RESEARCH ON SEISMIC RETROFIT AND REHABILITATION OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS USING FRP MATERIALS

S. HIOTAKIS1, D.T. LAU2 and N. LONDONO3
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the effectiveness of using externally
bonded carbon fibre sheets as a retrofit and repair method for concrete shear walls. The
experimental testing program, which has been carried out in two phases, is presented. The
observed behaviours of the shear wall specimens are discussed. The test specimens include control
walls, repaired walls, and strengthened walls. In the first phase, torsional behaviour of the walls is
found to have significant influences on the wall performance. These observations from the first
phase of the study have been used to improve the instrumentation and test set-up in the second phase.
The study shows that the repair and retrofit method using carbon fibre sheets is effective in
recovering the initial elastic stiffness of previously damaged wall specimens and in increasing the
yield load and ultimate load carrying capacities of both repaired and retrofitted wall specimens.
Keywords: composite materials, concrete structures, construction technology, earthquakes,
material and disaster prevention, repair and strengthening.
INTRODUCTION
In earthquake resistant design, shear walls are common lateral load resistance systems found in many reinforced
concrete structures. Since the 1950s, shear walls have been accepted as effective alternatives to moment
resistant frames as the main earthquake resistance mechanism in seismic design of concrete structures.
Recently in Canada, the development of efficient methods for retrofitting existing deteriorated concrete
structures is motivated by the need of extending the service of the large stock of aging concrete infrastructures,
many of which have been designed decades ago using now obsolete and inadequate seismic design standards and
practices. Earthquake experiences from around the world have shown that large earthquakes near urban centres
can cause extensive structural damage. Therefore, in addition to retrofit methods, practical and effective repair
techniques for earthquake damaged concrete structures are also needed. Many of the older shear wall buildings
in Canada are at risk of suffering severe damage, or even collapse, during large earthquakes because of
insufficient in-plane stiffness, flexural and shear strengths and/or ductility. The inadequacy in the lateral load
resistance of these shear walls can often be attributed to the fact that seismic design provisions in older building
codes did not properly account for the demands imposed on the shear wall structures by major earthquakes. As
many of the existing buildings approach the end of their service life, the deterioration of the structural elements
further exacerbates the problem.
Many different methods of seismic strengthening and repair of shear wall structures have been developed and
tested in the last thirty years. These techniques include the strengthening of existing shear walls by the
application of shotcrete or ferrocement, filling in openings with reinforced concrete and masonry infills, and the
addition of new shear walls and steel bracing elements (FEMA, 1992). Research studies have shown that the
method of concrete jacketing of a damaged shear wall can restore the gravity load carrying capacity of the wall,
but is not as effective when the objective is to restore the lateral stiffness of the structure. For strengthening, an
upgrade method is the addition of steel bracings to the shear walls. Although this method is effective in
recovering and enhancing the lateral stiffness of damaged and undamaged shear walls, respectively, it is
architecturally unappealing since it changes the exterior and/or interior layout of the structure, resulting in a
1
2
3

Graduate student, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, email: shiotakis@ccs.carleton.ca.
Professor, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, email: dtl@ccs.carleton.ca.
Ph.D. candidate, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, email:nlondono@ccs.carleton.ca.

17

significant reduction of the buildings usable space. It may also add significant weight to the structure and thus
alter the magnitude and distribution of the seismic loads. Also, the existing techniques are generally very
labour intensive and disruptive to the operation of the facilities during the construction period, which often
means the complete shutdown of the facilities and relocation of the occupants.
Recently, applications of composite materials have been introduced as effective alternatives to conventional
techniques for retrofit and repair of reinforced concrete structures. Presently, these advanced composite
materials are more often used in the retrofit and repair of columns and beams (Saadatmanesh et al., 1994).
Information on the use of advanced composite materials for shear wall repair and retrofit are lacking. The
advantages of composite materials compared to traditional strengthening materials are the high strength to
weight ratio, excellent corrosion resistance, and ease of handling (Meier et al., 1992).
The research reported herein is a continuing experimental research program that is being carried out at Carleton
University on the feasibility and effectiveness of the use of composite materials for strengthening and repair of
reinforced concrete shear walls. The composite materials used in this study are unidirectional carbon fibre
reinforcement polymer sheets, externally bonded on the surface of the wall with an epoxy resin matrix. The
experimental testing programs have been carried out in two phases. Detailed description of the experimental set
up for both phases are given below. The observations and results from the first phase are used to improve the
test set-up and test procedures in the second phase. Comparisons are made of the test results from the two phases.
CARBON FIBRE REINFORCEMENT POLYMER SHEETS
The carbon fibre reinforcement polymer (CFRP) sheets used as reinforcement in the experimental study are high
strength unidirectional continuous carbon fibre tow sheets. The CFRP sheets are bonded externally on the face
of the shear wall by an epoxy matrix. In the first phase of the study, carbon fibre sheets have an elastic tensile
modulus of 230 GPA, a tensile strength of 3,480 MPa, and an ultimate strain of 1.5%. The carbon fibre
material behaves linearly elastically until failure. In phase two, similar carbon fibre sheets are used except that
the tensile strength is 4,800 MPa, and the ultimate strain is 1.7%.
In the repair and retrofit method using CFRP sheets, the flexural strength of a shear wall is increased by applying
the CFRP sheets with the fibres oriented in the vertical direction. Essentially, the added CFRP sheets contribute
to the flexural strength of the wall in similar mechanisms as the vertical steel reinforcements. For enhancement
to the shear strength of a shear wall, the CFRP sheets are bonded externally to the wall with the fibres oriented in
the horizontal direction. In order for the vertical CFRP sheets to be effective in contributing to the flexural
strengthening of the wall, the CFRP sheets are anchored at the wall base through a load transfer mechanism to
transfer the load carried by the CFRP sheets to the support of the specimen. The anchor system used in the first
phase of the experimental study consists of a structural steel angle bolted to the support of the specimen. An
improved anchor system is used in the second phase study.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The specimens tested during phase one of the experimental study are reinforced concrete shear walls constructed
with 40 MPa concrete and 400 MPa yield strength steel reinforcement. The wall specimens are 1500mm wide,
100mm thick, and the distance between the construction joint of the wall at the footing to the point of load
application is 2000mm. The flexural reinforcement consists of six pairs of 10M reinforcing bars spaced at
280mm, providing a reinforcement ratio of 0.8%. The shear steel reinforcement consists of five pairs of 10M
re-bars spaced at 400mm for a reinforcement ratio of 0.5%. Details of the steel reinforcement of the specimen are
shown in Figure 1. The wall specimens are tested to failure in the in-plane direction subjected to a predetermined
increasing quasi-static cyclic load pattern. The load is transferred to the wall through a horizontal cap beam by
a hydraulic actuator supported by a reaction frame. The four shear wall specimens of the first phase study include
a control wall, a repair wall, and two strengthened walls. The testing of the control wall provides base
reference information for the investigation of the effectiveness of the strengthening and repair method using
CFRP sheets. The control wall was loaded beyond the maximum resistance of the wall. The test stopped
when approximately a 10% drop of its resistance from the peak was observed. The repaired wall test results were
obtained from testing of the damaged control wall after repair by applying CFRP sheets. The first strengthened
wall (wall No.1) was strengthened with one vertical ply of carbon fibre sheets. The second strengthened wall
(wall No.2) was strengthened with two vertical plies of carbon fibres and one in the horizontal direction. The
carbon fibre sheets were applied on the wall surface with epoxy. No load was applied to the strengthened
18

specimens prior to testing. After a 14-day curing period of the epoxy, the specimens were tested to failure.
EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS
Observations from Phase 1 Study
Control Wall
The behaviour of the control wall as described by the load versus top horizontal displacement curve is presented
in Figure 3. The first tensile cracks in the concrete were observed at an average measured load of +/-55 kN.
The cracks were horizontal and formed at the edges of the wall near the base. Yielding of the extreme tensile
steel reinforcement was observed at an average measured load of 122 kN and an average displacement of 3.7 mm.
The wall reached its maximum resistance at 178 kN. A final load cycle was then applied to a displacement of
18 mm, resulting in a drop of approximately 10% in the peak resistance. At that point, the test was stopped as
this specimen had to be maintained at a repairable state for use as a repaired wall specimen.
Repaired Wall
The damaged control wall was repaired by applying one layer of vertical carbon fibre to each face of the wall
and was subsequently tested again to failure. The behaviour of this specimen as described by the load versus
top horizontal displacement curve is presented in Figure 4. Yielding of the extreme tensile reinforcement was
measured at an average load of 158 kN, corresponding to an average displacement of 5.4 mm. The repair by
the CFRP sheets recovered 90% of the original elastic stiffness and increased the yield load by 29%. The
average maximum resistance of the repaired wall reached a load of 320.7 kN. The reinforcement method
resulted in an increase of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the repaired wall compared to the control wall by
80%. The failure mode was observed to be ductile flexural failure.
Strengthened Wall No. 1
The first retrofit specimen was strengthened by the application of one vertical layer of carbon sheets on each side
of the wall. The behaviour of the wall as described by the load versus top horizontal displacement curve is
presented in Figure 5. The first flexural cracks on the tensile side of the concrete specimen were observed at an
average measured load of 100 kN. This corresponded to 62% of the yield load, indicating that the application
of the carbon fibre sheets resulted in an 82% increase in the cracking strength of the wall. The cracks were
again horizontal, appearing near the wall base. From the load-deflection curve, it was determined that yielding
of the extreme layer of flexural steel reinforcement (vertical) occurred at an average measured load of 153 kN,
with an average displacement of 1.6 mm. Compared to the control wall, the application of the fibre reinforced
polymer sheets to strengthened wall No. 1 resulted in a 25% increase in its yield strength. Furthermore, the
carbon fibre sheets contributed to an increase in the secant stiffness of the wall at yield by 190%.
The average maximum resistance of the strengthened wall reached a load of 258 kN. The retrofit resulted in an
increase of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the strengthened wall compared to the control wall by 46%.
The failure mode was observed to be ductile flexural failure. The failure of the strengthened wall No.1
occurred as compression failure of the toe and simultaneous fracturing of one of the extreme flexural reinforcing
bars. During the test, the expansion anchor bolts of the anchoring system occurred slipped. This resulted in the
reduction of the ultimate load carrying capacity of the wall specimen, which when compared to the repaired wall,
exhibited a 20% decrease in the load carrying capacity.
Strengthened Wall No. 2
The second retrofit specimen was strengthened by the application of two vertical layers of carbon sheets and one
horizontal layer on each side of the wall. The behaviour of the wall as described by the load versus top
horizontal displacement curve is presented in Figure 6. The first flexural cracks on the tensile side of the
concrete specimen were observed at an average measured load of 102 kN. This corresponded to approximately
50% of the yield load. Comparing the results of the two strengthened walls, it was observed that the effect of
the additional carbon fibre sheets (one vertical and one horizontal) had little significance on the cracking strength
of the wall. The cracking pattern observed was similar to the pattern observed for strengthened wall No. 1.
Yielding was observed at an average measured load of +/-201 kN, corresponding to an average displacement of
2.4 mm. As compared to the control wall, the results obtained corresponded to a 39% increase in the yield
strength and a 54% increase in the stiffness.
The average maximum resistance of strengthened wall No. 2 reached a load of 413 kN. The strengthening
upgrade resulted in an increase of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the strengthened wall compared to the
19

control wall by 132%. The failure mode was ductile up to the point where rupture of the carbon fibre sheets
occurred, at which time there was an abrupt drop in the load carrying capacity of the wall by approximately 60%,
compared to an average of 27% loss when rupture of the vertical re-bars occurred. The failure was attributed to
flexural failure.
Observations from Phase 2 Study
During the first phase of the experiments, it was observed that the specimens exhibited significant out-of-plane
torsional deformations. This was due to the lack of sufficient lateral restraint of the shear wall specimens.
During testing, any minor eccentricity originally attributable to the construction of the specimen led to torsional
out-of-plane behaviour of the specimen. Observations from the tests conducted in Phase 1 of the study indicate
that the torsional effect has a significant impact on the behaviour and performance of the shear walls. To alleviate
this problem, a new test set-up and instrumentation scheme were designed for the new series of tests in phase 2
of the study. The new test set-up included the design of a lateral restraint mechanism to prevent out-of-plane
deformations of the wall during the load tests.
Another modification implemented in the Phase 2 tests was that strain gauges on the steel rebars were relocated
and better protected from damage during the pouring of the concrete. Rosette strain gauges were also installed on
the surface of the walls (Figure 2) to measure the shear strain of the wall specimens. The locations of
displacement measurements by potentiometers are shown in Figure 2. Two diagonal potentiometers were used
to measure the average shear deformations of the wall panel. The dimensions of the specimens tested in Phase 2
of the study were the same as those in Phase 1. The test results from this second series of tests are presented as
follows.
Control Wall
The behaviour of the control wall as described by the load versus top horizontal displacement curve is presented
in Figure 7. The first tensile cracks in the concrete were observed at an average measure load of +/-82.5 kN.
The cracks were horizontal and formed at the edges of the wall near the base similar to the behaviour observed in
Phase 1 of the research program. Yielding of the extreme tensile steel reinforcement was observed at an average
measured load of 140 kN and an average displacement of 4.67 mm. The wall reached its maximum resistance
at 194 kN. The test was continued until a drop of approximately 20% of the maximum resistance was reached
and then stopped for repair and testing again as a repaired wall.
Repaired Wall
The control wall tested above was repaired by first repairing the damaged concrete with epoxy grout.
Following, one layer of vertical carbon fibre sheet was applied to each face of the wall. The repaired specimen
was subsequently re-tested to failure. The load versus top horizontal displacement curve of the repaired wall
specimen is presented in Figure 8. Yielding of the extreme tensile reinforcement was measured at an average
load of 168 kN, corresponding to an average displacement of 3.25 mm. The CFRP repair recovered 88% of the
original elastic stiffness and increased the yield load by 22%. The average maximum resistance of the repaired
wall reached a load of 280 kN. The repair by FRP sheets resulted in an increase of the load-carrying capacity
compared to that of the control wall by 44%. The failure mode was ductile flexural failure. Figure 8 shows
that the repaired wall specimen attained a displacement ductility of about 12 while maintaining approximately
35% of the peak lateral load resistance at ultimate failure. It is also noted that the energy dissipation capacity of
the wall was greatly depleted towards the end of the loading sequence just before failure.
Strengthened Wall No. 1
The first strengthened wall was upgraded by the application of one vertical layer of carbon sheet on each side of
the wall. The load versus top horizontal displacement curve of this wall specimen is presented in Figure 9.
The first flexural cracks on the tensile side of the concrete specimen were observed at an average measured load
of 120 kN. This corresponded to 72% of the yield load, slightly lower than the result obtained in Phase 1 of the
research program, but still represented a 45% increase in the cracking strength of the wall. Similar crack patterns
as in Phase 1 of the study were observed. The average measured yield load was determined to be 166 kN at the
yield displacement of 3.9 mm. Compared to the control wall, the application of the fibre reinforced polymer
sheets resulted in a 19% increase in its yield strength, which is slightly less than the increase observed in Phase 1
of the study. The increase in the secant stiffness of the wall at yield as a result of the CFRP strengthening was
213%.
The average maximum lateral load capacity of the strengthened wall No. 1 was 293.5 kN, which was a 49.8%
20

increase from the control wall. A similar failure mode was observed as in Phase 1 of the study. The wall
specimen reached a displacement ductility of about 15 while still retained 30% of the peak load resistance at
ultimate failure.
Strengthened Wall No. 2
The application of two vertical layers of CFRP sheets instead of one on each side of the wall further enhanced
the flexural capacity of the wall. The load versus top horizontal displacement curve for this specimen is shown
in Figure 10. The application of double the amount of CFRP sheets, as compared to the previous strengthened
wall specimen, did not significantly increase the crack load of the wall. This is because the amount of the CFRP
reinforcement material was relatively small compared to the total area of concrete and steel reinforcement.
Before the cracking of concrete and yielding of the vertical steel reinforcements, the contribution of the CFRP
sheets in the flexural resistance of the wall was relatively small. The flexural resistance from CFRP sheets
greatly increased after the yielding and subsequent fracture of the vertical steel reinforcements and crushing of
concrete.
The first flexural cracks on the tensile side of the concrete specimen were observed at an average measured load
of 128 kN. This corresponded to approximately 52% of the yield load. Yielding was observed at an average
measured load of +/-250 kN, corresponding to an average displacement of 5.5 mm. As compared to the control
wall, the results obtained corresponded to a 64% increase in the yield strength and a 57% increase in the
stiffness.
The average maximum resistance of this strengthened wall reached a load of 417 kN, a 109% increase from the
control wall. The failure mode was ductile up to the point where sudden debonding of the CFRP sheets from
the concrete surface occurred, followed by rupturing of the CFRP reinforcements. There was an abrupt loss of
load carrying capacity of approximately 61%. Figure 10 shows the reduced number of cycles in the hysteretic
behaviour of the wall specimen as a result of the sudden debonding failure of the CFRP sheets.
Strengthened Wall No. 3
Strengthened Wall No. 3 had 3 vertical layers of CFRP sheets and one horizontal layer on each side of the wall.
The load versus top horizontal displacement curve is presented in Figure 11. The first flexural cracks on the
tensile side of the concrete specimen were observed at an average measured load of 146 kN. This corresponded
to approximately 57% of the yield load. The cracking pattern observed was similar to the pattern observed for
strengthened walls No. 1 and 2. Yielding was observed at an average measured load of +/-253 kN,
corresponding to an average displacement of 3.5 mm. As compared to the control wall, the results obtained
corresponded to a 55% increase in the yield strength and a 148% increase in the stiffness. The average
maximum lateral load resistance was increased to 494 kN, a 160% increase from the control wall. At ultimate,
the concrete at the base of the wall was completely crushed. No rupture of CFRP sheets was observed except at
the last loading cycle in the test, when the top displacement was more than 60 mm at a ductility level of 17.
CONCLUSIONS
A total of 9 shear wall specimens have been tested in an experimental research. The test results conclude that
the application of externally bonded carbon fibre sheets is an effective seismic strengthening and repair
procedure for reinforced concrete shear walls. The carbon fibre repair system can be used to recover the initial
elastic stiffness and to increase the yield load and ultimate flexural capacity of seismically damaged walls. In
strengthening applications, the carbon fibre sheets can be used to increase the pre-cracked stiffness, the secant
stiffness at yield and the cracking load, the yield load and the ultimate flexural capacity of undamaged walls.
The anchoring system (load transfer mechanism) for the vertical carbon fibre sheets is an important element of
the carbon fibre strengthening system and additional study and design effort is required.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding supports by NSERC for both phases of the study, and by PWGSC for Phase 1 of the research program,
are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to acknowledge the technical assistance and CFRP
material supplies provided by Dr. Andrew Lam and Mr. Y.C Tiong of Brighten Engineering Co. Ltd for Phase 2
of the study. Assistance was also provided by Mr. Vietanh Phung during Phase 2 of the laboratory tests.

21

REFERENCES
FEMA (1992) NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic
Safety Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
Heffernan, P.J. and Erki, M.A. (1996) Equivalent Capacity and Efficiency of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Strengthened with Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic Sheets, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 23:
21-29.
Lombard, J. (1999) Seismic Strengthening and Repair of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls using Externally
Bonded Carbon Fibre Tow Sheets, Masters Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Meier, U., Deuring, M., Meier, H, and Schwengler, G. (1992) Strengthening of Structures with CFRP Laminates:
Research and Applications in Switzerland, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced
Composite Material in Bridges and Structures, Sherbrooke, Quebec, pp243-251.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R., and Li, M.W. (1994) Strength and Ductility of Concrete Columns Externally
Reinforced with Fiber Composite Straps, ACI Structural Journal, ACI, 91 No 4, pp434-447.

10M Rebar

Reinforcement details of the

shear wall

End view of the reinforcement details

Figure 1. Reinforcement Details of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Specimens. Dimensions in [m].

22

Figure 2. Instrumentation Details of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Specimens

23

-300

-200

-100

100

200

Load kN

-60

-40

-20

Figure 8. Load-deflection curve of repaired wall

24

Deflection mm

20

40

60

80

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

50

100

150

200

250

Load kN

300

Load vs. Top Horizontal Deflection

Figure 7. Load-deflection curve of control wall

-30

-20

-10

Deflection mm

10

Load vs Top Horizontal Deflection

20

30

40

80
60
40
0
-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

-80

-60

-40

-20

Deflection mm

20

Load vs. Top Horizontal Deflection (1V)

Load kN

Deflection mm

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

Load kN

500

-80

-60

-40

-20

Load vs. Top Horizontal Deflection

20

40

60

Figure 9. Load-deflection curve of strengthened wall #1

Figure 10. Load-deflection curve of strengthened wall # 2

Load vs.Top Horizontal Deflection
600

400

Loa d kN

200

-200

-400

-600
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

Deflection mm

Figure 11. Load-deflection curve of strengthened wall # 3

25

26