Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Haunch retrofitting technique for seismic upgrading deficient RC frames

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Haunch retrofitting technique has been employed, primarily to stiffen the beam-column connections that controls the hierarchy of strength within the beam-column members, and avoid joint shear hinging of RC frame structures, subjected to earthquake imposed lateral loads. Shake-table tests were performed on a total of nine (09) 1:3 reduced scale two-story RC frames, including five (05) as-built and four (04) haunch retrofitted models, to develop structures’ damage scale and obtain their seismic response parameters. A representative finite element based numerical model was prepared in SeismoStruct and validated against the experimental response. A suit of seven natural accelerograms were retrieved from the PEER NGA strong ground motions database and employed for incremental dynamic analysis of structural models, in order to derive seismic fragility functions for as-built and retrofitted structures. Vulnerability curves were derived for the structures, correlating the mean damage ratio with the seismic intensity. Uniform hazard curves, obtained for candidate cities in moderate and high hazard zones, were employed to derive the structures’ loss exceedance curves for calculating the expected average annual loss. The net present value of the annual avoided repair cost was quantified, and critically compared with the retrofitting cost, to evaluate the viability of haunch retrofitting technique for seismic upgradation of deficient RC frame structures for risk mitigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA (2000) State of the practice of seismic hazard evaluation. In: Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia

  • Ahmad N, Ali Q, Crowley H, Pinho R (2014) Earthquake loss estimation of residential buildings in Pakistan. Nat Hazards 73(3):1889–1955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad N, Shahzad A, Ali Q, Rizwan M, Khan AN (2018) Seismic fragility functions for code compliant and non-compliant RC SMRF structures in Pakistan. Bull Earthq Eng 16(10):4675–4703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad N, Shahzad A, Rizwan M, Khan AN, Ali SM, Ashraf M, Naseer A, Ali Q, Alam B (2019) Seismic performance assessment of non-compliant SMRF reinforced concrete frame: shake table test study. J Earthq Eng 23(3):444–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alath S, Kunnath SK (1995) Modeling inelastic shear deformations in RC beam-column joints. In: Engineering mechanics proceedings of the 10th conference, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

  • Ambraseys N (2000) Reappraisal of north-Indian earthquakes at the turn of the 20th century. Curr Sci 79(9):1237–1250

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2004) Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophys J Int 159(1):165–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appa-Rao G, Navya V, Eligehausan R (2013) Strengthening of shear deficient RC beam-column joints in MRFS under seismic loading. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on fracture mechanics of concrete and concrete structures, Spain

  • Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH (2007) What is to be learned from damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey? Eng Fail Anal 14(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ates S, Kahya V, Yurdakul M, Adanur S (2013) Damages on reinforced concrete buildings due to consecutive earthquakes in Van. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aycardi LE, Mander JB, Reinhorn AM (1994) Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: experimental performance of subassemblages. ACI Struct J 91(5):552–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Badrashi YI, Ali Q, Ashraf M (2010) Reinforced concrete buildings in Pakistan—Housing Report. Housing Report No. 159, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, CA, USA

  • Bal IE, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gulay G (2008) Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of turkish rc building stock for loss assessment model. Struct Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):914–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banazadeh M, Gholhaki M, Sani HP (2017) Cost-benefit analysis of seismic-isolated structures with viscous damper based on loss estimation. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13(8):1045–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BCP-SP (2007) Building Code of Pakistan: Seismic Provisions-2007. Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Benavent-Climent A, Morillas L, Escolano-Margarit D (2014) Seismic performance and damage evaluation of a reinforced concrete frame with hysteretic dampers through shake-table test. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(15):2399–2417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beres A, Pessiki S, White R, Gergely P (1996) Implications of experiments on the seismic behaviour of gravity load designed rc beam-to-column connections. Earthq Spectra 12(2):185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddah A, Ghobarah A (1999) Modelling of shear deformation and bond slip in reinforced concrete joints. Struct Eng Mech 7(4):413–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ (2009) Seismic hazard and earthquake actions. In: Elghazouli AY (ed) Seismic design of buildings to Eurocode 8. Spon Press, Oxon, pp 6–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothara JK, Hicyilmas KMO (2008) General observations of building behavior during the 8th October 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 41(4):209–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracci JM, Reinhorn AM, Mander JB (1995a) Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed for gravity loads. ACI Struct J 92(5):597–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracci J, Reinhorn A, Mander J (1995b) Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings designed for gravity loads: performance of structural model. ACI Struct J 92(6):711–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Magenes G, Pampanin S (2002) Relevance of beam-column joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment. J Earthq Eng 6(1):75–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D, Gesualdi G, Perrone G (2018) Cost-benefit analysis of alternative retrofit strategies for RC frame buildings. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1323041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celik OC, Ellingwood BR (2008) Modelling beam-column joints in fragility assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 12(3):357–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Varum H (2015) Seismic response of current RC buildings in Kathmandu Valley. Struct Eng Mech 53(4):791–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell C (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • CRISIS (2007) A software for computing seismic hazard. UNAM, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Der Kiureghian A (2005) First- and second-order reliability methods. In: Nikolaidis E, Ghiocel DM, Singhal S (eds) Engineering design reliability handbook. CRC Press LLC, Chapter 14

  • Dolce M, Cardone D, Ponzo FC, Valente C (2005) Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with passive control systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(14):1687–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Cardone D, Ponzo F (2007) Shaking-table tests on reinforced concrete frames with different isolation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doocy S, Daniels A, Packer C, Dick A, Kirsch TD (2013) The human impact of earthquakes: a historical review of events 1980-2009 and systematic literature review. PLoS Curr Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.67bd14fe457f1db0b5433a8ee20fb833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyanati M, Huang Q, Roke D (2017) Cost-benefit evaluation of self-centering concentrically braced frames considering uncertainties. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13(5):537–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engindeniz M, Kahn LF, Zureick AH (2005) Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete beam-column joints: state of the art. ACI Struct J 102(2):187–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdil B (2016) Why RC buildings failed in the 2011 Van, Turkey, earthquakes: construction versus design practices. J Perform Constr Facil. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fintel M (1995) Performance of buildings with shear walls in earthquakes of the last thirty years. PCI J 40(3):62–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia R, Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K (2010) Seismic behaviour of deficient RC frames strengthened with CFRP composites. Eng Struct 32(10):3075–3085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genesio G (2012) Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrofit with haunches using post-installed anchors. PhD Thesis, Stuttgart University, Germany

  • Ghobarah A, Said A (2001) Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints using FRP laminates. J Earthq Eng 5(1):113–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956) Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Ann Geofis 9(01):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H (2000) Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J 97(1):11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale O, Akkar S (2003) A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR) method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1069–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, LaFave M (2012) A simplified approach to joint shear behavior prediction of RC beam-column connections. Earthq Spectra 28(3):1071–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuang JS, Wong H (2006) Effects of beam bar anchorage on beam–column joint behavior. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 159(2):115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurose Y (1987) Recent studies on reinforced concrete beam-column joints in Japan. PMFSEL Report No. 87-8, Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin, Tex, pp 164

  • Lowes LN, Altoontash A (2003) Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading. ASCE J Struct Eng 129(12):1686–1697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques R, Lamego P, Lourenci PB, Sousa ML (2018) Efficiency and cost-benefit analysis of seismic strengthening techniques for old residential buildings in Lisbon. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1286616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA, USA

  • Pampanin S, Calvi GM, Moratti M (2002) Seismic behavior of RC beam-column joints designed for gravity only. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 726

  • Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Chen TH (2006) Development and validation of a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing under-designed RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(14):1739–1766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park R (2002) A summary of results of simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete beam-column joints, beams and columns with substandard reinforcing details. J Earthq Eng 6(2):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinho R (2007) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures subjected to seismic actions. In: Pecker A (ed) Advanced earthquake engineering analysis. Springer, pp 63–89

  • PMD (2007) Seismic hazard analysis and zonation for Pakistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Technical Report, Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD), Islamabad, Pakistan

  • Priestley MJN (1997) Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 1(1):157–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-Gallo P, Pampanin S, Carr AJ, Bonelli P (2010) Shake table tests of under designed RC frames for the seismic retrofit of buildings—design and similitude requirements of the benchmark specimen. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Paper No. 39

  • Rashid M, Ahmad N (2017) Economic losses due to earthquake-induced structural damages in RC SMRF structures. Cogent Eng 4(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter L (1999) Earthquake hazard analysis. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizwan M, Ahmad N, Khan AN (2018) Seismic performance of SMRF compliant and non-compliant RC frames. ACI Struct J 115(4):1063–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Adam JM, Perez-Carcel R, Yuste J, Moragues JJ (2016) Learning from RC building structures damaged by the earthquake in Lorca, Spain, in 2011. Eng Fail Anal 68:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SeismoSoft (2016) SeismoSoft—Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions. Available from https://www.seismosoft.com

  • SeismoMatch (2016) SeismoMatch—Software: a tool for adjusting matching accelerograms to target spectrum using wavelets based appraoch. Available from https://www.seismosoft.com

  • Sharma A (2013) Seismic behavior and retrofitting of RC frame structures with emphasis on beam-column joints—experiments and numerical modeling. PhD Thesis, Stuttgart University, Germany

  • Sharma A, Reddy GR, Vaze KK (2011) Shake table tests on a non-seismically detailed RC frame structure. Struct Eng Mech 41(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma A, Reddy GR, Eligehausen R, Genesio G, Pampanin S (2014) Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames with haunch retrofit solution. ACI Struct J 111(3):673–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiravand MR, Nejad AK, Bayanifar MH (2017) Seismic response of RC structures rehabilitated with SMA under near-field earthquakes. Struct Eng Mech 63(4):497–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivaselvan M, Reinhorn AM (2001) Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic structures. J Eng Mech ASCE 126(6):633–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Zhu S, Xu YL, Jiang H (2017) Seismic retrofitting of non-seismically designed RC beam-column joints using buckling-restrained haunches: design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1277441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yavari S, Elwood KJ, Wu CL, Lin SH, Hwang SJ, Moehle JP (2013) Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without seismic detailing. ACI Struct J 110(06):1000–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef M, Ghobarah A (2001) Modelling of rc beam-column joints and structural walls. J Earthq Eng 5(1):93–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Zare M, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Khan A, Tsereteli N (2014) Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. J Seismolog 18:749–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the Editor-in-Chief (Prof. Atilla Ansal) and the Associate Editor (Prof. Andrea Kappos) for generously encouraging the research study. The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for encouraging the research study and providing constructive remarks that further improved quality of the paper. A number of undergraduate and postgraduate students (Shabir Ahmad, Naeem Khan Shinwari, Rifat Ullah, Saud Faisal Farooq, Usama Ali, Arif Ullah, Babar Ilyas) in Department of Civil Engineering of UET Peshawar are highly thanked for their assistance during preparation and testing models. Attaur Rahman is thanked for preparing various drawings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earthquake Engineering Center, UET Peshawar, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

    Naveed Ahmad, Junaid Akbar, Muhammad Rizwan, Bashir Alam, Akhtar Naeem Khan & Abdul Lateef

Authors
  1. Naveed Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junaid Akbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Rizwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bashir Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Akhtar Naeem Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdul Lateef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naveed Ahmad.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmad, N., Akbar, J., Rizwan, M. et al. Haunch retrofitting technique for seismic upgrading deficient RC frames. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 3895–3932 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00638-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00638-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation