RETROFIT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS WITH PARTIAL OR NO INTERNAL STEEL

REINFORCEMENT USING NEAR SURFACE MOUNTED FIBER REINFORCED POLYMERS

Rafael A. Salgado, Ph.D Candidate | The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH | rafael.salgado@rockets.utoledo.edu
Serhan Guner, Assistant Professor | The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH | serhan.guner@utoledo.edu

Validation
Based on Axial Force - Moment relationship. Failure by crushing at mid-height of
the column, with a calculated to experimental difference of: 8.9% in axial force and
0.23% in moment.

Axial Force (kN)

In this study, the retrofitting of a

reinforced concrete column that
lost part of its internal steel
reinforcement due to adverse
environmental
conditions
is
numerically assessed using NSM
FRP rods.
Fig.1 Example of a columns steel
deterioration.

Methodology

6@30mm

C1

C2

C3

Results
C4

C5

Fig.4
Parametric
study sections.

150
= 42.1 MPa
= 562 MPa
= 605 MPa

6@150mm

Axial Force (kN)

150

Fig.2 3D model with boundary conditions and column information.

Validated Model
Model C2
Model C3

100

10

15
20
25
Moment (kNm)
Fig.6 C2 and C3 calculated response.
Higher load eccentricity (C8 and C10) e=60mm

30

35

Model C10 fails due to complete debonding of the CFRP rods. Column C8 fails of
rods normal debonding followed by crushing of concrete at mid-depth.
300
C8
C10
250
200
150
Modified Original Model
100
Model C8
50
Model C10
0
Fig.7 C8 and C10 sections and
0
10
20
30
40
calculated response.
Moment (kNm)

Loss of compression steel (C1 and C4)

Retrofitted columns are about 2% weaker. Crushing occurred at mid-depth of both
columns. However, tangential slip occurred on the CFRP rods of column C4. Rods
stress at failure is about 10% of rupture (2800 MPa).
350
300
250
200
150
100
Validated
Model
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Moment (kNm)
Fig.5 C1 and C4 calculated response.

200

C6

300

Axial Force (kN)

e=40mm

180

210

10

4000

Concrete: 8-node translational DOF

with cracking and crushing. Steel: truss
element.

47 54

One fourth of the column modeled.

10
20
30
40
Moment (kNm)
Fig.3 Experimental failure (Gajdosova and Bilcik, 2013) and axial-moment response.

Parametric Study

Loss of tension steel (C2 and C3)

The overall response is 10% stronger. Failure remains crushing at mid-depth.

Column C2 present normal debonding values very close to debonding stage at
failure. Rods stress is about 15% of rupture.
400

Experiment
Numerical Model

10 models (6 in this poster) with partial removal of internal steel reinforcement

retrofitted with NSM CFRP rods. Same FRP area as lost steel area, resulting in a
diameter of 14.2 mm. Groove size of two times the rod diameter. The bonding
between Epoxy-Concrete was also included in the nonlinear 3D model.

Numerical Modeling
31 88

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

A 3D nonlinear analysis of a slender column was performed on ANSYS and validated

based on the experimental work of Gajdosova and Bilcik (2013). A short parametric
study is performed to evaluate the influence of different NSM FRP and steel
reinforcement configurations.

Concrete modeled using Mander

(1988)
theory.
Tri-linear
steel
reinforcement response.

Results (cont.)

Axial Force (kN)

Introduction

Conclusion

All retroffiting techniques presented in this poster provides a column axialmoment capacity similar or greater than the original, un-retroffited column.
The substitution of tension steel reinforcement by NSM CFRP bars provides, in
general, higher axial-moment column capacity. On the other hand, a smaller
improvement is provided by compression CFRP rods are reduced.
Debonding of the CFRP rods needs to be considered as it plays an important
role in the failure modes of the columns.
Debonding is more likely to occur when two CFRP rods are used in a face with no
internal steel reinforcement.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Azadeh Parvin, from
The University of Toledo, for her contributions on the development of this study.