Working Group 7: Earthquake Resistant Structures

Geneva, 25 September 2015

SeismicAssessmentandRetrofittingofStructures:
Eurocode8Part3andtheGreekCodeonSeismicStructural
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

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
resistance

EN 1999 Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures

Eurocode 8- Design of structures for earthquake resistance

1: 1998-1

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

2: 1998-2

Bridges

3: 1998-3

Assessment and retrofitting of buildings

4: 1998-4

Silos, tanks and pipelines

5: 1998-5

Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical

aspects

6: 1998-6

Towers, masts and chimneys

5

CODE ENVIRONMENT

EUROPE
1983

1995
1996

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
Structures: Part 1-4: Strengthening and
Repair of Buildings

fib Bul.No24, Seismic Assessment and

Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Buildings.

2005

EC 8-Part3, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for

Earthquake Resistance. Part 3: Assessment
and Retrofitting of Buildings. Draft No 5.

2006

GCSI, Greek Code of Structural Interventions.

2007
2008
2012

ATC 40.
Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.

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

2000

2003

U.S.A.

GCSI, Draft

ASCE/SEI 41, ASCE Standards Seismic

Rehabilitationof Existing Buildings.
ASCE/SEI 41, Supplement1,
Update ASCE/SEI 41.

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
10
procedures, e.g. linear elastic analysis

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

PERFORMANCELEVELS
OR
DAMAGELEVELS

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

DamageLevels
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
examined as an alternative solution

16

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

1 2 3

V1

3
3

3 2 1

Points (vi, i)

(Base shear)

Performance Levels

Capacity curve

V3
V2
V1

(Top displacement)

1 2 3

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
in 50 years

Collapse prevention
(CP)

Life safety
(LS)

Immediately occupancy
(IO)

2%
Return period 2475 years

CP2%

LS2%

DL2%

10%
Return period 475 years

CP10%

LS10%

DL10%

20%
Return period 225 years

CP20%

LS20%

DL20%

50%
Return period 70 years

CP50%

LS50%

DL50%

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
and functional reasons

19

Performance Levels according to the Greek Code

of Structural Interventions (Greek.C.S.I.)
Seismicactivity
probabilityof
exceedanceinthe
conventionaldesignlife
of50years

MinimalDamage
(ImmediateOccupancy)

SevereDamage
(LifeSafety)

CollapsePrevention

10%
(Seismicactions
accordingto 81)

50%
(Seismicactions =
0.6x81)

The public authority defines when the 50% probability is not permitted
20

ELEMENTSBEHAVIOUR

21

ELEMENT BEHAVIOR
Ductile

Brittle

Flexure controlled

Shear controlled

Sd Rd

deformation demand

deformation capacity

Seismically Primary

Sd Rd
strength demand

strength capacity

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

REINFORCEDCONCRTETESTRUCTURES
ElementsCapacityCurve

d
m
y
ef

upl

M y Ls
3 y
y

Fy

K
y

Fy

y
23

Elements 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

Inequality of Safety

is the design action effect

Sd Rd

is the design resistance

u ) / 2

Rd

1 y u
Rd 2

u
Rd
Rd
u

Rd
Rd

C Level (NC)

concern deformations,

Rd

concern forces

,
d

Rd

B Level (LS)

A Level (IO)

For ductile components/mechanisms (e.g. flexural)

For brittle components/mechanisms (e.g. shear)

dR
R,
d
S

u, dS

(G.S.I. Code)

d
S R

ELEMENTS SAFETY VERIFICATION

primary elements
secondary elements

Rd 1,8
Rd 1, 0

Rd 1,8
Rd 1,8

for primary elements

for secondary elements

25

ELEMENTS 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

KnowledgeLevels(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

Assessment methods fc:

Concrete (G.C.S.I.)

- 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.)

DATA ORIGIN

ORIGINAL
DESIGN
DRAWINGS

Exist

NOTES

DATA
TYPE AND
GEOMETRY OF
FOUNDATION OR
SUPERSTRUCTURE

Do
not
exist

KL1

Data that is derived from a

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

(1)

Data that is derived from a

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

(2)

Data that is derived from a

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

(3)

Data that has been determined

and/or measured and/or surveyed
reliably

(4)

Data that has been determined by

an indirect but sufficiently
reliable manner

(5)

Data that has been reasonably

assumed using the Engineers
judgment

(6)

KL2

KL3

THICKNESS, WEIGHT
etc. OF INFILL
WALLS, CLADDING,
COVERING, etc.

KL1

KL2

KL3

REINFORCEMENT
LAYOUT AND
DETAILING

KL1

KL2

KL3

34

METHODSOFANALYSIS

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

1 2 3

V1

3
3

3 2 1

Points (vi, i)

(Base shear)

Performance Levels

Capacity curve

V3
V2
V1

(Top displacement)

1 2 3

Light

Significant Heavily

damage
38

CAPACITY DEMAND
d

acceptable curve

acceptable demand curve

T1

T2

2
=
2 d g
4

T1
T2

code elastic spectrum

demand curves
elastic spectrum

V = d W

0.90

1.20

0.80

1.35

inelastic spectrum

39

SAFETY VERIFICATION
Checking a Structures Capacity

Sufficient for Level A

Insufficient

Safe Behaviour
Unsafe behaviour

Sufficient for Level B

Sufficient for Level C

Demand Curve
(Required Seismic Capacity)

40

SeismicStrengtheningStrategies
MethodsofStrengtheningtheWhole
Structure

41

SEISMIC STREGHTENING STRATEGIES

(d) Enhancing strength and stiffness

Base Shear

(c) Enhancing strength and ductility

(b2) As (b1) plus some strength increase

(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
&
Ductility

Strength

Add New Walls

(a) Infill walls
(b) Externally attached to the
structural system
(specific design)

Steel or
Concrete
Bracing

Adding RC
Wing Walls

Ductility

Jackets
(a) of RC
(b) of steel elements
(c) of composite materials

Strength & Stiffness

43

The relative effectiveness of strengthening

44

AddingSimpleInfill
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

Strengtheningofexistingmasonryinfills

Reinforced shotcrete concrete layers applied to both sides of the wall

Minimum concrete thickness 50 mm
Minimum reinforcement ratio vertical = horizontal = 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

FrameEncasement
Reinforcedwallsareconstructedfromonecolumntoanotherenclosingtheframe
(includingthebeam)withjacketsplacedaroundthecolumns.Note,allnew
constructionmustbesuitablyconnectedtotheexistingfoundation
New column

New wall
Existing column
New column

Existing column

New wall

47

New wall
Existing column

New wall
Existing column
Jacket

Infilling new shear walls

Existing column

Existing column

New wing wall

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

COMPOSITEELEMENTS

59

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF INTERVENTIONS

Greek Retrofitting Code (GRECO) Ch. 8

Concrete

Steel

FRP

8.1Generalrequirements
Interfaceverification
8.2Interventionsforcriticalregionsoflinearstructuralelements
Interventionswithacapacityobjectiveagainstflexurewithaxialforce
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasingtheshearcapacity
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasinglocalductility
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasingthestiffness
8.3Interventionsforjointsofframes
Inadequacyduetodiagonalcompressioninthejoint
Inadequacyofjointreinforcement
8.4Interventionsforshearwalls
Interventionswithacapacityobjectiveagainstflexurewithaxialforce
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasingtheshearcapacity
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasingtheductility
Interventionswiththeobjectiveofincreasingthestiffness
8.5Frameencasement
Additionofsimpleinfill
Convertingframestotoshearwalls
Strengtheningofexistingmasonryinfill
Additionofbracing,conversionofframestoverticaltrusses
8.6Constructionofnewlateralshearwalls
Stirrups
Foundationsfornewshearwalls
Diaphragms
8.7Interventionsforfoundationelements

60

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

to the top of a cantilever slab

64

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
interface
Sd

Interface Shear Force

interface
Rd

Interface Shear Resistance

68

INTERFACE SHEAR FORCES: V

Viinterface
FAB FCD
j
(a) strengthening in the tensile zone

int erface
sd

Viinterface
FAB FCD
j
(b) strengthening in the compressive zone

69

Technological
guidelinesfor
repairsand
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

Total jacket

75

Inserting intermediate links in sections with a high

aspect ratio

76

Inserting intermediate stirrups in square sections

NO

YES

135 bend to form hooks

77

Bar buckling due to stirrup ends opening

78

Welding of jackets stirrup ends

79

INTERFACE SHEAR RESISTANCE: V

int erface
Rd

Mechanisms

Friction and Adhesion

Dowel Action

Clamping Action

Welded Connectors

80

UNREINFORCED INTERFACES
/fud

4
rough interface with adhesion

sf
s fu

1,14

/ s fu

fud

(N/mm )

f
0 ,5

fud

rough interface without adhesion

sf
s fu

smooth interface with adhesion

f
0 ,5

fud

sf
0,81 0,19
s fu

fu 0.4(f c2 c )1/ 3

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.5sfu

sfu

sf

s (mm)
(CEB Bul. No. 162, 1983)

Concrete-to-concrete adhesion

(GRECO, 2012)

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 (c) is Mobilized
at the Interface

Clamping Action

(6) Frictional Resistance is Activated

82

Reinforced Interfaces
Frictional resistance
/fud

sf
s fu

f
0 ,5

fud

1,14

/ s fu

fud
sf
s fu

f
0 ,5

fud

sf
0,81 0,19
s fu

fud 0.4(f cd2 (cd d f yd ))1/ 3

0

0.5sfu

sfu

sf
(GRECO, 2012)

83

Reinforced Interfaces
V

Dowel action
84

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

3
V 4

V
sd
sd

sd 0 ,1d u 1,80d u
0 ,5

Vud
Vud

Vud
Vsd

5db
3db

0,5Vud

db
6db

s
s
0.1d
0,1d=0.005d
u
0.1s
uu
b d

Vud 1.3 d b2

=0,1d b
sduduu=0,05d
b

fc f y

A minimum concrete cover is

necessary for full activation
of dowel action

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)

When

hs

occur at the interface one leg of the

bent bar is elongated by

Ts
new bar

old bar
s

the other is shortened

s/ 2

Tensile and Compressive Leg Stresses are mobilized:

sb

s/ 2
s
s

f yb
and sb s
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

Ts /Tsy

0.8
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
s (mm)

0.7

0.8

0.9

Mechanism is mobilized for very small Slippage

1.0

89

Superposition of shear resistance mechanisms

Vf+c

Vf

Vf+c,u

V fi

Sf,u 2 mm

S [mm]

a) Adhesion and friction

Sf

S [mm]

Stot,u

S [mm]

b) Clamping action
Vtot

Vd

Vtot,u
Vd,u

Sd,u

S [mm]

c) Dowel action

d) Superposition of all actions

Vtot D Vd f V f

90

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
Monolithic Element

Action effect

Fy,
Fy,

Strengthened Element

Fres,
Fres,

y, y,

uu
=

Deformation

,
y

Fy,
Fy,

r =

y
=

u, u,

94

MONOLITHIC BEHAVIOUR FACTORS

For the Stiffness:
kk

the stiffness of the strengthened element

the stiffness of the monolithic element

For the Resistance:

kr

the strength of the strengthened element

the strength of the monolithic element

For the Displacement:

k y

the displacement at yield of the strengthened element

the displacement at yield of the monolithic element

k y

the ultimate displacement of the strengthened element

the ultimate displacement of the monolithic element

(EI)strengthened = kk (EI)M
Rstrengthened = kr RM
i,strengthened = ki i,M

95

Addition of a new concrete layer

to the top of a cantilever slab

96

Monolithic Factors

Approximations according to G.C.S.I.

For slabs:
kk = 0,85

kr = 0,95

ky = 1,15

ku = 0,85

ky = 1,25

ku = 0,80

ky = 1,25

ku = 0,75

For concrete jackets:

kk = 0,80

kr = 0,90

For other elements:

kk = 0,80

kr = 0,85

97

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

1.00

1.050

0.95

1.025

0.90

1.000

0.85

0.975
Kr

Kk

Monolithic coefficient of stiffness

0.80
0.75

0.950
0.925

first crack

0.70

steel yield

0.900

0.65

failure

0.875

first crack
steel yield
failure

0.850

0.60
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Friction coefficient

For =1.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Friction coefficient

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