Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 November 2008
Received in revised form 16 May 2009
Accepted 18 June 2009
Keywords:
Reinforced concrete
Repair mortars
Interface
Cracking
Columns
a b s t r a c t
The aim of the paper is to investigate the compatibility and the efciency of the rehabilitation intervention on reinforced concrete columns with polymer-modied cementicious mortar. This paper presents
the results of experimental tests on axial behaviour of reinforced concrete columns, with square crosssection, repaired by polymer-modied cementicious mortar. Tests were repeated varying repair thickness, which included or did not include the steel reinforcement on one face of the square column. Despite
this type of intervention is quite common in practice, the effect of repair thickness on the intervention
efciency, in relation to the existing steel reinforcement conguration, had not been previously studied
in detail for axially loaded elements.
Results were discussed and compared with those from control columns, which were tested in nondamaged, non-repaired conditions. The main ndings of this work can be summarized as follows. The
repair cannot restore the load-bearing capacity of non-damaged control columns, although they give
acceptable results. Repairs that include the longitudinal reinforcement show good properties, with stable
behaviour, sharing of loads, and plasticization of the material before failure, whereas thin repairs that do
not include the reinforcement do not have adequate performance due to premature debonding. Non-linear numerical models also conrmed the different behaviour of the two types of repair.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The eld of rehabilitation and strengthening of reinforced concrete structural elements shows an increasing interest for existing
constructions and various projects have been carried out around
the world over the past two decades. Structural strengthening
and repairing is aimed at increasing or restoring the load-bearing
capacity of the element, due to changes in conditions of use (e.g.
increased loading) or deterioration and damage of the concrete
structure (for example due to environmental conditions or seismic
events). Historically, steel has been the primary material used to
strengthen concrete structures. Bonded steel plates or stirrups
have been applied externally to successfully repair reinforced concrete elements. However, using steel as a strengthening element
adds additional dead load to the structure and normally requires
corrosion protection. Externally bonded ber-reinforced polymers
(FRP) sheets/plates exhibit several attractive properties, such as
low weight-to-strength ratios, non-corrosiveness, and ease of
application. A number of experimental programs and analytical
studies have been developed in the last few years at the University
of Padova on exural [19,28], shear [16,17,18] and bond behaviour
[21,20] of FRP strengthened elements. In this context, adding or
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +39 049 8275618.
E-mail address: carlo.pellegrino@unipd.it (C. Pellegrino).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.025
applying mortar, spraying concrete or mortar with the aim of rehabilitating and/or strengthening of existing reinforced concrete
structures is also a possible way of intervention with a more traditional and common material [5].
Emberson and Mays [1] carried out one of the rst extensive
experimental studies on the inuence of mechanical and physical
properties of repair mortars, applied on axially loaded (in tension)
reinforced concrete elements. They numerically modelled the axial
load transfer through repair and substrate in the linear elastic
range. They also worked on exural elements, and studied the effect of repairs applied either in the compression or tension regions
of reinforced concrete beams [2]. Following, most research focused
on exural elements. For example, Hassan et al. [9] tested the compatibility of cementicious, polymer, and polymer-modied mortar
repairs to concrete. Ro et al. [24] tested beams designed to fail in
exure, after localized articial corrosion at midspan and localized
patch-repair with three types of mortar (cement based, epoxy resin
binder, and polymer-modied mortar). Park and Yang [15] tested
eight beams repaired in the tension region with ordinary Portland
and polymer-modied cement mortar. They varied reinforcement
ratio and repair length. Shannag and Al-Ateek [26] tested 30
under-reinforced concrete beams, repaired in the tension region
with ve materials: ordinary Portland cement and four types of
ber-reinforced cementicious materials. Once repaired, the beams
were tested as they were or after accelerated corrosion. Nounu and
3130
P0_a;b
P15_a;b
P50_a;b
800
800
300
800
300
300
15
2 12
300
50
2 12
300
300
2 12
300
2 12
2 12
300
2 12
300
3131
Section (mm2)
Column
Axial
300 300
Longitudinal reinforcement
Tension
ql (%)
Transversal reinforcement
qw (%)
Condition
Designation
0.50
1U8/140 mm
0.24
Control column
Repair 15 mm
Repair 50 mm
P00_a; P00_b
P15_a; P15_b
P50_a; P50_b
Compression
4U12
construction was 34.8 N/mm2. Mean tensile strength, measured by splitting tests on
three cylindrical samples having diameter 150 mm and height 300 mm, was 3.19 N/
mm2. Elastic modulus was not measured, but according to the measured cubic compressive strength and Eurocode 2 formulations [3], it was assumed to be around
32,500 N/mm2.
Ribbed bars used for longitudinal reinforcement and for transversal reinforcement were both tested in tension. Mechanical properties were similar for the two
types of bars; mean yield stress was 532 N/mm2 and mean tensile strength was
628 N/mm2. Strain at failure was 25%.
Finally, the cementicious material, used for repairing all columns, was premixed, tixotropic, polymer-modied mortar with high-strength hydraulic binders
and aggregates having maximum thickness of 4 mm. This product has high bond
properties, low CO2 and vapour permeability, limited shrinkage. It is generally used
for cover repair in reinforced concrete structures. Mechanical properties of the repair mortar were measured on samples having dimensions of 40 40 160 mm,
cast during the repair interventions on columns. These samples were tested after
28 days curing. Density of hardened mortar was 2170 kg/m3. Mean tensile strength
deducted from six exural tests was equal to 3.48 N/mm2. Mean cubic compressive
strength (six samples) was 39.6 N/mm2, mean elastic modulus (three samples) was
26,200 N/mm2. Table 2 compares the mechanical properties of the concrete support
and the repair material. It can be seen that the measured compressive strengths differ for 4.8 MPa, the measured tensile strengths differ for about 0.3 MPa and concrete and mortar elastic modules differ for less than 10 kN/mm2.
2.3. Testing procedures
Axial tests on columns were carried out monotonically, under a 10,000 kN loading machine, with loads increased between 0.5 and 2.5 kN/s. Pressure transducer
mounted on the loading machine was used to measure the applied loads. The control
columns were instrumented with six strain transducers (DD1; 100 mm measuring
base), placed at mid-height along the columns. Four DD1 were placed on two adjacent orthogonal faces, two in the horizontal and two in the vertical direction, to
measure transverse and axial strains. On the other two faces, two horizontal DD1
were placed close to the column corners, in order to gather information on possible
instability of the reinforcement. Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDT)
with 600 mm measuring base were also placed vertically on two faces, to measure
overall axial strains of the columns. For the repaired columns, other two strain
transducers (DD1) were placed across the repair layer-concrete column interface,
to gather information on the behaviour of the interface. The other instruments were
placed on two adjacent orthogonal faces, one of which was repaired and the other
left in the original conditions, in order to gather information on the behaviour of
the repair material. Fig. 2 shows the test setup and instrumentation on the four sides
of a repaired column and some details of displacement and strain transducers on the
repair layer and across the interface between concrete support and mortar layer.
3. Test results
In the following the main results of the experimental program are
shown in terms of failure modes, cracking patterns, stress vs. (axial
and transversal) strain curves of undamaged and repaired columns.
3.1. Failure modes and ultimate loads
All columns showed compressive failure with crushing of concrete. Vertical and sub-vertical cracks generally developed close
Table 2
Mechanical properties of concrete and repair mortar.
Property
Concrete
Mortar
2380
34.8
32.5a
3.19
2168
39.6
26.2
3.48
3132
STRAIN TRASDUCER
LVDT TRASDUCER
LVDT TRASDUCER
STRAIN
TRASDUCERS
3133
code (G+D Computing [8]) was used for the numerical analyses.
Eight-node solid elements were used to model concrete substrate,
while beam elements were used for the steel reinforcement. In repaired columns type P15 and P50, the mortar repair was also modelled with eight-node solid elements, having properties different
from those adopted for concrete. The interface between concrete
substrate and mortar repair was modelled by means of link elements with tension cut-off. Translation of nodes at the upper and
lower bases was restrained in the two orthogonal horizontal directions to reproduce friction between upper and lower faces of the
columns and the loading machine plate. Simplied parabolic
stressstrain relationships derived from Hognestad [10] were
adopted for the concrete substrate and the mortar repair, while
elasto-plastic bilinear relationship with hardening was used for
steel. The properties of materials were derived from the experimental tests and are listed in Table 5. The Poisson ratio of the concrete and steel were assumed according to Eurocode 2 [3] and
Eurocode 3 [4], respectively. The Poisson ratio of the mortar was
assumed equal to that of the concrete. The described models were
used to carry out non-linear static analyses, under constantly
increasing loads.
Fig. 9 compares experimental and numerical stressstrain
curves. For the non-damaged, non-repaired columns (type P00),
the model reproduces very well the mean stressstrain curves
of the two tested specimens until peak value. Initial elastic stiffness and value of ultimate load are well reproduced, as can be
seen by the stresstransversal strain curve and stressaxial
strain curve. Only the latter is slightly stiffer in the model. In
the case of columns type P15, repaired with 15 mm thick mortar
layer the model reproduces quite well the values of initial elastic
stiffness and ultimate load, as can be seen by the stresstransversal strain curve and stressaxial strain curve obtained on
the non-repaired side of the column. The axial strains on the repair had trend similar to that measured on the non-repaired side
of the column only during the rst elastic phase, and the model
still gives good results. During experimental tests, at stress level
between 76% and 58% of the ultimate capacity, the repairs debonded from the concrete. Although the model cannot reproduce
the subsequent strain release, the numerical curve presents a
sudden discontinuity at the upper bound of this range of stresses. The model is thus able to show the debonding of repair. This
3134
Table 3
Results of axial tests.
Column
(a)/(b)
P00_a
P00_b
P15_a
P15_b
P50_a
P50_b
1901
1575
2430 (partial)
2160 (partial)
2929
2869
2507
2709
2606
2501
0.76
0.58
0.93
0.86
5. Discussion
The experimental results obtained on axially loaded columns
showed that repairs on one side of the columns could not re-establish completely the load-bearing capacity of the non-damaged control columns. Ultimate load of the repaired columns was on
3135
35
30
30
25
25
20
15
transv. strain column
transv. strain column
axial strain column
axial strain column
10
5
Stress [N/mm 2]
Stress [N/mm 2]
20
15
P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (column)
P15_b (column)
P50_a (column)
P50_b (column)
10
5
0
0.0
-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.5
1.0
Strain [10-3]
20
15
10
5
-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Strain [10-3]
Stress [N/mm 2]
Stress [N/mm 2]
3.5
4.0
30
25
3.0
35
30
1.5
2.0
2.5
Strain [10-3]
25
20
15
P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (repair)
P15_b (repair)
P50_a (repair)
P50_b (repair)
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Strain [10-3]
Fig. 7. Stressaxial strain curves, on original column and on repair (all specimens).
Stress [N/mm 2]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-3
Strain [10 ]
Fig. 6. Stressstrain curves of undamaged (P00_a), and repaired (P15_a, P50_a)
columns.
average 91% that of the control columns. Thin repairs (15 mm),
substituting only the reinforcement cover, showed premature debonding from the concrete substrate, on average at 67% of the ultimate load. After debonding, the repairs were not effective, as
revealed by strain analysis, and the entire load was transferred to
the original, non-repaired portion of the columns. When the repair
layer included the reinforcement (50 mm thick), the global behaviour of the repaired columns was improved. Debonding of repair
from the concrete substrate was limited and occurred only at the
column corners, on average at 90% of ultimate load. After partial
debonding, the repairs kept on collaborating with the concrete
support, as revealed by strain analysis. Plasticization of both concrete on the non-repaired column sides and mortar repairs revealed that both portions of the repaired columns were
3136
Table 4
Stresses and strains of axial tests.
1/3 Ultimate load
Transv. strain (a)
(10 3)
P00_a
P00_b
P15_a
Column
Repair
Column
Repair
Column
Repair
Column
Repair
P15_b
P50_a
P50_b
10.3
10.6
9.3
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.24
10.0
9.7
9.3
(a)/(b)
Axial strain (b)
(10 3)
0.41
0.39
0.31
0.51
0.30
0.38
0.23
0.74
0.24
1.00
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.20
0.16
0.23
0.24
21.1
27.0
24.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
15
10
Stress [N/mm 2]
20
15
10
5
0
-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
4.0
Strain [10-3]
35
30
Stress [N/mm 2]
30
25
20
15
P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (repair)
P15_b (repair)
P50_a (repair)
P50_b (repair)
10
5
0
27.8
Strain [10-3]
35
29.0
0.0
30.1
20
25
10
0.97
1.30
0.55
1.08
1.48
2.25
1.06
2.40
2.41
2.52
2.25
0.79
2.11
0.54
2.28
3.30
2.21
2.71
25
25
P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (column)
P15_b (column)
P50_a (column)
P50_b (column)
31.0
31.9
27.9
Axial Strain
(10 3)
30
30
15
Stress (N/mm2)
Axial strain
35
20
Ultimate Load
35
30
Stress [N/mm 2]
0.20
0.23
0.13
0.06
0.25
0.43
0.29
0.54
17.5
35
Debonding
Transv. strain
(10 3)
Stress [N/mm 2]
Stress (N/mm2)
Stress [N/mm 2]
Stress (N/mm2)
Column
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Strain [10-3]
Fig. 8. Stresstransversal strain curves, on original column and on repair (all
specimens).
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Strain [10-3]
Fig. 9. Experimental and numerical stressstrain curves of undamaged (P00), and
repaired (P15; P50) columns.
3137
fc (N/mm2)
ecu (%)
fct (N/mm2)
ectu (%)
fy (N/mm2)
ey (%)
ft (N/mm2)
et (%)
E (N/mm2)
m ()
Concrete
Mortar
Steel
28.90
32.87
0.18
0.25
3.19
3.48
0.01
0.01
532
0.27
628
25
32,500
26,200
200,000
0.20
0.20
0.30
Fig. 10. Model displacement in horizontal direction for P15 at debonding (left) and
P50 at same vertical load level (right).
[5] European Committee for Standardization. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures Denitions, requirements,
quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 3: Structural and nonstructural repair. EN 1504-3, Brussels, Belgium; 2005.
[6] Fib. Seismic assessment and retrot of reinforced concrete buildings. State of
Art Report, Bulletin 24. Federation International du Beton: Lausanne
(Switzerland); 2003.
[7] Fukuyama K, Higashibata Y, Miyauchi Y. Studies on repair and strengthening
methods of damaged reinforced concrete columns. Cement Concrete Compos
2000;22:818.
[8] G+D Computing. Straus7 users manual. Sydney; 2005.
[9] Hassan KE, Brooks JJ, Al-Alawi L. Compatibility of repair mortars with concrete
in a hot-dry environment. Cement Concrete Compos 2001;23:93101.
[10] Hognestad E. A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced
concrete members, Bulletin No. 399. University of Illinois, Urbana IL
USA: Engineering Experimental Station; 1951.
[11] Jumaat MZ, Kabir MH, Obaydullah M. A review of the repair of reinforced
concrete beams. J Appl Sci Res 2006;2(6):31726.
[12] Kim JHJ, Lim YM, Won JP, Park HG, Lee KM. Shear capacity and failure
behaviour of DFRCC repaired RC beams at tensile region. Eng Struct
2007;29:12131. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.023.
[13] Mangat PS, OFlaherty FJ. Inuence of elastic modulus on stress redistribution
and cracking in repair patches. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30:12536.
[14] Nounu G, Chaudhary Z-UL-H. Reinforced concrete repair in beams. Constr
Build Mater 1999;13:195212.
[15] Park SK, Yang DS. Flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with
cementitious repair materials. Mater Struct 2005;38:32934. doi:10.1617/
14051.
[16] Pellegrino C, Modena C. FRP shear strengthening of RC beams with transverse
steel reinforcement. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):10411.
[17] Pellegrino C, Modena C. FRP shear strengthening of RC beams: experimental
study and analytical modelling. ACI Struct J 2006;103(5):7208.
[18] Pellegrino C, Modena C. An experimentally based analytical model for shear
capacity of FRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Mech Compos Mater
2008;44(3):23144.
[19] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Flexural strengthening of real-scale RC and PRC beams
with end-anchored pre-tensioned FRP laminates. ACI Struct J
2009;106(3):31928.
[20] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Inuence of FRP axial rigidity on FRP-concrete bond
behaviour: an analytical study. Adv Struct Eng, in press.
[21] Pellegrino C, Tinazzi D, Modena C. An experimental study on bond behavior
between concrete and FRP reinforcement. J Compos Constr 2008;12(2):1809.
[22] Rahman K, Baluch MH, Al-Gadhib A. Modeling of shrinkage and creep stresses
in concrete repair. ACI Mater J 1999;96(5):54250.
[23] Ramirez JL. Ten concrete column repair methods. Constr Build Mater
1996;10:195202.
[24] Ro O, Andrade C, Izquierdo D, Alonso C. Behaviour of patch-repaired concrete
structural elements under increasing static loads to exural failure. J Mater
civil Eng 2005;17(2):16877. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:2. 168.
[25] Shambira MV, Nounu G. On the effect of time-dependent deformations on the
behaviour of patch-repaired reinforced concrete short columns. Constr Build
Mater 2000;14:42532.
[26] Shannag MJ, Al-Ateek SA. Flexural behaviour of strengthened concrete beams
with corroding reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:83440.
[27] Sharif A, Rahman MK, Al-Gahtani AS, Hameeduddin M. Behaviour of patch
repair of axially loaded reinforced concrete beams. Cement Concrete Compos
2006;28:73441. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.05.013.
[28] Valluzzi MR, Grinzato E, Pellegrino C, Modena C. IR thermography for interface
analysis of FRP laminates externally bonded to RC beams. Mater Struct
2009;42(1):2534.