Retrofitting options of masonry

and concrete structures

Presented by:
Armaan Habib, Md. Salauddin and
Dipan Dhali.
University of Asia Pacific (UAP)
Contents.
Basic Concept of retrofitting.
Objective of the present work
Theoretical and numerical background
Experiment and result on masonry model.
Experiment and result on cylinder test.
Experiment and result on beam test.
Comparison of numerical and experimental
results.
Conclusion.


Basic concept of retrofitting
The seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete buildings is the
process of strengthening and/or modifying existing old
(mostly) or new structures; not designed or insufficiently
designed to withstand seismic action.
The retrofitting techniques are mostly aimed at the older
structures due to their increased susceptibility to seismic
actions compared to newer structures even though these
structures meet codal requirements.


Basic concept of retrofitting (Contd.)
Conventional retrofitting techniques also involve enlargement
of existing structural members e.g.: jacketing of columns
and/or beams.
Other retrofitting techniques may include construction of
shear walls, bracings and cross-lintels in the case of masonry
structures.
Objective of the present work
Here in this particular research we have focused on the study
of change of strength and stiffness due to retrofitting.
Masonry structure was represented by wood model due to
limitation of shake table.
Concrete cylinders were wrapped with Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) to check for the change in failure stress due to
compression.
The beams were retrofitted by using epoxy and steel plate
before undergoing a 2-point loading and an axial
compression.
Theoretical and numerical background
Two methodologies of retrofitting are available so far, i)
Qualitative methods and ii) Analytical methods.

The qualitative methods are based on the background information
available of the building and its construction site, visual inspection
reports and some non destructive tests.

The analytical methods are based on the consideration of the
capacity and ductility of buildings based on the available drawings.










Using wire mesh in masonry walls is a widespread method of masonry
retrofitting. Application of wire mesh increases the lateral strength capacity of
unreinforced masonry walls significantly. It consists of a galvanized iron mesh
fixed to the walls through nails or connector-links drilled through the wall
thickness and the mesh is covered by rich mix of cement-sand mortar in the ratio
of 1:3. Galvanizing of wire mesh is necessary to prevent corrosion.








In the pictures above we can see the effectiveness of through lintels in
masonry structures under seismic actions. With through lintels the
structure more or less shows a rigid box like behavior.






bandaging the walls/corners of masonry walls is also
practiced as retrofitting option.

Theoretical and numerical background
(Contd.)
The equation of dynamic equilibrium for earthquake forces has the
form in which inertia, damping and restoring forces balance the
applied force,
F(t) = m(t) + c(t) + ku(t)
On the basis of this earthquakes ground shaking magnitude, shake
table was designed; at UAP with a scale factor of 3.68.
Therefore, factorized equation
Displacement, u
max
=El Centro/3.68. (2.2)
Acceleration, a
max
=a
El Centro
* (T
El Centro
/T
Shake
)
2
(2.3)
Zone Coefficient, Z
max
=(a/a
g
)* (T
El Centro
/T
Shake
)
2
(2.4)
Weight, W
req.
=F
max
/Z
max
(2.5)
T
El Centro
= 40.96 sec

Theoretical and numerical background
(Contd.)
The M- relationship of arbitrary RC sections was derived
numerically (Anam & Shoma 2002) by the application of
simple principles of Strength of Materials.
The applied loads are obtained directly from the bending
moment M at the midpoint section; i.e.,
M = PL/6 P = 6M/L
Moreover, the mid-span deflection of the beam is also
obtained from its midspan curvature; i.e., in the fully
elastic range

max
= (23/1296) PL
3
/EI = (23/216)
max
L
2
= (1/9.4)
max
L
2

Therefore,
max
=PL/6EI
while in the fully plastic range

max
= (1/8)
max
L
2

Theoretical and numerical background
(Contd.)
Effectively confined concrete displays increased strength and
ductility over unconfined concrete. Confined concrete also
has the ability to carry larger stresses and strains at ultimate
strength. This is evident in the stress-strain model proposed
by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) shown in Fig.
Experiment on Masonry Model
Masonry Model Setup:
** The phenomenon of retrofitting on a masonry building was
portrayed onto a wooden model.
**Timber walls (1x1x0.5) were used instead of masonry walls; due
to limitation of shake table.
**Paper tape (3x1) was used to form the bond between the timber
walls.
**Tapes were used in 3 layers and throughout the length of the
timber walls.

Bonding Test Apparatus:
Bonding of wood and tape was tested using the
bonding test apparatus. The bond force was required to
calculate the weight at which the walls would
dismantle on the shake table.



.








** In the bond testing apparatus, the bond between wood and tape
required 13.672 lb (including self-weight) to be broken; for 3 layers of
tape.

** For through tapes along the length of the wooden walls, 28.672 lb
(including self-weight) was required to break the bond between tape
and wood.







Bonding Test








Shake Table Tests:
**W
req
(weight required to be placed on the model walls
theoretically, to fail the bond between wood and tape on the
shake table) was calculated using numerical equations.

For 3 layers of bonding tape
W
req
21.81lb for 15sec shaking. (by using equation )

For Through layer bonding tape
W
req
45.73lb for 15sec shaking. (by using equation )

** Experimentally the values of W
req
were found to be 25 lb for 3
layers of tape and 50 lb for through layer of tapes.









(a) (b)
Figure: (a) Bond Failure with 3 layers tape (b) Bond failure with through
layers on the shake table.

** Now, the tests were repeated using retrofit options. The methods
of retrofitting used were (i) using through lintels (seismic bands) and
(ii) corner sewing of the walls.




















**Retrofitting applied in the
form of through lintels and
corner sewing.




Results:
Applying retrofitting (With Lintel/Seismic Band):
3 layer bonding tape
For 15 sec shaking the bond between the tape and wooden walls did not fail,
under W
req
= 25lb.
Through layer bonding tape
For 15 sec shaking the bond between the tape and wooden walls did not fail,
under W
req
= 50lb.
Applying retrofitting (with corner sewing of the walls)
3 layers bonding tape
For 15 sec shaking the bond between the tape and wooden walls did not fail,
under W
req
= 25lb.
Through layer bonding tape
For 15 sec shaking, the bond between the tape and wooden walls did not fail,
under W
req
= 50lb.

The experimental and theoretical values of W
req
were pretty much similar.


Experiments on Concrete
Cylinders
**The experiment works consist of tests on concrete cylinders
and jacketed cylinder; i.e. normal concrete cylinder specimens
were compared with ones retrofitted by FRP and jacketed
cylinders (resulting from jacketing of concrete cubes).

**The results compare the ultimate compressive strengths (f
c
)
and crushing strains (
ult
) of retrofitted and un- retrofitted
concrete specimens.

**Fiber Reinforced Polymer was used in two ways. In one way it
was wrapped along the full length of the cylinder and in another
way it was wrapped at only the mid-half length of the cylinder.















Results:
For Normal Cylinders:

f
c
(ksi)
avg
= 2.923 ksi and
0
(x10
-3
)
avg
= 2.473.

For Cylinders Retrofitted with Fiber Reinforced Polymer:

f
c
(ksi)
avg
= 6.176 ksi and
0
(x10
-3
)
avg
= 15.092 (fully confined).
f
c
(ksi)
avg
= 3.283 ksi and
0
(x10
-3
)
avg
= 2.603 (half confined).

For Jacketed Cylinders Retrofitted with Fiber Reinforced Polymer:

f
c
(ksi)
avg
= 4.456 ksi and
0
(x10
-3
)
avg
= 17.223 (fully confined).
f
c
(ksi)
avg
= 2.21 ksi and
0
(x10
-3
)
avg
= 3.52 (half confined).



Experiments on RC Beams
**10 RC beams (42x7x9) were cast with
reinforcements 2 #5 bars at bottom and 2 #3 bars at
top. #3 stirrups @ 4c/c were used.

Sample Arrangements:
All 10 beams were tested under 2-point loading but:

**3 samples without retrofitting and without axial force. (S1,
S2, S3)

**2 samples with retrofitting and without axial force. (SR1,
SR2)

**3 samples without retrofitting and with axial force. (SA1,
SA2, SA3)

**2 samples with retrofitting and with axial force. (SAR1,
SAR2)
Steel plates with epoxy resin were used as retrofitting options
for beams as FRP proved to be a costly alternative.


Load vs Deflection curve for SA2 Load vs deflection curve for SR2
(With axial, without retrofitting) (Without axial, with retrofitting)

Load vs. deflection graph and compare (SAR2)
With Axial Force and With Retrofitting
Conclusion:
** Masonry walls should be checked for out-of-plane failure
criteria based on their (h/t) ratio. This is invariably the weakest
link in their seismic resistance. because of the instability caused
to them due to the large overturning moments.

**For the case of cylinders, the compressive strength increased by up
to 111% (more than 2 times its initial strength) after full confinement
with fiber reinforced polymer. When the cylinders were confined to
only the mid 1/2 of length, the strength was found to increase by 12%.
Hence partial confinement is not effective.

**The jacketing of concrete cylinders did not produce expected
results. It was expected that the compressive strength of the cubes
after jacketing would remain same/increase as that of the normal
cylinders. However this did not happen.






Recommendations:

(i) improved shake table capacity so that larger models can be investigated.

(ii) effect of retrofitting on models having different (h/t) ratios.

(iii) For jacketing purpose the size of aggregate should be reduced.

(iv) The surface where jacketing is to be applied should be more rough so that bonding
improves

(v) The properties concrete used for jacketing purpose can be varied and the effect
studied.

(vi) The price of fiber reinforced polymer although is high, but it is a very effective tool
for retrofitting. However, if the structural member is not fully confined with fiber
reinforced polymer, the results are less effective.


Recommendations (contd.)

vii)For beam tests, the axial load application system can be improved.

(viii)The beams were cast in a standing position. For beams cast in flat
positions, the results may improve.

(ix)Clear cover for beams cast in a standing position should be more than
what was given in this experimental work. This is to ensure proper tamping.

(x)Digital and more sensitive deflection meters.

(xi)Digital UTM machines.

(xii)Ultra slow motion cameras to observe the physical deflection pattern
more carefully.

THANK
YOU