Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Seismic performance of ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets

A. Niroomandi a , A. Maheri b,∗ , Mahmoud R. Maheri c , S.S. Mahini d
a
Centre for Seismic Retrofitting of Shiraz University, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northumbria University, UK
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Iran
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: This paper reports on the results of an investigation into the effectiveness of FRP retrofitting the joints
Received 26 October 2009 in enhancing the seismic performance level and the seismic behaviour factor (R) of ordinary RC frames.
Received in revised form The flexural stiffness of FRP retrofitted joints of the frame is first determined using nonlinear analyses
13 March 2010
of detailed FE models of RC-joint–FRP composite. The retrofitted joint stiffness is then implemented into
Accepted 1 April 2010
Available online 6 May 2010
the FE model of the frame in order to carry out nonlinear static (pushover) analyses on the FRP retrofitted
frame. The seismic performance level and R-factor components of the retrofitted frame are then compared
Keywords:
with those of the original frame and the same frame retrofitted with steel bracings, reported previously.
FRP The results show that the performance level and the seismic behaviour factor of the FRP retrofitted RC
Seismic retrofitting frame are significantly enhanced in comparison with the original frame and are comparable with those
RC frames of the steel-braced frame. It is also found that using FRP at joints may upgrade an ordinary RC frame to an
Seismic behaviour factor (R) intermediate and even a high ductility frame.
Performance level © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ductility
Performance-based design
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis
Web-bonded FRP retrofitting
Steel bracing

1. Introduction including brittle debonding failure and the methods to overcome

The use of FRP sheets to create composite concrete structures
has increased in recent years. This is particularly true for seismic
upgrading of existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures, many
of which were designed for gravity loads only or according to the
old codes of practice. FRP materials have several advantages over
steel: they are lightweight with superior strength and stiffness-
to-weight ratios, they have a relatively high corrosion resistance,
and FRP sheets can be moulded to concrete surfaces. The seismic
retrofit strategy for an RC frame may include strengthening
deficient members such as beams, columns and beam–column
joints to increase strength, stiffness and/or ductility and to enhance
the overall seismic performance of the frame by increasing lateral
strength, reducing drift and/or increasing ductility. In the last
decade, a vast amount of research has been carried out on the FRP
retrofit of RC frame members, such as beams [1–7] and columns
[7–12], all indicating the effectiveness of the retrofit technique and
some highlighting certain problems associated with the technique
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 191 227 3860; fax: +44 191 227 3598.
E-mail address: Alireza.Maheri@northumbria.ac.uk (A. Maheri).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.008
these problems [13–15].
Beam–column joints are also crucial components of a frame
both in terms of structural stability and its seismic performance.
In a numerical study, Parvin and Granata [16] showed that when
joints of an RC frame were reinforced with FRP laminates, the
moment capacity was increased by around 37%. Antonopoulos and
Triantafillou [14] developed analytical models for the analysis of
RC joints strengthened by FRP strips or fabric. Their models provide
equations for stresses and strains at various stages of the response
to failure by either concrete crushing or FRP fracture or debonding.
They concluded that the effectiveness of the FRP retrofitting
scheme increases considerably if debonding is suppressed and
depends heavily on the distribution of layers in the beams and
columns. Li et al. [17] conducted both experimental and numerical
studies on the behaviour of concrete beam–column connections
reinforced with hybrid FRP sheets. Their analysis results showed
that the designed hybrid FRP reinforcement greatly improves the
stiffness and load carrying capacity of the joint; it also delays the
crack initiation at the joint through FRP confinement. Mahini
and Ronagh [18] used web-bonded FRP sheets for strengthening
of exterior beam–column joints. They tested the effectiveness of
web-bonded CFRP on energy absorption capacity of 1/2.2 scale
 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
RC joints, in order to evaluate the possibility of relocating the
plastic hinge away from the column face. Their experimental
studies showed that the FRP repairing/retrofitting system can
restore/upgrade the integrity of the joint, keeping/upgrading its
strength, stiffness and ductility, as well as, shifting the plastic
hinge from the column facing further into the beam, in such a way
that the joint remains elastic. The practicality and effectiveness
of using web-bonded FRPs on plastic hinge relocation has also
been reported by Smith and Shrestha [19]. In another study,
Mostofinejad and Talaeitaba [20] proposed a finite element model
for the nonlinear analysis of RC joints covered with FRP overlays.
Their results showed that good ductility and improved strength are
achieved by employing appropriate FRP sheets.
Despite the large amount of research conducted on the
behaviour of different RC frame components retrofitted with FRP,
little research has been carried out on the behaviour of FRP
retrofitted RC frames. In an experimental study, Balsamo et al. [21]
evaluated the seismic behaviour of a full-scale RC frame repaired
using CFRP laminates. They indicated that the repaired frame
had a large displacement capacity without exhibiting any loss of
strength, while providing almost the same energy dissipation of
the original frame. In another experimental study Di Ludovico
et al. [22] carried out bi-directional seismic tests on an under-
designed, full-scale RC frame and repeated the tests on the
same frame after retrofitting it at joints and columns by FRP.
Their experimental results showed the effectiveness of the FRP
retrofitted configuration in improving the global performance
of the structure in terms of ductility and energy dissipation
capacity and enhancing its load capacity by 50%. In a numerical
study, Zou et al. [23] presented an optimization technique for
the performance-based seismic FRP retrofit design of RC building
frames. Their numerical studies showed that the seismic resistance
of an RC frame designed for gravity loads only can be substantially
enhanced through confinement of columns using FRP jackets. They
indicated that FRP confinement increases the strength of columns
but has little effect on their stiffness, which is an important
advantage in seismic retrofit, as larger stiffness lead to higher
seismic forces. In a recent study, Niroomandi and Maheri [24]
also studied the effects of FRP retrofitting the joints on improving
structural ductility of ordinary RC frames.
The main objective of the current study is to investigate
the effects of strengthening the joints by FRP sheets on the
seismic performance level and the seismic behaviour factor (R)
parameters of ordinary RC frames. The retrofit scheme considered
here is the CFRP web-bonding of the frame joints. The full web-
bonding of the beam considered is similar to the scheme used
previously by a number of investigators including those reported in
[13,14,16,20,25]. The scheme does not allow for the presence of
an integrated RC slab. It, however, can be used for RC frames
supporting non-integrated composite slabs and roofs as well as
frames with integrated RC slabs having low slab–beam thickness
ratios. The seismic performance level and R-factor components
including the ductility reduction factor and the over-strength
factor are extracted from nonlinear static (pushover) analyses of
the frame. The nonlinear pushover analysis is known to represent
well the seismic performance of structures. Di Ludovico et al. [22]
carried out pushover analysis on the numerical models of the FRP
retrofitted frame they tested under bi-directional seismic loading
and obtained results close to the experimental results, indicating
the effectiveness of the nonlinear pushover analysis.
In this paper, a two-dimensional, eight-storey, three-bay, exist-
ing RC moment resisting frame, which was retrofitted by Maheri
and Akbari [26] using a steel bracing system, is retrofitted again at
joints with web-bonded CFRP sheets and the results of nonlinear
pushover analyses are compared with those of the original frame
and the steel-braced frame. The retrofitted joints stiffness in the
2327
form of moment–rotation relation is first determined in detailed FE
modelling of the composite joints and the results are then utilised
to carry out nonlinear pushover analysis of the full frame to eval-
uate its force–displacement capacity curve. The capacity curve is
then utilised to evaluate the seismic performance parameters of
the frame.
2. Nonlinear finite element analyses of retrofitted joints
Due to complexity of the composite behaviour of FRP and
RC members, presenting an appropriate numerical model for the
nonlinear analysis of FRP retrofitted joints is of great importance.
In the following, such a model is developed using ANSYS
software [27] and verified against experimental data provided by
Mahini and Ronagh [18]. In the nonlinear finite element model,
both geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity are taken
into account. The concrete was modelled using an eight-node
solid element, specially designed for concrete material (ANSYS
element solid65). This element is capable of handling plasticity,
creep, cracking in tension and crushing in compression. As for
the failure criterion, the five-parameter William–Varnk model
was used. This model is able to account for the cracking of
concrete in tension and crushing of concrete in compression;
furthermore, it uses a smeared crack model. The longitudinal and
transverse reinforcements have been modelled using a series of
two-node link elements (ANSYS element link8). The FRP sheet
is also modelled using an eight-node three-dimensional multi-
layered solid element (ANSYS element solid45). This element has
translational stiffness but no bending stiffness. It also uses an
anisotropic material. The material uses a bilinear stress–strain
curve in both compression and tension and in any of the Cartesian
directions. Although FRP material is linear elastic, a number
of investigators have reported that the above-described solid45
element is the most suitable element in the ANSYS software to
model the behaviour of FRP [16,20]. A control on the maximum
stresses in the FRP material obtained in the present study shows,
however, that the FRP material did not reach the specified yield
point in the bilinear model and it had indeed remained linear
elastic throughout. To perform the nonlinear analysis, the load was
applied step by step and the modified Newton–Raphson method
was used for the solution.
To eliminate the problem of debonding of FRP laminates in the
FE analysis, i.e., the effects of local failure due to shear or normal
stress concentrations at the end of the laminates, the maximum
strain in FRP sheets was checked to ensure that it is less than
the limiting quantities suggested by ACI 440.2-2008 [28]. The ACI
440.2 adopts a model for FRP debonding which is similar to the
one proposed by Chen and Teng [29] and Teng et al. [30]. The
model limits the effective strain in the FRP laminate to prevent the
intermediate crack induced debonding failure mode. The limiting
value for the effective FRP strain is given by:
s
fc0
εfd = 0.41 ≤ 0.9εfu (1)
n.Ef .tf
where, εfd is the maximum strain allowed in the FRP laminate to
prevent debonding, fc0 is the 28 days standard concrete cylinder
compressive strength, Ef and tf are the elastic modulus and the
thickness of the FRP laminate, respectively and n is the number of
laminate layers. A full review of bond strength of FRP laminates to
concrete may be found in the state-of-the-art review presented by
Sayed-Ahmed et al. [31].
To verify the accuracy of the numerical model, an experimental
study conducted on a retrofitted exterior RC joint by Mahini and
Ronagh [18] was selected. The retrofitted joint tested by Mahini
and Ronagh is shown in Fig. 1. Characteristics of FRP sheets used
2328 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
Table 1
Mechanical properties of CFRP sheets used for FE modelling.
In fibers direction Ex = 240,000
Modulus of elasticity
Perpendicular to fibers Ey = 18,581
(MPa)
direction Ez = 18,581
In fibers direction σx0 = 3900
Tensile strength (MPa) Perpendicular to fibers σy0 = 53.7
direction σz0 = 53.7
Fig. 1. Details of the CFRP retrofitted joint tested by Mahini and Ronagh [18].
by Mahini and Ronagh [18] and adopted here are given in Table 1.
It should be noted that the characteristics given in Table 1 satisfy
the consistency conditions necessary for a non-isotropic material
such as ANISO in the analysis as described in ANSYS manual and
also stated by Kachlakev et al. [32]. Also, the compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity of concrete were respectively measured
as 41 MPa and 30.9 GPa and the yield strengths of the longitudinal
bars and shear reinforcements in the beam–column joint were
measured as 500 MPa and 382 MPa, respectively [18]. The beam
tip load–displacement curve extracted from the nonlinear FE
analysis of the present study is compared with that obtained
from the experiment [18] in Fig. 2. Taking into consideration the
fact that the numerical FE models are generally stiffer than their
physical counterparts, the two curves compare well, indicating the
reliability of the FE model.
In a number of experimental and numerical studies, Maheri
et al. [26,33] investigated the effectiveness of using directly con-
nected internal steel bracing to retrofit RC frames. Maheri and
Akbari [26] determined the seismic behaviour factor, R, for such
a retrofitting scheme. For comparative purposes, a three-bayed,
eight-storey RC frame used in that study is selected and retrofitted
by CFRP laminates at joints in the present study. In designing the
moment resisting frame, the design dead and live loads were as-
In fibers direction σx = 80
Compressive strength
σy = 80
(MPa) Perpendicular to fibers direction
σz = 80
Gxy = 12,576 υxy = 0.2
Poisson’s
Shear modulus (MPa) Gxz = 12,576 υxz = 0.2
ratio
Gyz = 7147 υyz = 0.3
Fig. 2. Comparison of the beam tip load–displacement curves of the exterior RC
joint.
sumed to be 2750 kg/m and 1750 kg/m, respectively. The com-
pressive strength, fc0 and tensile strength, ft of concrete were taken
as 27.46 MPa and 3.668 MPa, respectively. In addition, the elas-
tic modulus of the concrete Ec was taken as 24.63 GPa and the
yield stress of steel reinforcement was assumed to be 412 MPa.
Design base shears were determined for a Peak Ground Acceler-
ation (PGA) of 0.3g. In estimating the equivalent static earthquake
load, the weight of the system was taken as the dead load plus
20% of live load, based on the Iranian seismic code [34]. The mo-
ment resisting frame was designed based on ‘weak-beam–strong-
column’ principle using ACI-95 Code [35] and the steel bracing
system was designed using AISC-LRFD Code [36]. Dimensions and
flexural reinforcements of the designed beam and column sections
are shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, ρt , ρs and ρs0 are the total steel
ratio of columns and the tensile and compressive steel ratios of the
beams, respectively. All members and joints reinforcements were
designed to achieve the desirable strength and ductility [26].
The above moment resisting frame is used in the present study
with the web-bonded, FRP retrofitted joints replacing the steel
bracing system. In designing the retrofitted joints, the RC frame
details were kept the same as those used in reference [26]. The
thickness of the FRP sheets for the joints were then determined on
the basis of relocating the plastic hinge away from the column face
to the end of the FRP sheet in the beam. This was achieved through
a trial and error procedure. The FRP sheets length was chosen to
be 500 mm, based on the Pauley and Priestly [37] design approach
for obtaining the desirable plastic hinge relocation. The properties
used for the FRP material are the same as those given in Table 1.
The required FRP thickness for the large column–beam joints of
the first and second floor was calculated to be 4.95 mm, decreasing
to a minimum of 1.65 mm as the height of the storey level increases
and the size of the joints decreases. It is evident that the demand on
FRP web-bonding to change the behaviour of a large joint in order
that the plastic hinge is relocated away from the column face is
much larger than the web-bonded FRP demand for smaller joints;
a point also noted in the results of other similar studies [16,20].
The high FRP thickness demand for large joints of the lower floors
 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336 2329

Fig. 3. Selected moment resisting frame [26].

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the exterior and interior joint and FRP sheet thickness at each joint as used in the nonlinear FE analysis.

in the present study (requiring a number of plies in the order of 20)
highlights the limitation of the scheme of only web-bonding such
joints. Schematic illustrations of typical exterior and interior FRP
retrofitted joints, together with the calculated FRP sheet thickness
for different joints are shown in Fig. 4.
In order to obtain the moment–rotation relation for the joints
of the frame, nonlinear static analysis was performed on each joint
before retrofitting and after retrofitting. The numerical models of
the retrofitted exterior and interior joints at the seventh floor of
the selected frame are depicted in Fig. 5. The number of elements
used to model the exterior joint (joint 13) include; 3850 Solid65
(concrete) elements, 1364 Link8 (steel bars) elements and 168
Solid45 (FRP) elements. Also, 5560 Solid65 elements, 1760 Link8
elements and 556 solid45 elements were used to model the interior
joint (joint14). The failure mechanisms of the retrofitted exterior
and interior joints, in the form of concrete strain contours, for
joints 13 and 14 of the frame, before and after retrofitting by
web-bonded FRP sheets, are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
As it is seen in Figs. 6(a) and 7(a), concrete strain accumulates
around the column face in the non-retrofitted joint. This may cause
the plastic hinge to form inside the joint; a dangerous prospect
as it can lead the structure to behave in a weak-column–strong-
beam mode. However, as it is shown in Figs. 6(b) and 7(b), in
the FRP retrofitted joint, strain accumulation in concrete occurs
at the end of the FRP sheet, moving the location of the plastic
hinge away from the column face further into the beam. This is
desirable, as it changes the failure mechanism of the frame to a
weak-beam–strong-column mode.
The failure mechanism of the joint can also be deduced from the
strain variations in the longitudinal tensile reinforcement of the
joints. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate strain variations in the longitudinal
tensile reinforcements for, respectively, the beam and the column
2330 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336

a b

Fig. 5. Finite element models of an (a) exterior and (b) interior retrofitted joint.

a b
Fig. 6. Failure mechanism (strain contours) of an exterior joint (a) before and (b) after retrofitting by web-bonded FRP sheets.

a b
Fig. 7. Failure mechanism (strain contours) of an interior joint (a) before and (b) after retrofitting by web-bonded FRP sheets.

of an exterior joint at the seventh floor (joint 13) before and after
retrofitting. As it is seen in Fig. 8, after FRP retrofitting of the joint,
strain in the beam longitudinal tensile reinforcement at the column
face is reduced significantly and the maximum strain occurs at the
end of the FRP sheet, which again shows that the plastic hinge is
relocated away from the column. Also, by comparing the maximum
strain in the tensile reinforcement of the beam (Fig. 8) with that of
the column in the same joint (Fig. 9) we observe that the plastic
hinge has indeed occurred in the beam and not in the column.
This was true for all the joints considered. Figs. 6–9 show that by
using FRP laminates, desirable plastic hinge relocation in the beam
is achieved.
 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
Fig. 8. Strain variations in the beam longitudinal tensile reinforcement of an
exterior joint (a) before and (b) after retrofitting by web-bonded FRP sheets.
Fig. 9. Strain variations in the column longitudinal tensile reinforcement of an
exterior joint (a) before and (b) after retrofitting by web-bonded FRP sheets.
As an example, the moment–rotation curves of the exterior
joint 13 of the selected frame, before and after retrofitting by
web-bonded FRP sheets, are shown in Fig. 10. In this figure, K13
is the difference between the two curves, representing the effects
of retrofitting on the rotational stiffness of the joint. The rotation
(θ ) is calculated as the ratio of the difference in the vertical dis-
placements of points A and B, to the horizontal distance between
the two points. It is worth mentioning that the distance between
points A and B should be long enough to include the plastic hinge
zone in the joint.
3. Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis of the frame
3.1. Original frame
In the nonlinear static pushover procedure, monotonically
increasing forces are applied to a nonlinear mathematical model
of the structure until the displacement of the control node exceeds
the target displacement. The NEHRP guidelines [38] indicate that,
for a specific earthquake, the building should have enough capacity
to withstand a specified roof displacement. This is called the target
displacement and is defined as an estimate of the likely building
2331
roof displacement in the design earthquake. The guidelines give
an indication of how to estimate the target displacement, ∆t , using
the following expression:
Te2
∆t = C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa g (2)
4π2
where, the modification factors C0 , C1 , C2 and C3 relate, respec-
tively, the spectral displacement and expected maximum elastic
displacement at the roof level; the expected maximum inelastic
displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic re-
sponse; the effects of stiffness degradation, strength deterioration,
and pinching on the maximum displacement response and the in-
creased displacements due to dynamic second order effects. Also,
Te , represents the effective fundamental period of the building in
the direction under consideration, calculated using the secant stiff-
ness at a base shear force equal to 60% of the yield force; and Sa is
the response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental
period and damping ratio of the building. The factors C1 , C2 , and
C3 serve to modify the relation between the mean elastic and the
mean inelastic displacements [38].
Nonlinear static, pushover, analyses of the frame were carried
out using SAP 2000 program [39]. For this purpose, a constant
gravity load, equal to the total dead load plus 20% of the live
load based on the Iranian earthquake code [34], is applied to
each frame. For the seismic evaluation of a building, lateral forces
should be applied to the building using distributions or profiles
that represent, albeit approximately, the likely distribution of
inertial forces in the design earthquake. In a study by Mwafy and
Elnashai [40] it was shown that the inverted triangular distribution
of load produces better estimates of the capacity curve compared
with uniform distribution and is more practical than multi-modal
distribution. As a result, an inverted triangular distribution over
the height is used as the lateral load pattern. P–∆ effect is
also considered in the analysis. Force–deformation criteria for
plastic hinging is defined based on ATC-40 [41] and FEMA356 [42]
patterns. Flexural moment hinges are assigned to the ends of the
beams, while the axial-moment hinges are assigned to the ends of
columns.
3.2. Retrofitted frames
The analytical models of the retrofitted frames with the web-
bonded FRP system and the steel bracing system are shown in
Fig. 11. This frame was retrofitted by Maheri and Akbari [26], using
a new internal steel bracing system, directly connected to the RC
frame. The X-brace retrofitting systems examined were designed
based on 50% and 100% share of the lateral load by the steel braces.
In order to model the FRP retrofitted frame, SAP-2000 nonlinear
link elements (NLLink) are used. These elements can simulate the
equivalent additional stiffness to the beams provided by web-
bonded FRP sheets. These elements are assumed to be located at
a distance of 500 mm away from the column face, corresponding
to the FRP sheet length. In Fig. 11, Ki is the additional rotational
stiffness of joints, calculated in the previous section. The base
shear versus roof displacement curves for the original and the
retrofitted frame (both the steel-braced and FRP retrofitted) are
shown in Fig. 12. As it is shown, the web-bonded FRP strengthening
of the joints resulted in a 40% increase in the lateral load carrying
capacity of the original RC frame. It can also be seen that, unlike the
original frame, the FRP retrofitted frame has a large displacement
capacity without exhibiting any loss of strength. Comparing the
performance of the X-braced and the FRP retrofitted frames, it is
evident that though the former exhibits, as it is expected, a greater
stiffness and a far larger increase in the strength capacity, the latter
provides a far greater displacement capacity.
2332 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
Fig. 10. Moment–rotation curves of an exterior joint before and after retrofitting by web-bonded FRP sheets.
a b
Fig. 11. Analytical modelling of the (a) web-bonded CFRP and (b) X-braced frame.
4. Seismic assessment of the retrofitted frames
4.1. Seismic performance level
Basically, the seismic performance level of a structure describes
its state of damage on a capacity spectrum curve. To evaluate
the seismic performance of the structure the ‘capacity’ Acceler-
ation–Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) curve (Sa –Sd ) of
that structure is first determined and its performance level in re-
lation to a specific, code-recommended, ADRS ‘demand’ curve is
obtained using the instructions provided by ATC-40 [41], where, Sa
and Sd are the spectral acceleration and displacement, respectively.
Fig. 13, shows how the performance point of the FRP retrofitted
frame is obtained using these instructions. In this figure, the ca-
pacity ADRS, in the form of the base-shear–roof-displacement of
the frame obtained from the pushover analysis is compared with
the demand ADRS curve provided by the Iranian seismic code [34]
for a design base acceleration of 0.25g and 5% damping. The exact
performance point of the FRP retrofitted frame, shown in Fig. 13,
Fig. 12. Base-shear–roof-displacement curves of all frames.
is obtained as the point of intersection of the capacity curve of the
frame and the corresponding ‘banana-shaped’ curve evaluated us-
ing the guidelines given in [41].
Fig. 14 shows the capacity ADRS curves and the performance
points of all the frames under consideration, obtained in a similar
manner to that described above. Based on this presentation,
performance point coordinates of the frames are also calculated as
given in Table 3.
According to Fig. 14 and Table 3, in the original frame, the
performance point has a spectral displacement of 26.7 cm. The
performance point of the FRP retrofitted frame also has a spectral
displacement of 21.24 cm. Such a reduction in the spectral
displacement for the FRP retrofitted frame indicates that the
inelastic lateral load resistance has been enhanced through web-
bonded FRP retrofitting. Also, the shift in the performance point
of the frame due to joint retrofitting has resulted in an increase in
the spectral acceleration value from 0.206g to 0.263g, indicating
that there has been an increase in the seismic load capacity for the
FRP retrofitted frame. The reduction in the spectral displacement
due to X-bracing of the frame is, however, far more profound than
that in the joint FRP retrofitted case; being around 7.9 and 6.5
 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336 2333

Table 3
Performance level of the frames.
Frame PP LS
Sd (cm) Sa (g) Sd (cm) Sa (g)

Original 26.70 0.206 20.39 0.197

X-Braced (50%) 7.88 0.433 19.46 0.513
X-Braced (100%) 6.51 0.493 18.91 0.579
FRP Retrofitted 21.24 0.263 22.33 0.269

In these figures, the letters A to E and notations IO (Immediate

Fig. 13. ADRS curve for estimating performance level of FRP retrofitted frame based
on ATC40.
Occupancy), LS (Life Safety) and CP (Collapse Prevention) represent
the performance state of the joints as indicated graphically on
the force–displacement capacity curve in the figure. The plastic
hinge distributions of the X-braced frames are also shown, for
comparison, in Fig. 15(c) and (d). The plastic hinge distributions
shown for the X-braced frames are, however, determined at
the collapse point. The number of plastic hinges at different
performance levels including; Immediate Occupancy (IO) and Life
Safety (LS) are also given in Table 2.
For the original RC frame (Fig. 15(a)), the values of the plastic
hinge rotations in the columns of the sixth floor indicate that the
state of these hinges laid between points D and E on the perfor-
mance curve. This means that the columns in this floor will col-
lapse during the design earthquake. However, after FRP retrofitting
the joints, the resulting smaller plastic hinge rotations place these
column hinges in the IO–LS range (Fig. 15(b)). With reference to
Fig. 15(c) and (d), a similar shift in the state of the column hinges
at the sixth floor can be achieved when the frame is retrofitted with
steel bracing.
Fig. 15 shows that the values of the plastic rotations in the
beams of the frame have also decreased when the frame is
retrofitted at joints by FRP, as well as when it is braced with steel;
reducing the state of the critical beams from E to D. Such results fur-
ther indicate that the joint web-bonded FRP retrofitting method, as
well as the X-bracing system can provide a more uniform ductility
demand over the height of the multistory frame.

4.2. Seismic behaviour factor

Fig. 14. ADRS curve and the performance level of each frame.
In forced-based seismic design procedures, seismic behaviour
Table 2
factor, R, is a force reduction factor used to reduce the linear
Number of plastic hinges. elastic response spectra to the inelastic response spectra. In other
words, seismic behaviour factor is the ratio of the strength required
Frame Number of plastic Total number of plastic
hinges hinges to maintain the structure elastic to the inelastic strength of the
B IO LS D E structure [26]. The seismic behaviour factor, R, therefore, accounts
for the inherent ductility and over-strength of a structure, as well
Original 23 14 2 6 15 60
FRP retrofitted 24 19 1 17 0 61
as, the difference in the level of stresses considered in its design.
X-braced (50%) 23 16 14 7 3 63 Taking into account the above three components, it is generally
X-braced (100%) 23 22 7 6 3 61 expressed in the following form,
R = Rµ .Rs .Y (3)
for the 50% and 100% brace load share cases, respectively. This
shows a substantial increase in the inelastic lateral capacity of where, Rµ is the ductility dependent component, also known as
the braced frames. The large differences between the lateral load the ductility reduction factor, Rs is the over-strength factor and
resistances of the steel-braced frames compared with the joint Y stands for the allowable stress factor. For structures designed
FRP retrofitted frame are expected, as the strong bracing systems using an ultimate strength method, the allowable stress factor,
were particularly designed to increase the stiffness and the lateral Y , becomes unity and the seismic behaviour factor is, therefore,
strength capacity of the RC frame, whereas, the web-bonded FRP reduced to; R = Rµ Rs .
retrofitting of the frame at joints was designed to increase joints With reference to Fig. 16, in which the actual force–displace-
rotation capacities, relocate the plastic hinges and, in general, to ment response curve is idealized by a bilinear response curve, the
improve the seismic performance of the frame. Also the cost of the seismic behaviour factor parameters may be defined as:
two retrofitting schemes does not compare.
Rµ = Ve /Vy , Rs = Vy /Vs (4)
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the FRP retrofitting of
the joints, the plastic hinge distributions and their performance where, Ve , Vy and Vs denote the elastic response strength of the
levels for the original and FRP retrofitted frames at the target structure, the idealized yield strength and the first significant yield
displacement point are shown in Fig. 15(a) and (b), respectively. strength, respectively.
2334 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
Fig. 15. Plastic hinge distribution of the frames: (a) original; (b) joint FRP retrofitted; (c) X-braced (100%); (d) X-braced (50%).
Fig. 16. Capacity and idealized curve of FRP retrofitted frame for evaluation of
seismic behaviour factor parameters.
Many investigators have discussed the two main components of
R-factor presented in Eq. (3). In particular, the ductility dependent
component, Rµ , has received considerable attention. A detailed
discussion on this subject is presented in [26]. Ductility reduction
factor, Rµ , is a function of the characteristics of the structure,
including ductility, damping and fundamental period of vibration,
T , as well as, the characteristics of earthquake ground motion.
Therefore, it cannot directly be evaluated from the relation given
in Eq. (3), as the elastic response strength, Ve , itself is a dependent
variable. Nassar and Krawinkler [43] presented a relation for Rµ in
the following form:
Rµ = [c (µ − 1) + 1]1/c (5)
where,
Ta b
c (T , α) = + (6)
1+ Ta T
and µ is the structure ductility ratio, defined in terms of the ratio
of the maximum structural displacement at failure, ∆max , to the
displacement corresponding to the idealized yield strength, ∆y . In
Eq. (6), α , is the post-yield stiffness given as a percentage of the
initial stiffness of the system and a and b are parameters given as
functions of α that can be obtained from Table 4 [43].
A number of performance parameters may govern the ultimate
capacity of a structure. For the medium-rise ductile (weak-beam–
strong-column) building considered in this study, the global drift
(maximum roof displacement) or the interstorey drift are com-
monly used as a failure criterion. In a comparative study conducted
 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
Table 4
Values of a and b parameters for evaluation of ductility reduction factor [43].
α (%) a b
0 1 0.42
2 1 0.37
10 0.8 0.29
Table 5
Seismic behaviour factor parameters of the frames.
Frame µ Rµ Rs
Original [26] 2.27 2.4 1.92
X-braced (50%) [26] 2.70 2.66 2.97
X-braced (100%) [26] 2.84 2.86 3.33
FRP retrofitted 2.83 3.02 3.19
by Mwafy and Elnashai [44] on different classes of buildings, a
number of global collapse criteria, including interstorey drift limit,
column hinging mechanism, limit on drop in the overall lateral re-
sistance and stability index limit, were considered. They concluded
that the global drift is the collapse parameter that controls the re-
sponse of buildings designed to modern seismic codes. Based on
the NEHRP recommendations [38] for RC moment resisting frames,
the ultimate capacity of a frame is assumed to correspond to a max-
imum global drift (∆max ), equal to 1.5% of the frame height. This
drift limit was used to evaluate the ductility ratio, µ, of the frames
under investigation in Ref. [26] and in the present study.
To determine the equivalent structural yield displacement, ∆y
and yield strength, Vy , the idealized force–displacement capacity
curve for each frame was evaluated based on the method recom-
mended by FEMA-356 provisions. In these guidelines, the target
displacement, ∆t , and its corresponding base shear, Vt , are used
to determine the equivalent yield strength and yield displacement.
With reference to Fig. 16, line segments on the capacity curve were
located using an iterative procedure that approximately balanced
the area above and below the curve. The effective lateral stiff-
ness, Ke , was also taken as the secant stiffness calculated at a base
shear force equal to 60% of the effective yield strength of the struc-
ture [38].
After evaluating the ductility ratio, µ, and the idealized yield
strength, Vy , the ductility reduction factor, Rµ can be obtained from
Eqs. (5) and (6) and Table 4 and the over-strength factor, Rs is de-
termined from Eq. (4). The seismic behaviour factor parameters for
the original and the retrofitted frames were thus calculated and are
presented in Table 5.
Table 5 shows that the ductility ratio of the frame, µ, is in-
creased by 25% when the frame is retrofitted at joints by FRP.
A similar increase in ductility is also achieved when the frame
is X-braced. This is a notable increase in ductility, resulting in
a significant increase in the ductility reduction factor, Rµ , with
the joint FRP retrofitted frame faring rather better than the steel-
braced frame. As for the over-strength factor, Rs , considerable in-
creases are achieved when the frame is retrofitted by either of
the retrofitting schemes. Table 5 also indicates that due to the in-
creases in the ductility reduction factors and the over-strength fac-
tors of the retrofitted frame, substantial increases in the seismic
behaviour factor (i.e. the overall force reduction factor), R, is ob-
tained; the increase for the FRP retrofitted frame being over two
folds. In other words, the seismic load action on the frame is re-
duced by more than 50% when the frame is retrofitted by FRP at
joints. A similar, though somewhat less, increase in the R-factor is
noted for the X-braced frame.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, an eight-storey frame strengthened previously
with a steel bracing system is selected and retrofitted with web-
bonded CFRP. In a somewhat novel method, the flexural stiffness
2335
of the FRP retrofitted joints of the frame was first evaluated using
detailed finite element models of the composite RC joints and FRP
sheets. The additional flexural stiffness of the FRP retrofitted joints
was then implemented in the FE model of the retrofitted frame to
carry out nonlinear static, pushover, analyses of the frame. Using
the results of these analyses, a systematic evaluation of seismic
parameters including; seismic performance level, ductility, over-
strength and seismic behaviour factor of the original and the FRP
and steel-braced retrofitted frame was then made and the results
R were compared. Based on the results, the following conclusions are
4.6
drawn:
7.9 1. The web-bonded FRP retrofitting of the joints of an ordinary RC
9.5
9.6
frame has the ability to relocate the plastic hinge away from
the column face and into the beam in such a way that the joint
remains elastic.
2. The Web-bonded FRP retrofitting at joints resulted in a 40%
increase in the lateral load resisting capacity of the original RC
frame; it also enhanced its over-strength by 66%.
3. FRP retrofitting the joints also significantly increased the
ductility of the frame, upgrading the ordinary RC frame to an
intermediate ductility and even to a special frame.
4. Due to the increased strength capacity and improved ductility,
both caused by FRP retrofitting of the joints, the seismic
behaviour factor of the frame was substantially increased by
over 100%, resulting in an over 50% reduction in the seismic base
shear.
5. A notable improvement in the performance level is also
achieved when the frame is retrofitted at joints by FRP. It is also
noted that; the performance level of the retrofitted frame of this
study is satisfactory for Life Safety. The same is, however, not
true for the ordinary frame.
6. The demand on FRP web-bonding to change the behaviour of
a large joint in order that the plastic hinge is relocated away
from the column face is much larger than the web-bonded
FRP demand for smaller joints. The high FRP thickness demand
for large joints highlights the limitation of the scheme of only
web-bonding such joints. For large column–beam joints, a
combination of web-bonding and flange-bonding may be more
suitable.
7. Comparing the seismic performance of the FRP retrofitted
frame at joints with that of the steel X-braced retrofitting
method, it is concluded that both retrofitting schemes have
comparable abilities to increase the ductility reduction factor
and the over-strength factor; the former comparing better on
ductility and the latter on over-strength. The steel bracing of
the RC frame can be beneficial if a substantial increase in the
stiffness and the lateral load resisting capacity is required.
Similarly, FRP retrofitting at joints can be used in conjunction
with FRP retrofitting of beams and columns to attain the desired
increases.
References
[1] Shahawy MA, Arockiasamy M, Beitelmant T, Sowrirajan R. Reinforced concrete
rectangular beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. J Compos Part B 1996;
27:225–33.
[2] Lau K, Zhou L. Mechanical performance of composite-strengthened concrete
structures. J Compos Part B 2001;32:21–31.
[3] Buyle-Bodin F, David E, Ragneau E. Finite element modelling of flexural
behaviour of externally bonded CFRP reinforced concrete structures. Eng
Struct 2002;24:1423–9.
[4] Rabinovitch O, Frostig O. Experiments and analytical comparison of RC beams
strengthened with CFRP composites. J Compos Part B 2003;34:663–77.
[5] Hu H, Lin F, Jan Y. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened by fiber-reinforced plastics. Compos Struct 2004;63:
271–81.
[6] Li L, Guo Y, Liu F, Bungey J. An experimental and numerical study of the effect of
thickness and length of CFRP on performance of repaired reinforced concrete
beams. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:901–9.
2336 A. Niroomandi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2326–2336
[7] Rougiera V, Luccioni B. Numerical assessment of FRP retrofitting systems for
reinforced concrete elements. Eng Struct 2007;29:1664–75.
[8] Van Den Eindea L, Zhaob L, Seible F. Use of FRP composites in civil structural
applications. Constr Build Mater 2003;17:389–403.
[9] Binici B, Mosalam K. Analysis of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted with
fiber reinforced polymer lamina. J Compos Part B 2007;38:265–76.
[10] Ozcana O, Binici B, Ozcebeb G. Improving seismic performance of deficient
reinforced concrete columns using carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. Eng
Struct 2008;30:1632–46.
[11] Colomb F, Tobbi H, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete
short columns by CFRP materials. Compos Struct 2008;82(4):475–87.
[12] Promis G, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Effect of external FRP retrofitting on reinforced
concrete short columns for seismic strengthening. Compos Struct 2009;88:
367–79.
[13] Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A. Performance-based seismic retrofit
strategy for existing RC frame systems using FRP composites. J Compos Constr,
ASCE 2007;11(2):211–26.
[14] Antonopoulos CP, Triantafillou TC. Analysis of FRP-strengthened RC
beam–column joints. Journal of Composites for Construction 2002;6(1):
41–51.
[15] Mosallam AS, Banerjee S. Shear enhancement of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with FRP composite laminates. J Compos Part B 2007;38:781–93.
[16] Parvin A, Granata P. Investigation on the effects of fiber composites at concrete
joints. J Compos Part B 2000;31:499–509.
[17] Li J, Samali B, Ye L, Bakoss S. Behaviour of concrete beam–column connections
reinforced with hybrid FRP sheet. Compos Struct 2002;57:357–65.
[18] Mahini SS, Ronagh HR. A new method for improving ductility in existing RC
ordinary moment resisting frames using FRPs. Asian J Civ Eng (Build Hous)
2007;8(6).
[19] Smith ST, Shrestha R. A review of FRP strengthened RC beam column
connections. In: Proceeding of the third international conference on FRP
composites in civil engineering. 2006. p. 661–4.
[20] Mostofinejad D, Talaeitaba SB. Finite element modelling of RC connections
strengthened with FRP laminates. Iran J Sci Technol Trans B-Eng 2006;30(B1):
21–30.
[21] Balsamo A, Colombo A, Manfredi G, Negro P, Prota A. Seismic behavior of a full
scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates. Eng Struct 2005;27:769–80.
[22] Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Seismic strengthening of
an under-designed RC structure with FRP. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:
141–62.
[23] Zou XK, Teng JG, De Lorenzis L, Xia SH. Optimal performance-based design of
FRP jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames. J Compos Part B
2007;38:584–97.
[24] Niroomandi A, Maheri AR. Upgrading the ductility and seismic behaviour
factor, R for ordinary RC frame using FRP sheets. In: Proc. 3rd int. conf. on
concrete and development. 2009. p. 587–98.
[25] Karayannis CG, Sirkelis GM. Strengthening and rehabilitation of RC
beam–column joints using carbon-FRP jacketing and epoxy resin injec-
tion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:769–90.
[26] Maheri MR, Akbari R. Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-
braced RC buildings. Eng Struct 2003;25:1505–13.
[27] ANSYS manual. ANSYS, INC. Canonsburg (PA 15317, USA); 2005.
[28] ACI 440.2R-08. ACI Committee 440-02. Guide for the design and construction
of externally bonded FRP system for strengthening concrete structures. MCP
2005. ACI. Michigan (USA); 2008.
[29] Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength model for FRP and steel plates attached
to concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2001;127(7):784–91.
[30] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):447–64.
[31] Sayed-Ahmed EY, Bakay A, Shrive NG. Bond strength of FRP laminates to
concrete: state-of-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 2009;9.
[32] Kachlakev D, Miller T, Yim S, Chansawat K. Finite element modeling of
reinforced concrete structures strengthened with FRP laminates. Final Report
for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group, Internet File; 2001.
[33] Maheri MR, Ghaffarzadeh H. Connection overstrength in steel-braced RC
frames. Eng Struct 2008;30(7):1938–48.
[34] Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings. Standard
No. 2800. 2nd. ed. 1999.
[35] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete
(ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318R-95). Detroit (Michigan): American
Concrete Institute; 1989.
[36] Manual of steel construction, load and resistance factor design, LRFD. 2nd ed.,
Chicago. III: American Institute of Steel Construction; 1994.
[37] Pauley T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1992.
[38] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP provisions for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report, FEMA 273 and 274, Washington
(DC); 1997.
[39] SAP2000 nonlinear version 10.1.0, Analysis reference manual. Berkeley
(California): Computers and Structures Inc.; 2006.
[40] Mwafi AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of
RC buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23:407–24.
[41] ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC-40. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City; 1996.
[42] American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). Prestandard and commentary
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA 356; 2000.
[43] Nassar AA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems.
Report No. 95. Stanford, California: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford University; 1991.
[44] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(2):239–73.