1998 JEE Elnashai Pinho

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/239794310
Repair and retroﬁtting of RC walls using selective techniques
Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · October 1998

DOI: 10.1080/13632469809350334
CITATIONS READS
51 755
2 authors:
Amr S. Elnashai Rui Pinho

University of Houston University of Pavia
311 PUBLICATIONS 8,625 CITATIONS 198 PUBLICATIONS 5,339 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Croatian Science Foundation project IP-06-2016-5325: Seismic base isolation of a building by using natural materials - shake table testing and numerical modeling View
project
CA'REDIVIVUS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rui Pinho on 16 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol. 2, No. 4 (1998) 525–568
c Imperial College Press
REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF RC WALLS

USING SELECTIVE TECHNIQUES
A. S. ELNASHAI and R. PINHO

Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Section, Imperial College
Imperial College Road, London SW7 2BU, UK
Received 16 December 1997

Revised 26 January 1998
Accepted 2 February 1998
In the context of capacity design philosophy, where a desired failure mode exhibiting
adequate levels of energy absorption capacity is envisaged, control must be exercised
on the member behaviour to safeguard the achievement of the target overall response.
Therefore, local repair and retrofitting methods that result in unquantifiable effects on
seismic response characteristics should be re-assessed. In contrast, techniques to affect,
in a controlled and easy-to-monitor fashion, individual design response parameters, i.e.
stiffness, strength and ductility, may provide a new framework for repair and retrofitting
earthquake-damaged structures to mirror ‘capacity design’ principles used for new struc-
tures. Such an approach is discussed in this paper and possible scenarios where selective
intervention may be required are identified. A number of tests on RC walls are also
reviewed to confirm the feasibility of the proposed intervention techniques. Finally, ex-
tensive parametric studies are carried out, using verified analytical models, leading to
the derivation of selective re-design expressions and guidelines.
Keywords: selective, repair, retrofitting, walls, capacity re-design, RC structures
1. Introduction
Conventionally, the philosophy behind repair/retrofitting schemes has been one of
over-strengthening. However, in the light of modern ‘capacity design’ concepts used
in seismic codes in which a significant role is assumed by the control of the overall
response of RC structures, such an approach can be counter-productive. Structures
designed to conform to a particular failure mode rely heavily on individual design
response parameters of its members, such as stiffness and strength in shear and
flexure, as well as ductility. Accordingly, repair or retrofitting methods which will
affect these characteristics should consider not only the local but also the global
effects of the intervention. In fact, local over-strengthening of individual members
may cause stiffness irregularities or disturb the sequence of plastic hinge formation,
thus jeopardising the whole retrofitting process.
Moreover, several recent studies [Moehle, 1992; Calvi and Pavese, 1995; Kowal-
sky et al., 1995] have introduced the concept of ‘displacement-based design’ as a
525
526 A. S. Elnashai & R. Pinho
logical and rational alternative to the currently used ‘force-based design’ method-
ology. In this new approach, a structure is designed to meet a target deformation
criterion whilst strength and stiffness become end-products of the design procedure.
Since capacity design requires control on the deformational demand and supply at
dissipative zones, it blends perfectly with displacement- (or more generally,
deformation-) based design. Such an approach to seismic design clearly requires
a higher level of control over the local behaviour of members and their global effect
on the seismic response of a structure.
Therefore, methods of structural intervention, especially of RC structures, have
to address these new requirements of local deformational behaviour control by pro-
viding tools for affecting individual design response parameters: stiffness, strength
and ductility. This would allow the fine-tuning of the local response characteristics
in favour of a desired global performance, enabling tighter control of the behaviour
and failure modes of RC structures, thus leading to a more rational assessment and
repair/retrofitting solution.
The three parameters governing displacement-based design (DBD) are period,
equivalent damping and global displacement. Since the period in DBD is the se-
cant value at the target displacement, it becomes a function of the initial stiffness,
strength and maximum displacement. The equivalent damping is a function of the
level of ductility, for it is mainly contributed to by hysteretic energy dissipation. If
separate control of stiffness, strength and ductility is afforded to the designer (in
a displacement-based assessment leading to repair/retrofitting design), then more
than one solution to achieve the target DBD objective is availed of. Hence, selective
intervention blends well with displacement-based assessment and re-design.
Such intervention philosophy is conceptually described in Fig. 1. The original
structure may have a ratio between capacity (∆u ) and demand (∆d ) displacements
that does not meet the target safety requirements. The three intervention scenar-
ios present different solutions to address such a situation, either by targeting the
structure initial stiffness (Ki ), its strength (Fy ) or ductility (µ). Which solution is
more economical and feasible will depend on the case under consideration, keeping
in mind both the structure characteristics and the displacement spectrum. Whilst
an increase in the level of equivalent damping (ξ) will decrease the displacement
demand, changes in the effective period of vibration of the structure (Tef f ) may
or may not be beneficial depending on the spectrum shape. It is clear, though,
that this view provides more degrees of freedom for the designers of intervention
schemes.
In this paper, tests performed at Imperial College [Elnashai and Salama, 1992]
to investigate the feasibility of affecting one response parameter with little or
no effect on others are re-assessed. An analytical model is assembled to repre-
sent the experimentally-verified intervention mechanisms for stiffness-, strength-
and ductility-only scenarios. The model realism is confirmed by comparison with
the available test data and further employed in a parametric investigation. Sim-
ple design-oriented expressions are derived, then analytically tested, to provide
Repair and Retrofitting of RC Walls Using Selective Techniques 527
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 1. Variation in DBD design parameters due to selective intervention: (a) stiffness; (b) strength;
and (c) ductility.
relationships between the physical characteristics of the intervention and the per-
centage effect on the target response parameter. Finally, worked numerical examples
are given to demonstrate the potential for application of the derived expressions.
2. Review of Recent Work on Repair and Retrofitting of

RC Structures
There is very considerable literature on general repair and strengthening methods
for RC structures, many of which are relevant to earthquake-related issues. For
example, Japanese work on this subject is summarised up to 1986 by the Japanese
Ministry of Construction [PWRI, 1986]. Whole conference proceedings have also
been dedicated to this important topic [UJCEERP, 1981] and, more recently, spe-
cial issues of journals have focused on repair techniques [EERI, 1996]. A review of
general repair and strengthening techniques, however, falls beyond the scope of this
paper. Consequently, only work aimed at affecting selected response parameters,
whilst intentionally avoiding affecting others, is cited. These focus on the seis-
mic upgrading of reinforced concrete columns by selectively affecting their ductility
capacity.
Aboutaha et al. [1996] investigated the effectiveness of thin rectangular steel
jackets for seismic strengthening of large rectangular non-ductile reinforced con-
crete columns. Tested specimens represented typical building columns designed
and constructed in the 1960s in the United Sates. These were typically deficient in
the level of concrete confinement and had inadequate lap splices in the longitudinal
reinforcement. Different configurations of 6.3 mm thick steel jackets were applied
with and without adhesive anchor bolts to seven full-scale specimens subjected to
cyclic loading. The test results show significant increase in the ductility of the re-
inforced concrete members, whilst minimum change in the initial stiffness of the
members was observed. The ductile flexure-dominated response of the retrofitted
models enabled their full flexural capacity to be developed, hence a significant in-
crease in strength was also recorded.
Aviles et al. [1996] conducted a similar set of experiments on 18 column spec-
imens. Some of the models were deficient in the level of concrete confinement at
the foundation level. These were retrofitted with 1.2 mm thick steel plate wrapping
combined with anchor bolts. The effects of such interventions were visible only in
the increase of deformation capacity of the specimens, whilst no change in either
stiffness or strength was verified.
Saadatmanesh et al. [1997] carried out experimental work on the application
of high-strength fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) composites straps to retrofit rectan-
gular bridge columns. Five 1/5-scale specimens were tested under reversed cyclic
loading. Both oval and rectangular shapes were used, and active confinement was
applied in one of the specimens by means of pressure injection of epoxy resin. The
increase in the level of ductility of the upgraded models is clearly shown in this
work. Shear failure was avoided, thus enabling full attainment of the initial flexural
capacity of the members.
Ghobarah et al. [1998] tested three 1/3-scale columns to investigate the effec-
tiveness of corrugated steel jacketing in the rehabilitation of reinforced concrete
columns. The jackets were constructed from commercially available corrugated
steel sheets and the gaps between the concrete and the steel jacket were filled with
grout to provide continuity between the two elements. Furthermore, the undulated
shape exhibits an out-of-plane stiffness which increases its efficiency in providing
external passive confinement to the rehabilitated members. These exhibited a sig-
nificant increase in deformation capacity, without any significant change in their
initial stiffness.
The above research shows excellent results in the increase of ductility of re-
inforced concrete columns. Since a gap is provided between the steel/composite
jackets and the foundation, no change in the original flexural capacity of the mem-
ber is introduced. Similarly, significant modifications in the stiffness of the columns
are prevented by the use of thin steel plates or high-strength composite materials.
The latter will induce changes in initial stiffness up to a maximum of 5% as opposed
to a 75% change if conventional concrete jacketing is used [Priestley et al., 1996].
3. Design Scenarios Requiring Selective Intervention

3.1. Stiffness-only scenarios
3.1.1. Repair of lightly damaged structures
RC structures subjected to small earthquakes may suffer significant stiffness reduc-
tion due to heavy cracking of concrete members. However, if concrete crushing and
buckling of reinforcement bars do not occur, the flexural strength of the members
will not necessarily be adversely affected. Hence, an effective intervention targeting

stiffness of cracked members reinstatement without changing their strength is the
more economical and logical approach.
For such situations, epoxy resin injection is widely used. Yet the end result of
such intervention is extremely difficult to forecast and control, since it is highly
dependent on the workmanship, the viscosity of the applied epoxy, the injection
pressure and the crack width and configuration. The latter is particularly un-
predictable, especially in the case of an earthquake-damaged wall where a complex
crack configuration has developed due to the loading characteristics and dimensions
of the member. Consequently, the degree of epoxy mortar penetration is uncertain
and the level of stiffness reinstatement becomes doubtful.
This technique was tested by Elnashai and Salama [1992] at Imperial College,
amongst others, in a scaled wall subjected to severe cyclic loading. The stiffness
vs. maximum cyclic displacement plots extracted from this experiment (Fig. 2)
show that even under laboratory conditions, complete reinstatement of the initial
stiffness of the tested specimen was not achieved due to the difficulty in making
the epoxy resin penetrate cracks with width less than 0.05 mm (the height of the
model was 1.2 m, thus the results are only satisfactory beyond 1% drift). The use
of the stiffness-only selective repair technique, described ahead, will overcome such
difficulties.
20.0
17.5
15.0
Stiffness (kN/mm)
Intact
12.5
Repaired
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 2. Experimental results of intact and epoxy resin repaired walls [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
3.1.2. Correction of stiffness irregularities

A structure may have an irregular stiffness distribution due to incorrect design ap-
proach, architectural constraints or to the use of a more lenient code at the time of
its construction. To upgrade such a structure in order to improve its behaviour or
to make it comply with new modern code design criteria, a selective intervention
that will enable the designer to concentrate uniquely on the parameter in question
is required. Otherwise, if repair or retrofitting methods which affect not only the
stiffness of the members but also their flexural capacity are applied, then a com-
plete structural redesign is needed, resulting in a more costly and time-consuming
solution.
3.2. Strength-only scenarios

3.2.1. Capacity re-design
New code design philosophy requirements or an increase in seismic loads can lead to
a requirement for structural upgrading. If the structure had been designed according
to conventional direct design principles, then altering the sequence of plastic hinge
formation to achieve a predetermined failure mode (in harmony with the capacity
design concept) becomes imperative. This will require an increase in the strength
of strategically located members. However, if the serviceability limit states are
still met with the existing stiffness distribution, an increase in this parameter is
not required. Furthermore, if the stiffness distribution is in accordance with code
prerequisites, changes could result in code violation. Thus full dynamic analysis
and redesign would be required.
It is, therefore, clear that for such situations a selective intervention altering
only the strength of the members, without affecting their stiffness, is required.
3.2.2. Strength eccentricity

Adverse torsional effects caused by stiffness eccentricity are widely known and rel-
atively well addressed in seismic codes, where they are considered in simplified
approaches whenever possible. In contrast, strength eccentricity is not mentioned.
However, in a study by Xian [1992], it was shown that the inelastic response
is indeed altered by this factor, resulting in an increase in ductility demand. Such
a situation may arise, for instance, in a dual structural system, where in order to
achieve stiffness symmetry, structural walls are used to balance the eccentric stiffness
distribution. Since the relationship between strength and stiffness of both systems
is by no means similar, even though their relative stiffnesses are in equilibrium, the
strength distribution may be eccentric. Only a selective strength-only intervention
can be effective in addressing such deficiency.
3.2.3. Variability in materials

The hazardous effects of variability in material properties are largely acknowledged,
particularly in the case where a pre-defined sequence of plastic hinge formation is
required to advance the design process. However, even in more recent seismic codes,
very little guidance on ways of controlling such effects is available. In the case of steel
yield strength, the effects of its variability can be extremely adverse, as highlighted
Table 1. Effect of material variability on response pa-

rameters of a RC frame [Alexandrou, 1991].
Displacement Energy Behaviour

Ductility Absorption Factor
µd kNm ‘q’
Max. 10.11 73.05 5.50

Min. 6.57 24.89 3.75
% change 54% 192% 47%
in a study carried out by Alexandrou [1991] on the global behaviour of RC frames

subjected to seismic loading. In Table 1, the results from a study on a two-storey
frame are presented. The steel yield was varied between practical limits and the
ensuing population of nominally identical frames was analysed.
It can be observed that although the variations of yield strength correspond to
realistic values, the effects of this factor on the global behaviour of the structure are
critical, resulting in a variation of 47% in q factor, defined as the ratio between the
linear elastic and non-linear response spectra. In such scenarios, only the strength of
some critical members needs to be affected so as to ensure the structural behaviour
envisaged at the initial design stage is reinstated. Therefore, a selective intervention
targeting exclusively on strength enhancement should be applied.
3.3. Ductility-only scenarios

This is probably the most common situation where selective intervention is required.
Problems with lack of ductility supply may arise if the members are poorly detailed
due to inappropriate design, inadequate construction or lack of sufficient code re-
quirements, as was the case of old building regulations. The effects of such deficiency
can be extremely hazardous since ductility plays a critical role in guaranteeing that
a structure can deform without significant loss of strength, thus avoiding collapse.
Traditionally, for such cases, the use of concrete jacketing has proved to be a
very popular solution due to the ease of application and comparatively low cost.
However, these retrofitting schemes are normally applied only at the lower floors
of a building, where higher levels of ductility demand are expected, thus causing
changes in the global behaviour of the structure that can be extremely disadvanta-
geous. For example, a 200 × 1000 mm wall with a 100 mm concrete jacket (mini-
mum required thickness for practical purposes) will have over 250% gain in elastic
stiffness. Consequently, the structure will now attract higher seismic loads which
the unstrengthened storeys will not withstand. Moreover, changing stiffness dis-
tribution in elevation may cause an increase in higher modes contribution to the
deformed shape, making design according to simplified static analysis totally inade-
quate. Therefore, in the event of an earthquake, the retrofitted structure may suffer
severe damage in its upper storeys, or even total collapse, as already observed in
many post-earthquake field expeditions.
For such design scenarios, where only lack of member ductility needs to be
addressed, the most effective and straightforward way of intervening is through a
selective approach that will controllably affect the defective parameter alone.
4. Feasibility of Selective Intervention Methods

The previous section emphasised the necessity for developing selective assessment
and intervention techniques which allow the application of the new capacity design
methodology in the repair and retrofitting of RC structures. Conceptually, the
principles of such intervention philosophy can be applied to any type of structural
member. However, its employment in the repair and retrofitting of vertical members
assumes particular importance in the light of current seismic design practice.
The initial development of selective intervention techniques carried out by
Elnashai [1992] targeted its application to structural walls. The latter have be-
come increasingly popular in the past thirty years, since its use in the design of
earthquake-resistant high-rise buildings will prevent overdesign of the columns due
to drift control, thus leading to more economical solutions generally. Nevertheless,
the employment of the proposed schemes to repair and retrofitting of columns is
also feasible, although such study is not covered in the present work.
4.1. Experimental programme

In order to assess the feasibility of the proposed intervention schemes, several scaled
models were tested at Imperial College under cyclic loading conditions by Elnashai
and Salama [1992]. The tests are at a scale of approximately 1 : 2.5 and prototype
steel and concrete could be used. In Fig. 3, the dimensions and reinforcement
detailing of a typical specimen are described, together with the material properties
obtained through tests carried out in parallel with the wall-testing programme.
Fig. 3. Elevation and cross-section of a typical model.

Selective techniques were applied both as repair to previously damaged walls,

and as retrofitting in intact walls. The models were then tested, until collapse,
under severe cyclic loading with at least two cycles at each level of displacement,
expressed as multiples of the yield displacement.
Discussion of results and analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed interven-
tion schemes constitute the main objectives of this presentation, hence only results
relevant to these aims are covered. Nevertheless, an in-depth discussion of the tests
results regarding other topics studied in this experimental programme, together
with a detailed description of the test set-up and the design and construction of the
models can be found elsewhere [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
4.2. Stiffness-only intervention

Increase in stiffness without change in strength can be obtained through the use of
External Bonded Steel Plates (EBSP) glued to the wall with epoxy mortars (Fig. 4).
The plates should span at least the expected flexural plastic hinge length (lp ) or
the heavily cracked zone for the cases of retrofitting and repair, respectively.
Steel Plates
Discontinuity gap
Fig. 4. Stiffness-only intervention - tested specimen [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
A minimum gap between the plates and the foundation or loading beam needs to
be imposed in order to avoid plate bearing due to flexural deformation. Since there
is no continuity between the plates and the loading beam or foundation, the critical
section remains the same, hence the flexural capacity is unaltered. Furthermore,
the increase in the level of stiffness is totally controlled by the position of the plates,
their height, width and thickness, as demonstrated later.
The photograph of the specimen tested at Imperial College (shown in Fig. 4),
corresponds to a model repaired with 3.6 mm steel plates after being previously
damaged through cyclic loading with limited post-yielding deformation. The cor-
responding experimental results indicate that, unlike epoxy resin injection, the use
of EBSP enables full reinstatement of the initial stiffness of damaged walls (Fig. 5).
Moreover, steel plate adhesion is often used in repair and strengthening following
earthquakes, hence this scheme is practical.
20.0
17.5
15.0
Stiffness (kN/mm)
12.5
Intact
10.0
Repaired
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Experimental results of intact and selectively repaired walls [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
The presence of the steel plates will evidently affect the spread of inelasticity,
hence the relationship between local and global ductility. This can be overcome by
using plates with slits and/or thin (yielding) plates, to avail the development of a
plastic hinge along the height. This issue needs further investigation.
4.3. Strength-only intervention

Two possible ways of achieving an increase in strength without affecting stiffness are
by the addition of External Unbonded Reinforcement Bars (EURB) or of External
Unbonded Steel Plates (EUSP) to the walls, in conjunction with an Interaction
Delay Mechanism (IDM). These are illustrated in Fig. 6.
When loaded horizontally, the wall will undergo vertical elongation (due to rota-
tion and cracking) which will axially extend the external re-bars or steel plates. A
delay mechanism is designed such that the added bars or plates will only contribute
to the flexural capacity after an initial displacement is exceeded. Hence, if this
corresponds to yielding of the wall, for instance, then the wall will have its pre-yield
behaviour unaltered.
As for the compression, there is no contribution from the external mechanisms,

since the associated vertical displacements are normally considerably smaller than
the gap. Nevertheless, if this tolerance is exceeded and compressive contact occurs,
both the EURB and EUSP will buckle and their strength contribution can thus be
neglected.
Slotted
Steel Plate
Mechanical
Couplers
Gusset Plates
External
Re-bars
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Strength-only intervention - tested specimens: (a) EURB; (b) EUSP [Elnashai and Salama,
1992].
In the first scheme, illustrated in Fig. 6(a), steel bars are fixed to the top and
bottom beams and a mechanical coupler with an initial slack is used to allow for
a tolerance in displacement, beyond which the bars effectively contribute to the
flexural strength of the wall. The bars were fixed to the foundation beam using
high-strength epoxy patching mortar and to the top loading beam by means of a
steel assembly fixed to the concrete wall.
In the second scheme, shown in Fig. 6(b), steel plates are bolted to the wall
by steel angles and gusset plates. The IDM was achieved through the inclusion of
slotted holes at the gusset plates located on the loading beam, which allowed the
bolts to travel freely within the designed groove before bearing on the steel plate.
Hence, additional resistance will only be provided after the designed displacement
gap is exhausted.
The level of strength increase can be easily controlled by the area and posi-
tion of the steel plates or re-bars. Moreover, the displacement tolerance used in
the delay mechanism can also be manipulated to provide the designer with the
possibility of choosing the ideal point from which the external mechanism should
start contributing to the flexural strength. This is demonstrated in subsequent
sections of the present paper.
The force vs. maximum cyclic displacement plot resulting from the test of the
scheme presented in Fig. 6(b) is shown in Fig. 7, where it is compared with the
behaviour of the reference model. The point where the external plates start in-
teracting with the wall is clearly visible, as was intentionally designed. The in-
crease in the specimen strength is also evident, whilst its initial stiffness remains
unaltered.
100
80
60
40
20
Force (kN)
0
Strengthened
-20
Original
-40
-60
-80
-100
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 7. Experimental results of original and selectively strengthened walls [Elnashai and Salama,
1992].
This scheme can be successfully applied in practice by fixing the external bars
or plates to the top and bottom slabs. These should then be encased in a ductile
material or a plastic duct that will protect the steel from corrosion, provide fire
protection and allow for the free movement of the delay mechanism. Furthermore,
couplers are frequently used as an effective means of splicing reinforcement bars,
hence the EURB are only one step ahead of currently applied practice. Also, there
may be other more practical means of achieving the same end, e.g. by cutting bars
of longer length than required for immediate load transfer.
Finally, it is worth noting that this intervention can only be successful if the
wall has sufficient capacity to withstand the increased demand on both shear and
concrete compression triggered by the strengthening scheme. This issue is further
analysed later in this paper.
4.4. Ductility-only intervention

In this design scenario, U-shaped External Confinement Steel Plates (ECSP) may
be added to the area where additional ductility is required. These should be glued to
the wall by means of epoxy resin or any other material that will ensure a monolithic
interaction between the two elements. To guarantee an effective confinement system,
the fourth (open) side of the plates needs to be closed using a prestressed bolt
(Fig. 8).
Due to the space between plates, crack arrest is minimised hence stiffness is not
altered. Also, since there is no continuity between the plates and foundation, no
increase in strength is provided. Moreover, it is well established that the increase
in concrete strength due to confinement has a small effect on flexural capacity,
especially for low levels of axial force, as in the case of structural walls.
U-Shaped
Steel Plates
Fixing
Bolts
Fig. 8. Ductility-only intervention - tested specimen [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
This technique was experimentally tested on a scaled wall initially designed and
built without any confinement reinforcement (Fig. 8). The 3.6 mm thick ECSP were
designed to provide the specimen with the same ductility capacity of an identical
model confined with internal steel hoops. Both walls were subjected to similar cyclic
loading regime until failure. The results from these two experiments are compared
in Fig. 9, where it can be seen that the target ductility level was achieved with the
application of the external plates, without any significant changes in either stiffness
or strength.
80
60
40
20
Force (kN)
0
External Confinement
-20
Internal Confinement
-40
-60
-80
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 9. Experimental results of internal and externally confined walls [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
The proposed ductility-only intervention technique proved to be extremely ef-

ficient and should be used as a tool for upgrading structures in which improper
detailing leads to insufficient ductility capacity. From a practical view point, use of
external confinement is widespread, especially on bridge piers, and the only addi-
tional feature in the proposed scheme is the closing bolt. The latter can be achieved
by use of fasteners commonly used in RC structures (e.g. Hilti bolts).
Later in the paper, it is shown that the thickness, height and spacing of these ex-
ternal U-shaped plates can be controlled in order to achieve the desired confinement
level and, consequently, the level of ductility capacity enhancement introduced by
this selective scheme.
4.5. Shear-strength intervention

RC walls with shear-dominated deformational behaviour will respond in a brittle
mode. Such a situation is undesirable since it will not allow the development of
a ductile controlled failure mode, as required in modern seismic design. An inter-
vention scheme aiming at the rectification of such shortcomings was also tested at
Imperial College. The technique consisted of bonding horizontal steel plates to the
wall by means of epoxy resin, as shown in Fig. 10. These should be attached to both
sides of the wall in a staggered manner and bent through 90 ◦ at the extremities to
prevent end splitting. Since no load path is provided by the alternate horizontal
plates and flexural cracks can still develop, there is no change in either the flexural
wall capacity or its initial stiffness.
The experimental test consisted of a repaired wall (Fig. 10) which had been
previously subjected to cyclic loading and had failed due to excessive shear defor-
mation. Contrary to what was verified with the intact specimen, the repaired wall
Rear Steel Plates Front Steel Plates
Fig. 10. Shear-strength intervention - tested specimen [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].
responded in a more ductile mode and its ultimate flexural strength was fully de-
veloped (Fig. 11). Concrete crushing was recorded at the boundary elements rather
than the web, as was originally the case.
These test results show that the shear strength of RC structural walls can be fully
reinstated and, if required, enhanced by bonding external horizontal steel plates to
the damaged wall without the need of epoxy resin injection. However, the use of
the latter would improve the shear stiffness further, increase the energy absorption
capacity and ensure higher durability for the retrofitting scheme.
The application of the shear-strength intervention technique may assume a vital
role in guaranteeing that retrofitted structures respond to dynamic loading in a
flexural-dominated behaviour, consistent with the re-design philosophy introduced
previously. However, since the analytical work developed in this paper focuses solely
on the flexural component of the seismic response of reinforced concrete walls, this
selective intervention scheme is not studied in the following sections.
5. Finite Element Modelling

In Sec. 6 of this paper, an extensive analytical parametric study of the
stiffness-, strength- and ductility-only intervention techniques is carried out so that
a full understanding of such repair and retrofitting methods can be attained. The
present section is concerned with developing analytical models which represent as
150
120
90
60
30
Force (kN)
0
-30
-60
-90
-120
-150
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
(a)
150
120
90
60
30
Force (kN)
-30
-60
-90
-120
-150
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
(b)
Fig. 11. Experimental results of tested walls: (a) intact; (b) selectively repaired [Elnashai and
Salama, 1992].
accurately as possible these selective schemes. These are then verified by com-
parisons made with the test results and by conceptual understandment of their
behaviour.
5.1. Computer code

The study was carried out using the finite element analysis program ADAPTIC
[Izzuddin and Elnashai, 1989] developed at Imperial College. This program is capa-
ble of predicting the large displacement behaviour of plane and space frames under
static or dynamic loading, taking into account both geometric and material non-
linear behaviour. Several concrete and steel material models are available, together
with a large library of 2D and 3D elements which can be used with a wide choice
of typical pre-defined steel, concrete and composite section configurations.
For the purpose of this work, ten cubic plastic elements capable of modelling
distributed inelasticity are used to represent the test specimens. Each element has
two Gaussian sections, subdivided into 150 fibres where strains and stresses are
calculated. The concrete material representation is based on the uniaxial constant
confinement model proposed by Mander et al. [1988]. However, the cyclic rules have
been improved to enable the prediction of continuing cyclic degradation of strength
and stiffness, as well as better numerical stability under large displacement analy-
sis [Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai, 1997]. The behaviour of the reinforcement bars
is represented using the multi-surface plasticity model for steel, suggested by Pe-
tersson and Popov [1977]. This complex model is suitable for comparisons with
experimental results since it has the ability to represent a yield plateau and non-
linear strain hardening, as well as cyclic degradation. Experimental monotonic and
cyclic steel tests results available in the literature are used for the calibration of its
parameters [Martinez-Rueda, 1997]. The external plates and re-bars are modelled
using a bi-linear elastoplastic steel model with kinematic strain hardening since they
are not expected to undergo significant inelastic load reversals.
The modelling of the stiffness-only intervention scheme is carried out using an
eccentric steel section, whilst gap elements are utilised for the representation of the
strength-only intervention. As for the case of ductility-only intervention, a physical
representation of the intervention scheme is not sought. Instead, the effects of this
selective method are introduced directly in the concrete stress-strain relationship
through the use of a confinement factor, described later.
5.2. Assessment of FE models and comparison to test results

As mentioned earlier, one of the main objectives of the proposed work is to provide
the engineer with a set of re-design tools which will enable the fine-tuning of the
member response characteristics in harmony with capacity and displacement-based
design philosophies. Since the latter rely heavily on the quantification of three flexu-
ral design parameters, namely stiffness, strength and ductility, the development and
study of selective intervention techniques focused on these three variables. Other
important factors not normally quantified in design methods, such as bond slip,
shear distortion at the plastic hinge region, inclined flexural-shear cracks and in-
complete crack healing, which affect the energy dissipation capacity of reinforced
concrete members are therefore not considered in the analysis.
Consequently, comparisons between analytical and experimental results can be
carried out using the force vs. displacement hysteresis envelope of the flexural re-
sponse of the wall. The latter is estimated by integration of the experimental rota-
tion profile of the wall derived from vertical and horizontal displacement readings
in transducers located at various levels along the wall height.
5.2.1. Intact wall

Good agreement between the experimental and analytical results of the intact wall,
used as the reference specimen for all the interventions, is fundamental to the success
of this study. Focus can then be placed on the modelling of the selective techniques
alone.
80
60
40
20
Force (kN)
-20
Analysis
-40
Experiment
-60
-80
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 12. Force vs. flexural-displacement hysteresis envelope of intact wall.
In Fig. 12, the envelopes of the flexural cyclic response of the intact wall ob-
tained in the experiment and using ADAPTIC, are shown. The results are in good
agreement thus leading to the conclusion that the FE modelling adopted accurately
represents the flexural cyclic behaviour of the tested specimens (similar agreement
was obtained for a number of wall analyses in this study, and for other struc-
tural members in previous studies [Elnashai and Elghazouli, 1993; Broderick and
Elnashai, 1994]).
The hardening effect obtained in the analysis at 12 mm (1% drift), which was
not observed during the test, may be attributed to the model used for the steel bars,
since this was not specifically calibrated to the steel employed in the experiments.
5.2.2. Stiffness-only intervention

Experimental results of the stiffness-only intervention cover solely repair applica-
tions, hence direct comparison with the analytical modelling is not possible since
only upgrading schemes were modelled. Nevertheless, conceptual verification of the
modelling adopted can still be carried out by comparison between the results of
two monotonic analyses using one bare and one retrofitted wall (Fig. 13). A clear
increase in stiffness can be observed whilst no change in strength occurs, confirming
the experimental observations.
80
70
60
50
Force (kN) 40
Stiffness-only
30
Original
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 13. Force vs. displacement of stiffness-only intervention.
Furthermore, analyses carried out in the parametric study described in Sec. 6.1,
undoubtedly demonstrate the effectiveness of the modelling adopted by providing
results which can be physically interpreted and understood. It is therefore possi-
ble to conclude that the developed FE model accurately represents this selective
scheme.
5.2.3. Strength-only intervention

Comparison between the test results and the analytical modelling is possible for this
intervention as shown in Fig. 14, where the hysteretic envelopes of the experimen-
tal and FE results are reproduced. The comparison between the two is excellent,
validating the analytical model used for the strength-only intervention.
Further, to confirm the delay mechanism is working as intended, the displace-
ments obtained in the IDM are studied in Fig. 15. It can be observed that the
two mechanisms are working in opposite directions, as expected, and that the ex-
tensions are never higher than the imposed limit (3 mm, in this case). On the
contrary, when subjected to compression, the IDM displacements do not have
any limit, reflecting the intended characteristic of plate or bar buckling under
compression.
It is also important to relate the previously described displacement behaviour
of the delay mechanism with the axial force carried by the external steel plates. In
Fig. 16, it is shown that the plates work only in tension and always in an alternate
fashion, in harmony with the IDM displacement behaviour. Furthermore, compari-
son between Figs. 15 and 16 shows that the EUSP start carrying load only when the
displacement in the delay mechanism has reached its tolerance gap. Therefore, the
100
80
60
40
20
Force (kN) 0
-20
Analysis
-40
Experiment
-60
-80
-100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 14. Force vs. flexural-displacement hysteresis envelope of wall retrofitted with EUSP.
2
IDM – Displacements (mm)
-2
-4
Left IDM
-6
Right IDM
-8
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
No. of cycles
Fig. 15. Displacement in delay mechanisms.
proposed model appears to simulate this selective technique rather well, providing
a useful tool for the upcoming parametric study.
5.2.4. Ductility-only intervention

Comparison between analytical and experimental results for the ductility-only in-
tervention (Fig. 17) is not as close as for the previous cases. This can be explained
by the aforementioned fact that the intervention scheme was not physically mod-
elled in the computer code but instead is introduced by changes in the concrete
stress-strain relationship, as described in subsequent sections.
60
50
EUSP - Axial Force (kN)

Left EUSP
40 Right EUSP
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
No. of cycles
Fig. 16. Axial force in external steel plates.
80
60
40
20
Force (kN)
-20
Analysis
-40
Experiment
-60
-80
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 17. Force vs. flexural-displacement hysteresis envelope of wall retrofitted with ECSP.
In Fig. 18, plots of force vs. displacement of a monotonically loaded wall with
different intervention schemes are shown. The effects of the intervention on ductility
are clear whilst no change in the initial wall stiffness is noticed, confirming the
experimental observations.
Furthermore, in the extreme case of an increase in displacement ductility
by a factor of about 10, only a 30% increase in the member strength is
observed.
120
100
80
Force (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 18. Effect of ECSP configuration on ductility of upgraded wall.
6. Analytical Parametric Investigations and Design Expressions

In this section, the analytical models are verified and tested further. The design
parameters affecting the response of selective techniques are assessed and the form
of useful design expressions appraised. Extensive parametric analyses are under-
taken for the three repair/retrofitting tools of stiffness-, strength- and ductility-only
interventions, leading to the development of design guidelines and expressions.
To evaluate the three fundamental design response parameters being studied,
the simplistic approach described in Fig. 19 [Paulay and Priestley, 1992] is followed.
This elasto-plastic bilinear approximation for the force-displacement monotonic re-
sponse of a reinforced concrete member has its principal applicability at design
Fig. 19. Typical load-displacement relationship for a reinforced concrete element [Paulay and
Priestley, 1992].
level, where knowledge of the real non-linear behaviour of the member is not gen-
erally pursued. It is therefore most suitable to the objectives of the present work
which, as mentioned earlier, focus on the development of practical analytical tools
for re-design of RC structures.
The slope of the idealised linear elastic response, K = Sy /∆y , is used to quan-
tify stiffness. It should be based on the effective secant stiffness to the real load-
displacement curve at a load of about 0.75Sy . An acceptable approximation is to
calculate this point based on the first yield of reinforcement [Paulay and Priestley,
1992]. The yield value of the equivalent elasto-plastic response, i.e. the ideal or
yield strength of the member, can thus be estimated as being Sy = 1.33Sy0 . Finally,
a convenient quantity to evaluate the member ductility capacity is the ultimate
displacement ductility, defined as µ∆ = ∆u /∆y . In the following sections, these
definitions are used to calculate the design response parameters of the walls.
6.1. Stiffness-only intervention

The variable FK , defined as the ratio between the upgraded/repaired and orig-
inal/damaged stiffnesses of the member, is used to quantify the outcome of the
intervention:
K upgraded
FK = . (6.1)
K original
The parameters needed to fully describe such a scheme are the height of the steel
plates (hp ), their thickness (tp ), width (lp ) and distance to the geometric centre of
the wall cross-section (ep ), as depicted in Fig. 20.
ep
tp
lp
bw
lw/2 lw/2
Fig. 20. Plate position and section dimensions for stiffness-only intervention.
6.1.1. Height of the plate

If an efficient stiffness-only intervention is sought, the height of the plate should
always be greater than, or equal to, the expected flexural plastic hinge length. This
will guarantee that the area where severe cracking of the concrete occurs is covered
by the steel plates.
h/hw
1.0 FK
2.0
0.8
1.8
0.6
1.6
Extent of inelasticity
0.4
1.4
0.2 1.2
0.0 1.0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 φ (1/mm) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 hp/hw
(a) (b)
Fig. 21. (a) Curvature at maximum response; (b) Stiffness improvement vs. height of steel plates.
In Fig. 21(a) the curvature distribution at maximum response of a RC flexural

wall is illustrated and inelasticity is observed up to a height of about 40% of the
full height of the wall (hw ). A stiffness improvement vs. height of steel plates plot
resulting from the analysis of the same wall with different stiffness-only configura-
tions is shown in Fig. 21(b). It is possible to observe that increasing the height
of the plates to values close to 0.5hw has an important effect on the success of
the intervention. However, from this point onwards, the effect of this parameter
diminishes, as expected.
In the parametric study that follows, where design expressions and curves are
derived, the plates are always considered to be spanning the whole height of the
wall. This seemed to be the most logical approach since, as shown in Fig. 21(b), it
will enable maximum efficiency. Nevertheless, if a different solution is sought, the
latter figure can be consulted for guidance.
6.1.2. Plate position and section dimensions

In Fig. 22, the influence that thickness, width and position of the steel plates have on
the outcome of this selective scheme is analysed. It can be observed that increasing
the dimensions of the steel plates and their distance to the symmetry axis of the wall
will enhance the effect of the intervention. This is expected since larger plates and
eccentricity will increase the moment of inertia of the section and the effectiveness
of crack arrest. However, the significance of such effect varies considerably with the
values of these geometric parameters.
When steel plates are located close to the geometric centre of the section (ep →
0), the significance of their dimensions relative to this distance is great. Thus, wider
plates will induce a higher stiffness improvement since they will cause an important
geometric eccentricity effect. As the plates are placed further away from the wall
symmetry axis, the narrower plates (lp → 0) will be more beneficial since it will
be possible to achieve larger eccentricities. Hence, sharpest increases in the value
tp=6.0 mm
FK tp=1.8 mm
tp=0.3 mm
0
0
ep
0
lp
Fig. 22. Influence of plate dimensions and position in the wall.
of FK are obtained in the range of smaller values of lp . Such effect can be clearly
observed in Fig. 22, particularly for the surface corresponding to tp = 6.0 mm.
Moreover, because flexure cracking is concentrated at the wall edges, having a
thicker but narrower plate shifted to the sides will be a more efficient way of gaining
stiffness than using a wider but slimmer plate. Nevertheless, care should always be
taken to ensure that the plates possess a contact surface with the wall sufficiently
wide to avoid problems of lack of bonding.
In the following parametric study, two different approaches are adopted for the
development of analytical tools for this intervention. The first approach aims at
the development of a single design expression, derived by regression analysis, which
returns the value of FK . This methodology is, however, too simplistic given the
complex influence of the plates geometric characteristics on the outcome of the
intervention. Therefore, alternatively, design curves which consider the influence of
each variable separately, are also developed. These give the designer better insight
and control on the effects of the intervention. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the
first method perhaps renders it more appropriate for design situations.
6.1.3. Single-parameter approach

A non-dimensional parameter SK , capable of unambiguous characterisation of this
intervention is created. This includes both the wall and plates properties that are
most likely to influence the intervention result, and is defined by
Ap ep 4tp lp ep tp lp ep
SK = constant × × = 100 × × = 400 2
, (6.2)
Aw lw b w lw lw b w lw
where Ap and Aw represent the total cross-section area of the plates and wall,
respectively.
FK
4.5
4.0
3.5
FK = 0.5SK + 1.7 , SK > 1

3.0 2
R = 0.96
2.5
2.0
FK = 1.2SK + 1 , 0 < SK ≤ 1
1.5 2
R = 0.96
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 SK
Fig. 23. Polynomial fit to stiffness-only results.
A large number of analyses were carried out, varying the thickness, width and
position of the plates. The values of FK are plotted against the corresponding SK
in Fig. 23, where it is shown that a bi-linear polynomial fit to the data provides
excellent results with considerably high global correlation factors (R2 ).
It was also verified that an accurate representation of the role played by the
existence of different levels of longitudinal reinforcement or the presence of axial load
would require these variables to be included in the design expression. Hence, further
studies were carried out to include two additional parameters — reinforcement ratio
(ρs ) and normalised axial force (ν). The former is defined by Eq. (6.3), where
As represents the total area of longitudinal reinforcement in the wall, and was
considered in the range of 0.4 ≤ ρs ≤ (4%), as is generally adopted in design
applications. The variable ν is defined by Eq. (6.4), where N stands for axial force
and fc0 is the concrete compressive strength. For the purpose of this study, the value
of ν was varied in the range of 0 ≤ ν ≤ 0.10, as it is commonly observed in practice.
As
ρs = , (6.3)
b w lw
N
ν= . (6.4)
bw lw fc0
The final design expressions for this intervention can, therefore, be expressed as
follows:
0 < SK ≤ 1 FK = (1.2SK + 1)(1.1 − 3.2SK ν)ρ−0.1

s
ln(SK )−0.4
, (6.5a)
SK > 1 FK = (0.5SK + 1.7)[1.1 − (0.16SK + 3)ν]ρs0.01SK −0.4 . (6.5b)

The procedure followed to define the expressions shown above, with the inclusion
of axial force and reinforcement ratio effects, involved extensive parametric studies
and regression analysis, similarly to that outlined above for parameter SK . However,
for the sake of brevity, details of these have been omitted and can be found elsewhere
[Pinho, 1999] together with a more in-depth discussion of the effects that these
parameters have on the outcome of the intervention.
6.1.4. Multi-parameter approach

Here, three non-dimensional parameters are derived to allow for the elaboration
of the design curves shown in Figs. 24 to 28, which represent the effects of the
plate position and section dimensions on the outcome of the selective intervention.
Parameters α and β relate to the plate thickness and width, respectively, and are
defined by Eqs. (6.6) and (6.7), whilst parameter γ, defined by Eq. (6.8), accounts
for the influence of the plate position in the wall.
tp
α= , (6.6)
bw
lp
β= , (6.7)
lw /2
lp
ep − 2 2ep − lp
γ= = . (6.8)
lw
2 = lp lw − 2lp
γ=0
4.2
α = 0.10
3.8
α = 0.08
3.4
α = 0.06
3.0
α = 0.04
FK
2.6 α = 0.03
2.2 α = 0.02
1.8
α = 0.01
1.4 α = 0.005
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
β
Fig. 24. Proposed design curves for γ = 0.

γ = 0.25
4.2
α = 0.10
3.8
α = 0.08
3.4
α = 0.06
3.0
α = 0.04
2.6
FK
α = 0.03
2.2 α = 0.02
1.8
α = 0.01
1.4 α = 0.005
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
β
Fig. 25. Proposed design curves for γ = 0.25.
γ = 0.5
4.2
α = 0.10
3.8
α = 0.08
3.4
α = 0.06
3.0
α = 0.04
2.6 α = 0.03
FK
2.2 α = 0.02
1.8 α = 0.01
1.4 α = 0.005
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
β
By definition, parameters β and γ have an upper bound value of unity, whilst

in the case of α an upper limit value of 0.1 was assumed. The design curves shown
in Figs. 24 through to 28 give the possibility of individual manipulation of each
parameter in order to obtain a target FK .
As explained in Sec. 6.1.2, the differences in the shape of curves corresponding
to different categories of γ, reflect the important effect the position of the plates has
on stiffness enhancement. It is clear that with a higher eccentricity, the optimum
γ = 0.75
4.2
α = 0.10
3.8
α = 0.08
3.4
α = 0.06
3.0
α = 0.04
2.6
α = 0.03
FK
2.2 α = 0.02
1.8
α = 0.01
1.4 α = 0.005
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
β
γ=1
4.2
α = 0.10
3.8
α = 0.08
3.4
α = 0.06
3.0
α = 0.04
2.6
FK
α = 0.03
2.2
α = 0.02
1.8
α = 0.01
1.4 α = 0.005
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
β
Fig. 28. Proposed design curves for γ = 1.
level of a plate with a particular thickness is reached for smaller values of width
(Fig. 28). This confirms the statement made previously, where it is proposed that
maximum of stiffness-only intervention effect can be achieved by using relatively
narrow plates located as close as possible to the wall extremities. Further, for
values of γ = 1, Fig. 28 seems to suggest that ideal solutions should be obtained for
bp ≤ lw /4 (β ≤ 0.5).
The influence of longitudinal reinforcement and axial load is included by apply-

ing additional calibration factors to the value of FK obtained from the curves, as
follows:
0 < FK ≤ 2 ρ,ν
FK = FK [1.1 − 3.24(FK − 1)ν]ρs−0.6 ln(FK ) , (6.9a)
FK > 2 ρ,ν
FK = FK [1.1 − (0.2FK + 2.9)ν]ρs0.03FK −0.48 . (6.9b)
Both the design curves and expressions derived by regression analysis revealed
a maximum coefficient of variation of 15% when compared with a wide range of
results obtained by finite element analyses on a large variety of walls. These results
confirm that the parameters defined to characterise the selective intervention and
the derived design expressions (or curves) appropriately account for all the variables
that most influence the effectiveness of this repair scheme.
6.2. Strength-only intervention

The variable FS , defined as the ratio between the upgraded and original strength
of the member, is used to quantify the outcome of the intervention:
S upgraded
FS = (6.10)
S original
In Fig. 29, a description of the relevant characteristics of this repair method is

given. These are the distance of the external steel plates or re-bars to the edge of
the wall (dp ), and their cross-sectional area (Ap ) and yield strength (fyp ).
dp lw dp
A p , f yp
Fig. 29. Strength-only intervention parameters.

100
90
80
70
Force (kN)
60
50
gIDM = 0 mm
40
gIDM = 5 mm
30
Original
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 30. Influence of gIDM on the response of the strengthened wall.
6.2.1. Interaction delay mechanism

The most critical parameter in this intervention is the value of the design gap (gIDM )
adopted in the delay mechanism. This value should be such that the strength-only
intervention does not begin interacting with the structure too early, thus affecting
the member stiffness, or too late, by which time significant damage may already
have occurred (Fig. 30). Moreover, when the mechanism starts contributing to the
flexural resistance at a late stage, two levels of ductility are created, which would
be a difficult situation to address in the light of current definitions of ductility.
If an idealised bi-linear load-displacement relationship, as suggested in Fig. 19,
is considered, then a simple way of evaluating the design gap for the IDM can
be derived. This should be designed to allow the mechanism to contribute to the
flexural resistance at a point somewhere in between the first yield strength (Sy0 ) and
the global yield strength (Sy ) of the wall. In this manner, the original stiffness will
be maintained and the dynamic characteristics of the member will remain unaltered.
An estimate of the vertical displacement in the edges of the wall for these two
loading stages is required for the determination of the design gap. This may be
achieved by calculating the rotation (θ) and the neutral axis depth (c) at the top of
the wall. If these values are known, then the vertical displacement in the external
plates or re-bars (∆νp ) is given by:
∆νp = (dp + lw − c)θ . (6.11)
From section analysis, the value of curvature at the point of first yield (φ0y )
and the corresponding neutral axis depth (c0y ) can be easily determined at the
foundation level. At this loading stage, it is also possible to assume the latter as
constant throughout the height of the wall, whilst the curvature varies linearly.
Finally, taking into consideration the relationship between Sy and Sy0 , suggested
earlier, a lower and upper bound limit for the design gap of the delay mechanism
is defined by:
hw hw
(dp + lw − c0y )φ0y ≤ gIDM ≤ (dp + lw − c0y )φ0y . (6.12)
2 1.5
Alternatively, simplified methods of seismic design in which a behaviour factor is
used to obtain the design load, i.e. the ideal or global yield strength of a reinforced
concrete member (Sy ), can also be used to obtain the upper bound limit for the
IDM gap value. In this way, the design of the strength-only mechanism would be
consistent with the wall original design philosophy. By characterising the curvature
at the base of the wall as
Md Fd hw Fe hw
φd = = = , (6.13)
Ec Ie Ec Ie qEc Ie
where Fe represents the elastic horizontal load, q stands for behaviour factor and Ie
is the equivalent moment of inertia of the cross-section at first yield in the extreme
fibre, and substituting (6.13) in (6.12), the following alternative expression can be
used to define the value of gIDM :
hw Fe h2w
(dp + lw − c0y )φ0y ≤ gIDM ≤ (dp + lw − cd ) . (6.14)
2 2qEc Ie
It is, nevertheless, important to notice that these expressions are derived from
principles which apply to monotonic loading only. Under cyclic regimes, cumulative
plastic deformations, mainly associated with cracks that remain open after load
reversal, will raise uncertainties regarding the vertical elongation of the wall. These
factors cannot be addressed by the expressions suggested above. Further, because
these expressions are derived assuming linear curvature distribution at point of first
yield, their application in design situations where such an assumption is not valid
(for instance, high axial load), will produce slightly inaccurate results. Still, they
do provide a first insight into the control of this intervention parameter, and should
be used at design level provided there is awareness of its limitations.
6.2.2. Distance to the wall

The external steel plates or re-bars contribute to the flexural strength at the location
of their longitudinal axes. A force criterion can thus be used to define the input
of strength introduced by the intervention. However, the distance to the wall of
the external strengthening mechanism should also be considered when designing
these intervention schemes. The use of large re-bars very close to the wall will
induce a significant decrease in the ductility of the wall since the gain in extension
deformation capacity caused by the intervention is not balanced on the compressive
side. Hence, the concrete will be subjected to much higher compressive strains and
eventually the wall will fail earlier due to concrete crushing. On the contrary, if
120
100
80
Force (kN) 60
Fp = 36 kN ; dp = 400 mm
40 Fp = 72 kN ; dp = 0 mm
Original
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 31. Influence of dp on the response of the strengthened wall.
smaller external plates or re-bars are placed at greater distances from the wall, the
same strength can be obtained with a smaller ductility decrease.
In Fig. 31, the plots of analyses carried out for two identical walls with different
configurations of strength-only interventions are shown. Although both walls ex-
hibit identical strength enhancement, their ductility is completely different. The use
of larger distances between the external mechanism and the wall proves extremely
efficient in avoiding high levels of ductility degradation. Hence, such configura-
tion should be applied in the upgrading of walls in which the available ductility
does not comply with the demands arising from a ‘short-distance’ strength-only
intervention. Moreover, its applicability is still feasible, particularly if there are
infill panels by the sides of the wall, since the external mechanism can be located
at a greater distance embedded in the infill panel without adverse architectural
effects.
6.2.3. Design expressions

Similarly to the study in Sec. 6.1.3, the adoption of a single parameter which enables
a clear representation of all the important factors influencing the effectiveness of this
scheme is sought. In this case, both the wall and external plates material properties
are of importance, and were included in the strength-only selective intervention
parameter SS :
Ap fyp dp + lw /2 Ap fyp dp + lw /2
Ss = constant × × = 10 , (6.15)
As fy lw As fy lw
where fy represents the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement of the wall.
FS
2.05
1.90
1.75
1.60
FS = 0.22SS + 1
1.45
R2 = 0.97
1.30
1.15
1.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 SS
Fig. 32. Polynomial fit to strength-only results.
In Fig. 32, the polynomial fit to the results of the parametric investigations with-
out axial load is shown. A global correlation factor of 0.97 indicates the adequacy
of the linear regression used.
The final design expression, which includes the variables discussed above to-
gether with the existent level of axial load, becomes
FS = (1 + 0.22SS )(1 − 0.65SS0.4ν) . (6.16)
The results obtained by Eq. (6.16) compare extremely well with the values given
by finite element analysis of several different RC walls, revealing a maximum coef-
ficient of variation of 4%. Hence, it is concluded that all the wall properties and
retrofitting scheme characteristics, which are most relevant for the outcome of the
intervention, are considered in the proposed methodology.
6.3. Ductility-only intervention

It would not be feasible to address this intervention scheme in a similar manner
to the procedure adopted for the two previous cases. Relating the physical char-
acteristics of this intervention to the global ductility increase is neither practical
nor effective. The uncertainties in the definition of yield and failure criteria would
not allow the development of a simple and accurate methodology. Instead, an
approach similar to that widely used in the design of reinforced concrete members
confined with internal steel hoops is followed. In this procedure, the concrete stress-
strain relationship is changed by the application of a confinement factor dependent
on the configuration of the stirrups and dimensions of the section. Accordingly,
the ductility-only selective intervention parameter (kD ), described by Eq. (6.17),
is defined as the ratio between the externally confined and unconfined concrete
0
compressive strength, fcc and fc0 , respectively.
0
fcc
kD = (6.17)
fc0
6.3.1. Design expression

This intervention technique requires the definition of three main geometric variables,
namely the thickness of the plates (tp ), their height (hp ) and spacing (sp ), together
with the bolt prestress force (Pb ), as shown in Fig. 33.
Effectively
confined core Pb
45°
dc tp
hp
Pb
sp bc
Fig. 33. Ductility-only intervention parameters.
A simplified methodology to evaluate kD based on the approach proposed by

Mander et al. [1988] is followed. Although the latter was initially developed to
be used with circular or rectangular internal steel hoops, an adaptation to the
ductility-only technique is undertaken below.
The discontinuities between plates and, more importantly, those caused by the
presence of a bolt as the fourth closing side of the external confinement system,
were studied through the use of formulations for soil and rock mechanics [Poulos
and Davis, 1974]. The analysis of the path of the compression confinement stresses
between plates and bolts leads to the conclusion that an arching effect similar to
that suggested by Mander et al. [1988] can be used to delimit the effectively confined
concrete core in this intervention. Hence, the following assumptions are made:
(i) the U-shape steel plates are stiff enough to avoid being pushed outwards due
to lateral confinement pressure, therefore reduction in plan of the effectively
confined concrete core due to arching occurs only in the vicinity of the
closing bolt (see Fig. 33);
(ii) in elevation, reduction of effectively confined concrete core occurs due to

arching effects between consecutive external plates and bolts, as shown in
Fig. 34;
(iii) the arching effects are modelled as second-degree parabolas with an initial
tangent slope of 45◦ ;
(iv) the prestressed bolt is capable of fully transmitting the lateral confining
pressure to the steel plates, thus representing adequately a closed hoop
behaviour of the whole assembly, albeit locally.
Effectively
confined core
s'p 45 ° sp
Front elevation Side elevation
Fig. 34. Effectively and ineffectively confined core.
Consequently, the effectively confined concrete core area (Ae ) at the most un-
favourable location (midway through two consecutive plates) is given by

d2 sp + s0p s0p
Ae = bc dc − c 1− 1− , (6.18)
6 4bc 2dc
and the confinement effectiveness coefficient becomes

dc sp + s0p s0p
1− 1− 1−
Ae 6 · bc 4bc 2dc
ke = = , (6.19)
Acc (1 − ρcc )
with ρcc representing the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement to the confined concrete
core area (Acc ).
The prestressed bolt is designed to work as the fourth side of the external hoop,
capable of transmitting the lateral stresses to the steel plates. To guarantee equilib-
rium of confining stresses, the bolt should be designed so as to assure that its axial
capacity equals that of the opposite plate. This may involve the use of a prestress
force such that
fyp Ap = fyb Ab + Pb , (6.20)
where Ab and Ap represent the cross-section area of the bolt and steel plate, respec-
tively, whilst their yield strength values are introduced in the expression by fyb and
fyp .
Since ke takes into account all the discontinuities present in this scheme, and
the bolt is designed to ensure a closed hoop behaviour of the whole assembly, the
effective section area ratios of transverse reinforcement (ρx and ρy ) can be defined
by
2Ap 2hp tp
ρx = = (6.21a)
dc sp dc sp
2Ap 2hp tp
ρy = = . (6.21b)
bc sp bc sp
By virtue of force equilibrium between the lateral confinement stress resultants and
0 0
the tension forces in the plates, the effective lateral confining stresses (flx and fly )
are determined by
0
flx = ke ρx fyp (6.22a)
0
fly = ke ρy fyp . (6.22b)
Finally, by using the general solution curves described in the work of Mander et
al. [1988], the ductility-only selective intervention parameter kD can be determined,
and the stress-strain relationship of the concrete adjusted to incorporate the effect
of the intervention.
As mentioned earlier, this approach is equivalent to methods currently used in
the design of reinforced concrete members confined with internal steel hoops. Hence,
its application in design situations is equally practical and straightforward.
6.3.2. Thickness, height and spacing of the steel plates

In this section, the influence of the thickness, height and spacing of the external
confinement steel plates on the outcome of this repair scheme is studied. The
selective intervention parameter kD is used to quantify the result of the intervention.
In Fig. 35, it is observed that the smaller the spacing, the higher the confinement
level achieved by the intervention. Nonetheless, in order to avoid changes in stiffness,
a sensible spacing should always be left between plates to minimise crack arrest.
Together with the decrease in spacing of the plates, an increase in the effect of
this selective scheme can also be obtained by means of greater height or thickness
of the plates. However, results from analyses on retrofitted walls in which these two
parameters are varied, lead to the conclusion that the most effective way of gaining
ductility with this type of external intervention is by increasing the height of the
plates, not their thickness. In Fig. 36, it is shown that if, for instance, a target
confinement ratio is set as kD = 1.9, then using thicknesses of 10, 5 and 3 mm,
will result in heights of 38, 55 and 69 mm, leading to a steel plate section area of
kD
2.4
2.2
2.0 hp = 25 mm
hp = 50 mm
1.8
hp = 100 mm
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 sp (mm)
Fig. 35. Influence of sp in the ductility-only intervention parameter.
2.4
tp = 10 mm tp = 5 mm tp = 3 mm
2.2
2.0
Smaller Cross
1.8 Section
kD
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
hp (mm)
Fig. 36. Effect tp and hp in the ductility-only intervention parameter.
380, 275 and 207 mm2 , respectively. Therefore, using high plates closely spaced is
the most efficient way of achieving a confinement factor that will satisfy a target
ductility.
7. Closing Remarks
The effects on structures of currently used methods of repair and retrofitting re-
inforced concrete members are generally not easy to quantify or control and their
influence on the global behaviour of RC structures may not optimise the overall
seismic response. New earthquake-resistant design trends require that the global
response and failure mode are fully controlled, an objective not readily achieved
by the majority of available structural intervention techniques. In order to at-

tain such an aim, selective methods of repair and retrofitting, capable of individ-
ually affecting a single design response parameter, need to be developed. Practi-
cal schemes were presented and described in this paper, together with test results
from an experimental programme by which their feasibility and effectiveness were
confirmed.
Full control over such techniques prior to their application can be accomplished
with the definition of simple design expressions. The selective schemes, tested pre-
viously at Imperial College, were modelled using the finite element package ADAP-
TIC. The ingredients of the models were verified as well as their collective response
through comparison with experiments and conceptual understanding of their physi-
cal characteristics. Extensive parametric studies were carried out, enabling a deeper
understanding of such novel repair or retrofitting techniques and the development
of useful design expressions. Further, design guidelines for practical application in
the seismic re-design of structures were given in the body of the study, the most
important of which are summarised below:
1. Stiffness-only intervention: best results are obtained by using narrow plates

(lp < lw /4) placed as near the edges as possible, in order to improve geometric
eccentricity effects and to maximise flexural crack arrest. Although stiffness
improvement is at its highest when the steel plates span the whole height of
the wall, a successful intervention can still be achieved by providing plates
spanning the anticipated zone of inelasticity.
2. Strength-only intervention: best results are achieved by using a longer lever
arm and smaller plates or yield strength. In this way, reduction of ductility
of the wall is minimised. The design gap should have a value corresponding
to vertical elongation of the wall at the point of yield, to ensure that stiffness
is not altered.
3. Ductility-only intervention: best results are achieved if spacing between the
steel plates is minimised and the height of these is maximised. However, to
assure that minimum effect on the member stiffness is induced, a sensible gap
between consecutive U-shaped plates should always be kept.
Further tests are planned for the immediate future under the auspices of the
European network ICONS (Innovative Concepts for Seismic Design of New and Ex-
isting Structures) and supported by ECOEST II (European Consortium of Earth-
quake Shaking Tables). These will focus on testing the design expressions under
simulated earthquake action and assessing the efficiency of mixed intervention types
under both repair and retrofitting design scenarios. Moreover, in the strength-only
scheme, an interaction device such as a spring mechanism will be developed in or-
der to reduce the abrupt stress increase caused by earthquake loading in the delay
mechanism.
Acknowledgements
The experimental work was carried out by Dr. A. I. Salama, as part of his doc-
toral thesis at Imperial College. The tests were funded by the UK Science and
Engineering Research Council. The current work is supported financially by the
European Community through the research network ICONS (Innovative Concepts
for Seismic Design of New and Existing Structures) and by the Calouste Gulbenkian
Foundation.
Appendix
Examples of application of the design expressions
For the purpose of this example, let us consider a 200 × 1500 × 3000 mm wall.
The concrete compressive strength is fc0 = 30 MPa and the yield stress of the steel
re-bars is fy = 400 MPa. The longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary elements
is made of six 12 mm bars, whilst in the web 10 mm bars spaced at 200 mm are
used as vertical reinforcement (four bars at each face). Confinement reinforcement
is not available.
bw = 200 mm; lw = 1500 mm; hw = 3000 mm;
fc0 = 30 MPa; fy = 400 MPa
As = 2 × 6 × π × 122 /4 + 2 × 4 × π × 102 /4 = 1985 mm2 ;

1985
ρs = = 0.0066(0.66%)
200 × 1500
Stiffness-only intervention
The objective of the intervention is to increase by 50% the stiffness of the wall
using 4-mm thick steel plates. It is assumed that due to architectural constraints
the external plates can only be applied at a distance of 100 mm from the wall edges.
An axial load of 200 kN is also considered.
200 × 103
ν= = 0.022; FK = 1.5; tp = 4 mm;
200 × 1500 × 30
lp =?; ep =? (free edge ≥ 100 mm)
The value of the selective intervention parameter SK is determined using Eq. (6.5a):
1.5 = (1.2SK + 1)(1.1 − 3.2SK × 0.022) × 0.66−0.1 ln(SK )−0.4 ⇒ SK = 0.21
Expressing ep as a function of lp (see Fig. 20)
ep = 1500/2 − lp /2 − 100 = 650 − lp /2

and using Eq. (6.2), the value of lp can be determined:
4 × lp × (650 − lp /2)
0.21 = 400 ⇔ lp ≈ 100 mm
200 × 15002
Hence, the solution is to use 100 × 4 mm plates at a distance of 600 mm from the
centre of the wall.
Strength-only intervention
The objective of the intervention is to achieve an increase of 30% in the flexural

capacity of the wall by means of external re-bars with yield strength of 500 MPa.
A maximum distance of 300 mm is allowed between the re-bars and the wall sides.
It is also assumed that the wall had been designed for an elastic load of 350 kN and
a behaviour factor of 2.
√
Fe = 350 kN (q = 2); Ec = 4.7 30 ≈ 26 GPa; FS = 1.3;
fyp = 500 MPa; dp = 300 mm; Ap =?; gIDM =?
The value of the selective intervention parameter SS is determined from Eq. (6.16),
1.3 = (1 + 0.22SS )(1 − 0.65SS0.4 × 0.0) ⇒ SS ≈ 1.36
Using Eq. (6.15), the area of the plates to be used is obtained:
Ap 500 300 + 1500/2

1.36 = 10 × × × ⇔ Ap ≈ 309 mm2 → 4φ10
1985 400 1500
Assuming the following values computed from section analysis
φ0y = 1.6 × 10−6 mm−1 ; c0y = cd = 240 mm; Ie = 9.46 × 109 mm4
and using Eq. (6.14), lower and upper bounds for the IDM gap design value are
3000 350 × 103 × 30002

(300 + 1500 − 240) × 1.6 × 10−6 ≤ gIDM ≤ (300 + 1500−240)
2 2 × 2 × 26 × 103 × 9.46 × 109
⇔ 3.8 mm ≤ gIDM ≤ 5.0 mm
Hence, the selective intervention would consist on using four 10 mm reinforcement

bars placed at a distance of 300 mm from the wall edges, with a delay mechanism
allowing for a design vertical tolerance of about 5 mm.
Ductility-only intervention
The objective of the intervention is to achieve a ratio of five between the ultimate
and peak confined concrete strain, by means of external U-shaped plates with yield
strength of 275 MPa. These are 4 mm thick and spaced by 20 mm to avoid crack
arrest. The wall boundary elements are 250 mm wide and 200 mm deep.
6 × π × 122 /4
ρcc = = 0.014; εcu /εcc = 5; tp = 4 mm; s0p = 20 mm; hp =?
250 × 200
An initial value of 100 mm is arbitrated for the plates height in order to initiate
the trial procedure. The spacing between plates sp thus becomes equal to 120 mm
(see Fig. 34). By substituting in Eq. (6.19) the confinement effectiveness coefficient
is evaluated:

200 120 + 20 20
1− 1− 1−
6 × 250 4 × 250 2 × 200
ke = = 0.72
(1 − 0.014)
Using the general solution curves described in the work of Mander et al. [1988], the
ductility-only selective intervention parameter kD can be determined:
 0
  flx 275
 2 × 100 × 4 


 ρx = = 0.033  f 0 = 0.72 × 0.033 ×

30
= 0.22
200 × 120 c Mander et al. [1988]
→ 0 −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ kD ≈ 2

 2 × 100 × 4  fly
 275
 ρy = = 0.027 

250 × 120  0 = 0.72 × 0.027 × = 0.18
fc 30
The peak and ultimate confined concrete compression strains are estimated by the
following expressions [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]:
εcc = 0.002[1 + 5(kD − 1)] = 0.002[1 + 5(2 − 1)] = 0.012

0
εcu = 0.004 + 1.4ρs εsm fyp /fcc
= 0.004 + 1.4 × (0.033 + 0.027) × 0.15 × 275/60 = 0.062
Thus, the ratio between peak and ultimate compressive strain becomes equal to
0.062/0.012 = 5.2, which satisfies the proposed target. The closing bolts are de-
signed to satisfy Eq. (6.20):
assuming fyb = 275 MPa and Pb = 0

275 × 100 × 4 = fyb πφ2b /4 + Pb −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ φb = 40 mm
Hence, the retrofitting solution consists of utilising U-shaped steel plates with a
thickness of 4 mm, and a height of 100 mm, together with 40 mm bolts.
References
Aboutaha, R. S., Engelhardt, M. D., Jirsa, J. O. and Kreger, M. E. [1996] “Retrofit of
concrete columns with inadequate lap splices by the use of rectangular steel jackets,”
Earthquake Spectra 12(4), 693–714.
Alexandrou, E. [1991] “Seismic response of RC frames with material variability,” M.Sc.

Dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, Imperial College, London.
Aviles, N. B., Maruyama, K. and Rojas, L. E. [1996] “Improving strength and ductil-
ity by using steel plate wrapping,” Proc. Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Disc 2, Paper No. 742, Acapulco, Mexico.
Broderick, B. M. and Elnashai, A. S. [1994] “Seismic resistance of composite beam-columns
in multi-storey structures. Part 2: Analytical model and discussion of results,” J. Con-
struct. Steel Res. 30(3), 231–258.
Calvi, G. M. and Pavese, A. [1995] “Displacement based design of building structures,”
Proc. Fifth SECED Conference on European Seismic Design Practice, Chester, United
Kingdom, pp. 127–132.
EERI [1996] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,Earthquake Spectra Theme Issue:
Repair and Rehabilitation Research for Seismic Resistance of Structures, edited by
J. O. Jirsa, Berkeley, California.
Elnashai, A. S. [1992] “Effect of member characteristics on the response of RC struc-
tures,” Proc. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, Madrid,
Spain, pp. 3275–3280.
Elnashai, A. S. and Elghazouli, A. Y. [1993] “Performance of composite steel/concrete
members under earthquake loading. Part I: Analytical model,” Earthq. Engrg. and
Struct. Dyn. 22(4), 315–345.
Elnashai, A. S. and Salama, A. I. [1992] “Selective repair and retrofitting techniques for
RC structures in seismic regions,” Research Report ESEE/92-2, Engineering Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering Section, Imperial College, London.
Ghobarah, A., Ashraf Biddah and Mahgoub, M. [1997] “Rehabilitation of reinforced con-
crete columns using corrugated steel jacketing,” J. Earthq. Engrg. 1(4), 651–673.
Izzuddin, B. A. and Elnashai, A. S. [1989] “ADAPTIC, a program for adaptive large
displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of steel, concrete and composite frames,”
Research Report ESEE-89/7, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Sec-
tion, Imperial College, London.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N. and MacRae, G. A. [1995] “Displacement-based de-
sign of RC bridge columns in seismic regions,” Earthq. Engrg. Struct. Dyn. 24(12),
1623–1643.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. [1988] “Theoretical stress-strain model for
confined concrete,” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE 114(8), 1804–1826.
Martinez-Rueda, J. E. and Elnashai, A. S. [1997] “Confined concrete model under cyclic
load,” Materials and Structures 30(197), 139–147.
Martinez-Rueda, J. E. [1997] “Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC
structures,” Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London.
Moehle, J. P. [1992] “Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earth-
quakes,” Earthquake spectra 8(3), 403–428.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Ma-
sonry Buildings (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).
Petersson, H. and Popov, E. P. [1977] “Constitutive relations for generalised loadings,”
J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE 103(4), 611–627.
Pinho, R. [1999] “Selective repair and retrofitting of RC structures using selective tech-
niques,” Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London (to be pub-
lished).
Poulos, H. J. and Davis, E. H. [1974] Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics (John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible F. and Calvi, G. M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).
PWRI [1986] Public Works Research Institute, Manual for Repair Methods of Civil Engi-
neering Structures Damaged by Earthquakes, Ministry of Construction, Japan.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R. and Jin, L. [1997] “Seismic retrofitting of rectangular
bridge columns with composite straps,” Earthquake Spectra 13(2), 281–304.
Xian, D. [1992] “Inelastic response and effective design of asymmetric buildings under
strong earthquake loading,” Ph.D. Thesis, University College, University of London,
London.
UJCEERP [1981] US/Japan Cooperative Earthquake Engineering Research Program,
Proc. Second Seminar on Repair and Retrofit of Structures, Tsukuba, Japan.
View publication stats

1998 JEE Elnashai Pinho

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1998 JEE Elnashai Pinho

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Repair and retroﬁtting of RC walls using selective techniques

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · October 1998

Amr S. Elnashai Rui Pinho

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

CA'REDIVIVUS View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF RC WALLS

A. S. ELNASHAI and R. PINHO

Received 16 December 1997

Keywords: selective, repair, retrofitting, walls, capacity re-design, RC structures

(a) (b) (c)

2. Review of Recent Work on Repair and Retrofitting of

3. Design Scenarios Requiring Selective Intervention

will not necessarily be adversely affected. Hence, an effective intervention targeting

3.1.2. Correction of stiffness irregularities

3.2. Strength-only scenarios

3.2.2. Strength eccentricity

3.2.3. Variability in materials

Table 1. Effect of material variability on response pa-

Displacement Energy Behaviour

Max. 10.11 73.05 5.50

in a study carried out by Alexandrou [1991] on the global behaviour of RC frames

3.3. Ductility-only scenarios

4. Feasibility of Selective Intervention Methods

4.1. Experimental programme

Fig. 3. Elevation and cross-section of a typical model.

Selective techniques were applied both as repair to previously damaged walls,

4.2. Stiffness-only intervention

Fig. 4. Stiffness-only intervention - tested specimen [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].

4.3. Strength-only intervention

As for the compression, there is no contribution from the external mechanisms,

4.4. Ductility-only intervention

Fig. 8. Ductility-only intervention - tested specimen [Elnashai and Salama, 1992].

The proposed ductility-only intervention technique proved to be extremely ef-

4.5. Shear-strength intervention

Rear Steel Plates Front Steel Plates

5. Finite Element Modelling

5.1. Computer code

5.2. Assessment of FE models and comparison to test results

5.2.1. Intact wall

Fig. 12. Force vs. flexural-displacement hysteresis envelope of intact wall.

5.2.2. Stiffness-only intervention

Fig. 13. Force vs. displacement of stiffness-only intervention.

5.2.3. Strength-only intervention

Fig. 15. Displacement in delay mechanisms.

5.2.4. Ductility-only intervention

EUSP - Axial Force (kN)

Fig. 16. Axial force in external steel plates.

Fig. 18. Effect of ECSP configuration on ductility of upgraded wall.

6. Analytical Parametric Investigations and Design Expressions

6.1. Stiffness-only intervention

6.1.1. Height of the plate

In Fig. 21(a) the curvature distribution at maximum response of a RC flexural

6.1.2. Plate position and section dimensions

Fig. 22. Influence of plate dimensions and position in the wall.

6.1.3. Single-parameter approach

FK = 0.5SK + 1.7 , SK > 1

Fig. 23. Polynomial fit to stiffness-only results.

0 < SK ≤ 1 FK = (1.2SK + 1)(1.1 − 3.2SK ν)ρ−0.1

SK > 1 FK = (0.5SK + 1.7)[1.1 − (0.16SK + 3)ν]ρs0.01SK −0.4 . (6.5b)

6.1.4. Multi-parameter approach

Fig. 24. Proposed design curves for γ = 0.

Fig. 25. Proposed design curves for γ = 0.25.