See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268223302

Reinforced Concrete Jacketing – Interface Influence on Monotonic Loading

Response

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · March 2005

CITATIONS READS

37 1,272

3 authors:

Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio Fernando A. Branco

Technical University of Lisbon Technical University of Lisbon
301 PUBLICATIONS   1,807 CITATIONS    273 PUBLICATIONS   2,044 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vitor Dias da Silva

University of Coimbra
45 PUBLICATIONS   476 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Glass-GFRP composite beams View project

Autogenous Shrinkage of Ultra-High Performance Concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio on 14 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 102-S25
Reinforced Concrete Jacketing—Interface Influence on
Monotonic Loading Response
by Eduardo N. B. S. Júlio, Fernando A. B. Branco, and Vítor D. Silva
Reinforced concrete (RC) jacketing is most frequently used to
strengthen columns. The common practice to prepare the interface
is empirically based and consists on increasing the surface roughness,
applying a bonding agent and eventually steel connectors. An
experimental study was performed to analyze the influence of the
interface treatment on the structural behavior of columns strengthened
by RC jacketing. Seven column-footing, full-scale models were
built. Three months later, the columns were strengthened by RC
jacketing after their surface had been prepared considering different
techniques. Later, the models were tested under monotonic loading. It
was concluded that, for current undamaged columns (that is,
where a bending moment-shear force ratio is greater than 1.0 m), a
monolithic behavior of the composite element can be achieved
even without increasing their surface roughness, using bonding
agents, or applying steel connectors before strengthening it by
RC jacketing.
Keywords: concrete; strengthening; surface.
INTRODUCTION
Jacketing is one of the most frequently used techniques to
strengthen reinforced concrete (RC) columns. With this
method, axial strength, bending strength, and stiffness of the
original column are increased. It is well known that the
success of this procedure is dependent on the monolithic
behavior of the composite element. To achieve this purpose,
the treatment of the interface must be carefully chosen. The
common practice consists of increasing the roughness of the
interface surface and applying a bonding agent, normally an
epoxy resin. Steel connectors are also occasionally applied.
These steps involve specialized workmanship, time, and cost.
Concerning the added concrete mixture and due to the reduced
thickness of the jacket, the option is usually a grout with
characteristics of self-compacting concrete (SCC) and high-
strength concrete (HSC).
In published experimental studies on this subject, the
preparation of the column surface before jacketing is always
referred to. Ramírez and Bárcena1 increased the roughness
of the columns by chipping; Bett, Klingner, and Jirsa2
submitted models to light sandblasting; Alcocer and Jirsa,3
Gomes,4 and Gomes and Appleton5 used a chipping hammer
to expose the outermost concrete aggregate; Rodriguez and
Park6 had the surface of columns lightly roughened by
chipping before jacketing; and Stoppenhagen, Jirsa, and
Wyllie7 used an electric concrete hammer to roughen the
spandrels. Although researchers refer to the importance of
the interface behavior, a quantitative analysis of its influence
is never reported.8
An initial experimental study was performed by the
authors9,10 to quantify in small specimens the influence of:
1) the roughness of the interface surface; 2) using a bonding
agent; 3) the added concrete mixture; and 4) applying steel
252
TECHNICAL PAPER
connectors on the strength of concrete against concrete
joints. Pull-off tests, slant shear tests, and push-off tests were
performed and it was concluded that: 1) sandblasting is the
best roughness treatment between those adopted; 2) the use
of epoxy resins does not improve the interface strength if
sandblasting is used; 3) adding an HSC increases the inter-
face strength; and 4) the use of steel connectors does not
significantly increases the interface debonding stress,
although, after that, shear stress is highly dependent on the
relation between the cross section area of steel connectors
and the area of the interface.
Based on these conclusions, seven column-footing, full-
scale models were built. Three months later, each column was
encased, considering different surface treatments. Twenty-
eight days later the models were tested under monotonic
loading. The objective of these tests was to analyze the
influence of the interface treatment on the structural behavior
of the strengthened column under monotonic loading.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The common practice to prepare a RC column to be
strengthened by jacketing is empirically based and consists on
increasing the roughness of the interface surface, applying a
bonding agent and eventually steel connectors. The main
objective of these procedures is to achieve a monolithic
behavior of the composite element. The research study
presented in this paper allows engineers to choose the
best treatment based on experimental results instead of
empirical judgment.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
All models were built at the same time. The materials
chosen were concrete with 20 MPa characteristic
compressive cylinder strength at 28 days and steel with
400 MPa characteristic yielding stress. The dimensions
adopted for the original column cross section and for the
reinforced concrete jacket thickness were 0.20 x 0.20 m2 and
35 mm, respectively. The column height was 1.35 m and the
corresponding jacket height was 0.90 m. The column was
symmetrically reinforced with three bars with 10 mm diameter
at each face. The longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket
was the same and it was anchored to the footing in a
predrilled hole of 250 mm depth, with a commercial epoxy
resin. The transverse reinforcement of the column consisted
of 6 mm diameter stirrups spaced 150 mm and the transverse
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, March-April 2005.
MS No. 03-438 received October 20, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January-February
2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2005.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
Eduardo N. B. S. Júlio is an assistant professor at the University of Coimbra, Portugal.
He received his PhD from the University of Coimbra in 2001. His research interests
include structural strengthening and rehabilitation of buildings and monuments.

ACI member Fernando A. B. Branco is a professor at IST (Technical University of

Lisbon) and head of the Construction Sector. He is a member of ACI Committee 342,
Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements. His research interests include
design, rehabilitation, and construction technology of concrete structures.

Vítor D. Silva is an associate professor at the University of Coimbra. He received his

PhD from the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Stuttgart, Germany.
His research interests include rheological modeling of structural materials, mainly
visco-elasticity and elasto-visco-plasticity, nonlinear structural analysis including
geometrical nonlinearity, and rehabilitation of civil engineering structures.

reinforcement of the added jacket consisted of 6 mm diameter

stirrups spaced 75 mm and out of phase with those of the
column (Fig. 1), since this is the most effective geometry to
obtain a monolithic behavior of the strengthened column.4
The loading system consisted of an increasing horizontal
force and a constant axial force of 170 kN. This was achieved
with a hydraulic jack, positioned horizontally at 1.0 m from Fig. 1—Testing installation, instrumentation, and cross section.
the column footing, with both ends hinged to avoid
secondary efforts, and a tubular system of two sets of two Table 1—Description of models and compressive
welded U profiles, connected with two prestressing tendons, strength of concrete
tensioned with a hydraulic jack (Fig. 1). Compressive strength
The models’ footing was fixed to the laboratory slab by of concrete, MPa
means of a tubular system of two sets of two welded U Original Added
profiles, positioned at the footing ends. Each tube was Models Description column jacket
connected to the slab with two DYWIDAG bars (Fig. 1). A M1 Nonstrengthened column 34.60 —
tension force of at least 50 kN was installed in each of these M2 Column with nonadherent jacket 35.48 83.58
bars in order to resist footing slipping and rotation. Column with monolithic jacket
M3 34.75 34.75
The axial force was measured with a load cell placed (cast simultaneously)
between the top set of the welded U profiles and the M4
Column jacketed without
34.64 79.79
hydraulic jack used to apply the axial force (Fig. 1, surface preparation
Element A). The horizontal force was obtained from the M5
Column jacketed after surface preparation
34.79 82.76
with sandblasting
difference between the values read in two load cells, placed
on opposite sites of the column top (Fig. 1, Elements B and Column jacketed after surface preparation
M6 with sandblasting and application of steel 35.13 81.68
C). The tension installed in the DYWIDAG bars was connectors
measured with four load cells (Fig. 1, Elements D through Column jacketed after surface preparation
G). The imposed horizontal displacement was measured by M7 with sandblasting and after loading of axial 35.36 80.51
a displacement transducer (Fig. 1, Element H). force
Strain gauges were bonded to longitudinal and transverse
reinforcing bars of the column and of the added concrete obtained with the slant shear specimens and the value of the
jacket (Fig. 1). On each central bar, close to the footing, were ultimate tension strength obtained with the pull-off specimens
bonded strain gauges (Fig. 1, Elements 1 to 4 and 7 to 10). were higher with the interface surface prepared with sand-
On the second stirrup from the bottom, of both the column blasting than with the interface surface prepared with sand-
and the concrete jacket, were also bonded strain gauges, in blasting followed by epoxy resin application.10 A sixth model
opposite branches (Fig. 1, Elements 5, 6, 11, and 12). (M6) was strengthened by jacketing after its interface surface
The characteristics of the seven models tested were had been prepared by sandblasting and steel connectors had
defined according to the conclusions of the study on the been applied. Although the values of the debonding shear
joints behavior performed by the authors.9,10 The first model strength of the push-off specimens with none, two, four, or
(M1) was left unstrengthened to serve as the reference specimen. six steel connectors were identical, the corresponding values of
A second model (M2) was strengthened with a nonadherent the maximum shear strength, after that point, were almost
jacket, materialized with a thin, hard, greased layer placed on directly proportional to the number of steel connectors
the interface. The objective of using this second model was employed.10 For this reason, it was decided to consider this
to reach the lower limit of the structural behavior of the model. Finally, a seventh model (M7) was strengthened by
composite model. A third model (M3) was produced jacketing after sandblasting its interface surface and after the
monolithically to reach the upper limit of that behavior. A axial force had been applied. Here the purpose was to
fourth model (M4) was strengthened by jacketing, without analyze the difference between strengthening columns with
any interface treatment. A fifth model (M5) was strengthened by and without an axial force already applied. The second situation
jacketing after its interface surface had been treated by sand- implies, in most practical situations, an active shoring of the
blasting. This surface preparation method was chosen column with additional costs. The characteristics of these
because it originated the highest values of shear strength and seven models are summarized in Table 1.
tension strength obtained with slant shear tests and pull-off Due to the positive results obtained with high-strength
tests, respectively.9 For the same reason, a bonding agent concrete,10 all added jackets were cast with a commercial
was not used. In fact, the value of the ultimate shear strength grout with characteristics of SCC and HSC, with the exception

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005 253

 Table 2—Experimental and theoretical values
(assuming nonadherent jacket and monolithic
cross section) of yielding load of each model
Theoretical values
Monolithic
Experimental values Nonadherent jacket cross section
Axial Yielding Yielding Yielding
Models force, kN load, kN load, kN Error, % load, kN Error, %
M1 168.9 29.9 — — 31.4 +4.8
M2 172.5 57.5 50.2 –14.5 67.6 +14.9
M3 173.2 66.8 50.9 –23.8 63.5 –5.2
M4 170.8 66.2 50.5 –31.1 67.9 +2.5
M5 170.9 64.5 50.6 –27.5 68.1 +5.3
M6 171.6 66.7 50.6 –31.8 68.1 +2.1
M7 170.5 61.1 49.8 –22.7 65.5 * +6.7
*
This value was determined considering column was jacketed after loading axial force.

Fig. 2—Cracking pattern of Model M4.

Fig. 3—Cracking pattern of Model M2.
of the concrete used in the jacket of Model M3, which was
the same as that used in the original column, since they were
cast at the same time.
RESULTS
The results of the monotonic tests performed with the
seven described models were analyzed taking several
parameters into consideration: 1) cracking pattern; 2)
measured yielding load, including a comparison with
theoretical values; 3) maximum load, also compared with
theoretical values; 4) initial stiffness and secant stiffness;
5) axial load stability because it was decided to keep it
between 160 and 180 kN; 6) strain analysis of the column
and added jacket bars; and 7) computation of the column and
added jacket contributions to the global strength.
The analysis of the cracking pattern observed in each of
the seven models was the only parameter available on site to
compare their structural behavior. On the jackets’ top, the
only cross section where the interface boundary was visible,
no cracking was registered, excluding the M2 model where
nonadherence between the original column and the jacket
was produced. All models with added RC jacketing showed
a similar cracking pattern (Fig. 2) except Model M2 (Fig. 3).
The crushing level of concrete was significantly lower in the
models which were strengthened with HSC jackets than in
the nonstrengthened model (M1) and in the monolithic
model (M3), both casted with NSC (normal strength
concrete) only.
The yielding load was determined from the difference
between the values measured on the two load cells of the
loading system (Fig. 1, Elements B and C), when the
measured strains on the longitudinal bars reached yielding.
An analytical approach was also performed to predict the
yielding load, assuming two hypotheses: total nonadherence
and perfect bonding of the jacket. For the first case, it was
assumed that the curvature radius of the original column and
of the added jacket were the same at the support cross
section. For the second case, compatible strain diagrams of
the original column and of the added jacket at the support
cross section were assumed. The experimentally determined
value of the steel yielding strain was fixated at the most
tensioned bars of the added jacket. The strain diagram was
established iteratively until the corresponding stress diagram
presented a resultant force of the same value of the measured
axial force. It was adopted the parabola-rectangle stress
diagram for concrete. With the resultant bending moment,
the yielding force could be easily determined. For Model M7,
strengthened after the axial force had been applied, the
procedure adopted to determine that the theoretical yielding
force was adapted to take into account an initial strain
diagram due to that load. Considering perfect bonding, the
relative error between the experimental and the theoretical
value varied from –5.2% to +6.7% (Table 2), except for
Model M2. Considering total nonadherence, the relative
error between the experimental and the theoretical value
varied from –31.8% to –22.7% (Table 2), for the same
models. This leads to the conclusion, proven by visual
inspection, that there was no jacket debonding in any model,
excluding M2. For this model, the relative errors referred to
were +14.9% and –14.5%, respectively, (Table 2), indicating
that the desired nonadherence was not totally achieved. In
Fig. 4 the theoretical (nonadherent and monolithic) values
and the experimental values of the yielding load of each
model are plotted.
The experimental value of the maximum load was also
obtained from the maximum difference measured between
the two load cells of the loading system (Fig. 1, Elements B
and C). An analytical study was also developed to predict the
maximum load, assuming the same conditions referred to
total nonadherence and perfect bonding of the jacket. The
algorithm previously referred to was modified in order to

254 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Table 3—Experimental and theoretical values
(assuming nonadherent jacket and monolithic
cross section) of maximum load of each model
Theoretical values
Monolithic
Experimental values Nonadherent jacket cross section
Axial Maximum Maximum Maximum
Model force, kN load, kN load, kN Error, % load, kN Error, %
M1 175.7 33.3 — — 33.0 –0.9
M2 173.5 71.5 64.8 –10.3 82.0 +12.8
M3 173.2 73.5 63.7 –15.4 74.9 +1.9
M4 177.6 77.5 65.5 –18.3 83.1 +6.7
M5 175.6 96.9 65.5 –47.9 83.0 –16.7
M6 174.7 83.8 65.4 –28.1 82.9 –1.1
M7 175.6 80.7 64.6 –24.9 82.0 +1.6
Fig. 4—Theoretical and experimental values of yielding
loading for each model.
fixate the ultimate concrete strain at the most stressed
concrete fibers, instead of fixating the steel yielding stress at
the most tensioned bars. Considering perfect bonding, the
relative error between the experimental and the theoretical
value varied from –1.9% to +6.7% (Table 3), except for M2
and M5. Considering total nonadherence, the relative error
between the experimental and the theoretical value varied
from –28.1% to –15.4% (Table 3), for the same models,
confirming the conclusion that no slipping between the original
column and the added jacket occurred in these models. In
Model M2, the experimental and theoretical value confirmed
that its behavior was between the theoretical behavior of
perfect bonding and absolute absence of friction. For Model M5
the experimental value was 16.7% higher than the theoretical
value, assuming perfect bonding (Table 3), and a deficiency
in the experimental procedures was found, so this test was
not considered. The models with HSC totally-bonded jackets Fig. 5—Horizontal force versus displacement curves of
presented similar horizontal force versus displacement Models M1, M2, and M6.
curves (Fig. 5, Curve M6). The curve of Model M2 was
similar but with a lower resistance (Fig. 5, Curve M2). It can
also be concluded that the resistance of the strengthened
models, including Model M2, is much greater than that of the
nonstrengthened model (Fig. 5, Curve M1).
It was noticed that the resistance of the monolithic Model
M3 was slightly inferior to that of Model M6, probably due
to the fact that the concrete of M3 model jacket was a normal
strength concrete and the concrete of M6 model jacket was a
commercial grout with average compressive strength of
approximately 80 MPa. Model M7, identical to Model M5
except for the fact that it was strengthened after the axial
force had been applied, showed a similar behavior in relation
to the other models with HSC perfectly bonded jackets. It
can be concluded that, for the adopted conditions, the fact of
the strengthening operation being performed with or without
axial loading has no influence on the structural composite Fig. 6—Theoretical and experimental values of maximum
behavior. In Fig. 6, the theoretical (nonadherent and monolithic) load of each model.
values and the experimental values of the maximum load of
each model are plotted. the initial stiffness and secant stiffness of the strengthened
The initial stiffness determination of the seven monoton- models are much higher than that of the original column and
ically tested models was performed based on the horizontal that the secant stiffness of the models with a perfectly
force versus displacement curves (Fig. 5). The initial stiffness bonded jacket is slightly higher than that of the model with a
of the models was obtained by an interpolator polynomial nonadherent jacket.
(considering all values up until the yielding strain) of the The adopted reduced axial force design value was 0.4,
most tensioned reinforcing bars. The secant stiffness was giving an applied axial force value of 170 kN. With the
obtained by dividing the experimental value of the horizontal preliminary tests it was verified that keeping this value
yielding force by the corresponding displacement (Fig. 7). constant presented some difficulties. For this reason it was
The only relevant conclusions from this parameter are that kept between 160 and 180 kN. Due to the interaction between

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005 255

Fig. 7—Secant stiffness of each model.
Fig. 8—Strain evolution on jacket stirrup of Model M6.
Fig. 9—Strain evolution on original column strip of Model M6.
the axial force and the bending moment it was important to
ensure that its value would not go out of range, or else the
behavior of the different models could not be compared. In
some tests, the axial force value was controlled manually and
in the others it was controlled automatically. In all models the
axial force level was kept within the defined range.
The effects that mobilize the transverse reinforcing
stirrups are: 1) horizontal tension by Poisson effect due to
compression combined with bending moment; 2) inclined
strut tension due to shear; and 3) redistribution of stresses
due to concrete cracking. This complex system gave rise to
256
Fig. 10—M7 model theoretical and experimental strain
diagrams.
Fig. 11—M2 model theoretical and experimental strain
diagrams.
significant differences between the strain values measured
with strain gauges bonded on opposite branches of the same
stirrup. In spite of this, it could be concluded that the strain
value of the original column stirrup was considerably higher
on the nonstrengthened model, M1, than on the strengthened
models. On the monolithic model and on the model with the
nonadherent jacket, M3 and M2, respectively, the original
column stirrup and the jacket stirrup were equally strained.
On the models with a perfectly bonded jacket, the strain
value of the jacket stirrup (Fig. 8) was significantly higher
than that of the original column stirrup (Fig. 9). This indi-
cates that, in these models, concrete confinement is mainly
due to the jacket stirrups.
The strain diagram on the base cross section of each model
was another parameter adopted to analyze and compare the
models’ behavior. The jacket and column analytical
diagrams were plotted with the analytically determined
longitudinal reinforcing bar strains. The corresponding
experimental diagrams were superimposed on these for
comparison (Fig. 10 and 11). For the situation of yielding
force applied, the agreement between the experimental and
the analytical diagrams, assuming perfect bonding of the
jacket, was good for all models (Fig. 10), except for Model M2,
confirming that all these models behaved monolithically
independent of the interface surface treatment. For Model M2,
although the superimposition of the experimental diagram and
the analytical diagram (assuming a completely nonadherent
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
 jacket) was not perfect (Fig. 11), it clearly showed that slipping
of the added jacket had occurred.
Due to the good results obtained with the analytical
approach, the latter was used to analyze the contribution of
the original column and of the added jacket to the axial force
and horizontal load resistance.
It was concluded that, relative to the axial force, the added
jacket was subjected to: 1) a null compression force in the
case of perfectly nonadherent concrete encasing; 2) a
compression force equal to the axial force in the case of the
monolithic model; and 3) a compression considerably higher
than the axial force in the case of all the other strengthened
models; being the original column subjected to a tension
force for these situations.
It was also concluded that the yielding force was resisted:
1) 41% by the original column and 59% by the jacket in the
case of perfectly nonadherent concrete encasing; 2) 23% by
the original column and 77% by the jacket in the case of the
monolithic model; and 3) between 10 and 14% by the
original column and between 90 to 86% by the jacket in the
case of all the other strengthened models.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of results of this experimental study led to the
following statements:
1. All models behaved monolithically independent of the
adopted interface preparation method, with the exception of
Model M2, in which the nonadherence of the jacket was
provoked;
2. Even Model M2 presented a structural behavior
between the theoretical perfectly frictionless model and the
theoretical perfectly adherent model;
3. Whether the strengthening operation was carried out
with or without an axial load applied had no significant
influence for the adopted conditions;
4. The resistance of the strengthened models was
considerably higher than that of the original column and
slightly higher than that of the monolithic model;
5. The stiffness of the strengthened models was considerably
higher than that of the original column;
6. The transverse reinforcement strain of the original
column was significantly higher in the nonstrengthened
model than in the strengthened models, although the horizontal
force applied in the first case was less than half the corre-
sponding value in the other cases; and
7. The contribution of the adherent jacket to the horizontal
force resistance varied between 86 and 90%.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
View publication stats
This means that for current undamaged columns (namely
with a bending moment) with a shear force ratio greater than
1.0 m, a monolithic behavior of the composite element can
be achieved even without increasing their surface roughness,
using bonding agents, or applying steel connectors before
strengthening it by RC jacketing. It should be noted,
however, that for other conditions, such as RC short columns
and deteriorated or damaged RC columns, these conclusions
may not apply.
With this study, it was also confirmed that RC jacketing is
a very effective strengthening technique, leading to values of
resistance and stiffness of the strengthened column considerably
higher than those of the original column.
ACKOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Sika, Hilti, Betão Liz, Fivinte, DYWIDAG,
Pregaia, Cimpor, and Secil for their collaboration in this research project.
REFERENCES
1. Ramírez Ortiz, J. L., and Bárcena Diaz, J. M., “Strengthening
Effectiveness of Low Quality Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened
by Two Different Procedures,” Informes de la Construcción, No. 272, July
1975, pp. 89-98. (in Spanish)
2. Bett, B. J.; Klingner, R. E.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Lateral Load Response of
Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 85, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1988, pp. 499-508.
3. Alcocer, S., and Jirsa, J., “Assessment of the Response of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Connections Redesigned by Jacketing,” Proceedings of the
Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 3, May
1990, pp. 295-304.
4. Gomes, A., “Behavior and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” PhD thesis, Instituto Superior
Técnico, 1992, 333 pp. (in Portuguese)
5. Gomes, A., and Appleton, J., “Experimental Tests of Strengthened
Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Revista
Portuguesa de Engenharia de Estruturas, No. 38, 1994, pp. 19-29. (in
Portuguese)
6. 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.
7. Stoppenhagen, D. R.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Wyllie, L. A., Jr., “Seismic
Repair and Strengthening of a Severely Damaged Concrete Frame,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1995, pp. 177-187.
8. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “Structural Rehabilitation of
Columns using Reinforced Concrete Jacketing,” Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials, V. 5, No. 1, Jan.-Mar. 2003, pp. 29-37.
9. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “Concrete-to-Concrete
Bond Strength—Influence of the Roughness of the Substrate Surface,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, No. 9, pp. 675-681.
10. Júlio, E. S., “Influence of the Interface on the Behavior of Columns
Strengthened by Reinforced Concrete Jacketing,” PhD thesis, Universidade de
Coimbra, 2001, 274 pp. (in Portuguese)
257