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

net/publication/286826936

Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using

Carbon-Fiber Anchors

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

15 77

3 authors, including:

Thanasis Triantafillou
University of Patras
132 PUBLICATIONS   5,924 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

TRM as Strengthening Materials of Existing Structures View project

Innovative seismic isolation of infill walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thanasis Triantafillou on 19 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 110-S07
Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors
by Ioannis Vrettos, Efstathia Kefala, and Thanasis C. Triantafillou
This paper presents the results of an experimental program that
aimed to study the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) columns
under simulated seismic loading strengthened in flexure with
anchored carbon-fiber sheets. The role of different parameters
is examined by comparing the lateral load-versus-displacement
response characteristics (peak force, drift ratios, energy dissi-
pation, and stiffness). These parameters included the number
of anchors and the volume of fibers in each anchor. The results
were combined with a simple analytical model to yield values for
the effective strain in the anchors at failure. It is concluded that
carbon-fiber anchors provide a viable solution toward enhancing
the flexural resistance of RC columns subjected to seismic loads,
especially if they are made of a substantial amount of fibers.
Keywords: carbon-fiber anchors; columns; flexure; seismic retrofitting;
strengthening.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Earthquakes worldwide have proven the vulnerability of
existing reinforced concrete (RC) columns to seismic loading.
Poorly detailed columns are the most critical structural
elements, which may fail due to shear, compressive crushing
of concrete, reinforcing bar buckling, bond at lap splices, and
flexure. Seismic retrofitting of RC columns is a challenging
task that may be addressed successfully today using exter-
nally bonded composite materials (fiber-reinforced polymers
[FRPs]) for all of the aforementioned failure mechanisms
except flexure. FRPs in the form of jackets with the fibers
typically in the columns’ circumferential direction are quite
effective in carrying shear and providing confinement, thus
increasing the shear resistance and deformation capacity of
existing RC columns. However, effective strengthening of
columns in flexure—often needed, for instance, to satisfy
capacity design requirements (that is, the elimination of
weakness in strong-beam, weak-column situations) or when
existing reinforcing bars have been affected by corrosion—
calls for the continuation of longitudinal reinforcement. This
reinforcement should extend beyond the end cross sections,
where moments are typically at a maximum. Therefore, the
placement of externally bonded FRP is not applicable. As
a result, flexural strengthening of RC columns is currently
typically achieved by using RC jackets or some form of
steel jackets—namely, steel “cages”—also followed by
shotcreting. RC jackets or steel cages covered by shotcrete
require intensive labor and artful detailing; they increase the
dimensions and weight of columns and result in substantial
obstruction of occupancy. Moreover, increasing the stiffness
of the column will attract a higher force because forces are
distributed according to the relative stiffness of the elements.
Therefore, the implementation of a low-labor and minimal
obstruction flexural strengthening technique for RC columns
is a challenging task that was addressed for the first time in
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
TECHNICAL PAPER
a systematic way by Bournas and Triantafillou1 through the
use of near-surface-mounted (NSM) reinforcement.
In this study, the authors investigated flexural strength-
ening of columns with externally bonded FRP sheets
that are anchored at the columns’ end sections with fiber
anchors in the form of spikes. Fiber anchors have received
the attention of some investigators in applications related
to shear strengthening of columns,2,3 shear strengthening
of beams,4 and flexural strengthening of beams.5,6 Some
studies have also focused on specific bond aspects of fiber
anchors7,8 or tensile properties.9
The only study reported in the international literature on
flexural strengthening of columns with anchored FRP sheets
is that of Prota et al.,10 who used steel spikes at the base of
cantilever-type RC columns in combination with glass FRP
confining jackets. The specimens were tested under mono-
tonic lateral load in combination with constant axial load.
A comparison of the strength results for unstrengthened
and strengthened columns shows an increase in the range
of 33 to 54%.
This paper presents a study on the combination of FRP
sheets and fiber anchors for flexural strengthening of RC
columns under simulated seismic loading. Details are
provided in the following sections.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Columns, the most critical structural elements in RC struc-
tures, are often in need of flexural strengthening to satisfy
capacity design requirements (relocation of plastic hinges
from columns to beams) or when longitudinal reinforcing
bars have been affected by corrosion. The implementation of
a low-labor and minimal-obstruction flexural strengthening
technique for RC columns still remains a challenging task,
which is addressed in this study for the first time through
the use of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets combined
with carbon-fiber anchors.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens and experimental parameters
The experimental program aimed to study the flex-
ural strengthening of old-type nonseismically detailed RC
columns with externally bonded FRP sheets, which are
anchored at the columns’ end sections with fiber anchors in
the form of spikes, and compare the effectiveness of different
anchor schemes. A total of four large-scale RC column
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 1, January-February 2013.
MS No. S-2011-053.R1 received March 7, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2013, 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 November-December 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion
is received by July 1, 2013.
63
Ioannis Vrettos received his Diploma in civil engineering and his MSc in seismic
design of structures from the University of Patras, Patras, Greece, in 2007 and 2009,
respectively. His research interests include advanced materials and seismic retrofitting
of reinforced concrete structures.
Efstathia Kefala received her Diploma in civil engineering and her MSc in seismic
design of structures from the University of Patras in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Her
research interests include advanced materials and seismic retrofitting of reinforced
concrete structures.
ACI member Thanasis C. Triantafillou is a Professor of civil engineering and Director
of the Structural Materials Laboratory at the University of Patras. He received his
Diploma in civil engineering from the University of Patras in 1985 and his MSc and
PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, in 1987 and
1989, respectively. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement. His research interests include the application of advanced polymer- or
cement-based composites in combination with concrete, masonry, and timber with an
emphasis on strengthening and seismic retrofitting.
specimens with the same geometry were constructed and
tested under cyclic uniaxial flexure with constant axial load
(Fig. 1(a)). The specimens were flexure-dominated cantile-
vers (that is, slender and designed to fail by yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars) with a height to the point of
application of the load (shear span) of 1.6 m (63 in.) (half
a typical story height) and a cross section of 250 x 250 mm
(9.84 x 9.84 in.). To represent old-type columns, speci-
mens were reinforced longitudinally with four deformed
bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter and 8 mm (0.32 in.) diam-
eter deformed stirrups, closed with 90-degree hooks at both
ends, at a spacing of 200 mm (7.87 in.). The geometry of a
typical cross section is shown in Fig. 1(b).
The specimens were designed such that the effect of
two basic parameters on the effectiveness of anchors—the
number of anchors and the amount of fibers in each anchor—
could be investigated. The specimens are described in the
following, supported by Fig. 2.
• One specimen was tested without flexural strengthening
as the control specimen. As in all strengthened speci-
mens, however, longitudinal fiber sheets were confined
at the base of the column with an FRP jacket so buckling
of those fibers could be prevented; the same confining
jacket was also used in the control specimen (Fig. 2(a)).
Fig. 1—(a) Schematic of test setup; and (b) cross section of columns. (Note:
Dimensions in mm [in.].)
64
As a result, the only difference between the control
specimen and any other specimen was due to the imple-
mentation of flexural strengthening through the use of
longitudinal sheets in combination with anchors. The
jacket was made of a CFRP sheet that extended from
the column base to a height of 600 mm (23.62 in.).
• Specimen 2_1.5 was strengthened with a 200 mm
(7.87 in.) wide epoxy-impregnated carbon-fiber sheet
on each of the two opposite sides of the column (those
with the highest tension/compression). The CFRP sheet
extended from the column base to a height of 1.4 m
(55.12 in.) and was anchored at the base block with
two carbon-fiber spike anchors on each side (Fig. 2(b)).
The cross-sectional area of the fibers in each anchor
was equal to 0.75 times the cross-sectional area of the
fibers in the CFRP sheet; hence, the total cross-sectional
area of the fibers in the two anchors was equal to 1.5
times that of the CFRP sheet. Finally, the column was
confined with a jacket identical to that used in the
control specimen.
• Specimen 3_1.5 was strengthened the same as 2_1.5 but
with three instead of two anchors per side (Fig. 2(c)).
Those anchors were 33% lighter than those in 2_1.5:
each one had a cross-sectional area equal to 0.50 times
the cross-sectional area of the fibers in the CFRP sheet;
hence, the total cross-sectional area of the fibers in the
three anchors was again equal to 1.5 times that of the
CFRP sheet.
• Specimen 2_1.0 (Fig. 2(d)) was strengthened the same as
2_1.5 but with the light anchors used in Specimen 3_1.5.
In summary, except for the control specimen, the speci-
mens’ notation is as follows: the first number denotes the
number of anchors on each side at the base of the column
and the second number denotes the ratio of the fiber cross
section in the anchors to that in the CFRP sheet.
Strengthening procedure
One unidirectional carbon-fiber sheet 1.4 m (55.12 in.)
long and 200 mm (7.87 in.) wide was bonded on a properly
prepared concrete surface on each of the two opposite sides
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
 Fig. 2—Four columns tested: (a) control; (b) Specimen 2_1.5; (c) Specimen 3_1.5; and (d)
Specimen 2_1.0. (Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)

Fig. 3—(a) Filling of holes in anchorage region with epoxy resin; (b) place-
ment of carbon-fiber anchor; (c) fanning out of fiber anchors over CFRP sheet;
(d) local jacketing with CFRP; and (e) position of displacement transducers.
(Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)

of the strengthened columns. The sheet was placed with
fibers in a vertical configuration and was terminated at the
column base.
Fiber anchor spikes were applied on top of the CFRP sheet
at a spacing of 100 mm (3.94 in.) or 67 mm (2.64 in.) for
columns with two or three anchors per side, respectively
(Fig. 2). Spikes were formed from dry carbon fibers (half
dry and half coated with epoxy). Holes were drilled into the
base of the column with a depth of 250 mm (9.84 in.) and
a diameter of 14 or 16 mm (0.55 or 0.63 in.) for Specimens
3_1.5 and 2_1.0 or 2_1.5, respectively. The holes were filled
with epoxy (Fig. 3(a)) to half of their depths. Each anchor
spike was inserted into the holes after applying the CFRP
sheets on the two opposite sides of the columns (Fig. 3(b))
and the protruding dry fibers were fanned out over the CFRP
sheet (Fig. 3(c)). This method of anchoring was selected on

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 65

the basis of transferring the tension forces from the CFRP
sheet terminating at the bottom of each column into the
concrete base. Finally, all columns received jacketing by
wrapping a single layer of a 600 mm (23.62 in.) wide carbon
sheet, identical to that used in the columns’ longitudinal
direction (Fig. 3(d)). The effectiveness of confinement was
improved by rounding the four corners near the base of each
column to a radius equal to 25 mm (0.98 in.).
Test setup and materials
The columns were fixed into a heavily reinforced 0.5 m
(19.68 in.) deep base block 1.2 x 0.5 m (47 x 19.7 in.) in
plan, within which the longitudinal bars were anchored
with 50 mm (1.97 in.) radius hooks at the bottom. The
longitudinal bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter had a yield
stress of 545 MPa (79.0 ksi), a tensile strength of 652 MPa
(94.5 ksi), and an ultimate strain equal to 13.7% (average
values from six specimens). The corresponding values for the
steel used for the stirrups were 351 MPa (50.9 ksi), 444 MPa
(64.4 ksi), and 19.5%. To simulate field conditions, the base
blocks and the columns were cast with separate batches of
ready mixed concrete (on 2 consecutive days). Casting of
the columns was also made with separate batches due to
the unavailability of a large number of molds. The average
compressive strength and standard deviation on the day of
testing the columns—measured on 150 x 150 mm (5.9 x
5.9 in.) cubes (average values from three specimens)—were
equal to 17.1 and 0.95 MPa (2478 and 138 psi), respectively,
suggesting that the variability in concrete strength would
not affect the column test results. Cylinders with a diam-
eter of 150 mm (5.9 in.) and a height of 300 mm (11.81 in.)
were also used to obtain the splitting tensile strength of the
concrete; the average tensile strength that was obtained from
six specimens on the day of testing was equal to 2.2 MPa
(319 psi).
The carbon-fiber sheet used as both longitudinal reinforce-
ment (vertical fibers) and confinement (horizontal fibers)
was a commercial unidirectional fiber product with a weight
of 644 g/m2 (2.62 × 10–6 lb/in.2) and a nominal thickness
(based on the equivalent smeared distribution of fibers)
of 0.37 mm (0.0146 in.). The mean tensile strength and
elastic modulus of the fibers (as well as of the sheet when
the nominal thickness is used) was taken from data sheets
equal to 3790 MPa (549.27 ksi) and 230 GPa (33,333 ksi),
respectively. The carbon-fiber sheet was impregnated with
a commercial low-viscosity structural adhesive (two-part
epoxy resin with a mixing ratio of 3:1 by weight) with a
tensile strength of 70 MPa (10.15 ksi) and an elastic modulus
of 3.2 GPa (464 ksi) (cured for 7 days at 23°C [73°F]).
The values of the tensile strength and elastic modulus for
the epoxy-impregnated sheet were taken from data sheets
equal to 986 MPa (142.9 ksi) and 95.8 GPa (13,884 ksi),
respectively, corresponding to a thickness equal to 1 mm
(0.039 in.).
Each anchor comprised a tow of carbon fibers of the
same type used in the unidirectional sheets. The weight
of the fibers for the anchors used in Specimens 3_1.5 and
2_1.0 was 63 g/m (0.0035 lb/in.); the anchors used in
Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier and the respective weight
of the fibers was 94.5 g/m (0.0053 lb/in.). Impregnation and
bonding of the fiber anchors was done using the same epoxy
adhesive used for the impregnation of the carbon sheets.
The columns were subjected to lateral cyclic loading,
which consisted of successive cycles progressively increasing
66
by 5 mm (0.20 in.) of displacement amplitudes in each direc-
tion. The loading rate was in the range of 0.2 to 1.1 mm/s
(0.008 to 0.043 in./s)—the higher rate corresponding to
a higher displacement amplitude—all in displacement-
control mode. At the same time, a constant axial load was
applied to the columns, corresponding to 25.4% of the
members’ compressive strength, which was calculated by
multiplying the gross section area by the strength of the
concrete. The lateral load was applied using a horizontally
positioned 250 kN (56.2 kip) MTS actuator. The axial load
was exerted by a set of four hydraulic cylinders with auto-
mated pressure self-adjustment acting against two vertical
rods connected to the strong floor of the testing frame through
a hinge (Fig. 1(a)). As a result of this loading scheme, the
variation of axial load during each test was negligible. With
this setup, the P-D moment at the base section of the column
is equal to the axial load times the tip displacement (that is,
at the piston fixing position) of the column times the ratio of
the hinge distance from the base (0.25 m [9.84 in.]) and the
top (0.25 + 1.60 = 1.85 m [72.83 in.]) of the column (that is,
times 0.25/1.85 = 0.135).
The displacements and axial strains at the plastic hinge
region were monitored using six displacement transducers
(three on each side, perpendicular to the loading direction)
fixed at the cross sections 130, 260, and 450 mm (5.12,
10.24, and 17.72 in.) from the column base, as shown in
Fig. 1(a) and 3(e).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Strength, failure modes, and deformations
The response of all columns tested is given in
Fig. 4 in the form of the load-drift ratio (obtained by dividing
the tip displacement by the column’s height) loops. The corre-
sponding envelope curves are given in Fig. 5; key results are
also presented in Table 1. They include: 1) the peak resistance
in the two directions of loading; 2) the degree of strength-
ening—that is, the peak resistance normalized with respect
to the peak load sustained by the control specimen in the two
directions of loading; and 3) the observed failure mode.
The performance and failure mode of all tested specimens
was controlled by flexure, as expected due to their design
characteristics (a high value of the shear span ratio L/h =
6.4 and a relatively low ratio of longitudinal reinforcement).
This was an important requirement, as the main objective in
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of spike anchors
as a means of flexural strengthening of RC columns. The
control specimen attained a peak load of approximately
37.8 kN (8.45 kips). After yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, the load remained nearly constant up to a
large drift ratio of 8%, corresponding to the termination
of the test. The confinement provided by the CFRP jacket
prevented spalling of the concrete cover and potential buck-
ling of the longitudinal reinforcing bars.
All strengthened specimens displayed higher flexural
resistance (from 17% up to approximately 35%) compared
to the control specimen. The response of strengthened
columns was not in all cases completely symmetrical in the
two directions of loading due to slight differences in the
internal reinforcement’s effective depth and the configura-
tion of anchors in each strengthened side. Flexural cracking
at the column base started at the early stages of loading and
increased substantially with increasing drift ratios due to slip
of the internal bars. Failure in all strengthened columns was
due to tensile rupture of the anchors at the cross section of
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
maximum moment (column base). No other failure, such as
debonding, was observed, indicating that the epoxy adhesive
performed well and the anchor length was sufficient.
Rupture of the anchors resulted in a sudden drop of the
applied force when the drift ratio was approximately 2.5%.
As in the case of the control specimen, the confinement
provided by the CFRP jacket prevented spalling of the
concrete cover and potential buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars. The pinching observed in the hysteresis
loops shown in Fig. 4 is attributed to slip of the internal bars
and the nonyielding response of the fiber anchors.
Figure 6 gives the relation between the drift ratio and the
slip rotation qslip of the cross section at the interface between
the column and the base. The latter was measured using
the data from the displacement transducers in two cross
sections at a distance l1 = 130 mm (5.12 in.) and l2 = 260 mm Fig. 4—Load-versus-drift ratio curves for tested specimens.
(10.24 in.) from the base as follows: qslip = q2 – fl2 = q1 – fl1,
where f is the mean curvature at the column base equal to
(q2 – q1)/(l2 – l1). This assumption of a constant mean curva-
ture is applicable if this distance l2 – l1 is small in the order
of the typical distance of two adjacent flexural cracks if the
behavior prior to yielding is of interest or the length within
which concrete is expected to spall or crush and reinforcing
bars may buckle or even break. In experiments, values of
l2 – l1 in the range of h/2 to h are commonly selected. In
this way, it is possible to estimate the contribution of the
slip rotation to the overall column deformation. The qslip-
drift ratio relation is nearly bilinear for all columns, with
a first branch up to approximately the peak lateral load and Fig. 5—Load-versus-drift ratio envelope curves.
a second one with a higher slope beyond that. The contri-
bution of slip rotation to the columns’ overall behavior was
prevalent, as it comprised the major part of their deformation
capacity (drift ratio).
By comparing the degree of strengthening for all tests,
some useful conclusions concerning the relative effective-
ness of different anchor configurations can be made. Speci-
mens 2_1.5 and 3_1.5 had anchors with the same total
amount of fibers distributed in two and three anchors per
side, respectively, with Specimen 2_1.5 displaying a higher
degree of strengthening (1.35 versus 1.25). Hence, it may
be concluded that two “heavier” anchors per side are more
effective than three “lighter” ones. This is counterintuitive,
but it may be explained by the higher probability of poor
anchor installation as the number of anchors increases. More
test results should clarify this observation further.
Specimens 2_1.5 and 2_1.0 had the same number of
anchors; those in Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier. Yet,
the increase in flexural resistance due to strengthening in Fig. 6—Slip rotation at base in terms of drift ratio.

Table 1—Summary of results

Column base
Peak force Pmax, moment at peak Drift ratio at peak Degree of strengthening Concrete cover in Effective strain in
kN (kips) force, kN·m (kip·ft) force, % (Pmax,Specimen/Pmax,Control) tension steel, mm (in.) tension anchors, %
Specimen Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull
37.91 –37.73 62.53 –62.35
Control 3.67 –3.88 1.00 1.00 33 33 — —
(8.52) (–8.48) (4.29) (–4.27)
51.15 –50.66 83.06 –82.25
2_1.5 2.40 –2.35 1.35 1.34 25 36 0.53 0.52
(11.50) (–11.39) (5.69) (–5.64)
47.49 –42.11* 77.40
3_1.5 — 2.79 — 1.25 — 32 31 0.43 —
(10.68) (–9.47) (5.30)
45.04 –43.33 73.32 –70.56
2_1.0 2.48 –2.42 1.19 1.15 35 26 0.49 0.43
(10.12) (–9.74) (7.25) (–4.84)
*
Unreliable result (not used in further calculations) due to wrong positioning of one anchor.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 67

 Fig. 7—(a) Cumulative dissipated energy during test; and (b) stiffness versus drift ratio.
Fig. 8—(a) Stresses at column base; and (b) approximate bilinear stress-strain curve for
FRP-confined concrete.
Specimen 2_1.5 (34.5% on average in both directions of
loading) was nearly double that in Specimen 2_1.0 (17% on
average in both directions of loading), indicating that heavier
anchors are more effective. On the basis of the limited test
results presented in this study, it is concluded that anchors
should be as few and as heavy as possible.
Stiffness and energy dissipation
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the various anchor
configurations, the stiffness and cumulative dissipated
energy—computed by summing up the area enclosed within
the load-versus-piston displacement curves—were recorded
for each loading cycle and are plotted in Fig. 7. Overall,
the use of anchors results in higher stiffness (in the order
of 10 to 40%, depending on anchor configuration), up to the
drift corresponding to anchor rupture, whereas the increase
in energy dissipation is marginal.
It should be noted at this point that the increased stiffness
of the strengthened columns may result in increased seismic
forces. However, this is not of concern and should not lead
to the conclusion that the positive effect of strengthening is
counterbalanced by the negative effect of stiffening. What is
of crucial importance in capacity design is the higher strength
of columns versus that of beams, which is typically the reason
68
why flexural strengthening of columns is a demand—a fact
that was verified experimentally in this study.
Effective strain of fiber anchors
Of crucial importance in the design of an FRP-based
strengthening system is the so-called “effective strain,”
defined herein as the average tensile strain in the fiber
anchors at failure. This value was calculated by performing
an analysis of the cross section at the column base through
the use of standard—in RC—force equilibrium, strain
compatibility, and material constitutive conditions corre-
sponding to the maximum bending moment at the cross
section (Fig. 8(a)). In this analysis, the spike anchors are
modeled as linear elastic tension elements. Note that the
analysis was performed using the “exact” values of concrete
cover as measured after each test and not the nominal values
shown in Fig. 1(b); these values are listed in Table 1.
To account for the effect of FRP confinement, the
compressive stress-strain behavior of concrete was modeled
as bilinear (Fig. 8(b)) in agreement with extensive experi-
mental evidence.11 According to the typical approach toward
modeling confinement of concrete by FRP,12-14 the confined
strength fcc and ultimate strain eccu depend on the confining
stress at failure (fracture of the jacket in the circumferential
direction) slu as follows15
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
 fcc fco = 1 + k1 (s lu fco )m
e ccu e co = 1 + k2 (s lu fco )n
The confining stress sl is, in general, nonuniform, espe-
cially near the corners of rectangular cross sections. As an
average for sl in a cross section with dimensions of b and h,
one may write (Fig. 9(a) through (c))
s l ,h + s l ,b 1  2t j 2t j 
sl = = ke  Eje j + Eje j 
2 2  h b 
= ke
(b + h) t E e
j j j
bh
where Ej and ej are the elastic modulus and strain, respec-
tively, of the FRP jacket in the lateral direction; tj is the jacket
thickness; and ke is an effectiveness coefficient which, for
continuous jackets with fibers in the direction perpendicular
to the member axis, is defined as the ratio of the effectively
confined area (Ae in Fig. 9(d)) to the total cross-sectional
area Ag as follows16
b′2 + h ′2
ke = 1 −
3 Ag
Hence, the confining stress at failure slu is given by Eq. (3)
with Ejej replaced by the effective jacket strength in the
lateral direction fje
s lu = k e
(b + h) t f je
j (5)
bh
The literature on the precise form of confinement models
for concrete is vast. Some of these models, especially the
older ones, are based on the assumption that the relation-
ship between confined strength and ultimate strain and
their unconfined counterparts is linear—that is, m and n
are both equal to 1. In other models, especially in some of
the most recent ones, m and n are taken as less than—but
still close to—1. Whereas the main advantage of the former
approach is simplicity, the disadvantage is that linear rela-
tionships between fcc-slu and eccu-slu tend to overpredict
both the confined strength and the confined ultimate strain
for high confining stresses. As the authors’ objective in this
paper is not to elaborate on confinement models for concrete
but, rather, to perform a simple cross-section analysis with
FRP confinement taken into account, the authors also make
the assumption of linearity—that is, that m = 1 and n = 1.
Moreover, in agreement with the typical CFRP confinement
models for concrete,11 the authors take k1 = 2.15 and k2 = 10.
The aforementioned procedure was implemented in a
computer program that performs equilibrium iterations in
an automated way and yields the tensile strain in the spike
anchors at failure of the cross section. It should be noted that
failure was always reached when the spike anchors developed
their strength and fractured in tension, while the maximum
compressive strain in the concrete was less than the confined
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
(1)
(2)
(3)
Fig. 9—(a) to (c) Approximate average confining stresses;
and (d) effectively confined area in columns with rectan-
gular cross section.
strength fcc. This failure mode is in perfect agreement with
experimental observations for all three FRP-strengthened
columns. The resulting values of strain in the anchors at
failure, summarized in Table 1, indicate that the effective
strain in the spike anchors at failure—on average, equal to
(4) 0.0047—is well below the theoretical deformation capacity
of the (carbon) fibers comprising the anchors. The main
reasons for this difference are the stress concentrations at the
anchor bend and the cyclic nature of stresses in the anchors.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the first study on the combination of
FRP sheets and fiber anchors for flexural strengthening of
RC columns under simulated seismic loading. The design
of specimens allowed for an investigation of the number of
anchors and the volume of fibers in each anchor. The results
were combined with a simple analytical model to yield
values for the effective strain in the anchors at failure. The
main conclusions are summarized as follows:
• Carbon-fiber anchors provide a viable solution toward
enhancing the flexural resistance of RC columns
subjected to seismic loading.
• The effectiveness of anchors increases almost linearly
with their weight.
• A fixed amount of fibers placed in the form of anchors
is more effective when two heavier anchors are used
instead of three but are lighter. This may be attributed
to the increased probability of poor installation as the
number of anchors increases and should be investi-
gated further.
• On the basis of standard cross-section analysis, which
accounts for the effect of confinement, the effec-
tive strain in carbon-fiber anchors subjected to cyclic
loading is in the order of 0.5%.
In view of the limited number of tests performed in this
study, the aforementioned results should be considered
as rather preliminary. Future research should be directed
toward providing a better understanding of the parameters,
including other amounts of fibers in the anchors, the level
of axial load, initial column damage, different shear spans,
69
different loading histories, other cross sections, and other
types of fibers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank C. Papanicolaou, P. Apostolopoulou, and
K. Giannakopoulos for their assistance in the experimental program. The
study reported in this paper was partially funded by FYFE EUROPE SA.
NOTATION
Ag = gross section area
Ej = elastic modulus of jacket in lateral direction
fcc = compressive strength of confined concrete
fco = compressive strength of unconfined concrete
fje = effective strength of jacket in lateral direction
h = cross-section height
k1, k2 = empirical constants
ke = confinement effectiveness coefficient
L = length
li = distance of cross section i from column base; i = 1, 2, 3
m = empirical constant
n = empirical constant
Pmax = peak force
rc = radius at corners of rectangular sections
tj = thickness of jacket
ec = compressive strain in concrete
eccu = ultimate strain of confined concrete
eco = strain at failure of unconfined concrete
ej = jacket strain in lateral direction
f = mean curvature at column base
qi = rotation of cross section i; i = 1, 2
qslip = slip rotation at column base
sa = tensile stress in anchors
sc = compressive stress in concrete
scc = maximum compressive stress in concrete
sl = lateral stress due to jacketing
sl,b = lateral stress perpendicular to side b
sl,h = lateral stress perpendicular to side h
slu = ultimate lateral stress due to jacketing
ss = tensile stress in longitudinal steel reinforcement
REFERENCES
1. Bournas, D. A., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Flexural Strengthening of
RC Columns with NSM FRP or Stainless Steel,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 495-505.
2. Nagai, H.; Kanakubo, T.; Jinno, Y.; Matsuzaki, Y.; and Morita, S.,
“Study on Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns with
Waist-High Walls Strengthened by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sheets,”
Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan,
S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1999, pp. 255-267.
70
View publication stats
3. Kobayashi, K.; Fujii, S.; Yabe, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Sugiyama, T.,
“Advanced Wrapping System with CF-Anchor—Stress Transfer Mecha-
nism of CF-Anchor,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, C. J.
Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2001, pp. 379-388.
4. Jinno, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Yabe, Y., “RC Beams with Slabs
Strengthened by CF Sheets and Bundles of CF Strands,” Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK,
2001, pp. 981-988.
5. Ekenel, M.; Rizzo, A.; Myers, J. J.; and Nanni, A., “Flexural Fatigue
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP Fabric
and Precured Laminate Systems,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 10, No. 5, 2006, pp. 433-442.
6. Orton, S.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Bayrak, O., “Design Considerations of
Carbon Fiber Anchors,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 12, No. 6, 2008, pp. 608-616.
7. Eshwar, N.; Nanni, A.; and Ibell, T. J., “Performance of Two Anchor
Systems of Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, pp. 72-80.
8. Niemitz, C. W.; James, R.; and Breña, S. F., “Experimental Behavior
of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Sheets Attached to Concrete
Surfaces Using CFRP Anchors,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 185-194.
9. Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., “Tensile Behavior of FRP
Anchors in Concrete,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 13, No. 2, 2009, pp. 82-92.
10. Prota, A.; Manfredi, G.; Balsamo, A.; Nanni, A.; and Cosenza, E.,
“Innovative Technique for Seismic Upgrade of RC Square Columns,”
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-230, K. Shield,
J. P. Busel, S. L. Walkup, and D. D. Gremel, eds., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 1289-1304.
11. Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., FRP: Strengthened
RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, UK, 2002, 266 pp.
12. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., “Strength Models for Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic-Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 128, No. 5, 2002, pp. 612-623.
13. De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R., “Comparative Study of Models
on Confinement of Concrete Cylinders with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 3,
2003, pp. 219-237.
14. Theriault, M.; Neale, K. W.; and Claude, S., “Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Confined Circular Concrete Columns: Investigation of Size and
Slenderness Effects,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 8,
No. 4, 2004, pp. 323-331.
15. Triantafillou, T. C.; Papanicolaou, C. G.; Zissimopoulos, P.; and
Laourdekis, T., “Concrete Confinement with Textile-Reinforced Mortar
Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 28-37.
16. fib Bulletin 14, “Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC
Structures,” Technical Report prepared by the Working Party EBR of Task
Group 9.3, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne,
Switzerland, July 2001, 130 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013