1 CONCRETE-COMPOSITE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS-

2 II. PERFORMANCE OF FRPC REHABILITATED SPECIMENS

3 A. Mukherjeea *, G. L. Raib
a
4 Director, Thapar University,

5 Patiala 147004, India

6 Tel: +91 175 2393001, 2363007 Fax: +91 175 2364498, 2393005
b
7 Research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology

8 Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India

9 Tel: +91 9322597149, +91 22 32610117

10 E-mail: a abhijit@thapar.edu, b gopalrai@iitb.ac.in

11 ABSTRACT

12The present paper discusses the performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column

13joints under cyclic excitation. Beam-column joints with two types of reinforcement

14detailing, ductile and brittle, have been cast. The joints are subjected to cyclic loading of

15monotonically increasing amplitude until failure. Post failure, the joints have been

16rehabilitated using fiber reinforced polymer composites (FRPC). The rehabbed joints

17have been subjected to the same load regime. The performance of rehabbed joints has

18been compared with that of the fresh joints. The investigation highlights the efficiency of

19the proposed rehabilitation scheme in enhancement of strength and ductility of the joints.

20In this part of the paper, the performance of the rehabbed joints has been discussed.

21Keywords : Reinforced concrete, Beam-column Joints, Fiber Reinforced Polymer

22Concrete (FRPC), Rehabilitation, Ductility, energy dissipation.

1 1
 1

2 INTRODUCTION

3Rehabilitation and retrofits of reinforced concrete framed structures is of immense

4concern of present construction community. The typical lacunas in the existing structures

5are improper detailing of reinforcements at the joints that lead to their brittle failure. The

6use of reinforced concrete jackets [1] and steel plate jackets [2] to strengthen the joints

7has been reported earlier. However, execution of such rehabilitation is disruptive to the

8operation of the facility, labor intensive and very time consuming. The fiber reinforced

9polymer composites (FRPC) have promise in alleviating these difficulties. The efficiency

10of FRPC as a device for enhancement of bending and shear capacities of flexure elements

11[3] and enhancement of confinement of concrete in compression elements [4] has been

12well established.

13Some apprehensions have been expressed on the efficiency of FRPC in mitigating such

14distresses because of the difficulty in maintenance of continuity of the fibers at the joints.

15In extreme load conditions, such as earthquakes, the ductility of the joint to dissipate the

16energy is paramount. The brittleness of FRPC is also considered a negative. However,

17there is near unanimity among academic community regarding the efficacy of FRPC in

18rectifying these deficiencies. The lack of ductility of a joint with inadequately lapped

19steel reinforcements has been mitigated by a hybrid of carbon fiber reinforced polymer

20(CFRP) sheets and steel angles and bolts [5]. Improvement of the flexure capacity of the

21joints has been reported [6-7] by glass, Kevlar and carbon composites. The shear

22deficient frames have been strengthened by adhesively bonding CFRP strips and sheets

23on the external surfaces of flexure members [8] and a design methodology for such joints

1 2
 1[9] has been proposed. Effect of CFRP wraps on enhancement of shear capacity of RC T-

2joints [10] has been reported. Numerical models to predict the load-deflection behavior of

3RC joints have also been proposed [11]. The combined shear deficiency and bond slip

4has been treated by a hybrid of steel anchors and CFRP sheets [12-13].

5In précis, success has been reported by various researchers on rectifying the deficiencies

6in RC beam-column joints before they are damaged with a multitude of techniques.

7However, in many cases the structures need to be rehabilitated after they have been

8damaged. Mukherjee and Joshi [7] reported pilot tests on damaged concrete joints that

9have been restored with FRPC after the original joint had failed. A complete recovery of

10strength and ductility of the joint was observed through restoration of damaged concrete

11and application of FRPC on the affected surface.

12In this paper, we report a series of tests on beam-column specimens of representative

13size. A number of concrete beam-column joints have been cast and they have been

14subjected to a cyclic load regime of increasing amplitude until their resistance has been

15completely consumed. The joints are repaired by restoring the concrete sections. The

16tensile reinforcements and the confinement of the concrete have been augmented using

17CFRP strips and sheets. The rehabilitation technique is based on the following principles:

18 - The rehabbed specimens must achieve at least the same peak strength and peak

19 deformation as in the fresh joint.

20 - The rehabilitation should be fast, clean and least intrusive requiring no

21 replacement of damaged parts.

1 3
 1 - The technique must be amenable to site adaptation.

2 - The repair must be durable. Therefore, use of metal has been avoided to

3 circumvent durability problems of a hybrid system.

4 - The mechanics of the rehabilitated joint should be understood to enable

5 development of analytical models and design methodologies.

6 - The method should be able to rectify permanent deformations, if any, that the

7 initial damage might have caused.

8The rehabilitated joints and the fresh joints have been subjected to the same load cycles

9until failure. The performance of the rehabilitated joints vis-à-vis the fresh joints has been

10reported.

11 MATERIAL SYSTEM

12The CFRP was used in two forms- carbon plates (CP) and carbon sheets (CS). The plates

13have been used as longitudinal reinforcements at the time of rehabilitation of the joints.

14They are precured unidirectional fiber composites of 50mm width. They have one surface

15roughened for adhesive bonding with concrete. At the time of application the resin is

16applied on the rough surface only and the resin does not ooze through the fibers.

17Therefore, their fiber volume fraction and dimensions remain unchanged. Hence, their

18mechanical properties have been defined as that of the composite.

19The sheets, on the other hand, are used as transverse reinforcement at the time of

20rehabilitation by wrapping them around the beams and column sections. They need to be

21flexible and therefore, are uncured. The resin oozes through them at the time of

22application. As a result, it is not possible to maintain an accurate volume fraction or

1 4
 1dimensional accuracy. Therefore, in the case of the sheets the neat fiber properties have

2been reported in Table 1 and the mechanical strength of the resin is ignored.

3 REHABILITATION OF SPECIMENS

4The specimens described in Paper I have been used here for rehabilitation. It may be

5noted that the beam-column joint specimens were subjected to a cyclic displacement

6regime and they had no residual strength after the test. These specimens have been

7rehabilitated using CFRP. The main shortcomings and damages in those samples were

8the following:

9 • Two sets of specimens, ductile and brittle, were designed. While the ductile

10 specimens had closely spaced links in the beam, column and the joint core the

11 brittle specimens had large spacings between links. The specimens failed in brittle

12 fashion in shear and bulging. The lack of confinement and shear capacity of the

13 joints was compensated by CS wraps on both beams and columns.

14 • Concrete had spalled extensively in beams, columns and joint core of all the

15 specimens. The sections were rebuilt using fresh concrete. An epoxy mortar and

16 low viscosity grout was used in the less severely affected areas.

17 • The longitudinal reinforcements in beams had yielded and in some cases ruptured.

18 There was loss of bond between the concrete and the reinforcements. No

19 additional steel reinforcement was provided to compensate for the yielded and

20 broken reinforcement. The tensile capacity of the section was revived using FRPC

21 only. CP was used on both faces of the beam to compensate for the lost

22 reinforcement.

1 5
 1Prior to the application of FRPC the damaged specimens were rebuilt using the following

2steps:

3 • Loose concrete was removed and the surfaces were cleaned of dirt.

4 • In the areas where almost entire section was lost the section was rebuilt with

5 concrete. A formwork was placed in the affected region and a free flowing

6 concrete was poured for filling the voids.

7 • The fresh concrete was cured as usual.

8 • The area where there were large cracks but the concrete did not spall totally an

9 epoxy mortar (one part epoxy with 5 parts quartz sand) was used to rebuild the

10 lost concrete.

11 • Cracks of less than 1mm width was filled with an epoxy resin of viscosity 100cps

12 by pressure grouting.

13 • Concrete surface where the FRPC has been overlaid was smoothed by removing

14 sharp protrusions. A thixotropic epoxy filler was used in filling small dents.

15 • The corners are rounded off to a radius of 15 mm.

16 • The surfaces were cleaned using cloth and then acetone was applied.

17 FRPC has been applied in Various Steps:

18Step1: CP Attachment on Beam

19CPs have been used on the top and bottom surfaces of the beams as tensile

20reinforcements. To anchor the CP at the joint an incision of 5mm thickness and 60mm

21width has been made in the column at the beam-column interface. A special cutting

22equipment was fabricated to make the groove (Fig. 1a). The equipment could cut through

23the entire depth of the column. However, keeping in mind that there could be practical

1 6
 1difficulties in making a through incision the effect of a partial incision was also studied.

2The groove is filled up with the adhesive and the CP is inserted into the groove. The

3epoxy was allowed to cure to obtain an end anchor.

4In this investigation, some of the CPs have been prestressed for remediation of permanent

5settlements and the misalignment of the joints as a result of damage infliction. For

6application of prestress a special device has been fabricated (Fig. 1b). In this device there

7are two components. One is attached to the structure and the other grips the free end of

8the CP. Using a screw jack between the two parts the CP is pulled to the desired tension.

9The groove at the other end of the CP must be designed to withstand this pull. After the

10desired correction in the alignment is achieved, the CP was adhesively bonded to the

11surface of the beam and allowed to cure. After the epoxy has completely cured the

12presterssing device was released and the force transfer between the CP and the concrete

13beam was through the epoxy (Fig. 1c). Both top and bottom faces of the beam had CPs

14attached to them (Fig. 2a).

15Step 2: CS Attachment

16CS was used for the rest of the rehabilitation. CS was adhesively bonded to the two faces

17of the column and the beam that did not have a beam attached (Fig.2b). The direction of

18the fiber was along the axis of the elements.

19Step 3: Wrapping Beam and Column with CS

20The beam and the column were wrapped with CS (Fig. 2c). Fig. 1d shows the photograph

21of a specimen after the complete rehabilitation.

22The experimental setup and procedure described in paper I have been followed in the

23testing of the rehabbed specimens as well.

1 7
 1

2 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3The damage process in the case of rehabbed specimens was less visual due to the CS

4wrap on the potential damage zone. The wrapped specimens did not show any damage

5until an advanced stage of deformation. A crack across the depth of the beam at the face

6of the column had appeared and increased in width along with the increase in the

7deformation. A small quantity of fine cement powder escaped from the crack at each

8epoch of deformation. After the termination of the loading the CS wraps were removed

9and the condition of the concrete was examined for damages. This will be discussed later.

10The load-deflection hysteresis plots for both the arms of all the specimens have been

11presented in Fig. 3. These graphs may be compared with the plots in paper I to evaluate

12the performance of the rehabbed joints. Although it is clear from the hysteresis graphs

13that both the peak load and the peak deformation have increased in the rehabbed

14specimens it is difficult to compare the graphs. To maintain clarity we shall compare the

15envelope graphs that are derived from the hysteresis plots.

16 Original vs Rehabbed

17The envelope graphs of the fresh and rehabbed specimens have been presented in Fig. 4.

18It is clear that both the ductile and brittle specimens had gained in strength and ductility

19through the rehab. The rapid loss of stiffness in the brittle specimens could be avoided

20totally. The rehabbed brittle specimen had much higher peak load and deformation than

21the fresh ductile specimen. This demonstrates that deficient joints can be effectively

22rehabbed by the proposed technique. The energy dissipation graphs for the fresh and

23rehabbed specimens, both brittle and ductile, have been presented in Fig. 5.

1 8
 1The performance of the rehabbed specimens vis-à-vis the fresh specimens is presented in

2Table 3. There is improvement in both yield and peak loads and final displacements in

3rehabbed specimens. The energy dissipation of the rehabbed specimens is far higher than

4that in the fresh specimens. The rehabbed brittle specimens had higher energy dissipation

5than even the fresh ductile specimens. Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed

6rehabilitation technique can remedy all the deficiencies in the brittle specimens.

8 Anchorage Length

9Two types of anchorages, total and partial, have been studied. Fig. 6 presents the

10envelope curves of both ductile and brittle specimens. Both types of anchorages have

11surpassed the performance of the fresh specimens. Although the preyield behavior of the

12specimens have been very similar the postyield trend of the totally anchored specimens

13has been far superior than that of the partially anchored specimens. In a few cases a

14significant bond slip was found in the partially anchored specimens (Fig 6b, positive

15side). Understandably, there was a rapid loss of stiffness in the case of bond slip. None

16of the totally inserted specimens had any loss of bond. As a result of the superior

17postyield behavior the energy dissipation of the totally inserted specimens was much

18higher than the rest of the specimens (Table 3).

19Level of Prestress

20It has been mentioned earlier that the permanent deformations in the damaged joints have

21been rectified by prestressing the CPs. Only brittle specimens have been rehabbed with

22prestressing. The effect of prestressing on the cyclic loading performance of the joints has

23been investigated here. The envelope curves of the prestressed specimens and ordinary

1 9
 1specimens have been presented in Fig. 7. Prestressing has extended the linear portion of

2the envelope. This shows that the initiation of damage has been delayed by prestressing.

3However, the postyield behavior of the prestressed joints was more uncertain. In the

4present case the reinforcing bars in one of the beams of both the prestressed specimens

5had fractured. There was a loud sound before the failure of the specimens. The bar

6breakage resulted in a sudden change in the force applied by the dynamic actuators. In the

7case of partially inserted specimen this triggered the safety mechanism and the actuator

8stalled (Fig. 7b). Although the instrument recorded the hysteresis even after the breakage

9of the bar in case of the totally inserted specimen a rapid loss of stiffness was observed.

10Although a direct link between the prestressing and bar breakage could not be

11established, it can be concluded that the prestressing had an adverse effect on the

12postyield behavior of the specimens and ductility was sacrificed. The energy dissipation

13calculations had to be carried out on the truncated data (Fig. 8). The energy dissipation of

14the specimen rehabbed with prestressing exceeded that of the fresh specimens. However,

15there was a marked reduction in the energy dissipation in the prestressed specimens in

16comparison to the non-prestressed specimens. This point requires further investigation

17before a safe level of prestressing could be established.

18Performance of Arm 2

19It has been mentioned earlier that specimens had two arms. The arms have been subjected

20to cyclic loading sequentially. So far the results of the first arm have been presented. The

21second arm was tested after testing the first arm to have an assessment of the

22performance of the severely damaged joints. Figure 9 presents the envelope of the fresh

23and the rehabbed specimens. Four rehabbed specimens were tested- two with total

1 10
 1incision and the other two with partial incision. One each of the specimens of each group

2was prestresssed.

3The specimens with total incision surpassed the fresh specimens in both the peak load

4and ultimate displacement. Understandably, the energy dissipation in the rehabbed

5specimens was far greater than that in the fresh specimens (Table 3). The prestressed

6specimen demonstrated higher peak load but lower ultimate displacement than the plain

7specimen. This is consistent with the observations in Arm 1.

8The partially anchored specimens exhibited much lower stiffness than all other specimens

9right from the beginning of loading. It may be noted that in both these specimens the

10main reinforcements had fractured during the testing of Arm 1. Therefore, they

11experienced bond slip resulting in lower stiffness. At higher loads, instead of softening,

12these specimens exhibited a tendency of hardening. This also indicates bond slip and the

13hardening occurs due to friction that occurs at larger displacement levels. Albeit lower

14stiffness the specimens with partial incision had much higher energy dissipation than the

15fresh specimen (Table 3).

16Failure Modes

17Unlike the fresh specimens the progression of damage in the rehabbed specimens was not

18visible, except occasional discoloration of the adhesive, due to the CS wrapping on the

19specimens. The wrapping was cut open after the tests to observe the failure mode (Fig.

2010). The shear cracks that occurred in the fresh specimens were absent in the rehabbed

21ones. The spalling and subsequent formation of hinge did not occur in the rehabbed

22specimens. Hence, it can be concluded that the wrapping was able to avoid both modes of

23brittle failures- shear and loss of confinement; the two most common occurrences in the

1 11
 1structures that suffer an earthquake (Fig. 1, Paper I). The damage in the rehabbed

2specimens was due to wide cracks at the column faces. Clearly, this is a bending failure

3and therefore, the rehabbed joints exhibited ductility and higher energy dissipation.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5 • The rehabilitation technique proposed in the present paper has been very effective

6 and it has restored the strength and ductility of severely damaged beam-column

7 joints.

8 • The joints that were originally brittle could be rehabbed and those joints had

9 higher peak load and deflection in comparison to the joints with ductile detailing.

10 • The yielded longitudinal steel reinforcements in the flexure members have been

11 compensated for with carbon plates.

12 • The lack of confinement and shear capacity of the joints lead to brittle failure. The

13 carbon fiber sheets wrapped around the members dramatically improves the

14 ductility and energy absorption of the joint.

15 • Anchoring of CPs in the joint is paramount for achieving their superior

16 performance. Although there is very little difference in the preyield behavior

17 between the partially anchored and the fully anchored joints the fully anchored

18 joints exhibited far superior postyield behavior.

19 • The permanent deformations in a damaged joint may be rectified by application of

20 prestress on the CPs.

21 • The joints with prestressed CPs had higher peak loads but lower final

22 displacements. The energy dissipation of the joint with prestressed CPs was

23 lower.

1 12
 1 • Arm2 of the rehabbed joints performed better than the fresh joints. Presumably,

2 the damage during the loading of Arm1 affected the partially anchored joints

3 more than the fully anchored joints. The partially anchored joints had lower initial

4 stiffness than the fully anchored joints.

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

6 The present work is financially supported by the Board of Research in Nuclear

7 Sciences. Dr. G. Rami Reddy has helped with the instrumentation for the

8 experiments. The experiments are carried out at the Structural Integrity Testing and

9 Analysis Centre of Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India. The

10 authors would also like to thank M/s Fyfe India for supplying the composite material

11 system.

12

13 REFERENCES

14 1. Alcocer S, Jirsa JO. Strength of reinforced concrete frame connections

15 rehabilitated by jacketing. ACI Structural J 1993;90(3):249–261.

16 2. Ghobarah, A.; Aziz, T. S.; and Biddah, A., ‘‘Rehabilitation of Reinforced

17 Concrete Frame Connections using Corrugated Steel Jacketing. ACI Structural J

18 1997;43:283–294.

19 3. Triantafillou TC, Antonopoulos CP. Design of Concrete Flexural Members

20 Strengthened in Shear with FRP. J Composite for Construction 2000;4(4):198–

21 205.

1 13
 1 4. Mukherjee A, Boothby TE, Bakis CE, Joshi MV, Mitra SR. Mechanical Behavior

2 of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Wrapped Concrete Columns—Complicating

3 Effects. J Composite for Construction 2004;8(2):97-103.

4 5. Geng ZJ, Chajes MJ, Chou TW, Pan DYC. The Retrofitting of Reinforced

5 Concrete Column-to-Beam Connections. Composites Science Technology

6 1998;58:1297–1305.

7 6. Parvin A, Granata P. Investigation on the Effects of Fiber Composites at

8 Concrete Joints. Composites: Part B 2000;31:499-509.

9 7. Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under

10 Cyclic Excitation. Composite Structures 2005:70:185-199.

11 8. Antonopoulos CP, Triantafillou TC. Experimental Investigation of FRP-

12 Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints. J Composite for Construction

13 2003;7(1):39–49.

14 9. Thanasis C, Triantafillou TC. Design of Concrete Flexural :Members

15 Strengthened in Shear with FRP. J Composites for Construction 2000;4:198-205.

16 10. Antonopoulos CP, Triantafillou TC. Analysis of FRP strengthened RC beam-

17 column joints. J Composites Construction 2002;6(1):41–51.

18 11. Gergely J, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Shear Strengthening of RC T-Joints using

19 CFRP Composites. J Composite for Construction 2000;4(2):56–64.

20 12. Ghobarah A, El-Attar M, Aly NM. Evaluation of retrofit strategies for reinforced

21 concrete columns. Engineering Structure 2000;22:490-501.

22 13. Ghobarah A, El-Amoury T. Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints using

23 GFRP Sheets. Engineering Structure 2002;24:1397.

1 14
1 14. Ghobarah A, El-Amoury T. Seismic Rehabilitation of Deficient Exterior Concrete

2 Frame Joints. J Composites for Construction 2005:9(5):408-416.

1 15
 1

2 TABLES AND FIGURES

3List of Tables:

4Table 1: Properties of Reinforcing Materials

5Table 2: Test Matrix

6Table 3: Performance of rehabbed specimens

7List of Figures:

8Fig. 1— Stages of rehabilitation

9Fig. 2— Rehabilitation sequence

10Fig. 3— Hysteresis graphs for rehabilitated specimens

11Fig. 4— Envelope Curve for Fresh vs Rehabbed specimens (Arm-1)

12Fig. 5— Energy dissipation curve fresh and rehabbed specimens (Arm-1)

13Fig. 6— Envelope curves for various anchorage lengths (Arm-1)

14Fig. 7— Envelope curve for various levels of prestress (Arm-1)

15Fig. 8— Cumulative energy dissipation (Arm-1)

16Fig. 9— Envelope curves for Arm-2

17Fig. 10— Damage in rehabbed specimens

1 16
 1

2 Table 1: Properties of Reinforcing Materials

Material Thickness/ Tensile Tensile Ultimate

dia (mm) Strength Modulus Strain
(GPa) (GPa)
Carbon sheet 644 0.23 3.79 230 0.017
gm/m2 (CS)
Carbon Plate 1.4 2.79 155.1 0.018
(Composite) (CP)
Resin -- 0.0214 -- 0.05

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15

16

17

18

19 Table 2: Test Matrix

Nomenclature Anchorage length Level of prestress

(Laminate inserted ) (%) of laminate capacity
D-10 Fresh Specimen --
D-P-0 Partially 0

1 17
 D-T-0 Through 0
B-10 Fresh Specimen
B-P-0 Partially 0
B-T-0 Through 0
B-P-7 Partially 7.5
B-T-7 Through 7.5
1

4 Table 3: Performance of rehabbed specimens

Yield point Peak Energy

Direction
Specimens Arms Load Deflection Load Deflection Dissipation
of motion
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN-M)
+ 32.01 5.339 35.05 17.49
Arm 1 23.89
- -28.68 -5.32 -34.02 -16.74
D-10
+ 23.80 9.1 32.74 25
Arm 2 9.22
- -24.32 -9.6 -33 -24
+ 45 15.91 47.22 30.15 33.74
Arm 1
- -36.89 -15.59 -49.22 -28.37 (41.2)*
D-P-0
+ 25.88 44.93 29.15 52.24 39.29
Arm 2
- 28.28 39.87 30.16 47.81 (326)

+ 51.85 15.75 60.58 32.588 64.69

Arm 1
-44.5 -17.89 -52.6 -33.08 (171)
D-T-0
- 22.51 31.95 27.90 45.93 33.29
Arm 2
-27.87 31.90 -32.57 -42.23 (262)

+ 27.05 5.97 30.94 10.89

Arm 1 8.45
- -22.97 -6.35 -31.94 -16.02
B-10
+ 20.71 6.82 25.12 12.61
Arm 2 6.19
- -19.17 -7.05 -24.45 -12.82
+ 51.78 14.75 53.45 16.56 25.41
Arm 1
- -37.35 -9.625 -58.01 -34.23 (201)
B-P-0
+ 24.29 34.78 30.42 48.68 24.01
Arm 2
- -26.18 -35.52 -27.84 -49.90 (256)

+ 43.78 15.33 51.49 26.22 38.83

Arm 1
- -36.34 -14.62 -47 -22.04 (383)
B-T-0
+ 34.28 14.13 37.89 21.45 19.78
Arm 2
- -37.54 -15.93 -42.82 -22.73 (220)

1 18
 + 62.34 16.69 65.46 21.93 18.21
Arm 1
- -55.34 -16.34 -59 -19.89 (115)
B-P-7
+ 24.79 29.73 28.32 40.01 11.56
Arm 2
- -25.63 -25.85 -29.81 -32.27 (87)

+ 65.46 19.53 71.54 23.59 26.37

Arm 1
- -64.23 -20.13 -68.34 -23.65 (212)
B-T-7
+ 48.24 14.12 53.37 21.51 15.06
Arm 2
- -38.48 -14.10 -45.53 -20.94 (143)

1* Figures in parenthesis are % change from control

7 (a) Making incision (b) Prestressing unit

10 (c) CP bonding (d) CS wrap

11

1 19
 1 Fig. 1: Stages of rehabilitation

7
8

CP through CP partial
insertion insertion

9 Type-T Through inserted CP Type-P Partially inserted CP

10 (a) Step-1
11
Layer 1
column

Layer 2 column
1500 mm

Layer 1
beam

Layer 2 beam

1250 mm

12 (b) Step-2 (c) Step-3

1 20
 1 CS on front and back faces CS wrap on all the sides

2 Figure: 2 Rehabilitation sequence

7
8 Arm-1 Arm-2
9 60

10
30

40
20

11 20 10

12
Load(KN)

Load(KN)
0
0
13 -10

14 -20
-20

15 -40 -30

16 -60 -40
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
17 Displacement(mm)
Displacement(mm)

18
19 (a) D-P-0
20 80
30
21 60
20

22 40
10

23
Load(KN)
Load(KN)

20
0

24 0
-10

25 -20
-20
-40
26 -30
-60
27 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-40
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

28 Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)

29 (b) D-T-0
30
31 Arm-1 Arm-2
32

33 60 40

40
20

34 20
Load(KN)
Load(KN)

0 0

35 -20
-20

-40
-40

36 -60
(c) B-P-0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement(mm)
Displacement(mm)

1 21
 1
60
40
2 40 30

20
20
3
Load(KN)

Load(KN)
10
0 0

4 -20
-10

-20

-40 -30
5 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-60 Displacement(mm)
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
6 Displacement(mm)

7 (d) B-T-0

8
9 Arm-1 Arm-2
10 80
30
60
20
11 40
10

Load (KN)
20
Load (KN)

12 0
0

-20 -10

13 -40 -20

-60 -30

14 -80
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm)
40

Displacement(mm)

15

16 (a) B-P-7

17

18 80
60
60
40 40
19 20
Load(KN)

20
0

20
Load (KN)

0
-20

21 -40 -20
-60
22 -80
-40

23 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -60

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
24 Displacement(mm)
Displacement (mm)
25
26
27 (c) B-T-7

28 Figure 3: Hysteresis graphs for rehabilitated specimens

29

1 22
1

70
60
50
D-T-0
40
30
B-T-0
20

Load KN
D-10
10
0 B-10
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)
2

3 Figure 4: Envelope Curve for Fresh vs Rehabbed specimens (Arm-1)

70

60
D-T-0

50
Energy KN-Meter

40
B-T-0
30

20 D-10
10
B-10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
4

5 Figure 5: Energy dissipation curve fresh and rehabbed specimens (Arm-1)

1 23
 1

3
60

4 60
D-T-0 40
40 B-T-0
5 D-P-0 20
20
D-10
Load KN

B-P-0

Load KN
0 B-10
6 0
-20
-20
7 -40
-40

8 -60
-60

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

9 Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

10 (a) D-Type (b) B-Type

11 Figure 6: Envelope curves for various anchorage lengths (Arm-1)

12

80
B-T-7 80
60
60 B-P-7
40
B-T-0 40
20
Load KN

Load KN

20
0 B-10
-20
0
B-10 B-P-0
-20
-40

-40
-60

-60
-80
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

13

14 (a) Totally inserted (b) Partially inserted

15 Figure 7: Envelope curve for various levels of prestress (Arm-1)

1 24
 40
B-T-0

Energy KN-Meters
B-T-7
30
B-P-0
20

10 B-P-7

B-10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)
1

2 Figure 8: Cumulative energy dissipation (Arm-1)

60

50 B-T-7
B-P-7
40

30
B-P-0
20
Load kN

10
B-T-0
0 B-10
-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

6 Figure 9: Envelope curves for Arm-2

10

1 25
 cracks

2 Figure 10: Damage in rehabbed specimens

1 26