‘Composites Par 155 (2018) 257-271 Fs & ‘| ELSEVIER Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Composites Part B L journal homepage: www. Isevier.com/locatelcompositesb 7 Experimental study of CFRP-confined reinforced conerete masonry columns) tested under concentric and eccentric loading Khalid Sager Alotaibi’, Khaled Galal* {Peguero Cnr Uabety, Mra Qe, Cam, 3G 18 ™ pyre of ug grin, Colage of Acc and Pa ma Abani Fal Unive, Drona, Sal Abia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Key ‘Sete Mechanica xing Using Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP jckets to confine esting conerete masonry columns for ca pacity and ductiiy enhancement hasbeen approved in axial compresion applications. Considering that the majority of columns in practice are loaded under a combination of axial compression oad and ening moment, ‘experimental work fr testing reifored concrete masonry columns confined by CFRP jackets under eccentric lending is needed. This paper presents the rete of testing 28 halseale fll routed reinforced concrete masonry columns under dierent eocentg, eccentric bing conditions and variations in CRP ackting. The ablty of CPRP jackets o improve the structral performance evaluated, Axial force being moment iter ‘ction diagrams of cnfned reinforced concrete masonry columns are compared paint he anconfined mssoary ‘columns to quantify the hancement in strength and moment. The rere indicate tht increasing the CFRP Jacket thickness enhanced the performance of masonry columns regarding axial sain and strength; however, thre was noticable reduction in strength gin under stain gradient conden wo increasing the cece trey level, also, axial force-bending omeat interaction diagram of confined watonry colunes showed at Increase in the oad and the moment eapacity compared Lo that of unconfined masonsy columns 1, Introduction Rehabilitation is becoming an inevitable alternative for restoring deteriorated existing structures or for extending theit service lives, ‘especially that demolishing unefficient structures and constructing new ones ean be easly and time consuming, and in some eases not feasible, Confining existing reinforced concrete and masonry columns by steel jacketing i the most common method sed in uparading them in the past [1]. The confining of the jacket inreases the axial eapacity ‘and improve the ductility of the strengthened columns. However, the steel jacketng system is often associated with dificult in the assembly ‘onthe site and poor corrsion resistance on the long-term, In the past two decades, Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) materials started taking the place of traditional retrofit techniques due to thet superior characteristics High strength to lightweight ratio, durability, ‘ease of handling. and application, corrosion resistance, and minimal ‘dead load added to the eross section are the main advantages that promoted the use of FRP materials in strengthening existing columns. FRP sheets can be wrapped around the column to form FRP jacket ‘where fibers are aligned along hoop direction and perpendicular to the Toad axis ofthe column. FRP sheets are bonded to the surface of the * Gomeeponding autor maladies hall galale@eoncordes (Gal, ps /ds.og/10.1016/ composites. 2018.08 024 Received 28 March 2018 Accepted 6 August 2018 Available online 12 Ast 2018 1850.8968/ © 2018 Elsevier Ld. Al rights esr, column using a high strength adhesive. The extemal confining would Increase the axial eapacity ofthe column to meet the additional loading demand or improve the ductility behavior in order to satisfy the ex pected seismic performance. Extensive researches have been undertaken to understand the be havior of reinforced conerete columns confined with FRP composites. However, limited researchers investigated the application of PRP composites in retrofiting masonry columns. Most of these studies fo cused on the behavior of masonry columns strengthened with uni directional fibers sheets and tested under concentric loads. Masonry columns constructed with clay, tf, or limestone blocks and strength feed with diferent FRP jackets were experimentally studied in Refs [25], and recent studies have investigated the behavior of masonry columas confined by FRP strips [0-8]. Several researchers tested con- crete masonry columns strengthened with carbon FRP [9-11]. Milani et al. {12} carried out numerical analysis on FRP retrofitting of the columas and walls of three masonry churches to resist seismic action. Despite the fact thatthe majority of eolumns in practice are loaded under a combination of axial compression load and bending moment, ‘most ofthe previous researchers studed the behavior of masonry col. ‘umns under axial compression foree only. Several design codes andKS Alot K at ‘guidelines [19-17] require masonry columns to resist the minimum bending moment which could be introduced by unintentional load ec- ‘centricity oF non straight building of the masonry colum, ‘Shaheen and Shrive [15] tested steel reinforced clay masonry eol- umns under eccentric axial loading. The masonry columns were strengthened by sprayed GFRP laminate in two thickness. Researchers ‘eoncluded that eccentricity reduced the effect ofthe confinement and, ‘decrease the gain in strength caused by sprayed GFRP laminate on masonry columns if compared to concentrically loaded masonry col tumns. Further, Shaheen and Shrive test on masonry columns [18] as ‘well as few eccentric tests reported for concrete columns {19-24} ap Pear to confirm that the eccentricity deereases the confinement effec liveness, However, no tests as of yet have been reported for reinforced concrete masonry columns wrapped with GERP and tested under dif ferent levels of eccentricity. ‘This paper presents the results of an experimental program designed to improve the understanding of the axial and flexural performance of reinforced concrete masonry columns confined by CFRP jackets under ‘eccentric loading. The ability of CFRD jackets to resist the axal strain ‘gradient resulting from axial and flexural loading i evaluated. Axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams of reinforced concrete masonry columns confined with ane and two layers of CFRD jackets are ‘compared against non-strengthened conerete masonry columns to ‘quantity the improvement in axial and moment capacities. 2, Kxperimental program ‘The experimental program consisted of testing 28 halfseale fly ‘routed reinforced concrete masonry columns under different loading ‘conditions and variations in CFRP jacketng. All masonry columns were ‘constructed and tested in the Structures Laboratory at Concordia University 2.1. Design of masonry columns ‘All masonry columns were constructed by professional masons using hal scale conerete “C" pilaster units. Each masonry column was fully grouted and had a square cross section with a side length of 190mm. The masonry column was formed by laying ten conerete Block layers in running bond pattern with Smm Type $ mortar ‘The grout of masonry column wat reinforced by four deformed steel bare of #4 with 12.7 mm nominal diameter. The bars were uniformly listributed inthe grout at approximately 48 mm from the centerline of the cross section. D4 deformed cold drawn wires with 8.7 mm diameter were used as transverse ties. The 135" standard hook ties were con- tantly spaced 6Omm apart. All masonry columns have 1.49% long- tudinal steel reinforcement ratio which is higher than the lowest ratios specified by standards (13-16) ‘The 945mm height masonry column was connected to a top and bottom high strength conerete footing with 200 x 200 x 250mm di mensions, The longitudinal steel reinforcements. were continuously ‘extended from the bottom footing to the top footing without any lap splices Tes formed from #4 reinforcement bars with 80" standard hook. were used to confine the longitudinal reinforcements inthe footings. Reduced spacing of 40mm was maintained through high strength footings to increase the rigidity of ends. The concrete footings were introduced to prevent premature failure of the masonry columns ends and to distribute the load uniformly on masonry and the longitudinal steel reinforcements. Typical dimensions and construction details of reinforced masonry column are presented in Fig. 1a The general properties ofthe test matrix ae given in Table 1. The ‘essential variables in the testing program were the thickness of CFRP. Jacket and loading condition. The test columns varied from unvrapped masonry columns to wrapped masonry columns by one orto layers of| ‘CHRP composite jackets. Loading condition was varied between monotonic uniaxial compressive loading, small or large eccentric composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 loading and flexural loading. "The masonry column were divided into three major groups to in vestigate the influence of using CFRP jacketing and magnitude of load eccentricity on the compressive and flexural behavior of reinforced concrete masonry columns. The frst group is unwrapped reinforced concrete masonry columns to establish control data. The group con- sisted of four subgroups. The first subgroup is tested under pure ‘monotonic uniaxial compressive loading, where second and third sub- groups were tested under different monotonically increasing eccen: ‘wie-compression loading. Two eccentricities of 20 and 40mm were applied. Compared to the masonry column width of 190mm, the 20mm eccentricity ean be assumed small eccentricity (e/t = 0.1) and ‘40mm eccentricity can be considered relatively large eccentricity (e/ {= 0.21), The last subgroup was tested as a beam under four-point bending loading, The second and third group consisted of reinforced conerete masonry columns strengthened with CFRP composite jackets. ‘These two groups are similar ith the only difference being the number ‘of composite layers where the second and third groups were strength ened with one and two layers of CFRP jackets, respectively. In wrapped ‘masonry columns groups, no beam testing was conducted assuming no ‘contribution ofthe CFRP-confinement for strengthening columas under pure bending moment without any axial force. Each subgroup of columns consisted of three replicate masonry columns in order to generate average data Each masonry column is given a notation as LN-eX-# of LNB. The Le and B letters stand for CCERP Layers, test eccentricity and Bending, respectively. The numbers Nand X indicate the number of CFRP layers, and the magnitude of test eccentricity in millimeters, respectively. The symbol # is the replicate ‘number inthe subgroup. For example, masonry column L0-e40-1 isthe firt replicate of an unwrapped masonry column tested with 40mm eccentricity. ‘The construction of reinforced concrete masonry columns started with assembling the reinforcement tee! cages. Wooden formwork ns ‘used to shape the bottom concrete footing. After centering steel cages in the formwork and ensuring the vertcaiy, high strength conerete mixes were poured in several batches to cast the bottom footings. Manual compaction by stel rods was preferred because the footings have re Jatively small dimensions. The surface of the footing was leveled and smoothed manually by towels. After curing the concrete, the masons placed mortar on the top of the concrete footing and started laying concrete blocks by placing every two blocks together in alternating directions along the height. Aer five days of finishing the masonry work, fine grout was cast in the masonry columns using three-layered pouring procedure to ensure the uniformity of the grout and to reduce the lateral pressure on the masonry assembly. Wooden formworks were attached to the top of masonry columns to form the top conerete footings. Same high concrete design mix was used to cast the top footings The fresh concrete was compacted by steel rods and leveled manually. Eighteen columns out of 28 reinforced concrete masonry columns were strengthened with CFRP jackets, The surface of masonry columns was prepared before wrapping CFRP sheets All comers ofthe wrapped rasonry columns were rounded to 10mm radius using an electric arinder to reduce stress concentrations and to enhance the confining effect of the CERP jackets on masonry section. Unsmoothed bed joints were sanded. After that, the masonry surface was vacuumed from dust. ‘The steps for wrapping the masonry columns are summarized in ig, 1b. CFRP rol of 610 mm sheet width was used to wrap the masonry test region. There were no CFRP layers applied on the high strength concrete footings. Minimum of 120mm overlapping inthe direction of the fibers was always maintained to ensure the effectiveness of the wrapping and to avoid debonding premature failure. The overlapping area was always placed on the same face of the masonry columns. No ‘overlapping inthe axial direction of the masonry column was applied. The hoop and axial overlapping are consistent with recommended va Jus by the manufacturer specifications (25). Considering the limitedKS Alot K at Qorataemin Fig. 1. Typical dimensions and construction details of reinforced masonry column. on width of CFRP sheet rolls, the masonry columns were wrapped by two straps, with 610 and 305 mm width, in the axial direction ofthe column, to form the CFRP composite jackets. Details about layout dimensions ‘and CERP jackets geometrical details are presented in fig. le Dry lay-up procedure was followed to wrap the CFRDP sheets cir- ‘cumferentilly around the masonry columns one month after columns ‘construction, After cutting CFRP sheet ta the desired lengths, the re ‘and hardener of Sikadur” 330 were combined and mixed slowly with low speed dil for 3 min until the components were uniform in coor. Paint rollers were used to directly applying the mixed epoxy resin onto the prepared masonry surfaces. Starting from the bottom of masonry column, the 610mm width sheet of the fist strap was placed onto ‘epoxy resin, The air pockets were removed by pressing a roller on the laminate to squeeze out the resin between the fibers. In order to apply second layers of CFRP sheets, the lay-up process continues by adding more epoxy on the previous layer without stop- Ping. Then, the CFRP sheet of 205mm wide placed higher than the previous strap, and the same dry lay-up procedure was followed. The ‘wrapped masonry columns were left to cure for seven days in the l- ‘oratory environment before performing the tests. 2.2, Material properties ‘The halfscale concrete pilaster units adopted in this study resemble the 8 x 8 x 16 inch concrete masonry “C"Piaster units typically used to construct concrete masonry columns and conerete masonry pilaster walls. The nominal dimensions ofthe half-cale and full-scale blocks are “Table 1 General properties ofthe et mtr composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 mike cru et nen ‘lustrated in Fig. 2. Ten coupons were cut from halfseale pilaster units according to ASTM C140 [26] with 25 x 100 x 50mm nominal di ‘mensions to determine the compressive strength ofthe block. Gypsum ‘material was used as high strength capping to distribute uniform loads to the ends of coupons. The average compressive strength of concrete block coupons was 21.73 MPa, based on net area equals to 2500 mm?, with coefficient of variation (COV) around 9.4%. According to ASTM C140 (25}, three halfseale concrete pilaster blocks were tested to ob tain the density, absorption, and moisture content of blocks. The average density was 2171 kg/m* (COV = 0.7%) and the average ab- sorption was 125.3 kg/m? (COV = 0.5%). The halfsale conerete p- laster blocks has moisture content about 11.7% (COV = 7.29). Ready-to-use grout and mortar mixes, commercially available, were used during the construction of masonry columns to achieve more consistency. The concrete masonry columns were grouted with a fine grout, according to ASTM C476 [27]. Each 30g ready to use grout bag was mixed with 5.4L of water to produce designed grout with 15 MPa strength. An initial grout slump of 280mm was measured. For de termining the compressive strength, the fine grout was cast in cylin tical molds with 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height. The grout cy inders wer tested inthe same period of masonry columns testing after 28 days of curing. Ten grout cylinders have average compressive strength of 15.23MPa (COV = 5.0%). Type $ mortar according to ASTM C270 [28] was used fo bond pilaster units, The mortar has 12.40.MPa (COV = 4.3%) as average compression strength for five compression test conducted on SI mim cubes of mortar according to ASTM C780 (29). ‘Goup. Subgroup Number of Tamvene wifes! Number of ERP Tat coma am) amber after fr No elafreenent aio OH) tN Spacing amKS Alot K at AM imensons in inter composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 ig- 2 The nominal dimensions of the hala and alscae locks ‘Three unreinforced masonry prisms constructed with ten courses high were tested in order to obtain an average compressive strength of ‘routed conerete masonry (yy). Even though ASTM C1314 standard (20) specifies a height to tekness ratio of two, ten courses prism would give a better presentation of the aetual behavior of masonry columns tested inthis paper. The average of tests was 10.96 MPa with (CoV = 1.7%). Deformed carbor-steel reinforcing bars with imperial bar size #4, ‘also known as "No. 13° in the metric system, were used as grout re- inforcement and ties in high strength conte footings. Reinforcing bare mest the requirements of ASTM. A615 standard (21). The #4 re- inforcement steel was designated as Grade 60 [420 MPa] with 129 mm? ‘nominal area. Deformed carbon steel reinforcing wire of Dd was used as tiesto confine the vertical reinforcement ste! in the grout of masonry columns. The wires were manufsetured according to ASTM A1064 standard (32 and have @ nominal area of 25.8 mm, or determining, the characteristics ofthe reinforcing bars and obtaining typical tensile stress strain curves, five tensile specimens fr each bar size were tested according to ASTM A370 standard [32] with 200mm measured gauge length The strest-strain curves of tensile specimens are shown in Pig. ‘The average mechanical properties of reinforcement steel obtained from tension tests are summarized in Table 2, High strength concrete mix was used to cast the bottom and top footings of reinforced concrete masonry columns. The mix proportion fof the materials used to produce high strength concrete is given in “Table 3. Five 75 x 150mm eylinders were east from mix batches. The ‘ylinders were tested under compression test in the same period of testing the masonry columns to determine the compressive strength of the concrete. The minimum strength of the cylinders was 79.61 MPa ‘with an average around 89,66MPa (COV = 5.4%) Reinforced concrete masonry columns were retrofitted with a structural strengthening system of CFRP composite SikaWrap” Hex 230¢, a uniitectonal carbon fiber fabric, was used inconjunetion with Sikadur” 390 epoxy laminating resin co give @ dry lay-up composite strengthening system. According to the prodvcts datasheet (251, the cured laminate has a nominal thickness of 0.381 mm, and the CFRP composite has 894 Pa ultimate tensile strength with 65.40 GPa mod: ulus of elasticity. The ultimate tensile strain of CFRP laminate can reach 1.39%, 23, Test set-up and instrumentation ‘Twenty-eight fully routed reinforced masonry columns bull with halfseale concrete blocks were evaluated under diferent loading con: ditions. Nine tests were conducted with pure monotonic uniaxial compressive loading, where eighteen tests were conducted under ‘monotonically increasing eccentic-compresson loading with small and large eccentricity. One masonry column was tested as a beam under four-point-bending loading. ‘A looding cylinder atached toa rigid steel frame and connected to an electro-hydraulic control testing system was utilized to generate the compression load on concentric and eccentric tested columns. A load cell between the frame and loading cylinder measured the applied force. All readings were recorded and monitored by a data acquisition connected to the instrumentation: For masonry columns tested with concentric load, both ends of the tested column were capped with 50mm thick ste! bearing plates le veled by high strength gypsum materials. The eccentricity was elimi nated by placing a stel spherical head on the top of tested masonry column, Two laser lines were used to ensure the masonry column and 0030.06 0.09 Strain (mmm) oz 05 003006 0.09 Strain (mmm) or 01s Fig. 3. The sess stran curves of reinforcement steelKS Alot K at ‘Table2 Average mechanical properties of reinforcing bars composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Bar ype Nonna later Nominal ee (au?) Ye eng (MPa) and ‘Yl sin (n/n) and) Tense strength (MPa) and Uke sala) and = ie = oe 7 oo = soon Siete tase eee aus cot ws shied fo the loig or nis to achieve the desiale Te et propria ih eng cnr, ttl cecry in one eto The ing ear ns the era an rR mneony clu ts wre emer ie perpen econ High ce eee rout gp wa el obo an ltl oan pe: ear LT = ‘cts wee mound nthe peor ung ewer he Sloman of mas esa sre too LTR osc Sm Mere asserts ret fac an oo Ly srs the ern for ppd the spherical ead was centered under the loading cylinder to avold any ‘eccentricity and maintain uniform load distribution. Four linear vari able inductance transducer (LVTT) sensors were used to measure the ‘axial deformation of tested columns. The LVITs were bonded to the rigid top concrete footing and linked to the bottom footing. The LVITSs ‘were placed atthe centerines ofthe four sides near the end of masonry ‘work. In some selected masonry columns, four strain gages with gauge length of mm were bonded on the mid-height of longitudinal steel reinforcements to monitor the compression stains. Test setup and strumentation of tested column are presented in Pi. 4a, ocentre loading was applied to the masonry columns by means of specially designed loading mechanism. A two set of loading heads man ‘faetured from steel plates and rods were pled a battom and top ofthe ‘masoncy column. The loading heads composed of eylindrcal stel rollers With 37mm diameter passed between two 50mm thick ste! plates and welded to the bearing plates. This loading mechanism ensures hinged ends boundary condition of eccentrcally tested masonry columns about one ‘axis and fixed ends condition about the perpendicular axis. The bottom ‘and top rollers were centered with the loding cylinder axis in both di- rections by means of two laser lines guide. The axis of tested masonry Oeming Fig. 4. Test setup ad insta ‘masonry columns, the overlap zones were always placed out of com pression and tension faces to reduce the effect of overlapping on the re sults. Additional LVIT fixed to the wooden supporting frame was used to ‘monitor the lateral displacement of the masonry column. The LVIT was leveled atthe mid-height of the masoary column on the tension face ofthe section, The lateral displacement was measured to account the second fonder moment effet. Selected! masonry columns were instrumented with four strain gages a the mid-eight of longitudinal ste reinforcements to capture the compression and tension strains, Test setup and loading heeds fare shone in Fig. tb ‘A monotonic uniaxial compressive load was applied in both con: centric and eccentric tests until a significant reduction in column strength was achieved. Becentric and concentric masonry columns were Joaded using two loading protocols. For unwrapped masoney columns, the load was increased monotonically with a crosshead speed rate of, (0.3 mm/min up tthe peak load. After this, the erosshead speed was adjusted to 0.03 main to help to capture the post peak behavior. The test of wrapped masonry columns was preformed at 0.3 mm/min speed for the crosshead during the entice test period. ‘The typical setup ofthe masonry column tested as a beam under four-point-bending loading is shown in Fi. 4c. The beam was loaded witha pin and a roller supports at the ends with center-o-center dis tance of 700mm, The distance between the middle loading rollers is reves mentation for masonry columnsKS Alot K at Crshing of concrete masonry Mit stetbucing composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Rupture ofthe CFRP jacket Severe ste buckling ig, 5, Failure modes of the compression columns atthe end ofthe test 300mm. A load cell integrated into the testing machine was used to record the load. Two LVITs sensors were placed under the beam to ‘measure the mid span deflection. The beam was instrumented with four strain gages bonded tothe longitudinal steel reinforcements in order to ‘ature strains atthe mid-span ‘3. Experimental results and diseussions 1, Behavior under concentric and eccentric loading Sd. Failure modes The failure modes of the compression columns at the test end are shown in Pig. 5. The unwrapped masonry columns showed vertical cracks atthe pea load. During the post peak, mil buckling ofthe longitudinal steel reinforements between the tes was accompanied by face bells spalling and separation between blocks and grout The failure of strengthened masonry colurnn was dominated by a tensile rupture of ERP fibers. When the descending branch of axial lasd-eformation curves ‘started, local sess eoncenrations near the masonry column cones ‘duced local CERP snapping and load decreasing. The opening of CPR jacket caused an abrupt load drop. CFRP wrapped masonry columns ex hibited severe steel reinforcement buckling betven ties. The CERP jackets ‘id not show any debonding between CERP layers atthe overlapping ‘zones or separation berween the masonry substrates and the CFR jackets. ‘The failure of masonry columns always occurred in the test region be- ten the fotings. Unwrapped masoary columns showed damage at most ‘ofthe column height where the masonry columns strengthened with CFRP Jackets sustained small damage zone. Also, it was observed thatthe da- ‘mage in the grout of CFRP wrapped columns vas severe compared t0 ‘unwrapped masonry columns. ‘Typical fallure modes of masonry columns tested under eccentric loading are shown in Fig. 6. The failure of non strengthened masonry ‘columns was grout crushing and spalling of large portions of conerete masonry in the compression face, The opening of mortar joints and vertical tensile cracks were noticed in the tension faces, For masonry column wrapped with CFRP jackets and tested under eecentre lading, the failure a the compression face was concrete blocks erushing with tensile CFRP snapping at the face corners, The mortar joints opened in the tension face. However, there was no tensile CFRP rupture at the ‘compression face of the e-layer masonry columns tested with larger ‘eccentricity. More disessions on the sequence of the failure are pre- ‘sented in the following sections. 3.1.2, Load capacity against axial and lateral deformations The applied load versus axial deformation of concentrie-oaded masonry columns are shown in Pig. 7. The measured axial force was Plotted against the average reading of the four LVIT sensors over the ‘masonry assembly height, For the masonry columns tested with intial axial load eccentricities, the average reading ofthe two LVIT sensors on compression faces and the reading of the lateral LVIT sensor were plotted against the load cell reading in Fig. & “The experimental results for unconfined and confined masonry columns with average values and (COV) are present in Table 4 and Table 5, espectvely. All eadings were reported in absolute values for better presentation ofthe data. In these table, is the peak Toad of unconfined masonry; ay is the axial deformation of unconfined ma: sonry at peak load; and 5q is the mid-height lateral displacement of masonry columns at peak load. dyy and dy ate the ultimate axial de formation and the mid-height lateral displacement of unconfined ma- sonry corresponding to 85% of peak load during the descending branch of the axial ond-deformation curve, respectively. For confined ma- sonry, different symbols were used: Pau is the peak load of confined masonry; ag and dye are the axial deformation and the mid-height lateral displacement of confined masonry at peak load: ayy 16 the ul timate axial deformation of confined masonry at 15% strength de sradation; and Sy. isthe mid-heght lateral displacement of confined ‘masonry columns at 159% strength degradation, Two HD cameras were used to synchronize CPRP rupture moments with the load and the axial deformation. Fy. and dy symbols were the load and the axial de formation of confined masonry at frst rupture of the CFRP jacket, re spectively. Although the definition ofthe ultimate failure of columns is arbitrary, the authors preferred reporting ultimate values at 15% strength degradation to be in accordance with American ACI 440.2 design guideline [24 ‘According to Lam and Teng [35], a monotonically ascending sess: strain curve ean be expected when providing sufficient confinement level to strengthen reinforced concrete columns, However, all columns {ested in this study showed a parabolic ascending portion of axial lod ‘deformation curve then followed by a descending portion. This finding Js in agreement with previous tests conducted on concrete masonry prisms strengthened with CFRP jackets [11]. It should be noted that even though there is no monotonically ascending bilinear load-de formation curves that were observed, strengthening concrete pilaster ‘masonry columns by CERP jackets is an effective retrofit method be cause the CFRP confined masonry columns showed higher strength and ductility more than unconfined masonry columns. Axial load-de- formation curves for selected masonry columns are compared in Fig. 9 to emphasize the effect of CFRP jacketing on strength and ductility of concrete masonry columns. The unconfined masonry columns showed a brittle behavior in post peak where the stength steply deopped ater the peak. However, the confined masonry columns showed more ductile behavior in descending branches ofthe axial load-deformation curves if they compared to unconfined masonry columnsKS Alot K at composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Tmt face ig. 6. Typical ere modes f masonry columns tested ander eccentric lading. 900 s00 200 0 Zuo J 300 200 100 0 ac: 00 er s00 er 700 ees soo Zw Faw 300 200 10 15 20 Ail deformation eam) Lot Lo Loos etre deen 0 15 0 All detoration (um) 900 104 00 200-2 12008 ° 5 10 15 20 Ail deformation om) Fig. 7. Axial oud deformation curves of concentilonded reinforced masory columns B13. Bfect of eccentricity ‘The effect of eccentricity on the behavior of masonry columas can be soen in Fig. 9. Its clear that the inital eccentricity of loading re ‘duced the carrying capacity of masonry columns as expected. The masonry columns failed at a lower capacity because there was less portion of cross section under compression. The reduction ofthe por tion under compression increases with the increase of the strain gra- dient. The average peak load of the unconfined masonry columns de- ‘reased by about 33 and 49% under 20 and 40mm eccentricities, if ‘compared to unwrapped concentric columns, respectively. Considering the average peak load of L1-cO subgroup as a reference point, the average strength drops were 38 and 58% for one-layer columns tested ‘with 20 and 40mm eccentricity, respectively. On the contrary, the average strength drops were 31 and 56% for 12-€20 and 12-040 sub ‘groupe if compared with two-layer columns tested with zero eccen- teeity 3.1.4. Strain in longitudinal tel reinforcements “The average stain obtained from the four strain gages bonded to longitudinal stel reinforcement at the mid-helght of concentrically loaded masonry columns are shown in Fg. 10, where positive values Indicate compression strains and negative values present tension strain. The test results indicated that longitudinal steel reinforcement developed high compression strain at the peak and passed the yield value. The average compression strains at the peak were 3099, 3183, and 3184 ustran for L0-c0, L1-e0, and 12-0, respectively. Average strain gages reading of longitudinal steel reinforcement at the compression and tension faces for masonry columas tested with eccentricities of 20 and 4Dmm ate shown in fig. 1 and fig. 12, re spectively. For masonry columas confined with CFRP jacketing and tested with small and large eccentricities, the longitudinal steel re {nforcements atthe compression face were yield or s0 clase to yielding except L1-€20, On the contrary, the unconfined columns showed lowerKS Alot K at 45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 placerat (nm) Aa formation (am) e201 —L-02 Les placement (nm) Asad 200 45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 {Lateral iplcement (em) Axa deformation am) eee we ih tra pcm o ne composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Lieto —to-et0-2 Leos 100 of -A5-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-5 0 5 10 15.20 25 Lett Leet0-2 Leos -45-40-35-30-25-20-18-10 5 0 § 10 15.20.25 [Lateral splacement om) Ava detormaton em) 0.1 1-02 10-3 AS-40-35-30-25-20-15-10 5 0 5 10 15.20 25 Lateral placment (in) Atal deformation nm) Fig. 8, Axil deformations and lateral displocements of eccentric oaded masonry colums. ‘compressive strains at the compression face. Longitudinal steel re- inforcements at tension face developed compression strain atthe peak for the eccentricity of 20mm. The compression strain increased with the increase ofthe confinement level. These measurements are evident thatthe lateral confining pressure produced by the CFRP jackets is providing additional support against buckling of longitudinal steel re- Inforcements, For masonry column tested with large eccentricity, the ‘axial strain at longitudinal steel reinforcements at tension faces ad transition from compression to tension. During loading, the transition is led by the movement ofthe neutral axis into a higher position to ac: ‘count for second order moment induced by the increase ofthe lateral displacement. 3.18, Bfect of confinement ‘Normalized load and deformation values of confined masonry col: ‘umns are presented in Table 6. Average values of load and deformation for the thre replicates were used to define the effect of CFRP jacketing fon the strength and ductility of the concrete masonry columns. The Performance of unconfined contol specimens at the same level of ec ‘centrety was considered as benchmarks to evaluate the performance of the confined column. The ductility ofthe columns is reported as the ratio of axial deformation ofthe column at 15% strength degradation to its axial deformation at peak Toad, Also, the average load at first rupture ofthe CFRP jackets of the subgroup was normalized tothe average peak load to determine at which level of strength degradation the rupture of CCERP jackets occured.KS Alot Gate ‘Table 4 “The experimental results for unconfined masonry columns. composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 ‘ohana At peak ‘A 15% sent deaton (AN) Average ad COV Sym) Ave and COV Byun) Average ae COV Aw mm) Avra Od COV By Cm) Average nd COV loeor sous OGL) we LALA ze RAO thea 2623 amsseox) 27020) «=a etemSW) «473 GSM) kak CAI) Wel 25980 USS C77H) 272 «2BLATW) «OT BABGTN) 3.88 SHBGON) 5999 K8BH) All confined masonry columns, excep L1-e40-3, showed an increase In terms of peak load when compared to the average load of unconfined ‘columns with the same level of eccentricity. L1-e40-3 column showed the lowest performance i al ested masonry columns. The unsuccessful strength could be due tothe variability of rout strength or human eror in performing the test. The results ofthis masonry column were re ‘moved from the average in Table. in order not to mislead the findings. ‘The average strength gain for concentrically tested columns were 28% and 33% for one and two CFRP layers compared to unconfined masonry columns strength, respectively. It ean be observed thatthe frst layer of CFRP significantly increased the axial strength compared to ‘control specimens. However, no significant inerement in peak force was noticed by adding second CFRP layer if compared to masonry columns strengthened with the oneayer. The masonry columns tested with ‘eoncentre load had the highest gain in term of ultimate deformation ‘when compared to unconfined columns, where L1-e0 and 12-€0 re corded 124% and 310% gin, respectively The explanation that confined masonry columns showed a higher {gin inthe ultimate axial deformation more than the gain in strength ‘could be attributed to the confinement mechanism, Hence, th restraint ‘of CERP jacket to the lateral expansion of masonry composite under ‘axial stress transforms into tensile strain in CFRP jacket in the hoop direction. The passive pressure produced laterally by confining jacket keeps the integrity of blocks and grout until the CFRP jacket reaches its ultimate tensile rupture force. The amount of confining pressure pro- vided by CFRP jacket depends on the stiffness of the CFRP composite ‘and the lateral expansion of masonry composite if deformation com- patibility is assumed between the CFRP jacket and conerete masonry. ‘The lateral expansion of masonry composite is low at maximum lead and inereases within the descending branch of the axial losd-de formation curve leading to increasing the confining pressure of CPRP Jacket which mainly affects the ultimate axial deformation gain, “The eccentrcaly tested columns recorded lower gain in strength and the ultimate axial deformation compared to concentrically tested columns. Ths is mainly due to the effect of strain gradient and the increase ofthe second order moment due to the increase ofthe lateral displacements. Moreover, itis known that the FRP confining stress ie ronuniformly distributed over the columns cross sections under com. pression loading and it would be expected thatthe nonuniformity of Confinement would increase with the increase of strain gradient. Also considering the complexity of masonry dilation, the shape of the ef feetively confined area could change under strain gradient. The gain in axial deformation of confined masonry columns at peak load for con: centric tests with one and two CFRP layers were 45% and 469%, re spectively. The average gain in axial deformation of confined masonry columns at peak load increased by about 44% and 56% under 20 and 40mm eccentricity, respectively. As mentioned previously, the passive confinement requires significant lateral expansion of the masonry be fore activating the CERP confinement. At the peak load, masonry hat small dilation with limited microcracks In the post peak behavior, the cracks grow under compressive loading and dilation increase sig nificantly. ‘The highest ductility ratios were recorded in masonry columns confined with CFRP jackets and tested under concentric load. The average ductility ratios of concentric columns were 1.90 and 3.48 for ‘masonry columns with one and two CFRP layers, respectively. The ‘Tables The experimental resus for CFRP confined masonry columns lena A pak ‘A 15 eg epadton ALIN? pre Pout) Average Ant) Avge Sy (am) Aerge Ane Atege Bu mim) Average PON) Average An am) Avge seucoy seucov sescov tm) and COV sescov sacov seuoov L1eo2 $1400 (em) 250 (39) 80 a om 535 ew Sao G28) 433 aa) kas a) ao 882 easy cam) is 9m mam Gem foe 99%) Sa Guan) Bi 8 Gm (om 1238 (om iso (lm) 240 (I) faz (oo toss 93K) 5787 (8%) 469 (190) 506 ISH) om) sates) oo isi5 43%) 3252 20) 495m) 7 SH) 938 MLL) BT CIBKS Alot K at composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 lg 9, Axil Ld deformation curves fr slected ssonry clans 1140 meee | ©2000 4000 «ooo 00010000 ‘Compressive strain ystran), 0. Average sran of longludinal ste relaorcement in conceatrally Tooled masonry columns ‘eccentricity reduced the ductility ratios compared to concentrically tested colimns. However, confined masonry columns, in general showed higher ductility ratios than unconfined masonry columns, Since the reported ductility rato In the table Is measure ofthe inelastic to clastic deformation of the column itself, the improvement in the structural performance due to confinement can be presented by the increase in the ultimate axial deformation of confined columns com: pared to unconfined columns. The later values allow better estimates of retrofit efficiency and better estimates of the ability of confined ma- sonry columns to absorb external energy through its deformation ca- pacity ‘Axial deformation of confined masonry at the frst rupture of the (CHRD jackor was normalized to the average ultimate deformation of 800 1020 Sy 11420 . 10 a “om oe image 02000 4000 60008000 Strain at compression face (ystr 10000 ‘unconfined masonry atthe same level of eccentricity and reported in ‘able 6 to present the ductility of columns. Even though the tensile rupture in the CFRP jacket i the main physical sign of column failure, considering that the axial deformation at frst rupture in the CFRP Jacket as the maximum usable strain s nota conservative assumption. This is especially true when the carrying capacity of confined masonry columns drops more than 30% from peak load and drop beyond the coviginal capacity of unconfined masonry columns. For columns con fined with CFRP and tested concentrically, the rupture of the CFRP occurred around 15% strength degradation. With the presence of ec centricty, the rupture ofthe CFRP jacket delayed until 419% and 32% strength degradation for 20 and 40mm eccentricity, respectively. Ta explain that, i i important to recognize tht the failure of masonry columns depends mainly on the global cross section behavior, where the CFRP rupture is related tothe stiffness of the CFRP Jacket and the dilation of the masonry. Considering that CFRP confined masonry cl: ‘uns under eccentric loading has less portion ofthe cross section under compression which le to less overall dilation of the masonry. Speci cally, the ate is esental to active the confinement and ase the rupture ‘of CFRP jacket when there is enough dilation in the masonry to initiate the rupte. ‘The effect of confinement and the level of eccentricity on the en: hancement in peak load is illustrated in Fig. 12, The peak loads were normalized to the average peak load of unconfined masonry columns tested under concentric loading and plotted versus initial load eccen trieiy-to-width ratio. The trend lines were developed hased om a linear regression analysis ofthe test results, As shown in Fig. 13, the steeper slopes of the end lines of confined masonry columns ilistrate more proportionally load capacity reductions in. CFRP- masonry columns compared to unconfined masonry columns. The strength of confined ‘masonry columns under eccentric loading is substantially improved if 00 cre ae . snopes te . 10 S400 a 20 ee 4000) 2000 2000 Strain at tension face (nstrain) 4000 Fig. 1. Average stain gages reading of longitudinal tee reinforcement a the compression and tension faces for 20mm excess©2000 4000 6000 s000 Strain at compression face (ystrain) composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Leto ret stipe | | “agsne” | ——L2-eto -4000 2000S 20004000 Strain a tension face (ustrain) Fig 12, Average strain gages reading of longitudinal ste enforcement a the compression and tension fces for 40mm scents Table 6 Normalised led and deforustion values of confined rsony colons. Shoo ht Sey Sn CY a4 16 gia i Piry gio : ae Fos . 000 00S 0400S aad 02S, Beecemriiy-to-iih rati (6) Fig. 18. The effect of confiement and the level of eecenticy on the en ‘hancement in peak lod ‘compared with unconfined masonry columns with the same level of ‘eccentricity. This would prove that CFRP confinement is able to strengthen reinforced conerete masonry columns by increasing tele ‘axial capacity o sustain the additional applied load. The tend lines of ‘confined masonry colurmns are parallel, the columns wrapped with two ‘GFRP layers are higher in strength gain than columns wrapped with one ‘CHRP layer because the second layer of CFRP inereased the lateral confining pressure. 3.1.6, Mid-height lateral displacement ig. 14 shows midheight lateral displacement of masonry columns ‘against the axial load for selected masonry columns tested with 20 and 40 mm eccentricity. Displacement measurements were reported in ab solute values for better presentation ofthe data Strengthened masonry columns tested with 20mm eccentricity ‘show lower lateral displacement in early loading i compared t control ‘specimens, This may indicate better serviceability behavior. ln the post peak behavior, the control specimens show higher stifinss degradation than strengthened masonry cokumas, At any lateral displacement value, the axial strength ofthe strengthened masonry columns is higher than that of contol specimens, which shows more ductile behavior. The average lateral displacement inereae atthe peak load for 20mm ee: centricty columns with one and two CFRP layers were 79% and 68% compared tothe lateral displacements of unconfined columns, respec: tively, where the average lateral displacement increases around 15% strength degradation were 63% and 78% for masonry columns strengthened with one and two CFRP layers, respectively Masonry columns tested with 40mm eccentricity show similar be havior trends upto maximum loads. However, the unwrapped masonry columns show higher sifness degradation after peak compared to the strengthened masonry columss. L1-e40 and 12-040 subgroups show 47% and 94% increases of lateral displacement at the peak load com: pared to unconfined masonry columns, while the increases at 15% strength degradation were 32% and 195%, respectively. It would ap- prove that confinement provided by CFRP jackes is effective in en hhaneing the eapacity of eoeentrcaly loaded columns 10 withstand higher level of second order moment. ‘3.2. Behavior under pure bending “The masonry column was tested tinder four-point-bending loading. ‘The load-midspan deflection curve ofthe beam tested under flexure is shown in Fg. 15. The beam failed at a maximum load of 157.921N ‘with crushing of masonry concrete between the middle roller supports fn the top part and tensile cracks with yielding ofthe tensile stel re Inforcements inthe bottom part of the Beam. The failure mode of the beam atthe end of the testis shown in Fig, 16. The mid-span defection at peak load was 4.88mm which isthe average reading of the two LVI sensors placed under the beam. The average strain gages readings of stel reinforcement are shown in Fig. 17, where postive values in dicate compression strains and negative values present tension strains. The average tensile strains reached 3146 ystrain in lover steel re inforcements at the peak which is higher than the yielding point. The ‘upper stel reinforcements transited fom compression ¢9 tension in carly loading stage and reached 242 tensile ystrain at peak. The flexure capacity ofthe investigated beam is 15.79kNm and was calculated as w=fo) where P isthe maximum load measured from the load cel, and the constant « is the shear span length, which isthe distance between the roller support at the end and the middle loading role.Loco 0 5 1 15 20 Lateral displacement (mm) 25 30 35 40. 45 composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 Fig. 14, Load td-eight lateral displacement of selected masonry columns. 200 se 6 “Midispan defection (mm) 4. Axial-flexural interaction 4.1, Axial force bending moment interaction diagrams ‘The bending moment capacity of eecentrcaly loaded masonry ‘columns is reported in Table 7. The bending moment capacity (for 20 and 40mm eccentrically loaded columns was calculated by mult plying the maximum axial load (P) and inital eccentricity (e). To ‘consider the second order moment, bending moment capacity (Nj) was also calculated as fllows:, 0 5 10 15 2 25 30 35 40 4S Lateral displacement (mm) et ee 150 & oa F100 terse 3 ‘enact 0 “3500 25004500) ‘Strain strain) S00 Sho 4S) 2500 ig 17. Average sein gages reading of ste reinforcement My=Px(e+8) where (6 Is lateral displacement at the maximum load capacity ‘The experimental axial foree-bending moment interaction diagrams ‘ofthe masonzy columns are shown in Fi. 18. The interaction diagrams of tested masonry columns were constructed to deseribe the moment capacity at peak load with and without the effect of second order mo- ‘ments. Points onthe diagrams represent the results of masonry columns tested under concentric loads, eccentric loads, or pure bending. The curves present the average values calculated ffom three replicates for Fig. 16. The fllure mode ofthe beam at the end ofthe testKS Alot K at composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 ‘Table? Experimental bending moment capacity of columns tested with eccentricity, ‘coma Pan em) Monn) ‘average a COV My 0) Average al COW iaeani “2828 a a 369m) oe 921 1%) wewoi 289 107 159 Mo. a7 2020) tear M67 408 898 965 0.2%) i102 | 119500) tee mae rey 1206 aoe ase% 1409299 aan 02s 368 080 m2080 1363 004%) each subgroup. columns loaded concentrically and withstanding the ultimate bending ean be seen that CFRP jackets significantly increased the bending ‘moment capacity (My) of strengthened masonry columns. For example, ‘larger increment of 50% was obtained in bending moment capacity of ‘maconry column wrapped with two layers of CFRP and tested with ‘20mm eccentricity if compared to unvrapped masonry columns. ‘linear regression analysis of the experimental daa is illustrated in Fig. 19 to show the effect of confinement on the enhancements in axial Toad and bending moment. The axial loads were normalized 10 the average peak load of unwrapped masonry columns tested under con ‘entre loads. The bending moment capacity Mj and My were normal lzed to the ultimate pure bending capacity of unwrapped masonry column. The ultimate bending moment was experimentally obtained by testing the masonry column as a beam under four point-bending loading. ‘The figure demonstrates the clear benefits of CFRP confinement for masonry columns subjected to combined axial-‘lecural_ loading. Strengthened masonry columns showed an inerease in axial load and ‘moment capacity. The presence ofthe CFRP confinement contributed to the bending capacity ofthe masonry column when including the second ‘order moments Strengthened masonry columns were able to stand a ‘moment higher than the ultimate bending moment of unserapped ma- sonry column. Strengthened masonry columns with one layer of CFRP Jacket ean carry 50% of the maximum axial load of unwrapped masonry 1000 300 00 00 oo 500 00 300 200 100 Load (x) 4 ‘ending moment My (kN. 6 8 0 214 16 18 ‘moment of unwrapped masonry column tested as a beam. In compar fon, the masonry columns sith two layers carried around 6996 on average. 4.2, Srin dsrbusion in crs sections Fig. 20 shows the average strain distribution of cross section for ‘masonry columns tested eccentrically at two different stages of loading. The values represent the average of thre replicate masonry columns. The results of LLe40-3 column was ignored when calculating the average of L1-e40 subgroup. The strain is calculated as the average axial deformation divided by the whole gage length (945 mm) whieh represents the average strain along column height. Fig. 20 was pro dduced assuming linear strain distribution in elastic and plastic phases for simplicity Unwrapped masonry columns tested with 20 mm eccentricity filed fn a compression controlled manner due toa sudden erushing of the concrete masonry at the compression face. The extreme compression ‘masonry fiber reached maximum strain equals to 0.0081 (mum/mm) at the peak. All longitudinal stel reinforcements were under compression without yielding. At 15% strength degradation, a limited tensile strain develope at the tension face with an inerease in compressive strain of ‘masonry to 0.0042 (mmymm) —w su =o Load (kN) oEEESEEZE22 024 6 8 HW 6 Bending moment My (cN.) 18 20 Fig. 18 Experimental aval oad bending moment intereton diagramscomposes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 su :u 160) i 160 eu an uo: ta a a. Zin Sian gi 5 I S00 o recant : coo 020 040 060 030 140 137 "000 020 eto. 080 1.00120 Mite mute Fig 19, Normalized sual oad and moment capacity of tested masonry columns Unwrapped masonry columns tested with larger eccentriity (40mm) showed similar behavior, where the maximum stain was (0.0030 (mm/mm) at extreme compression fiber and zero strain at the tension face when the masonry columns started failing at maximum load, At 15% strength degradation, compressive strain of masonry reached to 0.0039 (mm/min, andthe longitudinal steel reinforcements near the tension face showed less compressive value. The masonry columns were able to develop 0.0004 (mm/mm) tensile strain a the tension face For masonry columns strengthened with one or two layers of CRP and tested under 20 mm eccentricity, the effect of CFRP confinement ‘was able to enhance the maximum strain atthe extreme compression rasoney fiber to 0.0044 (mmm) atthe peak and 0.0064 (mm/min) at 15% strength degradation, The wrapped masonry columns falled ina ‘compression controlled manner due 10 CFRP snapping atthe corners of the compression fae, L1-€20 subgroup showed the ability to resist (0.0008 (runy/mm) tensile strain at the tension face at 15% strength ‘degradation which was about two times greater than the tensile strain ‘of L020. Adding a second layer of CFRP increased the tensile stain at the tension face at 15% strength degradation to 0.0010 (mmy/mm) and increased the compressive strain at the tension face at maximum load from 0.0001 (mam/mm) for L1-220 to 0.0002 (mm/mm) for L2-e20. All longitudinal steel reinforcements of confined masonry columns tested ‘with 20mm eccentricity were under compression at maximum loading At 15% strength For 12-20 subgroup, the longitudinal steel reinforcements near the compression face were yield with 2712 ustrain. After the peak, the strain in the longitudinal stel reinforcements of L2-e20 atthe tension face transferred from compression to tension in late loading stage. For 40mm eccentrie masonry columns strengthened with one and two layers of CRP, the confinement ofthe jacketing at the peak load {increased the maximum strain at the extreme compression masonry fiber to 0.0043 and 0.0050 (mm/mm) for ane or two layers, respec: tively. L1-e40 columns failed in @ compression controled manner due to reaching the ultimate confined masonry strain at peak load. The tensile strain was rapidly developed atthe extreme tension fiber after the peakto reach 0.0016 (mm/min) a 15% strength degradation due to the inerease of moment. The longitudinal steel reinforcements of L1-e40 near the tension face were under tension at maximum loading. The tension increased during the post peak behavior. L2-e40 columns failed fn a compression controlled manner at peak load since the sitimate confined masonry strain reached 0.0050 (mm/mm) at the extreme compression fiber. Around 15% strength degradation, 12-e40 columns ‘were failing in a tension controlled manner due tothe yielding of the Jongitudinal ste! reinforcements near the tension face and opening of the mortar joins atthe tension face which led to a large lateral dis placement and higher second order moment. The tensile strain at the fextreme tension fiber reached 0.0050 (mm/mm) at 15% strength de- sradation. The absence of CFRP rupture at the compression face of the At 15% strength osama degradation oe degradation L0-e20 L0-e40 L1-e20 Ll-e40 12-€20 L2-e40 oon Fig. 20. The average strnn dsebution of excetre masonry columns at two stages of loadingKS Alot K at ‘wolayer masonry columns tested with 4mm eccentricity could be ‘explained by that the application of two layers changed the columns mode of failure toa tension controlled manner around 15% stength ‘degradation before reaching the CFRP rupture level which is 32% strength degradation for confined masonry columns tested with 40mm cocentrcity. 5. Conclusions The results of the experimental program for testing reinforced ‘concrete masonry columns confined by CERP Jackets under axial and Mexural loading are presented in tis paper. The effec of axial strain gradient resulting from axial and flexural loading on confinement level provided by CFRP jackets was experimentally measured. Axial force- bending moment interaction diagrams of reinforeed concrete masonry columns confined with two different level of jacketing are compared ‘against nan strengthened concrete masonry columns to quantify the ‘enhancement inthe load and moment capacities. ‘The following observations are highlighted fom the experimental ‘testing of 28 conerete masonry columns under concentric and eccentric ‘axial load: 1) CERP Jackets significantly ineeased the maximum axial toad and axial deformation of the confined masonry columns compared t0 unconfined columns. 2) The eccentrically tested columns recorded lower gain in strength and the ultimate axial deformation compared 1 concentrically tested columns 3) CERP jackets enhanced the post peak behavior of confined masonry columns by softening the descending branches of axial load-de- formation curves compared to unconfined columns. 4) The intial eccentricity of loading reduced the axial load earrying capacity of masonry columns. 5) The confined masonry columns showed a higher gain inthe ultimate axial deformation more than the gain in strength. 65) The rupture of the CFRP jackets happened around 15% strength degradation in concentric ests, The onset of rupture was delayed ‘with the eccentricity. 7) The unwrapped masonry columns showed higher stiffness de- {gradation after peak compared to the wrapped masonry columns. 8) Confinement can change the columns’ mode of failure to a tension controlled manner during post peak behavior. ‘The experimental results proved that CFRP jacketing is an efficient technique for strengthening of reinforced concrete masonry columns by increasing the axial load and improving the axial deformation. However, additional tests using different types of FRP materials and taking into account varous cross sections of columns are recommended before generalizing the findings ofthis study ‘Acknowledgements ‘The fist author wishes to express gratefulness for the Ph.D. seho- larship and financial support from Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University and Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in Canada. The authors ‘would like to thank Sika Canada for donating construction materials, [EAssociation des entrepreneurs en maconnerie du Québec (AEMQ), the ‘Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association (CCMPA), the Canada Masonry Design Center (CMDG) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) are appreciated for funding support. The authors acknowledge the technical staff of ‘Structures Laboratory at Concordia University and Ala’ T. Obaidat for thele help during the experimental program. composes ar B 155 (2018) 257-271 References 11 Pepa nas F Thome MD, Harn Nee of oso ‘mee oan ith FO rap Compr Const 201351 t2y nts Srv NG. Gut i rel pbmer raping he ‘aio sno ctu sn 3 Gu ah {31 bi tudo Me DAmira Pr Mate FEP ote of lad ay brik cha eprint sty and set foal mel eps eset 10149)58958, ta Fol Mart Pc Cera ilo MA, Mi Mo (5) Acta fue ek ory column conte ith (61 Meany cai Fare mesons fomoese sho eek msny “ut confined with FP spe Const ul Mer 1808 17 Wuayzgerh.alre mchntsm tcompresel infra ore oe ems Mer ec SONOS Te tat ia Ang avg, MA, Piva SUA acted oni Imes nr ny aos ith a a orcs pon Bing anaes (91 Gan, Farm Plo ON Ogg the see prema: of iced ‘ey coma ng CP wpe) Cor Cnt 62196 (10 ferns Sc weno roel mer ne ing RP (1m St a Al compete cher of ted cone ack anny ‘Stomper Comper ng 171140778 U1 han. Se Vln Pir an tt tenon reins {sry ct hel mp i ci: Gt 1131 THs 402/602-16. Biking code requirements and specifications for masonry tia Beropo Suocos op my ort 1 ol 115) GSA St Bogs of many cre Miss, Otro, Cae: ‘ina Snare Aiton 2918 (16 N25 4281s of nore cone masony srs 204 New end (1708, Ce of pace rat we of mas. adn ish dds (1) Sabon Sie Sap sae lfc ply many cla ver concn an ernie on hy ny 20701149 (19 By anger AA econ car PR ote eed (2) Hs MS Bev MU ped oral eng oct clumas der (2 Tt evo Pt eghened conre au deren (2 fi Wiens nh Nell an err pero of re RC clans oop ith CP ander scent nig) Cor Comet 20250 2 ta Fins bev of excl cond ghee oes laa (20 Mankny Seghig of eal dd ford cone come {ih fered payer ping tee epi etion 2 Stl moieag J Compr core 00615 524 1251 Swap on 2 Pact dnt she ton ere ssc Scene tem ton 30181 SOR esto ‘emer essa Ste td eae. hoa eed 10112007. tas Rs cena sal Std et mets raping ad ng a: {ete tse Ges PAT na {2 AST 7610 sind pcs or go for soy Wes Cans, AS teal 2998 (a) As cr Sadar pio fr ata fo nit mason Ws ‘nen FAAS ier 01 ta Ast en Stand et mt posta ott ee ta) AST ciate Sondr emt fr compres zens of mony ho Cnr, Pc AST nro 2 tat SS sisal Sanka messmo dermal cane tay AST Ato ALO6N 17. Snr sein fo cao eel wm wen sieeranorement pla sn meee Wee Cahn, Pe (a AST AsO, nar ie methods eos mec ing ‘fe roc Ve Coast SIM ners 27 t2a Kc Sohn Ge er te den md otto ermal Hdd PP {ems fr segs ona nto Fri Me AC 1351 Lam Tn eigen ode o FRP confidence ‘cea sme enor os Cmpr AD7A0D IE 8