Professional Documents
Culture Documents
c
0.8x
x
0.85fc b
h
Asr,1
d1
d
d2
Asr,2
sr2
s
sr1
T
Tr2
Fig. 15 Section analysis
502 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
between 43% and 210% according to the added
amount of steel.
Only beams V2-A and V3-A had relative dis-
placement between the beams and jackets after yield
loads, 150 kN and 175 kN, respectively, as seen in
Figs. 13 and 14. In beam V2-A, the relative dis-
placement stayed below 1 mm up to the ultimate
load, while in beam V3-A it reached 17 mm at the
end of the jackets, where maximum displacement
occurred in both beams. From the values of P
u,exp
/ P
u
of those beams quoted in Table 3, it can be concluded
that the shear strength was very close to the
theoretical exural strength of both beams and the
shear strength slightly affected the exure strength by
dropping the value of P
u,exp
/ P
u
from 1.14, average
value obtained for the beams failed in exure, to 1.06
and 1.00 for V2-A and V3-A, respectively.
Figures 9 and 10 show the comparison between the
load-deection curves for both strengthened (groups A
and B) and reference beams (group C). From these
gures it can be seen that the strengthened beams have
gained both rigidity and strength as the amount of steel
added to them in the jackets increased. The load-
deection curves of the strengthened beams lie above
that of the reference beam of each group (REF1 or
REF2) and show comparable or even better behaviour
than the one of the reference beam with highest steel
ratio (REF3). The higher strength and/or rigidity of the
strengthened beams V3-A (A
st
= 1,085 mm
2
) and
V2-B (A
st
= 1,200 mm
2
) in comparison to the refer-
ence beam REF3 (A
st
= 1,230 mm
2
) can be attributed
to the differences in the effective depth of those beams:
409mm, 377mm and 351 mm, respectively.
As for the steel strain, the comparison of Figs. 11
and 12 showthat the jacket steel strain followed closely
the original beam steel strain at all load levels till the
yield of both steels. After this stage, there are slight
differences between the strains of both steels, except
for beams V2-A and V3-A, which showed higher
differences due to the exertion of beam-to-jacket shear.
As for the concrete contribution to the shear
strength of the connection between the beam and
jacket, it is evident from the result of beam V3-A that
such contribution does not exist in the ultimate limit
Section
Shear stress
Tr = Asr .f y
Ls = 1920mm
80
120
P
Fig. 16 Shear stress
transfer at the interface
Table 3 Comparisons between estimated and experimental failure loads
Beam q
st
d (mm) P
u
(kN) P
u,exp
(kN) P
u,exp
/ P
u
P
u,exp
/ P
REF
* s
u
(MPa)
V1-A 1.02 382 130 150 1.15 2.08 0.28
V2-A 1.47 402 193 205 1.06 2.84 0.56
V3-A 1.77 409 229 229 1.00 3.10 0.74
V1-B 1.67 360 156 186 1.19 1.43 0.28
V2-B 2.12 377 212 235 1.11 1.80 0.56
REF1 0.49 386 64 72 1.13
REF2 1.08 369 112 130 1.16
REF3 2.33 351 197 219 1.11
P
u
= theoretical ultimate load based on the rectangular stress block for concrete and nominal yield strength for steel = 500 MPa
P
u,exp
= experimental ultimate load
* For Group A P
REF
= P
u,exp
for beam REF1 = 72 kN and for Group B P
REF
= P
u,exp
for beam REF2 = 130 kN
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504 503
state. This beam had the shear strength of its
expansion bolts designed to be equal to the maximum
force in the jacket (400 kN) and, at ultimate load, the
jacket sheared off the beam right after yielding of the
jacket steel, which means that concrete did not
provide any contribution to the shear resistance of the
connection. The lack of concrete contribution can be
explained by the modied MohrCoulomb criteria of
failure for concrete, which predicts zero shear
strength combined with a tensile normal stress equal
to f
ct
(tensile concrete strength), state of stress for
concrete at the connection.
For all other beams, where the shear strength of the
bolts were higher than the maximumforce in the jacket,
shearing of the connection did not occur or was a
secondary mode of failure as happened in beam V2-A.
6 Conclusions
This work presents a simple and efcient technique to
strengthen beams in exure using traditional materi-
als and construction procedures. The introduction of
expansion bolts as shear connectors added quickness
and ease to the application of the strengthening.
The test results have proven that this technique is
efcient once the connection is properly designed. As
a general rule, for the design of the connection it is
recommended that:
No count is made for concrete contribution to the
shear strength of the connection.
The amount of the expansion shear bolts is
calculated so as their shear strength be more than
or equal to the maximum force in the jacket.
The insertion of the expansion bolts in either the
beam or in the jacket should be greater than ve
times the bolt diameter and not lesser than 50 mm
(based on manufacturer recommendations and on
test carried out in another research program that
will be the subject of another paper), in order to
get proper anchorage.
Holes of the expansion bolts should be as close as
possible to the original stirrups and original main
steel of the beams.
Exposed part of the expansion bolts should be left
without the extension (outer) sleeves and should
be as close as possible to a jacket stirrups and
jacket main steel.
Although no count for concrete contribution to
the shear strength of the connection is made, it is
recommended that a proper surface roughness of
the beam surface is made, in order to get good
adhesion between the beam and the jacket con-
cretes for durability purposes.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank
HOLCIM and the Brazilian government nancing agencies
CNPq and CAPES for supporting this project.
References
1. Alexandre ALC, Caravello F, Reis MSC, Correia SB
(1988) Experimental verication of the behavior of
strengthened RC beams. Internal Report. Universidade do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (in Portuguese)
2. Altun F (2004) An experimental study of the jacketed
reinforced-concrete beams under bending. Constr Build
Mater 18:611618
3. Araujo DL (1997) Shear stresses at the interface of pre-
fabricated and cast in place concrete elements subjected to
exure. M.Sc. thesis, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos,
Brazil (in Portuguese)
4. Cheong, HK, Macalevey N (2000) Experimental behavior
of jacketed reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Eng
126(6):692699
5. Comite Euro-International du Beton (1991) CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990. CEB Bulletin dInformation, n. 213
214, France
6. Gohnert M (2000) Proposed theory to determine the hori-
zontal shear between composite precast and in situ
concrete. Cem Concr Compos 22(6):469476
7. Liew SC, Cheong HK (1991) Flexural behavior of jacketed
RC beams. Concr Int Detroit 13(12):4347
8. Loov RE, Patnaik AK (1994) Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface. PCI J
39(1):4867
9. Nosseir SB, Murtha RN (1971) Ultimate horizontal shear
strength of prestressed split beams. Technical Report
NCEL-TR707, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, CA
10. Piancastelli EM, Calixto JMF (2002) Flexural strengthening
of beams under loading. Instituto Brasileiro do Concreto -
44 Congresso Brasileiro, Belo horizonte, Minas Gerais,
Brazil (in Portuguese)
11. Saemann SP, Washa GW (1964) Horizontal shear con-
nections between precast beams and cast-in-place slabs.
ACI J 61:(11):13831408
12. Souza RHF (1990) Analysis of the behavior of R.C.
strengthened in exure and shear. D.Sc. thesis, Univer-
sidade tecnica de Lisboa, IST, Lisbon, Portugal (in
Portuguese)
13. Tan KH, Guan LW, Lu X (1999) Horizontal shear strength
of indirectly loaded composite concrete beams. ACI J
96(4):533538
504 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504