See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273078901

Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC

Frames Strengthened with Four Different
Techniques

Article in Advances in Structural Engineering · February 2012

DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.15.2.343

CITATIONS READS

2 39

4 authors, including:

Özgür Anil Mesut Kara

Gazi University Ankara University
99 PUBLICATIONS 425 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 215 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fatigue behavior of Glulam wood beam, Impact behavior of CFRP fan type anchorage, Blast behavior
of ECC and normal concrete shear wall View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Özgür Anil on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames
Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

by

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl, M. Emin Kara and Yaǧmur Kopraman

Reprinted from

Advances in Structural Engineering

Volume 15 No. 2 2012

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames
Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

Sinan Altın1, Özgür Anıl1,*, M. Emin Kara2 and Yaǧmur Kopraman

1Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Maltepe, Ankara 06570, Türkiye
2Department of Civil Engineering, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Türkiye

(Received: 27 May 2009; Received revised form: 26 June 2011; Accepted: 5 July 2011)

Abstract: The purpose of this experimental study is to compare the strengthening

techniques that are applied to non ductile low rise RC frames under seismic loads. In
this study, 1/3 scale, one-bay, one-storey, nonductile RC frames with masonry infill
walls were strengthened using four different techniques and are tested experimentally
under reversed cyclic lateral loading. The four frames were constructed with masonry
infill walls and three were strengthened with a mesh reinforced mortar layer, CFRP
and steel strips wrapping, respectively. The remaining one without any extra
strengthening was tested as a reference. A final specimen of the experimental program
was strengthened with RC infill instead of masonry infill. Strength, stiffness, storey
drift, ductility and failure modes of the specimens were evaluated and compared
experimentally. Each strengthening technique proved to have different types of
effectiveness on the lateral strength and stiffness of non ductile RC frames. Different
strengthening techniques changed the ultimate lateral strengths and stiffnesses within
the ranges of 53% to 381% and 82% to 601%, respectively.

Key words: reinforced concrete (RC) frame, strengthening, steel strip, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP),
reinforced mortar, RC infill wall.

1. INTRODUCTION practice such as the introduction of infill walls, and steel

After experiencing severely damaged buildings due to
several destructive earthquakes, the importance of seismic
rehabilitation and strengthening of existing buildings is
recognized year after year. Nowadays, many countries
have a large number of buildings in use with the similar
characteristics of such as insufficient strength, ductility
and stiffness. These buildings can cause serious problems
and collapse during earthquakes. Their structural systems
include nonductile RC moment resisting frames. As is
commonly known, nonductile RC moment resisting
frames are identified as one type of structural system that
poses significant potential hazard to life and can result in
major economic loss. A great majority of these buildings
have inadequate lateral strength and stiffness. For
strengthening and rehabilitation of these buildings
different techniques have been developed and applied in
and CFRP bracings. Numerous research studies have been
conducted on the performance of RC infilled frames. In
these studies, fully and partially infilled RC frames are
tested under reversed cyclic lateral loading (Klingner and
Bertero 1978; Kahn and Hanson 1979; Altın et al. 1992;
Canbay et al. 2003; Anıl and Altın 2007; Kara and Altın
2006). Test results indicate that infilled walls increase the
lateral load capacity of the frame and reduced the lateral
drift at all load stages. It is also indicated that the use of
partial infills connected to both the frame column and
beam are more effective in improving nonductile RC
frame lateral performance. In addition, different local
strengthening techniques have been developed such as
steel jacketing, addition of columns at the boundaries of
the infill, and the addition of longitudinal bars at infill
boundaries with closely spaced ties in the spliced regions

*Corresponding author. Email address: oanil@gazi.edu.tr; Fax: +90-312-230-8434; Tel: +90-312-5823-215.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 343

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques
of columns (Jirsa and Kreger 1989; Sonuvar et al. 2004;
Altın et al. 2007). Experiments showed that applied local
strengthening techniques prevented local failure in the
spliced region of the boundary columns and improved
the strength, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity of
the infilled frame. The effectiveness of RC infills for the
rehabilitation of damaged nonductile RC frames has been
investigated. The research showed that if the seismic
rehabilitation of a damaged structure is performed by
introducing RC infills to an adequate number of the bays
in both directions, it is not necessary to repair the
individual frame members.
Lateral strength of RC frames is improved
significantly by adding masonry infill walls (Bertero and
Brokken 1983; Calvi and Bolognini 2001; FEMA 356
2000). In addition, strengthening of these masonry infill
walls further improves the lateral load carrying capacity.
Addition of a mesh reinforced mortar layer on one side
of a masonry infill wall is one of the strengthening
techniques advised by the Turkish seismic regulations
(Altın et al., Turkish Seismic Code 2007). While these
upgrading techniques are effective, they require a great
deal of preparation work, and their construction may
disturb the ongoing building functions. Also these
techniques add considerable mass leading to higher
seismic loads. Hence, an alternative method of
retrofitting is worth considering. During the last decade
the use of fibre reinforced polymers for retrofitting and
strengthening has become a valid alternative because of
their small thickness, and relative ease of application.
Fibre reinforced polymers not only have the advantage of
very high strength over conventional materials, but are
also lightweight and highly durable in many
environments. The strength and stiffness of a structure
can be increased with negligible mass addition, which is
distinctly advantageous from a seismic perspective.
Carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) are widely
used to strengthen RC structures such as bridge girders,
piers, beams, columns, slabs, beam-column joints and
RC frames (Chen and Teng 2001; Teng et al. 2002;
Smith and Teng 2002a, b; Smith and Teng 2003; Taljsten
2003; Khalifa and Nanni 2002; Ye et al. 2002; Prota et
al. 2004; Limam et al. 2005; Balsamo et al. 2005).
Experimental studies have shown that strengthening of
masonry infilled frames using CFRP is an effective
technique against seismic forces (Altın et al. 2008).
Experiments have shown that when CFRP strips are
connected correctly with the frame as well as the infill
wall, a new lateral load carrying system is generated. As
a result, the lateral load carrying capacity, and the
stiffness are increased and the storey drift ratio of the
original frame is reduced significantly. One other study
compares two different strengthening techniques for RC
344
frames i.e. addition of an RC infill wall or a masonry
infill wall strengthened with diagonal CFRP strips
(Erdem et al. 2006). The test results have shown that,
both strengthening techniques provide approximately the
same lateral strength, and the capacity of the frame using
CFRP strips depends on the number and effectiveness of
the CFRP anchors.
Another alternative strengthening technique is for
non ductile low rise RC frames to be strengthened with
steel members. Experimental studies with masonry
infilled RC frames have shown that strengthening with
steel bracings is an economical and easy to apply
technique. In addition, it is effective for upgrading the
seismic capacity of existing structures (Taghdi et al.
2000; Bush et al. 1991; Maheri and Hadjipour 2003).
Diagonal and vertical steel strips connected to masonry
wall lintels improved lateral strength and stiffness
(Taghdi et al. 2000). Steel members when used as
internal bracings like a steel truss, inserted in the empty
space enclosed by RC frame columns and beams, and if
connections between the steel truss members and the RC
frame are secured, can provide the required lateral load
capacity.
As can be seen from the above literature, few studies
have compared different strengthening techniques in
respect of seismic behavior effectiveness. The purpose
of this study is to determine the relative performance of
each strengthening technique. In this study, 1/3 scale
one bay one storey non ductile RC frames were
strengthened using the four different techniques: a)
mesh reinforced mortar layer, b) diagonally placed
CFRP strips, c) diagonally placed steel strips, d)
introducing a RC infill wall. All were tested under
reversed cyclic lateral loads. The comparisons of the test
results are made in terms of lateral strength, stiffness,
storey drift ratio, ductility and failure mode.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1. Details of Specimens
Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test frames
are given in Figure 1. For all of the test specimens, the
geometric dimensions and reinforcement patterns are
identical. The test frame is a 1/3 scale, one-bay, one-
storey nonductile RC frame. This test frame was
detailed and purposely constructed to contain some
deficiencies commonly observed in residential buildings
in many countries, such as inadequate lateral stiffness
and weak column-strong beam joints. Insufficient
confinement of concrete is provided at column and
beam ends, and no confinement is provided at beam
column joints. The ties that are used in test specimen
beams and columns have 90-degree hooks at their free
ends. The columns and beams have 100 × 150 mm and
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

Table 1. Test specimens

Spec. RC frame Masonry Strengthening

no fC (MPa) infill technique
1 17.3 Yes No strengthening
2 17.2 Yes Mesh reinforced plaster layer
1/3 Scale (95 × 95 × 65) 3 17.5 Yes Reinforced with diagonal
Masonry clay unit CFRP strip
100 1300 100 4 17.1 Yes Reinforced with diagonal
100 100 100
steel strip
B 5 17.4 No Reinforced concrete infill
150

Plaster
B
D D
net area to the gross area of the clay tiles is about 0.56.
8 mm bars were used as

10 mm bars
Both sides of the wall were plastered with the same

@155 mm
100 100 100

100 100 100

longitudinal reinforcement
750

in columns and beam mortar material. The thickness of the plaster used at the
Beam and column ties two faces of brick walls was 7.5 mm. The total thickness
4 mm bars @ 100 mm of the clay tile with plaster was 80 mm. The aspect ratio
A A A A
C (lw/hw, where lw = infill length, hw = infill height) of the
frame with masonry wall was 1.73. The details of the
300

strengthening techniques are given at Figure 2. Due to

16 mm bars
the fact that infill walls are not constructed on the axis
C
200 1500 200 of symmetry in the plane of the frame, symmetrical
strengthening does not occur.
Section A-A Section B-B Section C-C
100 150 500
Specimen 2 is strengthened with the addition of a
40 mm thick mesh reinforced mortar layer on the
150

150

interior side of the masonry wall [Figure 2(a)].

300

Reinforcements with 6 mm diameter were arranged

90° stirrups hook
Section D-D (column reinforcement is not shown in section)
Exterior side Plaster (thick. 7.5 mm)
Interior side 80 Plaster
(thick. 7.5 mm)
Figure 1. Details of test specimens (Dimensions in mm)
150 × 150 mm cross sections, respectively. In the
columns and beams, four and six 8 mm diameter plain
bars are used as the longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively. Plain bars of diameter 4 mm spaced at
100 mm are used as ties in both beams and columns.
As can be seen from the Table 1 which summarizes
the specimen properties, Specimen 1 is a reference
specimen and the others are specimens strengthened in
different ways: a) the mesh reinforced mortar layer, b)
diagonal placement of CFRP strips, c) diagonal
placement of steel strips, d) RC infilled wall instead of
a masonry wall. The four test frames were (Specimens
1, 2, 3 and 4) infilled with 65 × 95 × 95 mm 1/3 scaled
hollow clay tiles, and infill walls were constructed on
the axis of symmetry in the plane of the frame to
simulate exterior walls of the building. The ratio of the
horizontally and vertically like a mesh and spaced at
100 mm intervals. The new mortar layer was connected
to both the frame and the masonry wall by using dowels
as shown in Figure 3 with details. Force transfer
between the layer and the existing frame is achieved by
Masonry
clay unit means of the dowels consisting of 10 mm diameter
deformed bars embedded into columns and beams.
These dowels were inserted into holes 12 mm in
diameter. The depths of the drilled holes were 80 mm
and 120 mm at the columns and the beams,
respectively. The dowels extended 250 mm from the
frame columns and the beams into the mortar layer of
the strengthened specimen. The reinforced mortar layer
was anchoraged to the masonry wall with L shaped
dowels inserted 8 mm diameter holes 60 mm in depth.
After the mesh reinforcements had been placed the
masonry wall was covered with a mortar layer
possessing a 5 MPa compressive strength.
Specimens 3 and 4 were strengthened with diagonal
CFRP and steel strips, respectively. The width of the
CFRP and steel strips were selected to be greater than
given by the masonry wall equivalent diagonal strut
and tie model. In addition, the tensile capacity of the
CFRP and steel strips were selected to be close to each
other. Specimen 3 was strengthened with 200 mm
wide CFRP strips [Figure 2(b)]. A new shear resisting

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 345

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

Orthogonal 6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

(260) (260) (260) 200

80
120

115
0
10 mm dia. deformed bar

30
140

(187.5)

CFRP strip
250
250 (187.5)
140

0
30

120
CFRP strip width wCFRP = 200 mm
140 140
10 mm dia. deformed bar
Notes: CFRP anchorage of masonry wall
Remarks: Symbol represents masonry wall anchors
Pranthesis shows the wall anchorages spacing
(a) Specimen 2 (Mesh reinforced plaster layer) (b) Specimen 3 (Reinforced with diagonal CFRP strip)

20 mm dia. rods
10 mm dia. rods

6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

50 × 550 × 4 strip 15 mm dia. rods

hole dia. /depth: 22/130

6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

150 × 1500 × 4 strip hole dia.: 12

hole dia.: 17

80
120
140
10 mm dia. deformed bar

0
25
50
250

0
25

250
100 × 50 × 4

140
L angle

130 130 120

150 150 150 150
140 140
10 mm dia. deformed bar
(c) Specimen 4 (Reinforced with diagonal steel strip) (d) Specimen 5 (RC infill)

Figure 2. Strengthening techniques (Dimensions in mm)

mechanism is formed such that masonry wall carries anchorage regions to prevent a stress concentration
diagonal compression forces and the CFRP strip effect. The CFRP placed diagonally onto the infills
carries diagonal tension forces (Altın et al. 2008). were extended towards the frame members. In
CFRP strips were anchoraged to both the RC frame addition, to achieve a good connection between the
and the masonry infill as detailed in Figure 4. The hollow clay tile infill and the CFRP strips, fan type
ends of the CFRP strips bonded to the interior face of CFRP anchor dowels were used [Figure 4(c)]. The
the masonry wall are divided into 100 mm wide CFRP anchor dowels used in the hollow clay block
segments and wrapped on to 10 mm diameter infills were made from 50 × 200 mm2 carbon fiber
reinforcement pieces. These ends were then inserted strips. These strips were rolled and tied with ordinary
into 14 mm diameter holes and 100 mm in depths fibres. After laying the diagonal CFRP strips,
filled with epoxy resin [Figure 4(a)]. The CFRP anchorages were inserted into 14 mm diameter holes
anchor dowels used in RC frame members were drilled through the masonry wall from one face to the
formed from 30 × 240 mm2 carbon fibre strips. These other face. The locations of the masonry wall anchor
strips are rolled in the shorter direction, tied with dowels are shown as dots in Figure 2(b).
ordinary fibres and folded [Figure 4(b)]. 300 mm long Specimen 4 was strengthened with diagonal and
CFRP sheets with the same width were bonded to the vertical steel strips [Figure 2(c)]. A new shear resisting

346 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara
150
50 100
150
120
RC frame
beam
Frame anchor.
10 mm dia. deformed bar
hole dia/depth: 12/120
Plaster
Mesh reinfor.
Plaster
Wall anchor.
6 mm dia. deformed bar Hollow clay tile
hole dia/depth: 8/80
30 Interior side Exterior side
100
Added plaster layer
40 80
Existing masonry wall
Remarks: Frame and wall anchors holes were epoxy injected
Figure 3. Anchorage details of specimen 2 (Dimensions in mm)
mechanism is formed such that the masonry wall that
carries diagonal compression forces and the diagonal
steel strips carry diagonal tension forces. The vertical
steel strips improve flexural strength. Four mm thick
diagonal steel strips 150 mm wide and 50 × 550 mm
vertical strips were placed on both side of the masonry
wall symmetrically. Diagonal steel strips were used for
carrying the great majority of the lateral load, and
vertical steel strips were used to improve the flexural
capacity of the masonry infilled RC frame so that the
lateral storey drift ratio would be decreased. L shaped
steel plates connected to specimen’s upper and lower
beams were used to constrain the relative displacement
of connection points. Vertical steel strips were added to
decrease the storey drift ratio and to achieve better
stiffness and strength levels. This is because masonry
infill walls crush at a low storey drift ratios and lose
strength (Figure 5). Steel strips were connected to both
the RC frame and the masonry wall as detailed in
Figure 5. Vertical and diagonal steel strips on the
interior side of the frame were connected to beam ends
using 100 × 50 × 4 mm L shaped steel parts. These L
shaped parts were connected to the beam and
foundation of the frame with the help of 20 mm
diameter steel rods anchoraged in 22 mm diameter
holes of 90 mm depth. The connection details at the
exterior of the frame were the same as for the interior.
Steel strips placed on both sides of the wall were
clamped to the masonry wall using steel threaded rods
inserted into the holes drilled through the wall. The
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
spacing between the threaded rods was selected so that
buckling due to compression forces is prevented.
15 mm diameter rods at 250 mm spacing and 10 mm
diameter rods at 50 mm spacing were used for diagonal
and vertical steel strips, respectively. Hole diameters
drilled onto masonry wall for the rods used as diagonal
and vertical strips were 17 mm and 12 mm,
respectively.
Specimen 5 was strengthened with RC infill having
a thickness of 50 mm. The details of the infill
reinforcement and the dowels for Specimen 5 are
shown in Figure 2(d). Orthogonal reinforcement for
the infilled wall consisted of 6 mm plain bars. The
reinforcement was placed on both faces of the wall.
The ratio of wall reinforcement was ρv = ρh = 0.009 in
both the vertical and horizontal directions. The force
transfer between the infilled wall and the existing frame
was achieved by means of dowels of 10 mm diameter
deformed bars embedded into the columns and beams.
The depths of the drilled holes were 80 mm and 130 mm
at columns and beams, respectively. The dowels
extended 250 mm into the RC infill wall from the
foundation beam, the frame columns and the beams.
Holes were first drilled in the frame and the masonry
walls for the purposes of anchoraging the dowels and
the threaded rods. The holes were then cleaned and
dowels or threaded rods inserted into the epoxy injected
holes.
The basic design objective for the strengthened
specimens was to achieve yielding in RC column
longitudinal reinforcement, and to observe ductile
flexural behavior for all strengthened specimens. There
was no specific target strength aimed at in this study, the
largest possible improvement in strength and stiffness
was the aim. Geometrical details and dimensions were
chosen according to the general approach summarized
above and the design criteria for each strengthening
technique. In addition, while designing strengthening
details, details were chosen to be easily applied and as
economical as possible.
2.2. Materials
For the experimental program, specimen frames with
low compressive strength were constructed to
represent the concrete strength of existing buildings.
The average concrete compressive strength of the test
frames was 17.3 MPa on the day of testing. Concrete
compression strengths lower than 20 MPa are
forbidden within earthquake zones in Turkey
according to the Turkish Earthquake regulations
(Turkish Seismic Code 2007). The concrete
compressive strength of the RC infill used for
Specimen 5 was 30 MPa. The concrete cylinder
347
 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

12 mm diameter Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)

100 mm plain bar RC column
Exterior face

80
150
300 mm

Hollow Interior face

clay tile

Diagonal CFRP sheet

100

CFRP anchorage
hole dia.: 14 mm
200 mm Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were epoxy injected

(a) Interior side anchorage

CFRP anchorage Diagonal CFRP sheet

hole dia.: 14 mm
Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)
50 50 Exterior face
240 mm

80
150

Hollow
clay tile Interior face

RC column

30 mm 100
Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were epoxy injected
(b) Exterior side anchorage

Diagonal CFRP sheet

Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)
50 50 Exterior face
80

Hollow Interior face

clay tile CFRP Anchorage
hole dia.: 14 mm
(c) Masonry wall anchorage

Figure 4. Anchorage details of specimen 3 (Dimensions in mm)

specimen strengths are given in Table 1. Properties of
reinforcement and steel plate used in the specimens
are listed in Table 2.
The mix designs for the mortar used in the
construction of the masonry wall and for the plaster
were identical. Mix proportions are given in Table 3.
Average compressive strength of the mortar was found
to be 2.6 MPa. The average compressive strength of the
hallow clay tile in the direction of its holes was
calculated as 7.8 MPa considering the gross area of the
clay tile. Properties of CFRP sheets and resin used in
this study are given in Table 4.

348 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

150 Table 2. Mechanical properties of reinforcements

50 100 and steel plate
RC frame
beam Bar Diameter fsy fsu Type
90 (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
150

20 mm dia. rods
4 326 708 Plain
90

hole dia.: 22 mm
6 427 489 Plain
8 592 964 Deformed
100 × 50 × 4 15 mm dia. rods 10 475 689 Deformed
L angle hole dia.: 17 mm 16 425 683 Deformed
Plaster Steel plate 210 325 –
150 × 1500 × 4 (Thickness = 4 mm)
diagonal strip Hollow clay tile

15 mm dia. rods
hole dia.: 17 mm Table 3. Mixture design of mortar and plaster

Interior side Exterior side Material Percentage by Weight (%)

100 × 50 × 4
100 × 50 × 4 L angle 0–3 mm Aggregate 61.0%
L angle
15 mm dia. rods Cement 10.5%
hole dia.: 17 mm Lime 10.5%
Water 18.0%
90

Base 20 mm dia. rods

hole dia.: 22 mm

Table 4. Properties of CFRP (Unidirectional) and resin

Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were poxy injected Properties of CFRP Remarks of CFRP
Construction Warp: Carbon Fibers (99% of total
areal weight) Weft : Thermoplastic
heat-set fibers (1% of total areal
weight)
Areal Weight (g/m2) 220 ± 10
Density (g/m3) 1.78 × 10–6
Thickness (mm) 0.12
Tensile Strength (MPa) 4100
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 231000
Ultimate Tensile Strain (%) 1.7 %

Properties of Resin Remarks of Resin

Tensile Strength (MPa) 30
Figure 5. Anchorage details and load transfer mechanism of
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 3800
Specimen 4 (Dimensions in mm)

2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation
The testing configuration, loading system, and
instrumentation are shown in Figure 6. Specimens
were tested under a cyclic lateral loading regime.
Lateral load was applied to the specimens at beam
level, using a hydraulic jack and the applied load
measured with a load cell. The capacities of the
equipment are 500 kN both in compression and
tension. Load cycles were applied to specimens under
load control up to the maximum load capacity, and
then displacement control was applied for further
cycles. Each cycle was repeated once and a 10 kN
load increment was applied for the load controlled
cycles. The identical loading history was applied to all
specimens up to the maximum load capacity, after
which point loading was different for each specimen.
Due to differences in strengthening details, specimens
showed different capacities, failure mechanisms and
behavior patterns. As a result, the identical
displacement controlled loading was not applied to all
specimens. After specimens lost their lateral load
carrying capacities, tests were considered completed.
During tests, the storey displacements and lateral
loads were monitored. Axial load was applied to the
columns by prestressing tendons. The level of
the applied axial load in each test was about 10% of

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 349

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques
LVDT
Load cell
Hydraulic
Seperader beam
jack
Load cell
Rigid
Hydraulic
wall jack
Specimen
Rigid floor
800 1600 800
Figure 6. Test setup and instrumentations (Dimensions in mm)
the axial load capacity of the frame columns. A rigid
steel stability frame was constructed around the test
specimens to prevent out of plane displacements.
Strain gauge based linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) were used for displacement
measurements. After each cycle, newly initiated
cracks and crack propagations were marked on the
specimens themselves and failure mechanisms were
observed.
3. BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE MODE OF TEST
SPECIMENS
Lateral load-displacement hysteretic curves for the test
specimens are shown in Figure 7. As indicated in these
figures, all of the strengthening techniques increased the
lateral strength, stiffness and energy dissipation
capacities of the specimens.
3.1. Specimen 1 (Reference)
The loading cycles prior to the maximum created
diagonal shear cracks in an X shape in the diagonal
compression zone of the masonry wall. The reference
specimen reached a 0.40% lateral drift at an ultimate
load of 76.7 kN on the forward cycle. After the infill
crushed at the upper corners due to diagonal
compression, the specimen lost its lateral load
carrying capacity and, failed. After exceeding the
lateral load carrying capacity of the specimen, a large
lateral storey drift caused failure. Due to poor
confinement, large and wide shear cracks were
observed at the beam column connections. A picture
after failure is shown in Figure 8.
3.2. Specimen 2 (Mesh Reinforced Mortar
Layer)
The mesh reinforced mortar layer introduced on one
side of the masonry wall increased the lateral strength
350
and stiffness to some extent, but could not prevent
premature failure. Specimen 2 reached 0.72% lateral
drift at an ultimate load of 117.0 kN on the forward
cycle. There is no significant drop of the lateral load
carrying capacity at 1% lateral drift. The masonry infill
825
wall failed in shear and slid from the weakest joint with
the bricks and the specimen lost its lateral load carrying
300 capacity. Shear cracks were observed in the newly
added plaster layer. Additionally, shear cracks
developed at the unconfined column-beam connections.
Shear transfer between the reinforced concrete frame
and the plaster layer could not be fully obtained,
because of the poor bonding capacity of the layer to the
masonry infill wall. The dowel reinforcements
anchored to the beam of the frame crushed the layer and
broke the cover. After the brick infill wall crushed at
the upper corners, the test specimen lost its lateral load
carrying capacity. The picture after failure is shown in
Figure 9.
3.3. Specimen 3 (Strengthened with Diagonal
CFRP Strip)
CFRP strips increased the lateral load carrying
capacity and the initial stiffness significantly. No
shear cracks were observed up to the ultimate lateral
load capacity. The storey drift ratio for specimen 3 is
0.57% at the ultimate load of 167 kN on the forward
cycle. The specimen lateral load carrying capacity
dropped a little during the first forward and backward
cycles after the ultimate load had been reached and the
displacement capacity increased. CFRP strips on the
interior side of the infill wall ruptured due to tension,
and the anchorages of the CFRP strip on the exterior
ruptured from the upper corner of the frame due to
shearing (Figure 10). CFRP strips ruptured at the
ultimate load level, and specimens abruptly lost their
lateral load carrying capacities and stiffnesses. Rupture
of the CFRP strips and anchorages determined the
lateral load carrying capacity and displacement of the
specimen.
3.4. Specimen 4 (Strengthened with Diagonal
Steel Strip)
The most successful experimental results for lateral
strength and stiffness were obtained with the use of
diagonal steel strips. Steel strips provided a lateral
load carrying capacity such that a 1.0% lateral drift
ratio was reached and shear crack propagations were
prevented. The storey drift ratio of Specimen 4
reached 1.20% at an ultimate load of 320 kN on the
forward cycle. The lateral shear force was carried by
the diagonal steel strips placed in the tension and
compression directions. Before steel strips buckled,
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

350 350
300 Specimen-1 300 Specimen-2
No strengthening
250 250 Mesh reinforced
plaster Layer
200 200
150 150
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−200 −200
−250 −250
−300 −300
−350 −350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2) Drift ratio (10−2)

350 350
300 Specimen-3 300 Specimen-4
Reinforced with Reinforced with
250 250
diagonal CFRP strip diagonal steel strip
200 200
150 150
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−200 −200
−250 −250
−300 −300
−350 −350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2) Drift ratio (10−2)

350
300 Specimen-5
Reinforced
250
concrete infill
200
150
Shear force (kN)

100
50
0
−50
−100
−150
−200
−250
−300
−350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2)

Figure 7. Load-drift ratio graphics of specimens

specimen reached the ultimate load level for both connecting steel strips to the frame. Wide shear cracks
forward and backward cycles. No damage was were observed at the unconfined column beam
observed in steel connection members used for connections of the frame. Diagonal steel strips

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 351

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

CFRP strip
rupture

Specimen 1

Figure 8. Specimen 1 after failure Anchorages

CFRP anchor
rupture

Figure 10. Rupture of the CFRP in Specimen 3

Figure 9. Specimen 2 after failure

connected to column beam connections carried

compression forces to these regions and caused heavy
damage on the forward and backward cycles (Figure 11).
The nonductile RC frame was severely damaged at
loading cycles after reaching the ultimate strength of
the specimen. Anchorages placed along the diagonal
steel strips are used for postponing buckling of the
strips up to the point of yield of longitudinal
reinforcements, and the specimen reaches its load
carrying capacity. Design is done according to this
criterion. It is impossible to prevent the buckling of Figure 11. Specimen 4 upper corner after failure
steel strips due to increasing lateral drift ratio,
crushing of the masonry infill wall at the corners, and
forming of plastic hinges at the column ends. Steel drift ratio reached 1.0%. The nonductile RC frame was
strips buckled at large storey drift ratios, after the severely damaged on loading cycles subsequent to the
specimen had lost its load carrying capacity. ultimate strength of the specimen having been reached.
The shear forces were transferred from the infilled wall
3.5. Specimen 5 (RC Infilled) to the RC frame by diagonal compressive struts, and
In the forward cycles, Specimen 5 reached its ultimate caused the column ends of the nonductile RC frame to fail
lateral load of 210.3 kN, when the storey drift ratio was in shear (Figure 12). No separation was observed between
0.75%. In this specimen, both on forward and backward the frame and the infill. This indicated that, adequate
cycles, load carrying capacity decreased after the storey

352 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

−0.35 × 10−2 0.35 × 10−2

350
300 Spec-1
250 Spec-2
200 Spec-3
150 Spec-4

Shear force (kN)

100 Spec-5
50
0
−50
−100
−150
−200
−250
−300
−350
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 12. Shear failure of Specimen 5 column
Drift ratio (10−2)

Figure 13. Response envelopes of specimens

detailing and proper construction of steel dowels had been
achieved.
4. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS
Behavior of the test specimens was compared in terms
of lateral strength, stiffness, storey drift ratio and
ductility. The test results are summarized and presented
in Table 5. This table was prepared to illustrate the
effect of the type of applied strengthening on ultimate
strength, initial stiffness, lateral storey drift ratio at
ultimate load and the displacement ductility ratio.
Response envelope curves can be used for evaluating
the strength and stiffness characteristics of the specimens.
The response envelopes shown in Figure 13 are plotted by
connecting the peak points of the load-displacement
hysteretic curves for each specimen. As can be seen from
this figure, their strength and stiffness of the strengthened
frames are significantly higher than those of the reference
specimen. Each strengthening technique produced
different degree of effectiveness on specimen lateral
strength and stiffness. The lowest load carrying capacity
was observed for Specimen 2. The highest was achieved
by Specimen 4. Greater lateral strength is obtained by
strengthening with diagonal steel strips. The rupture of
CFRP strips and anchorages determined the lateral load
carrying capacity of Specimen 3. Lateral load carrying
capacity dropped suddenly after the rupture of CFRP
anchorages. Lateral displacement of the frame and cracks
initiated in the masonry infill wall caused direction
changes in CFRP fibres. For this reason, CFRP strips
affected by both axial force and transverse loads
prematurely failed (Altın et al. 2008). The lateral load
carrying capacity of Specimen 3 is 92% less than that of
Specimen 4 which was strengthened with steel strips. The
ultimate load and drift at ultimate load for Specimen 4
was significantly larger than for the other specimens.
Specimen 5 strengthened with an RC infill wall had
greater strength than Specimen 3 and could attain a 1.0%
lateral drift ratio on both forward and backward cycles
without losing significant load carrying capacity. The
target strength for the strengthened specimens is to reach
a required lateral load level followed by yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement in the columns. As a result,

Table 5. Summary of test results

Drift ratio at Displacement

Ultimate load (kN) ultimate load Initial stiffness ductility
Spec. no Forward Backward Ratioa (%) (kN/mm) Ratiob ratio
1 76.7 –67.4 1.00 0.40 50.00 1.00 1.73
2 117.0 –110.4 1.53 0.72 90.90 1.82 2.03
3 167.0 –161.0 2.18 0.57 200.00 4.00 1.73
4 320.0 –304.4 4.81 1.20 350.50 7.01 1.37
5 210.3 –208.6 2.74 0.75 315.45 6.31 1.76
a Ratio of ultimate load of strengthened infilled frame to ultimate load of reference specimen
b Ratio of initial stiffness of strengthened infilled frame to that of the reference specimen;
initial stiffness was calculated as using first push half cycles

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 353

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques
the full capacities of the specimens are attained. Due to
differences in the strengthening details applied to four
specimens, the lateral strengths achieved were different.
Specimens 4 and 5 reached the target lateral strength level
with the help of the strengthening techniques employed.
But Specimens 2 and 3 could not reach the target strength
level.
The storey elastic analysis drift limit specified by the
Turkish Seismic Code (Turkish Seismic Code 2007) is
also shown in Figure 13 for comparison purposes. After
revision of the Turkish Earthquake regulations in 2007,
the storey drift ratio failure limit for strengthened
infilled walls is given as 0.35% in the newly added
section of the regulations. Every code provides similar
limits to prevent extensive structural and non-structural
damage and to minimize second order effects. The
Turkish seismic code specified an interstorey drift limit
of 0.0035 for the type of strengthened masonry infill
wall systems used in this study. No strength degradation
was observed for the backward and forward cycles and
there was no significant stiffness degradation up to this
limit for any off the strengthened specimens. After
exceeding the interstorey drift limit, lateral drift ratios
increased more rapidly without significant increase in
the lateral loads except for Specimen 4 that was
strengthened with steel strips. The strength degradation
beyond the peak is much more significant for Specimen
3 when compared to the other strengthened specimens.
When a comparison is made of the lateral strength losses
at 1.5% storey drift ratio among the strengthened
specimens, the largest loss is observed for Specimen 3 at
66%. The smallest loss was achieved by Specimen 2 at
21%. Strength losses were 28% and 42% for Specimens
4 and 5, respectively. Specimens 2 and 4 preserved their
strengths at large displacements and storey drift ratios.
As can be seen from Table 5, both the strengths and
the stiffnesses of the strengthened specimens are
significantly higher than those of the reference specimen
(Specimen 1). The ratios of the ultimate lateral strength
of the strengthened specimens to the reference specimen
range between 1.53 and 4.81. The smallest ultimate
lateral strength was obtained with Specimen 2, which
was strengthened with mesh reinforced mortar layer,
and the highest was obtained with Specimen 4
strengthened with diagonal steel strips. The shear
resisting mechanism in the carrying of compression and
tension loads with two crossed diagonal strips was
successful in enhancing the lateral load carrying
capacity of Specimen 4. The ultimate lateral strength of
Specimen 3 was 118% larger than that of the reference
specimen, and that of the Specimen 5 was 26% larger
than the Specimen 3. RC infill increased the strength by
174%. Storey drift ratios for all of the strengthened
354
specimens at ultimate lateral load were found to be
larger than that of the reference specimen. The smallest
and largest storey drift ratios were 0.57% and 1.28% for
Specimens 3 and 4, respectively.
Initial stiffness is defined as the initial slope of the
load displacement curve on the first forward half cycle.
The ratios of the initial stiffness of the strengthened
specimens to that of the reference specimen varied
between 1.82 and 7.01 (Table 5). The smallest and the
largest initial stiffnesses were observed in Specimens 2
and 4, respectively. CFRP strips that carry diagonal
tension forces at the masonry infill wall increased the
initial stiffness by 300%. Diagonal steel strips are more
effective for increasing lateral stiffness. The ratio of the
RC infilled specimen stiffness to the reference specimen
stiffness was 6.31.
Displacement ductility ratios of the specimens were
calculated as the storey drift ratio at which the load
carrying capacity dropped by 15% to 85% of the
maximum load carrying capacity to the storey drift ratio
at the maximum load carrying capacity. These values are
tabulated in Table 5. Ductility ratios of the strengthened
specimens except for Specimen 4, strengthened with
steel strips, are larger than that of the reference Specimen
1. The most ductile behavior is observed for Specimen 2,
which was strengthened with a reinforced mortar layer.
Displacement ductility ratios of the strengthened
specimens vary between 1.37 and 2.03.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In the study presented, the behavior and the strengths of
nonductile 1/3 scale RC frames strengthened by four
different strengthening techniques were investigated
experimentally under cyclic lateral loading. The
following conclusions can be drawn in the light of the
tests reported in this paper.
• All four strengthening techniques increased
lateral stiffness and strength significantly. The
ratios of the ultimate strengths of strengthened
specimens to that of the reference specimen
varied between 1.51 and 4.82. The smallest
ultimate lateral strength was obtained with
Specimen 2, which was strengthened with a mesh
reinforced mortar layer, and the largest ultimate
lateral strength was obtained with Specimen 4,
which was strengthened with steel strips. The
ratios of the initial stiffnesses of strengthened
specimen to that of the reference specimens
varied between 1.82 and 7.01. The smallest and
largest initial stiffness values were obtained from
Specimens 2 and 4, respectively. The fact that
when the stiffness increased, the lateral load
capacity of the structure also increased should not
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara
be forgotten and these two parameters should be
balanced. Applied strengthening techniques
improved both stiffness and lateral strength.
Strengthening technique for Specimen 2
produced the smallest increase in stiffness and
lateral strength. In contrast the technique applied
to Specimen 4 produced the largest increase.
• The most successful lateral strength and stiffness
increase was observed for Specimen 4, which was
strengthened with steel strips. The newly
established shear resisting mechanism using steel
strips carrying the diagonal compression and
tension forces in the masonry wall without any
buckling resulted in lateral load carrying capacity
and stiffness increases of by 381% and 601%,
respectively. The weakest lateral strength and
stiffness was observed in the specimen for which
a mesh reinforced mortar layer was introduced.
The reinforced mortar layer increased the lateral
strength and stiffness of the nonductile reinforced
concrete frame with masonry infill wall by 53%
and 82%, respectively. The weak adhesion
capability and low compressive strength of the
mortar prevented the mesh reinforcement from
carrying shear forces as the dowel bars in the layer
crushed the mortar.
• CFRP strips that carry diagonal tension forces
increased the lateral strength and stiffness by
118% and 300%, respectively. Rupture of the
CFRP strips determined the lateral load carrying
capacity of Specimen 3. Rupture of the CFRP
strips caused a sudden drop in lateral load
carrying capacity. Lateral displacement of the
frame then started and cracks were initiated in
the masonry infill wall. This action caused
direction changes in the CFRP fibers. As a result,
CFRP strips were affected not only by the axial
force but also the transverse loads and failed
prematurely.
• The lateral load carrying capacity of the
Specimen strengthened with the RC infill wall
was 26% larger than that of Specimen 3. There
was no significant change in lateral load carrying
capacity of specimen 5 up to 1.0% lateral drift
ratio for both forward and backward cycles. The
nonductile RC frame was severely damaged by
loading cycles applied after the ultimate strength
of the specimen had been reached. The shear
forces were transferred from the RC infill wall to
the RC frame by diagonal compressive struts,
and which caused the column ends of the
nonductile RC frame to fail in shear.
• The target lateral load strength for the
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
strengthened specimens is desirably reached
when yield occurs of the column longitudinal
reinforcements. In this situation the full capacities
of the specimens are used. Due to differences in
the strengthening details applied to the four
specimens, the lateral strengths achieved were
different. Specimens 4 and 5 reached the target
lateral strength level due to the details of the
strengthening technique used. Specimens 2 and 3
were not able to reach the target strength level.
• The Turkish seismic code specifies an interstorey
drift limit of 0.0035 for the type of RC systems
used in this study. No strength degradation was
observed during the backward and forward
cycles, and there was no significant stiffness
degradation up to this 0.0035 limit for any of the
strengthened specimens. After exceeding the
interstorey drift limit, lateral drift ratios increased
more rapidly without significant increase in the
lateral loads except for Specimen 4, which was
strengthened with steel strips. The strength
degradation beyond the peak is much more
significant for Specimen 3 when compared with
the other strengthened specimens. Comparing the
lateral strength losses at 1.5% storey drift ratio
among the strengthened specimens, the largest
loss was observed for Specimen 3 at 66%. The
smallest loss was exhibited by Specimen 2 at
21%. Specimens 2 and 4 preserved their strengths
well the 1.5% storey drift ratio.
• Ductility ratios of strengthened specimens except
for Specimen 4, which was strengthened with
steel strips, are larger than that of the reference
Specimen 1. The greatest degree of ductile
behavior was shown by Specimen 2, which was
strengthened with a reinforced mortar layer.
Displacement ductility ratios of the strengthened
specimens varied between 1.37 and 2.03.
• When strengthening techniques are considered
against cost criteria the most successful ones are
those used for Specimen 2 and the Specimen 4
in material terms. But if maintenance and
workmanship cost is taken into account, the
most economical technique is that for Specimen
3. When the techniques are investigated with
respect to constructability, the Specimen 5
method takes needs the greatest time and
resource effort. By contrast the Specimen 3
method requires the least time and effort. The
anchorages needed for securing the
strengthening elements for Specimens 2, 4 and 5
require too much time and workmanship effort.
355
 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted at the Structural Mechanics
Laboratory of Gazi University. The research was
supported partly by the Scientific and Technical Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) through Research Grand
105M250. The authors gratefully acknowledged this
support. In addition, the authors wish to give special
thanks to Mr. Kadir Başoğlu to Aslan Masonry Inc.
REFERENCES
Altın, S., Ersoy, U. and Tankut, T. (1992). “Hysteretic response of
reinforced concrete infilled frames”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 8, pp. 2133–2150.
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö. and Kara, M.E. (2007). “Strengthening of RC
nonductile frames with rc infills: an experimental study”, Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 612–621.
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö., Kara, M.E. and Kaya, M. (2008). “An experimental
study on strengthening of masonry infilled RC frames using
diagonal CRFP strips”, Composites: Part B, Vol. 39, No. 3,
pp. 680–693.
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö., Kopraman Y. and Belgin, Ç. (2010). “Strengthening
of masonry infilled walls using mesh reinforced layers”, Proceeding
of the Institution of Civil Engineering Structures and Building, Vol.
163, Issue SB5, pp. 331-342.
Anıl, Ö. and Altın, S., (2007). “An experimental study on RC
partially infilled frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 449–460.
Balsamo, A., Colombo, A., Manfredi, G., Negro, P. and Prota, A.
(2005). “Seismic behavior of a full scale RC frame repaired
using CFRP laminates”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 5,
pp. 769–780.
Bertero, V.V. and Brokken, S.T. (1983). “Infills in seismic resistant
building”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109,
No. 6, pp. 1337–1361.
Bush, T.D., Jones, E.A. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991). “Behavior of RC
frame strengthened using structural steel bracing”, Journal
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 1115–1126.
Canbay, E., Ersoy. U. and Özcebe, G. (2003). “Contribution of RC
Infills to the Seismic Behavior of Structural System”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 100. No. 5, pp. 637–643.
Calvi, G.M. and Bolognini, D. (2001). “Seismic response of
reinforced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced
masonry panels”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5,
No. 2, pp. 153–185.
Chen, J.F. and Teng, J.G. (2001). “Anchorage strength models for
FRP and steel plates bonded to concrete”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 7, pp. 784–791.
· pp. 15–26.
Erdem, I., Akyüz, U., Ersoy, U. and Özcebe, G. (2006). “An
experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for
RC frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, No. 13,
pp. 1843–1851.
FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management
356
Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Kahn, L.F. and Hanson, R.D. (1979). “Infilled walls for earthquake
strengthening”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105,
No. 2, pp. 283–296.
Kara, M.E. and Altın S. (2006). “Behavior of reinforced concrete
frames by reinforced concrete partial infills”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 701–709.
Khalifa, A. and Nanni, A. (2002). “Rehabilitation of rectangular
simply supported RC beams with shear deficiencies using CFRP
composites”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp. 135–146.
Klingner, R.E. and Bertero, V.V. (1978). “Earthquake resistance of
infilled frames”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
No. 6, pp. 973–987.
Limam, O., Nguyen, V.Y. and Foret, G. (2005). “Numerical and
experimental analysis of two way slabs strengthened with
CFRP strips”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 6,
pp. 841–845.
Maheri, M.R. and Hadjipour, A. (2003). “Experimental investigation
and design of steel brace connection to RC frame”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 25, No. 13, pp. 1707–1714.
Jirsa, J.O. and Kreger, M.E. (1989). “Recent research on repair and
strengthening of reinforced concrete structures”, Structures
Congress 89, San Francisco, California, USA, May, pp. 679–688.
Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfred, G. and Cosenza, E. (2004). “Selective
upgrade of under designed RC beam–column joints using CFRP”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, pp. 699–707.
Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2002a). “FRP-strengthened RC beams-
I: review of debonding strength models”, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 385–395.
Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2002b). “FRP-strengthened RC beams-
II: assessment of debonding strength models”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 397–417.
Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2003). “Shear-bending interaction in
debonding failures of FRP-plated RC beams”, Advances in
Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 183–199.
Sonuvar, M.O., Özcebe, G. and Ersoy, U. (2004). “Rehabilitation of
reinforced concrete frames with reinforced concrete infills”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 494–500.
Taghdi, M., Bruneau, M. and Saatcioglu, M. (2000). “Seismic
retrofitting of low-rise masonry and concrete walls using steel
strips”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 9,
pp. 1017–1025.
Taljsten, B. (2003). “Strengthening concrete beams for shear with
CFRP sheets”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 17, No. 1,
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. (2002). FRP-
Strengthened RC Structures, John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
Chichester, UK.
Turkish Seismic Code (2007). Turkish Seismic Code, Turkish
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012
Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

Ye, L., Yue, Q., Zhao, S. and Li, Q. (2002). “Shear strength of reinforced NOTATION
concrete columns strengthened with carbon-fiber reinforced plastic fc compression strength of concrete
sheet”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 12, fsy yield strength of reinforcements
pp. 1527–1534. fsu ultimate strength of reinforcements
hw height of infill wall
lw length of infill wall
ρh sectional area horizontal reinforcement ratio of
infill
ρv sectional area vertical reinforcement ratio of
infill

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 357

View publication stats