Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Mr. Chamnan Duangjaras

Department of Teacher Training in Civil Engineering
Faculty of Technical Education
King Mongkuts University of Technology North Bangkok
cdr@kmutnb.ac.th


Abstract

Five severely damaged specimens were repaired in four
different categories. All specimens were reinforced
externally using L-shaped steel and steel plates. In the
first specimen, damaged concrete was removed and re-
cast with new concrete. In the second and the third
specimens, the damage concrete was removed and re-cast
with aggregate-mixed epoxy. Cracked and crushed
concrete in the forth and the fifth specimens was restored
by grouting with epoxy resin and in the fifth specimen, the
resin was also grouted between external steel and
concrete surfaces as bonding agent. Testing results
showed that severely damaged columns can be repaired
and regained load-resisting capacity even stronger than
original columns. The most effective repairing is using
epoxy grouting into damaged concrete and between
external steel and concrete surfaces. All the other
repairing categories resulted in comparatively similar
strength and stiffness of columns.


Keyword: column, repair, rehabilitation, epoxy,
strengthening

1. Introduction

A concrete column may loss its load resisting capacity
by various causes such as over loading under normal
services, earthquake, windstorm, explosion, material
deterioration, settlement, etc. Losing capacity of a single
column may cause the whole structure to collapse. Hence,
maintaining of strength and stability of the column is the
most concern. There are various methods used to repair or
to restore the capacity of damaged reinforced columns;
using concrete and steel bars as basic materials in section
enlargement [1],[2],[3], using epoxy grouting and steel
plates[4], using steel jacket and mortar grouting [5] and,
with to day interest, using a synthetic material known as
fiber-reinforced polymer, FRP [6]. Combinations of these
methods are also possible. Each of these methods has both
disadvantages and advantages over the others. The choice
of choosing the method of repair and repairing materials


depends on various factors such as degree of damages,
workability, cost, and material availability etc.

2. Research Motivation

Severely damaged columns of moderate sizes may be
repaired by replacement of damaged materials both in
compression and in tension with undamaged ones. The
repairing method based on locally available materials,
simple construction technique and reasonable cost should
be investigated. This paper presents on experimental
results of columns repaired in various methods using
concrete, epoxy and hot rolled steel as basic repairing
materials. This is to investigate the effectiveness of the
repairing.

3. Test Specimens

Damaged specimens were repaired after releasing from
load sustaining and the originals of the specimens were
named as virgin columns. Five damaged specimens from
the previous test [1] were repaired and the repairing was
divided into four categories. For the first one, damaged
concrete was completely removed, then re-cast with new
concrete. Hotrolled steel of L-shaped sections were
externally placed at each column corner as external
reinforcement and then, were jointed together by welding
steel plates on each column face in truss-like form. This
category was designated as ERA. For the second one
having two specimens, reinforcement was the same as that
of the first category but damaged concrete was replaced
with epoxy mixed with fine and coarse aggregate by the
ratio of 1:2:4 and was designated as ERB1 and ERB2. For
the third one designated as ERC, damaged concrete was
repaired by epoxy grouting and reinforcement was the
same as that of the first category. Lastly, the forth one,
repaired concrete and reinforcement were the same as
those of the third category but epoxy resin was injected
between concrete and L-shaped steel as bonding agent.
The characteristics of column specimens before repairing
are shown in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b). Typical
repairing and dimensions of external reinforcement are
shown in Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b) respectively.


(a) (b)

Figure 1: Typically tested specimens before repairing (a)
front view (b) rear view

(a) (b)
Figure 2: (a) Typical specimens under repairing (b) dimen
sions of external reinforcement in centimeter



Figure 3: Typical section at mid-length of previously
tested column, in centimeter



Figure 4:Typical section at mid-length of repaired column
in centimeter
The typical sections at mid-length of specimen before and
after repairing are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4
respectively. Material properties of original and repaired
specimens are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2
respectively

TabIe 1: Material properties of original specimens
Design
-ation
Previously Tested Columns(Virgin Columns)
Design-ation Existing.
Concrete
fc(ksc)
Strengthen.
Concrete
fc(ksc)
Long.
Steel
fy(ksc)
ERA GP1CL1 298.9 - 3712.4
ERB1 GP1CL2 298.9 - 3712.4
ERB2 GP1CL3 298.9 - 3712.4
ERC GP12SCL2 291.9 486.7 3712.4
ERD GP4SCL2 283.1 423.9 3712.4

TabIe 2: Material properties of repaired specimens
Design
-ation
Repair. Material Properties
Concre
te
fc(ksc)
Epoxy
with agg.
fu(ksc)
L-shape
Steel
fy(ksc)
Steel Plate
fy(ksc)
ERA 350.9 - 2824.9 2877.9
ERB1 - 294.5 2824.9 2877.9
ERB2 - 294.5 2824.9 2877.9
ERC - - 2824.9 2877.9
ERD - - 2824.9 2877.9

4. Test Set-up

Lateral deflections at top, mid-length and bottom
positions along column length were measured using
displacement transducers. Monotonic and quasi-static load
was applied by a universal-testing machine. All loading
and deflection data were recorded by using a data
acquisition unit. The specimens were set-up and tested
under similar set-up of the previous test [1], which was
under eccentricity of 15 centimeters as shown in Figure
5(a) and Figure 5(b).


(a) (b)
Figure 5: Specimen set-up (a) front view (b) rear view

5. Failure Characteristics and Summaries of
Test Results
Buckling of external steel in compression at mid-
length and tearing of welded joints of steel plates in

bracket vicinity occurred similarly in specimens which
there were no bonding between external steel and concrete
surfaces ; ERA, ERB1, ERB2 and ERC. The specimen
ERD resisted load until failure without debonding of the
external reinforcement. These modes of failures are shown
in Figure 6(a),6(b) and 6(c). Severe crushing of concrete
did not occur in all specimens. Test results of all repaired
specimens are graphically presented in Figure 8. It shows
that in early stage of loading, the stiffness of columns
which damaged concrete was repaired by epoxy grouting
(ERD, ERC) was superior to that of the ones which
damaged concrete was replaced by new concrete or by
aggregate-mixed epoxy (ERA, ERB1, and ERB2). The
most favorable stiffness is that of the column which the
external reinforcing steel was glued to column surfaces by
epoxy resin (ERD). However, all columns yielded at small
deflections about 2-4 millimeters. Load-resisting
characteristics of ERA, ERB1 and ERB2 were almost the
same. All columns behaved in ductile manner except ERC
which, after yielding, the bottom end was accidentally
supported by bearing steel plates resulting in increasing
load and then loading was early stopped. It is evident that
the column with bonding provided between external
reinforcing steel and concrete surfaces (ERD) could
sustain higher load than the others which ultimate loads
were comparatively close.



(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6: Failure of specimens (a) buckling of external
steel (b) tearing of steel (c) failure without debonding

TabIe 3: Test results
Specimen Ult imate Axial L oad
(ton)
Ultimate Bending
moment(ton-m)
ERA 20.5 3.1
ERB1 21.8 3.3
ERB2 22.5 3.4
ERC 20.5 3.1
ERD 25.5 3.8

6. Load resisting Capacity of Virgin Columns
and Repaired Columns
Load-deflection characteristics of virgin columns
tested in the previous study were compared with those of
the repaired columns and summarized graphically in
Figure 9a to Figure 9e.

It reveals that all repaired columns could resist
load 1.2-1.8 times higher than virgin columns. However,
initial stiffness was similar except ERD, which had higher
stiffness than that of the virgin column. All columns were
apparently ductile.


Concluding Remarks
Test results of five specimens repaired in
different aspects imply that the most effective method is
repairing damaged concrete by epoxy grouting and the
external steel to be bonded to column surfaces.
Replacement of damaged concrete by new concrete is
favorable in cost reducing especially in remote area where
using epoxy is cost obstruction. Bonding between external
steel and column surfaces should be provided to increase
the inter-action performance between concrete and steel
which would result in increasing the column performance
under load sustaining. This bonding may be achieved
mechanically instead of using epoxy resin. Replacement
of the damaged concrete with aggregate-mixed epoxy is
considered to be impractical because there was little
workability and high cost.
Hence, repairing severely damaged columns is
theoretically possible, moreover, the repairing can be
made so that the damaged column becomes stronger than
that before damaging. However, for in-situ repairing,
column status is different from that in laboratory such as
sustaining load in the column, causes of damages,
structural integration etc. The repairing should be carried
out with circumspection.

Acknowledgement
This study forms parts of a research program
funded by King Mongkuts Institute of Technology North
Bangkok. The author gratefully acknowledges for the
support and also thanks to S.C.B. Engineering Co. Ltd. for
providing epoxy products and workmanship.

References
1. Thien Phanphitphaet Behavior of
Strengthened Reinforced concrete Columns
Under Eccentric Loading, Master Thesis,
Department of Teacher Training in Civil
Engineering, Graduate School, King
Mongkuts Institute of Technology North
Bangkok, 1999.
2. B.John Bett,Richard E. Klinger, and James
O. Jirsa, Lateral Load Response of
Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced

Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal,
V.85, No. 5, Sep-Oct 1988., pp. 499-508
3. Moshe A. Adin, David Z. Yankilevsky, and
Daniel N. Farhey, Cyclic Behavior of
Epoxy- Repaired Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 90, No.2, March-April 1993, pp.
170-179
4. Urgur Ersoy, A. Turgul Tankut, and
Ramadan Suleiman, Behavior of Jacketed
Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No.3, May-June 1993, pp. 288-293
5. M.J. Nigel Priestly, Frieder Seible,Yan Xiao,
and Ravindra Verma, Steel Jacket
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns for Enhanced Shear Strength-Part
1: Theoretical Consideration and Test
design, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No.4,
July-August 1994, pp. 394-404
6. Kiang-Hwee tan, Qingqing Shen,
Performance of Plain Concrete Columns
Bonded with Glass Fiber Wraps IABSE
Colloquium, Phuket 1999, V.80, pp. 197-202