You are on page 1of 12

Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No.

1, 65-76, February 2004 / Copyright © 2004 Japan Concrete Institute 65

Seismic Retrofitting Methods Newly Developed for Railway Concrete


Structures
Tadayoshi Ishibashi1, Takeshi Tsuyoshi1 and Kaoru Kobayashi2

Received 25 June 2003, accepted 20 December 2003

Abstract
Since the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake in 1995, seismic retrofitting of existing RC columns of railway structures has
been carried out. This paper first describes conventional seismic retrofitting methods and introduces two new seismic
retrofitting methods that can be easily applied in narrow spaces. An outline of experimental results for these new seis-
mic retrofitting methods is provided and the relevant design methods are described. In the first method, called the RB
method, retrofitting bars are arranged so as to keep the value of γi.Vyd/Vmu (γi: safety factor, Vyd: shear strength, Vmu:
shear at flexural strength) above 1.5. In the second method, called the single-face method, retrofitting bars and retrofit-
ting plates are arranged so as to keep the values of γi. Vyd/Vmu and γi. Vyd/Vmu above 2.0 and 1.4, respectively.

1. Introduction common for these types of seismic retrofitting because


this method is advantageous in terms of cost and execu-
After the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster on 17 tion workability. Figure 2 shows mechanical joints de-
January 1995, the authorities at the Ministry of Trans-
portation issued a notification on seismic retrofitting to
railway companies. Following the recommendations of Ductility retrofitting
Shear retrofitting
this notification, the columns of reinforced concrete
rigid-frame structures having shear capacity smaller Cal. of design
than the shear at flexural capacity were subject to seis- Cal. of design
ductility ratio µrd
shear force Vrd
mic retrofitting. In areas served by the East Japan Rail-
way Company, over ten thousand columns have been Assumption of
Assumption of
retrofitted on the Shinkansen Lines and conventional retrofitting volume
retrofitting volume
lines in the South-Kanto and Sendai areas to date.
However, spaces under railway viaducts are often used Cal. of retrofitted
Cal. of retrofitted ductility ratio µyd
for stores and offices, especially in urban areas. There- shear strength Vyd
fore, development of new seismic retrofitting methods
applicable to these areas is one of the important issues No
γi.µrd/µyd=<1.0
for the improvement of railway lines’ seismic safety. No
γi.Vrd/Vyd=<1.0
Citing examples of conventional seismic retrofitting
Yes
techniques, this paper reports on new retrofitting meth- Yes
Details
ods that can be applied to the spaces under railway via-
ducts used for stores and offices. Fig.1 Seismic retrofitting design procedure.

2. Examples of conventional seismic


retrofitting methods used for actual railway
concrete structures
Figure 1 shows the seismic retrofitting design proce- Mortar
dure for railway structures. For seismic retrofitting of Column
railway rigid frame concrete railway structures, shear
retrofitting and ductility retrofitting of columns are the
main focus. Use of the steel jacket method has been Steel jacket

1
Structural Eng. Center, Construction Dept., East Japan
Railway Company, Japan
E-mail: ishibashi@jreast.co.jp Mechanical joint
2
Frontier Service Development Laboratory, East Japan
Railway Company, Japan Fig. 2 New mechanical joint for steel jacket method.
66 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

4. RB method
Figure 4 shows the outline of the RB method. The
characteristics of this method have already been men-
tioned above. Reverse cyclic loading tests of RC col-
umns retrofitted using the method proposed by the au-
thors were carried out. The effects of seismic retrofitting
were examined through experimental results for
half-size specimens simulating columns on existing
railway structures.

4.1 Outline of investigation


Table 1 lists the properties of all the specimens and the
Fig. 3 Execution of steel jacket method. strengths of the materials used. Figure 5 shows the ver-
tical and horizontal sections of all specimens. Figure 6
veloped by the authors for the steel jacket method. shows the anchorages for the external lateral reinforce-
These mechanical joints eliminate the need for melting ment in detail. These anchorages consist of L-shaped
works on site, thereby improving executability (Fig. 3). steel and mortar. Threaded reinforcing bars anchored
Other jacket methods used for railway structures are the with lock nuts are used. Lock nuts are tightened with a
RC jacket method, the carbon sheet jacket method, and hand wrench.
the aramid sheet jacket method are applied. These Table 2 shows the calculated characteristic values for
methods are selected according to execution conditions the specimens. The notation Pycal is the calculated hori-
and costs. zontal force when the axial reinforcements at the bottom
of the columns, which are nearest to the compressive
3. Development of new retrofitting methods end, experience yielding. The notation Pucal is the calcu-
lated horizontal force when the sectional force at the
As mentioned above, the steel jacket method is mainly bottom of the column reaches the ultimate flexural
used for retrofitting of railway structures. However, the strength. Vyd is the calculated value of ultimate shear
space under railway viaducts is often used for stores and strength of the section, and Vmu is equal to Pucal. The
offices, especially in urban areas. This makes it very ultimate strength is calculated based on actual material
difficult for large construction machinery like cranes strength. In calculating the shear strength, the shear
used for the steel jacket method, to gain access to sites. force held by external lateral reinforcement is estimated
In such cases, the steel jacket method requires a large with the truss theory.
amount of extra work to remove obstacles as well as Standard specimen I has no lateral reinforcements.
payments to stores or offices, and seismic retrofitting is Specimens II to VII are retrofitted specimens. All retro-
rarely carried out under such circumstances. fitted specimens contain no ordinary hoop reinforce-
New seismic retrofitting methods have been devel- ments inside the section. The ratio of shear capacity to
oped to overcome this limitation. In the first method, flexural capacity (Vyd/Vmu) of specimen II is 2.35. In this
which is called the RB method, external lateral rein- specimen, the external reinforcements are in contact
forcements are arranged around an existing RC column with the surface of the column and the reinforcing bars
and anchored at the four corners with L-shaped steels. are covered with post-cast mortar.
The materials used for this method are steel bars, In specimen series III, the use of post-cast mortar is
L-shaped steel anchorages, and mortar for anchorages, limited to anchorages, and the lateral reinforcements are
all of which are small items. As a result, this method can exposed. Furthermore, the lateral reinforcements are in
be executed purely by hand and is easily applied to ex- contact with the surface of the column.
isting RC columns in confined spaces. The second
method, which is called the single-face method, uses a
steel plate and reinforcing bars and allows execution of
retrofitting work from only one face of the RC column
section. The steel plate and reinforcing bars can be in-
stalled by hand. Therefore, with this method, seismic
retrofitting executions can be carried out more easily
than with the steel jacket method if the executed site is
very narrow or spaces under superstructures are used for
stores and offices.
Next, experimental results to confirm the perform-
ances of these two new seismic retrofitting methods are
reported.
Fig.4 Schematic drawing of RB method.
T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004 67

Table 1 Properties of all the specimens and strength of materials used.


Lateral Ratio of Material strength Details of anchorage
Axial Ratio of external lateral Yield Yield
reinforce- axial reinforce- external Axial strength strength
Effec- Shear ment reinforce- ment reinforce- compre- Column Footing Ancho- of axial of lateral
tive span arrange- ment arrange- ment ssive con- con- rage reinfor- reinfor- Ancho-
Specimen Section depth la ment As/(b・d) ment Aw/(b・s) stress crete crete mortar cement cements rage L1 L2
2 2
number (mm×mm) (mm) (mm) a/d (number) (%) (mm) (%) (N/mm ) (N/mm ) shape (mm) (mm)
I 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 - - 0.98 23.2 23.2 - 370.5 - - - -
II 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@65 0.98 0.98 26.6 26.5 45.3 377.2 354.6 TypeA - 25
III-1 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@65 0.98 0.98 20.1 20.7 47.6 377.2 354.6 TypeA 40 25
III-2 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@150 0.42 0.98 35.7 35.7 61.9 382.8 371.7 TypeA 40 25
III-3 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×20 3.98 D13@200 0.32 0.98 32.5 32.5 25.8 382.8 371.7 TypeC 40 -
IV-1 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@150 0.42 0.98 32.5 32.5 55.5 382.8 371.7 TypeB 40 -
IV-2 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×20 3.98 D13@200 0.32 0.98 31.8 31.8 45.3 382.8 371.7 TypeB 40 -
V-1 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@65 0.98 0.98 32.9 32.9 50.0 382.8 371.7 TypeA 40 25
V-2 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@150 0.42 0.98 33.6 33.6 46.9 378.5 395.7 TypeB 40 -
V-3 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@150 0.42 0.98 43.2 43.2 40.5 378.5 395.7 TypeD 40 -
V-4 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@150 0.42 0.98 39.4 39.4 40.5 378.5 395.7 TypeD 40 -
VI-1 600×600 550 1650 3.00 D25×24 3.69 D22@200 0.65 0.98 27.6 27.6 51.3 368.0 368.2 TypeC 60 -
VI-2 600×600 550 1650 3.00 D25×24 3.69 D29@200 1.07 0.98 33.0 33.0 53.9 368.0 391.9 TypeC 60 -
VII-1 400×400 360 1150 3.19 D19×16 3.18 D13@125 0.51 5.89 36.5 32.5 60.3 368.7 356.2 TypeB 40 -
VII-2 300×300 260 950 3.65 D16×16 4.07 D13@150 0.56 9.81 35.3 35.9 62.6 358.1 356.2 TypeB 40 -

Table 2 Calculated values and testing values.


Calculated values Experimental values
Specimen Pycal Pucal Vc Vs δy1 δy0 δycal Pytest Putest δyexp δuexp Ductility
number (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vc/Vmu Vs/Vmu Vyd/Vmu (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) ratio µ
I 196.3 247.0 159.9 0.0 0.65 0.00 0.65 - - - - 210.0 - - -
II 201.7 255.1 166.8 432.7 0.65 1.70 2.35 1.94 3.96 5.90 234.3 305.9 5.2 97.4 17.7
III-1 197.3 245.9 153.0 432.7 0.62 1.76 2.38 2.41 4.17 6.58 220.6 288.4 5.2 87.6 13.3
III-2 209.3 268.2 183.4 196.5 0.68 0.73 1.42 1.54 3.79 5.33 225.4 305.1 5.1 85.5 16.0
III-3 249.3 317.2 190.3 147.4 0.60 0.46 1.06 1.86 4.01 5.87 290.5 363.0 5.6 76.1 13.0
IV-1 207.7 265.4 178.5 196.5 0.67 0.74 1.41 1.66 3.85 5.51 210.8 295.3 5.5 80.9 14.7
IV-2 248.8 316.4 147.4 147.4 0.47 0.47 0.93 1.89 4.03 5.92 286.7 344.3 6.7 77.8 13.1
V-1 208.0 265.8 178.5 453.5 0.67 1.71 2.38 1.65 3.85 5.50 236.4 310.0 5.3 102.4 18.6
V-2 206.3 264.2 180.5 209.2 0.68 0.79 1.48 1.47 3.65 5.12 228.6 274.7 5.9 66.6 13.0
V-3 210.5 270.3 196.2 209.2 0.73 0.77 1.50 1.19 3.48 4.67 226.4 298.2 5.0 80.2 17.2
V-4 209.0 268.8 190.3 209.2 0.71 0.78 1.49 1.28 3.54 4.82 230.4 292.3 5.0 62.7 13.0
VI-1 541.9 690.6 370.8 681.7 0.54 0.99 1.52 2.40 4.49 6.89 570.9 777.9 7.9 102.9 14.9
VI-2 549.2 705.5 393.4 1204.7 0.56 1.71 2.27 2.07 4.37 6.44 541.3 769.1 8.0 101.4 15.7
VII-1 282.2 331.7 224.6 226.0 0.68 0.68 1.36 1.90 3.96 5.86 334.7 392.4 4.9 62.9 10.8
VII-2 178.8 192.3 151.1 136.0 0.79 0.71 1.49 2.11 4.22 6.33 223.3 248.2 4.6 49.3 7.8

L65x65x6 L65x65x6 L65x65x6


L65x65x6
mortar mortar mortar
mortar
400 480 480 480
480
480
400

320

D19x20
320

320
480

480

D19x16
480

350

D19x16 D19x16 D19x16


80

320
360 320 320 320 320
360 360 360 360
450
500

500
500

50+ 4 @ 200 = 850


50 + 5 @ 150 = 800
50 + 11 @65 = 765

50 + 11 @65 = 765
1350

880
830
830

830

400 400 400 400


20

400
20
20
20

(a) I (b) II (c) III-1 (d) III-2 (e) III-3


Fig. 5 Vertical and horizontal sections.
68 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

L90x90x7 L90x90x7 L65x65x6 L90x90x7


mortar mortar mortar L65x65x6
mortar
500 500 480 500 mortar
450

20 20 20 25

320

320

480
320
D19x20
500

350
500
D19x16 D19x20

320

500
D19x16

320
D19x16

450
320 320 320 320
320
360 360 360 360
360

485
450
500

50+ 4 @ 200 = 850

50+5 @ 150 = 800


50+5 @ 150 = 800
50+12 @ 65 = 830
50 + 5 @ 150 = 800

1350
1350
880

845
830

60
60

20
400 400 400 400
20
20

400
20

20

(f) IV-1 (g) IV-2 (h) V-1 (i) V-2 (j) V-3

L90x90x7 L90x90x7
L65x65x6 L120x120x8 L120x120x8 mortar
mortar mortar mortar
mortar 720 720 500 400
450

20 15
25

400
220
D16x16
480

480

320

500
720

720

D19x20 D19x16
320
450

D25x24 D25x24

320 550 550 320 220


360 600 600 360 260
520

470
460
460

50+ 4 @ 150 = 650


100+6 @ 200 = 1300
100+6 @ 200 = 1300

50 + 6@125 = 800
50+5 @150 = 800
1350

810

660
1340

1340
40
20

400 600 600 400


20

300
20
50

50

(k) V-4 (l) VI-1 (m) VI-2 (n) VII-1 (o) VII-2
Fig. 5 Vertical and horizontal sections.

25mm
mortar 20㎜ mortar mortar
L1 mortar
reinforcement L1 reinforcement
L2 reinforcement reinforcement
L1 L1
L-shaped steel
L-shaped steel L-shaped steel
L-shaped steel
lock nut
lock nut lock nut lock nut
Type A Type B Type C Type D

Fig. 6 Details of anchored partsl.


T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004 69

Likewise in specimen series IV, the use of post-cast stress is set as 5.89 N/mm2 and 9.81N/mm2.
mortar is limited to anchorages, and the lateral rein- Table 3 lists the experimental parameters described
forcements are exposed. The clearance between external above. As shown in Fig. 5, a space is secured between
lateral reinforcements and the surface of the column is the lower edge of the anchorages and the footings in
20 mm. This clearance is provided because in actual order to ensure that the anchorages do not affect the
retrofitting executions, lateral reinforcements cannot ultimate flexural strength.
always be arranged flush against the surface of the Figure 7 shows the loading systems. All specimens
column because the surface of the column is not always were tested under constant axial load, and reverse static
flat. cyclic displacement was applied. The standard yield
In specimen series V, anchorages are separated at deformation of each specimen (δytest) is defined as the
each rung of the external lateral reinforcement in the experimental deformation at which the reinforcements
axial direction. that have the largest effective depth experience yielding.
In specimen series VI, the size of the section is 600 Loading was carried out up to δytest under load control
mm x 600 mm. with a loading step of 4.9 to 9.8 kN. Thereafter, cyclic
Finally, in specimen series VII, the axial compressive displacement at an integer number equal to a multiple of
δytest was applied (2δytest, 3δytest, 4δytest,…). At each load-
Table 3 Experimental parameters. ing displacement, one cycle was applied (Fig. 8). The
Compre- period of each loading cycle was at least 120 seconds.
Additiona column surface lateral L-shaped Section ssive axial The loading test was continued until the horizontal force
Specimen l cover reinforcement clearance steel size stress
number mortar Vyd/Vmu (mm) clearance (mm) (N/mm2) fell to less than 50% of the ultimate horizontal strength.
I - 0.65 0 - 400×400 0.98
II exist 2.35 0 no 400×400 0.98
III-1 no 2.38 0 no 400×400 0.98 4.2 Experimental results and discussions
III-2 no 1.42 0 no 400×400 0.98 (1) Effects of new retrofitting method
III-3 no 1.06 0 no 400×400 0.98
IV-1 no 1.41 20 no 400×400 0.98 Figure 9 shows the envelopes of cyclic
IV-2 no 0.93 20 no 400×400 0.98 load-displacement relations of specimens I, II, and III-1.
V-1 no 2.38 0 yes 400×400 0.98
V-2 no 1.48 20 yes 400×400 0.98 Specimen I has no lateral reinforcement. The section of
V-3 no 1.5 25 yes 400×400 0.98 specimen II is entirely covered with post-cast mortar.
V-4 no 1.49 25 yes 400×400 0.98
VI-1 no 1.52 0 no 600×600 0.98 The section of III-1 is covered only at anchorages with
VI-2 no 2.27 0 no 600×600 0.98 post-cast mortar. The ratio of shear capacity to flexural
VII-1 no 1.36 20 no 400×400 5.89
VII-2 no 1.49 15 no 300×300 9.81 capacity of II and III-1 is 2.5. As can be seen in Fig. 9,
deformability increased as a result of these retrofitting
methods. Post-cast mortar had little influence on the
Vertical jack deformability of the columns. Figure 10 shows damage
1000kN
conditions after loading tests.
Horizontal jack
Loading
1000kN
direction (2) Ratio of shear capacity to flexural capacity
Figure 11 shows the envelopes of cyclic
800mm 1 150mm

load-displacement relations for III-1, III-2, and III-3.


2 150mm

The ratio of shear capacity to flexural capacity is 2.38 in


the case of III-1, 1.42 in the case of III-2, and 1.06 in
the case of III-3. The x-axis is a non-dimensional value,
1 800mm 900mm displacement divided by the yield displacement, and so
Side
側 View
面 Front
正 View
面 is the y-axis, which is horizontal force divided by the
Shear span is 1,650 mm for VI-1,2 and 950 mm for VII-2. yield force. Specimen III-2, whose shear-to-flexural
Height of footing is 700 mm for VI-1,2 and 800 mm for VII-2
Fig. 7 Loading system. 400
I II
300

200
+5δy Ⅲ-1
+4δy 100 III-1
Load(kN)

+3δy
0
Displacement

+2δy
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
+1δy -100
Loading Cycle
-1δy -200
-2δy
-300
-3δy
-4δy -400
-5δy Deformation(mm)

Fig.9 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations for


Fig. 8 Loading sequence (δy: yield displacement). specimens I, II, and III-1.
70 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

2
Ⅲ-2 III-2
1.5
Ⅳ-1
1
IV-1
0.5

P/Pycal
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
δ/δycal

Fig. 13 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations


(a) II (b) III-1 for specimens III-2 and IV-1.
Fig. 10 Post-test conditions.
2
Ⅲ-3 III-3
2 1.5
III-2 Ⅳ-2
Ⅲ-1
1.5 1
Ⅲ-2
IV-2
Ⅲ-3 1 P/Pycal 0.5
III-1
0.5 0
P/Pycal

III-3 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20


0 -0.5
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5 -1

-1 -1.5

-1.5 -2
δ/δycal
-2
δ/δycal Fig. 14 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations
for specimens III-2 and IV-2.
Fig. 11 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations for
specimens III-1, III-2, and III-3.
20 mm. Figure 13 shows that the ductility of specimen
IV-1 with the 20 mm clearance is a little smaller than
that of III-2. Figure 14 shows that III-3 and IV-2, whose
shear-to-flexural capacity ratios are 1.0, have almost the
same ductility. Judging from these results, it can be
stated that the clearance between external lateral rein-
forcement and the surface of the column has little effect
on the ductility of retrofitted columns.

(4) Separation of anchor parts


Figure 15 shows the envelopes of cyclic
(a) III-1 (b) III-2 (c) III-3 load-displacement relations for specimens III-1 and V-1.
Fig. 12 Specimens after tests. The difference between these two specimens is the con-
tinuity of the anchorages in the column axial direction.
capacity ratio is 1.42, had the highest ductility. Speci- Other parameters are almost the same. These specimens
mens III-1 and III-3 had almost the same ductility. are fabricated in the same way.
These experiments confirm that ductility is more or less As shown in Fig. 15, V-1 has higher ductility. This
constant where the shear-to-flexural capacity ratio ex- indicates that separating the anchorages has some in-
ceeds 1.0. However, the failure mode of III-3 was shear. fluence on the ductility of the columns. Figure 16
Figure 12 shows damage conditions after loading tests. shows the envelopes of cyclic load-displacement rela-
tions for specimens IV-1, V-2, V-3, and V-4. In these
(3) Separation between external lateral reinforce- specimens, the main parameter is the size of the
ment and surface of column L-shaped steel at the anchorages, and the other parame-
Figure 13 shows the envelopes of cyclic ters are almost constant. In the case of V-2 and V-4, the
load-displacement relations for III-2 and IV-1, while Fig. anchorages were crushed and the load decreased sud-
14 shows the same relations for III-3 and IV-2. In series denly. On the other hand, in the case of V-3, the an-
III, the external lateral reinforcements were in contact chorages survived and higher ductility was attained.
with the column, whereas the series IV has clearance of Therefore, through the use of this retrofitting method,
T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004 71

2 2
Ⅲ-1 Ⅲ-2 III-2
1.5 V-1 1.5
Ⅴ-1 Ⅵ-1
1 1
Ⅵ-2
VI-1 VI-2
P/Pycal

0.5 0.5

P/Pycal
III-1
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
-2 -2
δ/δycal δ/δycal

Fig. 15 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations Fig. 18 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations
for specimens III-1 and V-1. for specimens III-2, VI-1 and VI-2.

2 2
IV-1 V-3
Ⅳ-1 1.5 Ⅳ-1 1.5
Ⅴ-2 Ⅶ-1 IV-2
Ⅴ-3 1 1
Ⅶ-2
Ⅴ-4 V-4
0.5 0.5
P/Pycal
P/Pycal

V-2 VII-1
VII-2
0 0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5

-2 -2
δ/δycal δ/δcal

Fig. 16 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations Fig. 19 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relations
for specimens IV-2, V-2, V-3 and V-4. for specimens IV-1, VII-1 and VII-2.

specimen VI-1, whose shear-to-flexural capacity ratio is


1.52, and specimen VI-2, whose shear-to-flexural ca-
pacity ratio is 2.27. Ductility was not increased even
where the shear-to-flexural capacity ratio exceeded 1.5.
The same tendency was observed in the case of smaller
specimens with a 400 mm square section.

(6) Axial forces


Figure 19 shows the envelopes of cyclic
(a) V-2 (b) V-3 (c) V-4
load-displacement relations for specimen IV-1 with an
Fig. 17 Specimens after tests.
axial compressive stress of 0.98 N/mm2, specimen VII-1
with an axial compressive stress of 5.89 N/mm2, and
adequate ductility is achieved as long as the anchorages specimen VII-2 with an axial compressive stress of 9.91
remain undamaged. Figure 17 shows photos of V-2, V-3, N/mm2. In the case of larger axial compressive stress,
and V-4 after loading tests. ductility decreased with a sudden drop in load.
Table 2 lists experimental ductility ratio values. The
(5) Section size ductility ratio is defined as the ratio of experimental
Figure 18 shows the envelopes of cyclic ultimate displacement to calculated yield displacement
load-displacement relations for specimen III-2 with a (Fig. 20). Here, “experimental ultimate displacement” is
400 mm square section and specimen VI-1 with a 600 defined as the displacement at which the load falls to the
mm square section. Other parameters without the ratio yield force. Figure 21 shows the relationships between
of shear capacity to flexural capacity are almost the the shear-to-flexural capacity ratio (Vyd/Vmu) and the
same for these specimens. Both specimens exhibited ductility ratio (µ) when the axial compressive stress is
almost the same ductility, as indicated in Fig. 18. As 0.98 N/mm2. In this figure, specimens V-2 and V-4 are
shown in Fig. 11, the ratio of shear capacity to flexural omitted because they failed as a result of damage in the
capacity did not have any influence on ductility capacity anchorages. As shown in Fig. 21, the relationship be-
when the ratio was greater than 1.4 in the experiments tween shear-to-flexural capacity ratio and ductility ratio
here. Almost the same ductility was observed for indicates a weak, one-dimensional positive correlation
72 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

crete columns.
12.0

10.0 4.3 Design method


From the experimental results, the retrofitting design
8.0
methods are designed as follows. These design methods
δyexp(mm)

6.0 can be applied to columns of rigid frame reinforced


concrete railway structures on condition that compres-
4.0
sive stress caused by permanent loads is smaller than 3
2.0 N/mm2.
0.0
In the top and bottom regions of the column with the
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 length of 2 D (D: height of column section), retrofitting
δycal(mm) bars must be arranged to satisfy the inequality as fol-
lows.
Fig. 20 Comparison between experimental values
(δyexp) and calculated values (δycal) of yield displace-
γi.Vyd/Vmu > 1.5 (1)
ments. In the other region, bars must be arranged to satisfy
the inequality as follows.
20.0
18.0
γi.Vmu/Vyd < 1.0 (2)
16.0
where, γi: structural factor = 1.0, Vyd: shear strength and
14.0
12.0
Vmu: shear at moment capacity.
10.0 The shear capacity Vyd in Eqns. (1) and (2) is assumed
µµ

8.0 as the sum of Vc: shear strength held by concrete and


6.0 Vrs: shear strength held by retrofitting bars.
4.0
The value of Vc: strength without shear reinforcement
2.0
0.0
is estimated by the Eq. (3).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Vc = βd.βp.βn.fvcd.bw.d/γb (3)
Vyd/Vmu

Fig.21 Relationship between Vyd/Vmu and ductility (µ). where, fvcd = 0.2f’ck1/3 ,f’ck: compressive strength of con-
crete, βd: modifier considering scale effect = (1000/d)1/4
16 =< 1.5, βp: modifier considering amount of transverse
14 reinforcement = (100pc)1/3 =< 1.5, βn: modifier consid-
12 ering design axial stress = 1+M0/Md =< 2 (N’d => 0) or
10 1+2M0/Md => 0 (N’d < 0), bw: width of section, d: effec-
tive depth, pc = As/(bw.d), As: sectional area of tensile
µµ

8
6 reinforcements, Md: design moment, M0: decompression
4
moment, N’d: axial force, and γb: member safety factor.
2
The value of Vrs: shear strength held by retrofitting
bars is estimated by Eq. (4).
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Vrs = Aw.fwyd/ss.z/γb (4)
N’/Nb’

Fig.22 Relationship between N’/N’b and ductility (µ).


where, Aw: sectional area of retrofitting bar in section
“ss”, fwyd: yield strength of retrofitting bar, ss: spacing of
retrofitting bars, z = d/1.15, d: effective depth, and γb:
where the ratio is between approx. 1.0 and approx. 1.4. member safety factor.
Judging from these experimental results, the ductility The shear at moment capacity is estimated as the
ratio becomes higher than 10 and then 15 when the horizontal force when the sectional force at the bottom
shear-to-flexural capacity ratio exceeds 1.0 and 1.4, of the column reaches the ultimate flexural strength.
respectively. Thus, the value of Vmu is estimated by Eq. (5).
Figure 22 shows the relations between axial com-
Vmu = Mu/la (5)
pressive force ratio (N’/Nb’, N’: axial force, Nb’: equi-
librium axial force) and ductility ratio for specimens where, Mu: flexural strength, and la: shear span.
IV-1, VII-1, and VII-2, which had different axial com-
pressive stresses. This figure tells us that the ductility 5. Single-face method
ratio of RC columns retrofitted with our method gradu-
ally decrease as the axial compressive stress increases. Figure 23 is the schematic drawing of the single-face
This tendency matches that of normal reinforced con- method. The characteristics of this method are described
T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004 73

Example: Wall of Existing RC column ratio.


store house The loading method is the same as that of the RB
Steel plate method.
Reinforcing 5.2 Experimental results and discussion
bars
(1) Comparison of RC specimen and seismic retro-
fitted specimens
Cyclic load-displacement relations of specimens No. 1,
No. 2 and No. 7 are shown in Fig. 25, Fig. 26 and Fig.
27, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 25, specimen No. 1 with normal re-
inforcements lost load resistance sharply just after main
reinforcements yielded. The ductility ratio of specimen
Fig. 23 Schematic drawing of single-face method. No. 2 retrofitted by one face retrofitting reinforcements
is larger than that of No. 1. On the other hand, specimen
above. No. 7 retrofitted in a different direction showed the
same ductility. Other specimens did not show rapid de-
5.1 Outline of the examinations scent of load as seen in the case of specimen No. 1.
Figure 24 shows the cross sections. Table 4 shows the
specified properties of the specimens. Specimen No. 1 (2) Effect of Shear-to-Moment capacity ratio to
has normal hoop reinforcements inside the section. This ductility ratio
specimen serves as a standard one to be compared with Effect of reinforcing bars on seismic performance
other specimens. Specimens No. 2 to No. 9 have sin- Table 5 shows the material properties and the experi-
gle-face retrofitting reinforcements and internal hoop mental values of ductility ratio.
reinforcements in the section. All the specimens have Figure 28 shows the envelopes of the cyclic
the same sectional size and the same shear span to depth load-displacement relations of specimens ranging from
ratio. The direction of loading is shown in Fig. 24. The No. 2 to No. 5, which have different shear-to-moment
main testing parameter is the retrofitting reinforcement capacity ratio. If the shear-to-moment capacity ratio is

Direction of loading
b : 400 400 400
Direction of loading
Direction of loading

Reinforcing Reinforcing
D : 400

bars bars
d : 360

400
360
400
360

40
40

40

3
3

Steel Steel
40 40 plate 40 plate
Unit:mm

(a) No. 1 (b) No. 2, 3, 4, 5 (c) No. 6, 7, 8, 9


Fig. 24 Cross sections of specimens.

Table 4 Properties of specimens.


Specimen Section Shear Effective Arrangements of Arrangements of Retrofitting reinforcements
number size span depth axial reinforcements hoop reinforcements Steel plate Reinforcing bars
b×D (mm)
b×D(mm) la (mm)
la(mm) dd(mm)
(mm) (SD345) (SD345) (SS400) (mm) (SD345)
No.1 - -
No.2 3 D13 @ 150
No.3 3 D13 @ 100
No.4 3 D13 @ 250
No.5 400×400 1150 360 D19×16 D6 @ 200 3 D13 @ 400
No.6 3 D13 @ 150
No.7 4.5 D13 @ 150
No.8 9 D13 @ 150
No.9 14 D13 @ 150
74 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

equal to or larger than 1.5, the load-displacement rela- 1.5


tionships will be almost same.
1
Figure 29 shows the relationships between
shear-to-flexural capacity ratio and ductility ratio. The 0.5
ductility ratios of these specimens with one face retro-

P/Pytest
fitting reinforcements are about 8 or more if the 0

shear-to-flexural capacity ratio is equal to or larger than -0.5


1.3. However, even where the shear-to-flexural capacity
ratio exceeds 1.5, the ductility ratio does not increase. -1

-1.5
Effect of steel plate on seismic performance -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Figure 30 shows the envelopes of the cyclic δ/δyexp
load-displacement relations of specimens No. 6 to No. 9.
As shown in the figure, ductility increases gently with Fig. 25 Cyclic load-displacement relation (No. 1).
the increase in the shear-to-flexural capacity ratio.
Figure 31 shows the relationships between the
shear-to-flexural capacity ratio and ductility ratio of 1.5

different specimens. The ductility ratios of these speci- 1


mens are 6 or more if the shear-to-flexural capacity ratio
0.5
is equal to or larger than 1.4. The ductility ratio also P/Pytest
shows the tendency to increase fairly steadily as the 0
shear-to-flexural capacity ratio increases. -0.5

-1
5.3 Design method
From the experimental results, the retrofitting design -1.5
methods were designed as follows. These design meth- -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
δ/δyexp
ods can be applied to columns of rigid frame reinforced
concrete railway structures on condition that compres- Fig. 26 Cyclic load-displacement relation (No. 2).
sive stress caused by permanent loads is smaller than 3
N/mm2.
1.5
(1) Design of retrofitting bars
1
In the top and bottom regions of the column with the
length of 2 D, retrofitting bars must be arranged to sat- 0.5
P/Pytest

isfy the following inequality. 0

γi.Vyd/Vmu > 2.0 (6) -0.5

-1
In the other region, bars must be arranged to satisfy
the following inequality. -1.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
γi.Vmu/Vyd < 1.0 (7) δ/δyexp

where, γi: structural factor = 1.0, Vyd: shear strength and Fig. 27 Cyclic load-displacement relation (No. 7).
Vmu: shear at moment capacity.

Table 5 Material properties and experimental values.


Specimen Material strength Calculated value Experimental Value
number f’c
f'c fsy1 fsy2 Vyd
Vyd Vmu
Vmu Vyd/Vmu
Vyd/Vmu δyexp δuexp µ
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm)
No. 1 26.7 369 355 203 251 0.8 6.3 14.5 2.3
No. 2 28.7 369 355 543 253 2.1 5.9 57.3 9.8
No. 3 29.7 388 355 716 265 2.7 5.6 51.6 9.3
No. 4 31.2 388 355 412 267 1.5 5.7 52.2 9.2
No. 5 29.9 388 355 332 265 1.3 5.8 45.1 7.8
No. 6 21.1 388 355 351 253 1.4 6.2 38.1 6.2
No. 7 30.4 388 355 452 266 1.7 5.8 38.6 6.7
No. 8 32.1 388 355 779 268 2.9 5.5 44.2 8.0
No. 9 18.0 406 381 1149 258 4.5 4.0 37.2 9.4
Note: f'c: concrete strength of the column, fsy1: yield strength of axial reinforcement, fsy2: yield strength of hoop reinforcement,
δyexp: yield displacement, δuexp: ultimate displacement, µ: ductility ratio
T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004 75

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

P/Pytest
P/Pytest

0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5 -0.5 No.6 (Plate t=3.0)
No.2 (D13 ctc 150)
No.3 (D13 ctc 100) No.7 (Plate t=4.5)
-1 -1 No.8 (Plate t=9.0)
No.4 (D13 ctc 200)
No.5 (D13 ctc 400) No.9 (Plate t=14.0)
-1.5 -1.5
δ/δyexp δ/δyexp

Fig. 28 Envelope of cyclic load-sidplacement relation Fig. 30 Envelope of cyclic load-displacement relation
(No. 2, 3, 4, 5). (No. 6, 7, 8, 9).

14.0 14.0

12.0 12.0

10.0 10.0

8.0 8.0
µ
µ

6.0 6.0

4.0 4.0

2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Vyd/Vmu Vyd/Vmu

Fig.29 Relationship between Vyd/Vmu and ductility (µ). Fig.31 Relationship between Vyd/Vmu and ductility (µ).

The shear capacity Vyd in Eqns. (6) and (7) is assumed


as the sum of Vc: shear strength held by concrete, and γi.Vyd/Vmu > 1.4 (10)
Vrs: shear strength held by retrofitting bars. In the other region, bars must be arranged to satisfy
The value of Vc: strength without shear reinforcement the following inequality.
is estimated by the Eq. (3).
The value of Vrs: shear strength held by retrofitting γi.Vmu/Vyd < 1.0 (11)
bars is estimated by the Eq. (8).
where, γi: structural factor = 1.0, Vyd: shear strength and
Vrs = Aw fwyd/ss.z/γb
.
(8) Vmu: shear at moment capacity.
The shear capacity Vyd in Eqns. (10) and (11) is as-
where, Aw: sectional area of retrofitting bar in section sumed as the sum of Vc: shear strength held by concrete,
“ss”, fwyd: yield strength of retrofitting bar, ss: spacing of and Vrp: shear strength held by retrofitting plates.
retrofitting bars, z = d/1.15, d: effective depth, and γb: The value of Vc: strength without shear reinforcement
member safety factor. is estimated by the Eq. (3).
The shear at moment capacity is estimated as the The value of Vrp: shear strength held by retrofitting
horizontal force when the sectional force at the bottom plated is estimated by the Eqns. (12), (13), (14), and
of the column reaches the ultimate flexural strength. (15).
Thus, the value of Vmu is estimated by Eq. (9).
Vrp = f(s).Vsy (12)
Vmu = Mu/la (9)
where, Mu: flexural strength, and la: shear span. Vsy = fvy.tw.zw/γb (13)

(2) Design of retrofitting plate f(s) = 2.7+0.16k-0.68(a/d) (14)


In the top and bottom regions of the column with the
0.6 ≦ f(s) ≦ 2.5
length of 2 D, retrofitting bars must be arranged to sat-
1.0 ≦ a/d ≦ 3.5
isfy the following inequality.
2.0 ≦ k ≦ 7.0
76 T. Ishibashi, T. Tsuyoshi and K. Kobayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 65-76, 2004

Fig. 33 Single-face method completed.

Fig. 32 RB method completed. way concrete structures and reported on the experimen-
tal results of two new seismic retrofitting methods. In
the first method, which is called the RB method, retro-
1
fitting bars are arranged so as to keep the value of
f vy = ( f syk / 3) 2 / γ s (15)
γi.Vyd/Vmu above 1.5. In the second method, which is
called the single-face method, retrofitting bars are ar-
where, tw: thickness of retrofitting plate, zw: width of
ranged so as to keep the value of γi.Vyd/Vmu above 2.0.
retrofitting plate, γb: member safety factor, k: modifier
considering plate thickness = tw.zw/(bw.d), bw: width of Moreover, retrofitting plates are arranged so as to keep
the value of γi.Vyd/Vmu above 1.4.
section, d: effective depth of section, a: shear span, γs:
These methods are actually used for the seismic ret-
material safety factor.
The shear at moment capacity is estimated as the rofitting of railway structures as shown in Fig. 32 and
Fig. 33.
horizontal force when the sectional force at the bottom
of the column reaches the ultimate flexural strength.
Thus, the value of Vmu is estimated by Eq. (16) References
Railway Technical Research Institute, (1992). “Standard
Vmu = Mu/la (16) specification for design of concrete structure for
railways.” (in Japanese).
where, Mu: flexural strength, and la: shear span. Railway Technical Research Institute, (1992). “Standard
specification for seismic design of structures for
6. Conclusion railways.” (in Japanese).
This paper has outlined the seismic retrofitting of rail-