Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
1243
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1
Specimen details
150
Material properties
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
Accelerated corrosion
1244
Figure 2.
(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
3
3.1
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.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
3.3
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
Figure 10.
corrosion.
Figure 14.
Figure 12.
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.
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