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

net/publication/309133511

Retrofitting - Comparative study of RC jacketing and FRP wrapping

Article  in  International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 697

2 authors, including:

Ayush Srivastava
National Institute of Construction Management and Research
23 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Modal Analysis of RC slabs using StaadPro View project

MODAL ANANLYSIS @ IIT Kharagpur View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayush Srivastava on 14 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 7, Issue 5, September-October 2016, pp. 304–310, Article ID: IJCIET_07_05_033
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=5
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication

RETROFITTING – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RC

JACKETING AND FRP WRAPPING
Prathamesh Dingorkar and Ayush Srivastava
School of Construction Management, PGPACM, NICMAR, Pune, India.

ABSTRACT
Structures get dilapidated with time for which repairs is not feasible. Some structures cannot be
kept closed for longer downtime required for reconstruction. Retrofitting is the efficient method
which can be adopted to combat all these defiance. This article appends comparative study of
percentage increase in strength after adopting RC jacketing and FRP wrapping. Percentage increase
in strength achieved after RC jacketing and FRP wrapping is determined and compared. This study
is fruitful to gauge suitability of the two retrofitting methods for weakened structural members. The
study will be handy to help the structural engineer to decide which method of retrofitting should be
adopted for acquiring the required increase in strength.
Key words: Confinement, Ductility, FRP wrapping, RC jacketing, Retrofitting, Seismic
Performance.
Cite this Article: Prathamesh Dingorkar and Ayush Srivastava, Retrofitting – Comparative Study of
RC Jacketing and FRP Wrapping. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(5),
2016, pp.304–310.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=5

1. INTRODUCTION
The strengthening and enhancement of the performance of deficient structural elements or the structure as a
whole is referred to as retrofitting. Retrofitting aims at structural strengthening of a building after or before
an earthquake to a predefined performance. The seismic performance of a retrofitted building is superior to
that of the original building. It is, therefore, recommended that the existing deficient buildings be retrofitted
to improve their performance in the event of an earthquake and to avoid large scale damage to life and
property.

2. NEED OF RETROFITTING
Complete reconstruction would be a costly affair. The entire rehabilitation (redevelopment) of building
would cost much higher than the retrofitting cost. Historic monuments have to be maintained in their original
design with safety.

3. METHODS OF RETROFITTING
There are numerous methods of retrofitting available. Moreover there are a few upcoming methods of
retrofitting as well. But the most preferable, efficient and practiced methods are RC Jacketing and FRP
Wrapping

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 304 editor@iaeme.com

 Prathamesh Dingorkar and Ayush Srivastava

3.1. RC Jacketing
RC Jacketing aims at increasing capacity of the structure by increasing its stiffness, ductility and combination
of them. There are several options for jacketing of concrete. Out of them, most preferred one which is usually
adopted is to jacket concrete with longitudinal steel in the form of reinforcement and ties or welded wire
fabric. Jacketing is largely used as a strengthening scheme of a member. Following steps are followed to
determine the increase in strength.
Step 1 – Determine the strength of the column from the following equation with respect to IS 456: 2000
section 39.3
= 0.4 × × + 0.67 × × (1)
Where,
Fck= Characteristics compressive strength of the concrete
Ac = Area of concrete
Fy= Characteristics strength of compressive reinforcement
Asc= Area of longitudinal reinforcement for column
The deteriorated strength of concrete and steel is considered during the calculation of strength of column.
Step 2 – Compute the new Area of concrete (Ac’) and new area of steel (Asc’) after RC jacketing the column.
Step 3 – Calculate the new strength of column after increase in area of steel and concrete after RC jacketing
by using equation 1
= 0.4 × × + 0.67 × × (2)
Where,
Pu’= Strength of column after RC jacketing
Step 4:- Compute the percentage increase in the strength of the column after RC jacketing
Increasing in strength = (Pu’-Pu)
Increase in strength = {(Pu’-Pu) / Pu} × 100

3.2. Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Wrapping

FRP wrapping is a developed technique to increase the strength and ductility of damaged or under-designed
reinforced concrete structures. FRP provides effective confinement to concrete, achieving a significant
improvement in ductility. Its effectiveness is affected by number of parameters which include concrete
strength, level of axial compression, FRP sheet thickness or number of layers, and wrap angle. The
percentage increase in the strength of the member after FRP wrapping can be determined in accordance with
the guidelines provided in IS 15988: 2013. The axial strength of the columns wrapped with FRP can be
calculated based on Eq (1) with the replacement of fck by the compressive strength of confined concrete
f’cc.
= 0.4 × × + 0.67 × × (3)
= (1 + ) (4)
Where,
ωw = 2ƒlfrp / φc fck (Circular Columns)
ωw = ƒlfrp / φc fck (Square Columns)
ƒlfrp = 2Nb φfrp ƒfrpu tfrp / D g (Circular Columns)
ƒlfrp = 2Nb φfrp Efrp εfrp tfrp (b+h) / (bh) (Square Columns)
Where,
αpc = performance coefficient for circular columns

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 305 editor@iaeme.com

 Retrofitting – Comparative Study of RC Jacketing and FRP Wrapping

ωw = ratio of ultimate confinement stress due to FRP to concrete strength

ƒlfrp = ultimate confinement pressure due to FRP reinforcement in MPa
Nb = Number of layers of FRP
φfrp = Resistance factor for the FRP (=1 for laboratory conditions)
ƒfrpu = ultimate tensile strength of the FRP
tfrp = thickness of the FRP
Efrp = modulus of elasticity of FRP
εfrp = strain in FRP reinforcement (0.003, conservatively).
Compute the percentage increase in the strength of the column after FRP wrapping
Increase in strength = {(Pu’-Pu) / Pu} × 100

4. DETERMINATION OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY

1. Load carrying capacity (Pu) when constructed
For a column of size 230×350mm with 1% steel reinforcement,
Ag = 230×350 = 80500mm2
Asc = 805mm2
Ac = 80500-805 =79695mm2
Pu = 0.4×25×79695 + 0.67×415×805 (from eq.1)
Pu = 1020.78 kN
2. Load carrying capacity (Pu) after deterioration
Pu = 0.4×18.4×79695 + 0.67×415×805×0.3 (from eq.1)
( fck = 18.4 (deteriorated ) & 70% corrosion )
= 653.704 "

5. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN STRENGTH

1. Percentage increase in strength after jacketing

Maximum condition - (0.04% steel)

Providing 100mm jacketing on all sides
Area of jacket = (550×430) – (230×350) = 156000mm2
As = 0.04 % of Ag
= 0.04%×156000= 62.4 mm2
Ac = 156000 - 62.4 =155937.6mm2
Pu” = Pu + Pu’
= 653.704×103 + { ( 0.4×25×155937.6) + (0.67×415×62.4 ) }
Pu” = 2230.43 KN
Percentage increase in strength (original)
= { (2230.43 – 1020.78 )/1020.78 } × 100 = 118.5%
Increase (deteriorated) = 241.19%
Minimum condition – ( 0.015% steel )
Area of jacket = 156000mm2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 306 editor@iaeme.com

 Prathamesh Dingorkar and Ayush Srivastava

As = 0.015%×156000 = 23.4mm2
Ac = 156000 - 23.4 = 155976.6mm2
Pu” = Pu + Pu’
= 653.704×103 + { (0.4×25×155976.6 ) + (0.67×415×23.4 ) }
Pu” = 2219.976 KN
Percentage increase in strength (original)
= {(2219.976 – 1020.78) / 1020.78} × 100
= 117.478%
Percentage increase in strength (deteriorated) = 239.59 %

2. Percentage Increase in strength after FRP Wrapping

(For 2 layer of FRP)

Minimum condition - ( α= 0.67 )
Pu = ɸc×α×f’cc×( Ag – Ast ) + ɸs×fy×Ast
= 1×0.67×24.657×(80500-805) + 1×0.3×415×805
Pu = 1416.79 KN
Percentage increase in strength (× original)
= {(1416.79 – 1020.78)/1020.78} ×100
= 38.79%
Percentage increase in strength (deteriorated) = 116.73%
For Maximum condition
Pu = 1770.506 KN
Percentage increase in strength (original) = 73.45%
Percentage increase in strength (deteriorated) = 170.84%
(For 1 layer of FRP)
For minimum condition
Pu = 1249.724 KN
Percentage increase in strength (original) = 22.42%
% increase in strength (deteriorated) = 91.17%
For maximum condition
Pu = 1558.545 KN
Percentage increase in strength (original) = 52.68%
Percentage increase in strength (deteriorated) = 138.42%

6. COMPARISON OF INCREASE IN STRENGTH OF COLUMN

Illustrated table highlights the percentage increase in strength after RC jacketing and FRP wrapping, by the
aspects of minimum and maximum condition criteria.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 307 editor@iaeme.com

 Retrofitting – Comparative Study of RC Jacketing and FRP Wrapping

Table 1 Comparison of increase of strength between RC Jacketing and FRP wrapping

Minimum condition Maximum condition

Methods
Original Deteriorated Original Deteriorated

(0.015% steel in jacket) (0.04% steel in jacket)

RC Jacketing
117.478% 239.59% 118.5% 241.19%

(α=.67) (α=.85)
FRP Wrapping
(with 2 layers)
38.79% 116.73% 73.45% 170.84%

(α=.67) (α=.85)
FRP Wrapping
(with 1 layer)
22.42% 91.17% 52.68% 138.42%

Table 1 clearly demonstrates that increase in strength of column after RC Jacketing is much greater than
FRP wrapping for both minimum and maximum conditions.
The two bar charts below exhibits that increase in strength of column after RC Jacketing and FRP
wrapping in aspects of both minimum and maximum condition is particularly more for column with
deteriorated strength than column with original strength.

Figure 1 Graph for minimum condition

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 308 editor@iaeme.com

 Prathamesh Dingorkar and Ayush Srivastava

Figure 2 Graph for maximum condition

7. CONCLUSION
This article is fruitful to gauge suitability of the two retrofitting methods for weakened structural members.
The study will be handy to decide which method of retrofitting should be adopted for acquiring the required
increase in strength. Comparative study of percentage increase in strength depicted clearly that RC jacketing
exhibits higher percentage of increase in strength than FRP wrapping.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to present our sincere gratitude to Ms. Varsha Patil for her necessary encouragement and
valuable guidance throughout the project. Sincere thanks to Ms. Pranali Gagare, Ms. Sayalee Kadam and
Mr. Shubham Dhakate for their fruitful contributions for obtaining the results.

REFERENCE
[1] “Handbook on repair and retrofitting of RCC Buildings”, Central Public Works Department, Government
of India, 2002.

[2] “Guidelines for retrofitting of buildings”, Government of Tamil Nadu and United Nations Development
Program, 2006.

[3] Shah, V.L. and Gore, V. (2010), ‘Limit state design of steel structures”, Structures Publication, Pune,
Second Edition.

[4] Lu, X. (2010), “Retrofitting design of building structures”, CRC Press, Boca Raton, United States of
America.

[5] Mossallam, A. (2011), “Design guide for FRP composite connections”, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, United States of America.

[6] Singh, S.B. (2014), “Analysis and design of FRP reinforced concrete structures”, Tata McGraw Hill
Education, India, First Edition.

[7] Itani, R. and Liao, X., 2003, “Effects of retrofitting applications on reinforced concrete bridges”,
Washington State Transportation Commission.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 309 editor@iaeme.com

 Retrofitting – Comparative Study of RC Jacketing and FRP Wrapping

[8] Mukherjee, A. and Joshi, M.V., 2001, “Seismic retrofitting technique using fiber reinforced composites”,
Indian Concrete Journal.

[9] A.S Jeyabharathy, S.Veerasamy Chettiyar, Dr. S. Robert Ravi, Dr. G. Prince Arulraj, Finite Element
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints Retrofitted with GFRP Wrapping. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 2(1), 2011, pp.35–39.

[10] Esfahani et al, 2011, “Numerical investigation on the behavior of FRP retrofitted RC exterior beam-
column joints under cyclic loads”, IJST, Transactions of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

[11] Waghmare, P.B., 2011, “Materials and jacketing technique for retrofitting of structures”, International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies I.

[12] S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K. Shelar, Effect
of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of Building Resting on
Sloping Ground. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 7(3), 2016,
pp.373–384.

[13] IS 456: 2000, “Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - code of Practice”, BIS, New Delhi, 2000.

[14] IS 800:2007, “Indian Standard General Construction in Steel - code of Practice”, BIS, New Delhi, 2007.

[15] IS 15988: 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Guidelines”, BIS, New Delhi, 2013.

[16] Busel et al, 2007, “Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures”, ACI
Journal, 440R-07.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 310 editor@iaeme.com

View publication stats