~ , EngineeringStructures,Vol. 19, No. 12, pp.

1018-1024, 1997
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0141-0296(97)00041-2 0141-0296/97 $17.()0 + 0.(x)
ELSEVIER

Use of steel bracing in reinforced

concrete flames
M. R. Maheri
Department o f Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, lran

A. Sahebi
Iranian Telecommunication Centre, Shiraz, Iran
(Received June 1995; revised version accepted October 1996)

In this paper the use of steel bracing in concrete-framed structures

is investigated. The investigation is carried out through a series of
tests conducted on a number of model frames. The object of the
tests was to determine the degree of effectiveness of different diag-
onal bracing arrangements to increase the in-plane shear strength
of the concrete frame and to observe the relative behaviour of ten-
sion and compression braces. The important question of the proper
connections between the steel braces and the concrete frame is
also considered. The test results indicate a considerable increase
in the in-plane strength of the frame due to steel bracing. As an
overall conclusion it is noted that, with proper connection between
the brace and the frame, the steel bracing could be a viable alterna-
tive or supplement to shear walls in concrete framed buildings in
seismic areas. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: steel bracing, RC frames, seismic resistance

1. Introduction
In order to increase the seismic strength of framed struc-
tures, steel bracing or shear walls are often used, It is corn-
mon to use steel bracing in steel-framed structures and
shear walls in reinforced concrete structures. However, in
recent years there have been suggestions for the use of steel
bracing in reinforced concrete structures. Considering the
ease of construction and the relatively low cost, steel brac-
ing appears to be an attractive alternative to other shear
resisting elements such as concrete and masonry shear
walls or a rigid frame system. Reports of the use of steel-
bracing in RC structures can be found in the recent litera-
ture, but very little is known as to the level of effectiveness
of this strengthening system in RC structures,
In 1980, Sugano and Fujimura ~ conducted a number of
tests on some model RC frames braced with ' K ' and ' X '
bracing as well as similar model frames strengthened by
masonry and concrete in-fills. The aim of these investi-
gations was to determine the level of effectiveness of each
system in increasing the in-plane strength and ductility of
the frame. In 1981 Higashi and Endo 2 and Kavamata and
Ohnuma 3 also carried out studies on the use of concentric
and eccentric bracing in concrete frames. The results indi-
cated the possible effective use of these strengthening
methods. Ohishi et a l . 4 and Segiguchi et al. 5 carried out
similar investigations on the use of V-braces. In 1987 and
1991, Bush et al. 6"7 used a complex steel frame-bracing sys-
tem in a concrete frame and obtained a substantial increase
in the in-plane shear resistance of the frame.
In all the above investigations, bracing was applied to
the concrete frame indirectly through a steel-frame, itself
confined in the concrete frame. In this method an appropri-
ate steel frame is first encased in, and fixed to, the concrete
frame, The steel bracing is then connected to this frame.
As a result the transfer of load between the concrete frame
and steel bracing is achieved indirectly through a steel
frame. This rather elaborate 'indirect bracing system' can
be costly and economically non-viable. When increasing
the shear resistance of an already existing concrete frame
is desired (e.g. seismic strengthening of existing buildings),
an additional steel frame within the concrete frame might,
in certain cases, be a necessity. This is because, due to the
increased seismic load, the concrete columns and beams
themselves may require strengthening. However, for a
frame yet to be designed and constructed, the extra seismic
load transferred through bracing can be included in the
design load for the concrete frame and the need for an
expensive steel frame is obsolete. Another shortcoming of
the indirect bracing system is that it is susceptible to the
diverse effects of dynamic interaction between the steel
frame and the concrete frame during earthquake dynamic
loading. In a 'direct bracing system' steel bracing is directly
connected to the concrete frame, on the other hand,

1018
Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi 1019

dynamic interaction between the bracing system and con- Table 1 Estimated load and mode of failure of different
crete frame is very small. To provide an economically model frames
attractive and technically simple steel bracing system,
therefore, this study concentrates on the use of direct Elastic Estimated
load at
steel bracing. UIt. strength analysis failure
Frame Stress (ACI-design) (P= 1000 kg) (tonne)

2. Test models Bending 33 075 8485 3.9*

Axial 2184 853 6.2
The bracing system chosen for these investigations was the Unbraced Shear 2440 353 6.9
common diagonal X-bracing. It was also decided that we
should study the behaviour of diagonal tension and com- Bending 33 075 2237 14.8"
pression braces separately. To this end, and for comparison Comp.- Axial 2184 93.2 23.4
purposes, four model frames were selected namely: (i) a braced Shear 2440 93.2 26.2
concrete frame without bracing; (ii) a concrete frame
Bending 35 700 2523 14.1"
braced with a diagonal tension brace; (iii) a concrete frame Tens.- Axial 11 550 602 19.2
braced with a diagonal compression brace, and (iv) a con- braced Shear 2440 93.2 26.2
crete frame braced with X-bracing. The size of the model
frames selected for testing was limited to the geometric Bending 35 700 1314 27.2*
Axial 11 550 313 32.0
capacity of the testing machine as 58 × 58 cm (Figure 1). X-braced Shear 2400 54.7 44.6
A square cross-section with a side equal to 10cm was
chosen for the models. The model frames, in effect, rep- *Criticalload, indicating the dominance of bending stresses.
resent a unit panel of an arbitrary concrete frame, undergo-
ing in-plane shear due to horizontal earthquake loads. In
resisting the in-plane seismic force, each of these unit J ~ Ill
panels contribute to the overall resistance of the frame. I ~ ~" "_/~~_ i
Since in actual structures the bracing is applied to each
panel individually, rather than the frame as a whole, it is
justified to investigate one unit panel to represent the effect
on a multi-bay frame. Having pre-determined the geometry
of the model frames and noting the generality of the model
frames, the necessary bending and shear reinforcements col ~b~
were selected within the minimum and maximum require- Figure2 Connection detail of: (a) the steel brace to concrete
merits of the ACI-ultimate strength design as given in frame; (b)the steel cross braces to each-other
Figure 1.
The diagonal cross-bracing system was designed to carry
about 75% of the total earthquake load (as recommended in the X-brace system, the two diagonal braces were also
by some seismic codes, although a design engineer may connected to each other at their cross-point via a steel plate
change this percentage depending on the level of forces as indicated in Figure 2.
involved, limitation of the frame size, etc.). The estimated
in-plane strength of the unbraced frame was 3.9 tonne 3. Analytical estimate of strength
(Table 1). This is equivalent to a lateral load of about 2.7
tonne (to be assumed as 25% of the total earthquake load). The test program was so arranged as to study the behaviour
The cross-bracing was, therefore, designed to carry an equi- of braces and the frames under different loading levels
valent of 8.1 tonne of the lateral load. To this end each of which produce different ranges of elastic or plastic behav-
the diagonal braces consisted of two equal angles iour. It was, therefore, necessary to have an estimate of the
(25 × 25 mm) having a total cross-sectional area of ultimate strength of the frame-braces system. To this end
2.84 cm, welded edge-to-edge to each other. At the connec- an analytical study was first carried out. A rigorous non-
tion to the frame, the braces were welded to the sides of linear analysis would have obviously produced the best
an in-plane steel plate, itself welded to an equal angle pos- estimate. However, as the theme o f the investigation has
itioned and pre-cast at the corners of the frame (Figure 2). been experimental and a rough estimate would have suf-
To reduce the buckling tendency of the compression brace riced, it was decided to use a semi-linear method of estimat-
ing the ultimate strength as outlined in the following steps:

/ eq (i) A linear elastic analysis was carried out on each

frame system using the appropriate material proper-
t '*" t ties, design parameters and the loading condition to
_~ ~ be used in the test. In these analyses a unit load (1.0
"-- --~" ~ tonne) was applied and the corresponding compress-
,~c , , ive, tensile, shear and bending stresses in the mem-
I bers were noted.
(ii) The ultimate strength of the frame in shear and in
,J bending was estimated according to the ACI code-
~,,. ] ultimate strength method and the compressive and
tensile ultimate strength of braces determined.
Figure I Detail of typical test model (iii) By dividing the ultimate stresses which can be car-
1020 Steel b r a c i n g in RC frames: M. R. M a h e r i a n d A. Sahebi

II!1
I; ....
(a) (b)

Figure 3 Shear force application to frames (a) shear force as

actually applied to a frame; (b) vertical force applied diagonally

ried by the members (obtained in stage (ii) by the ~ ~

corresponding stresses determined in stage (i), an
estimate of the ultimate load for each mode of failure
(bending, shear, axial) was made and the minimum
calculated load was chosen as the ultimate load and Figure 5 Test arrangement for deflection measurement
its mode of failure as the mode of failure of the
frame-brace system. ,~so- ~,,~ No.C~rve
Looai-Difllctio~ 1
for Cllcle No.

The results of the analytical estimate of ultimate strength t500

of each frame-brace system are summarized in Table 1. It -, ,25o
is evident in these tables that in all four cases the bending ~ 1ooo
stresses in the concrete frame govern the strength of the
system and the expected mode of failure will be bending ~ ~5o
failure. The ultimate load carriable by the frame without ~0o
bracing is estimated as 3.9 tonne, the frame with diagonal
tension brace as 14.1 tonne, the frame with diagonal com- 2 5 ~ o ~ i ~='Ii i ; ~ 2°'~iz~'~
pression brace as 14.8 tonne and the frame with X-bracing
is estimated as 27.2 tonne. ~';0 '~.~'; . . ~ 0.0~5
De/tect£on (era)

Figure6 The second-cycle (p~× = 0.3p~), load-deflection

4. E x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t s curve for unbraced frame

4. l. Test set-up 4.2. Testing of unbraced frame

To investigate the in-plane shear strength of the frame it is
necessary to subject the frame to horizontal cyclic loading,
In the absence of a reaction-wall it was decided to use a
compression testing machine for application of the load. To
convert the compressive load of the test machine into a
shear load for the frame, the frames were, in turn, placed
diagonally at a 45 ° angle in the machine. The vertical diag-
onal, in this way, acted as a compression diagonal and the
horizontal diagonal acted as a tensile member, as illustrated
in Figure 3 and seen in Figure 4. In this way the applied
compressive load acts as an in-plane shear load on the
frame. In each test the shortening and elongation of diag-
onals due to the incrementally applied load was measured
through two strain gauges positioned on the diagonals
(Figure 5).
The estimated ultimate capacity of this frame was determ-
ined as 3.9 tonne (Table 1). The frame was, therefore,
expected to behave in a semi-elastic manner for up to 30%
of this load or about 1.5 tonne. Two cycles of loading and
unloading were conducted on the frame within this range.
The load-deflection curve, as shown in Figure 6, demon-
strates the near elastic behaviour of the frame. In the third
cycle the load was increased to 60% of the estimated ulti-
mate load. The frame in this cycle shows some plastic
behaviour. The load-deflection curve for each of the com-
pression and tension diagonals is plotted in Figure 7. The
curves are almost identical, indicating the equal deflection
on the compression and tension diagonals. In the fourth
2500. F~'¢~ No. 1
LooMi-Di~ctio~ C~rve
2250 so~ cvol. No., ~ J~
./y/"
000

175o

1500"

"~ 1250

1000

150

500 I

25 'o:oVo. . . . . z~

Deflect~ovt (c'm.)

Figure 4 Four test models: (1) unbraced, (2) cross-braced, (3) Figure 7 The third-cycle (p~×= 0.6 p.), load-deflection curve
compression-braced, (4) tension-braced for unbraced frame
Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi 1021
4500" Prcwae No. t 4500- Pr(lm, e No. 2.B
Load-D=.~c~;o~ Cu~e i Loo~-D=~c~,~ ecu~e
~ 40002
4°°°i i
3500 ~ 3500 ~

~ 3000 ~ 3000:

~5oo . 25oo i

20O0! 2000 z
1500! 15002

1000! 10oo:: Co11~,1~'ess~ Go,lzge

IIII, 'S;;7:
----

,OO,o
o.ooo. . . . . . b.~'o'6 . . . . . b . ' ~ . . . . . o.'6'o'o. . . . . . &'a'~ . . . . . ;.'o'56 . . . . . E2'oo
o:!Eo "o'~ ~.b'o~' ' "o'.'o';~ ' o.o19
Deflect~o~ (c~) De.fZec~o'r,. ( c m )
Figure8 The final cycle (pma×'= p.), load-deflection curve for Figure 1 0 The final cycle (Pr~ax= P.) load-deflection curve for
unbraced frame, indicating identical behaviour on tension and cross-braced frame
compression diagonals

cycle the frame was loaded to failure. The first cracks in (iii) An important point of observation was the more
the concrete appeared at the load of 3.8 tonne and the ulti- dominant behaviour of the tension brace, compared
mate load taken by the frame was measured at 4.0 tonne, to the compression brace, as with increasing load,
This is very close to the estimated ultimate load of 3.9 the tension brace carried a higher share of the load
tonne. The deformations of the compression and tension than the compression brace. For example, at the load
diagonals were also equal, in absolute value, up to failure, of 3.0 tonne, the tension brace carried 30% more
Another point to note is that the frame shows a near linear load than the compression brace. At 4.0 tonne the
behaviour up to 60% of the ultimate load. At higher loads share of the tension brace was 58% more and the
the behaviour becomes non-linear (Figure 8). This is in increase in share of load borne by the tension brace
agreement with the known behaviour of reinforced con- at 5.0 tonne was 63%. However, at higher loads the
crete. The mode of failure of the frame is also similar to system shows a distinctly non-linear behaviour and
the expected mode. The governing stresses, as indicated by the dominance of the tension brace starts to reduce
theory, were bending stresses at the four corners of the in such a way that at the ultimate load, the difference
frame and the flexure cracks that appeared at failure were in load-bearing of the two braces was only 15%
at these corners (Figure 9). (Figure 10).
(iv) Another interesting observation was the manner in
4.3. Testing of cross-braced frame which the two braces carried the load. With increas-
The ultimate load which can be carried by the frame was ing load the rate of load-bearing of the tension and
estimated at 27.0 tonne (Table 1) and its mode of failure compression braces was different. In other words, it
as bending. However, since the estimation was based on a appears that the two braces take turns in carrying the
semi-elastic behaviour, the frame was expected to fail at increased load, or as the rate of load-bearing of ten-
loads below this value. For this reason the frame was tested sion brace increased, the rate for compression brace
in nine cycles at the m a x i m u m loads of 2.0 tonne (twice), reduced and vice-versa. This point can be noted in
3.0 tonne (twice), 4.0, 5.0 and 8.0 tonne, and the ultimate the load-deflection curve for the two braces shown
load. The observations made during these tests can be sum- in Figure 11.
marized as follows: (v) The failure of the f r a m e - b r a c e system started with
the appearance of flexure cracks at the corners of the
(i) The m a x i m u m load carried by the frame was 12.5 tension diagonal at the load of 8.0 tonne. At higher
tonne which is well below the estimated value, loads flexure cracks appeared at the corners of the
Nevertheless, it showed a three-fold increase in the frame and eventually at the load of 12.5 tonne the
shear resistance of the frame due to X-bracing. tension brace failed (Figure 12). The failure of the
(ii) Up to 60% of the ultimate load, the behaviour of the tension brace occurred at its welded connection to
system on the diagonals appears linear and changes the mid-span plate. If the connection weld was more
to non-linear at higher loads.
9000= F~'owtte No. 2.B

i
' 70002

8000 ~
5OOO~
40002
..... 3000 i
i # /" --=--== Comp'tes~.o~ Di.agor,=~

,, ,ooZ

De fleet~.o~z (c.rrQ

Figure 11 A t y p i c a l l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve for cross-braced

Figure9 Flexural failure at a corner of the unbraced frame frame
1022 Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi

Figure 12 Failure of tension brace at the central connection Figure 13 Buckling failure of the compression brace immedi-
ately after the failure of tension brace

robust the frame would have endured higher loads.

However, immediately after the failure of the tension
brace the compression brace buckled under the
2500- Loa~-Def~C~e
ctto~
~ , , ~ ~o. 3
Io" cyoz,so.
increased loading ( F i g u r e 13).

4.4. Testing o f c o m p r e s s i o n - b r a c e d f r a m e ~ 3000

2600

2000 ~~On~
In this frame only the compression brace was provided
( F i g u r e 4 ) . The aim was to separately investigate the ~ ,500
behaviour of a compression brace. The estimated ultimate ,000
strength of the system was calculated to be 14.8 tonne. The
loading was carried out in six cycles. In the first three 5oo
cycles the frame was loaded up to 3.0 tonne. The reason
for the repeat of the test was the unexpected behaviour of
el ...............
-0.020 -O.OfO
~ 0.000 ~ 0 . 0 t 0' 0.0,90
~et,z,ct~o,~(~,,~)
~'o'~'i. . . . o'o',o
O. .
the compression brace in this loading range. The deflection
on the tension diagonal was substantially more than on the Figure 14 A typical load-deflection curve for the compression-
braced model (Pm~x= 0.3 p~)
compression brace. In fact, the deflection of the com-
pression brace oscillated around zero ( F i g u r e 14). It
appears that in this elastic range the load was transferred
directly to the concrete frame and the share of load bearing ,oooo: r~,,, u,. 3
Loom[-Defl, ect~'n C'u~,'ve
: ~
of the compression brace was almost zero. Only at higher ,000- so, cyo~.No. 6 ~
loads as the behaviour of the frame (observed on the ten- 8oooi
sion d i a g o n a l ) m o v e d into non-linear range, did the c o m - , 0 o o i / ~ , , , a , , , ~ ~
pression brace start to participate in load-bearing. As the ~ ~ooo~
load increased the share of the compression brace increased "d 5000:
in such a way that at ultimate load of 10.0 tonne (less than ~ ,ooo:.
the estimated value, as expected) the deflection on the corn- sooo~
pression diagonal was only 20% less than the tension diag- - ,a
~ooo~ / / - . ~ ~,.,,o,~0,~o~
onal ( F i g u r e 15). The failure of the system started with the ~ooo~
appearance of flexure cracks at the tension corners of the ~ ~/"
concrete frame. With increasing load the cracks developed 0 ~ , ........ , . . . ~..
-o.o,o -0.040 o.ooo o.o,o o.oso o ,eo o.,5o 0.20 .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. i o

and the strength of the frame reduced. As a result the corn- o~yz,~e~o,~(~r,)
pression brace started to carry the transferred load. The fail- Figure 15 The final cycle (p~× = Pu) load-deflection curve for
ure was completed with buckling of the compression brace, the c o m p r e s s i o n - b r a c e d model
Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. M a h e r i and A. Sahebi 1023

4.5. Testing of tension-braced frame I

Four loading cycles completed the tests on this model ~it.___j!~ ~~-~ ~] /.~
~
frame. In the first cycle the frame was loaded up to 2.5 ~,~>~
tonne. The load-deflection curve (Figure 16) shows an _ ..
almost linear behaviour. Similar to the observation made
during the tests on the compression braced frame, the
majority of the load appeared to be taken by the concrete
frame, though unlike those tests, in the tension-braced
frame, the tension brace participated in the load-bearing
from the start of loading. In the second and third cycles the
load was increased to 5.0 tonne. The results still showed ~ ~
more deformation on the compression diagonal than on the co~ (b~
tension brace. The load was ultimately increased to 9.0
tonne in which the frame failed. The dominance of the com-
pression diagonal was noted up to failure. As the load
increased beyond 1/2 ultimate load, unexpectedly the share
of the tension brace reduced and at a certain load the gauge
showed a zero deflection. This behaviour was similar to the ~, ~,
°bservati°n made in the c°mpressi°n-braced frame with the l ~ -- II
difference that it happened in the non-linear range of the ~
load-deflection curve. The dominance of the concrete -----~,~'/~1 ~ , / ~ 1
frame in carrying the load up to the failure of the frame is ~ ~ 1
--
apparent in both systems.
The single tension or compression brace comes into
effect only after the loss of load-carrying capacity of the
concrete frame. The mode of failure showed initial failure
of the concrete frame followed by tensile failure of the ten-
sion brace, again at the welded connection to the corners ~ -4
of the frame, c:) cd)
Figure 17 Details of some practical brace-frame connections:
(a) and (b) connection arrangement for frames under
5. Brace-frame connection c o n s t r u c t i o n s ; (c) a n d (d) c o n n e c t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s for
The advantage of joining steel bracing directly to the con- existing frames
crete frame is that the connection is easy to construct and
incurs little cost. However, the connection should be strong carrying large loads. The 1 cm thick connection plate
enough to safely transfer the load between the brace and buckled under the load, but the anchorage system remained
the frame. This should be true for both connections, set-up intact. The connection type (d), used for connecting steel
during the construction of the concrete frame and connec- braces to an already existing frame, could carry a more
tions constructed after the construction of the frame. A limited load in similar tests. The expanding anchor bolts
number of connection arrangements of both types are tended to either pull clean out of the concrete frame or pull
shown in Figure 17. A series of tests on full-scale connec- a section of concrete out with themselves, Further investi-
tion models were also carded out. Two connection types gations are required for developing a more appropriate
(a) and (d) (Figure 17) were tested. Connection type (a) anchorage system for connecting braces to already existing
is used to connect the bracing system to the frame prior to concrete frames.
the casting of concrete. In this system the connecting plates
and anchorage system are pre-cast in the frame. A test set- 6. Conclusions
up was arranged to apply a 45°-angle tension on the con-
necting plate. The connection appeared to be capable of The results of the investigations as discussed above can be
summarised as follows:
F R A M E NO. 4
2750: LOAD DRFI~CTION CURVE FOR
,6ooi ~v~ ~ro. 1 ( 1) The test results indicate a large increase in the in-plane
shear strength of a concrete frame due to only one diag-
zz6o onal brace (acting either in compression or tension).
-" ~ooo For the model frames tested the increase in shear
,~so strength due to the brace was 2.5 times that of the
Inoo frame itself.
,2so (2) In frames braced with one diagonal brace the concrete
1ooo frame itself appears to dominate the behaviour by car-
~o rying the majority of the applied in-plane load in bend-
see - - - ~,~s,o. =.~o~.~ ing.
~ (3) A substantial increase in the shear resisting capacity of
o'.o'~b' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eb'ib' ............. blb'hb" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eb~b' ............. b:b~ concrete frames can be achieved using diagonal steel
(~ ) ~mr~cr~o~ X-bracing. The strength of the X-braced model frame
Figure 16 A typical load-deflection curve for the tension- was measured at four times that of the unbraced frame.
b r a c e d m o d e l (Pm.x = 0.3 Pu) (4) The behaviour of the X-braced frame under loading
1024 Steel bracing in RC frames: M. R. Maheri and A. Sahebi
s h o w s the d o m i n a n c e o f the t e n s i o n b r a c e as it carries
a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f the load. T h e failure o f the b r a c i n g
s y s t e m starts w i t h t e n s i l e failure o f the t e n s i o n b r a c e
a n d i m m e d i a t e l y after that the b u c k l i n g failure o f the
c o m p r e s s i o n brace,
( 5 ) In a X - b r a c e d f r a m e the rate at w h i c h the t w o b r a c e s
carry the l o a d is n o t equal. T h e y a p p e a r to carry the
e x c e s s l o a d in turn.
( 6 ) T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h the b r a c e s f a i l e d i n d i c a t e s the
i m p o r t a n c e o f the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the b r a c e a n d
f r a m e , as w e a k c o n n e c t i o n s do n o t a l l o w the full
c a p a c i t y o f t h e b r a c e s to b e utilized.
References
1 Sugano, S. and Fujimura, M. 'Seismic strengthening of existing
reinforced concrete buildings', Proc. 7th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Turkey, 1980, 4 (1), Turkey, 449-456
2 Higashi, Y., Endo, T. and Shimizu, Y. 'Experimental studies on retro-
fitting of reinforced concrete structural members', Proc. 2nd Seminar
on Repair and Retrofit of Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan, National
Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 126-155
3 Kawamata, S. and Ohnuma, M. 'Strengthening effect of eccentric
steel braces to existing reinforced concrete frames', Proc. 2nd Sere-
inar on Repair and Retrofit qf Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
National Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 262-269.
4 Ohishi, H. et al. 'A seismic strengthening design and practice of an
existing reinforced concrete school building in Shejuoka City', Proc.
9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. III.
5 Sekiguchi, I. 'Seismic strengthening of an existing steel reinforced
concrete city office building in Shijuoka, Japan', Proc. 9th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. Ill
6 Bush, T. D. 'Seismic strengthening of a reinforced concrete frame',
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Austin, Texas, 1987.
7 Bush, T. D., Jones E. A. and Jirsa J. O. 'Behaviour of RC frame
strengthened using structural steel bracing', Proc. ASCE, J. Struct.
Engng, 1991, 117 (4), 1115-1126