!

"

Ministry of Housing, Utilities

& Urban Communities

Housing & Building

Research Center

BEHAVIOR OF AXIALLY LOADED SQUARE RC COLUMNS

CONFINED WITH SANDWICH FRP WRAPS.
KH. MAHMOUD
Arab Swiss Engineering Company (ASEC), Egypt, khaledma@link.net
E. FOUAD,
Housing & Building Research Center (H.B.R.C), Cairo, Egypt
M.O. RAMADAN AND A. ABD-ELALIM
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Banha Branch, Egypt
ABSTRACT: The behavior of retrofitted concrete columns wrapped by FRP sheets
opens the way to a new powerful strengthening technique by the end of the twentieth
century. Twelve square RC columns with dimensions 200X200X1500mm were tested.
Two columns were considered as control specimens while the remaining ten columns
were strengthened with different wrapping schemes. The effectiveness of sandwich
wrapping system was investigated either in strips or full wrapping, The variables of the
study were; the method of wrapping, percentage of wrapping, thickness of acrylic
plates, and type of wraps (Glass FRP or Carbon FRP). Number of layers was kept
constant as only two layers except for one column which another layer was added to
examine its effect on column performance. Tests conducted that the use of sandwich
wrapping greatly enhanced the ultimate axial load capacity of the tested columns.
Sandwich wrapped columns displayed higher ductility than columns wrapped with the
regular strengthening method based on membrane technique.
Keywords: Confinement, Column, FRP, Sandwich, Jacket.

INTRODUCTION
Strengthening of R.C. columns requires increasing its vertical load capacity as well as
increasing their ductility. Confinement of concrete is an effective way for strengthening
of concrete members, specially the columns. In the recent years the use of Fiber
Reinforced Polymers composites (FRP) in R.C. structures rehabilitation becomes
promising alternative of R.C. Jacketing, the behavior of retrofitted concrete columns
wrapped by FRP sheets opens the way to a new powerful strengthening technique.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
1

Later studies by Rochette et al. (2000) , and Chaallal et al., (2000) have shown that
the effectiveness of the wraps is dependent on the shape of the cross-section of the
column and the stiffness of the FRP wraps. Square-and rectangular-section columns
were found to experience less increase in strength and ductility than their circular
counterparts. This is because the distribution of lateral confining pressure in circular

SG96F

sections is uniform, in contrast to square and rectangular sections, in which the

confining pressure varies from a maximum at the corners to a minimum in between.
3,4,5
Most of recent researches
on non circular concrete columns concluded that
increasing the stiffness of the FRP wrapping is a promising way to increase the
wrapping efficiency of the non circular columns and most of the researcher suggested
an increase in wrapping layers or increase the properties of the FRP composites
which may make the process un economic and expensive. In order to improve
wrapping effectiveness and to increase the wrapping stiffness sandwich-wrapping
method which was introduced by Mahfouz et al. (2001) 6 is considered in this
research. Sandwich wrapping consisted of wrapping the column with two layers of
FRP, inner and outer, separated by incompressible material as filling material.
Rizk et al., (2002) 7, investigated an innovative FRP wrapping system for
rectangular RC column, called sandwich wrapping system which previously introduced
By Mahfouz et al. (2001). Sandwich wrapping consisted of wrapping the column with
two layers of FRP, inner and outer, separated by incompressible light material as
filling material. The suggested filling materials were honeycomb, wood, medium
density fiber, reinforced rubber, and titanium. Thirty rectangular RC columns, with
different dimensions, were strengthened using sandwich wrapping and tested to
failure. The sandwich wrapping method improved the strength, stiffness and ductility of
the strengthened columns.
The main objective of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of sandwich
wrapping system either in strips or full wrapping, using acrylic plates as sandwich
material, for square concrete columns wrapped with either Glass FRP or Carbon FRP
and evaluate such method on the performance of column on increasing load capacity
as well as ductility. The thickness of the sandwich material was examined and the
effect of adding another outer layer of FRP to sandwich strips wrapping was also
considered.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Twelve square RC columns were tested. As shown in Figure 1 the dimensions of the
columns cross-section were 200X200 mm. The over all height was 1500 mm and the
clear height was 1100 mm. Corner radius was chosen to be 20 mm. Reinforced
concrete head of dimensions 200X400 at each end of the columns was chosen to
prevent any premature failure of the columns head due to stress concentration. The
average concrete strength (cylinder strength fc) of the used concrete was 20 MPa.
The longitudinal reinforcement of the all the specimens was four bars of high grade
(36/52) steel 12 mm in diameter having yield stress of 420MPa, reinforcement ratio
was 1.13%. The transverse reinforcement was 6 mm diameter of normal mild steel
(24/35) having yield stress of 280MPa at vertical spacing of 160 mm.
Two columns were considered as control specimens, six columns were
strengthened using sandwich wrapping method while the remaining four columns were
strengthened using regular wrapping for comparison. The strengthening of columns
was made using either CFRP sheets or GFRP sheets.

SG96F

Column Head
2 12

100
100

6/5cm
6/5cm

R20

4 12

200

200

100

100

200

1100

2 12

2 12

6/16cm

COLUMN'S CROSS-SECTION

6/5cm

Column Head

100
100
400
ELEVATION

6/5cm

2 12
RFT. DETAILS

Figure 1. Column dimensions and reinforcement.

COLUMNS DESIGNATION SYSTEM

The columns have been given descriptive designations. Throughout the remainder of
this paper, these designations will often be used in lieu of the specimen number when
referring to a specific column. As shown in Figure 2, the two control columns
(unjacketed) had designations of R1 and R2 respectively and considered as reference
columns. The specimen designations, as shown in second column of Table 1., are
composed of groups of numbers and letters separated by hyphens. Each of these
descriptive names gives information about some aspects of the column in this order:
(1) Type of FRP sheets G for Glass and C for Carbon FRP sheets, (2) wrapping
percentage 100mm strips every 200 mm of column height or full wrapping for column
entire height, (3) number of wrapping layers which was kept two except for column GS-2-10 which describes one inner layer and two outer layers respectively (4) wrapping
method two zeros for regular strengthening method based on membrane technique
and sandwich filling plate thickness (for column with sandwich scheme).

FIBER PROPERTIES
Two types of FRP sheets were used E-glass and Carbon fiber. The used E-glass fiber
was Tyfo SHE-51A while the used carbon fiber was Tyfo SCH-41S. Dry properties of
the used FRP sheets and the gross laminate properties as reported by the
manufacture are shown in Table 2. The used Epoxy was Tyfo-S epoxy.

SG96F

Table 1. Columns Configurations

Column

FRP
Sheets
Type

Wrapping
method

Sandwich
plate
thickness

Confinement
ratio %

Percentage of
wrapping

R1

R2

G-S-2-00

E-Glass

Regular

2.60

50% (10 cm Strips)

G-F-2-00

E-Glass

Regular

5.20

100% (Full length)

G-S-2-10

E-Glass

Sandwich

10mm

2.60

50% (10 cm Strips)

G-S-3-10

E-Glass

Sandwich

10mm

3.90

50% (10 cm Strips)

G-F-2-06

E-Glass

Sandwich

6mm

5.20

100% (Full length)

G-F-2-10

E-Glass

Sandwich

10mm

5.20

100% (Full length)

C-S-2-00

Carbon

Regular

2.00

50% (10 cm Strips)

C-F-2-00

Carbon

Regular

4.00

100% (Full length)

C-S-2-10

Carbon

Sandwich

10mm

2.00

50% (10 cm Strips)

C-F-2-10

Carbon

Sandwich

10mm

4.00

100% (Full length)

Table 2. Dry Properties And Gross Laminate Properties Of The Used FRP Sheets
Dry properties of FRP sheets
Tensile
strength

Tensile
modulus

Gpa

Gpa

E-glass
(GFRP)

3.24

72.4

Carbon
(CFRP)

3.79

230

Ultimate
elongation

Gross laminate properties

Fiber
thickness

Tensile
strength

Tensile
modulus

Elongation
at break

Laminate
thickness

mm

Mpa

Gpa

4.50%

0.36

460

20.9

2.20%

1.30

1.70%

0.28

876

72.4

1.20%

1.00

mm

ACRYLIC PLATES
Local fabricated acrylic plates are used in sandwich wrapping between the FRP inner
and outer layers. The used Acrylic plates were clear smooth acrylic plats (strips and
plates). The commercial name of the producer is Spiro plastic. Two thicknesses were
used in this research 6 mm and 10 mm plates. The acrylic plates were chosen due to
their good properties both in compression and tension, their light weight and their
moderate price. Table 3 shows the manufacturer reported mechanical properties of
acrylic plates.

SG96F

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of the acrylic plates

Tensile strength

68-75 Mpa

ASTM D 638

Elongation at break

4%

Modulus of elasticity

2900-3200 Mpa

ASTM D 638

Compressive strength

110 Mpa

ASTM D 695

STRENGTHENING METHOD
The major difference was the method of wrapping which was regular or sandwich
wrapping. FRP were prepared and an overlap of 100 mm was found to be sufficient.
The FRP sheets were wrapped on the concrete, with fiber direction perpendicular to
the column longitudinal axis. The overlap location was staggered along the column
sides for strips wrapping. No over lap was applied in case of full wrapping in
longitudinal direction. The sandwich wrapping acrylic plates were fixed on the sheets.
The surface of the plates was smooth, accordingly, rouging operation were applied on
both sides of the plates in order to form a rough surface to increase the bond between
the plates and epoxy. A thin layer of epoxy prime was applied on FRP sheets and the
acrylic plates. The plates were fixed to column. The strip plates were fixed easily but
the full length plates for full wrapping columns needed a special steel clamp to tighten
the plates in their place till the epoxy hardened.
The corners of the sandwich wrapped columns needed to be filled and rounded in
the area between acrylic plates. Epoxy mortar was used in rounding column corners
Figure 3. The corner of the columns were filled using such mortar and then rounded,
the radius of corner was 20 mm plus plate thickness (26 mm or 30 mm). The wrapping
of the outer layer or the second layer took place after hardening of the epoxy mortar.
For column G-S-3-10 additional second outer layer was added after hardening of the
epoxy.
Regular wrapping based on the traditional membrane technique was applied for
columns G-S-2-00, G-F-2-00, C-S-2-00 and C-S-F-00, bearing in mind that G-S-2-00
and C-S-2-00 columns were strip wrapping so the applications were done on 100 mm
strips every 200 mm of the column height, while they were applied on all over the
column height for G-F-2-00 and C-S-F-00 columns.
Sandwich wrapping was applied for columns G-S-2-10, G-S-3-10, G-F-2-06, G-F-210, C-S-2-10 and C-F-2-10. The sandwich wrapping was strip for columns G-S-2-10,
G-S-3-10, and C-S-2-10. Wrapping applications were done on 100 mm strips every
200 mm of the column height, while they were applied on all over the column height
for the G-F-2-06, G-F-2-10 and C-F-2-10 columns.
Columns head were carefully confined in order to avoid any premature failure of
concrete head due to stress concentration, using two methods of confinement. Steel
collar were used to confine the concrete column head to prevent premature failure of
the concrete head when high load reached. Head wrapping was also used as an
additional confining precaution for the columns which high load capacity was
expected, (G-F-2-00, G-F-2-06, G-F-2-10, C-F-2-00 and C-F-2-10). The head was
wrapped using two layers of GFRP 100 mm strips.

SG96F

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet
or CFRP Sheet

100
100

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet
or CFRP Sheet

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet
or CFRP Sheet

1100

G-S-2-10
C-S-2-10

G-F-2-00
C-F-2-00
100
100

1100

100
100
100
100
100
1100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100

G-S-2-00
C-S-2-00

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet
or CFRP Sheet

100
100

100
100

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet

100
100

Two Layers
GFRP Sheet

1100

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
1100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100

G-F-2-10
C-F-2-10

G-F-2-06

G-S-3-10

Figure 2. Strengthening of columns

100

100
Radius=R

100

Epoxy
Mortar

Acrylic

100

Plate

First Layer

Min.20mm

Second Layer

Inner Layer
Outer Layer
R(mm)=Plate Thickness+20

COLUMN REGULAR WRAPPING

COLUMN SANDWICH WRAPPING

Figure 3. Typical Regular And Sandwich Wrapping

SG96F

Instrumentation
Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDT) was used to measure the axial
displacement of the column at the four sides. The transverse strain in the FRP sheets
in columns were measured using electrical strain gages. A computer controlled load
system was used for testing the columns. The main component of the testing facility
was control station, hydraulic testing machine and hydraulic equipments. The control
station was connected with servo controllers, data acquisition equipment and
computer control system based on (Lab View) software. The used loading system was
based on displacement control technique which allow for the recording of the
descending branch of the load displacement curve.

FAILURE MODES OF THE COLUMNS

The term failure mode considered in this research means the cause which initialized
the failure which can be explained by the failure of the confining system of the column.
None of the specimens suffered head failure. Four failure modes were observed
during the tests of the RC columns. These modes are categorized as follows:

A) Brittle Compression Failure mode

The first failure mode was observed for control specimens, R1 and R2. The failure
was typical brittle failure because when axial ultimate load reached the column failed
and the concrete crushed suddenly, resulted a major crack as shown in Figure 4, the
longitudinal bars buckled between steel hoops. The failure was brittle since the load
dropped to relatively low value when the columns failed.

B) Failure due to spalling of the Un-Confined Part of the Column

The second failure mode was observed for column C-S-2-00 and C-S-2-10. For
column C-S-2-00, when the axial load was equal 90% of the recorded ultimate axial
load of the column a crack started to occur in the top third of the unconfined part of
column and between hoops. After the column reached the ultimate load cracks started
in other parts but the load did not drop suddenly, concrete cover start to spall off just
above the FRP strips and force the strips to be bend to outside causing its ruptured
and the longitudinal bars buckled and major cracks occurred showing failure of column
but the column failed by gradual decrease in load. The presence of acrylic plates in
columns C-S-2-10 increased the stiffness of the wrapping so the spall off concrete
cover above and below the strips was not able to bend the fiber to out side. The failure
of the columns was progressive and the load decreased gradually after reaching the
ultimate axial load. Figure 4 shows an example of the shape of the failure of that
group.

SG96F

Column (C-F-2-00)

Column(C-F-2-10)

Figure 4. Modes of failure of the tested columns

SG96F

C) Failure due to Rupture of FRP sheets

The third failure mode was observed for five columns, G-S-2-00, G-F-2-00, C-F-2-00,
G-S-2-10 and G-S-3-10. When the columns reached their ultimate load capacity, a
sudden rupture of the FRP sheets took place at columns corner, as presented in
Figure 4, and the columns concrete suffered of major cracks and sudden drop of the
load for column C-F-2-00 and gradual decrease of the load in column G-F-2-00
occurred. The longitudinal reinforcing bars buckled between hoops in the part where
FRP rupture.

D) Failure due to Crushing of Acrylic Plates followed by Rupture of

FRP Sheets
The last failure mode was observed for three full wrapped with sandwich wrapping,
these columns were G-F-2-06, G-F-2-10 and C-F-2-10. These columns had the
highest ultimate axial load capacity in the whole set of columns. The failure of those
group was brittle since ultimate load was reached, sounds of cracks in acrylic plates
was heard without any drop in the load, then after the acrylic plates crashed rupture of
FRP sheets took place the load dropped gradually for column G-F-2-10 while it
dropped suddenly for column C-F-2-10. Figure 4 shows the failure of the column C-F2-10 as a sample of that mode.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Summary of test results are presented in Table 4, the ultimate load of each specimen,
the axial strain at ultimate load and the ductility. The ductility of the columns which
indicated by the energy which columns can sustain are shown also in Table 4.

Effect of Strengthening on Increasing Axial Load Carrying Capacity

Figure 5 shows a summary of the net axial load carried by concrete for the different
columns strengthening schemes and the gained increase of capacity due to
strengthening. Column G-F-2-10 had the highest value of axial load capacity in the
GFRP wrapped columns, the ultimate axial load of that column was 2.41 times the
control column ultimate load, while column C-F-2-10 had the highest value of axial
load capacity in the CFRP wrapped columns, and its ultimate axial load was 2.62
times the control column. The ratio of net axial load of the column and the net axial
load of the control column represent the gain in axial load capacity enhancement. The
ratio varied from 1.06 to 2.41 for GFRP wrapped columns and from 1.18 to 2.62 for
CFRP wrapped columns.

SG96F

2500

Control

GFRP

CFRP
2.62
2.41

Maximum Net Load (KN) Pcc net

2000

1.98
1.76

1.77

1500

1.58

1.15

1.06

1000

1.28

1.18

500

0
R1

R2

G-S-2-00

G-F-2-00

G-S-2-10

G-S-3-10

G-F-2-06

G-F-2-10

C-S-2-00

C-F-2-00

C-S-2-10

C-F-2-10

Column Designation

Figure 5. Maximum net load carried by concrete for all columns

Table 4. Summary of the experimental test program
Pac

Accent

Pac net / Pico net

cc

cru

cc/co

Gs total

Gs total / G sc total

0.23

1.00

1.51

1.00

0.20

0.23

1.00

1.41

0.93

105.53

0.45

1.29

2.22

9.55

6.32

1423

177.45

0.49

1.25

2.42

16.56

10.97

1105

919

114.56

0.71

1.17

3.55

11.48

7.60

G-S-3-10

1455

1269

158.16

0.60

1.49

2.99

18.58

12.30

G-F-2-06

1772

1586

197.70

1.34

1.50

6.64

22.16

14.67

G-F-2-10

2123

1937

241.46

0.96

1.19

4.78

20.51

13.58

C-S-2-00

1135

949

118.27

0.27

1.03

1.34

9.88

6.54

C-F-2-00

1598

1412

176.03

0.94

1.23

4.66

16.34

10.82

C-S-2-10

1212

1026

127.85

1.03

2.25

5.12

24.71

16.36

C-F-2-10

2285

2098

261.57

1.03

1.10

5.13

20.36

13.48

Column

(KN)

(KN)

R1

988

802

R2

992

G-S-2-00

-2

x10

x10

100.00

0.20

806

100.47

1033

846

G-F-2-00

1610

G-S-2-10

SG96F

-2

Pac = Ultimate axial load (KN)

Pac net = Net load carried by concrete = Pac As x fey (KN)
cc = axial strain at ultimate load
cru = maximum recorded axial strain just at failure
G s total = Total energy = Area under the load-stain curve (KN mm/mm)
G sc total = Total energy = Area under the load-stain curve of the control column

Axial Deformation
One of the major problems which face the design of RC columns is the low value of
axial strain (cc) in concrete at ultimate load, which is about 0.20 %. Increasing this
value will greatly enhance the performance of the RC columns. This brittle behavior of
RC columns load leads to a conservative design to avoid brittle failure of columns
which usually happens suddenly without any warning. The maximum strain of RC
columns at failure (cru) is so near to the value of (cc). Wrapping RC column with FRP
sheets increased the value of axial strain of column at ultimate load. Table 4 shows
the value of (cc) and (cru) for all the columns. The values of (cc) varied between 0.27
% and 1.34 %. The values of ultimate axial strain at failure (cru) were also improved
due to the FRP wrapping, the values varied between 1.10 and 2.25. The ratio between
(cc) of columns to the value (co) which is the value of axial strain at ultimate load of
control column shows enhancement of the columns due to strengthening. As
illustrated in Figure 6., this ratio varied between 1.33 and 6.62.
8

Control

GFRP

CFRP

6.64

5.12

4.78

5.13

4.66

cc / co
4

3.55
2.99

2.22

2.42

2
1

1.00

1.00

R1

R2

1.34

0
G-S-2-00 G-F-2-00 G-S-2-10 G-S-3-10 G-F-2-06 G-F-2-10 C-S-2-00 C-F-2-00 C-S-2-10 C-F-2-10

Column Designation

Figure 6. Axial strain at ultimate load of columns compared with control column

Energy and Ductility

Ductility of columns was calculated based on the energy which the columns can
sustained can be represented by the area under the load-strain curve in the axial
direction of the column. This area provides the value of strain energy accumulated in

SG96F

the structure or the element under the applied load. The calculated areas of this
surface for all columns are shown in Table 4. The ratio between the ductility of all
columns and the control column is also shown in Figure 7. Wrapping RC columns with
FRP greatly increased the ductility of the columns with ratio varied between 6.3 times
and 16.4 times the control column. Studying the values of all columns it was noticed
that sandwich wrapped columns had greater values than regular wrapped columns. It
was also noticed that GFRP wrapped columns had more ductility than CFRP wrapped
columns except for column C-S-2-10 which showed the maximum value of ductility of
all columns which was 16.4 times the control. Confining ratio also affect the ductility
greatly, doubling the confinement ratio nearly double the ductility of the columns.

EFFECT OF VARIOUS STUDIED PARAMETERS

Effect of wrapping method (Regular and Sandwich)
The use of sandwich wrapping significantly increased the axial load capacity. The
increase in ultimate axial load capacity is due to the increase in FRP jacket stiffness
which increases the confinement pressure of the FRP jacket and contains the
concrete core in a stiffer confined area as well as that the sandwich jacket had a more
uniform deformation and reduce the stress concentration in the FRP sheets. Sandwich
wrapped columns had a much higher value of (cc) than the regular wrapped columns,
which prove that using sandwich technique will noticeably improve the axial strain
values of columns at ultimate load.
18

Control

GFRP

CFRP

16

14.67
13.58

14

Ductility G s total /G sc total

16.36

13.48

12.30
12

10.97

10.82

10
7.60

6.54

6.32
6
4
2

1.00

0.93

R1

R2

0
G-S-2-00 G-F-2-00 G-S-2-10 G-S-3-10 G-F-2-06 G-F-2-10 C-S-2-00 C-F-2-00 C-S-2-10 C-F-2-10

Column Designation

Figure 7.Ductility Enhancement Of All Columns Compared With Control Column

That is due to the higher stiffness of the sandwich jackets which reduce the lateral
dilation of the concrete and reduce the micro cracks in the concrete core of the column
which reduce the axial deformation of the column. Sandwich wrapping had a higher

SG96F

value of axial strain ratio than the regular wrapping columns. it was noticed also that
the sandwich columns had lower value of that ratio which means that although the
sandwich columns had a higher value of axial strain as well as axial load but they tend
to act in a brittle way at failure stage The groups are as follows:

Effect of wrapping method on GFRP & CFRP Strips

Comparing columns G-S-2-00 and G-S-2-10. The effect of wrapping method on GFRP
strips is summarized in Figure 8. The strips sandwich wrapping increased both axial
load capacity and ductility. Although the enhancement of axial load capacity was only
8.6 %, the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was 58%. The energy sustained by
the columns increased by sandwich wrapping, the total calculated energy of column
G-S-2-10 was 20% more than the column G-S-2-00.
For columns C-S-2-00 and C-S-2-10. The effect of wrapping method on CFRP
strips is illustrated in Figure 9. The axial load for column C-S-2-10 was increased by
27.9 % compared with the control column R1 and the ductility was increased by 11.4
times the control. The strips sandwich wrapping increased both axial load capacity
and ductility. Although the enhancement of axial load capacity was 8.1 %, the increase
in axial strain at ultimate load was 281%. The maximum axial strain of C-S-2-10
column was more than C-S-2-00 by 118%. The energy sustained by the columns
increased by sandwich wrapping, the total energy of column C-S-2-10 increased by
150% than the column C-S-2-00.
1400

GFRP Sandwich Strips

1200

Control

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

G-S-2-00
G-S-2-10

1000

800

GFRP Regular Strips

600

400

200

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 8. Effect of wrapping method GFRP strips

SG96F

-2.50

1400

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1200

1000

CFRP Sandwich Strips

800

CFRP Regular Strips

600

400

Control
C-S-2-00
C-S-2-10

200

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 9. Effect of wrapping method CFRP Strips

Effect of wrapping method on GFRP & CFRP Full wrapping

This group includes columns G-F-2-00 and G-F-2-10. The effect of wrapping method
on GFRP full wrapping is clearly shown in Figure 10. The axial load for column G-F-210 was increased by 141.5 % compared with the control column and the ductility
increased by 9.5 times the control column. The column G-F-2-10 showed a clear
increase in both axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load
capacity was 36.1 %, while the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was 96%. The
maximum axial strain of G-F-2-10 column was less than G-F-2-00 by 5%. The energy
sustained by the columns increased by sandwich wrapping, the total energy of column
G-F-2-10 increased by 33.9% than the column G-F-2-00.
2500

GFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000
Control
G-F-2-00

1500

G-F-2-10

1000

GFRP Regular Full Wrapping

500

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 10. Effect of wrapping method GFRP Full wrapping

SG96F

-2.50

This group includes columns C-F-2-00 and C-F-2-10. The effect of wrapping method
on CFRP full wrapping is illustrated in Figure 11. The axial load for column C-F-2-10
was increased by 161.5 % compared with the control column R1 and the ductility
increased by 9.4 times the control column. The column C-F-2-10 showed a high
increase in both axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load
capacity was 48.6 %, while the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was only 10%.
The energy sustained by the columns increased by sandwich wrapping, the total
energy of column C-F-2-10 increased by 25% than the column C-F-2-00 that increase
was due to the increase of axial load capacity not increase in ductility.
2500
Control
C-F-2-00

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000

CFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

C-F-2-10

1500

CFRP Regular Full Wrapping

1000

500

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 11. Effect of wrapping method CFRP Full wrapping

Effect of wrapping percentage

It was clear that the percentage of wrapping play a major part in the enhancement of
axial load capacity, the full wrapped columns acted much better than the strip wrapped
columns in both regular and sandwich wrapping. That is reasonably because there are
more confined concrete in the column, so the reinforcing bars are restrained from
buckling, which leads to higher capacity of the column which had more wrapping
percentage. It was also noticed that percentage of wrapping does not affect the
improvement of axial deformation of columns.

Effect of wrapping Percentage on GFRP & CFRP Regular Wrapping

This group includes columns G-S-2-00 and G-F-2-00. Figure 12 shows the effect of
percentage of wrapping on GFRP regular wrapping. Full wrapping increased both
axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load capacity was 68 %,
the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was 8.8%. The energy sustained by the full
wrapped column increased greatly, the total energy of column G-F-2-00 increased by
73.4% than the column G-S-2-00 that increase was due to the increase of axial load
capacity not increase in ductility.

SG96F

This group includes columns C-S-2-00 and C-F-2-00. Figure 13 Illiterate the effect of
percentage of wrapping on CFRP regular wrapping. Full wrapping increased both axial
load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load capacity was 49 %, the
increase in axial strain at ultimate load was 248%. The energy sustained by the full
wrapped column increased greatly, the total energy of column C-F-2-00 increased by
65.4% than the column C-S-2-00 that increase was due to the increase of axial load
capacity not increase in ductility.
1800
1600

GFRP Regular Full Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1400
1200
1000
800
600

GFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

Control
G-S-2-00

400

G-F-2-00
200
0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 12. Effect of wrapping percentage GFRP Regular Wrapping

1800
Control

1600

C-S-2-00

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1400

C-F-2-00

CFRP Regular Full Wrapping

1200
1000

CFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

800
600
400
200
0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 13. Effect of wrapping percentage CFRP Regular Wrapping

SG96F

Effect of wrapping Percentage on GFRP & CFRP Sandwich Wrapping

This group includes columns G-S-2-10 and G-F-2-10. The effect of percentage of
wrapping on GFRP sandwich wrapping is shown in Figure 14. Full wrapping increased
both axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load capacity was
110.8 %, the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was 35.2%. The energy sustained
by the full wrapped column increased greatly, the total energy of column G-F-2-10
increased by 78.7% than the column G-S-2-10 that increase was due to the increase
of axial load capacity not increase in ductility.
This group includes columns C-S-2-10 and C-F-2-10. The effect of percentage of
wrapping on CFRP sandwich wrapping is summarized in Figure 15. Full wrapping
increased both axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load
capacity was 104.5%, there was no increase in axial strain at ultimate load. The
energy sustained by the full wrapped column was less than the stripped wrapped
column, the total energy of column C-F-2-10 decreased by 17.6% than the column CS-2-10.

Effect of FRP type (Glass and Carbon)

Two types of FRP sheets were studied, E-glass FRP sheets which is referred as
GFRP and Carbon FRP sheets which referred as CFRP. The CFRP wrapped columns
carried higher values of axial load than the GFRP columns, considering the same
wrapping method and percentage. That is due to the higher value of tensile modulus
of the carbon FRP sheets than the E-glass FRP sheets, which leads to a higher over
all stiffness of the CFRP jackets.

2500

GFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000

1500

GFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping

1000
Control
G-S-2-10
500

0
0.00

G-F-2-10

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 14. Effect of wrapping Percentage GFRP sandwich wrapping

SG96F

2500

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000

CFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

1500

CFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping

1000
Control
500

C-S-2-10
C-F-2-10

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 15. Effect of wrapping Percentage CFRP sandwich wrapping

Effect of FRP Sheets Type on Regular & Sandwich Strips Wrapping

This group includes columns G-S-2-00 and C-S-2-00. The effect of FRP sheets type
on regular strip wrapping is shown in Figure 16. Carbon strip wrapped column, C-S-200, seemed to show higher values in both axial load capacity and ductility than the
glass strip wrapped column, G-S-2-00. The increase in axial load for column C-S-2-00
was 12.1% but the column G-S-2-00 had higher value in axial strain at ultimate load
by 66% than C-S-2-00. The ductility of both columns was nearly the same.
1400

CFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

1200

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1000

800

600

GFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

Control

400

C-S-2-00
G-S-2-00

200

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 16. Effect of FRP type Regular strips wrapping

SG96F

-2.50

This group includes columns C-F-2-00 and C-F-2-10. The effect of wrapping method on
CFRP full wrapping is illustrated in Figure 11. The axial load for column C-F-2-10 was
increased by 161.5 % compared with the control column R1 and the ductility increased
by 9.4 times the control column. The column C-F-2-10 showed a high increase in both
axial load capacity and ductility. The enhancement of axial load capacity was 48.6 %,
while the increase in axial strain at ultimate load was only 10%. The energy sustained
by the columns increased by sandwich wrapping, the total energy of column C-F-2-10
increased by 25% than the column C-F-2-00 that increase was due to the increase of
axial load capacity not increase in ductility.
1400

CFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1200

1000

800

GFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping

Control
C-S-2-10

600

G-S-2-10
400

200

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 17. Effect of FRP type sandwich strips wrapping

Effect of FRP Sheets Type on Regular & Sandwich Full Wrapping

This group includes columns G-F-2-00 and C-F-2-00. The effect of FRP sheets type
on regular full wrapping is summarized in Figure 18. Type of FRP sheet did not affect
either the increase in axial capacity or the ductility, the increase axial load capacity
and ductility was almost the same. The column C-F-2-00 had much higher value in
axial strain at ultimate load than G-F-2-00 by 91.8%. The ductility of both columns was
nearly the same too. It was noticed that the column G-F-2-00 gave high values than it
was expected.
For sandwich full wrapping, columns G-F-2-10 and C-F-2-10. The effect of FRP
sheets type on sandwich full wrapping is shown in Figure 19. Carbon full sandwich
wrapped column, C-F-2-10, showed higher values in axial load capacity than the glass
full sandwich wrapped column, G-F-2-10. The increase in axial load for column C-F-210 was 8.3%. Both columns had nearly the same value of axial strain at ultimate load
and maximum axial strain, C-F-2-10 had slightly higher value in axial strain at ultimate
load than G-F-2-10 by a value equal to 7.3%. The ductility of both columns was nearly
the same too.

SG96F

1800
1600

CFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1400
1200
1000

GFRP Regular Strips Wrapping

800
600

Control
G-F-2-00

400

C-F-2-00
200
0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 18. Effect of FRP type Full Regular Wrapping

2500

CFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000

1500

GFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping

Control

1000

G-F-2-10
C-F-2-10
500

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 19. Effect of FRP type Full sandwich wrapping

Effect of sandwich material thickness (6 mm and 10 mm)

Two thicknesses of the acrylic plates were used in this research, 6mm and 10mm.
This group includes columns G-F-2-06 and G-F-2-10. The effect of sandwich material
thickness is illustrated in Figure 20. The axial load for column G-F-2-06 was increased
by 97.7 % compared with the control column and ductility increased by 10.2 times the
control column. It was noticed that the load carrying capacity of the columns increased
with the increase of the sandwich plate thickness, the ultimate load carried by column

SG96F

G-F-2-10 increased than column G-F-2-06 by 20.0 %. The axial strain at ultimate load
for columns G-F-2-06 was more than the column G-F-2-10 by 40 %. The total energy
sustained by column G-F-2-06 was higher than G-F-2-10 by 8.0 %.

Effect of adding another outer layer (increasing confining ratio)

As it was noticed in column G-S-2-10, that the column failed due to the failure of the
sandwich by rupture of the outer layer, additional layer was added for column G-S-310 to study the effect of adding another outer layer to increase the confining ratio and
to add more strength to the sandwich wrapping. This variable only studied for strip
GFRP sandwich wrapped column, as carbon wrapped columns did not failed due to
FRP rupture but by failure of the un confined parts of the column. This group contains
columns G-S-2-10 and G-S-3-10. Adding another outer layer enhanced the
performance of the strip GFRP sandwich column, the effect of adding additional outer
layer is summarized in Figure 21. The axial load for column G-S-3-10 was increased
by 58 % compared with the control column and ductility increased by 8.6 times the
control column. The column G-S-3-10 showed higher values of axial load capacity and
ductility than column G-S-2-10. The increase in axial load for column G-S-3-10 was
38.1 %. The axial strain at ultimate load decreased for column G-S-3-10 by 15 % than
column G-S-2-10. The ductility increased by adding additional outer layer of GFRP,
the total energy sustained by column G-S-3-10 increased by 61.9 % than column G-S2-10.
2500

GFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping 10mm

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

2000

1500

GFRP Sandwich Full Wrapping 6mm

1000

Control
G-F-2-06

500

G-F-2-10
0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 20. Effect of sandwich thickness Full wrapping

SG96F

-2.50

1800

GFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping 3 Layers

1600

AXIAL LOAD (KN)

1400
1200
1000
800

GFRP Sandwich Strips Wrapping 2 Layers

600

Control

400

G-S-2-10

200

G-S-3-10

0
0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 21. Adding outer Layer Strips sandwich wrapping

CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of the salient points regarding the effects of the test
variables on the performance of the columns in this study:
(1) Wrapping of square RC columns with FRP sheets can significantly increase the
ultimate axial load capacity, axial deformation and ductility of the columns. The axial
load carried by the strengthened columns in the test program varied from 1.06 to
2.62 times the ultimate axial load of the control column R1. The improvement of the
axial deformation in columns The improvement of axial deformation in columns
which calculated by the ratio of axial strain in columns at ultimate load compared
with the control column varied from 2.2 to 6.6 times the control column R1. The
increase in ductility which calculated by the ratio between total energy which can be
sustained by the column compared with the control column also varied between 6.3
to 16.4 times the control column R1
(2) Sandwich wrapping significantly increases the effectiveness of FRP wrapping
without any increase in the stiffness of the strengthen columns.
(3) The use of strip sandwich wrapping significantly improve the ultimate axial load
capacity and axial strain deformation compared with that recorded for regular strip
wrapping. The enhancement of the ultimate axial load was 8.5 % for GFRP
wrapped columns and 8 % for CFRP wrapped columns.
(4) The use of full sandwich wrapping significantly increase the ultimate axial load
capacity and axial strain deformation compared with that recorded for regular full
wrapping. The enhancement of the ultimate axial load was 36 % for GFRP wrapped
columns and 48.5 % for CFRP wrapped columns.
(5) The influence of regular and sandwich strips wrapping on increasing the axial
carrying load capacity is relatively low but its influence on increasing axial
deformation and ductility is considerably high.
(6) Percentage of wrapping affected the ultimate axial carrying capacity for columns.
Full wrapped columns showed higher ultimate axial carrying capacity compared
with that recorded for strips wrapped column.

SG96F

(7) The type of FRP sheets slightly affected the increase of ultimate axial carrying
capacity. CFRP wrapped columns showed higher values than GFRP wrapped
column for the same strengthening scheme.
(8) Increasing of thickness of sandwich filling material from 6 mm to 10 mm leaded to
increase of ultimate axial load for columns by 20 %. The axial strain at ultimate load
was also increased by 40 %. The ductility of the columns was not affected
noticeably by the increase of sandwich plate thickness.
(9) Adding additional outer layer for the sandwich strips wrapped column significantly
increase the axial carrying load capacity of the sandwich strips wrapped column by
a value of 38% and ductility increased by 62 %.
(10) The use of acrylic plates as a non-compressible material was effective in sandwich
wrapping system due to its light weight and mechanical properties.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Fyfe Company in U.S.A. particularly Mr. Edward
Donnelly for donating the TYFO S Fiber wrap materials needed in this research, Ms.
Sarah Cruickshank for her positive support and continuous feeding with needed
technical information for wrapping. The support from the technical staff at Housing and
Building Research Center (H.B.R.C.) including Prof. Dr. Omaima Salah Eldin , Dr.
Yehia Abd Elmegeed is particularly appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Rochette, P. and Labossiere P., (2000), "Axial Testing of Rectangular Column
Models Confined With Composites", Journal of Structural Engineering, August
2000, p.p. 129-136.
2. Chaallal, O.; Shahawy, M. and Al-saad, A., (2000), "Behavior of Axially Loaded
Short Rectangular Columns Strengthened with CFRP Composite Wrapping",
Technical report, Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT), Structures Research Center, 2007E. Paul Dirac Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32310, August 2000.
3. Parvin, A. and Wang, Wei, (2001), Behavior of FRP Jacketed Concrete Columns
under Eccentric Loading, ASCE, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 5,
No. 3, August 2001, pp. 146-152.
4. Pessiki, S.; Harries, K.; Kestner, J.; Sause, R. and Ricles, M., (2001), "Axial
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with FRP Jackets", Journal of
Composites for Construction, November 2001, p.p. 237-245.
5. Tan, K., (2002), "Strength Enhancement of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete
Columns using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer", Journal of Composites for Construction,
August 2002, p.p. 175-183.
6. Mahfouz, I.; Shahram, S. and Rizk, T., (2001) Wrapping System for Strengthening
Structural Columns or Walls, United States Patent, No. 6,219,988 , April 24, 2001.
7. Rizk, T.; Mahfouz I. and Sakani, S. , (2002) Strengthening Rectangular Concrete
Columns Using FRP: A New Technique , ACI Special Publication, ACI Fifth
International Conference on Innovation in Design with Emphasis on Seismic Wind
and Environmental Loading, Quality Control and Innovation in Materials/Hot
weather Concreting, December 2002, Cancun, Mexico.

SG96F