prg experim di_t 2013 11 19

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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

5/175

5

PRECASTREINFORCEDCONCRETELARGEPANEL(PRCLP)BUILDINGS


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.


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


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


INTRODUCTION

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

14/175

14


INTRODUCTION

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

15/175

15


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

18/175

18


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

19/175

19


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

20/175

20


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

23/175

23


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

24/175

24


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


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

33/175

33

WALL SCALE AND THICKNESS


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

34/175

34

ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

36/175

36

EXPERIMENTAL STANDS - LOADING DEGREE


Number and location of the axial and lateral loads

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

37/175

37

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

38/175

38

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR WALL ELEMENTS


- 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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

49/175

49


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


3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT4. TEST SET-UP

5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



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



5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



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


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


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



5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



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


3. EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT

4. TEST SET-UP

5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



9. CONCLUSIONS

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crack pattern

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

81/175

81


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

82/175

82


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

83/175

83


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

84/175

84


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

85/175

85


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


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

97/175

97


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

98/175

98


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


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


450 MPa

STPB-type wires


600 MPa


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


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

107/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

108/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

109/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

110/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

111/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

112/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

113/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

114/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

115/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

116/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

117/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

118/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

119/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

120/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

121/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

122/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

123/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

124/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

125/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

126/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

127/175

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


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



4. TEST SET-UP

5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

134/175

134


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

137/175

137


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

138/175

138


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

142/175

142


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


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

144/175

144


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

145/175

145


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


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


LOAD SUSTAINABILITY (OVERSTRENGTH) COMPARISON

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

150/175

150



EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Displacement and Strain Analysis


DRIFT RATIO COMPARISON

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

151/175

151



Shear characteristichorizontal lengthening at the

mid-height of the walls.

Thi t f b h i i

DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPE COMPARISON


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



8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

153/175

153



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


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)


STIFFNESS COMPARISON


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


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


CUMULATIVE DISSIPATION CURVE 1

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

159/175

curvevs

cumulative

drift

ratio

Characteristicpoints

Cyclicenergydissipation

Halfcycleenergy

dissipation


ENERGY DISSIPATION ENVELOPE

Four envelopes

Point 7 envelope was

8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

160/175

160

considered


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


Energy Dissipation Analysis


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

162/175


condition

162



ENERGY DISSIPATION ENVELOPES


8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

163/175


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


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


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



8/11/2019 Prg Experim Di_t 2013 11 19

166/175

166

4. TEST SET-UP5. LOADING STRATEGY

6. INSTRUMENTATION



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


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


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


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


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


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


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

prg experim di_t 2013 11 19

Documents