A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E.

Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Paper Reference 241 (quote when citing this paper)

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP
A. Prota1, G.Manfredi1, A. Nanni2 and E. Cosenza1
1

University of Naples Federico II, School of Engineering,

via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, ITALY
2
University of Missouri-Rolla, Center for Infrastructure
Engineering Studies, 224 Engineering Research Lab,
Rolla, MO 65409, USA

ABSTRACT
Many gravity load designed (GLD) reinforced concrete (RC) frames are nowadays located in
seismic areas. Different strengthening methodologies have been proposed in the past; an
innovative technique based on the use of composites was proposed and validated by an
experimental program developed at University of Missouri-Rolla. A theoretical approach for
the assessment of the subassemblage capacity is herein proposed; the analysis of each
component is carried out in order to find out which of them controls the strength of the
connection. Theoretical outcomes are then compared with experimental results. Some
remarks on the reliability of such approach are made and aspects to be further investigated
are highlighted.
Keywords: Capacity assessment; Subassemblage; Joint; Frame; FRP; Hierarchy of strength

INTRODUCTION
An experimental program was conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla on 10 interior
RC beam-column subassemblages. The main goal was to validate an innovative technique for
the seismic upgrade of interior RC connection by means of the combined use of Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) laminates and FRP near surface mounted rods (NSM) bars. The
investigated parameters were: the axial load level on the column, P, the type of FRP
reinforcement (FRP laminates and/or NSM bars), and the amount of FRP reinforcement
applied. Specimens were designed in order to simulate beam-column connections typical of
GLD frames built during the 60s without seismic provisions.
Detailed information about the test setup, specimen design, geometry and reinforcement, and
upgrade schemes can be found in Prota et al. [9]. A brief summary of the used codes is herein
made in order to provide the background for the understanding of following sections.
Specimens L1 and H1 were used as control connections. Subassemblages L2, H2 and H2U
represent the first level of upgrade based on wrapping the end of each column for a length of
380 mm and by two plies of carbon fibers on each column end. Connections L3, H3 and M3
had also NSM bars (continuous through the nodal zone) installed on the columns prior to
wrapping them with carbon laminates. In specimens L4 and H4 the joint was also
1

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

strengthened along with columns. In the direction parallel to the beam axis NSM bars were
used, while in the perpendicular direction, carbon laminates were applied.
Test results underlined that, depending on the axial load ratio and concrete strength, the
upgrade of a component (i.e., column or joint) could play different effects on strength and
ductility of the subassemblage. In terms of its ultimate performance, the upgrade level 2 (i.e.,
L2, H2 and H2U) determined a gain in strength ranging between 10% and 26%, while
scheme 3 generates an increase between 43% and 55%. Both of them did not allow for a
significant improvement in terms of ductility, which could be even reduced by the wrapping
of columns with low axial load ratio or by a combined application of FRP laminates and bars
to columns with low concrete strength. In these cases, the presence of FRP increased the
sectional ductility of the column, but reduced its deformability as member and also provided
a stiffening effect on the entire subassemblage. The strengthening of the joint caused a
considerable improvement of the seismic performances of the connection, with a gain
between 44% and 75% in strength and between 50% and 75% in story drift angle. Further
details about failure modes and test results have been reported in Prota et al. [9].

ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPACITY OF THE ELEMENTS

Within a performance-based approach, the assessment of structural performance of
earthquake risk frames needs to take into account both strength and deformability. The
analysis herein proposed focuses only on strength capacity of such connection. Since the
tested subassemblage represents an extracted portion of the frame, its performance is
representative of the actual behavior of the real structure (Bonacci and Wight [3]). The
outcomes of the analysis will allow to define general criteria for the assessing the seismic
upgrade of RC frames.
In order to evaluate the strength of the sub-system, different components are considered. For
columns and beams a sectional analysis is carried out, assuming a tri-linear simplified
constitutive law for steel and neglecting the size effect that would influence the descendent
branch of concrete constitutive law. Constructability issues determine also a small error on
the actual concrete cover. For the joint, internal stresses are computed and compared with
some limitations suggested in literature. This represents a preliminary step toward the
assessment of the strength of the subassemblage that is controlled by one of its three
components, depending on material properties, axial load ratio and upgrade scheme.
Columns
Three main types of columns were tested within the mentioned experimental program. Their
analysis is herein conducted only in terms of strength; bare RC columns characterized type 1
subassemblages (i.e., L1 and H1). Type 2 connections (i.e., L2, H2 and H2U) had columns
wrapped by carbon FRP laminates. Their analysis was developed based on the model
proposed by Manfredi and Realfonzo [5]; they extended the Spoelstra and Monti model to
square or rectangular cross section. The section is divided into strips and a corresponding
lateral strain is derived depending on the axial strain due to axial load plus bending. Three
different constitutive relationships are used for concrete depending on whether it belongs to
the external unconfined portion, to the intermediate part confined only by FRP or to the core
which is confined by FRP laminates plus steel stirrups. The same approach is also used in
order to study type 3 and 4 columns, where longitudinal FRP NSM rods are added to the

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

previous scheme. According to ACI440 Guidelines [1], the contribution of FRP NSM rods in
compression is neglected.
As reported in Table 1, the analysis of each columns was carried out considering the actual
concrete strength obtained by testing cylinders belonging to each batch of concrete. Four
longitudinal 16 steel rebars (i.e., two in tension and two in compression) were placed into
each column; 10 ties spaced at 200 mm on center were used. Two plies of unidirectional
carbon fibers were wrapped around type 2, 3 and 4 columns; the total thickness was equal to
0.33 mm, their modulus of elasticity and ultimate strength were 230000 MPa and 3450 MPa,
respectively. Four carbon FRP rods were placed on the tension side of type 3 and 4 columns;
their diameter was 10 mm, with modulus of elasticity equal to 110000 MPa and ultimate
strength equal to 2155 MPa.
The outcomes of the analysis are summarized in Table 1. For each subassemblage, both
superior and inferior columns were considered in order to account for the different axial load,
P, due to gravity loads on the beams. The values of the shear in the column at yielding of
longitudinal column bars, TCyc, and at failure of the column, TCuc, are reported along with the
strain of the tension steel at column failure. Steel rebars were characterized in the laboratory;
their yield and ultimate stress were 450 MPa and 570 MPa, respectively. Their ultimate strain
was found to be equal to 0.1. Failure modes of each member are highlighted in the column on
the right hand side of Table 1. In all cases, the superior column controls as its strength is
lower than that of the inferior.
TABLE 1
THEORETICAL YIELDING STRENGTH, ULTIMATE STRENGTH, AND FAILURE MODES OF COLUMNS
Spec.

fc
(MPa)

L1

38.9

L2

39.8

L3

38.9

L4

36.5

H1

31.7

H2

36.5

H2U

36.5

H3

31.7

H4

39.8

M3

39.8

Column

P
(kN)

TCyc
(kN)

TCuc
(kN)

Su

Failure Mode

superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior
superior
inferior

124.5
204.6
124.5
204.6
124.5
204.6
124.5
204.6
249.0
329.0
249.0
329.0
249.0
329.0
249.0
329.0
249.0
329.0
373.6
454.0

31.6
36.3
31.7
36.3
46.5
51.1
46.3
50.7
37.7
41.3
38.4
42.4
38.4
42.4
52.0
55.6
53.5
57.4
59.4
62.6

32.7
37.3
33.7
37.5
92.5
93.5
91.5
92.7
38.3
42.0
39.2
43.1
39.2
43.1
90.0
90.8
93.9
95.0
94.1
91.9

0.090
0.053
0.1
0.092
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.031
0.015
0.078
0.059
0.078
0.059
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008

Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Breaking of tension steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of NSM rods
Breaking of NSM rods
Breaking of NSM rods
Breaking of NSM rods
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
Breaking of NSM rods
Concrete crushing
Breaking of NSM rods
Breaking of NSM rods
Breaking of NSM rods
Concrete crushing

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

Beams
The same analysis discussed for columns was performed for beams also. In this case, the task
was easier since no strengthening was applied to beams within the experimental program.
Concrete strength was still a parameter to consider. For each specimen, two beam cross
section needed to be considered in order to account for the possible inversion of the shear
force resulting in the inversion of the moment sign on the element (Prota et al. [9]).
Before shear inversion, the beam cross section has three 22 and two 18 longitudinal steel
bars in tension and compression, respectively; 10 ties spaced at 100 mm on center were
used. Once the shear force is inverted due to the seismic actions, compression steel goes on
the tensions side and viceversa. Laboratory tests on beam bars provided a yield stress of 510
MPa, a ultimate stress of 629 MPa and ultimate strain equal to 0.1. These constitutive
relationships and the actual concrete strength were used in the analysis. The results of the
analysis are summarized in Table 2. For each subassemblage the cross sections before and
after shear inversion are considered. The shears in the column at yielding of steel bars, TCyb,
and at failure of the beam, TCub, are reported, along with failure modes.
TABLE 2
THEORETICAL YIELDING STRENGTH, ULTIMATE STRENGTH, AND FAILURE MODES OF BEAMS
Spec.

fc
(MPa)

L1

38.9

L2

39.8

L3

38.9

L4

36.5

H1

31.7

H2

36.5

H2U

36.5

H3

31.7

H4

39.8

M3

39.8

Beam

TCyb
(kN)

TCub
(kN)

Failure Mode

before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after

99.3
115.3
99.9
115.5
99.3
115.3
99.2
115.3
98.0
115.1
99.2
115.3
99.2
115.3
98.0
115.1
99.9
115.5
99.9
115.5

104.0
128.7
104.2
128.7
104.0
128.7
103.5
128.6
102.3
128.6
103.5
128.6
103.5
128.6
102.3
128.6
104.2
128.7
104.2
128.7

Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel
Concrete crushing
Breaking of steel

Joint
The analysis of stresses within the joint region was conducted according to the approach
suggested by Paulay and Priestley [6]. If the following entities are defined: Vjh as the
horizontal joint shear force, Vjv as the vertical joint shear force, Vcol as the average of column
shears above and below the joint, T and T as the tensile stress resultants of beams, Cc and
Cc as the compression stress resultants of beams, and Cs and Cs as the compression stress
resultants in the steel of beams, Vjh can be expressed as:

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

Vjh = T + Cc + Cs - Vcol = T + Cc + Cs - Vcol

(1)

and, if the approximation T = Cc + Cs (i.e., no axial force is applied on the beam, then the
algebric sum of tension plus compression must be zero) is done, (1) can be written as:
Vjh = T + T - Vcol

(2)

Based on the horizontal joint shear force Vjh, Paulay and Priestley [6] defined the nominal
joint shear stress as:
vj = Vjh / Acol

(3)

where Acol is the gross area of the column cross section. It is important to recall that the
nominal shear stress, vj, has no physical meaning; it is a useful index in order to understand
and eventually limit the level of shear acting on the joint. Paulay and Priestley [6] suggested
that, for one-way frames, vj is limited at 0.25fc in order to avoid brittle failure of the joint
due to diagonal compression.
Based on this approach, for specimens having no FRP reinforcement in the joint, calculations
of the nominal shear stress were conducted at both first cracking of the joint and failure of the
subassemblage. First cracking of joints reinforced with FRP (i.e., L4 and H4) was not
estimated as the visual method used for detecting cracking initiation was not applicable in
these cases. For such specimens, calculations only at failure of the subassemblage were
performed. Vcol was calculated based on equilibrium considerations, while both steel forces
were computed considering the strains generated by shear forces on each beam. Results are
summarized in Table 3. The nominal shear stresses at both first cracking and failure are
reported, and the corresponding column shear forces TCcrj and TCultsub are showed. The
column shear, TCultPP, corresponds to a nominal joint shear stress equal to 0.25fc as suggested
by Paulay and Priestley [6].

TABLE 3
NOMINAL SHEAR STRESSES AND COLUMN SHEAR AT CRACKING OF THE JOINT
AND ULTIMATE OF THE SUBASSEMBLAGE

EXPERIMENTAL

Sp.
L1
L2
L3
H1
H2
H2U
H3
M3
L4
H4

vj at first cracking
of the joint
(MPa)

(kN)

4.83
4.83
5.90
4.83
5.36
5.36
5.36
7.59
-------------

15.8
15.8
26.3
15.8
21.0
21.0
21.0
31.5
-------------

TCcrj

THEORETICAL

vj at failure of the
TCultsub 0.25 fc TCultPP
subassemblage
(MPa)
(kN) (MPa) (kN)
7.48
8.2
9.85
6.57
8.56
8.93
10.6
9.65
10.2
12.6

41.18
44.21
57.24
38.45
49.7
51.19
62.35
56.17
56.60
70.42

9.73
9.95
9.73
7.93
9.13
9.13
7.93
9.95
9.13
9.95

55.8
56.7
55.8
45.9
52.7
52.7
45.9
56.7
52.7
56.7

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

For control subassemblages L1 and H1, the nominal shear stress at ultimate was the 76 % and
83 %, respectively, of the Paulay and Priestley limit. This is consistent with the observed
failure mode, which did not involve the joint. For type 2 specimens, the ratio between
experimental and limit values increased: at failure of connection L2, the ultimate vj was about
83 % of the limit, while for H2 and H2U it was about 94 % and 97 % of the suggested
threshold, respectively. The smaller increase for series L (i.e., 83 % versus 76 %) can be
explained considering that the wrapping of column moved just the failure from the
compression to its tension side. For series H, higher values (i.e., 94 % and 97 % versus 83 %)
are justified by the fact that specimens H2 and H2U showed a combined column-joint failure.
For type 3 specimens, the ultimate nominal shear stress approached (i.e., L3 and M3) and
overcame (i.e., H3) the limit value.
The nominal shear stress is just an index that can be used in the design; since the crisis of the
joint is due to the crushing of the diagonal strut, it appears more appropriate to give a direct
limitation to the principal compression stress; this would allow to take into account also the
axial load levels on both column and beam. Similarly, the value of the principal tension stress
could be adopted as a reference for first cracking of the joint. Priestley et al. [8] showed that,
adopting the Mohrs circle analysis, the principal stresses in the joint region can be derived as
follows:
fv + fh
f fh
2
v
+ vj
2
2
2

pc , pt =

(4)

where pc and pt are the principal compression and tension stresses, while fv and fb the average
axial stresses in vertical and horizontal directions. In this particular case, fb is equal to zero
since no axial load is applied to beams. Discussing about interior joints of bridges, Priestley
et al. [8] suggested that the principal tension stress is limited at 0.29fc0.5 in order to avoid the
cracking initiation of the joint and the principal compression stress, pc, is limited at 0.3 fc in
order to prevent the compression crisis of the diagonal strut; they underlined that, for column
axial load ratio equal to 0.1 and no axial load on beams (i.e., series L within the experimental
program), the latter condition corresponds to limiting the nominal shear stress at 0.25 fc, as
indicated by Paulay and Priestley [6]. However, the analysis of several tests on interior joints
induced Priestley [7] to suggest as upper limit for the principal compression stress, pc, the
value of 0.5 fc.
For type 1, 2 and 3 specimens, principal stresses were computed at both first cracking of the
joint and at failure of the subassemblage. Results of these calculations are reported in Table
4. Principal stresses are computed and values of column shears corresponding to pt=0.29fc0.5
(i.e., TCcr0.29), pc=0.3fc (i.e., TCult0.3) and pc=0.5fc (i.e., TCult0.5) are summarized. As Table 4
shows, limitations of the principal tension stress at first cracking of the joint are very
conservative as compared to the experimental evidence. Limiting the principal compression
stress at 30% of fc appears to provide a reliable criterion; the performed tests confirmed that
it is conservative in all cases when the crisis regarded the joint (i.e., L3, H3 and M3).
In order to find a more reliable criterion for first cracking of the joint the approach proposed
by Kupfer and Gerstle [4] was followed. They studied the behavior of concrete under biaxial
states of stress and summarized the results of their analysis by providing interaction curves.
The part of interest within this context concerns the interaction diagram for biaxial state

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

compression-tension, which is representative of stresses induced in the joint as the seismic

load is applied. Indicating with 1 and 2 the principal compression and tension stress,
respectively, the interaction curve is expressed by the equation:

2
f

'
c

= 1 + 0.8

(5)

f c'

In Figure 1, principal stresses at first cracking of type 1 and 2 joints (Table 4) are plotted in
the plane 1/fc and 2/fc; they are aligned along the Kupfer and Gerstle curve. For type 3
specimens, work is in progress in order to evaluate the contribution of NSM rods to the
principal tension stress. Its outcomes will provide another curve for FRP reinforced joints.
TABLE 4
PRINCIPAL STRESSES AND COLUMN SHEAR AT CRACKING OF THE JOINT
AND ULTIMATE OF THE SUBASSEMBLAGE

EXPERIMENTAL

Sp.
L1
L2
L3
H1
H2
H2U
H3
M3

At first cracking of
the joint
TCcrj
pc
pt

At failure of the
subassemblage
TCultsub
pc
pt

(kN) (MPa) (MPa)

(kN)

15.8
15.8
26.3
15.8
21.0
21.0
21.0
31.5

41.18
44.21
57.24
38.45
49.70
51.19
62.35
56.17

7.13
7.13
8.14
9.48
9.92
9.92
9.92
13.11

-3.26
-3.26
-4.27
-2.46
-2.90
-2.90
-2.90
-3.11

THEORETICAL

(MPa) (MPa)
9.66
10.36
11.98
10.96
12.76
13.10
14.66
15.87

-5.78
-6.49
-8.10
-3.94
-5.74
-6.08
-7.64
-5.87

for
for
for
0.5
pt=0.29fc pc=0.3fc pc=0.5fc
TCcr0.29
TCult0.3
TCult0.5
(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

0.6
0.8
0.6
6.0
7.6
7.6
6.0
14.9

56.7
57.8
56.7
16.2
33.5
33.5
16.2
16.4

103.1
105.4
103.1
69.5
84.3
84.3
69.5
82.3

The analysis of stresses within the joint underlined the following aspects:
- at first cracking of the joint (detected by visual observation) the principal tension stress was
much higher than the limit of 0.29fc0.5 suggested by Priestley et al. [8]. The experimental
evidence provided values of the principal tension stress at cracking initiation of the joint
ranging between 0.44 (i.e., specimen H1) and 0.69 (i.e., specimen L3) of fc0.5.
- the Kupfer and Gerstle approach appears to provide more reliable predictions of the column
shear corresponding to the first cracking of the joint. The extension of the theory to the case
of FRP reinforced joint will allow for computations on a wider number of cases.
- a comparison with experimental outcomes highlights that the limit of 0.3fc for the principal
compression stress at failure of the joint could be a reasonable design criterion, even though
it is conservative for high axial load ratios (i.e. type H and M specimens). As Table 4
shows, such limit is conservative in all three cases (i.e., L3, H3 and M3) where failure of the
joint was observed; only for specimens L1 and L2 (i.e., column failure), the column shear at
failure of the connection corresponded to lower values of pc. On the other side, for low
concrete strength (i.e., H1 and H3) or very high axial load, such threshold appears too much
conservative.

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

- the limit of principal compression stress equal to 0.5fc was never reached within the
experimental program. For what observed during tests, it appears to provide not
conservative predictions.
0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15

0
-0.1
L2

-0.2
-0.3

H1

L1
H2/H2U

1/f'c

-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8

Kupfer and Gerstle curve

-0.9

experimental

-1

2/f'c

Figure 1: Kupfer and Gerstle curve : theoretical vs. experimental

ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPACITY OF THE SUBASSEMBLAGE

Once components have been studied as in the previous paragraph, results can be compared in
order to evaluate the expected strength and failure mode of the subassemblage. As shown in
Tables 2 and 3, for both column and beam two main stages should be looked at: the first
corresponds to yielding of the longitudinal metallic reinforcement and the latter to the
member failure. For the joint, along with its ultimate condition, the initiation of cracking
should also be considered as seismic guidelines (such as ATC40 [2]) consider this as a first
level of degradation of the frame. Based on these remarks, an example is developed in order
to show the proposed approach and to validate the theoretical analysis by comparing with test
results.

Subassemblages L1, L2 and L3 are analyzed. For specimen L1, the comparison between
values in Tables 1-4 indicates that cracking initiation of the joint occurs first, when the
column shear is equal to 15.8 kN (Table 4). This value could be obtained by using the Kupfer
and Gerstle stress analysis, as shown in Figure 1. The experimental column shear-story drift
angle curve for L1 shows a change in stiffness at a very close shear value. The next step
(Table 1-4) is the steel yielding in the column at shear equal to 31.6 kN (Table 1), followed
by column failure for a shear equal to 32.7 kN (Table 1). The experimental evidence provides
shear column at yielding and failure equal to 35.1 and 41.18 kN, respectively. The column
controls the hierarchy of strength of subassemblage L1; the theoretical strength of other two
components cannot be exploited, as joint failure would occur at column shear equal to 56.7
kN (Table 4) and beam yielding and failure would happen for column shear of 99.3 and 104
kN, respectively (Table 2). In terms of failure mode, the theoretical prediction of column
failure due to concrete crushing (Table 1) corresponds to laboratory outcomes.
Using the same approach, subassemblage L2 is studied. A comparison between Tables 1 and
4 highlights that first cracking of the joint occurs first at column shear equal to 15.8 kN

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

(Table 4). The change in stiffness of the experimental curve seems to occur for a close value
of column shear. Then longitudinal steel yields in the column at column shear of 31.7 kN
(Table 1) prior to column failure at column shear equal to 33.7 kN (Table 1). Analyzing
Tables 2 and 4 allows to observe that also in this case both joint and beam are stronger than
column and they cannot contribute with the entire strength resources. The theory predicts
column failure due to steel rupture; this was also observed in the laboratory. The application
of FRP wrapping on columns provides a small increase in strength and allows for moving the
failure from the compression to the tension side of the column. For this axial load ratio (i.e.,
0.1), the major effect of column wrapping is to change the hierarchy of strength of the
subassemblage. The proposed approach would allow to predict such fact, even though the
Manfredi and Realfonzo model underestimates the actual capacity of the column that was
found to be equal to 44.21 kN (Table 4).
Specimen L3 is characterized by column upgrade with both FRP bars and wrapping. Figure 2
summarizes its analysis carried out by using the above approach; theoretical values are
compared with the envelope of experimental applied cycles on the column shear story angle
plane. The first significant stage of the subassemblage is cracking initiation of the joint
occurring for a column shear equal to 26.3 kN (Table 4). As mentioned in previous
paragraph, work is in progress in order to extend the Kupfer and Gerstle curve in order to
account for the contribution of FRP NSM bars to the principal tension stress of the joint.
Then, yielding of column steel would occur when the shear in the column is equal to 46.5 kN
(Table 1). In this case, the ultimate theoretical column strength is equal to 92.5 kN (Table 1)
and it is greater than the ultimate joint strength corresponding to a column shear of 56.7 kN
(Table 4). Therefore, in this case joint controls the strength of the subassemblage, while both
beam and column are stronger. The theoretical prediction by limiting the principal
compression stress at 0.3fc is very close to the experimental value of 57.24 kN. By following
this approach, a reliable prediction on the failure mode would have also been achieved.
60

56.7 kN

50

46.5 kN

40

Column shear (kN)

30
experimental
steel yielding in the column
failure of the joint

20
Experimental observation of
cracking initiation of the joint

10

0
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-10

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

-20
-30
-40
-46.5 kN
-56.7 kN

Subassemblage L3
Joint failure at 57.24 kN

-50
-60

Story drift angle (%)

Figure 2: Theoretical versus experimental strength for connection L3

5.5

A. Prota, G.Manfredi, A. Nanni and E. Cosenza, "CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF GLD RC FRAMES

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP", 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK,
September 9-13, 2002

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of single components and then the comparison between theoretical and
experimental results highlighted the following remarks:
- the capacity assessment of the subassemblage can be carried out by considering the
strength hierarchy dependent on its three main components (i.e., column, beam, joint);
- the proposed approach allows for a reliable prediction also of the failure mode of the
connection;
- the theoretical analysis validated the proposed upgrade technique and confirmed that the
combined application of FRP laminates and NSM bars could allow to increase the
strength of the subassemblage and also to attain more desirable failure modes from a
global stand point;
- the analysis of stresses can provide good predictions on joint strength; a more general
criterion suitable for different axial load ratios and concrete strength should be defined;
- limitations of the principal tension stress give too conservative predictions of first
cracking of the joint; the Kupfer and Gerstle approach provides a better model for such a
biaxial phenomenon.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was partially supported by the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research
Center at the University of Missouri Rolla.
REFERENCES
1.
ACI Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced
with FRP Bars. 440.1R-01. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001,
pp. 41.
2.
ATC40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. California Seismic
Safety Commission, Report SSC 96-01.
3.
Bonacci JF, and Wight JK. Displacement-Based Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
Frames in Earthquake. In: Mete A. Sozen Symposium, ACI publication SP 162, 1996:
117-133.
4.
Kupfer BH, and Gerstle KH. Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. Journal of
the Engineering Mechanics Division 1973, 99(4):853-866.
5.
Manfredi G, and Realfonzo R. Modellazione del comportamento di elementi pressoinflessi in c.a. confinati con tessuti in materiale composito. In: Proceedings of the X
Convegno Nazionale "L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia", 9-13 September 2001, Potenza
and Matera, Italy.
6.
Paulay T, and Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992.
7.
Priestley MJN. Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1997, 1(1): 157-192.
8.
Priestley MJN, Seible F, and Calvi GM. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996.
9.
Prota A, Manfredi G, Nanni A, and Cosenza E. Selective Seismic Strengthening of RC
Frames with Composites. In: Proceedings of the Seventh US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, 2002, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, accepted for
publication.

10