
advanced material properties option available in SAP & assigned to the elements
near the beam column junctions where the CFRP confinement are likely to be
applied during retrofitting.
Fig. 4.8: FRP confined concrete stress strain material properties adopted
 Global Retrofit with external RCC Shear walls
The retrofit models with strengthening at structural level is idealized using provision
of external RCC shear walls, designed in accordance with the requirements of Cl.
8.5.2.1 of IS 15988: 2013. The model reference where this section property is used
is M39. The thickness of the shear wall considered is 100mm, adhering to the
provisions of Cl. 7.4.2.1 of IS 15988: 2013.
 Global Retrofit with Steel Braced Frames
The retrofit models with strengthening at structural level are idealized using braced
frames, designed in accordance with the requirements of Cl. 8.5.2.2 of IS 15988:
2013. The steel diagonal brace sections considered are ISA 100x100x6 and added
to existing concrete frames. Braces are so arranged that their center line passes
through the centers of the beam-column joints. The model references where the
following section properties are used are M7 & M8.
62
Fig. 4.9: Details of Bracing Angle sections applied to the SAP models.
 Design Case with Material Imperfection
An additional case study was identified to reflect the inherent deficiency of quality of
concrete at the beam column junctions due to the potential issues of compaction as
a result of densely reinforced zone at those locations.
To idealize the damage scenario, the same was modeled considering a poor quality
material at the beam column junctions by assigning 80% of the modulus of elasticity
of concrete for these elements. The model references where the following section
properties are used are M5 & M6 and the section properties are defined in Table 4.2.
4.2.5 SUPPORT CONDITIONS
The foundations for all the models are idealized as fixed supports.
63
4.2.6 LOAD CALCULATIONS/PRIMARY LOAD CASES
i) Wall Loading (For SBWC Models):

External wall loading intensity = 0.23*(3.1-0.45) *20 = 12.19 kN/m
Internal wall loading intensity =0.15*(3.1-0.45) *20 = 7.95kN/m
Parapet wall loading intensity =0.23*1.5*20= 6.90 kN/m
ii) Wall Loading (For SCWB Models):

External wall loading intensity = 0.23*(3.1-0.3) *20 = 12.88kN/m
Internal wall loading intensity = 0.15*(3.1-0.3) *20 =8.40kN/m
Parapet wall loading intensity = 0.23*1.5*20= 6.9k0 N/m
iii) Loading due to flooring/roofing:

Distributed to the supporting beams using yield line theory in accordance
with Cl. 24.5 of IS 456: 2000 (Refer Appendix-B)
iv) Imposed loads:

Distributed to the supporting beams using yield line theory in accordance
with Cl. 24.5 of IS 456: 2000 Refer Appendix-B)
v) Seismic loads:
Applied in the global x & y direction using IS 1893 Response Spectrum
loading command available on SAP 2000.
vi) Pushover analysis loading:

Applied using the following commands available in SAP 2000 and
presented using Fig. 4.10 (Details A through D) below. It is worth noting
that conjugate displacement option is used to monitor the displacements.
The conjugate displacement is a weighted average of all displacements in
the structure where each displacement degree of freedom is weighted by
the load acting on that degree of freedom. In other words, it is a measure
of the work done by the applied load.
64
A
B
C
D
Fig. 4.10: Pushover load definition in SAP 2000
Detail- A: Gravity Load Combination
65
Detail B: Displacement Control analysis inputs
Detail C: Results Saved Multiple States inputs
Detail D: Non-linear Parameter definition
66
The primary load cases defined above are fed into the SAP model as presented
below:
Fig. 4.11: Primary Load Cases defined in SAP 2000
4.2.7 LOAD COMBINATION
The following load combinations are studied in accordance with Table 18 of IS

456:200 and Cl. 6.3 of IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002.
Fig. 4.12: Load combination table in SAP
67
4.2.8 FLOOR DIAPHRAGM ACTION
The diaphragm action as a result of in-plane rigidity of the floor is assigned to the
models using the ‘Joint Constraint’ command available in SAP to the different floor
levels as shown in the screen capture below.
Fig. 4.13: Floor Diaphragm action assigned in SAP
4.2.9 CONTROL NODE AND TARGET DISPLACEMENT
The control node is normally taken at the center of mass at the roof of a building.
The target point for monitoring the target displacement for the present study is
considered as node 101 on all models which is illustrated in Fig. 4.14.
68
Fig. 4.14: Target point illustration assigned in SAP
The displacement of the control node in the mathematical model is calculated for the
specific lateral loads.
The models are designed /checked for the above load combinations using the in-built
concrete frame design reference command available in SAP 2000 to ascertain the
adequacy of the sections/reinforcement considered for the models.
69
4.3 POST-PROCESSING OF OUTPUTS
Amongst the several outputs obtained from analysis using NSP, namely the base
shear, roof displacement and global ductility obtained from the following models are
tabulated and graphically plotted to carry out a comparative study of these
parameters.
A typical hinge formation diagram for different performance levels, a typical pushover
curve and a typical ATC 40 capacity spectrum from SAP are presented in Fig. 4.15
to 4.17.
Fig. 4.15: Typical plastic hinge state at different performance levels
70
A
Detail-A
Fig.4.16: Typical Pushover curve obtained from SAP 2000
Whilst the curve at top gives the absolute resultant base shear Vs monitored
displacement, the curve shown below shows the idealized bilinear Force-Displ.
Curve and uses the parameters for FEMA 356 Coefficient Method in accordance
with the FEMA 356 [17] guidance. There are options available to modify the
71
parameters and the calculated values can be easily obtained using the ‘Show
Calculated Values’ option (Ref. Detail-A).
Fig.4.17: ATC 40 Capacity Spectrum with performance point from SAP
The curve above uses the parameters for ATC 40 [1] Capacity Spectrum form in
order to specify the parameters for displaying pushover curves in accordance with
ATC 40 guidance. The constant period lines are plotted for T = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
seconds which are the default values used by SAP and can be edited using the
modify command. The shape of the demand spectrum with 5% damping is controlled
by the values input in the Ca and Cv (Seismic Coefficient). The value for both Ca and
Cv is taken as 0.4 in accordance with Table 4.7 and 4.8 of ATC 40 [1].
In the figure above, green colour indicates the pushover curve in capacity spectrum;
yellow colour indicates demand spectrum and performance point shown separately.
72
4.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The case studies/scenarios identified and models discussed in the preceding

sections were analyzed using the nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis)
module available in SAP 2000.
Amongst the numerous data obtained from analysis of the above models, the
following properties were primarily compared for carrying out a parametric study of
structural efficiency of the various models studied.
1) Base Shear
2) Roof Displacement
3) Global Ductility
4) Vulnerability Index
The present parametric study is carried out by grouping/combining the model case
studies into seven (7) major groups as shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Grouping of the models
Comb.
Model Ref./ Scenario included in the combination Comparison intended
No.
Design Case: Poor
1 DCO DCMO
workmanship Case
Design: All floor global
DCO RBCAO RCCAACO RSCAACO RFRPCODBO
2 retrofit: All floor local
RCBAACO RSBAACO RFRPBO
retrofit
RCCGCCO RCCGACO RCCGAP4O RCCGAP8O All member level
RCCACCO RCCANCO RCCAACO RCCAAP4O RCC jacket
3 RCCAAP8O RCBGCCO RCBGACO RCBGAP4O (Complete /partial /floor
RCBGAP8O RCBACCO RCBANCO RCBAACO wise)
RCBAAP4O RCBAAP8O
All member level
RSCGACO RSCGAP4O RSCGAP8O RSCAACO
Steel jacket
4 RSCAAP4O RSBGACO RSBGAP4O RSBGAP8O
RSBAACO RSBAAP4O (Complete /partial /floor
wise)
RBCGO RCCGCCO RCCGACO RCCGAP4O RCCGAP8O Only Ground floor
RSCGACO RSCGAP4O RSCGAP8O RCBGCCO retrofit (Global & Local
5
RCBGACO RCBGAP4O RCBGAP8O RSBGACO Retrofit - All types)
RSBGAP4O RSBGAP8O
RBCAO RSWCAO RCCACCORCCANCO RCCAACO All floors retrofit (Global
RCCAAP4O RCCAAP8O RSCAACO RSCAAP4O & Local Retrofit-All
RFRPCO RCBACCO RCBANCO RCBAACO RCBAAP4O types)
6
RCBAAP8O RSBAACO RSBAAP4ORF RPBO RSCGAP4O
RSBGAP4O RCCGAP8O RCBGAP4O RSCGAP8O
RSBGAP8O
Design SMRF: Design
7 DCS DCO DBS DBO
OMRF
Note- For model reference, please refer Table 4.1.
73
The parametric study carried out is presented in the following pages in form of
comparative tables & charts for each combination. The results and discussions from
the findings are also captured alongside the comparative charts and tables.
4.4.1 COMPARATIVE RESULTS/CHARTS:
4.4.1.1 Comb. No.1: Comparison of Original Design Vs Design with poor

workmanship (poor grade of concrete at beam-column joint) for OMRF models
The Base shear capacity, Roof Displacements, global ductility and Vulnerability
Index for various models are tabulated below.
Table 4.4: Comparative summary of outputs for Comb. No.1
Model Ref. Base Roof Global Vulnerability

Shear (kN) Displacement Ductility Index (VI bldg)
(mm) (Unit less) (Unit less)
DCO (Design) 1848 279 12 0.69
DCMO (With poor

workmanship at 1021 103 4 0.77
beam-column joint)
The graphical comparison of the above parameters of performances for different

scenarios is presented in Fig 4.18A to Fig 4.18D.
Base Shear in kN
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
DCO DCMO
Fig. 4.18A: Comparison of Base Shear Capacity
74
320
Roof Displacement in mm
270
220
170
120
70
20
DCO DCMO
Fig. 4.18B: Comparison of Roof Displacement
14 Global Ductility
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
DCO
DCMO
Fig. 4.18C: Comparison of Global ductility
0.78
Vulnerability Index VI, bldg
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.64
DCO
DCMO
Fig. 4.18D: Comparison of Vulnerability Index
75
From the above summary/comparative charts, the following conclusion may be
drawn and established:
The model with poor workmanship, particularly at the beam-column joint yield very
low base shear capacity, roof displacements and global ductility compared to the
original design models. It may be attributed to the fact that the poor quality of
concrete at the beam-column junctions doesn’t allow the model to perform
adequately beyond the yield point. It has been observed from the study that the
number of hinges produced immediately after the onset of yielding is around 25%
more in the model with inherent material deficiency. The performance within the
inelastic domain is found to be relatively unsatisfactory in the models with inherent
material imperfection.
The same is also evident from the comparative measure of the VI,bldg values for the
two models.
4.4.1.2 Comb. No. 2: Comparison of Design, Global & Local retrofitted all floors
(complete) for OMRF models
Index (for the performance point achieved cases) for various models are tabulated
below.
Table 4.5: Comparative summary of outputs for Comb. No.2
Model Ref. Base Shear Roof Global Vulnerability

(kN) Displacement Ductility Index (VI bldg)
SCWB
DCO (Design) 1848 279 12 0.69
RBCAO (Global) 7565 76 4 0.30
RSWCAO (Global) 8711 25 3 0.36
RCCAACO (Local-
2055 249 11 0.55
RCC jacket)
RSCAACO (Local-
1948 168 9 0.34
Steel jacket)
RFRPCO (Local-
1826 300 13 0.52
FRP jacket)
76
SBWC
DBO (Design) 1406 77 2
RCBAACO (Local- Performance
RCC jacket) 1594 173 10 point not
achieved. VIbldg
RSBAACO (Local- values not
Steel jacket) 1511 84 4 realistic and
therefore not
RFRPBO (Local- presented.
1353 80 4
FRP jacket)
It may be noted that the VI,bldg values for SBWC cases have not been presented in
the present report since the values doesn’t look realistic. Reference to this can be
cited from the paper by N. Lakshmanan [31], which clearly states that the index may
not reflect a soft storey mechanism, in which case a performance point may not be
achieved. As previously stated, the present study reveals that in most of the SBWC
models, a problem is noted in terms of convergence of the capacity curve with the
demand spectrum as a result of which the performance point couldn’t be obtained,
therefore generating unrealistic VI, bldg values.
It is also observed that the vulnerability index of the building reduced with the
incorporation of any form of retrofit measure. It is also noticed that global retrofit
scheme with addition of braced frame/shear walls or local retrofit with steel jacket
performs in a much better way in terms of the VI,bldg values. However, the relative
efficiency of the local retrofit schemes depends on the types of materials used.
It may also be noticed that amongst the different type of member level retrofit
techniques studied, the one with FRP applied at the beam-column joint allows the
maximum roof displacement to occur and therefore appears to be ideal for situation
where collapse prevention criteria is predominant.
The graphical comparison of different parameters of performances for different

retrofit schemes is presented in Fig 4.19 A to Fig 4.19D.
77
10000
8000
Base Shear in kN
6000
4000
2000
RCBAACO
RSBAACO
RSCAACO
RFRPBO
DCO DBO
RCCAACO
RFRPCO
RSWCAO
RBCAO
SCWB SBWC
320
270
220
170
120
70
20
RSBAACO
DCO DBO
RCBAACO
RFRPBO
RCCAACO
RSCAACO
RFRPCO
RSWCAO
RBCAO
SCWB
SBWC
15
Global Ductility
10
0
DBO
RSBAACO
RCBAACO
RFRPBO
DCO
RCCAACO
RSCAACO
RFRPCO
SCWB
RBCAO
RSWCAO
SBWC
78
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
DCO
RCCAACO
RSCAACO
RFRPCO
RBCAO
RSWCAO
From the above summary/comparative charts, the following conclusions may be

1) Comparing the design case with the retrofit case (both at member level and
structure level) it can be seen that any form of retrofit generally improves the
base shear resistance whilst compromises with the global ductility of the
building frames.
2) Retrofitting using RCC jackets yield comparable base shear capacity but
higher roof displacements/ductility compared to the retrofit done using steel
jacketing. The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that due to
limitations on the scope of study, the confinement effect of concrete couldn’t
be modeled on the steel encased jacket scenario, resulting in lower
displacements. Had the confinement effect been taken into account for the
steel jackets, the results might have been different. Another reason which can
be thought of is the reduced damping properties for steel compared to
concrete as a result of which the demand spectrum with steel jacket perhaps
doesn’t drop to the extent as with the RCC jacket. The reason for comparable
base shear can be attributed to the fact in having equivalent flexural column
stiffness idealized on both models.
3) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces or external RCC shear
walls applied at all floor levels yield significantly high base shear compared to
the member level (local) retrofit using concrete /steel jacket applied to all floor
columns due to relatively high effective lateral stiffness of the building model.
4) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces or external RCC shear
walls applied at all floor levels yield significantly lower roof displacement &
global ductility than the member level (local) retrofit using concrete /steel
79
jacket applied to all floor columns due to relatively higher effective lateral
stiffness.
5) The CFRP confined concrete retrofit models yield comparable base shear but
greater roof displacements compared to other forms of retrofit. Though CFRP
application doesn’t directly enhance the member level stiffness, but the
primary reason for the higher order displacements noted can be attributed to
the fact that in the non-linear zone, the long term concrete confinement
properties applied as a result of CFRP application allows greater inelastic
displacements and allows the beam column joints to perform more
satisfactorily in the inelastic domain compared to the other forms of local
retrofitting.
6) From the comparative study of the VI,bldg values, it can be concluded that any
form of retrofit reduces the seismic vulnerability of the building compared to
the design case, the least vulnerable being the building models retrofitted at
structure level (global) with braced frames or RCC shear walls. The retrofit
with steel jacket however provides a lower VI value for the building compared
to the one retrofitted with RCC jacket and therefore appears to be a better
proposition in terms of the VI, bldg parameter.
4.4.1.3 Comb. No. 3: Comparison of all member level retrofitted scenarios

(partial/complete) with RCC jacket for OMRF models
below.
Table 4.6: Comparative summary of outputs for Comb. No. 3

SCWB
RCCGCCO (Gr. Fl.-
1885 471 22 0.90
Corner columns)
RCCGACO (Gr. Fl.-
2063 373 17 0.81
All columns)
RCCGAP4O (Gr. Fl.-
1848 185 8 0.82
Partial)
RCCGAP8O (Gr. Fl.-
1847 200 9 0.85
Partial)
80
RCCACCO (All Fl.-
1890 501 23 0.80
Corner columns)
RCCANCO (All Fl.-
1972 437 22 0.85
30% retrofitted col.)
RCCAACO (All Fl.-All
2055 249 11 0.55
columns)
RCCAAP4O (All Fl.-
1101 195 9 0.66
Partial)
RCCAAP8O (All Fl.-
1868 210 10 0.56
Partial)
SBWC
RCBGCCO (Gr. Fl.-
1562 103 4
Corner columns)
RCBGACO (Gr. Fl.-
1815 92 3
All columns)
RCBGAP4O (Gr. Fl.-
1196 94 2
Partial) Performance
RCBGAP8O (Gr. Fl.- point not
1449 64 2
Partial) achieved. VI,bldg
RCBACCO (All Fl.- values not
1551 86 4 realistic and
Corner columns)
RCBANCO (All Fl.- therefore not
1820 108 4 presented.
30% retrofitted col.)
RCBAACO (All Fl.-All
1594 173 10
columns)
RCBAAP4O (All Fl.-
854 55 2
Partial)
RCBAAP8O (All Fl.-
1445 58 2
Partial)
From the above, it may be clearly seen that for models with retrofit being applied in
form of partial/incomplete/random manner (eg. applied only to the distressed
elements) yields a substantially higher value of VI,bldg, thereby reflecting poor
performance compared to the models where retrofit has been applied in a
symmetric/ consistent pattern. It is therefore highly recommended that wherever the
retrofit solution is proposed, it should be executed and implemented in a global
/holistic manner rather than in a piecemeal manner.

retrofit schemes is presented in Fig 4.20 A to Fig 4.20 D.
81
20
120
220
320
420
520
620
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
800
RCCGCCO RCCGCCO
RCBGCCO RCBGCCO
RCCGACO RCCGACO
RCBGACO RCBGACO
RCCGAP4O RCCGAP4O
RCBGAP4O RCBGAP4O
RCCGAP8O RCCGAP8O
RCBGAP8O RCBGAP8O
SCWB
SCWB
82
RCCACCO RCCACCO
RCBACCO RCBACCO
SBWC
SBWC
Base Shear in kN
RCCANCO RCCANCO
RCBANCO RCBANCO
RCCAACO RCCAACO
RCBAACO RCBAACO

RCCAAP4O RCCAAP4O
RCBAAP4O RCBAAP4O
RCCAAP8O RCCAAP8O
RCBAAP8O RCBAAP8O
25
Global Ductility
20
15
10
RCBAAP4O
RCBAAP8O
RCBACCO
RCCGCCO
RCBAACO
RCBGAP4O
RCBGAP8O
RCCANCO
RCBGACO
RCBANCO
RCCAACO
RCBGCCO
RCCACCO
RCCAAP4O
RCCAAP8O
RCCGAP8O
RCCGAP4O
RCCGACO
SCWB SBWC
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
RCCGCCO
RCCANCO
RCCAACO
RCCACCO
RCCAAP4O
RCCAAP8O
RCCGAP4O
RCCGAP8O
RCCGACO

1) The SCWB models yield higher base shear capacity compared to the
corresponding SBWC models. The higher capacities of columns exhibit better
seismic global behavior as expected, which is absent in case of strong beam
cases.
83
2) The SCWB models also yield higher roof displacements compared to the
corresponding SBWC models. The reason for this can be attributed to the
ability of columns on the SCWB models to allow greater displacements/
ductility compared to the corresponding SBWC models. Strong column weak
beam models are not only having greater global capacities but also
demonstrate better global ductility against seismic demand.
3) Complete retrofit of the column element manifest better seismic performance
in terms of larger base shear capacity and greater roof displacements/
ductility compared to partial/incomplete retrofit of the element. The same
apply to any form of retrofit scheme i.e. whether with concrete jackets or with
steel jackets (Ref. Sec. 4.4.1.4). This clearly reflects the fact that unless the
stiffness/reinforcement of the column extends into the beam column junction,
the effective contribution of increased strength and stiffness on retrofit column
cannot be realized.
4) The retrofit applied only to the corner columns vis-à-vis all columns yield lower
base shear but higher roof displacements and global ductility as expected,
which is on account of lower effective lateral stiffness of the building frames
with the retrofit applied only to the corner columns.
5) The retrofit applied to the ground floor columns only vis-à-vis applied to all the
floor columns generally yield marginally lower base shear but greater roof
displacements and global ductility essentially owing to higher effective lateral
stiffness for the latter case.
6) Study carried out with partial retrofit of column leaving 400mm or 800mm gap
from face of the beam doesn’t really affects the pushover analysis results
substantially. From the preceding sections, similar conclusions can be
extended that unless the stiffness/reinforcement of the column extends into
the beam column junction, the effective contribution of increased stiffness in
terms of section/reinforcement of the retrofit column cannot be realized.
7) The findings stated above seem to correspond well in terms of the VI, bldg
values for the models being compared. However, it is observed that partial
column retrofit or local retrofit applied to a few floor columns or to a few
columns only on a particular floor renders the building more vulnerable
against the seismic forces compared to the original design model.
84
4.4.1.4 Comb. No. 4: Comparison of all member level retrofitted scenarios
(partial/complete) with Steel jacket for OMRF models
below.

Shear Displacement Ductility Index (VI bldg)
(kN) (mm) (Unit less) (Unit less)
SCWB
RSCGACO (Gr. Fl.- 0.49
1942 188 9
All columns)
RSCGAP4O (Gr. 0.51
1857 187 9
Fl.-Partial)
RSCGAP8O (Gr. 0.53
1838 193 9
Fl.-Partial)
RSCAACO (All Fl.- 0.34
1948 168 9
All columns)
RSCAAP4O (All Fl.- 0.55
1894 140 7
Partial)
SBWC
RSBGACO (Gr. Fl.-
1507 92 5
All columns)
Performance
RSBGAP4O Gr. Fl.- point not
1441 61 2
Partial) achieved. VIbldg
RSBGAP8O (Gr. values not
1401 59 2
Fl.-Partial) realistic and
RSBAACO (All Fl.- therefore not
1511 84 4 presented.
All columns)
RSBAAP4O (All Fl.-
1528 55 2
Partial)
It is therefore observed that the member level retrofit with steel jacket when applied
across all floor columns perform in a much better way in terms of the VI, bldg values.

retrofit schemes is presented in Fig 4.21A to Fig 4.21D.
85
2200
2000
Base Shear in kN
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
RSBAAP4O
RSBAACO
RSBGACO
RSBGAP4O
RSBGAP8O
RSCAACO
RSCAAP4O
RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP8O
RSCGACO
SCWB SBWC
220
200 Roof Displacement in mm
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
RSBAAP4O
RSBAACO
RSBGACO
RSBGAP4O
RSBGAP8O
RSCAAP4O
RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP8O
RSCAACO
RSCGACO
SCWB SBWC
86
Global Ductility
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
RSBAAP4O
RSBAACO
RSBGACO
RSBGAP4O
RSBGAP8O
RSCAACO
RSCAAP4O
RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP8O
RSCGACO
SCWB SBWC
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
RSCAAP4O
RSCAACO
RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP8O
RSCGACO

1) The SCWB models yield greater base shear capacity compared to the
cases.
87
3) Complete retrofit of the column element manifest better seismic performance in

terms of larger base shear capacity and greater roof displacements/ ductility
compared to partial/incomplete retrofit of the element. The same apply to any
form of retrofit scheme i.e. whether with concrete jackets or with steel jackets
(Ref. Sec. 4.4.1.3). This clearly reflects the fact that unless the
stiffness/reinforcement of the column extends into the beam column junction,
the effective contribution of increased strength and stiffness on retrofit column
cannot be realized.
4) The retrofit applied to the ground floor columns only vis-à-vis applied to all the
floor columns generally yield marginally lower base shear but greater roof
displacements and global ductility essentially owing to higher effective lateral
stiffness for the latter case.
5) Study carried out with partial retrofit of column leaving 400mm or 800mm gap
from face of the beam doesn’t really affect the pushover analysis results
substantially. From the preceding sections, similar conclusions can be
extended that unless the stiffness/reinforcement of the column extends into the
beam column junction, the effective contribution of increased stiffness in terms
of section/reinforcement of the retrofit column cannot be realized.
6) The findings above seem to correspond well in terms of the VI, bldg values for
the models being compared. However, it is observed that partial column retrofit
or local retrofit of the building only to a few floor columns or to a few columns
only on a particular floor renders the building more vulnerable against the
seismic forces compared to the original design model.
88
4.4.1.5 Comb. No. 5: Comparison of Global & Local retrofitted ground floor
(complete and partial) for OMRF models
below.

SCWB
RBCGO(Global) 2095 290 14 0.76
RCCGCCO (Local- 0.90

1885 471 22
RCC jacket-corner)
RCCGACO (Local- 0.81
2063 373 17
RCC jacket-all col.)
RCCGAP4O
(Local-RCC jacket- 1848 185 8 0.82
partial)
RCCGAP8O
(Local-RCC jacket- 1847 200 9 0.85
partial)
RSCGACO (Local- 0.49
1942 188 9
Steel jacket-all col.)
RSCGAP4O
(Local-Steel jacket- 1857 187 9 0.51
partial)
RSCGAP8O
(Local-Steel jacket- 1838 193 9 0.53
partial)
SBWC
RCBGCCO (Local-
1562 103 4
RCC jacket-corner)
Performance
RCBGACO (Local- point not
1815 92 3
RCC jacket-all col.) achieved.
RCBGAP4O (Local- VIbldg values
1196 94 2
RCC jacket-partial) not realistic
RCBGAP8O (Local- and therefore
1449 64 2 not presented.
RCC jacket-partial)
RSBGACO (Local-
1507 92 5
89
RSBGAP4O (Local-
1441 61 2
Steel jacket-partial)
RSBGAP8O (Local-
1401 59 2

Base Shear in kN
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
RSBGACO
RCBGAP4O
RCBGAP8O
RSBGAP4O
RSBGAP8O
RCCGCCO
RCBGACO
RCBGCCO
RCCGACO
RCCGAP4O
RCCGAP8O
RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP8O
RSCGACO
RBCGO
SCWB SBWC
90
20
120
220
320
420
520
10
15
20
25
0
5
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
RBCGO
RBCGO RBCGO
RCCGCCO
RCCGCCO RCBGCCO
RCCGCCO
RCBGCCO
RCCGACO
RCCGACO
RCCGACO RCBGACO
RCBGACO
RCCGAP4O
SCWB
SCWB
RCCGAP4O
91
RCCGAP4O RCBGAP4O
RCBGAP4O
SBWC
SBWC
RCCGAP8O RCCGAP8O
RCCGAP8O RCBGAP8O
RCBGAP8O
Global Ductility
RSCGACO RSCGACO
RSCGACO RSBGACO
RSBGACO


RSCGAP4O RSCGAP4O
RSCGAP4O RSBGAP4O
RSBGAP4O
RSCGAP8O RSCGAP8O
RSCGAP8O RSBGAP8O
RSBGAP8O
From the above summary/comparative charts, the following conclusions can be
cases.
3) Retrofit using RCC jacketing yield comparable base shear but higher roof
displacements/ductility compared to the retrofit done using steel jacketing. The
reason for this can be attributed to the fact that due to limitations on the scope
of study, the confinement effect of concrete couldn’t be modeled on the steel
encased jacket scenario, resulting in lower displacements. Had the
confinement effect been taken into account, the results might have been
different. Another reason that can be thought of is the reduced damping
properties for steel compared to concrete as a result of which the demand
spectrum with steel jacket perhaps doesn’t drop to the extent as with the RCC
jacket. The reason for comparable base shear can be attributed to the fact in
having equivalent flexural column stiffness idealized on both models.
4) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces applied to the ground floor
level columns yield higher base shear compared to the member level (local)
retrofit using concrete /steel jacket applied to the same columns due to
relatively high effective lateral stiffness of the building model. However, the
difference in magnitude is not that substantial corresponding to the similar
situation with global and local retrofit being applied across all the floors (Ref.
Sec. 4.4.1.6)
5) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces applied to the ground floor
level columns yield significantly lower roof displacement & global ductility
compared to the member level (complete) retrofit using concrete /steel jacket
applied to the same columns due to relatively higher effective lateral stiffness.
6) Complete retrofit of the column element gives better seismic performance in

terms of larger base shear and roof displacements compared to
partial/incomplete retrofit of the element. The same apply to any form of retrofit
scheme i.e. whether with concrete jackets or with steel encasing. This clearly
92
reflects the fact that unless the stiffness/reinforcement of the column extends
into the beam column junction, the effective contribution of increased stiffness
on retrofit column cannot be realized.
the models being compared. However, it is observed that the global retrofit of
the building at the ground floor level only or local retrofit of the building only to
a few floor columns or to a few columns only on a particular floor renders the
building more vulnerable against the seismic forces compared to the original
design model and models with retrofit being applied across all floors in a
symmetric and consistent manner.
4.4.1.6 Comb. No. 6: Comparison of Global & Local retrofitted all floors
(complete and partial) for OMRF models
below.

SCWB
RBCAO (Global- 4 0.30
7565 76
Braced Frames)
RSWCAO (Global- 3 0.36
8711 25
RCC Shear Wall)
RCCACCO (Local- 23 0.80
1890 501
RCC jacket-corner)
RCCANCO (Local- 22 0.85
1972 437
RCC jacket-30% col.)
RCCAACO (Local- 11 0.55
2055 249
RCC jacket-all col.)
RCCAAP4O (Local- 9 0.66
1101 195
RCC jacket-partial)
RCCAAP8O (Local- 10 0.56
1868 210
RCC jacket-partial)
93
RSCAACO (Local- 9 0.34

1948 168
RSCAAP4O (Local- 7 0.55
1894 140
RFRPCO (Local-
1826 300 13 0.52
FRP jacket)
SBWC
RCBACCO (Local- 4
1551 86
RCC jacket-corner)
RCBANCO (Local- 4
1820 108
RCC jacket-30% col.)
RCBAACO (Local- 10
1594 173 Performance
RCC jacket-all col)
point not
RCBAAP4O (Local- 2 achieved. VIbldg
854 55
RCC jacket-partial) values not
RCBAAP8O (Local- 2 realistic and
1445 58 therefore not
RCC jacket-partial)
presented.
RSBAACO (Local- 4
1511 84
RSBAAP4O (Local- 2
1528 55
RFRPBO (Local- 4
1353 80
FRP jacket)

94
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
10000
2000
4000
6000
8000
RBCAO
RBCAO
RSWCAO
RSWCAO
RCCACCO
RCBACCO RCCACCO
RCBACCO
RCCANCO
RCBANCO RCCANCO
SBWC RCBANCO
SCWB
RCCAACO
95
RCCAACO
RCBAACO
RCBAACO
SCWB
RCCAAP4O
SBWC
RCCAAP4O
RCBAAP4O
Base Shear in kN
RCBAAP4O
RCCAAP8O RCCAAP8O
RCBAAP8O RCBAAP8O
RSCAACO
RSBAACO
Roof Displacement in mm RSCAACO
RSBAACO

RSCAAP4O RSCAAP4O
RSBAAP4O RSBAAP4O
RFRPCO RFRPCO
RFRPBO RFRPBO
25 Global Ductility
20
15
10
RCBAAP4O
RCBAAP8O
RSBAACO
RSBAAP4O
RCBACCO
RCCANCO
RCBAACO
RFRPBO
RSCAAP4O
RCBANCO
RCCAACO
RCCAAP4O
RCCAAP8O
RSCAACO
RFRPCO
RCCACCO
RBCAO
RSWCAO
SCWB SBWC

0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
RCCANCO
RCCAACO
RSCAAP4O
RSCAACO
RSWCAO
RCCACCO
RCCAAP4O
RCCAAP8O
RFRPCO
RBCAO

1) The SCWB models yield higher base shear capacity compared to the
96
cases.
3) Retrofit using RCC jacketing yield comparable base shear but higher roof
displacements/ductility compared to the retrofit done using steel jacketing.
The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that due to the limitations on
the scope of study, the confinement effect of concrete couldn’t be modeled on
the steel encased jacket scenario, resulting in lower displacements. Had the
confinement effect been taken into account, the results might have been
different. Another reason that can be thought of is the reduced damping
properties for steel compared to concrete as a result of which the demand
spectrum with steel jacket perhaps doesn’t drop to the extent as with the RCC
jacket. The reason for comparable base shear can be attributed to the fact in
having equivalent flexural column stiffness idealized on both models. From
the point of view of VI, bldg values, steel jacket however seems to be a better
proposition compared to RCC jacket which is based upon a more holistic
approach.
4) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces & external RCC shear
walls applied at all floor levels yield significantly higher base shear compared
to the member level (local) retrofit using concrete /steel jacket applied to all
floor columns due to higher effective lateral stiffness of the building model and
appears to be an active method of retrofit.
5) The structural level (global) retrofit with steel braces and external RCC shear
walls applied at all floor levels yield significantly lower roof displacement &
global ductility than the member level (local) retrofit using concrete /steel
jacket applied to all floor columns due to higher effective lateral stiffness.
6) Complete retrofit of the column element gives better seismic performance in

terms of larger base shear and roof displacements compared to
partial/incomplete retrofit of the element. The same apply to any form of
retrofit scheme i.e. whether with concrete jackets or with steel encasing. This
clearly reflects the fact that unless the stiffness/reinforcement of the column
extends into the beam column junction, the effective contribution of increased
strength/ stiffness on retrofit column cannot be realized.
97
the models being compared. However, it is observed that partial column
retrofit or local retrofit of the building only to a few floor columns or to a few
columns on a particular floor renders the building more vulnerable against
seismic forces compared to the original design model or with the models
where retrofit is being symmetrically and consistently applied.
4.4.1.7 Comb. No.7: Comparison of Design SMRF Vs OMRF models
below.

SCWB
DCS (Design
1826 352 15 0.52
SMRF)
DCO (Design
1848 279 12 0.69
OMRF)
SBWC
DBS (Design Performance
SMRF) 1364 56 2 point not
achieved.
DBO (Design VIbldg not
OMRF) 1406 77 2 realistic (see
below)
It may be noted that the VI,bldg values for SBWC cases have not been presented in
the present report since the values doesn’t look realistic. Reference to this can be
cited from the paper by N. Lakshmanan [31], which clearly states that the index may
not reflect a soft storey mechanism, in which case a performance point may not be
achieved. As previously stated, the present study reveals that in most of the SBWC
models, a problem is noted in terms of convergence of the capacity curve with the
98
demand spectrum as a result of which the performance point couldn’t be obtained,
therefore generating unrealistic VI, bldg values.
The graphical comparison of the above parameters of performances for different

scenarios is presented in Fig 4.24A to Fig 4.24D.
2300
Base Shear in kN
1800
1300
800
DBS
DBO
DCS
DCO
SCWB SBWC
420
320
220
120
20
DBS
DBO
DCS
DCO
SCWB SBWC
99
Global Ductility
20
15
10
DBO
DBS
DCS
DCO
SCWB SBWC

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
DCS
DCO

cases.
100
3) It has also been observed that in some of the SBWC models, the capacity
curves couldn’t meet the corresponding demand curves due to a lower order
capacity of column resistance indicating poor seismic performance by non-
achievement of the performance point.
4) SCWB models have a higher effective time period (T eff) compared to the
corresponding SBWC models owing to lower effective lateral stiffness of the
building frames at the performance point and therefore demonstrates efficient
seismic performance with greater flexibility.
5) The SCWB models exhibit greater non -linear (inelastic) behavior with more
number of hinges in the inelastic zone compared the corresponding SBWC
models indicating better ductile behavior against greater seismic forces.
6) The SMRF models yield comparable base shear but higher roof
displacements & ductility compared to the corresponding OMRF models. In
accordance with the paper by Halima et al [3], the volume percentage of
shear links at the beam column joints affects the local ductility more
significantly than the global ductility.
7) VI, bldg is a measure of the overall vulnerability of the building. A high value of
VI,bldg reflects poor performance of the building components (i.e., high risk in
seismic) and vice-versa. Therefore, from the above graph it is quite clear that
the SMRF model is expected to perform better against seismic forces
compared to the corresponding OMRF models.
101
4.4.2 Overall summary of results:
The results and discussions carried out in the preceding sections were based on
grouping of the models into 7 major groups/ models combination.
In order to represent a wider picture of the findings, the following graphs however
present a comparative representation of the non-linear parameters for all the building
frames and the retrofit/damage scenarios considered.
10000 Comparison of Base Shear Capacity (In kN)

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
RCCAAP4O RCBAAP4O
RBCGO
DCMO
RSCAACO RSBAACO
DCO DBO
RCCGACO RCBGACO
RCCAAP8O RCBAAP8O
RSWCAO
RCCAACO RCBAACO
RCCGCCO RCBGCCO
RCCANCO RCBANCO
RSCGAP8O RSBGAP8O
RSCGAP4O RSBGAP4O
DCS DBS
RCCACCO RCBACCO
RFRPCO RFRPBO
RBCAO
RCCGAP8O RCBGAP8O
RCCGAP4O RCBGAP4O
RSCAAP4O RSBAAP4O
RSCGACO RSBGACO
SCWB
SBWC
Comparison of Roof Displacement (In mm)

600
500
400
300
200
SCWB
100 SBWC
0
RBCGO
RBCAO
DCO DBO
RSCAACO RSBAACO
RCCGACO RCBGACO
RCCAAP4O RCBAAP4O
RCCAAP8O RCBAAP8O
DCMO
RCCAACO RCBAACO
RCCGCCO RCBGCCO
RSCGAP8O RSBGAP8O
RSCGAP4O RSBGAP4O
RCCACCO RCBACCO
RCCANCO RCBANCO
RSWCAO
RCCGAP8O RCBGAP8O
DCS DBS
RFRPCO RFRPBO
RCCGAP4O RCBGAP4O
RSCAAP4O RSBAAP4O
RSCGACO RSBGACO
102
10
15
20
25
0
5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
DCO DBO
DCO RCCGACO RCBGACO
RCCGACO RSCGACO RSBGACO

RCCAACO RCBAACO
RSCGACO
RSCAACO RSBAACO
RCCAACO
RCCGCCO RCBGCCO
RSCAACO
RCCACCO RCBACCO
RCCGCCO
RCCANCO RCBANCO
RCCACCO
RCCGAP8O RCBGAP8O
RCCANCO RCCGAP4O RCBGAP4O
RCCGAP8O RSCGAP8O RSBGAP8O
RCCGAP4O RSCGAP4O RSBGAP4O
103
RSCGAP8O RCCAAP4O RCBAAP4O
RSCGAP4O RCCAAP8O RCBAAP8O
RCCAAP4O RSCAAP4O RSBAAP4O

DCMO
RCCAAP8O
DCS DBS
RSCAAP4O
Comparison of Vulnerability index VI,bldg (Unit less)
RFRPCO RFRPBO
DCMO
RBCGO
DCS
Comparison of Global Ductility (Unit less)
RBCAO
RFRPCO
RSWCAO
Fig. 4.25: Graphical comparison of outputs from all models

RBCGO
RBCAO
RSWCAO
SBWC
SCWB
Legends:
SCWB Strong column and weak beam models

SBWC Strong beam and weak column models
DCO/DBO Design Case- Normal (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCGACO/
Local Column retrofit GF all columns with concrete (SCWB/SBWC)
RCBGACO
RSCGACO/ Local Column retrofit GF all columns -with 16mm steel jacket
RSBGACO (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCAACO/ Local Column retrofit all floors all columns - with concrete
RCBAACO (SCWB/SBWC)
RSCAACO/ Local Column retrofit all floors all columns - with steel jacket
RSBAACO (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCGCCO/
Local Column retrofit GF-Corner columns only (SCWB/SBWC)
RCBGCCO
RCCACCO/ Local Column retrofit All floors-Corner columns only
RCBACCO (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCANCO/ Random local column retrofit- 30% of all floor columns
RCBANCO (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCGAP8O/ With a part of column height locally retrofitted with RCC leaving
RCBGAP8O 800mm from both floor levels- GF columns only (SCWB/SBWC)
RCCGAP4O/ With a part of column height locally retrofitted with RCC leaving
RCBGAP4O 400mm from both floor levels- GF columns only (SCWB/SBWC)
With a part of column height locally retrofitted with 16mm steel
RSCGAP8O/
jacket leaving 800mm from both floor levels- GF columns only
RSBGAP8O
(SCWB/SBWC)
RSCGAP4O/
jacket leaving 400mm from both floor levels- GF columns only
RSBGAP4O
(SCWB/SBWC)
With a part of column height locally retrofitted with RCC leaving
RCCAAP4O/
400mm from both floor levels- All floor columns only
RCBAAP4O
(SCWB/SBWC)
With a part of column height locally retrofitted with RCC leaving
RCCAAP8O/
800mm from both floor levels- All floor columns only
RCBAAP8O
(SCWB/SBWC)
RSCAAP4O/
jacket leaving 400mm from both floor levels- All floor columns only
RSBAAP4O
(SCWB/SBWC)
Design Case with material imperfection - with 80% Econc at beam
DCMO
column junctions
Design Case- Confinement Reinforcement at beam and column
DCS/ DBS
joints as per IS 13920 (SCWB/SBWC)
RFRPCO/ Design Case- Confinement Reinforcement at beam and column
RFRPBO joints with FRP (SCWB/SBWC)
Retrofit with braced frames as per IS 15988 :2013 with ISA
RBCGO
100x100x6 angles at GF level
104
Retrofit with RCC shear wall as per IS 15988 :2013 at all floor
RSWCAO
levels
Retrofit with braced frames as per IS 15988 :2013 with ISA
RBCAO
100x100x6 angles at all floor levels
The numerous findings from the results and discussions identified in this chapter are
summarized in the next chapter, together with the conclusions.
105
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
___________________________________________________________________
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the study conducted and results discussed with comparison of different
non-linear seismic parameters, the following inferences may be drawn:
 The strong column weak beam building frames are found to be efficient in
combating seismic events and demonstrate better behavior in terms of larger
base shear resistance and global ductility as evident from the pushover
analysis compared to the building frames with strong beam weak columns.
 Construction quality control & good workmanship plays crucial and vital
role in offering seismic resistance to the building frames. It is seen that
reduction of the elastic modulus of concrete at the beam column
junctions drastically deteriorates the seismic performance of the building
frames as evident from the studies conducted.
 The building frames with structure level retrofit offers considerably higher
base shear resistance compared to the member level retrofit with RCC and
steel jackets. However, the global ductility for the models with structure level
retrofit seems to be low.
 The member level retrofit whenever adopted must extend through the
beam column junctions. Incomplete and or partial member level retrofit
appears to be inefficient in terms of improving the seismic efficiency as
determined from the study conducted.
 The member level retrofit with FRP manifests improved seismic

performance in terms of global ductility of the building frame in the non-
linear zone compared to other forms of member level retrofit techniques.
However, the base shear capacity is relatively low compared to the other
member level retrofit techniques.
106
 The structure level retrofit technique applied to all floor levels shows best
performance corresponding to the life safety performance parameter amongst
all the models considered and offers lowest risk in the unlikely event of an
earthquake.
 It is also observed from the above studies that any form of retrofit where
adopted must be implemented consistently and symmetrically across all
floors to achieve better seismic performance.
 The vulnerability index (VI, bldg) parameter represents a holistic index for
determining the seismic efficiency of the building models compared to the
other parameters studied and therefore needs to be taken into consideration
together with the other parameters while recommending a proposed retrofit
solution.
 The performances of different retrofitting techniques are different against the

various seismic parameters. Thus the scheme of retrofit should be chosen
based upon the specific requirements of the building frames to satisfy the
concerned performance level. Few retrofit schemes offer higher base shear
capacity but lower global ductility and vice-versa.
 When the collapse prevention performance is significant, global ductility

criteria plays the governing criteria in selection of the appropriate retrofit
strategy. Whereas when damage control is the primary concern particularly
for important structures like scientific laboratories or control rooms, then
active retrofitting techniques with greater base shear resistance seems to
be more appropriate.
 In general, the proposed vulnerability index seems to be a more holistic

index parameter in deciding on the overall seismic performance of the
building as evident from the studies conducted.
 From the studies conducted, it is also quite evident that every retrofit scheme
has certain advantages associated with a few side effects like medicines.
The selection of the appropriate retrofit strategy thus appears to be quite
107
critical and should be based on the evaluation, specific requirements of the
particular building & should be decided by the experts with sufficient
knowledge in the field/profession. Subsequent monitoring of the proposed
retrofit scheme is also of paramount importance in order to determine any
defects or residual deficiencies.
Though not exhaustive, the following list aims to figure out the salient points that
must be looked into before deciding on the particular retrofit technique in addition to
the major conclusions drawn from the current study:
 Damage control and building performance level.

 Structural performance level or range.
 Structural importance.
 Extent of deficiency.
 Economic viability of the scheme to be adopted.
 Availability of the material locally and keeping in mind the constructability
criteria of the proposed retrofit solution.
108
5.2 Future scope of work
Due to limited time & resources available during the present study, following are the
potential areas identified where the present study may be further extended to:
1) Considering the effects of concrete confinement due to presence of steel

plates on the steel jacketing scenario. The long term confined concrete
properties can be determined using some experimental set up.
2) Validating the results obtained from the analytical studies conducted with
some experimental work to verify whether the predictions from the model
correspond well with the experimental data.
3) Considering taller building frames and asymmetric / irregular building models

for the present study where the earthquake response may not be essentially
dominated by a single mode shape.
4) Development of vulnerability index formulation based on the present study by

assigning different importance factors to different storey columns.
5) Evaluation of seismic performances with incorporation of passive energy

dissipation devices and provision of base isolation as the possible retrofit
solutions.
109
REFERENCES
[1] Applied Technology Council (1996) “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Concrete Buildings Report, ATC-40”, Redwood City, California, USA.
[2] Applied Technological Council (2005) “Improvement of nonlinear static seismic

analysis procedures, Report ATC-55”, Redwood City, California, USA.
[3] Amar, K., Abelkader, B., and Halima, A. (2014), “Analysis of confinement effect
on strength and ductility in reinforced concrete structures”, Second European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul.
[4] Bayer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2008) “Seismic Design of
Torsionally Eccentric Buildings with U-shape RC walls”, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
[5] Bracci J.M., Kunnath S.K. and Reinhorn A.M. (1997) “Seismic Performance
and Retrofit Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, 3-10.
[6] Chintanapakdee C. and Chopra A.K. (2003) “Evaluation of Modal Pushover

Analysis Using Generic Frames”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 32, 417-442.
[7] Chopra A.K. (2001) “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to

Earthquake Engineering”, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[8] Chopra, A. K., and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004) “Inelastic deformation ratios for
design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 130, 1309–1319.
[9] Chopra A.K. and Goel R.K. (2001) “A modal pushover analysis procedure to
estimate seismic demands for buildings: theory and preliminary evaluation”, Report
110
No. PEER Report2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley.
[10] Chopra A.K. and Goel R.K. (2002) “A modal pushover analysis procedure for
estimating seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, Vol.31, pp 561-582.
[11] Computers and Structures, SAP2000. V.14.0 (2009) “Linear and Nonlinear
Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three Dimensional Structures”,
Berkeley, California, USA.
[12] Dolsek M., Fajfar P. (2005). ‘Simplified nonlinear seismic analysis of infilled
reinforced concrete frames.’ Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34,
49-66.
[13] Dya A.F.C, Oretaa A.W.C (2015) “Seismic vulnerability assessment of soft story
irregular buildings using pushover analysis”, The 5th International Conference of
Euro Asia Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF-5)
[14] Eberhard M.O. and Sözen M.A. (1993) “Behavior-Based Method to Determine
Design Shear in Earthquake Resistant Walls”, Journal of the Structural Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 119, No.2, 619-640.
[15] EBCS-8 (1995) “Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance”, Ethiopian

Building Code of Standard by Ministry of Works and Urban Development, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
[16] Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997) “NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA-273, Washington DC.
[17] Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) “Prestandard and

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA-356, Washington
DC.
111
[18] Fujii K., Nakano Y., Sanada Y (2004) ‘A Simplified Nonlinear Analysis
Procedure for Single-Story Asymmetric Buildings’, Journal of Japan Association for
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4 No.2.
[19] Gupta B., Kunnath S.K. (1999) ‘Pushover analysis of isolated flexural
reinforced concrete walls.’ Structural Engineering in the 21st Century, Proc.
Structures Congress, New Orleans.
[20] Henmandez-Montes E., Kwon O.-S., Aschheim M. (2004), ‘An energy-based

formulation for first- and multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analyses.’ Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 8(1), 69-88.
[21] Ismail. A (2013) “Non-linear static analysis of a retrofitted reinforced concrete

building”, Housing and Building National Research Center Journal.
[22] Issa. M.Sand Issa H.M (2015) “Application of Pushover Analysis for the
calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames”,
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 5, no 3, 2015.
[23] Jingjiang S., Ono T., Yangang Z., Wei W., (2003), ‘Lateral load pattern in
pushover analysis.’ Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 2(1),
99-107.
[24] Kalkan E, Kunnath S.K. (2006) ‘Adaptive modal combination procedure for
nonlinear static analysis of building structures.’ ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 132(11), 1721-1731.
[25] Kaliyaperumal. G and Sengupta A. K (2009) “Seismic retrofit of columns in

buildings for flexure using concrete jacket”, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology,
Paper No. 505, Vol. 46, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 77–107
[26] Kalkan E, Kunnath S.K. (2007) ‘Assessment of current nonlinear static

procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings.’ Engineering Structures, 29, 305-316.
112
[27] Kilar V and Fajfar P (1996) “Simplified Pushover analysis of Building
Structures”, Paper No. 1011, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
[28] Krawinkler H. (1996) ‘Pushover Analysis: Why, How, When and When Not to
Use It’ Structural Engineers Association of California, Stanford University, 17-36.
[29] Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K (1998) “Pros and Cons of a Pushover
Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation”, Engineering Structures, Vol.20, 452-
464.
[30] Kiran.A, Ghosh. G and Gupta Y. K (2012) “Application of pushover analysis

methods for building structures”, Paper No. D002, ISET Golden Jubilee Symposium
[31] Lakshmanan. N (2006) “Seismic Evaluation and retrofitting of Buildings and

Structures”, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No: 469, 26th ISET
Annual Lecture
[32] Leslie. R (2013) “The Pushover Analysis, explained in its Simplicity”,

Proceedings of 2nd National Conference – RACE’13 at SAINTGITS College of
Engineering, Kottayam
[33] Lam L. and Teng J.G (2003) “Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-
confined concrete”, Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 471–489,
Elservier Ltd.
[34] Moghadam A.S. (2002) “A Pushover Procedure for Tall Buildings, 12th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering”, Paper Reference 395.
[35] Moghadam, A.S. and Tso, W.K. (1996) “Damage assessment of eccentric
multistory buildings using 3D pushover analysis”, 11WCEE, Elsevier Science, Paper
No. 997.
113
[36] NIST (2010). “Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design”, NIST GCR 10-
917-5, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
[37] Oguz S. (2005) “Evaluation of Pushover Analysis Procedures for Frame

Structures”, Master of Science Thesis, METU, Turkey.
[38] Poursha M, Khoshnoudian F and Moghadam A.S. (2011) “A consecutive

modal pushover procedure for nonlinear static analysis of one-way unsymmetric-plan
tall building structures”, Engineering Structures Journal.
[39] Rana R., Jin L. and Zekioglu A. (2004) “Pushover Analysis of a 19 Storey
Concrete Shear Wall Building” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Vancouver, B.C., Paper No. 133, Canada.
[40] Sasaki F., Freeman S. and Paret T. (1998) “Multi-Mode Pushover Procedure
(MMP) – A Method to Identify the Effect of Higher Modes in a Pushover Analysis”,
Proc. 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, CD-ROM,
EERI, Oakland.
[41] Sasaki F., Freeman S. and Paret T. (1998) “Multi-Mode Pushover Procedure
(MMP) – A Method to Identify the Effect of Higher Modes in a Pushover Analysis”,
Proc. 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, CD-ROM,
EERI, Oakland.
[42] Tarta G. and Pintea A. (2012) “Seismic evaluation of multi-storey moment-

resisting steel frames with stiffness irregularities using standard and advanced
pushover methods”, Procedia Engineering 40 ( 2012 ) 445 – 450.
[43] Weinwei W. and Guo Li. (2006) “Experimental study and analysis of RC beams
strengthened with CFRP laminates under sustaining load”, International Journal of
Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 1372–1387
114
[44] Zou X.K. and Chan C.M. (2005) “Optimal seismic performance-based design of
reinforced concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis”, Engineering
Structures 27 (2005) 1289–1302
[45] Zou XK, Chan CM. (2001), “Optimal drift performance design for nonlinear
pushover response of concrete structures”. In: WCSMO - 4: Proceedings of the
fourth world congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimization.
[46] Internet
115
Appendix-A: Figures from a few SAP models:
Fig. A1: Model with original design case (without any retrofit)
Fig. A2: Model with member level retrofit with FRP with a photograph slide
from a live project (Picture Courtesy- Internet)
116
Fig. A3: Model with member level retrofitted columns (RCC/steel jacket) with
photograph slide from a live project (Picture Courtesy- Internet)
Fig. A4: Model with partial/locally retrofitted column with photograph slide
from a live project (Picture Courtesy- Internet)
117
Fig. A5: Model with structure level retrofit with steel braces at all floor level
with photograph slide from a live project(Picture Courtesy- Internet)
Fig. A6: Model with structure level retrofit with RCC shear walls
at all floor level with photograph slide from a live project (Picture Courtesy-
Internet)
118
Appendix-B: Trapezoidal loading intensity for floor beams:
1) Dead load due to slab (150mm thick):

Intensity= 0.15*24 = 3.6kN/m^2.
2) Dead load due to floor finish on all floors except roof (Assumed intensity @
1kN/m^2)
3) Dead load due to floor finish on roof (Assumed intensity @ 1.5 kN/m^2)
4) Live load intensity on all floors except roof @ 3kN/m^2
5) Live load intensity on roof @ 1.5kN/m^2
Fig. B1: Illustration of floor load distribution to the floor beams
119
Table B1: Summary of beam loading intensity
Trapezoidal/Triangular
Type Load load ordinate (max) in
Slab A B a b KN/m on beam with
of intensity
Type (m) (m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
load (kN/m^2) Slab on Slab on
one side both sides
Deck
Slab 3.60 4 5 7.2 7.2 7.2 14.4
slab
Floor 1.00 Floor 4 5 2 2 2 4
finish 1.50 Roof 4 5 3 3 3 6
Live 3.00 Floor 4 5 6 6 6 12

load 1.50 Roof 4 5 3 3 3 6
Deck
Slab 3.60 4 4.5 7.2 7.2 7.2 14.4
slab
Floor 1.00 Floor 4 4.5 2 2 2 4
finish 1.50 Roof 4 4.5 3 3 3 6
Live 3.00 Floor 4 4.5 6 6 6 12

load 1.50 Roof 4 4.5 3 3 3 6
120
About the Author
____________________________________________________
The Author, Partha Roy graduated in Civil Engineering from the University of North
Bengal in the year 2001. Having been awarded with a Gold Medal in academia, Partha
started his professional career with M/s Consulting Engineering Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. as
a Structural Engineer in the domain of Bridges & Structures.
Partha has more than 15 years of professional experience with specialization in bridge
assessment and design conforming to European, British and Indian Standards.
Spanning an illustrious professional career at various levels and positions, he has
worked for prestigious consultancy organizations like M/s Consulting Engineering
Services (I) Pvt Ltd., M/s L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Limited & M/s Jacobs
Engineering Inc. in the UK and India.
Presently Partha is working as a Technical Director with the Infrastructure division of

M/s Jacobs Engineering Inc., while completing his Post Graduation in Construction
Engineering with specialization in Structural Repair and Retrofit Engineering.

Masters Thesis by Partha Roy - 001410602001-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masters Thesis by Partha Roy - 001410602001-Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Masters Thesis by Partha Roy - 001410602001-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARAMETRIC STUDY ON EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT

RETROFITTED SCHEMES USING NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

Under the esteemed Guidance of

Prof. Dr. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

Under the esteemed Guidance of

Prof. Dr. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

This foregoing thesis is hereby approved as a credible study of an engineering subject

Final Examination for evaluation of thesis

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND COMPLIANCE OF ACADEMIC

It is hereby declared that the thesis entitled ‘Parametric study on efficiency of

Name : PARTHA ROY

Examination Roll No. : M6CNE1701

Registration No. : 129443 of 2014-2015

Thesis Title : Parametric study on efficiency of different retrofitted

It is my privilege to extend my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, Head,

Examination Roll No. - M6CNE1701

Reg. No- 129443 of 2014-15

Declaration of Originality and Compliance of Academic ethics……………………(iv)

Table of contents………………………………………………………………..….…(vi to ix)

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………..

Chapter 3 NON-LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS THEORY…….………………...........

3.3.2 Modeling and Analysis Considerations....…………………......20

3.7 Types of non-linearity……...……..….………………..……………..…….39

Chapter 4 NUMERICAL STUDY……………….………………………………………….........

4.4.1.5 Comb. No. 5: Comparison of Global & Local retrofitted

FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION

Figure 1.1 - Earthquake devastation images

Figure 1.2 - Execution of Local Retrofit Measures at Beam Column Joint

Figure 3.1 - Typical pushover capacity curve

Figure 3.2 - Demand and Capacity Spectra

Figure 3.3 - Idealized Force Displacement Curves

Figure 3.4 - Capacity Curve

Figure 3.5 - Multiple Capacity Curves of strength degradation model

Figure 3.6 - Capacity curve with global model strength degradation

Figure 3.7 - Demand Spectrum

Figure 3.8 - Equal Displacement Approximation

Figure 3.9 - Capacity curve and capacity spectrum

Figure 3.10 - Response Spectra in Traditional and ADRS format

Figure 3.11 - Spectral acceleration and spectral displacement

Figure 3.12 - Capacity spectrum superimposed over response spectra

Figure 3.13 - Intersection point of Demand and capacity spectrums

Figure 3.14 - Intersection point of Reduced Demand and capacity spectrums

Figure 3.15 - Bilinear representation of Capacity Curve for DCM

Figure 3.16 - Roof drift and roof drift ratio

Figure 3.17 - Comparison of CSM and DSM

Figure 3.18 - Idealized load deformation curve and performance levels.

Figure 4.1 - Floor Plan of the Building Models

Figure 4.2 - Elevation along ‘X’ direction

Figure 4.3 - Elevation along ‘Y’ direction

Figure 4.4 - Idealized Building Frame models

TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION

Table 3.1 - Values for Modification Factor C0

Table 3.2 - Values for Modification Factor C2