ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 91-S39
Steel Jacket Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns for Enhanced Shear Strength—Part 1: Theoretical
Considerations and Test Design
by M. J. Nigel Priestley, Frieder Seible, Yan Xiao, and Ravindra Verma
A theoretical and experimental investigation conducted to study the shear
failure mode of reinforced concrete bridge columns designed before 1971,
and to establish the effectiveness of full-height steel jackets for enhancing
the seismic shear strength, is described.
In this first part of a two-part paper, theoretical considerations relating
to assessing the shear strength of existing columns of circular or rectangu-
lar sections are presented. Current design approaches are compared with
more recently developed, and less conservative, predictive methods. Mod-
els are presented for predicting the enhancement to shear strength provided
by circular or elliptical (for rectangular section) jackets. Design details of
an experimental test program to determine “as-built” and retrofitted col-
umn shear strength are presented.
Keywords: bridges (structures); columns (supports); ductility; earth-
quake-resistant structures; flexural strength; reinforced concrete; shear
strength.
Shear failure of squat bridge columns has been one of the
major problems associated with the performance of rein-
forced concrete bridges under earthquake excitations. Such
short and, hence, relatively stiff members tend to attract a
greater portion of the seismic input to the bridge during an
earthquake and require the generation of large seismic shear
forces to develop the moment capacity of columns. On the
other hand, estimation of flexural strength based on elastic
methods, along with much less conservative shear strength
provisions during the 1950s and 1960s, frequently resulted
in actual shear strength of “as-built” bridge columns being
significantly less than the flexural capacity. Since the trans-
verse reinforcing steel was generally inadequately anchored
in the cover concrete, which can be expected to spall off
under cyclic loading, the problem is compounded. Hence,
shear failure is likely in such columns, accompanied by rapid
strength, stiffness, and physical degradation. This has been
evidenced by the brittle shear failure of bridge columns in
California during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake,1 the
1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake,2 and the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake.3 Typical details of a squat circular bridge
column for a multicolumn bent designed and constructed in
the pre-1971 era are shown in Fig. 1(a).
Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, there was
an increased emphasis on theoretical and experimental
394
TECHNICAL PAPER
research related to the seismic response of bridges to estab-
lish safer seismic design procedures. The research emphasis
in the U.S. was focused on developing analytical tools for
performing sophisticated time-history analyses for bridges,
while in Japan and New Zealand extensive experimental
testing was initiated to develop a rational understanding of
the seismic behavior of various bridge components.4-8 This
research has been based on the principles of capacity design
approach,9 in which ductile flexural response of concrete
structures is assured by setting the shear strength above the
maximum feasible shear force corresponding to the flexural
strength developed in the plastic hinge regions. This
approach requires that the prediction of shear forces likely to
be generated in the columns during an earthquake is not
directly related to code-specified empirical coefficients, but
to a rational examination of inelastic deformation mecha-
nisms likely to develop at large ductility levels.
Previous studies conducted by Ang, Priestley, and Paulay6
and Wong, Paulay, and Priestley8 have addressed some of
the issues related to seismic response of well-confined squat
circular reinforced concrete columns under uni- and multidi-
rectional earthquake loading, based on small-scale circular
columns tested as vertical cantilevers. Ang, Priestley, and
Paulay6 showed that most design codes are extremely
conservative and inconsistent in their shear design proce-
dure. They observed that the actual shear capacity of
columns decreased with increasing flexural ductility, as
suggested in a model originally proposed by ATC-6,10 and
that the degraded shear strength mainly relied on the shear
force carried by the transverse reinforcement provided in the
form of hoops or spirals. Hence, any seismic shear design
approach for reinforced concrete bridge columns should also
consider the influence of flexural ductility on the column
shear strength during inelastic levels of seismic response.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-August 1994.
Received July 1, 1992, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
© 1994, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discus-
sion will be published in the May-June 1995 ACI Structural Journal if received by
Jan. 1, 1995.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994

ACI member M. J. Nigel Priestley is Professor of Structural Engineering in the
Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences at the University of Cali-
fornia, San Diego. His teaching and research interests are in reinforced and
prestressed concrete structures, masonry structures, and earthquake-resistant design.
He is the author or coauthor of many technical papers, a member of ACI Committee
531, Concrete Masonry Structures, and has been recipient or corecipient of many
awards, including ACI's 1984 and 1989 Raymond C. Reese Awards.
ACI member Frieder Seible is a professor of structural engineering at the University
of California, San Diego. He received his PhD from the University of California,
Berkeley. His research combines large-scale experimental testing and nonlinear ana-
lytical modeling of structural systems. He is a member of ACI Committee 341, Earth-
quake-Resistant Concrete Bridges.
ACI member Yan Xiao is a research scientist and a lecturer in the Department of
Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences at the University of California, San
Diego. He received his BS in civil engineering from Tianjin University, China, and his
MEng and DrEng in structural engineering from Kyushu University, Japan. He
worked with Aoki Corporation in Tokyo, Japan, prior to joining UC San Diego. His
research and teaching interests are in the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced,
prestressed concrete and steel-concrete composite structures. He is the author and co-
author of several technical papers in these fields.
ACI member Ravindra Verma is a senior bridge engineer at CRSS Civil Engineers,
Inc., Irvine, Calif. He received his BS in civil engineering from the Institute of Tech-
nology, Varanasi, India, and his MS and PhD degrees in structural engineering from
the University of California, San Diego, in June, 1993. He has co-authored several
technical papers and reports on seismic design and retrofit of bridge columns, and has
been the recipient of a 1992 EERI student award. His research interests are in seismic
analysis and earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete bridges.
Comparatively little systematic research has been carried
out to investigate the shear performance of rectangular rein-
forced concrete bridge columns with longitudinal reinforce-
ment evenly distributed around the four faces. However,
there have been major experimental studies in the U.S.,
notably by Woodward and Jirsa,11 and in Japan, by a number
of researchers,12 on rectangular columns more typical of
building columns, with comparatively small numbers of
longitudinal reinforcing bars.
The research just described provided a reasonable basis for
the design of new bridge columns for seismic forces.
However, there remained a need for further verification and,
if necessary, modification of the design approaches, espe-
cially for assessment of columns under reversed curvature,
with realistic levels of longitudinal reinforcement, low
aspect ratios, and low levels of transverse reinforcement
typical of the bridge columns designed in the pre-1971 era.
Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the Cali-
fornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) embarked on
an extensive bridge seismic assessment and retrofit
program,13 which is based on ongoing experimental and
analytical research being conducted at several institutions. A
major research program was started in 1987 at the University
of California at San Diego, to study various problems related
to the seismic response of bridges. The first phase of the
project investigated the enhancement of inadequate and
undependable flexural strength and ductility capacity of tall
flexure-dominated bridge columns by encasing the plastic
hinge regions of the columns with steel jackets. With circular
columns, circular cylindrical jackets are constructed in two
half-shells slightly oversized for easy installation, welded in
situ up the vertical seams, and with the gap between the
column and the jacket filled with grout to provide continuity
between the jacket and the column. With rectangular
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
columns, the jacket is rolled to an elliptical shape, with the
larger gaps between casing and column filled with concrete
rather than grout. The elliptical shape is needed to provide a
continuous confining pressure by passive restraint in poten-
tial plastic hinge regions. For flexural retrofit, only the
potential hinge regions need to be retrofitted.
For both circular and rectangular columns, the steel jacket
acts as passive confinement reinforcement for ductile
response. Dilation of the flexural compression zone is
restrained by the hoop stiffness of the jacket, placing the
concrete in radial compression, thus enhancing its compres-
sion strength and effective ultimate compression strain.
Restraint by the jacket of dilation on the flexural tension side
of the column also provides an effective constraint against
bond failure of longitudinal bar lap splices in the hinge
region.14,15
It is apparent that a steel jacket should also be effective in
providing shear strength enhancement to squat bridge
columns with inadequate shear reinforcement. The jacket
may conservatively be idealized as a series of independent
closely spaced peripheral hoops with thickness and spacing
equal to the jacket thickness. If shear strength enhancement
is needed, the jacket will normally be required over the full
height of the column, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Note that a gap
is provided between the jacket and the cap beam or footing
to minimize flexural strength enhancement, which might
cause excessive forces to develop in adjacent members.
Within potential plastic hinge regions, the required jacket
thickness will be the greater of requirements for ductility and
shear strength enhancement.
In this first part of a two-part paper, theoretical consider-
ations relating to the shear strength of existing and retrofitted
columns are discussed, and the design of the test program is
presented. In the companion paper, experimental results are
presented and compared with predicted response.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The research described in this and the companion paper16
has formed the basis for retrofit assessment and design of
squat shear-dominated bridge columns in California. A large
number of bridge columns have already been retrofitted with
steel jackets to enhance the seismic shear strength. Data and
design equations presented in the two papers provide the
justification for this current assessment and retrofit effort.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The ASCE-ACI Joint Task Committee 32617 summarized
results of research conducted during the first half of the
century, focusing on the ultimate shear strength of reinforced
concrete members, primarily based on simple beam shear
tests. Further rational models were developed to study the
shear transfer and failure mechanisms in reinforced concrete
(RC) members, and these were included in the recommenda-
tions of the ASCE-ACI Joint Task Committee 426 proposed
in 1971.18 In a recently held international conference on
concrete shear in earthquakes,19 it was concluded that
modern theories on shear are capable of satisfying not only
equilibrium conditions, but also compatibility conditions
and the constitutive laws, enabling the prediction of not only
395
 Fig. 1—“As-built” and retrofitted squat circular bridge columns (1 in. = 25.4 mm; Grade
40: fy = 275 MPa; Grade 60: fy = 414 MPa).
Fig. 2—Degradation of concrete shear capacity with displace-
ment ductility.
the member shear strength, but also force-deformation
response of simple members.
However, it is still a common agreement that much more
extensive research is needed to develop a universally accept-
able and generally applicable shear theory, especially for
analyzing the shear response of more complicated structural
members. At this stage, a wide variety of theoretically and
experimentally based shear strength equations and models are
available for analyzing the response of RC members under the
combined influence of axial, bending, and shear forces, often
with widely varying assumptions and sometimes arriving at
very different end results for the same problems.
396
Current shear design approaches for columns
Many design codes still follow the traditional 45-deg
analogous truss approach to evaluate the amount of transverse
reinforcement required for shear strength. This is usually
accompanied by conservative empirical predictions of the
overall concrete shear-carrying capacity. However, in recent
years, several design codes have adopted more rational shear
design procedures, primarily based on the provisions of the
variable angle truss approach. The new Canadian Code20 has
adopted some of the essential features of the diagonal
compression field theory,21 while the modern CEB-FIP22
provisions involve plasticity theory-based analyses. These
codes allow a wide range of values for the permissible angle
of inclination of the principal diagonal compressive stress
with the member longitudinal axis, and also include criteria
for various possible limit states. The influence of ductile
flexural response on shear strength is not, however, currently
considered by the new approaches.
In the following sections, shear strength equations adopted
by ACI 318-8923 and the shear design proposal by Ang,
Priestley, and Paulay6 are evaluated, and a recently devel-
oped modification of Priestley; Verma; and Xiao’s approach
is advanced.24 A detailed critical review of some of the other
previous theoretical and experimental studies on shear
response of RC members is provided elsewhere.25
ACI 318-89 shear design approach
The ACI approach23 considers separate transverse steel
shear-resisting mechanisms Vs and concrete shear-resisting
mechanisms Vc in providing the total nominal shear strength
Vn as given by Eq. (1) through (3)
Vn + Vs + Vc (1)
Vs = Av fyh(d/s) (2)
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994

V c = 2 ⎛ 1 + ---------------------⎞ f c′ b w d
P
(psi)
⎝ 2000A g ⎠
(3)
V c = 0.17 ⎛ 1 + ---------------------⎞ f c′ b w d
P most of the axial load ratio range than the approximate
(MPa)
⎝ 2000A ⎠ g equation, giving little incentive for a designer to go through
In the preceding equations, Av , fyh , and s are the total cross-
sectional area, yield strength, and spacing of the transverse
reinforcement, respectively; fc′ (in psi) is the specified
concrete compressive cylinder strength; Ag is the cross-
sectional area of the member specified in square in. and P (in
lb) is the axial load. The shear strength is based on an
average shear stress assumption on the effective cross
section bw d, where bw is the web width, or diameter, of the
circular cross section, and d is the effective depth, assumed
equal to the distance from the extreme compression fiber to
the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement in the
opposite half of the circular member. For members such as
columns with distributed longitudinal reinforcement, d = 0.8h
or 0.8D is assumed for rectangular or circular sections, respec-
tively. For circular columns, the effective shear area is thus
equal to 0.8D2, which exceeds the gross sectional area
(0.785D2). The shear strength equations in the 1990 Caltrans
Bridge Design Specification Manual26 are identical to the
preceding ACI provisions.
In the ACI 318-8923 provisions for shear design, the
designer also has an option to adopt a more detailed and,
hence, presumably a more exact and less conservative,
approach to estimate the concrete shear capacity.
The relevant equations are
V u d⎞
V c = ⎛ 1.9 f c′ + 2500ρ ω --------
- b d (psi)
⎝ M ⎠ w m
(4)
V u d⎞
V c = ⎛ 1.6 f c′ + 17.2ρ ω --------
- b d (MPa)
⎝ M ⎠ w
m
where
M m = M u – P u ⎛ ----------------⎞
4D – d
(5)
⎝ 8 ⎠
The value of Vc calculated by Eq. (4) and (5) has an upper
limit of
Pu
V c = 3.5 f c′ b w d 1 + --------------
- (psi)
500A g
(6)
Pu
V c = 0.29 f c′ b w d 1 + ----------------
- (MPa)
3.45A g
In Eq. (4) and (5), Mu and Vu are the factored moment and
shear force on the section under consideration, D is the
overall section depth or column diameter, and ρω is the
tensile steel ratio taken as 0.5ρt for columns. Eq. (4) and (5)
allow for the influence of axial load, a spect ratio, and longi-
tudinal reinforcement content on the concrete shear-carrying
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
capacity. However, it has been pointed out by previous
researchers6 and reconfirmed on the basis of the current
research that the exact method is more conservative over
the mathematically more rigorous approach. It was also previ-
ously shown that the exact approach implies a hyperbolic
increase in vc with increasing axial load ratio, with instability
of the design equations at moderate-to-high axial load levels.
Shear design model by Ang, Priestley, and Paulay
Based on the results of testing 25 small-scale squat
circular columns under axial and cyclic loading, the
following equations were proposed by Ang, Priestley, and
Paulay6 for evaluating the maximum shear strength of
circular columns. This approach involved the use of the
traditional additive principle. For brittle shear failure, the
steel truss and concrete mechanisms are defined by
π
V s = --- ⎛ 2A sh-f yh⎞ ------
i D′
(7)
4⎝ i ⎠ s
V c = 4.455α ⎛ 1 + --------------
3P -⎞ f ′ A (psi)
⎝ f′ A ⎠ c e
c g
(8)
V c = 4.455α ⎛ 1 + --------------
3P -⎞ f ′ A (MPa)
⎝ f′ A ⎠ c e c g
where α = 2/(M/VD) ≥ 1.0, M is the moment, Ash is the cross-
sectional area of spiral or circular hoop, V is the shear force,
D′ is the diameter of the circular hoops or spiral reinforce-
ment, and other terms are as previously defined. In Eq. (8),
the effective shear area Ae was assumed equal to 0.8Ag. Eq. (7)
is based on analysis of effective shear resistance provided by
transverse reinforcement, assuming a 45-deg analogous truss
mechanism.
Ang, Priestley, and Paulay6 also suggested a relationship
for reduction in the strength of the concrete shear-resisting
mechanisms with increasing flexural ductility. This was
accompanied by enhanced truss mechanism strength
involving steeper shear plane inclinations mobilizing greater
transverse reinforcement, using equations based on plasticity
theory, as follows
V c = 2.27 f c′ ( 0.8A g ) (psi)
(9)
V c = 0.185 f c′ ( 0.8A g ) (MPa)
and
π A sh fyh D′ cot θ
V s = --- ---------------------------------
- (10)
2 s
where cotθ = ( 1 – ψ ) ⁄ ψ . The mechanical degree of shear
reinforcement ψ is defined equal to ρs fyh /vfc′ , and v < 1 is a
factor for reduced effective compression strength of concrete
diagonal compression struts. A value of v = 0.2 was found to
397

Fig. 3—Evaluation of axial load contribution to column
shear capacity.
Fig. 4—Definition of D′ for truss mechanism strength.
be appropriate at μΔ = 6, based on columns tested by Ang. It
should be noted that for circular columns, the volumetric
transverse reinforcement ratio ρs is defined equal to 4Ash /Ds′ .
In Eq. (10), an upper limit to the value of cotθ = 2.15 for θ =
25 deg was included. It was also proposed that Eq. (8) for Vc
be proportionally reduced for ρs ≤ 1 percent.
The shear strength was considered to decrease from the
initial value, given by Eq. (7) and (8) to the ductile value
given by Eq. (9) and (10) as the ductility increased, in accor-
dance with the relationship shown in Fig. 2(a). More
recently, Wong, Paulay, and Priestley8 have shown that
circular columns tested with multidirection ductile response
exhibit similar behavior, though the shear strength decreases
at lower ductility levels. Their suggested relationship is also
included in Fig. 2(a).
Proposed shear design model
As part of the present study, Ang, Priestley, and Paulay's6
equations for circular columns were simplified and extended
in applicability to rectangular columns. In this proposed
approach, the shear strength is given by an additive equation
of the form
398
Vu = Vc + Vs + Vp V u = V c + V s + V p (11)
where Vc is the concrete shear contribution, consisting
primarily of aggregate interlock and dowel action, resulting
from flexure alone, Vs is the shear carried by transverse rein-
forcement in truss action, and Vp is the shear capacity
provided by axial load through arching action.
The form of Eq. (11) will be recognized as being different
from other approaches in that the axial load term is separated
from the “concrete contribution” term. Conventional
approaches [e.g., Eq. (3) and (8)] combine the effects in a
composite form, on the basis that the influence of axial load
on the onset of diagonal cracking cannot be separated from
the concrete tension strength. However, this implies that the
combined strength of concrete mechanisms and axial load
effects remains equal to the shear strength developed at
initial diagonal cracking. Experimental evidence6,25,27 does
not support this assumption.
In the proposed approach, a rather simple mechanism for
the influence of axial load P on shear strength is advanced. It
is assumed that the influence of axial load P in a column
subjected to reversed bending is primarily represented by an
inclined compression strut between the compression zones at
the column ends, with an angle γ subtended between the
column axis and inclined compression strut, as shown in Fig.
3. Assuming the axial load strut to pass through the center of
the compression zones at the column ends, the additional
shear resistance is thus equal to the horizontal component of
this strut given by
Vp = Ptanγ = P(D – a)/H (12)
where D is the section depth or column diameter, H is the
height of the column subjected to reversed bending, and a is
the compression zone depth at the critical sections. Note that
Eq. (12) implies that as the aspect ratio of the column
decreases, the contribution to shear capacity of the axial load
will increase, and that for very slender columns, the axial
load contribution to shear strength may be rather minimal.
Also, as the axial load increases, the effectiveness of the
axial load contribution to column shear strength will
decrease as the depth of the compression zone a increases.
This approach has similarities to a method developed for
predicting the upper bound of shear force that could be
carried by a member.
A further difference from Ang, Priestley, and Paulay's6
approach is that the truss mechanism described by the term
Vs in Eq. (11) is permitted a steeper inclination than 45 deg.
Based on experimental results, a value of θ = 30 deg between
column axis and principal tension cracking is assumed, for
both initial and ductile strength, giving the following expression
for Vs
for circular columns
π A sh lf yh D′
- cot 30degl = 0.865πA sh lf yh D′/s (13a)
V s = --- l -----------------------
2 s
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
 Fig. 5—Comparison of shear strength for bridge columns with low transverse reinforce-
ment using ACI and proposed equations (fy = 45 ksi; fc′ = 5 ksi) (1 ksi = 6.90 MPa; 1 kip =
4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
for rectangular columns
A v lf yh D′
- cot 30deg = 1.73A v lf yh D′/s
V s = --------------------
s
In Eq. (13), D′ is the distance between centers of the
peripheral hoop or spiral, as defined in Fig. 4.
The concrete component for both circular and rectangular
columns reduces with increasing ductility in accordance
with the form of Fig. 2(b), given by
V c = k f c ′A e psi
where k reduces from 3.5 for μΔ ≤ 2 to 1.2 for μΔ ≥ 4. In
Eq. (14), the effective shear area is taken as 0.8 Agross for
both circular and rectangular columns. The ductility adjust-
ment is thus applied only to the concrete component in the
proposed model.
As discussed elsewhere,24 these adjustments to the model
of Ang, Priestley, or Paulay provide an improved agreement
for a wide range of experimental data, and extend the
applicability to rectangular columns.
The significance of the difference between the proposed
equations and the ACI approach can be gaged by comparative
analyses of columns. Fig. 5 shows results of analyses for
circular and rectangular columns with low transverse steel
ratios, such as are commonly experienced in bridge column
retrofit considerations. The columns have a maximum
section depth (or diameter) of 60 in. (1.524 m) and are
subjected to double bending. Two column heights were
considered, H = 15 ft (4.57 m) and 30 ft (9.14 m), giving
effective aspect ratios of M/VD = 1.5 and 3, respectively.
The proposed equations predict much higher initial shear
strength than the regular ACI equations. Ductile shear
strength may be greater or less than ACI values, dependent
on the column aspect ratio. It is also shown that the ACI
refined approach predicts lower strength than the standard
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
(13b)
Fig. 6—Rectangular section confined by a rectangular tube.
(14)
approach over the practical range of axial load ratios, with
excessively rapid increase in predicted shear strength in the
range 0.3fc′Ag ≤ P ≤ 0.4fc′Ag. The influence of aspect ratio is
rather insignificant in the ACI refined approach compared
with the proposed approach.
Shear strength enhancement by steel jacketing
The use of steel jackets to enhance shear strength of
columns is not new. Sakino and Ishibashi28 investigated the
seismic performance of concrete-filled tubular columns but
found that plastic buckling of the steel tube in the hinge
regions tended to occur when the columns were subjected to
large cyclic lateral displacements. Tomii, Sakino, and Xiao29
investigated steel-jacketed short columns in building struc-
tures as a measure to prevent shear failure. To avoid the
buckling of the jacket observed by Sakino and Ishibashi,28
the jacket was deliberately debonded from the existing
column, thus insuring that the jacket acted only as hoop rein-
forcement rather than also participating in flexural strength.
Although satisfactory results were obtained by Tomii,
Sakino, and Xiao29 for circular columns, it was found that
degradation of response was inevitable for rectangular
columns confined by rectangular jackets, even when very
thick jackets were used. This was primarily due to inadequate
confinement of concrete and compression reinforcement in
399

Fig. 7—Shear strength contribution from elliptical steel jacket.
Fig. 8—Numerical results of integration for shear strength
of elliptical jacket.
the flexural plastic hinge region, as shown in Fig. 6, rather
than due to inadequate shear performance.
In the present study, circular cylindrical jackets were used
for circular columns, but elliptical jackets were used to
provide the necessary confinement and shear strength
enhancement to rectangular columns. Tests15 have estab-
lished that elliptical jackets provide excellent enhancement
of flexural performance of inadequately confined columns,
since continuous confinement is provided by hoop
membrane action in the jacket.
The shear strength enhancement provided by circular or
elliptical cylindrical jackets can be conservatively estimated
by considering the jacket to act as a series of independent
hoops of thickness and spacing tj , where tj is the jacket thick-
ness. Thus, by analogy to Eq. (13a) for the truss mechanism
strength of circular hoops, the shear strength enhancement
Vsj provided by a circular jacket is
2
t j f yj ( D j – t j ) cot 30 deg
V sj = π
--- --------------------------------------------------------
2 tj
where Dj is the outside diameter of the steel jacket, and fyj is
the yield strength of the steel jacket. Results from this test
400
series and allied tests using composite material jackets30
indicate that θ = 30 deg is a suitably conservative assumption
of the diagonal strut inclinations for retrofitted columns.
For an elliptical jacket, the shear strength enhancement
may be determined by consideration of equilibrium of forces
parallel to the applied shear, as shown in Fig. 7. The elliptical
steel jacket is assumed to yield in hoop tension as a conse-
quence of resisting shear. Considering the equilibrium of
applied shear and jacket hoop tension forces parallel to the
applied shear along a diagonal crack inclined at angle θ = 30
deg to the axis, the total shear capable of being carried by the
jacket is
Dj – tj Dj – tj
--------------
- --------------
-
∫ ∫°
2 2
V sj = 2 f t cot θ cos δ dx = 4f yj t j cot 30 deg cos δ dx (16)
D j – t j yj j
– ---------------
2
2 2
where cos δ = 1 ⁄ 1 + tan δ = 1 ⁄ 1 + ( dy ⁄ dx ) .
The numerical result for the elliptical integration of Eq.
(16) is shown in Fig. 8, which may be approximated by the
following linearizations
Strong direction:
V sj = 3.46f yj t j D j – t j 1 – ⎛ 1 – π
---⎞ B j ⁄ D j (17a)
⎝ 4⎠
Weak direction:
π
V sj = 3.46f yj t j ⎛ B j – t j-⎞ 1 – ⎛ 1 – ---⎞ D j ⁄ B j
i
(17b)
⎝ i⎠ ⎝ 4⎠
Note that Eq. (17) degenerates to Eq. (15) when Bj = Dj
(circular tube), and is also correct when Bj /Dj = 0, approxi-
mating a rectangular case with two parallel surfaces.
However, Eq. (16) will tend to be rather conservative when
Bj /Dj > 1.5, for evaluating the weak direction strength.
Steel jacket design for retrofit
The shear strength Vru of the retrofitted columns must
exceed the shear force Vf° in the column corresponding to
maximum feasible flexural strength developing in the
column plastic hinges. Thus, for a column of height H in
double bending
φsVru ≥ Vf° = 2M°/H (18)
where φs is the shear strength reduction factor, and M° is the
overstrength flexural capacity, which should be based on
high estimates of material strengths, and should incorporate
the effects of strain hardening and concrete confinement.
Reinforcement yield strength should be taken as 55 and 75
ksi (379 and 517 MPa) for Grades 40 and 60 reinforcing bars,
- = 0.865πt j f yj ( D j – t j ) (15)
respectively. A value of fce′ = 1.5fc′ nom should be assumed
for the concrete compressive strength, even though higher
strengths are probable in many older bridges, since fc′ is
likely to influence Vu (primarily the concrete contribution,
Vc) more than M°.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
 Confinement of the compression zone of circular columns
by a radial pressure of

2f yj t j
f l ′l = -------------------------
- (19)
⎛ D – 2t -i⎞
⎝ j j i⎠

corresponding to yield of the jacket in hoop tension should

be assumed. For rectangular sections confined by elliptical Fig. 9—Equivalent confining stress provided by elliptical
jackets, the lateral confining stress varies across the section. steel jacket
Fig. 9 shows that, considering a unit length of a rectangular
column transversely confined by an elliptical jacket, the
equivalent confining stress of yield of the jacket can be
expressed by

Strong direction:

2f yj t j cos β
f l ′ = ------------------------
- (20a)
B

Weak direction:

2f yj t j cos β
f l ′ = ------------------------
- (20b)
D
Fig. 10(a)—Details of shear test setup.
where β is the tangential angle of the elliptical jacket at the
corner of the column section, which can be calculated by the
following equations

Strong direction:

⎛ B j iD ⎞
β = tan ⎜ -----------------------------
- -⎟
–1 i
(21a)
⎜ 2 2 i⎟
⎝ D j D j – D -⎠
i

Weak direction:

⎛ D iB ⎞
β = tan ⎜ ---------------------------
- -i⎟
–1 j
(21b)
⎜ 2 2 i⎟
Fig. 10(b)—Loading conditions.
⎝ B j B j – B -⎠
i
designed to subject the columns to axial loading and cyclic
and where B and D are the section dimensions of the original shear forces under reversed curvature, with the point of
rectangular columns. contraflexure occurring at the column midheight, as shown
in Fig. 10(b). A stiff loading arm connected the column top
COLUMN SHEAR TESTS to a horizontal double-acting actuator, with the forces trans-
Details of test setup ferred from the loading arm to the top load stub primarily by
To study the brittle shear failure mode of “as-built” squat means of torsion at the four pins located in the stub. Load-
circular and rectangular bridge columns and to establish the stub rotation was minimized by using a load-balancing
effectiveness of full-height steel jackets as a retrofit system that included an actuator maintained at constant force
measure, eight circular and six rectangular columns were balancing the weight of the loading arm. Axial load was
tested using the test setup shown in Fig. 10(a). Dimensions applied to the test columns using two 2-in.- (51-mm)-diameter
of the columns are given in Fig. 11. Columns were designed high-strength flexible rods, each bar being stressed with a
at a model:prototype scale of 0.4:1.0 and were constructed center-hole jack that reacted against the test floor, transmit-
with a footing and top load stub to provide realistic boundary ting the bar force to the column by means of a cross-beam
conditions at the two critical interfaces. The test setup was mounted on top of the load stub.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994 401

 Fig. 11—Reinforcement details of test columns (1 in. = 25.4 mm; #2 = 6.35-mm diameter;
#6 = 19.05-mm diameter).
Design considerations
The design of the test specimens was primarily governed
by the need to simulate typical column axial load ratios
(P/fc′Ag) column aspect ratios (M/VD), and reinforcement
details. Two values of axial load ratio equal to 0.06 and 0.18
were considered for circular columns, corresponding to axial
loads of 133 kips and 400 kips (591.6 kN and 1779.2 kN),
respectively, and representing a practical range for bridge
column bents. For rectangular columns, an axial load ratio of
0.06 corresponding to an axial load of 114 kips (507 kN) was
considered. Columns were constructed with aspect ratios of
2 or 1.5 to simulate the critical moment-to-shear-span ratio
of typical squat bridge columns, and to investigate the influ-
ence of aspect ratio on the column shear strength. The “as-
built” column reinforcement, material properties, and details
resulted in the ratio of the predicted column shear strength to
the column ideal flexural capacity being much less than
unity based on Caltrans (and, hence, ACI) design specifica-
tions, but close to unity based on design equations developed
by Ang, Priestley, and Paulay.6 Flexural strength predictions
were based on measured material strengths and following
recommendations based on previous research conducted by
Mander, Priestley, and Park.5
Longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 26 No. 6 (19.05-
mm-diameter) Grade 40 or 60 bars evenly distributed in the
24-in.-(610-mm)-diameter circular column, with a constant
402
cover of 0.8 in. (20 mm) from the column edge, as shown in
Fig. 11(a). The 16-in.-(406-mm)-wide and 24-in.- (610-
mm)-deep rectangular column contained 22 No. 6 Grades 40
and 60 bars, which were evenly distributed along the sides of
the column, with a constant cover of 0.8 in. (20 mm), as
shown in Fig. 11(b). Transverse reinforcement in the test
specimens consisted of No. 2 (6.35-mm-diameter) Grade 40
circular or rectangular hoops at a spacing of 5 in. (127 mm).
The main parameters considered in the test program
included the column axial load ratio, column aspect ratio,
and the strength of the longitudinal flexural reinforcement.
For each situation, two “as-built” columns were constructed,
with one of each pair being subsequently retrofitted with a
full-height cylindrical steel jacket. Table 1 illustrates the
design variations in the various test specimens. Circular
column units 1, 3, 5, and 7, and rectangular column units 1,
3, and 5 were tested in the “as-built” conditions, while the
remaining specimens were tested with full-height steel
jackets. Two types of steel jackets were fabricated, using
3/16-in.- (4.76 mm)-thick hot-rolled ASTM A36 and 1/8-in.-
(3.18 mm)-thick hot-rolled ASTM A569 11-gage steel,
respectively. The former was based more on requirements
for flexural ductility than shear, and, as a consequence, the
two columns with 3/16-in. (4.76 mm) jackets were expected
to be “over-retrofitted” for shear. A gap of 0.8 in. (20 mm)
was left between the jacket and the footing or upper load
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
Table 1—Test column details
Longitudinal Transverse V shear V shear
Aspect ratio Axial load P, reinforcing bar reinforcing bar Steel jacket ---------------- , kips ---------------
- , kips
Test unit M/VD kips fc′ , ksi Pfc′ /Ag (26 # 6) fyt , ksi (#2 hoops) fyh , ksi details Vif , kips μ≤2 μ≥4

(a) Circular columns

C1A 2.0 133 4.5 0.065 47 52 — 119 139.6 83.7
fjy = 50.4 ksi
C2R 2.0 133 4.93 0.059 47 52 127 774.3 718.4
tj = 3/16 in.
C3A 2.0 400 5.0 0.177 47 47 — 151 197.6 138.7
fjy = 50.4 ksi
C4R 2.0 400 5.1 0.173 47 47 tj = 3/16 in. 165 832.3 773.4

C5A 2.0 133 5.2 0.056 68 47 — 171 142 85.9

fjy = 41.5 ksi
C6R 2.0 133 5.8 0.051 68 47 175 489 432.9
tj = 1/8 in.
C7A 1.5 133 4.45 0.066 68 47 — 222 148 92.7
fjy = 41.5 ksi
C8R 1.5 133 4.52 0.065 68 47 tj = 1/8 in.
226 495 439.7

(b) Rectangular columns

R1A 2.0 114 5.5 0.054 47 52 — 118 143.0 90.6
fjy= 50.4 ksi
R2R 2.0 114 5.6 0.053 47 52 tj = 3/16 in.
123 1021. 0 968.6

R3A 2.0 114 5.0 0.059 68 47 — 160 130.0 80.1

fjy = 50.4 ksi
R4R 2.0 114 5.2 0.057 68 47 tj = 3/16 in.
169 1008.. 958.1

R5A 1.5 114 4.7 0.063 68 47 — 213 134.1 85.4

fjy = 41.5 ksi
R6R 1.5 114 4.8 0.062 68 47 tj = 1/8 in.
226 614.5 565.4

Note: A = as-built; R = retrofitted.

1 kip = 4.5 kN; 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

slab, representing the recommended 2-in. (51-mm) gap for
full-scale columns.
Columns were built using materials and design details
appropriate for typical columns designed in the mid 1960s.
A target compressive strength of fc′ = 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) at
28 days was used to represent the probable overstrength
associated with a typical 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) design
strength of the 1960s. A summary of the material strengths
for the test columns is provided in Table 1, together with an
initial prediction of the column flexural capacity Vif , and
initial and fully ductile shear strengths. Note that, in Table 1,
predictions for the initial and ductile shear strength values
for the “as-built” columns are based on the model described
in this paper and correspond to a displacement ductility
value of μ ≤ 2 and μ ≥ 4, respectively. Predictions for the
initial and final shear strength values for retrofitted columns
are based on summing up the companion “as-built” column
shear strengths with the shear strength enhancement
provided by the steel jackets. This was assessed using Eq.
(15) through (17) and assuming a value of θ = 30 deg. Full
details of the test programs for circular and rectangular
columns are available in References 25 and 27, respectively.
Instrumentation and testing procedure
All the shear column units were well instrumented with
strain gages mounted on longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement and on steel jackets, where appropriate. Displace-
ment transducers were installed diagonally, horizontally, and
vertically along the column height, as shown in Fig. 10. This
enabled computation of the column shear and flexure deforma-
tion components to be carried out for various stages of testing.
The test units were subjected to a standard cyclic loading
pattern, which consisted of an initial force-controlled stage,
followed by displacement control after first yield of the
longitudinal reinforcement was attained. As shown in Fig. 12(a),
three complete cycles of displacement to displacement
ductility factors of μΔ = 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were
imposed, unless column failure caused premature curtailment
of the test. The displacement ductility factor μΔ is defined as
the ratio of the displacement Δ to the yield displacement Δy
of the column. The experimental yield displacement was
determined by recording the lateral dis-placement at the
column top when the lateral force corresponded to the
theoretical first yield of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement
in opposite directions Δy1 and Δy2, and then extrapolating the
average value to the theoretical ideal flexural capacity Vif , as
indicated in Fig. 12(b). Thus, the yield displacement of the
column unit is given by
Δ y1 + Δ y2⎞ V if
Δ y = ⎛ -----------------------
- ------- (22)
⎝ 2 ⎠V ′
y
The predictions for theoretical first yield load Vy and the
theoretical ideal flexural strength Vif were calculated using a

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994 403

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental research described in this paper was carried out at the
Charles Lee Powell Structural Systems Research Laboratory at the Univer-
sity of California at San Diego. The research project was funded by the Cal-
ifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under Grant No. RTA
59G267, and their support is gratefully acknowledged. The comments, sug-
gestions, and conclusions made in this paper do not necessarily reflect the
views of Caltrans.

NOTATION
Ae = effective shear-resisting area
Ag = gross-sectional area
Ash = cross-sectional area of one leg of transverse steel
Av = total cross-sectional area of transverse steel at section
a = compression zone depth
B = rectangular section width
Bj = short principal diameter of elliptical jacket
bw = web width
D = overall section depth or circular section diameter
D′ = distance between centers of peripheral hoop or spiral
Dj = long principal diameter of elliptical jacket or diameter of circu-
lar jacket
d = effective depth of member
fc′ = concrete compressive cylinder strength
fl′ = confining stress
fyh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
fyj = yield strength of steel jacket
H = column height
M° = overstrength flexural capacity
Mu = factored moment
P = axial load
Fig. 12—Details of loading history. s = spacing of transverse reinforcement
tj = steel jacket thickness
V = applied shear force
computer program developed by King, Priestley, and Park7 Vc = concrete shear contribution
based on a model for confined concrete proposed by Mander, Vf° = shear corresponding to M°
Priestley, and Park.5 Vif = ideal flexural strength
Vn = nominal shear strength
Vp = shear capacity provided by axial load-resisting mechanism
CONCLUSIONS
Vru = shear strength of retrofitted column
Aspects relating to the shear strength of circular and rect-
Vs = shear carried by transverse reinforcement
angular columns were discussed, and the conservatism in Vsj = shear strength enhancement by steel jacket
current ACI design equations was pointed out. The so-called Vu = ultimate shear strength
refined approach was shown to produce more conservative Vy = shear corresponding to first yield of flexural reinforcement
results than the approximate approach for most levels of axial α = aspect ratio factor
load, and to be excessively sensitive to axial load levels at high β = tangential angle of elliptical jacket
Δ = displacement
ratios. It is recommended that this equation be withdrawn. Δy = yield displacement
A set of shear strength equations for circular and rectan- γ = inclination of axial load strut with column axis
gular columns was proposed, and shown to be considerably μΔ = displacement ductility factor
less conservative than current ACI design for low levels of ρs = volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio
ρt = total longitudinal reinforcement ratio
ductility. The proposed approach relates shear strength to
ρω = tensile reinforcement ratio
flexural ductility, and differs from other design methods in θ = inclination of diagonal strut with column axis
that the concrete and axial load contributions to shear
strength are considered separately. REFERENCES
Design equations and a design methodology for calcu- 1. Fung, G. C.; LeBeau, R. J.; Klein, E. D.; Belvedere, J.; and Gold-
lating the required thickness of circular or oval steel jackets schmidt, A. P., “Field Investigations of Bridge Damage in the San Fer-
needed to increase the shear strength of circular or rectan- nando Earthquake,” Technical Report, Bridge Department, Division of
Highways, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Califor-
gular columns, respectively, were presented. The design nia, 1971.
basis was that ductile flexural response to high ductility 2. Priestley, M. J. N., “Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake of Octo-
levels should be assured. ber 1, 1987—Damage to the I-5/I-605 Separator,” Earthquake Spectra
Physical details of 14 large-scale columns tested to deter- Journal, V. 4, No. 2, 1988, pp. 389-405.
mine the appropriateness of the design equations presented 3. Lew, H. S., ed., “Performance of Structures During the Loma Prieta
in this paper were described. Results of the tests of these Earthquake of October 17, 1989,” NIST Special Publication 778, NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD.
columns, half of which were tested “as-built,” and the
4. Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., “Strength and Ductility of Concrete
remainder tested after retrofitting with steel jackets, are Bridge Columns under Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84,
presented in a companion paper. No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 61-76.

404 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994

 5. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1825.
6. Ang, B. G.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., “Seismic Shear
Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Jour-
nal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 45-59.
7. King, D. J.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Computer Program for
Concrete Column Design,” Research Report No. 86/12, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, May 1986.
8. Wong, Y. L.; Paulay, T.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Response of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Columns to Multi-Directional Seismic Attack,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 180-191.
9. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1975, 769 pp.
10. ATC-6, “Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges,” Applied
Technology Council, Berkeley, 1981, 199 pp.
11. Woodward, K. A., and Jirsa, J. O., “Behavior Classification of Short
Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Deformations,” PMF-
SEL Report, No. 80-2, July 1980, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.
12. AIJ Structural Committee, “Design for Earthquake Resistant Rein-
forced Concrete Buildings Based on Ultimate Strength Concept,” Architec-
tural Institute of Japan, 1988, 337 pp.
13. Zelinsky, R., “California Highway Bridge Retrofit Strategy and
Details,” Final Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Bridge Engineering
Research in Progress, National Science Foundation and Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Oct. 29-30, 1990.
14. Chai, Y. H.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Retrofit of
Circular Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1991, pp. 572-584.
15. Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N., “Strengthening of Rectangular
Bridge Columns for Increased Ductility,” Proceedings of the Symposium on
Practical Solutions for Bridge Strengthening and Rehabilitation, Des
Moines, Apr. 5-6, 1993.
16. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear
Strength—Part 2: Test Results and Comparison with Theory,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1994, pp. 537-551.
17. Joint ASCE-ACI Committee 326, “Shear and Diagonal Tension,”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, Jan. 1962, pp. 1-30, Feb. 1962, pp. 277-
333, Mar. 1962, pp. 353-395.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1994
18. Joint ASCE-ACI Task Committee 426, “Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 99, No.
ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091-1187.
19. Hsu. T.; and Mau, S. T., eds., “Concrete Shear in Earthquake,” Pro-
ceedings of the International Workshop, University of Houston, Texas, Jan.
1991, 518 pp.
20. CSA Committee A 23.3-M84, “Design of Concrete Structures for
Buildings (CAN-A23.3-M84),” Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
1984.
21. Collins, M. P., “Towards a Rational Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Members in Shear,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 104, No.
ST4, Apr. 1978, pp. 649-665.
22. “CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures,” 3rd Edition, Apr.
1978.
23. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-89/ACI 318R-89),” American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
24. Priestley, M. J. N.; Verma, R.; and Xiao, Y., “Seismic Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, ASCE, V. 120, No. 8, Aug. 1994, pp. 2310-2329.
25. Verma, R.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Assessment of Seismic
Response and Steel Jacket Retrofit of Squat Circular Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Columns,” Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. SSRP
92/05, University of California, San Diego, June 1993, 400 pp.
26. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges Relating to Seismic
Design,” California Department of Transportation, Division of Structures,
Sacramento, CA, June 1990.
27. Xiao, Y.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Steel Jacket Retrofit for
Enhancing Shear Strength of Short Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Col-
umns,” Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. SSRP 92/07, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego, June 1993, 200 pp.
28. Sakino, K., and Ishibashi, H., “Experimental Studies on Concrete
Filled Square Steel Tubular Short Columns Subjected to Cyclic Shearing
Force and Constant Axial Force,” Transactions of the Architectural Insti-
tute of Japan, No. 353, July 1985, pp. 81-89.
29. Tomii, M.; Sakino, K.; and Xiao, Y., “Ultimate Moment of Rein-
forced Concrete Short Columns Confined in Steel Tube,” Proceedings of
the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 2, New Zealand,
Aug. 1987, pp. 11-22.
30. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit
Using Fiberglass/Epoxy Jackets,” Proceedings of the Third NSF Workshop
on Bridge Engineering Research in Progress, La Jolla, Nov. 16-17, 1992,
pp. 247-251.
405