THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON THE AS-BUILT AND

REPAIRED REHABILITATED RC FRAMES

Yeou-Fong LI1, and Cheng-Wei Chen 2

SUMMARY
In this paper, an effective repair-rehabilitation working method is proposed for moderately
damaged reinforced concrete (RC) building structures after major earthquakes. Three RC frames
with nil, half-height and full-height brick walls are designed and tested at the National Center for
Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE). After the columns of these non-ductile RC
frames are damaged, steel wire cables with non-shrinkage motar and carbon fiber reinforced
plastics (CFRP) are used in the proposed method to confine reinforced concrete columns. The
stress-strain relationship of the confined concrete, proposed by Li et al. (2003), is used in the
theoretical sectional analysis. The columns are confined by steel wires and CFRP and the
Response 2000 program (Bents, 2001) is used to obtain the moment-curvature relationship of
these confined columns. The equivalent column model is proposed in this paper and is used to
analyze the brick panel inside the RC frames. Finally, the frame and the equivalent column are
engaged and then analyzed following a non-linear pushover analysis to obtain the lateral
strength-displacement envelope of each frame. The analytical results can reasonably predict the
lateral force-displacement relationships of these RC frames.
Keywords: non-ductile frame; carbon fiber reinforced plastics; steel wire cable

INTRODUCTION
In 1999, a major earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale hit Central Taiwan. After the so-called Chi-Chi
Earthquake, some columns of existing buildings suffered shear-failure damage but the building did not collapse.
As already known, the brittle shear failure in RC columns is identified as one of the most dangerous failure
modes because it may cause the collapse of buildings. If the non-ductile frames or columns sustained
shear-failure damage could be repaired and then rehabilitated to meet the current seismic code, it should be more
economical and feasible than demolishing and reconstructing the whole building. As seen from the buildings
after Chi-Chi Earthquake, most of the damaged buildings have non-ductile frames that fail because of their poor
design or construction. It is necessary to develop an effective and efficient repair-rehabilitation working
method to prevent the buildings from collapsing during the earthquakes and aftershocks.
In this paper, an effective and efficient repair-rehabilitation working method is proposed. This proposed
repair-rehabilitation working method combines the steel wire cables with non-shrinkage motar for repairing and
carbon fiber reinforced plastics for rehabilitation. Research on using the steel wire cable to repair moderately
damaged column was proposed by Li et al. (2004). CFRP composite material has been widely used in the
retrofit and rehabilitation of buildings and bridges due to its merits of anti-corrosion, lightweight, easy cutting
and construction, as well as high strength-to-weight ratio, high elastic modulus, and high resistance to
environmental degradation. The advantages of this repair-rehabilitation working method are: (1) it can easily be
applied by less-experienced workers; (2) the materials are available and easy to obtain from the warehouses; (3)
it does not call for any heavy equipments; and (4) it is faster than other traditional working methods, such as
1
2

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan, e-mail:yfli@ntut.edu.tw
M.S. Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan

steel jacketing method. In this paper, three major topics will be introduced. Firstly, the design of the three
as-built non-ductile RC frames, and the proposed repair-rehabilitation working method are introduced. The
experimental setup of the non-ductile RC frames at NCREE is introduced also. Next, experimental results
regarding the ductility, ultimate lateral force, and energy dissipation of the RC frames are discussed. The
force-displacement relationships of the as-built non-ductile RC frames and the repaired rehabilitated RC frames
are then introduced. These relationships are based on theoretical analysis and effective constitutive models.
Also, the analysis results are compared with the experimental results of the as-built and the repaired rehabilitated
RC frames.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS
In this paper, the cyclic loading test is used to understand the behaviors of the three confinement deficient
non-ductile RC frames. The three non-ductile frames are one pure frame (named BMNF, where BM means
benchmark, N means non-ductile, and F means frame), one frame with a half-height brick wall (named
BMNFH10B), and one frame with a full-height brick wall (named BMNF10B). The design detail of the
non-ductile RC pure frame is shown in Fig. 1. After the three frames are moderately damaged, we used the
proposed repair-rehabilitation working method to enhance the strength and ductility of the RC frames. The cyclic
loading test is used again to study the behaviors of the repaired rehabilitated columns of the RC frames. The
three repaired rehabilitated frames are named BMNF-FC, BMNFH10B-FC, and BMNF10B-FC, respectively.
The notation FC means that the frame is repaired by steel wire Cable with non-shrinkage mortar and then
rehabilitated by using carbon Fiber reinforced plastics. The illustration and naming of the non-ductile RC frames
are shown in Fig. 2.
z
The design of the as-built RC frames
The benchmark RC pure frame is a 50% scale-down specimen, and the drawing of the design details is shown in
Fig. 1. Its design is based on existing damaged buildings in Taiwan after the Chi-Chi Earthquake. The
column is 170 cm (66.9 in) high with a 3050 cm (11.819.7 in) cross section. The longitudinal reinforcement
consists of 10 No. 6 rebars. The shear reinforcement consists of No. 3 stirrups. The spacing of the shear
reinforcement is 30 cm (11.8 in) along the column. The thickness of the concrete cover is 4 cm (1.6 in). The
beam is 250 cm (98.4 in) long with a 5030 cm (19.711.8 in) cross section. The upper and lower longitudinal
reinforcements of the beam consist of 4 No. 6 bars in the long direction. The spacing of the shear
reinforcement (No. 3 stirrups) is 20 cm (7.9 in) in the beam. The target concrete compression strength at 28 days
is 21.0 MPa (3,000 psi). The design yield strengths of the longitudinal and transversal reinforcing steels are
420 MPa (60,000 psi) and 280 MPa (40,000 psi), respectively. We intentionally designed the column so that the
failure mode of the frame is shear failure to simulate the damage of buildings in the Chi-Chi Earthquake. In
order to make sure that the same damage will occur at the column, the design and construction of the foundation
needed to be extremely strong. The dimensions of the foundation are 4508070 cm (177.231.527.6 in),
and the longitudinal reinforcements consist of 20 No. 6 bars in the long direction, and 23 No. 6 bars in the short
direction. In the meantime, eight cylindrical holes are designed for the purpose of fixing the foundation on the
transition steel floor, and the transition steel floor is mounted on the strong floor at the NCREE (Tsai, 2001).
z
The repaired rehabilitated RC frames
The proposed repair-rehabilitation working method can be divided into the repair and the rehabilitation work.
The detailed descriptions of the repair and the rehabilitation work are as follows.
1. The repair work
After the non-ductile RC frames are damaged under the cyclic-loading test, we found that the failure mode is a
classic shear-failure mode. Some structural cracks appeared inside the core of the column and some concrete
debris is spalling at the outside of the core of the column. First, remove the spalling concrete outside the core
of concrete. Then the column is wrapped by 6 mm (0.24 in) diameter steel wire cable around the longitudinal
rebars with spacing of 5 cm (1.97 in), and non-shrinkage mortar is used to repair the damaged section of the
column. The ultimate stress and strain of steel wire cable are 750 MPa (109,170 psi) and 2.8 %, respectively.
2. The rehabilitation work
After the repair work is done, we used CFRP composite material to rehabilitate the shear capacity of the repaired
column. We then used the design equation mentioned in the above section and the CFRP material properties
listed in Table 1 to calculate the thickness of the CFRP composite material. Using the above mentioned
equations, two-layer CFRP composite material is wrapped around the mild damaged columns of the RC frames.
The illustration of the rehabilitation working procedure and the illustration of the repaired and rehabilitated
section are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively. The hand-apply procedures of rehabilitating bridge columns
with CFRP are as follows:

(1) A thin layer of primer epoxy is applied to the repaired concrete surface.
(2) After the primer epoxy is cured at the ambient temperature for several hours, a carbon fiber sheet is applied to
the RC columns.
(3) For each layer of carbon fiber sheet, two plies of epoxy, one on the concrete surface prior to installing the
sheet and the other on top of the installed sheet, are applied using paintbrushes to fully saturate the carbon
fiber with epoxy. The extra epoxy for each layer is squeezed out using a flat plastic scraper.
(4) The length of the overlay is more than 10 cm (3.94 in), and the next layer should be applied after a one-day
interval.
z
Experimental setup
A total of six RC frames are tested at the NCREE. Linear voltage displacement transformers (LVDT) and tilt
meters are mounted on the column to measure the displacements and rotations at some specified sections. The
experiment uses a displacement-control method to proceed with the cyclic-loading test. Two actuators are used
to apply the horizontal load. Fig. 5 is the illustration of the experimental setup. The relationship of lateral
displacement and cycle of the actuator is shown in Fig. 6. The test did not stop until concrete spalling occurred,
the vertical reinforcement bar broke, the horizontal reinforcement bar loosened, or the lateral force is reduced to
40% of the maximum (ultimate) force.

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
The definition of ductility in this paper is adopted from Priestley et al. (1996). The point defined as the peak
displacement ductility and maximum drift ratio are obtained by calculating the beam-column joint deflection
occurring at 80% of the peak lateral force. The yield deflections are idealized from the measured lateral
force-lateral displacement envelopes using an equal area method and the elastic slope passing through first bar
yield. The comparison of the lateral force-displacement envelopes of the as-built non-ductile frames and their
corresponding repaired rehabilitated frames are shown in Fig. 7~Fig. 9. As seen in the figures, we found that
the displacement ductilities of the as-built RC frames are less than 3 and the frame columns exhibit shear failure.
The stiffness and the ultimate lateral force of the RC frame in-filled with a full-height brick wall are higher than
those of the RC frame in-filled with a half-height brick wall and those of the pure frame. We found that the
ductilities and ultimate lateral strengths of the repaired rehabilitated RC frames have been enhanced. In this
section, the topics of the drift ratio, the ultimate lateral force, and the energy dissipation of the RC frames will
be discussed.
z Ultimate Lateral Force and Drift Ratio
From the experimental results, we summarize the ultimate lateral forces and their drift ratios in Table 2. As
seen from Table 2, the ultimate lateral forces of the repaired rehabilitated RC frames with brick walls, such as
BMNFH10B-FC and BMNF10B-FC, increased more than that of the repaired rehabilitated RC frame without a
brick wall. This is because the ductility of the repaired rehabilitated RC frame has increased and the wall has
the chance to take the earthquake forces. On the contrary, the increase of the ultimate lateral forces of the
as-built non-ductile RC frames with brick walls are close to that of the as-built non-ductile RC frame without a
brick wall. This is because the columns of the as-built non-ductile RC frames are already damaged and have
failed before the wall start to take the earthquake forces.
z Energy dissipation
The dissipated energy is defined as the area within the lateral force-displacement envelope curve. The
comparison of the energy dissipation of all frames is shown in Fig. 10. As seen in Fig. 10, the performances of
energy dissipation of repaired rehabilitated RC frames are better than those of the as-built RC frames. It shows
that the proposed repair-rehabilitation working method is an effective method to enhance the strength and
ductility of non-ductile RC frames.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
From the results of the experiments, we have found that the brick wall can resist part of the moment, the shear
force and the axial load. The behavior of brick wall is similar to column. Therefore, the brick wall can be
assumed to be an equivalent column. This is the idea of the equivalent column model for brick walls. Fig.
11 is the illustration of the equivalent column model for brick walls inside the RC frame. Then, the brick wall
combine with the pure RC frame can be implemented into structural analysis program, such as SAP2000, to
perform non-linear pushover analysis. Fig. 12 is the illustration figure of the equivalent column model of
full-height brick wall inside the RC frames. In this paper, the confined concrete constitutive model (Li et al.,

2003) is used to simulate the stress-strain relationship of the repaired rehabilitated section, shown in Fig. 4.
The sectional analysis program, Response 2000, was used to obtain the moment-curvature relationship of the
repaired rehabilitated RC column; and the equivalent column model was also used to simulate the brick wall
inside the RC frame.
The width of the equivalent column bw can be expressed as
bw =

6M yw
f p'

In the above equation, the

(square-sectioned column)

(1)

M yw can be expressed as follows.

M yw = Vyw H

(2)

where M yw is the yield bending moment of the equivalent column; f p' is the compressive strength of brick
wall; Vyw is the lateral yield force of the equivalent column; and H = the height of brick wall.
The compressive strength of brick wall f p' can be expressed as the following equation (Chen, 2003).
f p' = 0.27 f bc0.7 f mc0.3 (MPa)

(3)

where
f bc = the uni-axial compressive strength of brick; and
f mc = the compressive strength of mortar.
As the moment-curvature relationship of the repaired rehabilitated RC column was obtained, we then
implemented the above moment-curvature relationship of the repaired rehabilitated RC column and the stiffness
of the brick wall obtained from equivalent-column-model into SAP 2000 for the pushover analysis. The lateral
force-displacement relationship of the repaired rehabilitated RC frame can thus be obtained. The comparisons
of the analytical and experimental lateral force-displacement results for BMNF, BMNFH10B and BMNF10B
are shown in Fig. 13~Fig. 15, respectively. As seen from these figures, the analytical results can simulate the
experimental results with a reasonable accuracy. The average errors, between the experimental and analytical,
of the ultimate lateral force and maximum lateral displacement of as-built RC frames are less than 6 % and 5 %
shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
The stiffness of the repaired rehabilitated RC columns is needed to be reduced according to the damage
conditions of the as-built RC columns. In this paper, 50% stiffness of the as-built RC columns was used as the
stiffness of the repaired rehabilitated RC columns. The comparisons of the analytical and experimental lateral
force-displacement results for BMNF-FC, BMNFH10B-FC and BMNF10B-FC are shown in Fig. 16~Fig. 18,
respectively. As seen from these figures, the analytical results can simulate the experimental results very well.
The average errors, between the experimental and analytical, of the ultimate lateral force and maximum lateral
displacement of as-built RC frames are both less than 3 %. The detailed comparison results of the ultimate
lateral forces and maximum lateral displacements of RC frames are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1.
The stiffness, the ultimate lateral force and the energy dissipation of the as-built and repaired rehabilitated
RC frames in-filled with a full-height brick wall are higher than those of the RC frames in-filled with a
half-height brick wall and pure frames.
2.
The ultimate lateral forces of the repaired rehabilitated RC frames with brick walls increase more than
those of repaired rehabilitated RC frames without a brick wall. This is because the displacement ductility
of the repaired rehabilitated RC frame with a brick wall has increased and the brick wall starts to provide
lateral force to resist earthquake force.
3.
The proposed repair-rehabilitation working method, which uses steel wire cable, non-shrinkage mortar and
CFRP, can effectively improve the strength and displacement ductility of the non-ductile RC frames.
4.
Combining the constitutive model (Li and Fang, 2004) of the confined concrete, the equivalent column
model, the theoretical analysis can effectively simulate the experimental results of the as-built and
repaired rehabilitated RC frames with good accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been financially supported by the National Science Council (NSC) of the Taiwan government,
under contract No. NSC 89-2625-Z-027-002 with National Taipei University of Technology. The experimental
work of columns is jointly supported by the NSC and the NCREE in Taiwan. The experimental work is carried
out by the colleagues in NCREE, whose assistance is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES
Li, Y.-F., Lin, C.-T., and Sung, Y.-Y. (2003), A Constitutive Model for Concrete Confined with Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plastics, Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 35, 2003, pp. 603-619.
Bents, E. (2001), Response 2000: User Manual, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
2001.
Li, Y.-F., Chen, H.-S., Wu, C.-W., and Chang, K.-C. (2004), Method for Strengthening or Repairing An Existing
Elongated Reinforced Concrete Structural Element Cross-Reference to Related Application, Patent of Republic
of China, No.:577952.
Li, Y.-F., and Fang, T.-S. (2004), A Constitutive Model for Concrete Confined by Steel Reinforcement and
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sheet, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Li, Y.-F., and Sung, Y.-Y. (2004), A Study on the Shear-Failure Circular Sectioned Bridge Column Retrofitted
by Using CFRP Jacketing, Journal of Reinforced Plastic and Composites, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 811-830.
Tsai, C. H. (2001), Study on Seismic Behaviors of Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frames with Infill Brick
Panel, M.S. Thesis, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996), Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York, 686 pp.

Table 1Material properties of CFRP composite material

Material Specification
FAW 250
Youngs Modulus, MPa (psi)

2.32105 (3.31107)

Tensile Strength, MPa (psi)

4.17103 (5.95105)

Thickness, mm/layer (in/layer)

0.1375 (5.4110-3)

Ultimate Strain

0.018

Table 2The comparison of the ultimate lateral forces drift ratios of the RC frames
RC frame
Ultimate lateral force, kN (lbf)
Drift ratio (%)
BMNF
518.2 (116,550)
2.3
BMNFH10B
583.0 (131,175)
2.3
BMNF10B
593.6 (133,560)
2.6
BMNF-FC
539.6 (121,410)
4.7
BMNFH10B-FC
673.2 (151,470)
5.2
BMNF10B-FC
757.2 (170,370)
4.9

Table 3The comparison of the experimental and analytical ultimate lateral forces of RC frames
RC frame
Ultimate lateral force,
Ultimate lateral force, Analysis, kN
Error (%)
Experiment, kN (lbf)
(lbf)
BMNF
518.2 (116,550)
516.7 (116,258)
0.3
BMNFH10B
583.0 (131,175)
569.2 (128,070)
2.4
BMNF10B
593.6 (133,560)
681.3 (153,293)
14.8

BMNF-FC
BMNFH10B-FC
BMNF10B-FC

539.6 (121,410)
673.2 (151,470)
757.2 (170,370)

572.3 (128,768)
668.1 (150,323)
773.4 (174,015)

6.1
0.8
2.1

Table 4The comparison of the experimental and analytical maximum lateral displacements of RC frames
RC frame
Maximum lateral
Maximum lateral displacement,
Error (%)
displacement, mm (in)
Analysis, mm (in)
BMNF
38.92 (1.53)
36.75 (1.45)
5.6
BMNFH10B
38.50 (1.52)
36.75 (1.45)
4.5
BMNF10B
38.50 (1.52)
36.74 (1.45)
4.6
BMNF-FC
77.94 (3.07)
75.04 (2.95)
3.7
BMNFH10B-FC
78.05 (3.08)
77.00 (3.03)
1.3
BMNF10B-FC
77.91 (3.07)
76.35 (3.01)
2.0

(10 TYP)

Section 3-3

Section 1-1
(10 TYP)

#6@7.22cm

#6

#4

Section 2-2

#4

(Unitcm)

Fig. 1 The design details of the non-ductile RC frame

BMNF

BMNFH10B

BMNF10B

BMNF-FC

BMNFH10B-FC

BMNF10B-FC

Fig. 2 The illustrations and namings of the non-ductile RC frames

Remove bricks between

column and brick wall

3. Non-shrinkage grout
4. Two layers of CFRP

1. Original core of concret

2. Steel wire @5 cm

Replace bricks between

column and brick wall

Fig. 3The illustration of the repair and rehabilitation procedures

Original Core of Coreoncret

Steel Wire
Non-shrinkage Grout
Two Layers of CFRP

Fig. 4The illustration of the repaired and rehabilitated section.

Steel Brace
Section 1
Steel Bar
Section 1
Two Actuators

Steel Brace

Reaction Wall
Hydraulic Press

Transition Steel Floor

Section 1
Strong Floor

Fig. 5 The illustration of experimental setup

Drift Ratio (%)

3
4

800
700

50.9 kN/mm
33.1 kN/mm

600

539.6 kN

500

518.2 kN

400
300
200
BMNF
100

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Fig. 6 The lateral displacement and cycle relationship

of the actuato

Drift Ratio (%)

3
4

BMNF-FC

Cycles

20

40

60
80
Displacement (mm)

100

120

140

Fig. 7The comparison of the lateral

force-displacement envelopes of BMNF and BMNF-FC
Drift Ratio (%)

900

900

800

120.6 kN/mm

800

94.3 kN/mm

600

583.0 kN

500
400

757.2 kN

74.6 kN/mm

700

673.2 kN

49.4 kN/mm

600

Lateral Force (kN)

700
Lateral Force (kN)

900

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Displacement (mm)

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120

593.6 kN

500
400
300

300

200
BMNF10B

200
BMNFH10B
100

100

BMNFH10B-FC

BMNF10B-FC

0
0

0
0

20

40

60
80
Displacement (mm)

100

120

20

40

140

60

80

100

120

140

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 9The comparison of the lateral

force-displacement envelopes of BMNF10B and
BMNF10B-FC.

Fig. 8The comparison of the lateral force-displacement

envelopes of BMNFH10B and BMNFH10B-FC
70

Dissipation Energy (kN-m )

60
50
40

bw

30
20
10

Vyw
0

BMNF
BMNF-FC

BMNFH10B
BMNFH10B-FC

BMNF10B
BMNF10B-FC

Fig. 11The illustration of the equivalent column model

for the brick wall

800

800

700

700

600

600

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

Fig. 10 The comparison of the energy dissipation for

the as-built and rehabilitation RC frames

500
400
300

BMNFH10B
Analysis
Experiment

200
100

500
400
300

BMNF10B
Analysis
Experiment

200
100

0
0

20

40

60

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 14The comparison of the analytical and

experimental results for BMNFH10B

80

20

40

60

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 15The comparison of the analytical and

experimental results for BMNF10B-FC

80

800

700

700

600

600

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

800

500
400
300

BMNF-FC
Analysis
Experiment

200
100

500
400
300
200

BMNFH10B-FC
Analysis
Experiment

100
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Displacement (mm)

700

Lateral Force (kN)

600
500
400
300

BMNF10B-FC
Analysis
Experiment

100
0
20

40

60

80

100

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 18The comparison of the analytical and

experimental results for BMNF10B-FC

40

60

80

100

Fig. 17The comparison of the analytical and

experimental results for BMNFH10B-FC

800

200

20

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16The comparison of the analytical and

experimental results for BMNF-FC

120

120