Galit, Jemuel M. Jan.

17, 2019
Thursday/10am-1pm Activity no. 4

Title: Seismic Energy Dissipation of Steel Buildings Using Engineered Cladding Systems

Review of Related Literature

Introduction
In this chapter a literature review is presented. It consists of background research on the analysis
of structures that include cladding components (Section 2.2), the effectiveness of engineered cladding
connections (Section 2.3), tuned mass damping systems (Section 2.4), and the reference structure used in
this research (Section 2.5).

Research on cladding-structure interaction

Henry and Roll (1986) attempted to evaluate the effects of cladding systems on the lateral
displacements and dynamic characteristics of a reinforced concrete moment resisting frame when the
cladding was incorporated into the analysis. They developed two computer models to analyze the
structure and reported that once the cladding took part in the behavior of the structure, the natural period
of vibration changed significantly. This change in behavior was caused by the cladding binding up against
the frame due to inadequate clearance.
Cohen and Powell (1993) studied the idea of utilizing steel cladding panels and energy-dissipating
connections for seismic-resistant design. Hysteretic energy was dissipated when deformations in
connections due to inter-story drift exceeded the elastic regime. The connections were hypothetical with
assumed stiffness and yield strength. In their analytical study, one hypothetical steel-framed building was
designed at three different levels of strength and stiffness when subjected to UBC design loads resulting
in three bare frames with different member sizes. The building had five stories and three bays in one
direction and five bays in the other direction. Details of the building and design loads can be found in
Cohen and Powell (1993). Three unclad frames were designed in accordance with UBC. The first frame
was designed to meet strength requirements for 100 percent of the UBC loads. However it was assumed
that there were deficiencies in this frame during construction and the frame was retrofitted by using
structural cladding. The second frame was designed to meet the strength requirements for 25 percent of
UBC loads. The third frame was designed for gravity load only. The steel cladding panels were added to
these three frames to provide additional strength and stiffness to meet the UBC drift and strength
requirements. Steel cladding panels were considered as very stiff plates surrounded by beams and
columns to provide additional lateral stiffness to the frame. A reference frame was designed to meet 100
percent of strength and stiffness requirements of the UBC without any structural contributions from the
cladding. The inelastic cladding-to-frame connections were designed to be the primary source of energy
dissipation due to yielding of connections.
Effectiveness of engineered connections
Pinelli et al. (1990, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996) and Craig et al. (1992) published analytical and
experimental results on utilizing cladding-to-frame connections as a source of energy dissipation. In this
research connections were specifically detailed to absorb energy during an earthquake. The horizontal
shear forces due to earthquakes deform the connections. When the deformation exceeds the elastic
regime, the yielding of steel is initiated. Energy dissipation within connections as a result of this inelastic
response could be used to transfer demands away from the steel structure.

Reference structure
The frame to be investigated in this study is a moment-resisting frame used in the SAC project,
co-developed by three organizations: The Structure Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), The
Applied Technology Council (ATC) and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
(CUREE). The SAC structures have been widely used in research on control problems of buildings under
seismic excitations. Three different SAC structures were developed, a 3-story building, 9-story building
and 20-story building. The first natural periods of these structures are reported to be 1.01s, 2.27s and
3.84s respectively (Ohtori et al. 2004). The SAC 3-story building was selected as the reference structure in
this research to calibrate analysis results with other research that has been carried out and contribute
new results to related research. This smaller structure was selected for initial research to simplify the
models. Future research could apply results to the 9 and 20 story buildings. The building is 3-floor 4-bay
moment resisting steel frame. Specifics of the structure are modeled after Ohtori et al. (2004).
Title: Anchorage of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers to Reinforced Concrete in Shear
Applications

Review of Related Literature

Introduction
This chapter presents a design overview of the ACI 440.2R-02 Guide for the Design and
Construction of Externally FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures and Technical Report No.
55 Design guidance for strengthening concrete structures using fibre composite materials. Several bond
strength models based on simple shear tests are presented. No bond strength models exist which include
the capacity gained by anchoring the FRP to RC elements in shear applications. This chapter also outlines
some of the most recent experimental research performed on the various methods proposed to anchor
FRP sheets to RC elements.

FRP Shear Strength Design Philosophy

A design overview of the ACI 440.2R-02 Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally FRP
Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures and Technical Report No. 55 Design guidance for
strengthening concrete structures using fibre composite materials is presented. Particular attention is
given to FRP shear strengthening design recommendations presented in both guidelines. 2.2.1 ACI 440.2R-
02 FRP Contribution to Shear Strength The Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures as reported by ACI Committee 440 (2002) details the
most recent guidelines for the application, installation, flexural strengthening, and shear strengthening of
FRP systems. Most importantly, the guidelines are based on a limit-states-design that sets limits on both
serviceability and ultimate limit states. Due to the fact that little is known about strengthening concrete
structures with FRP systems, ACI Committee 440 (2002) recommends using additional strength reduction
factors (ψf) on top of the nominal strength reduction factors (φ ) to account for the unknowns. No rational
justification is presented regarding the development of the additional strength reduction factors.

FRP Bond Strength

In shear strengthening applications it has been shown that the most common modes of failure
occur from intermediate crack-induced interfacial FRP debonding and FRP tensile rupture (Teng, 2002).
Intermediate crack-induced interfacial FRP debonding is a shear anchorage failure mode that can be
studied directly using a simple shear test experimental setup (see Figure 2.3). To account for FRP
debonding several empirical bond strength models based on simple shear tests have been developed by
researchers to calculate the maximum transferable load in the FRP concrete joint. No bond strength
models currently exist that account for FRP anchorage systems.

FRP Systems to Delay Debonding Failures in Shear Applications

Due to the fact that debonding of FRP occurs at loads well below their rupture strength various anchorage
systems have been developed to fasten the FRP laminate to the concrete element to prevent the
debonding failure mode therefore employing the full tensile capacity of the FRP. An overview of four
anchorage systems is presented in this section.
Summary
This literature review has presented a general review of ACI 440.2R-02 and Technical Report No.
55 FRP shear strength design guidelines. Both design guides recognize that debonding is the dominant
failure mode in shear strengthening applications, which occurs well below the FRPs ultimate strength
capacity. To prevent debonding failure both guidelines place a strain limit on the FRP that appears to be
arbitrarily defined due to the limited knowledge of shear strengthening RC members with FRPs. The strain
limit of 0.004 enforced by both guidelines reduces the usefulness of the application because it limits the
maximum attainable strain in the FRP by up to 75% of the FRPs ultimate strain depending on the FRP
system used. Neither report provides guidelines for anchored FRP shear strengthening systems.
In FRP shear strengthening applications it is largely recognized that intermediate crack-induced
interfacial FRP debonding is the prevailing failure mode. Intermediate crack-induced interfacial FRP
debonding is a shear anchorage failure mode that can be studied directly using a simple shear test
experimental setup. FRP to concrete bond strength models based upon simple shear tests are presented.
Both bond strength models recognize an effective bond length limit exists beyond which an increase in
the critical bond length results in no increase in the ultimate bond strength. The Chen and Teng (2001)
model recognizes that a width coefficient exists taking into account the fact that increasing the FRP
laminate width increases the ultimate bond strength. A discussion of the FRP width effect is presented
where the concepts of central regions, edge regions, and regions outside of the edge regions is discussed
concluding that increasing the FRP laminate width will result in a stronger bond strength as long as the
full formation of edge regions is permitted (Subramaniam et al., 2007).
A review of FRP anchorage systems is presented including near surface mounted FRP laminates,
mechanically fastened FRP laminates, and FRP anchors. No models currently exist detailing the capacity
gained by anchoring FRP laminates to RC elements. The objective of this research program is to study the
effects of anchoring FRP laminates to concrete members with FRP anchors thereby avoiding or delaying
the debonding failure mode. A simple shear test experiment is developed to study the effects of anchoring
FRP laminates with ¼-inch (0.635 cm), ½-inch (1.27 cm), and ¾- inch (1.91 cm) diameter FRP anchors with
different bolt patterns and splay diameters. A goal of the research is contribute to the understanding of
fastening FRP laminates with FRP anchors so a design strength model may be formed.