Seismic Performance and Global Ductility PDF

Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 2080
Seismic Performance and Global Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Frames with

CFRP Laminates Retrofitted Joints
Mostafa Fakharifar1, Mohammad Kazem Sharbatdar2, and Zhibin Lin3
1
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65401, USA; email:
mfhdc@mail.mst.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 05/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran; email:
msharbatdar@semnan.ac.ir
3
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65401, USA; email:
linzh@mst.edu
ABSTRACT
Post-earthquake reconnaissance and experimental research indicate that the
beam-column joint is a crucial zone in reinforced concrete (RC) moment resisting
frames. Due to their exceptional mechanical properties and high strength to weight
ratio, fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are considered to be one of the most promising
materials for beam-column joint retrofitting in RC structures. In this study, the
efficacy of joint retrofitting in upgrading the seismic performance of RC structures is
numerically investigated through displacement-based adaptive pushover and inelastic
dynamic time history analyses. Four typical FRP strengthening schemes between the
beam and column are investigated and the corresponding structural global ductility
and seismic performance for FRP joint-retrofitted RC frames are evaluated through
both the seismic behavior factor and the inter-story drift ratio. The proposed method
is demonstrated by seismic behavior of an intermediate-rise RC building under
earthquake forces. The numerical results indicate that the proposed retrofitting
scheme can greatly improve the seismic performance and global ductility of RC
buildings.
INTRODUCTION
The performance of beam-column joints in RC framed structures under seismic
loadings is critical in the overall behavior of the whole systems and the corresponding
codes for seismic design of beam-column joints can trace back to 1976 in the U.S. [1]
and to 1982 in New Zealand [2]. Numbers reported in the past earthquakes
(Northridge, 1994; Wenchuan, 2008; Haiti, 2010; and Chile, 2010) reveal that
beam-column joints are the most vulnerable to suffer from severe damage, therefore
leading to catastrophic progressive failures. Design deficiencies of beam-column
joints is compounded by the high demand imposed by the adjoining flexural members
Structures Congress 2013

(beams and columns) in the event of mobilizing their inelastic capacities for
dissipating seismic energy. Unsafe design and detailing non-conforming to seismic
codes within the joint region thus demand seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation
techniques.
To upgrade and enhanced earthquake forces of such beam-column joints, local
enhancement by fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) system has attracted increasing
attention. Using FRP system for improving joint stiffness and ductility has been
investigated through experiments and numerical simulation. The assessment of the

efficacy of different rehabilitation techniques for beam-column joints has been
numerically and experimentally accomplished. Parvin and Granata [3,4] analytically
investigated the use of FRP in joint rehabilitation by the use of ANSYS finite element
software. Experimental tests on exterior beam-column joints with deficiency in shear
strength retrofitted with FRP laminates [5-9] proved that FRP composites could be a
valid alternative to conventional RC or steel jackets.
In this study, numerical investigation of the efficacy of joint rehabilitation
with FRP laminates in local ductility of RC joints was conducted, and its subsequent
effect in upgrading the seismic performance and ductility of non-code-conforming
FRP joint-retrofitted RC frames were discussed. Displacement-based adaptive
pushover analyses were conducted to obtain behavior factors, and the results of the
studied frame specimens were compared with those of nonlinear incremental dynamic
analyses to calibrate and assessed the effectiveness of four types of retrofitting
schemes.
GLOBAL DUCTILITY OF RC FRAME WITH RETROFITTED JOINTS

In the force-based seismic design methods the response modification factor [10], R, is
a force reduction factor utilized to reduce the linear elastic response spectrum to
obtain the inelastic response spectrum by relying on the structure’s reserve strength
and ductility [11]. Thus the response modification factor enables the energy
dissipating capability of the structure which is pertinent to the ductility to be availed
of, while insuring that the ductility demand does never reach the present ductility
supply of the structure. The structural ductility is a function of member ductility in
which the latter is achieved in the form of inelastic rotations. In order to make the
attainment of a desired inelastic response and ductility level for a structure feasible,
sufficient supply of local ductility accommodated in the plastic hinge zones, wherein
the actual material properties under inelastic deformations are beyond elastic range,
must be provided. According to seismic codes, the structural behavior factor R is
defined as following expression [12]:
R = Ve / Vs = (Ve / Vy)×(Vy / Vs) = Rμ ×Rs (1)
where, Ve, Vy and Vs denote the base-shear force (elastic response strength) obtained
by linear elastic analysis, the idealized yield strength and the design base-shear

strength (first significant yield strength), respectively. Rμ and Rs, two constituent
components of the behavior factor are the ductility dependent factor and overstrength
dependent factor, respectively. The ductility, μ, is the ratio of maximum structural
displacement (Δmax) to the counterpart displacement to the idealized yield strength
(Δy).
(a) Geometry of the RC frame [13] (b) Test regions (joint types) in
prototype structure
Figure 1. Prototype structure
PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE AND RETROFITTING SCHEMES

Selection of prototype structure. An 8-story RC moment frame with dimensions of
15.0 by 24.0 m, as plotted in Figure 1a, was selected from the literature [13] for the
investigation of the local and global ductility of FRP joint-retrofitted RC frames. The
design dead and live loads were assumed to be 2750 kg/m (154 lb/in) and 1750 kg/m
(98 lb/in), respectively. Design base shears were determined for a Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) of 0.3g. The weight of the system was taken as the dead load plus
20 percent of live load as an estimation of the equivalent earthquake load, based on
the Iranian seismic code 2800 [14] with initial behavior factor R of 6. The moment
resisting RC frame was designed based on "weak beam-strong column" principle
using ACI-95 code provisions [15] and the steel bracing systems were designed

conformed to AISC-LRFD code of practice [16]. In Fig. 3, ρt, ρs and ρ's were the total
steel ratios of column, top and bottom steel ratios of the beam, respectively.
All different typical exterior T-shaped, interior cross-shaped and corner L-
shaped joints were shown in Fig. 1b. Note that the exterior beam-column joint was
used below as a demonstration for simplicity and the following retrofitting schemes
can be extended to other joint cases.
FRP layers FRP layers
Figure 2. Strengthening schemes with FRP laminates (units: meter)
Strengthening schemes of RC joint specimens. Four different retrofitting schemes,

as presented in Figure 2, were considered for strengthening the beam-column joints
with FRP laminates, as labeled by S1 through S4 joints. These patterns were chosen
in accordance with FRP specification in ACI 442[17] and Iranian design guideline
[14]. Note that preventing joints from brittle failure at ultimate loading state was of
high concern in selection of strengthening schemes. Such four strengthening schemes
were: a) L-shape overlay on the beam-column joint (S1 joint); b) Column wrapping
(S2 joint); c) Column wrapping in addition to U-shape laminate under the beam (S3
joint); and d) Web-bonded FRP (S4 joint). The length of the FRP laminates in all
specimens was limited to the connection region as set forth earlier.
FE MODELING OF RC FRAMES WITH FRP RETROFITTED JOINTS

A number of previous studies [5-9] have shown the enhancement of stiffness and
local ductility of a FRP retrofitted beam-column joint can be usually derived through
modeling the beam-column joint by three-dimensional solid elements for
beam/column and shell/solid elements for FRP layers. It may be too expensive or
even inapplicable, however, to model a whole building with detailed FRP joint
modeling. Instead, to include the influence of local strengthening of each joint region
on a whole structural system, the structural response due to local upgrading of
retrofitted joints was forced into the whole structure by using an equivalent spring
element. With such spring elements, influence of local retrofitted joints on whole
structural response can be closely represented. Thus, the procedures of the FE

modeling of RC building with retrofitted joints were presented as follows: 1) develop

a single model of a beam-column joint with various retrofitting schemes to examine
the structural response which is of interest; 2) implement the equivalent structural
response from step 1 in the whole structural modeling. Detailed FE modeling
procedures were followed below.
FRP
layer
Reinforcing bars
S1 S2
FRP
layer
Concrete
S3 S4
(a) (b)
Figure 3. FE model of a) reference joint; b) S1, S2, S3 and S4 retrofitted joints
FE modeling of joints. FE analyses using ANSYS® version 10.1 were carried out to
simulate the behavior of joints with various retrofitting schemes. Figure 3
schematically showed the typical FE models for joints. Total seventy analysis cases
were performed for joints subjected to point loads. First fourteen non-retrofitted joint
analyses, as labeled by FE 1 through 14 (Fig.1b), were used as a reference while the
rest cases covered the cases due to various dimensions and four strengthening
schemes. Considering some extent of analogy between the results of different joint
cases and space limitations, results of the exterior joint FE 13 was only presented
herein in the FE model to simplify the discussion.
The joint FE 13 under consideration included half portion of a beam and
column shown in the elevation view of the prototype structure (Fig. 1b). The joint FE
13 had a cross section of 500 × 500 mm (20 × 20 in.) for both beam and column, as
shown in Fig.1a. Its longitudinal reinforcement ratios in the column and beam (tensile
reinforcing bars) were 1.3 and 0.71 %, respectively. The connection region should
have a designated length for the beam and column, with which closely spaced
transverse reinforcement, as specified in Chapter 21 in ACI 318, is required to ensure
ductile behavior against earthquake actions. The connection region in the joint FE13
was derived as 1000 mm (40 in.) long for the beam and 500 mm high (20 in.) for the
column. The corresponding transverse reinforcing bars within the region was No. 8 (#

3) bar with a spacing of 100 mm (4 in.), while all rest of reinforcement was No. 8 bar
with a spacing of 200 mm (8 in.) for beam and 150 mm (6 in.) for column.
Three-dimensional (3-D) solid elements (Solid 65) for both concrete beam and
column were used in the finite element analysis, as shown in Figure 3. Steel
reinforcing bars were modeled by 3-D line elements Link8 smeared in the concrete.
FRP laminates were modeled by 3-D solid elements Solid46, with which up to 250
different material layers with different orientations and orthotropic material properties
in each layer can be achieved. Interface effects between concrete and FRP laminates
were considered using perfect bond without friction/viscous properties.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of CFRP sheets used for FE modeling

In fibers In fibers
Ex = 240000 σ x = 80
direction direction
Compressive
E
Perpendicula E y = 18581 strength Perpendicular σ y = 80
(MPa)
r to fibers (MPa) to fibers
direction Ez = 18581 direction σ z = 80
In fibers
σ x′ = 3900 Gxy = 12576 υ xy = 0.2
direction
Tensile Shear
Poisson's
strength Perpendicula σ ′y = 53.7 modulus Gxz = 12576 υ xz = 0.2
ratio
(MPa) r to fibers (MPa)
direction σ z′ = 53.7 G yz = 7147 υ yz = 0.3
Zero-length
rotational spring
Confined
concrete
Unconfined
concrete
Figure 4. Idealized model of structural elements of the studied frames

Constitutive laws of concrete was defined as a quasi-brittle material, whose

compression was considered to be linear-elastic up to about 0.3f'c, where f'c was the
cylinder compressive strength, beyond which nonlinear uniaxial compressive stress-
strain curve was adopted from Desayi and Krishnan [18]. The smeared crack plastic
model was adopted to consider complex biaxial state for concrete, in which failure
surface proposed by William-Warnke [19] was considered. With such smeared crack
model, the closure of the smooth crack and the corresponding recover of the material
stiffness in the direction normal to the crack can be achieved. The compressive
strength and tensile strength of the concrete were 27.5 MPa (4 ksi) and 3.7 MPa (0.5
ksi) while the yield stress of steel reinforcement was 412 MPa (60 ksi). The Yong’s
modulus of the concrete was equal to 24.63 GPa (3,572 ksi) and the Poisson's ratio
was 0.2 while 200 GPa (29,000 ksi) for steel. The FRP laminates were defined as
anisotropic materials known as especially orthotropic in any direction perpendicular
to the fibers, as listed in Table 1. The thickness of FRP laminates was assumed 3 mm
(0.1 in.) for all cases. The bottom and top end of the column was restrained from all
degrees of freedom while the end of the beam was subjected to a point load.
Nonlinear finite element analyses were performed in those joint models with
and without retrofitting. Structural behavior and flexural stiffness of reference joint
(e.g., moment-rotation relation) was intended to provide benchmark data for
comparison against those retrofitted joints S1 through S4. The difference of moment-
rotation (M-θ) curves between reference and S1 through S4 is attributed to the
enhancement of ductility and strength due to local FRP-strengthening. Rather
modeling detailed FRP-retrofitting joints, an equivalent structural response is
applicable to bridge single retrofitted joint to the whole system by assuming each
beam element due to retrofitting upgrading having an extra rotational stiffness by
using a link element, whose rotational stiffness was equal to the difference of M-θ
curves between reference and varying retrofitted joint, as schematically shown in left
side in Fig. 4. In addition, the upgrading strength due to local confinement
(retrofitting schemes S2 and S3) were modeled by confined concrete model, as
schematically shown in right side in Fig. 4. Thus, M-θ curves for each of the fourteen
reference joints against their forty eight retrofitted (S1 through S4) counterparts
predicted from FE analyses were determined and the difference between the two
curves was assigned to its corresponding link element. With such spring link elements
and local confined concrete, a frame with retrofitted is assumed as an idealized
model, as indicated schematically in Fig. 4.
Adaptive pushover method. The Displacement-based Adaptive Pushover (DAP)

analysis was used herein. The adaptive pushover analysis has been extensively used
and verified by researchers for both buildings [20,21] and bridges [22]. DAP analysis
were implemented using finite element analysis program SeismoStruct [23]. Such
program offered both local beam-column effects and global large displacements

effects sources of geometric nonlinearity. The geometric nonlinearity of the

interaction between axial force and transverse deformation of the element was
simulated by using a cubic formulation proposed from Izzuddin [24], where the strain
states within the element were defined by the generalized axial strain and curvature
along the element. This FE program has extensively been verified elsewhere [25-27].
Adaptive pushover analysis for RC frames with retrofitted joints. With the
obtained local structural response of joints above, extensive five DAP analyses were
conducted for the 8-story frame with and without retrofitted joints using SeismoStruct.
Structural column and beam elements were modeled with typically four and six finite
elements, respectively to ensure the adequate discretization for the development of
plastic hinge. Concrete was modeled using the uniaxial nonlinear constant
confinement concrete model of Madas [28] which followed the constitutive behavior
proposed by Mander et al. [29] to improve numerical stability under large
displacement. The steel reinforcing bars were modeled using the Menegotto-Pinto
material model [30] for higher numerical stability/accuracy under transient seismic
loading. The experimental work by Memon and sheikh [31] confirmed that the
displacement ductility, μ Δ, for the existing columns ranges between 1.3 and 3.7,
while the displacement ductility for the glass FRP retrofitted columns ranges between
4.7 and 6.8. The number and thickness of FRP wraps needed for FRP wrapped
columns and FRP U-wrapped beams to reach the desired ductility level could be
designed according to the equations proposed by Monti and Liotta [32]. The behavior
of FRP-wrapped sections was accomplished in the fiber finite element program with
confinement effect.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Local ductility of retrofitted joints. M-θ response curve for retrofitted joints against
the reference were plotted in Fig. 5. Results revealed that the flexural capacity had an
increase to some extent in all cases. The yielding moment for case S1 and S4 had an
increase up to 69 and 50 percent compared to the reference. Specifically, case S1 and
S4 had a significant increase in strength due to tensile action of CFRP laminates in
joint. Shear failure of the joint core in the S1 joint specimen was mainly caused by
diagonal tensile and compressive cracks. Similar observation was supported by case
S4, although web-bonded CFRP retrofitting was less efficient compared to L-shape
laminates in the tensile side at case S1.
It was observed that S2 did not exhibit increase in strength compared to the
reference. This is mainly because FRP-wrapped column cannot improve beam
strength. The column wrapping with FRP sheets only provided the relatively stronger
restraint to the beam, which was similar to a partially fixed support at the end of the
beam, thus leading to relatively high joint core rotation. The slightly higher flexural

enhancement in case S3 was mainly caused by the confinement of the concrete in the
compression zone and to some extent diagonal shear due to U-shape wrapping.
Figure 5. Moment-rotation curves of reference and retrofitted joints

Story level
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Global drift (a) and its corresponding interstory drift limit states (b)
Global ductility of retrofitted frames. The inelastic DAP analyses for the five
aforesaid frame specimens (reference, S1, S2, S3 and S4 frame), with a constant dead
load plus 20% of live load, were carried out. In order to assess the validity of the
developed numerical models, eigenvalue analyses with 5% damping ratio, were
conducted to determine the elastic natural periods and mode shapes of the structures.
The fundamental vibration period for the reference frame was 0.76 sec with no
significant discrepancy for the other four retrofitted frames confirmed that
unchanging initial stiffness characteristics of RC frames before cracking was caused
by FRP-retrofitted elements.
The ultimate capacity of a frame, as defined by Maheri and Akbari [13], was
reached when the global drift equaled to 1.5% of total height of the frame, similar to
the specified limit state in NEHRP recommendations [33]. The concrete ultimate
strain (εcu), or a limit value of interstory drift was adopted as the limit state in

accordance with fiber-based modeling approach. Specifically, the concrete ultimate

strain for non-retrofitted length of elements was 3500 microstrain while ultimate
strain for confined concrete at remaining length was derived based on the method by
FIB [34]. Using 3% as a limit value for the alternate interstory drift was consistent
with the limit value specified in Iranian seismic code 2800 [14] and close to that in
other codes of practice, which range between 2% and 3%. As revealed in Figs. 6a
and 6b, extensive study of both limit states global drift and interstory drift
demonstrated that 1.5% of total height in the global drift corresponded to 2.48% of
interstory drift, which is a near collapse threshold.
Figure 7. Base shear vs. displacement of the frame under various retrofitting
schemes using DAP analysis
Fig. 7 plotted the DAP response curves in terms of base shear versus roof
displacement for the studied frames. The R factor for each of the five frames were
obtained. The yield point on the capacity curve was determined by a bilinear idealized
curve following the recommendations of Park [35] for RC members. The overstrength
factor Rs and the ductility dependent factor Rμ were determined. The behavior factor
of the reference frame predicted by the proposed method was 4.67, comparable to the
value (R=4.6) obtained by Maheri & Akbari [13].
Fig. 7 exhibited that different strengthening schemes had a different impact on
the structural overall response. In case of S1 and S4, the global ductility had no
improvement, which meant that application of single component of FRP composites
was not much of contribution to the global ductility of the structure. Instead, these
two strengthening schemes promoted the overstrength content of the structure. In case
of S2 and S3, the promising performance provided by CFRP wraps was the
attainment of higher ultimate curvature, χu, and the increasing sectional ductility of
the CFRP-wrapped elements. Moreover, the capability of CFRP wraps in increasing
the ultimate curvature capacity, χu, of the retrofitted sections was dwindled when they
were utilized at lower story levels in comparison to upper story levels, wherein it

could be attributed to the high axial loading values present in lower stories. The
presence of U-wrapping CFRPs beneath the beams allowed the structure to benefit
relatively large deformation due to the plasticized capacity of beams more through
reinforcement yielding. The presence of U-wraps beneath the beams in case S3, the
concrete ultimate strain was relocated from the panel zone to the interior span of the
beam corresponding to the FRP's length. Neither of the S2 and S3 frame specimens
increased the base shear demand comparing to the reference. This effect could be
attributed to the fact that the stiffening effect of FRP wraps which provided
confinement was solely influential on the ductility enhancement of structural
elements with no alteration in their stiffness. Case S2 and S3 with 44 and 35%
increase in joint local ductility and behavior factor, respectively, may be superior
retrofitting option satisfying both local and global ductility criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
The outcomes of this study were summarized as follows:
1. Numerical examples demonstrated the accuracy and efficiency of the
proposed nonlinear finite element analysis to bridge local FRP-reinforced
retrofitting joints in a RC frame to the whole frame.
2. Web-bonded FRP and L-shape overlay increased the overstrength factor of the
frame while rehabilitating the columns with FRP wrapping and beams with U-
shape laminate proved not to be influential on the over-strength factor.
3. FRP wrapping of beams and columns in the joint vicinity just increased
structural element's ductility with no change in structure's stiffness and over-
strength factor.
4. The FRP wrapping of the beams in the joint vicinity was found to be
significantly efficient and essential on the ductile response of retrofitted
frames which made the formation of plastic hinges in the beams as energy
dissipating mechanism attainable.
REFERENCES
[1] ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (1976). “Recommendations for design of
beam-column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI
352R-76).” ACI Journal Proceedings, 73(7), 375-393.
[2] Standard Association of New Zealand (1982). Code of practice for the design of
concrete structures (NZS 3101:1982), Wellington, New Zealand.
[3] Parvin, A. and Granata, P., ‘Investigation on the Effects of Fiber Composites at
Concrete Joints’, Composites, Part B 31(6–7), 2000, 499–509.
[4] Parvin, A. & Granata, P. (1998). Numerical study of structural joints reinforced
with composite fabrics. Structures and Materials, 411-421.

[5] Pantelides, C.P., Clyde, C., and Reaveley, L.D. (2000a). “Rehabilitation of R/C
th
Buildings Joints with FRP Composites.” Proceedings of the 12 World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Paper no. 2306.
[6] Pantelides, C.P., Gergely, J., Reaveley, L.D., and Volnyy, V.A. (2000b). “Seismic
Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier with FRP Composites”
th
Proceedings of the 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New

Zealand, paper no. 127.
[7] Gergely, J., Pantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D. (2000). “Shear strengthening of
RC T-Joints using CFRP composites.” ASCE-Journal of Composites for
Construction, 4(2), 56-64.
[8] Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2001). “Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column
Joints using FRP Laminates.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(1), 113-129.
[9] Antonopoulos, C. P., Triantafillou, T. C. and Papanicolaou, C. G., ‘Experimental
Investigation of FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints’, in Non-Metallic
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures – FRPRCS5, Cambridge, July 2001, pp.
309–318.
[10] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).(1997). “NEHRP provisions
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”. Rep FEMA 273 and 274, Washington
DC.
[11] Elnashai, A. S. and Mwafy, A. M. (2002), Overstrength and force reduction
factors of multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. Struct. Design Tall Build.,
11: 329–351. doi: 10.1002/tal.204.
[12] S.L. Dimova, P. Negro. (2005). “Seismic assessment of an industrial frame
structure according to Eurocodes”. Part 2: Capacity and vulnerability.
Engineering Structures; 27:724-735.
[13] Maheri, M.R., and Akbari, R.(2003).“Seismic Behavior Factor R for Steel
X-Braced and Knee-Braced RC Buildings”, Engineering Structures, 25, pp
1505-1513.
[14] Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. (2004).
“Standard no. 2800. 3rd edition”. Building and Housing Research Center.
[15] ACI Committee 318. (1989). “Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318R-95)”, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
[16] Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, LRFD.
(1994). 2nd ed. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, III.
[17] ACI Committee 440.2R-08. (2008). “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures.”
American Concrete Institute.
[18] Desayi, P. and Krishnan, S. (1964). “Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of

Concrete”. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 61, pp. 345-350, March.
[19] Willam KJ, Warnke EP. (1975). “Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of
concrete”. In: Proceedings of international association for bridge and structural
engineering. Bergamo (Italy): ISMES.
[20] Antoniou S., Pinho R. (2004). "Advantages and Limitations of Force-based
Adaptive and Non-Adaptive Pushover Procedures". Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 497-522.
[21] Ferracuti B., Pinho R., Savoia M., Francia R. (2009). "Verification of
Displacement-based Adaptive Pushover through multi-ground motion
incremental dynamic analyses," Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp. 1789-1799.
[22] Pinho R., Monteiro R., Casarotti C., Delgado R. (2009) "Assessment of
continuous span bridges through Nonlinear Static Procedures," Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 143-159.
[23] SeismoSoft (2010), SeismoStruct–A Computer program for static and dynamic
nonlinear analysis of framed structures, http//www.seismosoft.com.
[24] Izzuddin BA. (2001). “Conceptual issues in geometrically nonlinear analysis of
3D framed structures”. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng; 191(9): 1029–53.
[25] López-Menjivar, M.A. (2004). “Verification of a displacement-based Adaptive
Pushover method for assessment of 2-D Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, PhD
Thesis, European School for Advances Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk
(ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
[26] Casarotti, C. (2005), “Adaptive Pushover-based Methods for Seismic Assessment
and Design of Bridge Structures”, PhD Thesis, European School for Advances
Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
[27] Fakharifar M. (2010). “Investigation of the global ductility of FRP
joint-retrofitted RC frames under earthquake excitations”. MSc thesis, Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, IRAN.
[28] Madas P. (1993). “Advanced modelling of composite frames subjected to
earthquake loading”, Ph.D. thesis. London (UK): Imperial College, University of
London.
[29] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. (1988). “Theoretical stress–strain model for
confined concrete”. J Struct Eng, ASCE;114(8):1804–26.
[30] Fragiadakis M. (2001). “Nonlinear material modeling of reinforcement steel bars
under transient loading”. MSc Dissrtation, Department to Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK;
[31] Memon M, Sheikh S. (2005). “Seismic resistance of square concrete columns
retrofitted with glass fibre-reinforced polymers”. ACI Struct J;102 (5):774–83.
[32] Monti G, Liotta M. (2007). “Tests and design equations for FRP-strengthening in
shear”. Construct Build Mater; 21(4):799-809.
[33] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).(1997). “NEHRP provisions
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”. Rep FEMA 273 and 274, Washington

DC.
[34] FIB(2001).“Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures”, Bulletin n.
14,
[35] Park, R. (1989). “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural
Assemblages from Laboratory Testing”, Bulletin of New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering; 22(3): 155-166.

Seismic Performance and Global Ductility PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Seismic Performance and Global Ductility PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 2080

Seismic Performance and Global Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Frames with

Structures Congress 2013

investigated through experiments and numerical simulation. The assessment of the

GLOBAL DUCTILITY OF RC FRAME WITH RETROFITTED JOINTS

Structures Congress 2013

PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE AND RETROFITTING SCHEMES

Structures Congress 2013

FRP layers FRP layers

Figure 2. Strengthening schemes with FRP laminates (units: meter)

Strengthening schemes of RC joint specimens. Four different retrofitting schemes,

FE MODELING OF RC FRAMES WITH FRP RETROFITTED JOINTS

Structures Congress 2013

modeling of RC building with retrofitted joints were presented as follows: 1) develop

Structures Congress 2013

Table 1. Mechanical properties of CFRP sheets used for FE modeling

Figure 4. Idealized model of structural elements of the studied frames

Structures Congress 2013

Constitutive laws of concrete was defined as a quasi-brittle material, whose

Adaptive pushover method. The Displacement-based Adaptive Pushover (DAP)

Structures Congress 2013

effects sources of geometric nonlinearity. The geometric nonlinearity of the

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Structures Congress 2013

Figure 5. Moment-rotation curves of reference and retrofitted joints

Structures Congress 2013

accordance with fiber-based modeling approach. Specifically, the concrete ultimate

Structures Congress 2013

Structures Congress 2013

Proceedings of the 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New

Structures Congress 2013

Structures Congress 2013

Structures Congress 2013

You might also like