INTRODUCTION:

Strengthening and Repairing Concrete Columns are strengthened in the following cases:

• The desire to increase the column’s load-bearing capacity, either to add more floors or
due to a design error.
• The compressive resistance of the column’s concrete or the ratio and quality of the
reinforcement steel is less than specified in the standard specifications.
• The presence of a tilt in the columns more than allowed in the standard specifications.

Columns are repaired in the following cases:

• The presence of significant cracks in the column.

• Rust on the reinforcement steel and bulging in the concrete cover.
• Significant honeycombing in the column’s concrete.

Strengthening Concrete Columns are strengthened in the previously mentioned cases by

creating a concrete jacket. The dimensions of the concrete jacket and the diameters and
number of reinforcement steel bars depend on the requirements that necessitated the jacket’s
creation.

Concrete jackets for columns are made in the case of cracks on the concrete surface or
bulging in the concrete cover or rust on the reinforcement steel according to the following
steps:

1. Remove the plaster layers and clean the concrete surface thoroughly.
2. All surfaces are chiseled in a way that does not affect the column’s integrity.
3. Dowels are planted to connect the new stirrups of the jacket in both directions at distances
of 25-50 cm, and the dowels are planted by making holes in the column’s surface with a
diameter 2 mm larger than the dowels, i.e., around 10-12 mm, and at a depth sufficient to
fix the dowels, i.e., about 5 to 7 times the diameter of the dowels.
4. The holes are cleaned well with compressed air and filled with an epoxy bonding material,
and the dowel is planted, ensuring that the dowel is long enough to be tied with the new
stirrups of the jacket with wire ties.
5. Dowels are planted in the reinforced concrete foundations and beams for the vertical steel
with the same number and diameter used in the vertical reinforcement of the jacket, and
with a tie length of at least 50 times the diameter of the dowel. These dowels are planted by
making holes in the reinforced concrete foundations or in the beams according to the case,
and the diameter of the holes is 2-4 mm larger than the diameter of the dowel, and their
depth is about 5 to 7 times the diameter of the dowel. The holes are cleaned with
compressed air and filled with an epoxy bonding material, and the dowel is planted.
6. The vertical steel is then installed, followed by the stirrups, according to the design of the
column jacket.
7. The column surface is painted with a material to bond the new concrete with the old
concrete, ensuring that the painting is done within an hour before pouring the concrete for
the jacket.
8. The jacket is poured using non-shrink concrete consisting of fine aggregate (sand), cement
with a ratio of no less than 400 kg/m³, and shrinkage-preventing additives.
9. The concrete for the jacket is poured either through a shotcrete method or by using regular
formwork with openings in the form and the ceiling slab, pouring the jacket in stages.
Repairing Concrete Columns Repairing columns due to non-critical rust on the reinforcement
steel: In cases where the concrete cover bulges and separates, and there are cracks as a
result of non-critical rusting of the reinforcement steel, where there is no urgent need to
increase the concrete dimensions of the column or the reinforcement steel, the following steps
are taken:

Bands are made every 50-75 cm along the entire length of the column by removing the
concrete cover to a width of 5 cm at the band locations, and the reinforcement steel is cleaned
well from rust and painted with0 Then the jacket is made according to the steps in section
(Secondly A) 0. In cases of high rust levels in the reinforcement, the following steps are
followed:

1. Bands are made every 50-75 cm along the entire length of the column by removing the
concrete cover to a width of 5 cm at the band locations and cleaning the reinforcement
steel well from rust, painting it with a rust remover followed by a rust inhibitor, then the
column is banded at the band locations with stirrups of 2 phi (diameter) 8-10 mm. The
bands are closed on the column surface using a trowel, and in the case of columns with
large sections, the stirrups of the bands can be fixed to the column by dowels planted in
the column surface.
2. The band locations are filled with a strong, low-shrinkage mortar.
3. The concrete cover is removed in the areas between the bands.
4. The reinforcement steel is cleaned well from rust.
5. The reinforcement steel is painted with a rust inhibitor.
6. Dowels are planted to connect the new stirrups of the jacket in both directions at
distances of 25-50 cm, and the dowels for the stirrups are planted using epoxy mortar
as explained in section (Secondly A).
7. Dowels for the vertical steel are planted with the same number and diameter used in the
vertical reinforcement of the column, and the work is done according to the steps shown
in section (A).
8. The vertical steel is then installed, followed by the stirrups.
9. The column surface is painted with a material to bond the old concrete with the new
one.
10. The jacket is poured from non-shrink concrete consisting of fine aggregate (sand) and
cement with a ratio of no less than 400 kg/m³, using shrinkage-preventing additives.
11. The concrete for the jacket is poured either through wooden formwork or by a shotcrete
method.

Repairing Columns with Steel Jackets Steel jackets are used when there is a need to repair
the column and increase its load-bearing capacity without increasing the concrete dimensions,
and the following steps are followed:

1. Bands are made for the column every 50-75 cm.

2. The band locations are filled with a low-shrinkage mortar.
3. The concrete cover is removed in the areas between the columns.
4. The reinforcement steel is cleaned from rust.
5. The reinforcement steel is painted with a rust inhibitor.
6. The steel jacket is installed with the dimensions and thicknesses required in the
structural design, and the jacket can be made of steel plates covering the entire surface
of the column or from different steel sections such as hoops, angles, or others.
7. The gaps between the jacket and the concrete column are filled using an adhesive
epoxy mortar, and in the case of closed jackets made of steel plates, openings are left
on the sides of the jackets for pouring the adhesive mortar, starting from the bottom up.
8. In the case of using jackets from different steel sections, the gaps between these
sections and the column are filled with adhesive mortar, and the rest of the concrete
cover in the exposed areas is completed with the same mortar.
1.Concrete jacketing:

Concrete jacketing is a technique used to strengthen and reinforce deteriorated concrete

structures or those that have suffered damage or loss of their structural capacity. It involves
adding an additional layer of concrete to the external surface of the existing structure with
the aim of enhancing its strength and stability.

The process of concrete jacketing typically includes the following steps:

1. Assessment of the concrete structure: The condition of the concrete structure is

evaluated, and any existing issues or damage are identified. This includes inspecting for
cracks, fissures, steel corrosion, and loss of structural capacity.

2. Surface preparation: The surface of the concrete structure is cleaned and any unsuitable
or damaged layers are removed. This is done to provide a clean and sound surface for the
application of the concrete jacket.

3. Application of the concrete jacket: A new concrete mixture is placed on the external
surface of the concrete structure. Forms or molds are typically used to define the desired
thickness and shape of the concrete jacket. High-strength and corrosion-resistant concrete
is often used to ensure improved strength and durability of the structure.

4. Bonding between the concrete jacket and the existing structure: Care is taken to achieve
good bonding between the concrete jacket and the existing structure to ensure the transfer
of forces and loads in a uniform and effective manner.

Concrete jacketing is an effective technique for reinforcing concrete structures that have
suffered deterioration or a reduction in their structural capacity. This technique helps
extend the service life of concrete structures and enhances their resilience and load-
bearing capacity. It is important to carry out the concrete jacketing process by skilled
professionals and in accordance with approved technical standards to ensure the desired
results.

It's important to note that the success of concrete jacketing depends on proper design,
material selection, and execution. Engineering expertise and careful assessment of the
existing structure are crucial to determine the appropriate thickness, reinforcement
requirements, and compatibility between the existing and new concrete layers.

Overall, concrete jacketing is a reliable technique for strengthening and rehabilitating

concrete structures, improving their performance, and extending their lifespan
 2.Supporting:

Reinforced concrete beams and columns are essential structural elements in buildings, and they may
undergo damage and deterioration due to various factors such as aging, excessive loads, or earthquakes.
Repairing and strengthening damaged reinforced concrete beams and columns is necessary to ensure the
safety and enhance the structural strength of the building. The following are some common methods for
repairing and strengthening reinforced concrete beams and columns:

1. Damage assessment: First, it is necessary to assess the reinforced concrete beams and columns to
determine the extent of damage and deterioration. Damaged and deteriorated materials are completely
removed to ensure that the repaired parts will be of good quality and strength.

2. Cross-sectional strengthening: Damaged reinforced concrete beams and columns may require cross-
sectional strengthening to increase their strength. This is done by adding additional layers of reinforced
concrete or carbon fibers to the exterior sides of the beam or column.

3. Reinforcement replacement: In cases where the concrete bars (rebars) within the beams or columns are
damaged, rebar replacement may be necessary. The damaged rebars are removed and replaced with
new and strong ones.

4. Use of carbon fibers: Carbon fibers are used as an effective technique for repairing and strengthening
reinforced concrete beams and columns. Carbon fibers are bonded to the exterior surface of the beam or
column to increase its strength and resistance to cracking and loading.

5. Addition of new columns: In cases of significant damage to reinforced concrete columns, it may be
necessary to add new columns to strengthen the structure. The new columns are installed adjacent to the
existing columns and connected through steel reinforcement to ensure a strong and robust connection.

6. Additional strengthening techniques: There are additional techniques that can be used to repair and
strengthen reinforced concrete beams and columns, such as:

- Use of pre-fabricated plates: Pre-fabricated plates made of steel or carbon fibers can be used and
attached to the exterior surface of beams and columns to increase their strength and improve their
bending performance.

- Post-tensioning: Post-tensioning technique is used to enhance the strength of reinforced concrete beams
and columns. Tensioned wires are applied along the length of the beam or column to improve its strength
and load-bearing capacity.

- Steel fiber reinforcement: Steel fibers can be mixed into the concrete to increase its strength and improve
its resistance to cracking. Steel fibers distribute forces and reduce deformations in the concrete structure.

- Wrapped concrete columns: Wrapping reinforced concrete columns with carbon or steel fibers is a
technique used to increase their strength and improve their ability to withstand additional loads. The fibers
are wrapped around the column and securely fastened to reinforce it.

- Concrete injection: Concrete injection technique can be used to strengthen damaged reinforced concrete
beams and columns. Enhanced materials such as resin or polymer-modified cement are injected into
cracks and voids to reinforce the structure.

These methods aim to repair and strengthen reinforced concrete beams and columns, restoring their
strength and structural stability. However, it is advisable to consult a civil engineering specialist to assess
the damage and determine the best suitable solutions for a specific case.
 3.Demolishing:

When buildings become extensively damaged and unfit for use, demolishing them may be the best option.
Demolishing dilapidated buildings is a significant and delicate process that requires careful planning and
execution, involving several important aspects that need to be considered. Here are some points to take
into account when undertaking the demolition of dilapidated buildings:

1. Condition Assessment: Prior to commencing the demolition process, a comprehensive assessment of

the building's condition should be conducted. This includes analyzing the structure, determining the extent
of damage, and ensuring the absence of hazardous or contaminated materials that require special
handling.

2. Process Design: The demolition process should be carefully designed to ensure the safety of adjacent
buildings, surrounding areas, and environmental protection. The design should include the use of
appropriate tools and equipment, determining the sequence of work, and employing suitable dismantling
methods.

3. Permits and Regulations: Before initiating the demolition process, the necessary permits must be
obtained from local authorities and compliance with local regulations and laws regarding demolition should
be ensured. Permit requirements and regulations vary from region to region, so it is essential to verify local
requirements before starting.

4. Worker Safety: Worker safety should be a priority during the demolition process. Proper personal
protective equipment should be provided, and workers should be trained in safety procedures and
accident prevention.

5. Disposal of Debris: A plan should be in place for the safe and efficient disposal of debris. Some
materials can be recycled for reuse, while others may require the use of approved waste disposal
services.

6. Environmental Impacts: Precautions should be taken to minimize environmental impacts resulting from
the demolition process, such as dust, noise, and the release of hazardous chemicals. Precautions may
include the use of protective barriers and appropriate ventilation systems.

7. Redevelopment: After the demolition process, the site can be utilized for other purposes, such as
constructing a new building or developing the area. Sustainable redevelopment should be planned based
on the needs of the community and the local environment.

8. Costs: Costs should be taken into consideration when evaluating the demolition of dilapidated buildings.
These costs may include the demolition itself, removal and disposal of materials, site cleanup, and
redevelopment if applicable.

In general, demolishing dilapidated buildings requires careful pre-planning and precise execution to ensure
the safety of workers, the surrounding community, and the preservation of the environment. It is advisable
to engage experienced and specialized demolition companies to achieve the best results.
.

1 TESTING PROGRAM

1.1 Specimens

Four symmetrically reinforced cantilever RC columns were constructed by using normal

strength concrete and deformed reinforcing bars. The average compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity were 25 and 23000 MPa, respectively, based on the tests of the cylinder
specimens. The mechanical characteristics of deformed 14 mm diameter column and 8 mm
diameter transverse bars are given in Table 1. The geometry and reinforcement details of the
specimens are presented in Fig. 1a.

Table 1. The mechanical characteristics of

reinforcing bars Reinforcing bars fy (MPa)

εy fmax (MPa) εmax

fu (MPa) εu

Φ14 460 0.002 724 0.093 652 0.116

S420

Φ8 486 0.002 755 0.079 681 0.134

fy : yield stress; fmax : maximum stress; fu : ultimate stress; εy, εmax, εu : tensile strains
corresponding to fy, fmax, fu, respectively.
 2
P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

The specimens were subjected to accelerated corrosion process except the reference one. The
corrosion process was artificially accelerated through addition of calcium chloride in the mixing water
during casting, and application of a fixed potential of six volts to the reinforcement after casting,
as well as spraying a calcium chloride solution externally. Appearance of a specimen after
accelerated corrosion is presented in Fig. 1b. The main features of the specimens are shown in
Table 2.

The first term of specimen notations denotes the cross-section loss (X) of the main column
reinforcing bars, which was determined by dividing the difference between the original cross-
sectional and existing cross-sectional area (after corrosion) to the original cross-sectional
area. The original and existing cross-sectional areas are determined by considering the
minimum diameter of the starter bar measured with a caliper after mechanical cleaning of rust
on reinforcing bars. It should be noted that cross-section loss was not uniform among the bars as
well as along the lengths of individual bars. The presented value of cross-section loss is the
maximum loss that could be observed (on the starter bar and at the column-footing interface).
The second and the third terms denote the repair procedures (M:Mortar, W:Welding). The
specimen, denoted with X0, was not subjected to accelerated corrosion process. The
specimen, denoted as X46-REF, was subjected to accelerated corrosion process (cross-section
loss of 46%) and tested without any repair, while the specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2 were
tested after repair. The repair application stages are presented in Fig. 2. As seen in the figure,
firstly the deteriorated concrete cover was removed until the column bars were exposed for avoiding
premature cover spalling off (Fig. 2a). Removal of concrete cover is generally the first and
essential step of repair intervention in case of reinforcement corrosion. The appearance of a
typical corroded bar is shown in Fig. 2b. The rust products on the surface of the reinforcing bars
were cleaned by mechanical cleaning. Firstly, the cross-section losses (pits) of starter bars of
specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2 were recovered by filling the cross-section losses with
welding at the maximum moment section. The cross-section losses of both starter bars and
column bars of the specimen X46-M-W1 were recovered by filling the pits with welding along the
lap splice length (Fig. 2c). The starter bars and column bars of the specimen X46-M-W2 were
welded to each other along the lap splice length (Fig. 2d). The schematic drawings for the
specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2 are presented in Fig. 3. As a final step, a layer of high
strength cement based structural repair mortar was placed over core concrete to obtain a flat
surface over the internal reinforcement (Fig. 2e). All repair application was carried out within
the thickness of the original concrete cover.
 outside the
measuring
loading height = 1200
cover

20 mm

200 mm
Lap splice length = 40
100 mm
50

560 mm
Figure 1. a) The reinforcing cage of the specimens, b) Patterns of cracks after accelerated corrosion
process (X46-REF).
Cross-section loss of main Repair procedure.

Specimens
bars due to Welding Mortar
corrosion (%)

X0 0 - -

X46-REF 46 - -

Firstly, recovered by filling the

pits with welding at the
maximum moment section. Removal of concrete cover,
X46-M-W1
46* applying a layer of cement
Additionally, recovered by filling
based structural repair
the pits with welding for both
mortar after welding.
starter bars and column bars (Fig.
2c)

Firstly, recovered by filling the

pits with welding at the
maximum moment section. Removal of concrete cover,
X46-M-W2
applying a layer of cement
46*
Additionally, welding the starter
based structural repair
bars and column bars to each
mortar after welding.

other along the lap splice length

(Fig. 2d)

*assumed same as the reference specimen (X46-REF), since all specimens have been
subjected to identical accelerated corrosion procedure.

Transverse reinforcement was also corroded, which had 8% (resulting in 5% decrease in shear
capacity) and 40% (resulting in 25% decrease in shear capacity) cross-section losses, when
average diameter and minimum diameters are considered, respectively.
 a) b) c) d) e)

Figure 2. a) Removal of cover concrete, b) General appearance of a typical corroded reinforcing

bar, c) Recovering the cross-section losses of both starter bars and column bars along the lap
splice length (only for specimen X46-M-W1), d) Welding the starter bars and column bars to each
other along the lap splice length (only for specimen X46-M-W2), e) Application of cement based
structural repair mortar.

column bar column bar column bar column bar

interface interface of
of the the column
column and the
560
560

560

and the footing

footing

bar bar bar bar

Figure 3. The schematic drawings a) Before, b) After the repair of the specimen X49-M-W1, c)
Before, d) After repair of the specimen X49-M-W2 (Dimensions are in mm)
P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

1.2 Test Setup

The footings of the column specimens were fixed to the laboratory strong floor using high strength
prestressed bars. The axial load was applied via two 7-wire-strand post tensioning tendons. At
the top of the column, the tendons were attached to a steel beam, which allowed the tendons to
be loaded by a centrally located post-tensioning jack. The load was measured by a load cell,
which was located on the jack. The specimens were tested under constant axial load and reversed
cyclic flexure (Fig. 4). Applied axial load was 282 kN, which corresponded to approximately 18%
of the axial load capacity of the column determined without consideration of the reinforcement.

A large number of displacement transducers and strain gages were also used in the test setup.
A displacement based loading pattern was applied during tests of all specimens. Target drift
ratios calculated at the ratio of the lateral displacement at the tip of the specimen, divided by
the specimen height were (±0.0010 (±1.2 mm), ±0.0025 (±3.00 mm), ±0.0050 (±6.00 mm),
±0.0075 (±9.00 mm), ±0.0100 (±12 mm), ±0.0150 (±18 mm), ±0.0200 (±24 mm), ±0.0250
(±30 mm), ±0.0300 (±36 mm), ±0.0350 (±42 mm), ±0.0400 (±48 mm), ±0.0450 (±54 mm), ±0.0500
(±60 mm),
±0.0600 (±72 mm), ±0.0700 (±84 mm), ±0.0800 (±96 mm)) for pulling and pushing cycles.

Axial
Load
Steel F

Load cell
Hydraulic jack

Actuato L
Colum
Post
tensioning

Footing

(a) (b)

Figure 4. a) Test setup, b) P-Δ correction case (PEER, Case I).

P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

1.3 Analytical Predictions

The lateral load capacities of the specimens were calculated through the flexural moment
capacities of the critical sections since the specimens were not critical in shear. The flexural
moment capacities were determined through fiber analysis approach by using XTRACT (2007) at
the critical section of each column. In the moment-curvature analysis, steel reinforcing bars were
assumed to behave in an elastic-plastic manner with strain hardening. The loss of cross-
section of the reinforcing bars resulting from corrosion was considered during the analyses. The
stress-strain relationships of uncorroded unconfined concrete, uncorroded confined concrete,
corroded confined concrete, corroded unconfined concrete, repair mortar and reinforcing bars used
in calculation of moment capacities are presented in Fig. 5. It should be noted that for the strength
of the unconfined concrete, the results of the actual core sample tests, which were obtained after the
column tests, were taken into account. Actual core concrete strengths were determined as 29 MPa
and 17 MPa for uncorroded, and corroded unconfined concrete, respectively. The difference
between the strengths of the actual core tests of the specimen X0 and the other specimens,
which were subjected to accelerated corrosion, is attributed to the adverse effect of the
calciumchloride on the compressive strength of concrete (Griffin and Henry 1964, Fan et al. 2006).
The decrease in compressive strength of concrete is up to ≈40% and ≈8% with the study of Griffin
and Henry (1964), and Fan et al. (2006), respectively. The decreases in these studies are in
accordance with the current study, where the decrease is up to 40%. It should be noted that
each study has different type of accelerated corrosion process. For the stress-strain behavior of
confined concrete (core concrete), the model proposed by Mander et al. (1988) was used. For the
specimen X46-REF, the unconfined part (cover) of the cross-section is disregarded due to
separation of cover from core concrete because of corrosion. Therefore, for this specimen
only the confined part of the cross-section (core) was taken into consideration during the
analyses. For specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2, the stress-strain relationship of the repair
mortar was taken into consideration for the unconfined cover part of the cross-section during
the analyses. The stress-strain relationship of the steel reinforcing bar is also defined according
to actual uniaxial tension test results. Table 3 shows the predicted capacities, while Table 4
shows the predicted failure modes of the specimens with corresponding strains of reinforcing bar
(εs), unconfined (εc) and confined concrete (εcc) as well. According to analytical predictions, the
failure modes are in sequence order of yielding of tension bar, crushing of concrete cover, and
crushing of core concrete within all specimens (Table 4). As seen in Table 4 and Table 5, the
predicted and observed failure modes are in agreement with each other. The shear strength is
calculated as 221 kN according to TS 500 (2000). Therefore, as seen from Table 3, the specimens
are expected to fail in flexure before they reach shear strength.

80 1988) 800

60 Repair Mortar 600

Stress (MPa)

Stress(MPa)

40 400

20 200

Figure 5. The theoretical stress-strain relationships of the a) Unconfined and confined concrete, b)
Reinforcing bar (column bar).
 P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

2.4. Experimental Results and Discussion

The test results are outlined through hysteretic load-displacement loops, envelopes of these
relationships, ductilities, residual displacements and energy dissipation capacities. The
hysteretic loops and envelopes of the lateral load-displacement relationships are presented
in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. The horizontal load is corrected considering the horizontal
component of the vertical load as suggested by PEER, Case I (Fig. 4b). The increase of column
base moment due to the second order effect coming from the eccentric application of axial load
with increasing lateral drift is the cause of a part of the decline in the resisted lateral load seen in
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7a. The second order effect is eliminated for the lateral load-drift ratio
relationships of the column specimens in Fig. 7b. Therefore, the

reductions in strength in Fig. 7a are because of the strength degradation of the specimens and the second order
effects, while the strength reductions in Fig. 7b are only due to the strength degradations experienced by
the specimens due to accumulation of the damage. It should be noted that, the second order effect is not
eliminated for the lateral load-drift ratio relationships of the column specimens in Fig. 6. Experimental capacities
(without the elimination of the second order effect), and the observed failure hierarchies of the specimens are
presented in Table 5. It should be noted that when there is cross-section loss of about 46%, the loss in
experimental capacity is not about 46% due to the fact that the maximum cross-section loss exists at only one bar
and at only one section along the reinforcing bar. Furthermore, as the maximum loss zone has to reach tensile stress
before rupture (ie. should experience strain hardening), the tensile stresses on the other bars (which do not have
46% section loss) also increase remarkably. Therefore, the loss in strength is not as dramatic as the loss in
displacement capacit
 b Compression Specimens
zone
ccc X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W1 and
X46-M-W2 with theX46-M-W2
h without the
X0 X46-REF
s consideration of consideration of

εc 0.002 - 0.001 0.001

Yielding of
pushin

εcc 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001

tension bar

εc 0.002 - 0.001 0.001

(εs= 0.0022)
pushin pulling

εcc 0.001 0.001 0.001

εs 0.009 - 0.009 0.010
Crushing of εcc 0.002 - 0.002 0.002

P. Ghaffari, A. Kal yoncu oglu, C.Go ksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013 10

εs
pulling hi pulling

0.009 - 0.010 0.010

(εc= 0.0030)
εcc 0.002 - 0.002 0.002
Crushing of εs 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.012
core concrete
(εcc= 0.0030) εs 0.013 0.012 0.012
Figure 6. Lateral load-displacement curves for all specimens
Figure 7. The cyclic skeleton curves of lateral load-drift ratios for the specimens a) With the second
order effect, b) The second order effects eliminated.
Table 5. Experimental lateral load capacities and observed failure hierarchies of the specimens

Specimens X0 X46-REF X46-M-W1 X46-M-W2

Experimental
capacity 56.2 41.6 47.6 52.9
while
pushing (kN)
Experimental
capacity -47.6 -39.5 -39.3 -40.3
while
pulling (kN)
Premature
Crushing of concrete Crushing of concrete
Premat rupture of
Factors cover and yielding of cover (repair mortar),
ure reinforcing bars,
limiting the tension bar occurred spalling of concrete
rupture crushing of
strength together, followed by cover (repair mortar)
of concrete cover
and failure crushing of core concrete and premature rupture
reinforci (repair mortar),
mode and finally rupture of of reinforcing bar
ng bars spalling of
reinforcing bars at a occurred together
concrete cover
large drift
(repair
P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013
mortar)

As expected, the specimen without corrosion (X0) reached its theoretical flexural capacity and
showed an excellent performance in terms of ductility and energy dissipation capacity (Tables 3-5
and Figs. 6-7). On the contrary, while the reference and repaired specimens reached their
theoretical flexural capacities (calculated considering the reduced reinforcement area), the
deformation capacities of these specimens were remarkably poor with respect to specimen X0.
This was demonstrated with premature failure of these specimens at early stages of loading (at
around 2% drift ratio), highly pinched hysteresis curves, low ductility and low energy dissipation
capacities. Although, the specimen X46-REF had the similar cross-section loss as the specimens
X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2, the strength of the specimen X46-REF was the lowest among the
other specimens due to absence of a layer of high strength cement based structural repair mortar
and any repair application. The strength of the specimen X46-M-W2 was the highest due to the
contribution of the mutual-working of the starter and column bars along the lap splice length, which
was obtained by welding. The early (at approximately 2% drift ratio) rupture of the starter bars at
and around the maximum moment section for specimens X46-REF, X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2
is attributed to the concentrated local corrosion damage along the reinforcing bar (Table 6). This
phenomenon is resulting from local yielding of the steel at the maximum loss zone, which occurs
before other parts of the main bars reach yielding. This phenomenon has also been pointed out
by Castel et al. (2000) and Inci et al. (2012). It should also be noted that the maximum moment
zone coincides with the maximum damage zone for the tested specimens. While the proposed
repair techniques increased the strength by 14% and 26% for specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-
M-W2 with respect to the specimen X46-REF, respectively, they were not successful to retard the
rupture of the starter reinforcing bars. Therefore, the negative effect of corrosion on deformation
capacity could not be avoided. The test results, including the maximum load (Pmax), the
displacement corresponding to maximum load (δ@Pmax) and the displacement ductility factor
(μδ) are given in Table 7. The displacement ductility factor, μδ, is defined as the ratio of the
ultimate displacement, δu, to δ@Pmax. The ultimate displacement is defined as the
displacement corresponding to the lateral force resisted at 85% of the maximum load on the
descending branch. As seen from Table 7, μδ decreased dramatically with the corrosion and the
decrease could not be recovered through the repair procedure.

Table 6. Drift ratios at which starter bars fractured.

Specimens X0 X46-REF X46-M-W1 X46-M-W2

Rupture of the starter 8 -2 -1.5 -2
bar
P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

Table 7. Ductility factors for the specimens while pushing

Pushing
Specim
ens Pulling

Pmax (kN)
δ@Pma
x (mm) δu (mm)
μδ
Pmax
(kN)
δ@Pmax (mm)

δu (mm)

μδ

X0 56.9 24 84 3.5 -47.5 -18 -63.5 3.5

X46-REF 41.6 18 26.1 1.4 -39.5 -9 -18.9 2.1
X46- M -W1 47.6 18 22.7 1.2 -39.3 -12 -15.3 1.2
X46- M-W2 52.7 24 27.3 1.1 -40.3 -18 -25.8 1.4

Energy dissipation capacities of the specimens, calculated as the area enclosed by the hysteresis
loops, are presented in Fig. 8a. As seen in this figure, the energy dissipation capacities of the
specimens with corroded reinforcing bars are almost the same, while the specimen without
corrosion can dissipate much higher energy. The difference between energy dissipation
capacities stems from higher load resistance capacity of the specimen X0 even at larger drifts.
For other specimens, the rupture of the reinforcing bars at approximately 2% drift ratio prevented
higher energy dissipation due to reduced lateral load capacity. The slightly higher energy dissipation
capacity of the specimen X46-M-W2 is due to higher flexural strength resulting from the
contribution of mutual-working of the welded starter and column bars along the lap splice length.
The variation of ratios of residual plastic displacements (δres) to the displacements at which
unloading initiated (δun) with respect to drift ratios are presented in Fig. 8b. As seen in this figure,
δres/δun ratio is higher for the specimen without corrosion, X0, due to ductile behavior and
distributed plastic deformations of main reinforcing bars at the plastic hinge region. However, in
case of columns with corroded reinforcing bars, all the reinforcing bars exhibit linear elastic
behavior with the exception of cross-sections subjected to maximum cross-section losses, where
the plastic deformations are concentrated. Consequently, due to limited distribution of plastic
deformations, δres remains almost constant while δun increase with increasing drift ratios. This
is demonstrated with a decline of δres/δun ratio for specimens with corroded reinforcing bars.
This behavior is also characterized with the pinched hysteresis curves of the specimens with
corroded reinforcement. The horizontal flexural cracks with maximum width generally formed
around the column-footing interfaces. It is important to note that, the bending cracks were well-
distributed for the specimen without corrosion, X0, while all the damage was accumulated at
the base of the specimen X46-REF. The bending cracks were also distributed for the
specimens X46-M-W1 and X46-M-W2, in which the repair applications were applied (the
distribution was not as good as the specimen X0, but better than the specimen X46-REF).
P. Ghaffari, A. Kalyoncuoglu, C.Goksu, A. Ilki/VEESD 2013

Figure 8. a) Energy dissipation capacities, b) The variation of residual displacement of the

specimens while pushing

2 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the reversed cyclic lateral loading tests of four cantilever column specimens, which
were also subjected to axial loads, the following conclusions are derived. It should be noted that
all specimens were constructed in an identical manner, whereas, three of the specimens were
subjected to accelerated corrosion of reinforcing bars and two of these specimens were repaired
in order to recover the negative effects of the reinforcement corrosion.

The concentration of plastic deformations of main reinforcing bars at and around the maximum
cross-section loss zone (maximum pit) causes limited distribution of plastic deformations leading to
remarkably reduced displacement capacity

for the columns with corroded reinforcement due to reduced plastic hinge lengths. Consequently
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the columns with corroded reinforcement are reduced
remarkably.

The proposed simple rehabilitation method partially recovered the strength of the specimens.
However, more important than strength, ductility and energy dissipation capacities could not be
recovered. Therefore, it is vitally important to develop methods for recovering the degraded
displacement capacity of the columns with corroded reinforcing bars.
REFERENCES

Bae, S.W., Belarbi, A., and Myers, J.J. (2005). Performance of Corrosion-Damaged RC
Columns Repaired by CFRP Sheets. ACI, Special Publication; 230: 1447-1464.
Bousias, S.N., Triantafillou, T.C., Fardis, M.N., Spathis, L.A., and O’Regan, B.A. (2004). Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Retrofitting of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns with or
Without Corrosion. ACI Structural Journal; 101(4): 512-520.
Castel, A., Francois, R., and Arliguie, G. (2000). Mechanical Behavior of Corroded Reinforced
Concrete Beams-Part 2: Bond and Notch Effects. Materials and Structures; 33: 545-551.
Fan, Y.F., Chen, Y.S., Hu, Z.Q., and Li, X. (2006). Experimental Study on Compressive
Strength of Corroded Concrete. 31st Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures;
August 16 – 17, 2006, Singapore. CI‐Premier PTE LTD.
Ghaffari, P. (2013). Seismic Rehabilitation of Columns with Corroded Reinforcing Bars through
Practical Interventions.
MSc Thesis; Istanbul Technical University.

Goksu, C., Binbir, E., Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2009). Seismic Behavior of RC Columns with
Corroded Deformed Reinforcing Bars. Asian-Pacific Network of Centers for Earthquake
Engineering Research; August 13-14, 2009, Illinois, US.
Goksu C. (2012). Seismic Behavior of RC Columns with Corroded Plain and Deformed
Reinforcing Bars. PhD Thesis; Istanbul Technical University.
Griffin, D.F. and Henry, L.H. (1964). The Effect of Salt in Concrete on Compressive Strength,
Water Vapor Transmission, and Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel. Technical Report-R306, US
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory; Port Hueneme, California, US.

Inci, P., Goksu, C., Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2012). Effects of Reinforcement Corrosion on
the Performance of RC Frame Buildings Subjected to Seismic Actions. ASCE, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities; 10.1061/(ASCE)CF. 1943-5509.0000378.
Kalyoncuoglu, A., Ghaffari, P., Goksu, C., and Ilki, A. (2012). Rehabilitation of Corrosion-
Damaged Sub-Standard RC Columns using FRP Sheets. Advanced Materials Research;
639: 1069-1103.
Lee, C. (1998). Accelerated Corrosion and Repair of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using CFRP
Sheets. PhD Thesis; University of Toronto.
Li, J., Gong, J., Wang, L. (2009). Seismic Behaviour of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced
Concrete Columns Strengthened using Combined Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer and
Steel Jacket. Construction and Building Materials; 23: 2653–2663.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress-strain Model for
Confined Concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering; 114(8): 1804-1826.
Mangat, P.S. and Elgarf, M.S. (1999). Flexural Strength of Concrete Beams with Corroding
Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal; 96(1): 146-158.
Pantazopoulou, S.J., Bonacci, J.F., Sheikh, S., Thomas, M.D.A., and Hearn, N. (2001). Repair of
Corrosion Damaged Columns with FRP Wraps; ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction; 5(1): 3-11.
Berry, M. Parrish, M. and Eberhard, M. (2004). PEER Structural and Performance Database.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkley, USA.