ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 114-S109
Rapid Seismic Repair of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns
by Ruo-Yang Wu and Chris P. Pantelides
Experimental results are presented regarding the seismic repair
of reinforced concrete bridge columns using a carbon fiber-rein-
forced polymer (CFRP) shell and epoxy-anchored headed steel
bars. The CFRP shell, consisting of unidirectional laminates in the
hoop and vertical direction, encloses the headed bars and is filled
with non-shrink concrete to relocate the column plastic hinge. Two
columns designed to current standards—one in a cap beam-to-
column connection and the other in a footing-to-column connection—
were damaged under cyclic forces. Damage included longitudinal bar
fracture and buckling across multiple spiral hoops; concrete damage
in the plastic hinge region included cracking and spalling of the
column core concrete. Finite element analysis was used to design the
CFRP shell and the headed bars were designed for the increased flex-
ural demand on the repaired section. The seismic repair was rapid,
required minimal intervention, and successfully relocated the plastic
hinge and restored strength and displacement capacity.
Keywords: bridge; earthquake; fiber-reinforced polymer composites; finite
element analysis; plastic hinge relocation; repair; resilience; seismic.
INTRODUCTION
During strong earthquakes, damage to bridge substruc-
tures is meant to be confined to the ends of bridge columns.1,2
Repair of damaged columns is preferable to replacement;
benefits include rapid construction, decreased interrup-
tion, and reduced cost. Research efforts have focused on
seismic repair and retrofit of reinforced concrete (RC)
bridge columns.3-6 Many column repair alternatives have
been studied, including steel jackets,3 RC jackets,7,8 fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) jackets,9-17 FRP bars combined
with FRP jackets,18 bar couplers,19 prestressed steel
jackets,20,21 shape memory alloy spirals,22,23 and engineered
cementitious composite jackets.24 FRP composites are used
because of their high strength, light weight, and noncorro-
sive properties. The ductile performance of FRP-strength-
ened structures has been documented.13-16 Moreover, prefab-
ricated FRP composite jackets have been used to enhance
shear strength.25 Recently, grouted splice sleeves (GSSs)
have been studied for use in seismic regions to facilitate
accelerated bridge construction (ABC).26-28 A successful
repair method was developed for seismic repair of columns
connected with GSSs by relocating the plastic hinge.29
There is little research regarding the repair of severely
damaged RC bridge columns of existing bridges. During
large earthquakes, the longitudinal reinforcement buckles
or fractures and concrete crushes and spalls. Most existing
repair methods are not applicable for heavily damaged
columns with severe concrete crushing, fracture, and buck-
ling of longitudinal column bars. Repair of such damage
involves removal of core concrete and replacement of
buckled and fractured steel reinforcement, which requires
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
significant time to implement and is difficult to perform for
a bridge in the field.7,8,19,30-33
A repair method using a CFRP cylindrical shell and
epoxy-anchored headed steel bars for relocating the column
plastic hinge is proposed with minimal intervention. The
CFRP shell encloses the headed steel bars and is filled with
non-shrink concrete to a certain height to form a CFRP
“donut.” In addition to providing confinement, the shell
serves as a stay-in-place form. The proposed method incor-
porates fibers in the hoop and vertical direction of the CFRP
shell, and is implemented for two severely damaged speci-
mens: a cap beam-to-column connection and a footing-to-
column connection.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Research on the repair of severely damaged RC columns
of existing bridge substructures is limited. The method
developed herein employs a CFRP composite shell with
fibers in the hoop and vertical direction as well as epoxy-
anchored headed steel bars to repair damaged RC columns.
Damage of the columns included crushed and spalled
concrete inside the column core of the plastic hinge region,
longitudinal bar fracture, and buckling across multiple spiral
hoops. The repair was implemented in a rapid manner due
to the minimal intervention required; this would shorten the
recovery period and improve seismic resilience. The method
is effective and is a good option for repairing columns of
existing bridges after strong earthquakes.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF
ORIGINAL SPECIMENS
Description of original specimens
Two original cast-in-place (CIP) monolithic speci-
mens,26,27 referred to as CB-CIP-O and F-CIP-O, were tested
under quasi-static cyclic forces; the specimens were designed
based on current seismic design standards for bridges.2,34
Notation CB stands for cap beam-to-column connection, and
F represents a footing-to-column connection; letter O stands
for original and R for repaired. The corresponding repaired
specimens are referred to as CB-CIP-R and F-CIP-R.
The geometry and reinforcement of the original speci-
mens, which included a column connected to a footing or
a cap beam, are shown in Fig. 1. The column has a 21 in.
(533 mm) octagonal cross section and an effective column
height of 96 in. (2438 mm) measured from the top of the cap
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 5, September-October 2017.
MS No. S-2016-429.R1, doi: 10.14359/51700789, received January 5, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
1339
Fig. 1—Dimensions and reinforcement details of original specimens.
Table 1—Material properties
Material properties CB-CIP-O CB-CIP-R F-CIP-O F-CIP-R
Column concrete compressive strength fc′, ksi (MPa) 6.7 (46) 7.4 (51) 6.7 (46) 7.5 (52)
CFRP donut concrete compressive strength fcR′, ksi (MPa) NA 11.0 (76) NA 11.0 (76)
fy, ksi (MPa) 62 (427) 62 (427)
Headed steel bars NA NA
fu, ksi (MPa) 86 (593) 86 (593)
Ultimate tensile strength, ksi (MPa) NA 113.1 (780) NA 113.1 (780)
CFRP composite Modulus of elasticity, ksi (GPa) NA 9403 (65) NA 9403 (65)
Ultimate tensile strain, % NA 1.20 NA 1.20
Note: NA is not applicable.

beam/footing to the centerline of the column load stub. The
longitudinal reinforcement consists of six No. 8 (25 mm)
Grade 60 (414 MPa) bars arranged in a circular pattern. A
No. 4 (13 mm) Grade 60 (414 MPa) spiral at 2.5 in. (64 mm)
pitch is provided as transverse reinforcement. The footing is
6 ft (1.82 m) long, 2 ft (610 mm) deep, and 3 ft (914 mm)
wide. The cap beam is 9 ft (2.74 m) long, 2 ft (610 mm) deep,
and 2 ft (610 mm) wide. The concrete compressive strength
measured on test day was 6.7 ksi (46 MPa) per ASTM C39.35
The measured yield strength of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement was 68 and 63 ksi (469 and 434 MPa), respec-
tively, per ASTM A370.36 The ultimate strength of longi-
tudinal and transverse reinforcement was 93 and 103 ksi
(641 and 710 MPa), respectively. Detailed material proper-
ties for original and repaired specimens are given in Table 1.
Experimental results for original specimens
Table 2 summarizes the maximum lateral force, ultimate
drift ratio, and failure mode of the original specimens. Drift
ratio is calculated as the ratio of lateral displacement to
column height. The original specimens were tested to a drift
ratio of 9.7 to 10.4%. The failure mode of both CB-CIP-O
and F-CIP-O was fracture of the two extreme longitudinal
bars due to low-cycle fatigue caused by consecutive high-
strain bending and restraightening. At failure of the original
specimens, the lateral force capacity dropped to a level
of 43 to 56% of the ultimate lateral force. Figure 2 shows
damage of the original columns at the footing/cap beam
interface, where extensive spalling occurred in the plastic
hinge region; flexural cracking was extensive up to 16 in.
(406  mm) away from the interface. Longitudinal steel bar
fracture and buckling across multiple steel spiral hoops
was evident. Concrete damage was severe in the bottom
12 in. (305 mm) of the column and extended into the
column core concrete.
A five-level damage states (DS) approach has been
proposed to evaluate damage of RC columns based on
the apparent damage.37 The damage states were: flexural
cracking (DS-1); first spalling with possible shear cracking
(DS-2); extensive cracking and spalling (DS-3); visible
lateral and/or longitudinal bars (DS-4); and initiation of
core damage indicating imminent column failure (DS-5).

1340 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017

Table 2—Original and repaired specimen results
Test criteria CB-CIP-O
Average maximum lateral force, kip (kN) 35.8 (159)
Ultimate drift ratio, % 9.3
Failure mode East and west bar fracture East and west bar fracture
Yield strength, kip (kN) 32.2 (143)
Effective yield displacement, in. (mm) 0.90 (23)
Ultimate displacement, in. (mm) 8.95 (227)
Elastic stiffness, kip/in. (kN/mm) 35.91 (6.29)
Displacement ductility 9.9
Fig. 2—Original specimen damage: (a) cap beam specimen
CB-CIP-O; and (b) footing specimen F-CIP-O.
According to this damage level designation, the two original
specimens had reached a damage state of DS-5, leading to
significant reduction of the lateral force-carrying capacity.
There is a perception that it is difficult to repair structural
components with a DS-5 damage level; the objective of
this research was to repair the severely damaged specimens
rapidly with minimal intervention, thereby shortening the
recovery period and improving seismic resilience.
DESIGN OF REPAIR
Geometry of CFRP donut
The seismic repair was intended to strengthen the original
specimens and restore their lateral force and displacement
capacity. A CFRP cylindrical shell, consisting of hoop and
vertical layers, epoxy-anchored headed steel bars, and repair
concrete were used to create a CFRP donut and relocate
the column plastic hinge above it. Considering the 2.25 in.
(57 mm) head diameter of the headed steel bars and clear-
ance for avoiding contact with the column, a 30 in. (762 mm)
diameter circular cross section was used for the repair. To
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
F-CIP-O CB-CIP-R F-CIP-R
36.5 (162) 47.0 (209) 44.7 (199)
8.8 8.1 8.4
Severe concrete crushing Severe concrete crushing
33.6 (149) 42.7 (190) 40.7 (181)
0.95 (24) 1.15 (29) 1.34 (34)
8.45 (215) 7.80 (198) 8.04 (204)
35.55 (6.23) 37.04 (6.49) 30.33 (5.31)
8.9 6.8 6.0
determine the CFRP donut height, the plastic hinge length
was determined as follows38
Lpl = 0.12Ls + 0.0148asdb fy (1)
where Ls is the shear span; as = 1.0 by considering steel
bar bond-slip in the plastic hinge; db is the diameter of the
longitudinal column steel bars; and fy is the yield strength, in
MPa. The plastic hinge region from Eq. (1) was calculated
as 18.1 in. (460 mm). According to the damage condition
of the original specimens, a height of 19 in. (483 mm) was
implemented in the repair.
Design of headed steel bars
The properties of the headed steel bars are shown in Table 1.
The flexural capacity of the repaired section with headed
bars was determined using sectional analysis. The headed
bars were primarily placed in the east and west sides of the
column; this arrangement was used to satisfy the bending
moment demand in the loading direction. Based on the flex-
ural demand at the CFRP donut, six 1 in. (25 mm) diameter
headed steel bars were provided with a 17.5 in. (445 mm)
height above the cap beam/footing. The headed bars were
embedded 19 in. (483 mm) into the cap beam/footing and
anchored using epoxy. The length of the headed steel bars
above and below the interface met the development length
criteria of the ACI 318 Code.39
Mixture design of non-shrink concrete
High-strength, non-shrink concrete with a compressive
strength of 11.0 ksi (75.8 MPa) was provided inside the
CFRP donut. The mixture design of the non-shrink concrete
is shown in Table 3. A quantity of portland cement 15% by
volume was replaced with expansive cement to minimize
shrinkage of the concrete inside the CFRP shell, which could
lead to a reduction of confinement effectiveness.
Finite element model of repaired specimen
Nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out
using ABAQUS40 for finding the number and orientation
of layers of the CFRP shell before testing. The materials
considered in the analysis were: column and CFRP donut
concrete with a density of 145 lb/ft3 (2323 kg/m3), reinforcing
steel bars, headed steel bars, and CFRP composite shell.
The measured properties of the CFRP composite were
determined from tensile coupon tests carried out according
1341
Table 3—Mixture design of non-shrink concrete where ft is the peak tensile strength; and σt is the current
per 1 yd3 (0.765 m3) tensile stress. Factor 0.98 was used to limit tensile damage
Components Weight, lb (kg)
under 98% to avoid convergence issues caused by severe
tensile damage.
Type II cement 581.1 (263.6)
Considering the existing damage of the original spec-
Cement Type K shrinkage-compen- imens, modified steel properties of the repaired columns
102.6 (46.5)
sating concrete were used to account for the steel plastic deformation and
Water 229.6 (104.1) the Bauschinger effect. The slope of the first branch was
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) rock 1630.5 (739.6) taken as a fraction of the steel modulus of elasticity; a modi-
fication factor equal to 0.4 times the original steel modulus
Sand 1187.9 (538.8)
of elasticity was used based on the damage state. The end
Type F fly ash 172.2 (78.1) point of the first straight line segment represents the yield
Full-range water-reducing
7.2 (3.3)
stress and strain associated with the modified stiffness; the
concrete admixture second straight line segment connects the modified yield
Additives point and ultimate point.
Liquid admixture 6.6 (3.0)
Air-entraining admixture 0.3 (0.14)
Elastic material Lamina in ABAQUS was used to model
the unidirectional CFRP composites in the hoop and vertical
direction. The CFRP properties, including the elastic
to ASTM D3039.41 The measured thickness of one CFRP modulus and thickness of CFRP sheets, were used in the
composite layer was 0.047 in. (1.20 mm). The properties of finite element model (FEM).
the CFRP composite are shown in Table 1. Static pushover analyses were conducted using a displace-
Three-dimensional eight-node solid elements (C3D8R) ment-based method up to a displacement of 8 in. (203 mm)
were used to model the concrete and four-node shell elements expected to be realized in the experiments. An FEM was
(S4R) the CFRP shell. Three-dimensional two-node truss developed with CFRP layers in the hoop and vertical direc-
elements (T3D2) were used for the reinforcing steel bars, tion. Transverse cracks in the CFRP cylindrical shell were
which were embedded into the concrete. observed in previous tests29; therefore, vertical CFRP layers
The concrete damaged plasticity model40 was used to were inserted in the model to prevent such cracks from
simulate inelastic response of the concrete and a yield surface occurring. An efficiency factor, which is the ratio of effec-
was adopted.42 Five critical parameters were required: dila- tive strain to rupture strain of the CFRP composite, equal
tion angle, flow potential eccentricity, uniaxial-to-biaxial to 0.58 was used.48 Several FEM models were created with
stress ratio, stress variant, and viscosity parameter. The five different combinations of hoop and vertical CFRP layers.
parameters were set to 30 degrees, 0.1, 1.16, 0.667, and The maximum hoop stress for the model with four hoop
0.001, respectively. Elastic response in compression was layers was 63.5 ksi (438 MPa), or 97% of the allowable
assumed up to 45% of the concrete compressive strength.39 CFRP ultimate stress of 65.6 ksi (452 MPa). For the case
Compressive crushing was incorporated into the model of seven hoop and two vertical layers, designated as model
by providing the inelastic part of the uniaxial compres- 7H2V, the maximum hoop stress was 36.4 ksi (251 MPa), or
sive stress-strain curve of the CEB-FIP Code 1990.43 The 55% of the allowable CFRP ultimate stress.
compressive damage and inelastic strain were determined Figure 3(a) shows the principal stress, denoted as S11 in
based on software documentation.40,44 Tensile strength of the local 1- or hoop direction of the CFRP shell, for one
concrete, ft, was calculated as hoop layer of model 7H2V; a stress concentration for a
6 in. (152 mm) deep strip at the top of the CFRP shell was
f t = 0.2372 f c′ (ksi) (ksi) obtained corresponding to the top of the headed steel bars.
(2) The pushover curve of model 7H2V for specimen CB-CIP-R
f t = 0.6228 f c′ (MPa) (MPa)
is shown in Fig. 3(b). The hoop stress distribution shown in
Fig. 3(a) corresponds to the ultimate displacement of 8.0 in.
where fc′ is the concrete compressive strength. The post-peak (203 mm) marked with an “X” in Fig. 3(b). The calculated
tensile response represents initiation of cracking and is incor- shear capacity of the column above the CFRP donut was
porated into the model in the form of a bilinear tensile stress 240 kip (1068 kN), which was significantly higher than
versus inelastic (cracking) displacement, according to fracture the required shear of 42.3 kip (188 kN) obtained from the
energy considerations instead of stress-strain properties.45 FEM model.
The value of fracture energy in the analysis was based on the
recommendations of the software40 and the fib Model Code Number of layers of CFRP shell
2010.46 Tensile damage dt was calculated as follows47 The final repair design is shown in Fig. 4. Based on the
FEM pushover analysis, seven CFRP hoop and two vertical
σt layers were applied for the height of the shell. Because
dt = 1 − 0.98 (3)
ft the damage state of the two original CIP specimens was
similar, a 19 in. (483 mm) high CFRP shell was used for
both repaired specimens. Details of the headed steel bars are
shown in Fig. 4.

1342 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017

Fig. 3—Stress and pushover results from finite element model 7H2V of Specimen CB-CIP-R: (a) CFRP shell hoop stresses of
CB-CIP-R (MPa); and (b) pushover curve of FEM CB-CIP-R.

Fig. 4—Repair design details.

Fig. 5—Repair procedure: (a) post-installed headed bars; (b) temporary form for CFRP wrapping; (c) CFRP shell; and
(d) CFRP donut.
REPAIR PROCEDURE
The repair procedure is shown in Fig. 5. First, the holes
for six 1 in. (25 mm) headed steel bars were drilled into the
footing/cap beam and the headed bars were epoxy-anchored;
the epoxy had a bond strength of 1.8 ksi (12.4 MPa). A 30 in.
(762 mm) diameter form, 19 in. (483 mm) high, was cut into
two half-cylinders. Duct tape was used to reconnect the two
halves after placement around the column. A thin plastic
sheet was used as a bond breaker before wrapping the CFRP
sheets. A splice length equal to 13.5 in. (343 mm) was used
for each CFRP hoop layer. A 0.5 in. (13 mm) gap was left at
the bottom of the CFRP shell to avoid contact between CFRP
shell and footing/cap beam, which could induce failure of
the CFRP shell, as shown in Fig. 4. The CFRP shell was
sealed to act as a stay-in-place form; non-shrink concrete
with expansive cement was cast in the space between the
CFRP cylindrical shell and the column.
The cap beam specimen was tested upside down. In
this case, the 2 ft (610 mm) beam width was smaller than
the CFRP shell diameter of 30 in. (762 mm); wood forms
were placed along the cap beam to provide support for the
non-shrink concrete. In practice, the cap beam would be
above the column and the gap would provide an inlet for
casting the non-shrink concrete inside the CFRP shell.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1343

Fig. 6—Test setup and loading protocol for repaired specimens.
Fig. 7—Plastic hinge relocation of repaired specimens: (a)
cap beam specimen CB-CIP-R; and (b) footing specimen
F-CIP-R.
The repair costs include $1100 for the headed bars,
$1200 for the CFRP composite, and $100 for the non-shrink
concrete for a total of $2400. The benefit of the repair is
that heavily damaged columns were repaired and performed
well. It takes 6 hours to install six headed steel bars and
2 hours to install the CFRP shell; curing of the CFRP shell
can be achieved in approximately 48 hours, after which the
concrete could be cast. This demonstrates that the method is
rapid compared to existing techniques, that involve removal
and replacement of fractured bars and jacketing with reinforced
concrete, steel, or FRP jackets.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR
REPAIRED SPECIMENS
Test setup and loading protocol
The test setup and loading protocol was the same for the
original and repaired specimens. A lateral displacement-
1344
controlled, cyclic, quasi-static force was applied using a
hydraulic actuator with the loading protocol shown in Fig. 6.
The axial load was applied using a hydraulic cylinder; the
axial load index (ALI), defined as the ratio of applied axial
load to column axial compressive capacity, was set to 6%.
The lateral drift history consisted of increasing amplitudes
with two cycles at each drift ratio until failure.49 The footing
and cap beam had a span between supports of 4 and 8 ft
(1.22 and 2.44 m), respectively. String potentiometers were
used to measure column displacement at the level of the load
stub. Strain gauges were attached to the headed steel bars
and CFRP shell.
Experimental results for Specimen CB-CIP-R
Plastic hinge relocation of CB-CIP-R is shown in Fig. 7(a);
the hysteresis curve is compared to that of the original spec-
imen, CB-CIP-O, in Fig. 8(a). Table 2 shows that Specimen
CB-CIP-R achieved a 31% increase in lateral force compared
to the original specimen and had a similar displacement
capacity as the original specimen. Cracks widened at the
same locations created during testing of the original spec-
imen. At a drift ratio of 2%, radial cracks 0.005 in. (0.13 mm)
wide formed at the top surface of the concrete in the CFRP
donut. In the test of the original specimen, CB-CIP-O, fracture
of the column’s two extreme longitudinal bars was observed.
Heavy concrete damage in the plastic hinge region extended
into the column core, as shown in Fig. 2(a); thus, a weak bond
between column and non-shrink concrete was observed and
a gap developed between the original column and non-shrink
concrete at the CFRP donut surface, as shown in Fig. 9(a). At
a drift ratio of 3%, radial cracks in the non-shrink concrete
widened to 0.013 in. (0.33 mm), the column concrete above
the CFRP donut started to spall, and the gap between the
concrete inside the CFRP donut and the original column
concrete widened. At a drift ratio of 4%, the column corners
within the CFRP donut concrete started crushing. At a drift
ratio of 5%, column cracks were 0.04 in. (1.0 mm) wide, and
separation of column and non-shrink concrete was evident.
The severe damage of the original column and the weak
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
bond between column and CFRP donut concrete caused
a slip of the column inside the CFRP donut, as shown in
Fig. 9(b). At a drift ratio of 6%, the maximum lateral force
capacity was reached. Column concrete crushing above
the CFRP donut in the relocated plastic hinge region was
observed, as shown in Fig. 9(c). The test was terminated at
Fig. 8—Hysteretic response: (a) cap beam specimens; and
(b) footing specimens.
Fig. 9—Damage of repaired cap beam specimen CB-CIP-R: (a) gap between column and CFRP donut at 2% drift ratio; (b)
column slip inside CFRP donut at 5% drift ratio; (c) column concrete crushing above donut at 6% drift ratio; and (d) final damage.
Fig. 10—Damage of repaired footing specimen F-CIP-R:(a) gap between column and CFRP donut at 3% drift ratio; (b)
column concrete crushing at 5% drift ratio; (c) column concrete crushing at 7% drift ratio; and (d) final damage.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
a drift ratio of 9.7% after a 38% drop in the lateral force.
Concrete crushing occurred in the relocated plastic hinge
region, which extended 18.5 in. (470 mm) above the CFRP
donut on the west side and 14  in. (356 mm) on the east.
The column core concrete and steel spirals were exposed;
damage developed in the column 2.75 in. (70 mm) inside
the CFRP donut, as shown in Fig. 9(d). The CFRP shell and
CFRP donut concrete were not damaged.
Experimental results for Specimen F-CIP-R
Plastic hinge relocation of F-CIP-R is shown in Fig. 7(b);
the hysteretic response superimposed with that of the orig-
inal column F-CIP-O is shown in Fig. 8(b). The maximum
lateral force for F-CIP-R was 22% higher than that of
F-CIP-O. A gap between column and non-shrink concrete
started at a drift ratio of 2%, and became prominent at a drift
ratio of 3%, as shown in Fig. 10(a). Radial cracks on the
top surface of the non-shrink concrete and column cracks
widened to 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) at the 4% drift ratio. At a drift
ratio of 5%, the maximum lateral force capacity was reached
and concrete crushing and spalling was observed as shown
in Fig. 10(b), which became severe at a drift ratio of 7%, as
shown in Fig. 10(c). At a drift ratio of 9.8%, the specimen
failed due to concrete crushing in the relocated plastic hinge
region of the column, 21.5 in. (546 mm) above the CFRP
donut on the east side and 11.75 in. (298 mm) on the west.
Steel reinforcement was exposed and column concrete
cover spalled. The two fractured and buckled steel bars
and severe concrete damage of the original column, which
extended into the column core as shown in Fig. 2(b), created
a weak bond between the column and non-shrink concrete
and allowed a gap to form between the original column and
the non-shrink concrete inside the CFRP donut. Column
concrete damage reached a depth of 3.0 in. (76 mm) inside
the CFRP donut, as shown in Fig.  10(d). No damage was
observed in the CFRP shell or in the CFRP donut concrete.
1345
Fig. 11—Cumulative hysteretic energy: (a) cap beam speci-
Fig. 12—Stiffness degradation: (a) cap beam specimens;
mens; and (b) footing specimens.
and (b) footing specimens.
Experimental comparisons between original and
as shown in Fig. 9(a) and 10(a); this was facilitated by the
repaired specimens
fact that the two extreme longitudinal column steel bars
The cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation versus drift
near the east and west column face had already fractured
ratio is shown in Fig. 11. At an 8.3% drift ratio, the cumu-
and buckled in the original specimens, as shown in Fig. 2(a)
lative hysteretic energy of repaired specimens, CB-CIP-R
and 2(b). With increasing cyclic displacements, the column
and F-CIP-R, was 90 and 88% of the original specimens,
concrete impacted on the non-shrink concrete at the top of
CB-CIP-O and F-CIP-O, respectively. The severe damage of
the CFRP donut and begun crushing, thus creating a gap; this
the original specimens contributed to the reduced hysteretic
gap between column and non-shrink concrete widened with
energy dissipation. Stiffness degradation of the specimens is
increasing drift ratio.
shown in Fig. 12; the stiffness of CB-CIP-R was larger than
The performance of the repaired specimens was evaluated
that of CB-CIP-O, as shown in Fig. 12(a). The stiffness of
in terms of lateral force and displacement ductility. The back-
F-CIP-R became larger than that of F-CIP-O after the 2%
bone curves from the experimental hysteresis curves and
drift ratio, as shown in Fig. 12(b). Cumulative hysteretic
idealized elastoplastic curves for the original and repaired
energy and stiffness degradation comparisons show that the
cap beam and footing specimens are shown in Fig. 13(a) and
repair method restored the performance of the repaired spec-
13(b), respectively. The yield force, effective yield displace-
imens to a similar level as the original specimens.
ment, and elastic stiffness of the idealized capacity curves
Table 2 shows results for the two repaired specimens; the
are summarized in Table 2. For the repaired specimens, the
ultimate drift ratios of Specimen CB-CIP-R and Specimen
initial stiffness was determined using the slope of a straight
F-CIP-R were 87 and 95% that of CB-CIP-O and F-CIP-O,
line from the origin to a point at 50% of the peak force
respectively. Pinching of the hysteresis curves was observed
from the actual backbone curve.21,37 The elastic stiffness of
for the repaired specimens when compared with the orig-
CB-CIP-R and F-CIP-R was 103 and 85% that of the corre-
inal specimens, as shown in Fig. 8; this was caused by the
sponding original specimens, respectively. The displace-
heavy concrete damage that reduced the available develop-
ment ductility, which is defined as the ratio of ultimate
ment length of the buckled and fractured bars suffered by the
lateral displacement to yield displacement, for both repaired
original specimens and the resulting slip between cracked
specimens exceeded the minimum component displacement
surfaces. The gap created between column and non-shrink
ductility equal to 3.0 recommended by the Caltrans seismic
concrete started at the 2 to 3% drift ratio when the east and
design criteria.34 The displacement ductility achieved or
west face of the column were damaged inside the donut,
exceeded the ductility demand of 5.0 for single-column

1346 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017

 Fig. 14—Headed steel bar longitudinal strain of cap beam
specimen CB-CIP-R.

Fig. 13—Backbone and idealized force-displacement rela-

tionships: (a) cap beam specimens; and (b) footing specimens.
bridge bents and met or exceeded the displacement ductility
demand of 6.0 for multi-column bridge bents recommended
by the AASHTO Guide Specifications.2

PERFORMANCE OF REPAIR SYSTEM

Headed steel bar performance
Strain gauges were placed on the extreme east and west
headed bars 1 in. (25 mm) from the cap beam/footing interface.
Figure 14 shows the results for CB-CIP-R; the extreme headed
bar on the east side reached its peak of 3.4 times the yield strain
at a 2% drift ratio; the extreme headed bar on the west side
reached its peak of 2.9 times the yield strain at a drift ratio of
4%. The measured strains confirm that the post-installed headed
steel bars transfer tensile and compressive forces between the
column and cap beam/footing through the CFRP donut.
CFRP shell performance
In addition to serving as a form for the non-shrink
concrete, the CFRP shell provides confinement, hoop
tension, and shear strength. Hoop strain was measured at
four levels located at 1.5, 4.0, 9.5, and 14.0 in. (38, 102, 241,
and 356 mm) from the top of the CFRP donut. Strain gauges
at 1.5 in. (38 mm), located at the same level as the top of the
headed bars, recorded the maximum hoop strain in the CFRP
shell; this shows that the CFRP shell is under hoop tension.
The hoop strain of the CFRP shell for the two repaired spec-
imens is shown in Fig. 15(a) and 15(b). Symbol H represents
the hoop direction of the CFRP composite; 1 means first
Fig. 15—CFRP hoop strain at 1.5 in. (38 mm) below the top
of the CFRP donut: (a) cap beam specimen CB-CIP-R; and
(b) footing specimen F-CIP-R.
level, which is 1.5 in. (38 mm) below the CFRP donut top. E
and W are short for East and West, respectively. At a 2% drift
ratio, the hoop strain reached 0.20% for both specimens.
For CB-CIP-R, the hoop strain at a 6% drift ratio reached
its maximum value of 0.45%, as shown in Fig. 15(a); the
corresponding hoop stress was 42.3 ksi (292 MPa), which
exceeds the predicted value of 36.4 ksi (251 MPa) from the
FEM model of Fig. 3, but is less than the allowable CFRP
ultimate stress of 65.6 ksi (452 MPa).
The hoop strain on the east side of Specimen F-CIP-R
at a 7% drift ratio reached a maximum value of 0.49%, as
shown in Fig. 15(b). In Fig. 15(a), the hoop strain of the

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1347

 Fig. 17—Vertical strain profile of CFRP shell: (a) cap beam
specimen CB-CIP-R; and (b) footing specimen F-CIP-R.
Fig. 16—Hoop strain profile of CFRP shell: (a) cap beam
specimen CB-CIP-R; and (b) footing specimen F-CIP-R. compressive stresses. The first strain gauge available in this
region was located 4.0 in. (102 mm) below the top of the
CFRP shell for CB-CIP-R is higher on the west side because
CFRP donut; this strain gauge recorded the maximum strain
of the heavier damage to this side of the original column; in
in the vertical CFRP layers during the tests.
Fig. 15(b), the hoop strain of the CFRP shell for F-CIP-R is
higher on the east side because of the heavier damage to this
Moment-plastic rotation
side of the original column.
Plastic rotation was calculated by dividing the plastic
The hoop strain profiles for Specimens CB-CIP-R and
displacement by the column height. Plastic displacement
F-CIP-R are shown in Fig. 16(a) and 16(b), respectively. It is
was evaluated as the difference between the total and yield
evident that the hoop strain increased from bottom to top of
displacements of the idealized backbone curves in Fig. 13.
the CFRP shell. The CFRP shell provided confinement to the
A comparison of bending moment versus plastic rotation
non-shrink concrete and original columns, and it transferred
between original and repaired specimens is shown in Fig. 18.
tensile forces between the original column and cap beam/
The bending moment capacity of the repaired specimens is
footing. When the column was displaced by the applied lateral
larger than the moment capacity of the original specimens.
force, the hoop fibers at the top one-third of the CFRP shell
The ultimate plastic rotation of the two repaired specimens
experienced higher tensile forces than the rest of the shell. The
was 0.085 rad, which is 89 and 96% of the original specimens
hoop strain at the top 6 in. (152 mm) of the CFRP shell ranged
CB-CIP-O and F-CIP-O, respectively. Both repaired spec-
from 0.2 to 0.5%; this shows that an effective tension ring was
imens show good plastic rotation capacity, which exceeds
established at the top one-third of the CFRP shell.
0.060 rad, which corresponds to the Collapse Performance
Strain in the vertical CFRP layers was measured at the
(CP) level specified in ASCE/SEI 41.50
same elevations as the hoop strain. Figures 17(a) and 17(b)
show the vertical strain profile for Specimens CB-CIP-R and
CONCLUSIONS
F-CIP-R, respectively. A positive value indicates tension
A method was developed for seismic repair of severely
and a negative value indicates compression. The maximum
damaged cast-in-place monolithic bridge columns connected to
strain in the vertical CFRP layers of Specimen CB-CIP-R
a cap beam or footing. The original specimens, designed and
was 0.16% in compression and 0.04% in tension, as shown
built to current seismic design standards, experienced heavy
in Fig. 17(a). The maximum strain in the vertical CFRP
damage, including concrete crushing and spalling in the column
layers of Specimen F-CIP-R was 0.23% in compression and
core concrete, longitudinal steel bar buckling across multiple
0.08% in tension, as shown in Fig. 17(b). The top portion of
spiral hoops, and longitudinal bar fracture. The experiments
the vertical CFRP composite layers experienced very small
showed that the repair method successfully restored lateral
compressive or tensile strains. A small distance below the
force and displacement capacity. The ultimate drift ratio reached
top of the CFRP donut was necessary to develop significant

1348 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017


Fig. 18—Moment versus plastic rotation: (a) cap beam
specimens; and (b) footing specimens.
by the repaired specimens was 8.1 and 8.4%; in addition, the
lateral force capacity was 22 to 31% higher than that of the
original specimens. The displacement ductility of the repaired
specimens was 6.0 and 6.8, which exceeds the displacement
ductility demand of 5.0 specified in the AASHTO Guide Spec-
ifications for single-column bridge bents. The displacement
ductility met or exceeded the maximum displacement ductility
demand of 6.0 for multi-column bridge bents recommended by
the AASHTO Guide Specifications.
The CFRP shell did not experience any cracking or
failure; it provided continuous confinement by developing
hoop tension and by increasing the shear strength of the
system. CFRP hoop layers established an effective tension
ring concentrated at the top one-third of the CFRP donut.
Vertical CFRP layers prevented formation of circumferential
cracks in the CFRP shell. Headed steel bars transferred axial
tension from the column through the CFRP donut to the
footing/cap beam, and improved the stiffness of the repaired
columns. Pinching was a consequence of the severe damage
suffered by the original specimens; concrete damage reduced
the available development length of buckled and fractured
bars and resulted in sliding of cracked concrete surfaces.
Bond between column concrete and CFRP donut concrete
is crucial for satisfactory performance of the repair system;
methods must be explored to enhance the bond between
column and non-shrink concrete.
Based on the overall performance of the repaired spec-
imens, it can be stated that the repair technique was
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
successful; it restored the lateral force and displacement
capacity of severely damaged reinforced concrete columns
with crushed concrete in the column core and buckled and
fractured steel bars. The repair technique requires minimal
intervention and was implemented in less than 3 days for
each column. By staging the installation of headed bars,
CFRP shell, and non-shrink grout to occur concurrently over
several columns, the repair could be implemented in a rela-
tively short time, thus shortening the recovery period after
an earthquake and improving seismic resilience.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Ruo-Yang Wu is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
UT. He received his MS from Southeast University, Nanjing, China. His
research interests include seismic design of structures, structural rehabili-
tation, nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures, and the appli-
cation of composites in the repair and retrofit of structures.
ACI member Chris P. Pantelides is a Professor in the Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering Department of the University of Utah. His research
interests include seismic design and rehabilitation of reinforced and
prestressed concrete buildings and bridges, and the application of
fiber-reinforced polymer composites.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Mountain Plains
Consortium under contract MPC-491. The authors are grateful to Sika
Corporation US and Headed Reinforcement Corp. for donating construc-
tion materials. In addition, they would like to acknowledge helpful discus-
sions with L. Reaveley and M. Bryant. The authors also acknowledge the
assistance of P. Sankholkar, T. Nye, J. Parks, and M. J. Ameli of the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah.
NOTATION
as = coefficient for bond-slip inside plastic hinge
db = diameter of longitudinal column bars
dt = tensile damage of concrete
fc′ = column concrete compressive strength
fcR′ = compressive strength of non-shrink concrete inside CFRP shell
ft = concrete tensile strength
fu = ultimate strength of steel bars
fy = yield strength of steel bars
Lpl = plastic hinge length
L s = shear span
S11 = principal stress in hoop direction of CFRP shell
σt = current concrete tensile stress on stress-strain curve
REFERENCES
1. Marsh, M. L.; Buckle, I.; and Kavazanjian, E., “LRFD Seismic Anal-
ysis and Design of Bridges Reference Manual,” Report No. FHWA NHI-15-
004, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of  Transporta-
tion, Washington, DC, 2014, 608 pp.
2. AASHTO, AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design, second edition, American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, DC, 2011, 331 pp.
3. Chai, Y.; Priestley, M.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Retrofit of Circular
Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1991, pp. 572-584.
4. He, R.; Yang, Y.; and Sneed, L. H., “Seismic Repair of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns: Review of Research Findings,” Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 20, No. 12, 2015, 04015015 doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000760
5. Kitada, T., “Ultimate Strength and Ductility of State-of-the-Art
Concrete-Filled Steel Bridge Piers in Japan,” Engineering Structures,
V. 20, No. 4-6, 1998, pp. 347-354. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00026-6
6. Iacobucci, R. D.; Sheikh, S. A.; and Bayrak, O., “Retrofit of Square
Concrete Columns with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for Seismic
Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003,
pp. 785-794.
7. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., “Seismic Load Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Strengthened by Jacketing,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159.
1349
 8. Lehman, D. E.; Gookin, S. E.; Nacamuli, A. M.; and Moehle, J.
P., “Repair of Earthquake-Damaged Bridge Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 233-238.
9. Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M. R.; and Jin, L., “Repair of Earth-
quake-Damaged RC Columns with FRP Wraps,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 94, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1997, pp. 206-215.
10. Kumar, P., and Mosalam, K. M., “Shaking Table Evaluation of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Repaired Using Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Jackets,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 20, No. 12,
2015, p. 04015025 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000780
11. Saiidi, M. S., and Cheng, Z., “Effectiveness of Composites in Earth-
quake Damage Repair of Reinforced Concrete Flared Columns,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 8, No. 4, 2004, pp. 306-314. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:4(306)
12. Vosooghi, A., and Saiidi, M. S., “Design Guidelines for Rapid Repair
of Earthquake-Damaged Circular RC Bridge Columns Using CFRP,”
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 18, No. 9, 2013, pp. 827-836.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000426
13. Gergely, I.; Pantelides, C. P.; and Reaveley, L. D., “Shear Strength-
ening of R/C T-Joints Using CFRP Composites,” Journal of Compos-
ites for Construction, ASCE, V. 4, No. 2, 2000, pp. 56-64. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:2(56)
14. Pantelides, C. P.; Gergely, J.; Reaveley, L.; and Volnyy, V., “Retrofit
of RC Bridge Pier with CFRP Advanced Composites,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 10, 1999, pp. 1094-1099. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:10(1094)
15. Gergely, I.; Pantelides, C. P.; Nuismer, R.; and Reaveley, L., “Bridge
Pier Retrofit Using Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Composites,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 2, No. 4, 1998, pp. 165-174. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1998)2:4(165)
16. Pantelides, C.; Duffin, J.; and Reaveley, L., “Seismic Strengthening
of Reinforced-Concrete Multicolumn Bridge Piers,” Earthquake Spectra,
V. 23, No. 3, 2007, pp. 635-664. doi: 10.1193/1.2757194
17. He, R.; Sneed, L. H.; and Belarbi, A., “Rapid Repair of Severely
Damaged RC Columns with Different Damage Conditions: An Experi-
mental Study,” International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials,
V. 7, No. 1, 2013, pp. 35-50. doi: 10.1007/s40069-013-0030-7
18. Jiang, S. F.; Zeng, X.; Shen, S.; and Xu, X., “Experimental Studies
on the Seismic Behavior of Earthquake-Damaged Circular Bridge Columns
Repaired by Using Combination of Near-Surface-Mounted BFRP Bars
with External BFRP Sheets Jacketing,” Engineering Structures, V. 106, Jan.
2016, pp. 317-331. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.037
19. Yang, Y.; Sneed, L. H.; Morgan, A.; Saiidi, M. S.; and Belarbi, A.,
“Repair of RC Bridge Columns with Interlocking Spirals and Fractured
Longitudinal Bars–An Experimental Study,” Construction and Building
Materials, V. 78, 2015, pp. 405-420. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.010
20. Fakharifar, M.; Chen, G.; Sneed, L.; and Dalvand, A., “Seismic
Performance of Post-Mainshock FRP/steel Repaired RC Bridge Columns
Subjected to Aftershocks,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 72, 2015,
pp. 183-198. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.010
21. Fakharifar, M.; Chen, G.; Wu, C.; Shamsabadi, A.; Elgawady, M.
A.; and Dalvand, A., “Rapid Repair of Earthquake-Damaged RC Columns
with Prestressed Steel Jackets,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V.
21, No. 4, 2016, p. 04015075 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000840
22. Chen, Q., and Andrawes, B., “Experimentally Validated Modeling
of Concrete Actively Confined Using SMA Reinforcement,” 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK, 2014, 10 pp.
23. Shin, M., and Andrawes, B., “Emergency Repair of Severely
Damaged Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Active Confinement with
Shape Memory Alloys,” Smart Materials and Structures, V. 20, No. 6,
2011, p. 065018 doi: 10.1088/0964-1726/20/6/065018
24. Billah, A. H. M. M., and Alam, M. S., “Seismic Performance Evalu-
ation of Multi-Column Bridge Bents Retrofitted with Different Alternatives
Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Engineering Structures, V. 62-63,
Mar. 2014, pp. 105-117. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.005
25. Xiao, Y.; Wu, H.; and Martin, G., “Prefabricated Composite Jack-
eting of RC Columns for Enhanced Shear Strength,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 255-264. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:3(255)
26. Ameli, M. J.; Parks, J. E.; Brown, D. N.; and Pantelides, C. P.,
“Seismic Evaluation of Grouted Splice Sleeve Connections for Reinforced
Precast Concrete Column-to-Cap Beam Joints in Accelerated Bridge
Construction,” PCI Journal, V. 60, No. 2, 2015, pp. 80-103. doi: 10.15554/
pcij.03012015.80.103
27. Ameli, M. J.; Brown, D.; Parks, J.; and Pantelides, C. P., “Seismic
Column-to-Footing Connections Using Grouted Splice Sleeves,” ACI
1350
Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 1021-1030. doi:
10.14359/51688755
28. Ameli, M. J., and Pantelides, C. P., “Seismic Analysis of Precast
Bridge Columns Connected with Grouted Splice Sleeve Connec-
tors,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 143, No. 2, 2017,
pp. 04016176. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001678
29. Parks, J.; Brown, D.; Ameli, M. J.; and Pantelides, C. P., “Seismic
Repair of Severely Damaged Precast Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns
Connected with Grouted Splice Sleeves,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113,
No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 615-626. doi: 10.14359/51688756
30. Cheng, C. T.; Yang, J. C.; Yeh, Y. K.; and Chen, S. E., “Seismic Perfor-
mance of Repaired Hollow-Bridge Piers,” Construction and Building Mate-
rials, V. 17, No. 5, 2003, pp. 339-351. doi: 10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00119-8
31. Kaya, A.; Dawood, M.; and Gencturk, B., “Repair of Corroded
and Buckled Short Steel Columns Using Concrete-Filled GFRP Jackets,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 94, 2015, pp. 20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.06.040
32. Yang, Y.; Sneed, L.; Saiidi, M. S.; Belarbi, A.; Ehsani, M.; and He,
R., “Emergency Repair of an RC Bridge Column with Fractured Bars
Using Externally Bonded Prefabricated Thin CFRP Laminates and CFRP
Strips,” Composite Structures, V. 133, 2015, pp. 727-738. doi: 10.1016/j.
compstruct.2015.07.045
33. He, R.; Grelle, S.; Sneed, L. H.; and Belarbi, A., “Rapid Repair of
a Severely Damaged RC Column Having Fractured Bars Using Externally
Bonded CFRP,” Composite Structures, V. 101, 2013, pp. 225-242. doi:
10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.012
34. Caltrans, Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.7, Division of Engi-
neering Services, Sacramento, CA, 2013.
35. ASTM C39/C39M-16b, “Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, 7 pp.
36. ASTM A370-16, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2016, 49 pp.
37. Vosooghi, A., and Saiidi, M., “Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Emer-
gency Repair of Damaged RC Bridge Columns Using CFRP Materials,”
Report No. CCEER-10-05, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 2010.
38. Panagiotakos, T., and Fardis, M., “Deformation of Reinforced
Concrete Memebers at Yielding and Ultimate,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 135-147.
39. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
40. SIMULIA, ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual, Abaqus 6.12,
SIMULIA, The Dassault Systèmes, Realistic Simulation, 2012.
41. ASTM D3039/D3039M-14. “Standard Test Method for Tensile Prop-
erties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014, 13 pp.
42. Lee, J., and Fenves, G., “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading
of Concrete Structures,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 124,
No. 8, 1998, pp. 892-900. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892)
43. CEB-FIB, “CEB-FIP Model Code 1990,” Comitè Euro-International
du Béton and Fédération International de la Précontrainte (CEB-FIP),
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 1993.
44. Jankowiak, T., and Lodygowski, T., “Identification of Parameters of
Concrete Damage Plasticity Constitutive Model,” Foundations of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, V. 6, 2005, pp. 53-69.
45. Hillerborg, A., “The Theoretical Basis of a Method to Determine the
Fracture Energy GF of Concrete,” Materials and Structures, V. 18, No. 4,
1985, pp. 291-296. doi: 10.1007/BF02472919
46. CEB-FIB, “CEB-FIP Model Code 2010,” Comitè Euro-International
du Béton and Fédération International de la Précontrainte (CEB-FIP),
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 2010.
47. Sideris, P., “Seismic Analysis and Design Of Precast Concrete
Segmental Bridges,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil, Structural
and Environmental Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY, 2012.
48. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures
(ACI 440.2R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 76 pp.
49. ACI Committee 374, “Guide for Testing Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tural Elements under Slowly Applied Simulated Seismic Loads (ACI 374.2R-
13),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 18 pp.
50. ASCE/SEI 41-13, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2013.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017