2020-10-09T14:34:02.

884林スア

日本建築学会構造系論文集 第84巻 第762号， 1093-1102，2019年8月

【カテゴリーⅠ】 J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol. 84 No. 762, 1093-1102, Aug., 2019
DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.84.1093

壁縦筋を定着させない袖壁付き柱の構造性能の実験的評価
EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC COLUMNS
ቨ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏ࡞࠸⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟ࡢᐇ㦂ⓗホ౯
WITH WING WALLS WITHOUT WALL VERTICAL REBAR ANCHORAGE
EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC COLUMNS
WITH WING WALLS WITHOUT WALL VERTICAL REBAR ANCHORAGE
椿 美咲子＊1，真 田 靖 士＊2，張 政＊1，
楠 浩 一＊3，日比野 陽＊4，向 井 智 久＊5
Misako TSUBAKI,
ᳺ ⨾ဏᏊ*1㸪┿⏣ 㟹ኈ*2㸪ᙇYasushi
ᨻ*1㸪ᴋSANADA, Zheng ZHANG,
ᾈ୍*3㸪᪥ẚ㔝 㝧*4㸪ྥ஭ ᬛஂ*5
MisakoKUSUNOKI,
Koichi TSUBAKI, Yo
Yasushi SANADA,
HIBINO ZhengMUKAI
and Tomohisa ZHANG,
Koichi KUSUNOKI, Yo HIBINO, and Tomohisa MUKAI
           
This study proposes a new rebar arrangement of wing walls which omits wall vertical rebar anchorage to reduce earthquake damage. The current
paper describes design concept of a prototype building, structural details of three RC column specimens with/without wing walls applied the
proposed rebar arrangement, and the experimental methods and results. Consequently, the wing walls applied the proposed rebar arrangement
significantly increased the stiffness and strength of the column. Furthermore, the omission of wall vertical rebar anchorage (prevention of the rebar
yielding) successfully mitigated not only damage to the specimens but also stress of the confining reinforcement in the compressive zone.
         
Keywords : Column with wing walls on both sides, Confining reinforcement, Damage control, Reinforced concrete, Static cyclic loading test
୧ഃ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ㸪ᣊ᮰➽㸪ᦆയไᚚ㸪㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ㸪㟼ⓗ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㍕Ⲵᐇ㦂
          
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࡿ஦౛ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 4)ࠋ
1981 ᖺ࡟ᘓ⠏ᇶ‽ἲ᪋⾜௧ࡀᨵṇࡉࢀ⪏㟈ィ⟬ࡢ஧ḟタィࡀᑟ ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪RC ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⿇ቨࡀᰕࡢỈ
ධࡉࢀ࡚௨᮶㸪㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ㐀㸦௨ୗ㸪RC㸧ᘓ≀ࡢ⪏㟈ቨ௨እ ᖹ⪏ຊࢆቑ኱ࡍࡿຠᯝࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪㒊ᮦࡢᦆയࢆᢚไࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡢቨࢆᵓ㐀ࢫࣜࢵࢺ࡟ࡼࡾษࡾ㞳ࡍ᫂ᛌ࡞ᵓ㐀ィ⏬ࡀ୺ὶ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⿇ቨࢆᅽ⦰ຊ࡟ࡢࡳ᢬ᢠࡍࡿᵓ㐀せ⣲࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵቨ
࠸ࡿࡀ㸪㐣ཤࡢᆅ㟈⿕ᐖࡢ⤒㦂 1)ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ᙉᗘࡀ㧗࠸ቨᯈࡢ ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡋ࡞࠸᪂ࡋ࠸ᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿ
ᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟฼⏝ࡍࡿィ⏬ࡢ᭷ຠᛶ㸪ྜ⌮ᛶࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ 㸦Fig.1 ཧ↷㸧ࠋ࡞࠾㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ௜ࡁᱱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ቨᶓ➽ࢆ
ࡿ 2)ࠋ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣ㸪⿇ቨ࣭⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ࡞࡝ࡢ㠀ᵓ㐀ቨ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ ᐃ╔ࡋ࡞࠸ᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ㸪ᐃ╔ࡋࡓሙྜ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࢫࣜࢵࣉ
ࡁࡓቨࢆ RC ᘓ≀ࡢᵓ㐀せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚✚ᴟⓗ࡟฼⏝ࡍࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸ᵓ㐀ࢩ ᣲືࡀ༟㉺ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ 5)㸪ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞㊃᪨ࡢୗ

ࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㛤Ⓨࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ 3)ࠋ ࡟⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢᛶ⬟ࡀ᳨ドࡉࢀࡓ஦౛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣᐇ㦂ኚᩘࢆ

୍᪉࡛㸪2016 ᖺ࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡋࡓ⇃ᮏᆅ㟈࡞࡝ࡢ᭱㏆ࡢᆅ㟈⅏ᐖ࡛ࡣ㸪 ⿇ቨࡢ᭷↓࡜⿇ቨ➃㒊ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽࡜ࡋࡓ 3 యࡢ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ
⌧⾜ࡢ⪏㟈ᛶ⬟ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ RC ᘓ≀࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ಽቯ࡞࡝ࡢ⏒኱࡞⿕ᐖ ヨ㦂యࡢ㟼ⓗ㍕Ⲵᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࢆศᯒࡋ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿᵓ
ࡣචࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪๛ᛶࡀ㧗࠸⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ࡞࡝ࡀⴭࡋࡃᦆയࡋ㸪ᘓ≀ 㐀ヲ⣽ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
ࡢ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞౑⏝࡟ᨭ㞀ࢆࡁࡓࡋ㸪ᘓ≀ࡢಟ᚟ࡸྲྀࡾቯࡋࡀᚲせ࡜࡞
Proposal Shear force Column 2. ᐇ㦂ィ⏬
Column Wall 2.1 ◊✲ᑐ㇟ᘓ≀ࡢヨタィ
ᮏ✏࡛ᚋ㏙ࡍࡿᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ Fig.2 ࡟♧ࡍ᝿ᐃᘓ≀ࡢኴᯟ㸦ᖹ㠃ᅗୖ㸧
Anchorage omission Drift angle
࡛ᅖࡲࢀࡓ X ᪉ྥ 1 ᒙࡢእᵓ㠃ࡢ୰ᰕࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ᝿ᐃᘓ≀ࡣ 3
Proposal Convention
Expected ᒙ㸦㝵㧗 1 㝵 5m㸪2-3 㝵 4m㸧㸪X ᪉ྥ 2×Y ᪉ྥ 3 ࢫࣃࣥ㸦ྛࢫࣃ
damage ࣥ 6m㸧࡜ࡋ㸪ᒙ㔜㔞ࢆ 12kN/m2㸪ᰕᑍἲࢆ 500mm™500mm㸪ᱱ
Anchorage
ࢆ 500mm™300mm㸦ࡏ࠸™ᖜ㸧㸪ቨཌࢆ 250mm ࡜タᐃࡋࡓࠋ
Fig. 1 Proposal
ᵓ㐀タィ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ձ⿇ቨ㸦ᱱ࡛ࡣ⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ㸧ࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟

*1＊኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᕤᏛ◊✲⛉
1 ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ Grad. Student, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University.
　大阪大学大学院工学研究科 大学院生 Grad. Student, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University
＊2
　大阪大学大学院工学研究科
*2＊኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᕤᏛ◊✲⛉
教授・博士
ᩍᤵ （工学）
༤ኈ㸦ᕤᏛ㸧 Prof., Graduate
Professor, GraduateSchool of Engineering,
School Osaka
of Engineering, University,
Osaka Dr.Eng.
University, Dr. Eng.
3
　東京大学地震研究所 教授・博士 （工学） Prof., Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, Dr.Eng.
＊4
　広島大学大学院工学研究科
*3 ᮾி኱Ꮫᆅ㟈◊✲ᡤ 准教授・博士
ᩍᤵ ༤ኈ㸦ᕤᏛ㸧 （工学） Assoc. Prof., Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University,
Professor, Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, Dr. Dr.Eng.
Eng.
＊5
　国立研究開発法人建築研究所 主任研究員・博士 （工学） Senior Research Engineer, Building Research Institute, Dr.Eng.
*4 ᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᕤᏛ◊✲⛉ ෸ᩍᤵ ༤ኈ㸦ᕤᏛ㸧 Associate Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Dr. Eng.

*5 ᅜ❧◊✲㛤Ⓨἲேᘓ⠏◊✲ᡤ ୺௵◊✲ဨ ༤ኈ㸦ᕤᏛ㸧 Senior Research Engineer, Building Research Institute, Dr. Eng.

─ 1093 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

6,000 6,000
 

Table1 Requirements for the column with/without wing walls

Target base shear coefficient 0.3 0.55
4,000 Required flexural strength (kN࣭m) 660 1210


6,000 Column Shear force


191 350
4,000 at flexural hinging at the bottom (kN)


6,000 Table2 Structural details of the column with/without wing walls


5,000


Type Column Column with wing walls
Y B×D (mm) 500×500
6,000 Long. reinforcement 16-D25(pg=3.24%)


Column
Shear reinforcement 2-D13@100(pw=0.51%)
Concrete cover (mm) 50
X Unit:mm
Horizontal and 2-D13@200
Fig. 2 Configurations and plan of an assumed building Wing walls
Vertical reinforcement
―
(ps=0.51%)
13P Design compressive strength of
36
concrete (N/mm2)
13,000 Reinforcement material SD345
9P pg : Ratio of gross longitudinal reinforcement of column
pw: Ratio of shear reinforcement of column
ps: Ratio of shear reinforcement of wing walls
9,000
5P
Table3 Flexural and shear strengths
θ 5,000 of the column with/without wing walls
Type ColumnColumn with wing walls
Flexural strength(kN࣭m) 670 1866
Unit:mm
Shear force at flexural strength(kN) 191 533
Fig. 3 Assumed collapse mechanism㸦X direction㸧 Shear strength (kN) 411 820
Shear margin 2.1 1.5

࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘ 0.55 ࢆ‶ࡓࡍᙉᗘᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸪ղ௬࡟ᴟ኱ᆅ㟈࡟

ࡓᚲせᙉᗘ㸦タィ᮲௳ձ㸧ࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛⿇ቨ
ࡼࡾ⿇ቨ㸦ᱱ࡛ࡣ⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ㸧ࡀ◚ቯࡋ࡚⪏ຊࢆ႙ኻࡋ࡚ࡶᰕ㸦ᱱ㸧
ࡣ⬮㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪᭤ࡆ࣮࣓ࣔࣥࢺ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᅽ⦰ຊ࡟ࡢࡳ᢬ᢠࡍࡿࡼ
ࡢࡳ࡛࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘ 0.3 ࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿ㠌ᛶᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ๓
࠺࡟ቨ⦪➽ࢆᇶ♏࡟ᐃ╔ࡋ࡞࠸ᵓ㐀ヲ⣽㸦Fig.1 ཧ↷㸧࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ
⪅ձࡣ୍⯡࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿᆅ㟈ຊ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᘓ≀ࡢኚᙧࢆᢚไࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ
ࡣቨ⦪➽ࢆᘬᙇ㝆అࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛⿇ቨࡢᦆയࢆᢚไࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ
⤖ᯝ㸪ᦆയࢆᢚไࡍࡿᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ 3)㸪ᚋ⪅ղࡣ᝿ᐃࢆ㉸
ヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪⿇ቨࡢ⦪ᶓ➽ẚࡣ 2-D13@200 ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᱱ
࠼ࡿᆅ㟈ຊ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᘓ≀ࡢỈᖹ⪏ຊࡀຎ໬ᇦ࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡶ㸪ᰕࡀ㧗࠸
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᮏ✏࡛ࡣᢅࢃ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ㄝ᫂ࢆ๭ឡࡍࡿࡀ㸪⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ
㠌ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ㍈ຊᨭᣢᛶ⬟ࡣ႙ኻࡋ࡞࠸ᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗ
㧗ࡉࢆᱱࡏ࠸࡜➼ࡋࡃタᐃࡋ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ࡜ྠᵝ࡟タィࡋࡓࠋ
ࡋࡓࠋୖグࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ㸦⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨ௜ࡁᱱ㸧ࡣ⬤
࠙ᡭ㡰 3ࠚ᭱ᚋ࡟ 1 㝵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᰕ࡜⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ⬮㒊ࡀ᭤ࡆᙉᗘ࡟
ᛶ◚ቯࢆ㜵Ṇࡋ᭤ࡆ◚ቯᆺ࡜ࡋ࡚タィࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᩥ⊩ 3)ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟
㐩ࡍࡿ᫬ࡢࡏࢇ᩿ຊࢆ཯᭤Ⅼ㧗ࡉࡀෆἲ㧗ࡉ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ 0.7 ࡜௬ᐃࡋ
ࡼࡾᚓࡽࢀࡓᅜᅵᢏ⾡⥲ྜᢏ⾡◊✲ᡤࡢ⅏ᐖᣐⅬᘓ⠏≀ࡢタィ࢞࢖
࡚ồࡵ㸪ᰕཬࡧ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡀࡏࢇ᩿◚ቯࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚ࡏࢇ
ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ㸦᱌㸧6)࡛ࡣ࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘࡀ 0.55 ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ᫬Ⅼࡢᒙ㛫ኚ
᩿⿵ᙉ➽ࡢ㓄➽ࢆᐃࡵࡓࠋᰕࡢࡏࢇ᩿⿵ᙉ➽ࢆ 2-D13@100 ࡜ࡋࡓ
ᙧゅࡀ 0.33%௨ෆ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ᪉㔪ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋ㏙
⤖ᯝ㸪ࡏࢇ᩿వ⿱ᗘࡣᰕࡢࡳࡢሙྜࡣ 2.1㸪⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢሙྜࡣ 1.5
ࡢᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ㒊ᮦゅ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ỉᖹຊ㍕Ⲵࢆไᚚࡍࡿࡀ㸪୍⯡࡟㒊ᮦ
࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛㸪ᰕࡢྛ⤊ᒁᙉᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᘧ(1)㸪(2)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪
ゅ㸼ᒙ㛫ኚᙧゅࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪㒊ᮦゅ࡛ 0.33%࡟㐩ࡍࡿኚᙧ࡟
⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ᭤ࡆ⤊ᒁᙉᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ ACI ࢫࢺࣞࢫࣈࣟࢵࢡἲ 7)ࢆ
࠾ࡅࡿỈᖹ⪏ຊࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ୖグ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ㸦᱌㸧ࡢせồ
ࡏࢇ᩿⤊ᒁᙉᗘࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᘧ(3)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋ
ᛶ⬟ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ
§ N ·
ୖグࡢ஧ࡘࡢタィ᪉㔪ࢆ‶㊊ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ㸪ලయⓗ࡟ࡣ௨ୗࡢᡭ㡰 Mu 0.5agV y g1D  0.5ND¨¨1  ¸
¸ (1)
© bDFc¹
࡟ࡼࡾ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕཬࡧᱱࢆタィࡋࡓࠋ
­ 0.23 ½
࠙ᡭ㡰 1ࠚᰕᱱࡢࡳ࡛タィ᮲௳ղࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟᩿㠃ࢆタィࡋࡓࠋ ° 0.068 pt Fc  18 °
Qsu ® M  0.85 pwV wy  0.1V 0 ¾bj (2)
ࡇࡇ࡛ᰕᱱࡣᘓ≀ෆ࡛ඹ㏻ࡢ᩿㠃ヲ⣽ࢆ᭷ࡋ㸪ᰕᱱࡢ᭤ࡆᙉᗘẚࢆ °  0.12 °
¯ Qd ¿
2:1㸪ᯫᵓࡢᔂቯᶵᵓࢆ Fig.3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟඲యᔂቯᙧ㸪እຊศᕸࢆ㏫୕ ­ ½
0 .23
° 0.053 pt Fc  18 ° (3)
ゅᙧ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀ௬ᐃࡋ㸦᳨ウẁ㝵࡛ࡣ Ai ศᕸࡶ⪃៖ࡋࡓࡀ㸪ᚲせ࡞ Qsu ® M  0.85 p we V wy ¾be je  0.1N
°  0 .12 °
¯ Qd e ¿
᭤ࡆᙉᗘࡀ኱ࡁ࠿ࡗࡓ㏫୕ゅᙧศᕸࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓ㸧㸪
௬᝿௙஦ἲ࡟ࡼࡾ
࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘ 0.3 ࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᰕᱱࡢ᭤ࡆᙉᗘࢆ⟬ᐃ ࡇࡇ࡛㸪be ࡣ⿇ቨࢆྵࡵࡓ඲᩿㠃✚࡜➼౯࡛࠶ࡾ㸪඲ࡏ࠸ࡀ⿇ቨࢆ
ࡋ㸪ᰕᱱࡢ㓄➽ࢆᐃࡵࡓࠋᘓ≀୧୺㍈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྠᵝࡢ᪉㔪ࡢୗ࡟タ ྵࡵࡓ㛗ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿ⨨᥮㛗᪉ᙧ᩿㠃ࡢᖜ㸪je ࡣᘬᙇ㕲➽⩌ࡢ㔜ᚰ࠿ࡽ
ィࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪Y ᪉ྥ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ X ᪉ྥࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗࠸᭤ࡆᙉᗘࡀồࡵࡽࢀ ᅽ⦰⦕ࡲ࡛ࡢ㊥㞳࡟ 7/8 ࢆ஌ࡌࡓ್࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢᘧ୰ࡢグྕ࡟
ࡓࡓࡵ㸪௨ୗ࡛ࡣ X ᪉ྥ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚タィࡋࡓࠋ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᩥ⊩ 8)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
࠙ᡭ㡰 2ࠚḟ࡟ᰕ࡟ࡣ⿇ቨ㸦Fig. 2 ࡼࡾ㸪୰ᰕ࡛ࡣ୧ഃ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ㸪 Table1 ࡟௬᝿௙஦ἲ࡟ࡼࡾ⟬ᐃࡋࡓᰕࡢᚲせ᭤ࡆ⤊ᒁᙉᗘཬࡧ 1
እᰕ࡛ࡣ∦ഃ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ㸧㸪ᱱ࡟ࡣ⭜ቨ࣭ᆶቨࡀྲྀࡾ௜ࡃሙྜࢆ᝿ᐃ 㝵ᰕ⬮ࡀ᭤ࡆᙉᗘ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢᙜヱᰕࡢࡏࢇ᩿ຊࢆ㸪Table2 ࡟ୖ
࠙ᡭ㡰 1ࠚ࡜ྠᵝࡢᔂቯᶵᵓ㸦Fig.3㸧ࢆ௬ᐃࡋ㸪࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘ
ࡋ㸪 グࡢタィ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ 1 㝵ᰕࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁ㸪ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜ
0.55 ࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᰕᱱࡢ᭤ࡆᙉᗘࢆ⟬ᐃࡋࡓࠋ⿇ቨ㛗ࡉ ࢺࡢタィᇶ‽ᙉᗘࡣ 36N/mm2㸪㕲➽ࡣ SD345 ࡜ࡋࡓࠋTable3 ࡟ᰕ
ࢆᰕࡏ࠸࡜➼ࡋࡃ 500mm ࡜タᐃࡋࡓሙྜ࡟㸪⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡀ⟬ᐃࡋ ཬࡧ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢྛ⤊ᒁᙉᗘࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

─ 1094 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

Table4 Ductility classification for columns with wing walls

FA FB CWJ

500
Qsu/Qmu >1.25 >1.1 1.4 ЍFA
h0/D >2.5 >2.0 6.3 →FA
σ0/Fc <0.35 <0.45 0.072 →FA
Colum Colum (pgσy+σ0w)/Fc <1/3 <1/2 0.41 →FB
10-D16 10-D16 tw/ҀAc >4/10 >3/10 0.5 →FA
D6@50 D6@50 τu/Fc <0.1 <0.125 0.049 →FA
*All symbols are referred to Reference 9)

1600
2600
Wall Wall
D6@100 D6@100
D6 D10 Table5 Requirements for the confined area of CWA
D10@50 D10@50 Requirements for confined area
D10@50 CWA
Item Formula Value
Length >c-0.1lw >170 mm 210 mm
<Six times
the diameter of
Spacing <60 mm 50 mm


the smallest
longitudinal bar

500
Ash / sbc § Ag · fc Ash / sbc
0.3¨¨  1¸¸ c
Reinforcement § Ag · fc
Unit:mm t 0.3¨¨  1¸¸ c © Ach ¹ fyt X direction Y direction
325 250 250 250 325
A
© ch ¹ fyt 0.019 0.033 0.02
1400
(a) CWJ (b) CWA *All symbols are referred to Reference 7)
Fig. 4 Reinforcement arrangements of
the specimens with wing-walls Table6 Structural details of the specimens
C CWJ CWA
B×D(mm) 250×250
250 10-D16 Long. reinforcement 10-D16(pg=3.16%)
D6@100 41 84 84 41 Column
Shear reinforcement D6@50(pw=0.50%)
20 D6@80 Concrete cover(mm) 25
250
52 60 39

45 80 80 45 Horizontal reinforcement ― 2-D6@100(ps=0.50%)

Vertical reinforcement ― 2-D6@80 2-D10@80
29 67 29
29 67 29

35 55 35
60

Length of confined area (mm) ― 130 210

250

125
85

Wing X direction 2-D10@50 2-D10@50

Confining reinforcement ―
walls Y direction 2-D10@50 3-D10@50
39 60

D10@50 D6@50 X direction ― 2.79% 2.79%

20

Confining reinforcement ratio

130 Y direction ― 1.14% 1.71%
(a)CWJ Concrete cover (mm) 20
10-D16

D10@80 D6@100 D10@50

㦂య CWA ࡢቨ⦪➽ࢆ D10 ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ヨ㦂య CWA ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦࡢ
52 60 39

105
㓄➽ࡢ཰ࡲࡾ࠿ࡽ୧ヨ㦂యඹ㏻࡟ቨ⦪➽ࡢ㛫㝸ࡣ 80mm ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
35 55 35
250

125
60

Fig.4 ࡟⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕヨ㦂యࡢ㓄➽ヲ⣽ࢆ㸪Fig.5 ࡟ྠヨ㦂యࡢ᩿㠃ᅗ

60

X
39 60

210 D10@50 ࢆ㸪Table6 ࡟඲ヨ㦂యࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ♧ࡍࠋᰕࡢ᩿㠃ࡣ

Y D6@50 Unit:mm
250×250mm㸪ቨ᩿㠃㸦ཌࡉ×㛗ࡉ㸧ࡣ 125×250mm㸪㧗ࡉࡣ 1600mm
(b)CWA
Fig. 5 Cross-sectional details of the specimens with wing walls 㸦᝿ᐃ཯᭤Ⅼ㧗ࡉࡲ࡛㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛㸪Table6 ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦ㕲➽ẚࡣ㸪
ヨ㦂య CWJ ཬࡧ CWA㸦Fig.5㸧ࡢ X ᪉ྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ(ᣊ᮰➽+ቨᶓ
2.2 ヨ㦂య ➽ࡢ᩿㠃✚)/(ቨཌ×ᶓ⿵ᙉ➽㛫㝸)ࡢⓒศ⋡㸪Y ᪉ྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ(ᣊ᮰
ୖグࡢ㏻ࡾタィࡋࡓ᝿ᐃᘓ≀ 1 㝵ࡢᰕཬࡧ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ 1/2 ࢫࢣ ➽ࡢ᩿㠃✚)/(ቨ㛗ࡉ×ᶓ⿵ᙉ➽㛫㝸)ࡢⓒศ⋡࡜ࡋ࡚⟬ᐃࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ
࣮ࣝࡢヨ㦂య 3 యࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋᐇ㦂ኚᩘࡣ⿇ቨࡢ᭷↓࡜⿇ቨࡢᣊ᮰ ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟㸪ヨ㦂య CWA ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦࡣヨ㦂య CWJ ࡼࡾ
ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽࡜ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ Fig.1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ቨ⦪➽ࢆᇶ♏࡟ᐃ ࡶ⠊ᅖࡀᗈ࠸㓄➽࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋFig.6 ࡣヨ㦂య⿇ቨࡢ㓄➽ࡢ୕ḟඖᅗ
╔ࡋ࡞࠸ᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ㸪⿇ቨ⦪➽ࡣୗࢫࢱࣈୖ㠃࡜ࡢቃ⏺࡛ษ ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᣊ᮰ᇦ࡟ࡣヨ㦂య CWJ ࡣ D10@50 ࡢࣇ࣮ࣉ➽㸪ヨ㦂య
᩿ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛㸪ヨ㦂య C ࡣᰕࡢࡳ㸪ヨ㦂య CWJ ࡣ⿇ቨ࡟ಖ᭷Ỉ CWA ࡣ D10@50 ࡢࣇ࣮ࣉ➽㸪୪ࡧ࡟㸪୍➃࡟ 135r㸪௚➃࡟ 90r
ᖹ⪏ຊつ‽ 9)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡳ࡞ࡋ FA ࡜࡞ࡿᣊ᮰ᇦࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య㸪ヨ ࡢࣇࢵࢡࢆタࡅࡓ D10@50 ࡢᖜṆ➽ࢆ㓄➽ࡋࡓࠋ⿇ቨᶓ➽࡟ࡣヨ㦂
㦂య CWA ࡣ⿇ቨ࡟ ACI つ‽ 7)ࡢ⪏㟈㒊ᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿつᐃࢆ‶ࡓࡍᣊ య CWJ㸪ヨ㦂య CWA ࡜ࡶ࡟ D6@100 ࡢ U Ꮠ➽ࢆ⏝࠸㸪୧ഃ⿇ቨ
᮰ᇦࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య࡛࠶ࡿࠋTable4 ࡟ಖ᭷Ỉᖹ⪏ຊつ‽࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ ࡢ U Ꮠ➽ࢆᰕෆ࡛⥅࠸ࡔࠋ
⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ㒊ᮦ✀ู᮲௳ཬࡧヨ㦂య CWJ ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ♧ࡍࠋྠ Table7 ࡟ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢᮦᩱ≉ᛶࢆ㸪Table8 ࡟㕲➽ࡢᮦᩱ≉ᛶ
ヨ㦂యࡣ(pgσy+σ0w)/Fc ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ FB ࡜࡞ࡿࡀ㸪ಖ᭷Ỉᖹ⪏ຊつ‽࡛ࡣ ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ♧ࡍࠋTable9 ࡟ᰕཬࡧ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ⤊ᒁᙉᗘࢆ๓⠇࡜ྠ
ᅽ⦰➃㒊࠿ࡽ୰❧㍈఩⨨ࡲ࡛ࡢ 2/3 ࡢ㠃✚ࢆᶓ➽ẚ 0.006 ௨ୖࡢᣊ ᵝࡢィ⟬᪉ἲ࡛⟬ᐃࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
᮰➽ࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ FA ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡏࡿࠋヨ㦂య CWJ ࡣᙜヱ㡿ᇦࡢᶓ 2.3 ㍕Ⲵィ⏬
➽ẚࢆ㍕Ⲵᖹ⾜᪉ྥ࡛ 0.022㸪㍕Ⲵ┤஺᪉ྥ࡛ 0.0097 ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ Fig.7 ࡟㍕Ⲵ⿦⨨ࢆ♧ࡍࠋヨ㦂యࡣ PC 㗰Წ࡛㍕Ⲵࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟ᅛ
ࡼࡾࡳ࡞ࡋ FA ࡜タィࡋࡓࠋTable5 ࡟ ACI つ‽࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿᣊ᮰ᇦ ᐃࡋࡓࠋྛヨ㦂య࡜ࡶ࡟㍈ຊࡣ㍕Ⲵࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟ྲྀࡾ௜ࡅࡓ༡໭ 2 ྎ
ࡢ᮲௳㸦ྠ⾲࡛ࡣྛ㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᭱ࡶཝࡋ࠸᮲௳ࢆ♧ࡍ㸧ཬࡧヨ㦂 ࡢ㖄┤࢜࢖ࣝࢪࣕࢵ࢟㸦ྛ 2000kN㸧࡟ࡼࡗ୍࡚ᐃ㍈ຊ 162kN ࢆస
య CWA ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁ㸪ACI つ‽ࡢ᮲௳ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ ⏝ࡉࡏ㸪཯ຊቨ࡟ྲྀࡾ௜ࡅࡓỈᖹ࢜࢖ࣝࢪࣕࢵ࢟㸦1000kN㸧࡟ࡼࡗ
ࡿቨᶓ➽㛫㝸ࡀ᭱ࡶᑠࡉ࠸⦪➽ࡢ┤ᚄ 6 ಸ௨ୗࢆ‶㊊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ヨ ࡚Ỉᖹຊ㍕Ⲵࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾㸪㍈ຊ 162kN ࡣ Fig.2 ࡢᑐ㇟ᰕ㸦1 㝵㸧

─ 1095 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

D6@100(U shaped) Table7 Properties of concrete

D6@100(U shaped)
C CWJ CWA
D10@50 Compressive strength (N/mm2) 43.5 47.8 48.1
D10@50
D10@50
Young’s modulus (kN/mm2) 32.6 31.6 31.1
Strain at compressive strength μ 2378 2703 2548

 
Table8 Properties of reinforcing bars
  D6(SD345)D10(SD345) D16 (SD345)
Yield stress (N/mm2) 417 383 355
 D10 
D6 Tensile stress (N/mm2) 582 487 501
Young’s modulus (kN/mm 2) 166 190 176
Strain at yield stress (μ) 2509 2020 2016

Table9 Flexural and shear strengths

(a)CWJ (b)CWA
of the specimens
Fig. 6 3D image of rebar arrangement in wing walls C CWJ CWA
Flexural strength(kN࣭m) 68 263 263
LOAD Shear force at flexural strength(kN) 43 165 165
㸫 㸩
Shear strength (kN) 121 235 235
Shear margin 2.8 1.4 1.4
Hydraulic Jack 1000kN

Table10 Allowable short-term shear forces

4 Specimen C CWJ CWA
Hydraulic Jack 2000kN
Hydraulic Jack 2000kN

ț Allowable short-term shear force (kN) 29.5 51.4

Table11 Loading histories

R K 
Cycle C CWJ CWA
South

North

Drift at allowable short-term shear force 1cycle

0.25 1cycle
0.33
Reaction Wall 0.5
Unit:mm 0.66
Fig. 7 Experimental setup 1.0 2cycles
1.33 2cycles
Q 2.0
2.66
a=900 4.0



ࡧ 4.0%rad ࡢ㡰࡟ኚ఩ࢆ₞ቑࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪໭ഃࢆṇ࡜ࡋࡓṇ㈇஺␒ࡢ
1600 ₞ቑ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㍕Ⲵࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᰕ୺➽ࡢ᭱኱ࡦࡎࡳᗘࡀ㝆అࡦ



Ns Nn ࡎࡳᗘࡢ 50㸣ࢆ㉸㐣ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡣ 1 ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ࡜ࡋ㸪ࡑࢀ௨㝆 2 ࢧ࢖

ࢡࣝ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓࠋᮏᐇ㦂࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ヨ㦂య C ࡛ࡣ R = ▷ᮇチᐜỈ
L=4000 

ᖹຊ᫬ཬࡧ 0.25%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝࡏࢇ᩿ຊࡀ␗ᖖ࡞ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ

Unit:mm 㸦ヨ㦂య࡟ィ⏬እࡢ୍ᐃ࣮࣓ࣔࣥࢺࡀస⏝ࡋࡓ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓ㸧ࡓࡵ㸪
Fig. 8 Applied bending moment diagram ㍕Ⲵࢆ୰᩿ࡋ PC 㗰Წࡢ⥾ࡵ┤ࡋࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᚋࡢᐇ㦂⤖ᯝ࡛
ࡣヨ㦂య C ࡢࡇࢀࡽ㍕Ⲵึᮇ᫬ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㝖࠸࡚⾲グࡍࡿࠋྛヨ㦂య
࡟స⏝ࡍࡿ㍈ຊẚ 0.072㸦ᰕ᩿㠃✚࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩘ್㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ヨ㦂 ࡢ▷ᮇチᐜỈᖹຊࢆ Table10 ࡟㸪Ỉᖹ㍕Ⲵࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ Table11 ࡟
యࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪Fig.8 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ヨ㦂య㡬 ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
㒊 ࡢ᭤ࡆ࣮࣓ࣔࣥࢺࡀヨ㦂༊㛫㡬㒊࡛ 0 ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟స⏝ࡏࢇ᩿
ຊ࡟ẚ౛ࡉࡏ࡚୧㖄┤ࢪࣕࢵ࢟ࢆไᚚࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ᫬㸪㖄┤ࢪࣕࢵ࢟ 3. ᐇ㦂⤖ᯝ
ࡢ㍈ຊࡣ௨ୗࡢᘧ(4)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋ 3.1 ◚ቯ⤒㐣ཬࡧࡏࢇ᩿ຊ㸫ኚᙧゅ㛵ಀ
N Q
N s  ˜a (4a) Fig.9 ࡟ྛヨ㦂యࡢࡏࢇ᩿ຊ㸫ኚᙧゅ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࠋྠᅗ࡟ࡣᰕ୺
2 L
N Q ➽ᘬᙇ㝆అⅬࢆտ㸪ቨ⦪➽ᅽ⦰㝆అⅬࢆᶭ㸪᭱኱⪏ຊⅬࢆࠐ㸪Table9
Nn  ˜a
2 L (4b) ࡢ᭤ࡆ⤊ᒁᙉᗘࡢィ⟬್ࢆⅬ⥺࡟ࡼࡾేࡏ࡚♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛㸪Ns㸸༡㖄┤ࢪࣕࢵ࢟㍈ຊ(kN)㸪Nn㸸໭㖄┤ࢪࣕࢵ࢟㍈ຊ ヨ㦂య C ࡛ࡣ㸪0.25%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᰕ⬮㒊࡟᭤ࡆࡦࡧ
(kN)㸪N㸸ྜィ㍈ຊ(kN)㸪Q㸸ࡏࢇ᩿ຊ(kN)㸪L㸸㖄┤ࢪࣕࢵ࢟㛫 ๭ࢀࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓࠋ1.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᰕ⬮㒊ࡢ୺➽ࡀᘬᙇ
㊥㞳㸦=4000mm㸧㸪a㸸᝿ᐃ཯᭤Ⅼ㧗ࡉ࡜ᐇຍຊⅬ㧗ࡉ㛫ࡢ㊥㞳 㝆అࡋ㸪ヨ㦂యࡢ㢧ⴭ࡞๛ᛶపୗࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪2.67%rad
㸦=900mm㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᰕ⬮㒊ࡢࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢᅽቯࡢ඙ೃࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ
Ỉᖹຊ㍕Ⲵࡣ Fig.7 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ヨ㦂༊㛫㡬㒊ࡢỈᖹኚ఩ δ ࢆ ࡓࡀ㸪᭱⤊㍕Ⲵࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛⦆ࡸ࠿࡟⪏ຊࡣୖ᪼ࡋࡓࠋ4.0%rad ࡛
ヨ㦂༊㛫㧗ࡉ h㸦=1600mm㸧࡛㝖ࡋࡓ㒊ᮦゅ R㸦=δ/h㸧࡟ࡼࡾኚ఩ ᰕ⬮㒊ࡢ࢝ࣂ࣮ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡀ๝ⴠࡋጞࡵ㸪㈇ഃ࡛᭱኱⪏ຊ 81.3kN
ไᚚࡋࡓࠋ㍕Ⲵࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣ R㸦%rad㸧= ▷ᮇチᐜỈᖹຊ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ ࡀグ㘓ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
㒊ᮦゅ㸦ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡀ▷ᮇチᐜᛂຊᗘ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ▷ᮇチᐜ᭤ࡆ⪏ຊ ヨ㦂య CWJ ࡛ࡣ㸪0.07%rad㸦▷ᮇチᐜỈᖹຊ┦ᙜ㸧ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ
᫬࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㸧2)㸪0.25㸪0.33㸪0.5㸪0.67㸪1.0㸪1.33㸪2.0㸪2.67 ཬ ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᰕ⬮㒊ཬࡧቨ⬮㒊࡟᭤ࡆࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓࠋ0.5%rad ࡢ

─ 1096 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

Yielding of main reinforcement (colum) ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ0.67%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝ⿇ቨ⬮㒊࢝ࣂ࣮ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ

Yielding of vertical reinforcement (wing-wall)
Maximum strength Shear force at flexural strength in Table 9 ࡢᅽቯࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ㸪1.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝቨ⬮㒊ࡢ⦪➽ࡢᅽ⦰㝆అ
200 ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ1.33%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ࠿ࡽヨ㦂యࡢࢫࣜࢵࣉᣲືࡀ
C 㢧ⴭ࡟࡞ࡾ㸪௨㝆 4.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛⪏ຊࡣ⦆ࡸ࠿࡟ୖ᪼ࡋ㸪
4.0%rad ࡢṇഃ࡛᭱኱⪏ຊ 187.6kN ࡀグ㘓ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
100
ヨ㦂య CWA ࡛ࡣ㸪0.06%rad㸦▷ᮇチᐜỈᖹຊ┦ᙜ㸧ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ
Shear force (kN)

࡟࠾࠸࡚ᰕ⬮㒊ཬࡧቨ⬮㒊࡟᭤ࡆࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓࠋḟࡢ㍕Ⲵࢧ
0 ࢖ࢡࣝ࠿ࡽ᭱⤊㍕Ⲵࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ 4.0%rad ࡲ࡛◚ቯ⤒㐣ཬࡧᒚṔ≉ᛶ
ࡣヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜࡯ࡰྠᵝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋ㸪0.5%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝᰕ
⬮㒊ࡢ୺➽ࡢᘬᙇ㝆అࡀ㸪1.33%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝቨ⬮㒊ࡢ⦪➽ࡢ
-100
ᅽ⦰㝆అࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ4.0%rad ࡢṇഃ࡛᭱኱⪏ຊ 186.2kN ࡀグ㘓
Qmax=79.7kN
Qmin=-81.3kN ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

-200 ⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య CWJ㸪CWA ࢆヨ㦂య C ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ヨ㦂

-4 -2 0 2 4 య CWJ㸪CWA ࡢึᮇ๛ᛶཬࡧ᭱኱⪏ຊࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟ቑ኱ࡋ㸪⿇ቨ⬮㒊
-2
Drift angle(™10 rad.) ࡛⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡏࡎ㸪⿇ቨࢆᅽ⦰ຊ࡟ࡢࡳ᢬ᢠࡉࡏࡿᶵᵓࡀ᭷ຠ࡟ᶵ
(a)C ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪ᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࡀ␗࡞ࡿヨ㦂య
200
CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡛ࡣ㸪୧ヨ㦂యࡢ◚ቯ⤒㐣࡜ᒚṔᛶ≧ࡣᴫࡡ୍⮴ࡋ㸪
CWJ ᣊ᮰ᇦࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ㢧ⴭ࡞ᛶ⬟ࡢᕪ␗ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ

100 ࠸ࡎࢀࡢヨ㦂యࡶ⿇ቨࡢ࢝ࣂ࣮ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢᅽቯࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ
ࡢ㸪ࢥ࢔㒊ࡢᅽቯ࡟ࡣ⮳ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
Shear force (kN)

3.2 ᦆയࡢ᥎⛣
0 Fig.10 ࡟ྛヨ㦂యࡢ R=0.5%rad ཬࡧ 4.0%rad ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ⤊஢᫬ࡢ
ᦆയ≧ἣ㸦ᐇ⥺㸸ṇ㍕Ⲵ㸪Ⅼ⥺㸸㈇㍕Ⲵ㸧ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

-100
ᐇ㦂඲యࢆ㏻ࡋ㸪ᰕࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚޽㹼޿௨እࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡣ
Qmax=187.8kN
ヨ㦂య C ࡛ࡣṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡀ⤊ጞ 0.1mm ௨ୗ㸪ヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜
Qmin=-171.0kN
CWA ࡛ࡣ 0.05mm ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡾ㍍ᚤ࡞ᦆയ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋቨࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀ
-200 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚߀㸪߁௨እࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡣヨ㦂య CWJ㸪CWA ࡜ࡶ࡟ṧ␃ࡦ
-4 -2 0 2 4 ࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡀ 0.1mm ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡾ㍍ᚤ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
-2
Drift angle(™10 rad.)
࠙ᰕࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࠚ
(b)CWJ
Fig.11 ࡟ R=0.5%rad ཬࡧ 4.0%rad ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛ࡢᰕ⬮㒊࡟࠾ࡅ
200
ࡿṇ㍕Ⲵ᫬ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡢ᥎⛣ࢆ♧ࡍࠋྛࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡢ ᐃ఩⨨
CWA
ࡣ Fig.10 ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
100  ヨ㦂య C ࡟࠾࠸࡚޽㹼޿ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡣ 0.5%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ
ࣝࡲ࡛ 0.05mm ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ㸪ኚᙧゅࡢቑ኱࡟క࠸᭱ࡶᰕ⬮
Shear force (kN)

࡟㏆࠸ࡦࡧ๭ࢀ޽ࡀ 1mm ࢆ㉸࠼࡚ᣑᖜࡋࡓࠋヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA

0
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶヨ㦂య C ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡣ 0.5%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ
ࣝࡲ࡛ 0.05mm ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪ヨ㦂య C ࡜ẚ࡭࡚㸪ᰕ⬮࡟
-100 ㏆࠸ࡦࡧ๭ࢀ࡯࡝ṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡢቑ኱ࡀࡼࡾ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
Qmax=186.2kN
Qmin=-179.8kN ࠸ࡎࢀࡢヨ㦂యࡶ⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕ࡛ᰕ୺➽ࡢᘬᙇ㝆అࡀึࡵ࡚☜ㄆࡉ
ࢀࡓ 0.5%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛ࡣ㸪⿕⅏ᗘ༊ศุᐃᇶ‽ 10)࡟ࡼࡿᦆ
-200
യᗘϨ࡟┦ᙜࡋ㸦ヨ㦂యࡢ⦰ᑻࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚㸪ᇶ‽࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡦࡧ๭
-4 -2 0 2 4
-2
Drift angle(™10 rad.)
ࢀᖜࡣ 1/2 ࢆ஌ࡌ࡚ẚ㍑ࡋࡓ㸧㸪ᰕࡢᦆയ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿇ቨࡢᙳ㡪ࡣぢࡽ

(c)CWA ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉㸪ࡑࡢᚋࡣኚᙧゅࡢቑ኱࡟క࠸㸪⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య

Fig. 9 Shear force versus drift angle relationships CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡀヨ㦂య C ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ቑ኱ࡋࡓࠋࡇ
ࢀࡣ⿇ቨࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪᩿㠃ࡢ୰❧㍈࠿ࡽᰕࡢᘬᙇ⦕ࡲ࡛ࡢ㊥㞳ࡀ
ࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝᰕ⬮㒊ࡢ୺➽ࡀᘬᙇ㝆అࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ㢧ⴭ࡞๛ᛶపୗࡀㄆ ቑ኱ࡋࡓࡇ࡜㸦ᅇ㌿୰ᚰ࠿ࡽࡢ⭎ࡢ㛗ࡉࡀቑ኱ࡋࡓࡇ࡜㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜
ࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ2.1 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᩥ⊩ 6)࡛ࡣᒙ㛫ኚᙧゅ 0.33%rad ᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
࡛ಖ᭷Ỉᖹ⪏ຊࡢ☜ㄆࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ㒊ᮦゅ 0.33%rad ࡢࣆ ࠙ቨࡢࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࠚ
࣮ࢡ᫬ࡏࢇ᩿ຊࡀ 116.8kN ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪Table1 ࡢ┠ᶆ࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔ಀᩘ Fig.12 ࡟⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕヨ㦂య࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ R=0.5%rad ཬࡧ 4.0%rad ࡢ
0.55 ┦ᙜࡢヨ㦂య⪏ຊ 87.5kN㸦=350kN™(1/2)2㸧ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡓࡇ࡜ ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛ࡢቨ⬮㒊࡟࠾ࡅࡿṇ㍕Ⲵ᫬ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀᖜࡢ᥎⛣ࢆ

─ 1097 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

        

29

29

29

29
⁤ ⁤

⁢
⁢ ⁢
⁡ ⁡ ⁡
⁠ ⁣ ⁠ ⁣ ⁠

C   CWJ  CWA     C  CWJ CWA

R=0.50×10-2 rad. R=4.0×10-2 rad
Fig. 10 Cracking patterns

                
䢢䢢 ⁠
䢢䢢䢢䢢 ⁡
䢢䢢䢢䢢 ⁢
䢢䢢䢢䢢䢢䢢                    
䢢䢢 ⁣
䢢䢢䢢䢢 ⁤
䢢䢢䢢䢢䢢䢢
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.6 0.6

0.08 0.5 0.5

0.08 0.08
Crack width (mm)

0.4 0.4
Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

0.06 0.06 0.06

0.3 0.3
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.2
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50
-2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.)
R=0.50×10-2 rad                    R=0.50×10-2 rad

6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5
Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
-2 -2 -2
Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.)
-2 Drift angle(x10 rad.) Drift angle(x10 rad.) -2
Drift angle(x10 rad.)
R=4.0×10-2 rad                    R=4.0×10-2 rad
C CWJ CWA CWJ CWA
Fig. 11 Transition in residual crack width of column   Fig. 12 Transition in residual crack width of wing walls

♧ࡍࠋྛࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡢ ᐃ఩⨨ࡣ Fig.10 ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡶቨ⦪➽ࢆୗࢫࢱࣈ࡟ᐃ╔ࡋ࡞࠸ᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪⦪➽ࡢ✵Ẽ୰࡬

୧ヨ㦂య࡜ࡶ࡟⿇ቨ⬮㒊ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡣኚᙧゅࡢቑ኱࡟క࠺ᣑ
ᖜࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⿇ቨ⬮㒊ࡢ࢝ࣂ࣮ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢ๤ⴠ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ヨ
㦂య CWJ ࡛ࡣ 2.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝヨ㦂య CWA ࡛ࡣ 2.67%rad
ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝ
࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ቨ⦪➽ࡀᇶ♏࡟ᐃ╔ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸
ࡇ࡜㸪⬮㒊᩿㠃ࡢ୰❧㍈࠿ࡽ⿇ቨࡢᘬᙇ⦕ࡲ࡛ࡢ㊥㞳ࡀᰕࡢᘬᙇ⦕
࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㛗࠸ࡇ࡜㸦ᅇ㌿୰ᚰ࠿ࡽࡢ⭎ࡢ㛗ࡉࡀ㛗࠸ࡇ࡜㸧࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿᵓ㐀࡛ࡣ⬮㒊ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡀᣑᖜࡋ࡚
ࡢ㟢ฟࡣ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪㟢ฟࡉࡏ࡞࠸㓄➽ࡶྍ⬟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ
㸦ᮏᐇ㦂࡛ࡣቨ⦪➽ࢆୗࢫࢱࣈୖ㠃࡛ษ᩿ࡋࡓࡀ㸪࠿ࡪࡾࢆタࡅ࡚
⣡ࡵࡿ᪉ἲ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ㸧㸪
ᵓ㐀⪏ஂᛶ࡬ࡢ㈇ࡢຠᯝࡣ୍⯡ࡢ⿇ቨ
ᐃࢆ⤊஢ࡋࡓࠋ⿇ቨ⬮㒊ࡢṧ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡢᣑᖜࡀᰕ ௜ࡁᰕࡼࡾࡶᑠࡉ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3.3 ቨ⦪➽ཬࡧᰕ୺➽ࡢᛂຊᗘศᕸ
Fig.13 ࡟⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య CWJ㸪CWA ࡢ R=0.5%rad㸪1.0%rad
ཬࡧ 2.0%rad ࡢṇ㍕Ⲵ 1 ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ┠ࣆ࣮ࢡ᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿヨ㦂య⬮㒊
࡟࠾ࡅࡿᰕ୺➽ཬࡧቨ⦪➽ࡢᛂຊᗘศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࠋᛂຊᗘࡣᐇ㦂࡟࠾

─ 1098 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

1/200 1/100 1/50 Yield stress (column) Yield stress (wing walls)
  

50 50

0 84 170 250 330 350 0 84 170 250 330 350

Tension Tension
400 400
Stress(N/mm )
2

200 200

Stress(N/mm )
2
0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-330 -250 -170 -84 84 170 250 330 -330 -250 -170 -84 84 170 250 330
Length(mm) compression Length(mm) compression
CWJ CWA
Fig 13 Distributions of stresses at reinforcing bars in column with wing walls
1/200 1/100 1/50 1/25 䢢C CWJ CWA
                       
3
2.0x10
635 635
635
b

Absorbed energy(kN-mm)
a
1.5
Height (mm)
Height (mm)

1.0
335 335 335
a
185 b 185 185
0.5

35 35 35 0.0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
2 2 -2
Stress(N/mm ) Stress(N/mm )    Drift angle(x10 rad.)
CWJ                   R=0.50×10-2 rad
3
635 635 30x10
635
Absorbed energy(kN-mm)

a b
Height (mm)

Height (mm)

20

335 335 335

a 10
185 b 185 185

35 35 35 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 4
2 2 -2
Stress(N/mm )Stress(N/mm )    Drift angle(x10 rad.)
CWA   R=4.0×10-2 rad
Fig 14 Stress distributions of confining reinforcement            Fig.15 Histeretic energy absorption

࠸࡚ ᐃࡋࡓࡦࡎࡳࢤ࣮ࢪࡢィ ್࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪Table8 ࡟♧ࡋࡓࣖࣥ ➽ࡢࡳẚ㍑ⓗ㧗࠸ᛂຊᗘࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡀ㸪㞄᥋ࡍࡿᰕࡢ᭤ࡆࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡢ

ࢢಀᩘཬࡧ㝆అᙉᗘࢆ⪃៖ࡋ㸪ᒚṔ≉ᛶࢆ bilinear ᆺ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚⟬ ᣑᖜࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ฟࡋࡓࠋ 3.4.ቨᣊ᮰➽ࡢᛂຊᗘศᕸ
୧ヨ㦂యࡣ࡜ࡶ࡟ᅽ⦰ഃࡢ⿇ቨෆ࡟୰❧㍈ࡀ఩⨨ࡋ㸪3.5 ⠇࡟ᚋ Fig.14 ࡟ᣊ᮰➽ࡢࡦࡎࡳࢤ࣮ࢪ఩⨨ཬࡧࡑࢀࡽࡢ 0.5%rad㸪1.
㏙ࡍࡿゎᯒ⤖ᯝ㸦ᅽ⦰⦕࠿ࡽ 201mm㸧࡜ᩚྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪 0%rad㸪2.0%rad ཬࡧ 4.0%rad ࡢṇ㍕Ⲵ 1 ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ┠ࣆ࣮ࢡ᫬࡟࠾
ᰕ୺➽ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᘬᙇຊࢆ㈇ᢸࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࡢ㧗࠸᭤ࡆ⪏ຊ ࡅࡿᛂຊᗘศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࠋᛂຊᗘࡣ๓⠇࡜ྠᵝ࡟⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋ
ࡢⓎ⌧࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ቨ⦪➽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᅽ⦰ ㍕Ⲵᖹ⾜᪉ྥࡢ a ࢆぢࡿ࡜㝆అᙉᗘ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ኱ᖜ࡟ᑠࡉ࠸್࡛᥎
ഃࡣ 1.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ࡛ࣝヨ㦂య CWJ ཬࡧ CWA ࡜ࡶ࡟➃㒊ࡢ⦪ ⛣ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪㍕Ⲵ┤஺᪉ྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡦࡎࡳࢤ࣮ࢪ࡛᭱
➽ࡀ㝆అᙉᗘ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪ᘬᙇഃࡣ⦪➽ࡀᇶ♏࡟ᐃ╔ࡉࢀ ࡶᦆയࡀ㢧ⴭ࡞ቨ➃㒊ࡢᣊ᮰➽ b ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᛂຊᗘࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑠࡉ࠸
࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵᛂຊᗘࡣ⥲ࡌ࡚ᑠࡉ࠿ࡗࡓࠋヨ㦂య CWJ ࡢᰕ㝿ࡢ⦪ ್࡛᥎⛣ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚㺂୧ヨ㦂య࡜ࡶ࡟ᣊ᮰➽ࡣ㝆అࡲ࡛༑ศవ

─ 1099 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

C test CWJ test CWA test 1

heq D (1  ) (7)
Eq.(7)(Ș=1/ȧ Eq.(7)(Ș=0.25) Eq.(7)(Ș=0.22) P

0.25 ࡇࡇ࡛㸪α ࡣᐃᖖᛂ⟅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿵ṇಀᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

RC ᵓ㐀࡟ᑐࡋ୍࡚⯡ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⿵ṇಀᩘ α=1/ȧ㸦ᐃᖖᛂ⟅㸧㸪
0.20 0.25㸦㠀ᐃᖖᛂ⟅ࢆ⪃៖㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᰕࡢࡳࡢヨ㦂య C ࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟኱
ࡁ࠸್ࢆ㸪⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡛ࡣ α=1/ȧ㸦ᐃᖖᛂ
0.15
⟅㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ R=1.33%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ௨㝆ᑠࡉ࠸್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋヨ㦂
heq

0.10 య CWJ ཬࡧ CWA ࡣ኱ኚᙧᇦ࡛㏫ S Ꮠᆺࡢࢫࣜࢵࣉࢆక࠺ᒚṔᛶ

≧ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡓࡵ㸪ᒚṔ྾཰࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮ࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀཎᅉ࡛
0.05 ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ヨ㦂య CWJ ཬࡧ CWA ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⿵ṇಀᩘ α=0.22㸦ᐃ
ᖖᛂ⟅㸧ࡢ᫬࡟ᐇ㦂⤖ᯝࡢᖹᆒ➼౯ῶ⾶ࡢୗ㝈್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
0.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
ȣ 4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ
Fig.16 Equivalent damping constant versus
plasticity factor relationships ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪RC 㐀⿇ቨ௜ࡁᰕࢆᑐ㇟࡟ቨ⦪➽ࡢ➃㒊ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏ࡞
࠸᪂ࡋ࠸ᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋᮏᥦ᱌ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋࡓ⿇ቨࡢ᭷↓࡜ቨ➃
⿱ࡀ࠶ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ 㒊ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆᐇ㦂ኚᩘ࡜ࡋࡓヨ㦂యࡢ㟼ⓗ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㍕Ⲵ
௨ୖࡼࡾ㸪ᮏᐇ㦂ࡢ⠊ᅖ࡛ࡣቨࡢᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽࡜ࡋ࡚ಖ᭷Ỉ ᐇ㦂ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ㸪ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿᵓ㐀ࡢᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟࡟ᑐࡍࡿຠᯝ㸪ᦆയᛶ≧ཬ
ᖹ⪏ຊつ‽ 9)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡳ࡞ࡋ FA ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪༑ศ࡞ᣊ᮰ຠ ࡧᛂຊఏ㐩ᶵᵓ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ⠊ᅖ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓ▱ぢࢆ
ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀ㧗࠸ኚᙧᛶ⬟ࢆ☜ಖ࡛ࡁࡓࠋᮏᐇ㦂࡛ࡣቨ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡋ ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
ࡓሙྜ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪౛࠼ࡤᩥ⊩ 11)࡛ࡣቨࡢ୍㍈ᅽ⦰ᛶ 1㸧 ቨ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏࡎࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢᅽ⦰᢬ᢠࡢࡳࢆᮇᚅࡍ
⬟ࡀᅽ⦰◚ቯ࡟⮳ࡿ㍕Ⲵ㐣⛬㸦༢ㄪ㍕Ⲵ࡜⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㍕Ⲵ㸧࡟౫Ꮡࡋ㸪 ࡿ⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡣ㸪ᰕヨ㦂య C ࡜ẚ
ቨ⦪➽ࡀᘬᙇഃ࡛㝆అࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ᛶ⬟ࡀపୗࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚ ㍑ࡋ࡚ึᮇ๛ᛶཬࡧ᭱኱⪏ຊࡢྥୖࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ࡜ࡃ࡟
࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢᥦ᱌࡛ࡣቨ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡀ ヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡣ㒊ᮦゅ 0.33%rad ࡲ࡛࡟࣮࣋ࢫࢩ࢔
ᘬᙇ㝆అࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࿘㎶ࡢࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ࡜ࡢ୍యᛶࡀಖࡓࢀ㸪࡜ࡃ ಀᩘ 0.55 ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ⪏ຊࢆⓎ⌧ࡋࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪ቨ➃㒊ࡢᣊ᮰ᇦ
࡟ᅽ⦰᫬࡟࿘㎶ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࢆയࡵࡿຠᯝࡀ㍍ῶࡉࢀࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ ࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࢆኚ໬ࡉࡏࡓヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ
ࡿࠋ௒ᚋ㸪ቨ⦪➽ࡢᐃ╔ࡢ᭷↓ࡀቨ➃㒊ᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᣲື࡜ᛶ⬟࡟୚࠼ ᣊ᮰ᇦ࡛ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢᅽቯ࡟⮳ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵᵓ㐀ᛶ⬟
ࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᐇ㦂ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࠋ ࡟᭷ព࡞ᕪ␗ࡣ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
3.5 ᒚṔ྾཰࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮࡜ῶ⾶ᐃᩘ 2㸧 ᰕࡢᦆയ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸ࡎࢀࡢヨ㦂యࡶ 0.5%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡ
Fig.15 ࡟ྛヨ㦂యࡢ 0.5%rad ཬࡧ 4.0%rad ࡲ࡛ࡢྛ㍕Ⲵࢧ࢖ࢡ ࣝࡲ࡛ࡣ㸪⿕⅏ᗘ༊ศุᐃᇶ‽ 10)࡟ࡼࡿᦆയᗘϨ࡟┦ᙜࡋ㸪
ࣝࡢ 1 ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝ┠ࡢࡳ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⣼✚ᒚṔ྾཰࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮㔞ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚ࡶᰕࡢᦆയ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᙳ㡪ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ྠᅗࡼࡾヨ㦂య CWJ㸪CWA ࡢ⣼✚ᒚṔ྾཰࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮㔞ࡣヨ㦂య ୍᪉㸪⿇ቨ⬮㒊ࡣቨ⦪➽ࡀᇶ♏࡟ᐃ╔ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵṧ
C ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ᐇ㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⣙ 2 ಸࡢቑຍࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ ␃ࡦࡧ๭ࢀࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟኱ࡁ࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ᮏᵓ㐀࡛ࡣቨ⦪➽ࡢ
ࡲࡓ Fig.16 ࡟ྛヨ㦂యࡢ᭤ࡆ㝆అ௨㝆㸪4.0%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡲ࡛ 㟢ฟࡀ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㟢ฟࡉࡏ࡞࠸㓄➽ࡶྍ⬟࡜
ࡢ➼౯ῶ⾶ᐃᩘ heq㸫ረᛶ⋡ȣ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࠋ➼౯ῶ⾶ᐃᩘ heq ࡣᘧ(5) ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࡓࡵ㸪ᵓ㐀⪏ஂᛶ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡣ㝈ᐃⓗ࡜ุ᩿ࡉ
࡟ࡼࡾホ౯ࡋ㸪ረᛶ⋡ȣࡣᘧ(6)ࡢ㏻ࡾᐃ⩏ࡋࡓࠋᘧ(5)୰ࡢグྕࡣᩥ ࢀࡿࠋ
⊩ 12)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ 3㸧 ቨ⦪➽ࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ᘬᙇഃࡢቨ⦪➽ࡣ⥲ࡌ࡚
1 § ΔW · ᑠࡉ࠸ᛂຊᗘࢆ♧ࡋᘬᙇ㝆అࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪࿘㎶ࢥ
heq ¨ ¸ (5)
4𠨩 We ¸¹ ࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ࡜ࡢ୍యᛶࡀಖࡓࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪
δn ࡜ࡃ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㍕Ⲵ࡛⿇ቨࡀᅽ⦰᫬࡟ቨ⦪➽ࡀ࿘㎶ࢥࣥࢡ
μ (6)
δy ࣮ࣜࢺࢆയࡵ㸪ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺࡢ๤ⴠ࡞࡝ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿຠᯝࡀ
ࡇࡇ࡛ᮏㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪 ț y ࡣᰕ୺➽ࡢ㝆అ᫬ࡢኚᙧ㸦ゅ㸧㸪 ț n ࡣ ㍍ῶࡉࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
n%rad ࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࣆ࣮ࢡ᫬ࡢኚᙧ㸦ゅ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 4㸧 ቨᣊ᮰➽ࡢᛂຊᗘࡣᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀ
ヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡢ➼౯ῶ⾶ᐃᩘࡣヨ㦂య C ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㸪➼ ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡎᑠࡉ࠸್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᮏᐇ㦂ࡢ⠊ᅖ࡛ࡣ
ࡋ࠸ረᛶ⋡࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ 60%㹼80%⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᣊ᮰ᇦࡢᵓ㐀ヲ⣽ࡀ ቨࡢᣊ᮰ᇦ࡜ࡋ࡚ಖ᭷Ỉᖹ⪏ຊつ‽࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡳ࡞ࡋ FA ࢆ
␗࡞ࡿヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜ CWA ࡛ࡣ➼ࡋ࠸ረᛶ⋡࡟ᑐࡍࡿ➼౯ῶ⾶ᐃ ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪༑ศ࡞ᣊ᮰ຠᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀ㧗࠸ኚᙧᛶ⬟ࢆ
ᩘࡢᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ ☜ಖ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪ྠᅗ࡟ࡣ㝈⏺⪏ຊィ⟬ 8)࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ heq㸫ȣ㛵ಀ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍ 5㸧 RC ᵓ㐀ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᖹᆒ➼౯ῶ⾶࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᰕࡢࡳࡢヨ㦂య
ࡿࠋ➼౯ῶ⾶ᐃᩘ heq ࡣᘧ(7)࡟ࡼࡾ⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋ C ࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟኱ࡁ࠸್ࢆ㸪⿇ቨࢆ᭷ࡍࡿヨ㦂య CWJ ࡜
CWA ࡛ࡣ኱ኚᙧᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑠࡉ࠸್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋヨ㦂య

─ 1100 ─
 2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

CWJ ཬࡧ CWA ࡣ኱ኚᙧᇦ࡛㏫ S Ꮠᆺࡢࢫࣜࢵࣉࢆక࠺ᒚ Kenchikubutsu no Hisaido Kubun Hantei Kijyun oyobi Hukkyu
Gijyutsu Shishin, 2002. 8 (in Japanese)
Ṕᛶ≧ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡓࡵᒚṔ྾཰࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮ࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡇ
᪥ᮏᘓ⠏㜵⅏༠఍: 㟈⅏ᘓ⠏≀ࡢ⿕⅏ᗘ༊ศุᐃᇶ‽ཬࡧ᚟ᪧᢏ⾡ᣦ
࡜ࡀཎᅉ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㔪, 2002. 8
11㸧 Taleb, R., Ogura, M., Kono, S., Tani, M.: Performance of Confined
Boundary Regions of RC Rectangular Walls under Cyclic Reversal
ㅰ㎡
Loadings, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 36, No. 2,
ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ᖹᡂ 29 ᖺᗘࠕ㤳㒔ᅪࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓࣞࢪ࢚ࣜࣥࢫ⥲ྜ pp. 325-330, 2014. 7
ຊྥୖࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ ࢧࣈ(c)㠀ᵓ㐀㒊ᮦࢆྵࡴᵓ㐀≀ࡢᔂቯవ⿱ 12㸧 Shibata, A.: Dynamic Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Structures,
2014. 12 (in Japanese)
ᗘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟࣭ᩚഛࠖࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟グࡋ࡚ㅰពࢆ
ᰘ⏣᫂ᚨ: ᭱᪂⪏㟈ᵓ㐀ゎᯒ➨୕∧, 2014. 12
⾲ࡍࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
1㸧 Architectural Institute of Japan: Recommendation to RC structural
design after Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster: cause of
particularly noticed damages and corresponding RC structural
design details, 1998. 10 (in Japanese)
᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍: 㜰⚄࣭ῐ㊰኱㟈⅏࡜௒ᚋࡢ RC ᵓ㐀タィ㸫≉ᚩⓗ⿕ᐖࡢ
ཎᅉ࡜タィ࡬ࡢᥦ᱌㸫, 1998. 10
2㸧 Architectural Institute of Japan: AIJ Standard for Structural
Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures, 2010. 2 (in Japanese)
᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍: 㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺᵓ㐀ィ⟬つ‽࣭ྠゎㄝ, 2010. 2
3㸧 Fukuyama, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Mukai, T., Suwada, H., Kato, H.,
Sakashita, M., Teshigawara M. and Kusunoki K.: Static Loading Test
on A Full Scale Five Story Reinforced Concrete Resilient Building
Utilizing Walls, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting,
Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures-IV, pp. 213-214, 2016. 8
(in Japanese)
⚟ᒣὒ, ቨ㇂⃝ᑑ୍, ྥ஭ᬛஂ, ㄶゼ⏣ᬕᙪ, ຍ⸨༤ே, ᆏୗ㞞ಙ, ສ౑
ᕝཎṇ⮧, ᴋᾈ୍: ᦆയపῶࡢࡓࡵ࡟⿇ቨ࣭⭜ቨ࣭ᆶࢀቨࢆά⏝ࡋࡓᐇ
኱ 5 ᒙ㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ㐀ᘓ⠏≀ࡢ㟼ⓗ㍕Ⲵᐇ㦂, ᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍኱఍
Ꮫ⾡ㅮ₇᱾ᴫ㞟, ᵓ㐀-IV, pp. 213-214, 2016. 8
4㸧 Architectural Institute of Japan: Survey research report on seismic
performance of educational facilities, 2017. 3 (in Japanese)
᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍: ᩥᩍ᪋タࡢ⪏㟈ᛶ⬟➼࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ◊✲㸦ᖹᡂ 28 ᖺᗘ㸧
ሗ࿌᭩, 2017. 3
5㸧 Teshigawara, M., Kusunoki, K., Suzuki, H., Maegawa, T., Uchida, T.,
Ishioka, T., Iizuka, S., Arima, Y., Hori, S., Tajiri, S., Suwada, H.:
Loading Test of Beam-Column Joint with Non-structural Wall,
Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Structures-IV, pp. 175-180, 2015. 9 (in Japanese)
ສ౑ᕝཎṇ⮧, ᴋᾈ୍, 㕥ᮌⱥஅ, ๓ᕝ฼㞝, ෆ⏣ᓫᙪ, ▼ᒸᣅ, 㣤ሯ
ಙ୍, ᭷㤿⩏ே, ᇼఙ㍜, ⏣ᑼΎኴ㑻, ㄶゼ⏣ᬕᙪ: 㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺ
㐀㠀⪏ຊቨ௜ࡁᯫᵓࡢᰕᱱ᥋ྜ㒊ࡢຍຊᐇ㦂, ᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍኱఍Ꮫ⾡
ㅮ₇᱾ᴫ㞟, ᵓ㐀-IV, pp. 175-180, 2015. 9
6㸧 National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (online):
Saigai Kyoten Kenchikubutsu no Sekkei Gaidorain (draft),
Kokusouken Shiryou, Vol. 1004, (accessed 2018. 8. 1)
ᅜᅵᢏ⾡ᨻ⟇⥲ྜ◊✲ᡤ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ: ⅏ᐖᣐⅬᘓ⠏≀ࡢタィ࢞࢖ࢻ
ࣛ࢖ࣥ㸦᱌㸧, ᅜ⥲◊㈨ᩱ➨ 1004 ྕ, 㸦ཧ↷ 2018. 8. 1㸧,
http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/bcg/siryou/tnn/tnn1004.htm
7㸧 American Concrete Institute: Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI318R-14),
2014. 2
8㸧 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) et al.:
Kenchikubutsu no Kouzou Gijyutsu Kijyun Kaisetsusho, 2008. 6 (in
Japanese)
ᅜᅵ஺㏻┬➼: 2007 ᖺᗘ∧ ᘓ⠏≀ࡢᵓ㐀㛵ಀᢏ⾡ᇶ‽ゎㄝ᭩, 2008.
6
9㸧 Architectural Institute of Japan: AIJ Standard for Lateral Load-
carrying Capacity Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures
(Draft), 2016. 4 (in Japanese)
᪥ᮏᘓ⠏Ꮫ఍: 㕲➽ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣜࢺᵓ㐀ಖ᭷Ỉᖹ⪏ຊィ⟬つ‽㸦᱌㸧࣭ྠゎ
ㄝ, 2016. 4
10㸧 Architectural Disaster Prevention Institute of Japan: Shinsai

─ 1101 ─
 EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC COLUMNS
2020-10-09T14:34:02.884林スア

WITH WING WALLS WITHOUT WALL VERTICAL REBAR ANCHORAGE

EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC COLUMNS
WITH WING WALLS WITHOUT WALL VERTICAL REBAR ANCHORAGE
Misako TSUBAKI*1, Yasushi SANADA*2, Zheng ZHANG*1,
Koichi KUSUNOKI
Misako TSUBAKI ＊1*3, ,Yasushi
Yo HIBINO *4, and
SANADA ＊2
Tomohisa
, Zheng MUKAI
ZHANG ＊1
, *5

Koichi KUSUNOKI ＊3, Yo HIBINO ＊4 and Tomohisa MUKAI ＊5

*1 Graduate Student, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University
＊1
*2 Professor, Grad. Student,
Graduate Graduate
School School of Engineering,
of Engineering, Osaka University
Osaka University, Dr. Eng.
＊2
Prof., Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Dr.Eng.
*3 Professor,
＊3 Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, Dr. Eng.
Prof., Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, Dr.Eng.
*4 Associate
＊4
Assoc. Professor, Graduate
Prof., Graduate School
School of Engineering,
of Engineering, Hiroshima
Hiroshima University,
University, Dr. Eng.
Dr.Eng.
*5＊5Senior
SeniorResearch
ResearchEngineer,
Engineer, Building
Building Research Institute, Dr. Eng.
Institute, Dr.Eng.

1. Introduction
In recent years, researches aim at developing a new structural system which uses nonstructural walls as structural
elements of RC buildings proactively have been conducted based on past experiences in earthquake disasters1-3). On the
other hand, the latest earthquakes such as the Kumamoto earthquakes in 2016 revealed that RC buildings suffered
serious damage to stiff members like columns with wing walls resulting in restoration/demolition, while they survived the
earthquakes4). Therefore, this study presents and verifies a new rebar arrangement for columns with wing walls which
omits wall vertical rebar anchorage to let the wing walls resist only compression, thus reduce damage (Fig. 1). The current
paper discusses a series of static loading experiments using three columns with/without wing walls with different
confining reinforcement arrangements.
2. Test plans
A prototype building was designed according to the following concept: 1) to satisfy the base shear coefficient of 0.55
when considering wing walls in which wall vertical rebar anchorage was omitted, and 2) to maintain that of 0.3 with high
ductility even though the wing walls fail under unexpected high seismic loads (Figs. 2-3 and Tables 1-3). Then, three 1:2
scale column specimens with/without wing walls on both sides representing the prototype building were designed:
Specimen C without wing walls, Specimen CWJ with wing walls having confining reinforcement satisfying requirements
for FA (with high ductility) based on AIJ Standard9), and Specimen CWA with wing walls having higher confining
reinforcement for earthquake-resistant design based on ACI code7) (Figs. 4-6 and Tables 4-9). Static cyclic loads were
applied to the specimens (Figs. 7-8 and Tables 10-11).
3. Test results
Compared with Specimen C without wing walls, Specimens CWJ and CWA with wing walls increased the initial
stiffness and the maximum strength (Fig. 9). On the other hand, the experimental behavior and performance were similar
between Specimens CWJ and CWA with different confining reinforcement arrangements. This resulted from no
compression failure of confined core concrete observed in both specimens, which indicated that the confining reinforcement
satisfying FA9) was sufficient for the present specimens. The structural damage to all specimens were limited: the column
suffered slight damage10) with residual crack widths less than 0.1 mm up to the loading cycle to 0.5% rad, while the wing
walls showed larger opening at the bottom because of the omission of wall vertical rebar anchorage (Figs. 10-12).
Furthermore, stress of confining reinforcement in Specimens CWJ and CWA was limited which was likely to attribute to
the omission of anchorage resulting in no tensile yielding of vertical rebar (Figs. 13-14). However, the observed equivalent
damping factors of Specimens CWJ and CWA were smaller than that commonly used for practical design under large
drifts because they showed slippage behavior in the hysteresis loops (Figs. 15-16).
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the structural performance of the columns with wing walls which omitted wall vertical rebar anchorage
was experimentally evaluated. It was found that the confining reinforcement according to FA based on AIJ standard9)
provided high ductility with the drift capacity of more than 4% rad for the present specimens. The proposed omission of
wall vertical rebar anchorage successfully limited not only damage to the specimens, but also stress of the confining
reinforcement.

（2018 年 11 月 10 日原稿受理，2019 年 4 月 22 日採用決定）

─ 1102 ─