Page 21 - Open-Access-June-2020

TECHNICAL PAPER

type of sl. dimensions
speCimen no. referenCes (mm) oBjeCtive oBservations
14. Cai et al. [86] (b×d×h)*- To investigate the hysteretic behavior of Increase of axial load and steel tube
300 × 300 × 1600 ECC-encased CFST columns under the diameter increases the initial stiffness, load
Columns
constant vertical load and horizontal cyclic carrying capacity and ductility respectively.
load simultaneously.
15. Xu et al. [88] (b×d×h)*- To investigate the seismic behavior of ECC/ The optimum height of ECC was
250 × 250 × 600 RC composite short columns. determined as 0.8h.
16. Deng and (b×d)*- To investigate the seismic performance The energy dissipation and ultimate drift
Zhang [89] 250 × 250 of high-ductile fiber-reinforced concrete were increased 237% and 56.9% than RC
h -500, 375 (HDC) short columns. short column.
*
Short Columns 17. Zhang et al. [87] (b×d)*- To investigate the seismic behavior of i) The ultimate drift ratio of the RECC and
250 × 250 RECC and H-steel reinforced ECC (SRECC) SRECC columns was enhanced 77.4%
h*-500, 375 short columns. and 150%, respectively, than RC short
column.
ii) The cumulative energy dissipation of
the RECC and SRECC short columns
was increased by 182% and 559%,
respectively at the ultimate drift ratio.
18. Kesner and (b×t×l)*- To investigate the ECC panels by cyclic ECC infill panels were adequate to
Infill Panels Billington [91] 610 × 75 × 1220 load-displacement response. eliminate connection failure.
19. Kesner and (b×t×l)*- To investigate the retrofitting application of ECC panels enhances up to 45% strength
Billington [92] 610 × 75 × 1220 ECC infill panels. than RC panels.
20. Kunieda et al. [93] (b×t×l)*- To develop rapid jacketing technique using The developed technique using ECC
1200 x 500 × 1600 ECC for damaged RC wall subjected to enhances the load carrying capacity and
seismic loading. ductility.
Wall 21. Li et al. [104] (b×t×l)*- To investigate the seismic behavior of Increased ultimate bearing capacity,
1200 × 240 × 1000 masonry infilled walls strengthened with stiffness and energy dissipation was
ECC. observed in masonry walls strengthened
both side with ECC.
Masonry-Infilled 22. Shing al. [94] (b×t×l)*- To investigate the seismic performance of The stiffness and strength of an infilled
Frames 60 × 94 × 197 masonry-infilled ECC and RC frames. frame significantly increased due to the
incorporation of ECC and GFRP overlay
system.
Dampers 23. Nagai et al. [95] (b×d×l)*-400 × 150 × 3050 To investigate the structural capacity of The maximum shear crack width and
(b×d×l)*-600 × 350 × 2250 reinforced ECC dampers. residual shear crack width observed was
0.08mm and 0.02mm, respectively.
RC Buildings 24. Fukuyama [96] (b×d×h)*- To investigate the potential ECC device ECC effectively reduced the first storey drift
With Soft Story 7200 × 6000 × 10800 for structural control of RC buildings with from 2-0.5%.
soft story.
Precast Balcony 25. Onizuka et al. [97] Thickness of groove (t) - To investigate the structural behavior of For earthquake and wind design, the
*
100, 120 & 130 ECC precast balcony. entire specimen shows better load carrying
capacity.
Building (Two 26. Gencturk et al. [98] (b×d)*- To investigate the material- and section- i) Depending upon the properties of
Two-Story Two- 82.55 × 50.8 level parameters on the structural response ECC the stiffness and lateral strength
Bay Frames) of concrete and ECC buildings. increases from 20-120% and 43-68%
than concrete respectively.
ii) The increase in energy absorption
in terms of life safety and collapse
prevention limit were ∼150 and 50%,
respectively.
SMA-ECC Beam 27. Li et al. [105] (b×d×l)*- To investigate the potential capacity of SMA (Shape Memory Alloy)-ECC beams
25.4 × 50.8 × 635 developed SMA-ECC beams. exhibits higher energy dissipation capacity,
minimal residual deformation and self-
recovery of damage under cyclic loading
when compared with other beams.
Beam– 28. Liang and Lu [99] Beam(b×d)*-150 × 300 To investigate the seismic potential of ECC The specimen with ECC showed enhanced
Column–Slab Column(b×d)*-250 × 250 in Beam–Column–Slab subassemblies. load carrying capacity, ultimate drift and
subassemblies energy dissipation of 13%, 17% and 40%,
respectively than specimen with concrete.
Beam–Column 29. Lee et al. [100] Beam(b×d)* - 300 × 500 To investigate the seismic performance The shear distortion to total drift of ECC
Sub- Column (b×d)*- 500 × 500 of ECC joint in Beam–Column Sub- joints decreased 85-90%compared to
Assemblages Assemblages. concrete joints.
(b-breadth, d-depth, l-length, t-thickness & h-height)
*

22 The IndIan ConCreTe Journal | June 2020