Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved  (XURSHDQ &RQIHUHQFH RQ (DUWKTXDNH (QJLQHHULQJ Paper Reference 862
WK

(DUWKTXDNH 6LPXODWRU 7HVWV RQ 8QUHLQIRUFHG 0DVRQU\ :DOOV EHIRUH DQG DIWHU 8SJUDGLQJ ZLWK FRPSRVLWHV
M. Badoux 1, M. A. Elgwady2, P. Lestuzzi 3 1. 2. 3. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

$%675$&7 In many seismically active regions of the world there are large numbers of buildings featuring unreinforced masonry bearing walls. Most of these buildings have not been designed for seismic action. Recent earthquakes have shown that many such buildings are seismically vulnerable and should be upgraded. This paper presents experimental results of dynamic tests investigating the in-plane behavior of URM walls. Halfscale hollow clay masonry walls were subjected to a series of simulated seimic motions on an earthquake simulator before and after upgrading with glass and carbon fiber reinforced plastics. .H\ZRUGV Unreinforced masonry, Walls, Dynamic tests, Upgrading, Composite materials, Wrap, Laminates, Glass fiber, Carbon fiber ,1752'8&7,21 The vulnerability of unreinforced masonry walls is a major issue in reducing the seimic risk linked to existing buildings (Brennet et al. 2002). Modern composite materials offer promising upgrading possibilities for masonry buildings (Triantafilou et al. 1998) (Marshall et al. 1999) (Albert et al. 2001). The accurate prediction of lateral load capacity of URM walls is difficult because of the complex brick blockmortar interaction behavior. Different modes of failure are possible as shown in Figure 1. The objective of this study is to use dynamic tests to better understand the behavior of URM walls subjected to in plane seismic loading and to investigate the effectiveness of composite materials as externally bonded upgrading materials.

)LJXUH  In-plane failure modes of a laterally loaded URM wall: a) shear failure, b) sliding failure and c) rocking failure

7(67,1* 352*5$0 The experimental results presented here are part of an ongoing testing program of five unreinforced masonry walls upgraded with composite materials (Elgwady et al. 2002). This paper reports on the following three tests: - REFE : reference test on an unreinforced masonry wall without upgrading. - WRAP-G: test on the REFE wall after upgrading with a glass fiber wrap - LAMI-V-C: test on a second wall which has been upgraded with carbon fiber reinforced plastic laminates. 7HVW VHW XS The walls are tested on the uni-axial earthquake simulator of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). The test set up is illustrated in Figure 2, it includes the following features: - The test specimen are fixed on a shaking table measuring 2 m by 1 m. It has a maximum displacement of 100mm and is driven by a 100 kN servo-hydraulic actuator. - The specimen is connected at its top to a 12 ton substitute mass placed on bearing wheels with a low coefficient of friction in the order of 0.5%. At its top, the specimen is guided with a low friction set-up to ensure that out-of-plane displacements are limited.
2400 1200 1200

c
+4420

h
+4020

j
+3060

a. Shake table b. Test specimen (1600 x 1600) c. Separate test set-up for the masses d. Additional frame for the lateral guidance e. Moveable car for mass (M=12 t) f. Hinged connecting member g. External post-tensioning h. Jack for the post-tensioning i. Footing connection: M16 bolt j. Shock absorber k. Reaction structure l. Servo-hydraulic actuator m. Room n. Valve 120 l/min o. Hinge p. Rail guidance

i
+1700

n a
+1125

k j
+/- 0.0

o p l

)LJXUH : ETHZ earthquake simulator and test set-up for the masonry walls 7HVW VSHFLPHQ

The specimen were designed to be representative of walls of a typical multi-story Swiss building of the 1950s with unreinforced masonry wall and reinforced concrete slabs as shown in Figure 3. The scale is about one half, meaning that the specimen would be representative of a wall about 3 m high. The dimensions of the test specimen are shown in Figure 4. The 1.6 x 1.6 m masonry wall is sandwiched between reinforced concrete foundation and head beams. These serve the transfer of forces between the wall and the table and the substitute mass.

The walls can be considered to be cantilever walls, i.e. fixed at the base and free at the top. The effective aspect ratio is 1.4 (height of the horizontal force above the base of the masonry wall of 2.25 m and width of 1.6 m).

)LJXUH  Example building and wall

)LJXUH  Test specimen dimensions [m]

The normal load in the wall is produced both the weight of the specimen and a vertical force brought by two prestressing bars placed on both sides of the wall (Figure 4). These 13 mm diameter bars were prestressed at 15 KN each. This gives a nominal compression stress of about 0.35 Mpa at the base of the masonry. This is relatively low normal force in the specimen, thus simulating the conditions of a wall with one to two floors of loads. It must be noted that the normal force on the wall varied during the tests because of the deformation, in particular rocking, of the walls. 0DWHULDO SURSHUWLHV RI WKH PDVRQU\ ZDOO The bricks are Hollow Clay Masonry (HCM), 150 mm long, 95 mm high and 75 mm wide. They are about half scale of a normal European HCM brick. They were produced by cutting a standard thin (75 mm) brick in both the vertical and horizontal direction in two. The void ratio is relatively high compared to that of a brick of twice its dimensions. In order to reflect structural characteristics of an older masonry wall a relatively weak mortar was used. Its mix design combines cement, lime, and sand in 1:2:9 volume proportions. The joints are about 5 mm thick and the maximum sand aggregate size was 3 mm to match the half scale brick size. The single wythe walls were built by experienced masons in a running bond pattern. Waiting for experimental confirmation, a nominal value of 8 MPa is assumed for masonry compressive strength. Preliminary material tests indicate the following: - the characteristic shear strength of masonry under zero compressive stress (fvo) is about 0.1 MPa. A shove test showed a characteristic shear stresses (fv) of about 1.6 MPa under a normal stress of 0.35 MPa. - The modulus of elasticity of the masonry wall is about 4500 MPa . 8SJUDGLQJ RI WKH ZDOO ZLWK FRPSRVLWH PDWHULDOV The first goal of the experimental program is to test seismic upgrading of URM walls with composite materials. The upgrading of specimen REFE (REFErence) to specimen WRAP-G consisted in the application of a layer of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GRRP) wrap on one face of the masonry wall (WRAP-Glass). The Gwrap270

fiber system consists of a 290 g/m2 cross-ply (i.e. 0/90) glass fabric. According to manufactures data it has a maximum tensile strength of 2400 MPa, an E-modulus of 70000 MPa, and an elongation at rupture of 3%. It was bonded to the wall using two component epoxy. The application of the wrap material was a simple and rapid operation. The surface was roughened by grinding, cleaned with high air pressure. It was then coated with a thin layer of two component epoxy Sikadur-30 mixed in a ratio of 3:1 by weight. Vertical GFRP strips were applied by hand and pressed with a roller. To ensure that anchorage failure did not occur, steel plates were used to anchor the GFRP.

)LJXUH  Test specimen WRAP-G and LAMI-V-C.

The second wall was upgraded and tested as LAMI-C-V. The upgrading consisted in the application of two vertical carbon composite laminates (LAMInates-CarbonVertical) at both edges of one face of the wall as shown in Figure 5. The goal was to increase the flexural resistance of the wall without increase of its shear resistance in order to force a shear failure. The laminates were carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) Sika CarboDur S512 (50 x 1.2 mm). It has the following characteristics: Emodulus of 165000 MPa, tensile strength of 2800 MPa and an elongation at rupture of 1.7%. The application was similar to that of the wrap described above. /RDGLQJ +LVWRU\ The displacement input for the shaking table was based on artificial time histories generated from a spectrum shaped according to Eurocode 8 (rock soil type A) and with a ground acceleration of 1.6m/s2 (seismicity zone 3b of the current Swiss building code). Two families of acceleration histories were used, the first one (UG1) was for lower accelerations (up to about 100% of the reference spectrum) and used larger table displacements. For higher accelerations, a time histories with smaller table displacements had to be used (UG1R) because of limitations on the table displacements. Each acceleration history had a duration of approximately 15 seconds. Figure 6 shows the time histories and spectra of the artificial earthquake (family UG1R) used for the test of WRAP-G (test run 12) and LAMI-C-V (test run 13). The specimen were subjected to acceleration histories of increasing intensity, until failure occurred or a predefined degree of damage was obtained. The increment was usually 10% of acceleration. Specimen REFE was subjected to 11 test runs, WRAP-G to 24 test runs and LAMI-C-V to 20 test runs.

table displacement [m]

0.1 u max = 33.8 mm

5 4

0.0

u -0.1 0 0.2

min

= -35.0 mm 5 10

Sa [m/s ]

3 2 1 0 0.1 Eurocode 8 calculated 1 10 100

table velocity [m/s]

u max = 0.141 m/s 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 0 = -1.53 m/s min
2 max

frequency [Hz]

u min = -0.104 m/s 5


2

5 4 3 2 1 0 0.01

10

table acceleration [m/s2 ]

= 1.70 m/s

time [s]

10

Sa [m/s ]

0.1

period [s]

10

)LJXUH  Time histories of a spectrum-compatible synthetic earthquake of the UG1R type used for testing

,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ The specimens instrumentation included several accelerometers for vertical and horizontal acceleration. The displacements and deformation of the specimen were measured with linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs). Additionally, the actual forces transmitted to the wall during the test forces and in the vertical prestressing bars were measured using load cells. In all cases the scanning frequency was 100 Hz. (;3(5,0(17$/ 5(68/76 The experimental results of the tests on specimen REFE, WRAP-G, and LAMI-C-V are presented in this section. Table 1 presents a summary of some of the measured parameters for selected test runs. The peak vertical force measured during the test is given because the test set-up is such that deformations of the specimen can elongate the prestressing bars and increase the prestressing bar forces. This undesirable increase in normal force obviously influenced the wall lateral behavior and resistance. This increase is very significant for tests with pronounced rocking. - The peak horizontal force at the top of the wall during the test in both direction. This is typically in phase with the peak vertical force measured. - The peak relative horizontal displacement between the top and the base of the masonry wall. This gives a measure of the lateral drift of the wall. Figure 7 shows the observed damage (masonry cracks and crushing) to the three specimen in the last test runs. Figure 8 shows the hysteretic behavior at the last test runs of each test specimen. The axis are the relative horizontal displacement between the top and base of the masonry wall and the horizontal load at top of the wall. Figure 8 also shows a superposition of the last test run for tests REFE and WRAP-G. Table 1 and Figures 7 and 8 are complemented by the following comments regarding the specimen behavior during the tests.

7HVW 5XQ

(DUWKTXDNH 7\SH

0D[LPXP 1RUPDO )RUFH N1 42.2 43.7 50.5 81.5 101.5 42.0 42.5 44.1 45.8 47.1 52.1 67.4 99.5 42.1 42.2 44.6 50.3 57.4

0D[LPXP + N1  3.8 10.1 13.8 22.7 29.7 2.9 9.3 14.0 26.2 27.3 36.9 45.0 49.5 2.4 10.7 20.3 26.2 30.5

0LQLPXP + N1  4.6 12.7 16.7 24.6 31.5 3.0 9.4 15.6 24.3 23.8 40.0 50.3 65.0 2.1 9.6 20.1 27.7 32.2

0D[LPXP ' PP  0.2 0.9 2.1 7.4 12.3 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.8 3.5 6.8 12.5 0.1 0.4 1.4 3.3 4.6

0LQLPXP ' PP  0.2 0.8 2.2 7.7 10.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 2.0 2.0 3.7 7.7 16.1 0.2 0.8 1.8 3.2 5.0

5()( 2 UG1 10 6 UG1 50 7 UG1 60 8 UG1 70 11 UG1 100 :5$3* 1 UG1 10 6 UG1 60 10 UG1 100 15 UG1R 140 19 UG1R 160 21 UG1R 190 23 UG1R 220 24 UG1R 230 /$0,&9 1 UG3 10 6 UG3 60 13 UG1R 100 17 UG1R 140 20 UG1R 170

* Horizontal force at the top of the wall ** Relative horizontal displacement at the top of the wall

7DEOH  Selected results of the testing of wall specimen REFE, WRAP-G and LAMI-V-C

7HVW VSHFLPHQ 5()( - Test runs 1-5 caused no visible damage. - Test run 6 produced a small horizontal crack at one edge of the wall in the bed joint between the second and the third course from the wall base. - Test run 7, the previous crack was extended and the normal force started to increase. - Test run 8 (70% UG1) produced rocking. A new crack appeared at the other edge of the wall in the bed joint between the third and fourth course. This new crack extended till it was connected to the previously mentioned one to form a rocking crack. The wall did not experience any observable damage above and below that crack. - During test runs 9 to 11 the wall displayed a characteristic rocking behavior. Observed damage was limited to minor spalling and hair line cracking of some bricks below the rocking crack. The rocking crack itself opened up to 12 mm at the wall edge during the test. After the test, it closed entirely and was barely noticeable with the eye. The large rocking rotations led to a doubling of the normal force. - The test was interrupted after test run 11 because of the normal force increase and in order to preserve the specimen for test WRAP-G.

7HVW VSHFLPHQ :5$3* - Test runs 1 to 18 produced no visible damage to WRAP-G. - Initiation of delamination at the interface between the composite wrap and the masonry wall was observed in a few points during test run 14. This delamination was visible in the form of white spots on the wrap. - During test runs 20 to 23 both of the horizontal force and the prestressing force increased rapidly. This is indicative of the development of a rocking mode. - During test run 24 (230% UG1R) the wall failed. The rocking mode lead to toe crushing at both edges of the masonry wall. In the toe region at the base of the wall, the wrap was subjected to reversed compression and tension deformations. On one side it experienced local buckling and tear leading to a spectacular failure.

)LJXUH  Observed cracking and crushing during the last run of the testing of test specimen REFE, WRAP-G, and LAMI-C-V

7HVW VSHFLPHQ /$0,&9 - Test runs 1 to 12 produced no visible damage to LAMI-V. - Test runs 13 and 14 produced a horizontal crack through the bed joint between the third and fourth brick course. - During test run 15 a new cracks were observed, including more horizontal cracks in bed joints and limited vertical hair line crack in a few bricks. During this test run the force in the vertical prestressing bars started to increase. - During test runs 16 to 20 cracking of bed joints extended significantly and characteristic step cracks were formed as shown in Figure 7. A clear shear failure mode developed in both directions. - At the end of test run 20 the maximum residual crack widths of about 2 mm was measured in some head joints. No deterioration was observed on the composite laminates. The test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for a subsequent test. At that point in the test, the shear capacity of the wall was only increasing because of the increase of the vertical force.

40

80 70

30

60 50

20

40

F orce at Wall T op (kN)

F orce at Wall T op (kN)

30 20 10 0 -15 -10 -5 -10 0 -20 -30 -40 -50 5 10 15 20

10

0 -10 -5 -10 0 5 10 15

-15

-20

-20

-30

-60 -70

-40

-80

Horizontal Dis placement (mm)


40

Horizontal Dis placement (mm)


60

30

REFE WR AP -G

40

20

F orce at Wall T op (kN)

10

F orce at Wall T op ([kN)

20

0 -15 -10 -5 -20 0 5 10 15 20

0 -10 -5 -10 0 5 10 15

-20

-15

-40

-20

-30

-60

-40

-80

Horizontal Dis placement (mm)

Horizontal Dis placement (mm)

Figure 8: Hysteretic loops for the last test run on test specimens REFE, WRAP-G (top) & LAMI-C-V (bottom left). Superposition of the hysteretic loops of REFE and WRAP-G (bottom right)

),1',1*6 The evaluation and comparison of the test results presented above leads to the following comments: 7HVW VSHFLPHQ 5()( - The wall started to rock at a lateral load of about 15 kN. As expected, the lateral resistance of the wall in rocking almost doubled (test runs 7 and 11) when the normal force doubled. - The test wall REFE was able to withstand large displacements (drift of 0.8%) without significant damage, even after numerous rocking cycles. (The maximum lateral deformation capacity of REFE was not reached and is expected to be large. This will be explored in future tests with a new set up to limit the increase of the normal force). This confirms that rocking can be classified as a stable and favorable post cracking behavior for URM walls.

After formation of the full-length rocking crack, no new bed joint crack appeared in spite of the very weak mortar used. Therefore, minimum mortar strength seems sufficient to maintain the wall integrity during repeated rocking cycles. The hysteretic loops show a clear bilinear behavior with a softer part when the rocking crack is open. The hysteretic loops show very strong pinching and indicate limited energy dissipation. This is linked to the rigid body deformation of the wall and the absence of damage.

7HVW VSHFLPHQ :5$3* - The wall started to rock under a lateral load of about 27 kN. This lateral force more doubled at failure as the normal force doubled. - Generally, the presence of the GFRP system prevented development of cracks through the wall panel itself, i.e. the wall didnt experience observable damage until masonry crushing at the bottom corners. - Rupture of the GFRP at the wall base was simultaneous with crushing of the masonry wall. In this respect, the upgraded wall reinforcement was balanced. Because of the brittle nature of tensile failure of composite materials, this did not however lead to a ductile behavior common to structural walls with balanced ratios of steel reinforcement. - The lateral drift at failure was about 1%. - The use of a classic flexural beam model with an elastic-plastic material stress deformation law (stress block approach) gives a good estimate of the lateral resistance of the masonry wall in rocking failure. - As expected (Schwegler et al. 1996), no significant asymmetry or out-of-plane behavoir was observed even though the wall was strengthened on one side only. - The hysteretic force displacement relationship is linear and the loops and is indicative of a small energy dissipation. &RPSDULVRQ RI WHVW VSHFLPHQ 5()( DQG :5$3* - Both specimen developed a rocking mode and a significant lateral deformation capacity. - The upgrading forced a move of the rocking crack from 3rd and 4th course (REFE) to the base of the masonry wall (WRAP-G). - The upgrading also forced a failure (crushing) of the masonry by increasing the toe pressure in the wall for a given lateral drift. - At the initiation of the rocking the lateral load in WRAP-G is about twice that in REFE. In the last test run, both specimen reach a similar level of normal force and the lateral resistance of WRAP-G is also about twice that of REFE. The upgrading therefore increased the lateral resistance by a factor of about two. - The upgrading delayed the onset of damaging deformations from 70% to 220% of the reference earthquake. Specimen WRAP-G is significantly stiffer then REFE for lateral drifts beyond 0.1%. 7HVW VSHFLPHQ /$0,&9 - The upgrading changed the failure mode of the wall from rocking to shear by increasing the flexural resistance with minimal increase of the shear resistance substantially. The test can therefore be considered to give a good indication of the shear resistance of the wall.

Test combination of measured lateral load and vertical load in test run 17 indicates that the friction coefficient in the masonry is at least 0.55. The onset of the shear failure (test run 14) was reached for a lateral load of about 24 kN (nominal normal stress of about 0.38 MPa). Further laoding brought a shear resistance of about 32 kN for a nominal normal stress of about 0.48 MPa. The measured drifts are very small, reaching about 0.15% at the onset of the shear failure and the stiffness of the wall remains high in further loading. The measured shear resistance of 24 kN was compared with that predicted by available models for URM walls under in-plane lateral loading. Using an aspect ratio of 1.4, a nominal normal stress of 0.38 MPa, a masonry compressive strength of 8 Mpa, a masonry cohesion of 0.1 Mpa, and a friction coefficient of 0.55, gives the the following. Eurocode 6 (ENV 1996-1-1) predicts a resistance of about 15 kN while the expression given in (Magenes et al. 1997) predicts a resistance of about10 kN (whith head joint correction factor k of 0.66).

6800$5<

Three half-scale URM test walls were subjected to a series of simulated earthquake motions on an earthquake simulator. The first wall was a reference specimen without upgrading, the next two were upgraded with glass fiber wrap and carbon fiber laminates. The tests lead to the following findings: - This test confirms that wall rocking can be a stable nonlinear response in slender unreinforced masonry walls, providing significant lateral deformation capacity. - In spite of relatively poor mortar, the wall friction coefficient exceeded 0.55. The wall shear resistance was found to be higher then indicated in available literature. - The one-sided glass fiber wrap upgrade is promising, it improved the wall lateral resistance by a factor of about two. It also tripled the acceleration corresponding to the onset of nonlinear behavior, thus providing a significant improvement from a continued operation limit state point of view. $&.12:/('*0(176
The financial support provided by SIKA and the Swiss Commission for Technological Innovation (CTI) is gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is also extended to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ) for the use of the testing facility.

5()(5(1&(6
[1] Albert, I. Micheal; Elwi, E. Alaa; and Cheng, J. J. Roger, (2001), Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Using FRPs, J. Comp. For Constr., ASCE, Vol. 5 [2] Brennet G., Badoux M. (2002); Seismic Inventory of the City of Aigle (Switzerland);; 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London,. [3] Elgwady A. M.; Lestuzzi, P.; Badoux, M., (2002), Dynamic In-Plane Behavior of URM Wall Upgraded with Composites, 3rd ICCII, San Francisco, USA [4] Hamilton III, H. R.; and Dolan, C. W, (2001), Flexural Capacity of Glass FRP Strengthened Concrete Masonry Walls, J. Comp. For Constr., ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 3, [5] Magenes, G.; Calvi, G. M., (1997), In-Plane Seismic Response of Brick Masonry Walls, J. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dynamic, Vol. 26, 1091-1112. [6] Marshall, Jr.; Sweeney, S. C.; and Trovillion; J. C., (1999),Seismic Rehabilitation of Unreinforced Masonry Walls, ACI, SP 188-26, 287-295. [7] Schwegler, G.; and Kelterborn, P., (1996), Earthquake Resistance of Masonry structures strengthened with Fiber Composites, 11th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1460. [8] Triantafilou, C. Thanasis, W. (1998), Strengthening of Masonry Structures Using EpoxyBonded FRP Laminates, J. Comp. For Constr., ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 2, 96-104.