Anda di halaman 1dari 6

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 102-S25

TECHNICAL PAPER

Reinforced Concrete JacketingInterface Influence on Monotonic Loading Response


by Eduardo N. B. S. Jlio, Fernando A. B. Branco, and Vtor D. Silva
Reinforced concrete (RC) jacketing is most frequently used to strengthen columns. The common practice to prepare the interface is empirically based and consists on increasing the surface roughness, applying a bonding agent and eventually steel connectors. An experimental study was performed to analyze the influence of the interface treatment on the structural behavior of columns strengthened by RC jacketing. Seven column-footing, full-scale models were built. Three months later, the columns were strengthened by RC jacketing after their surface had been prepared considering different techniques. Later, the models were tested under monotonic loading. It was concluded that, for current undamaged columns (that is, where a bending moment-shear force ratio is greater than 1.0 m), a monolithic behavior of the composite element can be achieved even without increasing their surface roughness, using bonding agents, or applying steel connectors before strengthening it by RC jacketing.
Keywords: concrete; strengthening; surface.

INTRODUCTION Jacketing is one of the most frequently used techniques to strengthen reinforced concrete (RC) columns. With this method, axial strength, bending strength, and stiffness of the original column are increased. It is well known that the success of this procedure is dependent on the monolithic behavior of the composite element. To achieve this purpose, the treatment of the interface must be carefully chosen. The common practice consists of increasing the roughness of the interface surface and applying a bonding agent, normally an epoxy resin. Steel connectors are also occasionally applied. These steps involve specialized workmanship, time, and cost. Concerning the added concrete mixture and due to the reduced thickness of the jacket, the option is usually a grout with characteristics of self-compacting concrete (SCC) and highstrength concrete (HSC). In published experimental studies on this subject, the preparation of the column surface before jacketing is always referred to. Ramrez and Brcena1 increased the roughness of the columns by chipping; Bett, Klingner, and Jirsa2 submitted models to light sandblasting; Alcocer and Jirsa,3 Gomes,4 and Gomes and Appleton5 used a chipping hammer to expose the outermost concrete aggregate; Rodriguez and Park6 had the surface of columns lightly roughened by chipping before jacketing; and Stoppenhagen, Jirsa, and Wyllie7 used an electric concrete hammer to roughen the spandrels. Although researchers refer to the importance of the interface behavior, a quantitative analysis of its influence is never reported.8 An initial experimental study was performed by the authors9,10 to quantify in small specimens the influence of: 1) the roughness of the interface surface; 2) using a bonding agent; 3) the added concrete mixture; and 4) applying steel 252

connectors on the strength of concrete against concrete joints. Pull-off tests, slant shear tests, and push-off tests were performed and it was concluded that: 1) sandblasting is the best roughness treatment between those adopted; 2) the use of epoxy resins does not improve the interface strength if sandblasting is used; 3) adding an HSC increases the interface strength; and 4) the use of steel connectors does not significantly increases the interface debonding stress, although, after that, shear stress is highly dependent on the relation between the cross section area of steel connectors and the area of the interface. Based on these conclusions, seven column-footing, fullscale models were built. Three months later, each column was encased, considering different surface treatments. Twentyeight days later the models were tested under monotonic loading. The objective of these tests was to analyze the influence of the interface treatment on the structural behavior of the strengthened column under monotonic loading. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The common practice to prepare a RC column to be strengthened by jacketing is empirically based and consists on increasing the roughness of the interface surface, applying a bonding agent and eventually steel connectors. The main objective of these procedures is to achieve a monolithic behavior of the composite element. The research study presented in this paper allows engineers to choose the best treatment based on experimental results instead of empirical judgment. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION All models were built at the same time. The materials chosen were concrete with 20 MPa characteristic compressive cylinder strength at 28 days and steel with 400 MPa characteristic yielding stress. The dimensions adopted for the original column cross section and for the reinforced concrete jacket thickness were 0.20 x 0.20 m2 and 35 mm, respectively. The column height was 1.35 m and the corresponding jacket height was 0.90 m. The column was symmetrically reinforced with three bars with 10 mm diameter at each face. The longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket was the same and it was anchored to the footing in a predrilled hole of 250 mm depth, with a commercial epoxy resin. The transverse reinforcement of the column consisted of 6 mm diameter stirrups spaced 150 mm and the transverse
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, March-April 2005. MS No. 03-438 received October 20, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the January-February 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2005.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Eduardo N. B. S. Jlio is an assistant professor at the University of Coimbra, Portugal. He received his PhD from the University of Coimbra in 2001. His research interests include structural strengthening and rehabilitation of buildings and monuments. ACI member Fernando A. B. Branco is a professor at IST (Technical University of Lisbon) and head of the Construction Sector. He is a member of ACI Committee 342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements. His research interests include design, rehabilitation, and construction technology of concrete structures. Vtor D. Silva is an associate professor at the University of Coimbra. He received his PhD from the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Stuttgart, Germany. His research interests include rheological modeling of structural materials, mainly visco-elasticity and elasto-visco-plasticity, nonlinear structural analysis including geometrical nonlinearity, and rehabilitation of civil engineering structures.

reinforcement of the added jacket consisted of 6 mm diameter stirrups spaced 75 mm and out of phase with those of the column (Fig. 1), since this is the most effective geometry to obtain a monolithic behavior of the strengthened column.4 The loading system consisted of an increasing horizontal force and a constant axial force of 170 kN. This was achieved with a hydraulic jack, positioned horizontally at 1.0 m from the column footing, with both ends hinged to avoid secondary efforts, and a tubular system of two sets of two welded U profiles, connected with two prestressing tendons, tensioned with a hydraulic jack (Fig. 1). The models footing was fixed to the laboratory slab by means of a tubular system of two sets of two welded U profiles, positioned at the footing ends. Each tube was connected to the slab with two DYWIDAG bars (Fig. 1). A tension force of at least 50 kN was installed in each of these bars in order to resist footing slipping and rotation. The axial force was measured with a load cell placed between the top set of the welded U profiles and the hydraulic jack used to apply the axial force (Fig. 1, Element A). The horizontal force was obtained from the difference between the values read in two load cells, placed on opposite sites of the column top (Fig. 1, Elements B and C). The tension installed in the DYWIDAG bars was measured with four load cells (Fig. 1, Elements D through G). The imposed horizontal displacement was measured by a displacement transducer (Fig. 1, Element H). Strain gauges were bonded to longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars of the column and of the added concrete jacket (Fig. 1). On each central bar, close to the footing, were bonded strain gauges (Fig. 1, Elements 1 to 4 and 7 to 10). On the second stirrup from the bottom, of both the column and the concrete jacket, were also bonded strain gauges, in opposite branches (Fig. 1, Elements 5, 6, 11, and 12). The characteristics of the seven models tested were defined according to the conclusions of the study on the joints behavior performed by the authors.9,10 The first model (M1) was left unstrengthened to serve as the reference specimen. A second model (M2) was strengthened with a nonadherent jacket, materialized with a thin, hard, greased layer placed on the interface. The objective of using this second model was to reach the lower limit of the structural behavior of the composite model. A third model (M3) was produced monolithically to reach the upper limit of that behavior. A fourth model (M4) was strengthened by jacketing, without any interface treatment. A fifth model (M5) was strengthened by jacketing after its interface surface had been treated by sandblasting. This surface preparation method was chosen because it originated the highest values of shear strength and tension strength obtained with slant shear tests and pull-off tests, respectively.9 For the same reason, a bonding agent was not used. In fact, the value of the ultimate shear strength ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Fig. 1Testing installation, instrumentation, and cross section. Table 1Description of models and compressive strength of concrete
Compressive strength of concrete, MPa Models M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Description Nonstrengthened column Column with nonadherent jacket Column with monolithic jacket (cast simultaneously) Column jacketed without surface preparation Column jacketed after surface preparation with sandblasting Column jacketed after surface preparation with sandblasting and application of steel connectors Column jacketed after surface preparation with sandblasting and after loading of axial force Original column 34.60 35.48 34.75 34.64 34.79 35.13 Added jacket 83.58 34.75 79.79 82.76 81.68

M7

35.36

80.51

obtained with the slant shear specimens and the value of the ultimate tension strength obtained with the pull-off specimens were higher with the interface surface prepared with sandblasting than with the interface surface prepared with sandblasting followed by epoxy resin application.10 A sixth model (M6) was strengthened by jacketing after its interface surface had been prepared by sandblasting and steel connectors had been applied. Although the values of the debonding shear strength of the push-off specimens with none, two, four, or six steel connectors were identical, the corresponding values of the maximum shear strength, after that point, were almost directly proportional to the number of steel connectors employed.10 For this reason, it was decided to consider this model. Finally, a seventh model (M7) was strengthened by jacketing after sandblasting its interface surface and after the axial force had been applied. Here the purpose was to analyze the difference between strengthening columns with and without an axial force already applied. The second situation implies, in most practical situations, an active shoring of the column with additional costs. The characteristics of these seven models are summarized in Table 1. Due to the positive results obtained with high-strength concrete,10 all added jackets were cast with a commercial grout with characteristics of SCC and HSC, with the exception 253

Table 2Experimental and theoretical values (assuming nonadherent jacket and monolithic cross section) of yielding load of each model
Theoretical values Experimental values Nonadherent jacket Monolithic cross section

Axial Yielding Yielding Yielding Models force, kN load, kN load, kN Error, % load, kN Error, % M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
*

168.9 172.5 173.2 170.8 170.9 171.6 170.5

29.9 57.5 66.8 66.2 64.5 66.7 61.1

50.2 50.9 50.5 50.6 50.6 49.8

14.5 23.8 31.1 27.5 31.8 22.7

31.4 67.6 63.5 67.9 68.1 68.1 65.5


*

+4.8 +14.9 5.2 +2.5 +5.3 +2.1 +6.7

This value was determined considering column was jacketed after loading axial force.

Fig. 2Cracking pattern of Model M4. the nonstrengthened model (M1) and in the monolithic model (M3), both casted with NSC (normal strength concrete) only. The yielding load was determined from the difference between the values measured on the two load cells of the loading system (Fig. 1, Elements B and C), when the measured strains on the longitudinal bars reached yielding. An analytical approach was also performed to predict the yielding load, assuming two hypotheses: total nonadherence and perfect bonding of the jacket. For the first case, it was assumed that the curvature radius of the original column and of the added jacket were the same at the support cross section. For the second case, compatible strain diagrams of the original column and of the added jacket at the support cross section were assumed. The experimentally determined value of the steel yielding strain was fixated at the most tensioned bars of the added jacket. The strain diagram was established iteratively until the corresponding stress diagram presented a resultant force of the same value of the measured axial force. It was adopted the parabola-rectangle stress diagram for concrete. With the resultant bending moment, the yielding force could be easily determined. For Model M7, strengthened after the axial force had been applied, the procedure adopted to determine that the theoretical yielding force was adapted to take into account an initial strain diagram due to that load. Considering perfect bonding, the relative error between the experimental and the theoretical value varied from 5.2% to +6.7% (Table 2), except for Model M2. Considering total nonadherence, the relative error between the experimental and the theoretical value varied from 31.8% to 22.7% (Table 2), for the same models. This leads to the conclusion, proven by visual inspection, that there was no jacket debonding in any model, excluding M2. For this model, the relative errors referred to were +14.9% and 14.5%, respectively, (Table 2), indicating that the desired nonadherence was not totally achieved. In Fig. 4 the theoretical (nonadherent and monolithic) values and the experimental values of the yielding load of each model are plotted. The experimental value of the maximum load was also obtained from the maximum difference measured between the two load cells of the loading system (Fig. 1, Elements B and C). An analytical study was also developed to predict the maximum load, assuming the same conditions referred to total nonadherence and perfect bonding of the jacket. The algorithm previously referred to was modified in order to ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Fig. 3Cracking pattern of Model M2. of the concrete used in the jacket of Model M3, which was the same as that used in the original column, since they were cast at the same time. RESULTS The results of the monotonic tests performed with the seven described models were analyzed taking several parameters into consideration: 1) cracking pattern; 2) measured yielding load, including a comparison with theoretical values; 3) maximum load, also compared with theoretical values; 4) initial stiffness and secant stiffness; 5) axial load stability because it was decided to keep it between 160 and 180 kN; 6) strain analysis of the column and added jacket bars; and 7) computation of the column and added jacket contributions to the global strength. The analysis of the cracking pattern observed in each of the seven models was the only parameter available on site to compare their structural behavior. On the jackets top, the only cross section where the interface boundary was visible, no cracking was registered, excluding the M2 model where nonadherence between the original column and the jacket was produced. All models with added RC jacketing showed a similar cracking pattern (Fig. 2) except Model M2 (Fig. 3). The crushing level of concrete was significantly lower in the models which were strengthened with HSC jackets than in 254

Table 3Experimental and theoretical values (assuming nonadherent jacket and monolithic cross section) of maximum load of each model
Theoretical values Experimental values Nonadherent jacket Monolithic cross section

Axial Maximum Maximum Maximum Model force, kN load, kN load, kN Error, % load, kN Error, % M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 175.7 173.5 173.2 177.6 175.6 174.7 175.6 33.3 71.5 73.5 77.5 96.9 83.8 80.7 64.8 63.7 65.5 65.5 65.4 64.6 10.3 15.4 18.3 47.9 28.1 24.9 33.0 82.0 74.9 83.1 83.0 82.9 82.0 0.9 +12.8 +1.9 +6.7 16.7 1.1 +1.6

Fig. 4Theoretical and experimental values of yielding loading for each model.

fixate the ultimate concrete strain at the most stressed concrete fibers, instead of fixating the steel yielding stress at the most tensioned bars. Considering perfect bonding, the relative error between the experimental and the theoretical value varied from 1.9% to +6.7% (Table 3), except for M2 and M5. Considering total nonadherence, the relative error between the experimental and the theoretical value varied from 28.1% to 15.4% (Table 3), for the same models, confirming the conclusion that no slipping between the original column and the added jacket occurred in these models. In Model M2, the experimental and theoretical value confirmed that its behavior was between the theoretical behavior of perfect bonding and absolute absence of friction. For Model M5 the experimental value was 16.7% higher than the theoretical value, assuming perfect bonding (Table 3), and a deficiency in the experimental procedures was found, so this test was not considered. The models with HSC totally-bonded jackets presented similar horizontal force versus displacement curves (Fig. 5, Curve M6). The curve of Model M2 was similar but with a lower resistance (Fig. 5, Curve M2). It can also be concluded that the resistance of the strengthened models, including Model M2, is much greater than that of the nonstrengthened model (Fig. 5, Curve M1). It was noticed that the resistance of the monolithic Model M3 was slightly inferior to that of Model M6, probably due to the fact that the concrete of M3 model jacket was a normal strength concrete and the concrete of M6 model jacket was a commercial grout with average compressive strength of approximately 80 MPa. Model M7, identical to Model M5 except for the fact that it was strengthened after the axial force had been applied, showed a similar behavior in relation to the other models with HSC perfectly bonded jackets. It can be concluded that, for the adopted conditions, the fact of the strengthening operation being performed with or without axial loading has no influence on the structural composite behavior. In Fig. 6, the theoretical (nonadherent and monolithic) values and the experimental values of the maximum load of each model are plotted. The initial stiffness determination of the seven monotonically tested models was performed based on the horizontal force versus displacement curves (Fig. 5). The initial stiffness of the models was obtained by an interpolator polynomial (considering all values up until the yielding strain) of the most tensioned reinforcing bars. The secant stiffness was obtained by dividing the experimental value of the horizontal yielding force by the corresponding displacement (Fig. 7). The only relevant conclusions from this parameter are that ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Fig. 5Horizontal force versus displacement curves of Models M1, M2, and M6.

Fig. 6Theoretical and experimental values of maximum load of each model. the initial stiffness and secant stiffness of the strengthened models are much higher than that of the original column and that the secant stiffness of the models with a perfectly bonded jacket is slightly higher than that of the model with a nonadherent jacket. The adopted reduced axial force design value was 0.4, giving an applied axial force value of 170 kN. With the preliminary tests it was verified that keeping this value constant presented some difficulties. For this reason it was kept between 160 and 180 kN. Due to the interaction between 255

Fig. 7Secant stiffness of each model.

Fig. 10M7 model theoretical and experimental strain diagrams.

Fig. 8Strain evolution on jacket stirrup of Model M6. Fig. 11M2 model theoretical and experimental strain diagrams. significant differences between the strain values measured with strain gauges bonded on opposite branches of the same stirrup. In spite of this, it could be concluded that the strain value of the original column stirrup was considerably higher on the nonstrengthened model, M1, than on the strengthened models. On the monolithic model and on the model with the nonadherent jacket, M3 and M2, respectively, the original column stirrup and the jacket stirrup were equally strained. On the models with a perfectly bonded jacket, the strain value of the jacket stirrup (Fig. 8) was significantly higher than that of the original column stirrup (Fig. 9). This indicates that, in these models, concrete confinement is mainly due to the jacket stirrups. The strain diagram on the base cross section of each model was another parameter adopted to analyze and compare the models behavior. The jacket and column analytical diagrams were plotted with the analytically determined longitudinal reinforcing bar strains. The corresponding experimental diagrams were superimposed on these for comparison (Fig. 10 and 11). For the situation of yielding force applied, the agreement between the experimental and the analytical diagrams, assuming perfect bonding of the jacket, was good for all models (Fig. 10), except for Model M2, confirming that all these models behaved monolithically independent of the interface surface treatment. For Model M2, although the superimposition of the experimental diagram and the analytical diagram (assuming a completely nonadherent ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Fig. 9Strain evolution on original column strip of Model M6. the axial force and the bending moment it was important to ensure that its value would not go out of range, or else the behavior of the different models could not be compared. In some tests, the axial force value was controlled manually and in the others it was controlled automatically. In all models the axial force level was kept within the defined range. The effects that mobilize the transverse reinforcing stirrups are: 1) horizontal tension by Poisson effect due to compression combined with bending moment; 2) inclined strut tension due to shear; and 3) redistribution of stresses due to concrete cracking. This complex system gave rise to 256

jacket) was not perfect (Fig. 11), it clearly showed that slipping of the added jacket had occurred. Due to the good results obtained with the analytical approach, the latter was used to analyze the contribution of the original column and of the added jacket to the axial force and horizontal load resistance. It was concluded that, relative to the axial force, the added jacket was subjected to: 1) a null compression force in the case of perfectly nonadherent concrete encasing; 2) a compression force equal to the axial force in the case of the monolithic model; and 3) a compression considerably higher than the axial force in the case of all the other strengthened models; being the original column subjected to a tension force for these situations. It was also concluded that the yielding force was resisted: 1) 41% by the original column and 59% by the jacket in the case of perfectly nonadherent concrete encasing; 2) 23% by the original column and 77% by the jacket in the case of the monolithic model; and 3) between 10 and 14% by the original column and between 90 to 86% by the jacket in the case of all the other strengthened models. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of results of this experimental study led to the following statements: 1. All models behaved monolithically independent of the adopted interface preparation method, with the exception of Model M2, in which the nonadherence of the jacket was provoked; 2. Even Model M2 presented a structural behavior between the theoretical perfectly frictionless model and the theoretical perfectly adherent model; 3. Whether the strengthening operation was carried out with or without an axial load applied had no significant influence for the adopted conditions; 4. The resistance of the strengthened models was considerably higher than that of the original column and slightly higher than that of the monolithic model; 5. The stiffness of the strengthened models was considerably higher than that of the original column; 6. The transverse reinforcement strain of the original column was significantly higher in the nonstrengthened model than in the strengthened models, although the horizontal force applied in the first case was less than half the corresponding value in the other cases; and 7. The contribution of the adherent jacket to the horizontal force resistance varied between 86 and 90%.

This means that for current undamaged columns (namely with a bending moment) with a shear force ratio greater than 1.0 m, a monolithic behavior of the composite element can be achieved even without increasing their surface roughness, using bonding agents, or applying steel connectors before strengthening it by RC jacketing. It should be noted, however, that for other conditions, such as RC short columns and deteriorated or damaged RC columns, these conclusions may not apply. With this study, it was also confirmed that RC jacketing is a very effective strengthening technique, leading to values of resistance and stiffness of the strengthened column considerably higher than those of the original column. ACKOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Sika, Hilti, Beto Liz, Fivinte, DYWIDAG, Pregaia, Cimpor, and Secil for their collaboration in this research project.

REFERENCES
1. Ramrez Ortiz, J. L., and Brcena Diaz, J. M., Strengthening Effectiveness of Low Quality Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened by Two Different Procedures, Informes de la Construccin, No. 272, July 1975, pp. 89-98. (in Spanish) 2. Bett, B. J.; Klingner, R. E.; and Jirsa, J. O., Lateral Load Response of Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1988, pp. 499-508. 3. Alcocer, S., and Jirsa, J., Assessment of the Response of Reinforced Concrete Frame Connections Redesigned by Jacketing, Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 3, May 1990, pp. 295-304. 4. Gomes, A., Behavior and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Cyclic Loading, PhD thesis, Instituto Superior Tcnico, 1992, 333 pp. (in Portuguese) 5. Gomes, A., and Appleton, J., Experimental Tests of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Loading, Revista Portuguesa de Engenharia de Estruturas, No. 38, 1994, pp. 19-29. (in Portuguese) 6. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159. 7. Stoppenhagen, D. R.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Wyllie, L. A., Jr., Seismic Repair and Strengthening of a Severely Damaged Concrete Frame, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1995, pp. 177-187. 8. Jlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., Structural Rehabilitation of Columns using Reinforced Concrete Jacketing, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, V. 5, No. 1, Jan.-Mar. 2003, pp. 29-37. 9. Jlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., Concrete-to-Concrete Bond StrengthInfluence of the Roughness of the Substrate Surface, Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, No. 9, pp. 675-681. 10. Jlio, E. S., Influence of the Interface on the Behavior of Columns Strengthened by Reinforced Concrete Jacketing, PhD thesis, Universidade de Coimbra, 2001, 274 pp. (in Portuguese)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

257

Anda mungkin juga menyukai