See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313350544

Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns by Steel Jacketing: A State of

Review

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · July 2015

CITATION READS

1 550

1 author:

Niamul Islam
Nagaoka University of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

eview of design codes for tension splice length for reinforced concrete members View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Niamul Islam on 05 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns

by Steel Jacketing: A State of Review
N. Islam*, M. M. Hoque**
*
Research Associate–Development Design and Management, 46 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka-1215,
Bangladesh.
**
Associate Professor-Department of Civil Engineering, DhakaUniversity of Engineering & Technology.

wrapping Fig.1 (for circular column), Steel Plates and steel

Abstract—This paper aims to review the strengthening caging Fig. 2(a). Steel caging is one of easiest and common
techniques of Reinforced Concrete (RC) column using steel version among them, which consists of four steel angles,
jacket. Steel jacket usually consists of steel plates or angles placed at the corners of RC column and steel straps/battens are
and batten plates/strips with different configurations. Both used horizontally, welded to the angles with a specific interval
experimental and analytical investigations conducted by along the height of the column Fig. 2(a). The tiny gap between
researchers have been reviewed. Most of the investigations the concrete and the caging is filled up with non-shrink
were focused to know the effect of strengthening cement mortar or epoxy grout. It is commonly used
configurations on load carrying capacity, ductility, lateral strengthening technique of RC columns with rectangular
strength and flexural strength by changing parameters like and/or square cross-section. The method is generally regarded
strip thickness, size and spacing, concrete strength, angle as realistic, swift and cost-effective [2]. Additionally, it
size and thickness. Comparisons between the results of the improves overall seismic performance of the structure by
experimental investigation and analytical equations developing lateral strength, axial load carrying capacity, the
proposed by different researchers and design codes have ductility and shear capacity of structural members [2, 3, 5, 6,
been illustrated. It has been found from the literature that 18]. The technique is widely used in construction field,
load carrying capacity depends on aforementioned particularly in Japan, Taiwan and the United States [4, 5] and
parameters. The experimental investigations conducted by has been found applicable in retrofitting of damaged RC
several researchers reveal that the overall increase in axial columns after earthquakes [17].
strength ranges from 18.65% to 109% and that of lateral
B. RC Jacketing
strength from 63% to 68%.
The application of a thin layer of reinforced concrete
Key words—angles, strips, strengthening, steel jacketing, steel around an existing RC column is referred as RC jacketing
plates. Fig.1 (a), Fig 2(b). For ensuring the proper bond between the
surface of old and new concrete, adequate numbers of
anchored bars/shear keys and adhesive materials are used. It is
I. INTRODUCTION expected that confinement can be improved easily, as the

T he Reinforced Concrete (RC) columns having inadequate

longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, and inadequate
length of lap splice of longitudinal reinforcement, use of
transverse reinforcement can be placed in the exterior of the
longitudinal bars at any spacing required. However, the
confinement through RC jacketing on rectangular or square
inferior quality material, misalignment or misplacement of cross section are not as effective as for circular cross sections.
reinforcements are often required to be strengthening. Literally, it is easy to install, and improves the ductility, shear
Strengthening is done in a manner so that it can change the capacity and load carrying capacity. In contrast, one of the
failure mechanism from brittle to ductile mode in addition to most remarkable disadvantages of RC jacketing is the section
enhancement of load carrying capacity. It is also expected that enlargement, which is often not accessible. In addition, RC
strengthening technique would be non-interruptive, less time jacketing needs dowelling the reinforcing bars to the footing,
consuming, less expensive, and the least floor area user. eventually in many cases the failure mode is shifted there and
Different techniques of RC column strengthening are becomes vulnerable, thus retrofitting of that specified footing
available in the literature [1]. Each of these strengthening is required.
system possess of both certain conveniences and specific
shortcomings. The following sections illustrate the advantages
and disadvantages of various strengthening system according
to their behavior and engineering point of view.
A. Steel Jacketing
One of the promising strengthening techniques is steel
jacket in which steel angles / Plates are used for confining the
column concrete with different configurations like steel Fig. 1.Cross section of RC jacket; Steel wrapping;
Installation of steel cage.
June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 6
 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

B. Regalado (1999)
Regalado’s design equation [8] evaluates the allowable
load carrying capacity due to the deformation variation
between concrete column and the strengthening system. It
reflects a lower ultimate load capacity of strengthened RC
column than from Eurocode No. 4 [7], according to Eq. (2)
PReg  0.6*(0.85.b.d . fc  As . f ys  8.L1.t1. f yL ).......................(2)

Fig. 2. (a) Steel Jacketing(b) RC jacketing (c) FRP jacketing. s2

C. Composite Jacketing
Composite jacketing is named due to use of different Angle
composite fibers, commonly carbon or aramid fibers with d
organic resin or epoxy resin. It is also referred as fiber Strip
reinforced polymer (FRP) which is recently considered as
“new” and highly reliable materials in the construction
industry. The fibers are a type of unidirectional flexible sheets b
or fabrics (can be woven or unwoven) that contains fibers in at
least two different directions. The fibers are then wrapped to
the concrete using the resin Fig. 2(c). In composite jacketing,
the fibers are only considered for carrying the stresses in the
respective directions. Composite jackets are light weighted L1
about one-fourth of the steel. It includes easy to application in t
limited space, cut the necessity of intensive surface
1
preparation that result reducing the labor costs and provide the L1
substantial ductility. However, the worst things observed over
Cross Section of Angle
the composite jacketing are: vulnerable to fire, composite
materials behave linearly elastic, which causes member failure
without yielding or plastic deformation results low ductility. Fig. 3: Components of Steel Jacketing.
Furthermore, the fibers and resign are very expensive as C. Calderon et al. (2009)
compared to steel or concrete. Composite jacketing is effective
Calderon et al. [9] proposed a design equation for
only for the columns with circular or elliptical in shape.
determining the ultimate load that is carried by a RC column
Unlike steel and RC jacketing, it has incompatible thermal
strengthened with steel angles and battens. The formula is
expansion coefficients.
founded on the analysis of failure mechanisms observed in
experimental and numerical approaches performed on full-
II. CAPACITY OF STEEL JACKETED RC COLUMNS scale specimens. Finally, the proposal was verified by
In the past decades, several analytical models have been comparing the results obtained from application of proposed
proposed for the determination of load carrying capacity of formula, laboratory specimens test and FE models test.
RC strengthened columns using steel caging, by design codes However, the proposed design formula is expressed by Eq.
as well as researchers. The following are some of the proposed (3).
models.
Pcal  0.85.b.d . fc  As . f ys  2.5. fl .b.d  N L .........................(3)
A. Eurocode No. 4 (1994)
where, fl= confinement pressure; NL= axial force carried by
According to Eurocode No. 4 [7] the ultimate load
angles.
carrying capacity of a RC column, strengthened with steel
angles and strips can be calculated as follows The parameters fl and NL are calculated by considering two
possible types of failure modes: failure by yielding of angles
or failure due to yielding of stripsof the strengthened column.
PEC 4  0.85(b.d ) fc  As . f ys  8.( L1.t1 ). f yL .............................(1)
The following section deals with the earlier two cases.
where,b, d= side dimension of RC column; fc= compressive 1) Failure caused by yielding of angles
strength of concrete; As= area of longitudinal steel; fys= yield Failure by yielding of angles is one of the criteria in which
stress of longitudinal steel; L1= leg length of angle; t1= angles are buckled in the middle portion of two strips. When it
thickness of angle, and fyL= yield stress of steel angles happens it is obvious that the angles are no longer able to
respectively.

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 7

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

confine the concrete. The mechanism is that three plastic qh . 2

hinges are formed at three locations of an angle similar as fl  .............................................................................(7)
b
Fig.4 (a) that indicate the weakest point of the angles.
To calculate the axial force NL in the angle, let us consider the
initial load N0 is subjected to the column, NL is derived from 16.M p 2
Eq. (4), thus reaching at the axial load carried by the angles fl  2
........................................................................(8)
between the two strips. For finding maximum confinement lang .b
pressure (fl), the formations of the three plastic hinges are
assumed to occur at three different locations indicated in Fig.
The ultimate load for the case of failure by yielding of the
4(a). Analyze the angle between two strips as a fixed ended
angles will be obtained from Eq. (3) after adding the NL and fl
beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load of qh which is
parameters, which were obtained by the procedure described
determined from Fig. 4(a). by considering the equilibrium
above.
condition of the angle as illustrated in Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 4(b).
Thus plastic moment Mp is obtained, fl can be calculated by 2) Failure caused by yielding of strips
applying Eq. (8), obtained from Eq. (6) and Eq. (7). A second type of failure is observed due to the yielding of
strips when it is subjected to an axial load of t2.s2.fyL
N L  No .(1  em.s2 )...............................................................(4)
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the column.
Confinement pressure that is induced on the column by steel
.4.c caging when a strip yields can be expressed by Eq. (9):
m ........................................................(5)
 b.Ec 
b. 1  c   2.t2 .s2 . f yL
 2.t2 .EL  fl  ......................................................................(9)
b.s

where, µ= the friction co-efficient; b = the side of column; ʋc The confinement pressure fl and axial load are calculated and
= Poission ratio of concrete; s2= width of strip; t2 = thickness added to Eq. (3) to obtain the ultimate load carrying capacity
of strip; EL, and Ec = elastic modulus of caging steel and of a strengthened column.
concrete respectively.

qh D. Giuseppe Campione (2012)

Campione [10] proposed a design equation for determining
the ultimate load that is carried by a RC column strengthened
NL/4
with steel angles and battens. The formula is expressed as Eq.
(10).
lang

(a) PUcampione  na .8.t1.L1. f yL  b.d . fcc.  As . f ys .........................(10)

where, fcc= compressive strength of confined concrete; na=

Maximum axial force in angles; na and fcc are calculated by
the following way,
f
f cc  f co (1  4.74 L )0.87 ........................................................(11)
f co

 q .S 2 
(b) (c) t1 . f yL  t1 . f yL .L12  max 
 3 
na   1.0 ................................(12)
2 L1 .t1 . f yL
Fig. 4. (a) Formation of plastic hinge; (b) force acting
 L2 .t  N P  
2
on an angle, and (c) confinement pressure on angle
M P   1 1 f yL   ..................................................(16)
16  4 16. f yL .t1 
qh  2
.M p ..........................................................................(6)
lang
Where fco= compressive strength of unconfined concrete
Mander et al. [11]. fL= average confining pressure on the
concrete core which can be calculated by considering two
possible failure types as yielding of strips and yielding of
angles. This parameter (fL) can be determined by Eq. (14) and

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 8

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

Eq. (15) for the case of yielding of strips and angles loads the concrete laterally expands, results confining stress on
respectively. angles and strips.
 t S 11.5  
 S 1) Yielding of angles
f L   f ystrip . 2 . 2 .e b   ..................................................(14) Failure by yielding of angles is one of the criteria in which
 S b  angles are buckled in the middle portion of two strips. When it
16M P 2 1  happens, it is obvious that the angles are no longer able to
fL    ..............................................(15)
 fc b  S  S2   confine the concrete. The mechanism is that three plastic
hinges are formed at three locations of an angle similar as
Fig.4 (a) that indicate the weakest point of the angles Calderon
Where, Mp is the plastic moment of the angles depends on et al. [9]. When column is subjected to bending and axial
the plastic axial loads and can be determined by Eq. (16). force, the concrete starts to expand laterally that results angles
 L2 .t  N P   yielding Badalamenti et al. [3].
2

M P   1 1 f yL   ..................................................(16) 2) Yielding of strips

 4 16. f yL .t1 
A second type of failure is yielding of horizontal strips.
NP  2L1.t1. f yL ......................................................................(17)
This type of failure is observed when angles are remained
16 indirectly loaded (lengths of angles are less than the length of
qmax  M P ..............................................................(18)
 S  s2  column). When axial load is imposed to column the expansion
2

of concrete exerts pressure on strips [2], [3].

E. Tarabia A. M. and Albakry H. F. (2014 ) IV. EFFECT OF PARAMETERS ON LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
Tarabia and Albakry [2] proposed an equation for Several factors are available in the literature that influences
predicting the load carrying of a column strengthened by steel the load carrying capacity of a column strengthened by steel
caging, similar to that presented by Calderon et al. [9] only caging. The most important parameters are: size and thickness
with different approaches for determining confining pressure steel angles and strips, spacing of strips, confining pressure
and axial load carried by steel angles. The average confining and concrete strength.
pressure and axial load are obtained by using Eq. (19), Eq.
Effect of strip spacing
(20) and Eq. (21).
Spacing of the strip has a great role on load carrying
Nc c capacity of RC strengthened column. Closely spaced strips can
fl  ....................................................(19) confine the concrete greatly therefore resist the concrete to
b2  bSEc 
 1  c   expand laterally when subjected to compressive loading.
 2s2 t2 Es  Cirtek L. [12] investigated the effect of strip distance over the
entire height of column in carrying capacity of RC
The axial load is carried by the angles when axial shortening strengthened column. According to the experimental results
of the column occurs or due to friction, referred as directly conducted by him, it was found that the load carrying capacity
loaded. However, if the angles are not connected to the head is decreased with increasing the spacing of strips.
of the column it is called indirectly loaded angles and the axial Effect of Strip Area
force of one angle evaluated as:
Cirtek L. [12] conducted an experimental investigation by
testing specimens of RC column strengthened by using both
N L  2.L1.t1. f yL ......................................................................(20)
continuous and non-continuous angles with different strip and
N L  2. fl .b.S....................................................................(21) angles sizes, aiming to find the changes in load carrying
capacity with changing different parameters. The figure shows
where, µ= 0.5, friction co-efficient; Nc= axial load carried by changes in the axial capacity of three columns strengthened
concrete. with continuous angles and varying strip sizes of 50 mm ×6
mm, 55 mm ×6 mm and 60 mm ×6 mm. It was found from the
investigation that load-carrying capacity is increased with
III. FAILURE MODES OF STEEL JACKETING increasing the area of strip Fig. [5]. Larger width of the strip
provides larger area of confined concrete.
Two possible types of failures of a column strengthened by
steel jacketing are observed from the literature. Failure occurs Effect of Angle Area
in caging steel like- yielding in angles and yielding in Steel angles carry a part of the load carrying capacity of
horizontal strips Cirtek,[12] Calderon et al.,[9] Tarabia and strengthened columns. It is transparent from the literature that
Albakry [2]. load carrying capacity is increased with increasing angles size
The confining effect induced by steel angles and strips on Fig. 6.
reinforced concrete members in compression. According to
this model, a compressed member when subjected to axial

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 9

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

is considered as the passive or external confinement. The

3500 degree of confinement or effectiveness is mostly depends on
3000 arrangement of strips and angles. However, for prediction of
2500 capacity different Codes and researchers have been proposed
Axial Load (kN)

2000 different approaches for determining confinement pressure Eq.

1500 (8), Eq. (9), Eq. (14), Eq. (15) and Eq. (19).
1000
V. EXISTING EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
500
0 In the past decade, several analytical models have been
250 300 350 400 proposed for the determination of load carrying capacity of
RC strengthened columns using steel caging, by design codes
Strip Area (mm^2) as well as researchers. The following are some of the proposed
models.
Fig. 5.Effect of strip area on load carrying capacity
investigated by Ciirtek. A. Belal et al. (2014)
Belal et al. (2014) [13] conducted an investigation on the
behavior and failure load of strengthened column with steel
3000 jacket in Fig. 6. The strengthening system was done by using
2500 steel angles or plates, or C-sections and batten plates with a
particular interval. All the columns were 200 mm × 200 mm ×
2000 1200 mm in dimensions. The control specimens were without
Axial load (kN)

1500 strengthening and remaining was strengthened with different

1000 configurations. The details of the strengthening components
are illustrated in TABLE I.
500 The experimental test revealed that specimen
0 (Col.04.C.6P) strengthened with vertical C-sections and six
0 2000 4000 6000 horizontal battens at the two sides had the largest failure load
of 1841 kN. The load carrying capacity was increased by
Angle Area (mm^2) 45.10% of ref. specimen. While, the specimen (Col.01.L.3P)
strengthened with vertical angles at the four corners and three
Fig. 6.Effect of strip area on load carrying capacity. horizontal battens at all the four sides, endured slightly lower
failure load of 1821 kN. The load carrying capacity was
Effect of confining pressure increased by 45.10% of control ones. The minimum increment
Confining pressure has a great effect on load carrying of load carrying capacity was observed 18.65% for specimen
capacity of strengthened column with steel jacket. Steel jacket Col.05.P1, Strengthened with steel plate.

Fig. 6: Column strengthening configuration.

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 10

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

TABLE I
STEEL JACKET CONFIGURATIONS AND TEST RESULTS
Specimen ID Thickness (mm) Confinement Failure load Pu/Pu(ref.) % increases
Nos. angles/Plates- (Batten Nos.* Nos. of (kN)
Size Sides *Batten Size)
Col.00 (ref) - - 1255 1.00 -
Col.01.L.3P 4L-50*50*5 3*4 plates 150*100*5 1821 1.45 45.10%
Col.02.L.6P 4L-50*50*5 6*4 plates 150*50*5 1649 1.31 31.39%
Col.03.C.3P 2C-(206*50)/(3.1*3.1) 3*2 plates 150*100*5 1545 1.23 23.11%
Col.04.C.6P 2C-(206*50)/(3.1*3.1) 6*2 plates 150*50*5 1841 1.47 46.69%
Col.05.P1 4 Plates @ 4 sides 4*4 plates 200*2.4 1489 1.19 18.65%

B. Hay and Fawzy (2014)

Hay and Fawzy [14] investigated the column capacity and
global behavior of partially strengthened RC columns defected

500
in decreasing compressive strength and in bad stirrup
arrangements. The specimens were 200 mm × 200 mm in
cross section and 1500 mm in height, defected with partial
External ties 210
stirrups at top and bottom thirds of the column only, while the

500
25x5 mm
middle thirds was without any stirrups. The specimens were cross section
strengthened by using steel plates connected to the columns @ 210 mm 210
with anchor bolts, stirrups at the middle thirds regions with

500
specific intervals and using four steel angles with batten plates
welded to the angles in Fig. 7.
CS3
Fig. 7: Details of Steel Jacket Configuration.
500

500

The result exposed that the load carrying capacity were

External dramatically increased by 31% and 21% of control specimens
Anchor ties 25x5 for CS4 and CS6, strengthened with three ties and four angles
mm
500

bolts 6 connected with battens. On the contrary, the failure loads were
500

cross
φ10 found decreasing by 5%, 3%, 9%, and 17% of control ones for
section
@133 the specimen CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS5 respectively in Table
mm II. Additionally, it was found that the thickness of external
500

500

plate improves the ductility with strain behavior of

strengthened columns while, the jacketing height of RC
CS4
column with steel angles enhanced the overall behavior.
CS1 and CS2

TABLE II
STEEL CAGING DETAILS AND TEST RESULTS
Specimen Thickness (mm) Jacket Height % increases /
375

ID Angle No./ Plates-Size (mm) Decrease

500

C1 Control - -
4 angles 4 angles
40x40x4 4 Plates @ 1.5 mm 5% decrease
40x40x4 CS1 thickness 500 mm
connecting connecting
Ties 25x5 4 Plates @ 3.0 mm
500

750

Ties 25x5 CS2 thickness 500 mm 3% decrease

mm cross mm cross
section 3 Ties (25 * 5 mm-X
section clear
clear CS3 section) @ 210 mm c/c 500 mm 9% decrease
spacing
spacing 158mm 4 Ties (25 * 5 mm-X
133mm CS4 section) @ 133 mm c/c 500 mm 31% increase
500

375

4 Angles 40 * 40 * 4
CS5 and battens 25 * 5 mm 500 mm 17% decrease
4 Angles 40 * 40 * 4
CS5 CS6 CS6 and battens 25 * 5 mm 750 mm 21% increase

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 11

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

C. Lin et al. (2010) strengthened with steel caging. The column specimens were
Lin et al [4] investigated the effectiveness of steel jackets 200 mm × 200 mm in cross section and 700 mm in height Fig.
for seismic retrofitting of rectangular RC columns with 9. The specimens were strengthened by using four steel angles
insufficient lap splices and inadequate transverse (L40 mm × 4 mm) at the corners. For Specimen B, 200 mm ×
reinforcement. In this study, they also examined the shape 50 mm × 5 mm batten plates were used at an interval of 150
effect (i.e Octagonal and Elliptical shape) of steel jackets in mm while, the same amount of steel battens (200 × 25 mm × 4
improving the ductility and strength of the column specimens. mm) were used in specimen D with an interval of 75 mm.
Three cantilever type specimens 600 mm × 750 mm in cross The specimen C contained the same size of batten plates as
section were made, fixed with large footing individually. The specimen B with an extra batten plates at both end of the
details of the specimen are presented in Table III. The specimen Fig.9. The yield strength of the steel angles were
specimens (SRL1 and SRL2) were retrofitted by using 6 mm 335 MPa whereas for steel battens of 50 mm and 25 mm wide
thick octagonal and 3 mm thick elliptical steel jackets were 412 MPa and 304 MPa respectively. The investigation
respectively, as shown in Fig. 8. stated that strengthening of RC columns with steel angles and
battens are quite effective in improving the load carrying
TABLE III capacity and ductility when compressive strength is very low.
COLUMN AND STEEL CAGING DETAILS It was also found that the same amount of steel batten with
Design parameters BMRL100, SRL1, SRL2 different spacing had a little effect on load carrying capacity
Column dimension (mm) 600×750
but much on ductility.
Column height (mm) 3250
Design concrete strength (MPa) 17.5
Longitudinal steel 32 - #6 (19 mm)
Longitudinal steel ratio (%) 2
Longitudinal steel design strength 420
(MPa)
Transverse steel spacing #3 (10 mm) @130mm
(plastic hinge region) #3
(10 mm) @240mm
(non-plastic hinge region)
Transverse steel configuration Double U shape
Transverse steel design strength (MPa) 280
Cross tie bar (each direction) 2 - #3
Cover thickness (mm) 25
Base height (mm) 750
Base dimensions (mm) 2450×1800
Fig. 9. Steel caging details.

The investigation revealed that, confinement was effectively

increased when Octagonal steel jacket was used. Ductility TABLE IV
COLUMN AND STEEL CAGING DETAILS
performance and energy dissipation ability of the specimens Specimen Angle/ Strip/ spacing Ultimate %
were also found improved. However, the lateral strength was (mm) Load(kN) increase
increased by 68.6% and 63.1% for the specimens SRL1 and Ref. 607 N/A
SRL2 respectively. The failure of the specimens was A 40*4/200*50*5/150 1035 70%
observed prevented as the results of inadequate lap splices B 40*4/200*50*5/150-2 1066 75%
additional strips
length and transverse reinforcement. C 40*4/200*25*4/75 1031 69%

E. Roca et al. (2011)

Roca et al [15] investigated the effectiveness of steel
caging on strengthening of RC columns, considering beam
column joint, subjected to combined bending moments and
axial loads. The column specimens were 260 mm × 260 mm in
cross section and 1275 mm in height. All the specimens were
categorized into two type of specimens A and B, in which the
capitals connected to the joints by using chemical anchor and
steel bars respectively.
The strengthening system was adopted by using steel
Fig .8. Steel jacketing details of lap-splice deficient
angles (L60.6) at each corner of the columns and strips
columns: (a) specimen SRL1 and (b) specimen SRL2.
(230×140×8) with variable intervals, welded to the angles.
The specimen (ref.a) was tested under only axial load and all
D. Areemit et al. the other specimens including ref.b were tested under both
Areemit et al [6] studied the effect of batten plate axial plus bending moments. It was concluded that type B
configurations as well as the amount of batten plates with specimens exhibited higher resistance and ductility than type
different spacing for strengthening of deficient RC columns A. Besides, strengthening was found more effective when

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 12

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

capitals were connected to the joints by steel bars. Steel caging investigation performed by Tarabia and Albakry [2] while
increased the overall ultimate load carrying capacity table VII illustrates the result of analytical formulae/codes
effectively. with experimental test done by Cirtek [12].
TABLE VI
F. Tarabia and Albakry(2014) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS VERSES ANALYTICAL RESULTS
S C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Expt.
Tarabia and Albakry [2] studied the effect of parameters (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
on load carrying capacity of strengthened RC columns SC1
contained steel angles and battens. The parameters were - size 1789 2207 1170.5 1950.8 2194.6 2570
SCN1
of steel angles, spacing of strips, types of grout materials and 1789 2207 1170.5 1950.8 1590.6 1990
fixity of steel cage with column head. Each column was 150 SCW1
1789 2207 1170.5 1950.8 2115.5 2310
mm × 150 mm in cross-section and 1000 mm in height. All SE1
the columns had 4 -10mm diameter longitudinal bars and 6 1789 2207 1170.5 1950.8 2194.6 2600
SC2
mm diameter stirrups at 100 mm spaced. 10 mm Steel head 1366 1759 823.3 1372.1 1562.3 2190
were used at both ends of the columns. The specimens were SCN2
1366 1759 823.3 1372.1 1330.6 2000
strengthened into two groups with two different angle sizes SCW2
(50*50*4.5 mm and 30*30*3 mm) at each corners of the 1366 1759 823.3 1372.1 1497.3 2050
specimen. Each group comprised four strengthened and one SE2
1366 1759 823.3 1372.1 1562.3 2090
un-strengthened specimens. Note: S= specimen ID; CX= Load carrying capacity determined by using the
formulae (C1= Campoine, C2= Calderon et al., C3= Regalado, C4=
TABLE V Eurocode4, C5= Tarabia and Albakry)
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
Col. Angle Strip f’c fyL(M Failure (%) TABLE VII
ID Size Spacing (MPa) Pa) Load increas EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS VERSES ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(mm) (kN) e S C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Expt.
N1 N.A N.A - 1475 (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
SC1 50*50*4.5 170 2570 74 F1
57.8 1782.5 1759.57 1208.7 2014.5 1906.9 2100
SCN1 50*50*4.5 170 415 1990 35
F2
SCW 50*50*4.5 260 2310 57 1604.5 1744.54 995.1 1658.5 1814.8 2300
1 F3
1662.1 1747.67 1064.2 1773.7 1843.6 2550
SE1 50*50*4.5 170 2600 76
F4
N2 N.A N.A - 1050 1996.7 1765.81 1465.8 2443.0 2022.1 2650
SC2 30*30*3 170 2190 109 F5
47.5 1782.5 1764.94 1208.7 2014.5 1906.9 2870
SCN2 30*30*3 170 485 2000 90
F6
SCW 30*30*3 260 2050 95 1782.5 1764.94 1208.7 2014.5 1906.9 2575
2 F7
1782.5 1764.94 1208.7 2014.5 1906.9 2917
SE2 30*30*3 170 2090 99
Note: S= specimen ID; CX= Load carrying capacity determined by using the
formulae (C1= Campoine, C2= Calderon et al., C3= Regalado, C4=
The investigation exhibited that the axial load capacity was Eurocode4, C5= Tarabia and Albakry)
increased about 109% for specimen SC2, strengthened with
4L-30*30*3 angles and strips at a spaced 170 mm. The
ductility was increased about 50 % for all the strengthened VII. DESIGN EXAMPLE
specimens. The specimen SCN2 gained the lower axial load This section considers an arbitrary RC concrete column of
capacity that was strengthened by 4L-50*50*4.5 vertical 300 mm × 300 mm cross section and 3000 mm of height. The
angles with similar horizontal strips and spacing. The study area of longitudinal reinforcement is 1609 mm2 (As=8-16
also showed that concrete with lower strength (fcu= 47.50 mm), with a yield strength of 260 MPa. The compressive
Mpa) achieves higher ductility and axial load capacity strength of concrete is 13 MPa. The column has to be
compared to the concrete of greater strength (fcu= 57.80). strengthened by using steel caging/jacketing.

First trial: Consider the minimum angles and strips sizes as

VI. COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS OBTAINED FROM recommended by Cirtel [12].
PROPOSED MODELS AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS Angle size = 60 mm × 60 mm ×6 mm; yield strength of angle
A comparison between results that obtained from and strip = 210 MPa; Thickness of angle tang  0.1L1 = 0.1*60
analytical equations proposed by different researchers and =6 mm (ok); leg length L1  0.2 where,   0.5(a  b) =
codes and those found from experimental investigations
0.5(300+300) =300 mm;
available in the literatures has been conducted. In this
L1= 0.2*300 = 60 mm (ok)
purposes experimental investigation done by Cirtek [12] and
Tarabia and Albakry [2] has been used. Strip Thickness tstr  tang ;tstrip = 6 mm (ok).
The analytical equations proposed by Campione [10], Area of strip should satisfy the condition
Calderon et al. [9], Regalado [8], Eurocode4 [7] and Tarabia Astr  0.004 2 = 0.004* (300)2= 360 mm, so width of strip
and Albakry have been considered. Table VI represents the =360/6= 60 mm
result obtained from analytical models/codes and experimental

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 13

 Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 05 Issue 03

Using proposed models of different researchers for predicting Department of Civil Engineering, Khon Kaen University,
Thailand.eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/.../1/easec13-I-
the carrying load capacity:
5-6.pdf
[7] ENV 1994-1-1 (Eurocode No. 4). Design of composite steel and
Carrying Capacity before using steel caging = 1394 kN. concrete structures. Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings; 1994.
After strengthening: [8] Regalado F., pilares L., (1999). Criterios para su proyecto cálculo y
reparación. Alicante: CYPE Ingenieros; 1999 [in Spanish].
[9] Calderón P. A., Adam J. M., Ivorra S., Pallarésn F. J., Giménez E.,
According to, (2009). “Design strength of axially loaded RC columns strengthened by
i) Tarabia and Albakry [2] = 2414 kN (73% steel caging”, Materials and Design 30 (2009) 4069–4080
increase) [10] Campione G., (2012). “Strength and ductility of R.C. columns
strengthened with steel angles and battens”, Construction and Building
ii) Eurocode4 [7] = 1987 kN ( 42% increase);
Materials 35 (2012) 800–807
iii) Regalado [8] = 1192 kN ( Not increasing); [11] Mander J. B., Priestly J. N., Park R. A., (1988). “Theoretical stress–
iv) Calderon et al. [9] = 2327 kN (66% increase); strain model for confined concrete. “Journal of Structural Engineering,
v) Campione [10] = 1875 kN (34% increase). 114(8):1804–1826.
[12] Cirtek L., (2001). “RC columns strengthened with bandage experimental
programme and design recommendations” Construction and Building
Materials 15(2001). 341-349
VIII. CONCLUSION [13] Belal M. F., Mohamed H. M., Morad S. A., (2014). “Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened by Steel Jacket,” Housing
The experimental results of the previous investigations and Building National Research Center (HBNR) journal,
have been reviewed. Factors affecting design formulae for the http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.05.002.
square reinforced concrete columns strengthened by steel [14] Abdel-Hay A. S., Fawzy Y. A. G., (2014). “Behavior of partially
jackets are presented. In addition, comparison between defected R.C columns strengthened using steel jackets,” Housing and
Building National Research Center (HBNR) journal,
available experimental results and that obtained by using http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.06.003.
recommended analytical equations have been conducted. [15] Roca J. G., Pinilla J. R., Adam J. M., Calderón P. A., (2011). “An
Finally, design example of an arbitrary column has been done experimental study on steel caged RC columns subjected to axial force
considering the recommendation proposed by Cirtek [12]. andbending moment,” Engineering Structures 33, 580–590.
[16] Campione G., (2012). “Load carrying capacity of RC compressed
The expected load carrying capacity was determined columns strengthened with steel angles and strips”, Engineering
according to formulae proposed by the researchers. On the Structures 40, 457–465
basis of the review, experimental investigations may be [17] Wasti S.T., Ozcebe G. (2006). Advances in earthquake engineering for
carried out to evaluate the effect of concrete strength of light urban risk reduction. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental
Sciences, vol. 66(6). Springer: Netherlands.
weight concrete and concrete made with brick aggregate [18] Adam J. M., Ivorra S., Pallarés F. J., Giménez E., Calderón P. A.,
which are largely used in Bangladesh and parts of India. It has (2009). “Axially loaded RC columns strengthened by steel caging. Finite
been noticed that various models are available in the literature element modeling”Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2265–
for finding the confinement pressure around the column. 2276
Further studies may also be conducted by varying the
confining arrangement of strips.
First Author received the Bachelor of
Science degree in Civil Engineering from
Dhaka University of Engineering &
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Technology (DUET) in 2013. Since then
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Development he has been working as an Associate
Design and Management (DDM) for providing financial Research at Development Design &
supports. Management (DDM), as well as a
Research Assistant under Dr. Md.
REFERENCES Mozammel Hoque, Associate Professor, Department of Civil
[1] Shri B., Pravin, Waghmare, (2011, December). “Materials and Jacketing Engineering, Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
Technique for Retrofitting of Structures,” International Journal of (DUET), Gazipur-1700, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, E-ISSN2249-8974,
IJAERS/Vol. I/ Issue I/October-December, 2011/15-19.
[2] Tarabia A. M., Albakry H.F., (2014). “Strengthening of RC columns by
Second Author received the Bachelor and
steel angles and strips” Alexandria Engineering Journal (2014) 53, 615– Masters of Science degree in Civil
626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2014.04.005 Engineering from Bangladesh University
[3] Badalamenti V., Campione G., Mangiavillano M.L., (2010). “Simplified of Engineering and Technology (BUET) in
model for compressive behavior of concrete columns strengthened by
steel angles and strips” ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 136 (2) (2010) 230–238.
1996 and 2001, respectively. He earned his
[4] Lin M. L., Chen P. C., Tsai K. C., Yu Y. J., Liu J. G., (2010). “Seismic Ph.D. from Saitama University, Japan in
steel jacketing of rectangular RC bridge columns for the mitigation of 2005. He has been working as an
lap-splice failures,” Earthquake Eng.Struct. Dyn. 2010; 39:1687–1710, Associate Professor in Department of Civil
Published online 22 March 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1003
Engineering, Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
[5] Choi E., Chung Y. S., Park K., Jeon J. S., (2013). “Effect of steel (DUET), Gazipur-1700, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
wrapping jackets on the bond strength of concrete and the lateral
performance of circular RC columns,” Engineering Structures 48 (2013)
43–54.
[6] Areemit N., Faeksin N., Niyom P., Phonsak P., “Strengthening of
Deficient RC Columns by Steel Angles and Battens under Axial Load,”

June 2015 ATE-15130371©Asian Transactions 14

View publication stats