3.9 5.

Review

Strengthening and Repair of

Reinforced Concrete Columns by
Jacketing: State-of-the-Art Review

Saim Raza, Muhammad K. I. Khan, Scott J. Menegon, Hing-Ho Tsang and John L. Wilson

Special Issue
Structural Upgrading Systems for Sustainable and Resilient Concrete Infrastructure
Edited by
Dr. Ray Kai Leung Su and Dr. Hing-Ho Tsang

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113208
 sustainability

Review
Strengthening and Repair of Reinforced Concrete
Columns by Jacketing: State-of-the-Art Review
Saim Raza 1,3 , Muhammad K. I. Khan 2 , Scott J. Menegon 1,3 , Hing-Ho Tsang 1,3, * and
John L. Wilson 1,3
1 Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia;
[email protected] (S.R.); [email protected] (S.J.M.); [email protected] (J.L.W.)
2 School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2612,
Australia; [email protected]
3 Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-392-145-009




Received: 17 May 2019; Accepted: 4 June 2019; Published: 9 June 2019


Abstract: Sustainability necessitates the protection of infrastructure from any kind of deterioration
over the life cycle of the asset. Deterioration in the capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) infrastructure
(e.g., bridges, buildings, etc.) may result from localised damage sustained during extreme loading
scenarios, such as earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis. In addition, factors such as the corrosion of
rebars or ageing may also deteriorate or degrade the capacity of an RC column, thereby necessitating
immediate strengthening to either extend or ensure its design life is not limited. The aim of this paper
is to provide a state-of-the-art review of various strengthening and repair methods for RC columns
proposed by different researchers in the last two decades. The scope of this review paper is limited to
jacketing techniques for strengthening and/or repairing both normal- and high-strength RC columns.
The paper also identifies potential research gaps and outlines the future direction of research into the
strengthening and repair of RC columns.

Keywords: RC columns; strengthening; repair; jacketing

1. Introduction
There is an increasing focus and emphasis on the sustainability of existing infrastructure.
The rehabilitation and strengthening of damaged or deficient reinforced concrete (RC) structures has
the potential to restore and/or enhance the structural performance to a level required by current design
codes. Rehabilitation and/or strengthening is a more sustainable solution compared to simply just
demolishing and reconstructing the entire facility, from both the point of view of the conservation
of resources (e.g., time, cost, materials, etc.) and the reducing the overall carbon footprint of the
construction industry.
Seismic retrofitting and/or the strengthening of RC columns has been a popular area of research for
decades. This is primarily because, in a building frame system or a bridge, the imposed seismic energy
demand is dissipated by the displacement of the columns, thereby resulting in slight to severe damage
depending on the severity of the earthquake, and hence the need for repair emerges to ensure the
smooth post-earthquake recovery of the facility. Secondly, RC building structures that were designed
prior to the incorporation of seismic detailing guidelines of the 1970s generally possess non-ductile RC
columns, which make them inherently vulnerable during an earthquake. Strengthening techniques can
be used to upgrade columns of this nature and allow them to conform to the latest code requirements.
The need for strengthening and repair may also arise because of a number of other factors such as the

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208; doi:10.3390/su11113208 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 2 of 31

ageing of structure, deterioration of concrete, change in building use and loading requirements, design
errors, corrosion of reinforcement and construction mistakes during erection.
Researchers over the past two to three decades have been endeavoring to develop appropriate
strengthening and repair techniques for RC columns that balances the structural requirement to
enhance the strength, ductility and drift with various non-structural requirements, such as minimising
implementation/construction costs, limiting any disruption to building occupants during construction,
maintaining the aesthetics of the structure, maintaining or increasing durability and ensuring work
safety. Time of repair is another crucial factor, particularly for post-disaster facilities, such as hospitals
or emergency services facilities, and shelters that house a significant number of people. Similarly,
the functionality of bridges also needs to be maintained or quickly restored immediately after an
earthquake, which underscores the importance of rapid strengthening and repair techniques. There
are also other challenges and complexities associated with strengthening and repair that need to be
dealt with, such as localised changes to the member stiffness, which can possibly change the dynamic
properties of the structure and, consequently, change the seismic demands on individual elements or
the building as a whole
The earliest proposed strengthening techniques such as steel jacketing or concrete incasing
enhanced the seismic performance of the structure by enlarging the cross-section of the column. Since
then, researchers have been proposing and evaluating techniques that result in a minimum modification
to the structural geometry, while simultaneously enhancing the structural capacity. Fiber-reinforced
polymers (FRPs) have widely been seen as an attractive alternative to traditional retrofitting techniques
and significant research efforts internationally have been undertaken to investigate various aspects
of FRP strengthening. More recently, however, hybrid jacketing, which essentially combines the
advantages of different retrofitting methods/materials, has become increasingly popular and the
primary focus of most recent research efforts.
This paper provides a state-of-the-art review of different strengthening and repair techniques for
RC columns over the last two decades. The authors have reviewed the effectiveness of each of the
techniques and also identified potential future research areas to address research gaps.
It is noted that the term ‘repair’ in the context of this paper generally refers to any methods used
to restore the capacity of a damaged RC column; whereas the terms ‘strengthening’ and ‘retrofitting’
are generally used interchangeably to refer to any methods used to enhance the capacity of existing RC
column. The scope of the paper has generally been limited to ‘jacketing’ techniques for strengthening
and/or repairing RC columns only. Other retrofitting techniques relating more directly to beam–column
joints, such as the use of a haunch or knee brace [1,2], are outside the scope of this paper.
The strengthening and repair techniques for RC columns presented in this paper have been
broadly categorized into six types, reinforced concrete/mortar jacketing; steel jacketing; externally
bonded fiber-reinforced polymer jacketing; near-surface mounted fiber-reinforced polymer jacketing;
shape memory alloy (SMA) jacketing; and hybrid jacketing. This state-of-the-art review included
99 studies that have been conducted on the strengthening of RC columns in the last two decades.
Of these studies, externally bonded FRP strengthening has been the most popular method in literature,
with approximately 59 studies, as shown in Figure 1.
Summaries of the experimental studies employing each of these six broad categories of
strengthening and repair techniques is presented in Sections 2–7 respectively. A summary of all
the experimental studies for strengthening and repair techniques, respectively, is presented later in
Tables 1 and 2. The experimental studies were conducted under three types of loading conditions,
namely, unidirectional cyclic lateral loading with constant axial load, bi-directional cyclic lateral
loading with constant axial load and hybrid simulation. This is followed by Section 8, which provides
a comparison and discussion of the different techniques, and Section 9, which presents research gaps
and future potential research directions.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 3 of 31

Figure 1. An overview of the experimental studies on the strengthening and repair of reinforced
concrete (RC) columns published in the last two decades.

2. Reinforced Concrete/Mortar Jacketing

RC jacketing has been used extensively for strengthening and repairing deficient and damaged
RC columns, respectively. In traditional reinforced concrete jacketing, the section of the column is
enlarged by casting a new reinforced concrete/mortar section over a part or the entire length of the
column. The new section is bonded to the original section through anchor rebars or high-strength
bolts. Although this technique improves the seismic performance of the column in terms of axial
load carrying capacity, flexural strength and ductility, it is costly and time consuming due to the
installation of the formwork. Moreover, the improvement in ductility is relatively small because the
jacketing material (i.e., concrete) is brittle. Furthermore, it results in a change in the cross-sectional
area of the column, thereby changing the mass and stiffness of the structure, and hence reducing the
natural period of the structure, which consequently results in higher seismic demands on the structure.
Therefore, high-performance RC materials have been used more recently for jacketing purposes, so that
the specimen is strengthened/repaired without a change in the cross-sectional size. The summary of
the developments and improvements in the RC/mortar jacketing techniques is provided below.
Lehman et al. [3] repaired moderately to severely damaged circular RC columns with freshly
cast concrete along with headed reinforcement and mechanical couplers and reported that although
the strength and ductility were restored, the stiffness was not fully restored for moderately damaged
columns. The repair technique also proved to be ineffective in restoring the behavior of severely
damaged specimens.
Vandoros and Dristos [4] also used RC jackets with welded stirrup ends, which resulted in the
enhancement of the strength and ductility of the RC columns; however, it was reported that the jacket
separated from the original column due to a lack of surface/bonding treatment at the interface. The welding
of stirrup ends proved to be effective in preventing the buckling of longitudinal reinforcement.
In another study, Chang et al. [5] compared the performance of RC jacketing and wing wall (small
concrete panels installed at both sides of the column) installation and found that RC jacketing results
in a larger enhancement of energy dissipation and ductility of the deficient RC columns.
In order to reduce the disruption of occupancy, Liu et al. [6] proposed the use of a single asymmetric
concrete section for strengthening RC columns. The section was bonded to the original section with
anchor rebars or high-strength bolts. The results exhibited a significant increase in the ultimate
strength and ductility of the retrofitted specimen. It was also reported that this method reduces
the initial stress difference between the original and the retrofitted part. Moreover, the usability of
the structure is also not affected as most of the strengthening work can be done outdoors without
relocating the furniture/other equipment. In a similar study, Ou and Troung [7] proposed the addition
of flanges in the weak axis of the RC column for strengthening RC columns in the first weak story
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 4 of 31

of the existing buildings. The rectangular column would consequently change to L- and T- shaped
configurations as shown in Figure 2. The results of the study demonstrated a ductile failure mode and
enhanced lateral strength of the retrofitted specimens compared to the original rectangular columns;
however, the strength of the retrofitted specimens was lower than the monolithic specimens with
L- and T-configurations primarily due to the discontinuity of the longitudinal reinforcement in the
retrofitted specimens.
Recently, the durability of high-performance materials has led to the increased use of such materials
for the strengthening and repair purposes of RC columns. Cho et al. [8] used high-performance
fiber-reinforced cementitious composite (HPFRCC) mortar in the plastic hinge region of the column
and found that strengthening with HPFRCC mortar not only reduces bending and shear cracks but
also improves the overall force–displacement, energy dissipation and stiffness degradation behavior of
the column. Similarly, Meda et al. [9] proposed the use of high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
(HPFRC) to repair corrosion-damaged RC columns and reported reasonable enhancement in the
strength of the repaired column.
Dagenais et al. [10] reported that jacketing columns with deficient lap splices in RC bridges with
self-compacting ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) resulted in the elimination
of bond failure and concrete damage in the plastic hinge regions.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2. Repair with RC Jacketing: (a) Removing the cover concrete and roughening the surface;
(b) Post-installation of transverse reinforcement; (c) Welding of transverse reinforcement; Reinforcement
cage for an (d) L-shaped column; (e) T-shaped column; (f) T-shaped column with wall-type reinforcement
[7-Elsevier Copyrights].

Other high-performance materials such as engineered cementitious composites (ECCs) and

ferro-cement jackets were also used to strengthen short RC columns [11]. ECC is a mortar based
composite reinforced with fibers, whereas ferro-cement is essentially reinforced mortar applied over
closely spaced rebars. It was reported that compared to ferro-cement jacketing, ECC-jacketed specimens
exhibited enhanced ductility, energy dissipation and inelastic deformation; however, shear strengths
were comparable. ECC-jacketed specimens also showed improved seismic performance even at high
axial load ratios. Previously, Abdullah and Takiguchi [12] reported that with ferro-cement jackets,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 5 of 31

columns exhibited stable cyclic response and improved ductility; however, no improvement was
observed in the flexural strength.
More recently, Rodrigues et al. [13] repaired severely damaged RC columns by replacing the
damaged concrete in the plastic hinge region with high-strength micro-concrete and welding of
ruptured longitudinal bars. The subsequent testing of the repaired columns under bi-directional lateral
loading with constant axial compression showed that the repair technique fully restored the strength
and ductility of the columns; however, the stiffness was still lower than in the original specimen.
Wrapping with textile-reinforced concrete, which comprises carbon and glass fiber bundles has
been proposed very recently by Yao et al. [14] for the repair of corrosion-damaged RC columns.
The repair resulted in improved seismic performance in terms of yield load, ultimate bearing capacity,
ductility and accumulated energy dissipation; however, the degree of improvement was found to
be a function of the initial corrosion ratio, i.e., the higher the initial corrosion ratio, the lower the
improvement in behavior.

3. Steel Jacketing
In steel jacketing, the RC section is enlarged by welding or bolting it with a steel section [15],
where the gap between the concrete and steel is filled with grout. The method is effective in enhancing
the seismic performance of the column but is generally costly, labor intensive and involves antirust
work. Moreover, just like RC jacketing, due to the change in the cross-sectional size of the section,
this method also changes the stiffness of the structure.
In a study, Daudey and Filiatrault [16] retrofitted RC rectangular columns with the steel jacket and
reported that the as-built column failed at lower (1~2) ductility ratios due to the bond slip of the dowel
bars, whereas all the retrofitted specimens showed stable cyclic response up to the ductility ratio of 6.
No effect of the geometry of the steel jacket, i.e., circular or elliptical, was observed on the performance
of the strengthened columns. Wu et al. [17], in a separate study, reported that attaching a steel plate to
the flexure faces of the RC column effectively delayed the concrete crushing in the plastic hinge zone.
Steel tube-jacketed square RC columns (STRC) and circular RC columns (CTRC) were tested by
Zhou and Liu [18] to evaluate the effectiveness of strengthening RC columns with steel tubes nearly
a decade ago. It was reported that tubed RC short columns performed better than conventional RC
columns in terms of the displacement ductility, flexural strength, energy dissipation capacity and stable
hysteretic behavior due to the effective confinement of concrete provided by the steel tube. For CTRC,
it was reported that the brittle shear failure was effectively prevented and increasing the axial load ratio
increased the lateral strength and decreased the ductility index; however, very little effect was observed
on plastic deformation capacity. On the other hand, STRC was reported to exhibit shear failure at high
axial load and an increase in axial load ratio increased the shear strength and decreased the ductility
index and the deformation capacity. Overall, the lateral load strength of STRC was reported to be
greater than that of CTRC, whereas the deformation capacity of the latter was higher.
Recently, Choi et al. [19] compared the seismic performance of circular RC columns with full
and split prefabricated steel wrapping jackets and reported that split jacket results in nearly similar
improvement in the seismic performance as that of a full jacket, and hence are more effective from
the cost/ease of installation perspective. In this study, the external confining pressure on the steel
wrapping jacket was exerted using a cable and a cross device as shown in Figure 3. Similarly, in a
study by Pudjisuryadi et al. [20], the behavior of specimens with conventional stirrups was compared
with the specimens provided with external steel angle collars at regular spacing over the height of the
specimen. It was observed that specimens with steel angle collars showed very ductile behavior and
failed at a higher drift compared to the specimens with stirrups for confinement purposes.
In order to minimize the modification to column geometry, mass and stiffness, Fakharifar et al. [21]
proposed a rapid strengthening method comprising lightweight prestressed steel jackets for severely
damaged RC columns. In this method, several prestressed strands restrain a thin steel sheet, which is
then wrapped around the column in the form of a jacket in less than 12 h. The prestressed strands
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 6 of 31

prevent buckling of the steel sheet, whereas steel sheet prevents strands from intruding into the cracked
concrete. The results of the experimental study indicated that the strengthening method restored
the ultimate strength and ductility of the retrofitted columns to 115 and 140%, respectively, of the
original as-built columns. However, the initial stiffness was restored to 80% of the stiffness of the
as-built columns.
More recently, Wang et al. [22] proposed an innovative strengthening method in which rectangular
RC columns supporting high axial load ratios (i.e., preloaded) were strengthened with post compressed
steel plates. The primary purpose of this method was to ensure that the column does not collapse in a
severe earthquake and its axial load carrying capacity remains intact even after severe damage. It was
reported that the existing axial and seismic shear loads were effectively sustained and shared by the
precambered plates. A significant enhancement in the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the
strengthened column was also observed. Moreover, it was found that the improvement in behavior
was more pronounced with the increase in the thickness of the steel plates rather than an increase in
the precamber of the plates.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 3. Jacketing with prefabricated steel sheets: (a) Cutting to shape of steel plates; (b,c) Installation
of steel plates and exertion of external pressure using cable and a cross device; (d) Welding to complete
the jacketing process [19-ICE Publishing Copyrights].

4. Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Jacketing

FRP jacketing is one of the most popular seismic retrofitting methods all over the world, primarily
because of the many advantages FRP composites have to offer over traditional strengthening methods
(RC and steel jacketing), such as ease and speed of installation, less labor work, minimum change
to the original geometry and aesthetics of the structure, high strength-to-weight ratio, and, most
importantly, its occupant-friendly nature. However, it has certain disadvantages as well, such as,
the effective utilization of externally bonded FRP is just 30–35%, due to premature debonding [23].
Moreover, FRP is relatively costly and shows poor properties when exposed to high temperatures or
wet environment. FRP is generally bonded externally to the column using epoxy resins. Different types
of FRP composites have been utilized by different researchers for strengthening purposes, the details
of which are provided below.

4.1. Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Composites

Among all the FRP composites, carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) have been the most
extensively used for strengthening and repairing RC columns in the last two decades. The majority of
studies utilized externally bonded CFRP for strengthening RC columns. This section discusses in detail
the various findings of the previous studies related to the general behavior of CFRP-strengthened and
repaired columns. Moreover, the comparative effectiveness of CFRP wrapping with respect to other
strengthening techniques is also presented. Due to a large number of studies on CFRP strengthening,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 7 of 31

the studies have been grouped into three categories, namely, CFRP strengthening, CFRP repair and
comparative assessment of CFRP with other materials.

4.1.1. CFRP Strengthening

A large number of studies have been conducted to assess the impact of CFRP strengthening
on the general behavior and failure modes of the strengthened RC columns. Ma et al. [24] reported
that deficient RC columns retrofitted with external CFRP jacketing exhibited stable flexural response
with improved ductility and energy dissipation capacity by preventing brittle shear failure. Similarly,
Ye et al. [25] found that shear strength of the RC column with inadequate transverse reinforcement
can be improved with the CFRP sheets. Moreover, the shear resistance mechanism of CFRP sheets
was observed to be similar to reinforcement hoops where it became effective after the diagonal shear
cracking of concrete. In another study, Ye et al. [26] reported that ductility of RC columns can be
improved by CFRP sheet wrapping due to the confinement effect by CFRP when the strong shear and
weak flexure factor is over 1.

Table 1. Summary of studies on the strengthening of RC columns.

Study Strengthening Method Strength and Ductility Initial Stiffness

RC/Mortar Jacketing
Concrete jacketing with end-welded
Vandoros and Dristos [4] stirrups and dowel placement. Enhanced Enhanced
Shotcrete jacket with bent-down bars
Chang et al. [5] RC jacketing and wing wall installation. Enhanced Enhanced
Addition of a single asymmetric
Liu et al. [6] concrete section using anchor rebars or Enhanced Enhanced
high-strength bolts
Addition of a RC flange in the weak
Ou and Truong [7] Enhanced Enhanced
axis of the column
High-performance fiber-reinforced
Cho et al. [8] cementitious composite (HPFRCC) Enhanced Not reported
mortar
Self-compacting ultra-high performance
Dagenais et al. [10] Enhanced Same
fiber-reinforced concrete
Comparison of engineered cementitious
Same strength for both but more
Deng et al. [11] composites (ECCs) and ferro-cement Enhanced
ductility with ECCs
jacket
Abdullah and Takiguchi Circular or square ferro-cement jackets Improved ductility but no flexural
Similar
[12] with steel wire mesh strength improvement
Steel Jacketing
Daudey and Filiatrault Steel tube jacketing with concrete or
Enhanced Not reported
[16] grout fill
Wu et al. [17] Steel plate to flexural faces Enhanced Enhanced
Zhou and Liu [18] Jacketing with steel tube Enhanced Not reported
Strength the same, ductility
Choi et al. [19] Wrapping with steel jacket Lower
enhanced
Pudjisuryadi et al. [20] Jacketing with steel angle collars Enhanced Not reported
Jacketing with post-compressed
Wang et al. [22] Enhanced Enhanced
steel plates
Externally-bonded Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) Jacketing
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
Ma et al. [24] Enhanced Not reported
wrapping in plastic hinge region
Ye et al. [25] Discontinuous CFRP wrapping in strips Enhanced Not reported
Insignificant increase in strength
CFRP jacket confinement in inelastic
Sause et al. [27] and considerable increase Insignificant increase
hinge region
in ductility
Slight enhancement in strength,
Ghobarah and Galal [28] CFRP wrapping with fiber anchors whereas significant enhancement Not reported
in ductility
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 8 of 31

Table 1. Cont.

Study Strengthening Method Strength and Ductility Initial Stiffness

Haroun and Elsanadedy
CFRP and E-Glass wrapping Enhanced Same
[29]
CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Harries et al. [30] Enhanced Not reported
hinge region
Harajli and Dagher [31] FRP wrapping in the plastic hinge zone Enhanced Not reported
Harajli [32] FRP jacketing in spliced zone Enhanced Not reported
Glass or carbon FRP wrapping in
Abdel-Mooty et al. [33] Enhanced Not reported
potential hinge zone
Negligible increase in strength but
Ozcan et al. [34] CFRP retrofitting Not reported
ductility significantly enhanced
Harajli and Khalil [35] FRP Jacketing in spliced zone Enhanced Not reported
Colomb et al. [36] Glass or carbon FRP wraps Enhanced Not reported
More enhancement for specimens
CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Yalcin et al. [37] without lap splice as opposed to the Slightly increased
hinge region
ones with lap splice
ElGawady et al. [38] CFRP retrofitting and Steel jacketing Enhanced Same
CFRP wrapping with CFRP
Ozcan et al. [39] Enhancement in ductility only Not reported
anchor dowels
CFRP wrapping in plastic hinge regions Enhanced with the
Vrettos et al. [40] Enhanced
with and without CFRP anchors use of CFRP anchors
Liu and Sheikh [41] FRP wrapping Enhanced Not reported
More enhancement in ductility
Paultre et al. [42] Full CFRP wrapping Not reported
than strength
CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Juntanalikit et al. [43] Enhanced Not reported
hinge region
Sprayed FRP composed of a mixture of
Lee et al. [44] Enhanced Not reported
chopped glass and carbon fibers
CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Wang et al. [45] Enhanced Enhanced
hinge region
Discontinuous CFRP strips along the
Zoppo et al. [46] Enhanced Enhanced
shear span
FRP installation in longitudinal and
Castillo et al. [47] Enhanced Not reported
transverse directions using FRP anchors
CFRP wrapping in the plastic Strength the same,
Wang et al. [48] Same
hinge region ductility enhanced
Externally bonded Strap and full Little enhancement in strength,
Wang et al. [49] Not reported
CFRP wrapping more in ductility
Ghatte et al. [50] Externally bonded CFRP Same strength, ductility enhanced Not reported
CFRP and steel fiber-reinforced concrete
Harajli and Rteil [51] Enhanced strength and ductility Not reported
(FRC) confinement
Comparison of CFRP and glass
More enhancement with
Galal et al. [52] fiber-reinforced polymer Not reported
CFRP wrapping
(GFRP) wrapping
More increase in strength with RC
Comparison of RC jacketing and
Bousias et al. [53] jacketing, whereas more increase in Not reported
CFRP wrapping
ductility with CFRP wrapping
Textile-reinforced mortar versus Similar strength but
Bournas et al. [54] Not reported
FRP confinement enhanced ductility
CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Zoppo et al. [55] Strength same, ductility enhanced Slightly increased
hinge region
Youm et al. [56] Glass FRP retrofitting Enhanced Not reported
Eshghi and GFRP wraps in splices/critical
Enhanced Not reported
Zanjanizadeh [57] hinge zone
Choi et al. [58] GFRP winding wires Enhanced Lower
Basalt fiber-reinforced polymer
Ouyang et al. [59] Enhanced Not reported
(BFRP) wrapping
Polyester fiber-reinforced
Chang et al. [60] Enhanced Not reported
polymer wrapping
Comparison of aramid fiber-reinforced
Similar enhancement for
Dai et al. [61] polymer (AFRP) and polyethylene Not reported
both methods
terephthalate (PET) wrapping
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 9 of 31

Table 1. Cont.

Study Strengthening Method Strength and Ductility Initial Stiffness

Shape memory alloy (SMA) Wire Jacketing
Choi et al. [62] SMA wire jackets Enhanced Lower
Hybrid Jacketing
GFRP bars embedded in grooves and Similar strength but
Wu et al. [63] Same
CFRP sheets in plastic hinge zone enhanced ductility
Both enhanced but more
Bournas and Near-surface mounted (NSM) FRP bars
enhancement in ductility with NSM Enhanced
Triantafillou [64] (CFRP or GFRP) and CFRP wrapping
CFRP bars
Sarafraz and Danesh [65] NSM FRP bars and CFRP wrapping Enhanced Not reported
Li et al. [66] NSM GFRP bars and CFRP jackets Enhanced Not reported
Layout 1: NSM rebars with CFRP
wrapping in plastic region Lower stiffness for
Napoli and Realfonzo More enhancement in strength and
Layout 2: NSM rebars with CFRP layout 1, higher for
[67] ductility for layout 2
wrapping and steel angles over layout 2
the length
Seyhan et al. [68] NSM AFRP bars and CFRP sheets Enhanced Not reported
NSM BFRP bars and externally bonded
Fahmy and Wu [69] Enhanced Not reported
BFRP sheet
NSM GFRP bars with CFRP wrapping
More enhancement with NSM
Seifi et al. [70] and NSM steel bars with Enhanced
steel bars
CFRP wrapping
Concrete-filled steel tube
Lu et al. [71] (CFST)/Concrete-filled CFRP-steel tubes Enhanced Not reported
(CFCSTS) with CFRP wrapping
Realfonzo and Napoli
CFRP wrapping and steel angles Enhanced Not reported
[72]
FRP wrapped spiral corrugated tube
Chou et al. [73] Enhanced Not reported
and GFRP wrapping
HPFRC sprayed mortar combined with
Cho et al. [74] Enhanced Not reported
steel rebars

Similarly, Sause et al. [27] noted that higher deformation capacity and delay in the column failure
due to compression zone deterioration and longitudinal reinforcement buckling can be achieved
by using FRP jackets with higher stiffness, i.e., greater thickness. The authors also reported that
CFRP confinement in the plastic hinge zone significantly improved the deformation capacity, whereas
lateral strength or stiffness did not increase significantly. Ghobarah and Galal [28] and Haroun and
Elsanadedy [29] also reported that CFRP strengthening prevented the brittle shear failure and improved
the ductility from limited to moderate. Another study by Haroun and Elsanadedy [75] concluded that
square or rectangular jackets could not develop enough strength required to prevent the slippage or
splitting of lap-spliced bars. Thus, circular or elliptical FRP jackets were assumed to be more effective.
While investigating the behavior of columns with lap splices, Harries et al. [30] found that with
CFRP retrofitting, the nominal flexural capacity of the column can be achieved; however, after the
occurrence of slip and splitting, CFRP jackets had no apparent effect on the residual splice capacity.
The ductility of the columns was also reported to be limited by the slip of the lap-spliced bars and resulted
in splitting failure in the spliced region. Harajli and Dagher [31] and Harajli [32] also observed that FRP
wraps improved the bond strength of the spliced bar, increased the lateral load capacity and resistance
and ductility of columns and reduced the bond deterioration and pinching of columns with lap splices.
A few studies were also conducted to study the influence of the geometry of column on the
effectiveness of CFRP strengthening. In this regard, Abdel-Mooty et al. [33] reported that the influence
of wrapping was more effective in square columns than rectangular columns. In a separate study,
Ghosh and Sheikh [76] observed that FRP confinement was more prominent in circular columns as
compared to the square ones. It was also stated that for previously damaged columns, the effectiveness
of FRP improvement depends on the level of damage experienced.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 10 of 31

While studying the behavior of the strengthened columns, Ozcan et al. [34] found that CFRP
strengthening increased the rotation capacity of the non-ductile RC columns up to two times. Similarly,
Harajli and Khalil [35] observed much more stable hysteretic behavior with increased energy dissipation
capacity and reduced strength and stiffness degradation for FRP strengthened columns. The stresses in
the FRP were reported to decrease with more layers. Moreover, it was also observed that improvement
in bond strength with external FRP confinement is insensitive to the column section shape.
In a study related to the performance of continuous wraps with discontinuous ones, Colomb et al. [36]
observed that for specimens fully wrapped with FRP along the length, failure mode was changed from
brittle shear to ductile flexural while columns with discontinuous wraps observed mixed shear-flexure
failure. Similarly, Yalcin et al. [37] found that with plain rebar dowels, an externally applied passive CFRP
strengthening scheme is not effective unless plain rebars are sufficiently developed. ElGawady et al. [38],
on the other hand, found that increasing the amount of FRP improves the performance of seismically
deficient columns by limiting the budging of the jacket. In a separate study, Ozcan et al. [39] observed
that FRP retrofitted columns sustained up to three times higher ultimate drift ratios as compared to
unstrengthened deficient columns. It was also reported that using a 16-pinned CFRP anchor dowel
configuration can increase the confinement efficiency and ultimate drift ratios.
Interestingly, Liu and Sheikh [41] found that lateral confinement by FRP increases energy
dissipation and curvature ductility dramatically, but displacement ductility and drift capacity do not
increase significantly beyond a certain limit. Moreover, it was also reported that lateral confinement
by FRP at high axial load ratios leads to a remarkable increase in the flexural strength of the column,
which is neglected by most design codes.
To address the debonding behavior of FRP wraps, Vrettos et al. [40] proposed an innovative
method, which comprised CFRP sheets anchored to the column via carbon-fiber anchors as shown in
Figure 4 and concluded that the use of carbon-fiber anchors is effective in the flexural strengthening of
the columns if anchors have a significant amount of fibers. It was also reported that the effectiveness of
anchors increases almost nearly with the increase in their weight.
In order to overcome the significant stress hysteresis problem of the FRP sheets relative to the
concrete core, which essentially weakens the effectiveness of the strengthening method, Zhou et al. [77]
used prestressed FRP strips with epoxy bonding. The FRP sheets were prestressed using a self-locking
anchor, which was composed of anchors heads, nuts, screws and FRP strips. The results indicated the
beneficial effects of prestressing FRP strips such as inhibiting the development of diagonal shear cracks
and a change of mode of failure from brittle to ductile, consequently leading to an overall improvement
in the seismic performance of the specimens in terms of energy dissipation, load capacity and ductility.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4. (a) Filling holes in the anchorage region with epoxy resin; (b) Placement of carbon-fiber anchor;
(c) Fanning out of fiber anchors over a CFRP sheet; (d) Local jacketing with CFRP [40-Authorized
Reprint from American Concrete Institute].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 11 of 31

In a recent study by Paultre et al. [42], it was found that the enhancement in energy dissipation with
CFRP strengthening is more pronounced for specimens with a relatively higher amount of transverse
reinforcement and lower axial load ratio.
Juntanalikit et al. [43] reported that after CFRP jacketing, lap-splice deficient specimens do not
experience gravity load collapse, as the core, which mainly bears the gravity load, is effectively confined
against concrete crushing and spalling by the CFRP jackets.
Recently, Lee et al. [44] proposed an innovative technique in which FRPs, composed of an open-air
mixture of chopped glass and carbon fibers with epoxy and vinyl ester resin, are sprayed on the
uneven surface of the RC columns. The results indicated a significant improvement in the strength
and deformation behavior of the strengthened specimens in comparison to the control specimen.
The authors recommended the technique for the strengthening of low- to mid-rise RC buildings.
Wang et al. [45] have recently concluded that the axial load ratio and the number of CFRP wraps
do not influence the degradation of effective and reloading stiffness of the columns much.
In another separate study, Zoppo et al. [46] investigated the effectiveness of CFRP strengthening
in improving the seismic behavior of short RC columns with poor and medium quality concrete.
The specimens characterised by low concrete strength were strengthened with low axial rigidity CFRP
sheets, which resulted in an enhancement of the shear capacity but were not sufficient to avoid the
brittle failure. It was reported that CFRP sheets with an axial rigidity of 0.34 GPa were able to produce
ductile failure in the specimens with low-quality concrete. On the other hand, specimens with medium
quality concrete were strengthened with CFRP sheets of relatively high axial rigidity and resulted in a
ductile failure mode.
Castillo et al. [47], on the other hand, used FRP anchors and a bond breaking layer with FRP sheets
in order to overcome the debonding disadvantage of the FRP sheets in strengthening RC columns.
It was observed that due to the inclusion of a novel bond breaking layer, the premature debonding of
FRP sheet was prevented and the ductility of the column was enhanced.
More recently, the effect of loading direction on the seismic performance of CFRP-retrofitted RC
columns was investigated by Wang et al. [48]. It was found that with the increase in the angle of lateral
loading from the strong axis, the energy dissipation and drift capacity of the column generally reduced.
Moreover, although CFRP-retrofitted columns performed better than the corresponding unretrofitted
columns, the improvement declined with the increase in lateral loading direction angle. Furthermore,
worse seismic performance in terms of ultimate and plastic deformation capacity was noted when the
loading angle was 60 degrees.
The comparative effectiveness of full CFRP wrapping with strap CFRP wrapping has also been
assessed by different researchers. Yang and Wang [78] evaluated the seismic performance of shear
controlled columns strengthened with CFRP straps and full CFRP sheet. It was observed that irrespective
of the pre-damage condition of the columns, the CFRP wrapping enhanced the shear capacity and
ductility of the deficient columns. However, the improvement in behavior reduced with the increasing
axial load ratio. CFRP retrofitting also led to gradual post-peak strength degradation and a reduction
in the pinching effect in hysteretic behavior. The authors concluded that at the same volumetric ratio,
retrofitting with CFRP straps is a superior strategy compared to the wrapping of columns with full CFRP
sheets. In a similar study, Wang et al. [49] studied the effectiveness of CFRP strap strengthening and
full CFRP wrapping in improving the seismic performance of high-strength RC columns. However,
in contrast to the previous study, it was found that full CFRP wrapping over the length of the column
produces better results in terms of strength and ductility compared to wrapping in straps over the length.
It was also reported that the strength and stiffness degradation, and pinching effect reduced with the
increase in the number of CFRP layers.
It is generally believed that columns with extended cross-sections do not perform very well with
CFRP strengthening. To investigate this issue, Ghatte et al. [50] conducted a study very recently,
in which deficient RC columns with extended cross-sectional dimensions corresponding to the lateral
loading direction (h/b = 2) were retrofitted with externally bonded CFRP Jackets, and an increase in the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 12 of 31

column drift capacity from 3 to 4% for specimens retrofitted with one layer of CFRP and from 3 to 7.5%
for specimens retrofitted with two layers of CFRP at an axial load ratio of 0.2 was reported. On the
other hand, the drift capacity at an axial load ratio of 0.35 increased from 1.5 to 3 and 5%, respectively,
for specimens retrofitted with one and two layers of CFRP.

4.1.2. CFRP Repair

Some of the studies have also investigated the efficacy of CFRP wrapping in the repair of damaged
RC columns. The type of damage included the corrosion of rebars, yielding of rebars, concrete spalling
and severe damage until failure. Lee et al. [79] repaired RC columns damaged with different levels of
rebar corrosion with CFRP sheets and observed that the confinement and shear strengthening by CFRP
sheets prevented the growth of shear and bond-splitting cracks and improved the ductility of the repaired
RC columns. The ductility and strength capacity of the corrosion-damaged CFRP-strengthened columns
with inadequate lap-splice length was found to be higher than the original un-corroded column [80].
Kalyoncuoglu et al. [81] compared the effectiveness of repair with mortar and CFRP jacketing for
corrosion-damaged RC columns made of substandard concrete and observed that in contrast to mortar
rehabilitated column which considerably increased the strength, CFRP retrofitting improved both the
strength as well as ductility of repaired columns.
Recently, Faustino and Chastre [82] tested five columns strengthened with CFRP combined
with different strengthening mechanisms such as anchor dowels, external longitudinal bars and
high-strength repair mortar. The columns were pre-damaged until yielding of longitudinal bars.
The results of the experimental study showed an increase of 7% in the lateral load carrying capacity
of the columns, when retrofitted with CFRP sheets only. However, CFRP sheets combined with
high-strength mortar in the plastic hinge region resulted in an increase in the column lateral strength
by 20%. Similarly, the use of CFRP sheets with external longitudinal steel also increased the lateral
strength of the column by 20%.
To investigate the effect of multi-directional loading, Hashemi et al. [83] repaired a fully damaged
RC column with CFRP wrapping and mortar and evaluated the effectiveness of the CFRP wrapping in
restoring the strength and deformation capacity of the column via hybrid simulation, i.e., dynamic
loading conditions in all the three directions (bi-directional loading with a variation of axial load).
The results of the experimental testing exhibited a substantial enhancement in the ductility of the
column; however, strength was not fully restored, primarily because damaged rebars were not repaired.
In the repair method by Parks et al. [84], the cross-section of the specimens was changed from
original octagonal to a circular cross-section using epoxy-anchored headed bars and by filling a CFRP
shell with concrete, thereby shifting the plastic hinge region to a less damaged region as shown in
Figure 5. It was reported that the repair methodology successfully restored the force–displacement
capacity of the damaged columns.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 5. Repair procedure with CFRP shell and concrete: (a) Post-installed headed bars; (b) Split
CFRP shell; (c) CFRP shell around column; (d) CFRP shell filled with non-shrink or expansive concrete
[84-Authorized Reprint from American Concrete Institute].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 13 of 31

More recently, the results of the experimental study with bi-directional lateral loading conducted
by Rodrigues et al. [85] demonstrated that the energy dissipation capacity of the severely damaged
specimens was restored after CFRP jacketing. It was also reported that the viscous damping of the
repaired specimens was higher than the original specimens.

4.1.3. Comparative Assessment of CFRP Effectiveness with Other Materials

Some researchers have compared the relative improvement in the column’s behavior after
strengthening with CFRP with that of other retrofitting materials. In this regard, Harajli and Rteil [51]
compared the effectiveness of CFRP and steel FRC strengthening for RC columns with lap splices. It was
reported that the external CFRP confinement significantly improved the seismic performance of columns
by decreasing the spliced bars’ bond deterioration and improving the energy dissipation capacity of the
columns. Similar improvements were reported for internally confined columns with steel FRC.
In another study, Bousias et al. [86] repaired RC columns with or without corrosion-damaged
reinforcement with CFRP or GFRP wrapping. The effectiveness of FRP wrapping (G or C) was
reported to be the same if the extensional stiffness was kept similar in the circumferential direction.
Moreover, the effectiveness of FRP strengthening was found to be more beneficial in the column’s strong
direction (smaller face) as compared to the weak direction. It was also reported that the effectiveness
of FRP wraps as strengthening material is reduced in RC columns with corroded bars because they
become the weak link instead of the confined compression zone. Interestingly, in a separate study by
Galal et al. [52], CFRP was found to be more effective than GFRP in strengthening the short square RC
columns as it increased the shear force and energy dissipation capacity while decreased the FRP and
steel tie strains along the column height.
Similarly, Bousias et al. [53] compared the efficacy of RC and CFRP jacketing on RC columns with
lap splices and reported that FRP jacketing in the hinge zones and splice regions was found to be more
effective than the RC jacketing.
On the other hand, Bournas et al. [54] evaluated the effectiveness of CFRP and textile-reinforced
mortar (TRM) strengthening and found that the performance of TRM was equally effective as CFRP of
equal stiffness.
Thermou and Pantazopoulou [87] reported an interesting finding that the axial stiffness of
the jacket rather than the strength was the defining factor in determining the performance of FRP
retrofitting, as both GFRP and CFRP with equal axial stiffness had equivalent effects on the strength
and deformation capacity improvements.
More recently, a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
wrapping and fiber-reinforced cementitious composite (FRCC) in improving the seismic performance of
RC columns with poor and medium quality concrete was conducted by Zoppo et al. [55]. The results
of the experimental study showed that CFRP wrapping is more effective in strengthening columns
with poor quality concrete. However, the authors concluded that FRCC jacketing can also serve as
a reasonable alternative to CFRP jacketing as it not only reduced the concrete deterioration, but also
prevented bar buckling and enhanced lateral strength and energy dissipation of the specimens.

4.2. Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

Over the last two decades, few studies have used glass fiber-reinforced polymer for strengthening
purposes and reported its benefits. Sheikh and Yau [88] repaired pre-damaged columns having
yielded longitudinal bars with GFRP wrapping and reported that the energy dissipation capacity of
strengthened columns increased by over a hundred times. Similarly, Memon and Sheikh [89] evaluated
the efficacy of GFRP wraps in strengthening deficient or damaged square RC columns. It was found
that the strengthening technique enhanced the ductility, energy dissipation and strength capacity of
the deficient and damaged columns; however, the extent of enhancement was a function of the existing
damage of the column. A reduction in the rate of stiffness and strength degradation with the increase
in the number of GFRP layers was also observed. Moreover, for columns supporting high axial loads,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 14 of 31

a greater number of GFRP layers was needed to produce a similar improvement in the behavior as
that of the columns with low axial load ratios. Youm et al. [56] also reported that GFRP retrofitting
significantly improved the seismic performance of lap-spliced columns by stabilising the hysteresis
response and increasing the displacement ductility factor to 8.3 as compared to un-retrofitted columns
of 2.6, which failed prematurely due to lap splice bond failure. It was observed that regardless of
GFRP layer thickness, which delayed bond slip failure to a great extent, the yielding of spliced bars
was not achieved. In a similar study, Eshghi and Zanjanizadeh [57] also observed that GFRP retrofit
was effective in improving the splice bond strength, flexural strength, and displacement ductility and
rotation capacity of as-built columns which failed in a brittle manner due to bond deterioration of
spliced rebars. It was also argued that GFRP retrofitting can present a practical solution to avoid the
soft-storey mechanism in RC structures with deficient detailing.
Recently, Choi et al. [58] reported the effectiveness of strengthening with tensioned GFRP winding
wires in improving the seismic performance of RC columns with and without lap splices. The study
consisted of two columns with lap splices and two with continuous longitudinal reinforcement.
One column of each of the two categories was strengthened with tensioned GFRP wires as shown in
Figure 6. The results of the experimental testing showed that GFRP wire winding increased the flexural
strength and failure drift of the strengthened columns of both categories compared with the control
specimens. Moreover, it was observed that GFRP wire winding prevents buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement, vertical splitting of the lap splices and concrete spalling. Seo et al. [90] also proposed
another quick and easy-to-install method comprising a GFRP strip device which is composed of a
strip of GFRP composite with a aluminium clip connector and proposed to attach it in the plastic
hinge region of the column. The experimental results showed a significant improvement in the seismic
performance of the strengthened columns in terms of strength, displacement ductility and energy
dissipation capacity. Moreover, the failure mode of the column was changed from a brittle shear to a
ductile flexural mode.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. GFRP wire jacketing: (a) Winding of the GFRP wire; (b) completed GFRP winding [58-Elsevier
Copyrights].

4.3. Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (BFRP)

Due to its low price as compared to CFRP and other excellent properties such as resistance to
fire and chemical corrosion, basalt fiber-reinforced polymer is recently being used for strengthening
purposes. In this regard, Ouyang et al. [59] performed a comparative assessment of the effectiveness
of externally bonded CFRP and BFRP wrapping and reported that columns strengthened with BFRP
sheets exhibited equivalent and even superior performance to their counter parts with the same
number of CFRP sheets. Moreover, the price of BFRP sheets was just 20% of the CFRP. In view of this,
the authors recommended strengthening with BFRP as a viable alternative.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 15 of 31

4.4. Polyester Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (PFRP)

Polyester fiber-reinforced polymer is known for its toughness, flexibility, heat resistance and
durability, and hence has been used for strengthening purposes. In a study, Chang et al. [60] utilized
polyester fiber-reinforced polymer for strengthening deficient RC columns. The sheet was bonded to
the column using urethane adhesive. The study comprised one control specimen and two strengthened
specimens with one and two layers of polyester belts, respectively. It was reported that the control
specimen exhibited brittle behavior, whereas strengthened specimens experienced ductile behavior.
Moreover, a significant improvement in the overall force–displacement behavior of the column was
observed after strengthening. Furthermore, the energy dissipation of the polyester fiber-reinforced
polymer strengthened specimen was 184% of that of the control specimen.

4.5. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites

The polyethylene terephthalate FRP composites are made from recyclable materials and have
the advantages of high deformability and economy over CFRP composites. Moreover, they possess
greater tensile capacity than conventional FRPs. The study by Dai et al. [61] presented the results
of PET FRP jacketed specimens and compared the results with a high-strength aramid FRP jacketed
specimen. The results of the experimental study demonstrated that PET FRP is a viable alternative
to conventional FRPs as it enhances the displacement ductility of RC columns significantly and also
does not rupture at the ultimate limit state. More recently, Liu and Li [91] strengthened partially
corroded RC columns with CFRP and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) FRP composites, respectively,
as shown in Figure 7 and performed a comparative assessment of the relative performance of the two
strengthening systems. The results of the experimental study evaluated in terms of energy dissipation,
damping ratio, hysteretic performance and stiffness degradation indicated that strengthening using
CFRP and PET FRP composites resulted in a nearly similar improvement in the seismic performance of
the RC columns.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. (a) Corrosion damaged; (b) CFRP repaired; (c) PET FRP repaired [91-Elsevier Copyrights].

4.6. Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (HFRP)

Researchers have been proposing new hybrid FRP composites, which are composed of two
different fiber materials. In this way, the resulting hybrid material has the advantages of both
individual materials. To study the effectiveness of HFRP strengthening, Peng et al. [92] repaired
damaged (up to yielding of rebars) RC columns using sprayed BFRP and sprayed HFRP, which was
composed of a mix of BFRP and CFRP. The results of the experiments demonstrated that the proposed
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 16 of 31

strengthening method with HFRP enhances the energy dissipation and ductility of the pre-damaged
columns considerably. However, no obvious increase in the peak loads was observed. The authors
noted the advantages of this method as low cost and rapid strengthening due to the fast curing of
materials. Similarly, Li and Li [93] proposed HFRP wrapping for enhancing the seismic performance of
corroded RC columns. A total of six specimens including two control and four strengthened specimens
were tested under constant axial load and cyclic lateral loading. The specimens were corroded using
accelerated corrosion in the laboratory conditions and the HFRP sheets were wrapped in the plastic
hinge region of the column. It was observed that the strengthening technique resulted in 47 and
212% enhancement in the displacement ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the strengthened
specimens compared to the unstrengthened control specimens.

5. Near-Surface Mounted (NSM) Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Jacketing

In the NSM method, grooves are cut into the cover concrete, and FRP bars are placed in the
grooves and bonded using an appropriate filler, such as epoxy paste or cement grout. NSM FRP bars
are usually used in the longitudinal direction to enhance the flexural strength of the column. Mostly,
the NSM method is used in conjuction with externally bonded FRP jacketing, resulting in a hybrid
jacketing as described in Section 7.
In order to investigate the difference between NSM rebar repair and CFRP wrapping, Hasan et al. [94]
compared the repair effectiveness of three partially cracked stub RC columns with NSM rebar repair and
CFRP laminate strengthening. It was reported that specimens with NSM rebars exhibited higher load
capacity and better energy dissipation and ductility. On the other hand, specimens with CFRP wrapping
demonstrated better crack formation and propagation behavior. The authors attributed the difference in
the behavior of the two repairing techniques to the fact that NSM rebars contribute to the compression
and tension behavior of the specimens, whereas CFRP laminates contribute in the tension zone only.

6. Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) Wire Jacketing

Shape memory alloys, that are characterized by their super elasticity, durability and shape memory
effect have been considered for the strengthening of structural elements by different researchers. Moreover,
SMA alloys are considered a more viable solution to FRP retrofitting due to the advantages such as
no need for adhesive, easy installation and no danger of peel off. To investigate this, Choi et al. [62]
employed two kinds of shape memory alloy wire jackets, nickel–titanium–niobium and nickel–titanium
alloys, for the seismic retrofitting of RC columns. The jackets were attached to the concrete via anchors.
The results of the experimental study showed that retrofitting with SMA alloys results in ductile behavior
of the columns with lap splices. Moreover, it was observed that the performance of SMA-strengthened
columns with lap splices was even better than columns without lap splices. It was reported that
nickel–titanium–niobium alloys are more suited for retrofitting civil structures because they offer more
appropriate temperature windows compared to nickel–titanium alloys.

7. Hybrid Jacketing
Hybrid jacketing involves a combination of two or more different strengthening methods/materials
for enhancing the seismic performance of a column and, thus, benefits from the advantages of both
methods. This section summarizes the experimental studies utilizing the hybrid jacketing approach
for the strengthening and repair of RC columns.

7.1. NSM Bars with FRP Wrapping

In this hybrid jacketing technique, FRP sheets are used in conjunction with NSM bars, where
FRP sheets provide lateral confinement and NSM bars enhance the flexural strength of the column,
thereby resulting in enhancement of both the strength and ductility. Wu et al. [63] used this technique
by embedding GFRP bars in the plastic hinge zone in addition to the provision of CFRP wraps.
It was reported that the retrofitting method effectively delayed the concrete failure and prevented the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 17 of 31

buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. As a result, the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
retrofitted columns were increased. Similar findings were reported by Bournas and Triantafillou [64]
for strengthened columns with different types and configurations of NSM reinforcing materials (steel
or FRP). Confinement was also provided by the local jacketing of textile-reinforced mortar (TRM)
by FRP sheets. Based on the test results, it was reported that NSM FRP or stainless steel present
a feasible solution for the flexural strengthening of RC columns under seismic loading and with
proper design and local jacketing at column ends, strength enhancement does not adversely affect the
deformation capacity. Local jacketing was reported to be very effective in controlling the buckling
of NSM reinforcements, which resulted in the higher strain at failure. In another study, Sarafraz and
Danesh [65] also strengthened RC columns with NSM FRP rebars inserted in the grooves cut into the
concrete surface combined with CFRP wrapping over the height of the column. It was reported that
NSM rebars increase the flexural capacity of the column significantly. Moreover, lateral strength and
energy dissipation capacity increase with the increase in the number of NSM rebars. Furthermore,
it was observed that the combination of NSM bars with CFRP wrapping improves the overall seismic
performance of the column remarkably.

Table 2. Summary of studies on the repair of damaged RC columns.

Pre-Damage Initial
Study Repair Method Strength and Ductility
Condition Stiffness
RC/Mortar Jacketing
Repair with headed
Severely damaged reinforcement, mechanical
Lehman et al. [3] Lower Lower
until failure couplers and freshly
cast concrete
Meda et al. [9] Corrosion damaged HPFRC jacketing Strength enhanced only Not reported
Rebar welding and casting of
Rodrigues et al.
Damaged until failure micro-concrete in the plastic Restored Lower
[13]
hinge region.
Corrosion damaged Wrapping with layers of
Yao et al. [14] Enhanced Lower
rebars textile-reinforced concrete
Steel Jacketing
Fakharifar et al. Severely damaged Wrapping with thin
Enhanced Lower
[21] until failure prestressed steel sheet
Externally-Bonded FRP Jacketing
Yielding of Discontinuous CFRP
Ye et al. [26] Enhancement in ductility only Lower
reinforcement wrapping in strips
Haroun and More enhancement in ductility
Damaged until failure Full CFRP wrapping Same
Elsanadedy [75] than strength
CFRP jacketing in plastic
Ghosh and Sheikh
Damaged until failure hinge region and retrofitting Enhanced Not reported
[76]
of damaged specimens
Slight to severe
Zhou et al. [77] Prestressed FRP strips Enhanced Same
damage
Yang and Wang Yielding and concrete Externally bonded Strap and
Enhanced Not reported
[78] spalling full CFRP wrapping
Enhancement in ductility
Lee et al. [79] Corrosion damaged CFRP wrapping Not reported
reported only
Aquino and CFRP wrapping with
Corrosion damaged Enhanced Not reported
Hawkins [80] different layouts
Layout 1: Mortar Layout 1: Increase in strength only
Kalyoncuoglu et al.
Corrosion damaged Layout 2: Mortar and Layout 2: Increase in both Not reported
[81]
CFRP sheet strength and ductility
Comparison of repair between Enhancement in strength by CFRP
CFRP only, CFRP with with high-strength mortar and
Faustino and Yielding of
high-strength mortar and CFRP with longitudinal bars. Not reported
Chastre [82] reinforcement
CFRP with external CFRP wrapping only
longitudinal bars increased ductility
Concrete recasting and CFRP
Strength not restored,
Hashemi et al. [83] Damaged until failure wrapping in the plastic Not reported
ductility enhanced
hinge region
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 18 of 31

Table 2. Cont.

Pre-Damage Initial
Study Repair Method Strength and Ductility
Condition Stiffness
Repair with CFRP shell,
Parks et al. [84] Damaged until failure expansive concrete and Enhanced Enhanced
epoxy-anchored headed bars
Rebar welding and casting of
Rodrigues et al. micro-concrete in the plastic
Damaged until failure Enhanced Lower
[85] hinge region, followed by
wrapping with CFRP
Almost similar strength with
Bousias et al. [86] Corrosion damage Glass or carbon FRP wrapping Same
significantly improved ductility
Concrete cracking and
Slight to no enhancement in
Thermou and reinforcement External glass and carbon FRP
strength, while significant Not reported
Pantazopoulou [87] buckling, yielding and jacketing
enhancement in ductility
bond deterioration
Sheikh and Yau Yielding and concrete CFRP wrapping in the plastic
Enhanced Not reported
[88] spalling hinge region
Memon and Sheikh Concrete spalling and GFRP wrapping in the plastic
Enhanced Not reported
[89] rebar yielding hinge region
GFRP strip device comprising
Predamaged to a
Seo et al. [90] GFRP composite with Enhanced Not reported
ductility of 2.5
aluminum clip connectors
Comparison of CFRP and Similar enhancement for both
Liu and Li [91] Corrosion damaged Not reported
PET wrapping methods
More enhancement in ductility
Comparison of sprayed BFRP
Peng et al. [92] Yielding of steel rebars with HFRP than BFRP. No Not reported
and sprayed HFRP
substantial increase in strength
HFRP wrapping in plastic
Li and Li [93] Corrosion damaged Enhanced Same
hinge region
Near-Surface Mounted FRP Jacketing
Comparison of NSM rebar Comparatively more
Hasan et al. [94] Partially cracked strengthening with CFRP enhancement for NSM Same
wrapping rebar strengthening
Hybrid Jacketing
NSM BFRP bars and Strength enhanced, whereas only
Jiang et al. [95] Damaged until failure Restored
externally bonded BFRP sheet ductility restored
Li et al. [96] Corrosion damaged CFRP and steel jacketing Enhanced Not reported
ElSouri and Harajli Internal steel ties and
Severely damaged Enhanced Not reported
[97] FRP sheets
Ductility enhanced, whereas
strength fully restored for
Moderately and Fast curing early strength
Ma and Li [98] moderately damaged and Lower
severely damaged cement mortar and BFRP sheet
partially restored for fully
damaged columns
Xue et al. [99] Damaged until failure Turned steel rebar and HPFRC Restored Restored
Rajput et al. [100] Corrosion damaged HPFRC and GFRP wrapping Only strength enhanced Not reported
Wrapping with thin-cold
Fakharifar et al.
Damaged until failure formed steel sheet and Enhanced Lower
[101]
prestressing strands
Enhanced strength, but no
Afshin et al. [102] Corrosion damaged CFRP sheet with steel profile significant improvement Enhanced
in ductility

In another study, Li et al. [66] proposed using NSM GFRP rebars and CFRP jackets and CFRP
anchors in the potential plastic hinge region for strengthening RC columns with a large side aspect ratio.
Four types of strengthening layouts were used. In the first layout, the specimen was strengthened with
CFRP jackets and CFRP anchors, whereas in the second layout NSM GFRP rebars were also provided
in addition to CFRP jackets and CFRP anchors. The third layout had CFRP jackets and NSM GFRP bars,
while the last layout had NSM GFRP rebars only. The results of the tests indicated that strengthening
by NSM GFRP rebars enhances the flexural strength of the strengthened specimens, whereas CFRP
jackets and CFRP anchors increase both the strength and ductility of the column.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 19 of 31

Recently, in the study by Napoli and Realfonzo [67], longitudinal rebars were embedded in the
grooves cut into the concrete and continuous CFRP wrapping was done in the plastic hinge region of
the column, whereas discontinuous CFRP strips were provided in the remaining length of the column.
Moreover, in the second layout, steel angles were also used in addition to the longitudinal bars and
CFRP sheets. The results of the experimental study exhibited an increase of 48 and 60% in the flexural
strength for layout 1 and 2, respectively, compared to the control specimen. It was also noticed that
the presence of steel angles delayed the collapse of the specimen with the second layout such that the
specimen was able to undergo greater displacement excursions.
Researchers have been using different types of FRP composites in hybrid jacketing techniques.
Seyhan et al. [68] proposed the strengthening of deficient RC columns with embedded aramid
fiber-reinforced polymer (AFRP) reinforcement in the longitudinal direction to increase the flexural
strength and CFRP sheets in the transverse direction to enhance the ductility under cyclic lateral
actions with constant axial compression. The proposed retrofitting method resulted in the significant
enhancement of the flexural strength of the tested columns. Moreover, the specimens failed at a reasonably
satisfactory drift of 3.0%. It was also found that the column provided with fully bonded anchorage
performed better than the one with partially bonded anchorage. Similarly, Fahmy and Wu [69] utilized
NSM basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars in grooves and a BFRP jacket in the plastic hinge region
to retrofit RC columns with lap-splice deficiencies. It was found that the BFRP bar’s texture is the most
important parameter that affects the seismic performance of the strengthened columns. Rebars with a
rough texture helped eliminate residual displacements and resulted in a gradual increase in the column
strength after yielding as compared to smooth rebars. Moreover, the drift capacity of the specimen
strengthened with rough BFRP rebars was in the order of 4.5%, compared with columns strengthened
with smooth rebars where the drift capacity was up to 3.0%. Similarly, Jiang et al. [95] proposed a
repair method comprising NSM BFRP rebars and BFRP sheets jacketing for earthquake damaged RC
bridge columns as shown in Figure 8. It was reported that the proposed retrofitting method successfully
restored the stiffness and flexural and displacement capacity of the column to a level such that the bridge
structure could be used for emergency services after an earthquake.
More recently, Seifi et al. [70] strengthened deficient RC columns representative of older construction
practices (pre 1970s) with near-surface mounted glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites and
NSM steel rebars. After placing the NSM reinforcement bars in the grooves on the column surface,
the specimens were wrapped with CFRP. Both strengthening techniques (GFRP bars and steel bars)
resulted in a significant improvement in the flexural strength, energy dissipation and hysteretic damping
of the columns. However, the improvement in the behavior of the specimens with NSM steel bars was
more pronounced.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 20 of 31

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 8. Hybrid repair procedure with NSM rebars and FRP wrapping: (a) Column after straightening;
(b) Column after loose concrete removal and chiseling grooves; (c) Clearing the holes and grooves;
(d) Injecting epoxy adhesive and placing the NSM BFRP rebars; (e) Repair mortar placement; (f) BFPR
sheet application. [95-Elsevier Copyrights].

7.2. Self-Compacting Concrete-Filled CFRP-Steel Tubes (CFCSTs)

In this hybrid jacketing technique, a concrete-filled steel tube and CFRP wrapping are used for
strengthening RC columns. This was proposed by Lu et al. [71] quite recently. In this technique, the gap
between the RC column and steel tube is filled by self-compacting concrete and layers of CFRP wraps
are also provided around the steel tubes. The test results demonstrated an increase of 7.4–9.7 times
and 42–116% in the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity and ductility of the column, respectively.
An increase in the thickness of the steel tubes resulted in better overall seismic performance (both
ductility and ultimate bearing capacity). The presence of CFRP wraps around steel tubes delayed the
buckling of steel tubes in CFCSTs, and hence improved the seismic performance significantly.

7.3. FRP Sheets with Steel Jacketing

Li et al. [96] evaluated the effectiveness of combined CFRP and steel jackets in improving the
seismic performance of corrosion-damaged RC columns. It was reported that the repair of damaged
columns with combined CFRP and steel was more effective in improving the strength and ductility
than strengthening with the individual material. Also, in damaged columns with higher levels of
reinforcement corrosion, the improvements of strengthening were more prominent than those with a
lower degree of corrosion. A higher axial load was reported to considerably reduce the ductility of the
strengthened columns; however, the strengthening effect was higher than those with lower axial load.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 21 of 31

Similarly, Realfonzo and Napoli [72] performed tests on some columns strengthened by steel angles
and FRP wraps. It was reported that providing the steel angles anchored to foundation on the column
corners improved the flexural strength as compared to the use of FRP only.
A study by ElSouri and Harajli [97] compared the seismic performance of lap-spliced RC columns
on strengthening with internal steel ties, external fiber-reinforced polymer sheets and a combination
of both. It was found that the repair/strengthening of the columns with internal ties, external FRP
sheets or a combination of both improved the seismic performance significantly in terms of lateral load,
energy dissipation and drift capacity. Moreover repaired/strengthened columns experienced much less
damage than the as-built unstrengthened columns.
Recently, Chou et al. [73] proposed an innovative hybrid jacketing method in which a GFRP-wrapped
corrugated steel tube, as shown in Figure 9, was used to improve the seismic performance of RC columns.
The presence of a corrugated tube allowed for the creation of a ribbed surface between the concrete
and FRP. The results of the experimental study showed a significant increase in the drift capacity of the
columns with the increase in the number of GFRP layers. Moreover, the failure mode changed from
shear to flexure with the increase in GFRP wraps. Furthermore, the proposed strengthening technique
also resulted in increased energy dissipation and the high shear strength of the specimens.
More recently, Afshin et al. [102] proposed a novel hybrid jacketing technique comprising CFRP
sheets on the outer periphery and a steel profile on the inside of corrosion-damaged RC bridge columns.
The results of the experimental testing showed that the proposed retrofitting method improved the
energy absorption and strength degradation behavior of the repaired specimens; however, there was
not much improvement in the displacement ductility behavior of the columns.

Figure 9. FRP-wrapped spiral corrugated tube configuration [73-Elsevier Copyrights].

7.4. High-Performance Materials with Steel/FRP Rebars or FRP Wrapping

The use of high-performance materials together with steel/FRP rebars or FRP wrapping is
also an attractive hybrid repair method. Ma and Li [98] reported the improvement in the seismic
performance of moderately to severely damaged RC columns, which were strengthened with fast
curing early-strength cement mortar and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer sheets as shown in Figure 10.
Significant improvement in the energy dissipation capacity and ductility of the specimens was noticed
after strengthening with early-strength cement mortar and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer sheets.
Moreover, the flexural capacity of the specimens with moderate pre-damage was fully restored.
However, the flexural capacity of severely pre-damaged specimens was only partially restored.
Also, the initial stiffness of the strengthened specimens was not fully restored and decreased with
the increase in the pre-damage level of high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composite
(HPFRCC)-sprayed mortar with steel bars to improve the seismic performance of old RC columns.
Another such method comprising turned steel rebars and high-performance fibre reinforced
concrete (HPFRC) with steel or polymer fibres was proposed by Xue et al. [99] for repairing severely
damaged circular RC bridge columns. In this technique, transverse rebars were first cut and then the
damaged longitudinal rebars of the column were removed and replaced with new shaped (turned)
rebar segments. This was followed by the construction of a concrete jacket consisting of HPFRC with
steel or polymer fibres. The strengthening technique successfully restored the ductility, strength and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 22 of 31

stiffness of the column and further enhanced the energy dissipation capacity. However, the increase in
energy dissipation capacity was less for the HPFRC with polymer fibres as opposed to the column
with the steel fibres.
Recently, Cho et al. [74] proposed the use of high-performance fibre-reinforced cementitious
composite (HPFRCC) sprayed mortar with steel bars to improve the seismic performance of old RC
columns. In the retrofitting method, the surface of the column was grooved first, and then longitudinal
and transverse rebars were placed in the groove. Finally, the section of column was enhanced by
spraying HPFRC mortar. The results of the cyclic lateral loading tests conducted on the retrofitted
columns demonstrated the effectiveness of the technique in improving both the load carrying and
deformation capacities of the strengthened columns. The strengthening technique also reduced
the bending and diagonal shear cracks in the retrofitted columns in contrast to the un-retrofitted
specimens. A significant improvement in the hysteretic damping energy of the strengthened column
was also observed.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. Hybrid repair process using high performance materials and FRP wrapping: (a) Early-strength
cement mortar pouring; (b) Epoxy injection; (c) BFRP wrapping [98-With Permission from ASCE].

More recently, high performance fiber-reinforced concrete (HPFRC) was used in conjunction with
FRP wrapping by Rajput et al. [100] to repair corrosion-damaged RC columns. The columns were
strengthened with HPFRC and one or two layers of glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP). It was
reported that with the combination of HPFRC and GFRP, the retrofitted columns met the strength
requirements of the code for seismically designed column; however, the ductility improvement was
reported to be inadequate.

7.5. Thin Cold-Formed Steel Sheet with Prestressing Strands

Prestressing strands with a thin cold-formed steel sheet can be used in rapid and light-weight
repair of the earthquake-damaged bridge piers. Fakharifar et al. [101] proposed this hybrid jacketing
technique, which involved wrapping the damaged RC column with a thin cold-formed steel sheet on
the inside and prestressing strands on the outside, as shown in Figure 11. Moreover, repair grout was
used to replace the damaged concrete. The repair method was applied on one large-scale substandard
RC column representative of pre-1970s construction practice. The original column was first damaged
until 25% strength degradation under constant axial load and cyclic lateral actions and was then
repaired using the proposed retrofitting technique. The results of the experimental study demonstrated
that the hybrid confinement technique is very effective in enhancing the flexural strength and ductility
of the damaged column.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 23 of 31

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 11. Repair procedure with the hybrid confining jacket: (a) Damaged column; (b) Patched
column with repair grout; (c) Sheet metal wrapping; (d) Prestressing strands application [101-SAGE
Copyrights].

8. Comparison and Discussion of Different Techniques

Numerous different strengthening and repair techniques for RC columns have been presented
in the previous sections that included over 90 different experimental studies, including over 500
column specimens. The various techniques have been broadly categorized into six different categories,
RC jacketing; steel jacketing; externally bonded FRP jacketing; near-surface mounted FRP or steel
reinforcement; shape memory alloy (SMA) wire jacketing; and hybrid jacketing, as discussed in the
previous sections. A summary of the benefits and drawbacks for each category of techniques has been
summarized in Table 3.
The six broad retrofitting and strengthening categories have been compared using six generic
criteria, as follows: effect on strength; effect on ductility; effective on stiffness; cost of strengthening;
aesthetics; and impact to occupants, which specifically, is the impact to the building occupants while
the strengthening and repairing techniques are being undertaken. This last category would generally
be of less concern to infrastructure (i.e., RC bridge columns). A matrix summarizing the performance
of each technique for each category is presented in Table 4. It should be noted that the performance
levels in Table 4 are broad characterizations only, which have generally been developed from the
results and observations of the individual studies presented in the previous section. The actual
performance/effectiveness of each strengthening or retrofitting technique will vary on a case-by-case
basis and be dependent on the individual circumstances at the time.
Each of the retrofitting and strengthening techniques was generally able to increase the strength
of the column. However, the steel jacketing, near-surface mounted FRP/steel reinforcement and hybrid
jacketing methods resulted in the largest strength increase. Similarly, each technique was capable of
generally increasing the amount of ductility. However, the steel, externally bonded FRP and hybrid
jacketing were typically more effective and resulted in higher levels of ductility. However, it is noted
that debonding limits the effective confinement of externally bonded FRP columns. A comparative
analysis of different material stress-strain models for FRP-confined concrete and their influence on the
ultimate behavior of FRP-confined RC columns is presented in Montuori et al. [103,104].
The stiffness generally remained unchanged, except for the RC and steel jacketing, which often
increased the stiffness (due to the fact that the overall column cross-section was typically increased),
and the SMA wire jacketing, where the stiffness was decreased. Changing the stiffness of the column
was generally considered a poor outcome, since that would affect the dynamic properties of the
structure. However, it is noted in some situations that changing the dynamic properties of the structure
can be a positive outcome.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 24 of 31

Table 3. Summary of benefits/drawbacks of the different repair and strengthening techniques.

Strengthening Method Benefits Drawbacks

• Expensive, labor intensive and time

consuming due to
• Commonly used/available material formwork installation
• Familiarity of practicing engineers • Change in cross-sectional size
RC/Mortar Jacketing with the material leading to change in stiffness and
• Ability of RC to take any shape seismic demands
• Increases both strength and ductility • Increase in ductility is small due to
brittle nature of concrete
• Disruption of occupancy

• Expensive and labor intensive.

• Ductile and commonly
• Rusting and corrosion
used/available material
• Change in cross-sectional size
Steel Jacketing • Excellent confinement leading to
leading to change in stiffness and
considerable increase in both
seismic demands
strength and ductility
• Heavy weight

• Ease and speed of installation

• Corrosion resistance • Costly material (but overall cost is
• Minimum modification to geometry low due to small cost of
and aesthetics of structure transportation and installation)
• Minimum disruption of occupancy • Low efficiency (30–35%) due
Externally Bonded FRP • High durability, high to debonding
Jacketing strength-to-weight ratio • Poor properties on exposure to high
• Better work safety and minimum temperature and wet environment
risk hazard • Increase in strength is
• Enhancement in both relatively small
strength/ductility

• Less prone to debonding

• Costly material (but overall cost is
• Minimum modification to geometry
low due to small cost of
and aesthetics of structure
transportation and installation)
• Less prone to mechanical impact and
Near-Surface Mounted • Comparatively more labor intensive
accidental damage due to protection
FRP or Steel Reinforcement in comparison to externally bonded
by concrete cover
FRP, but lesser than RC or
• Aesthetics of the structure steel jacketing
remain unchanged
• Not much increase in ductility
• Enhances strength considerably

• Fast installation
• Costly material
• No need for adhesive
• Ineffective composite action
Shape Memory Alloy • No danger of peel off
with concrete
(SMA) Wire Jacketing • Super elastic and durable
• Enhancement in strength is
• Increases both the strength relatively small
and ductility

• Fast installation
• Minimum modification to geometry • Costly material
and aesthetics of structure • Comparatively labor intensive as it
Hybrid Jacketing • High durability combines two different
• Significant enhancement in both retrofitting techniques
strength and ductility

The RC jacketing and steel jacketing generally involve lower cost construction materials with a
simple and direct load transmission mechanism [105]. However, they are typically very labor intensive
and time consuming. As such, they were considered the most ineffective from a cost perspective.
While the cost of materials for externally bonded FRP and near-surface mounted FRP is considerably
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 25 of 31

higher than the former two techniques, the cost of the transportation of materials and installation is
much cheaper, which allows for the overall technique to be typically more cost effective. The externally
bonded FRP and near-surface mounted FRP/steel reinforcement were also considered to be the best
technique from an aesthetics/impact to floorplan perspective, since they result in the least/smallest
changes to the column cross section. In contrast, the RC jacketing technique typically increases the
column dimensions significantly and, hence, is considered to have the biggest impact on aesthetics and
the overall floorplan of a building.
The impact to the occupants category was generally based on two criteria: the first was how long
the technique would take to be installed/constructed; and the second was in relation to the construction
activities that would need to be performed. RC jacketing and hybrid jacketing typically require a
considerable amount for cutting or drilling into the existing concrete, which causes a significant impact
due to noise, duration and dust or general construction debris, therefore giving them a lower ranking,
whereas, externally bonded FRP jacketing, which is typically quite quick to install and does not require
any loud/dirty drilling and cutting of the existing concrete, has therefore been assigned a high ranking.

Table 4. Comparison matrix of different strengthening and repairing techniques for RC columns.

Strengthening Effect on Effect on Effect on Cost of Aesthetics/Impact Impact to

Method Strength Ductility Stiffness Strengthening to Floorplan Occupants
Unchanged/
RC Jacketing Increase Increase Very high Poor Very high
increased
Significant Significant Unchanged/
Steel Jacketing Very high Moderate High
increase increase increased
Externally Bonded Significant
Increase Unchanged Moderate Good Moderate
FRP Jacketing increase
Near-Surface
Significant
Mounted FRP or Increase Unchanged Moderate Good High
increase
Steel Reinforcement
Shape Memory
Moderate to
Alloy (SMA) Wire Increase Increase Decrease High Moderate
high
Jackets
Significant Significant Unchanged/ High to very
Hybrid Jacketing High Moderate
increase increase increased high

9. Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

A review of the experimental studies conducted to investigate the effectiveness of different seismic
strengthening and repair techniques indicates that the primary focus of the research in the past was
on the repair of normal-strength ( fc′ ≤ 50 MPa) RC columns. Figure 12a shows that in the past two
decades, approximately 523 normal-strength RC columns with different strengthening techniques
have been tested under simulated earthquake loading, whereas, in comparison, the seismic behavior
of only 22 strengthened high-strength RC columns has been investigated so far. On the other hand,
the dynamic characterization of concrete performed by Khosravani and Weinberg [106] showed that
high-strength and ultra-high strength concrete are more brittle than normal-strength concrete and,
therefore, RC columns with high-strength concrete collapse at a lesser drift than the latter [107–110].
Hence, it is expected that the efficiency of the strengthening and repair methods would reduce with
the increase in the concrete compressive strength. In future research, this aspect needs to be studied
with reference to different strengthening and repair techniques, as high-strength RC columns are being
widely used in high-rise constructions all over the world, and such columns may need to be repaired
after being damaged in a rare or very rare earthquake event.
Another important aspect that requires attention is the type of lateral loading path. A vast
majority of the experimental studies involving strengthening and repair have been carried out
under uni-directional cyclic lateral loading, and only a handful of tests have been conducted under
bi-directional loading. It is shown in Figure 12b that in the last two decades, only 12 specimens were
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 26 of 31

tested under bi-directional loading as opposed to 533 specimens tested under uni-directional loading.
Recent experimental research conducted by the authors [108] has shown that the collapse drift capacity
of the column reduces by approximately 50% under bi-directional loading scenarios. In view of this,
it is essential to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different retrofitting techniques under realistic
multi-directional loading protocols.

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Overview of the experimental tests on strengthened and repaired RC columns: (a) Normal-strength
vs. high-strength concrete; (b) Uni-directional vs. bi-directional lateral loading.

10. Concluding Remarks

This paper presented a detailed overview of various strengthening and repair methods for
reinforced concrete columns. These techniques can contribute to the sustainability of existing
reinforced concrete infrastructure by ensuring the enhancement of their existing capacity without the
need for rebuilding or replacement. Each technique is discussed extensively noting the advantages
and disadvantages. The review of the findings of different researchers leads to the conclusion that
although the strength, ductility and drift capacity of the damaged columns can be recovered and even
enhanced by repair, it is very difficult to fully restore the initial stiffness of the damaged column.
Further, based on the review of the different strengthening and repair techniques, the authors
are of the view that hybrid jacketing techniques, which combine the benefits of different
materials/strengthening methods can often be the most effective since they have a relatively fast
installation, can significantly improve the strength, ductility and drift and can maintain the aesthetics
and original geometry/configuration of the structure.
This review also highlights potential research gaps for future research such as the investigation of
the effectiveness of the strengthening and repair methods for high-strength RC columns, and also the
evaluation of the efficacy of these techniques under realistic bi-directional loading protocols, as most
of the studies are currently focussed on the seismic performance of strengthened columns under
uni-directional lateral loading scenarios. Whilst older studies focussed on ductility levels that could be
used in force based design procedures, contemporary testing has a much greater emphasis on drift
behaviour of retrofitted columns that can be directly used in displacement based design methods.

Author Contributions: Writing, review and editing by S.R., M.K.I.K., S.J.M. and H.-H.T.; Supervision by H.-H.T.
and J.L.W.
Funding: This research was funded by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC),
Melbourne, Australia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 27 of 31

References
1. Zabihi, A.; Tsang, H.H.; Gad, E.F.; Wilson, J.L. Seismic retrofit of exterior RC beam-column joint using
diagonal haunch. Eng. Struct. 2018, 174, 753–767. [CrossRef]
2. Tsang, H.-H. Innovative upscaling of architectural elements for strengthening building structures.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2636. [CrossRef]
3. Lehman, D.E.; Gookin, S.E.; Nacamuli, A.M.; Moehle, J.P. Repair of earthquake-damaged bridge columns.
Aci Struct. J. 2001, 98, 233–242.
4. Vandoros, K.G.; Dritsos, S.E. Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness when strengthening RC
columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 264–276. [CrossRef]
5. Chang, S.Y.; Chen, T.W.; Tran, N.C.; Liao, W.I. Seismic retroftting of RC columns with RC jackets and wing
walls with different structural details. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 279–292. [CrossRef]
6. Liu, C.Y.; Ma, H.; Chen, L.; Li, Z.B.; Yang, D.B. Experimental study on seismic performance of reinforced
concrete column retrofitted by asymmetric increased single lateral section. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 20,
1325–1339. [CrossRef]
7. Ou, Y.C.; Truong, A.N. Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete L-and T-columns retrofitted from rectangular
columns. Eng. Struct. 2018, 177, 147–159. [CrossRef]
8. Cho, C.G.; Kim, Y.Y.; Feo, L.; Hui, D.V. Cyclic responses of reinforced concrete composite columns strengthened
in the plastic hinge region by HPFRC mortar. Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 2246–2253. [CrossRef]
9. Meda, A.; Mostosi, S.; Rinaldi, Z.; Riva, P. Corroded RC columns repair and strengthening with high
performance fibre reinforced concrete jacket. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 1967–1978. [CrossRef]
10. Dagenais, M.A.; Massicotte, B.; Boucher-Proulx, G. Seismic Retrofitting of Rectangular Bridge Piers with
Deficient Lap Splices Using Ultrahigh-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete. J. Bridge Eng. 2018, 23.
[CrossRef]
11. Deng, M.K.; Zhang, Y.X.; Li, Q.Q. Shear strengthening of RC short columns with ECC jacket: Cyclic behavior
tests. Eng. Struct. 2018, 160, 535–545. [CrossRef]
12. Abdullah; Takiguchi, K. An investigation into the behavior and strength of reinforced concrete columns
strengthened with ferrocement jackets. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 233–242. [CrossRef]
13. Rodrigues, H.; Furtado, A.; Arede, A.; Vila-Pouca, N.; Varum, H. Experimental study of repaired RC columns
subjected to uniaxial and biaxial horizontal loading and variable axial load with longitudinal reinforcement
welded steel bars solutions. Eng. Struct. 2018, 155, 371–386. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Y.; Yin, S.-P.; Chen, W.-J. Seismic behavior of corrosion-damaged RC columns strengthened with TRC
under a chloride environment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 736–745.
15. Liu, X.; Lu, Z.-D.; Li, L.-Z. The use of bolted side plates for shear strengthening of RC beams: A review.
Sustainability 2019, 10, 4658. [CrossRef]
16. Daudey, X.; Filiatrault, A. Seismic evaluation and retrofit with steel jackets of reinforced concrete bridge
piers detailed with lap-splices. Can. J. Civil Eng. 2000, 27, 1–16. [CrossRef]
17. Wu, Y.F.; Griffith, M.C.; Oehlers, D.J. Improving the strength and ductility of rectangular reinforced concrete
columns through composite partial interaction: Tests. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 1183–1190. [CrossRef]
18. Zhou, X.H.; Liu, J.P. Seismic behavior and shear strength of tubed RC short columns. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2010, 66, 385–397. [CrossRef]
19. Choi, E.; Chung, Y.S.; Park, C.; Kim, D.J. Seismic performance of circular RC columns retrofitted with
prefabricated steel wrapping jackets. Mag. Concr. Res. 2013, 65, 1429–1440. [CrossRef]
20. Pudjisuryadi, P.; Tavio; Suprobo, P. Performance of square reinforced concrete columns externally confined
by steel angle collars under combined axial and lateral Load. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 1043–1049. [CrossRef]
21. Fakharifarh, M.; Chen, G.D.; Wu, C.L.; Shamsabadi, A.; ElGawady, M.A.; Dalvand, A. Rapid repair of
earthquake-damaged RC columns with prestressed steel jackets. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, L.; Su, R.K.L.; Cheng, B.; Li, L.Z.; Wan, L.; Shan, Z.W. Seismic behavior of preloaded rectangular RC
columns strengthened with precambered steel plates under high axial load ratios. Eng. Struct. 2017, 152,
683–697. [CrossRef]
23. Kotynia, R.; Baky, H.A.; Neale, K.W.; Ebead, U.A. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with externally bonded
CFRP systems: Test results and 3D nonlinear FE analysis. J. Compos. Constr. 2008, 12, 190–201. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 28 of 31

24. Ma, R.; Xiao, Y.; Li, K.N. Full-scale testing of a parking structure column retrofitted with carbon fibre
reinforced composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2000, 14, 63–71. [CrossRef]
25. Ye, L.P.; Yue, Q.R.; Zhao, S.H.; Li, Q.W. Shear strength of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with
carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic sheet. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128, 1527–1534. [CrossRef]
26. Ye, L.P.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, S.H.; Feng, P. Experimental study on seismic strengthening of RC columns with
wrapped CFRP sheets. Constr. Build. Mater. 2003, 17, 499–506. [CrossRef]
27. Sause, R.; Harries, K.A.; Walkup, S.L.; Pessiki, S.; Ricles, J.M. Flexural behavior of concrete columns retrofitted
with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer jackets. Aci Struct. J. 2004, 101, 708–716.
28. Ghobarah, A.; Galal, K.E. Seismic rehabilitation of short rectangular RC columns. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8,
45–68. [CrossRef]
29. Haroun, M.A.; Elsanadedy, H.M. Behavior of Cyclically Loaded Squat Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns
Upgraded with Advanced Composite-Material Jackets. J. Bridge Eng. 2005, 10, 749–757. [CrossRef]
30. Harries, K.A.; Ricles, J.M.; Pessiki, S.; Sause, R. Seismic retrofit of lap splices in nonductile square columns
using carbon fibre-reinforced jackets. Aci Struct. J. 2006, 103, 874–884.
31. Harajli, M.H.; Dagher, F. Seismic strengthening of bond-critical regions in rectangular reinforced concrete
columns using fibre-reinforced polymer wraps. Aci Struct. J. 2008, 105, 68–77.
32. Harajli, M.H. Seismic behavior of RC columns with bond-critical regions: Criteria for bond strengthening
using external FRP jackets. J. Compos. Constr. 2008, 12, 69–79. [CrossRef]
33. Abdel-Mooty, M.A.N.; Issa, M.E.; Farag, H.M.; Bitar, M.A. Seismic Upgrading of Square and Rectangular RC
Columns using FRP Wrapping. In High Performance Structures and Materials III; Brebbia, C.A., Ed.; Wessex
Institute of Technology: Ashurst, UK, 2006.
34. Ozcan, O.; Binici, B.; Ozcebe, G. Improving seismic performance of deficient reinforced concrete columns
using carbon fibre-reinforced polymers. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1632–1646. [CrossRef]
35. Harajli, M.H.; Khalil, Z. Seismic FRP retrofit of bond-Critical regions in circular RC columns: Validation of
proposed design methods. Aci Struct. J. 2008, 105, 760–769.
36. Colomb, F.; Tobbi, H.; Ferrier, E.; Hamelin, P. Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete short columns by CFRP
materials. Compos. Struct. 2008, 82, 475–487. [CrossRef]
37. Yalcin, C.; Kaya, O.; Sinangil, M. Seismic retrofitting of R/C columns having plain rebars using CFRP sheets
for improved strength and ductility. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 295–307. [CrossRef]
38. ElGawady, M.; Endeshaw, M.; McLean, D.; Sack, R. Retrofitting of rectangular columns with deficient lap
splices. J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 14, 22–35. [CrossRef]
39. Ozcan, O.; Binici, B.; Ozcebe, G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced concrete columns using
fibre reinforced polymers. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 964–973. [CrossRef]
40. Vrettos, I.; Kefala, E.; Triantafillou, T.C. Innovative flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete columns
using carbon-fibre anchors. Aci Struct. J. 2013, 110, 63–70.
41. Liu, J.; Sheikh, S.A. Fibre-reinforced polymer-confined circular columns under simulated seismic loads.
Aci Struct. J. 2013, 110, 941–951.
42. Paultre, P.; Boucher-Trudeau, M.; Eid, R.; Roy, N. Behavior of circular reinforced-concrete columns confined
with carbon fibre-reinforced polymers under cyclic flexure and constant axial load. J. Compos. Constr. 2016,
20. [CrossRef]
43. Juntanalikit, P.; Jirawattanasomkul, T.; Pimanmas, A. Experimental and numerical study of strengthening
non-ductile RC columns with and without lap splice by Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) jacketing.
Eng. Struct. 2016, 125, 400–418. [CrossRef]
44. Lee, K.S.; Lee, B.Y.; Seo, S.Y. A seismic strengthening technique for reinforced concrete columns using sprayed
FRP. Polymers (Basel) 2016, 8, 107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Wang, D.Y.; Huang, L.; Yu, T.; Wang, Z.Y. Seismic performance of CFRP-retrofitted large-scale square RC
columns with high axial compression ratios. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21. [CrossRef]
46. Del Zoppo, M.; Di Ludovico, M.; Balsamo, A.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G. FRP for seismic strengthening of shear
controlled RC columns: Experience from earthquakes and experimental analysis. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017,
129, 47–57. [CrossRef]
47. Castillo, E.D.; Griffith, M.; Ingham, J. Seismic behavior of RC columns flexurally strengthened with FRP
sheets and FRP anchors. Compos. Struct. 2018, 203, 382–395. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 29 of 31

48. Wang, D.Y.; Wang, Z.Y.; Yu, T.; Li, H. Seismic performance of CFRP-retrofitted large-scale rectangular RC
columns under lateral loading in different direction. Compos. Struct. 2018, 192, 475–488. [CrossRef]
49. Wang, J.Z.; Yang, J.L.; Cheng, L. Experimental study of seismic behavior of high-strength RC columns
strengthened with CFRP subjected to cyclic loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145. [CrossRef]
50. Ghatte, H.F.; Comert, M.; Demir, C.; Akbaba, M.; Ilki, A. Seismic retrofit of full-scale substandard extended
rectangular RC columns through CFRP jacketing: Test results and design recommendations. J. Compos. Constr.
2019, 23. [CrossRef]
51. Harajli, M.H.; Rteil, A.A. Effect of confinement using fibre-reinforced polymer or fibre-reinforced concrete on
seismic performance of gravity load-designed columns. Aci Struct. J. 2004, 101, 47–56.
52. Galal, K.; Arafa, A.; Ghobarah, A. Retrofit of RC square short columns. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 801–813.
[CrossRef]
53. Bousias, S.; Spathis, A.L.; Fardis, M.N. Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap spliced smooth bars through
FRP or concrete jackets. J. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 11, 653–674. [CrossRef]
54. Bournas, D.A.; Lontou, P.; Papanicolaou, C.G.; Triantafillou, T.C. Textile-reinforced mortar versus
fibre-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced concrete columns. Aci Struct. J. 2007, 104, 740–748.
55. Del Zoppo, M.; Di Ludovico, M.; Balsamo, A.; Prota, A. Comparative analysis of existing RC columns
jacketed with CFRP or FRCC. Polymers (Basel) 2018, 10, 361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Youm, K.S.; Lee, Y.H.; Choi, Y.M.; Hwang, Y.K.; Kwon, T.G. Seismic performance of lap-spliced columns
with glass FRP. Mag. Concr. Res. 2007, 59, 189–198. [CrossRef]
57. Eshghi, S.; Zanjanizadeh, V. Retrofit of slender square reinforced concrete columns with glass fibre-reinforced
polymer for seismic resistance. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. B 2008, 32, 437–450.
58. Choi, E.; Cho, B.S.; Lee, S. Seismic retrofit of circular RC columns through using tensioned GFRP wires
winding. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 83, 216–225. [CrossRef]
59. Ouyang, L.J.; Gao, W.Y.; Zhen, B.; Lu, Z.D. Seismic retrofit of square reinforced concrete columns using
basalt and carbon fibre-reinforced polymer sheets: A comparative study. Compos. Struct. 2017, 162, 294–307.
[CrossRef]
60. Chang, C.; Kim, S.J.; Park, D.; Choi, S. Experimental investigation of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted
with polyester sheet. Earthq. Struct. 2014, 6, 237–250. [CrossRef]
61. Dai, J.G.; Lam, L.; Ueda, T. Seismic retrofit of square RC columns with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibre
reinforced polymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 206–217. [CrossRef]
62. Choi, E.; Chung, Y.S.; Choi, D.H.; DesRoches, R. Seismic protection of lap-spliced RC columns using SMA
wire jackets. Mag. Concr. Res. 2012, 64, 239–252. [CrossRef]
63. Wu, Y.F.; Liu, T.; Wang, L.M. Experimental investigation on seismic retrofitting of square RC columns by carbon
FRP sheet confinement combined with transverse short glass FRP bars in bored holes. J. Compos. Constr.
2008, 12, 53–60. [CrossRef]
64. Bournas, D.A.; Triantafillou, T.C. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete columns with
near-surface-mounted FRP or stainless steel. Aci Struct. J. 2009, 106, 495–505.
65. Sarafraz, M.E.; Danesh, F. New technique for flexural strengthening of RC columns with NSM FRP bars.
Mag. Concr. Res. 2012, 64, 151–161. [CrossRef]
66. Li, X.; Lv, H.L.; Zhang, G.C.; Sha, S.Y.; Zhou, S.C. Seismic retrofitting of rectangular reinforced concrete
columns using fibre composites for enhanced flexural strength. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2013, 32, 619–630.
[CrossRef]
67. Napoli, A.; Realfonzo, R. RC columns strengthened with novel CFRP systems: An experimental study.
Polymers (Basel) 2015, 7, 2044–2060. [CrossRef]
68. Seyhan, E.C.; Goksu, C.; Uzunhasanoglu, A.; Ilki, A. Seismic behavior of substandard RC columns retrofitted
with embedded aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP) reinforcement. Polymers (Basel) 2015, 7, 2535–2557.
[CrossRef]
69. Fahmy, M.F.M.; Wu, Z.S. Exploratory study of seismic response of deficient lap-splice columns retrofitted
with near surface-mounted basalt FRP bars. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142. [CrossRef]
70. Seifi, A.; Hosseini, A.; Marefat, M.S.; Khanmohammadi, M. Seismic retrofitting of old-type RC columns with
different lap splices by NSM GFRP and steel bars. Struct. Des. Tall. Spec. 2018, 27. [CrossRef]
71. Lu, Y.Y.; Yi, S.; Liang, H.J.; Gong, T.N.; Li, N. Seismic behavior of RC square columns strengthened with
self-compacting concrete-filled CFRP-steel tubes. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 30 of 31

72. Realfonzo, R.; Napoli, A. Cyclic behavior of RC columns strengthened by FRP and steel devices. J. Struct. Eng.
2009, 135, 1164–1176. [CrossRef]
73. Chou, C.C.; Lee, C.S.; Wu, K.Y.; Chin, V.L. Development and validation of a FRP-wrapped spiral corrugated
tube for seismic performance of circular concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 498–511.
[CrossRef]
74. Cho, C.G.; Han, B.C.; Lim, S.C.; Morii, N.; Kim, J.W. Strengthening of reinforced concrete columns by
High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Cementitious Composite (HPFRC) sprayed mortar with strengthening
bars. Compos. Struct. 2018, 202, 1078–1086. [CrossRef]
75. Haroun, M.A.; Elsanadedy, H.M. Fibre-reinforced plastic jackets for ductility enhancement of reinforced
concrete bridge columns with poor lap-splice detailing. J. Bridge Eng. 2005, 10, 749–757. [CrossRef]
76. Ghosh, K.K.; Sheikh, S.A. Seismic upgrade with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer of columns containing
lap-spliced reinforcing bars. Aci Struct. J. 2007, 104, 227–236.
77. Zhou, C.D.; Lu, X.L.; Li, H.; Tian, T. Experimental study on seismic behavior of circular RC columns
strengthened with pre-stressed FRP strips. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2013, 12, 625–642. [CrossRef]
78. Yang, J.L.; Wang, J.Z. Seismic performance of shear-controlled CFRP-strengthened high-strength concrete
square columns under simulated seismic load. J. Compos. Constr. 2018, 22. [CrossRef]
79. Lee, H.S.; Kage, T.; Noguchi, T.; Tomosawa, F. An experimental study on the retrofitting effects of reinforced
concrete columns damaged by rebar corrosion strengthened with carbon fibre sheets. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003,
33, 563–570. [CrossRef]
80. Aquino, W.; Hawkins, N.M. Seismic retrofitting of corroded reinforced concrete columns using carbon
composites. Aci Struct. J. 2007, 104, 348–356.
81. Kalyoncuoglu, A.; Ghaffari, P.; Goksu, C.; Ilki, A. Rehabilitation of corrosion-damaged substandard RC
columns using FRP sheets. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 639–640, 1096–1103. [CrossRef]
82. Faustino, P.; Chastre, C. Damage effect on concrete columns confined with carbon composites. Aci Struct. J.
2016, 113, 951–962. [CrossRef]
83. Hashemi, M.J.; Al-Ogaidi, Y.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; Kalfat, R.; Tsang, H.H.; Wilson, J.L. Application of hybrid
simulation for collapse assessment of post-earthquake CFRP-repaired RC columns. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 143.
[CrossRef]
84. Parks, J.E.; Brown, D.N.; Ameli, M.J.; Pantelides, C.P. Seismic repair of severely damaged precast reinforced
concrete bridge columns connected with grouted splice sleeves. Aci Struct. J. 2016, 113, 615–626. [CrossRef]
85. Rodrigues, H.; Furtado, A.; Arede, A. Experimental evaluation of energy dissipation and viscous damping
of repaired and strengthened RC columns with CFRP jacketing under biaxial load. Eng. Struct. 2017, 145,
162–175. [CrossRef]
86. Bousias, S.N.; Triantafillou, T.C.; Fardis, M.N.; Spathis, L.; O’Regan, B.A. Fibre-reinforced polymer retrofitting
of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with or without corrosion. Aci Struct. J. 2004, 101, 512–520.
87. Thermou, G.E.; Pantazopoulou, S.J. Fibre-reinforced polymer retrofitting of pre-damaged substandard RC
prismatic members. J. Compos. Constr. 2009, 13, 535–546. [CrossRef]
88. Sheikh, S.A.; Yau, G. Seismic behavior of concrete columns confined with steel and fibre-reinforced polymers.
Aci Struct. J. 2002, 99, 72–80.
89. Memon, M.S.; Sheikh, S.A. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with glass fibre-reinforced
polymer. Aci Struct. J. 2005, 102, 774–783.
90. Seo, H.; Kim, J.; Kwon, M. Evaluation of damaged RC columns with GFRP-strip device. J. Compos. Constr.
2016, 20. [CrossRef]
91. Liu, X.F.; Li, Y. Experimental study of seismic behavior of partially corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete
columns strengthened with FRP composites with large deformability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191,
1071–1081. [CrossRef]
92. Peng, Y.J.; Gu, Q.; Gao, R.; Bitewlgn, G. Experimental research on seismic behavior of seismically damaged
RC frame column strengthened with sprayed hybrid BF/CFRP. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 501–504, 1592–1599.
[CrossRef]
93. Li, J.H.; Li, Y. Experimental and theoretical study on the seismic performance of corroded RC circular
columns strengthened with hybrid fibre reinforced polymers. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2014, 22, 653–659.
94. Hasan, Q.F.; Tekeli, H.; Demir, F. NSM Rebar and CFRP laminate strengthening for RC columns subjected to
cyclic loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 119, 21–30. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3208 31 of 31

95. Jiang, S.F.; Zeng, X.G.; Shen, S.; Xu, X.C. Experimental studies on the seismic behavior of earthquake-damaged
circular bridge columns repaired by using combination of near-surface-mounted BFRP bars with external
BFRP sheets jacketing. Eng. Struct. 2016, 106, 317–331. [CrossRef]
96. Li, J.B.; Gong, J.X.; Wang, L.C. Seismic behavior of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete columns
strengthened using combined carbon fibre-reinforced polymer and steel jacket. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23,
2653–2663. [CrossRef]
97. ElSouri, A.M.; Harajli, M.H. Seismic repair and strengthening of lap splices in RC columns: Carbon
fibre-reinforced polymer versus steel confinement. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 721–731. [CrossRef]
98. Ma, G.; Li, H. Experimental study of the seismic behavior of pre-damaged reinforced-concrete columns
retrofitted with basalt fibre-reinforced polymer. J. Compos Constr. 2015, 19. [CrossRef]
99. Xue, J.; Lavorato, D.; Bergami, A.V.; Nuti, C.; Briseghella, B.; Marano, G.C.; Ji, T.; Vanzi, I.; Tarantino, A.M.;
Santini, S. Severely damaged reinforced concrete circular columns repaired by turned steel rebar and
high-performance concrete jacketing with steel or polymer fibres. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1671. [CrossRef]
100. Rajput, A.S.; Sharma, U.K.; Engineer, K. Seismic retrofitting of corroded RC columns using advanced
composite materials. Eng. Struct. 2019, 181, 35–46. [CrossRef]
101. Fakharifar, M.; Chen, G.D.; Arezoumandi, M.; Eigawady, M. Hybrid jacketing for rapid repair of seismically
damaged reinforced concrete column. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2522, 70–78. [CrossRef]
102. Afshin, H.; Shirazi, M.R.N.; Abedi, K. Experimental and numerical study about seismic retrofitting of
corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete columns of bridge using combination of FRP wrapping and steel
profiles. Steel Compos. Struct. 2019, 30, 231–251.
103. Montuori, R.; Piluso, V.; Tisi, A. Comparative analysis and critical issues of the main constitutive laws for
concrete elements confined with FRP. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43, 3219–3230. [CrossRef]
104. Montuori, R.; Piluso, V.; Tisi, A. Ultimate behaviour of FRP wrapped sections under axial force and bending:
Influence of stress–strain confinement model. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 54, 85–96. [CrossRef]
105. Ramírez, J. Ten concrete column repair methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10, 195–202. [CrossRef]
106. Khosravani, M.R.; Weinberg, K. A review on split Hopkinson bar experiments on the dynamic characterisation
of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 190, 1264–1283. [CrossRef]
107. Raza, S.; Tsang, H.H.; Menegon, S.J.; Wilson, J.L. Seismic Performance Assessment of Reinforced
Concrete Columns in Regions of Low to Moderate Seismicity. In Resilient Structures and Infrastructure;
Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., Takewaki, I., Yang, T., Astaneh-Asl, A., Gardoni, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2019.
108. Raza, S.; Menegon, S.J.; Tsang, H.-H.; Wilson, J.L. Collapse performance of limited ductile high-strength RC
columns under uni-directional cyclic actions. J. Struct. Eng. 2019. Under Review.
109. Raza, S.; Tsang, H.-H.; Wilson, J.L. Unified models for post-peak failure drifts of normal- and high-strength
RC columns. Mag. Concr. Res. 2018, 70, 1081–1101. [CrossRef]
110. Raza, S.; Menegon, S.J.; Tsang, H.H.; Wilson, J.L. Experimental Assessment of High-Strength RC Columns
Under Different Bi-Directional Loading Protocols. In Proceedings of the 2019 Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, SkyCity, Auckland, New Zealand, 4–6 April 2019.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).