Advertisement

Comparative Capacity Assessment of CFRP Retrofit Techniques for RC Frames with Masonry Infills Using Pushover Analysis

  • Zhi Zheng
  • Xiaolan Pan
  • Xu Bao
Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, nonlinear static pushover analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of different carbon fibre-reinforced polymers (CFRP) rehabilitation schemes for existing masonry-infilled RC frames. A three-bay five-storey reinforced concrete (RC) frame with masonry infill walls designed according to previous building codes was modelled as a representative of existing low-rise RC frames. The earthquake retrofitting effects of twelve CFRP strengthening schemes were compared in terms of the global pushover curve, maximum load capacity, maximum interstorey drift ratio (IDR), plastification in the frames, and maximum energy dissipation capacity. The results indicate that the improper selection of a retrofitting scheme is likely to result in the change of the soft storey location, which would cause unexpected damage to structures. The CFRP rehabilitation of both columns and infills for the bottom three floors or more leads to a significant increase in maximum load, maximum IDR, maximum energy, and maximum number of plastic hinges in the frames.

Keywords

Masonry-infilled RC frame FRP Seismic performance Retrofit techniques Pushover 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mehrabi, A.; Shing, P.B.; Schuller, M.; Noland, J.: Performance of masonry-infilled R/C frames under in-plane lateral loads. Report CU/SR-94/6. Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames. J. Earthq. Eng. 5(1), 1–12 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verderame, G.M.; De Luca, F.; Ricci, P.; Manfredi, G.: Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 40(8), 925–944 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correnza, J.C.; Hutchinson, G.L.; Chandler, A.M.: Effect of transverse load-resisting elements on inelastic earthquake response of eccentric-plan buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 23(1), 75–89 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Stefano, M.; Faella, G.; Ramasco, R.: Inelastic seismic response of one-way plan-asymmetric systems under bi-directional ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 27(4), 363–376 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cagatay, I.H.; Beklen, C.; Mosalam, K.M.: Investigation of short column effect of RC buildings failure and prevention. Comput. Concrete 7(6), 523–532 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bikce, M.: How to reduce short column effects in buildings with reinforced concrete infill walls on basement floors. Struct. Eng. Mech. 38(2), 249–259 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Güneyisi, E.M.; Muhyaddin, G.F.: Comparative response assessment of different frames with diagonal bracings under lateral loading. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39(5), 3545–3558 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Güneyisi, E.M.; Azez, I.: Seismic upgrading of structures with different retrofitting methods. Earthq. Struct. 10(3), 589–611 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guneyisi, E.M.; Tunca, O.; Azez, I.: Nonlinear dynamic response of reinforced concrete building retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. Earthq. Struct. 8(6), 1349–1362 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Özel, A.E.; Güneyisi, E.M.: Effects of eccentric steel bracing systems on seismic fragility curves of mid-rise R/C buildings: a case study. Struct. Saf. 33(1), 82–95 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, S.H.; Shinozuka, M.: Development of fragility curves of bridges retrofitted by column jacketing. Probab. Eng. Mech. 19(1–2), 105–112 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tavakoli, H.R.; Naghavi, F.; Goltabar, A.R.: Dynamic responses of the base-fixed and isolated building frames under far- and near-fault earthquakes. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39(4), 2573–2585 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komur, M.A.: Soft-story effects on the behavior of fixed-base and LRB base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 41(2), 1–11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raheem, S.E.A.: Exploring seismic response of bridges with bidirectional coupled modelling of base isolation bearings system. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39(12), 8669–8679 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Constantinou, M.C.; Symans, M.D.: Seismic response of structures with supplemental damping. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2(2), 77–92 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Providakis, C.P.: Effect of supplemental damping on LRB and FPS seismic isolators under near-fault ground motions. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29(1), 80–90 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Güneyisi, E.M.; Altay, G.: Seismic fragility assessment of effectiveness of viscous dampers in R/C buildings under scenario earthquakes. Struct. Saf. 30(5), 461–480 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pampanin, S.; Bolognini, D.; Pavese, A.: Performance-based seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems using fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J. Compos. Constr. 11(2), 211–226 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galal, K.; El-Sokkary, H.: Analytical evaluation of seismic performance of RC frames rehabilitated using FRP for increased ductility of members. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 22(5), 276–288 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garcia, R.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Pilakoutas, K.: Seismic behaviour of deficient RC frames strengthened with CFRP composites. Eng. Struct. 32(10), 3075–3085 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu, J.T.; Wang, X.L.; Xu, Z.D.; Weng, C.H.: Experimental study on seismic behavior of RC frames strengthened with CFRP sheets. Compos. Struct. 93(6), 1595–1603 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sousa, L.; Monteiro, R.: Seismic retrofit options for non-structural building partition walls: impact on loss estimation and cost-benefit analysis. Eng. Struct. 161, 8–27 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Erdem, I.; Akyuz, U.; Ersoy, U.; Ozcebe, G.: An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC frames. Eng. Struct. 28(13), 1843–1851 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Binici, B.; Ozcebe, G.; Ozcelik, R.: Analysis and design of FRP composites for seismic retrofit of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames. Compos. Part B Eng. 38(5–6), 575–583 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ilki, A.; Goksu, C.; Demir, C.; Kumbasar, N.: Seismic analysis of a RC frame building with FRP-retrofitted infill walls. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, vol. 2, pp. 1167–1175 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Almusallam, T.H.; Al-Salloum, Y.A.: Behavior of FRP strengthened infill walls under in-plane seismic loading. J. Compos. Constr. 11(3), 308–318 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Altin, S.; Anil, O.; Kara, M.E.; Kaya, M.: An experimental study on strengthening of masonry infilled RC frames using diagonal CFRP strips. Compos. Part B Eng. 39(4), 680–693 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Erol, G.; Karadogan, H.F.; Cili, F.: Seismic strengthening of infilled RC frames by CFRP. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yuksel, E.; Ozkaynak, H.; Buyukozturk, O.; Yalcin, C.; Dindar, A.A.; Surmeli, M.; Tastan, D.: Performance of alternative CFRP retrofitting schemes used in infilled RC frames. Constr. Build. Mater. 24(4), 596–609 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kakaletsis, D.: Comparison of CFRP and alternative seismic retrofitting techniques for bare and infilled RC frames. J. Compos. Constr. 15(4), 565–577 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akin, E.; Canbay, E.; Binici, B.; Ozcebe, G.: Testing and analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames strengthened with CFRP reinforcement. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 30(19), 1605–1620 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    NSPRC (National Standard of the People’s Republic of China): Code for design of concrete structures. GB 50010-2002, Ministry of Construction of People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China (2002) (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perform-3D User Guide: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, Version 5 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nazari, Y.R.; Saatcioglu, M.: Seismic vulnerability assessment of concrete shear wall buildings through fragility analysis. J. Build. Eng. 12, 202–209 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou, Y.; Ge, P.L.; Han, J.P.; Lu, Z.: Vector-valued intensity measures for incremental dynamic analysis. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 100, 380–388 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guo, Z.H.: Principle of Reinforced Concrete, pp. 20–21 and 176–177. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing (1999) (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang, Z.Y.; Wang, D.Y.; Smith, S.T.; Lu, D.G.: CFRP-confined square RC columns. I: experimental investigation. J. Compos. Constr. 16(2), 150–160 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang, Z.Y.; Wang, D.Y.; Smith, S.T.; Lu, D.G.: CFRP-confined square RC columns. II: cyclic axial compression stress–strain model. J. Compos. Constr. 16(2), 161–170 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bennett, R.M.; Flanagan, R.D.; Adham, S.: Evaluation and analysis of the performance of masonary infills during the Northridge earthquake. Final Report for Submission to the National Science Foundation, Grant No. CMS-9416262 (1996)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Akin, E.; Ozcebe, G.; Canbay, E.; Binici, B.: Numerical study on CFRP strengthening of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls. J. Compos. Constr. 18(2), 04013034 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    O’Reilly, G.J.; Perrone, D.; Fox, M.; Monteiro, R.; Filiatrault, A.: Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Eng. Struct. 168, 142–162 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vamvatsikos, D.; Fragiadakis, M.: Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 39(2), 141–163 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pinho, R.; Marques, M.; Monteiro, R.; Casarotti, C.; Delgado, R.: Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures in the assessment of building frames. Earthq. Spectra 29(4), 1459–1476 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273. Washington, DC (1997)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building, FEMA-356, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    NSPRC (National Standard of the People’s Republic of China): Code for seismic design of buildings. GB50011-2010, Ministry of Construction of People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China (2010) (in Chinese) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and Civil EngineeringTaiyuan University of TechnologyTaiyuanChina
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  3. 3.Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control (Harbin Institute of Technology)Ministry of EducationHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations