See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273078901

Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC

Frames Strengthened with Four Different
Techniques

Article in Advances in Structural Engineering · February 2012

DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.15.2.343

CITATIONS READS

2 39

4 authors, including:

Özgür Anil Mesut Kara

Gazi University Ankara University
99 PUBLICATIONS 425 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 215 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fatigue behavior of Glulam wood beam, Impact behavior of CFRP fan type anchorage, Blast behavior
of ECC and normal concrete shear wall View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Özgür Anil on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames
Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

by

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl, M. Emin Kara and Yaǧmur Kopraman

Reprinted from

Advances in Structural Engineering

Volume 15 No. 2 2012

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames
Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

Sinan Altın1, Özgür Anıl1,*, M. Emin Kara2 and Yaǧmur Kopraman

1Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Maltepe, Ankara 06570, Türkiye
2Department of Civil Engineering, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Türkiye

(Received: 27 May 2009; Received revised form: 26 June 2011; Accepted: 5 July 2011)

Abstract: The purpose of this experimental study is to compare the strengthening

techniques that are applied to non ductile low rise RC frames under seismic loads. In
this study, 1/3 scale, one-bay, one-storey, nonductile RC frames with masonry infill
walls were strengthened using four different techniques and are tested experimentally
under reversed cyclic lateral loading. The four frames were constructed with masonry
infill walls and three were strengthened with a mesh reinforced mortar layer, CFRP
and steel strips wrapping, respectively. The remaining one without any extra
strengthening was tested as a reference. A final specimen of the experimental program
was strengthened with RC infill instead of masonry infill. Strength, stiffness, storey
drift, ductility and failure modes of the specimens were evaluated and compared
experimentally. Each strengthening technique proved to have different types of
effectiveness on the lateral strength and stiffness of non ductile RC frames. Different
strengthening techniques changed the ultimate lateral strengths and stiffnesses within
the ranges of 53% to 381% and 82% to 601%, respectively.

Key words: reinforced concrete (RC) frame, strengthening, steel strip, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP),
reinforced mortar, RC infill wall.

1. INTRODUCTION practice such as the introduction of infill walls, and steel

After experiencing severely damaged buildings due to and CFRP bracings. Numerous research studies have been
several destructive earthquakes, the importance of seismic conducted on the performance of RC infilled frames. In
rehabilitation and strengthening of existing buildings is these studies, fully and partially infilled RC frames are
recognized year after year. Nowadays, many countries tested under reversed cyclic lateral loading (Klingner and
have a large number of buildings in use with the similar Bertero 1978; Kahn and Hanson 1979; Altın et al. 1992;
characteristics of such as insufficient strength, ductility Canbay et al. 2003; Anıl and Altın 2007; Kara and Altın
and stiffness. These buildings can cause serious problems 2006). Test results indicate that infilled walls increase the
and collapse during earthquakes. Their structural systems lateral load capacity of the frame and reduced the lateral
include nonductile RC moment resisting frames. As is drift at all load stages. It is also indicated that the use of
commonly known, nonductile RC moment resisting partial infills connected to both the frame column and
frames are identified as one type of structural system that beam are more effective in improving nonductile RC
poses significant potential hazard to life and can result in frame lateral performance. In addition, different local
major economic loss. A great majority of these buildings strengthening techniques have been developed such as
have inadequate lateral strength and stiffness. For steel jacketing, addition of columns at the boundaries of
strengthening and rehabilitation of these buildings the infill, and the addition of longitudinal bars at infill
different techniques have been developed and applied in boundaries with closely spaced ties in the spliced regions

*Corresponding author. Email address: oanil@gazi.edu.tr; Fax: +90-312-230-8434; Tel: +90-312-5823-215.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 343

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

of columns (Jirsa and Kreger 1989; Sonuvar et al. 2004; frames i.e. addition of an RC infill wall or a masonry
Altın et al. 2007). Experiments showed that applied local infill wall strengthened with diagonal CFRP strips
strengthening techniques prevented local failure in the (Erdem et al. 2006). The test results have shown that,
spliced region of the boundary columns and improved both strengthening techniques provide approximately the
the strength, stiffness and energy dissipation capacity of same lateral strength, and the capacity of the frame using
the infilled frame. The effectiveness of RC infills for the CFRP strips depends on the number and effectiveness of
rehabilitation of damaged nonductile RC frames has been the CFRP anchors.
investigated. The research showed that if the seismic Another alternative strengthening technique is for
rehabilitation of a damaged structure is performed by non ductile low rise RC frames to be strengthened with
introducing RC infills to an adequate number of the bays steel members. Experimental studies with masonry
in both directions, it is not necessary to repair the infilled RC frames have shown that strengthening with
individual frame members. steel bracings is an economical and easy to apply
Lateral strength of RC frames is improved technique. In addition, it is effective for upgrading the
significantly by adding masonry infill walls (Bertero and seismic capacity of existing structures (Taghdi et al.
Brokken 1983; Calvi and Bolognini 2001; FEMA 356 2000; Bush et al. 1991; Maheri and Hadjipour 2003).
2000). In addition, strengthening of these masonry infill Diagonal and vertical steel strips connected to masonry
walls further improves the lateral load carrying capacity. wall lintels improved lateral strength and stiffness
Addition of a mesh reinforced mortar layer on one side (Taghdi et al. 2000). Steel members when used as
of a masonry infill wall is one of the strengthening internal bracings like a steel truss, inserted in the empty
techniques advised by the Turkish seismic regulations space enclosed by RC frame columns and beams, and if
(Altın et al., Turkish Seismic Code 2007). While these connections between the steel truss members and the RC
upgrading techniques are effective, they require a great frame are secured, can provide the required lateral load
deal of preparation work, and their construction may capacity.
disturb the ongoing building functions. Also these As can be seen from the above literature, few studies
techniques add considerable mass leading to higher have compared different strengthening techniques in
seismic loads. Hence, an alternative method of respect of seismic behavior effectiveness. The purpose
retrofitting is worth considering. During the last decade of this study is to determine the relative performance of
the use of fibre reinforced polymers for retrofitting and each strengthening technique. In this study, 1/3 scale
strengthening has become a valid alternative because of one bay one storey non ductile RC frames were
their small thickness, and relative ease of application. strengthened using the four different techniques: a)
Fibre reinforced polymers not only have the advantage of mesh reinforced mortar layer, b) diagonally placed
very high strength over conventional materials, but are CFRP strips, c) diagonally placed steel strips, d)
also lightweight and highly durable in many introducing a RC infill wall. All were tested under
environments. The strength and stiffness of a structure reversed cyclic lateral loads. The comparisons of the test
can be increased with negligible mass addition, which is results are made in terms of lateral strength, stiffness,
distinctly advantageous from a seismic perspective. storey drift ratio, ductility and failure mode.
Carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) are widely
used to strengthen RC structures such as bridge girders, 2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
piers, beams, columns, slabs, beam-column joints and 2.1. Details of Specimens
RC frames (Chen and Teng 2001; Teng et al. 2002; Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test frames
Smith and Teng 2002a, b; Smith and Teng 2003; Taljsten are given in Figure 1. For all of the test specimens, the
2003; Khalifa and Nanni 2002; Ye et al. 2002; Prota et geometric dimensions and reinforcement patterns are
al. 2004; Limam et al. 2005; Balsamo et al. 2005). identical. The test frame is a 1/3 scale, one-bay, one-
Experimental studies have shown that strengthening of storey nonductile RC frame. This test frame was
masonry infilled frames using CFRP is an effective detailed and purposely constructed to contain some
technique against seismic forces (Altın et al. 2008). deficiencies commonly observed in residential buildings
Experiments have shown that when CFRP strips are in many countries, such as inadequate lateral stiffness
connected correctly with the frame as well as the infill and weak column-strong beam joints. Insufficient
wall, a new lateral load carrying system is generated. As confinement of concrete is provided at column and
a result, the lateral load carrying capacity, and the beam ends, and no confinement is provided at beam
stiffness are increased and the storey drift ratio of the column joints. The ties that are used in test specimen
original frame is reduced significantly. One other study beams and columns have 90-degree hooks at their free
compares two different strengthening techniques for RC ends. The columns and beams have 100 × 150 mm and

344 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

Table 1. Test specimens

Spec. RC frame Masonry Strengthening

no fC (MPa) infill technique
1 17.3 Yes No strengthening
2 17.2 Yes Mesh reinforced plaster layer
1/3 Scale (95 × 95 × 65) 3 17.5 Yes Reinforced with diagonal
Masonry clay unit CFRP strip
100 1300 100 4 17.1 Yes Reinforced with diagonal
100 100 100
steel strip
B 5 17.4 No Reinforced concrete infill
150

Plaster
B
D D
net area to the gross area of the clay tiles is about 0.56.
8 mm bars were used as

10 mm bars
Both sides of the wall were plastered with the same

@155 mm
100 100 100

100 100 100

longitudinal reinforcement
750

in columns and beam mortar material. The thickness of the plaster used at the
Beam and column ties two faces of brick walls was 7.5 mm. The total thickness
4 mm bars @ 100 mm of the clay tile with plaster was 80 mm. The aspect ratio
A A A A
C (lw/hw, where lw = infill length, hw = infill height) of the
frame with masonry wall was 1.73. The details of the
300

strengthening techniques are given at Figure 2. Due to

16 mm bars
the fact that infill walls are not constructed on the axis
C
200 1500 200 of symmetry in the plane of the frame, symmetrical
strengthening does not occur.
Section A-A Section B-B Section C-C
100 150 500
Specimen 2 is strengthened with the addition of a
40 mm thick mesh reinforced mortar layer on the
150

150

interior side of the masonry wall [Figure 2(a)].

300

Reinforcements with 6 mm diameter were arranged

90° stirrups hook horizontally and vertically like a mesh and spaced at
Section D-D (column reinforcement is not shown in section) 100 mm intervals. The new mortar layer was connected
Exterior side Plaster (thick. 7.5 mm) to both the frame and the masonry wall by using dowels
as shown in Figure 3 with details. Force transfer
Interior side 80 Plaster between the layer and the existing frame is achieved by
(thick. 7.5 mm) Masonry
clay unit means of the dowels consisting of 10 mm diameter
deformed bars embedded into columns and beams.
Figure 1. Details of test specimens (Dimensions in mm) These dowels were inserted into holes 12 mm in
diameter. The depths of the drilled holes were 80 mm
and 120 mm at the columns and the beams,
150 × 150 mm cross sections, respectively. In the respectively. The dowels extended 250 mm from the
columns and beams, four and six 8 mm diameter plain frame columns and the beams into the mortar layer of
bars are used as the longitudinal reinforcement, the strengthened specimen. The reinforced mortar layer
respectively. Plain bars of diameter 4 mm spaced at was anchoraged to the masonry wall with L shaped
100 mm are used as ties in both beams and columns. dowels inserted 8 mm diameter holes 60 mm in depth.
As can be seen from the Table 1 which summarizes After the mesh reinforcements had been placed the
the specimen properties, Specimen 1 is a reference masonry wall was covered with a mortar layer
specimen and the others are specimens strengthened in possessing a 5 MPa compressive strength.
different ways: a) the mesh reinforced mortar layer, b) Specimens 3 and 4 were strengthened with diagonal
diagonal placement of CFRP strips, c) diagonal CFRP and steel strips, respectively. The width of the
placement of steel strips, d) RC infilled wall instead of CFRP and steel strips were selected to be greater than
a masonry wall. The four test frames were (Specimens given by the masonry wall equivalent diagonal strut
1, 2, 3 and 4) infilled with 65 × 95 × 95 mm 1/3 scaled and tie model. In addition, the tensile capacity of the
hollow clay tiles, and infill walls were constructed on CFRP and steel strips were selected to be close to each
the axis of symmetry in the plane of the frame to other. Specimen 3 was strengthened with 200 mm
simulate exterior walls of the building. The ratio of the wide CFRP strips [Figure 2(b)]. A new shear resisting

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 345

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

Orthogonal 6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

(260) (260) (260) 200

80
120

115
0
10 mm dia. deformed bar

30
140

(187.5)

CFRP strip
250
250 (187.5)
140

0
30

120
CFRP strip width wCFRP = 200 mm
140 140
10 mm dia. deformed bar
Notes: CFRP anchorage of masonry wall
Remarks: Symbol represents masonry wall anchors
Pranthesis shows the wall anchorages spacing
(a) Specimen 2 (Mesh reinforced plaster layer) (b) Specimen 3 (Reinforced with diagonal CFRP strip)

20 mm dia. rods
10 mm dia. rods

6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

50 × 550 × 4 strip 15 mm dia. rods

hole dia. /depth: 22/130

6 mm dia. deformed bar @ 100 mm

150 × 1500 × 4 strip hole dia.: 12

hole dia.: 17

80
120
140
10 mm dia. deformed bar

0
25
50
250

0
25

250
100 × 50 × 4

140
L angle

130 130 120

150 150 150 150
140 140
10 mm dia. deformed bar
(c) Specimen 4 (Reinforced with diagonal steel strip) (d) Specimen 5 (RC infill)

Figure 2. Strengthening techniques (Dimensions in mm)

mechanism is formed such that masonry wall carries anchorage regions to prevent a stress concentration
diagonal compression forces and the CFRP strip effect. The CFRP placed diagonally onto the infills
carries diagonal tension forces (Altın et al. 2008). were extended towards the frame members. In
CFRP strips were anchoraged to both the RC frame addition, to achieve a good connection between the
and the masonry infill as detailed in Figure 4. The hollow clay tile infill and the CFRP strips, fan type
ends of the CFRP strips bonded to the interior face of CFRP anchor dowels were used [Figure 4(c)]. The
the masonry wall are divided into 100 mm wide CFRP anchor dowels used in the hollow clay block
segments and wrapped on to 10 mm diameter infills were made from 50 × 200 mm2 carbon fiber
reinforcement pieces. These ends were then inserted strips. These strips were rolled and tied with ordinary
into 14 mm diameter holes and 100 mm in depths fibres. After laying the diagonal CFRP strips,
filled with epoxy resin [Figure 4(a)]. The CFRP anchorages were inserted into 14 mm diameter holes
anchor dowels used in RC frame members were drilled through the masonry wall from one face to the
formed from 30 × 240 mm2 carbon fibre strips. These other face. The locations of the masonry wall anchor
strips are rolled in the shorter direction, tied with dowels are shown as dots in Figure 2(b).
ordinary fibres and folded [Figure 4(b)]. 300 mm long Specimen 4 was strengthened with diagonal and
CFRP sheets with the same width were bonded to the vertical steel strips [Figure 2(c)]. A new shear resisting

346 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

150 spacing between the threaded rods was selected so that

50 100 buckling due to compression forces is prevented.
15 mm diameter rods at 250 mm spacing and 10 mm
diameter rods at 50 mm spacing were used for diagonal

150
and vertical steel strips, respectively. Hole diameters

120
RC frame
beam drilled onto masonry wall for the rods used as diagonal
and vertical strips were 17 mm and 12 mm,
Frame anchor. respectively.
10 mm dia. deformed bar Specimen 5 was strengthened with RC infill having
hole dia/depth: 12/120
a thickness of 50 mm. The details of the infill
Plaster
Mesh reinfor. reinforcement and the dowels for Specimen 5 are
Plaster shown in Figure 2(d). Orthogonal reinforcement for
Wall anchor. the infilled wall consisted of 6 mm plain bars. The
6 mm dia. deformed bar Hollow clay tile reinforcement was placed on both faces of the wall.
hole dia/depth: 8/80
The ratio of wall reinforcement was ρv = ρh = 0.009 in
30 Interior side Exterior side
100 both the vertical and horizontal directions. The force
Added plaster layer transfer between the infilled wall and the existing frame
40 80
was achieved by means of dowels of 10 mm diameter
Existing masonry wall deformed bars embedded into the columns and beams.
Remarks: Frame and wall anchors holes were epoxy injected The depths of the drilled holes were 80 mm and 130 mm
at columns and beams, respectively. The dowels
Figure 3. Anchorage details of specimen 2 (Dimensions in mm)
extended 250 mm into the RC infill wall from the
foundation beam, the frame columns and the beams.
mechanism is formed such that the masonry wall that Holes were first drilled in the frame and the masonry
carries diagonal compression forces and the diagonal walls for the purposes of anchoraging the dowels and
steel strips carry diagonal tension forces. The vertical the threaded rods. The holes were then cleaned and
steel strips improve flexural strength. Four mm thick dowels or threaded rods inserted into the epoxy injected
diagonal steel strips 150 mm wide and 50 × 550 mm holes.
vertical strips were placed on both side of the masonry The basic design objective for the strengthened
wall symmetrically. Diagonal steel strips were used for specimens was to achieve yielding in RC column
carrying the great majority of the lateral load, and longitudinal reinforcement, and to observe ductile
vertical steel strips were used to improve the flexural flexural behavior for all strengthened specimens. There
capacity of the masonry infilled RC frame so that the was no specific target strength aimed at in this study, the
lateral storey drift ratio would be decreased. L shaped largest possible improvement in strength and stiffness
steel plates connected to specimen’s upper and lower was the aim. Geometrical details and dimensions were
beams were used to constrain the relative displacement chosen according to the general approach summarized
of connection points. Vertical steel strips were added to above and the design criteria for each strengthening
decrease the storey drift ratio and to achieve better technique. In addition, while designing strengthening
stiffness and strength levels. This is because masonry details, details were chosen to be easily applied and as
infill walls crush at a low storey drift ratios and lose economical as possible.
strength (Figure 5). Steel strips were connected to both
the RC frame and the masonry wall as detailed in 2.2. Materials
Figure 5. Vertical and diagonal steel strips on the For the experimental program, specimen frames with
interior side of the frame were connected to beam ends low compressive strength were constructed to
using 100 × 50 × 4 mm L shaped steel parts. These L represent the concrete strength of existing buildings.
shaped parts were connected to the beam and The average concrete compressive strength of the test
foundation of the frame with the help of 20 mm frames was 17.3 MPa on the day of testing. Concrete
diameter steel rods anchoraged in 22 mm diameter compression strengths lower than 20 MPa are
holes of 90 mm depth. The connection details at the forbidden within earthquake zones in Turkey
exterior of the frame were the same as for the interior. according to the Turkish Earthquake regulations
Steel strips placed on both sides of the wall were (Turkish Seismic Code 2007). The concrete
clamped to the masonry wall using steel threaded rods compressive strength of the RC infill used for
inserted into the holes drilled through the wall. The Specimen 5 was 30 MPa. The concrete cylinder

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 347

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

12 mm diameter Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)

100 mm plain bar RC column
Exterior face

80
150
300 mm

Hollow Interior face

clay tile

Diagonal CFRP sheet

100

CFRP anchorage
hole dia.: 14 mm
200 mm Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were epoxy injected

(a) Interior side anchorage

CFRP anchorage Diagonal CFRP sheet

hole dia.: 14 mm
Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)
50 50 Exterior face
240 mm

80
150

Hollow
clay tile Interior face

RC column

30 mm 100
Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were epoxy injected
(b) Exterior side anchorage

Diagonal CFRP sheet

Plaster (7.5 mm thickness)
50 50 Exterior face
80

Hollow Interior face

clay tile CFRP Anchorage
hole dia.: 14 mm
(c) Masonry wall anchorage

Figure 4. Anchorage details of specimen 3 (Dimensions in mm)

specimen strengths are given in Table 1. Properties of Average compressive strength of the mortar was found
reinforcement and steel plate used in the specimens to be 2.6 MPa. The average compressive strength of the
are listed in Table 2. hallow clay tile in the direction of its holes was
The mix designs for the mortar used in the calculated as 7.8 MPa considering the gross area of the
construction of the masonry wall and for the plaster clay tile. Properties of CFRP sheets and resin used in
were identical. Mix proportions are given in Table 3. this study are given in Table 4.

348 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

150 Table 2. Mechanical properties of reinforcements

50 100 and steel plate
RC frame
beam Bar Diameter fsy fsu Type
90 (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
150

20 mm dia. rods
4 326 708 Plain
90

hole dia.: 22 mm
6 427 489 Plain
8 592 964 Deformed
100 × 50 × 4 15 mm dia. rods 10 475 689 Deformed
L angle hole dia.: 17 mm 16 425 683 Deformed
Plaster Steel plate 210 325 –
150 × 1500 × 4 (Thickness = 4 mm)
diagonal strip Hollow clay tile

15 mm dia. rods
hole dia.: 17 mm Table 3. Mixture design of mortar and plaster

Interior side Exterior side Material Percentage by Weight (%)

100 × 50 × 4
100 × 50 × 4 L angle 0–3 mm Aggregate 61.0%
L angle
15 mm dia. rods Cement 10.5%
hole dia.: 17 mm Lime 10.5%
Water 18.0%
90

Base 20 mm dia. rods

hole dia.: 22 mm

Table 4. Properties of CFRP (Unidirectional) and resin

Remarks: Frame anchorages holes were poxy injected Properties of CFRP Remarks of CFRP
Construction Warp: Carbon Fibers (99% of total
areal weight) Weft : Thermoplastic
heat-set fibers (1% of total areal
weight)
Areal Weight (g/m2) 220 ± 10
Density (g/m3) 1.78 × 10–6
Thickness (mm) 0.12
Tensile Strength (MPa) 4100
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 231000
Ultimate Tensile Strain (%) 1.7 %

Properties of Resin Remarks of Resin

Tensile Strength (MPa) 30
Figure 5. Anchorage details and load transfer mechanism of
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 3800
Specimen 4 (Dimensions in mm)

2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation cycles. The identical loading history was applied to all
The testing configuration, loading system, and specimens up to the maximum load capacity, after
instrumentation are shown in Figure 6. Specimens which point loading was different for each specimen.
were tested under a cyclic lateral loading regime. Due to differences in strengthening details, specimens
Lateral load was applied to the specimens at beam showed different capacities, failure mechanisms and
level, using a hydraulic jack and the applied load behavior patterns. As a result, the identical
measured with a load cell. The capacities of the displacement controlled loading was not applied to all
equipment are 500 kN both in compression and specimens. After specimens lost their lateral load
tension. Load cycles were applied to specimens under carrying capacities, tests were considered completed.
load control up to the maximum load capacity, and During tests, the storey displacements and lateral
then displacement control was applied for further loads were monitored. Axial load was applied to the
cycles. Each cycle was repeated once and a 10 kN columns by prestressing tendons. The level of
load increment was applied for the load controlled the applied axial load in each test was about 10% of

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 349

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

and stiffness to some extent, but could not prevent

LVDT
premature failure. Specimen 2 reached 0.72% lateral
Load cell
Hydraulic
Seperader beam drift at an ultimate load of 117.0 kN on the forward
jack
Load cell cycle. There is no significant drop of the lateral load
Rigid
carrying capacity at 1% lateral drift. The masonry infill
Hydraulic
wall jack 825
wall failed in shear and slid from the weakest joint with
the bricks and the specimen lost its lateral load carrying
Specimen 300 capacity. Shear cracks were observed in the newly
Rigid floor
added plaster layer. Additionally, shear cracks
developed at the unconfined column-beam connections.
Shear transfer between the reinforced concrete frame
800 1600 800 and the plaster layer could not be fully obtained,
because of the poor bonding capacity of the layer to the
Figure 6. Test setup and instrumentations (Dimensions in mm) masonry infill wall. The dowel reinforcements
anchored to the beam of the frame crushed the layer and
broke the cover. After the brick infill wall crushed at
the axial load capacity of the frame columns. A rigid the upper corners, the test specimen lost its lateral load
steel stability frame was constructed around the test carrying capacity. The picture after failure is shown in
specimens to prevent out of plane displacements. Figure 9.
Strain gauge based linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) were used for displacement 3.3. Specimen 3 (Strengthened with Diagonal
measurements. After each cycle, newly initiated CFRP Strip)
cracks and crack propagations were marked on the CFRP strips increased the lateral load carrying
specimens themselves and failure mechanisms were capacity and the initial stiffness significantly. No
observed. shear cracks were observed up to the ultimate lateral
load capacity. The storey drift ratio for specimen 3 is
3. BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE MODE OF TEST 0.57% at the ultimate load of 167 kN on the forward
SPECIMENS cycle. The specimen lateral load carrying capacity
Lateral load-displacement hysteretic curves for the test dropped a little during the first forward and backward
specimens are shown in Figure 7. As indicated in these cycles after the ultimate load had been reached and the
figures, all of the strengthening techniques increased the displacement capacity increased. CFRP strips on the
lateral strength, stiffness and energy dissipation interior side of the infill wall ruptured due to tension,
capacities of the specimens. and the anchorages of the CFRP strip on the exterior
ruptured from the upper corner of the frame due to
3.1. Specimen 1 (Reference) shearing (Figure 10). CFRP strips ruptured at the
The loading cycles prior to the maximum created ultimate load level, and specimens abruptly lost their
diagonal shear cracks in an X shape in the diagonal lateral load carrying capacities and stiffnesses. Rupture
compression zone of the masonry wall. The reference of the CFRP strips and anchorages determined the
specimen reached a 0.40% lateral drift at an ultimate lateral load carrying capacity and displacement of the
load of 76.7 kN on the forward cycle. After the infill specimen.
crushed at the upper corners due to diagonal
compression, the specimen lost its lateral load 3.4. Specimen 4 (Strengthened with Diagonal
carrying capacity and, failed. After exceeding the Steel Strip)
lateral load carrying capacity of the specimen, a large The most successful experimental results for lateral
lateral storey drift caused failure. Due to poor strength and stiffness were obtained with the use of
confinement, large and wide shear cracks were diagonal steel strips. Steel strips provided a lateral
observed at the beam column connections. A picture load carrying capacity such that a 1.0% lateral drift
after failure is shown in Figure 8. ratio was reached and shear crack propagations were
prevented. The storey drift ratio of Specimen 4
3.2. Specimen 2 (Mesh Reinforced Mortar reached 1.20% at an ultimate load of 320 kN on the
Layer) forward cycle. The lateral shear force was carried by
The mesh reinforced mortar layer introduced on one the diagonal steel strips placed in the tension and
side of the masonry wall increased the lateral strength compression directions. Before steel strips buckled,

350 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

350 350
300 Specimen-1 300 Specimen-2
No strengthening
250 250 Mesh reinforced
plaster Layer
200 200
150 150
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−200 −200
−250 −250
−300 −300
−350 −350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2) Drift ratio (10−2)

350 350
300 Specimen-3 300 Specimen-4
Reinforced with Reinforced with
250 250
diagonal CFRP strip diagonal steel strip
200 200
150 150
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−200 −200
−250 −250
−300 −300
−350 −350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2) Drift ratio (10−2)

350
300 Specimen-5
Reinforced
250
concrete infill
200
150
Shear force (kN)

100
50
0
−50
−100
−150
−200
−250
−300
−350
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift ratio (10−2)

Figure 7. Load-drift ratio graphics of specimens

specimen reached the ultimate load level for both connecting steel strips to the frame. Wide shear cracks
forward and backward cycles. No damage was were observed at the unconfined column beam
observed in steel connection members used for connections of the frame. Diagonal steel strips

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 351

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

CFRP strip
rupture

Specimen 1

Figure 8. Specimen 1 after failure Anchorages

CFRP anchor
rupture

Figure 10. Rupture of the CFRP in Specimen 3

Figure 9. Specimen 2 after failure

connected to column beam connections carried

compression forces to these regions and caused heavy
damage on the forward and backward cycles (Figure 11).
The nonductile RC frame was severely damaged at
loading cycles after reaching the ultimate strength of
the specimen. Anchorages placed along the diagonal
steel strips are used for postponing buckling of the
strips up to the point of yield of longitudinal
reinforcements, and the specimen reaches its load
carrying capacity. Design is done according to this
criterion. It is impossible to prevent the buckling of Figure 11. Specimen 4 upper corner after failure
steel strips due to increasing lateral drift ratio,
crushing of the masonry infill wall at the corners, and
forming of plastic hinges at the column ends. Steel drift ratio reached 1.0%. The nonductile RC frame was
strips buckled at large storey drift ratios, after the severely damaged on loading cycles subsequent to the
specimen had lost its load carrying capacity. ultimate strength of the specimen having been reached.
The shear forces were transferred from the infilled wall
3.5. Specimen 5 (RC Infilled) to the RC frame by diagonal compressive struts, and
In the forward cycles, Specimen 5 reached its ultimate caused the column ends of the nonductile RC frame to fail
lateral load of 210.3 kN, when the storey drift ratio was in shear (Figure 12). No separation was observed between
0.75%. In this specimen, both on forward and backward the frame and the infill. This indicated that, adequate
cycles, load carrying capacity decreased after the storey

352 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

−0.35 × 10−2 0.35 × 10−2

350
300 Spec-1
250 Spec-2
200 Spec-3
150 Spec-4

Shear force (kN)

100 Spec-5
50
0
−50
−100
−150
−200
−250
−300
−350
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 12. Shear failure of Specimen 5 column
Drift ratio (10−2)

Figure 13. Response envelopes of specimens

detailing and proper construction of steel dowels had been
achieved.
by Specimen 4. Greater lateral strength is obtained by
4. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL strengthening with diagonal steel strips. The rupture of
RESULTS CFRP strips and anchorages determined the lateral load
Behavior of the test specimens was compared in terms carrying capacity of Specimen 3. Lateral load carrying
of lateral strength, stiffness, storey drift ratio and capacity dropped suddenly after the rupture of CFRP
ductility. The test results are summarized and presented anchorages. Lateral displacement of the frame and cracks
in Table 5. This table was prepared to illustrate the initiated in the masonry infill wall caused direction
effect of the type of applied strengthening on ultimate changes in CFRP fibres. For this reason, CFRP strips
strength, initial stiffness, lateral storey drift ratio at affected by both axial force and transverse loads
ultimate load and the displacement ductility ratio. prematurely failed (Altın et al. 2008). The lateral load
Response envelope curves can be used for evaluating carrying capacity of Specimen 3 is 92% less than that of
the strength and stiffness characteristics of the specimens. Specimen 4 which was strengthened with steel strips. The
The response envelopes shown in Figure 13 are plotted by ultimate load and drift at ultimate load for Specimen 4
connecting the peak points of the load-displacement was significantly larger than for the other specimens.
hysteretic curves for each specimen. As can be seen from Specimen 5 strengthened with an RC infill wall had
this figure, their strength and stiffness of the strengthened greater strength than Specimen 3 and could attain a 1.0%
frames are significantly higher than those of the reference lateral drift ratio on both forward and backward cycles
specimen. Each strengthening technique produced without losing significant load carrying capacity. The
different degree of effectiveness on specimen lateral target strength for the strengthened specimens is to reach
strength and stiffness. The lowest load carrying capacity a required lateral load level followed by yielding of the
was observed for Specimen 2. The highest was achieved longitudinal reinforcement in the columns. As a result,

Table 5. Summary of test results

Drift ratio at Displacement

Ultimate load (kN) ultimate load Initial stiffness ductility
Spec. no Forward Backward Ratioa (%) (kN/mm) Ratiob ratio
1 76.7 –67.4 1.00 0.40 50.00 1.00 1.73
2 117.0 –110.4 1.53 0.72 90.90 1.82 2.03
3 167.0 –161.0 2.18 0.57 200.00 4.00 1.73
4 320.0 –304.4 4.81 1.20 350.50 7.01 1.37
5 210.3 –208.6 2.74 0.75 315.45 6.31 1.76
a Ratio of ultimate load of strengthened infilled frame to ultimate load of reference specimen
b Ratio of initial stiffness of strengthened infilled frame to that of the reference specimen;
initial stiffness was calculated as using first push half cycles

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 353

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

the full capacities of the specimens are attained. Due to specimens at ultimate lateral load were found to be
differences in the strengthening details applied to four larger than that of the reference specimen. The smallest
specimens, the lateral strengths achieved were different. and largest storey drift ratios were 0.57% and 1.28% for
Specimens 4 and 5 reached the target lateral strength level Specimens 3 and 4, respectively.
with the help of the strengthening techniques employed. Initial stiffness is defined as the initial slope of the
But Specimens 2 and 3 could not reach the target strength load displacement curve on the first forward half cycle.
level. The ratios of the initial stiffness of the strengthened
The storey elastic analysis drift limit specified by the specimens to that of the reference specimen varied
Turkish Seismic Code (Turkish Seismic Code 2007) is between 1.82 and 7.01 (Table 5). The smallest and the
also shown in Figure 13 for comparison purposes. After largest initial stiffnesses were observed in Specimens 2
revision of the Turkish Earthquake regulations in 2007, and 4, respectively. CFRP strips that carry diagonal
the storey drift ratio failure limit for strengthened tension forces at the masonry infill wall increased the
infilled walls is given as 0.35% in the newly added initial stiffness by 300%. Diagonal steel strips are more
section of the regulations. Every code provides similar effective for increasing lateral stiffness. The ratio of the
limits to prevent extensive structural and non-structural RC infilled specimen stiffness to the reference specimen
damage and to minimize second order effects. The stiffness was 6.31.
Turkish seismic code specified an interstorey drift limit Displacement ductility ratios of the specimens were
of 0.0035 for the type of strengthened masonry infill calculated as the storey drift ratio at which the load
wall systems used in this study. No strength degradation carrying capacity dropped by 15% to 85% of the
was observed for the backward and forward cycles and maximum load carrying capacity to the storey drift ratio
there was no significant stiffness degradation up to this at the maximum load carrying capacity. These values are
limit for any off the strengthened specimens. After tabulated in Table 5. Ductility ratios of the strengthened
exceeding the interstorey drift limit, lateral drift ratios specimens except for Specimen 4, strengthened with
increased more rapidly without significant increase in steel strips, are larger than that of the reference Specimen
the lateral loads except for Specimen 4 that was 1. The most ductile behavior is observed for Specimen 2,
strengthened with steel strips. The strength degradation which was strengthened with a reinforced mortar layer.
beyond the peak is much more significant for Specimen Displacement ductility ratios of the strengthened
3 when compared to the other strengthened specimens. specimens vary between 1.37 and 2.03.
When a comparison is made of the lateral strength losses
at 1.5% storey drift ratio among the strengthened 5. CONCLUSIONS
specimens, the largest loss is observed for Specimen 3 at In the study presented, the behavior and the strengths of
66%. The smallest loss was achieved by Specimen 2 at nonductile 1/3 scale RC frames strengthened by four
21%. Strength losses were 28% and 42% for Specimens different strengthening techniques were investigated
4 and 5, respectively. Specimens 2 and 4 preserved their experimentally under cyclic lateral loading. The
strengths at large displacements and storey drift ratios. following conclusions can be drawn in the light of the
As can be seen from Table 5, both the strengths and tests reported in this paper.
the stiffnesses of the strengthened specimens are • All four strengthening techniques increased
significantly higher than those of the reference specimen lateral stiffness and strength significantly. The
(Specimen 1). The ratios of the ultimate lateral strength ratios of the ultimate strengths of strengthened
of the strengthened specimens to the reference specimen specimens to that of the reference specimen
range between 1.53 and 4.81. The smallest ultimate varied between 1.51 and 4.82. The smallest
lateral strength was obtained with Specimen 2, which ultimate lateral strength was obtained with
was strengthened with mesh reinforced mortar layer, Specimen 2, which was strengthened with a mesh
and the highest was obtained with Specimen 4 reinforced mortar layer, and the largest ultimate
strengthened with diagonal steel strips. The shear lateral strength was obtained with Specimen 4,
resisting mechanism in the carrying of compression and which was strengthened with steel strips. The
tension loads with two crossed diagonal strips was ratios of the initial stiffnesses of strengthened
successful in enhancing the lateral load carrying specimen to that of the reference specimens
capacity of Specimen 4. The ultimate lateral strength of varied between 1.82 and 7.01. The smallest and
Specimen 3 was 118% larger than that of the reference largest initial stiffness values were obtained from
specimen, and that of the Specimen 5 was 26% larger Specimens 2 and 4, respectively. The fact that
than the Specimen 3. RC infill increased the strength by when the stiffness increased, the lateral load
174%. Storey drift ratios for all of the strengthened capacity of the structure also increased should not

354 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

be forgotten and these two parameters should be strengthened specimens is desirably reached
balanced. Applied strengthening techniques when yield occurs of the column longitudinal
improved both stiffness and lateral strength. reinforcements. In this situation the full capacities
Strengthening technique for Specimen 2 of the specimens are used. Due to differences in
produced the smallest increase in stiffness and the strengthening details applied to the four
lateral strength. In contrast the technique applied specimens, the lateral strengths achieved were
to Specimen 4 produced the largest increase. different. Specimens 4 and 5 reached the target
• The most successful lateral strength and stiffness lateral strength level due to the details of the
increase was observed for Specimen 4, which was strengthening technique used. Specimens 2 and 3
strengthened with steel strips. The newly were not able to reach the target strength level.
established shear resisting mechanism using steel • The Turkish seismic code specifies an interstorey
strips carrying the diagonal compression and drift limit of 0.0035 for the type of RC systems
tension forces in the masonry wall without any used in this study. No strength degradation was
buckling resulted in lateral load carrying capacity observed during the backward and forward
and stiffness increases of by 381% and 601%, cycles, and there was no significant stiffness
respectively. The weakest lateral strength and degradation up to this 0.0035 limit for any of the
stiffness was observed in the specimen for which strengthened specimens. After exceeding the
a mesh reinforced mortar layer was introduced. interstorey drift limit, lateral drift ratios increased
The reinforced mortar layer increased the lateral more rapidly without significant increase in the
strength and stiffness of the nonductile reinforced lateral loads except for Specimen 4, which was
concrete frame with masonry infill wall by 53% strengthened with steel strips. The strength
and 82%, respectively. The weak adhesion degradation beyond the peak is much more
capability and low compressive strength of the significant for Specimen 3 when compared with
mortar prevented the mesh reinforcement from the other strengthened specimens. Comparing the
carrying shear forces as the dowel bars in the layer lateral strength losses at 1.5% storey drift ratio
crushed the mortar. among the strengthened specimens, the largest
• CFRP strips that carry diagonal tension forces loss was observed for Specimen 3 at 66%. The
increased the lateral strength and stiffness by smallest loss was exhibited by Specimen 2 at
118% and 300%, respectively. Rupture of the 21%. Specimens 2 and 4 preserved their strengths
CFRP strips determined the lateral load carrying well the 1.5% storey drift ratio.
capacity of Specimen 3. Rupture of the CFRP • Ductility ratios of strengthened specimens except
strips caused a sudden drop in lateral load for Specimen 4, which was strengthened with
carrying capacity. Lateral displacement of the steel strips, are larger than that of the reference
frame then started and cracks were initiated in Specimen 1. The greatest degree of ductile
the masonry infill wall. This action caused behavior was shown by Specimen 2, which was
direction changes in the CFRP fibers. As a result, strengthened with a reinforced mortar layer.
CFRP strips were affected not only by the axial Displacement ductility ratios of the strengthened
force but also the transverse loads and failed specimens varied between 1.37 and 2.03.
prematurely. • When strengthening techniques are considered
• The lateral load carrying capacity of the against cost criteria the most successful ones are
Specimen strengthened with the RC infill wall those used for Specimen 2 and the Specimen 4
was 26% larger than that of Specimen 3. There in material terms. But if maintenance and
was no significant change in lateral load carrying workmanship cost is taken into account, the
capacity of specimen 5 up to 1.0% lateral drift most economical technique is that for Specimen
ratio for both forward and backward cycles. The 3. When the techniques are investigated with
nonductile RC frame was severely damaged by respect to constructability, the Specimen 5
loading cycles applied after the ultimate strength method takes needs the greatest time and
of the specimen had been reached. The shear resource effort. By contrast the Specimen 3
forces were transferred from the RC infill wall to method requires the least time and effort. The
the RC frame by diagonal compressive struts, anchorages needed for securing the
and which caused the column ends of the strengthening elements for Specimens 2, 4 and 5
nonductile RC frame to fail in shear. require too much time and workmanship effort.
• The target lateral load strength for the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 355

 Comparison of Seismic Performance of RC Frames Strengthened with Four Different Techniques

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

This study was conducted at the Structural Mechanics Kahn, L.F. and Hanson, R.D. (1979). “Infilled walls for earthquake
Laboratory of Gazi University. The research was strengthening”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105,
supported partly by the Scientific and Technical Research No. 2, pp. 283–296.
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) through Research Grand Kara, M.E. and Altın S. (2006). “Behavior of reinforced concrete
105M250. The authors gratefully acknowledged this frames by reinforced concrete partial infills”, ACI Structural
support. In addition, the authors wish to give special Journal, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 701–709.
thanks to Mr. Kadir Başoğlu to Aslan Masonry Inc. Khalifa, A. and Nanni, A. (2002). “Rehabilitation of rectangular
simply supported RC beams with shear deficiencies using CFRP
REFERENCES composites”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 16, No. 3,
Altın, S., Ersoy, U. and Tankut, T. (1992). “Hysteretic response of pp. 135–146.
reinforced concrete infilled frames”, Journal of Structural Klingner, R.E. and Bertero, V.V. (1978). “Earthquake resistance of
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 8, pp. 2133–2150. infilled frames”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö. and Kara, M.E. (2007). “Strengthening of RC No. 6, pp. 973–987.
nonductile frames with rc infills: an experimental study”, Cement
Limam, O., Nguyen, V.Y. and Foret, G. (2005). “Numerical and
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 612–621.
experimental analysis of two way slabs strengthened with
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö., Kara, M.E. and Kaya, M. (2008). “An experimental
CFRP strips”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 6,
study on strengthening of masonry infilled RC frames using
pp. 841–845.
diagonal CRFP strips”, Composites: Part B, Vol. 39, No. 3,
Maheri, M.R. and Hadjipour, A. (2003). “Experimental investigation
pp. 680–693.
and design of steel brace connection to RC frame”, Engineering
Altın, S., Anıl, Ö., Kopraman Y. and Belgin, Ç. (2010). “Strengthening
Structures, Vol. 25, No. 13, pp. 1707–1714.
of masonry infilled walls using mesh reinforced layers”, Proceeding
of the Institution of Civil Engineering Structures and Building, Vol. Jirsa, J.O. and Kreger, M.E. (1989). “Recent research on repair and
163, Issue SB5, pp. 331-342. strengthening of reinforced concrete structures”, Structures
Anıl, Ö. and Altın, S., (2007). “An experimental study on RC Congress 89, San Francisco, California, USA, May, pp. 679–688.
partially infilled frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 3, Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfred, G. and Cosenza, E. (2004). “Selective
pp. 449–460. upgrade of under designed RC beam–column joints using CFRP”,
Balsamo, A., Colombo, A., Manfredi, G., Negro, P. and Prota, A. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, pp. 699–707.
(2005). “Seismic behavior of a full scale RC frame repaired Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2002a). “FRP-strengthened RC beams-
using CFRP laminates”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 5, I: review of debonding strength models”, Engineering Structures,
pp. 769–780. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 385–395.
Bertero, V.V. and Brokken, S.T. (1983). “Infills in seismic resistant Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2002b). “FRP-strengthened RC beams-
building”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, II: assessment of debonding strength models”, Engineering
No. 6, pp. 1337–1361. Structures, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 397–417.
Bush, T.D., Jones, E.A. and Jirsa, J.O. (1991). “Behavior of RC Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2003). “Shear-bending interaction in
frame strengthened using structural steel bracing”, Journal debonding failures of FRP-plated RC beams”, Advances in
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 1115–1126. Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 183–199.
Canbay, E., Ersoy. U. and Özcebe, G. (2003). “Contribution of RC
Sonuvar, M.O., Özcebe, G. and Ersoy, U. (2004). “Rehabilitation of
Infills to the Seismic Behavior of Structural System”, ACI
reinforced concrete frames with reinforced concrete infills”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 100. No. 5, pp. 637–643.
Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 494–500.
Calvi, G.M. and Bolognini, D. (2001). “Seismic response of
Taghdi, M., Bruneau, M. and Saatcioglu, M. (2000). “Seismic
reinforced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced
retrofitting of low-rise masonry and concrete walls using steel
masonry panels”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5,
strips”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 9,
No. 2, pp. 153–185.
pp. 1017–1025.
Chen, J.F. and Teng, J.G. (2001). “Anchorage strength models for
FRP and steel plates bonded to concrete”, Journal of Structural Taljsten, B. (2003). “Strengthening concrete beams for shear with
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 7, pp. 784–791. CFRP sheets”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 17, No. 1,
· pp. 15–26.
Erdem, I., Akyüz, U., Ersoy, U. and Özcebe, G. (2006). “An
experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. (2002). FRP-
RC frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, No. 13, Strengthened RC Structures, John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
pp. 1843–1851. Chichester, UK.
FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Turkish Seismic Code (2007). Turkish Seismic Code, Turkish
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey.

356 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012

Sinan Altın, Özgür Anıl and M. Emin Kara

Ye, L., Yue, Q., Zhao, S. and Li, Q. (2002). “Shear strength of reinforced NOTATION
concrete columns strengthened with carbon-fiber reinforced plastic fc compression strength of concrete
sheet”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 12, fsy yield strength of reinforcements
pp. 1527–1534. fsu ultimate strength of reinforcements
hw height of infill wall
lw length of infill wall
ρh sectional area horizontal reinforcement ratio of
infill
ρv sectional area vertical reinforcement ratio of
infill

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 2 2012 357

View publication stats