ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 105-S45
Reinforced Concrete Jacketing—Interface Influence on
Cyclic Loading Response
by Eduardo N. B. S. Júlio and Fernando A. B. Branco
Following previous studies, the authors describe an experimental
study performed to analyze the influence of the interface treatment
on the seismic behavior of columns strengthened by reinforced
concrete (RC) jacketing to increase their ultimate bending
moment. A numerical study, subsequently conducted to further
investigate this subject, is also presented. It has been concluded
that, for undamaged columns with a bending moment/shear force
ratio greater than 1.0, it is not necessary to consider any type of
interface treatment before casting a RC jacket with a thickness less
than 17.5% of the column width to obtain a monolithic behavior of
the composite element.
Keywords: cyclic loading; interface; jacketing; seismic response;
strengthening; surface preparation.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) jacketing is a strengthening
technique most frequently used in seismic retrofitting.1 It has
been widely used after earthquakes in Mexico, Japan, the
Balkans, and the U.S.2-4 To optimize the structural performance
of the composite element, it is essential to ensure its monolithic
behavior, which implies ensuring total adherence between
the original column and the added jacket. To fulfill this
objective, the current practice consists of increasing the
roughness of the interface surface, applying a bonding agent
and, in some cases, steel connectors. Due to the reduced
thickness of the jacket, a self-consolidating high-strength
grout is usually adopted.
In all published experimental studies on this subject, the
preparation of the column surface before jacketing is always
referred to.3,5-9 Nevertheless, a quantitative analysis of its
influence is never reported.
The authors decided to perform experimental studies to
quantify the influence of four parameters on the bond
strength between concretes with different ages and different
characteristics. The parameters considered were: 1) the
roughness of the interface surface; 2) the use of a bonding
agent; 3) the added concrete mixture; and 4) the application
of steel connectors. Slant shear tests and pushoff tests were
adopted to determine bond strength in shear and pulloff tests
were used to assess bond strength in tension. It was
concluded that: 1) between those adopted, sandblasting is the
best roughness treatment10; 2) the use of epoxy resins does
not improve the interface strength if sandblasting is used11;
3) adding a high-strength concrete (HSC) increases the inter-
face strength12; and 4) the use of steel connectors does
not significantly increase the interface debonding stress,
although, after that, the shear stress is highly dependent on
the relation between the cross section area of steel connectors
and the area of the interface.13
Afterward, the authors conducted monotonic tests on
seven column-footing models.14 These columns were
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
TECHNICAL PAPER
strengthened by RC jacketing after the interface surface had
been prepared according to the conclusions drawn from the
results of the experimental studies previously referred to. It
was concluded that, for current undamaged columns
subjected to bending moment/shear force ratios greater than
1.0 m (3.281 ft), a monolithic behavior of the composite
element can be achieved, even without increasing their
surface roughness or using bonding agents or applying steel
connectors, before strengthening by adding an RC jacket
with a thickness lesser than 17.5% of the column width. In
spite of that, it should be noted that, for other conditions such
as cyclic loading, RC short columns, or thicker jackets, these
conclusions may not apply.
The experimental study presented in this paper adds relevant
information to the previous research conducted by the
authors, defining the response of the considered strengthened
columns to cyclic loading. In fact, this is particularly important
to predict if, for seismic loading, the jacketed column still
shows a monolithic behavior. The numerical simulation,
conducted after the experimental study and also presented in
this paper, tests the hypothesis that, for short columns,
debonding of the jacket may occur.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The research presented in this paper has proven that, for
the conditions considered (undamaged reinforced concrete
columns with a bending moment/shear force ratio greater
than 1.0), it is not necessary to previously prepare the
interface surface, namely, increasing its roughness, applying
a bonding agent, or eventually steel connectors, before
casting RC jacketing with a thickness less than 17.5% of the
column width to achieve a monolithic behavior of the
composite element subjected to cyclic loading. This
achievement leads to: a) significant savings in expensive
materials, such as epoxy-based bonding agents; b) significant
savings in time-consuming operations (for example, the
application of steel connectors); and c) avoidance of the use
inadequate tools to increase the roughness of the column
surface, such as jackhammers, that promote microcracking
of the concrete substrate.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Seven column-footing models were built using concrete
with approximately 35 MPa (5076 psi) nominal compressive
strength (Table 1) measured with cubic specimens at 28 days
and steel with 520 MPa (75,420 psi) nominal yielding stress.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-August 2008.
MS No. S-2007-051.R1 received February 8, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-
June 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2009.
1

Eduardo N. B. S. Júlio is an Assistant Professor at the University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal; Vice Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the Civil Engineering Department;
and Director of the MSc course on rehabilitation of the built environment. His
research interests include strengthening and structural rehabilitation.
ACI member Fernando A. B. Branco is a Full Professor at the Technical University
of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Head of the Construction Sector; and a Consultant for
major public works in Portugal. He is a member of ACI Committee 342, Evaluation of
Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements. His research interests include design, rehabilita-
tion, and construction technology of concrete structures.
The dimensions adopted for the column cross section and
height were 0.20 x 0.20 m2 (0.656 x 0.656 ft2) and 1.35 m
(4.43 ft), respectively. The column was symmetrically
reinforced with three bars with 10 mm (0.394 in.) diameters
at each face. The transverse reinforcement of the column
consisted of 6 mm (0.236 in.) diameter stirrups spaced 150 mm
(5.905 in). Strain gauges were bonded to each central bar,
close to the footing, of the longitudinal reinforcement and on
the second stirrup from the bottom in opposite branches (Fig. 1).
Three models were considered to serve as reference: the
first model (M1) was left unstrengthened; the second model
(M2) was strengthened with a nonadherent jacket, materialized
with a thin, hard, greased layer placed on the interface, with
the objective of reaching the lower limit of the structural
behavior of the composite model; and the third model (M3)
was produced monolithically with the purpose of getting the
upper limit of that behavior because debonding of the jacket
was expected to occur on the remaining models. Three other
models were conceived with the interface surface prepared
Fig. 1—Testing installation, instrumentation, and cross section.
Fig. 2—Cyclic test of Model M4.
2 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
according to the conclusions of the previous studies
performed by the authors10-13: the fourth model (M4) was
strengthened by jacketing without any interface treatment;
the fifth model (M5) was strengthened by jacketing after its
interface surface had been treated by sandblasting; and the
sixth model (M6) was strengthened by jacketing after its
interface surface had been prepared by sandblasting and steel
connectors had been applied. A seventh model (M7) was
considered, differing from the others by having been
strengthened after application of the axial force, but identical
to M6 in respect to the preparation of the interface surface.
With this model, the objective was to study the influence of
strengthening columns with and without considering an active
shoring, the latter being the most frequent situation in practice.
Three months after casting the models, each column was
encased, using a commercial high-strength self-consolidating
grout with approximately 80 MPa (11,603 psi) nominal
compressive strength (Table 1), measured with cubic specimens
at 28 days and steel with 520 MPa (75,420 psi) nominal
yielding stress. The dimensions adopted for the reinforced
concrete jacket thickness and height were 35 mm (1.378 in.)
and 0.90 m (2.953 ft), respectively. The longitudinal
reinforcement of the jacket consisted of three bars with
10 mm (0.394 in.) diameters at each face anchored to the
footing, with a commercial epoxy resin, in a predrilled hole of
250 mm (9.842 in.) depth. The transverse reinforcement of
the added jacket consisted of 6 mm (0.236 in.) diameter
stirrups spaced 75 mm (2.953 in.) and out of phase with
those of the column because this is the most effective
geometry to obtain a monolithic behavior of the strengthened
column.15 Strain gauges were also bonded to each central
bar, close to the footing, of the longitudinal reinforcement
and on the second stirrup from the bottom in opposite
branches (Fig. 1).
Twenty-eight days after being strengthened, the models
were submitted to cyclic loading (Fig. 2). The loading
system consisted of a horizontal force varying according to a
predefined displacement histogram and a constant axial
force of 170 kN (38,218 lbf). The horizontal force was
applied with a hydraulic jack, positioned horizontally at 1.0 m
(3.281 ft) from the column footing, with both ends hinged.
The measured load was obtained from the difference between
the values read in two load cells, placed on opposite sites of
the column top. The imposed horizontal displacement was
measured by a displacement transducer. The axial force was
Table 1—Description of models and compressive
strength of concrete
Compressive strength of
concrete, MPa (psi)
Models Description Original column Added jacket
M1 Nonstrengthened column 34.89 (5060) —
M2 Column with nonadherent jacket 35.51 (5150) 83.71 (12,141)
M3 Column with monolithic jacket 35.02 (5079) 35.02 (5079)
(cast simultaneously)
M4 Column jacketed without 34.95 (5069) 78.25 (11,349)
surface preparation
M5 Column jacketed after surface 35.06 (5085) 76.01 (11,024)
preparation with sandblasting
Column jacketed after surface
M6 preparation with sandblasting 35.17 (5101) 79.96 (11,597)
and application of steel connectors
Column jacketed after surface
M7 preparation with sandblasting 35.40 (5134) 80.87 (11,729)
and after loading axial force
applied with a tubular system of two sets of two welded U
profiles, connected with two prestressing tendons, tensioned
with a hydraulic jack. The corresponding value was measured
with a load cell, placed between the top set of the welded U
profiles and the hydraulic jack used to apply the axial force.
Taking into account the variety of solutions adopted by
different researchers16-21 and in the absence of standards for
cyclic testing of reinforced concrete structures, the history of
imposed displacements was determined based on a recom-
mendation of the European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork (ECCS).22 According to ECCS,22 four cycles,
each of increasing amplitude, were defined as 0.25δy, 0.50δy,
0.75δy, and 1.00δy, followed by additional sets of three
cycles each (also of increasing amplitude) of 2δy, 4δy, 6δy,
and 8δy, with δy being the yielding displacement determined
with the monotonic tests formerly performed by the authors
on seven models with the same interface treatments.14
Because of the symmetry of the models, the amplitude
adopted in each cycle was the same for both positive and
negative displacements. The displacements were slowly
imposed with a velocity of 0.1 mm/s (0.00394 in./s). To
illustrate the loading history defined according to ECCS,22
Fig. 3 shows the one applied to Model M1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results analyzed were the cracking pattern and other
parameters obtained, directly or indirectly, from the hysteretic
diagrams (Fig. 4): maximum load, capacity for dissipating
energy, and damage level.
Cracking pattern
Except for the model with the nonadherent jacket, Model M2,
cracking was not observed at the jacket top, the only cross
section where the boundary line of the column/jacket interface
was visible. A significant horizontal crack was registered
near the footing in all models excluding, again, Model M2
(Fig. 5). In this model, several smaller cracks appeared
distributed over a height approximately equal to the cross
section width (Fig. 5). Also, the observed concrete crushing
level in the models strengthened with a high-strength jacket
was lower for the nonstrengthened model, Model M1, and
the monolithic model, Model M3, both built with normal-
strength concrete.
Maximum load
An analytical approach was performed to predict the
maximum load, assuming two hypotheses: total nonadherence
Fig. 3—Adopted loading history.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
and perfect bonding of the jacket. For the first case, it was
assumed that the curvature radius of the original column and
of the added jacket were the same at the support cross
section. For the second case, compatible strain diagrams of
the original column and of the added jacket at the support
cross section were assumed. The ultimate concrete strain
was fixed at the extreme concrete fibers of the added jacket.
The strain diagram was established iteratively until the
corresponding stress diagram presented a resultant force of
the same value as the measured axial force. A parabola-
rectangle stress diagram was adopted for concrete. With the
resultant bending moment, the maximum force could be
easily determined. For Model M7, strengthened after the
axial force had been applied, the procedure adopted to
determine the theoretical maximum force was adapted to
take into account an initial strain state due to that load.
The comparison between experimental data (Table 2) and
analytical values (Table 3) leads to the conclusion,
confirmed by visual inspection, that there was no jacket
debonding in any model, except for Model M2. In fact,
considering perfect bonding, the relative error between the
experimental and the theoretical value varied from –0.5% to
+3.5% (Table 3) except for Model M2. Considering total
Table 2—Peaks of horizontal load (kN)
in dark background
Cycle δ/δy* M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
+0.25 +17.80 +25.06 +35.92 +20.02 +33.11 +39.06 +25.26
1
–0.25 –14.46 –27.42 –34.03 –24.27 –22.18 –38.41 –32.32
+0.50 +23.10 +40.24 +47.24 +31.67 +48.49 +53.33 +40.24
2
–0.50 –19.43 –39.33 –42.20 –40.63 –37.89 –53.85 –47.50
+0.75 +27.48 +52.08 +56.01 +43.64 +65.50 +63.99 +51.23
3
–0.75 –22.84 –46.26 –54.37 –50.65 –48.03 –64.65 –59.48
+1.00 +31.02 +59.54 +62.82 +57.38 +70.67 +72.83 +59.09
4
–1.00 –25.85 –51.23 –61.31 –60.07 –57.91 –73.74 –68.64
5
+2 +34.02 +66.94 +72.70 +73.74 +77.41 +79.11 +69.49
–2 –31.28 –55.55 –66.55 –70.60 –75.05 –77.60 –79.37
+2 +32.39 +62.68 +67.66 +70.99 +72.43 +74.14 +63.34
6
–2 –30.56 –52.28 –68.51 –68.44 –72.04 –74.40 –77.41
+2 +32.39 +61.44 +65.89 +70.27 +73.15 +72.30 +61.96
7
–2 –30.03 –50.78 –67.59 –65.43 –67.33 –72.76 –75.77
+4 +33.50 +68.64 +71.45 +80.29 +80.61 +79.96 +72.43
8
–4 –32.26 –60.26 –73.55 –75.25 –78.85 –76.88 –82.44
+4 +32.06 +64.52 +66.54 +69.49 +74.53 +74.99 +64.39
9
–4 –28.73 –53.66 –70.80 –72.63 –75.31 –76.10 –78.98
+4 +30.95 +58.43 +63.73 +70.54 +72.70 +71.65 +62.55
10
–4 –23.82 –49.47 –68.31 –71.06 –73.68 –72.89 –77.28
+6 +30.49 +64.91 +65.50 +77.80 +77.60 +73.74 +68.64
11
–6 –19.76 –50.32 –65.63 –74.66 –76.29 –76.30 –80.35
+6 +24.34 +60.85 +61.24 +70.80 +72.70 +68.64 +58.50
12
–6 –15.83 –41.22 –60.07 –71.71 –73.42 –69.29 –76.95
+6 +20.87 +50.91 +57.06 +68.97 +68.44 +65.96 +56.27
13
–6 –13.15 –38.28 –53.13 –69.49 –70.80 –62.62 –73.68
+8 – +62.16 +59.94 +72.89 +73.42 +49.93 +56.80
14
–8 – –39.06 –44.10 –72.17 –72.37 –48.81 –74.66
+8 – +57.58 +49.99 +66.81 +68.77 +39.65 +49.47
15
–8 – –34.55 –36.45 –67.79 –69.55 –42.27 –52.48
+8 – +51.43 +39.98 +62.95 +61.18 +38.15 +38.80
16
–8 – –31.67 –28.33 –65.83 –67.33 –36.19 –47.05
*
δ/δy = amplitude ratio between positive or negative cycle and yielding displacement.
3
Table 3—Experimental and theoretical values* of nonadherence, the relative error between the experimental
maximum load of each level and the theoretical value varied from –15.5% to –27.6%
Theoretical values (Table 3) for the same models, confirming the conclusion
Experimental that no slippage between the original column and the added
values Nonadherent jacket Monolithic cross section
jacket occurred in these models. For Model M2, the experi-
Maximum
Models load, Maximum Error, Maximum load, Error,
kN (lbf) load, kN (lbf) % kN (lbf) % mental and theoretical values confirmed that its behavior
M1 34.0 (7644) — — 33.0 (7419) — was closer to the theoretical behavior considering total
M2 68.6 (15,422) 64.8 (14,568) –5.9 82.0 (18,434) 16.3
nonadherence of the jacket, although some friction was
present. This was probably due to the fact that the axial load
M3 73.6 (16,546) 63.7 (14,320) –15.5 74.9 (16,838) 1.7
was applied after strengthening of the column, which caused an
M4 80.3 (18,052) 65.5 (14,725) –22.6 83.1 (18,682) 3.4
expansion of the cross section due to Poisson’s effect, thereby
M5 80.6 (18,120) 65.5 (14,725) –23.1 83.0 (18,659) 2.9 mobilizing some friction between the column and the jacket.
M6 80.0 (17,985) 65.4 (14,703) –22.3 82.9 (18,637) 3.5 It was observed that strengthening the column with the
M7 82.4 (18,524) 64.6 (14,523) –27.6 82.0 (18,434) –0.5 axial load already applied had no relevant influence on test
*Assuming nonadherent jacket and monolithic cross section. results and that the resistance of the strengthened models

Fig. 4—Hysteretic diagrams of Models M1 to M7.

4 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008

was considerably higher than that of the original column Damage index
and slightly higher than that of the monolithic model. The There are several types of damage indexes that can generally
last remark can be explained taking into account that be divided into two groups: 1) damage indexes based on the
debonding of the jacket did not occur and that the compressive strength; and 2) damage indexes based on the response.23
strength of the added concrete was on the order of 80 MPa The damage indexes of the first group are inconvenient as
(11,603 psi) instead of approximately 35 MPa (5076 psi) of they need to be calibrated based on the damages observed,
the original concrete. using a large database. Regarding the damage indexes of the
second group, several authors proposed damage indexes
Normalized dissipated energy based on: (a) maximum deformation; (b) cumulative damages;
To account for the differences between the seven models and (c) a combination of the two previous parameters.23-28
when comparing their behavior in terms of capacity to dissipate The damage index, selected for its simplicity to evaluate
energy, it was decided to normalize this parameter by the damages in the models, was defined as a ratio between
dividing the energy dissipated in each cycle by the energy the initial stiffness, taken as the secant stiffness given by
theoretically dissipated, in a cycle of equal amplitude, the origin and the positive peak of the first cycle, and the
assuming an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior of models. stiffness in each cycle, taken as the secant stiffness given
The expression from ECCS22 for cyclic tests of steel structural by the origin and the positive peak of the respective cycle.
elements was adopted In all models, a degradation of the secant stiffness from
cycle to cycle was observed (Fig. 8). Except for the
t nonstrengthened Model M1, which presented higher values

η =
∫0 F ( t ) d δ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (1)
than the remaining models, no significant differences were
observed considering this parameter.
+ + + – – – – – + +
F yt ( δ – δ yt + δ – δ yt ) + F yt ( δ – δ yt + δ – δ yt )
Conclusions of experimental investigation
where η is the normalized dissipated energy in a given cycle; The analysis of the considered parameters indicates that all
models behaved monolithically independently of the adopted
∫
t
F ( t ) dδ is the energy dissipated in this cycle; Fyt+ is the
0
value of the horizontal force needed to yield all the reinforcing interface preparation method, with the exception of Model M2,
bars of the model, acting in the positive direction; Fyt– is the in which the nonadherence of the jacket was intentional. Even
value of the horizontal force needed to yield all the reinforcing this model presented a structural behavior between that of the
bars of the model, acting in the negative direction; δ yt+ and δ yt–
are the corresponding horizontal displacements of the
section where the force is applied; and δ+ and δ – are the
maximum positive and negative displacements in this cycle.
To illustrate this computation, Fig. 6 shows the experimental
curve and the corresponding theoretical curve assuming
elasto-plastic behavior for the 15th cycle of Model M5. The
area defined by the first curve represents the energy dissipated
in this cycle by the model and the area defined by the second
curve represents the energy theoretically dissipated.
In Fig. 7, the normalized dissipated energy in each cycle is
presented for all models. Although quantitatively different,
all strengthened models, including the nonadherent Model M2,
displayed a qualitatively similar behavior. A decrease of this
parameter is observed from the fifth to the sixth cycle and a
smaller decrease from this to the seventh cycle. This tendency
is observed in all sets of cycles of constant amplitude. The only Fig. 6—Hysteretic curves from fifth to 15th cycle of Model M5
significant conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is and of ideal elasto-plastic model.
that the normalized dissipated energy of the nonstrengthened
Model M1 was lower than the corresponding values of the
other models.

Fig. 7—Normalized dissipation of energy per cycle by all

Fig. 5—Cracking pattern of Models M1 and M2. models.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008 5

theoretically perfect frictionless model and the theoretically
perfect adherent model, although closer to the first. These
conclusions are in agreement with those drawn in the
previous study conducted by the authors with identical
models that had been subjected to monotonic loading.14
The reason why debonding of the jacket was not observed
in any of the models, apart from Model M2, is probably
related to the fact that the compressive strength of the added
concrete was reached earlier than the bond strength of the
interface. This means that for shorter columns strengthened
by jacketing, that is, for columns with a lower bending
Fig. 8—Damage index for each cycle of each model.
Fig. 9—Adhesive failure of: (a) pulloff specimen; and (b)
corresponding numerical model.
Fig. 10—Load versus displacement of experimental and
numerical tests of Models M2 and M6.
6 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
moment/shear force ratio, debonding of the jacket may
occur. It was decided to conduct a numerical simulation to
determine the validity of this hypothesis.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The numerical analysis was performed using a finite
element program. Isoparametric finite elements, pentahedral
with six or 15 nodes and hexahedral with eight or 20 nodes,
were used to simulate concrete, considering the Mohr-Coulomb
or Drucker-Prager failure criteria. Linear finite elements
with two or three nodes were used to simulate reinforcing steel,
considering the Von Mises yield criterion. Interface finite
elements, triangular with six or 12 nodes and rectangular
with eight or 16 nodes, were used to simulate the interface,
considering a delamination model. To solve the set of
nonlinear equations, a combined incremental-iterative Newton-
Raphson method was used.
Pulloff tests performed previously10 were numerically
reproduced to calibrate the characteristics of the delamination
model adopted for the interface. Taking into account the
symmetry of the pulloff specimen, only one quarter of the
specimen was modeled. The support conditions consisted of
restraining all degrees of freedom of the nodes corresponding
to the zone of application of the support ring of the experi-
mental device used. The loading consisted of an imposed
displacement at the nodes corresponding to the top of the
core where, in the experimental test, a steel disc was epoxy
bonded to which the tension force was applied (Fig. 9). Slant
shear tests also previously performed10 were also numerically
reproduced for the same purposes.
Afterward, monotonic tests performed with columns
strengthened by jacketing14 were numerically reproduced.
Due to the model symmetry, only one-half of the column was
modeled. The support conditions consisted of restraining all
degrees of freedom of the base nodes and the displacement
normal to the bending plane of all the nodes in the symmetry
plane. The loading, in the first 10 increments, consisted of
gradually applying the axial force, as a uniformly distributed
load on the column top, as performed experimentally. The
Fig. 11—Distribution of vertical stresses in original model
and in model 50% shorter.
axial force was kept constant in the following increments and
an imposed displacement was applied to the points at 1.0 m
(3.281 ft) above the base, as in the experimental tests, until a
value of 20 mm (0.787 in.) was reached to clearly include the
plastic phase.
The monotonic tests14 of the nonstrengthened column, the
monolithic column, the column strengthened without
treating the interface, the column strengthened with the
interface prepared with sandblasting, and the column with
the nonadherent jacket were numerically modeled. Several
meshes were defined and results compared. The best mesh
was selected considering the accuracy of the numerical
results, by comparison with the corresponding experimental
results, and also the time needed for the calculation. As an
example, in Fig. 10, the results of the experimental tests and of
the corresponding numerical simulations of Models M2 and M6
are plotted, that is, the nonadherent model and the model with the
perfectly bonded jacket, respectively. It can be seen that the
numerical models predict higher strength and stiffness than the
corresponding experimental models, although, qualitatively, the
relative difference in behavior is the same.
Based on the numerical model of the column strengthened
without treatment of the interface surface, similar numerical
models were analyzed with 90, 80, 70, 60, and 50% of the
height of the experimental model. Results confirmed the
hypothesis that debonding of the jacket may occur for shorter
columns strengthened without treatment of the interface
surface. As an example, Fig. 11 shows the vertical stress
distribution in the original model and in the 50% shorter
model, corresponding to bending moment/shear force ratios
of 1 and 0.5 m (3.281 and 1.640 ft), respectively. In the
neighborhood of the base cross section, in the first case, a
monolithic distribution of vertical stresses is observed; and
in the second case, a transition of vertical stresses from
compression to tension in the jacket and, again, compression
in the column near the jacket.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the experimental program, it can be stated that,
for a sound column with a bending moment/shear force ratio
of 1.0 m (3.281 ft) or greater subjected to cyclic loading, a
monolithic behavior can be obtained without increasing the
roughness of the interface surface or using bonding agents or
applying steel connectors before strengthening it with an RC
jacket with a thickness less than 17.5% of the original
column width, which is in agreement with the conclusions
drawn previously from monotonic tests.14 From the numerical
study performed subsequently, it can be concluded that, for
a bending moment/shear force ratio lower than 1.0 m (3.281 ft),
debonding of the jacket may occur without treatment of the
interface surface.
ACKOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Sika, Hilti, Betão Liz, Dywidag, Pregaia, Cimpor, and
Secil for their collaboration in this research project.
REFERENCES
1. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “Structural Rehabilitation of
Columns Using Reinforced Concrete Jacketing,” Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials, V. 5, No. 1, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2003,
pp. 29-37.
2. Aguilar, J.; Juarez, H.; Ortega, R.; and Iglesias, J., “The Mexico
Earthquake of September 19, 1985: Statistics of Damage and Retrofitting
Techniques in Reinforced Concrete Buildings Affected by the 1985
Earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 5, No. 1, 1989, pp. 145-151.
3. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., “Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159.
4. Sugano, S., “Seismic Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Buildings
in Japan,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, V. 14, No. 4, 1981, pp. 209-222.
5. Ortiz, J. L., and Diaz, J. M., “Strengthening Effectiveness of Low
Quality Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened by Two Different
Procedures,” Informes de la Construcción, 1975, 272 pp. (in Spanish)
6. Bett, B. J.; Klingner, R. E.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Lateral Load Response of
Strengthened and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 85, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1988, pp. 499-508.
7. Alcocer, S., and Jirsa, J., “Assessment of the Response of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Connections Redesigned by Jacketing,” Proceedings of the
Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 3, 1990,
pp. 295-304.
8. Gomes, A., and Appleton, J., “Experimental Tests of Strengthened
Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Revista Portu-
guesa de Engenharia de Estruturas, V. 38, 1994, pp. 19-29. (in Portuguese)
9. Stoppenhagen, D. R.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Wyllie, L. A., “Seismic Repair
and Strengthening of a Severely Damaged Concrete Frame,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1995, pp. 177-187.
10. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “Concrete-to-Concrete
Bond Strength: Influence of the Roughness of the Substrate Surface,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, No. 9, 2004, pp. 675-681.
11. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “Concrete-to-Concrete
Bond Strength: Influence of an Epoxy-Based Bonding Agent on a
Roughened Substrate Surface,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 57,
No. 8, 2005, pp. 463-468.
12. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; Silva, V. D.; and Lourenço, J. F., “Influence
of Added Concrete on Concrete-to-Concrete Bond Strength,” Building and
Environment, V. 41, No. 12, 2006, pp. 1934-1939.
13. Júlio, E. S., “The Influence of the Interface on the Behavior of
Columns Strengthened by Reinforced Concrete Jacketing,” PhD thesis,
University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2001. (in Portuguese)
14. Júlio, E. S.; Branco, F.; and Silva, V. D., “RC Jacketing—Interface
Influence on Monotonic Loading Response,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2005, pp. 252-257.
15. Gomes, A., “Behavior and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” PhD thesis, Instituto Superior
Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 1992. (in Portuguese)
16. Park, R.; Priestley, M. J.; and Gill, W. D., “Ductility of Square-
Confined Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108,
No. ST4, 1982, pp. 929-950.
17. Ozcebe, G., and Saatcioglu, M., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Columns under Bi-Directional Load Cycles,” Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1986.
18. Ahmad, J. D.; Durrani, J.; and Wight, J. K., “Earthquake Resistance
of Reinforced Concrete Interior Connections Including a Floor Slab,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp. 400-406.
19. Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., “Strength and Ductility of Concrete
Bridge Columns under Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 61-75.
20. Ghee, A. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., “Seismic Shear
Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 45-59.
21. Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G., “Response of Reinforced Concrete
Columns to Simulated Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 3-12.
22. ECCS, “Recommended Testing Procedures for Assessing the
Behaviour of Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads,” European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork, 1986, 45 pp.
23. Ghobarah, A.; Abou-Elfath, H.; and Biddah, A., “Response-Based
Damage Assessment of Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, V. 28, 1999, pp. 79-104.
24. Banon, H., and Veneziano, D., “Seismic Safety of Reinforced
Concrete Members and Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, V. 10, 1982, pp. 179-193.
25. Chung, Y. S.; Meyer, C.; and Shinozuka, M., “Modeling of Concrete
Damage,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3, May-June 1989, pp. 259-271.
26. Darwin, D., and Nmai, C. K., “Energy Dissipation in RC Beams
Under Cyclic Load,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 112, No. 8,
1986, pp. 1829-1845.
27. Park, Y.-J., and Ang, A. H.-S., “Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model
for Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111,
No. 4, 1985, pp. 722-739.
28. Roufaiel, M. S. L., and Meyer, C., “Analytical Modeling of Hysteretic
Behavior of R/C Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 113, No. 3,
1987, pp. 429-444.
7