Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Analysis of reinforced concrete columns retrotted

with ber reinforced polymer lamina
a,1 b,*
Baris Binici , Khalid M. Mosalam
a _ nu Bulvar, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ino
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 721 Davis Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, USA

Received 20 October 2005; accepted 10 January 2006

Available online 3 May 2006

Abstract

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) lamina have been used widely in the last decade to enhance strength and deformation capacity of
decient reinforced concrete (RC) columns. Seismic assessment and retrot of existing columns in buildings and bridge piers necessitate
accurate prediction of the available deformation capacity. In this study, a new analytical model is proposed to represent potential plastic
hinge regions of RC columns prior to and after FRP retrot. A recently developed variable conned concrete representation is employed
within the framework of ber-discretized frame elements to model the compression zone of the FRP-conned region. Connement dis-
tribution within this region is included through the use of a bond model, whereas the eect of lap splices are considered using an eective
steel strain concept. Comparisons of analytical estimates with experimentally measured response show that the proposed model is capa-
ble of capturing essential features of the response such as strength degradation due to lap splice slippage, and failure due to FRP rupture.
Furthermore, a detailed sensitivity study is conducted to determine the parameters whose uncertainty signicantly aects the behavior. It
is observed that, in estimating the response of existing decient columns, parameters such as plastic hinge length, concrete strength and
splice length are important sources of uncertainty. While for FRP-retrotted columns, parameters such as jacket stiness, dilatation
strain at splice failure and yield strength of the reinforcing bars are more important sources of uncertainty.
2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: A. Polymer ber; C. Stress transfer; C. Computational modeling; C. Statistical properties

1. Introduction deformability of the structural members by avoiding or

Use of ber reinforced polymer (FRP) lamina has
gained increasing popularity in structural retrot applica-
tions due to advantages such as lightweight, high strength
and ease of application. One of the most attractive applica-
tions of FRP lamina is wrapping existing decient rein-
forced concrete (RC) columns or bridge piers to enhance
their deformation capacity especially at the potential plas-
tic hinge regions. In this way, it is possible to circumvent
the expected brittle behavior in the absence of properly
designed conning steel reinforcement and to enhance the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 510 643 4805; fax: +1 510 643 8928.
E-mail addresses: binici@metu.edu.tr (B. Binici), mosalam@ce.berke-
ley.edu (K.M. Mosalam).
1
Tel./fax: +90 312 210 1193.
delaying undesirable phenomena such as concrete crushing,
longitudinal reinforcing bar buckling and lap splice failure.
There is a vast amount of experimental work conducted
on FRP retrot of columns in the last decade. Experiments
were performed on concentrically loaded concrete speci-
mens retrotted with FRP lamina to observe the strength
and deformation capacity enhancement in pure compres-
sion [14]. Test results revealed that behavior of FRP-
conned concrete substantially diers from that of steel
conned concrete due to dierences in constitutive behav-
ior of the two materials [4]. For steel conned concrete,
conning stresses are proportional to the applied axial load
up to the yielding of the steel. Beyond yielding of the trans-
verse steel reinforcement, conning stresses remain approx-
imately constant. On the other hand, for FRP-wrapped
concrete, the level of connement is proportional to the

1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.01.006
266 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276
axial load up to the point where FRP ruptures and failure
occurs in a sudden and brittle manner. Other studies con-
centrated on FRP retrot of decient RC columns for seis-
mic strengthening [59]. It has been shown that FRP
retrot can signicantly improve the lateral deformation
capacity of columns keeping the plastic hinge regions intact
even at large deformation cycles. Furthermore, it is pointed
out that the poor seismic performance due to short splice
lengths of column longitudinal reinforcing bars at plastic
hinge regions can be improved by limiting concrete dilata-
tion through the use of FRP jackets [79].
In light of the experimental studies summarized above, a
better understanding of FRP connement mechanism was
achieved and many FRP-conned concrete models were
developed. An extensive review of the literature on FRP-
conned concrete can be found in [10,11]. Most of these
models are empirical in nature and employ best-t expres-
sions (e.g. functions of the jacket properties) of the exper-
imentally obtained stressstrain curves. Other analytical
models [1214] dene the axial and lateral stressstrain
relationships of concrete for dierent levels of connement.
By matching the expansion of concrete to the straining of
the jacket, FRP-conned concrete response is obtained
from a family of active conned concrete curves. The
advantages of these latter models include: (1) the exibility
of introducing dierent material models for the jacket and
(2) the ability to directly dene failure of the jacket from
the transverse jacket strains. Although these models have
been shown to estimate the axial response of FRP-conned
concrete accurately, they have not been used widely for the
analysis of columns subjected to combined axial loads and
bending moments.
The main objective of this paper is to propose a novel
analytical model that can be used in the framework of non-
linear analysis making use of the ber-discretized frame ele-
ments [15]. Modeling of concrete in compression and of the
reinforcing steel lap splice regions prior to and after
upgrades with FRP jacket is discussed in detail. Subse-
quently, experimental validation of the proposed computa-
tional models to estimate the load-deformation response of
structural elements is presented. Finally, a deterministic
sensitivity analysis is conducted to observe the major
parameters whose uncertainty may signicantly alter the
Fig. 1. Conning stress distribution on a reinforced concrete column cross-section.
basic response quantities such as strength and drift ratio.
It should be emphasized that this novel method of analysis
incorporating a realistic distribution of connement in the
compression zone and tracing the jacket strains during
nonlinear analysis using ber-discretized frame elements
is employed for the rst time in the literature. It is believed
that the methods described in this paper will facilitate the
accurate estimation of the deformation demands of de-
cient and FRP-retrotted structural systems.
2. Modeling aspects
This section describes the constitutive relationships and
the methodology of modeling FRP-wrapped RC columns
having conning steel and lap splice deciencies. The
important class of columns with deciency in shear capac-
ity is out of the scope of the present research. The modeling
approach described below is valid for RC columns having
circular sections. However, this approach can be easily
extended to members with other sections by introducing
the well-known section eciency factors [16] to reect the
reduced connement eciency of non-circular sections.
2.1. Connement model
Consider a circular RC section wrapped with an FRP
jacket subjected to the combined eect of axial force and
uniaxial bending moment (Fig. 1). Following the classical
beam theory, a linear axial strain distribution is assumed
for the section under the given loading conditions. In the
compression zone, it is reasonable to consider that conn-
ing stress distribution will not be uniform. The conning
stress is maximum at the extreme compression ber,
decreases with the decreasing distance to the neutral axis
and vanishes at the neutral axis location. In order to esti-
mate the non-uniform conning stress distribution, an elas-
tic bond model is utilized (Fig. 1). This model assumes that
the FRP and the adhesive are thin compared to the con-
crete section and carry only axial and shear stresses, respec-
tively. Furthermore, it is assumed that perfect bond exists
between the jacket and the concrete section. The equilib-
rium condition for an innitesimal element along the arc
of the jacket surrounding the circular section is
 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276 267

drf tf sdx 1 1

where rf is the FRP stress, tf is the FRP thickness and s is

Relative Distance from Neutral Axis

0.8
the interface shear stress. The assumed elastic material 5
behavior of the adhesive and the FRP yields 4 3
0.6
rf Ef du=dx and s uGa =ta 2
0.4 2 1 parabolic
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the FRP, u is the
distribution
axial elongation of the FRP (or the shear deformation of
0.2
the adhesive), Ga is the shear modulus of the adhesive,
and ta is the thickness of the adhesive. Combining Eqs.
(1) and (2) and using the transformation x = Rh, the fol- 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
lowing governing dierential equation of the bond model Relative Confining Stress
is obtained
Fig. 2. Conning stress distribution for dierent values of bond parameter
d2 rf =dh2  A2 rf 0 3 (values shown on curves are bond parameter, A values).

where A is the bond stress parameter with

A2 R2 Ga =Ef tf ta . Solution of Eq. (3) is in the form
rf C sin hAh D cos hAh with C and D obtained
from the boundary conditions:
rf 0 at h 0 rf rfmax at h hc
Above conditions imply that maximum jacket stress
occurs at the extreme compression ber and it vanishes at
the neutral axis location. Therefore, the conning stress
distribution becomes:
rf rfmax sin hAh= sin hAhc 5 strain at the outermost compressive ber, a variable con-
Once the maximum jacket stress rfmax is known, conn-
ing stress at any location in the compression zone can be
found using Eq. (5). Fig. 2 shows conning stress distribu-
tion for dierent values of A. In fact, it is very dicult to
precisely estimate some of the parameters such as the adhe-
sive thickness and the shear modulus to compute A. For
typical column retrots, values of A range from about 1
to 5. It can be observed that for this range, conning stress
4 distribution can be reasonably approximated as propor-
tional to the square of the distance from the neutral axis.
The eect of this distribution on the global response of
FRP-retrotted RC columns is studied later in the deter-
ministic sensitivity analysis section.
In order to determine rfmax for a prescribed compressive
ned concrete constitutive model is adopted for concrete
in compression [12]. The conned concrete model describes
the axial stressstrain behavior of conned concrete
(Fig. 3) using three continuous functions for the ascending
and descending branches given by

Fig. 3. Variable conned concrete model.

268 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276

8
>
> E c e1 for e1 6 e1e
>
>  
>
< r r  r e1  e1e r
1e 10 1e for e1e 6 e1 6 e10
r1 e10  e1e r  1 e1  e1e =e10  e1e r 6
>
>   
>
>
> e1  e10 2
: r1r r10  r1r exp  for e10 6 e1
a

where r1 and e1 are the axial stress and strain, respectively,
Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete. The elastic stress
limit, r1e, ultimate strength, r10, and residual strength, r1r,
for a given lateral conning stress r3 are computed using
the LeonPramono [17] failure criterion given by
 p  tl 0:5
r1 fc0 k c m/  1  k/2 / 7
where m fc02  ft02 =fc0 ft0 , ft0 is the concrete uniaxial ten-
sile strength, k is the hardening parameter and is equal to
0.1 at elastic stress limit and 1.0 at ultimate strength and
beyond, c is the softening parameter and is equal to 1.0
prior to softening and 0.0 at residual strength, and
/ r3 =fc0 is the connement ratio, where fc0 is the 28-day
concrete uniaxial compressive strength of the standard cyl-
inder. The elastic strain limit, e1e, and strain at ultimate
strength, e10, are computed by
 
r1e r10
e1e and e10 5e0  0:8 8 e1 ts r3  r3 =D 0
Ec fc0
where e0 is the strain at peak stress under uniaxial compres-
sion. The other constant r in Eq. (6) is computed by:
Ec r10  r1e
r where Es 9 rigidity given by
Ec  E s e10  e1e
Parameter a in Eq. (6) is calibrated such that the area
under the softening region is equal to the compressive frac-
ture energy obtained from a uniaxial compression test
divided by the characteristic length of the specimen in the
loading direction, Gfc/lc, and is given by:
! ratio of the jacket (ratio of the transverse reinforcement
2
1 2Gfc r10  r1r
a p  10
pr10  r1r lc Ec
It can be observed that the conned concrete model
described above includes the gauge length of the test speci-
men, lc. Therefore, stresses and strains refer to average val-
ues over the specied length in the presented constitutive
model.
Deformations in the transverse direction are described
using the secant strain ratio, ts = e3/e1, given by:
8 and it is capable of monitoring the expansion of concrete
< t0    for e1 6 e1e
ts e1  e1e 2
: ts tl  tl  t0 exp  for e1e 6 e1
D
11
In the elastic region, the secant strain ratio is equal to
the Poissons ratio of concrete, t0, that is usually between
0.15 and 0.20. At ultimate strength, secant strain ratio is
0.5, whereas it approaches a limiting value, t1, for strains
well beyond the strain at the peak stress. The parameter
D is computed by:
e10  e1e tl  0:5
D p where b 12
 ln b t l  t0
The limiting secant strain ratio, tl, can be obtained from:
1
13
/ 0:854
Further details of the model summarized above and its
extensive experimental validation can be found in [12].
For FRP-conned concrete, strain compatibility in the
lateral direction is enforced for the imposed axial strain
such that the jacket and the lateral concrete strains are sim-
ilar. Strain compatibility is schematically shown in Fig. 3.
The connement provided by the jacket on the concrete
section or the jacket strain is computed for a prescribed
axial strain by solving the following nonlinear equation
in the inelastic range
14
where ts(r3) is the secant strain ratio given by Eq. (11) in
the inelastic range, and it is a function of r3 since tl is in
turn a function of /. The parameter D is the eective jacket
Ej t Ej qj
D 15
R 2
where Ej is the modulus of elasticity of the jacket in the
hoop direction, t is the thickness of the jacket, R is the ra-
dius of conned concrete section, and qj is the volumetric
volume to the ratio of the concrete volume).
For the cross-section subjected to combined axial force
and bending moment (Fig. 1), the lateral strain compatibil-
ity is enforced for the extreme concrete ber in compression
using Eq. (14). Once the connement at this extreme ber is
known, the connement at any level in the compression
zone can be computed using Eq. (5). The modeling
approach described above incorporates the variation in
the connement distribution for the compression zone,
and accordingly the jacket strains. Therefore, the jacket
rupture, which generally dictates the failure of a retrotted
column, is directly computed from the known FRP rupture
strain, erup.
2.2. Splice model
An eective steel stress approach is used to model the
longitudinal reinforcing bar lap splices in the plastic hinge
region with and without conning FRP jacket. Consider
 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276 269

Fig. 4. Longitudinal reinforcing bars lap splice model.

the spliced bars consisting of starter and spliced bars r3

r r0  13 P 1:1 23
(Fig. 4). For any location within the splice, the equilibrium fc0
equations of the bars are
where r0 is 2 for Grade 60 steel and 1.5 for Grade 40 steel.
 2
1 d Once the conning stress, r3, is known, a unique bond
si pd b li rsi p b for i 1;2 16 stressslip curve can be constructed using the above expres-
2 4
sions. Experiments conducted in [7,9] reveal that after a
where si is shear resistance between the bar and the con- concrete dilatation strain, edl, of about 0.00100.0015, con-
crete, li is the length shown in Fig. 4, db is the spliced bar nement has no eect on clamping the splices. Therefore,
diameter, and rsi is the steel stress at the considered loca- an average strain limit of 0.00125 is used to compute r3
tion. It is assumed that the distributions of si for the two due to the presence of the FRP jacket and the transverse
bars are similar and follow a linear variation given by steel reinforcement. Hence, r3 can be calculated from
li  
si sm for i 1;2 17 Ef tf Es Ash
Ls r3 edl 24
R sRc
where sm is the maximum shear resistance along the splice
where Rc is the radius of the column concrete core, Ash and
length Ls, Fig. 4. Adding the two equations for i = 1,2 gi-
s are the transverse steel area and spacing, respectively, and
ven in Eq. (16) for the two bars and making use of Eq.
edl = 0.00125.
(17) with l2 = Lsl1, the following equilibrium equation is
At the considered location within the splice, which can
obtained for the splice
be the integration point for a ber element discretization,
rs d b total steel strain, est, is dictated by the strain prole of
sm ! 18
l21 Ls  l1 2 the section at the corresponding analysis increment, and
2 it is assumed to be decomposed into slip strain ess = u/Ls
Ls
and elongation strain ese, i.e. est = ess + ese. The strain com-
where rs is the summation of the two reinforcing bar stres- ponents ess and ese are computed iteratively such that equi-
ses, rs1 and rs2. The approach presented above is dierent librium (Eq. (18)) and the bond stressslip relationship
from the splice model presented in [9] in the sense that it (Eqs. (19)(24)) are simultaneously satised. Once ese is
assumes a bond stress distribution, which satises the zero computed, the employed steel constitutive model (e.g. elas-
stress condition at the free ends of the bars. tic perfectly plastic with yield (plastic) strength fy) can be
The bond stressslip relationship proposed in [9] is utilized to compute the eective steel stress.
adopted in this study to compute the eective steel stress
taking into account bar slip. This relationship is given by 3. Fiber-discretized frame element implementation
smax ru=umax
sm r 19 Constitutive models outlined above are implemented
r  1 u=umax within the framework of ber-discretized frame elements.
where u is the splice slip and the rest of the parameters are A retrot plastic hinge element using distributed plasticity
dened using Eqs. (20)(23). with displacement-based frame elements is developed using
the ber discretization. The modeling approach adopted
smax s0 1:4r3 20 for a cantilever circular column is shown in Fig. 5. The
p
s0 20 fc0 =d b in MPa and mm units 21 plastic hinge region is modeled using a single displace-
  ment-based element with linear curvature distribution
r3
umax 0:25 1 75 in mm 22 and ve integration points along its length. In this way, it
fc is possible to approximate the non-uniform curvature
270 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276

Fig. 5. Fiber frame element modeling of a cantilever column.

distribution and the stiness degradation in an accurate were conducted in a single curvature deformed congura-
manner. The above models, implemented in a nonlinear tion by applying reversed lateral deformation cycles under
frame element analysis program [18], are employed within constant axial load [5,9]. The simulations of the experi-
the constitutive driver for steel and concrete bers. Con- ments were conducted under constant axial load and
crete in tension is modeled using a linear elastic behavior imposing monotonically increasing lateral displacement
up to cracking followed by a linear descending branch history for a cantilever column model using ve elements
(Fig. 5). The strain corresponding to complete loss of ten- as illustrated in Fig. 5. The length of the plastic hinge ele-
sile resistance is determined from the tensile fracture ment used to model the FRP connement inuence on the
energy, Gft, which is assumed to be a known material prop- critical region was selected using the following equation
erty. Furthermore, the characteristic length, lc, is taken as
Lp 0:077L 8:16d b 25
the length of the plastic hinge, which equals the element
length in the present study, times the weight of the integra- where L is the column length and db is the longitudinal steel
tion point under consideration as suggested in [19]. bar diameter. Eq. (25) was found to yield perfect correla-
For nonlinear analysis, the forcedisplacement relation- tion with the mean of the experimentally measured plastic
ship at the element level is commonly expressed in an incre- hinge lengths [22]. The eects of FRP wrapping on conne-
mental form using the tangent stiness matrix and ment and splice clamping, if there is any, were only consid-
incremental deformations. From the section stiness and ered for the plastic hinge element. The remaining elements
resisting forces, the element stiness matrix and resisting were modeled using frame elements discretized with con-
force vector are obtained. Nonlinear geometric eects are crete bers having elastic behavior in compression and
incorporated through the addition of the geometric sti- elastic-brittle behavior in tension (Fig. 5). The elastic-brit-
ness matrix to the element stiness matrix. The individual
element stiness matrices and individual resisting force vec-
tors are assembled by the conventional nite element Table 1
assembly procedure to determine the global stiness matrix Data used in numerical simulations
and global resisting force vector. For nonlinear response, Properties Experimental program Aa Experimental program Bb
equilibrium is usually not satised in a single iteration. fc (MPa) 45 40
Therefore, an incremental-iterative numerical technique is fy (MPa) 462 450
needed. In this study, the minimum unbalanced displace- c (mm)c 38 20
ment norm method [20] is adopted because of its simplicity Ls (mm) 381 None
and capability of capturing the softening behavior in the s (mm) 127 300
ql (%)d 2 1
force-deformation relationship. Fiber-discretized element Ef (MPa) 48,000 54,000e
formulations are well-established in the literature and rele- 20,700f
vant references can be consulted for further details [18,21]. erup 0.011 0.0147e
0.0200f
a
4. Experimental validation Experiments from [9].
b
Experiments from [5].
c
Concrete cover.
The results of two experimental programs, named here- d
Reinforcement ratio of column longitudinal steel.
after as A and B are used for validation of the developed e
Values for CFRP lamina.
f
analytical model. All the specimens in these experiments Values for GFRP lamina.
 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276 271

tle tension behavior was used to accurately model stiness
degradation due to progressive cracking with the increase
of the applied lateral deformation. Hence, the need for
using eective rigidity was eliminated. Concrete
p compres-
sive and tensile fracture energies, Gfc 8:8 fc0 (mm and
N units) and Gft = Gfc/250 were adopted from [23] based
on uniaxial compression test results. pConcrete tensile
strength was assumed to be ft0 0:35 fc0 (MPa units) in
all analyses. Properties of the test specimens for the two
experimental programs are given in Table 1.
Experimental program A [9] was conducted on 1/2-scale
bridge columns with lap splice deciencies common to
1960s and 1970s construction practice. One reference spec-
imen and two FRP-retrotted specimens were analyzed
using the developed computational models. The axial load
was about 8% of the axial load carrying capacity of the col-
umn, which represents well the axial load level in bridge
piers. For the two FRP-retrotted specimens, two dierent
FRP amounts were used, namely four and ve layers of
FRP with a layer thickness of 3.2 mm, to investigate the
eect of FRP amount on strength and deformation capac-
ity enhancement. Comparisons of monotonic analyses
results with the experimentally measured cyclic load-defor-
mation relationships are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. It can

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental cyclic load-deformation behavior [9] with estimated analytical response for no retrot specimen.

Fig. 7. Comparisons of experimental cyclic load-deformation behavior [9] with estimated analytical response for FRP retrot specimens.
272 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276

300 400
ST2NT
300 P/Po =0.54
S 3NT 2 layers GFRP
200 P/Po = 0.54
200

Moment (kNm)
No Retrofit
Moment (kNm)

100
100
0

0 -100 Analysis
Experiment
-200 Detected FRP
rupture initiation
-100 (analysis)
-300

Analysis -400
-200 Experiment -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Curvature (1/km)
-300
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 400
Curvature (1/km) ST3NT
300 P/Po =0.54
1 layer CFRP

Moment (kNm)
300 200

S 4NT 100
200 P/Po = 0.27
No Retrofit 0
Moment (kNm)

-100
100
Analysis
Experiment
-200 Detected FRP
rupture initiation
0 -300 (analysis)

-400
-100 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Curvature (1/km)
Analysis
-200 Experiment Fig. 9. Comparisons of experimental momentcurvature response [5] with
analytical estimations for FRP-retrotted specimens under high axial
-300 load.
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Curvature (1/km)
dicted. Since specimens were not tested up to complete col-
Fig. 8. Comparisons of experimental momentcurvature response [5] with
analytical estimations for decient columns.
lapse, a clear comparison on the descending branch of the
momentcurvature responses can not be made. The exper-
be observed that for the as-built decient column, signi-
400
cant strength degradation occurs after reaching the peak ST4NT
P/Po = 0.27
300
strength. For the FRP-retrotted columns, strength degra- 1 layer CFRP

dation is delayed resulting in stable behavior at large 200

Moment (kNm)

deformations. The model predictions of strength and 100

deformation at ultimate load are in good agreement with 0

those obtained from the test whereas strength degradation -100

Analysis
in the numerical simulation occurs more rapidly than that -200
Experiment
Detected FRP

observed in the experiment. For the FRP-retrotted col- -300

rupture initiation
(analysis)

umns, the backbone curves of the cyclic load-deformation

-400
relationships are in excellent agreement with the predicted -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

response. Curvature (1/km)

Experimental program B [5] was conducted to observe
400
the eect of two types of FRP lamina, namely carbon ST5NT
300
and glass, on the behavior of retrotted building columns P/Po =0.27
1 layer GFRP

with conning transverse steel deciency. Two dierent 200

Moment (kNm)

axial load levels (27% and 54% of the axial load carrying 100

capacity, Po) and two dierent FRP lamina were taken as 0

the test parameters. Momentcurvature response obtained -100

Analysis
from LVDTs located within the plastic hinge region were -200
Experiment
Detected FRP

reported for all the specimens. The momentcurvature at -300

rupture initiation
(analysis)

the bottom integration point of the plastic hinge element

-400
is used for validation of the analytical results. Comparisons -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

of the behavior of the two reference specimens (as built Curvature (1/km)
with axial load = 27% and 54% Po) with analytical estima- Fig. 10. Comparisons of experimental momentcurvature response [5]
tions are presented in Fig. 8. It can be observed that the with analytical estimations for FRP-retrotted specimens under low axial
stiness and strength of the test specimens are closely pre- load.
 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276 273

5. Deterministic sensitivity analyses

Evaluation of the structural response, namely the engi-

Probability distribution of
random variable X
XLB XUB
Lower bound of X Upper bound of X
Structural analysis
(e.g. pushover analyses)
Probability distribution of
EDP (unknown)
EDP(XLB.) EDP(XUB.)
Swing = [EDP(XUB.) - EDP(XLB.)]
Fig. 11. Procedure of developing a swing in the tornado diagram.
imental and analytical momentcurvature responses for
FRP-retrotted specimens having high axial loads (54%
Po) are presented in Fig. 9. It can be observed that the
strength, deformation capacity and FRP rupture deforma-
tion levels are in excellent agreement. The experimental and
analytical momentcurvature responses for FRP-retrot-
ted specimens having low axial loads (27% Po) are pre-
sented in Fig. 10. It can be observed that strength of the
test specimens are estimated with a reasonable accuracy
for both retrot schemes. However, the deformation capac-
ity is underestimated by about 30%. This discrepancy is
attributed to the uncertainty associated with model param-
eters whose sensitivity might aect the analyses results.
Detailed deterministic sensitivity analyses are presented in
Section 5 to shed light on the sources of uncertainty for col-
umns prior to and after FRP retrot.
neering demand parameter (EDP), e.g. strength and ulti-
mate drift ratio, of components and systems due to
severe loading such as seismic action includes various
uncertain input parameters. Parameter uncertainty causes
uncertainty of the response upon which damage and loss
analyses are based. A deterministic sensitivity analysis is
performed to determine the relative signicance of each
uncertain variable in the developed computational models
on the response measures of decient columns with and
without FRP retrot. In that regard, the so-called tornado
diagram, commonly used in decision analysis [24], is
employed. Recently, the tornado diagram has been used
in sensitivity analysis in earthquake engineering [2527].
This tornado diagram consists of a set of horizontal bars,
referred to as swings, one for each random variable (RV).
The length of each swing represents the variation in the
output due to the variation in the respective RV. Therefore,
a variable with larger eect on the output has larger swing
than those with smaller eects. In a tornado diagram,
swings are displayed in the descending order of the swing
size from top to bottom. This wide-to-narrow arrangement
of swings resembles a tornado.
In the tornado analysis, the output variable (strength or
ultimate drift ratio in this study) is assumed to be a known
deterministic function (developed using the computational
models within the ber element method) of a set of input
RVs whose probability distributions are assumed by the
analyst. For each input variable, two extreme values corre-
sponding to predened upper and lower bounds of its
probability distribution (e.g. mean 2 standard deviation
as used in this study) are selected. For each input RV,
the deterministic function is evaluated twice, using the
two extreme values of the selected input RVs while the
other input RVs are set to their best estimates such as
the means. Fig. 11 schematically shows the procedure for
developing a swing. This procedure yields two bounding
values of the output for each input RV. The absolute
dierence of these two values is the swing of the output

Random Structural
Swing Tornado diagram
Variable Analysis
X2 ..Xn at means
X1

X1 , X3 ..Xn at means

X1 , X2 , X4 ..Xn at means
X3 Sorting

X1 .. Xn-2 , Xn at means EDP corresponding to

X1 mean of all RVs
X1 .. Xn-1 at means
Xn

Fig. 12. Procedure of developing the tornado diagram.

274 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276

corresponding to the selected input RV. This process is Pa

repeated for all other input RVs to compute the swings Ls
of the output. Finally, one builds the tornado diagram by Lp
arranging the obtained swings in a descending order,

Parameters
fc '
Fig. 12. ft
dl
5.1. Selected uncertain variables s
c
The selection of the input variables depends on the out- Gf c
Gf t
put variable of interest. In this study, we selected the No Retrofit
fy
strength (peak lateral load) and ultimate drift ratios (corre-
sponding to 85% of the peak load on the descending 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
branch of the force-deformation relationship and to the Swing of Normalized Strength
rupture of the FRP jacket for the as-built and retrotted
Ls
columns, respectively). Note that the ultimate drift ratio Ef
is dened as the ultimate lateral displacement of the col- dl

umn tip normalized by the column height. The columns Pa

selected for the tornado analyses have the mean geometri- fc'

Parameters
c
cal and material properties of the specimens C1-A and Lp
C2-RT4 for the as-built and FRP-retrotted cases, respec- fy
tively, in [9]. s
Gft
Uncertainty in the structural strength and stiness has A
been of major interest by a number of probabilistic studies ft
of RC members and systems. A short review can be found rup
With FRP Retrofit
Gfc
in [18]. Sources of uncertainty in dierent parameters of the
developed computational models are selected to be as com- 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
prehensive as practically possible considering available Swing of Normalized Strength
information from literature on the expected variability of Fig. 13. Deterministic sensitivity analyses results for strength variation.
these parameters. Table 2 summarizes the statistical prop-
erties of the selected RVs in the present study. The data
is based on published literature in most part [28,29] and retrotted cases. For the strength, all results are normal-
engineering judgment where data are not available in the ized with respect to the mean strength value of the as-built
literature. It is to be noted that all variables in Table 2 case. Accordingly, one infers a 50% increase of the mean
are dened previously in the text. strength due to the FRP jacket. For the ultimate drift ratio,
no normalization is introduced where the mean is low
5.2. Tornado diagram results (0.6%) for the as-built case compared to the much higher
mean (3.4%) for the FRP-retrotted case.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the results of the sensitivity studies The following remarks summarize observations and
for the strength and ultimate drift ratios, respectively. Each implications of the tornado diagrams:
gure illustrates results for both the as-built and the FRP-
(1) For the as-built column, uncertainty in the strength is
more sensitive to uncertainty in axial load, lap splice
Table 2 length, plastic hinge length, and concrete compressive
Parameters used in deterministic sensitivity analysis
strength. Changes in the other variables have much
Parameters Mean Coecient of variation smaller eect on the column strength.
Gfc (N/mm) 59 0.20 (2) For the FRP-retrotted column, uncertainty in the
Gft (N/mm) 0.24 0.20 strength is more sensitive to uncertainty in lap splice
fc (MPa) 45 0.10
length, stiness of the FRP jacket, concrete dilatation
ft (MPa) 2.35 0.20
fy (MPa) 462 0.05 strain in the lap splice region, axial load, and concrete
c (mm) 38 0.20 compressive strength. Changes in the other variables
Ls (mm) 381 0.15 have much smaller eect on the column strength.
Lp (mm) 345 0.20 (3) For the as-built column, uncertainty in the ultimate
s (mm) 127 0.10
drift ratio is more sensitive to uncertainty in plastic
edl (mm) 0.00125 0.10
Pa (kN) 712 0.25 hinge length, concrete compressive strength, axial
Ef (MPa) 48,000 0.15 load, concrete cover, and lap splice length. Changes
erup 0.011 0.15 in the other variables have much smaller eect on
A 3 0.33 the column drift capacity.
 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276 275

It should be noted that the tornado analyses results pre-

Lp
sented above do not reect possible correlations among
fc '
Pa
uncertain variables. However, considering correlations
c may aect sensitivity results. A more accurate sensitivity
analysis method using, e.g. mean value rst order second
Parameters

Ls
s moment method (MVFOSM), can overcome this short-
ft coming if combined with the methodology presented in this
dl study [27].
Gf t
fy
Gf c No Retrofit 6. Concluding remarks
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Swing of Drift Ratio (%)
This paper presents a sound computational model for
decient and FRP-retrotted RC columns having conn-
Ef ing steel and lap splice deciencies. A bond stress model
dl is employed to account for variable conning stress distri-
fy bution in the compression along with an active conned
Ls
fc'
concrete stressstrain model. Splice presence within the
Parameters

Lp plastic hinge region is considered by using an eective steel

c stressstrain model. Furthermore, a deterministic sensitiv-
s
ft ity analysis is conducted using a wide range of variables
A that are of practical importance for the developed compu-
rup
tational model. From the discussion presented above, the
Pa
Gfc
following can be inferred:
Gft With FRP Retrofit

1 2 3 4
Swing of Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 14. Deterministic sensitivity analyses results for drift ratio variation.
(4) For the FRP-retrotted column, uncertainty in the
ultimate drift ratio is more sensitive to uncertainty
in stiness of the FRP jacket, concrete dilatation
strain in the lap splice region at which bond failure
initiates, yield strength of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment, lap splice length, concrete compressive strength
and the plastic hinge length. Changes in the other
variables have much smaller eect on the column
drift capacity.
(5) Although the bounds of RVs are selected to be sym-
metric around the mean (2 standard deviation),
tornado-diagram results for EDPs are skewed around
the mean. The use of upper bound values for param-
eters such as plastic hinge length, concrete uniaxial
compressive and tensile strengths are found to have
negligible inuence on the strength of the as-built
decient columns compared to mean value analy-
sis. On the other hand, the use of lower bound values
for parameters such as splice length and yield
strength of longitudinal reinforcement has negligible
eect on the ultimate drift ratios for FRP-retrotted
columns. This latter observation states that for a
successful FRP-retrot design, uncertainty in these
two parameters no longer has a detrimental eect
on the deformation capacity, since the FRP con-
nement suppresses the splice deciency to a great
extent.
5 6
(1) The novel computational model, which employs a
variable connement model by taking into account
the non-uniform connement distribution in the com-
pression zone was employed successfully for the rst
time in the literature. In this way, it was possible to
trace lateral strains that can characterize the onset
of rupture of the FRP lamina during nonlinear anal-
ysis. Hence, the developed model can be regarded as a
pseudo three-dimensional ber-discretized frame ele-
ment approach.
(2) The developed computational model is capable of
tracing the load-deformation response of columns
having deciencies in splices and conning steel with
sucient accuracy. Furthermore, it is observed that
the presence of FRP retrot within the plastic hinge
region can be modeled accurately using the proposed
models.
(3) The deterministic sensitivity analysis results reveal
that for columns with lap splice deciencies, plastic
hinge length, splice length, concrete strength and
axial load level are the most important random vari-
ables that need to be considered in reliability studies.
On the other hand, for columns with FRP retrot,
stiness of the jacket and dilatation strain of concrete
at onset of bond failure are found to be important
sources of uncertainty.
The extensions of variable conned concrete model and
its validation with experimental results for cyclic loading
situations is needed in future studies. In this way, it will
be possible to simulate the demand and response more real-
istically by conducting nonlinear dynamic analysis together
276 B. Binici, K.M. Mosalam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 265276
with MVFOSM, which will help to establish performance
based design procedures for FRP retrots within a simpli-
ed probabilistic framework.
References
[1] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete conned by carbon
ber composite jackets. ASCE J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12(2):13946.
[2] Harries KA, Kharel G. Experimental investigation of the behavior of
variably conned concrete. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:87380.
[3] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP
conned concrete. Constr Build Mater 2003;17:47189.
[4] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Model of conned concrete by
ber composites. ASCE J Struct Eng 1998;124(9):102531.
[5] Sheikh SA, Yao G. Seismic behavior of concrete columns conned
with steel and ber-reinforced polymers. ACI Struct J
2002;99(1):7280.
[6] Iabucci RD, Sheikh SA, Bayrak O. Retrot of square concrete
columns with carbon ber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance.
ACI Struct J 2003;100(6):78594.
[7] Seible F, Priestley MJN, Hegemier GA, Innamorato D. Seismic
retrot of RC columns with continuous carbon ber jackets. ASCE J
Compos Constr 1997;1(2):5262.
[8] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Jin L. Seismic strengthening of
circular bridg pier models with ber composites. ACI Struct J
1996;93(6):63947.
[9] Xiao Y, Ma R. Seismic retrot of RC circular columns using
prefabricated composite jacketing. ASCE J Struct Eng
1997;123(10):135764.
[10] Lam L, Teng JG. Strength models for ber-reinforced plastic-
conned concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2002;128(5):61223.
[11] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strenghened RC
structures. New York: Wiley; 2002, p. 202.
[12] Binici B. An analytical model for stress-strain behavior of conned
concrete. Eng Struct 2005;27(7):104051.
[13] Kazunori F, Mindness S, Xu H. Analytical model for concrete
conned with ber reinforced polymer concrete. ASCE J Compos
Constr 2004;8(4):34151.
[14] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-conned concrete model. ASCE J
Compos Constr 1999;3(3):14350.
[15] Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou FC. Mixed formulation of nonlinear
beam nite element. Comput Struct 1996;58(1):7188.
[16] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model
for conned concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):180426.
[17] Pramono E, Willam K. Fracture-energy based plasticity formulation
of plain concrete. ASCE J Eng Mech 1985;115(8):1183204.
[18] Lee T-H, Mosalam KM. Probabilistic ber element modeling of
reinforced concrete structures. Comput Struct 2004;82(27):228599.
[19] Coleman J, Spacone E. Localization issues in nonlinear frame
elements. In: Shing B, Tanabe T, editors. Modeling of inelastic
behavior of RC structures under seismic loads; 2001. p. 40320.
[20] Clarke MJ, Hancock GJ. A study of incremental iterative strategies
for nonlinear analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1990;29:136591.
[21] Maekawa K, Pimanmas A, Okamura H. Nonlinear mechanics of
reinforced concrete. Spon Press; 2003, p. 721.
[22] Lu Y, Gu X, Guan J. Probabilistic drift limits and performance
evaluation of reinforced concrete columns. ASCE J Struct Eng
2005;131(6):96678.
[23] Nakamura H, Higai T, Localization issues in nonlinear frame
elements. In: Shing B, Tanabe T, editors. Modeling of inelastic
behavior of RC structures under seismic loads; 2001. p. 47187.
[24] Clemen RT. Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision
analysis. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury; 1996, p. 688.
[25] Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV. Sensitivity of building loss
estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra
2002;18(4):71943.
[26] Lee T-H, Mosalam KM. Sensitivity of seismic demand of a reinforced
concrete shear-wall building. Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering, ICASP9, San Francisco; July 69, 2003.
[27] Lee T-H, Mosalam KM. Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced
concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn; 2005;34(14):17191736.
[28] Mirza SA, MacGregor JG. Variability of mechanical properties of
reinforcing bars. ASCE J Struct Div 1979;105(ST5):92137.
[29] Mirza SA, Hatzinikolas M, MacGregor JG. Statistical description of
strength of concrete. ASCE J Struct Div 1979;105(ST6):102137.