Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTION
The SR-CF system[1] is a method for retrofitting existing reinforced concrete buildings against
earthquakes by laminating carbon fiber sheets. The method improves the shear strengths of
independent columns[2], columns with side walls[3],[4], beams[5], and walls[6].
Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures with carbon fiber sheets is the best method for
retrofitting existing buildings since it features small and light materials, little noise and vibration, short
working periods, and no welding works. Carbon fiber sheets, very strong against tensile forces, are
little adhesive to concrete surfaces and prone to peeling from concrete when a force is applied. For
this reason, the method has been effective as long as the peeling-off is prevented, such as by
wrapping a carbon fiber sheet around an independent column and forming a hoop of carbon fiber.
On the other hand, the SR-CF system is effective to retrofit columns with side walls, beams, and
walls, around which hoops of carbon fiber sheets are difficult to form. The SR-CF system uses special
devices called the CF-anchors to join the carbon fiber sheets which are separated by side walls and to
fix carbon fiber sheets to reinforced concrete building frames. The use of the CF-anchor is the most
characteristic in this system.
This paper describes the shear strengthening of walls by the SR-CF system and shear tests on the
reinforced walls, and then proposes methods for assessing the shear resistance.
Penetrating-type CF-anchor
Fixing-type CF-anchor
Strengthening a beam
Strengthening an
independent column
Strengthening a wall
Fig 1
109
110
CF-anchors
Fig.2
Session 6
Axial lo ad
of 470 kN
Lateral load
1200
300
1800
100
300
300
R=20
Column
Wall
300
Longitudinal reinforcement of
columns : 8-19
Hoops of columns
: 4-@100
Wall reinforcement
:4-@200 double for both vertical
and horizontal directions
2 layers of CF sheets
Finishing mortar ( WM-series)
1 layer of CF sheets
A CF-anchor is embedded for a depth
of 150 mm, and is adhered to the
sheets for a length of 200 mm.
20100 20
Adhering length=200mm
590 kN
TEST PROGRAM
Lateral load
CF-anchors
Lateral load
111
590 kN
Lateral load
Angle of CF sheet
300
2700
900
300
CF-anchors
2 layers of CF sheets
300
100
300
Column
Wall
R=20
Longitudinal reinforcement of
columns : 8-19
Hoops of columns
: 4-@100
Wall reinforcement
:4-@150 double for both vertical
and horizontal directions
2 layers of CF sheets
CF sheets are installed along the two
opposite angles (the figure shows
installation of 2 layers for each angle).
Penetrating CF-anchor
100 200
Fixing CF-anchor
Strengthening of columns
W-N
No strengthening
W-B-C1 Vertically and horizontally Front:1 layer, rear:1 layer
WM-N
No strengthening
WM-D-C1
Diagonally
Front:1 layer, rear:1 layer
No.1
No strengthening
No.2
Diagonally
Front:2 layers
No.3
Diagonally
Front:4 layers
No.4
Diagonally
Front:3 layers, rear:3 layers
No.5
Diagonally
Front:4 layers
(2 layers of PAN sheets and 2 layers of pitch sheets)
45 degrees
No.6
Front:4 layers
(2 layers of PAN sheets and 2 layers of pitch sheets)
No.7
Diagonally
Front:4 layers
No.8
Diagonally
Front:2 layers, rear:2 layers
Table 2
2 layers
2 layers
2 layers
No CF-anchors
(a) Concrete
Series 1
Series 2
Notes
(b) Rebar
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
Yield strength
(MPa)
Series 1 4
474
19
330
Series 2 4
438
19
344
Tensile strength
(MPa)
519
450
498
539
300
300
0.167
0.142
3480
2640
and the internal length was 1,800 mm. The side column was 300 mm x 300 mm in section. The Series
2 specimens were walls of 100 mm in thickness, 900 mm in internal height, and 2,700 mm in internal
length with side columns of 300 mm x 300 mm in section. Fundamentally, the specimens were models
of walls in buildings that have been designed according to the Japanese Building Code before 1971,
and used round bars as reinforcement. The ratio of shear reinforcing bar of the columns was 0.084%,
and the ratio of wall reinforcement was 1.26%. To ensure shear failure in the walls, the walls were
designed to be flexurally strengthened by increasing the longitudinal reinforcement in columns.
TEST RESULTS
Table 3 shows the results of the experiments. Figure 5 shows the final failure states of Specimen
No.1, which was not strengthened, and Specimen No.2, which was strengthened. Load-deformation
curves are shown in Figure 4. All of the Series 2 specimens showed the ultimate strength and failed in
shear at drift angles of around 1/200 rad. All specimens showed sharp drops in load after the fracture.
In Specimen No.1, which was not reinforced, the wall and columns failed in shear as one body.
112
Session 6
0.0
-3.0
-6
0
30
60
Horizontal deformation (mm)
1.0
0.0
-2.0
-30
WM-D-C1
(2 layers)
0
30
60
Horizontal deformation (mm)
-6
0
6
12
18
Horizontal deformation (mm)
No.8
(4 layers)
0
6
12
18
Horizontal deformation (mm)
3.0
0.0
-3.0
-6
0.0
-3.0
3.0
Lateral Load (MN)
No.2
(2 layers)
18
0
6
12
Horizontal deformation (mm)
0.0
No.4
(6 layers)
-3.0
-6
18
0
6
12
Horizontal deformation (mm)
Strain (10 -6 )
+1/1200
+1/800
+1/400
+1/200
+1/100
4000
2000
0
-2000
Strain (10 -6 )
6000
4000
2000
0
-2000
4000
Fig.5
Strain (10 -6 )
2.0
-1.0
No.1
(no strengthening)
-2.0
-30
WM-N
(no strengthening)
0.0
1.0
-1.0
3.0
3.0
Lateral Load (MN)
2.0
113
0
-2000
-1100
Fig.6
Crack patterns
2000
-550
0
550
Location (mm)
1100
Specimen
W-N
W-B-C1
WM-N
WM-D-C
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
Test
results
1/800 (rad)
910
998
908
1363
1108
1363
1407
1586
1606
1419
1464
1465
1/400 (rad)
1255
1321
1247
1733
1551
1903
1938
2152
2096
2074
1920
1942
1/200 (rad)
1584
1577
1511
1851
2091
2439
2488
2798
2623
2421
2419
2602
Maximum load
(MPa)
1584
1577
1511
1851
2175
2439
2488
2798
2623
2421
2419
2602
Qcf *
(MPa)
66
485
352
386
600
544
523
369
390
* : Qcf denotes the difference in shear force between the specimens with/without
strengthening at a drift angle of 1/400 rad
On the other hand, the columns of the reinforced specimens showed no external change when the wall
sections failed and maintained a shear strength that was equivalent to a resistance of up to a
deformation angle of 1/25 rad.
All of the specimens that were strengthened with diagonally installed carbon fiber sheets showed
maximum resistance values larger than the non-reinforced specimen. The shear resistance was more
significantly increased in specimens with higher degrees of strengthening.
On the other hand, Specimen W-C1-B of Series 1, to which carbon fiber sheets were vertically and
horizontally applied, showed no increase in resistance compared to the non-reinforced specimen W-N.
Figure 6 shows the strain distribution on carbon fiber sheets laminated on the wall surface of
Specimen No.2. The CF-anchors were glued to the carbon fiber sheets by changing the directions at
the centers of the beam and the columns. Therefore, the direction of the CF-anchor fibers agreed with
the direction of the sheet fibers at a half of the carbon fiber sheets on the wall. However, the strain on
the carbon fiber sheets was uniformly distributed regardless of the directions of CF-anchors.
In all Specimens Nos. 2 to 8, the strain on the carbon fiber sheets on columns did no reach
200x10-6 before they were fractured. Therefore, the strengthening of the columns does not affect the
shear resistance of walls.
DISCUSSION
114
Session 6
(1)
(2)
where,
Qcf: shear force imposed on the carbon fiber sheets,
L: internal length of the wall (1,800 mm for Series 1 and 2,700 mm for Series 2),
h: height of the wall (1,200 mm for Series 1 and 900 mm for Series 2),
tcf: thickness of the carbon fiber sheets
cf: apparent strength of the carbon fiber sheets
Ecf: apparent Young s modulus of the carbon fiber sheets,
: horizontal deformation at the top of the wall, and
: offset angle of the carbon fiber sheets
(sin=0.555 and cos=0.832 for Series 1, and sin=0.316 and cos=0.949 for Series 2).
Figure 8 shows changes in apparent stress of the carbon fiber sheets. Regarding the difference in
load during deformation between strengthened specimens (Nos. 2, 8, and 4) and non-strengthened
specimen (No.1) as the horizontal shear force Qcf working on the carbon fiber sheets, cf value was
determined using Equations (1) and (2) as plotted on the Y axis.
1600
Experimental stress values of
carbon fiber sheets (MPa)
Strain of CF sheets cf
Elastic modulus Ecf
h
1200
800
400
0
0.0
dL
Fig.8
dLsin
Fig.7
No.2 (2 layers)
No.8 (4 layers)
No.4 (6 layers)
Equation(2)
(Ecf=230GPa)
3000
2.0
3.0
4.0
Drift angle (10 -3 rad)
5.0
6.0
Q = 2138 + 0.842Ltcfsincos
(R= 0.9845)
2000
(R= 0.9539)
Q = 1610 + 0.680Ltcfsincos
1000
Fig.9
115
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Thickness of carbon fiber sheets tcf (mm)
116
(3)
800
600
400
Series 1
Series 2
4 layers on one side
Pitch fiber
No CF-anchors
cal=exp
200
0
0
200
400
600
800
Qcf values calculated from cf=680MPa (kN)
cf = 680 (MPa)
800
600
400
200
0
0
200
400
600
800
Qcf values calculated from cf=680MPa (kN)
Fig.10
Session 6
during a drift angle of 1/400 rad, and Figure 10(b) derived the Qcf values from the shear strength
during a drift angle of 1/200 rad, when the ultimate strength was almost reached. Excluding specimens
that used pitch carbon fiber sheets, strengthened with 4 layers only at one side, or did not use CFanchors, the experimental data showed a good agreement with the calculated values.
5.2 Upper limit of strengthening
This system strengthens a wall by increasing the apparent rigidity of the laminated carbon fiber
sheets by gluing the carbon fiber sheets to the concrete surfaces of the wall. Laminating carbon fiber
sheets with over a certain number of layers does not increase the strengthening effect since such
lamination causes the carbon fiber sheets to detach from the concrete surfaces.
Specimen No. 4 with 3 layers at each side and 6 layers in total, was on the regression line as shown
in Figure 9, showing that 3 layers on one side or 6 layers in total is not the upper limit of strengthening.
On the other hand, Specimen No. 3, which had 4 layers on one side, showed the ultimate strength of
2.49 MN. This was significantly lower than the regression line although the total number of layers was
4, less than 6 as in No. 4. This suggests that the upper limit of strengthening exists between 3 and 4
layers of carbon fiber sheets per side of a wall.
Since the peeling of carbon fiber sheets from the concrete surface affects the upper limit of
strengthening, the upper limit is not a value converted into ratio of wall reinforcement but is given as a
function of the thickness of carbon fiber sheets. In this study, the upper limit of strengthening was
calculated using Equation (1) and as follows:
3 layers of 300 g/m2 sheets (design thickness: 0.501 mm) per side, or for both sides of a wall to be
strengthened;
6 layers of 300 g/m2 sheets (design thickness: 1.00 mm) in total.
5.3 Effects of CF-anchors
Figure 9 shows the experimental results of No. 7, which was laminated with carbon fiber sheets
using no CF-anchors, marked with dark circles (). At a drift angle of 1/400 rad, no difference in shear
strength was observed by the presence of CF-anchors. The carbon fiber sheets were effective in
retrofitting the walls. The effects of CF-anchors were not significant at drift angles of less than 1/400
rad. On the other hand, at a drift angle of 1/200 rad, the shear strength of No.7 was lower than that of
No. 4, showing the effects of CF-anchors to increase the strength at drift angles of over 1/400 rad.
Considering that walls are prone to failure near the peripheral frames, CF-anchors are more
necessary.
CONCLUSION
The authors proposed a method for shear strengthening reinforced concrete walls using carbon
fiber sheets and CF-anchors, and tested their effects. The authors obtained the following results:
(1) The shear strength of a wall is improved by diagonally laminating carbon fiber sheets and fixing the
edges to the peripheral frame with CF-anchors so that the carbon fiber sheets act as tensile braces.
The contribution of the carbon fiber sheets is calculated as:
Qcf = Ltcfcfsincos
(1)
where, cf = 680 MPa, and tcf < 0.5 mm for one side and 1.0 mm for two sides combined.
(2) CF-anchors are necessary to maintain the strengthening effect at drift angles of over 1/400 rad, at
which the peeling-off of the carbon fiber sheets from the concrete surface may be significant, and it
is also necessary even if failure may occur near the peripheral frame.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report includes some of the results obtained in a project of the Petroleum Energy Center,
entitled "Development of pitch carbon fiber reinforcement materials for concrete structures."
117
REFERENCES
[1] SR-CF System Research AssociationDesign Guidelines for SR-CF System, Feb. 2002 (in
Japanese)
[2] Y.JinnoStructural Behaviors of Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened by Carbon Fiber
Blanket, 42nd International SAMPE Symposium, Vol.42, No.1, pp.117-124, May.1997,
[3] K.Masuo, S.Morita, Y.Jinno, H.WatanabeAdvanced Wrapping System with CF-anchor
-Seismic Strengthening of RC Columns with Wing Walls-, FRPRCS-5, Vol.1, pp.299-308May 2001
[4] Y.Matsuzaki, K.Nakano, H.Fukuyama, S.WatanabeAdvanced Wrapping System with CF-anchor
-Shear Strengthening of RC Columns with Spandrel Wall-, FRPRCS-5, Vol.2, pp.813-822May 2001
[5] Y.Jinno, H.Tsukagoshi, Y.YabeRC Beams with Slabs Strengthened by CF Sheets and Bundles
of CF Strands, FRPRCS-5, Vol.2, pp.981-988May 2001
[6] Y.Jinno, H.TsukagoshiStructural Properties of RC Walls Strengthened by Carbon Fiber Sheets
and CF-anchors, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting -Architectural Institute of Japan,
Structures IV, pp.67-68, Sep.1999, (in Japanese)
[7] Japan Building Disaster Prevention AssociationRevised Edition, Standards for Evaluation of
Seismic Capacity and Comments for Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2001 (in Japanese)
118