International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No.

4, November 2017

Experimental Responses of Jacketed RC Beams

Panuwat Joyklad
Department of Civil Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand
Email: [email protected]

Suniti Suparp
Kasem Bundit University, Thailand
Email: [email protected]

Abstract—Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete countries. Steel jacketing is proved very effective and has
(RC) beams is commonly carried out by “jacketing”. been widely used all over the world, however,
Jacketing is the addition of concrete or cement mortar and experimental tests show that shear and flexural forces can
steel reinforcement to an existing beam. This paper cause these externally bonded plates to peel away before
describes an experimental investigation into the behavior of
the design load is reached [8]. Other issues such as
reinforced concrete beams strengthened by jacketing. Static
load tests to failure were carried out on five reinforced corrosion, heavy weight and installation difficulties (in
concrete shallow beams. The mortar used in the jacket was case of high rise buildings) are also reported. In recent
non-shrink cement grout. The steel bars were fixed to the years, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are
beams by using two inexpensive and simple anchorage introduced and demonstrated to be successful for
systems i.e., epoxy anchorage system and mechanical strengthening concrete structures. Common types of
expansion anchors with steel plate anchorage system. Based FRPs that have been successfully used for strengthening
on experimental results, it was noted that jacketing using reinforced concrete beams are carbon (CFRP), glass
mortar and steel bars is very effective method to enhance (GFRP), and aramid (AFRP) [11]. A large number of
ultimate load carrying capacity of RC beams compared with
studies have been carried out in the last decade on the
control beams. Proposed anchorage systems were proved
effective to securely attach the steel bars to the beam. The
behavior of FRP-strengthened beams. These FRPs are
anchorage system with mechanical anchors is resulted into found very effective to enhance ultimate load carrying
higher load carrying capacity of RC beams compared with capacity and ductility of strengthened members. Many of
epoxy anchorage system. The control beam failed at the these studies reported premature failures by de-bonding
peak ultimate load of 23.70 kN. The RC beams jacketed of the FRP with or without the concrete cover attached.
using epoxy anchorage were failed at 13% to 27% higher The most commonly reported de-bonding failure occurs
peak load compared with control beam, whereas RC beams at or near the plate end, by either separation of the
jacketed using mechanical anchors were failed at 84% to concrete cover or interfacial de-bonding of the FRP plate
105% increased load compared with control beam.
from the RC beam [12]. Tom Norris et al. (1997)
Index Terms—flexural strengthening, anchorage system,
performed an experimental study to investigate the
jacketing, epoxy, mechanical anchors behavior of damaged or understrength concrete beams
retrofitted with thin carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)
sheets. In their study, the CFRP sheets were epoxy
I. INTRODUCTION bonded to the tension face and web of concrete beams to
Strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) beams can be enhance their flexural strength. The effect of CFRP sheets
done by different methods such as steel plate jacketing on strength and stiffness of the beams was considered for
[1], [2], jacketing by fiber reinforced concrete [3] various orientations of the fibers with respect to the axis
jacketing by RC [4], [5] and recently jacketing by of the beam. The authors concluded that CFRP sheets can
wrapping fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites [6], provide the increase in strength and stiffness to existing
[7]. The technique of gluing mild steel plates to the soffits concrete beams when bonded to the web and tension face.
of reinforced concrete beams can be used to improve the The failure mode of CFRP strengthened beams were
flexural performance of RC beams as it increases the reported as peeling of the CFRP [13]. Wu et al. (2011)
strength and rigidity and also reduces the flexural cracks has enlisted different methods which were successfully
widths in the concrete [8]. This plating technique has applied to prevent the FRP de-bonding such as
further advantages as it has been found in practice to be mechanical anchors, near-surface mounted (NSM)
simple to apply. It does not reduce the height of the installation, wrapping of FRP strips in different shapes,
structure and can be applied while the structure in use. use of protruding fiber and anchor bolts, using comb-
This procedure has been used to repair buildings [9] and shaped anchors and mechanical-interlocking anchorage
to strengthen bridges [10], especially in many European systems [14]. Although these FRPs are proved very
successful for the strengthening propose due to their light
weight, superior strength-to-weight ratios, corrosion
Manuscript received July 13, 2017; revised November 3, 2017.

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 245

doi: 10.18178/ijscer.6.4.245-251
 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

resistance, and easy installation, cost of FRPs, however is B. Test Matrix

very high compared with local traditional materials such In this experimental program a total of five reinforced
as concrete and steel. Further, in developing countries, concrete (RC) beams were constructed and tested. The
the use of FRP is still very limited due to high price and details of test matrix are shown in the Table I. One beam
availability issue. In contrast to the steel plate and FRP specimen (i.e., CONT) was tested without jacketing to
jacketing, relatively less number of studies have been serve as control beams. Two beams (beams in group A)
conducted in the past to investigate the strengthening of were jacketed using non-shrink cement grout and steel
reinforced concrete beams using concrete or mortar bars. In these beams, steel bars were fixed to the beam
jacketing and there is still need to develop inexpensive soffit using epoxy anchorage system. Remaining two
and easy anchorage systems to securely attach the steel beams in group B were also jacketed using non-shrink
bars to the beam soffit. Therefore the primary objective cement mortar and steel bars; however the steel bars were
of this study was to study the experimental responses of fixed to the beam soffit using mechanical expansion
jacketed RC beams. Different anchorage systems were anchors with steel plates. Each beam was jacketed with
proposed to attach steel bars to beam soffit. The proposed two external steel bars. The beam name are given to
anchorage systems were evaluated for steel bars of identify anchorage system and diameter of external steel
varying diameter. bars. For example in beam name EAS-6; first letter EAS
stands for epoxy anchorage system and last digit is
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
representing diameter of steel bar i.e., 6 mm. The details
A. Specimen Details of anchorage systems are discussed in the following
section.
A detailed description of the test beams is shown in
Fig. 1. All test beams had a constant cross section with TABLE I. TEST MATRIX
the width of 120 mm and total depth of 150 mm. The
total length of the beam was 1460 mm and span length Anchorage External steel
Group Beam designation
system bars
was 1260 mm. Each beam contained two DB10
(deformed bars with a yield strength of 414 MPa) at the A CONT - -
tension face, and top two RB9 bars (round bars with a EAS-6 EAS 2-RB6
yield strength of 350 MPa) at the top face. The shear B
reinforcement consisted of RB6 (round bars with a yield EAS-10 EAS 2-DB10
strength of 240 MPa) placed at different spacing as MEAS-6 MEAS 2-RB6
shown in Fig.1. A clear 15 mm thick concrete cover was C
provided on all sides of beams, and the beams were cast MEAS-10 MEAS 2-DB10
using molds made of plywood sheets as shown in Fig. 2.
C. Anchorage Systems
In this study, steel bars were externally attached to the
beam soffit using simple and inexpansive anchorage
systems i.e., epoxy anchorage system and mechanical
expansion anchors with steel plate anchorage system.
D. Epoxy Anchorage System
In the epoxy anchorage system (EAS), steel bars of U
shape were fixed to the beam soffit using Sikadur Cement
based Epoxy Mortar (manufactured by Sika Thailand Co.,
Ltd.). Before the installation of steel bars, holes were
drilled at the desired location and cleaned with high water
Figure 1. Beam specimen details (mm) pressure to remove dust. The installation process and
other details are shown in Fig. 3 and 4.
E. Mechanical Expansion Anchors with Steel Plate’S
Anchorage System (MEAS).
This anchorage system is comprised of mechanical
expansion anchors, threaded bolt, washers, nuts and steel
plates as shown in the Fig. 5-7. Anchorage system was
installed in the following steps; 1) holes of 8 mm
diameter were drilled at the desired locations, 2) holes
were cleaned with high water pressure to remove dust
particles, 3) mechanical expansion anchors were installed
along with steel plates, 4) straight steel bars were welded
to the steel plates as shown in the Fig. 6 and 5) Steel bars
and plates were covered with non-shrink cement grout as
shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 2. Concreting process

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 246

 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

Figure 3. Epoxy anchorage system (mm) Figure 6. Welding of steel bars with steel plate

Figure 7. Grouting process (Non-shrink cement grout)

F. Material Properties
A single concrete mix (28 day’s target strength of 25
Figure 4. Installation of epoxy anchorage system
MPa) was used to construct concrete beams. The concrete
mix proportions are given in Table II. The concrete was
made of ordinary Portland cement and coarse aggregate
with the maximum size of 19 mm. The actual concrete
strength at the testing days (around 40-45 days) was
slightly higher than the target design strength. In this
experimental program commercially available high
performance non-shrink cement grout manufactured by
Sika (Thailand) Limited was used for jacketing purpose.

TABLE II. CONCRETE MIX PROPORTIONS

Mix Components (kg/m3)

Water 180

Cement 360

Fine aggregates 760

Coarse aggregates 1015

Figure 5. Mechanical expansion anchors with steel plate’s anchorage
system (mm) G. Loading Setup
Reinforced concrete beams were tested under three
point bending as shown in the Fig. 8 and 9. The

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 247

 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

specimens were tested under a concentrated load applied 60.0

at the mid-span in a simply supported arrangement. A
load is applied monotonically through a hydraulic jack of 50.0
300 kN capacity at a constant rate of 70 N per second
until failure occurred. The applied load was recorded by a 40.0

Load (kN)
calibrated load cell placed under the loading piston of the
hydraulic jack. Linear variable differential transducers 30.0
(LVDTs) were placed under the beam at the mid span to
measure vertical deflection. During the test, the initiation 20.0
and propagation of cracks were visually inspected and
recorded by photographs. MEAS-6
10.0
MEAS-10
CONT
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Mid span deflection (mm)

Figure 11. Load versus deflection curves of beams (Group A and C)

TABLE III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

% Increase Mid span
Beam Ultimate
Group in ultimate deflection
designation load (kN)
load (mm)
Figure 8. Schematic of loading setup (mm)
A CONT 23.70 - 38.06

EAS-6 26.80 13 19.91

B
EAS-10 30.20 27 3.37

MEAS-6 43.63 84 22.65

C
MEAS-10 48.63 105 28.91

A. Cracking Load
In the control beam, small cracks were observed at the
mid-span prior to the appearance of large inclined cracks.
The cracking load of the control beam was 8.70 kN. With
the further increase in load, new inclined flexural cracks
Figure 9. Loading setup were also appeared at the mid span and near the support
region. In the jacketed RC beams the cracking load was
observed higher than the control beam. This is due to the
III. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS presence of the additional external steel bars at the soffit
The experimental results in terms of cracking load, of the beam. The increase in cracking load is proving the
ultimate load, mid span deflection at the peak load and effectiveness of the proposed anchorage systems. The
failure modes are summarized in Tables III and IV. The cracking loads are summarized in the Table IV. Similar to
load-deflection curves of jacketed RC beams along with the control beam, small cracks were observed at the mid-
control beam are shown in Fig. 10. The experimental span prior to the appearance of large inclined cracks in
results are further discussed in detail in the following the jacketed RC beams. A further load increase resulted
sections; in the widening of flexural cracks as well as the initiation
60.0 of new flexural and diagonal cracks.
50.0
TABLE IV. CRACKING LOAD
40.0 Beam Cracking load % Increase in
Load (kN)

Group
designation (kN) cracking load
30.0
A CONT 8.70 -
20.0
EAS-6 12.00 38
EAS-10
B
10.0 EAS-10 20.50 136
EAS-6
CONT
0.0 MEAS-6 16.00 84
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 C
Mid span deflection (mm) MEAS-10 19.00 118

Figure 10. Load versus deflection curves of beams (Group A and B)

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 248

 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

B. Load Carrying Capacity and Mid Span Deflection In the experimental program external reinforcement
The load deflection curves of jacketed RC beams along was provided using different diameters of steel bars (i.e.,
with control beam are shown in the Figs. 10 and 11. This 2RB6 and 2DB10). A comparison of normalized load is
data can be used to evaluate the impact of the jacketing shown in Fig. 13. It can been seen that reinforcement
on the load carrying capacity of the beams. The load and ratio had a significant impact on ultimate load carrying
deflection curves of beams in group B along with control capacity of RC beams. There is found an increase in the
beam are shown in Fig. 10. The control beam failed at the load carrying capacity with an increase in reinforcement
peak ultimate load of 23.70 kN. As shown in Fig. 10, the ratio. As shown in Fig. 13, the increase in ultimate load
13% and 27% increases in peak load were recorded for carrying capacity of 13% and 11% were recorded for
the beams jacketed using epoxy anchorage system i.e., beams EAS-10 and MEAS-10 compared with beams
EAS-6 and EAS-10. Similar to the beams in group B, the EAS-6 and MEAS-6, respectively.
jacketed beams in group C also failed at higher load C. Failure Modes
compared with control beam. In this group, 84% and
A summary of failure modes of all specimens is
105% increased load were observed for beams MEAS-6
provided in Table V. In the experimental test, a typical
and MEAS-10, respectively.
pattern of crack formation was observed. The first
1) Effect of Anchorage Systems
flexural crack occurred in the mid-span of the beam, and
In this experimental study, two different types of
was followed by the formation and propagation of many
anchorage systems namely EAS and MEAS were
smaller cracks which were symmetrically distributed
proposed and investigated. Based on experimental results
about the mid-span of the beam. The un-strengthened
it can be concluded that both systems are effective to
(control) beam failed in a conventional flexural manner
securely attach the external reinforcement to the beam
with the concrete crushing in compression in the mid
soffit. However the efficiency of MEAS system was
span of the beam as shown Fig. 14. In all concrete
found higher than the EAS system. This is supposedly
jacketed RC beams with anchorage systems, no pullout of
due to the stress transfer over a large area in MEAS (due
re-bars and anchors were observed prior to the final
to the presence of steel plate) compared with stress
failure of the beams except beam MEAS-10. These
transfer in EAS. The comparison of both anchorage
beams (i.e., EAS-6, EAS-10 and MEAS-6) were failed
systems is shown in Fig. 12.
due to the inclined cracks that were formed along the
2) Effect of Reinforcement Ratio loading and anchoring points as shown in Figs 15-17. The
beam MEAS-10 was failed suddenly due to the
250
separation of anchorage system from beam soffit as
shown in Figs 18 and 19. This separation was occurred
200
due to the failure of threaded bolt in mechanical
Normalized load (kN)

150
expansion anchored with steel plate anchorage system.

TABLE V. FAILURE MODES

100
Beam
Group Failure Modes
50 designation
A CONT Flexural Crack
0
EAS-6 MEAS-6 EAS-10 MEAS-10 EAS-6 Flexural and diagonal cracks
Beam specimens B
EAS-10 Flexural and diagonal cracks
Figure 12. Comparison of normalized load (effect of anchorage system)
MEAS-6 Flexural and diagonal cracks
C
250 MEAS-10 Separation of anchorage system

200
Normalized load (kN)

150

100

50

0
EAS-6 EAS-10 MEAS-6 MEAS-10
Beam specimens
Figure 14. Failure mode of control beam
Figure 13. Comparison of normalized load (effect of reinforcement ratio)

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 249

 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has provided the experimental investigation
on responses of jacketed reinforced concrete beams. The
investigation included use of different anchorage systems
to fix external steel bars and percentage of external
reinforcement. Based on the experimental results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Jacketing using non-shrink cement grout is very
Figure 15. Failure mode of beam EAS-6
effective method to enhance ultimate load carrying
capacity of RC beams.
2. Both proposed anchorage systems are found
capable to securely attach the external
reinforcement to the beam soffit.
3. Overall, the increase in ultimate load carrying
capacity is found increasing with steel
reinforcement ratio for both types of anchorage
systems.
4. Future studies should examine a wider range of
beam geometry such as beam size and externally
fixed rebar materials such as carbon and glass.
Figure 16. Failure mode of beam MEAS-6
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors are very thankful to Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT) for supporting test facilities. We also
thank Dr.Qudeer Hassain, Kasem Bundit University for
assistance with particular of experimental
technique/methodology and his valuable sharing
comments during the course of this research.

REFERENCES
[1] G. Campione, L. Cavaleri, M. F. Ferrotto, G. Macaluso, and M.
Figure 17. Failure mode of beam MEAS-6 Papia, “Efficiency of stress-strain models of confined concrete
with and without steel jacketing to reproduce experimental
results,” The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal,
vol. 10, no. 1, April 2016.
[2] J. Rupp, H. Sezen, and S. Chaturvedi, “Axial behavior of steel-
jacketed concrete columns,” Steel and Composite Structures, vol.
16, no. 1, pp. 59-75, 2014.
[3] C. W. Dolan, B. Leu, and A. Hundley, “Creep-rupture of fiber-
reinforced plastics in a concrete environment,” in Proc .the Third
International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Sapporo, Japan: Japan
Concrete Institute, vol. 2, pp. 187-194, 1997.
[4] C. E. Chalioris, G. E. Thermou, and S. J. Pantazopoulou,
“Behaviour of rehabilitated RC beams with self-compacting
concrete jacketing–Analytical model and test results,”
Construction and Building Materials, vol. 55, pp. 257-273, 2014.
Figure 18.Failure mode of beam MEAS-10 [5] B. Li, E. S. S. Lam, B. Wu, and Y. Y. Wang, “Experimental
investigation on reinforced concrete interior beam–column joints
rehabilitated by ferrocement jackets,” Engineering Structures, vol.
56, pp. 897-909, 2013.
[6] T. C. Triantafillou, E. Choutopoulou, E Fotaki, M. Skorda, M.
Stathopoulou, and K. Karlos, “FRP confinement of wall-like
reinforced concrete columns,” Materials and Structures, vol. 49,
no. 1-2, pp. 651-664, January 2016.
[7] E. Tzoura and T. C. Triantafillou, “Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete T-beams under cyclic loading with TRM or
FRP jackets,” Materials and Structures, vol. 49, no. 1-2, pp.17-28,
January 2016.
[8] M. Mahal, B. Täljsten, and T. Blanksvärd, “Experimental
performance of RC beams strengthened with FRP materials under
monotonic and fatigue loads,” Construction and Building
Materials, vol. 122, pp.126-139, September 2016.
[9] S. H. Hashemi, “Ductile design of high strength reinforced
concrete beams strengthening with FRP plates,” Iranian Journal
of Structural Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, 2016.
Figure 19. Jacketing separation in beam MEAS-10

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 250

 International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017

[10] J. Parkinson, “Glue solves a sticky problem for Gestetner,” New Panuwat JOYKLAD (Ph.D.)
Civil Engineer, vol. 14, pp. 26-27, 1978. Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering,
[11] S. Ali and N. Caglar, “Flexural strengthening of RC Beams with Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand
low-strength concrete using GFRP and CFRP,” Structural Email: [email protected]
Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 825-845, 2016.
[12] S. Smith, T. Scott, and J.G. Teng, “FRP-strengthened RC beams. I:
review of debonding strength models,” Engineering Structures,
vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 385-395, 2002.
[13] T. Norris, H. Saadatmanesh, and M. R. Ehsani, “Shear and
flexural strengthening of R/C beams with carbon fiber sheets,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 903-911,
1997.
[14] Z. M. Wu, C. H. Hu, Y. F. Wu, and J. J. Zheng, “Application of Suniti Suparp (D.Eng.)
Assistant Professor, Kasem Bundit University,
improved hybrid bonded FRP technique to FRP de-bonding
prevention,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 25, pp. Thailand
2898–2905, 2011. Email: [email protected]

© 2017 Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 251