1
Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams Repaired with
2
Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM)
3
Mohammed Elghazy1*, Ahmed El Refai 2, Usama Ebead 3, and Antonio Nanni 4
4
Abstract
5
The structural performance of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) beams repaired with
6
fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) was investigated. Eleven large-scale RC beams
7
were constructed and tested in flexure under four-point load configuration. Nine beams were
8
subjected to an accelerated corrosion process for 70 days to obtain an average mass loss of 12.6%
9
in the tensile steel reinforcing bars while two other beams were tested as controls. One corroded
10
beam was repaired with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) before testing for comparison.
11
The test parameters included the number of fabric plies (1, 2, 3, and 4), the FRCM repair scheme
12
(end-anchored and continuous U-wrapped strips), and FRCM materials (carbon and
13
polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole (PBO)). Test results showed that corrosion slightly reduced
14
the yield and ultimate strengths of the beams. The use of FRCM increased the ultimate capacity of
15
corroded beams between 5% and 52% and their yield strength between 6% and 22% of those of
16
the uncorroded virgin beam. Beams repaired with continuous U-wrapped FRCM strips showed
17
higher capacity and higher ductility than those repaired with the end-anchored bottom strips having
18
similar number of layers. A high gain in the flexural capacity and a low ductility index were
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. Email:
[email protected] 2 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. Email:
[email protected] 3 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University P. O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar. Email:
[email protected] 4 Inaugural Senior Scholar, Professor and Chair, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, University of Miami, 1251 Memorial Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146-0630, USA. Email:
[email protected]
1
19
reported for specimens with high amount of FRCM layers. A new factor was incorporated in the
20
design equations of the ACI-549.4R-13 to account for the FRCM scheme.
21
Authors’ keywords: Corrosion; Fabric-reinforced cementitious mortars; Flexure; Reinforced
22
concrete; Repair; Strengthening.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
2
39
Introduction and background
40
Corrosion of steel reinforcement is one of the main causes of the deterioration of reinforced
41
concrete (RC) structures. Corroded structures suffer from loss of cross section of the bars, bond
42
deterioration, and concrete spalling, which can jeopardize the structure’s safety (Torres-Acosta et
43
al. 2007; Vidal et al. 2007; Xia et al. 2012). Several techniques had been adopted to repair and
44
strengthen corroded structures, with the use of externally-bonded steel plates and more recently
45
the epoxy-bonded fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) being the most common techniques.
46
Numerous studies have documented the advantages of using FRP as repair materials for
47
corrosion-damaged structures (Masoud and Soudki 2006; Al-Saidy and Al-Jabri 2011; Malumbela
48
and Alexander 2011). However, concerns about the poor fire resistance of epoxy (Hashemi and
49
Al-Mahaidi 2012a), the incompatibility with the concrete substrate (Al-Salloum et al. 2012), and
50
the loss of ductility of the repaired structures (Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi 2012b) have been widely
51
reported. In a desire to overcome these drawbacks, the fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix
52
(FRCM) systems, with their cement-based adhesives, have been introduced as a promising
53
alternative to the FRP systems (Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2005; Brückner et al. 2006;
54
Täljsten and Blanksvärd 2007; Schladitz et al. 2012; Tetta et al. 2015). FRCM systems are
55
characterized by their lightweight, high tensile strength, corrosion resistance, and ease of
56
application. More importantly, the mortars in the FRCM composites act as barriers against chloride
57
ions penetration thus protecting the reinforcing bars from corrosion. Their mechanical properties
58
are strongly influenced by the fabric’s material and geometry and the ability of the cementitious
59
matrix to impregnate the fabric. The bond strength at the fabric/matrix interface and at the FRCM
60
composite/concrete interface greatly affect the performance of the repaired element (Banholzer et
61
al. 2006).
3
62
Several studies have reported on the use of FRCM in repairing RC flexural elements
63
(Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2005; Brückner et al. 2006; Blanksvärd 2007; Hashemi and Al-
64
Mahaidi 2012a, b; Al-Salloum et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2013). D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011)
65
reported 6 to 46% gain in the load-carrying capacity of RC beams repaired with carbon and PBO-
66
FRCM systems. Beams repaired with PBO-FRCM performed better than those repaired with
67
carbon-FRCM due to the superior bond characteristics of the former system at the fabric/matrix
68
interface. The use of polymer-modified cementitious matrix in the PBO-FRCM improved the bond
69
of the fabric to the matrix and consequently increased the ultimate capacity of the repaired beams.
70
In another study, Loreto et al. (2013) reported an increase between 35 and 112% in the flexural
71
capacity of RC slabs repaired with PBO-FRCM depending on the volume fraction of the fabric
72
used. The authors reported that increasing the number of FRCM layers reduced the ductility of the
73
repaired slabs. Slabs repaired with one ply failed due to slippage of the fabric within the matrix
74
whereas those repaired with four plies failed by fabric delamination at the fabric/matrix interface.
75
These results were also confirmed by Babaeidarabad et al. (2014).
76
In a comparison between the performance of FRCM- and FRP-repaired beams, Elsanadedy et al.
77
(2013) reported that basalt-FRCM systems were less effective than carbon-FRP systems in
78
enhancing the flexural strength of the beams, yet the FRCM-repaired beams showed more ductility
79
at ultimate.
80
On the other hand, the feasibility of using FRCM systems to strengthen corrosion-damaged
81
concrete structures have received little attention. The challenges in repairing corroded RC elements
82
are two-fold, namely the absence of a sound concrete substrate due to corrosion and the durability
83
of the repair system should corrosion resumes. To the authors’ knowledge, only one study (El-
4
84
Maaddawy and Elrefai 2016) has documented the effectiveness of using basalt and carbon FRCM
85
systems to restore the ultimate capacity and serviceability of T-beams after a mass loss of 22% in
86
their tensile reinforcement due to corrosion. It was reported that the basalt-FRCM system could
87
not restore the original flexural capacity of the beam whereas the carbon-FRCM system restored
88
109% of the capacity. The authors reported that the use of a combination of internally-embedded
89
and externally-bonded carbon-FRCM layers was more effective in improving the strength and
90
ductility of the beams than the use of the same amount of FRCM layers internally embedded within
91
the corroded-repaired region.
92
This paper reports the results of the flexural tests conducted on corrosion-damaged RC beams
93
repaired with FRCM systems. The test program included the type of the FRCM used (carbon and
94
PBO), the FRCM reinforcement ratios (represented by the number of fabric plies bonded to the
95
concrete substrate, namely 1, 2, 3, and 4 plies), and the repair scheme (end-anchored and U-
96
wrapped strips). The paper also reports on the failure modes, the load-carrying capacities, the
97
ductility, and the straining actions at different stages of loading of the tested beams. Theoretical
98
formulations are also presented to predict the flexural response of the beams.
99
Experimental program
100
Eleven large-scale RC beams were constructed and tested as follows: two specimens were neither
101
corroded nor repaired (UU), one specimen was corroded but not repaired (CU), seven specimens
102
were corroded then repaired with different FRCM systems, and one specimen was corroded and
103
repaired with carbon-FRP (CFRP) sheets. The test matrix is shown in Table 1.
104
Test specimen
105
The test specimen was 2800 mm long with a 150 × 250 mm rectangular cross section. All beams
106
were reinforced with 2-15M deformed bars at the bottom (As = 400 mm2) and 2-8M deformed bars 5
107
at the top (As' = 100 mm2). The tensile reinforcement ratio was 1.067%. All of the specimens had
108
a moment span of 800 mm and a shear span of 880 mm. The shear spans were reinforced with
109
10M deformed stirrups spaced at 100 mm to avoid a premature shear failure. A hollow stainless
110
steel tube with external and internal diameters of 9.5 mm and 7 mm, respectively, was placed at
111
80 mm from the specimen tension face to act as cathode during the accelerated corrosion process.
112
Typical dimensions and reinforcement details of the test specimen are shown in Figure 1.
113
Accelerated corrosion aging
114
Salt (NaCl) measured as 5% of the cement weight was added to the concrete mix used to cast the
115
middle-bottom of the corroded specimens (Figure 1). Corrosion of the main reinforcement was
116
localized in the middle 1200 mm of the beam’s span with a height of 100 mm. A power supply
117
was used to impress a constant electrical current of 380 mA to obtain a current density of 180
118
µA/cm2 in the reinforcing bars. This current density was chosen to obtain corrosion products
119
similar to those obtained in natural conditions (El Maaddawy and Soudki, 2003). During the
120
accelerated corrosion process, the bottom reinforcement acted as anode whereas the stainless steel
121
tube acted as cathode and the salted concrete acted as electrolyte. The test specimens were
122
electrically connected in series to ensure that the induced current was uniform in all specimens
123
(Figure 2). All specimens were subjected to wet-dry cycles that consisted of 3 days wet followed
124
by 3 days dry in a large environmental chamber. The wet-dry cycles provided water and oxygen
125
necessary for the corrosion process. In this study, a 10% mass loss in the reinforcing bars was
126
anticipated to represent moderate corrosion damage. According to Faraday’s law, the duration of
127
corrosion exposure required to achieve this mass loss was 70 days.
128
Materials
6
129
Two ready concrete mixes (normal and salted) with similar water/cement ratio were used to cast
130
the beams. Standard concrete cylinders (150 x 300 mm) were prepared from each concrete batch
131
and were tested in compression after 28 days and on the day of testing. Table 2 lists the
132
compressive strengths of both mixes. Prior to fiber application, the corroded beams were repaired
133
using local commercial cementitious repair mortar (Sikacrete-08SCC) having a compressive
134
strength of 55.36 MPa (standard deviation of 4.97 MPa) and flexural strength of 3.36 MPa
135
(standard deviation of 0.26 MPa) as determined by the authors. The nominal yield strength of the
136
reinforcement steel bars was 400 MPa with elastic modulus of 200 GPa.
137
Two commercial FRCM systems (PBO and carbon) in addition to carbon-FRP composites were
138
used to strengthen the corroded specimens (Figure 3). The fabric properties in the primary direction
139
as reported in the manufacturers’ data sheet are shown in Table 3. The PBO fabric consists of an
140
unbalanced net of spaced fiber rovings organized along two orthogonal directions as shown in
141
Figure 3a. The associated inorganic cementitious matrix had a compressive strength of 43.86 MPa
142
(standard deviation of 0.41 MPa) and a flexural strength of 3.01 MPa (standard deviation of 0.32
143
MPa) after 28 days as determined by the authors. On the other hand, the carbon-FRCM composite
144
consists of unidirectional net made of carbon-fiber strands oriented in one direction (Figure 3b)
145
and impregnated in an inorganic cementitious matrix of compressive strength of 42.11 MPa
146
(standard deviation of 4.27 MPa) and flexural strength of 3.26 MPa (standard deviation of 0.30
147
MPa) after 28 days as determined by the authors. Finally, the carbon-FRP composite consists of
148
unidirectional carbon fiber sheet (Figure 3c) and an epoxy resin. According to the manufacturer’s
149
data sheet, the composite has a tensile strength of 0.894 GPa, a tensile modulus of 65.4 GPa, and
150
an ultimate elongation of 1.33%. Table 4 lists the properties of the FRCM composite systems as
151
reported by Usama et al. (2016).
7
152
FRCM equivalent axial stiffness
153
According to the (ACI-549, 2013) provisions, the tensile stress-strain curve of the FRCM coupon
154
can be represented by a simple bilinear curve as shown in Figure 4. The first linear segment
155
represents the behavior of the FRCM composite prior to cracking and is characterized by the
156 157
uncracked modulus of elasticity, 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓∗ . The second linear segment represents the cracked behavior
158
with a reduced cracked modulus of elasticity, 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 . An equivalent axial stiffness, Kf, was utilized to compare between the two FRCM systems used in this study based on their cracked elastic modulus
159
and the cross-sectional area of the fabric as given by Equation 1:
160 161
where
𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 = 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 = [(𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 )/𝑑𝑑𝑓𝑓 ]𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 =
164
(1)
𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑𝑓𝑓
163
𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 , Af, and 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 are listed in Table 1, Table 3, and Table 4, respectively. The equivalent axial
165
FRCM repair schemes
162
stiffness, Kf, of each repaired specimen is shown in Table 1.
166
Two FRCM repair schemes were utilized in this study as shown in Figure 5. Scheme I consisted
167
of one or more FRCM flexure plies having 150 mm width (equal to the width of the beam) and
168
applied to the soffit of the beam over a length of 2400 mm. The fabrics were oriented so that their
169
primary direction was parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam. The plies were anchored at
170
each end using one U-shaped transverse strip of 300 mm width and 200 mm height as shown in
171
Figure 5a. Scheme II consisted of bottom flexural strips similar to those of scheme I but wrapped
172
with an additional U-shaped continuous ply along the beam’s span (Figure 5b). The primary
173
direction of the U-wrapped PBO ply was oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beams.
8
174
For instance, the beam CR-4P-II consisted of 3 bottom flexural strips plus one U-shaped layer,
175
with the primary fibers of all 4 layers running parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam.
176
Therefore, the 4 layers of the PBO-fabric contributed to the flexural performance of the beam. On
177
the other hand, the carbon fabric is a unidirectional fabric. Therefore, the bottom strips of the
178
carbon-FRCM were oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beams whereas the U-shaped
179
layer was oriented in the transverse direction and therefore did not contribute to the flexural
180
behavior of the beam (Figure 5b). For example, specimen CR-3C-II was repaired with 3 flexural
181
strips in the longitudinal direction plus one U-shaped layer in the transverse direction. Only 3
182
layers of the carbon-FRCM were considered later in the analysis of this beam.
183
Repair technique
184
Corroded specimens were repaired before applying the FRCM repair system. Figure 6 depicts
185
the repair procedure. The deteriorated concrete was first removed using a hydraulic hammer. The
186
corroded steel bars were then brushed and the beams were repaired using Sikacrete-08SCC mortar.
187
After 7 days of curing in ambient temperature, sandblasting was used to roughen the concrete
188
substrate. The beam’s substrate was damped in water for 2 hours before applying the first layer of
189
the cementitious matrix with a thickness of 3 to 4 mm. Then, the fabric was installed and coated
190
with a second layer of matrix of similar thickness. The procedure was then repeated until the
191
specified number of layers was attained.
192
Test setup and instrumentation
193
All beams were instrumented at mid-span with a 60 mm long strain gauge bonded to the top
194
surface of concrete and 5 mm strain gauges bonded to the tensile steel bars. The repaired specimens
195
were instrumented with 5 mm strain gauges installed directly on the outer fabric of the FRCM
9
196
composite and distributed along the beam span as shown in Figure 7. The beams were tested under
197
four-point loading configuration as shown in Figure 1. The load was applied in displacement
198
control at a rate of 2 mm per minute using a MTS actuator. Beam deflections were measured by
199
means of three linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) located at mid-span and under the
200
point loads. A data acquisition captured the readings of strain gauges and LVDTs at all stages of
201
loading.
202
Test observations
203
Corrosion cracks and mass loss
204
Due to corrosion, continuous longitudinal cracks parallel to the reinforcing bars were observed
205
as shown in Figure 8 for specimen CU. No concrete spalling was observed. All of the corroded
206
specimens did not meet the ACI 318-14 service requirements that limits the maximum crack width
207
in service to 0.40 mm (ACI, 2014). The average and maximum measured crack widths after
208
corrosion were determined as 0.7 and 1 mm, respectively.
209
Visual inspection of the corroded beams revealed the existence of several corrosion pits randomly
210
dispersed along the surface of the bars. Six steel coupons, 200 mm long each, were extracted from
211
each corroded bar after testing. The actual mass losses of the examined bars were determined
212
according to the ASTM G1-03 standards (ASTM, 2011). The average tensile steel mass loss for
213
each specimen are listed in Table 1. The average, minimum, and maximum steel mass loss
214
determined for all specimens were 12.6, 11.5, and 13.7%, respectively.
215
Modes of failure
10
216
The modes of failure of the tested specimens are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 9
217
for the tested beams. Beams UU (control) and CU (corroded unrepaired) failed by yielding of the
218
steel bars followed by concrete crushing (SY-CC). A similar mode of failure was observed in
219
specimen CR-1P-I as shown in Figure 9a. No loss of bond was observed between the PBO-FRCM
220
and the concrete substrate while loading. The PBO fabric remained intact with its matrix until
221
crushing of concrete occurred at ultimate. For the other repaired specimens, four different modes
222
of failure were observed:
223
a) FRCM delamination (FD): this type of failure occurred at the fabric/matrix interface with
224
complete delamination between the fabric and the first layer of the matrix adjacent to the concrete
225
substrate (Figure 9b). The delamination was caused by the propagation of flexural cracks to this
226
thin layer of the matrix and the relative deformation between the fabric and the matrix. This mode
227
of failure was reported for specimens CR-2P-I, and CR-4P-I.
228
b) Fabric slippage (FS): slippage occurred within the cementitious matrix (Figure 9c). Cracks
229
were first observed in the matrix of the U-shaped FRCM layer followed by the gradual slippage
230
of the fabric until the FRCM strengthening action was lost. This mode of failure was observed in
231
specimens CR-2P-II and CR-4P-II. It should be noticed that the continuous PBO-U-shaped ply
232
mitigated the FRCM delamination. Therefore, specimens that failed in this category showed a
233
more ductile behaviour compared to that observed in specimens that failed due to FRCM
234
delamination.
235
c) Matrix cracking and fabric separation from the matrix [MC-SFM)]: this type of failure was
236
reported for specimens with carbon-FRCM namely, CR-2C-II and CR-3C-II, as shown in Figure
237
9d. As the applied load increased, progressive cracking in the cementitious matrix associated with
11
238
the separation of the carbon fabric from the matrix was observed. Matrix cracking took a web
239
pattern as shown in Figure 9d for the bottom of specimen CR-3C-II. This mode of failure was
240
more brittle than that observed in the PBO-repaired specimens, which can be attributed to the
241
superior characteristics of the cementitious matrix of the PBO-FRCM compared to those of the
242
carbon-FRCM counterparts.
243
d) CFRP laminate rupture (LR): this mode of failure was reported for specimen CR-1FRP-I
244
(Figure 9e). A longitudinal crack initiated at mid span at the laminate/concrete interface followed
245
by the sudden rupture of the laminate. This mode of failure was consistent with the high strains
246
recorded in the laminate at ultimate.
247
Load-deflection response
248
Load-deflection relationships of the tested beams are shown in Figure 10 to Figure 12. The
249
flexural response of the virgin beam (UU), the corroded-unrepaired (CU), and the FRP-repaired
250
specimen (CR-1FRP-I) are also shown for reference. The load-deflection curve of specimen CU
251
indicated that corrosion slightly reduced the load-carrying capacity and stiffness of the beam. The
252
load-deflection curve of the repaired beams consisted of three segments with two turning points
253
indicating the concrete cracking and the yielding of the tensile steel. The flexural response of the
254
repaired beams was highly dependent on the FRCM repair scheme, its type, and the number of
255
FRCM layers used.
256
Figure 10 shows the load-deflection relationships of the beams repaired with PBO-FRCM using
257
scheme I. All of the beams showed similar stiffness prior to yielding of steel reinforcing bars
258
indicating the slight influence of the FRCM composite on the flexural response at this stage.
259
Increasing the number of the PBO plies increased the post-yielding stiffness of the repaired
12
260
specimens in comparison to the control ones. Specimen CR-1FRP-I (repaired with one layer of
261
CFRP fabric) showed higher post-yielding stiffness than that of specimen CR-1P-I (repaired with
262
one layer of PBO fabric). However, the later specimen showed a more ductile behavior than the
263
former one.
264
Figure 11 shows the effect of the FRCM scheme on the load-deflection response of the PBO-
265
repaired beams. Specimens repaired with two and four PBO plies in scheme II showed a slight
266
enhancement in the pre-yielding and post-yielding stiffness, which can be attributed to the
267
enlargement of the beam width and the effect of the continuous U-wrapped strips in delaying the
268
delamination of the FRCM.
269
Figure 12 compares the load-deflection responses of the Carbon- and PBO-FRCM repaired
270
beams using scheme II. It can be noticed that specimens repaired with carbon-FRCM showed
271
higher post-yielding stiffness than that of their PBO-repaired counterparts. The former specimens
272
exhibited a sudden drop after reaching the ultimate load whereas specimens repaired with PBO-
273
FRCM showed a gradual decreasing trend after reaching the ultimate. This can be related to the
274
brittle mode of failure reported for specimens repaired with carbon-FRCM.
275
Strength analysis
276 277
Table 5 gives the strength results of the tested beams. The experimental yield, 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 , and ultimate,
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 , loads of all specimens were normalized to those of the virgin specimen. It can be noticed
278
that corrosion of the main reinforcement reduced the yield and ultimate loads by 8% and 5%,
279
respectively. The reduction in the load-carrying capacity due to corrosion was smaller than the
280
steel mass loss due to the good anchorage of the bars within the shear zone, which allowed a tied-
281
arch action to be developed when the specimen approached failure (Masoud et al. 2001).
13
282
Effect of number of FRCM plies on strength
283
The use of a single PBO-FRCM layer in specimen CR-1P-I restored 95 and 105% of the yield
284
and ultimate loads of the virgin beam, respectively. Increasing the number of PBO-FRCM layers
285
further increased the yield and ultimate loads (specimen CR-2P-I restored 106 and 108% and
286
specimen CR-4P-I restored 111 and 125% of the yield and ultimate loads, respectively). However,
287
the strength enhancement was not linearly proportional to the added number of FRCM layers. On
288
the other hand, the FRP-repaired specimen CR-1FRP-I restored 104 and 121% of the yield and
289
ultimate loads of the virgin beam, respectively, compared to 111 and 125%, respectively, for
290
specimen CR-4P-I repaired with four PBO-FRCM plies. It is important to note that the FRP and
291
FRCM systems in these beams had almost similar axial stiffness (99.7 and 95.3 MPa, respectively,
292
as shown in Table 1). However, the PBO-FRCM repaired specimen showed superior capacities
293
than its FRP counterpart.
294
A similar trend was encountered in specimens repaired with scheme II. Increasing the number of
295
FRCM layers enhanced the yield and ultimate strengths of the repaired beams. Specimen CR-4P-
296
II showed an increase of 22 and 44% of the yield and ultimate loads, respectively, compared to 14
297
and 28% for specimen CR-2P-II. Similarly, the use of two layers of carbon-FRCM in specimen
298
CR-2C-II increased the yield and ultimate strengths by 6 and 30%, respectively, compared to 16
299
and 52% for specimen CR-3C-II.
300
Effect of FRCM repair scheme on strength
301
Scheme II was more effective than scheme I in restoring the yield and load-carrying capacity of
302
the repaired beams. This was depicted from the results of the beams repaired with two and four
303
PBO-FRCM layers. The enhancement in yield load was 6 and 14% for specimens CR-2P-I and
14
304
CR-2P-II, respectively. Their corresponding ultimate strengths increased by 8 and 28%,
305
respectively. The use of four layers of PBO-FRCM with scheme II in specimen CR-4P-II increased
306
the yield and ultimate loads by 22 and 44%, respectively, in comparison to 11 and 25% for
307
specimen CR-4P-I having the same number of PBO-fabric layers.
308
Effect of axial stiffness on strength
309
Figure 13 shows the effect of changing the axial stiffness of the repair system, Kf, on the
310
normalized ultimate load of the tested specimens. Specimens with similar axial stiffness of their
311
repair system didn’t show similar ultimate capacities. This can be depicted from the results of
312
specimens CR-2P-I and CR-2P-II having the same axial stiffness of their FRCM system but with
313
different repair schemes. The former specimen showed a load-carrying capacity of 86.4 KN versus
314
102.2 KN for the later one. Similarly, specimens CR-4P-I and CR-4P-II, also having the same
315
axial stiffness, showed 99.6 KN and 114.4 KN, respectively. This finding was also demonstrated
316
in specimens CR-4P-II and CR-2C-II having almost similar axial stiffness but repaired with two
317
different FRCM systems. Specimen CR-4P-II showed a load carrying capacity of 114.4 KN
318
whereas the specimen CR-2C-II showed a load carrying capacity of 104 KN. This finding indicates
319
that the axial stiffness of repair system, Kf, should not be used solely to compare the strengthening
320
actions of different FRCM systems without taking into account the material properties and the
321
repair scheme used.
322
Ductility performance
323
The ductility index, ΔI, defined as the ratio of the midspan deflection of the beam at ultimate, δu,
324
to its midspan deflection at yielding, δy, was used to quantify the ductility of the tested specimens.
325
In general, a higher ductility index means a higher ability of the beam to redistribute moment and
15
326
to exhibit large overall deformation and energy dissipation. Table 6 lists the deflections at yielding
327
and ultimate and the ductility indices for all of the tested beams normalized to that of the virgin
328
beam.
329
It can be noticed that corrosion of the steel bars increased the ductility index of the corroded
330
beam by 15%. All beams repaired with PBO in scheme I restored the ductility of the virgin beam
331
except beam CR-4P-I that showed a ductility index 13% less than that of the virgin beam. For this
332
set of beams, increasing the number of PBO plies decreased the ductility of the repaired beam. The
333
ductility indices of beams CR-4P-I, CR-2P-I, and CR-1P-I were 2.4, 2.8, and 3.0, respectively.
334
Comparing specimens CR-4P-I and CR-1P-I, quadrupling the number of PBO plies decreased the
335
ductility index by 20%. On the other hand, the CFRP-repaired specimen (CR-1FRP-I) did not
336
restore the ductility of the virgin beam and had a similar ductility index of its FRCM-repaired
337
counterpart (CR-4P-I) having the same axial stiffness.
338
The set of beams repaired with PBO in scheme II restored the ductility of the virgin beam. In
339
fact, these beams showed 2 to 13% increase in their ductility indices as compared to their
340
counterparts repaired with scheme I. However, increasing the number of the PBO plies in scheme
341
II had a less pronounced effect on the ductility index than in scheme I. Beams CR-4P-II and CR-
342
2P-II had ductility indices of 2.8 and 2.9, respectively, which indicates that doubling the number
343
of plies in scheme II resulted in only 3.5% reduction in the ductility index of the beam.
344
The ductility indices of the beams repaired with carbon-FRCM (CR-3C-II and CR-2C-II) were
345
lower than that of the beams repaired with PBO-FRCM having the same number of plies and the
346
same repair scheme. Both beams couldn’t restore the ductility of the virgin beam. Their ductility
347
index was 14 and 22% less than that of the virgin beam, respectively. This reduction in ductility
16
348
was attributed to their brittle mode of failure that was due to the rapid loss of the strengthening
349
action at the fabric/matrix interface. It is important to note that increasing the number of carbon
350
plies in this set of beams increased the ductility index of the beam, which is contrary to what has
351
been noticed in the PBO-repaired beams. This increase was attributed to the increase in the ultimate
352
load of the carbon-FRCM repaired beams with similar yielding deflections in comparison to their
353
PBO-counterparts.
354
Strain Response
355
Table 6 lists the strains measured at midspan in both concrete and the outer fabric at ultimate.
356
Figure 14 and 15 show the load-strain curves for specimens repaired with scheme I and scheme II,
357
respectively. Similar to the load-deflection responses of the repaired beams, the load-strain curves
358
consisted of three segments with two turning points that indicated the concrete cracking and the
359
yielding of the tensile steel.
360
Figure 14 shows that, prior to yielding, all repaired specimens showed a similar increase in
361
concrete strains as the applied load increased. This increase in concrete strains continued after
362
yielding but at different rates depending on the repair system used. Specimen CR-1FRP-I showed
363
the highest rate of increase in concrete strains when compared to the PBO-repaired ones. On the
364
other hand, specimen CR-1P-I recorded the maximum tensile strains in the outer fabric of FRCM
365
(14921 μɛ) as no fabric delamination was observed for this specimen until failure. Specimens CR-
366
2P-I and CR-4P-I, repaired with two and four plies, failed by FRCM delamination and therefore
367
recorded low tensile strains in the PBO fabric (8670 μɛ and 9541 μɛ, respectively).
368
As shown in Figure 15, the concrete strains measured in the PBO-repaired specimens were higher
369
than those recorded in their carbon-FRCM counterparts. For instance, specimens CR-2P-II and
370
CR-2C-II recorded concrete strains of 3491 and 2370 μɛ, respectively. It was observed that
17
371
concrete strains of the carbon-FRCM specimens increased at higher rate than that of strains of the
372
PBO-FRCM specimens. This can be depicted from the strains recorded for specimens CR-2C-II
373
and CR-3C-II in Figure 15. On the other hand, the tensile strains in the carbon-FRCM at failure
374
was lower than those in PBO-FRCM. Specimens CR-2C-II and CR-3C-II recorded tensile strains
375
in the outer fabric at failure of 5753 μɛ and 5991 μɛ, respectively, whereas their counterparts CR-
376
2P-II and CR-4P-II recorded tensile strains of 11262 μɛ and 9598 μɛ, respectively. These findings
377
were consistent with the mode of failure of the carbon-FRCM repaired specimens where premature
378
matrix cracking and fabric separation were encountered. They were also consistent with the
379
measured ductility indices for these beams.
380
The distribution of the outer fabric tensile strains along the beam axis are plotted in Figure 16 to
381
Figure 18 for specimens CR-4P-I, CR-4P-II, and CR-3C-II, respectively, at a service load equal to
382
60% of ultimate (0.6 Pu), at the yielding load (Py), and at two post-yielding loads equal to 0.9 Pu,
383
and Pu.
384
It can be noticed that the strains in the fabric increased with the increase of the applied load until
385
yielding occurred. Post yielding, a significant increase in fabric strains were observed, with the
386
maximum increase occurring in the constant moment zone. This finding indicates that the FRCM
387
system became more effective in resisting the applied loads after yielding of the steel bars. The
388
repair scheme had marginal effect on the fabric strain profiles as can be depicted from Figures 16
389
and 17.
390
Theoretical predictions
391
The flexural behavior of the tested beams were predicted according to the provisions of the ACI
392
318-14 standard (ACI, 2014) and the ACI 549.4R-13 committee (ACI, 2013). Perfect bond was
18
393
assumed between the fabric and the cementitious matrix and between the FRCM and the concrete
394
substrate. A bilinear-elastic behavior of the FRCM repair system was presumed up to failure. The
395
cracked tensile modulus of elasticity, Ef, of the FRCM system was used after cracking,
396 397 398
The FRCM effective tensile strain at failure, 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 , was limited to the FRCM design tensile
strain, 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 , as given in Equation 2a (ACI 549.4R, ACI, 2013). The effective tensile stress in the FRCM at failure, 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 , was calculated in accordance with Equation 2b. 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ≤ 0.012
399
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
400 401 402
Equation 3 using the strain compatibility principle as shown in Figure 19. 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠′ 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐 = = = 𝑑𝑑𝑓𝑓 − 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝑑𝑑 − 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 − 𝑑𝑑′ 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢
407
408
409
410 411
(3)
The nominal flexural strength, Mn, was calculated in accordance with Equation (4) as follows:
405 406
(2b)
Strains in concrete, steel reinforcing bars, and FRCM systems were computed in accordance with
403 404
(2a)
where
𝑀𝑀𝑛𝑛 = 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 + 𝑀𝑀𝑓𝑓 + 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠′ 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 = 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 ( d − 𝑀𝑀𝑓𝑓 = 𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓 ( d − 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠′ = 𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠′ (
𝛽𝛽1 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 ) 2
𝛽𝛽1 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 ) 2
𝛽𝛽1 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 − 𝑑𝑑′ ) 2
(4) (4a) (4b) (4c)
The concrete stress block factors, 𝛽𝛽1 and 𝛼𝛼1 , and the modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec, were
calculated as follows (ACI-318, 2014):
19
4ε′ −ε (C )
β1 = �6ε′c−2εc (Cu )�
412
c
c
u
3ε′c εc (Cu )−[εc (Cu )]2
α1 = �
413
3β1 (Cu )ε′2 c
�
(5)
(6)
415
𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 = 4700�𝑓𝑓′c
416
The force equilibrium was satisfied in accordance with Equation (9) and as shown Figure 19:
414
𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐′ = 1.7𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ /𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐
417 418
where
419
421
(9𝑎𝑎)
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 = 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
(9𝑏𝑏)
𝐶𝐶 = 𝛼𝛼1 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝛽𝛽1 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 𝑏𝑏
(9𝑑𝑑)
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠′ = 𝐴𝐴′𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠′
422
(8)
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 + 𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓 = 𝐶𝐶 + 𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠′
𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑏𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
420
(7)
(9𝑐𝑐)
(9𝑒𝑒)
424
where 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1 – average tensile steel mass loss and,
425
between the experimental and theoretical values was obtained especially for specimens repaired
426
in scheme I. However, the capacities of specimens repaired with scheme II were under-estimated.
427
The theoretical formulations adopted do not account for the effect of the U-shaped FRCM layers
428
on the flexural response of the beams. The obtained results suggested the increase of the nominal
429
capacity, Mn, of FRCM-repaired beams with U-wrapped layers by 10% to account for the scheme
430
of the FRCM used.
431
Design provision
423
Table 5 lists the theoretical ultimate loads, 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ , for all of the tested specimens. Good agreement
432
According to the provisions of the ACI-549 committee (ACI, 2013), the design flexural strength,
433
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷 , is calculated in accordance with Equation 10. The strength reduction factor, 𝜙𝜙𝑚𝑚 , is given by 20
434
Equation 11. In addition, the ACI-549 committee limits the increase in the nominal flexural
435
strength provided by the FRCM reinforcement by 50% of the flexural capacity of the structure
436
prior to repair. Table 5 lists the theoretical design load ϕ𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ and the ratio 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 /ϕ𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ . It can be
437
noticed that applying both the flexural strength reduction factor and the 50% increase limitation
438
makes the gap between the experimental and design values lager, especially for the specimens
439
repaired with scheme II.
440
441
442
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷 = 𝜙𝜙𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀𝑛𝑛
0.90 for ɛ𝑡𝑡 ≥ 0.005 0.25�ɛ𝑡𝑡 −ɛ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 �
𝜙𝜙𝑚𝑚 = � 0.65 + 0.005−ɛ
𝑡𝑡 −ɛ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
0.65 for ɛ𝑡𝑡 ≤ ɛ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
(10)
for ɛ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 < ɛ𝑡𝑡 < 0.005
(11)
21
443
Conclusions
444
This study investigated experimentally and analytically the structural performance of corrosion-
445
damaged RC beams strengthened with PBO- and carbon-FRCM systems. The following
446
conclusions can be drawn:
447
• An average mass loss of 12.9% in the tensile steel reduced the yield and the ultimate loads of
448
the beam by 8% and 5%, respectively. The corroded-unrepaired specimens failed to meet the
449
provisions of the ACI-318 standards for crack width criteria.
450
• Repairing corrosion-damaged RC beams with PBO- and carbon-FRCM restored 105 to 144%
451
and 130 to 152%, respectively, of the original load-carrying capacity of the virgin uncorroded
452
beam. The gain in capacity was highly dependent on the number of fabric layers, their material,
453
and the scheme used.
454
• Beams repaired with PBO-FRCM systems failed in a ductile mode due to either fabric
455
delamination (repair scheme I) or fabric slippage within the matrix (repair scheme II), whereas
456
beams repaired with U-wrapped carbon-FRCM systems showed a more brittle failure due to matrix
457
cracking and complete separation of the fabric.
458
• Beams repaired with carbon-FRCM showed higher post-yielding stiffness than that of their
459
PBO-repaired counterparts. The former beams exhibited a sudden drop after reaching the ultimate
460
load whereas the later beams showed a gradual decrease after reaching the ultimate.
461
• Increasing the number of FRCM layers increased the yielding and ultimate loads of the repaired
462
beams. However, specimens with similar axial stiffness didn’t show similar ultimate capacities.
463
Therefore, the FRCM material and the repair scheme used should be taken into account while
464
comparing the strengthening actions of different FRCM repair systems.
22
465
• U-wrapped FRCM scheme was more efficient than the bottom end-anchored scheme in
466
increasing the ultimate capacity of the repaired beams. The PBO-repaired beams with scheme II
467
showed ultimate strengths 15 to 18% more than those repaired with scheme I.
468
• Beams repaired with PBO-FRCM systems showed a more ductile behavior than their
469
counterparts repaired with carbon-FRCM or carbon-FRP systems. Most of the PBO-repaired
470
beams restored the original ductility whereas the carbon-FRCM and carbon-FRP repaired beams
471
showed lower ductility than that of the virgin beam.
472
• The theoretical formulations of the ACI-549.4R-13 committee reasonably predicted the
473
ultimate strengths of the FRCM-repaired beams with scheme I but underestimated those repaired
474
with scheme II. A scheme factor of 1.1 is then proposed while calculating the nominal strength of
475
beams repaired with U-shaped FRCM.
476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483
Acknowledgements
484
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Qatar National Research Fund (a member
485
of Qatar Foundation) for funding this project under grant # NPRP 7-1720-2-641. The statements
486
made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.
487 23
488
Notation
489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531
The following symbols are used in this paper:
532
Af = equivalent area of fabric per unit width (mm2/mm) As = cross-sectional area of tension steel reinforcement (mm2) 𝐴𝐴′𝑠𝑠 = cross-sectional area of compression steel reinforcement (mm2) b = width of the beam (mm) C = compression force provided by concrete (kN) Cs’ = compression force provided by the compression reinforcement (kN) cu = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis (mm) d = distance from top of the beam to the centroid of tension steel (mm) d’ = distance from top of the beam to the centroid of compression steel (mm) df = distance from top of the beam to the centroid of fabric reinforcement (mm) Ef = cracked elastic modulus of the FRCM composite (GPa) Es = elastic modulus of steel reinforcement (GPa) Ec = elastic modulus of concrete (MPa) 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ = compressive strength of concrete (MPa) 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = effective tensile stress in FRCM composite at failure (MPa) ffu = ultimate tensile strength of FRCM composite (MPa) fy = yield strength of steel reinforcement (MPa) MD = design flexural strength (kN-m) Mf = moment contribution of FRCM reinforcement to flexural strength (kN-m) Ms = moment contribution of the tensile steel reinforcement to flexural strength (kN-m) Ms’ = moment contribution of the compression steel reinforcement to flexural strength (kN-m) Mn = nominal flexural strength (kN-m) N = number of fabric layers Rcor = corrosion reduction factor Ts = tension force in steel reinforcement (kN) Tf = tension force in FRCM reinforcement (kN) 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐 = compression strain in concrete (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐′ = compression strain of unconfined concrete corresponding to 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ (mm/mm) εcu = concrete strain at ultimate (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠′ = tensile strain in compression steel reinforcement (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = tensile yield strain of steel reinforcement (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑡𝑡 = the net tensile strain in extreme tensile steel reinforcement at the nominal strength (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = FRCM design tensile strain (mm/mm) 𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = effective tensile strain in FRCM composite at failure (mm/mm) εfu = ultimate tensile strain of FRCM composite (mm/mm) 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 = fabric reinforcement ratio 𝜅𝜅𝑓𝑓 = equivalent axial stiffness (MPa) ∆𝐼𝐼 = ductility index β1 = ratio of depth of equivalent rectangular stress block to depth to neutral axis α1 = multiplier of 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ to determine intensity of the equivalent block stress for concrete 𝜙𝜙𝑚𝑚 = strength reduction factor 24
533
References
534
Al-Saidy, H. and Al-Jabri, K. S. (2011). “Effect of damaged concrete cover on the behavior of
535
corroded concrete beams repaired with CFRP sheets.” Composite Structures, 93(7), 1775–1786.
536
Al-Salloum, A., Elsanadedy, M., Alsayed, H., and Iqbal, R. (2012). “Experimental and numerical
537
study for the shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using textile-reinforced mortar.”
538
Journal of Composites for Construction, 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000239, 74-90.
539
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 549 (2013). “Guide to design and construction of
540
externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair and
541
strengthening concrete and masonry structures.” ACI 549.4R-13, American Concrete Institute,
542
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
543
Babaeidarabad, S., Loreto, G., and Nanni, A. (2014). “Flexural strengthening of RC beams with
544
an externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix.” Journal of Composites for
545
Construction, 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000473, 1–12.
546
Banholzer, B., Brockmann, T., and Brameshuber, W. (2006). “Material and bonding
547
characteristics for dimensioning and modelling of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) elements.”
548
Materials and Structures, 39(8), 749–763.
549
Blanksvärd, T. (2007). “Strengthening of concrete structures by the use of mineral based
550
composites.” Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, ISBN: 978-91-85685-07-3.
551
Brückner, A., Ortlepp, R., and Curbach, M. (2006). “Textile reinforced concrete for strengthening
552
in bending and shear.” Materials and Structures, 39(8), 741–748.
553
D’Ambrisi, A. and Focacci, F. (2011). “Flexural strengthening of RC beams with cement-based
554
composites.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 15(5), 707–720.
25
555
Ebead, U., Shrestha, K., Afzal, M., El Refai, A., and Nanni, A. (2016). “Effectiveness of fabric-
556
reinforced cementitious matrix in strengthening reinforced concrete beams." Journal of
557
Composites for Construction, 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000741, 04016084.
558
El-Maaddawy, T. and El Refai, A. (2016). “Innovative repair of severely corroded T-beams using
559
fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix innovative repair of severely corroded T-beams using fabric-
560
reinforced
561
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000641, 04015073.
562
Elsanadedy, H., Almusallam, T., Alsayed, S., and Al-Salloum, Y. (2013). “Flexural strengthening
563
of RC beams using textile reinforced mortar - Experimental and numerical study.” Composite
564
Structures, 97, 40–55.
565
Hashemi, S. and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2012a). “Flexural performance of CFRP textile-retrofitted RC
566
beams using cement-based adhesives at high temperature.” Construction and Building Materials,
567
28(1), 791–797.
568
Hashemi, S., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2012b). “Experimental and finite element analysis of flexural
569
behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams using cement-based adhesives.” Construction and
570
Building Materials, 26(1), 268–273.
571
Loreto, G., Leardini, L., Arboleda, D., and Nanni, A. (2013). “Performance of RC slab-type
572
elements strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious-matrix composites.” Journal of
573
Composites for Construction,10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000415, A4013003, 1–9.
574
Malumbela, G. and Alexander, M. (2011). “Load-bearing capacity of corroded , patched and FRP-
575
repaired RC beams.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 63(11), 797–812.
576
Masoud, S. and Soudki, K. (2006). “Evaluation of corrosion activity in FRP repaired RC beams.”
577
Cement and Concrete Composites, 28(10), 969–977.
cementitious
matrix.”
Journal
of
Composites
for
Construction,
26
578
Schladitz, F., Frenzel, M., Ehlig, D., and Curbach, M. (2012). “Bending load capacity of reinforced
579
concrete slabs strengthened with textile reinforced concrete.” Engineering Structures,
580
10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.029 40, 317–326.
581
Täljsten, B. and Blanksvärd, T. (2007). “Mineral-based bonding of carbon frp to strengthen
582
concrete structures.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(2), 120–128.
583
Tetta, Z., Koutas, L., and Bournas, D. (2015). “Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus fiber-
584
reinforced polymers (FRP) in shear strengthening of concrete beams.” Composites Part B:
585
Engineering, 77, 338–348.
586
Torres-Acosta, A., Navarro-Gutierrez, S., and Terán-Guillén, J. (2007). “Residual flexure capacity
587
of corroded reinforced concrete beams.” Engineering Structures, 29(6), 1145–1152.
588
Triantafillou, T. and Papanicolaou, C. (2005). “Textile reinforced mortars (TRM) versus Fibre
589
reinforced polymers (FRP) as strengthening materials of concrete structures.” Proceedings of the
590
7th International Symposium of the Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
591
Concrete Structures - FRPRCS, 99–118.
592
Vidal, T., Castel, A., and François, R. (2007). “Corrosion process and structural performance of a
593
17-year-old reinforced concrete beam stored in chloride environment.” Cement and Concrete
594
Research, 37(11), 1551–1561.
595
Wang, D. Y., Wang, Z., Yu, T., and Li, H. (2013). “Shake table tests of large-scale substandard
596
RC frames retrofitted with CFRP wraps before earthquakes.” Journal of Composites for
597
Construction, 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000720, 04016062.
598
Xia, J., Jin, W., and Li, L. (2012). “Effect of chloride-induced reinforcing steel corrosion on the
599
flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 64(6), 471–485.
600 601
27
602
604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611
Table 1: Test matrix 603
Specimen*
Average mass loss (%)
𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 (%)
𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 = 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓 (MPa)
Mode of Failure**
UUa, UUb
-
-
-
SY-CC
CU
12.9
-
-
SY-CC
CR-1P-I
13.7
0.02
24.1
SY-CC
CR-2P-I
13
0.04
48
FD
CR-4P-I
12.6
0.08
95.3
FD
CR-2P-II
13
0.04
48
FS
CR-4P-II
12.3
0.08
95.3
FS
CR-2C-II
12.5
0.125
93.5
MC-SFM
CR-3C-II
12.1
0.185
139.1
MC-SFM
CR-1FRP-I
11.6
0.153
99.7
LR
*
UU, CU, and CR refer to Uncorroded-Unrepaired, Corroded-Unrepaired, and Corroded-Repaired specimens respectively. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the specimen’s label refer to the number of FRCM or FRP plies. P, C, and FRP refer to the repair materials PBO-FRCM, Carbon-FRCM, and Carbon-FRP, respectively. I and II refer to the FRCM repair schemes. ** SY-CC = Steel Yielding followed by Concrete Crushing; FD = Fabric Delamination; FS = Fabric Slippage; MCSFM = Matrix Cracking with Separation of Fabric within the Matrix; LR = CFRP Laminate Rupture.
28
612
Table 2: Concrete compressive strengths
28-day Testing day
Compressive strength Standard deviation Coefficient of variation (MPa) (MPa) (%) Normal concrete 37.9 0.8 2 Salted concrete
33.5
1.1
3.2
Normal concrete
41.8
4.8
11.4
Salted concrete
41.2
0.6
1.6
613 614 615 616
Table 3: Fabric properties in the primary direction as given in the manufactures’ data sheet
PBO
Area per unit width (𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓 ) (mm2/m) 50
Tensile strength (GPa) 5.8
Carbon
157
4.3
240
1.75
CFRP
381
3.45
230
1.5
Fabric
Elastic modulus Ultimate strain (GPa) (%) 270 2.15
617 618 619 620 621 622
Table 4: Mechanical properties of FRCM systems (Usama et al. 2016)
PBO-FRCM
Cracked tensile modulus of elasticity, Ef (GPa) 121
Ultimate tensile strength, ffu (GPa) 1.55
Ultimate strain, εfu (%) 1.4
Carbon-FRCM
75
0.97
1.25
FRCM system
623 624 625
29
626
Table 5: Strength results Specimen
𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦 (KN)
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
UUa, UUb*
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 (KN)
75.1
CU
*
Normalized loads**
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
79.7
𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ (KN)
1
78.5
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ
1.02
70.65
1.13
69.5
76.1
0.92
0.95
70.6
1.08
63.54
1.1
CR-1P-I
71.1
82.9
0.95
1.05
74.9
1.10
67.4
1.23
CR-2P-I
79.5
86.4
1.06
1.08
81.1
1.06
73
1.18
CR-4P-I
83.3
99.6
1.11
1.25
93.3
1.06
84
1.19
CR-2P-II
85.4
102.2
1.14
1.28
81.1
1.26
73
1.4
CR-4P-II
91.3
114.4
1.22
1.44
93.3
1.23
84
1.36
CR-2C-II
79.8
104
1.06
1.30
93.4
1.11
84
1.25
CR-3C-II
90
120.6
1.16
1.52
106
1.14
95.3
1.27
77.9
96.5
1.04
1.21
-
-
-
-
CR-1FRP-I
627 628 629
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
1
ϕ𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 (KN) ϕ𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡ℎ
Average values reported Normalized with respect to the yield and ultimate loads of the virgin beam
**
630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639
30
640
Table 6: Ductility indices and strains at ultimate Midspan deflection (mm) δy δu
ΔI
ΔInorm
UUa, UUb*
11.7
32.9
2.8
CU
10.9
35.4
CR-1P-I
11.6
CR-2P-I
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666
*
Ductility index
Concrete strains at ultimate (µ𝜖𝜖)
Fiber strains at ultimate (µ𝜖𝜖)
1.0
-3311
-
3.2
1.15
-2992
-
35.2
3.0
1.08
-2711
14921
11.8
33.0
2.8
1.0
-2342
8670
CR-4P-I
12.9
31.5
2.4
0.87
-2421
9541
CR-2P-II
11.2
32.0
2.9
1.02
-3491
11261
CR-4P-II
12.7
35.5
2.8
1.0
-2761
9598
CR-2C-II
12.6
27.6
2.2
0.78
-2370
5753
CR-3C-II
12.4
30.1
2.4
0.86
-2262
5991
CR-1FRP-I
12.3
30.4
2.5
0.88
-2351
13772
Specimen
**
Average values reported Normalized with respect to the yield and ultimate loads of the virgin beam
**
31
667 668 669
Figure 1: Typical dimensions and reinforcement details of the test specimen
670
(all dimensions in mm)
671 672 673
32
Stainless steel bar (Cathode)
Steel bars (Anode)
674 675
Figure 2: Specimens connected in series inside the corrosion chamber
676
33
677 a)
Primary direction
Primary direction Secondary direction
Secondary direction
Primary direction
678 679 680
c)
b)
Figure 3: Repair materials: a) unbalanced PBO fabric, b) unidirectional carbon fabric, and c) unidirectional carbon fabric
681 682 683
34
684 685
Figure 4: Idealized tensile stress-strain curve of FRCM coupon specimen (ACI-549, 2013)
686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698
35
2400
2400
699 700 701
Figure 5: Repair schemes (a) scheme I and (b) scheme II
702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 36
712 713 714 715 716
a)
717 718 719
b)
720 721 722 723
c) )
724 725 726 727
d)
728 729
d)
730 731 732
Figure 6: Repair procedure: a) removing the deteriorated concrete, b) patch repair, c) roughening the concrete surface with sandblasting, and d) FRCM application
733
37
734
735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745
746 747 748 749 750
Figure 7: Positions of the electrical strain gauges along the outer fabric
Figure 8: Corrosion cracks pattern for specimen CU
38
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794
a) Beam CR-1P-I
Side
Top
Concrete crushing
b) Beam: CR-4P-I
Delamination at end of test
Side FRCM delamination
c) Beam: CR-2P-II
Side
Fabric slippage
d) Beam CR-3C-II
Bottom
Side Matrix crushing
e) Beam CR-1FRP-I
Side
Laminate rupture
Figure 9: Typical modes of failure: (a) SY-CC in beam CR-1P-I, (b) FD in beam CR-2P-I, (c) FS in beam CR-2P-II, (d) MC-SFM in beam CR-3C-II, and (e) LR in beam CR-1FRP-I
39
140 120
CR-1FRP-I CR-2P-I
Load (KN)
100
CR-1P-I CR-4P-I
80 CU 60
UU
40 20 0 0
795 796 797 798
10
20 30 Deflection (mm)
40
50
Figure 10: Effect of number of PBO-FRCM plies on the load-deflection curves
40
799 800 801 802 140 CR-4P-I CR-1FRP-I CR-2P-I
120
Load (KN)
100
CR-4P-II CR-2P-II
80 CU
60
UU
40 20 0 0
803 804
10
20 30 Deflection (mm)
40
50
Figure 11: Effect of the repair scheme on the load-deflection curves
41
805 806 807 140 CR-3C-II
120
CR-4P-II CR-2P-II
Load (KN)
100 CR-2C-II
80
CU
60
UU
40 20 0 0
808 809
10
20 30 Deflection (mm)
40
50
Figure 12: Effect of FRCM materials on the load-deflection curves
42
1.6 CR-3C-II
Normalized ultimate load
1.5 CR-4P-II 1.4 1.3
CR-2P-II
1.2
CR-1P-I
1.1
CR-2C-II CR-4P-I CR-1FRP-I
CR-2P-I
1 0
810 811 812
20
40 60 80 100 120 Equivalent axial stiffness Kf (MPa)
140
160
Figure 13: Normalized ultimate load versus the equivalent stiffness
43
813 814 Load (KN)
140 120
CR-4P-I CR-1FRP-I CR-2P-I CR-1P-I UU
CR-4P-I
100 CR-2P-I
80
CR-1FRP-I CR-1P-I
CU 60 40 20 0 -6000 -4000 -2000
815 816 817
0
2000
4000 6000 Strain (με)
8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Figure 14: Load-strain curves for specimens with repair scheme I
44
CR-3C-II CR-4P-II
140
CR-2C-II
120
CR-2P-II
100
UU
Load (KN)
818 819 820 821
CR-3C-II
CR-4P-II CR-2P-II
CR-2C-II
80
CU 60 40 20 0 -6000 -4000 -2000
822 823 824
0
2000
4000 6000 Strain (με)
8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Figure 15: Load-strain curves for specimens with repair scheme II
45
825 826 827 828 829 16000 Outer fabric strain (με)
PU= 99.6KN Py= 83.3KN
12000
0.90Pu= 90KN 0.6Pu= 60KN
8000
4000
0 0
830 831
200
400 600 Distance from mid-span (mm)
800
1000
Figure 16: Strain profile in the PBO fabric for specimen CR-4P-I
16000
Outer fabric strain (με)
PU= 114.4KN Py= 91.3KN
12000
0.90Pu= 103KN 0.6Pu= 68KN
8000
4000
0 0
832 833 834 835 836
200
400 600 Distance from mid-span (mm)
800
1000
Figure 17: Strain profile in the PBO fabric for specimen CR-4P-II
46
837 838 839 16000 Outer fabric strain (με)
Pu=120.6KN Py=86.7KN
12000
0.90Pu=108KN .6Pu=72KN
8000
4000
0 0
840 841 842 843 844 845
200
400 600 Distance from mid-span (mm)
800
1000
Figure 18: Strain profile in the carbon fabric for specimen CR-3C-II
47
846 847 848 849 As’
As
α1 fc’
Cs’ = As’ Es εs’ C= α1 fc β1 cu b
d
εsy εfe
Af
Cs C
εs’
cu df
fc’
β1 cu
εc
d’
Ts
Ts = Rcor As fy
Tf
Tf = N Af b ffe
b 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866
Figure 19: Stress and strain distribution at ultimate stage Screenshot should be taken without the red line under Af
48
