Near-Surface-Mounted Composite System for Repair

and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Subjected to Axial Load and Biaxial Bending
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tamer El-Maaddawy1 and Amr S. El-Dieb2

Abstract: This paper aims to examine the effectiveness of near-surface-mounted (NSM) glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite
rebars in combination with external confinement with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite sheets to repair and strengthen
reinforced concrete (RC) columns exposed to axial load and biaxial bending. Nine columns with a square cross section of 150 × 150 mm
were constructed and tested under biaxial eccentric loading with equal eccentricity along each principal axis. Test parameters included load
eccentricity, concrete grade, and level of the CFRP confinement used in combination with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. The effectiveness
of the NSM-GFRP reinforcement was greatly affected by the CFRP-confinement level and the load eccentricity. For columns with a high level
of CFRP confinement, the gain in the load capacity attributable to the NSM-GFRP reinforcement was higher at a lower eccentricity. For
columns with a low level of CFRP confinement, the gain in the load capacity attributable to the NSM-GFRP reinforcement was higher at a
higher eccentricity. The enhancement in the load capacity was more pronounced in the columns with a lower concrete grade. An analytical
model for predicting the load capacity of RC columns strengthened with NSM-GFRP rebars in combination with CFRP confinement under
axial load and biaxial bending is introduced. The model accounts for the nonlinear behavior of materials and the change in geometry
under biaxial eccentric loading. The model accuracy is demonstrated by comparing the model predictions with the experimental results.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000181. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Concrete columns; Reinforced concrete; Composite materials; Rehabilitation; Bending; Axial loads.
Author keywords: Biaxial bending; Columns; Composites; Near-surface mounted (NSM); Repair; Strengthening.

Introduction
Bridge piers and corner columns in reinforced concrete (RC) build-
ings are typically exposed to an eccentric load, causing biaxial
bending. Reinforced concrete columns cast monolithically as a
part of frames in both directions, and columns supporting heavy
spandrel beams are often exposed to simultaneous axial load
and biaxial bending. Externally bonded carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) composite jacketing system with fibers oriented
in the circumferential direction is proved to be a very effective
solution to upgrade deficient RC columns. External CFRP jackets
provide lateral confinement to the column, thereby increasing the
concrete compressive strength and ultimate strain [Bank 2006;
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2008a; Hollaway and Teng
2008; Balaguru et al. 2009]. The effectiveness of the external CFRP
confinement to improve the load capacity and ductility of concen-
trically loaded RC columns has been reported in numerous studies
(Rocca et al. 2008; Eid et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2009). CFRP confine-
ment also improves the seismic resistance and energy absorption
capacity of RC columns and bridge piers (Sause et al. 2004; Ghosh
and Sheikh 2007). The lateral support provided by the CFRP
confinement controls spalling of concrete and prevents buckling
1 the load capacity but slightly improved the deformation capacity
Associate Professor, UAE-Univ., Al-Ain, Abu Dhabi, P.O. Box 17555,
UAE (corresponding author). E-mail: tamer.maaddawy@uaeu.ac.ae
2
Professor, UAE-Univ., Al-Ain, Abu Dhabi, P.O. Box 17555, UAE.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 14, 2010; approved on
October 18, 2010; published online on October 1, 2010. Discussion period
open until January 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, Vol. 15, No. 4, August 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2011/
4-602–614/$25.00.
of the longitudinal steel reinforcing bars, thereby allowing the col-
umns to behave in a more ductile manner under seismic loading.
The effectiveness of the CFRP confinement is significantly
affected by load eccentricity. CFRP confinement is less effective
under eccentric loading relative to concentric loading (Chaallal
and Shahawy 2000; Parvin and Wang 2001; Mukherjee et al. 2004;
Hadi 2006; Parvin and Schroeder 2008; El-Maaddawy et al. 2010).
The improvement in the load capacity under uniaxial eccentric
loading is more significant at small load eccentricities (Yi et al.
2004; Lignola et al. 2007; Ranger and Bisby 2007; Jiang and Teng
2009). Negligible improvement in the load capacity was recorded at
high load eccentricities where the column exhibited a tension mode
of failure (Bank 2006; ACI 2008a; El-Maaddawy 2009). Few
researchers investigated the performance of CFRP-confined RC
columns under biaxial eccentric loading (Youcef et al. 2008;
Punurai et al.. 2009). For RC columns with a square cross section
of 70 × 70 mm subjected to biaxial eccentric loading with equal
eccentricity ratio of 0.51 in the direction of each principal axis
(i.e., ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0:51), the CFRP confinement resulted in
up to a 40% increase in the load capacity and a 100% increase
in the deformation capacity (Youcef et al. 2008). The level of
the CFRP confinement had no noticeable effect on the gain in
(Youcef et al. 2008). One and two layers of CFRP confinement
resulted in approximately 22 and 26% increase in the load capacity,
respectively, for RC columns with a square cross section of
76 × 76 mm under biaxial eccentric loading with ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼
0:67 (Punurai et al. 2009). This minor increase in the load capacity
at high load eccentricities indicates that there is a need for a
different structural engineering solution capable of increasing

602 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 the flexural resistance and the axial load-carrying capacity of RC
columns subjected to biaxial eccentric loading.
Effective strengthening of RC columns under biaxial eccentric
loading requires flexural strengthening with longitudinal reinforce-
ment to improve the flexural capacity in addition to a confining
pressure to increase the axial load-carrying capacity. The additional
longitudinal reinforcement needed for flexural strengthening shall
be extended beyond the end cross sections to ensure continuation of
reinforcement and proper end anchorage. Previous research indi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cates that near-surface-mounted (NSM) composite reinforcement
is an effective technique for increasing the flexural load-carrying
capacity of RC beams (El-Hacha and Rizkalla 2004; Barros and
Fortes 2005; Yost et al. 2007). The NSM composite reinforcement
is also effective in improving the structural performance of RC col-
umns failing in bending under cyclic loading (Barros et al. 2006).
The viability of using the NSM composite reinforcement in com-
bination with external CFRP confinement to enhance the flexural
resistance and ductility of RC columns under seismic loading was
demonstrated in a recent study by Bournas and Triantafillou (2009).
This paper aims to examine the potential use of near-surface-
mounted (NSM) glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars
in combination with external CFRP confinement to upgrade RC
columns subjected to simultaneous axial load and biaxial bending,
a topic that has received little attention in the literature. This work
includes experimental testing and analytical modeling. The exper-
imental program included testing of nine RC columns with end cor-
bels under biaxial eccentric loading with equal eccentricity in the
direction of each principal axis. An analytical model for the pre-
diction of the load capacity of RC columns strengthened with
NSM-GFRP rebars in combination with external CFRP confine-
ment under simultaneous axial load and biaxial bending is intro-
duced and verified against test results.
Experimental Program
Experimental evidence on the effectiveness of the NSM-GFRP
reinforcement in combination with external CFRP confinement
to improve the structural performance of RC columns subjected
to simultaneous axial load and biaxial bending is scarce in the
literature. The experimental program presented in this paper is
Fig. 1. Test specimen (all dimensions are in mm).
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 603
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614
initiated to fill this gap and to provide preliminary experimental
data on the subject.
Test Specimen
A schematic of the test specimen showing details of reinforcement
is shown in Fig. 1. The test specimen was a reinforced concrete
column with a square cross section of 150 × 150 mm. The speci-
men had end corbels to allow the application of the biaxial eccentric
loading. Each corbel had a cross section of 300 × 300 mm and a
length of 350 mm. The overall length of the test specimen including
the end corbels was 1,200 mm. The longitudinal steel reinforce-
ment in the test region consisted of four No. 10 deformed steel bars.
The ties in the test region were 6-mm diameter plain bars spaced at
150 mm at the center. The tie size, type, and spacing were selected
to represent a poorly detailed column with a deficiency in design
before strengthening. To prevent any premature failure at the ends
of the test region, an extra tie was added at each end. The concrete
cover up to the surface of the ties was 20 mm. The end corbels were
designed to have flexural and shear strengths well in excess of the
anticipated failure load of the column section in the test region.
Test Matrix
The test matrix of the experimental program is given in
Table 1. Test parameters included the concrete grade, the CFRP-
confinement level used in combination with the NSM-GFRP
reinforcement, and the load eccentricity. The specimens were di-
vided into three main groups—[A], [B], and [C]. Each group in-
cluded three specimens. Specimens of Groups [A] and [B] were
tested under biaxial eccentric loading with ex ¼ ey ¼ 112:5 mm.
This corresponded to a nominal eccentricity–to–cross section side
dimension ratio of 0.75 in the direction of each principal axis
(i.e., ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0:75). Specimens of Group [A] had a
concrete grade of 30 MPa whereas specimens of Group [B] had
a concrete grade of 40 MPa. Specimens of Group [C] were tested
under biaxial eccentric loading with ex ¼ ey ¼ 150 mm, which
corresponded to a nominal eccentricity–to–cross section side
dimension ratio of 1.0 in the direction of each principal axis
(i.e., ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 1:0). Specimens of Group [C] had a concrete
grade of 30 MPa. In each group, two specimens were strengthened
with NSM-GFRP composite system, and one specimen was kept
unstrengthened to serve as a control specimen. One of the two
 Table 1. Test Matrix
Strengthening regime
Group Concrete grade (MPa) Eccentricity ratio Longitudinal reinforcement CFRP confinement Specimena
[A] f 0c ¼ 30 ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0:75 No No N-E1-G1
NSM-GFRP 1 layer SF1-E1-G1
NSM-GFRP 2 layers SF2-E1-G1
[B] f 0c ¼ 40 ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0:75 No No N-E1-G2
NSM-GFRP 1 layer SF1-E1-G2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NSM-GFRP 2 layers SF2-E1-G2

[C] f 0c ¼ 30 ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 1:0 No No N-E2-G1
NSM-GFRP 1 layer SF1-E2-G1
NSM-GFRP 2 layers SF2-E2-G1
a
N = no strengthening; SF1 and SF2 = NSM-GFRP longitudinal rebars with 1 and 2 layers of CFRP confinement, respectively; E1 and E2 = eccentricity ratios
in the direction of each principal axis of 0.75 and 1.0, respectively; G1 and G2 = concrete grades of 30 and 40 MPa, respectively.

NSM-GFRP strengthened specimens was wrapped with one layer
of CFRP whereas the other specimen was wrapped with two
layers of CFRP. Future research should consider a wider range
of concrete grades, steel and NSM-GFRP reinforcement ratios,
CFRP-confinement levels, concrete covers, and eccentricity ratios
in the direction of each principal axis.
Materials
Two mixes were used in the study—Mixes 1 and 2 for nominal
concrete grades of 30 and 40 MPa, respectively. The mixes were
designed to produce a self-compacting concrete. The mix propor-
tions are given in Table 2. The cement used in both mixes was ordi-
nary portland cement that conforms to the ASTM Type I and the BS
EN 197 CEM I. The coarse aggregate was natural crushed stone
with a nominal size of 20 mm, a specific gravity of 2.65, and ab-
sorption of 1.3%. Two types of sand were used—crushed natural
stone sand with a fineness modulus of 3.5 and a specific gravity of
2.63 and dune sand with a fineness modulus of 0.88 and a specific
gravity of 2.63. A modified polycarboxylic ether superplasticizer
(GLENIUM SKY 512) manufactured and supplied by BASF
was added to both mixes to make the concrete self-compacting.
The admixture is light brown, with a specific gravity of 1.1, a
pH value in the range of 5 to 8, and an alkali content as Na2 O equiv-
alent of 0.26% (according to manufacturer data sheet). It complies
with the ASTM C494 Types F and G and the ASTM C1017 Types I
and II. The admixture dosage was adjusted for the mixes to have a
slump flow higher than the minimum value of 600 mm required
for self-compacting concrete [European Federation for Specialist
Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems (EFNARC) 2005;
ACI 2008b]. The 28-day compressive strengths of Mixes 1 and 2
were 30.2 and 40.6 MPa, with corresponding standard deviations
of 1.5 and 1.2 MPa, respectively. The longitudinal steel reinforce-
ment was No. 10 Grade 520 deformed bars with measured yield
strength of 550 MPa. The shear reinforcement was Grade 300,
6-mm-diameter plain bars. The GFRP rebars used as NSM
reinforcement had a diameter of 10 mm and were manufactured
and supplied by Pultron Composites. A cementitious, free flowing,
nonshrink grout (SikaGrout-114) was used as a bonding agent
for the NSM-GFRP rebars. The CFRP fabric used for wrapping
(SikaWrap Hex 230C) was unidirectional, with fibers oriented
in the transverse direction of the specimen. The fabric was bonded
to the specimen with an epoxy resin (Sikadur 330). Typical
mechanical properties of the composite reinforcement used in
the study, as provided by the manufacturer, are given in Table 3.
Repair and Strengthening Procedure
The strengthened specimens had longitudinal grooves in the con-
crete cover parallel to the steel reinforcing bars, 10 × 20 mm each,
placed at the four sides of the columns by mounting wooden strips
at proper positions on the molds before concrete casting. These
grooves were introduced in the test specimens to represent possible
cracks caused by corrosion of the longitudinal steel reinforcement.
The concrete cover at each corner was completely removed before
strengthening to simulate possible spalling of concrete cover
caused by corrosion of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. The
repair/strengthening system included installation of the NSM-
GFRP reinforcement, one rebar at each corner, pouring of the ce-
mentitious grout, followed by surface preparation and application
of the CFRP wraps. Fig. 2 summarizes the repair and strengthening
procedure. The NSM-GFRP rebar nearest the extreme compression
side (GFRP Rebar 1 shown in Fig. 1) was anchored to the end cor-
bels by using two GFRP dowels, one at each end, inserted into
holes predrilled inside the end corbels and held in-place by using
an epoxy adhesive. Similar anchorage systems of NSM composite
reinforcement have been adopted by other researchers (Barros et al.
2006; Bournas and Triantafillou 2009). The GFRP dowels ex-
tended inside the end corbels for approximately 120 mm and
lap spliced with the GFRP Rebar 1 in the test region. The length

Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Composite Reinforcement

Table 2. Mix Proportions
Tensile Tensile Ultimate
Mix composition Mix 1 Mix 2
modulus strength elongation
Total cementing materials (kg=m3 ) 325 425 Type (GPa) (MPa) (%)
Water/cement ratio 0.5 0.42 GFRP rebars 58.8 1150 1.95
Fine aggregate % by weight to total aggregate 54 46 SikaWrap Hex 230C dry fabric 230 3450 1.5
Coarse sand % by weight of fine aggregate 60 50 Sikadur 330 resin — 30 1.5
Dune sand % by weight of fine aggregate 40 50 SikaWrap Hex 230C cured 65.4 894 1.33
Coarse aggregate % by weight to total aggregate 46 54 with Sikadur 330a
28-day compressive strength (MPa) 30:2
1:5 40:6
1:2 a
Thickness of a typical cured composite sheet is 0.381 mm.

604 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Repair and strengthened procedure (all dimensions are in mm)
of the lap splice was approximately 120 mm. The other three
NSM-GFRP rebars (GFRP Rebars 2, 3, and 4 shown in Fig. 1)
were extended through the full length of the end corbels. To do
that, the concrete cover of the end corbels at the locations of these
NSM-GFRP rebars was first removed throughout the full length
of the end corbels before installing the NSM-GFRP rebars. After
installing the NSM-GFRP rebars, the cementitious grout was
poured around them. Aluminum angles were used to maintain
the grout around the GFRP rebars until hardening. The specimen
was air cured for 3 days, then the concrete surface was prepared by
grinding to remove any dust and loose particles. The corners of the
specimens were rounded to a radius of approximately 15 mm. The
surface of the specimen was cleaned from dust and any contami-
nants by using a high-pressure air jet. The epoxy resin was applied
directly onto the prepared substrate by using a trowel. The carbon
fiber fabrics, precut to desired dimensions, were then placed onto
the resin coating. Pressure was applied with gloved hands until the
resin was squeezed out between the fabrics rovings. A final sealer
coat of resin was then applied onto the exposed surface. The CFRP
sheets had an overlap of 75 mm in the transverse direction of the
specimen. The lay-up process was repeated when two layers of fab-
rics were used.
Test Setup and Instrumentations
The specimens were tested under biaxial eccentric loading by using
a 200-kN capacity reaction frame. All specimens were tested to
failure under monotonically increasing load. The load was applied
by means of a hydraulic jack and two loading plates: a top plate
with a knife edge and an adaptor plate. V-notch grooves were
cut through the adapter plate in directions skewed with respect
to the principal axes at desired angles to allow the biaxial eccentric
loading application (Fig. 3). The load was recorded by means of a
Fig. 3. Loading plates
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 605
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614
load cell. The longitudinal strains were measured at midheight of
the columns by means of electrical strain gages. The lateral mid-
height displacements in the direction of each principal axis were
measured by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs).
The test stopped when crushing of concrete at the compression side
occurred in unstrengthened specimens or rupture of the CFRP
in the transverse direction at the compression side occurred in
strengthened specimens. A test in progress is shown in Fig. 4.
Experimental Results
The main test results are summarized in Table 4. The strains of the
steel rebar located nearest the extreme tension fiber at peak load in
some specimens were not recorded because the strain gauge mal-
functioned in the postyield stage. It can be seen in Table 4 that the
use of the CFRP confinement significantly increased the compres-
sive strain at peak load. The compressive strain at peak load of the
columns strengthened with NSM-GFRP rebars in combination with
one layer of CFRP confinement was on average 70% higher than
that of the control unstrengthened samples. The use of two layers of
CFRP confinement increased the compressive strain at peak load
by approximately 137% over that of the unstrengthened samples.
Fig. 5 shows typical modes of failure observed in test specimens.
The relationships of the load versus the lateral displacement along
the diagonal of the cross section for specimens of Groups [A], [B],
and [C] are shown in Figs. 6–8, respectively. The lateral displace-
ment along the diagonal of the column cross section, Δ, was
calculated from the measured lateral displacement in the direction
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of each principal axis (i.e., Δ ¼ Δ2x þ Δ2y ).
Failure Modes
The unstrengthened specimens failed by crushing of concrete at the
compression side. All unstrengthened specimens exhibited a duc-
tile mode of failure because crushing of concrete at the compression
side was preceded by yielding of the steel rebar nearest the extreme
tension fiber as characterized by the change in slope of the load-
displacement curves and confirmed by the measured strains re-
ported in Table 4. The strengthened specimens failed by rupture
of the CFRP in the transverse direction at the compression side.
All strengthened specimens except SF1-E1-G1 exhibited a ductile
mode of failure because rupture of the CFRP in the transverse di-
rection at the compression side was preceded by yielding of the
tensile steel rebar nearest the extreme tension fiber. In these spec-
imens, yielding of the tensile steel rebar before rupture of the CFRP
is characterized by the change in slope of the load-displacement
curves and confirmed by the measured strains presented in Table 4.
Rupture of the CFRP was less evident in the specimens with the
higher confinement level (two layers of CFRP) than in those with
the lower confinement level (one layer of CFRP), as shown in
Fig. 5. Similarly, the ruptured area of the CFRP in the specimens
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Test in progress

Table 4. Test Results

Group Specimen Pexp (kN) Δexp (mm) εc;peak (%) εs;peak (%) Failure Mode
[A] N-E1-G1 70 7.9 0.36 > 0:3 Concrete crushing (tension)a
SF1-E1-G1 119 11.2 0.52 0.28 CFRP rupture (balanced)b
SF2-E1-G1 138 18.7 0.92 Not availablec CFRP rupture (tension)a
[B] N-E1-G2 79 7.8 0.33 > 0:32 Concrete crushing (tension)a
SF1-E1-G2 130 15.1 0.73 > 0:74 CFRP rupture (tension)a
SF2-E1-G2 139 18.1 0.94 >1 CFRP rupture (tension)a
[B] N-E2-G1 48 9.4 0.35 > 0:36 Concrete crushing (tension)a
SF1-E2-G1 88 14.8 0.51 > 0:6 CFRP rupture (tension)a
SF2-E2-G1 90 18.0 0.60 > 0:9 CFRP rupture (tension)a
a
Ductile mode of failure, in which crushing of concrete or rupture of CFRP was preceded by yielding of the tensile steel rebar.
b
Rupture of CFRP occurred almost at the same time as yielding of the tensile steel rebar.
c
Strain value was not reported because of strain gauge malfunction.

with the higher confinement level was smaller than that of the spec-
imens with the lower confinement level. The rupture of the CFRP in
the transverse direction at the compression side occurred at the bot-
tom part of the specimen possibly because of the presence of the
lap-spliced longitudinal GFRP rebar at this location. Specimen
SF1-E1-G1 exhibited a balanced mode of failure where the rupture
of the CFRP almost occurred at the same time as the yielding of the
tensile steel rebar located near the extreme tension fiber, as indi-
cated in the load-lateral displacement curve of this specimen (Fig. 6)
and confirmed by the measured strain (Table 4). This specimen had
a concrete grade of 30 MPa and was strengthened with longitudinal
NSM-GFRP rebars in combination with one layer of CFRP con-
finement. The balanced mode of failure exhibited by this specimen
can be ascribed to the lower concrete grade in addition to the lower
level of the CFRP confinement. Typically, for RC sections with the
same cross-sectional dimensions and longitudinal reinforcement
ratio but with different concrete grades, yielding of the tensile steel
reinforcement before failure is less likely to occur in specimens
with the lower concrete grade than in specimens with the higher
concrete grade. The lower confinement level of this specimen
was also not sufficient to increase the ultimate compressive strain
of the concrete to a level that would allow yielding of the tensile
steel rebar before rupture of the CFRP.
Load-Deflection Curves
The load versus the lateral displacement relationships shown in
Figs. 6–8 indicate that the NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combina-
tion with the CFRP confinement effectively improved the load-
carrying capacity and the lateral displacement at peak load of
the columns. It can be seen from Table 4 and Fig. 6 that for spec-
imens of Group [A], f 0c ¼ 30 MPa and ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0:75, the
NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combination with one layer of CFRP
confinement resulted in approximately 70% increase in the load-
carrying capacity and approximately 42% increase in the lateral
displacement at peak load. The gain in the load capacity and lateral
displacement at peak load for the specimens of Group [A] increased

606 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 160

140

120

100

Load (kN)
80

60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40 N-E1-G1
SF1-E1-G1
20 SF2-E1-G1

0
0 5 10 15 20
Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Load-lateral displacement curves for specimens of Group [A]

160

140

120

100

Load (kN)
80

60

40 N-E1-G2
SF1-E1-G2
20 SF2-E1-G2

0
0 5 10 15 20
Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Load-lateral displacement curves for specimens of Group [B]

160

140

120

100
Load (kN)

80
Fig. 5. Failure modes
60

40 N-E2-G1
to 97 and 137%, respectively, when two layers of CFRP confine- SF1-E2-G1
ment were used in combination with the NSM-GFRP rein- 20 SF2-E2-G1
forcement. From Table 4 and Fig. 7, it can be seen that for
specimens of Group [B], f 0c ¼ 40 MPa and ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 0
0 5 10 15 20
0:75, the NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combination with one layer Lateral displacement (mm)
of CFRP confinement resulted in approximately 65% increase in
the load-carrying capacity and approximately 94% increase in Fig. 8. Load-lateral displacement curves for specimens of Group [C]
the lateral displacement at peak load. Approximately 76 and
132% enhancements in the load capacity and the lateral displace-
ment at peak load, respectively, were recorded for specimens of in approximately 83% increase in the load-carrying capacity and
Group [B] when two layers of CFRP were used in combination approximately 57% increase in the lateral displacement at peak
of the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. For specimens of Group [C], load (Table 4, Fig. 8). The use of the NSM-GFRP reinforcement
f 0c ¼ 30 MPa and ex =bx ¼ ey =by ¼ 1:0, the NSM-GFRP reinforce- in combination with two layers of CFRP confinement for speci-
ment in combination with one layer of CFRP confinement resulted mens of Group [C] resulted in approximately 88% gain in the load

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 607

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 capacity and approximately 91% increase in the lateral displace-
ment at peak load.
Discussion
Large lateral displacement before ultimate load would provide
ample warning of structural distress; hence, ductility was evaluated
in the current study by the lateral displacement at peak load. The
effect of varying test parameters in terms of concrete grade, load
eccentricity, and level of the CFRP confinement used in combina-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reinforcement. The increase in the load capacity caused by reduc-
ing the concrete grade was more significant when the higher con-
finement level (two layers of CFRP) was used in combination with
the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. This indicates that the gain in the
load capacity caused by strengthening is more sensitive to the
concrete grade when a high level of CFRP confinement is used
in combination with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement.
The effect of concrete grade on the gain in the lateral displace-
ment at peak load is also affected by the level of the CFRP confine-

tion with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement on the gains in the load
capacity and ductility, measured by the lateral displacement at peak
load, are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. E1 and E2 refer to
nominal eccentricity ratios of 0.75 and 1.0 in the direction of each
principal axis, respectively, and G1 and G2 refer to concrete grades
of 30 and 40 MPa, respectively.
Effect of Concrete Grade
In general, higher gain in the load capacity was recorded in spec-
imens with the lower concrete grade (Fig. 9). At an eccentricity
ratio of 0.75 in the direction of each principal axis, a negligible
increase in the gain in the load capacity was recorded as a result
of reducing the concrete grade when the lower confinement level
(one layer of CFRP) was used in combination with the NSM-GFRP
ment used in combination with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. At
an eccentricity ratio of 0.75 in the direction of each principal axis,
increasing the concrete grade from 30 to 40 MPa resulted in a sig-
nificant increase in the gain in lateral displacement at peak load
when one layer of CFRP confinement was used in combination
with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. This is because the specimen
with the lower concrete grade of 30 MPa (SF1-E1-G1) exhibited a
balanced/brittle mode of failure whereas its counterpart with the
higher concrete grade of 40 MPa exhibited a tension/ductile mode
of failure. At the same eccentricity ratio of 0.75 in the direction of
each principal axis, the concrete grade had no effect on the gain in
the lateral displacement at peak load when two layers of CFRP
confinement were used in combination with the NSM-GFRP
reinforcement.

120 Effect of Load Eccentricity

NSM-GFRP + 1 layer CFRP
Fig. 9 indicates that the effect of load eccentricity on the gain in the
100 NSM-GFRP + 2 layers CFRP
load capacity is affected by the level of CFRP confinement.
Gain in load capacity (%)

The first and last sets of bar charts in this figure indicate that
80 for the same concrete grade of 30 MPa, the NSM-GFRP reinforce-
ment in combination with one layer of CFRP confinement was
60 more effective in increasing the load capacity at the higher eccen-
tricity ratio of 1.0 in the direction of each principal axis. On the
40
contrary, the NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combination with
two layers of CFRP confinement was more effective in increasing
the load capacity at the lower eccentricity ratio of 0.75 in the di-
20
rection of each principal axis. This implies that at the higher eccen-
tricity, the gain in the load capacity is more sensitive to the
0 longitudinal NSM-GFRP reinforcement than the level of the CFRP
Biaxial E1-G1 Biaxial E1-G2 Biaxial E2-G1
Test condition
confinement whereas at the lower eccentricity, the gain in the load
capacity is more sensitive to the level of the CFRP confinement
Fig. 9. Effect of test parameters on gain in load capacity than the longitudinal NSM-GFRP reinforcement.
Fig. 10 indicates that the effectiveness of the strengthening sys-
tem to enhance the lateral displacement at peak load is also affected
160 by the load eccentricity and the level of the CFRP confinement used
NSM-GFRP + 1 layer CFRP in combination with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. For the same
Gain in lateral displacmenet at peak load (%)

140 NSM-GFRP + 2 layers CFRP concrete grade of 30 MPa, the gain in lateral displacement at peak
load caused by strengthening with NSM-GFRP reinforcement in
(

120 combination with one layer of CFRP slightly increased as a result

of increasing the load eccentricity ratio from 0.75 to 1.0 in the di-
100
rection of each principal axis, as shown in the first and last sets of
80 bar charts in Fig. 10. This is because of the change in the mode of
failure from a balanced mode at the lower eccentricity to a tension
60 mode at the higher eccentricity. On the contrary, the gain in the
lateral displacement at peak load was lower at the higher eccentric-
40 ity ratio when two layers of CFRP were used in combination with
the NSM-GFRP reinforcement. This is consistent with the data pre-
20 sented in Fig. 9, in which a higher gain in the load capacity was
recorded at the higher eccentricity ratio when one layer of CFRP
0
Biaxial E1-G1 Biaxial E1-G2 Biaxial E2-G1 was used in combination with the longitudinal NSM-GFRP
Test condition reinforcement whereas a lower gain in the load capacity was re-
corded at the higher eccentricity ratio when two layers of CFRP
Fig. 10. Effect of test parameters on gain in lateral displacement at
were used in combination with the longitudinal NSM-GFRP
peak load
reinforcement.

608 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 Effect of CFRP Confinement
From Fig. 9, it can be seen that the CFRP-confinement level has a
more pronounced effect on the gain in the load capacity at the lower
eccentricity ratio. For the same concrete grade of 30 MPa and load
eccentricity ratio of 0.75 in the direction of each principal axis, sig-
nificant increase in the gain in the load capacity of approximately
40% was recorded as a result of increasing the level of confinement
from one to two layers of CFRP. At the same load eccentricity ratio
of 0.75 in the direction of each principal axis but for the higher
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete grade of 40 MPa, increasing the level of the CFRP con-

finement resulted in a marginal increase in the gain in the load
capacity of approximately 18%. At the higher eccentricity ratio
of 1.0 in the direction of each principal axis and for the concrete
grade of 30 MPa, increasing the level of the CFRP confinement had
insignificant effect on the gain in the load capacity, as shown in the
last bar chart in Fig. 9. From Fig. 10, it is evident that increasing the
level of the CFRP confinement resulted in a higher gain in lateral
displacement at peak load. At the same eccentricity ratio of 0.75 in
the direction of each principal axis, the level of the CFRP confine-
ment had a more pronounced effect on improving the lateral dis-
placement at peak load for specimens with the lower concrete
grade. For the same concrete grade of 30 MPa, the improvement
in the lateral displacement at peak load caused by increasing the
level of the CFRP confinement was more significant at the lower
eccentricity.
Fig. 11. Stress-strain relationship of concrete: (a) unconfined concrete;
(b) CFRP-confined concrete
Analytical Modeling

The conventional analysis called first-order analysis is based on the

undeformed shape of a structural element. For RC columns sub- 2f 0c
εco ¼ ð2Þ
jected to combined axial load and bending moment, the secondary Ec
moment caused by the P-Δ effect would result in reducing the load-
carrying capacity; hence, the change in geometry caused by the
pffiffiffiffi
lateral displacement should be taken into account. In this section, Ec ¼ 4;700 f 0c MPa ð3Þ
an analytical model that accounts for the effect of the NSM-GFRP
reinforcement, the CFRP confinement, and the change in geometry The CFRP-confined concrete stress-strain model developed
caused by the lateral displacement under biaxial eccentric loading by Lam and Teng (2003) and recommended by the ACI 440.2R
is introduced. The model incorporates realistic material laws that (ACI 2008a) is adopted in the current analytical work. The inclu-
account for the nonlinear behavior of concrete and the postyield sion of this CFRP-confined concrete model in the ACI 440.2R
strain hardening of the steel. Four basic assumptions are made (ACI 2008a) confirms its validity. The accuracy and validity of
in the analysis: plane sections remain plane; tensile strength of using this confinement model while predicting the load capacity
concrete is neglected; the confinement provided by the ties is ne- of RC columns confined with CFRP with different cross-sectional
glected; and there is a perfect bond between the concrete and the shapes and concrete grades under various uniaxial and biaxial
NSM-GFRP reinforcement. The modeling procedure can be eccentric loading were verified in the literature (El-Sayed and
summarized as follows: El-Maaddawy 2010). The CFRP-confined concrete model is illus-
• For a given eccentricity along the diagonal of the cross section trated in Fig. 11(b) and described by Eqs. (4)–(6):
eext , use the undeformed geometry to determine the sectional (
forces and curvature at midheight of the column. Ec εc  ½ðEc  E2 Þ2 =4f 0c ε2c 0 ≤ εc ≤ ε0t
• Use the midheight sectional curvature to calculate the lateral fc ¼ ð4Þ
f 0c þ E 2 εc ε0t ≤ εc ≤ εccu
midheight displacement.
• Modify the initial eccentricity to account for the lateral mid-
height displacement. f 0cc  f 0c
• Use the modified eccentricity to recalculate the sectional forces E2 ¼ ð5Þ
and curvature at midheight of the column. εccu
• Iterate until there is no change in the sectional forces.

Constitutive Material Laws 2f 0c

ε0t ¼ ð6Þ
Ec  E2
The stress-strain relationship of an unconfined concrete in com-
pression illustrated in Fig. 11(a) is described by a parabolic rela- The CFRP-confined concrete compressive strength (f 0cc ) and the
tionship (Hognestad 1955): corresponding strain (εccu ) are given by the following equations
  2  (ACI 2008a; Hollaway and Teng 2008):
2εc εc
f c ¼ f 0c  ð1Þ
εco εco f 0cc ¼ f 0c þ 3:3ka f l ð7Þ

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 609

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Distribution of strains and stresses: (a) unstrengthened

Fig. 12. Stress-strain relationship of steel section; (b) strengthened section

principal axis (i.e., ex ¼ ey ) is shown in Fig. 14. The external eccen-

tricity along the diagonal of the cross section isqcalculated
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi from the
eccentricity in the x- and y- directions (eext ¼ e2x þ e2y ). For such
a section, the neutral axis is perpendicular to the diagonal of the
column cross section in the direction of loading. As shown in
Fig. 14, the strain εz at any distance z from the neutral axis is
given by
z
εz ¼ εc;max ð11Þ
c
For unconfined columns, εc;max ¼ εcu ¼ 0:003 (ACI 2005) whereas
εc;max ¼ εccu for CFRP-confined columns, as given by Eq. (8).
Equilibrium conditions are imposed in terms of axial force (Pn )
and bending moment (M n ). To calculate sectional forces, the cross
section is discretized into finite layers. The steel and NSM-GFRP
reinforcing bars are represented by discrete elements. The compres-
sion force in concrete is calculated by numerical integration of
forces in each layer. Equilibrium equations at failure are then
given by

Fig. 13. Stress-strain relationship of composite reinforcement

X
n X X
f ci Ai þ Asi f si þ Agi f gi ¼ Pn ð12Þ
i¼1
   
f εf e 0:45 X
n X X
εccu ¼ εco 1:5 þ 12k b 0l ð8Þ f ci Ai d i þ Asi f si d si þ Agi f gi d gi ¼ M n ð13Þ
f c εco
i¼1
The efficiency factors κa and κb are dependent on the geometry
In these equations, compressive stresses are assumed positive
of the cross section. For a circular cross section, κa ¼ κb ¼ 1.
and tensile stresses are assumed negative. The distances d i , d si ,
For noncircular cross sections, these factors are less than 1.0
and d gi are assumed positive if the corresponding concrete layer,
(ACI 2008a; Hollaway and Teng 2008).
steel rebar, and GFRP rebar are located above the diagonal of
The stress-strain relationship of steel in tension and compression
the cross section passing through the plastic centroid in a direction
is idealized to be linear-elastic with a postyield strain hardening of
normal to the direction of loading. The model procedure used to
1% (Fig. 12):
predict the load-carrying capacity at a given external eccentricity
(
εs E s εs ≤ εy can be summarized as follows:
fs ¼ ð9Þ • For a given external eccentricity eext, assume the depth of the
f y þ E sp ðεs  εy Þ εy ≤ εs ≤ εsu neutral axis c.
• Calculate the strains in the concrete layers and steel and GFRP
For the composite reinforcement, the stress-strain relationship is rebars according to the strain compatibility requirements.
idealized to be linear-elastic up to failure (Fig. 13): • Calculate the stresses in the concrete layers and steel and GFRP
f f ¼ εf E f ð10Þ rebars on the basis of the constitutive material laws.
• Calculate the axial compression force Pn and the bending
moment M n that satisfy equilibrium requirements.
Strain Compatibility and Equilibrium of Forces
• Calculate the internal eccentricity eint ¼ M n =Pn, and compare it
The distribution of the strains and the stresses along the diagonal of to the external eccentricity eext.
a symmetrically reinforced square cross section under biaxial • Iterate the assumed neutral axis depth c until eint ¼ eext .
eccentric loading with equal eccentricity in the direction of each • Record sectional forces and curvature.

610 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Deformation under biaxial eccentric loading with equal eccentricity in direction of each principal axis

Lateral Midheight Displacement strengthened with NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combination with

The moments, curvatures, and deformations of an RC column
under biaxial eccentric loading with equal eccentricity in the direc-
tion of each principal axis are shown in Fig. 15. The lateral mid-
height displacement, Δ, can be related to the midheight curvature
by Eq. (14). For a column with a constant moment of inertia all over
the length, κ1 ¼ 8 in case of constant moment all over the column
length and κ1 ¼ 12 if the moment linearly decreases to zero at the
ends. In this model it is assumed that κ1 ¼ 10:
φl2
Δ¼
k1
Analytical Results
A computer program was coded to carry out the modeling pro-
cedure. Specimen geometry and materials properties presented pre-
viously were used as input data in the analysis. The analytical
results are given in Table 5. From this table, it is evident that in-
creasing the level of the CFRP confinement used in combination
with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement increased the stresses in the
GFRP rebars at peak load. This indicates that the contribution
of the NSM-GFRP rebars to the column load-carrying capacity
is more significant at the higher level of CFRP confinement.
This explains why the load capacity of the columns strengthened
with NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combination with two layers
of CFRP confinement was higher than that of the columns
one layer of CFRP confinement. The accuracy of the model was
examined by comparing the experimental results to the model pre-
dictions. Experimental and analytical results are compared in
Table 6. The analysis tends to underestimate the lateral displace-
ment at peak load because the assumed ultimate compressive
strains used in the analysis (εc;max ) were generally lower than
the measured values (εc;peak ) (refer to Tables 4 and 5). The differ-
ence between the predicted and measured lateral displacement may
also be ascribed to a variation between the assumed and the actual
value of the coefficient κ1 used in the analysis. The measured lat-
ð14Þ
eral displacements were in the range of 7.9–8.7 mm. For such small
values, any minor difference between the predicted and the mea-
sured displacements in the order of few millimeters would result
in a high error percentage, which may be misleading when exam-
ining the accuracy of the proposed model to predict the lateral dis-
placement at peak load. The difference between predicted and
measured lateral displacements has a negligible effect on the model
accuracy to predict the load-carrying capacity (Table 6). All pre-
dicted load-carrying capacities are within a 10% error band, which
demonstrates model accuracy and validity in predicting the load-
carrying capacity of both unstrengthened and strengthened RC col-
umns under biaxial eccentric loading with equal eccentricity in the
direction of each principal axis. Further studies are needed to sup-
port the development of the model to predict the load-capacity of
RC columns strengthened with NSM composite system under biax-
ial eccentric loading with nonequal eccentricity in the direction of
each principal axis.

Table 5. Analytical Results

fl f 0c or f 0cc εc;max f s;comp f s;ten f g;comp f g;ten Δmodel Pmodel
Group Specimen (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (kN)
[A] N-E1-G1 — 30.2 0.30 275 551 — — 5.3 66
SF1-E1-G1 1.72 33.42 0.50 495 554 230 365 8.4 111
SF2-E1-G1 3.42 36.64 0.65 551 557 300 469 10.8 124
[B] N-E1-G2 — 40.6 0.30 259 552 — — 5.6 73
SF1-E1-G2 1.72 43.82 0.53 498 555 239 413 9.2 126
SF2-E1-G2 3.42 47.40 0.65 551 558 295 504 11.3 138
[B] N-E2-G1 — 30.20 0.30 258 552 — — 5.62 48
SF1-E2-G1 1.72 33.42 0.50 473 555 227 393 8.7 82
SF2-E2-G1 3.42 36.64 0.65 551 558 297 503 11.3 93

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 611

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 Table 6. Comparison Between Analytical and Experimental Results
Lateral displacement (mm) Load capacity(kN)
Error in Error in load
Group Specimen Δexp Δmodel displacementa (%) Pexp Pmodel capacity (%)a
[A] N-E1-G1 7.9 5.3 33 70 66 6
SF1-E1-G1 11.2 8.4 25 119 111 7
SF2-E1-G1 18.7 10.8 42 138 124 10
[B] N-E1-G2 7.8 5.6 28 79 73 8
SF1-E1-G2 15.1 9.2 39 130 126 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SF2-E1-G2 18.1 11.3 38 139 138 1

[B] N-E2-G1 9.4 5.6 40 48 48 0
SF1-E2-G1 14.8 8.7 41 88 82 7
SF2-E2-G1 18.0 11.3 37 90 93 þ3
a
Error ð%Þ ¼ 100 × ðanalytical  experimentalÞ=ðexperimentalÞ.

Concluding Remarks
The effectiveness of the NSM-GFRP longitudinal reinforcement in
combination with the CFRP confinement to repair and strengthen
RC columns subjected to biaxial eccentric loading with equal
eccentricity in the direction of each principal axis was investigated
in this paper. Based on the experimental and analytical results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For the same concrete grade, the NSM-GFRP reinforcement in
combination with one layer of CFRP confinement was more
effective in increasing the load capacity at the higher eccentri-
city. On the contrary, the NSM-GFRP reinforcement in
combination with two layers of CFRP confinement was more
effective in increasing the load capacity at the lower
eccentricity.
2. Increasing the level of the CFRP confinement used in combi-
nation with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement significantly
increased the gain in the load capacity at the lower eccentricity.
At the higher eccentricity, increasing the level of CFRP
confinement had insignificant effect on the gain in the load
capacity.
3. For RC columns strengthened with NSM-GFRP reinforcement
in combination with two layers of CFRP, higher gain in the
load capacity was recorded at the lower concrete grade. The
concrete grade had a negligible effect on the gain in the load
capacity when one layer of CFRP was used in combination
with the NSM-GFRP reinforcement.
4. An analytical model for predicting the load capacity of RC col-
umns strengthened with NSM-GFRP reinforcement in combi-
nation with CFRP confinement subjected to axial load and
biaxial bending was introduced. The model accounts for the
nonlinear behavior of materials and the change in geometry
under biaxial eccentric loading. The load capacities predicted
by the proposed model were in good agreement with the
experimental results.
5. The research presented in this paper provides insights into the
performance of RC columns strengthened with NSM-GFRP
reinforcement in combination with CFRP confinement under
axial load and biaxial bending. Further studies are required to
support the development of standards and design guidelines on
the subject. The following are recommendations for future
studies in this area:
• Investigate a wider range of concrete grades, steel and
NSM-GFRP longitudinal reinforcement ratios, CFRP confine-
ment levels, and concrete covers to better understand the beha-
vior of RC columns strengthened with NSM-GFRP rebars in
combination with CFRP confinement under axial load and
biaxial bending; and
• Study the effect of nonequal load eccentricity ratio in the direc-
tion of each principal axis along with different column slender-
ness ratios on the performance of RC columns strengthened
with NSM-GFRP rebars in combination with external CFRP
confinement.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Research
Affairs at the UAE-University for the financial support for this
project under Grant No. 01-01-7-11/09. The authors would like
to thank Dr. Salwan Al-Assafi, general manager of Pultron
Composites Middle East, for donating the GFRP rebars. Thanks
are also due to the laboratory specialist, Eng. Tarek Salah, the
assistantlaboratory specialist, Mr. Faisel Abdel-Wahab, and the
undergraduate research assistants, Hothifa Rajoub and Anes
Bouchair, for their help throughout the testing.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Agi = cross-sectional area of GFRP rebar i (mm2 );
Ai = area of layer i (mm2 );
Asi = cross-sectional area of steel rebar i (mm2 );
bx = cross section dimension in x-direction (mm);
by = cross section dimension in y-direction (mm);
c = depth of neutral axis measured from extreme
compression fiber (mm);
d gi = distance between plastic centroid of cross section and
center of GFRP rebar i perpendicular to neutral axis
(mm);
d i = distance between plastic centroid of cross section
and centroid of layer i perpendicular to neutral axis
(mm);
d si = distance between plastic centroid of cross section and
center of steel rebar i perpendicular to neutral axis
(mm);
Ec = concrete Young’s modulus (MPa);
E f = modulus of composite reinforcement (MPa);
E s = steel modulus in preyield stage (MPa);
E sp = steel modulus in postyield stage (0:01Es ) (MPa);
E2 = slope of linear portion of stress-strain relationship of
CFRP-confined concrete (MPa);
eext = external eccentricity along diagonal of cross section
(mm);

612 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614

 eint = internal eccentricity along diagonal of cross section
(mm);
ex = eccentricity in x-direction (mm);
ey = eccentricity in y-direction (mm);
f c = concrete stress (MPa);
f 0c = unconfined concrete compressive strength (MPa);
f 0cc = CFRP-confined concrete compressive strength
(MPa);
f ci = concrete stress at center of layer i (MPa);
f f = stress in composite reinforcement (MPa);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
f f r = rupture strength of composite reinforcement (MPa);
f gi = stress in GFRP rebar i (MPa);
f g;comp = calculated stress in GFRP rebar nearest extreme
compression fiber at peak load (MPa);
f g;ten = calculated stress in GFRP rebar nearest extreme
tension fiber at peak load (MPa);
f l = calculated effective lateral confining pressure caused
by CFRP (MPa);
f s = steel stress (MPa);
f s;comp = calculated stress in steel rebar nearest extreme
compression fiber at peak load (MPa);
f si = stress in steel rebar i (MPa);
f s;ten = calculated stress in steel rebar nearest extreme tension
fiber at peak load (MPa);
f su = ultimate steel stress (MPa);
f y = steel yield strength (MPa);
l = total length of column (mm);
M n = nominal bending moment (N · mm);
P = axial load (N);
Pexp = measured load capacity (kN);
Pmodel = load capacity predicted by model (kN);
Pn = nominal axial load (N);
yi = distance between center of layer i and neutral axis
(mm);
z = distance measured from neutral axis (mm);
Δ = lateral midheight displacement along diagonal of
column cross section (mm);
Δmodel = lateral midheight displacement along diagonal of
column cross section predicted by model at peak load
(mm);
Δexp = measured lateral midheight displacement along
diagonal of column cross section at peak load (mm);
Δx = lateral midheight displacement in x-direction (mm);
Δy = lateral midheight displacement in y-direction (mm);
εc = concrete strain;
εc;peak = measured compressive strain at extreme compression
fiber at peak load;
εco = concrete strain corresponding to f 0c ;
εccu = ultimate CFRP-confined concrete compressive strain;
εcu = ultimate unconfined concrete compressive strain;
εc;max = calculated ultimate compressive strain at extreme
compression fiber;
εf = strain in composite reinforcement;
εf e = effective strain in CFRP at failure;
εf r = rupture strain of composite reinforcement;
εs = steel strain;
εs;peak = measured strain in steel rebar nearest extreme tension
fiber at peak load;
εsu = ultimate steel strain;
ε0t = transfer strain in CFRP-confined concrete;
εy = steel yield strain;
εz = strain at distance z from neutral axis;
κa = efficiency factor for CFRP in determining f 0cc ;
κb = efficiency factor for CFRP in determining εccu ;
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 613
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614
κ1 = coefficient that depends on distribution of moment
along column length; and
φ = midheight curvature (mm1 ).
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2005). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete.” ACI 318-05, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008a). “Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures.” ACI 440.2R, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008b). “Self-compacting concrete,
manual for concrete practice.” ACI 237R, Farmington Hills, MI.
Balaguru, P., Nanni, A., and Giancaspro, J. (2009). FRP composites for
reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, Taylor & Francis,
New York.
Bank, L. (2006). Composites for construction: Structural design with FRP
materials, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Barros, J., Ferreira, D., Fortes, A., and Dias, S. (2006). “Assessing the ef-
fectiveness of embedding CFRP laminates in the near surface for struc-
tural strengthening.” Constr. Build. Mater., 20(7), 478–491.
Barros, J., and Fortes, A. (2005). “Flexural strengthening of concrete beams
with CFRP laminates bonded into slits.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 27(4),
471–480.
Bournas, D., and Triantafillou, T. (2009). “Strengthening of reinforced con-
crete columns with near-surface-mounted FRP or stainless steel.” ACI
Struct. J., 106(4), 495–505.
Chaallal, O., and Shahawy, M. (2000). “Performance of fiber-reinforced
polymer-wrapped reinforced concrete columns under combined axial-
flexural loading.” ACI Struct. J., 97(4), 659–669.
Eid, R., Roy, N., and Paultre, P. (2009). “Normal- and high-strength con-
crete circular elements wrapped with FRP composites.” J. Compos.
Constr., 13(2), 113–124.
El-Hacha, R., and Rizkalla, S. (2004). “Near-surface-mounted fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcements for flexural strengthening of con-
crete structures.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5), 717–726.
El-Maaddawy, T. (2009). “Strengthening of eccentrically loaded reinforced
concrete columns with FRP wrapping system: Experimental investiga-
tion and analytical modeling.” J. Compos. Constr., 13(1), 13–24.
El-Sayed, M., and El-Maaddawy, T. (2010). “Analytical model for predic-
tion of the load capacity of RC columns confined with CFRP under
uniaxial and biaxial eccentric loading.” Mater. Struct., 44(1), 299–311.
El-Maaddawy, T., El-Sayed, M., and Abdel-Magid, B. (2010). “The effects
of cross-sectional shape and loading condition on performance of rein-
forced concrete members confined with carbon fiber-reinforced poly-
mers.” Mater. Des., 31(5), 2330–2341.
European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete
Systems (EFNARC). (2005). Specifications and guidelines for self-
compacting concrete, English Ed., Warrington, UK.
Ghosh, K., and Sheikh, S. (2007). “Seismic upgrade with carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer of columns containing lap-spliced reinforcing bars.”
ACI Struct. J., 104(2), 227–236.
Hadi, M. (2006). “Behaviour of FRP wrapped normal strength concrete
columns under eccentric loading.” Compos. Struct., 72(4), 503–511.
Hognestad, E., Hanson, N., and McHenry, D. (1955). “Concrete stress
distribution in ultimate strength design.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 52(6),
455–479.
Hollaway, L., and Teng, J. (2008). Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil
infrastructure using fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites,
Woodhead, Oxford, UK.
Jiang, T., and Teng, J. (2009). “Slender FRP-confined circular RC col-
umns.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-9), ICE, Melbourne, Australia.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. (2003). “Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-
confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17(6–7), 471–489.
Lignola, G., Prota, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2007). “Experimen-
tal performance of RC hollow columns confined with CFRP.”
J. Compos. Constr., 11(1), 42–49.
 Mukherjee, A., Boothby, T., Bakis, C., Joshi, M., and Maitra, S. (2004).
“Mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped concrete
columns: complicating effects.” J. Compos. Constr., 8(2), 97–103.
Parvin, A., and Schroeder, J. (2008). “Investigation of eccentrically loaded
CFRP-confined elliptical concrete columns.” J. Compos. Constr., 12(1),
93–101.
Parvin, A., and Wang, W. (2001). “Behavior of FRP jacketed concrete col-
umns under eccentric loading.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(3), 146–152.
Punurai, W., Chen, J., and Hsu, C. (2009). “RC slender columns strength-
ened by CFRP composite fabrics subjected to biaxial bending and axial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 08/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
compression.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-9).
Ranger, M., and Bisby, L. (2007). “Effects of load eccentricities on circular
FRP confined reinforced concrete columns.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures
(FRPRCS-8), Univ. of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Rocca, S., Galati, N., and Nanni, A. (2008). “Review of design guidelines
for FRP confinement of reinforced concrete columns of noncircular
614 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(4): 602-614
cross-sections.” J. Compos. Constr., 12(1), 80–92.
Sause, R., Harries, K., Walkup, S., Pessiki, S., and Ricles, J. (2004).
“Flexural behavior of concrete columns retrofitted with carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5), 708–716.
Wu, H., Wang, Y., Yu, L., and Li, X. (2009). “Experimental and computa-
tional studies on high-strength concrete circular columns confined by
aramid fiber-reinforced polymer sheets.” J. Compos. Constr., 13(2),
125–134.
Yi, W., Xian, Q., Ding, H., and Zhang, H. (2004). “Experimental study of
RC columns strengthened with CFRP sheets under eccentric compres-
sion.” ACI Spec. Pub., 238, 395–410.
Yost, J., Gross, S., Dinehart, D., and Mildenberg, J. (2007). “Flexural
behavior of concrete beams strengthened with near-surface-mounted
CFRP strips.” ACI Struct. J., 104(4), 430–437.
Youcef, Y., Amziane, S., and Chemrouk, M. (2008). “The influence of
CFRP on the behavior of reinforced concrete subjected to buckling.”
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering
(CICE 2008), EMPA, Zürich, Switzerland.