International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022

Available at www.ijsred.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

Comparative Study on Column Jacketing Using Three Alternative

Materials (RCC, Steel, FRC) in the Seismic Performance of a RC
Framed Building
Abdul Imran Basha*, G Manidhar (Asst Professor)**
*(Amrita Sai Institute of Science and Technology, Paritala, Andhra Pradesh
[email protected])
** (Amrita Sai Institute of Science and Technology, Paritala, Andhra Pradesh
[email protected])

----------------------------------------************************----------------------------------
Abstract:
There has been an increase in the occurrence of the natural disasters globally, in the recent past.
Earthquakes are leading among these in terms of loss of life, property and extensive damages to structures.
As such, seismic retrofitting has evolved as a subject of modern contest and engineering importance.
Column jacketing is one of the most common methods practiced as a part of seismic retrofitting strategies.
Different materials are in use for strengthening the columns and among them RCC, Steel and FRP are
more popular. The choice of any of these three materials has so far been motional and is left most of the
times to the practice engineers and execution terms giving priority to the availability of the materials and
skills of field force. However, much depends on the actual interaction of these materials with the existing
materials of columns, which is often ignored in the design of thesis while modelling the structures. RC
framed buildings of five to six storeys are most commonly found in all the seismic zones in Indians
scenario. Therefore, there is a strong need to look into the lapses and ignorances in modelling the
retrofitting aspects such as column strength in these types of buildings.
Realizing this need, a six (G+5) storeyed reinforced concrete framed building is taken up as a case study in
the present work. The building is assumed to be originally in a zone 2 location which is upgraded to zone
3, requiring retrofitting of columns. Three alternative materials are tried for column strengthening viz.,
RCC, Steel and FRP. For each of these materials two models are tried; one normally adopted in the design
offices and the other proposed in the present work to go closer to the actual practice. ETABS software is
used for the analysis. Results indicate that steel jacketing is more effective as per both the models and that
there is a strong need to properly model the structure reflecting the field practices of retrofitting.

Keywords —Column Jacketing, Seismic Performance

----------------------------------------************************--------------------------------
responsible for multiple damages. It is difficult to
I. INTRODUCTION classify the damage, and even more difficult to
Reinforced concrete buildings have been relate it in quantitative manner. This is because of
damaged on a very large scale in Bhuj earthquake the dynamic character of the seismic action and the
of January 26, 2001. These buildings have been inelastic response of the structures. In spite of all
damaged due to various reasons. Identifying a the weaknesses in the structure, either due to code
single cause of damage to buildings is not possible. imperfections or error in analysis and design, the
There are combinations of reasons, which are configuration system of the structure and

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 56

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022
Available at www.ijsred.com
proportioning and detailing of structure elements 2) Importance of Building:Each building is built for its
play a vital role in the catastrophe. It has been own purpose. Some old buildings have extra values, such as
historical values, that will strongly affect the final decision.
observed that the causes of damage in Bhuj
earthquake are more or less similar to those 3) Availability of adequate technology:Some of
observed in other past earthquakes (Cassaro and retrofitting techniques need a “modern” technology to
implement it. A decision ofretrofitting must consider whether
Romero,1986;EERI,1990,1993, 2000). The the region provides such technology.
principal causes of damage to buildings are soft
4) Skilled workmanship to implement the proposed
storeys, floating columns, mass irregularities, poor measure: Some of retrofitting techniques need
quality of material and faulty construction practices, unusualconstruction method to implement it. A skilled
inconsistent seismic performance, soil and workmanship must be provided to implement the proposed
foundation effect, pounding of adjacent structures measures.
and inadequate ductile detailing in structural 5) Duration of Works: Some of retrofitting works will
components. consume less time to finish it, but others take more time to
complete. Hence, it is important to take into the consideration
the duration of works.
6) Cost intervention: Cost benefit analysis must be
conducted before the decision is made.
The objectives of seismic retrofitting as per IS
13935:1993are as follows
• Improving the building's lateral strength and
stiffness.
• Increasing ductility and increasing energy
dissipation capacity
• Bringing the structure together.
• Identifying and eliminating causes of
weakness or stress concentration.
• Increase the number of lateral load resisting
parts to increase redundancy.
• The retrofit plan should be affordable.
• Each retrofit technique should accomplish
the performance goal on a consistent basis.
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Realising this need, a detailed numerical
investigation is taken up in this work on a eleven
(G+10) storied RC framed building, for seismic
zone-3.The effectiveness of 3 types of column
jacketing viz., RCC, STEEL and FRP, in
Fig. 1 Damage patterns of RC Framed buildings
contributing for better seismic performance of the
A. Factors considered for Retrofitting building is checked in terms of bending moments,
Some factors should be considered in order to axial forces developed in the columns in various
decide whether to retrofit or not are: locations of the building. For each material, one
1) Technical Aspect: The technical aspects include the model is tried which is closer to the field practice
testing of materials and structural analysis. These measures where the jacket is given connections with the
are important to understand the condition of the structures existing column in the form of shear connectors,
related to the recent building codes.. welds etc.

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 57

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-–
Development Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022
Available at www.ijsred.com
III. MODELS CONSIDERED
All together five models are considered in the
present work. The details are as follows,
Normal RCC column (400mmX400mm).
MODEL-1: 1: Normal RCC column (400mmX400mm)
upgraded zone-3.
MODEL-2: 2: Retrofitted model with RC jacketing
modelled closer to field practice (400mmX400mm
existing column with a RC jacket of 100mm all- all
round).
MODEL-3: Retrofitted model with h steel jacketing
closer to field practice
MODEL-4: 4: Retrofitted model with FRP jacketing Fig. 4Steel Jacketing for column

closer to field practice.

Fig. 5FRP Jacketing for column

Fig. 2 Plan and Elevation of Building A. Building Details

• Type of frame :Ordinary RC moment
resisting
esisting frame fixed at the base
• Seismic zone: III
• Number of storeys: 11
• Floor height: 3 m
• Depth of Slab: 125 mm
• Spacing between frames: 3m along both
directions
• Live load on floor level: 3 kN/m^2
• Live load on roof level: 1.5 kN/m^2
Fig. 3 Concrete Jacketing for column • Floor finish: 1.0 kN/m^2
• Terrace water proofing: 1.5 kN/m^2
• Materials :M 20 concrete, Fe 415 steel and
Brick infill
• Thickness of infill wall: 230mm (Exterior
walls)
• Thickness of infill wall: 150 mm (Interior
walls)
• Density of concrete :25 kN/m^3
• Density of infill :20 kN/m^3

©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 58

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022
Available at www.ijsred.com
• Type of soil :Rocky • 1.5(D.L-EQZ)
• Response spectra :As per IS • 0.9D.L+1.5EQX
1893(Part1):2002 • 0.9D.L+1.5EQZ
• Damping of structure :5 % • 0.9D.L-1.5EQX
**Live load on floor level and roof level are taken • 0.9D.L-1.5EQZ
from IS-875 (Part-) considered RC framed
buildings as residential usage IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Based on the results obtained from the response
B. Member and Material Properties
spectrum analysis of a six(G+10) storey RC framed
Dimensions of the beams and columns are building, trends in the responses of columns are
determined on the basis of trial and error process in observed for three types of column jacketing and
analysis of ETABS by considering nominal sizes are presented here term of bending moments( mx
for beams and columns and safe sizes are as show and my),shears and axial forces. Besides this the
in the table below. response of the total building in terms of top storey
Beam Column
(m) (m)
displacements, Inter-storey Drifts and lateral loads
G+10 0.23x0.40 0.40 x0.40 on to stories is observed and presented.

Material properties of the building are like M20 A. Comparision of Bending Moments (Mx)
TABLE I
grade of concrete, FE415 steel and 13800 N/mm2 BENDING MOMENTS (MX)
of modulus of elasticity of brick masonry in the
Normal Model
buildings. RCC Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 4 (kN-
S.No structure (KN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m) m)
C. Load Calculations
252.6
In ETABS we need not calculate the self weight 1 498.98 582.7 600 428
125.3
of frame members. This will automatically include 2 223.61 304.7 370 356
the self-weight of structural members in the 153.01
3 188 214.2 190 212
analysis based on present specific weights given in 112.4
4 162.5 260 200 124
function of the material type. 100.7
Dead Load: 5 127 230 251 300
Floor finish : 1.5kN/m^2 TABLE III
BENDING MOMENTS (MY)
Internal wall load : 2.7x0.15x20 = 8.1KN/m
External wall load : 2.7x0.23x20 =12.42KN/m Normal Model
RCC Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 4 (kN-
Parapet Wall : 1x0.15x20= 3KN/m S.No structure (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m) m)
Live load: 1 15.07 28.25 32.5 25.7 33.6
For typical floors : 3kN/m^2 5.3
2 12.79 17.3 19 15.6
For top floor : 1.5kN/m^2 10.2
3 16.78 18 15.6 21.3
D. Load Combinations 4 3.2 9.84 5 7.53 13.152
In this Project 13 Load Combinations are 5 1.26 4.2 6.2 6 2.3
considered.
B. Comparision of Axial Forces Fx
• 1.5(D.L+L.L)
TABLE IIIII
• 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQX) AXIAL FORCES (FX)
• 1.2(D.L+L.L+EQZ)
Normal
• 1.2(D.L+L.L-EQX) RCC Model Model 2 Model 3 Model
• 1.2(D.L+L.L-EQZ) S.No structure 1 (kN) (kN) (kN) 4 (kN)
• 1.5(D.L+EQX) 1688 2892.7
1 423 603 1933
• 1.5(D.L+EQZ) 955 1857
• 1.5(D.L-EQX) 2 321 545 869

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 59

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022
Available at www.ijsred.com
423 1582.2 8 170.7 153.9 87.3 51.9
3 225 300 566
382 978 9 189.6 171.3 95.6 52.9
4 174 201 365 10 205.2 185.3 101.9 53.5
605 625
5 168 277 545 11 218.2 196.5 106.3 53.8

From the above table when upgraded RCC (model 12

1) is compared with the normal RCC structure,
S 10
increase in moments and axial forces was observed. t
Therefore we can say that size of existing columns 8 Model 1
o
is not sufficient to take the loads, hence accordingly r 6 Model 2
column sizes are increased to make the structure e
4 Model 3
safe. y
s 2 Model 4
C. Comparision of Time Period 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time Period (Sec) Displacements
0.8
Fig. 7 Storey vs Displacements
0.6 Model 1
From the above graphs, it was observed that, the
0.4 Model 2
displacement is drastically reduced in FRP
0.2 Model 3
Jacketing (Model 4) and Steel Jacketing (Model 3)
0 Model 4 models when compared to normal RCC structure
Time Period (Model 1). Hence significant effect of RCC, Steel
Fig. 6 Time Period Comparision
and FRP was observed.

In the normal RCC column model in which the E. Comparision of Drifts Ratio
columns of ground storey failed and indicated the TABLE V
DRIFTS RATIO
requirement for retrofitting, the structure was
showing greater time period (0.75) while the same Storey Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
got reduced for retrofitted models. 0 0 0 0 0
In all, an comparision of models for Concrete, Steel 1 0.001494 0.003915 0.002362 0.001308
and FRP jacketing, it is observed that the time
2 0.0021 0.004302 0.005673 0.00287
period of the structure greatly varied in FRP
3 0.002753 0.006756 0.007554 0.003423
jacketing.
4 0.003334 0.007936 0.0085 0.003327
D. Comparision of Displacements
5 0.0038 0.008329 0.008803 0.002777
TABLE IVV
DISPALCEMENTS 6 0.004138 0.008191 0.008635 0.00194

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 7 0.004336 0.007666 0.008102 0.001089

Storey (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 8 0.004364 0.006841 0.007287 0.000579
0 0 0 0 0 9 0.004131 0.005804 0.00628 0.000319
1 7.1 3.8 4.8 3.9
10 0.003401 0.004682 0.005216 0.000189
2 24.1 16.7 15 12.5
11 0.001594 0.003709 0.004319 0.000129
3 46 37 27.4 22.8
4 72.3 60.8 40.5 32.8
5 98.7 85.8 53.5 41.1
6 124.6 110.4 65.9 46.9
7 148.9 133.4 77.3 50.2

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 60

International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development-– Volume 5 Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2022
Available at www.ijsred.com

12
Hence significant effect of RCC, Steel and FRP
11 jacketing was observed.
10
S
9
Therefore RCC, Steel and FRP jacketing models
t 8 has better performance. Hence we can conclude that
Model 1
o 7
r 6 Model 2 FRP jacketing is more effective in increasing both
e 5
Model 3
strength and deformation capacity of the retrofitted
4
y 3
columns.
Model 4
s 2
1 VI. FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY
0
As the influence of modeling could be seen
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Interstorey Drifts prominently in this work, the work can be
Fig. 8 Storey vs Interstorey Drifts Ratio extended further by
• Varying the retrofitting strategy(local/global)
From the above graphs, it was observed that,
• Varying the number of connectors and their
decrease in inter-storey drifts was observed in
spacing, between the existing and new
Model 2, Model 3 and Model 4. Hence we can say
materials used.
that retrofitting has enhanced the performance of
normal RCC structure. • Considering the interaction between existing
and new structures used as a part of
V. CONCLUSIONS retrofitting, using appropriate modelling
Some of the important conclusions of the present techniques and sophisticated software.
study are presented here. REFERENCES
Increase in moments and axial forces were [1] Niroomandi A, Maheri A, Maheri, MR, Mahini SS, (2010). Seismic
observed in Model 1 (structure which is upgraded performance of ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets,
to Zone 3). Therefore we can say that size of [2] Engineering Structures,32(8):2326-2336.
Massumi1 and A.A. Tasnimi(2008). Strengthening of low ductile
existing columns is not sufficient to take the loads, reinforced concrete frames using steel x-bracings with different details,
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008,
hence accordingly column sizes are increased to Beijing, China.
make the structure safe. [3] American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE), Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (2000).
It has been observed that the entire jacketing Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356.
models has less time period than normal RCC [4] Masri, A.C., and Goel, S.C. (1996). Seismic Design and Testing of an
RC Slab-Column Frame Strengthened by Steel Bracing. Earthquake
structure, but the least time period was found in Spectra, 12:4, 645-666.
FRP, from which we can say that FRP jacketing [5] Hand book on Seismic Retrofit of Buildings (2007), Central Public
model is more stiffer than RCC and steel jacketing. [6] works department and Indian Building Congres, IIT Madras.
Shri. pravin b. waghmare ,international journal of advanced
From the displacements and drifts ratio graphs, it engineering research and studies,december, 2011/15-19 materials and
was observed that, the displacement and drifts ratio [7] jacketing technique for retrofitting of structures .
Agarwal, P. and Shrikande, M.(2006), “Earthquake Resistant Design of
is drastically reduced in FRP Jacketing (Model 4) Structures”, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
and Steel Jacketing (Model 3) models when [8] IS 456:2000, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000.
compared to normal RCC structure (Model 1). [9] IS 1893-2016, Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
(Part-1), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

ISSN : 2581-7175 ©IJSRED: All Rights are Reserved Page 61