Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
com
Construction
and Building
Received 14 February 2006; received in revised form 5 August 2006; accepted 30 August 2006
Available online 23 October 2006
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental investigation of the effectiveness of strengthening half height full size concrete columns by
placing concrete jackets. Three alternative methods of concrete jacketing are investigated and results are compared with results from
an original unstrengthened specimen and a monolithic specimen. The specimens were designed to represent typical ground floor col-
umns of a concrete frame building. The unstrengthened column and the original columns of the strengthened specimens were designed
to old 1950s Greek Codes. Poured concrete or shotcrete was used to construct the jackets of the strengthened specimens and, as per-
formed in practice, various other construction procedures were carried out in order to evaluate if it is worth performing the proce-
dures when considering the practical difficulties involved. These procedures involved welding the jacket stirrup ends together, placing
steel dowels across the interface between the original column and the jacket in combination with welding the jacket stirrup ends
together and connecting the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the original column to the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the
jacket. In order to investigate the lower limit of the effectiveness of the technique, the case of no treatment at the interface between
the original column and the jacket combined with the construction of a low strength cast in situ concrete jacket is examined. The same
cross sectional dimensions and amount of steel reinforcement were used for the strengthened specimens and a control monolithic spec-
imen. Earthquake simulation displacement controlled cyclic loading was used for the testing. The seismic performance of the tested
specimens is compared in terms of strength, stiffness and hysteretic response. The effectiveness of properly constructing concrete jack-
ets has been proved, as it was found that, under special conditions, an almost monolithic behaviour could be achieved. Even when the
jacket was constructed with no treatment at the interface, a significant strength and stiffness increase was observed. It was also found
that the failure mechanism and the observed crack patterns are influenced by the strengthening method. The separation of the jacket
from the original column was obvious in the case when there was no treatment or other connection means performed at the contact
interface between the column and the jacket. In addition, it was found that welding the jacket stirrup ends together stopped the
longitudinal bars of the jacket from buckling.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concrete columns; Shotcrete; Strengthening; Retrofitting; Jacket; Stirrup end welding; Dowels; Steel connectors and seismic performance
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.019
K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 265
improves the bending strength, the shear capacity, the stiff- construction of a low strength poured concrete jacket was
ness, the ductility and the axial load carrying capacity of investigated.
strengthened elements.
In practice, a variety of procedures are used to construct 2. Experimental work
concrete jackets around RC columns [7]. Although the
method has a widespread use, an experimental investiga- Three different strengthening techniques were used to
tion that compares the different ways of executing the tech- construct half height full-scale ground floor columns. The
niques has not yet been reported. three techniques were: welding the jacket stirrup ends
The question to be answered was how the effectiveness together (denoted as N), placing dowels and jacket stirrup
of the technique alters when common as used in practice end welding (denoted as E) and placing bent down steel
procedures are performed. These procedures include: (a) connector bars welded to the original column longitudinal
using bent down bars to connect the jacket bars to the lon- reinforcement bars and the respective bars of the jacket
gitudinal reinforcement of the original column, (b) placing (denoted as W). For all strengthened specimens, the surface
dowels at the interface between the existing column and the of the original column was not roughening in order to elim-
jacket, (c) welding together the jacket stirrup ends in order inate the influence of roughening when assessing the effec-
to offset the unavoidable inability to fulfil construction tiveness of the methods. Poured concrete was used for
detailing requirements of existing codes and (d) the method specimens N and E and shotcrete was used for specimen
of application of the jacket material which may be sprayed W. Initially for each specimen, as shown in Fig. 2, an ori-
shotcrete concrete or poured concrete. Procedure (a) is a ginal column was constructed on a strong foundation.
traditional Greek practice and is shown in Fig. 1. This pro- The concrete for each original column and foundation
cedure is difficult to perform and it has been investigated in was placed at the same time. The original columns were
order to examine if it is worthwhile practice. The other aim designed to simulate usual detailing deficiencies. These defi-
of the present work was to investigate the lower limit of the ciencies were the use of mild steel reinforcement, widely
effectiveness of constructing concrete jackets. In practice, it spaced stirrups and inadequate hooks at the ends of the
is not always possible to guarantee the quality control and stirrups.
there is a need to investigate what happens when jackets The foundation of every specimen was heavily rein-
are constructed under the worst conditions. For this rea- forced. The reinforcement consisted of 16 mm diameter
son, the procedure of no treatment at the interface between grade S500 bars spaced at every 150 mm in three directions.
the original column and the jacket in combination with the The dimensions of the foundations were 1400 mm by
780 mm by 650 mm (Fig. 2).
The procedure and detailing used to manufacture each
original column was identical to that of an unstrengthened
specimen (denoted as O) that was constructed for a previ-
ous study at the Structural Laboratory of the Department
of Civil Engineering at the University of Patras [3]. As
shown in Fig. 3, the original columns had cross sectional
dimensions of 250 mm by 250 mm. Four 14 mm diameter
grade S220 bars were used for the longitudinal reinforce-
1800 mm
N
1400 mm
575 250 575
250 265
780 mm
650 mm
W E
265
S 1400 mm
Plan Facade N and S
Fig. 2. Original column.
Fig. 1. Bent down bars as used in practice.
266 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
200 mm
100 Φ10/100 (S500) Φ 20 (S500)
m m
20
75 mm
1600 mm
10 55
Jacket
1300 mm
250 mm
230
20 55 10
Original column
75 mm
Φ14 (S220) Φ 8/200 (S220)
ment and each bar was anchored in the foundation by cover of the jacket was 20 mm. The longitudinal bars of
using 180 hooks. Stirrups of 8 mm diameter grade S220 the jacket were placed from the beginning. They were
bars were spaced at every 200 mm and the stirrup ends anchored in the foundation by using 200 mm long 90
were 90 hooks. The concrete cover was 10 mm. In order hooks. Each jacket was constructed to a height of
to apply the horizontal load, the tops of the columns were 1300 mm above the foundation. After casting the jacket,
locally strengthened. Four 18 mm diameter grade S500 the final dimensions of the cross section were 400 mm by
bars and 8 mm diameter grade S220 stirrups at 100 mm 400 mm. One month after casting the concrete of the origi-
spacing were used for the local strengthening. In addition, nal column, the jacket stirrups were placed and the jacket
a 10 mm diameter grade S500 U-shaped bar was placed in was constructed by using either shotcrete or cast in situ
each side. In order to attach the horizontal displacement concrete.
actuator, 40 mm diameter plastic pipes were placed near The monolithic specimen had the same cross sectional
the top of each column. dimensions and the same longitudinal and stirrup rein-
For all strengthened specimens, the thickness of the forcement as the strengthened specimens (Fig. 3).
jacket of was 75 mm and there was no special treatment The mechanical characteristics of the s teel used for all
at the interface between the original column and the jacket. specimens are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the
The reinforcement for each jacket consisted of four longi- mean value of the cylindrical concrete strength on the
tudinal 20 mm diameter grade S500 bars and 10 mm diam- day of testing for all specimens.
eter grade S500 stirrups spaced at every 100 mm. In The construction detailing of the jackets was different
general, it was not possible to form 135 hooks at the ends for each strengthened specimen. For specimen N, the ends
of the stirrups, since the original column impeded the of the four lowest stirrups of the jacket were welded
hooks and the jacket stirrup ends were bent in towards together. The weld length was 50 mm, as shown in Fig. 4.
the concrete core as far as possible. In some cases, as For specimen E, holes of 22 mm diameter were drilled in
described below in more detail, the stirrup ends were every side of the original column at heights of 200 mm,
welded together to ensure their anchorage. The concrete 700 mm and 1200 mm above the foundation. A special
Table 1
Steel characteristics
Element Steel grade Bar diameter Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa)
Original column Longitudinal reinforcement S220 U14 313.0 441.7
Stirrups S220 U8 425.4 596.3
Jacket Longitudinal reinforcement S500 U20 487.1 657.0
Stirrups S500 U10 599.2 677.2
K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 267
Table 2 Table 3
Concrete strengths Strengthened specimens characteristics
Specimen N E W O M Specimen N E W
Original column concrete strength (MPa) 27.0 36.8 22.9 27.0 24.7 Jacket concrete Poured Poured Shotcrete
Jacket concrete strength (MPa) 17.8 24.0 18.8 – – Dowels No Yes No
Bent down bars No No Yes
Stirrup ends welding Yes Yes No
360 mm
the original column bar (at one point) and then to the
jacket bar (at two points). As also shown in Fig. 5, each
weld length was 70 mm, which was 5 times the diameter
of the thinnest bar to be welded together. Welding was per-
formed only on one side of the bars.
Table 3 presents a summary of the characteristics of the
strengthened specimens.
360 mm
welding
70 mm 100
150 mm
5o
13
Displacement (mm)
50
welding
70 mm
100 mm
-50
welding
150 mm
70 mm
-100
-150
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cycle number
Fig. 5. Bent down steel connector geometry. Fig. 6. Lateral displacement history.
268 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
The normalized axial load ratio for the strengthened an IPE 600 steel beam. During the cyclic loading, as the
specimens was calculated from the following expression: specimen swayed, an increasing additional axial load was
Ni imposed via the tendons that held the IPE 600 beam in
mi ¼ place. This resulted in an axial load that was not constant
ðAco fco Þ þ ðAcj fcj Þ
during the test. For specimens N, E and W respectively, the
The normalized axial load ratio for specimens O and M actual axial load ranged from 720.0 to 770.0 kN, 860.0 to
was calculated using the following equation: 950.0 kN and 640.0 to 830.0 kN. The range of the actual
Ni axial load for specimen M was 800.0–1050 kN and the
mi ¼ range for specimen O was from 680.0 to 690.0 kN.
Aco fco
According to EC 2 [8], the theoretical maximum flexural
where: strength of the strengthened specimens, if considered as
monolithic, was found to be 255.5 kN m, 284.0 kN m and
Ni is the initial applied axial load, 260.0 kN m for specimens N, E and W respectively. These
Aco is the cross sectional area of original concrete values correspond to a lateral force of 159.7 kN, 177.5 kN
(400 · 400 mm2 for specimen M and and 162.5 kN for specimens N, E and W respectively. The
250 · 250 mm2 for specimens NT, E, W and O), theoretical shear strengths were found to be 372.5 kN,
Acj is the cross sectional area of the jacket concrete for 382.4 kN and 365.6 kN for specimens N, E and W respec-
specimens N, E and W, tively. For the monolithic specimen, the maximum theoret-
fco is the concrete strength of the original or the ical flexural strength was found to be 301.0 kN m, which
monolithic column on the day of testing and corresponds to a lateral force equal to 188.1 kN. In addi-
fcj is the concrete strength of the jacket on the day of tion, the theoretical shear strength was found to be
testing for the strengthened specimens NT, E and 367.8 kN. Therefore, it would be expected that the
W. strengthened and the monolithic specimens would fail
due to bending.
The initial applied axial load for the strengthened spec-
imens was 720.0 kN, 860.0 kN and 640.0 kN for specimens 4. Test results
N, E and W respectively and the applied axial load for
specimen M was 800.0 kN. These values correspond to ini- 4.1. Strengthened specimens
tial normalized axial load ratios of 0.20, 0.21, 0.19 and 0.20
for specimens N, E, W and M respectively. Specimen O The failure mechanism of the strengthened specimens
was tested by other researchers [3], who used an initial was not the same for all specimens. The typical damage
applied load of 680.0 kN. Due to the test setup, the axial sequence was as follows: horizontal cracks occurred at
load increased and decreased during testing. As shown in the beginning at the lower part of the column just above
Fig. 6, the axial load was applied using a hydraulic jack, the foundation and then the cover spalled. After this point,
which was placed between the top of the specimen and for specimens N and E, the bond between the jacket and
K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 269
the original column weakened and extensive damage to the observed, which indicated a loss of bond between the bars
jacket was observed. For specimen W, the stirrup hook and the jacket. At the same time, cracks appeared at the
ends opened, the longitudinal bars buckled and, finally, a top of the jacket. During the next cycles, cracks occurred
longitudinal bar fractured. over the whole jacket length and crack widths increased.
When the displacement was 60 mm, as shown in Fig. 9, a
4.1.1. Specimen N crack at the top of the jacket on side N became very wide,
The lateral load against displacement curve for specimen indicating that there was a complete loss of bond, and
N is shown in Fig. 8. therefore interaction, between the original column and
Horizontal cracks appeared quite early when the dis- the jacket. This is obvious by the fact that at this point
placement was 10 mm. During the next cycle, horizontal the specimen developed its maximum strength and, from
cracks were observed 200 mm and 600 mm above the foun- the next cycle onwards, the strength quickly degraded.
dation and the first diagonal crack appeared on side S, The test was terminated when the displacement was
350 mm above the foundation. When the displacement 80 mm because of strength degradation and extensive
was 25 mm, further horizontal cracks were observed and jacket damage. The maximum strength of the specimen
diagonal cracks occurred on side N. In addition, during was 149.8 kN. When the test was ended, the strength had
this cycle, cracks parallel to the longitudinal bars were reduced to 58% of the maximum. After the test, the condi-
tion of the jacket was very bad. Cracks had occurred on all
four sides of the specimen and over the whole jacket height.
200
The separation of the jacket from the original column was
N
150 obvious. The jacket reinforcement bars did not buckle
because the stirrup ends were welded together. After reach-
100
ing the maximum strength, there was a sudden drop in
50 strength, which was due to the separation of the jacket
from the original column. The loss of bond between the
Load (kN)
E S W N
Fig. 10. Crack patterns for specimen N after testing.
200
E
150
100
50
Load (kN)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Fig. 12. Crack patterns of specimen E during testing.
E S W N
Fig. 13. Crack patterns for specimen E after testing.
200
W
150
100
Bar fracture
50
Load (kN)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Fig. 15. Damaged region of specimen W.
Displacement (mm)
Bar fracture
E S W N
Fig. 16. Side crack patterns for specimen W.
200 200
M O
150 150
100 100
50 50
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Fig. 17. Load against displacement curve for the monolithic specimen. Fig. 18. Load against displacement curve for the unstrengthened
specimen.
F2
0 Fig. 19 above, it can be seen that the maximum strength
of specimen N was 3.44 times greater than that of the
-50
unstrengthened specimen. This finding demonstrates the
-100 importance of jacketing.
M
N
From Table 4, when comparing strengths at the yield
-150 E
W point stage, the strengths of specimens N, E and W were
O
-200
35.8%, 4.3% and 18.9% respectively less than that for the
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 monolithic specimen. At the maximum and ultimate load
Displacement (mm) stages, these values were 16.3%, 9.1% and 18.9%
Fig. 19. Load against displacement envelopes for all specimens.
respectively.
As was expected, specimen N exhibited the lowest
improvement in structural characteristics (when comparing
refers to pushing direction, but it must be noted that the the strengthened specimens). However, it must be stressed
comments made here are also valid for the pulling direction. that, up to the maximum load stage, the differences were
Table 4 summarises the test results. For Table 4, the negligible. After this stage, large variations can be observed
yield load, Py, and the corresponding displacement, dy, as far as the deformation capacity is concerned and this in
have been obtained by performing a bilinear idealization turn led to a poor ductility performance and a premature
of the experimental capacity curves of the specimens. In failure. The maximum strength of specimen N occurred
order to establish a bilinear idealization, the rule of equal when the displacement was 20 mm, which was much earlier
energy under the capacity curve has been adopted in a sim- than that of the other strengthened specimens. Moreover,
ilar way to that described in ATC 40 [1], so that the total after reaching its maximum strength, this specimen did
energy up to the maximum force is the same for both the not maintain its strength for further cycles, which resulted
experimental curve and the bilinear idealization. Values in an earlier failure when compared to the other two
of Pmax are the recorded maximum values of the applied strengthened specimens. The maximum strength of speci-
lateral load, while dmax are the corresponding displace- men N was similar to that of specimen W (which also
ments. The failure load, Pu, is defined as the lateral load had a low jacket concrete strength) but was significantly
that is 20% less than Pmax and the failure displacement, lower than that of specimen E. This poor behaviour as
du, corresponds to this failure load. far as the ductility is concerned, may be attributed to the
By comparing the results of the strengthened specimens poor interface connection. The poor performance of spec-
to the unstrengthened specimen, it is obvious that concrete imen N cannot be considered as acceptable in earthquake
jacketing offers a significant enhancement to the structural loading situations.
characteristics (stiffness, strength and displacement capac- Specimen W experienced very good ductility even
ity) of RC elements. though the jacket concrete strength was low and there
From Table 4, the maximum strength of the strength- was no special preparation at the interface (as was the same
ened specimens N, E and W were 3 to 4 times greater than for specimen N). This demonstrates the significant contri-
the maximum strength of the unstrengthened specimen. At bution of the steel bent down connectors.
the maximum load stage, the displacements of the strength- The control specimen M achieved the largest maximum
ened specimens E and W were more than two times greater load capacity and had good deformability and high ductil-
than the corresponding displacement of the unstrengthened ity as, after reaching the maximum load, the specimen kept
specimen, while the displacement of specimen N was lower its strength for several further loading cycles. Specimens E
than of the unstrengthened specimen. and W performed in a similar way to the monolithic spec-
imen by exhibiting the same deformation capacities, but
Table 4 they had lower strengths and stiffnesses. As specimen E
Test results was constructed without the beneficial action of sprayed
Specimen Py dy Pmax dmax Pu du concrete and without any special preparation of the surface
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) of the original column, the good performance of specimen
N 95.2 6.1 149.8 18.2 119.8 59.5 E, in relation to specimen W, could be attributed to the
E 142.0 7.7 162.7 44.2 130.1 87.4 guaranteed anchorage of the stirrup ends by welding and
W 120.4 8.5 145.1 44.6 116.0 92.9 to the presence of dowels at the interface.
M 148.4 6.2 179.0 33.3 143.2 79.6 For comparison reasons, the results of two composite
O 32.5 8.9 43.5 19.7 34.8 32.6
specimens [12] have been added to Fig. 19. The original
274 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
Load
were constructed in the same way as the original columns
of the present work. The only differences were that
strengthen was performed by placing two layer (F2) and
four layer (F4) carbon fibre reinforced polymer, CFRP, K+
16
N stiffness was only 12.7% lower than the initial stiffness of
E
W
O
the monolithic specimen. The specimen lost its stiffness fas-
14
Failure stage
ter than the other strengthened specimens and resulted in
12 the lowest final stiffness. This can be attributed to a lack
Stiffness (kN/mm)
Failure stage
sons, as it can be observed from Figs. 22 and 23, for nearly
0 all stages of loading, specimen W performed better than the
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cycle monolithic specimen.
By looking globally at the results and by taking into
Fig. 22. Dissipated energy rate for all specimens.
account previous findings [14,15], a number of construction
details can be suggested for practical applications. Firstly,
in order to strengthen an element, some form of jacketing
treatment is required. In the case where it is not possible
180
to form adequate 135 angles at the ends of the stirrups,
due to the obstruction of the original column, the stirrup
Cumulative dissipated energy (kN*m)
160
ends must be welded together. The use of shotcrete rather
140
than poured concrete is the preferred option but shotcrete
120 requires the use of specialist staff and equipment. The
100
placement of bent down steel connector bars is a worth-
while practice although the procedure is difficult to perform
80 in practice. If bent down steel connector bars are not used
60 for practicality reasons, the alternative of placing dowels at
the interface is acceptable. Strengthening by using concrete
M
40 N
E
jacket techniques considerably increases the stiffness and
20
W
O the strength of columns while strengthening by using
Failure stage CFRPs considerably increases the ductility. Finally, the
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 experiments detailed in this paper have been carried out
Displacement (mm) under laboratory controlled conditions. The engineer can
only expect to achieve similar results on site by performing
Fig. 23. Cumulative dissipated energy for all specimens.
a very high level of quality control.
6. Conclusions
from Fig. 22, during the initial stages of loading, all
strengthened specimens dissipated energy in a similar way This paper has presented an investigation of the effec-
as the monolithic specimen. However, after the 7th cycle, tiveness of using alternative techniques to place concrete
a faster degradation of the dissipated energy capacity is jackets in order to strengthen concrete columns. Three dif-
observed for specimens E and N. For these two specimens, ferent jacket construction procedures were used. These
since no roughening at the interface was performed and were: (a) welding of the jacket stirrup ends and a poured
shotcrete was not used for the jacket, there was very little concrete jacket (specimen N), (b) welding of the jacket stir-
cohesion between the jacket and the original column. It rup ends, dowel placement at the interface and a poured
appears that, after the 6th cycle, since the imposed dis- concrete jacket (specimen E) and (c) bent down bars con-
placement increases, the slippage at the interface increases, necting the jacket bars to the longitudinal bars of the origi-
resulting in the loss of cohesion and a gradual separation nal column and a shotcrete jacket. In addition, for
(cycle by cycle) of the jacket from the original column. comparative purposes, the results from two specimens
Therefore, the contribution of friction at the interface to strengthened by using CFRPs have been presented.
the dissipation of energy is reduced. As expected, for the It has been demonstrated that the behaviour of elements
strengthened specimens, specimen N performed the worst. can be significantly improved by strengthening, even when
Nevertheless, the dissipated energy of specimen N, at the the jacket is constructed with no treatment at the interface.
failure stage, was almost 10 times greater than that of the In effect, a lower limit to the effectiveness of the method has
unstrengthened specimen. When comparing the behaviour been set. In this case, a significant reduction in the ductility
276 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276