Page 106 - Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures
P. 106

98   Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of Structures



              TABLE 2.13 Comparison of Various Retrofit Methods for URM
              Buildings—cont’d
              Retrofit
              Method        Pros                     Cons
              External      l High increment in Fur  l Corrosion
              reinforcement  l Prevent disintegration  l Heavy mass
                            l Improves ductility and  l Violation of performance
                             energy dissipation       level
                                                     l Requires architectural
                                                      finishing
                                                     l Disturbance occupancy
              Confinement   l Prevent disintegration  l Not easy to introduce
                            l Improve ductility and  l Limited effect on ultimate
                             energy dissipation       strength
                                                     l Requires architectural
                                                      finishing
                                                     l Disturbance occupancy
              Posttension   l No added mass          l High losses
                            l No effect on building  l Anchorage system
                             function                l Corrosion potential
              Center Core   l No space reduction     l Creation of zones with
                            l No architectural impact  varying stiffness and strength
                            l No effect on building
                             function



            results of the studies by Ghiassi et al. [50] are used here. They considered three
            failure modes for shotcreted masonry walls: sliding, shear-tensile, and flexural.
            They proposed relations for determination of the capacity for each failure mode.
            The acceptance criteria similar to the corresponding reinforced masonry walls
            in ASCE 41-06 [15] were assumed for the shotcreted masonry walls. The details
            of their proposed relations are presented in the next parts of this chapter.



            2.8.4.1 Selection of the Walls for Shotcreting
            Generally, the vulnerable walls which were determined in the previous sections
            of this chapter are considered for retrofit. This approach works well for URM
            buildings without any ties which have flexible diaphragms. In these buildings,
            each wall reacts independently to the seismic demands and its vulnerability is
            independent of the vulnerabilities of other walls. However, this is not the case
            for URM buildings having confined ties and/or with rigid diaphragms. In these
            buildings, a group of parallel walls reacts to the seismic demand forces and each
            wall in this group interacts with other walls. In this example, instead of
   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111