Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 9 (2), 83-89 (2004) (Regular Paper)

STRENGTHENING OF INADEQUATE ANCHORAGE OF BEAM REINFORCEMENT IN BEAM - COLUMN JOINTS

Dept. of Civil & Environmental Eng., UAE University, Al Ain , P.O.Box 17555, United Arab Emirates 2 Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ont., Canada
1

ASHRAF BIDDAH1 and AHMED GHOBARAH2

318 . . )( . L . L ( ) . L . L . According to the earlier editions of the ACI 318 code, at least quarter of the beam bottom (positive) flexural reinforcement at midspan had to be embedded 6 inches into the beam-column joint. This detail is also common to present practice in structures designed for gravity loads only. Earthquake-induced forces can cause reversal in the beam bending moment at the column face resulting in a positive bending moment with the bottom beam flexural reinforcement under tension near the supports. The tension force in this reinforcement must be developed by the 6 inch embedment in the joint. Pull-out of the embedded reinforcement from the joint may occur under relatively small lateral drift levels. The objective of this research is to obtain a rehabilitation technique using Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) L-shaped plates to retrofit the inadequate anchorage of beam bottom reinforcement at beam-column joints. An experimental investigation was conducted to study the applicability and behaviour of beams rehabilitated using CFRP L-shaped plates. Nine medium-scale reinforced concrete joints were cast and tested under flexural loading. Three joints were used as control joints. Three joints were designed according to current codes with adequate anchorage of beam bottom reinforcement at beam-column joint with different column depth. Three joints with different column depth were strengthened using CFRP Lshaped plates, and tested. The results of the experimental investigation are reported and discussed including ultimate strength, strains and modes of failure. The test results indicated the feasibility of using CFRP L-shaped plates to resist the slippage and provide adequate anchorage of the beam bottom reinforcement into the beam-column joints. Useful information for the designers, researchers are provided in the field of rehabilitation of reinforced concrete members.

INTRODUCTION
Gravity load-designed structures and buildings designed in the 1960s and 1970s or earlier may have insufficient lateral load resistance. During recent earthquakes (1995 Kobe, 1994 Northridge earthquakes), the behaviour of buildings designed to earlier codes was not satisfactory due to inadequate

lateral load carrying capacity and limited ductility. Some of the main deficiencies in existing reinforced concrete frame structures are: inadequate column shear capacity, short lap splices in columns at maximum flexure locations, lack of rotational capacity of beams due to inadequate anchorage of bottom reinforcement, and joint failure due to insufficient transverse reinforcement.

83

A. Biddah and A. Ghobarah

Before the 1951 edition of the ACI 318 code, 1/4 or more of the bottom (positive) reinforcement in continuous beams was required to extend into the beam-column joint a distance of ten or more bar diameters, or as far as possible into the support and terminated in standard hooks, or other adequate anchorage. This requirement was relaxed in 1951 edition. Typically, at least 1/4 of the beam bottom reinforcement at midspan was required to be embedded into the beam-column joint to a length of 6 inches. This detail is presently common practice in structures designed for gravity load only. One way to retrofit the beam end is by the use of steel straps attached to the bottom surface of the beam at the beam-column joint and connected to it by epoxy-resin type anchors1. For developing the tensile capacity of the steel strap, a bracket was welded to the strap and connected to a large threaded rod placed through the column just below the soffit. The anchored steel plate relieves the bottom reinforcement from carrying excessive tension that lead to anchor failure. Biddah2 used two steel straps at the beams sides to resist the pull-out that may happen to the beam bottom reinforcement. The steel straps were fastened to the sides of the beam using expansion anchors. Progressive failure of the anchors occurred starting at the far end anchor then the anchor near the column due to the bending stiffness of the straps. By the end of 1990's, Swiss innovation for strengthening of structures with composite fiber material is introduced which is CFRP L-shaped plate for shear strengthening of concrete structures. An important feature of these L-shaped plates is their lightweight, giving easy handling on site in addition to the other benefits of CFRP products for example corrosion resistance and high strength. The authors experimentally investigated a new application for the CFRP L-shaped plates in rehabilitating the anchorage of the beams bottom reinforcement.

Figure 1. Prefabricated CFRP L-shaped plate

stressed. The bend zone tensile test was also and 300 mm and the results were 67%, 69% and 74% of the failure load of the free length plate. The cause of failure was always shearing of the whole plate, never a primary break in the bend zone. According to the previous tests, the bend zone length in this research was selected to be 200 mm.

Test Specimens
Nine medium scale reinforced concrete exterior joints specimens were tested. The dimensions, details of reinforcement and loading system of the specimens are shown in Figure 2. The beam and columns of all specimens are of 120 mm width. Specimens SP1, SP2 and SP3, the control specimens, are of column total depth of 150, 200 and 250 mm, respectively. SP1, SP2 and SP3 beam top reinforcement are embedded into the column with total length of 100 mm (10 times bar diameter) straight bar without 90o hook. Specimens SP4, SP5 and SP6, the code designed specimens, are of column total depth of 150, 200 and 250 mm, respectively. SP4, SP5 and SP6 beam top reinforcement are anchored to the column with the standard 90o hook satisfying the ACI-ASCE4 recommendations. Specimens SP7, SP8 and SP9, the strengthened specimens, are of column total depth of 150, 200 and 250 mm, respectively. Each specimen of SP7, SP8 and SP9 is strengthened from the top soffit of the beam by one prefabricated CFRP L-shaped plate. The CFRP L-shaped plate was glued in the hole in the column and to the top soffit of the beam. In order to anchor the CFRP L-shaped plate in the column, core hole must first be drilled in it to a complete column depth. The geometry can be made of 3 cores 26 mm diameter spaced at 12 mm centers. Further preparation of the hole consisted of removing loose particles with a vacuum cleaner. Before application of the CFRP L-shaped plate, the surface of the concrete was ground and the dust removed. The hole was filled with a solvent-free, epoxy-based twocomponent adhesive mortar named Sikadur-30 and the CFRP plate was inserted into it as shown in Figure 3. The plate was bonded to the concrete with the same adhesive. For better anchorage, the surface of the anchorage zone of the L-shaped plate was pre-coated with adhesive. The surfaces of the L-shaped plate are

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The work proposed in this research focuses on rehabilitation of beam bottom reinforcement using CFRP L-shaped plates. The beams were tested upside down due to the laboratory facilities in which the loads can only be applied from top to bottom. The prefabricated CFRP L-shaped plates consisted of carbon fibers in an epoxy matrix as shown in Figure 1. Previous pull-out tests were conducted on the CFRP L-shaped plates for different anchorage length3. Anchorage of 100 mm length gives failure load utilization of approximately 60%, 150 mm about 80% and 200 mm about 95% of the failure load of the free length plate (126 kN/plate). These figures represent a lower limit because in the actual application the Lshaped plates are always bonded over their entire length so that the anchorage zone is not as heavily conducted for different bend zone length of 150, 225

84

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

Strengthening of Inadequate Anchorage of Beam Reinforcement in Beam - Column Joints

100 mm

1000 mm 2 10 each side 100

P1

P2

2 10

250 mm 250 mm 250 mm 150 200 250

8 @ 120

2 10

8 @ 80 mm

Specimens SP1, SP2, SP3, SP7, SP8 and SP9

100 mm

1000 mm 2 10 each side

P1

P2

2 10

250 mm 250 mm

protected both sides at the factory with peel-ply containing no release agent. This is removed immediately before installation and the surface is then ready for bonding. This system avoids the need to abrade the plate to prepare the surface or use solvents on site for cleaning the prepared surface. Figure 4 shows the test setup and the supporting system of the specimens. The specimens were tested upside down due to the laboratory facilities in which the loads can only be applied from top to bottom. The column in each specimen was loaded by a constant axial load causing compressive stress on the column of 0.2 fc'. The specimens were tested under one concentrated load at the tip of the beam. Load control was employed and the loading was applied in increments of approximately 5% of the expected failure load. The loading was continued up to failure of the specimen. In all specimens, measurements were taken using deformeter for measuring the concrete compressive strain, dial gauges for measuring the beam tip deflection and strain gauges for measuring steel bars and CFRP L-shaped plate strain in the beam at the face of the column section.

8 @ 120

2 10

8 @ 80 150 200 250

250 mm

Specimens SP4, SP5 and SP6 Figure 2. Dimensions and details of reinforcement of the tested specimens

Figure 3. Installation of the CFRP L-shaped plate

Constant load P1
40 mm CFRP L-shaped plate Spacer

P2

Strong Floor

40 mm

Figure 4. Test setup and supporting system of the specimens

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

85

A. Biddah and A. Ghobarah

Material Properties
The reinforcing bars used as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the specimens are of yield strength of 420 MPa. The concrete cylinder compressive strength is 31 MPa. The used prefabricated CFRP L-shaped plates are of 90o bent with inner radius of 25 mm, Plate thickness 1.4 mm, plate width 40 mm and Elastic modulus 120000 MPa5, 6.

TEST RESULTS
The experimental results of beam tip deflection, strains and crack propagation were recorded at different stages of loading till the failure load of the tested specimens has been reached.

Behaviour of the Tested Specimens

A summary of the experimental results is presented in Table 1. It includes the loads and deflections at ultimate (failure) stage in addition to the modes of failure. Figure 5 shows the failure of specimens SP1, SP3, SP7 and SP9. Table 1, Figure 5, and other observed behaviour of the tested specimens show that before cracking, all the specimens behave similarly. Primary flexural crack was first visible in the beam at the face of the column at about 11 to 21% of the ultimate load. In the strengthened specimens SP7, SP8 and SP9, initial cracking occurred at higher load, around 3.5 kN compared to approximately 3 kN for the control and code designed specimens SP1 to SP6. The control specimens SP1, SP2 and SP3, with anchorage length of 100 mm length and no hook, failed in bar pull-out after yielding of the beam top steel bars. Increasing the column total depth decreases the ultimate load in the

control specimens. This is attributed to ratio between the 100 mm anchorage length and the column total depth which are 67, 50 and 40% in case of the specimens SP1, SP2 and SP3, respectively. Since the top column face is subjected to constant axial load and variable moment, this ratio may have a significant role in the anchorage of the beam top bars. Specimens designed according to code requirements in terms of the anchorage of the beam top steel bars showed almost identical behaviour with different column total depth. These specimens failed due to crushing of concrete near the beam bottom surface at the column face. In case of strengthened specimens SP7, SP8 and SP9, a slight noise was heard at a load level of 22, 23 and 25 kN, respectively. This noise gave indication of debonding of the CFRP L-shaped plate starting form the column face. Separation between the CFRP Lshaped plate from the top surface of the beam occurred, as shown in figure 4, at a load level of 27.92, 28.39 and 30.87 kN, respectively. Joint shear cracks appeared in specimens SP1 and SP4 at a load level of 15 and 18 kN, respectively. No shear cracks were noticed in specimens SP2, SP3, SP5 and SP6. The strengthening system increased the beam capacity causing higher shear on the joints. Joint shear cracks appeared in specimens SP7 and SP8 at a load level of 18 and 22 kN, respectively. No shear cracks were noticed in specimen SP9. Cracking of the joint core due to shear in the joint is an important factor affecting the bond of reinforcing bars passing through the joint. The joint shear cracks of specimens SP7 and SP8 reduced the bond of the reinforcing bars causing higher forces on the CFRP L-shaped plate at a lower load level, consequently, debonding of the plate happened at a lower load.

Table 1. Failure loads, deflections and mode of failure of the tested specimens Group Specimen designation SP1 Control specimens SP2 SP3 Code designed specimens SP4 SP5 SP6 Strengthened specimens SP7 SP8 SP9 Column total depth (mm) 150 200 250 150 200 250 150 200 250 Ultimate Load (kN) 17.23 14.87 14.32 22.40 22.07 22.42 27.92 28.39 30.87 Deflection at ultimate load (mm) 13.31 11.14 8.25 53.59 58.29 54.10 34.35 24.00 21.27 Modes of failure Pull out after yielding Pull out after yielding Pull out after yielding Concrete crushing after steel yielding Concrete crushing after steel yielding Concrete crushing after steel yielding Debonding at the full beam length Debonding at the full beam length Debonding at the full beam length

86

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

Strengthening of Inadequate Anchorage of Beam Reinforcement in Beam - Column Joints

Load-Deflection Behaviour
The applied tip load versus beam tip-deflection of the tested specimens is presented in Figure 6 (a, b and c). The figure shows that the initial stiffness of the strengthened specimens is not significantly different from that of the control and code designed specimens. The pull-out failure of the control specimens SP1, SP2 and SP3 was a brittle failure showing rapid strength degradation after reaching its ultimate load. The code designed specimens SP4, SP5 and SP6 demonstrated ductile failure. The post cracking stiffness of the strengthened specimens SP7, SP8 and SP9 is higher than that of the control specimens especially after yielding of the steel bars. This is attributed to the composite action between the concrete specimen and the CFRP L-shaped plate which improved the strength and the stiffness of the beam. The addition of the CFRP L-shaped plate does not only serve to improve the strength of the beam but also leads to a stiffer specimen. Increasing the column total depth increases the specimen overall capacity. This is attributed to the higher joint shear capacity of the specimens of large column total depth.

Specimen SP1

Specimen SP3

Concrete, reinforcing steel and CFRP Strains

The concrete, reinforcing steel bars and CFRP Lshaped plates longitudinal strains were recorded at various locations in the specimens at different load levels. The total applied load versus strain curves, in the beam at the face of the column section, is displayed in Figure 7 (a, b and c) of specimens (SP1, SP4, SP7), (SP2, SP5, SP8) and (SP3, SP6, SP9), respectively. The figure shows that at all load levels, lower longitudinal reinforcing steel strains are noticed in case of the strengthened specimens compared with those of the control specimen SP1. This significant reduction in strain indicates higher load capacity of the strengthened specimens due to the composite action of the concrete specimens with the CFRP L-shaped plates. At the beginning of debonding of the CFRP Lshaped plate from the concrete surface, the strain increasing rate of the CFRP L-shaped plate decreases showing lower CFRP strain than that of the reinforcing steel. This happened at load level of 22, 23 and 25 kN in case of the specimens SP7, SP8 and SP9, respectively.

Specimen SP7

CONCLUSIONS
In this study, CFRP L-shaped plate system is considered as an outstanding solution to increase the beam capacity. The system exhibited many advantages such as lightweight, easy and fast assembly without heavy lifting equipment, corrosion resistance and significant over-strength in the assembled system. The following conclusions can be drawn:

Specimen SP9 Figure 5. Crack pattern of different tested specimens

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

87

A. Biddah and A. Ghobarah

1. The test results indicated the feasibility of using CFRP L-shaped plates when externally bonded to reinforced concrete beams to increase the load carrying capacity and the corresponding stiffness with limited ductility. 2. The CFRP L-shaped plates have not reached their full capacity due to the debonding of the plates. 3. Increasing the beam capacity may increase the shear demand on the joint causing brittle joint shear failure. Therefore, the joint shear strength should be checked before strengthening the beams using CFRP L-shaped plates.

35 30 25 20 15

SP7 SP4

Total load (kN)

SP1
10 5 0 0 10

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was conducted in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering laboratories, United Arab Emirates University. The free providing of the CFRP L-shaped plates by Sika UAE is deeply appreciated.

Beam tip deflection (mm)

20

30

40

50

60

a) SP1, SP4 and SP7 (column depth of 150 mm)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10

SP8 SP5

REFERENCES
1. Estrada, J.I., Use of steel elements to strengthen a reinforced concrete building, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1990, 66p. 2. Biddah, A., Seismic behaviour of existing and rehabilitated reinforced concrete frame connections, Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, 1997, 326p. 3. EMPA test report, Shear strengthening with CFRP Lshaped plates, Dubendorf, report No. 43/1998,1998, 22p. 4. ACI-ASCE 352R-02, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, reported by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002, 37p. 5. EMPA test report, Shear strengthening with prefabricated CFRP L-shaped plates, Dubendorf, report No.116/7, 2002, 78p. 6. Fib Bulletin 14, Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures, 2001, 130p.
Total load (kN)

SP2

Beam tip deflection (mm)

20

30

40

50

60

b) SP2, SP5 and SP8 (column depth of 200 mm)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10

SP9 SP6

Total load (kN)

SP3

Beam tip deflection (mm)

20

30

40

50

60

c) SP3, SP6 and SP9 (column depth of 250 mm) Figure 6. Load-beam tip load-tip deflection relationship of the tested specimens

88

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

Strengthening of Inadequate Anchorage of Beam Reinforcement in Beam - Column Joints

35 30

SP7- conc

SP7- steel SP7- FRP

Total load (kN)

25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.004 -0.002

SP4- conc SP4 - steel SP1- conc SP1- steel

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

0.01

0.012

Longitudinal Strains (mm/mm)

a) SP1, SP4 and SP7 (column depth of 150 mm)

35 30

SP8 - conc

SP8 - steel SP8 - FRP

Total load (kN)

25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.004 -0.002

SP5 - conc SP2 - conc SP2 -steel

SP5 - steel

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

0.01

0.012

Longitudinal Strains (mm/mm)

b) SP2, SP5 and SP8 (column depth of 200 mm)

35 SP9 - conc 30 SP9 - steel SP6 - conc SP9 - FRP

Total load (kN)

25 20 15 10 5

SP6 - steel SP3 - conc SP3 - steel

0 -0.004 -0.002

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

0.01

0.012

Longitudinal Strains (mm/mm)

c) SP3, SP6 and SP9 (column depth of 250 mm) Figure 7. Load-longitudinal strain relationship for specimens

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol.9, No.2, 2004

89