Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2015

Effectiveness of Repair and Strengthening Methods for Reinforced Concrete

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Columns and Beam-Column Joints

H. Sezen1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210; Ph (614) 292-1338; Fax (614) 292-
3780; email: sezen.1@osu.edu

ABSTRACT

Currently, there are only a few common methods that can be used to
strengthen reinforced concrete columns. These methods, including steel jacketing,
section enlargement by concrete jacketing, and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite wraps, were are used to strengthen 15 column specimens. The ease of
application, economy and efficiency of each method are discussed and compared. In
this study, three exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joint specimens were
tested under reverse cyclic loading. The damaged specimens were repaired by
replacing the damaged concrete and then strengthened using FRP strips. The strength
was restored and deformation capacities of the strengthened specimens were much
larger than those of the original specimens.

INTRODUCTION

As the infrastructure continues to age, the need for effective maintenance,

repair, rehabilitation and retrofit of existing structures increases. Many aging
structural members no longer provide the load capacity of the original design because
of concrete cracking, steel corrosion, or other damage. Those older members may not
have sufficient strength, stiffness, or deformation capacity to resist the applied loads,
including gravity loads in some cases. Inadequate structure or component capacity
may be due to insufficient reinforcement detailing not compliant with the current
design standards, or may be due to long-term deterioration as a result of exposure to
adverse environmental conditions or aging. Similarly, many existing bridges and
buildings with insufficient strength and stiffness are vulnerable to damage during
extreme events such as earthquakes (Sezen et al. 2003). Thus, there is a need for more
efficient methods to strengthen such structures.

In this research, steel jacketing, section enlargement by concrete jacketing,

and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite wraps are used to strengthen 15
column specimens. Also, three exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joint

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2016

specimens were tested until their joint region suffered significant damage. The
damaged joint specimens were repaired and strengthened using FRP strips The ease
of application, economy and efficiency of the repair and strengthening methods are
reviewed and compared.

Column retrofit methods

A steel jacket encasing an existing reinforced concrete column effectively
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

confines the existing column and provides added lateral resistance. The gap between
the existing member and steel tube is typically filled with non-shrink grout. Priestley
et al. (1994a and 1994b) concluded that steel jackets significantly increase the shear
strength and flexural ductility of shear deficient columns. Aboutaha et al. (1999) used
full and partial height rectangular steel jackets to show that thin steel jackets
successfully improved the strength and ductility of large concrete columns. Research
also showed the efficiency of partially stiffened steel jackets on columns and full
jackets for the multicolumn bridges (Xiao and Wu 2003, and Zhang et al. 1999).

Concrete jacketing, or addition of a reinforced concrete layer around the

existing column effectively enhances axial, shear and flexural strength as well as
displacement ductility. Steel rebar or welded wire fabric (WWF) can be used to
reinforce the concrete jacket. Hayashi et al. (1980) showed that WWF reinforced
jacketing can prevent the shear failure by increasing the shear strength and ductility
under lateral loads. Ersoy et al. (1993) showed the effectiveness of concrete jacketing
applied on both repaired and undamaged specimens under axial pre-loading and
sustained loading as well as under monotonic and reversed cyclic lateral loading.
More recently Takeuti et al. (2008) demonstrated that the axial preloading of did not
adversely affect the capacity of concrete jacketed circular and square columns.
Rodriguez and Park (1994) and Bett et al. (1988) also confirmed the efficiency of use
of concrete jacketing in improving the strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of
jacketed columns under axial and lateral loads.

In this research 15 identical circular columns were strengthened and tested

under monotonically increasing compressive axial load. Either the entire strengthened
column cross section was loaded, or only the cross section of the existing column was
loaded (Miller and Sezen, 2011). The columns were strengthened using FRP
composite wraps, steel tube jackets, and concrete jackets reinforced with steel rebar,
welded wire fabric, and a new steel reinforcement.

FRP retrofit
Ease of application and high strength of lightweight FRP wraps made them
attractive for retrofit of columns and joints, especially when space, load, and
construction time restrictions exist. It should be noted that the majority of FRP
wrapped columns tested in previous research were not reinforced by steel bars. This
paper summarizes results from testing of FRP retrofitted reinforced concrete (RC)
columns and beam-column joints.

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2017

BE
EHAVIOR OF
O STRENG
GTHENED
D COLUMN
NS

Fifteen identical cyylindrical RC columns were strenggthened usinng different

metthods. The 152 mm diiameter and 762 mm hhigh bare sppecimens haad six No.3
lon
ngitudinal baars and 6.4 mm
m (¼ in.) diameter
d smoooth wire sppiral reinforccement with
a pitch
p or spacing of 76 mm (3 in.), which is the upper liimit for spiiral spacing
acccording to ACI
A 318 (200 08). Concrete strength oof all bare oor unretrofittted column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

speecimens was 28.6 MPa (4150 psi), an nd the meassured yield sstrengths werre 399 MPa
(57
7.9 ksi) and 481 MPa (6 68.9 ksi) forr spiral wiree and deformmed bars, reespectively.
Othher specimen details caan be found d in Sezen aand Miller (2011). Moonotonically
incrreasing conccentric axiall load was eiither appliedd over the crross section of the bare
or unretrofittedd column or o over the entire retroofitted/enlargged sectionn. The bare
speecimen first experienceed longitudiinal cracks and subsequently failled due to
lon
ngitudinal baar buckling and
a transversse steel fractuure (Figure 1a).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig
gure 1 Test specimen
s sa
amples: a) reference/ba
r are specimen; b) steel jacketing; c
an
nd d) concrete jacket with
w rebar anda new rein nforcement; e and f) FR RP wraps

Two baare specimen ns were streengthened w with identicaal steel tubee jackets or
conncrete filled tubes (CFTT) with an ou utside diameeter of 219 mm and a tthickness off
4.95 mm. The 22.5 MPa concrete
c wass sued to filll the 31 mm
m thick gap bbetween the
existing column n and steel tube
t with a yield
y strengtth of 460 M
MPa. Both steeel jacketed
coluumns experiienced locall buckling arround the m mid-height off the specimmens, which
eveentually led to global buckling
b at very large axial displlacements (F Figure 1b).
Stifffness, stren
ngth, and deeformation capacity
c of both steel jjacketed collumns were
signnificantly im
mproved. Th he main resistance mechhanism at laarge displaceements was
the lateral conffinement provided by thee steel tube.

A 51 mm m thick conccrete layer was

w added too all concretee jacketed sppecimens an
outtside diameteer of 254 mmm. The addittional reinfoorcement wass placed neaar the center
of the
t jacket. Two
T concrette jacketed columns haad two overllapping 152 x 152 mm
wellded wire fabric (WW WF) as reeinforcemennt inside thhe jacket. Additional
rein
nforcement was
w provideed at the top p and bottomm to prevent end failure. Relatively
moderate stiffn
ness and strength increasse was obserrved in thesee two specimmens, which

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2018

failed in a brittle manner mainly due to insufficient confinement provided by the

jacket reinforcement after concrete in the jacked cracked (Figure 2).

Displacement (in.)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
3500
750

3000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

600
2500
BASE

Axial load (kips)

GFRP
Axial load (kN)

2000 CFRP 450

C−CFT
C−REB#3
1500 C−REB#4
C−WWF 300
C−PCS−1/4
1000

150
500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2 Comparison of axial load-displacement relations for the unretrofitted

(BASE), FRP retrofitted (CFRP and CFRP), steel jacketed (C-CFT) specimens,
and columns with concrete jacketing reinforced with rebar (C-REB#3 and C-
REB#4) welded wire fabric (C-WWF) and PCS reinforcement (C-PCS-1/4)

Other concrete jacketed specimens had 76 or 102 mm diameter (No.3 or No.4)

spiral reinforcement or a new steel reinforcement, termed Prefabricated Cage System
or PCS. Four columns were strengthened with concrete jackets reinforced with a new
steel reinforcement, PCS. The reinforcement cage is produced by laser cutting a grid
of small rectangular pieces out of a solid steel tube. Details of the production,
economic evaluation, and use of PCS as reinforcement can be found in Shamsai et al.
(2007 and 2011) and Sezen and Shamsai (2008). In rebar and PCS reinforced jackets,
the transverse steel spacing was varied while maintaining same transverse steel
amount. In this research the typical PCS tube diameter was approximately 216 mm
and the thickness was 6.4 or 7.9 mm. The measured yield strength was 476 MPa for
the 6.4 mm thick tube, and 469 MPa for the 7.9 mm thick tube, respectively.

The initial damage in all concrete jacketed specimens was similar and
included typical longitudinal cracks with subsequent spalling of cover concrete. The
specimens had similar initial response and the longitudinal bar buckling between the
transverse rebar (Figures 1c and 1d) typically coincided with the maximum load
carrying capacity of the columns. The ensuing fracture of transverse reinforcement
led to loss of strength and structural integrity of the specimens. The overall axial
behavior of the PCS jacketed specimens was almost identical until the maximum load
carrying capacity was reached. Similar to rebar reinforced jackets, after the cover
concrete spalled off and immediately after the peak axial load was applied, the
longitudinal PCS steel buckled. Transverse steel fracture and strength degradation
occurred under very large displacements. Prior to failure, typically a shear plane

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2019

developed around the mid-height of the specimen where most of the severe
longitudinal steel buckling and transverse steel fracture occurred (Figure 1d).

Three specimens were strengthened with glass and carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (GFRP and CFRP) composite wraps. To prevent premature end failure, two
76 mm wide 610 mm long GFRP strips were applied at the top and bottom of all
concrete jacketed specimens (Figures 1c and 1d). Over a thin layer of impregnating
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

resin one layer of jacket saturated with resin was applied over the cleaned existing
concrete surface. The specified ultimate tensile strength of CFRP (SikaWrap
Hex103C) and GFRP (SikaWrap Hex107G) was 850 and 648 MPa, respectively.
Under increasing axial loads, the axial stiffness decreased while epoxy cracking and
discoloration were observed (Figures 1e and 1f). FRP material ruptured when the
axial load reached 1260 and 1024 kN in GFRP and CFRP wrapped specimens,
respectively. The failure occurred at approximately 26.7 mm and 13.5 mm axial
displacement in GFRP and CFRP specimens, respectively (Figure 2).

Comparison of column retrofit methods

Representative experimental data for different retrofit methods are compared
in Figure 2. Test results show that the increase in the strength and deformation
capacity was the lowest for the FRP wrap and WWF reinforced concrete jacketing
methods. Both methods resulted in brittle failure immediately after the maximum
strength was achieved. Evidently, the steel tube jacketing was the most effective
retrofit method to enhance the strength and deformation capacity. PCS reinforced
concrete jacketing was as effective as the steel jacketing prior to cover concrete
cracking and spalling. In other words, the increase in the initial stiffness was the
largest and very similar whether the solid steel tube or PCS reinforcement was used
for confinement. The initial stiffness of the specimens with concrete jackets
reinforced with rebar and WWF were very similar prior to concrete cracking. The
overall behavior of specimens with rebar and PCS reinforced concrete jackets were
somewhat similar, however a large variation was observed in post-cracking behavior
of concrete jackets with rebar.

Table 2 presents a subjective comparison of the retrofit methods investigated

in this study. The retrofit application of lightweight FRP composite wraps is probably
the fastest and easiest to apply on existing building columns or bridge piers.
However, the retrofitted column is likely to experience brittle failure. Since the
original column size is not changed, the increase in the axial strength appears to be
moderate and is primarily due to additional confinement provided for the existing
concrete. Steel tube jacketing seems to increase the strength and displacement
ductility most effectively. However, it requires welding of the tube in the field, and
placement of non-shrink grout between the existing column and tube may not be very
easy. In some cases, steel jacketing may not be a very good solution due to low fire
and corrosion resistance of the exposed steel and the inability to inspect the concrete
inside the steel tube following an extreme event, such as an earthquake. All concrete
jackets require formwork and placement of concrete and reinforcement cage inside
the jacket may be challenging. While it is relatively easy to place one or more layers

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2020

of WWF reinforcement, field welding of two half circle or C-shaped PCS

reinforcement is required. Placement of rebar cage with a continuous spiral rebar
around an existing column is extremely difficult in many cases. WWF reinforced
jackets may increase the strength reasonably; however result in a brittle failure due to
limited amount of steel inside the jacket and resulting inadequate confinement. Well
designed rebar and PCS reinforced jackets may increase the stiffness, strength and
displacement ductility considerably.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1 Comparison of retrofit methods

Field implementation Ultimate Strength/stiffness
Retrofit method
(labor requirement) failure increase
FRP Easy Brittle moderate
Steel jacket OK, welding needed Ductile very large
Concrete jacket - OK, formwork needed Brittle moderate
WWF
Concrete jacket - Difficult, formwork and Ductility large
Rebar cage needed possible
Concrete jacket - OK, formwork and Ductility large
PCS possibly welding possible

RETROFIT OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

Along with columns, beam-column joints are one of the most critical
components in RC structures, especially earthquake loads. Recent earthquakes have
shown that failure of beam-column joints often leads to partial or total collapse of
buildings (Sezen et al. 2003, Dogangun 2004, Engindeniz et al. 2005, and Alemdar
and Sezen 2010). Use of FRP composites as a lightweight material is one of the
easiest and most economical strengthening methods. Engindeniz et al. (2005) and
Bousselham (2010) presented comprehensive reviews of published experimental
studies showing the effectiveness of FRP composites to strengthen concrete beam-
column joints. Engindeniz et al. (2005) reviewed several repair and strengthening
methods and discussed application details, required labor, range of applicability, and
relative advantages and disadvantages of each method. A combination of “removal
and replacement” and “FRP composite application” methods reviewed in Engindeniz
et al. (2005) are used in this research to repair and strengthen the damaged beam-
column joint specimens.

Three exterior RC beam-column joint specimens were tested under reverse

cyclic loading. The damaged specimens were repaired by replacing the damaged
concrete and strengthened by FRP wrapping to restore and improve strength and
ductility. Diagonal and longitudinal FRP strip applications and different anchorage
options were considered to prevent debonding of FRP strips and to provide successful
anchorage for the FRP strips using a relatively simple anchorage mechanism.

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2021

Bea am-column test specim mens and testing

Dimenssions, reinforrcement detaailing and m
material propperties of alll specimens
werre identical except for the amoun nt of beam longitudinaal steel andd transverse
reinnforcement spacing
s in beeams and co
olumns incluuding joints. Flexural streength of the
beaam was larg ger than fleexural strenngth of the column inn Specimen--1; flexural
streengths of beeam and collumn were veryv close iin Specimenn-2; and beaam flexural
streength was larger
l than the column n flexural sttrength in SSpecimen-3. Details off
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

speecimen design, materiaal propertiess, and the results froom testing of original
speecimens can be found in Fisher and Sezen
S (2011)) and Sezen (2012).

The 2033 mm deep anda 152 mm m wide beam ms had a lenggth of 508 mmm from the
face of the colu umn. The 76 62 mm tall 152 mm squuare columnns included eight No. 4
lon
ngitudinal baars. Plain 6.44 mm diameeter steel barrs with 135-degree end hooks were
useed as transveerse steel in both beams and columnns, includingg joint regionns. Column
tie spacing wass 38 mm in Specimen 1 and 64 mm m in the otherr two specimmens. Beam
stirrrup spacing was 38, 89, and 44 mm in Specimenns 1, 2 and 33, respectiveely. Top and
botttom longituddinal bars were:
w three No. 3 in Speciimen 1; one No. 1 and tw wo No. 3 in
Speecimen 2; annd three No. 4 in Specim men 3. The m measured conncrete strenggth was 28.4
MP Pa (Fisher 2009). The measured
m yieeld strengthh of transverrse was 4211 MPa. The
yield strength of
o No. 3 and 4 longitudin nal bars weree 496 and 4334 MPa, resppectively.

The cycclic load waas applied att the tip of tthe cantileveer beam whhile an axial
load of 142 kN N was applieed on the co olumn. The uunstrengthenned specimeens suffered
the most damag ge within thee joint region
n. Figure 3 sshows the daamaged speccimen at the
end
d of the first experiment,, repaired sppecimen, andd FRP wrappped specimenn at the end
of second
s expeeriment. Loaad-deflection n relationshipp measured at the end oof cantilever
beaam are showwn Figure 4 forf the origin nal Specimeen 1. Under increasing lloads, cover
con
ncrete over the
t joint reg gion began to o spall off, and after thhe maximumm strength is
reached, stiffneess and stren
ngth of the joint started to decrease significantlyy. This was
mainly due to o softening of reinforciing steel affter yieldingg, and deterrioration off
ncrete within
con n the joint reegion while the width oof major diaggonal crackss increased.
Dettailed discusssion of expeerimental response and measured teest data can be found in
Fishher (2009) and
a Fisher an nd Sezen (20 011).

gure 3 Dam
Fig maged concreete removall, repair usiing high streength groutt, and FRP
failure at the end of ttesting

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2022
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) ((b)
Figure 4 Lo
oad displaceement relatiionship for:: a) originall, and b) rettrofitted
Sp
pecimen-1.

The dam maged specimens were first cleaneed and loosee concrete ppieces were
rem
moved. High strength non-shrink mo ortar, with a 97 MPa com mpressive sttrength, was
useed to replacee the removeed concrete (Figure
( 3). T
The goal of the FRP retrrofit was to
resttore the capaacity of the joint
j and preevent new daamage insidde the strengtthened joint
reg
gion. Therefo ore, diagonaal FRP strip ps were appplied on eacch side of thhe repaired
join
nts. Longituudinal FRP strips
s were also appliedd on each siide of the bbeam. FRP
commposites Sik kaWrap Hex x117C and SikaWrap
S H
Hex230C useed in this reesearch had
ultiimate tensilee strength off 724 MPa an nd 3450 MP Pa, respectivvely. The bonnding agent
Sik
kadur® 330 US U resin waas used to atttach FRP too concrete suurface. FRP strips were
ancchored on the t beams usingu self-taapping screwws, Tapconn® and threee different
wasshers.

The streengthened specimens were

w subjecteed to same lloading histtory applied
on the bare specimens. The measu ured load-ddisplacementt relationshhip for the
streengthened Sp pecimen-1 iss shown in Figure
F 4b. Otther than surrface crackinng of epoxy
matterial near the beam-collumn interfaace, no visibble damage was observeed until the
peaak strength was
w reached d. During th
he post peakk cycles beaam FRP stripps ruptured
alonng the verticcal line at th
he beam-coluumn interfacce, which leed to final faailure of the
speecimen (Figu ure 3). The measured peakp strengtth was 42.7 kN, very cclose to the
max ximum strength of thee bare speciimen, 46.3 kN (Figuree 4). The sttrengthened
speecimen was able to reacch a maximu um displaceement of 75 mm, whichh was much
largger than the maximum 34 mm displaacement meaasured in thee bare specim men.

ONCLUSIONS
CO

All colu
umn retrofit methods co onsidered in this researcch effectivelly increased
the strength an nd stiffness of
o columns. Concrete jaacketing witth WWF reiinforcement
andd FRP wraapping incrreased the maximum load carryying capaciity of the
unsstrengthened d column by y up to 140 percent, hoowever bothh methods reesulted in a
britttle failure immediately y after the maximum strength w was reached. The axial
streength, stiffn
ness, and displacement
d t capacity iincreased m most in steel jacketed
speecimens. PCS reinforcem ment was as effective ass the solid ssteel tubes inn providing

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2023

confinement and increasing the stiffness prior to concrete cracking in the jacket. The
overall behavior of concrete jacketed specimens with rebar and PCS reinforcement
was somewhat similar.

The beam-column joint repair and strengthening method used in this research:
1) restored the strength of the damaged specimens, 2) increased the displacement
capacity, and 3) changed the failure mode from shear failure inside the joint region to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

flexural failure in the beam. First, the loose damaged concrete was removed and
replaced by high strength mortar in the joint region of the tested original joint
specimens. The anchorage method involving self-tapping screws prevented
debonding and anchorage failure. FRP wrapped around the joint region effectively
carried the diagonal tensile forces created by reversed cyclic loads. Consequently,
virtually no damage occurred inside the joint regions of the strengthened specimens.

REFERENCES

Aboutaha, R. S., Engelhardt, M. D., Jirsa, J. O., and Kreger, M. E. (1999).

“Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use of rectangular steel
jackets.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(1), 68-78
ACI 318-08, ACI Committee 318. (2008). Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
Alemdar, F., and Sezen, H. (2010). “Shear behavior of exterior reinforced concrete
beam-column joints.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 35(1), 123-126
Bett, B. J., Klingner, R. E., and Jirsa, J. O. (1988). “Lateral load response of
strengthened and repaired reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Structural
Journal, 85(5), 499-508
Bousselham, A. (2010). “State of research on seismic retrofit of RC beam-column
joints with externally bonded FRP.” Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, 14(1), 49-61
Dogangun, A. (2004). “Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May
1 2003 Bingol earthquake in Turkey.” Engineering Structures, 26(6), 841-856
Engindeniz, M., Kahn, L. F., and Zureick, A. (2005). “Repair and strengthening of
reinforced concrete beam-column joints: State of the art.” ACI Structural
Journal, 102(2), 187-197
Ersoy, U., Tankut, A. T., and Suleiman, R. (1993). “Behavior of jacketed columns.”
ACI Structural Journal, 90(3), 288-293
Fisher, M. (2009). “Experimental testing of reinforcement in reinforced concrete
beam-column joints.” Master’s Thesis. The Ohio State University. pp. 188
Fisher, M., and Sezen, H. (2011). “Behavior of exterior reinforced concrete beam-
column joints including a new reinforcement.” Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, 40(6),
Hayashi, Y., Niwa H., and Fukuhara, M. (1980). “The strengthening method of the
existing reinforced concrete buildings.” Proceedings of the Seventh World
Conference on Earthquake, Istanbul, Turkey, V. 4, 89-97

Structures Congress 2012

 Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 2024

Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994a). “Steel jacket
retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength-
part 1: Theoretical considerations and test design.” ACI Structural Journal,
91(4), 394-405
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994b). Steel jacket
retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced shear strength
-part 2: Test results and comparison with theory.” ACI Structural Journal,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

91(5), 537-551
Rodriguez, M., and Park, R. (1994). “Seismic load tests on reinforced concrete
columns strengthened by jacketing.” ACI Structural Journal, 91(2), 150-159
Sezen, H. (2012). “Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints with fiber reinforced polymer composites.” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, (in review)
Sezen, H., and Miller, E. A. (2011). “Experimental evaluation of axial behavior of
strengthened circular reinforced concrete columns.” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, 16(2), 238-247
Sezen, H., and Shamsai, M. (2008). “High-strength concrete columns reinforced with
prefabricated cage system.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 134(5),
750-757
Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J., and Mosalam, K. M. (2003).
“Performance of reinforced concrete and wall buildings during the August 17,
1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction
practice in Turkey.” Engineering Structures, 25(1), 103-114
Shamsai, M., Whitlatch, E., and Sezen, H. (2007). “Economic evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures with columns reinforced with prefabricated
cage system.” J. Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 133(11),
864-870
Shamsai, M., and Sezen, H. (2011). “Behavior of square concrete columns reinforced
with prefabricated cage system.” Materials and Structures, 44, 89-100
Takeuti, A. R., Hanai, J. B., and Mirmiran A. (2008). “Preloaded RC columns
strengthened with high strength concrete jackets under uniaxial compression.”
Materials and Structures, 41, 1251-1262
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2003). “Retrofit of reinforced concrete columns using partially
stiffened steel jackets.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(6),
725-732
Zhang, Y., Cofer, W. F., and McLean, D. I. (1999). “Analytical evaluation of retrofit
strategies for multicolumn bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,
4(2), 143-150

Structures Congress 2012