Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Structures..

AFGC Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures using composites.
Scientific and Technical Documents
Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures

using composites
Temporary recommendations
June 2015
2
Members of working group
Coordination of group: Emmanuel FERRIER (University of LYON 1)

Marc QUIERTANT (IFSTTAR)
Technical secretary: Laurent MICHEL (University of LYON 1)
Participants who contributed to drafting the technical document:

ASHTARI Nader APAVE
BIGAUD David Université Angers
BLAISE-MARTIN Xavier MAPEI
BUCHIN-ROULIE Vanessa Freyssinet
CASTELLAN Bernard AC4S
CHATAIGNER Sylvain IFSTTAR
DESPREZ Cédric IFSTTAR
DEVEAUD Jean-Paul Cerema/DTecITM/CTOA/DGOI
DUBREUIL Julien NUVIA-TS
DUTHOIT Alexis GINGERCEBTP
FECHNER Jean-Pierre CEMEX
FERRIER Emmanuel Université LYON 1
FORET Gilles IFSTTAR
GERAUD Vincent VSL France
GICQUEL Yvon Sika France
GRACIA Maria Freyssinet
HENAULT Jean-Marie EDF
KAZANTZIDOU-FIRTINIDOU Danai FYFE Europe SA
LACAUX Emmanuel Vinci construction
LI Alex Université Reims
LITIQUE Marc Fibrwrap Construction France
MARNAC Sandrine CETE SO/DALETT/OAB
MERCIER Julien Freyssinet
MICHEL Laurent Université LYON 1
PAILLE Jean-Marie Socotec
PETIT Victor NUVIA-TS
QUIERTANT Marc IFSTTAR
RASSELET Johannès BOUYGUES Construction
RIVART Vincent SPPM
RIZARD Fabien Cerema/DTecITM/CTOA/DGOI
SADONE Raphaëlle Cerema/DTerCE/DLL/OASMD/DOA
SIMON Alain Eiffage TP
TAILLADE Frédéric IFSTTAR
TESSIER Marc Fibrwrap Construction
THEVENIN Pierre-Eric Bureau Veritas
VIVIER Aurélie Systra
3
Contents
1 General remarks on the seismic behaviour of structures.................................................... 6
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Earthquake risk prevention regulations ....................................................................... 7
1.2.1 Earthquake zoning in France ................................................................................ 8
1.2.2 Importance classes ................................................................................................ 9
1.2.3 Ground types ...................................................................................................... 11
1.2.4 Seismic action .................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Earthquake building regulations ................................................................................ 12
1.3.1 Rules applicable to buildings under no special risks.......................................... 12
1.3.2 Rules applicable to bridges ................................................................................ 15
1.3.3 Rules applicable to structures and buildings at special risk ............................... 15
1.4 Performance requirements and compliance criteria .................................................. 17
1.4.1 Definition of limit states according to EC8-3 .................................................... 17
1.4.2 Reminder of ductility classes ............................................................................. 17
2 Seismic retrofitting of concrete structures with FRP ....................................................... 19
2.1 Typical pathologies of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loading........... 19
2.1.1 Shear failure ....................................................................................................... 19
2.1.2 Failure and damage under flexure with or without axial force .......................... 20
2.1.3 Failure by the formation of plastic hinges in critical regions ............................. 21
2.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 21
2.2 Retrofitting strategies ................................................................................................ 22
2.3 Contribution of composite materials ......................................................................... 23
2.3.1 General remarks on composite materials ........................................................... 23
2.3.2 The main types of FRPs ..................................................................................... 24
2.4 Different applications of FRPs (Fibre-Reinforced Polymers) ................................... 27
2.4.1 Shear strengthening ............................................................................................ 28
2.4.2 Jacketing with composite materials.................................................................... 29
2.4.3 Flexural strengthening ........................................................................................ 32
2.4.4 Brief reminder of failure by detachment of FRP................................................ 33
2.4.5 Summary and development of these solutions ................................................... 33
2.5 Examples of seismic retrofitting of structures using FRP reinforcements ................ 37
3 Modelling Methods for Concrete Structures .................................................................... 40
3.1 Constitutive law for composites ................................................................................ 40
3.2 Definition of analysis methods .................................................................................. 40
3.2.1 Digital analysis methods .................................................................................... 40
3.2.2 Precautions to be taken when choosing a linear analysis ................................... 44
3.2.3 Modelling methods ............................................................................................. 44
3.2.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 47
4 Design of FRP reinforcement ........................................................................................... 49
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 49
4.2 Field of application, standards, references and symbols. .......................................... 49
4.2.1 Standards and references .................................................................................... 49
Symbols ..................................................................................................................... 50
N.B. blue text corresponds to changes made to the Eurocode text ........................... 51
4.3 Actions and stresses ................................................................................................... 52
4
4.4 Design values for properties of FRP sheets ............................................................... 52

4.5 Reinforcement with respect to normal force and flexure with and without axial force.. 53
4.5.1 Confinement ....................................................................................................... 53
4.5.2 Case of reinforcement with respect to flexure with and without axial force ..... 63
4.6 FRP retrofitting to prevent shear failure .................................................................... 68
4.6.1 Rectangular section ............................................................................................ 70
4.6.2 Circular cross-sections ....................................................................................... 77
4.6.3 Contribution of the composite to shear strength in the case of cyclic loading at a
plastic hinge. ....................................................................................................... 77
4.6.4 Calculation example 1: Squat column ................................................................ 78
4.6.5 Calculation example 2: Squat slender wall ........................................................ 80
4.6.6 Reliable sensitivity analyses and calibration of safety factors based on design
equations............................................................................................................. 82
5 Detailing provisions ......................................................................................................... 85
5.1 Detailing provisions for flexural strength .................................................................. 85
5.2 Detailing provisions for confinement ........................................................................ 86
5.3 Detailing provisions for shear.................................................................................... 86
5.4 Anchorage .................................................................................................................. 87
5.4.1 General ............................................................................................................... 87
5.4.2 Failure modes ..................................................................................................... 88
5.4.3 Characterisation tests.......................................................................................... 89
5.4.4 Design proposals ................................................................................................ 94
5.4.5 Detailing ............................................................................................................. 96
6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX 1: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ................................................................ 99
APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX 3: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES BASED ON DESIGN EQUATIONS.
EXAMPLE OF SHEAR ......................................................................................................... 122
6.1.1 Local sensitivity analysis ................................................................................. 123
6.1.2 Global sensitivity analysis ................................................................................ 126
6.1.3 Reliability sensitivity analysis .......................................................................... 127
6.1.4 Other sensitivity studies ................................................................................... 130
5
1 General remarks on the seismic behaviour of structures
1.1 Introduction
In various countries, including France, the regulations concerning buildings and civil
engineering structures contain recommendations aimed at achieving acceptable seismic
performance, that is, the structures designed must withstand minor earthquakes without
damage, moderate earthquakes with minimum non-structural damage and major earthquakes
without collapsing. The seismic recommendations proposed in building regulations have thus
been updated over the years to achieve this aim.
In France, the new earthquake zone map and changes in the regulations as a result of
Eurocode 8 (EC 8) have contributed to defining the performance objectives of new structures.
For existing structures, at least in certain cases, reinforcement is required to reduce seismic
risks. This notion is introduced in Eurocode 8 Part 3 and in the implementing decrees and
orders. Seismic retrofitting can therefore be either voluntary or compulsory.
Based on the current construction rate, it would take one hundred years to completely replace
France's housing stock. Seismic retrofitting of existing structures therefore appears necessary
to ensure the solidity of all building constructions and the safety and security of people and
property. The need to reduce the effects of an earthquake on a reinforced concrete structure
can correspond to two different situations:
1. the weak points identified are localised and confined within a particular area
2. there are many weak points everywhere and a global approach is necessary
In the first case, the strategy will consist in treating the problem of a single component whose
probable failure would lead to consequences on a global level. In the second case, the strategy
will consist in carrying out major works on the entire structure. In both cases, the retrofitting
works will need to be validated on both a technical and economic level.
Several reinforcement scenarios are possible: reduction in seismic loads (insulators,
dissipators, change of mass and/or improvement of performance, resistance and/or rigidity of
structure).
The retrofitting techniques generally used are classified according to purpose and technology:
o Retrofitting by addition (chaining, bracing, buttressing, etc.)
o Enhancement of shock absorption and/or reduction in rigidity (isolators, dissipators,
etc.)
o Enhancement of strength and/or ductility (sprayed concrete, bonded composites, steel
lining and bracing, etc.
o Anchoring (floor-chaining, framework-chaining, foundation-framework)
This document presents recommendations for the seismic retrofitting of concrete structures
using fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP).
For more than fifteen years, national and international research (U. Meier [1], K. Neale [2],
P. Hamelin [3], E. Ferrier [4], A. Triantafillou [5], J-L Clément [6]), has shown that
composite materials (polymer Matrix, textile reinforcements) can be used to protect, repair
and reinforce not only reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, metal and timber
structures but also masonry structural components. The technologies used are of three types
(wet lay-ups, adhesive bonding of flat pultruded composites and bag moulding) and the main
6
materials concerned are carbon, glass and aramid fibres combined with epoxy-type
thermosetting Matrix.
The performance of the retrofitted system is essentially related to the load transfer
between the reinforcement and its substrate, by means of adhesive bonding or
confinement.
Research results have been used to draw up recommendations and design rules in the case of
quasi-static loading, taking serviceability limit state and ultimate limit state conditions into
consideration (ACI 440 [7], ISIS Canada [8], JCI Japan [9], AFGC [10], Fib TG9.3 [11],
EC8-3).
The aim of this document is to provide in-depth information on the use of materials for the
seismic retrofitting of existing structures. These guidelines are a complement to existing
guidelines on earthquake engineering.
1.2 Earthquake risk prevention regulations
Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of how earthquake risk prevention regulations are
organised (on the date on which the present recommendations were finalised).
The main regulations defining earthquake building regulations are:
o the environment code, particularly articles R.563-1 to R.563-8 recently updated by:
o decree n°2010-1254 of 22 October 2010 relating to earthquake risk prevention
o decree n°2010-1255 of 22 October 2010 delimiting earthquake zones on
French territory
o the order of 22 October 2010 amended relating to classification and seismic
construction regulations applicable to buildings in the "under no special risks" class1,
o the order of 4 October 2010 concerning special risks
o the order of 24 January 2011 concerning installations requiring an environmental
permit
o the order of 26 October 2011 applicable to bridges "under no special risks"
These texts define the following in particular:
o earthquake zoning in France,
o the earthquake building regulations to be applied to buildings and bridges under no
special risks,
o classification in importance classes,
o the parameters required for earthquake resistant design2
1
Buildings "under no special risks" are those for which the consequences of an earthquake are limited to the
actual structure of the building and its occupants
2
Categories established according to parameters such as the activity carried out inside the premises or the
number of persons a building can contain.
7
N.B. ICPE: Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement (installations requiring an

environmental permit)
Figure 1: Organisational structure of earthquake risk prevention regulations [12]

1.2.1 Earthquake zoning in France
Earthquake hazards in France are defined in decree 2010-1255 of 22 October 2010. France is
divided into five earthquake zones (Figure 2):
o very low hazard
o low hazard
o moderate hazard
o medium hazard
o high hazard
These earthquake zones are characterised by an acceleration agr, which is a ground "at rock"
acceleration defined by the regulations and set out in Table 1.
Table 1: Value of agr

Earthquake zone Earthquake hazard agr (m/s²)
1 Very low 0,4
2 Low 0,7
3 Moderate 1,1
4 Medium 1,6
5 High 3,0
8
Figure 2: Earthquake zoning in France

1.2.2 Importance classes
Importance classes are used to determine the level of earthquake protection required for a
given building or civil engineering structure. The importance classes of buildings and bridges
are described in detail in the order of 22 October 2010 and that of 26 October 2011
respectively. There are four classes (Table 2).
9
Classes of importance Description Examples

. Buildings in which there is no human activity Hangars,
requiring a long-term stay agricultural
I buildings
. Individual homes Individual

. Public assembly buildings, categories 4 & 5 homes, small
. Collective housing less than 28 m high blocks
. Office or commercial buildings that are not public
II assembly buildings, h ≤ 28 m, max. 300
. Industrial buildings that can house more than 300
people
. Parking lots open to the public
. Public assembly buildings categories 1, 2 & 3 Large

. Collective housing and offices, h > 28 m establishments,
. Buildings that can house more than 300 people shopping malls,
. Health and social welfare buildings schools
III . Collective power production centres
. Schools and educational buildings
. Buildings that are essential to civil safety, national Essential

defence and law and order protection :
. Buildings designed to maintain communications, hospitals,
for the production and storage of drinking water, barracks, etc.
IV public power distribution
. Buildings providing air safety
. Health establishments required for crisis
management
. Meteorological centres
Table 2: Importance classes established by the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development,

Transport and Housing www.planseisme.fr [12]
All buildings are subjected to the rule proposed in EC8, but different factors apply depending
on the importance class of the building. The importance factors for the four classes are set out
in Table 3.
Table 3: Importance factors

Importance factor γI of Importance factor γI
Importance class
building of building
I 0.8 -
II 1 1
III 1.2 1.2
IV 1.4 1.4
10
1.2.3 Ground types

The type of ground strongly influences the seismic loading of a building. EC8 defines five
main ground types (from type A for rocky formations to type E for soft ground).
A soil factor Se is defined for each ground type. The soil factor Se describes the amplification
of the seismic loading exerted by certain soils. There are five ground types. The value of the
associated soil factor also depends on the earthquake zone (see orders Table 4).
Table 4: Value of the soil factor Se

Soil factor Se, zones 1
Ground type Soil factor Se, zone 5
to 4
A 1 1
B 1.35 1.2
C 1.5 1.15
D 1.6 1.35
E 1.8 1.4
1.2.4 Seismic action

For the application of building regulations, seismic action is usually represented by an elastic
ground acceleration response spectrum (Figure 3). Article 4 of the order of 22 October 2010
amended defines the parameters concerned.
It should be noted that in Eurocode 8-1, the calculation spectrum and not the elastic response
spectrum is used to perform linear calculations based on a behaviour factor.
The spectrum parameters that characterise the intensity of earthquake motion are the ground
acceleration ag and the soil factor S.
The ground acceleration ag is the product of importance factor γΙ and the maximum reference
acceleration on rock agr : ag = γI x agr.
The parameters TB, TC and TD (see Figure 3) define the shape of the spectrum (Table 5). They
depend on the ground type and earthquake zone (Figure 4).
Figure 3: Horizontal elastic response spectrum (EC8-1) [13])
11
Table 5: Spectrum parameters according to [8]

Ground Zone 1 to 4 Zone 5
type TB TC TD TB TC TD
A 0.03 0.20 2.50 0.15 0.40 2.00
B 0.05 0.25 2.50 0.15 0.50 2.00
C 0.06 0.40 2.00 0.20 0.60 2.00
D 0.10 0.60 1.50 0.20 0.80 2.00
E 0.08 0.45 1.25 0.15 0.50 2.00
Figure 4: Example of elastic response spectrum for earthquake zone 4 and a building in
importance class II
1.3 Earthquake building regulations
The earthquake building regulations applicable to structures comprise the six parts of
Eurocode 8 (NF EN 1998):
o Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

o Part 2: Bridges [14]
o Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings
o Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines
o Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects
o Part 6: Towers, masts and chimneys
In France, these texts are applicable in conjunction with their national appendices.
1.3.1 Rules applicable to buildings under no special risks
1.3.1.1 Rules applicable to new buildings
There are no regulatory requirements in the following cases:
o importance class I buildings,

o buildings in earthquake zone 1,
o importance class II buildings in earthquake zone 2.
12
For all other buildings, the earthquake building regulations set out in Eurocode 8 Parts 1 and 5
apply.
However, for individual homes and similar buildings meeting certain criteria, simplified rules
exist: PS-MI rules in earthquake zones 3 and 4 and CP-MI rules for the West Indies in
earthquake zone 5. These rules dispense with the need to apply Eurocode 8 [15, 16, 17].
1
Possibility of applying PS-M1 (exemption from Eurocode 8) provided the conditions of the PS-M1 are respected
2 Possibility
of applying CP-M1 guidelines provided the conditions of the guidelines are respected
3 Compulsory application of Eurocode 8 regulations
according to planseisme.fr (The new EARTHQUAKE REGULATIONS applicable to buildings whose planning
permission application was made after 1st May 2011) [12]
Figure 5: Stipulations concerning building earthquake rules

1.3.1.2 Rules applicable to existing buildings
For existing buildings, the regulations do not require upgrading of the structure unless other
work is to be carried out on the building.
The regulations are based on the obligation of not increasing the building's vulnerability.
Thus, if major works are to be carried out, such as the creation of large surface areas, the
removal of a floor or an increase in mass, seismic action must be taken into account when
designing the new part of the structure. The thresholds defining major works are set out in the
order of 22 October 2010 amended (art. 3).
When the works envisaged are below the major works threshold, only the requirement of not
increasing the vulnerability of the building remains valid. No earthquake resistance level is
defined. The AFPS guidelines (Association française du génie parasismique - French
earthquake engineering association) (to be published [18]) presents the procedure to be
adopted to assess the impact of works on an existing building.
Although the regulations do not require upgrading of the structure in the case of works that
are not considered to be major, building owners are encouraged to reduce the vulnerability of
their building on a voluntary basis. In this case, it is the building owner who will decide on
the performance level to be achieved.
13
1.3.1.2.1 Earthquake protection upgrading in the case of major works

(substantial modifications)
To take the situation of the existing building into account, the seismic action to be considered
is that of a new building, less 40%. The simplified rules for individual homes and similar
buildings (PS-MI and CP-MI, earthquake construction of individual homes) can be used if the
conditions of applicability are respected (Table 6).
Table 6: Earthquake protection upgrading rules when works are to be carried out
Earthquake Imp.
Type of works Building rules
zone class
> 30% of floor surface area created Eurocode 8-1
Zone 2 IV
> 30% of floors removed at the same level agr = 0.42 m/s²
PS-MI Zone 2
> 30% of floor surface area created
if PSMI application
> 30% of floors removed at the same level
II conditions respected
Zone 3 > 30% of floor surface area created Eurocode 8-1
III > 30% of floor surface area created Eurocode 8-1
IV > 30% of floors removed at the same level agr = 0.66 m/s²
PS-MI Zone 3
> 30% of floor surface area created if PSMI application
II conditions respected
> 30% of floor surface area created Eurocode 8-1
Zone 4 > 30% of floors removed at the same level
III
> 20% of bracing removed
Addition of heavy equipment on the roof Eurocode 8-1
> 20% of floor surface area created agr = 0.96 m/s²
IV
> 20% of bracing removed
Addition of heavy equipment on the roof
CPMI
> 30% of floor surface area created if CPMI conditions
respected
II
Eurocode 8-1
agr = 1.8 m/s²
Zone 5 > 20% of bracing removed
III > 20% of floor surface area created
Eurocode 8-1
agr = 1.8 m/s²
IV > 20% of bracing removed
Addition of heavy equipment on the roof
Reference ground acceleration agr in the table above takes a reduction of 49% into account.
14
1.3.1.2.2 Voluntary retrofitting

Eurocode 8-3 proposes an application framework for voluntary retrofitting. It defines three limit
states each corresponding to a level of damage to the building after an earthquake. The choice of
limit state to be considered is made by the building owner. The AFPS/CSTB* guidelines
"Diagnostic et renforcement du bâti existant vis-à-vis du séisme" (earthquake assessment and
retrofitting of existing buildings) [15] present the approach to be adopted to reduce the
vulnerability of buildings in pursuance of Eurocode 8-3. For this purpose, it recalls the earthquake
regulations in the case of voluntary retrofitting of an existing building, the possibility of choosing
one's own retrofitting level, the collection of data relating to the building, the assessment methods
and their aims, the choice of retrofitting strategy and the substantiation of retrofitted structures.
* Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment
1.3.2 Rules applicable to bridges
1.3.2.1 Rules applicable to new bridges
There are no regulatory requirements for importance class I bridges and bridges located in
earthquake zone 1. For all other bridges, the earthquake building regulations set out in Eurocode
8 Parts 1, 2 and 5 apply. The Sétra guidelines for designing bridges in earthquake zones
complete and explain the approach [17].
1.3.2.2 Rules applicable to existing bridges
The order of 26 October 2011 does not include existing bridges. There are no regulatory
requirements for the upgrading of existing bridges in relation to earthquake risks. However,
voluntary retrofitting by the owner is encouraged. The Sétra guidelines to the assessment and
seismic retrofitting of existing bridges (to be published [17]) present the approach to be adopted
in the case of voluntary retrofitting by adapting the rules proposed in EC8-3 for buildings, to the
case of bridges. It addresses the classification of structures and the identification of those to be
given priority treatment, the definition of contingencies to be considered, the gathering of
information required for a proper assessment, instrumentation and any field investigations
which may be needed, a detailed description of the analysis methods to be used, the
performance levels to be attained and a description of the different seismic retrofitting strategies
and possible techniques [19].
1.3.3 Rules applicable to structures and buildings at special risk
Structures at special risk are structures whose failure in the case of an earthquake can affect
people, property and the environment outside their immediate vicinity (see French environment
code art. R.563-6).
The notion of special risk is opposed to that of a structure not at special risk, that is, for which the
effects of an earthquake are considered to be limited to the immediate environment of the
structure. Preventive measures applicable to installations at special risk are defined by the order of
4 October 2010 (prevention of accidental risks inside installations requiring an environmental
permit) completed by the order of 24 January 2011 defining the earthquake rules applicable to
certain installations requiring an environmental permit.
1.3.3.1 Installations and components concerned
According to article 9 of the order of 4 October 2010 amended, installations at special risk are
facilities that require an environmental permit and are likely to lead, in the event of an
earthquake, to one or more phenomena whose life-threatening hazard zones lie outside the
boundaries of the site on which the facilities are installed.
Only Seveso installations are concerned by special risks.
15
1.3.3.2 Date of application

Installations authorised after 1 January 2013 must respect the provisions of the order of 4
October 2010 amended, as soon as operation begins. Existing installations on that date (those
whose authorisation is prior to 1 January 2013) have until 31 December 2015 to produce an
analysis of their vulnerability to earthquakes, based on the criteria of the order. They will then
have a deadline defined by another order (limited to 31 December 2020) to implement the
necessary means to bring the risk down to an acceptable level.
1.3.3.3 Principle of substantiation
The substantiation required by the order consists in demonstrating:
o either that no hazard will occur in the event of an earthquake;
o or that the consequences of the earthquake will remain limited to a zone without
permanent human occupation.
In the first case, substantiation generally consists of demonstrating the strength or the stability
of the installations and structures concerned (but sometimes this also includes surrounding
installations and structures to prevent a domino effect) or of installing active protection (cut-
off devices, active valves, etc.). In the second case, the criteria used to declare that a zone is
without permanent human occupation are given in the order (art. 10).
1.3.3.4 Reference seismic action
Contrary to the previous regulations (order of 10 May 1993), the order of 4 October 2010
specifies the design seismic action to be used. Like structures under no special risks, it is
based on regulatory zoning and defined by design spectra.
However, the design acceleration is greater, resulting in a reference earthquake return period
which is longer than that of structures under no special risks (tables 7, 8, 9 and 10).
Table 7: Acceleration applicable to new installations (authorisation since 1 January 2013)
Earthquake zone Horizontal acceleration (m/s2) Horizontal acceleration (m/s2)
Earthquake zone 1 0.88 0.79
Table 8: Acceleration applicable to existing installations (authorisation since 1 January 2013)

Earthquake zone Horizontal acceleration (m/s²) Horizontal acceleration (m/s²)
Table 9 Soil factors

Ground type Se (for earthquake zones 1 to 3) Se (for earthquake zones 4 to 5)
A 1 1
B 1.35 1.2
C 1.5 1.15
D 1.6 1.35
E 1.8 1.4
16
Table 10: Design spectra for the horizontal earthquake component

Ground For earthquake zones 1 to 3 For earthquake zones 4 to 5
type TB TC TD TB TC TD
A 0.03 0.2 2.5 0.15 0.4 2
B 0.05 0.25 2.5 0.15 0.5 2
C 0.06 0.4 2 0.2 0.6 2
D 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.8 2
E 0.08 0.45 1.25 0.15 0.5 2
1.4 Performance requirements and compliance criteria

1.4.1 Definition of limit states according to EC8-3
As part of a voluntary approach to seismic retrofitting, the aim of the behaviour of a structure is
defined by the choice of limit states in the meaning of Eurocode 8-3. The choice is made by the
building owner.
The three limits states are:
o Limit State of Damage Limitation (DL)
o Limit State of Significant Damage (SD)
o Limit State of Near Collapse (NC)
This approach, developed for buildings, can be directly extrapolated to civil engineering
structures. Qualitative definitions of limit states (or damage levels) are proposed below.
LS of Damage Limitation (DL)

The Limit State of Damage Limitation (DL) corresponds to that of a structure that is only
slightly damaged. The structural elements have not exceeded their yield strength and retain all
their strength and stiffness properties. Certain non-structural components may be damaged
and certain parts may show distributed cracking. However, only minor post-seismic repairs
mainly concerning non-structural components will be necessary and there is no permanent
drift.
Limit State of Significant Damage (SD)

The Limit State of Significant Damage (SD) corresponds to a significantly damaged structure,
but which can be used to a limited extent to organise rescue operations and is capable of
sustaining moderate vertical loads. Moderate permanent drifts are present but are sometimes
sufficient for post-seismic repairs to be uneconomic in comparison with
demolition/reconstruction costs.
Limit State of Near Collapse (NC)

The Limit State of Near Collapse corresponds to a heavily damaged structure following an
earthquake. The residual lateral strength and stiffness are low, even if the structure is still
capable of sustaining its own load. The non-structural components are badly damaged or have
collapsed, and large permanent drifts are present. The structure is near collapse and probably
would not survive another earthquake, even of moderate intensity.
1.4.2 Reminder of ductility classes
In relation to the hysteretic dissipation capacity required, three classes of ductility are defined
for concrete structures: DC”L” (low ductility), DC”M” (medium ductility) and DC”H” (high
17
ductility). This approach mainly concerns buildings. For civil engineering structures, the
ductility can be low ductility or ductile.
- DC”L” (equivalent for civil engineering structures: Limited ductile behaviour)
The L ductility class corresponds to that of structures designed and dimensioned according to the
Eurocode 2 rules, which do not require greater ductility than that provided by the application of
Eurocode 2 and for which the earthquake resistance is ensured by the strength of the structure in
the elastic field. The DC”L” ductility class is authorised in low earthquake zones with the EC8
acceleration limits.
- DC”M” (No equivalence for civil engineering structures)

The M ductility class corresponds to structures designed, dimensioned and detailed in
accordance with specific earthquake resistance provisions, enabling the structure to
effectively enter the inelastic field under repeated reversed loading, without suffering brittle
failure.
- DC”H” (equivalent for civil engineering structures: Ductile)

The H ductility class corresponds to structures designed, dimensioned and detailed to enable
the structure to develop stable mechanisms, associated with large dissipation of hysteretic
energy, in response to seismic activity.
In order to ensure appropriate ductility in each of these three classes, Eurocode 8 indicates
that special detailing must be applied (see 2.6 to 2.11 of Eurocode 8-1 and 6 of Eurocode 8-2).
Depending on the ductility available in each of the three classes, different values of the
behaviour factor (q) are used [18].
In low earthquake areas (see 4.1 of part 1-1), concrete buildings can be designed according to
the seismic action combination and respecting the rules of Eurocode 2 only, without taking
into account the special provisions of Eurocode 8 Part 1 other than the use of class B or C
ductility reinforcements.
In the case of a ductile design, capacity design must be used in order to protect non-
dissipative zones. It should be remembered that capacity design is not a method to calculate
loading at various points of the structure but a way of protecting certain components with
respect to others (column ends with respect to beam ends; assemblies and other fixations, etc.)
and/or delaying the emergence of certain types of non-dissipative damage. Increasing the
design loads concerned is equivalent to applying an appropriate partial safety factor in the
zones and for the loads concerned.
Capacity design creates an overcapacity in the order of 20 to 30% of the design loads
concerned (design and not strength because in typical cases, this percentage also covers the
overcapacity of materials and the surplus reinforcements concerned by the inspection).
18
2 Seismic retrofitting of concrete structures with FRP
2.1 Typical pathologies of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loading

Seismic actions on buildings and bridges lead to the development of additional forces for
which the structures are not necessarily designed. At the sections concerned, the strength
properties of the materials (compression and tension) are often exceeded, which leads to one
or several local failures that can cause the structure to collapse. Numerous guidelines describe
damage of seismic origin in the field of buildings and bridges [20-22]. The aim here is to
mention those that can be treated using Fibres Reinforced Polymer (FRP).
Very few buildings and bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes in metropolitan France.
Past earthquakes, particularly those in the West Indies and other parts of the globe, have
enabled the main failure modes of structures to be identified:
For buildings:
o Failure by bending of columns and beams
o Failure by shearing of nodes, columns, beams and walls
o Inadequacy of confining reinforcements (hoops)
o Lack of ductility
o Buckling of longitudinal reinforcements
o Spalling of concrete
o Crushing of concrete
o Reinforcement bars of insufficient anchoring and overlap length
o Failure at nodes
o Damage to filling
For bridges:
o Flexure failure of piers and foundations
o Shear failure of piers and foundations
o Inadequacy of confining reinforcements (hoops)
o Lack of ductility
o Buckling of longitudinal reinforcements
o Spalling of concrete
o Crushing of concrete
o Reinforcement bars of insufficient anchoring and overlap length
2.1.1 Shear failure
This type of failure is sudden (brittle) and not dissipative. It is characterised by the appearance
of diagonal cracks in the concrete followed by failure of the transverse reinforcements and
subsequent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements. For example, in the case of very rigid
vertical load-bearing components, the displacement caused by an earthquake results in the
development of shear forces that are not evaluated under usual loading (i.e. non-seismic). The
typical pathologies lead to crossed 45° cracks under the effect of reversed loading. It is
important to prevent this type of failure.
Shear failure occurs when the transverse reinforcements are insufficient (see Figure 6(a) and
(b)), mainly in squat columns. It is important to note that columns can be designed to be squat
from the outset (basement with low opening, underfloor space, parking ramp, etc.) or they can
become squat after breast walls have been added or partial masonry filling is added
symmetrically or unsymmetrically with respect to the column. In this case, seismic retrofitting
19
using adhesive-bonded composites is particularly efficient and numerous studies [23-27]

show the pertinence of this solution.
Crédit photos : AFPS

(a) : Shear failure of a beam during (b) Shear failure of piers during the Kobe
Northridge earthquake 1994 [28] earthquake 1995
Figure 6: Typical shear failure

2.1.2 Failure and damage under flexure with or without axial force
The horizontal forces which result from displacements caused by seismic action produce
flexure in the vertical load-bearing components which, depending on the overall stability of
the structure, can lead to failure of the columns in flexure. Locally, since the equilibrium of
the bent section cannot be guaranteed under the effects of bending combined with axial
forces, concrete crushing and failure of tensile reinforcements can be observed (Figure 7). In
compression, the effects of normal stresses can lead to buckling.
Figure 7: Example of typical failure in flexure of a column

Composite reinforcements can be used for longitudinal reinforcement aimed at playing the
role of additional tensile steel. The effects of these normal stresses at the cross-section can
also lead to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements. Composites are also used to confine
columns. This can enhance the compressive strength of the concrete. It can also prevent
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements. Eurocode 8 very clearly indicates the design
elements relating to compression.
20
2.1.3 Failure by the formation of plastic hinges in critical regions

Critical regions are those parts of columns (or beams) where the moment is at its maximum or
where reinforcement steel is insufficient. This type of failure occurs after large scale inelastic
deformation has occurred, which gives it a dissipative (ductile) character that may or may not
be desirable, unlike shear failure.
It is characterised by spalling of the concrete cover, then the appearance of flexural cracks
caused by elongation of the longitudinal reinforcements, and finally elongation and/or failure
of the transverse reinforcements which leads to crushing of the core of the concrete, and/or
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements (see Figure 8 (a) and (b)). It should be noted that
concrete confined by transverse reinforcements can be subject to deformation that is much
greater than that of unconfined concrete; the higher the volumetric ratio of the confining
reinforcements, the higher the deformability will be. Since failure of the element is governed
by failure of the confining reinforcements (hoops), particular attention has been paid to
transverse reinforcements in Eurocode 8.

(a): Failure by the formation of plastic hinges in critical (b): Failure by the formation of plastic hinges
regions during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the critical region of the column.
Figure 8: Examples of failure by the formation of plastic hinges
When horizontal and vertical load-bearing members have sufficient strength, damage as the
result of seismic stress can be localised in the column/beam junction, which usually leads to
collapse of the structures. Research [29-31] has shown that the confinement of nodes will
eliminate the problem. However, despite research, very little technical data is available today
to design retrofitting solutions to reinforce these nodes.
2.1.4 Summary
In conclusion of the above, the main damage observed during an earthquake is summed up in
Table 11.
21
Table 11: Conclusions concerning the main damage caused by earthquakes

Squat column Slender column and Beam Column-beam Slab*
and squat wall slender wall node
Type of Shearing Flexure Shear force Failure of node Punching shear
damage and flexure (shear, anchorage)
Structural Lack of Formation of plastic Lack of Lack of transverse Poor distribution
origin transverse hinges and buckling transverse reinforcements of forces
reinforcements of longitudinal reinforceme Poor anchorage of
reinforcements nts reinforcements
Spalling of concrete
Location Insufficient Reinforcement Insufficient Column/beam Beam/slab

of damage reinforcement embedding (foot reinforceme connection region connection region
area and/or head of nt area
column) or reduction
region
*However, there is very little risk of serious damage or collapse in the case of slabs.
2.2 Retrofitting strategies
When an assessment of the state of repair of a structure shows that it needs to be reinforced,
various strategies are possible [22]:
o Increasing the strength: this approach is sometimes necessary but should be avoided
whenever possible. Conducted without discernment, it can prove dangerous because it
is likely to increase the loading and therefore aggravate the situation of the structure.
Also, when it is accompanied by an increase in stiffness, it can lead to a load transfer
resulting in brittle fracture of the element to which the load was transferred.
o Enhancing the ductility: this approach is interesting because it means that the plastic
field of the structure can be developed and the seismic behaviour improved. Ductility
enhancement is usually achieved by using concrete, steel or composite jackets.
However, attention must be paid to the increase in stiffness caused by jacketing, which
can lead to an increase in loading.
o Enhancing the stiffness: a decrease in stiffness will reduce the loading. It is generally
achieved by seismic isolation (elastomer bridge bearings, etc.). Stiffening of any kind
is to be avoided because it increases the loading on the structure.
o Supplemental damping: increasing the damping can reduce both loading and
displacement. It is achieved by deformable bridge bearings or dampers.
It should be remembered that the dynamic functioning of the structure is very different from
its static functioning and that, as a result, static reasoning can lead to reinforcements that are
dangerous and costly rather than efficient (increase in strength, for example). Before any
retrofitting is carried out, the various standardisation and methodological documents
concerning structural reinforcement must therefore be studied.
N.B. Before a seismic retrofitting process is validated, the reinforced structure must be
analysed to check that reinforcement will effectively improve the behaviour of the
overall structure (Figure 9) (validity of reinforcement and not load transfer to certain
22
fragile components). This analysis must be based on both the static and dynamic
behaviour of the structure.
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Effect of (a) conventional reinforcement (stiffening and strengthening) and (b)
enhancement of the deformation capacity
2.3 Contribution of composite materials
2.3.1 General remarks on composite materials
Composite materials offer a multitude of possibilities in the field of construction and their use has
gradually developed since the 1990s. Luyckx [32], for example, describes the development and
use of composites in Europe, Japan and North America. In Japan in the nineties, numerous
concrete bridges were reinforced externally due to steel corrosion. Composite reinforcements
were applied to piers and deck soffits using pre-impregnated carbon-fibre composites as
reinforcements. A standard implementation technique was used, namely the "direct
lamination" method. Also, in addition to the problem of corrosion, new drastic earthquake
protection standards were implemented in Japan for bridges and buildings following the Kobe
earthquake in 1995, which further increased the development and use of composites for
seismic retrofitting. According to studies conducted by Japanese universities, the overall
strength of these reinforced structures should enable them to withstand earthquakes with an
amplitude of 6 to 7 on the Richter scale. Examples of seismic retrofitting of bridges using
composites in Japan include the following: Fujimi Bridge (Tokyo), Johetsu Shikansen Bridge
(Nugata) and Sakawa River Bridge (Tomei Highway). In the last case, piers of more than 7
metres in diameter (some of which are more than 60 m high) were retrofitted. During the
year-long operation, completed in 1998, two tonnes of carbon fibres were installed.
In the United States, research on seismic retrofitting using composites began with the Loma
Prieta earthquake in California in October 1989. Reinforcement tests using pre-impregnated
fabrics, based on the Japanese methods, were carried out in numerous universities particularly
the University of California. Starting in 1994, seismic tests conducted in the laboratory on
increasingly large mock-ups, demonstrated the advantage of using carbon fibres. These were
followed by numerous retrofitting operations using composites, including the Highway Bridge
in Butler (Ohio), the Great Western Bank Building in Sherman Oaks (California) and the
Foulk Road Bridge in Delaware (California). In Europe, the main industrial retrofitting
applications first appeared in Switzerland in 1991, followed by France in 1996. In 1996,
Freyssinet retrofitted the first French motorway by replacing the standard adhesive-bonded
metal flats with dry fabrics impregnated in-situ with a special epoxy resin-based adhesive
developed by Ato Findley, compatible with concrete and capable of impregnating carbon
fibres [33]. Even if composites were initially the prerogative of the aeronautical industry,
23
FRPs have gradually gained ground in civil engineering, and although the French market is
still far behind Japan in its intensive use of FRPs (currently estimated at about 1 million m²),
it is estimated that some 40,000 m² of carbon fibre fabrics were used in France for the
retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures in 2007 ([34].
2.3.2 The main types of FRPs
Fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) are suitable for a wide range of uses; this is especially due
to the fact that they are available in various forms which include laminates, sheets and fabrics,
preforms bonded to the outside of a structure (contact moulding) and bars for the internal
reinforcement of concrete.
FRPs consist of two main components: high-strength fibres and a polymer matrix in which the
fibres are embedded. The specific properties of these two components are what give the
composite its highly efficient overall properties. However, the general properties of the
material also depend on the volume fraction of the fibres, their orientation and the
manufacturing method. Ultimately, the efficiency of the retrofitting process will also depend
on the technique and especially the type of process used to mechanically bond the reinforcing
material to the structure to be reinforced.
2.3.2.1 Fibres
The fibres are what give composites their strength and stiffness properties but the way they
are used is also important because their orientation determines their orthotropic behaviour.
Composites are always more effective in the direction of the fibres. Different types of fibres
can be used to make an FRP. However, the main fibres used in construction are carbon fibres,
glass fibres (Figure 10) and aramid fibres, each of which has highly specific properties which
will determine its use. Carbon fibres are very expensive (about 10 times the cost of glass
fibres) but are being increasingly used due to their high modulus of elasticity, their very high
strength, low density and resistance to various environmental factors. Their use in the field of
structural reinforcement is therefore particularly reliant on this type of fibre to form composite
reinforcements.
By way of example, Table 12 lists the main properties of fibres and steel.
Table 12: Main mechanical properties of fibres and steel
Young’s Tensile strength Elongation at Density

modulus (GPa) (MPa) break (%) (g/cm3)
Glass E* 70 to 80 2,000 to 3,500 3.5 to 4.5 2.5 to 2.6
Glass S* 2,000 to 3,500 3,500 to 4,800 4.5 to 5.5 2.46 to 2.49
HM carbon
390 to 760 2,400 to 3,400 0.5 to 0.8 1.85 to 1.89
fibre**
HS carbon
240 to 280 4,100 to 5.100 1.6 to 1.73 1.75
fibre**
Aramid fibre 62 to 180 3,600 to 3.800 1.9 to 5.5 1.44 to 1.47
Polymer matrix 2.7 to 3.6 40 to 82 1.4 to 5.2 1.1 to 1.25
250 to 400
(plasticization)
steel 200-210 10 to 30 7,8
or 350 to 600
(failure)
* E-glass, the most common, is an Al-Si-Ca silicate containing boron. Its electrical properties are acceptable and better than those of other
types of glass. S-glass is an Al-Mg silicate with enhanced tensile strength.
**High Modulus - HS: High Strength
24
(a) Ud fiberglass fabric with binding threads (b) Carbon fibre fabric
Figure 10: Photo of different fibre-reinforced fabrics

2.3.2.2 Matrix
Although it is the fibres that give FRP its strength and stiffness properties, the matrix
nevertheless plays several essential roles in the effectiveness of FRP. It binds the fibres
together while distributing them over the volume of the composite. It protects them from a
sometimes aggressive environment and enables the load to be transferred among the different
fibres. Since one of the main advantages of FRPs is their very low weight, the specific gravity
of the matrix must be as low as possible and less than that of the fibres.
The most widely used polymers are polyesters, due to their low cost and easy manufacturing.
Although more expensive than polyesters, vinylesters are highly appreciated for their good
resistance to acids and alkalis, which enables them to withstand the alkali-aggregation
reactions that can take place inside the concrete. For these reasons, vinylesters are often used
to make composite bars and reinforcements for the retrofitting of concrete structures. Epoxy
Matrix have excellent adherence and are therefore largely used during in-situ impregnation of
FRP sheets and plates (by adhesive bonding). Their cost, however, is much higher than that of
polyesters and vinylesters.
2.3.2.3 Composite reinforcements
Carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composites (CFRPs) are the most common with a weight of
200 to 600 g/m². They have the following generic mechanical properties (for an FRP with HS
fibres and an epoxy matrix Figure 11):
o Longitudinal Young’s modulus in tension = 90 to 165 Gpa
o Longitudinal strength in tension = 500 to 3,000 MPa
o Ultimate strain = 1.2 to 1.3%
o Thickness of composite between 0.4 mm and 2 mm
o Load/cm over width of composite between 5 and 30 kN/cm*
o A percentage in volume of fibres from 30 to 70%
*These properties are defined according to a nominal thickness
25
Figure 11: Photo of a wet lay-up and pultruded flats

2.3.2.4 Implementation
Different techniques are used to implement composite materials [35]:
o Bladder moulding:
This process is used to obtain good short-term mechanical properties. After levelling the
surface of the concrete (injection of cracks, sand-blasting of surface, application of a polymer
mortar), layers of prepreg fabric are cut to size and applied to the area to be reinforced. A
heated blanket is then placed over the surface of the fabric and an airtight bladder connected
to a vacuum pump applies external pressure throughout the polymerisation or
polycondensation process.
o Direct lamination:
This time, polymerisation takes place at ambient temperature according to the following steps:
o treatment of concrete surface
o application of a first prepreg layer
o laying of fabric (to the required dimensions)
o impregnation and hammer peening of reinforcements
o application of a protective layer
With this type of application, the reinforcement usually reaches its total strength after a week.
o Bonding of composite plates or flats:
This method consists in simply bonding the composite flats to the surface to be reinforced
using an epoxy adhesive. The flats are generally carbon or epoxy glass made by pultrusion.
The process consists of the following steps:
o cleaning of surface of flat to be bonded with acetone
o treatment of surface to be repaired with sandblasting, water or compressed air
and grinding
o dust removal and cleaning of surface
o application of epoxy polymer (adhesive) to composite flat
26
o if the "double bonding" technique is used, application of epoxy polymer to

surface of concrete
o pressing of flat onto surface and removal of any excess adhesive
o exerting of pressure on flat (hammer peening) to remove any air bubbles and
ensure good adhesion.
2.4 Different applications of FRPs (Fibre-Reinforced Polymers)
FRPs are therefore being increasingly used in civil engineering applications, particularly for
the repair and reinforcement of reinforced concrete structures. They are used for
reinforcement in flexural strength and shear and with respect to axial loads. Different
techniques are used according to the type of strengthening required, as shown in the figures in
Table 13. For flexural strengthening, FRP plates or sheets are bonded to the tension faces of
the member, with the fibres oriented along the longitudinal axis, in order to increase the
resistance to bending moment (Table 13 (a)). Thus the strengthening principle is that of
additional reinforcing composites. In certain cases, FRP laminates prestressed before
adhesive-bonding can be used. For shear strengthening, the composites are bonded to the
sides of the member (often in the form of a U-jacket) and their action is added to that of the
transverse steel reinforcements to improve the structure's shear strength (Table 13 (b)).
Another widely used technique consists of confining structural members that are in
compression (Table 13 (c)), by wrapping FRP sheets around the perimeter of columns (fibres
oriented perpendicular to the axis of the column). When an axial load is applied to the
column, the concrete expands laterally, creating tensile stresses in the FRP. The concrete is
thus confined, resulting in a three-dimensional state of stress in the concrete. This increases
the load-bearing capacity and ductility of the structure. In the case of squat columns,
confinement enhances the shear strength (Table 13 (d)).
A variant of these bonding techniques consists in inserting FRP strips or bars into grooves
made in the concrete (or wood) on the surface of the structural components (surface rebar
installation technique). A resin-based adhesive or cement is then used to bond the composite
to the groove. This technique is generally used to increase the flexural strength of the
structure.
Composite materials can thus be used in a wide variety of ways, depending on the type of
loading to which the structure will be subjected and the best way of strengthening it.
In civil engineering, three main types of composite construction materials are used: fabrics
(dry - figure 10 - or pre-impregnated sheets), flats (or laminates - figure 11) and angle plates.
The difference between fabrics and flats lies in the technique used to make the composite.
Fabrics are bonded in-situ and polymerise during the implementation process (contact
moulding), thus creating the final composite, while plates are prefabricated (by pultrusion).
However, these different types of composites have similar mechanical properties which are
mainly governed by the behaviour of the fibres (strength and stiffness). However, pultrusion
enables a larger number of fibres to be introduced, thus increasing the stiffness and strength of
the FRP.
27
Table 13: Application of FRPs according to different strengthening configurations (according

to Pinho et al. [36])
(a) Flexural strengthening of a beam or

column using composite materials
(b) Shear strengthening of a beam using

composite materials.
(c) Confinement of a beam using composite

materials
50
100 X2
(d) Strengthening of a squat column by 100
wrapping continuous strips around the 100 X2
100
column X2
100
50
2.4.1 Shear strengthening

As indicated above, shear failure is one of the major causes of collapse during an earthquake.
Failure is brittle and not dissipative and mainly concerns squat columns (slenderness ratio of
less than 3).
These shear failures are particularly due to insufficient shear reinforcements, which can be
offset by composites. FRPs (usually in the form of fabric strips) play the role of additional
external reinforcements.
If the configuration allows, composite strips can be wrapped around the beam, or simply
applied in the form of a U-wrap (on the sides and underneath the beam).
28
The shear strength of both beams and columns reinforced in this way then corresponds to the
sum of the loads that can be transferred to the concrete, steel and composite. The composite
strips must therefore be dimensioned (width and spacing) to achieve the required shear
strength. A dimensioning method based on the Ritter-Morsch truss on a small section is
described in [23] by way of example.
A few experimental studies ([23, 24], or Galal et al. [25], for example) tend to demonstrate
the effectiveness of seismic retrofitting of squat columns using composite materials. Also, the
study conducted by Colomb, [26] aimed at studying different retrofitting configurations
applied to the columns (continuous, discontinuous reinforcement, variation in the width of the
strips and strengthening rate), has shown that reinforcement using strips leads to better
strength combined with better ductility, while continuous reinforcement mainly results in
greater strength. Tests have also shown that composites enable the failure mode to be
changed: from brittle fracture through shear to ductile failure in shear force or flexure.
2.4.2 Jacketing with composite materials
If the confinement of columns is being considered in particular, jacketing with composites
will maintain the elastic behaviour up until failure, unlike steel jacketing which enables a
constant confinement pressure to be applied after plasticization. The jacketing of columns
with composites thus enables a continually increasing confinement pressure to be applied.
FRP jacketing is a passive confinement method. As long as the concrete does not expand or
crack, it will not have any effect. This is why the bond between the jacketing and concrete
must be perfect. Several studies have demonstrated the efficiency of FRP jackets. The study
conducted by Vandoros et al. [27] compares the results obtained using different concrete
jacketing techniques with those obtained for the same test specimens but this time, reinforced
with FRP (Figure 12). It can be seen that both techniques enhance the ductility of the
reinforced members and even if concrete jacketing increases the strength and stiffness to a
greater extent than FRP, FRP has the advantage of a very low post-peak loss of strength. It
should be remembered that an increase in stiffness in the case of seismic reinforcement can be
detrimental.
Figure 12: Comparative performance of reinforced concrete and FRP jacketing ([27])
29
Seible et al. [37] have validated the dimensioning of FRP jacketing on different test
specimens and according to different failure modes.
An experimental campaign was conducted to verify the performance of columns of which one
end only was loaded according to a bending moment (embedment in the footing and
horizontal force at top). The tests showed that CFRP jacketing enhances ductility and
maintains a certain strength that does not deteriorate during the loading cycles (Figure 12).
Figure 13: Flexural strengthening of columns according to different FRP reinforcement

configurations (according to [37]).
Secondly, if we compare the performance of the same test specimens reinforced with CFRP
jacketing and with steel jacketing, very good performance levels can be seen in both cases
(Figure 13). The steel jacketing results in slightly greater strength properties but makes the
30
column slightly less ductile. The study conducted by Iacobucci et al. [38] on 8 columns
reinforced with CFRP in the plastic hinge region (over a height of 610 mm from the base of the
column) and with GFRP (glass fibre-reinforced polymer) over the remaining height of the
column, also shows enhanced ductility and good energy dissipation capacity. The main
parameter of the study is the number of CFRP layers in the plastic hinge region. Figure 14
shows that the cyclic behaviour gradually improves thanks to the decrease in the deterioration
of stiffness and strength as the number of layers of CFRP increases. The same conclusions
were obtained by Qazi et al. on slender RC walls strengthened with CFRP [39, 40].
Figure 14: Effect of FRP reinforcements on slender RC walls [39, 40]
Pantelides et al. [41] conducted cyclic quasi-static tests in situ on the South Temple Bridge in
the United States.
The aim was to test two bents, the first as-built (constructed in 1962) and the second
retrofitted with composites for seismic strengthening (each bent consists of 3 piers and 2
spans). The composites were dimensioned so as to double the ductility of the bent and
strengthen the cap beam-column joints, confine the piers and improve the shear strength of the
piers and caps. Lateral loading was applied to the caps. The displacement ductility obtained
for the as-is bent was 2.8 against 6.3 for the retrofitted bent. The aim of doubling the
displacement ductility was therefore largely achieved. The hysteretic behaviour is given in
Figure 15.
This experimental campaign therefore shows that tests conducted on actual structures are
conclusive in terms of the performance of composites. They significantly improved the
ductility of bridge bents that were not detailed to withstand such displacements (and therefore
seismic loading).
Numerous test campaigns have been conducted on seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete
columns using FRPs. They concern columns of various sections (circular, square,
31
rectangular), various dimensions, with or without lap splice regions at the footing of the
column, different FRPs (mainly glass and carbon fibres), involving different thickness of
jacket fabric, etc.
However, as explained above, if a member is to be retrofitted to withstand seismic loading,
the column must be confined to achieve better resistance to gravity loads and more ductile
behaviour while at the same time enhancing the flexural strength of the column, in particular
by the longitudinal application of pultruded flats.
(a)
(b)
Figure 15: Load-displacement response for as-is (a) and retrofitted (b) bents [41]
2.4.3 Flexural strengthening
Currently, very few studies conducted in the field of seismic retrofitting of columns, including
longitudinal strengthening by FRP, enable a distinction to be made between the beneficial
action of confinement of the column and that of flexural strengthening. Harries et al. [42]
however, have carried out an experimental study on longitudinal reinforcements. Two series
of columns were tested: a first series with continuous longitudinal reinforcements and a
second series with lap splices (of insufficient length). In the second series, one column was
not retrofitted, one was confined with CFRP (4 layers over the first 500 millimetres from the
32
base of the column then 2 layers over the next 500 millimetres), and the last was confined
with CFRP (same configuration as the second column); CFRP fabric was also placed
longitudinally to provide flexural strengthening. Retrofitting with composites enhanced the
ductility and postponed sliding of the rebars in the lap-splice region, but the longitudinal
fabric did not affect the capacity of the column, in particular because the fabric was not
continuous with the footing [65]. Colomb et al. [43] have analysed the effect of longitudinal
reinforcement combined with confinement, but only for columns in pure bending (quasi-static
and oligo-cyclic loading).
The quasi-static tests show an increase in stiffness (+50% for the longitudinally strengthened
column and +120% for the longitudinally strengthened and confined column) and better
energy dissipation for a drift of 8% (ratio between the displacement at the top of the column
and its height): +80% for the strengthened column and +98% for the longitudinally
strengthened and confined column. From the oligo-cyclic tests, it can be seen that composite
retrofitting reduced cracking of the concrete, thus decreasing the damage while increasing the
energy dissipation. However, local confinement (required to prevent local buckling of the
longitudinal reinforcement) results in stress concentration at the point of embedment. Once
again, the lack of continuity of the longitudinal reinforcement between the column and the
footing could be the reason for the damaged embedment.
These studies show that FRPs play an important role in the retrofitting of reinforced concrete
structures. However, at present, there is not enough experimental data concerning the flexural
strengthening of columns by confinement and reinforcements to provide a reliable database.
The behaviour of FRP-jacketed columns is now well-known, but the action of the longitudinal
reinforcements during seismic-type compound bending stress remains to be understood and
quantified.
2.4.4 Brief reminder of failure by detachment of FRP
When calculating limit states, the design of the reinforcement is based on thresholds imposed
by detachment or anchorage of the composite. Due to cyclic loading caused by earthquakes,
this failure mode is decisive which is why the stiffness and effective strength taken into
account in the calculations are lower than the properties indicated in the product specifications
or the ultimate limit states indicated in Chapter 2.2 of the AFGC's recommendations
concerning the Repair and Retrofitting of Concrete Structures using Composites [10]. The
calculations are thus carried out using a safety coefficient. In seismic retrofitting, failure by
delamination at the concrete-composite interface must be verified, particularly with respect to
cyclic strain caused by the earthquake. As a result, anchorage of the reinforcement must be
guaranteed by an adequate bonding length at the end or appropriate anchoring systems (such
as FRP anchors).
2.4.5 Summary and development of these solutions
The column and pier jacketing technique, aimed at withstanding seismic loadings, is a
technique that has been widely used, particularly by means of reinforced concrete and steel
jackets. This method has proved effective in terms of enhanced ductility and strength.
However, FRP jacketing is gradually replacing these two solutions due to the higher strength
provided by composites (in the direction of the fibres), their easy implementation which
requires very little interruption to the use of the building or bridge, and more especially, their
resistance to environmental factors. The various research studies conducted on the use of
FRPs have shown that they offer substantial gains in terms of mechanical performance and
enable the typology and extent of the reinforcement to be easily adapted to the specific needs
of the defective component. One of the main advantages of composite jackets lies in the very
small increase in stiffness compared with other types of jackets, particularly concrete. As a
33
result, there is little change in the dynamic behaviour of the column. However, the efficiency
of confinement by means of jacketing depends to a large extent on the dimensions and shape
of the columns (see AFGC recommendations: Repair and seismic retrofitting of reinforced
concrete structures using composites [10]). In the case of thin jackets, the FRP can be a glass,
carbon, aramid or other fibre-based composite, wrapped around the pier and bonded with
resin.
In the wake of the different experimental campaigns conducted on columns and beams and
the feedback obtained, retrofitting using composites is now widely accepted.
Figure 16: Comparison of the hysteretic behaviour of a node with or without FRP reinforcement
[45]
In addition to problems relating to the durability of composites and/or adhesives, another

drawback could lie in the initial cost of the materials (from $US 25 to 30/kg for carbon fibres
against $US 1/kg for steel according to Bakis [44]). However, even if the material initially
proves to be more expensive than traditional materials, the simplicity and rapidity with which
it is used reduce the time spent on-site and therefore the cost.
34
Composites therefore seem to be an innovative solution, resulting in good performance levels

in retrofitted structures, particularly in terms of ductility [45]. The important issue now is to
produce high-performance design rules to optimise the capacity of the composites applied to
existing structures to enable them to withstand a given earthquake.
To sum up, seismic retrofitting composites are mainly used in the form of fabrics or pultruded
flats adhesive-bonded to the surface to achieve flexural, confinement and shear strengthening.
They thus enhance the strength and/or ductility. In the case of slender columns (which are
therefore flexible and consequently ductile), the bonding of longitudinal strips increases the
flexural strength while jacketing with composites mainly enhances the ductile capacity of the
retrofitted member due to the resulting confinement and prevents risks relating to insufficient
reinforcements, anchorage and overlaps. In the case of squat columns (which are therefore
stiff and have little ductility), the external bonding of composites increases the shear strength.
It should also be mentioned that the confinement of nodes improves the structure's earthquake
response and increases the energy dissipation (Figure 16).
Tables 14, 15 and 16 give a summary of the types of damage for which the use of composite
reinforcements can be advantageous.
Table 14: Summary of damage to squat columns (Photo credits: AFPS)
Mechanical Damage
Component Design problem Photo Solution proposed
origin sustained
Insufficient or
Wrapping of FRP
Squat non-existent
Shear failure Cracking at 45° around column for
column transverse
shear strengthening
reinforcements
35
Table 15: Summary of damage to standard columns (Photo credits: AFPS)
Mechanical Damage
origin sustained
Failure of Reinforcement by
Insufficient
longitudinal bonding of fibres
Standard longitudinal Deflection of
reinforcements in same direction
column and/or transverse columns
by formation of or perpendicular to
reinforcements
plastic hinges member
Insufficient Confinement
Spalling of
Failure by concrete cross- Reinforcement by
Standard concrete
crushing of section or bonding of fibres
column Crushing of
concrete inadequate perpendicular to
concrete
concrete strength member
Shear
strengthening
Insufficient
Standard Reinforcement by
Shear failure transverse Cracking at 45°
column bonding of fibres
reinforcements
perpendicular to
member
Buckling of
Confinement:
non-confined
Failure by Insufficient Reinforcement by
Standard reinforcements
formation of transverse bonding of fibres
column Crushing of
plastic hinges reinforcements perpendicular to
concrete
member
Table 16: Summary of damage to joints (Photo credits: AFPS)
Mechanical Damage
origin sustained
Node with
Cross-shaped Shear
Joints Shear failure insufficient
cracks strengthening
reinforcement
Poor or non- Flexural

continuity of Coming apart of strengthening,
Joints Flexure failure
reinforcements, components reinforcement of
or anchors anchors
36
2.5 Examples of seismic retrofitting of structures using FRP reinforcements

Retrofitting examples have been provided by the companies participating in the working
group to qualitatively present the principles of retrofitting with adhesive-bonded composites,
FRP localisation and application methods. Case studies are provided in Appendix 2. These
documents, which mainly come from product suppliers and installers, do not explicitly
address the dimensioning of the reinforcements applied but describe real-life examples of
retrofitting which are considered to be representative. They include numerous cases relating to
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete buildings (shopping malls, production facilities,
administrative buildings, skyscrapers, etc.), bridges (often old) as well as examples of
application to masonry and civil engineering structures (industrial stacks).
The retrofitting context is often that of seismic upgrading and/or repairs (even if the case
studies proposed are more limited in the second case) that have to be carried out as a result of
the repair or reinforcement of structural components to withstand static and/or service
loading. In this context, in France, seismic upgrading is simply recommended for bridges
while it is compulsory for buildings. In the examples proposed, structural reinforcements are
aimed at offsetting inadequate detailing in terms of dynamic loading (overlap or length of
rebar anchorage, the quantity of reinforcements required for shear or flexural strengthening,
etc.), reinforcing the structure for a new purpose or configuration, or repairing a structure
damaged by a previous earthquake.
The examples provided show that the reinforcement materials currently applied are often
carbon-fibre-based FRPs and that the most frequently reinforced structural component is the
column.
It is often wrapped with a fabric, generally applied continuously. However, confinement is
sometimes completed with flexural strengthening or strengthening designed to offset
inadequate detailing (overlap or anchorage lengths). This is achieved by placing FRP strips
under the fabric wrapping. Industrial stacks are among the vertical elements that can be
retrofitted to enhance flexural strength using FRP strips placed inside or outside the structure.
The retrofitting of column/beam joints, as well as horizontal elements in relation to flexure, is
also the subject of several case studies. It can be observed that these reinforcements can be
anchored to the structure in certain cases.
Finally, in several case studies, it appears that FRP retrofitting is not the only solution to be
used to strengthen the structure with regards to seismic loading. To meet the requirements of
this type of loading, a combination of several retrofitting techniques can be used, including
FRP reinforcement. Thus certain structures are reinforced by combining sprayed concrete,
additional prestressing, earthquake protection systems and FRPs.
Table 17 sums up the different case studies.
37
Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures using composites.
AFGC
Table 17: Summary of case studies
Description Type of structure Type of failure* Retrofitting Retrofitting Photo Examples of project in
technique** materials*** appendix
Local Bridge pier, building Confinement Confinement CFRP, GFRP Petrochemical plant,
reinforcement of column Katon Mall,
column Bridge piers, California
Retrofitting of Building column Confinement Confinement CFRP, GFRP OG Building Athens,

column over Lautaro Bridge piers
entire height Samsung Skyscraper,
Apartment building in
Athens,
Ioannina Hospital, AYGAZ
offices
Retrofitting of Building Flexure, shear Retrofitting by CFRP Iligan Cement Corporation

beams bonding of Katong Mall,
longitudinal Aquila Court House
composites
Retrofitting of Building Limit Confinement CFRP Knight Street Bridge,

nodes Galileo Building
conditions Barranquilla Residence
***CFRP : Carbon reinforced polymer, GFRP : Glass reinforced polymer
38
Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures using composites.
AFGC
Description Type of structure Type of failure* Retrofitting Retrofitting Photo Examples of project in
technique** materials*** appendix
Retrofitting of Industrial structure Flexure, Retrofitting by CFRP Arkansas stack

stack confinement bonding of
longitudinal
reinforcements +
confinement
Column footing Building Limit conditions Retrofitting by CFRP Arroyo Quemado Bridge
bonding of
longitudinal
reinforcements +
confinement
RC slender wall Building Flexure, shear Retrofitting by CFRP Crolle - B2ST Building,
bonding of
longitudinal Wellington Hospital,
reinforcements Naples Court,
***CFRP : Carbon reinforced polymer, GFRP : Glass reinforced polymer
39
3 Modelling Methods for Concrete Structures
This chapter deals with the methods used to analyse the seismic risk of existing civil
engineering works. It includes analysis methods and modelling methods using the different
approaches defined in paragraph 3.2.3.
Table 18 gives a summary of the methods and approaches used:
Table 18: Modelling Methods for Concrete Structures

Analysis methods
Lateral force Linear time-history Pushover Non-linear
Multi-modal time-history
response spectrum
General Relatively regular Irregular or complex Relatively Relatively
structure structure regular regular structure
structure Ductile design
Elastic or ductile Elastic design Ductile design or with
design insulation
Modelling Global X X
methods approach
Local X X
approach
Multi-fibre or X X
multi-layer
approach
3.1 Constitutive law for composites

To validate the retrofitting process, the reinforced structure must be analysed. Effective
simulation of the reinforcement is essential. For example, if the strength of the structural
member is increased, the composite strips are incorporated into the model as section
reinforcements modelled with linear behaviour until failure. They are assigned a high strength
and modulus of elasticity corresponding to their real characteristics. The increase in ductility
can be induced by the confinement effect on the constitutive law of concrete in compression.
The materials are taken into consideration in the models via their static constitutive laws.
3.2 Definition of analysis methods
3.2.1 Digital analysis methods
Eurocode 8 allows the use of linear and non-linear analysis methods, with static, pseudo-static
or dynamic loading, depending on the design configuration. These methods differ according
to the complexity involved, the number of results obtained and the level of knowledge of the
structure required. The following are thus considered:
o "lateral force", "multi-modal response spectrum" and "time-history" linear

analysis whose field of application mainly concerns the design of new
structures, depending on their complexity
o "static pushover" and "time-history" non-linear methods (§3.2.1.2.3) whose
main advantage at present lies in the assessment of existing structures and is
recommended by Eurocode 8 for this purpose. However, these methods can
also be used for the design of new structures despite the difficulty of putting
them into practice.
40
3.2.1.1 Linear analysis methods

3.2.1.1.1 Lateral force analysis 3
The recommendations relating to this type of analysis are set out in part 4.4.2 of Eurocode 8-3.
In this approach, the structure concerned is represented by a linear elastic stiffness and an
equivalent set damping (2% to 5%). The main assumption is that the structure is deformed
according to its first eigen shape. Each direction of the structure is loaded independently,
simultaneously or not, with a lateral static load corresponding to the maximum inertial load
caused by the earthquake. The aim is to determine the equivalent loads induced in the
structure. The influence of non-linearities and therefore dissipation is introduced by
Newmark's hypothesis, in which a load reduction is considered by means of a behaviour
factor "q". Eurocode 8 defines the values to be adopted when designing new structures. In the
case of buildings, however, this method is rarely used.
The lateral force method requires very little in terms of calculation resources and is used to
design structures with regularity in plane and elevation that mainly follow a dominant mode.
Structures that do not respect these criteria, on the other hand, must be analysed using another
method.
3.2.1.1.2 Multi-modal response spectrum analysis
The recommendations relating to this type of analysis are set out in part 4.4.3 of Eurocode 8-
3. The main advantage of multi-modal response spectrum analysis in comparison with the
lateral force approach is that it takes frequency into account the influence of eigen related to
higher frequency and uses regulatory acceleration spectra. The method is based on the same
basic assumptions as lateral force analysis, that is, the linear elastic behaviour of the structure
and use of a q behaviour factor. The response of the structure (displacement, loading, etc.) can
be approached by combining the effects of each significant eigen mode.
3.2.1.1.3 Linear time-history analysis
In the case of linear time-history analysis with accelerograms, the response of the structural
Matrix M and K and the viscosity C is calculated incrementally for each loading time
increment P(t), with the movement equation (1) being directly integrated.
(1)
MU’’(t) + CU’(t) + KU = P(t)
The importance of each vibration mode over time can be determined by expressing the
displacement response U of the structure in the form of the sum of the responses for each
model (Duhamel's integral). However, given the relative simplicity of the multi-modal
response spectrum approach, the dynamic linear method is only an advantage in the case of
irregular or complex structures (cable-stayed bridges, for example). This type of analysis is
not included in Eurocode 8-3.
3.2.1.1.4 Taking FRPs into account
FRPs are not usually taken into account in linear analyses except when verifying the strength
or ductility of sections and via the behaviour factor. This approach is valid because FRPs have
little effect on mass and stiffness. However, they can change the behaviour of the structure to
a large extent, particularly by changing the location of the damage mechanisms (change of
location of plastic hinges).
3
This type of analysis is sometimes called "pseudo-dynamic" and is not be confused with pseudo-dynamic type
experimental tests.
41
3.2.1.2 Non-linear analysis methods

3.2.1.2.1 Non-linear static (pushover) analysis
The recommendations relating to this type of analysis are set out in part 4.4.4 of Eurocode 8-3.
The constitutive laws used to describe the materials are non-linear (Figure 17) and enable the
plastic mechanisms and damage distribution in the structure to be characterised (Figure 18).
The behaviour of FRPs is described through their constitutive laws, by limiting the stiffness
of the reinforcement to take detachment of the reinforcement into account. It is also possible
to introduce the effect of FRPs by changing the constitutive law of the concrete in
compression (concrete confinement). However, numerous current studies indicate that
pushover modelling of FRP-reinforced structures requires additional research.
(a) Concrete constitutive laws (b)Steel constitutive laws

Figure 17: Example of cyclic constitutive laws introduced in finite element software [46]
Loading Response curve

Shear force at foot (kN)
Failure
Appearance of
non-linear
behaviour
Displacement at head
(a) (b)
Figure 18: Pushover method - (a) Example of lateral loading on a structure and (b) Example of
change in loading-displacement
The appearance of non-linear phenomena (formation of plastic hinges and damage to
materials) as well as failure of the structure are two important indications that enable the
capacity and ductility of the structure to be determined. The relationship between the
pushover analysis and the dynamic behaviour of the structure is defined by determining the
"performance point" (Figure 19 "loading at foot and displacement at head").
A method to determine the capacity curve and performance point is proposed in parts 4.4.4.2
and 4.4.4.3 of Eurocode 8-3.
42
Elastic demand spectrum
Inelastic spectrum
Performance point
Capacity curve
Figure 19: Pushover method: Determination of performance point
3.2.1.2.2 Extension of pushover methods

Pushover analysis is a reference method to analyse existing structures and their reinforcement.
However, adaptations are needed when it is applied to irregular structures or structures with
significant higher mode effects [20].
These include multimodal pushover methods [47] which use several load profiles obtained
from the main eigen shapes and adaptive multi-modal procedures [48, 49] that propose to take
this into account by adapting the load profile at each stage of the calculation in order to
account for damage to the structure (Figure 20).
It should also be noted that certain approaches propose to introduce a torsional coefficient to
take into account the irregularity of certain structures [50, 51, 52, 53].
Figure 20: Example of results obtained using the Adaptive Pushover Method [53].
Use of the methods mentioned above still remains limited and some are still at the
developmental stage. Also, the digital cost of these methods is much higher than that of the
"traditional" pushover method. As a result, in the case of structures for which the traditional
pushover analysis is not appropriate, the use of non-linear dynamic methods may prove to be
more pertinent [54-58].
3.2.1.2.3 Dynamic non-linear time-history analysis
The recommendations relating to dynamic non-linear time-history analysis are set out in part
4.4.5 of Eurocode 8-3.
43
Dynamic non-linear time-history analysis is an approach in which the constitutive laws of the
materials are either linear or non-linear (concrete, steel, FRP) and the basic dynamic equation
is satisfied at given intervals of time. The equilibrium of the system is calculated including
inertia and damping forces at discrete times. Seismic loading is applied in the form of several
accelerograms.
The advantage of this approach for a 3-D structure is that, at each time step, the exact
behaviour of the different structural elements can be determined. However, it requires large
amounts of data and long calculation times. The 3D constitutive laws (particularly for
concrete) are not entirely robust, especially for shear behaviour.
3.2.2 Precautions to be taken when choosing a linear analysis
Whether they are static, multi-modal response spectrum or time-history, linear analyses have
proved to be effective for designing structures. Using the behaviour factor for static and multi-
modal response spectrum analyses considerably simplifies the presence of non-linearities.
However, these methods are not very helpful when assessing existing structures. Uncertainties
concerning the design of the structure result in the use of an inappropriate "q" factor whose
result is to overestimate or underestimate the loads that will be transferred to the structure.
When retrofitting studies are conducted, this often leads to excessive reinforcement costs and
sometimes even demolition. In this context, nonlinear analyses give a more precise estimation
of the structure's capacity without having to use the behaviour factor.
Nonlinear statistical (pushover) analysis is suitable for most structures with regularity in plane
and elevation. This method is generally more suitable for studying existing structures than
linear analyses alone.
The complementarity of static nonlinear and dynamic linear analyses offers a more complete
approach to the behaviour of the structure. However, this type of analysis remains unsuitable
for structures with irregularities in plane and/or elevation. It is not appropriate for structures
subjected to torsional stress or involving a combination of several modes.
Dynamic nonlinear time-history analysis offers an in-depth examination of the behaviour of
the structure. It can be used for all types of structures. On the other hand, to obtain pertinent
results, a thorough knowledge of the structure concerned and considerable experience on the
part of the engineer are required. Also, the appearance of plastic mechanisms in the different
structural members requires much more powerful calculation resources in comparison with
linear methods as well as a meticulous interpretation of the results.
Due to their realistic consideration of the constitutive laws of materials, nonlinear analysis
methods are particularly suitable for assessing the contribution of FRP retrofitting to the
structural response. For this type of modelling, bonding between FRP and concrete is often
considered to be perfect and is not modelled.
3.2.3 Modelling methods

In relation to the modelling of existing structures, the recommendations of Eurocode 8-3 part
4.3 refer to those of Eurocode 8-1 part 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 relating to new structures.
While Eurocode 8 specifies the characteristics to be verified by the engineer's model, it does
not recommend the use of any particular modelling method. The modelling methods presented
here focus on finite element approaches (including bar models, see for example figure 21),
44
which encompass a large majority of the current tools which provide a pertinent
representation of existing structures4.
3.2.3.1 Global approach
In an engineering approach, beams and/or shell elements are discretised in most models, with
each element having a "global" constitutive law that depends on its geometry. This approach
is therefore based on constitutive laws that are simplified (e.g. linear elastic) and/or
representative of how each type of structural member functions (beam, column, slender wall,
etc.) and not only of the materials. FRP reinforcements are therefore modelled at this stage of
the proceedings. In this type of analysis, the failure mechanisms are located in pre-supposed
or calculated plastic hinge regions.
This approach offers the advantage of modelling with a small number of degrees of freedom
and low calculation costs. On the other hand, there appear to be several limits, particularly
when analysing the vulnerability of an existing structure. First, while the location of the
failure mechanisms may be coherent with the design of a structure (particularly according to
the principles of Eurocode 8), it can prove more difficult for an existing structure whose
elements have not been designed to use plastic mechanisms. However, it is possible to take
into account inadequate detailing and the presence of fragile regions in the global approach
models.
Finally, this approach allows rapid access to the loads, deformations and constraints in all the
elements.
Figure 21: FE model - overall Figure 22: FE model - Overall cyclic behaviour of a
discretisation of a structure reinforced concrete wall - example of
and localisation of plastic experimentation and cyclic modelling results using
mechanisms the Takeda model [58]
4
Discrete element methods combined with finite element methods are beginning to emerge for the local analysis
of concrete structures, such as the study of impacts in fast dynamics [52]. This aspect of modelling is not
presented here.
45
3.2.3.2 Local approach

Unlike global methods, local methods exist
which have the advantage of providing a
detailed representation of the structure
which is very close to reality (Figure 23).
At this level, each component material of
the structural member can be described by
its own constitutive law (including FRPs).
This approach does not make any
assumptions about the spatial distribution
of the displacement fields (beams or plates
and shells theory).
The behaviour is entirely described by local
stress and strain variables, and the
constitutive laws are usually independent of
the geometry of the member represented. Figure 23: FE model - Local three-
dimensional discretisation of a structure -
These models are often based on criteria of
Ecoleader project - Camus Structure [60]
plasticity, damage and/or cracking.
This type of representation offers the advantage of providing users with precise information
on the structural behaviour of the building. FE modelling can thus evaluate the strain at any
point in a structure based on nodal displacements. The corresponding stresses are incorporated
into the volume of the element in order to calculate the internal forces.
However, despite the constant increase in computational capacities, the modelling and
calculation time required for this type of model remains very high. A high level of know-how
is also needed. Finally, it can only be applied to structures for which large amounts of data are
available.
3.2.3.3 Multi-fibre and multi-layer approach
Multi-fibre and multi-layer beam elements provide a level of analysis that is halfway between
global analysis and local analysis5. Modelling of a structure using these elements is simpler
than it is for a local approach with a better degree of analysis than that of a global approach.
In general, in the case of the multi-fibre approach, each component of the structure (column,
beam, etc.) is broken down into several beam elements with a node at each end. The cross-
section of a multi-fibre beam element is broken down into several fibres parallel to the axis of
the element (Figures 24 and 25). Each of the fibres has its own constitutive law. FRPs are thus
modelled as a component of the cross-section which means that several materials can be
represented in the same cross-section. The principle of the multi-layer approach is identical to
that of the multi-fibre approach with the cross-section broken down into layers instead of
fibres.
In addition to limiting the number of degrees of freedom, using local constitutive laws
provides access to information relating to the region and the type of damage concerned
(cracking of concrete, formation of plastic hinges in steel reinforcements, damage to FRPs,
etc.). This type of model produces good results and is becoming increasingly popular in
design offices even if it remains costly in terms of modelling and calculation time and
5
The term "semi-global" is currently used for this type of modelling and also concerns multi-layer type
modelling (2D representation).
46
requires expert know-how. Furthermore, modelling (and often non-modelling) of shear

behaviour in multi-fibre approaches remains an unresolved problem.
Reinforced concrete element
Multi-fibre beam
Discretisation into beam elements
Section of a multi-fibre beam
Figure 24: FE model - Principle of a multi-fibre beam
(a) Initial structure (b) Global (c) Local approach (d) Multi-fibre (e) Mixed approach:
(CEA Saclay) approach (Scanscot approach (3S-R local and multi-fibre
technology) Grenoble) (INSA Lyon)
Figure 25: FE model - Synthesis of different approaches - Smart Project (CEA) [61]
3.2.4 Conclusion
This chapter briefly describes the main analysis and modelling methods used to understand
the contribution of FRP reinforcements to the behaviour of a seismic-retrofitted structure. The
standards and methodological guidelines must naturally be consulted for exhaustive
information on each method in order to carry out a complete analysis of the structure.
It appears that the level of precision obtained in relation to FRP varies considerably according
to the analysis and modelling method adopted. The calculation method must therefore be
chosen according to the type of structure, the data available and the degree of reinforcement
required and envisaged, in addition to the precision of the targeted result.
Non-linear methods are very useful in defining the weak spots in a structure or a specific
component. Reinforcing components with composites means that they can be deformed
without any notable change in the stiffness, shock absorption and dynamic characteristics of
the structure. At the same time, confinement of the components or their plastic hinges leads to
a substantial increase in stiffness, which results in better control of the failure mechanisms of
the structure.
Direct modelling of the delamination/detachment of the reinforcement remains an unsolved

problem in the field of modelling.
47
Whatever the analysis method adopted, retrofitting with composite materials is shown to be a
highly efficient, economical rehabilitation technique resulting in minimum disturbance, as it
enables the structure to develop its full potential capacity and energy reserves in the plastic
region.
In the case of substantial seismic deficiencies, the use of bonded FRP reinforcements can be
combined with traditional reinforcement techniques.
48
4 Design of FRP reinforcement
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the different FRP reinforcement solutions with respect to the normal
force, flexure, confinement and shear force. Since Eurocode 8-3 is entirely devoted to the
retrofitting of existing buildings, it is not intended for civil engineering structures. However,
in the absence of any other regulations and considering that the behaviour of a bridge pier is
similar to that of a building column, the EC8-3 rules will be assumed to be applicable to civil
engineering structures in this document.
4.2 Field of application, standards, references and symbols.
The field of application of these recommendations covers the design of reinforced concrete
components that need to be repaired or reinforced using composite materials (based on
carbon, glass and aramid fibres). The design methods presented refer to the Eurocode 8
regulations and lie within their framework. The structural component on which the FRP is to
be installed must be sound and free of any pathologies that could reduce the capacity of its
surface to lastingly transfer forces to the composite. It is therefore essential to assess the state
of repair of the concrete. Given the different reinforcement procedures and in order to ensure
a reliable, lasting retrofitting result, it is recommended consulting chapters I, III and IV of the
AGFC's guidelines [10] entitled respectively "Recommendations concerning the
characterisation of composite materials used to repair concrete structures",
"Recommendations concerning in situ implementation of composite materials for
reinforcement" and "Recommendations concerning in situ inspection of composite materials
for reinforcement", in addition to standards NF P 95101 and NF EN 1504. First, it is
important to carry out a global analysis of the structure in accordance with the
provisions of Eurocode 8 and the guidelines for assessing existing structures in relation
to earthquakes. However, since seismic analysis is too complex a field to be addressed in
detail in this document, this chapter will only provide elements relating to the detailing
of composites for seismic retrofitting (accidental ULS load conditions). It must be
ensured that the structure is verified not only for ULS but also for SLS load conditions
and that the construction phasing is taken into account in relation to the SLS.
4.2.1 Standards and references
Composites are used for seismic retrofitting in numerous countries. As a result, design rules
dedicated to this type of reinforcement already exist in a number of countries: in Japan,
"Seismic retrofit design and construction guidelines" [62], in Italy, "Guide for the Design and
Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures" [60]
and in Europe, the FIB working document [11] and Eurocode 8 "Design of structures for
earthquake resistance". This chapter is mainly based on the European regulations, namely
Eurocode 8-3 [64]. The technical documentation concerning the use of FRP for structural
retrofitting mainly comprises two types of standards:
o Material characterisation standards: see Chapter I of the AFGC's guidelines [10],
"Recommendations concerning the characterisation of composite materials used to
repair concrete structures",
o Implementation or in situ inspection standards: see chapters III and IV of the AFGC's
guidelines [10], "Recommendations concerning the in situ implementation of
composite materials for retrofitting" - "Recommendations concerning the in situ
inspection of composite materials for retrofitting".
49
Symbols
To make it easier to read this document, the follow table gives a summary of the symbols
used in the AFGC document [10] and Eurocode 8.
Eurocode AFGC
b column width in the case of confinement
bw B beam width
b0 dimensions of confined concrete core to the centreline of the hoop
bi centreline spacing of longitudinal bars
D d effective depth of section
d’ distance between the centre of gravity of the compression
reinforcement to the most compressed face (depth to the
compression reinforcement)
db average diameter of tension reinforcements
D diameter of jacketing around circular transverse section
Edepldiff - effect of the spatial variability of seismic action
Ef Ef elastic modulus of composite
Ep elastic modulus of confinement material
Es elastic modulus of steel
fc concrete compressive strength
f’cc,d design value of confined concrete strength
fctm - concrete tensile strength
ffdd - design value of debonding strength
fl confinement pressure
f'l fpud effective confinement pressure
ffdd,e design value of FRP (fibre-reinforced polymer) effective debonding
strength
ffu,w ultimate strength of FRP sheet wrapped around corner with radius R
ffu,d ff,d design value of yield strength of composite
fpu,d ff,d design value of yield strength of composite for confinement
fyw yield strength of steel
h0 dimensions of confined concrete core to the centreline of the hoop
H H depth of cross-section
Ix ductility index
k - design factor
k1 Longitudinal confinement effectiveness factor
kh Horizontal confinement effectiveness factor
kb - covering factor
kg geometric confinement factor
ks geometric confinement factor rectangular section
Le - effective bonding length
Leq - effective bonding length in the case of side covering
LV moment/shear force at the end of section
MED design moment
MRD design moment resistance
R or Rc rc rounding radius of the section
Sdiff - effects of time-dependant deformation of concrete
50
Sf sf centreline spacing of FRP sheets

Sh centreline spacing of frames
Sperm - permanent action effects
Sth - thermal action effects
Straffic - traffic load effects
tf tf thickness of FRP sheet
Vf Vf contribution of FRP sheet to shear capacity
VR - contribution of existing reinforced concrete section to shear capacity
VR_total Vu shear capacity of section
Vw, f Va FRP sheet contribution to steel contribution for shear capacity
wf bf width of FRP sheet
z Y length of section internal lever arm
αχ confinement effectiveness factor
β θf angle between direction of fibres and axis of member
εcu concrete ultimate strain
εfu FRP ultimate strain
εfud design FRP ultimate strain
εf,ed εf FRP strain
εju FRP (fibre-reinforced polymer) ultimate strain
εy steel ultimate strain
γf - partial factor assigned to FRP
γR,p safety factor
γel safety factor
µ f,tar target curvature ductility index
µ f,ava available curvature ductility index
ηR factor to reduce effect of FRP sheet on shear force
θum ultimate chord rotation
θ umpl plastic part of the chord rotation capacity of concrete members under
cyclic loading
θy chord rotation at yielding of concrete member
Ν axial load
φy ultimate curvature at end section
ψtraffic - variable action combination factor
ω mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension reinforcement
ω´ mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression reinforcement
ρf ρf geometric FRP ratio
ρ sx ratio of transverse steel parallel to direction x of loading
ρd steel ratio of diagonal reinforcement
τmax - maximum bonding strength
N.B. blue text corresponds to changes made to the Eurocode text
51
4.3 Actions and stresses

To calculate the stresses in the entire structure, an initial state (state 0) must be considered
which corresponds to the state of the structure at the time of retrofitting.
The action combination to be considered is that of Eurocode 0, which is defined specifically
for the seismic case:
∑G kj "+" AEd "+" ∑ψ 2,i Qk ,i + Pk (2)
With
G kj : the characteristic value of permanent action (in the seismic case, the dead weight and
weight of equipment and installations)
AEd : design value of seismic action
ψ 2 ,i : factor defining the quasi-permanent value of a variable action
Q k ,i : characteristic value of variable action (traffic in the case of bridges and overloads in the
case of buildings)
Pk : Prestressing
Refer to Eurocodes 0, 1 and 8 or the methodological guidelines "Seismic assessment and
retrofitting of existing bridges" and the CSTB's technical guidelines "Seismic retrofitting of
buildings - Methodological guidelines for the preventive reinforcement of existing buildings"
for more detail [16].
4.4 Design values for properties of FRP sheets
In the case of unidirectional composites, a linear elastic constitutive law was chosen in the
AFGC's provisory recommendations published in 2011 [10]. This law will be maintained. The
CSTB's technical appraisals define the design values of the yield strength of composites ffu,d
also written as ff,d which will also be maintained. By default, the provisory recommendations
of February 2011 give a formula defining ffu,d or ff,d depending on Young's modulus and the
ultimate strain of the composite:
α f E f ε fu
f fud = (3)
γf
with:
αf = 0.65. It is proposed to maintain this value for civil engineering structures. However, a
value of αf = 1 can be taken in the case of buildings and reinforcements designed only for
seismic loadings not subjected to stress during operation.
γf = 1.25 for carbon/epoxy pultruded composites, 1.4 for carbon/epoxy laminated composites.
γf = 1.4 for glass/epoxy pultruded composites, 1.6 for glass/epoxy laminated composites.
The mechanical properties of FRPs can vary considerably depending on the manufacturing
process.
For fibre fabric based composites:
o the Young's modulus can traditionally vary from 30,000 MPa to 100,000 MPa;
o the tensile strength (ffu) traditionally varies from 400 to 1,800 MPa.
52
For carbon-fibre-based pultruded flats:

o the Young's modulus can traditionally vary from 150,000 MPa to 300,000 MPa;
o the tensile strength (ffu) traditionally varies from 400 to 1,800 MPa.
4.5 Reinforcement with respect to normal force and flexure with and without axial
force
As mentioned in paragraph 2, columns and slender walls subjected to earthquakes can
encounter problems relating to flexural loading and present confinement defects. They are
thus particularly concerned by reinforcement with respect to normal force and flexure with
and without axial force.
4.5.1 Confinement
It is only possible to improve confinement when the composite reinforcement totally covers
the section with sufficient overlapping of strips, which must be substantiated. The
confinement effectiveness is to be weighted according to the shape of the section. It is at its
maximum for a circular section and still advantageous for a square section but decreases
substantially for rectangular sections.
The mechanical action of confinement can be described by two related phenomena. The first
is associated with an increase in the compressive strength due to the lateral pressure of
confinement, with the composite opposing the development of transverse deformation of the
member. The second is related to the increase in ductility of the entire structure which is made
possible by confinement of the plastic hinge.
The confining reinforcements used prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements.
The constitutive law of confined concrete is modified according to figure 26:
Figure 26: Illustration of the effect of confinement on the behaviour of concrete in compression
53
In the case of FRP confinement, failure usually occurs as the result of tensile overstress of the
FRP (Figure 27). Special attention must therefore be paid to local stress concentration that can
lead to tearing of the FRP, especially in the following cases:
o presence of bars with very little cover which create pressure on the FRP during
buckling;
o at the edges of square or rectangular sections.
To ensure shear strength, the height of the region to be confined must be greater than that of
the plastic hinge. In many cases, jacketing is required over the entire height of the pier.
Figure 27: Laboratory test of confinement capacity using FRP-based jacketing
The type of fibre (carbon or glass) must take into account the context of the installation region
of the structure and the type of reinforcement to be provided by the jacket (elastic or ductile).
Where necessary, the FRP must be protected with a gel coat against environmental factors
(temperature, pH, radiation, UV radiation, etc.).
4.5.1.1 Increasing the compressive strength
The compressive strength of a column confined with composite reinforcements can be
determined according to the AFGC's provisory recommendations [10] on the retrofitting of
reinforced concrete structures using composites or with the help of appendix A of Eurocode 8
part 3. The calculation is based on evaluation of the effective confinement pressure (fpu,d)
which is identical for both design methods (AFGC and EC8). The pressure depends on the
geometric properties of the composite jacket and the dimensions of the pier to be retrofitted.
According to the AFGC guidelines paragraph 2.8 the confinement pressure (fpud or fl
according to the Eurocode) is determined by:
f pu,d =E p⋅ε fu,d (4)
with:
E p = t f ⋅np ⋅E f (5) for a circular section
r
2t f ⋅n p
Ep = ⋅E f (6) for a rectangular section
b
Ep: elastic modulus of confinement material

tf,: thickness of a reinforcement layer
np: number of reinforcement layers,
54
r: column diameter ; b: column width ; εfud: yield strain of composite;

According to l’EC8-3, §A.4.4.3, the confinement pressure (fpud or fl according to the
Eurocode) is determined by:
2t f
fl = E f ε ju (7)
dj
With
dj: column diameter,
tf : total thickness of FRP sheet (N.B. equivalent to AFGC's np.tf
Ef: FRP elastic modulus
εju adopted FRP ultimate strain (which is lower than the ultimate strain of FRP εfu), according
to Eurocode 8 part 3 (A.4.4.3).
The Eurocode does not provide any information on the strain ((εju), but the AFGC
formula and equation 6 are equivalent which means that the safety factors must be
taken into account for the materials and it must be verified that εju is equal to the value
of fud proposed by the AFGC. The Eurocode does not make a distinction between
continuous and discontinuous confinement, unlike the AFGC's formulae.
The compressive strength of the confined column (f’cc,d) can thus be calculated taking the
initial strength of the concrete (fcd) into account in addition to the different geometrical
characteristics of the reinforcement and section. These are taken into account by means of
various factors ((k1, kc, kh, ψf) as defined in the AFGC's guidelines ([10] and Figure 28).
Thus the compressive strength of the confined column is determined according to:
f cc' ,d = f cd + ψ f k1 k c k h f pu , d
(8)
Figure 28: Design parameters for FRP jacketing, related to the geometry of the reinforcement.
In the case of confinement, except if there are special instructions concerning the retrofitting
process, it is important for the last layer of FRP to have an overlap of 150 mm and respect the
detailing set out in chapter 5 of this document (Figure 29).
55
Figure 29: Illustration of overlap length

4.5.1.2 Increasing the ductility
Confining concrete by means of fibre-reinforced polymer jacketing increases the deformation
capacity of the section, as specified in Eurocode 8 part 3 (A. 4.4.3).
4.5.1.2.1 Circular cross-sections
In the case of circular cross-sections totally wrapped with continuous sheets (and not strips
that are discontinuous or only partially cover the surface of the column), the confinement
pressure applied by the FRP sheet is equal to:
1
fl = ρ f E f ε ju (9)
2
where Ef is the FRP elastic modulus,
and ρf is the geometric ratio of the PRP jacket to its thickness, as:
D
tf = ρf (10)
4
where
D is the diameter of the jacket around the circular cross-section
tf is the total thickness of the jacket.
In the case of wrapping applied by means of strips with spacing sf (see Figure 28), the
effective confinement pressure (f’l) taking the geometry of the section and the FRP
reinforcement into account is determined by:
f 'l = k g f l
With
sf
k g = (1 − )2 (11)
2D
56
Depending on the ductility required of the member, it is then possible to calculate the
confinement pressure to be achieved. The confinement pressure to be applied depends on the
ratio Ix of the target curvature ductility µ f,tar to the available curvature ductility µ f,ava, and can
be determined as follows:
 f ε2   µ 
f l = 0.4 I x  c 1.5cu  Ix =  
2 f ,tar
(12)
 ε  µ 
 ju   f ,ava 
where
fc is the concrete strength
εcu is the ultimate concrete strain.
µ f,tar is the target curvature ductility
µ f,ava is the available curvature ductility, which can be determined by non-linear modelling of
the member considered using a pushover method which enables the yield strength and tensile
overload displacement to be obtained.
N.B. An additional precision to the Eurocode:

The minimum confinement pressure for the FRP sheet to obtain an increase in ductility
is given by:
0.4 f cε cu2
fl' ≥ (13)
ε 1ju.5
In the opposite case, the ratio Ix becomes less than 1 which leads to a theoretical
reduction in ductility, which is not observed experimentally.
The condition expressed by equation 12 determines the spacing sf to be applied for a given
confinement pressure and therefore ductility.
4.5.1.2.2 Rectangular cross-sections
In the case of rectangular cross-sections in which the corners have been rounded to a radius R
so that the FRP can be wrapped around them, the confinement pressure applied by the FRP
sheet is determined by:
fl' = ks fl (14)
With
2R
ks = c (15)
D
tf
f l = 2E f ε ju (16)
D
where
D is the larger section width i.e. h, the height of the column section.
Rc is the radius of the "corners" of the cross-section after correction.
For members with rectangular cross-sections (in which the corners have been rounded),
Eurocode 8 part 3 ([EN 1998-3]) also proposes an alternative solution which consists in
calculating the total chord rotation capacity (or its plastic part) of concrete members under
cyclic loading.
57
4.5.1.2.3 Alternative for rectangular cross-sections

A database of 2,000 beams, columns and slender walls was used to develop design rules to
predict the yield moment, the curvature of the member when a plastic hinge forms, the
ultimate chord rotation and the chord rotation when a plastic hinge forms, according to the
geometry and mechanical properties of the test specimens ([66)]. These rules have been
adopted in Eurocode 8 part 3 ([EN 1998-3]).
The following equations ([EN 1998-3]) can thus be used to calculate the ultimate chord
rotation θum, the chord rotation at yield θy and the plastic part of the chord rotation θ umpl (with
θ um = θ umpl + θ y ) of reinforced concrete columns under cyclic loading:
0, 225  f 
 max(0,01; ω ' ) 
0 , 35
( ) (1,25 )
 αρ sx yw 
1  LV    100 ρ d
θ um = 0,016 ⋅ 0,3v ⋅  fc    25  fc 
(17)
γ el  max(0,01; ω )   h 
0, 3  f 
 max(0,01; ω ' ) 
0, 35  αρ sx yw 
1 L   f c 
θ = ⋅ 0,0145 ⋅ (0,25 ) ⋅ 
pl ν
 ⋅ f c0, 2  v  25 
(1,275100 ρd ) (18)
γ el  max(0,01; ω ) 
um
 h
L +αv z  h  ε y db f y
θ y = φy v + 0.00135 ⋅ 1 + 1.5  + (19)
3  Lv  d − d ' 6 f c
where:
o The value assigned to γel is:
for the calculation of θu:
o γel = 1.5 for primary seismic elements
o γel = 1.0 for secondary seismic elements.
for the calculation of θumpl:
o γel = 1.8 for primary seismic elements
o γel =1.0 for secondary seismic elements.
o h = depth of cross-section;
o LV= M/V is the moment/shear force at the end of section;
o αχ = confinement effectiveness factor of steel frames, which can be equal to:
α x = 1 − h 1 − h 1 − ∑ i 

 S  S  b2 
(20)
 2b0  2h0  6h0b0 
where:
o b0 and h0 are the dimensions of confined concrete core to the centreline of the hoop
o bi is the centreline spacing of longitudinal bars (index i) held laterally by a stirrup or pin
along the perimeter of the cross-section.
o Sh is the spacing of the frames;
A
ρ sx = sx is the ratio of transverse steel parallel to direction x of loading;
bw ⋅ s h
o fc and fyw are respectively the concrete compressive strength (MPa) and the steel yield
strength (MPa), mean value properties as directly obtained from in-situ tests and
additional data, divided by the appropriate confidence factors, accounting for the level
of knowledge attained ([EN 1998-3 3.5(1)]);
58
o ρd is the steel ratio of diagonal reinforcement (if any), in each diagonal direction,
ν = N/b.h.fc;
o b is the width of compression zone,
o N axial load positive for compression;
o ω and ω´ are the mechanical reinforcement ratios of the tension (including the web
reinforcement) and compression, respectively, longitudinal reinforcement;
o φy is the ultimate curvature at end section
o αv = 1 if shear cracking is expected to precede flexural yielding at the end section; αv
= 0 in the other cases;
εy = fy/Es ;
o db is the average diameter of tension reinforcements;
o d and d’ are the effective depths to the tension and compression reinforcements
respectively;
It should be noted that if cold-worked brittle steel is used, the total chord rotation capacity
above is divided by 1.6 and the plastic part of the chord rotation capacity is divided by 2.
In the case of walls, the value of θum
pl
(as calculated above) is multiplied by 0.6.
In the case of elements for which there is no detailing relating to earthquake resistance (which
will be the case for the example given in the following paragraph), the values given for θ um
and θ um
pl
and are multiplied by 0.825.
The rotation capacity of FRP-reinforced elements can be calculated by increasing the
exponent of the term due to confinement (i.e. the power of 25 before the last term in
expressions and θ um et θ umpl
) the term
α x ρ f f f ,e
(21)
fc .
with:
2t
ρf = f the FRP ratio parallel to the loading direction, (22)
bw
ff,e = an effective stress given by the following expression:
 ρf 
f f ,e = min( f fu ,d ; ε u , f E f )1 − 0,7( f u , f ε u , f E f )  (23)
 fc 
where:
ffu,d is the strength of the fibre-reinforced polymer
Ef is the elastic modulus of the FRP,
εu,f is a limit strain, equal to 0.015 for CFRP (carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer) or AFRP
(aramid-fibre-reinforced polymer) and to 0.02 for GFRP (glass-fibre-reinforced polymer);
N.B. These values recommended by Eurocode 8 (paragraph A4.4.3 equation A.34),
however, are not to be taken into account as they are too high with respect to the usual
FRP values. The characteristic values of ε,f,u obtained by tensile tests should therefore be
used. For design purposes, the safety factors to be applied to the materials should be
taken into account in these equations, which is not the case in EC8. (23) can therefore be
reformulated according to the following:
59
 ε fu ⋅ E f  ρf 
f f ,e = MIN  ; min ( f fu ,d ; ε fu E f )1 − 0,7( f u , f , ε fu E f )  (24)
 γ f  fc 
αχ is the FRP confinement effectiveness factor, given by:

α x = 1 −
(b − 2R )2 + (h − 2 R) 2  (25)
3bh 
 
R is the radius of the "corners" of the cross-section after correction.

b, h are the total cross-section dimensions.
4.5.1.2.4 Example of application:
Here we consider the results of an experimental campaign conducted on 6 FRP-reinforced
columns [65] subjected to flexure with or without axial force (constant axial force and lateral
cycles of increasing amplitude). The columns have a rectangular section of 0.25 x 0.37 m²
(i.e. D=0.37 m), confined with FRP sheets with a thickness tf = 0.48 mm and an elastic
module Ef =105 000 MPa, applied with a radius (R) at 20 mm corners. The concrete strength fc
varies according to the test specimen. The ultimate strain of the concrete εcu is taken to be
0.0035, and that of the FRP sheet εju to be 0.01.
The confinement pressure is then equal to:
tf 0,48 *10−3
f l = 2 ⋅ E f ⋅ ε ju ⋅ = 2 *105000* 0,01* = 2,72MPa (26)
D 0,37
The effective confinement pressure is equal to f l ' = k s ⋅ f l :
With
2 R 2 * 0.02
ks = = = 0,108 (27)
D 0.37
Thus: f 'l = 0,108* 2,2 = 0,29 MPa . (28)
The effective ductility gain (Ix_theoretical) of the different columns can thus be determined by
calculating the target curvatures and available curvatures before retrofitting. The values are
given in Table 19.
Table 19: Effective ductility gains

Ix theoretical
Column 1 1.08
Column 2 1.22
Column 3 1.32
Column 4 1.22
Column 5 1.26
Column 6 1.21
By way of comparison, an experimental evaluation of the ductility gain can also be carried
out, based on the ratio of the ultimate deflection of the reinforced column to the ultimate
deflection of the non-reinforced column. In addition to the 6 reinforced columns, 2 non-
reinforced columns, serving as a reference, were tested.
The experimental ductility gains are indicated in Table 20:
60
Table 20: Experimental ductility gains

Ix experimental
Column 1 1.66
Column 2 1.67
Column 3 1.66
Column 4 1.66
Column 5 1.84
Column 6 1.66
This comparison indicates that under these particular test conditions, without any initial
compression before confinement, the Eurocodes offer a certain safety margin (about 25%).
The tested columns were subjected to compression after being reinforced with FRPs, which
increases the confinement pressure and therefore their performance with respect to
conventional in-situ reinforcement.
If the alternative formulae in the case of a rectangular section are applied to the characteristics
of one of the non-reinforced columns (PRef2 reference non-reinforced column see [64]), and
without applying the safety factor γel, the yield deflection and ultimate deflection values
indicated in Tableau 21 are obtained. These results are compared with the experimental
results in Figure 29. The ultimate deflection is calculated using the following equation:
dy=θyLV (with LV = 2142.5 mm, distance between the base of the column and point of
application of the lateral force).
The ultimate deflection is calculated using the following equation: du=θuLV.
Table 21 Application of EC8-3 formulae (without γel) to calculate the ultimate strain and yield
strain of the concrete Pref2 (voir [64])
PRef2
Chord rotation at yield: θy (%) 1.33

Ultimate chord rotation: θu (%) 5.8
Yield deflection (deflection corresponding to displacement of the lateral jack): 28.5
dy (mm)
Ultimate deflection (deflection corresponding to displacement of the lateral 124
jack): <0} du (mm)
Thus Figure 29 shows that, if the Eurocode safety factor γel is not taken into account, the
theoretical ultimate displacement (du) corresponds to the ultimate displacement obtained
during the test on PRef2. Calculation of the displacement at yield (dy) also seems to provide a
correct evaluation of the experimental result for this example.
Likewise, if the above formulae are applied (without applying the safety factor γel) to
reinforced columns PC2, PCL2 and PCLA2 (see [65]), it is possible to obtain the values set
out in Table 22 and shown in Figure 30. The experimental results for the same columns are
also presented in Table 22 and Table 23.
61
Figure 29: Comparison between calculation of the ultimate strain and yield strain for Pref2
according to EC8-3 (without γel) and the experimental results in [64]
Table 22: Application of EC8-3 formulae (without γel) to calculate the ultimate strain and yield
strain of FRP reinforced columns
PC2 PCL2 PCLA2
Chord rotation at yield: θy*(%) 1.4 1.4 1.4

Ultimate chord rotation: θu*(%) 7.3 7.3 7.3
Yield deflection (deflection corresponding to 30.3 30.3 30.2
displacement of the lateral jack): dy (mm)
Ultimate deflection (deflection corresponding to 155.4 155.4 156.3
displacement of the lateral jack): du (mm)
Table 23: Experimental yield and ultimate deflection values obtained for columns
PC2 PCL2 PCLA2
Relative Relative Relative
discrepancy discrepancy discrepancy
Exp. with Exp. with Exp. with
value respect to value respect to value respect to
theoretical theoretical theoretical
value value value
Yield deflection (deflection
corresponding to
21.42 -29.3% 21.44 -29.2% 21.28 -29.7%
displacement of the lateral
jack): dy (mm)
Ultimate deflection
(deflection corresponding to
171.09 +13.6% 169.68 +12.4% 162.41 +4%
displacement of the lateral
jack): du (mm)
62
Figure 30: Comparison between calculation of the ultimate strain and yield strain of confined
columns according to EC8-3 (without γel) and the experimental results
Detailling provisions
The detailing is defined in chapter 5.
4.5.1.2.5 Increasing the buckling strength of reinforcements

FRP-confined longitudinal reinforcements are unlikely to buckle during (or after) cyclic
loading. It should be noted that the reinforcements are seen to be particularly effective when
the spacing between the transverse reinforcement frames is not respected and when the M/Vd
ratios are greater than 4d (M and Vd are respectively the maximum bending moment and
associated shear force and d is the effective height of the column section). In this case,
Triantafillou [67] and the Italian regulations CNR DT [63] propose a method for calculating
the minimum reinforcement thickness for circular sections. In the case of rectangular sections,
it must be borne in mind that FRP confinement is less effective.
4.5.1.2.6 Improving steel bonding by confinement
Research indicates that the bonding of tension reinforcements to concrete can be improved by
confinement. Equations are available in the literature [63], [66]. There is insufficient feedback
at present to generalise these equations in the case of seismic retrofitting with reversed
loading. A proposal to calculate the thickness of FRP jackets is given in the national appendix
to Eurocode 8 part 3 (A. 4.4.4).
4.5.2 Case of reinforcement with respect to flexure with and without axial force
Slender walls of buildings are subjected to flexure with and without axial force during
earthquakes. This results in a double flexure elastic eigen shape for the element concerned.
The moments at the top and bottom of the column are identical (Figure 31). The normal force
proves to be critical for very slender columns (λ > 30) which transfer concentrated loads (P-
Delta effect). Another example lies in the single or double flexure of bridge piers.
63
Seismic load Seismic load

Mhead
Mhead
Double eigen
shape
Mpied Mhead = Mfoot
Mfoot
Figure 31: Mechanical behaviour of columns in a horizontal plane direction
Due to the column reinforcement layout, two weak sections can be seen: at the ends and in the
region where there is less reinforcement (Figure 32).
Reinforcement Failure in typical section or

floor i + 1 reinforcement reduction region
Cover Failure at embedment
Slab/beam
Continuous
Reinforcement
reinforcement
floor i
Figure 32: Reinforcement principle and location of damage on slender columns
Based on what was put forward previously the calculations must be carried out in both the
embedment section and the reduced reinforcement area in order to determine the critical
section.
If the overall ductility cannot be proven by an appropriate test, a calculation can be
accepted in which it is considered that the column has limited ductility (LD) provided
there is specific substantiation of the column/beam junction and minimum detailing. In
a typical section, the contribution of the steel and the reinforcement is taken into
account.
In an embedment section, if there are no anchorage systems, the contribution of the composite
will be considered to be nil, and only the steel reinforcements present will be taken into
account. However, if an FRP anchor is used, it can be taken into consideration, in addition to
any steel reinforcements, subject to specific substantiation and/or appropriate validation tests.
The capacity of the reinforcement anchors must be calculated according to the maximum
cyclic load that can be transferred to the anchorage system.
4.5.2.1 Buildings
Eurocode 8-1 part 1.3 (paragraph 5.1.1) specifies that elements subject to flexure are
calculated as set out in Eurocode 2, with a normal force corresponding to the same seismic
combination. In particular, verification of the capacity must take the loading into account
using the Eurocode 8 approach, for example, paragraph 2.8.1.1
64
The flow charts for the application of chapter 2 of EC8-1 Part 1.3 are given in appendix A
"Specific rules for concrete buildings", paragraph A2 of EC8. The flow charts given in the
appendix to this document concern the design of concrete buildings with composite
steel/concrete framework, wall or bracing systems, depending on the ductility classes. These
parts must be considered carefully when studying the FRP retrofitting of columns and bearing
walls and bridge piers. According to paragraph 2.8.1.2. (4)P of EC8-1 part 1.3 while, for the
specified value of the conventional ductility curvature coefficient, the concrete strain must be
greater than 0.0035, the loss of strength due to spalling of the concrete cover must be offset by
appropriate confinement of the concrete core. FRP confinement can be an appropriate
solution. For sections subjected to flexure and a centred longitudinal force, the compressive
strain of the concrete εc is limited to 2.10-3 m/m according to EC2 paragraph 6.1.
According to EC2 paragraph 6.1, in the case of columns mainly deflected along one axis (the
first main axis), the failure risks due to second order loading along the second main axis must
be verified. This is even more important when an FRP reinforcement is envisaged in the axial
direction of the column.
Portal frames with displaceable nodes must be calculated according to the data in articles 4.3.5
and A3.4 of EC2. Equivalent geometric imperfections must be taken into account as additional
moments. The simplified methods in article 4.3.5 can be used rather than a very detailed analysis,
provided the required level of safety is respected.
For regular portal frames, EC2 A3.4 gives the possibility of using simplified methods that
introduce greater horizontal design loads or bending moments that take into account second
order effects, in addition to the effects of geometric imperfections. Regular portal frames, for
example, are beam and column portal frame piers with approximately equal nominal rigidities
and a mean slenderness factor Lm for all columns of the level considered corresponding to:
 20 
Lm = max 50;  (29)
 vu 
N sd
With vu = (30)
Ac . f cd
AC is the concrete section and Nsd is the normal force design value
4.5.2.2 Civil engineering structures
For civil engineering structures designed to operate in the elastic region or which belong to
the "reduced ductility" class, there is no reason to apply an overload factor. Flexure design in
the case of operation in the elastic region or for a limited ductility structure is based on the
standard equation:
f f yk 
M Ed ≤ M Rd  ck ;  (31)
 1,3 1,0 
In this equation, MEd is obtained directly from the seismic analysis. In the case of a "ductile"
class structure, the flexure design varies according to whether or not a plastic hinge region is
considered. The calculation also varies according to the method used (behaviour factor, push-
over or time-history dynamic analysis methods). In plastic hinge regions, when the seismic
analysis is based on the behaviour factor method, verification of the flexural strength is the
same as for the previous case. Finally, it should be noted that when the behaviour factor
method is used, no particular verification of the strain levels in the plastic hinges is needed as
it is assumed to be implicitly substantiated by the application of seismic detailing such as that
defined in §5.3. When seismic design is based on methods such as push-over and time-history
65
dynamic analysis, the substantiation principle is very different from the method presented above
and is based on explicit substantiation of the strain levels reached in plastic hinge sections (see EC
8-2, §4.2.4.4) using pre-established strain laws (moment-rotation or force-displacement).
Once the theoretical operating point for the earthquake has been obtained in a given
horizontal direction only, it must be checked that the operating point remains in the safety
field, integrating, in the chord rotation calculation (θp,E1), the safety factor γR,p =1.4 and the
earthquake effect in the concomitant horizontal direction (θp,E2) multiplied by 0.3 and that of
any second order effects (θ2nd order):
1 f f yk 
θ p , E1 ≤ θ p ,u  ck ;  − 0,3θ p , E 2 − θ 2 nd ordre (32)
1,40  1,3 1,0 
The application of the capacity design principle to the rest of the structure guarantees that
only sections in which plastic hinges form are likely to be damaged.
4.5.2.3 Taking composites into account
Dimensioning of the reinforcement follows the methodology of the AFGC's recommendations
(version 2011 [10]). The overall design approach is shown in Figure 33. Use of the simplified
rectangle diagram instead of the parabola-rectangle law is tolerated. Given that the ultimate
strain of steel under ULS load conditions (εfud) is less than 10 ‰, the notion of pivot D (or
pivot A reduced) is introduced, which corresponds to the ultimate elongation of the
composite, εfud (Figure 34).
Seismic loading
Flexion
Strength of RC element:
Calculation:
- embedment
- typical
MU*
MU* > MU
Yes
No
Dimensioning of reinforcement
Calculation:
- embedment
- typical
Contribution of composite (Mfu)

=> Mu* + Mfu > Mu
Element compliant
Figure 33 - Operating diagram for a reinforcement dimensioning method for a slender column
66
εbo
Pivot B
(1-εc2d/εcu2)h
d
h
∆εp Pivot C
Ap εp(0)
Pivot A
As εso
Pivot D
εud εfud 0 εc2d εcu2
Figure 33: Diagram of pivot D
Pivot A: maximum strain of reinforcing steel (if it exists) or prestressing bars over and above
concrete decompression
Pivot B: maximum strain of concrete in compression for bent pieces
Pivot C: maximum strain of concrete in pure compression
Pivot D: maximum strain of composite in tension
εbo: concrete strain at time of repairs
sεso : steel strain at time of repairs
εfud : design FRP ultimate strain
σud: ultimate design strain of steel
εc2: concrete strain for maximum stress in compression
εcu2: ultimate strain of concrete in compression
The retrofitting of composites on a slender column, for the purposes of structural
reinforcement due to seismic loading, must satisfy the following recommendations and
detailing:
o Since an earthquake causes displacements in both directions on the horizontal plane,

the strength of the column must be verified in both directions,
o If an anchorage system is necessary, the special detailing defined in chapter 5 must

be respected.
o In order to limit buckling risks in FRP sheets placed longitudinally, it is

recommended using local confinement of the column at the point of embedment,
over a distance equivalent to the critical length. It is recommended installing two
reinforcement layers to limit the risk of tearing or local punching of the confinement.
For the same reason, sharp edges need to be rounded off or chamfered (Figure 35),
67
15 mm
Rc = 20 mm
Aspect
Initialinitial
appearance
Figure 35: Treatment of sharp edges
o The single or double eigen shape of the column indicates possible debonding of the
longitudinal reinforcement by local buckling near the change of direction and at the
ends. Local confinement at the bottom, top and middle of the column (Figure 36) or
the use of transverse anchorage systems such as those defined in chapter 5 is thus
recommended.
> lcr
Renforcement
Longitudinal reinforcement
longitudinal
h
> lcr
h Confinement
Local confinement
2 local
> lcr
Figure 36: Slender column reinforcement diagram

o According to the proposals of the AFGC working group [10], the number of wraps
required for confinement can be conditioned by the normal force design
(overcompression related to the vertical component of the earthquake).
4.6 FRP retrofitting to prevent shear failure
Squat walls are subject to shear failure [23, 43] and can be reinforced efficiently by external
bonding of the composites either continuously or discontinuously. The composite then acts
like an external reinforcement, in addition to the other existing reinforcements.
Classically, and according to Eurocode 8 part 3 (A3.3.1), the shear strength of a reinforced
concrete section reinforced with a composite jacket (VR_total) is evaluated according to the
contribution of the existing reinforced concrete section, VRd,s, and the contribution of the
composite, VRd,f :
VR_total =VRd,s + VRdf (33)
To evaluate the contribution of the reinforced concrete section, refer to EC8-3 (or the
methodological guidelines). The contribution of the composite can be evaluated using the
methods described in this chapter.
68
It should be remembered that the total shear capacity cannot be greater than the maximum
shear strength of the concrete element, controlled by the diagonal compression (strut) (VRd,max
to be calculated according to Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8-3). Subject to substantiation, the
composite confinement effect can be taken into account in relation to the compressive
strength of the concrete. It should also be noted that in the case of squat elements (LV/h <2),
verification must take the cyclic effects into account by considering the smallest values
between VRd,max and VR,total (according to A.3.3.1 of Eurocode 8 part 3).
According to EC8-3, the composite can be retrofitted in three ways:
- By bonding to the sides with partial lapping on three sides of the element (U-
shaped reinforcement), in which case, the contribution of the reinforcement is
calculated in accordance with the term VRd,f of the Eurocode, taking into account
the effective debonding strength (ffdd,e) of the composite reinforcement. If
anchorage systems are used on the free edges, specific substantiation can be
provided.
- By bonding to the sides with full wrapping of the element, in which case the
strength of the composite is increased to take into account the beneficial effect of
the element on the anchor (it is then noted ffdd,e,W),
- By bonding to the sides only, in which case the strength of the reinforcements is
decreased (it is then noted ffdd,e,S).
The contribution of FRP is therefore different depending on the shape of the section and type
of wrapping chosen.
In the case of shear reinforcement of columns, bonding over the entire perimeter is preferable
because it provides a confinement effect and limits the risk of debonding of the FRP
reinforcement (Figure 37). However, in the case of reinforcement of slender reinforced
concrete walls or beams, a U-shaped reinforcement is a better choice. It is only possible to
envisage reinforcement by side bonding if there is a sufficient bonding length (slender
reinforced concrete wall).
U-shaped Complete with lapping Side U-shaped with anchors
Figure 37: Different types of shear wrapping for a section

N.B. Calculations are to be made using newtons (N) and millimetres (mm) because they
are the units used in all the equations.
69
4.6.1 Rectangular section

The different reinforcement solutions are illustrated in Figure 38.
Figure 38: Description of retrofitting methods for rectangular sections
According to the equations currently applicable as per EC8-3: 2005, in certain cases, it is
better to use reinforcements on the sides only (i.e. neither U-shaped nor full wrapping).
However, experience shows that this may not be the right solution. It is therefore proposed
below to modify the EC8-3 equations so that they will apply to all cases, by eliminating the
term (wf/Sf)2 and replacing it with (wf/Sf) in the expression of VRd,f.
Furthermore, the tangent load balancing theory shows the influence of shear loading in
concrete using the ratio of As to s (where As corresponds to the cross-section of the
reinforcements and s to the cross-section of the concrete).
It would thus seem logical that this type of ratio should be considered for composite
reinforcements: Af / sf = tf × (wf / sf) et non tf × (wf / sf)² as indicated in equation A.22 of
Eurocode 8.3.
For elements of rectangular section, the contribution of the FRP to the shear strength (VRd,f)
can therefore be evaluated as described in the following chapters.
Conditions concerning width and spacing of strips:
The Eurocode specifies that the width of the strips in the case of continuous reinforcement is
given by:
sin(θ + β )
w f = min(0,9d ; hw ) ⋅ (34)
sin θ
The parameters are defined in Figure 39 below.
This design value must be used throughout the design calculations. In practice, however, a
larger strip width can be applied.
It should be noted that the maximum effective width of the strips will be taken to be equal to
the height of the section of the sheared element.
70
In the case of discontinuous reinforcement using pultruded flats or strips, the width will be
determined by the design calculation.
Figure 39 illustrates the layout of the reinforcements in relation to cracking.
Figure 39: Layout of reinforcements in relation to the shear force

Note 1: The ratio wf/sf is less than 1 in the case of discontinuous reinforcement. In the
opposite case, the reinforcement is applied to the entire surface.
Note 2: To prevent cracking from developing between two FRP strips, the maximum
spacing between two strips must respect the following condition:
h ⋅ cot θ
s f − wf ≤ (35)
2
Note 3: For a value of ß - the angle between the (strong) fibre direction in the FRP strip,
sheet or fabric and the axis of the reinforced concrete member - different from 90°, a
symmetrical FRP reinforcement with an angle –β β ) is needed in the case of earthquake
retrofitting in which there is reversed loading, in order to take the load inversion into
account (Figure 40).
Note 4: θ is the angle of inclination of the struts; the angle of inclination of the struts is
generally taken to be 45° but may be smaller outside the plastic hinge region, subject to
appropriate justification,
Figure 40: "Beta" reinforcement
71
In the case of slender reinforced concrete walls, side bonding only is possible provided that
sufficient anchorage systems are used to prevent the debonding of strips when they are
subjected to reversed tensile/compression loading under the effect of seismic loading.
4.6.1.1 Calculation of reinforcement strength in the case of full wrapping of a
rectangular section.
Full wrapping of a rectangular section is shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41: Fully wrapped rectangular section

When calculating the strength of composite reinforcements VRd,f, several calculation
simulations show that the term (wf/sf)² is not a good choice because in certain
configurations side reinforcement is more efficient that full wrapping. It is proposed to
eliminate the square in the equation given in the guidelines, as the equation is regularly
found in the literature without the square.
For total wrapping with fibre-reinforced polymer, equation A.22 of Eurocode 8-3 is
changed as follows:
 wf 
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e 2t f ⋅   ⋅ ( 1 + 1 ) ⋅ sin β (36)
 s  tan(θ ) tan( β )
 f 
where:
d is the effective depth,
θ is the angle of inclination of the struts; the angle of inclination of the struts is generally
taken to be 45° but may be smaller outside the plastic hinge region, subject to appropriate
justification,
tf is the total thickness of the fibre-reinforced polymer applied,
ß is the angle between the (strong) fibre direction and the axis of the reinforced concrete
element (Figure 40),
wf is the width of the composite, measured orthogonally to the (strong) direction of the fibres
(equivalent to the AFGC's symbol bf ), in accordance with the observation made in 4.6.1.
72
sf is the spacing of composite reinforcements, calculated to include the width of the strip and
the net spacing of the FRP strips (see Figure 42),
ffdd,e is the maximum strength that can be transferred to the reinforcement, defined by the
effective strength of the reinforcement as described in the following paragraph.
The maximum reinforcement is related to the maximum tensile stress (design debonding
strength) ffdd that can be transferred to the composite before debonding. However, for side
bonding reinforcement with total wrapping of the element, the debonding strength is increased
to take into account the beneficial effect of this type of installation.
The effective design debonding strength of the composite is then written ffdd,e,W and can be
evaluated using the following formula:
L sin β  1  L sin β 
+ ( f fu , w ( R) − f fdd )1 − e

f fdd ,e,W = f fdd 1 − k e  (37)
 2z  2  z 
where the design debonding strength f fdd is:
1 E f f ctm kb
f fdd = 0,6 (38)
γ fd tf
With
k b the covering coefficient:
wf
(2 − )
sf
k b = 1,5. (39)
wf
(1 + )
100mm
γ fd : partial factor whose recommended value is 1.5
 2
k = 1 −  (40)
 π
z =0.9d: internal lever arm
Le is the effective bond length between composite layers. A distinction is to be made between
the lengths Lanc (anchorage length between concrete and FRP strips) and Ltrans (transfer
length) defined in the AFGC recommendations [10]:
Ef tf
Le = (41)
4τ max
With
τ max : maximum bonding strength τ max = 1,8 f ctmkb
fctm : average tensile strength of the concrete
Ef : modulus of the composite
f fu , w is the ultimate strength of FRP sheet wrapped around corner with radius R:
f fu ,w ( R ) = f fdd + (η R f fu − f fdd ) with η R f fu − f fdd ≥ 0 (42)
With
R R
η R = 0,2 + 1,6 where 0 ≤ ≤ 0,5 (43)
bw bw
73
bw : the width of the reinforced concrete element,

R : the radius of the "corner" of the cross-section after correction. A minimum R of 10
mm is recommended, which can be modified by the designers according to the
different reinforcement systems. It must take the reinforcement covers into account.
N.B. When the term (η R f fu − f fdd ) is negative, it must be taken to be nil.
For greater clarity, the main parameters are given in detail in Figure 42.
Figure 42: Diagrammatic representation of parameters
Special anchorage detailing is given in chapter 5.
4.6.1.2 Calculation of the reinforcement strength in the case of U-shaped

bonding to a rectangular section for the purpose of shear reinforcement
of the column in the direction of the U
When calculating the strength of composite reinforcements VRd,f, several calculation
simulations show that the term (wf/sf)² is not a good choice because in certain
configurations side reinforcement is more efficient that full wrapping. It is proposed to
eliminate the square in the equation given in the guidelines.
For wrapping with U-shaped fibre-reinforced polymer fabric strips or sheets, equation
A.22 of Eurocode 8-3 is modified as follows,
 wf 
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e 2t f ⋅   ⋅ ( 1 + 1 ) ⋅ sin β (44)
 s  tan(θ ) tan( β )
 f 
where:
θ is the angle of inclination of the struts; the angle of inclination of the struts is generally taken to
be 45° but may be smaller outside the plastic hinge region, subject to appropriate justification,
element,
wf is the width of the composite, measured orthogonally to the (strong) direction of the fibres
(equivalent to the AFGC's symbol bf), in accordance with the observation made in 4.6.1.
sf is the spacing of composite reinforcements, calculated to include the width of the strip and
the net spacing of the FRP strips (see Figure 41),
ffdd,e is the maximum strength that can be transferred to the reinforcement, defined by the
effective strength of the reinforcement as described in the following paragraph.
74
It is important to note that in the case of a U-shaped reinforcement and when the seismic
action is reversed (push/pull), the upper part of the U is not correctly anchored when it is
under tensile stress. Special transverse anchorage devices must be provided to ensure perfect
anchorage of the reinforcement (see Figure 43). Without anchors, this type of reinforcement
used in the case of seismic action must be considered to be side bonding on two sides.
The principle of transverse reinforcement anchorage by means of U-shaped bonding is
described in Figure 43. As above, the effective design debonding strength of the composite,
expressed as ffdd,e,U in the case of a U-shaped reinforcement, is related to the effective strength
(ffdd) that can be transferred to the composite before debonding occurs. In the case of a U-
shaped reinforcement, and to take into account the benefits of this type of system, the
following equation can be used:
 L sin β 
f fdd ,e,U = f fdd 1 − k e (45)
 z 
All the variables are defined in section 4.6.1.1.
Fixing system in case
alternative loads
Figure 43: Transverse anchorage devices for U-shaped reinforcement
4.6.1.3 Calculation of reinforcement strength in the case of side reinforcement
of a rectangular section.
The case of reinforcement of a rectangular section on the sides only mainly concerns slender
reinforced concrete walls (Figure 44) and beams of sufficient depth.
For fibre-reinforced polymer strips or sheets bonded to the sides, equation A.23 of EC8-3 is
modified as follows:
 wf  sin( β + θ )
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e ,S 2t f ⋅   ⋅ (46)
s  sin θ
 f 
where:
75

θ is the angle of inclination of the struts; the angle of inclination of the struts is generally taken to
be 45° but may be smaller outside the plastic hinge region, subject to appropriate justification,
element (Figure 40),
wf: is the width of the composite, measured orthogonally to the (strong) direction of the fibers
(equivalent to the AFGC's symbol bf and sf is the spacing of the composite reinforcements
calculated to include the width and the net spacing of the FRP strips (see Figure 44).
Figure 44: Description of side reinforcement

As above, the effective design debonding strength of the composite, expressed as ffdd,e,S in the
case of a U-shaped reinforcement, is related to the effective strength (ffdd) that can be
transferred to the composite before debonding occurs. In the case of side reinforcement only it
can be evaluated using the following equation:
2
 Leq 
f fdd ,e , S = f fdd 1 − k  (47)
 z rid ,eq 
With zrid , eq = zrid + Leq avec zrid = z − Le ⋅ sin β et Leq = u1 ⋅ sin β (48)
ε fdd
f fdd
ε dfd =
Ef
76
kb
u1 = (49)
3
With kb according to equation 39
4.6.2 Circular cross-sections
In the case of a circular section, the contribution of the composite can be evaluated as follows:
V f = 0,5 Ac ρ f E f ε f ,ed (50)
With
Ac is the column cross-section area
ρ f is the volumic ratio of the FRP: ρ f = 4t f / D
εf,ed is the FRP strain: εf,ed =0.004 according to paragraph A.4.4.2 but it must be checked that
the value chosen is less than the design strain of the FRP. It is therefore proposed to take the
following:
f fu
ε f ,ed = min(α f ; 0,004) (51)
Ef ⋅ γ f
αf is the FRP confinement efficiency factor and f is the partial factor assigned to the
composite. The values of these two factors are given in 4.4.
4.6.3Contribution of the composite to shear strength in the case of cyclic loading

at a plastic hinge.
The cyclic shear strength, VR, decreases with the plastic part of ductility demand, expressed in
terms of ductility factor of the transverse deflection of the shear span or the chord rotation at
member end: µ ∆pl= µ ∆– 1. For this purpose, µ ∆pl may be calculated as the ratio of the plastic
part of the chord rotation, θ, normalized to the chord rotation at yielding, θy, calculated in
accordance with A.3.2.4 (2) à (4). In the case of members whose plastic hinges are fully
wrapped with a fibre-reinforced polymer jacket over a length at least equal to the depth of the
section of the member h, the cyclic shear strength, VR, can be considered to be decreasing
with the plastic part of the ductility demand at the chord rotation, by adding to Vw (that is, the
contribution of the transverse reinforcements to the shear strength), the additional strength due
to the fibre-reinforced polymer jacket Vw,f.
The contribution of the FRP jacket to Vw can be calculated according to the Ritter-Mörsh
model and assuming that:
o the stress in the FRP reaches the design ultimate strength value of the FRP, ffu,d,
at the end fibers under tensile stress
o and that the said stress decreases linearly to reach zero at the effective depth d.
Whence:
V w, f = t f ⋅ z ⋅ f u , fd (52)
With
77
z = the length of the internal lever arm, taken to be equal to d

f u,fd = the design ultimate strength of the composite: fu,fd = fu,f/γf
4.6.4 Calculation example 1: Squat column
The squat column considered in this example has a square section of 200x200mm² (Figure
45). The height of the column is 600 mm (Figure 45). The column is reinforced longitudinally
with 8 HA 16 mm rebars and transversally with 3 x HA 6 mm rebars with an initial spacing of
100 mm and subsequent spacing of 200 mm.
The characteristic concrete strength, fck, is 35 MPa, the (characteristic) elastic limit of the steel
fyk is 500 MPa. The composite used for the reinforcement has a modulus of elasticity of
100,000 MPa, an ultimate elongation of 1%, a strength of 1,000 MPa and a nominal thickness
of 1.3 mm. The type of reinforcement used is full wrapping (i.e. the column is fully
wrapped). The reinforcement must enable a load of 65 kN to be transferred to the column.
Rc=15
29
71
8 HA16
71 ∅ 6@200
200
Figure 45: Geometrical description of column (distances in mm)

Solution to example:
- Contribution of the reinforced concrete part VRd,s
The following is transferred to the transverse reinforcements:
As , w Z f ywd
VRd , s = (53)
Sw
However, in the example, 2HA6 (As,w= 0.56cm²) are spaced every 200 mm.
The lever arm z = 0.9d (d=171 mm),
As , w Z f ywd
VRd , s = = 18.73 kN (54)
Sw
Value of VRd,max according to Eurocode 2 (A.6.2.3)
α cw bw z υ1 f cd
VRd , max = =215,5 kN (55)
(cot θ + tan θ )
With αcw = 1 (non prestressed reinforcements), υ1 = 0.6 (fck< 60 MPa)
78
This means that 18.73 kN is transferred to the RC part. The maximum targeted value is 65 kN
which means that 46.27 kN must be transferred to the composites.
- Contribution of composite reinforcements VRd,f
The Eurocode specifies that the maximum width of the strips is given by:
sin(θ + β ) sin( 45 + 90)

w f = min(0,9d ; hw ) ⋅ = min(0,9 ⋅ 0,171 ; 0,2) ⋅ =0.217 m (56)
sin θ sin 45
We therefore take wf=100 mm and a strip spacing sf of 200 mm.
In the case of full wrapping, the following must be solved:

 wf   1 1 
VRd , f = 0.9d ⋅ f fdd ,W 2t f ⋅  ⋅ +  ⋅ sin β
 s   tan θ tan β 
(57)
 f 
Le sin β  1  Le sin β 
 + 2 ( f fu , w ( R) − f fdd ) ⋅ 1 −

f fdd ,e,W = f fdd 1 − k  (58)
 2z   z 
with:
1 E f f ctm kb
f fdd = 0.6 = 264.27 MPa (59)
γ fd tf
with fctm = 3.2 MPa (C35/45) ;
 w  1 + w f 
k b = 1,5  2 − f    = 1,061,
 S f   100mm 
with tf = 1mm (60)
Ef tf
Le = = 168.2 mm and τ max = 1.8 f ctmkb = 6,11 MPa (61)
4τ max
f fu , w ( R ) = f fdd + (η R f fu − f fdd ) = 320 MPa (62)
R
with η R = 0.2 + 1.6 = 0.32 (R=15mm)
bw
and ffu = 1 000 MPa
Therefore
L sin β  1  L sin β 
+ ( f fu , w ( R) − f fdd ) ⋅ 1 − e

f fdd ,e,W = f fdd 1 − k e  = 206.64 MPa (63)
 2z  2  z 
(with β=90°)
Considering the AFGC maximum for the design properties of the composite:
 ε f, u k ⋅ E f  ρf 
f f ,e = Minα f ; min ( f u , f , ε u , f E f )1 − 0,7( f u , f , ε u , f E f ) 
 γf  fc 
f f , e = Min(464;206 ) = 206 MPa
considering an FRP confinement effectiveness factor αf of 0.65
The composite therefore supports:
79
 wf 
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e,W 2t f ⋅   ⋅ (cot θ + cot β ) ⋅ sin β = 47 kN
s 
 f 
Therefore a total of VRd,s + VRd,f i.e. 65.73 kN > 65 kN is transferred to the reinforced
concrete wall.
Furthermore, taking into consideration a safety factor γf of 1 for the FRP, the theoretical
failure value VRd,f is 70 kN.
4.6.5 Calculation example 2: Squat slender wall
The squat slender wall considered here (Figure 46) has the following dimensions: a height of
610 mm, a width of 900 mm, a wall thickness of 80 mm i.e. a H/W ratio of 0.678 (H/L<2).
Figure 46: Geometry of squat slender wall (H/L<2)
The reinforcements consist of two layers of welded mesh fabric (Φ = 4.5 mm with 200 mm
spacing in each direction) and two dia 6 mm bars at each end. The characteristic concrete
strength, fck, is 35 MPa, the (characteristic) elastic limit of the steel fyk is 500 MPa. The
composite used for the reinforcement has a modulus of elasticity of 100,000 MPa, an
elongation of 1%, a strength of 1,000 MPa and a nominal thickness of 1 mm. Side
reinforcement is used and the composite fabric strips are 200 mm wide with 200 mm spacing.
The aim is to reach 170 kN respecting Eurocode 8 part 3 A4.3.
Solution to example:
- Contribution of the reinforced concrete part VRd,s
The following is transferred to the transverse reinforcements:
As , w Z f ywd
VRd , s = (64)
Sw
However, in the example, 2HA4,5 (As,w= 0.3181cm²) are spaced every 200 mm.
The lever arm z = 0.9d (d=0.81 mm),
As , w Z f ywd
VRd , s = = 50.41 kN (65)
Sw
80
A load of 50.41 kN is transferred to the RC part, which means that at least 119.59 kN must be
transferred to the composites.
Value of VRd,max according to Eurocode 2 (A.6.2.3)

α cw bw z υ1 f cd
VRd , max = =409 kN (66)
(cot θ + tan θ )
With αcw = 1 (non prestressed reinforcements), υ1 = 0.6 (fck< 60 MPa)

A load of 50.4 kN is transferred to the RC part. The maximum targeted value is 170 kN which
means that 46.27 kN must be transferred to the composites.
- Contribution of composite reinforcements VRd,f
The Eurocode specifies that the maximum width of the strips is given by:
st
wf ≤
= 50 mm. We will take wf = 100 mm
4
The strip spacing sf will be 200 mm.
In the case of side reinforcement, the following must be solved:

 w f  sin(β + θ )
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e, S 2t f ⋅   ⋅ (67)
s  sin θ
 f 
2
 Leq 
f fdd ,e , S = f fdd 1 − k  =165 MPa (68)
 z rid ,eq 
With z rid ,eq = z rid + Leq =704 mm (69)
z rid = z − Le ⋅ sin β =587 mm (70)
u1
Leq = ⋅ sin β =78.2 mm (71)
ε fdd
f fdd kb
ε dfd = = 0.003 and u1 = = 0.3535 (72)
Ef 3
with:
1 E f f ctm kb
f fdd = 0.6 = 173.7 MPa (73)
γ fd tf
with fctm = 3.2 MPa (C35/45) ;
 w  1 + w f 
k b = 1,5  2 − f    = 1,060
 S f   100mm 
tf = 1 mm (1 layer) (74)
Considering the AFGC maximum for the design properties of the composite:
 ε f, u k ⋅ E f  ρ f 
f f ,e = Minα f ; Min ( f u , f , ε u , f E f ) 1 − 0,7( f u , f , ε u , f E f ) 
 γf  f c 
f f ,e = Min(464;173) = 173 MPa
Considering a factor αf of 0.65
The composite therefore supports:
81
 w f  sin(β + θ )
VRd , f = 0,9d ⋅ f fdd ,e, S 2t f ⋅  ⋅ = 120 kN (75)
s  sin θ
 f 
The following can therefore be transferred to the reinforced RC wall:
VRd,s + VRd,f i.e. 170.41 KN > 170 kN. (76)
Furthermore, taking into consideration a safety factor γf of 1 for the FRP, the theoretical
failure value VRd,f is 190 kN.
4.6.6 Reliable sensitivity analyses and calibration of safety factors based on
design equations
All design equations consist of a set of input variables, X (random, uncertain and sometimes
unknown) and a mathematical function f(X) which relates these inputs to a set of random
output variables, Y. Sensitivity analyses can be carried out in order to evaluate, either
qualitatively or quantitatively, how the variation in inputs X of a model result in variations in
its output Y. Local sensitivity analysis which studies the influence of small disruptions around
a reference value or global sensitivity analysis which studies how the input variability affects
the output, by determining the share of output variance due to each input, does not enable the
influence of input variables on the failure probability to be identified which today is the key
component of design. Knowledge of this information is essential. It can ultimately be used to
calibrate the safety factors to be used for design purposes.
The best indicator of the influence of input variables on the failure probability is reliability
elasticity, expressed as:
X i ∂β f
e xi = (77)
β f ∂X i
where βf is the reliability index related to the failure probability Pf through approximation
Pf ≈ Φ (− β f ) with Φ (.), the Gaussian distribution function.
A reliability sensitivity analysis was carried out based on the case of the design of squat
columns to be reinforced with FRPs. The design equation considered is:
 (w f s f )   α f f fu 
.[cot(θ ) + cot(β )]. sin(β )
f ( X ) = VRd , f = 0,9 d .bw . 2.t f sin(β ). (78)
 bw γ
 d 
The input variables Xi are X = (tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β).
The output Y corresponds to VRd,f.
The elasticity in this study is determined using the Monte-Carlo method. The input simulation
data are given in Table 24. Figure 47 presents the values obtained for reliability elasticity.
82
Table 24: Design input data for reliability elasticity.

Distribution mean CoV reference
law (or standard
deviation)
tf LogNormal 2 mm 0.05 Atadero & Karbhari [69]
Ef LogNormal 100 GPa 0.2 Atadero & Karbhari [69]
bw Normal 190 mm 0.09 Plevris et al. [70]
wf Normal 100 mm 0.05 Duprat [71]
sf Normal 200 mm 0.1 Duprat [71]
fck Normal 35 MPa 0.15 Plevris et al. [70]
θ Normal 45° 5° Expertise
β Normal 90° 5° Expertise
Figure 47: Reliability elasticity values for parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β.
In the case of the squat column case proposed in the study, the reliabiliiy elasticity analysis
shows that the parameters bw, Ef and tf have little influence on the variation in the failure
probability. The parameters fck, wf et sf on the other hand, have a significant influence. Finally,
the parameters with the greatest influence on the variation in failure probability are θ and β.
Efforts must be made to reduce the variability and thus increase the reliability of the concrete
mix, the composite strip width and their spacing, as well as β.
The reliability elasticity analysis to determine the parameters to be verified is not the only
advantage of the probabilistic approach. It can be widened to include an analysis of the
variation in the reliability index βf according to certain design parameters for an acceptable
83
risk level (or quite simply for an acceptable failure probability, or a target reliability index). In
the case of the squat column, it appears that the 1 mm thickness of the FRP is insufficient for
βf to reach a value of 1.5 corresponding to the target value defined by the Eurocode under
fatigue or seismic loading (in the absence of a seismic value). If two 1 mm layers are taken,
the reliability index reaches 2.98, which is largely above the target of 2.4 established by
Hiratai and Ishikawa (2004) based on the analysis of expert opinions.
Probabilistic approaches can also be used to calibrate or substantiate the safety factors of
design equations. It has been shown that the factor γd of equation (2) taken to be 1.44 is
sufficient to achieve a target reliability of 1.5. The safety factor should have a value of 2 if a
target reliability of 2.4 is aimed at [68]. In conclusion, a good knowledge of the properties of
the materials used and verification of the correct performance of retrofitting work are both of
essential importance.
84
5 Detailing provisions
The use of composite reinforcements for seismic retrofitting requires special detailing. For the
different types of reinforcement, see the AFGC guidelines "Refurbishment and retrofitting of
concrete structures using composites" [10] for anchorage lengths, loading capacity, etc., the
static recommendations being the minimum requirements to be applied under seismic loading.
5.1 Detailing provisions for flexural strength
In the case of composite reinforcements along the axis of a vertical member, which are
therefore subjected to compressive and tensile stress, the solution is:
- either to wrap the FRP reinforcements cross-wise in order to ensure that they are
kept in place when compressed;
- or, when the above is not possible (wall), to place FRP anchors perpendicular to
the bonding plane. An anchor must be placed at least every 20 cm to prevent
buckling of FRPs. The spacing can be determined by carrying out appropriate
tests.
The ends of the longitudinal composite reinforcements must be anchored in the case of
reversed cyclic loading.
It should be remembered that in order to limit buckling risks in FRP sheets, it is recommended
using local confinement of the column at the embedments, over a distance equivalent to the
critical length. It is also recommended installing two wraps of reinforcement to limit the risk
of tearing or local punching. For the same reason, sharp edges need to be rounded off or
chamfered (Figure 48),
15 mm
Rc = 20 mm
Aspect
Initial initial
appearance
Figure 48: Treatment of sharp edges
The single or double eigen shape of the column indicates possible debonding of the
reinforcement by local buckling near the change of direction and at the ends. Local
confinement at the bottom, top and middle of the column (Figure 49) or the use of transverse
anchorage systems such as those defined in chapter 5 are thus recommended
85
> lcr
Renforcement
Longitudinal reinforcement
longitudinal
h
> lcr
h Confinement
Local confinement
2 local
> lcr
Figure 49: Slender column reinforcement diagram

According to the proposals of the AFGC working group [10], the number of wraps required
for confinement can be conditioned by the normal force design (overcompression related to
the vertical component of the earthquake).
5.2 Detailing provisions for confinement
As mentioned above, in the case of confinement, it is important to maintain a lap length of
150 mm between two layers of FRP reinforcements.
To avoid increasing the stiffness (in the case of pultruded flats), it is recommended to:
o separate the reinforcement in the typical section of the column from the
foundation footing by introducing a space of 10 to 50 mm between the
reinforcement region and the footing. It must be verified, however, that there is no
possibility of plastic hinges forming in this region;
o segment the jacket so as to increase the transverse strength without changing the
longitudinal stiffness (when a composite is used, this can easily be achieved by
using an asymmetrical weft with the fibres mainly oriented transversally).
To guard against insufficient confinement, the height of the region to be confined must be
greater than that of the plastic hinge. If the reinforcement does not cover the entire height of
the column, the non-reinforced region must be recalculated so as not to become a potential
failure zone. In numerous cases, the entire height of the pier needs to be wrapped due to
insufficient shear strength. In this case, redesign is not necessary.
5.3 Detailing provisions for shear
Shear reinforcement does not require any particular detailing if the composite is applied
around the entire perimeter of the section to be reinforced with a 15 cm lap between layers
(see article 4.4.1.1). If, on the other hand, a U-shaped reinforcement is applied, anchorage of
the free ends of the reinforcements can improve the mechanical behaviour. The use of this
type of anchorage, however, is not compulsory, because the design limits the amount of strain
in the composite reinforcements in order to anticipate debonding of the reinforcement.
86
5.4 Anchorage
5.4.1 General
The connection between the vertical and horizontal members is essential in determining the ability
of a structure to withstand seismic loading. The literature (Figure 50) proposes several techniques
to implement anchorage systems [67] that are made either of composites or a combination of
several materials. Anchorage systems can also combine a bonded connection with a mechanical
connection to increase their efficiency.
Simple configuration (A) bonded FRP (A) + anchorage by metal flat or bonded FRP
(A) + anchorage by metal flat or Configuration with extension of cloth (B)

bonded and bolted FRP
(B) + anchorage by metal flat or bonded FRP (B) + anchorage by metal flat or bonded and
bolted FRP
Bonded FRP and bonded and bolted metal Bonded FRP and FRP anchor
anchors
Figure 50: Several techniques to implement anchorage systems
87
For the last twenty years, one of the anchorage techniques used has consisted of the chemical
embedding of metal reinforcements to provide anchorage between vertical and horizontal
members. This technique can also be used for CFRP elements. The system has developed
considerably particularly with regard to composite anchors that can be used for flexural
strengthening [69], [Freyssinet, Technical Approval (n°3/04-424) of the TFC® reinforcement
process, [71]].
Before an anchor can be used, its mechanical properties must be known. For this purpose
there are several mechanical tests that measure strength in particular. The strength can then be
used for limited ductility calculations. To evaluate the ductility capacity of the assembly, a
reverse cyclic test must be carried out to qualify the composite anchorage system.
If a metal part is included in the anchorage system, the necessary steps must be taken to
limit the risk of galvanic corrosion.
5.4.2 Failure modes
The transfer of forces between the composite and the structure, which determines the tensile
stress exerted on the reinforcement, occurs as the result of adhesion of the surface of the
composite to the surface of the concrete substrate.
When the adhesion is taken to its limit, different modes of failure can be observed. The literature
identifies four main failures modes for composite anchors (Figure 51) which are:
- Mode 1: tensile failure of FRP anchor
- Mode 2: failure of FRP anchor/vertical member adhesion
- Mode 3: concrete cone failure of the horizontal member with detachment
- Mode 4: concrete shear failure of vertical member
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
Figure 51: Typical failure modes of an anchorage system
The usual concrete failure modes are to be found:

- slipping of reinforcement along the hole (mode 3)
- pulling out of the reinforced or non-reinforced concrete anchor cone (mode 3)
- shear failure of corner (mode 4)
but also failure modes that are specific to composite processes:
- failure of the FRP reinforcement (mode 1)
- delamination/detachment of FRP under tensile stress on its substrate (mode 2)
- delamination/detachment of FRP under compressive stress on its substrate (mode 2)
88
In the case of seismic retrofitting, the transfer of the force from the composite to the substrate
is essential, particularly in the assembly nodes between vertical and horizontal members
(anchorage of vertical reinforcements into footing, transfer of forces through a node, Figure
52, etc.). The capacity to withstand these failure modes must therefore be defined so that it
can be increased when necessary.
The following could be used if necessary:
- for mode 2: improve adhesion using shear studs, anchors, connectors, tightening bars,
confinement, etc.
- for mode 3: increase the fixed anchor length or the mechanical anchorage system
- for mode 3: strengthen by threading reinforcements through the cone
- for mode 4: identical to mode 3
The literature proposes several methods to characterise the failure forces for each of the four
modes, some of which are presented in the following paragraph.
Figure 52: Failure modes of a typical anchor

5.4.3 Characterisation tests
Whatever the case, the strength of the anchor must be substantiated by laboratory tests so that
safety levels can be defined for each type of anchor chosen.
All the tests can also be carried out while applying loading cycles in order to take the reverse
loads applied into consideration.
5.4.3.1 Failure mode 1
In order to characterise the strength of the anchor under tensile load (mode 1), a pull-out test
can be carried out (Figure 53). After drilling a hole in a reinforced concrete block, a bonded
FRP anchor is inserted into the hole. After the embedding resin has hardened, the concrete
block is placed under a tensile press and the end of the FRP anchor is placed in a tensile grip.
It should be noted that the diameter and depth of the hole are defined with respect to the
transverse dimension of the anchor tested.
89
Figure 53: Diagram of a pull-out test on an FRP anchor

In the case of anchor-to-adhesive interface failure in mode 2 (i.e. shear failure), several tests in the
literature can be used to define the ultimate shear force. It appears that several types of shear
failure are possible. Failure can be cohesive and occur in a material. It can be located either in the
adhesive joint or in the peeling-off region of the concrete. Failure can also be of the adhesive type
and occur at the interface with one of the substrates (concrete or composite). Single or double lap
tests are used to characterise the shear behaviour of the joint between the concrete and the
composite. These two tests are explained in the AFGC's guidelines "Refurbishment and
retrofitting of concrete structures using composites" [10]. One way of enhancing the shear
strength of bonded joints is to use FRP anchors consisting of bundled fibre strands. Test
campaigns on "double lap" blocks have shown that it is possible to involve the entire composite
reinforcement in the test. The use of anchors results in tensile failure of the composite (mode 1)
(Figure 54).
Figure 54: Diagram of layout of transverse FRP anchors to reduce shear
90

Concrete cone failure (mode 3) occurs when the strength of the FRP anchor is greater than the
shear force on the surface of the concrete cone. This can be studied, for example, using the
pull-out test when the quality of the concrete is not sufficient to support the forces produced
by a deeply embedded anchor.
Failure of column concrete (mode 4) generally occurs with low strength concrete. It can also
occur when the anchor system (FRP type, see Figure 54 strengthens the bonded joint which
embeds the FRP sheet in the concrete surface, thus eliminating the risk of shear failure of the
composite/concrete interface.
5.4.3.5 Beam test
All the failures described above can also occur during flexure. In this case, a beam test can be
used to characterise the anchorage zone in flexure (Figure 55). In this type of test, the anchor
is under tensile load as the result of application of a load perpendicular to the concrete anchor
block. This type of loading at a column/beam connection can correspond to a force exerted
horizontally on the top of a column, for example. In this test, all the failure types presented in
this paragraph can occur. The same technical solutions to enhance anchorage also apply.
Figure 55: Diagram of a beam test
During the beam test (Figure 56), the performance of FRP anchors is also evaluated according
to the ultimate moment and failure mode of the test specimens.
M
Mflexion
bending
G
Zf = d h = 8 cm
Fmèche
F anchor
Figure 56: Theoretical longitudinal section of a test specimen
91
The force supported by an FRP anchor calculated using the reverse method based on the
ultimate moment. The variation in moment between the reference reinforced test specimens
and the test specimens with FRP anchors is used to calculate the gain in moment (∆M)
obtained by retrofitting with FRP anchors). By determining the position of the FRP anchor
with respect to the neutral axis (zf), the force supported by the FRP anchor (Fanchor) can be
calculated for each test:
∆M
Fmèche = (79)
zf
5.4.3.6 Tensile test
The tensile test aimed at characterising the bonding of an FRP reinforcement to its substrate
consists in pulling the two blocks apart (at a speed of 0.1 mm/min) until failure of the FRP
occurs in the test region (Figure 57). In most cases, the failure observed corresponds to cohesive
failure of the concrete. However, tests have shown that mechanical fastening systems can lead
to the premature failure of anchors as the result of localised stress concentration at the
mechanical connection [70-73].
Figure 57: Tensile test to measure the bond strength of an FRP reinforcement [69]
5.4.3.7 Tensile tests under reversed cyclic loading
Various authors [75-81] suggest characterising anchorage systems by means of cyclic bending
tests on columns anchored to a spread footing. This test not only qualifies the anchorage in the
case of reversed loading (compression/traction) but also gives the level of ductility afforded
by the connection system being tested.
92
Figure58: Description of test

For the example given, the columns are embedded in a footing with a cross-section of 1.2 x 0.5 m²
and a thickness of 0.5 m. Longitudinal bars guarantee perfect anchorage with the test slab. The
section of the column is 250 x 250 mm². Between the footing and the column, 4 HA 14 bars
provide longitudinal reinforcement, thus providing a volume percentage of 1% steel in the
longitudinal direction. The shear strength of the column is reinforced by 8 mm frames every 200
mm. C30/37 concrete and S500B steel are used.
The anchorage system to be tested must be placed according to the manufacturer's
recommendations. The system must include confinement if required by the process used.
The columns are subjected to lateral cyclic loading which consists of successive displacement
cycles whose amplitude increases gradually in each direction. The loading speed is between
0.22 and 1.1 mm/s. The highest rate corresponds to a displacement of greater amplitude at the
end of the test. At the same time, a constant axial load, corresponding to 25% of the design
compressive strength of the column, is applied to the columns. The axial displacement and
deformation are tracked using six displacement sensors (three on each side, perpendicular to
the loading direction) at respective heights of 130, 260 and 450 mm.
A minimum of one test per anchorage system is necessary. The test must be combined with a
reference test performed without an anchorage device. The results are presented in the form of
loading/unloading curves. The maximum anchor strength under reversed loading and the
corresponding ductility can thus be quantified.
As part of its special fastening system certification process, the CSTB proposes a protocol that
can be applied in the case of composite reinforcements. Tensile and bending/shear tests are
carried out under both static and cyclic loading.
For the tensile tests, after having determined the failure load under static loading (Nu,stat), the
cyclic loading follows the 75-cycle protocol described in Figure 59.
93
N/
Number of cycles
Nmax
0.2 25
0.3 15
0.4 5
0.5 5
0.6 5
0.7 5
0.8 5
0.9 5
1 5
Total : 75
With Nmax = 0.75×Nu,stat
Figure 59: Description of cyclic tensile test loading protocol [82]
In the case of shear, after having determined the failure load under static loading (Vu,stat), the
reversed cyclic loading follows the 75-cycle protocol described in Figure 60.
V/Vmax Number of cycles

0,2 25
0,3 15
0,4 5
0,5 5
0,6 5
0,7 5
0,8 5
0,9 5
1 5
Total : 75
With Vmax = 0.85×Vu,stat
Figure 60: Description of cyclic shear test loading protocol [82]
In both cases (tensile test and shear test), after having completed the cyclic tests, the test
specimens are taken to failure.
5.4.4 Design proposals
The literature proposes various design equations to determine anchor strength (fanc) depending
on the failure mode envisaged. For these calculations, the different ULS factors can be
applied to the strength properties of composites.
For anchorage to be efficient, its strength must be sufficient to support the stress applied to it.
The strength of the anchor in its context corresponds to the lowest value of the different
strength values of the anchor calculated for each of the failure modes. i.e.
(
f anc = min f anc ,1 ; f anc , 2 ; f anc ,3 ; f anc , 4 ) (80)
94
Where fanc,i corresponds to the strength of the anchor calculated according to failure mode i.
Mode 1: according to the Technical Approval and the AFGC's recommendations [10]
f anc,1 = fCFRP ( ou acier ),k × Af (81)
Mode 2a: according to the Technical Approval and the AFGC's recommendations [10]
Mode 2b: according to the Technical Approval and the AFGC's recommendations [10]
f anc , 2 = S × τ adh (82)
with: S = bonding surface evaluated as follows:

S = lFRP × lanc for CFRP anchors
lFRP = width of anchor,
lanc = length of anchorage on column,
τadh = maximum shear stress.
N.B. N.B. mode 2b is particularly important in the case of seismic loading where the
alternation of forces results in a series of tension/compression loadings. No seismic
retrofitting can be proposed in the absence of effective confinement of the anchorage zone. In
particular, the designer must take care not to leave a free buckling length that could
substantially reduce the effectiveness of the composite (see also §8.5.6).
Mode 3a: according to the Technical Approval, the AFGC's recommendations and EC2
8.4.3
Mode 3b: The load at failure according to mode 3b coincides with the shear strength of the
concrete (Figure 61). The failure area corresponds to the area of the sloping cone plus that of
the cylinder formed by the FRP anchor.
hef
lscel
Figure 61: Mode 3b cone failure
2 sin (90 − α ) . sin (90 + α )  sin (90 − α ) 

 π
2 
f anc ,3 = π ⋅ d ⋅ (l scel − hef ) + . hef . +  hef .  . sin (α ). cos (α )  .τ c , k (83)
 2 sin (α ) . sin (45 + α )  sin (45 + α )  
 
with: d = drilling diameter:

lscel = fixed anchor length,
hef = depth of failure cone (usually hef = 50 mm),
α = drilling angle
95
τc,k = concrete shear stress ((τc,k = 2.4 MPa - according to Eurocode 2 for a C30/35
concrete).
Mode 4: This type of failure occurs when the capacity of the column is exceeded (Figure
62). Depending on the configuration of the reinforcement (number of anchors) and the
column width, two types of failure are possible.
Case 1: Isolated anchor or spacing > lanc
π . lanc 2
f anc , d = ⋅ 1,25 .τ c, k
4
Case 2: Distributed anchors or spacing < 1anc
lanc
f anc , 4 = ⋅ b ⋅τ c ,k
cos α
with: β = failure angle of column (α = 25°)

Figure 62: example of failure mode
The steel passing through the pull-out cone can be considered to be a bridging effect.
5.4.5 Detailing
As in the case of chemical bonds, it is recommended to take detailing of the anchor layout and
spacing into account [73]. In the absence of specific tests, it is proposed to use the values in
the chemical anchor recommendations (Figure 63).
Figure 63: example of embedment detailing
96
6 Conclusions
Fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) have been used to retrofit reinforced concrete structures since
the 1990s in order to compensate for the flexure, shear and compression deficiencies of this type
of construction. Now that the effectiveness of these materials has been largely demonstrated, they
have become the subject of numerous international regulations and are now widely used in
France.
Due to the development of regulations aimed at achieving an acceptable seismic performance and
ensuring that the designed structure can withstand minor earthquakes without damage, moderate
earthquakes with minor non-structural damage and major earthquakes without collapsing,
strategies to retrofit existing structures need to be developed. Among these, local retrofitting of the
structure can be used to treat a type of component which would probably fail and lead to overall
damage. It is also possible to treat the structure as a whole but this would require costly large-
scale work that would need to be validated both technically and economically.
FRPs not only offer the possibility of improving the overall strength of structural components but
also of substantially improving their ductility. Eurocode 8 part 3 describes several design methods
for this type of bonded composite reinforcement, mainly with respect to shear. The present
document provides a summary of these methods while making suggestions (in blue) to improve
and adapt several equations. The aim of this document is to provide in-depth information on the
use of FRPs for the seismic retrofitting of existing structures. These guidelines are a complement
to existing guidelines on earthquake engineering.
In particular, a number of case studies are presented in which FRPs are used for the seismic
retrofitting of columns and beams in buildings and civil engineering works.
The working group then describes the specific aspects of the work carried out and the lack of
sufficient information on the behaviour of these materials when used for seismic retrofitting. The
results are as follows:
- The case studies examined indicate that composite reinforcements are mainly used
during seismic retrofitting to compensate for a lack of confinement or shear capacity.
- All retrofitting projects must take into account the state of repair of the structure and
the initial construction period in order to define the most appropriate reinforcement
method.
- A need for non-linear modelling of reinforced systems would seem necessary to gain a
better understanding of the interaction between local and global reactions to seismic
loading.
- Little research has been done on the mechanical behaviour of composites under load in
the case of flexure with and without axial force in the case of extensive damage to
concrete substrates which explains why design methods are only proposed in cases of
limited ductility.
- Likewise, it seems essential to consolidate our knowledge of the mechanical behaviour
of confined column/beam junctions not only with respect to design and dimensioning
but also to modelling in order to incorporate approaches of the push-over type.
- With regard to anchorage, the validation and standardisation of characterisation
procedures is also essential.
97
APPENDICES
98
APPENDIX 1: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

Chapter 1
[1] Meier U., Stlocklin I., Terrasi G.P., Making Better Use of the Strength of Advanced
Materials in Structural Engineering Proceedings of the international Conference on FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering, 12-15 December-US 2001
[2] Neale K.W., Labossière P., ‘State-of-the-art report on retrofitting and strengthening by
continuous fibre in Canada’, in ‘Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures’, (Japan
Concrete Institute,) 25-39, 1997
[3] Hamelin P., Renforcement des ouvrages d'art par matériaux composites, Technique de
l’Ingénieur Vol papier n° : AM6, 2003
Renforcement des ouvrages d'art par matériaux composites
[4] Ferrier E., Hamelin P. “Long time concrete composite interface characterization for
reliability prediction of RC beam strengthened with FRP”, Materials and Structures, Volume
35, P. 564-572, November 2002
[5] Triantafillou, T.C., 1998, “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using epoxy-
bonded FRP composites”, ACI Structural Journal, March-April, pp. 107-115.
[6] Clément J.-L. “Strengthening of RC elements using CFRP : The French studies and the
main results” Second international conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering -
CICE 2004, Adelaide, Australia, 8-10 December 2004
[7] ACI 440, 440.2R-02: Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures, 2002
[8] ISIS Canada, Manual No. 4 Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Structures with
Externally-Bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRPs), 2001
[9] JCI Japan, Seismic retrofit design and construction guidelines for existing building using
continuous fiber reinforced materials. 1999
[10] AFGC, (2011) – Réparation et renforcement des structures en béton au moyen de

matériaux composites - Recommandations provisoires, Février 2011.
[11] Fib TG9.3 FIB Task Group 9.3 FRP (Fibre Reinforced Polymer) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures Design and use of externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer
reinforcement (FRP EBR) for reinforced concrete structures" by 'EBR' working party of FIB
TG 9.3, July 2001, 138 pp, ISBN 2-88394-054-1
[12] La nouvelle réglementation parasismique applicable aux bâtiments, Ministère de

l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, janvier 2011
[13] NF EN 1998-1 (2005-09-01) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance

– Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
99
[14] NF EN 1998-2/A1 September 2012, Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake

resistance - Part 2: Bridges and NF EN 1998-2 December 2006, Eurocode 8 – Design of
structures for earthquake resistance - Part 2: Bridges
[15] Guide de construction parasismique, Diagnostic et renforcement du bâti existant vis-à-vis

du séisme, groupe de travail AFPS/CSTB, mars 2013, 73 pages
[16] Guide technique du CSTB, Renforcement parasismique des bâtiments Guide

méthodologique pour le renforcement préventif du bâti existant Evaluation de la résistance des
bâtiments Présentation des méthodes de renforcement parasismique, Aout 2010, 278 pages
[17] Guide Sétra, Diagnostic et renforcement sismiques des ponts existants, 2014
[18] Cahier Technique N° 35, Evaluation de l'incidence de travaux sur la vulnérabilité au

séisme d'un bâtiment existant, AFPS, Avril 2014
[19] Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement durable et de l'Energie, 2012, Les séismes,

Collection Prévention des risques naturels, Disponible sur http://www.planseisme.fr
Chapter 2
[20] Fardis M., 2009. Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings (based
on EN-Eurocode8, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, Vol 8. 2009.
[21] Davidovici V., Benedetti D., Strengthening and Repair of Structures in Seismic Area,
Published by AFPS, OUEST Edition (372 p)
[22] Davidovici V., Corvez D., Capra A., Ghavamian S., Le Corvec V., Saintjean C., Pratique
du calcul sismique, Guide d'application, Editeur(s) : Eyrolles, AFNOR, 2013
[23] Xiao Y., Wu H., Martin G.R., (1999) – Prefabricated composite jacketing of RC columns
for enhanced shear strength – Journal of Struc. Eng., ASCE Vol.125, No.3, March 1999.
[24] Ma R., Xiao Y., Li K.N., (2000) – Full scale testing of a parking structure column retrofitted
with carbon fiber reinforced composites – Construction and Building Mat. 14, 2000. pp 63-71.
[25] Galal K., Arafa A., Ghobarah A., (2005) – Retrofit of RC square short columns –
Engineering Structures 27 (2005), pp 801-813.
[26] Colomb F., (2007) – Comportement mécanique sous sollicitations cycliques d’éléments
de structure en béton armé renforcés par matériaux composites, application au renforcement
parasismique – PhD Thesis, Université Claude Bernard – Lyon 1.
[27] Vandoros K.G., Dritsos S.E., (2006) – Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness
when strengthening RC columns – Construction and building materials 22(2008)264-276.
[28] Applied Technology Council 1996 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings, ATC-40, California, U.S.A.
100
[29] Van Cao V., Ronagh H. R., Reducing the seismic damage of reinforced concrete frames
using FRP confinement, Composite Structures, Volume 118, December 2014, Pages 403-415
[30] Thanasis C. Triantafillou T.C., Upgrading Concrete Structures Using Advanced Polymer
Composites, Advanced Polymer Composites for Structural Applications in Construction,
2004, Pages 89-100
[31] Tastani S.P., Pantazopoulou S.J., Detailing procedures for seismic rehabilitation of
reinforced concrete members with fiber reinforced polymers, Engineering Structures, Volume
30, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 450-461
[32] Luyckx J., (1999) – Composites à fibres de carbone dans le génie civil – Techniques de
l’Ingénieur, traité Plastiques et Composites, AM 5 620.
[33] Freyssinet International, (1997) – Réparation et renforcement d’ouvrages d’art par

collage de tissus de fibres de carbone TFC – Ouvrages d’art n°28, novembre 1997, p.9-13.
[34] Quiertant M., (2010) – Renforcement des ouvrages d’art en béton par la technique du
collage de matériaux composites - Matériaux organiques spécifiques pour la construction,
sous la direction de Y. Mouton, Editions Lavoisier, 368 p.
[35] Hamelin P., (2002) – Renforcement des ouvrages d’art par matériaux composites –
Techniques de l’Ingénieur, traité Plastiques et Composites, AM 5 615
[36] Pinho, R., Antoniou, S., Pietra D. 2006 A Displacement-Based Adaptive Pushover for
seismic assessment of steel and reinforced concrete buildings,, Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A.
[37] Priestley M.J.N., Seible F., Design of seismic retrofit measures for concrete and masonry
structures, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 9, Issue 6, December 1995, Pages 365-377
[38] Iacobucci R.D., Sheikh S.A., Bayrak O., (2003) – Retrofit of square concrete columns
with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance – ACI Structural Journal 100-S81.
[39] Le Nguyen K., Brun M., Limam A., Ferrier E., Michel L., Pushover experiment and
numerical analyses on CFRP-retrofit concrete shear walls with different aspect ratios,
Composite Structures, Volume 113, July 2014, Pages 403-418
[40] Qazi S., Michel L., Ferrier E. Mechanical Behaviour of Slender RC Walls Under Seismic
Loading Strengthened With Externally Bonded CFRP, European Journal of Environmental
and Civil Engineering, Volume 17, Issue 6, June 2013, Pages 496-506
[41] Pantelides C.P., Gergely J., Reaveley L.D., Volnyy V.A., (2000) – Seismic strengthening
of reinforced concrete bridge pier with FRP composites – 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
[42] Harries K. A., Kharel G., Experimental investigation of the behavior of variably confined
concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 33, Issue 6, June 2003, Pages 873-880
101
[43] Colomb F., Tobbi H., Ferrier E., Hamelin P., Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete short
columns by CFRP materials, Composite Structures, Volume 82, Issue 4, February 2008,
Pages 475-487
[44] Bakis C.E., (2009) – Life cycle analysis issues in the use of FRP composites in civil
infrastructure - Proceedings of US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable
Infrastructure Materials, Sapporo, Japan, October 21-22, 2009.
[45] Niroomandi A., Maheri A., Mahmoud R. Maheri, Mahini S.S., Seismic performance of
ordinary RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets, Engineering Structures, Volume 32,
Issue 8, August 2010, Pages 2326-2336
Chapitre 3
[46] Li Z., Hatzigeorgiou G.D., Seismic damage analysis of RC structures using fiber beam-
column elements, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 32, Issue 1, January
2012, Pages 103-110
[47] Chopra, A.K. 1980, 2006. Dynamics of structures, Prentice-Hall, (1st and 3rd edition).
1980, 2006.
[48] Chopra A.K., Goel R.K., 2001. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demands for buildings: Theory and preliminary evaluation, PEER Report, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center. 2001.
[49] Antoniou S., Pinho R., 2004. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-
based pushover procedures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol 8, n°4, p 497-522. 2004.
[50]Kalkan E., Kunnath S.K., 2006. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static
analysis of building structures, Journal of structural engineering © ASCE, n°1721. 2006.
[51] Kappos A.J., Panagopoulos G., Penelis G.G., Development of a seismic damage and loss
scenario for contemporary and historical buildings in Thessaloniki, Greece, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Volume 28, Issues 10–11, October–November 2008, Pages 836-850
[52] Rousseau J., Frangin E., Marin P., Daudeville L., 2009. Multidomain finite and discrete
elements method for impact analysis of a concrete structure, Engineering Structures, Vol 31,
Issue 11, p 2735-2743. 2009.
[53] Pinho R., Antoniou S., Pietra D., 2006 A Displacement-Based Adaptive Pushover for
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A.
[54] Chopra A.K., Goel R.K., A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 33:903–927 (DOI:
10.1002/eqe.380). 2004.
[55] Fajfar P., Gaspersic P., 1996. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC
building, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol 25, p 31-46. 1996.
102
[56] Fajfar P., Marusic D., Perus I., 2005. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic
analysis of buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol 9, n°6, p 831-854. 2005.
[57] Fardis M.N., Chen E.S., 1986. A cyclic multiaxial model for concrete, Computational
Mechanics, Vol 1, n° 4, p 301-315, DOI 10.1007/BF00273706. 1986.
[58] Mwarfy A.M., et Elnashai A.S., 2000. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis
of RC buildings, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College,
London. 2000.
[59] Takeda T., Sozen M.A., Neilsen N.N., 1970. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol 96, n° 12, p 2557-2573. 1970.
[60] Ile N., Reynouard J.M., 2007. Etude sur le fonctionnement sismique de structures à murs
à cellules contreventées, Rapport Final, Structure fédérative RNVO. 2007.
[61] Juster-Lermitte S., Crambuer R., Ragueneau F., (2010). Numerical and experimental
analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall subjected to strong 3D motions. In 14th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, num 367, Ohrid, Macedonia
Chapter 4
[62] Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JPDPA), 1999, Seismic retrofitting
design and construction guidelines for seismic retrofitting of buildings with FRP, 1999, 350
pages in Japanese, partial translation by Fukuyama
[63] CNR, (2004) – Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for
strengthening existing structures, Number DT-200/2004, National Research Council, Rome.
[64] NF EN 1998-3 December 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake

resistance – Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings
[65] Sadone R., (2011) - Comportement de poteaux en béton armé renforcés par matériaux
composites, soumis à des sollicitations de type sismique, et analyse d’éléments de
dimensionnement – Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Paris Est, 305p.
[66] Bisfkinis D.E., Fardis M.N., (2008) – Cyclic deformation capacity, resistance and
effective stiffness of RC members with or without retrofitting – The 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
[67] Triantafillou T.C., “Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Structures”: Ch. 12 – Bond
Strength of Lap Splices in FRP and TRM Confined Concrete: Behaviour and Design (16 p.),
Springer, 2013, Edited by A. Ilki and M. N. Fardis
[68] Hiratai K., Ishikawa T., 2004. Probabilistic evaluation of desirable target seismic level
derived from requirements of users, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering-
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004- Paper No. 219.
103
Chapter 5
[69] Ceroni F., Pecce M., Matthys S., Taerwe L., (2008) – Debonding strength and anchorage
devices for reinforced concrete elements strengthened with FRP sheets – Composites Part B
39 (2008), pp.429-441.
[70] Freyssinet, Avis Technique (n°3/04-424) du procédé de renforcement TFC®.
[71] Cook R. A.; Kunz J.; Fuchs W., Konz R., Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive
Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1998, pp. 9-26.
[72] Cook R. A., Bishop M. C., Hagedoorn H. S., Sikes D. E., Richardson D. S., Adams T. L.,
DeZee C. T., Adhesive-Bonded Anchors: Bond Properties and Effects of In-Service and
Installation Conditions. Structures and Materials Research, Report No. 94-2, Engineering and
Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., Dec.1994, 388 pp.
[73] Cook R. A., Klingner R. E., Ductile Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete Connections,

Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 6, June, 1992, pp. 1645-1665.
[74] Cook R. A., Behavior of Chemically Bonded Anchors, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 119, No. 9, September, 1993, pp. 2744-2762.
[75] Galal K., Mofidi A., (2009) – Strengthening RC beams in flexure using new hybrid FRP
sheet/ductile anchor system – Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, May/June
2009, pp.217-225.
[76] Özdzmir G., 2005 - Mechanical properties of CFRP anchorages, Thesis submitted to the
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University (Turquie).
[77] Huang X., Chen G., (2005) – Bonding and anchoring characterization between FRP
sheets, concrete, and viscoelastic layers under static and dynamic loading – Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), Chen and
Teng (eds), © 2005 International Institute for FRP in Construction, pp.489-494.
[78] Nagy-Gyorgy T., Mosoarca M., Stoian V., Gergely J., Dan D., (2005) – Retrofit of
reinforced concrete shear walls with CFRP composites – Proceedings of FIB Symposium
“Keep concrete Attractive”, Budapest, Hungary, 23-25 May 2005, pp.897-902.
[79] Vrettos I., Kefala E., Triantafillou T.C. (2013) – Innovative Flexural Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors – ACI Structural Journal no. 110-S07
[80] Pampanin S., Bolognini D., Pavese A., 2007. Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit
Strategy for Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Systems Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.11, No. 2
[81] Vrettos I., Kefala E., Triantafillou T.C. 2013. Innovative Flexural Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors, ACI Structural Journal, No 110-S07
[82] CSTB, Guide d’agrément technique Européen, chevilles de fixation, cahier 3617, mai 2009.
104
APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDIES
Crolles - B2 ST Building - France

2006 - Flexure and shear retrofitting with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups + fan-shaped FRP anchors
+ stitching braids
Project Context
The 4-storey retrofitted building provides
access to the production facilities. The owner
connected up the clean rooms in 2 buildings
about thirty metres apart via the building that
needs to be retrofitted.
This meant creating lintels for three 6.15 m
wide by 6.5 m high openings.
The location of the building in an earthquake
zone and the change in the load distribution in
the walls and slabs required additional
reinforcement.
Figure 1: Photo of building
Description of reinforcement
Retrofitting of the structure was subcontracted
to Freyssinet. Reinforcement, which was
initially to be based on adhesive-bonded metal
flats, was provided by a network of CFRP
strips 40, 75, 150, 200 and 300 mm wide for
earthquake retrofitting and to reinforce the
lintels.
In order to ensure the continuity of some of the
strips over the entire height or width of the
building, stitching braids were added to the
slabs and walls.
Fan-shaped FRP anchors were also installed. It
should be noted that reinforcement of the
lintels followed strict phasing, in coordination
with the person responsible for making the
openings in the reinforced concrete walls.
Figure 2: Photo of reinforcement
Name of process used: Foreva TFC composite + Foreva WFC100 fan-shaped anchors + Foreva WFC200
stitching braids
Type of elements reinforced: Columns Walls Beams Slabs Nodes
Type of fibre: Glass Carbon Other:
Mode of application: Laminates Wet lay-ups
105
Illigan Cement Corporation - Philippines, Mindanao Island

2011-2012 - Flexure and shear retrofitting with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups and laminates + fan-
shaped FRP anchors + stitching braids
Project Context
The Iligan Cement Corporation's preheating
tower on Mindanao Island is a 60 m high
reinforced concrete column/beam structure. It
was built about 40 years ago.
An audit of the tower showed extensive
damage and the need to retrofit the structure to
resist earthquake loading.

Freyssinet was the main contractor for the

work which included the following:
- The site installations
- - Installation of scaffolding
- - Earthquake retrofitting by the application of
wet CFRP lay-ups1 and CFRP laminates2 and
sprayed concrete
- - Renovation of the damaged structures by
purging the damaged concrete and providing
new cover with sprayed concrete.
- - Application of a Freyssinet coating to
protect the structure from future environmental
attacks.
Name of process used: 1Foreva TFC composites (cloths) and 2Foreva LFC (laminates)
Type of fibre: Glass Carbon Other
106
Katong Mall - Singapore

2010-2011 - Retrofitting by column confinement using wet carbon-fibre lay-ups + fan-shaped
FRP anchors + stitching braids
Project Context
The new owner of the mall built 20 years ago
wanted to give the building a face-lift while
preserving its historical appearance.
The Mall was renamed 112 Katong before
being opened to the public at the end of 2011.
In order to meet the constraints of the new
architecture, some of the old beams and slabs
were demolished and new ones added.
Some of the beams were reinforced due to the
additional storeys and loads.

Freyssinet carried out the repairs and

reinforcements over a period of 3 years.
The works included column reinforcement by
wet carbon-fibre lay-ups, anchorage of cables
for the partial demolition of prestressed beams
Figure 2: Photo of reinforcement and prestressing of the new beams.
Name of process used: Foreva TFC composite + Foreva WFC100 fan-shaped anchors
107
Petrochemical Plant - France

2010 - Flexural strengthening of column bases using wet carbon-fibre lay-ups + fan-shaped
FRP anchors
Project Context
The plant has a steam cracking unit which
consists of rapid cooling of gas from furnaces
so that chemical reactions can be stopped
suddenly. The unit started up in 1972.
The plant wanted to modernise its process and
change its installations, resulting in new loads
on the so-called "cold box" structure. The
reinforced concrete structure had not been
detailed to support the new loads. The structure
also exhibited extensive spalling and cracking
which needed to be treated.

While maintaining operation of the plant and
respecting the resulting constraints (ATEX level
2, benzene area, fixed networks, etc.), Freyssinet
carried out the following:
- Reinforcement and repair of the column bases
by wet carbon-fibre lay-ups1 and very deep FRP
anchors2 going right down to the foundations,
including the demolition of the slabs, earthworks,
made ground and recasting of slabs.
- Repair and reinforcement of structural elements
(beams and columns) by wet carbon-fibre lay-
ups1, including access by scaffolding.
- Repair of concrete spalling using hydraulic
mortar
Name of process used: 1Foreva TFC® composites (cloths) + 2Foreva WFC300® very deep anchors
108
Court House - L'Aquila, Italy

2011 - Flexural and shear strengthening with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups and laminates
Project Context
During the earthquake in L'Aquila in April
2009, (Mw = 6.3), the main court house was
severely damaged. The three-storey building
has a reinforced concrete frame. It was built
without taking into account the region's
earthquake ductility and capacity requirements.
Repairs and reinforcements were carried out to
meet the seismic conditions and guarantee the
structure's behaviour in the case of another
earthquake.

Figure 2: Photo of reinforcement Wet carbon-fibre lay-ups1 were applied for repair
and consolidation, to work in parallel with the
After an in-depth study, it was decided to energy absorption provided by the base isolators.
demolish the top storey and install base The wet carbon-fibre lay-up system1 was used
isolators on the ground floor, midway up the for shear reinforcement of the beams. The floors
existing columns. were flexurally strengthened by bonding CFRP
laminates2.
Names of processes used: 1Tyfo® SCH-41, Tyfo® SCH-11UP-N, 2Tyfo® UC-strip

Quantities applied: 600m2 of Tyfo® SCH cloth and 600 m of Tyfo®UC laminates
109
Olympic Games Building - Athens, Greece

2004 - Reinforcement by confinement of columns by bonding of GFRP composite fabric
Project Context
One of the old Athens airport buildings
constructed in the early seventies was selected
as the canoeing centre for the 2004 Olympic
Games in Athens. Designed using old
construction rules and exposed over the years
to difficult environmental conditions (mainly
sea spray, at 500 m from the coast resulting in
very dangerous cracking), the building
required reinforcing to support the greater
operating loads, and meet modern seismic
standards.
Figure 1: Photograph of building


The design of the rehabilitation solution Glass fabric strips (with the number of layers
required shear reinforcement of beams and calculated to meet the regulations) provide
columns in addition to confinement of columns shear reinforcement for the beams and
and critical regions to provide the building completely confine the columns. The GFRP
with the necessary ductility. composite fabric was bonded to all the
elements in-situ after the fabric was
impregnated with resin using a saturator. The
project was completed well within the very
tight deadlines.
Name of process used: Tyfo® SEH-51A

2
Surface area applied: 1000m of Tyfo® SEH-51A cloth
110
Bridge piers - California, USA

2005 - Reinforcement by confinement of bridge piers with GFRP composite fabric.
Project Context
The bridge piers on the US 87 freeway, built at
the beginning of the nineties, were reinforced
in 2005 after the decree was passed in 2004 to
update traffic loads. An evaluation of the
seismic capacity coincided with periodical
inspections and revealed the need to reinforce
the piers against the increase in the design
seismic loading.

In 2007, the Alum Rock earthquake (Mw =

Figure 2: Photo of reinforcement 5.6), the worst after that of Loma Prieta in
The base of the piers was wrapped with several 1989, struck California. Yet no visible damage
layers of GFRP (glass fibres) for shear was found either on the piers or the deck of the
strengthening. As the same time, adhesive- bridge.
bonded composites were used to protect the pier
concrete from corrosion due to its exposure to
atmospheric pollution (8,000 to 10,000 vehicles
per day under the bridge).
Name of process used: Tyfo® SEH-51A

Surface area applied: 500m2 of Tyfo® SEH-51A cloth
111
Lautaro Bridge piers - Chile

2010 - Reinforcement by confinement of columns using wet carbon-fibre lay-ups.
Project Context
Lautaro Bridge, an important part of Chile’s
main motorway, was severely damaged during
the earthquake in 2010 (Mw = 8.8). The
damage revealed serious construction errors.
For example, stirrups had been inserted inside
the longitudinal steel resulting in buckling.
Urgent repair and reinforcement of the piers
were necessary for the motorway to reopen.

Figure 2: Photos of reinforcement The piers are detailed as long slender walls.
The main bridge piers were damaged by Horizontal carbon-fibre fabric strips were
extensive lateral and longitudinal displacement layered around the piers for shear
of the deck, causing the formation of plastic strengthening. Vertical strips had been applied
hinges in the load-bearing system. The beforehand to each end of the piers, for the
damaged reinforcements, concrete and transfer of reverse bending moments.
concrete cover were repaired.
Name of process used: Tyfo® SCH-41
Type of elements reinforced: Columns Walls
Beams Slabs Nodes
Surface area applied: 900m² of Tyfo® SCH-41 cloth
112
Power Plant Stack - Arkansas, USA

2010 - Flexural strengthening with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
The 140 m high stack at the Osceola Power Plant
needed flexural strengthening due to high seismic
forces recalculated for the region. The
assessment of the state of repair of the stack also
revealed insufficient concrete cover of
reinforcement steel for the potential dynamic
loading. In addition, severe deficiencies in
flexure vary with height. Different consolidation
options were examined, but wet carbon-fibre lay-
up was considered to be the most economically
viable solution.
Another essential advantage of composite
reinforcements for such a high structure is the
fact that there is no additional weight.

Figure 2: Photos of reinforcement Therefore composite carbon-fibre reinforced

fabric strips1were bonded along the deficient
Insufficient cover of reinforcements is a regions on both sides (inside and outside) of
recurring problem in existing structures under- the stack. Because the strips themselves
dimensioned for seismic loading. Traditionally, required covering, correct anchorage was
confinement is used. However, it is not essential. As a result, CFRP anchors were
possible for an annular section. inserted by connecting up the strips on both
sides to provide efficient anchorage.
Name of process used: 1Tyfo® SCH-41, 2Tyfo® SCH-41-2X

Surface area applied: 15,000 m2
113
Hospital Building CSB Block - Wellington, New Zealand

2010 - Strengthening of wall with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
New Zealand is in region with a high seismic
risk, and structures have to behave correctly in
the presence of frequent earth tremors. The
CSB Block at Wellington Regional Hospital
required seismic upgrading. Retrofitting
needed to be carried out very quickly, with a
minimum impact on use of the building. The
composite solution was chosen, with the
inevitable addition of shear walls to the outside
the building.

The insufficiency of the shear walls with regard

Figure 2: Photos of reinforcement to cyclic lateral forces was treated with wet
The walls of the 12-storey building required both carbon-fibre lay-ups whose main fibres are
shear and flexural strengthening. Strips of carbon parallel to the elevation of the walls. It is the
fibre-reinforced composite fabric were laid in largest carbon-fibre reinforced polymer project
horizontal layers to strengthen the shear walls. carried out to date in New Zealand.
Name of process used: Tyfo® SCH-41

Surface area applied : 6,500 m² of Tyfo® SCH-41 cloth
114
Samsung Skyscraper - Singapore

2004-2005 - Reinforcement by confinement and shear strengthening of columns with wet
carbon-fibre lay-ups
Description of project
Seismic backfitting of a skyscraper, Samsung's
head office in Singapore. Shear strengthening
of columns using carbon fabrics.
Figure 1: Photos of building

Description of reinforcement system
Application of strips of high-strength uni-
directional carbon-fibre fabric to columns.
Name of process used: Mapewrap Primer1, Mapewrap 31 & Mapewrap C Uni AX

Surface area applied: 5,000 m2
115
Galileo Building, Caracas - Venezuela

2008 - Strengthening of nodes with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
The 10-storey Galileo Building was built in
Caracas (Venezuela) in 1953. In 2006, the owner
decided to renovate it completely and upgrade it to
current seismic standards. Today, it has basement
parking, offices and shops on the ground floor and
apartments on the 8 stories above.
The project included both structural repairs and
complete rehabilitation of the building. A
complete assessment was carried out with
destructive and non-destructive tests and a
dynamic analysis. A lack of stiffness and strength,
and ductility deficiencies were found in the Galileo Building - Caracas - Venezuela
original structure.
The main repairs and reinforcements carried out
consisted in increasing the cross-section of
certain RC structures (beams and columns),
adding RC beams, strengthening columns and
nodes using CFRP (carbon-reinforced/epoxy
resin cloth) and protecting against corrosion.
These techniques enabled the work to be carried
out within the stipulated deadlines and budget.
Renovation proved to be a better solution both
time-wise and cost-wise than
demolition/recontruction of an equivalent new
building.
The project was an ICRI award winner in 2008
Reinforcement of a column/beam node (International Concrete Repair Institute).
Name of process used: SikaWrap-230C / Sikadur-330

Surface area applied: 600 m²
116
Barranquilla Residence, Columbia

2006 - Strengthening of nodes with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
The residence, located in Barranquilla in
Columbia, is a 10-storey building constructed
in 2005. Not long after final completion,
however, structural deficiencies were observed
at certain column/beam junctions which
needed to be upgraded to seismic standards.
Design of the reinforcement is based on the
FIB's Bulletin n°35: Retrofitting of concrete
structures by externally bonded FRP’s.
Figure 1 – Photo of building

Five nodes in the plastic hinge regions were
confined using CFRP (carbon fibre fabric and
epoxy resin).
Reinforcement principles and steps Reinforcement of a column/beam node
Name of process used: SikaWrap-103C / Sikadur-300

117
Retrofitting of a 4-storey building in Athens - Greece

2001 - Reinforcement by confinement of columns using wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
Remedial work following inadequate design.
The initial design of this residential building was
based on a system that could not withstand
earthquake effects. It was decided to reinforce
the columns.

CFRP reinforcement, in the form of
unidirectional epoxy resin impregnated carbon-
fibre reinforced fabric wrapped around the
columns provided confinement of the concrete
while increasing the ductility and not stiffening
the structure.
Figure 2: Photos of reinforcement
Name of process used: SikaWrap-230C cloth / Sikadur-330 resin

118
Private Hospital in Ioannina - Greece

2003 - Reinforcement of node and confinement of columns with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups
Project Context
The building was constructed in the 1970s
according to the 1954 Greek seismic design
code. In 2000, a new seismic design code
based on the Eurocodes was implemented.
At the same time, the new use of the building
as a private hospital required complete
rehabilitation with a much higher level of
safety. The new design according to the
Eurocodes meant upgrading to a higher level
of requirements.

The main work concerned confinement of
columns by increasing their load-bearing
capacity and their ductility. In addition, the
beam-column junctions, which are critical
regions, were also retrofitted as part of the
project.
Figure 2: Photos of reinforcement
Name of process used: SikaWrap-230 cloth / Sikadur-330 resin

119
Offices, Head Office of AYGAZ - Istanbul, Turkey

2000 - Strengthening of nodes with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups and laminates
Project Context
The head office of AYGAZ in Istanbul in
Turkey is located in a 9-storey building
constructed in 1970 according to the Turkish
seismic building code of the time.
After the code was updated, a solution was
envisaged to reinforce the columns and shear
walls without affecting the appearance, design
or mass of the structure.

Retrofitting of columns and walls.
Longitudinal (CFRP laminate)1 and transverse
reinforcement (composite fabric)2 of the
columns.
Sprinkling of sand on the CFRP before applying
the finishing and protective coating.
Name of process used: Sika CarboDur laminates1 and SikaWrap cloth2 with associated epoxy resins
Surface area applied: 2,600 m of laminates and 1,100 m² of fabric
120
Court House, Naples - Italy

2005 - Flexural and shear strengthening with wet carbon-fibre lay-ups and laminates
Project Context
The Naples Court House occupies a 110 m
high skyscraper built in the 1980s according to
the old seismic construction code. By
November 1981, an earthquake had already
affected different parts of the building. Further
damage, due to the increase in loading caused
by earthquakes, needed to be prevented.
Laboratory tests conducted at the University of
Naples confirmed the use of CFRP in solving
the problems encountered.
Seismic retrofitting of walls using laminates
and fabrics.
Name of process used: 1Sika CarboDur S laminates and 2SikaWrap 230C fabric, Sikadur-30 and 330 resins

Surface area applied: 20,000 m of Sika CarboDur S laminates, 2,000 m² of SikaWrap 230C fabric
121
APPENDIX 3: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES BASED ON DESIGN

EQUATIONS. EXAMPLE OF SHEAR
A behaviour model and a design equation consist of a set of input variables, X (random,
uncertain and sometimes unknown) and a mathematical function fX) which relates the inputs
to a set of random output variables, Y. Sensitivity analyses evaluate, either qualitatively or
quantitatively, how variations in the inputs, X, of a model cause variations in the output, Y.
Knowledge of such information is essential and enables the relevant safety factors to be
determined.
Sensitivity analysis determines how sensitive an output is to any change in an input. It shows
which inputs have the greatest effect on the output. This type of study can be useful in
determining, for example, which input variables need to be focused on the most in order to
reduce the uncertainty in the output.
To sum up, the main aims of sensitivity analysis are as follows:
1. Classification of input variables: the aim is to determine the most influential input, or,
more precisely, to classify the input variables from most influential to least influential;
2. Calibration of input variables: the aim is to identify which input variables can be
constant because they do not affect the variance in the output. The model is then
reduced to influential input variables only;
3. Discriminating power: determination of all the factors responsible for the response in a
particular region when the output set is divided into distinct subsets. The aim is to
determine the input variables that have the most influence on which subset the output
will belong to.
4. Variance reduction: the aim is to reduce the output variance to a predetermined level
by fixing the smallest possible number of input variables.
Several indices can be used to estimate the sensitivity of the model's input variables. Some
provide qualitative measurements while others are local indicators around an operating point.
A local study may prove to be insufficient and it is often necessary to carry out global or
reliability analyses.
Design example 1 of a squat column will be used throughout the remainder of this paragraph
on sensitivity analysis. The column is 600 mm high with a square section of 200 x 200 mm².
It is reinforced longitudinally with 8 HA 16 mm rebars and transversally with 3 x HA 6 mm
stirrups with an initial spacing of 100 mm and subsequent spacing of 200 mm. The concrete
strength fck is 35 MPa, the elastic limit of the steel fyk is 500 MPa. The composite used has a
modulus of elasticity Ef of 100,000 MPa, an elongation of 1%, a strength of 1,000 MPa and a
nominal thickness (one wrap) tf of 1.3 mm. Total reinforcement is used. The reinforcement
must enable a load of 65 kN to be transferred to the column, of which 18.7 kN is transferred
to the RC part and at least 46.3 kN transferred to the composite. Composite strips with a width
wf of 100 mm will be used with a spacing sf of 200 mm. Taking θ = 45° and β = 90°, it is
calculated that for one wrap (i.e. a composite thickness of 1 mm), VRd,f is 38.7 kN; which is
insufficient. Two layers (i.e. 2 mm of composite) are therefore used to obtain an VRd,f equal to
77.5 kN, which this time seems to be largely sufficient.
122
6.1.1 Local sensitivity analysis
During local sensitivity analysis, sensitivity is generally measured by analysing the output
variations Y = f(X) when only one input variable changes, while all the others are held at a
constant value i.e. their mean or nominal value. The local sensitivity can be defined as a
magnitude expressing the output variation, Y, of a model for which there is only a slight
variation in each of the input parameters, Xi. This notion is sometimes called intrinsic
sensitivity. Local sensitivity analysis can also be defined as the study of the influence of slight
changes in a reference input value on the output value.
The most common local sensitivity analysis is the One Factor at a Time (OFAT or OAT)
approach which consists in calculating or estimating sensitivity levels defined by partial
derivatives,
∂f
Si = (84)
∂X i X = x0
expressing the effect of changing the variables Xi around an operating point x0 on the value of
the random variable Y.
Local sensitivity is often standardised by the nominal position to achieve a more direct
classification of the importance of each input variable,
x0 ∂f
S i = i0 (85)
Y ∂X i X = x 0
where xi0 is the i-th component x0 and Y0 = f(x0).
It is also possible to standardise the input variables beforehand in order to determine a local
sensitivity that will allow the same direct classification of importance. Thus, sensitivity can be
written,
∂f ~ Xi
Si = ~ with X i = 0 (86)
∂X i X~ =1 xi
When carrying out a local sensitivity analysis of the squat column, the input variables Xi
considered are X = (tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β). Y corresponds to VRd,f and the model f is as
follows:
 (w f s f )   α f f fu 
.[cot(θ ) + cot(β )]. sin(β )
f ( X ) = VRd , f = 0,9 d .bw . 2.t f sin(β ). (87)
 bw  γd 
~
A quantitative investigation of the link between X and VRd,f, as required by the sensitivity
~
analysis, can be based on regression analysis. The experience matrix X (of dimension N × k
and generated according to the sampling strategy chosen) and vector VRd,f (dimension N×1)
containing the model's outputs are used to carry out a linear regression.
~
The linear regression theory states that the standardised variables X j and VRd,f confirm that:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
V ( X ) = b + b .~
Rd , f 0 t + b .E + b .b + b .w
1 f 2 f 3 w
~ + b .~
4 f s + b . f + b .θ + b .β + ε
5 f 6 ck 7 8 (88)
where the factors bj of the regression to be estimated are directly comparable to the local
sensitivities Sj and where the term ε represents the approximation error (remainder).
The calculation data are given in Tableau 1 below. Figure shows the local sensitivity of each
input variable. It can be seen that the variations in bw have very little influence on VRd,f. It
should also be noted that the parameters fck, tf and Ef have only a moderate influence on the
123
parameters wf, sf, θ and β. These last two parameters relating to the direction and arrangement
of the fibres and the composite have the greatest influence on the shear reinforcement
performance. Lastly, the positive correlation of the variations in the parameters fck, tf, Ef and
wf with respect to VRd,f and the negative correlation of the variations in the parameters sf, θ and
β can be noted.
Tableau 1. Local sensitivity design input data.
tf ~ Ef ~ bw ~ wf ~ sf ~ f ck ~ θ ~ β ~
tf Ef bw w f sf f ck
° θ β
mm GPa mm mm mm MPa °
min 1.8 0.9 90 0.9 171 0.9 90 0.9 180 0.9 31.5 0.9 40.5 0.9 81 0.9
ave 2 1 100 1 190 1 100 1 200 1 35 1 45 1 90 1
max 2.2 1.1 110 1.1 209 1.1 110 1.1 220 1.1 38.5 1.1 49.5 1.1 99 1.1
Figure 64: Local sensitivity of parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β on the value of VRd,f obtained
by linear regression.
Linear regression remains an approximation which, although informative, has certain
drawbacks and in particular, the inability to include the significant non-linearity of the
expression of VRd,f (greater due to the presence of cotangents and sines).
An additive type quadratic regression constructed according to the model
VRd , f ( X ) = b0 + b1 .~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
t + K + b7 .θ + b7 .β + b1, 2 .~
t f .E f + K + b6, 7 .θ .β + B1 .~
t ² + K + B7 .β ² + ε (89)
is therefore of considerable importance in visualising the non-linear influence of the

parameters on VRd,f and their possible interaction.
Figure shows the different local linear, quadratic and interaction sensitivities.
124
(2.a)
(2.b)
Figure 65: Local sensitivity of parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β on the value of VRd,f obtained
by quadratic linear regression.
125
Based on these two figures, it can be seen that:

VRd,f is not sensitive to bw.
the influence of wf is highly linear
the influence of Ef, tf, fck is moderately non-linear
the influence of wf is significantly non-linear
the influence of θ and β if highly non-linear
there is no interaction between θ and β
moderate interaction exists between Ef and tf, between wf and tf, between Ef and wf,
between sfand tf, between Ef and sf, between wf and sf and between bw and θ
moderate interaction exists between bw and β, entre sf and fck, entre wf and fck, between
tf and fck, between Ef and fck, between tf and bw and between Ef and bw.
and strong interaction exists between tf and θ, between Ef and θ, between wf and θ,
between sf and θ, between tf and β, between Ef and β, between fck and θ, between wf
and β, between sf and β, and between fck and β.
6.1.2 Global sensitivity analysis

The effect of finite input sensitivity on the overall sensitivity cannot be measured using local
sensitivity analysis. Local sensitivity provides information that is only valid around the
nominal point for which it is calculated and does not explore the rest of the input variable
space.
An important characteristic of global sensitivity analysis is that the individual sensitivity of
each input can be determined when all the other variables change. A given input variable can
also affect the output via its interactions with the other inputs within the model (which is what
was demonstrated by the quadratic regression approach).
Global sensitivity analysis studies how the variability of the inputs affects that of the output,
by determining how each of the inputs affects the output variance. The influence of an input
variable quantifies the impact of the variation of each input on the output variation of a model.
It is the combination of the input variability and its sensitivity, with the latter acting as an
amplifier.
For example, a variable with a high level of variability and a low level of sensitivity can have
a low impact. This notion is called global sensitivity and sometimes "influence" in the
literature. The indices associated with global sensitivity are expressed in terms of variance.
When designing the squat column, the index which enables the global sensitivity to be
compared is expressed in the following form:
CoV X i
Σi = (90)
CoV VRd , f
where CoV is the coefficient of variation representing the ratio of the standard deviation and
nominal value of the parameter concerned.
The parameter Σi expresses the contribution of the variance of the parameter Xi to that of VRd,f.
To simulate parameter variances, we will consider the distribution laws defined by the mean
value of the input data and coefficient of variation.
126
Table 26 shows the different values and assumptions applied.
Table 26 Local sensitivity design input data.
Distribution law mean CoV (or standard deviation) reference

tf LogNormal 2 mm 0,05 Atadero & Karbhari, 2007
Ef LogNormal 100 GPa 0,2 Atadero & Karbhari, 2007
bw Normal 190 mm 0,09 Plevris et al., 1995
wf Normal 100 mm 0,05 Duprat, 2007
sf Normal 200 mm 0,1 Duprat, 2007
fck Normal 35 MPa 0,15 Plevris et al., 1995
θ Normal 45° 5° Expert analysis
β Normal 90° 5° Expert analysis
The Monte-Carlo method is used for random exploration of the parameter variation field.
Figure 66 gives an example of the influence of the variation tf only (with all the parameters
being constant and equal to their nominal value) on the variation of VRd,f. Figure 67 shows the
results obtained in terms of global sensitivity indices.
Figure 66: Influence of variability of tf on that of VRd,f. Simulations carried out

using the Monte-Carlo method.
Figure confirms the low influence of bw on the variability of VRd,f. It also shows the low
influence of tf, the moderate influence of wf and Ef, the significant influence of fck, β and sf,
and finally, the preponderant influence of θ.
6.1.3 Reliability sensitivity analysis
The effect of finite input sensitivity on the overall sensitivity cannot be measured using local
sensitivity analysis. Local sensitivity provides valid information.
While the global sensitivity analysis studies the influence of the variability of design
parameters on that of the output data, here VRd,f, it cannot be used to determine their influence
on the failure probability which is the key component of design today. It is an indicator that is
127
directly related to the "probabilistic" sensitivity that will determine whether a parameter is
able to guarantee performance in terms of reliability.
Figure 67: Global sensitivity of parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β on the value of VRd,f obtained
using Monte-Carlo simulation.
The best indicator proposed is the reliability elasticity expressed as follows:

X i ∂β f
e xi = (91)
β f ∂X i
where βf is the reliability index related to the failure probability Pf through
approximation Pf ≈ Φ (− β f ) with Φ (.), the Gaussian distribution function. The degree of
precision of this approximation is a function of the non-linearity of the limit state.
The limit state is given by the equation VRd,s + VRd,f > VEd. where each of the terms is static.
VEd is the design value of the seismic shear force (which, here, has a nominal value of 65 kN).
128
The shear failure probability corresponds to the probability that the limit state condition will
not be respected.
Figure illustrates the notion of failure probability. The overlap area of the two static
distributions (VRd,s + VRd,f) and VEd, where finally VRd,s + VRd,f < VEd, is directly related to the
probability and therefore the reliability index βf.
Figure 68: Illustration of failure probability

The elasticity in our study is determined using the Monte-Carlo method. The input simulation
data are given in Table 27. To calculate a variation in the reliability index βf, according to
parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β, reliability studies must be carried out on either side of a
mean value of statistical laws (whence the three sub-columns of distribution mean values).
Figure presents the values obtained for reliability elasticity.
Tableau 27. Design input data for reliability elasticity.

Distribution mean CoV reference
law min centre max (or standard deviation)
tf LogNormal 1.8 2 mm 2.2 0.05 Atadero & Karbhari, 2007
Ef LogNormal 90 100 GPa 110 0.2 Atadero & Karbhari, 2007
bw Normal 171 190 mm 209 0.09 Plevris et al., 1995
wf Normal 90 100 mm 110 0.05 Duprat, 2007
sf Normal 180 200 mm 220 0.1 Duprat, 2007
fck Normal 31.5 35 MPa 38.5 0.15 Plevris et al., 1995
θ Normal 40.5 45° 49.5 5° Expert analysis
β Normal 81 90° 99 5° Expert analysis
As,w Normal 56.55 mm² 0.02 Vu & Stewart, 2000
sw Normal 200 mm 0.1 Duprat, 2007
z Normal 153.9 0.09 Plevris et al., 1995
fywd Normal 430 MPa 0.1 Atadero & Karbhari, 2007
VEd Gamma 65 kN 0.1
129
Figure 69: Reliability elasticity values for parameters tf, Ef, bw, wf, sf, fck, θ, β.
Ultimately, it can be concluded from the above analysis of reliability elasticity that, for a
defined design value, the parameters bw, Ef and tf have little influence on the variation in the
failure probability. Parameters fck, wf and sf on the other hand, have a significant influence.
Finally, the parameters with the greatest influence on the variation in failure probability are θ
and β. Efforts must be made to reduce the variability and thus increase the reliability of the
concrete mix, the composite strip width and spacing of the strips, as well as on β.
6.1.4 Other sensitivity studies
The reliability elasticity analysis to determine the parameters to be verified is not the only
advantage of probabilistic approaches. It can be extended to include an analysis of the
variation in the reliability index βf according to certain design parameters for an acceptable
risk level (or quite simply for an acceptable failure probability, or a target reliability index). A
probabilistic approach can also be used to calibrate or substantiate the safety factors of design
equations.
Figure shows the variation in the reliability index according to the thickness of the composite.
Two target reliability index values are shown in the figure.
130
The value at 1.5 corresponds to the fatigue or cyclic loading target value (in the absence of a
seismic value) as recommended in the Eurocode. The value at 2.4 is that established by Hiratai
and Ishikawa (2004) based on the analysis of expert opinions. It appears here, once again, that a
thickness of 1 mm is insufficient to achieve a value of 1.5. If two 1 mm layers are used, the
reliability index is 2.98, which is largely above the target of 2.4.
Figure 70: Variation in the reliability index according to the thickness of the composite.
Figure 71 illustrates another possibility of the reliability approach: the calibration or substantiation
of safety factors. Here γd is tested. The figure shows the change in the reliability index as a
function of this parameter. The reliability index is determined, for each value of γd, for a
composite thickness calculated as accurately as possible, that is, which verifies VRd,s + VRd,f = VEd.
It is demonstrated that a γd of 1.44 is sufficient to achieve the target value of 1.5 recommended by
the Eurocode (in fatigue). This safety factor should have a value of 2 if a target reliability of 2.4 is
aimed at [68].
Figure 71: Variation in the reliability index with the safety factor γ
131
132

Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Structures..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Structures..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFGC Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures using composites.

Scientific and Technical Documents

Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures

Members of working group

Coordination of group: Emmanuel FERRIER (University of LYON 1)

Technical secretary: Laurent MICHEL (University of LYON 1)

Participants who contributed to drafting the technical document:

4.4 Design values for properties of FRP sheets ............................................................... 52

1 General remarks on the seismic behaviour of structures

N.B. ICPE: Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement (installations requiring an

Figure 1: Organisational structure of earthquake risk prevention regulations [12]

Table 1: Value of agr

Figure 2: Earthquake zoning in France

Classes of importance Description Examples

. Individual homes Individual

. Public assembly buildings categories 1, 2 & 3 Large

. Buildings that are essential to civil safety, national Essential

Table 2: Importance classes established by the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development,

Table 3: Importance factors

1.2.3 Ground types

Table 4: Value of the soil factor Se

1.2.4 Seismic action

Figure 3: Horizontal elastic response spectrum (EC8-1) [13])

Table 5: Spectrum parameters according to [8]

o Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

o importance class I buildings,

Figure 5: Stipulations concerning building earthquake rules

1.3.1.2.1 Earthquake protection upgrading in the case of major works

1.3.1.2.2 Voluntary retrofitting

1.3.3.2 Date of application

Table 8: Acceleration applicable to existing installations (authorisation since 1 January 2013)

Table 9 Soil factors

Table 10: Design spectra for the horizontal earthquake component

1.4 Performance requirements and compliance criteria

LS of Damage Limitation (DL)

Limit State of Significant Damage (SD)

Limit State of Near Collapse (NC)

- DC”M” (No equivalence for civil engineering structures)

- DC”H” (equivalent for civil engineering structures: Ductile)

2 Seismic retrofitting of concrete structures with FRP

2.1 Typical pathologies of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loading

using adhesive-bonded composites is particularly efficient and numerous studies [23-27]

Crédit photos : AFPS

Crédit photos : AFPS

Figure 6: Typical shear failure

Crédit photos : AFPS

Figure 7: Example of typical failure in flexure of a column

2.1.3 Failure by the formation of plastic hinges in critical regions

Crédit photos : AFPS

Table 11: Conclusions concerning the main damage caused by earthquakes

Location Insufficient Reinforcement Insufficient Column/beam Beam/slab

Table 12: Main mechanical properties of fibres and steel

Young’s Tensile strength Elongation at Density

Figure 10: Photo of different fibre-reinforced fabrics

*These properties are defined according to a nominal thickness

Figure 11: Photo of a wet lay-up and pultruded flats

o if the "double bonding" technique is used, application of epoxy polymer to

Table 13: Application of FRPs according to different strengthening configurations (according

(a) Flexural strengthening of a beam or

(b) Shear strengthening of a beam using

(c) Confinement of a beam using composite

2.4.1 Shear strengthening

Figure 13: Flexural strengthening of columns according to different FRP reinforcement