Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Behavior of large-scale columns strengthened with basalt

fiber-reinforced polymers sheets or bars and hybrid FRPs
L.M. Abd el-Hafez a, *, 1, Fatma R. Mahmoud b, 2, Naglaa G. Fahmy b, c, 3,
Yasser R. Tawfic a, 4
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, 61519 Minia, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Nahda University, Beni Suef 0822284688, Egypt
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology New Minia, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Basalt fiber-reinforced polymers (BFRP) have recently become a widely used material for
BFRP increasing the ultimate load capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) columns and improving their
Eccentric loading behavior throughout their entire life. So, an experimental program consisting of 19 large-scale RC
Strengthening
columns of low strength has been prepared to examine the behavior of strengthened RC columns
Fiber orientation
Cross-section
at all stages of loading. In this program, the columns were divided into two groups. The main
Absorbed energy parameters include the strengthening materials (BFRP wrap, BFRP bars, and carbon fiber rein­
forced polymers (CFRP) wrap), the strengthening techniques (fully or partially wrapping, the
number and direction of layers), the cross-sectional shapes (square, rectangular, and circular),
and the loading types (eccentric and concentric). The confinement of BFRP wraps significantly
improved the service load and the ultimate failure load. The hybrid systems achieved an adequate
level of confinement of the strengthened columns, increased the maximum load by 43.61 %, and
absorbed energy by 477.2 % compared to the control column. BFRP bars used as a near-surface
mounted material improved the behavior of the columns by up to 60 % and 411 % in maximum
load and absorbed energy, respectively. The ACI and ECP codes predicted good estimates for the
stress of columns strengthened with a single layer but underestimated for columns strengthened
with a single layer and BFRP bars. Based upon the existing test data, BFRP-RC is recommended.
Furthermore, this research can support using BFRPs as strengthening materials.

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete columns are the primary structures transferring the entire vertical loads and sometimes horizontal load of
structures to the soil, so their failure can result in the complete collapse of the buildings. Due to damage sustained during their service
lives, these individual structures might lose their strength and stiffness. Several RC structures need repairing or strengthening for many

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Lailah.soliman@mu.edu.eg (L.M. Abd el-Hafez).
1
Civil Engineering Department, professor of Reinforcement concrete structure, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
2
Civil Engineering Department, Demonstrator at Nahda University, BeniSuif, Egypt
3
Civil Engineering Department, Doctor at The Higher Institute for Engineering and Technology- El- minia and Nahda University, Minia Egypt
4
Civil Engineering Department, Head of the department and professor of Reinforcement concrete structure at Minia University, Minia, Egypt

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02125
Received 2 March 2023; Received in revised form 1 April 2023; Accepted 6 May 2023
Available online 7 May 2023
2214-5095/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Nomenclature

Pcr Cracking load

Pu Ultimate load
Pcc Load for confined column
Pucontrol Ultimate load for control column
Ac Total cross-sectional area of concrete
Ae Area of effectively confined zone in rectangular column
Ag Gross cross-sectional area of column
b Breadth of cross-section
h Depth of cross-section
ƒcc = ƒcuc Ultimate strength of the confined concrete
ƒco= ƒcu Unconfined ultimate concrete strength
ƒ1 Confinement pressure
k1 =ks Confinement effectiveness coefficient
n Number of layers of wrapping material
r Radius of rounded corner
t Thickness of FRP sheets
Efrp Elastic modulus of FRP in hoop direction
εfe Ultimate tensile strain of FRP
ρ 2r /b, corner radius ratio
γf Reducing factor of resistance of FRPs
Ec Young’s modulus of concrete
ν Apparent Poisson ratio

reasons, such as construction errors, environmental effects, and increased design load. The cost of repairing/strengthening a defective
building is substantially less than total demolishing and rebuilding, and the decision is affected by the total cost and time consumed
[1–5].
The most frequent strengthening methods for RC columns to boost their carrying capacity against axial loads and bending moments
are traditional methods (column section enlargement using reinforced concrete jackets or steel plate jacketing) and new methods
(fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs)) [6–9].
Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) have recently gained popularity due to their environmental and economic benefits [10]. FRPs are
manufactured from carbon, glass, aramid, and basalt, and they have many forms, such as woven fabrics, pultruded plates, and
reinforcement rebars [11–13], FRP materials have several advantages, such as a high strength-to-weight ratio, high corrosion resis­
tance, and, most importantly, ease of installation [14–19].
Many researchers have directed their research to study the effect of the RC columns’ cross-section shape on FRP-strengthened
columns’ ultimate load. Due to the FRP wrapping, the confinement of the RC columns increases the lateral pressure, consequently
increasing the ultimate load and ductility. Due to the four corners, the confinement effect on the square and rectangular columns is
lower than the circular cross-section of the FRP-strengthened columns [20,21]. According to the cross-section, the BFRP RC columns’
behavior improves as the columns’ shape changes from square to circular, as Sakol Suon et al. [22] and Hadi, et al. [23] have described.
Substituting rectangular and square columns with elliptical ones can reduce the stress concentration in the corners and increase
confinement ability. Following FRP wrapping, the axial load and simulated ductility of shape-modified columns significantly
improved. According to Suon et al. [22], the performance of BFRP confinement and load capacity in noncircular samples improves as
the corner radius increases. Arathi Krishna et al. [24] illustrate that failure occurs when the BFRP wrap is ruptured at the corners of the
noncircular columns. This problem is solved by creating a curved corner radius of at least 20 mm.
Not only its cross-sectional shape but strengthening techniques have also been studied in RC strengthening columns. In terms of
ultimate load, an investigation of partly FRP-confined RC columns with various strip gaps demonstrated that the CFRP fully wrapped
design outperformed the CFRP strips wrapped with the same volumetric ratio. The stress-strain curve in partly CFRP-confined concrete
exhibits a more obvious transition phase than fully wrapped columns [25,26]. The behavior of square R.C columns with inadequate
concrete at the top section and CFRP reinforcement was experimentally investigated by A. Abdel-Hay [27]. This study concluded that
partial strengthening of square columns with CFRP is allowable and results in satisfactory column carrying capacity.
Fiber orientation and the number of FRP layers are the two variables that significantly impact the moment-curvature behavior of
the RC columns. According to Krishna et al. [21], Mote and Jadhav [28], increasing the number of BFRP layers can improve the
behavior of RC columns by increasing confinement pressure. Waryosh, W.A, et al. [6] performed eccentric load tests on 12 square RC
columns. CFRP jackets with varying numbers and directions of layers (0◦ , 90◦ ) were used to strengthen the specimens. Compared to the
control columns, the strengthened columns substantially improved.
Corrosion of the steel reinforcements is a severe problem affecting the structural safety. Various FRPs are commonly used to repair
and strengthen RC elements [29–31]. Several researchers have studied the effects of using FRPs in a Near-Surface Mounted (NSM)
system. The load-carrying behavior of the strengthened structures is greatly influenced by the bond between the NSM FRP and concrete

2
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

[32–36]. ACI 440.2R [37] defines the NSM system as round, rectangular bars or plates fixed and bonded into concrete surface grooves.
It only considers FRPs in tension and discards the role of FRP bars and strips in direct compression concrete. Peng, et al. [38] tested 28
specimens, which consisted of concrete prisms and NSM CFRP manufactured strips, and the pull-out test was conducted on them. The
test results revealed that the bond performance of the interface between the NSM CFRP and concrete improved with the increase in
concrete strength. Due to their superior adhesion, BFRP bars (BFRP-B) have become more dependable than carbon and glass fibers [39,
40].
Despite the importance of strengthening techniques (hybrid FRP), researchers who have studied them are rare. Saravanan et al.
[41] illustrated that by adopting hybrid FRP roving, the columns’ strength achieves additional axial strength compared to other
samples. Sadeghian and Fillmore [42] investigated NSM GFRP bars in surface grooves and incorporated them in BFRP-Ws, significantly
improving the axial load, ductility, and strain performance. Sarafraz and Danesh [43] investigated the behavior of 7 square columns
retrofitted by NSM FRP and an additional CFRP jacket under axial compression and lateral cyclic loading. Tests showed a favorable
improvement in the flexural strength of columns.
Based on the above discussion, the investigation includes studies about large-scale columns, low column strength, and NSM FRP
bars and sheets for strengthening RC columns. These limitations motivated the authors to present this research. In this paper, 19 large-
scale columns are evaluated under eccentric or concentric loads to the point of failure. The parameters include the strengthening
materials (BFRP-W, BFRP-B, and CFRP-W), strengthening techniques, cross-sectional shapes (square, rectangular, and circular), and
load types (eccentric and concentric). Based upon the existing test data, BFRP-RC is recommended. Furthermore, this research can
support using BFRPs as strengthening materials.

2. Experimental program

In this study, 19 large-scale RC columns, of which three are square and have varying heights (two have a height of 1000 mm for
eccentric or concentric loads and one has a height of 2000 mm for an eccentric load), and 16 columns with a total height of 1500 mm
were cast with varying cross-sectional shapes: three rectangular, 10 square, and three circular columns. Additionally, rectangular
columns (170 mm × 240 mm), square columns (200 mm × 200 mm), and circular columns of 200 mm in diameter were tested.
Table 1 shows the testing scheme. All columns’ specimens have the same concrete strength and concrete cover. Square and rectangular
columns were reinforced longitudinally with four bars of high-grade steel with a diameter of 12 mm and grade 360/520, whereas
circular columns were reinforced longitudinally with six bars of high-grade steel with a diameter of 10 mm and grade 360/520, ac­
cording to ECP203–2020. All columns had transverse reinforcement of 6ø6/m. To resist local buckling, additional stirrups (3ø6) at the
ends of the column were added. Fig. 1 and 2 show the details of the column specimens.
The column specimens were divided into two groups according to the loading type. The first group contains nine eccentric square
columns, whereas the second group contains 10 axial columns with different cross-sections. Each group was divided into two cate­
gories (sub-group a, sub-group b). Sub-group a for the first group comprises of those columns confined with different strengthening
materials (BFRP-W and BFRP-W with CFRP-W) and strengthening techniques (fully wrapping with a different number and direction of

Table 1
Test Columns Details.
Group sub- Specimen Cross-section Height Aspect Strengthening Type of
group (mm) (mm) Ratio Loading
No. of BFRP No of layers- direction continuity
bars (Ø8mm) materials type

G1 a C1 200 × 200 1000 1 - - - - (e/

C2 1500 – - - - t = 0.25)
C3 2000 - - - -
C4 1500 - 1BFRP-W H Fully
C5 - 2BFRP-W H Fully
C6 - 1 BFRP-W 1 VH Fully Fully
BFRP-W
C7 - 1 BFRP-W 1 H Fully Fully
CFRP-W
b C8 - 1BFRP-W H Partialy-3
Strips
C9 - 1BFRP-W H Partialy-5
Strips
G2 a C10 200 × 200 1000 1 - - - - (e/t = 0)
C11 1500 – - - -
C12 1 - 1BFRP-W H Fully
C13 1 4 1BFRP-W H Fully
C14 170 × 240 1.41 - - - -
C15 1.41 - 1BFRP-W H Fully
C16 1.41 4 1BFRP-W H Fully
b C17 D 200 - - - - -
C18 - - 1BFRP-W H Fully
C19 - 4 1BFRP-W H Fully

3
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement of the columns.

Fig. 2. Reinforcement of the columns.

layers (horizontal (H) or vertical (V)), regarding the axis perpendicular to the column axis), while sub-group b comprises of the
columns confined with BFRP partial wrapping. Sub-group a for the second group comprises of the rectangular and square columns
confined using different strengthening materials (BFRP-W and BFRP-W with BFPR-B), while sub-group b comprises of the circular
columns confined using different strengthening materials (BFRP-W and BFRP-W with BFPR-B). Table 1 shows the details of the
experimental plan.

4
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

2.1. Material properties

2.1.1. Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) Grade 42.5 is used with a specific gravity of 3.15. The initial and final setting times are 95, and
215 min, respectively.

2.1.2. Aggregate
Local quarries supplied the fine and coarse aggregates. The sand has a specific gravity of 2.5, whereas the coarse aggregate has a
specific gravity and a maximum nominal size of 2.51 and 20 mm, respectively. To obtain the grading of aggregates, a sieve analysis test
was performed, as shown in Table 2.

2.1.3. Water
Tap water is used for the concrete mix with a water/cement ratio of 0.55.

2.1.4. Material properties used in strengthening

Various types of fiber were used, such as BFRP-W, CFRP-W, and BFRP-B, as shown in Fig. (3). Table (3) summarizes the mechanical
and physical properties of FRP materials and epoxy resins.

2.2. Concrete

The concrete mix was designed by the traditional method to achieve compressive stress 22 MPa after 28 days. To obtain
compressive strength, various mixes were prepared and tested in the Laboratory of Concrete Research and Material Properties at Minia
University. The proportions by weight of the considered mix and the result of cube compression test at 28 days are shown in Table (4).

2.3. Casting columns

Noncircular samples are cast using wooden molds with a 20 mm corner radius. For columns of Group 2 to make the grooves for
NSM BFRP bars, 1500-mm long wooden rods with 20 mm × 20 mm cross-sections are adhered to the inner surface of the column, as
shown in Fig. (4). The reinforcement was placed in the formwork with a 20 mm concrete cover, and the columns were molded
vertically, simulating nature. All the 19 RC columns and the control specimens (6 cubes, 3 cylinder &3 prisms) were casted at same
time. All the casted columns and control specimens were curried.

2.4. Strengthening procedure

The columns were strengthened by different methods as follows:

2.4.1. Wrapping of the FRP sheets

In the case of a fully wrapped column with one layer, the surface was first cleaned and roughed. The epoxy resin coating was then
placed over the concrete surface. The fiber sheet was then wrapped over that surface. The sheet was then coated again, including the
overlap. While in the case where the column was fully wrapped with two layers of BFRP/CFRP, the same steps were repeated, but the
BFPR layer was wrapped first, then the epoxy layer, then the CFRP layer, and finally the epoxy resin layer. For a fully wrapped column
with two layers of vertical and horizontal BFRP, the strengthening was carried out in the same steps, but the column was wrapped first
vertically, then horizontally. For a partially wrapped column, the same steps were made, but only after roughing and cleaning was the
height of the strips which was to be used on the column determined.

2.4.2. Mounting of the BFRP bars

The grooves are cleaned and partially filled with epoxy resin, and after a strain gauge is fixed at the chosen location, the BFRP bars
are placed in the middle of the groove. After seven days, the samples are confined to one layer of the BFRP sheet. In this study, an
additional 100 mm-long overlapping zone is used to prevent the BFRP sheet from debonding during the test. Furthermore, a 100-mm
strip of BFPR sheet is attached to prevent local failure at the ends of the columns. Fig. (5) shows the strengthened columns.

2.5. Instrumentation and test setup

The test rig at the structure’s laboratory at Helwan College’s research center is used to investigate the column specimens under

Table 2
Grading of the aggregate used.
Sieve size (mm) 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.8 1.4 0.71 0.3 0.18

% Passing for dolomite 100 91.52 28.44 1.06 — — — — —

% Passing for sand — — 100 97.8 93.4 83.9 57.1 26.9 2.3

5
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 3. Strengthening materials.

Table 3
Mechanical characteristics of FRP and epoxy materials.
Type of fiber Density (g/cm3) Thickness/Diameter (mm) Tensile strength (Mpa) Elastic modulus (Gpa) Elongation at break (%)

BFRP wrap 2.8 0.11 2100.0 90.0 2.8

BFRP bars 2.0: 2.1 8.00 1100.0 58.0 2.4
CFRP wrap 1.82 0. 129 4000.0 230.0 1.7
Sikadur®330 – – 40.5 4.5 0.9

Table 4
Weight of concrete mix/m3 and test results of concrete.
Cement ContentKg Fine aggregate (Sand) Kg Coarse aggregate (Dolomite) Kg Water/cement ƒcu Mpa ƒt Mpa

300 798 599 599 55% 22 1.85

ƒcu = compressive strength Mpa, ƒt = tensile strength Mpa

Fig. 4. (a) Form to make grooves, (b) form to make corner radius mm.

eccentric or concentric loads, as demonstrated in (Fig. 6). The load is applied using a hydraulic actuator of 1500 KN. The strains,
eccentric load, axial load, axial displacement, and lateral displacement were all measured. Two strain gauges with a length of 60 mm
(PL-60–11) are used to measure axial and lateral control specimens’ strains. One horizontal strain gauge with a length of 10 mm (PFL-
10–11) is applied to the BFRP-W and CFRP-W and one vertical strain gauge is applied to the BFRP-B. The strain gauge is fixed at the
mid-height of the specimens (Fig. 6). Two horizontal linear variant-different transformers (LVDTs) are placed at the mid-height of two
direction to record lateral deformations, and one LVDT is fixed vertically at the top of column to record axial deformations.
A loading cap, a steel cap made of high-grade steel in given dimensions, is fabricated to evaluate the samples under eccentric loads
(Fig. 7).

3. Test results and discussion

3.1. Crack patterns and failure modes

Fig. 8(a) shows the failure modes of unconfined concrete columns. The control concrete columns were studied under an eccentric
load or axial load which collapsed due to crushing the concrete at the bottom of the columns to the third-height part due to stress
concentrations. For reference columns, despite concentration stirrups at the column’s ends to obtain more confinement for concrete to

6
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 5. Strengthening RC column with FRP.

Loading sell
Loading cap
LVDT
LVDT
LVDT

LVDT
Strain gauge
Strain gauge

Column specimen
Loading cap

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Test setup for specimens: (a) eccentric loading; (b) concentric loading.

Fig. 7. Cap loading mechanism. (a) Plan view; (b) Section A-A.

7
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

avoid this failure, local failure might be due to low compressive concrete (22 Mpa). This is similar to Raval and Dave [21]. All confined
concrete columns with FRP jackets fail by fracturing around the third bottom length (Fig. 8(b) and (c)). Failure occurs in weak areas
with no confinement when partially warped, resulting in concrete loss, whereas failure occurs in the fiber when fully warped.
The strengthened columns with BFRP sheet and bars were shown to experience local failure at the column’s load application. This
finding can be attributed to the column head’s inability to resist the column’s increased load capacity due to strengthening. Similar to
the BFRP-bound circular, square, and rectangular concrete samples of Sakol et al. [22], this study’s square and rectangular columns
demonstrate that using radius corners in square and rectangular columns results in similar performance for the three cross-sections. At
the bottom of the specimens, BFRP columns and concrete crashed to the third-height part. The BFRP sheets are removed from the

Fig. 8. Failure types of BFRP RC columns.

8
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

concrete surface following the destruction of the column’s core. All analyzed columns have the same failure type: BFRP sheets turned
light in color with white network particles, reflecting resin and concrete cracking, and clicking sounds were heard, indicating BFRP
sheet stretching and epoxy resin cracking. The final failure occurs suddenly with an explosive sound.

3.2. Cracking and ultimate loads

Fig. 9 and Table 5 show the ultimate and cracking loads of the tested columns. Fig. 9(a) shows that eccentric loading decreases the
column’s load capacity and effectiveness due to the nonuniform confined stress caused by the strain gradient. C1, C2, and C3 are three
square columns with different heights set as reference groups. The reference group’s objective is to attain a suitable height to avoid size
effects. C1, C2, and C3 have slenderness ratios of 5, 7.5, and 10, respectively. According to the code, the three columns are classified as
short columns. Fig. 9(b) shows that the maximum loads are 322 KN, 284 KN, and 273 KN; therefore, 1500 mm should be used. By
wrapping the column with one BFRP layer, the load bearing capacity increases by 19.75 % compared to the control column. The
increased number of BFRP-W layers improved the maximum load of C5 (confined column with a fully 2 H layer) and C6 (confined
column with a fully 1H1V layer) by approximately 36.44 % and 31.63 %, respectively, due to the increase in confinement (Fig. 9(c)).
Compared to the control column, the maximum load for hybrid BFRP/CFRP confinement is approximately 43.61 %. The findings
indicate that column C7 achieved the highest significant increase in the ultimate load, correlating with Jingting et al. [44]. Overall, the
hybrid system of lateral BFRP/CERP wrapping enhances the concrete column’s performance. However, for partially warped columns,
the increase in maximum load for columns C8 and C9 is 5.24 % and 7.04 %, respectively; therefore, BFRP when fully wrapped is more
significant than the strips wrapped in applied loads due to the increase in the column’s confinement, aligning with the findings of [25,
45].
Furthermore, Fig. 10 shows the effect of the cross-section aspect ratio for different strengthening techniques. When the aspect ratio
increases, the strength of the BFRP-confined concrete decreases. Table 3 shows that the increase in bearing capacity for noncircular
columns C12 and C15 is 23.99 % and 21.50 %, whereas, for circular column C18, it is 33.20 % compared with controlling the same
cross-section, which agrees with the findings of Hua-Xin et al. [46]. Fig. 10 demonstrates that FRP-Ws effectively extend the influence
of the NSM bars, increasing the maximum load by up to 60.00 %. The results show that using NSM improves the behavior of the tested
specimens (one characteristic of compression failure) once cracking and failure occur. Simultaneously, FRP makes specific

Fig. 9. Effects of different parameters on the load capacity of tested columns.

9
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Table 5
Summary of this study’s experimental testing results.
Specimen Pcr Pu % Increase in Pcr Strain% at Displacement at Absorbed Energy %Increase in Absorbed
(KN) (KN) Pu Pu Maximum Load Maximum Load (KN.mm) Energy
(mm)

Axial Lateral Axial Lateral

G1 C1 309.1 322.0 - 0.96 0.23 0.25 2.05 3.13 - -

C2 255.6 284.0 - 0.90 0.206 0.20 4.49 5.53 972.9 -
C3 240.0 273.0 - 0.88 0.165 0.143 4.26 6.28 - -
C4 252.5 340.5 19.75 % 0.73 - 0.74 6.38 8.09 1827.3 87.8 %
C5 290.8 387.5 36.44 % 0.75 - 0.89 11.07 11.49 3363.9 245.7 %
C6 332.7 374.1 31.73 % 0.89 - 0.77 9.48 10.17 3072.4 215.8 %
C7 326.32 407.9 43.63 % 0.80 - 0.93 13.12 13.93 4667.5 379.7 %
C8 265.9 298.9 5.24 % 0.88 - 0.46 7.19 6.75 1755.9 80.5 %
C9 271.1 304.6 7.04 % 0.89 - 0.66 7.58 6.84 1799.9 84.9 %
G2 C10 430.3 489.03 - 0.88 0.25 0.044 3.54 1.13 - -
C11 388.36 473.61 - 0.82 0.28 0.052 5.01 2.12 1112.1 -
C12 416.92 587.21 23.99 % 0.71 - 1.03 5.61 3.61 1876.8 83.21 %
C13 457.95 683.5 44.3 % 0.67 a* 1.69 13.98 7.77 5688.9 411.56 %
C14 398.4 468.7 - 0.85 0.29 0.056 4.54 1.68 1024.4 -
C15 449.91 569.5 21.50 % 0.79 - 1.14 6.37 2.08 1803.9 62.21 %
C16 449.8 661.4 41.11 % 0.68 0.31 1.33 15.44 6.30 5172.3 404.94 %
C17 314.5 393.16 - 0.80 0.31 0.064 5.89 1.99 982.7 -
C18 419.58 537.93 33.2 % 0.78 - 0.89 7.02 2.59 1676.8 70.63 %
C19 320.74 628.9 60.0 % 0.51 0.48 1.08 12.36 5.53 4364.3 344.11 %

* The axial strain gauge of column C13 is unfortunately damaged.

confinement to contain and prevent the crack, which is demonstrated by the light color of the white matrix particles and clicking
sounds.

3.3. Load–displacement behavior

Fig. 11 shows the axial and lateral displacement versus load curves for BFRP RC columns. The load–axial displacement curve
demonstrates the control column (C2) behavior, represented by initial linear stiffness up to the ultimate load. Simultaneously,
strengthening does not improve the axial deformation for C4 (confined column with a full one layer), C6 (confined column with a fully
1H1V layer), C8 (confined column with partially three strips), and C9 (confined column with partial five strips), which has the same
behavior as the control column but with an increase in the ultimate load. However, column C5 (confined column with a fully 2 H layer)
and column C7 (confined column with a fully 1 H layer basalt and 1 H layer carbon) divide the behavior into three stages, where the
confinement does not improve the initial stiffness, compared with the control column but changes the deformation up to the point of
failure.
For the load-lateral displacement, all columns slightly improve during the initial stiffness stage. For the post-cracking stage, col­
umns C4, C8, and C9 have the same behavior as the control column C2, which does not show a post-cracking stage with an increase in
the ultimate load. However, columns C5, C6, and C7 improve the deformation up to failure.
Table 5 lists the experimental maximum axial and lateral displacements at the maximum load. For fully wrapped columns, the axial
and lateral displacements increase by up to 65.7 % and 60.3 %, respectively. However, the axial and lateral displacements also increase
by up to 54% and 45% for partially warped columns, respectively.

Fig. 10. Effect of aspect ratio on the load capacity of tested columns.

10
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 11. Load–displacement Diagram for G1.

Fig. 12. Load–displacement diagram for G2.

11
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 12 shows the axial and lateral displacements versus load curves for BFRP RC columns with different aspect ratios. A variance
occurs in the deformation behavior for control columns of different cross-sectional shapes. Fig. 12 shows that the confinement de­
creases with an increase in aspect ratio at the same load. However, the test results show that using radius corners in rectangular and
square columns resulted in a similar version for the two cross-sections. Circular columns are typically predicted to have superior
performance to rectangular and square columns based on their unconfined columns. All columns slightly improve in the initial stiffness
stage, where confinement does not improve the initial stiffness compared to the unconfined column but changes the deformation up to
failure.

3.4. Strain in FRP materials

The control columns’ axial and lateral strains were measured, whereas, for the BFRP columns, only the lateral strain was measured.
Fig. (13) shows the relationship between concrete load and strain. The axial strain gauge of column C13 was unfortunately damaged
during the test. Load–strain curves are typically separated into two phases, with a minor transition area between them. The curves have
near-linear behavior in the first stage. The confined column’s rigidity is similar to the control column’s, indicating that FRP wraps do
not influence confinement. After the linear section, a transition zone occurred, leading to the nonlinear portion of the curve. In the
second stage, a parabolic branch appears. Except for the hybrid confined sample C7, the strain-hardening reaction can be seen in all
columns’ load–strain curves, showing an evident descending branch.
Due to using radius corners in square and rectangular sections, the effect of BFRP confinement is significant for various cross-
sections in comparison to the control columns (Fig. 14). The results show that the rectangular cross-sections demonstrate the best
behavior for lateral strain compared to the square with a similar area, correlating with the results from the study by Ravala and Dave
[21]. The BFRP NSM-wrap altered the columns’ performance, increasing both strains due to the increase in bearing capacity. Using
BFRP-Ws and BFRP-B affects the NSM columns’ behavior and stiffness. Slight decreases in the curves of NSM-wrapped specimens show
that at least one NSM bar was crushed during the experiments, which was followed by noise. The specimens resist crushing until more
NSM bars are damaged, and the FRP wrap finally breaks in the hoop direction (Fig. 14). The FRP wrap is more effective on FRP columns
than on control columns of the same cross-sectional shape.

3.5. Absorbed energy

The absorbed energy of the tested columns is determined by calculating the area under the curve until the maximum load is
achieved. Fig. 15 compares the absorbed energy of G1 and G2. The figure shows that using BFRP-W and BFRP-B improved the columns’
absorbed energy significantly, up to 411 %. Table 4 shows that the increase in the absorbed energy is 83.21 %, 62.21 %, and 70.63 %
for columns C12, C15, and C18, respectively.

4. Analytical estimation of the strength of confined RC columns

Table 6 provides different equations of practice codes that other authors used to predict the compressive strength of strengthened
RC columns. Table 7 summarizes the comparison between the ultimate analytical strength and ultimate experimental stresses. Stresses
were calculated based on the elastic strain along the section; therefore, the gross area was considered in the calculations. For one-layer
strengthening columns, all of the equations from different codes produce reasonable failure stress results, and other authors under­
estimate the failure stresses by a minor value, with theoretical strength to experimental stress ratios ranging from 0.77 to 0.99. While
for column strengthening with a single layer and BFRP bars, all the equations underestimate the failure stresses by a major value, of
which the ratio of theoretical strength to experimental stress ranges from 0.66 to 0.80. In these models, the effect of BFRP bars was not
directly considered in the calculation.
Table (8) shows the bending moment capacity of the investigated columns. The experimental bending moment for eccentric
columns was calculated according to Eq. (1). While the analytical bending moment was calculated in two steps. First step, calculate
according to ECP208 [47]; then the second step, use the interaction diagram according to ECP203 [51]. From Table 5, it can be clearly
seen that the model of ECP 208 slightly overestimate the ultimate load and bending moment. In this model, the effect of partial warp
was not directly considered, so for C8 and C9, the load and moment were not calculated for them.
M=P×e (1)

5. Summary and conclusions

BFRP in two forms (wrap and bars) or hybrid FRPs (BFRP/CFRP), fully or partially wrapped strengthening techniques, the number
of strengthening material layers, and specimen cross-sections were investigated on columns evaluated under different loads. The
following conclusions are made from the analyses.

1. Strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) columns with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) can improve their behavior by
increasing energy absorption, with up to 5.5 times more than unconfined ones, and enhancing crack propagation.
2. In the case of eccentric loads, increasing the number of BFRP-W layers can boost the maximum load capacity. For instance,
compared to a control column, adding one horizontal BFRP layer, two horizontal BFRP layers, or one horizontal and one vertical

12
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 13. Load vs. strain behavior for eccentric BFRP columns.

Fig. 14. Load vs. strain behavior of tested columns.

BFRP layer can increase the bearing capacity by approximately 19.75 %, 36.44 %, and 31.63 %, respectively. Furthermore,
partially wrapped columns show an approximately 20 % improvement in ultimate load compared to fully wrapped ones.
3. For concentric loads, using 20 mm radius corners in elliptical columns with BFRP confinement can enhance their load bearing
capacity. In noncircular columns, the increase is approximately 23.99 %, while in circular columns, it is approximately 33.20%
compared to a control column.

13
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Fig. 15. Absorbed Energy for BFRP Columns.

Table 6
Equations used to predict the strength of the confined materials.
Models Ultimate stress Cross section Type of load

ACI440.2R-28 fccfc0 = 2.2541 + 7.94Ksf1/fc0 − 2Ksf1/fc0 − 1.254 fI= 2Efrpεjt2bℎ/(b+ℎ) Circular Square Axial load
[37] Ks=I− b− 2r2 + ℎ− 2r23(bℎ− 4 − πr2) r is the corner radius εj= 0.004 < 20.75εfrp Rectangular Eccentric load
ECP 208–2020 fcuc=fcu1 + 9.875f1fcu − 2.5f1fcu− 1.25 f1 =μfEfεfe2γf f1 =KeμfEfεfe2γf Circular Square Axial load
[47] Rectangular Eccentric load
Berthet, et al. fcc′=fco′+K1.f1u f1u=tr Efεfu Circular Axial load
model[48]
Wu and Wang fcc′fco′= 1 + 2.23ρ0.73f1fco′0.96 fI= 2Efrpεjtb Circular Sharp Axial load
model[49] Square
Gian et al. model fcc,rect=fco+K1.f1,rect f1,rect= 2EcEftfεl25EcLx+ 12Eftf(5 +2ν)+ 2EcEftfεl25EcLy+ 12Eftf Square Rectangular Axial load
[50] (5 +2ν)
Hua, et al. model fcc′fco= 1 + 2.2(2rb)− 0.82(f1fco)1.53(ℎb)− 1.98 fI= 2Efrpεjtb Square Rectangular Axial load
[46]

*The meaning of this symbol can be obtained in the appendix at the end of the paper.

4. BFRP-B used as near-surface mounted (NSM) material in conjunction with externally bonded BFRP-W can significantly improve the
behavior of tested specimens under concentric loads, with an increase of up to 60.00 %.
5. BFRP can enhance the stiffness of the load-displacement curve in the post-cracking stage but does not affect the initial stage.
6. Several analytical equations from different codes (American and Egyptian codes) and authors (J.F. Berthet et al., Wu, Y.F., and
Wang, L.M., Gian et al., and Hua et al.) were used to estimate the capacity of BFRP-strengthened columns. For columns with single
layer strengthening, all the equations from different codes provide reasonable failure stress results, while other authors under­
estimate them by a minor value. However, for columns strengthened with a single layer and BFRP bars, the failure stresses are
underestimated by a major value.

Funding

Not applicable.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

All authors effectively contributed to this study, and the final form was approved, Laila was responsible for submission, corre­
spondence with the journal, and preparing the revised paper. In addition, Laila proposed the research point, analyzed the results,
prepared the figures, and wrote the paper, Fatma prepared the specimens, and prepared the steel caps, tested the materials, tested the
specimens, prepared the draft charts, prepared the results, and shared in writing the draft paper, Yasser Supervision, reviewed the
research plan, reviewed the test setup, and reviewed the paper, Naglaa Supervision, reviewed the research plan, reviewed the test
setup, and reviewed the paper.

14
 L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al.
Table 7
Comparison Between Predicted and Experimental Results.
Specimen ƒexp ACI440.2R-28 ECP 208 J.F. Berthet et al. model Wu and Wang model Gian et al. model Widiarsa and Hadi model.

ƒthe fthe ƒthe fthe ƒthe fthe ƒthe fthe ƒthe fthe ƒthe fthe
fexp fexp fexp fexp fexp fexp
15

C12 12.74 11.795 0.93 11.55 0.91 Not used in square — Not used in square — 10.42 0.82 10.89 0.86
C13 15.89 11.795 0.74 11.55 0.73 Not used in square —— Not used in square —— 10.42 0.66 10.89 0.69
C15 11.28 11.19 0.99 10.96 0.97 Not used in rectangular — Not used in rectangular — 9.86 0.87 10.15 0.9
C16 13.93 11.19 0.80 10.96 0.79 Not used in rectangular —— Not used in rectangular —— 9.86 0.71 10.15 0.73
C18 14.5 12.72 0.88 12.32 0.85 11.58 0.8 11.22 0.77 Not used in circular — Not used in circular —
C19 16.36 12.72 0.78 12.32 0.75 11.58 0.71 11.22 0.69 Not used in circular —— Not used in circular ——

Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

Table 8
Comparison of experimental bending moment and the analytical value.
Specimen Pexp (kN) Mexp (KN.m) ECP 208–2020[28]

Pthe (kN) Mthe (KN.m) Pthe

Pexp

C4 340.5 17.03 392.8 19.64 1.15

C5 387.5 19.38 406.4 20.32 1.04
C6 374.1 18.71 406.4 20.32 1.09
C7 407.9 20.4 425.7 21.29 1.04
C8 298.9 14.95 —— — –
C9 304.6 15.23 —— — —

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

References

[1] N. Al-Akhras, M. Al-Mashraqi, Repair of corroded self-compacted reinforced concrete columns loaded eccentrically using carbon fiber reinforced polymer, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 14 (2021), e00476.
[2] M.A.L. Silva, J.C.P.H. Gamage, S. Fawzia, Performance of slab-column connections of flat slabs strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymers, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 11 (2019), e00275.
[3] A.M. El-Kholy, H.A. Dahish, Improved confinement of reinforced concrete columns, Ain Shams Eng. J. 7 (2) (2016) 717–728.
[4] H.A. Mesbah, R. Benzaid, Damage-based stress-strain model of RC cylinders wrapped with CFRP composites, Adv. Concr. Constr. 5 (5) (2017) 539.
[5] A. Parvin, D. Brighton, FRP composites strengthening of concrete columns under various loading conditions, Polymers 6 (4) (2014) 1040–1056.
[6] W.A. Waryosh, M.M. Rasheed, A.H. AL-musawi, Experimental study of reinforced concrete columns strengthened with CFRP under eccentric loading, J. Eng.
Dev. 16 (3) (2012).
[7] D. Shen, Y. Jiao, M. Li, C. Liu, W. Wang, Behavior of a 60-year-old reinforced concrete box beam strengthened with basalt fiber-reinforced polymers using steel
plate anchorage, J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 19 (11) (2021) 1100–1119.
[8] D. Shen, X. Zeng, J. Zhang, B. Zhou, A.W. Wang, Behavior of RC box beam strengthened with basalt FRP using end anchorage with grooving, J. Compos. Mater.
53 (23) (2019) 3307–3324.
[9] A. Mohamed Sayed, M. Mohamed Rashwan, M. Emad Helmy, Experimental behavior of cracked reinforced concrete columns strengthened with reinforced
concrete jacketing, Materials 13 (12) (2020) 2832.
[10] P. Jain, B., K. Bansal, A. Sharma, Efficiency of strengthening RC column with different slenderness ratio using basalt fabric, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Comput. 9 (2019)
19575–19578.
[11] H.L. Wang, Y.H. Zhong, Research status and proposals of basalt fiber reinforced concrete, Adv. Mater. Res. 834 (2014) 730–737 (Trans Tech Publications Ltd).
[12] M. Li, D. Shen, Q. Yang, X. Cao, C. Liu, J. Kang, Rehabilitation of seismic-damaged reinforced concrete beam-column joints with different corrosion rates using
basalt fiber-reinforced polymer sheets, Compos. Struct. 289 (2022), 115397.
[13] P. Štěpánek, I. Laníková, P. Simunek, P. Sulak, The strengthening of reinforced concrete structures, Key Eng. Mater. 738 (2017) 238–248 (Trans Tech
Publications Ltd.).
[14] J.F. Berthet, E. Ferrier, P. Hamelin, Compressive behavior of concrete externally confined by composite jackets. Part A: experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater.
19 (3) (2005) 223–232.
[15] S.C. Das, M. Nizam, Applications of fiber reinforced polymer composites (FRP) in civil engineering, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. 3 (3) (2014) 299–309.
[16] D. Shen, M. Li, Q. Yang, C. Wen, C. Liu, J. Kang, X. Cao, Seismic performance of earthquake-damaged corroded reinforced concrete beam-column joints
retrofitted with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer sheets, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. (2022) 1–17.
[17] D. Shen, M. Li, C. Liu, J. Kang, C. Li, J. Yang, Seismic performance of corroded reinforced concrete beam-column joints repaired with BFRP sheets, Constr. Build.
Mater. 307 (2021), 124731.
[18] D. Shen, M. Li, J. Kang, C. Liu, C. Li, Experimental studies on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column joints strengthened with basalt fiber-
reinforced polymer sheets, Constr. Build. Mater. 287 (2021), 122901.
[19] D. Shen, Q. Yang, Y. Jiao, Z. Cui, J. Zhang, Experimental investigations on reinforced concrete shear walls strengthened with basalt fiber-reinforced polymers
under cyclic load, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 217–229.
[20] A. Parvin, D. Brighton, FRP composites strengthening of concrete columns under various loading conditions, Polymers 6 (4) (2014) 1040–1056.
[21] R. Raval, U. Dave, Behavior of GFRP wrapped RC Columns of different shapes, Procedia Eng. 51 (2013) 240–249.
[22] S. Suon, S. Saleem, A. Pimanmas, Compressive behavior of basalt FRP-confined circular and non-circular concrete specimens, Constr. Build. Mater. 195 (2019)
85–103.
[23] M.N. Hadi, T.M. Pham, X. Lei, New method of strengthening reinforced concrete square columns by circularizing and wrapping with fiber-reinforced polymer or
steel straps, J. Compos. Constr. 17 (2) (2013) 229–238.
[24] Arathi Krishna, M. Jacob, K.R. Mohan, Experimental study on strengthening of RC short columns with BFRP sheets, Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7 (2018) 48–52.

16
L.M. Abd el-Hafez et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02125

[25] J. Yang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, Axial compressive behavior of partially CFRP confined seawater sea-sand concrete in circular columns–Part I: experimental study,
Compos. Struct. 246 (2020), 112373.
[26] W. Wang, M.N. Sheikh, A.Q. Al-Baali, M.N. Hadi, Compressive behavior of partially FRP confined concrete: experimental observations and assessment of the
stress-strain models, Constr. Build. Mater. 192 (2018) 785–797.
[27] A.S. Abdel-Hay, Partial strengthening of RC square columns using CFRP, HBRC Journal 10 (3) (2014) 279–286.
[28] A.P. Mote, H.S. Jadhav, Experimental study of axially loaded RC short columns strengthened with basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) sheets, Int. J. Eng. Res.
Appl. 4 (7) (2014) 89–92.
[29] M.A. Muhammad, F.R. Ahmed, Evaluation of deflection and flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams with glass fiber reinforced polymer bars, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. (2023), e01855.
[30] S. Yinh, Q. Hussain, P. Joyklad, P. Chaimahawan, W. Rattanapitikon, S. Limkatanyu, A. Pimanmas, Strengthening effect of natural fiber reinforced polymer
composites (NFRP) on concrete, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021), e00653.
[31] Z. Xiang, J. Wang, J. Niu, J. Zhou, J. Wang, Axial compressive responses of concrete canvas and CFRP reinforced corroded concrete short columns, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 17 (2022), e01661.
[32] O. Aljidda, A. El Refai, W. Alnahhal, Comparative study on the bond performance of near-surface mounted fiber-reinforced polymer bars, Constr. Build. Mater.
364 (2023), 129923.
[33] W.K.K.G. Kalupahana, T.J. Ibell, A.P. Darby, Bond characteristics of near surface mounted CFRP bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 58–68.
[34] L. De Lorenzis, J.G. Teng, Near-surface mounted FRP reinforcement: an emerging technique for strengthening structures, Compos. Part B: Eng. 38 (2) (2007)
119–143.
[35] J. Gómez, L. Torres, C. Barris, Characterization and simulation of the bond response of NSM FRP reinforcement in concrete, Materials 13 (7) (2020) 1770.
[36] H. Maljaee, B. Ghiassi, P.B. Lourenço, Bond behavior in NSM-strengthened masonry, Eng. Struct. 166 (2018) 302–313.
[37] Soudki, K., & Alkhrdaji, T. (2005). Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures (ACI 440.2 R-
02). In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond. pp. 1–8.
[38] H. Peng, H. Hao, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, C.S. Cai, Experimental investigation of the bond behavior of the interface between near-surface-mounted CFRP strips and
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 96 (2015) 11–19.
[39] E. Monaldo, F. Nerilli, G. Vairo, Basalt-based fiber-reinforced materials and structural applications in civil engineering, Compos. Struct. 214 (2019) 246–263.
[40] H.A. Mesbah, R. Benzaid, Damage-based stress-strain model of RC cylinders wrapped with CFRP composites, Adv. Concr. Constr. 5 (5) (2017) 539.
[41] S. Saravanan, N. Sakthieswaran, B.G. Shiny, A study on hybrid FRP wrapped axially loaded RC capsule column, Int. J. Res. Advent Technol. 3 (2015) 94–98.
[42] Sadeghian, P., & Fillmore, B. (2018, April). A hybrid composite system for strengthening concrete columns. In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2018.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
[43] M.E. Sarafraz, F. Danesh, New technique for flexural strengthening of RC columns with NSM FRP bars, Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (2) (2012) 151–161.
[44] J. Huang, T. Li, D. Zhu, P. Gao, A. Zhou, Compressive behavior of circular and square concrete column externally confined by different types of basalt
fiber–reinforced polymer, Adv. Struct. Eng. 23 (8) (2020) 1534–1547.
[45] M. Samak, E. Lotfy, M. Ahmed, Strengthening of short RC columns By FRP jackets, Int. J. Innov. Eng. Technol. (IJIET) 10 (2018) 51–64.
[46] H.X. Liu, G.J. Liu, X.Z. Wang, X.Q. Kong, Effect of cross-sectional aspect ratio and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer-confined number on axial compression
behavior of short columns, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 34 (10) (2015) 782–794.
[47] ECP 208 , 2009, Egyptian code of practice for design principles of the use of fiber reinforced polymers in construction, Permanent committee, Code No. 208,
Cairo, Egypt.
[48] J.F. Berthet, E. Ferrier, P. Hamelin, Compressive behavior of concrete externally confined by composite jackets: Part B: modeling, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (5)
(2006) 338–347.
[49] Y.F. Wu, L.M. Wang, Unified strength model for square and circular concrete columns confined by external jacket, J. Struct. Eng. 135 (3) (2009) 253–261.
[50] G.P. Lignola, A. Prota, G. Manfredi, Simplified modeling of rectangular concrete cross-sections confined by external FRP wrapping, Polymers 6 (4) (2014)
1187–1206.
[51] ECP 203 , 2020. Egyptian code for design and construction of concrete structures, Code No. 203, Cairo, Egypt.

17