NATO Workshop Advances in earthquake

engineering for urban risk reduction

Recent experimental evidence

on the seismic performance of
rehabilitation techniques in
Mexico
Sergio M. Alcocer & Roberto Durn
Institute of Engineering, UNAM

Leonardo E. Flores
National Center for Disaster Prevention, CENAPRED

XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
V
IV
III
II
I

Rehabilitation criterion for loadbearing confined masonry walls

V

D
Dcr
cr

Rehabilitation

0.1
0.1

55

D
DMM

D
D80
80

10
10

30
30

D
Crack width, mm

Epoxy resin
Injection
Epoxy mortar
Cement mortar
Jacketing
Bar placement along joints
Replacement

Variables
Damage level: damaged / undamaged
Size of specimen: 1- & 2-story
Diameter of wire mesh (3.43, 4.88 & 6.35 m)
Wire spacing: 150 mm
fy = 500 MPa (5 000 kg/cm)
Anchor type and spacing
Confinement at wall edges w / WWMs

Anchor type and spacing

I
Mortar
Mortar

bottle
bottle cap
cap
50-mm
50-mm
long
long nails
nails
40
40 mm
mm

II
Mortar
Mortar

50
50 mm
mm

WWM

WWM

brick
Spacing
Spacing :: 450
450 mm
mm (9/m)
(9/m)
600
600 mm
mm (6/m)
(6/m)

64-mm
64-mm
long
long
nails
nails

III

Spacing
Spacing ::
300
300 mm
mm (16/m)
(16/m)
450
450 mm
mm (9/m)
(9/m)

Hilti anchors
w/51-mm
washer Spacing :
Spacing :
450
450 mm
mm (9/m)
(9/m)

40
40 mm
mm

00
0
0. .0
0
00. .0 0011
0002
0
0. .0 2
0
00. .0 0033
0004
0
0. .0 4
0005
5

22
lDD
aal
onn
ggo
iaia
DD

055
0.0
4
00. .004
0 033
00.
0.0 2
00. .002
0
1
00. .001
0 00
00.

DDia
ia g
goo
nnaa
l lDD
11

=
(as fsh ) i
(as fyh ) i

Wall jacketing with steel welded wire

meshes
In
In parenthesis:
parenthesis: (p
(phhffyy ;; )
)
Shear stress
stress at
at ground
ground story,
story, MPa
MPa
Shear

1.25
1.25
M3
M3 (10.55;
(10.55; 0.46)
0.46)

1.00
1.00

M1
M1 (3.6;
(3.6; 7)
7)

0.75
0.75
M2
M2 (7.35;
(7.35; 0.52)
0.52)

0.50
0.50
MA
MA (4.3;
(4.3; 0.70)
0.70)

0.25
0.25
00

M0
M0
Original
Original structure
structure

00

0.005
0.005

0.01
0.01

0.015
0.015

Drift
Drift angle,
angle, mm/mm
mm/mm

0.02
0.02

Masonry shear strength

Masonry contribution to shear strength
VmR = FR (0.5 vm* AT + 0.3 P) 1.5 FR vm* AT
Contribution of horizontal reinforcement to
shear strength
VsR = FR ph fyh AT

Efficiency factor of horizontal

reinforcement

Efficiency ,, %
%
Efficiency

100
100
WBW-B
WBW-B

80
80
60
60

N2
N2
N3
N3
3D-R
3D-R

M-072
M-072

Confined,
Confined, solid
solid brick,
brick, horiz.
horiz. reinforcement
reinforcement
Confined,
solid
brick,
welded
Confined, solid brick, welded wire
wire mesh
mesh
Confined,
Confined, hollow
hollow brick,
brick, horiz.
horiz.
reinforcement
reinforcement
Ladder-shaped
Ladder-shaped reinforcement
reinforcement (not
(not allowed)
allowed)

M3
M3
N4
N4

M-211
M-211

M-147
M-147

40
40
20
20
00
00

M1
M1

WBW-E
WBW-E

V
Vss ==
phh fyy ATT
0.2
0.2

0.4
0.4

11 kg/cm
kg/cm == 0.0981
0.0981 MPa
MPa

0.6
0.6

M4
M4

45

NTC-M
NTC-M 2002
2002
0.8
0.8

1.0
1.0

1.2
1.2

pphhffyy ,, MPa
MPa

1.4
1.4

1.6
1.6

1.8
1.8

Rehabilitation techniques most

widely used in Mexico
Change of lateral-load resisting system:
new walls and / or braces
Jacketing of frame members
Demolition of upper stories
Foundation strengthening

Rehabilitation of building BL
Diagonal steel braces in
four facades
Columns strengthened
steel angles and straps
wide plates at ends
3 skin friction piles per
corner
New grade beams &
pilecaps

Performance objectives
Stiffen the structure laterally
Reduce the fundamental period from 2.5 s,
in each direction, to 1 s
Control the interstory drift ratios 0.006
Reduce earthquake-induced stresses in
interior frames
Carry all the earthquake forces to the
foundation

Building instrumentation
MASTER
A

Trigger threshold
Master 5 cm/s2
Others 40 cm/s2

Free field: Liverpool Station (CIRES)

Column dimensions

(16-31.8 mm bars)
(9.5-mm hoops @100 mm)

(12-25.4 mm bars)
(9.5-mm ties @200 mm)
500 mm

500 mm
500 mm

500 mm

Angles
(100 x 100 x 9.5 mm)
Straps
(50 x 9.5 mm)

700 mm
300 mm
250 mm
300 mm

2000 mm

E70

300 mm
300 mm
250 mm
300 mm

65 mm type
700 mm

C-99 Column Series C-66 Column Series

Rehabilitation Scheme (C-66-R, C-66-S)

C - 99
1000
Flexural hinge at both ends

800

Vc + Vs

Lateral load, kN

600
400

Flexural hinge at bottom

200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800

-1000
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Interstory drift, %

C - 66
1000
800

Lateral load, kN

600

Flexural hinge at both ends

400
200

Vc + Vs

0
-200
-400
-600
-800

-1000
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Interstory drift, %

C 66 - R
1000
Flexural hinge at both ends

800

Lateral load, kN

600
Vc + Vs + V jacket

400
200

Strut

Vc + Vs

0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Interstory drift, %

C 66 - S
1000

Flexural hinge at both ends

800

Lateral load, kN

600

Vc + Vs + V jacket

400

Strut

Vc + Vs

200
0

First shear cracking

-200
-400
-600
-800

-1000
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Interstory drift, %

C-66-S vs C-66-R
C-66-S

C-66-R
1000

600
400
200

Flexural hinge at both ends

Vc + Vs + Vjacket
Vc + Vs

0
-200
-400
-600

600

200

-400
-600

-1000
1

Interstory drift, %

First shear cracking

-200

-1000
0

Vc + Vs

-800
-2 -1

Vc + Vs + Vjacket

400

-800

-5 -4 -3

Flexural hinge at both ends

800

Lateral load, kN

Lateral load, kN

800

1000

-5 -4

-3

-2 -1

Interstory drift, %

Envelopes
Lateral load, kN

100

80

C-99
C-66
C-66*
C-66-R
C-66-S

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Displacement, mm
Interstory drift, %

C-66-R: Contribution of stirrups

and steel straps for shear
Lateral load, kN

50

Envelope

40

Concrete
30

Stirrups &
straps
Straps

20

Stirrups
10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Displacement, mm
Interstory drift, %

C-66-S: Contribution of stirrups

and steel straps for shear
Lateral load, kN

100

Envelope
80

Concrete
60

Stirrups &
straps
Straps

40

Stirrups

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Displacement, mm
Interstory drift, %

Lateral force, kN

Shear strength - deformation

C-66

C-66-R

700

700

600

600

500

500

Predicted

400
300

Experimental

400
300

200

Experimental

100

Predicted

200
100

0
0

0.02

0.04

Rp, rad

0.06

0.02

0.04

Rp, rad

0.06

Conclusions

Columns rehabilitated with angles and straps

Improved strength and energy
dissipation
Lateral stiffness: initial, decay
C-66 & C-99 axial strengths were never
exhausted even at drifts to 4% & 5%,
respectively
Measured strengths of jacketed columns
were larger than calculated strengths

Conclusions

Strut action was formed in jacketed

columns
Straps: flexure and axial tension
More variables will be studied: level of
axial load, size of angles and straps, etc.

Study of RC
frames with
CMU infills
rehabilitated by
wall jacketing
with welded
wire meshes
and concrete
covers

Some connectors used

Cost = 1 unit
bar
bar and
and
epoxy
epoxy resin
resin

Cost = 1.7 units

bar
bar with
with
steel
steel plate
plate

Ungrouted
Ungrouted hollow
hollow
block
block (CMU)
(CMU)

Powder-driven
Powder-driven
nail
nail (Hilti)
(Hilti)

Cost = 0.5 units

concrete
concrete
cover
cover

Dimensions
3000
3000
90
90

280
280
90
90 mm-thick
mm-thick
concrete
concrete cover
cover
TP,
TP, TD
TD &
& TH
TH

Model
Model TO
TO
3000
3000

500
500

Infill
Infill
150
150 mm
mm

Foundation beam

Front
Front view
view
Dimensions
Dimensions in
in mm
mm

800
800

800
800

Lateral
Lateral view
view

Lateral
Lateral view
view

Distribution of connectors
TP

TD

TH

Bar: 13 mm ()
Bar: 16 mm (55/88)
Powder-driven nail (Hilti)

Specimens TP and TD

Specimen TP

Cracking pattern on the concrete

jacket side
Damage on the masonry side

Hysteretic curves

Lateral load, kN

800
400
0
-400
-800

TO

TP

TD

TH

800
400
0
-400
-800

-0.015 -0.01-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

-0.01-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

Drift angle, mm/mm

Envelopes
900
Cracking
Cracking

Lateral load, kN

800

K
K00

V
VR,MCBC
R,MCBC

700
600

TD

500

TH

400

TP

300

TO

200

V
VR,MCBC
R,MCBC

100
0

TO,
TO,frame
frame
0

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016

Drift angle, mm/mm

800
400
0

-400
-800
-0.2

0 0.2

Shear load, kN

Shear load, kN

Efficiency of connectors

0.4

Drift
Drift angle,
angle, %
%

800
400
0

-400
-800
800
400
0

-400
-800
-0.2

0.2 0.4

Drift
Drift angle,
angle, %
%

TP

TD

Conclusions
Improved stiffness
and strength
Efficiency of
connectors in
concrete vs. masonry
Capacity design of
anchor system