Performance recovery of a repaired 4-storey reinforced concrete structure subjected to shake-table testing

1. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1. Available from; 2015. https://sdgs.un.

org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

2. Marquis F, Kim JJ, Elwood KJ, Chang SE. Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch,

New Zealand. Bull Earthq Eng. 2017;15(2):731–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9772-8

3. FEMA 306. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry mWall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual. Redwood City, CA: 1998.

4. FEMA 308. Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. Redwood City, CA: 1998.

5. Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273).Redwood City, CA:

1997.

6. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.

ASCE/SEI 41-17. Renton, VA; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414859

7. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. Guidelines for Post-earthquake Damage Evaluation and Rehabilitation of RC Buildings

(in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan; 2015.

8. Celebi M, Penzien J. Hysteretic Behavior of Epoxy Repaired RC Beams. Birkeley, California. Report No. EERC 73/05, Earthquake Engineering

Research Center, Berkley, CA: 1973. https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/eerc/1973

9. Lee DLN, Wight JK, Hanson RD. Original and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages Subjected to Earthquake Type

Loading. UMEE Report 76S4. Ann Arbor, MI; 1976.

10. Cuevas A, Pampanin S. Post-seismic capacity of damaged and repaired reinforced concrete plastic hinges extracted from a real building.

Proceedings of the 2017 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Paper No. 3142; 2017.

11. Marder KJ, Elwood KJ, Motter CJ, Charles Clifton G. Quantifying the effects of epoxy repair of reinforced concrete plastic hinges. Bull NZ

Soc Earthq Eng. 2020;53(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.5459/BNZSEE.53.1.37-51

12. Lehman DE, Gookin SE, Nacamull AM, Moehle JP. Repair of earthquake-damaged bridge columns. ACI Struct J. 2001;98(2):233–242.

https://doi.org/10.14359/10192

13. Tasai A. Resistance of flexural reinforced concrete members after repair with epoxy resin. Ninth World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, No. 12-3-2. August 2-9. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan; 1988.

14. Motter CJ, Clauson AB, Petch JC, Hube MA, Henry RS, Elwood KJ. Seismic performance of repaired lightly reinforced concrete walls. Bull

N Z Soc Earthq Eng. 2017;50(4):574–585.

15. Iliya R, Bertero V V. Effects of amount and arrangement of wall-panel reinforcement on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete walls.

Report No. EERC 80/04; 1980.

10969845, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.3818 by Tokyo Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

SHEGAY et al.

SHEGAY et al.

16. Wang TY, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete framed walls. Report No. EERC 75/23, Earthquake Engineering

Research Center, Berkeley, CA: 1975. https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/eerc/1975

17. Wight JK, Jirsa JO, Corley WG. SP-084: Earthquake effects on reinforced concrete structures – US Japan research. ACI Symposium Publication

84; 1984. https://doi.org/10.14359/14041

18. Miura K, Fujita K, Tabata Y, Maeda M, Shegay A, Yonezawa K. Shake-table test of a 4-storey frame-wall RC strcture to investigate the

collapse mechanism and safety limit (in Japanese). J Struct Constr Eng. 2021;86(780):247–257.

19. Building Center of Japan. The Building Standard Law of Japan . Building Center of Japan. Tokyo, Japan; 2016. ISBN 978-4-88910169-0.

20. Architectural Institute of Japan. Design Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Inelastic Displacement

Concept. Architectural Institute of Japan. Tokyo, Japan: 1999.

21. Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures (in Japanese). Architectural

Institute of Japan. Tokyo, Japan: 2018.

22. Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101:2006: Concrete Structures Standard Part 1 - The Design of Concrete Structures (Amendment 3).

Wellington, New Zealand; 2017.

23. American Concrete Institute. Building Code (ACI 318–19) and Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI

318R-19); 2019.

24. British Standards Institution. EN 1998-1:2004/A3:2013: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules,

seismic actions and rules for buildings. London, United Kingdom; 2013. https://doi.org/10.3403/03244372

25. Anabuki T, Masuda Y, Kurita K, et al. Shake-table test of a 4-story repaired and retrofitted RC structure to evaluate seismic capacity. Part

4: Behavior of seismic walls in the Y-direction (in Japanese). AIJ Annual Conference Proceedings, Architectural Institute of Japan. Paper

No. 23235. Tokyo Japan; 2021: 469-470.

26. Maeda M, Al-Washali H, Matsukawa K. An overview of post earthquake damage and residual capacity evaluation for reinforced concrete buildings in Japan. 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 2019:930–943. https://doi.org/10.7712/120119.6969.19228

27. Building Maintenance and Management Center. Building Repair Work Supervision Guideline (in Japanese). Building Maintenance and

Management Center, Tokyo Japan; 2019.

R ” retrofitting method using casting blocks.

28. Anabuki T, Kobayashi M, Hagio H, Miura K, Masuda Y. Development of the “3Q-Wall

Obayashi Tech Res Rep. 2017;(81):1–8.

29. Priestley MJN, Kowalsky JM. Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng.

1998;31(2):73–85.

30. Freeman SA. The Capacity Spectrum Method for Determining the Demand Displacement. ACI 1994 Spring Convention, 1994: 1-7.

31. Gulkan P, Sozen M. Inelastic responses of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake motions. Proc ACI. 1974;71(12):604–610.

32. Jennings P. Equivalent viscous damping for yielding structures. J Eng Mech Div. 1968;94(1):103–116. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.

0000929

33. Judi HJ, Fenwick RC, Davidson BJ. Direct displacement based design - a definition of damping. Proceedings of the 2001 New Zealand

Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand; 2001.

34. Pussegoda LN. Strain age embrittlement in reinforcing steels. Ph.D Thesis. University of Canterbury; 1978.

35. Momtahan A, Dhakal RP, Rieder A. Effects of strain-ageing on New Zealand reinforcing steel bars. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng. 2009;42(3):179–

186. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.42.3.179-186

36. Loporcaro G. A least invasive method to estimate the residual strain capacity of steel reinforcement in earthquake-damaged buildings. Ph.D

Thesis. University of Canterbury; 2017.

37. Dodd LL, Restrepo-Posada JI. Model for predicting cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel. J Struct Eng. 1995;121(3):433–445. https://doi.org/

10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1995)121:3(433)

38. Hundy BB. Accelerated strain ageing of mild steel. J Iron Steel Int. 1954;(A):49–62.

How to cite this article: Shegay AV, Miura K, Akira M, Maeda M, Seki M. Performance recovery of a repaired

4-storey reinforced concrete structure subjected to shake-table testing. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2023;1-21.

https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3818

APPENDIX A

The JBDPA Guidelines7 provide performance recovery factors for repaired structural members. These are reproduced in

Table A1. The exact method of implementation of these factors is not described in the JBDPA Guidelines, though it is

assumed that the intention is similar to the FEMA 3063 factors (i.e., to be used in hinge models of repaired members). The

factors are not specific to a performance characteristic (i.e., strength, stiffness, deformation capacity). They are also given

as a value range as opposed to deterministic values. These areas of ambiguity imply that considerable engineering judgment is expected to be exercised in implementing the performance recovery factors. The recovery factors vary depending

on the type of member, the extent of repair work and the damage level (defined in7 ; Appendix B).

10969845, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.3818 by Tokyo Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

20

TA B L E A 1

21

Member performance recovery factors following repair and strengthening

Damage Level

II

III

Repair methodology

Individual

repair

Column

Wall

C1

Repair of cracks

C2

Repair of spalled concrete

C3

Shear strengtheninga :

Welding, confinement wrapping, plate

0.95–1.0

0.8–0.9

0.9–0.95

0.8–0.9

Repair of cracks

0.9–0.95

Repair of spalled concrete

0.9–0.95

0.8–0.9

0.9–0.95

0.8–0.9

Shear strengthening : Partial recasting,

total recasting, section enlargement

C1 and C2

C1 and C3

1.0

C1, C2 and C3a

W1 and W2

0.9–0.95

W1

1.0

0.9–0.95

W2

W3

Combined repair

0.95–1.0

IV

0.8–0.9

0.7–0.8

0.95–1.0

0.95–1.0

0.9–1.0

0.95–1.0

0.9–1.0

0.8–0.9

0.95–1.0

W1 and W3a

0.95–1.0

0.9–1.0

W1, W2 and W3a

0.95–1.0

0.9–1.0

0.8–0.9

If accurate calculations can demonstrate that strength will exceed the original member strength (pre-damage), a factor of more than 1.0 may be adopted.

APPENDIX B

The JBDPA Guidelines7 provide a damage assessment methodology for individual reinforced concrete (RC) members

FIGURE B1

Visual representation of damage states for ductile and brittle members

based on visual observation. All damage is broadly classified into five damage levels, the definitions of which are summarized in Table B1. The damage levels can be shown to represent various parts of the member force-deformation backbone

curve for ductile (flexural) and brittle (shear) members, as shown in Figure B1.

TA B L E B 1

Definition of damage levels of structural members

Damage level

Observed damage in structural members

Sparse, fine cracks can be observed (<0.2 mm). No reinforcement yielding expected.

II

Clearly visible cracks (0.2–1 mm) exist.

III

Wide cracks (1–2 mm) are present. Plastic hinging mechanisms begin to form. Some spalling of cover concrete is

observed but concrete core is in-tact.

IV

Many wide cracks are observed. Compression damage resulting in concrete spalling and exposed reinforcement.

Lateral strength degradation may occur, but vertical load is still fully carried by walls and columns.

Buckling (and in some cases fracture) of reinforcement, crushing of concrete and vertical deformation of

columns and/or shear walls observed. Settlement and inclination of structure are characteristic.

10969845, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.3818 by Tokyo Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

SHEGAY et al.

...