Structural Repair and Strengthening

of RC Elements with Concrete Jacketing

H. Rodrigues, P.M. Pradhan, A. Furtado, P. Rocha and N. Vila-Pouca

1 Introduction

Structural intervention in reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is an important topic

for structural engineers, and recent years have shown an increase in interest from
the technical and scientific community seeking information regarding an adequate
technique for repairing or strengthening existing structures. Typically, the cause for
these interventions can be related to accidents (e.g. fire, collisions, explosions),
naturals hazards (e.g. extreme winds, earthquakes) or may occur due to design and

H. Rodrigues (&)
RISCO, School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria,
4163-2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
P.M. Pradhan
Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering, School of Engineering,
Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
A. Furtado
N. Vila-Pouca
CONSTRUCT-LESE, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Vila-Pouca
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Rocha
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology and Management,
Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Apartado 574, 4901-908
Viana do Castelo, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Rocha
CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering (FEUP), University of Porto,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 181

A. Costa et al. (eds.), Strengthening and Retrofitting of Existing Structures,
Building Pathology and Rehabilitation 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5858-5_8
182 H. Rodrigues et al.

construction problems or even due to the change of the functionality of the building
or in rehabilitation of the demand for new code requirements [1].
Several techniques are usually proposed for the repair and retrofitting of RC
elements; the possibility of using RC jackets is usually considered, traditionally
involving the addition of a thick layer of reinforced concrete in the form of a jacket
with cast-in-place concrete or shotcrete, using longitudinal reinforcement and
transverse ties. Recently, a new technique based on the use of thin jackets made
with high performance fibre-reinforced concrete has been developed [2] with the
advantage of reducing the thickness of the new concrete layer.
This technique has been used in the strengthening of slabs and beams on the
bottom and, in some cases also on the top, used especially to increase the flexural
and shear strength, stiffness and ductility of the elements, and in many cases in the
strengthening of columns, especially in the cases of seismic strengthening of
existing buildings.
This study offers a brief overview of the experimental tests conducted by other
workers; the main conclusions will be presented as well as a brief literature review
of numerical modelling of the behaviour of RC elements retrofitted with the RC
jacketing technique. Thus, the construction procedures related to RC jacketing will
be described for repair or for strengthening purposes. Finally, two case studies will
be presented to evaluate the efficiency of RC jacketing to improve the original
seismic performance of a soft-storey building and a university.

2 Experimental Tests Using RC Jacketing Technique

Some experimental tests can be found that were performed on original and damaged
RC columns retrofitted with RC jacketing to improve their original capacity, or to
restore them, in the case of damaged ones. Rodriguez et al. [3] noted that RC
jacketing is labour-intensive compared to other jacketing methods; however, the
results are satisfactory. Ramírez [4] tested 10 repair methods and concluded that
concrete jackets are easy to construct and are the most interesting cost-efficient
method; the obtained ratio of failure load between the repaired column and the
original one is greater than 1. Júlio et al. [5] tested seven RC columns, six using RC
jacketing under different interface adherence conditions between the original sec-
tion and the additional one, concluding that a monolithic behaviour can be achieved
without increasing significantly the roughness of the interface surface by designing
RC jackets’ thickness to be less than 17.5% of the original column width for cyclic
monotonic or cyclic loading [5, 6]. These workers also verified that even if the
strengthening operation was performed with or without an axial load applied, it did
not significantly influence the results. The resistance and stiffness of the retrofitted
specimens were higher than those of the original; however, the transverse rein-
forcement strain was higher in the original. Using this technique to repair damaged
RC columns could restore some 80–90% of the original column capacity and
50–90% of their stiffness. Some jacketing procedures are presented in [1].
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 183

Konstantinos et al. tested three alternative methods of concrete jacketing [7], i.e.
welding the jacket stirrup ends together, placing steel dowels across the interface
between the original column and the jacket in combination with welding the jacket
stirrup ends together, and connecting the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the
original column to those of the jacket. Concrete jacketing increased considerably
the columns’ strength and stiffness, while placing CFRPs considerably increases
their ductility. Krainskyi et al. [8] tested 10 strengthened RC columns with the same
design but under different loadings equal to certain column strength limits, and
observed that, by doubling the columns’ cross sections, an increase in capacity of
around 290% was achieved.
The RC jacketing technique was also tested to repair and/or strengthen existing
non-damaged and damaged beams and beam-column joints to the original specimen
state [9–16]; a good performance was achieved through the increase of the strength
capacity, energy dissipation and displacement ductility of the retrofitted compared
to the original specimens. RC jacketing can also change the failure mode of the
specimen, depending on the retrofit design criteria.

3 Numerical Modelling of RC Jacketing

Different modelling approaches can be adopted to represent the behaviour of RC

jacketing, since the simplified approach was based on fibre models until the use of
finite element (FEM) models. There are some studies of numerical modelling that is
calibrated with experimental tests [17–20]. Lampropoulos et al. [20] demonstrated
that monotonic FE analysis with appropriate assumptions can simulate both
monotonic and cyclic loading conditions to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
According to the results of this study, simulation of the interface between the old
and the new concrete is vital and cannot be ignored by simply considering a perfect
bond at the interface. In the case of strengthened RC columns subjected to cyclic
loading, strength degradation at the interface has to be included and can be effec-
tively modelled by reducing the coefficients of friction and adhesion using a pro-
posed formula. Finally, the effect of jacket concrete shrinkage is simulated, leading
to a reduced maximum load and stiffness of strengthened columns. The results
showed that RC jacketing increases significantly the element stiffness and strength.
Others have tested this technique to improve the seismic behaviour of existing
buildings [21, 22]. Chaulagain et al. observed that, with RC column jacketing, the
building had a significantly increased deformation capacity. RC jacketing was
confirmed to be a very effective strengthening technique, leading to uniformly
distributed values of strength and stiffness of the strengthened column that are
considerably higher than those of the original column.
184 H. Rodrigues et al.

4 Construction Procedure of RC Jacketing

Different procedures can be adopted for the execution of RC jacketing, depending

on whether it is used for repair or strengthening purposes [1]. If strengthening is
intended for a damaged or deteriorated element, this process must be preceded first
by a repair and then the strengthening process. In this case, the first step is to
remove the concrete from the deteriorated zones, which can be made by any method
that causes micro-cracking of the substrate, which should then be followed by the
sand-blasting or water demolition techniques (Phase 0). Regarding non-damaged
elements, there is no need to improve the roughness of the interface surface, except
for short RC columns, where water demolition or sand blasting or similar tech-
niques should be used. The improvement of the surface roughness can be obtained
through the application of epoxy resin in the case of original undamaged elements.
For the situation described before, that the water demolition or sand blasting
methods are sufficient to guarantee an efficient surface roughness (Phase 1). The
element should be temporary shoring to guarantee that the RC jacket will resist a
part of the total load, and not just the incremental one (Phase 2). Subsequently holes
have to be executed on the adjacent structural RC members (columns, beams or
footing) for the anchoring of the longitudinal reinforcement that can be efficiently
anchored with the application of two-component epoxy resin, after having been
properly cleaned. The holes must be drilled to allow longitudinal bars to pass, in
order to achieve continuity between the floors (Phase 3). Additional attention
should be given to the position of the longitudinal reinforcement and distributed
uniformly for the entire section. Others [1] have suggested that, if the objective is
only to increase the shear and ductility capacity, continuity is not needed, and gaps
should be provided before. It is recommended to adopt half the spacing of the
original transverse reinforcement to guarantee a monolithic behaviour when sub-
jected to cyclic loading (Phase 4). The application of steel connectors can be used to
improve the level of strength and stiffness of the short RC columns. Finally, con-
crete with self-compacting characteristics, high strength and high durability should
be applied (Phase 5). Figure 1 shows each phase of the construction procedure
regarding the execution of RC jacketing.
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 185

Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Fig. 1 Construction process of RC column jacketing

5 Case Study: Application of RC Jacketing

to a Soft-Storey Building

5.1 Introduction

The study of seismic vulnerability of existing buildings in urban areas with

moderate/high seismic risk is of extreme importance to evaluate their safety
according to the recently proposed international codes and recommendations. One
of the most common architectural trends observed since the 1950s is the con-
struction of RC buildings characterised by a particular modern architectural style
influenced by Le Corbusier. This architecture is characterised by the absence of
infilled masonry walls in the ground floors of commercial buildings, car parks, or
even pedestrian crossings. However, this architectural solution could introduce a
critical stiffness of vertical irregularity, enhancing the formation of soft-storey
186 H. Rodrigues et al.

mechanisms, one of the most common mechanisms that could cause buildings to
collapse when subjected to earthquakes. In fact, the stiffness contribution of the
infilled panels should not be neglected: it is necessary to fix these irregularities with
the correct design of strengthening solutions in order to achieve satisfactory per-
formance during future earthquakes.
One of the strengthening techniques that has been proposed is RC column
jacketing (RCJ) of the soft-storeys with a stiffness-based design that allows one to
achieve the stiffness deficit observed in these storeys without having to change the
building’s original architecture or even to evacuate the building during the appli-
cation of this technique. For the application of this technique, it is necessary to
guarantee the correct connection with the existing element through preliminary
surface picking of the original section before the placing of the jacketing rein-
forcement and concreting. The strengthened columns must be linked to the adjacent
beams and columns with the reinforcement adopted, and the correct anchor length
and shear capacity of the foundations must be evaluated according to the new
structural configuration of the building prior to strengthening.
In this context, we now present a case study of an existing RC building in
Portugal with the behaviour potentially governed by the soft-storey mechanism; the
effectiveness of the RCJ technique to eliminate/fix the original behaviour and to
improve the building’s seismic performance will be tested. The strengthened
building results will be compared to those of the original, deducing information
about the structural efficiency.

5.2 Building Description and Design of the Ground

Floor RCJ Columns

The building under study is located in Lisbon and is characterised by not having
masonry infill walls on the ground floor (Fig. 2a, b). The block plan is rectangular:
11.1 m in width and 47.4 m in length (Fig. 2b), and the building has 8 storeys plus
the ground-floor column’s height, making a total of 27.40 m. The main structural
system (12 parallel plane frames) restricts the architecture. The layout of the units in
the building block (six duplex apartments) was defined in accordance with the
structural system. The distance between the frame’s axes is 3.80 m. Each frame is
supported by two columns and has one cantilever beam on each side with a span of
2.80 m, resulting in 13 modules. To simulate the structural behaviour of the
building, we used the computer software SeismoStruct [23], which contemplates
some important issues like the non-linear behaviour of RC elements and the
influence of the masonry infill walls on the global seismic response of the building.
The building was analysed in both principal directions by a 3D model (Fig. 2b).
When the member is considered to be of insufficient strength, an RC jacket may
be used to enhance stiffness, strength and ductility. This is one of the most com-
monly applied methods of repairing and strengthening an RC member. Concrete
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 187

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 2 General view of the building under study: a front view, b numerical model, c building
plant

jackets can accommodate longitudinal and transverse reinforcement to increase the

flexural and shear strength, enhance the deformation capacity, and improve the
strength of deficient-splices [24].
One of the strengthening techniques proposed for the building is RC column
jacketing (RCJ) of the ground floor columns. SeismoStruct [23] has the possibility
of considering RC jacketing columns, by considering the initial section and the
upgraded section (with the consideration of the disposition of the longitudinal
reinforcement bars and confinement provided by the transverse reinforcement). The
software allows for the use of elements with lumped plasticity (with fixed length,
the so-called plastic-hinge). Fibre discretisation was adopted to represent the
behaviour at the section level, where each fibre is associated with a uniaxial
stress-strain law. The sectional moment-curvature state of the beam and column
elements was then obtained through the integration of the nonlinear uniaxial
stress-strain response of the individual fibres into which the section was subdivided.
The numerical model takes into account the jacketing material’s mass and the
stiffness during the analysis. The plant disposition and the new sections of these
columns designed according to the Eurocode 2 [25] (Sect. 6, 7, 8 and 9) and
Eurocode 8 (Sect. 5) [26] are illustrated in Fig. 3.
188 H. Rodrigues et al.

Fig. 3 Plant disposition and cross section of the new strengthened ground-floor columns using the
RC jacketing (RCJ) technique

5.3 Evaluation of RC Jacketing Efficiency

The efficiency of the RCJ technique was evaluated by subjecting the numerical
model to an artificial earthquake that was generated for a medium/high risk scenario
in southern Europe [27] for different return periods. The obtained results allow us to
assess the seismic safety according to the hazard levels proposed by the interna-
tional recommendations VISION-2000 [28] and FEMA-356 [29] to evaluate the
building safety. Another global drift limit was used, namely the Gobarah proposal
[30] recommended for non-ductile structures, which is the case for the
rehabilitation/strengthening of existing buildings. From the non-linear dynamic
analyses, the maximum first-storey drift and maximum inter-storey and
upper-storey drift was determined for each peak ground acceleration (Fig. 4). We
also studied whether the introduction of RCJ increased the maximum upper-storey
drifts, particularly whether any damage occurred on the IM walls when the
strengthened building is subjected to seismic activity. The definition of limit states
for infills can be directly related to the inter-storey drift demand. Based on the strut
model, Magenes and Pampanin [31] proposed an empirical evaluation for the
damage level of the infills that corresponds to a certain limit state, depending on the
axial deformation. The FEMA-306 [32] and FEMA-307 [33] documents also
provide reference values of inter-storey drift for RC buildings with masonry infill
walls.
According to the results, RCJ significantly reduces the maximum first-storey
drift about by 35–50% for pga above 0.4 g at least in the longitudinal direction, and
by 20–40% in the transverse direction. As a consequence of the maximum
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 189

Fig. 4 Non-linear dynamic (a)

analysis results: a maximum (b)

1st Storey maximum drift (%)

6 30
Original - Longitudinal
First-storey drift, b maximum 5
RCJ - Longitudinal
25
Original - Longitudinal
RCJ - Longitudinal
Original - Transversal Original - Transversal
Inter-storey drift, 4
RCJ - Transversal RCJ - Transversal
20

Heigth (m)
VISION 2000
c upper-storey maximum drift Fema 356
Gobarah
3 15
2 10
1 5
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Peak ground acceleration (g) Maximum inter-storey drift (%)

(c)

Upper storeys maximum drift

0.75
RCJ - Longitudinal
RCJ - Transversal
0.60 Infills Diagonal Cracking
Infills Collapse

0.45

(%)
0.30

0.15

0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Peak ground aceleration (g)

inter-storey drift envelope, it can be concluded that the soft-storey mechanism was
fixed, and that no significant damage occurred in the upper-storey infill masonry
walls.
Globally, it can be concluded that the correct design and implementation of the
RCJ technique to improve soft-storey buildings and, in particular, to fix/eliminate
such mechanisms can be achieved by the application of this technique.

6 Case Study: Kathmandu University

6.1 Introduction

Though the term “retrofitting” is not new to the Structural Engineering arena, it
became quite popular in Nepal after the earthquake of magnitude 7.8 (Moment
magnitude) on 25 April 2015 marking the epicentre at Barpak, Gorkha at 11:56 a.
m., Nepalese Standard Time. Another earthquake of magnitude 7.3 was triggered
on 12 May 2015, with its epicentre at Dolakha. These two epicentres are located at
the west and east of Kathmandu within less than 100 km. A series of aftershocks
greater than magnitude 4 hit the country since then, further gradually deteriorating
the existing structures of Nepal. The psychological trauma of people who were
forced to take shelter in open spaces was made even worse by the onset of winter.
Rehabilitation of the structures started after the loss of more than 8500 lives [34]
and damage to a huge number of dwellings. The lives of those taking shelter in tents
and other temporary means became miserable as winter started. Nevertheless,
people started to repair and retrofit their houses on their own, with the limited
experience that prevailed in the country.
190 H. Rodrigues et al.

6.2 Present Scenario

After acquiring technical suggestions from civil and structural engineers, the
population started to reform their dwellings with techniques limited by their
resources. The majority of buildings, however, were merely repaired in the name of
retrofitting, possibly either due to ignorance or due to their adverse economic
conditions. Thus, it is expected that another strong earthquake could lead to another
devastating situation to Nepal.
Retrofitting actually means strengthening the buildings to such an extent that
they should be able to resist future large earthquakes. Just repairing is not the
solution; moreover, it may lead to a catastrophic scenario in the future. In Nepal,
there are various types of buildings; the majority is of reinforced concrete, brick
masonry load-bearing structures, stone masonry houses, adobe etc. The majority of
adobe and stone masonry buildings collapsed, while many reinforced concrete and
other types of buildings were also not spared. Likewise, heritage buildings and
temples could not survive the major earthquake of 25 April 2015. The damage
and collapse of many buildings were due to many reasons, of which the most
important were the poor quality controls in construction materials, poor design and
non-engineered construction methods, and vulnerable buildings due to deficient
characteristics from an earthquake-resistant point of view. Many structures were
damaged due to their old age and maintenance deficiencies. Although the Gorkha
and Dolkha earthquake epicentres were quite far from Kathmandu, the capital of
Nepal, the structures lying in Kathmandu were also affected. Kathmandu,
Bhaktapur and Lalitpur, the three major cities in the valley, suffered extensive
damage and casualties, in addition to the collapse of some major monuments and
temples. The devastation was visible in Sindhupalchowk, Nuwakot, Rashuwa,
Dolkha, Kathmandu Valley, Gorkha and many districts from Gorkha to Dolkha. In
general, the collapsed reinforced concrete buildings and stone masonry buildings
were deficient in earthquake-resistant design principles. Besides, many buildings
did not follow basic codal requirements. The damage due to the short column effect,
soft storey, pounding effect, slopes and reclaimed land, was later realised in most of
the buildings. Some buildings were also damaged due to alterations by building
owners after the initial design.
Many reinforced concrete structures whose column and beam joints needed
detailed retrofitting design have simply been repaired by general cement-slurry
grouts or by the addition of steel angle frames. These steel frames are welded to the
longitudinal bars of the damaged beams and columns in the name of retrofitting.
Eventually, it is understood that if the frames are rectangular, the rectangular steel
frames added as supports in this way will deform into a parallelogram shape when
the earthquake force hits them again. The stability of the repaired buildings remains
a question of safety.
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 191

6.3 Retrofitting at Kathmandu University

Very few buildings have been retrofitted considering detailed retrofitting design in
the country. Some of the buildings of Kathmandu University suffered minor and
major damage. A few of the buildings needed detailed retrofitting design after
preliminary rapid visual assessment. The library block at Dhulikhel (Fig. 5) and the
Management building located at Balkumari required detailed study, as they were
damaged to a large extent (Fig. 6). The staff quarter at Dhulikhel was also studied in
depth, even though it suffered only minor damage, primarily of brick masonry infill
walls. Mostly, the columns were found to be weaker compared to the beams; thus,
jacketing retrofitting works were applied to the damaged columns. Some beams that
were considered vulnerable were retrofitted with FRP wrapping and infills that were
severely affected were pressure-grouted with cement-slurry with admixtures, further
strengthened by chicken wire mesh and shotcretes.
Indian Code IS 15988: 2013 [35] was adopted for the retrofitting design of
columns, while the ACI 31-95 code was considered for FRP wrap calculations.

Fig. 5 First Floor Plan of Kathmandu University Central Library

192 H. Rodrigues et al.

Fig. 6 Damage observed in Kathmandu University Central Library (Dhulikhel) after the major
earthquake

Since the majority of columns were found to be inadequate in size as well as in

terms of reinforcements, steel and concrete jacketing works were chosen.
As per IS 15988: 2013, certain criteria must be followed:
Step 1—Preliminary visual evaluation: It is a quick procedure to establish the
actual structural layout and assess its characteristics that may affect seismic vul-
nerability. This is an approximate procedure based on conservative parameters to
identify the potential risk of a building, and may be used to screen buildings for
detailed evaluation. It is primarily based on observed damage characteristics in
previous earthquakes, coupled with some simple calculations. First, a site visit is
carried out to check for visible deficiencies like configurations of load path, dis-
tressed geometry, weak storeys, soft storeys, vertical discontinuities, mass, torsion,
short columns and pounding effects.
Step 2—Column retrofitting: The retrofitting of deficient columns is essential to
prevent storey collapse. Hence, it is more important to retrofit columns compared to
beams. The columns are retrofitted to increase their flexural and shear strengths,
to increase the deformation capacity near the beam-column joints, and to
strengthening the regions of faulty splicing of longitudinal bars. The columns in an
open ground storey or next to openings should be prioritised for retrofitting. The
retrofitting strategy is based on the strong column-weak beam principle of seismic
design. Concrete jacketing involves the addition of a layer of concrete (Fig. 7),
longitudinal bars and closely spaced lateral ties (Fig. 8). As shown in Fig. 8,
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 193

Fig. 7 Concrete jacketing in columns of Kathmandu University Central Library (Dhulikhel)

Fig. 8 Concrete jacketing of

a damaged column

the jacket increases both the flexural and shear strength of the column. If the
thickness of the jacket is less than 100 mm on each side of column, the effec-
tiveness will be lower in terms of stiffness.
To increase the flexural strength, additional longitudinal bars need to be
anchored to the foundation and should continue through the floor slab. Usually, the
required bars are placed at the corners so as to avoid intercepting the beams that
frame into the column. A tie cannot be made of a single bar due to the obstruction in
placing, so it may be constructed of two bars properly anchored to the new lon-
gitudinal bars. It is preferred to have a 135° hook with adequate extension at the
ends of the bars. Since the thickness of the jacket is at least 100 mm, casting
micro-concrete or the use of shotcrete are preferred to conventional concrete.
194 H. Rodrigues et al.

To ensure the composite action of the existing and the new concrete, the options for
preparing the surface of the existing concrete are by chiselling, roughening with a
wire brush, or using bonding chemicals. If the jacket is only partially around the
existing column, existing bars can be exposed at a few locations, then welded to the
Z- or U-shaped bent bars to the new bars.
The minimum specifications for concrete jacketing are:
1. The compressive strength of the new concrete must be at least 5 MPa greater
than that of the existing concrete (IS 15988: 2013).
2. For columns where extra longitudinal bars are not required for additional
flexural capacity, a minimum of 12 mm diameter bars in the four corners and
ties of 8 mm diameter must be provided.
3. The minimum dimensions of the jacket should be 100 mm.
4. The minimum diameter of the ties should not be less than 8 mm and should not
be less than one-third of the diameter of the longitudinal bars. The angle of the
end of the ties should be 135°.
5. The centre-to-centre spacing of ties should not exceed 200 mm preferably.
Close to the beam column joints, or a height of one-quarter of the clear height of
the column, the spacing should not exceed 100 mm.
When a building is acted upon by earthquake forces, its structural components
may become damaged due to lateral forces. It is always better to retrofit a structure
after any major shock is resisted by it. Retrofitting of columns becomes essential, as
they are the major components that contribute towards resisting the lateral defor-
mation of buildings. During analysis, whether the existing foundations are safe or
not must be studied; accordingly, strengthening of foundations may also be

Fig. 9 3D model of Kathmandu University Central Library—Identification of failed columns

Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 195

undertaken. The safe bearing capacity of soil must be known in order to check the
foundation safety.
First, the structure was modelled in computer software as shown in Fig. 9, by
Pradhan et al. [36] as per the built drawings, and the analysis was performed to
identify the columns that fail. The failing columns were then noted.
The cross section of the columns that failed is required to be enlarged (this
applies also to the case of retrofitting beams), so that they can resist potential lateral
forces. A minimum jacket of 100 mm thickness around the column is mandatory.
The new model prepared after assigning the columns of increased cross section is

Fig. 10 a Longitudinal section of retrofitted column, b reinforcement bar and connector

arrangement, c detail showing placement of connectors
196 H. Rodrigues et al.

again analysed to check if any further failure has occurred; the increasing in column
size is continued until all columns and beams become safe.
After a few trials of analyses with increased column sizes, none of the elements
will fail; then, the area of steel required is obtained from computer analysis software
like SAP2000. The original area of steel (obtained as per built drawing details) is
deducted from the area obtained from software analysis (i.e. the required steel area).
Figure 10 shows the longitudinal section of a retrofitted column. Some partial factor
of safety is provided for both added concrete section and steel, thus additional
concrete area as well as steel must be provided as per the retrofitting code [35]. In
the study, almost all the ground floor columns were found deficient in flexure and
were suggested for retrofitting as shown in Fig. 10 [36]. Many columns on the
upper floors required retrofitting as well.

7 Final Comments

The proper characterisation and evaluation of the existing structural elements,

namely through the analysis of their current state, loading conditions and a clear
definition of the intended objectives, allows one to design optimised retrofitting
solutions that will improve the element’s behaviour. It can be concluded that the RC
jacketing technique is very effective and, when well executed, increases the ele-
ments’ stiffness, strength and ductility. Aspects such as the interface between the
new and the existing element section should be given special attention, to guarantee
that the surface roughness will lead to a monolithic behaviour of the element when
subjected to lateral loading.
Finally, the efficiency of the RC jacketing technique to reduce the seismic
vulnerability of the soft-storey building was analysed: RC jacketing of all the
ground-storey columns significantly reduced the soft-storey mechanism and
improved the buildings’ strength capacity.

Acknowledgements Part of this work reports to research financially supported by Project

POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007457—CONSTRUCT—Institute of R&D in Structures and
Construction, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional
Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds through Fundação para a
Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).

References

1. Júlio E, Branco F, Silva V. Structural rehabilitation of columns with reinforced concrete

jacketing. Prog Struct Mat Eng. 2003;5:29–37.
2. Martinola G, Meda A, Plizzari G, Rinaldi Z. Strengthening and repair of RC beams with fiber
reinforced concrete. Cement Concr Compos. 2010;32:731–9.
Structural Repair and Strengthening of RC Elements … 197

3. Rodriguez M, Park R. Seismic load tests on reinforced contrete columns strengthened by

jacketing. ACI Struct J. 1994;91:150–9.
4. Ten Ramírez J. concrete column repair methods. Constr Build Mater. 1996;10:195–202.
5. Júlio E, Branco F. Reinforced concrete jacketing—interface influence on cyclic loading
response. ACI Struct J. 2008; 105(4):1–7. https://www.concrete.org/publications/international
concreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&ID=19861.
6. Júlio E, Branco F, Silva V. Reinforced concrete jacketing—interface influence on monotonic
loading response. ACI Struct J. 2005; 252–57.
7. Konstantinos G, Vandoros S, Dritsos E. Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness
when strengthening RC columns. Constr Build Mater. 2008;22:264–76.
8. Krainskyi P, Blikharskiy Z, Khmil R. Experimental investigation of reinforced concrete
columns strengthened by jacketing. J Multidiscip Eng Sci Technol (JMEST). 2015; 2:1959–
1963.
9. Bindhu K, Mohana N, Sivakumar S. New reinforcement detailing for concrete jacketing of
nonductile exterior beam column joints. J Perform Constr Facil. 2014; 30(1) (February 2016).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000700.
10. Alcocer S. RC frame connections rehabilitated by jacketing. J Struct Eng. 1993; 119(5) (May
1993). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:5(1413).
11. Cheong H, MacAlevey N. Experimental behavior of jacketed reinforced concrete beams.
J Struct Eng. 2000; 126.
12. Tsonos A. Effectiveness of CFRP-jackets and RC-jackets in post-earthquake and
pre-earthquake retrofitting of beam-column subassemblages. Eng Struct. 2008;30:777–93.
13. Ruiz-Pinilla J, Pallarés F, Gimenez P, Calderón P. Experimental tests on retrofitted RC
beam-column joints underdesigned to seismic loads. General approach. Eng Struct.
2014;59:702–14.
14. Altun F. An experimental study of the jacketed reinforced-concrete beams under bending.
Constr Build Mater. 2004;18:611–8.
15. Tahsiri H, Sedehi O, Khaloo A, Raisi E. Experimental study of RC jacketed and CFRP
strengthened RC beams. Constr Build Mater. 2015;95:476–85.
16. Chalioris C, Pourzitidis C. Rehabilitation of shear-damaged reinforced concrete beams using
self-compacting concrete jacketing. International Scholarly Research Network. 2012.
17. Thermou G, Papanikolaou V, Kappos A. Cyclic response of R/C jacketed columns including
modelling of the interface behaviour. Presented at the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisboa, 2012.
18. Nishad C, Anto J. Non linear analysis of jacketed reinforced concrete column. Int J Eng
Trends Technol (IJETT). 2015; 28:369–373.
19. Siddappa KYG, Chandra S, Anushree. Finite element analysis of jacketed reinforced concrete
columns subjected to axial and uniaxial load. Int J Res Eng Technol. 2015; 4:132–138.
20. Lampropoulos A, Dristsos S. Modeling of RC columns strengthened with RC jackets. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn. 2011;40:1689–705.
21. Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Varum H. Assessment of seismic strengthening
solutions for existing low-rise RC buildings in Nepal. Earthq Struct. 2015;8:511–39.
22. Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A. Evaluation of different strengthening techniques’
efficiency for a soft storey building. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. 2015; 1–18.
23. SeismoSoft. SeismoStruc—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structures; 2004. http://www.seismosoft.com.
24. Varum H. Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. Aveiro:
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Aveiro; 2003.
25. EC2. Design of concrete structure, part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European
standard EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels; 2004.
26. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1–3: Strengthening and
repair of buildings—European prEN 1998-1-3, B. European Committee for Standardization,
Belgium; 2003.
198 H. Rodrigues et al.

27. Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A. A non-linear masonry infill macro-model to represent the
global behaviour of buildings under cyclic loading. Int J Mech Mater Des. 2008;4:123–35.
28. SEAOC-Vision2000. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings, vols. I and II:
Conceptual framework. Ed: Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento (CA);
1995.
29. FEMA356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Ed:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC); 2000.
30. Gobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: Proceedings of the
international workshop Bled Slovenia; 2004, pp 321–332.
31. Magenes G, Pampanin S. Seismic response for gravity-load designed frame systems with
masonry infills. Presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(13WCEE), Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2004.
32. Evaluation of Earthquake Damage Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings—Basic Procedures
Manual Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1999.
33. Evaluation of Earthquake Damage Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings—Technical
Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1999.
34. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/Nepal_Slides.pdf; 2015.
35. IS 15988. Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Buildings — Guidelines, Bureau of Indain Standards, New Delhi; 2013.
36. Pradhan PM, Adhikari R, Dahal A, Shrestha A, Subedi DL, Thapa S, Kharel P. Retrofitting
Design of Kathmandu University Library Building after Gorkha Earthquake 2015. Lowland
Technology International (Accepted for Special Issue on “Nepal Earthquake and Disasters”),
vol 18, No 2; 2016.