Fundamental Principles That Govern Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Columns

ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 507
Fundamental Principles that Govern Retrofitting

of Reinforced Concrete Columns by
Steel and FRP Jacketing
Yu-Fei Wu1,*, Tao Liu2 and Deric J. Oehlers3
1Department
of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, China
3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia
2Department
(Received: 25 October 2005; Received revised form: 16 February; Accepted: 16 February 2006)
Abstract: Extensive investigations on seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete

columns have been undertaken in recent years and many retrofitting methods have
been developed and reported in the literature. However contradictory results and
conclusions are not rare especially for jacketing of rectilinear columns, and there is not
a clear picture on the current state-of-the-art in the literature. This work is based
on the review and assessment of more than 120 papers, and collection and analysis of
more than 700 column tests. In combination with the authors original theoretical
studies and experimental testing, this work identifies the key factors that affect
the effectiveness and deficiencies of different retrofitting techniques and provides
engineers with a clearer picture on the capabilities of different retrofitting techniques,
in particular how to improve the effectiveness of a jacketing system. From the
theoretical studies, this work also provides researchers with fundamental insight and
principles that govern the retrofitting of RC columns, which shed light on the
development of new models and identification of further research subjects.
Key words: reinforced concrete, columns, retrofit, jacket, review, tests, design, confinement.
1. INTRODUCTION
Many existing reinforced concrete structures that
were designed and constructed before the application
of modern earthquake-resistant design codes are
vulnerable to earthquakes above the moderate scale.
It has been repeatedly highlighted all over the world in
recent earthquake experiences (e.g. the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake; the 1994 Northridge earthquake
in the United States; the 1995 Kobe earthquake
in Japan; the 1999 Izmit earthquake in Turkey; the 1999
Jiji earthquake in Taiwan; and the 2003 Bam earthquake
in Iran) that a large percentage of the collapsed
buildings and elevated freeway-bridge structures were
designed and constructed before the application of
modern earthquake codes (Melchers 1990; Moehle and

Mahin 1991; Saadatmanesh et al. 1994; Bracci et al.
1995a, b; Lynn et al. 1996; Seible et al. 1997; Park
2001). Particularly vulnerable are reinforced concrete
columns due to, the then typically used, nominal and
inadequately detailed transverse reinforcement (Park
2001). Although the diameter and spacing of the hoops
varies somewhat for different structures in different
countries, insufficient transverse reinforcement and
inadequate detailing are typical of pre-1971 structures
all over the world. The vulnerability of these RC
columns under a strong earthquake was experimentally
identified at UC Berkeley by Lynn et al. (1996).
Therefore, retrofitting of RC columns which are a
* Corresponding author. Email address: yfwu00@cityu.edu.hk; Fax: +852-27887612; Tel: +852-27844259
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006
507
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 508
Fundamental Principles that Govern Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Columns by Steel and FRP Jacketing
critical element of structures, is of paramount

importance in the rehabilitation of existing structures.
The 1971 San Fernando earthquake caused the
complete collapse of five, and serious damage to
another 37, modern and apparently well-designed
concrete freeway bridges (Priestley and Park 1987). The
lesson learned from this earthquake raised serious
concerns over the seismic design philosophy embodied
in the then existing design codes. Hence, an upsurge in
research interest into the seismic behavior of concrete
bridge structures has since sprung up in U.S., New
Zealand, Japan and other countries. Subsequently,
a major research program sponsored by the New
Zealand National Roads Board started at the University
of Canterbury, which pioneered the research on the
fundamental problems such as the compression
characteristics of confined concrete; flexural and shear
strength; and the ductility of concrete columns.
Particular emphasis was placed and significant
achievement was made on quantifying the effect of
lateral confining steel (stirrups) in the plastic hinge
region of RC columns in increasing the ductility
(Mander et al. 1988a, b; Watson and Park 1994; Watson
et al. 1994). Further research on retrofitting RC
structures was undertaken in the same institute
(Rodriguez and Park 1994; Hakuto et al. 1995; Liu and
Park 2001; Wang and Restrepo 2001).
In the U.S.A, research emphasis was primarily
directed towards the development of sophisticated
time-history analysis techniques for bridges. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) embarked on
an extensive bridge seismic assessment and retrofit
program, which was based on ongoing experimental and
analytical researches being conducted at several US
institutes. A major research program started in 1987 at
the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) to
study the various problems related to seismic response
and retrofitting of bridge columns. Substantial
experimental and theoretical research on column
jacketing with steel plates and other advanced composite
materials showed that circular or elliptical shaped steel
jacketing was highly effective in enhancing the shear and
flexural performance of existing substandard RC
columns. In the University of Texas at Austin, extensive
research has been conducted on retrofitting of existing
non-ductile reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames
featuring strong-beam/weak-column and non-ductile
detailing. Research focused on the retrofit of frame joints
(Alcocer and Jirsa 1993; Alcocer 1993) and inadequate
lap splice of reinforcement in RC columns (Valluvan
et al. 1993; Aboutaha et al. 1996).
In Japan comprehensive experimental and theoretical
studies have been reported since the 1970s on concrete
508
filled tubular (CFT) columns which were closely related

to steel-jacketed RC columns. Significant progress was
made in understanding the effectiveness of confinement
to the core concrete by the external steel tubes (jackets),
especially by square tubes, by the research group
in Kyushu University (Tomii et al. 1973; Tomii and
Sakino 1979).
After the above early works, substantial investigations
and significant progress have been made all over the
world, especially on fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
retrofitted RC columns. With the advantages of FRP
materials in ease of construction and reduction of
construction cost, external bonding or wrapping of FRP
materials has emerged as a very popular method in recent
years in both engineering applications and academic
research. Today one can hardly keep pace with the
papers in this area appearing in both journals and
conference proceedings (Teng et al. 2002).
In the following sections, the three main seismic
failure modes of RC columns are described and the
different kinds of retrofitting methods identified. Test
results reported in the literature are then collected,
categorized and analyzed to discuss and assess the
different retrofit techniques. Rational analyses are used
to reveal the factors that affect the retrofit effectiveness,
from which problems with current technologies in the
design and construction as well as the future research
needs are identified.
2. EXISTING RETROFITTING METHODS
There are three potential seismic failure modes in an
existing RC column with inadequate transverse
reinforcement (Seible et al. 1997) for which retrofitting
may be required. The first failure mode is shear failure.
The second is flexural plastic hinge failure due to large
displacements where flexural cracking, cover concrete
spalling, buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement, and
crushing of the core concrete, cause significant
deterioration of the plastic hinge. Thirdly, many existing
columns have lap splices of the longitudinal reinforcement
at the bottom where the maximum flexural moment and,
hence, potential plastic hinge occurs. The lap length of the
longitudinal bars in pre-1971 columns was typically
designed as a compressive lap of usually 20 times the
longitudinal bar diameter, which is now known to be
insufficient for development of the tensile yield strength
under seismic load reversal. Lap splice debonding occurs
once vertical cracks develop in the cover concrete and
progress with both increased transverse dilation of the
column and cover concrete spalling, associated with the
rapid degradation of strength and deformation capacity.
Even lap splices in a plastic hinge region that satisfy
modern design code requirements invariably break down
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 509
Yu-Fei Wu, Tao Liu and Deric J. Oehlers
under cyclic inelastic action in a severe seismic event

(Priestley and Seible 1995).
Rehabilitation/modification to a structure before it is
damaged is called retrofitting and that after damage is
called repairing. In engineering practice, there are
several ways to retrofit/repair an existing RC column.
These traditional methods usually involve the
application of an additional layer of concrete, steel plate
or other materials onto the external face of an existing
RC column (Frangou et al. 1995; Ramirez 1996; Dritsos
1997) which enhances the resistance to the three failure
modes listed in the previous paragraph. The additional
layer, when forming an additional closed hoop, is
generally effective in enhancing the shear strength (the
first failure mode) of existing substandard columns by
providing additional shear reinforcement within the
jackets. The flexural deformation capacity of plastic
hinges (the second failure mode) can also be increased
significantly through external confinement to the core
concrete by the external jacket. The confinement to the
external faces of the column can prevent cover concrete
spalling and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement,
and most importantly, enhance the concrete strength
and ultimate strain capacity (Mander et al. 1988a) and,
hence, the ductility of the member. For the third failure
mode, confinement in the form of jacketing can increase
the bond of the longitudinal reinforcement by providing
an external clamping pressure on the longitudinal bars to
prevent them from slipping.
Details of various retrofitting methods, including those

commonly used in practice and those less common, are
categorized and summarized in the following sub-sections.
2.1. Concrete Jacketing
A concrete jacketing, as shown Figure 1(a), involves the
encasement of the existing column with an additional
layer of concrete plus additional longitudinal and
transversal reinforcement. Concrete jacketing was
widely used in Mexico City after the 1985 earthquake
and was the most popular retrofitting method at the
time. The technique was found experimentally to be
effective but labor-intensive (Rodriquez and Park 1994).
It required an interruption in the use of the structure
whilst applied. The column size and self-weight were
increased significantly. The stiffness of the retrofitted
structural system was also significantly increased which
could cause the structure to attract more seismic load.
As an alternative, a steel wire net could be wrapped
around the column and cement mortar applied onto the
column face to form a reinforced concrete jacket, which
is referred to as Ferrocement jacketing (Abdullah 2001
and 2003).
2.2. Steel Jacketing
Steel jacketing is the most common retrofit technique
(Tamai et al. 2000). There are many types of steel
jackets as illustrated in Figures 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3 and 4(a).
It usually involves the wrapping of steel plates, steel
Original
column
Original column
Concrete
Angle
cover
Enlarged section
Surfaces roughened
Steel strip
(a) Concrete jacketing

Cement grout
Cement grout
Bolt
Field fillet weld
Steel jacket
Type 1 jac.
Steel jacket
Type 2 jac.
(b) Steel caging
Cement grout Cement grout

Anchor bolt
Steel channel
Steel jacket
Steel jacket
Bolts
Type 3 jac.
Through bolt
Threaded
Type 4 jac.
wall
Cement grout
Type 5 jac.
(c) Steel encasement
Figure 1. Types of jacketing
509
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 510
construction; lower cost of structural intervention and

interruption of use; and the smaller increase in
additional stiffness to the retrofitted column. Details of
various types of steel jacketing are provided in the
following sub-sections.
Original
column
Corrugated
steel
Infill
mortar
(a) Corrugated jacket
Thick plate
stiffeners
Rectilinear
jacket
Angle
stiffeners
Rectilinear
jacket
Type 6 jac.
Type 7 jac.
Square pipe
stiffeners
Type 8 jac.
(b) Jacket with stiffeners
Figure 2. Jacket stiffening
Steel jacket
Through bolt
unbonded
to concrete
Steel jacket
Anchor
bolts
Cement grout
Cement grout
Type 9 jac.
Type 10 jac.
Cement grout
Type 11 jac.
Figure 3. Steel jacket with anchors
Concrete filling
Epoxy
FRP
CFRP
Epoxy
Oval jacket
(a) Oval jacket
Steel
plates
Type 12 jac.
(b) Composite jacket
(c) Hybrid jacket
Figure 4. Other types of jacket
strips or steel bars in the transverse direction. Concrete

cover is sometimes removed before the application of
the jacket. Generally, it is effective for all the three
seismic failure modes. Compared to concrete jacketing,
the advantages of steel jacketing are: a smaller increase
in the cross-sectional dimensions; ease and speed of
510
2.2.1. Steel caging

Steel caging as in Figure 1(b) involves the use of
longitudinal angle sections at each corner of the column
and transverse steel strips or bars welded onto the angle
(Frangou et al. 1995). The spaces between the cage and
column can be filled with cement or epoxy mortar.
A cover of concrete or shotcrete reinforced with light
welded fabric is usually applied for corrosion or fire
protection. Alternatively, the longitudinal steel angle
may be omitted and thin steel strips or wires can be
wrapped in a continuous spiral or in discontinuous rings
around the column. Steel caging of building columns
was extensively used in Greece after the 1986 Kalamata
Earthquake. This technique has been experimentally
demonstrated to be effective in increasing the axial and
flexural strength as well as ductility of RC columns and
has been applied to more than 5000 existing columns in
Czech Republic (Cirtek 2001).
2.2.2. Steel encasement
For steel encasement, the RC column is encased or
wrapped by a layer of steel plate around the external
face of the column as in Figure 1(c). In construction,
two half-circle shells (for circular columns) or two
L-shaped plates as Types 1 and 2 in Figure 1(c)
(for square/rectangular columns) are placed around
the column and then site welded or bolted to
provide a transversely continuous jacket. Transversely
discontinuous jackets, such as Types 4 and 5 in
Figure 1(c), were experimentally found to be ineffective.
The small gap between the steel plate and column face
is then pressure grouted with a non-shrink grout to
ensure a firm contact. Another popular method of steel
encasement involves the use of steel angles placed at the
corners of the column. Steel plates are then welded to
the angles to form a jacket. Adhesively bonding steel
plates to the faces of the column and site welding the
joints is also a common practice.
2.2.3. Corrugated steel jackets
Rectilinear (square or rectangular) jackets are less
effective than circular jackets in enhancing the flexural
performance as rectilinear jackets are ineffective in
providing confinement. One method of improving the
confinement of rectilinear jackets is to use corrugated
steel plates, as in Figure 2(a), which increases
confinement by increasing the out of plane flexural
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 511
stiffness of the jacket through the undulations of the

steel plates (Tomii 1993).
2.2.4. Steel plates plus steel stiffeners
Steel stiffeners, made up of steel angles, channels, or
hollow sections, can be used to enhance the out-of-plane
bending stiffness of steel jackets and, hence, their
confinement effect (Chai et al. 1990; Xiao and Wu
2003). These additional confinement stiffeners are
usually applied outside the normal jacket in the plastic
hinge zones as in Figure 2(b).
2.2.5. Prestressed jacketing
To improve the confinement effect, the jacket can be
prestressed in the hoop direction. In steel caging, the tie
strips/bars can be laterally stressed by special wrenches
prior to welding. The jacket can also be pre-heated
before welding and left to shrink whilst cooling after
welding. Another technique involves the pretensioning
of steel strips around the column using standard
strapping machines found in the packing industry and
subsequently securing them in place by metal clips
(Dritsos 1997) or fastening the ends of the strap by
crimping (Saatcioglu and Yalcin 2003). Prestressing
strands that require specially designed anchors have also
been used for retrofitting columns. Furthermore,
prestressing to steel encasement can also be made by
pressure grouting the gap between the steel plate and
column face with non-shrink or expansive grout
(Mortazavi et al. 2003).
2.2.6. Steel plates plus anchors
Anchor bolts, as in Figure 3, can be used to enhance the
confinement of rectilinear steel jackets (Aboutaha et al.
1996), particularly when the column size is large and the
steel jacket by itself fails to provide sufficient
confinement to the column due to its poor out-of-plane
flexural stiffness. Steel plates augmented by adhesive
anchor bolts are used to increase the passive pressure
between the spliced bars to increase frictional bond.
2.2.7. Circular/oval shaped steel jacket for
square/rectangular sections
Encasing square/rectangular columns with circular/oval
shaped jackets, as in Figure 4(a), where the gap between
the jacket and the original column is filled with normal
concrete, is a most effective way of providing
confinement to rectilinear columns. Extensive tests
(Priestley et al. 1994a; Daudey and Filliatrault 2000;
Teng et al. 2003) have established that oval jackets
provide excellent enhancement of the flexural
performance of inadequately confined columns.
However, changing square or rectangular shaped column
sections to circular or elliptical sections by circular or

elliptical jacketing enlarges the column section
significantly and may not always be desirable or practical.
2.3. Composite Jacketing
Advanced composite materials of fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) have recently been used to replace steel
jackets. FRP jackets are formed by bonding the
continuous carbon, glass, aramid or other synthetic
fibers, fiber sheet or fiber plate to the column face with
a matrix of epoxy, vinylester, or polyester, as shown in
Figure 4(b). Similar to steel jacketing, the main function
of the transversely continuous jacket is to provide
confinement to concrete. There has been an enormous
interest in the research and application of FRPs in RC
column retrofitting since the 1980s (Fardis and Khalili
1981; Katsumata et al. 1988; Saadatmanesh et al. 1994
and 1996; Karbhari and Eckel 1994; Priestley and Seible
1995; Nanni and Bradford 1995; Seible et al. 1997;
Xiao and Ma 1997; Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997 a and
b; Hanna and Jones 1997; Xiao et al. 1999; Saafi et al.
1999; Chaallal and Shahawy 2000; Liu et al. 2000;
Thriault and Neale 2000; Karbhari 2001; Lau and Zhou
2001; Pessiki et al. 2001; Parvin and Wang 2001; Yao
et al. 2001; Teng et al. 2002, Campione and Miraglia
2003; Sause et al. 2004; Teng and Lam 2004; Fam et al.
2005). Studies have shown that FRP confined concrete
behaves differently from steel confined concrete due to
the linear elastic property of the FRP up to failure
(Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997a; Saafi et al. 1999).
Similar to steel jacketing, prestress can also be applied
to FRP jacketing. One of the methods involves the use
of expansive infill materials between the jacket and the
column face. FRP jacketing has been combined with
steel plates, as in Figure 4(c), to improve the efficiency
of retrofitting (Chang and Chang 2004).
Compared to concrete and steel jacketing, composite
jacketing has advantages in speed and ease of
installation; reduced maintenance; high strength and
better fatigue performance; as well as light weight and
superior durability. Although FRP materials are more
expensive than steel, it has been found that FRP
jacketing can be economically competitive particularly
where access is difficult, as hand lay up procedures can
be used in many cases (Priestley and Seible 1995;
Hwang and Wehnes 1997; Karbhari and Zhao 1997;
Sause et al. 2004).
The construction methods using FRP materials
generally include wrapping, automated winding of fiber
tows, and prefabricated shell jacketing (Karbhari 2000;
Karbhari and Zhao 2000; Triantafillou 2001). The
retrofit of existing structures using FRPs has been
adopted for more than a decade in Japan with its first
511
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 512
application to column wrapping in the mid 1980s.

Nowadays, FRP sheet wrapping is the most popular
technique for RC column strengthening and retrofitting.
2.4. Partial Interaction Plating
A unique retrofit scheme of partial interaction plating
has been developed by Wu et al. (2003), in which steel
plates are bolted onto the compression and tension faces
of rectilinear columns as shown in Figure 5. The partialinteraction plating approach does not rely on
confinement to improve the strength/ductility of the
column. Instead, it relies on the composite action
between the plates and the RC column to improve the
compressive resistance of the column without
increasing the tensile resistance of the column and
without increasing the column stiffness. This technique
was developed to resolve the ineffectiveness of
rectilinear shaped steel or FRP jackets that do not
provide sufficient confinement. Therefore, it is
particularly suitable for rectilinear columns. The new
retrofit scheme was experimentally (Wu et al. 2003) and
theoretically (Wu et al. 2004a; Griffith et al. 2005)
found to be effective in increasing both the strength and
ductility, or the ductility only of RC columns.
2.5. Categorization of Existing Retrofit
Methods
The retrofit methods described above can be categorized
into two groups. The first group increases the
longitudinal strength directly by enlarging the concrete
cross-section (concrete jacketing) or by attaching
longitudinal steel plates (partial interaction plating) to
the columns. These retrofit methods are usually labor
intensive and, in principle, existing reinforced concrete
theory can be used for the retrofit design as this retrofit
procedure does not rely on confinement. In contrast, the
second group largely relies on providing confinement to
increase the strength and ductility of the member.
Discussions in the following sections concentrate on
this second group.
N
F
I
RC column
plate
bolts
Cross-section I-I
Elevation
Figure 5. Partial interaction plating
512
By providing confinement to concrete columns

with jacketing, the axial strength of a column may be
significantly increased through two mechanisms: the
tri-axial stress state of the concrete increases both the
strength and ductility of the concrete material; and
the lateral confinement prevents the longitudinal
reinforcement from buckling. Early research (Richart
et al. 1928) and comprehensive investigations from 1980s
showed that the ultimate strength of concrete increases
in direct proportion to the confinement pressure. The
axial strain capacity can also be greatly increased by the
lateral restraint (confinement) to the concrete to prevent
longitudinal cracks from opening up. The ultimate axial
strain of concrete is, therefore, controlled by the fracture
strain of the jacket. As a result, adequate and sufficient
confinement is the key for an effective jacketing.
Confinement can be provided actively or passively.
Active confinement is usually provided to a column
through prestressing of the jacket. Passive confinement
relies on the dilation of concrete under axial load to
mobilize the hoop resistance of the jacket. Concrete
dilates significantly under compression after it reaches
and passes the peak un-confined concrete strength.
Up to date, there has been a continual interest in the
study of steel and FRP jacketing because of the
simplicity and effectiveness of this retrofit method, and
also because of the relative immaturity of the
technology. The effectiveness of jacketing for different
kinds of seismic failure modes, which includes shear,
axial and flexural failures, are quantified, analyzed and
discussed in detail in the following sections.
3. SHEAR RETROFITTING
In shear retrofitting, the target is to increase the shear
strength of the column sufficiently to ensure a ductile
flexural failure mode before the occurrence of shear
failure. Thirty-seven test results of shear retrofitting
reported in the literature are summarized in Table 1. The
results are grouped in column 1 according to the retrofit
method and further grouped in column 2 according to
the reference. Characteristics, mainly cross-sectional
details, of the specimens are given in column 3, where
B. = benchmark specimen; r. = rectangular crosssection; col. = column; c. = circular cross-section; jac. =
jacket; s. = square cross-section. Types of jacket in
column 3 are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. Column 4 in
the table gives the column dimensions in the form
(number of specimen)/(depth) (width) (height) for
rectangular columns, or (number of specimen)/
(diameter) (height) for circular columns. Column 5 is
the axial load level, that is the applied axial load N as a
proportion of the squash load Nc (the axial load to cause
the concrete to crush). Pp in column 6 is the peak shear
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 513
Table 1. Shear retrofitting of columns

Retrofit
Method
Reference
CrossSection
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
N/NC
(%)
PP (kN)
Rp
Rd
Failure
Mode/
Comment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Ferro-cement
jacket
Abdullah
2001
B. r. col.
c. jac.
2/120 120 600

4/200 600
15.0
18.0
28
3236
1
1.11.3
1
2.57
Shear
Flexural
Steel jacket
Priestley
et al. 1994
a&b
B. c. col.
c. jac.
B. s. col.
Oval jac.
3/610
3/610
3/406 610
3/610 813
6,18
6,18
6
6
129178
165276
127168
149294
1
1.31.6
1
1.21.8
1
5.05.9
1
2.75.1
Shear
Flexural
Shear
Flexural
Aboutaha
et al. 1999a
B. r. col.
Type 1 jac.
Type 2 jac.
Type 3 jac.
Type 4 jac.
B. r. col.
Type 1 jac.
Type 5 jac.
3/457 914 1220

1/457 914 1220
1/457 914 1220
1/457 914 1220
2/457 914 1220
1/914 457 1220
1/914 457 1220
1/914 457 1220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
422
667
675
670
600
1305
765
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1
2.2
1.3
1
2.3
2.7
3.2
1
4.35.7
Shear
Flexural
Flexural
Flexural
Ineffective
Shear
Flexural
Shear
Xiao &
Wu 2003
B. s. col.
Thin plate
jac. (3.175 mm)
Type 6 jac.
Type 7 jac.
Type 8 jac.
1/254 254 1016

1/254 254 1016
30
30
280
290
1
1.04
1
2.7
1/254 254 1016

1/254 254 1016
1/254 254 1016
30
30
30
320
310
340
1.1
1.1
1.2
>5.3
>5.3
>5.3
Shear
Jacket
failure
Flexural
Flexural
Flexural
1/300 300 920

1/430 430 920
10.4
5.1
213.5
436
1
2.0
1
2.5
Shear
Flexural
and shear
1/430 430 920
5.1
440
2.1
2.5
Flexural
and shear
B. c. col.
Wire strands
1/610 1200
3/610 1200
13
13
860a
960a
1
1.1
1
1.33.3
Steel straps
1/610 1200
13
930a
1.1
B. s. col.
Wire strands
1/550 550 1200

1/550 550 1200
13
13
800a
950a
1
1.2
1
2.8
Shear
ShearFlexural
Strap
rupture &
shear
Shear
Flexural
B. c. col.
No detail
provided
614
934
623
979
1.5
1
1.6
6b
1
7.1b
Xiao et al. 1999 B. c. col.

GFRP c. jac.
1/610 1830
2/610 1830
10
10
580
650, 620
1
1.1
1.5
4.95.8
Shear
Flexural/
FRP failure
Nesheli
et al. 2004
1/250 250 750

1/250 250 750
1/250 250 750
20
20
20
140
160
160
1
1.1
1.1
1/250 250 750
20, 40
180, 230
1.31.6
Shear
Shear
Bond
failure
Flexural
Concrete
jacket
Prestressed
steel caging
FRP Jacket
Bett
et al. 1988
Saatcioglu and
Yalcin 2003
Priestley and
Seible 1995
B. s. col.
Shotcrete
without
cross-tie
Shotcrete
with cross-tie
GFRP c. jac.
B. r. col.
GFRP r. jac.
a
b
B. s. col.
Prestressed
AFRP belts
Shear
failure
Flexural
Shear
Flexural &
FRP torn
Resistant moment with the unit of kNm

ductility ratio of retrofitted column/ductility ratio of benchmark column
513
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 514
strength. Rp in column 7 is the strength enhancement

factor which is Pp of the retrofitted column as a
proportion of Pp of the benchmark un-retrofitted
column. Rd in column 8 is the displacement
enhancement factor which is the maximum inter-storey
drift of the retrofitted column as a proportion of the drift
of the benchmark column; and finally column 9 gives
the failure mode.
It can be seen in column 3 of Table 1 that each group
of tests in column 2 has an un-retrofitted benchmark
column denoted by B. with which the jacketed
column test results can be compared directly, so that the
enhancement factors in columns 7 and 8 are determined
directly from test results. It can be clearly seen in
column 9 that all the jacketing methods that provide
sufficient hoop strength and in which the jacket forms a
closed transverse hoop along the whole length of the
column can successfully convert the brittle shear failure
mode to a ductile flexural failure mode. This applies to
all types of columns regardless of whether they are
circular, square or rectangular. The conversion of the
failure mode from shear to flexure significantly
increases the deformation capacity and ductility of the
retrofitted columns, as shown by the value of Rd in
column 8. The strength gain depends on the
effectiveness of the retrofit in increasing the flexural
strength, not the shear strength, which will be discussed
in the following sections. The strength increase varies
and can be insignificant, as shown by the Rp values in
column 7. However, it is worth noting that even when
the strength gain Rp is insignificant, the ductility gain Rd
can be significant. When the jacket is discontinuous
transversely, e.g. Types 4 and 5 jackets in Figure 1(c) as
tested by Aboutaha et al. (1999a) in Table 1, or the
jacket does not extend to the whole length of the
column, then the shear retrofit method is ineffective.
Transverse continuous jackets can be seen as
additional stirrups to the columns (Priestley et al.
1994a) and are, therefore, always effective as long as the
additional shear strength offered by the jackets is
sufficient to prevent shear failure. Shear failure will
occur in regions along the column where the hoop
strength provided by the jacket is insufficient. This has
been experimentally illustrated by a few ineffective
jackets reported by Saatcioglu and Yalcin (2003), Xiao
and Wu (2003) and Bett et al. (1988), as listed in Table
1. From the stirrup analogy, the additional shear strength
provided by the jacket can be calculated using
conventional truss theory for reinforced concrete
members, as recommended by Priestley et al. (1994a)
and which forms the basis for design guidelines for
shear retrofitting (ACI 440.2 R-02; CSA A23.3-94).
514
4. AXIAL RETROFITTING CIRCULAR

JACKETS
The effectiveness of circular jackets in increasing the
strength and deformation capacity of RC columns has
been fully established. The results of 46 tests on
uniaxially loaded circular or oval columns are given in
Table 2. In this case, Pp in column 4 is the peak axial
stress; the strength enhancement factor Rp in column 5
is the peak axial stress in the retrofitted column as a
proportion of that in the benchmark column; cu is the
strain in the concrete at failure and the strain
enhancement factor Re in column 7 is the ultimate strain
of the retrofitted column as a proportion of the peak
strain of the benchmark column. It can be seen that both
the strengths (Rp in column 5) and ultimate strains (Re in
column 7) are significantly increased by circular jackets
regardless of the material of the jacket.
4.1. Mechanism of Circular Jacketing
Mathematically, circular shapes enclose the maximum
cross-sectional area for a given perimeter length. As a
result, any dilation/expansion of the concrete must result
in an increase in perimeter length and, hence, mobilize
the hoop resistance of the jacket that in turn provides
passive confinement to the concrete inside. Hence, the
circular shape is most effective in providing
confinement and, subsequently, in increasing the
strength and ductility of columns.
In order to provide the most effective confinement to
columns, the steel or FRP jacket should be designed to
be loaded principally in hoop tension so that the
maximum hoop resistance is formed. For steel jackets, a
longitudinal stress will reduce the transverse yield
strength of the steel plate. The minimum longitudinal
stresses in the steel plate can be achieved by eliminating
direct force transfer through contact at the plate ends, or
indirect transfer through friction between column and
jacket. For FRP jackets, the longitudinal stress can be
minimized by orientating the fibers in or predominantly
in the hoop direction.
To increase the axial strength of an RC column, the
jacket hoop stiffness is the key factor. This is illustrated
in Figure 6 which shows a family of stress-strain curves
of concrete under different values of active confinement
pressure and different paths of passive confinement. The
difference between the active confinement and passive
confinement is that the active confinement pressure
keeps constant whilst the passive confinement pressure
keeps increasing with the increase in transverse dilation
of the concrete. Because of this, the stress-strain curve
of a passive confinement system will cut through those
actively confined stress-strain curves and take a path
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 515
Table 2. Uniaxially loaded circular/oval columns

Pp (MPa)
Rp
cu (%)
Re
Failure Mode
Reference
Cross-Section
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Toutanji 1999
B. c. col.
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
6/76 305
8/76 305
4/76 305
30.93
94.0195.02
60.82
1
3.03.1
2.0
0.19
1.62.5
1.53
1
8.413.2
8.1
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Xiao &
Wu 2003
B. c. col.
CFRP c. jac.
B. c. col.
GFRP c. jac.
27/152 300
81/152 300
9/152 300
27/152 300
43.77
5592
37.1
4867
1
1.32.1
1
1.31.8
0.23
11.8
0.2
1.32.8
1
4.37.8
1
6.514
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Pessiki et al.
2001
B. c. col.
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
B. c. col.
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
152 610
152 610
152 610
1/508 1830
1/508 1830
2/508 1830
26.8
50.664
33.552.5
32.8
50
36.9, 38.9
1
1.92.4
1.32.0
1
1.5
1.11.2
0.22
1.932.44
1.282.0
0.2
1.16a
0.88a, 0.95a
1
8.811.1
5.89.1
1
5.8
4.44.8
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Zhang et al.
2000
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
5/150 300
5/150 300
10/150 300
34.3
59.5
62.3
1
1.7
1.8
0.2
2.1
2.1
1
10.5
10.5
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Karbhari &
Gao 1997
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac
38.38
41.3589.48
18.1
70.5882.23
79.4982.25
1
1.12.3
1
3.94.5
4.44.5
0.2
0.52.4
0.2
1.32.4
2.22.4
1
2.512
1
6.512
1112
Thriault et al.
2004
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
3/51 102
3/51 102
3/51 102
18
70
64
1
3.9
3.6
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
3/152 304
3/152 304
3/152 304
3/304 608
3/304 608
3/152 912
3/152 912
3/152 912
3/304 1824
3/304 1824
36
64
90
35
66
37
64
87
39
70
1
1.8
2.5
1
1.9
1
1.7
2.4
1
1.8
0.15
0.6
0.82
4
5.5
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Harries &
Kharel 2003
B. cylinder
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac.
5/152 305
15/152 305
35/152 305
32.1
32.952.2
36.660
1
1.01.6
1.11.9
0.28
0.60a1.38
0.44a0.87
2.14.9
1.63.1
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Teng et al.
2002
B. oval. col.
8/151.9237.8
94.6152
601607
25.331.4
Conc. crushing
CFRP. oval. jac.
12/151.6237.6
94.6152.3
601608
34.671.6
1.42.3
FRP rupture
B. cylinder
AFRP c. jac.
16/150 300
16/150 300
35.645.5
39.02243.92
1
1.15.4
0.2
1.39.9
6.549.5
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture or no
failure
GFRP Filament
winding
15/150 300
41.2107.91
1.22.4
1.95.4
9.527
FRP rupture
GFRP preformed
shell
4/150 300
55.5975.34
1.61.7
1.21.7
68.5
FRP joint failure
B. c. col.
GFRP tube
CFRP tube
12/152.4 435
9/152.4 435
9/152.4 435
35
52.883
5597
1
1.52.4
1.62.8
0.2
1.93
12.22
9.515
511.1
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Nanni &
Bradford 1995
Saafi et al.
1999
aPeak
strength occurs before the ultimate strain
515
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 516
Figure 6. Effect of jacket stiffness on stress-strain path (based on

Teng and Lam 2004)
second part of the stress-strain curve. However, a

designer needs to understand the above fundamental
principles and be aware of special cases in which the
steel plate does not yield.
The above analysis clearly shows that the stiffness of
the jacket is the key factor that governs the increase in
the axial strength of the jacketed columns. A jacket with
insufficient hoop stiffness may not be able to increase
the axial strength of the column regardless of how
strong it is. However, a jacket that cannot significantly
increase the axial strength may still be able to increase
the ultimate strain or deformation capacity of the
column, as shown by the path of OEF in Figure 6. Such
cases can also be seen from the test results, for example
Pessiki et al. (2001) in Table 2.
such as OCD as shown in Figure 6 (Teng and Lam

2004). The confinement pressure will not significantly
affect the stress-strain performance of the concrete
in the first part of the stress-strain curve, i.e. before the
onset of the unconfined concrete strength. After that
in the second part of the stress-strain curve, the
confinement takes effect and the stress-strain curves
split into different paths depending on the confinement
pressure. In the second part of the stress-strain path, it
can be clearly seen that whether the stress-strain takes
the path of OAB, OCD or OEF depends on how fast the
confinement pressure increases with the increase in
axial strain. A faster increase in the confinement
pressure will result in a steeper path in the second part
of the curve. The key factor that affects the speed in the
increase of confinement pressure is the hoop stiffness of
the jacket, as a stiffer jacket provides a larger
confinement for the same amount of concrete dilation.
Therefore there is no difference in the stress-strain path
of concrete, be it jacketed by a carbon fiber, or aramid
fiber, or glass fiber or a steel jacket, as long as the hoop
stiffness (or more strictly, stiffness variation throughout
the process) of the jacket is identical. A steel jacket will
produce a similar stress-strain curve of concrete as a
GFRP jacket before the yielding of the steel plate if both
of them have the same transverse stiffness E t.
However, the confinement pressure provided by a steel
jacket after steel yielding is nearly constant which is
very different from that provided by FRP jacket. From
this analysis, it can be seen that in principle it is
inappropriate to assume that the stress-strain curve
depends on the material of the jacket. The categorization
of the stress-strain curve in terms of steel and FRP
jackets is generally accepted in the current literature.
This categorization is based on the fact that in usual
applications the steel plate yields and provides an
approximately constant confinement pressure in the
4.2. Design of Jacketing

The fundamental problem governing the design of axial
jacketing is the stress-strain relationship of concrete
confined by a jacket. Many stress-strain models have
been developed in the literature from comprehensive
investigations (Fardis and Khalili 1981 and 1982;
Ahmad and Shah 1982a,b; Ahmad et al. 1991; Mander
et al. 1988a; Saadatmanesh et al. 1994; Samaan et al.
1998; Nanni and Bradford 1995; Karbhari and Gao
1997; Miyauchi et al. 1999; Jin et al. 2003; Xiao and
Wu 2000; Moran and Pantelides 2002; Chaallal et al.
2003a; Wu et al. 2003b; Lam and Teng 2003a; Teng and
Lam 2004). Practical design-oriented models with
reasonable accuracy are now generally available for
both steel and FRP jacketed columns under concentric
loading. A recent and comprehensive review on the
various stress-strain models of confined concrete by
circular jackets can be found in the work by Teng and
Lam (2004) and design guidelines are provided in ACI
440.2R-02.
Nevertheless, there is still room for further
development of the stress-strain modeling of concrete
confined by circular jackets and under concentric
loading. The following further research areas on the
stress-strain modeling are recommended in the paper by
Teng and Lam (2004):
1. FRP confined high strength concrete
2. Interaction between steel confinement (e.g.
stirrups) and FRP confinement
3. FRP confined concrete under cyclic loading
4. Concrete confined by hybrid FRP composites
In addition to Teng and Lams recommendation,
there is also a risk that the existing models might not be
applicable to large size columns because all of the
existing models were developed from tests on relatively
small columns, even though the size effect was well
documented in the literature for concrete structures
90
B
Axial stress (MPa)
80
D
D
70
60
A
50
40
30
Actively confined
concrete
Passively confined
concrete
20
10
O
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Axial strain
516
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 517
(Bazant 1999). Theriault et al. (2004) and Mirmiran

et al. (2001) investigated the problem and reported tests
on cylinder diameters ranging from 51 mm to 304 mm.
However the existing database is insufficient to
comprehensively investigate the size effect.
5. AXIAL RETROFITTING RECTILINEAR
JACKETS
The results of 17 tests on uniaxially loaded square or
rectangular columns are given in Table 3, where Pu in
column 5 is the axial stress at the onset of the ultimate
failure strain cu of the column, and co is the axial strain
at the onset of the peak stress Pp of the unconfined
concrete. The strength enhancement ratio Rp in Table 3
varies from 1.0 to 2.1 with most around 1.3, while this
ratio has a range from 1.0 to 5.4 for columns with
circular jackets in Table 2 where a strength
enhancement ratio of 2 is easily achievable. Clearly, the
effectiveness of a rectilinear jacket in providing
confinement is much less than that of a circular one.
In fact, there is no guarantee of a strength gain with a
rectilinear jacket. Because of the complexity of the
problem, contradictory test results have also been
reported in the literature. Nevertheless, a rectilinear
jacket can usually increase the strain capacity and,
hence, ductility of a column significantly as shown in
Table 3 where the ratio of ultimate strain of the
retrofitted column to the peak strain of the benchmark
column Re has a range of 1.2 to 12, while the same ratio
for columns with circular jackets has a range of 1.6 to 15
in Table 2. Hence, columns with a rectilinear jacket can

usually achieve a similar increase in deformation
capacity as that by a circular jacket. The general
consensus in the current literature is that rectilinear
jacketing is usually effective in increase the strain
capacity and ductility of the columns, although it may or
may not increase the strength of the column. Therefore,
retrofit by rectilinear jackets to increase the axial
strength of RC columns is not recommended in ACI
440.2 R-02, whilst a certain increase in the ultimate
concrete strain and, hence, ductility is allowed.
Tests reported in the literature have established that
the corner radius significantly affects the confinement
effectiveness. Mirmiran et al. (1998) recommended that
a sharp corner (zero corner radius) offers no
confinement. In contrast, most published studies suggest
that a certain effective confinement is provided by a
jacket with sharp corners. To further verify this,
experimental testing was undertaken by the authors to
investigate the effect of corner radius on the strength
gain of the confined concrete. The test results are
provided in Figure 7 where it can be seen that the
strength gain of confined concrete, fcc /fco, is in direct
proportion to the corner radius ratio, 2r/b, where fcc is
the compressive strength of the retrofitted column;
fco the compressive strength of the un-retrofitted
benchmark column; r the radius of corner and b the
breadth of the section. Furthermore, it can be seen in
Figure 7 that there is apparently no effective
confinement for columns with a zero corner radius.
Table 3. Uniaxially loaded square/rectangular columns

Reference
CrossSection
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
Pp
(MPa)
Pu
(MPa)
Rp
co (%)
cu (%)
Re
Failure
Mode
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Pessiki et al.
2001
B. s. col.
CFRP s. jac.
GFRP s. jac.
B. s. col.
CFRP s. jac.
GFRP s. jac.
152 152 610

152 152 610
152 152 610
1/457 457 1830
1/457 457 1830
2/457 457 1830
26.4
41.455.1
31.331.7
31.5
37.4
35.536.4
41.4, 55.1
1
1.62.1
1.2
1
1.2
1.11.2
0.21
1.331.7
0.30.94
0.19
0.21
0.160.25
1.541.94
0.30.94
0.23
0.250.35
3.19.2
1.44.5
1.2
1.31.8
Con. Crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Rochette &
Labossire
2000
B. s. col.
CFRP s. jac.
AFRP s. jac.
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
4/152 152 500

12/152 152 500
10/152 152 500
1/152 203 500
4/152 203 500
35.842.0
34.768.7
51.854.2
42.0
4243.9
25.268.7
23.657.2
27.242
1
1.01.6
1.31.4
1
1.01.1
0.2
0.2
0.692.39
0.792.08
0.790.98
3.512
410
44.9
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Chaallah et al. B. r. col.

2003b
CFRP r. jac.
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
6/133 133 305

24/133 133 305
6/108 165 305
24/108 165 305
6/95 191 305
24/95 191 305
21.454.6
26.268.9
25.155.3
29.173.4
22.348.0
28.360.4
26.268.9
29.173.4
28.360.4
1
1.21.3
1
1.21.3
1
1.3
0.20.24
0.280.65
0.220.25
0.280.6
0.20.23
0.280.6
0.280.65
0.280.6
0.280.6
1.42.7
1.32.4
1.42.6
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
517
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 518
3.5
Effectively confined zone
control column
one ply of CFRP
3.0
two plies of CFRP
fcc
fco
2.5
r
45
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2r/b
Figure 7. Effect of corner radius on confinement test results
45
(a) 45 degree model
5.1. Mechanism of Rectilinear Jacketing

The fundamental problem in rectilinear jacketing is the
lack of understanding of the mechanism of confinement.
The confinement pressure produced by a rectilinear jacket
is not uniform across the cross-section. The nonuniformity of the confinement stress significantly reduces
the confinement effect and greatly complicates the
problem. In the current literature, the generally accepted
confinement pressure distribution is shown in Figure 8.
To gain a fundamental insight into the confinement
provided by a rectilinear jacket, let us consider the
idealized experiment shown in Figure 9. Let us assume
that the jacket is made of a membrane material that can
only provide tensional resistance and not flexural
resistance and that the material of the concrete column
is linear elastic. For a column cross-section without a
jacket and subjected to a uniform axial strain , the
transverse concrete strain in both transverse orthogonal
directions will have a constant value of , where is
the Poisons ratio. Because of the uniform transverse
strain across the cross-section, the cross-sectional shape
of the dilated column must be exactly the same as the
original shape but with an increased side length of
(1+)b, as shown in Figure 9(a). For a membrane
jacket to have the same shape as shown in Figure 9(b),
the only possible pressure distribution is a uniform
radial pressure p in the four corners and a zero pressure
at the four straight sides as shown. Based on the action
and reaction law, the confinement pressure exerted on
the concrete column must be equal and opposite to that
in Figure 9(b) as shown in Figure 9(c). The confinement
pressure on the column can be visualized as the
superposition of a water static pressure on the whole
surface of the column as in Figure 9(d) and a uniform
negative pressure p = c at the four straight sides as
shown in Figure 9(e). The water static pressure in
Figure 9(d) provides a uniform confinement that can
only produce a uniform transverse stress field without
variation across the cross section. Therefore the
518
(b) Lam & Teng Model (2003)
Figure 8. Effective confinement area models
variation of transverse stress field induced by the

external pressure in Figure 9(e) represents the variation
of the superposed transverse stress field of Figure 9(d)
and Figure 9(e), and hence the equivalent case of Figure
9(c). In other words, the variation of transverse stress
distribution due to Figure 9(e) portrays the confinement
stress field distribution caused by a rectilinear jacket.
The constant negative pressure at the four straight sides
in Figure 9(e) produces transverse stress distributions
(contour of confining pressure) as shown in Figure 10.
The distributions in Figure 10 are obtained by linear
finite element analysis. The magnitude of the confining
pressures will not change the shape and variation of the
stress field distributions but will only change the
magnitudes of the transverse stresses. It can be seen that
the distribution approaches a uniform field when the
corner radius approaches zero. This can be
mathematically explained: when the corner radius
approaches zero, the water static pressure of Figure 9(d)
and the negative pressure of Figure 9(e) cancel out with
each other, resulting in a zero external pressure and zero
confinement stress in the cross-section as in Figure
10(a). When the straight sides approach zero, a circular
section is obtained and a uniform confinement field is
achieved as in Figure 10(h).
Both the theoretical analysis depicted in Figure 9
and the numerical results in Figure 10 show that
the proportion of the well confined zone relative to
the whole cross-sectional area is decided by the ratio
of corner radius to the half breadth of the column, i.e.
k = r/(0.5b). When k = 0 a sharp corner is obtained and no
confinement is provided, and when k = 1 a circular section
is obtained which gives the most effective confinement.
The water static pressure in Figure 9(d) causes a
uniform deformation of the cross-section and, hence,
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 519
D
(1+)r
b(1+)
b (1+)
(1+)r
p=c
p=0
b
b (1+)
(a)
b (1+)
(b)
Water static
pressure
p=c
Pressure
p = c at 4
straight sides
p=c
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 9. Confinement pressure on square columns
(a) 2r/b = 0
(e) 2r/b = 0.4
(b) 2r/b = 0.02
(f) 2r/b = 0.6
(c) 2r/b = 0.12
(g) 2r/b = 0.8
(d) 2r/b = 0.2
(h) 2r/b = 1
Figure 10. Contours of confining pressure for columns with different corner radius ratio
519
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 520
keeps the side straight. In contrast, the negative side

pressure in Figure 9(e) produces a bulging deformation
of the sides. Therefore, a rectilinear jacket causes a
bulging of the sides. The free dilation of concrete before
the onset of the unconfined concrete strength is small.
For example, the transverse strain at the peak concrete
strength without confinement is 0.002 0.2 =
0.0004 = 0.04%, and the confinement stress will reduce
this value. A dilation of 0.04% of the dimensional
change cannot be captured by the naked eye and this is
why no bulging of side is noticed in testing before
significant concrete crushing. However, the lateral
dilation and bulging increases very quickly after the
onset of the peak un-confined concrete strength if it is
not firmly restrained by the jacket.
The side bulging itself causes little passive
confinement from a jacket with straight sides. If we
assume a parabolic shaped bulging surface (a similar
conclusion can be obtained with other shapes), it can be
derived that a bulging movement of s from its original
straight side causes a strain of the side given by
2
8 s
32 s
3 bs
5 bs
(1)
where bs is the length of the original straight side

excluding corner radius. For a column with 300 mm
straight sides, a 3 mm bulge that corresponds to a
dilation strain of 2%, causes a strain of 0.00027
(0.027%) in the jacket which is insignificant. If the
straight side is changed to a convex shape, which can be
achieved by filling concrete onto the straight side such
as that in an oval jacket in Figure 4(a), the transverse
dilation will be much more effective in mobilizing the
hoop strain of the jacket. For the same 300 mm wide
column but with a rise of d = 30 mm at the middle of its
original straight side (see Figure 4(a), a 3 mm dilation or
2% dilation strain will cause a hoop strain of 0.0051
(0.51%) which is very significant and enough to cause
one third of the ultimate hoop strength of an GFRP
jacket. A 2% dilation before the ultimate failure of a
column is achievable as can be seen from the column
test results of Mander et al. (1988b) where the ultimate
dilation strain at breaking of mild steel stirrups is around
26%. This analysis shows that making changes to the
shape of the original straight side by, for example,
adding concrete to the side and making it convex is an
alternative way of increasing the confinement. This is
the exact reason that an oval shaped jacket is much more
effective in confining concrete than a rectilinear jacket.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
above idealization:
520
1.
The corner radius ratio k = 2r/b is the single most

important factor that affects the distribution of
confinement across the cross-section. As large as
possible a corner radius ratio should be employed
in order to achieve a better confinement;
2. No confinement will be provided when the
corner radius ratio approaches zero, no matter
how strong the jacket is;
3. Making the four sides of a column slightly convex
shaped, such as by filling concrete between the
jacket and the original column, is very effective in
increasing confinement. Jackets with even a slight
concave side due to workmanship will have a
detrimental effect in providing confinement.
The above analysis provides the theoretical backbone
to the confinement problem, from which the importance
of the following additional factors that affect the
confinement of a rectilinear jacket can be deduced:
4. Cross-sectional aspect ratio of depth/breadth. A
greater aspect ratio will result in a greater
portion of the longer side being under a smaller
confinement stress. For a long wall, no
confinement can be provided by a jacket except
near the small vicinity of the four corners.
5. Transverse jacket stiffness and strength. For the
same amount of lateral expansion, a stiffer
jacket provides a greater confinement stress.
The strength of the jacket decides the maximum
confinement that can be provided by the jacket.
This affects the magnitude of the confinement
but not the distribution.
6. Concrete grade. This affects the dilation
properties of concrete.
7. Workmanship. An intimate contact of jacket
with the concrete column is critical. A loose
contact will not provide effective confinement to
the column. A tight wrapping with even a small
prestress or use of expansive grout between the
jacket and the RC column can significantly
improve the contact.
Because of the large number of factors that affect the
confinement, the scattering of test results and
contradictory conclusions are no surprise. The above
factors were consciously or unconsciously varied in
some investigations. The workmanship is especially
difficult to specify.
5.2. Axial Retrofitting Oval Jackets for
Rectilinear Columns
The circular shaped jacket is certainly very effective and
the oval shaped jacket can also offer effective and
significant confinement to rectangular columns, which
has been experimentally demonstrated (e.g. Teng et al.
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 521
2002 in Table 2). The effectiveness comes from the

convex curved surface of the oval jacket due to the
mechanism discussed in the preceding section (see
discussion on Eqn 1). However, it is obvious that this
effectiveness will reduce and diminish when the
cross-sectional aspect ratio (depth/breadth) increases.
Experimental work by Tan and Yip (1999) showed that
the effectiveness of confinement by elliptical hoops
diminishes as the side aspect ratio of the major axis to the
minor axis of the cross-section increases, and becomes
insignificant when the aspect ratio is greater than 2.6.
5.3. Design of Jacketing
Compared to the uniform confinement offered by a
circular jacket, the non-uniformity of confinement across
the cross-section, as illustrated in Figure 10, results in a
much greater difficulty in the modeling of the stressstrain relationship of concrete, as the stresses vary across
the cross-section significantly under a uniform axial
strain. To overcome this, it is a common practice to use
the average axial and transverse stresses in both design
and theoretical modeling. Stress-strain models of
concrete confined by rectilinear jackets have been
derived directly from tests by a few researchers (Demers
and Neale 1994; Restrepol and De Vino 1996; Mirmiran
et al. 1998; Harries et al. 1998; Rochette and Labossire
2000; Pessiki et al. 2001; Wang and Restrepo 2001;
Parvin and Wang 2001; Suter and Pinzelli 2001; Shehata
et al. 2002; Campione and Miraglia 2003; Lam and Teng
2003b). A comprehensive review on the stress-strain
modeling of concrete in rectilinear columns can be found
in the work by Lam and Teng (2003b), in which a
practical design oriented model is also developed.
In general, the current stress-strain models for
concrete confined by rectilinear jackets are based on
adjusting stress-strain models for circular columns using
a modification factor that reflects the reduced
confinement offered by the rectilinear jacket. Mirmiran
et al. (1998) proposed a modification factor of k = 2r/b,
where r and b are defined in Figure 8. Restrepol and
Devino (1996), Harries et al. (1998) and Lam and Teng
(2003b) proposed modification factors that are defined as
the ratio of the area of the effectively confined zone Ae
over that of the total cross-sectional area of concrete Ac,
as defined in Figure 8. The modification factor proposed
by Mirmiran et al. (1998) is intuitional and empirical.
The other models based on effective confinement area
are more rationally derived. The concept of defining the
effectively confined zone as the area enclosed by the 4
parabolas in Figure 8 originated from the engineering
common sense that a concentrated compressive force
spreads into the concrete at an initial angle of 45, as in
Figure 8, and that the arching action of the parabolas
effectively restrained the core concrete inside the

parabolas from free dilation. This assumption was first
adopted in the original work by Mander et al. (1988a).
However, the original definition itself is an assumption
without firm theoretical base. On the other hand, the
models based on the effectively confined zone fail to
pass the idealized test of Figure 9 that predicted a zero
confinement effect when the corner radius approaches
zero. This is because the area enclosed by the four
parabolas does not approach zero when the corner radius
approaches zero, in fact Ae = Ac/3 in the case of a square
column.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that further
research efforts are needed to develop rational
theoretical models of design-oriented stress-strain
relationships for concrete confined by rectilinear
jackets. As a result, current engineering applications
should rely on model testing which requires that the
identical construction methods and workmanship to be
employed in practice be used to make the test
specimens. Extreme care should be exercised in using
rectilinear jackets for axial retrofitting.
6. FLEXURAL RETROFITTING
For flexural retrofitting, the target is usually to avoid
early concrete crushing and/or lap splice failure so that
sufficient ductility and deformation capacity can be
achieved under a seismic event. Increase in flexural
strength may be required but not usually. In fact,
sometimes it is not desirable to increase the flexural
strength of a member, e.g. in the case of a column
connected to a weak adjacent member especially weak
foundations.
There could be two types of deficiencies in a flexural
member: inadequate tensile strength of the reinforcement;
and inadequate compressive strength of the concrete. The
most common type of inadequate tensile strength in a
non-seismic designed RC column is the lap splice failure
of the reinforcing bars. Welding of the lap splices is the
most effective retrofitting method and its effectiveness
has been shown by lab tests that can be found in Table 4.
However, this method is usually labor intensive and
may damage the integrity of the concrete in the
retrofitting/repairing process. The most popular method
for both lap splice failure and concrete crushing failure is
by wrapping a jacket onto a column to provide
confinement, which will be discussed later in detail.
Another tensile failure associates with fracture of
longitudinal bars when the column is subjected to large
inelastic displacement cycles. This failure is usually
named as low-cycle fatigue failure (Chai et al. 1991).
The failure strain of the steel bars is lower than that
obtained under monotonic load. Low-cycle fatigue
521
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 522
Table 4. Flexural retrofitted square/rectangular columns for lap splice failure

Reference
CrossSection
Detail
Number/
Sizes (mm)
N/Nc
(%)
Pp (kN)
Rp
Drift
Ratio
(%)
Failure
Mode
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Aboutaha
et al. 1999b
B. r. col.
Type 9 steel jac.
Type 10 steel jac.
2/457 914 2745

1/457 914 2745
1/457 914 2745
0
0
0
180, 180
234
225
1
1.3
1.3
1,2
2.4
3
Splice failure
Unsatisfac- tory
Considerable
improvement
Type 11 steel jac. 1/457 914 2745

Longi. bar welding 1/457 914 2745
0
0
324
288
1.8
1.6
5
4
Very satisfactory
Satisfactory
Daudey &
Filliatrault
2000
B. r. col.
Oval steel jac.
C. steel jac.
1/223 362 592

3/340 482 592
1/436 592
5.6
5.6
5.6
90
103110
123
1
1.11.2
1.4
>1 <2
6
7
Lap splice failure

Bar fracture
Bar fracture
Chang &
Chang
2004
B. r. col.
Type 12 FRP jac.
2/600 750 3250

4/600 750 3250
1/750 600 3250
1942
1944
2943
350, 530
420620
430
1
1.2
1.2
1.5, 2.0
1.57.0
4
Lap splice failure
Priestley &
Seible 1995
B. r. col.
Oval GFRP jac.
1/730 489 3660

1/
15
15
310
512
1
1.7
<1.5
10
0.8
>5
Lap splice failure
Harajli &
Rteil 2004
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
1/150 300 1000

2/150 300 1000
25
25
58
63, 64
1
1.1
2
4,5
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
1/150 300 1000

2/150 300 1000
30
30
83
87, 92
1
1.1
2
3,3
Conc. crushing
No FRP rupture
and no lap splice
Conc. crushing
No FRP rupture
and no lap slice
B. s. col.
Longi. Bar
welding
1/305 305 1830
Cyclic
360
Splice failure
2/305 305 1830
Cyclic
590653
1.61.8
Compression
failure
5/305 305 1830
Cyclic
360675
11.9
Splice or end
connection failure
3/305 305 1830
Cyclic
401645
1.11.8
Splice or end
1/305 305 1830
Cyclic
512
1.4
Splice or end
Valluvan et al.
1993
Steel angle and

strap
External stirrups
caging
Internal stirrups
caging
failure is considered unavoidable after experiencing

large inelastic displacement cycles (Dutta and Mander
2001). However, this failure mode will occur only when
the column axial load level is low, as no tensile yielding
will occur at high axial load level of above 50% of
concrete crush load (Wu et al. 2004b). On the other
hand, the structure must also be subjected to several
large displacement cycles before a failure which might
not be typical in an earthquake event.
The ductility ratio is usually used to assess the ductility
of a flexural member and, hence, the effectiveness of a
retrofit method. However the ductility ratio is often not
clearly defined and sometimes misleading in the
literature. It is, therefore, necessary to have a look at this
problem before assessing the efficiency of the published
flexural retrofitting techniques and test results.
522
6.1. Ductility Ratio

The displacement ductility ratio d is defined as the
ultimate lateral deformation u divided by the yield
lateral deformation y, that is
d =
u
y
(2)
Different definitions of yield and ultimate

displacements such as those in Figure 11 have been
adopted in the literature. The ultimate displacement is
usually defined at the point of the descending branch
where the lateral resistance drops to a certain
percentage of the peak resistance which is usually in a
range from 10 to 30 percent. Obviously, different
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 523
without P- effect
Vmax
Lateral force F
Lateral Load V
0.8Vmax
Lateral
displacement
(a) Used by Iacobucci et al. (2003)
with P- effect
Lateral displacement at top
Figure 12. Slope reduction due to P- effect
Lateral Load V
Nominal strength HACI
First yielding or 0.75 HACI
Whichever is less
y2
y1
Lateral
displacement
(y1+ y2)
2
First yielding or 0.75 HACI
Whichever is less
Nominal strength HACI
y =
(b) Used by Rodriguez and Park (1994)

Lateral
force V
PA
Equal
areas
A
Vu
0.9Vu
0.8Vu
0.7Vu
y u 9080 70
Displacement
(c) Used by Wu (2004)

Figure 11. Definitions of ductility ratio
definitions may result in significant differences in the

values of the ductility ratio.
The ductility ratio is also affected by other factors.
For example, it has been shown (Wu 2002; Montes and
Aschleim 2003; Griffith et al. 2005) that the P- effect
affects the softening branch of the response curve, as the
P- effect reduces the slope of the softening branch by
an angle of = N / L, as shown in Figure 12, where N is
the axial load and L the cantilever length. In other
words, the axial load and length of column play a
significant role in the slope of the descending path and,
hence, the result of the ductility ratio. Furthermore, the
ductility ratio is also affected by the concrete strength,

reinforcement, and other column properties. Therefore,
direct comparisons of the ductility ratio between
different column tests may not reflect the real
effectiveness of a retrofit method in increasing the
ductility of retrofitted columns. This explains the large
scattering of ductility ratios reported in the literature
with a similar retrofit method, which tends to confuse
and mislead readers in assessing the effectiveness of a
retrofit method. As a result, comparison of ductility
ratios between different tests reported in the literature
may be meaningless. However, direct comparison
between the un-retrofitted benchmark column and the
identical retrofitted columns that are tested with the
same test setup and under the same conditions does
reflect the effectiveness offered by a retrofit method,
provided the ductility ratio is calculated properly.
Further discussion on the calculation of ductility is made
in Section 6.3.
6.2. Lap Splice Retrofit
Slip of the lap splice causes splitting and the subsequent
spalling of the concrete and transverse dilation of the
columns. Confinement by jacketing increases the slip
resistance of the bars and hence the splitting strength.
The effectiveness of this retrofit has been shown by tests
as listed in Tables 4 and 5 where Pp in column 5 is the
lateral load and d in column 7 is defined in Eqn 2.
Many factors affect the dilation of the lap splice and,
hence, the increase in slip resistance. Dilation on the
tension side of a column is affected by: reinforcement
type and details including details of lap splices; concrete
grade; properties of the jacket such as shape, size,
stiffness; and the dimensions of the column. Up to date,
no significant quantitative research has been reported in
the literature on the additional slip resistance offered by
jacketing. As a result, practical and reliable applications
should rely on testing of a specific design for a specific
column.
523
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 524
Table 5. Flexural retrofitting of circular columns for lap splice failure

Reference
CrossSection
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
N/NC
(%)
Pp (kN)
Rp
Drift
Ratio
(%)
Failure
Mode/
Comment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Priestley &
Seible 1995
B. c. col.
1/610 3660
18.5
215
1.5
1.45
GFRP c. jac.
1/610 3660
18.5
310
1.4
810
>6
Lap splice
failure
Xiao & Ma
1997
B. c. col.
GFRP c. jac.
1/610 2642
2/610 2642
5
5
231
280,320
1
1.21.4
1.5
>8
1.7
>5.5
Lap splice
failure
Lap splice
with increased
ductility
Saadatmanesh
et al. 1996
B. c. col.
1/305 2410
58.3
1.5
GFRP straps
2/305 2410
Lap splice
failure
Chai et al.
1991
B. c. col.
without lap splice
B. c. col. with
lap splice
Steel c. jac.
(gap filled with
cement grout)
Steel c. jac.
(gap filled with
styrofoam)
1/610 3657
18.8
1/610 3657
16
1/610 3657
1/610 3657
81.4, 89.4
1.41.5
>6
240
3.8
218
289
1.5
1.4
16.3
>5
200
1.3
<1
17.4
1.4
6.3. Compression Retrofit by Circular Jackets

As mentioned in the section on axial retrofitting,
circular jackets offer highly effective confinement to
concrete under compression and this confinement
significantly increases the strength and especially the
ductility of the concrete material. For columns with a
significant axial load, it can be shown that the curvature
ductility (ultimate curvature divided by yield curvature)
can be estimated by the following expression (Wu 2002;
Wu et al. 2004b)
k =
cu
co
(3)
where and are the area coefficients of the stress

block at the onset of ultimate failure and yielding,
respectively, which for a triangular stress block equals
0.5 and for a rectangular stress block it equals to 1. Eqn
3 clearly indicates that the curvature ductility increases
with the increase in the ultimate concrete strain cu
which can be greatly increased by jacketing. As a result,
the ductility of a column may also be significantly
improved by the confinement.
The effectiveness of jacketing can be seen by the
experimental test results listed in Table 6 where Pp in
column 5 is the lateral load and Rr in column 8 is the
ductility ratio of the retrofitted column as a proportion of
that of the benchmark column. Significant increases in both
524
Concrete
crushing and
steels buckling
concrete crush
and lap slice
failure
Tension steel
fractured
Lap slice
failure
strength Rp and ductility Rr can be obtained by jacketing.

The increase in strength comes from the increase in the
concrete strength under confinement, whereas the ductility
increase comes from the increase of the ultimate concrete
strain. However, some test results show a much smaller
increase in the ductility ratio, e.g. the test results of Nanni
and Norris (1995) with a GFRP shell even shows a
reduction in the ductility ratio due to retrofitting. This
seems to contradict the theoretical prediction from Eqn 3,
as adequate confinement with an FRP jacket can increase
the ultimate strain cu by a factor of 2 to 5 (Lam and Teng
2004) and by up to 10 for steel confined concrete (Mander
et al. 1988b). In fact, this insignificant increase in ductility
as compared to the increase in the ultimate concrete strain
is caused by the definition of the ductility ratio.
To explain this insignificant increase in ductility, the
test results of a CFRP jacketed column together with the
control column without retrofitting, which were tested
by the authors, is shown in Figure 13. The displacement
vs. moment response shows a very ductile response
compared to the control column. However, the ductility
ratios calculated from the force-displacement response
curves are 1.18 for the control column and 1.52 for the
retrofitted column which is an insignificant increase.
This insignificant increase in ductility is largely due to
the P- effect illustrated by Figure 12 without which the
ductility ratio of the retrofitted column would be greater
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 525
Table 6. Flexural retrofitting of circular columns for compression failure

Reference
CrossSection
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
N/Nc
(%)
Pp (kN)
Rp
Rr
Failure Mode/
Comment
Sheikh &
Yau 2002
B. c. col.
CFRP c. jac.
GFRP c. jac
4/356 1473
3/356 1473
3/356 1473
27, 54
27, 54
27, 54
175227
155340
225280
1
11.5
1.21.3
3.09.2
3.18.9
4.25.9
Conc. crushing
FRP rupture
FRP rupture
Saadatmanesh
et al. 1996
B. c. col.
GFRP straps
1/305 2410
1/305 2410
4
4
71.6
87.2
1
1.2
4
>6
>1.5
Conc. crushing
No failure
Nanni &
B. c. col.
3/150 1500
729
46.768.2
1.462.0
Flexural and
AFRP tape
12/150 1500
044
27.2105.6
11.6
3.054.0
22.1
GFRP shell
3/150 1500
030
37.7100.3
11.5
1.31.62
<1
B. c. col.
GFRP c. tube
2/300 1500
3/300 1500
52
52
37
50
1
1.4
4.7
6.4
1.4
Norris 1995
Yao et al. 2001
shear cracking
Conc. crushing
without FRP
rupture
FRP rupture
Conc. crushing
Footing joint
shear failure
For bending moment in kNm
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
120 100 80 60 40 20
10
20
20
40
60
80 100 120
Lateral
displacement (mm)
30
Pull
50
30
Lateral force (KN)
Lateral force (KN)
Benchmark
column
Retrofitted
column
Push
40
Push
0
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20
10
40
60
80 100 120
20
Displacement (mm)
30
40
40
Pull
50
50
(a) Lateral force displacement curve
75
Push
40
20
0
120 100 80 60 40 20
20
40
Pull
020
40
60
80
100 120
Lateral
displacement (mm)
Push
60
Retrofitted
column
45
30
(kNm)
60
Moment at column base
Moment at column base (kNm)
80
Benchmark
column
15
120
60
90
60
30
0
15 0
30
30
Displacement (mm)
60
90
120
45
Pull
60
75
80
(b) Moment displacement curve
Figure 13. Response curves of columns with significant P- effect
525
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 526
than 5. Therefore, the increase in the ductility ratio does

not reflect the true increase in the structural integrity and
ductility of the retrofitted member. In fact, the integrity
of the retrofitted column was still very good at the end
of the tests, where no significant damage was found in
the concrete, as compared to extensive crushing of
concrete and lost of integrity of the control column. It is
not always necessary to maintain a large lateral
resistance of a column in a structure especially in a
building where the lateral stability is largely provided by
other structural elements such as bracings or shear
walls. With this in mind, it is suggested that a columns
ductility be calculated up to the maximum displacement
corresponding to a minimum required lateral load, as
long as there is neither significant loss of integrity nor
loss of axial load carrying capacity. This minimum
lateral load can be much smaller than 80% of the peak
lateral resistance in many applications. From this point
of view, the ductility ratio used in the literature may be
misleading and cannot reflect the true ductility of a
retrofitted column. Based on the discussion above, it can
be concluded that a circular jacket can usually provide
very effective flexural retrofitting to RC columns.
6.4. Compression Retrofit by Rectilinear
Jackets
It was shown in the section on axial retrofit that the
confinement provided by a rectilinear jacket is much
less effective than that by a circular jacket. This reduced

confinement also reduces the effectiveness of the
flexural retrofitting for strength as can be seen from the
test results listed in Table 7 where the strength
enhancement factors Rp shows that a significant strength
gain by rectilinear jackets should not be expected.
Similarly, scatter of test results is not uncommon with a
rectilinear jacket due to the same reasons discussed in
the section on the axial retrofitting of rectilinear jackets.
The test results in Table 7 show that although there is
no certainty that a rectilinear jacket will increase the
flexural strength (see Rp), it is often possible for the
jacket to offer certain increases in deformation capacity
and ductility (see Rr). The reason behind this is that a
strength increase in the concrete needs instant and
significant confinement after the onset of the
unconfined concrete strength. A delayed confinement
may not increase the concrete strength but it can usually
stop the concrete from further degradation and hence
increase the deformation capacity and ductility. A
rectilinear jacket may not be able to provide very
significant confinement to the concrete before
significant dilation of concrete, i.e. before the onset of
the un-confined concrete strength; it is usually not a
problem for an adequate rectilinear jacket to offer
sufficient confinement after significant dilation of
concrete occurs. From the above analysis, it can be seen
that with current technology it is difficult to control the
Table 7. Flexural retrofitted square/rectangular columns with compression failure

Reference
CrossSection
Details
Number/
Sizes (mm)
N/NC
(%)
Pp (kN)
Rp
Rr
Failure
Mode/
Comment
Priestley &
Seible 1995
B. r. col.
GFRP r jac.
1/730 489 3660

1/730 489 3660
15
15
578
667
1
1.2
4
8
Conc. crushing
Iacobucci et al.
2003
B. r. col.
3/305 305 1473
3.7, ,
CFRP r. jac.
5/305 305 1473
40, 38, 62 108.2, 117.2,

105.7
3865
108.2131.3
11.2
2.48.2
0.72.2
Conc. Crushing
and bars buckling
FRP rupture
B. r. col.
CFRP r. jac.
1/250 500 1600

3/250 500 1600
38
3740
190
219237
1
1.21.3
B. r. col.
1/500 250 1600
38
69
CFRP jac.
GFRP jac.
3/500 250 1600

1/500 250 1600
3739
37
6576
75
11.1
1.1
Sause et al.
2004
B. s. col.
CFRP s. jac.
1/458 458 2400

3/458 458 2400
25
26
229
217238
1
1
2
58
2.54
Conc. Crushing
Tension bar
rupture or
jacket rupture
Nanni &
B. r. col.
3/150 200 1500
029
40.283.1
Flexural and shear

cracking
Norris 1995
GFRP shell
4/150 200 1500
035
41.4150.1
11.8
FRP tensile failure
Bousias et al.
2004
526
Conc. Crushing
FRP rupture or
bulge
Conc. Crushing
& shear
FRP failure
FRP local
failure
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 527
effectiveness of a rectilinear jacket in increasing the

flexural strength of a column, but it is usually not a
problem for it to achieve some increase in deformation
capacity and ductility.
6.5. Flexural Design
It is usually assumed that the stress-strain model
developed for concrete under concentric axial load is
applicable to concrete under flexure. Therefore, flexural
bending of columns with circular jackets can be
designed with the conventional flexural theory of
reinforced concrete except that the stress-strain model of
confined concrete is used to replace the stress block of
normal un-confined concrete. However, the effect of the
strain gradient on the stress-strain model of concrete is
still not clear as little work has been reported in the
literature on the stress-strain modeling of concrete under
non-uniform axial strain (Teng and Lam 2004). The
stress-strain model under concentric loading may still be
applicable to columns under axial loading with small
eccentricities or small bending moments in which the
strain gradient is small. However, it may not be the case
for columns with large strain gradients and a
comprehensive study on the problem is needed before a
reliable model can be used in practical design.
To calculate the deformation of a column after
yielding, a plastic hinge model or plastic hinge length is
required (Paulay and Priestley 1992). It has been found
that the plastic hinge length of a steel jacketed column is
smaller than that of the normal RC column (Chai et al.
1991). Even for a conventional RC column at high axial
load levels, a rational analysis of the plastic hinge zone
(Wu 2006) has revealed the possible deficiency in the
plastic hinge model proposed by Paulay and Priestley
(1992). However no significant investigation on this
problem can be found in the literature.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper presents a state-of-the-art review and
assessment of the current technology of seismic
retrofitting of RC columns. Focus has been placed on
the more commonly used retrofit methods of steel and
FRP jacketing. A large amount of test data has been
collected, processed and categorized from the literature
and analyzed to assess the current state-of-art of the
technology. From the rational analyses in this work, the
mechanics of jacketing and the key factors that affect
the effectiveness have been clearly identified. The
reasons for the uncertainty and contradictory testing
results of rectilinear jacketing reported in the literature
are given. A clearer picture is unveiled as to how to
improve the jacketing effectiveness and what can be
done with the design and construction of jacketing based

on the current technology. The following conclusions
can be drawn from this work:
1. Shear retrofitting by steel or FRP jacketing is
very effective for both circular and rectilinear
RC columns. Existing guidelines based on hoop
stirrup theory are available for the jacket design.
2. For axial retrofitting, circular shaped jackets can
offer a reliable performance that can be both
qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated.
3. For flexural retrofitting, circular jackets can also
be very effective for both lap splice failure
and concrete crush failure. Further research
work is required on the quantification of the
effectiveness.
4. For rectilinear jackets, although certain
improvement on the axial and flexural strength
may be expected, this improvement is difficult
to quantify or even be ensured due to the
complexity of the problem. The improvement of
the deformation capacity and ductility by a
rectilinear jacket is more reliable than the
strength gain. If a rectilinear jacket is chosen for
axial or flexural retrofitting, its effectiveness
should be substantiated by experimental cyclic
testing. Even with an apparently identical jacket
design that has been tested by others, it should
still be tested because construction methods and
workmanship, such as method of wrapping, may
significantly affect the effectiveness of the
jacketing. An intimate contact between the
jacket and the concrete member is critical.
5. The most important factor that affects the
confinement by a rectilinear jacket is the corner
radius ratio. An as large as possible corner
radius ratio should be employed to improvement
the confinement.
6. Changing the straight sides of a rectilinear crosssection to convex shaped sides with even a slight
rise at the middle of the sides will significantly
improve the confinement by rectilinear jacketing.
7. The existing design oriented stress-strain
models of concrete confined by rectilinear
jackets fail to reflect the behavior as represented
by an idealized test. Much more research work
is needed for the stress-strain modeling and the
design of rectilinear shaped jackets.
8. The traditional force-displacement ductility
ratio does not reflect the real ductility of
columns with significant P- effects. It is
suggested that the ultimate displacement be
defined as the maximum displacement at which
neither significant loss of integrity nor axial load
527
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 528
carrying capacity occurs and with a minimum

acceptable horizontal resistance to ensure the
stability of the column.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was fully supported by
a grant from the Research Grant Council of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region, China [Project
No. CityU 1113/04E].
REFERENCES
Abdullah, T.K. (2001). Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
columns using ferrocement jacket, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 98, pp. 696704.
Abdullah, T.K. (2003). An investigation into the behavior and
strength of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with
ferrocement jackets, Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 25,
pp. 233242.
Aboutaha, R.S., Engelhardt, M.D., Jirsa, J.O. and Kreger, M.E.
(1996). Retrofit of concrete columns with inadequate lap splices
by the use of rectangular steel jackets, Earthquake Spectra,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 693714.
(1999a). Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use
of rectangular steel jackets, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No.
1, pp. 6878.
(1999b). Experimental investigation of seismic repair of lap
slice failures in damaged concrete columns, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 297306.
ACI Committee 440 Report (2002). Guide for the Design and
Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures. ACI Committee 440,
Technical Committee Document 440.2R02.
Ahmad, S.H. and Shah, S.P. (1982a). Stress-strain curves of
concrete confined by spiral reinforcement, Journal of American
Concrete Institution, Vol. 79, No. 6, pp. 484490.
Ahmad, S.H. and Shah, S.P. (1982b). Complete triaxial stress-strain
curves for concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 728742.
Ahmad, S.H., Khaloo, A.R. and Irshaid, A. (1991). Behaviour of
concrete spirally confined by fibreglass filament, Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 43, No. 156, pp. 143148.
Alcocer, S.M. (1993). RC frame connections rehabilitated by
jacketing, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119,
No. 5, pp. 14131431.
Alcocer, S.M. and Jirsa, J.O. (1993). Strength of reinforced
concrete frame connections rehabilitated by jacketing. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 3, pp. 249261.
Bazant, Z.P. (1999). Size effect on structural strength: a review,
Archive of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 69, pp. 703725.
Bett, B.J., Klingner R.E. and Jirsa J.O. (1988). Lateral load
response of strengthened and repaired reinforced concrete
528
columns, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, pp. 499508.

Bousias, S.N., Triantafillou, T.C., Fardis, M.N., Spathis, L. and
ORegan, B.A. (2004). Fiber-reinforced polymer retrofitting of
rectangular reinforced concrete columns with or without
corrosion, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 512520.
Bracci, J.M., Reinhorn, A.M. and Mander, J.B. (1995a). Seismic
resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed for
gravity loads: performance of structural system, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 597609.
Bracci, J.M., Reinhorn, A.M. and Mander, J.B. (1995b). Seismic
retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings designed for gravity
loads: Performance of structural model, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 711723.
Campione, G. and Miraglia, N. (2003). Strength and strain
capacities of concrete compression members reinforced with
FRP, Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 25, pp. 3141.
Chaallal, O. and Shahawy, M. (2000). Performance of fiberreinforced polymer wrapped reinforced concrete column under
combined axial-flexural loading, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 659668.
Chaallal, O., Hassan, M., and Shahawy, M. (2003a). Confinement
model for axially loaded short rectangular columns strengthened
with fiber reinforced polymer wrapping, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 215221.
Chaallal, O., Shahawy, M. and Hassan, M. (2003b). Performance of
axially loaded short rectangular columns strengthened with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer wrapping, Journal of
composites for construction, ASCE, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 200208.
Chai, Y.H., Priestley, M.J.N. and Seible, F. (1990). Retrofit of
bridge columns for enhanced seismic performance, Proceedings
of the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Seismic Retrofit of Bridge,
Tsukuba, Japan, December 1990.
Chai, Y.H., Priestley, M.J.N. and Seible, F. (1991). Seismic retrofit
of circular bridge columns for enhanced flexural performance,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 572584.
Chang, K.C. and Chang, S.P. (2004). Seismic retrofit study of
rectangular RC columns lap spliced at plastic hinge zone,
Proceedings of Joint NSC/NRC Workshop on Construction
Technologies, 2004, pp. 2734.
Cirtek, L. (2001). RC columns strengthened with bandageexperimental program and design recommendations,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 15, pp. 341349.
CSA standard A23.394 (1994). Code for Design of Concrete
Structures. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario,
Canada.
Daudey, X. and Filliatrault, A. (2000). Seismic evaluation and
retrofit with steel jackets of reinforced concrete bridge piers
detailed with lap-splices, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 116.
Demers, M. and Neale, K.W. (1994). Strengthening of concrete
columns with unidirectional composite sheets, Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Short and Medium Span
Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal,
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 529
Canada, pp. 895905.

Dritsos, S.E. (1997). Jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete
columns, Construction Repair, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 3540.
Dutta, A. and Mander, J.B. (2001). Energy based methodology for
ductile design of concrete columns, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 12, pp. 1374 1381.
Fam, A., Schnerch, D. and Rizkalla, S. (2005). Rectangular
filament-wound glass fiber reinforced polymer tubes filled with
concrete under flexural and axial loading, Experimental
investigation, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
Vol. 9, No. 1 , pp. 2533.
Fardis, M.N. and Khalili, H. (1981). Concrete encased in fiberglassreinforced plastic. ACI Journal, Vol. 78, pp. 440445.
Fardis, M.N. and Khalili, H. (1982). FRP-encased concrete as a
structural material, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 34,
No. 122, pp. 191202.
Frangou, M., Pilakoutas, K. and Dritsos, S. (1995). Structural
repair/strengthening of RC columns. Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 259266.
Griffith, M.C., Wu, Y.F. and Oehlers, D.J. (2005). Behaviour of
steel plated RC columns subject to lateral loading, Advances in
Structural Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 333347.
Hakuto, S., Park, R. and Tanaka, H. (1995). Retrofitting of
reinforced concrete moment resisting frames, Research Report
954, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury, August 1995.
Hanna, S. and Jones, R. (1997). Composite wraps for aging
infrastructures, concrete columns, Composite Structures,
Vol. 38, No. 14, pp. 5764.
Harajli, M.H. and Rteil, A.A. (2004). Effect of confinement using
fiber-reinforced polymer or fiber-reinforced concrete on seismic
performance of gravity load-designed columns, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 4756.
Harries, K.A., Kestner, J., Pessiki, S., Sauae, R. and Ricles, J. (1998).
Axial behavior of reinforced concrete columns retrofit with
FRPC jackets, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Composites Infrastructure, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 411425.
Harries, K.A. and Kharel, G. (2003). Experimental investigation of
the behavior of variably confined concrete, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 33, pp. 873880.
Hwang, T.T. and Wehnes, W.C. (1997). California refinery meets
seismic codes using new wrapping technique, Oil and Gas
Iacobucci, R.D., Sheikh, S.A. and Bayrak, O. (2003). Retrofit of
square concrete columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
for seismic resistance, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 6,
pp. 785794.
Jin, X.N., Pan, J.L., Liu, G.Y. and Lai, W.H. (2003). Research of
stressstrain curve of concrete confined by fiber reinforced
plastics under axial compression, Journal of Building Structure,
Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 4753 (in Chinese).
Karbhari, V.M. and Gao, Y.Q. (1997). Composite jacketed concrete
under uniaxial compression verification of simple design
equations, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 9,

No. 4, pp. 185193.
Karbhari, V.M. and Zhao, L. (2000). Use of composites for 21st
century civil infrastructure, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 185, pp. 433454.
Karbhari, V.M. (2000). FRP composites for infrastructure renewal
status and challenges for the 21st century, Proceedings of the
ACUN-2 International Composites Conference on Composites in
the Transportation Industry, February, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia, pp. 5160.
Karbhari, V.M. (2001). Material considerations in FRP
rehabilitation of concrete structures, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 9097.
Karbhari, V.M. and Eckel II, D.A. (1994). Effect of cold regions
climate on composite jacketed concrete columns, Journal of
Cold Regions Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 7386.
Katsumata, H., Kobatake, Y. and Takeda, T. (1988). Study with
carbon fiber for earthquake-resistance capacity of existing
reinforced concrete columns, Proceedings of the Ninth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August, Tokyo, Vol.7,
pp. 517522.
Lam, L. and Teng, J.G.. (2004). Ultimate condition of fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete, Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 539548.
Lam, L. and Teng, J.G. (2003a). Design-oriented stress-strain
model for FRP-confined concrete, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 17, pp. 471489.
Lam, L. and Teng, J.G. (2003b). Design-oriented stress-strain
model for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 22, No. 13,
pp. 11491186.
Lau, K.T. and Zhou, L.M. (2001). The mechanical behavior
of composite-wrapped concrete cylinders subjected to
uniaxial compression load, Composite Structures, Vol. 52,
pp. 189198.
Liu, A. and Park, R. (2001). Seismic behavior and retrofit of pre
1970s as-built exterior beam-column joints reinforced by plain
round bars, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 6881.
Liu, H.K., Tai, N.H. and Chen C.C. (2000). Compression strength
of concrete columns reinforced by non-adhesive filament
wound hybrid composites, Composites Part A, Vol. 31,
pp. 221233.
Lynn, A., Moehle, J.P., Mahin, S.A. and Holmes, W.T. (1996).
Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building
columns, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 715739.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988a). Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 18041826.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988b). Observed
stress-strain behavior of confined concrete, Journal of Structural
Melchers, R.E. (Ed.) (1990). Newcastle Earthquake Study, The
529
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 530
Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Mirmiran, A. and Shahawy, M. (1997a). Behavior of concrete
columns confined by fiber composites, Journal of Structural
Mirmiran, A. and Shahawy, M. (1997b). Dilation characteristics of
confined concrete, Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials,
Vol. 2, pp. 237249.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M., Samaan, M., El Echary, H., Mastrapa,
J.C. and Pico, O. (1998). Effect of column parameters on FRPconfined concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 175185.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M. and Beitleman, T. (2001). Slenderness
limit for Hybrid FRP-concrete columns, Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 2634.
Miyauchi, K., Inoue, S., Kuroda, T. and Kobayashi, A. (1999).
Strengthening effects of concrete columns with carbon fiber
sheet, Transaction of Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 21,
pp. 143150.
Moehle, J.P. and Mahin, S.A. (1991). Observations on the behavior
of reinforced concrete buildings during earthquakes, ACI SP127, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures: Inelastic
Response and Design, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Michigan, pp. 6789.
Montes, E.H. and Aschleim, M. (2003). Estimates of the yield
curvature for design of reinforced concrete columns, Magazine
of Concrete Research, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 373383.
Moran, D.A. and Pantelides, C.P. (2002). Stress-strain model for
fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete, Journal of
Composite for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 233240.
Mortazavi, A.A., Pilakoutas, K. and Son, K.S. (2003). RC column
strengthening by lateral pre-tensioning of FRP, Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 17, pp. 491497.
Nanni, A. and Bradford, N.M. (1995). FRP-jacketed concrete under
uniaxial compression, Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 115124.
Nanni, A. and Norris M.S. (1995). FRP-jacketed concrete under
flexure and combined flexure-compression, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 273281.
Nesheli, K.N., Yamakawa, T. and Satoh, H. (2004). Experimental
study on retrofitting of shear critical RC columns using
pretensioned Aramid fiber belts, Proceedings of 1st Conference on
Application of FRP Composites in Construction and Rehabilitation
of Structures, May 4, 2004, Tehran, Iran, pp. 95104.
Park, R. (2001). Improving the resistance of structures to
earthquakes, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 139.
Parvin, A. and Wang, W. (2001). Behavior of FRP jacketed
concrete columns under eccentric loading, Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 146152.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. New York.
Pessiki, S., Harries, K.A., Kestner, J.T., Sause, R. and Ricles, J.M.
530
(2001). Axial behavior of reinforced concrete columns confined

with FRP jackets, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 237245.
Pham, L. and Griffith, M. (1995). Report on the January 17, 1995
Great Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake. Joint report from
CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering and
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
The University of Adelaide, Report No. DBCE Doc 95/175(M),
pp. 55.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y. and Verma, R. (1994a). Steel
jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for
enhanced shear strength-Part 1: theoretical consideration and test
design, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 394405.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y. and Verma, R. (1994b). Steel
jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for
enhanced shear strength-Part 2: test results and comparison with
theory, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 537551.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1987). Strength and ductility of
concrete bridge columns under seismic loading, ACI Structural
Priestley, M.J.N. and Seible, F. (1995). Design of seismic retrofit
measures for concrete and masonry structures, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 365 377.
Ramirez, J.L. (1996). Ten concrete column repair methods,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 195202.
Restrepol, J. I. and De Vino, B. (1996). Enhancement of the axial
load-capacity of reinforced concrete columns by means of
fiberglass-epoxy jackets, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures, M. M. El-Badry, ed., Montreal, pp. 547690.
Richart, F.E., Brandtzaeg, A. and Brown, R.L. (1928). A study of
the failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses,
Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Rochette, P. and Labossire, P. (2000). Axial testing of rectangular
column models confined with composites, Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, Vol 4, No. 3, pp. 129136.
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1994). Seismic load tests on reinforced
concrete columns strengthened by jacketing, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 150159.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R. and Li, M.W. (1994). Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fibre
composite straps, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4,
pp. 434447.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R. and Jin, L. (1996). Seismic
strengthening of circular bridge pier models with fiber
composites, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp. 639647.
Saafi, M., Toutanji, H.A. and Li, Z. (1999). Behavior of concrete
columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes, ACI
Material Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 500509.
Saatcioglu, M. and Yalcin, C. (2003). External prestressing
concrete columns for improved seismic shear resistance, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 8,
pp. 10571070.
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:12 am
Page 531
Samaan, M., Mirmiran, A. and Shahawy, M. (1998). Model of

concrete confined by fiber composites, Journal of Structural
Sause, R., Harries, K.A., Walkup, S.L., Pessiki, S. and Ricles, J.M.
(2004). Flexural behavior of concrete columns retrofitted with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer jackets, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, pp. 708716.
Seible, F., Priestley, M.J.N., Hegemier, G.A. and Innamorato, D.
(1997). Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon
fiber jackets, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 5262.
Shehata, I.A.E.M., Carneinro, L.A.V. and Shehata, L.C.D. (2002).
Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP sheet,
Materials and Structures, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 5058.
Sheikh, S.A. and Yau, G. (2002). Seismic behavior of concrete
columns confined with steel and fiber-reinforced polymers, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 7280.
Suter, R. and Pinzelli, R. (2001). Confinement of concrete columns
with FRP sheets, Proceedings of Fifth International Conference
on Fibre Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures,
pp. 793802, Cambridge, U.K.
Tamai, S., Sato, T. and Okamoto, M. (2000). Hysteresis model of
steel jacketed RC columns for railway viaducts, Proceedings of
the 16th Congress of IABSE, Lucerne, Switzerland, Sept.1821.
Tan, T.H. and Yip, W.K. (1999). Behavior of axially loaded
concrete columns confined by elliptical hoops, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 967971.
Teng, J. G. and Lam, L. (2002). Compressive behavior of carbon
fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete in elliptical
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128,
No. 12, pp. 15351543.
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. (2002). FRPStrengthened RC Structures. John Wiley &Sons, Ltd., Chichester,
England, pp. 213235.
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. (2003). Behavior
and strength of FRP-strengthened RC structures: a state-of theart review, Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers,
Structures & Buildings, Vol. 156, No. 1, pp. 5162.
Teng, J.G. and Lam, L. (2004). Behavior and modeling of fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete, Journal of structural
engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 11, pp. 17131723.
Thriault, M. and Neale, K.W. (2000). Design equations for axially
loaded reinforced concrete columns strengthened with fibre
reinforced polymer wraps, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 10111020.
Thriault, M., Neale, KW. and Claude, S. (2004). Fiber-reinforced
polymer-confined circular concrete columns: Investigation of
size and slenderness effects, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 323331.
Tomii, M., Matsui, C. and Sakino, K. (1973). Concrete filled steel
tube structures, Tokyo Regional Conference, IABSE-ASCE Tall
Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomii, M. and Sakino, K. (1979). Elasto-plastic behavior of
concrete filled square steel tubular beam-columns, Transaction

of Architecture Institute of Japan, Vol. 280, pp. 111120.
Tomii, M. (1993). Non-hooped reinforced concrete columns and
beam-column connections laterally confined in bellows square
steel tube, Proceedings of Tom Paulay Symposium, La Jolla,
California, September, pp. 383402.
Toutanji, H.A. (1999). Stress-strain characteristics of concrete
columns externally confined with advanced fiber composites
sheets, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 397404.
Triantafillou, T.C. (2001). Seismic retrofitting of structures with
fibre-reinforced polymers, Progress in Structural Engineering
Materials, Vol. 3, pp. 5765.
Valluvan, R., Kreger, M.E. and Jirsa, J.O. (1993). Strengthening of
column splices for seismic retrofit on non-ductile reinforced
concrete frames, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4,
pp. 432433.
Wang, Y.C. and Restrepo, J.I. (2001). Investigation of
concentrically loaded reinforced concrete columns confined with
glass fiber-reinforced polymer jackets, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 377385.
Watson, S. and Park, R. (1994). Simulated seismic load tests on
reinforced concrete columns, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 6, pp. 18251849.
Watson, S., Zahn, F.A. and Park, R. (1994). Confining
reinforcement for concrete columns, Journal of Structural
Wu, Y.-F. (2002). Seismic Retrofitting of Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Partial Interaction Plating. PhD Thesis
2002, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Wu, Y.-F., Griffith, M.C. and Oehlers, D.J. (2003a). Improving the
strength and ductility of rectangular reinforced concrete columns
through composite partial interaction: tests, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 11831190.
Wu, G., Lu, Z. and Wu, Z. (2003b). Stressstrain relationship
for FRP confined concrete cylinders, Proceedings of
6th International Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-6),
K. H. Tan, ed., World Scientific, Singapore, Vol. 1,
pp. 551560.
Wu, Y.-F. (2004). The effect of longitudinal reinforcement on the
cyclic shear behaviour of glass fiber reinforced gypsum wall
panels: tests, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, No. 11,
pp. 16331646.
Wu, Y.-F., Griffith, M.C. and Oehlers, D.J. (2004a). Numerical
simulation of steel plated RC columns, Computers & Structures,
Vol. 82, No. 45, pp. 359371.
Wu, Y.-F., Oehlers, D.J. and Griffith, M.C. (2004b). Rational
definition of the flexural deformation capacity of RC column
sections, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 641650.
Wu, Y.-F. (2006). A new avenue of achieving ductility for
reinforced concrete members, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9.
Xiao, Y. and Ma, R. (1997). Seismic retrofit of RC circular columns
531
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:13 am
Page 532
using prefabricated composite jacketing, Journal of Structural

Xiao, Y., Wu, H. and Martin, G. R. (1999). Prefabricated composite
jacketing of RC columns for enhanced shear strength, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 3, pp. 255264.
Xiao, Y. and Wu, H. (2000). Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by carbon fiber composite jackets, Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 139 146.
Xiao, Y and Wu, H. (2003). Retrofit of reinforced concrete columns
using partially stiffened steel jackets, Journal of Structural
Yao, J., Li, X. and Li, Z. (2001). Experimental study of a circular
concrete column reinforced with a composite tube, Composites
Science and Technology, Vol. 61, pp. 18811887.
Zhang, S., Ye, L. and Mai, Y.W. (2000). A study on polymer
composite strengthening systems for concrete columns, Applied
Composite Materials, Vol. 7, pp. 125138.
APPENDIX: NOTATION
Ae = area of effectively confined zone in rectilinear
column;
Ac = total cross-sectional area of concrete;
Ag = gross cross-sectional area of column;
= area coefficients of stress block at onset of

ultimate stress fcu;
B. = initial of benchmark specimen;
b
= breadth of section;
bs = length of original straight side excluding corner
radius in rectangular section;
= area coefficients of stress block at onset of

yielding stress fco;
c
= constant pressure;
c. = initial of circular cross-section;
col. = initials of column;
D = cross-sectional depth of rectangular column;
d
= dimension of side rise in section as in Figure 4(a);
= lateral displacement;
532
u
y
E
co
cu
fcc
fco
= ultimate lateral deformation;

= yield lateral deformation
= elastic modulus;
= axial strain of columns;
= axial strain at onset of the peak stress;
= ultimate strain of concrete;
= compressive strength of retrofitted column;
= compressive strength of un-retrofitted benchmark
column;
fcu = ultimate compressive strength;
jac. = initials of jacket;
k
= r/(0.5b);
L
= length of column;
= Poisons ratio;
d = ductility ratio;
N
= applied axial load;
Nc = axial load to cause concrete crushing or
Nc = fco Ag
P
= lateral force;
Pp = peak strength, stress or load;
Pu = axial stress at onset of ultimate strain cu;
p
= lateral pressure;
= slope reduction that equals to N/L;

Rd = maximum inter-storey drift of retrofitted column
as a proportion of drift of benchmark column;
Re = ultimate strain of retrofitted column as a
proportion of peak strain of benchmark column;
Rp = Pp of retrofitted column as a proportion of Pp of
benchmark un-retrofitted column;
Rr = ductility ratio of retrofitted column as a
proportion of that of benchmark column;
r
= radius of corner;
r.
= initial of rectangular cross-section;
s
= side bulging movement of rectangular column;
s.
= initial of square cross-section;
t
= thickness of jacket.
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:13 am
Page 533
Dr Y.-F. Wu received his PhD from The University of Adelaide in 2002. He is an

Assistant Professor at City University of Hong Kong in the Department of Building
and Construction. His main research interest is in reinforced concrete structures,
seismic retrofitting of RC structures, Structural application of FRP, and recyclable
building materials
Tao Liu is a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at Shanghai University,

Shanghai, P. R. China. His major is structural engineering. He graduated from Hefei
University of Technology in 1999. His research interests include earthquakeresistant structures, retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures and visualization
of computational programs. He was involved in Dr. Wus RC column retrofitting
project from 2004 to 2005 at City University of Hong Kong.
Deric Oehlers is an Associate Professor at The University of Adelaide, Australia. He

has a BSc from London University, and both an MSc and PhD from Warwick
University in England. He was recently awarded a higher doctorate, DEng, from
Adelaide University for his substantial research contribution to the field of partialinteraction theory, both in composite steel and concrete structures and in FRP
plated structures, that has been published in 88 international archival journal papers
and in 5 books.
533
ASE_05_05_416-Wu
1/8/06
10:13 am
Page 534

Fundamental Principles That Govern Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamental Principles That Govern Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASE_05_05_416-Wu

Fundamental Principles that Govern Retrofitting

Abstract: Extensive investigations on seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete

modern earthquake codes (Melchers 1990; Moehle and

* Corresponding author. Email address: yfwu00@cityu.edu.hk; Fax: +852-27887612; Tel: +852-27844259

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

critical element of structures, is of paramount

filled tubular (CFT) columns which were closely related

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

Yu-Fei Wu, Tao Liu and Deric J. Oehlers

under cyclic inelastic action in a severe seismic event

Details of various retrofitting methods, including those

(a) Concrete jacketing

(b) Steel caging

Cement grout Cement grout

(c) Steel encasement

Figure 1. Types of jacketing

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

construction; lower cost of structural intervention and

(a) Corrugated jacket

(b) Jacket with stiffeners

Figure 2. Jacket stiffening

Figure 3. Steel jacket with anchors

(b) Composite jacket

(c) Hybrid jacket

Figure 4. Other types of jacket

strips or steel bars in the transverse direction. Concrete

2.2.1. Steel caging

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

Yu-Fei Wu, Tao Liu and Deric J. Oehlers

stiffness of the jacket through the undulations of the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

sections to circular or elliptical sections by circular or

application to column wrapping in the mid 1980s.

Figure 5. Partial interaction plating

By providing confinement to concrete columns

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

Yu-Fei Wu, Tao Liu and Deric J. Oehlers

Table 1. Shear retrofitting of columns

2/120 120 600

3/457 914 1220

1/254 254 1016

1/254 254 1016

1/300 300 920

1/430 430 920

1/550 550 1200

Xiao et al. 1999 B. c. col.

1/250 250 750

1/250 250 750

Resistant moment with the unit of kNm

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

strength. Rp in column 7 is the strength enhancement

4. AXIAL RETROFITTING CIRCULAR

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

Yu-Fei Wu, Tao Liu and Deric J. Oehlers

Table 2. Uniaxially loaded circular/oval columns

CFRP. oval. jac.

FRP joint failure

strength occurs before the ultimate strain

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 4 2006

Figure 6. Effect of jacket stiffness on stress-strain path (based on

second part of the stress-strain curve. However, a

such as OCD as shown in Figure 6 (Teng and Lam