Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compstruct

Concrete columns confined by fiber composite wraps under combined axial and cyclic lateral loads
Azadeh Parvin *, Wei Wang
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390, USA

Abstract This paper presents nonlinear finite element analysis of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) jacketed reinforced concrete columns under combined axial and cyclic lateral loadings. Large-scale control and FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns (762 mm in diameter and 4978 mm in height) were modeled using the nonlinear finite element analysis software MARCe. The models were capable of allowing for the degradation of the stiffness under cyclic loading. The finite element analysis results indicated that reinforced concrete columns externally wrapped with the FRP fabric in the potential plastic hinge location at the bottom of the column showed significant improvement in both strength and ductility capacities, and the FRP jacket could be used to delay the degradation of the stiffness of reinforced concrete columns. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fiber composites; Concrete; Jacketed columns; Cyclic loading; Ductility; Stiffness degradation; Finite element analysis

1. Introduction When reinforced concrete columns are subjected to seismic loading, the large lateral cyclic earthquake force will degrade the concrete and the reinforcing bar very quickly, and the columns will fail prematurely. Investigations of bridge failures during the recent earthquakes, such as the 1987 Whittier, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994 Northridge, and 1995 Kobe show that inadequate lateral reinforcement and insufficient lap length of the starter bars are among the major catastrophic causes of failure [1–3]. The seismic loads can induce large moments and lateral forces to the bridge columns. This will result in large shear forces in the columns, which are resisted mainly through the lateral reinforcement. Properly detailed lateral reinforcement can also prevent the sudden loss of bond and buckling of the longitudinal rebars. Many existing bridge columns are designed using elastic analysis methods along with much smaller earthquake forces compared to current design codes. The lateral reinforcement in these bridge columns are poorly detailed, which results in unreliable flexural ca-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-419-530-8134; fax: +1-419-5308116. E-mail address: aparvin@eng.utoledo.edu (A. Parvin).

*

pacity, insufficient shear strength, and low strength at the footing-column joints. There is an urgent need to upgrade these deficient bridge columns to meet the current design standards in seismic regions. Steel jacketing has been extensively used in the state of California, USA, to retrofit the bridge columns and has been proven to be very efficient to increase the strength and ductility of the columns [4]. In the meantime, researchers and practitioners are looking for innovative approaches to improve the retrofit of deteriorating bridges. One approach is by the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), which offers ease of handling and speed of installation, durability, resistance to corrosion, and high strength-to-weight ratio among many other properties compared to steel, in particular. Recent research on one-fifth scale reinforced concrete bridge columns by Saadatmanesh et al. [5,6] shows that the FRP jacket can also be used to enhance the performance of the reinforced concrete bridge columns under constant axial load and lateral cyclic loading. Their research concluded that the FRP jacket is very effective in preventing the columns from bond failure or longitudinal bar buckling. In another experimental study by the same researchers [7], reinforced concrete columns that were damaged by earthquake were repaired using FRP wraps. Their findings indicated that this repair technique increased displacement ductility

0263-8223/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 6 3 - 0

Finite element model of FRP-jacketed concrete column The nonlinear finite element analysis software MARCe (MARC K7. and stiffness degradation of materials. behaviors of the control reinforced concrete column and the FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under combined axial and monotonic lateral loads were investigated. Xiao and Ma [9] investigated a prefabricated composite jacketing system for retrofitting reinforced concrete columns with lap-spliced rebars. the material modeling of concrete and FRP. They derived relations between axial and lateral strains to trace the state of strain or to detect its failure. [15] developed a nonlinear finite element model using nonassociative Drucker–Prager plasticity to account for confined concrete (circular and square cross-sections). as well as case studies for control and FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column models under combined axial and monotonic lateral loads. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 and strength of repaired columns. Four case studies are presented. In the third and the fourth cases. when designing FRP-jacketed columns under eccentric loading. while utilizing large-scale complex models. 2. a smaller enhancement factor should be used. W. there appears to be relatively few finite element analysis studies of FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete columns. Their study involved nonlinear finite element analysis while being limited to square short columns subjected to eccentric loadings. This study fills in this perceived void in literature by proposing a highly complex nonlinear finite element analysis model for a large-scale FRP-jacketed column to study its behavior under combined axial and cyclic lateral loadings with the capability of allowing the stiffness degradation for concrete behavior.540 A. which they claimed to compare well with experimental results from previous studies by other researchers. [10] proposed a simple analytical confinement model to predict the response of FRP-confined concrete. Their model however did not allow strength or stiffness degradation. A successful outcome for the proposed study would significantly reduce dependency on costly and time consuming experimental analysis of large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete columns while maintaining a high degree of predictive capacity for the numerical models in terms of exposing the behavioral characteristics of the physical columns themselves. Their results showed that the strength and ductility of concrete FRP-jacketed columns under eccentric loading can greatly increase and that the strain gradient decreases the retrofit efficiency of the FRP jacket for concrete columns. under the cyclic load. Seible et al. Most of the studies performed on FRP-jacketed columns in the reported literature concentrate on either experimental and/or analytical models. [8] validated the design of seismic carbon fiber retrofitted reinforced concrete columns through large-scale bridge column experiments and determined that carbon fiber jackets provide the desired inelastic design deformation capacity levels as good as steel shell jacketing. a kinetic hardening rule may be more appropriate to model stiffness degradation. They studied the effect of corner radius of square concrete sections on stress concentration. Spoelstra and Monti [11] presented a uniaxial analytical model for FRP-confined concrete. Then. Xiao and Wu [12] experimentally investigated the effect of compressive strength and confinement modulus of confined concrete. Their study was limited to experimentation on rectangular or square columns subjected to monotonic uniaxial compression loading and did not consider lateral cyclic load. They validated this analytical model through their own experiment as well as experiments by others and observed good correlation between the analytical predictions and experimental results. Parvin.1.2/Mentat 3. Rochette and Labossiere [13] tested the behavior of small rectangular and square columns confined by aramid and carbon fiber sheets. or combined axial and cyclic lateral loads are described. which they concluded as the most influential parameters affecting the behavior of FRPconfined concrete.2) was used to model . Consequently. They concluded that the FRP jacket was able to delay the premature brittle failure of the columns due to the bond deterioration of the lap-spliced rebars. They also proposed a simple bilinear stress–strain model for confined concrete. Their study showed that the ductility and strength of the concrete column subjected to axial load had increased. They suggested. initially the load corresponding to the yielding of the rebar in the column was determined. Samaan et al. In the first and second case studies. 2. which take into account material and geometric nonlinearities. the same control reinforced concrete column and the FRPjacketed reinforced concrete column were studied under combined axial and cyclic lateral loads. Their study pointed out the differences in behaviors of concrete elements confined with a variety of wraps such as fiberglass or carbon fiber. Mirmiran et al. The load versus displacement response of control columns under each loading condition were compared to the FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete columns under the same loading condition to study the effect of the FRP jackets used as external reinforcement for columns. Parvin and Wang [14] investigated the behavior of FRP-jacketed square concrete columns under eccentric loading experimentally and numerically. As a result. this value was used to control the cyclic lateral load steps. For those cases with monotonic lateral load. Finite element analysis of FRP-jacketed columns In the following sections.

1. The three principle material directions (direction 1 along the fiber direction and directions 2 and 3 perpendicular to the fiber direction) are orthogonal to each other.563 pounds) were applied at the top of the column (Fig. D55 ¼ G12 . the concrete can flow like a ductile material under high triaxial compression. m23 are PoissonÕs ratios for the FRP jacket.9 Gpa (3  107 psi) and the PoissonÕs ratio of 0. The stress–strain relation is given as: ri ¼ Dij ej for i. The steel rebars were modeled by 224 three-dimensional truss elements. D12 ¼ m21 ð1 þ m23 Þ½ð1 þ m23 Þð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 ފ E11 . Fig. while the modulus of elasticity and the PoissonÕs ratio were 20. The FRP jacket was modeled as a single layer and by 224 threedimensional thin-shell elements. D44 ¼ ð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 Þ½ð1 þ m23 Þð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 ފÀ1 E22 =2. r2 . 1).6 MPa (4000 psi). .83 MPa (700 psi) with the where the components of tensor Dij . D23 ¼ ðm23 þ m12 m21 Þ½ð1 þ m23 Þð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 ފÀ1 E22 .) in height was modeled. the FRP materials demonstrate a linear elastic behavior until failure. The concrete model was three-dimensional eight-node solid brick elements and required 1176 elements in total. and the deviatory failure or ‘‘yield’’ stress in concrete depends on the hydrostatic pressure. E22 is the modulus of elasticity for the FRP jacket perpendicular to the fiber direction.69 Gpa (3  106 psi) and 0.17. The separating force between the concrete and the FRP jacket was given a large value in order to assume perfect bonding. The deviatoric yield function is a function of the hydrostatic stress.76 MPa (400 psi) and a lateral load of 345 KN (77. þ 1 6 ð 1Þ where r1 . Large-scale control reinforced concrete column. The bottom of the column was fixed. Case 1––control reinforced concrete column under monotonic lateral loading A reinforced concrete column that is 762 mm (30 in. and m12 . while noting that zero components are not included: D11 ¼ ð1 À m2 23 Þ½ð1 þ m23 Þð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 ފ E11 . The nonlinear behavior of the confined concrete material was simulated by employing the Mohr–Coulomb yield criteria combined with the isotropic hardening rule.) in diameter and 4978 mm (196 in. G12 is the shear modulus for the FRP jacket.5%. coefficient a depends on the angle of internal friction and cohesion. A uniform axial load of 2.2. The strength of the concrete was 27. and coefficient K depends on the angle of internal friction of concrete. Parvin. Different element thicknesses were assigned based on if the jacket consisted of one or multi-layer FRP fabrics. The reinforcement ratio of this column was about 2. 2. As described by the generalized Hook law. are defined as follows. The Mohr–Coulomb yield criteria is a reasonable choice since. The longitudinal rebars in the columns were modeled by 224 three-dimensional truss elements. 6. . The critical tensile strength of concrete was 4. The concrete column was modeled by 1176 three-dimensional solid brick elements. Cracking was taken into account.3. . Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 541 the FRP-jacketed concrete columns [16]. The nonlinearities incorporated in the model include the material property and the structure geometry. In this study. W. . m21 . The strength of the rebar was 413.000 psi) with the modulus of elasticity of 206.A. respectively. the FRP is considered to be an orthotropic material. and À1 À1 À1 ð 3Þ where E11 is the modulus of elasticity for the FRP jacket along the fiber direction. Concrete and steel materials were isotropic. 2. D22 ¼ ð1 À m12 m21 Þ½ð1 þ m23 Þð1 À m23 À 2m12 m21 ފ E22 .7 MPa (60. . and r3 represent the principal stresses in the concrete. which is defined as: f ¼ aðr1 þ r2 þ r3 Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 2 2 ½ðr1 À r2 Þ þ ðr2 À r3 Þ þ ðr3 À r1 Þ Š À K ¼ 0. ð 2Þ Simulation of the bonding force between the concrete column surface and FRP jacket was realized through the ‘‘Glue’’ sub-option of the ‘‘Contact’’ option in MARCe. j ¼ 1.

4 presents the load–displacement curve for node 267 in the global Y direction. the largest tensile strain along the longitudinal direction was 0. the PoissonÕs ratio of 0. it was found that the load increment 46 corresponded to the yielding point of the rebar. The strain distribution in the FRP jacket indicated that the FRP failed in the longitudinal direction.005. The jacket was E-glass FRP with fibers along the two perpendicular directions. A uniform concentric axial load of 2. When the steel rebar yielded.002.412 pounds) was applied to 101 nodes at the top of the column as external point load within 28 load increments along the global Y direction. At this point. Further larger loading leads the concrete to crush quickly. . The concrete and rebar were modeled as in the previous case of column without FRP.0178 and the largest tensile strain along the circumferential direction was only about 0. the column failed completely. 1 was wrapped with the FRP jacket at the bottom height of the column. the axial strain in the rebar exceeded 0. At load increment 28. Case 2––FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under monotonic lateral loading The large-scale reinforced concrete column given in Fig. The lateral monotonic load of 629 KN (141. The thickness of the jacket was 5. Load–displacement curve of large-scale control reinforced concrete column under monotonic lateral load.002 at the load increment 19. respectively.563 pounds) was added to 101 nodes on the top of the column as external point load within 48 load increments along the global Y direction. 2 illustrates the load–displacement curve for the node 267 on top of the column.). Parvin. W.2 in. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 Fig. The rebar yielded at about load increment 20. This value is used to control the lateral loading steps in the cyclic lateral loading.2 Gpa (7 Â 106 psi).542 A. which was used to predict the failure of the structure. Fig. which was when the external load at each node reached 3. At load increment 48.42 KN (769 pounds).3. 2.003.) (Fig. The monotonous lateral load of 345 KN (77.) with a height of 1778 mm (70 in.76 MPa (400 psi) was also added on the top of the column.76 in.7 mm (1. Fig.02.24. The FRP jacket was modeled by 224 three-dimensional thin shell elements. Checking the axial strain value of the rebar at the bottom of the column shows the axial strain of the rebar is 0. softening modulus and the crushing strain of 2. 2. The FRP was assumed orthotropic elastic material with the modulus of elasticity along the fiber direction of 48. 3).08 mm (0.52 Kpa (365 psi) and 0.0021. Checking the strain distribution at the bottom of column. and ultimate strain of 0. the largest compressive strain in the concrete was 0. The lateral displacement at the yielding point of the rebar was 44.

The lateral displacement and external load at the node 267 was used to construct the hysteresis loops for the structure (Fig. was used to control the loading steps. and 3 times the critical lateral displacement 44.76 in. In order to make this graph comparable to the hysteresis loops of the FRP-jacketed reinforced Fig. The load factors for the entire loading process are listed in Fig.A.7 mm (1.4. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 543 2.) for the first. Case 3––control reinforced concrete column under cyclic lateral loading A reinforced concrete column without FRP jacket under cyclic lateral load was modeled as the control column. These factors were derived based on making the maximum lateral displacement at the end of each loading loop to be 1. Parvin. respectively. which corresponded to the yielding of the rebar. . The lateral displacement of 44. 5. 2. this displacement required the external lateral load at each node to be 3. The only difference is that the lateral load was applied cyclically. 1. For the control reinforced concrete column.7 mm (1. second.29 KN (740 pounds).5. third and fourth loading loops. Fig. Large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column.). The total lateral load should be the value at the node times the number of top element nodes (101). 4. 3. W.76 in. 6). Load–displacement curve of large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under monotonic lateral load. The finite element model of this column was exactly the same as the one under monotonic loading in case 1.

W.544 A. Lateral load factor for large-scale control reinforced concrete column. 5. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 Fig. . Load–displacement response of large-scale control reinforced concrete column under cyclic loading. Fig. Parvin. 6.

8 shows the load–displacement curve for the node 267. At load increment 74 (fourth hysteresis loop). second. fourth. 6 and 8. it can be concluded that under lateral cyclic load. For the column with the FRP jacket. However. the FRP jacket reached its maximum tensile strain and the col- umn failed. 2. This validation would be based on comparing the Fig. Additionally. the stiffness of reinforced concrete column did not degrade significantly compared to the one without the FRP jacket as it can be observed by the change in the slope in each hysteresis loop.6.) was used to control the lateral loading. 4 and 5 times the critical lateral displacement (44. 7. respectively. third. which can facilitate large-scale experimentation. The yield displacement of 44. Parvin. Assessment of validity for proposed numerical models Validation of the proposed numerical models of the concrete columns through comparison with similar columns employed in laboratory experiments as reported in the recent literature will be presented in this section. Case 4––FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under cyclic lateral loading The FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under cyclic lateral loading had the same model as the one under monotonic lateral loading in case 1. Fig. 2.7 mm) for the first. it is still possible to make reasonably good observations pertaining to validity of the proposed numerical models. W. The load factors for the entire loading process are listed in Fig. The stiffness of the reinforced concrete column degraded with the external cyclic loading as it can be seen from the change in the slope of each hysteresis loop. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 545 concrete column under cyclic lateral loading.A. . 3. in the absence of such experimentation due to constraints imposed by limited availability of well-equipped laboratory infrastructure. this displacement controlled the external lateral load at each node to be 3. Lateral load factor for large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column.47 KN (780 pounds). Ideally. 6 (about 70% increase in strength and 203% increase in lateral displacement). 2.76 in. the FRP-jacketed concrete column strength and ductility had increased significantly compared to the control concrete column.7 mm (1. At load increment 130 (fifth cycle). before cyclic capacity degradation in the neighborhood of third hysteresis loop in Fig. These factors are based on making the maximum lateral displacements at the end of each loading cycle to be approximately 1. and fifth loading cycles.5. the concrete crushed and the structure failed completely. it was plotted with the same scale as the hysteresis loop of the FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column. 7. from Figs. full-scale laboratory experimentation would be desirable to validate the proposed numerical models of columns. Because of the confinement of the FRP jacket.

Finally.) and the cross-section diameter of 305 mm (12 in.5 MPa (5297 psi). Two noteworthy experimental investigations that have been carried out on circular FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete columns subjected to combined axial and cyclic lateral loads were reported in recent literature [7. The compressive strength of the concrete was 44. will be noted. Elastic modulus and ultimate strength for the uni- . 8.546 A. Load–displacement response of large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under cyclic loading. The experimental study by Saadatmanesh et al.) in height and 610 mm (24 in. reported in literature. the longitudinal steel rebar ratio of 2. The yield strength of the steel rebar was 414 MPa (60. [7] involved one-fifth scale FRP- wrapped reinforced concrete columns. half-scale columns with 2440 mm (96 in. The column had the height (from the center of the pins where the cyclic load was applied to the top of footing) of 1892 mm (72 in. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 Fig. Parvin.8 mm (0.) thickness per layer in the form of a strap with 151 mm (6 in.) in diameter with longitudinal steel ratio of 2% of the gross area of column section were employed. for which scaled-down laboratory experimentations were reported in the literature. Both of these experimental studies are based on scaled-down models.9].8 MPa (6500 psi). Overall height of the test units was 2413 mm (95 in. it will be established that columns chosen from the literature for correlating load–displacement envelopes are ‘‘similar’’ to the columns for which the numerical models were proposed in this study.000 psi).) with the concrete strength of 36.).) width and was placed butt-to-butt along the height of the column up to 635 mm (25 in. reasonable level of correlation among load–displacement envelopes for the two experimentally tested columns. response envelopes for proposed numerical models of control and FRP-jacketed columns with those of other ‘‘similar’’ columns.213 psi) and 17. A constant axial load of 445 KN (100 kips) was applied on top of the column. The lateral cyclic load was modeled as a combination of load control and displacement control phases. Initially.48%. W.03 in. and the finite element analysis models of control and FRP-jacketed-columns. respectively. proposed in this study. The unidirectional E-glass FRP jacket tensile strength and tensile modulus were 532 MPa (77. and steel yield stress of 358 MPa (51.) from the top surface of footing. Differences between columns subjected to experimentation in the literature and the ones under study in this paper will be noted with the anticipation that load–displacement curves will project nonidentical (due to these differences) but correlated behavior (due to similarities). In another experimental investigation [9].959 psi). The jacket consisted of six layers with 0.755 MPa (2577 ksi).

Thickness of the Eglass FRP jacket was 5. 6 for the control column and Fig. FRP-wrapped columns performed extremely well under combined axial and cyclic lateral loadings compared to control columns with considerable enhancement in the response to cyclic loads clearly observable.9] and the columns.) portion of the wrapped section consisted of three layers for this case of retrofitted column.) for the control model (after that the control column experienced stiffness degradation). respectively (after that the column started degrading gradually). likely induced a range of percent improvement values in lateral load carrying capacity and lateral displacement. the measured maximum lateral load and the corresponding lateral displacement for one configuration of the FRP-wrapped circular column with continuous longitudinal bars were 72 KN (16.). one way to increase the ductility of the column is by increasing the number of wraps. This leads to an increase of 20% in lateral load and 57% in lateral displacement for the FRP-jacketed column. which means significant improvement in the hysteresis loops of lateral load versus lateral displacement of jacketed columns. which was based on the reference ductility index. The gradual degradation at large displacements was most likely due to bond slip in the lap-spliced longitudinal bars. Furthermore. The sequence of lateral load was controlled by displacement increment. Test results [9] on retrofitted column exposed no stiffness degradation as well except. One of two experimental .76 MPa (400 psi) and a lateral load of 345 KN (77.12 in.6 MPa (4000 psi). variations in slenderness ratio and rigidity of columns as well as magnitude of loadings. A uniform axial load of 2. Next. both strength and ductility should be taken into account.). and the wrapped portion of the column had a height of 1220 mm (48 in. respectively. 3.) with a height of 1778 mm (70 in.5%.2 in. respectively. respectively. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 547 directional glass fiber composites were 48.75 in.) and the diameter of 762 mm (30 in. This variation in percent improvement can easily materialize due to imposed requirements to emphasize the increase of either flexural strength or ductility or both for repair and rehabilitation. load versus displacement curves of the columns investigated by two experimental studies in the literature [7. Therefore. For example. The FRP-wrapped concrete column lateral load and lateral displacement were 573 KN (128.116 psi).) thickness per layer. W.51 in. Parvin. This results in an increase of 30% in lateral load and 554% in lateral displacement. 13(b) for wrapped column in [7] and Fig. the maximum lateral load and corresponding lateral displacement for control model were 231 KN (52 kips) and 13 mm (0.). Specifically.28 in. and larger lateral cyclic loading than experimental analyses performed by other researchers described above.93 in.A. 6(a) for as-built column and Fig. respectively (after that the column started degrading gradually). response profile of the finite element analysis model of FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete column under combined axial and cyclic lateral loadings as exhibited by the hysteresis loops in Fig. The wraps consisted of four layers.56 kips) and 85 mm (3.) high from the bottom of footing and the remaining 610 mm (24 in.08 mm (0. The lateral strength and ductility of wrapped columns increased compared to the control columns. the control column maximum lateral load and corresponding lateral displacement were 337 KN (75. for 610 mm (24 in.).) from the bottom of column.563 pounds) were applied at the top of the column.2 mm (0. 13(a) for control column and Fig.). an increase of 70% in lateral load and 203% in lateral displacement were observed for the FRP-jacketed column under combined axial and cyclic lateral loading.2 Gpa (7 Â 106 psi). respectively (after that the column experienced stiffness degradation). a gradual yet insignificant degradation was observed. The retrofitted FRPjacketed column with 4-layer wrapping exhibited maximum lateral load and lateral displacement values of 300 KN (67.2 kips) and 110 mm (4. during the last few hysteresis loops. In the experimental study performed by Saadatmanesh et al. 8 for FRP-jacketed column correlates to those observed in the experiments by other two studies. [7]. The modulus of elasticity along the fiber direction had a value of 48. In the finite element analysis presented in this study. will be observed and compared to expose the degree of behavior correlation among them while noting the differences between the same. the rebar yield strength of 414 MPa (60.300 MPa (7000 ksi) and 552 MPa (80.02.35 in.7 kips) and 58 mm (2. versus the value of 60 KN (13. namely Fig.000 psi) with reinforcement ratio of 2. for the three studies being compared. results of finite element analysis for the proposed column model were in good agreement with those of experimental analysis on the circular column with continuous longitudinal rebars [7] on the basis of not showing stiffness degradation or pinching of hysteresis loops for the FRP-jacketed columns.). for which finite element analysis models were proposed in this study.76 kips) and 176 mm (6. For all three studies. larger axial loading of 1258 KN (283 kips). As expected. The applied concentrated load was 712 KN (160 kips). In general.33 in. The finite element analysis presented in this study involves larger column sizes: full-size models with the height of 4978 mm (196 in. The column had the concrete strength of 27. In the experimental investigation by Xiao and Ma [9]. 6(b) for retrofitted column in [9]. The ultimate strain for the FRP was 0. there is 20–70% increase in lateral load carrying capacity and 57–554% increase in lateral displacement capacity.). while noting that for structural frames subjected to earthquake loads.5 kips) and 70 mm (2.

1994: performance of highway bridge. Seismic retrofitting of rectangular concrete columns retrofitted with composite straps Earthquake. Model of concrete confined by fiber composites. J Struct Eng ASCE 1994. Priestley MJN.123(10):1357–64. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges.4(2):389–405. Seismic retrofit of RC circular columns using prefabricated composite jacketing. the results nonetheless provided valuable insight into the mechanisms governing the behavior of FRP-confined reinforced concrete columns subjected to combined axial and lateral cyclic loads. The proposed finite element analysis models of the columns is poised to provide the engineering community the opportunity to simulate high-resolution response of structural systems at significantly reduced cost and time compared to experimental analysis of large-scale FRPjacketed reinforced concrete columns: in most cases. Seismic strengthening of circular bridge pier models with fiber composites. Under cyclic lateral loading. 1994. The Northridge. 1987-damage to the I-5/I-605 separator. Seible F.94(2):206–13. Tech. Whittier narrows. [4] Chai YH. full-scale experimentation is not feasible due to limited resources and unavailability of large laboratory facilities and equipments. [5] Saadatmanesh H. geometry. Although the presented finite element analysis studies were restricted to a particular column configuration. California earthquake of October 1. • The FRP jacket could be used to delay the degradation of the stiffness of the reinforced concrete columns. the failure mode of the reinforced concrete columns had changed. Ma R. Ehsani MR. California earthquake of January 17. State University of New York at Buffalo. New York: Wiley. 3. Under lateral cyclic loading. Finite element study of large-scale FRP-jacketed reinforced concrete columns under combined axial and cyclic lateral loadings results in the following observations: • Reinforced concrete columns externally wrapped with the FRP fabric in the potential plastic hinge location showed significant improvement in both strength and ductility capacities. Mirmiran A. Shahawy M. [8] Seible F. [2] Buckle IG (Ed. The failure of the unjacketed columns initiated from the crushing of the concrete at a relatively low compressive strain of 0. • Due to the confinement by the FRP jacket at the critical section. The failure of the jacketed columns was due to the failure of the FRP jacket. These observations based on a comparative assessment of two experimental studies and the finite element analysis in this paper suggest that the proposed numerical models are reasonably accurate and provides expected response envelopes for the load–displacement curves of columns. Repair of earthquakedamaged R/C columns with FRP wraps. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 studies [9] reported substantially more increase in the lateral displacement compared to lateral displacement increases in the other two studies. Extension of the results presented here to other columns with different size. Jin L. [10] Samaan M. J Struct Eng ASCE 1997. Conclusions The necessity to understand the principles and behavior of FRP-wrapped structural systems is vital in order to design systems with high performance and predictable behavior. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998. The proposed finite element analysis study will unable the engineers to foresee the behavior of the structure before construction. Analytical model for steeljacketed RC circular bridge columns. the lateral displacement of the FRPjacketed column could be four times as large as that of the column without the FRP jacket.93(6):639–47. Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets. the stiffness of the unjacketed column decreased rapidly after the lateral displacement reached 1. the lateral displacement of the FRP-jacketed column could be two times as large as that of the column without the FRP jacket. This difference in increases might have been due to the fact that the FRP jacket was approximately two and half times thicker than those of other two studies. NY.13(2):1977.124(9): 1025–31.1(2):52–62. the failure of the column. [6] Saadatmanesh H.003) depending on the type of the FRP jacket. [7] Saadatmanesh H. Ehsani MR. Hegemier GA. Jin L. ACI Struct J 1997. Nat. [9] Xiao Y.548 A. Jin L. When the FRP jacket failed. The crushing strain for confined concrete can be very large (much greater than 0. loading conditions. For the FRP-jacketed column.). and the strength of the column increased about 70%.003. Ehsani MR. Calvi GM. References [1] Priestley MJN. Earthquake Spectra J 1988. Parvin. for Earthquake Engrg. Ctr. W. Rep. the concrete crushed simultaneously. [3] Priestley MJN. and the strength of the column increased about 80%. . Priestley MJN..5 times the yielding displacement. • The proposed numerical full-scale column models were reasonably accurate and provided expected response profiles or envelopes which clearly revealed the gain in strength and ductility of the FRP-jacketed columns as observed by other experimental studies on scaled-down columns. Innamorato D. there was no significant stiffness degradation observed throughout the complete loading process. 1996. Seible F. Eng Res Inst J SPECTRA 1997. J Compos Constr ASCE 1997. NCEER-94-0008. and types of FRP wraps will require further research. ACI Struct J 1996.120(8):2358–76. Res. Under monotonic lateral loading.

A. Axial testing of rectangular column models confined with composites. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber composite jackets. [16] MARC Users Guide. J Mat Civil Eng 2000. Labossiere P. Behavior of fiber reinforced plastic jacketed concrete columns under eccentric loading.12(2):139– 46. Finite Element Anal Des 2000. Wu H. 549 [14] Parvin A. [12] Xiao Y.35:79–96. J Compos Constr ASCE 1999. [15] Mirmiran A. Palo Alto. Monti G. J Compos Constr ASCE 2001.4(3):129–36.5(3):146–52. Wang / Composite Structures 58 (2002) 539–549 [11] Spoelstra M. 2000. MSC Software Corporation. Yuan W. W. [13] Rochette P. Zagers K. Nonlinear finite element modeling of concrete confined by fiber composites.3(3):143–50. FRP-confined concrete model. . Wang W. CA. J Compos Constr ASCE 2000. Parvin.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful