7 Cas Perspect

CIVIL-706 - retrofitting methods
EPFL-ENAC-SGC 2009 -1-

Doctoral School: Structures
CIVIL-706 Advanced Earthquake Engineering
Retrofitting
methods
Content
Strategies
Weakening
Steel bracing
Reinforced concrete shear walls
Jacketing
Masonry reinforced by composites
Seismic retrofitting strategies
In the plane strength-ductility
Seismic retrofitting techniques
Passive
Additional new lateral bracing system
! Reinforced concrete shear walls
! Steel bracing
Seismic improvement of elements (columns or
shear walls) of the existing structure
! By jacketing (concrete, steel, composites )
! By composite strips
! By additional post-tensioning
Semi-active
Seismic isolation
Additional energy dissipation devices
! By friction
! By liquid mass
Illustration: initial situation
1
st
option: additional RC shear walls
Increase in strength
Increase of seismic forces and
decrease of deformations
2
nd
option: columns jacketing
Increase in ductility and strength
Increase of damping and
displacements
3
rd
option: bracing + beam weakening
Increase in strength and ductility
Increase of seismic forces and damping
4
th
option: isolators + dampers
Decrease in strength, increase in ductility
Decrease of seismic forces and displacements of the structure,
increase of damping
Reinforcement not always optimal
Mind the first intuition
Increase of seismic
demand
(for constant ductility and
damping)
Example: tank in Valais
Tank: seismic isolation
Tank in VS
Decrease of
demand:
- decrease of frequency
- increase of damping
Displacements
Example: moment-resisting steel frame
Beam weakening
(dog bone)
External steel bracing
Architectural challenge !!
Physic building at ETH Zurich
Building in Fribourg
Delicate intervention in the building
Police building in Sion
RC frame infilling
RC precast panels and post-tensioning
RC frame infilling
RC precast panels and post-tensioning
RC frame infilling
Static-cyclic tests
RC frame infilling: failure mode
Jacketing: deficient overlapping
Jacketing: RC bridge piles
Steel jacketing: RC bridge pile
Elliptic jacketing - rectangular pile
Jacketing: composites
Easy to apply, light, resistant, durable
Jacketing: composites
Failure of retrofitted RC column
Fragile failure of the jacket but
ductile behavior of the column
Unreinforced masonry very vulnerable
Failure modes
in-plane
Pay attention for out-of-plane
Unreinforced masonry buildings
Example in Yverdon
Prototype building tests
5 stories, 1:1, reinforced
masonry
Masonry: conventional techniques
Reinforced plaster
Anchor 6mm
Welded mesh 4-6mm
@150 - 200 mm
Existing wall
Reinforced cement
coating
Welded mesh
4-6mm
250-400 mm
25-30 mm
250-400 mm
250-400 mm
25-30 mm
Shotcrete
Shotcrete: static-cyclic tests
Bracing and confinement (RC column)
14-16 mm
R.c. tie-column
Existing masonry wall
Existing masonry wall
R.c. tie-column
14 -16 mm
240
1 1
Section 1-1
240
240
External or internal post-tensioning
Center-core
Composites: carbon fiber
Retrofitting: composites
On the two
inferior stories
Increase of ductility
Static-cyclic tests
Dynamic tests EPFL-ETHZ
Experimental results
Dynamic tests: test parameters
1. Aspect Ratio (0.7, 1.4)
2. Mortar Type
3. Material Type (glass, carbon, and aramid)
4. Fiber Product (fabric, grid, and plates)
5. Upgrading Configurations
Wall parameters
Strengthening materials
URM Long Specimen
(L1-REFE)
32 kN
Upgraded Long Specimen
(L1-WRAP-G-F)
65 kN

-20
Long URM
(L1-REFE)
Long Upgraded
(L1-WRAP-G-F)
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

a
t

W
a
l
l

T
o
p

(
[
k
N
)
-80
-60
-40
20
40
60
-20 -15 -10 -5 5 10 15 20
0
0
Hysteresis curves: before and after
Sample Hysteretic Behavior
! [mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
UG1R 220%
Experimental results: lateral strength
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
H
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
/
H
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
N=57 kN
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
F
L
2
-
G
R
I
D
-
G
-
F
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
X
!
=
0
.
0
7
2
%

!
=0.068%
!
=
0
.
0
2
8
%
!
=
0
.
0
4
9
%
S
1
-
L
A
M
I
-
C
-
X
S
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
F
S
2
-
W
R
A
P
-
A
-
F
!=0.072%
!=0.189%
"=?
Different FRP products and configurations
1. Long Walls
+Fabrics of
Glass FRP
+Grids of
Glass FRP
1. Long Walls (Cont.)
+Fabrics of Glass FRP
-Plates of Carbon FRP
+Plates of
Carbon FRP
2. Short Walls
+Fabrics of
Glass FRP
+Fabrics of
ARMID FRP
2. Short Walls (Cont.)
L2-GRID-G-F L1-WRAP-G-F
Compression Failure FRP Rupture
Failure Modes
1.Masonry Compression &Tearing of the FRP
Failure Modes
2.Tearing of the FRP
Failure Modes
3.Debonding and Anchorage Failure
Failure Modes
No Failure Was Reached
Anchorage Solutions
1. Ductile Connection (Hamilton)
Master Bkir Omrovic, EPFL 2005
Without anchorage
Design
Shear
2
FRP h FRP h FRP
) E (
!
0.0104 ) E (
!
0.0205 0.0119
#
+ $ = Triantafillou 98:
F = F
m
+ F
FRP
F
FRP
= !
h
E
FRP
#
eff
F
m
= EC6
Design
Shear (part F
FRP
of composites)
Triantafillou and
Antonopoulos
AC 125
Comparison with tests (ElGawady)
Shear
Design
Flexural strength (usual model)
Design
Flexural strength (usual model)
equilibrium:
neutral axis:
strength:
Comparison with tests (ElGawady)
Flexural strength
Model
Analytical (doctoral thesis ElGawady, 2004)
Masonry infill frames
Truss model (FEMA 356)
Truss model (NZSEE 2002)
potential column shear
potential column shear
short column effect
Truss model (FEMA 356)
opening considerations
NZSEE:
Lightly RC squat shear walls
Static-cyclic tests (doct. thesis Greifenhagen)
Static-cyclic tests (doct. thesis Greifenhagen)
!
h
~ 0.003
!
v
~ 0.003
Test program
Specimen reinforcement
!
h
=0.28%
!
v
=0.31%
Specimens after failure
M3
Results (failure modes and crack pattern)
sliding shear sliding
rebars failure rocking
concrete fail. crushing
diag. tension rebars fail.
wall M3 wall M4
wall M2 wall M1
Results (hysteretic curves)
Diagonal tension failure: specimen M3
Ultim.
LS67
LS65
LS69
Crack pattern M3
Summary of test results
Shear capacity
Brittle shear failure is not observed.
Tests provide evidence for inherent shear strength of concrete.
Peak shear stress: 1.4 .. 1.9 N/mm^2
Dimensionless shear capacity: 0.28 < c < 0.52
Deformation capacity
Negative effect of lacking horizontal reinforcement not evidenced.
Flexural deformation dominates the plastic response.
Observed drifts: 0.90 .. 2.20%.
Low to moderate ductile behavior is observed (5.6 <
%
< 8.0).
Energy dissipation and stiffness
Dissipated energy nearly is equal to 70 % of introduced energy.
Stiffness decreases by 80 % up to
%
= 1.0 and by 95% up to failure.
Example industrial building
Plane
Cross-section
Model
Proposed
measure
Example bridge
Precast concrete bridge
Example precast concrete bridge
Diag M- of interior piles
Example precast concrete bridge
Transversal displacement-based evaluation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sd [mm]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
2.0 Hz
0.50 Hz
0.75 Hz
1.0 Hz 1.5 Hz
w
r,d
w
d

7 Cas Perspect

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

7 Cas Perspect

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CIVIL-706 - retrofitting methods

EPFL-ENAC-SGC 2009 -1-

Potrebbero piacerti anche