Technical Paper
Yuxi Zhao
Dawei Zhang*
Shijun Shen
Tamon Ueda
Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC
columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage
The main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of pre-
and post-jacketing corrosion and loading damage on concrete-
jacketed reinforced concrete (RC) columns under uniaxial loading
and to develop a methodology for predicting the corresponding
compressive strength. The pre- and post-damage involved pre-
loading up to 50% of the peak load of the core column, an elec-
trochemical process to accelerate the migration of chlorides from
an external electrolyte into the test columns and a wettingdrying
cycle process with a controlled current to speed up the corrosion
of the steel reinforcing bars in the test columns. Uniaxial loading
tests were performed to determine the structural performance of
the concrete-jacketed columns with and without corrosion dam-
age. The failure mode and loaddisplacement and loadstrain re-
sponses of the test columns were recorded, and the related
mechanisms are discussed. A model capable of evaluating the
compressive strength of unjacketed or jacketed RC columns with
and without corrosion damage was then developed. The analyti-
cal approach considered the effect of reinforcement corrosion on
the effective loadbearing area of the concrete and the confine-
ment effect of the stirrups. The analytical results agree well with
the experimental results, indicating the reliability and effective-
ness of the models developed.
Keywords: corrosion, column, concrete jacketing, confinement, bond,
analytical model
1 Background
Extensive investigations into the retrofitting of reinforced
concrete (RC) columns have been undertaken in recent
years, and several retrofitting methods have been devel-
oped and reported on. The methods commonly used nor-
mally involve applying an additional layer of reinforced
concrete, steel plate or other materials such as fibre-rein-
forced polymers (FRP) to the external face of an existing
RC column. Reinforced concrete jacketing was widely
used during the last three decades. Experimental results
regarding the effectiveness of the concrete jacketing tech-
nique are abundant for RC columns [1][7]. On the other
hand, there has been an enormous interest in the research
* Corresponding author: dwzhang@zju.edu.cn
Submitted for review: 02 December 2014; revision: 10 October 2015; accepted
for publication: 22 December 2015. Discussion on this paper must be
submitted within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then
be published in print, along with the authors closure, if any, approximately
nine months after the print publication.
2016 Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201400113
and application of fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for
RC column retrofitting since the 1980s [8][10]. The basic
concepts and a relatively recent survey on the use of FRPs
for strengthening concrete structures are covered in a re-
view article by Triantafillou [11]. Progress in various jack-
eting methods, questions associated with the development
of design guidelines and codes for non-seismic applica-
tions are addressed in a review paper by Wu et al. [12].
Despite the fact that FRP jacketing has attracted more in-
terest recently, concrete jacketing is still widely used, espe-
cially in developing countries and mainly because of its
lower cost.
Concrete jacketing was widely used in Mexico City
after the 1985 earthquake and in Japan after the 1995
Hanshin earthquake, and was the most popular retrofit-
ting method at the time, whereas the corrosion of rein-
forcement in both jacketing and core column is currently
a major problem. RC columns prior to and following ret-
rofitting are often susceptible to various types of environ-
mental and mechanical impacts and reinforcement corro-
sion is a major cause of deterioration in RC columns. Past
experience has shown that reinforcement corrosion re-
duces a columns capacity due to steel area losses [13]
[17]. Methodologies for the analytical assessment of the
behaviour of corroded columns have been published in
[18][20]. A significant number of experimental studies
have been performed to find out how pre- or post-damage
affects the structural performance of FRP-, steel- or con-
crete-jacketed RC columns. The effects of FRP or steel
jacketing on the corroded RC columns and the corre-
sponding numerical or analytical models have been thor-
oughly investigated [21][27]. However, for concrete-jack-
eted RC columns, the pre- or post-damage was introduced
mostly by mechanical impacts [28][31], and the damage
due to both longitudinal bar and stirrup corrosion before
and after jacketing has been considered less. Although
lateral behaviour is more dominant for reinforced con-
crete columns under seismic impact, the axial perfor-
mance is also important, especially when confinement by
transverse reinforcement in the jacketing layer around the
core concrete is taken into consideration. Investigating
the axial loading behaviour of a jacketed column may
help reach a better understanding of its lateral perfor-
mance with axial loading. Predicting the axial loading ca-
pacity of columns with or without jacketing has been
covered in some design specifications and guidelines [32]
355
Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

[34]. Some models have been developed to evaluate the

performance of corroded columns with concrete jacketing
[35][36]. However, no model exists for calculating the
structural performance of concrete-jacketed columns
which considers the degree of reinforcement corrosion of
both longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups and the ef-
fect of stirrup confinement.
Current research projects on the structural (axial and
lateral) performance of concrete-jacketed columns with
pre- and post-corrosion damage are in progress at the Insti-
tute of Structural Engineering at Zhejiang University. In
this paper, the effects of important parameters of pre- and
post-damage such as the degree of corrosion of the stirrup
and longitudinal reinforcement in both the jacketing layer
and the core on the uniaxial loading performance of RC
columns are studied experimentally in a systematic man-
ner. Based on the current models for corroded RC columns
without jacketing, an analytical model that considers the
effect of reinforcement corrosion and stirrup confinement Fig.1. Geometry and reinforcement details of test specimens
has been developed for jacketed columns.

2 Test programme
2.1 Specimen information
Table 1 summarizes the experimental programme. In to-
tal, 14 columns were tested. The cross-section and rein-
forcement of the core and jacketing were kept the same.
The designation adopted for the specimens was as fol-
lows: C stands for the column followed by a number
representing the designed degree of corrosion of the bars
in the core column; S indicates the jacketing accompa-
nied by a number for the degree of corrosion of the bars in
the jacketing. For example, specimen C-5-S-10 is a jack-
eted column with designed degrees of corrosion of 5 and
10% of the bars in the core column and jacketing respec-
tively. The longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups are
fixed together with steel wires so that both will corrode in
an accelerated corrosion technique.
Fig.1a shows the geometry and reinforcement de-
tails of the core column. The core column had a cross-
section of 150 150mm and its height was 1000mm. For
longitudinal reinforcement, the columns were reinforced
with four 12mm diameter deformed bars, and 8mm di-
ameter (HPB235) plain steel bars spaced at 150mm were
provided as stirrups. The jacketed columns had a square
cross-section with sides of 250mm, as shown in Fig.1b.
Similarly to the core column, there were four 12mm diam-
eter deformed longitudinal reinforcing bars, and the 8mm
diameter plain bar stirrups were placed every 150mm. The
clear spacing between the internal and external stirrups
was set to 75mm. The concrete cover thickness was identi-
cal for the core column and the jacketing layer: 25mm. The
design characteristic strength of core and jacketing con-
crete were the same: 35 MPa. The 28-day cubic compres-
sive strengths of the core and the jacketing concrete were
measured in compression tests as 36.7 and 38.2 MPa re-
spectively. The yield strengths of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment and stirrups were 349 and 318 MPa respectively, and
the ultimate strengths were 508 and 497MPa.

2.2 Preloading scheme

Table 1. Basic experiment parameters
After 28 days of curing, reference specimen C-0 was load-
Specimen Concrete Degree of Degree of ed first in a uniaxial compression configuration to deter-
No. jacketing bar corrosion bar corrosion mine its peak load, which was 654 kN with concrete
in core (%) in jacketing (%) crushing failure. The other columns were loaded to 50%
C-0 no 0 of the peak load of specimen C-0 and then unloaded to
C-0-S yes 0 0 simulate damage to the existing columns due to past load-
C-5 no 5 ing. Note that although the design service load is usually
C-5-S yes 5 0 within 30% of the design capacity, 50% of the peak load
C-5-S-5 yes 5 5 was still applied considering the continuous increase in
C-5-S-10 yes 5 10 service load, especially for infrastructure.
C-5-S-15 yes 5 15
C-5-S-20 yes 5 20 2.3 Accelerated corrosion techniques
C-10 no 10
After preloading, an accelerated corrosion technique sug-
C-10-S yes 10 0
gested by Xia et al. [37] was applied in the laboratory to
C-10-S-5 yes 10 5
induce corrosion in a reasonable timeframe before and
C-10-S-10 yes 10 10
after concrete jacketing. Fig.2 shows a schematic repre-
C-10-S-15 yes 10 15
sentation of the test setup for the accelerated corrosion.
C-10-S-20 yes 10 20
The accelerated corrosion procedure can be divided into

356 Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3

 Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

Fig.2. Accelerated corrosion techniques

two phases: the electro-migration phase (Fig.2a) and the ment. The detailed calculation process can be found in
wettingdrying cycle phase (Fig.2b). The specimens were [38]. The procedure lasted for 3.5, 7, 10.5 and 14 weeks,
corroded within a 600mm portion of the central column corresponding to expected degrees of corrosion of 5, 10,
(Fig.2c). A sponge was used to keep the concrete wet in 15 and 20% respectively.
the targeted corrosion areas (Fig.2d). Stainless steel nets
were attached to the sponge. For the electro-migration 2.4 Reinforced concrete jacketing scheme
phase, to simulate realistic chloride ingress in concrete, a
2 mol/L NaCl solution was initially put in the sponge to After the reinforcing steel of the core column was corroded
keep the concrete wet for more than 24 h. A stainless steel to the desired amount, the concrete jacketing was added.
sheet was placed along the longitudinal centroid line of According to GB50367 [39], for specimens with a 5% ex-
the column. A constant voltage of 30 V was applied be- pected degree of corrosion, the surface deficiencies were
tween the outer stainless steel nets and the embedded removed until the dense concrete was exposed, and the
stainless steel sheet using a DC power source. The outer concrete was subsequently chipped to form 10mm deep
stainless steel nets attached to the sponge became the slots at 80mm intervals as shown in Fig.3. For specimens
cathode and the embedded stainless steel sheets served as with a 10% expected degree of corrosion, the cover con-
the anode. Note that the use of the embedded stainless
steel sheet as the anode is to achieve relatively non-uni-
form corrosion of the longitudinal steel bars, which reflects
a more practical corrosion phase. Following jacketing, the
electro-migration phase was stopped for the core reinforce-
ment and only applied to the jacketing reinforcement.
A wettingdrying cycle phase was performed imme-
diately following the electro-migration process. Each cycle
of the wettingdrying process involved four days of wet-
ting in 5% NaCl solution followed by three days of drying
accelerated with high-power electrical fans. For the
purpose of accelerated corrosion, a current density of

0.30mA/cm2 was applied through the tension reinforce-

ment (acting as anode) and the stainless steel nets (acting
as cathode). According to Xia et al. [37], the expansion
coefficient of the rust using the above acceleration meth-
od is similar to that of a 40-year-old corroded sample from
a port in Yokosuka, Japan. The estimated time for corro-
sion was calculated based on Faradays law, with a speci-
fied current density applied through the steel reinforce- Fig.3. Treatment of core column before jacketing

Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3 357

Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

the centroid of each column surface, two strain gauges

were used to measure the vertical and transverse strain re-
sponses of the surface concrete. The loaddisplacement
and loadstrain responses were recorded. Note that the test
condition and the following analytical model in this paper
are not applicable to the case where a gap is introduced
between concrete jacket ends and adjacent members.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Gravimetric mass loss measurements

After testing the specimens, the longitudinal reinforce-

Fig.4. Uniaxial loading system
crete that had cracked because of the corrosion expansion
was chipped away until the dense concrete was exposed.
The prepared column and the jacketing reinforcement were
placed in a wooden mould and fixed well. The jacketing
concrete was then cast in the wooden mould with sufficient
vibration to ensure the quality of the jacketing. Note that
the jacketing scheme described in this paper is a simple
method for laboratory tests; in practice, shotcrete is widely
used for jacketing due to its easy and quick placement.
2.5 Test setup and instrumentation
All the specimens were tested under a monotonic uniaxial
load until the ultimate load was reached with a rate of load
application of 20kN/min for unjacketed columns and
40kN/min for jacketed columns. As shown in Fig.4, two
steel plates were placed on the top and bottom specimen
surfaces to distribute the axial stress. Four linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to measure
the vertical displacements at the upper loading point. At
ment and stirrups were extracted and cleaned for the pur-
pose of calculating mass loss according to ASTM G1-03
[40]. Four coupons with a length of 100mm were used
within the targeted 600mm long corrosion area per longi-
tudinal bar or stirrup per column. The weight of the steel
reinforcing bars without corrosion was determined by
weighing the 100mm long steel bars in the uncorroded
zone of the same column such that the weight of the ex-
tracted coupons after corrosion could be compared with
the original weight and the mass loss due to corrosion es-
timated. The average measured values for the mass loss
(degree of corrosion) in the steel of the corroded columns
are listed in Table 2. It can be concluded that the expected
mass losses were achieved in the laboratory.
3.2 Strain development and failure mode
For the uncorroded columns with or without jacketing, the
final failure was a brittle one, with crushing of the concrete
after buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement, whereas
the stirrup did not break. The failure location of C-0 was
near the column base, and that of C-0-S was near the col-
umn top, contributing to the failure. The failure modes of
the corroded columns with and without jacketing depend-
ed on the degree of corrosion of the bar and the bond be-
tween the bar and the concrete. In the case of moderate

Table 2. Comparison between calculated and experimental peak loads

Specimen No. Degree of Degree of Experimental Coordinate Calculated Calculated Fana/Fexp

corrosion corrosion peak load xm peak load peak load
of core of jacketing Fexp(kN) (mm) Fana (kN) Fanax(kN)
reinforcement (%) reinforcement (%)

C-0 0 0 654 0 787 780 1.20

C-0-S 0 0 0 0 1790 47 1816 1765 1.01
C-5 7.26 8.18 564 0 539 534 0.96
C-5-S 6.50 7.10 0 0 1589 48 1793 1742 1.13
C-5-S-5 6.02 6.62 5.16 6.09 1569 48 1576 1533 1.00
C-5-S-10 9.07 7.97 12.22 13.52 1397.5 48 1225 1195 0.88
C-5-S-15 6.45 4.82 13.69 13.03 1223 47 1231 1201 1.01
C-5-S-20 7.18 6.17 18.21 18.00 1048.5 47 1214 1185 1.16
C-10 18.75 15.21 247 0 375 373 1.52
C-10-S 14.57 17.33 0 0 1693.5 51 1764 1712 1.04
C-10-S-5 15.64 16.48 6.25 8.45 1460 50 1478 1437 1.01
C-10-S-10 15.58 16.61 9.91 16.86 1285.5 49 1272 1241 0.99
C-10-S-15 11.07 14.44 19.49 18.97 1283 48 1195 1168 0.93
C-10-S-20 14.49 13.76 25.83 22.78 921.5 48 1166 1138 1.27

358 Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3

 Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

Fig.5. Typical failure modes of specimens

corrosion with a degree of corrosion of approx. 5%, the

column failure mode was similar to that of the uncorroded
condition. For more severe corrosion with a degree of cor-
rosion > 10%, the length and width of the longitudinal
concrete cracks near longitudinal reinforcement developed
at a low load level; some of the cover concrete exhibited
spalling because of corrosive expansion. The longitudinal
reinforcement buckled and the stirrup broke at the final
failure stage. The failure was mostly located within the tar-
geted corrosion area, except for specimen C-10-S-20, which
underwent an end failure. For all the jacketed columns, no
delamination occurred between the core and the jacketing
concrete until final failure, and the core and jacketing layer
behaved monolithically. Fig.5 shows the failure modes of
several sample specimens at the end of loading.
Some of the strain gauges failed due to cracks during
the loading procedure. The average values from those
strain gauges that worked until the end of loading were
used to investigate the strain development. The load
strain relations at the centre of the loaded specimens are
shown in Fig.6. The positive value is the horizontal strain
and the negative value is the longitudinal strain. Some of
the loadstrain responses are superposed on each other
(e.g. specimen C-5-S-10 and C-5-S-20, C-10-S-10 and
C-10-S-20). The gaps between the steel loading plate and
the specimen, or between the upper and lower surface of
jacketing layer and core concrete might be due to the low
stiffness of specimens C-5-S-10 and C-10-S-10 at the early
loading stage; their stiffness increased at the later stage.
For the unjacketed specimens (C-0, C-5, C-10), the longitu-
dinal strain at peak load decreased as the degree of corro-
sion increased. The corresponding jacketed specimens
(C-0-S, C-5-S, C-10-S) exceeded similar uniaxial longitudi-
nal strains, indicating that the jacketing technique can
compensate for the pre-corrosion effect of the core col-
umn reinforcement.

3.3 Peak load and displacement

The peak loads and corresponding displacements record-

ed are listed in Table 2, and the loaddisplacement curves
are shown in Fig.7. The peak loads and stiffnesses of the
jacketed columns were enhanced compared with the un-
jacketed reference columns, showing the effectiveness of
the jacketing technique. For unjacketed columns, the stiff- Fig.6. Loadstrain relations of specimens

Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3 359

Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

Fig.8. Effect of bar corrosion in the jacketing layer on the peak load of
specimens

mechanical properties of the reinforcement were degrad-

ed, and the longitudinal reinforcements contribution to
the axial loading and the stirrups contribution to the core
concrete confinement were therefore weakened.
The displacements of the C-5 series at peak load
were all approx. 5mm, and those of C-10 series were all
approx. 4.5mm, indicating that the reinforcement corro-
sion after jacketing had an insignificant effect on this dis-
placement. It should be noted that the effect of different
degrees of bar corrosion might depend on the ratio of the
jacketed concrete area to the core concrete area and the
ratio of the reinforcement ratio in the jacketing to that in
the core concrete. The test results may vary with changing
test parameters.

4 Analytical model

To predict the compressive strength of unjacketed or jack-

eted RC columns with and without corrosion damage in
either the core or the jacketing layer, the effect of corro-
sion should be considered based on the current design
models for RC columns without corrosion effects.

4.1 Stirrup confinement

As shown in Fig.9, for an RC column without concrete jack-

eting, the confined compressive strength of concrete fcc with
Fig.7. Loaddisplacement curves of specimens stirrups can be calculated based on Manders work [41]:

nesses and peak loads decreased as the degree of corro- 7.94 fl f

f cc = fc0 1.254 + 2.254 1 + 2 l (1)
sion increased. Following jacketing, specimens C-0-S, fc0 fc0
C-5-S and C-10-S had peak loads close to each other,

showing that the effect of corrosion on core reinforce- where fc0 is the cylinder compressive strength of uncon-
ment was weakened after concrete jacketing. Fig.8 shows fined concrete in MPa, usually calculated as 80% of the
how longitudinal bar and stirrup corrosion in the jacket- cubic compressive strength as suggested by Kong and Ev-
ing layer affected the peak load of the test specimens (C-5 ans [42] if no direct test result is available, and fl is the ef-
and C-10 series). The corrosion of the reinforcement in fective lateral confining stress in the concrete in MPa. For
the jacketing layer had a distinct effect on the peak load of a square concrete cross-section with a symmetrical ar-
the jacketed columns. The corrosion of the longitudinal rangement of reinforcement as in this study, fl can be cal-
bars and stirrups in the jacketing caused deterioration of culated based on Manders work [41]:
the bond between the concrete and the reinforcement as 2
A A A 2 s
well as external concrete cracking, which reduced the ef- fl = sv fyh e = sv fyh a2 2w 1 /( ac2 As ) (2)
fective concrete area for carrying load. In addition, the sac Acc sac c
3 2 ac

360 Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3

 Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

150
y
Aei
150 Ae ac
A
B si ' B
A
x wi

Fig.9. Core column cross-section (dims. inmm) Fig.10. Jacketed column cross-section (dims. inmm)

where: fc1 and fc2 confined concrete compressive

Asv cross-sectional area of stirrup inmm2 strengths in sections III and IV re-
Ae and Acc 
effective confining area and core area re- spectively (in MPa)
spectively of concrete enclosed by centre-
lines of perimeter stirrup inmm2 For the concrete-jacketed RC column, the area of the inef-
As area of longitudinal reinforcement enclosed fectively confined concrete core between adjacent stirrups
by stirrup inmm2 depends on the geometrical arrangement of both the jacket-
fyh yield strength of stirrup in MPa, as indicated ing and the core stirrups. As shown in Fig.10, the stirrups
in Fig.9 in the jacketing and the core column are interlaced at the
ac centre-to-centre spacing of stirrups inmm same intervals. Using the given coordinate system, the inef-
s clear vertical spacing between stirrups inmm fectively confined concrete core areas in the jacketing Aeo
w  clear distance between adjacent longitudi- and core Aei can be derived based on Eq. (2) as follows:
nal bars inmm 2
2wo2 2 x2
Aeo( x) = a2 1 x (4.1)
For a jacketed RC column, the confinement effect on the co 3 aco so
core concrete varies because of the arrangement of both
the internal and external reinforcement. As shown in 2
Fig.10, based on the reinforcement arrangement, the jack- 2wi2 2 si x2
Aei ( x) = a2 1 (4.2)
eted concrete cross-section can be divided into four sec- ci 3
aci 4 si
tions: I, II, III and IV. Sections I and II are both uncon-
fined areas, where section I is defined to consider the bar where:
corrosion effect. Section III is confined by the jacketing re- aco and aci core dimensions to centre-lines of perim-
inforcement and section IV by both the core and the jacket- eter stirrups in jacketing and core respec-
ing reinforcement. The uniaxial compressive strength of the tively
jacketed RC column is then the accumulated compressive so and si clear vertical spacings between stirrups
strength of the four concrete sections together with the in- in jacketing and core respectively
ternal and external longitudinal reinforcement: wo and wi clear distances between adjacent longitu-
dinal bars in jacketing and core respec-
F = ( FI + FII + fyo Aso ) + FIII + FIV + fyi Asi tively.
= ( fc0( AI + AII ) + fyl Al ) + fcl AIII + fc 2 AIV + fy 2 A2 (3)
The cross-section at coordinate xm corresponding to the
where: maximum ineffectively confined concrete core area is the
FI, FII, FIII and FIV concrete compression capacity of weakest cross-section in columns under uniaxial loading.
sections I, II, III and IV respectively The value of xm can be determined as follows:
AI, AII, AIII and AIV concrete area of sections I, II, III
and IV respectively dF
x = xm = 0 (5)
reduction coefficient that accounts dx
for the non-synchronous response
between jacketing and core sec- where F is a function for calculating the uniaxial strength
tions, equal to 0.80 for the (residual) of columns based on Eq. (3).
axial load level that is within the In practice, since the direct solution of Eq. (5) is
range of service load when the jack- complicated, we can calculate F using an electronic
eting layer is added as suggested in spreadsheet by inputting different values of x ranging from
[39] 0 to s at 1mm intervals. The value of xm corresponds to
fyi and fyo yield strength of core and jacketing the minimum output of F.
longitudinal reinforcement respec-
tively (in MPa) 4.2 Effect of bar corrosion
Asi and Aso  total cross-sectional area of core
and jacketing longitudinal reinforce- According to Xia et al. [37], for an RC column with bar
ment respectively (inmm2) corrosion caused by the accelerated corrosion method

Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3 361

Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage
Fig.11. Reduction in effective area of concrete due to longitudinal bar
corrosion
similar to this study, the yield strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement deteriorated as the degree of corrosion in-
creased, based on the following equation:
fyc = fy ( 2.098 + 1)
where fy and fyc are the bar yield strengths in MPa without
corrosion and with an average degree of corrosion (0
60% for bar dia. 10mm, 0 30% for bar dia. >
10mm) respectively.
In addition, the crack caused by the rust expansion
reduced the effective area of concrete under compression.
Fig.11 illustrates the reduction in the effective area of
concrete due to longitudinal bar corrosion. According to
CECS:220 [43], the equivalent reduced effective concrete
dimension of columns with longitudinal bar corrosion is
calculated as follows:
hc + h ( c1 + c2 )
bc + b ( c3 + c4 )
where:
hc and bc concrete dimensions with corrosion dam-
age inmm
h and b  concrete dimensions without corrosion
damage inmm
c1, c2, c3 and c4 concrete cover thicknesses inmm
reduction coefficient as a function of the
corrosion crack width wc along the cor-
roded bar, which can be determined as
follows according to [43]:
0.30wc
= 0.30wc (1 0.30wc )( w 2) 2 < wc 3
1 wc > 3
The relation between the degree of corrosion and the
width of the corrosion crack with deformed bars can be
determined as follows according to [43]:
wc = ( 0.008 c/d 0.00055 fcuk 0.015)/0.086
where:
c concrete cover thickness inmm
362 Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3
fcuk design characteristic strength of concrete
(35 MPa in this study)
corrosion thickness of bar inmm, which is a
function of the degree of corrosion:
=
d
2
(
1 1 ) (10)
where d is the diameter of the bar inmm and is the aver-
age degree of corrosion.
Note that Eqs. (6)(10) were developed for RC col-
umns without concrete jacketing. They are deemed to be
applicable for jacketed columns as well in this study due
to the similar material and structural characteristics of
core column and jacketing. For an RC column without
concrete jacketing, the reduction in the effective concrete
area is mainly considered by reducing the concrete cover
thickness. For a jacketed RC column, the reduction in the
effective concrete area is mainly considered for the con-
crete cover in the jacketing (section I in Fig.10), and the
area reduction due to the corrosion of the core column
(6) bars can be ignored because of the confinement by the
jacketing reinforcement and the core column treatment
before applying the jacketing. Considering the yield
strength and its confinement effect as well as the effective
concrete area deterioration as the effect of bar corrosion,
the uniaxial compressive strength of the RC column with
and without jacketing and bar corrosion can be deter-
mined based on Eq. (3).
4.3 Verification
The experimental peak load recorded is used to verify the
applicability of the proposed analytical model. In this
study h = b = 150mm for the reference specimen, h = b =
(7.1) 250mm for the jacketed specimen and c1 = c2 = c3 = c4 =
25mm. The cylinder compressive strength fc0 of the core
(7.2) column and jacketing concrete in Eq. (1) are taken to be
80% of their cubic compressive strength, i.e. 29.4 and 30.6
MPa respectively. Fig.12 shows an example for specimen
C-10-S-15, indicating how the values of Fana and xm were
determined. The peak strength was calculated based on Eq.
(3) with changing values of coordinate x from 0 to 75mm;
Fana is the minimum of predicted peak load at x = xm. The
analytical results of all the specimens with and without
pre- and post-damage and their comparisons with experi-
mental records are shown in Table 2. The predicted
strength Fanax without considering the confinement effect
of stirrups in either core column or jacketing layer is also
listed. Based on the comparison between Fana and Fanax, it
0 < wc < 2 can be concluded that the contribution of stirrup confine-
(8) ment to enhancing the axial strength of columns is actu-
ally quite limited, especially for unjacketed columns. The
reduction in axial strength with reinforcement corrosion
was mainly due to the loss of effective compressive area of
cover concrete. The maximum ineffectively confined con-
crete core was located at x 47mm, which was between
the stirrups in the core and the jacketing. For unjacketed
(9) columns, the mean value of the ratio of analytical to ex-
perimental compressive strength Fanax/Fexp is 1.23, with a
standard deviation of 0.23. The elastic buckling of longitu-
dinal reinforcement due to the large ratio of stirrup spac-
 Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage
Fig.12. Relationship between value of coordinate x and predicted peak
load calculated with Eq. (3)
ing to stirrup bar diameter (equal to 12) or the local end
failure may be responsible for this overestimation. For
jacketed columns, the mean value of the ratio of analytical
to experimental compressive strength Fana/Fexp is 1.04,
with a standard deviation of 0.10. The especially high ra-
tio of specimen C-10-S-20 might be due to its local end
failure as well. The analytical values are in good agree-
ment with the experimental values, which verifies the ac-
curacy of the proposed model for concrete-jacketed col-
umns and indicates that the proposed prediction method
is applicable and reliable. Since the stirrup arrangement is
relatively sparse in this experiment and the confinement
effect of transverse reinforcement is not distinct, the pro-
posed models need more test data with denser stirrup ar-
rangements to validate their generality. Meanwhile, the
current model does not consider the effect of concrete
and reinforcement creep under sustained load, which is a
key issue in the axial loading performance of RC columns.
Further studies should be carried out to discover its effect
on the current model.
5 Conclusions
Pre- and post-corrosion-damaged RC columns under uni-
axial loading were examined in this paper. Based on the
research results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The failure modes of the corroded columns with and
without jacketing depend on the degree of corrosion of
the reinforcement and the bond between the reinforce-
ment and the concrete. In the case of moderate corro-
sion, the column failure mode was concrete crushing
without fracture of the stirrups.
The longitudinal strain in the concrete and the stiffness
and compressive strength of the column decreased as
the degree of corrosion increased. With the given
specimens detailed in this study, the corrosion of the
jacketing reinforcement had a more pronounced effect
on the compressive strength than the corrosion of the
core reinforcement.
An analytical model was proposed that can predict the
strength of uniaxially loaded corroded RC columns
with concrete jacketing. The analytical approach con-
sidered the effect of reinforcement corrosion on the ef-
fective loadbearing area of the concrete and the con-
finement effect of the stirrups in the core and jacketing
layers. The analytical results agreed well with the ex-
perimental values.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the Zhejiang Provincial Natural
Science Foundation of China (grant No. LR12E08001)
and the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No.
51308494).
References
1. Abdullah, Takiguchi, K.: An investigation into the be-
havior and strength of reinforced concrete columns
strengthened with ferrocement jackets. Cement Concrete
Comp, 25(2), 2003, pp. 233242.
2. Hamilton, C. H., Pardoen, G. C., Navalpakkam, S., Kan-
zanjy, R. P.: Reinforced concrete bridge column perfor-
mance enhancement through shotcrete jacketing. ACI
Struct J, 101(3), 2004, pp. 332340.
3. Kog, Y. C., Ong, K. C. G., Yu, C. H., Sreekanth, A. P. V.:
Reinforced concrete jacketing for masonry columns with
axial loads. ACI Mater J, 98(2), 2001, pp. 105115.
4. Julio, E. S., Branco, F., Silva, V. D.: Structural rehabilita-
tion of columns with reinforced concrete jacketing. Prog.
Struct. Engng Mater. 5, 2003, pp. 2937.
5. Ong, K. C. G., Kog, Y. C., Yu, C. H., Sreekanth, A. P. V.:
Jacketing of reinforced concrete columns subjected to
axial load. Mag Concrete Res, 56(2), 2004, pp. 8998.
6. Tsonos, A. D. G.: Performance enhancement of R/C
building columns and beam-column joints through shot-
crete jacketing. Eng Struct, 32(3), 2010, pp. 726740.
7. Vandoros, K. G., Dritsos, S. E.: Concrete jacket construc-
tion detail effectiveness when strengthening RC columns.
Constr Build Mater, 22(3), 2008, pp. 264276.
8. Fardis, M. N., Khalili, H.: Concrete encased in fiber glass
reinforced plastic. ACI Journal, 78, 1981, pp. 440445.
9. Nanni, A., Norris, M. S.: FRP-jacketed concrete under
flexure and combined flexure-compression. Construction
and Building Materials, 9(5), 1995, pp. 273281.
10. Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., Audenaert, K.: Tests on axially
loaded concrete columns confined by fiber reinforced
polymer sheet wrapping. ACI Special Publication 188,
1999.
11. Triantafillou, T. C.: Seismic Retrofitting of Structures with
Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. Progress in Structural Engineer-
ing & Materials, 3(1), 2001, pp. 5765.
12. Wu, Y. F., Liu, T., Oehlers, D. J.: Fundamental principles that
govern retrofitting of reinforced concrete columns by steel
and FRP jacketing. Adv Struct Eng, 9(4), 2006, pp. 507533.
13. Ma, Y., Che, Y., Gong, J. X.: Behavior of corrosion damaged
circular reinforced concrete columns under cyclic loading.
Constr Build Mater, 29, 2012, pp. 548556.
14. Tapan, M., Aboutaha, R. S.: Effect of steel corrosion and loss
of concrete cover on strength of deteriorated RC columns.
Constr Build Mater, 25(5), 2011, pp. 25962603.
15. Lee, T. K., Chen, C. C., Pan, A. D. E., Hsiue, K. Y., Tsai, W.
M., Hwa, K.: Experimental evaluation of large circular RC
columns under pure compression. Struct Concrete, 14(1),
2013, pp. 6068.
16. Tapan, M., Aboutaha, R. S.: Strength evaluation of deterio-
rated RC bridge columns. J Bridge Eng, 13(3), 2008, pp.
226236.
Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3 363
Y. Zhao/D. Zhang/S. Shen/T. Ueda Axial loading capacity of concrete-jacketed RC columns with pre- and post-corrosion damage

17. Zeris, C., Batis, G., Mouloudakis, V., Marakis, J.: Accelerat- 36. Chalioris, C. E., Thermou, G. E., Pantazopoulou, S. J.: Be-
ed corrosion investigation of axially loaded reinforced con- haviour of rehabilitated RC beams with self-compacting
crete elements. Anti-Corros Method M, 61(4), 2014, pp. concrete jacketing Analytical model and test results. Con-
215223. str Build Mater, 55, 2014, pp. 257273.
18. Choe, D. E., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D., Haukaas, T.: Proba- 37. Xia, J., Jin, W. L., Zhao, Y. X., Li, L. Y.: Mechanical perfor-
bilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC mance of corroded steel bars in concrete. P I Civil Eng-Str B,
columns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Safe, 93(3), 166(5), 2013, pp. 235246.
2008, pp. 383393. 38. Xia, J., Jin, W. L., Li, L. Y.: Shear performance of reinforced
19. Beck, M., Burkert, A., Harnisch, J., Isecke, B., Osterminski, concrete beams with corroded stirrups in chloride environ-
K., Raupach, M., Schiel, P., Tian, W., Warkus, J.: Deteriora- ment.Corrosion Science,53(5), 2011, pp. 17941805.
tion model and input parameters for reinforcement corro- 39. Design Code for strengthening concrete structure, GB50367
sion. Structural Concrete, 13(2012), pp. 145155. (2006), China Association for Engineering Construction
20. Ettouney, M. M., Alampalli, S.: Infrastructure health in civil Standardization (English ed.).
engineering: Theory and components (vol. 1), CRC Press, 40. ASTMG1-03 (2011). Standardpracticeforpreparing,clean-
2011. ing,andevaluatingcorrosiontestspecimens, ASTM Interna-
21. Tastani, S. P., Pantazopoulou, S. J.: Experimental evaluation tional, West Conshohocken, PA.
of FRP jackets in upgrading RC corroded columns with sub- 41. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., Park, R.: Theoretical
standard detailing. Engineering structures, 26(6), 2004, pp. StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete. J Struct Eng
817829. ASCE, 114(8), 1988, pp. 18041826.
22. Pantazopoulou, S. J., Bonacci, J. F., Sheikh, S., Thomas, M. 42. Kong, F. K., Evans, R. H.: Reinforced and prestressed con-
D. A., Hearn, N.: Repair of corrosion-damaged columns with crete, 3rd ed., Chapman & Hall, London, 1987.
FRP wraps. Journal of composites for construction, 5(1), 43. Standard for durability assessment of concrete structures,
2001, pp. 311. CECS 220 (2007), China Association for Engineering Con-
23. Tastani, S., Pantazopoulou, S. J.: Recovery of seismic resist- struction Standardization (English ed.).
ance in corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete through FRP
jacketing. Intl. Journal of Materials & Product Technolo-
gy,23(34), 2005, pp. 389415.
24. Chai, Y. H.: An analysis of the seismic characteristics of
steel-jacketed circular bridge columns. Earthquake Eng
Struc, 25(2), 1996, pp. 149161.
25. Chai, Y. H., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F.: Analytical Model
for Steel-Jacketed RC Circular Bridge Columns. J Struct Eng Yuxi Zhao
ASCE, 120(8), 1994, pp. 23582376. Zhejiang University
26. Debaiky, A. S., Green, M. F., Hope, B. B.: Modeling of cor- Hangzhou, China
roded FRP-Wrapped reinforced concrete columns in axial yxzhao@zju.edu.cn
compression. Mod. Journal of Composites for Construction,
11(6), 2007, pp. 556564.
27. Li, J. H., Li, Y.: Experimental and Theoretical Study on the
Seismic Performance of Corroded RC Circular Columns
Strengthened With Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Polymers. Pol-
ym Compos, 22(8), 2014, pp. 653659.
28. Alcocer, S. M.: RC Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Dawei Zhang
Zhejiang University
Jacketing. J Struct Eng ASCE, 119(5), 1993, pp. 14131431.
Hangzhou, China
29. Rodriguez, M., Park, R.: Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced- dwzhang@zju.edu.cn
Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing. ACI Struct J,
91(2), 1994, pp. 150159.
30. Stoppenhagen, D. R., Jirsa, J. O., Wyllie, L. A.: Seismic Re-
pair and Strengthening of a Severely Damaged Concrete
Frame. ACI Struct J, 92(2), 1995, pp. 177187.
31. Hellesland, J., Green, R.: Tests of repaired reinforced con-
crete columns. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Shijun Shen
1972, pp. 770774. Zhejiang University
32. CEB-FIP Model Code 2010. Comit Euro-International du Hangzhou, China
Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010. sjshen_seu@163.com
33. ACI 318 Committee: Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. American
Concrete Institute, 2011, p. 503.
34. Design Code for strengthening concrete structure, GB50367
(2006), China Association for Engineering Construction
Standardization (English ed.). Tamon Ueda
35. Buyukkaragoz, A., Kopraman, Y.: Finite Element Analysis of Hokkaido University
Jacketed Square Cross Sectional Column under Axial Load. Sapporo, Japan
J Fac Eng Archit Gaz, 23(2), 2008, pp. 309315. ueda@eng.hokudai.ac.jp

364 Structural Concrete 17 (2016), No. 3