, ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 85-S48
Lateral Load Response of Strengthened and Repaired
Reinforced Concrete Columns
by B. John Bett, Richard E. Klingner, and James 0. Jirsa
The effectiveness of three different repair and/or strengthening tech-
niques in enhancing the lateral load response of identical reinforced
concrete short columns was studied. Based on an 18 in. square pro-
totype, three column test specimens were constructed to two-thirds
scale, using identical geometry and reinforcement. The test speci-
mens representing existing columns had a 12 in. square cross section
reinforced with eight No. 6 longitudinal bars, 6-mm ties spaced at 8
in., and a l-in. cover. Spacing of the transverse reinforcement, while
greater than current design requirements, was intended to represent
typical practice of column design in seismic regions of the U.S. in the
1950s and early 1960s. One of the specimens was tested, repaired by
jacketing, and then retested. The remaining two specimens were
strengthened by jacketing prior to testing. A single lateral displace-
ment history and constant axial load were used for all tests. Both the
strengthened and the repaired columns performed better than the
original column. Columns strengthened by jacketing, both with and
without supplementary crossties, were much stiffer and stronger lat-
erally than the original, unstrengthened column. The column re-
paired by jacketing was also much stiffer and stronger laterally than
the original column and performed almost as well as the strength-
ened columns.
Keywords: columns (supports); damage; earthquake resistant structures; flex-
ural strength; frames; lateral pressure; reinforced concrete; repairs; shear prop-
erties; short columns; shotcrete; strengthening.
Reinforced concrete buildings in seismic zones are
strengthened or repaired for three principal reasons: to
satisfy the building owner's concern for financial pro-
tection and occupant safety; to comply with local
building codes and regulations; and to repair earth-
quake damage and obtain improved performance dur-
ing future events.
When a building is to be strengthened or repaired, its
projected new response characteristics must be care-
fully analyzed so that the selected procedure does not
create new weaknesses. The strengthening must also be
cost-effective. Information on the relative merits of
different strengthening and repair procedures is needed.
This topic has been the subject of several research in-
vestigations in the U .S. 1•2 and elsewhere. 3-s Most pre-
vious research has involved small~scale specimens and
has been conducted with little regard for real-world
constraints imposed by geometry or construction pro-
cedures.
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
TECHNICAL PAPER
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
This investigation was part of a larger study of the
behavior of reinforced concrete frame systems sub-
jected to cyclic lateral deformations. The overall re-
search program was devoted to evaluation of various
strengthening and repair techniques for reinforced con-
crete frame elements.
The study reported here deals only with short col-
umns under constant axial compression and reversed
cyclic lateral loads. Two columns were strengthened
before testing, and one column was repaired after test-
ing. Column performance was compared in terms of
lateral strength, stiffness, and inelastic load-deforma-
tion behavior.
REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING TECHNIQUES
FOR SHORT COLUMNS
Field reports after damaging earthquakes often indi-
cate that columns are vulnerable structural elements,
particularly if they fail in shear. 6 •7 Shear-dominated be-
havior is most common in columns having shear-span
to depth ratios aid less than 2.5. 8. 10 Members originally
designed as short columns can behave satisfactorily
under lateral loads if sufficient shear resistance is pro-
vided. However, short or captive columns are some-
times produced unintentionally9 when stiff elements
restrict the lateral deformation of the column over
some of its height. The shear corresponding to the for-
mation of plastic hinges at the column ends increases as
the column length decreases (Fig. 1).
Severe seismic loading of columns with small shear-
span to depth ratios aid and widely spaced transverse
reinforcement generally results in shear-dominated fail-
ure, which can cause structural collapse by the forma-
Received June 15, 1987, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1988, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 1989 ACI
Structural Journal if received by Mar. I, 1989.
499
 Spec1111en Column
No, Cross Seetion Description
B. John Bett is a design engineer at the Shell Development Co., New Orleans.
He pursued graduate studi2s at The University of Texas at Austin.
Lens. steel: 16's Preearation: original speci111en

AC! member Richard E. Klingner -is an associate professor of civil engineering,

The University of Texas at Austin. He is a member of ACI Committees 531, Identical 12" x 12" ~~:2Sdrirt
Concrete Masonry Structures; 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures; and joint ACJ- cores used for all
spec1111ens.
ASCE Committee 442, Response of Concrete Buildings to Lateral Forces.
17"
AC! member James 0. Jirsa is Phil M. Ferguson Professor of Civil Engineer- Long. steel: 13's Preparation: undblut, add 4-#3
longitudinsl bars and 6mm ties at
ing, The University of Texas at Austin. Ties: tal ! 2-1/2" 2-1/2", Shotcrete to 17" 1. 17•,

2-1/2" sbotereh shell

Derlection limit: 2.5S drift

Lon&: 13's, 16's Preparation: sandblast, add ~-13

corner bers and 4-16 11ldface bars,
Tiea: t.a @ 2-1/2" Anchor aidfaoe bars w/13 crossties,
secured with apoxy. 6!1111 tles @

T
Crosstias: 13's @ 9" 2-112". Shotcrete to 17" J 17".

Deflection .!!!!.!= 2.5S drift.

,_,~--
~: Re•ova all loose cover
~rnarbarsand4-16111d­
L Ties: &. @ 2-112" face bara. Anchor 111ldface bars
w/13 cr~stias, secured with epoxy.
Crosstiaa: 13's @ 9" 6mm tias f 2-112~. Shotcrata to
17• X 17~.

1
2-1/2" shotcrete shell

Deflection !.!!!!= 2.5S drift.

"*'
\,\'" '·,.,. .
',:-tt..'
ctI
V -- 2M
L The test specimen was a short column framing into
Fig. ]-Relation between end shears and moments in a
column subjected to sidesway
tion of a single-story side/sway mechanism. Such
columns can be strengthened by increasing their shear
resistance. This must be done economically, and the
strengthened column must fail in flexure, not shear.
Four possible strengthening techniques are 1) encase the
column with rectangular or circular steel sections;
2) encase it with steel straps; 3) confine it with welded
wire fabric; or 4) confine it by adding spliced ties. Af-
ter shear reinforcement is added, the column is jack-
eted with shotcrete or cement grout to protect the
added steel and to make it act integrally with the origi-
nal column. While jacketing increases a column's cross
section and therefore reduces its aid ratio, the jacketed
column can still behave better than the original, pro-
vided that the jacketed column has enough shear ca-
pacity to resist the shear corresponding to the forma-
tion of plastic hinges at the column ends (Fig. 1).
EXPERIMENTAL SPECIMENS
Three test specimens were constructed using normal
weight concrete and deformed reinforcement. Speci-
men 1-1 was tested in its original form, repaired,
strengthened, and retested as Specimen 1-lR. The re-
maining two specimens 1-2 and 1-3 were strengthened
prior to testing. In this section, the design and con-
struction of the test specimens are reviewed. The test
variables, described as follows, are summarized in Fig.
2.
500
Fig. 2-Test program summary
Existing columns, original test specimen 1·1
large end blocks which attached the specimen to the
testing frame and anchored the longitudinal column re-
inforcement. The specimens were similar in size to
those studied previously at the University of Texas 8-10
and permitted use of existing test facilities.
The prototype short column was designed as an 18
in. square section meeting the column design provi-
sions of ACI 318-63, 11 particularly Section 806 and
Chapter 19. It was 4.5 ft. high and reinforced with
eight No. 9 longitudinal bars giving a gross steel per-
centage of 2.5 percent. Two sets of closed ties were
used, spaced at 12 in. Cover was 1.5 in. Transverse re-
inforcement details were selected as typical for struc-
tures designed for seismic regions of the U.S. during
the late 1950s and early 1960s. Based on load data of
that time, typical compressive stresses on such columns
ranged from 350 to 550 psi, with an average of about
450 psi.
To reduce fabrication and testing costs, the test spec-
imens were constructed at two-thirds scale. As shown in
Fig. 3, the resulting scaled original specimen 1-1 was 12
in. square and 3.0 ft. high. It had eight No. 6 longitu-
dinal bars, sets of special 6 mm deformed ties spaced at
8 in., and l-in. cover.
Using actual material properties, theoretical moment
capacities were calculated using the computer program
RCCOLA, developed at the University of California at
Berkeley and modified at the University of Texas at
Austin. 12 Shear capacity was evaluated using the empir-
ical relationship of Eq. (1), based on the results of short
column tests conducted previously at the University of
Texas 10
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
 ,. . . . . . . . . . . . .!j_" Max. Concrete Strain

Gross Section•0.0030 In/In

Cora Section•0.0100 Wl/tn

800.

;.......1
:
r······;
:
ifscm)
Core Section
36" (92cm)
1 1 4 Spaces
1 1 at 8"
~ ~ (21cm) ..
"0
0
...J
; : 2'' o; 400. Gross Section
r·······; =·······: T<5cm> ";(
<

I. . . . . . . . . . . . J
Reinforcement

#2 (#3)* Closed Ties at 8" (21cm)

Lateral Load l kips)

12" (18")*
0
(30cm)
0

0 0
0 0

Fig. 4-Shear capacity-interaction diagram, original

End View
specimen
1" (1.5"*)
2000.
Max. Concrete Strain
*Prototype Dimension:r--;16251-o"--8-.7-5-
.. -•1162f.- Gross Section =-0.0030 In/In
(4.8cm) (22cm) (4.8cm) Core Section =0.0100 In/In
Shaar Failure
Column Section A-A 1600.
Core Section

Fig. 3-Details of original specimen 1200.

V., = [11 - 3(a/d)] Ac if: Y' + [0.2N/(a/d)] (1)

where

0.2N ~ 160 Ag

and

1.0 ~ (aid*) ~ 2.5 Lateral Lood (kips)

where

nominal shear capacity in the column, lb

distance from the extreme compression fiber
to the centroid of the extreme tension rein- Fig. 5-Shear capacity-interaction diagram, Specimens
forcement, in. 1-2 and 1-3
a shear span, that is, distance from point of
zero moment to maximum moment, in. tion and for the confined core. Considering a 12 in.
effective depth of section, in. square column subjected to a 450 psi compression (64.8
core area of column, in. 2 to outside of hoops kips), the predicted lateral load at flexural failure of the
gross area of column, in. 2 gross section is about 64 kips and that corresponding to
concrete compressive strength, psi shear failure is about 40 kips. The original column
axial load on column, lb specimen would be expected to fail in shear.

Lateral load-axial load interaction diagrams for flex-
ural hinge development and shear failure are shown in
Fig. 4. The lateral load to produce failure at any level
of axial load is indicated, assuming that the ends of the
column are fixed against rotation (Fig. 1). Fig. 4 con-
tains diagrams for both the gross section and the con-
fined core only. In Fig. 4, different values are assumed
for the maximum concrete strains in the original sec-
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
Strengthened specimens 1·2 and 1·3
As shown in Fig. 2, Specimen 1-2 was strengthened
with a shotcrete jacket. Specimen 1-3 had the same
basic shotcrete jacket, plus No. 6 longitudinal bars at
each midface connected by No. 3 supplementary cross-
ties at 9 in. inserted through drilled holes in the column
and cemented with epoxy adhesive. None of the longi-
tudinal bars in the jackets extended into the end block,
501
Table 1 - Concrete used for original column Table 2 - Shotcrete used for jacketing columns
cross-sections Mix proportions per yd'
Mix proportions per yd' Water 250 lb
(w/c ratio = 0 45 by weight) Type I cement 658
Water 210 lb Fine aggregate 2100
Type I cement 470 Coarse aggregate (Yo in.) 750
Fine aggregate 1530 Air-entrainment agent (3 percent entrainment) tO oz
Coarse aggregate (lis in.) 1830 Water-reducing agent 21 oz
Retarder 15 oz
Shotcrete properties
Age, Compressive Stump (from truck) 5.5 in.
Test days strength, psi Unit weight (from truck) 130 tb
28 3830 Air content (from truck) 4.5 OJo
1-1 57 4330 Air content (from nozzle) 4.0 OJo
1-2 147 4400 Condition Age, days Compressive strength, psi
1-IR 204 4630
From truck, 6 x 12 in. 28 4690
cylinder
r---~~~----------------------­
' -#-6 ------
From nozzle, 6 x 12 in. 28 5150
1 cylinder
I

Concrete-backed panel, !07 3040

114 in. diameter
cores
Wood-backed panel, 107 2900
t ,~,1) : (~~:)
I 'A in. diameter
--:--:~-- cores
1 67 II

l : 6o" ea

__ i_"_i_'"_
15 1
a.zs orrut
Strain
Fig. 6-Stress-strain curve for original specimen steel
reinforcement
so they provided no increase in the flexural reinforce-
ment at the critical end sections.
Neglecting the effect of the crossties in Specimen
1-3, the computed flexural and shear strengths of Spec-
imens 1-2 and 1-3 are identical (shown in the interac-
tion diagrams of Fig. 5). As before, different maxi-
mum concrete strains are assumed for the original sec-
tions and the confined core. For a 64.8 kip axial load
(450 psi), the lateral load corresponding to flexural
failure is about 104 kips and that corresponding to
shear failure is about 100 kips. The strengthened speci-
mens could therefore be expected to reach shear and
flexure capacity almost simultaneously.
ment quality was monitored using two vertical test
panels measuring 36 x 18 x 3 in. One panel had a
wooden back; the other, a concrete back. Half of each
panel was reinforced identically to the jacket of Speci-
men 1-2. 4-in. cores, taken from the reinforced side of
each panel, were used to monitor void formation be-
hind individual bars. Good consolidation of concrete
was observed. 1%-in. cores, taken from the unrein-
forced side, were used for tests of compressive strength.
Repair technique, Specimen 1·1 R
Repair was performed in two operations. First, all
loose cover was removed with a chipping hammer.
Holes were then drilled through the columns. The
crossties were inserted, the hook on one end was bent
in place, and they were cemented with epoxy adhesive
gel. Second, the jacket reinforcement cage was tied and
placed in position, and the ends of the crossties were
bent around the midface longitudinal bars. The column
was shotcreted as previously described.

Strengthening technique, Specimens 1·2 and 1·3

Strengthening involved encasing the original column
with a shotcrete jacket reinforced with closely spaced
tranverse ties. To support the transverse steel, addi-
tional longitudinal reinforcement was placed at each
corner of the jacket but was not anchored to the end
blocks.
Specimens were first roughened by light sandblast-
ing. The jacket reinforcement cages were tied and
placed in position. Using wooden screed guides at-
tached to the specimen's end blocks, the columns were
shotcreted and float-finished by an experienced con-
tractor.
One set of control cylinders used concrete directly
from the ready-mixed truck; the other used concrete
placed in a wheelbarrow by the nozzle. Shotcrete place-
502
Material characteristics
Ready-mixed concrete was obtained with a 28-day
target compressive strength of 4000 psi and an initial
slump of 7 in. Other characteristics are given in Table
1. Actual compressive strength at time of testing was
about 4500 psi.
Longitudinal reinforcement in the original cross sec-
tions and the mid-face longitudinal bars in the jacket of
Specimen 1-3 consisted of No. 6 bars meeting ASTM
A 615, Grade 60. Transverse reinforcement in the orig-
inal columns and jackets consisted of deformed No. 2
bars simulated using 6 mm deformed bars. Corner lon-
gitudinal bars in the jackets consisted of No. 3 bars
meeting ASTM A 615, Grade 60. Stress-strain curves
for all three bars are plotted in Fig. 6.
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
 Ready-mixed concrete was obtained from a local
supplier for shotcreting the columns. Mix proportions
are listed in Table 2. The compressive strength of the
shotcrete mix was measured using samples taken di-
rectly from the truck and also from the nozzle. Strength
tests were conducted on 1~ in. diameter cores taken
from the test panels previously described. Results are
summarized in Table 2.
TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE
Loading system
Under constant axial load, the upper end of each
specimen was subjected to cycles of lateral displace-
ment in the north-south direction. The loading system
has three separate components, shown in Fig. 7.
1. A manually controlled hydraulic system main-
tained the axial load. Axial load was applied by a 300
kip hydraulic actuator connected to a structural steel
reaction frame.
2. A servo-controlled hydraulic system varied the
lateral load. Lateral load was applied to the top of the
test specimen by two 113 kip hydraulic actuators with
12-in. stroke, attached to a reinforced concrete reac-
tion wall.
3. Cross-coupled hydraulic actuators prevented the
upper end of the test specimen from rotating during the
test. Two sets of cross-coupled actuators, oriented ver-
tically, prevented rotation about horizontal axes; an-
other set of horizontally oriented actuators prevented
rotation about the vertical axis.
Instrumentation and data acquisition
Load cells were mounted on each loading actuator
and on one actuator of each pair of cross-coupled re-
straint actuators. Twelve linear potentiometers were
used to monitor the deflections and rotations of the
specimen end blocks. The potentiometers were sup-
ported independently of the loading frame. As shown
in Fig. 8 and 9, paper-backed electrical resistance strain
gages were attached to the tie and longitudinal rein-
forcement in both the column core and the shotcrete
Axial Load Frame
Braced Against Wall
Fig. 7-Test setup
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
jacket. Gages were located on each leg of a jacket re-
inforcement tie at three levels (top, midheight, and
bottom of the column). One end of every crosstie was
gaged.
Loading sequence
Axial load was maintained at 64.8 kips for all tests,
corresponding to a typical compressive stress of 450 psi
on the original 12-in. column (Test 1-1) and 224 psi on
the 17-in. jacketed columns (Tests 1-2, 1-3, and 1-1R).
The lateral loading sequence, shown in Fig. 10, was
displacement controlled. Specimen 1-1 was subjected to
a maximum lateral drift ratio of 2 percent (based on the
column height of 36 in.), while the other specimens
were subjected to 2.5 percent.
TEST RESULTS
The performance of the test specimens is presented
and discussed in terms of load-deformation response
and strains. Load-deflection curves and envelopes were
presented for all specimens. Strain information is re-
ported only for Specimens 1-1 and 1-3, because Speci-
mens 1-2 and 1-1R behaved similarly to Specimen 1-3.
Additional information is reported in Reference 13.
Load-deflection curves and envelopes
Load-deflection curves for all specimens are shown in
Fig. 11. Load-displacement peaks for the first cycle at
each displacement level in the north direction were
connected to form the envelopes of Fig. 12. Displace-
ments in the south direction generated similar curves.
The original column (Specimen 1-1) showed stable
hysteretic behavior up to lateral drift ratios of 1 per-
cent. It showed considerable loss of stiffness at 1. 5 per-
cent drift and unstable, degrading hysteresis beyond 1.5
percent drift. Strengthened specimens 1-2 and 1-3 ex-
hibited stable hysteresis up to 1.5 percent drift, after
which pinching and loss of stiffness began. In the first
cycle to each drift level, the repaired specimen 1-1 R
showed load-deflection behavior similar to that of the
strengthened specimens but degraded much faster than
the strengthened specimens under constant-amplitude
J J--sr acing
~('xial Load Ram
Supp orting Plate
"~Load·119 Head
I., Walls
Arrangement - Plan View
*Lateral Load Assembly
- Double Rodded Hydraulic Actuator
- End Articulations, Swtvel
ComecUons (see datails)
~:~
@C Knuckle Allows Horizontal
Rotations
~lows Vertical Rotations
Anchored To Floor ~
Detail, Swivel Connection (all assembled)
503
 ...---- N
n
"'"'
Wo "'
:J:
u
:z:"'
-d
u ;;;
~ r

T
16" 18" X - Strain Gage Location
o;
p 2.
"'!i'
::
- c k l I I I I I I
C L
I 117
p-
1-
"'
5

N
CD 0

9 N
0

i
"'
-----------,
Fig. 10-Lateral displacement history

cycling beyond 1.5 percent drift. Neither the strength-

ened nor the repaired specimens exhibited the severe
loss of stiffness observed in the original specimen at
drift levels exceeding 1 percent.
As shown in Fig. 11, the original specimen 1-1 and
the repaired specimen 1-1 R experienced the greater
degradation in strength with constant amplitude cy-
cling. The strengthened specimens 1-2 and 1-3 experi-
enced the lesser degradation.
Fig. 8-Strain gage locations, original specimen As shown in Fig. 12, the strength of the original
specimen (1-1) decreased at lateral drift ratios beyond 1
percent. The other specimens showed no decrease in
capacity, even under lateral drifts of 2.5 percent.

Cracking patterns
X - Strain Gage The original specimen 1-1 developed flexural cracks
Location
near its ends after cycling to 0.5 percent drift and in-
i clined cracks after 1.0 percent drift. Cycling to 2 per-
cent drift caused widening of these inclined cracks to

<t- - ~~~·:;--i--+-1118"- more than x2 in.

The repaired specimen 1-1R behaved similarly, ex-
hibiting flexural cracks that developed into inclined
cracks at about 1 percent drift. Repeated cycling at 1
percent drift widened and extended these cracks, which
were evenly distributed over the height of the column.
Strengthened specimens 1-2 and 1-3 developed nar-
row flexural cracks (less than ~. in. wide) at 1.0
percent drift. At 1.5 percent drift, inclined cracks de-
veloped from these flexural cracks, and wide 0~2 in.)
flexural cracks opened between the shotcrete jacket and
the end blocks. At 2.5 percent drift, the jacket crushed
and spalled near both end blocks, and the flexural

/"''":.,.,
cracks widened to approximately \.4 in.

~--r
In summary, the strengthened specimens 1-2 and 1-3

~t
exhibited cracking patterns dominated by flexure or by
a combination of flexure and shear. In contrast, both
the original specimen 1-1 and the repaired specimen 1-
1R exhibited cracking patterns dominated by shear.
Column Section (1-2) N Column Section (1-3,1-1R) Strains in longitudinal reinforcement
Original specimen 1-1 - In Fig. 13, strains over the
Fig. 9-Strain gage locations, jacket height of the No. 6 bar at the northwest corner of the
504 ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
 .,
_,.
0..0

"u
00

"""
D
--'

STaRr DRIFT cr:;

-2. D -I. 5 -/. 0 /, 5 2. 0
-o. e -o. s 0.. o. 6 0. 8 -I. 0
OISPLACEI'IENT CJNCHESJ
SOUTH NORTH

0
..

Fig. II(a)-Load-deflection curve, Specimen I-I Fig. II(c)-Load-deflection curve, Specimen I-3

Fig. II (b)-Load-deflection curve, Specimen I-2 Fig. JJ(d)-Load-def/ection curve, Specimen I-IR
0
0
original cross-section of Specimen 1-1 are shown. Data
correspond to the load stages used to produce the en-
..
.,
_.,
0..0

velope of Fig. 12. As shown by the plot, tension devel- "'

u
00

oped in the longitudinal bars at the top of the north """

D
--'
0
<-
face of the column under northward loading, while the
0
longitudinal bars at the bottom of the north face re- "'
mained in compression. Longitudinal bars did not 0

"'
yield.
Strengthened specimens - A comparable plot for a SPECIMEN 1-1

strengthened specimen 1-3 is shown in Fig. 14. Exami-

nation of this figure shows that at northward drift lev-
els exceeding about 0.5 percent, tension developed over
the entire height of the No. 6 longitudinal bars com- o.s 1.0 /, s 2.0
STaRr OfllfT
2. 5
C:I(J

prising the corner reinforcement of the original cross o. 2 o.• a. s a. 8 1. a

section. This is corroborated by Fig. 15, in which the
strain at the top of one of the No. 6 bars is compared
with the strain in an adjacent longitudinal No. 3 bar in
the jacket, as a function of lateral drift. While the No.
3 jacket bar alternates between tension and compres-
sion under reversed cyclic drifts, the No. 6 bar exhibits
tension over most of the loading cycle. Also, the No. 3
jacket bar is strained much less than the No. 6 bar of
the original cross section.
The principal reason for this difference is that when
the original cross section was jacketed, its neutral axis
was located outside the No. 6 longitudinal bars. There-
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
O!SPLACE.ENT C!NCHESJ
NORTH
Fig. I2-Load-deflection envelopes, Specimens I-I,
I-2, I-3, and I-IR
fore, these bars were always in tension regardless of the
direction of loading. Another reason is that in the pres-
ence of diagonal tension, flexural members with low
shear-span to depth ratios have tensile stresses along the
entire length of their longitudinal reinforcement. 14
Significant tension was not observed in the longitu-
dinal jacket reinforcement of any of the jacketed spec-
imens because this reinforcement was not anchored into
the end blocks.
505
 0 l SPLACEMEN r NORTH 8000
---·---MID-HEIGHT TIE
D. 07. DAlfT

r "' /
~a.sx OAifT_,/,
·"'
,/ 7000
-+-BOTTOM TIE
- T O P TIE

0. 257. DAlfT~i
zo
u"'
z

~"'
/
/

,/,6-- !.OX
/",.,-'//

.............· /
/
6000
/
/~"' ..........·
-'/
DAlfT

/
/ i
z
5000

: / . . . . .·'fi:o <i 4000

a:
.:.~// ffi"' / >-
'
:1 I .,rr:a: /~ ~ 3000 I
, u I
l ! _,_ :E I
i I a: / I
,~
I z I. SX OAlfT 200
~ i g /I
I
1: i ,/
>-o
:I
~-
100
1: I
1: i ,/
/I

I: I
-800 -600
... I :!
"I

-600 -200
,/

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1600

Oisplocement (in.)

SloryDnft (%) o.5

p.2
1.0
; 0.4
I
15
0.6
I
2.0
O.B :

2.5
10
NORTH

HICAOSTAA!N C!N/INJ

Fig. 16-Strain envelopes, N-S direction, original col-

Fig. 13-Envelopes of strain distribution, NW longitu- umn ties, Specimen 1-1
dinal No. 6, Specimen 1-1
8000

DISPLACEMENT NORTH
07. OR f_T .;D. 57. DRifT 17. DRifT I. 57. DRifT 7000

n )/ .tt? -~ ,/" --x-- E-W FACE (N-SOIRECTION) JACKET TIES

~ : / ........ ../ 6000
--+- N-5 FACE (E-WOIRECTIONlJACKET TIES
G . /
~: _,....._... / .. / - - 1 - - E-W FACE (N-SOIRECTIONlORIGINAL TIES
· ··•···· N-S FACE (E-W DIRECTIONlORIGINAL TIES
u
/
/
,..,· ,-""
.. /" '- 5000

/ ,/
·"·
....
,/
.. / z
<i 4000
/ ,. / go
/ ..............· .. / ' V)
0
/ / 5 3000
,/ ,..-:' :E
\ 2000
/x-
-·-·X
i
i
i
\ 1000
/

~~:.1-c:.~: .......•... ·······

0
\
\ \, 2. 07. OAIFT
·.:· • ....... ·_;..l-

\ 2, 57. DRIFT
Displacement (in.) r·2 I

I
0,4 :
I
0.6 I
0.6 :I 1.0
NORTH
\
I
\1) ~. \
Stoty Onfl f'YoJ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
i
\ \
sao 1000 1500 2000
H!CAOSTAAIN ClN/lNJ
2500 Fig. 17-Strain envelopes, midheight ties, Specimen
1-3
Fig. 14-Enve/opes of strain distribution, NW longitu-
dinal No. 6, Specimen 1-3 umn midheight and also with large increases in strain in
the north-south legs (east-west faces) of the transverse
ties. Transverse reinforcement running in the east-west
direction (north-south faces) was stressed as a conse-
quence of confining action but did not resist shear. As
a result, east-west direction transverse reinforcement
did not yield in any of the specimens.
Original specimen 1-1 - Envelopes of the average
strains from the rectangular ties in the north-south di-
0
0
0 rection (east-west faces) of the original specimen are
plotted in Fig. 16 as a function of story drift. The mid-
•6 BAA
0
0
•3 BAA-a., .•·
height tie showed the greatest increase in strain be-
"' tween the 1.0 and 1.5 percent drift levels, which corre-
sra11r OIIIFT Cr:J
-2. 5 -2. 0 -1. 5 1.0 .. -1:5 2.0 2. 5 sponded to the formation of wide inclined cracks at
-1. a -a. 8 -a. 6 a. 6 a. 6 o. 8 1. a
OlSPLACEHENT CINCHESJ column midheight. Strains in the east-west ties varied
SOUTH
. -······ .. ·• • .I

0
0
NORTH
similarly but were much smaller .
'? Strengthened specimens 1-2 and 1-3 -Envelopes of
midheight strains in the original ties and the jacket ties
Fig. 15-Enve/opes of top gage strain, No. 6/No. 3 of a typical strengthened specimen 1-3 are shown in
NW longitudinal bars, Specimen 1-3 Fig. 17. The north-south ties (east and west faces)
showed the greatest increase in strain following the for-
Strains in transverse reinforcement mation of inclined cracks at drift levels between 1.0 and
In all specimens, drift ratios in excess of 1 percent 1.5 percent. At 2.5 percent drift, only the north-south
coincided with the formation of inclined cracks at col- ties approached yield. Inelastic behavior was due pri-
506 ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988
 8000
1ao1e ;;s - uoserved versus computed column --x-- E-W FACE (N-SDIRECTIONlJACKET TIES _.x
capacities 7000
=-:= ~~; ~:6~ ~~-~ ~~~:~~~~~~lJO~~;;:I~~ES
···-&···· N-S FACE (E-WDIRECTIONlORIGINAL nES x--
.;----
Predicted 1
Predicted lateral capacity, /
kips 6000
Observed Observed I
Shear, Shear, capacity, Drift, /
Specimen Flexure UT• ACI kips percent UT AC1 [ 5000 /
/
1-1 64 40 31 47 I 0.85 0.66 z ;
<i 4000 /
a:
x'
1-2 104 100 72 90 2 1.11 0.80
2t5 3000 /
1-3 104 100 72 88 2 1.14 0.82 /
:E /
1-IR 104 100 72 86 2 1.16 0.84 20 /
---- -·-
/
•uT = University of Texas. .,..J<- ___ A:./
1000 _,.-
.----
····· ·········· .........
marily to slip of longitudinal steel, opening of shear Displacement (in ) ?-2
I
I 0.4 \ 0.6 DB : 1.0
I I I I 1 NORTH
cracks, and also to yielding of the original column's Story Orift (%) 0.5 1.0 1!5 2.0 2.!5 I

longitudinal steel.
Repaired specimen 1-1R - Envelopes of midheight
strains in the original ties and the jacket ties of the re-
paired specimen 1-1 R are shown in Fig. 18. The north-
south jacket ties (east and west faces) showed the
greatest increase in strain following the formation of
inclined cracks at drift levels between 1.0 and 1.5 per-
cent. At 2. 5 percent drift, only the north-south jacket
ties had yielded. Because the core of Specimen 1-1 had
been damaged before jacketing, jacket tie strains in
Specimen 1-lR were much higher than those of a typi-
cal strengthened specimen 1-3 at similar drift levels.
Observed versus computed capacities
The existing column (Specimen 1-1) was analyzed as
previously described, using the computer program
RCCOLA. Shear capacity was computed using empirical
equations developed at the University of Texas 10 and
also using the equations of ACI 318-83. 15 Observed and
computed capacities are compared in Table 3. As pre-
dicted, the original specimen failed in shear. Longitu-
dinal steel strains were less than yield at maximum
load, and the lateral stiffness degraded under constant-
amplitude cycling after the transverse reinforcement
yielded.
The jacketed specimens 1-2, 1-3, and 1-lR were ana-
lyzed using the same computer program, assuming
1) no slip between the shotcrete jacket and the original
column; 2) zero tensile stress in the jacket longitudinal
reinforcement; and 3) full effectiveness of the shotcrete
jacket in compression. Computed flexural and shear
capacities' 0 were nearly equal, indicating a combined
shear-flexural failure mode. The strengthened speci-
mens 1-2 and 1-3 failed in flexure, while the repaired
specimen failed by a combination of shear and flexure.
In all cases, observed capacity was predicted to within
about 15 percent of that computed using Eq. (1) but
well above that computed using ACI 318-83 provisions.
SUMMARY
Three identical column test specimens were con-
structed at two-thirds scale based on an 18 in. square
prototype column section. The original specimens had
a 12 in. square cross section reinforced with eight No.
6 longitudinal bars, sets of 6-mm ties spaced at 8 in.,
and l-in. cover. Spacing of the transverse reinforce-
ACI Structural Journal I September·October 1988
Fig. 18-Strain envelopes, mid-height ties, Specimen
1-1R
ment, though greater than current design requirements,
was intended to represent the practice of column design
in seismic regions of the U.S. in the 1950s and early
1960s.
One of the original specimens was tested, repaired,
and retested. Prior to testing, the remaining two speci-
mens were strengthened: one with No. 3 longitudinal
bars at each corner and 6-mm ties at 2.5 in.; and the
other, similar to the repaired specimen, with No. 3 lon-
gitudinal bars at each corner, 6-mm ties at 2.5 in., plus
cross-ties at 9-in. hooked around No. 6 longitudinal
bars at midfaces. A 2.5 in. shotcrete jacket produced a
17 in. square column with l-in. cover over the trans-
verse reinforcement. The surface of the existing col-
umn was sandblasted prior to strengthening. The rein-
forced shotcrete jacket was not difficult to construct.
The specimens were subjected to unidirectional, cyclic
lateral load.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The specimen representing an existing column
performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral defor-
mations exceeding 0.5 percent drift. Analysis indicated
that the column shear-span to depth ratio and reinforc-
ing details would result in a brittle, shear-dominated
failure.
2. To avoid brittle failure, the shear capacity of the
columns was increased, but the flexural bars didn't
even yield. Lateral capacity of the strengthened column
could be predicted reliably assuming complete compat-
ibility between the shotcrete jacket and the original col-
umn.
3. One strengthened specimen was provided with ad-
ditional midface longitudinal bars in the jacket con-
nected by cross-ties grouted with epoxy adhesive
through the original column. This modification did not
significantly affect the column's stiffness or strength
under monotonic loading, but it did improve the main-
tenance of strength and stiffness under cycles of re-
versed lateral displacements exceeding 2 percent drift.
4. When a badly damaged column was repaired by
encasing the core with a shotcrete jacket reinforced
with closely spaced ties and cross-ties connected to
507
midface longitudinal bars, it was nearly as strong and
as stiff as an undamaged column strengthened with the
same jacket.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was conducted as part of the MS program of Bart
John Bett, under the guidance of Drs. R. E. Klingner and J. 0. Jirsa.
The following individuals were very helpful throughout the test pro-
gram: Dr. R. L. Carrasquillo (The University of Texas); and Loring
Wyllie, Jr., Chris Poland, and Roy Moreno (H. J. Degenkolb Asso-
ciates, Inc., San Francisco, California).
The project was funded under National Science Foundation Grant
No. CEE-820125. H. J. Degenkolb Associates, Inc. is participating in
the project under a separate NSF grant (CEE-820!187). Adhesive
Engineering provided epoxy materials used in the test program.
The experimental work was conducted in the Phil M. Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory at the Balcones Research Center
of The University of Texas at Austin. The support of the Labora-
tory's technical and administrative staff and the many graduate as-
sistants who helped is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
I. Hanson, R. D., "Repair, Strengthening and Rehabilitation of
Buildings-Recommendations for Research," Report No. UMEE
77R4, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Oct. 1977.
2. Hanson, R. D., "Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Con-
crete Members and Buildings," Proceedings, Workshop on Earth-
quake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, July 1977.
3. Sugano, S., "Aseismic Strengthening of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings," Seminar, Seismology and Earthquake Engi-
neering, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engi-
neering, Building Research Institute, Tokyo, Mar. 1980.
4. "Guideline for Seismic Retrofitting (Strengthening, Toughening
and/or Stiffening) Design of Existing Reinforced Concrete Build-
ings," Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Mar. 1977 (English transla-
tion 1980).
5. Sugano, S., "Guideline for Seismic Retrofitting (Strengthening,
Toughening and/or Stiffening) Design of Existing Reinforced Con-
crete Buildings," Proceedings, 2nd Seminar on Repair and Retrofit
of Structures, Ann Arbor, May 1981.
508
6. Mahin, S. A.; Bertero, V. V.; Chopra, A. K.; and Collins,
R. G., "Response of the Olive View Hospital Main Building during
the San Fernando Earthquake," Report No. EERC 76-22, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berke-
ley, Oct. 1976.
7. Selna, L. G.; Morrill, K. B.; and Ersoy, 0. K., "Shear Col-
lapse, Elastic and Inelastic Biaxial Studies of the Olive View Hospital
Psychiatric Day Clinic," Proceedings, U .S.-Japan Seminar on
Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, 1973.
8. Maruyama, Kyuichi; Ramirez, Horacio; and Jirsa, James 0.,
"Short RC Columns under Bilateral Load Histories," Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. I, Jan. 1984, pp. 120-137.
9. Woodward, Kyle A., and Jirsa, James 0., "Influence of Rein-
forcement on RC Short Column Lateral Resistance," Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. II 0, No. I, Jan. 1984, pp. 90-104.
10. Umehara, Hidetaka, and Jirsa, James 0., "Short Rectangular
RC Columns under Bidirectional Loading," Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No.3, Mar. I984, pp. 605-618.
II. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, I 963, 144 pp.
12. Farahany, M. M., "Computer Analysis of Reinforced Con-
crete Cross Sections," Master's thesis, University of Texas, Austin,
Dec. 1983.
13. Bett, B. J.; Klingner, R. E.; and Jirsa, J. 0., "Behavior of
Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Cyclic Deformations," PMFSEL Report No. 85-3, Phil M. Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin, Dec.
1985.
I4. Paulay, Thomas, "Coupling Beams of Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls," ASCE, V. 97, ST3, Mar. 1971, pp. 843-862.
15. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, Ill pp.
CONVERSION FACTORS
I ft = 0.305 m
I in. = 25.4 mm
I psf = 4.882 kg/m'
I kip = 4.448 kN
I ksi = 6.895 MPa
I psi = 0.006895 MPa
I kip = 4.448 kN
I ksi = 6.895 MPa
I psi = 0.006895 MPa
ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1988