Strengthening and Rehabilitation of RC Beam-Column Joints Using carbon-FRP Jacketing and Epoxy Resin Injection

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:769790

Published online 11 February 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.785
Strengthening and rehabilitation of RC beamcolumn joints using

carbon-FRP jacketing and epoxy resin injection
Chris G. Karayannis, , and George M. Sirkelis
Reinforced Concrete Lab., Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace,
Xanthi 67100, Greece
SUMMARY
The scope of this study is to present results of an experimental investigation on the behaviour of critical
external beamcolumn joints repaired or/and strengthened with a combination of epoxy resin injections
and carbon-fibre-reinforced plastics (C-FRP) sheets and to extract useful and practical conclusions. The
experimental program comprises 12 external beamcolumn joint connection subassemblages tested in
cyclic loading. From the observed responses of the examined specimens it can be deduced that the
technique of epoxy resin injections is appropriate for the total rehabilitation of the joints seismic capacity,
since no damages have been observed at the joint area of the specimens after the repair. The combination
of this technique with the use of C-FRP sheets leads to a significant improvement of the loading capacity,
the energy absorption and the ductility and finally it leads to improved type of damages compared with
the damage modes of the specimens during the initial loading. Shortcomings of the application of C-FRP
sheets for practical use are also pointed out. Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 18 October 2006; Revised 12 November 2007; Accepted 14 November 2007
KEY WORDS:
repair; epoxy resin injections; C-FRP jacketing; reinforced concrete beamcolumn

connections
1. INTRODUCTION
The repair and upgrading of reinforced concrete structures damaged by seismic actions are
challenging fields of study in earthquake engineering, which have been developed during the last
two decades. Research in this area is essential since engineers in seismic-prone regions often face
the problem of designing repair or strengthening works for damaged buildings without quantitative
Correspondence
to: Chris G. Karayannis, Reinforced Concrete Lab., Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus
University of Thrace, Xanthi 67100, Greece.
E-mail: karayan@civil.duth.gr
Professor.
Copyright q
2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
770
C. G. KARAYANNIS AND G. M. SIRKELIS
guidance. On the other hand, the failure of joints may, in many cases, lead to general failure of
the whole construction [1].
To help in this direction, the experimental investigation reported herein contributes to the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of resin injections in the repair of beam with column
connections damaged by cyclic imposed deformations. According to this technique, thin resin
solution is infused under pressure into the damaged joint body [24]. The resin injections have been
extensively applied for the repair of damaged concrete structures after the recent major earthquakes
in Greece (Korinth, 1981; Kalamata, 1986; Aegion, 1995; Athens, 1999) despite the fact that, so
far, only a few research works have been published on the effectiveness of this technique [3, 4].
On the other hand, in the last decades fibre-reinforced composite sheets have been extensively
used as confining jacketing systems for the upgrading of underdesigned or damaged reinforced
concrete members that could be benefited from confinement of the concrete. The most usual case
is the one of existing reinforced concrete columns with insufficient transverse reinforcement and
seismic detailing. In these members the application of composite sheets as a jacketing system
is particularly effective since applying confining prevents brittle shear failure and substantially
improves the ductile behaviour of the potential plastic hinge areas [5]. Furthermore, the use of
fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) sheets for the shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams has
also been the object of recent experimental research papers [68].
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the use of FRP for the strengthening of beamcolumn connections has not been yet sufficiently experimentally or analytically investigated [912]. In this work
an effort to use carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic (C-FRP) sheets in the improvement of the seismic
capacity of reinforced concrete exterior beamcolumn connections is presented. The increasing
interest in the use of these materials due to the immediate and easy-to-apply nature of the required
intervention is the main motive behind this effort and furthermore the combination of the use of
resin injections with application of FRP may be proven a very effective technique.
The experimental program presented in this paper comprises 12 beamcolumn subassemblages
tested in cyclic loading. In the test program the effectiveness of repair and strengthen techniques
based on the use of epoxy resin, C-FRP sheets and combination of epoxy resin and C-FRP sheets
is investigated.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1. Specimens characteristics
In this study 12 exterior beamcolumn connection subassemblages sorted into two groups with
different joint area reinforcements are examined. The geometry of all specimens was the same
(Figure 1); total column length and cross-section dimensions were 1800 mm and 200200 mm,
respectively, whereas beam length and cross-section dimensions were 1100 mm and 200300 mm,
respectively.
The first group (group A) comprises five specimens as it is shown in Table I. Beam reinforcement
of specimens comprises 210 deformed steel bars at the top and 210 deformed steel bars at
the bottom. Column reinforcement comprises 410 deformed steel bars. Specimens of group A
have no shear reinforcement (horizontal stirrups) in the joint area. Specimen A1 is subjected to
initial cyclic loading. Specimen A1R is the repaired specimen A1 using resin injections. Specimen
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
771
STRENGTHENING AND REHABILITATION OF RC BEAMCOLUMN JOINTS
A2 is also subjected to initial cyclic loading. Specimen A2R is the repaired and strengthened
specimen A2 after the initial loading using resin injections and C-FRP sheets. Specimen A3 has
been strengthened from the beginning using C-FRP sheets as shown in Figure 2. The specimens of
Group A represent in some way older construction practices as they have no shear reinforcement
in the joint area. The main purpose of the design of Group A specimens is these specimens to
develop major damages in the joint area and not to fail due to anchorage slippage. Thus, deformed
bars with adequate length of anchorage were used in order not to exhibit pull-out failure of the
anchorage in the joint area.
Specimens of Group B have exactly the same geometry as specimens of Group A. In specimens
of Group B four stirrups have been applied in the joint area for failure in joint area to be avoided
and for shift of the damages in the beam to be achieved with the formation of a plastic hinge. The
second group (group B) comprises seven specimens as shown in Table II. Beam reinforcement
of specimens comprises 210 deformed steel bars at the top and 210 deformed bars at the
bottom. Column reinforcement comprises 612 deformed steel bars. Specimens of group B have
four stirrups 8 as shear reinforcement of the joint area. Specimen B1 is subjected to initial
cyclic loading. Specimen B1R is the repaired control specimen B1 after initial loading using resin
60
50
40
30
Nc =70 kN
20
10
0
-10
LVDT
LOAD
CELL
Drift Angle R (%)
LOAD
CELL
-2
-20
-30
-40
Loading Step
-4
-50
-60
-6
L
H
LVDT
LVDT
Drift Angle
R = *100/L
H
Figure 1. Test set-up of specimens and loading history.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
772
Table I. Special characteristics of specimens of Group A.

Group A: specimens without shear reinforcement in the joint body
Reinforcement
Column
Specimen A1: control specimen
Longitudinal bar: 410
Shear reinforcement:
8/150
Beam
Joint body
Longitudinal bar: 210 top,

210 bottom
8/150
Specimen A1R: the specimen A1 repaired with epoxy resin

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Specimen A2: control specimen

8/150

210 bottom
8/150
Specimen A2R: the specimen A2 repaired with epoxy resin and strengthened with C-FRP sheets

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Specimen A3: specimen strengthened with C-FRP sheets

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
773
C-FRP Sheets (vertical fiber direction) for the

- confinement of beam's critical region
(plastic hinge region)
- securing the anchorage of C-FRP sheets (2)
200
450
300
C-FRP Sheets
(horizontal fiber
direction) for
confinement of
column critical
region
300
300
C-FRP Sheets (horizontal

fiber direction) for
confinment of joint body
200
300
300
20
650
Figure 2. Application of C-FRP sheets for the strengthening of specimens.
injections. Specimen B2 is also subjected to initial cyclic loading. Specimen B2R is the repaired
and strengthened specimen B2 after the initial loading using resin injections and C-FRP sheets.
Specimen B3 has been strengthened from the beginning using C-FRP sheets as shown in Figure 2.
Specimen B4 has been strengthened from the beginning using C-FRP sheets as confinement
reinforcement only at the beams critical region. The scope of this type of strengthening is to
investigate the influence of the plastic hinge on the specimens response. Specimen B4R is the
repaired specimen B4 after the initial loading using resin injections.
It is to be stressed that in most of the real structures, there are more realistic construction
difficulties in the FRP application, such as the presence of orthogonal beams and slabs. Nevertheless,
experimental results of idealized subassemblages help in the direction of an in-depth understanding
of the effectiveness of the use of new technological repair and strengthening solutions as the use
of FRPs. This study aims in this direction despite the obvious modeling shortcomings. Potential
experimental projects will have further developments, filling the temporary gaps and obscured
pictures.
2.2. Specimen materials and repair materials
The concrete mean compressive strength was f c = 36.4 MPa (cylinder strength) for all specimens
and the steel bars were S500 (see Table III(a)). The type of C-FRP sheets used in this work was
SikaWrapR Hex 230 C/Sikadur 330. The thickness of the C-FRP sheets is tf = 0.12 mm and the
primary fibre direction is 0 (unidirectional). The main behaviour characteristics of the carbon
fibres and the epoxy resin used in this work are given in detail in Table III(a).
The repair technique applied in the case of specimens A1R, B1R and B4R (repaired specimens
Al, B1 and B4, respectively) included superficial sealing of all visible cracks with a layer of thick
epoxy resin paste and then thin epoxy resin injections into the crack system of the damaged area
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
774
Table II. Special characteristics of specimens with shear reinforcement in the joint body.
Group B: specimens with shear reinforcement in the joint body
Reinforcement
Column
Specimen B1: control specimen
8/150
Beam
Joint body

210 bottom
8/150
48/60
Specimen B1R: the specimen B1 repaired with epoxy resin

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Specimen B2: control specimen

8/150

210 bottom
8/150
48/60
48/60
Specimen B2R: the specimen B2 repaired with epoxy resin and strengthened with C-FRP sheets
48/60
210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Specimen B3: specimen strengthened with C-FRP sheets

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
Copyright q
48/60

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
775
Table II. Continued.

Group B: specimens with shear reinforcement in the joint body
Reinforcement
Column
Beam
Joint body
Specimen B4: specimen strengthened with C-FRP sheets only in the beams critical region
210 bottom
48/60
8/150
8/150
Specimen B4R: the specimen B4 repaired with epoxy resin

210 bottom
8/150
8/150
48/60
of the joint until total filling up [3, 4]. The same technique was applied for specimens A2R and
B2R. Finally, the specific specimens were strengthened with two layers of C-FRP sheets as shown
in Figure 2.
2.3. Test rig
Test set-up and instrumentation details are shown in Figure 1. Column axial load Nc , equal to
0.05Ac f c = 70 kN, was applied during the tests in all the specimens. The value of the column
axial load was controlled to remain constant during the entire loading procedure at the level of
70 kN for all specimens. Thus, the influence of a variation of axial load values was not examined
in this study. However, the favourable effect of high axial load on the shear capacity of FRPstrengthened joints has been confirmed in relative experimental research by Antonopoulos and
Triantafillou [12]. Furthermore, this effect becomes more pronounced in the present study as more
fibres are placed horizontally. On the other hand, varying the axial load during the test can lead to low
level of axial load at some steps of the test. This would tend to emphasize a weak-column/strongbeam hierarchy leading to the possibility of a predominant flexural behaviour due to column
hinging [13].
2.4. Loading sequence
The specimens were subjected to increasing full cyclic deformation imposed near the free end of
the beam by a pinned-end actuator. The increase rate per cycle of the imposed deformation was
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
776
Table III. Mechanical properties of the used materials and characteristics of

the specimens according to the codes.
(a) Mechanical properties of the specimen materials and the repair materials
Concrete mean compressive strength
f c = 36.4 MPa
Deformed steel bars (longitudinal bars and stirrups)
f y = 574.0 MPa
Thickness
tf = 0.12 mm
Carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic SikaWrap
Primary fibre direction
0 (unidirectional)
Hex 230 C/Sikadur 330 (Two-component,
Tensile strength
4100 MPa
100% solid, very low viscosity and
Tensile modulus of elasticity
E ft = 230 GPa
high-strength epoxy adhesive)
Fracture tensile strain
1.5%
Epoxy Resin Sikadur 52
Compressive strength
Shear strength
Tensile strength
Bond stress with concrete
Bond stress with
reinforcement
(b) Characteristics of the specimens according to Eurocode 8 and ACI

Eurocode 8 (EC8)
MRb
s
v
Vjh
Vjv

MRc
MRc
(%)
(%)
(kN)
(kN)
(MPa)
Group (kN m) (kN m)
MR
b
A
B
ACI
18.96
33.57
21.49
21.49
0.88
1.56
0.00
1.21
MRc
MRb
Vu
(kN)
65.88
65.88
Group (kN m)
(kN m)

MRc
MRb
A
B
21.49
21.49
1.76
3.12
18.96
33.57
0.79
1.70
2.06
2.06
53 MPa
50 MPa
25 MPa
4 MPa
10 MPa
(MPa)
Ash joint
(mm2 )
Asv joint
(mm2 )
3.08
3.08
181.2
181.2
74.3
74.3
Vn
Vn
bh
82.21
82.21
123.31
123.31
bj
(mm)
(mm)
(kN)
(kN)
(mm)
12
12
200
200
200
200
0.85
0.85
240.36
240.36
204.31
204.31
175.48
175.48
10 mm/cycle. The displacements of the beams end were measured by linear variable differential
transducer (LVDT). LVDTs were also placed at each end of the column to check the supports
during the tests.
All control specimens were subjected to four full loading cycles (Figure 1). Maximum displacements of the beams free end in the loading cycles were 10, 20, 30 and 40 mm and drift
ratio 1, 2, 3 and 4% for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th cycles, respectively. The repaired and strengthened
specimens were subjected to two extra loading cycles at displacement levels equal to 50 mm
(drift ratio 5%) and 60 mm (drift ratio 6%).
In order to utilize results obtained from quasi-static cyclic loading tests on structural elements
for a general performance evaluation there is the need to establish loading history that captures the
critical issues of the element capacity as well as the seismic demands. In inelastic seismic problems,
capacity and demands cannot be separated since one may strongly depend on the other. Basic
seismic capacity parameters for a structural element are strength, stiffness, inelastic deformation
capacity (ductility) and cumulative damage capacity parameters such as energy dissipation capacity.
All these parameters are expected to deteriorate as the number of damaging cycles and the amplitude
of cycling increase. Every excursion in the inelastic range causes cumulative damage in a structural
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
777
element. In the adopted loading program, emphasis is given on the large inelastic excursions since
they cause large damage and can lead quickly to ultimate limit states. Thus, in order to draw
conclusions for the ultimate limit state a loading program with constantly increasing displacement
has been chosen.
The importance of sequence effects has not yet been established through research and the
sequence of large versus small excursions in an element of a structure subjected to a severe
earthquake does not follow any consistent pattern. The number of the inelastic excursions increases
with a decrease in the period of the structural system, the rate of increase being very high for
short period systems. It is to be recognized that cyclic demands for structures depend on a great
number of variables and a unique loading history will always be a compromise but the one that
should be conservative for most practical cases. A multicycle loading program has been adopted.
Consequently the used loading program is a comprehensive testing program (cumulative damage
testing program) that permits the determination of structural performance parameters, which,
together with a cumulative damage model, can be utilized to evaluate performance under arbitrary
seismic excitations. For this reason the use of a damage index has also been examined [14] in this
study. The established damage index for RC members by Park and Ang [14] has been employed
(Section 2.7) in order to maximize information for an in-depth capacity assessment and comparison
of the initial response of the joints and the response of the joints after the intervention.
2.5. Design of joints
The total comprehension of inner mechanics and the response of the reinforced concrete joints
have not yet been achieved and until now there is not a commonly acceptable model for the joint
design. The calculation of the horizontal secant shear (Vjh ) of the joint is quite important for the
evaluation of the shear stress and therefore for the calculation of the required shear reinforcement
in the joint area.
According to Eurocode 8 [15] (Table III(b)), for the control specimens, the horizontal secant
shear is Vjh = 82.21 kN and the shear stress = 2.06 MPa. The demand of the code for shear
reinforcement in the joint body for all specimens is Ash = 181.2 mm2 (28). Specimens of group A
have no shear reinforcement in the joint body and X-shape cracks are expected in the joint body.
Specimens of group B have twice the demanded quantity of stirrups (48) as shear reinforcement
in the joint body. In this case the damages are not expected to appear in the joint body. The
anchorage of the longitudinal bar reinforcement of the beam for all specimens of both groups has
sufficient total length but insufficient length of the straight part of the anchorage in the joint area.
The straight part of the anchorage is considered as the beam bar development length before the
90 bending.
According to ACI [16, 17] (Table III(b)) external joints have to satisfy the relationships:
MRc /MRb >1.40 and Vn Vu . The demand for straight part length of the anchorage of the
beams bar reinforcement is for the specimens equal to bh = 175 mm whereas the existing straight
part length in the specimens is str = 130 mm. This way, damages in the anchorage may also be
expected according to the code and the effectiveness of the repair technique will be studied. For
these cases the ACI demands for shear reinforcement in the joint area are 58.
2.6. Design of FRP application
The design of the strengthening of external joints using FRP is an open field of research in the
literature. Only a few design procedures have been proposed so far. Gergely et al. [18] have
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
778
calculated the FRP contribution in the shear strength joints considering FRP as stirrups. Tsonos
and Stylianidis [19] followed the same approach but they considered that FRP stress was equal
to p = 0.0035. Gergely et al. [20], based on limited experimental data, have considered that p =
0.0033 for surfaces prepared with brushing and p = 0.0021 for surfaces prepared with pressurized
water. Triantafillou and Antonopoulos [21] consider that the use of predetermined failure stress
of FRP does not really influence the behaviour of the joint. Antonopoulos and Triantafillou [22]
proposed a more accurate, elaborated and rather complex analytical model for the calculation
of the influence of FRP on the strength of the joint. These analytical models for the evaluation
of shear strength do not take into account the variation of axial load during the test. Pampanin
et al. [23] adopted the simplified version of that of Antonopoulos and Triantafilou [22] with a few
simple modifications in order to account for the variation of the axial load on the joint region in
the evaluation of shear strength. The present study has experimental orientation and the design
approach adopted for the examined specimens is the simplified and easy-to-apply approach by
Tsonos and Stylianidis [19] and Gergely et al. [18].
The joint shear at the formation of the plastic hinge in the beam is Vu = 65.88 kN. The shear
capacity of strengthened joint using FRP is given by
Vi = k
f c bd +
Av f y d
cot +tw E w p h cot
s
(1)
where k = 0.1 (plastic hinge area), f c = 30 MPa, Av f y d/s = 0 joint without stirrups, E w = 231 GPa,
p = 0.0021 and = 30 . Hence Vi = 0.97+168038.64 tw Vu = 65.88 kN tw = 0.386 mm.
The thickness of the FRP sheet is 0.12 mm; therefore, 3.12 layers were needed and consequently
two layers per side were applied.
A rather large length for the legs of the U-shape FRP sheets was chosen to prevent anchorage
failure. Furthermore, two layers of FRP sheets were also applied in the beam near the joint to
avoid anchorage failure of the U-shape FRPs. Finally, two layers of FRP sheets were applied in
the areas of the column near the joint to enhance the confinement and the ductility of these areas.
In the overall design process, retrofitting of a specific length of the beam conjuncted to joint
can relocate the plastic hinge of the repaired elements far from the column interface with all
the known shortcomings (e.g. substantial increase of beam plastic rotation demand for a given
level of interstorey drift). However, repairing of the severe beam damages and strengthening of
this area to a certain measure was considered as part of the needed repair works in these cases
since in real structures all damaged areas have to be repaired. The purpose of this work is not
to contribute towards the development of design process tools or the verification of existing ones
but to provide practical solutions for on-site applications based on experimental results about the
examined repairing/strengthening technique of external beamcolumn joints and to extract useful
and practical conclusions. Thus, a relatively long length of 450 mm of U-shaped laminate was
applied in specimens A2R and B2R in order to cover the beams damages and simultaneously
to ensure the anchorage of U-shaped FRP. Concerning specimens A3, B3 and B4, which were
strengthened from the beginning, it is noted that in the planning of the experimental project it has
been considered as an appropriate decision to apply in these specimens the same FRP pattern with
the corresponding specimens A2R and B2R for comparison reasons despite the aforementioned
shortcomings.
In both groups of specimens the same repair technique (resin injections or FRP or both) was
applied in order to check whether the amount of shear reinforcement in the joint area could
influence the effectiveness of the applied repair technique.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
779
2.7. Methods for the evaluation of the results

To assess the effectiveness of the applied repairing and strengthening techniques the hysteretic
responses and characteristics of the control beamcolumn subassemblages are examined and
compared with the ones of the repaired and strengthened specimens for four loading cycles.
Furthermore, aiming at an objective evaluation of the response of the specimens, the damage index
model by Park and Ang [14] is also employed in this study. This model is based on the idea
that the seismic structural damage is expressed as a linear combination of the damage caused by
excessive deformation and the damage accumulated by repeated cyclic loading effect. In terms of
damage index this may be presented as
D=
M

+
u Q y u

dE
(2)
where M is the maximum deformation under earthquake, u the ultimate deformation under
monotonic loading, Q y the calculated yield strength, dE the incremental absorbed hysteretic energy
and the non-negative parameter representing the effect of cyclic loading on structural damage.
The value of parameter is determined in such a way that it may represent the nature of the
damage [14] of the examined specimens as close as possible, where l/d is the shear span ratio, n o
the normalized axial stress, pt the longitudinal steel ratio as a percentage and pw the confinement
ratio.
3. TEST RESULTS OF GROUP A

3.1. Specimens A1 and A1R
Specimen A1 had no shear reinforcement in the joint body. Significant cracks were formed from
early stages of the loading in the joint body. At the displacement level equal to 10 mm, which
is the yield displacement for the beam, a severe diagonal crack appeared at the centre of the joint
area due to the internal tension forces caused by the pull out of the insufficient straight length of
the beams bar anchorage. After that point the load increase was insignificant and the joint body
was rapidly disintegrated. At the 4th loading cycle at displacement level equal to 40 mm, the load
capacity of the specimen was considerably reduced. The load at that point was equal to 30% of
the maximum observed load (see Figures 3(a) and 4(a)). The back side of the joint remained intact
and it is attributed to the long total length of the anchorage, which in this case was 1.5 times the
one required by the code (Eurocode 8). Joint A1R suffered the same cyclic loading as specimen
A1 and two more loading cycles at displacement levels equal to 50 and 60 mm (Figure 3(a))
without significant decrease of the load. The damage in this specimen appeared from the beginning
in the beam and it was concentrated in the beam at the juncture of the beam with the column
where the formation of a small length plastic hinge was finally observed. The repaired joint body
remained intact (Figure 4(b)). The repair technique has restored the stiffness and the load-carrying
capacity, while the energy absorption was increased by 58% (see also Table IV). Comparison of
the energy dissipation of these two specimens in terms of equivalent viscous damping is presented
in Figure 6(a).
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
780
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-7
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
Applied Load P (kN)
Applied Load P (kN)
-7
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
2
50
10
-10
-20
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-40
-40
-50
-40
-30
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
Lateral Displacement (mm)
-7
-6
-5
40
-4
50
-2
60
70
SPECIMEN 2
60
70
-50
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
60
70
(b)
-3
SPECIMEN 2R
-30
-60
-10
-30
-50
-70
SPECIMEN 1R
(a)
10
-20
SPECIMEN 1
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
2
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
2
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
50
40
30
Applied Load P (kN)
20
10
-10
-20
SPECIMEN A1
SPECIMEN A3
-30
-40
-50
-70
-60
-50
-40
(c)
-30
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3. Hysteretic responses of specimens of group A: (a) specimens A1 and A1R; (b) specimens A2
and A2R; and (c) specimens A1 and A3.
3.2. Specimens A2 and A2R

The specimen A2 had no shear reinforcement in the joint body. Significant cracks were formed
from early stages of the loading in the joint body. A severe diagonal crack appeared at the centre
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
781
Figure 4. Damage modes of the tested specimens: (a) specimen A1; (b) specimen A1R;
(c) specimen A2; (d) specimen A2R; (e) specimen B1; (f) specimen B1R; (g) specimen
B2; (h) specimen B2R; (i) specimen A3; and (k) specimen B3.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
782
Table IV. Observed maximum load per loading cycle and hysteretic energy dissipation in terms of
the area of the response loading cycle.
Maximum load Pmax (kN)/cycle
Downward loading direction
Specimen
A1
A1R
A2
A2R
A3
B1
B1R
B2
B2R
B3
B4
B4R
Upward loading direction
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
19.00
22.50
17.50
30.50
27.00
22.00
24.50
22.00
25.00
29.50
23.00
26.40
21.00
24.00
21.50
40.00
37.00
22.00
24.50
22.00
39.00
38.50
23.50
27.00
15.50
21.00
16.50
39.50
40.00
22.00
24.50
21.00
38.50
38.50
22.50
25.50
08.50
17.00
07.50
38.00
40.00
21.50
24.00
21.00
37.00
38.00
21.50
25.00
19.00
23.00
18.50
33.50
28.00
24.00
24.00
23.50
27.50
29.50
24.00
25.50
22.00
23.00
20.50
40.00
36.00
23.50
25.00
23.50
39.00
39.50
24.50
27.50
15.00
24.00
14.00
39.50
39.00
22.50
26.00
24.50
39.50
40.50
25.50
28.00
07.00
24.00
06.50
40.50
39.00
16.00
26.00
22.50
38.50
39.00
24.50
25.50
Hysteretic energy dissipation (kN mm)

Specimen
A1
A1R
A2
A2R
A3
B1
B1R
B2
B2R
B3
B4
B4R
1st cycle
2nd cycle
3rd cycle
4th cycle
218.65
223.95
175.83
254.69
224.62
213.62
186.10
197.48
178.92
255.77
201.63
187.59
491.63
698.30
554.83
646.73
532.15
637.65
739.87
619.28
551.76
709.41
662.29
722.27
718.95
1007.37
713.43
1176.78
1045.12
1089.05
1313.93
1183.20
1298.10
1383.80
1169.41
1296.90
509.35
1123.78
447.50
1676.49
1643.07
1309.40
1812.82
1603.80
1899.94
1978.50
1712.39
1834.09
of the joint body due to the internal tension forces caused by the pull out of the insufficient straight
length of the beams bars anchorage. After that point the load increase was insignificant and the
joint body was rapidly disintegrated (Figure 4(c)). At the 4th loading cycle, at a displacement level
equal to 40 mm, the load capacity of the specimen was considerably reduced (see Figure 3(b)).
The back side of the joint remained intact. The specimen A2R was the specimen A2 repaired
with epoxy resin and strengthened with two layers of C-FRP sheets as shown in Figure 2. It
had suffered the same cyclic loading sequence as the specimen A2 (four loading cycles) and
two more loading cycles at displacement levels equal to 50 and 60 mm (Figure 3(b)) without
significant decrease of the load. The response of this specimen was totally different from the one
of specimen A2. Damage appeared during the loading cycles in the part of the beam body that
was not wrapped by the C-FRP sheets. In the beginning, flexural cracks appeared and eventually
a plastic hinge was formed in the beam body near the end of the beam part that was wrapped
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
783
by the C-FRP sheets. At the displacement level equal to 60 mm the C-FRP sheets in the joint
area were cracked (Figure 4(d)). Nevertheless, the repaired joint area remained intact. Specimen
A2R exhibited 86% higher maximum loads and 98% higher energy absorption in comparison with
specimen A2 (see also Table IV and Figure 6(b)).
3.3. Specimen A3
Specimen A3 had no shear reinforcement in the joint body. It had the same characteristics
as the specimens A1 and A2 but it was strengthened from the beginning with two layers of
C-FRP sheets as shown in Figure 2. The response of specimen A3 was totally different from
the responses of specimens A1 and A2. Damage appeared during the loading cycles in the part
of the beam body that was not wrapped by the C-FRP sheets. The joint body remained intact
throughout the test. Flexural cracks appeared from the beginning in the beam and eventually a
plastic hinge was formed in the beam body near the end of the beam part that was wrapped
by the C-FRP sheets. At the displacement level equal to 40 mm the C-FRP sheets in the joint
area failed (Figure 4(i)). To assess the effectiveness of the applied repairing and strengthening
technique the hysteretic response of the initial strengthened specimen A3 is compared with the
response of the control beamcolumn subassemblage Al and the specimen A2R for the primary
four loading cycles. Specimen A3 presented an increase of 186% of maximum observed load
and an increase of 78% of energy absorption in comparison with the corresponding values of
specimen A1 (Table IV). Further, Figure 7(a) demonstrates the contribution of the FRP application
for specimens A3 (strengthened joint) and A1 (control specimen) in terms of nominal principal
tensile stresses values developed in the beamcolumn joint regions. From this figure it is deduced
that the developed nominal principal tensile stresses of A3 joint are substantially increased in
comparison with the corresponding A1 joint. Typical strength degradation models in terms of
principal tensile stress versus shear deformation are available in the literature (e.g. Pampanin
et al. [23], Priestley [24]). These models can be adopted to define limit states in a joint
panel zone subjected to shear and axial load. Specimen A3 in comparison with specimen
A2R presented similar maximum loads but a small decrease by 8% of energy absorption (see
Table IV).
4. TEST RESULTS OF GROUP B

4.1. Specimens B1 and B1R
Specimen B1 had 48/6 stirrups as shear reinforcement in the joint body. Cracks appeared both
in the joint area and in the beams critical region. Finally, there was a formation of a plastic hinge
in the beam near the beam to column juncture (Figure 4(e)). Specimen B1R was the specimen B1
repaired with epoxy resin. It suffered the same cyclic loading sequence displacement as specimen
B1 (four loading cycles) and two more loading cycles at displacement levels equal to 50 and
60 mm (Figure 5(a)). The damages in this specimen appeared from the beginning in the beam and
remained concentrated in the beam. A plastic hinge was formed in the beam body at the point that
was not repaired with epoxy resin. The joint body remained intact throughout the test (Figure 4(f)).
The load capacity of the specimen was sufficient even at displacement level equal to 60 mm. The
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
784
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
-7
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
Applied Load P (kN)
Applied Load P (kN)
-7
50
10
-10
-20
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
-40
-40
-50
-40
-30
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
-7
-6
40
50
60
-4
-3
-2
-5
60
70
SPECIMEN B2
SPECIMEN B2R
-30
-60
-10
-30
-50
-70
SPECIMEN B1R
(a)
10
-20
SPECIMEN B1
70
-50
-70
(b)
Drift Angle R (%)

-1
0
1
2
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
60
70
40
50
50
40
30
Applied Load P (kN)
20
10
-10
-20
SPECIMEN B2
SPECIMEN B3
-30
-40
-50
-70
(c)
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20 -10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 5. Hysteretic responses of specimens of group B: (a) specimens B1 and B1R; (b) specimens B2
and B2R; and (c) specimens B2 and B3.
repair technique managed to restore the stiffness and the load capacity, to improve the ductility
and finally to increase the energy absorption by 25% in comparison with the corresponding values
of specimen B1 (Table IV). Comparison of the energy dissipation between these two specimens
in terms of equivalent viscous damping is presented in Figure 6(d).
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
785
Figure 6. Comparisons of the equivalent viscous damping values of the tested specimens: (a) specimens
A1 and A1R; (b) specimens A2 and A2R; (c) specimens A1 and A3; (d) specimens B1 and B1R;
(e) specimens B2 and B2R; and (f) specimens B2 and B3.

Specimen B2 had 48/6 stirrups in the joint area as shear reinforcement. The damages appeared
and remained concentrated at the beam body. A plastic hinge was formed at the beam near
the beam to column juncture. The joint area remained intact (Figure 4(g)). Specimen B2R was
the specimen B2 repaired with epoxy resin and strengthened with two layers of C-FRP sheets
(Figure 2). It suffered the same loading as specimen B2 and also suffered two more loading cycles
at displacement levels equal to 50 and 60 mm (Figure 5(b)). Damages appeared during the
loading cycles in the part of the beam body that was not wrapped by the C-FRP sheets. In the
beginning flexural cracks appeared in the beam and eventually a plastic hinge was formed in
the beam body near the end of the beam part that was wrapped by the C-FRP sheets. Specimen
B2R presented 61% higher maximum loads but no significant improvement of energy absorption
in comparison with the corresponding values of specimen B2 (Table IV and Figure 6(e)).
4.3. Specimen B3
Specimen B3 had 48/6 stirrups as shear reinforcement in the joint body. It had the same
characteristics as specimens B1 and B2 but it was strengthened with two layers of C-FRP sheets
as shown in Figure 2. Damages appeared during the loading cycles in the part of the beam body
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
786
Figure 7. Nominal principal tensile stresses developed in joint region: (a) specimens A1 and
A3 and (b) specimens B2 and B3.
that was not wrapped by the C-FRP sheets. The joint body remained intact throughout the test. In
the beginning flexural cracks appeared in the beam and eventually a plastic hinge was formed in
the beam body near the end of the beam part that was wrapped by the C-FRP sheets (Figure 4(k)).
At deformation level equal to 60 mm the upper longitudinal bars of the beam failed. The response
of specimen B3 was quite similar to the response of the repaired specimen B2R. Specimen B3
presented 75% higher maximum loads and 20% improvement of energy absorption in comparison
with the corresponding values of specimen B2 (Table IV). Further, the contribution of the FRP
application to specimens B3 (strengthened joint) and B2 (control specimen) in terms of nominal
principal tensile stress values developed in the beamcolumn joint regions is demonstrated in
Figure 7(b). From this figure it is deduced that the developed nominal principal tensile stresses
of B3 joint are substantially increased in comparison with those of the corresponding B2 joint. In
comparison with specimen B2R it presented quite similar maximum loads and energy absorption
(Table IV and Figure 6(f)).
These specimens represent cases in real structures where damages are localized in the beams.
Retrofitting of a specific length of the beam near the joint can relocate the formation of the plastic
hinge far from the column interface with all the known shortcomings. However, repairing of the
severe beam damages and strengthening of this area is part of the needed repair works in these
cases since in real structures all damaged areas have to be repaired. Specimen B4 had 48/6
stirrups as shear reinforcement in the joint body and has been strengthened from the beginning
with the C-FRP sheets applied only at the beams critical region as confinement reinforcement.
Cracks appeared in the beams region near the junction of the beam to the column. Finally, there
was a formation of a very small length plastic hinge. The joint body remained intact throughout
the test. Specimen B4R was the specimen B4 repaired with epoxy resin. It suffered the same cyclic
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
787
loading as specimen B4. The damages in this specimen appeared from the beginning in the beam
and remained concentrated in the beam body. The combination of the application of C-FRP sheets
at the beam and the repair with epoxy resin led to the formation of a plastic hinge of even smaller
length than the one of specimen B4.
5. COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

To enable a better understanding of the behavioural characteristics of the strengthened joint specimens, data in terms of maximum cycle loads and hysteretic energy absorption (also in terms
of equivalent viscous dampingFigure 6) of all tested specimens were acquired and examined
in comparison with the ones of the control specimens. Indications about the bond deterioration
between the reinforcement and the concrete may be given by the shape of the load versus deflection
plots. The pinching of the hysteretic responses of the examined joints indicates that bond deterioration has developed in the control specimens A1 and A2 whereas the strengthened specimens
A1R, A2R and A3 showed improved response and less bond deterioration.
From the observed maximum loads of the loading cycles of all specimens of both groups it
can be deduced that the maximum cycle loads of the strengthened specimens are greater than the
ones of the control specimens. This observation becomes especially significant in the 4th loading
cycle. In this cycle the maximum observed load of specimen A3 is 186% greater than the one of
specimen A1.
From the observed hysteretic energy dissipation in terms of the area of the response loading
cycles of all specimens it can be deduced that for both groups of specimens the improvement of
the energy dissipation capability of repaired specimens (A1R, A2R, A3 and B1R, B2R, B3) in
comparison with the ones of the control specimens (A1, A2 and B1, B2, respectively) due to the
repair and strengthen technique is more significant in the third and fourth loading cycle (Table IV).
The gravity (dead and live) loads acting on the beam might represent a substantial portion of the
negative yield moment of the beam at the column interface [23]. Consequently they can possibly
affect ductility curvatures, rotation capacity, failure modes etc. These loads can be easily taken
into account analytically, but as the scope of this paper is not to address the effects of these loads
in the beam, they have not been considered.
Values of damage index by Park and Ang [14] for specimens A1A1R, A2A2R, B1B1R and
B2B2R are presented in Figure 8(a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively, for comparison reasons. From
these results it can be deduced that the repaired specimens presented a lower damage factor than
the corresponding ones of the specimens during the initial loading.
Furthermore, fragility functions developed by Pagni and Lowes [25] to predict the method
of repair required for older reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints damages due to earthquake
loading are also employed in this study. Damage states are linked deterministically with commonly
employed methods of repair; these damage states are characterized by parameters such as concrete
crack width, extent of concrete spalling and yielding and buckling of reinforcement. According
to these damage states specimen A1 can be sorted at state 6 or 7, as the maximum crack width
within the joint was equal to 20 mm and joint shear strength was deteriorated. In specimens B1
and B4 the cracks were exhibited at the juncture of the beam to the column and had width equal
to or greater than 20 mm. All these specimens were repaired using epoxy injections. Pagni and
Lowes consider that the repair of joints using the technique of epoxy injections can be used
for damage states up to 5. The results of the present study as well as the results of previous
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
788
1.4
1.4
60
60
40
1.2
40
20
1.2
20
1.0
-20
-20
1.0
Value of Damage Index
-40
-60
0.8
0.6
0.4
SPECIMEN A1
0.2
-40
-60
0.8
0.6
0.4
SPECIMEN A2
0.2
SPECIMEN A1R
0.0
(a)
1st Loading
Cycle
1.0
2nd Loading
Cycle
3rd Loading
Cycle
4th Loading
Cycle
SPECIMEN A2R
0.0
(b)
1st Loading
Cycle
1.0
60
-20
20
0.8
-40
-60
0.4
0.2
0
-20
-40
0.6
-60
0.4
0.2
SPECIMEN B1
SPECIMEN B2
SPECIMEN B1R
SPECIMEN B2R
0.0
(c)
4th Loading
Cycle
40
20
0.6
3rd Loading
Cycle
60
40
0.8
2nd Loading
Cycle
0.0
1st Loading
Cycle
2nd Loading
Cycle
3rd Loading
Cycle
4th Loading
Cycle
(d)
1st Loading
Cycle
2nd Loading
Cycle
3rd Loading
Cycle
4th Loading
Cycle
Figure 8. Comparisons of the Park and Ang [14] damage indices of the tested specimens: (a) specimens
A1 and A1R; (b) specimens A2 and A2R; (c) specimens B1 and B1R; and (d) specimens B2 and B2R.
studies [4, 26] conclude that the epoxy injection can be used sufficiently even for greater damage
states.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In the present work, a repair and strengthening technique of beamcolumn joints was examined.
Epoxy resin injections were used to repair the specimens in combination with C-FRP sheets that
were used to wrap the joint body of external beamcolumn connections as a confining jacketing
system. C-FRP sheets were also used to wrap the critical regions of the beam member of the
examined subassemblages providing this way for confining of these regions and ensuring a good
anchorage of the FRP sheets used for the jacketing of the joint body. Finally, C-FRP sheets were
also used for the confining of the critical regions of the column member of the specimens.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
789
From the observed responses of the tested specimens it can be deduced that the use of epoxy
resin even in the cases of large-scale damage can restore the response of the specimens. The
load-carrying capacity and the energy absorption of the repaired specimens were observed to be
better than those of the control specimens. The area of the examined specimens repaired with
epoxy resin injection remained more or less intact after the loading. The damages in all repaired
specimens concentrated outside the joint area. The use of C-FRP sheets substantially improved
the load-carrying capacity and the energy absorption of the examined beamcolumn connections.
The damages in specimens where C-FRP sheets were used were concentrated away from the joint
area near the end of the strengthened region.
REFERENCES
1. Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. Wiley: New York, 1975.
2. French CW, Thorp GA, Tsai WJ. Epoxy repair techniques for moderate earthquake damage. ACI Structural
Journal 1990; 87(4):416424.
3. Karayannis C, Sideris KK, Economou CM. Response of repaired RC exterior joints under cyclic loading.
Proceedings of the Fifth SECED Conference on European Seismic Design Practice-Research and Application,
Chester, U.K., 1995; 285292.
4. Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE, Sideris KK. Effectiveness of RC beamcolumn connection repair using epoxy
resin injections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998; 2(2):217240.
5. Seible F, Priestley MJN, Hegemier GA, Innamorato D. Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon
fiber jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction (ASCE) 1997; 1(2):5262.
6. Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI
Structural Journal 1998; 95(2):107115.
7. Karayannis C, Sirkelis G. Behaviour of flexural R/C beams reinforced with Carbon FRP tested in cyclic loading
(in Greek). Proceedings of Second Hellenic Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology,
Thessaloniki, vol. B, 2001; 417424.
8. Karayannis CG, Sirkelis GM. Effectiveness of RC beamcolumn connections strengthening using carbon-FRP
jackets. Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, U.K., 2002;
PR.549.
9. Womach K, Halling M, Moyle R. Full scale testing of concrete beamcolumn joints using advanced carbonfiber
composites. Proceedings of Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,
2000; 1978.
10. Tsonos A, Stylianidis K. Comparison of the effectiveness of post-earthquake strengthening of beamcolumn joints
using GFRPs with strengthening using RC Jacketing. Proceedings of First Hellenic Conference on Composite
Materials for Concrete, Xanthi, Greece, 2000; 383395 (in Greek).
11. Gobarah A, Said A. Shear strengthening of beamcolumn joints. Journal of Engineering Structures 2002; 24(7):
881888.
12. Antonopoulos C, Triantafillou T. Experimental investigation of FRP-strengthened RC beamcolumn joints. Journal
of Composites for Construction 2003; 7(1):3949.
13. Calvi GM, Magenes G, Pampanin S. Relevance of beamcolumn joint damage and collase in RC frame assessment.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002; 6(1):75100.
14. Park R, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering
(ASCE) 1985; 111(4):722739.
15. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance of structures. ENV 1998. CEN European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels, 1996.
16. ACI Committee 315. Details and Detailing of Concrete Reinforcement (ACI 315-99), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
17. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-06), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006.
18. Gergely J, Pantelides C, Nuismer R, Reavely L. Bridge pier retrofit using fiber-reinforced plastic composites.
Journal of Composites for Construction 1998; 2(4):165174.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
790
19. Tsonos A, Stylianidis K. Pre-seismic and post-seismic strengthening of reinforced concrete structural
subassemblages using composite materials (FRP). Proceedings of Thirteenth Hellenic Conference, Rethymno,
Crete, Greece, vol. 1, 1999; 455466 (in Greek).
20. Gergely J, Pantelides CP, Reavely LD. Shear strengthening of RC T-joints using CFRP composites. Journal of
Composites for Construction 2000; 4(2):5664.
21. Triantafillou T, Antonopoulos C. Design of concrete members strengthened in shear with FRP. Journal of
Composites for Construction 2000; 4(4):198205.
22. Antonopoulos C, Triantafillou T. Analysis of FRP-strengthened RC beamcolumn joints. Journal of Composites
for Construction 2002; 6(1):4150.
23. Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A. Performance-based seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete
frame systems using fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Journal of Composites for Construction 2007;
11(2):211226.
24. Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 1997; 1(1):157192.
25. Pagni CA, Lowes LN. Fragility functions for older reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Earthquake Spectra
2006; 22(1):215238.
26. Karayannis C, Sirkelis G, Chalioris C. Repair of reinforced concrete T-beamcolumn joints using epoxy resin
injections. First International Conference on Concrete Repair, France, vol. 2, 2003; 793799.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Strengthening and Rehabilitation of RC Beam-Column Joints Using carbon-FRP Jacketing and Epoxy Resin Injection

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Strengthening and Rehabilitation of RC Beam-Column Joints Using carbon-FRP Jacketing and Epoxy Resin Injection

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:769790