2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC frames

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
49
0
7

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
49
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the wall behaves as a strut in the diagonal that is under compression, while detachment from the surrounding frame is observed at the other diagonal. The placement of CFRP along the two main diagonals of the wall allows the wall to undertake tensile stresses along the tensile diagonal, limiting deformation of the frame and increasing the resistance to lateral loads [21][22][23]. Several efforts have been made recently to understand the in-and out-of-plane behaviour of FRP infilled RC frames [3,[21][22][23][24][25] that resulted in the identification of two main failure modes for this retrofit method: (a) anchor failure; and (b) debonding.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the wall behaves as a strut in the diagonal that is under compression, while detachment from the surrounding frame is observed at the other diagonal. The placement of CFRP along the two main diagonals of the wall allows the wall to undertake tensile stresses along the tensile diagonal, limiting deformation of the frame and increasing the resistance to lateral loads [21][22][23]. Several efforts have been made recently to understand the in-and out-of-plane behaviour of FRP infilled RC frames [3,[21][22][23][24][25] that resulted in the identification of two main failure modes for this retrofit method: (a) anchor failure; and (b) debonding.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on strengthening of masonry infilled walls with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) (Antoniades et al, 2005;Erdem et al, 2006;Binici and Özcebe, 2006;Altın et al, 2008), shotcrete with mesh reinforcement (Kahn, 1984;Alcocer et al, 1996;Acun and Sucuoğlu, 2005;Korkmaz et al, 2010), steel plates (Taghdi et al, 2000a;2000b;Farooq et al, 2006), steel fiber reinforced mortar (Sevil et al, 2011) and prefabricated panel infills (Frosch et al, 1996a;1996b;Frosch, 1996;1999;Baran and Tankut, 2011a;2011b) can be found. In addition, innovative materials such as textiles (Papanicolaou et al, 2011), ferrocement (Topçu et al, 2005;Amanat et al, 2007), epoxy and mortar injection (ElGawady et al, 2004) have also been used in strengthening of the hollow brick infill walls.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The situation is quite different under seismic loading. Based on earlier studies [Fiorato et al, 1970;Mehrabi et al, 1996;Applied Technology Council, 1999;Dolsek and Fajfar, 2001;Zarnic et al, 2001;Erdem et al, 2006;Hashemi and Mossalam, 2006;Pinto and Taucer, 2006;Dolsek and Fajfar, 2008;Pujol and Fick, 2010;Cankaya, 2011], it is well known that infill walls change the strength, stiffness and deformation properties of the frame structures. Typically, the strength and stiffness of the frames increase and the average drifts decrease compared to those of the bare frames.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%