本實驗主要在探討針對台灣典型之非韌性低強度梁柱內接頭採用混凝土擴柱補強及鋼板補強之可行性，並由不同補強工法造成補強後試體之勁度、韌性及接頭剪力衰減等情形之異同加以分析，比較其補強成效。 由實驗結果得知，就補強成效來說，混凝土擴柱補強工法對於梁柱內接頭勁度之提升明顯優於鋼板補強工法，且就同為混凝土擴柱補強工法而言，對於勁度之提升效率以增大擴柱面積方式較增加混凝土抗壓強度方式來得有效。 在韌性及消能行為之表現上，本研究之JI2混凝土擴柱補強工法及JI4鋼板補強工法皆能有效防止原型非韌性梁柱內接頭試體在梁塑鉸產生前即發生突然之接頭剪力破壞，且將原型非韌性內接頭試體之韌性分別提高31%及77%。但JI2混凝土補強試體及JI4鋼板補強試體之最後破壞模式皆為接頭剪力破壞，且韌性之提高並未達到補強目標。即最大載重韌性比未達到4，此點仍可做後續研究。 最後，根據對於接頭剪力強度衰減之討論，乃針對混凝土擴柱補強工法及鋼板補強工法分別提出補強建議方針，以供國內RC梁柱接頭補強之參考。 This experiment was mostly aimed at the feasibility of retrofitting non-ductile and low-strength interior beam-column joint by Concrete Jacketing and Steel Jacketing, and a discussion was made through the differences in stiffness, ductility, and joint shear degradation between benchmark and retrofitted specimen. In the respect of ductility and energy absorption, JI2 Concrete Jacketing and JI4 Steel Jacketing schemes could both prevent benchmark from unexpected joint shear failure before beam plastic hinges developed and respectively upgraded its own ductility by 30% and 77%. However, both JI2 and JI4 specimen’s failure modes are joint shear failure at the end of the test, and their retrofitted ductility did not reach 4, which is the target of our retrofitting scheme. Therefore, further research is needed. Finally, according to the discussed behavior of joint shear degradation, we provided beam-column joint retrofitting scheme recommendations, which can be referenced for further research on beam-column joint retrofitting in Taiwan.
