Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete moment frame connections

strengthened with quasi-isotropic laminates
A.S. Mosallam
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834, USA

Abstract
This paper introduces an innovative technique using polymer composites for repair and retro®t of reinforced concrete (RC) moment frame
connections. In this pilot study, a total of six half-scale reversal cyclic tests were preformed. The tests were conducted on half-scale
specimens simulating interior beam-to-column sub-assemblages of a typical RC structure. Two connection specimens were used as control
specimens and were tested to failure. These two ªrepairableº damaged specimens were re-tested under a similar loading regime after being
repaired with both epoxy injection as well as carbon±epoxy and E-glass±epoxy quasi-isotropic laminates. To investigate the performance of
the composite systems as retro®t schemes, two other half-scale tests were conducted on undamaged specimens strengthened with both E-
glass±epoxy and carbon±epoxy quasi-isotropic laminates. Test results indicated that the use of composite overlays has led to an appreciable
increase in stiffness, strength, and ductility of these connections. The ductility and strength of the repaired specimens were increased up to 42
and 53% respectively, as compared to the control specimens. Discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using E-glass±epoxy vs.
carbon±epoxy laminates is also presented. q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Seismic repair

1. Introduction government and the industry was allocated to verify,

For the past few years, several major research projects
were launched to investigate the feasibility of using com-
posites in both seismic and corrosion repair of structural
systems made of reinforced concrete, steel, and wood
materials. The State and Federal Government, as a joint
program with the industry, sponsored the majority of these
programs. The overwhelming experimental and analytical
results have encouraged the practicing civil engineers and
the construction industry to consider polymer composites as
an alternative construction material and system. One of the
successful applications of polymer composites is the seis-
mic repair and retro®t of reinforced concrete columns. The
advantage of composites in this application is the ability of
decoupling the stiffness and strength, by applying the major-
ity of ®bers in the hoop directions. This application has been
extended to cover not only the ductility enhancements, but
also in upgrading of both stiffness and strength of reinforced
concrete columns. In addition, similar applications includ-
ing repair and retro®t of both reinforced and unreinforced
bearing as well as shear walls, slabs, and beams have been
adopted. A comprehensive state-of-the-art review of the
different composite repair systems is presented by Mosal-
lam [1] and by Marsh [2].
As mentioned earlier, a heavy investment by both the
1359-8368/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1359-836 8(99)00068-2
support, and develop repair systems to upgrade the struc-
tural performance of existing slabs, beams columns and
other structural members. In rehab applications, test results
indicated that the use of composite laminates leads to an
appreciable increase of the loading capacity of the ¯oor
system (beam and slabs), columns and walls. The gain in
the structural capacity is translated into the ability of adding
more loads to the existing structure. These additional loads
must follow a proper load path from the upgraded ¯oor
system to the upgraded columns and/or walls via some
type of connection. If this connection is not properly
upgraded to carry the additional loads, severe limitations
could be imposed on the use of composite reinforcements
and on the allowable upgrade capacity. The main reason is
that, by increasing the strength and stiffness of the
connected members (e.g. beams and columns), the possi-
bility of plastic hinge formation in the columns will increase
substantially. Structural engineers have avoided this
concept when designing reinforced concrete Ductile
Moment Resisting Frames (DMRFs). The design philoso-
phy of DMRF frames follows what is called ªweak girder±
strong columnº concept. According to this design concept,
the connection is designed in such a way that the joints and
the column remain essentially elastic under the action of
earthquake forces, in order to ensure adequate energy
482 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
Fig. 1. Typical exterior (knee) frame connection failureÐNorthridge Earthquake, January 1994.
dissipation and to provide proper lateral stability of the
reinforced concrete structure.
2. In¯uence of connection behavior of the overall seismic
performance of DMRF structures
Stiffness or strength degradation of the connection in a
DMRF structure has a major impact on the lateral-load
resistance of such structures. For this reason, the joint has
been identi®ed as the ªweak-linkº in DMRF structures.
During an earthquake, connection damages can lead to
substantial drifts and can increase the possibility of building
collapse due to what is called the ªP-deltaº effects.
The major in¯uence of beam±column connections on the
structural integrity and seismic performance of reinforced
concrete structures became more evident after the 1989
Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge earthquakes, the Kobe
earthquake of Japan, and the August 1999 Earthquake in
Turkey. Post-earthquake reports of the Loma Prieta indi-
cated that one of the main reasons behind the collapse of
the Cypress Viaduct bridge, and the damage of the China
Basin and the I-80 Nemit Freeway is the failure of connec-
tions. A site survey, conducted by the author, of several
parking structures in the Los Angeles in January 1994
following the Northridge earthquake, indicated that collapse
of several portal frame structures were mainly due to the
failure of beam±column and column±base connections (see
Fig. 1).
Designing beam±column joints is considered to be a
complex and challenging task for the structural engineer.
This is because although the sizing of the connection is
determined by the size of the framing members, these joints
will be subjected to a different set of loads from those used
in designing both the column and the beams. For example, it
is necessary to provide a relatively large number of trans-
verse reinforcement (in form of steel stirrups) to control
cracks and to provide adequate con®nement to the joint.
These stirrups are dif®cult to be placed in the very limited
joint zone and can generally result in improper compaction
of concrete at the connection area.
One of the determining factors in designing beam±
column connections in DMRF structures is MR, the ratio
of column-to-beam ¯exural capacity given by
S MC
MR ˆ
S MB
where MC, MB are the sum of the ¯exural capacities of the
columns and beam, respectively. The experimental results
indicated that in order to avoid formation of the plastic
hinges in the joint, MR is 1.40. The reason behind that is,
if the frame structure is subjected to large seismic forces that
result in some deterioration of the column strength, there is a
possibility that the plastic hinge may shift from the beams to
the column, which should be avoided as was mentioned
earlier.
The weak beam±strong column approach requires that in
one side, the steel rebars will go from yielding to some or no
compression at the other side of the joint. In this case, the
beam steel rebars will be exposed to very high bond stresses.
This will result in substantial degradation in the bond
strength, and possibility of slippage of the steel reinforce-
ment when exposed to seismic forces. In addition, during an
earthquake, the joints will likely be exposed to biaxial
forces that will result in an increase in the shear stresses
at the joint area that can cause severe cracking and bond
deterioration at the connection zone.
3. Related research work
Over the years, several seismic repair and retro®tting
techniques, including pressure epoxy injection, epoxy
impregnation [3], external steel plating [4,5], and concrete
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
jacketing [6] have been investigated. However, there are a
number of drawbacks associated with these techniques. The
1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-97
Report questions the effectiveness of the pressure injection
technique in completely restoring bonds between the rein-
forcement and concrete. The epoxy impregnation method,
while being able to overcome the partial ful®llment of air
void problem, is extremely dif®cult to apply on large prac-
tical scales. The use of bonded steel plates has several disad-
vantages including high cost, possibility of steel corrosion at
the interface resulting in a premature bond-line failure, as
well the requirements of heavy equipment at the job site.
As compared to steel jacketing, the use of polymer
composites repair and retro®t systems provide several
unique advantages. The key advantage of composites in
these applications is its tailorability, which enables the
engineer to decouple stiffness and strength (stiffer columns
would attract more forces during the earthquake which are
not included in the original design). This property is critical
in the seismic repair of columns. Results of previous
research studies demonstrated that ductility was enhanced
without changing the stiffness of the members by applying
the majority of ®bers in the hoop direction. In this con®g-
uration, the composite reinforcement was highly effective
because it con®ned the core concrete and prevented the steel
longitudinal rebars from buckling under reversal loading.
The use of polymer composites in reinforced concrete repair
and rehabilitation is discussed in detail by Mosallam [1],
Haroun [7], and Duthinh [8].
Mosallam et al. [9] conducted a pilot study on the use of
3D braided graphite±epoxy composites and high-strength
adhesives for repair and retro®t of damaged interior and
exterior steel beam±column connections. Test results indi-
cated that the proposed techniques satis®ed the ductility
requirements recommended by the 1995 and 1997 FEMA
guidelines for steel moment frame structures. The use of
polymer composites as a structural repair and rehabilitation
for masonry walls was examined by Haroun and Ghoneam
[10].
Over the years, the American Concrete Institute (ACI
352) Committee has been working on developing state-of-
the-art reports to assist the structural engineers in designing
reliable reinforced concrete joints. Unfortunately, the
majority of these valuable design recommendations are
only applicable to new construction. Based on the latest
ACI 352R-91 [11], (the committee is currently working on
the ®nal draft of a new design document that will be avail-
able shortly this year), the majority of the older joints do not
meet the con®nement criteria set forth by this committee.
For this reason, there is an urgent need to develop reliable
and cost-effective methodologies to repair and rehabilitate
older connections in existing reinforced concrete structures.
As was mentioned earlier, several attempts using conven-
tional materials and systems have been investigated. For
example, Lowes and Moehle [12], at the University of
California at Berkeley, investigated the seismic behavior
483
of retro®tting older reinforced concrete bridge T-joints
using special dowels and post-tensioning rods. The use of
corrugated steel jacket attached to the joint region was
studied by Biddah et al. [5] in 1997. The corrugated steel
jacket was found to be an effective system of upgrading the
joint capacity by increasing the joint shear strength and the
energy dissipation capacity. Bollo et al. [13] tested a three-
span segment of the Cypress Street Viaduct bridge. In this
study, retro®tting techniques including external post-
tensioning steel rods and the addition of external shear rein-
forcement were examined. The results indicated that these
retro®tting techniques increased both strength and ductility
with a minimal effect on the joint stiffness. Parvin and
Granata [14] presented a preliminary discussion on the use
of FRP overlays at exterior beam±column connections.
They concluded, through ®nite element analysis, that the
peeling stress at the junction of the tensile faces of the
beam and column is critical. The study further indicated
that the use ®ber wrap over the ®ber overlay would be
effective in preventing peeling of the overlay due to stress.
Sexsmith et al. [15], investigated the cyclic behavior of a
45% prototype of the Vancouver Oak Street Bridge retro-
®tted with four different details. The details were a combi-
nation of cap beam longitudinal and vertical post-tensioning
and unidirectional E-glass±epoxy laminates. The composite
laminates were applied on the cap beam and columns (and
not at the joint), while the cap-beam was longitudinally pre-
stressed at 342 psi (2.4 MPa) using external Dywidag bars.
Test results indicated that the composite retro®t system
preformed very well up to a displacement ductility of 9,
where the test had to be terminated due to the displacement
limitation of the loading system. In 1996, a ®eld study was
conducted by researchers at University of Utah on the feasi-
bility of using polymer composites for retro®t beam±
column pier joints at Interstate 80 [16]. Preliminary results
on the use of polymer composites for repairing concrete
joints were reported by Mosallam et al. [17].
4. Experimental program
4.1. Materials and methods
4.1.1. Beam±column specimens
A total of six half-scale beam±column connection tests
were conducted in this pilot study. The beam±column
assemblages were designed using earlier design method-
ologies used in the 1960s. The specimen size and reinforce-
ments were limited by ^50 kips (222.40 kN) cyclic load
capacity of the hydraulic actuators and the test frame. The
yielding strength ( fy) of the steel rebars was 60,000 psi
(413.68 MPa). Number 5 (f 15.9 mm) rebars were used
for both column vertical reinforcement as well as for the
beam horizontal reinforcements. Number 2 (f 6.35 mm)
rebars were used for stirrups. The specimen ends were
484 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
Fig. 2. Beam-to-column connection test setup.
supported using a special hinged ®xture using steel sleeves
embedded in the reinforced concrete.
4.1.2. Composites and epoxy system
Both E-glass±epoxy and carbon±epoxy composites were
used in these experiments. The ®ber architecture of all
laminates was quasi-isotropic (08/908/^458). This laminate
design was based on the cyclic loading demand and the
anticipated directions of both ¯exural and shear cracks.
The E-glass laminates were preformed using stitching
techniques. Due to the unavailability of the preformed
stitched Quadra-axial carbon ®ber laminates at the time of
the experiment, the quasi-isotropic laminates were
constructed using two layers of 08/908 laminates with an
offset of ^458. In addition, two unidirectional diagonal
straps placed at the top surface of the laminate (at the
joint). The objective of using these straps is to minimize
the possibility of premature delamination failure at the
corners due to the development of high radial tensile stres-
ses at the curved corners. E-glass±epoxy laminates were
used for repair specimen SP-1, and for retro®tted specimen
SP-3. For connection specimens SP-2 and SP-4, carbon±
epoxy laminates were used.
In these experiments, three types of epoxies were used,
namely, a high-modulus±high-strength epoxy paste, a high-
modulus±low-viscosity±high-strength epoxy to ®ll cracks
and voids on the damaged SP-1 and SP-2, and a two-part
high-modulus±high-strength±medium-viscosity epoxy as
the polymer matrix for the composite lay-ups. Prior to the
application of the composite systems, two methods using
epoxy were used to ®ll the cracks. For specimen SP-1, a
manual epoxy gravity-feeding method was used, while
specimen SP-2 was repaired using powered epoxy injection
technique. All concrete surfaces were ground smooth, wiped
clean, and dried completely prior to the application of the
composite systems. During the application of the polymer
composites, care was taken to ensure full impregnation of
the ®bers, and excess epoxy was squeezed off to eliminate
the chances of creating air voids and epoxy-rich weak links.
All the laminates were bonded to concrete surfaces, and no
wrapping was used. Although wrapping would have been
effective in providing con®nement near the joint area, it
was decided not to use it. The reason behind this decision
is that these pilot tests were designed to match the site
conditions for a typical DMRF building, where it would be
impractical to wrap around the beam section because of the
existing ¯oor slab. However, the second phase of this
program is underway, where both overlays and wrapping
are used.
4.1.3. Test ®xtures and instrumentation
The specimens were tested in a 30 ft (9.15 m), 2D test
frame. This test frame is equipped with dual hydraulic
actuators and each actuator has the capacity of
^50,000 pounds (^222.40 kN). Load, de¯ection, and
strain were automatically recorded using a computerized
data acquisition system. The relative rotation between the
beam and the column was captured using four LVDTs as
shown in Fig. 2.
4.1.4. Loading protocol
The reversal loads were applied to the top of column
centerline using ^50 kips (^222.40 kN) hydraulic actuator.
During the load-control regime, an increment of 2 kips
(8.9 kN) per cycle was used. An increment of 0.25 in.
(63.50 mm) was used for the displacement-control portion
of all tests. The loading frequency was selected at 0.25 Hz.
Initially, the load-control regime was used to capture the
steel reinforcement yielding point of specimens SP-1 and
SP-2. The displacements at yield were recorded and used as
the calculation baselines for the ductility comparison.
Subsequent tests were performed using displacement-
control regime up to the ultimate failure load of the connec-
tion specimens. Fig. 3 depicts the typical load-control
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 485

Fig. 3. Typical load control regime history (for SP-1 and SP-2) and displacement control regime history for all specimens.

Fig. 4. Specimen SP-1 load-controlled test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).

regime history for specimens SP-1 and SP-2 and the typical
displacement regime history for all the specimens. After
repairing pre-cracked specimens SP-1 and SP-2, these two
specimens were re-designated as SP-1R and SP-2R.
Specimens SP-3 and SP-4 (undamaged specimens) were
retro®tted with the same laminate architecture of E-glass
and carbon composites, respectively. Displacement controlled
regime test were performed on SP-1R, SP-2R, SP-3, and SP-4.
5. Experimental results
5.1. Control specimen SP-1
This specimen represents an existing old structure. Fig. 4
shows the load-control test results of this specimen. This
initial test was performed to characterize the specimen up
to its yielding point. The load corresponding to the steel
486 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
Fig. 5. Crack distributions of control specimen SP-1.
yielding was found experimentally from the strain data
and was approximately 25 kips (111.20 kN) with the
corresponding vertical displacement of 0.5 in. (12.70 mm).
Flexural and shear cracks were observed close to the panel
zone and their size ranged from 0.0625 in. (1.6 mm) to
0.125 in. (3.2 mm) in width. Larger cracks were observed
and the propagation of the cracks was well into the joint.
Fig. 5 shows a close-up view of the damaged area. Samples
of the displacement-control experimental plots are shown in
Fig. 6.
5.2. E-glass±epoxy repaired specimen SP-1R
The surface of the pre-cracked control specimen SP-1
was cleaned and loose spalled concrete pieces were
removed. All the cracks were gravity-®lled with Sikadur 35
high-modulus±low-viscosity epoxy (product of Sika Corp.).
The epoxy was allowed to cure for 72 h after application. The
concrete surfaces were then ground smooth and quasi-isotro-
pic (08/908/^458) E-glass composite laminates were applied
with Sikadur 32. In this case, SP-1 became SP-1R after
the applying the E-glass±epoxy repair system.
The repaired specimen was tested to failure under dis-
placement-control regime as shown in Fig. 3. This test
was terminated at about 30 s before total collapse. The
initial failure was initiated at a distance of about 4 in.
(101.6 mm) from the right side of the outer edge of the
connection panel zone. No surface cracks were observed
within the joint. Fig. 7 shows the failure mode of specimen
SP-1R. As shown in the ®gure, the composite laminate
failed in shear along the vertical boundary of the joint. A
subsequent examination revealed cohesive failure at the
concrete±composite interface. Fig. 8 depicts the data plots
for SP-1R.
5.3. Control specimen SP-2
The ®rst part of testing specimen SP-2 was identical to
that of specimen SP-1. Fig. 9 shows the result of the load-
control experimental results of specimen SP-2. As for
specimen SP-1, this test was conducted up to the yielding
point of the control specimen. The load corresponding to the
steel yielding was found experimentally from the strain data
(approximately 26 kips (115.65 kN) with the corresponding
vertical displacement of 0.4 in. (10.16 mm)). The size and
distributions of cracks were similar to ®rst control specimen
SP-1.
Fig. 10 shows a sample of the experimental results of
control specimen SP-2. Severe cracks were developed in the
beam at approximately 12 in. (305 mm) from the face of the
vertical member. Fig. 11 shows the crack distribution of speci-
men SP-2. Large size cracks and concrete spalling were
observed at the left side of the horizontal member (see Fig. 12).
5.4. Carbon±epoxy repaired specimen SP-2R
Unlike the E-glass±epoxy repaired specimen, SP-1R,
where gravity feed method was used in applying the
epoxy to the cracks, pressure epoxy injection method was
used. The epoxy resins used were the same types as for SP-
1R specimen. The injected epoxy was allowed to cure for
48 h after application. The concrete surfaces were then
ground smooth, cleaned, and a quasi-isotropic carbon±
epoxy laminates were applied.
Similar to the ®rst repaired specimen, the control
specimen SP-2 was re-designated SP-2R after the
application of the carbon±epoxy composite repair system.
The same displacement-control regime, as in specimen
SP-1R, was used. At the third compressive stroke, a loud
crackling sound was heard indicating the initiation of a local
failure of the composite laminate. The test sequence was
terminated after 13 s due to visual observation of large
spalling from the left side of the beam. It was observed
that large deformation occurred at the same area that had
large severe cracks in the control specimen SP-2 (the same
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 487

Fig. 6. Specimen SP-1 experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).

test specimen before repair). The ultimate failure mode was a
combination of a shear failure (shear failure was initiated at
the top of the vertical face of the subassembly and was propa-
gated at about 458 along the depth of the horizontal member),
and a concrete cohesive failure at the top and the bottom of
the beam due to that lack of con®nement. Fig. 13 shows the
ultimate failure of specimen SP-2R. It is anticipated that if
wrapping around the cross-section was used at this location,
this type of failure would have been either avoided or
limited by the added con®nement of the composite
wraps. Samples of the experimental results are shown
in Fig. 14.

Fig. 7. Ultimate failure mode of repaired specimen SP-1R.

488 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497

Fig. 8. Specimen SP-1R experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (bottom steel).

Fig. 9. Specimen SP-2 load-control test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 489

Fig. 10. Specimen SP-2 experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).

5.5. E-glass±epoxy retro®tted specimen SP-3
The ªundamagedº beam-column specimen, SP-3, was
retro®tted with the same lay-up of E-glass±epoxy quasi-
isotropic laminates as for the repaired specimen SP-1R.
The same displacement controlled loading regime was
used. After about 7 s from the application of the cyclic
load, a loud crackling noise was heard. The initiation of
failure occurred at about 2 in. (50 mm) from the vertical
member face. The E-glass±epoxy laminates failed in shear
at the right side of the beam (see Fig. 15). At the ultimate
failure load, no bond line failure was observed, instead a
concrete cohesive failure was the major mode of failure.
Samples of the experimental results are shown in Fig. 16.

Fig. 11. Ultimate failure of control specimen SP-2.

490 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497

Fig. 12. Large size cracks and concrete spalling of specimen SP-2 at ultimate load.

Fig. 13. Ultimate failure mode of repaired specimen SP-2R.

5.6. Carbon±epoxy retro®tted specimen SP-4
The undamaged specimen SP-4 was retro®tted with the
same lay-up of carbon±epoxy lamination as used in the
second repaired specimen SP-2R. The same displacement-
control loading regime was used. Loud crackling sound was
heard at early stage of loading and continued through out the
duration of the test. Initially, no surface cracks were
observed. However, at about 80% of the ultimate load, the
carbon composite laminates suffered from a local shear fail-
ure which was initiated at the right side of the beam and
followed by a concrete cohesive failure at the top side of the
horizontal member (see Fig. 17). Samples of the experimen-
tal results are shown in Fig. 18.

Table 1
Test result summary

Specimen ID Composite system: Ultimate loadÐkips (kN) Ultimate momentÐkips (kN m)

repair (R), retro®t
(RT)

SP-1 None 37.09 (164.97) 911.42 (102.98)

SP-1R E-glass±epoxy (R) 44.42 (197.58) 1091 (123.30)
SP-2 None 28.87 (128.41) 709 (80.18)
SP-2R Carbon±epoxy (R) 30.11 (133.93) 740 (83.62)
SP-3 E-glass±epoxy (RT) 41.50 (184.59) 1018 (115.03)
SP-4 Carbon±epoxy (RT) 42.00 (186.82) 1031 (116.50)
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 491

Load vs. Displacement Moment vs. Θ

50 1000
40 800
30 600

Joint Moment (in-kips)

20 400
Load (kips)

10 200
0 0
-10 -200
-20 -400
-30 -600
-40 -800
-50 -1000
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Displacement (inches) Rotation (radians)

Load vs. Strain (tension stroke) Load vs. Strain (compression stroke)

35 0

30 -5

-10
25
Load (kips) -15
Load (kips)

20
-20
15
-25
10 -30
5 -35

0 -40
-1.20E-03 -8.00E-04 -4.00E-04 0.00E+00 -1.20E-03 -8.00E-04 -4.00E-04 0.00E+00
Strain Strain

Fig. 14. Specimen SP-2R experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).

6. Hysteric behavior specimen before (SP-1) and after the repair with E-glass±
epoxy laminates (SP-1R) is shown in Fig. 20. The ®gure
The column tip load±displacement envelope plots for all shows that the use of the composite system did not only
connection specimens are shown in Fig. 19. A comparison restore the original capacity of the damaged specimen, but
between the load±displacement envelops of ®rst control also upgraded the ultimate load capacity by an additional

Fig. 15. Failure mode of retro®tted connection specimen SP-3.

 492
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
Fig. 16. Specimen SP-3 experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) M/Q ; (c) P/e (tension); (d) P/e (compression).
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 493

Fig. 17. Failure mode of specimen SP-4.

53% in compression and about 18% in tension. Also, the The same comparison is presented in Fig. 21, between the
displacement at ultimate load was increased by about 29% in second control specimen before (SP-2), after repair with
tension and 36% in compression as compared to the ultimate carbon±epoxy laminates (SP-2R). There was a slight
displacement of the pre-damaged control specimen SP-1. increase in stiffness and strength of this connection repair

Fig. 18. Specimen SP-4 experimental test results: (a) P/d ; (b) P/e (tension).
494 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497

Fig. 19. Load±displacement envelope plots for all connection specimens.

detail. As it is shown in the ®gure, a rapid degradation in the
strength occurred at a load of 28 kips (125 kN). The lack of
ductility of this detail can be attributed to lower ultimate
elongation of the carbon ®bers (about 1%) as well as the
quasi-isotropic lay-up of the applied composite laminates.
A load±displacement behavior comparison between the
control ªundamagedº specimen (SP-2) and the E-glass±
epoxy retro®tted specimen (SP-3) is shown in Fig. 22.
From the ®gure, one can see that a strength gain of about
44% as compared to the unreinforced specimen was

Fig. 20. Load±displacement envelope plots for SP-1 and SP-1R.

 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497 495

Fig. 21. Load±displacement envelope plots for SP-2 and SP-2R.

achieved. A slight increase in the ductility was also a moderate increase in both the connection strength and
observed. The force±displacement behavior of unreinforced stiffness was achieved. For example, the increase in the
detail SP-1 and the carbon±epoxy retro®tted connection strength was about 10% while the stiffness increase was
detail SP-4 is presented in Fig. 23. As shown in this ®gure about 20% as compared to the control ªunreinforcedº

Fig. 22. Load±displacement envelope plots for SP-2 and SP-3.

496 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
Fig. 23. Load±displacement envelope plots for SP-1 and SP-4.
connection detail. The increase in the stiffness can be
attributed to the high modulus of carbon composites.
Table 1 presents a summary of the test results.
7. Conclusions
Based on the results of this experimental program, the
following general conclusions were reached:
1. The experimental results indicated that the use of quasi-
isotropic polymer composite laminates increases both the
rotational stiffness and the ultimate strength of the rein-
forced concrete moment frame connections.
2. The control ªun-retro®ttedº specimens exhibited rapid
degradation in both stiffness and strength.
3. The use of E-glass±epoxy quasi-isotropic composites
contributed in an appreciable increase in stiffness,
strength, and ductility of the repaired connection. For
example, an increase of 42% in the ductility of repaired
specimen, SP-1R, was achieved (3.40 as compared to 2.4
for the control specimen SP-1).
4. The use of E-glass±epoxy quasi-isotropic laminates to
retro®t undamaged connections in specimen SP-3 has
contributed in an increase of about 20% of the initial
stiffness, as compared to the initial stiffness of the control
specimen SP-2.
5. Due to the inherent lower stiffness of E-glass±epoxy
composites, this system could be used to enhance the
ductility of both repaired and retro®tted reinforced
concrete connections. In cases where strength is the
major design criterion, test results indicated that the use
of carbon±epoxy quasi-isotropic laminates is recom-
mended over the E-glass±epoxy composites. However,
if the ductility is the major criterion, E-glass±epoxy will
offer better performance as compared to carbon±epoxy
composites. This conclusion is based on the speci®c lay-
up, and geometry used in this pilot project.
6. In all tests, a cohesive failure was achieved. This
failure mode is desirable to ensure complete bond
between both the sound concrete and the composite
laminate(s).
8. Recommendations and future research
Although the results of this pilot research project have
provided valuable information regarding the overall full-
reversed cyclic loading behavior of reinforced concrete
moment frame connections repaired and retro®tted with
polymer composites, there are several related aspects that
need further investigation. For example, additional experi-
mental work is needed to further isolate several variables in
order to fully characterize their effects on the repairing and
retro®tting of the reinforced concrete moment frame
connections. This includes: (i) the effect of changing the
®ber architecture of the laminate; (ii) the effect of adding
con®nement to the column regions (in this study, and for
practicality reasons, no con®nement was added to the beam
due to the interference of the ¯oor slab in a typical existing
 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 481±497
reinforced concrete building); (iii) the effect of changing the
load history; (iv) the effect of changing the specimen size
and varying the beam and column cross-sections; (v) the
case of exterior beam±column (knee) connections, (vi) the
case of eccentric beam connections; (vii) the effect of 3D
elements such as beams and slabs on the connection beha-
vior; (vii) the effect of the use of epoxy injection vs. surface
epoxy repair; and (viii) the use of other types of composite
systems including Kevlar±epoxy. Currently, the second
phase of this program is in progress at California State
University at Fullerton (CSUF) and the results will be avail-
able in the near future [19]. The ongoing program includes
the effect of column full con®nement and beam partial
con®nement on the overall seismic behavior of beam±
column joints.
One of the critical issues that needs further investigation
is the durability and the long-term performance of polymer
composites. This includes temperature (and ultimately ®re),
humidity, chemical attacks, creep and creep rupture, and
other environmental factors on stressed and unstressed
specimens. Extensive durability work has been conducted
at the Aerospace Corporation under the sponsorship of
California Department of Transportaion (Caltrans) [18].
Recently, a joint durability research program has been
initiated between CSUF and the Aerospace Corporation as
a part of the ICBO (International Conference of Building
Of®cials) Certi®cation Program for polymer composite
repair systems.
Acknowledgements
The effort and contribution of Mr E. Lau, Hughes Space
and Communications Co., and Dr Chakrabarti, and Mr
J. Kiech, California State University, Fullerton are highly
appreciated. The epoxy materials were donated by Sika
Corp., and the epoxy injection work was conducted and
donated by ACE Restoration and Waterproo®ng.
References
[1] Advanced seismic repair and rehabilitation structural system. In:
Mosallam, A, editor. Proceedings, CSUF State-of-the-Art Conference
on Repair and Rehabilitation of Structures. Fullerton, CA. 1998
November 9. 201 pp.
[2] Marsh G. Seismic retro®t provides opportunities for FRP. Reinforced
Plastics Magazine 1998;42(3):38±43.
497
[3] Wolfgram French C, Thorp GA, Tsai W. Epoxy repair techniques for
moderate earthquake damage. ACI Structural Journal 1990;July±
August:416±24.
[4] Flexural retro®t of rectangular reinforced concrete bridge columns by
steel jacketing: experimental studies. Report No. SSRP-93/01.
Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, Univer-
sity of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 215 pp.
[5] Biddah A, Ghobarah A, Aziz TS. Upgrading of nonductile reinforced
concrete frame connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1997;123(8):1001±10.
[6] Alcocer SM, Jersa JO. Strength of reinforced concrete frame connec-
tions rehabilitated by jacketing. ACI Structural Journal (American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, USA) 1993;90(3):249±61.
[7] Haroun, M. Seismic evaluation of composite repair systems for repair
and rehabilitation of bridge columns. Caltrans Report, 1998.
[8] NIST Workshop on Standards Development for the Use of Fiber
Reinforced Polymers for the Rehabilitation of Concrete and Masonry
Structures. In: Duthinh D, editor. Report No. NISTIR 6288. US
Department of Commerce, Washington DC. January 1998.
[9] Mosallam AS, Chakrabarti PR, Arnold M. Making the connection.
Civil Engineering Magazine, ASCE 1999;69(4):56±9.
[10] Haroun MA, Ghoneam EH. Seismic performance testing of masonry-
in®lled frames retro®tted by ®ber composite. Proceedings of 15th
International Modal Analysis Conference, vol. 2. Orlando. February
1997. p. 1650±6.
[11] ACI Committee 52. Recommendations for design of beam±column
joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI 352R-91).
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, USA. 1991.
[12] Lowes LN, Moehle JP. Seismic behavior of retro®t of older reinforced
concrete bridge T-joints. Report No. UCB/EERC-95/09. University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA. 1995.
[13] Bollo ME, Mahin SA, Moehle JP, Stephen RM, Qi X. Observations
and implications of tests on the Cypress Street Viaduct Test Structure.
Report No. UCB/SEMM-90/21. University of California at Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA. 1990.
[14] Parvin A, Granata P. Use of FRP overlays at beam±column connec-
tions. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Compo-
sites in Infrastructures. Tucson, AZ. 1998 January 5±7. p. 213±18.
[15] Sexsmith R, Anderson D, English D. Cyclic behavior of concrete
bridge bents. ACI Structural Journal (American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, USA) 1997;94(2):103±13.
[16] Gergely I, Pantelides CP, Nuismer RJ, Reaveley LD. Bridge pier
retro®t using ®ber-reinforced plastic composites. Journal of Compo-
sites for Construction, ASCE 1998;2(4):165±74.
[17] Mosallam AS, Chakrabarti PR, Lau EK. Concrete concertinos. Civil
Engineering Magazine, ASCE 1999;69(1):42±4.
[18] Steckel G, Bauer J, Hawkins G, Vanik R, Johnson E, Nokes J. Aero-
space Report No. ATR-99 (7524)-2. Quali®cations for seismic retro-
®tting of bridge columns using composites, 3 volumes. January 1999.
[19] Mosallam A, Chakrabarti P, Sim S, Elsanadedy M. Seismic response
of reinforced concrete moment connections repaired and upgraded
with FRP composites. In: Mossallam A (editor), Innovative systems
for seismic repair and rehabilitation of structures: design and applica-
tion. Proceedings of SRRS2 Conference, Fullerton, CA, 21±22
March, 2000.