You are on page 1of 26

Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic testing of infilled RC frames retrofitted with CFRP material
H. Ozkaynak a, E. Yuksel a,⇑, O. Buyukozturk b, C. Yalcin c, A.A. Dindar d
a

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey Civil and Environmental Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA c Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey d Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Kultur University, Istanbul, Turkey
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The intact infill walls in reinforced concrete (RC) frames have beneficial effects to overall behavior in terms of stiffness, strength and energy dissipation in the event of seismic actions. The rationale of this paper is to increase effectiveness of the carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)-based retrofitting technique so that intact infill walls of vulnerable mid-rise RC buildings are transformed into a lateral load resisting system. The seismic behaviors of cross-braced and cross diamond-braced retrofitting schemes applied on infilled RC frames have been investigated experimentally. The research consisted of quasi-static (QS) tests where drift-based cyclic loading reversals were used and pseudo-dynamic (PsD) tests where acceleration intensity-based loading was used. Twelve 1/3-scaled RC frames were built and tested as bare and infilled control frames, and as cross-braced and cross diamond-braced retrofitted specimens. Significant findings were noted while comparing the QS and PsD tests. The maximum restoring force and drift couples that were obtained from PsD tests showed a close behavior pattern, regardless of the level of inertial masses, when compared with QS tests. The energy dissipation capacity of the specimens that was obtained from PsD test resulted somewhat less than the one tested with QS for the same level of damage. The performance of the retrofitted frames that was obtained from the experimental study was evaluated with code-specified performance limits. Accordingly, it was concluded that the cross diamond-bracing scheme is an effective retrofitting technique that brings the bare frame from collapse prevention (CP) to life safety (LS) performance levels. Finally, analytical predictions as per FEMA 356 guideline were performed and good agreement was obtained with experimental results. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 21 April 2010 Received in revised form 5 July 2010 Accepted 16 November 2010 Available online 23 November 2010 Keywords: A. Carbon fiber B. Plastic deformation B. Strength B. Retrofitting

1. Introduction Past earthquakes showed that infill walls used in RC frames had many advantages in terms of improvements in global stiffness, lateral strength and energy dissipation capacities of the structures when they are placed regularly throughout the structure and/or they do not cause shear failures of columns, [1]. Several experimental researches conducted on infilled RC frames also showed a significant improvement in the overall behavior. Shake table tests on infilled RC frames performed by Hashemi and Mosallam [2] resulted that the infill walls increased the structural stiffness by nearly four times, shortened natural period by nearly 50% and increased the damping coefficient from 4–6% to 12%. In many existing RC buildings, especially those designed and built before the contemporary earthquake codes, there is a lack of seismic detailing in structural load carrying system and struc⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +90 212 285 6761.
E-mail address: yukselerc@itu.edu.tr (E. Yuksel). 1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.11.008

tural members coupled with low material quality and workmanship [3]. Infill walls, during any credible earthquake, may experience excessive damage and/or out of plane movements. Retrofitting these walls using CFRP materials could further improve the contribution of infills to the overall seismic behavior of the vulnerable RC buildings. Mosallam et al. [4] applied PsD test technique to experimentally investigate a two-bay, two-storey gravity loaddesigned steel frame infilled with unreinforced concrete block masonry walls. It was concluded that the imparted and hysteretic energies correlated well with the observed damage state. It was also concluded that the variation of these quantities with the increase of PGA levels might be considered as a global measure to quantify the damage state of the structure. Taghdi et al. [5] tested four concrete block masonry and two RC walls simulating low-rise non-ductile walls. Two masonry walls were unreinforced and two were partially reinforced. One wall from each pair was retrofitted using a steel strip system consisting of diagonals and vertical strips. Stiff steel angles and anchor bolts were used to connect the steel strips to the foundation and top of loading beam. The tests

H. Ozkaynak et al. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263

239

showed that the complete steel strip system was effective in significantly increasing the in-plane strength and ductility of low-rise unreinforced and partially reinforced masonry walls, and lightly reinforced concrete walls. Saatcioglu and Serrato [6] carried out an experimental investigation on gravity-load-designed RC frames, infilled with concrete block masonry. The aim of that study was to develop a seismic retrofit strategy involving the use CFRP sheets. The retrofit technique consisted of CFRP sheets, surface bonded to the masonry wall, while also anchored to the surrounding concrete frame by means of specially developed CFRP anchors. The results indicated that the infilled frames without a seismic retrofit developed extensive damage in the walls and surrounding frame elements. Furthermore, the elastic rigidity was reduced considerably resulting in softer structure and failure occurred in non-ductile frame elements, especially in columns. Retrofitting using CFRP sheets controlled cracking and increased lateral bracing while improving the elastic capacity of the overall structural system. The retrofitted specimens exhibited approximately three times in lateral force resistance than that of control specimens. Erdem et al. [7] conducted an experimental study on 1/3-scaled, two-story, three-bay frames to compare two types of strengthening techniques. One of the frames was strengthened with RC infill while the other one was strengthened with CFRP-strengthened hollow clay blocks. It was observed that both strengthened frames behaved similarly under reversed cyclic lateral loading. The stiffness of the strengthened frames was at least 10 times than that of the bare frame. Although the strengths of both specimens were almost the same, the strength degradation of the CFRP retrofitted frame beyond the peak lateral force level was more pronounced. Almusallam and Al-Salloum [8] investigated the effectiveness of glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP) in strengthening of unreinforced masonry infill walls in RC frames which are subjected to in-plane seismic loading. Test results showed great potential for externally bonded GFRP sheets in upgrading and strengthening the infill walls. Wei et al. [9] studied the response of different FRP orientations on the masonry wall elements. It was concluded that the diagonally-meshed specimen had a greater ductility than others. Binici et al. [10] developed an efficient CFRP retrofitting on hollow clay brick infill walls which could be utilized as lateral load resisting elements. The practical retrofitting scheme was developed to limit the inter-storey deformations with CFRP-strengthened infill walls that were integrated to the boundary frame members by means of CFRP anchors. It was observed that the CFRP retrofitting reduced the damage-induced deficient columns by means of controlling storey drifts. Yuksel et al. [11] tested infilled RC frames with and without retrofitting. The effect of various CFRP retrofitting schemes was discussed. They concluded that the cross bracing and cross diamond-bracing type of retrofitting had more advantages compared with the others. The rationale of this paper is to increase the efficiency of the CFRP-based retrofitting technique in which the infill walls of vulnerable mid-rise RC buildings could be transformed into a lateral load resisting system. In order to achieve this goal, CFRP sheets were used in two different schemes applied on hollow clay brick infill walls. The main objective of this study is to determine the seismic performance of the CFRP-based retrofitted infilled RC frames. The seismic performance enhancement was evaluated in terms of various PGA levels as the input acceleration, maximum inter-storey drifts, energy dissipation capacities, variation of strength and stiffness and the observed damages. The performance of retrofitted RC frames obtained through the experimental study was evaluated with the code-specified performance levels. Also, analytical predictions were made following the FEMA 356 formulations. The scope of this study included testing of twelve 1/3-scaled infilled RC frames. The lateral forces representing the seismic effects

were applied to the specimen in its own plane. Two testing techniques, namely quasi-static (QS) and pseudo-dynamic (PsD), were applied to the specimens. Two different inertia forces corresponding to the masses exerted on higher and lover stories of a mid-rise RC building were used in the PsD tests. 2. Description of test specimens An experimental study was conducted on twelve identical 1/3scaled RC infilled frame specimens. The specimens were one-bay and one-story type, and loaded laterally from top of column locations [12,13]. Four of these specimens were tested using QS test method with drift-based cyclic reversals. The PsD test method was carried out for the remaining eight specimens with low and high inertial masses representing lower and upper storey of a mid-rise RC building. The test program is summarized in Table 1. 2.1. Details of test specimens The specimens were designed to reflect the old construction practice including poor reinforcing detailing in and around the beam-column connections. The dimensions of the test specimens and reinforcing details are given in Fig. 1. Scaled dimensions of each test frame are 1533 Â 1000 mm with cross-sectional dimensions of 100 Â 200 mm for columns, 100 Â 200 mm for beams and 300 Â 700 mm for foundation. Typically, longitudinal reinforcement ratio in columns and beam was taken as 1% while transverse reinforcement ratio was taken as 0.4%. No confinement reinforcement in and around the beam-column connections were used. Hollow brick material was used in the infill wall which had dimensions of 88 Â 84 Â 57 mm, and was produced specifically for this study in order to respect the geometric scaling of 1/3. Specially-designed concrete mixture with small-diameter aggregates of 10 mm and super plasticizer were used in order to be consistent with the scaling factor and workability condition. The specimens were casted at once in two stages; first foundations then followed by the frame elements. Average compression strength of the concrete was obtained as 19 MPa from the standard cylinder tests. Yield strength of the reinforcing bars was obtained as 420 MPa and 500 MPa for 8 and 6 mm diameters, respectively. Unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced polymers were used in the retrofitted specimens. As per the technical data provided by the manufacturer, the unit weight of the CFRP is 300 g/m2, the fiber density is 1.79 g/cm3 and the modulus of elasticity of CFRP is 230 GPa. Tensile strength and ultimate elongation capacities are 3900 MPa and 1.5%, respectively. A two-component mixture epoxy resin was used with specified amount of 1.0 kg/m2. Compression and shear tests were performed on 350 Â 350 Â 70 mm-sized bare and CFRP retrofitted wall specimens. CFRP retrofitting was applied in two different schemes: completely covered and strips applied on both faces of the specimens. The tests performed on the bare samples yielded compression strengths of 5.0 and 4.1 MPa in the two main directions and a shear strength
Table 1 Summary of test program. Test program Quasi-static tests Pseudo-dynamic tests Low inertia mass M1 Q1. Bare frame Q2. Infilled frame Q3. Cross-braced frame Q4. Cross diamondbraced frame PL1. Bare frame PL2. Infilled frame PL3. Cross-braced frame PL4. Cross diamondbraced frame High inertia mass M2 PH1. Bare frame PH2. Infilled frame PH3. Cross-braced frame PH4. Cross diamondbraced frame

200 1400 mm 800 400 100 200 933 1533 mm 200 100 400 1400 mm 800 200 100 200 933 1533 mm 400 200 100 (a) Bare Frame 300 300 46 5 30 4 30 4 1400 mm 600 (b) Infilled Wall 300 300 320 1333 693 320 1333 737 2 28 2 82 1 46 1 46 0 15 1400 mm 600 150 150 31 1 100 400 400 100 100 315 703 1533 mm 315 100 100 200 120 234 224 234 120 200 100 1533 mm (c) Cross-Braced (d) Cross Diamond-Braced Fig. 800 1400 a a . / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 Section a-a 100 φ 6/140 200 b 200 100 4φ 8 4φ 8 φ 6/140 Section b-b 100 200 4φ 8 φ 6/140 1400 mm 1000 5φ 12 400 2φ 12 5φ 12 100 200 933 b 1533 mm 200 100 700 Fig. 2. Reinforcement details of 1/3-scaled RC frame. Geometry of the specimens.240 H. 1. Ozkaynak et al.

4 illustrates the test set-up. Additionally.H.3. 3 demonstrates the steps of the CFRP application. The application of CFRP to the specimen. Gradual incremental drifts were selected in order (a) Surface preparation (b) Primer application (c) CFRP application (d) Anchorage application (e) Cross bracing scheme (f) Cross diamondbracing scheme Fig.2 and 5. The footing of the specimen was fixed to the rigid steel beam of the test frame which was connected to the laboratory’s strong floor by means of post-tensioned rods. 2. Global movement (15) and rocking of the foundation (13–14) and out of plane movements of the frame (18–19) were also monitored throughout the tests. The test set-up and instrumentation The lateral loading system is consisted of a servo-controlled 280 kN-capacity hydraulic ram which was positioned at the tip of the specimen aligned with the central axis of the beam.3 MPa. As suggested by the manufacturer. The actuator was fixed to the specimen tightly by using two post-tensioned rods of 20 mm in diameter. Anchorages were provided along the CFRP sheets having a width of 150 mm. Specimen types Description of four different test specimens used in the experimental work is given in Fig.4.2 MPa while the strip type CFRP retrofitted samples yielded shear strength of 1. Typical instrumentation scheme is shown in Fig. additional forces due to the retrofitting are avoided to be transferred to vulnerable RC beam-column joints. 3. The cross diamond-bracing scheme is aimed to prevent the out of plane movement of the infill wall. Top displacement measurements of the system (16–17). By using knee and cross bracing together. 5.95 MPa. 2. end rotations from the displacement measurements (1–2–12) and strain measurements on longitudinal reinforcements at member ends were conducted.2. . Fig. 6. Equal tightness was controlled by strain gauges for all specimens. a very high resolution optical displacement transducer which is essentially used in the PsD tests was positioned aligning the centre of the beam. Load cell to measure the restoring forces was attached to the actuator.5 MPa in the two main directions with a shear strength of 2. 2. Several strain gauges having post-yield capabilities and displacement transducers were positioned on the specimens. various drift cycles were applied to the specimens as shown in Fig. 2. after a proper surface preparation was made. In QS tests. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 241 of 0. at approximately quarter distances of the diagonal. Fig. This is a shortcoming of the cross-bracing type of retrofitting scheme. The full surface covered wall specimens yielded compression strengths of 9. Lateral loading cycles Two types of lateral loading were applied to the specimens. Ozkaynak et al. schematically. Possible out of plane movement of the specimens was prevented by using special restrainers which were placed at both sides of the test set-up. a primer coating was applied and CFRP sheets were bonded to the surface by using a special two-component epoxy resin.

6. The PGAs of these earthquakes are 0. which is utilized since 1970s.The calculated displacement xi+1 is applied to the specimen by means of very sensitive control procedure consisting of an optical displacement transducer and the control unit. respectively. respectively. leads towards more realistic understanding on the nonlinear behavior of specimens. restoring force and ground acceleration. first yielding . respectively. c.5% drift. 0. The obtained acceleration record is referred as design earthquake. viscous damping ratio.242 H. The test set-up. These are service. Three earthquake scenarios are defined in TEC. mass.6 kN. design and greatest earthquakes. The corresponding restoring force was 20.6 g. 10% and 2% with the return periods of 72. the restoring force is measured directly from the test specimen. The equation of motion (EQM) given in Eq. Experimental response of bare frame First flexural cracks were observed at 0. Ozkaynak et al. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 Steel Reaction Frame Hinge Load Cell Out of Plane Restrainers Hydraulic Actuator Strong Wall Strong Floor Hinge Loading Frame Fig. Quasi-static test results 3. 7.25% drift level. Fig. in which x. Strain gauges (left) and displacement transducers (right) placed on various sections of the specimen to measure the deformations and displacements. The general flowchart of the test procedure is given in Fig.1. f and € xg are displacement. The probability of exceedence in 50 years is 50%. 6 5 18 17 19 8 7 16 3 4 9 10 1 2 11 12 14 13 15 Fig. 474 and 2475 years. At 1. The numerical integration time intervals selected as 0. The part between 8 and 18 s of Bol090 component of Duzce Earthquake [16] was selected in this study. 4.4 g and 0. 3. The PsD testing method.2 g. (1) is solved numerically by using the explicit method of finite difference. The incremental drifts used in quasi-static tests. m. The part of the original record was modified to attain an acceleration spectrum comparable to the one defined in TEC [14] for seismic Zone 1 and soil class Z2. 5. to be consistent with the typical loading patterns used in the literature as well as encapsulating the values specified in TEC [14] for various performance levels. 8. _ g þ ff g ¼ À½mŠf1gf€ ½mŠf€ xg þ ½cŠfx xg g ð1Þ Fig. [15]. while the mass and viscous damping properties are pre-defined.005 s which is half of the ground acceleration time steps.

At 4% drift level the corner crushing was highly dominated. Experimental response of infilled frame First symmetric flexural cracks were observed at 0.8 mm and the corresponding restoring force was 41. General flowchart of pseudo-dynamic test.15% drift level on RC members. 10 illustrates typical observed crack patterns and damage states on the backbone curve. Test ended at the limits of the actuator’s stroke. Fig. 11 shows the force–displacement . 9. The modified Duzce/Bolu090 earthquake and its acceleration spectrum.7% drift. The separation of infill wall from RC members was observed first at 0. Fig. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 243 Input the initial dynamic properties and ground acceleration Solve the EQM by numerical integration method of finite difference xi+1 target displacement is calculated and applied to the test specimen Ground acceleration data Data logger is triggered and the data measured form the strain gauges and transducers on the test specimen are stored by a software in the computer Reading the restoring force from the test specimen and Store it for the next step Calculation of velocity and acceleration for this step Fig.2 kN. Fig. of the longitudinal reinforcement was observed with the maximum crack width of 1.56 kN. First diagonal crack occurred on the infill wall at 0. At 3% drift. Fig. The failure mode was mainly spalling of concrete at bottom level of the column. 7.H. Ozkaynak et al. 8. Test ended at the limits of the actuator’s stroke.25% drift level.2. the buckling of re-bars occurred and the restoring force was slightly reduced to 40. 9 shows the force–displacement relationship and the strain variation in the longitudinal reinforcement in bottom section of the column. Load displacement relationship and strains of column longitudinal reinforcement. 3. Fig.

5 j>3.5 i'>3.5 h'>3. At this drift level.1 d'=0. After spalling of concrete at bottom level of columns there was a sudden decrease in the lateral load carrying capacity of the specimen.4 c=0.5 PUSH PULL Fig.5 j'=0.5 c=0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 a'>3.1 h'=1.8 f=0.25% drift level.5 c'=0. a'>3.5 f>3.1 h<0.1 b'=0. Experimental response of cross-braced frame First flexural crack was observed at 0.3.2 k>3.65% drift level. 11. Ozkaynak et al.1 a >3.5 j'>3.1 f '=0. The first diagonal crack having a width of 0.2 i<0.2 k'>3.1 k=0.1 e<0.5 c'=0.2 d=0. Fig. relationship and the strain variation in the longitudinal reinforcement in bottom section of the column.5 g'>3. the restoring force was measured to be 107. At 2% drift. CFRP partly debonded from the infill wall.5 PUSH PULL Fig. 3.1 f '>3. First separation of infill wall from RC members was observed at 0.5 d=0. Fig.1 d'=0.5 g>3.5 l>3.2 mm was observed at 0.5 b'>3.244 H. 12 illustrates the typical observed crack pattern and damage states on the backbone curve. Load displacement relationship and strains of column longitudinal reinforcement.2 i'<0. Crack formations and observed damage states. There was a substantial decrease in infill wall’s damage compared with the infilled frame.5 e'=0.1 l'>3.1 j<0. 12.15% drift and its corresponding restoring force was measured as 41 kN.5 g>3.4 h>3.1 g'<0.5 a>3.3 kN and tearing of the .8 e'>3.5 e=0.0 b=0. 10. Crack formations and observed damage states.2 b=1.5 i>3.

5 PUSH PULL Fig. 3.0 b'=1.5 e'>>3. CFRP sheet was observed.1 j=0.5 g=16 d>3. 13 shows the force–displacement relationship and the strain variation in the longitudinal reinforcement of the bottom column section. the first separation of infill wall from the beam was observed.4. 15.1 b<0.005. At 3% drift.5 j>3. the corner crushing mode of failure was dominant. d'>6. Load displacement relationship and strains of column longitudinal reinforcement.H.2 a'<0.5 m>3.3% drift. Crack formations and observed damage states.2 PUSH PULL Fig. Fig.5 k>3.5 g=0. 14. 14 illustrates the typical observed crack pattern and the damage stages on the backbone curve.5 c=0.5 l'>3.15%.5 c'>3.1 g'>10 h'=0.1 h>3.1 f=0.5 f '>3. the upper knee bracing sheets torn to pieces.0 l=0.0 e=9. Ozkaynak et al.3 g'>3.4 b'<0.5 a=13 f=3.6 e=0.5 c'>3. Crack formations and observed damage states. there were shear cracks on the joints. Fig.5 m'>3. The maximum strain measured on the diagonal CFRP sheets was about 0. the buckling of CFRP . The first separation of knee bracing from the infill wall started when the drift ratio reached to 0.5 j'>3.5% drift. At the same drift level.5 l>3.0 b=1.2 e'>10 d>3.0 n'=0.8% drifts. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 245 Fig.15% and 0. a'=9.5 f '=0. Test ended due to excessive decrement of lateral force level. Experimental response of cross diamond-braced frame The first flexural crack and yielding of longitudinal reinforcement were occurred at 0.5 c=24 k'>3. The first diagonal crack on infill wall was at 1.5 i>3.5% drift.5 k>3.5 d'>3. At 3.5 i'>3. respectively. At 2. 13.5 a<0. After tearing of the CFRP sheets.

M1 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 28 kN and 7 mm.2. the maximum base shear was 28 kN and the maximum top displacement was 88. in PGA = 0. top displacement hysteresis for M1 and M2 cases are given in Fig. . Table 2 summarizes the experimental results obtained in this preliminary test. shear cracking observed at bottom of the compression column. All of the longitudinal reinforcements at the critical sections remained in the elastic range.2 g case. Load vs. Load displacement relationship and strains of column longitudinal reinforcement. respectively. For PGA = 0. Nearly 3.42 mm. respectively. low intensity sine wave excitation was introduced to the specimens. 4. Although the experimentally obtained viscous damping ratios were greater than 5%. The maximum base shear and top displacement were measured as 36 kN and 35 mm. 4. Test ended due to excessive decrement of lateral force level.246 H.2. Fig. The flexural type cracks with 0. Fig.0 9. M2 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 32.8 mm width occurred at column ends.4 g.5 mm.5 mm while the longitudinal re-bars of columns were yielded. damping matrix [c] in PsD algorithm is formed by using the constant equivalent viscous damping ratio of 5%. Due to the observed severe damages the test was ended at this level.48 mm. 4. while the flexural crack widths reached to 2.3 mm.4 g case. respectively.5 mm width cracks through the columns were observed.0 12. respectively.1.e. 4. Re-bars at that location were close to yielding. Pseudo-dynamic test results PsD tests were performed with two groups of specimens. First group consisting of four specimens was tested with the lower inertial mass of M1 = 0.1.2 mm width were observed at the column ends.4 g loading. in PGA = 0. top displacement hysteresis for M1 and M2 cases are given in Fig. respectively. For PGA = 0.2 g.0 sheets between the anchorage points was occurred. The crack width increments were observed. 16.2 kN and 17. 17.5 4. M2 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 92 kN and 4. Ozkaynak et al.0% drift. the maximum base shear and top displacement were measured as 35 kN and 18 mm. PH4.1. For PGA = 0. respectively. PH3. the maximum base shear and top displacement were measured as 112.2 g case. M1 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were 28 kN was and 1.9 10. The damage patterns and strain records at the representative column cross section are also illustrated in Figs. The equivalent viscous damping (fin) was calculated using energy loss per cycle. 4. PL3. respectively. Experimental response of bare frame 4.6 g case. 16 illustrates typical observed crack pattern and damage states on the backbone curve.0 12. 18 and 19.4 kN and 5. Bare frame Infilled frame Cross-braced frame Cross diamond-braced frame Bare frame Infilled frame Cross-Braced frame Cross diamond-braced frame Kin (kN/mm) 9 28 60 65 8 32 62 70 fin (%) 6. 21 and 22.35 mm. PH2.0 8. The maximum base shear and top displacement were 90 kN and 3.6 mm.2. Fig.1.2. The flexural crack widths reached to 3.1 mm width flexural cracks at the column ends. Experimental response of infilled frame 4. PL2. 20. At 4.0221 kNs2/mm. There were about 0. The damage patterns and strain records at the representative column cross section are also illustrated in Figs.0 12. In PGA = 0. The crack widths were approximately 0. in PGA = 0.4 mm.2. the maximum base shear was 60 kN and maximum top displacement was 2. The crack M2 widths were about 15 mm through the columns.0 mm. PH1. Mass M1 Test specimen PL1. To define the initial parameters used in PsD tests i.0085 kNs2/mm while the second group including four specimens was tested with the higher inertial mass of M2 = 0. PL4. The initial stiffness (Kin) was determined from the slope of specimen’s elastic load–displacement response. Load vs. The flexural cracks of 0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 Table 2 Initial dynamic properties of test specimens. in the case of PGA = 0.15 mm through the columns at this stage. 15 shows the force–displacement relationship and the strain variation in the longitudinal reinforcement of the bottom column section.4 g. lateral stiffness and viscous damping.1. respectively.

Load displacement relationships for bare frame.6g Fig.2 mm.2 g case.7 mm.H.4g 0. For PGA = 0. respectively in PGA = 0. the maximum base shear was 69 kN and top displacement was 1. Experimental response of cross-braced frame 4.3. 17. In the case of PGA = 0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 247 PGA M1 Mass M2 Mass 0.3 mm.1 mm on the columns. M1 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were 32 kN and 0. Ozkaynak et al.2g 0. the maximum base shear was 84 kN and top displacement was 2. The maxi- mum crack widths observed was 0. 4.6 g.4 g.1.3. .

5 e4=0.4g b2'=0.1 h4=0.1 a1=0.1 f4=0.1 c2'=0. .1 c2=2.1 f3'=0.1 f4=0.1 d2=0.1 c2'=0.5 PUSH PULL a1'=>3.1 c2=0.5 PUSH PULL Fig.1 f3'=0.2 a1=0.1 c2'=0.5 e3'=0.1 d3'=0.5 e3'=1.5 0.1 e4=1.1 a1=2.5 b2=0.5 g4=0.5 h4=>3.6g b2'=0.1 g4=0.1 b2=0.5 0.1 d3'=2. 18. Ozkaynak et al.2 PUSH PULL a1'=2.1 d3'=>3.1 c2=1.0 d2=2.2 b2=0.2g b2'=0.2 d2=>3.5 e3'=0. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M1 case. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column a1'=0.1 0.0 f3'=0.248 H.

Experimental response of the cross diamond-braced frame 4. 24 and 25.4 g loading.1.7 b1'>15.1 e1=0.2 mm in PGA = 0.1 mm in width observed at the columns. The observed flexural cracks width was 0.3 mm. the specimen lost its lateral strength significantly.1 c1=<0.1 b1'=3.0 a1>3.2 f1'=0. The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 130.8 h1'=0. the maximum base shear and top displacement 90 kN and were 3. the maximum base shear and top displacement were measured as 117. For PGA = 0.6 g case. During the PGA = 0. respectively. For PGA = 0.2 f1=0.5 d1=1. in PGA = 0.4 g and 0. 4.0 e1'=0.0 kN and 12. the crack widths at the end of the columns reached to 10 mm and the gaps at the wall column interface was observed as 3. 27 and 28.1 0.2 g case while 62 kN and 2.1 mm. Load vs. For PGA = 0.0 kN and 1. M2 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 70.5 PUSH PULL Fig.2. top displacement hysteresis for M1 and M2 cases are given in Fig. respectively.6 g loadings.6 g load- ing.4 mm. in PGA = 0.8 h1'=0. In PGA = 0.2 f1=0. The damage patterns and strain records at the representative column cross section are also illustrated in Figs. Load vs. 4.4 g case. respectively.1 0. The damage patterns and strain records at the representative column cross section are also illustrated in Figs.6 d1=0. In this stage. the base shear and top displacement were recorded as 136.0 b1=1.0 mm. 4. respectively. The flexural crack width observed at the bottom sections of columns reached to 3. . 19.0 mm.3 mm on the columns. some cracks observed at the end of columns as well as some parts of the infill wall without CFRP application.2 g loading. Ozkaynak et al. respectively.5 a1=1.2 a1'>10.2 c1=0. respectively.2 a1'=2.2.4.6 g case. At this stage. The flexural cracks with 0. 23.9 kN and 5.8 kN and 1. after debonding of CFRP. M2 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were measured as 90.6 mm.2 mm.1 mm.0 e1'=2.9 kN and 8.7 mm.4g d1'=0.1 e1=<0. 26. top displacement hysteresis for M1 and M2 cases are given in Fig.4.4.0 f1'=0.4 g case.5 mm.0 b1>3.H. respectively. during PGA = 0.2g d1'=<0. respectively. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M2 case.2 PUSH PULL c1'=3.2 g case.3. M1 mass condition The maximum base shear and lateral top displacement were 30 kN and 1. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 249 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column c1'=2. the maximum base shear and top displacement were recorded as 121 kN and 17. during PGA = 0.

250 H. Restoring force vs. 5. In this framework. Table 4 describes the plastic hinge rotation capacities corresponding to the above-mentioned performance levels. Additionally. Table 3 summarizes the damage and drift limits. 20.4g 0. Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP).2g 0. lateral story drifts. plastic rotations measured at column ends and observed damages in terms of crack widths were identified in relation to the performance levels of Immediate Occupancy (IO).6g Fig. . Ozkaynak et al. stiffness and energy dissipation capacity. drift relation for infilled frame. the test results were also evaluated in terms of performance criteria defined in FEMA 356 [17]. Evaluation of the test results The obtained test results were assessed in terms of load displacement relationship. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA M1 Mass M2 Mass 0.

6 g case for M2 mass condition.2 d1'=0.1 h3'=0.1 e3'=0.1 f3=0. Ozkaynak et al.1 g3'=0.1 0.2g d1'=0.1 b1=0.15 c1=0.15 c1'=0. 5. especially in cross diamond-braced type which survived in PGA = 0.3 e3=0.5 e3'=0.25 f 3'=0. envelope curve of restoring force vs.1 e3=0.1 g3=0.1 d1=0.1 0.1 c1'=0.1 d1=0.45 c1=0. Load–displacement relationships For each type of specimen. 29 with the locus of maxima obtained from PsD tests.1 d1'=0. drift hysteresis in QS testing is given together in Fig. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M1 case. 21.1 PUSH PULL a1'=0.25 ý4=0. A significant increment in strength is obtained in the retrofitted specimens.4g PUSH PULL a1'=0.3 f3=0. .1 h3=0.1 c1=0.45 b1=0.2 i3'=0.1 0.8 d1=0.9 g3=0.15 f 3'=0.H.1 g3'=0.15 b1=0.6g h3'=0.1 b1'=0.1 h3=0.25 c1'=0.15 b1'=0.1 b1'=0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 251 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column a1'=0.5 a1=0.1 a1=0.1 a1=0.1 i3'=0.2 PUSH PULL Fig.1.

1 c1=1.1 b1'=0. 30. The diagrams were normalized with the initial stiffness of the specimens.0 m2'=0.2g f1'=0. the relative stiffness degradation in the diamond crossbraced frame specimen was less than that in the cross-braced frame specimen indicating an improvement within the retrofitted specimens.1 j1'=0. It was observed that the stiffness values corresponding to various PGA levels and mass conditions accumulated within the IO region for the retrofitted specimens whereas these coordinates were scattered in bare and infilled frames.1 h1'=0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column d1'=0.1 a1=0.1 g1'=0.1 e1'=0.5 n2'=0.2 k2'=1.15 e1<=0.1 c1=0.4 m2>> j2>3. This indicates the effectiveness of the retrofitted specimens in terms of improved stiffness. 5. To highlight the lateral stiffness increments in the retrofitted specimens.3 h1=0.3 0. the one with the lower inertia mass (M1) had low rate of stiffness degradation than that of the higher inertia mass (M2).1 l2'>3. 29. Also. is given together with the stiffness points for various PGA levels in PsD tests which are calculated as the ratio of maximum base shear and corresponding top displacement. Fig.6 n2=0.2.8 g1>> PUSH PULL Fig.2 e1'=1.1 b1=0. Stiffness For each type of specimen. . Fig.4 h1=0. the stiffness envelope which is defined as the slope of the line drawn from peak to peak response coordinates.1 j1=0. relative to the infilled frame specimen resisted to higher PGA levels.2 k1'<=0.8 b1=0.4 e1<=0.1 g1'=0.1 a1'=0. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M2 case. the observed stiffness values calculated for retrofitted specimens are well above the non-retrofitted ones.1 j1'=0.1 0. 22.1 a1>> o2=0. 31 shows variation of lateral stiffness of the specimens throughout the successive PsD tests. The rate of stiffness degradation was higher in bare and infilled frames.5 a1'=0. One could observe that the scattered locus of maxima obtained from PsD tests for bare frame is concentrated within the ascending branch of the response curve which is limited with the IO region in the retrofitted specimens. Drift performance limits defined in FEMA 356 are also shown in the plots of Fig.1 h1'=4. 31.0 b1'>3.8 k1'<=0.0 f1=0.2 f1=0. The stiffness degradation in the retrofitted specimens.5 i2=0. The lateral stiffness calculated in QS and PsD tests are consistent with each other.3 g1=0.1 c1'=0.1 c1'=0. and considerably lower in the retrofitted frames.2 j1>3. Ozkaynak et al.3 PUSH PULL d1'=1.1 d1=0.1 d1=0. the normalized initial stiffness of infilled frame was also added as dashed straight line segments on the same plots of Fig. When the comparison was made between the mass conditions.4g f1'=0.252 H. When the retrofitted specimens compared with each other.

although the dissipated energy values obtained from QS and PsD tests were close to each other and follow a similar trend. As seen in Fig. Energy dissipation capacity The cumulative energy dissipations were calculated as the enclosed area of restoring force vs. drift relation for cross-braced infilled frame. If a comparison was made for 1% story drift.2 g 0. Restoring force vs.3. 32. it was obtained that the cross-braced frame dissipated 4.6g Fig. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 253 PGA M1 Mass M2 Mass 0. it was observed that the PsD energy values were slightly over the QS energy values. The energy dissipation capacity of the retrofitted specimens increased significantly when compared with the non-retrofitted specimens as shown in Fig. story drift hysteresis. 32. more .2. 5. this ratio increased to 5.4g 0.6 times more energy than the bare frame. For the same level of drift. For the cross diamond-braced frame. 23.H. Ozkaynak et al.

1 e1=<0.1 c1'=0.4 d4'=0.1 c1'=<0.6g b1'=0.1 0.1 c1=<0.1 e1=0.1 PUSH PULL Fig.1 b1=<0.2 c1'=<0.1 PUSH PULL a1=0.1 f4=0.1 PUSH PULL a1=<0.1 e1=<0. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M1 case.1 0. . 24. Ozkaynak et al.1 d1=<0.1 c1=0.254 H.1 0.2 g b1'=<0.1 d1=<0.4g b1'=0.1 d1=0.1 a1'=<0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column a1=<0.1 c1=<0.1 a1'=0.4 b1=0.2 b1=<0.2 a1'=0.

1 e1'=0.6 d1'=0. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M2 case.1 d1=0.0 d1'=0.1 a1=0.1 c1=<0.1 b1=<0.1 e1=<0.1 j2=0.4g b1'=<0.6 d1=0.8 f2'=1.5 m3'=15 f2=>40 m3=<0.1 f2=0.7 PUSH PULL Fig. Ozkaynak et al.1 h2'=0. .2 l2=1.4 h2=1.1 PUSH PULL g2'=0.1 a1=0.1 a1=0.1 d1'=<0.1 a1'=<0.1 a1'=<0.7 k2=0.1 e1'=<0.H.4 f2'=0.1 d1=<0.1 0.25 0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 255 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column c1'=<0.4 h2=0.1 ý2=3.0 j2=1.2 k2'=0.4 ý2=0.6 c1=<0.1 l2=<0.1 l2'=<0.6g b1'=0.1 b1=<0. 25.1 c1=0.1 k2=<0.0 l2'=1.2 b1=0.1 g2=0.3 k2'=0.1 e1=<0.0 c1'=0.3 c1'=<0.3 a1'=0.4 h2'=0.2g b1'=<0.2 e1'=1.25 0.1 e1=1.3 PUSH PULL g2'=25.8 g2=0.

the higher number of zero crossing in the loading pattern of PsD test might result more accumulated energy dissipation and thus more damage than that of QS test. 26. Also.2g 0. 5.256 H. damage was observed in PsD tests than QS tests. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA M1 Mass M2 Mass 0. The plastic end rotations hp were calculated by subtracting .4. the yield rotation hy of 0. Ozkaynak et al. Consequently. drift relation for cross diamond infilled frame. This may also explain less energy dissipation in QS tests given that damage and energy dissipation is directly proportional to each other. Restoring force vs.004 radians was determined. 5.6g Fig. Performance evaluation End rotations of the columns were generated from the displacement measurements performed by the transducers shown in Fig.4g 0.

15 a1'=0.H.0 0.4 c3=0.1 b3=1.1 c3'=0.2 a1=2.2 a1=2.5 d3'=30 0.4g d3'=3.2g a1'=0. Ozkaynak et al. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 257 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation Strain at Bottom of Column 0.6g d4=0.1 c3'=0.0 PUSH PULL Fig.3 e3'=2.2 h4'=0.0 f4'=0.1 PUSH PULL b3'=0.15 e3'=2. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M1 case.2 c3=0.0 PUSH PULL b3'=0. 27.4 a1'=0.15 g4'=0.0 b3=1.1 a1=0. .

1 d2'=0.0 a1'=3.1 m2'=1.7 d2'>3.1 d2 spalled a1>3.5 0.1 n2'=0.5 ý2=0.6 h2'=0.1 p2'=0.1 d2=0.1 a1'= 0.1 l2'=0.258 H.1 g2'=0. The damage patterns and strain records at the column section for M2 case.1 g2=0.1 f2'=0.1 b1'=1.3 ý2=0.2 k2'=0.3 a1<0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 PGA Cumulative Damage Propagation c1'<0.1 n2'=0.5 0.1 f2'=0.1 e2=0.5 m2'=1.2 f2=0.0 s3'=0. 28.1 PUSH PULL Fig.0 j2'=0.6g b1' spalled e2'=0.1 c2=0.5 p2'=0.7 o2'=0.2 r3'=0.2 g b1'=0.4g e2'=0.6 b2=3.1 g2'=0.1 f2=0.1 PUSH PULL c1'=0.6 h2'=0.5 w3'=0.0 j2'=0.3 b2=0.1 e2=1. Ozkaynak et al.1 Strain at Bottom of Column 0. .1 g2=0.1 k2'=0.0 l2'=0.1 a1=1.1 a1' spalled o2'=0.1 c2=0.2 PUSH PULL c1'=0.2 u3'=0.

020 0. No crushing and strains <0.005 (a) Bare frame (b) Infilled frame (c) Cross-Braced frame (d) Cross Diamond-Braced frame Fig. [18] and Kakaletsis and Karayannis [19] have conducted experimental . Among them. QS vs.H. The maximum plastic rotations hp and crack widths wmax obtained for various PGA levels are compared with the criteria given in Tables 3 and 4 and the corresponding performance levels are presented in Table 5. 6. 29. PsD test results with drift-based performance limits according to FEMA356. Item Damage Collapse prevention CP Extensive cracking and hinge formation in ductile elements. Effectiveness of the retrofitting schemes could be clearly seen in terms of the obtained performance levels. Severe damage in short columns. 1% permanent Immediate occupancy IO 259 Drift Minor hairline cracking. 4% transient or permanent Life safety LS Extensive damage to beams. Limited cracking and/or splice failure in some non-ductile columns. Limited yielding possible at a few locations.012 0. Joint cracks <3 mm wide 2% transient. N/No <0. the maximum rotation hmax from hy. Altin et al.006 0. Analytical prediction of load bearing capacities Previous studies of bare.005 0.005 Life safety LS 0.005 0.1 Confinement Yes No Shear effect Low High Low High Collapse prevention CP 0. infilled and CFRP-retrofitted infilled frames with mostly cross-braced type of retrofitting scheme were conducted by various researchers. Ozkaynak et al. Spalling of cover and shear cracking <3 mm width for ductile columns. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 Table 3 Performance levels for primary elements of RC frames (according to FEMA 356).015 0.016 0.005 0.005 0.004 Immediate occupancy IO 0. negligible permanent Table 4 Plastic rotations for columns controlled by flexure (according to FEMA 356). Minor spalling in non-ductile columns.003 1% transient.

000 MPa. and h is the inclination angle of CFRP strip. ECFRP = 230. The corresponding experimental result of the cross-braced retrofitted frame specimen was 120 kN. namely quasi-static (QS) and pseudo-dynamic (PsD) tests were applied to the specimens. Ozkaynak et al. studies on 1/3-scaled one bay-one story specimens that are somewhat similar to this study.260 H. energy dissipation capacity. the above formulation yields 35 kN capacity. the lateral load capacity of a typical one bay-one story frame could be predicted as 4Mp/h. wCFRP = 150 mm. These modes are reliant with the aspect ratio of infill wall. which is higher than the above prediction. 30.17 mm and h = 44°. In this study.006. Bare frame predictions could be derived analytically based on strong beam-weak column assumption and occurrence of plastic hinges at column ends. the shear resistance could be calculated as VCFRP = n (eCFRP ECFRP wCFRP tCFRP) cos h. the diagonal crushing strength of infill wall is calculated as Vdcomp = aeff ti fci. QS vs. the following conclusions could be drawn: 1. Two testing techniques. 36) = 71 kN. Thus.95 MPa of shear strength from material tests. bed joint infill shear strength of the experimental specimen was calculated as 75 kN by considering 0. A significant seismic performance enhancement in cross-braced and cross diamond-braced frames was determined in terms of inter-storey drift. tCFRP = 0. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 (a) Bare frame (b) Infilled frame (c) Cross-Braced frame (d) Cross Diamond-Braced frame Fig. where aeff is effective width of the compression strut defined by FEMA 356. In this study. the global shear resistance of the infilled frame is calculated as 35 kN + min (75. Whereas. 7. Thus. could be estimated as Vine = Ani fvie. stiffness and the observed damages. PsD test results with drift-based performance limits according to FEMA 356. The resulting contribution is VCFRP = 35 kN. the expected bed joint infill shear strength. Two different inertia forces corresponding to the tributary area masses obtained from higher and lower stories of a typical mid-rise building were used in the PsD tests. wCFRP is width of CFRP strip.where Ani is area of net mortared section across infill panel and fvie is expected shear strength of masonry infill. the following data could be used to estimate the shear strength contribution of CFRP retrofitting: n = 1. The test specimens used in this study had an aspect ratio close to 1. Also. On the other hand. where n is the number of CFRP strip. lateral load capacity. The experimentally obtained lateral load capacity of infilled frame was 80 kN. The global shear resistance of the retrofitted frame is 71 + 35 = 106 kN. Conclusions Twelve 1/3-scaled RC frames were built and tested as bare and infilled control specimens. eCFRP is the ultimate strain of CFRP strip.0 indicating potential bed joint or diagonal crushing failure modes. the lateral load capacity of the bare frame was found experimentally as 40 kN. . Based on the results of the experimental work. where Mp is the flexural capacity of column cross section and h is the story height. diagonal crushing and corner crushing. eCFRP = 0. Hence. the horizontal component of the diagonal crushing resisting force was calculated as 36 kN. The contribution of the CFRP cross bracing to the global shear resistance could be derived as horizontal component of the tensile tie force of the CFRP strip. tCFRP is the theoretical thickness of CFRP strip calculated from the ratio of weight per unit area to the density of carbon material. Masonry infills have mainly three failure modes: Bed joint crushing. Thus. ECFRP is the elastic modulus of CFRP strip. According to FEMA 356. Vine. and as cross-braced and cross diamondbraced retrofitted specimens. Cross diamond-braced frame’s shear capacity was experimentally obtained as 150 kN. ti is thickness of infill wall and fci is average compressive strength of the infill wall.

3.6 g and 0. regardless of the level of inertial masses. 31. compared with the envelope curve of restoring force vs.H.6 g and 0. Variation of the specimen’s lateral stiffness throughout the successive PsD tests. 6. The locus of maxima obtained from PsD tests showed a close behavior pattern. respectively.4 g. M1 Mass M2 Mass Diamond Cross Braced Frame Cross-Braced Frame Infilled Frame Bare Frame Fig. 4. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 261 Spec. According to the damage observations from both test techniques. According to performance evaluations. The cumulative energy dissipation was found to be comparatively less in QS tests for the varying drift ratios due to the greater number of reverse cycles used in PsD tests.2 g.4 g. Ozkaynak et al. the cross diamond-bracing type of retrofitting scheme proved to be an effective technique in transforming the bare frame from Collapse Prevention to Life Safety performance level for design earthquake of PGA = 0. . drift hysteresis in QS tests. where for cross diamond-braced frame the maximum strengths for M1 and M2 inertial masses were observed at PGA = 0. 5. respectively. However in the case of infilled frame the maximum strengths for M1 and M2 masses were observed at PGA = 0. 2. PsD caused more damage in primary and secondary elements than QS tests for the same level of drifts.

0 2.0 PGA = 0.S.008 0.2 g M1_0. Seismic retrofitting of low-rise masonry and concrete walls using steel strips. The contributions of M.4 g hpmax Radian 0.8 0.2g M2_0.262 H.4g 0 1 2 3 4 5 Story Drift (%) 5000 M1_0. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1998.270 0. Acknowledgments This study was conducted at the Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory of Istanbul Technical University.0 5. [3] Karadogan HF.000 0.2 g M1_0.0 2.4g 5000 M1_0. The Ottawa–Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research .30:1991–2001.060 wmax mm 2.2 g hpmax Radian M1 Bare frame Infilled frame Cross-braced frame Cross diamond-braced frame Bare frame Infilled frame Cross-braced frame Cross diamond-braced frame 0.2 g M1_0.006 0.mm) LS IO 20000 LS CP 20000 15000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Story Drift (%) QS M1_0. Pala S. Improved infill walls and rehabilitation of existing low rise buildings. Comlek R.4g 10000 QS M1_0.126:1017–25. References [1] Dolsek M. Fajfar P.4g M2_0. Taskin K.0 2.6g M2_0.000 0.4 g PGA = 0.6g (c) Cross-Braced frame (d) Cross Diamond-Braced frame Fig. Gustavo A.000 0.3 PGA = 0.2 5. Ilki A. Erol G.030 wmax mm >5. Saatcioglu M. 2009. It was sponsored by research Projects 106M050 of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and 31966 of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) Research Funds.0 5.6g M2_0.Sc.2 0. Seismic retrofit of masonry infill walls in reinforced concrete frames.0 1. [5] Taghdi M. Yuksel E. Bruneau M. p. [6] Serrato F.1 0.0 0.4g M1_0.0 IO IO IO IO >LS IO IO IO LS IO IO IO >CP CP LS LS CP LS IO IO – – CP CP PGA = 0.000 0.2g M2_0. However.000 0. Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall.2 0.2 0. 32. [2] Hashemi A. [4] Mosallam KM.000 0.0 – – 3. Mowrtage W. Teymur P. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 IO LS CP Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN.2 g PGA = 0.2g M1_0. cross diamond-braced frame. 387-426 ISBN: 978-90-481-2680-4.0 1. Tako. Mass Specimen PGA = 0.000 0. J Struct Eng 2000. Seismic risk assessment and retrofitting with special emphasis on existing low rise structures Springer. Bastemir and Hakan Saruhan to the experimental works are gratefully acknowledged. I.050 0.5 0. QS vs. The effects of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame a deterministic assessment.mm) 20000 20000 15000 15000 10000 QS M1_0.0 1.6g M2_0. PsD test results with drift-based performance limits according to FEMA 356.4g M1_0.mm) (b) Infilled frame CP Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN.001 0. Mosallam KM.000 0.35:1827–52.7 15. E.4g 0 1 2 3 Story Drift (%) 4 5 0 0 (a) Bare frame IO Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN.1 0. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2006.4g 10000 5000 0 0 1 2 3 Story Drift (%) 4 5 QS M1_0.030 0. Eng Struct 2008. Response of infilled frames using pseudodynamic experimentation. Saatcioglu M.001 – – 0. Ozkaynak et al.000 wmax mm 0.2g M2_0.000 0.27:589–608.6 g Performance levels M2 7.mm) Cumulative Dissipated Energy (kN. has shown comparatively higher shear resistance.001 0.006 0. Table 5 Performance evaluation respect to FEMA 356. infilled and cross-braced retrofitted frames. Richard NW. The analytical predictions were within the proximity of the experimental results for bare.012 0.2g M2_0.6g M2_0.6 g hpmax Radian 0.

Ozcelik R. M.edu/smcat/ search. Ozcebe G. Yalcin C. Compos Part B: Eng 2008.39:680–93. Experimental study of masonry walls strengthened with CFRP. 263 [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Bastemir I. Laboratory testing of structures under dynamic loads: an introductory review. ACI Struct J 2009. 359:1651–69. 2007. Experimental investigation of infilled reinforced concrete frames with openings.H. An experimental study on strengthening of masonry infilled RC frames using diagonal CFRP strips. / Composites: Part B 42 (2011) 238–263 Centre. Construct Build Mater 2009. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 105. Thesis Submitted to Graduate School of Istanbul Technical University. 2004.24:596–609.106(2):132–41. Al-Salloum YA. Comparison of quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic test methods to determine earthquake response of infilled RC frames. Performance of alternative CFRP retrofitting schemes used in infilled RC frames.Sc. January 2009. Ozkaynak H. Eng Struct 2006. [18] Altin S.38:575–83.berkeley. . Yuksel E. Zhou X. Karayannis GC. FEMA 356.Sc. Wei C. Analysis and design of FRP composites for seismic retrofit of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames.25:675–90. Retrofitting of infilled reinforced concrete frames subjected to high inertia forces by using fiber reinforced polymers. Kaya M. Ozkaynak et al. Almousallam TH. Surmeli M.11:308–18. the University of Ottawa.28:1843–51. Akyuz U. Ottawa. Behavior of FRP strengthened infill walls under In-Plane seismic loading. [14] Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code. November 2000. Canada. Department of Civil Engineering. [19] Kakaletsis DJ. [16] PEER Strong Motion Data Base http://www. Struct Eng Mech 2007. Blakeborough A. Ersoy U. Erdem I. [15] Williams MS. Composites Part B 2007. Buyukozturk O. June 2009. et al. Binici B. Research Report No: OCCERC 04-31.peer.html. Phil Trans R Soc London A 2001. Thesis Submitted to Graduate School of Istanbul Technical University. Turkey: Ankara. Dindar AA. p. Anıl O. J Compos Construct ASCE 2007. M. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Tako ES. An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC frames. Ye L. Kara ME. Ozcebe G. [17] Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.