| Summary: | 碩士 === 中國文化大學 === 建築及都市計劃研究所碩士在職專班 === 92 === After the 921 earthquake, many building suffer from structural damage. Examinations afterwards show that the buildings were insufficient in their shock resistance or unqualified for the shock endurance requirements after the earthquake. However, the damages of the buildings are not serious enough for the buildings to be demolished. In fact, they can still be used without threats to public safety as long as they pass the process of seismic strengthening. Therefore, what should be the proper strengthening methods to satisfy the requirements for public safety, expediency, endurance, and economy has become a major issue discussed for concrete structure and to be known by the public. This study will first focus on the three most commonly applied strengthening methods for the concrete structure: Steel Jacket Strengthening Method, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics Strengthening Method, and Adding Braced Frame Method. There would be an in—depth comparison regarding the expediency, general regulations, structural and construction requirements, and the advantages and disadvantages of the three strengthening methods served as references for selecting the suitable strengthening method considering their public safety, expediency and endurance. By using Value Engineering, we select out the suitable and proper items for evaluation of Steel Jacket Strengthening Method, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics Strengthening Method, and Adding Braced Frame Method, the items including retrofit behind to add Seismic strength and cost. The evaluation model of three different strengthening methods, we called the model as “Retrofit Performance” in our research. And we would set “Retrofit Performance” as our evaluation basis to explore the rationality of the retrofit method that we chose. In this research we use two assume cases to measure a benefit and result of “Retrofit Performance” each method. A twelve-story apartment in Taichung will be used for case study. Firstly, The factor 0.23 of acceleration in horizontal for Zone 2 of the original regulation and the increase to 0.33 for Zone A revised by the Ministry of Interior in December 29, 1999 will be compared and analyzed regarding the difference in design strength between the two regulations. Then, by using the three strengthening methods mentioned previously, in abstract would proceed to the strengthening design of one of the structural column member. After word, the unit price of the three strengthening methods are also compared for the economic reference when choosing the ideal strengthening method. Meanwhile, due to the difference both in time and between various environment of construction, the budgets of the three strengthening methods, influenced by the uncontrollable factors, will also be subjected to change. As a result, the study explores the key factors that are likely to influence the strengthening budgets.
|
|---|
