Comparison between Design Methods for Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Dissipative Bracing Systems

Braces equipped with dissipative devices are among the most widespread methods for the seismic strengthening of seismically prone reinforced concrete (RC) frames. It allows for high reductions in seismic vulnerability with inexpensive, quickly executed interventions. They can often be carried out mainly at the exterior, resulting in interruptions of use that are limited both in time and to only small portions of the building. The design methods of dissipative devices are based on the extensive use of pushover analyses (POA). POA is capable of highlighting the structural deficiencies of the building and comparing the performances of design performed according to different methods and sizing criteria. In the present work, with reference to a case study represented by a four-story spatial frame having characteristics representative of design and construction common practice of the 1970s in Southern European countries, the performances of three different design methods were evaluated and compared. The examined procedures differ, including the following: (i) methods for estimating the peak displacement response of the nonlinear systems, namely (i1) the well-known equal displacement rule and (i2) the equivalent (secant) stiffness and damping rule, and (ii) criteria for distributing stiffness and strength of the braces along the height, namely (ii1) the distribution of stiffness and strength proportionally to those of the frame and (ii2) methods that vary the stiffness and strength along the height in order to minimize the eventual irregularity in elevation of the bare frame. The effectiveness of the procedures was checked by both POA and nonlinear response history analysis, the latter performed assuming both unidirectional and bidirectional input. The stiffness was found to increase by about 10 times and the strength between 7.5 to 3.7 times depending on the design method, and reduction in the displacements ranged between 31% and 42% compared to the values of the original frame. The pros and cons of each procedure are summarized, as all procedures are able to provide brace designs that meet the performance requirements set during the design phase.