REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS AND BEAMS ICRI – International Concrete...

Post on 15-Jan-2016

237 views 2 download

transcript

REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING OF REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE REINFORCED CONCRETE

COLUMNS AND BEAMSCOLUMNS AND BEAMS

ICRI – International Concrete Repair Institute

Transportation Structures

2010 Fall Convention

Pittsburgh October 20-22

2/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

UHPFRCC

Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites

-UHPC – Ultra - High Performance Concrete -HPFRCC – High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites -ECC – Engineered Cementitious Composites -HPECCMF – High Performance Engineered Cementitious Composites Multiple Fine Cracks

3/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

UHPFRCC

UHPFRCC

4/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Jacketing

5/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Tensile tests according Italian Standard

0 1 2 3 4 5

S tra in [‰ ]

0123456789

1 0111 21 3

Str

ess

[MP

a]L = 330 mm

t = 13 mm

bp = 30 mmt

bpL

Characterization in tension – stress deformation

6/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Adhesion tests

7/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Adhesion tests

GF5 Ordinary concrete

8/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Preparation of the support

9/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Strengthening of columns

10/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Existing column

fc=15MPa

11/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Existing column

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

M [kNm]

N[kN]

12/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Strengthened column

UHPFRC fc=170MPa

fct=11MPa

13/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Stress distributions

14/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

M [kNm]

N[kN]un-reinf

HPFRC

Strengthened column

15/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Traditional jacketing

-450

-350

-250

-150

-50

50

150

250

350

450

-1500 -500 500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500

M [kNm]

N[kN]

R/C

un-reinf

fc=30MPa

16/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

-150

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

M [kNm]

N[kN]

un-reinf

FRP_LT

FRP_L

Strengthening with FRP

17/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Comparison

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-1500 -500 500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500

M [kNm]

N[kN]

HPFRC

R/C

FRP_LT

un-reinf

18/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Seismic retrofitting

19/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

School building in Zagarolo

20/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

In situ tests fc=11MPa

21/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Strengthening with GF5 UHPFRCC

UHPFRCC130MPa

40 mm

22/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Column tests

23/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Load history

24/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Drift [%]0-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Displacement [mm]

Ho

rizo

nta

l L

oad

[kN

]

Results

25/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Results

26/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Numerical prediction

27/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Joint tests

28/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Load history

29/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

30/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

31/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

32/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

33/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

34/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Jobsite application

35/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Jobsite application

36/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

FASE 4:realizzazione della seconda parte di cassero

fino all'estradosso del solaio esistente

cassero ancorato sul precedente getto di Refor-tec GF5 ST-HS

solaio

carotaggi

40 cm

40 cm

40 cm

40 cm

staffature di rinforzoin acciaio

DETTAGLIO A

Jobsite application

37/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

forotavola chiodata

per evitare la fuoriuscitadi materiale

CASS

ERO

CLS

PILA

STRO

Jobsite application

38/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Beam strengthening

39/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

4.0

4.0

HPFRCC

cm

cm

Jacketing

40/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

3 BEAMS: ASR, BCR, ACR (300x500x4550 mm)

ASR: RC beam with 2 rebars having a 16mm diameter 0.3%)

BCR: concrete beam without rebars + jacketing in HPFRCC

ACR: RC beam ( 0.3%) + jacketing in HPFRCC

Experimental program

41/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 20 40 60 80D isp lacem ent [m m ]

0

100

200

300

400

500 Load [kN ]

Results

42/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Results

0 4 8 12 16 20D isp lacem ent [m m ]

0

100

200

300 Load [kN ]

S LS

43/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Sandblasting of the beams

Jobsite application

44/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Waterjetting

The pouring

Jobsite application

45/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Thixotropic UHPFRCC application

Jobsite application

46/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Protection of material with a thermal jacket

Jobsite application

47/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

First example of application:

PROJECT OF SEISMIC ADJUSTMENT OF THE “HOSPITAL COTUGNO” OF BARI

Object:Hospital Cotugno

Place:Bari

Repair:Seismic rehabilitationReinforcement of beam and pot floor with a cooperating cover layer

Quantity:22’000 m2 (15 mm)

Material:Micro-concrete fiber-reinforcedHPFRCC

The other Jobsite applications

48/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

PROBLEMNECESSITY OF SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF THE STRUCTURE

The project foresees the realisation of RC shear walls destinated to resist the horizontal seismic actions

PROBLEM: TRASFER OF THE STRESSES OF THE FLOOR TO THE SHEAR WALLS; THE EXISTING FLOOR, WITH A STRUCTURALLY COOPERATING TOP DECK OF 2 cm, WAS NOT ABLE TO FULLFILL THIS FUNCTION

The other Jobsite applications

49/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

SOLUTION

TO OBTAIN THE DIAPHRAGM EFFECT HAS BEEN INSTALLED ON THE TOPPING OF THE FLOOR A STRUCTURAL COOPERATIVE DECK WITH LOW THIKCNESS (15 mm) IN FIBRE-REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH VERY HIGH MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE, FORMULATED AD-HOC BASED ON THE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

The other Jobsite applications

50/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

APPLICATION 1. VERIFICATION OF THE ADHESION TO SUBSTRATE

APPLICATION OF SAMPLE IN JOBSITE TO VERIFY THE ADHESION OF THE PRODUCT TO THE SUBSTRATE IN

THAT SITUATION:

• CONNECTORS WITH STUBS IN REFOR-tec® GF5/ST HS, OBTAINED THROUGH SIMPLE DRILLING

• METAL CONNECTORS (DRILLING + FISCHER)

• NO CONNECTORS- ONLY SANDBLASTING AND WATERJETTING

• NO CONNECTORS – ONLY WATERGETTING

The other Jobsite applications

51/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

THE CURING PERIOD COMPLETED, MEASUREMENTS DEMONSTRATE THE ADHESION TO THE SUBSTRATE :

OPTIMAL ADHESION OF THE REINFORCING COVERLAYER REFOR-tec® GF5/ST HS EVEN WITHOUT CONNECTOR SYSTEM,

ONLY AFTER ADEQUATE SURFACE PREPARATION

The other Jobsite applications

52/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

The other Jobsite applications

APPLICATION OF THE MATERIAL

53/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

The other Jobsite applications

LIGHT TAMPERING

IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF CURING COMPOUND UR 20

54/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

The other Jobsite applications

DETAIL OF THE APPLICATION – RETAKING OF THE FLOORS

55/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

TESTING-CONTROLLING THE ADHESION TO THE SUBSTRATE

The other Jobsite applications

56/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

RESULTTHE APPLICATION OF SEVERAL THOUSEND SQUARE METERS

WITHOUT CUTTING JOINTS AND WITHOUT ANY CRACKING.

PERFECT ADHESION OF THE MATERIAL TO THE SUBSTRATE

The other Jobsite applications

57/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

ADVANTAGES IN RESPECT WITH A TRADITIONAL CONCRETE COOPERATIVE DECK

1. Low application thickness (15-20 mm )

2. Adhesion the substrate without necessity for connectors or resins

3. No reinforcement nets

4. Very high ductility and resistance to cyclic load

5. Increase of the bearing capacity in terms of bending moment and stiffness and a reduction of the deflection of the floor

6. Speed of application thanks to self-levelling material properties

Limited increase of load

The other Jobsite applications

58/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Repair after fire

59/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Beams residual properties

4 Ø 16mm

300mm

500m

m

Steel

Felicetti & Meda (2005)

Concrete

Eurocode 2

60/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Thermal analysis

ISO 834

61/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Analytical model

Coccia & Rinaldi 2006

steel concrete

M

N h Ast

Asc

b

62/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 60 120 180

Fire duration [m in]0

100

200

300 M om ent [kN m ]

Beams residual properties

63/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Beams repair

0 60 120 180

F ire duration [m in]0

100

200

300 M om ent [kN m ]

HPFRC

64/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 250 500 750 1000

Temperature [C]0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1fct

T/fct20

HPFRCC

0 250 500 750 1000 1250

Tem perature [°C ]0

1

2

3

4Therm al conductiv ity [W m /K ]

HPFRCEC2

Mindeguia et al. (2007)

HPFRC

950°C

De Chefdebien et al. (2007)

HPFRC thermal properties

65/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Fire resistance of the repaired beam

0 60 120 180

Fire duration [m in]0

100

200

300

400 M om ent [kN m ]

66/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 60 120 180

F ire duration [m in]0

100

200

300

400 M om ent [kN m ] In itia l dam age60'

90 '

120 '

Fire resistance of the repaired beam

67/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Column residual properties

68/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Column repair

69/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Initial damage 90′ - new fire 90′

70/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Initial damage 180′ - new fire 180′

71/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Seismic retrofitting ofshear walls

72/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Reference model: stair block element of an

existing three storey building

Experimental model:

1:3 scaled R/C wall

Experimental test

73/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

t =15mm

Proportioned to resist

vertical loads only

Proportioned to resist seismic loads

aggregate dmax=15mm

F5/70mm longit. rebars

F4/100mm stirrups

Experimental test

74/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

Stra in0

500

1000

1500 Stress [M Pa]

F

A L

L

L / LF / A

High strength,

waved steel mesh made

of bent wires

Tensile test on steel mesh single wire

High performance steel mesh

75/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

0 10 20 30

D isp lacem ent [m m ]0

5

10

15

20 Load [kN ]

W ithout concrete

10m m th ick concrete

20m m th ick concrete

Specimen A

Specimen B

9010

90

20

high performancefiber concrete

high strength steel meshwith bent wires

1 1 Section 1-1

90

250

bare high

strength

steel mesh

High performance jacket

76/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

I phase:R/C wall sandblast

Wall sandblast

77/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

I phase:R/C wall sandblast

II phase:Positioning ofthe steel mesh

Application of the steel mesh

78/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

I phase:R/C wall sandblast

II phase:Positioning of

the steel mesh

III phase:15 mm HPC

jacket casting

Jacket casting

79/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

50 100 150

Top d isplacem ent [m m ]

25

50

75

100 Load [kN ]

-150 -100 -50

-100

-75

-50

-25

20

50

-20

-50

F

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-80 -30 20 70 120

Bas

e S

hear

for

ce [

kN]

top displacement [mm]

with jacket - experimental

envelope curve

drift 3.6%u/y = 9

y= 12mm; u= 109mm)

Results

80/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Deformed shear wall at collapse Deformed shear wall at collapse

drift = 3.5%

1.5b

12/16

Results

81/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Fiber element

S1

S2

S4

S5

S3

II

I

III

base section

fiberelement

FE model

1

2

3

fibersection

Existing R/C wall

Strengthened R/C wall

(Spacone et al. 1996)

FE analysis

82/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

FE analysis: results

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-80 -30 20 70 120

Bas

e S

hear

for

ce [

kN]

top displacement [mm]

with jacket - experimental

with jacket - numeric

unreinforced - numeric

83/83ICRI 2010 – Pittsburgh October 20-22

Conclusions

- The proposed technique allow a significant increase of the bearing capacity in terms of bending moment, axial force and stifness of pillars and beams

- A simple sandblasting has ensured the perfect bond between the base concrete material and the strengthening UHPFRCC layer;

- The strengthening has provided a remarkable increase of stiffness of beams and floors; as a consequence, the midspan displacement at serviceability limit state has been reduced of about 12 times; This behaviour is comparable to the application of a prestressing load;

- The small thickness of the jacket does not change significantly the elements geometry

- Increase of thermal and static resistance of structural elements after the fire

-The jacket enhance the durability of the structure