Tests on Seismically Damaged Reinforced Concrete Walls

Repaired and Strengthened Using Fiber-Reinforced

Polymers
Konstantinos K. Antoniades1; Thomas N. Salonikios2; and Andreas J. Kappos3

Abstract: The behavior of six 1:2.5-scale reinforced concrete cantilever wall specimens having an aspect ratio of 1.5, tested to failure
and subsequently repaired and strengthened using fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 sheets is investigated. Specimens were first repaired by
removing heavily cracked concrete, lap splicing the fractured steel bars by welding new short bars, placing new hoops and horizontal web
reinforcement, and finally casting nonshrink high-strength repair mortar. The specimens were then strengthened using FRP sheets and
strips, with a view to increasing flexural as well as shear strength and ductility. In addition to different arrangements of steel and FRP
reinforcement in the walls, a key parameter was the way carbon-FRP strips added for flexural strengthening were anchored; steel plates
and steel angles were used to this effect. Steel plates were anchored using U-shaped glass-FRP 共GFRP兲 strips or bonded metal anchors.
Test results have shown that by using FRP reinforcement, the flexural and shear strength of the specimens can be increased. From the
anchorage systems tested, metal plates combined with FRP strips appear to be quite efficient. The effectiveness of the bonded metal
anchors used was generally less than that of the combination of plates and GFRP strips. In all cases, final failure of the FRP anchorage
is brittle, but only occurs after the peak strength is attained and typically follows the fracture of steel reinforcement in critical areas, hence
the overall behavior of the strengthened walls is moderately ductile.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0268共2005兲9:3共236兲
CE Database subject headings: Shear walls; Retrofitting; Fiber reinforced polymers; Composite materials; Hysteresis; Flexural
strength.

Introduction behavior cannot be developed by FRPs, since these materials

Over the last years, the use of fiber-reinforced polymers 共FRPs兲
for the strengthening of existing buildings has increased due to
the ease of application, the high strength-to-weight ratio, and the
high resistance to corrosion that these materials can develop. On
the other hand, consideration of their mechanical properties, in
particular their linearly elastic behavior up to tension failure 共at
least in the common case of FRPs with unidirectional fibers, ori-
ented at 0 or 90° to the principal axis of the FRP sheet兲, raise
questions concerning their effectiveness in strengthening struc-
tural elements subjected to seismic loading. In a reinforced con-
crete 共RC兲 structural system subjected to seismic loading, dissi-
pation of the input seismic energy takes place due to the inelastic
deformation under tension and compression of steel bars and to
friction at the cracked areas of concrete. This type of beneficial
1 cyclic shear and flexure, and of Neale et al. 共1997兲 who tested
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aristotle Univ. of
Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
2
Researcher, Institute of Engineering, Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering 共ITSAK兲, 55102 Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail:
salonikios@itsak.gr
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aristotle Univ. of
Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail: ajkap@civil.auth.gr
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on January 23, 2004; approved on September 28, 2004.
This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 9,
No. 3, June 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2005/3-236–246/$25.00.
have practically no stiffness under compression, while as men-
tioned before, under tension they perform as linearly elastic.
Moreover, at the cracks of the concrete member whereon FRPs
are applied, debonding of the composite material is observed on
both sides of the crack, hence the composite material cannot de-
velop adequate resistance to tension at these locations.
Research on the behavior of reinforced concrete 共RC兲 mem-
bers with externally bonded FRP jackets has mainly focused on
columns or piers where its use is more common 共Priestley et al.
1996; Penelis and Kappos 1997; Triantafillou 2001兲. Application
of FRP sheets on RC walls, albeit not uncommon as a practical
retrofit measure 共Ehsani and Saadatmanesh 1997兲, has attracted
much less attention by researchers. In fact, the only experimental
studies involving FRP-strengthened RC walls are those by Lom-
bard et al. 共2000兲 who applied FRP sheets with fibers in the ver-
tical direction on the side faces of walls that were subjected to
wall-like columns 共aspect ratio of wall cross section equal to 6兲
with different arrangements of externally bonded FRP reinforce-
ment 共including jackets兲 under uniaxial compression only. Other
related studies on similar members involved RC columns with
“wing” walls 共Iso et al. 2000兲 共small elongated members extend-
ing from the column兲, and infill walls 共Sugiyama et al. 2000兲
made in unreinforced concrete, a case close to that of masonry
walls to which the application of FRP sheets bonded on one or
both of their faces is more common than in RC walls 共Triantafil-
lou 2001兲. To the writers’ best knowledge, so far no results are
available on the behavior of RC walls with FRP jackets, subjected
to cyclic shear and flexure.

236 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005

 Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement of original wall specimens 共dimensions in mm兲
From the foregoing discussion, it follows that there are both
advantages and disadvantages in using FRP materials for the seis-
mic strengthening of reinforced concrete elements. The present
experimental program focuses on the seismic response of RC
walls that were initially loaded to failure and subsequently “con-
ventionally” repaired by the replacement of heavily damaged con-
crete by a high-strength mortar and lap welding of fractured re-
inforcement in the plastic hinge region, and then strengthened by
wrapping of the walls with FRP jackets, as well as addition of
FRP strips at the wall edges, to enhance both flexural and shear
capacity.
The testing program presented herein is the first one to address
the retrofit of RC walls, with a medium aspect ratio 共as = 1.50兲,
that have sustained heavy seismic damage, with FRP jackets in
combination with FRP strips intended for flexural strengthening.
The original walls were designed in full conformity with modern
code provisions, resulting thus in a flexural type of failure; hence,
the work presented here is different from previous studies that
focus on the retrofit of walls with rather low shear strength, poor
detailing, and limited ductility. A key issue in the present study
was the novel type of anchorages for the FRP strips used to in-
crease flexural strength. Further test parameters included the type
and the quantity of edge column reinforcement and web rein-
forcement.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 237
Description of Wall Specimens and Retrofit
Techniques
Material Considerations
Cylinder strength of concrete used for the six wall specimens
共shown in Fig. 1兲 ranged from 22 to 27 MPa 共Salonikios et al.
1999兲. The average yield strength of 8 mm reinforcement bars
was 585 MPa 共maximum strength was measured at 678 MPa兲,
while the corresponding values for the 4.2 mm bars 共used as web
reinforcement兲 were 575 and 658 MPa, respectively. The non-
shrinking mortar used for replacing concrete in the most heavily
damaged 共during the initial tests; Salonikios et al. 1999兲 area had
a compressive strength of 75 MPa.
The FRP sheets used for strengthening the walls were either
glass FRP 共GFRP兲 or carbon FRP 共CFRP兲, with fibers in one
direction. GFRP sheets, after the application and hardening of the
epoxy resin binder, had a Young’s modulus in tension equal to
27.5 GPa, tensile strength of 550 MPa, and ultimate strain of 2%.
CFRP sheets—after the application and hardening of the resin—
had a Young’s modulus in tension equal to 75 GPa, tensile
strength of 1,100 MPa, and ultimate strain of 1.5% 共material char-
acteristics based on manufacturer’s data兲. It is recalled herein that
the stress-strain relationship of such FRP materials is linear elas-
tic up to failure 共Penelis and Kappos 1997; Triantafillou 2001兲.
The epoxy resin used had a tensile strength of 74 MPa and
Young’s modulus of 3,170 MPa 共manufacturer’s data兲.
Description of Specimens and Overview of Initial Tests
The experimental program presented in this work involved six
specimens 共denoted as FRPMSW1 to FRPMSW6兲 that constitute
the second series of an experimental study including a total of
eleven specimens. These specimens are of the cantilever type 共see
Fig. 1兲 with a stiff beam at the top for applying the horizontal
loading 共through a double-acting hydraulic actuator兲 and a large
and heavily reinforced foundation block at the base, fixed at the
laboratory’s floor 共with prestressed bolts兲; longitudinal bars of the
specimens are anchored in this block. A total of eleven 1:2.5 scale
specimens, were initially subjected to cyclic loading inducing a
high level of inelastic deformation 共virgin specimens denoted
MSW1 to MSW6, LSW1 to LSW5兲; results are reported in detail
elsewhere 共Salonikios et al. 1999, 2000兲. These specimens were
designed according to the relevant provisions of Eurocode 8
共CEN 1995兲. Results from the first test series of five repaired and
strengthened specimens 共FRPLSW1 to FRPLSW5兲, having an as-
pect ratio of 1.0, were recently reported elsewhere 共Antoniades et
al. 2003兲.
The specimens reported herein had rectangular 100 mm
⫻ 1200 mm cross sections and height 1,800 mm 共aspect ratio
1.5兲. Specimens MSW2 and MSW3 had the same web reinforce-
ment consisting of a double orthogonal grid of 4.2 mm diameter
bars spaced at 100 mm. The 100 mm⫻ 240 mm boundary ele-
ments were reinforced with six bars of 8 mm diameter. Confine-
ment in the boundary elements was provided by 4.2 mm diameter
closed stirrups. Specimen MSW1 was similar to the previously
mentioned specimens but the web reinforcement was increased by
adding an extra grid of 8 mm diameter bars at 170 mm spacing.
Moreover, the longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary ele-
ments was increased by adding two more 8 mm bars. Specimens
MSW4 and MSW5 both included bidiagonal reinforcement.
Specimen MSW5 was similar to Specimen MSW2 in every re-
spect, except that a total of three 8 mm bars inclined at 45° was
added in each direction passing through the boundary elements at
the specimen’s base. In Specimen MSW4 共similar to specimen
MSW2 in every respect, except for three 8 mm bars in each
direction inclined at 45°兲, the intersection point of the 45° in-
clined bars was at the center of the wall base. Specimen MSW6
was identical to MSW1, except for the casting procedure. In
Specimen MSW6, the foundation beam was cast first, with starter
bars in place, at the position of the vertical bars in the wall; starter
bars extended a total of 560 mm above the base. The rest of the
specimen was cast after 4 days, without taking any specific mea-
sures with regard to curing at the construction joint and without
any increase of reinforcement in the joint area. Spacing of stirrups
in the specimens is shown in Fig. 1.
The aforementioned wall specimens, during the initial tests,
were subjected to a number of cycles of quasi-static cyclic load-
ing until failure occurred; details of the original test results are
given by Salonikios et al. 共1999, 2000兲. The failure mode was the
same for all six specimens. Hairline shear and flexural cracks
formed along the height of the specimens, while heavy damage
was concentrated within a height varying from 200 to 250 mm
from the base. In that area, spalling of the cover concrete was
observed, along with failure of the concrete under compression
inside the confined core at the base, large inelastic elongation,
buckling, and fracture of steel bars. Despite their low slenderness,
238 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
all specimens failed in a predominantly flexural mode, character-
ized by concrete crushing and reinforcement buckling at the con-
fined edges. Moderate diagonal cracking of the web and sliding at
the fixed base were also observed, but did not significantly affect
the failure mode. The tested walls were able to develop their full
flexural capacity, and they all showed a satisfactory energy dissi-
pation mechanism. Pinching of the hysteresis loops caused by
horizontal sliding and the bond slip of the vertical bars 共rather
than by shear crack opening兲 was significant in the conventionally
reinforced specimens, and considerably less in the specimens with
bidiagonal reinforcement.
Repair and Strengthening of the Specimens
Since the original specimens were tested to failure, manifested by
very heavy damage at the critical regions, including fracture of
some longitudinal bars and crushing of concrete, it was necessary
to repair the heavily damaged areas, which extended about 250
mm from the wall base, hence restoring the original flexural ca-
pacity of the specimens, before applying any FRP strengthening.
It is noted that, to permit comparisons with initial test results
reported by Salonikios et al. 共1999兲, strengthened walls are de-
noted as ‘‘FRPxxxx’’, where ‘‘xxxx’’ is the name of the corre-
sponding original specimen. The successive steps of the repair
and strengthening procedure are described in the following.
For the repair of specimens, heavily cracked and spalled con-
crete up to 250 mm from the wall base was removed, vertical
steel bars were cut and lap welded 共using pieces of new bars
extending beyond the yielding length in each direction兲, and
heavily damaged hoops and web horizontal bars were replaced. It
must be noted that during the initial testing of the original speci-
mens, inelastic elongation of the flexural longitudinal reinforce-
ment was observed at the confined edge columns, at the base of
the walls; yielding also extended inside the anchorage block of
the specimens. The base region was filled with high-strength non-
shrink mortar specifically intended for concreting in small areas,
as shown in Figs. 2 共upper right兲 and 3; the compressive strength
of repair mortar was 75 MPa.
Subsequent to repair, specimens were strengthened with FRP
reinforcement. Before the application of FRP sheets, a careful
preparation of the specimens was made with grinding of several
areas to achieve a fully smooth surface and rounding of the cor-
ners 共at a radius of about 20 mm兲. FRP sheets and strips were then
applied on the walls in the following sequence:
• Application of three 0.45 mm thick 100 mm wide CFRP strips
at the wall edges 共along a height of 1,200 mm兲 with the fibers
oriented in the vertical direction, to increase the flexural
strength of the walls.
• Application of a closed jacket around the specimen along a
height of 1,200 mm 共equal to the wall length兲, consisting of a
0.6 mm thick GFRP sheet with the fibers oriented in the direc-
tion perpendicular to the wall longitudinal axis 共i.e., horizon-
tally兲. In specimen FRPMSW2, the GFRP sheet was applied
only on one face of the wall’s web along the same height.
Also, for that specimen, epoxy resin was injected into web
shear and flexural cracks.
The three CFRP strips were bent at 90° at the specimen’s base and
extended thereafter 共for a length of 180 mm兲, in order to be an-
chored 共see Fig. 3兲. As pointed out earlier 共and also in literature,
Lombard et al. 2000; Kanakubo et al. 2000兲, the anchorage of
FRP strips used for flexural strengthening is crucial. In the present
study, three alternative schemes were used, intended as a possible
solution to the practical problem that strip reinforcement could

Fig. 2. Typical damaged specimen 共MSW4兲 and successive steps of
interventions applied to different specimens 共see details in Fig. 3兲
not be continued into the anchoring block of the specimen that
was very heavily reinforced.
• GFRP anchors 共glass tows placed inside drilled holes, subse-
quently filled with resin兲 were placed at various locations
along the development length of the strips 共two placed close to
the 90° bent and one in the middle of the development length兲,
in combination with 艚 共inverted U兲-shaped strips and steel
plates 共20 mm thick兲 fixed on the development length using
epoxy resin. In addition, before the application of FRP jackets
Fig. 3. Repair and strengthening procedures applied to each specimen
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 239
on the specimens’ web, C-shaped GFRP pieces 共1.3 mm兲 were
placed at the lower part of the boundary column as shown in
Figs. 2 and 3.
• In Specimens FRPMSW4 and FRPMSW6, the CFRP strips
used to increase flexural strength were anchored by means of a
metal angle and a metal plate, respectively 共see Figs. 2 and 3兲,
combined with GFRP anchors and bonded metal anchors
共bolts兲 that replaced the 艚-shaped strips.
During the first test series of repaired and strengthened specimens
共FRPLSW1–FRPLSW5兲 with aspect ratio of 1.0 failure of the
anchorage of the CFRP strips used to increase flexural strength
was detected 共Antoniades et al. 2003兲. In order to prevent such a
type of failure in the second series of tests, external pressure was
applied on the vertical legs of the 艚-shaped anchorage strips
during curing of the specimens. In order to estimate the degree of
improvement in bond conditions that would be thus achieved,
external pressure was applied 共as shown in the lower insert of Fig.
3兲 along the full length of vertical legs of the 艚-shaped strips in
Specimens FRPMSW2 and FRPMSW5, but only part of this
length in the remaining two specimens.
At this point, it has to be noted that an attempt to increase the
walls’ flexural strength 共by adding CFRP strips兲 was made not
because this strength was deemed to be inadequate, but since
otherwise a purely flexural type of failure was anticipated. For
that reason, it would neither be possible to assess the effective-
ness of FRP strengthening with regard to inelastic shear mecha-
nisms, nor the feasibility of increasing flexural strength by using
composite materials in members that are deficient in this respect
共this would be the case in several existing, old, or relatively old,
structures兲. Clearly, other possible techniques for increasing flex-
ural strength could have been used, such as the external applica-
tion of surface-mounted straight FRP rods, or the external appli-
cation of surface-mounted reinforcing steel bars, properly
anchored in the foundation block. The choice of the writers was
based on the very limited use 共at least so far兲 of FRP rods in

Fig. 4. Arrangement of linear variable differential transducers in the
wall specimens
Greece 共and most other European countries兲, on convenience, and
on the scarcity of data regarding the effectiveness of the strip
bonding technique.
In one of the specimens 共LSW3, from the first series of tests兲,
conventional repair was the only intervention made, with a view
to assessing the degree of the original strength and deformability
that could be achieved using the repair scheme only 共no FRP
strengthening兲.
Fig. 5. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW1 before and after repair and strengthening
240 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
Loading History and Instrumentation
The typical loading history included three loading cycles at each
ductility level until failure, the same as used in the study of the
original walls 共Salonikios et al. 1999兲. Displacement control was
used throughout the test, with the exception of the first cycles in
the elastic range.
The instrumentation of the tests included a load cell at the end
of the hydraulic actuator, and a total of eight linear variable dif-
ferential transducers, arranged in different directions as shown in
Fig. 4, used for measuring critical response quantities.
It must be noted that at the repaired and strengthened Speci-
men FRPMSW3, no axial loading was applied during the test
共while such loading was applied to the original Specimen
MSW3兲, hence this specimen is compared with original specimen
MSW2 in all subsequent discussions.
All specimens were tested at least 10 days after the application
of repair and strengthening schemes.
Discussion of Results
Damage and Failure Patterns of Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Strengthened Specimens
Hysteresis loops for the six walls that were strengthened using the
previously described arrangements of FRP reinforcement are
shown in Figs. 5–10.
Failure modes and response under cyclic loading were gener-
ally similar for all specimens. Final failure involved the destruc-
tion of anchor conditions of the composite material strips that
were used to increase flexural strength, but peak loading was
typically recorded prior to this failure and after several cycles in
the inelastic range 共at top drifts that reached up to 1%兲.
From the observation of the behavior of specimens during
tests, three main stages could be identified, as follows:
• Stage of development of hairline flexural and shear cracks
along the wall height,
• Stage of main flexural crack propagation at the base, and
• Stage of strength deterioration and subsequent failure.
 Fig. 6. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW2 before and after repair and strengthening

During the first cycles of loading, hairline cracking distributed
along the height developed in all specimens; this cracking was
pretty visible in the case of the wall with FRP strengthening on
one face only 共FRPMSW2兲, while its presence was inferred from
thin marks in the epoxy resin at the exterior surface of the FRP
sheets in the other specimens. Crack marks on the FRP surface
did not give an indication of opening, leading to the conclusion
that—due to the presence of the FRP jacket around the web of the
specimens—crack propagation was controlled and sufficient re-
sistance to diagonal tension was available subsequent to the first
cracking. Within the repaired zone 共where nonshrink mortar was
used兲 no indication of cracking was detected, other than the main
flexural crack discussed in the following.
During the second stage, a horizontal flexural crack that
formed at the base of the specimen, at the interface of repair
mortar, and the specimens’ anchor block, opened substantially
and there was clear evidence that most inelastic behavior occurred
at this location. Meanwhile, previously formed diagonal cracks
did not open further, apparently due to the presence of the heavily
reinforced edge columns at the tips of these cracks, which pre-
vented further opening. The envelope of the hysteresis loops 共see
Figs. 5–10兲 at this stage, which corresponded to a relatively small
increase in displacement amplitude, was nearly horizontal, indi-
cating that the peak strength of the walls was reached.
The aforementioned opening of the flexural crack at the base
inevitably caused a distress of the FRP strips used for flexural
strengthening, manifested by audible sounds from the breaking
resin, indicating the initiation of the epoxy resin failure in the
anchorage area. Meanwhile, neither concrete cover spalling nor
longitudinal steel reinforcement buckling was observed 共in con-
trast to the original tests兲, attributed to the presence of the FRP
jackets.
During the third stage of the response, the envelope of the
hysteresis loops had a negative slope, indicating that the strength
of the specimens was deteriorating. In specimens where the FRP
strips were anchored by a combination of metal plate or angle,
and bonded bolts, final failure occurred due to the destruction of
anchor conditions of the bonded bolts 共Specimens FRPMSW4

Fig. 7. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW3 before and after repair and strengthening

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 241

 Fig. 8. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW4 before and after repair and strengthening
and FRPMSW6兲. For the rest of specimens, where the FRP strips
were anchored using a combination of metal plates and 艚-shaped
FRP brackets, final failure occurred either by debonding 共peeling
off兲 of the vertical leg of the 艚-shaped FRP or by debonding of
the steel plate 共for Specimens FRPMSW1 and FRPMSW3兲. For
Specimens FRPMSW2 and FRPMSW5, where external pressure
was applied on the vertical legs of the 艚-shaped FRP during the
curing period, failure occurred by fracture of the composite ma-
terial rather than by debonding. It has to be pointed out that prior
to failure at the anchorage area, fracture of longitudinal steel re-
inforcement at boundary columns was observed. This type of fail-
ure was mainly attributed to the fact that all inelastic flexural
deformation took place at the horizontal flexural crack that
formed at the specimens’ base. Subsequent to the fracture of lon-
gitudinal steel reinforcement the FRP anchorage zone was highly
stressed 共due to redistribution of stresses from the steel bars to the
FRP system兲 resulting in the aforementioned brittle failure of the
anchorage. During this stage, the postpeak resistance of the walls
was dramatically reduced 共a sudden reduction in strength兲, as can
Fig. 9. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW5 before and after repair and strengthening
242 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
be clearly seen in Figs. 5–10. This sudden drop in strength is
attributed to the partial destruction of the bond between the hori-
zontal part of the composite materials and the concrete surface.
Displacement did not increase since the test was carried out in
displacement control mode.
The presence of the GFRP anchors close to the 90° bent of the
FRP strips 共see Fig. 2兲 used for flexural strengthening in combi-
nation with GFRP ribbons or steel plates in the first series of tests
共Specimens FRPLSW1–FRPLSW5兲, did not appear to improve
the anchorage conditions. This was the reason for deciding to use
the aforementioned steel plates and angles, i.e., to avoid prema-
ture failure of the horizontal leg of the 艚-shaped FRP section,
which is subjected to tensile loading when the edge strips are in
tension. It was thought that the presence of the steel plate would
prevent early failure of the old concrete beneath the horizontal leg
of the FRP, and transfer tensile stresses to the vertical legs that are
bonded 共by epoxy resin兲 to the block supporting the wall speci-
men. Since the final failure of some specimens in the first series
 Fig. 10. Hysteresis loops for specimen MSW6 before and after repair and strengthening

of tests 共FRPLSW兲 occurred by the peeling off of one of the
vertical legs, longer legs were used in the specimens tested next
共FRPMSW兲.
The FRP jacket used for shear strengthening and ductility en-
hancement of the damaged walls appeared to perform well during
all tests, preventing the propagation of existing shear cracks 共it
should be recalled here that such cracks had not been sealed by
epoxy injection except for Specimen FRPMSW2 and thus it is
possible that the epoxy resin infiltrated the cracks at the time of
GFRP wrapping兲. A small propagation of some existing flexural
cracks 共almost perpendicular to the wall axis兲 was detected,
which was anticipated as the fibers of the FRP sheets were present
only in the horizontal direction 共see also Fig. 3兲. Using a single
FRP sheet 共specimen FRPMSW2兲 or a full jacket 共rest of speci-
mens兲 did not have a marked influence on the recorded response,
apparently because failure was dominated by the flexural mecha-
nism and not by shear, while the effectiveness of jackets on the
ductility of elongated cross sections is known to be negligible
共Neale et al. 1997兲.
Several reinforcing steel bars at the bottom of the walls failed
by fracture. Since only one major flexural crack developed at the
interface of the high strength mortar and the concrete cover of the
block supporting the specimens, practically all of the plastic elon-
gation of the steel bars 共which had been replaced by lap-welded
pieces兲 took place at this crack, resulting in their fracture or fail-
ure of the welding 共it was not easy to detect what exactly hap-
pened in each particular case兲 in all specimens when they were
subjected to a top displacement between 0.5 and 1% their height;
at these drift values the walls were already well into the inelastic
range, as can be seen in Figs. 5–10.
It is worth mentioning here that the degree of damage suffered
by a FRP-strengthened wall is not easy to evaluate by visual
inspection, unless an anchorage failure occurs. Otherwise, the
only visible signs of failure are a loosening of the FRP fabric at
the critical sections 共wall base兲 and, of course, the flexural crack
at the interface between the old concrete and the 共high strength兲
repair mortar. The presence of the FRP jacket prevents visible
spalling of the concrete cover and buckling of steel bars, while
crack widths are generally very small inside the jacket.
Strength Considerations
Table 1 summarizes the flexural and shear strengths of the wall
specimens, evaluated before and after the addition of FRP strips

Table 1. Calculated and Measured Strengths of Specimens, with and without the Fiber-Reinforced Polymer 共FRP兲 Reinforcement
Calculated Calculated
flexural Calculated Calculated Calculated additional
Measured strength additional Total shear shear shear Total
shear based on flex. strength flexural corresponding strength strength calculated Maximum
in original steel due to strength to flexural due to steel due to shear measured Increase
specimens, reinforcement, FRP strips, 共calculated兲, strength, reinforcement, FRP sheets, strength, shear in
Specimen VR0 M R1 M R2 MR V MR VR1 VR2 VR = VR1 + VR2 Vmeas resistance
MSW1 197 388.9 72.9 461.8 239.9 324 158.4 482.4 243.9 32%
MSW2 124 244.5 72.9 317.4 164.9 162 79.2 241.2 172.4 48%
MSW3 124 244.5 72.9 317.4 164.9 162 158.4 320.4 164.3 41%
MSW4 158 300.3 72.9 373.2 193.9 327 158.4 458.4 180.8 22%
MSW5 187 325.4 72.9 398.3 206.9 327 158.4 458.4 210.8 20%
MSW6 202 388.9 72.9 461.8 239.9 324 158.4 482.4 200.2 5%
Note: Flexural strengths are in kN m 共1 kN m = 0.737 kip ft兲; shears are in kN 共1 kN= 0.225 kips兲. Increase in the resistance is calculated as: Vmeas
Ⲑ
− 0.94VR0 0.94VR0 .

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 243

and sheets. Shears VR0 are measured peak values during the initial
tests 共Salonikios et al. 1999兲, flexural strengths M R1 are calculated
from compatibility analysis, while the additional flexural strength
M R2 due to the FRP strips at the wall edges 共Fig. 3兲 is calculated
assuming that the strips are developing a tensile stress 共Trianta-
fillou 2001兲:
f j 艋 ␧f · Ej ; ␧ f = min兵5␧sy,␧ fu/2,0.008其 共1兲
In Eq. 共1兲, E j⫽Young’s modulus of the FRP sheet; ␧sy⫽yield
strain of steel reinforcement 共0.29% here兲; and ␧ fu⫽previously
reported ultimate tensile strain of the FRP. It must be stressed
here that no practical methods are yet available for calculating the
flexural strength of members reinforced as in the present study 共in
particular, using the novel types of anchorage presented in the
paper兲. The critical parameter of the effective strain ␧ f in Eq. 共1兲
is taken as that corresponding to debonding at flexural cracks,
since this was deemed to be the most relevant case among those
for which formulations are currently available; the critical value is
␧ fu / 2 = 0.0075 共for CFRP兲 which is within the range of values
共0.006 to 0.0085兲 adopted in current guidelines 共e.g., see Interna-
tional Federation for Structural Concrete 2001兲.
Shear 共diagonal tension兲 strength prior to the addition of the
FRP sheet VR1 can be estimated from the standard “superposition”
model:
VR1 = Vc + Vw 共2兲
where Vc⫽“concrete” contribution; and Vw⫽contribution of the
shear reinforcement in the web. According to the Eurocode 共CEN
1995兲, Vc = 0 can be conservatively assumed inside the plastic
hinge region when the axial load is equal to 0, while Vw can be
estimated from
Vw = 关␳h f yh + ␳d cos 45 ° f yd兴bwz 共3兲
where z ⬇ 0.8lw⫽effective internal lever arm 共distance between
the resultants of tensile and compressive stresses at the section
considered兲; ␳h⫽ratio of horizontal web reinforcement; f yh⫽yield
strength of horizontal reinforcement; ␳d⫽ratio of diagonal web
reinforcement 共present only in Specimens MSW4 and MSW5兲;
and f yd⫽yield strength of diagonal reinforcement.
The additional shear strength due to the FRP jacket VR2 is
calculated from 共Priestley et al. 1996; ICBO 1997兲.
VR2 = 2t f · f j · lw ; f j = 0.004E j 艋 0.75f uj 共4兲
where t f ⫽thickness of the FRP jacket 共with fibers at 90° to the
member axis兲; f uj⫽ultimate tensile strength of the FRP sheet; and
lw⫽length of the wall. The total shear strength VR = VR1 + VR2,
while the shears reported in the last column are the measured
peak values 共in either direction, typically in the “positive” one兲. It
is clear that shear strength 共VR兲 is higher than the shear 共V MR兲
corresponding to the development of flexural strength in all speci-
mens, hence the peak strength of all walls tested should be gov-
erned by flexure 共shear could possibly dominate at postpeak
stages兲.
Based on the estimated and measured values reported in Table
1, it is seen that the lateral load capacity of the walls was in-
creased with respect to that of the original ones. More specifi-
cally, assuming that the fraction of original strength restored by
“conventional” repair is 94% 共based on the pilot Specimen
LSW3, Antoniades et al. 2003, which, although of a slightly
lower aspect ratio, failed also in flexure兲, the flexural strength
increase in the walls varied from as low as 5% in FRPMSW6
共where early failure of the anchorage system was observed兲 to as
high as 48% in the case of wall FRPMSW2, where the presence
244 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
of the steel plate, combined with GFRP anchorage strips, im-
proved the anchorage conditions. Also in Specimen FRPMSW3,
the increase in strength 共that is compared with the strength of
specimen MSW2, since no axial force was applied to the strength-
ened specimen兲 was 41%. The reason why the strength increase in
Walls FRPMSW1, FRPMSW4, and FRPMSW5 was as low as
32%, 22%, and 20%, respectively, is not clear. A possible expla-
nation is that, for Specimens FRPMSW1 and FRPMSW4, no sat-
isfactory bonding conditions of the composite material were
achieved at the anchorage areas. In any case, the peak strength of
the wall specimens always developed well before the peeling off
of the anchorage, due to fractures of steel bars and possibly some
early debonding of FRP reinforcement at flexural and/or shear
cracks close to the 90° bent that was difficult to detect simply by
visual inspection. It is worth recalling here that large variations in
the effectiveness of FRP sheets with vertical fibers were also ob-
served in cyclic loading tests 共Lombard et al. 2000兲 of walls
strengthened at the side faces only.
Hysteretic Behavior
In evaluating the hysteretic behavior of the FRP-strengthened
specimens in Figs. 5–10, one must keep in mind that the corre-
sponding original specimens are representative of walls designed
to state-of-the-art procedures 共CEN 1995兲 and were found to per-
form very satisfactorily during their initial cyclic tests to failure
共Salonikios et al. 1999, 2000兲. As discussed previously, due to the
very heavy damage sustained and 共to a lesser extent兲 the localiza-
tion of intervention in the most damaged bottom part only 共see
Fig. 11兲, simple repair of these specimens leads to a clearly less
satisfactory hysteretic behavior than that of the undamaged speci-
mens. Hence, when comparing the behavior of the original speci-
mens 共left of Figs. 5–10兲 with that of the strengthened ones 共right
of Figs. 5–10兲, one should also consider the comparison between
original and conventionally repaired Walls LSW3 and RLSW3
共Antoniades et al. 2003兲. The addition of the FRP jacket should
ideally improve the hysteretic response of the repaired walls, al-
though actual confinement by the FRP is deemed to be insignifi-
cant in elongated rectangular sections 共Neale et al. 1997兲. How-
ever, concrete spalling and buckling of yielded steel bars are
delayed due to the presence of the jacket and this should normally
lead to improved response under cyclic loading.
The hysteretic behavior of the repaired and strengthened speci-
mens as manifested by the hysteresis loops in Figs. 5–10 is gen-
erally better than that of the conventionally repaired wall
共RLSW3兲 but poorer than that of the original walls. Variations
between strengthened walls do exist, the poorest behavior being
that of Wall FRPMSW6 共Fig. 10兲 and the best that of Wall
FRPMSW2 共Fig. 6兲; this is also consistent with the corresponding
increases in strength discussed in the previous section.
The inability of the tested FRP-jacketed walls to develop high
ductility values under cyclic loading should be attributed prima-
rily to the following factors:
• The localization of inelastic deformation at the critical flexural
crack, that led to fracture of steel bars at the base,
• The well-known linear elastic response of the FRP materials,
which can not contribute to energy dissipation 共as steel rein-
forcement does兲, and
• The inefficiency of FRP-wrapping to provide proper confine-
ment in elongated cross sections, such as those used herein
共cross section aspect ratio of 12兲.
Finally, the initial stiffness of the specimens after strengthen-
ing is similar to or slightly higher than those of the original speci-
 Fig. 11. Failure pattern at the end of test of wall FRPMSW5
mens. Subsequent to yielding and up to the point of failure, re-
paired and strengthened specimens had on the average 15%
higher stiffness than the original specimens. Energy dissipated by
the original and strengthened specimens is shown in Fig. 12. It is
seen that the amount of energy dissipated by the original speci-
mens is significantly higher than the energy dissipated by
strengthened specimens, as should be anticipated from the fore-
going ductility considerations. It is noted that the original speci-
mens were able to sustain more loading cycles and with smaller
strength degradation 共on the average 27 cycles, to an average
displacement of 27 mm兲 than the repaired and strengthened speci-
mens 共average 18 cycles, to an average displacement of 13 mm兲.
Conclusions
The study whose second part is reported herein is the first one to
address the retrofit with FRP jackets, in combination with FRP
Fig. 12. Energy dissipated 共at failure兲 by original and strengthened
specimens
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005 / 245
strips intended for flexural strengthening, of well-designed RC
walls with a low aspect ratio that have sustained heavy seismic
damage. Some of the types of anchorage used for the FRP strips
are rather novel and the optimum solution was not obvious a
priori; hence, they were devised in an evolutionary fashion, based
on what was learned from previous tests within the same pro-
gram. In the FRP-strengthened walls, flexural strength increases
with respect to the strength of the repair-only case ranging from
as low as 5% to as high as 48%. It is then clear that with respect
to strength, among the anchorage systems tested, the most effi-
cient was the one based on a combination of GFRP inverted
U-sections, GFRP anchors, and a rather thick 共20 mm兲 steel plate
to strengthen the horizontal leg of the U-section.
In addition to flexural strength considerations, a number of
useful conclusions can be drawn, relating to the behavior of dam-
aged concrete walls, subject to seismic loading, after conventional
repair combined with FRP strengthening.
• Anchoring of FRP strips at critical regions 共such as the base of
walls兲 is far from easy, and the anchorage zones are suscep-
tible to failure under tension, so ample anchorage lengths
should be provided, along with plates or angles that help pre-
venting early peeling off.
• By using FRP jackets, the shear strength of R/C walls sub-
jected to seismic loads can be increased, and, in addition, shear
cracking is effectively controlled; this is the case both for the
walls with an aspect ratio of 1.5 addressed here and for similar
walls with an aspect ratio of 1.0 共Antoniades et al. 2003兲.
• Hysteretic behavior of walls retrofitted, as in the present study,
is generally poorer than that of the corresponding virgin speci-
mens, mainly because inelastic deformation concentrates at
one critical crack, formed at the interface of the repair mortar
and the wall base. Stiffness of the strengthened specimens,
after the point of yielding, was on the average 15% higher than
 of the original specimens. Dissipated energy was significantly
higher in original specimens than in strengthened specimens.
• From the anchorage systems tested in the present study, metal
plates combined with FRP “brackets” 共cut from the same fab-
ric as the sheets兲, appear to be quite efficient. The effective-
ness of bonded anchors used, was generally less than that of
the combination of plates and FRP brackets.
• In all tests, final failure of the FRP anchorage is brittle, but
only occurs after the peak strength is attained and typically
follows fracture of steel reinforcement in critical areas hence
the overall behavior of the strengthened walls is clearly not
brittle.
• Unlike what was done in previous studies, the walls studied
herein had suffered very heavy damage during their initial
tests 共i.e., actual failure兲; FRP strengthening cannot be ex-
pected to be as efficient in this case as in the case of undam-
aged and/or lightly damaged walls.
• The distribution of bond stresses at the interface of the FRP
strip 共particularly when bent at 90°兲 and concrete, and the way
this should be considered in the calculation of the required
anchorage length appears to still be an open subject for future
research.
Acknowledgments
The present study was funded by the General Secretariat of Re-
search and Technology of Greece, within the framework of the
“PENED ’99” program.
References
Antoniades, K. K., Salonikios, T. N., and Kappos, A. J. 共2003兲. “Cyclic
tests on seismically damaged reinforced concrete walls strengthened
using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 100共4兲,
510–518.
CEN Techical Committee 250/SC8. 共1995兲. “Eurocode 8: Earthquake re-
sistant design of structures—Part 1: General rules.” ENV 1998 1-1,
1-2, and 1-3, Brussels.
Ehsani, M. R., and Saadatmanesh, H. 共1997兲. “Fiber composites: An eco-
246 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2005
nomical alternative for retrofitting earthquake-damaged precast-
concrete walls.” Earthquake Spectra, 13共2兲, 225–241.
International Conference of Building 共ICBO兲 Evaluation Service. 共1997兲.
“Acceptance criteria for concrete and reinforced and unreinforced ma-
sonry strengthening using fiber-reinforced composite systems.” ICBO,
Whittier, Calif.
International Federation for Structural Concrete 共fib兲. 共2001兲. “Externally
bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.”, fib Bull. No. 14, Lau-
sanne, France.
Iso, M., Matsuzaki, Y., Sonobe, Y., Nakamura, H., and Watanabe, M.
共2000兲. “Experimental study on reinforced concrete columns having
wing walls retrofitted with continuous fiber sheets.” Proc., 12th World
Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 共CD-ROM兲, Paper No. 1865.
Kanakubo, T., Aridome, Y., Fujita, N., and Matsui, M. 共2000兲. “Develop-
ment of anchorage system for CFRP sheet in strengthening of rein-
forced concrete structures.” Proc., 12th World Conf. Earthquake En-
gineering, 共CD-ROM兲, Paper No. 1831.
Lombard, J., Lau, D., Humar, J., Foo, S., and Cheung, M. 共2000兲. “Seis-
mic strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete shear walls.”
Proc., 12th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 共CD-ROM兲, Paper
No. 2032.
Neale, K. W., Demers, M., DeVino, B., and Ho, N. Y. 共1997兲. “Strength-
ening of wall-type reinforced concrete columns with fiber reinforced
composite sheets.” Structural failure, durability, and retrofitting, K. C.
G. Ong, J. M. Lau, and P. Paramasivam, eds., Singapore Concrete
Institute, Singapore, 410–417.
Penelis, G. G., and Kappos, A. J. 共1997兲. Earthquake-resistant concrete
structures, E & FN SPON 共Chapman and Hall兲, London, UK.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges, Wiley, N.Y.
Salonikios, T. N., Kappos, A. J., Tegos, I. A., and Penelis, G. G. 共1999兲.
“Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness RC walls: Design basis and
test results.” ACI Struct. J., 96共4兲, 649–660.
Salonikios, T. N., Kappos, A. J., Tegos, I. A., and Penelis, G. G. 共2000兲.
“Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness RC walls: Failure modes,
strength, and deformation analysis, and design implications.” ACI
Struct. J., 97共1兲, 132–141.
Sugiyama, T., et al. 共2000兲. “Experimental study on the performance of
the R/C frame infilled cast-in-place nonstructural R/C walls retrofitted
by using carbon fiber sheets.” Proc., 12th World Conf. Earthquake
Engineering, 共CD-ROM兲, Paper No. 2153.
Triantafillou, T. C. 共2001兲. “Seismic retrofitting of structures with fiber-
reinforced polymers.” Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 3共1兲, 57–65.