Page 1 of 9

STRUCTURAL RETROFITTING: CASE STUDY

A.K. Singh
1
and R.S. Jangid
2


Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) is a popular material for building construction in India
because it is cheaper than structural steel. Also, construction in RCC is considered to be labour
intensive and supposedly requires fewer high-tech tools, infrastructure, and skills than does
structural steel. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a boom in the number of low- and
medium-rise RC frame buildings with masonry infills. However, the real estate boom over the
past decade has resulted in a large, privately constructed building that has not been adequately
designed. Nominal mixes (with predetermined proportions of cement, fine aggregates, and
coarse aggregates) are used to make concrete without a formal mix design. Volume batching is
primarily employed instead of weigh batching; resulting into difficulty of not accounting for
moisture in the aggregates, which could at times be large. Also, the placement of concrete is
manual. Water available at site is used for concreting without always verifying its suitability;
some salts detrimental to the durability and strength of concrete do enter into the concrete.
Moreover, the quantity of water is adjusted to ensure good workability, often resulting in
higher water content than necessary and in porous hardened concrete.
This paper describes the intensive retrofitting of an existing RCC framed structure. The
building of is a multi-storeyed Ground + 12 upper floor RCC framed building owned by a
nationalised bank.

Detail of the Structure:
The subject building is Ground + 12 upper floors RCC framed residential building structure
with masonry infills and is more than 30years old. The building belongs to Syndicate Bank
namely Panchratna CHS Ltd., 4-E, Damodar Park, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086. The
building was identified as dilapidated structure by Municipal Corporation (MCGM) for
immediate demolition within 30 days through their notice no. B&F/B119/304/354 dated 01-09-
2007 of M.M.C/ACT 2007-08 under section 354 0f MMC Act.

1
Shri Bhagubhai Mafatlal Polytechnic, Irla, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400 056, e.mail : akksingh@yahoo.com.
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076.

The building has symmetrical layout. Two lift shafts are eccentrically placed opposite to
staircase. The building was examined for its current structural condition and to suggest the
remedial measures. Following was the specific scope of the study:
i) Needful investigation of building to precede proposed Repair-
Rehabilitation-Strengthening.
ii) Assessment of building structure for decay, deterioration.
iii) Setting the priority of work.
The strategy adopted was aiming to recover the original performance, for which the
damaged or deteriorated portion of structure was to be repaired or replace with new
elements or new material. Detailed investigation for upgrading original structural
performance was not included in the scope of examination.

APPROACH TO PROBLEM:
Basic approach to the problem of retrofitting of the structure of was considered in the
following manner.
1. It was important to understand the damage occurred in the structure due
workmanship, lack of codal provisions followed at the time of construction and
poor maintenance.
2. To save the building from the immediate threat of collapse due to dilapidated columns
at the ground floor.
3. To identify the repair measures to the damage, which are not very significant and
to make the same good.
4. To identify the repair measures to the damage, which are structurally very
significant and to evaluate the possibility of replacing the same.
5. To evaluate the different strengthening measures against the possibility of re-
development from the techno-commercial viewpoint.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS

1. GENERAL CONDITION:
Stability check was not carried out as the scope
was to recover the original performance and
detailed investigation for upgrading original
structural performance was not included in the
scope of examination. The major type of distress
observed in RCC elements were of moderate
damage level. Age related distress and fatigue
were identified in all RCC members. Distress
were in the form of cover failure to reinforcing
bars, spalling of concrete due to corrosion born internal stresses, Open cracks etc.
Overhead water tank was showing major sign of distress and stored water was
continuously leaking from the cracks. The columns supporting the over head tank were
showing the cracks running above the line of reinforcement and were uniform in width
(see Photograph 1). Foundation was inspected up to pile cap then further digging was
stopped as concrete found was sound.

2. LOCALISED EXTREMELY DAMAGE TO RCC:
There were 8 columns at ground floor, which severely
damaged (see Photograph 2, 3 & 4). The loss of main
reinforcement was more than 70% and concrete has
eroded in the core portion. The sizes of these columns
were reduced 10% of original. In column no C1 and C2
the cross section was nil as concrete was fully
disintegrated. This resulted the tilt of about 25mm of the
building. These columns had become a potential threat to stability of the building.


3. SCATTERED DAMAGES:
Minor cracks coupled with swelling on plaster were an indication of continuing corrosion
activities in the embedded metal. Swellings of concrete were observed at majority of locations.
Corrosion of negative reinforcing bars due to moisture and inadequate cover were
noticed in the form of upheaval of slabs / floor at the beam supports.

DIAGNOSIS:
FRAME OF DIGNOSIS
Diagnosis for the distressed structure was done by eliminating possibilities until some
conclusion appeared. A frame of such stepbystep procedure was prepared for the structure
under investigation.
Step 1: Categorisation into one of the three manifestation of concrete
damage cracking, spalling or disintegration.
Step 2 : Error in design (not available)
Step 3: Relate basic symptoms to potential causes.
Step 4: Eliminate the possibilities which are readily identified like
corrosion of Reinforcement, Reinforcing bars rust and cover spall,
Parallel cracks along reinforcing bars and Rust stain
Step 5: Analysis of available clues like Disintegration of surface, Unsound
material, Weathering conditions, Abrasion action, Swelling of
Concrete, Chemical reactions, Moisture absorption, Crack
penetration / depth of crack and Cold or construction joints
Based on above frame the causes of damage were identified as under:
1: Workmanship -
No design / drawing pertaining to structural details were available, nothing much
could be diagnosed on this part. Building was old and at the time of design the
Indian Standard Code followed for was IS 456:1964. The code did not have any
say on durability aspect of the RCC. Thus the durability parameters like
water/cement ratio, minimum cement context, maximum size and particle size
distribution, crack width calculations, minimum grade of concrete, expected
environmental exposure condition, minimum concrete cover to reinforcing bars,
etc. were not given much importance. These resulted into a fast propagation of
damage to the structure. Also growing pollution has severely affecting the RCC
building.

2: Corrosion of Embedded Metal
Corrosion is an electrochemical process requiring an anode, a cathode and an
electrolyte. A moist concrete matrix forms an acceptable electrolyte, and steel
reinforcement provides the anode and cathode. Electrical current flows between
cathode and anode and the reaction results in an increase in metal volume as the
Fe (Iron) is oxidized into Fe(OH)
2
and Fe(OH)
3
and precipitates as FeOOH (rust
colour). Water and oxygen must be present for the reaction to take place. In good
concrete the corrosion rate will be very low.

3: Carbonation
In good quality concrete, the carbonation process is very slow. An estimate rate
of carbonation penetration is 1 mm. per year. As stated earlier, the Indian
Standard Code followed at the time of design of building, ignored the thickness
and quality of concrete cover to reinforcing steel bars. Also, the carbonation
process requires constant change in moisture level dry to damp to dry.

4: Moisture Vapour
Water vapour travels through concrete when a structural / nonstructural
members surface are subjected to different level of relative humidity (RH).
Moisture vapour travels from high RH to low RH. The amount of moisture
vapour transmission is a function of RH gradient between faces and permeability
of the cementitious product. One of main causes to severe damage to ground
floor columns could be attributed to the same.

5: Height and Unprotected Surface
The high energy released upon
hitting the building faade surface,
especially near the sharp edges of
corners and parapet causes abrasion
of surface by rubbing and friction.
Generally surface is uniformly worn
away, including cement matrix and
aggregates. If plaster has high level
of porosity, the abrasion rate would
be high.

REMEDIAL MEASURES
1: IMMEDIATE:
a. Propping: Immediate threat to
the building stability was due to
dilapidated columns at the ground
floor and same could not be left
unattended. It was recommended to
provide the load release system.
Such system was proposed based on
the load on the columns. These
columns are shown in the figure 2.
The props were planned in such a manner that each prop should temporally relieve the
loads of slabs contributing to the dilapidated columns. The estimated load on each props
were 120KN. To achieve the proper contact of slab to slabs / beams the adjustable bolts
were used (Photograph 5).


b. Restoration of severely damaged RCC columns: It was
mandatory to see that these columns do not jeopardise the
stability of structure during restoration. It was recommended
to build up the original profile of columns and pardis using
non-shrink super fluid micro-concrete. New rebars were to be
put in position. Three
columns were taken in one
sequence and balance five
was taken in next two
sequences. The Column C1
and C2 were taken up to 2nd
floor. Two more columns were treated in the similar
manner. These columns were near staircase but these
were taken only up to mid landing level. The form
work should be in steel plates duly coated with anti-
corrosive chemical from in side. These plates were to
be left permanently to act as casing and hoop confining
materials. (Photograph: 6). To fill the cavities of
disintegrated column concrete, high pressure grouting
of very low viscosity epoxy was done. For this purpose
the holes were left in the steel plates, which were
plugged after grouting. (Photograph: 7 & 8).
c. Restoration of mildly damaged RCC elements:
While recommending following parameters were
considered besides compatible properties of general
RCC repair materials.
1. Low shrinkage properties
2. Requisite setting / hardening properties
3. Workability
4. Good bond strength with existing substrata
5. Compatible coefficient of thermal expansion
6. Compatible mechanical properties
7. Minimum curing
8. Alkaline character
9. Low water permeability
10. Cost
11. Durable, nondegradable or nonbiodegradable due to various forms of
energy like ultra violet rays, heat, etc.
12. Nonhazardous / nonpolluting

1. Latex Modified Cementitious Mortar: The most suitable material for RCC
repair is Latex Modified Cementitious Mortar. The advantages of such mortar
are underlying in its properties of control strength gain, set time and reduce
shrinkage. These contain Polymers to improve low permeability and to
enhance the adhesion.
2. Micro-concrete: Properties of micro-concrete are similar to above. It has
the added advantage of its flowability which enables it to encapsulate the
steel bars where access is not possible. Due to Rheoplastic nature it can be
utilized as grout to fill the large cavities. The added advantage of this
material is its ability to eliminate honey combing in areas of high steel
congestion. In addition the material is free flowing, self compacting,
shrinkage compensated and early strength gain. Early stripping time of
formwork and very low permeability are another good feature.
3. Replacing Concrete : Areas of concrete which have been cut away were
made good depending on situation, scope of work and type / importance of
member under repair. Recasting of broken chajjas (sun sheds), coping, etc.
were done using ordinary concrete.
4. Grouting: There were certain locations where honeycomb or rock pockets
existed. Such locations required the packing by nonshrink low viscosity
material. The existing cracks in RCC were sealed by low viscosity and very
low viscosity.
5. Polymer Fibre Reinforced Mortar: To reduce the risk of cracks resurfacing
due to shrinkage and to ensure full contact with host concrete, the proprietary
ready to use structural repair mortar is recommended. This material possessed
a good bond characteristics to steel reinforcement and concrete, reinforced
with Polymer Fibre, shrinkage compensate, high strength and extremely low
permeability ensured the success and longevity of repair.
6. FRP Jackets: Ground floor of the building had soft storey as there are minimal
infill walls. It was proposed to wrap the concrete with a continuous FRP jacket at
Ground floor and 1
st
floor to resist the transverse expansion of the concrete. This
resistance provided a confining pressure to the concrete. The improvement to the
behaviour of concrete was quantified based on the fact that concrete wrapped with
FRP jacket exhibits a bilinear stress-strain response. Initially the stress strain
behaviour is unchanged from that of unconfined concrete. However, beyond the
peak stress for unconfined concrete, the stress level in confined concrete continues
to increase with increasing strain. The rate of increase is roughly proportional to the
stiffness of the confining jacket. Moreover the acceleration is not increased due to
no increased stiffness, thus attracting much less lateral forces. FRP, in turn, will
extremely light weight and thus will not increase the mass of the structure and also
it will not add significantly towards the stiffness of the structure and basic behaviour
of the structure will be unaffected.

CONCLUSION:
The final completion certificate was issued to Municipal Corporation vide Ref.
AK/ST/SYNDIACATE/RETRO03-2009 Dated: 26-03-2009 to certify that the building was
restored to the original required strength and the building was stable against the intended forces
/ loads for which it had been originally designed. The post retrofitting maintenance guidelines
were issued to the Bank, the owner of the structure. The next structural audit of the building is
due in 2012 and maintenance related work will be due in 2014, which will involve painting the
building as during the painting work RCC damage / distress treatment, crack filling, etc. the
workers will have close access to the surface of the building on scaffolding.
CREDIT:
The project could be safely and successfully completed with a delay of 50 days. The
cost escalation was 28%. Follwing were the persons / firms involved in completing the
project.
1. Dr. R. S. Jangid, IIT-Bombay, 2. Er. Chahal, Manager (Maintenance, Syndicate
Bank), 3. Mr. Himanshu Shah, Managing Director, MRIPL (Contractor), 4. Dr. Gopal L.
Rai, S&P India (P) Ltd., 5. Er. Kulvinder Singh, Manager (Tech), R&M International