analysis of rc structures retrofitted with...
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS OF RC STRUCTURES RETROFITTED
WITH BUCKLING RESTRAINED BRACES1
Ramazan Özçelik Akdeniz University
Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department
Dumlupınar Bulvarı
07058
Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
telephone: +90 242 310 63 73
Elif Firuze Erdil Akdeniz University
Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department
Dumlupınar Bulvarı
07058
Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]
telephone: +90 242 310 63 23
Abstract This study examines the strengthening of existing deficient reinforced concrete (RC)
structures with buckling restrained braces (BRBs). In this study, an existing deficient three-
story RC building strengthened with BRBs was analyzed. The analyses were performed by
using Opensees program capable of performing nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA). In
the NTHAs, Duzce ground motion record was used. According to the results of analyses,
inter-story drift ratios (IDR) of the building were 5% and 1.5% before and after
strengthening, respectively. Furthermore, the performance of the structural members
(columns and beams) were also evaluated based on the Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC2007).
These performance values show that the existing RC building has an inadequate level of
performance with its current state and should be retrofitted with a suitable technique. On the
other hand, the performance level of the existing building strengthened with BRBs was at a
sufficient performance level. Consequently, the NTHAs results indicated that instead of
concrete shear wall or jacketing, using BRBs as a strengthening method was found to be
sufficient to improve the seismic performance of deficient RC building.
Keywords: deficient RC structures; seismic retrofit; buckling restrained braces; nonlinear
time history analysis
1The research discussed in this paper was conducted at Akdeniz University-Structural Mechanics Laboratory.
Funding provided by TÜBİTAK (projects no: 112M820) are greatly appreciated.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
34
1. Introduction
There are huge number of buildings that are deficient against earthquake effect in the
seismic zone areas all over the world. Lack of knowledge about seismic risk or to malpractice
and insufficient quality control during construction are reasons of deficiencies in the
buildings. The main deficiencies of such buildings are low strength concrete (in the range of 8
to 15 MPa), insufficient spacing of transverse reinforcement in beams, columns and beam-
column joints and insufficient splice length at column critical regions that may result in
excessive bond slip of plain longitudinal reinforcement. It was observed from recent
earthquakes (Northrige 1994, Kobe 1994, Kocaeli 1999, Taiwan 2003, L’aqulia 2009, Van
2011) that such buildings collapsed or had severe damage. Hence, these buildings need to be
upgraded against such seismic effects before a severe earthquake.
The most well-known seismic retrofitting techniques is adding structural shear walls
(Frosch et al., 1996; Altın et al., 1992; Canbay et al., 2003), steel braces (Badoux and Jirsa,
1990; Bush et al., 1991; Pincheira and Jirsa, 1995; Masri and Goel, 1996; Ghobarah and
Abou-Elfath, 2001; Ozcelik and Binici, 2006; Youssef et al., 2007; Ozcelik et al., 2012;
Ozcelik et al., 2013), bonding FRP diagonal braces on the infill walls (Binici et al., 2007;
Erdem et al., 2006). In addition, precast concrete shear walls (Kazunori et al., 1999), external
steel frames (Tsunehisa et al., 1999; Ozcelik et al. 2011) and internal steel frames (Takahiro
and Yasuyoshi, 2005; Ozcelik et al., 2011; Ozcelik et al., 2013) are some other alternative
retrofitting techniques. The most common structural-level strengthening techniques structural
RC shear walls because such walls provide significant lateral stiffness, strength, and energy
dissipation capacity (Jirsa, 1991; Altın et al., 1992; Canbay et al., 2003). On the other hand,
the structural shear wall requires interrupting building use for a substantial period of time and
may conflict with architectural requirements. Moreover, the shear wall retrofitting is restricted
to only perimeter frames due to minimizing the disturbance to occupants (Pincheira, 1993).
Hence, this causes the concentration of the lateral forces in the walls that may require heavy
strengthening works of the foundation (Jirsa, 1991). The choice of the retrofitting technique to
be applied on deficient buildings depends on the economical and architectural concerns,
foundation type of the structure, disturbance limits to owners and occupants, government
permissions, and design codes. Hence, not only one but also more than one technique can be
used for any retrofitting project. The main advantages of strengthening with steel braces are
the addition of minimal mass to the structure, little disturbance on the functioning of the
building, and its ability to accommodate openings for architectural purposes.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
35
The seismic retrofitting of deficient RC structure by using buckling restrained brace
(BRB) is a new topic for about ten years. The BRBs as a new bracing system have stable
hysteretic behavior under axial compression and tension demands. This means that the BRBs
have almost same compression and tension capacity. They can be yield under tension and
compression without buckling (Ozcelik et al., 2017 (a)). Hence, the BRBs as a lateral load
carrying members as well as energy dissipater become popular in seismic regions all over the
world. In order to investigate the performance of the RC buildings strengthened by using
BRBs, this case study was experienced. The details of the braced building such as connections
and structural members and BRB details and analysis method also given in this paper.
An experimental test frame with and without BRBs has been examined by authors and
then the analytical study has been conducted to calibrate test frame with BRBs by using
Opensees program (another study presented at this conference (Ozcelik and Erdil, 2017)). The
analytical study of the test frame retrofitted with BRBs indicated that the global behavior can
be simulated by using Opensees program. In this study, based on calibrated modelling
strategy of the BRB braced RC frame, an existing three story public building strengthened
with BRBs was evaluated by using procedure suggested in the TEC 2007. The Duzce
earthquake record was utilized in the NTHAs to determine the performance points of the
building before and after retrofitting. This study also explains the installation procedure of the
BRBs to the RC frame.
2. Structural Details of the Building
The performance based design of existing three story RC building located in the city
of Antalya in Turkey is presented. Within this study, a performance evaluation method based
on NTHA was carried out using structural data taken from side observation and material tests.
The strengthening of the building based on the methodology has been described in another
study presented at this conference (Ozcelik and Erdil, 2017). Figure 1a indicates the plan view
of the building. Average uniaxial compressive strength, obtained from core specimens, is 14
MPa (nearly close to test frame). The steel grade of the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement obtained from tensile test is S220 with the yield strength of 350 MPa. The 8-
14 plain bars and 8 / 20 cm stirrups was determined in the columns by the in-situ method of
column stripping. The transverse bars are bended 90 degrees. The clear cover of the columns
is 4 cm. The top and bottom reinforcement ratios of the beams were determined as 0.006 and
0.003, respectively. The stirrups spacing of the beams are about 20 cm with a clear cover of 4
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
36
cm. The dimensions of the building in both directions called as x and y are 12.2 m and 28.4 m,
respectively. The dimension of the columns is 40x50 cm and the dimension of the beams in x
and y direction is 30x60 and 40x60 cm, respectively. The orientation and also size of the
beams and columns are shown in Figure 1b. It is important to mention that the stirrup spacing
of columns and beams does not satisfy the current code TEC2007. Furthermore, the in-situ
concrete strength is lower than the code specified minimum.
Figure 1 Three Story Building a) Plan View, b) Column and Beam Dimensions
3. Strengthening Building with BRBs
The RC building modeled with the OPENSEES program was strengthened and
evaluated only in x direction. Figure 2 indicates the strengthened bays of the building. There
were two strengthened cases namely BRB 1 and BRB 2. The area of the BRBs used in the
case of BRB 1 and BRB 2 was 1100 and 2150 mm2, respectively. Due to architectural
reasons, BRBs were added to only 12 bays (Figure 2). BRBs were connected to the structure
in a diagonal configuration. The details of the connection were made in accordance with the
details described in another study presented at this conference (Ozcelik and Erdil, 2017).
Hence, the BRBs were modeled as truss elements in the OPENSEES (Ozcelik et al., 2017 (a);
Ozcelik et al., 2017 (b)). Thus, length of the truss element was taken up to the plastic zone of
the core plate and the other connections (column-beam-BRB-gusset plate) were defined as
rigid.
There is no detailed resource on strengthening reinforced concrete buildings with
BRBs. For this reason, the cross section areas of BRBs which used to strengthen the building
could only be determined by trial and error.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
37
Figure 2 a) Strengthened Bays of the Building
The following method has been followed to avoid the loss of time during determining
the area of BRBs. First of all, the total weight of the building was calculated. It was assumed
that the BRBs added to the building carried the entire base shear forces obtained by using R =
1.5 and R = 3 values. Since the BRBs increased the horizontal stiffness of the building, it was
assumed that S(T) reached its maximum value (Based on TEC2007 S(T)=2.5). The building is
in the center of Antalya and therefore it is in the 2nd degree earthquake zone.
R
ITSAWVt
))(( 0
)1(
cos12)35.1(
y
torRBRB
f
VA
)2(
Where, Vt: Base shear force, A0: Effective ground acceleration coefficient (2nd degree
earthquake zone (TEC2007)), S(T): Spectrum coefficient (maximum value (TEC2007)), I:
Building importance factor, ABRB(R=1.5): Cross sectional area of the core plate of BRBs for
R=1.5, fy: yield strength, θ: horizontal angle of the BRBs. When R was taken as 1.5, this force
was considered to be carried by the BRBs and so, ABRB(R=1.5) was calculated as 2191 mm2.
Similar calculations were made for R=3 and the ABRB(R=3.0) was calculated as 1095 mm2.
Consequently, the cross section areas of the BRBs determined as ABRB(R=1.5) = 2150 mm2 and
ABRB(R=3.0) = 1100 mm2 is used during the NTHAs of the building.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
38
Figure 3 Ground Motion Properties
The calculated cross sectional areas of the BRBs were added to the numerical model
and the NTHAs were performed under the Duzce ground motion record (Figure 3). The strain
values of the concrete and reinforcement at the columns obtained from analyses were
compared with the limit values given in TEC2007 and then the seismic performance of the
RC building was evaluated. In addition, if the axial load demands of the RC columns
exceeded 85 % of the column axial load capacity, these columns were assumed to be
strengthened with local retrofitting techniques such as FRP or jacketing.
4. Results of the Analysis and Performance
Analysis results of the RC building before and after strengthening with BRBs are
shown in terms of top displacement vs. time in Figure 4. Figure 5 indicates the IDRs of the
building before and after strengthening. As seen in the both figures, the BRBs could control
the displacement of the floor displacements as expected. After strengthening with BRBs the
maximum IDR of the building was about 1.5 % (in the case of BRB 1) and 1.0 % (in the case
of BRB 2) while before strengthening it was about 5 %. These results also show that the IDRs
values were decreased in proportion to the cross-sectional area of the BRBs. Figures 6 and 7
show the structural member-based performance evaluations of the building before and after
strengthening with BRBs according to TEC2007. As seen from these figures, the building had
an inadequate level of performance with its current state. Therefore, the existing RC building
should be strengthened by a suitable strengthening method. After the existing RC building
was strengthened with BRBs, the seismic performance was improved to an adequate level
according to the TEC2007. Hence, it was concluded that, the building strengthened with
BRBs has sufficient seismic performance under the Duzce ground motion record.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
39
Figure 4 Analysis Results in terms of Top Displacement vs. Time
Figure 5 Analysis Results in terms of IDRs vs. Stories
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
40
Figure 6 Strain Values of Columns’ Concrete
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
41
Figure 7 Strain Values of Columns’ Reinforcement
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
42
3. Conclusion
The NTHA results indicated that the BRBs increased the lateral strength, stiffness and
energy dissipation capacity of the deficient RC frames with respect to cross-sectional area of
the BRBs. Based on the data and model calibrations obtained from the experimental studies, a
case study of existing RC building before and after BRB retrofit was analyzed and evaluated
by utilizing procedures suggested by the TEC2007. It was determined that although
seismically deficient three story RC building did not satisfy the performance levels with
respect to TEC20007, after retrofitting with BRBs its performance level was found to be
adequate. As a result, the BRBs can be considered as a rapid, safe and practical retrofitting
technique.
References
[1] ALTIN, S., ERSOY, U., TANKUT, T. Hysteretic Response of Reinforced-Concrete
Infilled Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE). 1992, vol. 118, no, 8, pp.
2133-2150.
[2] BADOUX, M., JIRSA, J.O. Steel Bracing of RC Frames for Seismic Retrofitting.
Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE). 1990, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 55-74.
[3] BINICI, B., OZCEBE, G., OZCELIK, R. Analysis and Design of FRP Composites for
Seismic Retrofit of Infill Walls in Reinforced Concrete Frames. Composites Part B:
Engineering. 2007, vol. 38 no. 5, pp. 575-583.
[4] BUSH, T.D., JONES, E.A., JIRSA, J.O. Behavior of the RC Frames Strengthened Using
Structural Steel Bracing. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1991, vol. 117, no.
4, pp. 1115-1126.
[5] CANBAY, E., ERSOY, U., OZCEBE, G. Contribution of Reinforced Concrete Infills to
Seismic Behavior of Structural Systems. ACI Structural Journal. 2003, vol. 100, no. 5,
pp. 637-643.
[6] ERDEM, I., AKYUZ, U., ERSOY, U., OZCEBE, G. An Experimental Study on Two
Different Strengthening Techniques for RC Frames. Engineering Structures. 2006, vol.
28, no. 13, pp. 1843-1851.
[7] FROSCH, R.J., LI, W., JIRSA, J.O., KREGER, M.E. Retrofit of Non-Ductile Moment-
Resisting Frames Using Precast Infill Wall Panels. Earthquake Spectra. 1996, vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 741-760.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
43
[8] GHOBARAH, A., ELFATH, H.A. Rehabilitation of A Reinforced Concrete Frame Using
Eccentric Steel Bracing. Engineering Structures. 2001, vol. 23 no. 7, pp. 745-755.
[9] JIRSA, J.O. Divergent issues in rehabilitation of existing buildings. Earthquake Spectra.
1991, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 95-112.
[10] KAZUNORI, I., NORIMITSU, H., KIYOSHI, H., KEI, H. Development of Seismic
Strengthening Technology Using the Fitting Shear Wall Construction Method and the
External Frame Method. Kumagai Technical Research Report. 1999, vol. 58, no. 1, pp.
61-67. (in Japanese).
[11] MASRI, A.C., GOEL, S.C. Seismic Design and Testing of an RC Slab-Column Frame
Strengthened by Steel Bracing. Earthquake Spectra. 1996, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 645-666.
[12] OZCELIK, R. Seismic Retrofit of Deficient RC Structures with Internal Steel Frames.
Advances in Structural Engineering. 2011, vol.14, pp. 1205-1222.
[13] OZCELIK, R., BINICI, B., AKPINAR, U. Seismic Retrofit of Non-Ductile Reinforced
Concrete Frames with Chevron Braces. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
- Structures and Buildings. 2013, vol. 166, pp. 326-341.
[14] OZCELIK, R., BINICI, B. Application of Steel Retrofit Schemes for Deficient Buildings
in Turkey. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Geneva, 2006.
[15] OZCELIK, R., BINICI, B., KURC, O. Pseudo Dynamic Testing of an RC Frame
Retrofitted with Chevron Braces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2012, vol. 16, no.
4, pp. 515-539.
[16] OZCELIK, R., BINICI, B., KURC, O. Seismic Retrofitting of Deficient RC Structures
with Internal Steel Frames by Using Pseudo Dynamic Testing Procedure. 15. World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24-28 October 2012, pp. 1-10.
[17] OZCELIK, R., BINICI, B., KURC, O. Pseudo Dynamic Test of a Deficient Reinforced
Concrete Frame Upgraded with Internal Steel Frames. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.
2013, vol. 42 no. 5, pp. 763-778.
[18] OZCELIK, R., DIKICIASIK, Y., ERDIL, E.F. (a) The Development of the Buckling
Restrained Braces with New End Restrains. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.
2017, vol. 138, pp. 208-220.
[19] OZCELIK, R., DIKICIASIK, Y., ERDIL, E.F. (b) 2017. Buckling Restrained Braces
with Composite Design Technique. 3rd International Workshop on Civil Engineering and
Architecture.
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
44
[20] OZCELIK, R., ERDIL, E.F. Nonlinear Time History Analysis of RC Frame Retrofitted
with Buckling Restrained Braces. 3rd International Workshop on Civil Engineering and
Architecture. Istanbul, Turkey. December 16-17, 2017.
[21] PINCHEIRA, J.A., JIRSA, J.O. Seismic Response of RC Frames Retrofitted with Steel
Braces or Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE). 1995, vol. 121, no. 8, pp.
1225-1235.
[22] Turkish Earthquake Code. Specifications for structures to be built in seismic areas.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
[23] TSUNEHISA, M., KAZUYUKI, S., TSUNEAKI, I. A Study on Seismic Strength Method
Using Brace of Outer Frame. Technical Research Report of Hazama Corporation. 1999,
vol. 31, pp. 17-25. (in Japanese).
Scientific Cooperations Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, December-2017
45