prg experim di_t 2013 11 19
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
1/175
2012 v1
DepartmentofCivilEngineeringand
BuildingServices
PolitehnicaUniversityofTimisoara
ROMANIA
Dr.ing.DEMETER IstvnDr.ing.NAGYGYRGYTams
RCWall
Panels
Strengthened
with
FRPComposites
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
2/175
2
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTALPROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTALELEMENT
4. TESTSETUP
5. LOADINGSTRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION7. DAMAGEASSESSMENTANDSTRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
CONTENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
3/175
3
1999Kocaeli,Turkeyearthquake(EERI,EarthquakeSpectra)
SIGNIFICANTEARTHQUAKESWORLD(last20years)
Incompletelist
1994Northridge,USA
1995Kobe,Japan
1999Kocaeli,Turkey
2003Bam,Iran
2008Wenchuan,China
2009LAquila,
Italy
2010PortauPrince,Haiti
2010Chile
2011Christchurch,NZ
2011Tohoku,Japan
ROMANIA
1940,1977,1986,1990
INTRODUCTION Urbanhabitat
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
4/175
4
FLEXURALFAILURE
Ductile,largehystereticloops,
significantenergydissipation
SHEARFAILURE
Brittle,pinchedhystereticloops,
reducedenergydissipation
FAILUREMODECONTROLLED
BY
Shearspanratio
Sheartoflexuralstrengthratio
CAPACITYDESIGN
RULE
VR
VE
INTRODUCTION Urbanhabitat
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
5/175
5
PRECASTREINFORCEDCONCRETELARGEPANEL(PRCLP)BUILDINGS
INTRODUCTION Urbanhabitat
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
6/175
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+
Numberofbuildings
Thousands
Number of storeys
REINFORCED CONCRETEFLAT BLOCKS
57
000+
buildings
40000+are5storyPRCLP
3500+are9storyPRCLP
4500+are11storyPRCLP
Datafrom
National Institute of Statistics
Romania
(NIS).
2002.
http://www.insse.ro.
INTRODUCTION Urbanhabitat
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
7/175
7DatafromNational Institute of StatisticsRomania(NIS).2002.http://www.insse.ro.
Early
period
in
the
1960s
Largescalefrom1970
EraofP+4PRCLPbetween7090(36000+)
Declinefrom1990
INTRODUCTION Urbanhabitat
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
8/175
8
Nominal modular wall panel dimensions in the longitudinal
direction
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
1,8 2,1 2,4 2,7 3 3,3 3,6 3,9 4,2 4,5
Dimensions [m]
Percentage[%]
Structuralindicators:
Wallarea(I1):6%
Mass /wall
area
(I2):
0.9
MPa
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
9/175
9
INTRODUCTION Typicalplan1615/X1973
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
10/175
10
RCLargePanelBuildings Reinforcementarrangement
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
11/175
11
RCLargePanelBuildings Reinforcementarrangement
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
12/175
12
RCLargePanelBuildings Verticaljoint
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
13/175
13
RCLargePanelBuildings Verticaljoint
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
14/175
14
RCLargePanelBuildings Verticaljoint
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
15/175
15
RCLargePanelBuildings Verticaljoint
INTRODUCTION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
16/175
16
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building,typicalplan77081,1982
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
17/175
17
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building,typicalplan77081,1982
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
18/175
18
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building,typicalplan77081,1982
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
19/175
19
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building,typicalplan77081,1982
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
20/175
20
INTRODUCTION PRCLP building,typicalplan77081,1982
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
21/175
21
INTRODUCTION Cutoutopenings
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
22/175
22
INTRODUCTION Cutoutopenings
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
23/175
23
INTRODUCTION Cutoutopenings
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
24/175
24
INTRODUCTION Cutoutopenings
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
25/175
25
INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM OF CUTOUT OPENINGS IN PRECAST
REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL PANELS SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC LOADING
CONDITIONS
AND
PROPOSE STRENGTHENING SOLUTIONS USING FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER
COMPOSITES.
literature survey
available design guidelines
theoretical analysis
INTRODUCTION Objectives
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
26/175
26
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTALPROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTALELEMENT
4. TESTSETUP
5. LOADINGSTRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGEASSESSMENTANDSTRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
27/175
27
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Experimental method
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TESTING METHODS:
REPRODUCE THEIN SITUCONDITIONS IN THELABORATORY.
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
28/175
28
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Experimental method
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TESTING METHODS:
REPRODUCE, as much as possible, THEIN SITUCONDITIONS IN THE
LABORATORY.
CONSIDERING:
AVAILABLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TESTING FACILITIES.
FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES.
DECISION:
experimental specimens: INDIVIDUAL WALL PANELS.
loading strategy: IN-PLANE, CYCLIC, QUASI-STATIC.
test set-up: CAPABLE TO REPRODUCE THE BOUNDARY AND
LOADING CONDITIONS.
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
29/175
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
10 t
50 t
20 t30 t
40 t
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
30/175
30
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
ADVANTAGES OF DATABASE
-INCLUDES A LARGE NUMBER OF DATA-LINES
-IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS
-FACILITATE COMPARISON-IT CAN BE SEARCHED AND/OR SORTED
Data sources: ACI Structural Journal, EERI Earthquake Spectra, IAEE Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
EAEE Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering series 1 to 14, PCA Research and Development Bulletin, European Conference on Earthquake Engineeringseries, Engineering Structures
EXISTING RC WALL DATABASESHirosawa (1975)
Wood (1990)
Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001)Biskinis et al. (2004)
Gulec and Whittaker (2009)
REFERENCE LISTS AND CATALOGUESAbrams (1991)
Farrar et al. (1993)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
31/175
31
YEAR, TYPE AND REGION
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
Early laboratory tests in USA,
Japan, Canada, New-Zealand
Europe: earliest ref. 1984
Construction: Civil or Nuclear
Power Plant
Romania: 7 programs- 4 UPT
- 1 INCERC-TM
- 1 UTCB
- 1 INCERC-CL
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
32/175
32
WALL TYPES
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
33/175
33
WALL SCALE AND THICKNESS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
34/175
34
ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
Programs that included precast wall panels: 16 (87 specimens)
Programs that included wall with openings: 14 (122 specimens)
Programs that included walls strengthened by CFRP: 16 (100 specimens)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
35/175
35
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS ON FRP STRENGTHENED WALLS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
36/175
36
EXPERIMENTAL STANDS - LOADING DEGREE
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
Number and location of the axial and lateral loads
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
37/175
37
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
38/175
38
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR WALL ELEMENTS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Database on experimental programs
- Prevails the number of cantilever tests
- Increasing number of restrained rotation tests since 1990
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
39/175
39
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Wall panel geometric configuration
OPENING TYPE:
DOOR (E), WINDOW (L)
AND DOOR-WINDOW (EL).
OPENING SIZE:
NARROW (1), MODERATE
(2) AND WIDE (3).
OPENING NATURE:
INITIAL, ENLARGED AND
CUT-OUT.
WITHOUT OPENING, i.e.
SOLID WALL (S).
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
40/175
40
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Opening configuration matrix
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
41/175
41
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Experimental elements and variables
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
42/175
42
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME Lines of comparison
Line 1Weakening effect of doorway cut-out
REFERENCE: solid wall
VARIABLE: cut-out width
Lines 2 and 3Strengthening effect of CFRP-EBR
REFERENCE: bare wall with cut-out
door
VARIABLE: strengthening condition
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
43/175
43
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
44/175
44
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Experimental specimens
Concrete outlines- Web thickness: 100 mm
- Shear keys and threshold
to prevent sliding
Opening ratio- E1 27% (P=0.48)
- E3 64% (P=0.73)
Opening position
-Eccentric-Centric
Reinforcement-Single curtain
-Web steel ratio:0.42% (h)
0.24%(v)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
45/175
45
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Characteristics
Prototype: wall panel I 36-1;
770-81, 1982
Type: wall element
(1-stry)
Scale: 0.83 (1:1.2)
Aspect ratio: 0.8
Cross section type: flanged
Components: web-panelboundary wings
Concrete: precast
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
46/175
46
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Experimental assembly
1
2
2
3
3
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
47/175
47
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Construction phases
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
48/175
48
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Experimental specimens
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
49/175
49
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Experimental specimens
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
50/175
50
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT Experimental assembly
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
51/175
51
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
52/175
52
TEST SET-UP
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
53/175
53
TEST SET-UP
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
54/175
54
TEST SET-UP
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
55/175
55
TEST SET-UP
TEST SET UP E i l d
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
56/175
56
TEST SET-UP Experimental stand
Set-up type: A
Loading degree: 4 (2N+2V)
Base and cap beams: heavily
reinforced steel-concrete
composite
Base beam not fixed, only
supported
Specimen-to-base beam
anchorage: lap-welding of 4 re-bars (ratio 0.17%)
TEST SET UP
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
57/175
57
TEST SET-UP
TEST SET UP
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
58/175
58
TEST SET-UP
TEST SET UP Static scheme
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
59/175
59
TEST SET-UP Static scheme
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
60/175
60
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
LOADING STRATEGY
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
61/175
61
LOADING STRATEGY
QUASI-STATIC PSEUDO-DYNAMIC DYNAMIC
LOADING AXIAL LATERAL
DIRECTIONIN-PLANE
VERTICAL
IN-PLANE
HORIZONTAL
CHARACTERISTICS PSEUDO-CONSTANT REVERSED CYCLIC
The experimental elements will be subjected to in-plane reversed cyclic
lateral (horizontal) and pseudo-constant axial (vertical) forces, simulating
the seismic loading conditions at a quasi-static rate.
LOADING STRATEGY Lateral loading
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
62/175
62
LOADING STRATEGY Lateral loading
Principal characteristics:
- quasi-static
- in-plane
- reversed cyclic
Control: drift ratio
Drift ratio increment:
constant, 0.1%
Number of cycles on a level: 2
Failure criterion:
20% load carrying
capacity loss
LOADING STRATEGY Axial loading
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
63/175
63
O NG S G xial loading
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Appliedcompr
essive
stress
0[N/mm
2]
Compressive strength of concrete fck [N/mm2]
Axial load level
Oesterle et al. (1984)
Lefas et al. (1990)
Salonikios et al. (1999)
Iso et al. (2000)
Palermo and Vecchio (2002)
Kitano et al . (2004)
Nagy-Gyrgy et al. (2005)Belmouden and Lestuzzi (2006)
Demeter et al. (2008)
1
0.1
0.05
LOADING STRATEGY Axial loading
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
64/175
64
Principal characteristics: two-
component featuring a constant
level and an alternating part
Constant axial load level
Normalised axial load: 6%
Reference strength:fck,cyl of theweb
Reference cross section: solid
wall
g
LOADING STRATEGY Axial loading
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
65/175
65
g
Axial loading
Alternating component
Control: displacement (uplift)of the cap beams loaded end
Rate: 100 kN/mm (based
primarily on test-setup
limitations)
Note that the base beam is not
fixed to the laboratory floor
LOADING STRATEGY Boundary conditions
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
66/175
66
Outrigger canoesource http://www.ballinaoutriggers.com.au
Outrigger effect
Restrained rotation by
additional eccentric axial
loading
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
67/175
67
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
68/175
68
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
69/175
69
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
70/175
70
Displacement
10+ transducers
Arrangement:
horizontal, vertical,diagonal
Support: external,
internal
Strain gauges
16 gaugesSteel bars and CFRP
Load
3 pressure transducers
on the hydraulic lines
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
71/175
71
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
72/175
72
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
73/175
73
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
74/175
74
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
75/175
75
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
76/175
76
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
77/175
77
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
78/175
78
INSTRUMENTATION
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
79/175
79
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
80/175
80
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT
4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
81/175
81
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
82/175
82
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
83/175
83
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
84/175
84
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
85/175
85
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
86/175
86
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
87/175
87
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
88/175
88
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
89/175
89
REPAIR
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
90/175
90
REPAIR
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
91/175
91
STRENGTHENING
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
92/175
92
STRENGTHENING
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
93/175
93
STRENGTHENING
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
94/175
94
CFRP-EBR
CF-strips of 50/100 mm width
Average CFRP usage (4RT):
CF 0.85
Resin 1.2 kg/sqm
Arrangement: FL, SH, CNF
Note inclined diagonal strips atthe upper corners
Improvements: end anchorage of
SH-strips
STRENGTHENING Details
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
95/175
95
Pier-beam connection
Substrate preparation
Flexural strips
Through-wall anchorages
(CFRP tows)
Shear strips
Confinement strips
STRENGTHENING Details
B h
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
96/175
96
Base anchorage
Solution 1
Bolted steel angles
Solution 2
CFRP tows
STRENGTHENING Details
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
97/175
97
STRENGTHENING Details
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
98/175
98
STRENGTHENING Details
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
99/175
99
STRENGTHENING Material properties
Concrete samples
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
100/175
100
Concrete samples
Three 150 mm cubes from
each concrete batch (cylinder
and prism samples only fromone batch)
Reference strength
Web: 17.5 MPa
Wing: 39 MPa
STRENGTHENING Material properties
Steel reinforcement
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
101/175
101
OB PC STPB
Steel reinforcement
OB-type reinforcement
Measured yield strength:
410 MPa
PC-type reinforcement
Measured yield strength:
450 MPa
STPB-type wires
Measured yield strength:
600 MPa
STRENGTHENING Material properties
CFRP-EBR
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
102/175
102
S1 S2
CFRP-EBR
reinforcement
S1-type CF sheet
Unidirectional
Thickness: 0.122 mm
S2-type CF sheet
Unidirectional
Thickness: 0.337 mm
Impregnation resin
Tensile strength:
3045 MPa
Carbon Fibre (CF) S1 CF-sheet S2 CF-sheet
Tensile strength
(MPa)4100 3900
Tensile elongation atbreak (%) 1.5 1.5
STRENGTHENING Material properties
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
103/175
103
CFRP-EBR reinforcement
Qualitative analysis
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
104/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Quantitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
105/175
Crack correlation with the loads
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Quantitative analysis
Crack correlation ith the strains in
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
106/175
Crack correlation with the strains in
reinforcements
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
107/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
108/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
109/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
110/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
111/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
112/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
113/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
114/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
115/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
116/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
117/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
118/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
119/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
120/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
121/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
122/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
123/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
124/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
125/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
126/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
127/175
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Qualitative analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
128/175
1. INTRODUCTION
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
129/175
129
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT
4. TEST SET-UP
5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Data processing
DATA FILES
ERROR/MISTAKE ANALYSIS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
130/175
130
PRIMARY DIAGRAMS
ENVELOPE CURVES INTEGRATED/DERIVED DIAGRAMS
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Data files
INPUT CHANALS: 1829 (D = 10, V/N = 3, =16)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
131/175
131
CALCULATION CHANALS : (1829)+
DATA LINES: 600030000 (0.21 LINES/SEC, ~8 HOURS/TEST)TOTAL DATA/TEST: 18000 (LINES) X 47 (COLUMS) = 846000
TOTAL DATA: 7 (TESTS) X 846000 6000000
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
132/175
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
133/175
133
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
134/175
134
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
135/175
135
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
136/175
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
137/175
137
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
138/175
138
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Primary diagrams
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
139/175
139
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Comparison of the diagrams
Comparison line
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
140/175
140
Line 1: Weakening effect of
doorway cut-out
Line 2: Strengthening effect
of CFRP-EBR (a)
Line 3: Strengthening effectof CFRP-EBR (b)
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
DRAWING PROCESS FILTERING TARGET DRIFT LINES (CICLE 1 AND CICLE 2)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
141/175
141
( )
CALCULATION (INTERPRETATION) OF N / D / AT THE TARGET DRIFT
CALCULATION AVERAGES OF C1/2 AND M FOR V/N - DRIFT
DATA ENVELOPE: 7(TAB) x 40(LINE) x 30(COL) = 8 400
ENVELOPE AVERAGE (C12/M): 7(TAB) X 22/11(LINE) x 5(COL) = 770/385
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
142/175
142
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
Load envelopes
Cyclic: C1, C2, C (mean)
Monotonic: M calculated
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
143/175
143
Monotonic: M, calculated
only for lateral load
Displacement envelopesCyclic: C1, C2
Strain envelopes
Cyclic: C1, C2
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
144/175
144
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
145/175
145
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
146/175
146
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Equivalent envelope curves -Monotone
Three curve-clustersaccording to the cut-out
condition
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
147/175
147
Strength
Stiffness
Drift at peak and failure
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Envelope curves
Backbone
Tri-linear
Point 1 (V1, R1): cracking
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
148/175
148
Point 1 (V1, R1): cracking
Point 2 (V2, R2): peak load
Point 3 (V3, R3): failure
Elasto-plasticBi-linearPoint 1: yield
Point 2: ultimate
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Strength Analysis
Effect of cut-out condition
SHEAR STRENGTH COMPARISON
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
149/175
149
Effect of strengtheningcondition
Effect of concrete strength
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Strength Analysis
Effect of cut-out condition
LOAD SUSTAINABILITY (OVERSTRENGTH) COMPARISON
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
150/175
150
Effect of strengtheningcondition
Effect of concrete strength
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Displacement and Strain Analysis
Effect of cut-out condition
DRIFT RATIO COMPARISON
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
151/175
151
Effect of strengtheningcondition
Effect of concrete strength
Shear characteristichorizontal lengthening at the
mid-height of the walls.
Thi t f b h i i
DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPE COMPARISON
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Displacement and Strain Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
152/175
152
This type of behaviour is
exhibited intensively by thesolid wall.
Cut-out condition reduces this
effect.
DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY COMPARISON
Effect of cut-out condition
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Displacement and Strain Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
153/175
153
Effect of strengtheningcondition
Effect of concrete strength
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Stiffness Analysis
Monotonic envelope stiffness
secant; tangent
STIFFNESS DEFINITIONS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
154/175
154
Backbone stiffnesssecant; tangent
Average loading curve
stiffness
secant; tangent
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Stiffness Analysis
STIFFNESS DEGRADATION
Comparison of the initial
stiffness
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
155/175
155
Three groups of initialstiffness in accordance to
the cut-out condition
Influence of concrete
strength (spec No. 4)
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Stiffness Analysis
STIFFNESS COMPARISON
Effect of cut-out condition
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
156/175
156
Effect of strengthening
condition
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
DEFINITION OF ENERGY ABSORPTION
The area of the hysteresisloops (symbol: A or W,
unit: kNm)
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
157/175
157
Characteristic loadingpoints
Positive and negative half-
cycle dissipation
Cumulative drift
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
CUMULATIVE DISSIPATION CURVE 1
Continuous cumulative
sum of the areas (with
sign) below the load-drift
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
158/175
158
curve
Characteristic points
Cyclic energy dissipation
Half-cycle energy
dissipation
Continuouscumulative
sumoftheareas(with
sign)belowtheloaddrift
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
CUMULATIVE DISSIPATION CURVE 1
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
159/175
curvevs
cumulative
drift
ratio
Characteristicpoints
Cyclicenergydissipation
Halfcycleenergy
dissipation
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
ENERGY DISSIPATION ENVELOPE
Four envelopes
Point 7 envelope was
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
160/175
160
considered
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
ENERGY DISSIPATION ENVELOPE
Two envelopes: upper and
lower bound
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
161/175
161
Upper bound envelopewas considered
Effect of cut-out condition
Energy Dissipation Analysis
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
162/175
Effect of strengthening
condition
162
Effect of cut-out condition
Effect of strengthening
ENERGY DISSIPATION ENVELOPES
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
163/175
Effect of strengthening
condition
Energy dissipation rate
the ratio of the cumulative
energy dissipated and thecumulative displacement
(CED/CD, results in force
unit)
163
Definition
ED/EDmax
DISSIPATION RATIO
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
164/175
ED hysteretic energy
EDmax maximum energy
dissipation (area of the
peak to peak rectangle)
164
Approximate value of 10%
ULTIMATE DISSIPATION RATIO
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Energy Dissipation Analysis
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
165/175
Seismic Retrofit of Precast RC Walls by CFRP Composites 64
Seems to characterizes theboundary conditions
(restrained rotation by
variable axial loading)
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
166/175
166
4. TEST SET-UP5. LOADING STRATEGY
6. INSTRUMENTATION
7. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING
8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
9. CONCLUSIONS
LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISM
Shear transferred along
diagonal load paths:
DIAGONAL
SHEAR MECHANISMS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
167/175
COMPRESSIONand/or
DIAGONAL TENSION
Proportion between shears
carried by the two load
paths:
stiffness
loading conditions
boundary conditions
167
LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISM
Diagonal tension
VDT=nAss
SHEAR MECHANISMS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
168/175
Predicted/Measured ratio
at R=0.4%
VP/M=300/940=0.32
at ultimateVP/M=446/1210=0.37
Excessive underestimation
168
LOAD TRANSFER MECHANISM
SHEAR MECHANISMS
Diagonalcompression
VDC=FDCsin
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
169/175
Predicted/Measured ratio
at R=0.4%
VP/M=652/940=0.7
at ultimate
VP/M=990/1210=0.82
Slight underestimation
169
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
EFFECT OF DOORWAY CUT-OUT
Practicing engineers can use the
experimental results to evaluate the
performance ratios in terms of
strength, stiffness and energy
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
170/175
dissipation rate.
(R)weak=(R)soundp
wherep=1-
=lo/lw for dissipation rate
=(Ao/Aw)0.5 for V; K.
170
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
EFFECT OF CFRP-EBR RETROFIT
CFRP-EBR strengthening
improves the seismic
performance
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
171/175
The most significant
improvement is in terms of
energy dissipation
171
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
CFRP-EBR RETROFIT LIMITATION
CFRP-strips subjected to
alternating tension-
compression reversals
ll l t fib di ti
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
172/175
parallel to fiber directionare likely to fail
prematurely.
Further subject-oriented
investigations are
necessary on this issue.
172
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
SHEAR SPAN CONDITIONS
Laboratory investigations
on cantilever walls tend to
overestimate the shear
diti l ti t
VR
V
VR
VE
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
173/175
span conditions relative tothe as-built situation.
A reduced shear span
condition may change the
failure mode from flexural
to shear for the same
specimen.
Further investigations arenecessary on this topic
VE
173
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Diagonalcompression
dominated shear
response
RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
174/175
Reloading stiffness ratio:
0.20.33
Energy dissipation ratio: 10%
174
-
8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19
175/175
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
Wall tests videos on:-PRCWP 5-S/E3-T
-PRCWP 3-S/E1-T/R
-PRCWP 1-S-T
-PRCWP 3-S/E1-T