Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Design of FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns

for enhancing axial load carrying capacity
Yung-Chih Wang *, K. Hsu
Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chung-li 32001, Taiwan, ROC

Available online 14 April 2007

Abstract

The paper proposed a design method and an experimental programme to evaluate the axial load strength of rectangular and square
reinforced compression members confined with GFRP (glass fibre reinforced polymer plates) jackets and steel hoops. Three square and
three rectangular columns were tested under axial compression up to failure. The test results clearly showed the efficiency of the jackets in
enhancing the ultimate strain and strength of the columns. The design method was calibrated using data from the tests. Closed-form
equations are proposed for calculating the axial load strength of columns confined with FRP jackets.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete columns; Axial load; Confinement; FRP jackets; Experiment; Design

1. Introduction umns and three tests on full-scale rectangular columns was

Design of FRP jackets for retrofitting existing reinforced
concrete columns requires analytical tools that can predict
the stress–strain behaviour of the confined concrete core.
Limited research has been carried out to evaluate the con-
finement effectiveness of FRP jackets, taking into account
the mechanics of fibre composites as well as the triaxial
state of stresses in concrete core [1–5]. Previous researches
[6–10] predicted the stress–strain relationship of confined
concrete using experimental work on small plain concrete
cylinders wrapped with FRP jackets. These investigations
show the effectiveness of FRP jackets result in an increase
in strength and ultimate strain of concrete. They also pro-
posed the design methods based on their investigated
results.
The purpose of the study was to build up a series of
closed-form design equations for evaluating the axial load
strength of the FRP-confined columns. Meanwhile, a test
programme comprising three tests on full-scale square col-
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +886 3 4252960.
E-mail address: wangyc@cc.ncu.edu.tw (Y.-C. Wang).
carried out to calibrate the design equations.
2. Design equations – general
The nominal concentric compressive strength of a short
concrete column, Pn, is given by
P n ¼ P cn þ P sn ð1aÞ
where Pcn and Psn are the nominal compressive strength
carried by the concrete and the longitudinal reinforcing
steel bars, respectively, when the axial compression reaches
the ultimate state of the column. It is concluded from pre-
vious researches [6–8] that the ultimate limit state in a con-
centrically loaded column is associated with 1% axial
strain. With Poisson’s ratio assumed equal to 0.5, the trans-
verse strain at 1% axial strain is equal to 0.5%.
It is assumed the reinforcing steel behaves as an elasto-
plastic material. The nominal compressive strength carried
by the concrete, Pcn, results from the stresses in three dis-
tinct regions shown in Fig. 1. At 1% axial strain the uncon-
fined concrete has reached its peak strength, fc0 , and has
degraded to a residual strength to 0:3fc0 [11]. Therefore,
Pcn and Psn in Eq. (1a) can be expressed as

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.04.002
 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139 133

Nomenclature

Acc,j core area of concrete confined by the FRP jacket fl,js lateral confining stress due to both the FRP
Acj effective area of concrete confined by the FRP jacket and the steel hoop confinement
jacket fsyh yield strength of the steel hoop
Acjs effective area of concrete confined by both the fsy yield strength of the longitudinal steel reinforce-
FRP jacket and the steel hoop ment
Acu unconfined concrete area kc concrete strength enhancement factor
Ae,j the area of concrete effectively confined by the Pn nominal axial compressive strength of a short
FRP jacket reinforced concrete column
Ae,s the area of concrete effectively confined by the Pcn nominal axial compressive strength carried by
steel hoop the concrete
As cross-section area of the longitudinal steel rein- Psn nominal axial compressive strength carried by
forcement the longitudinal steel reinforcement in a column
At,x/y area of transverse steel reinforcement parallel to r radius of concrete column corner
the x- and y-axis, respectively s spacing between sets of hoops
dx/y dimensions of the concrete core confined by s0 clear spacing between sets of hoops
perimeter steel hoops tj thickness of FRP jacket wrapped in the column
Ep elastic modulus of FRP plate tx/y overall column section dimensions
Es elastic modulus of reinforcing steel w0jx=y the width for the straight portion of the sides of
fc0 compressive strength of cylinder concrete the column
fcc0 compressive strength of confined concrete w0s clear spacing between adjacent longitudinal bars
0
fcc;j compressive strength of concrete confined by the restrained by transverse reinforcement
FRP jacket qj/jx/jy volumetric ratio of confining FRP jacket to the
0
fcc;js compressive strength of concrete confined by core concrete
both the FRP jacket and the steel hoop qsx/y volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement to
Fl the greater of the effective lateral confining pres- the core concrete
sures / the column strength reduction factor
fl the smaller of the effective lateral confining pres- /c the concrete strength reduction factor in a col-
sures umn
fl,jx/y lateral confining stress due to the FRP confine- /s the steel strength reduction factor in a column
ment in the x- and y-direction, respectively a1 and a2 concrete strength enhancement factor
fl,sx/y lateral confining stress due to the steel hoop con-
finement in the x- and y-direction, respectively

P cn ¼ 0:3fc0 Acu þ fcc;j

0 0
Acj þ fcc;js Acjs ð1bÞ forcement and As is the area of longitudinal reinforcement.
P sn ¼ fsy As ð1cÞ Acu, Acj, and Acjs are the confined area with respect to dif-
ferent confining regions, which are given by the following
0 0
where and
fcc;j are the confined concrete compressive
fcc;js expressions:
strength due to the single confinement of the external jacket
Acu ¼ Acc;j  Ae;j ð2Þ
and the dual confinement of the jacket and steel hoops,
respectively. fsy is the yield strength of longitudinal rein- Acj ¼ Ae;j  Ae;s ð3Þ
Acjs ¼ Ae;s ð4Þ
where Acc,j is the area of concrete confined by the jacket,
Ae,j is the area of concrete effectively confined by the jacket,
and Ae,s is the area of concrete effectively confined by the
steel hoops.
The above areas, Acc,j, Ae,j, and Ae,s, are given by
Acc;j ¼ tx ty  As  ð4r2  pr2 Þ ð5Þ
w02
jxþ w02
jy
Ae;j ¼ tx ty  tan hj  As  ð4r2  pr2 Þ ð6Þ
 3
X w02  s0

s0

s
Fig. 1. Dual confinement effect on rectangular column with FRP jacket Ae;s ¼ d x d y  1  0:5 1  0:5 ð7Þ
6 dx dy
and internal steel hoops.
134 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139

Fig. 1 defines the variables used in above equations. where a1, proposed by Mander et al. [9], is a strength
Term s 0 is the clear distance between sets of steel hoops. enhancement factor that considers the concrete to be sub-
It is assumed that the concrete core area confined by the jected to a triaxial stress state with bi-equal confining stres-
internal steel hoops is inside the area confined by the exter- ses and a2 is a reduction factor that considers any deviation
nal jacket. The horizontal arching angle hj in Eq. (6), due to from the bi-equal confining stress concept:
the presence of the jacket, can be derived using experimen- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
tal results [6,12,13]. That is, hj of 45° is adopted. The angle Fl Fl
a1 ¼ 1:25 1:8 1 þ 7:94 0  1:6 0  1 ð14aÞ
hs, due to the steel hoop confinement, is also assumed to be fc fc
45°. The area of concrete confined by the jacket, Ae,j
It is proposed here that a2 can be calculated with the fol-
defined by Eq. (6), is limited to w0jx < 2w0jy when the longer
lowing closed-form equation:
side is w0jx or to w0jy < 2w0jx when the longer side is w0jy . " #sffiffiffiffiffi
For design purposes it is necessary to reduce the nomi-  2
fl fl Fl
nal concentric strength given in Eq. (1), to account for vari- a2 ¼ 1:4  0:6  0:8 þ1 ð14bÞ
Fl Fl fc0
ations in the materials properties, scatter in the design
equation, bending of the columns, nature and conse- In above equations, Fl and fl are the maximum and min-
quences of failure and reduction in load carrying capacity imum confining lateral stresses, respectively.
under long-term loads. This reduction results in a depend-
able concentric strength, /Pn, for short column given by 3.2. Evaluation of the dual lateral confining pressure
/P n ¼ /c P cn þ /s P sn ð8Þ
To calculate the concrete strength enhancement factors,
Material strength reduction factors /c and /s may be see Eq. (14), the lateral confining pressure must be found.
found using reliability analysis if the concrete strength in The evaluation of the lateral confining pressure due to an
both the outside shell and in the core of the column as well elastic jacket and internal reinforcing steel hoops for rect-
as the yield strength of the longitudinal and transverse steel angular columns is derived below.
can be established with some degree of certainty. Alterna-
tively, code reduction factors may be adopted to obtain 3.2.1. Confinement provided by the FRP jacket only
the strength reduction factor /. For example, the ACI The lateral confining stresses induced by FRP jacket in
318 Building Code [14] requires for columns that the ulti- the x- and y-directions, fl,jx and fl,jy, are
mate axial compressive load found from analysis shall
not exceed /Pn calculated as fl;jx ¼ qjx 0:005Ep ð15aÞ
/P n ¼ 0:80/ð0:85P cn þ P sn Þ ð9Þ fl;jy ¼ qjy 0:005Ep ð15bÞ

For the axial compression members with transverse where Ep is the elastic modulus of the FRP jacket. 0.005
hoops, the strength reduction factor / of 0.7 is adopted. represents the transverse strain in the FRP jacket is pro-
Therefore, Eq. (9) becomes vided in the determination of lateral confining stresses
when the nominal compressive strength of the concrete at
/P n ¼ 0:476P cn þ 0:56P sn ð10Þ
ultimate state is evaluated.
in which /c = 0.476 and /s = 0.56. Thus the design The reinforcement ratios qjx and qjy are defined as
requirement is given as tj
qjx ¼ 2 ð16aÞ
/P n P P u ð11Þ ty
tj
where Pu is the design concentric axial load in the column. qjy ¼ 2 ð16bÞ
tx
3. Design equations – compressive strength of FRP-confined where tj is the nominal jacket thickness and tx and ty are the
concrete overall column cross-section dimensions.

3.1. Evaluation of compressive strength of confined concrete 3.2.2. Confinement provided by the transverse steel hoops
only
The compressive strength of confined concrete, fcc0 as The lateral confining stresses induced by the steel hoops
shown in Eq. (1), is given by in the x- and y-directions, fl,sx and fl,sy, are
fcc0 ¼ k c fc0 ð12Þ fl;sx ¼qsx fsyh ð17aÞ
in which fc0
is the cylinder concrete compressive strength fl;sy ¼ qsy fsyh ð17bÞ
and kc is the concrete strength enhancement factor. Factor
where fsyh is the yield stress of the steel hoops. At 0.005
kc depends on the biaxial state of stresses induced by the
transverse strain for determining the lateral jacket strain
lateral confining pressures. This factor is given by
as mentioning in Eq. (15), steel hoops are yielding in
k c ¼ a1 a2 ð13Þ tension.
 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139
The confinement reinforcement ratios qsx and qsy are
defined as
At;x
qsx ¼ ð18aÞ
sd y
At;y
qsy ¼ ð18bÞ
sd x
in which dx and dy are the distances between the center-
lines of the perimeter hoop in the x- and y-directions,
respectively; At,x and At,y are areas of transverse steel rein-
forcement parallel to the x- and y-axis, respectively and s is
the spacing between sets of hoops.
3.2.3. Combined confinement due to the FRP jacket and the
transverse steel hoops
The lateral confining stress acting upon area Acc,j due to
both confining materials is equal to
fl ¼ fl;s þ fl;j ð19Þ
Then, the confined concrete compressive strength of the
0
area of the column solely confined by the jacket, fcc;j is found
substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (14). Furthermore, the con-
fined concrete compressive strength of the area of the column
confined by the jacket and the transverse steel reinforcement,
0
fcc;js is found substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (14).
Once the compressive strengths of the confined concrete,
0 0
fcc;j and fcc;js , and the confined areas, Acu Acj and Acjs, are
computed, the nominal compressive strength carried by
the concrete is then obtained using Eq. (1b).
Fig. 2. Reinforcing details of test units.
135
4. Practical recommendations
The experimental programme [6,7] demonstrated that
the use of small round corners (see Fig. 1) has no effect over
the range of longitudinal strains expected to occur in prac-
tice. It is recommended in this study that the radius in the
round corners of columns be at least 30 mm. It is also sug-
gested the final FRP wrap overlap 150 mm the beginning of
the first wrap according to test result [6].
Under service load conditions, a column with high ulti-
mate axial load will be subject to relatively low lateral
strains. Large lateral strains occurring as a result of dila-
tion of the concrete will only occur when the concrete
reaches the unconfined compressive strength. In practice
jackets are applied to columns when they are loaded close
to the service load. The error of applying the jackets before
the tests of the columns is very small and should not have
an important effect on the results of loaded columns of
buildings.
5. Experimental verification
The experimental study [6] has been carried out to testify
the proposed theoretical model for predicting axial stress–
strain relationship of FRP-confined columns. Then, the
prediction equations were modified to empirical ones for
design as described in the above sections. In the section,
some testing data will be reduced and adopted to verify
the accuracy of the proposed design equations.
136 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139

5.1. Description of test programme Table 1

Mechanical properties of materials
Fig. 2 depicts general reinforcement details of the test Material Area E fc0 at test fy fu esh eu
units. As it can be seen, two test series of 900 mm high col- (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%)
umns were built and tested. The first series, Series CS, con- Concrete – 21 19 – – – 0.3
sisted of 300 mm square columns whereas the second series, R10 steel stirrups 78.5 203 – 365 434 1.50 19.00
HD20 steel bars 314.2 200 – 439 592 1.17 6.67
Series CR, comprised 300 mm by 450 mm rectangular GFRP 1.27 mm – 20.5 – – 375 – 2.0
columns. for1-ply thick.
The longitudinal reinforcing steel ratio for the columns
was 1.5%. The longitudinal bars were Grade 430 reinforce-
ment, with a lower 5-percentile characteristic yield strength Concentric compression loading was applied by a
of 430 MPa. Grade 300 – 10 mm diameter reinforcing steel 10 MN capacity electro-hydraulic universal testing
hoops and ties, with a lower 5-percentile characteristic yield machine. The columns were bolted to grips with spherical
strength of 300 MPa, were spaced at 180 mm centers to bearings. The axial load was applied in small increments
simulate older construction detailing. at a strain rate of about 0.00001 mm/mm/s.
Each of the series comprised three columns. In each ser-
ies, the first column was left unwrapped to act as a control 5.2. Test results – general observations
specimen (Columns CS0 and CR0). Two and six glass FRP
(GFRP) wraps were applied to the second and third col- Fig. 4(a) shows the concentric load versus axial strain
umns (Columns CS2 and CR2, and, Columns CS6 and behaviour of test units CS0, CS2 and CS6. It is evident
CR6). in this figure that both the strength and the deformation
The GFRP jacketing was carried out using TYFO S capacity of the columns increases when increasing the
Fibrwrap System [15]. TYFO S GFRP consists of a jacket thickness.
SEH-51 fabric saturated in a two part epoxy resin, TYFO The longitudinal bars in Column CS0 buckled upon
A and B. The 1.27 mm nominally thick GFRP wraps were reversing from the tensile strain excursion and induced
applied when the columns had an age of two weeks. The spalling of the concrete cover. The compressive axial load
surface of the columns was smoothed and then an epoxy decreased rapidly beyond a compressive strain of 0.2%.
coat was spread to the surface of the column. The method This column showed limited deformation capacity.
of application consisted of applying the continuous epoxy-
saturated fabric until the specified numbers of wraps were
achieved. The final overlapped length for FRP wraps is a 5000
150. The jackets were left curing at 18–20 °C for at least CS6
two weeks before testing. The extent of the wraps is shown 4000
Concentric Load, kN

in Fig. 3. Table 1 represents the mechanical properties of

3000
the material used in the test.
CS2
2000

CS0
1000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Longitudinal Strain, %

5000
b
CR6
Concentric Load, kN

4000

3000 CR2
CR0
2000

1000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Longitudinal Strain, %

Fig. 4. Observed concentric load versus axial strain response of the test
Fig. 3. Arrangement of FRP jackets for test units. units: (a) test on square columns; (b) test on rectangular columns.
 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139 137

The test in Column CS2 demonstrated the efficiency of
the jacket in preventing early buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement from occurring. The load was maintained
up to a compressive strain of 2%. The mode of failure
was by debonding of the GFRP wraps. Debonding of the
jacket commenced at a compressive strain of 0.8% and
slowly progressed until it became unrestricted at a strain
of 2%. Column CS6 showed remarkable behaviour. The
concentric load was not only maintained but also continu-
ously increased to almost double the load of the bench-
mark unit, Column CS0. Failure occurred when the
jacket split one of the corners at a strain of 4.3%.
The tests on the oblong columns showed similar trends
and behaviour as the tests on square columns. Fig. 4(b)
plots the concentric axial load versus axial strain response
for Columns CR0, CR2 and CR6.
In Column CR2, the concentric compressive load was
not maintained after the peak load occurred at about axial
strain of 0.2%. Nevertheless, the load carrying capacity
gradually decreased up to a compressive strain of 2%, as
seen in Fig. 4(b). The mode of failure was by debonding
of the wraps on the longer side of the column. Debonding
of the jacket commenced at a compressive strain of 0.6%
and slowly progressed until it became unrestricted at a
strain of 2%. Column CR6 maintained the load carrying
capacity until failure occurred. This column failed by split-
ting of the jacket at a compressive strain of 2.8%.
The main reason for the difference in behaviour between
Columns CR2 and CS2, and Columns CR6 and CS6 is due
to the poorer confinement effect exerted by the wraps in
oblong columns.
The concrete compressive strength used was obtained by
averaging the stresses derived from the tests in Column
CS0 and CR0 when loaded to 0.2% compressive strain.
The results in this table shows excellent agreement
between the measured and predicted loads when the aver-
age transverse strain reaches 0.5%. No attempt is made
to use higher transverse strains than 0.5% for the prediction
of the ultimate strength, since more than 1% axial strain
values are of little practical use. Note also that the trans-
verse strain chosen in practice could be less than 0.5% as
the sustained load characteristics of some FRP wraps
may control the design.
6. Design example
The 670 mm by 380 mm rectangular column shown in
Fig. 5(a) is to be confined with 14 layers of GFRP jackets.
The nominal thickness of one-layer jacket is 1.27 mm and
elastic modulus of the jacket is 20 GPa. Find the ultimate
concentric axial load that the jacketed column can sustain
if the concrete cylinder compressive strength is 15 MPa,
and the 5-percentile characteristic yield strengths of the

5.3. Test results – comparison between measurement and

prediction

Table 2 shows the measured axial loads in the concentri-

cally loaded columns tested in this investigation. The pre-
dicted nominal concentric load using Eq. (1), 0.5%
transverse strain, 0.5 Poisson’s ratio, and the measured
material properties for the longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement and for the FRP jackets are seen in the table.

Table 2
Measured and predicted compressive loads
Unit Compressive load (kN)
Measured Predicted(2)
at 0.2% axial at 0.5% transverse Maximum
strain strain(1)
CS0 2127 2127
CS2 (fc0 ¼ 18:9 MPa) 2335 2525 2355
CS6 2978 4025 2949
CR0 3268 3268
CR2 (fc0 ¼ 18:9 MPa) 3420 3598 3300
CR6 4200 4494 3924
Notes: (1) Average of three sides. Ignores the transverse strain measured Fig. 5. Diagrams for design example: (a) sectional details of 670 mm by
over the overlapped side. 380 mm column; (b) effective confined area Acjs; (c) all effective confined
(2) Using a jacket strain of 0.5%. areas.
138 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139

longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are 430 MPa Now from Eqs. (13) and (12)
and 300 MPa, respectively. Find the dependable concentric
compression load in the column using the ACI 318 Build- k c ¼ 2:992  0:843 ¼ 2:52
0
ing Code [14] approach assuming that 0.5% transverse fcc;j ¼ 2:522  15 ¼ 37:83 MPa
strain is an acceptable value for design.
(2.3) Combined jacket and hoop confinement.
From Eq. (19)
6.1. Solution
fl;x ¼ 0:735 þ 9:36 ¼ 10:095 MPa
fl;y ¼ 0:771 þ 5:31 ¼ 6:081 MPa
(1) Find the dependable axial compressive load carrying
capacity of the ‘‘as-built’’ column using the uncon- Use Eq. (14) to calculate the compressive strength of the
fined concrete cylinder compressive strength. From concrete
Eq. (10)
F l ¼ max ðfl;x ; fl;y Þ ¼ 10:095 MPa
/P n ¼ 0:476  ð670  380  2512Þ  15 þ 0:56  2512  430
fl ¼ min ðfl;x ; fl;y Þ ¼ 6:081 MPa
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
¼ 2405 kN
10:095 10:095
a1 ¼ 1:25 1:8 1 þ 7:94   1:6  1
(2) Find the dependable concentric compressive load car- 15 15
rying capacity considering the confinement of the ¼ 3:071
"  2 #rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
concrete. 6:081 6:081 10:095
(2.1) Confining pressure due to the transverse steel rein- a2 ¼ 1:4   0:6   0:8 þ1
10:095 10:095 15
forcement only. From Eq. (18)
¼ 0:857
At;x ¼ 2  78:5 ¼ 157 mm2 ; At;y ¼ 4  78:5 ¼ 314 mm2
d x ¼ 610 mm; d y ¼ 320 mm; s ¼ 200 mm; s0 ¼ 190 mm From Eqs. (13) and (12)
157 k c ¼ 3:071  0:857 ¼ 2:632
qsx ¼ ¼ 0:00245 0
200  320 fcc;js ¼ 2:632  15 ¼ 39:5 MPa
314
qsy ¼ ¼ 0:00257 (3) Calculate the confined areas.
200  610 From Fig. 5(b)
From Eq. (17) In x-direction
w0s ¼ ð670  2  35  20  4Þ=3 ¼ 173 mm
fl;sx ¼ 0:00245  300 ¼ 0:735
fl;sy ¼ 0:00257  300 ¼ 0:771 In y-direction

(2.2) Confining pressure provided by the jacket. From Eq. w0s ¼ 380  2  35  2  20 ¼ 270 mm
(16) From Eq. (7)
14  1:27   
qjx ¼ 2  ¼ 0:0936 1732 2702 190
380 Ae;s ¼ 610  320  6  2 1  0:5 
qjy ¼ 2 
14  1:27
¼ 0:0531  6 6 610
670 190 2
 1  0:5  ¼ 83; 683 mm
Use Eq. (15) to predict the lateral confining stress due to 320
the jacket at 0.5% lateral strain for ultimate state From Fig. 5(c) and Eq. (6), setting h = 45°
fl;jx ¼ 0:0936  ð20; 000  0:005Þ ¼ 9:36 MPa 6002 þ 3102
fl;jy ¼ 0:0531  ð20; 000  0:005Þ ¼ 5:31 MPa Ae;j ¼ 670  380  tan 45  2512
3
Use Eq. (14) to calculate the compressive strength of the  ð4  352  p  352 Þ ¼ 99; 003 mm2
concrete From Eq. (5)
F l ¼ max ðfl;jx ; fl;jy Þ ¼ 9:36 MPa Acc;j ¼ 670  380  2512  ð4  352  p  352 Þ
fl ¼ min ðfl;jx ; fl;jy Þ ¼ 5:31 MPa ¼ 251; 037 mm2
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
9:36 9:36 From Eqs. (2)–(4)
a1 ¼ 1:25 1:8 1 þ 7:94   1:6   1 ¼ 2:99
15 15 Acu ¼ 251; 037  99; 003 ¼ 152; 034 mm2
"  2 #rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5:31 5:31 9:36 Acj ¼ 99; 003  83; 683 ¼ 15; 320 mm2
a2 ¼ 1:4   0:6   0:8 þ 1 ¼ 0:84
9:36 9:36 15 Acjs ¼ 83; 683 mm2
 Y.-C. Wang, K. Hsu / Composite Structures 82 (2008) 132–139
(4) Calculate the dependable axial compressive load car-
rying capacity of the jacketed column. From Eqs.
(1b), (1c), and (10)
P cn ¼ 0:3  15  152; 034 þ 37:83  15; 320 þ 39:48
 83; 683 ¼ 4567 kN
P sn ¼ 430  2512 ¼ 1080 kN
/P n ¼ 0:476  4567 þ 0:56  1080 ¼ 2779 kN
which represents an axial load increase of 16% from the
original strength of the ‘‘as-built’’ column.
7. Conclusions
This paper presents a design procedure to evaluate the
nominal concentric strength carried by columns strength-
ened with GFRP jackets. The assumptions are made using
1% axial strain as the ultimate limit state for the jacketed
columns. An advantage of this design method is that the
evaluation of the column axial compressive strength can
be easily performed in practice.
Experimental work was conducted on three square and
three rectangular columns. GFRP jackets were applied to
four columns. The other two columns were tested in their
‘‘as-built’’ condition. The columns were tested under con-
centric loading. The results from the tests confirm that
FRP jackets provide excellent confinement in rectangular
and square reinforced concrete columns, increasing both
the ultimate strength and strain. It was observed that the
FRP jackets are remarkably effective in precluding prema-
ture buckling of the longitudinal reinforcing bars in the col-
umns. Larger strains were recorded when the numbers of
wraps were increased from two to six. Columns jacketed
with two GFRP wraps failed by debonding of the jacket
whereas columns jacketed with six wraps failed by splitting
of the jacket at the rounded corners of the columns. Both
failure types occurred at large axial strain levels. Using
rounded corners with 30 mm radius had no adverse effect
on the behaviour of the columns.
The predicted values resulting from the evaluation
method also correlate the test results obtained in the exper-
139
imental work very well. A design example is discussed to
show the application of the simple method.
Acknowledgement
The financial assistance provided by the National Sci-
ence Council of Taiwan under project NSC 93-2211-E-
008-019 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Li G, Kidane S, Pang SS, Helms JE, Stubblefield MA. Investigation
into FRP repaired RC columns. Compos Struct 2003;62(1):83–9.
[2] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by
fiber composites. ASCE J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):583–90.
[3] Lin HJ, Liao CI. Compressive strength of reinforced concrete column
confined by composite material. Compos Struct 2004;65(2):239–50.
[4] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Fyfe E. Column seismic retrofit using epoxy/
epoxy jackets. In: Proceedings of first international conference on
advanced composite materials in bridges and structures, 1992. p. 287–
98.
[5] Hadi MNS. Behaviour of FRP strengthened concrete columns under
eccentric compression loading. Compos Struct 2007;77(1):92–6.
[6] Wang YC, Restrepo JI. Investigation of concentrically loaded
reinforced concrete columns confined with glass fiber-reinforced
polymer jackets. ACI Struct J 2001;98(3):377–85.
[7] Parvin A, Jamwal AS. Performance of externally FRP reinforced
columns for changes in angle and thickness of the wrap and concrete
strength. Compos Struct 2006;73(4):451–7.
[8] Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC reinforced concrete beam-column
joints under cyclic excitation. Compos Struct 2005;70(2):185–99.
[9] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model
for confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[10] Deniaud C, Neale KW. An assessment of constitutive models for
concrete columns confined with fibre composite sheets. Compos
Struct 2006;73(3):318–30.
[11] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 1975.
[12] Wang YC, Chen CH. Analytical study on reinforced concrete beams
strengthened for flexure and shear with composite plates. Compos
Struct 2003;59(1):137–48.
[13] Wang YC, Lee MG, Chen BC. Experimental study of FRP-
strengthened RC bridge girders subjected to fatigue loading. Compos
Struct, in press. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.09.012.
[14] ACI-318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Committee 318, 2005.
[15] Fyfe Co. LLC. Design manual for Tyfo fibrwrap system – Rev. 1.
California, 1988.