Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

Retrofitting/upgrading of reinforced concrete elements with buckling

restrained bracing elements
S. BORDEA, D. DUBINA
Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics(CMMC)
Politehnica University of Timisoara
Piata Victoriei nr. 2
ROMANIA
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
http://cemsig.ct.upt.ro/cemsig/index.php
Abstract: - The main aim of the study is to evaluate the performance of a gravity load designed reinforced concrete
frame retrofitted with buckling restrained bracing (BRB) systems as a dissipative and retrofitting device. The BRB
system wish to be applied for reinforced concrete frames located in seismic areas which have been designed previous to
the appearance of a seismic code. This analysis represents the main topic of STEELRETRO project Steel Solutions for
Seismic Retrofit and Upgrade of Existing Constructions of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) [13]. In
order to analyze and confirm BRB system effectiveness as a strengthening solution for poor seismic resistant RC
Frames, a benchmark building was proposed for modeling.
Key-Words: reinforced concrete frame, moment resisting frame, retrofitting, buckling restrained braces (BRB),
dissipative device, nonlinear pushover analysis, target displacement.
In this paper 3 story RC building is analyzed before and
after retrofitting it by BRB system. The dimensions of
the whole building in plane 23.4 x 18.4 m and it is 11.95
m high.

1 Introduction
The reinforced concrete building chosen to be as a
reference benchmark structure is located in Italy and was
design according to an old design code. The design code
assumed in the design process is the Royal Decree
n.2229 November 16th, 1939 issued in Italy for the
construction of reinforced and not reinforced concrete
building. It was decided to adopt this old design standard
because many reinforced concrete buildings were design
according to its rules in the 50 to early 70 of the XX
century in Italy [13].
Common materials used in the 1950-s, as concrete
with characteristic compressive strength fck=20N/mm2
and a characteristic yield strength for reinforcement of
fsk=230N/mm2 were considered.
The detailing of the reinforcement is characteristic for
design practice of that period, as it follows: poor
anchorage length of the rebars at the external beam
column joint, the use of plane (not ribbed) rebars,
inclined reinforcement used for shear force resistance,
largely spaced stirrups (15 cm for columns, 25 cm for
beams) in potential plastic zones.

Fig. 1: STEELRETRO reference benchmark RC

building model and BRB system distribution
It was chosen that in the model the ground floor
columns to start from 0,00 (foundation level) and to be
fixed in Y direction (4 spans) and hinged in X direction
(5 spans). The axes of beams were considered to start
from the upper level (see Fig. 2). In this manner a span
of 5 m was choose for X direction with 3 m in the
middle span and 4.5 m for the span in Y direction.

2
RC Building description (geometry
and loads)
2.1 Frame geometry

ISSN: 1790-2769

Fig. 2: External frame in X direction (5 spans) and

interior central frame in Y direction (4 spans)

407

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

The heights of the stories are 3.9 m at the ground

floor, 3.4 m at the first level, 3.35 m at second level and
0.9 respectively 1.8 for the rafters eave.

In the first step, the existing RC building was verified for

ULS (dead, imposed, snow and wind loads) and seismic
load in accordance with [4], [5], [6] and [7] [13].
To compute self weight of the elements, a 25 KN/m3
was chose as reinforced concrete specific weight, and it
was applied as a uniform distributed load on the element.
Dead load (DL) was distributed only on the beams
which are perpendicular in the direction of the ribs (from
the floor, see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Dead Load (DL) distribution on stories

The self weight of concrete roof and concrete floors
were assumed to be 3 KN/m2 [13]. They consist of
concrete in-situ cast parallel ribs (15 cm ribs + 5 cm
slab) with 15 cm thick bricks see Fig. 5 [13].

Fig. 3: Plan view of the first and second floor and

direction of ribs in the floor
The elements cross sections are displayed in Table 1,
in addition it should be noticed that all elements are
foresaw with single 6 mm hoops spacing 25 cm for
beams and 15 cm for columns.

Fig. 5: First and second floor/roof

In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd a distributed dead load of
0.8 KN/m2 for partitions was considered. The self weight
of the exterior walls/cladding assumed to be 2.5 KN/m2
and its effect is transmitted only on the columns due to
arch effect.
In accordance to [5] the building is considered in
category C1 as office areas of 3 KN/m2, and a category
H for not accessible roof of 0.4 KN/m2. The imposed
loads (IL) distribution is considered in the same way as
dead load distribution (see Fig. 4).
Regarding the snow load (SL), was considered to be as
0.8 KN/m2 [5] while the wind load (WL) is distributed
perpendicular on the columns in both directions as 0.69
KN/m2 pressure and -0.29 KN/m2 in X direction,
respectively 0.74 KN/m2 pressure and -0.40 KN/m2 in Y
direction [13].
The imperfections were considered as global
inclination angles [6] on both X and Y directions of the
building.
The seismically mass was taken into account
according to [8] as a gravity load combination
represented as (G+0.6x0.8xQ, where G=DL and Q = IL).
Also, the accidental torsional effect (eai=+/-0.05) was
considered for the reinforced concrete building.
The seismically load was defined both in X (Ex) and
Y direction (Ey) as an elastic spectrum [8] with a peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.23g, gI=1.0, TB=0.15 s,
TC=0.5 s, TD=2.0 s, S = 1.2. For the reinforced concrete

Table 1. Beam and column cross sections

2.2 Loads

ISSN: 1790-2769

408

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

reinforcement. According to [6] and corresponding to

this type of concrete a young modulus of 29000 MPa
was used.
Reinforcement was modeled as modified Park
nonlinear using a yield strain of 0.015 and an ultimate
strain from 0.2 to 0.3 corresponding to yield strength of
230 MPa and an ultimate strength of 350 MPa (see Fig.
7.b). These limits were obtained from [3], corresponding
on Romanian plane rebars OB37 which have a
characteristic strength of 235MPa.

structure a seismic reduction factor q=1.5 was used and

for retrofitted reinforced concrete structure (with BRB)
q=6 (see Fig. 6).
7

TB

TC

Se(T), Sd(T)

q=1.5

5
4
3
q=6

2
1

TD

0
0

T[s]

Fig. 6: Elastic and design response spectrum [8]

According to [4] the following load combination
resulted (see Fig. 7)
Fig. 7: a. Reinforced concrete material nonlinear model
based on Kent and Park; b. modified Park nonlinear
model of steel reinforcement

3.2 RC elements (beams and columns)

Reinforced concrete elements were modeled as plastic
hinges concentrated at the ends of the elements. With the
specification that in case of beams plastic hinges were
concentrated in all points were the rebars change their
number from the upper part to the lower part of the cross
section and reverse (see Fig. 8 and Fig. 9).

Fig.7: Load combinations [8]

The lateral forces for pushover analysis were
considered modal distribution, and were determined as
example Equation 1 below:

Fi =

mi h i
(1)
mi h i

where, hi = the height of level i relative to the base of the

frame and mi = the mass at level i computed from the
fundamental combination G+0.6x0.8xQ and distributed
in the main nodes.
The modal pattern force distribution resulted with the
following values: f1=0.19, f2=0.337, f3=0.319, fr=0.155
(1 first floor, 2 second floor, 3 third floor, r roof
level). All these normalized forces were applied in mass
center of each story (in the middle of reinforced concrete
floors).

Fig. 8. Reinforce concrete beam element definition

function of cross section

3 RC Building modeling
3.1 Materials
Concrete material was modeled as nonlinear based on
Kent and Park model (see Fig. 7.a) with no tension [11].
The concrete was considered as unconfined due to [9]
according to, if the hoops are spaced at a distance > d/3
the component is unconfined, where d - distance from
extreme compression fiber to center of tension

ISSN: 1790-2769

Fig. 9. Element splitting and plastic hinges location on rc

elements in X direction and Y directions Fig.12

409

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

Also, due to existing floor/roofing system the

effective width of beams was not considered.

Plastic hinges were define as load deformation

relationship following [2]/[9] model as a deformation
controlled (ductile) typology (see Fig.10).

4 BRB system
The BRB system, was considered as an inverted V
system pinned at the ends, distributed on the external
frames of the RC building, as it can be seen in Fig. 12.
The BRB element is characterized by the same
behavior in compression as in tension. This behavior is
given by the core plates which absorbs the loads and by
yielding its dissipating seismic energy while steel tube
and infill material restrain the buckling of the core plate
(see Fig. 13).
Following steel design from [7], the specifications
from [1] and obtaining the values of some parameters by
correlation with the experimental part from the literature
a BRB design and modelling behaviour was obtained.
BRB system inelastic behaviour was modelled by
concentrated plasticity as a bilinear curve with
hardening. The material used for BRB was S235 grade
steel and for length between 4.2 and 4.6 m (function of
the frame span and height). However, a constant 2 m
was considered for the core of BRB element.

Fig. 10. Deformation controlled action model with

nonlinear load-deformation parameters and acceptance
criteria ([2]/[9])
In the case of beams a moment rotation relationship
for unconfined concrete was described following
acceptance criteria values from [2]/[9] tables, basing on
efforts obtained from gravity loads (see Fig. 11.a.). It
should be precise that after insertion of the inverted V
BRB system, the plastic hinges defined in beams at their
intersection with braces elements, were defined as
moment rotation curves at different stages of the axial
force (P-M-M) see Fig. 11.b. In the same way were
defined all plastic hinges for the columns, only that the
moment rotation relation was defined differently for
each direction of column cross section.

Fig 11. a. Moment rotation relation following FEMA

procedure; b. P-M-M surface interaction

As an observation, for more accurately results the

shear capacity of the elements need to be checked.

Fig.12. BRB system distribution in X and Y directions

3.3 Modeling hypothesis

Due to the existence of a linear modeling of plastic
hinges (from A to B from Fig. 10) in terms of momentrotation
curve,
component
effective
stiffness
corresponds to the secant value to the yield point of the
component. In our case, following [2]/[9] table, the
stiffness of beams and columns should be reduced by
50%, due to the fact that beams are nonprestressed and
columns have axial compression, due to design gravity
load, <0.3Agfc.
The stairs were not considered to be as a main part of
the building, so it was not taken into account in the
model.
Because of existing floor/roofing system defined by
thick parallel ribs, the floor/roof was considered to be as
a rigid diaphragm. This caused to all of its constrained
joints to move together as a planar diaphragm that is
rigid against membrane deformations. In this way all
constrained joints were connected to each other by links
that are rigid in the plane, but do not affect the out-ofplane deformation [12].

ISSN: 1790-2769

Fig.13. BRB element

In this manner a yield displacement y = 2.2 mm
resulted. The ultimate displacement u was estimated
based on experimental tests results presented in [10].
Based on these results, ductility ratios u/y were
estimated for tension and compression, amounting to 8.3
and 7.5 respectively. In order to obtain the adjustment of
the design strengths (maximum compression strength
Cmax and maximum tension strength Tmax) the formulas
from [1] were applied, see Equation 2:

Tmax = R y f y A...and...C max = R y f y A (2)

where, fy is the yield strength; Ry is the ratio of the
expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield
stress fy (considered equal to 1). Concerning the
experimental values of the compression adjustment
factor =1.05 and strain hardening adjustment factor
=1.25 they were obtained in same manner as the

410

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

Following nonlinear static (pushover) analysis, it was

observed the order of plastic hinges in elements
(attaining of CP, FEMA acceptance criteria) and the
effect of BRB retrofitting technique on RC building.
In Tables 3, 4 and 5 basing on FEMA assumption of
50% stiffness reduction, for both non-retrofitted frame
(RC) and for retrofitted one (RC+BRB), in X and Y
directions, are presented the elements from each storey
(columns, beams and braces in case of retrofitted
building). In this manner, it may be followed the order of
plastic hinges attaining collapse prevention (CP), their
corresponding top displacements (D) and base shear
forces (F) (see tables 3, 4 and 5).

coefficient u/y was found using formulas from [1], see

Equation 3:

Cmax
Tmax
and =
(3)
f fysc A
Tmax

where fysc= is the measured yield strength of the steel

core.
BRB member behaves according to a bilinear forcedeformation relationship with hardening. In Fig. 14 and
Fig. 15 is presented BRB behaviour model and the
corresponding areas of the steel core in dissipative zone.
As an observation the steel core (active zone) was
considered to be Lcore=2m for all 3 storeys in both
directions.
BRB behavior model - X direction

Force
(Compresion/Tension)
[KN]

1000
750
500
250
-20

-15

0
-5 -250 0

-10

10

15

20

-500
-750
-1000

Displacement [mm]

Table 3. Plastic hinges (CP) order and corresponding

F and D values from pushover analysis for columns

ground floor - A=(30 x 100)mm2

1'st floor - A=(20 x 100)mm2
2'nd floor - A=(20 x 50)mm2

Fig.14. BRB behavior model in X direction

BRB behavior model - Y direction

Force (Compresion/Tension)
[KN]

350
250
150
50
-20

-15

-10

-5

-50 0

10

15

20

-150

Table 4. Plastic hinges (CP) order and corresponding

F and D values from pushover analysis for beams

-250
-350

Displacement [mm]
ground floor, 1'st floor & 2'nd floor - A=(20 x 50)mm2

Fig.15. BRB behavior model in Y direction

5 Performance assessment
In Table 2 are presented the first three eigen modes
function of their value, direction and type, both for nonretrofitted frame (RC) and for retrofitted one
(RC+BRB).

Table 5. Plastic hinges (CP) order and corresponding

F and D values from pushover analysis for BRB
In order to have a reference for the stage of the
elements, the target displacement of the RC and
RC+BRB building was computed according to [8].
Analysis of the original RC showed an unsatisfactory
seismic response. Ultimate rotations in plastic hinges
corresponding to collapse prevention state are first
reached in columns followed by the ones in beams.
Because columns attain CP at a top displacement
roughly smaller than the top displacement demand result
a very limited global ductility of non-retrofitted building.

Table 2. Modal response of RC vs. RC+BRB

ISSN: 1790-2769

411

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

BRB system increase strength demand in RC members.

In this manner a convenient distance it will obtain
between reaching of BRB elements at ultimate
deformation versus the members (beams and columns)
of the structure.

In Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 may be observed the pushover

curves resulting from nonlinear analysis in terms of top
displacement and base shear force for both directions. In
this manner, comparing RC and RC+BRB, it may be
seen an increasing in strength of about 2.5 times, a
large increase of stiffness and around 4 times reduction
of the target displacement. These changes appeared due
to BRB system and as it may be seen that BRB elements
reach ultimate deformation state before columns.
This strengthening solution reduced the overall
damage in the structure, as less plastic hinges formed in
reinforced concrete elements at the target displacement.

References:
[1] AISC (2005) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
[2] ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2007) Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings, American Society of civil
Engineering (formerly FEMA 356)
[3] Clipii T. et all. (1999) Beton armat, Romania,
Editura Orizonturi Universitare, Timisoara.
[4] Eurocode 0 (April 2002) - Basis of structural design
CEN - European Committee for Standardization.
[5] Eurocode 1 (April 2002) Actions on structures - Part
1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight,
imposed loads for buildings. CEN - European
Committee for Standardization.
[6] Eurocode 2 (December 2003) Design of concrete
structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings FINAL DRAFT prEN 1992-1-1. CEN European Committee for Standardization
[7] Eurocode 3 (2003). Design of steel structures Part 11: General Rules and Rules for Buildings CEN European Committee for Standardization.
[8] Eurocode 8 - EN1998-1 - (December 2004) Design
of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings, CEN - European Committee for
Standardization
[9] FEMA 356, (2000) Prestandard and commentary for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
[10] Newell, J.& Higgins, C. (n.d.) Steel Confined
Yielding Damper For Earthquake Resistant Design
,NHMJ Young Researchers Symposium
June
21, 2003,http://cee.uiuc.edu/sstl/nhmj/ppt/Newell.ppt
[11] Park, R. & Paulay, T (1975) Reinforced Concrete
Structures, New Zealand ,John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.
[12] Structural Analysis Program (SAP2000).
[13] Steel Retro report (may-july 2008) Definition of the
reinforced concrete benchmark building for the
execution of comparative performance analyses
between steel intervention techniques (amended
version 1.1), WP 3, 4, 5 and 6: Cost, performance
and constructive analyses of steel solution for
retrofitting vertical elements, floors, roofs and
foundations RIVA Acciaio S.p.A. - Aurelio Braconi,
Alessandro Osta, University of Pisa - Luca Nardini,
Walter Salvatore

Fig. 16. Pushover curves for RC vs. RC+BRB and

corresponding target displacement on X direction

Fig. 17. Pushover curves for RC vs. RC+BRB and

corresponding target displacement on Y direction

6 Concluding Remarks
A nonlinear static analysis was applied on the three
dimensional model, with finite element method [12], of
the reinforced concrete building before and after global
retrofitting with BRB system.
The applied system showed a good effect on global
behavior of the RC building in terms of strength and
stiffness. However, a better response capacity of BRB
retrofitting system is expected if a local strengthening of
the elements (especially columns) will be applied.
The aim of this analysis was the illustration of
performance base evaluation of BRB retrofitting
procedure application, which it works only by local
strengthening. Also, a better sizing of BRB member in
balance with initial structural stiffness and strength may
be performed. Local strengthening of columns, maybe
beams too (with FRP), is needed due to the fact that

ISSN: 1790-2769

412

ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2