Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Experimental study of jacket height and reinforcement effects on seismic

retrofitting of concrete columns
Ali Zaiter, Tze Liang Lau *
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

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

Keywords: This study evaluates the jacket height and reinforcement effects on reinforced concrete (RC) square columns
Reinforced concrete column retrofitted with normal concrete. Five one-third scale columns with non-ductile reinforcement were tested. Four
Concrete jacket columns were retrofitted with RC jackets with quarter height (h/4) and half height (h/2) where h is the column
Jacket height
height. Subjected to cyclic loading, the failure pattern, lateral load capacity, stiffness, ductility, and energy
Jacket reinforcement
Cyclic loading
dissipation of the column were investigated. Results show that increasing the jacket height significantly affected
Urban resilient building the failure pattern and lateral load capacity. Increasing the jacket height from h/4 to h/2 showed a pronounced
shear failure and steeper diagonal cracks. Columns jacketed with h/2 jacket almost doubled the original lateral
load capacity. The difference in the lateral load capacity of columns with h/2 jackets and h/4 jackets was above
23%. The jacket reinforcement confinement reduced the level of jacket damage and increased the damage and
concrete crush in the column above the jacket. However, the unreinforced jacket increased the jacket damage
and reduced the damage above the jacket. The jacket reinforcement increased the lateral load capacity by the
shear transfer mechanism while the jacket height enhanced the energy dissipation of the jacketed columns by
arch (strut) action. In addition, the jacket height and reinforcement increased the column’s stiffness and
consequently, the stiffness irregularity produced short column shear failure above the jacket. From the results, a
simplified analytical model was developed to predict the structural capacities of the jacketed column.

1. Introduction
“Since the 1950s, one of the most common architectural styles
influenced by Le Corbusier is characterized by the absence of the infilled
masonry walls in the ground floors of commercial buildings, car parks,
or even pedestrian crossings” [1]. The absence of the infilled masonry
walls leads to critical stiffness irregularity that could result in a total
collapse under an earthquake event. Generally, columns can withstand
two main types of loads. Such types are the axial–flexural load that
produces combined compression and bending failure and the shear load
generated from the building’s internal or external lateral forces.
Compared to their lateral load capacity, reinforced concrete (RC) col­
umns have high axial capacity attributed to the concrete high
compressive strength. The need for the retrofitting of buildings and fa­
cilities arises for many reasons, such as past seismic events, new storeys
addition, aging of structure, deterioration of structural elements, design
errors, corrosion of reinforcement, or modification of building usage
impacting its seismic response capability. Retrofitting methods are used
to strengthen columns, increase their seismic capacities, and allow them
to comply with the current code specifications. Over the last two de­
cades, several experimental and numerical studies have been conducted
on various strengthening techniques such as high performance fiber
reinforced concrete (HPFRC) jacket [2–6], carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (CFRP) wrap [7–10], glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)
wrap [11–14], high ductile fiber reinforced concrete jacket [15], and
cementitious composite [16–18]. Despite the new advanced strength­
ening techniques, traditional strengthening methods such as RC and
steel jacketing are still widely used in undeveloped countries and areas
of low to moderate seismic hazards.
Reinforced concrete jacketing is a classical valuable retrofitting
technique in terms of cost and efficiency [19]. In recent decades, several
past studies investigated the seismic performance of the jacketed RC
columns. Vandoros and Dritsos [20] studied the effect of applying me­
chanical scrabble or dowel bars at the column-jacket interface surface.
The RC columns (250 × 250 mm2 and 1,800 mm high) were jacketed
with shotcrete jackets (400 × 400 mm2 and 1,300 mm high) and tested
under cyclic load. The lateral strength of the jacketed columns with
mechanical scrabble and dowel bars was 3.63 and 3.37 times greater

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: celau@usm.my (T.L. Lau).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.020
Received 22 September 2020; Received in revised form 19 January 2021; Accepted 6 February 2021
Available online 6 March 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
than the lateral strength of the original column, respectively. In the
studies of Julio et al. [21] and Julio and Branco [22], RC columns (200
× 200 mm2 and 1,350 mm high) were fully jacketed with RC jackets
(270 × 270 mm2 and 900 mm high) and tested under monotonic and
cyclic loads, respectively. Results showed that the monolithic behavior
can be achieved without using steel connectors, bonding agent, or
increasing the surface roughness between the column core and the
added jacket. Vandoros and Dritsos [23] tested the effect of welding the
jacket stirrups ends together under cyclic load for RC columns (250 ×
250 mm2 and 1,800 mm high) jacketed with RC jackets (400 × 400 mm2
and 1,300 mm high). Results revealed that welding the jacket stirrups
ends stopped the stirrups from opening and increased the confinement
effect as it prevented the buckling of the jacket longitudinal bars. In the
study conducted by Achillopoulou et al. [24], RC columns (150 × 150
mm2) were preloaded axially to their maximum bearing capacity and
fully jacketed with RC jackets (310 × 310 mm2) where dowel bars and
shear connectors were applied at the jacket interface. At the ultimate
stage, plastic hinges were formed around the dowel bars, while the shear
connectors showed buckling phenomena especially when the shear
connector diameter was larger than the longitudinal bar diameter. In a
similar study for Achillopoulou et al. [25], RC columns were loaded
axially to their maximum bearing capacity before being retrofitted with
RC jackets and tested under axial load. The use of dowel bars increased
the axial load capacity and the interface slip resistance despite the
plastic hinges formed around them. In the study of Achillopoulou et al.
[26], the RC columns were retrofitted with a full RC jacket and tested
under axial load. Results showed that even though shear connectors
increased the initial stiffness, the secant stiffness was reduced due to
buckling. Elbakry and Tarabia [27] studied the effect of applying a
bonding agent between the old and the new concrete on the bond
strength. Results showed that it is insignificant as the adhesion of the
bonding agent with the jacket concrete was weaker than its adhesion
with the original concrete substrate. A similar finding was reported by
Ortega et al. [28] as the bonding agent did not show any significant
effect on the behavior of the repaired RC columns jacketed with full-
height cementitious mortar jackets. In a recent study, Murugan and
Sengupta [29] tested RC columns retrofitted with full RC jackets with
different jacket interfaces (surface roughening, surface roughening with
dowel bars, and surface roughening with shear connectors) under cyclic
load. Results showed that the retrofitted specimens showed a similar
lateral strength despite their jacket interface treatment. Generally, most
studies agree that a good mechanical roughening of the surface and the
use of dowel bars or shear connectors are the most appropriate to ach­
ieve a monolithic behavior, enhance the interface bond strength, and
increase the lateral load capacity.
Ersoy et al. [30] and Rodriguez and Park [31] studied the effect of
preloading damage on RC columns retrofitted with RC jackets under
axial and cyclic load, respectively. It is reported that there is no signif­
icant impact for the preloading damage before jacketing on the load-
bearing capacity of the retrofitted columns. In the study of Vandoros
and Dritsos [32], RC columns (250 × 250 mm2 and 1,800 mm high)
were preloaded then jacketed with RC jackets (400 × 400 mm2 and
1,300 mm high) and tested under cyclic load. Results showed that at the
maximum load stage, preloading before jacketing increased the lateral
strength and deformation capacity. Even though preloading reduced the
initial stiffness, it retained the stiffness after the maximum load stage.
According to the study of Julio et al. [21] and Julio and Branco [22],
preloading does not have a significant effect on the lateral strength of the
retrofitted columns. Similarly, Takeuti et al. [33], Achillopoulou et al.
[1,25], and Zaiter and Lau [34] reported that preloading before jack­
eting does not adversely affect the load-bearing capacity of the jacketed
columns. Although intuitively unloading the columns before jacketing is
preferable, preloaded columns could achieve a monolithic behavior
after jacketing.
As for the jacket lateral reinforcement, it is recommended to use half
the spacing of the column’s transverse reinforcement to achieve a
1085
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
monolithic behavior [35]. Takeuti et al. [33] reported that as the
transverse reinforcement ratio increases, the retrofitted columns
develop higher ductility and initial stiffness. According to Achillopoulou
et al. [25], when the spacing of the jacket stirrups is reduced, the axial
load capacity and energy dissipation are increased. Similarly, Komathi
and Sengupta [36] stated that when the transverse reinforcement ratio is
increased, the shear strength of the retrofitted column is increased.
According to Alcocer and Jirsa [37], it is recommended to distribute the
jacket longitudinal reinforcement bars uniformly and to avoid excessive
bundling at the corners. The effect of increasing the longitudinal rein­
forcement ratio in RC squared jacketed columns was investigated by
Rodriguez and Park [31]. The squared columns with two different lon­
gitudinal reinforcement distributions of four corner bars and twelve bars
were tested under cyclic load. Results showed that due to the ACI’s
conservative recommendations, increasing the flexural reinforcement is
not necessary and insignificant.
To the best knowledge of the authors, only Karadogan [38] consid­
ered two jacket heights of h/4 and h/2, where h is the full column
height. This study tested RC columns (300 × 300 mm2) under constant
axial load and reversal cyclic lateral displacements. The researchers
applied a reinforced local thin jacket 75 mm thick using self-compacting
concrete. When the jacket height was increased from h/4 to h/2, the
lateral load strength increased over 64% increments. Despite the use of
two different jacket heights, the aforementioned experiment aimed to
study the effectiveness of the local thin jacketing rather than studying
the effect of jacket height on the structural parameters of the retrofitted
columns. The previous study was limited to self-compacting concrete.
However, the experimental study on the effect of jacket height of RC
columns jacketed with normal concrete is rare. Moreover, the compar­
ison between RC jackets and plain concrete jackets is not well studied as
previous studies were oriented to study the RC jacket solely. Currently,
the assessment of the effect of jacket height and reinforcement (whether
unreinforced or reinforced jacket) in terms of failure mode, lateral
strength, stiffness, and ductility is scarce.
Malaysia is a low to moderate seismic region, where buildings and
facilities are not constructed as per seismic requirements [39]. In the
rural areas of Ranau (West coast part of Sabah state in Malaysia), people
still retrofit their buildings with plain concrete and reinforced concrete
jackets at partial height of column to increase their lateral load capacity.
The full concrete jacketing needs a special material and treatment at the
roof connection and it can impose substantial weight on the foundations.
For economic and practical reasons, columns are partially jacketed with
reinforced or unreinforced concrete jackets. Since the jacket retrofitting
in such areas is conducted without proper calculations and designs,
people use large jacket cross-sections especially in the case of retrofitting
old columns with small cross-sections.
2. Experimental investigation
The main objective of this experiment is to study the effect of the
height and reinforcement of the jacket on the concrete jacketing of
squared RC columns. Two variable parameters exist in this study, the
height and the reinforcement of the jacket.
The test specimens comprised 1:3 downscale columns due to the
limitation in the laboratory facilities. The reference column of 100 ×
100 mm2 cross-section and 1,200 mm high was designed as per ACI
318–14 without seismic details. The lateral load central line was at
1,100 mm high above the base. The longitudinal reinforcement of the
column consisted of four deformed bars of 7 mm diameter anchored to
the base. The concrete cover of the column was 15 mm. The plain steel
bars of 2 mm diameter are unavailable in the manufacturing industries.
Therefore, this study used a galvanized iron wire of 2 mm diameter with
90◦ hooks instead. The researchers spaced the 2 mm transverse galva­
nized iron wires at 70 mm center-to-center. The geometry and rein­
forcement details of the reference column and base are shown in Fig. 1.
All dimensions are in millimeters unless otherwise specified.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of RC reference column.
The top 200 mm length of the column’s tip was locally strengthened
with an additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement to with­
stand the applied lateral load and avoid local concrete failure. The
additional reinforcement consisted of four longitudinal deformed bars of
7 mm diameter and 200 mm long bundled with the column longitudinal
reinforcement. At the column’s tip of 200 mm long, the researchers
reduced the center-to-center spacing of the column’s transverse rein­
forcement from 70 mm to 50 mm. In jacketed columns, the researchers
applied the 50 mm thick jacket on each side of the retrofitted column.
The cross-section of the jacket was 200 × 200 mm2. The height of the
jacket was h/4 (275 mm) and h/2 (550 mm) where h is the column
height from the base to the point of the applied lateral load. Fig. 2 shows
Fig. 2. Geometry and reinforcement details of RC column with unreinforced
concrete jacket.
1086
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
the geometry and reinforcement details of the unreinforced concrete
jacket. For reinforced concrete jacket, the longitudinal reinforcement
distribution of reinforced jackets was four deformed bars with a 7 mm
diameter at the jacket corners fully anchored in the base. The concrete
cover was 15 mm and the transversal reinforcement was 2 mm galva­
nized iron wires of 90◦ hooks at 70 mm center-to-center spacing. Fig. 3
illustrates the geometry and reinforcement details of the RC jacket.
In the present study, the minimum specifications for concrete jack­
eting of the Indian Standard IS 15988:2013 [40] were adopted. Ac­
cording to the aforementioned standard, the minimum jacket thickness
should be 100 mm, a minimum of four 12 mm diameter corner bars
should be used for the longitudinal reinforcement, and the spacing of the
ties should be within 200 mm. Therefore, in the downscale model of the
current study, a 50 mm thick jacket was applied to avoid segregation
and to facilitate formwork installation between the jacket reinforcement
and the original column reinforcement. However, since no extra longi­
tudinal reinforcement was required as the original column did not show
buckling under cyclic test, the minimum reinforcement of IS
15988:2013 [40] was adopted. Producing longitudinal bars of 4 mm
diameter for the downscale model is beyond the manufacturer’s
attainability. Therefore, four corner bars of 7 mm diameter were erected
for the jacket longitudinal reinforcement, and galvanized iron wires of 2
mm diameter were installed at 70 mm spacing for the transverse ties. For
the reason of comparison with the study of Karadogan [38], the partial
jacket retrofitting of the RC square column was considered for h/4 and
h/2 jacket height where h is the column height.
The reference column represented a ground floor square column of a
four-storey building damaged in the 2015 Ranau earthquake in Sabah,
Malaysia. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the five specimens.
The first notation ‘C’ refers to the column. In the second notation, ‘O’
refers to the original reference column. ‘U’ and ‘R’ refer to the unrein­
forced and reinforced jackets, respectively. The third notation refers to
the jacket height ‘1′ for a jacket of 275 mm long and ‘2′ for a jacket of
550 mm long. The last notation ‘C’ refers to the cyclic loading.
3. Materials and methods
The concrete compressive strength of the column and jacket was 25
Fig. 3. Geometry and reinforcement details of RC column with reinforced
concrete jacket.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
Table 1
Description of specimens.
Specimen Characteristics Annotation
Reference column COC
Column with unreinforced jacket 275 mm long CU-1C
Column with reinforced jacket 275 mm long CR-1C
Column with unreinforced jacket 550 mm long CU-2C
Column with reinforced jacket 550 mm long CR-2C
MPa. The concrete elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio were 24700 MPa
and 0.21, respectively. Table 2 tabulates the properties of the 7 mm bars
and 2 mm wires. The researchers tested the columns with the footings
restrained to the steel platform with steel beams. However, the steel
platform was fixed to the laboratory’s strong floor. Fig. 4 shows the
schematic view for the loading setup. Fig. 5 portrays the specimen setup
under axial and lateral loadings. The researchers applied the axial load
at the top of the column using a double-acting high tonnage hydraulic
actuator (ENERPAC CLRG 150-6) of 1,500 kN capacity and a 150 mm
stroke connected to a 1,000 kN load cell (KYOWA LCV-A-1 MN). A
vertical load of 67 kN which corresponds to a 0.2 normalized axial load
ratio was applied and maintained throughout the test.
The researchers applied the lateral cyclic load by a double-acting
long stroke hydraulic actuator (ENERPAC RR 5013) of 500 kN capac­
ity and 334 mm stroke connected to a load cell (Tokyo TCL P 20) of 200
kN capacity for load monitoring. Two hand pumps (ENERPAC P-464)
were used to control the vertical and horizontal hydraulic actuators.
The researchers adopted the ISO 16670 protocol of ASTM E2126-11
[41] as it was intended to show the elastic and inelastic cyclic properties
and the predicted failure mode in earthquake loading. It is a
displacement-controlled loading method that consists of displacement
cycles grouped in phases with increasing levels of displacement. The
cyclic loading histories of the specimens are shown in Fig. 6. The lateral
displacement at the column’s tip was measured with a Linear Variable
Displacement Transducer (LVDT), (KYOWA DT – 100A). Whereas, the
cracks openings were measured with a 25 mm steel feeler gauge.
4. Results and discussion
The researchers determined the lateral drift ratio parameter by
dividing the lateral displacement at any point with the corresponding
column’s height at the same point. In this study, the drift ratio is referred
to as the column’s tip drift ratio at 1,100 mm high above the base. In the
specimen sketch, the black color refers to the formed cracks, and the red
color shaded areas refer to concrete crushing. The blue arrow shows the
lateral load direction. However, the letters I, O, R, and L refer to the
inward, outward, right, and left sides of the specimen, respectively.
4.1. Crack patterns and failure mechanisms
Fig. 7 portrays the crack patterns of the specimens at the ultimate
stage. For specimen COC (reference column under cyclic loading),
cracks at the inward and outward sides were distributed over 20 cm high
above the base at a 0.66% drift ratio. At a 2% drift ratio, the right and
left flexural cracks were distributed over 37 cm high above the base. As
the drift ratio increased to 2.6%, the inward and outward cracks were
distributed over 37 cm high above the base and the outward concrete
crushed at 10 cm high above the base as shown in Fig. 7(a). Specimen
Table 2
Yield stress, tensile stress, and elastic modulus of 7 mm bars and 2 mm iron
wires.
Diameter Yield stress (MPa) Tensile stress (MPa) Elastic Modulus (MPa)
7 mm 582 610 203,060
2 mm 400 444 200,940
1087
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
COC reached its maximum lateral load of 7.7 kN at the 9th loading step
of a 2.6% drift ratio and failed at the 10th loading step of a 3.3% drift
ratio.
In specimen CU-1C (column with h/4 unreinforced jacket under
cyclic loading), the column–jacket connection cracks were initiated on
the inward and outward sides at a 0.5% drift ratio. At a 1.5% drift ratio,
the right and left sides developed flexural cracks. However, at a 2% drift
ratio, the right and left side cracks transferred to 45◦ diagonal shear
cracks distributed over 20 cm high above the jacket. Moreover, the
concrete crushed on the outward side over 2 cm high above the jacket.
The column–jacket connection crack accounted for 3 mm wide for the
inward and outward sides. At the ultimate stage, cracks were initiated
from the column corners to the jacket corners and propagated down­
ward for 18 cm long as shown in Fig. 7(b). Specimen CU-1C reached its
maximum lateral load of 10.4 kN at the 8th loading step of a 1.5% drift
ratio and failed at the 9th loading step of a 2% drift ratio.
Specimen CR-1C (column with h/4 reinforced jacket under cyclic
loading) developed its inward and outward column–jacket connection
cracks at a 0.5% drift ratio. At a 1% drift ratio, the aforementioned
column–jacket connection cracks were extended to the right and left
sides. At the ultimate stage of a 2% drift ratio, the inward and outward
cracks were distributed over 35 cm and 28 cm high above the jacket,
respectively. Moreover, the inward and outward column–jacket
connection crack was 2 mm wide, and concrete spalling was observed at
3 cm and 5 cm high above the jacket for the inward and outward sides,
respectively. Similar to specimen CU-1C, the right and left side cracks of
specimen CR-1C started as flexural cracks and transferred to 45◦ diag­
onal shear cracks. They were distributed over 35 cm high above the
jacket. The thin hairline cracks (0.2 mm wide) were formed at the top of
the jacket. The formed cracks extended downward in the jacket for 10
cm long as shown in Fig. 7(c). Specimen CR-1C reached its maximum
lateral load of 12.6 kN at the 8th loading step of a 1.5% drift ratio and
failed at the 9th loading step of a 2% drift ratio.
For specimen CU-2C (column with h/2 unreinforced jacket under
cyclic loading), the column–jacket connection inward and outward
cracks were formed at a 0.44% drift ratio. At a 0.9% drift ratio, cracks
were propagated between the column corners and the jacket corners.
They extended downward in the jacket for 30 cm long on the inward side
and 10 cm long on the right and left sides as shown in Fig. 7(d). At a
1.3% drift ratio, 45◦ diagonal shear cracks were formed at the right and
left sides over 15 cm high above the jacket. The unreinforced jacket of
specimen CU-2C showed extreme damages as the drift ratio increased
from 1.3% to 1.8%. When the drift ratio reached 1.8%, the jacket inward
and outward cracks reached 5 mm and 3 mm wide, respectively. Spec­
imen CU-2C experienced the highest jacket damage as shown in Fig. 7
(d). Specimen CU-2C had its maximum lateral load of 15.2 kN at the 8th
loading step of a 1.3% drift ratio and failed at the 9th loading step of a
1.8% drift ratio.
Specimen CR-2C (column with h/2 reinforced jacket under cyclic
loading) developed its inward and outward column–jacket connection
cracks at a 0.55% drift ratio. As the drift ratio reached 1.1%, the
aforementioned cracks were extended to the right and left sides as well.
Diagonal shear cracks of 45◦ were formed on the right and left sides at 8
cm high above the jacket. Moreover, cracks propagated from the column
corners to the jacket corners and extended downward in the jacket for
20 cm long as shown in Fig. 7(e). The width of the cracks ranged be­
tween 2 mm and 3.5 mm. At a 1.7% drift ratio, the inward and outward
cracks were distributed over 15 cm high above the jacket. The right and
left side shear cracks were distributed over 20 cm high above the jacket
and their slope ranged between 45◦ and 70◦ . At the ultimate stage of a
2.2% drift ratio, the concrete crush was observed on the inward and
outward sides at 2 cm high above the jacket. The width of the colum­
n–jacket connection crack at the inward and outward sides was 2 mm.
Specimen CR-2C reached its maximum lateral load of 15.6 kN at the 8th
loading step of a 1.7% drift ratio and failed at the 9th loading step of a
2.2% drift ratio.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
Fig. 4. Schematic view of loading setup.
Fig. 5. Specimen setup under axial and lateral loadings.
The jacket reinforcement increased the jacket stiffness and the
stiffness irregularity between the jacketed and unjacketed parts.
Therefore, large compressive stresses were formed at the column-jacket
connection in specimens CR-1C and CR-2C with the reinforced jacket.
When the compressive stresses exceeded the concrete compressive
strength, the concrete above the jacket crushed. The concrete crush on
the outward side was 2 cm and 5 cm high for specimens CU-1C and CR-
1C, respectively as shown in Fig. 7(b and c). Similarly, specimen CR-2C
experienced inward and outward crush over 2 cm high above the jacket
while specimen CU-2C did not experience any concrete crush as shown
in Fig. 7(d and e). Due to the larger jacket stiffness and concrete stresses
in specimens with reinforced jacket, specimens CR-1C and CR-2C
experienced larger and steeper crack distribution and concrete crush
above their jacket. For specimens of h/4 jacket, cracks were distributed
over 20 cm and 35 cm high above the jacket for specimens CU-1C and
CR-1C, respectively. Similarly, for specimens of h/2 jacket, cracks above
the jacket were distributed over 15 cm and 20 cm for specimens CU-2C
and CR-2C, respectively. Due to the lack of reinforcement confinement,
unreinforced jackets exhibited larger damage compared to the rein­
forced jackets. At the ultimate stage, cracks propagated from the jacket
top surface downward for 18 cm and 10 cm long for specimens CU-1C
and CR-1C, respectively as shown in Fig. 7(b and c). Similarly, the
jacket damage and crack propagation of specimen CU-2C were more
extensive than specimen CR-2C as shown in Fig. 7(d and e). The
confinement of the jacket reinforcement increased the stresses, damage,
and concrete crush above the jacket and reduced the jacket damage.
As the jacket height increased from h/4 to h/2, the stiffness irregu­
larity between the column and jacket increased and the portion above
the jacket formed a short column. The short column effect is more
pronounced in the h/2 jacket compared to the h/4 jacket. Therefore,
larger shear stresses and steeper diagonal cracks were developed above
the jacket for specimens of h/2 jacket as shown in Fig. 7(d and e).
1088
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
Consequently, specimens CU-2C and CR-2C of h/2 jacket experienced
shear failure. On the other hand, the cracks and failure of specimens CU-
1C and CR-1C of h/4 jacket started as flexural and transformed to di­
agonal shear failure at the end of the test when the concrete failed to
sustain the developed shear stresses in the unjacketed part as shown in
Fig. 7(b and c). Generally, the jacket height increased the stiffness ir­
regularity between the jacket and the short column above the jacket.
Therefore, larger shear stresses, steeper diagonal cracks, and shear
failure were observed when the jacket height was increased.
4.2. Cyclic lateral load–displacement hysteresis
Fig. 8 plots the lateral load–displacement hysteresis and envelope
curves at the column’s tip. The hysteresis envelope curve is defined by
connecting the points corresponding to the maximum of each loading
step. In the same loading step, the maximum load attained in the pre­
vious cycle was slightly higher than that in the subsequent cycle.
Initially, the hysteresis curves of cyclic specimens were quite small and
overlapping indicating a low energy dissipation (1st to 5th loading
steps). As the load increased above the 5th loading step, the hysteresis
loops became spindle-shaped and the areas surrounded by the loops
increased gradually indicating larger dissipated energy. Table 3 presents
the peak load, peak drift, and the relative lateral load increments of
cyclic specimens. All jacketed specimens showed a larger lateral
strength compared to the reference specimen COC. However, the
reference specimen COC exhibited a more ductile behavior with a steady
strength degradation compared to the jacketed specimens. The strength
deterioration (softening branch) of specimen COC was an inverted-S
which corresponds to a ductile failure. After reaching its maximum
load of 7.7 kN, the lateral strength of specimen COC reduced but it did
not rapidly degrade as in the jacketed specimens.
In Fig. 8, the load hysteresis shows that the initial stiffness increased
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
Fig. 6. Lateral loading protocols of: a) COC, b) CU-1C, c) CR-1C, d) CU-2C, and e) CR-2C.
significantly in the jacketed specimens compared to specimen COC.
Specimens CU-2C and CR-2C of h/2 jacket exhibited a higher initial
stiffness than specimens CU-1C and CR-1C of h/4 jacket, which in turn
showed a higher initial stiffness than the original specimen COC. Spec­
imens CU-2C and CR-2C of h/2 jacket showed thicker hysteresis loops
compared to specimens CU-1C and CR-1C of h/4 jacket. This indicates a
larger energy dissipation for specimens with h/2 jacket. The jacket
height in the current study increased the lateral strength, stiffness, and
energy dissipation of the jacketed specimens significantly.
According to Fig. 8, specimen CU-2C reached its maximum and ul­
timate loads at 1.3% and 1.8% drift ratio, respectively. However,
specimen CR-2C accounted for 1.7% and 2.2% drift ratio at its maximum
and ultimate loads, respectively. Specimen CR-2C with h/2 reinforced
jacket exhibited larger maximum and ultimate displacement capacities
compared to specimen CU-2C with h/2 unreinforced jacket. The enve­
lope curves show that specimens CU-2C and CR-2C had a similar load
hysteresis before specimen CU-2C reached its maximum load of 15.2 kN
at a 1.3% drift ratio as shown in Fig. 8(f). The post-peak behavior
1089
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
showed a faster strength degradation for specimen CU-2C with an un­
reinforced jacket compared to specimen CR-2C with a reinforced jacket.
The lack of reinforcement confinement in the jacket increased the jacket
damage and the strength degradation. According to the load hysteresis
in Fig. 8, specimens CR-1C and CR-2C showed thicker hysteresis loops
than specimens CU-1C and CU-2C, respectively. Therefore, specimens
with reinforced jacket showed larger dissipated energy compared to
specimens with unreinforced jacket. For the jacket reinforcement and
cross-section conditions adopted in the current study, the reinforcement
confinement of the jacket increased the lateral strength, stiffness,
displacement capacity, and energy dissipation of the jacketed
specimens.
From Table 3, specimens CU-1C and CR-1C with h/4 jacket increased
the lateral load capacity of specimen COC by 35% and 63.6%, respec­
tively. Similarly, specimens CU-2C and CR-2C with h/2 jacket increased
the lateral load capacity of specimen COC by 97.4% and 102.6%,
respectively.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
Fig. 7. Crack pattern of specimens: a) COC, b) CU-1C, c) CR-1C, d) CU-2C, and e) CR-2C.
4.3. Cyclic displacement ductility and lateral secant stiffness
Ductility defines the ability of the structural element to withstand
plastic deformations beyond its elastic range. The displacement ductility
(µ0.85) used in this study is determined by dividing the displacement of
0.85 peak load before reaching the peak load to the displacement of 0.85
peak load after reaching the peak load. Table 4 presents the displace­
ment ductility and initial secant stiffness of specimens under cyclic
loading. Specimen COC accounted for the largest displacement ductility
1090
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
of 3.4. Specimen COC is 1.5 and 1.8 times more ductile than specimens
CU-1C and CR-1C, respectively. Similarly, specimen COC is 1.9 and 1.7
times more ductile than specimens CU-2C and CR-2C, respectively. For
specimens with an unreinforced jacket, specimen CU-1C with the h/4
jacket is 1.27 more ductile than specimen CU-2C with the h/2 jacket.
However, for specimens with reinforced jackets, specimen CR-2C with
h/2 jacket is 1.05 times more ductile than specimen CR-1C with h/4
jacket. For specimens with h/2 jacket, the jacket reinforcement
increased the ductility of specimen CU-2C by 11.1%. This agrees with
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095

Fig. 8. Lateral load-drift ratio response of: a) COC, b) CU-1C, c) CR-1C, d) CU-2C, e) CR-2C, and f) envelop curves.

the experimental results of Takeuti et al. [33] where the jacket rein­
Table 3
forcement increased the displacement ductility and stiffness of the jac­
Peak load, peak drift ratio, and relative lateral load increment of specimen COC.
keted columns. On the other hand, when the jacket height increased
Specimen Peak load Peak drift Relative lateral load increments with from h/4 in specimen CU-1C to h/2 in specimen CU-2C, the ductility was
(kN) (%) respect to specimen COC
reduced by 21.7%. This is attributed to the fragile behavior of the short
COC 7.7 2.6 – column formed in the case of the h/2 jacket.
CU-1C 10.4 1.5 35%
The reference specimen COC had the lowest initial secant stiffness of
CR-1C 12.6 1.5 63.6%
CU-2C 15.2 1.3 97.4%
1.7 kN/mm followed by specimens CU-1C and CR-1C with h/4 jacket
CR-2C 15.6 1.7 102.6% and lastly specimens CU-2C and CR-2C with h/2 jacket. Specimens CR-
1C and CR-2C with reinforced jackets showed larger initial stiffness than
specimens CU-1C and CU-2C with unreinforced jackets, respectively.
The relative ratio of initial stiffness for specimens with h/2 jacket to
Table 4
Displacement ductility and initial stiffness of test specimens. specimens with h/4 jacket is 1.12 and 1.15 for unreinforced and rein­
forced jackets, respectively. When the jacket height was increased from
Specimen COC CU-1C CR-1C CU-2C CR-2C
h/4 to h/2, the unjacketed portion above the column formed a short
Ductility 3.4 2.3 1.9 1.8 2 column. Short columns are characterized by their high stiffness and low
Initial stiffness (kN/mm) 1.7 2.5 2.6 2.8 3
ductility. Therefore, specimens with h/2 jacket showed a stiffer behavior
than specimens with h/4 jacket. According to Kamble et al. [42], the

1091
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
confinement of the jacket reinforcement increases the modulus of elas­
ticity and stiffness of the jacketed portion. Consequently, specimens CR-
1C and CR-2C with reinforced jacket exhibited a stiffer behavior. The
jacket height and reinforcement increased the initial stiffness of the
jacketed specimens.
The secant stiffness was determined by the slope of the line joining
the origin of the envelope curve to the respective points of the curve.
According to Fig. 9, specimen COC showed the lowest secant stiffness
degradation due to its ductile behavior. The secant stiffness of specimens
CU-1C and CU-2C with an unreinforced jacket decreased at a larger rate
than specimens CR-1C and CR-2C with a reinforced jacket, respectively.
This is attributed to the earlier loss of jacket efficiency in the unrein­
forced jackets as they experienced larger jacket damage compared to the
reinforced jackets. Whereas, the jacket reinforcement confinement
reduced the stiffness drop of specimens CR-1C and CR-2C. At a 2% drift
ratio, the secant stiffness of specimens with h/4 jacket converged to the
stiffness of specimen COC indicating the loss of jacket confinement due
to excessive jacket damage, where specimens CU-1C and CR-1C failed at
a 2% drift ratio. On the other hand, the residual stiffness of specimens
CU-2C and CR-2C with h/2 jacket was larger than specimens COC, CU-
1C, and CR-1C. This indicates that the confinement of the h/2 jacket in
specimens CU-2C and CR-2C was still efficient at the ultimate stage. The
jacket height and reinforcement increased the secant stiffness and
reduced the stiffness degradation.
4.4. Cyclic cumulative dissipated energy
The energy dissipation defines the quantity of energy absorbed by
the specimen up to the ultimate stage. The dissipated energy is calcu­
lated by determining the area enclosed by the loading and unloading
action of the hysteresis loop. However, the cumulative dissipated energy
is the sum of the dissipated energy for each cycle of the displacement
level increments. Fig. 10 illustrates the cumulative dissipated energy of
test specimens.
Below 0.5% drift ratio, all specimens showed a similar cumulative
dissipated energy. Whereas, above 0.5% drift ratio, the jacketed speci­
mens experienced higher levels of dissipated energy than specimen COC.
Fig. 10 shows that specimens CU-2C and CR-2C with h/2 jacket
exhibited the largest cumulative dissipated energy followed by speci­
mens CU-1C and CR-1C with h/4 jacket, and lastly specimen COC with
the lowest dissipated energy. The dissipated energy of specimens CU-1C
and CR-1C with h/4 jacket converged to specimen COC at a 2% drift
ratio. This observation is similar to the secant stiffness convergence for
specimens with h/4 jacket and specimen COC at a 2% drift ratio. This is
attributed to the fact that specimens with h/4 jacket lost their jacket
confinement and failed at a 2% ultimate drift ratio. On the other hand,
the cumulative dissipated energy of specimens CU-2C and CR-2C was
Fig. 9. Secant stiffness-drift ratio response of test specimens.
1092
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
Fig. 10. Cumulative dissipated energy of test specimens.
still larger than specimen COC at the end of the test. Moreover, speci­
mens CU-1C and CU-2C with unreinforced jacket dissipated lower en­
ergy than specimens CR-1C and CR-2C with reinforced jackets,
respectively. It is apparent that the jacket reinforcement and height
adopted in the current study increased the confinement and dissipated
energy of the jacketed specimens.
In the experimental investigation of Karadogan [38], the original
column cross-section and jacket thickness were 300 × 300 mm2 and 75
mm, respectively. The original column height was 4,000 mm and the
jacket heights were h/4 (1,000 mm) and h/2 (2,000 mm), where h is the
column height. The compressive strength of the original column was
43.4 MPa while the jacket self-compacting concrete compressive
strength was 34.6 MPa. The columns were tested under constant axial
and lateral cyclic loads. It is reported that the h/4 and h/2 reinforced
jackets increased the original column lateral load capacity by 35.6% and
136.9%, respectively. For h/4 and h/2 reinforced jackets, a limited
number of flexural cracks were formed in the jacket without any major
damage. The h/4 and h/2 jackets increased the flexural stiffness of the
original column by 31.1% and 105.5%, respectively. Initially, the energy
dissipation of the column with h/4 jacket was slightly larger than the
original column. However, at the end of the test, the original column
showed larger dissipated energy than the column with h/4 jacket. On
the other hand, the column with h/2 jacket showed a quite larger
dissipated energy throughout the test.
In the current study, the downscale RC columns (100 × 100 mm2)
and 1,100 mm high were jacketed with reinforced and unreinforced h/4
(275 mm) and h/2 (550 mm) jackets of 50 mm thick. The concrete
compressive strength of the column and jacket was 25 MPa. Columns
were subjected to constant vertical load and reversed cyclic lateral dis­
placements. The h/4 and h/2 reinforced jackets increased the lateral
strength of the original column by 63.6% and 102.6%, respectively. At
the ultimate stage, the h/4 and h/2 reinforced jackets exhibited minor
cracks and damage. However, the column above the jacket exhibited
significant cracks, damage, and concrete crush at the failure stage. The
lateral secant stiffness of the original column was increased by 53% and
102.6% for h/4 and h/2 reinforced jackets, respectively. The energy
dissipation of the reinforced h/4 jacket was slightly larger than the
original column. On the other hand, the energy dissipation of the column
with the reinforced h/2 jacket was quite larger than the original column
throughout the test.
5. Analytical discussion of shear transfer mechanism and arch
action of RC columns
In reinforced concrete columns under axial load, P, and lateral shear
force, V, the shear force is sustained by the forces resulted from the
concrete and reinforcement shear mechanism at the crack surface. The
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
concrete shear contribution is comprised the compression zone force,
Vcz; and the transverse aggregate interface (at the crack) force, VaT. On
the other hand, the reinforcement shear contribution is comprised the
dowel action of longitudinal flexural reinforcement, Vd; and the tie ac­
tion of the transverse reinforcement over the tension zone, Vs. Fig. 11
illustrates the free body diagram of the shear transfer mechanism across
the shear crack. Besides, the arch (strut) mechanism can partially
transfer the lateral load to the base. Therefore, the arch (strut) action
enhances the development of Vcz at the compression zone. For short
columns, as the shear span to section depth ratio decreases, the arch
(strut) action shear transfer mechanism is more significant [43].
According to ASCE-ACI-426 [44], when the inclined cracks are
formed and the lateral load is near the ultimate load for columns with a
rectangular cross-section and no transverse reinforcement, the contri­
bution of concrete and reinforcement in the shear transfer mechanism
would be as follows: 20% – 40% for the compression zone, Vcz, 33% –
50% for the aggregate interface (interlock) shear transfer, VaT, and 15%
– 25% for the flexural reinforcement dowel action, Vd. In addition to the
aforementioned shear transfer mechanisms, the presence of transverse
reinforcement can contribute in shear transfer since the initial formation
of the inclined cracks. Therefore, the transverse reinforcement plays a
significant role in modifying the shear transfer mechanism in RC col­
umns. In fact, the transverse reinforcement enhances the aggregate
interlock shear transfer by narrowing the concrete diagonal tension
crack width. Similarly, when the transverse reinforcement (ties) are
provided for the longitudinal reinforcement, they can improve the
dowel action shear transfer mechanism (Vd) significantly in particular
when they are distributed at short distances or when the bottom of the
diagonal crack happened to be near a transverse tie and when the split of
the longitudinal dowel reinforcement is avoided. Moreover, the pres­
ence of the transverse reinforcement enhances the compressive struts
behavior due to their confinement effect (particularly in cyclic loading
and after the development of intersecting diagonal cracks). Under cyclic
loading, the shear transfer mechanism and mode of failure are more
complex. For instance, the intersecting diagonal cracks shown in Fig. 12
can occur between adjacent stirrups and it is usually formed under low
axial compression. In fact, when the loading direction is reversed, the
inclined cracks formed on one side of the column could stay opened
while cracks of the other side are opening. Therefore, in areas where the
aggregate interface shear transfer mechanism is reduced, the dowel
action became the main source for shear resistance and the concrete
compressive zone loses its effectiveness. The reinforcement plays an
important role in enhancing the shear transfer mechanism in RC col­
umns. Therefore, the reinforced jackets increased the lateral load ca­
pacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation of the jacketed columns at larger
rates than unreinforced jackets.
Fig. 11. Free body diagram of the shear transfer mechanism [43].
1093
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
Fig. 12. Cyclic intersecting diagonal cracks.
On the other hand, when the jacket height is increased from h/4 to h/
2, the shear span to depth ratio of the column above the jacket
decreased. The shear span to depth ratio above the jacket for specimens
with h/4 and h/2 jackets is 8.25 and 5.5, respectively. When the shear
span to depth ratio decreases, the lateral strength and stiffness increase
[45,46]. In fact, as the shear span to depth ratio of RC columns de­
creases, the arch (strut) action increases and additional shear loads are
transmitted to the support by arch action through the compressive strut
rather than flexure [47]. Therefore, when the ratio of shear span to
section depth decreases, the lateral strength increases significantly. In
the current study, despite the jacket cracks developed under cyclic
loading, the cracks, concrete crush, and damage in the column above the
jacket were more significant and more contributing to the column’s
failure. When the jacket height is increased, the shear span to depth ratio
of the column above the jacket decreases, and therefore, the shear loads
transmitted from the column to the jacket through arch action increased.
Consequently, when the jacket height was increased from h/4 to h/2,
the lateral load capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation of the jacketed
columns increased.
The correlation between the lateral strength and jacket height ratio
for both reinforced and unreinforced jackets is depicted in Fig. 13. The
correlation between the lateral strength and jacket height/column
height ratio exhibited a linear relationship for both unreinforced and
reinforced jackets. Eqs. (1) and (2) represent the correlation of the
lateral strength capacity to the jacket height ratio for unreinforced and
reinforced jackets, respectively. The x-axis (denoted by x) represents the
ratio of the jacket height to the column height, while the y-axis (denoted
by y) represents the lateral load capacity of the column. On the other
hand, Eq. (3) is the result of dividing Eq. (2) by Eq. (1). Eq. (3) represents
the correlation between unreinforced and reinforced jackets where A
and B represent the lateral load strength of reinforced and unreinforced
jackets, respectively.
Fig.13. Correlation between lateral strength and jacket height ratio of unre­
inforced and reinforced jackets.
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095

y = 15x + 7.35 (1)

y = 15.8x + 8.0167 (2)

A = 1.0522B + 0.28633 (3)

Fig. 14 represents the correlation between the displacement ductility
and jacket height/column height ratio for unreinforced and reinforced
jackets. The correlation of the unreinforced and reinforced jackets is
developed in Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively. The terms x and y denote the
jacket height/column height ratio and displacement ductility,
respectively.

y = 4.8x2 − 5.6x + 3.4 (4)

y = 12.8x2 − 9.2x + 3.4 (5)

Fig. 14. Correlation between the displacement ductility and jacket height ratio
Similarly, the correlation between the lateral stiffness and the jacket of unreinforced and reinforced jackets.
height for unreinforced and reinforced jackets is illustrated in Fig. 15
The 2nd degree Eqs. (6) and (7) represent the relation between the
lateral stiffness (y) and the jacket height/column height ratio (x) for
unreinforced and reinforced jackets, respectively.

y = − 4x2 + 4.2x + 1.7 (6)

y = − 4x2 + 4.6x + 1.7 (7)

6. Conclusions

The analysis of the results in this experimental study led to the

following conclusions:

• The failure of specimens with h/4 jackets started as flexural and

transformed into shear failure as the load increased. On the other
hand, the shear failure was initiated at the early stages in specimens Fig. 15. Correlation between lateral stiffness and jacket height ratio of unre­
with h/2 jackets. inforced and reinforced jackets.
• The h/4 jacket increased the lateral load capacity of the reference
column over 35% increments. Similarly, the h/2 jacket almost
when the lateral strength is required to be doubled. In partial jacketing,
doubled the lateral load capacity of the reference column (over 97%
it is preferred to reduce the column damage and avoid the short column
increments).
brittle shear failure. For the jacket cross-section, height, and reinforce­
• Compared to specimens with unreinforced jackets, the jacket rein­
ment adopted in the current study, the reinforced jackets exhibited
forcement reduced the jacket damage and increased the damage and
larger jacket damage and steeper diagonal cracks above the jacket as
cracks of the column above the jacket.
compared to the unreinforced jackets. Therefore, more researches have
• The lateral load capacity difference between specimens with the
to be conducted using different jacket reinforcement ratios, heights, and
reinforced and unreinforced jacket is below 22%. For the jacket
geometries to further assess and compare the unreinforced and rein­
reinforcement, thickness, and height adopted in the current study,
forced jacket response under seismic loads.
the jacket reinforcement showed a lower significance on the lateral
load capacity compared to the jacket height especially for the case of
Declaration of Competing Interest
h/2 jacket. Moreover, even though the jacket reinforcement
increased the shear failure, the jacket height was more influential.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
• When the jacket height was increased from h/4 to h/2, the stiffness
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
increased. Therefore, severe damages and steeper diagonal shear
the work reported in this paper.
cracks were observed in specimens with h/2 jacket. As the jacket
height increased, the short column effect became more severe and
Acknowledgments
therefore shear failure was more pronounced in specimens with h/2
jackets compared to specimens with h/4 jackets.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the structure
• Both jacket height and jacket reinforcement enhanced the residual
laboratory staff for the technical support to the experimental tests. The
secant stiffness at the ultimate stage.
authors wish to express gratitude to Universiti Sains Malaysia for the
• All the jacketed specimens exhibited larger dissipated energy as
financial support under Research University Grant (Grant No. 1001.
compared to the original column. However, the jacket height and
PAWAM. 8014107) to this study.
jacket reinforcement increased the cumulative dissipated energy of
the jacketed columns.
References
• Based on the study case and conditions, analytical models were
developed for the effect of jacket height and reinforcement on the [1] Rodrigues H, Pradhan P, Furtado A, Rocha P, Vila-Pouca N. Structural repair and
structural capacities of the jacketed columns. strengthening of RC elements with concrete jacketing. Singapore: Springer; 2018.
[2] Meda A, Plizzari G, Rinaldi Z, Martinola G. Strengthening of R/C existing columns
with high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket. In: 2nd International
According to the conditions of the current study, it is recommended Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting, ICCRRR-2, Cape
to use h/4 jacket for 35% lateral strength increments and h/2 jacket Town, South Africa, 24-26 November; 2009.

1094
A. Zaiter and T.L. Lau
[3] Beschi C, Meda A, Riva P. Column and joint retrofitting with high performance
fiber reinforced concrete jacketing. J Earthquake Eng 2011;15:989–1014.
[4] Di Carlo F, Meda A, Rinaldi Z. Numerical modelling of corroded RC columns
repaired with high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Key Eng Mater
2016;711:1004–11.
[5] Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Corroded RC columns repair and
strengthening with high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Mater Struct
2016;49:1967–78.
[6] Di Carlo F, Meda A, Rinaldi Z. Numerical cyclic behaviour of un-corroded and
corroded RC columns reinforced with HPFRC jacket. Compos Struct 2017;163:
432–43.
[7] Iacobucci RD, Sheikh SA, Bayrak O. Retrofit of square concrete columns with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance. Struct J 2003;100:785–94.
[8] Ozcan O, Binici B, Canbay E, Ozcebe G. Repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete columns with CFRPs. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29:3411–24.
[9] Rodrigues H, Furtado A, Arêde A. Experimental evaluation of energy dissipation
and viscous damping of repaired and strengthened RC columns with CFRP
jacketing under biaxial load. Eng Struct 2017;145:162–75.
[10] Wang J, Yang J, Cheng L. Experimental study of seismic behavior of high-strength
RC columns strengthened with CFRP subjected to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2019;
145:1–14.
[11] Memon MS, Sheikh SA. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted
with glass fiber-reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102:774–83.
[12] Benzaid R, Chikh NE, Mesbah H. Behaviour of square concrete column confined
with GFRP composite warp. J Civil Eng Manag 2008;14:115–20.
[13] Ronagh HR, Eslami A. Flexural retrofitting of RC buildings using GFRP/CFRP–a
comparative study. Compos B Eng 2013;46:188–96.
[14] Sudhakar R, Partheeban P. Strengthening of RCC column using glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP). Int J Appl Eng Res 2017;12:4478–83.
[15] Deng M, Zhang Y. Cyclic loading tests of RC columns strengthened with high
ductile fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Constr Build Mater 2017;153:986–95.
[16] Li X, Wang J, Bao Y, Chen G. Cyclic behavior of damaged reinforced concrete
columns repaired with high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composite.
Eng Struct 2017;136:26–35.
[17] Cho C-G, Han B-C, Lim S-C, Morii N, Kim J-W. Strengthening of reinforced concrete
columns by High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composite (HPFRC)
sprayed mortar with strengthening bars. Compos Struct 2018;202:1078–86.
[18] Deng M, Zhang Y, Li Q. Shear strengthening of RC short columns with ECC jacket:
Cyclic behavior tests. Eng Struct 2018;160:535–45.
[19] Ramirez J. Ten concrete column repair methods. Constr Build Mater 1996;10:
195–202.
[20] Vandoros KG, Dritsos SE. Interface treatment in shotcrete jacketing of reinforced
concrete columns to improve seismic performance. Struct Eng Mech 2006;23:
43–61.
[21] Julio EN, Branco FA, Silva VD. Reinforced concrete jacketing-interface influence on
monotonic loading response. ACI Struct J 2005;102:252–7.
[22] Julio E, Branco FA. Reinforced concrete jacketing-interface influence on cyclic
loading response. ACI Struct J 2008;105:471–7.
[23] Vandoros KG, Dritsos SE. Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness when
strengthening RC columns. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:264–76.
[24] Achillopoulou, D, Pardalakis T, Karabinis A. Investigation of force transfer
mechanisms in retrofitted RC columns with RC jackets containing welded bars
subjected to axial compression. In: 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos
Island, Greece, 12-14 June; 2013.
[25] Achillopoulou D, Tasiopoulos T, Karabinis A. Study of the behavior of RC columns
strengthened with RC jackets containing dowels and different confinement ratios.
1095
Structures 31 (2021) 1084–1095
In: 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, Greece, 12-14 June; 2013.
[26] Achillopoulou D, Pardalakis T, Karabinis A. Interface capacity of repaired concrete
columns strengthened with RC jackets. Transactions of the VŠB–Technical
University of Ostrava Civil Engineering Series 2014;14:129–45.
[27] Elbakry HM, Tarabia AM. Factors affecting bond strength of RC column jackets.
Alexand Eng J 2016;55:57–67.
[28] Ortega AI, Pellicer TM, Adam JM, Calderón PA. An experimental study on RC
columns repaired on all four sides with cementitious mortars. Constr Build Mater
2018;161:53–62.
[29] Murugan K, Sengupta AK. Seismic performance of strengthened reinforced
concrete columns. Structures 2020;27:487–505.
[30] Ersoy U, Tankut AT, Suleiman R. Behavior of jacketed columns. ACI Struct J 1993;
90:288–93.
[31] Rodriguez M, Park R. Seismic load tests on reinforced concrete columns
strengthened by jacketing. Struct J 1994;91:150–9.
[32] Vandoros KG, Dritsos SE. Axial preloading effects when reinforced concrete
columns are strengthened by concrete jackets. Prog Struct Mat Eng 2006;8:79–92.
[33] Takeuti AR, de Hanai JB, Mirmiran A. Preloaded RC columns strengthened with
high-strength concrete jackets under uniaxial compression. Mater Struct 2008;41:
1251–62.
[34] Zaiter A, Lau TL. Review on strengthening reinforced concrete columns using
reinforced concrete jackets. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 2020;614:012063.
[35] Julio E, Branco F, Silva V. Structural rehabilitation of columns with reinforced
concrete jacketing. Prog Struct Mat Eng 2003;5:29–37.
[36] Komathi M, Sengupta AK. Evaluation of shear strength of RC columns strengthened
by concrete jacketing. New Delhi, India: Springer; 2015.
[37] Alcocer S, Jirsa J. Assessment of the response of reinforced concrete frame
connections redesigned by jacketing. In: Proceedings of the Fourth US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, California, USA, 20-24 May; 1990.
[38] Karadogan HF. Local thin jacketing for the retrofitting of reinforced concrete
columns. Struct Eng Mech 2007;27:589–607.
[39] Ganasan R, Tan CG, Ibrahim Z, Nazri FM, Wong YH. A case study on structural
failure of reinforced concrete beam-column joint after the first significant
earthquake impact in Malaysia. Int J Integrated Eng 2020;12:288–302.
[40] IS 15988:201. Seismic evaluation and strengthening of existing reinforced concrete
buildings–Guidelines, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi; 2013.
[41] ASTM E2126-11. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for shear
resistance of walls for buildings. United States: American Society for Testing and
Materials; West Conshohocken; 2009.
[42] Kamble RP, Bodake AN, Chavan MS, Korade SV. The effect of longitudinal
reinforcement on the modulus of elasticity of RCC used for column under axial
loading. Int J Eng Trends Technol (IJETT) 2017;49:170–2.
[43] Sasani M. Shear strength and deformation capacity models for RC columns. In:
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, 1-6 August; 2004.
[44] ASCE-ACI-426. The shear strength of reinforced concrete members: Chapter 1 to 4.
J Struct Eng , ASCE, 1973, 99(6), 1091-1187.
[45] Sotoud S, Aboutaha R. Performance of RC bridge columns subjected to lateral
loading. In: Proceedings of the Istanbul Bridge Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 11-13
August; 2014.
[46] Chen Z-Y, Liu Z-Q. Effects of central column aspect ratio on seismic performances
of subway station structures. Adv Struct Eng 2018;21:14–29.
[47] Pan Z, Li B. Truss-arch model for shear strength of shear-critical reinforced
concrete columns. J Struct Eng 2013;139:548–60.