ASCE 41 Seismic Assessment of FRP-Repaired Concrete

Columns
Kent A. Harries, Ph.D., F.ASCE1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Current standards establish methods for seismic assessment and objectives for retrofit of existing building structures and provide
guidance for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-based seismic retrofit measures for existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures. However, there
is no agreed-upon methodology for assessing—and therefore establishing—the efficacy of an FRP retrofit. Similarly, as FRP retrofits are
becoming common, there arises a need to assess FRP-retrofitted concrete members and structures for their subsequent postretrofit perfor-
mance. In this paper, a data-driven approach to determining modeling parameters for FRP-retrofitted RC columns consistent with current
standards is demonstrated and parameters for flexure-dominated column behavior are proposed. A refined backbone curve is proposed for
FRP-retrofitted columns in which an incremental rotation capacity accounting for the improved behavior of the retrofitted column is
prescribed. Modeling parameters for flexure-dominated columns are proposed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001111. © 2021
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
External confinement using fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) materi-
als is widely used as a means of seismic retrofit of reinforced con-
crete (RC) columns. Design requirements for such FRP wrapping
or jacketing are included in ACI 440.2R-17 Chapter 13 (ACI
2017). The ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Exist-
ing Buildings (ASCE 2017) standard provides extensive guidance
for the seismic evaluation of existing concrete structures. However,
ASCE 41 is silent on evaluating the impact of subsequent retrofit
measures. An approach to evaluating FRP-retrofitted concrete
structures is necessary to permit designers to make a reasonable
prediction and assessment of the postretrofit performance of their
FRP-retrofitted concrete structures. Such an approach is also neces-
sary for future seismic or postevent assessment when the FRP ret-
rofit is already a part of the existing structure. In order to be useful
and accepted, a post-FRP-retrofit assessment methodology must be
consistent with ASCE 41, which includes a significant element of
performance-based design. The objective of this paper was to dem-
onstrate just such an approach—using the example of FRP retrofit
of flexure-dominate columns. The approach demonstrated here
may be extended to other FRP-retrofit applications.
Flexural failure, shear failure, and lap splice failure are the
common failure modes of conventional RC columns (Pessiki
et al. 1990). This paper focused on the evaluation of the seismic
performance of concrete columns exhibiting axial-flexural failure
or flexural-shear failure retrofitted with FRP jackets. The axial-
flexural failure occurs when inadequate confinement from trans-
verse reinforcement is provided in the plastic hinge zone, resulting
in cover-concrete crushing and spalling, loss of transverse confine-
ment, longitudinal bar buckling, and compression failure of the
concrete core. Flexural-shear failure occurs when the column
1 and yield displacements; and L = shear span of the column [see
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-2523.
Email: kharries@pitt.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 9, 2020; approved on
October 30, 2020; published online on January 6, 2021. Discussion period
open until June 6, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for individ-
ual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construc-
tion, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
develops its flexural strength but ultimately fails in shear with
flexural-shear cracks in the plastic hinge region, following the
yield of the longitudinal reinforcement. External FRP jackets pro-
vide additional transverse confinement, confining not only the core
but also the cover concrete, thereby providing continued lateral sup-
port to the longitudinal reinforcement. Jacketing the concrete column
plastic moment region is an effective means to enhance the deforma-
tion capacity of flexure-deficient columns (ACI 2017). A significant
advantage of such FRP retrofits is that they have little or no impact
on the column stiffness and therefore have no effect on the dynamic
properties of the structure or the load path through the structure. With
the inclusion of additional longitudinal reinforcement, the approach
can also be tailored to provide additional flexural capacity, although
this is a less common objective.
ASCE 41 Nonlinear Response Curve
The nonlinear lateral load resisting behavior of RC columns under
seismic load [idealized by the cantilever column shown in
Fig. 1(a)] can be simulated with the multilinear model curve pre-
scribed by ASCE 41-17, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The model is defined
by yield rotation, θy, and parameters a, b, and c. However, only θy and
parameter a—corresponding to the plastic rotation, θp,—are consid-
ered since behavior beyond point C (or between C and D) is rarely
reported in its entirety in experiment results of FRP-retrofitted con-
crete columns. Nonetheless, capturing point C only does capture
the entire spectra of performance-based design acceptance criteria
[Fig. 1(b)]: IO (immediate occupancy), LS (life safety), and CP (col-
lapse prevention). The plastic rotation angle, θp, is defined as follows:
θp = θu –θy = Δu /L – Δy /L (1)
where θu and θy = ultimate and yield rotations; Δu and Δy = ultimate
Fig. 1(a)].
Experimental Database
A database (Li and Harries 2018), summarized in Table 1, of 111
large-scale FRP-retrofitted concrete columns was established to

© ASCE 04021001-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Nonlinear model for flexure-dominate reinforced concrete columns: (a) loading and displacement of the idealized column; and (b) nonlinear
model curve and acceptance criteria for elements having deformation-controlled actions (adapted from ASCE 2017).

investigate the influence of FRP retrofit on flexure-deficient RC The internal steel reinforcement ratio is
columns. The database of 43 circular, 42 square, and 26 rectangular
columns included 32 unretrofitted control specimens (some of ρs = Av /bs (5)
which were subsequently retrofitted and retested). Retrofit materi- where Av = area of transverse reinforcement, having spacing s; and
als included both carbon (CFRP) and glass (GFRP) confining ma- b = diameter of circular columns or section breadth of rectilinear
terials, as indicated by the range of moduli reported. Only columns columns.
with continuous longitudinal reinforcement were included to not The FRP confinement ratio is
include the lap splice-related behavior. Since the focus of this
paper was the seismic evaluation of the efficiency of FRP retrofit, ρf = κ s 2tf (b + h)/bh (6)
cast-in-place columns confined by stay-in-place FRP tubes were For circular columns,
also excluded. In the database, shear span-to-depth ratios ranged
from 2.5 to 10 (mostly falling above 4), and all reported failures ρf = 4tf /D (7)
were flexure or shear-flexure in nature; columns exhibiting shear
failures were not included. where tf = total dry-fiber thickness of FRP; b and h = column
breadth and overall depth; D = column diameter; and κs = confine-
ment efficiency factor given by (ACI 2017)
Column Geometry and Loading  
max(b, h) 0.5 Ae
Three parameters used to describe column geometry and loading κs = (8)
min(b, h) Ac
(consistent with ASCE 2017) were adopted to describe retrofitted
column performance. These are calculated as follows and summar-  
Ae 1 (b/h)(h − 2r)2 + (b/h)(b − 2r)2
ized in Table 1. = 1− − ρl (9)
The gross section axial load ratio is Ac 1 − ρl 3Ag
where r = radius of column corners; Ag = gross section area of the
m = P/bh f ′c (2) column; and ρl = longitudinal steel reinforcing ratio.

The shear stress at nominal moment capacity, M, is Column Performance




The load–drift [V − Δ in Fig. 1(a)] hysteretic curves of all
v = V /bd f ′c [SI units] (3) FRP-retrofitted columns were acquired from the studies cited in
Table 1. In accordance with the alternate method described in
ASCE 41-17, Section 7.6, backbone curves were drawn through
where P = applied axial load [Fig. 1(a)]; V = shear corresponding to
the points of peak displacement of the first cycle of each increment
the nominal moment capacity of the column (i.e., V = M/L); b and
of deformation. Fig. 2 shows the definitions of yield, peak, and ul-
h = column breadth and overall depth; d = effective depth measured
timate displacement selected for this work (Truong et al. 2017;
from the outermost tension reinforcement to the extreme compres-
Paultre et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2011; Su et al. 2008). This approach
sion fiber of the section; and f ′c = concrete compressive strength.
was selected for its simplicity and consistency in handling hyster-
All rectangular columns were loaded in a direction parallel to
esis, exhibiting either strength-hardening or strength-softening be-
dimension h. For circular columns, bh was replaced by πD 2/4,
havior (Li and Harries 2018).
where D = column diameter.
The third parameter is the effective transverse confinement ratio
(expressed as an equivalent ratio of steel confinement), ρeff
Modeling Yield Rotation
ρeff = ρs + ρf (Ef /Es ) (4)
The yield rotations, θy, of all FRP-retrofitted columns were ob-
tained from the experimental backbone curves (Li and Harries
where Ef = dry fiber elastic modulus of the FRP sheet; and Es = 2018). Since FRP confinement had little influence on the yield
modulus of steel. state of RC columns (Youssef et al. 2015), the theoretical yield

© ASCE 04021001-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001

 Table 1. Summary of the FRP-confined concrete column test database
© ASCE




′
Cit. N b × h (mm) L (mm) f ′c (MPa) ρl (%) ρs (%) Ef (GPa) tf (mm) ρf (%) ρeff (%) P/Ag f ′c V /bd fc
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bournas et al. (2009) 2 250 × 250 1,600 28.6–28.9 0.99 0.20 225 0.19 0.54 0.80 0.28 0.15
Bousias et al. (2004) 10 250 × 500 1,600 16.7–18.7 0.81 0.10–0.20 70 0.85 0.31–1.02 0.45–1.08 0.37–0.40 0.13–0.29
230 0.26–0.65
Bousias et al. (2006) 3 250 × 500 1,600 31.0–32.9 0.81 0.20 230 0.26–0.65 0.31–0.78 0.55–1.08 0.23 0.26
Chang et al. (2000) 4 600 × 750 3,250 25.5–26.0 1.43 0.16 236 0.55–1.1 0.33–0.66 0.54–0.92 0.10–0.15 0.15–0.16
Hosseini et al. (2005) 2 260 × 260 1,650 52–53 1.5–3.0 0.5–1.0 230 0.48 0.74 1.33–1.84 0.24–0.35
Iacobucci et al. (2003) 10 305 × 305 1,473 31.4–42.3 2.57 0.15 76 1–3 1.31–3.93 0.65–1.15 0.38–0.65 0.22–0.26
Memon and Sheikh (2005) 8 305 × 305 1,473 42.4–44.2 2.57 0.15 25 1.25–7.5 1.64–9.84 0.36–1.36 0.36–0.68 0.22–0.26
Ouyang et al. (2017) 5 300 × 300 1,175 29.6 2.26 0.13 91 0.34–0.51 0.45–0.68 0.33–0.43 0.23 0.27
210 0.33–0.50 0.58–0.81
Ozcan et al. (2008) 5 350 × 350 2,000 14.0–19.4 1.66 0.22 230 0.16–0.33 0.19–0.8 0.44–0.65 0.30–0.49 0.15
Ozcan et al. (2010) 5 200 × 400 2,000 9.0–15.5 2.54 0.39 230 0.165 0.25 0.67 0.46–0.58 0.21–0.22
Sadone et al. (2012) 2 250 × 370 2,500 46.2–51.5 0.51 0.15 105 0.48 0.64 0.50 0.15 0.10
Sause et al. (2004) 4 458 × 458 2,419 24.8 1.48 0.09 231 033–1.00 0.16–0.48 0.27–0.64 0.26 0.18
Seible et al. (1997) 2 406 × 610 1,174a 34.5 2.52 0.11 124 2.0 1.64 1.10 0.06 0.39
Truong et al. (2017) 2 300 × 300 800a 17.8 1.69 0.35 230 0.59 0.78 1.07 0.30 0.20
Wu et al. (2008) 4 200 × 200 1,260 36.4–46.9 2.01 0.28 230 0.33 0.66 1.00 0.28 0.20
Paultre et al. (2016) 8 D = 305 2,000 31.0–36.0 2.45 0.44–0.87 78 1.01 1.32 1.01–1.45 0.10–0.35 0.10–0.12
Shan et al. (2006) 3 D = 375 1,500 30.9–38.7 1.23 0.25 33 4.00 4.27 0.94 0.20 0.13–0.14
220 0.88 0.88 1.26
Sheikh and Yau (2002) 9 D = 356 1,470 39.2–44.8 3.01 0.13–0.25 20 0.5–2.5 1.40–2.81 0.27–0.53 0.31–0.64 0.21–0.23
72 1.12 0.55
04021001-3

145 0.56 0.55

Sun et al. (2011) 12 D = 300 450 27.3–32.2 1.74–2.61 0.24–0.47 235 0.17–0.50 0.22–0.67 0.57–1.08 0.10–0.15 0.21–0.37
600
750
Wang et al. (2017) 11 D = 300 630a 54.8–71.2 0.96 0.14 230 0.67 0.89 1.17 0.45–0.65 0.26–0.37

Min. value 200 450 9.0 0.51 0.09 20 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.06 0.10
Max. value 750 3,250 71.2 4.91 1.00 236 10.2 9.84 1.84 0.68 0.39
Note: n = number of specimens reported, including unretrofitted control specimens.
a
Tested in double curvature; L reported is shear span.
J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001

 rotation for each column was calculated for an unconfined column
(Priestley et al. 1996).
For rectilinear columns having overall depth h,
θy,f = 2.14εy L/3h
For round columns having diameter D,
θy,f = 2.45εy L/3D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Modeling Ultimate and Plastic Rotation
There are a number of models promulgated for predicting ultimate
rotation of FRP-confined columns, although all are limited—most
(10) often by applicable column shape. Table 2 summarizes the pre-
dicted/experimental ratios (p/e) and the average absolute error
(AAE) obtained applying five commonly cited models to the com-
piled database; none are shown to represent the assembled data par-
ticularly well (Li and Harries 2018).
(11) Using multiple regression analysis of the compiled database,
applying the three descriptors of geometry—m, v, and ρeff
[Eqs. (2)–(4), respectively]—as independent variables, Eq. (13)

where ɛy = yield strain of longitudinal reinforcement.
Eqs. (10) and (11) are quite effective in predicting yield rotation
of columns whose deformation is dominated by flexure (Priestley
et al. 1996; Li and Harries 2018). The experimentally obtained val-
ues of θy and the theoretical values obtained from Eqs. (10) or (11)
were approximately equal for columns whose shear span-to-depth
ratios were greater than 4.5. For stocky columns, however, the de-
formation due to shear within the elastic range could not be ne-
glected. In this case, Eqs. (10) and (11) were modified to
consider the effect of the shear span ratio, L/h or L/D, respectively.
The coefficient given in Eq. (12) was determined from multiple re-
gression analyses on the experimental data. The analysis was pre-
sented in its entirety in Li and Harries (2018) and was updated
slightly for the present study. The coefficient of determination
over the entire data set for Eq. (12) was R 2 = 0.48.

10.5(L/h)−1.5 θy,f L/h < 4.5
θy =
θy,f L/h ≥ 4.5
where h = overall depth of a rectilinear column; for a round col-
umn, h was replaced by diameter D.
for ultimate rotation was determined. As can be seen in Table 2,
Eq. (13) provides an improved prediction of θu and is not limited
by the cross-sectional shape.
θu = 0.21m−0.24 v−0.35 ρ0.41
eff (13)
As described by Eq. (1), plastic rotation, θp, can be determined
by subtracting Eq. (12) from Eq. (13). Although affected by the
greater scatter of Eq. (12) on a smaller value, the prediction of
θp—independent of the column shape—remains better than other
models (reduced AAE, as shown in Table 2). In order to potentially
simplify the calculation of θp and to permit an approach more con-
sistent with ASCE 41, multiple regression was used again to deter-
mine θp directly:
θp = 0.18m−0.25 v−0.33 ρ0.41
eff (14)
As shown in Table 2, Eq. (14) has a marginally improved pre-
(12) dictive capacity over subtracting Eq. (12) from Eq. (13). Utilizing
only m, v, and ρeff, Eq. (14) is also consistent with current ASCE
41-17 formulations for nonlinear parameters, as will be described
in the following. Plots of the predicted versus experimental data
are shown in Fig. 3.

Limits of Proposed Equations

The influence of effective transverse reinforcement ratio, ρeff, on ul-
timate rotation, θu, is limited (Li and Harries 2018). The value θu
increased with an increase in ρeff, although the rate of increase de-
creased as ρeff increased (θu ∝ ρ0.41
eff ). This is consistent with the
conclusion that when the amount of FRP confinement reaches a rel-
atively high level, the ultimate displacement of the column be-
comes insensitive to further increases of confinement or even
decreases (Ouyang et al. 2017; Gu et al. 2010). The maximum
value of ρeff for which Eq. (14) is believed valid was 0.0145.
This limit represented the extent of the available data; only two col-
umns from the same study (Hosseini et al. 2005) had values of ρeff
exceeding 0.0145.
Additionally, there is a minimum amount of external confine-
Fig. 2. Definition of yield, peak, and ultimate load–displacement pairs.
ment that must be provided in order to mitigate strain-softening

Table 2. Summary of model efficacy

Prediction of θu Prediction of θp

Binici Gu et al. Ozcan et al. Youssef et al. Yuan et al. Eq. Eqs. (12)
Source (2008) (2012) (2010) (2015) (2017) (13) and (13) Eq. (14)
Compatible shapes Circular Circular Rectilinear Circular Circular square All All All
p/e 1.34 1.05 1.19 0.93 1.32 1.07 1.14 1.13
AAE 0.41 0.28 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.20 0.27 0.26
Source: Data from Li and Harries (2018).

n 
n
Note: p/e = 1n predictedj /experimentalj ; and AAE = 1n |(predictedj − experimentalj )/experimentalj |.
j=1 j=1

© ASCE 04021001-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001

 behavior (Pantelides and Moran 2013). This is prescribed directly (ASCE 2013). Based on the compiled database, this corresponds
in the design process (ACI 2017) and is assumed to be satisfied to reducing Eq. (14) as given by the following equation
when using the procedure described in this paper. This lower [see Fig. 3(b)]:
limit was satisfied in all experimental data used in this study.
a′ = 0.85θp (15)

Design of FRP Jackets
Finally, although not within the scope of the present paper, it is
noted that the predictive efficacy of Eq. (13) raises the potential
for this equation to be used for design. The ratios m and v are
known in a design. Having a target rotation capacity, θu, a required
value of ρeff can be determined from which an FRP jacket can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Post-peak behavior of retrofitted columns is not well described
in the literature. The column loses confinement at a drift that is
often considerably greater than the rotation capacity of the original
unretrofitted column [this is seen in the example shown in
Fig. 4(a)]. Thus, it is proposed that acceptance criteria for
FRP-retrofitted columns be based on the ultimate rotation capacity,
θu, as was the case in ASCE 41-13, rather than parameter b

designed.
ASCE 41-17 Nonlinear Modeling and Acceptance
Criteria
ASCE 41-17 Tables 10-8 and 10-9 prescribe modeling and accep-
tance parameters shown in Fig. 1(b). Parameter a corresponds to θp
and is of most interest. Acceptance criteria are defined as follows
(ASCE 2013, 2017).
For columns expected to exhibit a flexure-dominant mode of
failure, ASCE 41-13 Commentary C10.4.2.2.2 describes modeling
parameters selected to represent a probability of failure of 35%
[Fig. 1(b)], as is done in ASCE 41-13. Thus, the acceptance criteria
shown in Fig. 4(b) become
• Collapse prevention: CP = θu (defined by a′ )
• Life safety: LS = 0.75θu
• Immediate occupancy: IO = θy
Deformation Controlled Modeling and Acceptance Curve
Fig. 1(b) shows the ASCE 41-17 modeling and acceptance
parameters for deformation controlled actions as specified for RC
columns having a flexural response as discussed here. For
FRP-retrofitted columns, however, the behavior is different, as de-
scribed in Fig. 4. In most instances, the retrofitted column backbone

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Predicted versus experimental values of column rotation: (a) θy and θu; and (b) θp calculated in two ways.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Backbone behavior for FRP-retrofitted columns: (a) example of backbone curves for unretrofitted control and retrofitted concrete column
(adapted from Sause et al. 2004). The values of B and C are the same for both curves. (b) Nonlinear model curve and acceptance criteria for
FRP-retrofitted elements having deformation-controlled actions.

© ASCE 04021001-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001

 curve passes through both the yield (point B) and peak capacity (C)
points of the original unretrofitted column curve and then continues
to a new ultimate rotation; a representative example (Sause et al.
2004) is shown in Fig. 4(a). Thus, the FRP-retrofitted backbone
curve should be defined as A–B–C–C′ , as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Thus, rather than prescribing a plastic rotation capacity a′
[Eq. (15) and Fig. 4(b)] for FRP-retrofitted members, it was pro-
posed to report the incremental value Δa representing the incremen-
tal rotation capacity imparted by the FRP retrofit measures.
Modeling the curve, A–B–C–C′ , rather than A–B–C′ , accounted
for the observed [Fig. 4(a)] secondary stiffness B–C and included
the energy dissipation represented by the triangular region B–C–C′ ,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which would otherwise be lost.
Proposed Modeling Approach for FRP-Retrofitted
Reinforced Concrete Columns
Referencing the model curve shown in Fig. 4(b), the following
steps are required to model the nonlinear static behavior of an
FRP-retrofitted reinforced concrete column.
• Step 1: Establish nonlinear static pushover response of existing
column prior to retrofit. This will define points A, B, and C in
Figs. 4(b) and 1. The strength of the column (Point B) was deter-
mined experimentally or calculated using accepted principles of
mechanics (ASCE 41-17 Section 10.3.2.2). For reinforced con-
crete columns not having spiral reinforcement or seismic hoops
as defined in ACI 318-19 (ACI 2019), the plastic rotation capac-
ity [parameter a in Fig. 4(b)] is given as follows (ASCE 41-17
Table 10.8):
a = 0.042 – 0.043m + 0.63ρs – 0.023vcol ≥ 0
where the simplified notation introduced in this paper is substi-
tuted for that used in ASCE 41-17. For columns with spiral re-
inforcement or seismic hoops, ASCE 41-17 Table 10-9 provides
a = 0.06 – 0.06m + 1.3ρs – 0.037vcol ≥ 0
Both Eqs. (16) and (17) are valid only when 0.0005 < ρs <
0.0175. vcol = ratio of shear demand on the column to capacity
and is not taken less than 0.2 [note that vcol ≠ v defined in Eq. (3)].
For retrofit of a column having ρs < 0.0005, the curve shown
in the model curve in Fig. 4(b) would bypass point C and be
taken as A–B–C′ .
• Step 2: Point C′ in Fig. 4(b) is defined by the plastic rotation ca-
pacity of the subsequently FRP-retrofitted column. Parameter a′
is found from Eq. (15); that is [from Eqs (14) and (15)],
a′ = 0.153m−0.25 v−0.33 ρ0.41
eff
Therefore, the additional plastic rotation attributable to the
FRP retrofit measure is Δa = a′ − a. The capacity of the retrofit-
ted column may or may not be increased (depending on retrofit
details beyond the scope of this study) but may be conserva-
tively be assumed to be that of the original column. That is,
C–C′ in Fig. 4(b) has a stiffness of zero (horizontal).
An example—showing column F3 reported by Sause et al.
(2004) and shown in Fig. 4(a)—of developing the model
curve is given in Appendix.
Conclusions
A data-driven approach to determining modeling parameters for
FRP-retrofitted reinforced concrete columns consistent with ASCE
41-17 is demonstrated, and parameters for flexure-dominated column
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001
behavior are proposed. A refined backbone curve [Fig. 4(b)] is pro-
posed for FRP-retrofitted columns in which an incremental rotation
capacity, Δa, accounting for the improved behavior of the retrofitted
column is prescribed. The value of Δa is obtained by subtracting the
existing ASCE 41-prescribed value of a [Eqs. (16) or (17)] for RC
columns from the plastic rotation capacity determined for retrofitted
columns, θp, given by Eq. (18). Although the terminology is different,
this approach is also entirely consistent with that prescribed by Euro-
code 8 Part 3 (EN 1998-3, CEN 2004).
Appendix—Sample Calculation
Reinforced concrete columns, tested by the author in 1998 and re-
ported in Sause et al. (2004), are selected as an illustrative example
of the procedure described in this paper. These columns are included
in the database reported in this paper (Table 1). The RC columns
were 458 mm2 having eight No. 7 (22.2-mm diameter) grade
60 (fy = 414 MPa) primary reinforcing bars (ρl = 0.0148) and No. 3
(9.5 mm) ties at 356 mm (ρs = 0.0009). The design concrete strength
is f ′c = 27.6 MPa. The columns are tested in a cantilever arrangement,
as shown in Fig. 1(a), over a height of 2.42 m, resulting in L/h = 5.3. A
constant concentric axial load P = 1, 268 kN = 0.22Ag f ′c is applied
to the column. Lateral loads are applied in a reversed cyclic fashion
with three cycles at each load or displacement increment. The applied
load–lateral displacement hysteretic behaviors of the unretrofitted con-
trol column F0 and retrofitted column F3 are shown in Fig. 4(a). The
following sections describe the calculations required to generate the
nonlinear model curves for F0 and F3. The resulting moment rotation
backbone curves are shown in Fig. 5(a).
(16)
Existing Unretrofitted Column F0
The flexural capacity of unretrofitted column F0 was assessed
based on provisions ACI 318. The yield capacity [point B in
(17) Fig. 4(b)] was determined using nominal material properties to
be 424 kN m. The ultimate capacity (point C), determined using
expected material strengths as defined by ASCE 41-17 Table 10-1,
was 507 kN m. The experimentally observed yield capacity was
438 kN m, and the maximum capacity attained was 554 kN m.
The nominal shear capacity of the column (including the effect
of the applied axial load) was 308 kN, which corresponded to a mo-
ment of 745 kN m; thus, the column was flexure-critical. The ex-
pected shear capacity was 378 kN (914 kN m). Applying
Eqs. (10) and (12), the yield rotation is estimated to be
θy = 2.14εy L/3h = 2.14 × 0.0021 × 5.3/3 = 0.0079 rad
(18)
Fig. 5. Nonlinear moment–rotation curve developed for F0 and F3 re-
ported by Sause et al. (2004).
04021001-6 J. Compos. Constr.
 The experimentally observed deflection was 22 mm (θy =
0.0091 rad).
The expected plastic rotation, a, of Column F0 could be esti-
mated from Eq. (16) (ASCE 41-17). Based on the recommenda-
tions of ASCE 41-17, the values of m and vcol were determined
based on expected material properties; thus,
m = P/Ag fcE = 1, 268 × 103 N/(458 mm × 458 mm × 1.5
× 27.6 MPa) = 0.146
vcol = VyE /VCE = (438 kN m/2.42 m)/378 kN = 0.48
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Applying Eq. (16),
a = 0.042 – 0.043m + 0.63ρs – 0.023vcol
a = 0.042 – 0.043(0.146) + 0.63(0.0009) – 0.023(0.48)
= 0.0252 rad
This estimate corresponded to an ultimate rotation θu =
0.0079 + 0.0252 = 0.0331 rad, corresponding to a displacement at
the top of the column of 80 mm. The experimentally observed ul-
timate displacement at the maximum sustainable load was 53 mm.
Column F0 was poorly confined, and ultimate behavior was char-
acterized by buckling of longitudinal reinforcement at the base of
the column. This limit state was not explicitly addressed by
ASCE 41-17 and resulted in an overestimation of a in this case.
The rotation–moment pairs for points B and C were therefore
B = (0.0079 rad, 424 kN m) and C = (0.0331 rad, 507 kN m).
CFRP Retrofit Column F3
The retrofit Column F3 was provided with a two-ply CFRP jacket
extending 500 mm from the column base and an additional single-
ply secondary jacket from 500 to 1,000 mm from the column base.
The CFRP material has a manufacturer-reported stiffness of Ef =
231 GPa and thickness, tf = 0.16 mm/ply. Applying Eq. (6), ρf =
0.0016, making ρeff = 0.0027. Based on expected capacities,




v = V /bd f ′c
v = (507,000 Nm/2.42 m)/(458 mm × 458 mm × 0.8
× (1.5 × 27.6 MPa)0.5 ) = 0.19
The expected plastic rotation, a′ , is estimated from Eq. (18):
a′ = 0.153m−0.25 v−0.33 ρ0.41
eff
a′ = 0.153(0.146)−0.25 × 0.19−0.33 × 0.00270.41 = 0.0379 rad
This estimate corresponded to an ultimate rotation θu = 0.0079 +
0.0379 = 0.0458 rad, corresponding to a displacement at the top of
the column of 111 mm. The experimentally observed ultimate dis-
placement was 125 mm. Thus, point C′ = (0.0458 rad, 507 kN m).
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2017. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. ACI 440.2R-17. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-19. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ASCE. 2013. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE
41-13. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE
41-17. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Binici, B. 2008. “Design of FRPs in circular bridge column retrofits for
ductility enhancement.” Eng. Struct. 30 (3): 766–776. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.012.
Bournas, D. A., T. C. Triantafillou, K. Zygouris, and F. Stavropoulos.
2009. “Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP jacketing in seismic retro-
fitting of RC columns with continuous or lap-spliced deformed bars.”
J. Compos. Constr. 13 (5): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000028.
Bousias, S. N., A. L. Spathis, and M. N. Fardis. 2006. “Concrete or FRP jack-
eting of columns with lap splices for seismic rehabilitation.” J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 4 (3): 431–444. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.4.431.
Bousias, S. N., T. C. Triantafillou, M. N. Fardis, L. Spathis, and B. A.
O’Regan. 2004. “Fiber-reinforced polymer retrofitting of rectangular
reinforced concrete columns with or without corrosion.” ACI Struct.
J. 101 (4): 512–520.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2004. Design of struc-
tures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting
of buildings. Eurocode 8. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Chang, K. C., L. L. Chung, B. J. Lee, Y. F. Li, K. C. Tsai, J. S. Hwang, and
S. J. Hwang. 2000. “Seismic retrofit study of RC bridge columns.” In
Int. Training Program for Seismic Design of Building Structures, 1–
20. Taipei, Taiwan: National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering.
Gu, D. S., G. Wu, Z. S. Wu, and Y. F. Wu. 2010. “The confinement effec-
tiveness of FRP in retrofitting circular concrete columns under simu-
lated seismic load.” J. Compos. Constr. 14 (5): 531–540. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000105.
Gu, D. S., Y. F. Wu, G. Wu, and Z. S. Wu. 2012. “Plastic hinge analysis of
FRP confined circular concrete columns.” Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (1):
223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.056.
Hosseini, A., A. R. Khaloo, and S. Fadaee. 2005. “Seismic performance of
high-strength concrete square columns confined with carbon fiber rein-
forced polymers (CFRPs).” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32 (3): 569–578. https://
doi.org/10.1139/l05-006.
Iacobucci, R. D., S. A. Sheikh, and O. Bayrak. 2003. “Retrofit of square
concrete columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic re-
sistance.” ACI Struct. J. 100 (6): 785–794.
Li, B., and K. A. Harries. 2018. “Seismic performance assessment of
flexure-dominate FRP-confined RC columns using plastic rotation
angle.” Eng. Struct. 172: 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2018.06.046.
Memon, M. S., and S. A. Sheikh. 2005. “Seismic resistance of square con-
crete columns retrofitted with glass fiber-reinforced polymer.” ACI
Struct. J. 102 (5): 774–783.
Ouyang, L. J., W. Y. Gao, B. Zhen, and Z. D. Lu. 2017. “Seismic retrofit of
square reinforced concrete columns using basalt and carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer sheets: A comparative study.” Compos. Struct.
162: 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.016.
Ozcan, O., B. Binici, and G. Ozcebe. 2008. “Improving seismic perfor-
mance of deficient reinforced concrete columns using carbon fiber-
reinforced polymers.” Eng. Struct. 30 (6): 1632–1646. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.013.
Ozcan, O., B. Binici, and G. Ozcebe. 2010. “Seismic strengthening of rectan-
gular reinforced concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers.” Eng.
Struct. 32 (4): 964–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.021.
Pantelides, C. P., and D. A. Moran. 2013. “Design of FRP jackets for plastic
hinge confinement of RC columns.” J. Compos. Constr. 17 (4): 433–442.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000332.
04021001-7 J. Compos. Constr.
 Paultre, P., M. Boucher-Trudeau, R. Eid, and N. Roy. 2016. “Behavior of
circular reinforced-concrete columns confined with carbon fiber–rein-
forced polymers under cyclic flexure and constant axial load.”
J. Compos. Constr. 20 (3): 04015065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000624.
Pessiki, S. P., C. H. Conley, P. Gergely, and R. N. White. 1990. Seismic
behavior of lightly reinforced concrete column and beam-column
joint details. NCEER Rep. No. 90-0014. Taipei, Taiwan: National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges. London: Wiley.
Sadone, R., M. Quiertant, J. Mercier, and E. Ferrier. 2012. “Experimental
study on RC columns retrofitted by FRP and subjected to seismic loading.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 06/20/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, 101–109.
Rome, Italy: Np. www.IIFC.org.
Sause, R., K. A. Harries, S. L. Walkup, S. Pessiki, and J. M. Ricles.
2004. “Flexural behavior of concrete columns retrofitted with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer jackets.” ACI Struct. J. 101 (5):
708–716.
Seible, F., M. J. N. Priestley, G. A. Hegemier, and D. Innamorato. 1997.
“Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets.”
J. Compos. Constr. 1 (2): 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0268(1997)1:2(52).
Shan, B., Y. Xiao, and Y. Guo. 2006. “Residual performance of
FRP-retrofitted RC columns after being subjected to cyclic loading
damage.” J. Compos. Constr. 10 (4): 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:4(304).
© ASCE 04021001-8
J. Compos. Constr., 2021, 25(2): 04021001
Sheikh, S. A., and G. Yau. 2002. “Seismic behavior of concrete columns con-
fined with steel and fiber-reinforced polymers.” ACI Struct. J. 99 (1): 72–80.
Su, R., N. Lam, and H. Tsang. 2008. “Seismic drift demand and capacity of
non-seismically designed concrete buildings in Hong Kong.”
Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 8: 110–121.
Sun, Z., D. Wang, X. Du, and B. Si. 2011. “Rapid repair of severely
earthquake-damaged bridge piers with flexural-shear failure mode.”
Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib. 10 (4): 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11803-011-0089-6.
Truong, G. T., J.-C. Kim, and K.-K. Choi. 2017. “Seismic performance of
reinforced concrete columns retrofitted by various methods.” Eng.
Struct. 134: 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.046.
Wang, D., Z. Wang, S. T. Smith, and T. Yu. 2017. “Seismic performance of
CFRP-confined circular high-strength concrete columns with high axial
compression ratio.” Constr. Build. Mater. 134: 91–103. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.108.
Wu, Y. F., T. Liu, and L. Wang. 2008. “Experimental investigation on seis-
mic retrofitting of square RC columns by carbon FRP sheet confinement
combined with transverse short glass FRP bars in bored holes.”
J. Compos. Constr. 12 (1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2008)12:1(53).
Youssef, O., M. A. Elgawady, and J. E. Mills. 2015. “Displacement and plastic
hinge length of FRP-confined circular reinforced concrete columns.” Eng.
Struct. 101: 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.07.026.
Yuan, F., Y. F. Wu, and C. Q. Li. 2017. “Modelling plastic hinge of
FRP-confined RC columns.” Eng. Struct. 131: 651–668. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.018.
J. Compos. Constr.