E.

Cosenza (ed), Eurocode 8 Perspectives from the Italian Standpoint Workshop, 159-169, © 2009 Doppiavoce, Napoli, Italy

RETROFITTING OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS WITH FRP

Andrea Prota a, Gaetano Manfredi b, Giorgio Monti c,

Marco Di Ludovico d, Gian Piero Lignola e
a
Università degli Studi Federico II, Naples, Italy, [email protected]
b
Università degli Studi Federico II, Naples, Italy, [email protected]
c
Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy, [email protected]
d
Università degli Studi Federico II, Naples, Italy, [email protected]
e
Università degli Studi Federico II, Naples, Italy, [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This work focuses on current research developments in the field of FRP strengthening of RC
buildings. The main outcomes of these activities have been analyzed to provide possible
recommendations towards a future update of EC8 – Part 3. The main strategies and driving
principles for the seismic retrofit of existing structures have been discussed with due attention
to both local and global interventions. In this framework, FRP confinement has been analyzed
as well, focusing in details on rectangular columns with high aspect ratio.

KEYWORDS
Confinement, FRP, guideline, RC buildings, seismic retrofit.

1 INTRODUCTION

The most common strategies adopted in the field of seismic retrofit of existing structures are
the restriction or change of use of the building, partial demolition and/or mass reduction,
removal or lessening of existing irregularities and discontinuities, addition of new lateral load
resistance systems, local or global modification of elements and systems.
In particular, local intervention methods are meant to increase the deformation capacity of
deficient components, so that they will not attain their specified limit state as the building is
acted upon by the design seismic excitation. Common approaches mainly include steel
jacketing and externally bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) wrapping. On the other
hand, global intervention methods involve a thorough modification of the structural system;
such modification is designed so that the design demands (often identified in a target
displacement) on the existing structural and non-structural components are less than structural
capacities. Common approaches mainly include: Reinforced Concrete (RC) jacketing,
insertion of walls, steel (dissipative) bracing and base isolation.
The above brief overview of possible rehabilitation strategies shows that the structural
performances of an existing building can be enhanced in different ways by acting on ductility,
stiffness or strength (separately or, in many cases, at the same time); in each case, a
preliminary assessment of the existing structure performances and the evaluation of the
analysis results are necessary to select the rehabilitation method that meets the required
performance targets. Nevertheless, numerous factors influence the selection of the most
appropriate technique and therefore no general rules can be defined.
160 A. Prota, G. Manfredi, G. Monti, M. Di Ludovico, G.P. Lignola

The present paper focuses on the potential of FRP for seismic strengthening of RC buildings,
by highlighting the criteria for selecting the type of intervention and by discussing the
outcomes of some related research activities lately performed by the authors.

2 FRP STRENGTHENING IN SEISMIC ZONES

EC8 – Part 3 offers the possibility, as an alternative to the more traditional strengthening
techniques of RC and steel jacketing, to use composite materials such as FRP for seismic
retrofit of under-designed RC structures. However, EC8 – Part 3 only indicates that FRP can
be used to: a) increase shear strength of members, b) provide ductility to concrete, and c)
prevent lap splice failure. The authors believe that preliminary insights should be given about
the overall objective of FRP interventions on buildings; a possible strategy outline is proposed
herein.
First, it is worth recalling that stiffness irregularities cannot be solved by applying FRP.
Strength irregularities can be modified by strengthening a selected number of elements,
however, attention should be paid that the global ductility be not reduced.
From the seismic standpoint, FRP strengthening could be regarded as a selective intervention
technique that could allow:
a) increasing the flexural capacity of deficient members, with and without axial load,
through the application of composites with the fibers placed parallel to the element
axis;
b) increasing the shear strength through the application of composites with the fibers
placed transversely to the element axis;
c) increasing the ductility (or the chord rotation capacity) of critical zones of beams and
columns through FRP wrapping (confinement);
d) improving the efficiency of lap splice zones, through FRP wrapping;
e) preventing buckling of longitudinal rebars under compression through FRP wrapping;
f) increasing the tensile strength of the panels of partially confined beam-column joints
through the application of composites with the fibers placed along the principal tensile
stresses.
The driving principles of the FRP intervention strategies should be:
a) all potential brittle collapse mechanisms should be eliminated: failures such as shear,
lap splice, bar buckling and joint shear should be prevented;
b) the global deformation capacity of the structure should be enhanced, either by: b1)
increasing the ductility of the potential plastic hinge zones without changing their
position, or, b2) relocating the potential plastic hinge zones by applying capacity
design criteria. In this latter case, the columns should be strengthened in flexure with
the aim of transforming the framed structure into a highly dissipating mechanism with
strong columns and weak beams.
For case a), when eliminating potential brittle failure mechanisms, the relative strengthening
modalities are quite straightforward. The most common case is potential shear failure, for
which a strengthening of the shear mechanism should be sought. More peculiar cases are
those of longitudinal bars lap splices and buckling. In the former case, due to either bond
degradation in splices or insufficient splice length, the relevant regions of potential plastic
hinge formation should be adequately confined through FRP wrapping; in the latter case of
bar buckling, the strengthening intervention should consist in confining the potential plastic
hinge zones where the existing transverse reinforcement cannot prevent the bars post-elastic
buckling.
Retrofitting of Existing RC Buildings with FRP 161

For case b), when all possible brittle and storey mechanisms have been prevented, it is
necessary to assess to which extent the structure could exploit its ductility. This can be done,
for example, through a nonlinear pushover analysis, now adopted and codified in the most
modern seismic codes. Usually, it is requested to check if the structure can actually ensure a
given ductility, expressed by a pre-selected behavior factor, or, which is the same, if it is able
to attain a given target displacement. Such analysis allows identifying the elements whose
local collapse, due to ductility exhaustion, prevents the structure from exploiting its global
ductility and from reaching the target displacement.
Thus, the required global deformation capacity can be obtained either by b1) or b2) strategies.
In the former case, the deformation capacity of elements that collapse before the global target
displacement is attained has to be increased. A possible measure of the deformation capacity
of beams and columns is the chord rotation θ, that is, the rotation of the chord connecting the
element end section with the contraflexure section (shear span). Generally, the plastic
deformation capacity is controlled by the compressive behavior of concrete. An intervention
of FRP-confinement on such elements (usually columns) increases the ultimate compressive
strain of concrete, thus determining a ductility increase of the element.
In the latter case, the overall resisting mechanism should be changed in order to distribute the
ductility request over a larger number of elements. This can be achieved by relocating all
potential plastic hinges by applying the capacity design criteria. The application of the
capacity design criteria implies the elimination of all potential plastic hinges in columns. In
“weak column-strong beam” situations, typical of frame structures designed for gravity loads
only, the columns’ cross sections are under-designed both in terms of geometry and
reinforcement. In such case, it is necessary to increase their flexural strength with the
objective of changing the structure into a “strong column-weak beam” situation. It should be
noted that this strategy implies an increase of shear demand on columns due to the flexural
capacity increase. It is therefore necessary to perform the required shear verifications, and to
eventually increase the shear strength in order to avoid brittle failure modes. Moreover,
attention must be paid to the foundation systems as the increased seismic strength capacity
leads to an overturning moments increase.
Within the outlined strategies, FRP confinement is a key technique to increase the seismic
capacity of RC members. Existing analytical models for predicting the stress–strain behavior
of FRP-confined concrete are mostly derived for cylindrical plain concrete columns. Square-
and rectangular-section columns were found to experience less increase in strength and
ductility than their circular counterparts. This is because the distribution of lateral confining
pressure in circular sections is uniform, in contrast to square and rectangular sections, in
which the confining pressure varies from a maximum at the corners and diagonals, to a
minimum in between. In particular, in the case of wall-like columns (e.g. with aspect ratio
higher than 3), the effectiveness of FRP jackets is even more reduced (Prota et al. 2006). To
determine the effective lateral confining pressure, some researchers proposed to transform the
rectangular section into an equivalent circular section (e.g. circumscribed, inscribed, or with
an equivalent cross-sectional area). A more refined iterative approach has been proposed by
Lignola et al. 2009a, based on solid mechanics. Confinement models based on regression
analyses are very sensitive to the value adopted for the ultimate FRP strain: in fact, FRP
ultimate tensile strain determined experimentally according to flat coupon tests is not reached
at the rupture of the FRP jacket in confined concrete columns compression tests (reasons for
this have been provided by many authors, a summary is in Lignola et al. 2008a). The ratio
between the two strain values is termed “efficiency factor”, β. If the effective lateral confining
pressure is inserted in a confinement model, whatever the material of the confining device, the
scattering between theoretical and experimental results can be drastically reduced and a single
162 A. Prota, G. Manfredi, G. Monti, M. Di Ludovico, G.P. Lignola

expression can be formulated to predict benefits provided by confinement, e.g. for concrete,
independently of the materials used as confinement device. It is highlighted that also more
refined iterative confinement models may need a stop criterion given by the effective failure
of the FRP jacket.
In the case of rectangular cross-sections with high aspect ratio (structural walls), the failure is
strongly affected by the occurrence of premature mechanisms (compressed bars buckling and
unrestrained  concrete cover spalling), while nowadays slender structural wall members are
usually designed without special prescriptions (Lignola 2006).

3 RESEARCH DEVELOPMENTS

The present section discusses two specific aspects of FRP seismic rehabilitation. First, the
confinement of RC members is analyzed and significant research outcomes on the behavior of
rectangular cross-sections with high aspect ratio are dealt with. Then, the strategy based on
increasing the global displacement capacity without relocalizing plastic hinges is discussed;
the design procedure is outlined and its validation by comparison to the experimental results
on a real scale structure is reported.

3.1 Confinement
The analysis of the behavior of hollow RC piers, peculiar of bridge constructions to maximize
structural efficiency of the strength-mass and stiffness-mass ratios, allowed the confinement
of circular and non circular and also of slender structural wall members, peculiar of buildings,
to be studied in details. A refined numerical iterative procedure and a detailed nonlinear
confinement model was provided for the analysis of hollow RC columns (Lignola et al
2008b). Nevertheless, to provide a direct, practical tool, oriented to the profession more than a
nonlinear refined iterative analysis, the opportunity was evaluated to simplify the analysis,
considering the effect of confinement on the walls composing the hollow cross-section. A
preliminary Finite Element Method (F.E.M.) analysis has been conducted (Lignola et al.
2009b) in the elastic range to evaluate the stress field generated by external wrapping on
confined wall members. The arch-shaped paths of the confining stresses rapidly changes in a
straight distributed confinement stress field moving away from the corner.
The results of the previous works suggest that a reliable numerical procedure to predict
structural wall behavior under combination of flexure/shear and compression should include
appropriate models for compressed bars buckling, concrete cover spalling and, of course,
confined concrete behavior. If compressed bars buckling and concrete cover spalling are
neglected, inaccurate ductility predictions may be obtained. In these cases confinement
models may be successfully used to predict essentially the strength of the column, if the
evaluation is limited to the occurrence of buckling of the compressed steel reinforcement bars.
Usually confinement does not change the failure mode for walls, but it is able to delay bars
buckling, restraining also concrete cover spalling, and to let compressive concrete strains
attaining larger values, thus resulting in higher load carrying capacity of the member and in
significant ductility enhancement. The strength increase in confined concrete due to FRP
wrapping turns into load carrying capacity increases, mainly in the elements loaded with
small eccentricity (it is clear that at higher eccentricities the effect of concrete strength
enhancement is not relevant because failure moves to the tension side, and also the influence
of reinforcement buckling is less significant).
A confinement model, recently proposed, is based on solid mechanics in plane strain
conditions and able to predict the fundamentals of the behavior of solid and hollow circular
Retrofitting of Existing RC Buildings with FRP 163

(Lignola et al. 2008b, 2009c) and solid square (Lignola et al. 2009a) members confined with
FRP. A secant approach is used to account for the nonlinear behavior of concrete. The key
innovative aspect of the proposed model is the evaluation of the contribution of confining
stress field neither equal in the two transverse directions x and y, nor uniform along those
directions. The effect of confinement is evaluated in each point of the cross-section explicitly
considering a plasticity model for concrete under triaxial compression. The model traces the
different confinement effectiveness and lateral stress field inside the cross-section and it
allows to evaluate, at each load step, the multiaxial state of stress, and eventually the failure,
of the concrete or the external reinforcement: i.e., the effective FRP strain at failure (Lignola
et al. 2008a, and Zinno et al. 2009). The lateral-to-axial strain relationship provides the
essential linkage between the response of the concrete column and the response of the FRP
jacket in a passive-confinement model. The ultimate strength surface (Figure 1), ρ=r(θ,ξ)·f’c
with failure parabolic meridians r (Elwi and Murray 1979) is formulated in the Haigh–
Westergaard stress space defined by the cylindrical coordinates of hydrostatic length (ξ),
deviatoric length (ρ) and Lode angle (θ). In the ultimate surface equation the only unknown is
the confined concrete strength fcc and it can be iteratively evaluated. It is noted that the cited
model is the basis for the equation reported, for instance, in the ACI 440.2R (2008) code or
Mander et al. (1988), to evaluate the cylindrical triaxial confined concrete strength fcc given a
uniform confining pressure f'l:

f cc f' f'
= 2.25 1 + 7.9 'l − 2 'l − 1.25
f c' fc fc
(1)

a) b) c)

Figure 1. Ultimate strength surface (a); in the Rendulic plane (b); in the deviatoric plane (c).

Again, even though a refined nonlinear confinement model was provided for the analysis of
circular and noncircular RC columns (e.g., Lignola et al. 2009a, 2009c), to provide a direct,
practical tool, oriented to the profession, a simplified confinement model was also provided
for wall-like cross-sections (the arch-shaped path of confining stresses was seen to rapidly
change in a straight field moving away from the corners (Lignola et al. 2009b)). According to
this alternative simplified approach, which gives rather accurate results despite the heavily
reduced computational effort (no iterations are needed), the confining stress field is only
parallel to the longer side of the cross-section, thus neglecting the confinement in the shorter
direction and the confining pressure can be assumed equal to:
164 A. Prota, G. Manfredi, G. Monti, M. Di Ludovico, G.P. Lignola

tE f ε FRP
f 'l = 2
h (2)

assuming cross-section height h < base b. Assuming zero stress for the minimum principal
stress, confining pressure f’l equal to the intermediate principal stress, fcc as the maximum
principal stress, then the following approximated equation is derived by the failure surface:
2 3
f cc f' ⎛ f' ⎞ ⎛ f' ⎞
= 1 + 1.42 l − 1.40 ⎜ l ⎟ + 0.30 ⎜ l ⎟
f 'c f 'c ⎝ f 'c ⎠ ⎝ f 'c ⎠ (3)

where f’l/f’c<1.3. Eq. (3) can be also used to evaluate the stress-strain relationship for
confined concrete in slender walls according to the procedure proposed by Spoelstra and
Monti (1999), relying on an iterative procedure through which the stress-strain curve crosses a
family of curves at constant confinement pressure, at each point induced by the FRP jacket
subjected to the corresponding lateral expansion. It is highlighted that, in case of wall
confinement, the response of concrete may show a high load carrying capacity loss (e.g., more
than 20%) before FRP failure and therefore numerical simulation can be concluded due to the
high capacity loss rather than due to the failure of the confining material.
Experimental campaign conducted on wall-like columns (Prota et al. 2006) confirmed that
significant strength increases can be achieved by FRP wrapping: the number of plies does not
play a major role on the axial strength, while it gives improvements in terms of axial ductility.
The failure of these walls determines the bulging of the FRP laminates occurring at fiber
strains far below the ultimate values provided by the manufacturers.
A theoretical model has been proposed in Lignola et al. (2008a) suggesting an upper bound of
the efficiency factor β (because it neglects stress localization and premature failures). To
avoid an iterative procedure, the bond between concrete and FRP is also neglected providing
a direct closed form solution (assuming the three-dimensional Tsai-Wu failure criterion):

⎛ t t ⎞
⎜1 − υTLυ LT + υTLυ LT + υ LT ⎟
⎝ R R ⎠
β=
2 2 2
⎛ f t ⎞ ⎛f ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ fθ t ⎛ t ⎞ f ⎛ t ⎞ t fθ 2
1+ ⎜ θ ⎟ + ⎜ θ ⎟ ⎜υTL − υTL ⋅ ⎟ + − ⎜ υTL − υTL ⎟ θ + ⎜ υTL − υTL ⎟
⎝ fr R ⎠ ⎝ f z ⎠ ⎝ R⎠ fr R ⎝ R ⎠ fz ⎝ R ⎠ R fr ⋅ f z
(4)

The sensitivity of the involved parameters has been discussed in Lignola et al. (2009d), where
it was shown that the main parameter driving coefficient β is the FRP composite relative
strength (fθ/fr) and GFRP presents the highest dependence on the analyzed parameters. In this
sense the proposed Eq. (4) can be simplified assuming typical values for Poisson’s ratios (νTL
and νLT). There is a research need to collect and publish in future confinement experimental
works also those FRP mechanical (orthotropic) properties.
To better limit the range of variability of the effective FRP strain in confinement, a second
model was proposed (Zinno et al. 2009) to analyze the effect of the stresses concentration at
the free edge of the FRP jacket. Interlaminar stresses can cause premature failure of the FRP
wrapping due to separation or delamination, thus limiting the confinement capacity of the
FRP wrapping. This second model directly provides the effective FRP strain depending on the
maximum interlaminar shear, τmax, or on the normal tensile interlaminar peel stress, σnmax,
capacity:
Retrofitting of Existing RC Buildings with FRP 165

⎧ e 2γ L − 1 σ ⎫ 1+ n (5)
ε FRP = min ⎨ τ max ; n max ⎬ ⋅
⎩ e 2γ L
+ 1 t a γ ⎭ Etnγ

parameters are described in detail in the original paper and their typical values are provided.

3.2 Seismic retrofit without relocalization of plastic hinges

In the case of structures designed for gravity loads only, the overall deformation capacity is
usually governed by the limited rotation capacity in the plastic hinge at columns ends
(inadequate cross-sectional dimensions and amount of longitudinal steel reinforcement). A
seismic upgrade intervention targeted at increasing the overall structure deformation capacity
can be pursued by FRP columns confinement. Indeed, columns wrapping allows enhancing
the ultimate concrete compressive strain; this corresponds to an increase of curvature ductility
that, assuming a plastic hinge length not significantly affected by the upgrade intervention,
determines a proportional increase of the plastic hinge rotation capacity. Because confinement
using composite materials at columns ends induces, for intervals that are typical of normal
stress levels, a considerable increase in terms of sections ductility, but does not lead to a
significant increase in strength, such kind of retrofit does not modify the strength hierarchy of
the structure.
The outlined seismic strengthening strategy effectiveness was experimentally investigated
within the European research project SPEAR (Seismic PErformance Assessment and
Rehabilitation). Such project involved a series of pseudo-dynamic bi-directional tests carried
out on a three-storey RC structure with an irregular layout at the ELSA laboratory of Joint
Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy). The structure under examination was designed and
built with the aim of creating a structural prototype featuring all the main problems normally
affecting most existing structures: plan irregularity, dimensions of structural elements and
reinforcement designed by considering only gravity loads, smooth reinforcement bars, poor
local detailing, insufficient confinement in the structural elements and weak beam column
joints. The structure was subjected to pseudo-dynamic tests, both in its original configuration
and retrofitted by using GFRP. The structure in its original configuration was subjected to
experimental tests with maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.20g. Since both
theoretical and experimental results showed that the ‘as-built’ structure was unable to
withstand a larger seismic action, a retrofit intervention by using FRP laminates was
designed. Once the design of the GFRP retrofit was provided, the structure was subjected to a
new series of two tests with the same input accelerogram selected for the ‘as built’ specimen
but scaled to a PGA value of 0.20g and 0.30g, respectively. The design of the rehabilitation
was based on deficiencies underlined by both the test on the ‘as-built’ structure and the
theoretical results provided by the post-test assessment (nonlinear static pushover analysis).
They indicated that a retrofit intervention was necessary in order to increase the structural
seismic capacity; in particular, the theoretical results showed that the target design PGA level
of 0.30g could have been sustained by the structure if its displacement capacity was increased
by a factor of 48% (Di Ludovico et al. 2008a). In order to pursue this objective, the retrofit
design strategy focused on two main aspects. First, it was decided to increase the global
deformation capacity of the structure and thus its dissipating global performance; such
objective was pursued by confining column ends with two plies of GFRP laminates. In
particular, the amount of FRP plies to be installed to provide the required ductility increase of
plastic hinges at columns ends was determined based on the following steps: 1) maximum
theoretical ratio between ultimate chord rotation demand and capacity, γ = θu,demand/θu,capacity
was determined; 2) the target rotation capacity was computed as γ·θu,capacity and thus the
corresponding design cross-section ultimate curvature, φu, target was evaluated; 3) the concrete
 166 A. Prota, G. Manfredi, G. Monti, M. Di Ludovico, G.P. Lignola

ultimate strain, εcu,target, to achieve such curvature was computed based on cross-section
analysis; 4) the amount of FRP plies ensuring the attainment of εcu,target was evaluated.
Moreover, the second design key aspect was to allow the structure to fully exploit the
increased deformation capacity by avoiding brittle collapse modes. To achieve this goal,
corner beam column joint panels were strengthened by using two plies of quadri-axial GFRP
laminates as well as a wall-type column for its entire length with two plies of the same quadri-
axial GFRP laminates used for the above joints (see Figure 2).

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Column confinement and shear strength of corner joints (a);
shear strength of wall-type column and retrofitted structure overview (b) (Di Ludovico et al. 2008a).

The assessment of structural global performance, before and after the strengthening
intervention, was performed by nonlinear static pushover analysis in longitudinal direction
(positive and negative X-direction, PX and NX, respectively) and in transverse direction
(positive and negative Y-direction, PY and NY). In Figure 3, the theoretical base shear-top
displacement curves for the ‘as built’ and FRP retrofitted structure are depicted with reference
to direction NX (where the maximum capacity-demand gap was recorded for the ‘as-built
structure at the significant damage limit state LSSD).
Figure 3b clearly shows that the FRP retrofit is able to greatly increase the global deformation
capacity of the structure, slightly affecting its strength. The comparison between the seismic
structural capacity and both elastic and inelastic demand is reported in Figure 4 for direction
NX by using the Capacity Spectrum Approach (CSA) (Fajfar 2000).
As Built Structure (NX) FRP Retrofitted (NX)
250 250

200 200
Base Shear [KN]
Base Shear [KN]

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Top Displacement [m] Top Displacement [m]

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Theoretical base shear – top displacement curves for ‘as-built’ (a)
and FRP retrofitted structure (b), (Di Ludovico et al. 2008a).
Retrofitting of Existing RC Buildings with FRP 167

As Built Structure (NX) FRP Retrofitted (NX)

1.00
ag = 0.30g 1.00 ag = 0.30g
C5 C1 C2
C5 C1 C2
0.90 0.90
0.80 NY NY
0.80
0.70 C9 PX
C3
NX
C4 0.70 C9 PX NX
CM C3
CM C4

0.60 Elastic Demand 0.60 Elastic Demand

Sa [g]

PY

Sa [g]
PY
0.50 0.50
μ = 5.25 C6 C7 μ = 5.19 C6 C7
0.40 C8
0.40 C8

0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
Inelastic Demand Inelastic Demand
0.10 Capacity Curve 0.10 Capacity Curve
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Sd [m] Sd [m]

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Theoretical seismic performance comparison at 0.3g PGA between ‘as-built’(a)and FRP
retrofitted structure (b), (Di Ludovico et al. 2008a).

Figure 4 clearly shows that column confinement provides the structure with significantly
enhanced ductility, allowing it to achieve the theoretical inelastic demand by only modifying
the plastic branch of the capacity curve. After that columns and joints were wrapped with
GFRP, the retrofitted structure was able to withstand the higher (0.30g PGA) level of
excitation without exhibiting significant damage. After tests, FRP was removed and it was
shown that the RC core was neither cracked nor damaged. The comparison between the
experimental results provided by the structure in the ‘as built’ and GFRP retrofitted
configurations highlighted the effectiveness of the FRP technique in improving global
performance of under-designed RC structures in terms of ductility and energy dissipation
capacity without significantly affect its strength (Di Ludovico et al. 2008b).

4 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS AND RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE UPDATE

The following recommendations can be made in order to update the existing EC8 – Part 3
provisions:
1) It is suggested to include an introductory section to the list of the three potential
interventions using FRP. This section could provide principles about the main strategies
that can be pursued when facing the retrofitting of RC framed structures. This could help
the engineer to set the target of the intervention prior to designing specific FRP
strengthening. This would also imply the addition of a section about shear strengthening
of joints and flexural strengthening of columns.
2) It seems important to standardize the calibration process of confinement models by using
the efficiency factor β, because the average absolute error of confinement models for
circular cross-sections shows a remarkable decrease when the effective strain is
considered. In particular, with respect to Eq. A.34 of EC8 – Part 3, it is recommended to
provide more information about how to determine the adopted FRP jacket ultimate strain,
εju. This strain could be recommended to be the minimum among the following values:
a) ultimate strain of the FRP jacket determined by means of flat coupon tests;
b) strain value ensuring integrity of concrete with respect to mechanisms contributing to
shear capacity of the member;
c) strain of the jacket corresponding to the attainment of tridimensional Tsai Wu failure
criterion. According to the discussion presented above, this strain can be obtained by
multiplying the ultimate strain of FRP by the efficiency factor β;
168 A. Prota, G. Manfredi, G. Monti, M. Di Ludovico, G.P. Lignola

d) strain value corresponding to inter-laminar failure due to stress concentration at free

edge of the jacket overlap, as discussed in the previous sections.
3) It is highlighted that simple geometrical considerations show that the confinement
effectiveness factor (see Eq. A.36 in EC8 – Part 3) tends to have no physical meaning if
the parabolas overlap, which occurs if h<(b-2R)/2 (assuming that h<b). With reference to
these cross-sections, a recommendation could be added to compute the effective lateral
pressure and the confined concrete strength according to Eq. (3) reported above.
4) It is also recommended to address the issue of FRP strengthening limits. When dealing
with existing structures located in seismic zones, the engineer could find deficiencies due
to either gravity loads or seismic loads. With this respect, the code should provide
provisions about maximum strength increases depending on the type of actions.

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The analysis of the test results was developed within the activities of Rete dei Laboratori
Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica—ReLUIS (Research Line 8) funded by the Italian
Department of Civil Protection—Executive Project 2005-2008. The SPEAR project was
funded by the European Community under the “Competitive and sustainable Growth”
Programme (1998-2002) and was co-ordinated by Dr. Paolo Negro and Prof. Michael Fardis.
The retrofit of the structure was provided by MAPEI S.p.a.

6 REFERENCES

ACI Committee 440. (2002) “Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02)”. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete
Institute. (2002)
Cosenza E. and Prota A. (2006) “Experimental behavior and numerical modeling of smooth steel bars
under compression”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10(3):313-329. (2006)
Di Ludovico M., Manfredi G., Mola E., Negro P., Prota A. (2008)b, “Seismic Behavior of a Full-Scale
RC Structure Retrofitted Using GFRP Laminates”, ASCE – Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
134, No. 5, pp. 810-821. (ISSN: 0733-9445).
Di Ludovico M., Prota A., Manfredi G., Cosenza E. (2008)a, “Seismic Strengthening of an Under-
Designed RC Structure with FRP”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol. 37, pp.
141-162, 2008 (ISSN: 0098-8847).
Elwi A.A. and Murray D.W. (1979) “A 3D hypoelastic concrete constitutive relationship”. J Eng Mech
Div, ASCE; 105,623–41. (1979)
Fajfar, P., (2000), “A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance Based Seismic Design”, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.573-592,.
Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2008a). “Effective strain in FRP jackets on circular
RC columns”, Proc. 4th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering
(CICE2008), Zurich, Switzerland, Paper 2.A.5 (2008a).
Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2008b) “Unified Theory For Confinement of RC
Solid and Hollow Circular Columns”. ELSEVIER Composites part B, 39:7-8,1151-1160. (2008b)
Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2009a). “Analysis Of FRP Confinement On
Prismatic RC Columns”. Proc. 9th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures FRPRCS9 2009. Sydney, Australia. (2009a).
Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2009b).”Non linear modeling of RC hollow piers
confined with CFRP.” ELSEVIER Composites Structures, vol. 88, Issue 1, pp. 56-64. (2009b).
Retrofitting of Existing RC Buildings with FRP 169

Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2009d). “Evaluation Of Effective Ultimate Strain Of
FRP Confinement Jackets Applied On Circular RC Columns”. Proc. 9th International Symposium on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures FRPRCS9 2009. Sydney, Australia.
(2009d).
Lignola, G.P. (2006). “RC hollow members confined with FRP: Experimental behavior and numerical
modelling” Ph.D. Thesis in Seismic Risks (XIX cycle): Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”,
(2006).
Lignola, G.P., Prota, A., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. (2009c) “Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete Hollow
Piers Behavior: Benefits Of FRP Confinement”. Intern. Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering
(special issue on "Selected Papers from 14WCEE"). In press. (2009c)
Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N. and Park R. (1988) “Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete”. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 114,1804–1826. (1988)
Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2006) “Ultimate behaviour of axially loaded RC wall-like
columns confined with GFRP”. Composites: part B, vol. 37, pp. 670-678. (2006)
Spoelstra M.R. and Monti G. (1999) “FRP-confined concrete model.” ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, 3(3):143-150. (1999)
Zinno A., Lignola G.P., Prota A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2009) “Effect of stress localization at free
edge for FRP wrapping in RC confinement applications”. Proc. 15th International Conference on
Composite Structures (ICCS 15). Porto, Portugal. (2009).