This article was downloaded by: [Bangalore University]

On: 17 April 2015, At: 05:32

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

HPFRC Jacketing of Non Seismically

Detailed RC Corner Joints
a

C. Beschi , P. Riva , G. Metelli & A. Meda

a

Department of Engineering, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

DICATAM, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

Civil Engineering Department, University of Rome Tor Vergata,,

Rome, Italy
Accepted author version posted online: 14 Aug 2014.Published
online: 17 Nov 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: C. Beschi, P. Riva, G. Metelli & A. Meda (2015) HPFRC Jacketing of Non
Seismically Detailed RC Corner Joints, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19:1, 25-47, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2014.948646
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.948646

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19:2547, 2015

Copyright A. S. Elnashai
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2014.948646

HPFRC Jacketing of Non Seismically Detailed

RC Corner Joints
C. BESCHI1 , P. RIVA1 , G. METELLI2 , and A. MEDA3
1

Department of Engineering, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

DICATAM, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
3
Civil Engineering Department, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

In this article, the effectiveness of a High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (HPFRC) jacket

for the seismic retrofitting of existing RC corner beam-column joints is experimentally investigated. The results of cyclic experimental tests on full-scale corner beam-column sub-assemblies (two
unretrofitted and two retrofitted) are presented and discussed in detail, focusing on the effectiveness
of the adopted retrofitting technique. The RC test units were designed with structural deficiencies
typical of the Italian construction practice of the 1970s: use of smooth bars, inadequate reinforcement detailing, such as lack of stirrups in the joint panel, and hook-ended anchorage. The results
underlined that the joint panel strength impairs the seismic response of the sub-structure with a drift
at incipient collapse not greater than 2%. The results showed that the application of thin HPFRC
jackets appears a promising technique to strengthen poorly-detailed RC joints: the jacket was able
to increase the shear strength of the joint by about 40%, with respect to the bare joint, limiting the
damage of the retrofitted sub-assembly, which reached an ultimate drift of 6%.
Keywords Existing RC Structures; Seismic Retrofitting; HPFRC Jacketing; Corner Beam-Column
Joints; Cyclic Test

1. Introduction
The recent Italian earthquakes (Abruzzo 2009, Emilia Romagna 2012) dramatically demonstrated that a large amount of existing RC structures, designed for gravity loads only, were
not able to sustain earthquake actions. This was mainly due to different structural deficiencies, which can be related to the absence of any capacity design principles, poor material
properties, such as low-strength concrete, use of smooth bars for both longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement, absence of transverse reinforcement in the joint regions, poor
reinforcement detailing, such as insufficient amount of column longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, and inadequate anchorage detailing.
Some of these construction details can be indicated as the potential critical causes of
brittle failure mechanisms, which significantly reduce the overall ductility of the structure
and lead to an inadequate lateral strength.
For beam-column joints, three failure mechanisms can be identified. The first is related
to the shear failure of the joint panel, typical of a weak-column/strong-beam system. This
mechanism is brittle and, thus, it has to be avoided. The second one concerns the development of a plastic hinge in the beam, which is a desired ductile failure mode, typical of
Received 21 January 2014; accepted 9 July 2014.
Address correspondence to P. Riva, University of Bergamo v.le Marconi 5, 24044 Dalmine (BG), Bergamo,
Italy. E-mail: paolo.riva@unibg.it
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.

25

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

26

C. Beschi et al.

a strong-column/weak-beam system. The third mechanism is due to the bond-slip failure

mode, which depends on bond characteristics. These are related to the column size, which
affects the bond length, to the type of reinforcement (smooth or deformed) and to the presence of transverse reinforcement in the joint, which may guarantee a confining action along
the anchored bars.
In this article, the attention will be focused on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joints. This kind of joint often represents the most critical regions in RC frames
subjected to lateral loads, mainly owing to the absence of confinement in correspondence
of at least one or two faces, the unbalanced thrust of the masonry infill, and a higher displacement demand caused by global torsional effects. In particular, the research has been
focused on the behavior of corner beam-column joints with typical details of Italian construction practice in the 1960s and 1970s, which was characterized by the use of smooth
bars with hooked-end anchorages. The brittleness of this type of external beam-column
joint was firstly shown by tests carried out on a 2:3 scaled r.c. frame [Calvi et al., 2001].
The development of a shear failure mechanism markedly different from that provided in
the case of a rigid joint behavior, for which a soft floor mechanism would be expected, was
evident. Moreover, this failure mode was observed in several joints of poorly-detailed RC
frames after recent Italian earthquakes [LAquila, 2009; Fig. 1].
In the literature, several experimental research works devoted to studying the seismic
performance of r.c. frames designed for gravity loads only may be found. Many tests were
carried out on sub-assemblies with interior or exterior beam-column joints characterized

FIGURE 1 Corner beam-column joint failure during the Abruzzo earthquake [ReLUIS,
2009]. Dipartimento Protezione Civile (Reluis). Reproduced by permission of
Dipartimento Protezione Civile (Reluis). Permission to reuse must be obtained from the
rightsholder.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

27

by substandard reinforcing details. Most studies considered ribbed bars bent in the joint
[Aycardi et al., 1994; Hakuto et al., 2000, Murty et al., 2003, Masi et al., 2013; Sharma
et al., 2013; Sasmal et al., 2013] while few tests focused on sub-assemblies with hookedend smooth bars and only some of them were correctly designed to develop a joint shear
failure [Calvi et al., 2001; Kam et al., 2010; Akguzel and Pampanin, 2008; Braga et al.,
2009]. In fact, despite of the absence of transverse reinforcement in the panel region, some
poorly detailed sub-assemblies [Russo and Pauletta, 2012; Masi et al., 2013] showed flexural hinges because a low reinforcement ratio was adopted in the beam, thus reducing the
shear demand in the joint panel.
In exterior beam-column joints with smooth bars and without transverse reinforcement
in the joint panel, the shear transfer mechanism is based on a compression strut mechanism,
whose efficiency depends on the concrete strength and on the anchorage solution adopted
for the longitudinal beam reinforcement. If hooked anchorages were adopted, the joint
strength would be impaired by the expulsion of a concrete wedge, due to the pushing action
of the hooked-end anchorages in compression and caused by bar slip within the panel region
[Calvi et al., 2001].
Because of the large amount in Italy of RC buildings designed for gravity loads only,
before the introduction of adequate seismic design code provisions, the assessment of their
seismic response has become an important and urgent issue, together with the development
of repair and strengthening techniques.
During the last decades, several techniques have been proposed for the seismic retrofit
of RC elements [Fib Report, 1991; Fib Bullettin 24, 2003].
One of the most widespread techniques for upgrading RC elements is traditionally
based on the use of steel plates, epoxy-bonded to the external surfaces of beams and slabs.
As far as both cost and mechanical performance are concerned, this technique is simple and
effective, but suffers from several disadvantages: corrosion of the steel plates, difficulty in
handling heavy and long steel plates in tight construction sites, which are required in case
of flexural strengthening of long girders.
Concerning the strengthening of existing columns, the possibility of using RC jackets
is usually considered, in particular when the elements are made of low strength concrete.
Traditional jacketing presents some inconvenience, due to the jacket thickness being governed by the steel cover. This often leads to a jacket thickness higher than 70100 mm,
with a consequent significant increase of the column section geometry, which may alter the
dynamic response of the structure [Bracci et al., 1995]. On the other hand, it is remarked
that RC jacketing allows increasing not only the members strength but also its ductility, by
offering an effective confining action [Campione et al., 2014].
However, concrete jacketing is probably the most labor-intensive strengthening method
due to difficulties in placing additional joint transverse reinforcement. This method is successful in creating strong column-weak beam mechanisms, but suffers from considerable
loss of floor space and disruption to the building occupancy. In Karayannis et al. [2008]
a thin RC jacketing with small diameter reinforcements was proposed to repair damaged
beam-column joints with bent-in deformed bars. The test results showed that the jacketing
technique with dense reinforcements in the joint region allowed the sub-assembly to shift
its failure mode form shear in the joint region to flexural hinging in the beam.
Externally bonded FRP composites can eliminate some important limitations such
as difficulties in construction and increase in member sizes [Gergely et al., 2000;
Antonopoulos and Triantafillou, 2003; Mukherjee and Joshi, 2005; Alsayed et al., 2010].
The use of FRP offers several advantages, related to its high strength-to-weight ratio, resistance to corrosion, fast and relatively simple application. On the other hand, the risk of
composite sheet delamination can impair the effectiveness of joint strengthening or repair,

28

C. Beschi et al.

when anchoring mechanical devices are not adopted. Furthermore, FRPs may constitute a
problem when fire resistance is a concern.
Recently, a new technique based on the use of thin jackets made with HighPerformance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (HPFRC) has been developed [Martinola et al.,
2010]. This technique has been demonstrated to be effective for the strengthening of existing columns if compared with other techniques, particularly when the structure is made of
low strength concrete [Beschi et al., 2011]. The proposed technique consists in encasing
structural concrete elements in a thin layer (3040 mm) of HPFRC material, which exhibits
a weakly hardening behavior in tension coupled with a high compression strength, larger
strain capacity and toughness when compared to traditional FRCs, which makes it ideal for
use in members subjected to large inelastic deformation demands.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

2. Experimental Investigation
The present research work focused on experimental studies on the retrofitting of exterior
beam-column sub-assemblies characterized by smooth bars with hooked-end anchorages.
The sub-assemblies were strengthened by means of thin HPFRC jacketing with the aim to
enhance the shear and bond-slip resistance of the joint by changing the undesirable brittle
failure modes into a more ductile one, with the development of flexural hinges in the beams.
In the following, the results of cyclic experimental tests on full-scale corner beamcolumn sub-assemblies (two unretrofitted and two retrofitted) are presented and discussed
in detail, focusing on the effectiveness of the adopted retrofitting technique.
2.1. Geometry and Materials of Test Units
2.1.1 Unretrofitted Test Units. The unretrofitted test units, named in the following CJ1 and
CJ2, were representative of a corner joint of the first level of a RC four-story frame designed
according to the Italian design provisions in force before the 1970s [R.D., 1939] and
suggested by the technical literature of that time [Santarella, 1945].
The reference building was faithful to the characteristics of the most part of the Italian
building stock in the 1970s, such as frames in only one direction, usually the longitudinal
one. The plan structural layout (10 x 21 m2 ) consisted of 5 bays in the longitudinal direction, with span of 4.5 m except for the central one which was 3 m long to place the stairs
module, and two bays in the transverse direction with span of 5 m. The structural elements
were designed only for gravity loads with the columns carrying only axial force and the
beams designed according to the scheme of continuous beam on multiple supports with
negative moments at the beams ends for compatibility reasons. As far as the materials proprieties are concerned, the steel grade of the reinforcement and the concrete strength are
representative of materials adopted in the Italian buildings before the 1970s [Verderame
et al., 2001; Verderame and Manfredi, 2001]. Further details of the design of the reference
building may be found in Beschi [2012].
The beams were characterized by a 300 500 mm2 cross section, with smooth reinforcing bars with hooked-ends anchorages (Fig. 2). In the main beam 2 12 and 2 16 mm
diameter longitudinal rebars were placed at the top and 2 12 and 1 16 mm diameter
rebars were placed at the bottom with 8@200 mm stirrups, in order to avoid, with a relative high over-strength factor, any possible beam shear failure. In the transverse beam 2
12 and 1 16 mm upper bars and 2 12 mm lower bars were adopted.
The column cross section was 300 300 mm2 , with 4 16 mm diameter longitudinal
rebars. Lap splices with hook anchorages were adopted in the column longitudinal rebars.
No transverse reinforcement was placed inside the joint, as was a common practice in the
1960s.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

29

FIGURE 2 Geometry and reinforcement details.

The size of the test units was determined by the distance between the contra-flexure
points (assumed to be at mid-span of the beam and at mid-height of the column) for linear
elastic lateral load response of the main longitudinal r/c frame in the reference building.
The geometry of sub-assemblies and reinforcement details are shown in Fig. 2, where one
may note the main longitudinal beam (2.1 m long) loaded by a shear force at the end
and connected to the column (3.0 m high). It should be noticed that also a portion of the
transverse secondary beam (0.65 m long) was realized, thus allowing a negative bending
moment to be applied to the corner joint, in order to simulate the transverse action in the
joint at service conditions (in the following all the details of the test set up are provided).
The reinforcement had a mean yield strength (fym ) of 365 MPa and 445 MPa, respectively,
for 12 and 16 mm diameter bars, evaluated by the results of three specimens tested according to EN 15630-3. The elongation at maximum tensile force (Agt ) was greater then 13.7%
(Table 1).
Normal grade concrete was supplied by a local ready-mix plant. The concrete was of
medium workability (slump of about 150 mm according to EN 12350) with a maximum
aggregate size of 16 mm. At time of testing, the average concrete compressive strength (fcm )
was 38.7 MPa, corresponding to C30/37 grade in accordance with ENV 1992-1-1:2004.
This value was larger than what was considered in the design of the unretrofitted test units
(C16/20), as shown in Riva et al. [2012] and Beschi [2012].
2.1.2. Retrofitted Test Units. The retrofitting solution concerns the application of a HPFRC
jacket to test units with the same geometry and detail of the unretrofitted ones (Fig. 2).
After casting and a curing period of one month, the test units were prepared for the
jacketing. To this end, the concrete surface was at first sandblasted, up to achieve a roughness of 12 mm, which had been demonstrated effective to ensure a good adhesion between
new and old concrete even in the absence of chemical bonding agents [Martinola et al.,
2010], and then watered to reach the saturation of the support (Fig. 3).

30

C. Beschi et al.

TABLE 1 Material characteristics of steel reinforcement and HPFRC

REINFORCEMENT

12
16
6
8

fym [MPa]

fum [MPa]

Agt [%]

365
445
493
337

558
546
556
440

15.9
13.7
16.1
21.0

HPFRC

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

Matrix

Steel fibers

fcm,cube [MPa]

ftm [MPa]

Ecm [GPa]

130

6.6

36

fum [MPa]

leq [mm]

deq [mm]

Vf [%]

2000

15

0.18

1.2

: bar diameter; fym : average yield strength; fum : average ultimate strength; Agt : elongation at
maximum tensile force - Tests carried out according to EN 15630-3
fum : mean ultimate tensile strength of wire; fcm,cube : average compressive strength; ftm : average direct
tensile strength; Ecm : average elastic modulus; leq : equivalent length; deq : equivalent diameter; Vf :
fibers volume

FIGURE 3 Specimens sandblasting (a), concrete surface before (b), and after
sandblasting (c).
The column was encased in a HPFRC jacket 40 mm thick while for the beam a
U-shaped jacket was adopted with a thickness of 30 mm, which is the smallest value
which may be adopted for technological limits. The jackets where cast in molds, with the
specimen placed vertically, as in the reality.
The strengthening material is a self-leveling mortar having a maximum aggregate size
of 1.3 mm and water/binder (cement + microsilica) ratio equal to 0.17 by weight. The

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

31

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

FIGURE 4 HPFRC characterization by means direct tensile test on dog-bone specimens.

mortar is reinforced with 1.2% (by volume) of straight steel micro-fibers having a length
of 15 mm and a diameter of 0.18 mm. The ultimate tensile strength (fum ) of the wire is
2000 MPa. The compressive strength (fcm,cube ) of the HPFRC, as measured on 100 mm side
cubes after 28 days of curing, was 130 MPa while the direct tensile strength (ftm ) was equal
to 6.6 MPa (Table 1). Direct tensile test on dog-bone specimens were performed in order to
characterize the material in tension. The experimental results, together with the specimen
geometries, are reported in Fig. 4. As highlighted from the uniaxial tensile test, the material
is characterized by a strainhardening behavior in tension up to 0.15% strain, followed by
a stable and slightly degrading softening behavior.
The grade of the reinforcement was the same as for test units CJ1 and CJ2; the base
concrete was characterized by an average compressive strength fcm of about 27 MPa. The
retrofitted test units are labeled as RCJ1 and RCJ2 in the following.

3. Test Set-Up and Procedure

The test set-up intended to reproduce the configuration of a corner beam-column subassembly of a frame subjected to reversed cyclic lateral loads acting on one of the two corner
planes. To this aim, a test frame was designed to allow free-rotation both at the top and at
the base of the column and to allow rotation and longitudinal translational motion of the
main beam end to simulate the inflection points, which were assumed to occur at half of
each element length (Fig. 5a).
The test started with the application of an axial load equal to 210 kN to the column
by means of two hydraulic jacks: the axial load was maintained constant during the entire
test and represented the serviceability load acting on the column of the first level of the
reference building evaluated according to the seismic load combination.
A vertical force of 8.5 kN at the main beams end and a negative bending moment to
the secondary beam were applied by means of hydraulic jacks, to simulate the combination
of shear and moments acting in the joint in service conditions. The values of the moments
applied to the joint were 18.7 kNm and 11.3 kNm at the main beam and secondary beam
ends (including the effect of beam self- weight), respectively.
The test was carried out with the application of cyclic loads in the main beam plane,
by imposing at the top of the column cycles of displacements of increasing amplitude up to
failure by means of an electromechanical jack, fixed to the reaction wall of the laboratory
(Fig. 5b).

32

C. Beschi et al.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

FIGURE 5 Sub-assembly layout (a) and test set-up (b).

The loading history consisted of cycles characterized by drift increments referring to

ACI protocol [ACI 437, 2007] with some adaptations to study the system at low drift levels,
when the shear strength of the joint may impair the sub-assembly behaviour: 0.25% up to
a drift of 1%, 0.5% up to a drift of 3% and 1% up to failure, as shown in Fig. 6a. Three
fully reversed cycles were applied at each drift ratio. The test continued up to a drift ratio
equal to 3% (90 mm top displacement) for the unretrofitted specimens and equal to 6%
(180 mm top displacement) for the retrofitted specimens. In Fig. 6a, the experimental yield
drifts for both directions of the unretrofitted sub-assembly are also shown. The yield drifts
were evaluated by idealizing the experimental backbone curve as an elasto-plastic forcedeformation relationship with a secant stiffness at 75% of the ultimate load of the system
[Park, 1988]. The yield drift allows for the appreciation of both the severity of the loading
history and the number of plastic excursions during the cycling tests.
In order to measure the horizontal displacements, potentiometric transducers were
placed at the column top at the load application level (POS 1 and 2 in Fig. 6b). The rotations
between the beams and the column were measured by means of a series of potentiometric transducers (POS 3-4-5-6 for the main beam and POS 7-8 for the secondary beam
in Fig. 6b) while the rotations of the two halves of the column were monitored by the
potentiometric transducers in POS 9-10-11-12 and POS 13-14-15-16, for the main and the
secondary beam, respectively.

FIGURE 6 Loading history (a) and measurement devices (b).

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

33

FIGURE 7 Horizontal load vs. horizontal displacement curves for test units CJ1 and CJ2.
In order to gauge the opening of the cracks in the joint, potentiometric transducers
were placed diagonally in the panel region for both the main beam (POS 17-18 in Fig. 6b)
and the secondary beam (POS. 19-20). Furthermore, the transducers POS 21 and POS
22 measured the horizontal and the vertical displacements of the main beam end. Another
transducer was provided to check any out of plane displacement.
The horizontal load and the couple of forces applied to the secondary beam to reproduce the serviceability moment in the joint, were monitored by means of load cells, while
the vertical load applied to the main beam was measured directly on the threaded bar placed
at the beams end and was kept constant by means of a close loop hydraulic system.

4. Test Results
4.1. Unretrofitted Test Units
The results in terms of horizontal load vs. displacement at the level of the load application
point are shown for both the unretrofitted test units in Fig. 7.
Due to the unsymmetrical amount of bar reinforcement at the top and bottom of the
beam, the specimen clearly exhibited different lateral load responses in the positive and
negative directions. It is observed that in the positive direction the beam lower face is in tension, whereas in the negative direction tension occurs in the beam upper face. Accordingly,
as the cyclic loads were applied starting from the gravity service load condition, obtained
by applying concentrated shear force acting downward at the main beam end, in the positive direction bending and shear actions in the main beam act in the opposite direction with
respect to the initial ones, while in the negative direction they add up to the initially applied
actions.
In the positive direction, the specimens reached their maximum strength, equal to
31.3 kN for CJ1 test unit and 34.7 kN for CJ2 test unit at a drift equal to 2% and 2.5%,
respectively. In the following loading cycles, the specimens exhibited a little strength degradation due to the formation of the expected flexural hinge in the main beam. At the final
loading cycle, at 3% drift, the residual load carrying capacity was approximately 98% or

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

34

C. Beschi et al.

96% of the maximum load for CJ1 and CJ2 test unit, respectively. In the second and third
cycle at the same drift value, the specimens showed a reduction of the peak load equal to
about 10% and 20%, respectively.
In the negative load direction, the sub-assemblies response was governed by the shear
damage in the joint panel. Both specimens achieved the maximum load at a 1% drift, equal
to 35.98 kN and 35.41 kN for CJ1 and CJ2, respectively. After the peak value, the strength
decreased more significantly for specimen CJ1 than for specimen CJ2 (63% and 76.5%
of the peak value, respectively, at a drift equal to 3%). Also in the negative direction it
was possible to recognize the trend observed for the positive one, with a lower maximum
value of the load for the second and the third cycles of each sequence. At the limit state
of incipient collapse, which may be observed at 1.5% and 2.0% for CJ1 and CJ2 specimen
respectively, the strength reduction was about equal to 15% of the peak load (Fig. 7).
The experimental results confirmed the high vulnerability of corner beam-column
joints, characterized by a significant damage in the joint core. In addition, the pronounced
cyclic stiffness degradation, with pinching effect in the hysteresis loops, showed the
fundamental role played by bar-slip phenomena.
In the positive direction the sub-assembly was characterized by the beam flexural failure, with a wide flexural crack at the interface with the joint, due to the slip of smooth
reinforcing bars, which allowed a plastic behavior to be achieved. In the negative direction, the sub-assemblies were governed by the joint shear strength showing a rapid strength
degradation beyond a 2% drift. The collapse occurred at 3% drift, and it was favored by
the formation of an external concrete wedge due to end-hooks in compression, leading to
a brittle local failure and a sudden loss of bearing capacity, as also observed by Calvi et al.
[2001] on reduced-scale specimens.
As shown in Fig. 8, which represents the evolution of the cracks pattern during the
test, both test units showed early flexural cracks in the main beam, corresponding to a drift
of 0.25% in the negative direction and 0.5% in the positive one, in agreement with the
test set-up, which started with the application of a top-down vertical force at the beams
end, causing a preliminary negative displacement of the sub-assembly. On the outer side
of the joint, in correspondence with the secondary beam, no cracks appeared up to a drift
of 0.75%, when the opening of a flexural crack at the bottom column-joint interface was
observed.
The first diagonal crack in the joint panel zone started in the negative direction during
the first cycle at a drift equal to 1%. In the second positive cycle, at a drift equal to 2%, two
diagonal cracks appeared in the opposite direction and the concrete wedge began to take
shape.
At a negative drift equal to 3% the joint strength reduction was greater than 40%.
Severe cover spalling occurred in a wide area at the joint bottom (Figs, 8 and 9c). This
wedge action was caused by the thrust of the hooked-end anchorages in compression and
induced the plain bar slip within the panel joint.
It is worth pointing out that no extensive flexural cracks and concrete crushing were
observed in the inner side of the joint except at the main beam-joint vertical interface, due
to the confining action of the secondary beam.
In Fig. 9, the damage on the outer sides of test units CJ1 and CJ2 at the end of the test
are shown. The three failure mechanisms are well highlighted: beam failure with a vertical
crack at the beam-joint interface, joint shear failure with the diagonal cracks in the panel
zone, and the thrust of the hooked-end beam bars in the column at the bottom of the joint.
The diagram of the principal tensile stresses normalized with respect to the average
cylindrical concrete strength versus drift is shown for test unit CJ1 in Fig. 10. The same
trend was observed for test unit CJ2. It may be observed that at a drift equal to -1%, when

35

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

FIGURE 8 Crack pattern in the outer sides of the joint for test units CJ1 and CJ2.
the first
diagonal crack appeared in the joint panel, the principal tensile stress is equal to
0.20 fcm for both un-retrofitted test units, confirming the results obtained by [Calvi et al.,
2001], on the same kind of exterior beam-column joints. As expected, strength reduction
occurred after cracking without any additional source for hardening behavior. The opening

36

C. Beschi et al.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

FIGURE 9 The damage at 3% drift on the outer sides of the test units: CJ1 (a); CJ2 (b);
and spalling due to the thrusting action of hooks in compression (c).

FIGURE 10 Principal tensile stress in the panel zone vs. drift curve for test units CJ1 and
RCJ1.
of a diagonal crack in the
opposite direction was expected to happen for a principal tensile
stress smaller than 0.2 fcm due to the cyclic damage. At a drift equal to +1%, a diagonal
crack started to open inthe negativedirection, for which the maximum principal tensile
stress was equal to 0.18 fcm and 0.2 fcm for CJ1 and CJ2 test unit respectively. It is worth
pointing out that Italian Standard [D.M., 2008] and Eurocode 8 [CEN, 1998]
suggested
an unsafe value of the upper limit of the principal tensile stress (equal to 0.3 fcm ) for the
assessment of a poorly-detailed joint strength.
Finally, in Fig. 11, the deformation along the joint diagonal (in tension, mostly due
to crack opening, while in compression due to concrete crushing) is shown, for increasing
values of the drift applied to the specimens. At a drift equal to 2.0%, corresponding to
a limit state of incipient collapse of the unreinforced sub-assemblies, a total shear crack
width of about 2 mm was measured for both specimens.
4.2. Retrofitted Test Units
Figures 12a and 12b plot the results in terms of horizontal load vs. displacement for the
retrofitted test units. The shape of the curves is typical of the behavior of a section characterized by a RC core with a HPFRC jacket. The peak value corresponds to the achievement
of the maximum tensile strength in the HPFRC jacket in the outer fibers of the main beam.
In the positive direction, test unit RCJ1 reached its maximum capacity, equal to
44.5 kN in the first cycle at a drift equal to 0.75%, while for test unit RCJ2 the peak load
was equal to 49.5 kN at the same drift. In both test units after the peak strength was reached,

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

37

FIGURE 11 Deformations along the panel joint diagonals (devices 1 and 2) both for
unretrofitted test units CJ1 and CJ2 and for retrofitted test units (RCJ1 and RCJ2).

FIGURE 12 Horizontal load Vc vs. drift curve for RCJ1 test unit (a) and for RCJ2 test
unit (b).
the load gradually decreased to the strength of the RC core-subassembly. The yielding of
the bottom bar in the beam and the confinement ensured by the HPFRC jacket allowed to
reach a high lateral drift. This behavior is evident from the plateaus in the curves for drift
greater than +2%.
In the negative direction the two test units reached approximately the same peak load
of about 40 kN at a drift of 0.75%. After the peak, the shear load suddenly dropped and
it leveled out around a value of 20 kN. This strength reduction, more evident in test unit
RCJ1 than in the test unit RCJ2, was mainly due to the partial detachment of the HPFRC
layer form the inner surface of the secondary beam core. As it can be noticed from Figs. 12a
and 12b, both for positive and negative displacements, the strength reduction in the third
cycle of each triplet at the same drift amplitude was about 15%20%. With regard to the
residual strength, test unit RCJ2 decayed slightly less than RJC1 in the positive direction
(66% against 61% of test unit RCJ1) and slightly more for negative displacements (39%
against 51%).
In Fig. 13, the evolution of the cracks pattern for both reinforced specimens is depicted.
It can be observed the formation at an early drift of a diagonal crack inside the joint panel,
which didnt develop significantly during the test, and a vertical flexural crack. The initial
location of this vertical crack is different for the two specimens, being at the beam-joint
interface for test unit RCJ1 and inside the joint for test unit RCJ2.

C. Beschi et al.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

38

FIGURE 13 Cracks pattern in the outer side of the joint for test units RCJ1 and RCJ2.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

39

The test units showed the first crack in the main beam in the negative direction in
agreement with the test set-up, which started with the application of a top-down vertical
force at the beam end, and as a consequence a preliminary negative moment acting on the
beam.
At the first cycle at 0.25% drift for both test units, also a diagonal crack appeared in
the joint panel zone, which didnt develop significantly in the following cycles.
The crack width, starting from a value equal to 0.05 mm at a drift of 0.25%, increased
up to a maximum value of 0.4 mm at a drift of 0.75%. In the following cycles, the damage
also in the positive directions caused a partial closing of the diagonal crack up to a value of
about 0.12 mm and 0.9 mm for the first and the second specimen respectively. The limited
values of the crack opening in the joint panel are also plotted in Fig. 11 and compared to
those of the unretrofitted specimens.
For test unit RCJ1, at a drift equal to 0.75% a horizontal crack appeared in the column jacket at the bottom of the joint; also this crack didnt develop as the test continued
(Fig. 13).
In the following cycles, for test unit RCJ1, the crack localized at beam-joint interface
showed a significant opening increase up to values of about 45 mm at the end of the test
(drift close to 6%). Only a few cracks of minor importance developed around this main
crack.
For test unit RCJ2, the damage localized at the beam-joint interface, with an increase of
the crack width for positive moments while for negative moments, at a drift equal to -2%, a
HPFRC wedge at the top of the joint began to spall off. Starting from a drift equal to 4% the
crack spread upward along the jacket-column core interface. The damage pattern at the end
of the test is also clearly shown in Fig. 14. No damage was observed on the outer side of the
joint panel along the secondary beam direction. On the inner side of the secondary beam,
the detachment of the HPFRC layer from the concrete support started to occur at a drift
of about 1% for test unit RCJ1 (Fig. 14c). Test unit RCJ2 showed a HPFRC detachment
limited to the jacket-column core interface for a drift greater than 3% (Fig. 14d).

FIGURE 14 Outer side of the main beam and of the joint in the retrofitted test units at the
end of the test: (a) RCJ1; (b) RCJ2; detachment of the HPFRC jacket for test unit RCJ1(c);
and RCJ2 (d).

40

C. Beschi et al.

4.3. Comparison between Un-reinforced and Strengthened Test Units

It should be pointed out that the tested specimens were characterized by different concrete
strength, equal to 38.7 MPa and 27 MPa for unretrofitted and retrofitted test units respectively. As a consequence, the comparison between the test results of the four test units may
be performed only by means of dimensionless curves relating the applied drift to the column shear Vc normalized to the theoretical column shear Vc,th which causes the failure of
the unretrofitted sub-assembly. The latter can be easily found by imposing the rotational
equilibrium of the sub-structures (Fig. 5a) as:

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

   1
Mb,y ,
Vc,th = Lb Lbn
Lc

(1)

where Lc = 3.0 m is the column height, Lb = 2.25 m is the distance between the column
axis and the beam end, Lbn = 2.10 m the relative free span of the beam, Mb,y the beam
moment resistance at the bar yielding, and is the ratio between the joint shear strength
(Vjh ) and the shear value (Vjh,y ), related to the beam bending moment Mb,y by the following
joint equilibrium equation:
Vjh,y = Tb,y

Lb Mb,y

,
Lbn Lc

(2)

where Tby = Asi fymi is the tensile force in the reinforcement, and fymi is the bar yield
strength.
If is lower than 1, the joint shear strength Vjh governs the collapse of the subassembly (occurring for negative drift in the tests of unretrofitted specimens), while if
is greater than 1 a plastic hinge can occur at the beam-joint interface (occurring for positive drift in the tests of unretrofitted specimens). The joint shear strength Vjh may be easily
evaluated by means of the principal stress limitation model, proposed by Priestley [1997]
and validated by several researchers [Pampanin et al., 2003; Celik and Ellingwood, 2008;
Sharma et al. 2011, Riva et al., 2012].
The maximum tensile principal stress in the panel zone, corresponding to the development of the first diagonal crack during a first loading cycle, can be computed as
follows:

pt = k1 fcm ,

(3)

where fcm is the average cylindrical compressive strength of the concrete and k1 is a constant, calibrated on experimental results, with different values proposed in the literature
and varying between 0.2 and 0.5 depending on the reinforcement detailing in the joint of
exterior beam-column connections. In corner joints with hooked-end plain bars and without
transverse reinforcements, the value proposed for k1 is equal to 0.2 [Calvi et al., 2001].
Assuming uniform normal and transverse stresses in the joint panel, the maximum
resistant shear stress may be given by Mohrs Circle, according to the following equation:


vjh = pt 1 + fa pt ,

(4)

where fa = N/(bj hj ) = 2.33 MPa is the mean compressive stress on the column section due
to the axial load N = 210 kN.
The joint panel maximum shear strength can be calculated as follows:

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

41

Vjh = vjh hc hb ,

(5)

where hc = 300 mm and bb = 300 mm are the depth of the column and the width of the
beam, respectively.
Table 2 shows the main experimental results and the theoretical column shear action
Vc,th causing the bare sub-assembly failure both for a concrete strength of 38.7 MPa
(CJ1 and CJ2 test units) and for 27 MPa (RCJ1 and RCJ2 test units). Figure 15 plots
the envelope curves of the normalized column shear (Vc /VC,th ) vs. the applied drift,
thus allowing the evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed technique by HPFRC
jacketing.
It can be noticed that the application of a HPFRC jacket may increase the peak shear
strength of about 40% for positive displacements, and of about 50% for negative displacements. With respect to the residual strength, for both positive and negative directions the
behavior of the retrofitted joints tended to the behavior of the unretrofitted ones, since
for high drift the contribution of the HPFRC jacket was lost due to the detachment of
the HPFRC jacket. Nevertheless, the strenghtend test units were able to withstand a drift
up to 6%. This high lateral deformation was due to the benefical contribution of HPFRC
jacketing which markedly reduced the shear damage in the joint panel and avoided the
wedge concrete expulsion due to the thrust of the hooked-end anchorages in compression.
The effectiveness of the adopted technique to improve the shear strength of exterior corner
joints may be confirmed also by the value of
the principal tensile
stress in the joint panel.
For RCJ1 test unit it reached a peak of 0.31 f
cm and of 0.34 fcm for negative and positive drift, respectively, against the value of 0.20 fcm for un-retrofitted specimens (Fig. 10).
Similar values have been found also for RCJ2 test unit.
The normalized column shear stregth allows also to evaluate the effect of the transverse
bending moment action in the joint due to the service load applied to the secondary beam.
As shown in Table 2, the ratio between the maximum experimental shear action and the
theoretical one is about 0.95 for both the unretrofitted sepcimens. This result highlights the
low influence of action in the secondary beam on the joint strenght reduction (about 5%).
A comparison between the experimental results of unretrofitted and retrofitted test
units can be performed also in terms of dimensionless dissipated energy, calculated as the
ratio between the dissipated energy Ei (hatched area in Fig. 16) and elastic energy E0i of
the cycle with the same amplitude (see insert in Fig. 16). From the diagrams of Fig. 16,
it can be noticed that the energy dissipation of specimens CJ1 and CJ2 are approximately
comparable, with specimen CJ1 dissipating slightly more energy than specimen CJ2. The
retrofitted specimens dissipated approximately 25% more energy than the unretrofitted ones
at each drift value. However, unlike the unretrofitted sub-assemblies, for which the dissipated energy decreased starting from a drift equal to 2%, for the retrofitted RCJ1 test unit
the energy dissipation always increased, because the HPFRC jacketing limited the joint
damage even at high level of drifts (Fig. 17). For RCJ2 test unit the energy dissipation
started to decline at 4% drift due to a more significant detachment of the HPFRC jacket
with respect to RCJ1 test unit.
Figure 17 shows the four test units at the end of the tests. For the unretrofitted test units
CJ1 and CJ2 the three failure mechanisms could be clearly identified: beam failure with the
vertical crack at the beam-joint interface, joint shear failure with the diagonal cracks in the
panel zone, and the thrust of the hooked end beam bars in the column at the bottom of the
joint (Figs. 17a and 17b).
For the retrofitted test unit RCJ1, even if some thin cracks could be observed on the
outer face of the joint next to the main beam, the damage localized mostly in the crack
at the beam-joint interface (Fig. 17c). For test unit RCJ2 the vertical crack started a few
centimeters inside the joint at the jacket-column core interface and developed upward only
for high drift values (Fig. 17d).

42

CJ1
CJ2
RCJ1
RCJ2

Negative drift

2.00
2.50
0.75
0.75
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.50

34.3
34.7
39.2
40.2

dmax [%]

31.2
34.7
44.5
49.5

Vc,max [kN]

36.4
36.4
27.4
27.4

27.6
27.6
26.8
26.8

Vc,th

0.94
0.95
1.43
1.47

1.13
1.26
1.66
1.85

Vc,max
Vc,th

0.15
0.57
0.04
0.04

0.47
0.58
0.03
0.05

0.09
0.34
0.01
0.00
0.44
0.98
0.28
0.32

w2 [mm]

w1 [mm]

21.1
26.3
20.1
15.6

30.4
33.2
26.8
32.8

Vc,r [kN]

3.00
3.00
6.00
6.00

3.00
3.00
6.00
6.00

du [%]

2.42
2.81
0.37
0.39

1.51
0.74
0.02
0.08

wmax,1 [mm]

1.51
2.82
0.04
0.05

3.13
1.05
0.03
0.06

wmax,2 [mm]

Vc,max : maximum column shear; dmax : drift at Vc,max ; Vc,th : theoretical shear column causing the sub-assembly failure; w: deformation along the joint diagonal measured
by devices 1 and 2 at peak Vc,max ; wmax : maximum shear crack width; du : ultimate drift

CJ1
CJ2
RCJ1
RCJ2

Positive drift

specimen

TABLE 2 Experimental results

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

43

FIGURE 15 Comparison between dimensionless envelope curves.

FIGURE 16 Dissipated energy.

For the retrofitted test units the diagonal crack in the joint panel appeared in the negative direction only at a drift equal to 0.25% with a width of about 0.060.07 mm, reaching
a maximum value of 0.4 mm (Table 2). As previously described, the unretrofitted test units
CJ1 and CJ2 showed significant diagonal crack opening, which reached values close to
3 mm.

5. Concluding Remarks
The experimental results confirmed the seismic vulnerability of corner beam-column joints,
designed with details typical of the Italian construction practice of the 1960s1970s, characterized by the use of smooth bars with hooked-end anchorages and by the absence of

44

C. Beschi et al.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

FIGURE 17 The test units at the end of the tests: (a) CJ1; (b) CJ2; (c) RCJ1; and (d) RCJ2.

transverse reinforcement in the panel. The experimental results of two unretrofitted subassemblies showed a significant shear damage of the joint panel region and the slip of the
beam bars in the joint, with the expulsion of a concrete wedge due to the thrust action of
the hooks in compression. In addition, the joint strength seems not to be affected by the
presence of a transverse action due to the service load acting on the secondary beam.
Two sub-assemblies were strengthened by using a thin layer of HPFRC. The adopted
technique is relatively simple since the material can be cast in a thin layer due to its selfleveling property. Experimental results demonstrated that this appears to be a promising
technique. On the basis of the results discussed in this article, the following remarks can be
drawn.

The application of a 3040 mm thick HPFRC jacket on corner beam-column joint

provides an increase of the normalized column shear of about 1.40 times with
respect to the unretrofitted test units with a limited variation in the sub-assembly
stiffness.
The application of a HPFRC thin jacketing was able to shift the brittle joint shear
failure to a more ductile beam flexural failure, according to the principles of capacity design. The damage of the retrofitted sub-assembly was limited to the joint-beam
interface with diagonal crack width in the panel lower than 0.40 mm even at high
drift level. The HPFRC jacket efficiently confined the joint avoiding the wedge
concrete expulsion due to the thrust of the hooked-end anchorages.
The proposed technique significantly improved the displacement capacity of the
beam-column joint sub-assembly: the unretrofitted test units reached a drift equal
to 3% against the 6% drift reached by retrofitted test units, value well beyond the
specified code limits generally adopted for the ultimate limit state. Furthermore, the
energy dissipation capacity of the retrofitted sub-assembly is up to 30% higher than
the unretrofitted one, testifying a significant performance increase in case of seismic
actions.
Further research studies will be addressed to avoid the problem of the HPFRC
detachment which led to a reduction of the post peak joint strength. The adoption of
stud connectors between the host and the new concrete may be useful to control this
phenomenon.

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

45

Funding
The present work is part of the research supported by Re-LUIS, within the
20092012 project. The authors gratefully thank Tecnochem Italiana S.p.a., and Schnell
S.p.a. for the financial and technical support to the research and Mr. Daniele Di Marco
for the technical support in the experimental tests. The authors are grateful to engineer L.
Bordoni for his assistance in carrying out the tests within his thesis work.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

References
American Concrete Institute [2007] ACI 437.1R-07: Load Tests of Concrete Structures: Methods,
Magnitude, Protocols, and Acceptance Criteria, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
Akguzel, U. and Pampanin, S. [2008] Effects of variation of axial load and bi-directional loading on
the FRP retrofit of existing B-C-joints, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing, China.
Alsayed, S. H., Al-Salloum, Y. A., Almusallam, T. H., and Siddiqui, N. A. [2010] Seismic response
of FRP-upgraded exterior RC beam-column joints, Journal of Composites for Construction
14(2),195208.
Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C. [2003] Experimental investigation of FRP-strengthened
RC beam-column joints, Journal of Composites for Construction 7(1), 3949.
Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B., and Reinhorn, A. M. [1994] Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
frame structures designed only for gravity loads: experimental performance of subassemblages,
ACI- Structural Journal 91(5), 552563.
Beschi, C. [2012] Retrofitting of beam-column joints under sesimic loads, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Beschi, C., Meda, A., and Riva, P. [2011] Column and joint retrofitting with high performance fiber
reinforced concrete jacketing, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(7), 9891014.
Bracci, J. M., Reinhorn, A. M., and Mander, J. B. [2010] Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
frame structures designed for gravity loads: performance of structural system, ACI Structural
Journal 92(5), 597608.
Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., and Laterza, M. [2009] Existing structures with smooth reinforcing
bars: experimental behaviour of beam-column joints subject to cyclic lateral loads, The Open
Construction & Building Technology Journal 3, 5267.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. [2001] Studio sperimentale sulla risposta sismica di
edifici a telaio in cemento armato per soli carichi da gravit, Proc. of the X National Conference
ANIDIS - LIngegneria Sismica in Italia, September 913, Potenza-Matera, Italy.
Campione, G., Fossetti, M., Giacchino, C., and Minaf, G. [2014]. RC columns externally
strengthened with RC jackets, Materials and Structures, 47(10), 17151728.
Celik, O. C. and Ellingwood, B. R. [2008] Modeling beam-column joints in fragility assessment
of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12,
357381.
Circolare 2 Febbraio 2009 n.617 [2009] Instructions for the application of the new technical code
for structures (In Italian), G.U. n.47, February 26, 2009, Supplemento Ordinario n.27, Rome.
Dipartimento Protezione Civile, ReLUIS [2009] Draft guidelines for the restoration and strengthening of structural elements, infill and partition walls (in Italian), Dolce, M. and Manfredi, G.
(eds.). ISBN: 978-88-89972-29-8.
D.M. 14 Gennaio 2008 [2008] Technical Code for Structures (in Italian), G.U. n.29, February 2
2008, Supplemento Ordinario n.30, Rome.
EN 1992-1-1 [2004] Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules, and Rules
for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

46

C. Beschi et al.

EN 1998-1-1 [2004] Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design of StructuresPart 1: General Rules

and Rules for Buildings, CEN, Brussels.
EN 12350-2 [2001] Testing Fresh Concrete Slump Test, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
EN 15630-1 [2010] Steel for the Reinforcement and Prestressing of Concrete. Test Methods - Part 1:
Reinforcing Bars, Wire Rod and Wire, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
Fib Bulletin No. 24. [2003] Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings, Stateof-art report prepared by Task Group 7.1, The International Federation for Structural Concrete,
August 2003, 312 pp.
Fib Report [1991] Repair and strengthening of concrete structures. Guide to good practice. Thomas
Telford Ltd. 1991, 37 pp, London.
Gergely, J., Pantelides, C. P., and Reaveley, L.D. [2000] Shear strengthening of RCT-joints using
CFRP composites, Journal of Composites for Construction 4(2), 5664.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. [2009] Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column
joints with substandard reinforcing details, ACI Structural Journal 97(1), 1125.
Kam, W. Y., Quintana Gallo, P., Akguzel, U., and Pampanin, S. [2010] Influence of slab on the
seismic response of sub-standard detailed exterior reinforced concrete beam column joints. 9th US
National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Reaching Beyond Borders,
Toronto, Canada, July 2529, 2010.
Karayannis, C. G., Chalioris, C. E., and Sirkelis, G. M. [2008] Local retrofit of exterior RC beamcolumn joints using thin RC jackets - An experimental study, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 37(5), 727746.
Martinola, G., Meda, A., Plizzari, G. A., and Rinaldi, Z. [2010] Strengthening and repair of RC
beams with fiber reinforced concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites 32(9), 731739.
Masi, A., Santarsiero, G., and Nigro, D. [2013] Cyclic tests on external RC beam-column joints:
role of seismic design level and axial load value on the ultimate capacity, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 17(1), 110136.
Mukherjee, A. and Joshi, M. [2005] FRPC reinforced concrete beam-column joints under cyclic
excitation, Composite Structures 70(2), 185199.
Murty, C. V. R., Rai, D., Bajpai, K. K., and Jain, S. K. [1994] Effectiveness of reinforcement details
in exterior reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints for earthquake resistance, ACI Structural
Journal 100(2), 14956.
Pampanin, S., Magenes, G., and Carr, A. [2003] Modeling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly
detailed RC beam-column joints, Proc. of the FIB 2003 Symposium, May 68, Athens, Greece.
Park, R. [1988] State-of-the art report: ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing,
Proc. 9th WCEE. IAEE, TokyoKyoto, Japan VIII, pp. 605616.
Priestley, M. J. N. [1997] Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1), 157192.
Regio Decreto R.D. 16/11/1939 n. 2229 [1940] Norme per la esecuzione delle opere in conglomerato cementizio semplice e armato, G.U. n. 92, 18/04/1940.
Riva, P., Beschi, C., Metelli, G., and Messali, F. [2012] Modelling of exterior beam to column joint
in 60-70s RC existing buildings, Proc. of 4th International Symposium: Bond in Concrete 2012:
Bond, Anchorages, Detailing 1, 225232.
Russo, G. and Pauletta, M. [2012] Seismic behavior of exterior beam-column connections with plain
bars and effects of upgrade, ACI Structural Journal 109(2), 225234.
Santarella, L. [1945] Il cemento armato Le applicazioni alle costruzioni civili e industriali, Milano
Edizioni Hoepli.
Sasmal, S., Ramanjaneyulu, K., Balthasar, N., and Lakshmanan, N. [2013] Analytical and experimental investigations on seismic performance of exterior beamcolumn subassemblages of
existing RC-framed building, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42, 17851805.

HPFRC Jacketing of RC Corner Joints

47

Downloaded by [Bangalore University] at 05:32 17 April 2015

Sharma, A., Eligehausen, R., and Reddy, G. R. [2011] A new model to simulate joint shear behavior
of poorly detailed beamcolumn connections in RC structures under seismic loads, part I: exterior
joints, Engineering Structures 33(3), 10341051.
Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., Vaze, K. K., and Eligehausen, R. [2013] Pushover experiment and
analysis of a full scale non-seismically detailed RC structure, Engineering Structures 46, 21833.
Verderame, G. M., Stella, A., and Cosenza, E. [2001] Mechanical properties of reinforcement used
for r.c. constructions in 60s, Proc. of the X National Conference ANIDIS - LIngegneria Sismica
in Italia, September 913, Potenza-Matera (Italy), (in Italian).
Verderame, G. M. and Manfredi, G. [2001] Mechanical properties of concrete used for r.c. constructions in 60s, Proc. of the X National Conference ANIDIS - LIngegneria Sismica in Italia,
September 913, Potenza-Matera (Italy), (in Italian).