Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Strength and ductility type retrofit of soft-first-story RC frames through the T

steel-jacketed non-reinforced thick hybrid wall
Pasha Javadia, , Tetsuo Yamakawab
⁎

a
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, a new technique is proposed for retrofitting low-rise soft-first-story reinforced concrete buildings.
Soft-first-story The proposed retrofitting technique is called “Thick Hybrid Wall”. In this method, channel-shaped steel plates
Hybrid wall jacket boundary RC columns of a bare frame. The steel plates are extended to the bay of the frame through the
Panel wall additional steel plates connected together with the help of bolts. Then, additional concrete is cast in the provided
Retrofit
steel formworks. To verify the efficiency of the proposed technique, one non-retrofitted specimen and four
Strengthening
retrofitted specimens were tested under cyclic horizontal loading and constant axial forces. The observed ex-
perimental results determined that the thick hybrid walls not only increase the lateral strength and stiffness of
the frames, but also considerably improve the lateral ductility. In addition to obtaining superior structural
performance, the proposed method provides ease in construction at a building site, and minimizes the vibration,
noise, and concrete dust of the retrofitting operation. The proposed method has the potential of significant
reduction in construction costs of retrofitting existing buildings.

1. . Introduction
In past destructive earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge-USA,
the 1995 Kobe-Japan, the 1999 Izmit-Turkey, many reinforced concrete
buildings were significantly damaged or even completely collapsed due
to the soft-first-story mechanism. In the soft-first-story mechanism, the
induced force in the first story reaches its strength, and consequently
failure mechanism occurs. The main reason for the soft-first-story me-
chanism is the abrupt reduction in the strength and stiffness of the
lateral resistance system in the first story compared to the above stories.
The new versions of building codes have restricted requirements to
prevent the possible soft-first-story mechanism [1]. For instance, the
Building Standard Law of Japan [2] was revised in 1981 to upgrade the
required lateral resistance of buildings with irregular stiffness dis-
tribution in the plane and along the height, while many residential
buildings still need strengthening. According to ASCE7-16 [3], soft
story irregularity is defined to exist where there is a story in which the
lateral stiffness is less than 70% of the story above or less than 80% of
the average stiffness of the three stories above. Moreover, stiffness-ex-
treme soft story irregularity is defined to exist where there is a story in
which the lateral stiffness is less than 60% of that in the story above or
less than 70% of the average stiffness of the three stories above. A large
number of reinforced concrete buildings designed according to old
seismic codes still suffer from this destructive mechanism. Regarding
this fact, retrofit is essential for the soft-first-story buildings. However,
the retrofit method that increases the ductility of the first story, in
addition to stiffness and strength, can provide superior structural be-
havior.
Among different retrofit techniques, adding infilled reinforced
concrete walls is the most feasible method for increasing the lateral
strength and stiffness of the soft-first-story RC frames. Other retrofit
methods such as utilizing steel braced frames inside soft story frames
are also applicable [4]. The early experimental investigation on infilled
walls for earthquake strengthening was conducted by Kahn and Hanson
for monolithically and cast-in-place walls [5]. The experimental results
showed the effectiveness of infilled walls in strengthening and stif-
fening existing RC framed structures against earthquake loads. Bertero
and Brokken studied the strength and stiffness of frames with different
types of infills [6]. The effective lateral stiffness of the infilled frames
was 5.3 up to 11.7 of that of the bare frame, depending on the infill
type. The lateral strength of the infilled frames increased 4.8 up to 5.8
of that of the bare frame. Higahsi et al. conducted experimental in-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Javadi@srbiau.ac.ir (P. Javadi), yama1003@tec.u-ryukyu.ac.jp (T. Yamakawa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.013
Received 6 July 2018; Received in revised form 22 December 2018; Accepted 5 February 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
vestigations on RC frames retrofitted by cast-in-place walls [7]. The
results exhibited the increase in lateral strength after retrofitting, but
the ductility of the retrofitted frames did not increase. Furthermore, a
series of complementary researches has been carried out on strength-
ening RC frames by adding walls that can be found in the listed refer-
ences [8–18]. The main concern of the proposed approaches is the poor
ductility of the retrofitted frames. The most similar work to the current
study refers to the experimental investigation by Kara and Altin [10]
which investigated the behavior of non-ductile reinforced concrete
frames strengthened by introducing partial infills under cyclic lateral
loading. The experimental results of seven 1/3-scaled one-bay two-
story test specimens revealed that partially infilled non-ductile RC
frames exhibited significantly higher ultimate strength and higher in-
itial stiffness than bare frames. However, strength and ductility in-
adequacies of the frames members influenced the lateral performance
of the frame strengthened by partial infills. In the most similar recent
study by Ganesan et al. [19], the strength and behavior of frames with
ferrocement infill were compared with the frame without infill. The
experimental results indicated that the strength, stiffness, energy dis-
sipation capacity, and ductility of the frames with ferrocement infill
were significantly improved when compared with the bare frame. In the
recent experimental investigation by Truong et al. [20], various retrofit
techniques for retrofitting RC columns had been verified. The experi-
mental results showed an appropriate performance of steel jacketing in
comparison with other well-known approaches such as carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrapping, concrete jacketing with non-
shrinkage mortar, and amorphous metallic fiber reinforced concrete
from viewpoint of improving strength and ductility. Another common
retrofit technique is utilizing RC jacketing for strengthening RC col-
umns. It is used to increase load-carrying capacity and ductility of weak
existing members by means of a simple and cheap method [22]. Fur-
thermore, an experimental study on seismic performance of steel and
concrete composite shear walls with embedded steel truss for use in
high-rise buildings was conducted by Wu et al. [21]. The obtained re-
sults showed that the embedded truss web brace can improve the
Fig. 1. Details of the non-retrofitted frame.
256
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
hysteretic behavior of composite walls in terms of lateral load, capacity,
energy dissipation capacity, and ductility.
In most retrofit approaches of using complete or partial infill walls,
the applied methods only enhance the strength and stiffness of the soft
story frames, while the ductility of the rehabilitated frames was not
increased sufficiently. Based on the technical manual by JBDPA [23],
the retrofit upgrading schemes are classified as three main groups in-
cluding; strength type, ductility type, and strength-ductility type. The
existing adding wall techniques mainly fall in the classification of the
strength type upgrading, while the proposed method in this paper is
strength and ductility type retrofit.
The steel jacketing and external steel cage are two common retrofit
techniques of RC columns by steel materials [24–26]. The past ex-
perimental investigations by Yamakawa et al. [27] introduced a new
seismic retrofit technique of “Thick Hybrid Wall” as a retrofit method to
increase the lateral strength, stiffness, and ductility of the shear critical
RC wing-wall columns. In this technique, the steel plates jacket the RC
wing-wall columns to make them act as a unified member with a high
shear resistance. Furthermore, this retrofit method was applied on RC
bare frames to increase the lateral strength and stiffness of the RC
frames [28,29]. The experimental results confirmed the efficiency of
the method in seismic rehabilitation of bare frames.
The objective of this research is to verify the behavior of soft-first-
story RC frames retrofitted by the cast-in-place thick hybrid walls under
cyclic loading tests. The one-bay two-story frames were retrofitted by
the proposed technique and were tested under constant axial forces and
lateral cyclic displacements. The scale factor of the specimens is 1/3–1/
4. The specimens differ in their retrofit schemes especially the length of
adding hybrid walls. The experimental results indicate that this retrofit
technique not only increases the lateral strength and stiffness of the
existing frames, but also improves the ductility. Moreover, a brief
comparison between the proposed method and the common retrofit
techniques overviewed by Thermou and Elnashi [30] indicates that the
proposed method, in addition to obtaining a desired structural perfor-
mance, provides relatively ease in construction at a building site, and
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
Fig. 2. Details of the test specimens.
minimizes reinforcements, formworks, vibration, noise, and concrete
dust of the retrofitting operation. The seismic improvement and failure
mechanisms of the retrofitted specimens are discussed in this paper,
and the associated calculating approaches are presented.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Details of the test specimens
Five one-bay two-story test specimens including one non-retrofitted
and four retrofitted specimens are designed to be verified
257
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
experimentally. The reinforcement’s details of the RC frames and the
retrofitting schemes of the test specimens are given in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively. The geometric dimensions and the reinforcement’s pat-
terns are identical in all the specimens. In all of the test specimens, the
original RC frames were initially cast and cured, and then, after at least
28 days, the retrofitting procedures were conducted. The specimens
were tested under constant axial forces (N = 0.2bD fc' , per column) and
cyclic horizontal loading. The scale factor of the test specimens was 1/
4 ∼ 1/3, to model a low-rise four-story school building designed ac-
cording to the pre-1981 Building Standard Law of Japan. The sectional
dimensions of the RC columns are 175x175 mm, and those of the RC
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Table 1 beam are 125x250 mm. The clear shear span-to-depth ratio (M/(VD)) of
Properties of steel materials. the RC columns is 2.5 and that of the RC beams is 2.65. The RC columns
Material Size a (cm2) Specimen σy (MPa) εy (%) Es (GPa) contain an insufficient amount of shear reinforcements of ρw = 0.12%,
and consequently shear failure is likely to occur in the RC columns. The
Rebar or dowel D10 0.71 PS 349 0.17 202 properties of the steel and concrete materials are given in Tables 1 and
WW 349 0.17 202
2, respectively. The design schemes of the test specimens shown in
P0 355 0.17 201
WA 355 0.17 201
Figs. 2 and Figs. 2 are explained as follows;
1D 371 0.19 195 The specimen P0 is a soft-first-story benchmark specimen. This
Rebar or dowel D13 1.27 PS 342 0.17 201
specimen is a one-bay two-story frame that its first story includes an
P0 342 0.17 201 open frame and its second story includes a framed shear wall.
WA 342 0.17 201 Consequently, there is a significant difference in the lateral strength and
1D 403 0.18 227 stiffness between the first story and second story. This specimen was
Hoop or stirrup 3.7ϕ 0.11 PS 650 0.31 208 designed to observe the behaviour of the soft-first-story frame.
P0 683 0.33 202 The specimen 1D was retrofitted by two thick hybrid wing-walls.
WA 617 0.32 188
The depth of the additional wing-wall (D) is the same as that of the
1D 593 – 199
column, and its width is equal to that of the column. In the retrofitting
Hoop or stirrup D6 0.32 PS 432 0.24 175 procedure, channel-shaped plain steel plates (t = 2.3 mm) jacketed the
P0 504 0.25 194
WA 449 0.29 153
boundary columns. The two vertical series of prestressed concrete bars
1D 432 0.26 166 (PC bars) stitched both sides of the channel-shaped. To prevent
crushing of concrete at the exposed face of the wing-wall, transverse
PC bar 13ϕ 1.33 all 1220 0.61 200
reinforcements (3.7ϕ-@100 mm) were arranged at the exposed face of
Corrugated t = 1.2 mm – WW 268 0.13 203
the wing-wall. The steel plates were also used as a formwork for casting
steel plate
the additional concrete of the wing-wall. Additional concrete of the
Steel plate t = 2.3 mm – PS 348 0.16 212 wing-wall was cast vertically up to the bottom face of the top beam.
WA 358 0.16 218
1D 285 0.14 211
There is no gap between the wing wall and the bottom face of the top
beam. After casting the additional concrete, the existing gap (about
Note; a: area, σy: yield stress, εy: yields strain, Es: Young’s modulus. 10 mm) between the exterior faces of the column and the steel plates
were filled by high-strength grout. In the practical construction, the
existing gap between the exterior faces of the column and steel plates
filled by additional concrete can be larger (about 30–50 mm). The ad-
Table 2 ditional concrete of the wing-wall is non-reinforced. It should be noted
Properties of concrete and grout materials. that, in this specimen, the concrete strength of the first story and the
Specimen second story is lower than that of other specimens. However, this
f c' of the first story f c' of the second f c' of the additional wall
cannot affect the expected mechanism.
(MPa) story (MPa) (MPa)
The specimen WW was retrofitted with two thick hybrid wing-walls.
P0 24.1 17.9 – In the retrofitting procedure, the channel shaped plain steel plate
1D 15.3 9.8 35.7 (t = 2.3 mm) jacketed the boundary columns, and extended into the
WW 34 28.7 30.4
bay of the first story through the additional corrugated steel plates
WA 24.6 18.5 31
PS 33.5 28.7 20.7 (t = 1.2 mm). Bolts (M12) were stitched the corrugated steel plates
installed at the two sides of the columns. In this study, the depth of the
Note; f c' : compressive strength of concrete obtained from cylinder tests. additional wing-walls (2D) was two times the depth of the column (D),
and its width was equal to that of the column. The corrugate steel

Fig. 3. Arrangements of the bolts.

258
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 4. Disk anchor used in the specimen WA (see Fig. 2).

plates, which were used in the specimen WW are also utilized as
formworks. However, due to the geometry of the corrugated steel
plates, its resistance is not strong enough against in-plain deformations.
Therefore, it may only be desirable to resist out-of-plain concrete
pressure during casting. To prevent crushing of the concrete at the
exposed face of the wing-wall, transverse reinforcements (D6@
100 mm) were arranged at the exterior side of the wing-wall. Additional
concrete of the wing-wall was cast vertically up to the bottom face of
the top beam. After casting the additional concrete, the existing gap
(about 10 mm) between the exterior faces of the column and steel plates
were filled by mortar grout.
The specimen WA was retrofitted similar to that operated for the
retrofitted specimen 1D with some minor differences. This specimen
was retrofitted by two thick hybrid wing-walls, and the depth of the
additional wing-wall (2D) is two times the depth of the column, and its
width is equal to the width of the column. In the retrofitting procedure,

Fig. 5. Test setup and loading program.

259
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
Fig. 6. Crack patterns.
channel-shaped steel plates (t = 2.3 mm) jacketed the boundary RC
columns, and extended into the bay of the first story through the ad-
ditional plain steel plates. Two vertical series of high-strength bolts (PC
bars, 13ϕ) stitched both faces of steel plates. Since the lateral resistance
of this specimen is expected to be relatively high, sliding at the top and
bottom of the retrofitted column is likely to occur. As shown in Figs. 2
and 4, one disk anchor was installed at the bottom of each wing-wall.
The disk distributes the shear sliding stress at the potential shear sliding
plane along its width to suppress the concentration of shear force
260
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
induced at the sliding plane. The anchor was embedded to the wing-
wall with a length of l = 130 mm, and to the stub with a length of
l = 130 mm according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In order to
prevent the shear sliding at the top of the retrofitted columns, the steel
plates continued up to about middle height of the top beam. In this
specimen, the high-strength bolts (PC bars) of the body of the wing-
walls were fastened with hand power up to a tensile strain of about
1000 μ.
The specimen PS was retrofitted by a thick hybrid panel-wall. In the
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 7. Shear failure of the columns in the specimen P0 (final stage of loading).

retrofitting procedure, channel-shaped steel plates (t = 2.3 mm)
jacketed the boundary RC columns and extended to the whole bay of
the frame through the additional steel plates. The additional steel plates
were connected to each other by means of high-strength bolts.
Moreover, high-strength bolts stitched two sides of thick hybrid panel-
wall. On the other hand, the panel-wall was sandwiched by steel plates
and high-strength bolts. To prevent the sliding at the bottom of the
panel wall, the anchors (9-D19) were installed. The anchors were em-
bedded to the panel-wall with a length of l = 200 mm, and to the stub
with a length of l = 200 mm. Moreover, to suppress possible sliding at
the top of the specimen PS, the steel plates of the panel wall continued
up to about the middle height of the top RC beam. The high-strength
bolts were crossed through provided holes on the steel plates and the
RC beam.
2.2. Test setup and loading programs
The test setup and horizontal displacement program of the test
specimens are shown in Fig. 5. The vertical loads and horizontal dis-
placements were simultaneously applied to the test specimens during
tests. Two servohydraulic actuators applied a constant vertical load of
N = 0.2σBbD per column. A double-acting hydraulic oil jack pushed and

Fig. 8. Shear failure of the columns in the specimen 1D (final stage of loading).

261
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 9. Shear cracks of the wing-wall columns in the specimen WW (final stage of loading).

pulled the specimens under the displacement-controlled program. In
order to provide the lateral distribution of seismic induced force in the
height of the frame, at each horizontal loading stage 5/11 and 6/11 of
the base shear force were applied on the first and second stories re-
spectively. The distribution of lateral force is carried out according to
the Building Standard Law of Japan [2]. The horizontal cyclic loading
test was conducted at the drift angles of the first story of ± 0.5%, ±
0.75%, ± 1.0%, ± 1.5%, ± 2.0%, ± 2.5%, and ± 3.0% for two
successive cycles, and ± 0.125%, ± 0.25%, ± 4.0%, and ± 5.0% for
one cycle, as shown in Fig. 5.
3. Experimental results
The crack patterns at the final drift angle and the V-R relationships
of the test specimens are shown in Figs. 6 and 12. Strain gauges and
linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) measured the strain of

Fig. 10. Flexural plastic hinges at the top and bottom of the wing-wall columns in the specimen WA.

262
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
Fig. 11. Overall flexural behavior of the panel wall in the specimen PS.
steel reinforcements and the deformations of the frames, respectively.
The observed mechanism of each specimen will be explained as follows:
In the specimen P0, flexural cracks formed at the ends of columns at
the drift angle of R = 0.5% (R = δ/h, where δ = horizontal displace-
ment of the first story, and h = the height of the first story). In addition,
shear cracks appeared in the same zones at the drift angle of
R = 0.75%. The lateral strength of the specimen was governed by the
formation of flexural plastic hinges at both ends of the first story col-
umns, but the specimen finally collapsed due to shear failure at flexural
plastic hinge zones in the right-hand column at the drift angle of about
R = 1.6% which is shown in Fig. 7.
In the specimen 1D, the longitudinal reinforcements of the columns
at the bottoms started yielding at the drift angle of R = 0.3%. Flexural
cracks appeared at the bottoms of the columns and at the top RC beam
at the drift angle of R = 0.5%. The shear cracks generated at the shear
wall of the second story at the drift angle of R = 0.7%. The longitudinal
reinforcements at the top of the columns started yielding at the drift
angle of R = 0.8%. It should be noted that, in the specimen 1D, the
concrete strength of the first and second story is relatively lower than
that in other specimens. Consequently, even though the applied lateral
force in this specimen is relatively low, considerable shear cracks
generated at the second story. As shown in Fig. 8, in this specimen,
flexural plastic hinges formed at the top and bottom of RC columns. It is
worthy to note that the jacketing steel plates effectively prevented
possible shear failure of RC columns, while, in the non-retrofitted frame
P0, shear failure occurred.
The specimen WW is retrofitted by additional wing-walls. The wing-
walls resisted against the lateral load by the action of the compression
arch (see Fig. 16). Due to the long-length arm between tension and
compression zones at both ends of the wing-wall column, the long-
itudinal reinforcements prematurely yielded at the drift angle of
R = 0.3%. After the loading test, the jacketing corrugated steel plates
were detached, and it was observed that a diagonal shear crack had
formed in the wing walls (see Fig. 9). The lateral displacement of the
263
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
specimen was governed by flexural deformation of wing-wall columns
and overall flexural behavior of the specimen. Considering this com-
bined mechanism, when the specimen was pushed from the left to right,
it was expected that the compression force in the wing-wall at the right-
side column would be significantly greater than that at the left-side
column due to overturning deformation. This mechanism was con-
firmed through the direction of diagonal shear cracks in the wing-walls.
In each direction, the wing-wall with higher compression force in its
arch diagonally cracked.
In the specimen WA, the longitudinal reinforcements of boundary
columns at the bottom yielded at the drift angle of R = 0.3%. The
flexural cracks at the bottom of wing-wall-columns appeared at the drift
angle of R = 0.5%. The resisting force maintained greater than
0.8Vmax up to the drift angle of R = 5.0%, and the overall response of
the specimen shows a ductile behavior. To verify the shear sliding re-
sistance carried by steel plates at the top of the wing-wall, three-com-
ponent strain gauges were attached at that level. The produced shear
force in the steel plates, which resisted against shear sliding, was about
27% of the global lateral strength of the specimen. The dominant me-
chanism of the specimen is governed by flexural plastic hinges at the
top and bottom of wing-wall columns, as shown in Fig. 10.
In the specimen PS, the experimental observations showed that the
panel-wall and boundary columns act as a unified member. As shown in
Fig. 17, the unified action of the panel wall and boundary columns
developed a long-length arm between tension and compression zones at
the base, and, hence, the premature yielding of longitudinal re-
inforcements of the boundary columns appeared at the drift angle of
R = 0.2%. The main deformation mode of the specimen includes can-
tilever-shape deformation due to the flexural rotation at the base of the
panel-wall and boundary columns. The strength of this specimen was
4.8 times the lateral strength of the non-retrofitted specimen P0. After
crushing of concrete at the bottom of boundary columns, the long-
itudinal reinforcements alternatively stretched and buckled, and finally,
this phenomenon led to breakage of longitudinal reinforcements due to
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 12. Base shear versus drift angle of the first story of the specimens.

low-cyclic fatigue. However, up to the drift angle of R = 2.0%, the The hysteretic behaviors of the specimens are given in Fig. 12. The
lateral resisting force is greater than 0.8Vmax. The dominant mechanism backbone curves and the secant stiffness curves of the test specimens
of the specimen is governed by overall flexural behavior, as shown in are given in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. From the backbone curves of
Fig. 11. the specimens, it is obvious that by retrofitting the specimens the lateral

264
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
Fig. 13. Backbone curves of the V-R.
Fig. 14. Secant stiffness.
Fig. 15. Accumulated absorbed energy.
strength and stiffness considerably increased. The comparison between
the backbone curves of the specimens 1D and WA shows that by in-
creasing the length of wing-walls the lateral strength enhanced. The
secant stiffnesses of the specimens reveal that the lateral stiffness of the
panel-wall is the highest, and by increasing the length of the wing-wall,
the lateral stiffness is relatively enhanced. However, at large drift an-
gles, the secant stiffness decreased significantly.
265
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
The accumulated absorbed energy is derived from the summation of
the amounts of energy dissipated in each cycle of loading. As it is ob-
vious from Fig. 15, after retrofitting by wing wall or panel wall, the
accumulated absorbed energy greatly increased.
4. Calculation
4.1. Flexural resistance
The flexural and shear resistance mechanisms of the specimens are
illustrated in Figs. 16 and 17. In the case of wing-wall columns, the
flexural mechanisms at the ends of the columns are different, which are
shown as the case (1) and case (2) in Fig. 16. In case (1), at the bottom
of column 1, the compression zone falls in the additional concrete and
the tension force falls in the RC column. In case (2), at the bottom of
column 2, the compression and tension forces act on the RC column,
and the wing-wall part does not work in tension resistance. Since the
thick wing-wall is non-reinforced, it does not work in tension. The
formulations of flexural resistances for cases (1) and (2) can be easily
obtained by section analyses that are given in Eqs. (1) and (2). Fur-
thermore, according to the flexural mechanism of the panel-wall illu-
strated in Fig. 17, the associated flexural resistance is given in Eq. (3).
The overall flexural behavior was observed during the loading test of
Specimen PS. Since the thick panel-wall of the specimen PS is non-re-
inforced, the additional wall does not work in tension. It should be
noted that in the calculation of the flexural resistance of the panel-wall,
the influence of the installed anchors at the base of the walls are ig-
nored because the anchors are debonded from the surrounding concrete
by the tape and grease.
M = (N + ag fy ){(0.5 + ) D (N + ag f y )/(1.7bfc' )} (1)
M = 0.8Daso f y + (N + asi f y ){0.5D (N + ag fy )/(1.7bf c', add )} (2)
M = (N + a g f y ) l w (3)
where M: flexural strength, N: axial load, D: depth of the column, b:
width of the column, aso: total area of longitudinal reinforcements in
the RC column at the outer row, asi: total area of longitudinal re-
inforcements in the RC column at the inner row, ag: total area of
longitudinal reinforcements of the column, fc' : cylinder strength of
concrete, fc' , add : cylinder strength of additional concrete, β: ratio of the
length of the wing-wall to the depth of the column, l w : the length of the
bay of the frame. Moreover, the parameters are shown in Figs. 16 and
17.
4.2. Shear resistance
As previously mentioned, one of the main benefits of using the
proposed hybrid wall is to increase the shear resistance of the non-
ductile RC columns through the enhancing confinement. The channel-
shaped steel plate strongly jackets the RC column and additional con-
crete with the help of PC bars. Compression stress can perfectly transfer,
and the RC column and the additional wall act as a continuous member.
The calculation method for shear resistance is based on the arch me-
chanism adopted in the AIJ guideline [31]. The contribution of the truss
mechanism in shear resistance is conservatively ignored. Based on the
lower bound theorem [32], the geometry of the arch action is decided
such that the maximum carrying load can be obtained. As shown in
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 16. Shear and flexural resistances of wing-wall columns.

Fig. 16, the maximum carrying load can be obtained when the width of H
2
H
the arch action is half of the total depth of the RC column and the wing- tan = 1+
(1 + ) D (1 + ) D (7)
wall part (1 + β)D/2. Since the steel plates heavily confine the concrete
of hybrid walls and RC columns, the plastic coefficient of concrete ν was The parameter are defined in Fig. 16. As shown in Fig. 17, in the
considered as ν = 1.0 [32,33]. However, in the case of weak confine- case of panel-wall, the width of the arch action is half of the total depth
ment such as corrugated steel plates, Eq. (6) should be used. The shear of the boundary columns and the panel-wall lw/2, based on the lower
resistance of the wing-wall column is written in Eq. (4). It should be bound theorem [32]. The concept of calculating shear resistance of the
noted that the shear resistance generally includes the truss and arch panel-wall is based on the arch mechanism that was previously ex-
mechanisms. In this case, since the wing-wall part is not reinforced, the plained for the wing-wall columns. The shear resistance calculation of
truss action is not provided in this zone. Therefore, the truss action of the panel wall is given in Eq. (8). The parameters used in Eqs. (8) and
the transverse reinforcements of the RC column is ignored to con- (9) are illustrated in Fig. 17.
servatively underestimate the shear resistance.
Va = 0.5tw l w f c', arch tan (8)
1
Va = (1 + ) bD f c', arch tan
2 (4)
2
H H
tan = 1+
fc' , arch = min {f c' , f c', add } (5) lw lw (9)

where, tw: thickness of the panel wall, l w : the center-to-center distance

fc' , arch
= 0.7 (MPa) of the boundary columns, fc' , arch : refer to Eq. (5), H: height of the story,
200 (6) : refer to Eq. (6).

266
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
Fig. 17. Shear and flexural resistances of panel walls.
4.3. Comparisons between experimental and calculated results
According to the calculation approaches for shear and flexural
strengths explained in Eqs. (1)–(9), the calculated results of the global
analyses of the specimens and the dominant mechanisms are given in
Fig. 18. It is obvious that the calculated results are close to experi-
mentally obtained results. Moreover, a general concept of designing
additional wing-wall or panel-wall is given by a flowchart, which is
presented in Fig. 19.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, a method called “Thick Hybrid Wall Technique” is
proposed to retrofit low-rise soft-first-story buildings. The experimental
investigations were conducted on five specimens including one non-
retrofitted specimen and four specimens retrofitted with a thick hybrid
wall. Three specimens were retrofitted by wing-wall thick hybrid walls
and one specimen was retrofitted with a panel-wall. The specimens
were tested under simultaneous loading of cyclic horizontal force with a
displacement-controlled program and axial forces with a constant load-
controlled program. Flexural and shear strengths of thick hybrid walls
are suggested according to the concept of plastic analyses on the base of
267
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
ultimate strength design philosophy. According to the experimentally
obtained results, the following conclusions can be briefly expressed;
1- In general, the application of the thick hybrid wall increases the
lateral strength, stiffness, and ductility of low-rise soft-first-story RC
frames.
2- Jacketing steel plates in the boundary column zones significantly
enhance the shear resistance of the columns by increasing confine-
ment. In the retrofitted specimens (1D and WA), the shear crack was
not observed in boundary RC columns, while the non-retrofitted
column finally failed in shear after the formation of flexural plastic
hinges (in the case of the specimen P0). In the case of corrugated
steel plates, due to low confinement of the wing wall, shear cracks
occurred in the wing-walls.
3- By increasing the depth of the additional wing-walls, the lateral
strength and stiffness relatively enhance, and consequently, the
desired depth of the wing-wall can be designed.
4- In addition to obtaining superior structural performance, the pro-
posed retrofit technique minimizes the cost, vibration, noise, and
concrete dust of the retrofitting operation.
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269

Fig. 18. Calculated lateral strengths and dominant mechanisms.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.013.

References

[1] Otani S. Earth quakeres is tancedesign of rein forced concrete building. J Adv Concr
Technol 2004;2:3–24.
[2] Building standard law of Japan. Japan: Building center of Japan; 1981.
[3] ASCE7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE standard.
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers., Structural Engineering Institute;
2016.
[4] Javadi P, Yamakawa T. Retrofitting of RC frames by steel braced frames utilizing a
hybrid connection technique. J Adv Concr Technol 2013;11:89–107.
[5] Kahn LF, Hanson RD. Infilled walls for earthquake strengthening. J Struct Div
1979;105:283–96.
[6] Bertero V, Brokken S. Infills in seismic resistant building. Struct Eng 1983;109:24.
[7] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimizu Y. Effects on behaviors of reinforced concrete frames by
adding shear walls. Proceedings of the third seminar on repair and retrofit of
structures. 1982. p. 265–90.
[8] Strepelias E, Palios X, Bousias SN, Fardis MN. Experimental investigation of con-
crete frames infilled with RC for seismic rehabilitation. J Struct Eng
2013;140:04013033.
[9] Sonuvar MO, Ozcebe G, Ersoy U. Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete frames with
reinforced concrete infills. Struct J 2004;101:494–500.
[10] Kara ME, Altin S. Behavior of reinforced concrete frames with reinforced concrete
partial infills. ACI Struct J 2006;103:701.
[11] Jirsa J, Kreger M. Recent research on repair and strengthening of reinforced con-
crete structures. Seismic Eng: Res Practice: ASCE 1989:679–88.
[12] Inel M, Ozmen HB. Effect of infill walls on soft story behavior in mid-rise RC
buildings. Memorias, Memorias, 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Beijing, China: Artículo; 2008. p. 0279.
[13] Higashi Y, Endo T, Shimizu Y. Experimental studies on retrofitting of reinforced
concrete building frames. Proceedings of the eight world conference on earthquake
Fig. 19. Flowchart for determining dimensions of the additional walls. engineering. 1984. p. 477–84.

268
P. Javadi and T. Yamakawa
[14] Canbay E, Ersoy U, Ozcebe G. Contribution of reinforced concrete infills to seismic
behavior of structural systems. ACI Struct J 2003;100:637–43.
[15] Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation
of reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng 1997;123:3–10.
[16] Aoyama H, Kato D, Katsumata H, Hosokawa Y. Strength and behavior of postcast
shear walls for strengthening of existing R/C buildings. Proceeding of eight world
conference on earthquake engineering. 1984. p. 485–92.
[17] Altin S, Ersoy U, Tamkut T. Hysteretic response of reinforced-concrete infilled
frames. J Struct Eng 1992;118:2133–50.
[18] Altin S, Anil Ö, Kara ME. Strengthening of RC nonductile frames with RC infills: an
experimental study. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:612–21.
[19] Ganesan N, Indira P, Irshad P. Effect of ferrocement infill on the strength and be-
havior of RCC frames under reverse cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2017;151:273–81.
[20] Truong GT, Kim J-C, Choi K-K. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns
retrofitted by various methods. Eng Struct 2017;134:217–35.
[21] Wu Y-T, Kang D-Y, Yang Y-B. Seismic performance of steel and concrete composite
shear walls with embedded steel truss for use in high-rise buildings. Eng Struct
2016;125:39–53.
[22] Minafò G. A practical approach for the strength evaluation of RC columns re-
inforced with RC jackets. Eng Struct 2015;85:162–9.
[23] Standard JBDPA. Guideline and technical manual for seismic rehabilitation and
retrofit of existing RC buildings. Japan: The Japan Building Disaster Prevention
Association; 2001.
269
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 255–269
[24] Nagaprasad P, Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Seismic strengthening of RC columns using ex-
ternal steel cage. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:1563–86.
[25] Priestley MN, Seible F, Xiao Y. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge
columns for enhanced shear strength–part 2: test results and comparison with
theory. Struct J 1994;91:537–51.
[26] Priestley MN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced
concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength-part 1: theoretical con-
siderations and test design. Struct J 1994;91:394–405.
[27] Yamakawa T, Rahman MN, Morishita Y. Experimental investigation and analytical
approach for seismic retrofit of RC column with wing-wall. J Struct Constr Eng
(Trans AIJ) 2006;71:109–17.
[28] Rahman MN, Yamakawa T. Investigation of a hybrid technique for seismic retro-
fitting of bare frames. J Adv Concr Technol 2007;5:209–22.
[29] Yamakawa T, Rahman N, Nakada K, Morishita Y. Experimental and analytical in-
vestigation of seismic retrofit technique for a bare frame utilizing thick hybrid
walls. J Struct Constr Eng (Trans AIJ). 2006;71:131–8.
[30] Thermou G, Elnashai A. Seismic retrofit schemes for RC structures and local-global
consequences. Prog Struct Mat Eng 2006;8:1–15.
[31] AIJ. Earthquake resistant of reinforced concrete building based on inelastic dis-
placement concept. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1999.
[32] Nielsen MP, Hoang LC. Limit Analysis and concrete plasticity. CRC Press; 2016.
[33] Mander J, Priestley M, Park R. Observed stress-strain behavior of confined concrete.
J Struct Eng 1988;114:1827–49.