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

net/publication/254303486

Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints using FRP laminates

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · January 2001

DOI: 10.1080/13632460109350388

CITATIONS READS

175 1,929

2 authors:

Ahmed Ghobarah A.M. Said

McMaster University Pennsylvania State University
141 PUBLICATIONS 6,194 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 1,892 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Ghobarah on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2001) 113-129
@ Imperial College Press

SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BEAM-COLUMN

JOINTS USING FRP LAMINATES

A. GHOBARAH' and A. SAID$

Department of Civil Engineering, McMwter University,
.
' Hamilton, Canada

Received 3 April 2000

Revised 11 April 2000
Accepted .11 April 2000

An innovative and practical technique for the seismic rehabilitation of beam-column

joints using fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) is presented. The procedure is to upgrade
the shear capacity of the joint and thus allow the ductile flexural hinge to form in the
beam. An experimental study is conducted in order to evduate the performance of a
full-scale reinforced concrete external beam-column joint from a moment resisting frame
designed to earlier code then repaired using the proposed technique. The beam-column
joint is tested under cyclic loading applied at the free end of the beam and axial column
load. The suggested repair procedure was applied to the tested specimen. The composite
laminate system proved to be effective in upgrading the shear capacity of the nonductile
beam-column joint. Comparison between the behaviour of the specimen before and after
the repair is presented. A design methodology for fibre jacketing to upgrade the shear
capacity of existing beam-column joints in reinforced concrete moment resisting frames
is proposed.

Keywords: Beam-column joint, rehabilitation, reinforced concrete, moment resisting

frame, shear, seismic upgrade, experimental, FRP,repair.

1. Introduction
There are many kxisting reinforced concrete (RC) moment resisting frame struc-
tures that were designed before the development of current seismic codes or to
earlier codes before ductile reinforcement detaiIing was required. These structures
may have nonductile reinforcement detailing in the beam-column joint area in the
form of inadequate or even no shear reinforcement, and short anchor length of the
longitudinal beam bottom steel bars. In addition, the joint may be subjected to
high shear demands due to a strong beam design. A brittle joint shear failure or
bond slip failure greatly reduces the ductility of the RC moment resisting frame.
Evidence from recent earthquakes such as the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe, Japan)
and the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquakes shows that. in many cases, a brittle
failure in the frame joints was the principal cause of the total collapse of many

'Professor
tPhD candidate
114 A. Ghobamh & A . Said

structures [Mitchell e t al. 1996; Mugurama e t al. 19951. Due to the large extent of
the problem, it is necessary to develop economic methods to upgrade the joint's
capacity in order to prevent a brittle failure and instead shift the failure towards a
beam flexural hinging mechanism, which is a more ductile type of failure. A simple
and effective rehabilitation technique will provide safety to the occupants of the
structure as well as protect the investment of the owner.
The focus of available research is on the modeling and behavior of typical inte-
rior and exterior joints in newly designed structures under cyclic loading. However,
few studies were concerned with testing joint strengthening techniques in existing
vulnerable beam-column joints [Migliacci e t al. 1983; Corazao and Durrani, 19891.
Kuan [I9991 investigated a repair procedure for damaged beam-column joints. Spec-
imens moderately damaged were repaired using the epoxy pressure injection tech-
nique and then subjected to cyclic loading to failure. The repair method was found
to be effective in restoring the strength and energy dissipation capacity of the beam-
column joints. However the flexural stiffness of the beam and the shear stiffness of
the joint could not be restored completely. Beres e t al. [1992]proposed a retrofitting
scheme for interior and exterior beam-column joints. Flat steel plates above and be-
low the beam were through-bolted to a continuous steel plate on the outside of the
joint. They reported improvement in the behaviour of the strengthened specimens.
Strength, initial stiffness and energy dissipation capacity were increased. However,
when the results are compared to the behaviour of specimens before retrofit, large
strength deterioration was observed after the ultimate strength was reached.
Alcocer and Jirsa [I9931 tested a few strengthened beam-column joints. The
proposed strengthening scheme required perforating the slab in order to construct
a steel and concrete jacket around the joint, the column, and in some cases the
beams. This retrofit scheme includes longitudinal bars and transverse steel around
the jacketed column and beams, as well as welded steel angles intended to con-
fine the concrete in the joint. Prion and Baraka [I9951 proposed a method that
involves encasing the beam-column joint with a grouted steel jacket. The casing,
which is of circular and rectangular geometry, increases the moment capacity of
the section and forces most of the specimens to fail outside the jacket. The circular
casing was proven to be more effective than rectangular casing, although the latter
also met the general expectations. Ghobarah e t al. [1997a] proposed the use of me-
chanical anchors to prevent the bulging problems associated with flat steel jackets.
The procedure enables the effective use of flat steel jackets in the rehabilitation
of columns and joints. Prion and Baraka [I9951 recommended the introduction of
gaps in the jackets to reduce the strength to avoid concentrated yielding, control
flexural hinging locations, and increase ductility. The proposed system is complex
and is skilled labour intensive. Ghobarah e t al. [1997b] investigated a retrofitting
technique in which corrugated steel jackets were used to encase deficient RC beam-
column joints. The proposed method was found to be quite efficient in upgrading
the shear strength of the joint.
 Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP Laminates 115

Seible et al. [I9971 investigated the seismic retrofit of RC columns using carbon
fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP) wrapping. Circular and rectangular specimens
with different reinforcement ratios and detailing were tested. Various configurations
were used in application of the composite wrappings to treat different weaknesses
in specimens such as shear, plastic-hinge confinement and lap splice bond slip. The
CFRP wrapping was demonstrated to be effective in dealing with the reinforcement
deficiencies. The use of fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) for retrofitting piers of over-
passes was investigated by Gergely et al. (19981and Pantelides et al. (1999).Nine
1/3-scale T-shaped specimens were fabricated and tested. Several wrapping con-
figurations using advanced composite materials were applied to improve the shear
capacity of the joints. Improvements in the overall characteristics of the specimens
such as peak load, ductility and energy dissipation capacity were observed. The
retrofit method is shown to be fast, nonintrusive and corrosion resistant. The test
results were followed by an in situ application. The rehabilitation methods applied
to bridge piers where access to the piers from all sides is possible, may not be di-
rectly applicable to beam-column joints in resisting frames due to the presence of
floor slabs.
The use of the fibre reinforced polymer materials in the rehabilitation of RC
beam-column joint offers several advantages:

Fast application even in tight locations and is non-disruptive to occupants and

the function of the building.
Light weight.
Resistant to corrosion.
Economic, simple and effective.
Does not require skillful workmanship.
The objective of this study is to introduce a joint strengthening technique using
glass fibre reinforced polymer (GERP) laminates for seismic rehabilitation of RC
beam-column joints. The effectiveness of the rehabilitation technique in increas-
ing the shear strength of the joint is investigated. A design methodology for the
proposed technique is developed.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Specimen description
A reinforced concrete beam-column joint was constructed, as shown in Fig. 1. The
height of the column and the length of the beam represent the distance to the
points of contraflexure in the frame. The column is 3000 rnrn high with cross sec-
tion dimensions of 250 x 400 mrn (gross cross sectional area Ag = 100000 mm2).
The beam's length is 1750 mm from the face of the column to the free end with
cross section of 250 x 400 mm. The longitudinal reinforcement used in the column
is 6 MI20 bars (equivalent to 19.5 mm diameter bar) in addition to 2 M15 bars
116 A. G h o b a d b A. Said

Fig. 1. Reinforcement details of specimens.

(equivalent to 16.0 mm diameter bar) without splicing. The transverse reinforce-

ment in the column is M10 rectangular ties with a single hllO supplementary central
leg. The ties start 80 mrn above and below the beam and are spaced at 200 mm as
shown in Fig. 1. Following the practice before the seismic design codes were avail-
able. no transverse reinforcement was installed in the beam-column joint. The top
and bottom longitudinal reinforcement of the beam are 4 M20 bars each. T h e trans-
verse reinforcement of the beam is M10 rectangular ties starting 75 rnm from the
face of the column. The ties are spaced a t 150 mm for 600 mm and then spaced
at 200 rnm for 1000 mm and ending at 75 mm from the free end of the beam. The
beam-column joint is expected to fail by joint shear before a plastic hinge is formed
in the beam due to the lack of transverse reinforcement in the joint.
The beam-column joint specimen designated as T1 was.tested as control speci-
men. The joint was repaired and rehabilitated using GFRP then another test was
conducted. The repaired and rehabilitated specimen is designated T l R .

2 . 2 . Material properties and application

The concrete used in constructing the beam-column joint specimen had a compres-
sive strength on the day of the test of fd = 30.8 MPa while that used in repair
had compressive strength of 38 MPa. The reinforcing steel had a yield stress of
f, = 454 and 425 MPa for MI0 and M20 bars, respectively. The available F R P
 Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP Lominates 117

Table 1. Properties of the composite material.

Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Elastic Modulus, Thickness,

GFRP Strength, MPa Elongation, X MPa mm

Bi-directional 552 1.740 27 579 1.1

(in the 4 5 O direction)

materiab are carbon and glass fibres. Carbon fibres have high strength and high
modulus which make them more suitable for joint shear rehabilitation. However, the
cost of the carbon fibre is six times that of the glass fibre while the GERP provides
for small increments of strength by using more layers. In addition, an interesting
new fibre glass product was recently introduced which offer the fibre woven in two
perpendicular directions. For these reasons, fibre glass laminates woven in two per-
pendicular directions was selected. The material has the properties listed in Table 1.
The GFRP laminate is a product of Fyfe Co, and is available commercially.
After the control specimen was tested, the joint area was completely cleared of
the fractured concrete using an air hammer exposing all the bars. The repair area
was cleaned of debris and fine particles using compressed air. Fresh concrete was
then applied to the joint. After four weeks from the joint repair, the concrete surface
was cleaned, the column corners were rounded and the composite laminate was
applied. After another four weeks, the specimen was tested.

2.3. Test set-up

The beam-column joint is tested in a column vertical position. The column is hinge
supported at the top and bottom. Restrainers were provided to take the horizontal
forces near the top and bottom supports. The column is subjected to an axial load
of 600 kN using a vertical jack mounted at the top of the column. The axial column
load represents 0.2A,f:, where Ag is the gross area of the column section. The
cyclic load is applied at the free end of the beam using a high capacity 1100 kN
actuator o f f 250 mm stroke. A schematic representation of the experimental setup
is shown in Fig. 2.

2.4. Loading sequence

Each specimen was tested under reversed cyclic load applied at the beam tip. The
selected load is intended to cause forces that simulate high levels of inelastic de-
formations that may be experienced by the frame during a severe earthquake. The
seIected load history consists of two phases. The first phase is load-controlled fol-
lowed by a displacement-controlled loading phase.
In the first phase of loading, two cycles at approximately 15 percent of the
estimated strength of the specimen (14 kN) were applied to .check the test setup
and to ensure that all data acquisition channels were functioning properly. This
118 A. Ghobamh t3 A. Said

Fig. 2. Schematic of test setup.

was followed by two cycles to the concrete cracking load in the beam of 22 kN.
These were followed by two cycles to the load causing initial yield of the bottom
longitudinal steel bars in the beam. This load was measured at 109 kN and 117 kN
for specimens T 1 and T1R respectively. The displacement at initial yield of the
steel, 6, was recorded and used in the displacement-controlled phase of loading.
The beam tip-displacement relative to the displacement at first yield is defined as
the displacement ductility factor, p.
The second phase of loading after first steel yield, is displacement-controlled in
multiples of the yield displacement 6,. The specimen was subjected to an increasing
displacement-controlled loading routine starting from 616, = 2 using multiples of
the displacement previously recorded at initial yield. Two cycles are applied at
ductility levels of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc., to verify the stability of the specimen. The

-5 1 I
^ Loading cycles

Fig. 3. 'Loading routine.

 Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP Laminates 119

cyclic loading sequence is shown in Fig. 3. The effect of cyclic loading on energy
dissipation, load carrying capacity, strength degradation and joint deformation is
examined.

2 -5. Instrumentation
Several types of instruments were used to measure loads, displacements and strains.
The following instruments were installed to monitor the performance of the speci-
men in each test:
Fourteen strain gauges were installed to measure the strains in the steel rein-
forcement bars of the beam-column joint as shown in Fig. 4.
Two diagonal linear variable differential transducers (LVDT's), to measure the
joint deformation as shown in Fig. 2.
Two LVDT's located above and below the beam are used to monitor the defor-
mation of the beam relative to the face of the column,
One LVDT to measure the displacement of the beam tip.
One LVDT to monitor the displacement of the top of the column.
Two load cells were installed on the vertical jack and the cyclic load actuator to
measure the axial load applied at the top of column and the beam tip Ioad.

Fig. 4. Location of strain gauges on the principal and transverse reinforcement.

120 A. G h o b m h & A . Said

Fig. 5 . Proposed joint rehabilitation scheme using FRP.

In the repaired areas of specimen T l R , new strain gauges were installed to

replace the ones used in the first test. A microcomputer controlled data acquisition
system is used to record the data at a 5 second time interval. During the tests,
strain gauge numbers 13 and 14, as shown in Fig. 5, malfunctioned.

2.6. Rehabilitation scheme

For the shear reinforcement deficient joint, the proposed rehabilitation technique
consists of wrapping the reinforced concrete joint area with one layer of GERP
laminates in the form of a "U". The free ends of the "U" are tied together using
threaded steel rods driven through the joint section and a steel plate, as shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. The height of the FRP laminates was limited to the depth of the
beam at the joint. It is assumed that the potential presence of a slab will prevent
extending the fibre laminate application above the joint region. The fibre could
have been extended below the joint and wrapped around the column. However,
this was judged not to be necessary in this particular test case because flexural
hinging is expected to occur in the beam and not the column. The FRP laminates
did not extend onto the beam to avoid unnecessary flexural strength enhancement
which may adversely modify.the relative strength ratios of the connected beam and
column. The proposed scheme is expected to provide lateral confinement and shear
resistance to the joint area, hence adding st;ength and ductility to the joint. The
presence of the bolted steel plate allowed the laminate to develop its full capacity
 Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP Laminates 121

Fig. 6. View of the rehabilitation scheme.

and prevented premature delamination of the fibre wrap. The fibre directions are
placed to correspond with the direction of diagonal tension forces in the joint at 45'
with the vertical. By strengthening the shear resistance of the joint, the possibility
of shear failure can be eliminated which will create the opportunity for a ductile
plastic flexural hinging in the beam.

3. Results
The behaviour of specimens T1 and T1R is presented in the form of beam tip
load-deflection relationships. The energy dissipation and joint shear deformation
characteristics of both specimens are examined to evaluate the improvement in the
performance of the rehabilitated joint.

3.1. Behaviour of the specimen

For the control specimen, TI, the first crack was recorded at the column face.
Before first yield of longitudinal beam steel, a diagonal shear crack was noted in
joint area in each loading direction forming an X-pattern. The joint shear capacity
12? A . Ckobarnh €4 A . Said

Fig. 7. Joint shear failure of specimen T1.

deteriorated as the beam tip displacement is increased. At failure, these cracks

extended to the back of the column. A considerable degradation in strength occurred
at a ductility factor of 2, which caused the termination of the test a t ductility factor
of 2.5 a s the load sustained by the specimen dropped to 30% of the m a ~ i m u mload.
The specimen failed in classical joint shear failure pattern. The final failure and
crack pattern for the control specimen TI,are shown in Fig. 7.
For the repaired specimen, T l R , the beam was already cracked from to first
test. These cracks widened progressively during the test. At a ductility factor of
2.5, a partial delamination was observed at the middle of the fibre laminate as slight
fingertip tapping on the laminate revealed a hollow sound. This delaminated area
increased until the whole laminate separated from the column sides. The presence
of the bolted plate kept the jacket in place despite the delamination and prevented
the premature failure of the joint. Meanwhile, a flexural plastic hinge in the beam
of length that is approximately equal to the depth of the beam developed starting
from the face of the co!umn. Due to the intentional underdesign of the fibre tensile
strength capacity, tension failure in the fibre composite material started a t a duc-
tility factor of 4. It started in the diagonal direction as a tear while pushing up,
further tears extended in the other diagonal from the extremities of the original
tear when the load is reversed until the fibre material completely separated into
two pieces revealing the failure of the concrete underneath. The final crack pattern
of the repaired and rehabilitated specimen T1R is shown in Fig. 8. The pattern of
fibre failure indicates that the behaviour of the FRP was not affected by the holes
drilled in the hardened material to install the tie plate and rods.

3.2. Hysteretic behaviour

The beam tip load-displacement relationships for specimens T1 and T1R are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The hysteretic behaviour was examined in terms of
strength as well as ductility. The peak load and maximum ductility for both spec-
imens are listed in Table 2. The hysteretic loops of specimen T I , representing the
 Seismic Rehabilitation o f Beam-ColumnJoints Usino FRP Laminates 123

Fig. 8. FRP failure of specimen T1R.

Table 2. Peak test load and maximum ductility.

Peak load Specimen T1 Specimen T l R

Up load (positive), kN 116.08

Down load (negative), kN -101.86
Maximum ductility, p 2.5

existing structure, showed considerable pinching and severe stiffness degradation,

especially after displacement ductility factor of 2. The loss of stiffness was primarily
attributed to concrete deterioration in the beam-column joint region. The pinching
of the hysteretic loops for cycles after initial yielding of the beam's longitudinal
reinforcement indicates that the stiffness is fairly low near the zero displacement
point in these cycles because the cracks did not close. Although specimen T1 almost
reached the theoretical ultimate flexural resistance at the &st cycle of a displace-
ment ductility factor of 2, a rapid strength deterioration were noted due to the joint
shear failure which was caused by the lack of joint transverse reinforcement.
124 A. Ghobamh €4 A. Said

D i i p l a m c n t (mm)

Fig. 9. Beam tip load-displacement plot for specimen TI.

Displacnrnl (mm)

Fig. 10. Beam tip load-displacement plot for specimen TlR.

The hysteretic loops of specimen TlR, representing the repaired structure,

showed an improved ductile behaviour as compare to specimen T1 due to the joint
FRP rehabilitation which provided confinement to the concrete and increased the
joint shear strength and ductility. The limited ductility of T1R is attributed to the
failure in the FRP laminate due to the underdesign of the fibre strength.'

4. Discussion
A comparison between the two load-deflection plots in Figs. 9 and 10 shows a sig-
nificant difference between the performance of specimen T1 representing a deficient
joint and T1R representing the repaired joint. Specimen TlR had a slightly higher
yield load of 127 kN as compared to 109 kN for specimen T1.The increase in the
yield and ultimate loads might be attributed to the use of higher strength concrete
in the repair of the joint. For specimen TlR, a slight drop in strength is observed in
both directions of the cycle corresponding to a ductility factor of 4 concurring with
the point where the fibre laminate failed in tension in each direction at a time. The
envelopes of the beam tip load-displacement curves shown in Fig. 11, indicate that
a lower rate of deterioration of strength and a higher ductility up to failure (in-
creased by 60%) in the repaired specimen T1R and a slightly higher initial stiffness
for the repaired specimen TlR.
 Seismic Rehabilitation of Benm-Column Joints Using FRP Laminates 125

Fig. 11. Beam tip load-displacement envelope for specimens T1 and T1R.

Fig. 12. Cumulative energy dissipated-ductility factor for specimens T1 and T1R.

The capability of a structure to survive an earthquake depends on its ability

to dissipate the energy input by the ground motion. Forms of energy dissipation
include: kinematic energy, viscous damping energy, recoverable elastic energy and
irrecoverable inelastic (hysteretic) energy. The cumulative energy dissipated was
calculated by summing up the energy dissipated in consecutive loops throughout
the test. The energy dissipated in a particular cycle is calculated as the area enclosed
by the hysteretic loops in the corresponding beam tip load-displacement cycle. A
plot of the cumulative energy dissipation with the loading cycles for specimens T 1
and T1R is presented in Fig. 12. Results show that initially the energy dissipated
by the repaired specimen T1R is less than the original specimen. This is because
the specimen was already cracked from the earlier test and the main reinforcement
has already yielded. However, the total energy dissipation of specimen T1R was
three times higher than that of specimen TI.
Storey shear-joint shear deformation plots for specimens T I and T1R are shown
in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. Joint distortion was measured by the two LVDT's
mounted in diagonal directions on the joint panel. Joint shear deformation in spec-
imen T1 increased with increasing storey drift indicating the distress in the joint
panel. For specimen TlR, the plot was different as the joint showed a stiffer be-
haviour until delamination initiated and affected the reading of the LVDTis as the
fibre failed in diagonal tension.
136 .4. Choharah Ed A . Said

Fig. 13. Storey shear-joint shear deformation for specimen TI.

Fig. 14. Storey shear-joint shear deformation for specimen T1R.

Fig. 15. Rehabilitation to eliminate joint shear failure.

An increased design strength of the fibre will prevent the joint shear failure,
thus allowing the ductile plastic hinge to develop in the beam. A new beam-column
joint rehabilitated using two layers of GFRP laminates (one layer was used in spec-
imen T1R) was tested to illustrate the point. As expected, the FRP rehabilitation
eliminated the beam-column joint shear failure and instead ductile flexural hinging
failure occurred in the beam as shown in Fig. 15.
 Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP Luminates 127

5. Design of the FRP

The fibre is designed to replace the missing transverse reinforcement in the bearn-
column joint. According to Park and Paday [1974],the joint shear force, V,, is cal-
culated as the difference between the maximum force in the bottom steel, allowing
a 25% over strength in steel, and the shear force in the column, KO,.

where A, is the area of the longitudinal tension steel reinforcement in the beam
and f, is the yield strength of the steel.
The total joint shear resistance of the rehabilitated joint is assumed to consist
of the concrete shear resistance, Vc, the transverse reinforcement contribution, V,,
and resistance provided by the fibre, Vf.

The force carried by the steel ties V,, is zero if there is no transverse reinforce-
ment in the beam-column joint. The shear resistance of concrete considering the
applied a x i a ~stress is:

where fCor is the normal stress in the column due to the axial load, b is the width
of the joint and d j is the effective depth of the joint.
The required area of fibre in the joint height would be then calculated as:

where Af is the area of fibre reinforcement required over the joint region designed
to replace the transverse.steel, f, is the tensile strength of the fibre, s is the joint
height, and p, is a resistance factor for the GFRP'material suggested to be 0.8. If
bidirectional FRP laminate is used, the joint shear force is to be analysed into two
perpendicular components making 45' with the vertical column axis.
For the case of the tested control specimen Tl, the beam section yield moment
was calculated as 151 kNm using steel with a 400 MPa yield stress and a 30 MPa
concrete strength assuming E , to be 0.0035. Accordingly, for an arm of the applied
force measuring 1670 rnrn,the first steel yield should be reached at an applied force
at beam tip of 90 kN. The theoretical steel yield load was calculated on the basis
of the nominal material properties and dimensions.
The shear force in the column, &,I, at the first steel yield is calculated as:
'

KO,= gO(1.67 + 0.2)/2.75 = 61.2 kN.

The total joint shear given by Eq. (1) is:
128 A . Ghobamh d A. Said

The concrete contribution to the joint shear resistance, V,, is calculated using
Eq. (3) given that the axial load is 0.2 A, f:. The shear resistance V, = 93.63 kN.
The shear force ti be taken by the fibre laminate is:

The required area of the fibre laminate over the joint height (s = 400 mm) is
calculated using Eq. (4) a:

The number of layers required of FRP laminate is:

1136
n= = 1.29 layer
2 x 400 x 1.1

To evaluate the performance of the fibre at the limit of its strength, the actual
area used in the T1R rehabilitated specimen was one layer. Utilizing the full tensile
strength of the fibre was arrived at by the fibre resistance factor pf from the
calculation. This intentional underdesign of the fibre contributed to its failure just
before the total development of the flexure plastic hinge in the beam.

6. Conclusions
Based on the presented experimental observations' and test results the following
conclusions are drawn:

(1) The original specimen with no reinforcement in the joint area showed a high
rate of strength deterioration once yielding of the longitudinal steel bars in the
beam M& reached. This was due to the brittle shear failure of the joint.
(2) An effective method for repairing existing deficient beam-column joints is pre-
sented and a design methodology is outlined. A comparison between the per-
formance of the original specimen and the repaired one shows that the GERP
jacket was capable of increasing the shear resistance of the joint and enhancing
the performance of the connection from ductility point of view. The FRP can
be designed to prevent the brittle joint failure due to shear and allow a plastic
hinge to develop in the beam.
(3) The repaired specimen, TIR, exhibited energy dissipation characteristics that
are superior to that of the original specimen, TI.
(4) Higher yield and strain hardening of the steel reinforcement than the nominal
design values may result in overstrength in the beam flexural capacity which
may cause excessive shear stresses in the joint. This should be taken into ac-
count when designing seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints.
 Seismic Rehabditation of Barn-Column Joints Using FRP Lminates 129

Acknowledgments
T h e authors wish t o acknowledge the support of t h e Intelligent Sensing for Innova-
tive Structures network, ISIS Canada. The support of the Fyfe Co. a n d the R. J.
Watson who supplied the materials used in this study, is gratefully acknowledge.

References
Alcocer, S. M. and Jirsa, J. 0. [I9931 "Strength of reinforced concrete frame connections
rehabilitated by jacketing," ACI Struct. J. 90(3), 249-261.
.Bere$, A., El-Borgi, S., White, R. N. and Gergely, P. [1992] "Experimental results of
repaired and retrofitted beam-column joint tests in lightly RC kame building," Tech-
nical report NCEER-92-0025, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.
Corazao, M. and Durrani, A. J. [I9891 "Repair and strengthening of beam-to-column
connections subjected to earthquake loading," NCEER technical report No. 89-0013,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York
at Buffalo, NY,pp. 93.
Gergely, I., Pantelides, C. P.and Reaveley, L. D. [I9981 "Shear strengthening of bridge
joints with carbon fibre composites," Proceedings of the Sixth US National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Seattle, WA.
Ghobarah, A., Biddah, A. and Mahgoub, M. [1997a] "Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete
columns using steel jackets," Eur. Earthq. Eng. 11(2), 21-31.
Ghobarah, A., Aziz, T. S. and Biddah, A. [1997b] "Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete
frame c o ~ e c t i o n susing corrugated steel jacketing," ACI Stmct. J. 94(3), 283-294.
Kuan, S. Y. W. (19911 "Response of epoxy-repaired R/C Exterior beam-column joints,"
Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil
Engineers, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 335-344.
Migliacci, A., Antonucci, R., Maio, N. A., Napoli, P., Ferretti, A. S. and Via, G. [I9831
"Repair techniques of reinforced concrete beam-column joints," Final report, IABSE
Symposium on Strengthening of Building Structures - diagnosis and therapy, Venice,
Italy, pp. 355-362.
Mitchell, D., Devall, R. H., Kobayashi, K., Tinawi, R. and Tso, W. K. (19961. "Dam-
age to concrete structures due to the January 17, 1995, Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe)
earthquake," Can. J. Civ. Eng. 23, 757-770.
Mugurama, H., Nishyiyama, M.and Watanabe, F. [1995]. "Lessons learned from the Kobe
earthquake - A Japanese perspective," PCI J., a Special Report pp. 28-42.
Pantelides, C. P., Gergely, J., Reaveley, L. D. and Volnyy, V. A. [1999]. "Retrofit of
RC brige pier with CFRP advanced composites," J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 125(10),
1094-1099.
Park,P. and Paulay, T. [1974]. "Reinforces concrete structures," John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.
Prion, H. G. L. and Baraka, M. [1995] "Grouted steel tubes as seismic retrofit for beam
to column joints," Proceedings of the Seventh Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Montreal, Canada, pp. 871-878.
Seible, F,, Priestly, M. J. N., Hegemier, G. A. and Innamortato, D. (19971 "Seismic retrofit
of RC columns using continuous carbon fibre jackets," J. Comp. Construct. ASCE
1(2), 52-62.

View publication stats