Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan
Structural Quality Assurance Inc., 2-7-10 Samikicho Chioda-Ku, Tokyo 101-0061, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 May 2010
Revised 5 September 2011
Accepted 6 September 2011
Available online 4 November 2011
Keywords:
Reinforced concrete
Torsional response
Seismic retrot
Shear failure
Axial collapse
Shake table
a b s t r a c t
Reconnaissance reports on structures damaged or collapsed by severe earthquakes have revealed several
common characteristics in their structural members and systems, such as insufcient reinforcement
details in beam-column joints and transverse connements, low aspect ratios, soft and or weak stories,
and eccentric plans. Dynamic tests were carried out to investigate the collapse process of reinforced concrete structures that had seismically decient reinforcement details (light transverse reinforcement) and
seismic systems (soft/weak stories and eccentric plans). A comparison of collapse behaviors with and
without seismic retrots also veried the effectiveness of the SRF (super reinforced with exibility)
strengthening method, which was developed to prevent the loss of axial load carrying capacity even at
excessive lateral deformation. The columns of one specimen were strengthened with polyester ber belts
and its shear walls with polyester ber sheets, while the members of the other were not. Each specimen
was designed following old (1970s) reinforcement detail practice in Japan, and is a one-third-scale reinforced concrete structure with considerable stiffness and strength eccentricity in the rst story. The specimens were composed of independent column frame and shear wall frame. Torsional response resulting
from the eccentricity in the 1st story induced a displacement concentration on the weak frame, and eventually the independent columns of the RC specimen failed in shear and lost their axial load carrying
capacity. On the other hand, the SRF specimen survived not only an identical earthquake load to the
one that caused the RC specimen to fail, but also three additional earthquake loads, although signicant
strength deterioration and considerable lateral and vertical deformation were generated at the end of the
test. The following conclusions were drawn from the comparison of the two specimens responses: axial
column collapse cannot be predicted from vertical responses since the vertical behavior of bare RC columns was not discernibly different from that of SRF columns until axial collapse was initiated, and the
SRF strengthening method is effective in conning the column and preventing the cracking progress, thus
modifying the failure mode of the RC columns from brittle shear failure after exural yield to exural
dominant behavior.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Collapsing buildings have caused numerous casualties during
recent major earthquakes, even in countries with advanced
earthquake engineering technologies. Understanding the collapse
mechanisms of reinforced concrete (RC) structures subjected to
earthquake attack is a crucial aspect of one of the goals of earthquake engineering, which is to protect peoples lives and safety,
and has been a challenging task in many researches [13]. Many
RC structures have suffered severe damage in devastating earthquakes in the past, leading to unrecoverable damages and the
collapse of structures. Reconnaissance reports describing these
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 5841 5783; fax: +81 3 5841 1765.
E-mail address: yskim@eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Y. Kim).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.017
96
400
400
Belt
300
Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)
Sheet
200
100
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
Strain (%)
30
40
10
20
Strain (%)
30
40
Table 1
Material properties of SRF belt and sheet.
Belt
Sheet
Thickness (mm)
Width (mm)
3
0.9
50
358.1
169.7
34.42
16.17
0.85 103
0.76 103
97
X2
Y1
1100
Y2
st
st
1 1Floor
Y1
744
5344
1500 500
2500
600
1500
2700
ReX
eY
reX
800
nd
600
X
2 Floor
500
2.2. Specimens
2200
X1
600
1500
2700
(a)
600
W2
2FL
W1
connection level
1FL
load cell
West
East
Loading direction
(b)
Fig. 2. Specimen plan and elevation. (a) Plan. (b) Elevation.
98
rP
P
P
2
K X Y
K X Y 2
P K Y X , eY: diswhere eY j lY g Y j, lY P K , r eX
K
X
main bar
12-D10
hoop
2-D4@50
main bar
Table 3
Material properties of concrete.
Superstructure
Base
rB (MPa)
ec (l)
Ec (MPa)
rt (MPa)
24.1
25.37
1894
2060
21556
23096
2.38
2.22
Table 4
Material properties of steels.
D4
D6
D10
Es (MPa)
ry (MPa)
ey (l)
156490
185288
175137
188.4
439.1
352.4
1210
2372
2011
12-D10
strain gauge
strain gauge
No.4
No.3
No.2
No.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Column section details. (a) Independent column. (b) Attached column to shear wall. (c) Hoop.
Table 2
Section details of members (unit: mm).
Floor
Column
(unit: mm)
Wall
(unit: mm)
B (width),D (depth)
Longitudinal reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement
200, 200
12-D10
2-D6@50
Thickness
Vertical and horizontal reinforcement
50
D6@100
B (width),D (depth)
Longitudinal reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement
200, 200
12-D10
2-D4@50
Thickness
Vertical and horizontal reinforcement
50
D6@100
99
Fig. 4. SRF specimen. (a) Independent column frame (SRF specimen vs. RC specimen). (b) Wall frame (SRF specimen vs. RC specimen).
Steel frame
2nd Floor
SRF
specimen
:displacement transducer
West
East
:accelerometer
RC
specimen
1st Floor
load cell
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 6. Instrumentation on 1st and 2nd oor plans. (a) Specimen arrangement on shake table. (b) Specimen overview and instrumentation. (c) Instrumentation on 1st and 2nd
oor plans.
100
Laser displacement sensors, which require no physical connection between the target point and sensor, were used to measure
horizontal and vertical displacements of the 1st story where large
displacements were expected, while strain-type displacement
transducers were installed in the 2nd story. Strain gauges were
attached to the longitudinal and transverse column reinforcements
in the 1st story (Fig. 2). Bi-directional load cells capable of measuring both axial and lateral forces in the X direction were installed at
the bottom of the independent columns of the rst story. Instruments were located symmetrically about the geometric center of
the specimen in order to compare torsional responses between
columns (Y1 frame) and wall frames (Y2 frame). Identical
instrumentation was installed in both specimens.
In addition to installing data recording instrumentation, protection must be provided to prevent the specimen from falling down
onto the shake table after collapse, since this experiment was
designed to simulate the structures collapse. In this test, an
H-shaped steel column (in Y1 frame) was built to contain the rst
oor where axial collapse of columns was expected to occur.
H-shaped steel beams spanned the top of the steel frames, and
steel wires connected to the specimen hung from the beams.
2.4. Base motion input plan
Records of four different historical earthquakes were employed
as seismic excitations; the Miyagi-ken Oki earthquake recorded at
Tohoku university in 1978 (TOH), the Imperial Valley earthquake
recorded at El Centro in 1940 (ELC), the Hyogo-Ken Nambu earthquake recorded at the Japan Meteorological Agency in 1995 (JMA)
and the Chile earthquake recorded at Via del Mar in 1985 (CHI).
Northsouth components of these earthquake records were
applied unidirectionally to the specimens in the X direction.
Table 5 shows the amplitudes of the input base motions, scaled
on the basis of preliminary analysis results, under which the RC
specimen experienced gradual damage ranging from elastic behavior through nal collapse. The
p duration of the base motion was
compressed by a factor of 1= 3 to satisfy the similitude law, keeping the acceleration scale factor at unity. Here, the number in each
loading name (e.g. 12.5 in TOH12.5 or 50 in JMA50, etc.) indicates
the maximum velocity (kine, cm/s) corresponding prototype
records. Fig. 8(a and b) show the time history and acceleration
response spectra of each input base motion.
Although the shapes of the acceleration response spectra of the
actual input base motions recorded from the shake table are
slightly different than those of the original data, the difference is
acceptable. White noise excitations, whose maximum acceleration
is about 0.3 m/sec2, were also performed before the earthquake
loadings to evaluate changes in the natural frequency of the damaged specimens.
3. Test results
3.1. Lateral displacement response
Fig. 9 shows the drift ratio of the columns (Y1 frame) and wall
frame (Y2 frame) of the RC specimen subjected to loading ELC37.5.
Displacement through the 1st story was recorded from laser
displacement sensors set between the top of the specimen base
and the bottom of concrete mass W1. The 2nd story displacement
was recorded between the top of W1 and the bottom of W2. As
shown in Fig. 9(a), drift ratio of the Y1 frame in the 1st story is
almost 10 times larger than that of the Y2 frame because the
considerable eccentricity in the 1st story induced large torsional
responses. In the second story, which was symmetrical, the drift
ratio of the Y1 frame is slightly larger (about twice) than that of
the wall frame, which might also have been affected by the torsional response generated in the 1st story. The other loading inputs
produced similar results as shown in Fig. 9 (i.e. deformation concentration on the Y1 frame) in both the RC and SRF specimens.
The maximum lateral drift ratio of the Y1 and Y2 frames are compared in Fig. 10. The difference of the two frames maximum drift
ratio is almost constant throughout all the input stages and in both
specimens. Note that different scales on the vertical axis for the Y1
and Y2 frames are used in Figs. 9(a) and 10.
A comparison of the drift ratio of the two specimens when subjected to the JMA50 loading is shown in Fig. 11. The drift ratio of
the RC specimen is slightly larger than that of the SRF specimen
for both the Y1 and Y2 frames. This is consistent with the results
observed from all the other input stages, except for TOH12.5,
which can be seen in Fig. 12 where ratios comparing the maximum
Table 5
Base motion input plan.
Earthquake data
Scale factor
Max. acceleration to
specimen (m/sec2)
Max. velocity to
specimen (m/s)
Max. acceleration of
prototype (m/sec2)
Max. velocity of
prototype (m/s)
TOH12.5
TOH25
ELC37.5
JMA50
CHI50-1
TAK125*
CHI63*
CHI50-2*
0.3
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.7
1
0.9
0.7
0.77
1.55
3.76
4.92
6.19
6.06
7.96
6.19
0.07
0.14
0.22
0.29
0.28
0.71
0.36
0.28
2.58
2.58
3.42
8.21
8.84
6.06
8.84
8.84
0.41
0.41
0.35
0.85
0.71
1.24
0.71
0.71
(0.013)
(0.25)
(0.38)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.25)
(0.63)
(0.50)
101
Acceleration (m/s 2)
TOH12.5
TOH25
ELC37.5
JMA50
CHI50-1
0
-5
Acceleration (m/s 2)
30
TAK125
60
90
Time (sec.)
120
CHI63
175
CHI50-2
0
-5
0
20
75
130
Time (sec.)
(a)
TOH25
ELC37.5
15
0.5
period (sec.)
15
15
10
10
10
0.5
period (sec.)
0.5
period (sec.)
0.5
period (sec.)
proto-type
shake table record
0
0.5
period (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 8. Input base motions. (a) Time history. (b) Acceleration response spectra (h = 0.03).
0.002
Y 1 f rame
Y 2 f rame
0.01
0
0.001
0
-0.01
-0.001
Time (sec.)
-0.02
2
-0.002
10
12
0.02
14
(a)
-4
-4
x 10
5
5
Y 1 f rame
Y 2 f rame
2.5
0
2.5
0
-2.5
-2.5
Time (sec.)
-5
2
-5
10
12
x 10
Drift ratio of Y1 frame
14
(b)
0.04
Y 1 f rame
Y 2 f rame
0.004
0.03
0.003
0.02
0.002
0.01
0.001
0
TOH12.5
ELC37.5
(a)
CHI50-1
0.05
0.04
Y 1 f rame
Y 2 f rame
0.004
0.03
0.003
0.02
0.002
0.01
0.001
0
TOH12.5
ELC37.5
CHI50-1
(b)
Fig. 10. Maximum drift ratios of Y1 and Y2 frames. (a) RC specimen. (b) SRF specimen.
0.05
Fig. 9. Y1 and Y2 frame comparison of RC specimen drift ratio under ELC37.5 load input. (a) 1st Story. (b) 2nd Story.
TAK125
20
15
25
CHI50-1
20
10
JMA50
20
Sa (m/s 2)
102
0.02
RC
SRF
Drift ratio
0.01
0
-0.01
Time (sec.)
-0.02
2
10
12
14
(a)
-3
x 10
2
RC
SRF
Drift ratio
1
0
-1
Time (sec.)
-2
2
10
12
14
(b)
RC / SRF
RC / SRF
Fig. 11. Comparison of RC and SRF drift ratios. (a) Y1 frame. (b) Y2 frame.
0
TOH12.5
ELC37.5
CHI50-1
TOH12.5
ELC37.5
(a)
CHI50-1
(b)
drift ratio of the RC and SRF specimens are displayed for the various loadings. The difference between two specimens is most outstanding in loading CHI50-1 where the RC specimen collapsed.
Since the SRF specimen exhibited smaller deformations than the
RC specimen when subjected to identical earthquake loadings, this
test showed the SRF retrotting method to be also effective under
dynamic loading conditions.
Displacement
Fig. 12. Maximum RC/SRF specimen displacement ratios. (a)Y1 frame. (b) Y2 frame.
Rotation angle
(a)
(b)
d
h
103
RC specimen
SRF specimen
translation
r (m)
0.8
torsion
0.6
TOH25
ELC37.5
JMA50
small
CHI50
TAK125
specimen damage
CHI63
CHI50
large
550
50
Columns
Wall
25
0
SRF
RC
25
50
-550
TOH25
(a)
JMA50
(b)
TAK125
CHI50-2
TOH12.5
ELC37.5
CHI50-1
(c)
Fig. 15. Shear force carried by columns and wall. (a) RC specimen. (b) SRF specimen. (c) Ratio of column shear to base shear.
104
150
dashed:flexural strength
solid:shear strength
100
SRF
RC
50
0
-50
-100 TOH12.5
TOH25
ELC37.5
JMA50
-150
-0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0.01 -0.02
0
0.02 -0.05
Lateral drift ratio (%)
CHI50-1
0
0.05
Fig. 16. Hysteretic relation between shear force and lateral displacement.
Period (sec.)
0.3
0.25
SR F specim en
R C specim en
0.2
0.15
0.1
Initial
TOH 12.5
TOH 25
C H I50-1 TAK125
C H I63
Fig. 18. Crack patterns. (a) Shear wall. (b) Independent columns.
105
SRF
RC
50
50
-50
-50
SRF
RC
West column
-0.005
100
0
Drif t ratio
East column
0.005
-0.005
(a)
100
SRF
RC
50
50
-50
-50
-100
-100
West column
-0.02
-0.01
0
Drif t ratio
0.01
0.02
-0.02
0
Drif t ratio
0.005
SRF
RC
East column
-0.01
0
0.01
Drif t ratio (%)
0.02
(b)
Fig. 19. Shear force-drift hysteretic relation for each column. (a) ELC37.5 input. (b) JMA50 input.
Fig. 20. Column conditions after CHI50-1 loading input. (a) RC specimen. (b) SRF specimen.
Fig. 21. Collapsed RC specimen. (a) Front view. (b) Side view (from West).
106
(m/sec 2)
()
SRF
2000
RC
1000
0
100
(kN)
50
0
-50
40
(mm)
20
0
-20
-40
400
(kN)
200
0
-200
(mm)
-400
4
2
0
-2
12
100
12sec.-16.7sec.
19.77
22
19.77sec.-22sec.
(g)
SRF
RC
50
-50
-40
400
Axial force (kN)
16.7
Time (sec.)
16.7sec.-19.77sec.
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
12sec.-16.7sec.
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
16.7sec.-19.77sec.
(h)
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
19.77sec.-22sec.
40
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
19.77sec.-22sec.
40
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
40
SRF
200
RC
0
-200
-400
-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
12sec.-16.7sec.
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
16.7sec.-19.77sec.
(i)
2
0
-2
-4
SRF
RC
-6
-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
40-40
-20
0
20
Horizontal displ. (mm)
Fig. 22. Responses during CHI50-1 loading input. (a) Base motion time history. (b) Strain time history of hoop (No. 4 in Fig. 2). (c) Shear force time history. (d) Horizontal
displacement time history. (e) Axial force time history. (f) Vertical displacement time history. (g) Horizontal displacement vs. shear force. (h) Horizontal displacement vs. axial
force. (i) Horizontal displacement vs. vertical displacement.
shown by the black and white triangles in Fig. 22, were selected to
divide the responses into three parts.
At 16.7 s, when the highest shear force experienced during the
CHI50-1 input (i.e. 70% of the maximum shear strength developed
during the JMA50 loading) was recorded, considerable stiffness and
strength degradation were initiated and hoop strain at the midheight of the column started to increase (Fig. 22b). The critical
shear cracking associated with the yielding of the hoop might have
caused the residual hoop strains and shear strength decay. Furthermore, the loss of interface shear transfer along the widened shear
107
cracks which was resulted from yield and fracture of hoop might
have caused the fatal loss of axial load carrying capacity in column.
From the above results, it should be noted that the inelastic hoop
strain, accumulated over cyclic load reversals, might be one of
the main causes of shear and axial failure of RC columns. The horizontal hysteretic relationship of the RC column in Fig. 22g shows
relatively stable behavior until 16.7 s and a remarkable pinching
effect between 16.7 and 19.77 s. In addition, the decay of stiffness
and strength in the RC column during this time zone resulted in the
considerable increase in the lateral drift at 19.77 s compared to
that at 16.7 s. On the other hand, the lateral drift of SRF column
at 19.77 s is only slightly larger than its rst peak drift at 16.7 s,
since the decay of stiffness and strength were very small
(Fig. 22b and g). At 19.77 s, when the mid-height hoop might have
ruptured (Fig. 22b), almost all the lateral stiffness and strength of
the RC column were lost. It can be seen from Fig. 22h that the maximum axial force of RC column observed from 16.7 to 19.77 s is
higher than that of SRF column, which might be due to larger lateral drift of RC column than that of SRF specimen. However, after
19.77 s, axial force in RC column could not exceed that of SRF
one, although lateral drift of RC column was much larger than that
of SRF one. These results indicate that axial failure of RC column
initiated soon after shear failure around 19.77 s at which the lateral
drift ratio was 0.036. That is, the loss of axial load-carrying capacity, which was precipitated by shear failure, induced collapse of the
RC specimen.
Fig. 23. RC specimen collapse process. (a) 16.7 s; (b) 19.77 s; (c) 20.03 s; (d) 20.3 s; (e) 20.9 s.
0
2000 4000
Max. strain ( )
(a)
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
0
2000 4000
Max. strain ( )
20
40
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 24. Height-wise distribution of transverse steel strain. (a) RC specimen. (b) SRF specimen.
108
phase deviation between the two specimens until 19.77 s is significantly smaller vertically than laterally. This might be due to the
fact that there is no neighboring vertical member to sustain axial
load redistributed from the collapsed column since there is just
one span in each direction (only two columns per frame).
Fig. 24 illustrates the height-wise strain distribution recorded
during the CHI50-1 input. As described before, the transverse steel
strain at the mid-height of RC column (No. 4 in Fig. 2) started to increase at 16.7 s with rupture following at 19.77 s when the sliding
of the shear failure plane might have occurred. However, transverse reinforcements at the bottom and top of the column (Nos.
1, 2, 6, and 7 in Fig. 2) did not yield and the strains of the Nos. 3
and 4 hoops slightly exceeded their yield strain. These strain records indicate that shear damage to the RC columns was concentrated at mid-height rather than at the plastic hinge regions at
the bottom and top of the columns. In the SRF column, however,
which was strengthened by the polyester belting, shear damage,
represented by transverse steel strain, was severe at the bottom
and top but small at mid-height. The hoop at mid-height did not
yield and its strain was about 7.76 104 m/m, far below the yield
strain. This result also substantiates the effectiveness of the SRF
retrot methods conning effect and prevention of crack progress.
That is, using the SRF strengthening method changed the failure
mode of RC columns with light transverse reinforcement from
shear failure after exural yield to exural dominant behavior.
3.6. Retrot effectiveness
After removing the collapsed RC specimen from the shake table,
the SRF specimen was subjected to three additional base motions:
TAK125, CHI63 and CHI50-2. Fig. 25 shows the relationship between lateral force and displacement of the Y1 frame in the SRF
specimen for those three loadings.
In the TAK125 input, the maximum strength had decreases
slightly from the previous input stage (CHI50-1), but the hysteretic
150
dashed:flexural strength
100
0
-50
-100
TAK125
-150
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
CHI50-2
CHI63
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
Lateral drift ratio (%)
0.1
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
Fig. 25. Hysteretic relations of SRF columns subjected to additional earthquake loads.
solid:shear strength
50
200
200
100
100
-100
-100
-200
-200
0
10
20
30
Time (sec.)
(a)
40
50
10
20
30
Time (sec.)
40
50
(b)
Fig. 26. Axial force carried by east and west columns in SRF specimen. (a) West column. (b) East column.
0.1
109
Vertical dispalcement(mm)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
TAK125
CHI63
CHI50-2
-20
-25
(a)
Vertical displ. (mm)
10
TAK125
CHI63
CHI50-2
-10
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Time (sec.)
100
120
140
(b)
Fig. 27. Vertical responses of SRF specimen. (a) Hysteretic relations between vertical displacement and axial force. (b) Vertical displacement of east column.
strain ( )
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
-500
CHI50-1 TAK125
0
50
CHI63
100
Time (sec.)
CHI50-2
150
(a)
-500
200
CHI50-1 TAK125
0
50
CHI63
100
Time (sec.)
CHI50-2
150
200
(b)
Fig. 29. Strain time histories at mid-height of SRF column. (a) West column. (b) East column.
4. Conclusions
Two identical specimens having several seismic deciencies
including low transverse reinforcement ratios, weak stories and
eccentric plans were tested on a shake table. One specimen was
110
a shear wall. Throughout all the input stages, the lateral displacement of the side having only independent columns was much
larger than that of the shear wall side in both specimens. The
column-only side displacement was almost 10 times the shear
wall-side displacement in the 1st story, about twice that of the
2nd story, which had a symmetric plan. In addition, lateral displacement in the RC specimen is larger than that of the retrotted
specimen, where shear strength and stiffness increased slightly by
virtue of the SRF retrot, which may have decreased its defor
mation.
The response center distance (r) showed that torsional response
is more pronounced in the inelastic range than in the elastic range,
which may be due to the increased strength eccentricity that resulted from damage concentration on the independent column
frame. The comparison of r between the two specimens indicated
that the torsional response of the SRF specimen is smaller than that
of the RC specimen. This was also due to the SRF strengthening,
which reduced the damage on the SRF columns.
The shear forces carried by independent columns are relatively
smaller than those carried by the wall and they decrease gradually
with increasing load level as column damage increases. The SRF
columns carried larger shear forces than the RC columns. Furthermore, the maximum shear strength of the SRF columns increased
even after transverse reinforcement yield, while the maximum
shear carried by the RC columns was very near that recorded at
the moment the transverse reinforcement yielded. These results
indicate that the SRF strengthening method is effective in conning
the concrete, a primary role of transverse reinforcement.
During the CHI50-1 input, the SRF columns showed stable hysteretic relations without any considerable damage while the RC
columns experienced severe shear strength deterioration and axial
load failure along with inelastic load reversal and nal collapse.
Vertically, however, comparing the axial force and vertical displacement of the two specimens revealed that axial collapse could
not be predicted from the vertical responses since bare RC columns, showing signs of drastic collapse, exhibited no discernibly
different vertical behaviors than the SRF columns until axial collapse was initiated.
The SRF specimen was subjected to three additional severe
earthquake loads. It was capable of sustaining its gravity load
and survived all loading stages despite considerable lateral
strength deterioration (about one-third of maximum strength), a
high lateral drift ratio (about 10%) and a large compressive axial
deformation ratio (about 2.5%) during the nal loading.
The height-wise strain distribution was recorded from strain
gauges attached to transverse reinforcements in the RC columns.
The strain was highest at mid-height and lowest at both ends. This
condition was reversed by strengthening columns with the SRF
polyester belting, so that the strain was highest at both ends and
lowest at mid-height. This changed the failure mode of the column
from shear failure after exural yield in the RC column to exural
failure showing minor damage at mid-height and concentrated
damage on both ends of the SRF column.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out as part of the Development of postearthquake performance evaluation using practical accelerometers, research project (Grant No. 12308018, PI: Toshimi Kabeyasawa) under the support of the JSPS and Monbukagakusho. The
dynamic test was conducted at NIED, Tsukuba, with Dr. Nobuyuki
Ogawa and Mr. Atsushi Kato of NIED. The support and cooperation
we received in conducting the tests are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Kim Y, Kabeyasawa T, Kabeyasawa T, Matsumori T. Dynamic collapse analysis
of the six-story full-scale wall-frame building, Proceedings of the 2007
Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, USA, May 1619, 2007.
[2] Lee H-S, Ko D-W. Seismic response characteristics of high-rise RC wall
buildings having different irregularities in lower stories. Eng Struct
2007;29(11):314967.
[3] Kabeyasawa T, Kabeyasawa T, Matsumori T, Kim Y. Full-Scale Dynamic
Collapse Tests of Three-Story Reinforced Concrete Buildings on Flexible
Foundation at E-Defense, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, Paper ID: S15-002, Oct 2008.
[4] Mitchell D, DeVall RH, Saatcioglu M, Simpson R, Tinawi R, Tremblay R. Damage
to concrete structures due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Can J Civil Eng
1995;22:36177.
[5] Watanabe H. Behavior of reinforced concrete buildings during the HyogokenNambu earthquake. Cem Concr Compos 1997;19(3):20311.
[6] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced
concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and
seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct
2003;25(1):10314.
[7] Ahmadizadeh M, Shakib H. On the December 26, 2003, southeastern Iran
earthquake in Bam region. Eng Struct 2004;26(8):105570.
[8] Kabeyasawa T, Tasai A, Igarashi S. An economical and efcient method of
strengthening reinforced concrete columns against axial load collapse during
major earthquake. The Third Workshop on Performance-based Engineering on
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Seattle, WA. PEER Report 2002/02:
371384.
[9] Kabeyasawa T, Tasai A, Igarashi S. A New Method of Strengthening Reinforced
Concrete Columns against Axial Load Collapse during Major Earthquake.
Proceedings of EASEC-8, CD-ROM, Singapore, 2001.
[10] Kabeyasawa T, Tasai A, Igarashi S. An Economical and Efcient Method of
Preventing Old Reinforced Concrete Buildings from Collapse under Major
Earthquake, Proceedings of 7NCEE, CD-ROM in print, Boston, 2002.
[11] Kabeyasawa T, Tasai A, Igarashi S. Test and Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Strengthened With Polyester Sheet, Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 16,
2004 (Paper No. 408).
[12] Altin S, Anil , Kara ME. Improving shear capacity of existing RC beams using
external bonding of steel plates. Eng Struct 2005;27(5):78191.
[13] Sheikh SA. Performance of concrete structures retrotted with bre reinforced
polymers. Eng Struct 2002;24(7):86979.
[14] Bo Gao, Christopher K.Y. Leung, Jang-Kyo Kim. Prediction of concrete cover
separation failure for RC beams strengthened with CFRP strips, Eng Struct
2005; 27: 177189.
[15] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown VL, Cosenza E, Davalos JF, Lesko JJ, Machida A, Rizkalla SH,
Triantallou TC. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction
State-of-the-art review. J Compos Construct ASCE 2002;6(2):7387.
[16] Buyukozturk O, Hearing B. Failure behaviour of precracked concrete beams
retrotted with FRP. J Compos Construct 1998;2(3):13844.
[17] The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Standard for Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, The Japan Building
Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese), 2001.
[18] Safak Erdal. Identication of linear structures using discrete-time lters. J
Struct Eng ASCE 1991;117(10):306485.