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

net/publication/319222853

Simplified Design of FRP-Confined Square RC Columns under Bi-Axial

Bending

Article in Buildings · August 2017

DOI: 10.3390/buildings7030074

CITATIONS READS

11 411

3 authors:

Salar Manie Ehsan Jami

Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University Islamic Azad University of Marivan
16 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zana Azarian
Mazandaran Institute of Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

PhD Thesis on seismic collapse assessment of plan-irregular buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ehsan Jami on 01 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 buildings
Article
Simplified Design of FRP-Confined Square RC
Columns under Bi-Axial Bending
Salar Manie 1 ID
, Ehsan Jami 2, * ID
and Zana Azarian 3 ID

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj 6616935391, Iran;
[email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Marivan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marivan 6671695853, Iran
3 Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Mazandaran Institute of Technology, Babol 6617974554, Iran;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-918-874-3266

Received: 26 June 2017; Accepted: 10 August 2017; Published: 21 August 2017

Abstract: Available guidelines do not provide design procedures for the general case of retrofitting
reinforced concrete (RC) columns using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets subjected to
simultaneous bi-axial flexural and axial loads. In many practical cases, columns essentially undergo
simultaneous axial force and bi-axial bending moments, especially in in-situ construction. This paper
suggests a simplified design method based on the equivalent uni-axial moment concept to calculate
the required number of layers FRP sheets for retrofitting RC square columns. The proposed procedure
is then verified against available bi-axial moment and axial force test data found in the literature.
Results demonstrate that the proposed procedure is appropriate for practical applications with
acceptable accuracy. It also appears that retrofitting RC square columns by longitudinal fiber
arrangement is only effective for columns with tension-controlled behavior, while transverse and
combined longitudinal-transverse arrangements are more effective in enhancing the load bearing
capacity of both the compression- and tension-controlled columns. A design example will also
be presented.

Keywords: RC columns retrofitting; strengthening; biaxial bending; FRP; interaction curve

1. Introduction
There are a number of situations where an increase in structural capacity or rehabilitation of
reinforced concrete (RC) columns are required. Those may include deterioration due to environment
effects, overloads, aging, design and/or construction errors, damages due to blasts, and collision or
earthquake effects. The engineering application of FRP is increasing for strengthening and retrofitting
of the elements of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. Reasons behind this may include light weight,
high strength, corrosion resistance, good durability and simply construction in comparison with other
retrofitting techniques [1]. FRP materials, depending on the fiber layout and orientation (transverse or
longitudinal with respect to the column axis), can lead to the improvement of behavior of reinforced
columns from both strength and ductility points of view via either enhancement of core concrete
confinement or increasing the moment capacity of the section.
There are numerous studies available in the literature, for example [2,3], concerning the behavior of
FRP-retrofitted RC columns. Those studies have primarily dealt with how different design parameters
such as the number of FRP sheet layers, the mechanical properties of the fibers used, orientation
of the fibers with respect to the column axis, etc. affect the strength and ductility properties of
the member. Previous studies on strengthening of FRP-retrofitted RC columns have been generally
carried out on short columns under different loading conditions [4]. Despite the extensive body of
knowledge of theoretical and experimental studies on FRP-retrofitted short columns, studies on slender

Buildings 2017, 7, 74; doi:10.3390/buildings7030074 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2017, 7, 74 2 of 14

columns subjected to eccentric loads—and particularly biaxial eccentric loads—are quite limited.
Bournas et al. [5] present an analytical model for the analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) members
with rectangular cross sections, strengthened in flexure with various types of externally applied
reinforcement. The Effects of strengthening of square columns using carbon fiber reinforced polymer
(CFRP) composites under uniaxial and biaxial conditions was the subject of an experimental study
conducted by Tao and Yu [6]. The study indicated that the ultimate strength of the columns retrofitted
by transverse CFRP sheets did not differ significantly from the non-retrofitted columns. Nonetheless,
they demonstrated that remarkable enhancement is achieved in load bearing capacity of the column
in cases where simultaneous transverse and longitudinal FRP sheets were utilized. Furthermore,
they showed that longitudinal fibers have a larger impact on improving the loading capacity of
tension-controlled columns. In an analytical and experimental study, Rocca et al. [7] developed
a simplified design interaction curve of reinforced concrete columns in the compression-controlled
region of behavior using transverse FRP composites under uniaxial bending. The methodology
developed in that study is in good accordance with the experimental results. As will be discussed later,
in this paper, the compatibility equations of the aforementioned study are incorporated.
Fitzwilliam et al. [8] analyzed the effect of retrofit of short and slender concrete columns using
CFRP sheets and with two and four-sheet layouts in both transverse and longitudinal direction of
small-scale samples. Their study shows that transverse CFRP layout with respect to longitudinal axis
of column leads to enhancement of loading capacity in short columns whereas longitudinal fiber layout
might lead to improvement of behavior of slender columns and increase their ultimate strength similar
to short columns. Gajdosova et al. [9] conducted an experimental study on eight real scale concrete
columns under eccentric loading. The samples included slender columns. Among all, there were
two non-retrofitted samples (control samples), two samples retrofitted using transverse CFRP sheets,
two samples retrofitted by Near Surface Mounted (NSM) strips, and two samples retrofitted using
combined transverse CFRP and NSM sheets. The most obvious finding to emerge from their study is
that retrofitting using the NSM method has the largest effect on enhancement of loading capacity of
columns in cases where the bending moment is remarkable and/or the loading is eccentric. Teng and
Jiang [10] also proposed a theoretical model for predicting the behavior of FRP-retrofitted RC columns.
Punurai et al. [11] Performed an experimental study on five small-scale square RC columns
confined with transverse CFRP sheets under axial load and biaxial bending moments. Very good
consistency was observed between the experimental results with those obtained from the finite
element analytical models. Rahai and Akbarpour [2] also conducted an experimental study on
rectangular FRP-jacketed RC columns under uniaxial eccentric loading conditions. In their study,
several parameters including thickness of the FRP sheet, the fiber orientation, and loading eccentricity
were taken into account. It was demonstrated that the strength and ductility of specimens increased
with increasing FRP thickness and that the fiber orientation has a great impact on both the strength
and ductility characteristics of the retrofitted member. It was also observed that adding one
longitudinal-oriented FRP sheet to the control model with only one transverse-oriented FRP sheet led
to significant improvement of ductility characteristics of the member.
The available knowledge on the subject have matured to a state that the impact of confinement
provided by FRP composites on load-bearing capacity of both short and slender columns can be
estimated with good accuracy. However, from a ductility capacity point of view, notable biases
are typically observed between theoretical models and experimental results [12,13]. This may be
due to the fact that eccentric loading conditions significantly affects the ultimate axial strain of the
confined column, an issue that is of great significance for predicting deformation capacity of retrofitted
RC columns under seismic loading conditions. Various theoretical and experimental studies can
also be found in literature regarding the behavior of FRP-confined RC columns subjected to axial
force and bending moment [14–19]. Most of those studies have ignored the effect of the presence of
biaxial bending in real cases despite the fact that the presence of combined axial force and biaxial
bending moments are very common in practical engineering design due to gravitational and/or lateral
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 3 of 14

load effects or their combination. This includes current FRP retrofitting design guidelines such as
ACI440 [20]. This guideline deals with the subject of retrofitting of RC columns under axial loads
without direct attention to biaxial moments. It seems that current design procedures consider primarily
the increase in axial load capacity of RC columns merely due to the increase in compressive strength of
concrete resulting from confinement effects of FPR sheets.
However, previous studies (see above) suggest notable advantages in using FRP composites (in
longitudinal and transverse layouts) to enhance the strength and ductility of reinforced concrete columns.
The present research is an extension of the interaction curve method developed in Rocca’s
study [7] in which the procedure of creating interaction curves for FRP-jacketed RC columns is taken
into account based on principles of equilibrium and strain compatibility in tension-controlled region as
well. Moreover, the requirements for proper anchorage (bond length) of fiber reinforcement or anchors
through the joints (or footings) are satisfied. Additionally, besides extending the current methods for
the conditions of strengthening with transverse fiber (Regarding the longitudinal axis of the column),
new equations will be proposed for the longitudinal fiber alone as well as the combined layout. Also,
an engineering method will be suggested for evaluating the effect of strengthening the FRP-retrofitted
RC columns under the impacts of axial force and biaxial bending as a very important case in practical
retrofitting works. The proposed procedures will be illustrated through a case study along with it will
be validated against experimental results.

2. Design Philosophy for the Columns Strengthened with Transverse FRP Materials
The present section reviews the procedure of generating simplified interaction curves of
non-retrofitted and retrofitted columns under uniaxial bending conditions and using transverse
RFP materials. In subsequent sections, additional cases employing longitudinal fibers and combination
of longitudinal and transverse fibers by considering biaxial bending will also be developed and
discussed. Table 1 presents the notations used in this paper. Other parameters are mentioned in the
text. Analysis of RC columns confined with transverse FRP sheets is similar to typical reinforced
concrete columns (without FRP sheets); the only difference is the stress-strain model of concrete in the
compressive region [21,22].
It is basically assumed in analysis of strengthened columns that the section does not undergo
distortion, tensile strength of concrete is negligible and no slippage occurs between the concrete
and reinforcements or between the concrete and fibers. Often for simplification, interaction curves
of retrofitted and non-retrofitted columns can be generated with appropriate accuracy by linear
connecting the five key points of column behavior corresponding to different response modes at failure
(Figure 1) [7]. Generation and application of the simplified curve for evaluation of FRP-retrofitted
columns is simple and relatively straightforward [7].

Table 1. Notations used in this paper.

Cross-sectional area 0 Maximum compressive strength of the

Ac = A g 1 − ρ g f cc
of concrete confined concrete
Ae = A g −
Effective confined area f f∗u Maximum tensile strength of FRP
((h − 2r )2 ) + (b − 2r )2 )/3 − A g ρ g
Ag Total cross-sectional area ffu = CE f f∗u Ultimate design tensile strength of FRP
As = A g ρ g Cross-sectional area of rebars fy Yield stress of longitudinal rebars
Maximum axial strain of the
h Height of section ε ccu
confined concrete
Maximum axial strain of the
b Width of section ε cu = 0.003
non-confined concrete
Environmental reduction
CE ε0 t = 2 f c0 ( Ec − E2 ) Transient strain
coefficient
Slope of linear section of
0 − f 0 )/ε
E2 = ( f cc c ccu ε∗f u Maximum strain of FRP
confined stress-strain curve
Ec Elasticity module of concrete ε f u = CE ε∗f u Maximum ultimate design strain of FRP
Ef Elasticity module of FRP ε sy Equivalent yield strain of rebars
∅ Strength reduction coefficient Ψf Strength reduction coefficient of FRP
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 4 of 14

Due to the significance of this section, the equations available in the technical literature for
strengthening with transverse fibers are presented in the present paper with a slight modification.
The key points in the aforementioned simplified interaction curve using ordinary assumptions in
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 4 of 14
analysis of reinforced concrete elements [7] according to Figure 1 include:

• The key points in the aforementioned simplified interaction curve using ordinary assumptions in
Point A: uniform axial compressive strain in the confined concrete.
analysis of reinforced concrete elements [7] according to Figure 1 include:
• Point B: This point corresponds to the state of strain distribution in which maximum compressive
 strength
Point A:isuniform
εccu andaxial compressive
strain in the laststrain
rebarinsheet
the confined
in the concrete.
tensile region is equal to zero. εccu is
 thePoint
ultimate compressive strength of the confined concrete.distribution
B: This point corresponds to the state of strain in which
In non-confined maximum
conditions, εcu i.e.,
compressive strength is ε ccu and strain in the last rebar sheet in the tensile region is equal to zero.
ultimate compressive strength of unconfined concrete is used.
εccu is the ultimate compressive strength of the confined concrete. In non‐confined conditions, εcu
• Point C: This point represents the state of strain distribution in which simultaneously the
i.e., ultimate compressive strength of unconfined concrete is used.
maximum ultimate compressive strain of concrete is εccu and maximum tensile strain in the
 Point C: This point represents the state of strain distribution in which simultaneously the
last rebar sheet is equal to yield stress. This point is the same as equilibrium (balance) point of the
maximum ultimate compressive strain of concrete is εccu and maximum tensile strain in the last
column behavior.
rebar sheet is equal to yield stress. This point is the same as equilibrium (balance) point of the
• Point D: This
column point corresponds to the state of strain distribution in which maximum compressive
behavior.
 strain equals
Point D: This ε ccu (or εcu in
point unconfinedtoconditions)
corresponds the state and strain in
of strain the last longitudinal
distribution in which rebar sheet of
maximum
section is equal to 0.005.
compressive strain equals εccu (or εcu in unconfined conditions) and strain in the last longitudinal
• rebar
Point E: sheet of section
This point is equal towith
is associated 0.005.
the conditions for pure bending without axial force.
 Point E: This point is associated with the conditions for pure bending without axial force.

Figure1.
Figure 1. Simplified
Simplified interaction
interactioncurve
curve[7].
[7].

In the interaction curve shown in Figure 1, point “A” represents the pure axial compression
In the interaction curve shown in Figure 1, point “A” represents the pure axial compression
capacity without any bending moment. For the points “B”, “C” and “D”, location of the neutral axis
capacity without
is obtained any
based onbending moment.
similarity Forin
of triangles the
thepoints
strain“B”, “C” and
diagram. Point“D”,
“E” location of the neutral
is representative of pureaxis
is obtained
bending without axial force which can be calculated based on classical theories of analysis ofofRC
based on similarity of triangles in the strain diagram. Point “E” is representative pure
bending
flexuralwithout
members axial forceNominal
(beams). which can beforce
axial calculated based on classical
corresponding to pointtheories
“A” canofbeanalysis of RC
determined
flexural members (beams).
using Equation (1): Nominal axial force ( Pn ) corresponding to point “A” can be determined
using Equation (1):
 0.85 0
 (1)
Pn( A) = 0.85 f cc A g − Ast + f y Ast (1)
For longitudinal fiber, Pn is the same as Equation (1) because confinement effect of longitudinal
For longitudinal fiber, Pn is the same as Equation (1) because confinement effect of longitudinal
fiber is neglected. Nominal axial force (Pn) and nominal bending moment (Mn) are calculated at
fiber is neglected. Nominal axial force (Pn ) and nominal bending moment (Mn ) are calculated at
points B, C, and D via integration of stress. This integration for non‐circular sections is shown in
points B, C, and D via integration of stress. This integration for non-circular sections is shown in
Equations (2) and (3);
Equations (2) and (3); Z c
, , ,) =
Pn( B,C,D,E (b) f c (y)dy + ∑ f si Asi (2) (2)
0

, , , (3)
2
In the above equations, c is the distance of neutral axis from the farthest compressive axis of
section. Asi, fsi, and dsi are respectively area, stress, and distance to the centroid of area in i‐th sheet of
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 5 of 14

Z c  
h
Mn( B,C,D,E) =
0
(b)
2
− c + y f c (y)dy + ∑ f si Asi dsi (3)

In the above equations, c is the distance of neutral axis from the farthest compressive axis of
section. Asi , fsi , and dsi are respectively area, stress, and distance to the centroid of area in i-th
sheet of longitudinal (bending) rebars. “y” is integration variable in compressive region of section.
Compressive strength function fc is used based on the Lam and Teng model [23,24]. This model
has been chosen based on the assessment of a series of FRP-confined column models with minimal
dimension of 300 mm under pure axial compression [25].
Several models that simulate the stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined compression sections
are available in the literature. The stress-strain model by Lam and Teng’s, illustrated in Figure 2, for
FRP-confined concrete has been used in many experimentally-verified papers [7]. Stress-strain curve
of this model consists of two parabolic and linear parts (Figure 2) which intersect at transient strain
ε0t . The second part of the curve (which is linear) reaches to the point at the end corresponding to
maximum compressive strength fcc and maximum axial strain of confined concrete εccu . This model
follows the equations below in different strain intervals:

( Ec − E2 )2 2
( )
Ec ε c − 4 fc 0 εc 0 ≤ ε c ≤ ε0t
fc = (4)
f c 0 + Ec ε c ε0t ≤ ε c ≤ ε ccu

2 fc 0
ε0t = (5)
Ec − E2
0 − f 0
f cc c
E2 = (6)
ε ccu
where, fc and εc are axial stress and strain of the concrete, Ec is elasticity module of the confined concrete,
E2 is the slope of linear part of the curve, and ε ccu is the maximum axial strain of the FRP-confined
concrete. Compressive strength of FRP-confined concrete is expressed according to Equation (7):

0
f cc = f c 0 + 3.3k a f 1 (7)

In the equation above, ka parameter is the “geometrical effect” coefficient which will be explained
later. FRP confinement stress (f 1 ) is computed based on principles of equilibrium and compatibility of
strains through the following equations:

2nt f E f ε f e
 √ Circular cross section
f1 = b2 + h2 (8)
2nt f E f ε f e

D Non − circular cross section

In Equation (8), effective strain (εfe ) is calculated based on kε effect factor and maximum tensile
strain (εfu ) (ε f e = k ε ε f u ). Other parameters are included in Table 1. Based on experimental studies by
Lam and Teng, value of k ε = 0.586 is recommended [23]. Similarly, Cary and Harries [26] suggested
a value of 0.58 for this parameter. In the present paper, the authors have assumed a value of 0.55 for
kε parameter for designing purposes and further assurance. Based on recommendations of ACI-440
Committee [27], the effective FRP strain in deformation state (εfe ) in elements under combination of
axial force and bending moment is limited to two values of 0.004 and k ε ε f u .
In Lam and Teng’s model, maximum compressive strain of FRP-confined concrete is expressed
via the following equation:
f ε f e 0.45
ε ccu = ε c 0 (1.5 + 12k b 10 ( 0 ) (9)
fc ε c
Compressive strain of unconfined concrete (εc ) in the equation above is assumed equal to 0.002.
Value of ultimate compressive strain of unconfined concrete (εcu ) is considered equal to 0.003 based
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 6 of 14

on ACI318-08 Directive [28]. Geometric effect coefficients ka and kb can be evaluated based on
Equations (10) and (11). These values equal 1 for circular sections and depend on two parameters of
Ae
effective
Buildingsconfined
2017, 7, 74 area ratio ( Ac ) and aspect ratio (h/b): 6 of 14

Ae b 2
ka = ( ) (10) (10)
Ac h

Ae h 0.5
.
(11) (11)
kb = ( )
Ac b
[( hb )(h −2 2r)2 + ( hb )(b − 2r)22 ]
Ae 1 1 − 33A g
− ρg
=
Ac 1 − ρg
1
If the FRP
If the effect
FRP is isdisregarded
effect disregardedininthe
theprevious
previous equations, therelationships
equations, the relationshipswill
will hold
hold forfor
thethe case
case
of no reinforcement too.
of no reinforcement too.

Figure 2. Stress‐strain curve of unconfined and FRP‐confined concrete based on Lam and Teng
Figure 2. Stress-strain curve of unconfined and FRP-confined concrete based on Lam and
model [23,24].
Teng model [23,24].

3. Design Philosophy for Columns Strengthened with Longitudinal FRP Materials

3. Design Philosophy for Columns Strengthened with Longitudinal FRP Materials
In this section, the procedure of generating simplified interaction curves of unconfined and
In this columns
confined section, arethe taken
procedure of generating
into account simplified
under uniaxial interaction
bending condition curves of unconfined
and using longitudinaland
confined columns
fibers alone. For are
thistaken intothe
purpose, account under uniaxial
same Equations bending
as (1)–(3) of thecondition and using
previous section longitudinal
are applicable.
fibers alone. For this purpose, the same Equations as (1)–(3) of the previous section
The only difference is the fact that the strength properties of concrete materials will not vary are applicable.
due to
Thetheonly difference
absence is the fact
of transverse thatand
fibers, theasstrength
a result,properties of concrete materials
absence of confinement will not the
effects. Therefore, vary due to
above
thementioned
absence ofequations
transverse arefibers,
rewritten
and inas
theaform of Equations
result, absence of(12)–(14). It is noteworthy
confinement that due tothe
effects. Therefore, failure
above
of FPR material in supporting the compression, no increase of strength is
mentioned equations are rewritten in the form of Equations (12)–(14). It is noteworthy that dueexpected to occur in the to
compression‐controlled region of interaction curve. This issue is also incorporated in
failure of FPR material in supporting the compression, no increase of strength is expected to occur in Equation (12).
the compression-controlled region of interaction
0.85 curve. This issue is also incorporated in Equation
(12)(12).


P
, , n,( A)
= 0.85 f c A g − Ast + f y Ast (13) (12)
Z c
, ,
P, n( B,C,D,E) =
2 0
(b) f c (y)dy + ∑ f si Asi + ∑ ffiAfi (14) (13)
Z c 

h
Mn( B,C,D,E) = (b) − c + y f c (y)dy + ∑ f si Asi dsi + ∑ f f i A f i d f i (14)
4. Design Philosophy for Columns
0 2Strengthened with Combined Longitudinal and Transverse
FRP Materials
4. Design Philosophy for Columns Strengthened with Combined Longitudinal and Transverse
This section deals with the procedure of generating simplified interaction curves for unconfined
FRP Materials
and FRP‐confined columns under uniaxial bending conditions and equipped with both longitudinal
This
and section deals
transverse fibers.with the
It will beprocedure
shown in theof subsequent
generating sections
simplified
thatinteraction curves
simultaneous for unconfined
longitudinal and
andtransverse
FRP-confined columns under uniaxial bending conditions and equipped with both longitudinal
confining technique is very efficient for columns with bending moment (load eccentricity)
in one or two directions. As depicted in Section 2, in order to plot the simplified interaction curves of
confined columns (retrofitted using FRP materials) and also unconfined columns (non‐retrofitted), it
is necessary to calculate five points (A, B, C, D, and E as previously introduced in Figure 1).
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 7 of 14

and transverse fibers. It will be shown in the subsequent sections that simultaneous longitudinal and
transverse confining technique is very efficient for columns with bending moment (load eccentricity)
in one or two directions. As depicted in Section 2, in order to plot the simplified interaction curves of
confined columns (retrofitted using FRP materials) and also unconfined columns (non-retrofitted), it is
necessary to calculate five points (A, B, C, D, and E as previously introduced in Figure 1).
As implied earlier, in case of applying the longitudinal fiber, it is reasonable to ignore
enhancement in axial strength due to insufficient confinement provided by this fiber type. As a result,
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 7 of 14
Equations (12)–(14) of the previous section are rewritten as Equations (15)–(17) below for the case of
combined Astransverse and longitudinal
implied earlier, in case of fibers:
applying the longitudinal fiber, it is reasonable to ignore
enhancement in axial strength due to insufficient
 0 confinement
provided  by this fiber type. As a result,
Pn( A) = 0.85 f cc A g − Ast + f y Ast (15)
Equations (12)–(14) of the previous section are rewritten as Equations (15) to (17) below for the case
of combinedRtransverse
 and longitudinal fibers:

yt ( Ec − E2 )2 ε ccu
2 Rc 0
c y0.85bdy + yt f c + E2 c y bdy + ∑ f si Asi + ∑ f f i A f i (16)
ε ccu

ε ccu


Pn( B,C,D,E) = 0 Ec c y − 4 fc 0 (15)
 
( Ec − E2 )2 ε ccu
2
R yt 
h


, , , Mn( B,C,D,E) = 40 E c c
ε ccu
y − y 2 − c + y bdy
(16)
4 fc 0 c
Rc 
 h  (17)
+
, , , f c0 + E2 ε ccu
c y 24 − c + y bdy 2
+ ∑ f si Asi dsi + ∑ f f i A f i d f i
yt (17)
The coordinate parameter yt lies on the 2
cross
section has the neutral axis as its origin and is within
the compression regionparameter
The coordinate of the concrete
yt liesand is associated
on the with
cross section transient
has strain
the neutral center.
axis as its This parameter
origin and is
can within
be determined using Equation (18) and according to Figure 3 as:
the compression region of the concrete and is associated with transient strain center. This
parameter can be determined using Equation (18) and according
0 to Figure 3 as:
εt
yt = c × (18)
ε ccu (18)

Figure 3. Strain distribution diagram in the section.

Figure 3. Strain distribution diagram in the section.

Following integration and rearrangement of Equations (15)–(17) using coefficients A, B, C, D, E,

F,Following
G, H, and integration and(19)–(21)
I, Equations rearrangement of Equations
are derived (15)–(17)
as below. using coefficients
The aforementioned A, B, C, D,are
coefficients E, F,
G, H, and I, Equations
separately included in(19)–(21) are(22)
Equations derived asEquations
to (30). below. The aforementioned
(20) coefficients
and (21) have been, are separately
respectively, written
included
for theincases
Equations (22)–(30).
of transverse fiberEquations
and combined(20) transverse
and (21) have
and been, respectively,
longitudinal fibers: written for the cases
of transverse fiber and combined transverse and longitudinal fibers:
, , , (19)
3
Pn( B,C,D,E) = [ A(yt ) + B(yt ) + Cyt + D ] +
F
2
∑ f si Asi (19)
(20)
, , ,

Mn(, B,C,D,E
, ,
4 3 2
) = [ E ( yt )F + F( yt ) + G ( yt ) + Hyt + I ] + ∑ f si Asi dsi (21)(20)

Mn( B,C,D,E) = [ E(yt )4 + F(yt )3 + G (yt )2 + Hyt + I ] + ∑ f si Asi dsi + ∑ f f i A f id f i (21)

(22)
12
−b( Ec − E2 )2 ε ccu 2
A = ( ) (22)
12 f c 0 c (23)
2
b( Ec − E2 ) ε ccu (24)(23)
B = ( )
2 c
(25)
2

(26)
16
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 8 of 14

C = −b f c 0 (24)
bcE2
D = bc f c 0 + ε ccu (25)
2
−b( Ec − E2 )2 ε ccu 2
E = ( ) (26)
16 f c 0 c

h −b( Ec − E2 )2  ε ccu 2 b( Ec − E2 )  ε ccu 

 
F = b c − 0
+ (27)
2 12 f c c 3 c
h ( Ec − E2 )  ε ccu 
   
b 0
G=− fc − b c − (28)
2 2 2 c
 
h
H = b fc 0 c − (29)
2
bc2 f c 0 bc2 E2
   
h bcE2 h
I = − bc f c 0 c − + ε ccu − c − ε ccu (30)
2 2 3 2 2
Values of fsi and ffi , respectively, represent the stress in rebar sheets and FRP materials which are
calculated based on similarity of triangles in the strain distribution diagram. The respective values
are dependent on the position of the neutral axis. Stress in rebar sheets is assumed to be positive
for compression and negative for tension. It must be noted that FRP materials merely have tensile
capacity, and in practice, the strength of supporting compression is not defined for them. On the other
hand, for simplifications in the design formulation, FRP fibers have been modeled separately in the
same row as rebar sheets. It should be reminded that nominal axial compressive capacity under net
axial compression (Point A in interaction curve) for columns with transverse rebar is limited equal to
80% of value of nominal net axial capacity according to the design procedure of ACI318-08 code of
practice [28]. For columns with transverse rebar, based on ACI 318-08 recommendations [28], strength
reduction factors should be considered in loading capacity computations.
The equations provided above have been written for the state of uniaxial bending moment and
axial force. To extend this method to the more general state of biaxial bending moment, the ultimate
biaxial bending moments can be converted into uniaxial moments using credible references [29].
The equivalent uniaxial moments depend on ratio of biaxial bending moments and can be evaluated
via Equation (31):
Muy
I f Mux > hb → Mueq = Muy + 0.55Mux .b/h
Muy (31)
I f Mux ≤ hb → Mueq = Mux + 0.55Muy .b/h
In this equation, Mux and Muy are, respectively, the ultimate bending moments of column under
the effect of gravity loads about x and y axes of the section. “b” and “h” also represent the dimensions
of section along x and y axes, respectively.

5. Validation of the Procedure

To evaluate the proposed formulation proposed in the present study, the interaction curve for
the experimental samples studied by Rahai and Akbarpour [2] is computed and plotted using the
proposed equations. The test specimens of that study were tested at actual scale. In Table 2, geometrical
and strength specifications of columns are shown from reference [2]. Among the experimental results
in the aforementioned study, three column specimens were selected as follows: strengthened with only
longitudinal fiber (designated as S-225-75-L-1), strengthened with only transverse fiber (designated
as S-225-75-T-1) and strengthened with a longitudinal sheet and a transverse sheet (designated as
S-225-75-LT-2).
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 9 of 14

Table 2. Geometrical and strength specifications of the columns studied by Rahaee and Akbarpour [2].

f f u = 336 Mpa E f = 399.44 Mpa ε f u = 9.3 mm/m t f = 0.166 mm/layer

B = 150 mm H = 450 mm Bar : 6∅12 Length = 1.5 m

Numbers 225 and 75 in the designations respectively represent the eccentricity of axial force along
y and x direction under which the columns are subjected to axial force and biaxial bending moments.
The maximum load and moment exerted as such to each specimen are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Failure (ultimate) loading results of the columns studied by Rahai and Akbarpour [2].
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 9 of 14
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 Column Pu (KN) Mux (KN·m) Muy (KN·m) 9 of 14
Table 3.S-225-75-L-1
Failure (ultimate) loading results of the columns
296.69 22.5 studied by Rahai66.76
and Akbarpour [2].
Table 3. Failure (ultimate) loading results of the columns studied by Rahai and Akbarpour [2].
S-225-75-T-1
Column 274.62 20.6 61.8
Column
S-225-75-LT-2 352.78 26.5 79.4
S‐225‐75‐L‐1 296.69 22.5 66.76
S‐225‐75‐L‐1 296.69 22.5 66.76
S‐225‐75‐T‐1 274.62 20.6 61.8
S‐225‐75‐T‐1 274.62 20.6 61.8
In the first stage, interaction curves of
S‐225‐75‐LT‐2 the columns
352.78 under analysis
26.5 79.4are plotted using the equations
S‐225‐75‐LT‐2 352.78 26.5 79.4
proposed in the present paper and substitution of biaxial bending moments included in Table 3 by
In the first stage, interaction curves of the columns under analysis are plotted using the equations
equivalent uniaxial bending
In theinfirst momentcurves (calculated using Equation (31))areasplotted
separately illustrated for each
proposed thestage,
presentinteraction of the columns
paper and substitution under
of biaxial analysis
bending moments using in
included the equations
Table 3 by
column equivalent
in Figures 4–6.
proposed inuniaxial Also,
the present axial
paper
bending
force and
and substitution
moment
equivalent
(calculatedofusing
biaxial uniaxial
bending(31))
Equation
bending
moments moment pairs
includedillustrated
as separately
are
in Table 3forby shown
equivalent
by solideach
circles uniaxial
on the
column bending
curves 4–6.
in Figures moment
in Figures (calculated
4–6force
Also, axial accordingusing Equation
to the values
and equivalent (31)) as separately
uniaxialofbending
Table 3.moment illustrated
These pairsvalues for
areactually
representeach
thecolumn
shown maximum
by solid incircles
Figures on4–6.
strength Also,
demands
the curves axial force and
exerted
in Figures equivalent touniaxial
on the column.
4–6 according the values bending
Proximity moment
of Table 3.ofThese
thepairs are to the
circles
values
shown
actually by solid
represent circles on the
the maximum curves in
strength Figures
demands 4–6 according
exerted to the values
on the column. of Table 3.
Proximity of theThese values
circles Thus,
to
interaction curve is suggestive of good match between theoretical and experimental results. the
actually
the represent
interaction curvetheismaximum
suggestive strength
of good demands
match exerted
between on the column.
theoretical and Proximity ofresults.
experimental the circles to
Thus,
theoretical results
the interaction acquired in the present research are considered to be acceptable in normal design
the theoretical curve
resultsisacquired
suggestive inofthe
good matchresearch
present betweenare theoretical
consideredandto experimental
be acceptable results. Thus,
in normal
usages with
the adequateresults
theoretical accuracy. It is worth
acquired in the mentioning
present researchthataredesign strength
considered to be reduction
acceptable factor
in was set to
normal
design usages with adequate accuracy. It is worth mentioning that design strength reduction factor
be 1 in computation
design
was to be 1 of
set usages withtheadequate
interaction
in computation of thecurves
accuracy. It is in
interaction Figures
worth 4–6.
mentioning
curves in that
Figures design strength reduction factor
4–6.
was set to be 1 in computation of the interaction curves in Figures 4–6.
1800
1800
1600 Theorical
1600 Theorical
S‐225‐75‐L‐1
1400 S‐225‐75‐L‐1
1400
1200
1200
P(kN)

1000
P(kN)

1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0 0 50 100 150
0 50
M(kN∙m) 100 150
M(kN∙m)
Figure 4. Interaction curve of S‐225‐75‐L‐1 column.
Figure 4. Interaction
Figure 4. Interactioncurve
curve of S-225-75-L-1
of S‐225‐75‐L‐1 column.
column.
1800
1800 Theorical
1600 Theorical
1600
1400 S‐225‐75‐T‐1
1400
1200 S‐225‐75‐T‐1
1200
P(kN)

1000
P(kN)

1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0 0 50 100 150
0 50 M(kN∙m) 100 150
M(kN∙m)
Figure 5. Theoretical interaction curve for the S‐225‐75‐T‐1 specimen with the experimental P‐M pair.
Figure 5. Theoretical interaction curve for the S‐225‐75‐T‐1 specimen with the experimental P‐M pair.
Figure 5. Theoretical interaction curve for the S-225-75-T-1 specimen with the experimental P-M pair.
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 10 of 14
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 10 of 14
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 10 of 14
1800
Theorical
1800
1600 S‐225‐75‐LT‐2
Theorical
1600
1400 S‐225‐75‐LT‐2
1400
1200
1200

P(kN)
1000

P(kN)
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0 0 50 100 150
0 50M(kN∙m) 100 150
M(kN∙m)
Figure 6. Theoretical interaction curve for the S‐225‐75‐LT‐2 specimen with the experimental P‐M pair.
Figure 6. Theoretical interaction curve for the S-225-75-LT-2 specimen with the experimental P-M pair.
Figure 6. Theoretical interaction curve for the S‐225‐75‐LT‐2 specimen with the experimental P‐M pair.
In order
In order to compare
to compare the
the proposedtheoretical
proposed theoretical interaction
interaction curves
curveswith
withthetheexperimental
experimentalresults,
results,
In order tocurves
the interaction compare the proposed
of specimens No2theoretical
and IA2‐a interaction curves
from the Rocca [7]with
study thehave
experimental results,
been considered.
the interaction curves of specimens No2 and IA2-a from the Rocca [7] study have been considered.
the interaction
Figure 7 shows curves of specimens
the theoretical as wellNo2 andexperimental
as the IA2‐a from the Rocca [7]
interaction studyNo
curves. have been considered.
environmental and
Figure 7 shows the theoretical as well asthe
theexperimental
experimental interaction curves. No environmental
strength reduction factors were considered in developing these interaction diagrams. As seen, and
Figure 7 shows the theoretical as well as interaction curves. No environmental the
andstrength
strength reduction factors were considered in developing these interaction diagrams. As the
seen,
theoreticalreduction factors
interaction were
curves considered
developed in developing
with the proposed these interaction
procedure diagrams.
of this As seen,
paper are in good
the theoretical
theoretical interaction
interactioncurves
curvesdeveloped
developedwith with theproposed
proposed procedure of this paper are in good
agreement with those derived from experimentalthe procedure
results in Reference [7]. of this paper are in good
agreement with those derived from experimental results in Reference
agreement with those derived from experimental results in Reference [7]. [7].

Figure 7. Interaction curves developed using the proposed procedure in this paper and those derived
Figure
from 7. Interaction
experimental curves
results ofdeveloped using
Reference [7] (a) the
No2proposed procedure
interaction in IA2‐a
curve; (b) this paper and those
interaction derived
curve.
Figure 7. Interaction curves developed using the proposed procedure in this paper and those derived
from experimental results of Reference [7] (a) No2 interaction curve; (b) IA2‐a interaction curve.
from experimental results of Reference [7] (a) No2 interaction curve; (b) IA2-a interaction curve.
6. Case Study
6. Case Study
In the present section, strengthening of a column of a 4‐story residential building with FRP
6. Case Study
sheetsInby the present
using section, strengthening
the procedure suggested inof thea previous
column of a 4‐story
sections residential building
is investigated. The structurewith FRP
has
been designed based on ACI 318‐08 code of practice [28] for a site with high seismicity andwith
In
sheetstheby present
using section,
the procedure strengthening
suggested of
in a
the column
previous of a 4-story
sections is residential
investigated. building
The structure FRP
has
special
sheets
ductility level. The lateral load‐resisting system is moment‐resisting frames in both plan directions.has
been by using
designed the procedure
based on ACI suggested
318‐08 code in the
of previous
practice [28] sections
for a site is investigated.
with high The
seismicity structure
and special
been ductility
designed
Figure level.
8 represents The the
based lateral
on ACI load‐resisting
building318-08 and system
plancode of
thepractice is moment‐resisting
respective [28] for a site
column. Thewith frames
columnhighinlocated
is both plan
seismicity directions.
in theand special
ground
Figure
ductility
floor of 8the
represents
level. theSpecifications
The lateral
structure. building planofand
load-resisting the respective
system
materials, issections,column.
moment-resisting The column
and internal effortsisin
frames located
of in thedirections.
bothrespective
the plan ground
non‐
retrofitted column are included in Table 4. The concrete strength mentioned in Table 4 isnon‐
floor
Figure 8 of the
representsstructure.
the Specifications
building plan of
and materials,
the respectivesections, and
column. internal
The efforts
column of
is the respective
located in the ground
the
floorretrofitted
characteristic column
of the structure.strength are included
(28‐day)
Specifications of in Table
standard
of 4.cylindrical
materials, The concrete sample.
sections, strength
andStructuralmentioned
internal effortsinof
analysis Table
was the 4 is the
performed
respective
characteristic
assuming
non-retrofitted strength
cracked
column section
are(28‐day)
included of standard
properties. Table cylindrical
inSecondary 4. The sample.
(P‐∆)concrete
effects were Structural analysisinwas
also considered
strength mentioned inthe performed
structural
Table 4 is the
assuming
analysis. cracked
The selectedsection
column properties.
is to Secondary
support maximum (P‐∆) effects
axial were
force
characteristic strength (28-day) of standard cylindrical sample. Structural analysis was performed of also
562 considered
kN (12% in
increase the structural
compared
analysis.
to The selected column is to bending
its pre‐strengthened support momentsmaximumofaxial force of 562 kN increase)
(12% increase33.4 compared
assuming cracked sectioncondition),properties. Secondary 198.2
(P-∆) effects kN∙m
were also (23.7%considered and kN∙m
in the structural
to its pre‐strengthened
(15.5% increase) about condition),
its cross‐sectionbending
local moments
axes. of 198.2 kN∙m (23.7% increase) and 33.4 kN∙m
analysis. The selected column is to support maximum axial force of 562 kN (12% increase compared
(15.5% increase) about
Specifications its FRP
cross‐section
ofcondition),
the jacket local are
sheets axes. included in Table 5. (23.7%
These specifications
to its pre-strengthened bending moments of 198.2 kN·m increase) andbelong 33.4 kN to·m
Specifications of the FRP jacket
sheets made of carbon and have been extracted from sheets are included in Table
available 5. These catalogues.
commercial specifications Thebelong
column to
(15.5% increase)
sheets made
about
of carbon
its cross-section
and have been
local axes. from available commercial catalogues. The column
extracted
has been strengthened based on the simplified procedure of the present research. Therefore, aimed
Specifications
has been strengthened of the based
FRP jacket
on sheets are included procedurein ofTable 5. These specifications belong to
at enhancing loading capacity of the
the simplified
column, retrofitting by the present
using research.
one‐layer Therefore,
FRP sheets was aimed
taken
sheets made of carbon
at enhancing loadingand have of
capacity beentheextracted
column, from available commercial
one‐layercatalogues.
FRP sheetsinThe column
into account. Interaction curves can be plottedretrofitting
using the by using
design equations presented was taken
previous
has into
beenaccount.
strengthenedInteraction curves can be plotted using the design equations presented in previous at
based on the simplified procedure of the present research. Therefore, aimed
enhancing loading capacity of the column, retrofitting by using one-layer FRP sheets was taken into
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 11 of 14

Buildings 2017, 7, 74
account. Interaction curves can be plotted using the design equations presented in previous 11 of 14
sections
(Figure 9). Solid, dashed and dotted-line diagrams, respectively, correspond to interaction curves
sections (Figure 9). Solid, dashed and dotted‐line diagrams, respectively, correspond to interaction
of the column without retrofitting, retrofitting with transverse fibers and retrofitting with combined
curves of the column without retrofitting, retrofitting with transverse fibers and retrofitting with
longitudinal
combined and transverse
longitudinal andfibers.
transverse fibers.

Figure 8. Plan of the building under analysis (the retrofitted column is highlighted with a circle).
Figure 8. Plan of the building under analysis (the retrofitted column is highlighted with a circle).
Table 4. Specifications of materials, cross‐section dimensions, and internal actions of the considered
Table 4. Specifications of materials, cross-section dimensions, and internal actions of the
column.
considered column.
25 MPa Bars: 12∅20 B 450 mm P 502 kN
395 MPa 2025 cm H 450 mm M 160.2 kN m
fc = 25 MPa Bars : 12∅20 B = 450 mm Pu = 502 kN
r 25 mm 3768 mm Cover: 50 mm M 15.5 kN m
fy = 395 MPa A g = 2025 cm2 H = 450 mm Mux = 160.2 kN·m
r = 25 mm As = 3768 mm2 Cover : 50 mm Muy = 15.5 kN·m
Table 5. Specifications of FRP jacketing sheets used in the case study.

336 5.
Table MPa 40,000
Specifications MPa
of FRP 9.3 mm/m
jacketing sheets 0.5
used in the case mm/layer
study.

Confinement
f f u = 336 MPaeffects ofEFRP
f = with
40, 000 combined
MPa longitudinal
ε f u = 9.3 mm/m and transverse
t f = fiber sheets are more
0.5 mm/layer
pronounced in enhancing the load bearing capacity of both the compression‐ and tension‐controlled
columns. Figure 9 also illustrates this significant finding. The mentioned constraint in current design
Confinement
rules for using FRP effects of FRPin
materials with combined of
strengthening longitudinal
columns can and be transverse fiber sheets
alleviated using are more
the equations
pronounced in enhancing the load bearing capacity of both the compression-
developed in the present study for longitudinal or combined transverse and longitudinal fiber and tension-controlled
columns. FigureIt9 must
orientations. also illustrates
be noted thisthat significant finding. Thestudies
previous experimental mentioned [2,30]constraint in current design
have demonstrated that
rules for using fibers
longitudinal FRP materials
also have in strengthening
some of columnslevel
effects on confinement can be alleviated
of the column,usingwhichthe equations
have been
developed
neglectedininthe thepresent
equations study for longitudinal
developed in the current or research.
combinedFor transverse
the same and longitudinal
reason, as a practicalfiber
orientations.
recommendation, It mustinbethe noted
casethat previous the
of applying experimental
combined studies
method [2,30] have demonstrated
of strengthening with both that
longitudinal
longitudinal fibers
and also have some
transverse fibers, effects on confinement
the longitudinal fibers canlevel
onlyofbe the
usedcolumn, which
in critical have
areas been
of the
column in
neglected which require reinforcement
the equations developed and strength
in the current enhancement
research. For (in general,
the same upper and as
reason, lower parts
a practical
of the column in normal moment frames); meanwhile, transverse fibers
recommendation, in the case of applying the combined method of strengthening with both longitudinal can be used for the entire
andheight of the fibers,
transverse column. theThe authors believe
longitudinal that
fibers such
can only a method
be usedwill considerably
in critical help
areas of thethe economics
column which
of thereinforcement
require operations. The andfinal detail of
strength the retrofitted
enhancement (incolumn
general, is illustrated
upper andinlower Figure 10. of the column in
parts
normal moment frames); meanwhile, transverse fibers can be used for the entire height of the column.
The authors believe that such a method will considerably help the economics of the operations.
The final detail of the retrofitted column is illustrated in Figure 10.
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 12 of 14
Buildings 2017,
Buildings 2017, 7,
7, 74
74 12 of
12 of 14
14

Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure 9.Interaction
Interactioncurve
Interaction curve for
curve for different
different retrofitting
differentretrofitting states.
retrofittingstates.
states.

Figure
Figure
Figure 10.Plan
10.10. Planand
Plan andcross
and crosssection
cross sectionofof
section ofthe
thecolumn
the column strengthened
column strengthened with
strengthened with longitudinal
with longitudinal and
longitudinaland transverse
andtransverse
transverse
FRP materials.
FRPFRP materials.
materials.

The
TheThe dashedlines
dashed
dashed linesrepresent
lines represent areas
represent areas with
areas with combined
withcombined
combined longitudinal
longitudinal andand
and
longitudinal transverse
transverse fibersfibers
fibers
transverse overlaps
overlaps the
the
overlaps
dashed line curve (merely longitudinal fiber) in the tension‐controlled region, and, overlaps the
thedashed
dashedline
linecurve
curve(merely
(merelylongitudinal
longitudinalfiber)
fiber)ininthe
thetension‐controlled
tension-controlledregion, and,
region, and,overlaps
overlapsthethe
interaction curve
interaction curve ofof transverse
transverse fiber
fiber in
in the
the compression‐controlled
compression‐controlled region.
region. Accordingly,
Accordingly, as as observed,
observed,
interaction curve of transverse fiber in the compression-controlled region. Accordingly, as observed,
column strengthening
column strengthening is possible
possible using
using each
each ofof the
the three methods.
methods. It is thus preferable
preferable to
to use
use aa
column strengthening isispossible using each of the three
three methods.It isIt thus
is thus preferable to use
combination of
combination of transverse
transverse and
and longitudinal
longitudinal fibers
fibers in
in critical
critical regions.
regions.
a combination of transverse and longitudinal fibers in critical regions.

7. Conclusions
This paper proposed a simplified design procedure for calculating the required number of FRP
layers for retrofitting of RC square columns under combined effects of axial force and biaxial bending
moments. The following can be drawn based on the results of the study:
Buildings 2017, 7, 74 13 of 14

1- The presented calculation procedure predicted reasonably close to the experimental results.
2- Analysis results indicate that fibers with transverse orientation lead to enhancement of strength
in the compression-controlled region of the interaction curve of the column and longitudinal
fibers cause an increase in strength in the tension-controlled region. In addition, FRP Laminates
can be replaced by FRP wraps as longitudinal reinforcements.
3- Correlation of theoretical findings of the present research with experimental results demonstrates
that the interaction curve of the retrofitted column by using transverse fibers widens in the
compression-controlled region compared to the tension-controlled region. For the case of
applying longitudinal fibers, the curve widens in the tension-controlled region compared to
the compression-controlled region.
4- Combination of longitudinal and transverse fibers must result in enhancement of strength
(widening of interaction curve) in both regions. This is the preferred method of retrofitting in
most practical cases, especially when considering earthquake loads.
5- As there is a lack of general design procedure of FRP layers in all practical cases, the procedures
proposed in the present research are expected to serve as a guideline for strengthening of
reinforced concrete columns using polymer fibers.

Author Contributions: Ehsan Jami and Zana Azarian conceived and designed the experiments; Zana Azarian
performed the experiments; Ehsan Jami and Zana Azarian analyzed the data; Salar Manie contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools; Ehsan Jami and Zana Azarian wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, P.; Xu, X. Size effect of concrete column retrofitted by fiber-reinforced Polymer (FRP). In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Energy Materials and Environment Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand,
10–12 March 2017.
2. Rahai, A.; Akbarpour, H. Experimental investigation on rectangular RC columns strengthened with CFRP
composites under axial load and biaxial bending. Compos. Struct. 2014, 108, 538–546. [CrossRef]
3. Rami, E.; Patrick, P. Compressive behavior of FRP-confined reinforced concrete columns. Eng. Struct. 2017,
132, 518–530.
4. Chellapandian, M.; Suriya, P.; Akanshu, S. Strength and ductility of innovative hybrid NSM reinforced and
FRP confined short RC columns under axial compression. Compos. Struct. 2017, 176, 205–216. [CrossRef]
5. Bournas, D.A.; Triantafillou, T.C. Biaxial bending of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with externally
applied reinforcement in combination with confinement. ACI Struct. J. 2013, 110, 193–204.
6. Tao, Z.; Yu, Q. Behavior of CFRP-strengthened slender square RC columns. Mag. Concr. Res. 2008, 60,
523–533. [CrossRef]
7. Rocca, S.; Galati, N.; Nanni, A. Interaction diagram methodology for design of FRP-confined reinforced
concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1508–1520. [CrossRef]
8. Fitzwilliam, J.; Bisby, L. A. Slenderness effects on circular CFRP confined reinforced concrete columns.
J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 14, 280–288. [CrossRef]
9. Gajdosova, K.; Bilcik, J. slender reinforced concrete columns strengthened with fibre reinforced polymers.
Slovak J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 19, 27–31.
10. Teng, J.G.; Jiang, T. Theoretical model for slender FRP-confined circular RC columns. Constr. Build. Mater.
2012, 32, 66–76.
11. Punurai, W.; Chen, J.; Hsu, C.T.T. Biaxial loaded RC slender columns strengthened by CFRP composite
fabrics. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 311–321. [CrossRef]
12. Hadi, M.N.S. Behavior of FRP wrapped HSC columns under different eccentric loads. Compos. Struct. 2007,
62, 145–153.
13. El-Maaddawy, M. Strengthening of eccentrically loaded reinforced concrete columns with fiber-reinforced
polymer wrapping system: Experimental investigation and analytical modeling. ASCE J. Compos. Constr.
2009, 13, 13–24. [CrossRef]
 Buildings 2017, 7, 74 14 of 14

14. Mohammad, Z.K.; Erfan, S. Plasticity modeling of FRP-confined circular reinforced concrete columns
subjected to eccentric axial loading. Compos. Part B 2012, 43, 3497–3506.
15. Hogr, H.; Sheikh, M.N.; Hadi, M.N. Load and moment interaction diagram for circular concrete columns
reinforced with GFRP bars and GFRP helices. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04016076.
16. Abdeldayem, H.; Hamdy, M.; Brahim, B. Axial Load–Moment Interaction Diagram of Circular
Concrete Columns Reinforced with CFRP Bars and Spirals: Experimental and Theoretical Investigations.
J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04016092.
17. Tobbi, H.; Farghaly, A.; Benmokrane, B. Behavior of concentrically loaded fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced
concrete columns with varying reinforcement types and ratios. ACI Struct. J. 2014, 111, 375–385. [CrossRef]
18. Teng, J.G.; Chen, J.F.; Smith, S.T.; Lam, L. FRP Strengthened RC Structures; John Wiley and Sons: West Sussex,
UK, 2002; ISBN 978-0-471-48706-7.
19. Di Nardo, A.; Faella, C.; Realfonzo, R. A design procedure of FRP confining systems for upgrade R/C
columns. Proceedings in the Third international conference on FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE),
Miami, FL, USA, 13–16 December 2006; p. 219.
20. American Concrete Institute (ACI). ACI 440.1R-06, Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars, ACI Committee 440. American Concrete Institute (ACI):
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2006.
21. MacGregor, J. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, 3rd ed.; Pierson Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA,
2012; ISBN 13 978-0132176521.
22. Bank, L.C. Composites for Construction: Structural Design with FRP Materials; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780471681267.
23. Lam, L.; Teng, J. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2003,
17, 471–489. [CrossRef]
24. Lam, L.; Teng, J. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.
J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2003, 22, 1149–1186. [CrossRef]
25. Rocca, S. Experimental and Analytical Evaluation of FRP-Confined Large Size Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, USA, 2007.
26. Carey, S.; Harries, K. The Effects of Shape, ‘Gap’, and Scale on the Behavior and Modeling of Variably Confined
Concrete; Report No. ST03-05; University of South Carolina: Columbia, SC, USA, 2003.
27. American Concrete Institute. ACI 440.2R, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening of Concrete Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008.
28. American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008.
29. Ray, S.S. Reinforced Concrete Analysis and Design; Blackwell Science: London, UK, 1995; ISBN 0-632-03724-5.
30. Hadi, M.N.S.; Widiarsa, I. Axial and flexural performance of square RC columns wrapped with CFRP under
eccentric loading. J. Compos. Constr. 2012, 16, 640–649. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats