You are on page 1of 11

Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic rehabilitation of beamcolumn joint using GFRP sheets


T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7

Received 13 July 2001; received in revised form 24 September 2001; accepted 24 May 2002

Abstract

Techniques for upgrading reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints are proposed. The test specimens represent a typical joint that
was built in accordance to pre-1970s codes. The objective of the rehabilitation is to upgrade the shear strength of these joints and
reduce the potential for bond-slip of the bottom bars of the beam. Glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets are wrapped around
the joint to prevent the joint shear failure. GFRP sheets are attached to the bottom beam face to replace the inadequately anchored
steel bars. Three beamcolumn joints are tested; namely, a control specimen and two rehabilitated specimens. The specimens are
tested under quasi-static load to failure. The control specimen showed combined brittle joint shear and bond failure modes while
the rehabilitated specimens showed a more ductile failure mode. A simple design methodology for the rehabilitation scheme is
proposed. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beam-column joints; Seismic rehabilitation; Joint shear strength; Bond-slip; Ductility; GFRP composites; Design

1. Introduction When built according to earlier code provisions,


beamcolumn joints in reinforced concrete moment-
Recent earthquakes in urban areas such as the 1994 resisting frames have inadequate or no transverse shear
Northridge, the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) and the reinforcement, and the bottom reinforcement of the beam
1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) have repeatedly demonstrated the is anchored only 150 mm from the column face, with
vulnerability of existing structures to seismic defor- inadequate development length when the bars are in ten-
mation demands. These structures were designed and sion. This was done under the assumption that the beam
detailed for gravity loads and lateral forces that are lower positive moment reinforcement at the column face is
than those specified by the current codes. Post-earth- always in compression. Because of these deficiencies,
quake examination of these structures showed that one the joint may experience shear or bond-slip failure
of the weakest links in the lateral load-resisting system modes. These brittle types of failure will significantly
is the beamcolumn joint. Fig. 1 shows the exterior joint reduce the overall ductility of the structure.
failure in a reinforced concrete building after the 1999 The objective of beamcolumn joint rehabilitation is
Kocaeli earthquake. Exterior beamcolumn joints are to strengthen the shear and bond-slip resistance in order
more vulnerable than interior joints, which are partially to eliminate these types of brittle failure and ensure
confined by beams attached to four sides of the joint instead that ductile flexural hinging in the beam will take
and contribute to the core confinement. There are some place. Recent studies on the effect of shear and bond-
differences between the shear response of interior and slip rehabilitation on the behaviour of reinforced con-
exterior joints when subjected to earthquake ground crete frame have shown significant improvements in the
motion due to joint confinement by beams. However, the overall frame ductility [1,2]. It is important to develop
bond-slip mode of failure of exterior and interior joints effective and economic rehabilitation techniques for
is similar. upgrading the vulnerable beamcolumn joints in exist-
ing structures.
Rehabilitation of existing structures has received

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-905-525-9140x124913; fax: +1- much attention during the past two decades. The objec-
905-529-9688. tive is to upgrade the joint shear strength before it is
E-mail address: ghobara@mcmaster.ca (A. Ghobarah). subjected to an earthquake. An interior beam-column

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - 0
1398 T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

Fig. 1. Exterior joint failure during the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake.

joint was rehabilitated and tested [3]. Steel plates were shear failure of the beamcolumn joint was eliminated
anchored to the beam bottom face at each side of the and instead ductile flexural hinging of the beam
joint and connected together using threaded steel rods occurred. The joints tested in this research programme
driven through the column. The idea is to replace the were designed with deficient shear strength but with
inadequately anchored steel bars with equivalent steel adequate positive reinforcement anchoring in the joint.
plates. Steel-plate jacketing was used to enhance the In other words, bond-slip failure was not included in the
joint shear strength. Test results showed that joint jacket- rehabilitation scheme.
ing was ineffective in improving the joint shear strength Limited testing was conducted on beamcolumn joints
due to slippage of the steel plates. The specimen reached rehabilitated using composite rods to strengthen the col-
a drift of 4% without significant deterioration in strength. umn flexural strength and fibre wrap to strengthen the
Flat steel plates were used to confine the joint in an joint shear [9]. Joint rehabilitation using fibre-reinforced
attempt to prevent the spalling of concrete and to main- polymers (FRP) has the advantages of simplicity of
tain the concrete integrity [4,5]. Steel channels were application and less need for skilled labour. The econ-
attached to the beam bottom face to prevent slip of the omic advantages of FRP rehabilitation were evaluated
bars. This scheme was found to be efficient in preventing by Ehlen and Marshall [10].
the bars slippage, increasing the joint shear strength and So far, most of the research conducted on beam
reducing the rate of strength deterioration. column joints has mainly been concerned with upgrading
Ghobarah et al. [6] used corrugated steel-sheet jacket- joint shear strength using steel plates, sheets and sections
ing for joint confinement, leaving a gap between the con- and FRP. However, the rehabilitation of bond-slip in
crete and the jacket to be filled with grout. The shear reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints has not received
strength of the rehabilitated joints was increased and the much attention.
failure mode became flexural hinging in the beam. The objective of the present research programme is to
Carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) materials develop new rehabilitation systems for strengthening the
were used to strengthen an external beamcolumn joint shear resistance of beamcolumn joints and for upgrad-
in shear [7]. The retrofitted specimen was wrapped with ing resistance to bond-slip of the positive reinforcement
multiple layers of CFRP sheets. The joint shear capacity anchored in the joint.
was increased by 25% and the specimens reached 5%
drift.
Ghobarah and Said [8] investigated the rehabilitation 2. Experimental programme
of beamcolumn joints using glass fibre-reinforced poly-
mers (GFRP). One joint was tested as control specimen 2.1. Test specimens
and two were tested after rehabilitation. The proposed
rehabilitation scheme was to wrap the joint with U- Three reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints were
shaped GFRP sheets. The ends of the composite sheets tested: T0, TR1 and TR2. The specimens represent an
were tied together using two steel plates and four steel exterior joint in a typical concrete frame that has been
tie rods through the joint. The behaviour of the rehabili- built before 1970 [11]. Exterior joints are selected
tated specimen was significantly improved. The brittle because they are more vulnerable and are normally
T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407 1399

expected to fail first. If the rehabilitation system is suc- 45 directions. The properties of the fibre sheets used
cessful, it can be easily adapted to interior joints as well. in the current testing programme, as supplied by the
The beamcolumn joints are designed assuming that manufacturer, are given in Table 1.
points of contra-flexure occur at the mid-height of col-
umns and the mid-span of beams. The top longitudinal 2.2. Test set-up and instrumentation
reinforcements in the beam are bent down into the col-
umn, whereas the bottom reinforcement was anchored The specimens were tested in the column vertical pos-
150 mm from the column face. No transverse reinforce- ition, hinged at the top and bottom column ends and sub-
ment was installed in the joint region. The beam was jected to a cyclic load applied at the beam tip as shown
reinforced using 4#20 as top and bottom longitudinal in Fig. 3. The beam-tip displacement and the column
bars and #10 as transverse steel. The column was lateral displacement were measured using poten-
reinforced with 6#20 plus 2#15 as longitudinal bars and tiometers. Two diagonal linear voltage differential trans-
#10 ties spaced 200 mm. The dimensions and reinforce- formers (LVDTs) were attached to the joint to measure
ment details of all of the specimens are identical, as the joint shear deformation. The displacement of the col-
shown in Fig. 2. umn above and below the joint was measured using two
After testing the control specimen, T0, the cracked additional LVDTs attached to the top and bottom of the
concrete was removed from the joint region and the beam, as shown in Fig. 3. Twelve strain gauges were
adjacent parts of the columns and beam. The specimen installed on the reinforcement steel bars to measure the
was laid inside the wooden forms again and new con- strains at different loading levels, as shown in Fig. 4.
crete was poured to replace the removed materials. The For the retrofitted specimens, 10 strain gauges were
specimen was then rehabilitated and tested again as installed on the fibre sheets, two strain gauges were
specimen TR1. However, specimen T2 is an original installed on the tie rods driven through the joint.
specimen that was retrofitted then tested. The concrete A reversed quasi-static cyclic load was applied at the
compressive strength on the test day was 30.6, 43.5 and beam tip using a hydraulic actuator of 250 mm stroke.
39.5 MPa for the control specimen T0, the repair con- The applied load was measured using a load cell. The
crete of specimen TR1 and for specimen TR2, respect- loading routine consisted of two phases as shown in Fig.
ively. The yield strength of the steel bars #10, #15 and 5. The first phase was load control, where the specimen
#20 was 450, 408 and 425 MPa, respectively. was subjected to an increasing load up to the first yield
Bi-directional GFRP material were used in the joint of the steel bars. This phase of loading was used to deter-
rehabilitation. The bi-directional material is woven in the mine the displacement of the beam tip when first yield

Fig. 2. Specimen dimensions and reinforcement details.


1400 T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

Table 1
Properties of the composite materials

GFRP Tensile strength in 0 direction (MPa) Elongation at break (%) Tensile modulus (GPa) Thickness (mm)

Bi-directional (45) 279 1.5 19 0.864


Unidirectional 1700 2 71 0.353

Fig. 3. Test set-up.

of the steel occurs, y. After the beam steel bars reached


the yield strain, the second loading phase was initiated
which was displacement control. Multiples of the dis-
Fig. 4. Location of strain gauges on the reinforcement steel bars.
placement corresponding to the bars first yield, y, were
used to load the specimen. A constant axial load of 600
kN was applied to the column, using another hydraulic
jack provided with a load cell to measure the applied
load. This load represents the gravity load that acts on
the column, and was approximately equal to 0.2Agfc,
where Ag is the gross cross-sectional area and fc is the
compressive strength of concrete.

2.3. Rehabilitation schemes

The proposed rehabilitation schemes consist of two


systems. The first system is for upgrading the shear
strength of the joint. The joint was wrapped with two
U-shaped composite layers. The first layer was bi-direc- Fig. 5. Loading routine.
tional sheet and the second was unidirectional sheet. The
ends of the sheets were anchored using steel plates and being tested for the first time. In specimen TR1, four
tie rods driven through the joint. This system was similar unidirectional glass fibre sheets were applied to the beam
to previously tested systems [8] but differed in material bottom face for a horizontal distance of 1000 mm and
design and details. The second system was for upgrading extended along the inner column face vertically for a
the steel bars bond-slip. This system is new and was distance of 500 mm, as shown in Fig. 6a. In specimen
T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407 1401

Fig. 6. Retrofitting schemes: (a) specimen TR1, (b) specimen TR2.

TR2, eight unidirectional glass fibre sheets were applied 3.1. Specimen T0
to the bottom beam face and provided with two U-
shaped 3 mm thick steel plates to enhance the bond In the first loading cycle, the specimen was loaded up
between the GFRP and the concrete, as shown in Fig. to 3.0 kN up and down to test the instrumentations. The
6b. Using the described configuration, the resultant of first beam crack was observed during the second cycle
the tensile forces developed in the composite sheets may at the column face at load of 7.7 kN up. In the fourth
cause debonding of the sheets from the concrete surface cycle, a load of 30.0 kN was applied up and down to the
at the beamcolumn corner. To overcome this potential specimen; new flexural and flexuralshear cracks formed
problem, a steel angle was installed at the lower beam along the beam length. In the sixth cycle, vertical cracks
column corner as shown in Fig. 6a. To install the angle formed in the joint region at beam-tip load of 35.5 kN
in place, the beam bottom bars were exposed for a dis- due to bond-slip of the beam bottom bars. During the
tance of 150 mm from the column face and the heads eighth cycle, diagonal shear cracks developed in the joint
of A375 steel bolts of diameter 20 mm were welded to region, and the specimen reached a load of 60.0 kN at
the beam bars in two rows. For specimen TR1, four 28 a beam-tip displacement of 20 mm. Repeating the same
mm diameter and 170 mm depth holes were drilled in cycle, the beam reached the same displacement but at
the column in two rows. The steel angle was fixed in lower load level and the beam bars started to slip out of
place using washers and nuts to the bolts welded to the the joint with an associated reduction in the developed
beam reinforcement and using Hilti HVA 5/86-5/8 strain in the bars. The beam-tip displacement of 20 mm
adhesive anchors to the column. For specimen TR2, four was used as a reference value for the displacement-con-
25 mm diameter external threaded rods with trolled loading phase. In the following cycles the beam
500 mm 200 mm 25 mm steel plate were used to tie tip was displaced up and down by multiples of this value.
the angle to the column as shown in Fig. 6b. The reason for selecting this arbitrary displacement as
reference displacement in the test is that yield of the
reinforcement steel is not expected to occur. When the
specimen was pushed up, the bond-slip cracks opened
and the lateral load-carrying capacity deteriorated sig-
3. Experimental results
nificantly; however, when it was pulled down, the diag-
onal shear cracks opened. This caused disintegration of
In this section, the behaviour of the control and the concrete, deterioration of the bond condition of the
rehabilitated specimens is described and the effective- beam top bars and degradation of the lateral load-carry-
ness of the rehabilitation schemes is evaluated. ing capacity. The specimen reached a maximum load of
1402 T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

60.0 kN up and 86.0 kN down, which is much less than


the expected theoretical load at first steel yield of
approximately 110.0 kN. The test was halted at displace-
ment of 50 mm as the load-carrying capacity was greatly
reduced. In effect, when pushing up on the beam, bond-
slip failure of the beam bottom reinforcement occurred
and when pulling down, joint shear failure occurred. The
final failure pattern is shown in Fig. 7. A reduction in
the column axial load up to 10% of the original load
was recorded in the last cycles due to joint shear failure.
Examining the hysteretic behaviour of the specimen
showed considerable pinching, severe strength deterio-
ration and stiffness degradation, as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8. Beam-tip loaddisplacement of specimen T0.
Bond slip was found to be a more brittle type of failure
when compared with shear failure, as it occurred earlier
and is associated with a higher rate of strength deterio- ing the second cycle at load of 14.0 kN. The specimen
ration. In the figure, beam-tip displacement of 20 mm was loaded at increments of 20.0 kN until reaching the
corresponds to 1.0 % storey drift. first yield of the steel reinforcement. Before yielding, the
behaviour of the specimen was almost elastic with no
3.2. Specimen TR1 residual deformation observed. Examining the strain
values showed that the fibre sheets attached to the beam
Specimen TR1 was subjected to the same loading face were carrying most of the developed tensile forces,
sequence as specimen T0. The first crack occurred dur- indicating that the glass fibre fabric was working effec-
tively. During the sixth cycle, vertical cracks appeared
in the lower column under the joint region, due to the
tensile forces developed in the adhesive anchors. These
cracks caused a sudden drop in the beam-tip load from
58.0 kN to 53.0 kN. During the test, FRP debonding was
regularly checked by fingertip tapping on the composite
sheets. During the eighth cycle, the wrapped laminates
around the joint started to debond between the free edges
and the steel plates. In the 10th cycle, the beam top steel
bars reached the yield strain at beam displacement of 25
mm and beam-tip load of 110.0 kN. This displacement
was designated the yield displacement y, and the dis-
placement-controlled loading phase was initiated. Dur-
ing the 12th cycle, the specimen was displaced to 37.5
mm up and down (1.5y). The fibre sheet attached to
the bottom beam face reached a strain of 0.0045 when
the specimen was pushed up. As the beam tip was pulled
down, the fibre sheets buckled and started to debond
from the beam face. In the following cycles, as the ten-
sion in the fibres is lost due to debonding, the existing
steel bars started to carry the developed tension force.
The tension force in the bars was transferred to the col-
umn by bonding, the welded bolts and the steel angle.
The specimen showed increased load-carrying capacity
as it was pulled down. During the 16th cycle, at displace-
ment of 75 mm up and down (3.0y), the weld around
the bolt heads fractured, the beam bars slipped out of
the joint and sudden a drop in the beam load was
observed. During the next cycle, the specimen experi-
enced a loss of load-carrying capacity when pushed up,
whereas it continued to carry the same load level when
it was pulled down, indicating no shear failure in the
Fig. 7. Failure pattern of specimen T0. joint region. The final failure condition is shown in Fig.
T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407 1403

delaminate behind the steel angle. The forces developed


in the composite sheets were transferred to the column
by the steel angle and the tie rods. This caused a
reduction in the beam-tip load when the specimen was
being pushed up accompanied with large deformations
to the angle. In the 11th cycle, while the specimen was
being pulled down, it reached its ultimate load of 131.0
kN and displacement of 79.5 mm (3y). This high load
caused new cracks in the column part above the joint
and initiated joint shear failure. Degradation of the load-
carrying capacity was observed in the following cycles.
During the 16th cycle, the specimen displaced to 132.5
mm (5y) was still able to carry load of 74.0 kN up and
89.0 kN down, which are more than half of the yield
load.
The two U-shaped steel plates proved to be effective
Fig. 9. Failure pattern of specimen TR1.
in preventing fibre debonding from the concrete face to
the end of the test. The strain in the GFRP reached
9. The composite sheets were completely debonded from approximately 0.005 in both tension and compression.
the beam and column faces. Examining the hysteretic In the 17th cycle, the specimen was displaced to 159
loops of the specimen showed that the behaviour mm (6y); however, the load-carrying capacity deterio-
remained almost elastic up to the first steel yield, as rated to 52.0 kN. The test was halted after the 19th cycle
shown in Fig. 10. Severe pinching and stiffness degra- where the specimen reached displacement of 185 mm
dation occurred in the last two cycles following the frac- (7y) and the load-carrying capacity deteriorated to 32.0
ture of the weld. kN. The specimen showed shear cracking in the joint
region under the GFRP, as shown in Fig. 11. The load
3.3. Specimen TR2 displacement cycles are shown in Fig. 12.
Although the final failure mode of specimen TR2 was
Specimen TR2 was subjected to the same loading rou- due to joint shear high load-carrying capacity, the overall
tine as the previous specimens. The first crack occurred joint performance is much more ductile compared with
during the second cycle at load of 20.0 kN while it was the control specimen T0. During the test, it was con-
being pulled down. During the following cycle, the first firmed that the large plastic deformation of the steel
yield of the beam top bars occurred at beam displace- angle provided significant ductility to the joint behav-
ment of 26.5 mm and beam-tip load of 114.5 kN. This iour.
displacement was designated the yield displacement y,
and the displacement-controlled loading phase was
initiated. Vertical cracks appeared in the lower column 4. Discussion
under the joint region at a beam-tip load of 75 kN. Dur-
ing the sixth cycle, the wrapped laminates around the In this section, the hysteretic behaviour, energy dissi-
joint started to debond at the free edges. In the ninth pation, stiffness degradation, joint strength and ductility
cycle, the fibre attached to the column face started to levels of the tested specimens are discussed.
The envelopes of the hysteretic loops of the tested
specimens are shown in Fig. 13. Specimen TR1 showed
almost 100% increase in the load-carrying capacity com-
pared with specimen T0. Specimen TR2 reached a higher
load level and maintained the load-carrying capacity at
displacement levels much higher than those of the other
two specimens. The pinching effect is severe in speci-
men T0 as compared with the rehabilitated specimens.
The top steel in the beam of specimen T0 did not reach
its yield stress. On the other hand, in the rehabilitated
specimens, the yield of the top beam reinforcement was
exceeded. This indicates the effectiveness of the shear
rehabilitation scheme in strengthening the joint shear
capacity and maintaining the joint concrete integrity
Fig. 10. Beam-tip loaddisplacement of specimen TR1. by confinement.
1404 T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

Fig. 13. Hysteretic loop envelopes of the test specimens.

Fig. 14. Cumulative energy dissipated by the tested specimens.


Fig. 11. Failure pattern of specimen TR2.
the specimen T0, while specimen TR2 dissipated almost
six times the energy dissipated by the control speci-
men T0.
The beamcolumn joint stiffness was approximated as
the slope of the peak-to-peak line in each loop. Test
results indicated that stiffness degradation was due to
various factors such as non-linear deformations, flexural
and shear cracking, distortion of the joint panel, slippage
of reinforcement, and loss of cover. The control speci-
men T0 showed high initial stiffness compared with
specimen TR1 because of the pre-cracking of the
rehabilitated specimen TR1 before repair. Specimen
TR2, which was tested for the first time after rehabili-
Fig. 12. Beam-tip loaddisplacement of specimen TR2. tation, showed also high initial stiffness. Comparing the
peak-to-peak stiffness of the tested joints shows that the
stiffness degradation of the control joint T0 was higher
The area enclosed by a hysteretic loop at a given cycle than that of the rehabilitated specimens TR1 and TR2,
represents the energy dissipated by the specimen during as shown in Fig. 15.
this cycle. The capability of a structure to dissipate While the control specimen did not reach the steel
energy has a strong influence on its response to an earth- yield due to bond-slip and shear failure, the rehabilitated
quake loading. The total energy dissipated by a structure specimens TR1 and TR2 reached higher ductility levels
consists of (1) energy dissipated by the steel reinforce- than the control specimen T0.
ment; (2) energy dissipated by friction along existing
cracks in concrete; and (3) energy dissipated during the
formation of new cracks. Fig. 14 shows the cumulative 5. Design of GFRP sheets
energy dissipated by the three beamcolumn joints. It is
observed that the rehabilitated specimen TR1 had the The design approach is based on providing fibre
ability to dissipate three times the energy dissipated by reinforcement to replace the missing joint shear
T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407 1405

Es is the modulus of elasticity of the steel


es is the strain in the compression steel.

The resisting positive moment of the section at the face


of the column, Mr, is:
Mr Cc(da / 2) Cs(dd), (3)
where

d is the effective beam depth


d is the concrete cover above the top steel.

In the particular case of joint T0, Eq. (1) gives the ten-
Fig. 15. Degradation of stiffness with storey drift.
sion force in the steel bars to be Ts 600 kN, and Eq.
(2) gives the depth of the concrete block to be a
reinforcement or the inadequately anchored steel 61.0 mm. The resisting moment capacity given by Eq.
reinforcement. (3) is Mr 187.32 kN m.

5.1. Flexural strengthening sheets 5.1.2. Required number of GFRP layers


The design objective is to achieve the same flexural
The fibre is used to replace the inadequately anchored capacity of the adequately anchored section. In this
bottom steel bars of the beam. In the design process, design procedure, three assumptions are made:
fibre sheets are provided to develop the same design
flexural moment of the reinforced concrete beam section. strain compatibility between the different materials
This moment limit is imposed on the flexural strengthen- is assumed;
ing system to avoid creating a beam that is stronger than the ultimate concrete strain in compression is taken
the column. as 0.0035; and
the contribution of the existing steel bars is ignored.
5.1.1. The beam flexural moment
The moment capacity of the beam section is determ- The tensile force developed in the fibre sheets can be
ined according to the provisions of CSA A23.3-94 [12]. estimated as
To account for overstrength in steel, the tensile force in
the steel is calculated using the actual yield strength, Tfrp efrpEfrpAfrp, (4)
which equals the nominal yield strength increased by where efrp is the strain developed in the GFRP sheets,
25%, which should be less than the ultimate strain, and could
Ts 1.25fyAs, (1) be derived from the geometry, as shown in Fig. 16; Efrp
is the modulus of elasticity of the GFRP and Afrp is the
where area of the GFRP sheets.
The depth of the concrete compression block a can
Ts is the tension force in the bottom steel bars be calculated from the moment equilibrium equation:
As is the area of the tension steel bars.
fy is the nominal yield strength of the steel Mr a1fcab(ta / 2) AsesEs(td). (5)
The strain in the fibre can be written as:
The concrete compression block depth a can be calcu-
lated using the force equilibrium expression: tc
efrp ec , (6)
c
Ts Cc Cs a1fcab AsEses, (2)
where ec is the compression strain in concrete and c is
where
the location of the neutral axis. From the equilibrium
of forces:
Cc is the concrete compression force
Cs is the steel compression force Tfrp Cc Cs (7)
a1 is the equivalent compression block reduction factor
Tfrp efrpEfrpnfrptfrpb. (8)
[12], a1 0.850.0015 for fc 0.67
fc is the concrete compression strength Using the same resisting moment capacity of joint T0,
b is the beam width Mr 187.32 kN m, Eq. (5) gives the depth of the con-
As is the area of the compression steel crete block to be a 55.95 mm. Eqs. (6) to (8) give the
1406 T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407

Fig. 16. Calculation of the required number of GFRP sheets.

strain in the fibre efrp 0.0189 with the number of (11) gives Vc 276.06 kN. From Eq. (10), the required
GFRP layers, nfrp, as 4.35. shear resistance contributed by the fibre is Vfrp
In specimen TR1, the number of GFRP layers, nfrp, is 258.21 kN.
taken as 4, while in specimen TR2 the nfrp is taken as 8. The shear strength provided using one bi-directional
and one unidirectional layers can be estimated from Eq.
5.2. Joint shear strengthening (12), by assuming that both sheets will reach the same
strain level of 1.0%, which is equal to 2/3 of the smallest
The developed joint shear force is calculated as maximum strains of the two composite sheet types. This
[12,13]: gives the provided shear resistance by the FRP, Vr
290.35 kN, which is greater than the required fibre
Vj 1.25AsfyVcol, (9)
resistance Vfrp.
where

Vj is the developed joint shear force 6. Conclusions


Vcol is the shear force in the column.
Based on the experimental results, the following con-
The total shear resistance consists of the concrete clusions can be made.
resistance, the resistance of the ties and the resistance
provided by the composite sheets: The control specimen with no shear reinforcement in
Vj Vc Vs Vfrp. (10) the joint and with inadequate anchorage for the beam
bottom steel bars showed a brittle joint shear failure
The concrete shear resistance can be estimated using accompanied by slippage of the beam bottom bars.
ACI 352 [14] provision to be: The bond conditions of the beam top bars were affec-
Vc 0.3fc(1 0.3fcol)bjdj, (11) ted by the disintegration of the concrete in the control
joint, leading to a significant reduction in the load-
where carrying capacity and the ductility of the joint. Using
GFRP jacketing maintained the concrete integrity by
fcol is the axial stress applied to the column confinement and significantly improved the ductility
bj is the joint width and the load-carrying capacity of the rehabilitated
dj is the joint effective width. joint.
Comparison between the control and the rehabilitated
As there are no ties provided in the joint, Vs is taken to specimens emphasized the effectiveness of the
be zero. rehabilitation schemes. The joint rehabilitation elim-
The fibre contribution, Vfrp, is estimated to be: inated the brittle joint shear failure, improved the
bond conditions of the beam top reinforcement,
Vfrp AfrpefrpEfrp. (12)
delayed the slippage of the bottom steel bars,
For the rehabilitated specimen TR2, the column shear increased the energy dissipated by the specimen and
force is obtained by dividing the nominal moment reduced the stiffness degradation of the joint.
capacity by the shear arm, which is equal to 2850 mm: In specimen TR1, the fibre debonded from the con-
crete surface when it reached a strain of 0.004, which
Vcol 187.32 / 2.85 65.73 kN.
is approximately 25% of the proposed strain by the
Eq. (9) gives the total joint shear as Vj 534.27 kN. Eq. design methodology. However, specimen TR1
T. El-Amoury, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13971407 1407

reached the proposed strength due to the contribution [4] Beres A, White RN, Gergely P. Seismic performance of interior
of the existing steel bars, which was ignored in the and exterior beam-to-column reinforced concrete frame buildings.
Detailed experimental results. In: Report No. 92-06. Ithaca, NY:
design. Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, 1992.
In specimen TR2, use of U-shaped steel plates to [5] Beres A, El-Borgi S, White RN, Gergely P. Experimental results
restrain the GFRP eliminated debonding of the GFRP of repaired and retrofitted beamcolumn joint tests in lightly
from the concrete surface. The FRP reached a strain reinforced concrete frame buildings. In: Report No, NCEER-92-
that is approximately 1/3 of its ultimate strain in both 25. Buffalo (NY): National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992.
tension and compression without failure. The rehabili- [6] Ghobarah A, Aziz TS, Biddah A. Seismic rehabilitation of
tated joint achieved 52% higher load-carrying reinforced concrete beamcolumn connections. Earthquake Spec-
capacity and dissipated six times the energy dissipated tra 1996;12(4):76180.
by the control specimen. [7] Pantelides C, Clyde C, Dreaveley L. Rehabilitation of R/C build-
ing joints with FRP composites. Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, Silverstream, Upper Hutt, New Zealand,
Acknowledgements 2000. Paper no. 2306.
[8] Ghobarah A, Said A. Seismic rehabilitation of beamcolumn
The authors are grateful to Fyfe Co. and R.J. Watson, joints using FRP laminates. J. Earthquake Eng. 2001;5(1):113
29.
Inc. for providing the GFRP material used in the tests, [9] Prota A, Nanni A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Seismic upgrade of
and to ISIS Canada for supporting the research pro- beamcolumn joints with FRP reinforcement. In: FRPRCS5. Pro-
gramme. ceedings of 5th Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Struc-
tures, Thomas Telford Ltd, UK. 2001. paper # 339.
[10] Ehlen MA, Marshall HE. The economics of new-technology
materials: a case study of FRP bridge decking. In: National Insti-
References tute of Standards and Technology Report NISTIR 5864. Gaithers-
burg (MD): Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire
[1] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete Research Laboratory, 1996.
frames including joint shear deformation. Eng. Struct. [11] ACI-318 Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.
1999;21:97187. Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute, 1963.
[2] Ghobarah A, Youssef, M. Response of an existing RC building [12] CSA A23.3 Design of concrete structures. Rexdale, Ontario: Can-
including concrete crushing and bond slip effects. In: Proceedings adian Standards Association, 1994.
of 8th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Canad- [13] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York:
ian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
1999. p. 42732. [14] ACI 352 Recommendation for design of beamcolumn joints in
[3] Estrada JI. Use of steel elements to strengthen a reinforced con- monolithic reinforced concrete structures. Detroit (MI): American
crete building. M.Sc. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1990. Concrete Institute, 1976.

You might also like