Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Precast ber reinforced cementitious composites for seismic retrot

of decient rc joints A pilot study
Idris Bedirhanoglu a,, Alper Ilki b, Nahit Kumbasar b
a
Dicle Univ., Eng. Faculty, Civil Eng. Dept., Diyarbakir, Turkey
b
Istanbul Technical Univ., Civil Eng. Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this study was to investigate the seismic behavior of decient reinforced concrete exte-
Received 13 February 2012 rior beamcolumn joints constructed with low-strength concrete and plain reinforcing bars before and
Revised 16 February 2013 after retrotting with prefabricated HPFRCC (high-performance ber-reinforced cementitious composite)
Accepted 18 February 2013
panels. For this purpose, four full-scale beamcolumnslabtransverse beam sub-assemblies were tested
Available online 29 March 2013
under constant column axial load and reversed static cyclic lateral loads. Before these full-scale tests, four
simple panel specimens, which were built to represent the joint cores, were also tested under diagonal
Keywords:
tension before and after retrotting with prefabricated HPFRCC panels. Both types of tests showed that
Beamcolumn joints
Fiber reinforced cementitious composites
retrotting with prefabricated HPFRCC panels provided considerable enhancement, both in strength
Low strength concrete and in displacement capacity, provided that the panels were properly anchored to the joint core and
Plain round bar the slippage of the beam longitudinal bars in the joint core was prevented. In the analytical part of the
Reinforced concrete study, the strengths of the reference and retrotted panels, tested under diagonal tension, were predicted
Retrot quite accurately using non-linear nite element analysis. Furthermore, Mohrs circle and strut-and-tie
Seismic modeling was used to obtain the complete loaddisplacement relationships of the reference and retrot-
Shear ted joint sub-assemblies.
Slip
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction repair and strengthening of beamcolumn joints, including the

The exterior joints of reinforced concrete buildings are among
the most vulnerable structural components during seismic actions.
For joints constructed with plain round bars and low-strength con-
crete, which are quite common in existing structures in Turkey and
in many other developing countries, the seismic damage risk in-
creases considerably. In such cases, upgrading of joints may be
necessary. Therefore, investigation of feasible and applicable meth-
ods of retrotting such structural members is vitally important in
reducing life and property losses during earthquakes.
A considerable amount of research has been conducted on
beamcolumn joints built with normal-strength concrete and de-
formed bars [19], but only a small number of studies have been
conducted on the behavior of joints built with plain round bars
and low- or normal-strength concrete [10,11].
Early attempts to retrot decient joints were made using steel
jacketing [12], and reinforced concrete jacketing [1316]. More re-
cently, studies on joint retrotting concentrated on the utilization
of ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites [1728]. Engindeniz
et al. [29] and Bedirhanoglu [30] discussed various techniques for
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: idrisbed@purdue.edu, idrisbed@gmail.com (I. Bedirhanoglu).
use of FRP.
High-strength ber-reinforced concrete has been studied by
several researchers [3135], and more recently, it has been used
as a retrotting material. Alaee and Karihaloo [36] used prefabri-
cated composite panels (CARDIFRC) to retrot beams, while Ilki
[37,38] used prefabricated high-performance ber-reinforced
cementitious composites (HPFRCC) to retrot columns through
external connement. Alaee observed signicant increases in the
shear and exural capacity of CARDIFRC-strengthened beams. Ilki
reported that precast HPFRCC panels used for external conne-
ment increased the ductility and strength of retrotted rectangular
columns under axial loads as well as under the combined action of
axial loads and reversed cyclic exure. Shannag et al. [39] repaired
interior beamcolumn joints using a 25-mm thick jacket of cast-in-
place HPFRCC. They observed a signicant improvement in the
behavior of HPFRCC-retrotted weak connections. Ravichandran
and Jeyasehar [40] used ferrocement to retrot exterior ductile
and non-ductile beamcolumn joints. In addition to joints, beams
were also retrotted in their experimental study. They observed
increases in energy dissipation achieved by retrotting non-ductile
joints with ferrocement. In addition to joints, ferrocement retrot
has also been used for beams and columns [41].
In the literature, tested beamcolumn joint specimens have
mostly been T-type joints without transverse beams and slabs.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.02.020
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
Nomenclature
AHPFRCC effective cross sectional area of HPFRCC panel
Ag gross cross sectional area of the column
b width of the column
d effective depth of the column
Es elasticity modulus of steel
fc0 standard cylinder compressive strength at the time of
testing
fcd design compressive strength of concrete
fck characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fctd design tensile strength of concrete
fct tensile strength of concrete at the time of testing
fctk characteristic tensile strength of concrete
FHPFRCC force carried by HPFRCC panel
fsmax maximum stress of steel
fsu strain at rupture of steel
fy yield stress of steel
fyd design yield stress of concrete
fyk characteristic yield stress of steel
h depth of the column
HPFRCC high performance ber reinforced cementitious com-
posite
kc,drift a coefcient to reduce the contribution of concrete to
the total shear capacity of the joint
Consequently, the behavior of both reference and retrotted spec-
imens is questionable because the effects of transverse beams and
slabs have not been taken into account. While neglecting trans-
verse beams and slabs may suggest lower strengths than those of
actual joints with transverse beams and slabs, the application of
retrotting in the case of joints without transverse beams and slabs
is much easier (although applications considered applications are
sometimes inapplicable in practice), and its contribution to the
performance may be much greater than in the case of actual joints.
Furthermore, among the studies reviewed on joint retrotting,
none included cases of joints built with plain reinforcing bars
and low-strength concrete, except those of Bedirhanoglu [30] and
Ilki et al. [28] (fc0  10 MPa where fc0 is the average standard cylin-
der compressive strength of concrete) which is quite common in
many developing countries. In addition, to the best of the authors
knowledge, no technical report is currently available concerning
the seismic retrotting of joints with prefabricated HPFRCC panels.
In this study, the seismic behavior of full-scale decient exterior
beamcolumnslabtransverse beam sub-assemblies constructed
with low-strength concrete and plain round bars was investigated
before and after retrotting. For retrotting of the joint cores, pre-
fabricated HPFRCC panels were bonded and bolted to the exterior
sides of the joints. Furthermore, before full-scale sub-assemblage
tests, rectangular panels built with low-strength concrete, repre-
senting beamcolumn joint cores, were also tested under diagonal
tension before and after retrotting with HPFRCC panels. The re-
sults of the initial diagonal tension tests were evaluated to develop
an adequate technique to improve the shear behavior of the beam
column joints. In the analytical part of the study, the strengths of
the reference and retrotted panels were predicted satisfactorily
using non-linear nite element analysis. The behavior of the refer-
ence and retrotted sub-assemblies was also studied theoretically
using an algorithm based on the truss analogy and Mohrs circle,
which led to satisfactory predictions of the shear strength of the
tested reference and retrotted joint sub-assemblies for large drift
ratios.
Both the experimental and theoretical results showed that the
proposed joint retrotting technique is a promising and practical
193
kHPFRCC,drift a coefcient to reduce the contribution of HPFRCC pa-
nel to the total shear capacity of the joint
ldh development length
N column axial force
V beam shear force
Vc contribution of concrete to total shear capacity of the
joint
VHPFRCC contribution of HPFRCC panel to total shear capacity of
the joint
Vt total shear capacity of the retrotted joint
esh strain at the onset of strain hardening of steel
esmax strain corresponding to maximum stress of steel
esu strain at rupture of steel
ey yield strain of steel
/ diameter of the reinforcement
r1 principal tensile stress
r2 principal compressive stress
rN axial stress
rx stress on plane parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
member
ry normal stress
svc shear stress of concrete
sxy, sv shear stress
alternative to the current joint retrotting methods. The applica-
tion of the proposed method is much easier, quicker and econom-
ically feasible than other available joint retrotting techniques.
Conversely, because all the retrot intervention is executed outside
the structure, and the HPFRCC panels used in the retrotting are
prefabricated, the disturbance to the occupants is much less than
with other available methods. Nevertheless, it is important to men-
tion that this is a pilot study carried out on a limited number of
specimens, and further research is necessary to obtain more gener-
ally applicable results. Several of the results presented in this paper
were previously reported elsewhere [42].
2. Diagonal tension tests
2.1. Outline of experimental study
Diagonal tension tests were carried out to evaluate the shear
strengths of low-strength concrete panels with the dimensions of
400  400  100 mm before and after retrotting with prefabri-
cated HPFRCC panels of 40-mm thickness on two sides. The main
purpose of this initial series of tests was to obtain some basic infor-
mation on the effectiveness of retrotting of concrete members
with HPFRCC panels under diagonal tension stresses, which par-
tially resembles the stress state of beamcolumn joints subjected
to lateral loads. The specimen dimensions, a schematic view of
the test setup and the retrotting scheme are presented in Fig. 1.
The average compressive strength and elastic modulus of the con-
crete at the time of testing was approximately 8 MPa and
14,000 MPa, respectively. In addition to two reference specimens,
two specimens retrotted with prefabricated HPFRCC panels were
tested. The compressive and tensile strengths of the HPFRCC retro-
t panels at the time of testing were approximately 135 MPa and
17 MPa, respectively. The mix-proportions of the HPFRCC are pre-
sented in Table 1. While the HPFRCC retrot panels were bonded to
the low-strength concrete panels with epoxy only in the case of
specimen HPFRCC-40, the retrot panels were also bolted to the
concrete panels in the case of specimen HPFRCC-40-A (Fig. 1c). Be-
fore the prefabricated HPFRCC panels were bonded to the speci-
194 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

Specimen

Loading
plate
Cross-section
a a-a
(a) (b)

The HPFRCC panels

were positioned with a
distance of 1 cm to the
edges of the concrete
specimens in order not
to resist vertical loads
directly. Diameter of
the steel bolt was 16
mm.
(c) A-A Cross-section B-B Cross-section

Fig. 1. (a) Specimen dimensions and the loading system, (b) schematic view of loading and measuring setups, and (c) retrotting scheme and anchorage applications
(dimensions are in mm).

Table 1
HPFRCC mix-proportion (kg/m3). retrot panels. More details about the diagonal tension tests can be
found elsewhere [30].
Cement Water Microsilica Silica Sand Steel Admixture
sand ber
925 204 186 557 278 314 33.6
2.2. Finite element analysis

The strengths of the reference and the HPFRCC-retrotted spec-

mens, a surface preparation procedure that included sanding and
cleaning was carried out. An epoxy-based adhesive with a tensile
strength of 25 MPa and a compressive strength of 75 MPa at an
age of 7 days was used to bond the HPFRCC panels to the speci-
mens. The main purpose of the simple diagonal tension tests was
to make a comparative evaluation of the performance of the spec-
imens. The experimentally obtained vertical load-average vertical
strain relationships of the specimens are presented in Fig. 2. As this
gure shows, the retrot method is notably effective in improving
strength and deformability under diagonal tension, provided that
the prefabricated HPFRCC retrot panels are properly anchored.
When the retrot panels are not bolted, the prefabricated HPFRCC
retrot panels are not effective, due to premature debonding of the
imens were predicted using non-linear nite element analysis con-
ducted using ABAQUS [43]. To represent the actual support and
loading conditions during the tests, two thick steel plates were
modeled to load and support the specimens. The nite element
meshes were rened at the transition surfaces to obtain more pre-
cise transitions of the stresses between elements (Fig. 3). In the
modeling, a concrete damaged plasticity model was used to rep-
resent the behavior of the concrete. The mechanical characteristics
and stressstrain relationship of the concrete were determined
through standard cylinder tests. In the analysis, eight-node linear
brick elements were used. The relative displacement between the
connected pieces was negligibly small during the tests (except
for specimen HPFRCC-40, which failed prematurely due to debond-

360

300 DS-HPFRCC-4-A
Vertical load (kN)

240
DS-HPFRCC-4
180

120 DS-O-a

60
DS-O-b
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Average vertical strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 2. Comparison of vertical loadaverage vertical strain relationships for all specimens.
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
Steel
loading
plates
(a) Original specimens and retrofitted specimens without anchorage
Fig. 3. Finite element models.
ing of the retrot panel). Therefore, all contacts between the pieces
were dened as tie-constrained. The nite element models for the
reference and retrotted specimens and a comparison of the exper-
imental and predicted maximum vertical loads are shown in Fig. 3
and Table 2, respectively. As expected, while the strengths of the
reference specimens and the retrotted specimen with bolts
(HPFRCC-40-A) could be predicted accurately, the capacity of the
retrotted specimen that failed prematurely due to debonding of
the prefabricated retrot panel (HPFRCC-40) was greatly overesti-
mated, due to the assumption of full contact of the surfaces of the
existing panel and retrot panels.
3. Beamcolumnslabtransverse beam sub-assemblage tests
The general characteristics of the sub-assemblies are given in
Table 3. The specimens were designed to represent a joint of two
columns and two beams at a corner of an intermediate story of a
reinforced concrete building (Fig. 4a). The specimens were sup-
ported by hinges at the mid-heights (at approximately the zero
moment points) of the columns, and static cyclic lateral displace-
ment reversals were applied to the beams (Fig. 4b). As shown in
Fig. 4a and b, the specimens were constructed with a slab segment
and a transverse beam stub perpendicular to the main beam and
the columns. The properties of the materials (low-strength con-
crete and plain reinforcing bars) and reinforcing details (no trans-
verse reinforcement in the joint core) were chosen to represent
structures built in Turkey before the 1990s. These material charac-
teristics and details are believed to represent the exterior joints of
many existing buildings in developing countries. While there was
no transverse reinforcement in the joint cores, the columns and
beams were designed properly [44,45] to enforce damage in the
joint core, as shown in Fig. 5. It should be noted that the columns
were designed to be stronger than the beam, and the longitudinal
reinforcement of the columns was continuous from one support to
the other. The longitudinal bars of the main beam were anchored
in the joint core with 90 hooks (Fig. 5). The anchorage length for
the beam reinforcement (including the length of the hooks) was
880 mm, which corresponds to 55 bar diameters. According to
the Reinforced Concrete Design Code TS 500 [45], the development
length for plain round bars with 90 hooks should be 1242 mm
Table 2
Vertical load capacities.
Specimens Pmax (kN)
Experiment ABAQUS ABAQUS/experiment
DSOa 104 99.4 0.92
DSOb 113
DSHPFRCC4 155 238 1.53
DSHPFRCC4A 259 275 1.06
Average 1.17
195
HPFRCC
Plate
Anchorage
(b) Specimens with anchorage
(78 bar diameters) when the actual characteristics of the speci-
mens, which reect existing sub-standard applications, are consid-
ered. Conversely, in the design practice of the 1970s and 1980s in
Turkey, plain bars of the S220 type and concrete of the B160 (C14)
type were used. Considering these design characteristics, the re-
quired anchorage length was determined to be 624 mm, which
corresponds to 39 bar diameters. Consequently, the development
length of the beam longitudinal bars of the specimens was consis-
tent with (or even greater than) that of actual joints designed be-
fore the 1990s. Considering that the actual concrete strength was
generally approximately 10 MPa, rather than the strength of
B160-class concrete considered in this design, it is clear that the
specimens represent the best practical cases in terms of the
anchorage of beam longitudinal bars (a hooked development
length of 55 times the bar diameter instead of the commonly used
3040 times the bar diameter).
Specimens JO and JW were designed as reference specimens.
Specimen JO demonstrated the deciencies of sub-standard exist-
ing joints related to insufcient shear strength of the joint core
(no transverse reinforcement in the joint core), together with
insufcient resistance to slip of beam longitudinal bars, due to po-
tential crushing of low-strength concrete in front of the hooks of
the beam longitudinal bars in the joint core (Fig. 5). However, be-
cause the hooks of the top and bottom longitudinal bars of the
beam were welded to each other and the weak concrete in front
of the hooks was removed and replaced with a high-strength mor-
tar, the specimen JW was weak only in terms of the shear strength
of the joint core (no transverse reinforcement in the joint core)
(Figs. 5 and 6). It should be noted that the thickness of the concrete
layer removed and replaced by high-strength mortar was 130 mm.
After testing of the reference specimens (JO and JW), the retrot
of the joints with HPFRCC panels was designed to address the de-
ciencies observed in the tests of the reference specimens (JO: slip
of the beam longitudinal bars followed by shear failure in the joint
Table 3
Specimen details.
No. Specimen Explanation Age Retrotting
(days)
1 JO Reference (without weld and repair 164
mortar)
2 JW Reference (with weld and repair 230
mortar)a
3 JH Retrotted with HPFRCC (without 280 40 mm
weld and repair mortar) HPFRCC
4 JWH Retrotted with weld, repair 283 40 mm
mortar and HPFRCC (with weld and HPFRCC
repair mortar)a
a
In the main beam of specimens JW and JWH, the hooks of top longitudinal bars
were welded to the hooks of bottom bars. To place these welds, a 130-mm thick
layer of concrete was removed under the hooks. After welding, the removed con-
crete was replaced with high strength cement based repair mortar.
196 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

reaction positive
wall direction
MTS servo-controlled negative
beam hydraulic actuator direction
slab swivel
load cell back plate
roller support for
support
beam roller loading axial load
section support to the column
swivel hydraulic
back jack
plate
lower story column upper story column

transverse column
beam stub section rigid reinforced side view
All dimensions are in mm concrete plate

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Geometry of specimens and (b) test setup.

816 Note: Dimensions are in mm,

and clear cover is 20 mm for all members.

28
location of weld
for specimens
416 8/100 JW and JWH
8/100/45
beam longitudinal bars
section b-b were bended 90-deg hook
b b in the joint
8/150/50 816 a

41 6 8/150

top view side view section a-a

Fig. 5. Reinforcement details.

 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
Fig. 6. Welding of hooks of top and bottom longitudinal beam bars and replacing the low strength concrete with high-strength cement based repair mortar.
core at large drifts, JW: shear failure in the joint core). The retrot
design philosophy targeted the ductile failure of the specimens
through exural beam hinging by avoiding joint shear failure
through the use of externally bonded and bolted precast HPFRCC
panels. It should be noted that the level of axial load on the col-
umns (0.125fc0  b  h, b: width, h: depth of the column) was held
constant throughout the tests.
3.1. Materials
To represent the typical conditions of structures built in Turkey
before 1990, the concrete was designed to have a compressive
strength of approximately 10 MPa. The concrete mix-proportions
are given in Table 4. All specimens were cast in the Structural
and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory of Istanbul Technical Uni-
versity on December 17, 2006. The average compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity at 180 days were 8.3 MPa and
13,000 MPa, respectively. It should be noted that all specimens
were tested at an age of 180 days or more (Table 3).
In the construction of the beams and columns, plain round bars
16 and 8 mm in diameter were used as longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, respectively. The mechanical properties of the lon-
gitudinal and transverse reinforcement are shown in Table 5. In
this table ey and fy are the yield strain and stress, Es is the modulus
of elasticity, esh is the strain at the onset of strain hardening, fsmax is
the maximum stress, esmax is the strain corresponding to maximum
stress, fsu is the stress at rupture and esu is the strain at rupture. It
should be noted the slabs were reinforced in two directions with 8-
mm-diameter plain bars.
3.2. Retrot application
Two specimens, JH and JWH, were retrotted with externally
bonded and bolted precast HPFRCC panels of 40-mm thickness be-
fore testing (Figs. 79). Prior to retrotting, the specimens JH and
JWH were identical to the reference specimens JO and JW, respec-
tively. Unlike the specimens used in the diagonal tension tests, the
JH and JWH specimens did not have continuous bolts between the
two sides of the specimens but rather were anchored to the joint
Table 4
Concrete mix-proportions (kg/m3).
Concrete Maximum aggregate size (mm) Cement Water
Normal weight 8 170 239
Table 5
Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars.a
Reinforcement Diameter (mm) fy (MPa) ey = fy/Es
/ 16 16 333 0.0017
/8 8.4 315 0.0016
a
Mechanical characteristics were determined by averaging test results obtained from ve specimens.
197
core using epoxy resin. To represent practical applications realisti-
cally, these anchorages were unavoidable, because continuous
bolting would not be possible in the case of actual joints. Further-
more, considering the results of the diagonal tension tests outlined
above, no joint retrot was attempted without bolts anchored to
the joint cores. The reasons for considering two different types of
reference specimens (JO and JW) were the following: (1) to inves-
tigate joint behavior, before and after retrotting, under different
anchorage conditions for beam longitudinal bars (insufcient in
the cases of JO and JH, better in the cases of JW and JWH); and
(2) to investigate whether welding of hooks and replacing low-
strength concrete with a better-quality mortar can be used in the
retrotting of joints with insufciently anchored beam bars in
the joint.
An epoxy paste was used to bond the precast retrot HPFRCC
panels to the external sides of the joints. The tensile and compres-
sive strengths of the epoxy paste were 25 and 75 MPa, respectively,
at the age of 7 days. As shown in Figs. 79, special attention was
paid to the retrot method being simple and practically applicable.
As seen in these gures, the dimensions of the HPFRCC panels
(500  500  40 mm) were adjusted to match the dimensions of
the joint core. Before the epoxy paste was applied, the contact sur-
face was cleaned carefully. Then, the epoxy paste was applied to
the prepared surface using a trowel to ensure a uniform thickness
of 3 mm. As a further measure, to obtain proper contact between
the precast HPFRCC panel and the joint surface, four 16-mm-diam-
eter rods were used to anchor the precast HPFRCC panel to the
joint. The steel rods were embedded in pre-drilled holes of 200-
mm depth and anchored using epoxy resin. After the epoxy resin
was hardened, a torque of 12 Nm was applied to x the panels to
the joints better. As in most experimental tests of retrotting, the
joints were retrotted in an unloaded condition. In practice, such
columns and beams would carry vertical loads, unless the oors
were jacked up and suspended.
The HPFRCC panels were cast in ordinary plywood forms, and
the forms were placed on a vibration table to ensure satisfactory
compaction during casting. It should be noted that relatively longer
mixing than would be conducted for normal concrete was neces-
sary to obtain workable HPFRCC (30 min). The panels were re-
Sand Crushed stone Coarse aggregate Superplasticizer
698 414 747 1.8
esh fsmax (MPa) esmax fsu (MPa) esu
0.03 470 0.20 335 0.34
0.03 433 0.20 265 0.33
198 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
slab without
side
JH and JWH
HPFRCC Plate
Upper-story
column 500x500x40 mm
Lower-story
column
all dimensions are in mm
Fig. 7. Details of HPFRCC retrotting.
moved from the formwork 1 day after casting and were cured in
90 C water for 3 days and in 20 C water for 25 days. To obtain
an optimum mix design for a high tensile capacity and suitable
workability, another experimental study was conducted. The de-
tails of this study can be found elsewhere [30]. The obtained
mix-proportions obtained for the optimum HPFRCC mix are pre-
sented in Table 1. It should be noted that the mix-proportions of
the HPFRCC panels were identical for the panel diagonal tension
and joint sub-assemblage tests. The total volumetric ratio of steel
bers in the mixture was 4%. The characteristics of the hooked-
end steel bers with lengths of 30 mm are given in Table 6. The
microsilica was produced by Elkem Materials and had a mean par-
ticle size smaller than 500 lm and a specic gravity of 2.3 kg/dm3.
The admixture was Glenium 51 hyperplasticizer produced by BASF.
To obtain mechanical characteristics of HPFRCC, standard cylin-
der compression and splitting tests were conducted at the ages of
28, 90, 180 and 360 days. The average compressive and splitting
Fig. 8. Bonding of HPFRCC panel to the joint.
tensile strengths of HPFRCC around testing days were 129 and
side
17 MPa, respectively and the modulus of elasticity was around
slab 41,000 MPa (the age of the HPFRCC panels were around 60 days
at the day of experiments).
3.3. Test setup and loading pattern
The joint sub-assemblies were tested under the combined ac-
tion of constant column axial load and quasi-static cyclic lateral
displacement reversals (Fig. 4b). As seen in this gure, the joint
sub-assemblies were tested with the columns positioned horizon-
tally. The sub-assemblies were supported by rollers at the ends of
the columns. Constant axial load was maintained by a hydraulic
jack at one end of the column. Reversed cyclic lateral loads were
applied in the horizontal direction to the free end of the beam with
a 250-kN capacity servo-controlled hydraulic actuator. All tests
were conducted under displacement control. The measuring sys-
tem consisted of displacement transducers (LVDTs), electrical
resistance strain gages bonded on steel bars and concrete surfaces
and load cells (Fig. 10a). All tests started with gradual application
of the axial load. Subsequently, reversed cyclic lateral displace-
ments were imposed until the pre-dened drift ratios were
reached, (Fig. 10b). Drift ratios reported herein are the ratios of
the displacements measured at the free end of the beam to the
length of the beam. These ratios were then corrected by subtract-
ing the rigid-body rotation associated with deformations of the
supports.
3.4. Experimental observations, damage progress, failure modes and
strength hierarchy
Hysteretic loaddisplacement (and drift ratio) relationships and
a summary of the test results are presented in Fig. 11 and Table 7,
respectively. In these graphs and this table, loads making the slab
work in tension (Fig. 4b) are referred to as positive loads. The pro-
gression of the damage, which is outlined above, is also illustrated
in the hysteretic loaddisplacement relationships in detail. As
Fig. 9. Anchoring the steel rods.
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
Table 6
Mechanical properties of steel bers.
Dramix ZP 30/0.55
Diameter, d (mm) 0.55
Length, l (mm) 30
Aspect ratio (l/d) 55
Density (kg/dm3) 7.85
Tensile strength (MPa) 1100
Cover N/A
shown in Fig. 11, all specimens retained a large fraction (>90%) of
their lateral load-carrying capacities during cycles up to drift ratios
of approximately 4%. As expected, the capacities of the specimens
were higher in the positive direction for all specimens, due to the
contribution of slab reinforcement. As shown in Fig. 11, all the hys-
teretic curves exhibit a certain amount of pinching, which is attrib-
uted to the slip of the beam longitudinal bars in specimens JO and
JH and to the shear cracks in specimens JW and JWH. It should be
noted that the shear cracks were wider on the internal surface of
the retrotted joints. Photos of the damaged specimens after the
tests and the crack patterns at 4% drift are presented in Figs. 12
14. The envelopes of the hysteretic loaddisplacement relation-
ships are shown in a comparative manner in Fig. 15. While the
shear strength enhancement achieved for the panels during the
diagonal tension tests was considerably higher (Fig. 2) than the
strength enhancement of the joints after retrotting (Fig. 15), the
difference is due to the variation of the governing failure type,
which was exural plastic hinging of the beams in the case of
the retrotted joints.
For all specimens, exural cracks were rst observed on the
beams and slabs at drift ratios ranging from 0.1% to 0.2%. Cracks
were then observed at the columnjoint interfaces at drift ratios
ranging from 0.2% to 0.4%. As the drift increased, inclined shear
cracks were observed in the joint cores (for retrotted specimens,
shear cracks were observed on the internal surfaces of the joints
because the external surfaces were covered with precast HPFRCC
panels). The inclined joint shear cracks were formed at drift ratios
of 0.41% and at 2% for the reference (JO and JW) and retrotted
(JH and JWH) specimens, respectively, (Table 7). As shown in this
table and as indicated by the observed crack widths, the average
joint shear deformations were considerably smaller in the case of
the retrotted specimens. Other than ne cracks, no signicant
damage was observed in the HPFRCC panels.
The strengths of the reference (JO) and retrotted (JH) speci-
mens without welding of beam longitudinal bars were limited by
negative
direction SDP200
CDP100
CDP25 CDP25
CDP25 CDP25
CDP50 CDP50
3 front side
CDP10 CDP25 CDP25
front side
(a) *
Fig. 10. (a) Location of transducers and (b) displacement history. Note: Diagonal deformations were measured with LVDTs attached to the joint forming a 45 and 27 angles
with the column axis for front and back sides, respectively. These deformations were measured over a 480-mm (19 in.) and 320-mm (13 in.) for front and back sides,
respectively.
199
the slip of beam longitudinal bars, permitting large drifts (4%)
without considerable strength degradation. While the reference
specimen (JO) experienced a substantial loss of strength beyond
a 4% drift ratio, the retrotted specimen (JH) reached drifts of
approximately 10% without any degradation of strength. The main
reason for ductile-like behavior of specimens JO and JH up to 4%
and 10% drift ratios, respectively, was observed to be crushing of
the low-strength concrete in front of the hooks in the joint core
and the associated slip of the beam longitudinal bars at a tensile
stress level below the yield stress. The enhancement in deformabi-
lity and avoidance of strength degradation at high drifts clearly
demonstrate that the HPFRCC retrot panels, integrated externally
to the joint core, are very effective in retarding joint shear damage,
thus allowing signicantly higher drifts without a considerable loss
in strength. In addition, the connement effect of the bolted pre-
cast HPFRCC panels delayed the slip of the beam longitudinal bars
by converting the uniaxial stress state in the joint to a biaxial stress
state, resulting in an enhancement of the strength, which is gov-
erned by the slip of the beam longitudinal bars in the joint core
(Fig. 15).
The strengths of the reference and retrotted specimens with
welding of beam longitudinal bars (JW and JWH) were limited by
the shear capacity of the joint after experiencing large drifts
(4%) due to exural hinging of the beam. While the reference
specimen JW exhibited remarkable strength degradation beyond
a 4% drift ratio, the precast HPFRCC retrot panel signicantly en-
hanced the shear capacity of specimen JWH. Consequently,
strength degradation was considerably retarded in case of speci-
men JWH (6%). Because the specimens with welded beam longi-
tudinal bars resisted higher shear forces due to the prevention of
premature slip of beam longitudinal bars, the beams of these spec-
imens experienced wider shear cracks. A comparison of the perfor-
mances of the specimens JW and JWH also demonstrates the
effectiveness of the proposed joint retrot technique when no
notable slip problem exists.
The strength degradation that the reference specimens (JO and
JW) exhibited at a drift ratio of approximately 4% was due to pre-
mature shear damage of the joint, which could not be avoided be-
cause there was no transverse reinforcement in the joint core.
Conversely, the enhanced deformability of the retrotted speci-
mens can be explained by the retardation and limitation of shear
damage in the joint core, as evidenced by the initiation and pro-
gress of shear cracks and deformations (Table 7). The retardation
and limitation of shear damage of the joint cores were provided
through the shear strength and stiffness of the precast HPFRCC
panels, which were successfully integrated with the joint cores.
positive
direction
CDP25 CDP25 12
CDP25 CDP25
CDP50 CDP50 8
Positive
Drift ratio (%)
4
0
CDP25 CDP25
back side -4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Negative
CDP25 -8
1 2 -12
CDP10 Number of peaks
(b)
200 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

Displacement (mm)
First flexural crack in the beam
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
100
JO Flexural capacity First flexural crack in the joint at the beam joint interface
80
of the beam First flexural crack in the column
60
F
First inclined crack in the beam-column joint
Shear force (kN)

40 h

20 Drift ratio==/h First crack in the joint parallel to the beam longitudinal bar
0 First crack in the joint parallel to the bottom column longitudinal bar
-20
Maximum strain observed at the beam longitudinal bars
-40
-60 Beginning of the crushing of the concrete at the beam joint interface
Flexural capacity
-80
of the beam
Beginning of the crushing of the concrete in the beam-column joint
-100 Spalling of the cover concrete at the bottom of the joint
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Drift ratio

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
100 100
JH
80 JW Flexural capacity
80
Flexural capacity
of the beam of the beam
60 60
F F
Shear force (kN)
Shear force (kN)

40 h 40 h

20 Drift ratio==/h
20 Drift ratio==/h
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
Flexural capacity Flexural capacity
-80 -80
of the beam of the beam
-100 -100
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 -0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Drift ratio Drift ratio

Displacement (mm)
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
100
JWH Flexural capacity
80
of the beam
60
F
Shear force (kN)

40 h

20 Drift ratio==/h
0
-20
-40
-60
Flexural capacity
-80
of the beam
-100
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Drift ratio

Fig. 11. Load versus deection responses.

In the case of the reference specimen JW and the retrotted ence specimens JO and JW. As a result of the intervention de-
specimen JWH, by eliminating the slip of the beam longitudinal scribed, the lateral strength of specimen JW was signicantly
bars, the hooks of the beam longitudinal bars were welded to each increased due to prevention of slip (approximately 32% and 37%
other, and the poor concrete around the hooks was replaced with in the positive and negative directions, respectively) and the
high-strength cement-based repair mortar. The purposes of this strength was limited by the exural capacity of the beam. How-
intervention were to investigate the performance of HPFRCC retro- ever, because the joint shear capacity was insufcient in both spec-
t of joint, when the slip of the beam bars is limited and to exam- imens (JO and JW), they exhibited signicant strength degradation
ine whether this method is a suitable rehabilitation technique at a drift ratio of approximately 4%. It should also be noted that the
when the beam bar anchorage is not sufcient due to very low- descending branch of the loaddisplacement curve is steeper in the
quality concrete crushing in front of the hooks when subjected to case of specimen JW due to the higher amount of shear stress re-
highly localized effects. The effects of this anchorage rehabilitation sisted by this specimen. Therefore, while anchorage rehabilitation
can be assessed by comparing the performance of the two refer- can enhance lateral strength signicantly by preventing/reducing
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206 201

Table 7
Test results.

Specimens Maximum load at the tip of Drift ratio at rst Diagonal deformation at 4% drift ratio elmaxb el,%4c svd Limiting Vjh/fc0
the beam (measured with LVDT in 480 mm gage length drifte (%) (slab in
on front face, Fig. 10a)a tension)
Slab work Slab work in Flexural Inclined
in tension compression crack at crack at
(kN) (kN) beam joint
JO 65.8 53.3 1/1000 0.4/100 0.0064 0.0011 0.0012 1.53 6.3 0.19
JW 87.0 73.0 1/1000 1.0/100 0.0200 0.0017 0.0016 1.97 6.0 0.24
JH 73.8 55.2 2/1000 2.0/100 0.0030 0.0015 0.0014 1.70 10 0.21
JWH 85.3 84.0 1/1000 2.0/100 0.0048 0.0017 0.0018 1.97 8.5 0.24
a
() Sign indicates shortening and (+) sign indicates elongation.
b
Strains in beam longitudinal reinforcement at maximum lateral load.
c
Strains in beam longitudinal reinforcement at 4% drift ratio.
d
Joint shear stresses (slab work in tension) (MPa).
e
Limiting drift ratio is the drift ratio corresponding to the 85% of the lateral load capacity on the descending branch.

JO A' = 0.20 mm JW A' = Closed A = Closed K = 0.20 mm

B' = 0.30 mm B' = Closed B = 0.20 mm JC = 0.60 mm
A = 0.25 mm C' = 5.00 mm
C' = 13.0 mm C = 7.00 mm
B = 0.60 mm D' = 3.00 mm
D' = 0.10 mm F' F D = 1.40 mm
C = 12.0 mm E' = Closed
JA' = 1.80 mm E <0.10 mm
D = 0.15 mm F' = 0.35 mm
E' = 1.00 mm D F = 0.70 mm
F' E = <0.1 mm G' = 3.00 mm E' E
JB' = 1.50 mm K G = 2.20 mm
JA = 4.00 mm H' = 1.50 mm
F' = 0.10 mm B' EB B' B H = 0.40 mm
F = 1.30 mm JA' = 4.00 mm
JC' = 3.50 mm JA = 4.00 mm
A' A JB = 2.50 mm JB' = 4.00 mm D' D
G' = 0.20 mm JB =2.00 mm
D' JC = 1.20 mm JC' = 1.30 mm A' A
JD' = 0.80 mm I = 0.30 mm
C' C C' C
E' F
G' JA' G
JD' J'A
=4% JA G' =4% JC'JA
JCJB'
JC
JB' JC'JB H I JB H'

Fig. 12. Cracking patterns at 4% drift ratio and damage photos at the end of the tests (JO and JW).

slip, higher joint shear stresses may cause less ductile behavior at
large drifts due to the more dominant effect of shear damage in the
joint core (if the shear capacity is not sufcient). This effect can
also be conrmed by the smaller diagonal joint deformations of
specimen JO than of JW (Table 7).
The energy dissipation capacities of all the specimens, which
are good indicators of strength and stiffness degradation and resid-
ual plastic displacements, evaluated together with the hysteretic
loaddisplacement relationships of the specimens, are shown in
Fig. 16. The dissipated energy at each drift level is calculated as
the area enclosed by the hysteresis loops at the respective drift.
As shown in this gure, while the dissipated energies of all the
specimens were close to each other up to a drift ratio of 2%, the
specimens retrotted with precast HPFRCC panels dissipated a
considerably larger amount of energy in comparison to their refer-
ence counterparts. Conversely, the positive effect of the interven-
tion, carried out as a precaution to avoid slip of the beam
longitudinal bars, on the energy dissipation is also illustrated in
Fig. 16. The reduced energy dissipation for specimens JO and JW
at high drifts stems from the degradation of shear strength and
pinching of the hysteresis curves due to shear damage. While no
reduction was observed in the energy dissipation capacities of JH
and JWH, the slightly higher energy dissipation of JWH is due to
minimized slip deformations at the joint core.
It should be noted that the lateral load associated with the nom-
inal exural capacity of the beam in the positive (the slab working
in tension) and negative (the slab working in compression) direc-
tions were approximately 90 and 80 kN, respectively. The lateral
load associated with the nominal exural capacity of the column
for 0.125fc0 bh axial load was 235 kN. The lateral load associated
with the nominal shear capacity of the beam, as computed using
the design provisions in ACI 318-08 [46], was 200 kN, while the lat-
eral load associated with the nominal shear capacity of the column
for zero axial load was 340 kN.
3.5. Theoretical consideration
Because the strengths of the specimens without welding (JO
and JH) were limited by slippage of the beam longitudinal bars
and because the slippage was avoided by welding and replacing
202 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

E A' 15.0 mm
A 7.00 mm B' 0.15 mm
A 0.40 mm B 0.20 mm
A' 0.15 mm C B 0.10 mm C D' C' 0.25 mm
B' 0.25 mm C' C 0.15 mm D' 0.10 mm
B C 0.30 mm D <0.10 mm D C'
C' <0.10 mm B' D 17.0 mm E' 0.80 mm
D' 15.0 mm A E 0.40 mm JA' 0.70 mm
E KAPALI
closed B B'
E' 1.30 mm A' JA 0.80 mm JB' 0.60 mm
D F 1.80 mm
A A'
E' D' F E JA E'
=4%
=%4 =4%
=%4 JA'
JB'

Fig. 13. Cracking patterns at 4% drift ratio and damage photos at the end of the tests (JH).

A 2.20 mm
A' 6.00 mm B 2.00 mm
A 7.00 mm B' 2.20 mm A' 7.00 mm
C <0.10 mm
B <0.10 mm C' closed
KAPALI B' 0.10 mm
G D 2.00 mm
C 0.10 mm F' D' 0.15 mm C' 0.25 mm F' F E 0.40 mm
D 0.80 mm E' 3.00 mm D' 2.00 mm
D' F' F 0.10 mm
E 4.00 mm D closed
KAPALI E' 4.00 mm C' E JA 0.60 mm
F 4.50 mm C C' G' 2.00 mm F' <0.10 mm B' C JB 0.50 mm
G <0.10 mm H G' H' 0.20 mm JA' 0.85 mm E'
F B' I' G 0.50 mm
H 1.50 mm B 0.25 mm G' 0.45 mm B
A' A H 0.15 mm
EA A' E' D' JA D
=4%
=%4 H' =4%
=%4 G'
JA' JB
HG
I'

Fig. 14. Cracking patterns at 4% drift ratio and damage photos at the end of the tests (JWH).

the poor concrete around hooks with a high strength repair mortar,
a theoretical investigation was carried out only for the specimens
with the hooks of beam bars welded to each other (JW and
JWH). The beam shear force (V) and column axial force (N), and
the resulting shear and axial stresses and corresponding principal
stresses in the joint core are shown in Fig. 17a. Mohrs circle [47]
for these stresses is shown in Fig. 17b. Because there was no shear
reinforcement in the joint, for the reference specimens, shear fail-
ure was assumed to correspond to the formation of a diagonal
crack in the joint core. (This assumption may not be valid in case
of high column axial compressive stress.) A diagonal crack is as-
sumed to form when the principal tensile stress reaches the tensile
strength of concrete. Consequently, the inclined cracking load
(shear failure) is a function of the tensile strength of the concrete.
The tensile strength of concrete, fct (=r1), can be estimated from the
results of tensile tests of cylinders
p0 and has been found to be
approximately proportional to f c [48]. p0 Thus, the concrete tensile
stress capacity is expressed as fct C f c where C is a constant (ACI
318-02 2008 suggests a C value of 0.5). Cylinder splitting tests car-
ried out by the authors [30] on low-strength concrete showed that
as the concrete strength (for values between 4.5 MPa and 9 MPa)
decreases, the coefcient C also decreases to 0.350.40, and as
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206 203

100

80
JO
JH 60
JW
JWH Contribution of
JWH 40
welding and repair

Shear force (kN)

Contribution of
20
HPFRCC

0
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
Drift ratio
Fig. 15. Comparison of envelopes of shear force-drift ratio relationships (JO, JW, JH and JWH).

r
8000 rN r 2
N
Dissipated energy at each drift

r1;2  s2v 2
2 2
6000 r
cycle (kNmm)

rN
sV r1 1  3
r1
4000 JO
JW qs
N
sv c 0:5 fc0 1  p0 4
2000 JH 0:5 fc Ag
JWH
0 V c sv c  b  d 5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Conversely, the shear force that can be resisted by the HPFRCC panel
Drift ratio
(FHPFRCC) can be calculated using Eq. (6). In this equation ft,HPFRCC is
Fig. 16. Comparisons of energy dissipation capacities. the tensile strength of the HPFRCC, and AHPFRCC is the effective
cross-sectional area of the HPFRCC panel in the diagonal direction.
The contribution of the HPFRCC panel to the shear capacity of the
joints in the horizontal or vertical direction (VHPFRCC) can be calcu-
the compressive strength increases, coefcient C also increases to
lated using Eq. (7).
0.5. Therefore, based on the compressive strength of concrete, C
was assumed to be 0.5 in this study. It should be noted that the F HPFRCC ft;HPFRCC  AHPFRCC 6
principal stresses under normal and shear stresses can be calcu-
lated using Eq. (1) according to Mohrs theorem [47]: V HPFRCC F HPFRCC  sin 45 7
r
rx ry r  r 2
x y The shear capacity of the HPFRCC-retrotted joints (Vt) can be cal-
r1;2  s2xy 1
2 2 culated using a truss analogy [49] as the sum of the contributions
where rx is the stress on a plane parallel to the longitudinal axis of of the concrete and HPFRCC panel (Eq. (8)).
the member, which is equal to the axial stress (rN) on the column;
V t V c V HPFRCC 8
ry is the normal stress on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the
member, which is zero for the joint; and sxy is the shear stress, As observed from the tests of the reference specimens, the con-
which is shown as sv in Fig. 17. Consequently, for the joints, Eq. tribution of concrete to the shear capacity of the joint decreases
(1) can be rewritten as Eq. (2), and the shear stress corresponding with increasing drift ratio because of the formation and progres-
to the principal tensile stress (r1) can be obtained using Eq. (3). sion of shear damage. The normalized shear capacity-drift ratio
Assuming failure occurs when r1 reaches the tensile strength of relationship obtained for specimen JW is shown in Fig. 18a. This
concrete, the shear strength of the joint can be calculated using relationship was used as a model for representing the contribution
Eq. (4), where rN = N/Ag, and Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of of concrete to the joint shear resistance. To model the shear force-
the column. The contribution of concrete to the shear capacity of drift relationship of the HPFRCC-retrotted specimens, the contri-
the joint can be calculated using Eq. (5), where b and d are the bution of the HPFRCC panel to the shear strength with increasing
width and effective depth, respectively, of the column. It should drifts should also be dened (as shown in Fig. 18b). For this pur-
be noted that the joint shear strengths of the reference specimens pose, the contribution of the HPFRCC panel to the shear capacity
depend only on the contribution of concrete because there is no as a function of drift is obtained by subtracting the contribution
shear reinforcement in the joint core. of the concrete from the experimentally observed total shear
204 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206

N
V

v Diagonal
Loading tension limit
vc

N, v 0,v

N
N External loads 2 1 1c
1
2 2
1
v

v N, v 0,v

2 1 2
N Principle joint
Joint stresses
stresses
(a) (b)
Fig. 17. (a) External loads, joint stresses, principal stresses (b) Mohr circle [47].

capacity of the retrotted joint (JWH). The shear capacity-drift ra-
tio relationships of the reference and HPFRCC-retrotted speci-
mens can be determined using Eq. (9).
V t;drift kc;drift  V c kHPFRCC;drift  V HPFRCC
In this equation kc,drift and kHPFRCC,drift are the coefcients used to
reduce the contributions of the concrete and HPFRCC panel to the
total shear capacity of the joint due to damage progression. The
values of the coefcient kc,drift were 1, 0.89, 0.73, and 0.50, and
the values of the coefcient kHPFRCC,drift were 1, 0.73, 0.47, and
0.20 for drift ratios of 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%, respectively. It should
be noted that these values of kc,drift and kHPFRCC,drift were obtained
from the experimental results for specimens JW and specimen
JWH, respectively. Because these coefcient values were based
on limited number of tests, they should be used with cau-
tion. While the reduction in the shear capacity of concrete is due
to shear crack opening and reduction of aggregate interlock, the
reduction in the shear contribution of the bonded HPFRCC panel
is due to the gradual reduction of the efciency of the HPFRCC pa-
nel as a result of deterioration of the integration of the panel with
the joint due to damage of the joint core, where the steel rods con-
/maximum shear stress capacity of
Shear stress capacity of concrete
necting the panel to the joint were anchored. It should be noted
that there was no visible separation of the HPFRCC panel from
the joint surface to which the panel was bonded with epoxy paste.
Forensic observations made after the tests clearly showed that the
9 reduced efciency of the panel was related to the damage of the
concrete in the joint core causing a reduction in the efciency of
the anchor bolts connecting the HPFRCC panel and the joint.
Comparisons of the predicted joint shear force-drift ratio rela-
tionships and the experimental results for specimens JW and
JWH are presented in Fig. 19. The joint shear force corresponding
to the exural capacity of the beam is also shown in this gure.
While the predictions are in good agreement with the experimen-
tal data, it is clear that further validation is required before the
method can be applied in practice. The use of experimental
strength degradation factors in predictions and the lack of addi-
tional experimental data are the main reasons for the need for
additional validation of the method. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that the efciency of the proposed theoretical algorithm
was previously veried for joints retrotted with ber-reinforced
polymer sheets [28].

1.2 Shear force

demand/capacity Capacity : Contribution of
1.0 concrete and HPFRCC panel
0.8 Demand for
concrete

achieving flexural
0.6
capacity of the beam
0.4 Contribution of
HPFRCC panel
(Experimentally obtained for
0.2
specimen JW) Capacity : Contribution
0.0 Contribution of concrete
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 of concrete
Drift ratio
Displacement
(a) (b)
Fig. 18. (a) Variation of shear stress capacity of concrete in the joint with drift ratio and (b) contribution of concrete and HPFRCC panel as a function of drift ratio.
 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
500
Joint shear force corresponding to flexural
moment capacity of the beam
Joint shear force (kN)
400
300
200
100
JW
Predicted shear capacity of the joint
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Drift ratio
Fig. 19. Comparisons with experiments.
4. Conclusions
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effects
of precast HPFRCC retrot panels on the seismic behavior of de-
cient exterior beamcolumnslabtransverse beam sub-assem-
blies. It should be noted that the proposed joint retrot
technique using precast HPFRCC panels was examined for the rst
time in this study. Experimental results obtained from diagonal
tension tests and reversed cyclic joint sub-assemblage tests clearly
showed that the HPFRCC panels bonded and anchored to the exter-
nal faces of the decient exterior joints enhanced the joint shear
strength considerably. The HPFRCC panels limited the shear defor-
mations in the joint core and consequently delayed the formation
of shear damage, and the beam framing into the joint reached its
exural capacity. This improvement resulted in a signicant
enhancement in drift capacity. To obtain these enhancements
using the proposed joint retrot technique, the HPFRCC retrot
panels should be properly anchored to the joint core, and the slip-
page of the beam longitudinal bars in the joint core should be pre-
vented. It should be noted that the joint retrot technique
proposed in this paper is practical, causes minimal disturbance to
building occupants and is cost-effective in comparison to other
available joint retrot techniques.
Slippage of beam longitudinal bars was avoided by welding the
hooks of the top beam bars to the hooks of the bottom beam bars in
the joint and by replacing the poor-quality concrete covering the
hooks with high-strength repair mortar. The sub-standard joints
of many existing structures with the potential for this type of dam-
age mechanism (slip of beam longitudinal bars) can be rehabili-
tated using this practical method.
It should be noted that these conclusions are derived based on
limited test data. For further generalization of the ndings, more
experimental and theoretical studies are needed.
Acknowledgments
The experimental study was funded by The Scientic and Tech-
nological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Project Number
106M054 and Istanbul Technical University Project Numbers
31811 and 32002. The in kind contributions of ISTON and BETONSA
Ready-Mix Concrete Companies, Bekaert Beksa and BASF Compa-
nies are gratefully acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge
the invaluable advices of Prof. Dr. M.A. Tasdemir, the assistance
of O. Incecik, K. Kolcu, S. Bedirhanoglu and the valuable contribu-
tion of Salih Usta, who unfortunately, passed away recently.
205
500
Joint shear force
400
Joint shear force (kN)
corresponding to
flexural moment
capacity of the beam
300
200
100
JWH
Predicted shear capacity of the joint
0.10 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Drift ratio
References
[1] Hanson NW, Connor HW. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete beam
column joints. ASCE J Struct Div 1967;93(5):53360.
[2] Paulay T, Park R, Priestley MJN. Reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints under
seismic actions. ACI Struct J 1978;75(6):58593.
[3] Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. Shear strength of R/C beamcolumn connections. ASCE J
Struct Eng 1981;107(ST 11):222744.
[4] Shannag MJ, Abu-Farsakh G, Abu-Dyya N. Modeling the cyclic response of ber
reinforced concrete joints. Eng Struct 2007;29(11):29607.
[5] Anderson M, Lehman D, Stanton J. A cyclic shear stressstrain model for joints
without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2008;30(4):94154.
[6] Lee JY, Kim JY, Oh GJ. Strength deterioration of reinforced concrete beam
column joints subjected to cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):207085.
[7] Akanshu S, Eligehausen R, Reddy GR. A new model to simulate joint shear
behavior of poorly detailed beamcolumn connections in RC structures under
seismic loads, Part I: exterior joints. Engrs Struct 2011;33(3):103451.
[8] Wang GL, Dai JG, Teng JG. Shear strength model for RC beamcolumn joints
under seismic loading. Eng Struct 2012;40:35060.
[9] Park S, Mosallam KM. Parameters for shear strength prediction of exterior
beamcolumn joints without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct
2012;36:198209.
[10] Bedirhanoglu I, Ilki A, Pujol S, Kumbasar N. Seismic behavior of joints built
with plain bars and low-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 2010;107(3):30010.
[11] Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A. Performance-based seismic retrot
strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems using ber-
reinforced polymer. ASCE J Compos Constr 2007;11(2):21126.
[12] Biddah AMS, Ghobarah A, Aziz TS. Upgrading of non ductile reinforced
concrete frame connections. ASCE J Struct Eng 1997;123(8):100110.
[13] Alcocer SM, Jirsa JO. Strength of reinforced concrete frame connections
rehabilitated by jacketing. ACI Struct J 1993;90(3):24961.
[14] Tsonos AG. Seismic repair of exterior R/C beam-to-column joints using two
sided jackets. Struct Eng Mech 2002;13(1):1734.
[15] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE, Sirkelis GM. Local retrot of exterior RC beam
column joints using thin RC jacketsan experimental study. Earthq Eng Struct
Dynam 2008;37:72746.
[16] Tsonos AG. Performance enhancement of R/C building columns and beam
column joints through shotcrete jacketing. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):72640.
[17] Gergely J, Pantalides CP, Reaveley LD. Shear strengthening of RC T-joints using
CFRP composites. ASCE J Compos Constr 2000;4(2):5664.
[18] Mosallam AS. Strength and ductility of RC frame connections strengthened
with quasi-isotropic laminates. Composites B 2000;31:48197.
[19] Amoury T, Ghobarah A. Seismic rehabilitation of beam column joints using
GFRP sheets. Eng Struct 2002;24:1397407.
[20] Prota A, Nanni A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Capacity assessment of RC
subassemblages upgraded with CFRP. J Reinf Plast Compos
2003;22(14):1287304.
[21] Antonopoulos CP, Triantallou TC. Experimental investigation of FRP-
strengthened RC beamcolumn joints. ASCE J Compos Constr
2003;7(1):3949.
[22] Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints under
cyclic excitation. Compos Struct 2005;70(2):18599.
[23] Karayannis CG, Sirkellis GM. Strengthening and rehabilitation of RC beam
column joints using carbon-FRP jacketing and epoxy resin injection. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 2008;37:76990.
[24] Pantelides CP, Okahashi Y, Reaveley LD. Seismic rehabilitation of reinforced
concrete frame interior beamcolumn joints with FRP composites. ASCE J
Compos Constr 2008;12(4):43545.
[25] Tsonos AG. Effectiveness of CFRP-jackets in post-earthquake and pre-
earthquake retrotting of beamcolumn subassemblages. Eng Struct
2008;30:77793.
206 I. Bedirhanoglu et al. / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 192206
[26] Niroomandi A, Maheri A, Maheri MR, Mahini SS. Seismic performance of
ordinary RC frames retrotted at joints by FRP sheets. Eng Struct
2010;32(8):232636.
[27] Garcia R, Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K. Seismic behaviour of decient RC
frames strengthened with CFRP composites. Eng Struct 2010;32(10):307585.
[28] Ilki A, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N. Behavior of FRP retrotted joints built with
plain bars and low-strength concrete. ASCE J Compos Constr
2011;15(3):31226.
[29] Engindeniz M, Kahn LF, Zureick AH. Repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete beamcolumn joints: state of the art. ACI Struct J
2005;102(2):18797.
[30] Bedirhanoglu I. The behavior of reinforced concrete columns and joints with
low strength concrete under earthquake loads: an investigation and
improvement. Ph.D. thesis. Turkey: Istanbul Technical University; 2009.
700pp.
[31] Shah SP. Do bers increase the tensile strength of cement-based matrices. ACI
Mater J 1991;88(6):595602.
[32] Li VC, Stang H, Krenchel H. Micromechanics of crack bridging in ber-
reinforced concrete. Mater Struct 1993;26(162):48694.
[33] Shannag MJ, Barakat S, Jaber F. Structural repair of shear-decient reinforced
concrete beams using SIFCON. Magaz Concr Res 2001;53(6):391403.
[34] Shannag MJ, Abu-Dyya N, Abu-Farsakh G. Lateral load response of high
performance ber reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Constr Build
Mater 2005;19(7):5008.
[35] Lu X, Hsu CTT. Behavior of high strength concrete with and without steel ber
reinforcement in triaxial compression. Cem Concr Res 2006;36(9):167985.
[36] Alaee FJ, Karihaloo BL. Retrotting of reinforced concrete beams with
CARDIFRC. ASCE J Compos Constr 2003;7:17486.
[37] Ilki A, Ylmaz E, Demir C, Kumbasar N. Prefabricated SFRC jackets for seismic
Retrot of non-ductile rectangular reinforced concrete columns. In: 13th
World conference on earthquake engineering 2004, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[August 16].
[38] Ilki A, Demir C, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N. Seismic retrot of brittle and low
strength RC columns using ber reinforced polymer and cementitious
composites. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12(3):32547.
[39] Shannag MJ, Barakat S, Abdul-Kareem M. Cyclic behavior of HPFRC-repaired
reinforced concrete interior, beamcolumn joints. Mater Struct
2002;35:34856.
[40] Ravichandran K, Jeyasehar C. Seismic retrotting of exterior beam column
joint using ferrocement. Int J Eng Appl Sci (IJEAS) 2012;4(2):3558.
[41] Kumar PR, Oshima T, Mikami S, Yamazaki T. Studies on RC and ferrocement
jacketed columns subjected to simulated seismic loading. Asian J Civil Eng
(Build Housing) 2007;8(2):2215.
[42] Bedirhanoglu I, Ilki A, Kumbasar N. Innovative techniques for seismic
retrotting of RC joints. In: Fardis MN, editor. Innovative materials and
techniques in concrete construction: ACES workshop. London; New
York: Springer; 2012.
[43] ABAQUS. Standard users manual, version 6.7. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen,
Inc.; 2008.
[44] DBYBHY-07. Regulations for buildings to be constructed in earthquake prone
areas. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Seismic Design Code; 2007.
[45] TS 500. Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete
structures. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Standards Institute (TSE); 2000.
[46] ACI 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete. USA: American
Concrete Institute; 2008.
[47] Mohr O. Welche umstande bedingen die elastizitatsgrenze und den bruch
eines materials. Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure; 1900.
[48] ACI-ASCE committee 326. Shear and diagonal tension. ACI J
1962;59(1,2,3):January 130; February 277334; March 352396.
[49] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1992.