TEST OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

STRENGTHENED USING POLYESTER SHEETS

Toshinori Kabeyasawa
Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan

Toshimi Kabeyasawa, Yukiko Tojo, Yousok Kim, Toshikazu Kabeyasawa

Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan

Shun'ichi Igarashi
Structural Quality Assurance, Inc., Japan

ABSTRACT:

Six wall specimens were tested to investigate effects of boundary columns, openings,
reinforcement details and sheet strengthening on seismic performance. The shear strength
of a wall without boundary columns was slightly less although it may be regarded
basically as equivalent to the wall with boundary columns. The strength reduction of the
wall with two openings could be estimated by applying conventional formula for an
opening. Although the strength was reduced, the deformability of the wall with opening
was much higher than that of the wall without openings. The effectiveness of polyester
sheet on strength and deformability in strengthening reinforced concrete walls were
verified through the test in both cases with and without openings. The confinement of the
boundary columns with the sheet was effective to increase the deformability and the axial
load carrying capacity after shear failure. The measured increase or decrease in shear
strengths due to these effects could roughly be approximated with conventional design
equations, although further experimental and analytical investigations are needed for
general evaluation method, especially on deformability.

1 INTRODUCTION

A series of wall tests were carried out as preliminary tests of a comprehensive research project on
seismic design method of reinforced concrete buildings consisting of members with irregular sectional
shapes. The purpose of the project is to establish an evaluation method of strength and deformability
of reinforced concrete members, especially such as a wall with openings, a wall without boundary
columns and a column with wing wall(s), to verify the effect of detailing and strengthening on
deformability and ultimate axial capacity, and to evaluate seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings consisting of such members, by experimental and analytical verification.
Observing post-earthquake damages to reinforced concrete buildings, especially designed before 1981
in Japan, the shear failure of the short columns due to spandrel walls has been one of the typical non-
ductile failure modes of members, which often leads the buildings to structural collapse in axial
failure. Therefore, the current Japanese code of practice basically requires higher lateral load-carrying
capacity of the structure if such members are included, while in practice the use of seismic slit has
been a typical solution, isolating the spandrel walls from the columns. Following the practice, the wing
walls have also been isolated from the columns, although the wing walls designed integral with the
columns would be effective to the seismic capacity of the whole structure, especially in strength
dominant cases, as in most cases of low-rise buildings. The wall panel has also been isolated in such
case as a wall with large-size opening, which cannot be regarded as the shear wall in the current code
of practice. The practice is due to lack of reliable evaluation method formula.
On the other hand, we have developed and verified the effectiveness and efficiency of using polyester

Paper Number 8PCEE/182

sheet, called SRF, for the strengthening of old non-ductile members, not only columns but also walls
as well(Kabeyasawa et al, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005), especially against the axial collapse after
flexural and shear failure. The strengthening method was verified to be effective also to the shear
strength and the deformability of the reinforced concrete walls with boundary columns and the
concrete block infilled walls, owing to the effective detail of confining the boundary columns.
In this paper, the test results of six wall specimens were reported, which was recently carried to verify
with multi-purpose: The first two specimens were walls with and without boundary columns. Another
two was the walls with openings, one with conventional and one with ductile details. The other two
was the walls strengthened with polyester sheet. The effects of these design parameters on the strength
and the deformability were investigated experimentally.

2 TEST SPECIMENS

2.1 Reinforced concrete wall specimens

Tested were six reinforced concrete wall specimens as listed in Table 1. The scale of the specimens,
with the span length of 1800mm and the inner height of 1400mm, to typical sections of full-scale low-
rise building in Japan may be one-third to two-fifth. The six specimens were named as (1)CW, (2)IW,
(3)OW, (4)OWF, (5)IW-SRF, and (6)OW-SRF.
The section and reinforcement details of the specimen "CW" and the specimen "IW" are shown in
Figure 1(a) and (b). The specimen "CW" is a wall with boundary columns with typical conventional or
current design practice for low-rise walls. The section of the boundary columns is 250mmx250mm,
with the main bars of 16-D10 and the hoops of 2-D4 at the spacing of 40mm. The thickness of the wall
panel is 80mm with the shear reinforcement of 2-D4 at the spacing of 130mm, the ratio of 0.0025,
which corresponds to the minimum requirement in Japan.
The specimen "IW" is a wall without boundary columns, which is not typical in Japan, because the
Building Standard Law(BSL) requires that the shear wall shall be confined with boundary columns.
Therefore the tests of the walls without the boundary columns have been relatively few so that the
evaluation method has not yet verified enough. The wall thickness was 120mm, which corresponds to
the equivalent thickness to the specimen "CW" with the same sectional area including the boundary
columns. The wall end region was defined as 450mm, which is one-forth of the total wall length, and
the region was confined with the same spacing of as the hoops of the boundary columns in the
specimen "CW," so that the ratio is to be about twice 0.0052. By placing two sub-ties within the
confined region so that the hoop ratio to the orthogonal direction was made higher than the minimum
requirement of 0.002.
 

    
   


 


 





    



 

  
   


(a) Specimen CW (b) Specimen IW ,IW-SRF

Figure 1 Details of reinforced concrete specimens

2
2.2 Wall specimens with openings

The section and reinforcement details of the specimen "OW" and the specimen "OWF" are shown in
Figure 2(a) and (b). The specimen "OW" is a wall where two openings are placed in the wall panels of
the specimen "CW." The width and the height of each opening is 360mmx680mm. The size of these
openings corresponds to the upper limit in Japanese code of practice, in which case the may be
regarded as the shear wall, otherwise the wall shall be modelled as a frame with two columns and the
wing walls. The strength reduction factor to the non-opening wall is calculated as 0.6 in accordance
with AIJ standard. The reinforcing bars of 2-D6 were placed at the peripheral of the openings also in
accordance with the calculation procedure of AIJ standard. The reinforcement details were typical in
Japanese practice. The specimen "OWF" is a wall with special reinforcement details, by which it was
aimed that the strength and the deformability and the axial capacity of the wall with openings are to be
made much higher that the conventional walls. In the part of the wall panel as the wing wall to the
boundary columns, the lateral web reinforcement are densely placed at the same spacing of 40mm as
the column hoops.
 2344
    534 6 44 6 44 534

!! 878

01! :8<

!! 878
/! 8
1 " :; 9
Figure 1 Details of specimens
!0 :8<
1

!! 878
 %'&)(*& +), & +),-& +),.%'&)(  234 253 5=4 5=4 5=4 253 234
!#$ !#$ 8
>?
/!
(a) Specimen OW (b) Specimen OWF c
Figure 2 Details of specimens with openings
OW-SRF
d
2.3 Wall specimens strengthened using sheet
3

The section and reinforcement details of the specimen "IW-SRF" and the specimen "OW-SRF" are the
same as those of the specimen "IW" and the specimen "OW" shown in Figure 1(b) and Figure 2(a).
These two specimens were strengthened after construction using polyester sheet "SRF." The details of
sheet rapping and anchorage are shown in Figure 3. The specimen IW-SRF is to simulate a seismic
strengthening in case that only one side is available for the sheet in an existing wall. The other side is
to anchor the end with the length of 450mm. The sheet was pasted only using the adhesive bond,
which has already in practical use. The sheet details for the specimen OW-SRF basically follow the
standard method, which has already been developed and verified for a non-opening specimen
(Kabeyasawa, 2005), where the L-shaped steel bar and the high strength bolts are used for the
anchorage of the sheet at the inner corners of the wall-panel edge and the column face. The sheet was
fastened with the bars (M10@190) and the bolts post-tensioned through the wall panel, as shown in
Figure 3(b), to prevent tensile stripping of the sheet at the inner corner and also to confine the
boundary columns effectively.
The nominal strength of concrete is 24MPa. Material properties of concrete and steel were to be
basically common to the six specimens, although the concrete strength measured at each test date are
little different as listed in Table 2(a) and (b). However, the concrete strength at the time of testing RC-
M was a little higher than the nominal, while almost equal to when SRF-A and SRF-X were tested.
The properties of SRF sheet are shown in Table 2(c).

3
 360 680 360
L-shaped
steel bar
50 @ 50 @ 4

High strength
630 790 630 430 1190 430 bolts
M10@190

(a) Specimen IW-SRF (b) Specimen OW-SRF

3
Figure 3 Details of specimens strengthened with sheet

Table 1 List of specimens

specimen column wall
Name Section Main bars Hoop dimension Web reinforcement
CW 250×250 16-D10(1.82%) D4@40(0.25%) 80 D4@130double(0.25%)
IW,IW-SRF 120×450 16-D10(1.82%) D4@40(0.52%) 120 D4@130double(0.16%)
OW,OW-SRF 250×250 16-D10(1.82%) D4@40(0.25%) 80 D4@130double(0.25%)
OWF 250×250 16-D10(1.82%) D4@40(0.25%) 80 D4@65double(0.5%),
D4@40double(0.80%)

Table 2 Material properties of concrete and steel

(a) concrete (b) steel
Name Elastic Measured Strain Mark Nominal Yield Maximum
Young Modulus Strength at strength Strength Strength Strength
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
CW 2.47 22.4 0.00159 D4 SD295 374 524.8
IW,IW-SRF 2.5 24.36 0.00172 D6 SD295 334.5 485.2
OW,OW-SRF 2.49 24.38 0.00168 D10 SD295 397.8 515.2
OWF 2.49 24.38 0.00168
Table 3 Material properties of
(C)sheet polyester sheet
Name Thickness Width Elastic Yield Measured Measured
(mm) (mm) Young Modulus Strength Strength Elongation
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm) Strain
SRF-2100 2.8 100.8 6.01 A 103 114.4 457.5 0.12

3 METHOD OF TESTING loading jack

capacity : }1000kN
pantograph

stroke : }200mm
beam

reaction
3.1 Loading system column
load cell

The loading system built in the laboratory specimen

of ERI, University of Tokyo, as shown in
Figure 4, was used for the test. An oil jack base

in the horizontal direction and two oil jacks

in the vertical direction were controlled to
apply constant vertical load and lateral Figure 4 Loading system

4
shear with constant moment-to-shear ratio. The total constant axial load N for the two columns was
600kN which corresponded to the axial load ratio of 0.2 to the area of the boundary columns 2Ac,
namely as N/(2Acfc)=0.2, where the nominal compressive concrete fc=24MPa is used. The lateral
shear is applied with the lateral jack through the steel beam attached above the top beam of the
specimen. The bending moment is applied by the two jacks in proportion to the lateral shear so that at
the moment-to-shear ratio at the wall base is kept constant as M/Qlw=0.75, where lw is the effective
wall depth, lw=1800mm. The moment-to-shear ratio of 0.75 is selected based on the preliminary
calculation aiming that the shear failure would occur prior to flexural yielding even for the
strengthened specimens and the shear strength could be identified. The three jacks have the loading
capacity of 1000kN in tensile and compressive and 400mm stroke with the universal joint clevises at
the two ends and the load cell. The lateral load was reversed at the peak deformation angles of B
1/400, B 1/300, B 1/200, B 1/150, B 1/100, B 1/75, B 1/50, B 1/37.5, B 1/25, each with one cycle of
loading, until an brittle failure would occur.

3.2 Method of measurement

An overall deformation was measured by displacement meters such as lateral deformation at the top
beam and axial deformations of boundary columns. Local deformations were measured by dividing the
wall into four segments along the wall height and lateral displacements and axial deformations at both
boundary columns were measured. The distortions of openings were also measured. Strains in the
column main bars, the hoops, and the web reinforcement in the wall panel were also measured by wire
strain gauges mainly at expected diagonal failure lines or the base critical sections. For the sheet
strengthened specimen, the strains in the sheet were measured at more than 100 points so that the
effect of the sheet on the shear resistance mechanism could be identified quantitatively. The maximum
widths of typical cracks at the peak deformations of each loading cycle as well as the residual crack
widths at the unloading points of the lateral load were measured using crack scale.

4 TEST RESULTS

4.1 Failure modes and hysteretic relations

Failure process of each specimen is described briefly below referring to the peak deformation angles
of the loading cycle. Hysteretic relations between the lateral shear force and the lateral deformation are
shown in Figure 5 with the photos showing final failure modes at the end of testing. 6

(a) The specimens "CW": Shear cracks occurred and progressed from the corner base in the loading . Photos at the end of testing
are shown in Figure 7.
cycles of [ B 1/400rad] and [ B 1/300rad]. Crushing occurred in the loading cycles of [ B 1/200rad].
After the cyclic loading and in the way to the next peak deformation[+1/150], diagonal shear tension
failure occurred at 7.9mm, slightly over 1/200rad. The constant axial load could not be sustained
although large axial compressive deformation was occurred.
(b) The specimens "IW": Shear cracks occurred and progressed from the corner base in the loading
cycles of [ B 1/400rad] and [ B 1/300rad]. Diagonal tension shear failure occurred in the way to
negative peak of -1/200 at -6.2mm, slightly ahead of reaching -1/200rad. The constant axial load could
not be sustained after the shear failure due to out-of-plane buckling.
(c) The specimens "OW": Shear cracks occurred and progressed from the corner at the opening in
the loading cycles of [ B 1/400rad] and [ B 1/300rad]. The maximum shear strengths were attained at
[ B 1/100rad] when the crushing of concrete was started. Shear failure across the boundary column
occurred in the way to negative peak of -1/37.5 at -22.15mm, ahead of reaching -1/37.5rad. The
constant axial load could not be sustained after the shear failure.
(d) The specimens "OWF": Shear cracks occurred and progressed from the corner at the opening in
the loading cycles of [ B 1/400rad] and [ B 1/300rad]. The maximum shear strengths were attained at
[ B 1/100rad]. Crushing of concrete was observed and progressed at [ B 1/75rad] and [ B 1/50rad],

5
although stable behavior was observed. The constant axial load could be sustained stably after the
crushing failure until the end of testing when the lateral deformation reached the limit of
measurement[120mm].
(e) The specimens "IW-SRF": Shear cracks occurred and progressed in [ B 1/400rad] and [ B
1/300rad], although the widths were relatively restrained than those of the specimen IW. The
maximum shear strengths were attained at [ B 1/150rad]. Shear failure occurred at the wall base in the
way to [ B 1/100rad] at -10.75mm. The constant axial load could not be sustained after the shear
failure due to out-of-plane buckling.
(f) The specimens "OW-SRF": Shear cracks occurred and progressed from the corner at the opening
in the loading cycles of [ B 1/400rad] and [ B 1/300rad]. The maximum shear strengths were attained at
[ B 1/100rad]. Crushing of concrete at the opening corner was observed and progressed at [ B
1/37.5rad] and [ B 1/25rad]. The constant axial load could be sustained stably after the crushing failure
until the end of testing when the lateral deformation reached the limit of measurement[120mm].
DGFHFIF
JLFIF 822kN
MLFIF ,6.72mm
Shear force(kN)

NHFIF
PLFIF
F
CKPLFIF
CONHFIF
CKMLFIF
CKJLFIF -791kN,-6.54mm
CEDGFHFIF
CKMLFQCINIF-CKPHFRFSPLFRNIFTMLF
Displacement(mm)
(a) Specimen CW
VGWHWIW
XLWIW 753kN,7.01mm
Shear force(kN)

YLWIW
ZHWIW
[LWIW
W
UK[LWIW
UOZHWIW
UKYLWIW
UKXLWIW -759kN,-

UEVGWHWIW 6.22mm
UKYLWQUOZHW\UK[LWTWS[LW]ZIWTYLW

(b) Specimen IW
_G`H`I`
aL`I` 486kN,13.75mm
bL`I`
Shear force(kN)

cH`I`

dL`I`
`
^KdL`I`
^OcH`I`
^KbL`I`
^KaL`I`
-472kN,-
^E_G`H`I` 13.75mm
^KbL`\^OcH`Q^OdH`e` dL`]cH`TbH`
Displacement(mm)
(c) Specimen OW 6
Figure 5 Hysteresis relations and photo at failure

6
 gGhHhIh
iLhIh 566kN,13.57mm
jLhIh
Shear force(kN)

kHhIh

lLhIh
h
fKlLhIh
fOkHhIh
fKjLhIh
fKiLhIh -591.5kN,-
fEgGhHhIh 14.02mm
fKjLhmfOkHhmfKlLhnholLhpkHhqjLhqiLhrgshIhtgGlHhtgskIh
(d) Specimen OWF
‚GƒHƒIƒ
„LƒIƒ
…LƒIƒ 805kN,7.02mm
Shear force(kN)

†HƒIƒ
‡LƒIƒ
ƒ
K‡LƒIƒ
O†HƒIƒ
K…LƒIƒ
K„LƒIƒ -934kN,9.2mm
E‚GƒHƒIƒ
K…Hƒ\I†IƒQO‡Hƒ]ƒS‡Lƒ]†IƒT…Lƒ
Displacement(mm)
(e) Specimen IW-SRF
vGwHwIw
xLwIw 529kN,14.02mm
yLwIw
Shear force(kN)

zHwIw
{LwIw
w
uK{LwIw
uOzHwIw
uKyLwIw
uKxLwIw -535kN,-14.03mm
uEvGwHwIw
uKyHw|uOzHw}uK{Lw~wo{HwnzHwqyLwqxLwvGwHw€vG{HwtvszIw
Displacement(mm)
(f) Specimen OW-SRF
6
Figure 5 Hysteresis relations and photo at failure

4.2 Observed crack widths and measured strains on the sheet

The maximum crack widths at each peak deformation angle and the residual crack widths at the
unloading point of each cycle are shown in Figure 6. The maximum and residual cracks are restrained listed
in the specimens with sheet (SRF), especially at larger deformation angles. The residual crack widths Table
are approximately by one-half than the maximum at peak. f
Strains measured on the polyester sheet at the maximum shear strength in positive and negative 4
directions were summarized in Figure 7: 0.36% for IW-SRF, 0.6% for OW-SRF. The tensile stresses
in the sheet corresponding to the maximum strains estimated from these strains and elastic stiffness
also shown with different scale abscissa axis in the figure. The effects of the sheet on the strength are 7
discussed in detail with design calculation in the next chapter.

7
 Max clack width(mm) ’“  Œ Ÿ   š›
”“ ¡ 

Max clack width(mm)

” “I•–—s˜  ¡  I¢£¤G¥ 

ŽŒ  œGš ›

Ž œ

‹OŒ  ™Iš ›

‹ ™

‘ Ž ‘ Žs‹ ‘  ‹  Žs‹ Ž ž œ› ž œs™ ž › ™ › œs™ œ›

Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)
(a) Specimens CW,IW,IW-SRF
¯±° « ¨ ¾±¿ º ·
¯±°³² ¾ ¿³À
±
Max crack width(mm)

Max crack width(mm)

¯±°I´µ¶s² ª © ¾±¿IÁÃGÀ ¹ ¸

ªs¨ ¹s·

© ¸
l
¨ · l

¬O­ ¨ ¬O® ¨ ¬ « ¨ ¨ « ¨ ® ¨ ­ ¨ » ¼ ·
O » ½ ·
O » º · · º · ½ · ¼ ·

Displacement(mm)
¦ Displacement(mm)
b § Specimens OW,OWF,OW-SRF
Figure 6 Maximam clack widths at each cycle of loading 7

5 DISCUSSIONS ON THE TEST RESULTS

5.1 Effect of openings on the shear strength

Observed maximum strengths are compared with the calculated strengths based on design equations in
Japan (BCJ, 2000) as below. The material properties from the test are used for the calculation. The 5
flexural strength Qmu in term of shear is calculated from wMu by equation (1) as 1065kN for the
specimens CW, OW, OW-SRF, 1008kN for IW, IW-SRF, 1109 for OWF, which are much higher than
the shear strengths. The calculated shear strengths were derived from the following empirical
design(mean) equation (2), and are shown in the hysteretic relations in Figure 5 with dotted lines:
Qmu=(agσy+0.5awvσwy+0.5
M u = at ⋅ ˆ sy ⋅ l w + 0.5 (a wv ⋅ ˆ wy ) ⋅ l w + 0.5 N ⋅ l w (1) N)xlw/(M/Q)
w
0.068p te0 .23 (18 + F c ) (2)
Qsu= 0.068pt0.23
Q su = { + 0.85 p se ⋅‰ wy + 0.1 ‰ } ⋅ b e ⋅ je
M /( Q Š lw ) + 0 . 12
0e

where, pte: reinforcement ratio of tensile main bars at to total sectional area Aw+2Ac (unit in per cent,
=at/(Aw+2Ac)), Fc: design nominal strength, M/Q: moment-to-shear ratio, lw: wall depth from center
to center of boundary columns, pwh: effective lateral web reinforcement ratio in the wall panel (=aw/(s
twe)), awh: area of lateral web reinforcement at the spacing of s, awv: total area of vertical reinforcing
bars in the wall panel, twe: equivalent thickness of wall (Aw+2Ac)/Lw), tw: thickness of wall panel,
Ac: area of column, Aw: area of wall panel(=twxlw'), lw': wall panel inner depth within boundary
column, Lw: total depth(=lw'+2Dc), Dc: column depth, j: effective depth(=lw).
Although the calculated strengths for the specimens "CW" and "IW" are close to each other as
planned, the observed maximum strength of the specimen "IW" was slightly lower, 0.92 times that of
the specimen "CW." The increase in CW is the effect of the boundary columns. The shear strength of
the wall without boundary columns was slightly lower but close to the "mean" calculation so that the
seismic performance is basically equivalent or slightly lower than that of the wall with boundary
columns, though further investigation is needed for general evaluation.

8
AIJ standard for structural calculation of buildings(AIJ, 1999) has provided a reduction factor for
evaluation of the allowable strength of a wall with an opening. The same formula has been applied to
the evaluation of ultimate shear strength as well. However, neither codes nor guidelines in Japan have
prescribed general evaluation methods for the wall with multiple openings so that practical evaluation
has been left to engineers. Based on the reduction factor in the AIJ standard, a formula is proposed
using the following equations (2) for the cases with multiple openings in general location as:

h0
Qsuo = r Qsu, r = min(r1 , r2 ) , r1 = 1 − 0
, r2 = 1 − 0
(3)
h
where, Qsu: The calculated shear strength of the wall without openings, Qsuo: The calculated shear
strength of the wall with openings, l Ä The span length from center to center of boundary columns, h Ä
The story height from center to center of boundary beams, l0 Ä The width of each opening ( Σ accounts
for the sum of the projective lengths of all openings), h0 Ä The height of each opening (Σ accounts for
the sum of the projective heights of all openings). The above equation is proposed for the evaluation of
the strength reduction of wall due to openings even in the cases where multiple openings are located
irregularly as well.
As for the specimens, the allocation and the shape are regular so that the two openings are to be
regarded as equivalent as an opening having the sum total area of the two. The reduction factor is
calculated as 0.6 for the three specimens with openings. The shear strengths of the specimens "OW",
"OWF" and "OW-SRF" are calculated using the reduction factor of 0.6. The observed reduction ratio
in the maximum strength of the specimen "OW" to that of the non-opening specimen "CW" was 0.59,
which was very close to the calculated factor. It may be concluded the above application method to
multiple openings is appropriate. The observed reduction ratio of the specimen "OWF" to the
specimen "CW" was 0.72, which was apparently higher than the calculated factor owing to the effect
of the heavy web reinforcement in the wall panel. Therefore, the higher web reinforcement is used
calculation of the shear strength, where the observed strength is still higher than the calculated. It may
be concluded the reinforcing of the wall panel and the sidewall around the openings is much more
effective to the wall strength than estimated by applying the current design equation.

5.2 Effect of reinforcement details on the deformability

Although the strengths are reduced due to the openings, it should be noted that the deformability is
obviously and generally much higher that that of the specimen "CW" without openings. This is also
due to the type of loading where relatively small moment-to-shear ratio was selected. The
deformability of the specimen "OWF," is much more higher probably owing to heavy shear
reinforcement in the wall panel. It should also be noted that the axial capacity after shear compression
failure was stable until the end of testing, which was only one specimen among the four reinforced
concrete specimen except for the sheet strengthened specimen. These test results on the ultimate
deformability and hysteretic energy dissipation capacity will be discussed elsewhere in detail with
theoretical model for calculation.

5.3 Effect of the sheet strengthening on the shear strength

The effect of the polyester sheet on the shear strength was evaluated by adding an equivalent web
reinforcement ratio to the steel web reinforcement ratio in the empirical design equation(2). The
equivalent web reinforcement ratio of the sheet is determined here empirically from the measured
strains on the sheet at the maximum strength in the test. Then the calculated incremental shear strength
may be expressed in the form as equation (4). This equation might be much underestimate the test
results so that the increment by equation (5) based on truss action is also examined:
Å
Q2 = r ( p wh ⋅ σ sy + p f ⋅ σ f − p wh ⋅ σ sy ) ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ t e ⋅ j (4)
Æ
Q1 = r p f ⋅ σ f ⋅ t e ⋅ j (5)

where, pwh: equivalent lateral steel web reinforcement ratio, σsy: yield stress of web reinforcing steel, pf

9
: equivalent ratio of sheet as web reinforcement, σf: stress in the sheet determined empirically. The
observed strains at maximum shear strength in positive and negative directions are shown in Figure 7,
although the strains are both tensile direction. The abscissa for the strains is shown above the figure.
The incremental shear by the sheet can be calculated from the observed strains and expressed simply
by the abscissa as in the bottom in case of the equation (5). The shear calculated from the equation (4)
is also plotted in the figure. On the other hand, the measured incremental strengths of the maximum
strengths for the specimens IW-SRF and OW-SRF compared respectively to those of the specimens
IW and OW, are shown with dashed red lines. The increments of IW-SRF are higher than estimated
from eq.(4) and eq.(5), especially in negative direction. As for OW-SRF, the increment corresponded
well to eq.(4) and lower than eq.(5). In this case, the strength was determined by the flexural yielding
mechanism so that the effect of the sheet was partially to the shear resistance mechanism and partially
much more to the very high deformability, owing to the proper confinement details.

% strain
Higth(mm)

Higth(mm)

(a)IW-SRF
¦ ¦
a § IW-SRF kN b § OW-SRF kN
Figure7 Stains in the sheet and the incremental shear strengths 7

6 CONCLUSION

The shear strength of a wall without boundary columns was slightly less than that of the wall with
boundary columns. The strength reduction of the wall with two openings could be estimated by
applying conventional formula for an opening. Although the strength was reduced, the deformability
of the wall with opening was much higher than that of the wall without openings. The effectiveness of
polyester sheet on strength and deformability were verified in both cases with and without openings.
The confinement of the boundary columns with the sheet was effective to increase the deformability
and the axial load carrying capacity after shear failure. The measured increase or decrease in shear
strengths due to these effects could roughly be approximated with conventional design equations,
although further experimental and analytical investigations are needed.

REFERENCES:

Kabeyasawa, T., Tasai, A., Igarashi, S., 2001. An Economical and Efficient Method of Strengthening Reinforced
Concrete Columns against Axial Load Collapse during Major Earthquake. Proceedings of the Third
Workshop on Performance-based Engineering on Reinforced Concrete Building Structures. pp. 371-384.
Kabeyasawa, T., Tasai, A., Igarashi, S., 2002. An Economical and Efficient Method of Preventing Old
Reinforced Concrete Buildings from Collapse under Major Earthquake. Proceedings of 7NCEE. CD-ROM.
Kabeyasawa, T., Igarashi, S., Kim, Y-S., 2004. Shaking table test of reinforced concrete frames for verification
of seismic strengthening with polyester sheet. Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper No. 402.
Toshimi Kabeyasawa, Msaki Murase, Yasushi Sanada, Dinh Van Thuat, Shunichi Igarashi, 2005. Strengthening
of Reinforced Concrete Walls with a New Details Using Polyester Sheet. Proceedings of ISEE Kobe, Volume
2, C-315-C-324.
Architectural Institute of Japan, 1999. "AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete
Structures 1999 edtion (in Japanese)."
Building Center of Japan, 2000. "Design Guidelines for Structural Calculation (in Japanese)."

10