Working Group 7: Earthquake Resistant Structures

Geneva, 25 September 2015

Seismic Assessment and Retrofitting of Structures:

Eurocode8‐Part3 and the Greek Code on Seismic Structural
Interventions

Prof. Stephanos E. Dritsos, University of Patras, Greece

 CONTENT

• Introduction

• Performance Levels or Damage Levels

• Elements‘ Behaviour

• Documentation

• Methods of Analysis

• Seismic Strengthening Strategies - Methods of Strengthening the

Whole Structure

• Composite Elements

2
INTRODUCTION

3
 EUROCODES
European Standard (EN) for the Design
EN 1990 Eurocode 0:
Basis of Structural Design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures EN 1992 Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures

EN 1993 Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and concrete
structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design

EN 1998 Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake EN 1999 Eurocode 9:
resistance 4
Design of aluminium structures
 Eurocode 8- Design of structures for earthquake resistance

1: ΕΝ1998-1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

2: ΕΝ1998-2 Bridges

3: ΕΝ1998-3 Assessment and retrofitting of buildings

4: ΕΝ1998-4 Silos, tanks and pipelines

5: ΕΝ1998-5 Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical

aspects

6: ΕΝ1998-6 Towers, masts and chimneys

5
 CODE ENVIRONMENT
EUROPE U.S.A.
1983 CEB Bul. No. 162, “Assessment of
Concrete Structures and Design Procedures
for Upgrading (Redesign)”.
EC 8-Part 1.4, “Eurocode 8: Design
Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of
1995 Structures: Part 1-4: Strengthening and
ATC 40.
Repair of Buildings”
1996 “Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”.

FEMA 356.
“Prestandard and Commentary for the
2000
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”.

fib Bul.No24, “Seismic Assessment and

Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Buildings”.
2003
EC 8-Part3, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance. Part 3: Assessment
2005 and Retrofitting of Buildings”. Draft No 5.
2006 GCSI, “Greek Code of Structural Interventions”. ASCE/SEI 41, ASCE Standards Seismic
2007 Rehabilitationof Existing Buildings.

2008 ASCE/SEI 41, Supplement1,

Update ASCE/SEI 41. 6
2012 GCSI, Draft
 WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING OLD STRUCTURES
UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS
(a) The structural system of many old buildings was designed with architectural
excesses. Lack of regularity (geometry, strength or stiffness) in plan or
in elevation.
(b) A number of approximations and simplifications were adopted in the analysis.
Computers were not in use, 3D analysis was impossible, 2D rarely used. Beams
and columns were considered independent elements.

(c) Critical matters concerning the behaviour of structures under earthquake

actions were ignored.
 Ductility
 Capacity design
 Inadequate code provisions for detailing of concrete elements (minimum
stirrups,lower limit for compressive reinforcement, upper limit for tensile
reinforcement)
(d) Design for seismic actions much lower than that now accepted for new structures.
ESTIMATED SEISMIC CAPACITY OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS:
OLD/NEW ~ 1/3
7
 QUESTIONS
 Which structures have the priority to be strengthened and how to identify them?

 Is it possible (or is it worth) strengthening these structures and to what extent?

Is this preferable when compared to the demolition and reconstruction solution?

 What resources (materials, methods, techniques) are available to intervene and

under what standards are they to be applied?

 Which is the best method of intervention in a specific structure?

 Which is the design framework to assess the seismic capacity of an existing

structure and document choices for retrofitting or strengthening?

 What are the quality control procedures for intervention works?

8
REDESIGN A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED ISSUE
THAN THE DESIGN OF NEW STRUCTURES
 Limited knowledge, poorly documented for the subject

 Lack of codes or other regulations

 The configuration of the structural system of an existing structure may not

be permitted. However it exists

 High uncertainty in the basic data of the initial phase of documentation.

Hidden errors or faults

 Use of new materials which are still under investigation!

 Low (or negative) qualifications or experience of workmanship

9
 Why we need a new design framework in addition to the
existing one for new structures?
Existing Structures:
(a) Reflect the state of knowledge at the time of their construction
(b) May contain hidden gross errors
(c) May have been stressed in previous earthquakes
(or other accidental actions) with unknown effects
Structural assessment and redesign of an existing structure due to
a structural intervention are subjected to a different degree of
uncertainty than the design of a new structure
Different material and structural safety factors are required
Different analysis procedures may be necessary depending on the
completeness and reliability of available data
Usually, analytical procedures (or software) used for the design of
new structures are not suitable to assess existing structures. New
structures designed according to new codes necessarily fulfil specific code
requirements for being analysed acceptably with conventional analytical
procedures, e.g. linear elastic analysis 10
 THREE MAIN OBJECTIVES

 Assess the seismic capacity of an existing structure

 Decide the necessary intervention work

 Design the intervention work

11
 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
1st stage
Document the existing structure

2nd stage
Assessment of the (seismic) capacity of the structure

3rd stage
Decide if structural intervention required

4th stage
Design the structural intervention

5th stage Design in progress

Construct the intervention work

12
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
OR
DAMAGE LEVELS

13
 What is failure?

Action effects > Resistance

 Distinguishing elements for “Ductile" and “Brittle"

Brittle: Verified in terms of forces (known as M, N, V)

Ductile: Verified in terms of deformation

Let M Rd  150 KNm  M sd  200 KNm

In a study of a new building this is never accepted
However in an existing building this is very possible to occur
Questions: What level of damage will there be?
What are the consequences?
Is this acceptable?
14
 Damage Levels
Performance Levels or Limit States (LS)

LS Level A Limitation Damage (DL)

Immediate Occupancy (other Codes e.g.
FEMA): Minimal damage, elements have not
substantially yielded

LS Level B of Significant Damage (SD)

Life Safety (other Codes e.g. FEMA): Building
with serious damage accepted as the design
of new buildings

LS Level C of Near Collapse (NC)

Collapse prevention (other Codes e.g. FEMA):
Extensive and serious or severe damage, building
is very close to collapse

15
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Acceptable Performance Levels or Level of Protection (e.g. State of Damage)
of the Structure:
Level A: Immediately Occupancy (IO) or Damage Limitation (DL)
 Very light damage
 Structural elements retain their strength and stiffness
 No permanent drifts
 No significant cracking of infill walls
 Damage could be economically repaired
Level B: Life Safety (LS) or Significant Damage (SD)
 Significant damage to the structural system however retention
of some lateral strength and stiffness
 Vertical elements capable of sustaining vertical loads
 Infill walls severally damaged
 Moderate permanent drifts exist
 The structure can sustain moderate aftershocks
 The cost of repair may be high. The cost of reconstruction should be
16
examined as an alternative solution
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS

Level C: Collapse Prevention (CP) or Near Collapse (NP)

 Structure heavily damaged with low lateral strength and stiffness

 Vertical elements capable of sustaining vertical loads
 Most non-structural components have collapsed
 Large permanent drifts
 Structure is near collapse and possibly cannot survive a moderate
aftershock
 Uneconomical to repair. Reconstruction the most probable solution

17
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Gradual pushing (static horizontal loading) of structure up to failure
V3 V2 V1 δ1 δ2 δ3
3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1
(Base shear) Points (vi, δi)
V
V Performance Levels
Capacity curve
V3 A B
C
V2
V1
(Top displacement)
δ
δ1 δ2 δ3 δ Light Significant Heavily damage
18
 SEISMIC ACTIONS
What is the design seismic action?
Which return period should be selected for the seismic action?
Should this be the same as for new structures?
Design Levels
Occurrence probability Collapse prevention Life safety Immediately occupancy
in 50 years (CP) (LS) (IO)
2% CP2% LS2% DL2%
Return period 2475 years

10% CP10% LS10% DL10%

Return period 475 years

20% CP20% LS20% DL20%

Return period 225 years

50% CP50% LS50% DL50%

Return period 70 years

Usual design of new buildings

Design of important structures (remain functional during earthquake)
Minimum acceptable seismic action level
Instead, do nothing due to economic, cultural, aesthetic 19
and functional reasons
 Performance Levels according to the Greek Code
of Structural Interventions (Greek.C.S.I.)

Seismic activity
probability of
Minimal Damage Severe Damage
exceedance in the Collapse Prevention
(Immediate Occupancy) (Life Safety)
conventional design life
of 50 years
10%
(Seismic actions Α1 Β1 Γ1
according to ΕΚ8‐1)

50%
(Seismic actions = Α2 Β2 Γ2
0.6 x ΕΚ8‐1)

The public authority defines when the 50% probability is not permitted

20
ELEMENT’S BEHAVIOUR

21
 ELEMENT BEHAVIOR

Ductile Brittle
Flexure controlled Shear controlled
Sd  Rd Sd  Rd
deformation demand deformation capacity strength demand strength capacity

Seismically Primary Seismically Secondary

“Secondary” seismic element

 More damage is acceptable for the same Performance Level
 Considered not participating in the seismic action resisting system.
Strength and stiffness are neglected

 Able to support gravity loads when subjected to seismic displacements

22
 REINFORCED CONCRTETE STRUCTURES
Element’s Capacity Curve
d Μ
m θupl
y

M y  Ls
   ef 
3 y
F θy θd θu θ
Fy

Fy
K
y
δy δu δ 23
 Element’s Capacity
Chord rotation at yielding of a concrete element

Beams and columns

Walls of rectangular,
T- or barbell section

The value of the total chord rotation capacity of concrete elements under cyclic loading

The value of the plastic part of the chord rotation capacity of concrete elements under cyclic loading

24
 ELEMENT’S SAFETY VERIFICATION

S R
Inequality of Safety

d
Μ is the design action effect

Sd ≤ Rd

d
is the design resistance

θ u, dS
θy

θy
︵  u ) / 2 θ

S
R,
dR
For brittle components/mechanisms (e.g. shear) concern forces

θs
θ
d
,
d

d
For ductile components/mechanisms (e.g. flexural) concern deformations, Rd

(G.S.I. Code)
θ

A Level (IO) Rd  y
θ

1  y  u  Rd 1,8
B Level (LS)  “primary” elements
Rd
 Rd 2
θ

u “secondary” elements  Rd  1,8


Rd
 Rd
θ

u  Rd 1,8 for “primary” elements

C Level (NC) 
 Rd 1, 0 for “secondary” elements
Rd
 Rd 25
 ELEMENT’S SHEAR CAPACITY
Beams and Columns

rectangular web cross section circular cross section

Shear Walls

Short Columns (LV/h)≤2

26
DOCUMENTATION

27
 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
1st stage
Document the existing structure

2nd stage
Assessment of the (seismic) capacity of the structure

3rd stage
Decide if structural intervention required

4th stage
Design the structural intervention

5th stage Design in progress

Construct the intervention work

28
 Documentation of an Existing Structure
• Strength of materials
• Reinforcement
• Geometry (including foundation)
• Actual loads
• Past damage or “wear and tear” or defects

Knowledge Levels (KL)

Confidence factors (Other safety factors for existing
materials and elements)
New safety factors for new materials

29
 Knowledge Levels (KL)

 Full Knowledge KL3

 Normal Knowledge KL2
 Limited Knowledge KL1
 Inadequate: May allowed only for secondary elements

30
 DOCUMENTATION
Knowledge Levels and Confidence Factors
KL1: Limited Knowledge
KL2: Normal Knowledge
KL3: Full Knowledge

=
1.35

=
1.20

=
31
1.00
 Knowledge Levels (KL) for Materials Data
Concrete (G.C.S.I.)
 Assessment methods fc:
- Combination of indirect (non-destructive) methods.
- Calibrate with destructive methods involving taking samples (e.g. cores).
- Pay attention to correct correlation between destructive and non-destructive methods.
- Final use of calibrated non-destructive methods throughout the structure
 Required number of specimens
- Not all together, i.e. spread out over all floors and all components
- At least 3 cores per alike component per two floors, definitely for the "critical"
floor level
 Additional methods (acoustic or Schmidt Hammer or extrusion or rivet for
fc < 15 MPa)
- Full knowledge/storey: 45% vertical elements/25% horizontal elements
- Normal knowledge/storey: 30% vertical elements/25% horizontal elements
- Limited knowledge/storey: 15% vertical elements/7.5% horizontal elements

Steel
Visual identification and classification is allowed. In this case, the KL is32
32
considered KL2
 Knowledge Levels for Details Data
 Data Sources:
1. Data from the original study plans that has proof of implementation

2. Data from the original study plans which has been implemented

with a few modifications identified during the investigation

3. Data from a reference statement (legend) in the original study plan

4. Data that has been established and/or measured and/or acquired reliably

5. Data that has been determined indirectly

6. Data that has been reasonably obtained from engineering judgement

33
 Knowledge Levels for Details Data (G.C.S.I.)
ORIGINAL DATA ORIGIN NOTES DATA
DESIGN
TYPE AND THICKNESS, WEIGHT REINFORCEMENT
DRAWINGS
GEOMETRY OF etc. OF INFILL LAYOUT AND
FOUNDATION OR WALLS, CLADDING, DETAILING
SUPERSTRUCTURE COVERING, etc.
Exist Do KL1 KL2 KL3 KL1 KL2 KL3 KL1 KL2 KL3
not
exist

1 Data that is derived from a (1)

drawing of the original design
that is proved to have been
applied without modification

2 Data that is derived from a (2)

drawing of the original design
that has been applied with few
modifications

3 Data that is derived from a (3)

reference (e.g. legend in a
drawing of the original design)

4 Data that has been determined (4)

and/or measured and/or surveyed
reliably

5 Data that has been determined by (5)

an indirect but sufficiently
reliable manner

6 Data that has been reasonably (6)

assumed using the Engineer’s
judgment
34
METHODS OF ANALYSIS

35
 METHODS OF ANALYSIS

In Redesign other analysis methods are required

Elastic analysis methods currently in use (for new buildings) have a
reliability under specific conditions to make sure new buildings to be
met.

In most cases, these conditions are not met in the old buildings.

36
 METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Same as those used for design new construction (EC8-Part 1)

 Lateral force analysis (linear)

 Modal response spectrum analysis (linear)
 Non-linear static (pushover) analysis
 Non-linear time history dynamic analysis
 q-factor approach

37
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Gradual pushing (static horizontal loading) of structure up to failure
V3 V2 V1 δ1 δ2 δ3
3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1
(Base shear) Points (vi, δi)
V
V Performance Levels
Capacity curve
V3 A B
C
V2
V1
(Top displacement)
δ
δ1 δ2 δ3 δ Light Significant Heavily damage
38
 CAPACITY DEMAND
Φd Φd

acceptable demand curve acceptable curve

Τ2 T1
Φδ = 2 Φd g
4π T2

T1 T2 T Φδ
code elastic spectrum V demand curves
elastic spectrum
V = α Φd W n a β
1 1 1

δ = β Φδ 2 0.90 1.20
5 0.80 1.35

inelastic spectrum δ
39
 SAFETY VERIFICATION
Checking a Structure’s Capacity
V
Α Sufficient for Level A

Sufficient for Level B

Α Β
Sufficient for Level C
C
Α Β
Demand Curve
Insufficient
(Required Seismic Capacity)

Safe Behaviour δ

Unsafe behaviour
40
 Seismic Strengthening Strategies
Methods of Strengthening the Whole
Structure

41
SEISMIC STREGHTENING STRATEGIES

(d) Enhancing strength and stiffness

(c) Enhancing strength and ductility

(b2) As (b1) plus some strength increase

Base Shear

(s) Required seismic capacity

(a) Initial capacity (b1) Retrofitting local weakness and enhancement of ductility

Displacement

Safe Design

Unsafe Design
42
 SEISMIC STRENGHTENIG METHODS
Strength
Strength & Ductility
Ductility

Add New Walls Jackets

Steel or Adding RC (a) of RC
(a) Infill walls
Concrete Wing Walls
(b) Externally attached to the (b) of steel elements
Bracing
structural system (c) of composite materials
(specific design)

Strength & Stiffness

43
The relative effectiveness of strengthening
44
 Adding Simple Infill

 Addition of walls from: a) Unreinforced or reinforced concrete

(cast in situ or prefabricated)
b) Unreinforced or reinforced masonry
 No specific requirement to connect infill to the existing frame
 Modelling of infills by diagonal strut
 Low ductility of infill. Recommended m ≤ 1,5

WARNING
Additional shear forces are induced in the columns and beams of the frame

45
 Strengthening of existing masonry infills
 Reinforced shotcrete concrete layers applied to both sides of the wall
Minimum concrete thickness 50 mm
Minimum reinforcement ratio ρvertical = ρhorizontal = 0,005

Essential to positively connect both sides by bolting through the wall

No need to connect to existing frame as it is an infill

All new construction must be suitably connected to the existing foundation

46

46
 Frame Encasement
Reinforced walls are constructed from one column to another enclosing the frame
(including the beam) with jackets placed around the columns. Note, all new
construction must be suitably connected to the existing foundation

New column

New wall
Existing column

New column

New wall
Existing column
47
 New wall
Existing column

New wall
Existing column

Jacket

Infilling new shear walls

Existing column New wing wall

Existing column New wing wall

Jacket

Addition of new wing walls 48

Existing vertical element configuration (PLAN)
49
Strengthening proposal
50
51
52
53
 Schematic arrangement of connections between
existing building and new wall

Addition of new external walls

54
Addition of a bracing system 55
56
57
Temporary support and stiffening of the damaged soft floor
58
COMPOSITE ELEMENTS

59
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF INTERVENTIONS
Greek Retrofitting Code (GRECO) Ch. 8 Concrete Steel FRP

8.1 General requirements

Interface verification
8.2 Interventions for critical regions of linear structural elements
Interventions with a capacity objective against flexure with axial force
Interventions with the objective of increasing the shear capacity
Interventions with the objective of increasing local ductility
Interventions with the objective of increasing the stiffness
8.3 Interventions for joints of frames
Inadequacy due to diagonal compression in the joint
Inadequacy of joint reinforcement
8.4 Interventions for shear walls
Interventions with a capacity objective against flexure with axial force
Interventions with the objective of increasing the shear capacity
Interventions with the objective of increasing the ductility
Interventions with the objective of increasing the stiffness

8.5 Frame encasement

Addition of simple “infill”
Converting frames to to shear walls
Strengthening of existing masonry infill
Addition of bracing, conversion of frames to vertical trusses
8.6 Construction of new lateral shear walls
Stirrups
Foundations for new shear walls
Diaphragms
60
8.7 Interventions for foundation elements
 EXPERIMENTAL WORK
(UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS)

61
Damage to a specimen with shotcrete and dowels 62
Damage to a specimen with poured concrete, smooth
interface without dowels 63 63
Addition of a new concrete layer 64
to the top of a cantilever slab
Beam strengthened with a new concrete layer

Interface failure due to inadequate anchorage

of the new bars at the supports
65
BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION

Repaired/Strengthened Element

Multi – Phased Element

Composite Element

Influence of Interface Connection

66
 DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Into the existing framework for new constructions
Supplemented by:

 Control of Sufficient Connection Between

Contact Surfaces

 Determination of Strength and Deformation

Capacity of the Strengthened Element
- As a Composite Element (Multi-Phased Element)

67
 CONTROL OF A SUFFICIENT CONNECTION
BETWEEN CONTACT SURFACES

Sd  Rd

V interface
Sd  V interface
Rd

Interface Shear Force  Interface Shear Resistance

68
 int erface
INTERFACE SHEAR FORCES: V sd

Viinterface
j  FAB  FCD Viinterface
j  FAB  FCD

(a) strengthening in the tensile zone (b) strengthening in the compressive zone

69
 Technological
guidelines for
repairs and
strengthening:

70
Roughening by sandblasting
71
Use of a scabbler to improve frictional resistance by removing
the exterior weak skin of the concrete to expose the aggregate

72
Concrete jacketing in practice 73
74
 75
Total jacket
Inserting intermediate links in sections with a high
aspect ratio

76
Inserting intermediate stirrups in square sections
NO YES

135ο bend to form hooks

77
Bar buckling due to stirrup ends opening 78
Welding of jacket’s stirrup ends 79
 int erface
INTERFACE SHEAR RESISTANCE: V Rd

Mechanisms
 Friction and Adhesion

 Dowel Action

 Clamping Action

 Welded Connectors

80
 UNREINFORCED INTERFACES
4 τ/τfud  f 
sf
rough interface with adhesion
s fu
 0 ,5  
   1,14 3
s f / s fu 
 fud 
3
τfud
τ (N/mm )
2

rough interface without adhesion

2 sf  f  sf
 0 ,5     0,81  0,19
s fu  s fu
 fud 
smooth interface with adhesion

fu  0.4(f c2  c )1/ 3

1

0
0 sf
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5sfu sfu
s (mm)

(CEB Bul. No. 162, 1983) (GRECO, 2012)

Concrete-to-concrete adhesion Roughened interface concrete-to-concrete

friction

81
 REINFORCED INTERFACES
Additional Friction
When a Steel Bar Crosses an Interface, a Clamping Action May Occur if:

 Surface of Existing Concrete has been Roughened

 The Steel Bar is Adequately Anchored

(Tassios and Vintzeleou, 1987) (1) When Shear Stress is Applied

(2) Slip Occurs

(3) Contact Surface Opens (one surface

rides up over the other due to roughness)

(4) Tensile Strength is Activated in the

Steel Bar

(5) Compression Stress (σc) is Mobilized

at the Interface

Clamping Action (6) Frictional Resistance is Activated

82
 Reinforced Interfaces
Frictional resistance

τ/τfud sf  f 
s fu
 0 ,5  
   1,14 3
s f / s fu 
 fud 
τfud

sf  f  sf
 0 ,5     0,81  0,19
s fu  s fu
 fud 

fud  0.4(f cd2  (cd  d f yd ))1/ 3

0 sf
0.5sfu sfu
(GRECO, 2012)

83
Reinforced Interfaces

Dowel action
84
 Shear Resistance
for Dowel Action as a function of the interface slip

V  V  4 3

 V 
  
sd 0 ,1d u 1,80d u  sd

 0 ,5 
sd
 
 Vud   Vud  

Vud 5db
Vsd
db
3db

0,5Vud 6db

s A minimum concrete cover is

0.1d
0,1d=0.005d s sduduu=0,05d
=0,1d b necessary for full activation
0.1s b d
u
uu b of dowel action

Vud  1.3 d b2 fc f y 85
Use of steel dowels and roughening the surface of an original column

 Most popular in practice to achieve a sufficient connection at the interface 86

Reinforced Interfaces
Bent Connecting Steel Bars

87
 Bent Bar Model
(Tassios, 2004)

hs When s occur at the interface one leg of the

Ts bent bar is elongated by s/ 2
new bar old bar the other is shortened

s Tensile and Compressive Leg Stresses are mobilized:

s/ 2 s s
sb   and sb  s  f yb
2h s 2h s 2h s
s

Force is Transferred between Reinforcements:

Ts Ts  Asb  Es (s / 2h s )  Tsy  2Asb f yb

88
 Force Transferred – Interface Slippage
1.2

1.0
Tsy  2 Asb f yb
0.8
Ts /Tsy

0.6

hs = 60 mm
0.4
hs = 120 mm

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
s (mm)

Mechanism is mobilized for very small Slippage

89
Superposition of shear resistance mechanisms
Vf+c Vf

Vf+c,u V fi

Sf,u 2 mm S [mm] Sf S [mm]

a) Adhesion and friction b) Clamping action

Vd Vtot

Vtot,u

Vd,u

Sd,u S [mm] Stot,u S [mm]

c) Dowel action d) Superposition of all actions

Vtot   D Vd   f V f 90
 P

Full interaction

Partial interaction

Independent action

91
CAPACITY OF MULTI-PHASED ELEMENT

existing
element

new
element

(a) (b) (c)

Distribution of Strain With Height of Cross Section

92
Possible strain and stress distributions 93
 CAPACITY CURVES
F

Fy,μ Monolithic Element

Fy,ε
Strengthened Element
Action effect

Fres,μ

Κε Fres,ε
Κμ
δy,μ δy,ε δu,ε δu,μ δ
Deformation

δ δy

δuδu
ΚΚ

Κ
=
Κ
=

Κ
=
y
ε ,
,

ε ,
,
Fy,ε
ε μ
κ

Κr =
δ
y

δ
u
μ

μ
Fy,μ

94
 MONOLITHIC BEHAVIOUR FACTORS
 For the Stiffness:
the stiffness of the strengthened element
kk 
the stiffness of the monolithic element
 For the Resistance:
the strength of the strengthened element
kr 
the strength of the monolithic element
 For the Displacement:
the displacement at yield of the strengthened element
k y 
the displacement at yield of the monolithic element
the ultimate displacement of the strengthened element
k y 
the ultimate displacement of the monolithic element
(EI)strengthened = kk (EI)M
Rstrengthened = kr RM
δi,strengthened = kδi δi,M 95
Addition of a new concrete layer
96
to the top of a cantilever slab
 Monolithic Factors
 Approximations according to G.C.S.I.
For slabs:

kk = 0,85 kr = 0,95 kθy = 1,15 kθu = 0,85

For concrete jackets:

kk = 0,80 kr = 0,90 kθy = 1,25 kθu = 0,80

For other elements:

kk = 0,80 kr = 0,85 kθy = 1,25 kθu = 0,75

97
 Monolithic Factors
Influence of Interface Connecting Conditions in Case of
Concrete Jackets
Monolithic coefficient of stiffness Monolithic coefficient of resistance

1.00 1.050
0.95 1.025
0.90 1.000
0.85 0.975

Kr
Kk

0.80 0.950
0.75 0.925
first crack first crack
0.70 steel yield 0.900
steel yield
0.65 failure 0.875 failure
0.60 0.850
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Friction coefficient Friction coefficient

For μ=1.4 kk = 0.80 and kr = 0.94

kk = 0.70 and kr = 0.80 (EC8, Part 1.4)

kk = 0.80 and kr = 0.90 (G.C.S.I.)

98