A Survey of Methods and Techniques Used for Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Volume 2, No 1, 2011

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399

Received on July 2011 published on September 2011 56

A survey of methods and techniques used for Seismic retrofitting of

RC buildings Vijayakumar. A

1, Venkatesh Babu. D.L

2

1- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Jansons Institute of technology,

Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.

2- Principal, United Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

It is a known fact that the Globe is facing a threat of natural disasters from time to time.

With particular records based on earthquake occurrence, the consequences are loss of

human lives and destruction of properties, which ultimately affects the natural economy.

The occurrence of an earthquake cannot be predicted and prevented but the preparedness

of the structures to resist earthquake forces become more important. Keeping the view of

constant revision of the seismic zones in India, lack of proper design and detailing of

structures against earthquake. Initiatives are being taken by a number of agencies in

country towards reduction of seismic risk in existing building. In the past few decades,

significant research effort, work over, have been dedicated to retrofitting of existing

building and number of research papers and reports have been published. Still, the subject

is in development stages and standardization of practice is a distant goal. In this paper

comprehensive review of methods and techniques used for seismic retrofitting of RC

buildings are discussed briefly. Finally, general concluding remarks are made along with

possible future direction of research.

Keywords: RC Building, Seismic zone, Earthquake, Retrofitting, Strengthening.

1. Introduction

A large number of existing buildings (Yogendra Singh, 2003) in India are severely

deficient against earthquake forces and the number of such buildings is growing very

rapidly. This has been highlighted in the past earthquake. Retrofitting of any existing

building is a complex task and requires skill, retrofitting of RC buildings is particularly

challenging due to complex behavior of the RC composite material. The behavior of the

buildings during earthquake depends not only on the size of the members and amount of

reinforcement, but to a great extent on the placing and detailing of the reinforcement. The

construction practices in India result in severe construction defects, which make the task

of retrofitting even more difficult.

There are three sources of deficiencies in a building, which have to be accounted for by

the retrofitting engineer: (i) inadequate design and detailing, (ii) degradation of material

with time and use, and (iii) damage due to earthquake or other catastrophe. The retrofit

engineer is expected to estimate the deficiency resulting from all the three sources,

suggest a retrofit scheme to make up for the deficiencies and demonstrate that the

A survey of methods and techniques used for Seismic retrofitting of RC buildings Vijayakumar. A, Venkatesh Babu. D.L

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 57

retrofitted structure will be able to safety resist the future earthquake forces expected

during the lifetime of the structure. This paper presents a brief review of the available

methods and techniques for retrofitting of RC building.

The report Applied Technology Council, (1996) highlights the nonlinear static

pushover analysis. It is an efficient method for the performance evaluation of a structure

subjected to seismic loads. The step by step procedure of the pushover analysis is to

determine the capacity curve, capacity spectrum method and displacement coefficient

method. By using these procedures this report is detailed with modeling aspects of the

hinge behavior, acceptance criteria and locate the performance point. The present

guidelines (Dr Durgesh C Rai., 2005) are intended to provide a systematic procedure for

the seismic evaluation of buildings, which can be applied consistently to a rather wide

range of buildings. This document also discusses some cost effective strengthening

schemes for existing older buildings where identified as seismically deficient during the

evaluation process.

The document (Dr Durgesh C Rai., 2005) highlights a higher degree of damage in a

building is expected during an earthquake, if the seismic resistance of the building is

inadequate. The decision to strengthen it before an earthquake occurs depends on the

building’s seismic résistance. The structural system of deficient building should be

adequately strengthened, in order to attain the desired level of seismic resistance. This

publication (FEMA156, 1994) presents a methodology to estimate the costs of seismic

rehabilitation projects at various locations in the United States. The above edition is

based on a sample of almost 2,100 projects, with data collected by using a standard

protocol, strict quality control verification, and a reliability rating. A sophisticated

statistical methodology applied to this database yields cost estimates of increasing quality

and reliability as more and more detailed information on the building inventory is used in

the estimation process.

This handbook (FEMA172,1992) describes techniques that engineers can use to solve a

variety of seismic rehabilitation problems in existing buildings, a broad spectrum of

building types and building components (both structural and nonstructural). Techniques

are illustrated with sketches, and the relative merits of the techniques are also discussed.

This handbook and its supporting report (FEMA173, 1989), (FEMA174, 1989)

documents information need to develop a seismic rehabilitation program and establish

priorities for rehabilitation. Through the presentation of nationally applicable guidelines,

it helps local jurisdictions to make informed decisions about rehabilitating seismically

hazardous existing buildings, and it includes a review of the relevant technical and

societal issues and a procedure to resolve the issues. This report (FEMA237, 1992)

assists in the preparation of guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.

It identifies and analyses issues that might impact the preparation of the guidelines and

offers alternative and recommended solutions to facilitate their development and

implementation. It also discusses issues related to the scope, implementation, and format

of the guidelines, as well as coordination efforts and legal, political, social, and economic

aspects. Issues related to historic buildings, research and new technology, seismicity and

mapping, and engineering philosophy and goals are also discussed. The report concludes

with a presentation of issues related to the development of specific provisions for major




structural and nonstructural elements. This document (FEMA308, 1999) consists

practical guidance for the repair, upgrade of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry

wall buildings. Target audiences are design engineers, building owners, officials,

insurance adjusters, and government agencies. The publication contains sections on

performance based repair design, repair technologies, categories of repair, and

nonstructural considerations. The last section includes repair guides, which provides

outline specifications for typical repair procedures. This publication (FEMA315, 1998)

discusses the mission, history, and results of FEMA are Existing Building Program (EBP)

and provide four objectives and 25 tasks to be carried out through the EBP. The four

objectives are:

1. Promote seismic rehabilitation and advance the implementation of previously

developed materials

2. Monitor the use of and refine existing materials

3. Develop new seismic rehabilitation tools, and

4. Consider new program directions for the EBP. Estimated costs for the next ten to

fifteen years and guidelines for plan implementation are also included.

These publications (FEMA395-399, 2003-04) describe administrators with information to

assess the seismic vulnerability of school buildings, hospital building, office building,

apartment building, retail building and to implement a program of incremental seismic

rehabilitation. Increase in the number of seismically resistant buildings in all areas of

identified earthquake risk.

2. Methods of Seismically Deficient Building

Existing buildings (Murty CVR, 2002) can become seismically deficient when (a)

seismic design code requirements are upgraded since the design of these buildings with

an older version of the code; (b) seismic design codes are deficient, (c) engineering

knowledge makes advances rendering insufficient the previous understanding used in

their design, and (d) designers lack understanding of the seismic behavior of structures.

Indian buildings built over the past two decades are deficient because of items (b), (c),

and (d) above.

3. Seismic Retrofitting of Deficient RC Buildings

Concept of pushover analysis (Sudhir K. Jain et at., 2002) that is becoming a popular tool

in the profession for design of new buildings, seismic evaluation of existing buildings and

developing appropriate strategy for seismic retrofitting of buildings. It is shown how this

analytical technique can be useful in deciding seismic retrofitting strategy and techniques.

Pushover analysis of the structures (Lakshmanan D, 2006) using SAP 2000 evaluating

the various repair strategies for use in the improvement of the seismic performance of RC

structures are highlighted. The behaviors of repaired beams of beam column joints are

discussed. It is observed that inherent deficiencies in the detailing of the beam-column

joints get reflect even after repair, though the performance factors indicate significant




improvement. Two of the logical extensions show that the repair would not be as

effective in these cases. The nonlinear static analysis of RC building (Shailesh Kr.

Agrawal et al., 2003) is performed using pushover approach before and after retrofitting.

The comparison of strength parameters and pushover curve indicates that there is increase

in ductility. As regards to stiffness of the building, it is seen that it remains more or less

same up to linear stage, while in nonlinear stage every point increase after retrofitting.

The strength of the building is correlated with base shear, the net enhancement in strength

after retrofitting. This paper (Abhijit Mukherjee et al., 2004) introduces a method of

design of structural upgradation using FRC and discusses the design of enhancement of

RCC elements with FRC, a strategy of upgradation of RCC frames and use of the

developed strategy of upgradation for retrofitting of RCC frames based on Capacity

Spectrum Method.

Evaluation (Richard N. White) procedures and retrofit strategies for existing reinforced

concrete framed buildings are designed primarily for gravity loads. Selected evaluation

and rehabilitation methods are reviewed, including portions of the 1996 NEHRP

guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. New research results for predicting the

behavior of masonry infilled frames are presented, and general research issues are

suggested. The seismic evaluation and retrofitting procedures of reinforced concrete

buildings (Seki M et al., 2007) within JICA technical cooperation project in Romania.

The content of the paper covers i) an outline of the seismic evaluation; history and

comparison of Romanian seismic design codes with the Japanese seismic evaluation

guidelines, ii) an outline of the retrofitting techniques which are transferred from Japan to

Romania and structural tests for retrofitting techniques employed in Romania and iii)

retrofitting details that were used by JICA/NCSRR in the retrofitting design of two

vulnerable buildings in Bucharest.

Case studies (Chandrasekaran S et al., 2003) are conducted in the 150 year old building

Ganga Mahal located in Assi Ghat and Sanskrit University of Kashi. The buildings are

mathematically modeled and analyzed for its structural behavior. The suggested measures

of structural strengthening for these heritage structures are based on the understanding of

the detailed studies conduct by the authors on the failure pattern of various structures

during earthquakes in India. The typical (Suneja BP, 2003) features of seismic retrofitting

strategy for historic monuments and the various structural control methods, effectiveness

of control methods, as compared to the existing conventional techniques and the issues

related with the adaptability of such innovative techniques are addressed. A case study

(Ryanj Williams et al., 2009) is conducted to find the impact of a modest retrofit strategy

applied to the identical buildings in Memphis and San Francisco. The probabilities of

failure and generalized reliability indices are calculated for the retrofitted building in both

locations and compared to the corresponding values for the original buildings. The results

of the parametric analysis and case study are used to determine the effects of building

location on retrofit feasibility.

The traditional methods of seismic retrofitting (Giusepe Oliveto et al., 2005) are reviewed

and their weak points are identified. Modern methods and philosophies of seismic

retrofitting, including base isolation and energy dissipation devices, are reviewed. The

presentation is illustrated by case studies of actual buildings, where traditional and




innovative retrofitting methods are applied. An overview of analysis methodologies (Leo

Panian et al., 1999) are used for a seismic rehabilitation of an historic high rise building is

presented. The use, in the design process, of nonlinear soil structure interaction

foundation analyses and three dimensional finite element analyses of the towers are

highlighted. Finally, the impacts of the results of the analyses on the construction details

are discussed.

4. Improvement of Existing RC Buildings

Three levels of improvement of existing RC frame buildings (Murty CVR, 2002) are

possible, namely (a) repair, (b) restore, and (c) strengthen. The consequence of any

prescribed method of the retrofitting are (a) adding brick masonry walls in all possible

bays in ground storey, (b) jacketing of all RC columns in ground storey only, (c) adding

steel diagonal braces in some bays in ground storey, and (d) infilling existing RC frame

with RC structural walls in some bays in ground storey only. In all cases, foundation

strengthening may be essential. On the seismic capacity of the building should be

quantitatively evaluated its effectiveness from the points of view of strength, stiffness and

ductility are shown in Figure [1.a, 1.b]. Sometimes, a retrofit scheme may have better

performance than the damaged structure, but still may be poor; the retrofit scheme that

assures at least a basic ductility is preferable to the others.

Figure 1: a) Effect of retrofit Strategy on lateral strength, stiffness and ductility,

b) Relative performance of different retrofit strategies. (Murty CVR, 2002)

5. Methods of Seismic Retrofitting

This paper (Murty CVR, 2002) deals with two approaches a) simple approach, and b)

state-of-the-art approach are presented for seismic retrofitting of existing RC frame

buildings. For the retrofit of general RC frame buildings in India, it is technically and

economically the best compromise to adopt the first approach because of the prevalent

dismal practices of seismic structural design and construction in the country. And, in the




retrofit of the critical structures and important structures, it is necessary to take up the

state-of-the-art retrofit approach.

This paper (Kaustubh Dasgupta et al.,) concludes that to identify an efficient retrofitting

method for existing open ground storey RC frame buildings. A two dimensional RC

frame is designed with non-ductile. Detailing is subjected to nonlinear static pushover

analysis. The RC frame is retrofitted by three methods. a) Concrete jacketing of columns

in the ground storey, b)Brick masonry infill in the ground storey, and c) RC structural

wall in the ground storey panel of all the methods studied the use of structural wall in the

ground storey panel give the maximum strength and ductility.

The objective of this study (Ashutosh V Mahashabde et al., 2003) is to identify an

efficient retrofitting method for reinforced concrete buildings. Two buildings: One open

ground storey with infills and the other partial open ground storey with infills, which are

damaged in the January 2001 Bhuj earthquake, are subjected to static pushover analysis

with code specified design shear distribution. The observed failure modes conform to the

actual structural damages sustain by the buildings during that earthquake. The selected

methods of retrofitting are a) Jacketing of columns in the ground storey, b) Structural

walls in the ground storey of some selective panels, and c) Structural walls for all the

stories in some panels. These three basic schemes are used in combination for

ascertaining an economical method giving the maximum strength and ductility. Of all the

methods studied, the combination of column jacketing in ground storey and shear wall

throughout the height of the building with selective strengthening of upper storey frame

members, give the most economic and desirable performance.

The objective of this study (Ei-Sokkary H et al., 2009) is to investigate analytically the

effectiveness of different rehabilitation patterns in upgrading the seismic performance of

existing nonductile RC frame structures. The study investigates the performance of two

RC frames (with different heights representing low and high rise buildings) with or

without masonry infill when rehabilitated and subjected to three types of ground motion

records. The ground motion records represent earthquakes with low, medium and high

frequency contents. Three models are considered for the RC frames: bar frame, masonry

infilled frame with soft infill and masonry infilled frame with stiff infill. Four

rehabilitation patterns are studied namely; 1) introducing a RC shear wall, 2) using steel

bracing, 3) using diagonal FRP strips (FRP bracings) in the case of masonry infilled

frames, and 4) wrapping or partially wrapping the frame members (columns and beams)

using FRP composites. Incremental dynamic analysis is conducted for the studied cases.

The seismic performance enhancement of the studied frames is evaluated in terms of the

maximum applied peak ground acceleration resisted by the frames, maximum inter storey

drift ratio, maximum storey shear-to-weight ratio and energy dissipation capacity.

An efficient (Binici B et al., 2006) FRP retrofit scheme was developed, in which hallow

clay brick infill walls are utilized as lateral load resisting elements. Based on failure

modes and measured deformation limits obtained from a large database of experiments, a

diagonal compression-strut and tension-tie model are developed. The model is verified

with a number of reinforced concrete frame test results with and without upgrades. The




characteristics of various intervention techniques (Jong – Wha Bai, 2003), (Helen Santhi

M et al., 2003) are discussed and the relationship between retrofit and structural

characteristics are also described. In addition, several case study structures for which

retrofit techniques have been applied are presented. This paper (Zou XK et al., 2007)

presents an optimization technique for the performance based seismic FRP retrofit design

of RC building frames. The thickness of FRP jackets used for confinement of columns

are taken as the design variables, and minimizing the volume and hence the material cost

of the FRP jackets are the design objective in the optimization procedure. The pushover

drift is expressed explicitly in terms of the FRP sizing variables using the principle of

virtual work and the Taylor series approximation. The Optimality Criteria (OC) approach

is employed for finding the solution of the nonlinear seismic drift design problem. A

numerical example is presented and discussed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

proposed procedure. Performance based seismic evaluation of building models (Savitha

V Athani et al., 2009) namely: bare frame, soft storey, retrofitted building with

unreinforced masonry infill and increased stiffness of columns and different locations in

open ground storey for G+2, G+5, G+8. Storey’s located in seismic zone III. The

buildings are designed by gravity loads which are analyzed by equivalent static method

using ETAB and nonlinear version 9 software. The recent (K.G.Bhatia, 2003) Indian

earthquake has clearly demonstrated that maximum suffering during earthquake disaster

is bore by common man. Seismic evaluation of majority of such construction, though

essential, appears to be infeasible. Whereas desired safety can still be expected and

achieved for engineered constructions, its assurance for nonengineered construction

draws a big question mark? The paper dwells upon the real life situation and the likely

impact of the post earthquake scenario on the society.

The present paper (Amar Prakash et al., 2003) deals with the seismic retrofitting of an

existing fourteen storied RC building frame located in seismic zone IV. The study

includes seismic evaluation and retrofitting of RC framed building, by using steel bracing

and infill masonry walls. The seismic performance of two retrofitting techniques such as

steel bracing (V, diamond and cross pattern) and infill walls are relatively compared.

Among three patterns of steel bracing, cross pattern shows better performance than V and

diamond bracing patterns. The structural analysis (Dr. Meher Prasad A et al.,) is

performed using a suitable computer analysis program. The steps involve developing a

computational model of the building, applying the external forces, calculating the internal

forces in the members of the building, calculating the deformations of the members and

building and finally interpreting the results. First deficiencies observed in existing RC

buildings for resisting earthquake identified. It is essential to identify the deficiencies in a

building before undertaking retrofit. Identification of the deficiencies is also expected to

create awareness for future construction. The material for each building (Dr Santhakumar

AR et al.,) is presented under the following topics; rapid visual screening, data collection,

preliminary evaluation, detailed evaluation and retrofit.

6. Conclusion

Many guidelines are reviewed regarding seismic rehabilitation of school, office, hospital

and apartment buildings. Some of the researchers discussed the various seismic




retrofitting and strengthening methods for existing building. The following methods are

carried out by most of the researchers which are concrete jacketing of columns of ground

floor, brick masonry infill in the ground floor, X and V bracing, shear wall, FRP of

beams and columns. All these topics require further research, and it is essential for

seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures.

7. References

1. ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Applied

Technology Council, (1996).

2. Dr Durgesh C Rai, (2005), guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening

of existing building, Provision with commentary and explanatory examples,

Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Document no- IITK-GSDMA-

Earthquake 6, vol. 4.

3. Dr Durgesh C Rai. Review of documents on seismic strengthening of existing

building, Document no- IITK-GSDMA-Earthquake 7, vol. 1.

4. FEMA156. Typical costs for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.

Volume 1: Summary. Second edition. Hart consultant group Inc. Santa

Monica CA, (1994).

5. FEMA157. Typical costs for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings:

Volume 2: Supporting documentation. Second edition. Hart consultant group

Inc. Santa Monica CA, (1995).

6. FEMA172. NEHRP handbook of techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of

existing buildings. Building seismic safety council. Washington D.C, (1992).

7. FEMA173. Establishing programs and priorities for the seismic rehabilitation

of buildings: Supporting report. Building systems development Inc.

Washington, D.C, (1989).

8. FEMA174. Establishing programs and priorities for the seismic rehabilitation

of buildings: Handbook. Building systems development Inc. Washington.D.C,

989.

9. FEMA237. Development of guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings

– Phase 1: Issues identification and resolution. Applied Technology Council.

Redwood city CA, (1992).

10. FEMA308. The repair of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall

buildings. Applied Technology Council. Redwood city CA, (1999).

11. FEMA315. Seismic rehabilitation of buildings: Strategic plan 2005.

Earthquake engineering research institute. Washington, D.C, (1998).




12. FEMA395. Incremental seismic rehabilitation of school buildings K-12,

World institute for disaster risk management, Alexandria VA, (2003).

13. FEMA396, Incremental seismic rehabilitation of hospital buildings, World

institute for disaster risk management, Alexandria, VA, (2003).

14. FEMA397, Incremental seismic rehabilitation of office buildings. World

institute for disaster risk management. Alexandria, VA, (2003).

15. FEMA 398. Incremental seismic rehabilitation of multifamily apartment

buildings. World institute for disaster risk management. Alexandria, (2004).

16. FEMA399. Incremental seismic rehabilitation of retail buildings. World

institute for disaster risk management. Alexandria, (2004).

17. Murty CVR, (2002), quantitative approach to seismic strengthening Of RC

frame building, Seminar on seismic assessment and retrofitting buildings, pp

19-27.

18. Sudhir K. Jain, Srikant T, (2002), analysis for seismic retrofitting of buildings,

The Indian concrete journal, pp 479-484.

19. Lakshmanan D, (2006), seismic evaluation of retrofitting of building and

structures, ISET journal of earthquake technology, 43(1-2), pp 31-48.

20. Shailesh Kr. Agrawal, Ajay Chourasia, (2003), “Nonlinear static analysis for

seismic evaluation and retrofit of RC buildings”, Workshop on rertofitting of

structures, pp 116-124.

21. Abhijit Mukherjee, Amit R. Kalyani, (2004), “Seismic retrofitting of

reinforced concrete frames with fiber reinforced composites”, Workshop on

seismic evaluation and retrofitting of building, pp 74-82.

22. Richard N. White, Khalid Mosalam. Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of

concrete buildings, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 USA, pp 177-186.

23. Seki M, Vacareanu R, Chesca B, Pavel M, Lozinca E, Cotofana D, Georgescu

B, Kaminosono T, (2007), “Overview on seismic evaluation and retrofitting

within JICA technical cooperation project on reduction of seismic risk in

Romania”, International symposium on seismic risk reduction, pp 181-194.

24. Chandrasekaran S, Saurab lahari, Kumar V, (2003), “Study of seismic

vulnerability and retrofitting techniques for heritage buildings in Banaras”,

Recent trends in concrete technology and structures, Kumaraguru College of

Technology, Coimbatore, pp 699-707.

25. Suneja BP, (2003), “Structural Control Concept: A possible avenue for

seismic retrofitting of historic monuments”, Recent trends in concrete




technology and structures, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore,

pp 722-729.

26. Ryanj Williams, Paolo Gardoni, Joseph M Bracci, (2009), decision analysis

for seismic retrofit of structures, Structural safety, 31, pp 188-196.

27. Giusepe Oliveto, Massimo Marleta, (2005), seismic retrofitting of reinforced

concrete buildings using traditional and innovative techniques, ISET journal

of earthquake technology, 42(2-3), pp 21-46.

28. Leo Panian, David Mar, Steven Tiipping, Berkeley. Complete capacity design

of a seismic retrofit for an historic high rise building using practical analytical

methods, SEAOC 1999 convention, pp 277-294.

29. Kaustubh Dasgupta, Murty CVR. Quantitative seismic retrofitting of open

ground storey RC frame buildings.

30. Ashutosh V Mahashabde, Kaustubh Dasgupta, Murty CVR, (2003), “Seismic

strengthening of gravity load designed RC frame buildings”, 4th International

conference on earthquake engineering and seismology.

31. Ei-Sokkary H, Galal K, (2009), analytical investigation of the seismic

performance of RC frames rehabilitated using different rehabilitation

techniques, Engineering structures, 31, pp 1955-1966. `

32. Binici B, Ozcebe G, (2006), “Seismic evaluation of infilled reinforced

concrete frames strengthened with FRPS”, 8th U.S. national conference on

earthquake engineering, pp 1717.

33. Dr Alagusundaramoorthy P. Retrofit using fibre reinforced polymer

composite, Handbook on seismic retrofit of building, IIT Madras, pp 13.1-

13.16.

34. Jong – Wha Bai, (2003), seismic retrofit for reinforced concrete building

structures, Consequence based engineering institute final report, Mid-America

earthquake centre.

35. Moe Cheung and Simon Foo. Seismic retrofit of existing buildings: innovative

alternatives. Public works and government services, Canada, pp 1-10.

36. Amlan, Sengupta K, Badari VT Narayanan, Asokan A, (2003), “Seismic

retrofit of existing multistoreyed buildings in India-An overview of the

method and strategies”, Workshop on retrofitting of structures, IIT Roorkee,

pp 17-28.

37. Yogendra Singh, (2003), “Challenges in retrofitting of RC buildings”,

Workshop on retrofitting of structures, IIT Roorkee, pp 29-44.




38. Dr Amlan K Sengupta. Retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings, Handbook

on seismic retrofit of building, IIT Madras, pp 9.1-9.33.

39. Parricio Rocha, Pedro Delgado, Anibal Costa, Raimundo Delgado, (2004),

Seismic retrofit of RC frames, Computers and structures, 83, pp 1523-1534.

40. Helen Santhi M, Samuel Knight GM, Muthumani K, (2003), “Seismic retrofit

of reinforced concrete frames”, National seminar on advances in concrete

technology and concrete structures for the future, pp 223-239.

41. Zou XK, Teng JG, De Lorenzis I, Xia SH, (2007), optimal performance-based

design of FRP jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames,

Composite part-B, 38, pp 584-597.

42. Savitha V Athani, Dyavanal SS, Annigeri DVSA, (2009), performance based

seismic evaluation and retrofitted of multistoried buildings, Bulletin of ACCE,

1, pp 21-27.

43. K.G.Bhatia, (2003), “On the seismic evaluation and retrofitting of common

man’s residential houses”, Workshop on retrofitting of structures, IIT Roorkee,

pp 143-147.

44. Amar Prakash, Thakkar SK, (2003), “A comparative study of retrofitting of

RC building”, Workshop on retrofitting of structures, IIT Roorkee, pp 159-

173.

45. Esra Mete Guneyisi and Gulay Altay, (2005), a study on the seismic behavior

of a retrofitted building based on nonlinear static and dynamic analysis,

Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration, 4(1), pp 173-180.

46. Dr. Meher Prasad A. Structural analysis for seismic retrofit, Handbook on

seismic retrofit of building, IIT Madras, pp 8.1-8.27.

47. Dr Santhakumar AR, Dr Amlan K Sengupta. Retrofit case studies, Handbook

on seismic retrofit of building, IIT Madras, pp 16.1-16.46.

A Survey of Methods and Techniques Used for Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings

Documents

Transcript of A Survey of Methods and Techniques Used for Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings