See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256761553

Numerical Investigations on the Seismic Behavior of FRP and TRM Upgraded RC

Exterior Beam-Column Joints

Article  in  Journal of Composites for Construction · June 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000265

CITATIONS READS

33 1,698

5 authors, including:

Aref A. Abadel Nadeem A. Siddiqui

King Saud University King Saud University
28 PUBLICATIONS   257 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   691 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saleh Alsayed Yousef Al-Salloum

King Saud Un King Saud University
91 PUBLICATIONS   2,179 CITATIONS    142 PUBLICATIONS   2,512 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Durability of FRP Composites View project

RC Repair with FRP Composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aref A. Abadel on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Numerical Investigations on the Seismic Behavior of FRP
and TRM Upgraded RC Exterior Beam-Column Joints

Abstract: In this paper, a detailed procedure for nonlinear finite-element analysis of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) and textile reinforced
mortar (TRM) upgraded reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column exterior joints is presented for predicting their seismic performance under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

simulated earthquake loading. The finite-element (FE) model was developed using a smeared cracking approach for concrete and three-
dimensional layered elements for the FRP and TRM-composites. The results obtained from FE analysis were compared with the test results.
The tests were conducted on four as-built exterior beam-column joint specimens under simulated seismic loads. Out of these four specimens, one
specimen was tested as a control specimen and the other three were tested after strengthening with TRM, carbon FRP, and glass FRP sheets,
respectively. The FE results were compared with the test results through load-displacement behavior, ultimate loads, and crack pattern. Com-
parison of FE results with the experimentally observed response indicated that the proposed nonlinear FE model can accurately predict the behav-
ior and response of tested RC beam-column joints. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000265. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Finite element method; Beam columns; Joints; Seismic effects; Fiber reinforced polymer.
Author keywords: Finite element method (FEM); Beam-column joints; Textile reinforced mortar (TRM); Glass fiber reinforced polymer
(GFRP); Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP); Seismic; Strengthening.

Introduction
In most of earthquake prone countries, preseismic code designed
reinforced concrete (RC) buildings do not comply with the current
seismic codes requirements. Recent earthquakes have illustrated
that inadequate shear strength and ductility in the existing beam-
column joints, especially exterior ones, is the prime cause of
failure/collapse of moment resisting RC frame buildings (Alsayed
et al. 2010). Hence, effective and economical rehabilitation tech-
niques to upgrade joint shear-resistance and ductility in existing
structures are needed. Use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) com-
posites is a modern way of strengthening deficient and weak con-
crete members. There are several advantages of using FRP for
rehabilitation of RC structures. These advantages are very well-
reported in the literature (Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2002;
Ghobarah and Said 2001, 2002; El-Amoury and Ghobarah
2002; Al-Salloum and Almusallam 2007; Al-Salloum et al. 2011a;
Alsayed et al. 2010a, 2010b). However, there are some drawbacks
that require the attention of FRP users. These drawbacks are
3
M.Sc. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud Univ., Riyadh
11421, Saudi Arabia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 16, 2011; approved on
October 31, 2011; published online on November 3, 2011. Discussion per-
iod open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 16, No. 3, June 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/
2012/3-308–321/$25.00.
(1) poor behavior of epoxy resins at temperatures above the glass
transition temperature; (2) relatively high cost of epoxy and poly-
mer materials; (3) hazards for the manual worker; (4) inability to
apply FRP on wet surfaces or at low temperatures; (5) lack of vapor
permeability, which may cause damage to the concrete structure;
(6) incompatibility of epoxy resins and substrate materials; and
(7) difficulty to conduct postearthquake assessment of the damage
suffered by the reinforced concrete behind undamaged FRP jackets.
One possible solution to the preceding problems would be
the replacement of organic binders with inorganic ones, e.g.,
cement-based mortars, and use of textiles in place of fiber sheets
(Triantafillou et al. 2006). Textiles comprise fabric meshes made of
long woven, knitted, or even unwoven fiber roving in at least two
typically orthogonal directions. Textile reinforced mortar (TRM)
was investigated in this study as a new method for strengthening
and seismic retrofitting of concrete structures through jacketing.
In this study, TRM jackets consist of textile meshes made of carbon
fibers roved in two directions and mortars serving as binder-
containing polymeric additives.
In the past, a number of excellent works have been reported
on on experimental studies of composite upgraded joints (e.g.,
Ghobarah and Said 2001, 2002; El-Amoury and Ghobarah 2002;
Prota et al. 2004; Al-Salloum and Almusallam 2007; Alsayed et al.
2010b; Mukherjee and Joshi 2005; Ghobarah and El-Amoury
2005; Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2003; Pampanin et al. 2007).
However, limited work is available on analytical and numerical
modeling of composite-strengthened joints.
Using the analogy of steel stirrups, Gergely et al. (1998) com-
puted the FRP contribution to the shear capacity of the RC joint.
Gergely et al. (2000) repeated this analogy and, on the basis of
limited test results, fixed the FRP strain to a certain value for pre-
pared concrete surface. In addition to a detailed experimental study
on FRP-strengthened RC beam-column joint, Ghobarah and Said
(2001) also proposed a design methodology for fiber jacketing to
upgrade the shear capacity of existing beam-column joints in

308 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

 reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. El-Amoury and
Ghobarah (2002) proposed a simple design methodology for up-
grading reinforced concrete beam-column joints using GFRP
sheets. Antonopoulos and Triantafillou (2002) proposed a powerful
model that uses stress equilibrium and strain compatibility to yield
shear strength of the beam-column joint with known geometry,
reinforcement quantities, and externally bonded FRP. Al-Salloum
and Almusallam (2007) applied the aforementioned model on
FRP-strengthened “interior joints” and also extended this model
to predict some other governing parameters, such as diagonal ten-
sile stress, variation of shear stress in the joint at different stages of
loading, and strains in transverse and longitudinal steel bars. To
implement available and extended formulations for various predic-
tions of FRP-strengthened interior joints, a comprehensive com-
puter program was developed, and its results were compared with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
experimental observations. Predictions show good agreement with
experimental test results.
Baglin and Scott (2000) used nonlinear finite-element (FE) tech-
niques to model reinforced concrete exterior beam-column connec-
tions. They compared the response of finite-element model with the
results of 19 experimental tests and found a good agreement
between the finite-element predictions and test results. Lowes
and Altoontash (2003) proposed a finite volume–based model to
simulate RC beam-column joints subjected to moderate shear load-
ing. They observed that the model accurately represents the funda-
mental characteristics of joints and inelastic load-deformation
response. Johansson (2000) tested full-scale frame corner joints
subjected to negative bending moments. He also analyzed the joint
specimens using the nonlinear FE program DIANA. Comparison of
finite-element results with the experimentally observed response
indicated that the nonlinear FE model can successfully predict the
behavior and response of corner joints. Parvin and Granata (2000)
carried out a detailed finite-element analysis to perform parametric
studies for various laminate configurations applied to exterior
beam-column joints. They compared the FE response with exper-
imental results and found a good agreement between experimental
and FE results. Niroomandi et al. (2010) investigated the effective-
ness of FRP retrofitting of the joints in enhancing the seismic per-
formance level and the seismic behavior factor (R) of ordinary RC
frames. The results showed that the performance level and the seis-
mic behavior factor of the FRP retrofitted RC frame were signifi-
cantly enhanced in comparison with the original frame and were
comparable with those of the steel-braced frame.
Haach et al. (2008) investigated the influence of the column ax-
ial load on the joint shear strength through numerical simulations.
The numerical study was performed using the software ABAQUS
(2005). A comparison of the numerical and experimental results
showed that the column axial load can make the joint more stiff
and may introduce stresses in the beam longitudinal reinforcement.
Li et al. (2009), carried out experimental and theoretical investiga-
tions on lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected
to seismic loading. The results of the FE models were then vali-
dated with the experimental results. This was followed by paramet-
ric studies carried out to understand the effects of several critical
factors, including column axial load, ratio of column depth to beam
reinforcement bar diameter, and effective slab width, on the com-
plex behavior of the joints. Mostoufinezhad and Talaeitaba (2006)
carried out a nonlinear FE analysis of RC joints covered with FRP
overlays using ANSYS (1998). The analysis considered the effects
of anchorage slip and anchorage extension of the steel reinforce-
ment in the connection zone. The results showed that the model
can predict the experimental works with good accuracy. Sagbas
(2007) studied finite-element modeling capabilities of VecTor2
in capturing the nonlinear cyclic response of beam-column
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 309
J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
specimens. Bindhu and Jaya (2008) attempted to improve the con-
finement of core concrete without congestion of reinforcement in
the joints. Four exterior beam-column joint subassemblages were
tested under reverse cyclic loading applied at the beam end. The
performance of the subassemblages were compared with the ana-
lytical model developed using the finite-element software ANSYS
(1998).
The previous review shows that although significant research
is available on finite-element analysis of FRP-upgraded beam-
column joints, FE studies on TRM-strengthened RC beam-column
joints are very limited. In fact, no finite-element study on TRM-
strengthened beam-column joints could be found in the approach-
able references. Also, a study in which finite-element analysis of
both FRP- and TRM-upgraded beam-column joints are presented
together is not seen in the literature. Keeping this scope in view, in
this contribution, a detailed procedure for nonlinear finite-element
analysis of as-built, FRP- and TRM-strengthened RC beam-column
joints is presented for predicting their seismic performance under
simulated earthquake loading. A popular FE software, ANSYS,
was employed for the modeling and analysis. The results obtained
from FE analysis were compared with the test results. The tests
were conducted on four as-built exterior beam-column joint spec-
imens under simulated seismic loads. Out of these four specimens,
one specimen was tested as the control specimen and the other three
were tested after strengthening with TRM, carbon FRP (CFRP),
and glass FRP (GFRP) sheets, respectively. The FE results were
compared with the experimental test results through load-
displacement behavior, ultimate loads, and crack patterns.
Experimental Program
To compare the finite-element results with the experimental results,
the tests were conducted on four as-built exterior beam-column
joint specimens under simulated seismic loads. The four as-
built joint specimens were constructed with nonoptimal design
parameters, i.e., inadequate joint shear strength with no transverse
reinforcement (Figs. 1 and 2), representing an extreme case of pre-
seismic code design construction practice of joints and encompass-
ing the vast majority of existing beam-column connections. Out
of these four as-built specimens, one specimen was used as the
baseline specimen (control specimen) and the other three were
30 cm
60 cm
Top Box 60 x 60 x 30 cm
4 PVC Pipes 60 cm
4 PVC Pipes Column
16 x 30 cm
6-cm Slab
Column 16 x 30 cm
35 cm
PL 40 x 40 x 4 cm
60 cm
40 cm
Beam 16 x 35 cm
Fig. 1. Dimensions of exterior as-built joint specimen
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Reinforcement details of as-built specimen

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of GFRP and TRM scheme applied to as-built exterior joint

strengthened with TRM, CFRP, and GFRP sheets, respectively

(Figs. 3 and 4). The nomenclature used for various specimens is
shown in Table 1. All of these four subassemblages were subjected
to quasi-static cyclic lateral load histories so as to provide the
equivalent of severe earthquake damage.
The dimensions and details of half-scale as-built test specimens
are shown in Table 2.
The preceding specimens were tested using the testing apparatus
designed and installed in the Structural Test Hall, Department
of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
To apply the simulated seismic type cyclic load on the specimen,
a 500-kN servocontrolled hydraulic actuator was connected to a
reaction steel frame, which stands on a strong concrete floor.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the details of the experimental setup. In the test
setup, the bottom of the column surface was attached to a base pivot
using four high-strength threaded rods. The base pivot, in turn, was
fastened to a strong steel I-beam. The latter was posttensioned to
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of CFRP scheme applied to as-built
the laboratory floor using high-strength posttensioning rods. The
exterior joint
rigid end of the concrete beam was tied to a rigid link through

310 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

 Table 1. Nomenclature for Test Specimens
Group number Specimen designation Test conditions and retrofit schemes
Control specimen ECON As-built control specimen
Strengthened ECTRM Strengthened specimen obtained by strengthening the as-built specimen using two layers of carbon
specimens textile reinforced mortar CTRM
ECFRP Strengthened specimen obtained by strengthening the as-built specimen using a single layer of CFRP sheets
EGFRP Strengthened specimen obtained by strengthening the as-built specimen using two layers of GFRP sheets

Table 2. Geometric Properties of Exterior Beam-Column As-Built Joint

Specimen
Parameter Value
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Beam dimensions and details

Width (mm) 160
Depth (mm) 350
Spana (mm) 2,000
Slab thickness (mm) 60
Concrete cover to hoops (mm) 15
Top steel (mm) 4 ϕ 12
Top steel ratio 0.009
Bottom steel (mm) 4 ϕ 12
Bottom steel ratio 0.009
Transverse steel diameter (mm) 6
Transverse steel spacing (mm) 225
Column dimensions and details
Width (mm) 160
Fig. 5. The test setup employed for testing of specimens
Depth (mm) 300
Clear height (mm) 1,450
Floor-to-floor height (mm) 1,800 in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 shows that in the push direction, the contribution
Concrete cover to hoops (mm) 15 of GFRP sheets to strength is more than CFRP sheets, whereas
Longitudinal steel (mm)b 10 ϕ 10 in the pull direction, CFRP sheets provide better strength than
Longitudinal steel ratio 0.016 GFRP sheets. This may be attributed to different stiffness of
Transverse steel diameter (mm) 6 the strengthened specimens in push and pull directions. The
Transverse steel spacing (mm) 140
CFRP-strengthened specimen had more stiffness than the GFRP-
a strengthened specimen in the pull direction, whereas the two
Span of the beam is measured from the center of the column. layered-GFRP-strengthened specimen had more stiffness in the
b
Continuous with no lap splice.
push direction. Thus, curves presented in Fig. 9 show higher peak
load for GFRP-strengthened specimens in the push direction than
the CFRP-sheeted specimen. The TRM-strengthened specimen
a steel pivot. The horizontal-loading regime was on the basis of the shows lower peak loads than CFRP or GFRP sheeted specimens
conventional guidelines of quasi-static type testing as followed by in both directions, i.e., push and pull directions. The details of
most researchers in simulating seismic forces to test reinforced con- the preceding experimental program and the test results are avail-
crete structures (Gergely et al. 1998, 2000). The loading cycles able from Al-Salloum et al. (2011b).
were controlled by the peak displacement until failure. For each
displacement level, i.e., for a constant value of displacement, three
Design Procedure of TRM, CFRP, and GFRP
fully reversed cycles were completed. All cycles were started with
Application
the pull direction first and then went into the push direction. The
lateral displacement time histories of the experiment are shown in The design approach was on the basis of providing fiber reinforce-
Figs. 7(a)–7(d). The frequency of applied load or induced displace- ment to replace the missing joint shear reinforcement and the inad-
ment was maintained constant throughout the test program; it was equately detailed steel bars. For this purpose, the specimen was
picked up to be approximately one cycle per minute, which corre- externally bonded with a single layer of CFRP sheets to joint,
sponds to a frequency of 0.0167 Hz. All cycles were started with beam, and part of the column regions, with the orientation of
the pull direction first and then went into the push direction. The primary fibers as shown by horizontal and vertical lines in
experimental response of control and strengthened exterior joint Figs. 3 and 4. Figs. 3 and 4 show details of CFRP, GFRP, and
specimens, as the load-isplacement hysteretic curves, were plotted TRM layup. To estimate the number of layers, the design procedure
as shown in Figs. 8(a)–8(d). available from El-Amoury and Ghobarah (2002) was adopted.
To compare the numerical results with the experimental re- A single layer CFRP or double layer GFRP sheet was found ad-
sponse of control and strengthened exterior joint specimens, enve- equate in upgrading the joint shear resistance of as-built joint
lopes of load-displacement hysteretic curves were plotted as shown specimens. As no design procedure is available for the design of

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 311

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram showing test setup designed for testing of joints

90 90
ECON ECFRP
70 70
50 50
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

30 30
10 10
-10 -10
-30 -30
-50 -50
-70 -70
-90 -90
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
(a) Elapsed time (seconds) (b) Elapsed time (seconds)
90 90
EGFRP ECTRM
70 70
50 50
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

30 30
10 10
-10 -10
-30 -30
-50 -50
-70 -70
-90 -90
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
(c) Elapsed time (seconds) (d) Elapsed time (seconds)

Fig. 7. Displacement time history for (a) control specimen; (b) CFRP-strengthened specimen; (c) GFRP-strengthened specimen; and (d) TRM-
strengthened specimen

312 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

 90 90

70 ECON 70 ECFRP
50 50

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
30 30

10 10

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10

-10 10 30 50 70 90 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-30 -30

-50 -50

-70 -70

-90 -90
(a) Lateral displacement (mm) (b) Lateral displacement (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

90 90

70 EGFRP 70 ECTRM

50 50

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

30 30

10 10

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10

-10 10 30 50 70 90 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-30 -30

-50 -50

-70 -70

-90 -90
(c) Lateral displacement (mm) (d) Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Load-displacement hysteretic curves for (a) control specimen; (b) CFRP-strengthened specimen; (c) GFRP-strengthened specimen; and
(d) TRM-strengthened specimen

TRM-strengthened beam-column joints, the same procedure as
given in El-Amoury and Ghobarah (2002) for FRP-strengthened
beam-column joints was followed after calculating the equivalent
cross-sectional area of textiles, as shown subsequently. The number
of layers was then estimated following the same calculation as fol-
lowed for the FRP sheets. The desired number of textile layers was
more than two. However, because the present investigation was
on the basis of textile-reinforced mortar and not the textile alone,
only two layers of TRM layers were selected for the present study.
To compare the cross-sectional areas, thickness and widths of
FRP sheets, shown in Table 3, were employed to calculate the
cross-sectional areas in 1 m width of the FRP sheet. It comes
out to be 1;000 mm2 and 1;300 mm2 for CFRP and GFRP sheets,
respectively. For textile fibers of TRM, using the thickness
(0.4 mm) and width (3.93 mm) of each textile fiber as shown in
Table 3, the cross-sectional area of each textile fiber was obtained.
Then using the distance between the two consecutive textile fibers
(10.67 mm), the area of textile cross section available to carry the
tension in 1 m width of TRM was calculated. This area of cross
section was obtained as 147:3 mm2 ∕m width.
Strengthening of Specimen Using TRM
After the specimen was cured and ready to be tested, the surface of
the beam-column region was grinded manually and then sandblast-
ing was done to develop a sound bond between the concrete and
strengthening material. To strengthen the specimen using external
bonding of textiles with polymer modified cementitious mortars
(TRM), the joint and beam were wrapped with U-shaped carbon
textile layers. The ends of the impregnated textiles with mortar
layers were anchored using a system of steel angles tied to steel
plates through threaded rods driven through the concrete slab as
shown in Fig. 3. A part of the column regions was also wrapped,
as shown in Fig. 3. The bolted plates (anchorage) allow the textile
fibers to develop their full capacity. The mortar was applied in ap-
proximately 2 mm thick layers. After application of the first mortar
layer on the dampened mortar surface, another layer of textile was
applied and pressed slightly into the mortar, which protruded
through all the perforations between rovings. The next mortar layer
covered the textile completely and the operation was repeated until
the required number of textile layers was applied and covered by
the mortar. The specimen was cured using wet burlaps for approx-
imately 28 days. Bonding of jackets took place at a concrete age of
28 days.
Strengthening of Specimens Using Carbon and Glass
FRP Sheets
The two as-built specimens were strengthened using epoxy-bonded
GFRP and CFRP sheets, respectively. The epoxy system used for
external bonding of FRP sheets to the concrete surface consist of a
two-component epoxy matrix material. The first component is resin
and the other component is hardener. The epoxy mix ratio contains
100 parts of resin to 42.0 parts of hardener by volume or 100 parts
of resin and 34.5 parts of hardener by weight. The resin and the
hardener were mixed thoroughly using a mixing drill for at least

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 313

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

 Table 3. Material Properties of Specimens 80

Parameter Properties
60
Concrete and steel
Average concrete strength, f 0c 33.4 MPa 40
Average yield strength of longitudinal steel, f y 500 MPa

Lateral Load (kN)

Average yield strength of transverse steel, f y 380 MPa 20
CFRP composite system (Tyfo SCH-41S)
0
Unidirectional
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Type of FRP CFRP sheet
-20
Elastic modulus in primary fibers direction 77:3 × 103 MPa ECON
Elastic modulus of CFRP 90 degrees to primary fibers 40.6 MPa EGFRP
-40
Fracture strain 1.2% ECFRP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ultimate tensile strength 846 MPa ECTRM

-60
Thickness per layer, t f 1.0 mm
GFRP composite system (Tyfo SEH-51A) -80
Unidirectional Lateral Displacement (mm)
Type of FRP GFRP sheet
Fig. 9. Envelopes of hysteretic plots for as-built control and strength-
Elastic modulus in primary fibers direction 28:9 × 103 MPa ened specimens
Elastic modulus of GFRP 90 degrees to primary fibers 25.8 MPa
Fracture strain 2.2%
Ultimate tensile strength 464 MPa of beam-column joints, is presented. The finite-element program
Thickness per layer, t f 1.3 mm ANSYS Version 11 (1998) was used for this purpose.

Carbon textile fiber Geometry Modeling

Type of textile Carbon fiber
Elastic modulus per one textile 82.33 GPa
Fracture strain 0.95%
Ultimate tensile strength per one textile 777 MPa
Thickness per one textile, t f 0.4 mm
Width per one textile 3.93 mm
5 min.The GFRP and CFRP sheets were epoxy bonded to joint,
beam, and part of the column regions as shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
For GFRP strengthening, two layers of unidirectional GFRP were
used, whereas for CFRP strengthening, a single layer of CFRP sheet
was used. From the strength point of view, two layers of GFRP sheets
are equivalent to one layer of CFRP sheets. The orientation of pri-
mary fibers was maintained as shown by horizontal and vertical lines
in Figs. 6 and 7. In GFRP strengthening, mechanical anchorages
were used in the beam region to prevent any possible debonding
and allow the fibers to develop their full capacity. To apply a
mechanical anchorage system, three holes were drilled on either side
of the extended epoxy bonded GFRP-upgraded beam to the slab. One
bolt was passed through each hole and it was tightened effectively at
the ends using flat steel plates as shown in Fig. 6. In the case of the
CFRP-strengthened specimen (Fig. 4), the mechanical anchorage
system was not used as its debonding strength was expected to be
quite high. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the GFRP and CFRP schemes
applied to as-built joint specimens.
Finite-Element Modeling
The finite-element analysis of bare and strengthened beam-column
joints first require modeling of the joints with the dimensions and
properties corresponding to beam-column joints tested in the
experiment. In this section, modeling, including meshing details
Element Type
The beam-column joints were modeled with Solid 65, Solid 46, and
Link8 elements. The element details of each material are presented
subsequently.
• Concrete. An eight-node solid element, Solid65, was used to mod-
el the concrete. This solid element has eight nodes with three de-
grees of freedom at each node representing translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is capable of plastic de-
formation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing.
• Reinforcing Steel. Discrete modeling was used for reinforce-
ment steel by defining the element between the nodes in the
performed meshes. Steel reinforcement in the experimental
beam-column joint was constructed with typical Grade 60 (f y ¼
500 MPa) steel reinforcing bars. The steel for the finite-element
model was assumed to be an elastic–perfectly plastic material
with identical properties in tension and compression. A Link8
element was used to model the steel reinforcement. Two nodes
are required for this element. Each node has three degrees of
freedom, which are translations in the nodal x, y, and z direc-
tions. The element is also capable of plastic deformation.
• FRP and TRM Composites. A layered solid element, Solid46,
was used to model the FRP and TRM-composites. The element
allows for up to 100 different material layers with different or-
ientations and orthotropic material properties in each layer. The
element has three degrees of freedom at each node representing
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions.
Creation of Geometry
Using the geometry tools of ANSYS software (1998), beam-
column joint specimens were modeled as a 3D model. The created
geometry and its dimensions are shown in Fig. 10, and Fig. 11
shows typical steel reinforcement locations for the half-scale
beam-column joint. In the finite-element models, 3D spar elements,
Link8, were employed to represent the steel reinforcement. The
steel reinforcement was simplified in the model by ignoring the

314 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Typical beam-column joint specimen created in ANSYS
Fig. 11. Typical steel reinforcement locations in FEM of beam-column
joint
inclined portions of the steel bars present in the actual beam-
column joint specimens. Ideally, the actual bond strength between
the concrete and steel reinforcement should be considered. How-
ever, in this study, a perfect bond between the two materials was as-
sumed. To provide the perfect bond, the link element, representing
the steel reinforcing bars, was connected between the nodes of each
adjacent concrete solid element; thus, the two materials shared the
same nodes. The same approach was adopted for TRM and FRP
composites. The high strength of the epoxy used to attach FRP sheets
to the experimental beams supported the perfect bond assumption. In
the finite-element model, layered solid elements, Solid46, were used
to model the FRP and TRM composites. Nodes of the FRP-layered
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 315
J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
Fig. 12. Element connectivity: (a) concrete solid and link elements;
(b) concrete solid and FRP/TRM layered solid elements
solid elements were connected to those of adjacent concrete solid
elements to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. Fig. 12 illustrates
the element connectivity. Strengthened schemes for the half-scale
beam-column joints are shown in Fig. 13.
Meshing
To obtain good results from the Solid65 element, a rectangular
mesh was used. Therefore, the mesh was setup such that square
or rectangular elements were created (Fig. 14). The volume sweep
command of ANSYS (1998) was used to mesh the support. This
properly sets the width and length of elements in the concrete sup-
port and makes it consistent with the elements and nodes in the
concrete portions of the model. In the analysis, the specimen
was modeled with 4,141 rectangular concrete elements by using a
35 by 65 mm mesh configuration. A total of 520 rectangular Solid
46 elements modeled FRP and/or TRM. The overall mesh of the
concrete and support volumes are shown in Fig. 14. The necessary
element divisions are also shown in Fig. 14. The meshing of the
reinforcement was a special case compared with the volumes.
The reinforcement was not meshed as individual elements were
created in the modeling through the nodes created by the mesh
of the concrete volume. However, the necessary mesh attributes
were set before each section of the reinforcement was created.
Merging Nodes
Special attention was given when merging entities in the model that
were already meshed. This is necessary as the order in which merg-
ing occurs is important. Merging key points before nodes can result
in making some of the nodes to become “orphaned”; that is, the
nodes may lose their association with the solid model. The or-
phaned nodes can cause certain operations, such as boundary con-
dition transfers, surface load transfers, and so on, to fail. Care was
taken to always merge in the order that the entities appear. All pre-
cautions were taken to ensure that everything was merged in the
proper order. Also, the lowest number was retained during merging.
Sectional Properties (Real Constants)
Real constants are properties that depend on the element type, such
as cross-sectional properties of a beam element. For example, real
constants for BEAM3, a two-dimensional (2D) beam element, are
area, moment of inertia, height, shear deflection constant, initial
strain, and added mass per unit length. Not all element types require
real constants, and different elements of the same type may have
different real constant values. In the present study, the individual
elements contain different real constants. Real constant set 1
was used for the Solid65 element. Real constant sets 2, 3, and 4
require cross section area of rebar in beam, column, and stirrup,
respectively. Real constant set 5 was used for the Solid65 element,
which was employed for the end supports. Real constant set 6 was
used for Solid46, which was for FRP and/or TRM layers.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Finite element modeling of FRP/TRM-strengthened joint

Fig. 15. Description of boundary conditions and applied loads in finite

Fig. 14. Mesh generation in beam-column joint specimen element model of beam-column joint

Material Properties and Z = the slope of the linear falling branch BC that depends
on the confinement conditions.
Concrete
Using the preceding Hognestad et al. concrete model and using
To simulate the nonlinear behavior of concrete, the stress-strain val-
the Solid65 elements, the concrete of the present study was mod-
ues derived from the Hognestad et al. concrete model (1955) were
calculated and entered as input data in the program. In this model, eled. The Solid 65 element requires linear isotropic and multilinear
the stress-strain curve for concrete is represented by a second- isotropic material properties to properly model the concrete. The
degree parabola over branch AB that can be expressed by multilinear isotropic material uses the Von Mises failure criterion

 2  along with the William and Warnke (1975) model to define the fail-
2εc εc ure of the concrete. The compressive uniaxial stress-strain relation-
f c ¼ f 0c
ð1a Þ
0:002 0:002 ship for the concrete model was obtained using Eqs. (1a) and (1b).
The following material properties were used for the present FE
and a straight line over branch BC that can be expressed by
analysis: pffiffiffiffi
• Elastic modulus Ec ¼ 4; 700 f 0c ;
f c ¼ f 0c ½1
Zðεc
0:002Þ ð1b Þ • Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength f 0c ¼ 30 MPa;
• Ultimate p tensile
ffiffiffiffi compressive strength (modeling of rupture)
where f c = concrete compressive stress; εc = concrete strain cor- f r ¼ 0:62 f 0c ; and
responding to f c ; f 0c = ultimate concrete compressive strength; • Poisson’s ratio for concrete v ¼ 0:2.

316 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.


Shear transfer coefficient β t represents conditions at the crack
face. The value of β t ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 representing a
smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing
a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer). The shear transfer coef-
ficient used in the present study varied between 0.5 and 0.9.
Steel
As discussed previously, steel was modeled using the Link8
element. The Link8 element requires multilinear isotropic material
properties to properly model the steel. Material properties for the
steel reinforcement for finite-element modeling were taken as
follows: Es ¼ 200;000 MPa; yield stress of longitudinal steel
bars f y ¼ 500 MPa; yield stress of transverse steel bars f y ¼
380 MPa; and Poisson’s ratio ν ¼ 0:3 It is worth mentioning that
different yield values for longitudinal and transverse steels were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
considered because they were different in the test specimens. The
perfect elastic-plastic curves for reinforcing steel were used in the
beam-column joint model.
FRP and TRM Composites
The Solid46 element was used to model the FRP. This element re-
quires linear orthotropic properties and appropriate failure criteria.
The following input data were required to define the FRP compo-
sites in the finite-element model:
• Number of layers;
• Thickness of each layer;
• Orientation of the fiber direction for each layer;
• Elastic modulus of the FRP composite in three directions,
i.e., E x , E y , and Ez ;
• Shear modulus of the FRP composite for three planes, i.e., Gxy ,
Gyz, and Gxz ; and
• Major Poisson’s ratio for three planes, i.e., ν xy , ν yz , and ν xz .
A local coordinate system for the FRP-layered solid elements
was defined in which the x-direction was the same as the fiber
direction, whereas the y- and z-directions were perpendicular to
the x-direction.
Solid46 layered solid element was also used to model TRM
composites. The mortar contribution was ignored because its effect
on tensile strength is insignificant. The properties obtained after the
coupon tests on TRM were used to calculate Poisson’s ratio and
shear modulus assuming it as a linear elastic material. The bulk
properties of textile sheets were utilized in the modeling and not
the properties of individual textile fibers. An equivalent thickness
was estimated for textile sheets to use them in the finite-element
model. A summary of the material properties used in the modeling
of specimens are shown in Table 4. The material was assumed
failed if the maximum strain reaches a limiting value. For CFRP,
GFRP, and TRM, the maximum strain values were taken as 0.012,
0.022, and 0.0085, respectively. These values were taken from the
manufacturer’s reported data sheet.
Loading Strategy and Boundary Conditions
Displacement boundary conditions were needed to constrain the
model to get a unique solution. To ensure that the model acts in
Table 4. Summary of Material Properties for FRP/TRM-Composites
FRP
composite Elastic modulus (GPa) Major Poisson’s ratio
CFRP Ex ¼ 77:3; Ey ¼ 4:6; Ez ¼ 4:6 ν xy ¼ 0:22; ν xz ¼ 0:22; ν yz ¼ 0:30
GFRP Ex ¼ 28:9; Ey ¼ 4:0; Ez ¼ 4:0 ν xy ¼ 0:26; ν xz ¼ 0:26; ν yz ¼ 0:30
TRM Ex ¼ 82:5; Ey ¼ 4:6; Ez ¼ 4:6 ν xy ¼ 0:22; ν xz ¼ 0:22; ν yz ¼ 0:30
a
Equivalent thickness of textile sheet without mortar.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 317
J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
50
45
40
Load (kN)
35
30
25
20
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Number of Elements
Fig. 16. Convergence curve for control specimen
the same way as the experimental beam-column joint, boundary
conditions were applied at the supports and where loadings exist.
To simulate the lateral load conditions, at the top of the column, a
30-mm displacement and an axial constant load of magnitude
140 kN were applied. The load was distributed equally at each node
on the surface of the column as shown in Fig. 15. Also, the boun-
dary conditions for the beam-column joint are illustrated in Fig. 15.
The applied cyclic displacements were divided into a series of in-
crements called load steps and load substeps. At the end of each
incremental solution, the program (ANSYS 1998) adjusts the stiff-
ness matrix of the model before proceeding to the next incremental
load step to reflect the nonlinear changes in the model’s structural
stiffness. To simulate and control load-step size increments, the au-
tomatic time stepping option was turned on. The model stiffness
was updated in ANSYS (1998) by Newton-Raphson equilibrium
iterations, which provide convergence at the end of each load incre-
ment within tolerance limits. Before each solution, the Newton-
Raphson approach assesses the out-of-balance load vector, which
is the difference between the restoring forces (the loads correspond-
ing to the element stresses) and the applied loads. Subsequently, the
program carries out a linear solution, using the out-of-balance
loads, and checks for convergence. If convergence criteria were
not satisfied, the out-of-balance load vector was reevaluated, the
stiffness matrix was updated, and a new solution was attained. This
iterative procedure continued until the problem converged. In the
present finite-element study, convergence criteria were on the basis
of force and displacement, and the convergence tolerance limits
were taken as 0.1% for force checking and 1% for displacement
checking.
Load Stepping and Failure Definition
For the nonlinear analysis, automatic time stepping in the ANSYS
program (1998) predicts and controls load-step sizes. Because of
the highly nonlinear behavior of the model during cyclic loading,
the convergence behavior of the model depends on the nonlinear
response of the reinforced concrete because of crack generation and
Tensile Thickness
strength (MPa) Shear modulus (MPa) (mm)
846 Gxy ¼ 3;270; Gxz ¼ 3;270; Gyz ¼ 1;860 1.00
464 Gxy ¼ 1;2520; Gxz ¼ 1;520; Gyz ¼ 2;650 1.30
777 Gxy ¼ 1;500; Gxz ¼ 1;000; Gyz ¼ 1;000 0.147a
 80
propagation and loss of stiffness in certain elements after energy
dissipation. This might cause divergence and failure that will lead 70
to the termination of the analysis. ANSYS (1998) will give a mes-
sage specifying divergence of the analysis because of large deflec- 60
tion exceeding the displacement limitation of the program. For the

Lateral Load (kN)

purposes of the analysis, a quasi-static type was utilized. The restart 50
command was utilized to restart an analysis after the initial run was
completed. The ANSYS solution controls command (1998) gives 40
an option to use a linear or nonlinear solution for the finite-element
30
model. The time at the end of the load step refers to the ending load
per load step. The substeps were set to indicate load increments 20 ANSYS
used for this analysis. All other values were set to ANSYS defaults
(1998). Each analysis, using the ANSYS program (1998), took ap- 10 Experiment (Hysteretic Envelope)
proximately 2 h to run on a Windows operating system. A conver-
gence study was also carried out to check the stability of the results 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and select appropriate mesh size for FE modeling. Fig. 16 shows 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Lateral Displacement (mm)
the convergence using peak load as a governing parameter. Fig. 16
clearly illustrates that the results are converged when the number of
Fig. 18. Load displacement response for GFRP-strengthened beam-
elements was 3,000 or more. In the present study, specimens were
column joint
discretized in such a manner that there was a sufficiently large num-
ber of elements in the finite-element model, and the results do not
change with further increase in the number of elements or decrease
in the mesh sizes.
80

Comparison of FE Results with Test Results 70

The goal of the comparison of FE analysis results with the exper- 60

Lateral Load (kN)
imental test results (Al-Salloum et al. 2011b) is to ensure that the 50
present finite-element model and analysis are capable of predicting
the response of the beam-column joints. The results were compared 40
through load-displacement behavior, peak lateral load, and crack
pattern. 30

20
ANSYS
Load-Displacement Behavior
10
Experiment (Hysteretic Envelope)
The finite-element results and experimental test values were com-
pared to examine the validity and predictability of the present FE 0
model. The tests were conducted under displacement controlled 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
cyclic lateral loading as discussed previously. The lateral load- Lateral Displacement (mm)
displacement envelope of the tested beam-column joint specimens
Fig. 19. Load displacement response for CFRP-strengthened beam-
and the predicted response from the FE are presented together in
column joint
Figs. 17–20. The experimental curves shown in Figs. 18–21 are for

80 80

70 70

60 60
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kN)

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20
ANSYS ANSYS
10 10 Experiment (Hysteretic Envelope)
Experiment (Hysteretic Envelope)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Lateral Displacement (mm) Lateral Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17. Load displacement response for control beam-column joint Fig. 20. Load displacement response for TRM-upgraded beam-
specimen column joint

318 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.

 80
70
60
Lateral Load (kN)
50
40
30
ECON
20 ECTRM
EGFRP
10
ECFRP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Fig. 21. Comparison of FE load-displacement curves
one direction (push direction), extracted from Fig. 9. It is worth
mentioning that numerical results were compared with one side
of the experimental envelopes as the numerical study loading
was applied as a monotonic increasing load. A comparison of mon-
otonic FE results with the envelopes of cyclic loading was also re-
ported in the works of earlier investigators, e.g., Mostoufinezhad
and Talaeitaba (2006). Fig. 17 indicates that the load-displacement
behavior obtained from the finite-element analysis agrees well with
the experimental envelope of the control specimen. In the linear
range, i.e., in the small displacement range, the load-deflection plot
from the finite-element analysis is slightly stiffer than that from the
test results. There are several factors that may contribute to the
higher stiffness in the finite-element models. Neglecting the micro-
cracks produced by drying shrinkage, assumptions made in defin-
ing the material properties, and difference between actual support
system and modeled one, are some of the possible reasons. The use
of monotonic load instead of actual cyclic load was also one of the
major factors for higher stiffness in FE prediction. Assumption of
perfect bond between the concrete and steel bars is another reason
for better stiffness in FEM solution. It is because of the fact that in
actual tests as the slip occurs, the composite action between the
concrete and steel bars is lost. Thus, the overall stiffness of the ac-
tual specimens becomes lower than the finite-element model pre-
diction. At the peak cracking stage, the two graphs are quite close to
one other, as shown in Fig. 17. Fig. 17 also reveals that ultimate
load obtained from the analysis is almost the same as that obtained
by the experiment.
Fig. 18 shows variation of load-displacement response of
GFRP-strengthened beam-column joint specimens. The two
curves, i.e., experimental and finite element, show a close prox-
imity up to ultimate load. Initially, the finite-element response is
stiffer than the experimentally observed response because of the
assumptions and idealization involved in the finite-element model-
ing as presented previously. At the later stage when there was some
cracking in the GFRP-confined concrete, the cracks in the finite-
element model were more pronounced, which consequently caused
reduction in the stiffness. Near the failure, the concrete cracks were
widened in the experimental specimen and there was rapid decrease
in the stiffness, as shown in Fig. 18. However, the crack widening
was not to that extent in the finite-element model, and because of
J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
35 40
Fig. 22. Crack pattern in test specimen
this reason, the finite-element response was stiffer than the exper-
imental response even in the postcracking stage.
Fig. 19 compares the numerical prediction of the load-
displacement response with the experimentally observed response
of the CFRP-strengthened beam-column joint specimen. Fig. 19
again shows that, for small displacement values, the finite-element
response is stiffer than the experimental one because of the reasons
discussed previously. For a moderate part of the displacement, the
two responses merge with one other as shown in the Fig. 19. At
later stages, the finite-element response again becomes stiffer than
the experimental response because of the lesser deterioration in the
material properties of the FE model compared with the test
specimens.
Fig. 20 compares the finite-element prediction of the load-
displacement response with the experimentally observed response
of the TRM-upgraded beam-column joint specimen. Fig. 20 shows
that the load-displacement response from the finite-element analy-
sis and the experimental program has an almost similar trend. In the
early stages of loading when there was no significant cracking in
the specimen, the finite-element curve was stiffer than the exper-
imental curve. At the intermediate stage of loading, the experimen-
tal and finite-element curves match very well. After this, there were
significant cracks in the specimen, which caused reduction in the
stiffness. However, the ANSYS curve (1998) does not show as
much reduction in the stiffness because of a relatively limited de-
velopment of cracks. The cracks were limited in ANSYS (1998)
because there was a number of idealizations in the modeling, which
caused lesser deterioration in the material than the actual test
specimen.
Fig. 21 compares the load-displacement behavior of the four
beam-column joint specimens obtained from ANSYS (1998).
The curves show, in the linear range, that the stiffness of the spec-
imens before and after applying FRP and/or TRM strengthening is
approximately the same. After the cracking, the stiffness of the
FRP/TRM-strengthened specimens is higher than that of the con-
trol specimens, which is consistent with the experimental results.
Fig. 21 also shows that the ultimate loads for strengthened speci-
mens are significantly higher than that of the control specimen,
which is an expected trend.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 319
 Table 5. Comparison of Peak Load and Corresponding Displacement
Peak load
Specimens Experiment (kN) Finite element (kN) Percent difference
ECON 42.40 42.01 0.9
ECFRP 61.82 68.75 11.20
EGFRP 54.41 62.16 12.18
ECTRM 53.38 54.06 1.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 23. Cracking in finite element analysis at 21-kN load
Ultimate Load and Displacement
The peak load obtained from the finite-element analysis for all
specimens is shown in Table 5. The peak load obtained from
the test of the specimens is also shown in Table 5. The peak load
for the finite-element model is the last applied load-step on the
specimen just before the divergence of the solution because of ex-
cessive cracking and large displacements. A comparison of the
peak loads obtained from FE analysis and experimental tests show
a close proximity, which adds a great confidence in using the
present FE model for the prediction of the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of the specimens. Table 5 also illustrates that the ultimate
load-carrying capacity of the CFRP-strengthened specimen is the
highest compared with all other specimens, and the TRM-upgraded
specimen is lowest. For the GFRP-strengthened specimen, the
capacity is in between CFRP-and TRM-strengthened specimens.
The same trend was obtained using the present FE model. The last
three columns of Table 5 indicate the displacement values obtained
at the peak load. A comparison of experimentally observed values
with FE displacement again shows a close proximity. The differ-
ence can be attributed to the idealizations and assumptions involved
in the finite-element analysis.
Crack Patterns at Failure
In the tested control specimen, tensile shear cracks were developed
in the joint region as shown in Fig. 22. In the finite-element analy-
sis, the specimen showed flexural behavior up to approximately
21 kN (Fig. 23). After reaching this load, shear cracks started ap-
pearing in the joint region, and the flexural cracks stopped growing
320 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
Displacement at peak load
Experiment (mm) Finite element (mm) Percent difference
16.88 18.60 10.2
24.01 25.40 5.8
29.29 26.00 11.2
30.02 26.70 11.1
Fig. 24. Crack pattern observed in FE model at ultimate load
further, as shown in Fig. 23. The joint shear crack, which ultimately
caused the model to fail, was similar to the shear cracks observed in
the experiments (compare Figs. 22 and 24). It is worth mentioning
that as the cracks in strengthened specimens were developed inside
the sheeting materials, it was not feasible to obtain the crack pat-
terns in the strengthened specimens. Due to this reason, crack
pattern was compared for the control specimen only.
Conclusions
In the present study, a detailed procedure for nonlinear
finite-element analysis of as-built, FRP-upgraded, and TRM-
strengthened RC exterior beam-column joints was presented for
predicting their seismic performance under simulated earthquake
loading. The results obtained from the FE model were compared
with the test results, and it was observed that the nonlinear FE
model can satisfactorily predict the behavior and response of the
as-built control, FRP-upgraded, and TRM-strengthened exterior
RC beam-column joints. Finite-element predicted ultimate loads
were also compared with experimentally observed peak loads
for all the specimens. It was observed that the peak loads obtained
from the present finite-element model and tests of the specimens
agree very well. This increases the confidence in using the present
FE model for the prediction of the ultimate load-carrying capacity
 of the specimens. The test results further illustrated that the ultimate
load-carrying capacity of the CFRP-strengthened specimen is
maximum and the TRM-upgraded specimen is minimum. For the
GFRP-strengthened specimen, the capacity is in between CFRP-
and TRM-strengthened specimens. The same trend was obtained
using the present FE model.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific
Research at King Saud University for funding the work through the
research group project No. RGP-VPP-064. Thanks are also ex-
tended to the MMB Chair for Research and Studies in Strengthen-
ing and Rehabilitation of Structures and the Saudi Aramco Chair
for Earthquake Engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at King Saud University for providing technical support.
References
ABAQUS. (2005). Standard user’s manual (version 6.6). Habbitt, Karlsson
and Sorenson, Inc., Pawtucket, RI.
Almusallam, T. H., and Al-Salloum, Y. A. (2007). “Seismic response of
interior beam-column joints upgraded with FRP sheets. II: Analysis
and parametric study.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(6), 590–600.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., and Almusallam, T. H. (2007). “Seismic response of
interior beam-column joints upgraded with FRP sheets. I: Experimental
study.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(6), 575–589.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., Almusallam, T. H., Alsayed, S. H., and Siddiqui, N. A.
(2011a). “Seismic behavior of as-built, ACI-complying and CFRP-
repaired exterior RC beam-column joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 15(4),
522–534.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., Siddiqui, N. A., Elsanadedy, H. M., Abadel, A. A., and
Aqel, M. A. (2011b). “Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as
strengthening material of seismically deficient RC beam-column
joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 15(6), 920–933.
Alsayed, S. H., Almusallam, T. H., Al-Salloum, Y. A., and Siddiqui, N. A.
(2010a). “Seismic rehabilitation of corner RC beam-column joints using
CFRP composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 14(6), 681–692.
Alsayed, S. H., Al-Salloum, Y. A., Almusallam, T. H., and Siddiqui, N. A.
(2010b). “Seismic response of FRP-upgraded exterior RC beam-
column joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 14(2), 195–208.
ANSYS 11 [Computer software]. (1998). ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
Antonopoulos, C., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002). “Analysis of FRP-
strengthened beam-column joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(1), 41–51.
Antonopoulos, C., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2003). “Experimental investi-
gation of FRP-strengthened RC beam-column joints.” J. Compos.
Constr., 7(1), 39–49.
Baglin, P. S., and Scott, R. H. (2000). “Finite element modeling of rein-
forced concrete beam-column connections.” Struct. J., 79(6), 886–894.
Bindhu, K. R., and Jaya, K. P. (2008). “Performance of exterior beam-
column joint with cross-inclined bars under seismic type loading.”
J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 3(7), 591–597.
El-Amoury, T., and Ghobarah, A. (2002). “Seismic rehabilitation of beam-
column joint using GFRP sheets.” Eng. Struct., 24(11), 1397–1407.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 321
View publication stats J. Compos. Constr. 2012.16:308-321.
Gergely, J, Pantelides, C P., and Reaveley, L. D. (2000). “Shear strengthen-
ing of RCT-joints using CFRP composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 4(2),
56–64.
Gergely, J., Pantelides, C. P., Nuismer, R. J., and Reaveley, L. D. (1998).
‘‘Bridge pier retrofit using fiber-reinforced plastic composites.’’
J. Compos. Constr., 2(4), 165–174.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2001). “Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column
joints using FRP laminates.” J. Earthquake Eng., 5(1), 113–129.
Ghobarah, A., and El-Amoury, T. (2005). “Seismic rehabilitation of
deficient exterior concrete frame joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 9(5),
408–416.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2002). “Shear strengthening of beam-column
joints.” Eng. Struct., 24(7), 881–888.
Haach, V. G., De Cresce El Debs, A. L. H., and El Debs, M. K. (2008).
“Evaluation of the influence of the column axial load on the behavior of
monotonically loaded R/C exterior beam-column joints through
numerical simulations.” Eng. Struct., 30(4), 965–975.
Hognestad, E., Hanson, N., and McHenry, D. (1955). “Concrete stress
distribution in ultimate strength design.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 52(6),
455–479.
Johansson, M. (2000). “Nonlinear finite-element analysis of concrete frame
corners.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(2), 190–199.
Li, B., Tran, C. T. N., and Pan, T. (2009). “Experimental and numerical
investigations on the seismic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete
beam-column joints.” J. Struct. Eng., 135(9), 1007–1018.
Lowes, L. N., and Altoontash, A. (2003). “Modeling the response of
reinforced concrete beam column joints.” J. Struct. Eng., 129(12),
1686–1697.
Mostoufinezhad, D., and Talaeitaba S. B. (2006). “Finite element modeling
of RC connections strengthened with FRP laminates.” Iran. J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. B Eng., 30(B1), 21–30.
Mukherjee, A., and Joshi, M. (2005). “FRPC reinforced concrete beam-
column joints under cyclic excitation.” Compos. Struct., 70(2),
185–199.
Niroomandi, A., Maheri, A., Maheri, M. R., and Mahinid, S. S. (2010).
“Seismic performance of ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by
FRP sheets.” Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2326–2336.
Pampanin, S., Bolognini, D., and Pavese, A. (2007). “Performance-based
seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems
using fiber-reinforced polymer composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(2),
211–226.
Parvin, A., and Granata, P. (2000). “Investigation on the effects of fiber
composites at concrete joints.” Composites Part B, 31(6), 499–509.
Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2004). “Selective up-
grade of underdesigned reinforced concrete beam-column joints using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymers.” Struct. J., 101(5), 699–707.
Sagbas, G. (2007). “Nonlinear finite element analysis of beam column joint
subassemblies.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto.
Triantafillou, T. C., Papanicolaou, C. G., Zissimopoulos, P., and
Laourdekis, T. (2006). “Concrete confinement with textile-reinforced
mortar jackets.” Struct. J., 103(1), 28–37.
William, K., and Warnke, E. P. (1975). “Constitutive model for the triaxial
behavior of concrete.” Colloquium on Concrete Structures Subjected
to Triaxial Stresses: Proc., Int. Assoc. for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE) Vol. 19, ISMES, Bergamo, Italy, 1–30.