This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete axially loaded elements

with polymer-modied cementicious mortar
Carlo Pellegrino *, Francesca da Porto, Claudio Modena
Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 21 November 2008
Received in revised form 16 May 2009
Accepted 18 June 2009

Keywords:
Reinforced concrete
Repair mortars
Interface
Cracking
Columns

a b s t r a c t
The aim of the paper is to investigate the compatibility and the efciency of the rehabilitation intervention on reinforced concrete columns with polymer-modied cementicious mortar. This paper presents
the results of experimental tests on axial behaviour of reinforced concrete columns, with square crosssection, repaired by polymer-modied cementicious mortar. Tests were repeated varying repair thickness, which included or did not include the steel reinforcement on one face of the square column. Despite
this type of intervention is quite common in practice, the effect of repair thickness on the intervention
efciency, in relation to the existing steel reinforcement conguration, had not been previously studied
in detail for axially loaded elements.
Results were discussed and compared with those from control columns, which were tested in nondamaged, non-repaired conditions. The main ndings of this work can be summarized as follows. The
repair cannot restore the load-bearing capacity of non-damaged control columns, although they give
acceptable results. Repairs that include the longitudinal reinforcement show good properties, with stable
behaviour, sharing of loads, and plasticization of the material before failure, whereas thin repairs that do
not include the reinforcement do not have adequate performance due to premature debonding. Non-linear numerical models also conrmed the different behaviour of the two types of repair.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The eld of rehabilitation and strengthening of reinforced concrete structural elements shows an increasing interest for existing
constructions and various projects have been carried out around
the world over the past two decades. Structural strengthening
and repairing is aimed at increasing or restoring the load-bearing
capacity of the element, due to changes in conditions of use (e.g.
increased loading) or deterioration and damage of the concrete
structure (for example due to environmental conditions or seismic
events). Historically, steel has been the primary material used to
strengthen concrete structures. Bonded steel plates or stirrups
have been applied externally to successfully repair reinforced concrete elements. However, using steel as a strengthening element
adds additional dead load to the structure and normally requires
corrosion protection. Externally bonded ber-reinforced polymers
(FRP) sheets/plates exhibit several attractive properties, such as
low weight-to-strength ratios, non-corrosiveness, and ease of
application. A number of experimental programs and analytical
studies have been developed in the last few years at the University
of Padova on exural [19,28], shear [16,17,18] and bond behaviour
[21,20] of FRP strengthened elements. In this context, adding or
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +39 049 8275618.
E-mail address: carlo.pellegrino@unipd.it (C. Pellegrino).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.025

applying mortar, spraying concrete or mortar with the aim of rehabilitating and/or strengthening of existing reinforced concrete
structures is also a possible way of intervention with a more traditional and common material [5].
Emberson and Mays [1] carried out one of the rst extensive
experimental studies on the inuence of mechanical and physical
properties of repair mortars, applied on axially loaded (in tension)
reinforced concrete elements. They numerically modelled the axial
load transfer through repair and substrate in the linear elastic
range. They also worked on exural elements, and studied the effect of repairs applied either in the compression or tension regions
of reinforced concrete beams [2]. Following, most research focused
on exural elements. For example, Hassan et al. [9] tested the compatibility of cementicious, polymer, and polymer-modied mortar
repairs to concrete. Ro et al. [24] tested beams designed to fail in
exure, after localized articial corrosion at midspan and localized
patch-repair with three types of mortar (cement based, epoxy resin
binder, and polymer-modied mortar). Park and Yang [15] tested
eight beams repaired in the tension region with ordinary Portland
and polymer-modied cement mortar. They varied reinforcement
ratio and repair length. Shannag and Al-Ateek [26] tested 30
under-reinforced concrete beams, repaired in the tension region
with ve materials: ordinary Portland cement and four types of
ber-reinforced cementicious materials. Once repaired, the beams
were tested as they were or after accelerated corrosion. Nounu and

Author's personal copy

3130

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Chaudhary [14] compared ordinary Portland cement with free

owing micro-concretes, obtaining better results with the latter.
Kim et al. [12] applied ber-reinforced cementicious materials at
the intrados of reinforced concrete beams with and without stirrups. Recently, Jumaat et al. [11] made a review of various repair
materials and techniques for reinforced concrete beams.
Experimental review of ten different repair methods for axially
loaded columns, which took into account not only the structural
performance and failure modes, but also the applicability and
cost-efciency of the repairs, was carried out by Ramirez [23],
who found good results for methods based on application of
cementicious materials. Among the wide literature on repair of
reinforced concrete columns oriented to the seismic eld (a comprehensive literature review can be found in [6], few authors considered the case of jacketing with mortar or concrete without
adding additional reinforcement. Fukuyama et al. [7] tested eight
damaged columns, repaired with different techniques, and found
that replacement of cover with concrete can restore the original
column shear strength and deection capacity, without any increase of cross-section or steel percentage. The use of shrinkage
compensating mortar can even improve strength, although faster
strength degradation may occur. In general, the main aim of
cementicious repair of concrete columns is to assist the repaired
columns to carry the axial load, particularly when a signicant
amount of material in compression is lost due to the action of corrosion. Rahman et al. [22] numerically studied the problem of drying shrinkage and creep in cementicious repair of reinforced
concrete columns. Shambira and Nounu [25] experimentally
studied the long-term behaviour of this type of intervention. They
applied two types of localized repairs, polymer and polymer-modied mortars, on one side of axially loaded columns. Despite the
short-term behaviour was acceptable, the long-term behaviour
worsened due to high shrinkage, and shrinkage forces induced parasite bending in the columns. Mangat and OFlaherty [13] applied
seven different ordinary and polymer-modied cementicious
materials, on the unpropped compression members of two existing
bridges. The case studies showed that repairs displayed structural
interaction with the structure, and those made with stiff materials
were more efcient than others, which is in disagreement with
other results. For example, Sharif et al. [27] assessed the effectiveness of localized repairs on two sides of axially loaded columns.
They applied two cementicious materials with low and high elastic
modulus, under loaded and unloaded conditions. They demonstrated that repairs are structurally effective only if applied on unloaded columns, or become effective only if further loads are added
to the columns. The load distribution between the repair layer and
the concrete is even, only if the elastic modules of the two materials are similar.
Some issues related to the rehabilitation of reinforced concrete
columns, such as the choice of the repair material properties and
its geometric conguration with the aim of improving the compatibility of the intervention, are thus still objects of research. In this
framework, the effect of thickness of repair material on the efciency of rehabilitation interventions, in relation to the existing
steel reinforcement conguration, was not studied in detail for axially loaded elements.
The objective of this study is to give some new insights on validating the effectiveness of repair intervention with polymer-modied cementicious mortar repairs applied to square columns, under
axial loads, to recover the original properties of columns. In particular the aim is to verify the effect of repair thickness (including
steel reinforcement or not), on cracking pattern and, in general,
structural behaviour of axially loaded element. For this reason,
experimental and numerical study on square columns, subjected
to axial loads, repaired with polymer-modied cementicious mortar is carried out. The repair material had similar mechanical prop-

erties, slightly higher tensile strength than the concrete substrate

and two different thicknesses (including steel reinforcement or
not) and was applied over the entire length of one face of the columns. Experimental results were compared in terms of cracking
pattern, ultimate capacity, axial and transversal strains with those
from control columns, which were tested in non-damaged, non-repaired conditions.
Simplied three-dimensional numerical models, implementing
non-linear constitutive laws for materials, were developed to simulate the behaviour of control and repaired columns.
2. Experimental program
The main objective of the experimental program was to assess the static behaviour under axial loading of six reinforced concrete columns repaired with polymermodied cementicious material. The following subsections describe the specimens
used for experimental testing, the materials adopted for their construction and repair, and the testing procedure.
2.1. Design and preparation of specimens
Six columns were made with square section of 300  300 mm area, 20 mm concrete cover, 0.8 m total height. Longitudinal reinforcement was constituted by four
12 mm diameter reinforcing bars. Stirrups having 8 mm diameter were placed at
140 mm spacing. The six columns were divided into three test series. Two specimens were used as control columns (P00_a;b) and were tested in non-damaged/
non-repaired conditions. Other four columns were repaired on one face. They were
cast leaving the reinforcement non-covered with a curing process of 28 days. After
this period, the non-covered surface was prepared. The preparation of the surface
included roughening, cleaning of dust, powders and any impurities to improve
the adhesion between concrete core and mortar, and wetting. The polymer-modied cementicious mortar for repair was applied after eventual evaporation of water
in excess.
Repair mortar was 50 mm thick and included the longitudinal reinforcement on
two columns (P50_a;b). 15 mm of repair mortar were sufcient to obtain the original 300  300 mm section on other two columns (P15_a;b). In the latter case, repair
was intended to restore only the concrete cover. Fig. 1 shows the details and Table 1
lists the data of the tested columns.
2.2. Materials
The main mechanical properties of concrete were experimentally evaluated
after 28 days curing. Average compressive strength on 150  150  150 mm cubic
specimens, determined from results of four samples casted during the column

P0_a;b

P15_a;b

P50_a;b

800

800

300

800

300

300
15

2 12

300

50
2 12

300

300

2 12

300

2 12

2 12

300

2 12

300

Stirrup spacing 140mm

Fig. 1. Dimensions, rebars and repairs arrangement of columns.

Author's personal copy

3131

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Table 1
Details of specimens.
Type of element/test

Section (mm2)

Column
Axial

300  300

Longitudinal reinforcement
Tension

ql (%)

Transversal reinforcement

qw (%)

Condition

Designation

0.50

1U8/140 mm

0.24

Control column
Repair 15 mm
Repair 50 mm

P00_a; P00_b
P15_a; P15_b
P50_a; P50_b

Compression

4U12

construction was 34.8 N/mm2. Mean tensile strength, measured by splitting tests on
three cylindrical samples having diameter 150 mm and height 300 mm, was 3.19 N/
mm2. Elastic modulus was not measured, but according to the measured cubic compressive strength and Eurocode 2 formulations [3], it was assumed to be around
32,500 N/mm2.
Ribbed bars used for longitudinal reinforcement and for transversal reinforcement were both tested in tension. Mechanical properties were similar for the two
types of bars; mean yield stress was 532 N/mm2 and mean tensile strength was
628 N/mm2. Strain at failure was 25%.
Finally, the cementicious material, used for repairing all columns, was premixed, tixotropic, polymer-modied mortar with high-strength hydraulic binders
and aggregates having maximum thickness of 4 mm. This product has high bond
properties, low CO2 and vapour permeability, limited shrinkage. It is generally used
for cover repair in reinforced concrete structures. Mechanical properties of the repair mortar were measured on samples having dimensions of 40  40  160 mm,
cast during the repair interventions on columns. These samples were tested after
28 days curing. Density of hardened mortar was 2170 kg/m3. Mean tensile strength
deducted from six exural tests was equal to 3.48 N/mm2. Mean cubic compressive
strength (six samples) was 39.6 N/mm2, mean elastic modulus (three samples) was
26,200 N/mm2. Table 2 compares the mechanical properties of the concrete support
and the repair material. It can be seen that the measured compressive strengths differ for 4.8 MPa, the measured tensile strengths differ for about 0.3 MPa and concrete and mortar elastic modules differ for less than 10 kN/mm2.
2.3. Testing procedures
Axial tests on columns were carried out monotonically, under a 10,000 kN loading machine, with loads increased between 0.5 and 2.5 kN/s. Pressure transducer
mounted on the loading machine was used to measure the applied loads. The control
columns were instrumented with six strain transducers (DD1; 100 mm measuring
base), placed at mid-height along the columns. Four DD1 were placed on two adjacent orthogonal faces, two in the horizontal and two in the vertical direction, to
measure transverse and axial strains. On the other two faces, two horizontal DD1
were placed close to the column corners, in order to gather information on possible
instability of the reinforcement. Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDT)
with 600 mm measuring base were also placed vertically on two faces, to measure
overall axial strains of the columns. For the repaired columns, other two strain
transducers (DD1) were placed across the repair layer-concrete column interface,
to gather information on the behaviour of the interface. The other instruments were
placed on two adjacent orthogonal faces, one of which was repaired and the other
left in the original conditions, in order to gather information on the behaviour of
the repair material. Fig. 2 shows the test setup and instrumentation on the four sides
of a repaired column and some details of displacement and strain transducers on the
repair layer and across the interface between concrete support and mortar layer.

3. Test results
In the following the main results of the experimental program are
shown in terms of failure modes, cracking patterns, stress vs. (axial
and transversal) strain curves of undamaged and repaired columns.
3.1. Failure modes and ultimate loads
All columns showed compressive failure with crushing of concrete. Vertical and sub-vertical cracks generally developed close
Table 2
Mechanical properties of concrete and repair mortar.
Property

Concrete

Mortar

Density of hardened material (kg/m3)

Mean cubic compressive strength (N/mm2)
Mean elastic modulus (kN/mm2)
Mean tensile strength (N/mm2)

2380
34.8
32.5a
3.19

2168
39.6
26.2
3.48

Evaluated on the basis of EN 1992-1-1.

to one column end, where damage was concentrated. Cracks also

connected each other close to the column corners, with spalling
of the reinforcement cover at corners. Differences in failure modes
were determined by presence and thickness of the repair. Fig. 3
shows the crack patterns of the tested columns.
For the control columns P00_a and P00_b, failure occurred by
crushing of concrete, respectively, at the lower and at the upper
end of the column. Cracks had vertical or sub-vertical patterns
and were distributed on the four column sides. Larger cracks were
located close to the column corners and were connected to those
on the adjacent column face. Ultimate loads reached by the control
columns, 2929 and 2869 kN, corresponded to average stresses on
the cross-sections of 31.0 and 31.9 N/mm2 (see Table 3).
Columns P15_a and P15_b were repaired on one side only, with
15 mm thick mortar layer. At failure, cracks had vertical or subvertical patterns and were distributed on the three non-repaired
column sides. They were localized at the upper end of column
(P15_a) and on the overall specimen height (P15_b). Larger cracks
were located close to the column corners and were connected to
those on the adjacent column faces. However, in both specimens,
the repair did not crack, but clearly debonded from the concrete
substrate (Fig. 4) at 1901 and 1575 kN, corresponding to average
stresses on the cross-sections of 21.1 and 17.5 N/mm2 (76% and
58% of ultimate load). Ultimate loads were 2507 and 2709 kN,
respectively, corresponding to average stresses on the cross-sections of 27.9 and 30.1 N/mm2, on average 92% of the ultimate
capacity reached by the control columns (see Table 3).
Columns P50_a and P50_b were repaired on one side only with
50 mm thick mortar layer, and showed different behaviour. Cracks
had vertical or sub-vertical patterns at failure and were distributed
on the four column sides, including the repaired one. The repair
only partially debonded from the concrete substrate at the column
corners (Fig. 5), at 2430 and 2160 kN, corresponding to average
stresses on the cross-sections of 27.0 and 24.0 N/mm2 (93% and
86% of ultimate load). Ultimate loads were 2606 and 2501 kN,
respectively, and corresponded to average stresses on the crosssections of 29.0 and 27.8 N/mm2, on average 90% of the ultimate
capacity reached by the control columns (see Table 3).
3.2. Stresses and strains
Fig. 6 shows the stressstrain curves of three columns: without
repair (P00_a), with 15 mm thick repair (P15_a) and with 50 mm
thick repair (P50_a). In these diagrams, axial strains (compression)
are plotted positive and transversal strains (tension) negative.
Fig. 7 compares all stressaxial strain curves, with axial strains
measured on the non-repaired sides of the columns (above) and
on the repairs (below; in this diagram, axial strains of control columns are left as reference values). Fig. 8 compares all stresstransversal strain curves, with transversal strains measured on the
non-repaired sides of columns (above) and on repairs (below; in
this diagram, transversal strains of control columns are left as
reference values). In the diagrams of Fig. 7 and 8, axial and transversal strains are both plotted positive.
In control columns, the strains measured on orthogonal faces
had the same trend and the stressaxial strain relationship was almost parabolic (see P00_a in Fig. 6). The ratio of transversal to axial

Author's personal copy

3132

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

STRAIN TRASDUCER
LVDT TRASDUCER
LVDT TRASDUCER

STRAIN
TRASDUCERS

Fig. 2. Test setup and instrumentation for axial tests on columns.

strains in the elastic phase, on average, was about 0.2. Axial

strains at ultimate load, on average, were 2.45  10 3, i.e. failure
occurred after concrete plasticization (see Table 4).
The columns repaired with thick mortar layer (see P50_a in
Fig. 6) showed similar behaviour. The strains measured on orthogonal faces had the same trend but, in this case, they were gauged
on the repaired and the non-repaired sides of the column, which
were thus working together, although the repair always gave higher values of strain. The ratio of transversal to axial strains measured on the non-repaired sides of the columns in the elastic

phase, on average, was around 0.22. Despite the higher strains

measured, also the ratio of transversal to axial strains measured
on the repairs was, on average, 0.20 (see Table 4). The repairs partially debonded at the column corners at average stress level of 90%
of the ultimate capacity. When this circumstance occurred, repair
mortar had already started plasticizing on both columns (average
axial strains on repair of 2.33  10 3; Table 4). At that point,
the stiffness of the repaired columns, which initially was higher
than that of the control columns, decreased and became lower
(Fig. 7). Debonding, however, was not complete since the non-re-

Author's personal copy

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

3133

Fig. 3. Crack pattern of columns at failure.

paired and repaired sides of the columns kept working together

(see P50_a in Fig. 6) until reaching the ultimate load. Average axial
strains on the non-repaired and repaired sides of P50_a and P50_b
at ultimate load were 2.25  10 3 and 3.01  10 3, i.e. failure
occurred with plasticization of both concrete on the non-repaired
column sides, and mortar repairs (see Table 4).
The columns repaired with thin mortar layer (see P15_a in
Fig. 6) presented different behaviour. The strains measured on
orthogonal faces, i.e. on the repaired and the non-repaired sides
of the columns, had the same trend only during the rst elastic
phase. During this phase, the ratio of transversal to axial strains
measured on the non-repaired sides of the columns, on average,
was again around 0.21, and it was slightly lower on the repaired
sides, where the axial strains were higher (in average 0.17; Table
4). At stress level of 76% and 58% of the ultimate capacity (in P15_a
and P15_b, respectively), the repairs debonded from the concrete.
When this circumstance occurred, the repairs could not carry load
any more, as demonstrated by the strain release (see P15_a in
Fig. 6; axial strains of repair for P15_a and P15_b in Fig. 7 and
transversal strain across the interface between concrete support
and mortar layer for P15_a and P15_b in Fig. 8). In this case, plasticization had not yet started (average axial strain on repaired and
non-repaired sides: 0.76  10 3 and 1.19  10 3; Table 4). At
that point, the stiffness of the repaired columns, which was initially higher than that of the control columns, decreased and became lower (Fig. 7). At ultimate load, average axial strains on the
non-repaired sides of P15_a and P15_b were 2.18  10 3, while
the values on the repairs were not signicant (Table 4). Failure thus
occurred immediately after plasticization of concrete on the original, non-repaired portion of the columns, without any contribution
of the mortar repairs.
The stressstrain curves of undamaged (P00_b), and repaired
(P15_b, P50_b) columns were not shown in Fig. 6 as they are similar to the corresponding (P00_a), and (P15_a, P50_a) columns.
Stressstrain curves for P00_b, P15_b and P50_b columns are compared with the others in Figs. 7 and 8.
4. Finite element modeling of tested columns
Three-dimensional non-linear nite element models were used
to simulate the experimentally observed behaviour. The Straus7

code (G+D Computing [8]) was used for the numerical analyses.
Eight-node solid elements were used to model concrete substrate,
while beam elements were used for the steel reinforcement. In repaired columns type P15 and P50, the mortar repair was also modelled with eight-node solid elements, having properties different
from those adopted for concrete. The interface between concrete
substrate and mortar repair was modelled by means of link elements with tension cut-off. Translation of nodes at the upper and
lower bases was restrained in the two orthogonal horizontal directions to reproduce friction between upper and lower faces of the
columns and the loading machine plate. Simplied parabolic
stressstrain relationships derived from Hognestad [10] were
adopted for the concrete substrate and the mortar repair, while
elasto-plastic bilinear relationship with hardening was used for
steel. The properties of materials were derived from the experimental tests and are listed in Table 5. The Poisson ratio of the concrete and steel were assumed according to Eurocode 2 [3] and
Eurocode 3 [4], respectively. The Poisson ratio of the mortar was
assumed equal to that of the concrete. The described models were
used to carry out non-linear static analyses, under constantly
increasing loads.
Fig. 9 compares experimental and numerical stressstrain
curves. For the non-damaged, non-repaired columns (type P00),
the model reproduces very well the mean stressstrain curves
of the two tested specimens until peak value. Initial elastic stiffness and value of ultimate load are well reproduced, as can be
seen by the stresstransversal strain curve and stressaxial
strain curve. Only the latter is slightly stiffer in the model. In
the case of columns type P15, repaired with 15 mm thick mortar
layer the model reproduces quite well the values of initial elastic
stiffness and ultimate load, as can be seen by the stresstransversal strain curve and stressaxial strain curve obtained on
the non-repaired side of the column. The axial strains on the repair had trend similar to that measured on the non-repaired side
of the column only during the rst elastic phase, and the model
still gives good results. During experimental tests, at stress level
between 76% and 58% of the ultimate capacity, the repairs debonded from the concrete. Although the model cannot reproduce
the subsequent strain release, the numerical curve presents a
sudden discontinuity at the upper bound of this range of stresses. The model is thus able to show the debonding of repair. This

Author's personal copy

3134

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Table 3
Results of axial tests.
Column

Debonding load (kN) (a)

Ultimate load (kN) (b)

(a)/(b)

P00_a
P00_b
P15_a
P15_b
P50_a
P50_b

1901
1575
2430 (partial)
2160 (partial)

2929
2869
2507
2709
2606
2501

0.76
0.58
0.93
0.86

phenomenon is also described by the model displacement in

horizontal direction (see Fig. 10). In the case of columns type

P50, repaired with 50 mm thick mortar layer, the model is not

able to get the difference in the initial elastic stiffness of the original column and the repair, but can average the two trends and
does not present any discontinuity (Fig. 9), nor evidence marked
debonding, according to experimental evidence.

5. Discussion
The experimental results obtained on axially loaded columns
showed that repairs on one side of the columns could not re-establish completely the load-bearing capacity of the non-damaged control columns. Ultimate load of the repaired columns was on

Fig. 4. Failure with debonding of mortar layer (P15_b).

Fig. 5. Cracking of mortar and along the interface (P50_a).

Author's personal copy

3135

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

35

30

30

25

25

20
15
transv. strain column
transv. strain column
axial strain column
axial strain column

10
5

Stress [N/mm 2]

Stress [N/mm 2]

Average stress-strain on P00_a

35

Average stress-axial strain on column

20
15

P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (column)
P15_b (column)
P50_a (column)
P50_b (column)

10
5
0

0.0

-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.5

1.0

Strain [10-3]

Average stress-strain on P15_a

35

20
15

transv. strain column

transv. strain interface
transv. strain repair
axial strain column
axial strain repair

10
5

-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Strain [10-3]

Average stress-strain on P50_a

35

Stress [N/mm 2]

Stress [N/mm 2]

3.5

4.0

30

25

3.0

Average stress-axial strain on repair

35

30

1.5
2.0
2.5
Strain [10-3]

25
20
15

P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (repair)
P15_b (repair)
P50_a (repair)
P50_b (repair)

10
5
0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Strain [10-3]
Fig. 7. Stressaxial strain curves, on original column and on repair (all specimens).

Stress [N/mm 2]

30
25
20
15

transv. strain column

transv. strain interface
transv. strain repair
axial strain column
axial strain repair

10
5
0

-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-3

Strain [10 ]
Fig. 6. Stressstrain curves of undamaged (P00_a), and repaired (P15_a, P50_a)
columns.

average 91% that of the control columns. Thin repairs (15 mm),
substituting only the reinforcement cover, showed premature debonding from the concrete substrate, on average at 67% of the ultimate load. After debonding, the repairs were not effective, as
revealed by strain analysis, and the entire load was transferred to
the original, non-repaired portion of the columns. When the repair
layer included the reinforcement (50 mm thick), the global behaviour of the repaired columns was improved. Debonding of repair
from the concrete substrate was limited and occurred only at the
column corners, on average at 90% of ultimate load. After partial
debonding, the repairs kept on collaborating with the concrete
support, as revealed by strain analysis. Plasticization of both concrete on the non-repaired column sides and mortar repairs revealed that both portions of the repaired columns were

contributing to the column capacity, even in the non-linear phase

until failure.
Simplied three-dimensional numerical models, implementing
non-linear constitutive laws for materials, could simulate fairly
well not only the behaviour of control columns, but also that of repaired columns. In the case of thin repairs, the models evidenced
the premature debonding of the repairs. Similar models can be
thus effectively used for assessment and design of interventions.
6. Conclusions
In this work an experimental investigation to control the effectiveness of polymer-modied cementicious mortar repairs applied
to square columns under axial loads is carried out. The repair
material had similar mechanical properties and slightly higher tensile strength than the concrete substrate and was applied over the
entire length of one face of columns. The aim is to give some new
insights on validating the effectiveness of such materials in recovering the properties of non-damaged, non-repaired columns, verifying the effect of repair thickness (including the steel
reinforcement or not), on cracking pattern, strength and deformability of axially loaded element.
The main conclusions arising from the experimental tests show
that polymer-modied cementicious mortars, with limited shrinkage and mechanical properties similar to those of the concrete substrate, can be effective for the repair of reinforced concrete
columns. The effectiveness of the intervention depends also on position and thickness of the repair layer.
For columns repaired on one side only, the repairs cannot restore the load-bearing capacity of non-damaged control columns,

Author's personal copy

3136

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Table 4
Stresses and strains of axial tests.
1/3 Ultimate load
Transv. strain (a)
(10 3)
P00_a
P00_b
P15_a

Column
Repair
Column
Repair
Column
Repair
Column
Repair

P15_b
P50_a
P50_b

10.3
10.6
9.3

0.08
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.24

10.0
9.7
9.3

(a)/(b)
Axial strain (b)
(10 3)
0.41
0.39
0.31
0.51
0.30
0.38
0.23
0.74
0.24
1.00

0.19
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.20
0.16
0.23
0.24

21.1

27.0
24.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

15

P00_a transv. column

P00_b transv. column
P00 transv. col. model
P00_a axial column
P00_b axial column
P00 axial col. model

10

-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

Stress [N/mm 2]

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Strain [10-3]

Average stress-strain on P15

P15_a transv. column

P15_b transv. column
P15 transv. col. model
P15_a axial column
P15_b axial column
P15 axial col. model
P15_a axial repair
P15_b axial repair
P15 axial rep. model

20
15
10
5

0
-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

4.0

Strain [10-3]

Average stress-strain on P50

Average stress-transv. strain on repair

35
30
Stress [N/mm 2]

30
25
20
15

P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (repair)
P15_b (repair)
P50_a (repair)
P50_b (repair)

10
5
0

27.8

Strain [10-3]

35

29.0

0.0

30.1

20

25

10

0.97
1.30
0.55
1.08
1.48
2.25
1.06
2.40

2.41
2.52
2.25
0.79
2.11
0.54
2.28
3.30
2.21
2.71

25

25

P00_a (column)
P00_b (column)
P15_a (column)
P15_b (column)
P50_a (column)
P50_b (column)

31.0
31.9
27.9

Axial Strain
(10 3)

30

30

15

Stress (N/mm2)

Axial strain

Average stress-strain on P00

35

20

Ultimate Load

35

30

Stress [N/mm 2]

0.20
0.23
0.13
0.06
0.25
0.43
0.29
0.54

17.5

Average stress-transv. strain on column

35

Debonding
Transv. strain
(10 3)

although they give acceptable results (91% of the ultimate capacity

of the control columns). In any case, repairs that include the longitudinal reinforcement show good properties, with stable behaviour, sharing of loads, and plasticization of the material before
failure, whereas thin repairs that do not include the reinforcement
do not have adequate performance due to premature debonding.
Hence, from the practical point of view, a rehabilitation intervention on axially loaded elements that include the longitudinal steel
reinforcement may be generally recommended since it is more
effective than that involving only the concrete cover without
including steel bars. In fact, the action of the transverse steel allows sharing of loads between the mortar and the concrete core
until failure, avoiding premature debonding of the mortar layer,
when the steel bars are included in the repair layer.

Stress [N/mm 2]

Stress (N/mm2)

Stress [N/mm 2]

Stress (N/mm2)

Column

25
20

P50_a transv. column

P50_b transv. column
P50 transv. col. model
P50_a axial column
P50_b axial column
P50 axial col. model
P50_a axial repair
P50_b axial repair
P50 axial rep. model

15
10
5
0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Strain [10-3]
Fig. 8. Stresstransversal strain curves, on original column and on repair (all
specimens).

-2 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Strain [10-3]
Fig. 9. Experimental and numerical stressstrain curves of undamaged (P00), and
repaired (P15; P50) columns.

Author's personal copy

3137

C. Pellegrino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 31293137

Table 5
Model material properties.
Material

fc (N/mm2)

ecu (%)

fct (N/mm2)

ectu (%)

fy (N/mm2)

ey (%)

ft (N/mm2)

et (%)

E (N/mm2)

m ()

Concrete
Mortar
Steel

28.90
32.87

0.18
0.25

3.19
3.48

0.01
0.01

532

0.27

628

25

32,500
26,200
200,000

0.20
0.20
0.30

Fig. 10. Model displacement in horizontal direction for P15 at debonding (left) and
P50 at same vertical load level (right).

The behaviour of axially loaded columns repaired with thin or

thick repairs can be also reproduced by simplied three-dimensional non-linear nite element models.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Tassullo S.p.A. that provided materials and specimens for experimental testing, and Eng.
Diego Testolin for his contribution to the experimental investigation developed during his MSc thesis. The experimental tests were
carried out at the Laboratory of Structural Materials Testing of the
University of Padova, Italy.
References
[1] Emberson NK, Mays GC. Signicance of property mismatch in the patch repair
of structural concrete. Part 2: Axially loaded reinforced concrete members.
Mag Concrete Res 1990;42(152):16170.
[2] Emberson NK, Mays GC. Signicance of property mismatch in the patch repair
of structural concrete. Part 3: Reinforced concrete members in exure. Mag
Concrete Res 1996;48(174):4557.
[3] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 2 Design of concrete
structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1,
Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[4] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3 Design of steel
structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1993-1-1,
Brussels, Belgium; 2005.

[5] European Committee for Standardization. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures Denitions, requirements,
quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 3: Structural and nonstructural repair. EN 1504-3, Brussels, Belgium; 2005.
[6] Fib. Seismic assessment and retrot of reinforced concrete buildings. State of
Art Report, Bulletin 24. Federation International du Beton: Lausanne
(Switzerland); 2003.
[7] Fukuyama K, Higashibata Y, Miyauchi Y. Studies on repair and strengthening
methods of damaged reinforced concrete columns. Cement Concrete Compos
2000;22:818.
[8] G+D Computing. Straus7 users manual. Sydney; 2005.
[9] Hassan KE, Brooks JJ, Al-Alawi L. Compatibility of repair mortars with concrete
in a hot-dry environment. Cement Concrete Compos 2001;23:93101.
[10] Hognestad E. A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced
concrete members, Bulletin No. 399. University of Illinois, Urbana IL
USA: Engineering Experimental Station; 1951.
[11] Jumaat MZ, Kabir MH, Obaydullah M. A review of the repair of reinforced
concrete beams. J Appl Sci Res 2006;2(6):31726.
[12] Kim JHJ, Lim YM, Won JP, Park HG, Lee KM. Shear capacity and failure
behaviour of DFRCC repaired RC beams at tensile region. Eng Struct
2007;29:12131. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.023.
[13] Mangat PS, OFlaherty FJ. Inuence of elastic modulus on stress redistribution
and cracking in repair patches. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30:12536.
[14] Nounu G, Chaudhary Z-UL-H. Reinforced concrete repair in beams. Constr
Build Mater 1999;13:195212.
[15] Park SK, Yang DS. Flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with
cementitious repair materials. Mater Struct 2005;38:32934. doi:10.1617/
14051.
[16] Pellegrino C, Modena C. FRP shear strengthening of RC beams with transverse
steel reinforcement. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):10411.
[17] Pellegrino C, Modena C. FRP shear strengthening of RC beams: experimental
study and analytical modelling. ACI Struct J 2006;103(5):7208.
[18] Pellegrino C, Modena C. An experimentally based analytical model for shear
capacity of FRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Mech Compos Mater
2008;44(3):23144.
[19] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Flexural strengthening of real-scale RC and PRC beams
with end-anchored pre-tensioned FRP laminates. ACI Struct J
2009;106(3):31928.
[20] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Inuence of FRP axial rigidity on FRP-concrete bond
behaviour: an analytical study. Adv Struct Eng, in press.
[21] Pellegrino C, Tinazzi D, Modena C. An experimental study on bond behavior
between concrete and FRP reinforcement. J Compos Constr 2008;12(2):1809.
[22] Rahman K, Baluch MH, Al-Gadhib A. Modeling of shrinkage and creep stresses
in concrete repair. ACI Mater J 1999;96(5):54250.
[23] Ramirez JL. Ten concrete column repair methods. Constr Build Mater
1996;10:195202.
[24] Ro O, Andrade C, Izquierdo D, Alonso C. Behaviour of patch-repaired concrete
structural elements under increasing static loads to exural failure. J Mater
civil Eng 2005;17(2):16877. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:2. 168.
[25] Shambira MV, Nounu G. On the effect of time-dependent deformations on the
behaviour of patch-repaired reinforced concrete short columns. Constr Build
Mater 2000;14:42532.
[26] Shannag MJ, Al-Ateek SA. Flexural behaviour of strengthened concrete beams
with corroding reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:83440.
[27] Sharif A, Rahman MK, Al-Gahtani AS, Hameeduddin M. Behaviour of patch
repair of axially loaded reinforced concrete beams. Cement Concrete Compos
2006;28:73441. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.05.013.
[28] Valluzzi MR, Grinzato E, Pellegrino C, Modena C. IR thermography for interface
analysis of FRP laminates externally bonded to RC beams. Mater Struct
2009;42(1):2534.