Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

External steel ties and CFRP jacketing effects on seismic performance and
failure mechanisms of substandard rectangular RC columns
Hamid Farrokh Ghatte
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Antalya Bilim University, Antalya, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the feasible retrofitting techniques for existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures is to use Fiber
Column Reinforced Polymers (FRPs). On the other hand, the efficiency of the FRP jacketing strategy in rectangular
CFRP jacketing RC columns is less than square and circular cross‐section. For this purpose, the seismic retrofit of five full‐
Ductility scale substandard rectangular RC columns is evaluated both numerically and experimentally in terms of
Reinforced concrete
load–displacement performance, failure mechanism and autopsy after the test. Besides, the study introduces
Retrofitting
Substandard
an enhanced strategy employing carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRPs) as well as external steel ties to retro-
Steel tie fit the full‐scale RC columns with rectangular cross‐section loaded through the weak direction. The findings
demonstrate that the CFRP jackets and external steel ties considerably usefulness in comparison to the used
retrofitting strategy specifically concerning ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Regarding the analytical
work, the non‐elastic performance of the retrofitted and reference specimens was established by using realistic
material models employing Seismostruct as a finite element platform. Lastly, the analytical forecasting carried
out employing the FRP retrofitting design methods presented by the Turkish Seismic Design Code (TSDC), ACI
440.2R and Eurocode 8 Part 3 are compared with experimental results.

1. Introduction by creating a tri‐axial stress state where the mechanical properties of

Experimental research and post‐earthquakes reconnaissance have
evidenced that existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, designed
according to old standards, frequently show premature failures. Buck-
ling of the longitudinal bars, bond effect, poor quality concrete (gener-
ally uniaxial compressive strength less than 20 MPa), plain bars, and
an insufficient number of improperly‐detailed transverse reinforce-
ments (substandard RC members’ characteristics) are a series of com-
mon failure deficiencies [1–11]. Numerous RC buildings require
urgent seismic retrofitting based on the above‐mentioned deficiencies.
According to the latest adopted seismic provisions, a large number of
transverse reinforcements, stirrups, and cross‐ties which run around
the longitudinal reinforcements spaced throughout plastic hinge
regions of RC columns. These reinforcements not only increase the
building’s resistance but also improve the building’s ductile capacity.
Confining of the core concrete has a substantial participation in the
seismic performance of RC columns; columns with enough confine-
ments indicate a high level of strength as well as ductility based on
the enhancing the compressive strength and axial strain at the ultimate
condition, while slightly confined columns demonstrate a light energy
dissipation characteristic and low deformability throughout the earth-
quake. The enhancement in the case of proper confinement is achieved
concrete, including compressive strength and ductility, are improved
and the longitudinal bars buckling is preventing or postponed.
Accounting for the enhancement in confined concrete performance,
various models are available in the literature concerning the axial
stress–strain relationship for concrete that subjected to compression
[12–16].
The externally wrapping of plastic hinging regions of the RC col-
umns using Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) is an applicable strat-
egy for slightly confined members. FRPs have countless advantages
as, significant strength/weight ratio, an acceptable level of durabil-
ity and easy application. These advantages caused increasingly using
different types of FRPs for retrofitting during the last decades
[17–45]. Numerous analytical in terms of numerical presentation
of the participants provided with FRP jacketing improved based
on the uniaxial compression experiments using comparatively minor
prisms samples either cylinder [46–50]. For substandard RC col-
umns retrofitted by FRP jacketing under simulated seismic loads,
several experimentally investigations have been reported
[21,22,25,26,32,40]. All of these investigations were on the seismic
performance of FRP wrapped concrete columns reinforced with
plain reinforcing bars and low‐quality concrete but with relatively
small cross‐sections and nonrealistic dimensions. Moreover, all of

E-mail addresses: ghatte@itu.edu.tr, hamid.ghatte@antalya.edu.tr

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112542
Received 22 March 2020; Revised 15 May 2020; Accepted 26 May 2020
Available online 30 May 2020
0263-8223/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Farrokh Ghatte
the tests have been done just through the strong direction of rectan-
gular cross‐sections of the columns.
The effectively confined area in the rectangular cross‐section is cal-
culated by assuming the area within parabolas intersecting either the
edges. By evaluation of using schema, the minority of the above‐
mentioned studies related to using ties to improving the effectively
confined area in a rectangular cross‐section [32,41,42]. The test results
demonstrated that FRP ties improved energy dissipation capacity and
ductility by improving the effective area for confinement.
A survey of the available literature indicates that although the seis-
mic behavior of full‐scale substandard RC columns with rectangular
cross‐section retrofitted by FRP jacketing was studied in the literature,
there is a lack of knowledge with aforementioned deficiencies typical
to Turkish building stock, realistic dimensions and using external steel
ties tested through their weak directions. Additionally, rarely discus-
sion is available about the collapse mechanisms and autopsy of the
specimens after the test. This study contributes experimentally and
theoretically improving the seismic retrofitting of substandard RC col-
umns with rectangular cross‐sections through CFRP jacketing under
constant axial loads and reversed cyclic lateral loading. Moreover,
the study introduces a developed strategy using CFRP jacketing and
external steel ties for seismically retrofit of full‐scale RC columns with
rectangular cross‐section loaded both in their strong and weak direc-
tions. The columns were investigated under relatively high axial load
in terms of collapse mechanisms and autopsy of the columns after the
test with realistic details and dimensions. In the presentation of the
Table 1
Test matrix.
Specimen Series Axial Force (kN)
CS-R CS 1000
CS-N2 CS 1000
CW-R CW 1000
CW-N2 CW 1000
CW-N2+ST CW 1000
Cross Section and Loading
Direction of the Columns
Fig. 1. General view of the test setup and reinforcement details (all of the dimensions in mm).
2
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
test results, initially, the damage evolution and observations are col-
lected. Then deformability characteristics, as well as the strength of
the specimens, are compared both experimentally and theoretically.
In the numerical section of the study, the inelastic performance of
the retrofitted and reference specimens was established by using real-
istic material models employing Seismostruct [51] as a finite element
platform. Finally, the analytical estimations based on the FRP retrofit
design procedures submitted by the Turkish Seismic Design Code
(TSDC), American Concrete Institute (ACI 440.2R) and Eurocode 8
Part 3 are evaluated with the experimental results [52–54].
2. Experimental schema
Five cantilever RC columns with 300 mm × 600 mm dimensions,
poor quality of concrete, plain reinforcing bars, and low level of stir-
rups were constructed as typical existing RC columns, representative
of substandard members in all of the world. The specimens are divided
into two parts based on the lateral load directions (CS for strong direc-
tion tests and CW for weak direction tests).
2.1. Description of the specimens
The essential properties of the tested specimens, like the name,
applied axial load direction, axial load level, and retrofit strategies,
are represented in Table 1. The specimens were examined by using
the presented setup in Fig. 1. For the different specimens, the various
Retrofit Strategy ρCFRP (%)
Reference Specimen 0
CFRP Jacket-Two plies 0.332
Reference Specimen 0
CFRP Jacket-Two plies 0.332
CFRP Jacket-Two plies + ST 0.332
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

vertical distance between the center of the actuator and the top of the The average of standard cylindrical concrete compressive strength
foundation was 2050 mm‐2010 mm. At each target, maximum lateral was 16 MPa. The stress–strain relationship of concrete for the columns
drift to the total height that has been defined as a drift ratio (DR), the is represented in Fig. 3(a).Ten φ14 (the nominal diameter of the rein-
specimen cracks and their propagation on the column surfaces as well forcing bars is 14 mm) was utilized for the longitudinal reinforcement
as other observations were reported. The geometric shape of the spec- of the columns (the reinforcement ratio was 0.085%) while the trans-
imens, reinforcement details, and the details of the measurement verse reinforcement was 10 mm diameter closed stirrups with 90‐
system are represented in Figs. 1 and 2. Plain reinforcing bars were degree hooks and 200 mm spacing in the potential plastic hinging
used with a medium yield strength of 310 MPa and 330 MPa for lon- area. The clear cover of concrete over the stirrups was 25 mm.
gitudinal reinforcements and transverse reinforcements respectively. The transverse reinforcement ratio Ash/s.bk of the columns was

Axial Load

CDP 300 Lateral Load

CDP 100
2100

CDP 200
1800

CDP 50 CDP 50
1050

CDP 50 CDP 50
550
275

CDP 10 CDP 10
150

350 350
300

CDP 10
600

300

1600

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. The measuring system (all dimensions are in mm).

20 500 500
Compressive Strength

400 400
15
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

300 300
(MPa)

10
200 200
5 100 100

0 0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain Strain
Strain
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 3. The relationships of stress and strain; (a) Concrete, (b) Longitudinal reinforcement (φ14) and (c) Transverse reinforcement (φ10).

3
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Table 2 15
The mechanical properties of φ14 as longitudinal reinforcing and φ10 as 10
10 8
9
transverse reinforcing. 7
6

Drift Ratio × 10²

5
5 3 3.5 4
Reinforcement fy εy fmax εmax fu εu 1.5 2 2.5
0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) 0

φ14 310 0.0014 452 0.19 284 0.22 -5

φ10 330 0.0015 458 0.20 285 0.23
-10

-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Table 3
Cycles
Properties of the fibers of CFRP sheets.

Type Strength at Modulus of Strain at Fig. 5. Drift (displacement) protocol.

Ultimate Elasticity Ultimate
condition condition

– (MPa) (GPa) (%)
CFRP (One 4200 240 1.8
Dimensional)
approximately 0.26% and 0.13% for strong direction (CS series) and
weak direction (CW series) respectively, where Ash is the total cross‐
section area of stirrups with spacing s while bk is the perpendicular dis-
tance of core. The mechanical properties of φ14 as the longitudinal
reinforcing and φ10 as transverse reinforcing bars are represented in
Table 2, where fmax and fu are the maximum and ultimate tensile stres-
ses and εy, εmax, and εu are the tensile strains corresponding to fy, fmax
and fu, respectively. The modulus of elasticity of Carbon FRP sheets
was 240 GPa, the tensile strength was 4200 MPa and the maximum
ratio for elongation was 1.8% with a thickness of around 0.166 mm
(as the manufacturer indicated in Table 3). Carbon FRP sheets were
bonded to the column surfaces by utilizing an epoxy‐based resin. In
Fig. 3(b) and (c) the tensile stress–strain relationship of the plain lon-
gitudinal reinforcement (φ14) and the transverse reinforcement (φ10)
are represented respectively. In each series, the first column was tested
as the reference specimen (CS‐R and CW‐R) while the other specimens
(CS‐N2, CW‐N2, and CW‐N2+ST) were tested after CFRP jacketing as
a retrofitting schema. CS‐N2, CW‐N2, and CW‐N2+ST specimens were
jacketed with two layers of CFRP. CW‐N2+ST additionally had exter-
nal steel ties throughout the column height at every 200 mm spacing.
A 1500 mm height of the CFRP wrapped area was used from the upper
level of the foundation. All of the corners of the columns were rounded
before the application of CFRP (the radius was considered 30 mm). In
any rows, two Φ14 (the nominal diameter is 14 mm) threaded steel
rods with a yield strength of 508 MPa was used as external steel ties.
At the ends of the steel ties, 10 mm thick washer plates of
100 mm × 100 mm made of steel were placed. The general view of
the tested specimens is represented in Fig. 4.
2.2. Test assembly and loading protocol
A combination of axial force and reversed cyclic lateral force was
used for the tests. The testing set up for this purpose is represented in
Figs. 2 and 3. Throughout the test, the axial load was kept constant at
around 35% of the axial load capacities of the columns (excluding the
axial load capacity of the longitudinal reinforcing bars). For the appli-
cation of the lateral force as well as the displacements of cycles, MTS
servo‐controlled hydraulic actuator with a 250 kN capacity, posi-
tioned at 2050–2100 mm height from the foundation was used. A
manually controlled hydraulic jack was used for applying the axial

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 4. General view of the specimens; (a) CS-R, (b) CW-R, (c) CS-N2, (d) CW-N2 and (e) CW-N2+ST.

4
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Drift- 4.0%
Ratio 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 3.0%

CS-R -------------------- --------------------

Drift- 5.0%
Ratio 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%
CS-N2

(a)
Drift- 7.0%
Ratio 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 4.0%
CW-R

----------------- -----------------
CW-N2

-----------------
CW-N2+ST

(b)
Fig. 6. Damage comparisons; (a) CS series (b) CW series.

force (Figs. 2 and 3). A series of Linear Variable Differential (Fig. 2). The rotations and curvatures at the various gauge lengths
Transformers (LVDTs), load cell and strain gauges were composed near the foundation and column connection, where the bending
by a data logger as a system for measurements. A group of LVDTs moment was maximized were calculated based on the measured dis-
was used to measuring the vertical and horizontal displacements placements. The movement and rotation at the footing and the out‐of‐

5
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

plane displacement were measured throughout the test. Vertical
deformation in the potential of the plastic hinge of the columns
was also measured by considering approximately h/4, h/2 and h
from the top of the foundations, where h is the height of the cross‐
section of the columns for each direction.
The cyclic lateral force was applied by considering increasing DRs
in pushing and pulling directions until failure (loss of lateral and/or
axial load capacities). The loading pattern utilized according to the tar-
geted DR is represented in Fig. 5.
3. Test results evaluation
The behavior exhibited is explained in detail in the following sec-
tions for both series separately. The damage photos taken at the differ-
ent DR are represented in Fig. 6(a) and (b). Flexural cracks occurred in
all of the specimens in the connection zone. Figs. 7 and 8 represented
the lateral load‐DR relationships, where Fig. 7 belongs to the CS series
and Fig. 8 belongs to the CW series.
3.1. Failure pattern and performance
This part consists of all details of results and comparisons for each
series in terms of seismic behavior, the efficiency of loading direction
and external steel ties on the seismic performance. Besides, the seismic
performance of RC members after the earthquake and material behav-
ior in terms of concrete and steel also all of the columns were per-
formed based on the autopsy of the specimens. The ultimate
situation is considered the displacement concerning to a 15% loss in
lateral strength or suddenly rupturing of the CFRP jacket before a
15% strength loss takes place. The percentage of 15% was selected
because of the behavior of sub‐standard RC members is relatively brit-

Displacement (mm)
-126 -105 -84 -63 -42 -21 0 21 42 63 84 105 126
200 200
A: First Flexural Crack B C D
150 E 150
B: First Vertical Cracks
A F
C: Yield Point
100 100
D: Concrete Crushing
Lateral Load (kN)

E : Failure (15% Decreased)

50 50
F: Buckling
0 0
(CS-R)
-50 -50
A
-100 F -100

-150 E -150
D C B
-200 -200
-0.06
.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Drift Ratio
(a)

Displacement (mm)
-126 -105 -84 -63 -42 -21 0 21 42 63 84 105 126
200 200
A: First Flexural Crack B C
A
150 B: Yield point 150
C: CFRP Ruptured
100 100
Lateral load (kN)

50 50

0 0
(CS-N2)
-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
B A
-200 -200
-0.06
0.06
0 -0.05
-00.05
0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Drift Ratio

(b)
Fig. 7. Lateral load-DR relationship for CS series; (a) CS-R, (b) CS-N2.

6
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Displacement (mm)
-106.5 -85.2 -63.9 -42.6 -21.3 0 21.3 42.6 63.9 85.2 106.5
80 80
A: First Flexural Crack B C
60 B: Yeild Point A D 60

Lateral Load (kN)

40 C: Concrete Crushing 40
D: Failure (15% Decreased)
20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 A -40
D
-60 -60
C B (CW-35)
-35)
5
-80 -80
-0.05
.005 -0.04
-0.0
0 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Drift Ratio

(a)
Displacement (mm)
-106.5 -85.2 -63.9 -42.6 -21.3 0 21.3 42.6 63.9 85.2 106.5
80 80
A: First Flexural Crack A B C
60 60
B: Yeild Point
40 C: Failure (15% Decreased) 40
Lateral Load (kN)

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
C A (CW-N2)
2)
B
-80 -80
-0.05
.05 -0.04
-0.0 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Drift Ratio
(b)
Displacement (mm)
-144.9 -124.2 -103.5 -82.8 -62.1 -41.4 -20.7 0 20.7 41.4 62.1 82.8 103.5 124.2 144.9
80 80
A: First Flexural Crack
A B
60 B: Yield Point 60
C: More than 15% Losing of Lateral
40 Load Capacity 40
Lateral Load (kN)

20 20
C
0 0
C
-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
(CW-N2+ST)
B A
-80 -80
.007 -0.06
-0.07 -0
0.06
0 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Drift Ratio

Fig. 8. Lateral load-DR relationships for CW series; (a) CW-R, (b) CW-N2 and (c) CW-N2+ST.

tle as a result of the initial crushing of the concrete or buckling of lon- and CS‐N2 specimens, respectively. The reference specimen CS‐R
gitudinal reinforcing bars. reached 136.9 kN peak strength with a lateral displacement of
14.3 mm at 0.7% DR. Additionally, vertical cracks were noted in
3.1.1. CS series the compression area in a DR of around 0.5% based on the axial
In this section, the lateral load and DR relationships of the col- force efficiency. The displacement for the ultimate condition was
umns are represented in Fig. 7, where (a) and (b) are for CS‐R 30.2 mm (where the ultimate point is taken as a 15% decrease in

7
H. Farrokh Ghatte
the lateral load) and occurred at 1.5% DR. Finally, the lateral force
suddenly dropped to the zero due to the longitudinal plain bar
buckling and concrete crushing with a brittle failure near to 2%
DR. CS‐N2 specimen had 152.6 kN as a peak strength with a lateral
displacement of 30.8 mm, corresponding to a DR of 1.5%. The dis-
placement for the ultimate condition was 105 mm and occurred at
5% DR and the lateral load dropped to near zero because CFRP
sheets were ruptured and longitudinal plain bars were buckled.
The plastic hinging zone at any target DR is presented for strong
direction series (CS) in Fig. 6(a).
3.1.2. CW series
The lateral load and DR relationships of the columns are compared
in Fig. 8, where (a), (b) and (c) are for CW‐R, CW‐N2, and CW‐N2+ST
specimens respectively. The reference specimen CW‐R had 60 kN peak
lateral strength at about 1.5% DR (30.1 mm displacement) with signif-
icant lateral strength degradation, as represented in Fig. 6(b). CFRP
retrofitted CW‐N2 (two plies CFRP jacketing) and CW‐N2+ST (two
plies CFRP jacketing + external steel ties) specimens presented con-
siderably developed performances concerning the reference specimen,
as represented in Fig. 8 where lateral force versus DR envelope curves
of the specimens are reported. For both retrofitting strategies, the
improvement was mainly in terms of ductility. The peak load for
Fig. 9. Effectively confined area; (a) Cross-section of CW-N2, (b) Cross-section of CW-N2+ST, (c) Cross-section and vertical section of CW-N2 and (d) Cross-
section and vertical section of CW-N2+ST.
8
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
CW‐N2 was 65.2 kN at about 1.5% DR (of 30.1 mm displacement).
For CW‐N2+ST, the peak load was 64.5 kN at about 1.5% DR (of
30.1 mm displacement). CW‐N2 specimen had a failure after complet-
ing a 4% DR cycle with crushing on concrete and buckling of the lon-
gitudinal reinforcing bars. CW‐N2+ST specimen had a substantial
improvement in terms of ductility and had a failure by concrete crush-
ing as well as the buckling of the longitudinal reinforcing bars at a DR
of 7%.
3.1.3. Comparison of CS and CW series
The lateral load in the CS series was more than the CW series,
which was expected because of the loading direction. The maximum
lateral loads in all of the specimens in each series happened at lower
DRs in the CS series than the CW series. The longitudinal reinforce-
ment in the CS series buckled earlier than the CW series because of
the distance from the neutral axis. By standing on the test
observations, employing the CFRP jacketing method has been delayed
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement and external steel ties could
improve this efficiency by improving the effectively confined area,
Fig. 9(a–d). Improving the effectively confined area not only happen-
ing in cross‐section but also through the vertical section Fig. 9(c and
d). Moreover, CFRP ruptures happened generally on the corners of
H. Farrokh Ghatte
Fig. 10. Comparison of the efficiency confined area in both loading directions; (a) Strong direction and (b) Weak direction.
Fig. 11. Comparison of lateral force- DR envelope curves; (a) CS series and (b) CW series.
the rectangular cross‐section. Comparisons of the strong and weak
direction of loading showed that the efficiency of CFRP jacketing
through weak direction is certainly less than strong direction. The
main reason that can describe the reduction of the strength for weak
direction is the reduced confined area in a weak direction. As can be
seen in Fig. 10(a) and (b) the reduction of confined area (the hatched
area) in a weak direction is more officious than a strong direction
because of the loading direction. Therefore, the best solution in this
condition is improving the effectively confined area by using external
steel ties. CFRP retrofitted columns represented substantially
enhanced performances concerning the references column and repre-
sented in Fig. 11(a) and (b). Consequently, CFRP jacketing and steel
ties had mainly improved in terms of ductility.
3.1.4. Autopsy assessments and results
For better understanding, the seismic performance of RC members
after the earthquake and material behavior in terms of concrete and
steel, all of the specimens were performed based on the autopsy of
9
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
the specimens. The specimens were evaluated after the tests and an
autopsy was performed on the examined columns to obtain the
detailed performance and failure type of the reinforcements. Finally,
a part of the reinforcing steel and concrete were cut to perform a direct
tensile strength test. The autopsy photographs taken at any side of the
tested specimens are illustrated in Fig. 12. Very few studies deal with
the structural performance of such existing RC elements mainly based
on corrosion [55,56]. Fig. 12, it clearly shows the crushing of core con-
crete and buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements and the effect of
transverse refinements (stirrups) to delaying the buckling of longitudi-
nal reinforcements. Buckling of the longitudinal bars happened in
the second step of successive stirrups as the plastic hinging length.
Regarding the core concrete, crushing happened in core concrete as
well as along the plastic hinging length. CFRP jacketing could success-
fully increase the lateral compression of core concrete and delaying the
buckling of longitudinal reinforcements. Although for retrofitted spec-
imens the concrete at plastic hinging regains was crushed during the
test but the reduction of strength was not considerable. In other words,
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Fig. 12. Autopsy of the specimens after the test (all sides).

after the crushing of concrete (at the large displacements) the jacket 3.2. Energy dissipation
started to carry the load and the efficiency is clear in terms of ductility
and energy dissipation. For a better understanding of the seismic performance of tested RC
columns and using retrofitting methods, the strength and deformation

10
H. Farrokh Ghatte
Fig. 13. Comparison of energy dissipation capacities of the specimens; (a) CS series and (b) CW series.
properties of the columns were compared, not only within each series
but also among the other series. The primary emphasis was given to
the improvement of ductility and energy dissipation capabilities by
investigation of FRP rupturing and debonding between FRP and the
concrete surface through their strong and weak directions.
The area enclosed by the hysteresis loops is considered as energy dis-
sipation capacities represented in Fig. 13(a) and (b), where Fig. 13(a) is
for the CS and Fig. 13(b) for the CW series. For the specimens in each ser-
ies, the energy dissipation of the retrofitted specimen was greater than
the reference specimen. In the CS series, CFRP jacketing increased the
energy dissipation four times for two plies jacketed specimens compared
to the reference. For the CW series, the dissipated energy of the speci-
mens improved by two and four times for two plies of CFRP jacketing
and two plies of CFRP jacketing plus external steel ties compared to
the reference specimen respectively. Energy dissipation characteristics
may be considered as an indication of ductility as an ability of the struc-
tural elements to demonstrate large inelastic deformations without con-
siderable strength losses. Although in both series, the specimens could
resist the lateral forces almost similar to that resisted by the reference
specimens, the ductility was remarkably higher because of improvement
in the DR. Consequently, CFRP jacketing and external steel ties success-
fully improved the seismic performance of rectangular RC columns by
providing more deformability during the cyclic loads.
4. Analytical study
In this stage, the analytical nonlinear analyses of the specimens
have been performed using SeismoStruct to achieve some model
parameters for representing the program. Moreover, numerical output
compared with experimental results as a nonlinear finite element anal-
ysis for reference and retrofitted RC columns with CFRP jacketing and
external steel ties. All specimens were modeled separately using Seis-
mostruct software, a finite element platform, where the spreading of
the nonlinear material along the member length and the cross‐
section area is explicitly represented by the employment of a fiber
model. By employing the displacement‐based formulation of column
elements with inelastic behavior in the analyses the specimens were
modeled.
The same protocol was used for the DR as shown in Fig. 5. The
results of the material tests were used for modeling as presented in
11
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
Fig. 3(a–c), where Fig. 3(a) presents a concrete compressive stress–-
strain relationship curve and Fig. 3(b and c) present the tensile stress–-
strain relationship of the plain longitudinal reinforcement and the
transverse reinforcement respectively. An elastoplastic stress–strain
relationship that considered the strain hardening was employed to con-
sidering the contribution of bars based on the results of plain longitudi-
nal bars that have been tested. The idealized experimental stress–strain
relationship of reinforcing bars was used as uniaxial steel tension
behavior. The model proposed by Mander et al. was used for internally
confined concrete modeling as a uniaxial nonlinear model for confining
concrete Fig. 14(a) [13]. For the reinforcing bars, the uniaxial constitu-
tive nonlinear hysteretic material model presented by Menegotto and
Pinto were used with isotropic strain hardening efficiency; Fig. 14(b)
[57]. A uniaxial nonlinear variable confinement model developed
and programmed by Ferracuti and Savoia has been used for external
confined concrete; Fig. 14(c) [24]. The analytical approach was used
to examine the test results of FRP‐confined rectangular RC columns
by considering existing stress–strain relationship models for the mate-
rials. For cyclic loading, the magnitude of a force at any provided step is
calculated as a product of its nominal value, specified by the user, and
the variable load factor, characterized by the loading curve. This kind
of loads is exclusively employed in static time history analysis, fre-
quently used in the modeling of quasi‐static testing of structures
throughout different force or displacement schemes.
The detailed results presented for rectangular RC columns also
demonstrate that the present approach offers a useful method for sim-
plification of the design process. Figs. 15 and 16 show the comparisons
of experimental and theoretical outputs of the cyclic lateral load‐DR
and envelope curves of lateral load‐DR for both CS and CW series
respectively. The numerical results could predict the experimental
results with reasonable accuracy. It is observed that the strength for
ultimate and stiffness at different DRs is successfully presented by
the numerical model.
5. Comparison with code predictions
The retrofit design provisions of TSDC, ACI 440.2R and Eurocode 8
Part 3 in terms of using FRP jackets for retrofitting of substandard RC
columns with rectangular cross‐section are carefully evaluated based
on the experimental results.
H. Farrokh Ghatte
Fig. 14. (a) Mander Model and (b) Menegotto and Pinto (c) Cyclic behavior of
confined concrete Ferracuti and Savoia.
TSDC consists of a part for seismic retrofitting of RC buildings. In
accordance, the FRP confined concrete strength as well as the corre-
sponding strain estimated by using the effective lateral confinement
pressure based on FRP jacketing efficiency. The minimum of 0.004
and 0.5εfu is an acceptable amount for the effective strain of FRP
12
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
jacket. In this limitation, εfu is the ultimate strain of FRP in tension.
The predictions of the TSDC model and the test results are compared
in Table 4. A 20% is the minimum increment for the compressive
strength based on TSDC in the case of external FRP jacketing. As rep-
resented in Table 4, in the case of rectangular cross‐sections, this is
technically not possible, and the specimens cannot be qualified to ret-
rofit with proper thickness of the jacket. However, the outstanding
effect of this strategy has previously been represented in Figs. 7 and
8, especially regarding ductility.
(ACI) Committee 440 printed a design code for assessing and
strengthening of RC buildings using FRP jacketing (see Table 5). In this
code, the above‐mentioned method is not acceptable for rectangular
RC cross‐sections by aspect ratio h/b over 1.5 or face size b or h more
than 900 mm. Nevertheless, the remarkable efficiency of this method
in terms of ductility has previously been presented in Figs. 7 and 8.
Eurocode 8 Part 3 consists of an equation to estimate the ultimate
chord rotation capacity of the columns that retrofitted with FRP jack-
eting. The empirical approach presented by Eurocode 8 Part 3 is chord
rotation‐based by considering the several extra parameters, like axial
load and the ratio of the moment to shear (see Table 6).
For comparison of the test results and aforementioned retrofit
design provisions, lateral load‐DR relationships are compared numeri-
cally and experimentally. The numerical outputs were gained by using
the moment–curvature relationship for each seismic design codes and
the plastic hinge assumption. The comparisons are presented in
Figs. 17–19, where Fig. 17 is for TSDC, Fig. 18 is for ACI 440.2R
and Fig. 19 is for Eurocode 8. The elastoplastic model for reinforce-
ment rebars with strain hardening was employed by considering a
0.5 h as the plastic hinge length where h is the depth of the cross‐
section of the columns. Regarding Fig. 17(a–c) TSDC outputs are
entirely conservative to estimate the DR capacity of FRP retrofitted
specimens. The root of this conservatism is the restriction of the effec-
tive rupture strain of FRP to 0.004. Besides, TSDC presents another
limitation for the minimum FRP ratio for a 20% increment of concrete
compressive strength. As represented in Table 4 the specimens do not
satisfy this limitation but the test results demonstrated that FRP con-
finement, as well as external steel ties, may increase the DR capacity
of columns. The same comments present for the ACI 440.2R but with
higher DR capacity than TSDC. The main reason for the difference is
using the restriction of 0.004 in TSDC. Moreover, ACI 440.2R has
two extra restrictions; the effective FRP rupture strain is restricted
by 0.55 of the ultimate strain of FRP sheets as well as the maximum
FRP confined concrete strain is restricted by 0.01. The above‐
mentioned limitations make this seismic design code conservative to
estimate the DR capacities based on the test results. Eurocode 8 esti-
mations made for the weak‐axis specimens seem to be further conser-
vative than the strong axis.
In the case of using steel ties, none of the above‐mentioned docu-
ments has a recommendation but as the test results show, the effi-
ciency of external steel ties was remarkable in terms of energy
dissipation and ductility performance. Therefore, it seems current seis-
mic design codes may be revised to using external steel ties addition-
ally to the FRP jacketing method to further improvement of the energy
dissipation and ductility performance by enhancing the effectively
confined concrete area.
6. Conclusion
An experimental and theoretical retrofitting was carried out on five
full‐scale substandard RC columns with a rectangular cross‐section
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Fig. 15. Experimental and theoretical cyclic response of the specimens; (a) CS-R, (b) CS-N2, (c) CW-R, (d) CW-N2 and CW-N2+ST.

through their strong and weak directions using CFRP jacketing and for reference and retrofitted RC columns. The conclusions can be
external steel ties. The experimental results were analyzed and com- drawn as follows:
pared with the numerical output as a nonlinear finite element analysis

13
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Fig. 16. Experimental and theoretical envelope curve response of the specimens; (a) CS-R, (b) CS-N2, (c) CW-R, (d) CW-N2 and CW-N2+ST.

Table 4 Table 5
TSDC predictions. ACI 440.2R predictions.

Name fcc/fc ɛcc/ɛco fl/fc Name fcc/fc ɛcc/ɛco fl/fc

CS-N2 1.084 2.22 0.035 CS-N2 1.06 4.32 0.155

CW-N2 1.084 2.22 0.035 CW-N2 1.06 4.32 0.155
CW-N2+A 1.104 2.42 0.043 CW-N2+A 1.08 5.00 0.191

14
H. Farrokh Ghatte Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542

Table 6
Eurocode 8 predictions.

Name Lv κa c ffe (MPa) θu (%)

CS-N2 3.42 0.35 0.143 2972 3.18

CW-N2 3.42 0.35 0.143 2972 3.18
CW-N2+A 3.42 0.43 0.176 2972 3.54

Fig. 17. Comparisons of TSDC recommendations by test results; (a) CS-N2, (b) CW-N2 and (c) CW-N2+ST.

1. For both loading directions (CS and CW series), CFRP jacketing
remarkably enhanced seismic behavior in terms of energy dissipa-
tion and ductility performance level. For CS series, 1.5% ultimate
DR increased to 5% using two plies CFRP jacketing and for CW
series, 3% ultimate DR increased to 4% and 7% for two layers CFRP
jacketed specimen and additionally external steel ties specimens
respectively (ultimate DR is defined by considering a 15% decrease
in lateral load).
2. The efficiency of CFRP jacketing in the strong direction was greater
than the weak direction because of the variation of the effectively‐

15
H. Farrokh Ghatte
Fig. 18. Comparisons of ACI-440 recommendations by test results; (a) CS-N2, (b) CW-N2 and (c) CW-N2+ST.
confined concrete area based on the loading direction. Moreover,
using external steel ties, significantly improved the ductility and
energy dissipation capabilities of the specimen due to increment
in the effectively‐confined area of concrete in rectangular cross‐
section.
3. TSDC and ACI 440.2R seem to be conservative, this conservatism
mainly rooted in limiting the effective rupture strain of FRP to
0.004. Besides, it seems current seismic design codes may be
revised to using external steel ties in addition to FRP jacketing
strategy.
16
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
4. Corresponding to numerical and experimental results demon-
strated the accuracy and efficiency of the used nonlinear finite ele-
ment analysis for RC columns retrofitted through CFRP jackets and
external steel ties. The ultimate strength, stiffness at various drift
levels are successfully presented by the numerical model.
5. Autopsy results showed the importance of core concrete crushing
and the efficiency of CFRP wrapping and steel ties to confined
the core concrete. After crushing of concrete (at the large
displacements) the jacket and steel ties started to carry the load
and the efficiency is clear in terms of ductility and energy
dissipation.
H. Farrokh Ghatte
Fig. 19. Comparisons of Eurocode 8 recommendations by test results; (a) CS-N2, (b) CW-N2 and (c) CW-N2+ST.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my
supervisor, Prof. Dr. Alper Ilki, Faculty of Civil Engineering of Istan-
bul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, for his detailed and con-
structive comments, and his important support throughout this
work. The contributions of the TUBITAK and ITU BAP are acknowl-
edged gratefully.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112542.
17
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
References
[1] Kam WY, Pampanin S, Elwood K. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttleton) earthquake. 2011.
[2] Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM. 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy:
reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9:285–305.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9204-8.
[3] Del Zoppo M, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G. FRP for seismic
strengthening of shear controlled RC columns: experience from earthquakes and
experimental analysis. Compos B Eng 2017;129:47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2017.07.028.
[4] Lynn AC, Moehle JP, Mahin SA, Holmes WT. Seismic evaluation of existing
reinforced concrete building columns. Earthquake Spectra 1996;12:715–39.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585907.
[5] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Seismic tests of concrete columns with light
transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2006:103–842. https://doi.org/10.14359/
18236.
[6] Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G. Seismic response of rc columns with
smooth reinforcement Part II: cyclic tests. Eng Struct 2008;30:2289–300. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.024.
[7] Di Ludovico M, Verderame G, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Experimental
behavior of nonconforming RC columns with plain bars under constant axial load
and biaxial bending. J Struct Eng 2013;139:897–914. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000703.
H. Farrokh Ghatte
[8] Di Ludovico M, Verderame G, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Cyclic behavior of
nonconforming full-scale RC columns. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04013107. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000891.
[9] Arani KK, Marefat MS, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G. Hysteretic cyclic
response of concrete columns reinforced with smooth bars. Bull Earthq Eng
2013;11:2033–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9469-9.
[10] Arani KK, Di Ludovico M, Marefat MS, Prota A, Manfredi G. Lateral response
evaluation of old type reinforced concrete columns with smooth bars. ACI Struct J
2014;111:827–38. https://doi.org/10.14359/51686734.
[11] Del Zoppo M, Di Ludovico M, Verderame GM, Prota A. Experimental behavior of
nonconforming RC columns with deformed bars under constant axial load and
fixed biaxial bending. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04017153. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001892.
[12] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 1971.
[13] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1988)114:8(1804).
[14] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Model of concrete confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng 1998;124:1025–31. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1998)124:9(1025).
[15] Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR. Displacement-based design of reinforced concrete columns
for confinement. Struct J 2002;99:3–11. https://doi.org/10.14359/1103.
[16] Ilki A, Kumbasar N, Ozdemir P, Fukuta T. A trilinear stress-strain model for
confined concrete. Struct Eng Mech 2004;18:541–63. https://doi.org/10.12989/
sem.2004.18.5.541.
[17] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown V, Cosenza E, Davalos J, Lesko J, et al. Fiber-reinforced
polymer composites for construction—state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr
2002;6:73–87. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73).
[18] Bousias SN, Triantafillou T, Fardis MN, Spathis L, O'Regan BA. Fiber-
reinforced polymer retrofitting of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with
or without corrosion. ACI Struct J 2004;101:512–20. https://doi.org/10.14359/
13337.
[19] Bousias S, Spathis A-L, Fardis MN. Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap spliced
smooth bars through FRP or concrete jackets. J Earthquake Eng 2007;11:653–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601125714.
[20] Farrokh Ghatte H, Comert M, Demir C, Ilki A. Performances of FRP confinement
models for predicting the behavior of full-scale FRP retrofitted columns under
simulated seismic actions. In: Proceedings of the FRPRCS-12 & APFIS-2015 joint
conference, Nanjing, China. 2015. p. 14–6.
[21] Farrokh Ghatte H, Comert M, Demir C, Ilki A. Evaluation of FRP confinement
models for substandard rectangular RC columns based on full-scale reversed cyclic
lateral loading tests in strong and weak directions. Polymers 2016;8:323. https://
doi.org/10.3390/polym8090323.
[22] Farrokh Ghatte H, Comert M, Demir C, Akbaba M, Ilki A. Seismic retrofit of full-
scale substandard extended rectangular RC columns through CFRP jacketing: test
results and design recommendations. J Compos Constr 2019;23:04018071.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000907.
[23] Fam A, Nelson M. New bridge deck cast onto corrugated GFRP stay-in-place
structural forms with interlocking connections. J Compos Constr 2012;16:110–7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000229.
[24] Ferracuti B, Savoia M. Cyclic behaviour of FRP-wrapped columns under axial and
flexural loadings. In: Proceedings of the international conference on fracture,
Turin, Italy. 2005.
[25] Goksu C, Polat A, Ilki A. Attempt for seismic retrofit of existing substandard RC
members under reversed cyclic flexural effects. J Compos Constr 2012;16:286–99.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000256.
[26] Ilki A, Demir C, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N. Seismic retrofit of brittle and low
strength RC columns using fiber reinforced polymer and cementitious composites.
Adv Struct Eng 2009;12:325–47. https://doi.org/10.1260/
136943309788708356.
[27] Jiang C, Wu Y-F, Wu G. Plastic hinge length of FRP-confined square RC columns. J
Compos Constr 2014;18:04014003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000463.
[28] Lam L, Teng J. Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete. J
Compos Constr 2004;8:539–48. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(2004)8:6(539).
[29] Lim JC, Ozbakkaloglu T. Confinement model for FRP-confined high-strength
concrete. J Compos Constr 2014;18:04013058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000376.
[30] Mirmiran A, Bank LC, Neale KW, Mottram JT, Ueda T, Davalos JF. World survey of
civil engineering programs on fiber reinforced polymer composites for
construction. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 2003;129:155–60. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:3(155).
[31] Ozbakkaloglu T, Idris Y. Seismic behavior of FRP-high-strength concrete–steel
double-skin tubular columns. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04014019. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000981.
18
Composite Structures 248 (2020) 112542
[32] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced
concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 2010;32:964–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.021.
[33] Pham TP, Li B. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns with plain
longitudinal reinforcing bars. 2014. https://doi.org/10.14359/51686572.
[34] Smith ST, Teng J. FRP-strengthened RC beams. I: review of debonding strength
models. Eng Struct 2002;24:385–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)
00105-5.
[35] Toutanji H. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally confined
with advanced fiber composite sheets. Mater J 1999;96:397–404. https://doi.org/
10.14359/639.
[36] Farrokh Ghatte H, Comert M, Demir C, Ilki A. Seismic performance of full-scale
FRP Retrofitted substandard RC Columns loaded in the weak direction. In: Applied
mechanics and materials: Trans Tech Publ. 2016. p. 347–53
[37] Toutanji H, Deng Y. Performance of concrete columns strengthened with fiber
reinforced polymer composite sheets. Adv Compos Mater 2001;10:159–68.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156855101753396636.
[38] Wang L-M, Wu Y-F. Effect of corner radius on the performance of CFRP-confined
square concrete columns: test. Eng Struct 2008;30:493–505. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.04.016.
[39] Wu Y-F, Dare MP. Axial and shear behavior of glass fiber reinforced gypsum wall
panels: tests. J Compos Constr 2004;8:569–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2004)8:6(569).
[40] Yalcin C, Kaya O, Sinangil M. Seismic retrofitting of R/C columns having plain
rebars using CFRP sheets for improved strength and ductility. Constr Build Mater
2008;22:295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.017.
[41] Triantafillou T, Choutopoulou E, Fotaki E, Skorda M, Stathopoulou M, Karlos K.
FRP confinement of wall-like reinforced concrete columns. Mater Struct
2016;49:651–64. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0526-5.
[42] Dhahir MK. Strut and tie modeling of deep beams shear strengthened with FRP
laminates. Compos Struct 2018;193:247–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2018.03.073.
[43] Faleschini F, Gonzalez-Libreros J, Zanini MA, Hofer L, Sneed L, Pellegrino C.
Repair of severely-damaged RC exterior beam-column joints with FRP and FRCM
composites. Compos Struct 2019;207:352–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2018.09.059.
[44] Sun FJ, Pang SH, Zhang ZW, Fu F, Qian K. Retrofitting seismically damaged steel
sections encased concrete composite walls using externally bonded CFRP strips.
Compos Struct 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111927.
111927.
[45] Ren FM, Liang YW, Ho JC, Lai MH. Behaviour of FRP tube-concrete-encased steel
composite columns. Compos Struct 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2020.112139. 112139.
[46] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber
composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2000)12:2(139).
[47] Ilki A, Kumbasar N. Compressive behaviour of carbon fibre composite jacketed
concrete with circular and non-circular cross-sections. J Earthquake Eng
2003;7:381–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460309350455.
[48] Tan KH. Strength enhancement of rectangular reinforced concrete columns using
fiber-reinforced polymer. J Compos Constr 2002;6:175–83. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:3(175).
[49] Tsonos AG. Seismic repair of exterior R/C beam-to-column joints using two-sided
and three-sided jackets. Struct Engi Mech 2002;13:17–34. https://doi.org/
10.12989/sem.2002.13.1.017.
[50] Lam L, Teng J. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete in
rectangular columns. J Reinf Plast Compos 2003;22:1149–86. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0731684403035429.
[51] SeismoStruct. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analyses of
framed structures. 2013; 6.5.
[52] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide for design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. ACI 440.2R-17, 2017.
[53] TSDC. Ministry of public works and settlement government of the republic of
Turkey. Turkish Standard: Turkish Seismic Design Code 2018.
[54] Eurocode 8 Part 3. Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Standard.
2005.
[55] Almusallam AA, Al-Gahtani AS, Aziz AR. Effect of reinforcement corrosion on
bond strength. Constr Build Mater 1996;10:123–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-
0618(95)00077-1.
[56] El Maaddawy T, Soudki K, Topper T. Long-term performance of corrosion-
damaged reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2005;102:649. https://doi.org/
10.14359/14660.
[57] Menegotto M. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including
changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal
force and bending. In: Proc of IABSE symposium on resistance and ultimate
deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads. 1973. p. 15-
22.