Sei sulla pagina 1di 19

RC FRAME CONNECTIONS REHABILITATED

BY JACKETING

By Sergio M. AicocerI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The behavior of frame connections repaired and/or strengthened by


jacketing was assessed experimentally. Four slab-beam-column joints were con-
structed and rehabilitated. The specimens were tested under bidirectional cyclic
loading that simulated earthquake-type motions. Variables were the jacketed ele-
ment, level of damage of the existing structure prior to rehabilitation, and layout
of jacketed column reinforcement. Test results indicated that jacketing was effective
to rehabilitate the existing structure. The strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation
characteristicsof the existing structure were improved considerably by the jackets.
The strength corresponding to joint failure, based on current recommendations for
design of beam-columnjoints, was exceeded by all the specimens. In this test series,
no detrimental effect was found in the use of bundles in the jacketed column
reinforcement. However, it is preferable to use distributed bars around the column
perimeter to avoid bond failure. Finally, the construction of column jackets was
done quite easily; however, beam jacketing required large and heavy forms as well
as artful detailing during construction, features that might be uneconomical for
U.S. practice.

INTRODUCTION

The large damage in existing structures during recent earthquakes, such


as the 1985 Mexico and the 1989 L o m a Prieta (California) events, has in-
creased the worldwide interest regarding the need for reducing the risk
posed by hazardous buildings. In the United States, for example, a consid-
erable effort has been u n d e r w a y to develop evaluation and design guidelines
for rehabilitation of structures (Jirsa 1990). Buildings of different materials
in many parts of the world have been rehabilitated using a b r o a d variety of
techniques ( " A s s e s s m e n t " 1983; "Building 1983"). H o w e v e r , for most
schemes, scarce analysis and design guidelines are available to structural
engineers, forcing them to apply their engineering judgment, intuition, and
ingenuity to obtain a reliable scheme. Therefore, the need for research on
cost-effective, constructible, and technically sound rehabilitation techniques
is evident. D e v e l o p m e n t of guidelines is of p a r a m o u n t importance.
Numerous reinforced concrete non-ductile m o m e n t resisting frames de-
signed in the 1950s and 1960s are in the inventory of vulnerable structures
in the United States ( " E v a l u a t i n g " 1987). Characteristics of these buildings
include flexible columns, nonductile reinforcement detailing, and "strong-
b e a m - w e a k - c o l u m n " systems" (Rosenblueth and Meli 1986). One of the
rehabilitation techniques used for this type of structures is jacketing of frame
elements. Reinforced concrete (RC) jacketing is the addition of a concrete
shell reinforced to improve the strength, stiffness, and ductility of the ele-
ment. In Mexico City, jacketing was the most widely used rehabilitation
scheme for R C frames (Jirsa 1987; Aguilar et al. 1989). O n e of the advan-
tages of using R C jacketing was the r e d u c e d need for foundation strength-
1Assoc. Prof., Inst. of Engrg., UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, Apartado Postal
70-472, Coyoacan, 04510, Mexico.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April
6, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No.
5, May, 1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/93/0005-1413/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper
No. 3311.

1413

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


ening, since many buildings had a box-type foundation that helped in dis-
tributing the load. However, little experimental work has been conducted
to verify the performance of concrete jacketing of frame elements and its
suitability as a rehabilitation technique. To aid in developing analysis and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design guidelines, an experimental program, aimed at studying the behavior


of slab-beam-column joints rehabilitated by jacketing, was implemented. A
basic premise of the research was to explore a constructible scheme that
took advantage of the experience gained in Mexico City but was applicable
in the United States. Complementary studies on the dynamic response of
buildings rehabilitated using different schemes are being conducted at the
University of Texas at Austin and elsewhere (Jordan 1991).

DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM


Specimen Description
Four large-scale identical reinforced concrete slab-beam-column joints
were constructed and rehabilitated by jacketing the columns only or both
the columns and beams. The specimens represented an interior joint of a
lower story of a multistory building and corresponded to a two-thirds scale
model. In each test, the existing structure was the same and was designed
according to the American practice of the 1950s and 1960s ("Building"
1963). Three experimental variables were studied: the level of damage in
the specimen before the test, the jacketed frame element, and the layout
of the jacketed column longitudinal reinforcement. The first specimen was
tested to failure (original connection, test O), repaired by jacketing the
column with bundled longitudinal reinforcement, and retested (repaired
with bundled bars, test RB). The second specimen was undamaged prior
to jacketing to assess the effect of a damaged core on the response (strength-
ened with bundles, test SB). To evaluate the influence of bundles, the
columns of the third model were jacketed with the longitudinal reinforce-
ment distributed around the perimeter (strengthened with distributed re-
inforcement, test SD). In the fourth specimen, the column was jacketed
using distributed bars, and the beams were jacketed and longitudinal steel
added to increase the flexural capacity moderately (strengthened with dis-
tributed reinforcement and jacketed beams, test SDB). In the repair work
that followed the Mexico City earthquake of 1985, distributed bars contin-
uous through the slab were used around the perimeter of the column jacket.
Often, to reduce the number of slab perforations and facilitate construction,
continuous bundled bars were used in the column jacket. However, there
was concern that bundled reinforcement, subjected to load reversals, might
suffer bond deterioration within the joint. Specimen dimensions are shown
in Fig. 1. All specimens consisted of orthogonal beams 5,182 mm (17 ft)
long framing into a column 4,237 mm (13.9 ft) high at midheight. The
existing structure had beams with a 203.2-by-508.0-mm (8-by-20-in.) section
and a square column with 304.8-mm (12-in.) sides. In all rehabilitated spec-
imens, the column jacket was 101.6 mm (4 in.) thick, so the column section
increased to 508.0-mm (20-in.) sides. For specimen SDB, the beam jacket
increased the section to 381.0 by 584.2 mm (15 by 23 in.).

Reinforcement Details
Existing Structures
Reinforcement details of column and beam sections outside the joint
region are shown in Fig. 2. The beam flexural reinforcement of the existing
1414

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


~ "~" x

i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

kittora Box
Fixture
4.

FIG. 1. Specimen Dimensions and Test Setup

structures was continuous through the joint and was designed to provide
large joint shear stresses after jacketing the column. No ties were provided
in the joint region of the existing structures, since this was more repre-
sentative of 1950s construction.

Column Jacketing
Rehabilitated specimens were designed so that the flexural strength of
the column was greater than that of the beams. For specimens RB and SB,
the column jacket was reinforced with three continuous bundled bars placed
at the corners through perforations in the slab. Transverse steel above and
below the joint was provided and detailed following American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 318 building-code requirements ("Building" 1983), and con-
sisted of two L-shaped ties that overlapped in diagonally opposite corners.
The tie hooks required a special bend detail [see Fig. 2(b)]. Between the
90~ bend and the 135~ hook, a small straight segment was provided to
accommodate two column bars. Since this segment was too short, the hooks
had to be bent in the laboratory. Specimens SD and SDB had distributed
column longitudinal steel around the perimeter [Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)]. Main
transverse steel was similar to that of RB and SB, but additional corner
ties, with 135~ hooks, were placed between bars away from the corners
following ACI requirements [Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)]. Corner ties with 180~
hooks extended into the joint region (not shown in the figures).

Beam Jacketing
Beams of specimen SDB were also jacketed, and reinforcement was added
to increase beam flexural capacity moderately and to produce high joint
shear stresses [Fig. 2(d)]. Top bars crossed the orthogonal beams through
holes, and the bottom bars were placed under the soffit of the existing
beams, at each side of the existing column. Beam transverse steel consisted
of sets of U-shaped ties fixed to the top jacket bars and of inverted
U-shaped ties placed through perforations in the slab. Ties spaced at 102
mm (4 in.) were placed near the joint region, where beam hinging was
expected to occur. Away from the joint, the ties were spaced at 305 mm
(12 in.), with two U-shaped ties fixed to the top jacket bars between the
sets [Fig. 2(d)]. U-shaped ties and inverted U-shaped ties had 135~ hooks.

Joint Confinement Steel


To confine both the joint concrete not confined by transverse beams and
the column bars, a structural steel cage was welded around the joint for all
rehabilitated specimens, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The cage consisted of struc-
1415

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


\ / 12.7 mm ! ,

s = 413.4 MPI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lxx
~ . . . l u m n Section [
Beam Section I
\#3 Bar
E
E
~(~__..~ Plane of Symmetryq
#3 at t27 mn E
-- ~-) ! ~ V / i ' ~ / T 1 5 2 " 4 m m ;

"-'-'L25.4 mr
I
304.8 mm 101, ! 25.4 mm

a) SpedmenO

ColurmaSection ~ #4 a) 76.2 mm

#4 at 76.2 ram'
[x~x,~ Symmetry ~ 7 ~ , " , ~ / ~ 1 #3 at 76.2 mrn

#9 Bar Bundle~

L-ShapedTie" ~
,,m.~,,mo I " ",
' I'203.2 mmq ]
508 mm I fy = 413,4 MPa
b) c)

fy = 413,4 MFa
\
#4 at 76.2 mrn~ Column Section L
#3 at 76.2 ram_ Bcam~on ~
71m
~U-Shaped Inverted Tie
'#5 ~ 1 #3,at 304.8 mm
-U-Shaped Tie #3 at 101.6 mm
l k ~ ~ ,6~ I
# 7 Bar~ ,~(~,~ I [ ~ \ . ' F ~ J :; ~. Planeof Symmct~ l 38i mm
584.2 mm
#10 Bar
i--L\"' ,'' t'' ~"//!!'~
~ m
25.4 mm
#51~ --
(below slab) ="
J'165.1 mm "q
381 rnm ~ I 82.6 mml-r.,~.,
25.4mm
508 ram -' I 190.5 mm

d)
FIG. 2. Reinforcement Details of Model Specimens: (a) Specimen O; (b) Speci-
mens RB and SB; (c) Specimen SD; and (d) Specimen SDB

1416

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


Cdumn

Slab
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

. u- , --%x63'x'-'mm lllo, Wol~s

"Standard specification for structural steal Designation A36" (19,I)

FIG. 3. Joint Confinement Cage

tural steel angles and fiat steel bars welded in situ. The cage eliminated the
need for ties and the need to drill holes through the beams for placing the
ties. Steel angles were dimensioned to provide confinement to the core
equivalent to spiral reinforcement. An efficiency factor of one-third relative
to the confinement of spirals was assumed in design (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer
and Jirsa 1991).

Slab Reinforcement
Slab reinforcement in each direction consisted of a top and a bottom layer
of continuous No. 3 bars. Top reinforcement was spaced at 305 mm (12 in.)
and the bottom steel at 610 mm (24 in.).

SPECIMEN FABRICATION
Existing Structure
The existing structures were built on a shored platform. Casting of the
specimens was done in two stages: the lower column, beams, joint and slab
were cast first; the upper column was cast a few days later after the specimen
was removed from the form and located in the test setup on the reaction
floor. A construction joint was located in the column 50.8 mm (2 in.) above
the slab. Ready-mix concrete, with 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) maximum-size coarse
aggregate, was used throughout. The concrete compressive strength of the
existing structures at time of test was 17.2 MPa (2,500 psi) on the average,
except for SB, which was 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi).

Rehabilitated Specimens

Column Jacketing
The column jacket was constructed in a similar fashion for all specimens.
The only exception was specimen RB, which required the removal of loose
concrete from test O before the rehabilitation. First, perforations through
the slab along the beam sides were made with an electric jackhammer and
as large as possible to facilitate placement of the concrete. To improve bond
conditions between the existing concrete and the concrete jacket, the out-
ermost aggregate was exposed with hand-chipping hammers. Previous re-
search on shear transfer across new and existing concrete interfaces indicated
1417

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


that nearly any surface roughening preparation is adequate to transfer shear
forces, as long as the exterior paste (laitance, dust) is removed and some
aggregate exposed (Bass et al. 1989). The results of Bass et al. (1989) did
not appear to justify the use of a bonding agent. Small particles and dust
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were removed using a thick brush and a vacuum cleaner. Afterward, the
confinement cage was assembled. The upper collar and the steel angles were
fillet-welded in the shop. The cage was then inserted into the slab perfo-
rations and leveled. Finally, the flat bars from the lower collar were welded
in situ to the steel angles.
The L-shaped ties, for the jacket transverse steel, were stacked at the
base of the lower column, alternating the diagonal of overlapping corners
at each layer. The ties for an entire column were aligned vertically with the
joint cage. Next, the jacket longitudinal reinforcement was lowered through
the slab perforations, and the ties were lifted to position and securely tied.
For specimens SD and SDB, corner bars were lowered first, and the
L-shaped ties were lifted and secured; the additional corner ties were placed
in the joint region and below the beams; and the remaining jacket bars were
lowered.

Beam Jacketing
Since beams in specimen SDB were also jacketed, it was necessary to
roughen all beam surfaces along the length, i.e.,-sides and bottom, in the
same manner as column surfaces. The existing beams were intentionally 38
mm (1.5 in.) narrower to reduce the amount of concrete removed during
the roughening process. To place and consolidate the beam concrete, the
slab was perforated in an alternate pattern along the edge of the beams
using an electric jackhammer. A transverse groove was cut into the beam
top cover to place the inverted U-shaped ties in the beam. It is important
to note that the time required for surface preparation and slab perforations
for SDB was nine times that required for surface preparation of the spec-
imens with jacketed columns only. Top reinforcement in the beam jacket
passed through orthogonal beams in 32-mm- (1.25-in.-) diameter holes (cor-
responding to two bar diameters), which were drilled approximately 50.8
mm (2 in.) below the stab. Bottom reinforcement was placed in horizontal
grooves in the existing column. The reinforcement for the column jacket
was assembled first. Next, the inverted U-shaped ties were placed through
the transverse slab grooves. The U-shaped ties were placed in groups of
three along the beams with their horizontal leg touching the beam soffit.
Because the beam width was somewhat larger than the distance between
hook extensions of the U-shaped ties, the hooks bore against the beam faces
so that the ties hung due to friction. Afterward, the top bars of the beam
jacket were inserted, and the U-shaped ties were lowered to the final po-
sition and secured. Finally, the bottom bars were placed and secured [see
Fig. 2(d)]. Threading of beam bars through the joint required artful and
laborious detailing (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991).

Formwork and Concrete Placement


Formwork for the new concrete jackets was designed and constructed
with large tolerances to match easily the contour of the existing frame
elements and to eliminate laborious detailing. Gaps between the forms and
the original structure were partially sealed to allow air release during casting.
Open gaps were closed during casting with wooden shims. For specimen
SDB, the construction of large forms was needed for the beam jackets.
1418

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


Supporting frames were erected to shore up the forms. Due to the high
costs of formwork and labor involved, beam jacketing may be uneconomical
for American practice.
Casting of the column jackets was done in two stages. First, the lower
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

column and the joint were cast (and the beams, for specimen SDB); several
days later, the upper column was cast. Congestion in the joint region and
high ambient temperatures at the time of casting required the use of high-
range water-reducing admixtures (superplasticizers) to provide the necessary
workability without loss of strength. A 9.5-mm (3/8-in.)maximum-size coarse
aggregate was used. Initial slump ranged from 32 to 89 mm (1.25 to 3.5
in.), but with the addition of superplasticizer, slump increased to 203 mm
(8 in.), on the average. For the lower column, concrete was placed through
the slab perforations and portable electric vibrators were used for concrete
consolidation. The concrete compressive strength of the jackets was 37.9
MPa (5,500 psi) on the average.

TEST S E T U P AND LOADING P R O G R A M

For practical and economical reasons, column ends were pinned and the
lateral movement was restricted. The specimens were mounted on a steel
box that rested on an angular spherical bearing contact (Fig. 1). The con-
nection allowed rotation with respect to any horizontal axis but restrained
lateral movements. Another steel box was fixed to the upper column and
connected to the reaction wall through structural steel tubes and high strength
steel Dywidag bars. The top connection was rotationally flexible and is
considered a pinned connection. Beams were connected to the reaction floor
through double-action hydraulic actuators capable of. resisting tensile and
compressional forces.
All specimens were tested using the same bidirectional cyclic load history,

A L

Real Structure Laboratory


East
- .I .................................................. s | |
7 | | | | ~ / V ~ ..........................7 - 1
.................. .................A /////\ /\
;.::::::.::::::: ::: : : ::....J....................
~.....~ .............~ ..................k_/
......................................... i .............i ........................... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| ! ! i N i I N
West
w r-~[--~ E w L-'-t-~ F.
North ~ . (] 12
. . . . . . . . l- . j_..Ls . . . . . / s?_._
ii | ii | | J [ 'T~ .....7-11E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __U
South

FIG. 4. Load History

1419

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


shown in Fig. 4. The deformed specimens in an idealized structure and in
the laboratory are also shown. The load history was displacement controlled
based on the interstory drift angle and represented a severe load condition
for a beam-column joint. Four levels of deformation were applied. Cycles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were applied in the primary (east-west [EW]) direction


only. Unidirectional loading in the north-south (NS) direction occurred in
cycle 4. During cycles 7, 8, 11, and 12, the subassemblage was loaded
bidirectionally. In this series of tests, no axial load was applied to the column
because experimental evidence suggests that axial load has no effect in the
joint shear strength (Kurose et al. 1988).

TEST RESULTS
Crack Patterns and Hysteresis Loops

Existing Structure (Specimen O)


The EW-story-shear-versus-drift-angle curve and the final crack pattern
are presented in Fig. 5. The ultimate story shears corresponding to joint

E-WDircction
60 V @
I
200
40 f w ) ~ v ~)--

20 Vu'c~ .... .(~...._9_ ..... (~)


100

(~) (~) (~) i Vn'c~ SpecimenO


-20 -100 ~
i
-40
i o |
o
20 100 r~

~2~ -100
Specimen RB
! '
-

-40 (~)
I -200

-60
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5
DriftAngle,%

(w) l
~ SouthView ~South View

~ SpecimenO - ~ Specimen RB

FIG. 5. Response of Specimens O and RB

1420

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


failure V.j and column hinging Vu,co~are also shown in the figure. The story
shear corresponding to joint failure was based on the joint shear strength
recommended by the ACI-ASCE Committee 352 report ("Recommenda-
tions" 1976). The story shear to produce column hinging was calculated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from measured material properties and dimensions, considering an equiv-


alent rectangular stress block for the concrete and assuming that plane
sections remain plane. The graph is plotted in the same scale as that used
for test RB so that comparison between tests can be made. The ratio of
calculated column to beam flexural capacities in the EW direction for spec-
imen O, based on measured material properties and dimensions, was 0.32.
The ratio of calculated column shear to EW flexural strengths was 4.22.
First unidirectional cycles at 1%, 2%, and 4% (cycles 3, 5, and 9) are also
indicated. The hysteresis loops are nearly symmetrical and show consider-
able pinching, especially at drifts to 4%, and severe stiffness degradation.
The hysteresis curves are dominated by the response of the most damaged
elements, namely the columns and joint. Severe concrete crushing and spall-
ing were observed in the columns. Columns developed plastic hinges above
the slab and below the beam soffit. Hysteresis loops are characteristic of
column hinges without ductile detailing. As was mentioned before, no axial
load was applied to the column. If the column had been axially loaded, it
is likely that the response would have shown a more pronounced stiffness
and strength deterioration, with the resulting reduction in energy dissipation
capacity. Yield penetration into the joint and large joint deformations were
noted during the test, and considerable inclined and horizontal cracking
concentrated in the lower half of the joint at drifts to 2%. Analysis of strain-
gage data (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991) showed that anchorage
of the corner column bars was affected by the joint cracking. Bond dete-
rioration along corner column bars in later cycles might have contributed
to pinching of loops.
The calculated joint strength V,j in the EW direction was exceeded in
cycles 5, 6, and 9. It is likely that failure occurred in cycle 9, after which
severe strength decay, attributed to deterioration of joint concrete, was
observed. Hysteresis curves in both directions show bidirectional interaction
in the form of vertical lines at loading peaks and at zero drift during cycles
7, 8, 11, and 12. A drop in story shear during loading or unloading in the
orthogonal direction was observed in all specimens. It is interesting that the
maximum story shear in the NS direction (not presented here) was reached
in cycle 7 and was smaller than any of the calculated capacities (Alcocer
and Jirsa 1991). This suggests that the strength of the joint in the NS direction
was affected by the distress and cracking during loading in the EW direction.
The lack of joint confining steel probably exacerbated this problem. All
specimens reached higher measured story shears in the EW direction than
in the NS direction. Consistent with a strong-beam-weak-column system,
the beams and slab experienced minor flexural cracking and remained elastic
with maximum measured moments of about one-third the flexural capacity.

Repaired Joint (Specimen RB)


Following the completion of test O, loose concrete was removed and the
subassemblage was repaired by jacketing the columns. The beams and slab
were not modified or repaired. The ratio of calculated column to beam
flexural capacities based on measured material properties for the EW di-
rection was 2.53. The ratio of calculated column shear to EW flexural
strengths was 2.04, where the shear strength includes the contribution o f
1421

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


ties in both the original column and jacket. For specimen RB, the final
crack pattern and the EW story shear versus drift angle are illustrated in
Fig. 5. In general, cracking in specimen RB was more uniformly distributed
than in specimen O. Beams cracked much more because the column was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stronger and the beams carried higher forces. While beams yielded, columns
showed only minor flexural cracking compatible with the strong-column-
weak-beam design philosophy. Relative movement between the beam sides
and the column jacket was observed; no beam cracks formed at the face of
the column jacket. For specimens with jacketed columns only (RB, SB, and
SD), the beam critical section was within the jacket.
This fact was later confirmed through analysis of beam strain-gage data
(Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991). Slab cracking was more extensive
than in test O. Most of the damage was concentrated around the joint,
which failed in shear after beam hinging. Joint distress led to the strength
decay observed, particularly at drifts to 4%. The joint confinement cage
was sufficient to prevent spalling into the joint core and confined effectively
the concrete and column bars (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991). After
completion of the test, the joint cover was easily removed with a chipping
hammer but the concrete core seemed sound. No indication of concrete
delamination was found. Although the loops showed higher stiffness and
strength than those for specimen O, stiffness and strength degradation as
well as pinching were noted (see Fig. 5). Pinching of the curves is partially
attributed to joint concrete damage, cracking and spalling, and sliding of
the beam relative to the column jacket. Bond deterioration along beam bars
also contributed to the S-shaped response (Alcocer 1991). The measured
EW story shear exceeded the calculated strength in cycles 5, 9, and 10.

Rehabilitated Specimens SB, SD, and SDB


The behavior described for specimen RB was typical for all rehabilitated
specimens (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991). The crack patterns and
the hysteresis curves in the EW direction for specimens SB, SD, and SDB
are presented in Fig. 6. The ratios of calculated column to beam flexural
capacities for the EW direction were 2.68, 2.65, and 2.29 for SB, SD, and
SDB, respectively. The ratios of calculated column shear to EW flexural
strengths were 1.91, 1.96, and 1.67 for SB, SD, and SDB, respectively,
where the shear strengths include the contribution of ties in both the original
column and jacket. For these specimens, crack patterns in beams, joints
and slabs were better distributed than in RB. Most of the damage was
concentrated around the joint regions of the models. Beam crack patterns
were indicative of beam hinging. Failures of the specimens were due to joint
failure after beam hinging. Column flexural cracks were minor. Only for
specimen SDB, with jacketed beams and columns, did the critical section
form at the jacketed column face. No indication of concrete delamination
between the jackets and original concrete was found in SB, SD, or SDB.
The hysteresis diagrams showed better stiffness, strength, and total energy
dissipation characteristics than specimen RB. The hysteresis diagrams were
symmetrical and were characterized by stiffness degradation, loss of strength,
and pinching of the loops, at 2% and especially during cycles to 4%. The
response was governed by the most stressed elements, namely the beams
and joint.
The strength decay observed in SB, SD, and SDB was due to shear
degradation of joint concrete. The response in both directions showed duc-
tile behavior associated with the formation of beam hinges. The maximum
1422

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Specimen SB Specimen SD
ELW Direction E-W Direction
6o

m~ _ _ 200 r m~ _ _ i | 200
4o - ~ 40 Vu,j -- ---
V . . . . . .
2o ~" ~o- ~ ~ loo

~-20
~-iVuj
-40 -40
-200 -200
-605 -3 -1 1 3 5 -60_5 -3 -1 i 3
Drift Angle, % Drift Angle, %

Specimen SD-B
IX) E-W Direction Sou~V,ow 7So~ View
GO ao
~
....... ~1|74 I ~ , ~ ~ ~~.~.~,~1
4o

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


~ South View

-4o -200 ~
. ~Vu,j
-300
-80
-5 -3 -i 1 5 -B
Drift Angle, %

FIG. 6. R e s p o n s e of S p e c i m e n s SB, SD, and S D B


measured story shears in the EW direction exceeded the calculated joint
capacities. Analysis of strain-gage data showed normal tension-compression
loops and good bond in jacketed column bars of SB, SD, and SDB. Also,
in specimen SDB, although the existing beam bars were cast in the same
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

conditions as in specimens RB, SB, and SD, the bars in the existing beam
showed better bond. The increase in beam depth due to beam jacketing
resulted in smaller tensile and compressive stresses on top and bottom bars
in the existing beam, and bond failure was less likely (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer
and Jirsa 1991).

Response Envelopes
The overall response of the specimens can be compared using envelope
curves. The envelopes for positive cycles in the EW direction are presented
in Fig. 7. Curves for negative cycles are similar due to the symmetric nature
of the hysteresis diagram. All specimens maintained the strength reached
at 2% drift even at deformation to 4%.
The strength of specimen RB was 2.8 times greater at 2% drift and 3.2
times at 4% drift than the strength of specimen O. At 0.5% drift, specimen
RB was 2.3 times stiffer than specimen O.
Comparison of RB and SB shows that by jacketing the most damaged
elements--the columns and joint--the strength at 2% drift and stiffness at
0.5% drift were 63% and 52%, respectively, of the values obtained in the
undamaged specimen. The strength of RB at 4% drift angle was 70% of
that of SB.
Among the rehabilitated specimens with only columns jacketed, specimen
SB was the stiffest and strongest because of the location of the jacket bars
and the strength of the concrete. Indeed, comparison of joint shear distor-
tions measured in specimens SB and SD, at the same load level and load
cycles, shows that the joint of SD was 50% more flexible than that of SB
(Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa 1991). The performance of specimen SD
was nearly equal to that of SB. At 0.5% drift, stiffness for SD was 88% of
the stiffness for SB. Strength at 2% drift was 86% and at 4% drift was 82%
of the values obtained in test SB.
As expected, specimen SDB was the stiffest and strongest specimen since
the beams were also jacketed. Initial stiffness was 6.4 times the stiffness for

E-W Dkection
8o

(30O) ,Specimen SD
5O
/
g _____.__----- ' Specimen SB

J ~ Specimen SI:
/ ~ Specimen Rf

e~
~ (1oo)
2o

Specimen 0

1 2 3
Drift Angle, %

FIG. 7. Response Envelopes


1424

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


test O. The strength was 5.7 times that of specimen O, both at 2% and 4%
drift. From test results, it is clear that jacketing of frame elements improved
the strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation characteristics, and changed
the mode of failure of the existing structures. It can be concluded that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

jacketing was effective as a rehabilitation technique.

Stiffness

Stiffness Decay
Stiffness deterioration in full cycles was assessed using peak-to-peak stiff-
ness. The definition of peak-to-peak stiffness Kp. and the relation of peak-
to-peak stiffness versus EW drift angle for specimen SB are illustrated in
Fig. 8. For bidirectional cycles (cycles 7, 8, 11, and 12), the stiffness was
computed from the maximum values of story shear reached in the EW

Specimen SB
E-W Direclion

,u\
5000
Story Shear
':
20,000
.~ 4000 2U
8
Drift Angle. 15,000
3000

i 2000 l _
Drift Angle
10,000

2B

1000 5,0~

l u 2u ts 2B At a specified drift:
0
0 1 2 3 4
Drift Angle, %

FIG. 8. Peak-to-Peak Stiffness

Equivalent Stiffness - Zero Shear, kN/mm/mm


5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
6000
- ' ' I I /./~ ../
Specimen,SD-B "-'~- ,-,- 25,000
5000 - - E-W Direction - ,I / / " ." E
E
20,0oo ~
E
~4000
I Specimen SB
s ,moo I 15,000 ~"
.~ 3000
10,000 ~
~2000

1000 5,000 ~

1000 2000 5000 4000 5000 6000


Equivalent Stiffness - Zero Shear, kip/in/in

FIG. 9. Peak-to-Peak Stiffness versus Equivalent Stiffness

1425

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


direction. The numbers in the labels refer to the first or second cycle at a
given drift level, whereas the letters U and B are related to unidirectional
and bidirectional loading, respectively. The stiffness of all specimens de-
teriorated more rapidly in early stages of loading. Similar trends were found
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for other tests. Guimaraes (1988) reported that stiffness degradation of


normal-strength concrete specimens, i.e., less than 41.3 MPa (6,000 psi),
show a parabolic decay. The stiffness decayed gradually with cycling. The
application of a new deformation level further reduced the stiffness. The
stiffness deterioration is attributed to concrete crushing and spalling, joint
distress, and bond damage.
The relation of Kp and the equivalent stiffness Ke..... she~r in the EW
direction for all tests is shown in Fig. 9. The definition of K~...... hear is
depicted in the figure. Equivalent stiffnesses at each cycle were the average
of the measured stiffnesses in positive and negative half-cycles. Due to the
nature of the hysteresis loops, peak-to-peak stiffness had slightly higher
values than equivalent stiffnesses. Data points best fit a straight line inclined
45 ~. For mathematical modeling of the hysteresis rules, the stiffness relation
obtained may be useful.

Theoretical Stiffness
The theoretical elastic stiffness K~h of each specimen was calculated based
on the contribution of beam, column and joint deformations (Alcocer 1991;
Alcocer and Jirsa 1991). The procedure used was presented by Cheung et
al. (1989) and Park and Paulay (1976). For the beam elastic flexural de-
formations for tests O, RB, SB, and SD, the bending stiffness Ecle was
taken a s 0.5EcIg to account for cracking, in which Ec is the modulus of
elasticity of beam concrete and Ig is the moment of inertia based on the
gross concrete area of a beam 203.2-by-508.0-mm (8-by-20-in.) section. For
specimen SDB, EJe was taken as the bending stiffness of the cracked trans-
formed section of the jacketed beam. The column bending stiffness E3e
was taken in all tests as the stiffness of the cracked transformed section
(which was close to 0.6Ec/g). Er was the concrete modulus of elasticity of
the transformed section. No attempt was made to calculate the joint con-
tribution to drift angle. Based on results of previous tests at the University
of Texas at Austin (Guimaraes 1988; Kurose et al. 1988; Leon 1983), it was
assumed that the joint contribution was 50% of the column contribution.
Estimated values of K~h and measured stiffness from the response enve-
lope at 0.5% drift and at yield are given in Table 1. Specimens were cracked
in the first cycle to 0.5% drift. However, most tests exhibited higher stiff-
nesses than the predicted values, except RB (Table 1). As yield was ap-
proached, the stiffness was lower. This was particularly the case of specimen
O, which suffered significant damage before yielding. Measured stiffnesses
at yield were lower than Kta, except for SDB, in which the prediction of
stiffness agrees reasonably well with Ky. No single component (beam, col-
umn, or joint) was found responsible for the flexibility of the subassem-
blages. For specimen RB, K~h given in Table 1 was estimated: (1) Using the
full column concrete section; and (2) considering a hollow section with only
the column jacket contributing to the stiffness. No difference was found
between these values because, due to the position of the neutral axis, most
of the existing column core was in tension. The estimation of K~h for all
specimens was based on the assumption of monolithic behavior between
the existing element and the concrete jacket. Measurements with ultrasonic
1426

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


TABLE 1. Theoretical and Experimental Stiffnesses
EXPERIMENTAL STIFFNESS (kN/mm/mm)
Theoretical
stiffness Response At Yielding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

K,h envelope at
Test (kN/mm/mm) 0.5% Cyclec Ky/K,h
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
O 3,360 4,295 1,490 9/positive 0.44
RB 12,860" 9,680 7,565 5/positive 0.59
RB 12,770b 9,680 7,565 5/positive 0.59
SB 15,930 19,025 9,900 6/positive 0.62
SD 13,660 16,665 10,680 5/positive 0.78
SDB 21,450 27,525 22,895 3/positive 1.07
"Assumed fully monolithic ~ection.
bConcrete jacket considered only.
cCycle 9/positive denotes the positive half-cycle of cycle 9. A positive unidirectional
half-cycle was defined as upward displacement of the east or the north beams. Conse-
quently, the west beam and the south beam were displaced downwards. During bidirec-
tional cycles, the half-cycle had the sign of the EW direction as defined before.

3000 ,
Story Shear
(3~o,ooo)
SpOrran SD-B

~ ,
~ g y
Drift
Dissipated !

/
/
///
fi 2OOO
Sw.incnsa
(2O0,OOO)

/ I,,.-.- - SpecimenSD
~ooo / )fJ
(1oo,ooo)

~ ~ Specimen 0

2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.5% 1% 2% 4% Drift
Positive Cycle
FIG. 10. Total Cumulative Energy Dissipated

pulse velocity equipment indicated monolithic behavior (Alcocer 1991; AI-


cocer and Jirsa 1991).

Energy Dissipation Characteristics

Energy Dissipation
The energy dissipated during the tests was c o m p u t e d as the area within
the hysteresis loops from the s t o r y - s h e a r - i n t e r s t o r y - d r i f t relation. The total
cumulative energy dissipated at peaks of positive cycles (Fig. 10) was cal-
culated as the sum of cumulative energies in the two loading directions. All
the rehabilitated specimens dissipated much m o r e energy than the existing
structure. A s expected, specimen S D B dissipated the largest amount of

1427

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


energy. Energy dissipation increased in cycles to 4% drift as plastic defor-
mations increased.

Equivalent Damping
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

An equivalent damping ratio was used to compare the energy dissipation


capacity of the specimens and indirectly to measure pinching of hysteresis
loops. The equivalent damping associated to the energy dissipated per half-
cycle, i.e., related to the hysteretic damping, was taken as the ratio of energy
dissipated within half a cycle to 2"rrtimes the strain energy measured at peak
of an equivalent linearly elastic system (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa
1991). In general, damping ratios increased with drift angle. Damping ratios
were low and were quite similar in all tests. Concrete damage, bond deg-
radation, and shear distress contributed to narrow the hysteresis loops, thus
reducing the amount of energy dissipated. Damping ratios ranged from 0.04
to 0.10 at 0.5% drift and from 0.09 to 0.15 at 4%. The equivalent damping
ratios of the rehabilitated specimens were a little higher (10%) than those
for the existing structure. Specimen SD showed the highest values (15%
higher than those of specimen O). Beam inelastic deformations, which were
more significant than in RB and SB, and column reinforcement layout
(distributed versus bundled bars) probably contributed to improve the en-
ergy dissipation capacity.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


An experimental program was implemented to assess the effectiveness of
jacketing of frame elements. The investigation was aimed at studying the
behavior of slab-beam-column joints rehabilitated by jacketing. Four large-
scale RC frame connections were tested after being repaired and/or strength-
ened by jacketing-only columns or both columns and beams. The specimen
damage condition prior to the rehabilitation and the layout of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement in the column jacket were also varied. The existing
structure was designed according to American design practice of the 1950s
and 1960s, and was not detailed for ductile behavior. Tests indicated that
jacketing was effective to rehabilitate the existing structure. The rehabili-
tated specimens showed better stiffness, strength, and total energy dissi-
pation characteristics than those of the existing structure.
Based on the construction and performance of the specimens, the fol-
lowing conclusions were obtained.

Construction Considerations

9 Surface preparation and perforations: Concrete surface must be


roughened and cleaned (using a thick brush and a vacuum cleaner
or water) to obtain a good bond between existing and new concrete
in order to achieve composite behavior. Slab perforations and holes
through the beams (for beam jacketing) must be as large as possible
to facilitate placement of the steel, and placement and consolidation
of the concrete. Holes in the beams must allow concrete, especially
grout, to penetrate the hole and provide for bond around the bar.
The time involved in the surface preparation, and slab and beam
perforations of the structure with both beams and columns jacketed
was nine times that for the specimens with jacketed columns only.
9 Reinforcement detailing: For proper construction, a minimum thick-
1428

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


ness of 102 mm (4 in.) for columns and 76.2 mm (3 in.) for beam
sides must be considered. Reinforcement detailing (hooks and bends)
is of paramount importance for good performance and proper con-
struction. It is preferable to fabricate transverse steel in the shop
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rather than on the site, and the steel must have 135~ bends. The
use of welded wire fabric for part or all the transverse steel along
the member can be considered. Welded structural steel assemblies,
such as that used in this study, should be considered for confining
the joint. The cage can be proportioned to provide an equivalent
confinement to that recommended in the ACI-ASCE Committee
352 report ("Recommendations" 1976).
Formwork: Formwork must be designed to fit the shape of the
existing structure without special or expensive procedures. To re-
lease air pockets in congested regions in the jacket, vents or gaps
should be provided in the top of the forms. The use of high-range
water-reducing admixtures (superplasticizers) must be considered
to improve concrete workability. Due to the intensive labor required
for the surface preparation and perforations, assemblage of the beam
cages (especially threading the bars in the joint), and high costs of
formwork, beam jacketing may be uneconomical for American prac-
tice.

Design Considerations
In general, ACI building-code requirements can be used for designing a
jacketing scheme. However, constructibility must be always borne in mind.

9 Mode of failure: In the design of structures rehabilitated by jack-


eting, the change in the mode of failure and redistribution of forces
must be considered. Beam shear capacity must be sufficient to de-
velop beam hinging. The location of the beam critical section, and
the participation of the existing reinforcement and slab reinforce-
ment should be taken into account (Alcocer 1991; Alcocer and Jirsa
1991).
9 Strength: The maximum measured story shears exceeded the ulti-
mate joint capacities based on current ACI-ASCE Committee 352
recommendations ("Recommendations" 1976) for design of beam-
column joints in new construction. All specimens maintained their
strength even at deformations to 4% drift. The ductile behavior is
associated with beam hinging, compatible with the strong-column-
weak-beam design philosophy.
9 Stiffness: The stiffness at 0.5% drift can be estimated using a bending
stiffness of 0.5EJg for beams. If the beams are jacketed, Ec cor-
responds to the modulus of elasticity of the jacketed concrete. Sim-
ilarly, a bending stiffness of 0.6Eflg can be used for jacketed col-
umns.
9 Column layout: The layout of the column longitudinal bars is an
important design consideration. The use of column distributed re-
inforcement (versus column bundles) is appropriate to reduce the
possibility of bond damage.
9 Effect of damage: Tests showed that by jacketing the most damaged
elements, the columns and joint, the strength at 2% drift and stiff-
1429

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


ness at 0.5% drift were 63% and 52%, respectively, of the values
obtained in the undamaged specimen.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The research was financially supported by the National Science Foun-


dation, under grant ECE-8610946 (Mexico Earthquake Program) under the
supervision of James O. Jirsa. Additional funding was provided to the writer
by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT-Mexico).
The writer gratefully acknowledges these organizations for their support.
The help and collaboration of the staff of the Ferguson Structural Engi-
neering Laboratory of the University of Texas at Austin is gratefully ac-
knowledged.

APPENDIX I, REFERENCES
Aguilar, J., Juarez, H., Ortega, R., and Iglesias, J. (1989). "The Mexico earthquake
of September 19, 1985--Statistics of damage and of retrofitting techniques in
reinforced concrete buildings affected by the 1985 earthquake." Earthquake Spec-
tra, 5(1), 145-151.
Alcocer, S. M. (1991). "Reinforced concrete frame connections rehabilitated by
jacketing," PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Alcocer, S. M., and Jirsa, J. O. (1991). "Reinforced concrete frame connections
rehabilitated by jacketing." PMFSEL Report No. 91-1, Phil M. Ferguson Struct.
Engrg. Lab., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
"Assessment of concrete structures and design procedures for upgrading (redesign)."
(1983). Bulletin D'lnformation No. 162, Comite Euro-International du Beton,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bass, R. A., CarrasquiUo, R. L., and Jirsa, J. O. (1989). "Shear transfer across new
and existing concrete interfaces." ACI Struct. J., 86(4), 383-393.
"Building code requirement for reinforced concrete." (1963). ACI318-63, ACI Com-
mittee 318, Am. Concr. Inst., Detroit, Mich.
"Building code requirements for reinforced concrete." (1983). ACI 318-83, ACI
Committee 318-83, Am. Concr. Inst., Detroit, Mich.
Building construction under seismic conditions in the Balkan region: Repair and
strengthening of reinforced concrete, stone and brick-masonry buildings. (1983).
Vol. 5, U.N. Industrial Devel. Program, Vienna, Austria.
Cheung, P. C., Paulay, T., and Park, R. (1989). "Interior and exterior reinforced
concrete beam-column joints of a prototype two-way frame with floor slab designed
for earthquake resistance." Report No. 89-2, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Can-
terbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
"Evaluating the seismic resistance of existing buildings." (1987). Publication ATC-
14, Appl. Tech. Council.
Guimaraes, G. N. (1988). "Reinforced concrete frame connections constructed using
high strength materials," PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Jirsa, J. O. (1987). "Repair of damaged buildings--Mexico City." Proc. Pacific
Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., New Zealand, 1, 25-34.
Jirsa, J. O. (1990). "Programas de rehabilitaci6n de edificios peligrosos ubicados en
zonas sismicas." Proc., V1 Latinamerican Seminar on Seismic Resistant Engrg.,
Mexico (in Spanish).
Jordan, R. M. (1991). "Evaluation of strengthening schemes for reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frame structures subjected to seismic loads," PhD thesis, Uni-
versity of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Kurose, Y., Guimaraes, G. N., Zuhua, L., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O. (1988).
"Study of reinforced concrete beam-column joints under uniaxial and biaxial load-
ing." PMFSEL Report No. 88-2, Phil M. Ferguson Struct. Engrg. Lab., Univ. of
Texas, Austin, Tex.
Leon, R. T. (1983). "The influence of floor members on the behavior of reinforced
1430

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.


concrete beam-column joints subjected to severe cyclic loading," PhD thesis, Uni-
versity of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, N.Y.
"Recommendations for design of beam-column joints in monolithic reinforced con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GRAINGER ENGINEERING LIB E on 08/19/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

crete structures." ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Report ACI352R-76, Am. Concr.


Inst., Detroit, Mich.
Rosenblueth, E., and Meli, R. (1986). "The 1985 earthquake: Causes and effects in
Mexico City." Concr. Int., 8(5), 23-34.
"Standard specification for structural steel. Designation A36-90." (1991). Annual
book of ASTM standards. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., vol. 01.04, section 1, 108-
110.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete;


Ie = effective moment of inertia;
Ke ...... hear = equivalent stiffness measured from zero shear;
Ig = moment of inertia based on the gross concrete area;
Kp = peak-to-peak stiffness;
K,h = theoretical elastic stiffness;
Ky = measured stiffness at first yield;
V,,col = ultimate story shear corresponding to column hinging; and
V,j = ultimate story shear corresponding to joint failure.

1431

J. Struct. Eng. 1993.119:1413-1431.

Potrebbero piacerti anche