Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Concrete jacketing1 of members is widely used in seismic
rehabilitation of old buildings.2 Past experimental work on
the cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete (RC)-jacketed
members is limited.3-21 With the exception of a recent
comparative monotonic testing program of jacketed columns
with different levels and means of connection at the interface,12
the influence of positive measures of connection between the
old concrete and the jacket has not been systematically studied.
Guidance documents for concrete jackets, as well as
construction practice, include measures for shear connection
of the old and the new concrete at the interface. It is often
recommended to expose the corner bars of the old column and
connect them to the corner bars of the jacket through U-shaped
steel inserts, lap-welded to both bars. A positive connection of
steels of different grades (and hence different chemical
compositions), however, is considered conducive to reinforcing
bar corrosion, not to mention that reinforcing bars of high
carbon equivalent are normally nonweldable. Other common
connection measures include roughening of the surface of the
old column and/or provision of dowels over this surface.
There is some concern, though, that dowels or welded steel
inserts in the plastic hinge zone may trigger crushing and
disintegration of the jacket concrete around them.
Welded steel inserts between the new and the old corner
bars, or dowels at the interface, were considered essential in
the 1970s and 1980s to transfer, through shear, part of the
column gravity load from the old column to the jacket. The
concern with gravity load capacity was partly due to the fact
that concrete jackets were then mainly, if not exclusively,
applied to heavily damaged columns, often with a partially
disintegrated core. This concern is also reflected in past
recommendations to partially unload the column before
jacketing, by propping up beams framing into the column via
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007
521
Yield
Yield Fixed-end
moment Calculated
Ultimate Fixed-end
= N/bhfc My , yield moment Drift at curvature rotation at Ultimate curvature rotation at Main features of
Specimen and
jacketed
kNm My,calc , kNm yielding y , 1/m yielding drift u , u , 1/m ultimate, the behavior and
connection of jacket
d,
Original
y, %
(ft-kip)
(1/ft)
%
(1/ft)
with old column mm (in.) column Jacket column (ft-kip)
(rad)
rad
of failure mode
Q-RCW
Q-RCD
Welded
U-bars
Dowels
355
(14)
355
(14)
22.9
(3.32)
27.4
(3.97)
28.7
(4.16)
55.3
(8.02)
0.130
0.085
210
(154.9)
240
(177.0)
209.5
(154.9)
231.8
(171.0)
1.15
1.15
0.013
(0.0039)
0.012
(0.0036)
0.0028
0.0025
5.65
6.25
0.17
(0.052)
0.017
Q-RCR Roughened
355
(14)
27.7
(4.0)
55.3
(8.02)
0.090
260
(191.8)
238.0
(175.5)
1.20
0.015
(0.0046)
0.0025
5.65
0.13
(0.039)
0.027
Full
disintegration
near base;
buckling of four
jacket bars (one
broke) and of
interior bars (in
old column);
ties opened;
partial height
bond splitting/
spalling along
two corner bars
Roughened
Q-RCRD + dowels
355
(14)
26.3
(3.81)
53.2
(7.71)
0.094
245
(180.7)
238.5
(175.9)
1.00
0.015
(0.0046)
0.0025
5.30
0.14
(0.043)
0.020
0.017
Serious
disintegration
near base;
lower-most tie
opened; one
interior bar (old
column) and
two jacket bars
buckled; one bar
ruptured
Q-RC
No
treatment
355
(14)
26.3
(3.81)
30.6
(4.44)
55.3
(8.02)
0.080
235
(173.3)
227.3
(167.6)
0.180
251
(185.1)
218.5
(161.2)
1.10
0.014
(0.0043)
1.00
0.013
(0.0039)
0.002
0.0018
5.30
5.30
0.11
(0.033)
Concrete
crushed and all
four bars
buckled at base;
one bar ruptured
device (Fig. 2(c)), until the hardened cement paste and the
fine aggregates were removed and the coarse aggregates
were exposed. In Column Q-RCRD, roughening of the
interface, as with Column Q-RCR, is combined with
dowels as with Column Q-RCD. In Column Q-RC, no
special measures were taken to connect the jacket to the
old concrete.
A monolithic column, Q-RCM, was also used as control
specimen. It had the same external dimensions (400 mm
[16 in.] square) and the same reinforcement as the jacket
(four 20 mm [0.8 in.] vertical bars, 10 mm [0.4 in.] closed
ties at 100 mm [4 in.] centers), but it did not have the four
14 mm [0.55 in.] plain vertical bars and the corresponding
stirrups of the original 250 mm [10 in.] square column of
the five jacketed specimens.
Unidirectional deflection cycles were applied with
amplitudes increasing by 5 mm (0.2 in.) from one cycle to
the next. Testing continued (with increasing deflection
amplitude) until and beyond the column ultimate deformation,
conventionally defined as that where peak resistance in a
cycle drops below 80% of the maximum recorded lateral
resistance of the column. Often the conventionally defined
ultimate deformation was reached when one or more vertical
bars fractured.
523
525
3
Ls
f
c
( f y, f c in MPa )
0.34 y d bL f y
y ( Ls + aV z )
h
y = ----------------------------- + 0.0013 1 + 1.5 ----- + -----------------------------
(1b)
3
L s
f
c
( f y, f c in ksi )
In rectangular, T-walls, or barbelled walls
L
y ( Ls + aV z )
0.13 y d bL f y
y = ----------------------------- + 0.002 1 0.125 -----s + -----------------------------
(2a)
h
3
f
c
( f y, f c in MPa )
y ( Ls + aV z )
L
0.34 y d bL f y
y = ----------------------------- + 0.002 1 0.125 -----s + -----------------------------
3
h
f (2b)
c
( f y, f c in ksi )
526
L S
--- h
yw
f----- S f
0.35
25
L
----S-
h
0.2
( f y, f c in MPa )
yw
f----- S f
25
( fc )
(3a)
v max ( 0.01, )
pl
u = 0.0212a wall ( 0.25 ) ----------------------------------max ( 0.01, )
0.35
0.3
0.3
( fc )
0.2
(3b)
( f y, f c in ksi )
where wall = 1.0 for beams or columns and wall = 0.6 for
walls; = N/bhfc (with b being the width of the compression
zone and the axial force N considered positive for
compression); = fy/fc , mechanical reinforcement ratio of
tension longitudinal reinforcement (including any
longitudinal reinforcement between the two flanges); =
fy/fc , mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression,
reinforcement; s = As/bw sh, transverse steel ratio parallel to
the direction of loading; and equals confinement
effectiveness factor from Reference 26.
The numerous available monotonic data show that for
monotonic loading, the right-hand side of Eq. (3) is divided
by 0.48. Also, in members with no possibility of physical
pull-out of tension reinforcement (for example, refer to
References 2 and 10), the available data show that, if this is
the case, the plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation upl,
monotonic or cyclic, should be multiplied by 1.625 (= 1 + 5/8).
For members with lap splices (of plain or of deformed
bars) in the plastic hinge region, as well as for members with
other details not appropriate for earthquake resistance (for
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007
Dimensions
A2
Longitudinal
reinforcement
Tension and compression reinforcement are those of jacket. Longitudinal bars of old member are considered at their
actual location between tension and compression reinforcement from jacket: they may supplement any longitudinal bars
of jacket between tension and compression reinforcement and included in web reinforcement ratio considered as
uniformly distributed between tension and compression reinforcement; in walls, old vertical bars near edges may be
included in tension and compression reinforcement of jacketed member, as appropriate. Effect of lap splicing in
intermediate old reinforcement may be neglected. Differences in yield stress between new and old vertical reinforcement
should be taken into account in all cases.
A3
Concrete strength
Value of f c of jacket applies over full section of monolithic member, except in third term of Eq. (1) and (2), where f c value
used is that of concrete where longitudinal reinforcement is developed beyond end section.
A4
Axial load
Full axial load is taken to act on jacketed column as a whole, although it was originally applied to old column alone.*
A5
Transverse reinforcement Only transverse reinforcement in jacket is taken into account for confinement.
B1
M and y (also in first and third term of Eq. (1) and (2)) are calculated for cross-sectional dimensions, longitudinal
Dimensions, longitudinal y
reinforcement, and fc value of old member, neglecting any contribution from jacket (even in compression zone). Effect
reinforcement, and
of lap splicing of old reinforcement should be taken into account as in References 20 and 23. Section depth h in second
concrete strength
term of Eq. (1) and (2) (that has to do with shear deformations) should be that of jacket.
B2
Transverse reinforcement
Regardless of whether longitudinal reinforcement of jacket continues beyond member end section for development or stops there, shear resistance
(including that without shear reinforcement, VR,c , for determination of value of V in first term of Eq. (1) and (2)) and anything that has to do with
shear should be calculated on basis of external dimensions and transverse reinforcement of jacket. Contribution of old transverse reinforcement
may be considered only in walls, provided it is well developed into (new) boundary elements.
Deformation capacity u is calculated on basis of old column alone, considering that old column is confined by jacket
and its transverse steel. Value of s = As/shbw for Eq. (3) is determined from value of As/sh in jacket and width of old
column as bw . Confinement effectiveness factor may be taken = 1.0 (jacket serves as cushion distributing confinement
to full extent of old section).
Shear resistance
*Assumption is supported by conclusion in Reference 12 that application of full axial load on old column alone at time of jacketing had almost no effect on monotonic response up
to yielding and beyond, compared with column with axial load applied just at time of testing.
Fig. 7Accuracy of predictions on basis of proposed rules for calculation of yield moment (top row), of secant stiffness at
apparent yielding (middle row), and of ultimate chord rotation (bottom row) of RC-jacketed members, as function of: (a) ratio of
fc of jacket to that of old member; (b) ratio of cross-sectional area of jacket to that of old member; and (c) ratio of product of yield
stress times longitudinal reinforcement ratio of jacket, to same product of old member.
the experimental values of My, u, EIeff to My*, u*, and
EIeff *, respectively, against the aforementioned parameters
(a) to (f) in Fig. 7 or 8. This shows that the predictions of My,
EIeff , or u as My*, u*, EIeff* above, according to
aforementioned Rules 1 to 3, are not systematically biased
with respect to any of these parameters. Note that the data in
Fig. 7 and 8 support assumptions A3 and A4 in Table 2, even
when the compression zone extends beyond the jacket,
within the section of the old column.
CONCLUSIONS
The experimental program on rectangular RC-jacketed
columns focused on the impact of measures taken to enhance
the shear transfer at the interface of the old and the new
concrete. The test results were then supplemented with
monotonic or cyclic experimental data from the
literature3-12,16-18 with various bonding measures between
the old and the new concrete (usually not applied in the same
testing program), to draw more robust conclusions about the
effect of bonding at the interface. This was done by
expressing key properties of the jacketed column (notably,
the yield moment, the yield drift, the secant stiffness at
incipient yielding, and the flexure-controlled ultimate drift)
as ratios to the corresponding quantities of an equivalent
monolithic member. The conclusion was that such ratios do
not systematically depend on the type of measures taken to
enhance the shear transfer at the interface of the old and the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007
Fig. 8Accuracy of predictions on basis of proposed rules for calculation of yield moment (top row), of secant stiffness at
apparent yielding (middle row), and of ultimate chord rotation (bottom row) of RC-jacketed members, as function of: (a) axial
load, normalized to full cross-sectional area of jacketed section times fc of jacket; (b) axial load, normalized to actual
compressive strength of jacketed section; and (c) ratio of compression zone depth to thickness of jacket.
If the jacket longitudinal bars stop at the member end
sections, the yield moment and the flexure-controlled
cyclic deformation capacity of the jacketed member may
be estimated considering the jacketed member as
monolithic, with:
Cross-sectional dimensions, longitudinal reinforcement,
and fc value those of the old member;
The axial load applied on the section of the old
member; and
Confinement provided by the jacket and its
transverse steel (with the transverse reinforcement
ratio, s = As/shbw determined from the value of As/sh
in the jacket and the width of the old column as bw
and the confinement effectiveness factor taken equal
to 1.0, as if the jacket serves as a cushion distributing
confinement to the full extent of the old section).
With these rules, the yield moment of the jacketed member
is, on average, well estimated, while its drift ratio at incipient
yielding is underestimated by approximately 5% on average.
There is no systematic effect of any special connection
measures at the interface on the yield moment My and the
effective stiffness EIeff of the jacketed member. The ultimate
chord rotation is underestimated by 8%, on average, if no
measures are taken at the interface between the old and the
new concrete to improve the connection. It is underestimated
more when dowels are employed at the interface, and even
530
more if U-bars are welded between the new and the old
longitudinal bars. So, the rules proposed for the ultimate
chord rotation are safe-sided in all cases.
Regardless of whether the longitudinal reinforcement of
the jacket continues beyond the member end section for
development or stops there, the shear resistance (as well as
anything that has to do with shear, such as the part of the drift
at yielding owing to shear deformationscompare second
term in Eq. (1) and (2)) should be calculated on the basis of
the external dimensions and the transverse reinforcement of the
jacket. The contribution of the old transverse reinforcement
may be considered only in walls, provided it is well developed
into the (new) boundary elements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded partly by the European Commission (project
SPEAR of the GROWTH program, Contract No. G6RD-2001-00525) and
partly by NATO (via its Science for Peace Program).
NOTATION
b
h
Ls
My
My*
My,exp
My,calc
N
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
VR,c
REFERENCES
1. Sabnis, G. M.; Shroff, A. C.; and Kahn, L. F., eds., Seismic
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, SP-160, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1996, 318 pp.
2. Teran, A., and Ruiz, J., RC Jacketing of Existing Structures,
Proceedings 10th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Balkema,
Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 5107-5113.
3. Bett, J.; Klingner, R.; and Jirsa, J., Lateral Load Response of
Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 85, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1988, pp. 499-507.
4. Choudhuri, D.; Mander, J. B.; and Reinhorn, A. M., Evaluation of
Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: Part I
Experimental Performance of Retrofitted Subassemblages, Report
No. NCEER-92-0030, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, N.Y., 1992, 173 pp.
5. Ersoy, U.; Tankut, T.; and Suleiman, R., Behavior of Jacketed Columns,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 288-293.
6. Gomes, A. M., and Appleton, J., Repair and Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Loading, Proceedings of the
11th European Conference of Earthquake Engineering, 1998, Paris, France.
7. Ilki, A.; Darilmaz, K.; Bakan, I.; Zorbozan, M.; Yuksel, E.; Saruhan,
H.; and Karadogan, F., Jacketing of Prefabricated Columns, Proceedings
of the 2nd Japan-Turkey Workshop on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul,
Turkey, 1998, pp. 329-336.
8. Iliya, R., and Bertero, V. V., Effects of Amount and Arrangement on
Wall-Panel Reinforcement on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Walls, Report No. UCB/EERC-80/04, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif, 1980, 154 pp.
9. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced
Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159.
10. Vandoros, K., Experimental Investigation of the Cyclic Behaviour of
Columns Strengthened with Concrete Jackets, thesis presented to the
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece, 2005,
235 pp.
531