ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 09 July 2020

doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.00082

Seismic Retrofit of an Existing RC

Building With Isolation Devices
Applied at Base
Michele D’Amato 1*, Raffele Laguardia 2 and Rosario Gigliotti 2
1
Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures (Architecture, Environment and Cultural Heritage), University of
Basilicata, Matera, Italy, 2 Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Nowadays, seismic retrofit through isolation strategy represents a consolidated

technique of protection against design earthquakes. This technique is also applied
on existing structures extensively, due to the fact that it usually does not require any
interruption of the building use and occupants evacuation. If applicable, it rapidly allows
the seismically retrofitting of a building installed with seismic devices with low horizontal
stiffness between the structure and the foundation decoupling, in fact, this allows the
motion of the superstructure from the ground one. In this paper an application on an
existing RC building of the seismic isolation is presented. The chosen building was built in
the ‘90s only for vertical loads and realized without any detailing rule for structural ductility.
The seismic retrofitting requirement stems from the fact that only recently, after the
National seismic hazard maps update in 2003, the considered area has been upgraded to
Edited by: a medium-low seismic intensity zone, while at construction time no seismic classification
Panagiotis G. Asteris,
School of Pedagogical and
was in existence by law. The case study peculiarity is that the seismic retrofitting has
Technological Education, Greece required an addition to seismic devices at the base, with related interventions such
Reviewed by: as the application of a bracing system consisting of two elastic steel frames. This
Amin Mohebkhah,
intervention is required for stiffening the superstructure and, therefore, minimizing the
Malayer University, Iran
Ali Koçak, higher vibration modes effects. The paper presents the main results obtained with a FEM
Yıldız Technical University, Turkey model, implemented for simulating the initial and the design state when the interventions
*Correspondence: are considered. Finally, some results of non-linear dynamic time-history analyses are
Michele D’Amato
michele.damato@unibas.it
illustrated and commented for verifying superstructure elements and seismic devices.
Keywords: seismic isolation, seismic devices, retrofit, existing RC building, steel bracing structure
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Earthquake Engineering,
a section of the journal
INTRODUCTION
Frontiers in Built Environment
Seismic isolation is actually a design strategy largely applied all over the world either for
Received: 31 January 2020 designing new buildings or for retrofitting existing ones. Essentially, it consists in decoupling the
Accepted: 06 May 2020
superstructure motion from the ground one by installing seismic devices having a low horizontal
Published: 09 July 2020
stiffness. The result of lengthening the superstructures fundamental natural period, significantly
Citation: reduces the seismic demand in terms of lateral accelerations, with a consequent increase of
D’Amato M, Laguardia R and
lateral displacements. In this way the superstructure elements damage may be nullified thanks
Gigliotti R (2020) Seismic Retrofit of an
Existing RC Building With Isolation
to the drastic reduction of the interstory drifts and floor shear (Kelly, 1986; Alhan and Gavin,
Devices Applied at Base. 2004; Ibrahim, 2008). Therefore, the seismic isolation strategy, if applicable, results particularly
Front. Built Environ. 6:82. convenient with respect to the classical one of locally strengthening the structural elements. In this
doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.00082 case, in fact, the elements strength is being increased instead of reducing the seismic action, through

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

local interventions also suggested by the observation of the as far as what is concerned in this study. Moreover, due to
typical response mechanisms occurred in the last seismic events their current characteristics all masonry infills (perimetral and
(De Matteis et al., 2005; Formisano et al., 2006, 2016; D’Amato internal partitions made by simple hollowed brick blocks) are
et al., 2017; Laterza et al., 2017a,b; Morelli et al., 2017; Caprili assumed as non-structural elements. They, as indicated by many
et al., 2018; Fuentes et al., 2019a,b; Ramírez et al., 2019). seismic design codes including the NTC (2008), are modeled
Seismic isolation may result convenient if compared with the only in terms of vertical loads with the related masses, since they
design strategy considering dissipative bracing systems, where do not significantly affect the lateral response in terms of stiffness
an increase of stiffness and strength through additional elements and strength.
is provided to the structure (Ciampi et al., 1995; Mazza and Firstly, the paper discusses of the main structural deficiencies
Vulcano, 2014; Formisano et al., 2016, 2017; Laguardia et al., encountered by considering the seismic action, and describes
2017; Braga et al., 2019; Panzera et al., 2020). the isolation system design with the related interventions. Then,
As known, the dynamic response of an isolated building results of numerical investigations are shown by evaluating the
strictly depends on the characteristics of the isolation devices and influence of the bracing system on the superstructure response.
having the combined function of building re-centering during Finally, some results of the non-linear time-history analyses
the horizontal oscillations and dissipating the kinetic energy. are illustrated for verifying the design displacement of the
Different typologies of the isolation devices may be applied and seismic devices.
combined among them such as elastomeric devices, flat sliders,
friction pendulum devices, elasto-plastic dissipators. In literature,
general studies and applications with these devices for isolation CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION
buildings may be found in Braga et al. (2005), Constantinou et al.
(1990), Martelli and Forni (1998), Mokha et al. (1988), Kawamura The chosen case study is a RC building designed in the ‘90s and
et al. (2000) and Kelly (2002), and specific applications on built in Marconia, a locality of the Pisticci Municipality (Province
existing buildings having also historic value may be found in of Matera, Italy). It was realized by ATER, which is the local
De Luca et al. (2001), Mokha et al. (1996), Tomazevic et al. company for housing of the Basilicata Region, with the aim of
(2009), Castellano et al. (2014), Petrovčič and Kilar (2017) and providing social housing to the applicants.
D’Amato et al. (2019). Recently, studies have also addressed The building is composed by seven floors plus a two-pitch
to assess the actual properties of elastomeric devices through roofing system. The pilotis ground floor is used as porch, while
the nanoindentation technique avoiding, therefore, removing the upper six floors are used for housing. Some image of the
devices for laboratory testing. To this scope an innovative considered building in the “as-built” condition is reported in
procedure has been proposed in Rossi et al. (2020). Figures 1A,B. While a foundation plan and a transverse section
This paper illustrates the application of the seismic isolation are illustrated in Figures 1C,D, respectively. In plan the building
at the base as structural retrofitting, to an existing Reinforced is a simple rectangle of dimensions 20.10 × 11.0 m, reaching
Concrete (RC) building located in Marconia, in southern Italy. the maximum height measured above the ahead foundation of
The building was designed only for vertical loads and built 21.1 m. The foundations were realized through inverted T beams
without any detailing rule for structural ductility and due to the strips having a total height of 1.50 m and a width of 0.50 m (the
date and time of the construction of the building, the building flange has dimensions 1.60 × 0.50 m). The ground floor has an
site fell within an area not classified as seismic. After the National height of 3.1 m, and was realized with an incoherent foundation
seismic hazard maps update in 2003, the seismic classification of back-fill within. The other floors have a constant height of 3.0 m.
the area of the building has been under consideration and has The building has for all floors, one-way RC joists all directed
been upgraded, and classified as a medium-low seismic intensity along the transverse direction (Y direction), with hollowed
zone. The case study results are interesting since the application lightening blocks. No internal RC frame along the transverse
of the seismic isolation has also required the realization, only direction is present. Each floor may be reached through concrete
along the building transverse direction, and an additional bracing stairs, or else with an elevator hosted within a concrete core made
system throughout the height consisting of two lateral elastic steel by vertical RC walls running throughout the total building height,
frames. This intervention has been necessary in order to stiff the and having a thickness of 20 cm. In total, 21 columns compose the
superstructure and to reduce high vibration mode effects as much 3D building frame, having the dimensions and reinforcements
as possible. details summarized in Table 1. As for the beams, the principal
The paper presents the main results related to numerical ones supporting the joists have, at all floor levels, a section of 100
simulations through implementation of FEM models, × 25 cm, while the secondary ones have a section 60 × 25 cm. The
considering the “as-built” initial condition with a Fixed- typical reinforcements, respectively, of principal and secondary
Based (FB) model, and the retrofitted configuration with a beams, are depicted in Figures 2A,B, respectively.
Seismic Isolated (SI) model. All the investigations, numerical The building was designed in according to the Italian Design
analyses, and verifications shown in this study are conducted Code (NTC, 1992), only for vertical loads without any detailing
by referring to the Italian design code (NTC, 2008), that is the rule for structural ductility, by applying the allowable stress
design code adopted for retrofitting the case study. It should design method (also called working stress design method).
be underlined, however, that no significant modification has Although the construction period is quite recent, the seismic
been introduced with the next design code update (NTC, 2018) action was not considered because of the considered area, which

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 1 | (A,B) Prospective views of the case study, (C) foundation beams plan and (D) transverse section in the “as built” condition.

was classified by law as not seismic. On the contrary, as it will locally removing the concrete cover), surveys and assays for
be discussed later, by referring to current seismic classification defining the effective permanent loads. All the in situ inspections
(NTC, 2008) the site belongs to a zone having a medium-low were planned and performed by distributing in plan and in
seismic intensity. elevation as much as possible in the investigations. More in
detail: in total 10 concrete cores were extracted from the concrete
Materials Properties core walls; 40 coupled pacometric and sclerometric tests were
Details on the building under consideration were collected firstly conducted for applying the SONREB method, demonstrating
from the examination of the complete original design documents, an acceptable homogeneity of concrete within the elements.
including the original certificates which are related to concrete It should be noted that the concrete cores were extracted
and reinforcing steel samples tested in the laboratory, as required from the vertical walls instead of the columns since it was
by the design code adopted for building design (NTC, 1992). decided of not disturbing these elements that showed at the
However, in situ measurements and tests including extraction of base of the ground floor an evident degradation state. The
concrete cores were conducted, too. The comparison between results of the average compressive strength experienced in the
the information gathered through the tests campaign and laboratory on the 10 concrete cores are numerically reported
the original documents has demonstrated that the building in Table 2, the results of non-destructive tests conducted in
was realized accordingly to the project approved, without any the same points where the core were extracted are shown. In
significant difference. addition, in the histogram form, the values of the concrete
Precisely, the in situ investigations included dimensional compressive strength (fc,i ), sclerometric rebound index (Si )
measures of the primary and secondary elements, pacometer and ultrasonic velocity (Vi ) are reported, each divided by the
investigations, visual assays of elements steel reinforcements (by correspondent average value (fc,m , Sm , Vm ). The resulting ratios,

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

TABLE 1 | Existing columns.

Floor N. Column N. Dimensions Reinforcement details

1, 2, 3 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, 21 Longitudinal: 6 φ 16

1, 2 18 Transverse: φ 8/18 cm

1, 2, 3 3, 4, 8, 14 Longitudinal: 8 φ 16
2, 3, 4 9, 12, 13 Transverse: φ 8/18 cm
3, 4 10, 11

1 9, 12, 13 Longitudinal: 10 φ 16
1, 2 10, 11 Transverse: φ 8/18 cm

4, 5 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 Longitudinal: 8 φ 16

3 18 Transverse: φ 8/18 cm

4 3, 4, 8, 14 Longitudinal: 10 φ 16
Transverse: φ 8/18 cm

4, 5, 7 18 Longitudinal: 6 φ 16
Transverse: φ 8/15 cm

6, 7 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 Longitudinal: 4 φ 16

Transverse: φ 8/15 cm

5, 6, 7, 8 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Longitudinal: 6 φ 16

Transverse: φ 8/15 cm

Sections and reinforcements at different building floor.

for each point investigated, are sorted in according to the used for realizing building components, as resulted in the
increasing ratio fc,i /fc,m . It is important to note that in the material certificates of the original project. This value has been
case, a really low correlation among the destructive (fc,i /fc,m ) assumed as design value for seismic assessment of the building
and non-destructive measures (Si /Sm , and Vi /Vm ) is observed. under consideration. As for the reinforcing steel no sample was
In conclusion, the average concrete cylindrical compressive extracted and the assumed value of the tensile strength has
strength resulted equal to 19.15 MPa, and is compatible with been the one reported in the original material certificate. It
a concrete class Rbk = 25 MPa, that was the concrete strength resulted in according to a reinforcing steel of class FeB44k, with a

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 2 | Existing beams. Details of longitudinal and transverse reinforcements related to (A) principal beams (i.e., supporting the joists) and (B) secondary ones
(original drawings).

TABLE 2 | Compressive strength of the extracted cores and results of the non-destructive tests conducted.

Id Level fc,i (N/mm2 ) Si Vi (m/s)

Concrete core

1 Ground floor 20.19 29 3,592

2 Ground floor 23.28 28 3,821
3 Ground floor 21.12 30 3,734
4 Floor 1 22.76 34 3,376
5 Floor 2 20.96 37 3,707
6 Floor 3 19.7 35 3,433
7 Floor 4 16.34 34 4,154
8 Floor 5 16.02 36 3,731
9 Floor 5 24.49 33 3,613
10 Floor 6 15.71 36 3,577
Average value 19.75 33 3,674
Standard dev. 3.13 3.06 217.74
C.V. 16% 9% 6%

characteristic tensile strength equal to fyk = 440 MPa. Therefore, Figure 3 illustrates the site seismic hazard and the horizontal
the Knowledge Level (KL) reached, in according to the NTC response spectra assumed in the numerical simulations when
(2008), resulted equal to KL3, with a Factor of Confidence (FC) seismic action is considered. More in detail, a nominal life
equal to 1. VN = 50 years and coefficient of use CU = 1 are considered,
In summary, the design values for concrete and steel assumed resulting in a reference period VR of 50 years. For completeness,
in this study are the following: the seismic parameters in conditions of horizontal rigid soil
(indicated as Type A soil) are reported for the four Limit
• Concrete: fcd = fcm /(γc · FC) = 9.75/(1.5 · FC) = 13.16 MPa
State assumed by the reference design code (NTC, 2008),
• Steel: fyd = fyk /γs = 440/1.15 = 382 MPa.
that are: Operativity Limit State (OLS), Damage Limit State
(DLS), Life-Safety Limit State (LSLS), Collapse Limit State (CLS).
SITE SEISMIC HAZARD AND RESPONSE Specifically, the following parameters are detailed (Figure 3A):
SPECTRA
• Return period TR ;
In this section, the actual seismic hazard of the site is examined.
• Maximum soil accelerations ag in the case of rock soil;
It corresponds to the seismic hazard adopted by the Italian
• Maximum spectrum amplification coefficient F0 ;
design Code (NTC, 2008) considered for assessing and designing
• Transition period T∗c in the spectrum between constant
the retrofit interventions later discussed. This seismic hazard
acceleration and constant velocity.
remains unchanged in the current Italian design code (NTC,
2018). On the contrary, as already said, the same area was not The horizontal elastic response spectra for the site considered
classified as seismic zone in according to the previous Italian are reported in (Figure 3B), by referring to a soil of Type
design codes. C, as resulted in the case analyzed, and to a conventional

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 3 | Site seismic hazard and response spectra. (A) Parameters defining the seismic action referred to a rigid soil (Type A) for each limit state, and PGA referred
to a soil Type C. (B) Horizontal elastic response spectra (ξ = 5%), and (C) design spectra for LSLS and CLS considering a soil Type C.

viscous damping ratio ξ = 5%. While, in Figure 3C design frame elements for the beams and columns, shells for the
spectra by considering the Fixed-Base (FB) and Base-Isolated (BI) elevator core walls and joists. No reduction for flexural and
structure are shown. In particular, due to the lack of detailing shear stiffness of beams and columns has been considered
rules for ductility the horizontal design spectrum for FB model due to the limited behavior factor assumed for the structure
is calculated starting from the elastic one and by assuming (NTC, 2008). Finally, the model has been fully fixed at
conservatively a behavior factor q = 1.5. As for the BI structure, the base.
in order to properly take into account the energy dissipated As for the evaluation of the floor masses, they have been
by the isolating system the appropriate design spectrum is calculated in accordance with the following combination:
calculated as indicated by NTC (2008). Therefore, the design
spectra ordinates for LSLS and CLS having a period T ≥ 0.8∗ Tis
X
Gk1 + Gk2 + ψ2j Qkj (1)
(that is the range of isolating system
q vibration periods) are j
10
reduced through the factor η = (5+ξeis ) as function of the
equivalent viscous damping ratio ξeis due to isolation system. where Gk1 represents the permanent structural loads, Gk2 are the
As known, ξeis depends on the design horizontal displacement semi-permanent non-structural loads, and Qkj represent the j-th
which, in turn, is function of the considered limit state. In this variable load. In this case we have:
case ξesi results, as it will be discussed later on, equal to 24.97% • Housing floors: Gk1 +Gk2 = 6.20 kN/m2
for LSLS, and to 21.66% for CLS. While, for T < 0.8∗ Tis the • Under-roof floor: Gk1 +Gk2 = 3.20 kN/m2
spectra ordinates are coincident with the design ones calculated • Roof: Gk1 +Gk2 = 3.75 kN/m2
with a ductility factor q = 1.5 since these ordinates regard the • Live load: Qk =2.00 kN/m2
superstructure modes. • Snow load: Qs = 0.60 kN/m2
In all the performed analyses the horizontal seismic action
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON effects are evaluated, together with the vertical loads, through
“AS-BUILT” BUILDING (FIXED-BASE a modal analysis with response spectra where the modal
MODEL) effects are combined with CQC combination rule. For taking
into account the directional effects of the seismic action, the
The existing RC building in the fixed-base (FB) original following combinations have been considered in evaluating the
configuration has been implemented with a FEM model within structural response:
SAP 2000 software (Computers Structures Inc., 2015). In
particular, an elastic model has been adopted, consisting of ±1.00 EX ± 0.3EY (2)

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

where the multiplier coefficients have been permutated. Structural Verifications

Moreover, the vertical component of seismic action has As for the structural verifications for the existing FB building, a
been neglected. modal linear analysis with a design spectrum for LSLS has been
conducted. Due to the absence of detailing rules with respect to
structural ductility, a behavior factor q = 1.5 has been considered
Modal Analysis Results for both verifications of ductile (flexural) and brittle (shear)
In Figure 4, the results of the first three vibration modes mechanisms. Overall, as it was simple to expect, by applying the
for the FB model are reported. As it is clear to note, all current design code (NTC, 2008) all the beams and columns
of them result roto-translational modes. In particular, result verified only with respect to the current vertical loads.
the first mode is rotational and prevailingly translational Whereas, if one considers the seismic combinations no-one of
along X axis (T1 = 1.146 s), the second vibration mode is the primary elements (columns and beams) satisfies the safety
rotational and prevailingly translational along Y axis (T2 verifications. More precisely, the flexural mechanisms do not
= 0.830 s), while the third is rotational and prevailingly result verified neither for columns nor for beams. As proof of this,
translational again along X axis (T3 = 0.730 s). In Figure 4, for instance in Figure 5 the columns structural verifications with
also details about the participating mass ratios are illustrated. respect to the design combinations including the seismic action
In particular, the sum of the modal participating mass ratios (Equation 2) are reported. As regards the shear verifications,
along the two principal directions (UX and UY ), and the the transverse reinforcement amounts in beams and columns
rotation mass ratio around Z axis (RZ ) are numerically should result sufficient by considering, as indicated by NTC
summarized. Finally, the spectral ordinate Se (T) of the (2008), the secondary shear-resistant mechanisms contribution.
LSLS response spectrum of each considered vibration mode However, it should be pointed out that the current stirrups
is reported. spacing detected respected the detailing of NTC (1992), that

FIGURE 4 | Modal analysis results with the FB model. First three vibration modes.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 5 | Existing columns. Structural verifications with respect to the axial and bending moment. Verifications are performed with respect to the design
combinations including the seismic action.

indicated a spacing not >0.8 the effective section depth, and the building considered had a natural propensity to this retrofit
therefore not >0.8·23 cm = 18.4 cm. solution, owing to the high grid foundation above which seismic
For completeness, Figure 6A plots for LSLS the floor shear devices may be placed with some local and easy interventions.
distributions along the two principal directions, by considering In detail, the seismic retrofit intervention was realized as
separately the seismic action along the longitudinal (EX) and follows. At first, the incoherent back-fill between foundation
transverse direction (EY) direction. As a useful comparison, beams was removed, and concrete columns at foundation grid
in the same figure the resulting shears for the BI model are intersections were created for positioning the isolation devices.
illustrated, too. It is easy to note that, in the case of FB building Then, above the foundation plan, a grid consisting of steel frames
the shear distribution is quite non-linear especially for the higher hinged at the columns base with bolted steel joints was installed.
floors. While, in Figures 6B–E are reported for DLS interstory This intervention was conducted with the aim of preventing
drifts calculated for X and Y directions, by considering the the horizontal relative displacements among the columns at
perimetral columns n. 1, 7, 15, and 21 (see Figure 1). These base. Finally, a cut of each singular column at base above the
graphs clearly show that the response is irregular with respect to foundation was realized by applying a temporary bearing system
lateral actions due to important torsional effects mainly provoked with hydraulic jacks for permitting, once the required column
by the concrete core hosting the elevator. This is proved by the part was removed, of installing the isolation device (Figure 7A).
fact that significant interstory drifts occur also along the direction In order to improve as well the bearing capacity of columns
orthogonal to the acting seismic action. In any case the maximum with respect to the vertical loads, preliminarily to the isolation
interstory drift does not exceed the 0.5% limit value assumed as intervention FRP wraps were applied to the columns up to the
maximum allowable for the infills masonry (NTC, 2008). fourth floor. The seismic retrofit intervention consisted also of a
bracing system, realized through two vertical elastic steel frames
laterally applied along the transverse direction (i.e., Y direction,
RETROFIT STRATEGY WITH ISOLATION the short direction) for all the building height (Figure 7B). The
SYSTEM AT THE BASE (BASE-ISOLATED two frames were made with vertical and diagonal elements having
MODEL) a UPN400 section, welded each other and bolted to the existing
RC frame structure. Finally, above the steel frame grid a walking
Numerical investigations carried out on the FB model showed floor with corrugated steel panels was mounted (Figure 7C).
that the considered existing building did not satisfy the safety As far as the concrete core hosting the elevator is concerned,
requirements with respect to the seismic actions as required by it was isolated at the base above the foundation plan with a
the refence design code (NTC, 2008). Mainly, all beams and similar procedure applied for the columns. At first, a temporary
columns resulted as discussed before, the critical elements unable, bearing system with hydraulic jacks was installed in local slots
although the presence of core concrete hosting the elevator to realized in the vertical walls above the existing foundation. Then,
resist to the seismic design actions. This aspect, however, was a new RC foundation plate above the isolation plan was realized,
easily predictable since, as already described, the building was externally extended for creating a collar necessary for installation
designed only with respect to the vertical loads. Therefore, due to of isolation devices (Figures 7D,E). Then, the cut of the walls for
the critical structural aspects encountered, the seismic isolation removing the walls between the new foundation and the exiting
at the base as retrofit strategy was considered for considerably one was completed and the isolation devices were installed
reducing the seismic demand. Anyway, it should be noted that (Figure 7F).

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 6 | FB model. (A) Shear floor distribution for LSLS. (B–E) Interstory drifts along the X and Y direction for DLS.

As for the design of seismic isolation, it consists of flat The schematic layout of the isolation system is shown in
sliders having a low-friction coefficient for energy dissipation Figure 8A, where the devices details are also reported. In total 25
and of elastomeric devices offering re-centering forces during seismic devices were installed: eight elastomeric isolators and 17
the seismic horizontal oscillations. The isolation system flat surface sliders having the properties reported in Figure 8B,
configuration was chosen in order to reduce as much as possible with a maximum horizontal design displacement of ± 150 mm.
the seismic demand transmitted from the ground to the super Precisely, as for elastomeric isolators, whose presence is of 32%
structure, through the minimization of the relative eccentricity on the total number of seismic devices installed, it is reported
between center of stiffness and of mass, and by optimizing the maximum vertical load capacity in presence of seismic action
the equivalent viscous damping ratio and the stiffness of the (PE,max ), the lateral stiffness (kH ) and the equivalent damping
isolation system. ratio (ξH ) of 10%, evaluated in correspondence of the maximum

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 7 | Base-Isolated building. (A) Steel frames grid and seismic device mounted during a construction phase. (B) Lateral view showing the bracing system
applied. (C) View a friction slider mounted (view from below the corrugated steel panels). (D,E) Installation of seismic devices under concrete core hosting the elevator.
(F) View of the friction slider mounted under a vertical wall.

FIGURE 8 | Seismic isolation system: configuration and details. OLS, Operating Limit State; DLS, Damage Limit State; LSLS, Life-Safety Limit State; CLS, Collapse
Limit State. (A) Plan of the isolation system, (B) devices details, and (C) properties of the isolation system.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 9 | BI model. Shapes and modal properties of the first three vibration modes referred to (secant stiffnesses for LSLS).

displacement capacity (vmax ) equal to ± 150 mm. The 17 flat- considering the torsional effects (S∗De ) (NTC, 2008), and system
surface sliders represent the 68% of the total number of the isolation grade (α = TBI /TFB ). In the case considered, the
devices having a friction coefficient µ equal to 1%. In order maximum horizontal displacement by including the torsional
to optimize their application, three different types of sliders effects should result equal, at CLS, to 95.3 mm. If one
were applied, namely SL-A, SL-B, and SL-C, having a maximum assumes as the worst unfavorable condition that the maximum
vertical load capacity in presence of seismic action (PE,max ) of displacement simultaneously arises along the two principal
1,500, 2,000, and 3,000 kN, respectively. directions, hence the maximum design displacement should
√
The numerical results of the isolation system design by result equal to S∗De = 2·95.3=134.75 mm, that is in any case
the means of a modal analysis with design spectrum by smaller than the maximum displacement capacity of seismic
using CQC combination rule are summarized in Figure 8C. devices (± 150 mm).
In the FEM linear model the seismic devices are modeled As for the modal analysis results, the first three vibration
as linear links, where friction sliders have a secant stiffness modes are illustrated in Figure 9, by considering the LSLS secant
at the design horizontal displacement for the limit state stiffness of seismic devices. As it is easy to note, the interventions
considered. In particular, in Figure 8C the following parameters considered permit of uncoupling the vibration modes along the
are reported: isolated building period (Tis ), spectral acceleration two principal directions. The presence of the steel bracing system,
for the period Tis (Se ), system secant stiffness (Kesi ), equivalent by stiffening the superstructure, provides a regular response as
viscous damping ratio (ξesi ), reduction factor for the design rigid block also along the transversal direction (Y direction) and
spectra (η), isolation system maximum horizontal displacement nullifies the superstructure torsional components of two first
(SDe ) occurred when the seismic action acts along each vibration modes with respect to the FB model (i.e., configuration
horizontal component, the maximum resulting displacement by without interventions where the torsion was dominant).

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 10 | BI model LSLS results. Shears and forces acting at each floor building. (A,B) Shear and floor forces acting along X, and (C,D) along Y direction.

Precisely, the first vibration mode now results translational higher modes is observed. The floor forces distribution without
along X axis (T1 = 3.051 s, modal participating mass ratios UX the bracing system and considering the first with six vibration
= 99.32%), the second vibration mode is translational along Y modes tends to the response obtained with bracing systems.
axis (T2 = 3.006 s, modal participating mass ratios UY = 99.50%), In other words, only the isolated vibration modes (first three
while the third one is completely rotational (T3 = 1.674 s, modal modes) are not sufficient to correctly evaluate the floor forces,
participating mass ratios RZ = 99.71%). that are influenced by the higher vibration modes. On the
Figure 10 shows the distribution of floor shears (VX , VY ) and contrary, along the Y direction (short direction, Figure 10D) the
forces (FX , FY ) along the building height. The graphs refer to presence of the bracing system makes more uniform the floor
the LSLS considering the seismic action acting separately along forces distribution along the height, nullifying the superstructure
the X (EX , Figures 10A,B) and Y direction (EY , Figures 10C,D). higher modes contribution. Moreover, as one may clearly observe
As one may be observed, in the case of the BI model the in Figure 10C the shear acting within the steel bracing system
shear distributions may result up to five times lower than the (considering all vibration modes) is always greater than the 50%
ones related to the FB model (Figure 6A). In the comparisons of the total shear at each building floor. This demonstrates the
shown, for evaluating the influence of the steel bracing system importance in the case study of the bracing system, revealing it
laterally applied along the Y direction, the structural response is necessary for regularizing the superstructure response along
with bracing system (considering all significant vibration modes) the Y direction, and for significantly contributing to resist to the
is compared with the one obtained without bracing system, seismic action along the transversal direction, where are absent
calculated by referring to the first six vibration modes (three internal RC frames. In fact, even though the spectral ordinates
modes of the isolation system + the first three modes of the are considerably reduced thanks to the seismic isolation (for
superstructure). In this case only the bracing system mass is taken instance, almost five times for the first vibration mode reducing
into account. As it is easy to note, the superstructure shows along from 0.126 to 0.026 g), the absence of the transverse frames
the two principal directions a behavior significantly different. and the vulnerability of RC elements has required additional
Along the X direction (longitudinal direction, Figure 10B) since resistant elements, despite the superstructure results in this case
no bracing system is applied, an important influence of the perfectly isolated.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 11 | GMs spectra adopted for NLD analyses. (A) GMs characteristics, (B) SRSS spectra of GMs and their mean values compared with expected spectrum
for CLS.

DYNAMIC NON-LINEAR ANALYSES account for the soil type conditions. It is worth to note that in
order to not alter the GMs characteristics and to improve the
In order to better evaluate maximum displacement of the interpretability of results no scale factor has been adopted in
isolation system and the effects on the superstructure, several obtaining the spectrum-compatibility. Therefore, in the analyses
Non-Linear Dynamic (NLD) analyses have been conducted. The performed the GMs considered are unscaled, as suggested in
numerical model implemented consists of elastic frame and shell Morelli et al. (2018). Finally, Figure 11 shows the details of each
elements for modeling the superstructure, and of the zero-length couple selected of GMs, also plotted in the form of horizontal
elements for simulating the behavior of the seismic devices. In combined spectrum with the SRSS rule. In the same figure the
particular, a frictional behavior (rigid-plastic) is assigned (µ = spectrum resulting as mean value of the SRSS combined spectra
1%) to the flat-surface sliders, while the elastomeric devices are is compared with the expected one by the design code for CLS.
modeled as elastic with an equivalent damping ratio (ξH ) of 10%. In Figure 12 the maximum floor shears occurring in the
As for the global damping, a 5% modal damping is considered. Y-direction (where steel bracing system is applied) obtained
In order to perform NLD, a set of seven couples of recorded within NLD analyses are shown. Precisely, in Figure 12A and
Ground Motions (GMs) have been selected according to the in Figure 12B both braced and unbraced configurations are
spectral matching criteria of the Italian Design Code (NTC, considered, by reporting the maximum floor shears of each
2008). In order to properly consider the bidirectional motion GM couple (gray solid line) and the resulting average on
the spectrum- compatibility criterion has been applied to the the seven couples (black solid line). It can be noticed that,
mean of the SRSS resultants of each couple of GMs between except for one record (i.e., IN 00051) the maximum floor
0.5 and 4 s, by considering a CLS action level. In this way the shears are quite similar among the different GMs. For sake
spectrum compatibility has been ensured for both isolated and of completeness, Figure 12C separately reports a comparison
superstructure modes. between the averages of maximum floor shears, also numerically
More precisely, the GMs have been extracted from the summarized in Figure 12D. As it is clear to observe, the
database SIMBAD (Smerzini et al., 2014) by using the REXEL presence of the bracing system reduces at CLS the shear
software (Iervolino et al., 2009) and elaborated in order to verify at higher floors up to 18%, confirming the results of linear
the spectrum compatibility of the SRSS combined spectra. Due to dynamic analyses.
the seismic action level considered and the wide range of periods As for the isolation system verifications, as example in
required for spectrum compatibility, it has not been possible to Figures 13A,B the displacements time-history of the center of
select records coming from a single type of subsoil (i.e., soil Type mass of the isolated floor (i.e., z = 0 m) along X and Y directions
C). However, the amplitude and shape of the reference spectra for two GMs couples (i.e., IN00140 and IN00463) are reported.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 13 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 12 | NLD analyses results. (A) Maximum floor shears in Y-direction for the unbraced system. (B) Maximum floor shears in Y-direction for the braced system.
(C) Comparison of average values of maximum floor shears between braced and unbraced systems. (D) Comparison of the average values of the maximum
floor shears.

While, in Figure 13C the numerical values of maximum and negative values) together with the horizontal displacement along
minimum displacements obtained for each GMs couple are X and Y directions (red and blue solid lines, respectively). It
reported. Also, it is reported for each GMs couple the maximum can be seen that the maximum value of resultant displacement
displacement (in absolute value), and the combined one between is quite similar to the maximum value along a single direction
with the SRSS rule, as well as the mean values of the maximum, and, moreover, the resultant displacement peak occurs at the
minimum, and absolute values. It can be noticed that the average displacement peak along the same direction.
maximum displacements in absolute are 88 and 111 mm along X
and Y direction, respectively. These values are in good agreement
with the obtained results of linear dynamic analyses exposed CONCLUSIONS
in Figure 8C. Moreover, the maximum resultant displacement
calculated with the SRSS combination rule is of 129 mm, which An application of the seismic isolation at the base of an existing
is 1.16 times higher than maximum displacement recorded along RC buildings has been presented in this study. The existing
one of the principal direction (i.e., along Y-direction in this case). building has been designed only for vertical loads since, at
This result is in good agreement with the rule discussed in Clough construction time, no seismic classification was in existence by
and Penzien (1993) and in Laguardia et al. (2019) in order to law. While, the seismic zones upgrade due to the recent Italian
assess the maximum resultant displacement. In these studies, it seismic hazard maps classified the area with a medium-low
is suggested to amplify the results of a monodirectional analysis seismic intensity.
by a factor of 1.12 or 1.18 by considering a ratio of earthquake The results of the analyses performed highlight the
ground motions spectral components of 0.85 and 1, respectively. importance of the steel bracing system along the transverse
Nevertheless, the torsional effects are not considered in the direction in order to increase the stiffness of the superstructure
NLD analyses performed. In order to emphasize such aspect the with a consequent reduction of the higher vibration mode effects
maximum resultant displacement is plotted in Figures 13A,B and, therefore, for making more uniform the seismic demand in
with black dashed lines (symmetrically plotted on positive and terms of forces.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 14 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

FIGURE 13 | NL dynamic analyses on the case study structure. (A) Displacement history for GM IN00140. (B) Displacement history for GM IN00463. (C) Maximum,
minimum, absolute, and resultant (SRSS) values for each GMs and mean values.

As for the non-linear dynamic analyses results, they have AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
demonstrated that the displacement demand on seismic devices
is lower than their maximum displacement capacity. However, MD’A supervised a part of the intervention realization. All
some difference may be encountered in combining the effects of authors contributed to the design and implementation of the
the seismic action along the two principal directions. In any case, research reported, to the analysis of the results and to the writing
NLD analyses demonstrate that the maximum value of resultant of the manuscript.
displacement is quite similar to the maximum value of maximum
displacement along a single direction. In addition, the resultant ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
displacement peak takes place at the displacement peak along the
same direction. Authors want to gratefully acknowledge Eng. Carmelo
Cotrufo and Eng. Paolo Venezia of ATER technical
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT office for their passion and priceless collaboration
and assistance in realizing the interventions on the
All datasets generated for this study are included in the retrofitted building. Dedicated to the memory of prof.
article/supplementary material. Michelangelo Laterza.

REFERENCES Castellano, A., Foti, P., Fraddosio, A., Marzano, S., Mininno, G., and
Piccioni, M. D. (2014). Seismic response of a historic masonry construction
Alhan, C., and Gavin, H. (2004). A parametric study of linear and non-linear isolated by stable unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (SU-
passively damped seismic isolation systems for buildings. Eng. Struct. 26, FREI). Key Eng. Mater. 628, 160–167. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.
485–497. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.11.004 628.160
Braga, F., Faggella, M., Gigliotti, R., and Laterza, M. (2005). Nonlinear Ciampi, V., De Angelis, M., and Paolacci, F. (1995). Design of yielding or friction-
dynamic response of HDRB and hybrid HDRB-friction sliders base isolation based dissipative bracings for seismic protection of buildings. Eng. Struct. 17,
systems. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 3, 333–353. doi: 10.1007/s10518-005- 381–391. doi: 10.1016/0141-0296(95)00021-X
1242-2 Clough, R., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of Structures (New York,
Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., and Laguardia, R. (2019). Intervention cost optimization NY:McGraw-Hill), 738.
of bracing systems with multiperformance criteria. Eng. Struct. 182, 185–197. Computers and Structures Inc. (2015). SAP2000 Integrated Solution for Structural
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.034 Analysis and Design. Berkeley, CA.
Caprili, S., Mattei, F., Gigliotti, R., and Salvatore, W. (2018). Modified cyclic Constantinou, M., Mokha, A., and Reinhorn, A. (1990). Teflon
steel law including bond-slip for analysis of RC structures with plain bars. bearings in base isolation II: modeling. J. Struct. Eng. 116, 455–474.
Earthquakes Struct. 14, 187–201. doi: 10.12989/eas.2018.14.3.187 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:2(455)

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82

D’Amato et al. RC Building Seismic Retrofit

D’Amato, M., Gigliotti, R., and Laguardia, R. (2019). Seismic isolation for Martelli, A., and Forni, M. (1998). Seismic isolation of civil buildings in
protecting historical buildings: a case study. Front. Built Environ. 5:87. Europe. Progress Struct. Eng. Mater. 1, 286–294. doi: 10.1002/pse.2260
doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00087 010310
D’Amato, M., Laterza, M., and Casamassima, V. M. (2017). Seismic performance Mazza, F., and Vulcano, A. (2014). Equivalent viscous damping for
evaluation of a multi-span existing masonry arch bridge. Open Civil Eng. J. 11, displacement- based seismic design of hysteretic damped braces for
1191–1207. doi: 10.2174/1874149501711011191 retrofitting framed buildings. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 12, 2797–2819.
De Luca, A., De Mele, E., Molina, J., Verzeletti, G., and Pinto, A. V. (2001). Base doi: 10.1007/s10518-014-9601-5
isolation for retrofitting historic buildings: evaluation of seismic performance Mokha, A., Constantinou, M., and Reinhorn, A. M. (1988). Teflon Bearings in
through experimental investigation. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 30, Aseismic Base Isolation: Experimental Studies and Mathematical Modeling.
1125–1145. doi: 10.1002/eqe.54 Technical Report. Buffalo, NY: NCEER.
De Matteis, G., Formisano, A., Mazzolani, F. M., and Panico, S. (2005). Mokha, A., Navichandra, A., Constantinou, M. C., and Zayas, V. (1996).
“Design of low-yield metal shear panels for energy dissipation,” in Seismic isolation of large historic building. J. Struct. Eng. 122, 298–308.
Improvement of Buildings’ Structural Quality by New Technologies - Proceedings doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(298)
of the Final Conference of COST Action C12 (Innsbruck), 665–675. Morelli, F., Amico, C., Salvatore, W., Squeglia, N., and Stacul, S. (2017). Influence
doi: 10.1201/9780203970843.ch77 of tension stiffening on the flexural stiffness of reinforced concrete circular
Formisano, A., Castaldo, C., and Chiumiento, G. (2017). Optimal seismic sections. Materials 10:669. doi: 10.3390/ma10060669
upgrading of a reinforced concrete school building with metal-based devices Morelli, F., Laguardia, R., Faggella, M., Piscini, A., Gigliotti, R., and Salvatore,
using an efficient multi-criteria decision-making method. Struct. Infrastruct. W. (2018). Ground motions and scaling techniques for 3D performance based
Eng. 13, 1373–1389. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1268174 seismic assessment of an industrial steel structure. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 16.
Formisano, A., De Matteis, G., Panico, S., Calderoni, B., and Mazzolani, F. M. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0244-1
(2006). “Full-scale test on existing RC frame reinforced with slender shear steel NTC (1992). Norme Tecniche per L’esecuzione Delle Opere in Cemento Armato
plates,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Behaviour of Steel Normale e Precompresso e per le Strutture Metalliche D.M. 12 Febbraio (1992).
Structures in Seismic Areas - Stessa 2006 (London), 827–834. Rome: Italian Ministry of Infrastructure.
Formisano, A., Lombardi, L., and Mazzolani, F. M. (2016). Full and perforated NTC (2008). Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni D.M. 14 Gennaio 2008. Rome:
metal plate shear walls as bracing systems for seismic upgrading of existing RC Italian Ministry of Infrastructure.
buildings. Ingegneria Sismica 33, 16–34. NTC (2018). D.M. 17.01.18 - Aggiornamento delle ‘Norme Tecniche per le
Fuentes, D. D., Baquedano Julià, P. A., D’Amato, M., and Laterza, Costruzioni. Rome: Italian Ministry of Infrastructure.
M. (2019b). Preliminary seismic damage assessment of mexican Panzera, I., Morelli, F., and Salvatore, W. (2020). Seismic multi-level optimization
churches after september 2017 earthquakes. Int. J. Architect. Heritage. of dissipative re-centering systems. Earthquake Struct. 18, 129–145.
doi: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1628323 Petrovčič, S., and Kilar, V. (2017). Seismic retrofitting of historic masonry
Fuentes, D. D., D’Amato, M., and Laterza, M. (2019a). “Seismic vulnerability structures with the use of base isolation - modeling and analysis
and risk assessment of historic constructions: the case of masonry and adobe aspects, Int. J. Archit. Heritage 11, 229–246. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2016.
churches in Italy and Chile,”in SAHC 2018. 11th International Conference 1190881
on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, RILEM Bookseries. (Cusco) Ramírez, E., Lourenço, P. B., and D’Amato, M. (2019). “Seismic assessment of the
1127–1137. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99441-3_122 matera cathedral,”in Proceedings of SAHC 2018. 11th International Conference
Ibrahim, R. A. (2008). Recent advances in nonlinear passive vibration isolators. J. on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, RILEM Bookseries, in 18.
Sound Vib. 314, 371–452. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2008.01.014 (Cusco), 1346–1354. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99441-3_144
Iervolino, I., Galasso, C., and Cosenza, E. (2009). REXEL: computer aided record Rossi, E., Sebastiani, M., Gigliotti, R., and D’Amato, M. (2020). An
selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 8, innovative procedure for the in-situ characterization of elastomeric
339–362. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1 bearings by using nanoindentation test. Int. J. Archit. Heritage. 1–13.
Kawamura, S., Sugisaki, R., Ogura, K., Maezawa, S., and Tanaka, S. (2000). doi: 10.1080/15583058.2020.1737986
“Seismic isolation retrofit in Japan,” in 12 th World Conference of Earthquake Smerzini, C., Galasso, C., Iervolino, I., and Paolucci, R. (2014).
Engineering (Auckland). Ground motion record selection based on broadband spectral
Kelly, J. M. (1986). Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography. Soil Dynam compatibility. Earthquake Spectra 30, 1427–1448. doi: 10.1193/052312EQ
Earthquake Eng. 5, 202–216. doi: 10.1016/0267-7261(86)90006-0 S197M
Kelly, J. M. (2002). Seismic isolation systems for developing countries. Earthquake Tomazevic, M., Klemenc, I., and Weiss, P. (2009). Seismic upgrading of old
Spectra 18, 385–406. doi: 10.1193/1.1503339 masonry buildings by seismic isolation and CFRP laminates: a shaking-
Laguardia, R., Gigliotti, R., and Braga, F. (2017). “Optimal design of dissipative table study. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 7, 293–321. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-
braces for seismic retrofitting through a multi- performance procedure,” in 17th 9086-1
ANIDIS Conference “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia (Pistoia).
Laguardia, R., Morrone, C., Faggella, M., and Gigliotti, R. (2019). A simplified Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
method to predict torsional effects on asymmetric seismic isolated buildings absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
under bi-directional earthquake components. Bulletin Earthquake Eng. 17, potential conflict of interest.
6331–6356. doi: 10.1007/s10518-019-00686-1
Laterza, M., D’Amato, M., Braga, F., and Gigliotti, R. (2017b). Extension Copyright © 2020 D’Amato, Laguardia and Gigliotti. This is an open-access article
to rectangular section of an analytical model for concrete confined distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
by steel stirrups and/or FRP jackets. Composites Struct. 176, 910–922. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.06.025 original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Laterza, M., D’Amato, M., and Gigliotti, R. (2017a). Modeling of gravity-designed publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
RC sub-assemblages subjected to lateral loads. Eng. Struct. 130, 242–260. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.044 terms.

Frontiers in Built Environment | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2020 | Volume 6 | Article 82