TAIYICI YIMA DUVARLARIN FRP LE GLENDRLMES

FRP NEDR?

Karbon, cam ya da aramid lifleriyle glendirilmi malzemeleri temel alarak retilen bir yap malzemesidir.

FRP ETLER
Aramid Fiberler:Deiik slarda bile dayanmnn %80ini muhafaza edebilmektedirler. -200 0C ile +200 0C arsnda kullanlabilmektedir.

Karbon Fiberler:Yksek mukavemet ve rijitlie sahiptir. Dk birim boy uzamasna ve darbe direncine sahiptir.

Glass(cam) Fiberler:Elastisite modl dktr. Yksek mukavemetlidir. Srekli ve tekrarl yklere kar

dayanm nispeten dktr.

FRP kompozit malzemeler tek ynl plakalar,kumalar,ubuklar ve ift ynl rtler olarak retilebilmektedir.

Kompozit glendirme sistemi betonarme elemanlara dtan uygulanan bir glendirme sistemidir. Harici yaptrmal kompozit sistemler , yap elemanlarnn yk tama kapasitesini ve eilme dayanmn artrr.Ykler epoksi reine yaptrcs vastasyla kompozite aktarlr,bylelikle niform bir yk aktarm salanr.

NAAT SEKTRNDE FRP KULLANIMININ AVANTAJLARI

Tasarsm kolayl Farkl fiziksel deerler iin farkl kompozit malzeme kullanma imkan Anti koroziflerdir. Yaplarda kullanm altnda uygulama imkan Uygulama ve kullanm kolayl Maliyeti yksek makine ve ekipman gerekmez. Her eit yap eleman glendirilmesinde kullanlr. Bakm gerektirmez. Kullanlan btn bileenlerin nceden kalite kontrol yaplmtr.

FRP SSTEMNN YAPIYA FAYDALARI

Yk tama kapasitesini artrr. Eilme dayanmn artrr. Durabiliteyi gelitirir. Dinamik ykten gelen malzeme yorulmas direncini glendirir. Sehimi azaltr. l yk arttrmaz, elemann geometrisini deitirmez. Esnektir, eitli formlara adapte edilebilir.

CFRP PLAKALAR

Karbon fiber ve epoksi matriksinden oluan plakalar, kolon, kiri, deme ve duvarlarn tama kapasitelerini arttrmak iin harici takviye donatsdr.Bu plakalar yap elemanlarnn ekme blgelerine yksek mukavametli epoksi reine ile yaptrlr.

UYGULAMA
FRP plakalarn yaptrlmasndan nce yzey hazrlnn doru yaplmas ok nemlidir. Beton yzeyi; letans,ya,kir,zayf ksmlar,sva ve boyalardan kumlama veya talama gibi mekanik yntemlerden biri kullanlarak temizlenmelidir.Beton yzeyin minumum ekme dayanm 1.5 N/mm2 olmaldr.Yzey profili dzgn olmal, kot fark 2 metre de 5 mm yi gememelidir.

Uygulama aamalar: stenilen uzunlukta hafif kolay tanabilir rulolarda paketlenen plakalar uygulama yerinde istenilen uzunlukta firesiz kesilir.

Epoksi reine plakaya ve uygulanacak elemana 2 mm kalnlkta srlr.

Plakalar uygun pozisyonda tutularak yaptrlr.

Yaptrldktan sonra zerine rulo gezdirilerek sabitlenir.

FRP KUMALAR
FRP kumalar tek ynl veya iki ynl %100 karbon liflerden oluur.

Kolonlarda : Kesme,kayma,eilme dayanmn ve darbe direncini arttrr,uzun sreli yk tama zelliini pekitirir. Kirilerde : Eilme ve kesme dayanmn arttrr. Duvarlarda : Darbe direncini arttrr,patlamalara kar koruma salar.

Temiz bir yzey zerinde CFRP kumaa yaptrc emdiriliyor.

CFRP kuman hazrlanmas

UYGULAMA
FRP kumalarn yaptrlmasndan nce yzey hazrlnn doru yaplmas ok nemlidir. Beton yzeyi; letans,ya,kir,zayf ksmlar,sva ve boyalardan kumlama veya talama gibi mekanik yntemlerden biri kullanlarak temizlenmelidir.Beton yzeyin minumum ekme dayanm 1.5 N/mm2 olmaldr.Keli kesitler en az 10 mm apnda yuvarlatlmaldr. Yzey bozukluklar epoki puty ile dzeltilir. Uygun ekilde hazrlanm yzeye epoksi srlr FRP gerilerek yaptrlr, rolu gezdirilerek sabitlenir ve epoksi ile iyice doyurulur. FRP kuman zerine son kat epoksi uygulanr Koruyucu kaplama yaplacaksa kum serpilir ve daha sonra sva veya baka bir uygulama ile ilem tamamlanr.

DZAYN KRTERLER

Yaptrlacak yzeyin ekme mukavameti min.1,5 N/mm2 olmaldr. Uygulama yaplacak yzeydeki min. Paspay 10 mm olmaldr. Glendirme faktr 2 olmaldr. Yzey profili dzgn olmal kot fark 2 metrede 10 mm yi gememelidir. Maksimum kat says plakalar iin 3, kumalar iin 5 olmaldr. Karbon plaka ile beton arasndaki epoksi kalnl sktrmadan sonra min.1,5 mm olmaldr. Kiri uygulamalarnda karbon plakalar arasndaki aklk min.(0,2L , 5h) olmaldr. Karbon kuma uygulamasnda keler min.10-15 mm apnda yuvarlatlmaldr. Kolon sarglamada bindirme boyu min.200 mm olmaldr. Kolon sarglamada kat says min. 2 olmaldr.

TAIYICI YIMA DUVARLARIN FRP LE GLENDRLMES

Fiber takviyeli polimer (FRP) kompozitlerinin yma yaplarn glendirilmesinde kullanm son zamanlarda hzla artmaktadr. Bu kompozit malzemeler karbon, cam, aramid fiberleriyle takviye edilmi reine karmndan oluurlar. Fiberler yk tayan elemanlardr, reine karm fiberlerin arasna ykn dalmas salar ve ayrca fiberleri evresel etkenlerden korur. Gnmzde; zellikle mhendislik uygulamalarnda bu trde kompozit malzemeler avantajlarndan tr kullanlmaktadr. Dk oranlarna ramen yksek dayanm gstermeleri, yorulmaya kar olan direnleri, karmak ekillerde uygulanabilirlii gibi avantajlar vardr .

FRP malzemesini uygulamak ok kolaydr, nk sadece yapnn yzeyine yaptrlmalaryla uygulama tamamlanr. Sakncal ynleri de vardr halen aratrmakla birlikte: yksek elastisite modl, snmede ve yorulmada yetersiz davran olarak saylabilir.

Levha ve dokuma eklinde retilen FRPler duvar yzeyine epoksi esasl yaptrcyla uygulanr. Epoksi esasl yaptrc srlmeden nce astar malzemesi duvar yzeyine uygulanr. Bylece epoksi, FRP ve duvar yzeyi ile olan aderans arttrlm olur. Yzey hazrl nemli aamalardan biridir. Bina sistemi ierisinde deprem srasnda davran incelenerek, sistemin eitli yerlerine FRPler uygulanr. ekme ve eilme mukavemetlerini alacak ekilde FRPler yerletirilmelidir. Levha FRPler 5 ve 10cm geniliinde plakalardr, dokumalar tek ynde kuvvetli 50 cm geniliinde malzemelerdir. Bina iinde boyutlandrlmas bu esaslara gre belirlenmelidir.

FRP (Fiber Takviyeli Polimerler) isimli kompozitler ile glendirme lkemizde de yaygnlamaktadr. Daha ok karbon fiber (karbon lifi) adyla tannan bu malzemeler hafif, yksek mukavemetli, liflerin dizilim ynleri deitirilerek mukavemeti ayarlanabilen, beton ve eliin giremeyecei yerlere girebilen, ince, uygulamas hzl ve pratik, korozyona dayankl, uzun mrl yeni nesil malzemelerdir. Yap kullanm durumundayken de evreye zarar vermeden uygulamas yaplabilir. Uyguland kesitin formuna olumsuz bir etkisi olmaz. Ancak bu malzemelerin retim yntemlerinin zorluundan dolay maliyetleri yksektir. Uygulama uzman kiilerin denetiminde ve uzman ustalar ile yaplmaldr.

FRP uygulanarak glendirilen duvarn yzeyine daha sonra sva, boya gibi uygulamalar yaplabilir. FRP uygulamasndan 7 gn sonra tam mukavemetine ulaacaktr. 7 gnlk zamanda FRP yzey dik gelen UV dalgalarndan korunmaldr. Bu srete FRP yzeyine uygulama yaplmamaldr.

Aseismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry walls using FRP Mohamed A. ElGawady*, Pierino Lestuzzi, Marc Badoux Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne EPFL, Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne (EPFL-ENACIS-IMAC), Lausanne 1015, Switzerlan Received 8 September 2004; accepted 20 June 2005 Available online 15 September 2005 Abstract Many of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are seismically vulnerable and require retrofitting. This paper investigates in-plane seismic behaviour of URM walls before and after retrofitting using fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). Dynamic in-plane tests were carried out on five half-scale specimens with two different effective moment/shear ratios namely 0.7 and 1.4. The specimens were retrofitted on a single side using different types and structures of FRPs.

. The test specimens were subjected to a series of synthetic earthquake motions on a uni-axial earthquake simulator. The retrofitting technique improved the lateral strength and stiffness of the URM walls. Moreover, the fundamental frequency and the initial stiffness of each specimen remained approximately constant before and after retrofitting. During the test, the slender specimens failed in flexural. For specimens failed in flexural, the measured FRP axial strains showed that the strain distributions along the specimens cross-sections are approximately linear even at failure. Hence, the flexural strengths of the specimens were calculated using linear elastic approach.

The measured lateral resistances of slender specimens are approximately 130% of the calculated flexural strength. This difference attributed to the difference in the nominal ultimate strains of FRPs and the real values at failure. The measured axial strains in FRPs during this test were approximately 50% of its nominal values. In addition, the shear strengths of the squat specimens were calculated using two different models. The calculated shear strengths approximately range from 99 to 177% of the measured lateral resistances.

1. Introduction Existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings constitute a significant portion of existing buildings around the world. Recent earthquakes have repeatedly shown the vulnerability of URM buildings. Moreover, based on modern design codes most of the existing URM buildings need to be retrofitted. For example, in Switzerland, a recent research [1] carried out on a target area in Basel shows that from 45 to 80% of the existing URM buildings, based on construction details, will experience heavy damage or destruction during a moderate earthquake event. This brought to light the urgent need to improve and develop better methods of retrofitting for existing seismically inadequate. The main structural elements that resist earthquakes in these buildings are the old URM walls URM buildings.

Several conventional techniques are available to improve seismic performance of existing URM walls. Surface treatments (ferrocement, shotcrete, etc.), grout injections, external reinforcement, and center core are examples of such conventional techniques. Several researchers (e.g. [2]) have discussed the disadvantages of these techniques: available space reduction, architecture impact, adding heavy mass, corrosion potential, etc. Modern composite materials offer promising retrofitting possibilities for masonry buildings and present several well-known advantages over existing conventional techniques. A recent literature review for using of composites for retrofitting of URM walls have been presented in [3]. This paper presents a pioneer dynamic in-plane tests carried out on half-scale single leaf unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted with composites (URM-WRC). The objective of this study was to compare the seismic behavior of URM walls before and after retrofitting with composites. Another objective was to examine the ability of existing simple analytical models to predict the lateral strength of URM-WRC.

2. Experimental program 2.1. Test specimens The test specimens had two aspect ratios (Fig. 1): slender walls and squat walls; also, two mortar types were used: weak (M2.5) and strong (M9). In addition, different types of FRP (Table 1) and retrofitting configuration (Figs. 2 and 3) were used to retrofit the specimens. Anchorage failure of the FRP was prevented by clamping the FRP ends to specimens footing and cap beam using steel plates and screw bolts (since anchorage problem is out of the scope of this research). Both the cap beam and footing pad were pre-cast reinforced concrete. The test walls were tested twice: first, the URM specimens were tested, as reference specimens, till a predefined degree of damage; secondly, these reference specimens were retrofitted using composites and retested.

The focus of this paper is on the comparisons between the retrofitted and URM specimens. More details about the behavior of the URM specimens are presented in [4]. The specimens were retrofitted on a single side only. This way of retrofitting was successfully used in different research programs for retrofitting of URM walls using composite material (e.g. [5]). Each specimen is designated by a name that reflects their characteristics; Tables 2 and 3 explain the specimens names and give a complete list of the tested specimens. For instance, L1 WRAP-G-X means a slender specimen (L) which was constructed using mortar type (1) and was retrofitted with fabric (WRAP) of glass (G) fiber in a diagonal (X) configuration. Also, Figs. 2 and 3 show summary of the tests that were carried out on the specimens.

It should be noted that specimen L1-LAMI-C-I where a virgin URM specimen was upgraded with two vertical plates of CFRP was designed to study the shear resistance of slender URM walls rather to investigate the effect of using vertical plates as retrofitting of existing URM walls. Since, in this specimen and in order to force a shear failure, the flexural strength of the specimen was increased with minimal increment in its shear strength. As such, this specimen herein after is considered as a reference specimen. More discussion about this specimen is published in [6]. Finally, after testing of L1-LAMI-C-I and S1-LAMIC- X the CFRP plates were taken off using hammer and chisel. These specimens were retrofitted, one more time, using glass fiber and retested again as L1-WRAP-G-X and S1WRAP-G-F, respectively.

2.2. Test set-up The walls are tested on the uni-axial earthquake simulator of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). A test specimen is fixed on a shaking table measuring 2 m by 1 m. It has a maximum displacement of G100 mm and is driven by a 100 kN servo-hydraulic actuator (Fig. 4). The specimen is connected at its top to a 12-ton substitute mass placed on bearing wheels with a low coefficient of friction in the order of 0.5%. This 12ton mass represents approximately the mass of approximately 55 m2 of a floor due to 200 mm thick reinforced concrete slab, flooring, and live load. At its top, the specimen is guided with a low friction set-up to ensure that out-of-plane displacements are limited. More details about the test set-up are available in [4].

2.3. Loading system A test specimen was constructed on a pre-cast reinforced concrete footing. After allowing the specimen to cure (from 3 to 7 days), the pre-cast reinforced concrete cap beam was fixed to the top of the specimen using strong mortar (M20). Superimposed gravity load of approximately 30 kN was simulated using two external post-tensioning bars. This was in addition to 12 kN of self-weight from steel elements at wall top (due to the test set-up), reinforced concrete cap beam, and masonry panel weight. This normal force corresponded to a stress of 0.35 MPa. During testing of specimens L1-REFE, L1-WRAP-G-F and L1-WRAP G-X and due to increase of the wall height as result of opening of flexural cracks the post tensioning force increased many times; in the next specimens two railcar springs were used with the post-tensioning bars.

. These springs prevent to a certain extend the increment in the post-tensioning force. 2.4. Dynamic excitations The displacement inputs were based on synthetic acceleration time-histories compatiblewith Eurocode 8 [7] for rock soil Type A and with a peak ground acceleration of 1.6 m/s2 (Fig. 5). The specimens were subjected to acceleration histories of increasing intensity until failure occurred. The tests started by subjected the specimens to an earthquake with acceleration of 10% of the reference earthquake acceleration followed by an increment in the acceleration of usually 10% of the reference earthquake acceleration. For space limitations in this paper, the detailed test runs are not presented and interested reader is referred to [4].

3. Experimental results In this section, the experimental results of the test specimens are discussed in terms of lateral strength, drift, maximum strain in composites, and specimen asymmetry. Detailed results regarding URM specimens (i.e. specimens without composites) are available in [4]. It should be noted that effects of mortar on specimens behavior were examined during testing the reference specimens; the effects were very limited.

3.1. Lateral strength and mode of failure All the composite materials increased the lateral strength by a factor ranging from 1.3 to 2.9. Different failure modes happened during the test; Fig. 6 shows the test specimens at the test end. For slender specimens, the full-face retrofitted specimens (L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F) developed and under a constant normal force of 57 kN, the retrofitting increased the lateral strength by a factor of 2.6 for fabric and 2.9 for grid. A superposition of the hysteresis loops of reference slender specimens (L1-REFE and L2-REFE) and the corresponding retrofitted specimens (L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F) is presented in Fig. 8. For L1-WRAP-G-F and at the test end, the normal force tripled (due to increments of wall height as a result of opening of flexural cracks and due to the absence of the railcar springs); this increment in the normal force had insignificant effect on the specimen lateral strength.

Nevertheless, the lateral strength of the reference specimen (L1-REFE) approximately tripled when the normal force tripled.As a consequence, the enhancement in the lateral strength in case of high normal force reduced to 1.9 times the original lateral strength. For squat specimens, the lateral strengths of the full-face strengthened specimens (S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-GF) were higher than the capacity of the shaking table hydraulic jack. At the tests end, there were no significant signs of failure; in addition, the retrofitting increased the lateral resistance of the specimens by a factor of 2.6. A superposition of the hysteresis loops of reference squat specimens (S1-REFE and S2-REFE) and the corresponding retrofitted specimens (S1-WRAPG-F and S2-WRAP-A-F) is presented in Fig. 9.

Specimens (L1 WRAP-G-X and S1-LAMI-C-X) that retrofitted with diagonal shape (X) were less successful. The behaviors of both specimens were affected by the previous tests, which was carried out on the specimens before retrofitting: before retrofitting, L1-WRAP-G-X was tested as L1 LAMI-C-I while S1-LAMI-C-X was tested as S1- REFE. These testes developed several cracks in both specimens. So, the retrofitting could be considered as retrofitting of URM wall that have been severely damaged during a recent real earthquake event. For L1WRAP-G-X and at failure, the FRP failed at the specimen mid-height due to shear and flexural cracks, which had developed first a rockingmode withmasonry crushing at toes and fiber rupture at heals (Fig. 7); see the video in Appendix A in the online version of this paper.

. For the reference specimens a rocking mode of failure was observed. However, in case of retrofitted specimens the failure happened at level corresponding to the first brick course and this was not always the case for the reference specimens [4]. For both retrofitted specimens through mortar joints. For S1-LAMI-C-X and during the test, one plate failed due to anchorage failure at foundation level since no steel plates (which were used in the other specimens to prevent anchorage failure) were used in this specimen. Both retrofitting configurations enhanced the lateral resistance by a factor of 1.5 for L1-WRAP-G-X and 1.3 for S1-LAMI-C-X. A superposition of the hysteresis loops of the reference specimens (L1-REFE and S1-REFE) and the corresponding retrofitted specimens (L1-WRAP-GX and S1-LAMI-C-X) is presented in Fig. 10. It should be noted that the cracks, which were exist in the specimens before the diagonal retrofitting influenced the results.

. Hence, it is not recommended to use the diagonal configuration as the only retrofitting scheme in the case of real URM wall, which suffers sever damage after a real earthquake. Recently [13] a similar conclusion has been experimentally explored in static cyclic tests on URM walls retrofitted using diagonal strips of carbon fiber. Finally, as mentioned, the goal of testing specimen L1-LAMI-C-I was not to examine the effect of retrofitting; since, in such retrofitting configuration shear cracks were expected to occur. However, it was interested to compare the hysteresis of this specimen (L1 LAMI-C-I) and the corresponding reference specimen. Fig. 11 shows such comparison; as expected this retrofitting system changed the wall mode of failure (from rocking to shear) and increased the specimen lateral strength by a factor of 1.75. Fig. 12 shows step-cracks passing through bed and head joints during the test.

Var olan birok glendirilmemi yma duvarlar sismik olarak savunmasz ve glendirme gerektirir. Bu makalede de glendirilmemi duvarlarn (URM) fiber polimerle (FRP) glendirildikten sonraki ve nceki sismik davrann inceler. 5 fakl numuneye 2 farkl etki ve moment/kesme kuvveti oran ile yle ki 0,7 ve 1,4 olarak birtakm testler uygulanmtr. Numuneler tek tarafndan fakl tip ve yaplarda FRP kullanlarak glendirilmitir. Ve bu numuneler birtakm yapay deprem hareketlerine tabi tutulmutur. Tek ynl deprem simlatr. Ve bu ekilde glendirme teknikleri iyiletirilmitir.
KAYNAKLAR http://www.carbonelyaf.com/uygulamalarimiz/karbonelyaf-fiber-g%C3%BC%C3%A7lendirme.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006 1807002310 kten, M., 2003. Betonarme Kirilerin Karbon Elyafla Glendirilmesi zerine Deneysel Bir nceleme, Yksek Lisans Tezi, .T.. Fen Bilimleri Enstits, stanbul.