buildings

Article
Seismic Upgrading of RC Wide Beam–Column Joints
Using Steel Jackets
Giuseppe Santarsiero * and Angelo Masi
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano, 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy;
angelo.masi@unibas.it
* Correspondence: giuseppe.santarsiero@unibas.it




Received: 21 September 2020; Accepted: 5 November 2020; Published: 8 November 2020


Abstract: This study is devoted to experimentally investigate the seismic behaviour of reinforced
concrete (RC) wide beam–column joints equipped with a steel jacketing seismic strengthening solution.
To this end, three identical full-scale specimens have been tested under cyclic loading, one in the
as-built condition and two after the application of the strengthening solutions. Details of selected
solutions are described in the paper along with the experimental results which confirm how the
application of simple and feasible steel interventions can effectively improve the seismic capacity of
wide beam–column connections in RC frames, especially in terms of lateral load carrying capacity
and energy dissipation.

Keywords: reinforced concrete; beam–column joint; wide beam; experimental tests; steel jacketing;
seismic strengthening

1. Introduction
Performances of public and private buildings in the last Italian seismic sequences have not been
satisfactory since many structures and critical infrastructures like hospitals lost their serviceability,
reporting significant damage up to the collapse [1]. Strategies for interventions on large building
stocks are available [2] based on the results of comprehensive assessment programs put in place by the
Italian Government through the Ordinance of the President of Council of Ministers (OPCM) 3274 [3]
regarding public buildings. More recently, financial incentive actions have been issued to promote the
seismic/structural rehabilitation of private buildings paying attention to sustainable goals of modern
societies in terms of energy efficiency. There are ideal conditions to invest in buildings’ renovation
considering structural and energy upgrading needs of Italian buildings, with special attention to
reinforced concrete (RC) ones, where most of the population lives.
The Italian RC residential stock is made of 3.7 million buildings according to the latest available
Italian census [4]. Overall, 55% of RC buildings were constructed before 1980 which is the year when a
large part of the Italian territory became seismically classified. Hence, most of those buildings were
designed without any seismic provision, with respect to gravity loads only. Further, a significant
share of those RC frame buildings was realized using wide beams (having the depth equal to the slab
thickness) for the internal spans, due to the architectural need of having a plane ceiling surface.
Several authors studied the performances of wide beams in RC frames [5–7] finding some
criticisms related to the reduced ductility in seismic conditions. In seismically designed buildings,
the effect of reduced stiffness and strength of wide beams may be mitigated by a proper design
of columns to fulfil requirements related to damage limitation states, for example, increasing the
column cross section [8,9] to obtain a sufficient global stiffness. However, wide beams in gravity loads’
designed buildings or seismically designed with past codes have a reduced flexural strength that can
be increased by a certain extent without changing the strength hierarchy with respect to columns,

Buildings 2020, 10, 203; doi:10.3390/buildings10110203 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2020, 10, 203 2 of 15

provided that an early joint shear failure can be excluded, as in most of the experimental tests carried
out on non-seismically designed specimens [10]. This means that columns are usually stronger than
wide beams and a seismic upgrading in some cases can be obtained by only increasing the beams’
strength. However, considering the effect of slab on the beam flexural resistance, the additional
increase due to a strengthening intervention only on the beam should be carefully evaluated in terms
of strength hierarchy. Accounting for this, in [11] an effort was made to optimize the beam’s detailing
of newly constructed (code-conforming) interior wide beam–column joints in order to obtain a better
performance under seismic actions. In [12] an experimental program was carried out to investigate the
cyclic behaviour of code-conforming exterior wide beam–column connections depending on the type
of column (circular, rectangular) and the type of spandrel beam (shallow or deep).
Seismic upgrading solutions for wide beams must consider that the slab on both sides has the
same thickness and installation of additional reinforcing elements cannot be made on the beam’s
vertical sides, contrarily to what can be made in case of deep beams. In fact, other authors investigated
the behaviour of wide beams strengthened with laminated CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers)
plates applied only on the bottom side, mainly intended as upgrading with respect to gravity loads [13]
even though such techniques were already extensively used for deep beam–column joints [14,15].
Additionally, in [16] the research was focused on improving the flexural strength of reinforced concrete
beams with near-surface mounted (NSM) CFRP bars using mechanical interlocking. The main goal
was yet to improve the static monotonic loads’ resistance of RC wide beams. Some authors focused
on checking the effectiveness of alternative materials for the flexural upgrading of RC beams using
for example near-surface mounted aluminium alloy bars [17] or basalt fibre fabric [18]. In [19] a
strengthening system based on steel elements intended to shift the plastic hinge away from the joint
core was developed.
This latter is more suitable for deep beam–column joints. A similar goal is pursued by
haunch retrofit solutions [20–22] that, by means of steel props and curbs connecting beam and
column, can significantly improve concrete confinement and provide energy absorption due to their
plastic deformation.
Some seismic strengthening systems were developed also through numerical simulations. In [23] a
finite element investigation was made to assess the potential effectiveness of CFRP laminates externally
bonded to the beam in wide beam–column joints with an arrangement consistent with the real geometry
and, then, feasible. Nevertheless, the experimental verification of applicability and effectiveness of
(possibly) simple seismic strengthening techniques for wide beam–column joints is still necessary.
For these reasons, a part of a large experimental program carried out at the Laboratory of Structures
of the University of Basilicata on beam–column joints was devoted to developing upgrading solutions
for wide beam–column joints.
The experimental program was set to investigate the seismic performance of full-scale external
beam–column joint specimen representative of subassemblies in existing RC frame buildings designed
to either gravity or seismic loads. The experimental program is described in detail in [24], which also
report the analysis of test result and characterization of the seismic behaviour and damage mechanism
on as-built specimens (i.e., not upgraded).
Non-satisfactory performances were observed due to the scarce capacity of dissipating seismic
energy. In fact, bond-slip phenomena early affected the beam reinforcement located outside the column.
Indeed, heavy pinching effects were observed as demonstrated by load–drift curves, as detailed
in [10,24].
This means that seismic behaviour of wide beam–column joints is remarkably influenced by their
geometry which is less efficient if compared to traditional joints with deep beams. The width of the
beam, larger than the column one, causes remarkable decays of both strength and ductility due to the
lack of anchorage for the beam rebars. Moreover, axial load has a role in the damage patterns, affecting
the softening branch of the load–drift curve of wide beam–column joints as shown in [24].
 Buildings 2020, 10, 203 3 of 15

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Therefore, by observing the damage mechanisms on the as-built specimens, two upgrading
techniques were derived from an upgrading technology, named CAM (Active Confining of Masonry)
solutions were developed and applied to identical wide beam–column joint specimens. The techniques
[25] based on simple steel elements, tested by the authors on a deep beam–column joint [26] with
were derived from an upgrading technology, named CAM (Active Confining of Masonry) [25] based on
encouraging results. This paper describes the experimental program and discusses the results of the
simple steel elements, tested by the authors on a deep beam–column joint [26] with encouraging results.
experimental tests in terms of effectiveness and applicability of CAM strengthening technique to
This paper describes the experimental program and discusses the results of the experimental tests in
wide beam–columns joints.
terms of effectiveness and applicability of CAM strengthening technique to wide beam–columns joints.
2.2.Steel
SteelJacketing
JacketingofofRC
RCWide
WideBeams
Beams
The
TheCAM
CAM (Active
(Active Confinement
Confinement of of Masonry)
Masonry)technique
techniquewas wasoriginally
originallythought
thought and
and developed
developed for
for seismic upgrading interventions on masonry buildings. Afterwards, it
seismic upgrading interventions on masonry buildings. Afterwards, it was applied to RC elementswas applied to RC
[27],
elements [27], to take
to take advantage advantage
of its confiningofproperties
its confining properties
especially especially
related to columnrelated to column
elements [25,27]elements
working
[25,27]
as a jacketing system. In fact, CAM is a jacketing system composed by steel angles locatedangles
working as a jacketing system. In fact, CAM is a jacketing system composed by steel at the
located at the corners
cross-section cross-section
(Figurecorners (Figureby1),stainless
1), enveloped enveloped
steelby stainless
ribbons ablesteel ribbons
to provide able to provide
confinement effects
confinement effects
to the concrete and to the concrete
additional shearand additional
resistance shear
as also resistancebyasEC8
suggested also[28].
suggested by EC8 [28].

Angles Stainless steel ribbons

Mortar beds
b

Figure 1. Typical configuration of jacketing interventions with the CAM technique.

Figure 1. Typical configuration of jacketing interventions with the CAM technique.
The effect of the wrapping ribbons is also intended to drastically reduce bond-slips of angles
The effect
reducing globalofstrength
the wrapping
decays. ribbons
However, is in
also intended
order to the
to exploit drastically reduce bond-slips
flexural strength of angles
increase, angles must
reducing global strength decays. However,
be effectively connected to the framing members [26]. in order to exploit the flexural strength increase, angles
must be effectively
Jacketing connected through
interventions to the framing
the CAM members
system[26].
differ from traditional ones for the presence
Jacketing
of ribbons interventions
instead through
of steel plates the CAMthe
connecting system differ
angles. from traditional
Ribbons ones
are flexible, forand
easy, the fast
presence of
to apply
ribbons instead of steel plates connecting the angles. Ribbons are flexible,
during strengthening works [29]. They are applied through a specific tool able to provide them with easy, and fast to apply
during strengthening
the required pre-stress. works
The[29]. They of
presence aremortar
applied through
beds betweena specific
anglestool
andable to provide
corners them withis
of RC members
the required
necessary topre-stress.
avoid stress The presence of mortar
concentrations and obtainbedsan between
effectiveangles and corners
connection between of them.
RC members
Moreover,is
necessary to avoid stress concentrations and obtain an effective connection between
apparent corrosion problems [30] related to the interaction of stainless and structural steel, are negligible them. Moreover,
apparent
due to thecorrosion problems
reduced contact [30]between
surface related theto the interaction
different of stainless
materials, and astructural
which allows proper lifesteel,
span are
[31].
negligible due to the reduced contact surface between the different materials,
The proposal of applying the CAM system to wide beam–column joints is related to the fact that which allows a proper
life span gravity
in both [31]. loads designed and seismically designed RC frame buildings, generally speaking,
The proposal
the column of applying
is stronger than the thebeam
CAM(due system to wide
to the smallbeam–column
depth of the joints
beam).is This
related to theincreasing
allows fact that
inthe
both gravity loads designed and seismically designed RC frame buildings,
beam flexure strength (and the whole frame lateral load carrying capacity) without triggering generally speaking, the
column is stronger than the beam (due to the small depth of the beam).
detrimental column mechanisms [10]. Therefore, upgrading interventions could be made, to some This allows increasing the
beam
extent,flexure
by onlystrength
acting on (and the whole
the beam, with frame
feasiblelateral load carrying
strengthening capacity) without triggering
techniques.
detrimental column mechanisms [10]. Therefore, upgrading
The main design problem is the evaluation of the steel angles’ cross section interventions could be made,
working to some
as additional
extent, by onlyreinforcement
longitudinal acting on the for beam,thewith
beamfeasible
with the strengthening
condition oftechniques.
avoiding yielding phenomena in the
The main design problem is the evaluation
column rebars, complying with capacity design principles. of the steel angles’ cross section working as
additional longitudinal reinforcement for the
Referring to Figure 2, the maximum column shear Vc depends beam with the condition of avoiding
on the yielding moment yielding
of the
phenomena in the column rebars, complying
column itself Myc according to rotation equilibrium condition.with capacity design principles.
Referring to Figure 2, the maximum column shear Vc depends on the yielding moment of the
column itself Myc according to rotation equilibrium condition.
Buildings
Buildings2020,
2020,10,
10,x203
FOR PEER REVIEW 44ofof16
15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

hc
hc

H
H

hb
hb
L
L
Figure
Figure2.2.Scheme
Schemeofofthe
thebeam–column
beam–columnjoint.
joint.
Figure 2. Scheme of the beam–column joint.
Then,
Then,thetherequired
requiredbeam’s
beam’sresisting
resistingmoment
momentin inthe
theupgraded
upgraded(u) (u)condition
conditioncan
canbebecomputed
computedas as
Then, the required beam’s resisting moment in the upgraded (u) condition can be computed as
𝑀MRd−u==22·M ∙ 𝑀 yc when
when hℎc and andhbℎareare small
small in comparison
in comparison to, to, respectively,
respectively, L and
L and H. H.
𝑀 = 2 ∙ 𝑀 when ℎ and ℎ are small in comparison to, respectively, L and H.
In
Inreal
realsituations
situationsititisispreferable
preferableto tochoose
chooseangles
angleswith
withdifferent
differentside
sidesizes
sizestotoobtain
obtainaafeasible
feasible
In real situations it is preferable to choose angles with different side sizes to obtain a feasible
arrangement
arrangementofofthe thesystem.
system.InInfact,
fact,the
thebeam
beamisisusually
usuallycast
castmonolithically
monolithicallywithwithslab
slaband,
and,therefore,
therefore,
arrangement of the system. In fact, the beam is usually cast monolithically with slab and, therefore,
placing
placingthethesteel
steelangles
anglesrequires
requiresattention
attentionto tothe
theslab
slabreinforcement
reinforcementcrossing
crossingthe
thebeam.
beam.Figure
Figure33shows
shows
placing the steel angles requires attention to the slab reinforcement crossing the beam. Figure 3 shows
the
thearrangement
arrangementofofangles
anglesininorder
ordertotoavoid
avoidinterference
interferencebetween
betweenangles
anglesand
andslab
slabreinforcement
reinforcementthat
that
the arrangement of angles in order to avoid interference between angles and slab reinforcement that
needs
needsto tobe
besurveyed
surveyedbefore
beforeinstalling
installingthe
thestrengthening
strengtheningsystem.
system.
needs to be surveyed before installing the strengthening system.
Angle Mortar bed
Angle Mortar bed
slab rebar pp
cc
slab rebar

slab beam slab

slab beam slab

Figure 3. Cross section detail of application of steel angles in real cases (before installing stainless
Figure 3. Cross section detail of application of steel angles in real cases (before installing stainless steel
steel ribbons).
Figure 3. Cross section detail of application of steel angles in real cases (before installing stainless steel
ribbons).
ribbons).
Layers of high-strength cement mortar (eventually fiber-reinforced) must be placed at each beam
Layers
corner of high-strength
to work as supporting cement
beds mortar
for (eventually
angles and avoid fiber-reinforced) must beof
excessive penetration placed at eachangles’
the vertical beam
Layers of high-strength cement mortar (eventually fiber-reinforced) must be placed at each beam
corner
sides to
intowork
thework as
slab assupporting
thickness. beds
Therefore,for angles
the and avoid
penetration excessive
p inside penetration
the slab of
thickness ofthe
must vertical angles’
corner supporting beds for angles and avoid excessive penetration thebe smaller
vertical than
angles’
sides
the in thec slab
cover of thickness.
the slab Therefore,
rebars, as shown theinpenetration
Figure 3. p insidebeds
Mortar the are
slabalso
thickness
able tomust be distribute
evenly smaller than
the
sides in the slab thickness. Therefore, the penetration p inside the slab thickness must be smaller than
the cover cbetween
pressure of the slab rebars,
angles and as
theshown
beam in Figure 3. Mortar beds are also able to evenly distribute the
corners.
the cover c of the slab rebars, as shown in Figure 3. Mortar beds are also able to evenly distribute the
pressure between
Finally, anglesnoting
it is worth and the beam
that the corners.
installation
pressure between angles and the beam corners. of the stainless-steel ribbons requires the presence
Finally,holes
of vertical it is worth
in the noting
slab to that the installation
connect the upper andof the stainless-steel
sides of theribbons requires the presence
Finally, it is worth noting that the installation oflower
the stainless-steel beam.
ribbons requires the presence
of vertical holes in the slab to connect the upper and lower sides of the beam.
of vertical holes in the slab to connect the upper and lower sides of the beam.
3. Experimental Program
3. Experimental Program
3. Experimental
For the scopeProgram
of this study, three identical samples (Figure 4a) are considered: one representing
For the scope of case
the unstrengthened this study,
(namedthree
TS2,identical samples
no upgrading was(Figure 4a) two
applied), are considered: one representing
additional specimens (named
For the scope of this study, three identical samples (Figure 4a) are considered: one representing
the
TS9unstrengthened
and TS10) equipped case (named TS2, noversions
with different upgrading was applied),
of CAM applied totwotheadditional
beam. specimens (named
the unstrengthened case (named TS2, no upgrading was applied), two additional specimens (named
TS9 and TS10) equipped with different versions of CAM applied to the beam.
TS9 and TS10) equipped with different versions of CAM applied to the beam.
Buildings
Buildings2020, 10,10,
2020, x FOR
203 PEER REVIEW 5 of 1615
5 of

C
3xRibbon @ 200
3xRibbon @ 100

(b)

(a)

Section C - C

Angles 57x82x8 mm Stainless steel ribbons

C
3 x Ribbon

X-conn.

C
3xRibbon @ 200
3xRibbon @ 100

(d)

(c)
Figure
Figure4. 4.
(a) (a)
Detailing of tested
Detailing (Z4)(Z4)
of tested as-built jointjoint
as-built specimen TS2, (b)
specimen TS2,strengthening solution
(b) strengthening for TS9for
solution
specimen, (c) strengthening
TS9 specimen, solution
(c) strengthening for TS10
solution specimen,
for TS10 (d) cross
specimen, section
(d) cross view
section of of
view thethe
beam
beaminin
strengthened
strengthened specimens.
specimens.

Theexterior
The exterior beam–column
beam–column joint
joint prototype
prototype (Figure
(Figure 4a)4a) belongs
belongs to anto internal
an internal frame
frame of an ofRC
an 4-
RC
4-storeys building having story height of 3.2 m. The wide beam has width equal
storeys building having story height of 3.2 m. The wide beam has width equal to 600 mm and depth to 600 mm and depth
300××300 2 . The beam is provided with four
ofof240
240mmmmwhile
whilethethecolumn
columnhas hassquare
squarecross
crossSection
Section300 300mmmm 2. The beam is provided with four
rebars at both the top and the bottom of the cross section, two
rebars at both the top and the bottom of the cross section, two of which are of which areanchored
anchoredininthe thecolumn
column
coreand
core andthe
theremaining
remainingareareoutoutofofthe
theconfined
confinedbeam–column
beam–columnjoint.joint.
Electromagneticscanning
Electromagnetic scanninginvestigation
investigationon onspecimens
specimensallowed
allowedtotocheck
checkthetheposition
positionofofsteel
steel cages
cages
compared to the design provision. Few differences were found about the
compared to the design provision. Few differences were found about the concrete cover size of theconcrete cover size of the
beamlongitudinal
beam longitudinalrebars.
rebars.Larger
Largercover
covervalues
valuesforfor the
the top
top and
and the
the bottom
bottom (80(80 and
and 4040
mm,mm, respectively)
respectively)
rebars were found for all the three
rebars were found for all the three specimens.specimens.
The specific axial load was set equal to ν = 0.15, where ν = N/(𝑏 ∙ ℎ ∙ 𝑓 ) (N is the axial load, b
and h are width and height of the column section, and fcm is the mean cylinder compressive strength
of concrete).
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 6 of 15

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

The specific axial load was set equal to ν = 0.15, where ν = N/(b·h· fcm ) (N is the axial load, b and
h are width and height of the column section, and fcm is the mean cylinder compressive strength
The subassemblies details matched those prescribed for structures located in the lowest
of concrete).
seismicity zone (Z4), where the design peak ground acceleration ag is equal to 0.05 g. Although the
The subassemblies details matched those prescribed for structures located in the lowest seismicity
specimens were seismically designed, steel reinforcement was almost the minimum requested by the
zone (Z4), where the design peak ground acceleration ag is equal to 0.05 g. Although the specimens
seismic code.
were seismically designed, steel reinforcement was almost the minimum requested by the seismic code.
The materials’ mechanical properties (concrete and steel) of the three specimens, were assessed
The materials’ mechanical properties (concrete and steel) of the three specimens, were assessed
before the seismic tests. Cubic concrete samples were collected during casting and subjected to
before the seismic tests. Cubic concrete samples were collected during casting and subjected to standard
standard compression tests. The mean cylinder strength was fcm equal to 21.5 MPa with negligible
compression tests. The mean cylinder strength was fcm equal to 21.5 MPa with negligible variation
variation among the three specimens. As for the steel, the mean value of yielding stress was fy = 480
among the three specimens. As for the steel, the mean value of yielding stress was fy = 480 MPa,
MPa, while the failure stress was found to be equal to ft = 590 MPa. Ductility of steel was characterized
while the failure stress was found to be equal to ft = 590 MPa. Ductility of steel was characterized by
by the failure strain εu = 11.4%. Hence, the used steel matched the class B450C according to the current
the failure strain εu = 11.4%. Hence, the used steel matched the class B450C according to the current
Italian structural code [32] and the hot rolled steel of class C according to EC2 [33]. The adopted
Italian structural code [32] and the hot rolled steel of class C according to EC2 [33]. The adopted
stainless steel for ribbons was of class C1000 according to UNI-EN 10088-4 [29] with yielding stress
stainless steel for ribbons was of class C1000 according to UNI-EN 10088-4 [29] with yielding stress
fys = 240 MPa and failure stress ftk = 540 MPa.
fys = 240 MPa and failure stress ftk = 540 MPa.
The idea of upgrading only on the beam was based on the observation that the as-built specimen
The idea of upgrading only on the beam was based on the observation that the as-built specimen
previously tested showed a weak beam-strong column mechanism [10]. Therefore, it is possible to
previously tested showed a weak beam-strong column mechanism [10]. Therefore, it is possible to
increase only the beam strength while guaranteeing that the column remains “strong” in the
increase only the beam strength while guaranteeing that the column remains “strong” in the upgraded
upgraded condition, according to Section 2. The two different versions of the upgrading system do
condition, according to Section 2. The two different versions of the upgrading system do not differ in
not differ in terms of angles cross section area but only in terms of confinement ribbons arrangement
terms of angles cross section area but only in terms of confinement ribbons arrangement as shown
as shown later. Then, the design of steel angles is made in the same way as follows.
later. Then, the design of steel angles is made in the same way as follows.
Remembering that 𝑀 = 2 ∙ 𝑀 and considering the material properties, geometry and
Remembering that M = 2·M yc and considering the material properties, geometry and detailing
detailing reported above,Rd−u the required beam resisting moment is 𝑀 = 190 kNm. The maximum
reported above, the required beam resisting moment is MRd−u = 190 kNm. The maximum resisting
resisting moment of the beam in the as-built condition is the sagging one (causing tensile stresses in
moment of the beam in the as-built condition is the sagging one (causing tensile stresses in the bottom
the bottom rebars) equal to MRd = 61 kNm.
rebars) equal to MRd = 61 kNm.
The area of structural steel to be added under the shape of angles to increase MRd up to MRd-u can
The area of structural steel to be added under the shape of angles to increase MRd up to MRd−u can
be computed by the ultimate limit state method. In doing this, it must be considered that structural
be computed by the ultimate limit state method. In doing this, it must be considered that structural
steel (class S355 according to EC3) of angles has a yielding stress fyk = 355 MPa smaller than the
steel (class S355 according to EC3) of angles has a yielding stress fyk = 355 MPa smaller than the yielding
yielding stress of rebars fy = 480 MPa with a ratio ρy = fy/fyk = 1.35.
stress of rebars fy = 480 MPa with a ratio ρy = fy /f = 1.35.
The required angles’ area is Aa = 16.44 cm2 yk that multiplied by ρy leads to an effective area Aa,eff =
The required angles’ area is A a = 16.44 cm 2 that multiplied by ρy leads to an effective area
22.00 cm2 corresponding to two angles 57 × 82 × 8 mm that must be placed at bottom corners of the
Aa,eff = 22.00 cm2 corresponding to two angles 57 × 82 × 8 mm that must be placed at bottom corners
beam. The same elements are placed at the top corners.
of the beam. The same elements are placed at the top corners.
Figures 4b and 5 show the configuration of TS9 upgrading system. The angles have dimensions
Figures 4b and 5 show the configuration of TS9 upgrading system. The angles have dimensions
57 × 82 × 8 mm and are made of steel class S355 with yielding stress equal to fyk = 355 MPa.
57 × 82 × 8 mm and are made of steel class S355 with yielding stress equal to fyk = 355 MPa.

(a) (b)

Figure5.5.TS9
Figure TS9Specimen:
Specimen:(a)
(a)whole
wholearrangement
arrangementand
and(b)
(b)detail
detailofofthe
theangles’
angles’connection.
connection.

They are laid on the beam corners and enveloped with assemblies of three superimposed
stainless-steel ribbons, with spacing variable in the range 100–200 mm. The ribbons are provided with
19 × 0.9mm section and are prestressed at about 150 MPa by means of an automated tool. It is worth
noting that no ribbons are placed in the beam–column intersection region. In correspondence to the
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

back end
Buildings of 10,
2020, the203
beam, steel plates welded to the angles (Figure 5b) provide some passive confinement
7 of 15
effect and further anchorage to the angles in case of slippage phenomena.
In Figures 4c and 6, TS10 strengthening configuration is shown, being similar to that one of TS9
They are laid on the beam corners and enveloped with assemblies of three superimposed
specimen.
stainless-steel ribbons, with spacing variable in the range 100–200 mm. The ribbons are provided with
The only important change is related to ribbons placed at the back end of the beam. As can be
19 × 0.9 mm section and are prestressed at about 150 MPa by means of an automated tool. It is worth
seen, angles are enveloped by three additional superimposed ribbons providing an active
noting that no ribbons are placed in the beam–column intersection region. In correspondence to the
confinement action in a high stress region, when subjected to seismic loads. To allow these ribbons
back end of the beam, steel plates welded to the angles (Figure 5b) provide some passive confinement
to be placed, angles were 60 mm longer with respect to the back end of the beam (Figures 4c and 6a).
effect and further anchorage to the angles in case of slippage phenomena.
Further, to avoid overstressing of steel angles, on the beam’s back end X-shaped steel devices
In Figures 4c and 6, TS10 strengthening configuration is shown, being similar to that one of
were placed (Figure 6b).
TS9 specimen.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. TS10
Figure TS10Specimen: (a) whole
Specimen: arrangement
(a) whole and (b)
arrangement anddetail
(b) of the angles’
detail of the connection by X-shaped
angles’ connection by
elements.elements.
X-shaped

The only
These important
latter change
can yield is of
in case related to ribbons
bond-slip placed
affecting at the
angles, in back
orderend of theforce
to limit beam. As can be
applicable to
seen, angles
the beam are ends.
back enveloped by three additional superimposed ribbons providing an active confinement
action in a high stress region, when subjected to seismic loads. To allow these ribbons to be placed,
3.1. Test
angles Apparatus
were 60 mm longer with respect to the back end of the beam (Figures 4c and 6a).
Further, to avoid overstressing of steel angles, on the beam’s back end X-shaped steel devices
In order to simulate seismic loads, experimental tests were performed applying horizontal
were placed (Figure 6b).
displacements at the upper end of the column (Figure 7).
These latter can yield in case of bond-slip affecting angles, in order to limit force applicable to the
beam back ends.

Test Apparatus
In order to simulate seismic loads, experimental tests were performed applying horizontal
displacements at the upper end of the column (Figure 7).
The boundary conditions were devoted to obtaining stresses distributions like those in moment
resisting frames when subjected to seismic loads. All the tests were made by holding always the same
value of axial load on the column (equal to 15% of the ultimate value, i.e., N = 290 kN), which was
applied by a hydraulic jack placed in vertical position. The apparatus for the application of axial load
was realized to have at every time the same inclination of the column, in order to avoid dangerous
p-delta effects. Tests were cyclic quasi static, and displacement controlled according to a rate of 4 mm/s.
The total drift in terms of ratio between displacement and height of the subassemblies, was equal to
0.06, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 2.00, 2.50, 3.00, 3.50, 4.00%. To monitor the specimens’ behaviour,
three load cells recorded the axial load acting on the column, the beam reaction, and the horizontal
force exerted by the actuator onFigure 7. Testend
the upper apparatus
of the with specimen TS2.
column.

The boundary conditions were devoted to obtaining stresses distributions like those in moment
resisting frames when subjected to seismic loads. All the tests were made by holding always the same
 These latter can yield in case of bond-slip affecting angles, in order to limit force applicable to
the beam back ends.

3.1. Test Apparatus

In 2020,
Buildings order10, to
203simulate
seismic loads, experimental tests were performed applying horizontal
8 of 15
displacements at the upper end of the column (Figure 7).

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

value of axial load on the column (equal to 15% of the ultimate value, i.e., N = 290 kN), which was
applied by a hydraulic jack placed in vertical position. The apparatus for the application of axial load
was realized to have at every time the same inclination of the column, in order to avoid dangerous
p-delta effects. Tests were cyclic quasi static, and displacement controlled according to a rate of 4
mm/s. The total drift in terms of ratio between displacement and height of the subassemblies, was
equal to 0.06, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 2.00, 2.50, 3.00, 3.50, 4.00%. To monitor the specimens’
behaviour, three load cells recorded
Figure the
7.
Figure 7.
axial
Test load acting on the column, the beam reaction, and the
apparatus with specimen TS2.
horizontal force exerted by the actuator on the upper end of the column.
Deformations
The boundarywere monitored
conditions werethrough
devotedsix transducers
to obtaining (LVDTs)
(LVDTs)
stresses placed on
placed on the
distributions the column
like column
those in(P1–P6
momentin
Figure 8),
Figure 8),frames
resisting 88 on
on the
the beam
beam
when (T1–T8),toand
(T1–T8),
subjected and 44 on
on the
seismic the beam
beam
loads. sides
All sides
the intowere
into
tests the column
the column depth
made bydepth (N1–N4).
(N1–N4).
holding always the same
P2

150
P1

T7 - T8
T2 T1
P5

BEAM N1
N2
120
P6

T4 T3
T5 - T6
P3

COLUMN
P4

Figure 8. Layout of instruments.

Figure 8.

Further
Further information
information related
related to
to the
the test
test apparatus
apparatus can
can be
be found
found in
in[10].
[10].
4. Analysis of Results
4. Analysis of Results
This section is devoted to illustrating and discussing the damage mechanisms observed during the
This section is devoted to illustrating and discussing the damage mechanisms observed during
experiments as well as quantifying the seismic performance increase in terms of lateral load-carrying
the experiments as well as quantifying the seismic performance increase in terms of lateral load-
capacity and energy dissipation provided by the upgraded specimens.
carrying capacity and energy dissipation provided by the upgraded specimens.
4.1. Damage Mechanisms
4.1. Damage Mechanisms
Even though a brittle post-peak behaviour was observed for all the specimens, being the damage
Even though a brittle post-peak behaviour was observed for all the specimens, being the damage
essentially concentrated on the beam, a strong column-weak beam post-elastic behaviour was observed
essentially concentrated on the beam, a strong column-weak beam post-elastic behaviour was
in accordance with the code prescriptions. Figure 9 shows the cracks on one side of the subassemblies
observed in accordance with the code prescriptions. Figure 9 shows the cracks on one side of the
after the tests imposing a drift equal to 3%.
subassemblies after the tests imposing a drift equal to 3%.
Buildings 2020,10,
Buildings2020, 10,203
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99of
of15
16
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 9. Damage patterns

Damagepatterns visible
patterns at 3.0%
visible drift.
at 3.0% Green hatches
drift. represent spalled or nearly spalled
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Damage visible at 3.0% drift. GreenGreen hatches
hatches represent
represent spalledspalled or spalled
or nearly nearly
regions.
spalled regions.
regions.

Two sub-verticalcracks
Two cracks areobserved
observed inTS2 TS2 (unstrengthened)specimen,specimen, highlightingdamage damage
Two sub-vertical
sub-vertical cracks are are observed in in TS2(unstrengthened)
(unstrengthened) specimen, highlighting
highlighting damage
effectsrelated
effects relatedto toflexure
flexurestresses
stresseson onthe
thebeam.
beam.Because
Becauseof ofthe
theupgrading
upgradingintervention,
intervention,TS9 TS9and
andTS10
TS10
effects related to flexure stresses on the beam. Because of the upgrading intervention, TS9 and TS10
did
did not show this kind of damage.
did not
not show
show this
this kind
kind ofof damage.
damage.
Concerning the
Concerning the sides
sides ofof the beam
beam within the the beam–column intersection,
intersection, all specimens
specimens were
Concerning the sides of the the beam within
within the beam–column
beam–column intersection, all all specimens were were
affected
affected by
by inclined
inclined cracks
cracks due
due to
to high
high shear
shear stresses
stresses generated
generated by
by beam
beam rebars,
rebars, the
the absence of
absence of the
the
affected by inclined cracks due to high shear stresses generated by beam rebars, the absence of the
confining effectdue
confining due to thecompressive
compressive axialload, load, and of specific confining reinforcement. The latter
confiningeffect
effect duetotothethe compressiveaxial axial load,andandofofspecific
specificconfining
confining reinforcement.
reinforcement. The
Thelatter is
latter
is mainly
mainly responsible
responsible of of
thethe load
load drop
drop after
after the
the peak
peak inin allthe
all thespecimens.
specimens.InInfact,
fact,damage
damageon onbeam’s
beam’s
is mainly responsible of the load drop after the peak in all the specimens. In fact, damage on beam’s
sides didnot
sides not allowthe the beamrebarsrebars (andangles
angles in upgradedspecimens)
specimens) working properly, causing
sides did
did notallow
allow thebeam beam rebars(and (and anglesininupgraded
upgraded specimens)working workingproperly,
properly, causing
causing a
a strength
strength degradation.
degradation.
a strength degradation.
Although similarcrack
Although crack patterns were observed, significant differences were found inextent.
their
Although similar
similar crackpatterns
patterns were observed,
were observed,significant differences
significant were were
differences found in theirin
found their
extent.
Figure Figure 10 displays the stroke of LVDT named N2 (see Figure 8) representing the diagonal
extent.10 displays
Figure the strokethe
10 displays of LVDT
stroke named
of LVDT N2 named
(see Figure 8) representing
N2 (see the diagonal the
Figure 8) representing deformation
diagonal
deformation
of the beam of the
side as beam side
function of as function
the number of the number
loading cycles ofperformed
loading cycles performed
between drift between
values drift
of 0.50%
deformation of the beam side as function of the number of loading cycles performed between drift
values
and of
4% of 0.50%
(three and
cycles 4% (three cycles are carried out for each drift amplitude with 30 cycles in total)
values 0.50% andare
4%carried
(three out forare
cycles each drift amplitude
carried out for each with 30 cycles
drift in total)
amplitude withwhere strokeinvalues
30 cycles total)
where stroke values (elongation/shortening
(elongation/shortening measured by the LVDT)measured
were bynegligible.
not the LVDT) were not negligible.
where stroke values (elongation/shortening measured by the LVDT) were not negligible.

Figure 10. Stroke

Figure10. Stroke of
ofN2
N2transducer
transducerversus
versusnumber
numberof
ofloading
loadingcycles.
cycles.
Figure 10. Stroke of N2 transducer versus number of loading cycles.
As
As can
canbebeseen,
seen,TS2
TS2and
andTS9
TS9specimens
specimens show
show thethe largest
largest stroke
strokevalues
values indicating
indicating aa high
high crack
crack
As
opening can
that be seen,
reach 13.5TS2
mmand
forTS9
TS9 specimens
and 9.0 mm show
for the
TS2 largest
with a stroke
marked values indicating
divergent trend. a
Thehigh crack
diagonal
opening that reach 13.5 mm for TS9 and 9.0 mm for TS2 with a marked divergent trend. The diagonal
opening that in
deformation reach 13.5 mm for TS9 and 9.0 mm for TS2larger
with a marked divergent trend.the
The diagonal
deformation in the the examined
examined region
region of
of TS9
TS9 isis even
even larger thanthan that
that of
of TS2
TS2 due
due toto the increased
increased
deformation
resisting in the examined region of TS9 is even larger than that of TS2 due to the increased
resistingmoment
momentofofthethe beam
beamin absence of an
in absence ofeffective concrete
an effective confinement
concrete where where
confinement rebars and angles
rebars and
resisting
are moment
anchored. of the beam in absence of an effective concrete confinement where rebars and
angles are anchored.
anglesOn are anchored.
On the
the contrary,
contrary,specimen
specimenTS10
TS10shows
showssignificantly
significantly better
better results
results with
with aamaximum
maximum diagonal
diagonal
On
deformationthe contrary, specimen TS10 shows significantly better results with a maximum diagonal
deformation of about 2.5
of about 2.5mm
mmwithwithmuch
muchless
lessdivergence
divergence ofof
thethe crack
crack opening,
opening, indicating
indicating thatthat the
the rear
deformation of about 2.5 mm with much less divergence of the crack opening, indicating that the rear
stainless-steel ribbons have a great influence on the damage extent. This is even more surprising
stainless-steel ribbons have a great influence on the damage extent. This is even more surprising
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 10 of 15

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

rear stainless-steel ribbons have a great influence on the damage extent. This is even more surprising
considering
considering thatthat
TS10 provides
TS10 betterbetter
provides seismic performance
seismic of TS9 and,
performance obviously,
of TS9 TS2. This isTS2.
and, obviously, confirmed
This is
byconfirmed
the side views
by theinside
Figure 9 where
views TS10 9shows
in Figure whereless damage
TS10 showsthan
lessother
damage specimens withspecimens
than other fewer cracks
with
offewer
small cracks
opening of while TS2 shows
small opening spalling
while phenomena
TS2 shows and
spalling TS9 has more
phenomena andcracks
TS9 has and a near
more spalled
cracks and a
region at the rear
near spalled end at
region of the
the rear
beam. end of the beam.
ToTobetter understand
better understand these
theseaspects, Figure
aspects, Figure1111
shows
showsthe
thestroke recorded
stroke recorded byby
LVDT
LVDT “T7”
“T7” (negative
(negative
values are elongations) being proportional to the beam deformation at interface with column,
values are elongations) being proportional to the beam deformation at interface with column, during during the
tests
theon theon
tests three specimens
the three at a drift
specimens at avalue equal equal
drift value to 3.0%.
to 3.0%.

Figure Stroke
11.11.
Figure ofof
Stroke T7T7
transducer versus
transducer number
versus ofof
number loading cycle
loading during
cycle tests
during at at
tests 3.0% drift.
3.0% drift.

AsAscancanbebeseen,
seen,specimen
specimenTS9 TS9shows
showsa asmaller
smallerbeam
beamrotation
rotationcompared
comparedtotoTS2, TS2,which
whichis is
counterbalanced
counterbalanced bybythethe
larger diagonal
larger deformation
diagonal deformationpreviously
previouslyhighlighted. Moreover,
highlighted. Moreover, TS10 shows
TS10 a
shows
furtherly smaller beam rotation than TS9. This means that, based on the same total imposed
a furtherly smaller beam rotation than TS9. This means that, based on the same total imposed drift drift (3.0%),
TS10 experiences
(3.0%), a larger column
TS10 experiences a largerdeformation. In agreement
column deformation. with the latter,
In agreement looking
with the latter,tolooking
the column
to the
members, TS2 shows absence of cracks, while TS9 and TS10 show some cracks due
column members, TS2 shows absence of cracks, while TS9 and TS10 show some cracks due to the to the higher flexural
strength
higher of the beam,
flexural determining
strength higherdetermining
of the beam, moment stresses
higherin moment
columns stresses
and related deformations.
in columns and related
deformations.
4.2. Seismic Performances

4.2.The seismic
Seismic behaviour of investigated specimens is firstly evaluated in terms of load–drift
Performances
envelopes (i.e., lateral load vs. drift). To this end, the main results (depicted in Figure 12) are also
The seismic behaviour of investigated specimens is firstly evaluated in terms of load–drift
summarized in Table 1, in terms of maximum and minimum load values Fmax and Fmin , respectively
envelopes (i.e., lateral load vs. drift). To this end, the main results (depicted in Figure 12) are also
(positive loading is such that the beam is subjected to sagging moment, i.e., tensile stress in the bottom
summarized in Table 1, in terms of maximum and minimum load values Fmax and Fmin, respectively
rebars); drift values at which Fmax and Fmin are achieved, namely d(Fmax ) and d(Fmin ); ultimate positive
(positive loading is such that the beam is subjected to sagging moment, i.e., tensile stress in the bottom
(du+ ) and negative (du- ) drift values.
rebars); drift values at which Fmax and Fmin are achieved, namely d(Fmax) and d(Fmin); ultimate positive
(du+) and negative (du-) drift values.
Table 1. Comparison of seismic performances of investigated specimens.

Test Fmax Fmax1./FComparison

Table max_TS2 ofmax
d(F seismic
) performances
du+ Fmin /Fmin_TS2
Fminof investigated specimens.
d(Fmin ) du-
(kN)
Test Fmax Fmax/Fmax_TS2 (%)
d(Fmax) (%)du+ F(kN)
min Fmin/Fmin_TS2 d(Fmin(%)
) du- (%)
TS2 20.96 1.00 2.00 2.70 −14.00 1.00 −2.00 −3.20
TS9 27.97 (kN) 1.33 2.00(%) (%)
2.80 (kN)
−21.87 1.56 (%)−2.00 (%) −2.80
TS10 TS2
30.10 20.96 1.43 1.00 2.002.00 2.70
3.00 −14.00
−27.00 1.00
1.92 −2.00−2.00−3.20 −2.90
TS9 27.97 1.33 2.00 2.80 −21.87 1.56 −2.00 −2.80
TS10 30.10 1.43 2.00 3.00 −27.00 1.92 −2.00 −2.90
Buildings 2020,
Buildings 10,10,
2020, x FOR
203 PEER REVIEW 11 11
of of
16 15

Figure 12. Load–drift envelopes of specimens TS2, TS9 and TS10.

Figure 12. Load–drift envelopes of specimens TS2, TS9 and TS10.
Further, the ratio between maximum, Fmax /Fmax_TS2 , and minimum, Fmin /Fmin_TS2 , loads observed
Further, the ratio between maximum, Fmax/Fmax_TS2, and minimum, Fmin/Fmin_TS2, loads observed in
in the upgraded subassemblies compared to that of specimen TS2 are reported in Table 1. Firstly,
the upgraded subassemblies compared to that of specimen TS2 are reported in Table 1. Firstly, it must
it must be noted that behaviour of the three specimens is not symmetric, with significant differences
be noted that behaviour of the three specimens is not symmetric, with significant differences between
between max and min load values. This depends on the difference in terms of the beam rebars’ concrete
max and min load values. This depends on the difference in terms of the beam rebars’ concrete cover
cover as mentioned before. However, asymmetry is smaller for upgraded specimens.
as mentioned before. However, asymmetry is smaller for upgraded specimens.
The ultimate drift du was conventionally evaluated according to [34] as that drift value where
The ultimate drift du was conventionally evaluated according to [34] as that drift value where a
a strength decay of 20% is found compared to the maximum force. Table 1 also shows that the
strength decay of 20% is found compared to the maximum force. Table 1 also shows that the increase
increase of the maximum load values due to the upgrading systems is significant. For positive loads,
of the maximum load values due to the upgrading systems is significant. For positive loads,
subassemblies TS9 and TS10 show increases of 33% and 43% compared to TS2, respectively.
subassemblies TS9 and TS10 show increases of 33% and 43% compared to TS2, respectively.
For negative load, the capacity increase is even larger and equal to 56% for TS9 and 92% for TS10.
For negative load, the capacity increase is even larger and equal to 56% for TS9 and 92% for TS10.
Looking at Figure 13, significant force increments for the strengthened specimens can be noted also for
Looking at Figure 13, significant force increments for the strengthened specimens can be noted also
low drift values (less than 1.0%).
for low drift values (less than 1.0%).
This latter is due to the delayed cracking of the beam’s cross section and has significant benefits
in terms of whole stiffness. Therefore, the strengthened specimens are expected to behave much
better also with respect to damage limitation states providing an appreciable reduction of damage to
non-structural components (e.g., infills).
In terms of ultimate deformation capacity du , small differences between unstrengthened and
strengthened specimens are observed: ultimate drift values do not exceed 3.2% and the maximum
value is achieved by TS2 specimen for negative loads.
It can be noted that the response of the two upgraded subassemblies (TS9 and TS10) is similar
until the drift is below 1.0%. Afterwards, the heavier damage in the angles’ anchorage zone influenced
the flexural resistance of the beam and, therefore, the capacity of TS9 subassembly.
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 12 of 15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Figure 13. Load–drift skeleton curves deriving from cyclic tests.

This latter is due to the delayed cracking of the beam’s cross section and has significant benefits
in terms of whole stiffness. Therefore, the strengthened specimens are expected to behave much
better also with respect to damage limitation states providing an appreciable reduction of damage to
non-structural components (e.g., infills).
In terms of ultimate deformation capacity du, small differences between unstrengthened and
strengthened specimens are observed: ultimate drift values do not exceed 3.2% and the maximum
value is achieved by TS2 specimen for negative loads.
It can be noted that the response of the two upgraded subassemblies (TS9 and TS10) is similar
until the drift is below 1.0%. Afterwards, the heavier damage in the angles’ anchorage zone
influenced the flexural resistance of the beam and, therefore, the capacity of TS9 subassembly.
Figure 13.
Due to this, the Figure 13.Load–drift
load carryingLoad–drift skeleton
capacityskeleton curves
curvesderiving
of specimen deriving from
fromcyclic
TS9 rapidly cyclic tests.
reducestests.
(especially for negative
loading),
Due tobecause
this, the ofloadthecarrying
reducedcapacity
efficiency of upperTS9
of specimen steel angles.
rapidly This did
reduces not happen
(especially to TS10
for negative
This latter
specimen, due istodue
the topresence
the delayedof cracking ofribbons
additional the beam’s cross
placed at section
the backandendhasofsignificant
the beam, benefits
able to
loading), because of the reduced efficiency of upper steel angles. This did not happen to TS10 specimen,
in terms
strongly of whole stiffness.
reduce bond-slip Therefore,
effects the
andplaced strengthened
providing specimens are expected to behave much
due to the presence of additional ribbons at the beneficial
back end ofconfinement
the beam, able to to
the beam–column
strongly reduce
better also with respect to damage limitation states providing an appreciable reduction of damage to
intersection.
bond-slip effects and providing beneficial confinement to the beam–column intersection.
non-structural
Figure1414 components
shows (e.g., infills).
Figure shows thethe dissipated
dissipated energy
energy computed
computed as theasaverage
the average
value value
amongamong theload
the three three load
cycles
In terms
cycles performed of ultimate
at each deformation
drift level. capacity d u, small differences between unstrengthened and
performed at each drift level.
strengthened specimens are observed: ultimate drift values do not exceed 3.2% and the maximum
value is achieved by TS2 specimen for negative loads.
It can be noted that the response of the two upgraded subassemblies (TS9 and TS10) is similar
until the drift is below 1.0%. Afterwards, the heavier damage in the angles’ anchorage zone
influenced the flexural resistance of the beam and, therefore, the capacity of TS9 subassembly.
Due to this, the load carrying capacity of specimen TS9 rapidly reduces (especially for negative
loading), because of the reduced efficiency of upper steel angles. This did not happen to TS10
specimen, due to the presence of additional ribbons placed at the back end of the beam, able to
strongly reduce bond-slip effects and providing beneficial confinement to the beam–column
intersection.
Figure 14 shows the dissipated energy computed as the average value among the three load
cycles performed at each drift level.

Figure 14.Mean
Figure14. Meandissipated
dissipatedenergy
energyper
perload
loadcycle
cycleasasfunction
functionofofdrift.
drift.

TheThestrengthened
strengthenedspecimens
specimensdissipate
dissipatemuch
muchmore
moreenergy
energythan
thanthe
thebenchmark
benchmarkspecimen
specimen(TS2),
(TS2),
even
even for low drift values (less than 1.50%). Above 2.0% drift, the dissipated energysignificantly
for low drift values (less than 1.50%). Above 2.0% drift, the dissipated energy significantly
increases
increasesforforall
allthe
thespecimens
specimensdue duetotoyielding
yieldingofofbeam
beamlongitudinal
longitudinalrebars.
rebars.Energy
EnergyofofTS9
TS9starts
startstoto
differ from TS10 due to the above-mentioned heavier damage, although it remains
differ from TS10 due to the above-mentioned heavier damage, although it remains higher than higher than thatthat
of
TS2. From
of TS2. the the
From energy dissipation
energy point
dissipation of view,
point thethe
of view, strengthening
strengthening solution
solutionofof
specimen
specimenTS10
TS10shows
shows
better performances and clearly points out the importance of providing an active confinement also in
the rear part of the beam whenever possible.

4.3. Design Recommendations

Experimental results clearly show that the proposed retrofit solutions are effective in increasing the
seismic performanceFigure 14. Mean dissipated
of investigated specimens energy per load
without cycle as function
modifying strengthofhierarchy
drift. between beam
and column, although this should be always object of careful evaluations in order to avoid detrimental
The
effects. strengthened
The specimens
solution proposed fordissipate
specimenmuchTS10more
shows energy
that itthan
is ofthe benchmark
paramount specimen using
importance (TS2),
even for low
measures drift values
to provide (lesseffects
confining than 1.50%). Above
in the rear part2.0%
of thedrift,
beam, thewhere
dissipated energyare
steel angles significantly
anchored.
increases for all the specimens due to yielding of beam longitudinal rebars. Energy
This can have a beneficial influence on the post-peak behaviour and energy dissipation, making of TS9 starts to
this
differ from TS10 due to the above-mentioned heavier damage, although it remains higher than that
of TS2. From the energy dissipation point of view, the strengthening solution of specimen TS10 shows
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 13 of 15

solution preferable compared to that one applied to specimen TS9. From a design perspective, for the
beam–column joints here studied, the beam resisting moment in the upgraded condition MRd−u has
been computed in order to not exceed the value needed to yield the column member. This latter
derived from simple equilibrium conditions. Therefore, the area of steel angles can be calculated in
order to achieve a resisting moment of the beam equal to MRd−u . In doing this, using the Ultimate
Limit State calculations for RC sections in case of flexure, it is necessary to remember that angles are
usually made of ordinary steel while ribbed reinforcing bars are of a different grade normally provided
with different strength (see Section 3). It means that a homogenization coefficient should be used to
convert angles area in rebars area.
Finally, to propose a complete upgrading solution, details of application have also been reported,
paying attention to the real feasibility of the strengthening solution. Careful evaluation of the slab
rebars’ concrete cover must be performed before starting to apply the strengthening techniques,
and high-strength concrete beds must be realized to position angles in the right way and avoid stress
concentrations. The proposed strengthening solution can significantly upgrade seismic capacity of
wide beam–column joints even though design calculation should be based on a Knowledge Level 3
(KL3, [28,32]), i.e., the maximum. This is because the details and material properties of RC members
and, especially of the column, should be free of uncertainties, in order to obtain reliable design
calculations, avoiding weak-column behaviour.

5. Conclusions
The main aim of this study is to explore the possibility of applying the steel jacketing technique to
strengthen wide beams in RC frame buildings by using the well-known CAM system. Specifically,
the proposed approach is based on exploiting the exceedance of flexural strength that columns typically
have with respect to framing wide beams. This allows upgrading only the beams, resulting in a simpler
and cheaper seismic strengthening.
After a description of the design procedure, the results of experimental tests on three full scale RC
wide beam–column joints are presented and discussed, pointing out the performances of two versions
of CAM-like jacketing system purposely arranged in configurations suitable for wide beams.
Test results show that:

• Seismic performances of strengthened specimens (in both TS9 and TS10 configuration) significantly
improved, especially in terms of lateral load carrying capacity;
• Strengthened specimens show higher stiffness and therefore are expected to behave better also
with respect to damage limitation states, thus providing a remarkable damage reduction to
non-structural components (e.g., infills);
• Upgraded specimen TS10 shows lower damage without nearly spalled regions that were found
instead for specimen TS9. This is also confirmed by the diagonal deformation measured on the
beam sides, whose values were much lower for TS10 specimen;
• Consequently, the strengthening arrangement adopted for TS10 is more effective due to the
active confinement provided in the rear part of the beam. This determines peak load increases
equal to 43% and 92% for positive and negative loading direction, respectively. TS9 provides
lower peak load increases equal to 33% and 56% due to the earlier damage and consequent
strength degradation;
• The strengthened specimens show remarkable increases also in terms of dissipated energy even for
low drift values and, once again, the solution applied to specimen TS10 appears better than TS9.

In summary, the upgrading solution for RC wide beam–column joints here proposed is feasible
and effective. When needed, strengthening only beam members is practicable, even though a careful
evaluation of the capacity design principles is required to guarantee the strong-column condition
according to the proposed design method and recommendations. In case column members were
not provided with enough flexural strength, some intervention should be carried out also on them,
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 14 of 15

however the intervention details here provided for wide beams remain valid and generally applicable.
Future research developments, based on experimental tests and/or numerical simulations, can help
to improve applicability and effectiveness of the proposed technique. Mainly, they would consist of:
(i) investigating on the role of the adjacent RC slab, (ii) limiting damage at beam sides due to anchorage
action of steel angles.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.S. and A.M.; methodology, G.S. and A.M.; software, G.S. and A.M.;
validation, G.S. and A.M.; formal analysis, G.S. and A.M.; investigation, G.S. and A.M.; resources, G.S. and A.M.;
data curation, G.S. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.S. and A.M.; writing—review and editing,
G.S. and A.M.; visualization, G.S. and A.M.; supervision, G.S. and A.M.; project administration, G.S. and A.M.;
funding acquisition, G.S. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by DPC-ReLUIS, grant number ReLUIS-DPC 2019-21 and The APC was
funded by RIL2020 fund of School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Italy.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the five anonymous reviewers which
have helped to improve the quality of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Santarsiero, G.; Di Sarno, L.; Giovinazzi, S.; Masi, A.; Cosenza, E.; Biondi, S. Performance of the healthcare
facilities during the 2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5701–5727.
[CrossRef]
2. Masi, A.; Santarsiero, G.; Chiauzzi, L. Development of a seismic risk mitigation methodology for public
buildings applied to the hospitals of Basilicata region (Southern Italy). Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 65, 30–42.
[CrossRef]
3. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. OPCM 3274 e s.m.i.—Allegato 2 Norme Tecniche per il Progetto, la
Valutazione e L’adeguamento Sismico Degli Edifici. G.U.; Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri: Rome, Italy,
2003. (In Italian)
4. ISTAT. 2011: XV Censimento Generale Della Popolazione e Delle Abitazioni. Available online: www.istat.it
(accessed on 10 September 2020).
5. LaFave, J.M.; White, J.K. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Exterior Wide Beam-column-slab Connection Subjected
to Lateral Earthquake Loading; Rep. No. UNCEE 97-01; Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1997.
6. Li, B.; Kulkarni, S. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete exterior wide beam-column joints. J. Struct. Eng.
2010, 136, 26–36. [CrossRef]
7. Benavent-Climent, A.; Cahís, X.; Zahran, R. Exterior wide beam-column connections in existing RC frames
subjected to lateral earthquake loads. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1414–1424. [CrossRef]
8. Gómez-Martínez, F.; Alonso-Durá, A.; De Luca, F.; Verderame, G.M. Ductility of wide-beam RC frames as
lateral resisting system. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 14, 1545–1569. [CrossRef]
9. López-Almansa, F.; Dominguez, D.; Benavent-Climent, A. Vulnerability analysis of RC buildings with wide
beams located in moderate seismicity regions. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 687–702. [CrossRef]
10. Masi, A.; Santarsiero, G. Seismic Tests on RC Building Exterior Joints with Wide Beams. Adv. Mater. Res.
2013, 787, 771–777. [CrossRef]
11. Elsouri, A.M.; Harajli, M.H. Interior RC wide beam-narrow column joints: Potential for improving seismic
resistance. Eng. Struct. 2015, 99, 42–55. [CrossRef]
12. Pakzad, A.; Khanmohammadi, M. Experimental cyclic behavior of code-conforming exterior wide
beam-column connections. Eng. Struct. 2020, 214, 110613. [CrossRef]
13. El-Sayed, A.K.; Al-Zaid, R.A.; Al-Negheimish, A.I.; Shuraim, A.B.; Alhozaimy, A.M. Long-term behavior of
wide shallow RC beams strengthened with externally bonded CFRP plates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51,
473–483. [CrossRef]
14. Realfonzo, R.; Napoli, A.; Ruiz Pinilla, J.G. Cyclic behavior of RC beam-column joints strengthened with FRP
Systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 282–297. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2020, 10, 203 15 of 15

15. Sasmal, S.; Ramanjaneyulu, K.; Novák, B.; Srinivas, V.; Saravana, K.K.; Korkowski, C.; Roehm, C.;
Lakshmanan, N.; Iyer, N.R. Seismic retrofitting of nonductile beam-column sub-assemblage using FRP
wrapping and steel plate jacketing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 175–182. [CrossRef]
16. Al-Obaidi, S.; Saeed, Y.M.; Rad, F.N. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with NSM-CFRP
bars using mechanical interlocking. J. Build Eng. 2020, 31, 101422. [CrossRef]
17. Yu, X.; Xing, G.; Chang, Z. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with near-surface
mounted 7075 aluminum alloy bars. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101393. [CrossRef]
18. Stephen, I.; Hughes, E.; Das, S. Reinforced concrete beams strengthened with basalt fibre fabric—parametric
study. Structures 2020, 27, 309–318. [CrossRef]
19. Maddah, A.; Golafshar, A.; Saghafi, M.H. 3D RC beam–column joints retrofitted by joint enlargement using
steel angles and post-tensioned bolts. Eng. Struct. 2020, 220, 110975. [CrossRef]
20. Sharbatdar, M.K.; Kheyroddin, A.; Emami, E. Cyclic performance of retrofitted reinforced concrete
beam–column joints using steel prop. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 287–294. [CrossRef]
21. Sharma, A.; Eligehausen, R.; Hofmann, J. Numerical modeling of joints retrofitted with haunch retrofit
solution. ACI Struct. J. 2014, 111, 861–872. [CrossRef]
22. Sharma, A.; Reddy, G.R.; Eligehausen, R.; Genesio, G.; Pampanin, S. Seismic response of RC frames with
haunch retrofit solution. ACI Struct. J. 2014, 111, 673–684.
23. Santarsiero, G. FE Modelling of the Seismic Behavior of Wide Beam-Column Joints Strengthened with CFRP
Systems. Buildings 2018, 8, 31. [CrossRef]
24. Masi, A.; Santarsiero, G.; Mossucca, A.; Nigro, D. Influence of Axial Load on the Seismic Behavior of RC
Beam-Column Joints with Wide Beam. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 508, 208–214. [CrossRef]
25. Dolce, M.; Cacosso, A.; Ponzo, F.C.; Marnetto, R. Concept, Experimental Validation and Application of
the CAM System. In Proceedings of the New Technologies for the Structural Rehabilitation of Masonry
Constructions: Seminar “The Intervention on Built Heritage: Conservation and Rehabilitation Practices”
Invited lecture, Porto, Portugal, 2–4 October 2002.
26. Santarsiero, G.; Masi, A. Seismic performance of RC beam–column joints retrofitted with steel dissipation
jackets. Eng. Struct. 2015, 85, 95–106. [CrossRef]
27. Dolce, M.; Masi, A.; Cappa, T.; Nigro, D.; Ferrini, M. Experimental evaluation of effectiveness of local
strengthening on columns of R/C existing structures. In Proceedings of the fib-Symposium Concrete
Structures in Earthquake Regions, Athens, Greece, 6–9 May 2003.
28. CEN. EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and
Retrofitting of Buildings; CEN, EN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
29. UNI. EN 10088-4:2009 Stainless Steel—Part 4: Technical Conditions of Corrosion-Resistant Construction Sheets,
Plates and Ribbons’ Supplies; UNI: Milan, Italy, 2009; (In Italian: Acciai inossidabili—Parte 4: Condizioni
tecniche di fornitura dei fogli, delle lamiere e dei nastri di acciaio resistente alla corrosione per impieghi
nelle costruzioni).
30. Pedeferri, P. Corrosion Science and Engineering; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2018.
31. Vachtsevanos, G.; Natarajan, K.A.; Rajamani, R.; Sandborn, P. Corrosion Processes: Sensing, Monitoring, Data
Analytics, Prevention/Protection, Diagnosis/Prognosis and Maintenance; Springer International Publishing: Basel,
Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef]
32. Ministry of Infrastructure. DM 17 Gennaio 2018: Aggiornamento Delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni;
Ministry of Infrastructure: Rome, Italy, 2018. (In Italian)
33. CEN. EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 2—Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings;
CEN, EN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
34. Deformations of Reinforced Concrete Members at Yielding and Ultimate. ACI Struct. J. 2001, 98. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).