Pushover Analysis of Concrete Frame With Bracing Carbon Fiber

Composite Cable (CFCC) Typically To Resists Earthquake Load

I Gede Adi Susila1, a), I Putu Deskarta2, b), I Putu Adi Yasa3

1,2,3 Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, University of Udayana-Bali..

a)adisusila@unud.ac.id
b)pdeskarta@yahoo.com

Abstract. This study is interested in retrofitting for concrete frame structures by using cable braces to resist lateral load such
as wind, seismic and others. CFC cable was applied to strengthen four-story structures which over-stressed on its components
due to the seismic load. Previously, the four-story building was designed under seismic code provision of SNI 1726-2002,
and subsequently over stress occurred after being checked with the latest code (SNI (1726-2012). Numerical analysis using
SAP2000 has conducted to provide both validation model of frame element after Lee's experiment as well as a design check
of typical four-story structure. The result of nonlinear analysis and static pushover found agreement between experimental
and numerical analysis of validation model. Basic structure (model I) without brace based on seismic code-2002 has required
to be reinforced since the structural components are over-stresses under seismic code-2012. In numerical modelling, CFC
cable considered as frame element (model II) and cable element (model III: requires initial stretching force) to be used for
strengthening of concrete frame structure. Under consideration of configuration and dimensions of cable brace used for
strengthening, the reinforcement bar required of structural components becomes smaller. Based on the displacement control,
structural behaviour and the performance level of structure becomes totally better than model I. It can be concluded that the
used of cable braces strengthening is reliable and by obtaining the magnitude of axial force within the cable, straining is
required in order to know maximum axial force applied for strengthening.
Keyword: Bracing CFC Cables, frame elements, cable elements, pushover analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
The changes in earthquake code provision of Indonesian Standard: from SNI 1726-2002 [1] to SNI 1726-2012
[2] that was included a new spectrum response and earthquake hazard map in Indonesia provides significant
requirement for structures built after the year 2012. Some studies [3] [4] indicated that an influence of buildings
designed with SNI (SNI 1726-2002) which building structure was over stressed on some components due to
typical earthquake load of relatively new SNI applied. Therefore, one possible or another way, that is important
to strengthen the structure. Many strengthening or retrofitting has been used recently. In this study, CFC cable
bracing used for strengthening method due to the cable material defined to provide rust-proof, non-buckling
mechanism, and more importantly that the cable has lighter in mass compare with other strengthening material,
therefore there is not to overload the structures, such as medium and high rise building.
By evaluating independent four-storey structure Bracing CFC cable is used to strengthen the building over
stress on its components. The four-story building is designed with old SNI seismic load (SNI 1726-2002)
experiencing over stress after the latest SNI (1726-2012). To tackle overstress on existing buildings, CFCC
retrofitting methods are needed to help resilient structures. CFCC is chosen because it has advantages such as rust
resistance, no buckling failure, and has a small mass, so as not to burden the structure. The numerical model
validation test was performed based on Lee's experimental [5] results. Validation test results are depicted in load-
drift curves. The validation model then applied breeding modeling techniques on the four-story 3D building model

2. METHOD AND ANALYSIS

Strengthening method for concrete frame by using steel braces has been proved to be effective to increase
performance level and behaviour of structures under seismic excitation. The behaviour of structure with bracing
expected to provide better level of strength, stiffness and ductility level under considerably large deformation
without collapses. It is mean that under relatively larger earthquake occurred, the structure will consider to be
deflected up to certain deflection control which may not provide significant failure for structural component. In
addition, strengthening using bracing needed to anticipate larger earthquake occurred. Several strengthening
method have been used for concrete frames such as shear wall, infilled Frame, bracing, column jacketing and
beam jacketing. Effectiveness with difference lateral capacity of several strengthening method can be seen in Fig.
1.

Fig. 1. Lateral load capacity for different strengthening method.

Fig. 2. Cable mechanism as initial stretching required

In modelling the cable bracing as a cable element requires an initial stretching force, where the magnitude of this
force is determined by the trial and error method by adjusting the deviations that occur between models II and III.

Lee (2015), in his research, Lee made 3 specimens tested, among them:
1. Reinforced concrete frame without reinforcement
2. Retrofitting with bracing cable with joint flat plate and
3. Retrofitting with cable bracing with protrusion.

Details for reinforced concrete frames are shown in Figure 2.3. Dimensions of the beam (300x300) mm and
dimensions of the column (210x300) mm with 24 Mpa concrete quality The longitudinal reinforcement
dimensions used are D13 and the D6 strand, and the steel melting stress (fy) used is 400 MPa. The CFCC cable
used as in Figure 2.4 has a diameter of 15.2 mm with a tensile strength of 270 kN and a weight per meter of 221
g/m.
Fig. 3. Optical standard of CFCC, (a) 19-strand, diameter 25.5 mm, and (b) seven strand, with diameter 12.5 mm, (c) a fixer
terminal for one cable; (d) a fixer terminal for multiple cables, Tokyo Rope ( 2013)

Fig. 4. Retrofitting of CFCC (a) Flate-plate, and (b) Protrusion Configuration. Lee (2015)

(1) (2)
Fig. 5. Without and 2) With Reinforcement: (a) flate plate and (b) protrusion on SAP2000-numerical: release moment
 Fig. 6. Initial Structural component to be included within back calculated in new code

Fig. 7. 3D model of four-story building with CFC Bracing Cable reinforcement with cable elements, (a) CFC1
configuration, (b) CFC2 configuration

Table 1. Cross section of structural components for four storey frame structure.

Floor Main Girder (cm) Secondary beam (cm) Column (cm)

1 30/60 dan 25/50 20/30 35/35
2 30/60 dan 25/50 20/30 35/35
3 30/60 dan 25/50 20/30 30/30
4 25/45 20/30 25/25

In accordance with SNI 1947-2002, we obtain the area of reinforcement as shown in Figure 4.11. From Figure
4.11 can be seen from the cross-section used not dissolved (O/S). Where Over Stress (O/S) with red on the
component structure of the building.
If the four-story building model with dimensions in Table 4.1 is re-analyzed using the SNI 1726-2012
earthquake regulation, and its structural capacity is checked with the reinforced concrete rule of SNI 2847-2013,
the structure will experience an excess of voltage (O/S) as shown in Figure 4.12. Where Over Stress (O/S) is
characterized by red on the component structure of the building. In this building model, the effect of the filler wall
providing increased lateral stiffness is not taken into account. The walls on the model of the building are only
modeled as a uniform load on the supporting beams.
 (a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 8. Reinforcement required for typical structure with/without cable strengtening

Retrofitting using Cables Bracing CFC for four-storey structure

Based on the results of the previous building model analysis, obtained model that uses SNI 1726-2012
earthquake experienced stress on some components of the structure. Therefore, it is necessary to reinforce the
model of the building, and the retrofitting method used is with the addition of CFC cable bracing. For effective
strengthening of cable breeding, it is necessary to check the dimensions and configurations of CFC cable breates.
Model II aims to obtain the configuration and dimensions of an effective CFC cable breed. To get the
configuration and dimensions of bracing, it is necessary to do some configuration experiments. Figure 4.13 shows
two types of configuration used in this study. In this check configuration, the model will be analyzed using
earthquake load of SNI 1726-2012, and the need of its structure using SNI 2847-2013. Configuration and breeding
dimensions are said to satisfy, if the reinforcement requirements generated in buildings with CFC cable breeding
strengthening are smaller or equal to the initial structure design, as shown in Figure 4.11.
Bracing CFC cables are modeled on SAP2000 in the same way when modeling the breed validation. Where
the CFC cable breed is modeled using the frame elements released to the moment at each end, the cable breed is
only given compression limit = 0, and the elasticity reduction of the cable material is 35% against its specific
elasticity. This reduction of 35% indicates that the relationship between the frame and the CFC cable is a flate
plate, which is discussed in section 4.1.2 on the validation of the portal model with CFC cable breeding. The
fractional and breasing of the brupa protrusion cable is done by reducing the elasticity of the cable material by
3% to its specific elasticity.

Based on Figure 4.20 and 4.21, it can be seen that there is an increase in the capacity of the structure, we can
conclude from the reduced reinforcement requirements from Figure 4.18 to 4.20, and from Figure 4.19 to 4.21.
However, this increase has not been able to restore the need for structural reinforcement as in its original design
(SNI 1726-2002). This condition can be seen by comparing the needs of reinforcement in the 4.11 model with
4.21, of which the 4.21 model is the model with the best capacity, and it can be said that the initial reinforcement
requirement is smaller than the need of tulagan in Figure 4.21.

Fig. 9. Need for Reinforcement, (a) without reinforcement, (b) Bracing CFC cable With a 40 mm CFC2 configuration

Table 2. Rekapan perbandingan kebutuhan tulangan setelah dilakukan perkuatan

Kebutuhan Tulangan ( mm2 )

No Komponen Struktur
SNI 1726-2002 Perkuatan
1 K 25/25 3197 > 1043
2 K 30/30 4253 > 3491
3 K 35/35 4074 > 3650
4 B 30/60 L 565 > 549
5 B 30/60 T 918 > 738
6 B 25/45 L 345 > 332
7 B 25/45 T 378 > 345

3. FIGURES AND TABLES

 (a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 10. Load-drift curves (a) without, (b) with brace CFC (flate plate) and (c) by CFC (Protrusion) reinforcement against
Lee (CFCC-1) and (CFCC-2), respectively.

The results of behavior and performance comparison of models I and II on this study show significant changes.
From the comparison of behavior can be said that the addition of CFC cable bracing able to increase the capacity
of existing structures. This is seen from the needs of reinforcement obtained through the reinforcement of model
II analyzed using SNI 1726-2012 gives the area of reinforcement that is smaller or equal to the area of the initial
design reinforcement. In terms of ductility, structures reinforced by breeding CFC cables are capable of increasing
ductility by ± 20% against structures without reinforcement. The axial force during initial strain and maximum
load on model III sequentially is 12kN and 187.9kN, whereas the ultimate axial force of the cable with 40mm
dimension used in model III is 1200kN. This gives an indication that the CFC cable is still far from the threshold
of its collapse.
 Fig. 11. Portal load-drift curves with and without CFCC reinforcement

From the comparison of performance between model I and II in this study it can be concluded that the ultimate
capacity of model II generated through pushover analysis ± 150% is greater against the base shear force that can
be withheld model I, and maximum deviation that occurs on the curve pushover model I larger ± 41% against
Model II. The performance levels generated by model I and II are at Immadiate Occupancy level on the ATC-40
rule, whereas in FEMA 356 rules the existing structure is included in the performance level of live safety, while
when the breeding cable CFC performance level is changed to Immadiate Occupancy. Through this level of
performance it can be argued that the structure reinforced by breeding CFC cables has higher lateral capacity and
better damage rates.
From the comparison of behavior can be said that the addition of CFC cable bracing able to increase the
capacity of existing structures

References

1. SNI-03-1726-2002, Standar Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa Untuk Struktur Bangunan

Gedung 2002, Badan Standarisasi Nasional: Jakarta.
2. SNI 1726:2012, Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa Untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung
dan Non Gedung 2012, Badan Standardisasi Nasional.
3. Sukrawa, M., Staged Analysis of RC Frame Retrofitted with Steel Braces in Low and Medium-
rise Buildings. . 2016, Civil Engineering Dep. Udayana Univ. Bali-Indonesia.
4. Made Sukrawa, N.S., Design Aspect of Including Infill Wall in Reinforced Concrete Frame
Design for Seismic Region The 4th International Conference of EACEF (European Asian Civil
Engineering Forum), 2013.
5. Lee, K.S., An Experimental Study on Non-Compression X-Bracing Systems Using Carbon
Fiber Composite Cable for Seismic Strengthening of RC Buildings. , in School of Architecture,
.2015, Chonnam National University, : Gwangju, Korea.