See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286826936

Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using

Carbon-Fiber Anchors

Article in Aci Structural Journal · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

40 980

3 authors, including:

Thanasis Triantafillou
University of Patras
158 PUBLICATIONS 11,051 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRM as Strengthening Materials of Existing Structures View project

Innovative seismic isolation of infill walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thanasis Triantafillou on 19 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 110-S07

Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete

Columns Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors
by Ioannis Vrettos, Efstathia Kefala, and Thanasis C. Triantafillou

This paper presents the results of an experimental program that a systematic way by Bournas and Triantafillou1 through the
aimed to study the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) columns use of near-surface-mounted (NSM) reinforcement.
under simulated seismic loading strengthened in flexure with In this study, the authors investigated flexural strength-
anchored carbon-fiber sheets. The role of different parameters ening of columns with externally bonded FRP sheets
is examined by comparing the lateral load-versus-displacement that are anchored at the columns’ end sections with fiber
response characteristics (peak force, drift ratios, energy dissi- anchors in the form of spikes. Fiber anchors have received
pation, and stiffness). These parameters included the number
the attention of some investigators in applications related
of anchors and the volume of fibers in each anchor. The results
were combined with a simple analytical model to yield values for
to shear strengthening of columns,2,3 shear strengthening
the effective strain in the anchors at failure. It is concluded that of beams,4 and flexural strengthening of beams.5,6 Some
carbon-fiber anchors provide a viable solution toward enhancing studies have also focused on specific bond aspects of fiber
the flexural resistance of RC columns subjected to seismic loads, anchors7,8 or tensile properties.9
especially if they are made of a substantial amount of fibers. The only study reported in the international literature on
flexural strengthening of columns with anchored FRP sheets
Keywords: carbon-fiber anchors; columns; flexure; seismic retrofitting; is that of Prota et al.,10 who used steel spikes at the base of
strengthening. cantilever-type RC columns in combination with glass FRP
confining jackets. The specimens were tested under mono-
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND tonic lateral load in combination with constant axial load.
Earthquakes worldwide have proven the vulnerability of A comparison of the strength results for unstrengthened
existing reinforced concrete (RC) columns to seismic loading. and strengthened columns shows an increase in the range
Poorly detailed columns are the most critical structural of 33 to 54%.
elements, which may fail due to shear, compressive crushing This paper presents a study on the combination of FRP
of concrete, reinforcing bar buckling, bond at lap splices, and sheets and fiber anchors for flexural strengthening of RC
flexure. Seismic retrofitting of RC columns is a challenging columns under simulated seismic loading. Details are
task that may be addressed successfully today using exter- provided in the following sections.
nally bonded composite materials (fiber-reinforced polymers
[FRPs]) for all of the aforementioned failure mechanisms RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
except flexure. FRPs in the form of jackets with the fibers Columns, the most critical structural elements in RC struc-
typically in the columns’ circumferential direction are quite tures, are often in need of flexural strengthening to satisfy
effective in carrying shear and providing confinement, thus capacity design requirements (relocation of plastic hinges
increasing the shear resistance and deformation capacity of from columns to beams) or when longitudinal reinforcing
existing RC columns. However, effective strengthening of bars have been affected by corrosion. The implementation of
columns in flexure—often needed, for instance, to satisfy a low-labor and minimal-obstruction flexural strengthening
capacity design requirements (that is, the elimination of technique for RC columns still remains a challenging task,
weakness in strong-beam, weak-column situations) or when which is addressed in this study for the first time through
existing reinforcing bars have been affected by corrosion— the use of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets combined
calls for the continuation of longitudinal reinforcement. This with carbon-fiber anchors.
reinforcement should extend beyond the end cross sections,
where moments are typically at a maximum. Therefore, the EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens and experimental parameters
placement of externally bonded FRP is not applicable. As
The experimental program aimed to study the flex-
a result, flexural strengthening of RC columns is currently
ural strengthening of old-type nonseismically detailed RC
typically achieved by using RC jackets or some form of columns with externally bonded FRP sheets, which are
steel jackets—namely, steel “cages”—also followed by anchored at the columns’ end sections with fiber anchors in
shotcreting. RC jackets or steel cages covered by shotcrete the form of spikes, and compare the effectiveness of different
require intensive labor and artful detailing; they increase the anchor schemes. A total of four large-scale RC column
dimensions and weight of columns and result in substantial
obstruction of occupancy. Moreover, increasing the stiffness
of the column will attract a higher force because forces are ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 1, January-February 2013.
distributed according to the relative stiffness of the elements. MS No. S-2011-053.R1 received March 7, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
Therefore, the implementation of a low-labor and minimal reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
obstruction flexural strengthening technique for RC columns copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the November-December 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion
is a challenging task that was addressed for the first time in is received by July 1, 2013.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 63

Ioannis Vrettos received his Diploma in civil engineering and his MSc in seismic As a result, the only difference between the control
design of structures from the University of Patras, Patras, Greece, in 2007 and 2009, specimen and any other specimen was due to the imple-
respectively. His research interests include advanced materials and seismic retrofitting mentation of flexural strengthening through the use of
of reinforced concrete structures.
longitudinal sheets in combination with anchors. The
Efstathia Kefala received her Diploma in civil engineering and her MSc in seismic jacket was made of a CFRP sheet that extended from
design of structures from the University of Patras in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Her the column base to a height of 600 mm (23.62 in.).
research interests include advanced materials and seismic retrofitting of reinforced • Specimen 2_1.5 was strengthened with a 200 mm
concrete structures.
(7.87 in.) wide epoxy-impregnated carbon-fiber sheet
ACI member Thanasis C. Triantafillou is a Professor of civil engineering and Director on each of the two opposite sides of the column (those
of the Structural Materials Laboratory at the University of Patras. He received his with the highest tension/compression). The CFRP sheet
Diploma in civil engineering from the University of Patras in 1985 and his MSc and extended from the column base to a height of 1.4 m
PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, in 1987 and
1989, respectively. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
(55.12 in.) and was anchored at the base block with
Reinforcement. His research interests include the application of advanced polymer- or two carbon-fiber spike anchors on each side (Fig. 2(b)).
cement-based composites in combination with concrete, masonry, and timber with an The cross-sectional area of the fibers in each anchor
emphasis on strengthening and seismic retrofitting. was equal to 0.75 times the cross-sectional area of the
fibers in the CFRP sheet; hence, the total cross-sectional
specimens with the same geometry were constructed and area of the fibers in the two anchors was equal to 1.5
tested under cyclic uniaxial flexure with constant axial load times that of the CFRP sheet. Finally, the column was
(Fig. 1(a)). The specimens were flexure-dominated cantile- confined with a jacket identical to that used in the
vers (that is, slender and designed to fail by yielding of the control specimen.
longitudinal reinforcing bars) with a height to the point of • Specimen 3_1.5 was strengthened the same as 2_1.5 but
application of the load (shear span) of 1.6 m (63 in.) (half with three instead of two anchors per side (Fig. 2(c)).
a typical story height) and a cross section of 250 x 250 mm Those anchors were 33% lighter than those in 2_1.5:
(9.84 x 9.84 in.). To represent old-type columns, speci- each one had a cross-sectional area equal to 0.50 times
mens were reinforced longitudinally with four deformed the cross-sectional area of the fibers in the CFRP sheet;
bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter and 8 mm (0.32 in.) diam- hence, the total cross-sectional area of the fibers in the
eter deformed stirrups, closed with 90-degree hooks at both three anchors was again equal to 1.5 times that of the
ends, at a spacing of 200 mm (7.87 in.). The geometry of a CFRP sheet.
typical cross section is shown in Fig. 1(b). • Specimen 2_1.0 (Fig. 2(d)) was strengthened the same as
The specimens were designed such that the effect of 2_1.5 but with the light anchors used in Specimen 3_1.5.
two basic parameters on the effectiveness of anchors—the In summary, except for the control specimen, the speci-
number of anchors and the amount of fibers in each anchor— mens’ notation is as follows: the first number denotes the
could be investigated. The specimens are described in the number of anchors on each side at the base of the column
following, supported by Fig. 2. and the second number denotes the ratio of the fiber cross
• One specimen was tested without flexural strengthening section in the anchors to that in the CFRP sheet.
as the control specimen. As in all strengthened speci-
mens, however, longitudinal fiber sheets were confined Strengthening procedure
at the base of the column with an FRP jacket so buckling One unidirectional carbon-fiber sheet 1.4 m (55.12 in.)
of those fibers could be prevented; the same confining long and 200 mm (7.87 in.) wide was bonded on a properly
jacket was also used in the control specimen (Fig. 2(a)). prepared concrete surface on each of the two opposite sides

Fig. 1—(a) Schematic of test setup; and (b) cross section of columns. (Note:
Dimensions in mm [in.].)

64 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013

 Fig. 2—Four columns tested: (a) control; (b) Specimen 2_1.5; (c) Specimen 3_1.5; and (d)
Specimen 2_1.0. (Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)

Fig. 3—(a) Filling of holes in anchorage region with epoxy resin; (b) place-
ment of carbon-fiber anchor; (c) fanning out of fiber anchors over CFRP sheet;
(d) local jacketing with CFRP; and (e) position of displacement transducers.
(Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)

of the strengthened columns. The sheet was placed with base of the column with a depth of 250 mm (9.84 in.) and
fibers in a vertical configuration and was terminated at the a diameter of 14 or 16 mm (0.55 or 0.63 in.) for Specimens
column base. 3_1.5 and 2_1.0 or 2_1.5, respectively. The holes were filled
Fiber anchor spikes were applied on top of the CFRP sheet with epoxy (Fig. 3(a)) to half of their depths. Each anchor
at a spacing of 100 mm (3.94 in.) or 67 mm (2.64 in.) for spike was inserted into the holes after applying the CFRP
columns with two or three anchors per side, respectively sheets on the two opposite sides of the columns (Fig. 3(b))
(Fig. 2). Spikes were formed from dry carbon fibers (half and the protruding dry fibers were fanned out over the CFRP
dry and half coated with epoxy). Holes were drilled into the sheet (Fig. 3(c)). This method of anchoring was selected on

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 65

the basis of transferring the tension forces from the CFRP by 5 mm (0.20 in.) of displacement amplitudes in each direc-
sheet terminating at the bottom of each column into the tion. The loading rate was in the range of 0.2 to 1.1 mm/s
concrete base. Finally, all columns received jacketing by (0.008 to 0.043 in./s)—the higher rate corresponding to
wrapping a single layer of a 600 mm (23.62 in.) wide carbon a higher displacement amplitude—all in displacement-
sheet, identical to that used in the columns’ longitudinal control mode. At the same time, a constant axial load was
direction (Fig. 3(d)). The effectiveness of confinement was applied to the columns, corresponding to 25.4% of the
improved by rounding the four corners near the base of each members’ compressive strength, which was calculated by
column to a radius equal to 25 mm (0.98 in.). multiplying the gross section area by the strength of the
concrete. The lateral load was applied using a horizontally
Test setup and materials positioned 250 kN (56.2 kip) MTS actuator. The axial load
The columns were fixed into a heavily reinforced 0.5 m was exerted by a set of four hydraulic cylinders with auto-
(19.68 in.) deep base block 1.2 x 0.5 m (47 x 19.7 in.) in mated pressure self-adjustment acting against two vertical
plan, within which the longitudinal bars were anchored rods connected to the strong floor of the testing frame through
with 50 mm (1.97 in.) radius hooks at the bottom. The a hinge (Fig. 1(a)). As a result of this loading scheme, the
longitudinal bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter had a yield variation of axial load during each test was negligible. With
stress of 545 MPa (79.0 ksi), a tensile strength of 652 MPa this setup, the P-D moment at the base section of the column
(94.5 ksi), and an ultimate strain equal to 13.7% (average is equal to the axial load times the tip displacement (that is,
values from six specimens). The corresponding values for the at the piston fixing position) of the column times the ratio of
steel used for the stirrups were 351 MPa (50.9 ksi), 444 MPa the hinge distance from the base (0.25 m [9.84 in.]) and the
(64.4 ksi), and 19.5%. To simulate field conditions, the base top (0.25 + 1.60 = 1.85 m [72.83 in.]) of the column (that is,
blocks and the columns were cast with separate batches of times 0.25/1.85 = 0.135).
ready mixed concrete (on 2 consecutive days). Casting of The displacements and axial strains at the plastic hinge
the columns was also made with separate batches due to region were monitored using six displacement transducers
the unavailability of a large number of molds. The average (three on each side, perpendicular to the loading direction)
compressive strength and standard deviation on the day of fixed at the cross sections 130, 260, and 450 mm (5.12,
testing the columns—measured on 150 x 150 mm (5.9 x 10.24, and 17.72 in.) from the column base, as shown in
5.9 in.) cubes (average values from three specimens)—were Fig. 1(a) and 3(e).
equal to 17.1 and 0.95 MPa (2478 and 138 psi), respectively,
suggesting that the variability in concrete strength would EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
not affect the column test results. Cylinders with a diam- Strength, failure modes, and deformations
eter of 150 mm (5.9 in.) and a height of 300 mm (11.81 in.) The response of all columns tested is given in
were also used to obtain the splitting tensile strength of the Fig. 4 in the form of the load-drift ratio (obtained by dividing
concrete; the average tensile strength that was obtained from the tip displacement by the column’s height) loops. The corre-
six specimens on the day of testing was equal to 2.2 MPa sponding envelope curves are given in Fig. 5; key results are
(319 psi). also presented in Table 1. They include: 1) the peak resistance
The carbon-fiber sheet used as both longitudinal reinforce- in the two directions of loading; 2) the degree of strength-
ment (vertical fibers) and confinement (horizontal fibers) ening—that is, the peak resistance normalized with respect
was a commercial unidirectional fiber product with a weight to the peak load sustained by the control specimen in the two
of 644 g/m2 (2.62 × 10–6 lb/in.2) and a nominal thickness directions of loading; and 3) the observed failure mode.
(based on the equivalent smeared distribution of fibers) The performance and failure mode of all tested specimens
of 0.37 mm (0.0146 in.). The mean tensile strength and was controlled by flexure, as expected due to their design
elastic modulus of the fibers (as well as of the sheet when characteristics (a high value of the shear span ratio L/h =
the nominal thickness is used) was taken from data sheets 6.4 and a relatively low ratio of longitudinal reinforcement).
equal to 3790 MPa (549.27 ksi) and 230 GPa (33,333 ksi), This was an important requirement, as the main objective in
respectively. The carbon-fiber sheet was impregnated with this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of spike anchors
a commercial low-viscosity structural adhesive (two-part as a means of flexural strengthening of RC columns. The
epoxy resin with a mixing ratio of 3:1 by weight) with a control specimen attained a peak load of approximately
tensile strength of 70 MPa (10.15 ksi) and an elastic modulus 37.8 kN (8.45 kips). After yielding of the longitudinal
of 3.2 GPa (464 ksi) (cured for 7 days at 23°C [73°F]). reinforcement, the load remained nearly constant up to a
The values of the tensile strength and elastic modulus for large drift ratio of 8%, corresponding to the termination
the epoxy-impregnated sheet were taken from data sheets of the test. The confinement provided by the CFRP jacket
equal to 986 MPa (142.9 ksi) and 95.8 GPa (13,884 ksi), prevented spalling of the concrete cover and potential buck-
respectively, corresponding to a thickness equal to 1 mm ling of the longitudinal reinforcing bars.
(0.039 in.). All strengthened specimens displayed higher flexural
Each anchor comprised a tow of carbon fibers of the resistance (from 17% up to approximately 35%) compared
same type used in the unidirectional sheets. The weight to the control specimen. The response of strengthened
of the fibers for the anchors used in Specimens 3_1.5 and columns was not in all cases completely symmetrical in the
2_1.0 was 63 g/m (0.0035 lb/in.); the anchors used in two directions of loading due to slight differences in the
Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier and the respective weight internal reinforcement’s effective depth and the configura-
of the fibers was 94.5 g/m (0.0053 lb/in.). Impregnation and tion of anchors in each strengthened side. Flexural cracking
bonding of the fiber anchors was done using the same epoxy at the column base started at the early stages of loading and
adhesive used for the impregnation of the carbon sheets. increased substantially with increasing drift ratios due to slip
The columns were subjected to lateral cyclic loading, of the internal bars. Failure in all strengthened columns was
which consisted of successive cycles progressively increasing due to tensile rupture of the anchors at the cross section of

66 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013

maximum moment (column base). No other failure, such as
debonding, was observed, indicating that the epoxy adhesive
performed well and the anchor length was sufficient.
Rupture of the anchors resulted in a sudden drop of the
applied force when the drift ratio was approximately 2.5%.
As in the case of the control specimen, the confinement
provided by the CFRP jacket prevented spalling of the
concrete cover and potential buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars. The pinching observed in the hysteresis
loops shown in Fig. 4 is attributed to slip of the internal bars
and the nonyielding response of the fiber anchors.
Figure 6 gives the relation between the drift ratio and the
slip rotation qslip of the cross section at the interface between
the column and the base. The latter was measured using
the data from the displacement transducers in two cross
sections at a distance l1 = 130 mm (5.12 in.) and l2 = 260 mm Fig. 4—Load-versus-drift ratio curves for tested specimens.
(10.24 in.) from the base as follows: qslip = q2 – fl2 = q1 – fl1,
where f is the mean curvature at the column base equal to
(q2 – q1)/(l2 – l1). This assumption of a constant mean curva-
ture is applicable if this distance l2 – l1 is small in the order
of the typical distance of two adjacent flexural cracks if the
behavior prior to yielding is of interest or the length within
which concrete is expected to spall or crush and reinforcing
bars may buckle or even break. In experiments, values of
l2 – l1 in the range of h/2 to h are commonly selected. In
this way, it is possible to estimate the contribution of the
slip rotation to the overall column deformation. The qslip-
drift ratio relation is nearly bilinear for all columns, with
a first branch up to approximately the peak lateral load and Fig. 5—Load-versus-drift ratio envelope curves.
a second one with a higher slope beyond that. The contri-
bution of slip rotation to the columns’ overall behavior was
prevalent, as it comprised the major part of their deformation
capacity (drift ratio).
By comparing the degree of strengthening for all tests,
some useful conclusions concerning the relative effective-
ness of different anchor configurations can be made. Speci-
mens 2_1.5 and 3_1.5 had anchors with the same total
amount of fibers distributed in two and three anchors per
side, respectively, with Specimen 2_1.5 displaying a higher
degree of strengthening (1.35 versus 1.25). Hence, it may
be concluded that two “heavier” anchors per side are more
effective than three “lighter” ones. This is counterintuitive,
but it may be explained by the higher probability of poor
anchor installation as the number of anchors increases. More
test results should clarify this observation further.
Specimens 2_1.5 and 2_1.0 had the same number of
anchors; those in Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier. Yet,
the increase in flexural resistance due to strengthening in Fig. 6—Slip rotation at base in terms of drift ratio.

Table 1—Summary of results

Column base
Peak force Pmax, moment at peak Drift ratio at peak Degree of strengthening Concrete cover in Effective strain in
kN (kips) force, kN·m (kip·ft) force, % (Pmax,Specimen/Pmax,Control) tension steel, mm (in.) tension anchors, %
Specimen Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull
37.91 –37.73 62.53 –62.35
Control 3.67 –3.88 1.00 1.00 33 33 — —
(8.52) (–8.48) (4.29) (–4.27)
51.15 –50.66 83.06 –82.25
2_1.5 2.40 –2.35 1.35 1.34 25 36 0.53 0.52
(11.50) (–11.39) (5.69) (–5.64)
47.49 –42.11* 77.40
3_1.5 — 2.79 — 1.25 — 32 31 0.43 —
(10.68) (–9.47) (5.30)
45.04 –43.33 73.32 –70.56
2_1.0 2.48 –2.42 1.19 1.15 35 26 0.49 0.43
(10.12) (–9.74) (7.25) (–4.84)
*
Unreliable result (not used in further calculations) due to wrong positioning of one anchor.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 67

 Fig. 7—(a) Cumulative dissipated energy during test; and (b) stiffness versus drift ratio.

Fig. 8—(a) Stresses at column base; and (b) approximate bilinear stress-strain curve for
FRP-confined concrete.

Specimen 2_1.5 (34.5% on average in both directions of why flexural strengthening of columns is a demand—a fact
loading) was nearly double that in Specimen 2_1.0 (17% on that was verified experimentally in this study.
average in both directions of loading), indicating that heavier
anchors are more effective. On the basis of the limited test Effective strain of fiber anchors
results presented in this study, it is concluded that anchors Of crucial importance in the design of an FRP-based
should be as few and as heavy as possible. strengthening system is the so-called “effective strain,”
defined herein as the average tensile strain in the fiber
Stiffness and energy dissipation anchors at failure. This value was calculated by performing
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the various anchor an analysis of the cross section at the column base through
configurations, the stiffness and cumulative dissipated the use of standard—in RC—force equilibrium, strain
energy—computed by summing up the area enclosed within compatibility, and material constitutive conditions corre-
sponding to the maximum bending moment at the cross
the load-versus-piston displacement curves—were recorded
section (Fig. 8(a)). In this analysis, the spike anchors are
for each loading cycle and are plotted in Fig. 7. Overall,
modeled as linear elastic tension elements. Note that the
the use of anchors results in higher stiffness (in the order
analysis was performed using the “exact” values of concrete
of 10 to 40%, depending on anchor configuration), up to the cover as measured after each test and not the nominal values
drift corresponding to anchor rupture, whereas the increase shown in Fig. 1(b); these values are listed in Table 1.
in energy dissipation is marginal. To account for the effect of FRP confinement, the
It should be noted at this point that the increased stiffness compressive stress-strain behavior of concrete was modeled
of the strengthened columns may result in increased seismic as bilinear (Fig. 8(b)) in agreement with extensive experi-
forces. However, this is not of concern and should not lead mental evidence.11 According to the typical approach toward
to the conclusion that the positive effect of strengthening is modeling confinement of concrete by FRP,12-14 the confined
counterbalanced by the negative effect of stiffening. What is strength fcc and ultimate strain eccu depend on the confining
of crucial importance in capacity design is the higher strength stress at failure (fracture of the jacket in the circumferential
of columns versus that of beams, which is typically the reason direction) slu as follows15

68 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013

 fcc fco = 1 + k1 (s lu fco )m (1)

e ccu e co = 1 + k2 (s lu fco )n (2)

The confining stress sl is, in general, nonuniform, espe-

cially near the corners of rectangular cross sections. As an
average for sl in a cross section with dimensions of b and h,
one may write (Fig. 9(a) through (c))

s l ,h + s l ,b 1  2t j 2t j 
sl = = ke  Eje j + Eje j 
2 2  h b  (3)
= ke
(b + h) t E e
j j j
bh
Fig. 9—(a) to (c) Approximate average confining stresses;
where Ej and ej are the elastic modulus and strain, respec- and (d) effectively confined area in columns with rectan-
tively, of the FRP jacket in the lateral direction; tj is the jacket gular cross section.
thickness; and ke is an effectiveness coefficient which, for
continuous jackets with fibers in the direction perpendicular
to the member axis, is defined as the ratio of the effectively strength fcc. This failure mode is in perfect agreement with
confined area (Ae in Fig. 9(d)) to the total cross-sectional experimental observations for all three FRP-strengthened
area Ag as follows16 columns. The resulting values of strain in the anchors at
failure, summarized in Table 1, indicate that the effective
b′2 + h ′2 strain in the spike anchors at failure—on average, equal to
ke = 1 − (4) 0.0047—is well below the theoretical deformation capacity
3 Ag
of the (carbon) fibers comprising the anchors. The main
reasons for this difference are the stress concentrations at the
Hence, the confining stress at failure slu is given by Eq. (3) anchor bend and the cyclic nature of stresses in the anchors.
with Ejej replaced by the effective jacket strength in the
lateral direction fje CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the first study on the combination of

s lu = k e
(b + h) t f je
FRP sheets and fiber anchors for flexural strengthening of
j (5) RC columns under simulated seismic loading. The design
bh
of specimens allowed for an investigation of the number of
anchors and the volume of fibers in each anchor. The results
The literature on the precise form of confinement models were combined with a simple analytical model to yield
for concrete is vast. Some of these models, especially the values for the effective strain in the anchors at failure. The
older ones, are based on the assumption that the relation- main conclusions are summarized as follows:
ship between confined strength and ultimate strain and • Carbon-fiber anchors provide a viable solution toward
their unconfined counterparts is linear—that is, m and n enhancing the flexural resistance of RC columns
are both equal to 1. In other models, especially in some of subjected to seismic loading.
the most recent ones, m and n are taken as less than—but • The effectiveness of anchors increases almost linearly
still close to—1. Whereas the main advantage of the former with their weight.
approach is simplicity, the disadvantage is that linear rela- • A fixed amount of fibers placed in the form of anchors
tionships between fcc-slu and eccu-slu tend to overpredict is more effective when two heavier anchors are used
both the confined strength and the confined ultimate strain
instead of three but are lighter. This may be attributed
for high confining stresses. As the authors’ objective in this
to the increased probability of poor installation as the
paper is not to elaborate on confinement models for concrete
number of anchors increases and should be investi-
but, rather, to perform a simple cross-section analysis with
FRP confinement taken into account, the authors also make gated further.
the assumption of linearity—that is, that m = 1 and n = 1. • On the basis of standard cross-section analysis, which
Moreover, in agreement with the typical CFRP confinement accounts for the effect of confinement, the effec-
models for concrete,11 the authors take k1 = 2.15 and k2 = 10. tive strain in carbon-fiber anchors subjected to cyclic
The aforementioned procedure was implemented in a loading is in the order of 0.5%.
computer program that performs equilibrium iterations in In view of the limited number of tests performed in this
an automated way and yields the tensile strain in the spike study, the aforementioned results should be considered
anchors at failure of the cross section. It should be noted that as rather preliminary. Future research should be directed
failure was always reached when the spike anchors developed toward providing a better understanding of the parameters,
their strength and fractured in tension, while the maximum including other amounts of fibers in the anchors, the level
compressive strain in the concrete was less than the confined of axial load, initial column damage, different shear spans,

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 69

different loading histories, other cross sections, and other 3. Kobayashi, K.; Fujii, S.; Yabe, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Sugiyama, T.,
types of fibers. “Advanced Wrapping System with CF-Anchor—Stress Transfer Mecha-
nism of CF-Anchor,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, C. J.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2001, pp. 379-388.
The authors wish to thank C. Papanicolaou, P. Apostolopoulou, and 4. Jinno, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Yabe, Y., “RC Beams with Slabs
K. Giannakopoulos for their assistance in the experimental program. The Strengthened by CF Sheets and Bundles of CF Strands,” Proceedings of the
study reported in this paper was partially funded by FYFE EUROPE SA. 5th International Conference on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK,
NOTATION 2001, pp. 981-988.
Ag = gross section area 5. Ekenel, M.; Rizzo, A.; Myers, J. J.; and Nanni, A., “Flexural Fatigue
Ej = elastic modulus of jacket in lateral direction Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP Fabric
fcc = compressive strength of confined concrete and Precured Laminate Systems,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
fco = compressive strength of unconfined concrete ASCE, V. 10, No. 5, 2006, pp. 433-442.
fje = effective strength of jacket in lateral direction 6. Orton, S.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Bayrak, O., “Design Considerations of
h = cross-section height Carbon Fiber Anchors,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
k1, k2 = empirical constants V. 12, No. 6, 2008, pp. 608-616.
ke = confinement effectiveness coefficient 7. Eshwar, N.; Nanni, A.; and Ibell, T. J., “Performance of Two Anchor
L = length Systems of Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates,”
li = distance of cross section i from column base; i = 1, 2, 3 ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, pp. 72-80.
m = empirical constant 8. Niemitz, C. W.; James, R.; and Breña, S. F., “Experimental Behavior
n = empirical constant of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Sheets Attached to Concrete
Pmax = peak force Surfaces Using CFRP Anchors,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
rc = radius at corners of rectangular sections ASCE, V. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 185-194.
tj = thickness of jacket 9. Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., “Tensile Behavior of FRP
ec = compressive strain in concrete Anchors in Concrete,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
eccu = ultimate strain of confined concrete V. 13, No. 2, 2009, pp. 82-92.
eco = strain at failure of unconfined concrete 10. Prota, A.; Manfredi, G.; Balsamo, A.; Nanni, A.; and Cosenza, E.,
ej = jacket strain in lateral direction “Innovative Technique for Seismic Upgrade of RC Square Columns,”
f = mean curvature at column base Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced
qi = rotation of cross section i; i = 1, 2 Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-230, K. Shield,
J. P. Busel, S. L. Walkup, and D. D. Gremel, eds., American Concrete Insti-
qslip = slip rotation at column base
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 1289-1304.
sa = tensile stress in anchors
11. Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., FRP: Strengthened
sc = compressive stress in concrete
RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, UK, 2002, 266 pp.
scc = maximum compressive stress in concrete
12. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., “Strength Models for Fiber-Reinforced
sl = lateral stress due to jacketing
Plastic-Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
sl,b = lateral stress perpendicular to side b
V. 128, No. 5, 2002, pp. 612-623.
sl,h = lateral stress perpendicular to side h
13. De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R., “Comparative Study of Models
slu = ultimate lateral stress due to jacketing
on Confinement of Concrete Cylinders with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
ss = tensile stress in longitudinal steel reinforcement
Composites,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 3,
2003, pp. 219-237.
REFERENCES 14. Theriault, M.; Neale, K. W.; and Claude, S., “Fiber-Reinforced
1. Bournas, D. A., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Flexural Strengthening of Polymer-Confined Circular Concrete Columns: Investigation of Size and
RC Columns with NSM FRP or Stainless Steel,” ACI Structural Journal, Slenderness Effects,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 8,
V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 495-505. No. 4, 2004, pp. 323-331.
2. Nagai, H.; Kanakubo, T.; Jinno, Y.; Matsuzaki, Y.; and Morita, S., 15. Triantafillou, T. C.; Papanicolaou, C. G.; Zissimopoulos, P.; and
“Study on Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Laourdekis, T., “Concrete Confinement with Textile-Reinforced Mortar
Waist-High Walls Strengthened by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sheets,” Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 28-37.
Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer 16. fib Bulletin 14, “Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, Structures,” Technical Report prepared by the Working Party EBR of Task
S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Group 9.3, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne,
Hills, MI, 1999, pp. 255-267. Switzerland, July 2001, 130 pp.

70 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013

View publication stats