Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness when strengthening

RC columns
Konstantinos G. Vandoros, Stephanos E. Dritsos *

University of Patras, Department of Civil Engineering, 26500, Patras, Greece

Received 14 February 2006; received in revised form 5 August 2006; accepted 30 August 2006
Available online 23 October 2006

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental investigation of the effectiveness of strengthening half height full size concrete columns by
placing concrete jackets. Three alternative methods of concrete jacketing are investigated and results are compared with results from
an original unstrengthened specimen and a monolithic specimen. The specimens were designed to represent typical ground floor col-
umns of a concrete frame building. The unstrengthened column and the original columns of the strengthened specimens were designed
to old 1950s Greek Codes. Poured concrete or shotcrete was used to construct the jackets of the strengthened specimens and, as per-
formed in practice, various other construction procedures were carried out in order to evaluate if it is worth performing the proce-
dures when considering the practical difficulties involved. These procedures involved 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 the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the
jacket. In order to investigate the lower limit of the effectiveness of the technique, the case of no treatment at the interface between
the original column and the jacket combined with the construction of a low strength cast in situ concrete jacket is examined. The same
cross sectional dimensions and amount of steel reinforcement were used for the strengthened specimens and a control monolithic spec-
imen. Earthquake simulation displacement controlled cyclic loading was used for the testing. The seismic performance of the tested
specimens is compared in terms of strength, stiffness and hysteretic response. The effectiveness of properly constructing concrete jack-
ets has been proved, as it was found that, under special conditions, an almost monolithic behaviour could be achieved. Even when the
jacket was constructed with no treatment at the interface, a significant strength and stiffness increase was observed. It was also found
that the failure mechanism and the observed crack patterns are influenced by the strengthening method. The separation of the jacket
from the original column was obvious in the case when there was no treatment or other connection means performed at the contact
interface between the column and the jacket. In addition, it was found that welding the jacket stirrup ends together stopped the
longitudinal bars of the jacket from buckling.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete columns; Shotcrete; Strengthening; Retrofitting; Jacket; Stirrup end welding; Dowels; Steel connectors and seismic performance

1. Introduction codes have been continually revised as knowledge has

It is known that many buildings designed to older codes
may be susceptible to serious damage during a large earth-
quake. Older buildings have been structurally designed for
much lower seismic actions when compared to buildings
that are designed today. This is because the relevant seismic
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2610 997780; fax: +30 2610 997575.
E-mail address: dritsos@upatras.gr (S.E. Dritsos).
increased. One popular solution to the problem of how
to strengthen old reinforced concrete (RC) structures is
to place jackets around the structural elements. Jackets
have been constructed using concrete, steel elements and
fibre-reinforced polymer composites. A variety of tech-
niques have been used to strengthening beams, columns
and joints by placing concrete jackets. Several experimental
studies [2,4–6,9–11,13,14] have been performed in order to
investigate the method. It has been shown that the method

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.019
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
improves the bending strength, the shear capacity, the stiff-
ness, the ductility and the axial load carrying capacity of
strengthened elements.
In practice, a variety of procedures are used to construct
concrete jackets around RC columns [7]. Although the
method has a widespread use, an experimental investiga-
tion that compares the different ways of executing the tech-
niques has not yet been reported.
The question to be answered was how the effectiveness
of the technique alters when common as used in practice
procedures are performed. These procedures include: (a)
using bent down bars to connect the jacket bars to the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement of the original column, (b) placing
dowels at the interface between the existing column and the
jacket, (c) welding together the jacket stirrup ends in order
to offset the unavoidable inability to fulfil construction
detailing requirements of existing codes and (d) the method
of application of the jacket material which may be sprayed
shotcrete concrete or poured concrete. Procedure (a) is a
traditional Greek practice and is shown in Fig. 1. This pro-
cedure is difficult to perform and it has been investigated in
order to examine if it is worthwhile practice. The other aim
of the present work was to investigate the lower limit of the
effectiveness of constructing concrete jackets. In practice, it
is not always possible to guarantee the quality control and
there is a need to investigate what happens when jackets
are constructed under the worst conditions. For this rea-
son, the procedure of no treatment at the interface between
the original column and the jacket in combination with the
Fig. 1. Bent down bars as used in practice.
265
construction of a low strength poured concrete jacket was
investigated.
2. Experimental work
Three different strengthening techniques were used to
construct half height full-scale ground floor columns. The
three techniques were: welding the jacket stirrup ends
together (denoted as N), placing dowels and jacket stirrup
end welding (denoted as E) and placing bent down steel
connector bars welded to the original column longitudinal
reinforcement bars and the respective bars of the jacket
(denoted as W). For all strengthened specimens, the surface
of the original column was not roughening in order to elim-
inate the influence of roughening when assessing the effec-
tiveness of the methods. Poured concrete was used for
specimens N and E and shotcrete was used for specimen
W. Initially for each specimen, as shown in Fig. 2, an ori-
ginal column was constructed on a strong foundation.
The concrete for each original column and foundation
was placed at the same time. The original columns were
designed to simulate usual detailing deficiencies. These defi-
ciencies were the use of mild steel reinforcement, widely
spaced stirrups and inadequate hooks at the ends of the
stirrups.
The foundation of every specimen was heavily rein-
forced. The reinforcement consisted of 16 mm diameter
grade S500 bars spaced at every 150 mm in three directions.
The dimensions of the foundations were 1400 mm by
780 mm by 650 mm (Fig. 2).
The procedure and detailing used to manufacture each
original column was identical to that of an unstrengthened
specimen (denoted as O) that was constructed for a previ-
ous study at the Structural Laboratory of the Department
of Civil Engineering at the University of Patras [3]. As
shown in Fig. 3, the original columns had cross sectional
dimensions of 250 mm by 250 mm. Four 14 mm diameter
grade S220 bars were used for the longitudinal reinforce-
1800 mm
N
1400 mm
575 250 575
250 265
780 mm
650 mm
W E
265
S 1400 mm
Plan Facade N and S
Fig. 2. Original column.
266 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276

200 mm
100 Φ10/100 (S500) Φ 20 (S500)
m m

20

75 mm

1600 mm
10 55
Jacket

1300 mm
250 mm
230
20 55 10
Original column

75 mm
Φ14 (S220) Φ 8/200 (S220)

a) Cross-section b) Facade S and N

Fig. 3. Geometrical characteristics of the strengthened elements.

ment and each bar was anchored in the foundation by
using 180 hooks. Stirrups of 8 mm diameter grade S220
bars were spaced at every 200 mm and the stirrup ends
were 90 hooks. The concrete cover was 10 mm. In order
to apply the horizontal load, the tops of the columns were
locally strengthened. Four 18 mm diameter grade S500
bars and 8 mm diameter grade S220 stirrups at 100 mm
spacing were used for the local strengthening. In addition,
a 10 mm diameter grade S500 U-shaped bar was placed in
each side. In order to attach the horizontal displacement
actuator, 40 mm diameter plastic pipes were placed near
the top of each column.
For all strengthened specimens, the thickness of the
jacket of was 75 mm and there was no special treatment
at the interface between the original column and the jacket.
The reinforcement for each jacket consisted of four longi-
tudinal 20 mm diameter grade S500 bars and 10 mm diam-
eter grade S500 stirrups spaced at every 100 mm. In
general, it was not possible to form 135 hooks at the ends
of the stirrups, since the original column impeded the
hooks and the jacket stirrup ends were bent in towards
the concrete core as far as possible. In some cases, as
described below in more detail, the stirrup ends were
welded together to ensure their anchorage. The concrete
cover of the jacket was 20 mm. The longitudinal bars of
the jacket were placed from the beginning. They were
anchored in the foundation by using 200 mm long 90
hooks. Each jacket was constructed to a height of
1300 mm above the foundation. After casting the jacket,
the final dimensions of the cross section were 400 mm by
400 mm. One month after casting the concrete of the origi-
nal column, the jacket stirrups were placed and the jacket
was constructed by using either shotcrete or cast in situ
concrete.
The monolithic specimen had the same cross sectional
dimensions and the same longitudinal and stirrup rein-
forcement as the strengthened specimens (Fig. 3).
The mechanical characteristics of the s teel used for all
specimens are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the
mean value of the cylindrical concrete strength on the
day of testing for all specimens.
The construction detailing of the jackets was different
for each strengthened specimen. For specimen N, the ends
of the four lowest stirrups of the jacket were welded
together. The weld length was 50 mm, as shown in Fig. 4.
For specimen E, holes of 22 mm diameter were drilled in
every side of the original column at heights of 200 mm,
700 mm and 1200 mm above the foundation. A special

Table 1
Steel characteristics
Element Steel grade Bar diameter Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa)
Original column Longitudinal reinforcement S220 U14 313.0 441.7
Stirrups S220 U8 425.4 596.3
Jacket Longitudinal reinforcement S500 U20 487.1 657.0
Stirrups S500 U10 599.2 677.2
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 267

Table 2 Table 3
Concrete strengths Strengthened specimens characteristics
Specimen N E W O M Specimen N E W
Original column concrete strength (MPa) 27.0 36.8 22.9 27.0 24.7 Jacket concrete Poured Poured Shotcrete
Jacket concrete strength (MPa) 17.8 24.0 18.8 – – Dowels No Yes No
Bent down bars No No Yes
Stirrup ends welding Yes Yes No

corner of the specimen at heights of 250 mm, 700 mm and

1100 mm above the foundation. In total, 12 steel connec-
tors were placed. The placement procedure of the steel con-
50 mm

nectors was as follows: the corner concrete cover of the

original column was chipped off until the original column
bar was revealed, the steel connector was first welded to

360 mm
the original column bar (at one point) and then to the
jacket bar (at two points). As also shown in Fig. 5, each
weld length was 70 mm, which was 5 times the diameter
of the thinnest bar to be welded together. Welding was per-
formed only on one side of the bars.
Table 3 presents a summary of the characteristics of the
strengthened specimens.
360 mm

Fig. 4. Welded jacket stirrup geometry. 3. Test procedure

The same test procedure was used for all specimens.

resin was injected into the holes before placing 20 mm
Each specimen was first moved to the testing area and
diameter grade S500 L-shaped dowels of dimensions
anchored to a strong floor. A hydraulic jack and an IPE
150 mm by 100 mm. The long branch of the dowel was
600 steel beam were used to apply a constant axial load
placed 100 mm into the holes and, after placing, protruded
to the top of each specimen. Each test was initiated by
50 mm from the original column. The dowels were placed
applying a displacement controlled horizontal cyclic load
after the jacket stirrups had been placed. In addition, the
to the top of the unjacketed part of the column. The lateral
ends of the four lowest stirrups of the jacket were welded
displacement of the column was also measured at this
together, as was performed for specimen N.
point. A testing sequence, similar to one used in other tests
For specimen W, special bent down steel connectors
at the Structural Laboratory of the University of Patras,
were welded between the longitudinal reinforcement bars
consisted of imposing a displacement of 5 mm for the first
of the original column and the jacket. The steel connectors
cycle and then increasing the displacement by 5 mm for all
were 16 mm diameter (grade S500) reinforcement bars, as
further cycles. The applied displacement for each test is
shown in Fig. 5. The steel connectors were placed in every
shown in Fig. 6 and was applied in the E-W direction
(Fig. 2 above). The test set up is presented in Fig. 7.
Original column Jacket bar
bar 150

welding
70 mm 100
150 mm

5o
13

Displacement (mm)

50

welding
70 mm
100 mm

-50
welding
150 mm

70 mm
-100

-150
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cycle number

Fig. 5. Bent down steel connector geometry. Fig. 6. Lateral displacement history.
268 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
Fig. 7. Test set up.
The normalized axial load ratio for the strengthened
specimens was calculated from the following expression:
Ni
mi ¼
ðAco  fco Þ þ ðAcj  fcj Þ
The normalized axial load ratio for specimens O and M
was calculated using the following equation:
Ni
mi ¼
Aco  fco
where:
Ni is the initial applied axial load,
Aco is the cross sectional area of original concrete
(400 · 400 mm2 for specimen M and
250 · 250 mm2 for specimens NT, E, W and O),
Acj is the cross sectional area of the jacket concrete for
specimens N, E and W,
fco is the concrete strength of the original or the
monolithic column on the day of testing and
fcj is the concrete strength of the jacket on the day of
testing for the strengthened specimens NT, E and
W.
The initial applied axial load for the strengthened spec-
imens was 720.0 kN, 860.0 kN and 640.0 kN for specimens
N, E and W respectively and the applied axial load for
specimen M was 800.0 kN. These values correspond to ini-
tial normalized axial load ratios of 0.20, 0.21, 0.19 and 0.20
for specimens N, E, W and M respectively. Specimen O
was tested by other researchers [3], who used an initial
applied load of 680.0 kN. Due to the test setup, the axial
load increased and decreased during testing. As shown in
Fig. 6, the axial load was applied using a hydraulic jack,
which was placed between the top of the specimen and
an IPE 600 steel beam. During the cyclic loading, as the
specimen swayed, an increasing additional axial load was
imposed via the tendons that held the IPE 600 beam in
place. This resulted in an axial load that was not constant
during the test. For specimens N, E and W respectively, the
actual axial load ranged from 720.0 to 770.0 kN, 860.0 to
950.0 kN and 640.0 to 830.0 kN. The range of the actual
axial load for specimen M was 800.0–1050 kN and the
range for specimen O was from 680.0 to 690.0 kN.
According to EC 2 [8], the theoretical maximum flexural
strength of the strengthened specimens, if considered as
monolithic, was found to be 255.5 kN m, 284.0 kN m and
260.0 kN m for specimens N, E and W respectively. These
values correspond to a lateral force of 159.7 kN, 177.5 kN
and 162.5 kN for specimens N, E and W respectively. The
theoretical shear strengths were found to be 372.5 kN,
382.4 kN and 365.6 kN for specimens N, E and W respec-
tively. For the monolithic specimen, the maximum theoret-
ical flexural strength was found to be 301.0 kN m, which
corresponds to a lateral force equal to 188.1 kN. In addi-
tion, the theoretical shear strength was found to be
367.8 kN. Therefore, it would be expected that the
strengthened and the monolithic specimens would fail
due to bending.
4. Test results
4.1. Strengthened specimens
The failure mechanism of the strengthened specimens
was not the same for all specimens. The typical damage
sequence was as follows: horizontal cracks occurred at
the beginning at the lower part of the column just above
the foundation and then the cover spalled. After this point,
for specimens N and E, the bond between the jacket and
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 269

the original column weakened and extensive damage to the
jacket was observed. For specimen W, the stirrup hook
ends opened, the longitudinal bars buckled and, finally, a
longitudinal bar fractured.
4.1.1. Specimen N
The lateral load against displacement curve for specimen
N is shown in Fig. 8.
Horizontal cracks appeared quite early when the dis-
placement was 10 mm. During the next cycle, horizontal
cracks were observed 200 mm and 600 mm above the foun-
dation and the first diagonal crack appeared on side S,
350 mm above the foundation. When the displacement
was 25 mm, further horizontal cracks were observed and
diagonal cracks occurred on side N. In addition, during
this cycle, cracks parallel to the longitudinal bars were
200
N
150
100
50
Load (kN)
observed, which indicated a loss of bond between the bars
and the jacket. At the same time, cracks appeared at the
top of the jacket. During the next cycles, cracks occurred
over the whole jacket length and crack widths increased.
When the displacement was 60 mm, as shown in Fig. 9, a
crack at the top of the jacket on side N became very wide,
indicating that there was a complete loss of bond, and
therefore interaction, between the original column and
the jacket. This is obvious by the fact that at this point
the specimen developed its maximum strength and, from
the next cycle onwards, the strength quickly degraded.
The test was terminated when the displacement was
80 mm because of strength degradation and extensive
jacket damage. The maximum strength of the specimen
was 149.8 kN. When the test was ended, the strength had
reduced to 58% of the maximum. After the test, the condi-
tion of the jacket was very bad. Cracks had occurred on all
four sides of the specimen and over the whole jacket height.
The separation of the jacket from the original column was
obvious. The jacket reinforcement bars did not buckle
because the stirrup ends were welded together. After reach-
ing the maximum strength, there was a sudden drop in
strength, which was due to the separation of the jacket
from the original column. The loss of bond between the

0 jacket and the original column resulted in all the damage

-50
being restricted to the jacket, while the original column
remained undamaged.
-100 The crack patterns observed on the sides of the specimen
-150
are presented in Fig. 10. The hatched areas represent areas
where the concrete had spalled.
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
4.1.2. Specimen E
Displacement (mm)
The lateral load against displacement curve for specimen
Fig. 8. Load against displacement curve for specimen N. E is presented in Fig. 11.

Fig. 9. Crack patterns when the displacement was 60 mm.

270 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
Push
E S
Fig. 10. Crack patterns for specimen N after testing.
200
150
100
50
Load (kN)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 11. Load against displacement curve for specimen E.
The first horizontal cracks were observed when the dis-
placement was 20 mm, 300 mm above the foundation. Dur-
ing the next cycle, additional horizontal cracks appeared
on sides W and E. These cracks also developed into diago-
nal cracks on other two sides (N and S). At the same time,
cracks parallel to the jacket reinforcement occurred and the
concrete above the foundation of the specimen began to
crush. When the displacement was 45 mm, a horizontal
crack was observed at the base of the jacket. As the loading
increased, the horizontal and diagonal cracks also
increased, crossed each other and resulted in an ineffective-
ness of the jacket concrete, as shown in Fig. 12. The widths
of the cracks became larger and cracks were observed at the
top of the jacket, as with specimen N, except the cracks had
a smaller width. The bond between the original column and
the jacket was not good but was better than that of speci-
men N, due to the presence of the dowels. Finally, the test
Pull Push Pull
W N
E
100 150
Fig. 12. Crack patterns of specimen E during testing.
was terminated when the displacement was 100 mm. The
maximum strength of the specimen was 162.7 kN and,
when the test was ended, the strength was 66% of the max-
imum. The damage of the jacket was quite extensive on all
four sides but the damage did not extend to the original
column due to the loss of bond between the jacket and
the original column. No bar buckling was observed and
this can be mainly attributed to the fact that the welded
stirrups did not open.
Fig. 13 presents the crack patterns that were observed
on the four sides of the specimen.
4.1.3. Specimen W
The plot of the lateral load against displacement for
specimen W is shown in Fig. 14.
The first horizontal crack was observed when the dis-
placement was 15 mm, at the base of the jacket. During
the next cycles, new horizontal cracks appeared. When the
displacement was 25 mm, cracks parallel to the jacket rein-
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
Push
E S
Fig. 13. Crack patterns for specimen E after testing.
200
150
100
Bar fracture
50
Load (kN)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 14. Load against displacement curve for specimen W.
forcement bars were observed. No new cracks occurred
until the displacement was 50 mm but the width of existing
cracks increased. At that time, the concrete started to crush
and the crack at the base of the jacket was so wide that the
lower jacket stirrup could be seen. After this cycle, new
cracks were observed on all four sides of the specimen but
their width was minimal and therefore, the concrete jacket
remained effective. When the displacement was 70 mm,
the first stirrup opened and when the displacement was
75 mm the first jacket bar buckled in the NW corner. Dur-
ing the next cycle, both bars on the E side and the bar in the
SW corner also buckled. As shown in Fig. 15, when the dis-
placement was 100 mm, the NW corner jacket bar frac-
tured. The test was terminated when the displacement was
105 mm. The maximum strength of the specimen was
145.1 kN and the remaining strength at the end of the test
was 69% of the maximum. The bond between the jacket
271
Pull Push Pull
W N
W
100 150
Fig. 15. Damaged region of specimen W.
and the original column was very good and was significantly
better than that of specimens N and E. This can be attrib-
uted to the use of shotcrete rather than cast insitu concrete.
The final condition of the jacket was very good and the
damage was limited to the lower part of the jacket, as also
shown in Fig. 14. No obvious cracks were observed above
this part of the jacket. The jacket after the testing was in
much better condition than that of specimens N and E.
It is worth noting that sides S and N of the jacket, which
were parallel to the loading direction, had less cracks than
sides W and E. The side crack patterns are presented in
Fig. 16.
4.2. Control specimens
4.2.1. Specimen M
Fig. 17 presents the lateral load against displacement
curve for the monolithic specimen that served as one of
the control specimens.
272 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276

Push Pull Push Pull

Bar fracture

E S W N
Fig. 16. Side crack patterns for specimen W.

200 200
M O
150 150

100 100

50 50
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150

-200 -200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17. Load against displacement curve for the monolithic specimen. Fig. 18. Load against displacement curve for the unstrengthened
specimen.

The specimen failed due to bending. The test was termi-

nated when the displacement was 100 mm because the
strength of the specimen had significantly reduced. The
maximum strength of the specimen was 179.0 kN and, at
the end of the test, the strength of the specimen had
degraded to 56% of the maximum. The external reinforce-
ment bars did not fracture and no stirrup damage was
observed. Damage was limited to the plastic hinge zone just
above the base of the column. The specimen held its max-
imum strength for many cycles and then there was a steady
strength reduction. This indicated the good ductility of the
specimen.
4.2.2. Specimen O
Results for an unstrengthened specimen have been taken
from a previous study [3] and are presented here for com-
parison purposes. The load against displacement curve
for the unstrengthened specimen (specimen O) is shown
in Fig. 18.
For the unstrengthened specimen, the maximum
strength was 43.5 kN and, at the end of the test, the
strength of the specimen had degraded to 50% of the max-
imum. Further details about the behaviour of the
unstrengthened specimen can be found elsewhere [3].
5. Discussion
Fig. 19 presents the load against displacement envelopes
for the five specimens. It can be seen from Fig. 19 that there
is no significant difference between the responses in the pull-
ing and the pushing directions. The following discussion
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
200
150
100
50
Load (kN)
0 Fig. 19 above, it can be seen that the maximum strength
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 19. Load against displacement envelopes for all specimens.
refers to pushing direction, but it must be noted that the
comments made here are also valid for the pulling direction.
Table 4 summarises the test results. For Table 4, the
yield load, Py, and the corresponding displacement, dy,
have been obtained by performing a bilinear idealization
of the experimental capacity curves of the specimens. In
order to establish a bilinear idealization, the rule of equal
energy under the capacity curve has been adopted in a sim-
ilar way to that described in ATC 40 [1], so that the total
energy up to the maximum force is the same for both the
experimental curve and the bilinear idealization. Values
of Pmax are the recorded maximum values of the applied
lateral load, while dmax are the corresponding displace-
ments. The failure load, Pu, is defined as the lateral load
that is 20% less than Pmax and the failure displacement,
du, corresponds to this failure load.
By comparing the results of the strengthened specimens
to the unstrengthened specimen, it is obvious that concrete
jacketing offers a significant enhancement to the structural
characteristics (stiffness, strength and displacement capac-
ity) of RC elements.
From Table 4, the maximum strength of the strength-
ened specimens N, E and W were 3 to 4 times greater than
the maximum strength of the unstrengthened specimen. At
the maximum load stage, the displacements of the strength-
ened specimens E and W were more than two times greater
than the corresponding displacement of the unstrengthened
specimen, while the displacement of specimen N was lower
than of the unstrengthened specimen.
Table 4
Test results
Specimen Py dy Pmax
(kN) (mm) (kN)
N 95.2 6.1 149.8
E 142.0 7.7 162.7
W 120.4 8.5 145.1
M 148.4 6.2 179.0
O 32.5 8.9 43.5
273
Specimen N was designed to prove the effectiveness of
the method by reproducing an element strengthened by a
jacket constructed under the worst possible construction
conditions (no special preparation of the surface of the ori-
F4
ginal column, no dowels or other steel connectors and a
low strength poured concrete jacket). From Table 4 and
F2
of specimen N was 3.44 times greater than that of the
unstrengthened specimen. This finding demonstrates the
importance of jacketing.
M
N
From Table 4, when comparing strengths at the yield
E
W point stage, the strengths of specimens N, E and W were
O
35.8%, 4.3% and 18.9% respectively less than that for the
100 150 monolithic specimen. At the maximum and ultimate load
stages, these values were 16.3%, 9.1% and 18.9%
respectively.
As was expected, specimen N exhibited the lowest
improvement in structural characteristics (when comparing
the strengthened specimens). However, it must be stressed
that, up to the maximum load stage, the differences were
negligible. After this stage, large variations can be observed
as far as the deformation capacity is concerned and this in
turn led to a poor ductility performance and a premature
failure. The maximum strength of specimen N occurred
when the displacement was 20 mm, which was much earlier
than that of the other strengthened specimens. Moreover,
after reaching its maximum strength, this specimen did
not maintain its strength for further cycles, which resulted
in an earlier failure when compared to the other two
strengthened specimens. The maximum strength of speci-
men N was similar to that of specimen W (which also
had a low jacket concrete strength) but was significantly
lower than that of specimen E. This poor behaviour as
far as the ductility is concerned, may be attributed to the
poor interface connection. The poor performance of spec-
imen N cannot be considered as acceptable in earthquake
loading situations.
Specimen W experienced very good ductility even
though the jacket concrete strength was low and there
was no special preparation at the interface (as was the same
for specimen N). This demonstrates the significant contri-
bution of the steel bent down connectors.
The control specimen M achieved the largest maximum
load capacity and had good deformability and high ductil-
ity as, after reaching the maximum load, the specimen kept
its strength for several further loading cycles. Specimens E
and W performed in a similar way to the monolithic spec-
imen by exhibiting the same deformation capacities, but
they had lower strengths and stiffnesses. As specimen E
was constructed without the beneficial action of sprayed
dmax Pu du concrete and without any special preparation of the surface
(mm) (kN) (mm) of the original column, the good performance of specimen
18.2 119.8 59.5 E, in relation to specimen W, could be attributed to the
44.2 130.1 87.4 guaranteed anchorage of the stirrup ends by welding and
44.6 116.0 92.9 to the presence of dowels at the interface.
33.3 143.2 79.6 For comparison reasons, the results of two composite
19.7 34.8 32.6
specimens [12] have been added to Fig. 19. The original
274 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
columns of these two specimens (denoted as F2 and F4)
were constructed in the same way as the original columns
of the present work. The only differences were that
strengthen was performed by placing two layer (F2) and
four layer (F4) carbon fibre reinforced polymer, CFRP,
fabrics around the original columns and the corners of col-
umns were rounded to avoid tearing the fabric. A commer-
cially available CFRP fabric was used and the
manufactures state that the fabric has the following charac-
teristics: a thickness of 0.13 mm, a Young’s modulus of
230 GPa, a tensile strength of 3450 MPa and an ultimate
deformation of 1.5%.
From Fig. 19, it can be seen that placing concrete jack-
ets, rather than CFRP fabrics, improves the ductility and
considerably improves the strength and the stiffness of
the strengthened specimens when compared to the original
column. On the other hand, strengthening using CFRP
fabrics considerably improves the ductility since, after
reaching the maximum load, it can be seen that the strength
degradation was lower when compared to the concrete
jacket strengthened specimens.
Fig. 20 presents the stiffness degradation of the
specimens.
Fig. 21 demonstrates how the stiffness, K, was calcu-
lated for every loading cycle by using the following
equation:
Kþ þ K
K¼
2
where; K is the mean stiffness of the specimen for each cy-
cle; K+,K is the mean stiffness in the pulling and the push-
ing direction respectively. These stiffnesses are calculated
by dividing the maximum strength of each cycle by the cor-
responding maximum displacement.
It can be seen from Fig. 20 that the monolithic specimen
has the highest stiffness throughout the entire testing pro-
cess. In addition, the stiffnesses of the strengthened speci-
mens are quite close to the monolithic. However,
specimen N experienced the highest stiffness degradation.
18
16
14
12
Stiffness (kN/mm)
10
8 shotcrete for constructing the jacket. As the displacement
6
4 degradation. This mechanism is the same for all the
2
0 ness degradation of all the strengthened specimens.
0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 20. Stiffness against displacement envelopes for all specimens.
Load
K+
Displacement
K-
Fig. 21. Stiffness definition for every cycle.
The improvement in stiffness is obvious when comparing
the strengthened specimens to the unstrengthened column,
even in the case of specimen N. At all stages of testing, for
the same imposed displacement, the stiffness of all the
strengthened specimens is more than three times greater
than the stiffness of the unstrengthened specimen. It must
be noted that, at the failure stage, the stiffness of specimen
N was almost 2 times greater than that of the unstrength-
ened specimen.
When comparing the strengthened specimens, specimen
E has the highest stiffness and it was the closest to the
monolithic specimen. This can be attributed to (a) the
higher concrete strength of specimen E and (b) minor
cracking of the interface of specimen W, which occurred
when the cover was chipped off in order to weld the bent
down steel connectors. The initial stiffnesses of specimens
E and W were found to be 14.9% and 26.6% respectively
lower than that of the monolithic specimen. It is worth
mentioning that both specimens experienced a lower stiff-
ness degradation rate than the monolithic specimen. This
is in agreement with the observed better ductility of these
specimens, when compared to the monolithic specimen.
Specimen N had the worst behaviour although its initial
M
N stiffness was only 12.7% lower than the initial stiffness of
E
W
O
the monolithic specimen. The specimen lost its stiffness fas-
Failure stage
ter than the other strengthened specimens and resulted in
the lowest final stiffness. This can be attributed to a lack
of any interface connection between the jacket and the ori-
ginal column and to the use of poured concrete rather than
increases, the bond between the jacket and the original col-
umn is lost and slippage occurs, which results in stiffness
strengthened specimens. As specimen NT had the worst
connection at the interface, this specimen had fastest stiff-
100 120
The dissipated energy rates and the corresponding
cumulative dissipated energy rates for all specimens are
presented in Figs. 22 and 23 respectively. As can be seen
 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276 275

20 of specimens N and E from Figs. 22 and 23, without doubt,

18 the significantly superior performance of specimen E can
Dissipated energy per cycle (kN*m)

be concluded. This can be attributed to the presence of

16
the dowels at the contact surface of specimen E, since this
14 is the main difference from specimen N.
12 Specimen W performed better than specimen E since the
10
use of shotcrete rather than poured concrete for the jacket
resulted in higher cohesion at the interface and more fric-
8
tion due to the aggregate interlock mechanism between
6 the smaller shotcrete aggregate and the surface of the origi-
4
M
N
nal column. Moreover, the bent down bars acted as an
E
W additional energy dissipation mechanism. For these rea-
2 O

Failure stage
sons, as it can be observed from Figs. 22 and 23, for nearly
0 all stages of loading, specimen W performed better than the
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cycle monolithic specimen.
By looking globally at the results and by taking into
Fig. 22. Dissipated energy rate for all specimens.
account previous findings [14,15], a number of construction
details can be suggested for practical applications. Firstly,
in order to strengthen an element, some form of jacketing
treatment is required. In the case where it is not possible
180
to form adequate 135 angles at the ends of the stirrups,
due to the obstruction of the original column, the stirrup
Cumulative dissipated energy (kN*m)

160
ends must be welded together. The use of shotcrete rather
140
than poured concrete is the preferred option but shotcrete
120 requires the use of specialist staff and equipment. The
100
placement of bent down steel connector bars is a worth-
while practice although the procedure is difficult to perform
80 in practice. If bent down steel connector bars are not used
60 for practicality reasons, the alternative of placing dowels at
the interface is acceptable. Strengthening by using concrete
M
40 N
E
jacket techniques considerably increases the stiffness and
20
W
O the strength of columns while strengthening by using
Failure stage CFRPs considerably increases the ductility. Finally, the
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 experiments detailed in this paper have been carried out
Displacement (mm) under laboratory controlled conditions. The engineer can
only expect to achieve similar results on site by performing
Fig. 23. Cumulative dissipated energy for all specimens.
a very high level of quality control.

6. Conclusions
from Fig. 22, during the initial stages of loading, all
strengthened specimens dissipated energy in a similar way This paper has presented an investigation of the effec-
as the monolithic specimen. However, after the 7th cycle, tiveness of using alternative techniques to place concrete
a faster degradation of the dissipated energy capacity is jackets in order to strengthen concrete columns. Three dif-
observed for specimens E and N. For these two specimens, ferent jacket construction procedures were used. These
since no roughening at the interface was performed and were: (a) welding of the jacket stirrup ends and a poured
shotcrete was not used for the jacket, there was very little concrete jacket (specimen N), (b) welding of the jacket stir-
cohesion between the jacket and the original column. It rup ends, dowel placement at the interface and a poured
appears that, after the 6th cycle, since the imposed dis- concrete jacket (specimen E) and (c) bent down bars con-
placement increases, the slippage at the interface increases, necting the jacket bars to the longitudinal bars of the origi-
resulting in the loss of cohesion and a gradual separation nal column and a shotcrete jacket. In addition, for
(cycle by cycle) of the jacket from the original column. comparative purposes, the results from two specimens
Therefore, the contribution of friction at the interface to strengthened by using CFRPs have been presented.
the dissipation of energy is reduced. As expected, for the It has been demonstrated that the behaviour of elements
strengthened specimens, specimen N performed the worst. can be significantly improved by strengthening, even when
Nevertheless, the dissipated energy of specimen N, at the the jacket is constructed with no treatment at the interface.
failure stage, was almost 10 times greater than that of the In effect, a lower limit to the effectiveness of the method has
unstrengthened specimen. When comparing the behaviour been set. In this case, a significant reduction in the ductility
276 K.G. Vandoros, S.E. Dritsos / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 264–276
and the dissipated energy capacity can be expected, when
compared to the other strengthening procedures. On the
other hand, as far as load capacity and initial stiffness are
concerned, the influence of the connection means is less sig-
nificant, providing that the anchorage of the stirrup ends
can be guaranteed by welding them together. When com-
paring specimen N to the unstrengthened specimen, speci-
men N achieved 3.44 times higher maximum load capacity
and, at the failure stage, specimen N had 2 times higher
stiffness and was 10 times better at dissipating energy.
It was found that, in general, the strengths and the stiff-
nesses of the strengthened specimens were lower than that
of the respective monolithic element. The strengths of spec-
imens N, E and W at the yield point stage were respectively
35.8%, 4.3% and 18.9% less than that of the monolithic
specimen. At the maximum and ultimate load stages, these
values were respectively 16.3%, 9.1% and 18.9%. The
respective initial stiffnesses were found to be 12.7%,
14.9% and 26.6% lower than the initial stiffness of the
monolithic specimen. However, when special bent down
steel connectors were used to connect the original column
reinforcement bars to the jacket reinforcement bars, the
energy dissipation rate was higher than that of the mono-
lithic specimen. Therefore, as far as energy dissipation
capacity is concerned, this technique, in combination with
a shotcrete jacket, seems to be the most effective.
In the case of thin jackets where the configuration of
135 hooks at the ends of the stirrups is impeded by the
existing column, a significant improvement in the structural
behaviour of the column can be achieved by welding of the
stirrup ends together. In addition, welding the stirrup ends
together stops the stirrups from opening and, in turn, the
longitudinal bars of the jacket do not buckle, resulting to
better maximum load capacity. Therefore, as far as maxi-
mum load capacity is concerned, the disadvantage of using
a poured concrete jacket instead of a shotcrete jacket can
be offset by welding the stirrup ends together.
The failure mechanism and the observed crack patterns
are influenced by the strengthening method. The separation
of the jacket from the original column was obvious in the
case where there was no treatment or other connection
means performed at the contact interface between the col-
umn and the jacket.
It has been demonstrated that placing concrete jackets
around columns considerably increases the strength and
the stiffness while placing CFRPs considerably increases
the ductility.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Dr V. J. Moseley for his
invaluable help during the preparation of this manuscript.
References
[1] ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.
Applied Technology Council, California, USA, 1996, vol. 1.
[2] Bett BJ, Klingner RE, Jirsa JO. Lateral load response of strengthened
and repaired reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J ACI
1988;85(5):499–508.
[3] Bousias S, Spathis AL, Fardis MN. Seismic retrofitting of columns
with lap-splices via RC jackets. In: Proc of 13th World Conf
Earthquake Eng 2004. Vancouver, Canada: Paper No. 1937.
[4] Chronopoulos M, Scarpas A, Tassios TP. Response of original and
repaired reinforced concrete joints under cyclic imposed deforma-
tions. In: Proc of 10th Eur Conf Earthquake Eng, 1994. Vienna,
Austria: p. 2261–7.
[5] Dritsos SE, Taylor CA, Vandoros KG. Seismic strengthening of
reinforced concrete structures by concrete jacketing. In: Proc of 7th
Int Conf Struct Faults Repair, 1997. Edinburgh, UK: vol. 3, p. 391–
402.
[6] Dritsos SE, Vandoros KG, Taylor CA. Shaking table tests on a
retrofitted, small scale, reinforced concrete model. In: Proc of 6th
SECED Conference on Seismic Design Practice into the next century.
UK: Oxford; 1998. p. 525–33.
[7] Dritsos SE. Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete struc-
tures., Patras, Greece, 2001, [in Greek].
[8] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). European (draft)
Standard EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures -
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels, Belgium,
2004.
[9] Ersoy U, Tankut AT, Suleiman R. Behaviour of jacketed columns.
ACI Struct J ACI 1993;90(3):288–93.
[10] Gomes AM, Appleton J. Repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete elements under cyclic loading. Proc of 11th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, 1998, CD
Proceedings.
[11] Rodriguez M, Park R. Seismic load tests of reinforced concrete
columns strengthened by jacketing. ACI Struct J ACI
1994;91(2):150–9.
[12] Spathis AL. Experimental investigation of concrete structure seismic
strengthening’’, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Patras, Greece.2006, [In Greek].
[13] Tsonos AG. Lateral load response of strengthened reinforced
concrete beam-to-column joints. ACI Struct J ACI 1999;96(1):
46–56.
[14] Vandoros KG. ‘‘Experimental investigation of the behaviour of
columns strengthened with reinforced concrete jackets, under cyclic
loads’’, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Patras, Greece, 2005. [In Greek].
[15] Vandoros KG, Dritsos SE. Interface treatment in shotcrete jacketing
of reinforced concrete columns to improve seismic performance.
Struct Eng Mechan J 2006;23(1):43–61.