Seismic Retrofitting with Buckling Restrained Braces: Application to An Existing Non-Ductile RC Framed Building

This paper assesses the seismic performance of typical reinforced concrete (RC) existingframed structures designed for gravity loads only. The sample two-storey structural system exhibits high vulnerability, i.e. low lateral resistance and limited translation ductility; hence an effective strategy scheme for seismicretrofitting was deemed necessary. Such a scheme comprises bucklingrestrained braces (BRBs) placed along the perimeter frames of the multi-storey building. The adopted design approach assumes that the global response of the inelastic framed structure is the sum of the elastic frame (primary system) and the system comprising perimeter diagonal braces (secondary system); the latter braces absorb and dissipate a large amount of hysteretic energy under earthquake ground motions. Comprehensive nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (response history) analyses were carried out for both the as-built and retrofitted structures to investigate the efficiency of the adopted intervention strategy. A set of seven code-compliant natural earthquake records was selected and employed to perform inelastic response history analyses at serviceability (operational and damageability limit states, OLS and DLS) and ultimate limit states (life safety and collapse prevention limit states, LSLS and CPLS). Both global and local lateral displacements are notably reduced after the seismic retrofit of the existing system. In the as-built structure, the damage is primarily concentrated at the second floor (storey mechanism); the computed interstorey drifts are 2.43% at CPLS and 1.92% at LSLS for modal distribution of lateral forces. Conversely, for the retrofitted system, the estimated values of interstorey drifts (d/h) are halved; the maximum d/h are 0.84% at CPLS (along the Y-direction) and 0.65% at LSLS (yet along the Y-direction). The values of the global overstrength Ω vary between 2.14 and 2.54 for the retrofitted structure; similarly, the translation ductility μΔ-values range between 2.07 and 2.36. The response factor (R- or q-factor) is on average equal to 5.0. It is also found that, for the braced frame, under moderate-to-high magnitude earthquakes, the average period elongation is about 30%, while for the existingbuilding the elongation is negligible (lower than 5%). The inelastic response of the existing structure is extremely limited. Conversely, BRBs are effective to enhance the ductility and energy dissipation of the sample as-built structural system. Extensive nonlinear dynamic analyses showed that more than 60% of input seismic energy is dissipated by the BRBs at ultimate limit states. The estimated maximum axial ductility of the braces is about 10; the latter value of translation ductility is compliant with BRBs available on the market. At DLS, the latter devices exhibit an elastic behaviour. It can thus be concluded that, under moderate and high magnitude earthquakes, the damage is concentrated in the added dampers and the response of the existingRCframed structure (bare frame) is chiefly elastic