H. Sezen1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210; Ph (614) 292-1338; Fax (614) 292-
3780; email: sezen.1@osu.edu
ABSTRACT
Currently, there are only a few common methods that can be used to
strengthen reinforced concrete columns. These methods, including steel jacketing,
section enlargement by concrete jacketing, and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite wraps, were are used to strengthen 15 column specimens. The ease of
application, economy and efficiency of each method are discussed and compared. In
this study, three exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joint specimens were
tested under reverse cyclic loading. The damaged specimens were repaired by
replacing the damaged concrete and then strengthened using FRP strips. The strength
was restored and deformation capacities of the strengthened specimens were much
larger than those of the original specimens.
INTRODUCTION
specimens were tested until their joint region suffered significant damage. The
damaged joint specimens were repaired and strengthened using FRP strips The ease
of application, economy and efficiency of the repair and strengthening methods are
reviewed and compared.
confines the existing column and provides added lateral resistance. The gap between
the existing member and steel tube is typically filled with non-shrink grout. Priestley
et al. (1994a and 1994b) concluded that steel jackets significantly increase the shear
strength and flexural ductility of shear deficient columns. Aboutaha et al. (1999) used
full and partial height rectangular steel jackets to show that thin steel jackets
successfully improved the strength and ductility of large concrete columns. Research
also showed the efficiency of partially stiffened steel jackets on columns and full
jackets for the multicolumn bridges (Xiao and Wu 2003, and Zhang et al. 1999).
FRP retrofit
Ease of application and high strength of lightweight FRP wraps made them
attractive for retrofit of columns and joints, especially when space, load, and
construction time restrictions exist. It should be noted that the majority of FRP
wrapped columns tested in previous research were not reinforced by steel bars. This
paper summarizes results from testing of FRP retrofitted reinforced concrete (RC)
columns and beam-column joints.
BE
EHAVIOR OF
O STRENG
GTHENED
D COLUMN
NS
speecimens was 28.6 MPa (4150 psi), an nd the meassured yield sstrengths werre 399 MPa
(57
7.9 ksi) and 481 MPa (6 68.9 ksi) forr spiral wiree and deformmed bars, reespectively.
Othher specimen details caan be found d in Sezen aand Miller (2011). Moonotonically
incrreasing conccentric axiall load was eiither appliedd over the crross section of the bare
or unretrofittedd column or o over the entire retroofitted/enlargged sectionn. The bare
speecimen first experienceed longitudiinal cracks and subsequently failled due to
lon
ngitudinal baar buckling and
a transversse steel fractuure (Figure 1a).
Two baare specimen ns were streengthened w with identicaal steel tubee jackets or
conncrete filled tubes (CFTT) with an ou utside diameeter of 219 mm and a tthickness off
4.95 mm. The 22.5 MPa concrete
c wass sued to filll the 31 mm
m thick gap bbetween the
existing column n and steel tube
t with a yield
y strengtth of 460 M
MPa. Both steeel jacketed
coluumns experiienced locall buckling arround the m mid-height off the specimmens, which
eveentually led to global buckling
b at very large axial displlacements (F Figure 1b).
Stifffness, stren
ngth, and deeformation capacity
c of both steel jjacketed collumns were
signnificantly im
mproved. Th he main resistance mechhanism at laarge displaceements was
the lateral conffinement provided by thee steel tube.
Displacement (in.)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
3500
750
3000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
600
2500
BASE
150
500
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
The initial damage in all concrete jacketed specimens was similar and
included typical longitudinal cracks with subsequent spalling of cover concrete. The
specimens had similar initial response and the longitudinal bar buckling between the
transverse rebar (Figures 1c and 1d) typically coincided with the maximum load
carrying capacity of the columns. The ensuing fracture of transverse reinforcement
led to loss of strength and structural integrity of the specimens. The overall axial
behavior of the PCS jacketed specimens was almost identical until the maximum load
carrying capacity was reached. Similar to rebar reinforced jackets, after the cover
concrete spalled off and immediately after the peak axial load was applied, the
longitudinal PCS steel buckled. Transverse steel fracture and strength degradation
occurred under very large displacements. Prior to failure, typically a shear plane
developed around the mid-height of the specimen where most of the severe
longitudinal steel buckling and transverse steel fracture occurred (Figure 1d).
Three specimens were strengthened with glass and carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (GFRP and CFRP) composite wraps. To prevent premature end failure, two
76 mm wide 610 mm long GFRP strips were applied at the top and bottom of all
concrete jacketed specimens (Figures 1c and 1d). Over a thin layer of impregnating
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
resin one layer of jacket saturated with resin was applied over the cleaned existing
concrete surface. The specified ultimate tensile strength of CFRP (SikaWrap
Hex103C) and GFRP (SikaWrap Hex107G) was 850 and 648 MPa, respectively.
Under increasing axial loads, the axial stiffness decreased while epoxy cracking and
discoloration were observed (Figures 1e and 1f). FRP material ruptured when the
axial load reached 1260 and 1024 kN in GFRP and CFRP wrapped specimens,
respectively. The failure occurred at approximately 26.7 mm and 13.5 mm axial
displacement in GFRP and CFRP specimens, respectively (Figure 2).
Along with columns, beam-column joints are one of the most critical
components in RC structures, especially earthquake loads. Recent earthquakes have
shown that failure of beam-column joints often leads to partial or total collapse of
buildings (Sezen et al. 2003, Dogangun 2004, Engindeniz et al. 2005, and Alemdar
and Sezen 2010). Use of FRP composites as a lightweight material is one of the
easiest and most economical strengthening methods. Engindeniz et al. (2005) and
Bousselham (2010) presented comprehensive reviews of published experimental
studies showing the effectiveness of FRP composites to strengthen concrete beam-
column joints. Engindeniz et al. (2005) reviewed several repair and strengthening
methods and discussed application details, required labor, range of applicability, and
relative advantages and disadvantages of each method. A combination of “removal
and replacement” and “FRP composite application” methods reviewed in Engindeniz
et al. (2005) are used in this research to repair and strengthen the damaged beam-
column joint specimens.
speecimen design, materiaal propertiess, and the results froom testing of original
speecimens can be found in Fisher and Sezen
S (2011)) and Sezen (2012).
The 2033 mm deep anda 152 mm m wide beam ms had a lenggth of 508 mmm from the
face of the colu umn. The 76 62 mm tall 152 mm squuare columnns included eight No. 4
lon
ngitudinal baars. Plain 6.44 mm diameeter steel barrs with 135-degree end hooks were
useed as transveerse steel in both beams and columnns, includingg joint regionns. Column
tie spacing wass 38 mm in Specimen 1 and 64 mm m in the otherr two specimmens. Beam
stirrrup spacing was 38, 89, and 44 mm in Specimenns 1, 2 and 33, respectiveely. Top and
botttom longituddinal bars were:
w three No. 3 in Speciimen 1; one No. 1 and tw wo No. 3 in
Speecimen 2; annd three No. 4 in Specim men 3. The m measured conncrete strenggth was 28.4
MP Pa (Fisher 2009). The measured
m yieeld strengthh of transverrse was 4211 MPa. The
yield strength of
o No. 3 and 4 longitudin nal bars weree 496 and 4334 MPa, resppectively.
The cycclic load waas applied att the tip of tthe cantileveer beam whhile an axial
load of 142 kN N was applieed on the co olumn. The uunstrengthenned specimeens suffered
the most damag ge within thee joint region
n. Figure 3 sshows the daamaged speccimen at the
end
d of the first experiment,, repaired sppecimen, andd FRP wrappped specimenn at the end
of second
s expeeriment. Loaad-deflection n relationshipp measured at the end oof cantilever
beaam are showwn Figure 4 forf the origin nal Specimeen 1. Under increasing lloads, cover
con
ncrete over the
t joint reg gion began to o spall off, and after thhe maximumm strength is
reached, stiffneess and stren
ngth of the joint started to decrease significantlyy. This was
mainly due to o softening of reinforciing steel affter yieldingg, and deterrioration off
ncrete within
con n the joint reegion while the width oof major diaggonal crackss increased.
Dettailed discusssion of expeerimental response and measured teest data can be found in
Fishher (2009) and
a Fisher an nd Sezen (20 011).
gure 3 Dam
Fig maged concreete removall, repair usiing high streength groutt, and FRP
failure at the end of ttesting
(a) ((b)
Figure 4 Lo
oad displaceement relatiionship for:: a) originall, and b) rettrofitted
Sp
pecimen-1.
The dam maged specimens were first cleaneed and loosee concrete ppieces were
rem
moved. High strength non-shrink mo ortar, with a 97 MPa com mpressive sttrength, was
useed to replacee the removeed concrete (Figure
( 3). T
The goal of the FRP retrrofit was to
resttore the capaacity of the joint
j and preevent new daamage insidde the strengtthened joint
reg
gion. Therefo ore, diagonaal FRP strip ps were appplied on eacch side of thhe repaired
join
nts. Longituudinal FRP strips
s were also appliedd on each siide of the bbeam. FRP
commposites Sik kaWrap Hex x117C and SikaWrap
S H
Hex230C useed in this reesearch had
ultiimate tensilee strength off 724 MPa an nd 3450 MP Pa, respectivvely. The bonnding agent
Sik
kadur® 330 US U resin waas used to atttach FRP too concrete suurface. FRP strips were
ancchored on the t beams usingu self-taapping screwws, Tapconn® and threee different
wasshers.
ONCLUSIONS
CO
All colu
umn retrofit methods co onsidered in this researcch effectivelly increased
the strength an nd stiffness of
o columns. Concrete jaacketing witth WWF reiinforcement
andd FRP wraapping incrreased the maximum load carryying capaciity of the
unsstrengthened d column by y up to 140 percent, hoowever bothh methods reesulted in a
britttle failure immediately y after the maximum strength w was reached. The axial
streength, stiffn
ness, and displacement
d t capacity iincreased m most in steel jacketed
speecimens. PCS reinforcem ment was as effective ass the solid ssteel tubes inn providing
confinement and increasing the stiffness prior to concrete cracking in the jacket. The
overall behavior of concrete jacketed specimens with rebar and PCS reinforcement
was somewhat similar.
The beam-column joint repair and strengthening method used in this research:
1) restored the strength of the damaged specimens, 2) increased the displacement
capacity, and 3) changed the failure mode from shear failure inside the joint region to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
flexural failure in the beam. First, the loose damaged concrete was removed and
replaced by high strength mortar in the joint region of the tested original joint
specimens. The anchorage method involving self-tapping screws prevented
debonding and anchorage failure. FRP wrapped around the joint region effectively
carried the diagonal tensile forces created by reversed cyclic loads. Consequently,
virtually no damage occurred inside the joint regions of the strengthened specimens.
REFERENCES
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994a). “Steel jacket
retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength-
part 1: Theoretical considerations and test design.” ACI Structural Journal,
91(4), 394-405
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994b). Steel jacket
retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength
-part 2: Test results and comparison with theory.” ACI Structural Journal,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
91(5), 537-551
Rodriguez, M., and Park, R. (1994). “Seismic load tests on reinforced concrete
columns strengthened by jacketing.” ACI Structural Journal, 91(2), 150-159
Sezen, H. (2012). “Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints with fiber reinforced polymer composites.” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, (in review)
Sezen, H., and Miller, E. A. (2011). “Experimental evaluation of axial behavior of
strengthened circular reinforced concrete columns.” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, 16(2), 238-247
Sezen, H., and Shamsai, M. (2008). “High-strength concrete columns reinforced with
prefabricated cage system.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 134(5),
750-757
Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J., and Mosalam, K. M. (2003).
“Performance of reinforced concrete and wall buildings during the August 17,
1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction
practice in Turkey.” Engineering Structures, 25(1), 103-114
Shamsai, M., Whitlatch, E., and Sezen, H. (2007). “Economic evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures with columns reinforced with prefabricated
cage system.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 133(11),
864-870
Shamsai, M., and Sezen, H. (2011). “Behavior of square concrete columns reinforced
with prefabricated cage system.” Materials and Structures, 44, 89-100
Takeuti, A. R., Hanai, J. B., and Mirmiran A. (2008). “Preloaded RC columns
strengthened with high strength concrete jackets under uniaxial compression.”
Materials and Structures, 41, 1251-1262
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2003). “Retrofit of reinforced concrete columns using partially
stiffened steel jackets.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(6),
725-732
Zhang, Y., Cofer, W. F., and McLean, D. I. (1999). “Analytical evaluation of retrofit
strategies for multicolumn bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,
4(2), 143-150