Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Seismic retrofitting of corroded RC columns using advanced composite T

materials
⁎
Aditya Singh Rajputa, , Umesh Kumar Sharmaa, Kaizad Engineerb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667, India
b
Ushta Infinity Const. Company Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat 390016, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Investigations were undertaken to restore the seismic performance of corroded reinforced concrete (RC) col-
RC columns umns. Six full-scale columns were cast and tested in this study. Four column specimens were corroded to a
Seismic performance degree of corrosion of 30% using a pre-calibrated corrosion regime, while two columns were kept un-corroded.
Corrosion Out of the four corroded columns, three columns were retrofitted using different combinations of advanced
Retrofitting
composite materials. Retrofitting materials comprised of high-performance fibre reinforced concrete (HPFRC)
Composite materials
and glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) wraps. Performance of the column specimens was evaluated in terms
of key strength and ductility indicators (displacement ductility, curvature ductility, and energy absorption). Two
un-corroded columns consisted of one current code compliant well-confined column and another old age under-
confined column. Corroded specimen when retrofitted with only HPFRC jacket yielded satisfactory recovery of
strength and ductility in comparison to the un-corroded under-confined column but showed lower ductility when
compared with seismically designed column specimen. Wrapping of GFRP laminates further improved the re-
sponse of the specimens regarding strength and ductility parameters. Energy absorption was satisfactorily re-
covered for retrofitted columns. The moderately steep post-peak response was the only shortcomings of these
retrofitting strategies.

1. Introduction
RC columns, during seismic events, are considered vital for the
overall stability of superstructure. Columns are subjected to lateral
cyclic moment in the event of the earthquake while they are expected to
bear the gravity loads also. Though the formation of plastic hinges in
the columns is not preferable and is discouraged through ‘strong
column-weak beam’ design concept; column hinging cannot be avoided
entirely in most buildings during severe earthquakes. This necessitates
designing the columns in such a way that the energy can be dissipated
by post-elastic deformations. Post-elastic deformability of RC columns
during earthquake is ensured through provision of well detailed con-
fining reinforcement at the end hinge regions. The RC frame structures,
which were built before the ductile detailing stipulations of various
seismic Codes came into being, might have inadequate confinement in
the potential hinge regions. Such RC structures need up gradation in
view of the revised guidelines.
The situation becomes all the more dangerous when these under-
confined RC elements are subjected to deterioration due to corrosion.
Instances of corrosion of many such under confined RC elements are
now rising due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
and chloride concentration in the air close to the seashore. Field visits
by the authors in different parts of India revealed that a significant
portion of RC structures built before the introduction of seismic ductile
detailing guidelines [1] has been deteriorated by corrosion and are in
dire need of repair. One such example of corroded RC columns of a
building in the northern part of India is shown in Fig. 1. Similar studies
in other parts of the world have highlighted that the corrosion of re-
inforcement is the main cause of deterioration in RC structures [2,3].
Therefore, much research has been targeted towards investigating the
effects of corrosion on strength and ductility of corroded rebars [4–7]
and associated RC members [8–11]. Studies have reported severe loss to
the ductility and strength of rebars with an increase in the corrosion
levels [12]. This loss to the mechanical response of rebars further in-
creases with the occurrence of non-uniform corrosion resulting to lo-
calised damage and inferior plastic response. The distribution of pits
along the length of corroded bars seems to have a significant influence
on tensile, compressive, and cyclic response [5]. Some of the studies
conducted to evaluate influence of reinforcement corrosion on seismic
response of RC columns revelled significant loss in ductility and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: adity.dce2014@iitr.ac.in (A.S. Rajput), kengineer@ushtaindia.com (K. Engineer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.009
Received 26 July 2018; Received in revised form 31 October 2018; Accepted 3 December 2018
Available online 08 December 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.S. Rajput et al.
Nomenclature
List of notations
α proposed correction/calibration factor for Faraday’s law
mloss targeted mass loss (grams)
MSpecimen =MSpecimen molar mass of the reinforcement bar (55.8 mol)
CFaradayCFaraday Faraday’s constant (96485C/mol)
t time for achieving required charge (seconds)
Fig. 1. Visuals of corrosion damage in a residential building (Age- 30 years) situated in Dehradun, North India.
strength [13,14]. These studies reported a reduction of 20% in lateral
load carrying capacity and a loss of 50% in displacement capacity when
subjected to approximately 20% corrosion level. In line with these ex-
perimentations, numerical models have also been developed to simu-
late governing structural response [15].
Numerous studies on the seismic behaviour of pristine structures
[16–21] and their retrofitting strategies [22–24] have been reported in
the litertaure, while the performance of deteriorated and aged RC ele-
ments has not been investigated under exteme events like earthquake
loads. Existing retrofitting guidelines for RC elements subjected to
cyclic loading [25] do not take into account the effects of corrosion
deterioration. Hence designing retrofitting for these corroded RC
structures against seismic actions remains largely an unattended area.
Towards this end, retrofitting of corroded RC columns is the subject
matter of this study.
Aquino and Hawkins [9] conducted a study to restore seismic per-
formance of RC columns corroded to 4% using carbon fibre composites.
This study considered lap splicing in the corroded length, and the
combined effect was investigated. Though the results in this study
present satisfactory recovery of ductility and strength for a relatively
lower corrosion degree (4%), it remains to be seen whether the same
repair scheme will work for columns corroded to higher degrees. An-
other study by Li et al. [26] employed CFRP and steel jackets for im-
proving seismic behaviour of corroded RC columns. It was concluded in
this study that a combination of both results better than the individual
36
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
n specimennspecimen valance equal (2)
θ flexural rotation
δ' deflection of LVDTs at different locations
ht span between LVDTs
Ø curvature
S1 segment Length
Kn stiffness of nth cycle
V lateral load
application of one technique. An improvement in the strength and
ductility was reported when a column with 16.7% corrosion was
jacketed with steel and one layer of CFRP laminate. However, utilisa-
tion of steel jacket to retrofit corroded specimens may have some dis-
advantages such as higher corrosion vulnerability of the steel itself and
steel plates resulting in additional dead weight. Further, in a similar
study by Meda et al. [27]; high-performance fibre reinforced concrete
(HPFRC) was employed for retrofitting of under-confined corroded
columns. A strength enhancement of 118% was reported, but no sub-
stantial improvement in the ductility was noted. These previous studies
indicate insufficient information on retrofitting of corroded RC col-
umns, and thus a conclusive effort is needed in seismic upgradation of
corroded RC columns. Further, no previous study has reported sa-
tisfactory improvements in the seismic behaviour of severely corroded
RC columns after retrofitting for degree of corrosion more than 20%
which is typically seen in many corroded RC structures in practice.
2. Significance of study
This study aims to develop retrofitting scheme for restoring the
structural performance of corroded confined concrete hinge regions of
RC columns. This study employs advanced composite materials such as
high-performance fibre reinforced concrete (HPFRC) and glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP) in combination. Full-scale RC columns were
prepared, corroded, retrofitted and tested under simulated seismic
A.S. Rajput et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

loading. The effectiveness of chosen retrofitting scheme was examined Table 1

based on important performance indices. It is believed that the outcome Properties of materials.
of this study will generate a better understanding regarding the appli- Material Flexural strength Compressive Tensile strength (MPa)
cation of these advanced materials for retrofitting of corroded RC ele- (MPa) strength
ments. 100 × 100 × 500 (4 (MPa)Cylinder Yield Ultimate
Point) (100 × 200)

3. Experimental program HPFRC 11.30 74.26 4.77* 9.5*

Concrete – 32.46 – –
Steel – – 485 540
3.1. Specimen preparation GFRP – – 375.59 N/mm/layer

Six full-scale RC column specimens, each of height 1800 mm and a
square cross-section of 300 mm side along with a footing of size
1000 × 600 × 550 mm (Fig. 2.) were constructed. Through rods in
hinge region were provided to attach the LVDT’s over the test region for
recording the shear distortion and flexural rotation. Specimens were
cast using concrete of grade M-30 (Eurocode class C30/37) according to
the specifications of Indian Standards [28]. Companion cylinders were
also cast to assess the actual concrete strength on the day of testing of
column specimens. All the specimens had similar longitudinal re-
inforcement in the form of eight numbers of 16 mm diameter bars. The
diameter and spacing of transverse reinforcement were respectively
10 mm and 300 mm for five specimens and for one seismically designed
columns the tie spacing was 75 mm. The reinforcement details for well-
confined specimen was in accordance with IS 13920: 1993 [1] whereas,
for design of under-confined columns, provisions of IS 456:1978 were
followed.
3.2. Material properties
Concrete with an average cylindrical compressive strength of
32.46 MPa was employed for fabrication of column specimens.
Deformed HYSD 500D steel bars were used as longitudinal (ø16mm)
and transverse reinforcement (ø10 mm) in all the specimens. For ret-
rofitting of corroded specimens, HPFRC and GFRP laminates were
employed. The HPFRC with self-levelling rheology had maximum ag-
gregate size of 1.5 mm and liquid to binder ratio of 0.15 by weight. The
concrete was reinforced with 3.8% (by weight) of straight, 15 mm long
steel fibres with a diameter of 175 µm and tensile strength of 2800 MPa
(provided by the manufacturer). The HPFRC consisted of three com-
ponents namely dry cementitious mix, liquid, and steel fibres were
mixed in a rotating drum mixture and was cast without vibration.
Note: - * mark represent values provided by the manufacturer.
SALBOND SANT brand of 900 gsm GFRP laminates had 75 GPa of
elastic modulus. Thickness of coupon specimen of saturated GFRP was
measured with a mechanical gauge and was found to be 1.6 mm.
However, since the thickness of the composite depends on the amount
of epoxy used, strength is represented as a force per unit width instead
of stress. Mechanical properties of all the materials were measured and
has been shown in Table 1 below.
3.3. Corrosion setup
It is always a challenge to achieve an exact target degree of corro-
sion using accelerated corrosion. Therefore, a pre-calibration of the
accelerated corrosion system to achieve a desired corrosion level should
be undertaken. Towards this end, the accelerated corrosion procedure
designed for full-scale test columns was first calibrated by deploying it
on small scale prisms. The results obtained from this study yielded a
Faraday’s law correction factor as α = 1.9 for achieving a target degree
of corrosion of 30% in column specimens. This correction factor was
then used for inducing corrosion in test columns. Before preparation of
cage for the full-scale columns, reinforcement in the test length region
was weighed. For total anode area being 4253.7 cm2 and total anode
mass being 12,022 gm, the exposure duration was kept 323 days for
each specimen targeting 30% (3606 gm) mass loss. In order to accel-
erate the corrosion activities for laboratory experiments, the rate of
corrosion (corrosion current density) in the present experiment was
kept 200 µA/cm2. However, in natural case, the rate of corrosion may
vary between 1 µA/cm2 to 10 µA/cm2 depending on the severity of the
environment [29,30]. In the present case of partially submerged col-
umns, the natural rate of corrosion may vary between 3 µA/cm2 to

Fig. 2. Reinforcement and dimensional details of specimens.

37
A.S. Rajput et al.
5 µA/cm2 which corresponds to 56.6 years to 34.4 years of real ex-
posures respectively.
After casting and curing of the column specimens, preparation for
corrosion exposure was started. It was decided to keep the bottom
800 mm height of column as its test length. In order to subject the test
length portion of column to corrosion exposure, the test length portion
was surrounded by a hollow plastic pipe keeping an annular space
between the pipe and column faces. The percolation of saline water into
footing was arrested through an epoxy-based waterproofing sealant.
The saline solution (3.5%) was then poured in the annular space.
Stainless steel bars were used as external cathode and specimens were
connected to a current controlled DC supply. The exposure duration
was calculated using a modified Faraday’s law (Equation-1) after ap-
plying the correction factor obtained from the preliminary calibration
of the corrosion. Faraday’s law is an important and widely used ex-
pression for determining the corrosion rate of metals in terms of weight
loss per ampere of current flow per unit time. As mentioned earlier, an
additional coefficient, i.e. α was added to the expression to account for
the presence of concrete. The specimens were exposed to a current
density of 200 µA/cm2, and the suitably modified Faraday’s law given
below in Eq. (1) decided the duration of the exposures.
α. mloss . nspecimen . CFaraday
t (sec) =
Current (A). MSpecimen (1)
After completion of corrosion exposure, the test specimens were
inspected for cracks and other surface distress. After making note of the
corrosion-induced distress, the full-scale test columns were retrofitted
and tested under the simulated seismic loading. After testing, corroded
column specimens were demolished in their test length portion, and
corroded reinforcement bars were extracted, cleaned [31] and residual
weights were recorded to evaluate actual mass loss due to corrosion.
The mass loss was compared with the pre-corrosion mass of respective
rebar, and corrosion degree for an individual component was evaluated.
Average of these values have been presented in this study as corrosion
degree of that particular specimen.
3.4. Retrofitting techniques
Three columns corroded to 30% degree of corrosion were retrofitted
using the chosen composite materials. First specimen (RU-UC-30%) was
retrofitted with only HPFRC whereas second and third specimens,
namely ‘RUG1-UC-30%’ and ‘RUG2-UC-30%’ were retrofitted with the
Fig. 3. Retrofitting of corroded RC columns.
38
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
combination of HPFRC and one and two layers of GFRP laminates re-
spectively. After completion of corrosion and visual inspections of
surface distress, the cover concrete of corroded specimens was removed
without damaging the core concrete of specimens. Visual inspection
was once again carried out to monitor the nature of corrosion in
longitudinal and lateral reinforcement. Further, care was taken to re-
move concrete from the inside/underside of the bars by under-cutting
to a depth of 20 mm below/inside the reinforcement bars. To ensure
adequate connection of HPFRC jacket with footing, an 80 mm deep
pocket was made around the columns (see Fig. 3).
After visual inspection of reinforcement, formwork was built around
the proposed repair length using a prefabricated mould to restore
300 mm side of column’s cross-section thus ensuring 40 mm thickness
of HPFRC jacket from the face of longitudinal rebar. After casting of
HPFRC jacket, these retrofitted specimens were again cured for another
28 days, and then GFRP wrapping was done in two specimens. Before
GFRP wrapping, column’s surface was prepared and smoothening of
faces and rounding of corners was carried out using a mechanical
grinder. In order to fill the microcracks, voids, and cavities, a thin coat
of epoxy-based primer was applied on the finished surface in the hinge
length portion. After curing of the primer, the GFRP laminates were
pasted on the smooth surface of column’s test length in longitudinal (to
provide flexural strength) and circumferential directions (to provide
confinement). The GFRP sheet was saturated with adhesive (hardener
and base) mixed in the ratio of 1:2 by volume. The saturated fabric
sheets were wrapped around columns with fibres aligning in the cir-
cumferential or longitudinal direction. For specimens, RUG1-UC-30%
one layer in longitudinal and one layer in circumferential directions
were provided. Whereas for specimen RUG2-UC-30% number of these
layers were two. Overlapping and development length of 200 mm was
provided to the circumferential and longitudinal FRP respectively.
Provisions of ACI 440.2R [25] were followed to ensure requisite de-
tailing of FRP based strengthening system. Adequate anchoragement of
the longitudinal FRP with footing was ensured through steel angle and
mechanical fasteners. Fig. 3 shows the pictures of retrofitting procedure
and details of anchoragement and strengthening scheme.
3.5. Test setup
After completion of corrosion exposure and retrofitting, column
specimens were tested under cyclic lateral loads (Fig. 4). The testing
commenced with the application of axial load first. For all the
A.S. Rajput et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

Fig. 4. Quasi-static seismic testing setup and instrumentation.

specimens, the axial load ratio was kept 0.35 P0; making up approxi-
mately 940 kN for M-30 grade concrete. The concentricity of the axial
load was ensured using strain gauges and LVDT’s. Application of quasi-
static lateral cyclic loading started after few hours of the application of
the axial load. Recommendations from ACI 374.2R-13 [32] were used
to design the lateral cyclic loading history in order to simulate seismic
loads. Lateral cyclic testing was undertaken in the displacement control
mode. In the lateral displacement excursion, each increment consisted
of two repetitive cycles with a drift increment of 0.5% until 5% drift
level was achieved. After reaching the target drift level in each cycle,
further cycle of displacement loading was applied.
The progress of test was monitored, and damage of specimens in
terms of crack propagation was recorded using a crack scope with an
accuracy of 0.02 mm. Damage during peak of each cycle was duly noted
in terms of crack propagation and damage progression. It is to be noted
that the axial load was not maintained constant and was allowed to
reduce as a result of seismic damage. The axial load scenario of present
study was designed based on previous observations from an experi-
mental study conducted on RC frame in the shake table testing [33].
Further, it has been reported that in the RC building frames, once the
axial sustenance of any column reduces; some of the sustained load is
transferred to neighbouring durable columns through beams. As a result
to this, the axial load in the column reduces, and structural performance
of the column improves [34]. Fig. 4 shows the schematic of column
testing setup and a picture of the test setup.

Fig. 5. Typical crack pattern of corroded columns.

39
A.S. Rajput et al.
4. Observations and analysis of results
4.1. Observation from corrosion exposure
Corrosion-induced damage in the columns was observed in terms of
surface cracks while the damage to the reinforcement was ascertained
by removing cover before retrofitting and through gravimetric analysis
after testing. The crack observation of corroded specimen showed sig-
nificant cracking on the surface of test length region. Though the
average crack width for all the specimens was comparable, the dis-
tribution of cracks was found to be dissimilar on all the four faces of
each specimen. Fig. 5 below shows the typical crack distribution of
specimen UC-30% and Table 2 depicts the average crack widths for all
the specimens. Primary directions of cracks were longitudinal, but
tilting of these cracks in diagonal direction was also found in some
places. Direction of corrosion cracks was primarily governed by the fact
that which component of the cage is getting corroded. If only transverse
reinforcement is corroded than the cracks may be circumferential [35],
while if corrosion of longitudinal reinforcement is considered than
crack may be longitudinal [14].
Visual observations from corroded reinforcement showed sig-
nificant pitting of longitudinal bars and transverse reinforcement. Some
of the lateral ties were found to have completely snapped at some lo-
cations, and also the longitudinal bars suffered up to 100% sectional
loss at some places. Specimen RU-UC-30%, had one peripheral tie dis-
connected at corner and one longitudinal bar lost approximately 95% of
cross-section. Similarly, in the specimen, RUG1-UC-30% had one per-
ipheral tie and one longitudinal bar with 100% loss of cross section and
specimen RUG2-UC-30% experienced loss of one peripheral tie whereas
longitudinal bars in this specimen suffered severe pitting.
Furthermore, gravimetric examination of corroded reinforcement
under the present study revealed that corrosion of both lateral and
longitudinal bars had occurred, though transverse reinforcement had
undergone considerably more corrosion than longitudinal bars. Table 2
shows the degree of corrosion suffered by individual component of all
the four specimens and average crack width due to corrosion.
4.2. Observation from seismic testing
Though the column section adjacent to the footing-column interface
was subjected to maximum moment, damage in fact initiated away
from this section in the columns. Similar observations have been made
in the literature in the past as well [24]. The reason behind this re-
sponse was the mobilisation of extra confinement near the footing-
column joint due to the presence of a significant axial load. Four of the
six specimens were monitored for cracks as GFRP wrapping in other
two specimens hindered the visibility of cracking.
All the RC columns subjected to simulated seismic loads exhibited
flexural failure mode. The appearance of final stage damage in all the
column specimens is shown in Fig. 6. Well-confined specimen (CC)
showed good control over crack propagation and exhibited uniformly
distributed horizontal cracks with a spacing of cracks being approxi-
mately equal to the tie spacing. The first crack occurred at 0.75% drift
level and was perpendicular to the column axis at 470 mm from the
column-footing interface. With increasing drift levels, the number of
horizontal cracks increased and continued to develop. Crack widths in
this specimen were 0.9 mm corresponding to 4% drift. Specimen with
larger tie-spacing (UC) showed sparsely distributed wide horizontal
cracks in the potential hinge length. Lack of adequate confinement re-
inforcement in the specimen showed inability in controlling the crack
width and exhibited an average crack width of 1.35 mm at 4% drift,
while the spacing of cracks was approximately 150 mm. Also, forma-
tions of some diagonal cracking in the hinge length portion were ob-
served. With the increase in the lateral drift levels, the excessive spal-
ling of cover concrete was observed due to the crushing of concrete and
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. Mode of failure in this
40
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
specimen was largely flexural as the final stage of damage was domi-
nated by wide horizontal cracks. Under-confined specimen with 30%
corrosion exhibited further increase in the crack propagations, and
these crack locations were highly influenced by the pre-existing cor-
rosion distress. The average width of cracks in this specimen was
1.6 mm corresponding to 2% drift level. Despite the formation of some
diagonal cracks at higher drift levels, the primary mode of failure in this
specimen was identified as flexural.
Further, a specimen with 30% corrosion when retrofitted with
HPFRC jacket showed good control over crack propagation with an
average width of crack being 0.8 mm at 4% drift level. This specimen
also showed resistance against spalling of concrete and hence resulted
in greater load bearing capacities in the axial direction. Specimen with
HPFRC jacket and GFRP wrapping hindered initial observation of
cracking and crushing of concrete. In the later cycles, separation of fi-
bres and colour change at some locations in the hinging zone mani-
fested crushing and excessive bulging of concrete. With the increasing
lateral excursions, the breaking sound increased, and snapping of FRP
laminate was observed visually. In order to observe the mode of failure
in these specimen, the FRP laminates were removed after completion of
simulated seismic testing. It may be observed in this Fig. 6 that the
failure mode in all the six specimens was predominantly flexural.
4.3. Load vs. deflection behaviour
The V-Δ hysteresis responses along with backbone curves of all the
specimens are shown in Fig. 7. Though it was aimed to terminate the
test when a reduction of 20% in lateral load capacity is reached (Δu) in
the post-peak, yet the test was continued further for recording the post-
peak behaviour at larger lateral displacements and to monitor the ef-
ficiency of retrofitting techniques at larger drift levels. As expected,
well-confined control un-corroded specimen (CC) behaved in a ductile
manner showing a maximum lateral load of approximately 117 kN and
indicating 20% reduction in peak load (Δu) at 8% drift level. Under-
confined specimen (UC) gave lower lateral load carrying capacity and
ductility due to spalling of concrete and buckling of reinforcement. The
maximum lateral load for this specimen was approximately 98.05 kN
with a reduction of 20% in peak load at 4.4% drift level. Corroded
specimen (UC-30%) displayed significant degradation in the lateral
load capacity, and ductility with maximum load attained being 61.7 kN
and ultimate deflection (Δu) corresponding to 20% reduction in peak
load in post-peak being at 2.14% drift level. The corroded specimen
retrofitted with HPFRC (RU-UC-30%) showed a lateral load capacity of
114.7 kN and ultimate deflection of 4%. The corroded specimen retro-
fitted with HPFRC jacket and one layer of GFRP yielded a maximum
lateral load capacity of 128.5 kN and ultimate deflection (Δu) as 4.8%
drift approximately. The last specimen with HPFRC jackets and two
layers of GFRP resulted in the lateral load capacity of 139.0 kN and
ultimate deflection (Δu) as 5% approximately.
4.4. Moment vs. curvature behaviour
The response of the critical section in the potential hinge region of
Table 2
Summary of gravimetric results in corroded specimens.
Specimen Mass loss (%) Average crack
width (mm)
Average Peripheral tie Longitudinal bar
RU-30% 30.16 32.7 27.6 0.75
RU-UC-30% 29.7 33.7 25.6 0.78
RUG1-UC- 30.2 33.2 27.3 0.73
30%
RUG2-UC- 30.8 33.8 27.9 0.78
30%
A.S. Rajput et al.
Fig. 6. Seismic failure of column specimens.
column specimens was evaluated in terms of moment-curvature (M-∅)
behaviour. Fig. 8 presents the M-∅ behaviour of all the column speci-
mens. It should be noted that moment value in these responses includes
the components of the primary moment (lateral load) and secondary
moment (P-Δ), while the curvature is the average curvature of a most
critically damaged segment. The obtained deflection from the LVDTs in
segment-1 was used to evaluate the flexural rotation and the experi-
mental curvature (see Eqs. (2) & (3)).
δ 'Ls1 − δ 'Ln1 δ 'Lw1 − δ 'Lw4
FlexuralRotation − θs1 = Or
ht ht
θs1
AverageCurvature − ø =
S1
As expected, the seismically designed column specimen showed
stable hysteresis response. However, specimen with larger tie spacing
showed inferior response and experienced reduction in flexural moment
capacity and deformability. The post-peak response of this specimen
was marked by rapid degradation of moment resulting to lower ducti-
lity factors and energy dissipations. The reduction in the moment ca-
pacity in the under-confined specimen may be attributed to the poorly
confined concrete core resulting in premature buckling of longitudinal
reinforcement and section loss due to severe spalling of concrete in the
hinge region.
The seismic response of under-confined specimen further reduced
when deteriorated by 30% corrosion (specimen UC-30%). The max-
imum moment attained by this specimen was approximately half of the
uncorroded under-confined columns. Also, due to variation in the cor-
rosion damage in different faces of the specimen, the corroded spe-
cimen (UC-30%) responded asymmetrically in positive and negative
cycles. The corroded and retrofitted specimen with HPFRC jacketing
(RU-UC-30%) exhibited appreciable recovery in both flexural strength
and ultimate curvature. The maximum moment yielded by the spe-
cimen RUG2-UC-30% was higher than the control well-confined
column. The deformability of the retrofitting specimens was also ap-
preciably high. Specimen RUG2-UC-30% exhibited ultimate curvature
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
(øu) of 154.6 × 10−6 rad/mm−1 which was superior to the curvature of
un-corroded under-confined specimen being 87.1 × 10−6 rad/mm−1.
4.5. Stiffness degradation
The effectiveness of retrofitting techniques in restoring the lost
stiffness due to corrosion damage was evaluated for all the specimens.
Secant Stiffness (K) of each cycle was calculated using the slope of the
lines joining the peaks of negative (Kn−) and positive (Kn+) phases.
(2) Average stiffness (Kn) was calculated for each drift level based on
number of repetitive cycles. In order to report the degradation of
stiffness as a result of seismci damage, the stiffness value for each drift
(3) level was factored with resecte to intial stiffness and was termes as
normalised stiffness. Degradation in the normalized secant stiffness
during the loading process with respect to drift ratio has been compared
in Fig. 9 for various test specimens. Following Eqs. (4) & (5) were used
to compute secant stiffness and average stiffness.
i=i i=i
∑i = 1 Vn+ (max) ∑i = 1 Vn− (max)
Secant Stiffness = Kn+ = i=i
, Kn− = i=i
∑i = 1 Δ+n (max) ∑i = 1 Δ−n (max) (4)
Kn+ + Kn−
Average Stiffness = Kn =
2 (5)
With the increase in the drift levels, the stiffness reduction of cor-
roded specimen (UC-30%) was found to be highest followed by under-
confined specimen (UC). Corresponding to 3% drift level, specimen CC,
UC, UC-30%, RU-UC-30%, RUG1-UC-30%, and RUG2-UC-30% showed
46%, 53%, 89%, 44%, 39%, and 29% reduction respectively.
Experimental outcomes showed greater loss to the flexural stiffness for
columns with 30% corrosion. However, the adopted retrofitting stra-
tegies successfully recovered the lost stiffness and yielded stable stiff-
ness reduction behaviours comparable to seismically designed well-
confined columns.
41
A.S. Rajput et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

Fig. 7. Load vs. Deflection behaviour of column specimen.

4.6. Envelope energy dissipation
It was observed during the analysis of experimental results that
energy dissipation based on the envelope curve was a better illustration
of retrofitted columns than the hysteresis-based energy dissipation. The
reason identified for this was the fact that unloading curve of the ret-
rofitted specimen was close to the loading path, which resulted in
lowering enclosed area for retrofitted specimens whereas their load
sustenance was superior in comparison to the control columns. In order
to calculate the envelope energy, the skeleton curve of corresponding
specimen was used. The area under the segment of skeleton curve
corresponding to each drift level was calculated, and then the plot for
the energy dissipation was drawn. The envelope energy in Fig. 10
shows the envelope energy dissipation associated to each drift level. It
may be observed in Fig. 10 that, in the initial cycles (< 1%), dissipation
response of all the specimens was comparable. In the later cycles
(> 1%), under-confined and corroded specimens showed significant
inferior energy dissipation than the well-confined column. Corre-
sponding to the 1.5% drift level the under-confined (UC) and corroded
specimen (UC-30%) showed the energy dissipation 14% and 25% lower
than the control specimen. The retrofitted specimens, on the other
hand, showed significant recovery with respect to un-corroded spe-
cimen UC. In the initial cycles till 3% drift level the energy dissipation
of retrofitted specimen was even superior to the well-confined spe-
cimen. However, due to the relatively steep post-peak response of ret-
rofitted specimens, the well-confined took a significant lead in the later
drift levels. At 3% drift level, specimen RU-UC-30% had 17.3% lower
energy than the control specimen ‘CC’, whereas specimen RUG1-UC-
30% and RUG2-UC-30% showed 10.2%, and 25.2% higher energy
dissipation than specimen ‘CC’.
4.7. Axial load bearing capacity
Initial axial load level for each specimen was calculated based on
the compressive strength of the companion cylinders (f’c). For specimen
with f’c = 30, the axial load was 940 kN (0.35 P0), and this value was
modified according to the f’c for other specimens. Reduction in the axial
load after each drift cycle was noted and was compared with the initial
value and was termed as normalise values. Fig. 11 shows the reduction
in the load level after each drift level. As expected, the corroded spe-
cimen without retrofitting had the poorest behaviour followed by the
under-confined (UC) un-corroded column. The well-confined un-

42
A.S. Rajput et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

Fig. 8. Moment vs. Curvature behaviour of column specimens.

Fig. 9. Stiffness degradation of column specimens. Fig. 10. Energy dissipation behaviour of column specimens.

43
A.S. Rajput et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46

Fig. 12. Backbone comparison of all the specimens (Load vs. Deflection beha-
Fig. 11. Axial load degradation with increasing drift levels.
viour).

corroded column, on the other hand, showed a stable degradation plot
and showed 20% reduction in axial load corresponding to 8% drift
level. Interestingly, all retrofitted specimens showed appreciably good
axial load sustenance even at higher drift levels. The behaviour of
retrofitted specimens was superior to the well-confined un-corroded
specimens. An axial load of specimen RUG1-UC-30% got reduced by
20% at 10% drift level whereas specimen with only HPFRC indicated
only 5% reduction at 6% drift level. This superior load sustenance of
axial load in retrofitted specimens is because there was no sectional loss
in these specimen even at higher drifts whereas control un-corroded
specimens suffered severe spalling and sectional loss.
5. Analysis of results
RC columns for a satisfactory inelastic behaviour. Present study quan-
tifies the influence of corrosion on seismic response of RC column
sections and thereby to examine the various upgradation techniques by
evaluating displacement ductility factor and curvature ductility factor.
These factors were evaluated to quantify the effectiveness of different
retrofitting techniques in restoring the seismic performance of corroded
confined concrete columns. Table 3 summarises the ductility factors
and other important parameters of the study which may be helpful in
assessing the effectiveness of retrofitting techniques. Figs. 12 and 13
represent the backbone behaviour of all the column specimens to pro-
vide better clarity of seismic behaviour and comparison of various
retrofitting techniques.

A well confined potential hinge regions are generally required in the

Table 3
Summary of test results and comparison with previous similar studies.
Author ID Retrofitting Corrosion (%) P/P0 Øh (mm) s (mm) Vmax (kN) Mmax (kN- µΔ (0.8) µø (0.9) µø (0.8) E (0.8)
Technique m)

Present Study, Size 300x300 CC – 0 0.35 10 75 117.0 239.3 4.13 10.3* – 10873.3
grade M-30 UC – 0 0.35 10 300 98.1 209.1 2.21 4.1 4.56 4991.3
UC-30% – 30.2 0.35 10 300 61.7 109.3 2.18 2.0 2.41 1452.7
RU-UC- U 29.7 0.35 10 300 114.7 237.0 2.65 5.4 9.03 5362.9
30%
RUG1-UC- U + G1 30.2 0.35 10 300 128.5 253.4 2.79 8.9 11.29 6828.4
30%
RUG2-UC- U + G2 30.9 0.35 10 300 139.0 282.3 3.19 11.8 – 7926.9
30%

Li et al. [26] A0 – 0 0.35 8 100 190.87 – 3.6 – – –

Size 200 × 200 grade M- B121 S + C1 19.56 0.13 8 100 253.6 – 7.51 – – –
45 B2 – 19.17 0.25 8 100 164.91 – 3.58 – – –
B21 C1 17.8 0.22 8 100 179.76 – 7.46 – – –
B22 S 16.5 0.24 8 100 265.79 – 6.55 – – –
B221 S + C1 18.8 0.21 8 100 316.45 – 7.29 – – –
B222 S + C2 17.2 0.19 8 100 291.17 – 10.8 – – –
B223 S + C1 16.89 0.21 8 100 234.31 – 11.08 – – –
B3 – 16.8 0.35 8 100 173.2 – 2.96 – – –
B321 S + C1 16.7 0.29 8 100 334.68 – 6.58 – – –
C2 – 11.49 0.25 8 100 167.8 – 4.7 – – –
C21 C1 10.45 0.22 8 100 186.24 – 6.96 – – –
C22 S 9.9 0.24 8 100 279.62 – 6.36 – – –
C221 S + C1 9.3 0.21 8 100 320.64 – 6.47 – – –

Meda et al. [27] UC – – 0.22 8 300 63 92.6 – – 5 –

Size 300 × 300 grade M- C – 20 0.22 8 300 44 65.0 – – 2.5 –
20 CR U 20 0.22 8 300 86 130.0 – – 2 –

Where, P0 – Theoretical axial capacity of column under concentric axial load (P0 = 0.85 × f’c × Ac + fy × Ast), P – Axial load, øh– Diameter of transverse re-
inforcement, s – Spacing of transverse reinforcement, Vmax – Maximum lateral load capacity, Mmax – Maximum moment capacity, µΔ (0.8) – Displacement ductility
ration corresponding to 20% reduction in load, µø (0.9) - Curvature ductility factor corresponding to 10% reduction in moment, µø (0.8) - Curvature ductility factor
corresponding to 20% reduction in moment, E(0.8) – Cumulative energy dissipation up to 20% reduction in load.

44
A.S. Rajput et al.
Fig. 13. Backbone comparison of all the specimens (Moment vs. Curvature
behaviour).
5.1. Influence of tie-spacing and corrosion degree
Comparison of control specimens CC and UC revealed the influence
of larger tie spacing. Comparison in terms of load carrying capacity
shows a reduction of 16.3%, in terms of moment carrying capacity
shows a loss of 12.6% and finally in terms of ductility ratio indicates a
reduction by 46.5%. When under-confined specimen was corroded to
30% (UC-30%) the lateral load carrying capacity further reduced by
47.36%, moment capacity by 54.3%, and ductility ratio by 47.21% in
comparison to specimen CC. These results clearly show the influence of
corrosion on the load carrying capacity of under-confined concrete
columns. The reason behind this inferior behaviour was the significant
pitting in the longitudinal reinforcement. This sectional loss results in
the premature buckling and rupturing of the longitudinal bars resulting
in reduced load capacity. It should also be noted that the comparison of
specimen UC and UC-30% shows that the displacement ductility factor
was not affected by corrosion. It should be noted that the ultimate and
yield displacements of corroded column (UC-30%) was 47.3% and
51.15% lower than the un-corroded specimen (UC). It should also be
noted that due to a proportionate reduction in the ultimate and yield
displacement values, the displacement ductility factor of under-con-
fined (UC) and corroded under-confined (UC-30%) specimens was si-
milar. It is crucial to conclude here that the ductility factors, in this
case, were not an accurate representation of deformability and reduced
displacement values may be considered as the true representative of
lost deformability. The other ductility factor based on curvature (μø)
indicated approximately 51.2% reduction in the curvature ductility
when subjected to 30% corrosion degree. This reduction may be un-
derstood by the fact that curvature ductility ratio represents response of
critical hinge section which is highly influenced by the corrosion and
buckling of longitudinal bars. Reduced section of corroded longitudinal
bars promotes premature yielding and steep reduction at the moment in
the post-peak region resulting in further reduced ductility factors.
5.2. Effectiveness of retrofitting techniques
Three specimens with different retrofitting strategies were adopted
to make up the detrimental effects of corrosion on the under-confined
RC columns. Specimen RU-UC-30%, retrofitted with HPFRC jacket of
40 mm thickness yielded substantial improvement in seismic response.
In comparison to control under-confined specimen (UC) the loss in the
strength due to corrosion was 37.1% in specimen UC-30%. This spe-
cimen, when retrofitted with only HPFRC jacket, showed an increase in
the strength by 17% and 86% with respect to control (UC) and corroded
(UC-30%) columns. Similarly, the moment capacity and energy ab-
sorption of the corroded columns were found to have completely re-
covered by the HPFRC jacketing. From Table 3, it may be observed that
45
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
the seismic performance of retrofitted column was superior to under-
confined control column (UC), whereas it was slightly inferior to the
well-confined column (CC). To this end, the HPFRC jacket was further
supplemented by external wrapping of GFRP laminates in circumfer-
ential and longitudinal directions. Another specimen with the same
degree of corrosion (30%) retrofitted with HPFRC and one layer of
GFRP laminate yielded improved results in terms of strength and duc-
tility, but still the achieved ductility was not up to the desired level, i.e.
4. The ductility factor achieved from this specimen was approximately
32% lower than the well-confined column. Another specimen retro-
fitted with HPFRC, and two layers of GFRP yielded further improved
results and exceeded the strength of the well-confined column. Again
the ductility factor achieved from this specimen was approximately
22.5% lower than the well-confined column. This shows that the
composite materials employed in the present study are effective in re-
storing the strength and ductility of corroded under-confined RC col-
umns. Improving the seismic response to match the current confine-
ment requirement was achieved in strength only, but deformability of
retrofitted columns was significantly lower than the desired values as
per current requirements. The reason behind this response may be the
inferior post-peak behaviour of these composite materials in tension. It
should be noted that the composite material like HPFRC and GFRP have
good tensile strength, but post-peak of these materials is steeper than
the steel reinforcement.
Previous studies [23,36,37] conducted on pristine (Un-corroded)
elements have reported significant recovery of ductility of RC columns
when retrofitted with FRP wrapping whereas the present study does
not. The reason behind this contrarian outcome may be the fact that
longitudinal bars in the present study were also severely corroded and
hence premature buckling and rupturing due to severe pitting might
have resulted in an inferior contribution of them in the post-peak tra-
jectory of column’s seismic response. It should be noted that HPFRC
jacketing and FRP laminates mobilize improved triaxle state of stress in
core concrete and reduce spalling and sectional loss to the cover con-
crete. This resistance against spalling results in improved flexural
compression and hence improved post-peak behaviour in comparison to
the under-confined concrete columns where spalling reduces the flex-
ural and compressive components. Further, the flexural tension com-
ponent is critically dependent on the longitudinally aligned reinforcing
material which in this case are corroded longitudinal reinforcing bars,
HPFRC jacket, and GFRP jacket. Since all these three materials have
poor post-peak behaviour, the flexural component of post-peak trajec-
tory reduces and hence results in relatively lower gains in ductility in
comparison to the pristine columns where longitudinal bars are in good
health and utilises full ductile behaviour.
Furthermore, retrofitted specimens showed satisfactory recovery of
energy absorption when compared with the under-confined column but
significantly lower (50.6%) than the well-confined column. Though
with the introduction of the GFRP laminates, the energy absorption of
specimen increase significantly but still, a specimen with two layers of
GFRP laminated yielded approximately 27.1% lower energy absorption
than the well-confined columns. The reason behind this outcome may
be better understood from Fig. 10. It is evident that due to higher
flexural loads in the initial cycles; the energy absorption of retrofitted
specimens was higher. This lead of retrofitted specimens vanished in
the later cycles where catastrophic failure and inferior post-peak tra-
jectory diminished the cumulative energy value. The lower energy
absorption in cumulative terms is a manifestation of lower ductility
properties of retrofitted columns in comparison to the pristine well-
confined columns.
6. Conclusions
Following conclusions can be drawn based on the investigations:
• Corrosion of reinforcement in potential hinge regions of RC columns
A.S. Rajput et al.
affects the seismic performance of columns adversely. Corroded
columns showed 37.1% reduction in lateral load carrying capacity
and 47.7% reduction in moment capacity. The detrimental effect of
corrosion on deformability of RC columns was more marked as
curvature ductility factor reduced by 47.8% due to corrosion of
reinforcement.
•
Retrofitting using high-performance fibre reinforced concrete
(HPFRC) was found to be adequate in restoring the strength and
deformability of corroded under-confined RC columns. However,
this technique of retrofitting could not restore the seismic perfor-
mance to the level of requirements of current codes for a well
confined RC column.
•
Provision of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) wraps along
with HPFRC on the corroded under-confined columns was able to
restore the strength to the level required for well-confined RC col-
umns as per current requirements of Seismic Codes. However, this
combination of GFRP and HPFRC technique of retrofitting could not
upgrade the corroded columns with respect to ductility require-
ments of current codes. This is believed to be due to the fact that
corroded bars, GFRP, and HPFRC were not able to sustain loads in
the post-peak region.
• Axial load sustenance of retrofitted specimen was clearly better than
the well-confined control columns. The reason behind this was the
spalling resistance provided by the HPFRC jacket which was re-
sulting in no cross-sectional loss and effective transfer of axial load
even at higher drift levels. It was observed that specimen with
HPFRC jacket manifested only 6% reduction in axial load till 6%
drift whereas the control specimen (CC) showed 16% reduction in
the axial load at this drift level.
7. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding
publication of this manuscript in the ‘Journal of Engineering
Structures’.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India, and Thermax Limited for
providing financial support and necessary material for conducting this
investigation.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.009.
References
[1] IS-13920:1993. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjectd to
seismic forces — Code of practice. Bur Indian Stand 2002;1993.
[2] Cabrera JG. Deterioration of concrete due to reinforcement steel corrosion. Cem
Concr Compos 1996;18:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00043-7.
[3] Capozucca R. Damage to reinforced concrete due to reinforcement corrosion. Constr
Build Mater 1995;9:295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(95)00033-C.
[4] Apostolopoulos CA. Mechanical behavior of corroded reinforcing steel bars S500s
tempcore under low cycle fatigue. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:1447–56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.008.
[5] Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Nonlinear stress – strain behaviour of cor-
rosion-damaged reinforcing bars including inelastic buckling. Eng Struct
2013;48:417–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.034.
[6] Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Nonlinear behaviour of corroded RC col-
umns under cyclic loading. 7th Int. Conf. Seismol. Earthq. Eng. 2015:245–6.
[7] Ou YC, Susanto YTT, Roh H. Tensile behavior of naturally and artificially corroded
46
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 35–46
steel bars. Constr Build Mater 2016;103:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.10.075.
[8] Ma Y, Che Y, Gong J. Behavior of corrosion damaged circular reinforced concrete
columns under cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:548–56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.002.
[9] Aquino W, Hawkins NM. Seismic retrofitting of corroded reinforced concrete col-
umns using carbon composites. ACI Struct J 2007;104:348–56.
[10] Jayaseelan Revathy. Effect of corrosion damage on the ductility performance of
concrete columns. Am J Eng Appl Sci 2009:1–5. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.
2009.324.327.
[11] El Maaddawy TA, Soudki KA. Effectiveness of impressed current technique to si-
mulate corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2003;15:41–7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:1(41).
[12] Apostolopoulos CA, Papadopoulos MP, Pantelakis SG. Tensile behavior of corroded
reinforcing steel bars BSt 500s. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:782–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.065.
[13] Rajput AS, Sharma UK. Corroded reinforced concrete columns under simulated
seismic loading. Eng Struct 2018;171:453–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2018.05.097.
[14] Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Experimental evaluation of the corrosion
influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC columns. Eng Struct 2014;76:112–23.
[15] Di Carlo F, Meda A, Rinaldi Z. Numerical cyclic behaviour of un-corroded and
corroded RC columns reinforced with HPFRC jacket. Compos Struct
2017;163:432–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.038.
[16] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated
seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1989;86:3–12.
[17] Azizinamini A, Corley W. effect of transverse reinfocement on seismic performance
[18]
of columns. Aci Struct J 1992.
Sheikh SA, Khoury SS. Confined concrete columns with stubs. ACI Struct J
1993;90:414–31.
[19] Sheikh SA, Shah DV, Khoury SS. Confinement of high strength concrete column. ACI
Struct J 1994;91:100–11.
[20] Bayrak O. High-strength concrete columns under simulated earthquake loading.
ACI Struct J 1997.
[21] Rajput AS, Sharma UK. Seismic behavior of under confined square reinforced
concrete columns. Structures 2018;13:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.
2017.10.005.
[22] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Jin L. Repair of earthquake-damaged RC columns
with FRP wraps. ACI Struct J 1997;94. 206–X.
[23] Iacobucci RD, Sheikh SA, Bayrak O. Retrofit of square concrete columns with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J
2003;100:785–94.
[24] Memon MS, Sheikh SA. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted
with glass fiber-reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102:774–83. https://doi.
org/10.14359/14673.
[25] ACI. 440. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems
for strengthening concrete structures. Am Concr Inst 2017;24:873–82. https://doi.
org/10.1061/40753(171)159.
[26] Li J, Gong J, Wang L. Seismic behavior of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete
columns strengthened using combined carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and steel
jacket. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:2653–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.01.003.
[27] Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Corroded RC columns repair and strength-
ening with high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Mater Struct
2016;49:1967–78. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0627-1.
[28] IS 10262: 2009. Indian concrete mix design guide lines. 2009.
[29] González JA, Andrade C, Alonso C, Feliu S. Comparison of rates of general corrosion
and maximum pitting penetration on concrete embedded steel reinforcement. Cem
Concr Res 1995;25:257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(95)00006-2.
[30] Sangoju B, Pillai RG, Gettu R, Bharatkumar BH, Iyer NR. Use of portland pozzolana
cement to enhance the service life of reinforced concrete exposed to chloride attack.
J Mater Civ Eng 2015;27:04015031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001293.
[31] ASTM:G1-03 (Reapproved:2011). Standard Practice for Preparing , Cleaning , and
Evaluating Corrosion Test. Am Soc Test Mater 2011;03:1–9. doi:10.1520/G0001-
03R11.2.
[32] Committee ACI. Guide for testing reinforced concrete structural elements under
slowly. Appl. Simulated Seismic Loads 2013.
[33] Elwood K, Moehle JP. Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load
collapse of reinforced concrete frames. Peer 2003/01;2003:364. https://doi.org/10.
16953/deusbed.74839.
[34] Nakamura T, Yoshimura M. Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames.
Berkeley: CE 299 Rep Univ California; 2014. p. 1–11.
[35] Zhang G, Cao X, Fu Q. Experimental study on residual strength of concrete confined
with corroded stirrups. Can J Civ Eng 2016;590:583–90.
[36] Sheikh SA. Performance of concrete structures retrofitted with fibre reinforced
polymers. Eng Struct 2002;24:869–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)
00025-1.
[37] Sheikh SA, Yau G. Seismic behavior of concrete columns confined with steel and
fiber-reinforced polymers. ACI Struct J 2002:99. https://doi.org/10.14359/11037.