Seismic Retrofitting of RC Frames: A Rational Strategy Based on Genetic Algorithms

  • R. Falcone
  • C. Faella
  • C. Lima
  • E. Martinelli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 10)


This paper outlines a rational strategy for retrofitting Reinforced Concrete (RC), which is based on combing member- and structure-level techniques in order to achieve optimal design objectives in a Performance-Based approach. Member-level techniques (such as confinement with composite materials, steel or concrete jacketing) are supposed to enhance capacity of single members, whereas structure-level techniques (generally based on introducing steel bracings systems or shear walls) aim to reduce the seismic demand on the existing frame as a whole. A novel procedure, based on a “dedicated” genetic algorithms, is developed by the authors for selecting “optimal” retrofitting solutions, among the technically feasible ones, obtained by combining alternative configurations of steel bracing systems and FRP-confinement of critical members. The main assumptions about the representations of “individuals” and the main information about the genetic operations (i.e. selection, crossover and mutation) are summarised in the paper. Finally, a sample application of the procedure is proposed with the aim to demonstrate its potential in selecting rational retrofitting solutions.


RC frames Seismic retrofitting Optimal strategy Genetic algorithm 



This paper is part of the Ph.D. project by Mr. Roberto Falcone, enrolled at the XXX Cycle of the Doctoral Course in “Risk and sustainability in civil, construction and environmental engineering” at the University of Salerno, whose financial support is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Bordea S, Dubina D (2009) Retrofitting/upgrading of reinforced concrete elements with buckling restrained bracing elements. In: Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS international conference on sustainability in science engineering, Timisoara (Romania), 27–29 May 2009, pp 407–402Google Scholar
  2. Biondini F (1999) Optimal limit states design of concrete structures using genetic algorithms. Stud Res 20. Accessed 15 Apr 2016
  3. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2009) Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 24(6):432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN (2005) EN 1998-1:2005 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN)Google Scholar
  5. CEN (2005) EN 1993-1-1:2005 (Eurocode 3) - Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN)Google Scholar
  6. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (The origin of species). Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 28(9):979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  9. fib (2003) Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin No. 24, 138, ISBN: 978-2-88394-054-3Google Scholar
  10. fib (2006) Retrofitting of concrete structures by externally bonded FRPs, with emphasis on seismic applications, Bulletin No. 35, 220, ISBN: 978-2-88394-075-8Google Scholar
  11. Fragiadakis M, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2006) Performance-based multiobjective optimum design of steel structures considering life-cycle cost. Struct Multidiscip Optim 32:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M (2008) Performance-based optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37(6):825–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hajela P (1992) Stochastic search in structural optimization: genetic algorithms and simulated annealing. Chapter 22, pp 611–635Google Scholar
  14. Jenkins WM (1991a) Towards structural optimization via the genetic algorithm. Comput Struct 40(5):1321–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jenkins WM (1991b) Structural optimisation with the genetic algorithm. Struct Eng 69(24):418–422Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan H, Yilmaz S, Cetinkaya N, Atimtay E (2011) Seismic strengthening of RC structures with exterior shear walls. Sadhana Indian Acad Sci 36(1):17–34Google Scholar
  17. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  18. Kunisue A, Koshika N, Kurokawa Y, Suzuki N, Agami J, Sakamoto M (2000) Retrofitting method of existing reinforced concrete buildings using elasto-plastic steel dampers. In: Proceedings of the twelfth world conference on earthquake engineering (12WCEE), Paper 0648Google Scholar
  19. Ireland MG, Pampanin S, Bull DK (2007) Experimental investigations of a selective weakening approach for the seismic retrofit of R.C. walls. In: Palmerston north (New Zealand), 30 March–1 April 2007Google Scholar
  20. Lagaros ND, Tsompanakis Y, Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M (2007) Soft computing techniques in probabilistic seismic analysis of structures. In: Lagaros N, Tsompanakis Y (eds) Intelligent computational paradigms in earthquake engineering. Idea Group Publishing ltd, HersheyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lipowski A, Lipowska D (2012) Roulette-wheel selection via stochastic acceptance. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 6:2193–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinelli E, Lima C, Faella C (2015) Towards a rational strategy for seismic retrofitting of RC frames by combining member- and structure-level techniques. In: SMAR2015 – Third conference on smart monitoring, assessment and rehabilitation of civil structures, Antalya (Turkey), 6–9 September 2015Google Scholar
  23. May PJ (2006) Societal implications of performance-based earthquake engineering. Pacific Earthquake Engineering, PEER Report 2006/12Google Scholar
  24. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) OpenSEES command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)Google Scholar
  25. M.II.TT (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni - D.M. 14 gennaio 2008 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  26. Papadrakakis M, Lagaros ND (2002) Soft computing methodologies for structural optimization. Appl Soft Comput 3:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quan G, Barbato M, Conte JP, Gill PE, McKenna F (2012) OpenSees-SNOP framework for finite-element-based optimization of structural and geotechnical systems. J Struct Eng 138(6):822–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reeves GR (1993) Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodriguez M, Park R (1991) Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete buildings for seismic resistance. Earthq Spectra 7(3):817–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thermou GE, Elnashai AS (2006) Seismic retrofit schemes for RC structures and local–global consequences. Prog Struct Eng Mat 8:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DiCiv - Department of Civil EngineeringUniversità degli Studi di SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations