Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II Alexander et al (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46850-3

Effect of damaged concrete cover on the structural performance


of CFRP strengthened corroded concrete beams
A.H. Al-Saidy, A.S. Al-Harthy & K.S. Al-Jabri
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman

ABSTRACT: Corrosion of reinforcement is a serious problem and is the main cause of concrete structures
deterioration costing millions of dollars even though the majority of such structures are at the early age of their
expected service life. This paper presents the experimental results of damaged/repaired reinforced concrete beams.
The experimental program consisted of reinforced concrete rectangular beam specimens exposed to accelerated
corrosion. The corrosion rate was varied from 5% to 7.5% which represents loss in cross sectional area of the steel
reinforcement in the tension side. Half of the damaged beams were repaired by bonding Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) sheets to the tension side to restore the strength loss due to corrosion. The other half of the
beams were first cleaned from the contaminated concrete cover and a thorough cleaning of the rusted bars was
done. A new layer of concrete was cast to replace the removed contaminated concrete. Then the CFRP sheets were
attached to the new concrete layer. Corroded beams showed lower stiffness and strength than control (uncorroded)
beams. Strength of damaged beams due to corrosion was restored to the undamaged state when strengthened
with CFRP sheets for all strengthened beams. However, the beams with replaced concrete layer exhibited better
performance in the load carrying capacity whenever bond was not the mode of failure.
1

INTRODUCTION

Every year building owners and managers are faced


with the costs of repairing concrete that spalls when the
reinforcing steel corrodes, usually due to the presence
of salt. Removal, patching and the application of waterproofing membranes are some of the treatments that,
alone or in combination, have traditionally been used
to rehabilitate corrosion-damaged concrete. Steel corrosion is a major cause of deterioration which disrupts
the cover zone of reinforced concrete. As steel corrodes, there is a corresponding loss in cross-sectional
area and in turn reduction in the flexural strength capacity. In addition, the corrosion products occupy a larger
volume than the original steel, which exerts substantial
tensile forces on the surrounding concrete and causes
it to crack and spall off. The expansive forces generated by steel corrosion can cause cracking, spalling of
the concrete, and hence loss of structural bond between
the reinforcement and concrete [13]. Repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structure can only be
successful if the new materials interact effectively with
the parent concrete and form a durable barrier against
ingress of carbon dioxide and chlorides.
Repair or strengthening with fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) has gained some acceptance in recent
years. It involves the external bonding of FRP sheets
or plates to RC beams and slabs, or confinement of RC
columns. Strengthening with FRP is simple and does

not involve heavy equipments. Numerous studies have


shown that repair and strengthening of corrosion damaged RC beams with FRP sheets or plates is efficient in
restoring the strength of concrete members [46]. It was
also reported by many researchers [78] that wrapping
RC members with FRP sheets may reduce the corrosion
by acting as a barrier against the ingress of salt, water
and oxygen into the concrete which are the elements
required for the corrosion process to continue. Another
advantage of using FRP wraps to repair corrosion
damaged members is the external confining pressure
provided by the FRP that enhance the bond at the deteriorated concrete cover zone; therefore, improving the
structural performance of corroded RC members [9].
This paper presents the experimental results of
damaged/repaired reinforced concrete beams. The
experimental program consisted of reinforced concrete rectangular beam specimens exposed to accelerated corrosion. The corrosion rate was varied from 5%
to 7.5% which represents loss in cross sectional area
of the steel reinforcement in the tension side. Half of
the damaged beams were repaired by bonding Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets to the tension
side to restore the strength loss due to corrosion. The
other half of the beams were first cleaned from the contaminated concrete cover and a thorough cleaning of the
rusted bars was done. A new layer of concrete was cast
to replace the removed contaminated concrete. Then the
CFRP sheets were attached to the new concrete layer.

1243

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1

Specimen details

150

A total of 7 reinforced concrete beams were tested


in this study as summarized in Table 1. Beam C(0%)
was a control beam with no corrosion, while beams C
(5%) and C (7.5%) were control beams with 5% and
7.5% corrosion (mass loss in reinforcement). Beams
S (5%) and S (7.5%) were repaired by applying CFRP
sheet at the bottom of the beam. On the other hand
beams RS (5%) and RS (7.5%) were damaged with
corrosion of 5% and 7.5%; then repaired by replacing damaged concrete with new layer of concrete and
attaching CFRP sheets to the bottom of the beam as
shown in Figure 1.
The specimens were 2.7 m long, 100 mm wide
and 150 mm high. All beams were reinforced with
two 10 mm diameter bottom bars (tensile reinforcement) and two 8 mm top (compression) bars. The bottom (tensile) reinforcing steel was extended 60 mm
beyond the end of the concrete for the purpose of
making external electrical connections for the accelerated corrosion process. The clear concrete cover
was 20 mm on all sides of the specimen. For stirrups,
6 mm epoxy coated plain bars spaced at 290 mm were
used in all specimens.
2.2

Material properties

Unidirectional carbon fiber sheets were used for the


bottom longitudinal sheets. Thickness of the sheet was
0.11 mm (dry fibers), tensile strength of 3800 MPa,
modulus of elasticity of 240 GPa, and ultimate elongation of 1.55% as indicated in the data sheets provided
by the manufacturer. The composite (fiber and epoxy)
Table 1.

Beams description.

Specimen
designation

Corrosion
level
(mass loss %)

C(0%)
C(5%)

0%
5%

C(7.5%)

7.5%

S(5%)

5%

S(7.5%)

7.5%

RS(5%)

5%

RS(7.5%)

7.5%

Remark
Control beam
Control 5% corrosion
beam
Control 7.5% corrosion
beam
5% corrosion strengthened
with CFRP sheet
7.5% corrosion strengthened
with CFRP sheet
5% corrosion patch repaired
and strengthened with
CFRP sheet
7.5% corrosion patch
repaired and strengthened
with CFRP sheet

100

CFRP sheet
150

950

500

950

150

2700
All dimensions in mm

Figure 1. Test specimen.

thickness of the CFRP sheet was 1 mm on average.


Ordinary portland cement was used for the concrete
mix along with a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm.
The concrete mix was proportioned by weight as follows, aggregate: sand: water: cement = 60: 67: 16: 25,
with a water to cement ratio of 0.64. The concrete had
a 28-day compressive strength on average of 40 1.6
MPa and a tensile splitting strength of 3.9 MPa. The
average yield strength of the 10 mm diameter reinforcing bars was measured to be 460 MPa and modulus of
elasticity was 200 GPa. The yield strength of the 6 mm
diameter plain reinforcing stirrups was 250 MPa.
2.3

Accelerated corrosion

The casting of each beam was done in three layers;


after placing the first layer (at the level of the tensile steel bars) salt was spread along this layer except
one beam (beam C(0%)control beam). The amount
of salt was approximately 1% by weights of cement.
This was used to simulate chloride ions contamination and to accelerate corrosion. After 28 days curing in room conditions, six beams were placed inside
a tank which has salted water; the salt concentration
was about 3% by weight of water. To induce corrosion in the reinforcement, the rebars were connected
to a power (voltage) source where a current was
applied to accelerate the corrosion process. Stainless steel rebars were placed parallel to the beams in
the tank to act as cathode and were connected to the
negative charge of the power source. The beams were
immersed up to one-third of their height in the water.
To obtain a theoretical 5% corrosion (or 5% mass loss
in reinforcing bar) it was found that the time required
to produce this mass loss was 14 days of continuous
application of 487 mA current in each beam according to Faradys law [10] (See Appendix A).
2.4

Repair and strengthening scheme

Two schemes were used to strengthen damaged beams.


In the first one, damaged beams due to accelerated
corrosion were strengthened by bonding CFRP sheets
on the tension side of the beam (Beams S(5%) &
S(7.5%)). The damaged beams in the second group

1244

Figure 2.

Removal of damaged concrete.


Figure 3. Horizontal corrosion cracks.

(RS(5%) & RS(7.5%)) were first cleaned from contaminated concrete by removing the cover zone below
the corroded rebars (see Figure 2). A thorough cleaning of the rusted bars was done. Then new layer of
concrete was cast to replace the removed contaminated concrete. The repaired beam was left for one
week for curing before applying the CFRP sheet.
Finally the CFRP sheets were attached to the new
concrete layer. Bonding of the CFRP to the concrete
was achieved by using epoxy adhesive. Prior to applying the epoxy and CFRP, the surface of the concrete
was prepared by grinding the concrete in the area to
receive the CFRP. The beams were tested after one
week from applying the CFRP.
Figure 4. Load-deflection curves of control beam
specimens.

2.5

Test set up

All specimens were loaded in four-point loading (see


Fig. 1). The load was applied using a 250 KN hydraulic actuator through a spreader steel beam to the specimen. Four linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) with a range capacity of 100 mm were used
to measure the load-line and mid-span deflections of
the beam during testing; two strain gauges (60 mm
long) were attached at the top of the beam to measure
the concrete strain and two extensometers of gauge
length of 200 mm and range capacity of 5 mm were
used to measure the side strain of concrete. For beams
S (5%), S (7.5%), RS (5%) and RS (7.5%) three more
strain gauges (6 mm long) were installed along the
centerline of CFRP sheet. All beams were tested to
failure using load control with a rate of 0.05 KN/s for
loading up to 13 KN (yielding load) and displacement
(stroke) control with a rate of 0.05 mm/s was used to
apply the loading from 13 KN to failure.

3
3.1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Reduction in strength due to corrosion

Corrosion cracks were noted on the specimen before


testing, each extending parallel to the length of the
specimen (see Figure 3). They were located along the
side of the corroding bottom bars and rust staining

was noted along these cracks. Figure 4 presents


the load-midspan-deflection curves for the control
specimens (Beams C(0%), C(5%), C(7.5%)). In
general, the yield and ultimate strength decreased
with the increase of the corrosion (reduction of the
cross-section of reinforcement). All beams failed due
to crushing of concrete.
3.2

Repaired & strengthened specimens


with 5% corrosion

The combined load-midspan-deflections for specimens with 5% corrosion are shown in Figure 5. Beam
S(5%) strengthened by one layer of CFRP sheet without removing the damaged concrete due to corrosion
cracks. This beam was able to sustain load higher than
beam C(0%) (Beam with no corrosion) by 3% and
higher by 9.4% than beam C(5%) (control beam with
5% corrosion). The yield strength was also higher in
the strengthened beam (S5%) than both control beams
(C0% & C5%). Beam S(5%) failed by CFRP rupture
at midspan which was mainly due the opening of
the horizontal corrosion crack that pushed the cover
concrete against the CFRP sheet creating concentration of stresses on the CFRP sheets (see Figure 6).
This is evident from the recorded strain profile across
the depth of the section shown in Figure 7. The strains

1245

Figure 7.

Strain profile in beam S(5%).

Figure 8.

Debonding of CFRP sheet in beam RS (5%).

Figure 9.

Strain profile in beam RS(5%).

Figure 5. Load-deflection curves of beams with 5%


corrosion.

Figure 6. Opening of corrosion cracks before failure.

shown in Figure 7 represent the strain at the concrete


top surface (T), at mid-depth of the section (middepth), bottom of the section parallel to the steel bars
(B) and at the bottom of the CFRP sheet (FRP). As can
be seen that the strain in the CFRP sheet was increasing at a higher rate with increase of load greater than
the cracking load (6 kN) than the other parts of the
section. This shows that the composite action between
the CFRP sheet and the compression concrete zone
was affected due to the presence of the longitudinal
corrosion crack.
On the other hand beam RS(5%) performed better
than beam S(5%). This beam was able to sustain load
higher than the beam C(0%) by 17.6% and higher by
25% than C(5%). The yield strength was also higher
in the strengthened beam (RS5%) than both control beams (C0% & C5%). Beam RS(5%) failed by
debonding of the CFRP sheet as shown in Figure 8.
More effective load transfer between the CFRP sheet
and the strengthened concrete was possible due to
the new concrete cover zone. This can be observed
from the strain profile of the section of beam RS(5%)
shown in Figure 9. The strain in the CFRP sheet is
compatible with the strain at other parts of the section
which indicates a full composite action between the
CFRP sheet and the concrete section.

3.3

Repaired & strengthened specimens


with 7.5% corrosion

The load-deflections for specimens with 7.5% corrosion are presented in Figure 10. As noted in this figure
that the yield and ultimate strength of strengthened
beams (S(7.5%) & RS(7.5%)) increased over the corresponding un-strengthened control beams (C(0%) &
C(7.5%)). The ultimate load of beam S(7.5%) reached
20 kN which is 18% and 43% higher than ultimate
loads in beams C(0%) and C(7.5%), respectively.
Failure of beam S(7.5%) was initiated by the separation of concrete cover where flexural cracks (vertical)
crossed the corrosion cracks (horizontal) along the

1246

reinforcing bars. The CFRP sheet was pushed away


from the beam surface (partial debonding), but finally
failed by rupture at the tip of the cracked area (see
Figure 11). As observed from Figure 10, the beam
had large deflection before failure as an indication of
increased ductility due to the addition of FRP sheet.
As pointed earlier, that due to the deteriorated bond
along the damaged concrete cover zone, the stresses
in the CFRP sheet were increasing at higher rate once
the beam reached the cracking load as noticed from
the strain profile shown in Figure 12.

The ultimate load of beam RS(7.5%) reached 19.5


kN which is 15% and 39% higher than ultimate loads
in beams C(0%) and C(7.5%), respectively. Failure of
beam RS(7.5%) was due CFRP rupture (see Figure 13).
It was suspected that there was some defect in the
CFRP sheet and some fibers were torn during installation of strain gauges. However, the strain profile
(see Figure 14) shows that full composite action was
maintained between the CFRP sheet and concrete. All
test results are summarized in Table 2 below.

Figure 13. CFRP rupture in beam RS(7.5%).

Figure 10.
corrosion.

Load-deflection curves of beams with 7.5%

Figure 11. Separation of concrete cover and CFRP in


beam S(7.5%).

Figure 14.

Strain profile in beam RS(7.5%).

Table 2. Summary of test results.

Figure 12.

Strain profile in beam S(7.5%).

Specimen

Cracking
load (kN)

Failure
load (kN)

Max.
deflection
(mm)

Mode of
failure

C (0%)
C (5%)
C (7.5%)
S (5%)
S (7.5%)
RS (5%)
RS (7.5%)

4
3
3
6
6
5
4

17
16
14
17.5
20
20
19.5

40
30
25
23
43
40
30

CC
CC
CC
RT/CC
DB/RT
DB
RT

CC = Concrete Crushing.
RT = CFRP Rupture.
DB = Debonding of CFRP.

1247

6.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presented test results on the structural performance of repaired/strengthened corrosion damaged reinforced concrete beams. Based on the test
results it can be concluded that:
Strengthening of corrosion damaged beams using
CFRP sheets is effective and all strengthened
beams were able to reach ultimate loads higher
than the ultimate of the damaged state.
The corrosion weakend the bond along the corrosion cracks at the interface of concrete and corroded
steel rebars as indicated by the strain profile.
Replacing the damaged concrete in the cover zone
with new layer of concrete prior to strengthening
with FRP is more effective in the load transfer
mechanism between the FRP and concrete.

Soudki, K. and Sherwood, T. 2000. Behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon fiber
reinforced polymer laminates subjected to corrosion
damage. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27,
PP 10051010.
7. Bonacci, J. et al. 1998. Laboratory simulation of corrosion in reinforced concrete and repair with CFRP
wraps. Annual Conference of the Canadian Society of
Civil Engineering, Monterial, pp 653662.
8. Lee, C. et al. 2000. Accelerated corrosion and repair
of reinforced concrete columns using carbon fiber
reinforced polymer sheets. . Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 27, PP 941948.
9. Craig, B.C. and Soudki, K.A. 2002. Confining effects
of CFRP laminates on corroded concrete members.
Int. Conference on Durability of Composites for Construction, Monterial, PP 383395.
10. Jones, D.A. 1992. Principles and Prevention of Corrosion, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.

APPENDIX AFARADAYS LAW


REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 222. 1996. Corrosion of Metals in
Concrete. ACI 222R-96, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 29 p.
2. Almusallam, A.A. 2001. Effect of degree of corrosion
on the properties of reinforcing steel bars. Construction and Building Materials Journal. 15, pp 361368.
3. Almusallam, A.A, Al-Gahtani, A.S., Aziz, R., Dakhil, F.
and Rasheeduzzafar, 1996. Effect of reinforcement corrosion on flexural behavior of concrete slabs Journal of
materials in civil engineering, August, pp 123 127.
4. Bonacci, J.F. and Maaleej, M. 2000. Externally bonded
fiber reinforcement polymer for rehabilitation of corrosion damaged concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal, SeptemberOctober, pp 703711.
5. Kutarba, M.P., Brown, J.R. and Hamilton, H.R. 2004.
Repair of Corrosion Damaged Concrete Beams with
Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. Proceedings of COMPOSITES 2004, Tampa, Florida USA.

The corrosion rate is directly proportional to the


measured electrical current. The mass loss is related
to the measured electrical current by Faradays Law
as in Equation (1):

w =

Itaw
zF

(1)

where:
w = mass loss (g).
I = corrosion current (mA).
t = time of the corrosion process (hr).
aw = atomic mass of iron (55.847 g).
z = valence, which is the number of electrons transferred during the corrosion reaction (two in this
case).
F = Faradays constant (96500 C/mol).

1248