Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with glass fiber reinforced T

cementitious matrix jackets
⁎
Flora Faleschinia,b, , Mariano Angelo Zaninia, Lorenzo Hofera, Klajdi Toskaa, Dario De Domenicoc,
Carlo Pellegrinoa
a
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy
b
Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova, Via Gradenigo 6, 35131 Padova, Italy
c
Dept. of Engineering, University of Messina, Contrada Di Dio, Villaggio S. Agata, 98166 Messina, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper shows the results of an experimental campaign aimed at testing eight reinforced concrete (RC)
Carbon fibers columns, four of them being confined through E-glass fiber reinforced cementitious matrix (GFRCM) and four
Confinement representing the bare specimens. The variables analyzed in this work are: the geometry of column cross-section
Ductility (circular or square); two stirrups spacing values; the presence or not of the FRCM jacket, which was realized
Fiber exploitation ratio
through two layers of fibers. The experimental behavior was characterized in terms of cracking pattern, axial
FRCM
stress-strain response (i.e., strength gain and ductility), and hoop strains development. Particularly, both strains
Glass fibers
in the GFRCM-jacket and in the inner steel stirrups were monitored during the test. Results in terms of fiber
exploitation ratio are also compared with recent results obtained for carbon FRCM (CFRCM) jackets applied to
RC columns, characterized by the same geometry.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, externally bonded composite systems are broadly used
for rehabilitation and retrofitting of concrete or masonry structures.
Besides conventional Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) systems, a rela-
tively new alternative is offered by Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Matrix (FRCM) [1], also called Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM) [2],
based on inorganic (cement-based) matrix rather than organic (epoxy-
based) matrix. Like FRP systems, FRCM strengthening systems are de-
ployed as sheets, jackets and wraps. However, the cement-based matrix
of FRCM offers some advantages in comparison with the epoxy-based
matrix of FRP, such as easier application, especially onto rough and
irregular surfaces like in old masonry [3] or concrete construction,
better bond behavior at high temperatures [4–6], higher physical and
chemical compatibility with the concrete or masonry substrate [7].
Many tests carried out in literature have demonstrated the particularly
positive influence of the FRCM system in confining masonry columns
[8–10].
Concerning applications to concrete, FRCM systems have been ex-
tensively used to strengthen concrete beams in flexure [11–13] or shear
[14–16], and to provide a confinement effect in axially-loaded concrete
columns [17–20]. Different FRCM variants are available in the market
depending on the nature of the embedded grid of fibers (fabric), in-
cluding alkali-resistant glass [21,22], basalt [23,24], carbon [25,26],
aramid [27], steel [28], polybenzoxole (PBO) [27,29], or fabrics rea-
lized meshing two different fibers along the warp and weft directions
(e.g. combinations of glass and aramid [30]). In particular, glass fibers
include E-glass and S-glass, the former having lower cost but also
poorer mechanical performance (tensile strength and Young’s modulus)
than the latter. Moreover, glass fabrics are characterized by a relatively
low Young’s modulus compared to carbon or PBO. Glass fibers are
available in yarns, but in most cases are coated (impregnated) with
epoxy resin to improve durability, bond with the matrix and load
transfer through the fibers. The fabric thus appears rigid and slippage
among filaments is prevented. Similar coating treatments were found to
significantly enhance the frictional bond strength (i.e., one of the bond
strength components, estimated as the average value of the height of
the descending curve in a pull-out test) and stiffness in carbon [31] and
aramid [32] FRCM as well.
The different physical properties of the fabric are reflected in dif-
ferent mechanical performances of the related FRCM system. As an
example, higher stiffness and strength increase was observed in shear-
critical reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened with carbon
FRCM (CFRCM) than in analogous beams strengthened with glass

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: flora.faleschini@dicea.unipd.it (F. Faleschini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110847
Received 16 December 2019; Received in revised form 17 April 2020; Accepted 20 May 2020
Available online 28 May 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Faleschini, et al.
FRCM (GFRCM) [33], which was consistent with the material proper-
ties of the two fabrics. Furthermore, a weaker confinement performance
was reported for high-density GFRCM compared to low-density GFRCM
[21], since the density of the fibers affects the fiber impregnation ef-
fectiveness with the inorganic matrix. Previous studies also compara-
tively analyzed the confinement effect of plain concrete specimens with
CFRCM and GFRCM [26], in order to investigate the influence of elastic
modulus on the effectiveness of the confinement system. In such study,
hoop strains were found to develop in the GFRCM system since low-
stress values, when the first cracks in the cementitious matrix occurred,
due to the lower axial rigidity in comparison with the CFRCM system in
which, conversely, hoop strains developed at higher stress values. Based
on the above studies, the fiber exploitation ratio strongly depends upon
the nature of the fabric, which affects again significantly the overall
performance of the confining jacketing system.
Specifically concerning the contribution of GFRCM systems to
confine RC elements, to the authors’ best knowledge, no works were
carried out to study the behavior of axially-loaded RC columns
strengthened with GFRCM. Experimental works dealt only with small
scale elements, without the presence of internal longitudinal and
transverse steel reinforcement, showing an early cracking during the
loading phase, but at the same time a slow post-peak descending branch
[26]. For this reason, this research work investigates the axial behavior
of RC columns characterized by two cross-section geometries (circular
and squared, with rounded section edges), and by two stirrups spacing
(being 200 and 330 mm), aiming at analyzing the contribution of the
GFRCM jacket in almost real scale RC columns. Strengthening config-
uration is the same for all the retrofitted columns. Results of the ex-
perimental campaign are then discussed in terms of cracking pattern,
strength and ductility gains compared to the control specimens; ad-
ditionally, both steel stirrups and fiber hoop strains are experimentally
measured, and their exploitation ratio is evaluated. In the last section of
this work, the results of this experimental campaign are compared to
those shown in [34], where some of the authors tested similar speci-
mens with the same geometry and internal steel reinforcement con-
figuration as in the present campaign, but jacketed with carbon-based
FRCM systems, using one or two fiber layers. Such comparison allows
us to discuss the influence of the axial rigidity of the composite (Efρf) on
the overall behavior of the strengthened members. This experimental
research will allow further studies aimed at assessing the contribution
and interaction of both internal transverse steel and external FRCM on
concrete confinement, as already recognized as a worthy matter of re-
search in [34].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Specimens features
This work deals with the study of eight RC columns, which main
features are shown in Fig. 1, identifying the two main test variables:
cross-section geometry and stirrups spacing. Hence, four main classes of
specimens are defined, and for each class one unconfined column
(control specimen) and one column strengthened with two layers of
GFRCM were tested:
• C-20 geometry: cylinder specimens with the highest transverse re-
inforcement volumetric ratio;
• S-20 geometry: prism specimens with the highest transverse re-
inforcement volumetric ratio;
• C-33 geometry: cylinder specimens with the lowest transverse re-
inforcement volumetric ratio;
• S-33 geometry: prism specimens with the lowest transverse re-
inforcement volumetric ratio.
Cylinder columns (labeled with the letter C) are characterized by a
circular cross-section with diameter d = 300 mm, whereas prismatic
2
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
ones (labeled with the letter S) have a square cross-section with
width × depth w × d = 300 × 300 mm, and rounded section edges
with corner radius r = 20 mm. All the columns present the same height
h = 1 m, concrete cover c = 20 mm and longitudinal steel reinforce-
ment, which consists in four 14-mm diameter bars, equally spaced in
the cylinders and placed at section edges in the prisms. Instead, trans-
verse reinforcement consists in circular hoops with 8-mm diameter bars
for the cylinders, and two-legged stirrups with the same diameter bars
for the prisms. Their spacing s differs depending on the specimen class,
defining hence different values of transverse steel volumetric ratio ρsw
according to their arrangement: s1 = 200 mm, being representative of
the presence of five stirrups/m, and s2 = 330 mm, that is three stirrups/
m. Overall, reinforcing details used here were chosen according to ty-
pical detailing rules used for RC columns designed under gravity load
only, and are similar to those used in similar works on FRP-confined RC
members [35]. To sum up, the specimens are denominated according to
their geometry type, followed by “-0” or “-G2” in case of unconfined or
strengthened specimens, respectively. Hence, for instance, C-20-0 in-
dicates a cylindrical column with stirrups spacing of 200 mm and not
confined, whereas C-20-G2 stands for the same type of column
strengthened with two layers of glass fiber composites.
2.2. Materials and specimens’ realization
The test specimens were cast using a relatively low-strength con-
crete batch, aiming at representing similar material properties as those
encountered when dealing with existing structures that need repair or
strengthening interventions. Hence, the target compressive strength fc
of the concrete mix used here is 16 MPa at 28 days, which was achieved
using a high water/cement ratio (0.6), a low dosage (260 kg/m3) of
cement of type CEM I 32.5 N, according to [36], a coarse-to-fine ag-
gregate ratio of 1.22 and lastly an addition of an air-entraining ad-
mixture at 0.025% on cement weight. Specimens were cast in vertical
position and mechanically vibrated on the same vibrating table to-
gether, to allow the same compaction. Then, the curing process was
realized through a two-step process, and between each phase de-
molding operation was carried out. First, specimens were left covered
for two days with plastic sheets to maintain the humidity; in the second
phase, specimens were left curing until the time of testing at 20 ± 2 °C,
under 50 ± 5% RH (relative humidity).
Concrete material strength was experimentally evaluated at 28 days
on three cylindrical specimens per each analyzed mechanical property.
It is worth noting that the same maturation conditions used for the
columns were adopted for these specimens. Table 1 lists average con-
crete compressive strength fc, tensile strength fct and secant modus of
elasticity Ec, together which their standard deviation (s.d.) values.
Steel adopted for the reinforcement was a B450C type, due to la-
boratory constraints on materials supply that did not allow to use a
material with poorer mechanical properties. Average yielding strength
fy and ultimate tensile strength ft at their corresponding strain values
(respectively, εy and εt) were experimentally evaluated for the two bar
types (longitudinal and transverse) used to realize the columns, through
tensile tests. Per each bar type, three samples from the same lot of
production were used. Table 2 lists steel average material properties
and the corresponding s.d. value.
Concerning strengthening operations, one column per type was
subject to the following protocol, which was carried out after 28 days
from concreting:
a) hydration of concrete surface, to improve the bond strength between
the support and the GFRCM jacket. Note however that no mechan-
ical grinding operation was performed;
b) application of a layer of mortar onto the surface, with an average
thickness of 3 mm;
c) application of the fiber layer onto the mortar surface, using an
overlapping length of 200 mm, gently pushing it to better adhere
F. Faleschini, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847

Fig. 1. Specimen types.

Table 1
Concrete properties.
Average s.d.

Compressive strength fc (MPa) 21.6 3.35

Tensile strength fct (MPa) 1.12 0.18
Elastic modulus Ec (GPa) 26.2 2.40

Table 2
Steel reinforcement bar properties.
Average s.d.

Longitudinal bars ϕ 14 mm
Yielding strength fy (MPa) 552 10
Yielding strain εy 0.002 0.0001
Ultimate tensile strength ft (MPa) 650 15
Ultimate tensile strain εt 0.09 0.0003
Transverse bars ϕ 8 mm
Yielding strength fyw (MPa) 485 15 Fig. 2. E-Glass fibers net (instrumented with an electrical strain gage).
Yielding strain εyw 0.002 0.0002
Ultimate tensile strength ftw (MPa) 630 18
Ultimate tensile strain εtw 0.009 0.0005 Table 3
E-glass fiber properties.
Average s.d.
with the matrix;
d) repeat b) and c) and lastly apply the final layer of mortar. The final Overall area weight W (g/m )2
251 –
Fiber elastic modulus Ef (GPa) 64.4 12.8
thickness of the jacket was about 10 mm.
Fiber ultimate tensile strength fu (MPa) 525.5 61.2
Fiber ultimate tensile strain εu (%) 0.87 0.013
Recall that the jackets were applied leaving about 15 mm empty at Equivalent thickness (mm) 0.05 –
both the top and bottom faces of the column, to avoid loading directly
the jacket, but ensuring that only concrete core was directly loaded. For
the GFRCM jackets, a commercially available glass-based composite fibers, which are based on the values reported by the manufacturer and
was used. A dry, open mesh textile was employed, which was made of integrated with experimental tests, specifically to experimentally eval-
E-glass fiber bundles epoxy-coated (see Fig. 2) to improve the bond uate fibers’ tensile strength fu and elastic modulus Ef. The fibers were
between the fiber and the matrix, and classified as alkali-resistant by provided by the producer in a roll, with length × height = 50 × 1 m.
the producer. Table 3 provides the values of some relevant properties of Concerning the mortar, it was a premixed single-component low mod-
ulus fiber-reinforced matrix, characterized by the following mechanical

3
F. Faleschini, et al.
Fig. 3. Test setup for axial strain monitoring (circular and squared cross-section).
properties, evaluated at the time of columns testing: flexural strength
ffm = 5.67 ± 0.65 MPa; compressive strength fcm = 31.9 ± 2.4 MPa.
Such properties were evaluated at least on three samples per each
strength test, i.e. at least on three 40x40x160 mm prisms for the flex-
ural strength, and three 40 mm side cubes for the compressive strength,
according to EN 1015-11 [37].
After jacketing operations, specimens were tested under uni-axial
compressive test, in a time frame within 10–14 days after the
strengthening. Also, unconfined columns were tested at the same age, to
reduce as much as possible the influence of late maturation on concrete
strength development.
2.3. Instrumentation and experimental protocol
All the eight RC columns were tested under the same loading pro-
tocol, i.e. under a uniaxial compressive test with displacement-con-
trolled loading mode, at 0.3 mm/min. The loading frame is a 10MN
capacity testing machine, with a load cell of 6MN capacity, acquired
continuously by a pressure transducer. Loading was stopped at a load
peak drop of 20%.
The recording equipment for evaluating axial strains (see Fig. 3) is
constituted by the following instrumentation:
• a couple of electrical strain gages (eSGs), applied at column mid-
height in two opposite faces (gauge length of 60 mm) for the prisms,
and spaced at 180° for the cylinders;
• mechanical strain gages (mSGs), mounted on the external surface of
the specimen, at column mid-height (gauge length of 250 mm) in
each face for the prisms, and equally-spaced at 120° for the cylin-
ders;
• two linear voltage displacement transducers (LVDTs) needed to
evaluate the movement of the plate mounted at the column top
(gauge length of 1 m).
Electrical and mechanical stain gages are needed to capture the
ascending branch of the axial stress–strain curve, whereas the post-peak
4
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
branch was monitored through the LVDTs, due to the poorly reliable
measure provided by the former when large cracks develop in brittle
materials.
Additionally, hoop transverse steel reinforcement and fibers’ strains
were monitored during the test, with the following instrumentation:
• the central stirrup placed at the column mid-height of each column
was instrumented by four eSGs before concreting (Fig. 4). Prisms
present an eSG in each side of the stirrup at the mid-face, whereas
eSGs are equally-spaced at 90° in the cylinder hoop, in between two
successive longitudinal bars;
• fiber strains were monitored through two eSGs in each fiber layer
(see eSG application onto the fiber net in Fig. 2), placed at the same
positions as those of the eSGs for concrete axial strain monitoring
(Fig. 3).
3. Results
3.1. Failure modes
Fig. 5a and b show the specimens after failure, i.e. at the ultimate
condition defined here as 0.8Pmax, respectively for unconfined and
confined columns. There, the color of the lines represents the following
conditions: red 0–7 MPa; blue 7–15 MPa; black > 15 MPa; green post-
peak. The hatch pattern indicates instead the portion of detached
concrete after the ultimate load.
Particularly, the former set of specimens displays a relevant
cracking pattern, mainly developed after reaching the peak load.
Indeed, the hatch pattern in Fig. 5a reveals a significant damage of the
members. Some preliminary cracks developed just after the peak in the
columns with the highest confinement provided by the stirrups.
Cracking pattern is mainly homogeneous in the cylinders, whereas
stress concentration leads to the development of thick cracks at section
edges in the prisms. Further, no clear evidence of longitudinal bars
buckling was observed.
Analyzing the failure mode of jacketed members, first, it is worth
F. Faleschini, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847

Table 4
Test results for the tested columns.
Specimen ID fc0 or fcc fcu0 or fcu εc0 or εcc εcu0 or εcu εcu0/εc0 or
(MPa) (MPa) (‰) (‰) εcu/εcc

C-20-0 21.2 17.0 3.2 6.6 2.06

S-20-0 21.1 16.9 2.7 5.5 2.04
C-33-0 18.1 14.5 1.8 3.5 1.94
S-33-0 17.1 13.7 1.9 3.4 1.77
C-20-G2 25.2 20.2 5.0 9.0 1.80
S-20-G2 24.8 19.8 3.8 8.4 2.21
C-33-G2 21.7 17.4 4.4 6.8 1.54
S-33-G2 22.0 17.6 3.8 6.3 1.66

unconfined members applies for the jacketed one, even though in this
case also cylinder columns are characterized by large cracks formation,
much thicker than in the bare cases. In the confined prismatic speci-
mens, cracks at the edges grew up at the same rate as those occurring
along all the lateral surface; hence, the cracking pattern resulted more
homogeneous within all the lateral surface than in the unconfined
columns. The most important difference between the two sets of spe-
cimens relates to the time instant when the first cracks appeared: in-
deed, jacketed specimens display an early cracking, since low values of
the applied load (see red lines in Fig. 5b). Also, cracks develop more
homogeneously along all the height of tested specimens.

Fig. 4. Test setup for hoop transverse steel strain monitoring (squared cross-
section). 3.2. Axial behavior

highlighting that no debonding phenomena were displayed (recall that Table 4 lists the main results that describe the axial stress-strain
the overlapping length was set equal to 200 mm). Then, the same behavior of the tested specimens, which are for the unconfined col-
comment about the influence of the cross-section made for the umns: peak concrete axial strength fc0, corresponding to axial strain εc0
at the peak load (Pmax); ultimate concrete axial strength fcu0

Fig. 5. Failure modes for: a) unconfined and b) confined columns.

5
F. Faleschini, et al.
Fig. 6. Stress-axial strain curves of the tested specimens.
corresponding to axial strain εcu0 at the ultimate load (defined here as
0.8Pmax); a ductility index through the ratio εcu0/εc0. The same prop-
erties for the GFRCM-confined columns are: fcc corresponding to εcc at
Pmax; fcu corresponding to εcu at 0.8Pmax; ratio εcu/εcc. For the evaluation
of concrete axial stress, the equilibrium equation of axial forces acting
on the RC section was considered, i.e., subtracting the contribution
carried out by the longitudinal reinforcement (considering the experi-
mental stress-strain curve of the material) from the applied force, di-
vided by the net area of the concrete. Results are also shown in Fig. 6,
which displays the axial stress-strain curves of each couple of bare-
jacketed RC columns.
Among the unconfined columns, C-20-0 and S-20-0 specimens have
the maximum axial load-carrying capacity, displaying a negligible dif-
ference in both fc0 and fcu0 development, although the former achieves
the peak at higher strain values. Overall, the ductility index is similar
for both the members. Recall that C-20-0 and S-20-0 columns present
the same inner transverse reinforcement, meaning that in this case no
relevant difference due to the cross-section geometry is observed.
There, stirrups volumetric ratio ρsw only slightly differs among the two
specimens, being 0.35% for the former, and 0.29% for the latter.
According to the experimental fc0 values, it can be concluded that a
similar lateral pressure is offered by the inner transverse reinforcement
in the two specimens.
Instead, C-33-0 and S-33-0 specimens are characterized by lower
axial strength values, as a consequence of a less efficient vertical dis-
tribution of the inner transverse reinforcement compared to the pre-
vious two columns. Such consideration follows the classical model of
confined concrete [38]. Stirrups spacing also affects strains develop-
ment, which are much reduced, revealing a particularly low ductility
index in the case of prismatic geometry. Comparing results from C-33-0
and S-33-0, here the influence of the cross-section geometry is appre-
ciated, even though also in this case ρsw slightly differs between the two
columns, being 0.203% and 0.176% respectively.
Overall, comparing all the unconfined tested specimens, it is pos-
sible to observe the beneficial effect of improving the stirrups
6
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
volumetric ratio, which allows to enhance the axial capacity of the RC
element by +24%, from the least to the highest internally confined
member. Additionally, such parameter has a strong influence also in
terms of strength degradation, because the lower ρsw is, the more
sudden is the post-peak descending branch.
Concerning confined columns, the strength gain obtained through
the jacketing operation ranges from almost 20 to 30%. Additionally, as
an overall consideration, a shift at higher values of both the peak and
ultimate strains is observed, as well as a less marked slope of the σ-ε
descending branch. Particularly, this branch of the curve remains al-
most flat for those specimens having the lowest stirrups spacing, i.e.
those having the highest lateral pressure offered by the two levels of
confining reinforcement. As for the unconfined columns, it is confirmed
that the specimens with the highest confining reinforcement are char-
acterized by the highest axial load-carrying capacity (about +15%
compared to the ones with highest stirrups spacing). Indeed, C-20-G2
and S-20-G2 specimens develop similar fcc values, showing negligible
differences also in terms of strain development. This result means that
also the fiber exploitation is similar in these two members, and that the
geometry of the cross-section is not particularly relevant limiting hoop
strains development in the GFRCM system. This means that the corner
rounding operation was almost effective for this specimen geometry.
Such result is in line with the cracking pattern discussed in Section 3.1,
where wide cracks developed both in the circular and square cross-
section geometry.
Further, C-33-G2 and S-33-G2 specimens display a very similar axial
behavior, characterized by almost the same fcc and fcu values, at similar
strain values too. Cross-section geometry does not influence sig-
nificantly the axial behavior of the columns again, thus meaning that
the corner rounding operation applied in the prisms successfully al-
lowed to limit stress concentration at the section edges. The ductility
index does not differ significantly in the two columns, too. It is expected
that a similar exploitation of the FRCM system is achieved in the two
columns, which will be further discussed in Section 3.3.
Comparing the strength gain between the unconfined/confined
F. Faleschini, et al.
Fig. 7. Dimensionless stress vs. strain in the stirrups of the tested specimens.
members, the best performance is shown by S-33-G2 specimen, which is
characterized by +28.6% peak strength. Instead, in all the other cases,
the strength gain was similar, ranging from 17.5% to 19.8%, showing
the positive contribution of the GFRCM jacketing system. In almost all
the cases, as expected, the initial stiffness of the stress-strain curve for
the unconfined and the confined members is similar, with a slightly
steeper slope of the curve for the confined columns; only for the S-20
column, this did not happen. Such inconsistent result might be asso-
ciated to some differences linked to specimens casting conditions,
probably due to different compaction of the concrete batch or local
defects in the columns.
3.3. Stirrups and glass fibers exploitation
Fig. 7 shows the results of strain development in the central stirrups
of both unconfined (dotted line) and confined (continuous line) speci-
mens. There, the maximum strain εs,xx measured in the central stirrup of
the columns (among the four monitored points) is plotted vs. the di-
mensionless axial stress f/fcc. Looking at this figure, it is possible to
clearly identify two opposite situations for the confined specimens:
columns with the lowest stirrups spacing (i.e. 200 mm) display higher
ultimate strains than their unconfined counterparts, whereas this does
not happen for those having the highest spacing (i.e. 330 mm). This
means that the confinement provided by the external GFRCM jacket is,
to some extent, effective in re-distributing the stresses among the two
levels of confining reinforcement, but this might depend on the ratio
Esρsw/Efρf.
In absolute terms, it is possible to observe that, for the unconfined
columns, the stirrups spacing is the parameter that mostly influences
the possibility of having the yielding of central stirrups: indeed, both
specimens with the highest spacing are characterized by εs,xx value
greater than 0.2%. This does not occur in the specimens with the lowest
spacing. For the confined members, as briefly recalled before, it is not
possible to strictly correlate the development of high hoop stirrups
7
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
strains to the stirrups amount in the element, because of the above-cited
interaction with the GFRCM system. Hence, yielding of the central
stirrups was observed both in S-20-G2 and S-33-G2 columns, and almost
achieved in C-33-G2 one; instead, strains remained particularly low for
C-20-G2 member.
Fig. 8 shows the maximum strain εf,xx measured in the glass fiber of
the FRCM systems, plotted vs. the dimensionless axial stress f/fcc.
Dotted curves indicate the strains in the first layer, whereas continuous
lines those developed in the second layer. First, it significant to note
that no relevant differences between the strains developed in the two
layers were appreciable, for all the analyzed specimens. Further, almost
all columns displayed a high magnitude of the maximum εf,xx values,
except for the S-33-G2 column, in which strains remain significantly
lower than in all the other cases. Specimen C-20-G2 achieved the
maximum load-carrying capacity at relatively low values of εf,xx, and
the post-peak curves did not show sudden decreasing slopes; instead, S-
20-G2 was characterized by higher values of εf,xx, at both the monitored
layers, as a consequence of an early cracking occurred at low applied
load values (below 0.2fcc – compare results with red lines in Fig. 5b)
and possible slippage of the fiber inside the matrix. Such result agrees
with the experimental observations in [26] where plain concrete cy-
linders were jacketed with GFRCM. Overall, both specimens char-
acterized by the lowest stirrups spacing displayed fiber strains devel-
opment as high as 0.25%. Specimen C-33-G2 is characterized by fiber
strains development of the same order of magnitude as in the previous
two columns: the first layer was activated at high-stress values, with
almost a continuous descending branch; instead, the second layer shows
that the stress peak is achieved at higher strain values. This is due be-
cause the two curves correspond to measures in opposite sides of the
column, and in the second case a cracking pattern occurred since low
values of the applied load. This result is consistent with the cracking
pattern visible on the specimen surface. Lastly, as already stated, S-33-
G2 column is characterized by lower εf,xx values, and both the layers
were activated at high-stress values. The maximum strain achieved in
F. Faleschini, et al.
Fig. 8. Dimensionless stress vs. strain in the FRCM jacket of the tested specimens.
this case is about 0.15%, highlighting a reduced exploitation of the
GFRCM system compared to the previous cases.
4. Discussion and comparison with CFRCM-jacketed RC columns
In this section, the experimental results obtained here are discussed
through a comparison of those obtained in [34], where specimens with
the same geometry, concrete and steel material properties, and re-
inforcement details were strengthened with CFRCM jackets, both with
one and two fiber layers. Particularly, the comparison is carried out for
specimens having two fiber layers. Table 5 lists the characteristics of the
carbon fiber used, whereas the same mortar already described in
Section 2.2 was adopted. It is worth highlighting that the two composite
systems are characterized by different axial rigidity, which is about four
times higher in the CFRCM composite.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the axial stress-strain curves for the
two jacketing systems, where the continuous and dotted lines identify
the GFRCM and CFRCM-confined columns, respectively. Looking at the
curves, it is possible to observe how a negligible influence of the type of
composite is observed for cylindrical specimens, irrespectively from the
configuration of inner transverse reinforcement. Indeed, for the C-20
geometry, the difference in peak stress between GFRCM and CFRCM is
about 3.8%, and for the C-33 one is less than 1%. In terms of strains
development, there are no relevant discrepancies between the curves of
confined members with the two FRCM composites too, being about 2%
Table 5
Carbon fiber properties.
Average
Overall area weight W (g/m )2
170
Fiber elastic modulus Ef (GPa) 242
Fiber ultimate tensile strength fu (MPa) 1487
Fiber ultimate tensile strain εu (%) 1.1
Equivalent thickness (mm) 0.047
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
at εcc and about 7–9% at εcu. Instead, for prismatic geometries, the
curves of the two jacketing systems diverge more significantly, both in
the case of high and low stirrups spacing, and the best behavior is
shown by the columns confined by the GFRCM system. Particularly,
peak stress is enhanced by 5 to 17% in the case of S-33 and S-20 geo-
metry, respectively; peak and ultimate strain values improved up to
50% for the S-33 geometry. Conversely, strength and strain capacity
enhancement is more limited in the CFRCM-jacketed columns. Such
result is strictly related to the cracking mode occurred in the CFRCM-
confined columns, which negatively affected a good exploitation of the
jacket and did not allow the fibers to be fully activated. Indeed, the
large cracks that formed at the edges are a consequence of stress con-
centration due to an insufficient rounding of the corner and due to the
presence of longitudinal bars exerting later pressure, too. Such phe-
nomenon was remarkably less evident in the GFRCM jacketed speci-
mens, probably due to a minor influence of the rounding operation of
the edges for this strengthening configuration. Although, such phe-
nomenon requires to be better investigated in further tests.
Strains development both in stirrups and in the fibers were ana-
lyzed, and the results are shown in Table 6, where the maximum values
of both εs,xx and εf,xx are reported together with their relative ex-
ploitation ratio. It is worth noting that, except for S-33 geometry, in all
the cases stirrups were subject to higher hoop strain values in the col-
umns jacketed with the GFRCM system than in those confined with
CFRCM. The difference among stirrup strain values recorded in the
confined columns with the two jackets ranges from 31 to 42%. If
compared to the maximum stirrup strain values displayed by the un-
confined specimens, CFRCM jacket use is effective in reducing the
current stress acting on the transverse inner reinforcement, for all the
s.d.
configuration analyzed here. The adoption of GFRCM is less effective
– because in most cases stirrups yielded although fibers develop high
18 strains too.
22 The same behavior observed for stirrups (i.e., higher values in fibers
0.18
belonging to GFRCM-jacket columns) applies for the FRCM systems,
–
both for the cylinder geometry and particularly for the prismatic ones,
8
F. Faleschini, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847

Fig. 9. Comparison of stress vs. axial strain for GFRCM and CFRCM confined columns with identical geometry and reinforcement arrangement.

Table 6 indeed, in this case, the experimental measure of strains becomes more
Maximum hoop strain in the stirrups (εxx,s) and in the fibers (εxx,f), and relative challenging. This evidence was commented also in the recent work by
exploitation ratios. Napoli and Realfonzo [45], who statistically analyzed records of hoop
Specimen ID εxx,s (με) εxx,s/ εy,s εxx,f (με) εxx,f/ εu fiber strains from different experimental works collected in literature
dealing with bare concrete specimens (without reinforcement). Among
C-20-G2 545 0.275 2538 0.292 293 compression tests included in the dataset, only 38 hoop fiber strain
C-20-C2 360 0.18 1800 0.164
records were found as reliable; seven of them are obtained from GFRCM
S-20-G2 2033 yielded 3541 0.407
S-20-C2 1400 0.660 429 0.039 jackets, and no-one from C-FRCM. They demonstrated how fiber effi-
C-33-G2 1808 yielded 2926 0.336 ciency (defined as the ratio between the recorded strain and the ulti-
C-33-C2 1043 0.52 2557 0.232 mate strain in coupon tensile tests) was about 0.22 for GFRCM jackets
S-33-G2 2144 yielded 1483 0.170 applied to bare concrete specimens.
S-33-C2 2192 yielded 662 0.060
Fig. 10 shows the experimental strain development in a) stirrups
and b) fibers, for the C-33 column geometry confined with both CFRCM
this result being consistent with the global axial stress-strain behavior (black lines) and GFRCM (red lines), which displayed almost the same
and less localized cracking pattern at the edges than in CFRCM-confined response in terms of axial stress-strain behavior. The results shown here
columns. Further, analyzing the exploitation ratio, it is possible to ob- are consistent with the fact that glass fibers are characterized by almost
serve how in all the cases, GFRCM εf,xx value is greater than in CFRCM ¼ axial rigidity than carbon ones, thus they need to be more tensed to
jackets. In absolute terms, it is worth noting that the values listed in provide a similar lateral pressure to that of the CFRCM composite.
Table 6 are significantly lower than those reported for FRP-confined However, also the stirrups act more pronouncedly in C-33-G2 specimen,
members, both with carbon- and glass-based strengthening systems, probably linked to a different re-distribution of inner stresses in the RC
which are on average about 0.6 according to [39–44]. The reasons for section according to axial rigidity of the same two levels of confining
such low recorded values of strains, compared to those of FRP jackets, reinforcement. Further, the multiple cracking occurring in the mortar of
might depend on two concurring causes. First, FRCM-confined columns the GFRCM system has contributed to a preliminary activation of the
displayed in all the cases a softening branch in the axial stress-strain fibers, which instead occurred only more limited in the CFRCM con-
curve; conversely, in most cases, the adoption of FRP jackets allows to fined members.
attain a hardening branch in the overall axial behavior. This difference
is directly linked to the higher axial rigidity of FRP jackets than FRCM
5. Conclusions
ones, which is in turn depending on the higher elastic modulus typically
observed from tensile tests of coupon specimens. As a consequence, the
This experimental work aimed to study the confining contribution
contribution of the FRCM jackets grows significantly only at high strain
provided by inner transverse steel reinforcement and FRCM jackets,
values, but in a circumstance where the matrix is already cracked,
made with glass fibers, in axially-loaded RC members. Further, results
leading to a predominant contribution of the inner transverse re-
were discussed comparing them to experimental evidence obtained for
inforcement. The second possible reason is directly linked to the pre-
RC columns strengthened with CFRCM. To this aim, a detailed study
sence of a relevant cracking pattern in FRCM-confined members:
about strains development in the stirrups and FRCM composites is

9
F. Faleschini, et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of hoop strains development for GFRCM and CFRCM confined column with C-33 geometry: (a) stirrups; (b) fibers.
carried out. According to experimental evidence discussed here, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• the use of a relatively low corner radius did not negatively affect the
confining contribution of the GFRCM, even though the cracking
pattern displayed by prismatic specimens is less homogeneous than
in cylinders, with the formation of thicker cracks at the section
edges;
• the use of GFRCM jackets enhanced both the confined compressive
strength, axial strain capacity and reduced strength degradation, for
all the inner transverse reinforcement ratios and cross-section geo-
metries analyzed here;
• the use of GFRCM jackets, in the analyzed configuration, did not
allow to reduce significantly the stress acting on the stirrups, if
compared to the unconfined case, particularly for the specimens
with the lowest stirrups spacing (i.e., 200 mm);
• fiber exploitation ratio is higher in GFRCM than in CFRCM jackets.
In the former, it ranges from 17 to 40%, whereas in the latter from 3
to 23%. The highest value occurred in S-20 geometry with two G-
fiber layers; instead, for the same geometry, the lowest exploitation
ratio is displayed in the CFRCM-confined members. This opposite
behavior is ascribed to the different cracking pattern shown by the
two types of jacketing systems, being those confined by the CFRCM
subject to high localized stresses at the edges, which hindered a
proper activation of the whole jacketing system. Another cause
might rely on a different specific bond behavior of the two FRCMs,
linked to the presence of the coating on glass fibers, which might
have increased its bond strength. Finally, some differences during
the application of the jackets could also have some influence, but
more studies will be necessary to integrate such explanations;
• according to the strain records, both in the fibers of the two com-
posites and in the stirrups, it is expected that an interaction between
the FRCM-jacket and internal transverse reinforcement occurs.
Further studies are necessary to define this mechanism.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Flora Faleschini: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Supervision. Mariano Angelo
Zanini: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation. Lorenzo
Hofer: Investigation. Klajdi Toska: Formal analysis. Dario De
Domenico: Writing - original draft. Carlo Pellegrino: Funding acqui-
sition, Supervision.
10
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to sincerely thank Eng. Andrea Dalla Pria
and Eng. Mirko Pozzato for their help during the experimental cam-
paign. Additionally, G&P Intech is gratefully acknowledged for pro-
viding the FRCM material.
References
[1] ACI Committee 549, Guide to Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fabric-
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Systems for Repair and Strengthening
Concrete and Masonry Structures, ACI549.4R-13, Farmington Hills, MI, U.S.A.;
2013.
[2] De Felice G, Aiello MA, Caggegi C, Ceroni F, De Santis S, Garbin E, et al.
Recommendation of RILEM Technical Committee 250-CSM: Test method for Textile
Reinforced Mortar to substrate bond characterization. Mater Struct 2018;51(4):95.
[3] Mazzotti C, Ferracuti B, Bellini A. Experimental bond tests on masonry panels
strengthened by FRP. Compos B Eng 2015;80:223–37.
[4] Tetta ZC, Bournas DA. TRM vs FRP jacketing in shear strengthening of concrete
members subjected to high temperatures. Compos B Eng 2016;106:190–205.
[5] Raoof SM, Bournas DA. Bond between TRM versus FRP composites and concrete at
high temperatures. Compos B Eng 2017;127:150–65.
[6] Raoof SM, Bournas DA. TRM versus FRP in flexural strengthening of RC beams:
Behaviour at high temperatures. Constr Build Mater 2017;154:424–37.
[7] Donnini J, Corinaldesi V. Mechanical characterization of different FRCM systems for
structural reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2017;145:565–75.
[8] Estevan L, Baeza FJ, Bru D, Ivorra S. Stone masonry confinement with FRP and
FRCM composites. Constr Build Mater 2020;237:117612.
[9] Fossetti M, Minafò G. Strengthening of masonry columns with BFRCM or with steel
wires: An experimental study. Fibers 2016;4(2):15.
[10] Ombres L, Verre S. Analysis of the behavior of FRCM confined clay brick masonry
columns. Fibers 2020;8(2):11.
[11] Bencardino F, Carloni C, Condello A, Focacci F, Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Flexural
behaviour of RC members strengthened with FRCM: state-of-the-art and predictive
formulas. Compos B Eng 2018;148:132–48.
[12] Sneed LH, Verre S, Carloni C, Ombres L. Flexural behavior of RC beams strength-
ened with steel-FRCM composite. Eng Struct 2016;127:686–99.
[13] Raoof SM, Koutas LN, Bournas DA. Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus fibre-
reinforced polymers (FRP) in flexural strengthening of RC beams. Constr Build
Mater 2017;151:279–91.
[14] Gonzalez-Libreros JH, Sneed LH, D'Antino T, Pellegrino C. Behavior of RC beams
strengthened in shear with FRP and FRCM composites. Eng Struct
2017;150:830–42.
[15] Wakjira TG, Ebead U. A shear design model for RC beams strengthened with fabric
reinforced cementitious matrix. Eng Struct 2019;200:109698.
[16] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolaou CG. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM) jackets. Mater Struct
2006;39(1):93–103.
[17] Fossetti M, Alotta G, Basone F, Macaluso G. Simplified analytical models for
F. Faleschini, et al.
compressed concrete columns confined by FRP and FRCM system. Mater Struct
2017;50(6):240.
[18] Colajanni P, De Domenico F, Recupero A, Spinella N. Concrete columns confined
with fibre reinforced cementitious mortars: experimentation and modelling. Constr
Build Mater 2014;52:375–84.
[19] Colajanni P, Fossetti M, Macaluso G. Effects of confinement level, cross-section
shape and corner radius on the cyclic behavior of CFRCM confined concrete col-
umns. Constr Build Mater 2014;55:379–89.
[20] Ombres L. Concrete confinement with a cement based high strength composite
material. Compos Struct 2014;109:294–304.
[21] De Caso y Basalo FJ, Matta F, Nanni A. Fiber reinforced cement-based composite
system for concrete confinement. Constr Build Mater 2012;32: 55–65.
[22] D'Antino T, Gonzalez J, Pellegrino C, Carloni C, Sneed LH. Experimental in-
vestigation of glass and carbon FRCM composite materials applied onto concrete
supports. In: Applied mechanics and materials, vol. 847. Trans Tech Publications;
2016. p. 60–67.
[23] Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G. Structural upgrade using basalt fibers for
concrete confinement. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2010;14(5):541–52.
[24] Elsanadedy HM, Almusallam TH, Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum YA. Flexural strength-
ening of RC beams using textile reinforced mortar–experimental and numerical
study. Compos Struct 2013;97:40–55.
[25] Bournas DA, Lontou PV, Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC. Textile-reinforced
mortar versus fiber-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced concrete col-
umns. ACI Struct J 2007;104(6):740.
[26] Gonzalez-Libreros J, Zanini MA, Faleschini F, Pellegrino C. Confinement of low-
strength concrete with fiber reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) composites.
Compos B Eng 2019;177:107407.
[27] Caggegi C, Carozzi FG, De Santis S, Fabbrocino F, Focacci F, Hojdys Ł, et al.
Experimental analysis on tensile and bond properties of PBO and aramid fabric
reinforced cementitious matrix for strengthening masonry structures. Compos B Eng
2017;127:175–95.
[28] D'Antino T, Papanicolaou C. Mechanical characterization of textile reinforced in-
organic-matrix composites. Compos B Eng 2017;127:78–91.
[29] Trapko T. Stress–strain model for FRCM confined concrete elements. Compos B Eng
2013;45(1):1351–9.
[30] De Santis S, de Felice G. Tensile behaviour of mortar-based composites for ex-
ternally bonded reinforcement systems. Compos B Eng 2015;68:401–13.
[31] Donnini J, Corinaldesi V, Nanni A. Mechanical properties of FRCM using carbon
11
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110847
fabrics with different coating treatments. Compos B Eng 2016;88:220–8.
[32] Xu S, Krüger M, Reinhardt HW, Ožbolt J. Bond characteristics of carbon, alkali
resistant glass, and aramid textiles in mortar. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE
2004;16(4):356–64.
[33] Azam R, Soudki K. FRCM strengthening of shear-critical RC beams. J Compos
Constr, ASCE 2014;18(5):04014012.
[34] Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Hofer L, Pellegrino C. Experimental behavior of reinforced
concrete columns confined with carbon-FRCM composites. Constr Build Mater
2020;243:118296.
[35] Demartino C, Wu JG, Xiao Y. Response of shear-deficient reinforced circular RC
columns under lateral impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 2017;109:196–213.
[36] EN 197-1:2011. Cement - Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity cri-
teria for common cements. Brussels, Belgium: CEN; 2011.
[37] EN 1015-11:1999/A1:2006. Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 11:
Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. Brussels,
Belgium: CEN; 2006.
[38] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[39] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber com-
posite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2000;12(2):139–46.
[40] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, Echary HE, Mastrapa JC, Pico O. Effect of
column parameters on FRP-confined concrete. J Compos Constr, ASCE
1998;2(4):175–85.
[41] Toutanji H. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally confined
with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96(3):397–404.
[42] Pessiki S, Harries KA, Kestner JT, Sause R, Ricles JM. Axial behavior of reinforced
concrete columns confined with FRP jackets. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2001;5(4):237–45.
[43] Matthys S, Toutanji H, Audenaert K, Taerwe L. Axial load behavior of large-scale
columns confined with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. ACI Struct J
2005;102(2):258.
[44] Fossetti M, Basone F, D'Arenzo G, Macaluso G, Siciliano AF. FRP-Confined concrete
columns: A new procedure for evaluating the performance of square and circular
sections. Adv Civil Eng; 2018. Article ID: 2543850.
[45] Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Effectiveness of FRCM systems in confining concrete
members: analytical models. Atti del XVIII Convegno Anidis, L’Ingegneria Sismica
in Italia; 2019. p. 44–58.