RaviKiran K V - 1da11cse11

CO
W
VIS
NUMERI
ONCRET
WITH EXT
Submitted
DR
OU
VESVAR
BE
ICAL MO
TE EXTER
TERNALL
in partial fu
M
ST
R.AMBED
UTER RING
MAL
RAYA TEC
ELGAUM-5
PRO
ODELING
RIOR BEA
LY BOND
ulfillment of
MASTER O
TRUCTUR
S
RAV
(1
Unde
Dr
P
Departmen
DKAR INS
G ROAD, NE
LLATHAHA
CHNOLO
590010, KAR

A
OJ ECT REPO
ON
ON BEH
AM-COLU
DED FIBE
(FRP)
the requirem
OF TECH

In

RAL ENG

Submitted by
VIKIRAN K
DA11CSE1

er the guidan
r. S VIJAY
PROFESSOR
nt of Civil En

STITUTE
EAR J NANA
ALLI, BANG
J uly 2013
OGICAL U
RANATAK

ORT
HAVIOUR
UMN JOI
R REINF
ment for the
HNOLOGY
GINEERIN
y
K V
1)
nce of
YA
R
ngineering

E OF TECH
A BHARAT
GALORE-56
UNIVERSI
KA
R OF REIN
INT RETR
FORCED P
award of the
Y
NG
HNOLOG
THI CAMPU
60056
ITY
NFORCED
ROFITTE
POLYME
e degree of
GY
US,
D
ED
ER
DISSERTATION REPORT ENTITLED
NUMERICAL MODELING ON BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT RETROFITTED
WITH EXTERNALLY BONDED FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER
(FRP)
Submitted to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
By
RAVIKIRAN K V
USN: 1DA11CSE11

Under the guidance of
Dr. S VIJAYA
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Dr. AIT, Bengaluru-560056

Carried out at
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
DR.AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
BANGALORE-560056
2012-2013

i
ABSTRACT
Retrofitting of existing structures is one of the major challenges that modern civil
engineering structures has demonstrated that most of them will need major repairs in the near
future. Up gradation to higher seismic zones of several cities and towns in the country has
also associated in evolving new retrofitting strategies. Hence the aspect of retrofitting of civil
engineering infrastructure has received considerable attention over the past few years
throughout the world.
Until early 1990s, concrete jacketing and steel were the two common methods
adopted for strengthening the deficient RC Beam column J oints. Concrete jacketing results in
substantial increase in the cross section are and self jackets are poor in resisting weather
attacks. Both methods are however labor intensive and sometimes difficult to implement at
site. A new technique has emerged recently which uses fiber reinforced polymer sheet to
strengthen the beam-column joint. FRP materials have a number of favorable characteristics
such as ease to install, immunity to corrosion, high strength, availability in sheets etc. The
simplest way to strengthen such joints is to attach FRP sheets in the joint region in two
orthogonal directions. Also, recent research has attempted to simulate the behaviour of
reinforced concrete structures strengthened with FRP composites using the finite element
method (FEM). But limited work is done on the use of FEM to analyze retrofitted beam-
column joints.
In the present study, finite element modelling of a RC exterior beam-column joint
retrofitted with externally bonded FRP is carried out with the help of commercially available
software ANSYS 13.0. First, the control specimen is analyzed and the results obtained are
compared with an experimental study from the literature. Then, the specimen is retrofitted
with externally bonded carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass-fiber-reinforced
polymer (GFRP) sheets with different wrapping schemes and analyzed. The results from the
retrofitted specimen are then compared with the results of the control specimen. It is found
that for the control specimen, the values of yield load and ultimate load obtained in ANSYS
are very close to the values obtained from the experimental study. Comparison between the
load-deflection results obtained from ANSYS for control and retrofitted specimens shows
that the yield load and ultimate load has significantly increased for the retrofitted specimen.
This is accompanied by lower deflections for the retrofitted specimen as compared to the
control specimen. The deflection ductility ratio and energy absorption has also increased for
the retrofitted specimen.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The dissertation work is an endeavor and the satisfaction that accompanies the
successful completion of these tasks would be incomplete without the mention of people who
made it possible. Hence, I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to them.

I express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. S Vijaya, Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. A.I.T, Bengaluru, who with her inspiration, incessant
encouragement and support, has rendered meticulous guidance throughout the research work.
I adore Dr. S Vijaya, for many of her excellent qualities. Working with her was a pleasure,
the memories of which would be cherished throughout the lifes journey.

I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Nanjunda Swamy, Principal, Dr. Ambedkar
Institute of Technology, Bengaluru for providing necessary facilities.

I express my profound of sincere gratitude to H R Srinivas, Assistant Professor and
Coordinator M.Tech , Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. A.I.T, Bengaluru for his constant
support and encouragement throughout my dissertation work.

I express my sincere thanks and regards to Dr. B Shivakumara Swamy, Professor
and Head of Civil Engineering Department, Dr. A.I.T, Bengaluru for his constant support and
encouragement throughout my dissertation work.

I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all the staff members, Department of
Civil Engineering, Dr. A.I.T, Bengaluru, for their direct or indirect support during the project.

Thanks to Mr. Manjunath, Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. A.I.T, Bengaluru,
for their kind encouragement, and constant support in all needed computer related works.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mother and father for their
love, unwavering support and understanding during my M.Tech studies.

RAVIKIRAN K V
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...iii
LIST OF FIGURES....vi
LIST OF TABLES......ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION1
1.1 General.1
1.2 Beam-Column J oints2
1.2.1 Types of joints in frames...2
1.2.2 Forces acting on a beam-column joint..4
1.2.3 Loading systems6
1.2.3.1 Types of loading systems...6
1.3 Vulnerability of existing structures..7
1.4 Retrofit of exterior RC beam-column joints with FRP materials.9
1.4.1 An overview of FRP composites.11
1.4.1.1 Glass fibres...11
1.4.1.2 Carbon fibres13
1.4.1.3 Aramid fibres14
1.4.1.4 Boron fibres..14
1.4.1.5 Types of FRP composites based on installation...16
1.4.2 Installation of FRP composites...18
1.5 Finite element method (FEM)19
1.6 Objectives of thesis20
1.7 Thesis layout..21

iv
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..22

2.1 General...22
2.2 Beam column joint and retrofitted beam column joint Experimental studies.22
2.3 Beam column joint and retrofitted beam column joint Numerical studies..42
CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF BEAM
COLUMN JOINTS50
3.1 General...50
3.2 Element types.50
3.2.1 Concrete material50
3.2.2 Reinforcement material...51
3.2.3 FRP composites...52
3.3 Real constants.52
3.3.1 Concrete..52
3.3.2 Reinforcement material...53
3.4 Material properties.53
3.4.1 Concrete..53
3.4.2 Steel reinforcement..57
3.5 Geometry62
3.5.1 Control specimen.62
3.5.2 Retrofitted specimen...63
3.6 Finite element discretization..67
3.6.1 Control specimen.67
3.6.1.1 Concrete-reinforcement interface.68
3.6.2 Retrofitted specimens..70
3.7 Loading and boundary conditions..71
v
3.8 ANSYS solution control.72

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS..74
4.1 Modal verification..74
4.2 Retrofitted specimens.79
4.2.1 GFRP specimens.79
4.2.1.1 Load-deflection plots....79
4.2.1.2 Crack patterns...81
4.2.1.3 Ductility........85
4.2.1.4 Energy absorption85
4.2.2 CFRP specimens.85
4.2.2.1 Load-deflection plots86
4.2.2.2 Crack patterns...88
4.2.2.3 Ductility92
4.2.2.4 Energy absorption92
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS.93
5.1 Conclusions93
5.2 Future scope of work..94
REFERENCES...95

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1: Types of beam-column joints [1].3
Fig. 1.2: Typical beam-to-column connections (slabs not shown for clarity) [3]..3
Fig. 1.3: Interior joint [4]...4
Fig. 1.4: Exterior J oint [4]..5
Fig. 1.5: Corner joints [4]...6
Fig. 1.6: (a) Typical non-ductile detailing prescribed by older codes; (b) Typical ductile
detailing prescribed by newer codes [7].7
Fig. 1.7: A view of collapsed RC building and close-up of the damage to moment frame
elements [8]8
Fig. 1.8: Stress-strain curve for different reinforcing materials [1].17
Fig. 1.9: Typical lay-up of FRP composite (extruded view) [21]18
Fig. 1.10: Installation of FRP sheet on concrete substrate [21]...19
Fig. 2.1: SIMCON wrapping system by J eyasehar and Ravichandran [24].23
Fig. 2.2: Overall dimensions and reinforcement details of specimen by Patel et al.[25].24
Fig. 2.3: Ferrocement Wrapping System by Ravichandran and J eyasehar [26]..25
Fig. 2.4: FRP-strengthening scheme by Sezen [27].27
Fig. 2.5: Schematic representation of GFRP and TRM scheme applied to as-built exterior
joint by Al-Salloum et al. [28].28
Fig. 2.6: Schematic representation of CFRP scheme applied to as-built exterior joint Al-
Salloum et al. [28]29
Fig. 2.7: Construction details of beam-column joint test prototypes by Mady et al. [29]...30
Fig. 2.8: Schematic representation of FRP Scheme #1 by Alsayed et al. [30].31
Fig. 2.9: Schematic representation of FRP Scheme #2 by Alsayed et al. [30].....31
Fig 2.10: Reinforcement detail of J oint 1 and J oint 2 by Bhandari [31]..33
Fig. 2.11: Reinforcement details of the specimens - Group A (As per IS: 456-2000) by
Bindhu and J aya [32]34
Fig. 2.12: Reinforcement details of the specimens - Group B (As per IS: 456-2000 with non-
conventional reinforcement) by Bindhu and J aya [32]35
Fig. 2.13: FRP strengthening schemes: (a) column strip scheme; (b) beam strip scheme by
Shrestha et al. [34]...36
Fig. 2.14: The details of strengthening process by carbon-fiber reinforced polymer fabric by
Gencoglu and Mobasher [35]...38
vii
Fig. 2.15: Description of all specimens by Le and Lee [36]39

Fig. 2.16: Experimental study (a) Geometry of specimens (b) Transverse beam (c) Details of
reinforcement by Antonopoulos and Triantafillou [37]...41
Fig. 2.17: Description of specimens and strengthening alternatives by Antonopoulos and
Triantafillou [37]..41
Fig. 2.18: Description of all retrofitting configurations (all dimensions in millimeters) by
Dalalbashi et al. [38]................................................42
Fig. 2.19: CFRP-upgrade scheme for beam-column connections by Parvin and Blythe [39].44
Fig. 2.20: Typical View of ANSYS Models (a) Detailed as per code IS 456:2000; (b) Model
Detailed as per code IS13920:1993; (c) Typical meshed Retrofitted specimen by
J eyabharathy et al. [40]45
Fig. 2.21: FE modeling of the specimens by Li et al. [41]...46
Fig 2.22: Damaged concrete zones (a) one-way RC connection; (b) two-way RC connection
by Danesh et al. [42]47
Fig. 3.1: SOLID65 3-D concrete solid element (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44]).....51
Fig. 3.2: LINK180 3-D spar elements (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44])...51
Fig. 3.3: Solid185 Element (Layered Structural Solid) (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44]).52
Fig. 3.4: Standard stress-strain curve for 32 MPa concrete (Mohamed H. A. Mady, [1])...55
Fig. 3.5: Simplified stress-strain curve for concrete used in FE model...56
Fig. 3.6: Stress-strain curve for steel reinforcement59
Fig. 3.7: Schematic of FRP composites...60
Fig. 3.8: Stress-strain curves for the FRP composites in the direction of the fibers61
Fig. 3.9: Typical dimensions for control specimen..62
Fig. 3.10: Finite Element Model of Control Specimen63
Fig. 3.11: Different wrapping arrangements of FRP composites.64
Fig. 3.12: Retrofitted specimens which are created in ANSYS...67
Fig. 3.13: FEM discretization of Control Specimen68
Fig. 3.14: Models for reinforced concrete element..69
Fig. 3.15: Typical steel reinforcement locations..69
Fig. 3.16: Element connectivity: concrete solid and FRP layered solid elements...70
Fig. 3.18: Boundary conditions71
Fig. 3.19: Loading Conditions..72
Fig. 4.1: Load deflection plot for the control specimen75
viii
Fig. 4.2: Comparison between the load displacement plot obtained from finite element
analysis and the experimental study.76
Fig 4.3: Deflected shape of the control specimen77
Fig. 4.4: Crack pattern of Control Specimen78
Fig 4.5: Load deflection comparison of control specimen and GFRP retrofitted
specimens.79
Fig 4.6: Crack patterns of GFRP Retrofitted Specimens.84
Fig 4.7: Load deflection comparison of control specimen and CFRP retrofitted
specimens.86
Fig. 4.8: Crack patterns of CFRP Retrofitted Specimens91

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Approximate Properties of Common Grades of Glass Fibers [20].12
Table 1.2: Approximate Properties of Common Grades of Carbon Fibers [20]..13
Table 1.3: Approximate properties of the thermosetting polymer resins [20].16
Table 2.1: Description of test specimens by J eyasehar and Ravichandran [24]..23
Table 2.2: Description of test specimens by Ravichandran and J eyasehar [26]..26
Table 2.3: Specimen Failure Loads by Baglin et al. [43].48
Table 3.1: Real Constants for Concrete and Reinforcement material..54
Table 3.2: Material properties of concrete...58
Table 3.3: Material properties of steel reinforcement..59
Table 3.4: Material properties for CFRP and GFRP62
Table 3.5: Characteristics of strengthen specimens.65
Table 4.1: Load-Deflection values of control specimen..74
Table 4.2: Load deflection values of GFRP retrofitted specimens...80
Table 4.3: Ductility factor of GFRP specimens...85
Table 4.4: Energy Absorption values of GFRP specimens..86
Table 4.5: Load deflection values of CFRP retrofitted specimens87
Table 4.6: Ductility factor of CFRP specimens...92
Table 4.7: Energy Absorption values of CFRP specimens..92

Numerical modeling on behavior of RC exterior beam column joint retrofitted with
externally bonded FRP
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
Reinforced concrete frame buildings designed before the introduction of modern
seismic oriented codes in early 1970s, offer an inadequate response to lateral loads typical of
seismic events. In this work the attention is focused on the behavior of exterior beam-column
joint, since it is recognized that they are the most vulnerable part of moment resisting RC
frames, due to their lack of a reliable joint shear transfer mechanism. This poor behavior is
mainly due to: inadequate reinforcement detailing (lack of transverse reinforcement in the
joint region), poor bond properties of the reinforcement (plain round bars) and deficiencies in
the anchorage details (bars with end-hooks).

It is well recognized that beam-column joints play an important role in maintaining
the building frame integrity under seismic action in order to preserve gravity load carrying
capacity as well as lateral load strength. The exterior beam-column joints are considered the
most critical parts in the whole frame for the following reasons:
Any damage occurs in the interior or exterior joints will affect the integrity of the
whole frame, compared to the local influence of the corner joints;
The interior joints have more confinement than the exterior ones due to larger
numbers of beams and slabs connected to the joint;
Less anchorage length is available for the straight beam bars in the exterior joints,
compared to the interior joints where the bars will continue through the joint [1].

Despite the fact that many nominally ductile existing structures did survive previous low-
to-moderate ground motion events, the level of damage attained in these structures deems
them vulnerable to collapse in future earthquake events. Therefore, rehabilitation of such
structures is essential and cannot be neglected.
From the mid-70s, as seismic hazards and their detrimental effects were recognized
and understood, a considerable amount of research has been devoted to developing seismic
retrofitting strategies and techniques. Nevertheless, the seismic upgrading of exterior beam-
column joints in existing RC moment resisting frames designed prior to modern seismic code
provisions is still imposing a serious challenge in earthquake engineering. During the last two
decades, the studies and applications of composites in construction, more particularly in the
strengthening of existing buildings, represented one of the fastest growing new areas within
structural engineering. Retrofit techniques based on the use of externally bonded fibre-
reinforced polymers (FRPs), are becoming an attractive and more widely accepted solution
for the seismic strengthening of existing buildings. The technique of using fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) systems for structural enhancement mitigates several disadvantages and is
gaining preference over traditional strengthening methods such as concrete jacketing, steel
plate bonding and sprayed concrete.

The majority of the research effort regarding numerical studies has been focused on
the FE modelling of strengthened RC beams to address the bonding issue of FRP plates and
sheets. More researchers had used commercially-available software packages such as
ANSYS, ABAQUS, DIANA, ATENA, or SBETA to carry out the FE analysis. Studies
regarding the modelling of RC joints with FRP materials are relatively limited.

1.2 BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
Beam and column where intersects is called as joint or junction. The functional
requirement of a joint, which is the zone of intersection of beams and columns, is to enable
the adjoining members to develop and sustain their ultimate capacity. The joints should have
adequate strength and stiffness to resist the internal forces induced by the framing members
[2].

1.2.1 TYPES OF JOINTS IN FRAMES
A beam-column joint is defined as that portion of the column within the depth of the
deepest beam that frames into the column [3]. For a typical moment-resisting plane frame, as
shown in Fig. 1.1, three types of beam-column joints can be identified; interior, exterior and
corner.

Fig. 1.1: Types of beam-column joints [1]

When four beams frame into the vertical faces of a column, the joint is called as an
interior joint. When one beam frames into a vertical face of the column and two other
beams frame from perpendicular directions into the joint, then the joint is called as an
exterior joint. When a beam each frames into two adjacent vertical faces of a column, then
the joint is called as a corner joint [2].
According to ACI 352R-02, Classification of connections as interior, exterior, or
corner connections is summarized in Fig. 1.2.

(a) Interior (b) Exterior (c) Corner

(d) Roof-Interior (e) Roof-Exterior (f) Roof-Corner
Fig. 1.2: Typical beam-to-column connections (slabs not shown for clarity) [3]
1.2.2 FORCES ACTING ON A BEAM COLUMN JOINT

The pattern of forces acting on a joint depends upon the configuration of the joint and
the type of loads acting on it. The effects of loads on the three types of joints are discussed
with reference to stresses and the associated crack patterns developed in them [4].
The forces on an interior joint subjected to gravity loading can be depicted as shown
in Fig. 1.3(a). The tension and compression from the beam ends and axial loads from the
columns can be transmitted directly through the joint. In the case of lateral (or seismic)
loading, the equilibrating forces from beams and columns, as shown in Fig. 1.3(b) develop
diagonal tensile and compressive stresses within the joint. Cracks develop perpendicular to
the tension diagonal A-B in the joint and at the faces of the joint where the beams frame into
the joint. The compression struts are shown by dashed lines and tension ties are shown by
solid lines. Concrete being weak in tension, transverse reinforcements are provided in such a
way that they cross the plane of failure to resist the diagonal tensile forces.

(a) Gravity loading (b) Seismic loading
Fig. 1.3: Interior joint [4]

The forces acting on an exterior joint can be idealized as shown in Fig. 1.4. The shear
force in the joint gives rise to diagonal cracks thus requiring reinforcement of the joint. The
detailing patterns of longitudinal reinforcements significantly affect joint efficiency. Some of
the detailing patterns for exterior joints are shown in Fig. 1.4(b) and Fig. 1.4(c). The bars
bent away from the joint core (Fig. 1.4(b)) result in efficiencies of 25-40 % while those
passing through and anchored in the joint core show 85- 100% efficiency. However, the
stirrups have to be provided to confine the concrete core within the joint.

(a) Forces (b) Poor detail (c) Satisfactory detail
Fig. 1.4: Exterior Joint [4]

The forces in a corner joint with a continuous column above the joint (Fig. 1.2(c)) can
be understood in the same way as that in an exterior joint with respect to the considered
direction of loading. In considering joints at the intersection of a beam and column at a
corner of a rigid frame, it is necessary to distinguish between joints that tend to be opened by
the applied moments and those that tend to be closed by the applied moments. Such joints
may also be referred as knee joints or L-joints. The stresses and cracks developed in such a
joints are shown in Fig. 1.5.

(a) Opening Joint (Top View) (b) Cracks in an Opening Joint

(c) Closing Joint (Top View) (d) Cracks in a Closing Joint
Fig. 1.5: Corner joints [4]

1.2.3 LOADING SYSTEMS
The structures are being imposed by many loads e.g. dead load, live load,
imposed(wind) load, snow load, earthquake load etc. The structures have to be designed in
such a way that they can bear these loads to overcome the collapse or failure of the
structures. Today the earthquake resistant structures are being designed more widely. To
understand the behavior of the structures in the earthquake, the researchers are applying
cyclic loading to the building in the laboratory [5].

1.2.3.1 TYPES OF LOADING SYSTEMS
The behavior of building is studied with different types of loads.
Static loading: Static means slow loading in structural testing. Test of components:
Beams (bending), column (axial), beams and columns. Purpose of testing: Determine
strength limits, Determine the flexibility/rigidity of structures.
Quasi-static loading: Very slowly applied loading in one direction (monotonic)
Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading: Very slowly applied loading in both direction
(cyclic)
Dynamic (random) loading: Shake at the base or any other elevation of the structure
shaking similar to that during earthquakes [6].
In the present study monotonic load is applied.
1.3 VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

Before the mid-1970s, many RC building structures were designed to provide enough
resistance to the code-specified lateral forces at the time of construction. For instance, wind
loading was the only lateral loading considered in the design of the buildings constructed in
the early 1930s. The behavior of reinforced concrete moment resisting frame structures in
recent earthquakes all over the world has highlighted the consequences of poor performance
of beam column joints. However, a vast majority of RC buildings worldwide consist of
structures designed prior to the advent of modern seismic design codes. It has been identified
that the deficiencies of joints are mainly caused by inadequate transverse reinforcement and
insufficient anchorage capacity in the joint. Fig. 1.6(a) shows a few typical deficiencies
found in the beam-column joints of old structures and Fig. 1.6(b) shows the corresponding
new ductile detailing recommended by new codes.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1.6: (a) Typical non-ductile detailing prescribed by older codes; (b) Typical ductile
detailing prescribed by newer codes [7].
Recent earthquakes still continue to teach important lessons with implications for
practicing engineers. The most significant of these is the acknowledgement of the high
vulnerability of existing structures and the need for proper assessment and retrofitting of
these buildings to improve their seismic performance against future earthquakes. In Fig. 1.7,
examples of structural damage observed in the Marmara, Turkey earthquake of August 17,
1999 are given to illustrate a number of detailing deficiencies due to the non-ductile design.

Fig. 1.7: A view of collapsed RC building and close-up of the damage to moment frame
elements [8]

Major problem areas and typical deficiencies of pre-1970s RC structures based on the
observations after devastating earthquakes and laboratory testing of elements and
subassemblages containing typical early detailing are summarized as follows:
The column deficiencies include (a) tie configuration with 90 degree hooks; (b) tie
spacing too large to provide adequate confinement; (c) lap splice located above the
floor slab at regions of high moment; (d) lap splice length too short to provide force
transfer; (e) tie spacing at lap splice too large, and (f) plain round type longitudinal
bars with low bond capacity used.
The beam deficiencies include (a) transverse shear ties not closed and with 90 degree
hooks; (b) transverse shear tie spacing too large; (c) transverse shear ties sized for
gravity loads only and are too small; (d) transverse shear ties are missing at beam
mid-span; (e) top longitudinal steel reinforcement discontinuous at the beam centre so
it cannot account for seismic bending or reversals; (e) bottom longitudinal steel
reinforcement often discontinuous at the column faces or lapping only slightly within
the beam-column joint; (f) longitudinal steel reinforcement at end frames terminating
without hooks or with hooks that bend away from the joint providing inadequate
development length and continuity, and (g) plain round type longitudinal bars with
low bond capacity.
The frame deficiencies include (a) weak column/strong beam characteristics making
floors vulnerable to collapse from failed columns; (b) shear capacity less than that
required to form plastic hinges for both columns and beam; (c) beam-column joint
with inadequate shear capacity; (d) beam-column joint with inadequate confinement;
(e) beams often framing eccentrically to the columns; (f) no bottom slab
reinforcement passing through the column reinforcement cage in interior flat
slab/column frames, and (g) gravity systems too rigid and with inadequate
deformation compatibility with the lateral system [9].

1.4 RETROFIT OF EXTERIOR RC BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
WITH FRP MATERIALS
Several rehabilitation techniques have been investigated and adopted in practical
applications to enhance the seismic performance of the existing beam-column joints. These
techniques are ranging from conventional techniques, such as epoxy repair [10,11], removal
and replacement [12], reinforced or pre-stressed concrete jacketing [13,14], steel jacketing
[15,14], concrete masonry unit jacketing or partial masonry infills [16,14]. A comprehensive
review of the state of the art on the use of conventional strengthening techniques can be
found in Engindeniz et al. [17].
The aforementioned techniques generally referred to as conventional or traditional

techniques, cause various difficulties in their practical application. To overcome the
difficulties associated with these techniques recent research efforts have focused on the use
of epoxy-bonded fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs). FRP reinforcing systems have been
widely used in various forms (e.g., epoxy-bonded flexible sheets, shop manufactured strips,
and near-surface-mounted rods) for upgrading the existing beam-column joints since 1998.

The FRP systems were shown to provide significant benefits and advantages over the
conventional techniques including:
Higher strength-to-weight ratio (15 and 35, respectively, for glass and carbon, when
compared with that of steel)
Higher stiffness-to-weight ratio (1 and 3, respectively, for glass and carbon, when
compared with that of steel)
High corrosion resistance
Lighter unit weight, resulting in less-expensive equipment for economical handling,
shipping, and transportation as well as lighter erection equipment
High durability, leading to lower life-cycle costs
Easier-to-control tension crack growth by the confining of the concrete
Better customization for specific needs and tailorability
Fast field installation, easy applicability and limited disruption to building occupancy
No significant increase in member size
Simple onsite corrections in the case of installation defects of bonding of FRP with
concrete substrate

However, some limitations exist to FRP composite wrap applications:
Uncertainties about the durability of FRPs, as their long-term performance data is
limited
Concerns of fire resistance, adverse effects from smoke and toxicity, and poor
resistance of resins to UV rays
Limited knowledge of material properties and application procedures [18].

1.4.1 AN OVERVIEW OF FRP COMPOSITES

Fibre-reinforced polymer reinforcing systems for strengthening deficient concrete
structural members and for repairing damaged or deteriorated concrete structures have been
used since mid-1980s. Historically, composites were first applied as flexural strengthening
materials for RC bridges and as confining reinforcement of RC columns. Since the first
research efforts, the range of applications have expanded to include the strengthening of
various structural elements such as beams, slabs, columns, shear walls, chimneys, vaults,
domes and trusses.
The term composite material (often referred to as composite) is a generic term used to
describe a judicious combination of two or more materials to yield a product that is more
efficient from its constituents. One constituent is called the reinforcing or fibre phase (one
that provides strength); the other in which the fibres are embedded is called the matrix phase.
The matrix acts as a binder and holds the fibres in the intended position, giving the composite
material its structural integrity by providing shear transfer capability. Another function of the
matrix is to protect the fibre against the external environment into which the composite is
placed. Fibre forms used in FRP products for structural engineering are called as continuous
fibres because they are indefinitely long. These fibres are used at a relatively high volume
percentage (from 20 to 60%) to reinforce the polymer resin: thus the term fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP). This combination of two dissimilar materials leads to a component that has
enhanced strength, stiffness, and toughness over the properties of the individual parts [19].
The common types of fibres which are commonly used to produce strengthening sheets and
fabrics are glass fibres, carbon fibres, aramid fibres and boron fibres.

1.4.1.1 GLASS FIBERS
Glass fibers are the most commonly used fibers for producing FRP composites. Glass
fibers are made from molten glass spun from electrically heated platinum-rhodium alloy
bushings (or a furnace) at a speed of 200 mph. These filaments cool from a temperature of
about 2300F to room temperature within 10
-5
seconds. The diameter of an individual glass
fiber or filament ranges from approximately 3 to 24 m. A glass fiber has a distinctive bright
white color to the naked eye. Glass is usually considered to be an isotropic material.
Approximate properties of commonly used grades of glass fibers are given in Table 1.1.
Several types of commercially available glass fibers are identified below:
E-glass, which has low alkali content and is the most common type of glass fiber in
high-volume commercial use. Its advantages are low susceptibility to moisture and
high mechanical properties.
Z-glass, which is used for cement mortars and concretes due to its high resistance
against alkali attack.
A-glass, which has a high alkali content.
C-glass, which is used for applications that require greater corrosion resistance to
acids, such as chemical applications.
S or R-glass, which is produced for extra-high strength and high-modulus
applications.
Low K-glass is an experimental fiber produced to improve dielectric loss properties in
electrical applications and is similar to D-glass (dielectric glass) [18].

Table 1.1: Approximate Properties of Common Grades of Glass Fibers [20]
Grade of
Glass Fiber
Density
[g/cm
3
]
Tensile
Modulus
[GPa]
Tensile
Strength
[MPa]
Max.
Elongation
(%)
E 2.57 72.5 3400 2.5
A 2.46 73 2760 2.5
C 2.46 74 2350 2.5
S 2.47 88 4600 3.0

Glass fibers offer many advantages, such as:
Low cost
High tensile strength
High chemical resistance
Excellent insulating properties

The drawbacks of glass fibers are:

Low tensile modulus
Relatively high specific gravity
Sensitivity to abrasion from handling
High hardness
Relatively low fatigue resistance

1.4.1.2 CARBON FIBERS (GRAPHITE FIBERS)
Carbon fiber is defined as a fiber containing at least 90% carbon by weight. The term
graphite fiber is used to describe fibers that have carbon above 95% by weight. Carbon
fiber composites are ideally suited for applications where strength, stiffness, lower weight,
and outstanding fatigue characteristics constitute critical requirements. Unlike glass and
aramid fibers, carbon fibers do not exhibit stress corrosion or stress rupture failures at room
temperature. In addition, they can be used in applications requiring high temperature
resistance, chemical inertness, and damping characteristics. Carbon fibers have diameters
from about 5 to 10 m. Carbon fiber has a characteristic charcoal-black color. Approximate
properties of common grades of carbon fibers are given in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Approximate Properties of Common Grades of Carbon Fibers [20]
Grade of
Carbon Fiber
Density
[g/cm
3
]
Tensile
Modulus
[GPa]
Tensile
Strength
[MPa]
Max.
Elongation
(%)
Standard 1.7 250 3700 1.2
High strength 1.8 250 4800 1.4
High modulus 1.9 500 3000 0.5
Ultrahigh
modulus
2.1 800 2400 0.2

Carbon fibers offer the following advantages:
High tensile strength-to-weight ratio
High tensile modulus-to-weight ratio

Very low coefficient of linear thermal expansion
High fatigue strength
Some of the disadvantages of carbon fibers include high cost; high brittleness; and electrical
conductivity, which might limit their application potential.

1.4.1.3 ARAMID FIBERS (KEVLAR FIBERS)
Aramid fiber is the generic name given to aromatic ployamide fibers. Aramid fibers
were first introduced by DuPont in 1971 under the trade name Kevlar. It is an aromatic
compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. They have a distinctive yellow colour
and are the lightest of the high-performance fibres, having a density of 1.4 g/cm
3
. Depending
on the type of aramid fiber, the fiber longitudinal tensile strength ranges from 3400 to 4100
MPa and its longitudinal tensile modulus ranges from 70 to 125 GPa.

The many advantages of aramid fibers include very low thermal conductivity; a very
high damping coefficient; and a high degree of yielding under compression, which gives
superior tolerance to damage against impact and other dynamic loading.

However, aramid fibers also have certain adverse properties. These fibers are
hygroscopic, i.e., they can absorb moisture up to about 10% of fiber weight. At high moisture
content, they tend to crack internally at pre-existing microvoids and produce longitudinal
splitting. They have a low compressive strength and exhibit a loss of strength and modulus at
elevated temperatures. Aramid fibers present difficulty in cutting and machining. They also
are sensitive to UV lights, a drawback that leads to mechanical property deterioration over
time. Due to their relatively high price, difficulty in processing and low melting temperatures
they are less attractive as FRP material for structural engineering applications.

1.4.1.4 BORON FIBERS
Boron fibers are said to be the first advanced fibers that were commercially available.
They have a very high tensile modulus, in the range of 50 10
6
to 60 10
6
psi. Boron fibers
are produced by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) from the reduction of boron trichloride
(BCl3) with hydrogen on fine tungsten wire or carbon monofilament substrate. The tensile
strength can be increased by etching part of the outer portion of the filament. This increase in
tensile strength is due to some decrease in residual tensile stresses at the inner core, which
results from the removal of the outer region of the filament, which contains compressive
residual stresses.
Advantages of boron fibers include high tensile modulus and good resistance under
compressive loads to buckling owing to the large fiber diameter.
The nonfibrous part of the FRP material that binds the fibres together (also known as
the matrix or binder) is composed of the primary polymer ingredient and called polymer
resin or simply resin. Epoxy resins are commonly used in many FRP products. In field
applications, resins act as both the matrix for the FRP composite and as the adhesive to attach
the FRP composite to the substrate. Typically, when they are combined with several
additives or modifiers (e.g., fillers, and hardeners) the term resin system, rather than resin, is
used as an all-inclusive term for a binder ready for use at the time of application. The
additives are used to modify the properties of the resin to provide protection to fibres from
moisture ingress and ultraviolet radiation, add colour, and modify surface tension and so on.

There are two types of polymeric matrices widely used for FRP composites, namely,
thermosetting and thermoplastic. Thermosetting polymers are low molecular-weight liquids
joined together by chemical cross links. So, they form a rigid three dimensional structure that
once set, cannot be reshaped again by neither heat nor pressure. Contrary, thermoplastic
polymer are made from molecular in a linear structural form connected together by weak
secondary bonds can be destroyed by heat or pressure. Thermosetting polymers are used
more often than thermoplastic in FRP industry. Polyesters, vinyl esters and epoxies are the
commonly used thermosetting polymers. These materials have good chemical resistance and
thermal stability and undergo low creep and stress relaxation. On the other hand, the
disadvantages are short shelf-life, low strain-to-failure, low impact strength and long
manufacturing time. Approximate properties of the thermosetting polymer resins for FRP
products are given in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Approximate properties of the thermosetting polymer resins [20]

Density
[g/cm
3
]
Tensile
Modulus
[GPa]
Tensile
Strength
[MPa]
Max.
Elongation
(%)
Polyester 1.2 4.0 65 2.5
Epoxy 1.2 3.0 90 8.0
Vinylester 1.12 3.5 82 6.0
Phenolic 1.24 2.5 40 1.8
Polyurethane varies 2.9 71 5.9

Natural fibers such as hemp, sisal, and flax, as well as bamboo fibers, have been used
in experimental applications to produce FRP composites, but no commercial FRP products
are available that contain these fibers at this time.
Composite materials for strengthening of civil engineering structures are available today
mainly in the form of:
thin unidirectional strips (with thickness in the order of 1 mm) made by pultrusion,
flexible sheets or fabrics, made of fibres in one or at least two different directions,
respectively (and sometimes pre-impregnated with resin).
For comparison with steel, typical stress-strain diagrams for unidirectional composites under
short-term monotonic loading are given in Fig. 1.8.

1.4.1.5 TYPES OF FRP COMPOSITES BASED ON INSTALLATION
The FRP composites can be categorized based on how they are delivered to the site
and installed.

Dry lay-up FRP composites:
In this method, first the substrate is coated with resin. Next, the dry FRP sheets are
bonded on the substrate and a fresh coating of resin may be applied. The composite is
subsequently cured.

Wet lay-up FRP composites:

First, the FRP sheets are saturated with resin and then bonded on the substrate. It is
then cured as per the specifications.
Pre-impregnated FRP composites:
These consist of fibre sheets that are pre-impregnated (pre-preg) with a saturating
resin off-site in the suppliers facility. The pre-preg composites are bonded to the
substrate with or without additional resin application, depending upon the specific
system requirements. The fibre tow varieties are wound or mechanically applied on
the surface. The composites are subsequently cured. The pre-preg composites are
widely used in aero-space, automobile and ship building applications.
Pre-cured FRP composites:
These consist of a wide variety of shapes manufactured off-site in the suppliers
facility and shipped to the site. They are bonded to the substrate with resin. Pultruded
and pre-cured FRP sheets are frequently used for repair and retrofit. The pultruded
sheets are manufactured by the pultrusion process. In this process, the fibres are
pulled through a bath of resin and passed through pre-forming fixtures [21].

Fig. 1.8: Stress-strain curve for different reinforcing materials [1]
1.4.2 INSTALLATION OF FRP COMPOSITES

The FRP systems are commonly installed using dry fibre fabrics/sheets and a
saturating resin. The saturating resin is applied uniformly to the whole prepared surface. The
fibres should be gently pressed into the uncured saturating resin in a manner recommended
by the composite manufacturer. Entrapped air between layers should be released or rolled out
before the resin sets. Sufficient resin should be applied to achieve full saturation of the fibres.
Successive layers of resin should be placed before the complete curing of the previous layer.
The typical lay-up of an FRP composite on the substrate is shown in Fig. 1.9 and the
sequence of steps for installation of FRP sheets on a concrete substrate are shown in Fig.
1.10 (a) to (d). After the resin is completely cured, a top coating is provided.

Fig. 1.9: Typical lay-up of FRP composite (extruded view) [21]


Fig. 1.10: Installation of FRP sheet on concrete substrate [21]

1.5 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM)
A key contribution to the development of matrix methods for structural analysis was
made by Argyris and Kelsey. In their contribution they presented matrix formulation for
force and displacement methods of analysis using energy theorems of structural mechanics. It
was the work of Turner, Clough, Martin and Topp [22] that led to the discovery of the
finite element method. Clough in his subsequent work gave the physical interpretation to the
method and it appears that he was the first to use the terminology finite element. Since then,
tremendous advances have been made in the last 25 years both on the mathematical
foundations and generalization of the method to solve field problems in various areas of
engineering analysis. During the same period due to the rapid development in computer
technology, large number of package programs have been developed for finite element
analysis which made it possible for wider use of this technique in practice. Some of the
popular packages are ABAQUES, ADINA, ANSYS, ASKA, COSMOS, GT-STRUDL,
NISA, PAFEC, SAP, SESAM-80, etc.

The basic concept is that a body or a structure may be divided into smaller elements
of finite dimensions called finite elements. The original body or the structure is then
considered as an assemblage of these elements connected at a finite number of joints called
Nodes or Nodal points. The properties of the elements are formulated and combined to
obtain the solution for the entire body or structures [23].
The ability to discretize the irregular domains with finite elements makes the method
a valuable and practical analysis tool for the solution of boundary, initial, and eigen value
problems arising in various engineering disciplines.
The finite element analysis method requires the following major steps:
Discretization of the domain into a finite number of subdomains (elements).
Selection of interpolation functions.
Development of the element matrix for the subdomain (element).
Assembly of the element matrices for each subdomain to obtain the global matrix for
the entire domain.
Imposition of the boundary conditions.
Solution of equations.
Additional computations (if desired).
The finite element analysis is a numerical technique. The numerical analysis in this thesis
includes the construction of non-linear finite element model to simulate the behaviour of
beam-column joints retrofitted with externally bonded FRP. The available finite element
software package, ANSYS program (ANSYS, Release 13.0 2010), was used for this purpose.

1.6 OBJECTIVES OF THESIS
The present investigation of the nonlinear response to failure of RC beam-column
joints and the retrofitted RC beam-column joints under the point load is initiated with the
intent to investigate the relative importance of several factors in the nonlinear finite element
analysis of RC beam-column joints: these include the variation in load displacement graph,
the crack patterns, propagation of the cracks, ductility and energy absorption values on the
analytical results and the effect of the nonlinear behaviour of concrete and steel on the
response of control beam-column joint and the deformed beam-column joint.
The following are the main objectives of the present study:
To develop, a finite element model for beam-column joint, by considering all the
material properties of the FRP and the concrete using a commercial finite element
analysis package ANSYS and analyzed.
Compare the analytical results of the control beam-column joint with the
experimental results from the literature.
To develop the finite element model for retrofitted beam-column joints with
externally bonded FRP (CFRP and GFRP) with different wrapping schemes and
analyzed.
Compare the analytical results of the control beam-column joint with retrofitted
beam-column joints.

1.7 THESIS LAYOUT
This thesis consists of five chapters. The contents of each chapter are as follows:

Chapter one presents a brief introduction for the beam-column joints, forces acting on
the beam column joints, seismic behavior of beam-column joints, FRP material and
finite element method, as well as the work objectives and the followed methodology.

Chapter two introduces a literature review on the beam-column joints and retrofitted
beam-column joints with various materials (both experimental and numerical).

Chapter three gives the details of the used finite element model including element
types, material models, geometry and boundary conditions, and the solution control.

Chapter four presents the results of the finite element model in terms of the load-
deflection plots, crack patterns, ductility and energy absorption values.

Chapter five gives the conclusions obtained from this study and introduces the future
research needs.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL
During the past four decades, significant amount of research has been conducted to
investigate the behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. These joints are studied
due to its critical influence on the overall behaviour of RC moment-resisting frames
subjected to seismic loads. This has resulted in the use of materials such as Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP), Ferrocement, Slurry Infiltrated Mat CONcrete (SIMCON) laminates, textile-
reinforced mortars (TRM), etc., as external laminates for retrofitting of structures. In order to
reduce the amount of expensive and time-consuming laboratory testing, the behaviour of
exterior as well as interior joints is studied using non-linear finite element methods.
Providing that the FE model of the beam-column joint is developed to represent the
behaviour and calibrated successfully using the results of the previous experimental study,
the same model can be used to highlight the effect of different parameters on the behaviour.
Although there is a large database of experimental work and limited numerical work
published on substandard retrofitted beam-column joints in literature, a review of relevant
research on one-way exterior beam-column joints without any slabs are given.

2.2 BEAM COLUMN JOINT AND RETROFITTED BEAM-COLUMN
JOINT EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Jeyasehar and Ravichandran [24] investigated the performance of reinforced
concrete beam column joints under cyclic loading. Here, Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites (HPFRCCs) like Slurry Infiltrated Mat CONcrete (SIMCON) have been applied
on the joints in different volume fraction and aspect ratios. The column subjected to an axial
force while the beams are subjected to cyclic load with controlled displacement. Also a full
3D finite element analysis has been carried out using ANSYS general purpose finite element
software. Comparisons were made between experimental and analytical results of control
specimen and SIMCON retrofitted specimen. SIMCON laminates were used for externally
strengthening the RC beam column joint as shown Fig. 2.1. A short description of the
specimens is given in Table 2.1.

Fig. 2.1: SIMCON wrapping system by Jeyasehar and Ravichandran [24]

Table 2.1: Description of test specimens by Jeyasehar and Ravichandran [24]
Sl.
No.
Specimen
Designation
Type of
Reinforcement
Retrofitting Methodologies
1 NDA-1 Non ductile Control specimen
2 DDB-1 Ductile Control specimen
3 NDA-S1 Non ductile SIMCON (aspect ratio: 300 )
4 NDA-S2 Non ductile SIMCON (aspect ratio: 400 )
5 DDB-S1 Ductile SIMCON (aspect ratio: 300 )
6 DDB-S2 Ductile SIMCON (aspect ratio: 400 )

Based on the experimental work and the numerical analysis, the following
conclusions are drawn: (a) the composite materials SIMCON can be efficiently used for
seismic retrofitting of reinforced beam column joint; (b) the deficiency in cumulative energy
dissipation in the case of non ductile reinforced beam column joint can be made good by
SIMCON strengthening; (c) the increase in cumulative energy dissipation is 28.3 percent for
non ductile and 31.6 percent for ductile reinforced concrete beam column joint strengthened
by SIMCON.

Patel et al. [25] presented a experimental investigation to determine the performance
characteristics of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connection by using
polyester fibre. For this purpose four exterior beam-column connections were considered for
experiment work such as: (1) Non-ductile control specimen (ND) i.e. 0% fibre (2) Non-
ductile PFRC specimens: (a) PFRC specimen with 1% fibre (b) PFRC specimen with 1.5%
fibre (c) PFRC specimen with 2% fibre. For all PFRC specimens polyester fibres were
provided only in the joint and region of beam and column where ductility is demanded. The
test program included the evaluation of non-ductile PFRC beam-column connection in terms
of load-deflection behaviour, energy dissipation, stiffness and specific damping capacity.
Reinforcement details of specimen is as shown in Fig 2.2.

Fig. 2.2: Overall dimensions and reinforcement details of specimen by Patel et al. [25]

Test results demonstrated that (a) ultimate strength capacity of beam-column
connection increased with the increasing fibre volume fraction; (b) the PFRC beam-column
connections undergo large displacement (50 mm) than nonductile control specimen (35mm);
(c) the PFRC specimens not developed wider cracks; this indicates that polyester fibers
impart ductility to the beam-column connection; (d) addition of polyester fibre decreases the
stiffness degradation rate of PFRC specimens than control specimen ND; (e) the energy
dissipation of control specimen ND was very poor; while energy dissipation exhibited by all
PFRC specimens is better than ND. This also indicate that polyester fibre impart ductility
which is the essential properties for the beam-column connection.

Ravichandran and Jeyasehar [26] investigated the performance of reinforced
concrete beam column joints under cyclic loading. Here, Ferrocement have been applied on
the joints in different volume fraction. For this purpose eight full scale reinforced concrete
exterior beam column joints, two control specimen and six specimens strengthened by
ferrocement with different volume ratios were constructed and tested under cyclic loading.
Ferrocement laminate system has been cast in three parts as shown in Fig. 2.3. The energy
dissipation capacity of retrofitted beam column joints with various ferrocement
configurations has been compared. In addition, comparisons were made between
experimental and analytical results of control specimen and ferrocement retrofitted specimen.
A short description of the specimens is given in Table 2.2.

Fig. 2.3: Ferrocement Wrapping System by Ravichandran and Jeyasehar [26]
Table 2.2: Description of test specimens by Ravichandran and Jeyasehar [26]

Sl.
No.
Specimen
Designation
Type of
Reinforcement
Retrofitting Methodologies
1 NDA-1 Non ductile Control specimen
2 DDB-1 Ductile Control specimen
3 NDA-F1 Non ductile
Ferrocement laminates, one layer consisting of
weld mesh and woven mesh, volume fraction, 1.38.
6 DDB-F1 Ductile
7 DDB-F1 Ductile
8 DDB-F1 Ductile

Test results demonstrated that (a) the composite materials ferrocement can be
efficiently used for seismic retrofitting of reinforced beam column joint; (b) the deficiency in
cumulative energy dissipation in the case of non ductile reinforced beam column joint can be
made good by ferrocement strengthening; (c) The increase in cumulative energy dissipation
having volume fraction of 4.04 is 75.6 percent for non ductile and 69.2 percent for ductile
reinforced concrete beam column joint strengthened by ferrocement.

Sezen [27] studied the effectiveness of diagonal FRP wrapping in the beam-column
joint. For this purpose three exterior beam-column joint specimens were designed and tested
to investigate the behavior of the joint region with different reinforcement details. Then the
damaged specimens were repaired and strengthened to prevent shear damage and strength
deterioration inside the joint region and to achieve more ductile response. First, the damaged
loose concrete was removed and replaced by high-strength nonshrink mortar. Then, fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) strips were diagonally wrapped over the joint region, and
longitudinal FRP strips were applied and anchored on the beams. Fig. 2.4 shows the FRP-
strengthening scheme.

Fig. 2.4: FRP-strengthening scheme by Sezen [27]

Test results demonstrated that (a) the repair and strengthening method almost restored
the strength of the two beam-column joint specimens and increased the deformation capacity
in all three specimens; (b) diagonal FRP strips were very effective in increasing the shear
resistance of the joint region. The FRP strips acted more like ties and successfully carried the
tensile forces inside the joint region as in a strut-and-tie model; (c) no debonding was
observed in this study. The anchorage method involving self-tapping screws worked well.

Al-Salloum et al. [28] studied the efficiency and effectiveness of textile-reinforced
mortars (TRM) on upgrading the shear strength and ductility of a seismically deficient
exterior beam-column joint has been studied. The results are then compared with that of
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-
strengthened joint specimens. For this purpose five as-built joint specimens were constructed
with nonoptimal design parameters representing an extreme case of preseismic code design
construction practice of joints and encompassing the vast majority of existing beam-column
connections. Out of these five as-built specimens, two specimens were used as baseline
specimens (control specimens) and the other three were strengthened with TRM, CFRP, and
GFRP sheets, respectively. All five subassemblages were subjected to quasi-static cyclic
lateral load histories to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake damage. The response
histories of control and strengthened specimens were then compared. Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 show
details of CFRP, GFRP, and TRM layup.

Fig. 2.5: Schematic representation of GFRP and TRM scheme applied to as-built exterior
joint by Al-Salloum et al. [28]

Test results demonstrated that (a) the TRM can effectively improve both the shear
strength and ductility of seismically deficient beam-column joints to that extent that is
comparable to FRP-upgraded joints; (b) the increase in peak load and ductility by TRM
upgrading is very much dependent on the number of layers used in the strengthening. It is
possible for TRM-upgraded specimen to achieve comparable FRP-upgraded beam-column
joint ultimate load values with the use of a sufficient number of layers; (c) the energy
dissipation ability of the TRM-strengthened beam-column joint is substantially higher than
that of an as-built beam-column joint and comparable to FRP-upgraded joints.


Fig. 2.6: Schematic representation of CFRP scheme applied to as-built exterior joint Al-
Salloum et al. [28]

Mady et al. [29] assess the seismic behavior of concrete beam-column joints
reinforced with glass (G) FRP bars and stirrups. For this purpose five full-scale exterior T-
shaped beam-column joint prototypes were constructed and tested under simulated seismic
load conditions. The first test specimen, SS, was reinforced with conventional steel bars and
stirrups and used as a control specimen. The second specimen, GS, was reinforced with
GFRP bars and steel stirrups. The remaining three specimens, GG-1, GG-2, and GG-3, were
totally reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups. The longitudinal and transversal
reinforcement types and ratios are the main investigated parameters in this study. Fig. 2.7
shows the reinforcement details of the tested specimens.

Test results demonstrated that (a) that GFRP bars and stirrups can be used as
reinforcement in the beam-column joints subjected to seismic loading conditions. The GFRP
bars were capable of resisting reversal tension-compression cycles with no problems; (b) the
GFRP-reinforced joints can be designed to satisfy both strength and deformability
requirements; (c) the low modulus of elasticity for the GFRP reinforcement led to reducing
the stiffness of the tested specimens; (d) for GFRP-reinforced specimens, no slippage of the
beam bars was observed before failure; (e) for the GFRP-reinforced joints, as long as the
joint is safe under the applied shear stresses, increasing the beam reinforcement ratio can
enhance the ability of the joint to dissipate the seismic energy through utilizing the inelastic
behavior of concrete.

Fig. 2.7: Construction details of beam-column joint test prototypes by Mady et al. [29]

Alsayed et al. [30] studied efficiency and effectiveness of carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) sheets in upgrading the shear strength and ductility of seismically deficient
exterior beam-column joints. Here four as-built joints were constructed with nonoptimal
design parameters (inadequate joint shear strength with no transverse reinforcement)
representing preseismic code design construction practice of joints and encompassing most
of existing beam-column connections. Out of these four as-built specimens, two specimens
were used as baseline specimens (control specimens) and other two were strengthened with
CFRP sheets under two different schemes (strengthened specimens). In the first scheme,
CFRP sheets were epoxy bonded to joint, beams, and part of the column regions as shown in
Fig. 2.8. In the second scheme, however, sheets were epoxy bonded to joint region only but
they were effectively prevented against any possible debonding through mechanical
anchorages as shown in Fig. 2.9. All of these four subassemblages were subjected to cyclic
lateral load histories so as to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake damage.

Fig. 2.8: Schematic representation of FRP Scheme #1 by Alsayed et al. [30]

Fig. 2.9: Schematic representation of FRP Scheme #2 by Alsayed et al. [30]

The damaged control specimens were then repaired by filling their cracks through
epoxy and externally bonding them with CFRP sheets under the same above two schemes.
These repaired specimens were subjected to the similar cyclic lateral load history and their
response histories were obtained. Response histories of control, repaired, and strengthened
specimens were then compared.

Following are the major conclusions from the author: (a) the externally bonded CFRP
sheets can effectively improve both the shear strength and deformation capacity of beam-
column joints. The magnitude of effectiveness, however, is very much dependent on how
CFRP sheets were attached to the joint and whether mechanical anchorage was used or not;
(b) scheme #1 is an efficient scheme because it upgrades both the joint and the beam; (c)
scheme #2 is an economical and effective scheme for joint strengthening, as in this scheme
CFRP sheets are applied in such a way that possibility of debonding is eliminated; and (d) the
externally bonded CFRP sheets, in general, make the joint stiffer against distortion.

Bhandari [31] studied the effect of stress level on retrofitting of exterior beam
column joints. For this purpose eight external beam columns joints specimens were cast
using M 20 grade concrete and Fe 500 grade steel. The column was square in shape with
dimensions 100mm x 100 mm and the length of column was 1100 mm. The beam had
dimensions 100mm x 100 mm in all test specimens and the length of beam was 500 mm. In
all eight joints both beam and columns were reinforced with 4 bars of 8mm diameter.
However in four joints out of these eight joints, in four joints beam reinforcement is anchored
in column upto a length of 500 mm (Joint 1) and in other four joints beam reinforcement is
extended upto a outer face of column (Joint 2). The Joint 1 is designed according to the
design provisions provided in IS 13920. The ties for both the specimens consist of square
hoops of 6 mm diameter of size 60 mm x 60 mm placed 100 mm c/c in the column portion as
well as in the beam portion. The reinforcement detailing of Joint 1 and Joint 2 are shown in
the Fig. 2.10. Then the joints were subjected to point load at a distance of 275 mm from the
face of column. Three dial gauges were set at a distance of 100 mm, 200 mm, and 500 mm
under the beam from the column face to note the deflection in the beam. The eight beam
column joints (4 specimens of Joint 2 and 4 specimens of Joint 1) which were stressed to 100
% and 50% of the ultimate load are then retrofitted with feerocement. They are then tested
with the same procedure as adopted during the testing of control beams to calculate ultimate
load and corresponding deflections.
For the 100% stressed control specimens, the load-deflection results were plotted.
Joint 1 yields at the load of 5.7 KN and the ultimate load of 6.2 KN is reached at a deflection
of 24.58 mm. The Joint 2 shows a yield load of 8 KN and the ultimate load of 8.2 KN.
However the ultimate deflection for joint 2 is increased to 40.72 mm, indicating more
ductility in joint 2. These results were taken as a basis in the present study.
After retrofitting there is an increase in yield load and the ultimate load of the
specimen. The value of yield load and ultimate load of Joint 1 increase to 11.4KN and 11.9
KN respectively, indicating a 92 % increase for the ultimate load and about 96.5% increase
in the yield load. For Joint 2 the values of yield load and ultimate load increase to 10.1 KN
and 11.1 KN respectively, indicating a 35.36 % increase for the ultimate load and about
26.25% increase in the yield load. Then for the 50% stressed specimens were tested and
compared the results with the 100% stressed specimens.

Joint 1 Joint 2
Fig 2.10: Reinforcement detail of Joint 1 and Joint 2 by Bhandari [31]

Bindhu and Jaya [32] studied the seismic performance of exterior beam column
joint with non-conventional reinforcement detailing. For this purpose four joint sub
assemblages were tested under reverse cyclic loading applied at beam end. The specimens
were sorted into two groups based on the joint reinforcement detailing. The first group
(Group A) comprises of two joint assemblages having joint detailing as per construction code
of practice in India (IS 456:2000) with two axial load cases. The second group (Group B)
comprises of two specimens having additional cross bracing reinforcements. The
experimental investigations are validated with the analytical studies carried out by finite
element models using ANSYS. Fig. 2.11 and 2.12 shows the cross section and reinforcement
configurations for the specimens.
Test results demonstrated that (a) the test specimens with diagonal confining bars
have shown better performance, exhibiting higher strength with minimum cracks in the joint.
All the specimens failed by developing tensile cracks at interface between beam and column.
The joint region of specimens of group B is free from cracks except some hair line cracks
which show the joints had adequate shear resisting capacity; (b) The specimens detailed as
per IS: 456 with diagonal confining bars had improved ductility and energy absorption
capacity than specimens detailed as per IS 456:2000.The displacement ductility is increased
considerably for the non-conventionally detailed specimens.

Fig. 2.11: Reinforcement details of the specimens - Group A (As per IS: 456-2000) by
Bindhu and Jaya [32]

Fig. 2.12: Reinforcement details of the specimens - Group B (As per IS: 456-2000 with non-
conventional reinforcement) by Bindhu and Jaya [32]

Bousselham [33] presented a comprehensive review and synthesis of published
experimental studies on the seismic rehabilitation of RC frame beam-column joints with FRP
and discussed the issues that need to be addressed for further research. In addition, he
presented a simple design model for predicting the contribution of the FRP to the shear
strength of retrofitted joints. A total of 54 tests carried out worldwide were considered in the
review, and a database of the published studies, encompassing all relevant design parameters,
was assembled. The review of these studies shows that the FRP strengthening technique is a
promising alternative to the traditional techniques. Also, the reported test results indicate
substantial enhancements due to FRP in terms of strength, ductility, and energy dissipation of
joint cores. The test results confirmed that the performance increases significantly with, but
not proportionally, to the FRP ratio, and the FRP sheets were more effective than strips. As
for the effectiveness of carbon versus glass fibers, the study concluded that, for the same
axial stiffness, glass fibers sheets proved marginally more effective than carbon fiber sheets.
Shrestha et al. [34] presented the results of a series of tests on the strengthening of
shear deficient connections with FRP strips subjected to either cyclic or monotonic loading
with the primary motivation being accurate description of the behaviour of the FRP. Two sets
of exterior connections were tested. The first set was subjected to monotonic load and
consisted of three connections (i.e. one control and two strengthened with FRP) while the
second set was conducted under cyclic loading and consisted of two connections (i.e. one
control and one strengthened with FRP). Two different FRP strengthening techniques were
used in this study, both using carbon FRP (CFRP but herein referred to as FRP) strips formed
from carbon fibre sheets in a wet lay-up process. The column strip scheme (Fig. 2.13(a)) had
two 50 mm wide strips applied on either side of the joint face which extended into the
column. Column wraps were provided on both ends of the strips to provide anchorage against
complete strip debonding. Two layers of fibre sheet were used to form the FRP in both the
strips and in the column wraps. The beam strip scheme, shown in Fig. 2.13(b), consisted of
three FRP strips oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Each strip consisted of
two layers of FRP applied around the joint region, which also extended into the beam in a U-
shape. The ends of the strips were anchored using beam wrapping formed from two layers of
fibre sheet.

Fig. 2.13: FRP strengthening schemes: (a) column strip scheme; (b) beam strip scheme by
Shrestha et al. [34]
Tests demonstrated the effectiveness of FRP in enhancing the load-carrying capacity

and deformation of these connections when subjected to monotonic or cyclic loads. More
important, however, the tests have enabled a deeper understanding of the strength and
behaviour of the FRP. Beam or column wrapping at the ends of the FRP strengthening
prevented complete debonding of FRP, however, the need to prevent localized debonding of
FRP near the shear cracks was identified in order to enhance the effectiveness of the FRP
strengthening. FRP strain results demonstrated the full capacity of the FRP could not be
reached owing to progressive debonding of the FRP strips.

Gencoglu and Mobasher [35] studied the effects of carbon-fiber reinforced polymer
(CFRP) fabric on performance and behavior of the rehabilitated reinforced concrete (RC)
exterior beam-column joints and strengthened exterior RC beam-column joints were
subjected to cyclic loads to simulate seismic excitations. For the purpose four half-scaled
exterior beam-column joint specimens were prepared. One of the RC exterior joints was
designed in accordance with ACI 318-02 and was called as RCACI318. Other three
specimens were designed to represent existing RC structures built before 1970 code
provisions from view point of transverse reinforcement details in the joint. While one
(RCNH1) of three specimens was tested under the reversed cyclic loads as control specimen,
other two specimens were strengthened by using CFRP with epoxy resin. CFRP L shaped
and wrapping segments were used in strengthening of two joint specimens. L shaped
segments were laid out on the top and bottom surfaces of beam with respect to the direction
of cyclic loads. RCCFRP2 had two layers L shaped segments while RCCFRP1 had one
layer L shaped segment. These strengthened specimens are shown in Fig. 2.14. Moreover,
two steel angle beam pieces (1257575 mm) were mounted with a mechanic anchorage bolt
at the corners of beam and column strengthened to prevent the bulging of L shaped CFRP
segment subjected to tensile forces during cyclic loads. The steel angle beams in CFRP2
were mounted onto L shaped CFRP segment and then were wrapped by CFRP. The steel
angle beams in CFRP1 were fixed on the CFRP wrapping and L shaped CFRP segment.
The spaces of wrapping for L segments in RCCFRP1 were equal and the distance between
two wraps was 0.15m from center to center. The width of wrapping sheets in RCCFRP1 was
0.075 m. The mid-points of wrapping of L shaped segments in RCCFRP2 were 0.075mand
0.34mfrom column face and the width of wrapping CFRP sheets were respectively 0.15m
and 0.075 m.

Fig. 2.14: The details of strengthening process by carbon-fiber reinforced polymer fabric by
Gencoglu and Mobasher [35]

Test results demonstrated that (a) CFRP sheets mounted onto the concrete surfaces of
beam and column by using epoxy resins increase the load carrying capacity, the ultimate
beam tip displacements, the absorbed total energy amounts over RCACI318; (b) it is seen
that the RC exterior beam-column joint strengthened by two layers L CFRP sheets has the
highest reversed cyclic load carrying capacity and the total absorbed energy amounts among
other beam-column joint specimens; (c) When the steel angle pieces used at the corner of
joints are fixed to the concrete by means of anchorage bolts and wrapped by CFRP sheets
with the width of 0.15 m, it is observed that X-shear cracks in the joints can be prevented. In
addition to this result, it was also seen that failure sections at RC beam-column joints using
two layers L shaped CFRP was moved from column face toward mid-span.
Le and Lee [36] presented a experimental study to strengthen the capacity of the non-
seismic joints using carbon fiber retrofitted polymer (CFRP) materials. For this purpose a
total of eight exterior RC beam-column joint specimens with different configurations of
CFRP sheets were developed and tested to find out an effective way of using CFRP sheets on
improving performance of the joint. The main emphasis of this is investigating the global
load-displacement relationship and shear behavior of the joints. The view of all specimens
was presented in Fig. 2.15. For the specimen RNS-1, two types of CFRP being T- shape
and L-shape were used. They are attached on both sides of the joint (Fig. 2.15b). Specimen
RNS-2 is similar to specimen RNS-1 but it has two strips were placed at the ends of the
CFRP sheets on the column (Fig. 2.15c). In the specimen RNS-3, the sheets with different
shape of CFRP called X- shape were employed. These CFRP sheets are wrapped on three
surfaces around the joint (Fig. 2.15d). The specimen RNS-4 includes the same X-shape as
the specimen RNS-3 adding two CFRP sheets of L-shape on top and bottom of the joint
(Fig. 2.15e). Specimen RNS-5 is the specimen RNS-2 adding one U-shape strip at the
end of the CFRP sheets on the beam (Fig. 2.15f). Specimen RNS-6 is the same specimen
RNS-2, but it includes two layers of CFRP sheets (Fig. 2.15g).

Fig. 2.15: Description of all specimens by Le and Lee [36]

Test results demonstrated that (a) the strengths of the joints, which were designed
without seismic detail, are quite low. They are easy to damage in shear with small strain and
ductility. Therefore they are not able to keep their required strength subjected to cyclic
loadings; (b) adding adequate transverse reinforcement based on the requirement of the ACI
318-02 is effective to increase both strength (increase 21.7%) and ductility (increase 1.4
times) of structure, especially strength; (c) with advantages of carbon fiber retrofit polymer
(CFRP) materials, it is very good to enhance strength and ductility of structures. All of the
results obtained by using the different ways of wrapping of CFRP provide a good way of
retrofit the joints. Generally, the shear strength increased 31.7% and ductility increased by
2.4 times comparing with the non-seismic specimen; (d) when using the same number of
layers of CFRP sheets, the most effectiveness of CFRP sheet was obtained when the fiber
direction of CFRP sheets inclined at 45
0
from beam axis. It means the fiber direction was
very close to principal stress and strain direction (strength increased 17.5%, ductility
increased 3.3 times, in specimen RNS-3); (e) the more layers of CFRP were used, the more
effect of increasing strength and ductility were achieved. With two layers of CFRP, the
strength increased 31.7% from the non-seismic original specimen and ductility increased by
2.4 times (in specimen RNS-6).

Antonopoulos and Triantafillou [37] performed an experimental programme to
clarify the role of the various parameters (e.g., area fraction and distribution of FRP, column
axial load, internal joint reinforcement, initial damage, carbon versus glass fibres, sheets
versus strips, and the effect of transverse stub beams) on the effectiveness of FRP
strengthened shear-critical beam-column joints. For this purpose, eighteen 2/3-scale exterior
RC joints are tested under reversed cyclic lateral loading with various configurations. The
details of specimens are given in Fig. 2.16. The designs of all the tested joints and details of
the alternative strengthening configurations examined are given in Fig. 2.17.
Test results demonstrated that (a) debonding dominates the behaviour of external
reinforcement unless very low area fractions are employed or proper mechanical anchorages
are provided; (b) flexible sheets are more effective than strips for the same reinforcement
area; (c) due to premature debonding both the strength and the dissipated energy increase
considerably, but not proportionally; (d) increasing the FRP area fraction in the beam is
nearly as effective as it is for equal increase in both the beam and the column, implying that
the effectiveness of column FRP is rather limited; (e) mechanical anchorages increase the
effectiveness of both sheets and strips, and wrapping of longitudinal FRP sheets with
transverse layers proved to be a highly effective anchorage system; (f) the effect of high axial
load on the shear capacity of FRP strengthened joints are quite positive, and (g) the
effectiveness of the FRP increases as the transverse steel reinforcement in the joint decreases.

(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2.16: Experimental study (a) Geometry of specimens (b) Transverse beam (c) Details of
reinforcement by Antonopoulos and Triantafillou [37]

Fig. 2.17: Description of specimens and strengthening alternatives by Antonopoulos and
Triantafillou [37]
2.3 BEAM COLUMN JOINT AND RETROFITTED BEAM-COLUMN

JOINT NUMERICAL STUDIES
Dalalbashi et al. [38] presented a numerical investigation into the effectiveness of
carbon fiberreinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets in enhancing the seismic performance of RC
joints under combined axial and cyclic loads. For this purpose, a case-study joint
subassemblage was retrofitted using three different retrofitting configurations (L-shaped, web
bonded, and flange bonded) and the three-dimensional (3D) FE models of the original and
the FRP-retrofitted beam-column connection were developed and analyzed in the commonly
used ANSYS 12.1 (ANSYS 2009) FE software. Then, the results from the control specimen
are compared with the experimental data available and the results of the retrofitted specimens
are compared with the control specimen in terms of the tip beam load distribution versus tip
beam displacement, energy dissipation, and plastic hinge relocation. The retrofitting systems
comprised three different practical FRP configurations, as shown in Fig. 2.18, with detailed
composite-sheet dimensions.

Fig. 2.18: Description of all retrofitting configurations (all dimensions in millimeters) by
Dalalbashi et al. [38]

Numerical results demonstrated that, the results of the retrofitted joints confirmed an
improved load-carrying capacity for all strengthening schemes. However, some
configurations led to a decrease in the ductility and dissipated energy. The numerical
outcomes indicated a 31% increase in energy-dissipation capacity of the retrofitted joint
using the first configuration. Lastly, the numerical modeling performed in this study on the
original and retrofitted joints confirmed that finite element modeling can adequately simulate
the cyclic behavior of RC joints, especially in terms of load carrying capacity and
displacement ductility factor.

Patil and Manekari [5] studied the various parameters for monotonically loaded
exterior and corner reinforced concrete beam column joint using finite element software
ANSYS. The corner as well as exterior beam-column joint is analyzed with varying stiffness
of beam-column joint. The exterior and corner beam-column joints are studied with different
parameters like i.e. Maximum principle stress, Minimum principle stress, Displacement,
Deformation also studied end conditions of beam column joint i.e. fixed end conditions,
Hinge end conditions and Stiffness variation of beam column joint i.e. Corner and Exterior
joint subjected to monotonic loading.
Numerical results demonstrated that (a) as load increases displacement, minimum
stress and maximum stress also increases; (b) for fixed support condition for corner and
exterior joint the displacement, minimum stress and maximum stress values are minimum as
compare to hinge support condition; (c) the behavior of corner beam column joint is different
than that of the exterior beam column joint; (d) for stiffness variation of Exterior joint for
Sj=1.29 the displacement is minimum as compare to Sj=2.05, for Sj=0.75 and for Sj=0.18 the
displacement is maximum as compare to Sj=1.29; (e) for stiffness variation of Exterior joint
for Sj=1.29 the minimum stress is more as compare to Sj=2.05 and Sj=0.75, for Sj=0.18 the
minimum stress is more as compare to Sj=1.29; (f) for stiffness variation of Exterior joint for
Sj=1.29 the maximum stress is less as compare to Sj=2.05.for remaining stiffness Sj=0.75
and Sj=0.18 the maximum stress is less. (Minimum), where Sj=Stiffness of the joint; (g) as
stiffness of the structure changes the displacement, minimum stress and maximum stress
changes Non-linearly.

Parvin and Blythe [39] presented interior and exterior as-built reinforced beam-
columns joints are compared to their CFRP-wrapped counterparts through finite element
analysis using Marc software program. The joints are subjected to constant axial and lateral
cyclic loads. For this purpose two exterior beam-column joint (one is controlled specimen
and other is retrofitted with CFRP as shown in Fig. 2.19(a)) and two interior beam-column
joint (one is controlled specimen and other is retrofitted with CFRP as shown in Fig. 2.19(b))
models were analyzed and compared.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.19: CFRP-upgrade scheme for beam-column connections by Parvin and Blythe [39]
Numerical results demonstrated that (a) the CFRP-upgrade scheme increased the
later-al load capacity by 27-35% and the maximum displacement by 18-45% of both the
exterior and interior models as compared to the control joint counterparts; (b) the
performance of the interior control joint surpassed that of the exterior joint. The lateral load
capacity of the interior control joint was 10% greater than that of the exterior control joint.
The ductility of the interior control joint was 31% greater in push and 22% greater in pull
than that of the exterior control joint. Therefore the exterior T joints are the more critical
type of joint to upgrade; (c) when comparing the exterior and interior joints, the amount of
improvement that the up-grade scheme provided for the joint was affected by the presence of
the additional beam in the interior joint.

Jeyabharathy et al. [40] studied the various parameters for exterior reinforced
concrete beam column joint retrofitted with GFRP sheets using finite element software. For
this purpose three exterior reinforced concrete beam column joint specimens were modeled
using ANSYS package. The first specimen is the control specimen. This had reinforcement
as per code IS 456:2000. The second specimen which is also the control specimen. This had
reinforcement as per code IS 13920:1993. The third specimen had reinforcement as per code
IS 456:2000 and was retrofitted with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets. During
the analysis both the ends of column were hinged. Static load was applied at the free end of
the cantilever beam up to a controlled load. The performance of the retrofitted beam-column
joint was compared with the control specimens. The typical views of the ANSYS model of
the specimens are shown in Fig. 2.20.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.20: Typical View of ANSYS Models (a) Detailed as per code IS 456:2000; (b) Model
Detailed as per code IS13920:1993; (c) Typical meshed Retrofitted specimen by
Jeyabharathy et al. [40]
Numerical results demonstrated that (a) the deflection of the beam column joint
specimen detailed as per code IS 13920-1993 was found to be 19.64 % lower than that of the
specimen detailed per code IS 456-2000; (b) the deflection of the beam column joint
specimen retrofitted with GFRP sheet reduced the deflection about 42.85 %.when compared
with the deflection of specimen detailed as per code IS 456-2000; (c) the energy absorption
capacity of the beam column joint specimen detailed as per code IS 13920-1993 was found to
be 15.93 % higher than that of the specimen detailed per code IS 456-2000; (d) the energy
absorption capacity of the beam column joint specimen retrofitted with GFRP sheet increased
about 34.22 %.when compared with the energy absorption capacity of specimen detailed as
per code IS 456-2000.

Li and Kulkarni [41] carried a experimental and numerical investigation on RC wide
beam-column joints when subjected to seismic loads. The experimental study was conducted
by subjecting three full-scale wide exterior beam-column specimens to simulated seismic
loads. These experimental results were then used to validate a three-dimensional (3D)
nonlinear finite-element (FE) model using DIANA package. The FE discretization of
Specimens EWB1 and EWB2 with boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 2.21.

Fig. 2.21: FE modeling of the specimens by Li et al. [41]
Numerical results confirmed the experimental observations and allowed analyzing

other aspects that could not be evaluated in the tests. The FE investigation was effective in
successfully predicting the local behavior of wide beam-column joints. The numerical study
clearly suggests an improvement in joint shear stress by increasing the longitudinal bar
anchorage ratio. The maximum joint shear stress experienced an enhancement of
approximately 17% as the bar anchorage ratio was increased from 20 to 70%.

Danesh et al. [42] studied the effectiveness of the GFRP layers for joint shear
strengthening of two-way corner beam-column connection through a finite element model.
To this purpose, a model based on previous experimental test on one-way strengthened
connection is made using general purpose finite element code ABAQUS. The FEM results
are validated by comparison with the test results. This model was developed to analyze
rehabilitation of two-way corner RC beam-column connection. Two models including the
original and strengthened specimen (with L shape GFRP layers) were analyzed. Fig 2.22
shows the damaged elements of FEM models.

(a) (b)
Fig 2.22: Damaged concrete zones (a) one-way RC connection; (b) two-way RC connection
by Danesh et al. [42]

Numerical results demonstrated that (a) finite element model used in the study has
good agreement with the experimental results; (b) the GFRP layers can effectively interact
with the concrete make more shear resistance due to the confining the joint concrete and
contributing to shear resistance mechanism of the beam column connection; (c) also, the
applied strengthening method could not completely change the shear failure mode of the joint
to a desirable ductile failure mode by forming full plastic hinges at the end of the beams
close to the column face, but it was effective to demonstrate a better behavior than that of the
original specimen.

Baglin and Scott [43] presented the non-linear finite element techniques to model
reinforced concrete beam-column connection specimens. SBETA, a non-linear finite element
package was used for all of the specimen modeling. Results are presented comparing a test
series of sixteen specimens with the performance of the finite element model used. Table 2.3
shows the failure loads modelled from sixteen experimental tests. The model was seen to be
sensitive to all changes in the test parameters used. The mean average of model failure /
actual failure was 0.95.

Table 2.3: Specimen Failure Loads by Baglin et al. [43]
Specimen
Actual
Failure
Load
(kN) (1)
Model
Failure
Load
(kN) (2)
(2) /
(1)
Specimen
Actual
Failure
Load (kN)
(1)
Model
Failure
Load
(kN) (2)
(2) /
(1)
C4ALN0
27 27.4 1.01 C4ALH0 43 41.1 0.96
C4ALN1
34 31.4 0.92 C4ALH1 43 43.3 1.01
C4ALN5
35 33.5 0.96 C4ALH3 46 46.3 1.01
C4ALN5
40 36.4 0.91 C4ALH5 49 46.7 0.95
C6LN0
24 23.6 0.98 C6LH0 36 36.6 1.02
C6LN1
25 26.1 1.04 C6LH1 37 40.1 1.08
C6LN3
29 30.0 1.03 C6LH3 41 41.2 1.00
C6LN5
34 35.2 1.04 C6LH5 51 45.3 0.89

Numerical results demonstrated that reinforced concrete beam-column connections

have been successfully modelled using non-linear finite element methods. The presented
model is sensitive to variations in concrete strength, the detailing arrangements of the beam
tension steel and the presence (or absence) of joint ties.

The literature review has suggested that limited work is done on the use of FEM to
analyze retrofitted beam-column joint. Hence in this present study, it has been decided to use
ANSYS 13.0 Release 2010 software for the finite element modelling of beam-column joint
retrofitted with carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fibre reinforced polymer
(GFRP) sheets with different wrapping schemes.

CHAPTER 3
NUMERICAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF BEAM
COLUMN JOINTS

3.1 GENERAL
Over the last one or two decade numerical simulation of reinforced concrete
structures and structural elements has become a major research area. To create the finite
element model in ANSYS Release 13.0 (2010) there are multiple tasks that have to be
completed for the model to run properly. Models can be created using command prompt line
input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). In the present study, the GUI was utilized to
create the model.
This chapter discusses model development for the beam-column joint. Element types
used in the models, the constitutive equations, assumptions, and parameters for the various
materials, geometry of the model, loading and boundary conditions, nonlinear analysis
procedures and convergence criteria are explained in detail. The joint detail, material
properties and loading conditions are taken as in the experimental study conducted by
Bhandari [31]. First the control specimen is taken and analyzed by finite element method
(FEM) using the commercial available software ANSYS Release 13.0 (2010). Then, the
specimen is retrofitted with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber
reinforced polymer (GFRP) with different wrapping arrangements and analyzed using the
same software.

3.2 ELEMENT TYPES
The element types which are to be entered in ANSYS for various materials are discussed in
following sections.
3.2.1 CONCRETE MATERIAL
An eight-node solid element, SOLID65, is used for the three-dimensional modeling
of concrete. The element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each
node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. This element has the capability of
cracking (in three orthogonal directions), crushing, plastic deformation and creep. The
geometry and node locations for this element type are shown in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1: SOLID65 3-D concrete solid element (ANSYS Release 13.0 [44])

3.2.2 REINFORCEMENT MATERIALS
The reinforcement material was modeled using LINK180 element. This element is a
3D spar element and it has two nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node
translations in the nodal x, y and z directions. The element is also capable of simulating
plastic deformations. Fig. 3.2 shows the geometry and node locations for this element type.

Fig. 3.2: LINK180 3-D spar elements (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44])
3.2.3 FRP COMPOSITES

The Solid185 element is used for the modelling Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP).
SOLID185 is available in two forms: (a) Homogeneous Structural Solid; and (b) Layered
Structural Solid. A layered solid element, Solid185, was used to model the FRP composites.
The element has three degrees of freedom at each node and translations in the nodal x, y, and
z directions. This element allows for up to 250 different material layers with different
orientations and orthotropic material properties in each layer. The geometry, node locations,
and the coordinate system are shown in Fig. 3.3.

Fig. 3.3: Solid185 Element (Layered Structural Solid) (ANSYS Release 13.0 [44])

3.3 REAL CONSTANTS
The real constants which are to be entered in ANSYS for various materials are discussed in
following sections.

3.3.1 CONCRETE
Solid65 element requires real constants for rebar assuming a smeared model. Values
can be entered for Material Number, Volume Ratio, and Orientation Angles. The material
number refers to the type of material for the reinforcement. The volume ratio refers to the
ratio of steel to concrete in the element. The orientation angles refer to the orientation of the
reinforcement in the smeared model. ANSYS Release 13.0 (2010) allows the user to enter
three rebar materials in the concrete. Each material corresponds to x, y, and z directions in the
element (Fig. 3.1). The reinforcement has uniaxial stiffness and the directional orientation is
defined by the user. In the present study the joint is modelled using discrete reinforcement as
suggested by Fanning [45]. Therefore, a value of zero was entered for all real constants
which turned the smeared reinforcement capability of the Solid65 element off as suggested
by past researchers (Ibrahim and Mahmood, [46]; Wolanski, [47]; Kachlakev et al., [48]).

3.3.2 REINFORCEMENT MATERIAL
Link180 element requires values for cross sectional area and initial strain are entered.
Cross-sectional areas for the reinforcement of 8 mm and 6 mm diameter bars are 50.3 mm
2

and 28.3 mm
2
respectively. A value of zero was entered for the initial strain because there
was no initial stress in the reinforcement.

No real constants exist for the Solid185 element.
Thus, the real constants for concrete and reinforcement material are given in Table 3.1.

3.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The properties of the various materials are discussed in the following sections.

3.4.1 CONCRETE
The SOLID65 element requires linear isotropic and multi-linear isotropic material
properties to properly model concrete. The multi-linear isotropic material uses the Von-Mises
failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke [49] model to define the failure of the
concrete (ANSYS, Release 13.0 [44]).
The modulus of elasticity of the concrete (E
c
) and the Poissons ratio () are
mandatory information for the material definition. In ANSYS EX is the modulus of elasticity
of the concrete (E
c
), and PRXY is the Poissons ratio (). The modulus is based on the
equation (as per Cl. 6.2.3.1 of IS 456: 2000 [50]),
E
c
= 5000
ck
(3.1)
with a value of f
ck
equal to 20 MPa. Poissons ratio was assumed to be 0.2.

Table 3.1: Real Constants for Concrete and Reinforcement material
Element
Type
Real Constants

Solid65

Real Constant for
Rebar 1
Real Constant
for Rebar 2
Real Constant
for Rebar 3
Material Number 0 0 0
Volume Ratio 0 0 0
Orientation Angle 0 0 0
Orientation Angle 0 0 0
Link 180
For 8 mm diameter
bars
Cross-sectional area
(mm
2
)
50.3 mm
2
Initial strain (mm/mm) 0
For 6 mm diameter
bars
Cross-sectional area
(mm
2
)
28.3 mm
2
Initial strain (mm/mm) 0

For normal strength concrete, a typical stress-strain model consists of two parts;
ascending branch and descending branch, as shown in Fig. 3.4. However, in the ANSYS
software, the use of this ideal stress-strain curve with the descending part leads to
convergence problems. In this study, the negative slope was ignored and the stress-strain
relationship, shown in Fig. 3.5, was used for the concrete material model in ANSYS as
recommended by many researchers (Kachlakev et al. [48]; Wolanski [47]; Gorji [51];
Ibrahim and Mahmood [46]).

The ANSYS program requires the uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete in
compression. Numerical expressions, Equations 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, to construct the uniaxial
compressive stress-strain curve for concrete in this study.

f =
L
c
s
1+ [
s
s
0
2

(3.2)
e
0
=
2]
ck
L
c
(3.3)
E
c
=
]
s
(3.4)
where:
f = stress at any strain , MPa
= strain at stress f
o
= strain at the ultimate compressive strength f
ck

Fig. 3.4: Standard stress-strain curve for 32 MPa concrete (Mohamed H. A. Mady [1])

The simplified stress-strain curve for each beam-column joint model is constructed
from six points connected by straight lines. The curve starts at zero stress and strain. Point
No. 1, at 0.30 fck, is calculated for the stress-strain relationship of the concrete in the linear
range (Equation 3.4). Point Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are obtained from Equation 3.2, in which
o
is
calculated from Equation 3.3. Point No. 5 is at
o
and fck of 20MPa. The behavior is
assumed to be perfectly plastic after point 5. Fig. 3.5 shows the simplified compressive
uniaxial stress-strain relationship that was used in this study.
An example is included here to demonstrate a calculation of the five points (1-5). The
model has a concrete elastic modulus of 22,360.67978 MPa. The value of f
ck
is equal to 20
MPa. Point No. 1, strain at a stress of 6 MPa (0.3 fck) is obtained for a linear stress-strain
relationship for concrete (Equation 3.4), and is 0.00026832. Strain at the ultimate
compressive strength,
0
, is calculated by Equation 3.3, and equals 0.00179 mm/mm. Point
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are calculated from Equation 3.2, which gives strains of 0.0006485,
0.0010286 and 0.0014087 mm./mm., corresponding to stresses of 13, 17 and 19 MPa,
respectively. Finally, Point No. 5 is at the ultimate strength, fck of 20 MPa and
0
of 0.00179
mm./mm. Fig. 3.5 shows the simplified compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship that
was used in this study.

Fig. 3.5: Simplified stress-strain curve for concrete used in FE model

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
Strain(mm/mm)
For concrete, ANSYS requires four mandatory input data for material properties to be
defined; open shear transfer coefficient, closed shear transfer coefficient, uni-axial cracking
stress and uni-axial crushing stress. The shear transfer coefficients for open and closed cracks
represent the conditions at the crack face while it is open (loaded) or closed (reversed load),
respectively. The value of these coefficients ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 representing a
smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing a rough crack (no loss of
shear transfer) (ANSYS, Release 13.0 [44]). Convergence problem occurs when the shear
transfer coefficient for the open crack drops below 0.2. No deviation of the response occurs
with the change of the coefficient. Therefore, the coefficient for the open crack is set to 0.3
(Kachlakev et al., [48]).

The uniaxial cracking stress is based upon the modulus of rupture. This value is
determined using the following equation (as per Cl. 6.2.2 of IS 456: 2000 [50]).

c
= u.7
ck
(3.5)

The geometry of the beam-column connection has a significant influence on the
model. The existence of corners at the interface between beam and column is resulting in
stress concentration which in turn leads not only to convergence problems but also to a pre-
mature failure for the finite element model. Therefore, in this study, the concrete crushing
capability was turned off to avoid such problems. It was entered as -1 to turn off the crushing
capability of the concrete element as suggested by past researchers (Kachlakev et al. [48];
Wolanski [47]; Mostofinejad and Talaeitaba [53]; Gorji [51]; Bykkaragz [52]). Thus,
material properties of concrete are given in Table 3.2.

3.4.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT
The Link180 element requires linear isotropic and bi-linear isotropic material
properties to properly model steel reinforcement. Elastic modulus (EX) is defined as
2,00,000 MPa and Poissons ratio (PRXY) as 0.3. The bilinear model requires the yield stress
(fy), as well as the hardening modulus of steel to be defined. The yield stress is defined as
500 MPa for 8 mm diameter bars while it is 250 MPa for 6 mm diameter bars. The tangent
modulus (of the plastic region) is defined as 0. Fig. 3.6 shows the assumed stress-strain curve
for steel reinforcement. Thus, material properties for the steel reinforcement are given in
Table 3.3.

Table 3.2: Material properties of concrete
Element Type Material Properties
Solid65
Linear Isotropic
EX 22360.68 MPa
PRXY 0.2
Multilinear Isotropic
Strain Stress (MPa)
Point 1 0.0002683 6
Point 2 0.0006485 13
Point 3 0.0010286 17
Point 4 0.0014087 19
Point 5 0.0017889 20
Concrete
ShrCf-Op 0.3
ShrCf-Cl 1.0
UnTensSt 3.13 MPa
UnCompSt -1

FRP composites are materials that consist of two constituents. One constituent is the
reinforcement, which is embedded in the second constituent, a continuous polymer called the
matrix. The reinforcing material is in the form of fibers, i.e., carbon and glass, which are
typically stiffer and stronger than the matrix. The FRP composites are anisotropic materials;
that is, their properties are not the same in all directions. Fig. 3.7 shows a schematic of FRP
composites.

Table 3.3: Material properties of steel reinforcement

Element
Type

Material Properties
Link180
For 8 mm
diameter bars
Linear Isotropic
EX 200000 MPa
PRXY 0.3
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress 500 MPa
Tangent Modulus 0
For 6 mm
diameter bars
Linear Isotropic
EX 200000 MPa
PRXY 0.3
Bilinear Isotropic
Yield Stress 250 MPa
Tangent Modulus 0

Fig. 3.6: Stress-strain curve for steel reinforcement

Fig. 3.7: Schematic of FRP composites

As shown in Fig. 3.7, the unidirectional lamina has three mutually orthogonal planes
of material properties (i.e., xy, xz, and yz planes). The xyz coordinate axes are referred to as
the principal material coordinates where the x direction is the same as the fiber direction, and
the y and z directions are perpendicular to the x direction. It is a so-called specially
orthotropic material. In this study, the specially orthotropic material is also transversely
isotropic, where the properties of the FRP composites are nearly the same in any direction
perpendicular to the fibers. Thus, the properties in the y direction are the same as those in the
z direction. Linear elastic properties of the FRP composites were assumed throughout this
study. Fig. 3.8 shows the stress-strain curves used in this study for the FRP composites in the
direction of the fiber.

The properties of isotropic materials, such as elastic modulus and Poissons ratio, are
identical in all directions; therefore no subscripts are required. This is not the case with
specially orthotropic materials. Subscripts are needed to define properties in the various
directions. For example, E
x
E
y
and
xy

yx
. Ex is the elastic modulus in the fiber direction,
and Ey is the elastic modulus in the y direction perpendicular to the fiber direction. The use
of Poissons ratios for the orthotropic materials causes confusion; therefore, the orthotropic
material data are supplied in the
xy
or major Poissons ratio format for the ANSYS program.
The major Poissons ratio is the ratio of strain in the y direction to strain in the perpendicular
x direction when the applied stress is in the x direction. The quantity

yx
is called a minor
Poissons ratio and is smaller than
xy
, whereas Ex is larger than Ey. Equation 3.6 shows the
relationship between
xy
and
yx
.
v
x
=
L
j
L
x
v
x
(3.6)
where:
xy
= Minor Poissons ratio
E
x
= Elastic modulus in the x direction (fiber direction)
E
y
= Elastic modulus in the y direction
xy
= Major Poissons ratio

Fig. 3.8: Stress-strain curves for the FRP composites in the direction of the fibers

Material properties for CFRP and GFRP as specified by Kachlakev and McCurry are
taken in the present study and shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Material properties for CFRP and GFRP

FRP
Composite
Elastic
Modulus
(MPa)
Major
Poissons
ratio
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Shear
modulus
(MPa)
Thickness
of laminate
(mm)
CFRP
E
x
= 62,000
xy
= 0.22
958
G
xy
= 3270
1.0 E
y
= 4800
xz
= 0.22 G
xz
= 3270
E
z
= 4800
yz
= 0.30 G
yz
= 1860
GFRP
E
x
= 21,000
xy
= 0.26
600
G
xy
= 1520
1.3 E
y
= 7000
xz
= 0.26 G
xz
= 1520
E
z
= 7000
yz
= 0.30 G
yz
= 2650

3.5 GEOMETRY
3.5.1 CONTROL SPECIMEN
Control specimen (CS) has the following dimensions: the column was square in shape
with dimensions 100mm x 100 mm and the length of column is 1100 mm. The beam had
dimensions 100mm x 100 mm and the length of beam is 500 mm. Fig. 3.9 illustrates typical
dimensions for control specimen. The joint is modelled as volume. The combined volumes
created in ANSYS are shown in Fig. 3.10.

Fig. 3.9: Typical dimensions for control specimen

Fig. 3.10: Finite Element Model of Control Specimen

3.5.2 RETROFITTED SPECIMENS
For the purpose of study the behavior of the beam-column joint retrofitted with
different FRP wrapping schemes, eight specimens were modeled. Out of eight specimens,
four specimens retrofitted with CFRP and other four specimens retrofitted with GFRP with
different wrapping arrangements. Fig. 3.11 shows the different wrapping arrangements of
FRP composites. The characteristics of these specimens are described in Table 3.4. The
retrofitted specimens which are created in ANSYS are shown in Fig. 3.12.

The various thicknesses of the FRP composites create discontinuities, which are not
desirable for the finite element analysis. These may develop high stress concentrations at
local areas on the models; consequently, when the model is run, the solution may have
difficulties in convergence. Therefore, a consistent overall thickness of FRP composite was
used in the models to avoid discontinuities.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.11: Different wrapping arrangements of FRP composites.

Table 3.5: Characteristics of strengthen specimens.

Specimen Name
Length in Beam
(mm)
Height in
Column (mm)
RC1 135 -
RC2 135 -
RC3 135 400
RC4 135 400
RG1 135 -
RG2 135 -
RG3 135 400
RG4 135 400

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Fig. 3.12: Retrofitted specimens which are created in ANSYS

3.6 FINITE ELEMENT DISCRETIZATION
As an initial step, a finite element analysis requires meshing of the model. In other
words, the model is divided into a number of small elements, and after loading, stress and
strain are calculated at integration points of these small elements. An important step in finite
element modeling is the selection of the mesh density. A convergence of results is obtained
when an adequate number of elements are used in a model.

3.6.1 CONTROL SPECIMEN
To obtain good results from the Solid65 element, the use of a rectangular mesh is
recommended (Kachlakev et al., [48]). Therefore, the mesh is set up such that square or
rectangular elements are created. The overall mesh of the control specimen created in
ANSYS is shown in Fig. 3.13. The necessary element divisions are noted.

Fig. 3.13: FEM discretization of Control Specimen

3.6.1.1 CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT INTERFACE
Number of methods is available to model reinforced concrete elements. The two most
common techniques are smeared modelling or discrete modelling. The smeared model
assumes that reinforcement is uniformly distributed throughout the concrete elements in a
defined region of the finite element mesh, as shown in Fig. 3.14(a). This approach is
preferable to be used only where the reinforcement location does not significantly contribute
to the overall structure response. In the discrete model, the reinforcement elements have to be
connected to the concrete mesh nodes. Therefore, the concrete and the reinforcement mesh
share the same nodes, as shown in Fig. 3.14(b). In this study, the discrete model concept was
used.

(a) Smeared Model (b) Discrete Model
Fig. 3.14: Models for reinforced concrete element

Fig. 3.15: Typical steel reinforcement locations

Therefore, the meshing of the reinforcement is a special case compared to the

concrete volumes. No mesh of the reinforcement is needed because individual elements are
created in the modelling through the nodes created by the mesh of the concrete volumes (Fig.
3.14(b)). However, the necessary mesh attributes need to be set before each section of the
reinforcement is created. Fig. 3.15 shows typical steel reinforcement locations for the beam-
column joint. The command merge items is used to merge separate entities that have the
same location.

3.6.2 RETROFITTED SPECIMENS
For the retrofitted specimen, meshing of concrete and reinforcement members is done
in the same way as for the control specimen. FRP sheets are meshed as brick elements in
such a way that the nodes of the FRP layered solid elements are connected to those of
adjacent concrete solid elements in order to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. Fig. 3.16
illustrates the element connectivity. Fig. 3.12 shows the meshing for the retrofitted
specimens.

Fig. 3.16: Element connectivity: concrete solid and FRP layered solid elements

To achieve the correct nodal ordering for the FRP layered element, the volumes are
properly oriented before executing the meshing command. The command merge items is
used to merge separate entities that have the same location.
3.7 LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

To simulate the test conditions, column ends were fixed at the bottom as well as at the
top of the column, as shown in Fig. 3.18. To achieve this, the translations at the nodes (UX,
UY and UZ) are given constant values of 0. Then, the finite element model is loaded at a
distance of 275 mm from the column face. Fig. 3.19 illustrates the applied loading. For the
both Control Specimen and Retrofitted Specimens the loading and boundary conditions are
same as above.

Fig. 3.18: Boundary conditions

Fig. 3.19: Loading Conditions

3.8 ANSYS SOLUTION CONTROL
In nonlinear analysis, the total load applied to a finite element model is divided into a
series of load increments called load steps. Each load increment is assigned a specific amount
of load in the specified direction. At the completion of each load increment, the stiffness
matrix of the model is adjusted to reflect the non-linear changes in structural stiffness before
proceeding to the next load increment. The ANSYS program (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44])
uses Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations technique was selected for updating the model
stiffness.
Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations provide convergence at the end of each load
increment within tolerance limits. Prior to each solution, the Newton-Raphson approach
assesses the out-of-balance load vector, which is the difference between the restoring forces
(the loads corresponding to the element stresses) and the applied loads. Subsequently, the
program carries out a linear solution, using the out-of-balance loads, and checks for
convergence. If convergence criteria are not satisfied, the out-of-balance load vector is re-
evaluated, the stiffness matrix is updated, and a new solution is attained. This iterative
procedure continues until the problem converges (ANSYS Release 13.0, [44]).

In the present study, for the reinforced concrete solid elements, convergence criteria
were based on force and displacement, and the convergence tolerance limits were initially
selected by the ANSYS program. Note that convergence of solutions for the models was
difficult to achieve due to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. For the nonlinear
analysis, automatic time stepping in the ANSYS program predicts and controls load step
sizes. The maximum and minimum load step sizes are required for the automatic time
stepping. The time at the end of each load step corresponds to the loading applied.

Failure for the model is defined when the solution for a 1 N load increment still does
not converge. The program then gives a message specifying that the model has a significantly
large deflection, exceeding the displacement limitation of the ANSYS program. ANSYS
gives deflection and crack patterns at various load increments which are presented in next
chapter.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter compares the results from the ANSYS finite element analyses with the
experimental data for the control specimen (Bhandari, [31]). The following comparisons are
made: load-deflection plots; first cracking loads; loads at failure; and crack patterns at failure.
Also discussed the results from the ANSYS finite element analysis of the retrofitted
specimens and compared them with the results of the controlled specimen.

4.1 MODEL VERIFICATION
The load deflection values at beam end which are obtained from the finite element
analysis are tabulated in Table 4.1. The load deflection plot for the control specimen is
shown in Fig. 4.1.

Table 4.1: Load-Deflection values of control specimen
Load (KN)
Deflection (mm) Load (KN) Deflection (mm)
0.6 0.09 4.2 3.39
1.2 0.27 4.8 5.21
1.8 0.54 5.4 7.56
2.4 0.92 6.0 10.38
3.0 1.44 7.2 17.48
3.6 2.17 7.8 22.12

The ultimate load and the yield load of the control specimen obtained by finite
element analysis are 7.8 KN and 6.0 KN respectively. Comparison between the load
displacement plot obtained from finite element analysis and the experimental study by
Bhandari is shown in Fig. 4.2. The yield load obtained from finite element analysis at 6.0 KN
is 5% more than the yield load of 5.7 KN obtained from the experimental study. Similarly,
the ultimate load obtained from finite element analysis at 7.8 KN is 20.5% more than the
ultimate load of 6.2 KN from the experimental study.

Fig. 4.1: Load deflection plot for the control specimen

At yield load, the displacement obtained in finite element analysis is 10.38 mm at
beam end as compared to 10.6 mm which is 2.07% less than the experimental study.
Similarly, at ultimate load, the displacement obtained in finite element analysis is 22.12 mm
which is 10% lesser than the 24.58 mm of the experimental study.

This ensures that the elements, material properties, real constants and convergence
criteria are adequate to model the response of the model. This gives confidence in the use of
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5 10 15 20 25
L
o
a
d
(
K
N
)
Deflection(mm)
ANSYS 13.0 Release 2010 and the model developed. This approach is then used to analyze a
retrofitted beam-column joint.

Fig. 4.2: Comparison between the load displacement plot obtained from finite element
analysis and the experimental study.

The deflected shape and the crack at the first load and the ultimate load are shown in
Fig 4.3 and Fig. 4.4.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
L
o
a
d
(
K
N
)
Deflection(mm)
ANSYS
EXP

(a)

(b)
Fig 4.3: Deflected shape of the control specimen
(a) First crack at Load 2.4 KN
(b) Crack pattern at ultimate load

Fig. 4.4: Crack pattern of Control Specimen
4.2 RETROFITTED SPECIMENS

The control specimen is retrofitted using two materials: namely GFRP and CFRP with
various arrangements as shown in Fig. 3.11.

4.2.1 GFRP SPECIMENS
For GFRP specimens RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4 the results obtained from analysis are
discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1.1 LOAD DEFLECTION PLOTS
The load displacement values for the GFRP retrofitted specimens RG1, RG2, RG3 and
RG4 are tabulated in Table 4.2. The load deflection results of the GFRP retrofitted
specimens are now compare with the control specimen as shown in Fig. 4.5.

Fig 4.5: Load deflection comparison of control specimen and GFRP retrofitted specimens
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
L
o
a
d
(
K
N
)
Deflection(mm)
RG4
RG3
RG2
RG1
CS
Table 4.2: Load deflection values of GFRP retrofitted specimens

RG1
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm)
0.08 0.25 0.54 0.84 1.27 1.81 2.52 3.88
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 8.4 9.02
Deflection (mm) 5.75 8.05 11.08 22.43 27.03
RG2
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.09 0.27 0.54 0.91 1.42 2.12 3.29 4.97
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 8.4 9.02
Deflection (mm) 6.99 9.50 11.8 23.75 28.39
RG3
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.08 0.26 0.53 0.90 1.41 2.11 3.27 4.78
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 9.0 9.62
Deflection (mm) 6.66 9.0 11.97 13.08 25.39 32.42
RG4
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.086 0.25 0.51 0.86 1.32 1.89 2.6 3.8
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 9.6 10.2
Deflection (mm) 5.60 7.76 09.30 11.15 13.01 25.03 32.8

Comparison between the load-deflection results obtained from ANSYS for control
and retrofitted specimens shown in Fig. 4.5 shows that the yield load and ultimate load has
significantly increased for the retrofitted specimens. The yield loads for the retrofitted
specimen RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4 are observed at 6.6 KN, 6.6 KN, 7.2 KN and 7.8 KN
which represents an increase of 10%, 10%, 16.67% and 23.07% from the yield load value of
5.7 KN for the control specimen. The ultimate loads for the retrofitted specimen increases by
31.26%, 31.86%, 35.55% and 39.21% from 6.2 KN to 9.02 KN, 9.10 KN, 9.62 KN and 10.2
KN when compared with the control specimen. The higher value of yield load and ultimate
load for the retrofitted specimens is associated with lower deflections as compared to the
control specimen.

4.2.1.2 CRACK PATTERNS

The first crack occurs at 3 KN, 3 KN, 3.6 KN and 4.2 KN for specimens RG1, RG2, RG3
and RG4 respectively. The first crack and the crack pattern at the ultimate load for retrofitted
specimens are shown in Fig. 4.6.

(1) First crack

(2) Cracks at ultimate load
(a) RG1 Specimen
(1) First crack

(b) RG2 Specimen

(1) First Crack

(c) RG3 Specimen

(1) First crack

(d) RG4 Specimen
Fig 4.6: Crack patterns of GFRP Retrofitted Specimens
4.2.1.3 DUCTILITY
Ductility is generally measured in terms of displacement and it is called as
displacement ductility, which is the ratio of the maximum deformation that a structure or an
element can undergo without significant loss of initial yielding resistance to the initial yield
deformation. The displacement ductility for all specimens is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Ductility factor of GFRP specimens
Joint Name
Ductility Factor
(mm/mm)
CS 2.13
RG1 2.33
RG2 2.40
RG3 2.49
RG4 2.52
The relative increase in ductility factors of the specimens RG1 to RG4 is basically
due to the confinement of the compression concrete of the beam caused by the FRP laminates
over the compression region of the beam, which leads to the improvement of the ductility of
the beam and the whole connection. It could be seen from Table 4.3 that the column
wrapping with FRP composites increases the ductility of the joint compared to the similar
specimens without column wrapping (RG3 and RG4).

4.2.1.4 ENERGY ABSORPTION
The values of energy absorption (given by the area under the load-deflection plots
upto ultimate load) are also compared for the control and retrofitted specimens in Table 4.4.
All strengthened specimens dissipated more energy than the control specimen because of the
improvement by addition of FRP wrapping.

4.2.2 CFRP SPECIMENS
For CFRP specimens RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4 the results obtained from analysis are
discussed in the following sections.
Table 4.4: Energy Absorption values of GFRP specimens

Joint Name
Energy Absorption
Value (KN mm)
CS 127.845
RG1 179.993
RG2 189.628
RG3 230.784
RG4 252.481

4.2.2.1 LOAD DEFLECTION PLOTS
The load displacement values for the CFRP retrofitted specimens RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4
are tabulated in Table 4.5. The load deflection results of the GFRP retrofitted specimens
are now compare with the control specimen as shown in Fig. 4.7.

Fig 4.7: Load deflection comparison of control specimen and CFRP retrofitted specimens
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
L
o
a
d
(
K
N
)
Deflection(mm)
RC4
RC3
RC2
RC1
CS
Table 4.5: Load deflection values of CFRP retrofitted specimens

RC1
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm)
0.07 0.21 0.42 0.70 1.06 1.57 2.25 3.60
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.8 8.24
Deflection (mm) 5.36 7.49 9.19 15.99 19.49
RC2
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.089 0.26 0.534 0.89 1.39 2.09 3.23 4.89
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 9 9.60
Deflection (mm) 6.89 9.38 12.27 15.35 27.76 32.69
RC3
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.08 0.25 0.51 0.87 1.39 2.07 3.01 4.55
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 9.0 9.616
Deflection (mm) 6.59 9.0 11.76 14.89 26.65 31.47
RC4
Load (KN)
0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6
4.2 4.8
Deflection (mm) 0.08 0.24 0.48 0.8 1.21 1.73 2.37 3.49
Load (KN) 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4 10.2 10.8
Deflection (mm) 5.07 6.93 8.14 10.62 12.36 14.42 28.46 32.79

Comparison between the load-deflection results obtained from ANSYS for control
and retrofitted specimens shown in Fig. 4.7 shows that the yield load and ultimate load has
significantly increased for the retrofitted specimens. The yield loads for the retrofitted
specimen RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4 are observed at 6.6 KN, 7.2 KN, 7.2 KN and 8.4 KN
which represents an increase of 10%, 16.67%, 16.67% and 32.14% from the yield load value
of 5.7 KN for the control specimen. The ultimate loads for the retrofitted specimen increases
by 24.75%, 35.41%, 35.52% and 42.59% from 6.2 KN to 8.24 KN, 9.60 KN, 9.616 KN and
10.8 KN when compared with the control specimen. The higher value of yield load and
ultimate load for the retrofitted specimens is associated with lower deflections as compared
to the control specimen.

4.2.2.2 CRACK PATTERNS

The first crack occurs at 3 KN, 3 KN, 3.6 KN and 3.6 KN for specimens RC1, RC2, RC3 and
RC4 respectively. The first crack and the crack pattern at the ultimate load for retrofitted
specimens are shown in Fig. 4.8.

(1) First crack

(a) RC1 Specimen

(1) First crack

(b) RC2 Specimen

(1) First crack

(c) RC3 Specimen

(1) First crack

(d) RC4 Specimen
Fig. 4.8: Crack patterns of CFRP Retrofitted Specimens
4.2.2.3 DUCTILITY
The displacement ductility for all specimens is presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Ductility factor of CFRP specimens
Joint Name
Ductility Factor
(mm/mm)
CS 2.13
RC1 2.12
RC2 2.12
RC3 2.11
RC4 2.24

All strengthened specimens followed a similar trend to the control specimen. Because
of column wrapping the ductility of specimen RC4 is quite stiff than the other retrofitted
specimens.

4.2.2.4 ENERGY ABSORPTION
The values of energy absorption (given by the area under the load-deflection plots
upto ultimate load) are also compared for the control and retrofitted specimens in Table 4.7.
All strengthened specimens dissipated more energy than the control specimen.

Table 4.7: Energy Absorption values of CFRP specimens
Joint Name
Energy
Absorption Value
(KN mm)
CS 127.845
RC1 128.268
RC2 227.106
RC3 218.775
RC4 260.703
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

In this study, an attempt has been made to modeling and stimulate the behavior of
FRP strengthened RC connections for non-linear finite element analysis. Appropriate
elements from the software were chosen to account for the realistic behavior of each
component in the beam column joint and the modeling and the analytical values were
verified using some existing experimental data.

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The main observations and conclusions drawn are summarized below:
Realistic non-linear analysis of RC beam column joint with FRP overlays could be
performed using available software.
Comparison between the load-deflection results obtained from finite element analysis
and that from the experimental study shows that the finite element analysis results are
more than the experimental results. The yield load and ultimate load are 5% and
20.5% more than the experimental results.
Comparison between the load-deflection results obtained from finite element analysis
for control and retrofitted specimens shows that the yield load and ultimate load has
significantly increased for the retrofitted specimen. The yield load of GFRP
specimens RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4 are 10%, 10%, 16.67% and 23.07% more than
the control specimen. Similarly the yield load of CFRP specimens RC1, RC2, RC3
and RC4 are 10%, 16.67%, 16.67% and 32.14% more than the control specimen. The
ultimate load of GFRP specimens RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4 are 31.26%, 31.86%,
35.55% and 39.21% more than the control specimen. Similarly the ultimate load of
CFRP specimens RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4 are 24.75%, 35.41%, 35.52% and 42.59%
more than the control specimen.
The different configurations of GFRP and CFRP considered for the specimens were
by attaching to the top, bottom and lateral sides of the beams. The results show that
respectable ductility and strength enhancement could be attained by engaging

configured GFRP and CFRP laminates correctly.
Increase in cumulative energy shows that the specimens RC2, RG4 and RC4 are very
good strengthening strategies for strength and ductility enhancement in the RC joints.

5.2 FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK
In the present study RC beam column joints has been studied under monotonic
incremental loads. Further work can be directed towards comparative studies on the behavior
of beam column joints under cyclic loads and among the different FEM softwares available.
Different retrofit materials like aramid fiber reinforced polymer (AFRP), ferrocement,
SIMCON laminates, textile reinforced mortar, polyester fiber etc., can be modeled and
analyzed using FEM softwares.

REFERENCES

1. Mohamed H. A. Mady. (2011). Seismic Behaviour of Exterior Beam-Column Joints
Reinforced with FRP Bars and Stirrups, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada.
2. Uma, S.R., and Prasad, A.M. (2000). Seismic Behavior of Beam Column Joints in
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames, Final Report : A - Earthquake Codes,
IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes, Document No. : IITK-GSDMA-EQ31-V1.0,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai.
3. ACI 352R-02, Recommendations for design of beam-column-joints in monolithic
reinforced concrete structures, American Concrete Institute, ACI-ASCE, Committee 352,
Detroit, 2002.
4. MacGregor, J.G. (1988). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall
Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
5. Patil, S.S., and Manekari, S.S. (2013). Analysis of Reinforced Beam-Column Joint
Subjected to Monotonic Loading, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative
Technology (IJEIT), Volume 2, Issue 10, pp. 149-158.
6. Patil, S.S., Konapure, C.G., Manekari, S.S. (2013). A Study of R. C. C. Beam Column
Junction Subjected To Quasi-Static (Monotonic) loading, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), V.6, Issue 5, pp. 61-74.
7. Sharma, A., Genesio, G., Reddy, G.R., Eligehausen, R., Pampanin, S., Vaze, K.K.
(2010). Experimental Investigations on Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints, Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, Paper No. A007.
8. Sezen, H., Elwood, K.J., Whittaker, A.S., Mosalam, K.M., Wallace, J.W., Stanton,
J.F. (2000). Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 17, 1999 Earthquake:
Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey, Report No. PEER 2000/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
9. Faison, H., Comartin, C.D., Elwood, K.J. (2004). Reinforced concrete moment frame
building without seismic details, Housing Report No. 111, Encyclopedia of Housing
Construction in Seismically Active Areas of the World, USA.
10. Karayannis, C.G., Chalioris, C.E., Sideris, K.K. (1998). Effectiveness of RC beam-
column connection repair using epoxy resin injections, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 217-40.
11. French, C.W., Tsai, W.J., Thorp, G.A. (1988). Evaluation of techniques to repair
moderate earthquake damage, Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo Kyoto, Japan, Vol. VII, pp. 377-382.
12. Lee, D.L.N., Wight, J.K., Hanson, R.D. (1977). Repair of damaged reinforced
concrete frame structures, Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, New Delhi, India, pp. 2486-91.
13. Karayannis, C., Sirkelis, G., Chalioris, C. (2006). Seismic performance of RC beam-
columns joints retrofitted using light RC jacket Experimental study, First European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper
Number: 136.
14. Bracci, J.M., Reinhorn, A.M., Mander, J.B. (1995). Seismic retrofit of reinforced
concrete buildings designed for gravity loads: Performance of structural model, ACI
Structural Journal, V.92, No.6, pp. 711- 23.
15. Ghobarah, A., Aziz, T.S., Biddah, A. (1996). Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete
beam-column joints, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico, Paper No. 1394.
16. Aycardi, L.E., Mander, J.B., Reinhorn, A.M. (1994). Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: Experimental performance of
subassemblages, ACI Structural Journal, V.91, No.5, pp. 552-63.
17. Engindeniz, M., Kahn, L.F., and Zureick, A.-H. (2005). Repair and Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints: State of the Art, ACI Structural Journal, V.102,
No. 2, pp. 187-197.
18. GangaRao, H.V.S., Taly, N., Vijay, P.V. (2007). Reinforced Concrete Design with
FRP Composites, CRC Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton.
19. Akguzel, U. (2011). Seismic Performance of FRP Retrofitted Exterior RC Beam-

Column Joints under Varying Axial and Bidirectional Loading, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
20. Bank, L.C. (2006). Composites for Construction: Structural Design with FRP
Materials, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
21. Central Public Works Department and Indian Building Congress. (2007).
Handbook on seismic retrofit of buildings, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
22. Turner, M. J., Clough, R. W., Martin, H. C, and Topp, L. J. (1956). Stiffness and
Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, V.23, No.
9, pp. 805-823.
23. Krishnamoorthy, C.S. (2007). Finite Element Analysis: Theory and Programming,
Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India.
24. Jeyasehar, C.A., and Ravichandran, K. (2013). Cyclic behaviour of beam column
joint retrofitted with simcon laminates, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), V.14,
No. 2, pp. 269-288.
25. Patel, P.A., Desai, A.K., Desai, J.A. (2012). Upgradation of non-ductile reinforced
concrete beam-column connections using fibre, International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology (IJCIET), V.3, Issue 2, pp. 241-250.
26. Ravichandran, K., and Jeyasehar, C.A. (2012). Seismic retrofitting of exterior beam
column joint using ferrocement, International Journal of Engineering & Applied Sciences
(IJEAS), V.4, Issue 2, pp. 35-58.
27. Sezen, H. (2012). Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete beam-column joints
with fiber-reinforced polymer composites, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V.16, No. 5, pp. 499-506.
28. Al-Salloum, Y.A., Siddiqui, N.A., Elsanadedy, H.M., Abadel, A.A., Aqel, M.A.
(2011). Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP as strengthening material for seismically
deficient RC beam-column joints, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V.15,
No. 6, pp. 920-933.
29. Mady, M., El-Ragaby, A., El-Salakawy, E. (2011). Seismic behavior of beam-column
joints reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V.15, No. 6, pp. 875-886.
30. Alsayed, S.H., Al-Salloum, Y.A., Almusallam, T.H., Siddiqui, N.A. (2010). Seismic
response of FRP-upgraded exterior RC beam-column joints, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V.14, No. 2, pp. 195-208.
31. Bhandari, P. (2010). Effect of stress level on retrofitting of exterior beam column
joints, Masters Thesis, Thapar University, Patiala, Punjab, India.
32. Bindhu, K.R., and Jaya, K.P. (2010). Strength and behaviour of exterior beam column
joints with diagonal cross bracing bars, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing), V.11, No. 3, pp. 397-410.
33. Bousselham, A. (2010). State of Research on Seismic Retrofit of RC Beam-Column
Joints with Externally Bonded FRP, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V.14,
No. 1, pp. 49-61.
34. Shrestha, R., Smith, S.T., Samali, B. (2009). Strengthening RC beamcolumn
connections with FRP strips, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures
and Buildings 162, Issue SB5, Paper 800069, pp. 323334.
35. Gencoglu, M., and Mobasher, B. (2007). The Strengthening of the Deficient RC
Exterior Beam-Column Joints Using CFRP for Seismic Excitation, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC
2007), ed. A. Zingoni, pp. 1993-1998.
36. Le, K.T., and Lee, K. (2006). An Experimental Study on Using CFRP Composites to
Increase Shear Strength of RC Beam-Column Joints, 4
th
International Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Paper No. 150.
37. Antonopoulos, C.P., and Triantafillou, T.C. (2003). Experimental Investigation of
FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V.7, No. 1, pp. 39-49.
38. Dalalbashi, A., Eslami, A., Ronagh, H.R. (2013). Numerical Investigation on the
Hysteretic Behavior of RC Joints Retrofitted with Different CFRP Configurations, Journal
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V.17, No. 3, pp. 371-382.
39. Parvin, A., and Blythe, M.R. (2012). Performance of CFRP-Wrapped Connections,
Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, V.12, No. 1, pp. 45-51.
40. Jeyabharathy, A.S., Ravi, S.R., Arulraj, G.P. (2011). Finite Element Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints Retrofitted With GFRP Wrapping, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), V.2, No. 1, pp. 35-39.
41. Li, B., and Kulkarni, A.S. (2010). Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete exterior
wide beam-column joints, Journal of Structural Engineering, V.136, No. 1, pp. 2636.
42. Danesh, F., Esmaeeli, E., Alam, M.F. (2008). Shear Strengthening of 3D RC Beam-
Column Connection Using GFRP: FEM Study, Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, V.1, No.
3, pp. 217-227.
43. Baglin, P. S. and Scott, R. H. (2000). Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 6, pp. 886-894.
44. ANSYS Users Manual, Release 13.0. (2010). ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
45. Fanning, P. (2001). Nonlinear Models of Reinforced and Post-tensioned Concrete
Beams. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2, 111-119.
46. Ibrahim, A.M., and Mahmood, M.S. (2009). Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP Laminates. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 30(4), 526-541.
47. Wolanski, A.J.B.S. (2004). Flexural Behavior of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Beams Using Finite Element Analysis, Masters Thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
48. Kachlakev, D., Miller, T.P., Yim, S., Chansawat, K., and Potisuk, T. (2001). Finite
Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates,
Oregon Department of Transportation, Research Group, Salem, Oregon.
49. Willam, K.J., and Warnke, E.P. (1975). Constitutive Model for Triaxial Behaviour of
Concrete, Proceedings of the International Association of Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Bergamo, Italy.
50. IS 456: 2000 (Fourth Revision), Indian Standard: Plain and Reinforced Concrete
Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2005.
51. Gorji, M. S. (2009). Analysis of FRP Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams using
Energy Variation Method, World Applied Sciences Journal, V. 6, No. 1, pp. 105-111.
52. Bykkaragz, A. (2010). Finite Element Analysis of the Beam Strengthened with
Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Plate, Scientific Research and Essays, V. 5, No. 6, pp.
533-544.
53. Mostofinejad, D. and Talaeitaba, S. B. (2006). Finite Element Modeling of RC
Connections Strengthened with FRP Laminates, Iranian Journal of Science & Technology,
V. 30, No. B1, pp. 21-30.
54. IS 13920-1993 Edition 1.2 (2002-03), Indian Standard Code of Practice Ductile
Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

RaviKiran K V - 1da11cse11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RaviKiran K V - 1da11cse11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RaviKiran K V - 1da11cse11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CO

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..22

3.8 ANSYS solution control.72

Fig. 2.15: Description of all specimens by Le and Lee [36]39

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 2

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 3

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 4

1.2.2 FORCES ACTING ON A BEAM COLUMN JOINT

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 5

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 6

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 7

1.3 VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 8

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 9

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 10

The aforementioned techniques generally referred to as conventional or traditional

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 11

1.4.1 AN OVERVIEW OF FRP COMPOSITES

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 12

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 13

The drawbacks of glass fibers are:

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 14

High tensile modulus-to-weight ratio

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 15

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 16

Table 1.3: Approximate properties of the thermosetting polymer resins [20]

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 17

Wet lay-up FRP composites:

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 18

1.4.2 INSTALLATION OF FRP COMPOSITES

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 19

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 20

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 21

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 22

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 23

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 24

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 25

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 26

Table 2.2: Description of test specimens by Ravichandran and Jeyasehar [26]

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 27

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 28

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 29

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 30

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 31

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 32

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 33

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 34

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 35

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 36

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 37

Tests demonstrated the effectiveness of FRP in enhancing the load-carrying capacity

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 38

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 39

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 40

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 41

Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT Page 42

2.3 BEAM COLUMN JOINT AND RETROFITTED BEAM-COLUMN