materials
Article
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Retrofitted with Hybrid Concrete Jackets Subjected to
Combined Loadings
Min Sook Kim and Young Hak Lee *
Citation: Kim, M.S.; Lee, Y.H. Seismic
Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Retrofitted with Hybrid
Concrete Jackets Subjected to
Combined Loadings. Materials 2022,
15, 6213. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma15186213
Academic Editor: Alessandro
P. Fantilli
Received: 1 August 2022
Accepted: 5 September 2022
Published: 7 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 6213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15186213
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Deogyeong-Daero 1732, Yongin 17104, Korea
* Correspondence: leeyh@khu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-31-201-3815
Abstract: In the existing reinforced concrete columns where they are insufficient seismic details,
critical failure mode such as shear failure can be observed under seismic loads. One strategy
for the retrofitting of existing concrete columns is to use concrete jacketing. Concrete jacketing
consists of a new concrete layer with longitudinal and transverse reinforcements, and can improve
seismic resistance capacity. In this paper, a detail of concrete jacket that can be expected for easy
construction and improved adhesion performance of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
was proposed. Additionally, a combined cyclic loading test was conducted to consider the seismic
load with multiaxial characteristics. The concrete jacket details utilize three components: Steel Grid
Reinforcement (SGR), Steel Wire Mesh (SWM), and Steel Fiber Non-Shrinkage Mortar (SFNM). One
RC column with non-seismic details and two jacketed RC columns were fabricated to demonstrate
the construction efficiencies and structural capacities of the jacketed columns. Two details of jacketed
section were considered as variables. It was observed that the specimens retrofitted with concrete
jacket resisted torsional load more than the un-retrofitted specimen in terms of crack and failure mode.
The experimental results showed that the maximum load of retrofitted specimens was increased by
more than 8 times compared to the un-retrofitted specimen, regardless of the jacket details. Newly
designed concrete jacket effectively increased the strength. Compared with the un-retrofitted column,
the columns retrofitted with the proposed details achieved significant increase in initial stiffness and
energy dissipation.
Keywords: seismic retrofitting; jacketing; steel grid reinforcement; combined loading
1. Introduction
Non-seismically designed reinforced concrete (RC) columns need to be repaired or
retrofitted because they do not possess adequate lateral strength and ductility. One typical
retrofitting method, concrete jacketing, is to enlarge the cross section of the existing RC
column with a new concrete layer, including longitudinal and transverse reinforcements.
This method is known as a useful technique to improve the seismic performance of the
column in terms of its axial strength, flexural strength, and ductility. In retrofitting RC
columns, the usual practice consists of first assembling a jacketed reinforcement composed
of longitudinal and transverse reinforcements, arranging the formwork, and then placing
the concrete. To achieve the purpose of the retrofitting method, the treatment of the surface
of the old columns must be carefully handled because the composite action between the
old column and the new concrete layer can improve the structural performance. It is costly
and time consuming [1–3]. Julio et al. [1,2] analyzed the influence of interface treatment
on the seismic performance of concrete columns retrofitted with concrete jacket. They
conducted an experiment on seven columns subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading. The
roughness of the interface surface, the use of a bonding agent, the added concrete mixture,
and application, and steel connectors were considered as variables. The study reveled that
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 2 of 15

the sand blasting is the best roughness treatment and use of epoxy resins does not improve
the interface strength. Additionally, high strength concrete increases the interface strength,
and use of steel connectors does not significantly increase the interface bonding stress.
Vandoros and Dritsos [4] investigated the effect of the construction details of concrete
jackets. Three column specimens with the welding jacket stirrup end together, and placing
dowels, along with placing bent down steel connectors, were tested. Experimental results
showed that the structural performance was improved even when the jacket is constructed
with no treatment at the interface. The bent down steel connectors have been proven to
increase the energy dissipation capacity. The separation of the jacket from the original
column was clearly observed in the case where there was no treatment or other connection.
The arrangement, amount, and mechanical properties of steel reinforcement in the
jacketed section are important parameters that impact the effectiveness of its load-carrying
capacity and ductility. Sun et al. [5] fabricated five RC column specimens with longitudinal
rebar and 90◦ hoop-like conventional concrete jacketing and Steel Wire Mesh (SWM) for the
secondary reinforcement. The amount of longitudinal reinforcement was a variable of the
cyclic tests. As a result, the SWM improved the load-carrying capacity, deformation capacity,
and energy dissipation with an increasing reinforcement ratio. Tayeh et al. [6] fabricated
eleven beam specimens with three different bonding mechanisms; dowels, roughening,
and expansion bolts to investigate the flexural behavior of the jacketed beams strengthened
with SWM. They also suggested simplified a structural design for predicting the flexural
strength and deflection on the basis of flexural theory, verifying that the experimental
results and theoretical analysis are similar. Yang et al. [7] developed a new reinforcement
detail for concrete jacketing. This new reinforcement uses V-ties as an alternative approach
to the arrangement of supplementary crossties in the RC columns. The length of the leg
of the V-tie into the core concrete and the amount of transverse reinforcement were the
specimen variables. As a result, V-ties can delay the buckling of the longitudinal bars in the
jacketed section by confining the core concrete, including existing columns.
For the concrete jacketing to achieve the purpose of retrofitting, it is necessary to secure
the confinement and load-carrying capacity. This depends on the bonding between the old
column and the new concrete layer and the details of the jacketed section. The interface
treatment to ensure bonding, installation of additional connectors, and welding of rebars to
improve confinement effect have been proposed. Concrete jacket is a valuable technique
in terms of cost and efficiency. Therefore, this study focused on concrete jacket details
that ensured bonding without interface treatment, improved seismic performance, and
easy construction. The simple combination of steel wire mesh and steel grid reinforcement
allows for easy construction, as it can help practitioners in the site easily apply.
The proposed details consist of two parts: steel wire mesh (SWM), which can replace
interface treatment, and steel grid reinforcement (SGR), which can replace longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement. The combination of these two parts can simplify the interface
treatment process and the placing or welding reinforcement in the new concrete layer. It is
also intended to be advantageous for crack control by pouring steel fiber non-shrinkage
mortar (SFNM). In order to evaluate the structural performance of RC columns retrofitted
with the proposed details of concrete jacket, a cyclic loading test was conducted under
combined loading from a compression, including a bending and torsion moment. This is to
consider the seismic excitations due to the multi-directional characteristics of earthquakes.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Proposed Details of the Concrete Jacket
Two different strengthening details are proposed as alternative methods to the existing
concrete jacket. Both proposed reinforcement details of the concrete jacket consist of a
combination of steel wire mesh (SWM) and steel grid reinforcement (SGR), as shown in
Figure 1a. The SWM is made by welding wires of diameters of 10 mm or 13 mm in the form
of a net that can wrap the columns. By applying the SWM, the composite action between
the old column and the concrete jacket can be achieved without the use of bonding agents
 Two different strengthening details are proposed as alternative methods to the exist-
ing concrete jacket. Both proposed reinforcement details of the concrete jacket consist of a
combination of steel wire mesh (SWM) and steel grid reinforcement (SGR), as shown in
Figure 1a. The SWM is made by welding wires of diameters of 10 mm or 13 mm in the
form of a net that can wrap the columns. By applying the SWM, the composite action
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 between the old column and the concrete jacket can be achieved without the use of bond- 3 of 15

ing agents or surface preparation of the old column surface. Using this method, prefabri-
cated SGR can be installed instead of placing longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
around theorold column.
surface Using SGR,
preparation a vertically
of the old column arranged
surface.barUsing
can replace the role
this method, of the
prefabricated SGR
can be
main bar, and installed instead
a transversely of placing
arranged bar can longitudinal
replace theand roletransverse reinforcement
of the stirrups. SGRs arearound the
introducedoldforcolumn.
fast andUsing
easy SGR, a verticallyplacing
reinforcement arranged bar can
because replace
they can the role the
reduce of the main bar, and a
on-site
transversely arranged
work for reinforcement placing. Inbaraddition,
can replace thefiber
steel rolenon-shrinkage
of the stirrups. mortar
SGRs are introduced
(SFNM) is for fast
and easy reinforcement placing because they can reduce the
used to control cracks and improve bond performance. The proposed concrete jacket is on-site work for reinforcement
constructedplacing.
in fourInsteps.
addition,
First,steel
SWM fiber non-shrinkage
is placed close to mortar
the old(SFNM)
columnissurface.
used toSecond,
control cracks and
consideringimprove bond cover,
the concrete performance.
the SGRThe proposed
is placed concrete
on the jacketofisthe
four sides constructed
old column.in four
Thesteps. First,
SWM
SGR is placed is placed
using close to the
pre-installed holesoldincolumn surface. Second,
the foundation or slab. considering
Third, the oldthecolumn-
concrete cover, the
SMW-SGRSGR is placedwith
is connected on the four sides
a dowel bar orof hook.
the oldFourth,
column. theThe SGR is placed
formwork using
is installed pre-installed
and
holes
the SFNM is placed.in the foundation or slab. Third, the old column-SMW-SGR is connected with a dowel
bar or hook. Fourth, the formwork is installed and the SFNM is placed.

(a)

s 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

(b)

(c)
Figure 1. Proposed details
Figure of the concrete
1. Proposed detailsjackets: (a) A combination
of the concrete jackets: (a)of
ASWM and SGR;
combination of (b)
SWM Type
and1;SGR; (b) Type 1;
(c) Type 2. (c) Type 2.

Two different methods are proposed to install a combination of SWM and SGR. Type
1 makes a hole in the old column and inserts a dowel bar to fix the combination of SWM
and SGR. Type 2 inserts a hook that couples the reinforcing bars placed transversely in
the SGR instead of dowel bars. Figure 1b,c show the difference between Type 1 and Type
2 reinforcement.
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 4 of 15

Two different methods are proposed to install a combination of SWM and SGR. Type 1
makes a hole in the old column and inserts a dowel bar to fix the combination of SWM
and SGR. Type 2 inserts a hook that couples the reinforcing bars placed transversely in the
SGR instead of dowel bars. Figure 1b,c show the difference between Type 1 and Type 2
reinforcement.

2.2. Specimen Details

One non-retrofitted RC column specimen and two specimens retrofitted with each
proposed detail were fabricated. The detailed drawings of the non-retrofitted RC specimen
(CU) and two retrofitted specimens (CJU1, CJU2) are shown in Figure 2a, respectively. The
details of the retrofit techniques and specimens are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
CJU1 and CJU2 are the names of specimens retrofitted with Type 1 and Type 2 reinforcement,
respectively. The detailed drawings of each type of SGR are shown in Figure 2b.
Table 1. Comparison of reinforcement details between specimens.

Designation of Specimen Retrofit Method Component Fixing

CU - - -
CJU1 Type 1 SWM + SGR + Dowel bar Dowel bar + Lap spliced
CJU2 Type 2 SWM + SGR Hook

Table 2. Descriptions of the specimens.

Cross-Section Reinforcements Materials

Specimen
(mm) Longitudinal Transverse Concrete Steel
CU 250 × 250
CJU1 4-D22 D10@125 24 MPa 400 MPa
500 × 500
CJU2

The old column was designed with a cross-sectional size of 250 mm × 250 mm in
consideration of the minimum reinforcement spacing and concrete cover thickness specified
in ACI 318-19 [8]. D22 longitudinal rebars were placed at the four corners. According to
the Korean Design Standards 14 20 50 [9], the diameter and spacing of the stirrups were
determined. D10 90-degree closed external stirrups were placed at spacings of 125 mm.
The yield strengths of both the longitudinal rebars and external stirrups are 400 MPa. The
height of the column is 1800 mm, and it was cast in the foundation of dimensions 1400 mm
× 1270 mm × 450 mm. For fixing the foundation to the strong floor, bolt holes were drilled
at spacings of 500 mm in the foundation.
The sizes of the jacketing section of the retrofitted specimens of CJU1 and CJU2 were
each set to 500 mm × 500 mm in consideration of the minimum thickness for the dowel
bar, minimum thickness for reinforcement, and concrete cover thickness. In the jacketed
section of CJU1 and CJU2, steel fibers are mixed with 40.09 MPa non-shrinkage mortar.
The steel fiber mixing ratio was set to 1.5%. The steel fiber mixed in SFNM is shown in
Figure 3. It is roughened wire fiber, with a double-arched shape, and is glued in bundles.
The fibers are filaments of wire, deformed, and cut to lengths, for the reinforcement of
mortar focusing on crack resistance. The double-arched shaped steel fiber has a length of 18
mm and diameter of 0.34 mm, thus the aspect ratio is 0.019. The maximum tensile strength
of the fiber is 1250 MPa. The properties of the steel fiber are shown in Table 3. SGR consists
of a square opening with a narrow spacing of 100 mm × 100 mm for both the longitudinal
and transverse rebars of D13, and spot welding was applied to each mesh.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 5 of 15

(a)

(b)
Figure 2. Details
Figure of of
2. Details thethe
specimens (mm):
specimens (a)(a)
(mm): Sections of of
Sections columns and
columns footings;
and footings;(b)
(b)the
theSGR
SGRofofType
Type 1
1 and 2.
and 2.
 The fibers are filaments of wire, deformed, and cut to lengths, for the reinforcement of
mortar focusing on crack resistance. The double-arched shaped steel fiber has a length of
18 mm and diameter of 0.34 mm, thus the aspect ratio is 0.019. The maximum tensile
strength of the fiber is 1250 MPa. The properties of the steel fiber are shown in Table 3.
Materials 2022, 15, 6213
SGR consists of a square opening with a narrow spacing of 100 mm × 100 mm for both the 6 of 15
longitudinal and transverse rebars of D13, and spot welding was applied to each mesh.

(a) (b)

(c)
FigureFigure
3. Steel3.fibers: (a) Before
Steel fibers: dispersion;
(a) Before (b) After
dispersion; (b)dispersion; (c) Section
After dispersion; detailsdetails
(c) Section (mm). (mm).

Table 3. The geometrical and mechanical properties of the steel fiber.

Diameter Length Tensile Strength

Material Aspect Ratio
(mm) (mm) (MPa)
Low carbon 0.34 18 0.0182 1250

2.3. Test Setup and Loading Protocol

Three RC columns were tested to evaluate their behavior and capacity under combined
cyclic load. Details of the loading setup are provided in Figures 4 and 5. A jig was installed
at the opposite end where the actuator was installed, and a repeated lateral load was
applied by connecting both ends with a tension–compression control poll. At this time, the
actuator was set with the eccentric distance in the horizontal direction on the horizontal
center line of the upper beam such that the axis of axial load and lateral load did not
coincide. When the axial load acts outside the core radius corresponding to one-sixth of
the cross-sectional length, tensile force is generated. In this study, an eccentric distance (e1 )
of 65 mm, which is one-fourth of the length of the cross-section, was applied to assume
an extremely dangerous situation due to the generation of tensile force. An axial load was
continuously applied to the upper beam by using a hydraulic. The constant axial load
was 255 kN, which is 17% of the axial load capacity. The foundation was fixed to a strong
floor, and steel rods were placed at spacings of 500 mm installed on the strong floor. To
identify the direction, the front side of the specimen was named Side 1, and the elevations
were divided by naming them Side 2, 3, and 4, in a counterclockwise direction. The lateral
load was applied through a quasi-static protocol that is shown in Figure 6, according to the
ACI 374.1-05 [10] standard. The lateral load was gradually increased from a drift ratio of
0.2%. The lateral displacement of the load point of all specimens was measured by a linear
variable differential transducer (LVDTs). Two LVDTs were installed on each side of the top
of the column to measure the displacement in the negative and positive directions. Strain
gauges were attached at locations 150 mm from the bottom of the column to measure the
strain of the longitudinal rebars, as shown in Figure 2a. Several sensors were attached at
similar locations for data reliability.

Materials 2022, 15, 6213
The lateral load was applied through a quasi-static protocol that is shown in Figure 6,
according to the ACI 374.1-05 [10] standard. The lateral load was gradually increased from
a drift ratio of 0.2%. The lateral displacement of the load point of all specimens was meas-
ured by a linear variable differential transducer (LVDTs). Two LVDTs were installed on
each side of the top of the column to measure the displacement in the negative and posi-
tive directions. Strain gauges were attached at locations 150 mm from the bottom of the 7 of 15
column to measure the strain of the longitudinal rebars, as shown in Figure 2a. Several
sensors were attached at similar locations for data reliability.

Materials 2022,
Materials 15, 15,
2022, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 8 of8 16
of 16

Figure 4. Test setup.

Figure 4. Test setup.

Figure 5. Loading
Figure
Figure 5. method.
5. Loading
Loading method.
method.

Figure 6. The
Figure loading
6. The protocol.
loading protocol.

3. Experimental Results
3. Experimental and
Results Analysis
and Analysis
3.1.3.1.
Observed Cracks
Observed andand
Cracks Failure Patterns
Failure Patterns
Table 4 shows
Table thethe
4 shows observed cracks
observed and
cracks failure
and patterns
failure at at
patterns thethe
end of of
end thethe
testing. In In
testing.
 Materials 2022, 15, 6213 8 of 15

3. Experimental Results and Analysis

3.1. Observed Cracks and Failure Patterns
Table 4 shows the observed cracks and failure patterns at the end of the testing. In
the CU specimen, three types of cracks occurred, including flexural cracks, shear cracks,
and splitting cracks. The initial cracks were observed in the form of a flexural crack in the
bottom of the column at a drift ratio of 1%. Shear cracks occurred and developed in the
center of the column at a drift ratio of 2.2%. With the increase of loading, secondary cracks
developed between the existing cracks and gradually progressed into shear cracks. Then,
Materials
Materials
Materials
Materials 2022,
2022,
2022,
2022,15,
15,x15,
15, xFORxFOR
xFORFOR PEER
PEER
PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW concrete spalling was observed as the shear crack widths increased. At a drift ratio9 of 9of 92.75%,
9 of
ofof
16 1616
16
Materials
Materials
Materials 2022,
2022,
2022,15,
15,15,
x x x
FORFOR
FOR PEER
PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW the load reached the maximum load of 21.6 kN and vertical splitting cracks were 9produced 9 of 16 16
9 9
ofofof
16
16
Materials 2022,
Materials
Materials
Materials 15,
2022,
2022, 15,
2022, x15,
15,xFOR
xFOR PEER
xFOR
FOR REVIEW
PEER
PEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW in the compression zone. Then, the vertical splitting cracks widened and extended9 9upward.
REVIEW of
9of 16
9of161616
of
Severe
Table
Table
Table 4. 4.
4. cracks
Crack
Crack
Crack and concrete
patterns
patterns
patterns of ofof crushing
specimens
specimens
specimens at at
at occurred
failure.
failure.
failure.
Table 4. Crack patterns of specimens at failure. at the bottom of the column, which failed at
a
Table
Table drift
Table
Table 4.
4.4.4. ratio
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack of 4.5%.
patterns
patterns
patterns
patterns of
ofofof specimens
specimens
specimens
specimens at
atatat failure.
failure.
failure.
failure.
Specimens
Specimens
Specimens
Specimens Side
Side
Side
Side 1111 SideSide
Side2222
Side Side
Side
Side
Side 3333 Side
Side
Side
Side4444
Table
Table
Table 4.
Table4. Crack
4.
4. patterns
Crack
Crack
Crack
Specimens of
patterns
patterns of
patterns specimens
ofofspecimens
specimens at
specimens
Side at failure.
at
atfailure.
failure.
failure.
TableSpecimens
Specimens Side
4. Crack patterns of Side
Specimens Side1111 at failure.
specimens Side
Side2222
Side
Side Side
Side
Side
Side 3333 Side
Side4444
Side
Side
Specimens
Specimens
Specimens
Specimens Side
Side
Side1111
Side Side 2222
Side
Side
Side Side 3333
Side
Side
Side Side 4444
Side
Side
Side
Specimens Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4

CU
CUCU
CU
CU
CU CU
CU
CUCU
CU
CUCU

CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1

CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2

CJU1
CJU1CJU1
CJU1
CJU1 andand
and and
and
CJU2CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2 specimens
specimens
specimens
specimens
specimens retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted with
withwith
with
with the
the the
the
the proposed
proposed
proposed
proposed
proposed concrete
concrete
concrete
concrete
concrete jacketing
jacketing
jacketing
jacketing
jacketing showedshowed
showed
showed
showed
similarsimilar
similar
similar
similarCJU1 cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1 and
and and
and
and andand
and
and
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2 failure
failure
failure
failure
failure
CJU2 modes.
specimens modes.
modes.
modes.
modes.
specimens
specimens
specimens At At At
aAt
At a
adrift
retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted drift
adrift
drift
adrift ratio ratio
ratio
ratio
ratio
with
with
with
with of of
of
the
the of
of
0.25%,
the
the 0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%,
proposed
proposed
proposed flexural
flexural
flexural
flexural
flexural
proposed cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
concrete
concrete
concrete
concrete occurred
occurred
occurred
occurred
occurred
jacketing
jacketing
jacketing
jacketing inin
showedin
showed
showed in
in
the
the
showed the
the
the
plasticplastic
plastic
plastic
plastic
similar
similar
similar
similar hinge
hinge
hinge
hinge
hinge
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks region.
region.
region.
region.
region.
andand
and
and As As
As As
As
the
failure
failure
failure
failure the the
the
theload load
load
load
load
modes.
modes.
modes.
modes. At At
Atincreased,
increased,
increased,
increased,
increased,
At adrift
aadrift drift
adrift vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
ratio
ratio
ratio
ratio ofof
ofof splitting
splitting
splitting
splitting
splitting
0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%, cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks
flexural
flexural
flexural
flexural were were
were
were
were
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks observed
observed
observed
observed
observed
occurred
occurred
occurred
occurred ininin in
the
in
the the
the
the
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1 and
CJU1 and
andandCJU2
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2 specimens
specimens
specimens
specimens retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted
retrofitted with
with
with the
with the
the proposed
the proposed
proposed
proposed concrete
concrete
concrete
concrete jacketing
jacketing
jacketing
jacketing showed
showed
showed
showed
compression
compression
compression
compression
plastic
plastic
plastic
plastic
similar
similar
similar
similar hinge
hinge
hinge
hinge
cracks
cracks
cracks zone.
zone.
zone.
zone.
region.
region.
region.
cracks and
and
and
and AsConcrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
region. As
failureAsAs
failure
failure the
the
failure the
the load
modes.
modes.
modes. spalling
spalling
spalling
spalling
load
load
load
modes. and
increased,
At At and
aadrift
At
At and
and
increased,
increased,
increased,
adrift
adrift crushing
crushing
crushing
crushing
drift vertical
vertical
vertical
vertical
ratio
ratio
ratio
ratio of occurred
occurred
occurred
occurred
splitting
splitting
splitting
splitting
ofofof
0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%,
0.25%, at at
at at
the
the
cracks
cracks
cracks
flexural
flexural
flexural
flexuralthe
the
cracks bottom
bottom
bottom
bottom
were
were
were
were
cracks
cracks
cracks
cracks ofofof
observedof
the
observed
observed
occurred
occurred
occurred the
the
thecolumn
observed
occurred column
column
column
inin
inininin
the
the
in the
the
the
the the
inininin
the
thethe
the
CJU1
compression
compression
compression
plastic
plastic
plastic
plastic CJU1
CJU1
CJU1
compression
hinge
hinge
hinge
hinge specimen
specimen
specimen
specimen
zone.
zone.
zone.
zone.
region.
region.
region. atatat
Concrete
region. a
Concrete
Concrete
AsAsAs at
the
As a
Concrete a
the
the a
drift
the drift
drift
driftratio
spallingratio
ratio
ratio
spalling
spalling
spalling
load
load
load
load ofofof
and
and
increased, of
3.5%
and
increased,
increased,
increased, 3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
and and
and
crushingand
and
crushing
crushing
vertical in
crushing in
vertical
vertical
verticalinin
the
thethe
theCJU2
occurred
occurred
occurred
splitting CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
occurred
splitting
splitting
splitting atat
at
cracks specimen
specimen
specimen
specimen
at
the
the the
the
cracks
cracks
cracks at
bottom
bottom
bottom
were
were
were
were at
at
bottom aat
ofaa
of
observedofa
driftdrift
drift
drift
of
the
the
observed
observed the
observedratio
the ratio
ratio
ratio
column
column
column
in of
column
the
ininin ofof
of
the
the the
2.2%. 2.2%.
2.2%.
2.2%.
ininin
theBoth
the
incompression
the
compression
compressionBoth
Both
Both
the CJU1
CJU1
compression specimens
specimens
specimens
specimens
CJU1
CJU1 specimen
specimen
specimen
specimen
zone.
zone.
zone. at reached
reached
reached
reached
aat
atat
Concrete
zone. Concrete
Concrete adrift
Concrete the
adriftthe
adrift the
the
drift
ratio
ratio
ratio
spalling
spalling
spalling
spalling maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
ratio
ofof
and of
of3.5%
and
and load
3.5%
3.5%
3.5% load
load
load
and
and
crushing
and at
and
and
crushing
crushing at
in
crushing at
inaat
in a
the a
athe
inthe
occurreddrift
drift
drift
drift
theratio
CJU2
CJU2
CJU2
occurred
occurred
occurred ratio
ratio
ratio
CJU2
atat of ofof
8%,
of 8%,
specimen8%,
8%,
specimen
specimen
the
atatthe
the and
specimenand
bottom
the and
and
atatat
bottom
bottom
bottom aof
aof concrete
concrete
concrete
concrete
at aof
aof drift
drift
drift
drift
the crush-
ratio crush-
crush-
crush-
ratio
ratio
ratio
column
the
the
the column
column
columnofofofof
ing
ing
2.2%.
ininining
ing
2.2%.
the
inat
2.2%. at
at
2.2%. at
the
Both
CJU1
the
thethe the
the
the
Both
Both
Both bottom
bottom
bottom
bottom
specimens
specimens
CJU1
CJU1
CJU1specimen of
specimensof
specimens
specimen
specimen of
specimen of
the
the the
the
reached
reached
atatat
aat column
column
column
column
reached
reached
adrift the
the
adrift
adrift the
the
drift widened.
widened.
widened.
widened.
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
ratio
ratio
ratio ofofof
ratio 3.5%
of Then,
load
3.5%
3.5% and
3.5% Then,
Then,
Then,
load
load
loadat
and
andandthe
atthe
at
aat
a
ininin the
the
a
inload
a load
load
load
drift
drift
drift
drift
thethe
the CJU2ratio
CJU2
theCJU2ratio
ratio
CJU2 gradually
gradually
gradually
gradually
ratio
ofofof
of8%,
8%,
specimen 8%,
8%,
specimen
specimen
specimenand
and
and decreased,
decreased,
decreased,
decreased,
and concrete
atatat concrete
concrete
aat
adrift
adrift and
concrete
adrift and and
and the
crush-
ratio
drift crush-
crush-
ratio
ratio
ratio ofthe
ofthe
the
crush-ofof
experiment
experiment
experiment was was
was terminated.
terminated.
terminated.
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 9 of 15

compression zone. Concrete spalling and crushing occurred at the bottom of the column in
the CJU1 specimen at a drift ratio of 3.5% and in the CJU2 specimen at a drift ratio of 2.2%.
Both specimens reached the maximum load at a drift ratio of 8%, and concrete crushing at
the bottom of the column widened. Then, the load gradually decreased, and the experiment
was terminated.
In the CU specimen, more diagonal cracks appeared, and the angle of cracks became
larger than for CJU1 and CJU2. This means that the failure modes of the CU specimens
developed from flexural failure to torsional failure with the increase in torsional loading.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Since the specimens retrofitted with a concrete jacket effectively resisted the torsional load,
the specimens showed dominant flexural behavior. In addition, fewer cracks occur in
the specimens retrofitted with concrete jacketing than in the CU specimen, which may be
fiber acts as
attributed to athe
bridge to mitigate
contribution an steel
of the increase
fiberintocrack
crackwidth
control.through
This ispull-out
becauseresistance
the steel
fiber
afteracts as aoccur
cracks bridge to mitigate an increase in crack width through pull-out resistance after
[11,12].
cracks occur [11,12].
3.2. Load–Displacement Relationships
3.2. Load–Displacement Relationships
The hysteresis curves and skeleton curves are shown in Figure 7. All specimens
The ahysteresis
showed curves
linear elastic and skeleton
behavior before the curves are shown
development in Figure
of flexural 7. All
cracks. CUspecimens
exhibited
showed
relatively narrow hysteresis loops compared to CJU1 and CJU2. In the case of exhibited
a linear elastic behavior before the development of flexural cracks. CU CU, shear
relatively narrowathysteresis
cracks occurred 15 kN andloops compared
longitudinal barstoyielded
CJU1 and CJU2.
at 18.3 kN.In the case
It was ofafter
failed CU, reach-
shear
cracks occurred at 15 kN and longitudinal bars yielded at 18.3 kN. It
ing the maximum load of 21.6 kN. CJU1 and CJU2 showed significantly larger maximum was failed after reach-
ing thecomparing
loads maximum with load CU.
of 21.6
In kN. CJU1ofand
the case CJU2
CJU1, showed significantly
longitudinal bars yielded,larger
andmaximum
maximum
loads
load was recorded at 198 kN. There are similar behavior patterns between CJU1maximum
comparing with CU. In the case of CJU1, longitudinal bars yielded, and and CJU2.
load
The was recordedbars
longitudinal at 198 kN. There
yielded, andare similar behavior
maximum load waspatterns
recordedbetween
at 185.2CJU1
kN inand CJU2.
CJU2. In
The longitudinal bars yielded, and maximum load was recorded at 185.2 kN in CJU2. In
CU, the maximum load was reached after the yielding of the longitudinal bar, whereas in
CU, the maximum load was reached after the yielding of the longitudinal bar, whereas
CJU1 and CJU2, the maximum load was recorded simultaneously with the yield of the
in CJU1 and CJU2, the maximum load was recorded simultaneously with the yield of the
longitudinal bar. In addition, CJU1 and CJU2 specimens reached the maximum load while
longitudinal bar. In addition, CJU1 and CJU2 specimens reached the maximum load while
resisting the load of more cycles after the concrete spalling.
resisting the load of more cycles after the concrete spalling.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure7.7.Hysteresis
Figure Hysteresisenvelope
envelope curves:
curves: (a)(a)
CU;CU;
(b)(b) CJU1;
CJU1; (c) CJU2;
(c) CJU2; (d) Skeleton
(d) Skeleton curves
curves of all of all speci-
specimens.
mens.

The maximum load and displacement for the positive and negative directions are
shown in Table 5. The only difference between CJU1 and CJU2 is the yield and ultimate
strength, but the difference was not significant. The maximum loads of CJU1 and CJU2
were 8.91 times and 8.32 times that of CU, respectively. In addition, the maximum dis-
placement of each of these two proposed columns was 1.88 times that of CU, so it was
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 10 of 15

The maximum load and displacement for the positive and negative directions are
shown in Table 5. The only difference between CJU1 and CJU2 is the yield and ultimate
strength, but the difference was not significant. The maximum loads of CJU1 and CJU2 were
8.91 times and 8.32 times that of CU, respectively. In addition, the maximum displacement
of each of these two proposed columns was 1.88 times that of CU, so it was confirmed that
the retrofit technique effectively enhances the strength and deformation capacity of the
column. On the other hand, the maximum load of CJU1 was about 1.1 times that of CJU2,
confirming the similar performance of Type 1 and Type 2 in terms of strength improvement.
Through this, both the dowel bar of Type 1 and the hook-shaped SGR coupling details for
imposing additional confinement between the existing column and the jacketed section can
produce a restraining effect, and it is considered possible that the SGR of Type 2 provides
an appropriate confinement effect without additional dowel bar reinforcement.

Table 5. Test results.

ACI
Yield Point Ultimate Point Failure Point Mtest
Specimen 318-19 Mtest /Mn
(kNm)
Mn Py (kN) ∆y (mm) Pu (kN) ∆u (mm) Pf (kN) ∆f (mm)
CU +18.56 38.56 +22.26 79.08 −22.26 79.08 39.49 0.54
CJU1 73.02 +198.32 140.08 +198.32 140.08 +168.57 148.76 344.77 4.72
CJU2 +185.23 139.49 +185.23 139.49 +130.51 148.76 313.90 4.30
+: positive loading. −: negative loading.

The predicted moment capacity Mn of RC column is determined according to the ACI

318-19 [8]. The experimental value is the average of positive and negative moments.
  n
h a h
Mn = Cc − + ∑ Fsi ( − di ) (1)
2 2 i =1
2

Fsi = Asi · f si (2)

where Cc = the compressive force in the concrete; Asi = the areas in each layer of longitu-
dinal reinforcement; di = the depth to ith layer of steel; f si = the stresses in each layer of
reinforcement; Fsi = the forces in each layer of reinforcement; ε si = strain in the ith layer of
reinforcement.
It is presented that the ACI equation overestimates the experimental value because
the lateral force with eccentricity was applied, and the torsion occurred. However, both
CJU1 and CJU2 showed moment more than four times greater than the design moment.
This means that the proposed concrete jacket can significantly improve the performance of
the existing RC columns.

3.3. Stiffness Degradation

In this study, the stiffness of each specimen was evaluated by Equation (3), referring
to Vandoros et al. [4].   
 + Fi   − Fi 

Ki =    +   /2 (3)
+ ∆i   − ∆i 
Here, Ki means the stiffness at the i-th drift ratio. ± Fi means the maximum load
in the positive and negative directions at the i-th drift ratio. ±∆i means the maximum
displacement in the positive and negative directions at the i-th drift ratio.
All stiffnesses were calculated with the result of the first cycle of each drift ratio. The
stiffness of each specimen and degradation patterns are shown in Table 6 and Figure 8,
respectively. The points are divided by the occurrence of the initial crack, the occurrence of
the shear crack, the occurrence of concrete spalling, and the maximum drift ratio of CU. The
initial stiffness was 1.1 kN/mm, 15.81 kN/mm, and 13.27 kN/mm for CU, CJU1, and CJU2,
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 11 of 15

respectively. The initial stiffnesses of CJU1 and CJU2 were about 12 times and 14 times
higher than CU, respectively. At the drift ratio where the initial shear crack occurred,
the stiffnesses of CU, CJU1, and CJU2 were 48%, 67%, and 60% of the initial stiffness,
respectively. At the time of concrete spalling, the stiffnesses of CU, CJU1, and CJU2 were
42%, 52%, and 50% of the initial stiffnesses, respectively. The stiffness at the drift ratio of
4.5%, where the experiment on CU was terminated, is compared to the initial stiffness. It
was confirmed that CU, CJU1, and CJU2 showed about 21%, 35%, and 38% of their initial
stiffnesses, respectively. The stiffnesses of CJU1 and CJU2 increased about 16% and 15% on
average compared to CU, respectively. In the case of CU, the stiffness degradation rates
compared to the initial stiffnesses were about 20% on average, and those of CJU1 and CJU2
were both about 16%. The difference in the stiffness degradation rate of CU, CJU1, and
CJU2 spanned a range of about 4%, and it was presented that the performance of reducing
the stiffness degradation rate using the proposed detail did not significantly increase.

Table 6. The stiffnesses of specimens.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW Yield Point Ultimate Point Failure Point12 of 16
Specimen Pu ∆u Pf
Py (kN) ∆y (mm) ∆f (mm)
(kN) (mm) (kN)
CJU1, and CJU2 38.56
CU spanned a range
20.29of about22.26
4%, and it was presented−that
79.08 22.26the performance
79.08
CJU1 198.32 140.08 198.32 140.08 168.57 148.76
of reducing the stiffness degradation rate using the proposed detail did not significantly
CJU2
increase. 185.23 139.49 185.23 139.49 130.51 148.76

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the stiffness
stiffness degradation
degradation of
of specimens.
specimens.

TableThe
6. The stiffnesses
proposed of specimens.
details increase the initial stiffness of reinforced concrete columns
by about 13 times and effectively prevent the decrease in stiffness when cracks occur.
Yield Point Ultimate Point Failure Point
Compared to CJU2, CJU1 showed a relatively small decrease in stiffness up to the time
Specimen 𝑷𝒖 ∆𝒖 𝑷𝒇
𝑷𝒚 (kN)
of concrete spalling, ∆𝒚 (mm)
but it was ∆𝒇 (mm)
confirmed that the difference in stiffness degradation
(kN) (mm) (kN)
between the two specimens decreased as the load increased. Until concrete spalling, the
dowelCU bar of CJU138.56
secures the20.29
monolithic 22.26
behavior of 79.08
the existing −22.26
column and 79.08
jacketed
CJU1
section, 198.32
and the hook-shaped 140.08
SGR of CJU2198.32 140.08
increases the restraining168.57
strength and148.76
reduces
CJU2
stiffness 185.23
degradation. 139.49 185.23 139.49 130.51 148.76

3.4. Strains of Reinforcements

The proposed details increase the initial stiffness of reinforced concrete columns by
about In13 times
order to and effectively
improve preventperformance
the effective the decreaseofinconcrete
stiffnessjacketing,
when cracks occur. Com-
it is necessary to
pared to
secure theCJU2,
bondCJU1 showed a relatively
and confinement betweensmall decrease
the existing in stiffness
member up jacketed
and the to the time of con-
section. If
crete
the spalling,
proper but it wasand
confinement confirmed thatcolumns
bond of the the difference in stiffness
retrofitted degradation
by jacketing are not between
secured,
the contact
the two specimens
surface decreased as the load
may be destroyed dueincreased. Until
to bond slip concretethe
between spalling, the dowel
faces [13,14]. bar
In this
of CJU1
study, to secures
evaluatethethemonolithic
bond and behavior of the
confinement existingofcolumn
behavior and jacketed
the concrete jacketedsection, and
specimens,
the
the strains of longitudinal
hook-shaped SGR of CJU2rebars and stirrups
increases are respectively
the restraining strength shown in Figure
and reduces 9. Strain
stiffness deg-
gauges
radation.were attached at locations 150 mm from the bottom of the column to measure the

3.4. Strains of Reinforcements

In order to improve the effective performance of concrete jacketing, it is necessary to
secure the bond and confinement between the existing member and the jacketed section.
 Materials 2022, 15, 6213 12 of 15

strain of the longitudinal rebars. The R and S series of the strains are longitudinal rebars and
stirrups of old columns, the RM and SM series are longitudinal and transverse bars of the
SGR, respectively. The strain at the point of maximum load of each specimen was identified
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
with a red mark. As shown in Figure 9a, the longitudinal rebars of the old column 13 of 16
and
longitudinal rebars of the SGRs of CJU1 and CJU2 yielded at the point of maximum load,
and the strain increase before yield was similar. It is presented that the existing column
and jacketed section behave monolithically until the maximum load is reached.

(a)

(b)
Figure 9. Strains
Figure of reinforcements:
9. Strains (a) longitudinal
of reinforcements: reinforcements;
(a) longitudinal (b) transverse
reinforcements; reinforcements.
(b) transverse reinforcements.

As shown in Figure
As shown 9b, in9b,
in Figure allin
specimens, a similar
all specimens, pattern
a similar was observed
pattern in which
was observed the the
in which
strainstrain
of theofstirrups of the
the stirrups of old
the column
old column increased as the
increased applied
as the load
applied increased.
load increased.Addition-
Additionally,
ally, the strain
strainof ofthe
thetransverse
transversebars barsof of
thethe
SGR SGRgradually
gradually increased as the
increased as lateral load increased.
the lateral load
However,
increased. in theinjacketed
However, section,
the jacketed a different
section, pattern
a different waswas
pattern observed
observed forfor
thethe
strain
strainof the
of thetransverse
transverse reinforcement
reinforcement of of
SGRSGR in CJU1.
in CJU1.In the casecase
In the of CJU1, although
of CJU1, althoughthe transverse
the trans- bars
of the SGR did not yield until the maximum load, it was
verse bars of the SGR did not yield until the maximum load, it was confirmed that confirmed that the dowel thebar of
dowel CJU1
bar yielded
of CJU1after increasing
yielded strain untilstrain
after increasing the maximum
until theload. The dowel
maximum load.resist
The shear
dowelloads
resistdue
shearto slip
loads between
due to theslipold column
between theand
oldthe jacketed
column andsection. Therefore,
the jacketed the stress
section. due to the
Therefore,
the stress due to the shear load was concentrated on the dowel. Since the shear stress were
well distributed by the dowel, the strain of the transverse reinforcement of SGR increased
as the load increased.
In both CJU1 and CJU2, the jacket reinforcement bars in SGR did not buckle before
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 13 of 15

shear load was concentrated on the dowel. Since the shear stress were well distributed by
the dowel, the strain of the transverse reinforcement of SGR increased as the load increased.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW In both CJU1 and CJU2, the jacket reinforcement bars in SGR did not buckle 14 before
of 16
reaching the maximum load. This is because, without welding, the dowel bar or hooked
SGR worked effectively and provided adequate confinement effect. In the case of CJU2, the
coupling details
the coupling of the
details of Type 2 hook-shaped
the Type 2 hook-shapedSGRSGRexerted a confinement
exerted effect,
a confinement considering
effect, consid-
that
eringthe transverse
that bars of
the transverse SGR
bars of yielded at theatmaximum
SGR yielded load.load.
the maximum On the
Onother hand,
the other in the
hand, in
case of CU, the stirrups yielded before the point of maximum load, which is
the case of CU, the stirrups yielded before the point of maximum load, which is thought thought to
be the result of the torsion occurring as the magnitude of the lateral load with eccentricity
to be the result of the torsion occurring as the magnitude of the lateral load with eccen-
increased, and the external stirrups did not sufficiently resist torsion and shear.
tricity increased, and the external stirrups did not sufficiently resist torsion and shear.
3.5. Energy Dissipation
3.5. Energy Dissipation
In this study, the energy dissipation capacity of each specimen was calculated by
In this
Equation (4)study, the to
referring energy
Troung dissipation capacity
et al. [15], and it ofis each specimen
the area of thewasfirstcalculated by
cycle of the
Equation (4) load–displacement
bidirectional referring to Troungcurve. et al. [15], and it is the area of the first cycle of the bidi-
rectional load–displacement curve.
ED = ∑ Fi ∆i (4)
𝐸 = 𝐹∆ (4)
Here, ED represents the energy dissipated for each cycle of the load–displacement
hysteresis 𝐸 represents
Here,curve. the energy
Fi is the average valuedissipated for each
of lateral loads cycle ofand
of positive thenegative
load–displacement
direction of
hysteresis curve. 𝐹 is the average value of lateral loads of positive
the i-th drift ratio. ∆i is the average value of the displacements in the positive and negative
and direction
negative
of the i-th drift ratio. ∆
direction of the i-th drift ratio. is the average value of the displacements in the positive and
negative direction of the i-th drift ratio.
The increase in the energy dissipation capacity of each specimen according to the
The in
increase increase in ratio
the drift the energy
is shown dissipation
in Figurecapacity
10. All of each specimen
specimens showed according
a tendencyto the
to
increase in the drift ratio is shown in Figure 10. All specimens showed
gradually increase their energy dissipation capacity as the drift ratio increased. The a tendency to grad-
cu-
ually increase
mulative energy their energy dissipation
dissipation capacitiescapacity
up to the as point
the drift
of ratio increased.
failure The cumulative
of CU, CJU1, and CJU2
energy
were dissipation
2181.94 kN·mm, capacities
69,263.57 upkNto the point
·mm, andof47,091.86
failure ofkN CU, CJU1,
·mm, and CJU2 were
respectively. The 2181.94
energy
kN∙mm, 69,263.57
dissipation resultskN∙mm,
of CJU1and and47,091.86
CJU2 below kN∙mm, respectively.
the drift The energy
ratio of 4.5% were 9.16dissipation
times andre-
sults of CJU1 and CJU2 below the drift ratio of 4.5% were 9.16 times
8.67 times larger than that of CU, respectively. At the drift ratio of 4.5%, the energy dis-and 8.67 times larger
than thatcapacity
sipation of CU, respectively.
of CJU1 wasAt the drift
about 1.06 ratio
timesofthat
4.5%, the energy
of CJU2, dissipation
and the cumulative capacity
energyof
CJU1 was about 1.06 times that of CJU2, and the cumulative energy
dissipation capacity of CJU1 was about 1.4 times that of CJU2 at the drift ratio of 8.5%. Asdissipation
acapacity of CJU1
result, there waswas about 1.4 times
no significant that of
difference in CJU2
energy atdissipation
the drift ratio of 8.5%.
capacity As a result,
between CJU1
thereCJU2.
and was no significant difference in energy dissipation capacity between CJU1 and CJU2.

Figure 10. Cumulative

Figure 10. Cumulative dissipated
dissipated energy
energy for
for all
all specimens.
specimens.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this study, two types of jacketing details that can improve both structural capacity
In this study, two types of jacketing details that can improve both structural capacity
and the constructability were proposed. In order to evaluate the structural performance
and the constructability were proposed. In order to evaluate the structural performance
of the RC columns retrofitted with the proposed concrete jacketing, cyclic loading tests
of the RC columns retrofitted with the proposed concrete jacketing, cyclic loading tests
were conducted in consideration of axial load, lateral load, and torsion. The following
were conducted in consideration of axial load, lateral load, and torsion. The following
conclusions have been drawn:
conclusions have been drawn:
(1) In the case of CU, it was confirmed that many shear cracks due to torsion were dis-
tributed. On the other hand, for CJU1 and CJU2, transverse cracks were evenly dis-
tributed along the column. Concrete cover spalling and crushing at the bottom of the
column occurred somewhat, but the increases in the widths of the cracks were insig-
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 14 of 15

(1) In the case of CU, it was confirmed that many shear cracks due to torsion were
distributed. On the other hand, for CJU1 and CJU2, transverse cracks were evenly
distributed along the column. Concrete cover spalling and crushing at the bottom of
the column occurred somewhat, but the increases in the widths of the cracks were
insignificant because of confinement effect provided by the proposed concrete jacket.
Therefore, it has been demonstrated that proposed details, in combination with SGR,
SWM, and SFNM, effectively resisted combined loading.
(2) The maximum load of CJU1 and CJU2 was about 8 times larger than that of CU and the
initial stiffnesses of CJU1 and CJU2 were about 13 times larger than CU, respectively.
It has been demonstrated that the strength and stiffness can be significantly improved
by proposed concrete jacket details.
(3) The yield of the longitudinal reinforcement of the old column of the CJU1 and CJU2
was confirmed. Additionally, the separation of the jacket from the old column was not
observed even if there was no surface treatment, and the role of the contact interface
between the old column and new concrete layer was performed by SWM.
(4) RC columns retrofitted with the proposed details achieved significant increases in
load carrying capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation. The jacketed section with
proposed details is constructed only by assembling the pre-fabricated reinforcement
without surface treatment process. Simple details and easy installation can help
practitioners to apply it easily. According to the current study, similar performance
was exhibited regardless of the details. It is recommended to use concrete jacket
details with hooked type without drilling and dowel fixing.

Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, M.S.K.; Writing—review & editing, Y.H.L. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A2C2009351).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Julio, E.S.; Branco, F.; Silva, V.D. Reinforced concrete jacketing-interface influence on monotonic loading response. ACI Struct. J.
2005, 102, 252–257.
2. Julio, E.S.; Branco, F.; Silva, V.D. Reinforced concrete jacketing-interface influence on cyclic loading response. ACI Struct. J. 2008,
105, 471–477.
3. Raza, S.; Khan, M.K.; Menegon, S.J.; Tsang, H.H.; Wilson, J.L. Strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete columns by
jacketing: State-of-the-art review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208.
4. Vandoros, K.G.; Dritsos, S.E. Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness when strengthening RC columns. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2008, 22, 264–276. [CrossRef]
5. Sun, Y.; Zhang, X. Study on the Seismic Performance of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Columns Based on the Experiment.
Geofluids 2021, 2021, 6663745. [CrossRef]
6. Tayeh, B.A.; Maraq, M.A.A.; Ziara, M.M. Flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with self-compacting
concrete jacketing and steel welded wire mesh. Structures 2020, 28, 2146–2162. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, K.H.; Kim, W.W. Axial compression performance of reinforced concrete short columns with supplementary v-shaped ties.
ACI Struct. J. 2016, 113, 1347. [CrossRef]
8. ACI318-19; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farmington
Hills, MI, USA, 2019.
9. KDS 14 20 50; Design Specification of Steel Reinforcement Details for Concrete Structure. Korean Design Standards, Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong-si, Korea, 2021.
10. ACI374.1-05; Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary. American Concrete Institute:
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
Materials 2022, 15, 6213 15 of 15

11. Gholampour, A.; Hassanli, R.; Mills, J.E.; Vincent, T.; Kunieda, M. Experimental investigation of the performance of concrete
columns strengthened with fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 194, 51–61. [CrossRef]
12. Dadvar, S.A.; Mostofinejad, D.; Bahmani, H. Strengthening of RC columns by ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) jacketing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 235, 117485. [CrossRef]
13. Suarjana, M.; Octora, D.D.; Riyansyah, M. Seismic Performance of RC Hollow Rectangular Bridge Piers Retrofitted by Concrete
Jacketing Considering the Initial Load and Interface Slip. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2020, 52, 343. [CrossRef]
14. Thermou, G.E.; Papanikolaou, V.K.; Kappos, A.J. Flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete jacketed columns under reversed
cyclic loading. Eng. Struct. 2014, 76, 270–282. [CrossRef]
15. Truong, G.T.; Kim, J.C.; Choi, K.K. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted by various techniques. Eng.
Struct. 2017, 134, 217–235. [CrossRef]