Presented by:

Prachi Taori
17SE06001
• Introduction
• Retrofit application
• Testing method
• Experimental results
• Comparison of analytical & experimental
results
• Conclusions
- Seismic Retrofitting
- Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
 - Cantilever members
- Reference Specimens- R1, R2
- Retrofitted specimens- RS, LS, RR

Components Ef ϕ t w Ultimate Ultimate

(N∕mm²) (mm) (mm) (mm) strain stress
(N∕mm²)
Rods 165,000 8 -- -- 0.015 2475

Pre-cured 165,000 -- 1.4 3.6 0.015 2475

Laminates

Sheets 240,000 -- 0.117 300 0.015 3600

(a) removal of concrete (b) application of structural (c) installation of CFRP
cover repair mortar rods / laminates
(d) application of CFRP (e) application of last ply (f) wrapping with CFRP
anchorages of structural repair mortar transverse direction
• Quasi static displacement controlled cyclic loading
• Target drift ratios- ±0.1, ±0.25, ±0.5, ±1, ±2, ±3, ±4,
±6, and ±8% in pushing and pulling directions
LATERAL LOAD- DISPLACEMENT CURVES
LATERAL LOAD- DISPLACEMENT CURVES
( Specimens retrofitted using CFRP sheets for anchorage)
LATERAL LOAD- DISPLACEMENT CURVES
( Specimens retrofitted using CFRP rods for anchorage)

* The specimen RR could not be

subjected to displacement over
-70 mm in pulling direction due
to an obligatory modification in
test setup. So, this specimen is
Evaluated with its behavior in
pushing direction only.
ENERGY DISCIPATION CAPACITIES
( In pushing direction for all specimens)
LATERAL LOAD- DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPES
( Comparison of all specimens)
FAILURE OF ANCHORAGES
• The longitudinal steel bars of all specimens yielded
at the drift ratios between 1% and 2%.
• The transverse steel bars did not yield.

Specimen CFRP main CFRP sheets

reinforcement
RS 0.001 0.002
LS 0.002 0.002
RR ≈0.015 0.0028
 SPECIMENS R1 RS LS RR
Theoretical capacity 12.80 51.38 50.61 51.38
(KN)
Experimental 13.91 29.79 26.98 66.54
capacity (KN)
• The specimen RR gives desired results.
• Buckling and debonding of CFRP reinforcement
and shear damages could be avoided until large
cyclic drifts are achieved.
• It could resist lateral loads,4.7 and 2.3 times that of
the reference and other retrofitted specimens,
respectively.
• The effectively strengthened member does not
exhibit a typically ductile behavior that is expected
from a typical RC member.
Caglar Goksu, Alper Polat, and Alper Ilki. (2012). “Attempt
for Seismic Retrofit of Existing substandard RC Members
under Reversed Cyclic Flexural Effects”, American Society
of Civil Engineers. CC.1943-5614.0000256.