Rehabilitation of Infilled Reinforced

Concrete Frames with Thin Steel

Plate Shear Walls
Emre Akın, Ph.D. 1; Serra Zerrin Korkmaz, Ph.D. 2; Hasan Hüsnü Korkmaz, Ph.D. 3; and Ersan Diri 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Different rehabilitation methods have been suggested for system improvement of existing deficient reinforced concrete building
stock in seismic hazard areas. Although the use of steel plate shear walls for the rehabilitation of steel frames is common, their application to
deficient reinforced concrete frames is not as common. In this study, the efficiency of steel plate shear walls on deficient reinforced concrete
frames having hollow clay tile infill walls is investigated. Five one-bay, two-story 1=3 scaled RC frames were subjected to quasistatic lateral
loading. The results indicated that significant improvement may be achieved in the lateral frame response. Lateral load-carrying capacities and
energy dissipation capacities were considerably increased. However, a local shear strengthening of deficient columns may be required since
shear demand on the columns increases considerably owing to tension field forces of the steel plate shear walls. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF
.1943-5509.0000840. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reinforced concrete; Steel plate; Infill; Masonry; Rehabilitation.

Introduction characteristics of a RC frame may be altered to varying degrees

Building stock that is vulnerable in the event of even moderate
seismic actions in earthquake-prone regions, as in Turkey, makes
rehabilitation of these buildings a challenging issue. The majority
of these buildings are moment-resisting RC frame type structures
with inadequate or even no shear walls. The imperfections of these
structures are mostly the result of either design or construction
faults that were not properly supervised, especially before the
1999 Izmit earthquake in Turkey. The most common imperfections
have been well documented in recent studies (Akın et al. 2011;
Arslan and Korkmaz 2007; Korkmaz 2015; Ozcebe et al. 2006).
Clearly there is a demand for alternative occupant-friendly sys-
tem rehabilitation techniques that do not require evacuation of the
building, as opposed to conventional methods (i.e., addition of RC
infill wall application). In recent decades, a number of different
methods have been presented by different research groups to this
end. Among these methods, those that improve the mechanical
characteristics of existing masonry infill walls using carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer sheets, steel fiber-reinforced mortar, and pre-
cast concrete panels have become popular (Akın et al. 2011, 2014;
Almusallam and Al-Salloum 2007; Baran and Tankut 2011;
Luccioni and Rougier 2011; Saatcioglu et al. 2005; Sevil et al.
2011). In these studies, it was concluded that different mechanical
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Adnan Menderes
Univ., Aydın 09010, Turkey.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Selcuk Univ., Konya 42030,
Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: hhkorkmaz73@hotmail.com
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Selcuk Univ., Konya
42030, Turkey.
4
Civil Engineer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Selcuk Univ., Konya
42030, Turkey.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 18, 2015; approved on
September 15, 2015; published online on January 4, 2016. Discussion per-
iod open until June 4, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
under lateral loading using the suggested techniques.
The use of steel plate shear wall systems that are connected to
the boundary frame members in order to upgrade the seismic per-
formance of steel frame structures has been studied thoroughly
(Caccese et al. 1993; Choi and Park 2009; Driver et al. 1998; Lubell
et al. 2000). The design requirements are provided as an appendix
in the Canadian steel design standard (CSA 1994). In these studies,
it was concluded that unstiffened thin steel plates should be used to
take advantage of their substantial postbuckling strength. After
buckling takes place, the response is reported to be governed by
tension field actions instead of the in-plane shear resistance of steel
plate walls (Driver et al. 1998). The mechanical advantages of steel
infill plates, as presented in earlier studies, may be summarized as
an enhanced ductility, initial stiffness, and energy dissipation
capacity along with stable hysteretic response under reversed cyclic
lateral loading (Choi and Park 2011; Driver et al. 1998). Moreover,
the addition of steel plate shear walls does not result in an excessive
increment in overall weight and resulting gravity loads of the struc-
ture, in comparison with RC infill and precast concrete panel ap-
plications. This may also be an important issue in consideration of
altered seismic demands and foundation costs (Choi and Park
2011). In addition, the method allows for fast and occupant-friendly
application.
However, to the authors’ best knowledge, the idea of using steel
plate walls for the rehabilitation of RC buildings does not have as
long a history as in steel structures. Ozkok et al. (2009) studied
different rehabilitation methods, including thin steel plate applica-
tion. A more comprehensive study was conducted by Choi and Park
(2011), in which thin steel infill plate was applied to special RC
frames that were designed in accordance with ACI 318-08 (ACI
2008). None of the RC frame specimens tested in these studies
had masonry infill walls.
The objective of this study was to investigate the efficiency of
thin steel infill plate application for the seismic rehabilitation of
deficient RC frames with hollow clay tile (HCT) infill walls. The
change in the behavior as a result of the existence of a window on
the infill area is also considered in this study. Therefore, the test

© ASCE 04015098-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098

 results of five 1/3 scaled RC frames subjected to reversed cyclic
lateral loading are presented and discussed in detail.
Experimental Program
Five one-bay, two-story, 1=3 scaled RC frames were tested in the
experimental study. The geometry and dimensions of the frame
specimens are presented in Fig. 1. The aim was to represent existing
buildings that have common structural problems observed in prac-
tice. The in-plane flexural capacity of the beams was higher than
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the columns (i.e., strong beam and weak column). The frame
members had insufficient transverse reinforcement with spacing
that does not comply with code requirements (ACI 2008; Turkish
Earthquake Code 2007). The free ends of the transverse reinforce-
ment were not anchored to the core concrete (i.e., bent at 90°). No
shear reinforcement was provided at the beam–column joints. The
average concrete compressive strength of the RC frame members
was 21.0 MPa.
The cross-sectional dimensions of the columns and beams were
100 × 150 mm2 and 150 × 150 mm2 , respectively. To provide a
reinforcement ratio of 1.34%, the longitudinal reinforcement of
the beams and columns was formed by the use of six and four
8 mm diameter deformed bars, respectively. The lateral reinforce-
ment of all members was constituted by 6 mm diameter plain bars
and spaced at approximately 100 mm intervals. The mechanical
properties of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements are
provided in Table 1.
The infill walls of the frames were constructed using specially
produced 1/3 scaled hollow clay tiles. The thickness of the plaster
applied to both faces of the masonry infill walls was approximately
Fig. 1. Geometry and dimensions of RC frame specimens
Table 1. Mechanical Properties of Longitudinal Steel Bars and Steel Plates
Material fy (MPa) fu (MPa) E (MPa)
Longitudinal steel reinforcement 420 500 2 × 105
Steel plate 180 200 0.7 × 105
© ASCE 04015098-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098
10 mm. The compressive strength of the mortar and plaster was
approximately 5 MPa.
The first specimen was a reference bare frame (BF) [Fig. 2(a)]
(Unal 2012). The second specimen was a nonstrengthened HCT
infilled frame [i.e., non strengthened infilled frame (NSIF)] without
opening [Fig. 2(b)] (Diri 2015). The third specimen was also non-
strengthened and had HCT infill walls with a window opening
(i.e., NSIF-W). The window had dimensions of 350 × 400 mm2
and were located at the center of the infill walls just below the beam
level, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The fourth specimen (i.e., SPIF) had
HCT infill walls without an opening, which was strengthened by
thin steel plate shear walls (SPSWs). The specimen is shown in
Fig. 2(d), and the details of applied strengthening are illustrated
in Fig. 3(a). The thickness of the SPSWs was 0.3 mm and applied
to both faces of the HCT infill walls at both stories. The yield
strength of the steel plate was determined, by means of uniaxial ten-
sion tests of coupon samples, to be 200 MPa. The integrity between
the SPSWs and RC frame was provided by means of screw-type
dowels 8 mm in diameter. These dowels were anchored to both
the beams and columns at 100 mm intervals [Fig. 3(b)]. The anchor
dowels penetrated approximately 100 mm into the frame members
and were placed on each face of the frame placed in an eccentric
manner so as to prevent overlapping. To restrain the SPSWs and
prevent stress concentrations around the anchor dowels, steel sec-
tions were used on four sides of the SPSWs [Fig. 3(a)]. The steel
plate at the bottom of the frame was extended over the foundation
with a length of 80 mm. The extended portion of the SPSWs was
connected to the foundation through a steel L-section and again us-
ing anchor dowels [Fig. 3(a)]. The last specimen had HCT infill walls
with openings (i.e., identical to the NSIF-W specimen) and further
strengthened by SPSWs excluding the window opening. This speci-
men is referred to as SPIF-W and shown in Fig. 2(e). The strength-
ening applied by the thin steel plates was similar to that of SPIF.
Test Setup
The test frames were subjected to reversed cyclic lateral loading so
as to simulate seismic actions. The quasistatic lateral loading was
load controlled up to the ultimate load capacity and displacement
controlled afterwards (i.e., with increasing amplitudes). The double-
acting hydraulic jack that was fixed to the reaction wall of the
laboratory was utilized for the lateral loading (Fig. 4). A load cell
was attached to the hydraulic jack to measure the load levels. The
lateral load was applied at each story level and distributed such
that two-thirds of the total load was allotted to the upper story and
one-third to the lower story. This distribution was accomplished
by means of a steel beam situated in between the hydraulic jack
and test frame. To ensure free rotational movements, hinge-type
connections were provided on both sides of this steel beam. The
test frames were fixed to the strong floor of the laboratory using
eight high-strength bolts. Furthermore, precompression was ap-
plied to the specimen footing by two hydraulic jacks on both sides
of the frame to prevent undesired movements.
A rigid steel frame, separate from the test setup, was constructed
in front of the specimen to mount the measurement devices. The
steel frame was also fixed to the strong floor to provide accurate
measurements. Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs)
were used to measure the lateral displacements at the story levels
(i.e., one at each floor level). Two dial gauges were employed at the
two sides of the footing to monitor possible undesired base-rocking
movements of the footing (Fig. 4) (Balik 2012). In addition, one
dial gauge was used to measure possible lateral displacements
of the footing. The data provided by the load cell, LVDTs, and dial
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Test specimens: (a) BF; (b) NSIF; (c) NSIF-W; (d) SPIF; (e) SPIF-W

gauges were monitored throughout the test and recorded by a data
acquisition system.
Test Results
The test observations of specimens are presented in accordance
with the hysteretic base shear versus roof displacement curves that
are shown in Fig. 5. The roof drift ratio (RDR) values are also pro-
vided in Fig. 5. The RC specimens after the test and their damage
pattern are shown in Fig. 6 (except the BF).
In the case of the reference BF, the initial cracks were flexural at
the bottom of the first-story columns. This specimen had an ulti-
mate lateral load capacity of 37 kN at a RDR of 2.4%. After a 4%
roof drift ratio, the specimen lost more than 30% of its lateral load-
carrying capacity owing to plastic hinge formations at the first-story
column ends. Both flexural and shear cracks were observed in these
regions.
The initial cracks were again observed as flexural cracks at the
bottom of the first-story columns at 0.03% RDR in the NSIF speci-
men. The separation between the first-story RC frame members and
infill wall started at a RDR of approximately 0.07%. This indicates
the initiation of a compression strut formation on the first-story in-
fill wall. The separation between the RC frame and the second-
story infill started at 0.14% RDR, which shows the contribution
of the second-story infill to the lateral response of the frame. There
was an accumulation of flexural cracks on the first-story columns
after 0.20% RDR. Also, the first shear cracks were observed at the
first-story beam–column joints at this lateral drift level. At a RDR
of 0.60%, the diagonal cracks formed on the first-story infill. This
was followed by a crushing of the first-story infill wall at the corner
regions. The corner crushing and separation at the frame–infill
boundary became critical after 1.74% RDR. This designated the
end of the beneficial contribution of the infill walls to the overall
lateral frame response. After this stage, the BF alone resisted the

© ASCE 04015098-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Strengthening scheme applied using SPSWs: (a) strengthening scheme; (b) anchorage details

Fig. 4. Test setup

increased lateral displacement demands, which resulted in signifi-
cant shear cracks on the first-story columns. The severity of the
shear cracks increased in the vicinity of the gaps that had been
caused by corner crushing (i.e., similar to a short column forma-
tion). The cover concrete fell off and longitudinal column bars
buckled at the bottom of the first-story columns at the end of the
test (i.e., between 2.32 and 2.90% RDR). The crack condition of
the NSIF specimen is given in Fig. 6(a).
The first cracks were of a flexural type in the NSIF-W specimen
and formed on the first-story columns at 0.13% RDR. The separa-
tion at the frame–infill boundary started immediately after this lat-
eral drift level. The shear cracks at the first-story beam–column
joints and diagonal cracks on the first-story infill occurred respec-
tively at around 0.40 and 0.50% RDR in the NSIF-W specimen.
The damage at the corners of the first-story infill due to crushing
became significant after a RDR of 1.20%. After the wall fell at the
corners at approximately 2.30% RDR, the wide shear cracks on
the first-story columns designated the failure state of the frame at
3.50% RDR.
At the early loading cycles of the SPIF specimen, the formation
of tension fields was observed by a curling of the steel plate along
the diagonal direction. The inclination angle of the tension fields
(i.e., principal tensile axis) was monitored to be between 40 and 45°
with respect to the horizontal axis. The flexural cracks initiated at a
RDR of 0.20% on the first-story columns. The RC frame experi-
enced only slight flexural cracking on the first-story columns and
shear cracking at the vicinity of the beam–column joints up to
0.75% RDR. The increase in the tension field forces on the steel
plate was obvious during this stage. After 1.74% RDR, the columns
could not bear the forces transferred by the tension fields of the
steel plate and experienced serious shear cracking at the first story.
The spall of cover concrete and buckling of the underlying column
longitudinal bars resulted in significant deterioration in the lateral
frame response between 2.30 and 4.00% RDR.

© ASCE 04015098-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Hysteretic base shear versus roof displacement curves: (a) BF; (b) NSIF; (c) NSIF-W; (d) SPIF; (e) SPIF-W
In the SPIF-W specimen, the tension field formation started at
early stages of loading as in the SPIF specimen. However, the in-
clination angle of the tension fields was approximately between 45
and 53°, which was steeper around the window opening. Owing to
stress concentrations at the corners of the window openings, the
steel plate started to tear off at these regions at a RDR of approx-
imately 0.90%. The crushing of the HCT infill wall was observed in
the vicinity of the window opening after 1.20% RDR as in the
NSIF-W specimen. This was followed by shear cracks at the upper
regions of the first-story columns. The damage due to these shear
cracks became severe under increased tensile forces transmitted
by the steel plate through tension fields after 1.74% RDR. This
damage led to the crushing of the cover concrete of the columns
and buckling of the underlying longitudinal bars toward the end
of the test.
Discussion of Test Results
The test results are discussed in terms of the initial stiffness, ulti-
mate lateral strength, ductility, and energy dissipation characteris-
tics of the specimens. The envelope curves of the test frames are
constituted by following the ultimate points of the hysteretic base
shear versus the roof displacement curves. These envelope curves
are presented in Fig. 7. Some of the basic mechanical properties
of specimens that are used for the purposes of discussion are ob-
tained by means of a bilinear approximation of the envelope curves.
© ASCE 04015098-5
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098
The procedure applied for the bilinearization, which depends on an
equal area concept, is shown in Fig. 8.
The ultimate lateral load capacities of the specimens (V max ) are
presented in Table 2. The initial stiffness (K) is assumed to be the
slope of the line that connects 10% of the ultimate load capacity to
the origin of the envelope curve in the ascending portion. The dis-
placement ductility is taken as the ratio between the displacement
corresponding to a 15% decrease in the ultimate load capacity
(Δ85 ) and the yield displacement (Δy ), illustrated in Fig. 8. The
resulting initial stiffness (K) and displacement ductility (Δ85 =Δy )
values are shown in Table 2. The energy dissipation characteristics
of the test frames, which are represented by the area under the hys-
teretic curves in each loading cycle, are calculated in a cumulative
manner. These cumulative dissipated energy values are plotted
in Fig. 9 with respect to the RDR. The total amount of dissipated
energy is also presented in Table 2. To obtain comparable results,
the loading cycles up to the same RDR limit value (i.e., 3%) was
considered in the calculation of dissipated energy values.
The increase in the ultimate lateral load capacity (V max ) due
to the addition of the infill walls without any openings (i.e., full
infill walls) in the NSIF specimen in comparison to the BF was
92%. However, this ratio was 56% in the NSIF-W specimen with
respect to the BF specimen. The existence of window openings
may prevent a proper compression strut formation, which may be
attributed to the increase in the lateral load capacity in the early
stages of the hysteretic response. Therefore, the lateral load capacity
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Damage pattern of specimens: (a) NSIF; (b) NSIF-W; (c) SPIF; (d) SPIF-W

Fig. 8. Illustration of bilinear approximation of envelope curves

Fig. 7. Base shear versus roof displacement envelope curves

specimen (i.e., 45–53°) was steeper with respect to those of SPIF

was 1.23 times higher in the NSIF specimen when compared with
NSIF-W. The strengthening applied using SPSWs resulted in a sig-
nificant further increase in the load capacity. The lateral load capac-
ity of the SPIF specimen was 3.14 times that of NSIF. This ratio
was 2.56 in the case of SPIF-W with respect to NSIF-W. On the
other hand, the lateral strength of SPIF was 1.51 times higher than
that of SPIF-W. Thus, one may conclude that the lateral strength
difference due to window openings becomes even more critical in
the case of strengthened specimens. As mentioned in the previous
section, the inclination angle of the tension fields in the SPIF-W
(i.e., 40–45°). This implies that the lateral contribution of the tensile
force carried by the steel plates may decrease with the existence of
openings. In addition, local failures due to stress concentrations at
the corners of the window openings in SPIF-W may have other
adverse effects on the efficiency of the applied strengthening.
As expected, there was a considerable increase in the initial
stiffness (K) due to the addition of infill walls. The initial stiffness
values of the NSIF and NSIF-W specimens were respectively 11.5
and 10.7 times that of the reference BF. Apparently, there is no
significant effect of infill openings in the initial elastic response of
the frames (i.e., when the damage to the infill walls is not critical).

© ASCE 04015098-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098

 Table 2. Test Results of the Specimens
Vy V max Δy Δ85 K Δ85 =Δy Total dissipated
Specimen Specification (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN=mm) (−) energy (kN · m)
BF Bare frame 28.0 29.6 19.0 70.0 2.7 3.7 3.9
NSIF Nonstrengthened infilled frame 52.0 56.7 2.5 25.0 45.0 10.0 9.2
NSIF-W Nonstrengthened infilled frame with window openings 41.5 46.2 4.3 16.0 29.0 3.7 5.7
SPIF Steel plate infilled frame 164.0 178.1 9.5 52.0 23.6 6.2 31.6
SPIF-W Steel plate infilled frame with window openings 110.0 118.1 9.0 28.0 21.2 3.1 17.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Treatment in these critical regions may provide a superior seismic

response in the case of SPSW application.

Conclusions

The significant outcomes of the experimental study where SPSWs

Fig. 9. Cumulative dissipated energy versus roof drift ratio curves of
specimens
There was an approximately 20% decrease in the initial stiffness of
both strengthened frames SPIF and SPIF-W in comparison to the
nonstrengthened NSIF and NSIF-W specimens, respectively.
The displacement ductility (Δ85 =Δy ) of the NSIF specimen
was approximately 2.4 times higher than the ductility of the BF.
However, there was no change in the displacement ductility of
the NSIF-W specimen with respect to the BF. This was most likely
due to the stress concentrations at the corners of the window open-
ings and the resulting damage to the infill after the ultimate load
level. The ductility ratio of specimens SPIF to NSIF and SPIF-W
to NSIF-W were 0.62 and 0.84, respectively. The decrease in the
ductility of strengthened specimens with respect to those of non-
strengthened frames with infill walls may be related to the exces-
sive damage experienced in the vicinity of the beam–column joints.
This shear-dominated failure in these regions occurred as a result
of increased demands due to the tension field forces of SPSWs.
Therefore, further treatment may be necessary in terms of rehabili-
tating column plastic hinge regions when SPSWs are used for
strengthening RC frames. The shear capacity of the existing col-
umns is believed to be the key parameter in this decision.
The energy dissipation capacity increased by 2.36 and 1.46
times in the cases of the NSIF and NSIF-W frames, respectively,
in comparison to the BF (Table 2 and Fig. 9). Again, it may be
concluded that the energy dissipated in NSIF was 61% greater than
that of NSIF-W with window openings. The further increment in
the energy dissipation capacity of SPIF with respect to NSIF was
approximately 243%. In the case of a strengthened frame with win-
dow openings (SPIF-W), the increment of the total dissipated en-
ergy was 201% with respect to the companion nonstrengthened
frame (NSIF-W). The energy dissipation capacity attained by this
strengthening method was remarkable (Fig. 9), in spite of the
damage to the weak columns caused by the tension field forces.
are used for seismic strengthening of deficient RC frames are sum-
marized in what follows. In addition to the benefits of this strength-
ening methodology, the possible adverse effects and precautionary
measures are also presented.
• Largely as a result of the addition of infill walls, the lateral load
capacities of the NSIF and NSIF-W specimens came to be, re-
spectively, 92 and 56% higher than that of the BF. The pos-
sible negative effect of window openings on the formation of
a proper compression strut may explain the lower load capacity
increment.
• The applied strengthening led to superior increments in the
lateral load capacity of specimens SPIF and SPIF-W compared
to NSIF and NSIF-W, respectively. Again, the load capacity in-
crement was lower in the case of strengthened specimens with
window openings. This may be attributed to the effect of open-
ings on the inclination angle of tension field forces and stress
concentrations at the corners of openings on SPSWs.
• The initial lateral stiffness of the frames with infill walls in-
creased considerably in comparison to the BF. This increase
does not seem to have been affected by the presence of openings
on the infill walls.
• The applied strengthening with SPSWs did not result in a sig-
nificant alteration in the initial stiffness of the RC frames.
• The displacement ductility of the NSIF specimen with full infill
walls was 2.4 times higher than that of the BF. However, such an
enhancement was not observed in the case of NSIF-W with
openings on the infill wall.
• The displacement ductilities of SPIF and SPIF-W were 38% and
16% lower than those of NSIF and NSIF-W, respectively. This
decrease in ductility may be a consequence of the shear failure
in the vicinity of the beam–column joints caused by the in-
creased shear demand due to tension field forces of the SPSWs.
The shear capacity of the columns and beam–column joints
should also be increased under this strengthening methodology,
if it is not already sufficient.
• The total energy dissipated by the NSIF and NSIF-W specimens
was 2.36 and 1.46 times that of the BF, respectively. The adverse
effect of window openings was again considerable in terms of
energy dissipation capacity. The applied strengthening led to a
significant increase in the energy dissipation capacity, which
was 243% in the case of a full infilled RC frame and 201% in
the case of a frame having window openings.
It may be stated that the strengthening methodology proposed in
this study may provide significant lateral load and energy dissipa-
tion capacity increments for RC frames. Therefore, it may be used
as an efficient rehabilitation method for deficient RC frame—type
buildings; it has been used successfully in the case of steel frames.

© ASCE 04015098-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098

 The proposed method does not require heavy construction work,
such as the replacement of masonry infill walls or molding and
pouring of concrete, as is necessary when adding concrete shear
walls. Therefore, the proposed method may reduce construction
time and provide a more economical strengthening solution alter-
native. In addition, the application of SPSWs to infill walls on the
outer facade may obviate the need for construction work inside
buildings. In certain cases where SPSWs must be used on infill
walls with window openings, the improvement achieved in terms
of seismic response may be less pronounced compared to their
application without openings. However, the improvement should
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
still be considerable compared to a deficient frame response.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Prof. Dr. Baris Binici for his valuable
contributions.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08 and ACI
318R-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
Akın, E., Canbay, E., Binici, B., and Özcebe, G. (2011). “Testing and
analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames strengthened with CFRP
reinforcement.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 30(19), 1605–1620.
Akın, E., Özcebe, G., Canbay, E., and Binici, B. (2014). “Numerical study
on CFRP strengthening of reinforced concrete frames with masonry
infill walls.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000426, 04013034.
Almusallam, T. H., and Al-Salloum, Y. A. (2007). “Behavior of FRP
strengthened infill walls under in-plane seismic loading.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:3(308), 308–318.
Arslan, M. H., and Korkmaz, H. H. (2007). “What is to be learned from
damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during recent earth-
quakes in Turkey?” Eng. Fail. Anal., 14(1), 1–22.
Balik, F. S. (2012). “Window opening effects in strengthening of rc frames
with inadequate earthquake performance by using RC shear wall.”
M.Sc. thesis, Selcuk Univ., Natural and Applied Sciences Institute,
Konya, Turkey.
Baran, M., and Tankut, T. (2011). “Experimental study on seismic strength-
ening of reinforced concrete frames by precast concrete panels.” ACI
Struct. J., 108(2), 227–237.
© ASCE 04015098-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04015098
Caccese, V., Elgaaly, M., and Chen, R. (1993). “Experimental study on thin
steel-plate shear walls under cyclic load.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:2(573), 573–587.
Choi, I. R., and Park, H. G. (2009). “Steel plate shear walls with various
infill plate designs.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)
135:7(785), 785–796.
Choi, I. R., and Park, H. G. (2011). “Cyclic loading test for reinforced con-
crete frame with thin steel infill plate.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000317, 654–664.
CSA(Canadian Standards Association). (1994). “Limit states design of
steel structures.” CAN/CSA-S16.1-M94, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
Diri, E. (2015). “Strengthening of nonductile RC frames with thin steel
plate shear walls.” M.Sc. thesis, Selcuk Univ., Natural and Applied
Sciences Institute, Konya, Turkey.
Driver, R. G., Kulak, G. L., Kennedy, D. J. L., and Elwi, A. E. (1998).
“Cyclic test of four-story steel plate shear wall.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:2(112), 112–120.
Korkmaz, S. Z. (2015). “Observations on the Van earthquake and structural
failures.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509
.0000456, 1–25.
Lubell, A. S., Prion, H. G. L., Ventura, C. E., and Rezai, M. (2000).
“Unstiffened steel plate shear wall performance under cyclic loading.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(453), 453–460.
Luccioni, B., and Rougier, V. C. (2011). “In-plane retrofitting of masonry
panels with fibre reinforced composite materials.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 25(4), 1772–1788.
Ozcebe, G., et al. (2006). “Analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames
strengthened with FRP’s.” Retrofitting of Concrete Structures by Exter-
nally Bonded FRP’s, FIB, Technical Rep., International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland, 167–197.
Ozkok, M., Ozcelik, R., and Binici, B. (2009). “Performance comparisons
of external strengthening methods for deficient RC frames.” Proc.,
ACI and SEI Conf. on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing
Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 926–936.
Saatcioglu, M., Serrato, F., and Foo, S. (2005). “Seismic performance of
masonry infill walls retrofitted with CFRP sheets.” Proc., 7th Int. Symp.
on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI,
341–354.
Sevil, T., Baran, M., Bilir, T., and Canbay, E. (2011). “Use of steel fiber
reinforced mortar for seismic strengthening.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
25(2), 892–899.
Turkish Earthquake Code. (2007). “Turkish code for buildings in seismic
zones.” Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 159.
Unal, A. (2012). “Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames not designed
according to TDY 2007 with out of plane external shear wall.” M.Sc.
thesis, Selcuk Univ., Natural and Applied Sciences Institute, Konya,
Turkey.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.