This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of the ESC) Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006 Paper Number: 136
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF RC BEAM-COLUMNS JOINTS RETROFITTED USING LIGHT RC JACKET – EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Chris KARAYANNIS1, George SIRKELIS2 and Constantin CHALIORIS3
SUMMARY The use of a light type of Reinforced Concrete (RC) jacket for damaged RC beam-columns subassemblages due to seismic excitations is proposed and experimentally investigated. The examined jacket has very small thickness (20 mm) and dense reinforcement that consists of small diameter (5.5 mm) horizontal and vertical steel bars and stirrups. This jacketing applies only at the joint region and at a small part (300 to 450 mm) of the columns and beam, close to the joint body. The main advantage of the proposed light jacketing comparing to the commonly used concrete jackets is the fact that it slightly changes the initial size of the elements. Consequently, the whole seismic response and the distribution of shears among the columns remains practically the same. For the needs of this study, test results of 4 external beam-columns joint specimens are presented and examined. Two specimens were constructed and subjected to constantly increasing cyclic (pseudo-seismic) loading. Afterwards, the damaged specimens were retrofitted using the proposed light RC jackets and they were retested with the same cyclic load sequence. Test results indicated that the seismic performance of the retrofitted specimens was ameliorated with respect to the performance of the specimens in the initial loading, since they exhibited higher values of load capacity and hysteretic energy dissipation in the higher deformation loading cycles.
One of the earliest and most common techniques for the retrofit of Reinforced Concrete (RC) frames and beamcolumn joints is the use of RC jackets. These jackets are usually constructed with high strength concrete, reinforced with longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and they encase only the existing columns or columns and beams along with the joint regions. Concrete jacketing is a well-known strengthening technique that is frequently used either prior or after the damage of RC members (pre-seismic strengthening or strengthening of damaged elements) [Alcocer and Jirsa, 1993], [Tsonos, 1999], [Lowes and Moehle, 1999], [Dritsos 2005]. It is proved that RC jacketing techniques can provide increased joint strength, shift the failure to the beam, and increase overall lateral strength and energy dissipation [Tsonos, 1999, 2002]. However, jacketing increases the size of the members, reduces the available floor space and increases mass. This way, concrete jacketing techniques alter the dynamic characteristics of the structure that may cause increased demands at unintended locations [Engindeniz, Kahn and Zureick, 2005]. Thus, in most of the cases, an intensive re-analysis of the entire structure is required. Since 1998, the research efforts on upgrading existing RC beam-column joints have focused on the use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites, mainly in the form of epoxy-bonded fabrics that surround the RC
Professor of Democritus University of Thrace, Civil Engineering Department, Reinforced Concrete Laboratory, 67100 Xanthi, Greece Email : email@example.com 2 Civil Engineer MSc, PhD student of Democritus University of Thrace, Civil Eng. Dept., Reinforced Concrete Lab., 67100 Xanthi, Greece Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 3 Lecturer of Democritus University of Thrace, Civil Engineering Department, Reinforced Concrete Laboratory, 67100 Xanthi, Greece Email: email@example.com
the dynamic characteristics of the structure remain approximately the same. Thus. the FRP failure is dominated by premature debonding of the composite material from the concrete surface and substantial reductions of the potential capability in shear strength were reported.06 m2). This repairing method has been extensively applied for damaged concrete structures after earthquakes and could be combined with partial or total removal and replacement of concrete in cases of heavily damaged areas with crushed concrete [Karayannis. [Karayannis.1 Original specimens The geometry of the specimens was the same. The concrete mean cylinder compressive strength was fcm = 31. 2002]. this jacketing is not applied along the entire height of the existing columns. Kahn and Zureick. Sirkelis and Chalioris. 2003]. Sideris and Economou. but it only encases the joint region and a critical part of the conjuncted columns and beam. whereas beam length and cross-section dimensions were 1100 mm and 200/300 mm. Reinforcement arrangements of the columns and beam of these specimens were also the same. FRP jackets). Thus. 2. 2. The advantages of the proposed light jacket in respect to the commonly used concrete jacketing are focused on the fact that the dimensions of the retrofitted elements slightly change regarding to their initial size. total columns length and cross-section dimensions 1800 mm and 300×200 mm (Ac = 0. The examined jacket has very small thickness and dense steel reinforcement that consists of small diameter bars and stirrups. Afterwards. it is proved that the use of FRP jackets in beam-column joints with common constructional limitations (spandrel beams. 2005]. Chalioris and Sideris. Two specimens were constructed and they were tested under constantly increasing cyclic loading (original specimens J0 and J1). the damaged specimens were rehabilitated using the proposed light RC jackets (retrofitted specimens J0R and J1R) and retested with the same loading sequence. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM The experimental study of this work includes the test results of 4 external beam-columns joint specimens. This strengthening technique eliminates some of the previous mentioned important limitations that concrete jacketing induces [Engindeniz.members (FRP jacketing). Although the fact that the use of FRP jackets enhanced the joint seismic performance in most of the examined cases. whereas beam reinforcement comprised longitudinal bars 6∅10 top. Further. 2005]. the only efficient and established repair technique is the use of epoxy resin injections [Karayannis. FRP jacketing has been also used as a rehabilitation method for damaged beam-columns RC joints that were first repaired using high strength concrete [Ghobarah and Said. In this study. existence of slab and transverse beams) needs reliable mechanical anchorage methods that would lead to effective joint confinement and full development of fibre strength [Engindeniz. the available floor space and the mass practically are not modified and thus. 2001] or using epoxy resin injections [Karayannis and Sirkelis. 2 . close to the joint. the proposed technique should not be considered as a strengthening technique. steel jackets. 1995].6 MPa (age of 28 days) whereas steel yield strength was 580 MPa (deformed steel bars and stirrups). This way. Kahn and Zureick. The joint area of the specimen J0 had no shear reinforcement whereas specimen J1 had one stirrup ∅8. The anchorage arrangement of the beams’ bars in the joint body was anchorage with bend and has been designed according to EC2 standards [Eurocode 2. external steel elements. since the character of the proposed method is more focused on the repair and rehabilitation of damaged RC joints than on the strengthening. 2002]. 6∅10 bottom and stirrups ∅8/150 mm. Although there is a plethora of known and well-established strengthening techniques of RC beam-column joints (reinforced or prestressed or steel fibre reinforced concrete jackets. The thickness of the concrete cover of stirrups was approximately 15 mm. Geometry and reinforcement arrangement details of the specimens J0 and J1 are shown in Figure 1. respectively. respectively. columns reinforcement comprised 4 longitudinal bars of 10 mm diameter (4∅10) and stirrups of 8 mm diameter at a uniform spacing of 150 mm (∅8/150 mm). the use of a light RC jacket for the rehabilitation of damaged RC exterior beam-columns subassemblages due to cyclic deformations is experimentally investigated. 1998].
.10 closed stirrups (5 of them placed at the upper column and 5 at the lower column). all of them were bended to the columns). rapid. This grout had density 2250 kgr/m3 and maximum aggregates size equal to 4 mm. . .4 vertical straight longitudinal bars (placed at the back side of the columns along the joint area). high-strength cement-based mortar (SikaGrout 212) that was mixed with water in a proportion 1:0. The reinforcement of each jacket consisted of: . The light jackets encased (a) part of the columns.8 L-formed longitudinal bars (4 of them placed at the upper and 4 at the lower side of the beam.6 horizontal Π -formed longitudinal bars (placed at the vertical sides of the beam and around the joint area as transverse shear reinforcement of the joint).2 Retrofitted specimens After the initial loading. equal to 300 mm close to the joint for each column. .7 closed stirrups (placed at the beam) and . Supplementary compression tests showed that the mean cube compressive strength at the age of 5 days was 43. The jackets were made of a premixed. (b) the joint area and (c) part of the beam. flowable. The retrofitted specimens (J0R and J1R) were retested with the same cyclic loading sequence. non-shrink.14.4 MPa.750 1325 100 ∅10 ∅8/150 286 166 80 in specimen J1 1800 300 6∅10 ∅8 6∅10 150 1100 200 150 750 286 300 200 186 4∅10 80 ∅8/150 Figure 1: Geometry and reinforcement arrangements of specimens J0 and J1 2. 3 .2 vertical straight longitudinal bars (one of each was placed at the long side of the columns along the joint area as vertical shear reinforcement of the joint). both damaged specimens were rehabilitated using light RC jackets. equal to 450 mm close to the joint (Figure 2). The thickness of the light jacket was only 20 mm.
It is emphasized that the new dense reinforcement have not been welded or joined with the existing reinforcement. 450 mm 900 mm thickness = 20 mm Figure 2: Reinforcement and geometry of the light jackets (for the retrofitted specimens J0R and J1R) 4 .5 plain mild steel bars and stirrups) with steel yield strength equal to 390 MPa.5 mm (∅5. whereas no drilling took place and dowels have not been installed.The diameter of all the above reinforcement was 5. In Figure 2 the detailed arrangement of the jackets’ reinforcement is displayed.
The moment arm for the applied load was 1.2.00 1.50 P + - LVDT 1. Supports that allow rotation were used to simulate the inflection points assumed to occur at a point of the columns in a laterally-loaded frame structure. LVDTs were also placed at each end of the column part of the specimens.3 Test setup Test rig and instrumentation details are shown in Figure 3. in order to check the supports during the test. Column axial load equal to Nc = 0. The imposed load was measured by a load cell with accuracy equal to 0. All specimens were subjected to full cycle deformations imposed near the free end of the beam by a pinned-end actuator.05×Ac×fcm was applied during the tests in all the specimens.10 LVDT Figure 3: Test rig and instrumentation 60 5 40 6 7 8 Deformation (mm) 20 3 1 2 4 0 -20 -40 -60 Figure 4: Cyclic loading history 5 .0 m. The load sequence of the specimens was performed the way it is shown in Figure 4.025 kN and the displacements of the beam at its end were measured by linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) with accuracy equal to 0. as shown in Figure 3.80 1. Load frame actuator Nc load cell LVDT load cell actuator 1.01 mm.
7 1838.6% 24. In particular. The hysteretic responses of the loading cycles for the specimens J0 and J0R are presented in Figure 5.2 815.7 1220.5% 29.7 2346.4% 3.8 increase* -6. Numerous shear X-shaped diagonal cracks have been developed at the jacket of joint area during the loading procedure.2 3059.8% 11.6% for the specimens J0R and J1R.3 709 2970. This improvement was mainly observed in the higher deformation loading cycles (± 60 mm). the load capacity values of specimens J0R and J1R were increased till 91% in most of the loading cycles and in both loading directions compared with specimens J0 and J1.2 1563. whereas for the specimens J1 and J1R in Figure 6. respectively.8% 34. in general. 6 .5 1499. Further. Table 1: Values of energy dissipation per loading cycle Deformation (mm) + 6 mm – 6 mm + 20 mm – 20 mm + 40 mm – 40 mm + 60 mm Energy dissipation (kN·mm) J0 177. 3.3% Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 J1 189. The deformations of the bend anchorage of the beam’s bars (anchorage failure) in combination with the absence of stirrups in the joint area have contributed to significant damage the concrete cover at the back of the joint area.4 1029. Nevertheless.7% 18. However.4% 5. The average values of the increase of the energy dissipation were 19. exhibited X-shaped diagonal cracks during the test and the specimen exhibited typical brittle shear failure. these cracks were rather thin and the joint body has not been seriously damaged due to the shear reinforcement of the jacket.1 2816.7% 38.1 Hysteretic responses TEST RESULTS AND COMPARISONS To assess the effectiveness of the applied light jacketing technique the hysteretic responses of the original beamcolumns subassemblages (J0 and J1) are examined and compared with the hysteretic responses of the retrofitted specimens (J0R and J1R).1 1149. it is noted that in a few sporadic loading cycles the observed ultimate loads of the retrofitted specimens were below the maximum load capabilities of the original ones. The applied light RC jacket at the joint area mainly inhibited the beam’s bars anchorage failure and the damage of the concrete cover at the back of the joint area.7 1741. However. retrofitted specimens demonstrated higher energy dissipation values than the original ones after the first loading cycle (Table 1).7 2965.1 110. Vertical cracks have also been appeared at the junction of the beam with the joint.6 1918. 3.9 3614.2 917. the hysteretic energy dissipation in terms of the area of the response loading cycle of each tested specimen is presented in the Table 1. In the subsequent loading cycles partially spalling of jacket’s mortar cover has been observed whereas the main damage was localized at the junction of the beam with the joint. respectively. since no shear reinforcement in the joint area has been provided. this fact does not alter the general improvement of the entire seismic response due to the proposed jacketing. enhanced behaviour in respect to the original ones.8 629 2511.2 Failure modes Specimen J0: The joint body of this specimen.8 126.8 1036. Specimen J0R: The crack pattern of this retrofitted specimen was quite different than the one of the original specimen.8 J0R 161.3. whereas the dashed line the response of the corresponding retrofitted ones.3 3133. Besides.3% 8 – 60 mm 1452. as expected.6 2004.9 86.3 148.3% 10.7% 8.7 * Increase of the energy dissipation of the repaired specimens (J0R & J1R) compared to the initial ones (J0 & J1) The comparison of the seismic performance between the original and the retrofitted specimens (Figures 5 & 6 and Table 1) indicated that the joint subassemblages with the proposed light RC jackets exhibited.8% 29. One main diagonal crack has been extensively widened in the 7th and 8th loading cycle. In these figures the solid line represents the response of the original specimens.3 J1R 176.1 3324.1% 45.07% 22.7 increase* -9.5% and 16.0% 22.
Load (kN) -60 50 -40 -30 -20 -10 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 20 -30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Deformation (mm) Specimens without stirrups in the joint body -40 Original specimen (J0) -50 -60 -70 Repaired specimen with light jacket (J0R) Figure 5: Comparison of the hysteretic responses of specimens J0 and J0R 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -60 50 -40 -30 -20 1 -10 -2 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Load (kN) Deformation (mm) Specimens with one stirrup in the joint body -40 Original specimen (J1) -50 -60 -70 Repaired specimen with light jacket (J1R) Figure 6: Comparison of the hysteretic responses of specimens J1 and J1R 7 .
K. Kahn.Specimen J1: The failure mode and the cracks propagation of this specimen were close to these of specimen J0. Said. Dritsos.E. A-H. 8 . Sideris. Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing. No failure of the concrete cover at the back of the joint has been observed. J.The advantages of the proposed light RC jacket in respect to the commonly used jacketing are focused on the fact that the dimensions of the retrofitted elements slightly change regarding to their initial size. retrofitted specimens demonstrated different failure modes than the original ones. (1993).The retrofitted specimens compared with the original ones exhibited higher values of load capacity in most of the loading cycles and increased hysteretic energy dissipation practically in the entire loading sequence. prEN 1992-1-1. 38. (1995). In general.The proposed light RC jacketing seems to be an easy-to-apply. Cracks at the junction of the beam and the joint body have also been formed. (2005). (2005). S.. Eurocode 2 – Part 1 (2002). Bulletin of New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering. However. n° 2. . S. . based on the tests results reported herein the following concluding remarks can be deduced: . C. .Research and Application. 5. Thin shear X-shaped diagonal cracks have been distributed all over the jacket’s joint area. the joint strength and the hysteretic energy dissipation have been enhanced.. Specimen J1 exhibited shear failure and X-shaped diagonal cracks have been developed in the joint body from the early stages of the loading procedure. reliable and effective method for the repair and the rehabilitation of damaged RC joints since the entire response of the retrofitted specimens was ameliorated in respect to the response of the original specimens in the initial loading. CONCLUDING REMARKS The effectiveness of a RC jacket with small thickness and dense steel reinforcement (with small diameter) for the rehabilitation of RC exterior beam-columns joints damaged under cyclic imposed deformation was experimentally investigated. A.. K. 5. (2001). ACI Structural Journal. Ghobarah. Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints: State of the Art. without shear reinforcement in joint area. Seismic Retrofit of Buildings a Greek Perspective. Thus. Further. Karayannis. 1-14. Although the preliminary and exploratory character and the present experimental study. This proves that the use of only one closed stirrup as joint shear reinforcement. 90.The applied light RC jacketing should not be considered as a strengthening technique since it did not shift the failure to the beam and did not dramatically increase the specimens’ load capacity. Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints using FRP Laminates. One main diagonal crack has been extensively widened at the last loading cycles according with concrete crushing at the back concrete cover of the joint area due to beam’s bars anchorage failure.. 113-129. Specimen J1R: This retrofitted specimen exhibited better cracking distribution. M. 4. ACI Structural Journal. as the commonly used jacketing usually does. Zureick. it is inadequate to alter the failure mode and shift the damage to the beam. Proceedings of the 5th SECED Conference on European Seismic Design Practice . although it improves the seismic performance. 285-292. the overall seismic performance. This improvement was mainly observed in the higher deformation loading cycles.G.M. n° 1. n° 3. Economou.. C. CEN. the response of specimen J1R was very alike to the response of the other retrofitted specimen (J0R).F.O. L.. Engindeniz. Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.A. A. Jirsa. Response of Repaired RC Exterior Joints under Cyclic Loading. In the high deformation loading cycles partially spalling of jacket’s mortar cover has been observed. Brussels. 102. REFERENCES Alcocer. the available floor space and the mass practically are not modified and the dynamic characteristics of the structure remain approximately the same. n° 2. ameliorated seismic performance and different failure mode than the original one. Thin shear diagonal cracks have been distributed all over the jacket’s joint area whereas the concrete cover at the back of the joint did not crush. 249-261. Journal of Earthquake Engineering.
(1998). Karayannis. C. Lowes. n° 1. ACI Structural Journal. A. C. 96. Tsonos.. (1999). Evaluation and Retrofit of Beam-Column T-Joints in Older Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures. n° 4. Seismic Repair of Exterior R/C Beam-to-Column Joints using Two-sided and Three-sided Jackets. G.G. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 13. 2. Sirkelis. C. Paper 549. C..G. (2002).E. Effectiveness of RC Beam-Column Connection Repair using Epoxy Resin Injections. 46-56. 2. A. 9 ..G. (2002). 17-34. (2003). 96. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Concrete Repair. Karayannis.. Vol. Chalioris.P. n° 1. ACI Structural Journal.M. Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints. 217-240. Tsonos. Sideris. G. Chalioris.E.N.K..G. Effectiveness of RC Beam-Column Connections Strengthening Using Carbon-FRP Jackets. Sirkelis. J.G. 793-800.. n° 2. 519-533. Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics.M. L. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. K. (1999). Repair of Reinforced Concrete T-beam – Column Joints using Epoxy Resin Injections.Karayannis. C. Moehle.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?