Erratum for “Seismic Rehabilitation of Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Using Steel Plates, Angles, and Posttensioning Rods” by Ali Arzeytoon, Abdollah Hosseini, and Alireza Goudarzi
You are viewing the correction.
VIEW THE CORRECTED ARTICLEPublication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 30, Issue 1
The following conference paper should be added to the list of References:
Shafaei, J., Hosseini, A., Marefat, M. S., and Ingham, J. M. (2014). “Rehabilitation of earthquake damaged external RC beam-column joints.” Toward Integrated Seismic Design, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE14), Auckland, New Zealand, March 21–23, 2014, <http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2014/oral/4_Shafaei.pdf> (April 15, 2015).
The citation for this reference should be added in the following locations.
04014200-1
Introduction
Two major sources of joint deficiencies of existing RC buildings are the lack of column confinement at the beam-column joint region and inadequate anchorage of the beam bottom reinforcement (Shafaei et al. 2014).
Several retrofit techniques are epoxy injection repair, concrete jacketing, steel jacketing, and adding external steel and/or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-1
Experimental Studies
Specimen Details
Dimensions and reinforcement details of all control specimens were identical except for the reinforcement details in the joint region (Fig. 2). For all specimens, the column height and beam length represent the distances between the contraflexure points in the frame. The column is 2,100 mm high and the cross-sectional dimensions are . The beam is 1,400 mm long, from the face of column to its free end, with a cross section of . The longitudinal reinforcement used in the column is 8∅14 bars, corresponding to a 2% reinforcement ratio. The transverse reinforcement in the column is one ∅8 closed rectangular tie (Shafaei et al. 2014).
The longitudinal reinforcements of the top and bottom of the beam are 4∅14 and 3∅14 bars, respectively, corresponding to 1.22 and 0.91% reinforcement ratios, respectively. The transverse reinforcement of the beam consists of ∅8 rectangular ties, starting at 25 mm from the column face. The ties are spaced at 60 mm. The longitudinal bar size and transverse reinforcement satisfy current code requirements for confinement of the joint and hinging zones (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-3
Experimental Setup, Load History
The end of the beam is linked to an actuator with a swivel connector. Thus, the top of the beam and each end of the column are all pin-connected in the loading plane. This simulates the inflection points of a moment frame that are subjected to lateral earthquake loading (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-3 and 04014200-4
The load was applied by a hydraulic actuator of _100-kN capacity and _200-mm linear range. The column was subjected to concentric loads by using a horizontally positioned hydraulic jack with 1,000-kN capacity. Both ends of the column were restrained against vertical and horizontal displacements; however, these ends were allowed to rotate (hinged boundary conditions) (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-4
Three consecutive equal cycles were tested to study the strength and stiffness degradations under reverse cyclic loading based on the confirmed criteria of performance presented in ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005). A constant axial load of 220 kN (14% of the column axial capacity) was applied to the column (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-5
Specimen AR
After the removal of loose material, a bonding agent [SikaCem Concentrate (Sika New Zealand, Auckland)] was applied on the cleaned surfaces to improve the bond between the fresh mortar and existing concrete and to increase surface hardness. High-strength mortar [Sika MonoTop-438 R (Sika New Zealand, Auckland)] was used to replace the removed concrete and to fill the cavities; mechanical steel packers were used for epoxy injection into deep cracks. For epoxy injection into cracks, holes were drilled along cracks at predetermined locations in the joint panel zone and mechanical packers were inserted through these holes. Visible cracks were sealed by high-strength epoxy adhesive [Sikadur-31 (Sika New Zealand, Auckland) CF Normal] and epoxy resin [Sikadur-52 (Sika New Zealand, Auckland)] that filled all cracks. Fig. 12 illustrates the repair operations for the damaged control specimen (AB-3) (Shafaei et al. 2014).
04014200-8
By using envelope curves, the peak load, ultimate displacements, and ductility capacity for the control and rehabilitated specimens were obtained for both the positive and negative loading directions. The presented results show a considerable difference in the ductility and peak load values for both pull and push directions between the control and rehabilitated specimens. The ductility values clearly show that the application of the proposed method significantly improved the ductility of the rehabilitated specimens. The average ductility increased up to 35% for Specimen AR with respect to Specimen AB-3. The average peak load increased up to 69% in the pull direction and up to 61% in the push direction for Specimen AR with respect to Specimen AB-3 (Shafaei et al. 2014).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 30 • Issue 1 • February 2016
Copyright
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 13, 2015
Accepted: Apr 8, 2015
Published online: Jun 2, 2015
Discussion open until: Nov 2, 2015
Published in print: Feb 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.