Seismic Strengthening of RC Columns Using External

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/230364287
Seismic strengthening of RC columns using external steel cage
Article in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · November 2009

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.917
CITATIONS READS
75 5,734
3 authors, including:
Dipti Ranjan Sahoo Durgesh C Rai

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
173 PUBLICATIONS 1,597 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 2,536 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Self-Centering Energy Dissipation Devices View project
Aluminium shear link View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dipti Ranjan Sahoo on 06 July 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:1563–1586
Published online 7 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.917
Seismic strengthening of RC columns using external steel cage
Pasala Nagaprasad, Dipti Ranjan Sahoo and Durgesh C. Rai∗, †

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur-208016, India
SUMMARY
Steel caging technique is commonly used for the seismic strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC)
columns of rectangular cross-section. The steel cage consists of angle sections placed at corners and held
together by battens at intervals along the height. In the present study, a rational design method is developed
to proportion the steel cage considering its confinement effect on the column concrete. An experimental
study was carried out to verify the effectiveness of the proposed design method and detailing of steel cage
battens within potential plastic hinge regions. One ordinary RC column and two strengthened columns
were investigated experimentally under constant axial compressive load and gradually increasing reversed
cyclic lateral displacements. Both strengthened columns showed excellent behavior in terms of flexural
strength, lateral stiffness, energy dissipation and ductility due to the external confinement of the column
concrete. The proposed model for confinement effect due to steel cage reasonably predicted moment
capacities of the strengthened sections, which matched with the observed experimental values. Copyright
q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 10 December 2007; Revised 28 January 2009; Accepted 3 February 2009
KEY WORDS: RC column; seismic strengthening; confinement; batten; steel caging; cyclic lateral load
1. INTRODUCTION
A large number of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are not designed in accordance with
advanced seismic codes and many have suffered severe damage or complete collapse during past
earthquakes on account of inadequate shear strength, flexural strength and ductility of columns
[1, 2]. The primary deficiencies of these columns included items, such as insufficient longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement, and inadequate lap splices for longitudinal reinforcement. Such
columns need to be strengthened in such a way that their failure mechanism changes from brittle
to ductile mode. It is also desirable that strengthening technique is not only less interruptive,
less time consuming and less expensive, but also should result in minimum loss of floor area.
∗ Correspondence to: Durgesh C. Rai, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
Kanpur-208016, India.
†
E-mail: dcrai@iitk.ac.in
Contract/grant sponsor: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1564 P. NAGAPRASAD, D. R. SAHOO AND D. C. RAI
One such technique is steel caging, which consists of steel angles at the corners of RC columns
and steel straps at few places along the length. This technique is generally regarded as practical,
fast and cost-effective, which helps to improve the global seismic behavior of the structure by
increasing lateral strength, ductility and shear capacity of structural members [3]. This is widely
used in construction, particularly in Japan, Taiwan and the United States [4, 5] and also has found
application in retrofitting the damaged RC columns after earthquakes [6, 7].
Several researchers have investigated strengthening of RC columns using steel jackets [8–11].
Dritsos and Pilakoutas [3] developed a theoretical model to determine the effective confining
stresses of column concrete due to steel cage assuming that the composite action at the interface
of steel and concrete element is mobilized due to Poisson’s expansion and interface friction.
Experimental investigations on damaged RC columns showed that the axial compressive strength
and ductility was greatly improved by strengthening using steel cage and steel encasement approach
[12]. However, considerable improvement in shear strength with stable hysteretic loops at higher
ductility levels was only achieved when the columns were retrofitted over the entire length using
steel jackets [13].
Masri and Goel [14] conducted an experimental research on a one-third scale, two-story, two-bay
RC slab–column frame model strengthened by ductile steel bracing and external steel jacketing.
Significant flexural contribution from jacketing elements (i.e. vertical angles at corners and hori-
zontal battens) was noted. A method was developed to compute this flexural contribution of
strengthened column appropriately accounting for the observed load-sharing mechanism between
angles and battens. However, the model underestimated the observed values as it did not include
the composite effect due to the confinement provided to concrete by steel jacketing elements.
In the present study, rectangular RC columns, more typical of building columns, were externally
strengthened by steel caging technique using four longitudinal steel angles and battens. The
intermediate gap between steel cage and RC column was not filled with any kind of binder materials.
An experimental investigation was carried out on both ordinary and strengthened columns under
constant axial load and gradually increasing cyclic lateral load in order to verify the effectiveness
of the proposed design method and the detailing of steel cage battens within the potential plastic
hinge regions. In order to size various elements of steel cage for an effective and efficient design,
a rational method is proposed that accounts for the confinement effect of steel cage on the existing
column and prevents premature failure of steel cage.
2. THEORETICAL MODEL FOR CONFINEMENT
In the steel caging technique of strengthening rectangular section RC columns, passive confinement
of the column concrete is externally developed by the steel cage due to Poisson’s effect because
of lateral restraint provided by steel angle members at corners. As shown in Figure 1, a portion of
column concrete near battens of the steel cage is unconfined due to absence of confining pressure,
which is similar to the case of rectangular hoops of RC column where the concrete near the side of
hoops remains unconfined. As a result, the theoretical model for confinement of concrete proposed
by Mander et al. [15] for rectangular hoops can be applied to the confinement produced by external
steel caging.
As the compressive stress of concrete in column approaches its uniaxial compressive strength
value, lateral strains become very high due to progressive internal cracking. As a result, transverse
plates (battens) of the steel cage are subjected to large tensile stresses, which in turn provide
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:1563–1586
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF RC COLUMNS 1565
Figure 1. Confinement of RC column due to steel caging: (a) half-body equilibrium at battened portion
of steel cage; (b) effective confinement in plan; and (c) effective confinement in elevation.
passive confinement to the concrete. If a uniform tensile force is assumed to develop in battens, the
average confining pressure along both x- and y-directions of column section may be determined
from the equilibrium of half-body diagram as shown in Figure 1(a) and can be expressed as follows
[3]:
2As f y
x = (1)
by s
2As f y
y = (2)
bx s
The effective area of confined concrete in plan and elevation can be determined by assuming an
arching action of confining stresses between the steel angles as shown in Figure 1(b) and (c).
The arching action can be assumed to act in the form of a second degree parabola with an initial
tangent slope of 45◦ [15]. Accordingly, the effective confining stresses in x- and y-directions of
column section can be expressed by [3]

b2xe +b2ye se se
1− 1− 1−
3bx b y 2bx 2b y 2td
xe = fy (3)
(1−sl ) sb y
by
ye = xe (4)
bx
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 2. Confinement strength ratio due to lateral confining stresses [15].

and the effective center-to-center spacing of battens can be given by
se = s −(d +2c) (5)
Confined strength ratio (or confinement factor), k, can be defined as the ratio of confined compres-
sive strength, f cc , to unconfined compressive strength, f co , of concrete. The confined compressive
strength of concrete can be obtained using the general solution of multi-axial failure criterion
developed by Mander et al. [15] in terms of the lateral confining stresses (i.e. xe and ye ). As
shown in Figure 2, the confined strength ratio can be obtained using confinement curves proposed
by Mander et al. [15] for rectangular hoops.
Peak confined strain, cc , and ultimate confined strain, cu , can be obtained using following
expressions [15, 16]:

f cc
cc = co 1+5 −1 (6)
f co
(xe + ye )
cu = 0.0035+0.1 (7)
f co
The value of peak unconfined compressive strain of concrete, co , can be taken as 0.002. It is
assumed that the value of confined compressive stress at the ultimate strain is 85% of the confined
compressive strength and the distribution of strain is linear along the column cross-section. Moment
capacity of column section confined with the steel cage can be determined from its material and
geometric properties using assumed stress–strain behavior of the confined concrete.
3. DESIGN OF STEEL CAGE
Moment capacity of a strengthened RC column can be taken as a sum total of moment capacities
of the confined RC column section and steel angle sections of the steel cage. Since compressive
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
strength of concrete confined with steel cage depends on the size of steel angles, spacing and size
of battens, number of battens, etc., the design of an economical steel cage of required amount
of confinement action and reliable flexural capacity involves a trial-and-error procedure. The
theoretical model proposed by Masri and Goel [14] is considered in this study for design of battens
of the steel cage. An overstrength factor of 1.25 was used to determine the design shear force and
bending moment for each batten so that steel angle sections yield prior to battens.
The design values of shear force, Hba , and bending moment, M , on battens depend on (a)
ba
moment capacity of angle sections, Mnv , (b) number of battens on each side of cage, N , and (c)
spacing of angle sections, bcl , and can be related as follows:
1.25Mnv
Hba = (8)
2b N
b
Hba
cl
Mba = (9)
2
Center-to-center spacing and clear spacing of battens can be obtained by comparing the lateral
stiffness and the shear strength of two models, namely, the original and the refined models [14].
The original model assumes that steel angles and battens of the steel cage form a unit section
such that the moment capacity, Mnv , and the moment of inertia, I , of the steel cage are constant
throughout its length. The refined model considers the difference between the lateral stiffness of
the battened portion of angles and the unbattened ones along the length of steel cage. Further, the
plastic hinges are assumed to form at both ends of the portion of steel angles between adjacent
battens. Thus, the moment capacity and the moment of inertia of the battened portion of steel cage
are equal to that of the unit section used in the original model. However, the moment capacity
and moment of inertia of unbattened portion of steel cage are simply four times of a single steel
angle section.
In the original model, ultimate shear capacity, Vsc , and lateral stiffness, K sc , of the unit section
can be given by
2Mnv
Vsc = (10)
h
12E I
K sc = (11)
h3
where h is the story height as shown in Figure 3. In the refined model, the ultimate shear capacity
of steel cage, Vsc , depends on moment capacity of individual angles, Mang , and clear spacing of
battens, h . Similarly, the lateral stiffness of steel cage, K sc
, depends on (a) moment of inertia of
single angle, Iang , (b) number of battens, N , and (c) center-to-center spacing of battens, s.
Hence, the ultimate shear capacity and the lateral stiffness of the steel cage comprising of four
steel angles can be expressed as follows:
2M 8Mang
Vsc = = (12)
h h
48E Iang
K sc = 3 (13)
s (N −1)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 3. Theoretical design models of steel cage: (a) original model and (b) refined model [14].
The clear spacing of battens can be determined such that the shear strength of steel cage in the
refined model would be equal to that of the unit section in the original model. Using Equations
(10) and (12), the required clear spacing of battens can be given by
4Mang h
h = (14)
Mnv
Similarly, the center-to-center spacing of battens can be determined so that the lateral stiffness of
steel cage in the refined model would be equal to that of the unit section in the original model.
Using Equations (11) and (13), the required center-to-center spacing of the battens can be expressed
as follows:

4Iang
s =h 3 (15)
I (N −1)
The design of battens of steel cage should satisfy above requirements to avoid the premature failure
of angle sections under lateral loading conditions.
4. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
4.1. Test specimen

RC columns of a moment resisting frame subjected to lateral loads under seismic conditions
typically bend in double-curvature. The points of inflection can be assumed at its mid-height
dividing the entire column into two cantilever parts of length equal to one-half of the story height
(Figure 4). Thus, the part of column from the base to its point of inflection was considered for
test specimens in the present experimental study.
Three test specimens were investigated under constant axial compressive load and gradually
increased cyclic lateral displacements, out of which two specimens were strengthened using four
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 4. (a) RC column subjected to lateral load under seismic condition; (b) bending moment diagram;
(c) deflected shape; and (d) part of RC column considered as test specimens in the present study.
longitudinal steel angles and welded transverse battens. These specimens are designated as RCO,
RCS1 and RCS2, where the letters ‘O’ and ‘S’ stand for ‘ordinary’ and ‘strengthened’, respectively,
and the numerals ‘1’ and ‘2’ indicate the specimen number. Each test specimen consisted of
RC column of size 200 mm×250 mm×1275 mm with an RC footing of size 900 mm×720 mm×
400 mm as shown in Figure 5.
High-yield strength-deformed (HYSD) steel bars (of specified yield strength as 415 MPa) were
used for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in each specimen. The longitudinal rein-
forcement in columns consisted of six numbers of 16 mm diameter HYSD bars, whereas the
transverse reinforcement consisted of 8 mm diameter HYSD bars at a center-to-center spacing
of 100 mm. Similarly, the HYSD bars of 10 mm diameter were used for longitudinal as well as
transverse reinforcement in the footing of specimens. The ultimate moment capacity of column
section at an axial compressive load of 450 kN (i.e. 32% of ultimate axial load) was computed as
55.3 kN m using stress–strain properties of concrete and steel reinforcement as per Indian Standard
provisions [17]. The primary objectives of the experimental study for the specimen RCO were to
characterize the force-deformation behavior and to determine the actual moment capacity of the
RC column.
Both strengthened specimens (RCS1 and RCS2) were designed such that the moment capacities
of columns would be nearly two times that of the specimen RCO. A step-by-step procedure for
the design of steel cage for the specimen RCS1 is presented in the Appendix. Each strengthened
specimen consisted of hot-rolled Indian Standard sections ISA35×35×5@26.0 N/m for steel
angle sections and 6 mm thick mild steel plates for battens [18]. The width of end battens for the
specimen RCS1 was about one and half times that of intermediate battens; whereas the size of
end battens for the specimen RCS2 was about two times that of the specimen RCS1. However, the
size of intermediate battens and their spacing were exactly same for both strengthened specimens
(Figure 5). Such detailing of end battens helps to evaluate the effect of end batten in the confinement
effect of steel cage and the overall behavior of strengthened columns.
Cement concrete mix for each test specimen was designed for a characteristic cube compressive
strength, f ck , of 25 MPa at a water–cement ratio of 0.5. Table I summarizes the cube compressive
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 5. Details of test specimens: (a) reinforcement detailing of specimen RCO; (b) specimen RCS1;
and (c) specimen RCS2 (all dimensions are in millimeters).
Table I. Material properties of concrete and steel used in test specimens.

Cube compressive strength (MPa)
Concrete 7 days 28 days Day of testing
RCO 20.6 32.5 38.0
Specimen RCS1 25.8 37.7 45.5
RCS2 25.6 34.7 39.9
Size of rebars Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
8 mm 438.5 542.0
10 mm 489.0 668.0
16 mm 468.4 623.2
Angle section 353.0 498.0
Batten plate 330.0 518.0
strength of concrete at different days of curing. In addition, coupon tests for rebars, angle sections
and batten plates were carried out as per Indian Standard provisions [19] to determine their yield
and ultimate strengths in tension (Table I).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 6. Steel caging technique of strengthened RC column.
4.2. Strengthening technique

In this technique, steel angles were first placed at each corner of the existing RC column without
using any binder materials in the gap between them. In order to ensure a tight fit between the steel
cage and RC column, the steel angles were held close to concrete by means of C-clamps prior to
welding of battens as shown in Figure 6. Steel cage was then welded to base plate, which in turn
was attached to the RC footing using high-strength bolts of 20 mm diameter as shown in Figure 7.
These bolts were inserted into the footing by drilling holes of 200 mm depth and filling the gap
between concrete and bolts with epoxy mortar.
4.3. Test set-up and loading protocol

Test specimens were simultaneously subjected to constant axial compressive load of 450 kN and
gradually increasing reversed cyclic lateral displacements at free end. Two servo-hydraulic actuators
of rated force capacities of 500 and 250 kN and stroke lengths of 125 mm were used to apply axial
load and lateral displacement, respectively. These actuators were supported by reaction blocks
attached to the laboratory strong floor by means of studs as shown in Figure 8(a). As the loads
applied to the test specimen lie in a horizontal plane, roller bearing was used at free end of test
specimens to restrain its possible downward displacement due to self-weight of actuators.
Several strain gauges were used to monitor the state of strain in column section and steel cage.
Four strain gauges were attached to the longitudinal reinforcement at corners and the angle sections
of steel cage at a distance of 125 mm from the face of footing of each test specimen. In addition,
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 7. Steel cage-to-foundation connection: (a) top view and (b) front view
(all dimensions are in millimeters).
Figure 8. Details of test set-up and loading protocol used in the present study: (a) test
set-up and (b) displacement history.
several Linear Variable Displacement Transformers (LVDTs) were also used to monitor the lateral
displacement of the column as well as footing of test specimens as shown in Figure 8(a).
As per ATC-24 [20], a multiple-step loading history consisting of symmetric cycles of increasing
amplitude in predetermined steps may be adequate to assess the seismic performance of a compo-
nent. Further, the primary objective of this experimental investigation was to evaluate the ultimate
limit states of test specimens, which can be achieved only by large inelastic excursions. Hence,
gradually increased reversed cyclic displacements as shown in Figure 8(b) were chosen as the
displacement history for each specimen in this study. Drift ratio may be defined as the ratio of
maximum displacement of free end of RC column to its length measured from the top of footing
to the point of lateral load application. The displacement history consisted of drift ratios of ±0.2,
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
±0.4, ±0.7, ±1.1, ±1.7, ±2.5, ±3.3, ±4.2, ±5.0, ±6.7 and ±8.3%. Each cycle of displacement
history was repeated for three times at any level of drift ratio. It may be noted that the variation
in magnitude of the axial compressive load and the sequence of load application in RC column
may influence the lateral strength, stiffness, deformation capacity and shape of hysteretic loops of
test specimens [21, 22].
5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
5.1. Hysteretic response

Lateral load–displacement response (hysteretic response) and damaged states of all test specimens
are compared in Figure 9. The specimen RCO behaved elastically up to 1.1% drift ratio and,
thereafter, flexural and shear cracks developed in column concrete near footing. The flattening
of hysteresis loops during 1.7% drift ratio excursion level indicated the onset of rebar yielding,
which was further confirmed from the strain gauge data as described later. Severe cracking and
crushing of the column concrete during the first cycle of 2.5% drift ratio excursion caused sudden
loss of resistance and caused complete collapse of the specimen RCO. As shown in Figure 9(a),
the specimen RCO experienced somewhat smaller value of displacement as compared with the
applied one in each cyclic excursion level indicating a minor loss of applied displacement in the
test set-up. In contrast, both strengthened test specimens exhibited full and stable hysteresis loops
even at the larger levels of drift ratio. For the specimen RCS1, the yielding of angle sections of
the steel cage was noted at 3.3% drift ratio and the failure of angle sections in the end panel
associated with severe crushing of column concrete was observed at 8.3% drift ratio leading to
the complete collapse of the specimen. The repetitive cyclic buckling under lateral load caused
the failure of steel angles. Figure 9(b) shows the hysteresis loops for the specimen RCS1 up to
6.7% drift ratio as it was not possible to monitor the lateral displacement of column at 8.3% drift
ratio. A sudden drop followed by significant loss of stiffness was observed in each hysteresis loop
during unloading of the specimen RCS1.
Similar to the specimen RCS1, the specimen RCS2 exhibited sudden drop in strength associated
with significant change in stiffness during unloading process at each excursion level as shown in
Figure 9(c). At 8.3% drift ratio, a single crack in the column concrete and the yielding of steel
angles near the footing were observed in the specimen RCS2. Even though the specimen RCS2
was damaged to some extent, its complete collapse was not observed unlike other specimens (RCO
and RCS1) and it could have sustained a few more cycles of lateral displacement excursions prior
to collapse.
5.2. Lateral strength

Lateral strength at any displacement level was determined by averaging peak lateral resistance
in both directions of cyclic excursion. The observed maximum lateral strength of the specimen
RCO was 64.4 kN at a drift ratio of 1.7% against the design value of 51.2 kN. Design moment
capacity of 55.3 kN m for the column section at an axial compressive load of 450 kN was divided
by lever arm (i.e. the distance of 1.08 m measured from the top of footing to the point of load
application) to obtain the design lateral strength of the specimen. Both strengthened specimens
RCS1 and RCS2 reached the design strength of 102.4 kN (i.e. two times the design strength of the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 9. Damaged state and hysteretic response of test specimens: (a) specimen RCO;
(b) specimen RCS1; and (c) specimen RCS2.
specimen RCO) due to the added steel elements. The specimen RCS1 carried maximum lateral
load of 120.9 kN at a drift ratio of 3.3%, which gradually reduced at the larger drift ratios due to
the onset of buckling of steel angles near the end battens.
Similarly, the maximum lateral load carried by the specimen RCS2 was 141.5 kN at 6.7%
drift ratio, which is about 2.2 times strength of the specimen RCO. Further, the steel cage in the
specimen RCS2 was more effective in increasing the lateral strength at the larger drift ratios as
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 10. Comparison of backbone curves.
compared with the specimen RCS1 (Figure 10). For 45◦ shear diagonal crack, shear strength of
the RC column was computed as 84.1 kN for specified size, spacing and yield stress of stirrups.
Maximum lateral loads carried by both strengthened specimens were significantly higher than
the computed shear strength of the RC column. Hence, both flexural and shear strengths of RC
columns were enhanced by strengthening using external steel cage.
5.3. Lateral stiffness

Expectedly due to additional stiffness provided by the steel cage, both strengthened specimens
RCS1 and RCS2 showed higher initial lateral stiffness as compared with the initial stiffness of
11.9 kN/mm for the specimen RCO. The initial stiffness of specimen RCS1 was observed as
20.5 kN/mm, which is about 44% higher than that of the specimen RCO. Similarly, the specimen
RCS2 showed an initial stiffness of 16.6 kN/mm, which is about 24% smaller than that of the
specimen RCS1. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in compressive strength of
concrete of these specimens; the cube compressive strength of concrete of the specimen RCS2 at the
day of testing was about 14% smaller than specimen RCS1 (Table I). However, the specimen RCS2
showed marginally higher stiffness than that of the specimen RCS1 at subsequent displacement
excursion levels.
5.4. Displacement ductility

Displacement ductility may be defined as the ratio of maximum displacement to the yield displace-
ment. The maximum displacement was considered as the displacement at which (a) the failure
of specimen was observed or (b) significant damage led to decrease in the load carrying capacity
of the specimen. Yield and ultimate displacements of the specimen RCO were observed as 8.5
and 17.1 mm, respectively, which resulted in a displacement ductility value of 2.0. The specimen
RCS1 exhibited yield and ultimate displacements of 14.5 and 70.9 mm, respectively. The displace-
ment ductility of specimen RCS1 as 4.9 was 2.5 times that of the specimen RCO. Similarly, the
specimen RCS2 showed displacement ductility of 6.4, which corresponds to the yield and ultimate
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 11. Strain vs drift ratio response of all specimens.
displacements of 13.5 and 87.0 mm, respectively. Thus, the ductility of specimen RCS2 was 3.2
times that of the specimen RCO indicating the effectiveness of wider end battens in the plastic
hinge regions of steel caging in improving inelastic response.
5.5. Strain–drift ratio response

Figure 11 compares the state of strain in rebars and angle steel sections of test specimens at
different levels of drift ratio. The envelope values of strain in column rebars and angle sections
were determined from the average of peak values of strain in both directions of cyclic loading.
All column rebars located at corners of the specimen RCO reached their yield limit of 2000
micro-strain at 1.7% drift ratio. Similarly, the angle sections of specimen RCS1 reached their peak
strain at 2.5% drift ratio after reaching their yield value of 1800 micro-strain and thereafter, the
reduction in strain levels was noted due to initiation of local yielding or buckling. However, steel
angle sections of specimen RCS2 reached higher strain levels than that of the specimen RCS1. The
strain envelopes for rebars of both strengthened specimens follow nearly linear trend and the strain
values corresponding to the specimen RCS1 were marginally higher than that of the specimen
RCS2 at each drift ratio. As expected, the maximum values of rebar strain for the specimen RCO
were much smaller than that of the both strengthened specimens.
5.6. Moment–curvature response

Bending moment experienced by the test specimens is an algebraic sum of the moment due to
applied lateral load and the additional P-delta moment due to constant axial load of 450 kN.
Maximum values of curvature at any cyclic excursion level were determined from rebar strain data.
As expected, maximum moments experienced by the test specimens at each drift ratio were higher
when the P-delta effect was considered (Figure 12). The specimen RCO showed a maximum
curvature of 21.6×10−6 /mm at 1.7% drift ratio at a bending moment of 74.0 kN m with the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 12. Comparison of moment–curvature response.
P-delta effect and 66.3 kN m without the P-delta effect. Thus, the observed maximum moment for
the specimen RCO was about 34% higher than the design value.
Both strengthened specimens reached the target design moment capacity of 110.6 kN m, which
was two times the design capacity for the specimen RCO. The moment capacity of specimen RCS1
was 146.3 kN m including the P-delta effect, which was nearly twice of the observed moment
capacity for the specimen RCO. The maximum value of curvature exhibited by the specimen
RCS1 was about 28.5×10−6 /mm, which was 32% higher than that of the specimen RCO. The
maximum moment for the specimen RCS1 was computed as 112.6 kN m without considering the
P-delta effect. The specimen RCS2 showed a maximum curvature of 30.9×10−6 /mm at maximum
moment of 177.5 kN m including the P-delta effect and the corresponding value of moment was
computed as 138.3 kN m without the P-delta effect at a drift ratio of 6.7%. As compared with the
specimen RCO, maximum values of moment and curvature for the specimen RCS2 increased by
140 and 43%, respectively. Hence, the steel cage with wider end battens (equal to three times the
width of intermediate battens) showed greater resistance to lateral load with significant increase
in curvature.
It should be noted that the position of plastic hinges in strengthened columns shifted away from
the joint interface region due to external steel cage. In both strengthened specimens, the plastic
hinges were developed in the first panel just above the end batten. This may give rise to an increase
in plastic rotation demand for a given level of interstory drift. However, considering significant
improvement in the moment–curvature response due to strengthening using external steel cage,
the required plastic rotational capacity of column sections can be achieved.
5.7. Energy dissipation response

Energy dissipated by test specimens at any drift level of cyclic displacement excursions is the area
enclosed by hysteresis loops. Figure 13 shows the cumulative energy dissipated by each test spec-
imen at different levels of drift ratio. As expected, the specimen RCO dissipated the least amount
of energy as compared with both strengthened specimens (RCS1 and RCS2) at any displacement
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Figure 13. Comparison of energy dissipation capacities of test specimens.
excursion. At drift ratio of 1.7%, the cumulative energy dissipated by the specimen RCO was
nearly 50% of that dissipated by strengthened specimens RCS1 and RCS2. Both strengthened
specimens dissipated nearly equal amount of energy at all displacement levels, which suggests that
the larger width of end battens played a minor role in energy dissipation potential.
6. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The moment capacity of strengthened columns can be computed analytically from the observed
values of strain in rebars and angle sections using actual material properties of steel and concrete.
The stress–strain relationship for confined concrete can be developed using envelope curve proposed
by Popovics [23]. Accordingly, longitudinal compressive strength of concrete, f c , at a given
longitudinal strain, c , can be expressed as follows [15]:

f cc xr
fc = (16)
r −1+ x r
where the parameters of Equation (16) are given as follows:
c
x= (17)
cc
Ec
r= (18)
E c − E sec
E c = 5000 f co (MPa) (19)

f cc
E sec = (20)
cc
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
The values of f cc for both the strengthened specimens were determined using confinement curves
(Figure 2) and considering effective lateral confining stresses in both directions of the column
section as given by Equations (3) and (4). The unconfined cylinder compressive strength of
concrete was taken as 0.8 times the cube compressive strength at the day of testing as reported
in Table I. The values of confinement strength ratio were 1.40 and 1.45 for the specimens RCS1
and RCS2, respectively, which resulted in peak confined cube compressive strength of concrete
as 64.4 and 58.0 MPa. The moment capacity of RC column was calculated by estimating the
stress in concrete and rebars and using stress–strain relationships for steel and concrete as per
Indian Standard provisions [17]. Similarly, moment capacity of angle sections was computed by
multiplying the stress corresponding to measured strain in steel angles with the sectional area
and the lever arm. As stated earlier, total moment capacity of the strengthened specimen was
obtained as the sum total of moment capacities of RC column and steel cage. It should be noted
that the contribution of existing stirrups to flexural capacity of strengthened columns was not
considered in the present study. The columns were detailed only for gravity load requirements
leading to a larger spacing of stirrups and, therefore, the confinement effect of these stirrups would
be too small and can be neglected. As a result, the proposed method of computing confining
stresses in RC column provides a lower-bound estimate for the confined compressive strength of
concrete.
Table II summarizes the computed flexural strengths of steel cage and RC column of both
strengthened specimens. Peak strain values in steel cage and column rebars for a particular
drift excursion were obtained by averaging maximum recorded values on the same face of
test specimens for three cycles. In addition, strain values at the top fiber of column concrete
were derived from observed rebar strains assuming a linear distribution for flexural strains
along the column depth. It may be noted that although the peak confined compressive strength
of concrete for the specimen RCS2 was about 14% smaller than that of the specimen RCS1
due to variation in their unconfined compressive strengths, the maximum value of computed
bending moment for the specimen RCS2 was about 6% greater than that of the specimen
RCS1. This is largely due to the presence of wider end battens in the expected plastic
hinge region, which also helped to reduce the likelihood of potential buckling of steel angles
between the battens. Bending moment values for the specimen RCS1 were computed only up
to 3.3% drift ratio because observed strain values were erratic after buckling of steel angle
sections.
Figure 14 compares the observed as well as computed values of bending moment for both
strengthened specimens at various lateral displacement levels. Maximum values of bending moment
for the specimens RCS1 and RCS2 were computed as 133.2 and 141.1 kN m, respectively (Table II).
Both the observed and computed values of bending moment for the specimen RCS1 matched very
well up to 2.5% drift ratio and a maximum difference of 9.0% was observed in their respective peak
values. Similarly, both the computed and observed values of bending moment for the specimen
RCS2 compared very well for initial excursion levels and a maximum difference of about 20%
was observed at greater magnitudes of cyclic excursion levels because the strength hardening
effect as observed in experiments could not be adequately simulated in the analysis. Furthermore,
analytical computations are based on the assumption that all battens of the steel cage are of same
size as intermediate battens and, hence, the effect of wider end battens was not considered in
the analysis. Moreover, observed values are derived from strain gage readings, which may be a
little erroneous at large drift levels due to cracking of concrete and local buckling of steel angle
sections.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1580
Copyright q
Table II. Computation of bending moments at different drift levels of strengthened specimens.
Steel cage RC column

Total
Drift Moment, Moment, moment,
ratio Strain, Mang Conc. Rebar strain, Mc (Mang + Mc )
(%) a (kN m) strain, c s (kN m) (kN m)
Specimen RCS1
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.2 0.00035 10.9 0.00056 0.00018 28.4 39.3
0.4 0.00060 18.8 0.00076 0.00037 38.3 57.1
0.7 0.00093 29.1 0.00105 0.00079 50.8 79.8
1.1 0.00118 37.0 0.00132 0.00124 60.3 97.2
1.7 0.00161 50.5 0.00160 0.00183 69.6 120.1
2.5 0.00469 55.6 0.00192 0.00262 77.6 133.2
3.3 0.00515 55.4 0.00216 0.00369 77.1 132.5
Specimen RCS2
0.2 0.00036 11.3 0.00023 0.00010 20.0 31.3
0.4 0.00067 21.0 0.00034 0.00042 35.1 56.1
0.7 0.00128 40.0 0.00056 0.00043 46.7 86.7
1.1 0.00151 47.3 0.00069 0.00080 56.0 103.3
1.7 0.00226 55.3 0.00093 0.00143 69.4 124.7
2.5 0.00654 55.8 0.00111 0.00211 79.7 135.5
P. NAGAPRASAD, D. R. SAHOO AND D. C. RAI
3.3 0.00316 55.8 0.00118 0.00234 83.3 138.7

4.2 0.00122 55.2 0.00131 0.00385 85.9 141.1
5.0 0.00084 55.1 0.00128 0.00509 83.3 138.4
6.7 0.00083 55.1 0.00126 0.00467 83.2 138.3
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:1563–1586
Figure 14. Comparison of bending moment in test specimens.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study:

(i) The performance of deficient RC columns under combined axial and cyclic lateral loading
can be greatly improved by steel caging technique without using any binder material in the
gap between concrete column and steel angles and thus making it simpler to implement at
the site.
(ii) A method was developed to predict the flexural strength of an RC column strengthened
using external steel cage by modifying the method proposed by Dritsos and Pilakoutas [3]
for the effective confinement provided by the steel cage. Further, the method can be used to
proportion various elements of a steel cage for the target moment capacity of strengthened
column.
(iii) The proposed design method was found effective and reasonably accurate as demonstrated
by testing of two column specimens under constant axial load and increasing cyclic lateral
displacements. Both specimens reached the target design capacity of two times the moment
capacity of the original RC column. Further, the method was able to predict the load-
deformation behavior of strengthened RC columns satisfactorily, using strain measurements
at column rebars and steel angles.
(iv) Detailing of end battens of the steel cage located in the potential plastic hinge region of
RC column plays an important role in improving its overall behavior under lateral loads.
Wider end battens in the expected plastic hinge region of steel cage appeared to be effective
in increasing compressive strength of concrete due to enhanced confinement effect and in
reducing the likelihood of local buckling of steel angles.
(v) The increase in width of end battens of steel cage also significantly enhanced the plastic
rotational capacity and its resistance to lateral loads; however, it had minor effect on overall
energy dissipation potential. Hence, the correct choice for width of end battens depends
largely on the target moment and plastic rotation capacity of strengthened column. However,
the width of end battens equal to 1.5 times the width of intermediate battens was found to
be sufficient to achieve the desired moment capacity of strengthened columns.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
APPENDIX: DESIGN EXAMPLE
Step Explanation Calculation References

1. Design data: Width of column, bx = 200 mm; Depth
Moment capacity of of column, b y = 250 mm; Story height,
strengthened column h = 2160 mm; Clear cover, dc = 40 mm;
is two times that of Main rebars = six nos. of 16 mm diam-
ordinary RC column eter; Stirrups = 8 mm diameter@100 mm
center-to-center; Yield strength of
rebar, f ys = 415 MPa; Design uncon-
fined cylinder compressive strength
of concrete, f co =20 MPa; Young’s
modulus of steel, E = 200 GPa.
Moment capacity of ordinary RC column
Mu = 55.3 kN m at an axial compres-
sive load of 450 kN [17]. Thus, the
required moment capacity of strength-
ened column Mst = 110.6 kN m
2. Trial angle section: Yield strength of angle section, f y = Indian

Let us choose four 250 MPa; Thickness of angles, t = 5 mm; Standard steel
steel angle sections Width of single leg of angles, c = 35 mm; sections [18]
ISA 35×35× Sectional area, a = 327 mm2 ; Distance
5 mm@2.6 kg/m of center of gravity from the edge
of section, C x x = 10.4 mm; Moment of
inertia, Iang = 3.5 cm4 ; Section modulus,
Z ang = 1.4 cm3
3. Section properties: Moment of inertia, I = 1890 cm4 ;

Section properties of Section modulus, Z = 145 cm3 ; Moment
steel cage are capacity of angle sections, Mang =
computed only from f y × Z ang = 0.35 kN m; Moment capacity
four angles placed at of steel cage, Mnv = f y × Z = 36.25 kN m
four corners of RC Center-to-center spacing of angles,
column. b = b y +2(t −C x x ) = 239 mm
Clear spacing of angles,
bcl = b y +2(t −c) = 190 mm
4. Design of battens: Design shear force on battens,

Assume six numbers =1.25× M /(2×b × N ) = 15.8 kN
Hba Equation (8)
nv
of 6 mm thick battens Design bending moment on battens,
used on each face of = H ×b /2 = 1.5 kN m
Mba ba cl Equation (9)
the steel cage, i.e. N = Required depth of battens =
6, t = 6 mm /(t × f ) = 77.5 mm
6× Mba y
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Design yield strength Required clear spacing,

of battens, fy = h = 4× Mang ×h/Mnv = 83.4 mm Equation (14)
250 MPa Required c/c spacing,
s = h[ 3 4Iang /{I (N −1)}] = 246.2 mm Equation (15)
Provide 6 mm thick and 80 mm width

plates as battens at a c/c spacing of
235 mm, which gives a clear spacing of
155 mm. For economy purposes, only
requirements of batten depth and center-
to-center spacing (arising out of stiff-
ness requirement) were preferred over
clear spacing requirements (arising out
of strength considerations). Width of end
battens can be taken as 125 mm, which
is about 1.5 times that of intermediate
batten.
5. Confined compressive Effective confinement width
stress–strain properties bxe = bx +2(t −c) = 140 mm,
of concrete b ye = b y +2(t −c) = 190 mm
Gross area of column Ac = 500 cm2
Area of reinforcement Ast = 12.06 cm2
Area of concrete Acc = 487.94 cm2
Reinforcement ratio
sl = Ast /Acc = 0.025
Lateral confining pressures along
x- and y-directions can be given by
x = 2As f y /b y s = 4.1 MPa Equation (1)
y = 2As f y /bx s = 5.1 MPa Equation (2)
Effective spacing of battens,
se = 85 mm Equation (5)
Effective confining stresses
in both directions,
xe / f co = 0.09, ye / f co = 0.11 Equations
(3)–(4)
Confining strength ratio, k = 1.55 Figure 2
Confined compressive strength of
concrete f cc = k × f co = 31 MPa
Peak and ultimate
strain of concrete
cc = co [1+5(k −1)] = 0.007 Equation (6)
cu =0.0035+0.1((xe + ye )/ f co )=0.023 Equation (7)
6. Moment capacity of Using confined stress–strain properties
strengthened column: of concrete and geometric properties of
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Stress–strain behavior column section, the moment capacity of

of confined concrete is column concrete, Mc is computed as
assumed as parabolic 74.2 kN m at an axial compressive load
with linear tail up of 450 kN as per Indian Standard code
to 85% of confined provisions [17].
compressive strength
and the permissible
tensile strength in
rebar is 0.87 f y .
Thus, the design moment capacity of
strengthened column, Ms = Mc + Mnv =
110.5 kN m, which is nearly equal to the
desired value of 110.6 kN m. Hence, the
design is satisfactory.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac gross area of column section

Acc area of concrete
As area of the transverse steel strips
Ast area of the transverse steel strips
bx , b width of the column section
b center-to-center spacing of steel angles
bcl clear spacing of steel angles
bxe clear spacing between the angles along the x-direction
by , D depth of the column section
b ye clear spacing between the angles along the y-direction
c width of the angle section
c/c center-to-center spacing
Cx x distance of center of gravity of steel angles from the edge
d depth of intermediate batten
dc thickness of clear cover
E modulus of elasticity of structural steel
Ec initial modulus of elasticity of concrete
E sec secant modulus of elasticity of confined concrete to the peak stress
fc longitudinal compressive strength of concrete
f cc confined compressive cylinder strength of concrete
f ck characteristic compressive strength of concrete
f co unconfined compressive cylinder strength of concrete
fy yield strength of battens and steel angles
f ys yield strength of rebars
h story height
h clear spacing of battens
Hba design shear force on battens
I moment of inertia of unit section
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Iang moment of inertia of single angle section

K sc stiffness of steel cage as per the original model

K sc stiffness of steel cage as per the refined model
k confinement strength ratio
M total moment capacity of angles between battens in the refined model
Mang moment capacity of each angle section
Mba design bending moment on battens
Mc moment capacity of RC of strengthened column
Mnv nominal moment capacity of unit section (steel cage)
Ms moment capacity of strengthened column
Mst required moment capacity of strengthened column
Mu moment capacity of ordinary column
N number of battens on each side of cage
Q lateral load in column under seismic condition
r elastic modulus parameter
s center-to-center spacing battens
se effective center-to-center spacing of battens
t thickness of batten
t thickness of steel angles
Vsc ultimate shear capacity of steel cage as per the original model
Vsc ultimate shear capacity of steel cage as per the refined model
x peak strain ratio of confined concrete to unconfined concrete
Z section modulus of unit section (steel cage)
Z ang section modulus of single angle section
lateral displacement
c longitudinal concrete strain
co strain at peak stress of unconfined concrete
cc strain at peak strain of confined concrete
cu ultimate strain of confined concrete
x average lateral confining pressure along x-direction
xe effective lateral confining pressure along x-direction
y average lateral confining pressure along y-direction
ye effective lateral confining pressure along y-direction
sl ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement to area of concrete section
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur for providing financial support in
conducting this study. The assistance of Structural Engineering Laboratory staff in experimental investi-
gation is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Hall JF (ed.). Northridge earthquake January 17, 1994—preliminary reconnaissance. Report 94-04, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 1994.
2. Comartin CD, Greene M, Tubbesing SK (eds). The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake, January 17, 1995, preliminary
reconnaissance. Report 95-04, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 1995.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3. Dritsos S, Pilakoutas K. Composite technique for repair/strengthening RC members. Proceeding of Second

International Symposium on Composite Material and Structures, Beijing, China, 1992; 958–963.
4. Rodriguez M, Park R. Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete building for seismic resistance. Earthquake
Spectra 1991; 7(3):439–459.
5. Li YF, Chen SH, Cheng KC, Liu KY. A constitutive model of concrete confined by steel reinforcements and
steel jackets. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2005; 32:279–288.
6. Murty CVR, Greene M, Jain SK, Prasad NP, Mehta VV. Earthquake Rebuilding in Gujarat, India—A Recovery
Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 2005.
7. Wasti ST, Ozcebe G. Advances in earthquake engineering for urban risk reduction. Nato Science Series: IV:
Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. 66(6). Springer: Netherlands, 2006.
8. Unjoh S, Kawashima K. Seismic inspection and seismic strengthening of reinforced concrete bridge piers.
Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, vol. 9, 1992; 5279–5284.
9. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Xiao Y, Verma R. Steel jacket retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns
for enhanced shear strength—part 1: theoretical considerations and test design. Structural Journal—American
Concrete Institute 1994; 91(4):394–405.
10. Aboutaha S, Engelhardt MD, Jirsa JO, Kreger ME. Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use of
rectangular steel jackets. Structural Journal—American Concrete Institute 1999; 96(1):68–78.
11. Zhong Y, Ren F, Tian J. Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete columns. Proceedings of the US PRC
Joint Workshop on Seismic Resistance of Masonry Structures, Harbin, China, 1986.
12. Dritsos S, Georgopoulos T, Pilakoutas K. Experimental study on a composite technique for repair/strengthening
techniques of RC columns. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference Structural Faults and Repair,
Edinburgh, vol. 3, 1993; 189–193.
13. Frangou M, Pilakoutas K, Dritsos S. Structural repair/strengthening RC columns. Construction and Building
Materials 1995; 9(5):259–266.
14. Masri AC, Goel SC. Seismic design and testing of an RC slab–column frame strengthened by steel bracing.
Earthquake Spectra 1996; 12(4):645–666.
15. Mander JB, Priestly JN, Park R. A theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1988; 114(8):1804–1826.
16. Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). CEB-FIP Model Code 1990-Final Draft. C.E.B. Bulletin, vol. 203,
1991.
17. IS:456-2000. Plain and reinforced concrete—code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, 2000.
18. SP:6-1964. Handbook for structural engineers—structural steel sections. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
1964.
19. IS:1608-1995. Mechanical testing of metals—tensile testing. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, 1995.
20. ATC-24. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA, U.S.A., 1992.
21. Abrams DP. Influence of axial force variations on flexural behavior of reinforced concrete columns. ACI—Structural
Journal 1987; 84(3):246–254.
22. Galal KE, Ghobarah A. Flexural and shear hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns with variable
axial load. Engineering Structures 2003; 25:1353–1367.
23. Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain curve for concrete. Cement and Concrete Research
1973; 3(5):583–599.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
View publication stats

Seismic Strengthening of RC Columns Using External

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Strengthening of RC Columns Using External

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Seismic strengthening of RC columns using external steel cage

Article in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · November 2009

Dipti Ranjan Sahoo Durgesh C Rai

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Self-Centering Energy Dissipation Devices View project

Aluminium shear link View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Seismic strengthening of RC columns using external steel cage

Pasala Nagaprasad, Dipti Ranjan Sahoo and Durgesh C. Rai∗, †

Received 10 December 2007; Revised 28 January 2009; Accepted 3 February 2009

Contract/grant sponsor: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. THEORETICAL MODEL FOR CONFINEMENT

Figure 2. Confinement strength ratio due to lateral confining stresses [15].

3. DESIGN OF STEEL CAGE

4.1. Test specimen

Table I. Material properties of concrete and steel used in test specimens.

Figure 6. Steel caging technique of strengthened RC column.

4.2. Strengthening technique

4.3. Test set-up and loading protocol

5.1. Hysteretic response

5.2. Lateral strength

Figure 10. Comparison of backbone curves.

5.3. Lateral stiffness

5.4. Displacement ductility

Figure 11. Strain vs drift ratio response of all specimens.

5.5. Strain–drift ratio response

5.6. Moment–curvature response

Figure 12. Comparison of moment–curvature response.

5.7. Energy dissipation response

Figure 13. Comparison of energy dissipation capacities of test specimens.

E c = 5000 f co (MPa) (19)

Steel cage RC column

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3.3 0.00316 55.8 0.00118 0.00234 83.3 138.7

Figure 14. Comparison of bending moment in test specimens.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study:

APPENDIX: DESIGN EXAMPLE

Step Explanation Calculation References

2. Trial angle section: Yield strength of angle section, f y = Indian

3. Section properties: Moment of inertia, I = 1890 cm4 ;

4. Design of battens: Design shear force on battens,

Design yield strength Required clear spacing,

Provide 6 mm thick and 80 mm width

Stress–strain behavior column section, the moment capacity of

Ac gross area of column section

Iang moment of inertia of single angle section

3. Dritsos S, Pilakoutas K. Composite technique for repair/strengthening RC members. Proceeding of Second

View publication stats

You might also like