You are on page 1of 11

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 104-S49

Strength, Stiffness, and Cyclic Deformation Capacity of


Concrete Jacketed Members
by Stathis N. Bousias, Dionysis Biskinis, Michael N. Fardis, and Alexis-Loukas Spathis
Columns with plain vertical bars and no detailing for earthquake
resistance are rehabilitated with shotcrete jackets connected to the
old column through various means and subjected to cyclic uniaxial
lateral loading up to ultimate conditions to investigate the effect of
different means of connection at the interface on the effectiveness
of the jacket. These test results are supplemented with data from
the literature for different means of connection of the jacket to the
old column to develop simple rules and expressions for the
calculation of the yield moment, the drift at yielding, the secant-toyield stiffness, and the ultimate drift in cyclic loading of jacketed
columns with or without lap splicing at the base of the old column.
These rules give the yield moment, the drift at yielding, the secantto-yield stiffness, and the ultimate drift in cyclic loading of
jacketed columns as a ratio of the corresponding quantities of an
equivalent monolithic member.
Keywords: column(s); concrete jacket; cyclic loading; deformation; seismic; stiffness; strength; test.

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

wedges or even jacks. For undamaged or moderately


damaged columns, however, concern about sharing the axial
load between the jacket and the old column does not seem
warranted. Moreover, recent experimental evidence22 has
shown that concrete columns subjected to large postultimate drifts that heavily damage the concrete core retain a
large part of their gravity load capacity. So, given the
collateral negative effects of welded steel inserts or the
previously mentioned dowels and the direct or indirect costs
of such measures, it is worthwhile to investigate the
effectiveness of friction alone for the shear transfer at the
interface. Friction is enhanced by compressive stresses that
build up normal to the interface, as the old member restrains
shrinkage of the concrete jacket in the radial and
circumferential directions. Such restraint induces confinement
stresses in the old column, along with radial compression in
the jacket and circumferential tension both in the jacket and
in its perimeter tie. If, indeed, there is significant shrinkageinduced friction at the interface and confinement
enhancement in the old column, shotcrete or normal cast-inplace concrete has an advantage in this respect as jacket
materials, compared with more expensive and difficult to
apply nonshrinking mortars.
Friction is enhanced if the interface is rough. The 2:3
scale, two-story, one-bay frame tested in,13 with sizeable
concrete jackets constructed around the heavily damaged
columns of the original frame with the interface just
roughened, sustained story drifts of 1.25% (translated to a
drift ratio of the clear column length over 4%, if drifts are
due to the columns alone) without loss of column lateral
force resistance and with apparent monolithic behavior of
the jacketed column. It is not clear, however, whether the
costly artificial roughening of the interface is essential. For
example, monolithic behavior of the jacketed columns and
beams was apparently achieved in the three-dimensional
(3D) subassemblages tested in References 14 and 15 without
any positive measures to enhance shear transfer at the
interface. The recent experimental and analytical study of six
jacketed concrete columns in Reference 10 concluded that
different means and levels of shear connection at the
interface do not play an important role for the monotonic
behavior up to yielding and beyond.
More experimental work is needed to clarify the effect of
the shear connection at the interface on the cyclic behavior and
especially on the cyclic deformation capacity. So, this paper
supplements the available test results through an experimental
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 5, September-October 2007.
MS No. S-2006-036.R2 received October 11, 2006, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright
proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the
July-August 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2008.

521

ACI member Stathis N. Bousias is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil


Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. He received his MSc from Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and his PhD from the University of
Patras. His research interests include the design and experimental response of new
and rehabilitated concrete structures and structural testing techniques.
Dionysis Biskinis is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Patras. He received a diploma in civil engineering and an MS from the
University of Patras.
ACI member Michael N. Fardis is a Professor of design of concrete structures at the
University of Patras. He received his MSc and PhD from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. He received the ACI Wason Medal for Materials
Research in 1993.
Alexis-Loukas Spathis received a diploma and an MSc in civil engineering from the
University of Patras. His research interests include the experimental response of
concrete structures.

Fig. 2Connection of jacket to old member: (a) new


reinforcement connected to old corner bars via welded Ubars; (b) dowels attached to old column; and (c) old
concrete surface roughening.
capacity, the effective stiffness at incipient yielding, and the
ultimate drift of members, with or without lap splices in the
plastic hinge region, rehabilitated through concrete jackets.

Fig. 1Cross section of original column and of jacketed


column. (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
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. As the present tests
are limited, they are 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 is done by expressing key properties of the
jacketed column (notably, the yield moment, the yield drift,
the secant stiffness at incipient yielding, and the ultimate drift)
as ratios to the corresponding quantities of an equivalent
monolithic member. The conclusion is that this ratio does not
systematically depend on the type of measures taken to
enhance the shear transfer at the interface of the old and the
new concrete. This allows development of simple rules and
expressions for the calculation of key properties of columns
with or without lap splices at floor level, after their
rehabilitation via concrete jacketing. The rulespublished
herein for the first time with full documentationhave been
adopted in the part of Eurocode 8 on seismic assessment and
rehabilitation of buildings.23
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Concrete jacketing is widely used in seismic rehabilitation
of old buildings. Despite the benefits and cost-effectiveness of
RC-jacketing, cyclic test results on RC-jacketed members are
limited. In this paper some commonly applied, labor-intensive
measures to enhance the connection between the old and the
new concrete are experimentally studied. The present test
results are supplemented with data from the literature to
develop simple rules for the calculation of the moment
522

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM: SPECIMENS,


MATERIALS, AND TEST SETUP
The experimental program comprises five jacketed
specimens with a 250 mm (10 in.) square original column
(Fig. 1) and a companion monolithic column. The continuous
vertical bars in the original column are plain (used in
practically all buildings in the seismic regions of Europe until
the 1970s), have a diameter of dbL = 14 mm (0.55 in.), yield
stress fy = 313 MPa (45.5 ksi), tensile strength of ft = 442 MPa
(64 ksi) (average from three coupons), and 180-degree hooks
at both ends. The internal diameter of the hooks is 2.5 bar
diameters. The bar extends straight past the end of the curved
part of the hook by 40 mm (1.6 in.). The stirrups of the original
column are also plain, with a diameter of dbh = 8 mm (0.3 in.) at
sh = 200 mm (7.9 in.) centers and have a 135-degree hook at one
end and a 90-degree hook at the other. Their yield and ultimate
stress are fyw = 425 MPa (61.5 ksi) and ftw = 596 MPa (86.5 ksi)
(average from three coupons). The concrete cylindrical strength
of the original column at testing fc is listed in Table 1.
The columns are tested as simple cantilevers, fixed into a
heavily reinforced 0.6 m (23.5 in.) deep footing (Fig. 1). The
lateral load is applied 1.6 m (63 in.) above the top of the
footing. The cyclic behavior of the columns is dominated by
flexure, as the ratio of shear span Ls to section depth in the
direction of testing h is equal to 4 or 6.4, with or without
jacketing, respectively.
The jacket is 75 mm (3 in.) thick, which is almost the
minimum that can provide proper cover to the perimeter tie
and allow a 135-degree hook at its ends. It consists of
shotcrete and stops approximately 250 mm (10 in.) below the
point where the lateral load is applied. The jacket is
reinforced longitudinally with four 20 mm (0.8 in.) deformed
bars having yield stress fy = 487 MPa (70.5 ksi), which were
embedded in the footing when the original column was cast
(Fig. 2), anchored with 90-degree hooks at the bottom.
Jacket transverse reinforcement consists of a single 10 mm
(0.4 in.) perimeter tie with a yield stress fyw = 599 MPa
(87 ksi) at 100 mm (4 in.) centers. The measured cylindrical
compressive strength of the jacket and the effective depth d
of the jacketed section are listed in Table 1.
The jacketed columns are tested to study the effect of
measures that enhance the shear transfer at the interface of
the old and the new concrete. Their identification in Table 1
starts with Q-RC.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

Table 1Jacketed columns: test parameters and key test results


fc, MPa (ksi)

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)

All four jacket


bars buckled and
two ruptured

0.017

All four jacket


bars buckled and
one ruptured;
minor splitting
cracks along
corner bars

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

All four jacket


bars buckled
and one
ruptured

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)

Q-RCM Monolithic 350


(13.8)

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

Measurements insufficient for estimation of curvature and fixed-end rotation.

In Column Q-RCW each new corner bar was connected to


the corresponding old one by welding both of them to 16 mm
(0.65 in.) diameter, 400 mm (16 in.) long deformed reinforcing
bars bent into a U-shape (Fig. 2(a)). The bent-up legs of these
bars ended with a flat 70 mm (2.75 in.) long part. The corner
bars of the old column were exposed and welded to the 70 mm
(2.75 in.) long flat central part of the U-bar. The two 70 mm
(2.75 in.) long ends of the U-bar were welded to the corner bar
of the jacket. (Note that 70 mm [2.75 in.] is five diameters of
the smaller of the two connected bars and is according to
normal practice.) Two U-bars were connected to each corner
bar, with their center 350 mm (14 in.) or 1050 mm (41 in.)
above the top of the footing. Note that welding of the corner
jacket bars to the lower-most U-bar provides certain antibuckling restraint in the plastic hinge.
In Column Q-RCD, three dowels were driven into each side
of the old column, at distances of 200, 650, and 1100 mm (8, 25,
and 43 in.) from the top of the footing (Fig. 2(b)). The dowel
was a 16 mm (0.65 in.) diameter deformed bar, epoxy-grouted
into a 100 mm (4 in.) deep hole drilled in the old concrete. It
protruded into the 75 mm (3 in.) thick jacket for a straight
length of 50 mm (2 in.) and was then bent as a 90-degree 100 mm
(4 in.) long horizontal hook.
In Column Q-RCR, the full lateral surface of the old
column was roughened using a pneumatic chipping
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

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

A jack at the top of the column maintained the axial load


at approximately 800 kN (180 kips), representing the axial
force in an internal column of a typical five-story building.
Table 1 gives the mean value of the axial load during the test,
normalized to the product of the external dimensions b and h
of the jacketed section and to the fc value of the jacket, as
= N/bhfc . The jack applying the axial load was manually
controlled and readjusted as the test progressed to keep the
load constant. It acted against vertical rods connected to the
laboratory strong floor through a hinge. Bending moments
reported in Table 1 include the P- moment, which is equal
to the axial load times the ratio of the distance of the hinge
from the top of the footing (0.425 m [16.73 in.]) to the
distance of the hinge from the point where the lateral load
was applied (2.025 m [79.72 in.]).
Linear variable differential transformers placed between
the top of the footing and two levels of the column above the
base (at 50 or 100% of the section depth of the original
column, that is, at 125 mm [5 in.] or 250 mm [10 in.]) at opposite
sides of the column in the loading direction (Fig. 1(d))
provide the relative rotation and the mean axial strain of the
column between the top of the footing and each one of the
two instrumented sections, including the effect of slippage
and pull-out of vertical column bars from the base.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yield moment and deformations of jacketed
columns at yielding and ultimate
Columns 7, 9, 10, and 11 in Table 1 give key test results at
yielding of the column: the moment (including P- effects)
My, the drift ratio y, the curvature at the base y, and the
rotation of the column end section with respect to the base
owing to bar pullout from it (fixed-end rotation). Columns
12, 13, and 14 in Table 1 give the ultimate drift ratio u, the
ultimate curvature at the base u, and the fixed end rotation
due to bar pull-out from the base, again at ultimate
conditions. The column drift ratio (or chord rotation over the
shear span, Ls = 1.6 m [63 in.]) is the deflection at the point
of lateral loading, divided by Ls. Yielding is identified with
a distinct reduction in the slope of the moment-deflection
curve and is close to the corner point of a bilinear envelope
that can be fitted to the ascending part of the force-drift
response, that is, up to peak resistance (the chosen yield
points for the six present tests are shown in Fig. 3 with an
asterisk). The curvature at the base of the column and the
fixed-end rotation due to bar pullout were estimated from the
rotations of the two instrumented sections, assuming that the
curvature is constant within the lowest 250 mm (10 in.) of
the column. Note, though, that these values are subject to
significant uncertainty due to the assumptions involved in
their estimation and noise in the measurements.
Force-deflection loops of jacketed columns
Figure 3 compares the force-drift loops of the five jacketed
columns with those of the monolithic column, Q-RCM, that
has the same external dimensions and the same
reinforcement as the jacket alone. In view of the variation of
some specimen parameters (notably the values of fc ), few
systematic differences are observed. The monolithic column
has higher yield moment and stiffness at incipient yielding
than practically all jacketed columns, although it is
reinforced with the vertical bars of the jacket alone. The
ultimate deformation of the jacketed columns is not less than
that of the monolithic column. In fact, it was found to be
524

Fig. 3Force-drift loops of jacketed columns for various


means of connection of jacket and old column.
larger, if the shear connection at the interface is enhanced via
U-bars welded between the corner bars of the old column
and the jacket, or dowels, or roughening of the old column
surface. Note that when dowels and surface roughening were
applied together, the beneficial effect that each one
separately has on deformation capacity was found to be lost.
Due to the very small number of the present tests, however,
conclusions about the effect of the connection at the
interface cannot be drawn on the basis of their results alone.
Later in this paper, these results are considered together with
those of past tests3-12,16-18 on RC-jacketed members with
different means of connection at the interface, to draw more
firm conclusions.
The behavior of the monolithic Column Q-RCM was
governed by flexure throughout the test: the width of a few
hairline diagonal cracks that developed up to maximum load,
decreased after ultimate strength. Flexure also controlled the
behavior and failure of all jacketed columns. In some of
them, however, diagonal cracking was more visible than in
the monolithic column. A notable feature of the behavior of
jacketed Columns Q-RCD and Q-RCR is the cracking and
splitting of the concrete cover along corner bars near
ultimate strength, which spread up to approximately 300 mm
(12 in.) from the base in Q-RCD, or 450 mm (18 in.) in Q-RCR.
It is interesting that bond splitting along vertical bars was not
prevented by the dowels connecting the jacket to the old
column in Q-RCD. There was no bond splitting in Column
Q-RCW, where each corner bar was connected to its
counterpart in the old column at two points along its length,
or in Column Q-RC, which had no treatment of the interface.
Such cracking and splitting of the concrete cover along the
bars does not appear to have any adverse effect on the force
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

Fig. 4Damage of retrofitted columns: (a) Q-RCD (note


dowel and broken bar); and (b) Q-RCR.
and deformation capacity of the column. As a matter of fact,
Columns Q-RCD and Q-RCR had at least as large ultimate
deformation as the other jacketed columns, or as the
monolithic one. It is notable that in Specimens Q-RCR and
Q-RCD, the bars of the old column inside the jacket buckled
as well, as shown in Fig. 4.
Mean axial strain at bottom of jacketed columns
Figure 5 shows how the axial strain at the center of the
section (average value within the lower-most 250 mm [10 in.]
of the column) varies with the applied drift. These axial strains
are derived from the average of the LVDT measurements on
opposite sides of the column near the base and reflect the axial
displacement of the jacket at a section 250 mm (10 in.) above
the base with respect to the footing. The change in axial strain
at the center of the section during each cycle of loading in
proportion to the lateral deflection is due to flexure according
to the plane-sections hypothesis.
The most notable result in Fig. 5 is the axial extension at
zero value of the deflection. If the normalized axial load, =
N/bhfc , were high, axial shortening of the column would
have accumulated during the cycling of the load beyond
yielding and towards failure of the member, due to
accumulation of permanent compressive strains in the
concrete. Because all present columns had fairly low
normalized axial load, there is no ratcheting axial displacement
at zero deflection in the monolithic Column Q-RCM, and in
all jacketed columns except Q-RCD and (mainly) Q-RC.
The large ratcheting axial elongation of these two latter
columns is due to slippage of the jacket with respect to the
old column inside. Roughening of the old surface of the old
column or U-bars welded to the corner bars of the old
column seem to prevent such slippage, while dowels alone at
the interface are only partly effective in this respect.
Although slippage may influence the compression block and
reduce the internal lever arm, there is no clear effect of it on
the global cyclic behavior of the columns in Fig. 5 and on the
parameters that summarize it in Table 1. The analysis of the
entire database of test results on jacketed members in the
literature in the next section, however, suggests that, if there
are no positive measures of connection at the interface, or if
such measures are limited to dowels or welded U-bars, the
secant stiffness at incipient yielding may be slightly lower
than in columns with roughened interface.
STRENGTH, STIFFNESS, AND DEFORMATION
CAPACITY OF JACKETED MEMBERS
Database of tested jacketed members
To develop and calibrate simple rules for the estimation of
the yield moment, of the secant stiffness at apparent yielding
and of the cyclic deformation capacity of jacketed members,
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

Fig. 5Evolution of mean vertical strain at center of


section (over lower 250 mm [10 in.] from base) with drift.
the results of the present five tests are supplemented with the
results of 49 more tests from the literature.3-12,16-18 That information is given in the Appendix* in the form of tables listing all
test variables and key test results. Most of the jacketed members
in the database did not have lap splicing of the longitudinal bars
in the original member, but some of them did.17
Regarding the tests in the literature, it is noted that:
1. The three columns in Reference 3, the single one from
Reference 11, and the two columns in Reference 18 were
jacketed for strengthening in shear and stiffening of the free
length outside the footing. The vertical bars of the jacket
were not connected to the footing. (In Reference 11, a
sizeable gap was provided between the end of the jacket and
the footing.) All other specimens had jacket longitudinal
bars anchored at the footing and were representative of a
global intervention enhancing flexural capacity as well;
2. In Reference 4, the vertical bars of the jacket were
threaded into a steel plate fixed at the top of the footing,
preventing fixed-end rotation of the column at the base
section. Moreover, the column axial load at ultimate
conditions was different (significantly less) from its value at
yielding;
3. The jacketed columns in Reference 5 were subjected to
eccentric compression without transverse load. So, only
yield moments and curvatures reported in Reference 5 can be
used in the present work;
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

525

4. In Reference 7, the original column was prefabricated,


with the base fixed into a 750 mm (30 in.) deep socket by
grouting. The jacket was connected to the footing via epoxygrouted anchors that had strength sufficient to force column
yielding and plastic hinging to take place right above the
anchors. So, the critical section was not at the base of the
column but at the section where the anchors were terminated;
5. The tests in Reference 8 were done on three-story
cantilever walls with barbelled section. Jacketing was limited
to the first story. It comprised doubling the web thickness and
adding new vertical reinforcement to the barbells, welded to
starter bars from the footing. Drifts were measured at the top
of the third story, 3.01 m (118.5 in.) above the base. Together
with the lateral loads applied at story levels, a moment was
applied at the top of the third story. Failure took place in the
two upper (unstrengthened) stories;
6. In Reference 12, the vertical bars of the jacket were
anchored with epoxy at the top of the footing, preventing
fixed-end rotation of the column at the base section; and
7. The beams specimens in Reference 16 were
monotonically loaded at third-points of their span and
reported results do not include information from which the
drift ratio and the curvature at the section of maximum
moment can be derived. So, only the yield moments reported
in Reference 16 can be used herein.
Strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity of
monolithic members
The yield moment, the secant stiffness at apparent yielding,
and the cyclic deformation capacity of the jacketed member are
calculated here, as a multiple or fraction of the corresponding
quantities of a monolithic member, as appropriate. The yield
moment My and the yield curvature y of the end section of a
monolithic member with longitudinal bars not lap-spliced in the
vicinity of that section may be determined from first
principles.24 The effective stiffness to yielding at each end of
such a member is determined as EIeff = MyLs/3y, where the
chord rotation at yielding at that end y may be determined as
follows23,25
In beams or columns
0.13 y d bL f y
y ( Ls + aV z )
h
- + 0.0013 1 + 1.5 ----- + ----------------------------- y = ----------------------------(1a)

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

where V = 1 if shear cracking precedes flexural yielding at the


end section (that is, if My > LsVR,c, with VR,c denoting the shear
resistance without shear reinforcement); otherwise, V = 0; z
equals the length of internal lever arm, taken equal to the distance
between tension and compression reinforcement in beams,
columns, or walls with barbelled or T-section, or z = 0.8h in
walls with rectangular section; and dbL is the diameter of the
tension reinforcement.
The third term is the fixed-end rotation due to pull-out of the
tension reinforcement from its development beyond the
member end and is omitted if such pull-out is not physically
possible (for example, if the end of the longitudinal bars is
fixed at the end section, as in References 4 and 12). The value
of fc along the development of the tension reinforcement
beyond the end section should be used in this term.
The flexure-controlled deformation capacity of the
monolithic or of the jacketed member is expressed herein in
terms of the plastic part, upl of the ultimate chord rotation
(total ultimate chord rotation u minus value at yielding y)
at the end of the member. An empirical expression has been
developed in Reference 25 (and adopted in Reference 23) for
the value of upl of members with: a) rectangular cross
section; b) ductile deformed longitudinal bars; c) possibility
for slip of the longitudinal bars from their development
beyond the section of maximum moment; and d) detailing
for earthquake resistance (including no lap-splicing in the
plastic hinge region, but not including diagonal bars)
v max ( 0.01, )
pl
u = 0.0145a wall ( 0.25 ) ----------------------------------max ( 0.01, )

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

Table 2Determination of properties of equivalent monolithic member


Flexural resistance and deformation capacity, deformations at flexural yielding
Case A: Jacket longitudinal reinforcement continues beyond member end section for development
A1

Dimensions

External dimensions of section are those of jacket.

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.

Case B: Jacket longitudinal reinforcement stops at end section

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.

Assumption is supported by strain measurements in Reference 12.

example, not closed stirrups), modifications to Eq. (1) to (3)


were proposed in Reference 25 and adopted in Reference 23.
Simple rules for strength, stiffness, and
deformation capacity of jacketed members
The rules proposed herein on the basis of the tests in the
database use modification factors on the properties of an
equivalent monolithic member. The strength, stiffness, and
deformation capacity of the equivalent monolithic member
are determined according to the previous rules and to the additional considerations listed in Table 2. The concept behind
assumptions A.3 and A.4 in Table 2 is that, for common ratios
of jacket thickness to depth of the jacketed section, it is mainly
the jacket that carries the full axial load at the critical end
section and in the plastic hinge of the column. Also, it is the
jacket that mainly controls the shear resistance and the bond
along the longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket.
In the following, an asterisk is used to denote a calculated
value for the jacketed member; for example, in My*, y*, and
u*, whereas no asterisk is used (for example, in My, y, and
upl) for a value calculated for the monolithic member
according to the assumptions in Table 2 and Eq. (1) to (3). The
ratios of the experimental values of My, y, and u for the
jacketed members in the database to calculated values of My,
y, and u for the monolithic member according to the
assumptions in Table 2 and Eq. (1) to (3) were determined and
are shown in Fig. 6. Note that u,cal is taken in Fig. 6 (bottom)
equal to y* + uplEq.(3) , with y* = 1.05 y,Eq.(1)&(2) being the
overall best estimate of the chord rotation at yielding for the
jacketed member (with y from Eq. (1) and (2)). With so
defined y*, in Fig. 6 (third figure from the top): EIeff* =
My,calLs/3y*. The ratios My,exp/My,calc, y,exp /y,Eq.(1)&(2) ,
EIexp /EIeff* and u,exp /(y* + uplEq.(3)) are given from top to
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

bottom of Fig. 6 separately for different ways of connecting


the jacket to the old member, and separately for those
members which were damaged by testing before jacketing.
Specimens in which the longitudinal reinforcement of the
jacket did not continue beyond the member end,1,9 or
specimens with lap-spliced reinforcement in the original
column,15 are identified in Fig. 6, but otherwise lumped
together with the tests of members with continuous vertical
bars in the original member. For those tests that did not reach
ultimate conditions and for the two walls in Reference 6 that
failed in the unstrengthened stories, an upward arrow
signifies an experimental-to-predicted ratio greater than the
plotted value.
The average value and plus or minus one standard
deviation estimates of the mean experimental-to-calculated
ratios are shown in Fig. 6 separately for the various groups
of specimens that represent different types of jacket-to-oldmember connection, with or without damage in the original
column. The distance of the sample average from a certain
reference value (for example, 1.0), normalized by the
standard-deviation of the mean, is a criterion on whether the
jacketed member property of interest may be taken equal to
the value calculated for the monolithic member according to
the assumptions in Table 2 and Eq. (1) to (3), times that
reference value.
Figure 6 supports the following rules for the calculation of
the yield moment, the chord rotation (drift ratio) at apparent
yielding, and the ultimate chord rotation (drift ratio), My*, y*,
or u*, respectively, of the jacketed member, in terms of the
values My, y, and upl calculated for the monolithic member
according to the assumptions in Table 2 and Eq. (1) to (3)
1. For My*: My* = My,calc;
527

Fig. 6Test results on RC-jacketed members compared with


prediction for monolithic member: (a) no treatment of
interface; (b) no treatment, predamaged member; (c)
welded U-bars; (d) dowels; (e) roughened interface; (f)
roughened interface, predamaged member; (g) U-bars and
roughened interface; (h) U-bars and roughened interface,
predamaged member; (i) roughened interface and dowels;
(j) roughened interface and dowels, predamaged member;
and (k) monolithic.
2. For y* (the main target being the effective stiffness at
incipient yielding, computed as EIeff* = My*Ls/3y* with
My* = My,calc), irrespectively of predamage in the original
column: y* = 1.05y,Eq.(1)&(2).
(Note that this rule was adopted in Reference 23 only for
roughening of the interface or for roughened interface
combined with epoxy-grouted dowels, but that the more
conservative rule: y* = 1.2y,Eq.(1)&(2) was adopted in
Reference 23 for no treatment of the interface, or epoxy528

grouted dowels alone, or jacket bars connected to those of


the old member via welded U-bars); and
3. For u*: u* = y* + uplEq.(3)
Rules 1 to 3, supplemented with the relevant provisions of
Table 2 (notably, assumptions B1 and B2), also apply if the
jacket longitudinal bars stop at the end section of the member.
If no differentiation is made depending on the type of
measures taken to enhance the shear transfer at the interface
of the old and the new concrete, the ratio of the experimental
values to those predicted according to the previous Rules 1
to 3 has overall mean value and coefficient of variation
(COV) equal to 1.025 and 10.4%, 1.005 and 23.5%, 0.98 and
31.3%, and 1.125 and 18.8% for My, y, EIeff , and u,
respectively. Bonding measures at the interface of the jacket
and the old member seem to have a statistically significant
effect only for the ultimate chord rotation u. The proposed
rules underestimate the measured ultimate chord rotation
u,exp by 27% on average for the few specimens employing
either dowels at the interface or U-bars welded to the new
and the old longitudinal bars, but only by 8% for the more
numerous specimens with neither of these measures. Welded
U-bars seem to be slightly more beneficial for the ultimate
chord rotation than dowels (possibly due to their antibuckling action). Roughening of the old surface alone does
not seem to positively affect the ultimate chord rotation.
Rule 3, which neglects the favorable effect of any positive
connection measure at the interface of the old and the new
concrete, is therefore safe-sided for the ultimate chord
rotation u underestimating its measured value by 12.5% on
average. Interestingly, no systematic positive effect of
dowels or welded U-bars on the yield moment My and the
effective stiffness EIeff was found.
The COVs of the ratio of experimental My, y, EIeff , and
u for monolithic members to the values calculated from the
first principles or Eq. (1) to (3) has been quantified in
Reference 25 and exceed those of the data for jacketed
members in Fig. 6.
None of the jacketed specimens in the database had any
sign of shear distress. This is consistent with the observation that in any test, the shear resistance (calculated
according to Reference 27 as a decreasing function of
displacement ductility demand) exceeded by more than
30% the applied shear.
The experimental value of My, u , and EIeff , divided by the
corresponding value of My*, u*, and EIeff* = My*Ls/3y*
derived according to the previous Rules 1, 2, and 3 are
plotted in Fig. 7 and 8 against:
a. The ratio of fc of the jacket fcj to that of the old member,
fcc (compare assumption A.3 in Table 2);
b. The ratio of the cross-sectional area of the jacket Acj to
that of the old member Acc;
c. The ratio of the product of the yield stress times the ratio
of longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket to the same
product for the old member;
d. The axial load, normalized to the full cross-sectional
area of the jacketed section times the fc value of the jacket
as = N/(Acj + Acc)fcj ;
e. The axial load, normalized to the actual compressive
strength of the jacketed section as =N/(Acj fcj + Acc fcc ); and
f. The ratio of the compression zone depth c at yielding to
the thickness of the jacket.
Specimens with lap-spliced reinforcement in the original
column15 are appropriately identified. There is no clear
upward or downward trend in any of the plots of the ratio of
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

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

new concrete. There is an exception for the ultimate chord


rotation, u, which seems to be increased by approximately
1/6, if dowels are employed at the interface, or if U-bars are
welded between the new and the old longitudinal bars.
On the basis of the increased database of tests on members
with or without lap splices at the floor level, rehabilitated via
concrete jacketing, simple rules and expressions were
developed for the calculation of key properties of columns.
According to these rules, the jacketed member is considered
as monolithic, having:
External cross-sectional dimensions and fc value those
of the jacket;
The axial load applied on the full section of the
jacketed member;
Tension and compression reinforcement those of the
jacket (in walls, supplemented with old vertical bars
near the edges, taking into account differences in yield
stress with the new reinforcement and any lap splicing
at the floor level),
Longitudinal bars of the old member between the new
tension and compression reinforcement included in a
web reinforcement ratio (possibly supplementing longitudinal bars of the jacket between the tension and compression reinforcement); and
Confinement only owing to the transverse reinforcement
in the jacket.
529

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

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

width of compression zone


cross section depth
shear span
yield moment
yield moment of jacketed member
experimental value of yield moment
value of yield moment calculated from first principles
axial force (positive for compression)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

VR,c

= shear resistance of member considered without shear


reinforcement
z
= length of internal lever arm

= confinement effectiveness factor from Reference 26

= normalized axial load N/bhfc


y
= chord rotation (drift ratio) at yielding
y*
= chord rotation (drift ratio) of jacketed member at yielding
y,exp = experimental value of chord rotation at yielding
u
= ultimate chord rotation (drift ratio)
u*
= ultimate chord rotation (drift ratio) of jacketed member
u,exp = experimental value of ultimate chord rotation
upl = plastic part of ultimate chord rotation

= tension reinforcement ratio, including bars distributed between


tension and compression flanges

= compression reinforcement ratios


s
= transverse steel ratio parallel to direction of loading
= ultimate curvature
u
y
= curvature at base at yielding

= mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension longitudinal


reinforcement fy /fc

= mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression reinforcement


fy /fc

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.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2007

11. Yamamoto, T., FRP Strengthening of RC Columns for Seismic


Retrofitting, Proceedings of the 10th World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, Balkema, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 5205-5210.
12. Julio, E. N. B. S.; Branco, F. A. B.; and Silva, V. D., Reinforced
Concrete JacketingInterface Influence on Monotonic Loading Response,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2005, pp. 252-257.
13. Stoppenhagen, D. R.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Wyllie, L. A., Seismic Repair
and Strengthening of a Severely Damaged Concrete Frame, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1995, pp. 177-187.
14. Alcocer, S. M., Rehabilitation of RC Frame Connections Using
Jacketing, Proceedings of the 10th World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, Balkema, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 5235-5240.
15. Alcocer, S. M., and Jirsa, J. O., Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 3,
May-June 1993, pp. 249-261.
16. Altun, F., An Experimental Study of the Jacketed Reinforced-Concrete
Beams under Bending, Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, 2004,
pp. 611-618.
17. Bousias, S. N.; Spathis, A.-L.; and Fardis, M. N., Seismic
Retrofitting of Columns with Lap-Splices Via RC Jackets, Paper 1937,
13th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, 2004. (CD-ROM)
18. Cotofana, D., and Popa, V., Experimental Study on Reinforced
Concrete Jacketed Columns, Paper 1017, 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. (CD-ROM)
19. Dogan, E., and Krstulovic-Opara, N., Seismic Retrofit with
Continuous Slurry-Infiltrated Mat Concrete Jackets, ACI Structural
Journal., V. 100, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 713-722.
20. Krstulovic-Opara, N.; LaFave, J.; Dogan, E.; and Uang, C.-M.,
Seismic Retrofit with Discontinuous SIMCON Jackets, HighPerformance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete in Infrastructural Repair and
Retrofit, SP-185, N. Krstulovic-Opara and Z. Bayasi, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2000, pp. 141-185.
21. Bracci, J. M.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Mander, J. B., Seismic Retrofit
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Designed for Gravity Loads:
Performance of Structural Model, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 711-723.
22. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., Shake-Table tests on the Gravity
Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames, 3rd U.S.-Japan Workshop
on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Seattle, Wash., 2001. (CD-ROM)
23. European Standard EN 1998-3, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance. Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of
Buildings, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
(CD-ROM)
24. Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N., Deformations of Reinforced
Concrete Members at Yielding and Ultimate, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 135-148.
25. Biskinis, D. E., and Fardis, M. N., Cyclic Strength and Deformation
Capacity of RC Members, Including Members Retrofitted for Earthquake
Resistance, Proceedings of the 5th International PhD Symposium in Civil
Engineering, Delft, Balkema, 2004, pp. 1125-1133.
26. Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., Analytical Model for Concrete
Confinement in Tied Columns, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE,
V. 108, No. ST12, 1982, pp. 2703-2722.
27. Biskinis, D. E.; Roupakias, G.; and Fardis, M. N., Degradation of
Shear Strength of RC Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 773-783.

531