13 views

Uploaded by Julio Humberto Díaz Rondán

save

You are on page 1of 13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

**Construction and Building Materials
**

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

**Interaction diagram methodology for design of FRP-conﬁned reinforced
**

concrete columns

Silvia Rocca a,*, Nestore Galati a, Antonio Nanni b,c

a

**Structural Group Inc., Strengthening Division, Hanover, MD, USA
**

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

c

Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 8 March 2007

Received in revised form 22 October 2007

Accepted 25 June 2008

Available online 8 August 2008

CE database subject headings:

Bending

Columns

Compression

Conﬁnement

Design

Ductility

FRP

Interaction diagram

Reinforced concrete

Strengthening

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents a procedure that allows the construction of a simpliﬁed axial load – bending moment

interaction diagram for FRP-wrapped Reinforced Concrete (RC) columns of circular and non-circular

cross-sections for practical design applications. In the proposed methodology, the analysis of FRP-conﬁned columns is carried out based on principles of equilibrium and strain compatibility equivalent to that

of conventional RC columns, the primary difference being the use of the stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete developed by Lam and Teng. Based on the consideration that the strength enhancement is

of signiﬁcance in members where compression is the controlling failure mode, only the portion of the

interaction diagram corresponding to this type of failure is the focus of the methodology. Experimental

evidence from RC specimens with a minimum side dimension of 300 mm (12 in.) and subjected to combined axial compression and ﬂexure was collected and compared to the theoretical interaction diagrams.

Even though limited experimentation has been conducted in the compression-controlled region for such

type of members, data points appear to be consistent with the analytical predictions. A design method for

RC members is therefore proposed following the principles of the ACI building code.

Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Columns are structural members subjected to combinations of

axial compression and bending moment, rather than pure axial

loading. The ﬂexural effect may be induced by different factors,

such as unbalanced moments at connecting beams, vertical misalignment, or lateral forces resulting from wind or seismic

activity.

Conﬁnement of reinforced concrete (RC) columns by means of

ﬁber reinforced polymers (FRP) jackets is a technique being frequently used to seek the increment of load carrying capacity

and/or ductility of such compression members. The need for improved strength results from higher load capacity demands because of design/construction errors, change in the facility use, or

revisions of code requirements. Improving ductility stems from

the need for energy dissipation, which allows the plastic behavior

of the element and, ultimately, of the structure. Ductility enhancement is typically required in existing columns that are subjected to

a combination of axial load and bending moment because of reasons similar to those listed for strengthening. Among these rea* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: silvia.rocca@gmail.com (S. Rocca).

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.06.010

**sons, seismic upgrade and correction of detailing defects (i.e.,
**

improper splicing of the longitudinal reinforcement or lack of

transverse ties) are most common.

Several theoretical and experimental studies have been conducted on the behavior of FRP-wrapped concrete columns subjected to axial force and ﬂexure and have produced theoretical

axial force–moment (P–M) interaction diagrams [1–6]. Other

works have been conducted in the context of concrete-ﬁlled

FRP tubes [7–9]. Fam et al. [9] in particular performed experimental and analytical modeling considering the variability of

FRP-conﬁnement effectiveness as a result of the presence of ﬂexural moments in a column. They proposed an analytical procedure to determine a P–M diagram for circular cross-sections

accounting for the variability of concrete conﬁnement as a result

of the gradual change of the biaxial state of stress developed in

the FRP shell as the eccentricity of the axial force changes. As

an overall observation, all the previous studies conclude that signiﬁcant enhancement due to FRP-conﬁnement is expected in

compression-controlled RC members.

This paper presents a methodology for the construction of a

simpliﬁed P–M diagram following principles of equilibrium and

strain compatibility, and it is limited to the compression-controlled region of the interaction diagram. The procedure is based

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

1509

Nomenclature

Ac

Ae

Ag

As

Asi

b

CE

dsi

D

e

E2

Ec

Ef

fc0

0

fcc

ffu

ffu

fl

fsi

fy

H

h

Mmax

Mn

n

Pa

Pmax

Pn

r

tf

**cross-sectional area of concrete in column = Ag(1 qg)
**

effectively

conﬁned

area

=

Ag ððh 2rÞ2 þ

2

ðb 2rÞ Þ=3 qg Ag

total cross-sectional area

area of steel reinforcement = Agqg

cross-sectional area of ‘‘ith” layer of longitudinal steel

reinforcement

short side dimension of a non-circular cross-section

environmental reduction factor

distance from position of ‘‘ith” layer of longitudinal steel

reinforcement to geometric centroid of the cross-section

diameter of circular cross-section or diameter of equivalent circular column for non-circular cross-sections =

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2

2

b þh

eccentricity of axial load

slope of linear portion of conﬁned stress–strain curve =

0

fc0 Þ=eccu

ðfcc

initial modulus of elasticity of concrete

tensile modulus of elasticity of FRP

characteristic concrete compressive strength determined from standard cylinder

maximum compressive strength of conﬁned concrete

ultimate tensile strength of FRP

**design ultimate tensile strength of FRP = C E ffu
**

conﬁnement pressure due to FRP jacket

stress in ‘‘ith” layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement

yield strength of longitudinal steel reinforcement

height of column

long side dimension of a non-circular cross-section

maximum bending moment

nominal bending moment capacity

number of FRP plies composing the jacket

constantly applied axial load

maximum applied axial load

nominal axial load capacity of a RC column

corner radius of non-circular cross-sections

FRP nominal ply thickness

**on ACI protocols and limiting values (i.e., Pn and Mn multiplied by
**

strength reduction factor /; ultimate axial strain of unconﬁned

concrete ecu equal to 0.003). Additionally, the paper presents

experimental evidence on FRP-wrapped RC columns subjected to

combined compression and ﬂexure and having a size representative of real scale members. The experimental results are compared

to the theoretical simpliﬁed P–M diagrams obtained following the

proposed methodology. Data points appear to be consistent with

the analytical predictions. The proposed simpliﬁed P–M diagram

could be used by practitioners as a design tool and for a clear illustration of the procedure; an example application is presented in

this paper.

The symbols used throughout the paper are deﬁned in a notation list. Some of these symbols are also deﬁned in the text for

clarity.

a1

b1

e0c

eccu

ecu

efe

efu

efu

esy

e0t

/

ja

jb

je

qf

qg

wf

**factor relating the uniform compressive stress of the
**

equivalent rectangular block in the compression zone

to the compressive strength fc0 ¼ 0:85

factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block to neutral axis depth

axial compressive strain corresponding to fc0 ¼

0:002 mm=mm

ultimate axial compressive strain of conﬁned concrete

ultimate axial compressive strain of unconﬁned concrete = 0.003 mm/mm

FRP effective strain (strain level reached at failure)

ultimate tensile strain of the FRP

design ultimate tensile strain of the FRP = CEefu

strain corresponding to the yield strength of steel reinforcement

transition strain in stress–strain curve of FRP-conﬁned

concrete. It corresponds to point of change between initial parabola and straight line = 2fc0 =ðEc E2 Þ

strength reduction factor

efﬁciency factor for FRP reinforcement in the determi0

(based on the geometry of the cross-secnation of fcc

tion)

efﬁciency factor for FRP reinforcement in the determination of eccu (based on the geometry of the cross-section)

efﬁciency factor for FRP strain proposed to account for

the difference between the actual rupture strain observed in FRP conﬁned specimens, and the FRP material

rupture strain determined from tensile coupon testing

volumetric

ratio

of

FRP

reinforcement

=

4ntf =D Circular

2ntf ðb þ hÞ=ðbhÞ Non-circular

ratio of the area of longitudinal steel reinforcement to

the cross-sectional area of a compression member =

As/Ag

additional FRP strength reduction factor

**considers an appropriate stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete in the compression zone.
**

3. Experimental behavior of FRP-conﬁned RC columns

2. Research signiﬁcance

**The experimental evidence on real-size type specimens,
**

although not extensive, consists of RC columns of circular and

non-circular cross-sections subjected to a combination of axial

compressive load and ﬂexure [4,10–18]. The collected experiments

from the available literature mainly featured an applied constant

axial load and a moment induced by a lateral force. Only one study

[4] considered RC columns axially loaded at various eccentricities

covering cases of pure compression to pure bending. Additionally,

the FRP jacket of this study was characterized by bidirectional oriented ﬁbers (0°/90°), and it was applied along the entire height of

the specimens. The database was assembled under the following

restrictions:

**The purpose of this study is to provide a methodology for the
**

construction of a simpliﬁed axial force–bending moment interaction diagram for FRP-wrapped RC columns for practical design

applications. The proposed method is based on principles of equilibrium and strain compatibility. The analysis of the FRP-conﬁned

specimens is equivalent to that of conventional RC columns but

**RC columns of circular and non-circular cross-sections with one
**

minimum dimension of the cross-section set at 300 mm (12 in.),

with a maximum side-aspect ratio (h/b) of 2.0 in the case of noncircular cross-sections.

FRP-wrapped RC columns with FRP ﬁbers oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the column.

1510

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

**Concrete-ﬁlled FRP tubes, RC columns part of environmental
**

research studies, and RC columns that were damaged or loaded

prior to strengthening were not considered in this study.

RC columns exhibiting a shear type of failure were not included.

**4. P–M interaction diagram
**

The analysis of the FRP-conﬁned specimens is equivalent to that

of customary RC columns [20,21] with the primary difference

being the use of a selected stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned

concrete in the compression zone. The following assumptions are

considered for the analysis: (a) plane sections remain plane, (b)

the tensile strength of concrete is neglected, and (c) complete composite action is assumed between both steel reinforcement-concrete and FRP-concrete.

For ease of calculation, rather than a continuous curve, a conservative P–M diagram was constructed as a series of straight lines

joining the axial load and moment values corresponding to ﬁve

characteristic points (Fig. 1) [20]:

Table 1 presents a total of 13 RC columns of circular cross-section (including control and strengthened units) divided into 3 sets

of experiments [11,13,16]. The information presented in the table

is organized as follows: the ﬁrst and second columns in the table

show the reference to each experimental set and the specimen

codes, respectively. The type of FRP jacket, when applicable, is given in the third column. Geometrical and material properties are

shown in the columns (4) to (14) in this order: diameter of the

cross-section (D), height of the specimen (H), ratio of the area of

longitudinal steel reinforcement to the cross-sectional area of the

member (qg), volumetric ratio of transverse steel reinforcement

to concrete core (qt), volumetric ratio of FRP reinforcement (qf),

unconﬁned concrete compressive strength ðfc0 Þ, yield strength of

longitudinal steel reinforcement (fy), tensile modulus of elasticity

of FRP (Ef), ultimate tensile strength of FRP (ffu), ultimate tensile

strain of the FRP (efu), and FRP nominal ply thickness (tf). The last

two columns in the table ((15) and (16)) report the maximum axial

load (Pa or Pmax) and maximum moment (Mmax), respectively. The

specimens included in this table have unconﬁned concrete compressive strength varying from 36.5 MPa (5.29 ksi) to 44.8 MPa

(6.5 ksi), and the level of constantly applied axial load in terms of

Pa =ðAg fc0 Þ varies from 0.12 to 0.65.

Table 2 presents a total of 48 RC columns of non-circular crosssection including control and strengthened units featuring side-aspect ratios (h/b) of 1.0, 1.75, and 2.0. These experiments are divided

into eight sets [4,10,12,14–18]. The information corresponding to

each set of experiments is presented as in Table 1, with the only

difference being on the cross-section dimension parameters. Speciﬁcally, Table 2 shows the short side dimension (b), long side

dimension (h), and the side-aspect ratio (h/b) of the non-circular

cross-section instead of diameter (D) from Table 1. In the cases

of specimens from three sets [15–17], the radius of the chamfered

corner of the strengthened specimens was not reported in the

source publications. Therefore, a minimum corner radius of

13 mm (0.5 in.) as recommended by the current ACI440.2R-02

[19] was assumed in these columns for the purpose of this study.

The specimens included in this table have unconﬁned concrete

compressive strength varying from 17.9 MPa (2.6 ksi) to 44.2 MPa

(6.41 ksi), and the level of applied axial load in terms of P a =ðAg fc0 Þ

varies from 0.12 to 0.65.

**Point A: uniform axial compressive strain of conﬁned concrete
**

eccu (or ecu for the case of an unstrengthened cross-section).

Point B: strain distribution corresponding to a maximum compressive strain eccu (or ecu) and zero strain at the layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement nearest to the tensile face.

Point C: strain distribution corresponding to the balanced failure

with a maximum compressive strain eccu (or ecu) and a yielding

tensile strain esy at the layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement

nearest to the tensile face.

Point D: strain distribution corresponding to the limiting tension-controlled failure having a maximum compressive strain

eccu (or ecu) and a tensile strain of 0.005 as per ACI318-05 [22]

at the layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement nearest to the

tensile face.

Point E: point corresponding to the pure bending moment and

zero axial force.

In the interaction diagram, point A represents the pure compression case (zero bending moment). For points B, C, and D, the

position of the neutral axis c is directly computed by similar triangles in the strain distribution corresponding to each case (Fig. 1).

Point E, as representing the pure bending moment case (zero axial

force), the neutral axis position is obtained by following conventional RC beam theory. Assuming no contribution of the FRP-conﬁnement for control and strengthened specimens, the procedure

for computing Mmax does not vary [5]. In the case of the experimental set by Chaallal and Shahawy [4] where specimens featured FRP

jackets with bidirectional ﬁbers, point E is computed accounting

for the FRP in the longitudinal direction and its contribution to

the ﬂexural capacity according to ACI440.2R-02 [19].

Table 1

RC columns of circular cross-section

Specimen

code

Fiber

type

D

(mm)

H

(m)

qg

qt

qf

(%)

(%)

fc0

(MPa)

fy

(MPa)

Ef

(MPa)

ffu

(MPa)

efu

(%)

(%)

tf

(mm)

Pa or Pmax

(kN)

Mmax

(kN m)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Saadatmanesh et al. [2]

SA1

SA2

SA3

SA4

None

GFRP

None

GFRP

305

305

305

305

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

2.47

2.47

2.47

2.47

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.00

6.30

0.00

6.30

36.5

38.3

36.6

36.5

358

358

358

358

NA

18,600

NA

18,600

NA

532

NA

532

NA

2.86

NA

2.86

NA

0.80

NA

0.80

445

445

445

445

83

116

102

124

Sheikh and Yau [13]

SY1-a

SY2-a

SY3-a

SY4-a

SY1-b

SY2-b

SY3-b

None

GFRP

GFRP

CFRP

None

CFRP

GFRP

356

356

356

356

356

356

356

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

3.01

3.01

3.01

3.01

3.01

3.01

3.01

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.00

1.40

1.40

1.12

0.00

0.56

1.40

39.2

40.4

40.4

40.4

39.2

44.8

40.8

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

NA

20,800

20,800

152,000

NA

152,000

20,800

NA

416

416

1900

NA

1900

416

NA

2.00

2.00

1.25

NA

1.25

2.00

NA

1.25

1.25

0.50

NA

0.50

1.25

2547

2600

2600

2600

1273

1398

1309

220

180

300

290

225

280

280

Elnabelsy and

Saatcioglu [16]

ES1-C

ES2-C

CFRP

CFRP

508

508

1.73

1.73

1.78

1.78

0.33

0.33

1.42

2.83

38.0

38.0

400

400

60,000

60,000

700

700

1.17

1.17

0.90

0.90

944

944

710

500

Reference

Note: 1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN m = 0.738 kip ft; NA = Not applicable.

Table 2

RC columns of non-circular cross-section

Reference

Specimen

code

Fiber type

b (mm)

h (mm)

h/b

H (m)

r (mm)

qg (%)

qt (%)

qf (%)

fc0 (MPa)

fy (MPa)

Ef (MPa)

ffu (MPa)

efu (%)

tf (mm)

Pa or Pmax (kN)

Mmax

(kN m)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

Nosho [10]

NO1

NO2

NO3

NO4

None

CFRP

CFRP

CFRP

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.36

2.36

2.36

2.36

13

13

13

13

1.02

1.02

1.02

1.02

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.00

0.94

0.16

0.08

40.6

41.6

41.6

42.7

407

407

407

407

NA

261,484

267,358

267,358

NA

4165

4206

4206

NA

1.60

1.57

1.57

NA

0.17

0.11

0.11

1062

1087

1088

1116

140

147

137

140

Walkup [12]

WA1

WA2

WA3

WA4

None

CFRP

CFRP

CFRP

458

458

458

458

458

458

458

458

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

3.05

3.05

3.05

3.05

51

51

51

51

1.48

1.48

1.48

1.48

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.00

0.86

0.58

0.29

24.6

22.7

24.7

24.1

460

460

460

460

NA

230,303

230,303

230,303

NA

3515

3515

3515

NA

1.50

1.50

1.50

NA

0.17

0.17

0.17

1299

1399

1352

1334

559

581

537

556

Chaallal and Shahawy [4]a

CS1-a

CS2-a

CS1-b

CS2-b

CS1-c

CS2-c

CS1-d

CS2-d

CS1-e

CS2-e

CS1-f

CS2-f

None

CFRP

None

CFRP

None

CFRP

None

CFRP

None

CFRP

None

CFRP

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.62

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

1.57

0.00

1.57

0.00

1.57

0.00

1.57

0.00

1.57

0.00

1.57

0.00

1.57

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

25.5

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

414

NA

45,000

NA

45,000

NA

45,000

NA

45,000

NA

45,000

NA

45,000

NA

540

NA

540

NA

540

NA

540

NA

540

NA

540

NA

1.20

NA

1.20

NA

1.20

NA

1.20

NA

1.20

NA

1.20

NA

0.50

NA

0.50

NA

0.50

NA

0.50

NA

0.50

NA

0.50

1878

2412

1228

1335

712

828

310

441

240

356

0

0

1

1

105

145

139

159

114

158

119

179

94

145

Iacobucci et al. [14]

IA1-a

IA2-a

IA3-a

IA4-a

IA5-a

IA6-a

None

CFRP

CFRP

CFRP

CFRP

CFRP

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

1.47

16

16

16

16

16

16

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.00

1.31

2.62

1.31

3.93

2.62

31.4

36.5

36.9

36.9

37.0

37.0

465

465

465

465

465

465

NA

76,350

76,350

76,350

76,350

76,350

NA

962

962

962

962

962

NA

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

NA

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1168

1290

2231

2231

2237

1308

180

229

233

218

260

246

Bousias et al. [15]

BO1-a

BO2-a

BO3-a

BO4-a

BO1-b

BO2-b

BO3-b

BO4-b

None

CFRP

CFRP

GFRP

None

CFRP

CFRP

GFRP

250

250

250

250

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

250

250

250

250

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.00

0.31

0.78

1.02

0.00

0.31

0.78

1.02

18.3

18.1

17.9

18.7

17.9

18.1

17.9

18.7

560

560

560

560

560

560

560

560

NA

230,000

230,000

70,000

NA

230,000

230,000

70,000

NA

3450

3450

2170

NA

3450

3450

2170

NA

1.50

1.50

3.10

NA

1.50

1.50

3.10

NA

0.13

0.13

0.17

NA

0.13

0.13

0.17

862

830

865

858

843

830

865

858

304

358

379

326

110

112

122

120

Elnabelsy and Saatcioglu [16]

ES1-S

ES2-S

CFRP

CFRP

500

500

500

500

1.00

1.00

1.73

1.73

13

13

1.44

1.44

0.33

0.33

2.16

3.60

33.0

38.0

400

400

60,000

60,000

700

700

1.17

1.17

0.90

0.90

1002

1128

640

640

Harajli and Rteil [17]

HR1-a

HR2-a

HR3-a

HR1-b

HR2-b

HR3-b

None

CFRP

CFRP

None

CFRP

CFRP

150

150

150

150

150

150

300

300

300

300

300

300

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.12

1.12

1.12

1.12

1.12

1.12

13

13

13

13

13

13

1.50

1.50

1.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.00

0.26

0.39

0.00

0.26

0.39

20.3

21.1

21.7

20.3

21.1

21.7

534

534

534

565

565

565

NA

230,000

230,000

NA

230,000

230,000

NA

3500

3500

NA

3500

3500

NA

1.50

1.50

NA

1.50

1.50

NA

0.13

0.13

NA

0.13

0.13

196

196

196

231

231

231

59

65

70

88

94

94

Memon and Sheikh [18]

MS1

MS2

MS3

MS4

MS5

MS6

None

GFRP

GFRP

GFRP

GFRP

GFRP

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

305

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.48

1.48

1.48

1.48

1.48

1.48

16

16

16

16

16

16

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

2.58

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.00

3.28

6.56

3.28

1.64

4.92

42.4

42.5

42.7

43.3

43.7

44.2

465

465

465

465

465

465

NA

19,754

19,754

19,754

19,754

19,754

NA

450

450

450

450

450

NA

2.28

2.28

2.28

2.28

2.28

NA

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

2454

1449

2467

2493

1479

2532

195

250

252

232

235

286

1511

**Note: 1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN m = 0.738 kip ft.
**

a

Specimens axially loaded at various eccentricities.

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

(1)

1512

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

Fig. 1. Simpliﬁed interaction diagram (circular and non-circular cross-sections).

**The nominal axial load Pn corresponding to point A can be found
**

using Eq. (1) (Mn(A) equals zero).

PnðAÞ ¼ ½0:85fcc0 ðAg Ast Þ þ fy Ast

ð1Þ

**The nominal axial load Pn and the nominal bending moment Mn at
**

points B, C, and D are found by integration of the stresses over the

cross-section, and they are given by Eq. (2) for the case of circular

cross-sections and by Eq. (3) for the case of non-circular crosssections.

For design purposes, to replace the unconﬁned concrete stress

distribution, ACI318-05 [22] allows the use of an equivalent rectangular stress block distribution with an average stress of a1 fc0

(a1 equals 0.85) and a depth of b1c (b1 equals 0.65 for

fc0 P 55 MPa [8 ksi], 0.85 for concrete with fc0 6 28 MPa [4 ksi],

and 0.05 less for each 6.9 MPa [1 ksi] of fc0 in excess of 28 MPa)

for the calculation of the resultant compressive force in the

cross-section. However, these values of a1 and b1 are no longer valid for FRP-conﬁned concrete stress–strain curve since they were

based on experimental observations of unconﬁned concrete columns and prisms [20,22].

PnðB;C;DÞ ¼

Z

c

0

0 sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ1

2

2

X

D

D

0

@2

Afc ðyÞdy þ

y

Asi fsi

d

2

2

ð2aÞ

M nðB;C;DÞ

0 sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ1

2

2

D

D

0

@2

A D c þ y fc ðyÞdy

¼

y

d

2

2

2

0

X

þ

Asi fsi dsi

Z

c

ð2bÞ

PnðB;C;DÞ ¼

Z

c

X

Asi fsi

ð3aÞ

X

h

c þ y fc ðyÞdy þ

ðbÞ

Asi fsi dsi

2

ð3bÞ

ðbÞfc ðyÞdy þ

**by Lam and Teng [23,24]. This model was selected based on the
**

evaluation of FRP-conﬁned models with a database composed of

solely RC columns of a minimum side dimension of 300 mm

(12 in.) and subjected to pure axial compressive loading [25]. The

model by Lam and Teng as shown in Fig. 2 proved to be the most

suitable for predicting the maximum conﬁned compressive

strength and strain for RC columns of circular and non-circular

cross-sections.

The stress–strain curve of this model is composed of a parabolic

ﬁrst portion followed by a linear second portion (Fig. 2). The curve

and the line meet smoothly at a transition strain e0t . The linear

second portion ends at a point where both the maximum compressive

strength fcc0 and the ultimate axial strain of conﬁned concrete eccu are

reached. Based on experimental observations of small-plain concrete specimens with sufﬁcient amounts of FRP conﬁnement, Lam

and Teng suggested a minimum ratio of FRP conﬁnement pressure

to unconﬁned concrete compressive strength fl =fc0 of approximately

0.08 to ensure an ascending second branch in the stress–strain

curve. This limitation was later conﬁrmed for circular cross-sections

by Spoelstra and Monti [26] using their analytical model.

In the case of unconﬁned concrete, the model by Lam and Teng

reduces to a stress–strain curve composed of an initial parabola

followed by a horizontal straight line, which has been adopted

by design codes such as BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 [23]. This model

is used in this study to compute the stress–strain curve of the FRPconﬁned concrete. It is given by the following expressions:

(

fc ¼

e0t ¼

2

2Þ

ðec Þ2

Ec ec ðEc E

4f 0

0 6 ec 6 e0t

fc0 þ E2 ec

e0t 6 ec 6 eccu

c

ð4aÞ

2fc0

Ec E2

ð4bÞ

fcc0 fc0

eccu

ð4cÞ

E2 ¼

**where, fc and ec are the axial stress and the axial strain of conﬁned
**

concrete, respectively. Ec is the elastic modulus of unconﬁned concrete, e0t is the transition strain, E2 is the slope of the second linear

portion, and eccu is the ultimate axial strain of conﬁned concrete.

The maximum FRP-conﬁned concrete compressive strength is

given by Eq. (5):

fcc0 ¼ fc0 þ 3:3ja fl

ð5Þ

The parameter ja is a geometry efﬁciency factor and is discussed later in the text. The FRP conﬁning pressure (fl) in the case

of circular cross-sections is determined by equilibrium and strain

compatibility. However, in the case of non-circular cross-sections,

the diameter D is replaced by an equivalent diameter, which consists of the diagonal of the rectangular cross-section (Eq. (6)).

0

M nðB;C;DÞ ¼

Z

0

c

**In the expressions above, c is the distance from the neutral axis
**

position to the extreme compression ﬁber in the cross-section. Asi

and fsi are the cross-sectional area and the normal stress, respectively, of the ‘‘ith” layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement, respectively. The parameter dsi is the distance from the position of the

‘‘ith” layer of longitudinal steel reinforcement to the geometric

centroid of the cross-section.

In Eqs. (2) and (3), y is the variable of integration within the

compression zone. The concrete stress fc corresponds to the model

Fig. 2. Stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete by Lam and Teng [23].

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

fl ¼

8

< 2ntfDEf efe

Circular cross-section

2ntf Ef efe

**ﬃ Non-circular cross-section
**

: pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2

2

ð6Þ

b þh

**The effective strain efe in Eq. (6) is computed as the product of
**

an efﬁciency factor je and the ultimate tensile strain efu. The FRP

strain efﬁciency factor je to account for the difference between

the actual rupture strain observed in FRP-conﬁned concrete specimens and the FRP material rupture strain determined from tensile

coupon testing is considered in the determination of the effective

strain in FRP reinforcement attained at failure efe (i.e., efe = jeefu).

Based on experimental calibration with CFRP-wrapped, smallscale, plain concrete specimens, an average value of 0.586 was

computed for je by Lam and Teng [23]. Similarly, Carey and Harries

[27] computed a value of 0.58, while experimental tests on medium- and large-scale columns resulted in values of 0.57 and 0.61,

respectively [28]. In this study, for practical design applications,

the parameter je is taken equal to 0.55.

Based on the work by Priestley et al. [29] and as recommended

by ACI Committee 440 [19], the effective strain in the FRP at failure

efe in members subjected to combined axial compression and

bending moment is limited to the minimum value between 0.004

and jeefu in order to ensure the shear integrity of the conﬁned

concrete.

The ultimate axial strain of the FRP-conﬁned concrete compressive stress–strain curve is given as follows:

eccu ¼

e0c

0:45 !

fl efe

6 0:01

1:5 þ 12jb 0 0

f c ec

ð7Þ

**where the axial strain at the compressive strength of unconﬁned
**

concrete e0c is taken equal to 0.002. The model of Lam and Teng

[23,24] originally features a value of 1.75 instead of 1.5, which for

the case of unconﬁned concrete yields an ultimate axial strain ecu

equal to 0.0035. This change to 1.5 is necessary to limit the axial

strain of unconﬁned concrete ecu to 0.003, a value consistent with

ACI318-05 [22].

Additionally, based on recommendations from the Concrete

Society in the Technical Report 55 [30], a limiting value of ultimate

axial strain of 0.01 in the case of conﬁned concrete is introduced

1513

**only in members under pure compression to prevent excessive
**

cracking and the resulting loss of concrete integrity. When this

limit is applicable, the corresponding maximum value of fcc0 is

recalculated from the stress–strain curve.

The efﬁciency factors ja (Eq. (5)) and jb (Eq. (7)) can be computed according to Eqs. (8) and (9) as they account for the geometry of the cross-section. In the case of circular cross-sections, they

are taken as 1.0, and in the case of non-circular cross-sections, they

depend on two parameters: the effectively conﬁned area ratio Ae/Ac

and the side-aspect ratio h/b. These factors are given by the following expressions:

ja ¼

2

Ae b

Ac h

ð8Þ

jb ¼

0:5

Ae h

Ac b

ð9Þ

where

2

2

Ae 1 ððb=hÞðh 2rÞ þ ðh=bÞðb 2rÞ Þ=ð3Ag Þ qg

¼

Ac

1 qg

ð10Þ

**Simpliﬁed theoretical interaction diagrams composed of a series
**

of straight lines connecting points A, B, C, D, and E using the equations and procedures described above were built for each set of

experiments presented in Tables 1 and 2. These diagrams along

with the experimental results, are shown in Figs. 3–5 for the cases

of circular and non-circular RC columns. No environmental (CE)

and strength reduction factors (/, wf) were considered in these

interaction diagrams.

To express the diagrams independently of the different crosssectional area sizes (Ag) and unconﬁned concrete compressive

strength ðfc0 Þ, the diagrams are shown as non-dimensional. This is

done by dividing the nominal axial load values Pn by ðAg fc0 Þ, and

0

dividing the nominal moment values Mn by ðAg hf c Þ. In each of

the plots, the legend indicates the percentage quantity corresponding to the FRP volumetric ratio used in each of the specimens.

Every ﬁgure shows the analytical curve and experimental data

at the same scale: 0 to 0.5 for the x-axis and 0 to 2.0 for the y-axis.

Fig. 3. Interaction diagrams and experimental results (circular cross-sections).

1514

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

Fig. 4. Interaction diagrams and experimental results (non-circular cross-sections).

Fig. 5. Interaction diagrams and experimental results (non-circular cross-sections).

1515

**S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520
**

0

**All plots are drawn with x-axis equal to Mn =ðAg hf c Þ and y-axis
**

equal to P n =ðAg fc0 Þ.

Due to the difﬁculty of conducting experiments with real-size

cross-sections, Figs. 3–5 report a limited number of data points

that fall in the compression-controlled region: 2 (from a total of

13 units) and 13 (from a total of 48 units) for the cases of circular

and non-circular specimens, respectively. From this total, for only

one data point among the circular specimens [13], its corresponding theoretical P–M diagram appears to be not conservative. However, the original source of publication [13] notes that such

specimen experienced a premature failure as a result of the stress

concentrations on the jacket induced by one reinforcing bar used to

afﬁx measurement instrumentation. For all other cases, the interaction diagrams built on the Lam and Teng [23,24] model for the

FRP-conﬁned concrete stress–strain curve appear to be conservative with respect to the experimental data points.

5. Proposed design methodology

Strength enhancement can only be considered when the applied ultimate axial force and bending moment (Pu and Mu) are

such that a point having these coordinates falls above the line connecting the origin and the balanced point in the interaction diagram for the unconﬁned member (compression-controlled

region) (Fig. 6). This limitation stems from the consideration that

the enhancement is only of signiﬁcance in members where compression failure is the controlling mode [3].

For simplicity, the portion of the unconﬁned and conﬁned interaction diagrams corresponding to compression-controlled failure

can be reduced to two bilinear curves passing through the previously deﬁned points A, B, and C (Fig. 6). Eq. (1) can be used to

compute the Pn corresponding to point A of a member with any

cross-sectional shape (Mn(A) equals zero). The coordinates of points

B and C can be computed using Eqs. (2) and (3) for the case of

members of circular and non-circular cross-sections, respectively.

To provide a closed form solution, this paper focuses only on the

case of members with rectangular cross-sections. Substituting the

stress–strain relationship for FRP-conﬁned concrete (Eq. (4)) in Eq.

(3) and expressing the axial compressive strain ec at any point in

the compression region in terms of the integrating variable y (similar triangles) (Fig. 7), Eqs. (11) and (12) are obtained for the axial

loads and moments at points B and C, respectively:

PnðB;CÞ ¼

#

e

ðE E Þ2 e

2

ccu

c

2

ccu

bdy

y

y

c

4fc0

c

0

Z ch

e

i

X

ccu

þ

y bdy þ

Asi fsi

fc0 þ E2

c

yt

Z

yt

"

Ec

Fig. 7. Strain distributions of points B and C for simpliﬁed interaction diagram.

MnðB;CÞ ¼

#

e

ðE E Þ2 e

2 h

ccu

c

2

ccu

b

c

þ

y

dy

y

y

2

c

4fc0

c

0

Z ch

e

i h

X

ccu

þ

fc0 þ E2

c þ y dy þ

Asi fsi dsi

y b

2

c

yt

Z

yt

"

Ec

ð12Þ

In the expressions above, c represents the distance from the extreme compression ﬁber to the neutral axis and is given by Eq. (13).

The parameter yt represents the vertical coordinate within the

compression region measured from the neutral axis position, and

it corresponds to the transition strain e0t (Eq. (14)) (see Fig. 7).

c¼

8

<d

:d

yt ¼ c

for point B

eccu

esy þeccu

ð13Þ

for point C

e0t

eccu

ð14Þ

**After integrating and reordering terms, Eqs. (11) and (12) can be
**

reduced to expressions (15) and (16), respectively, where the coefﬁcients A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I, are given by Eq. (17).

h

i X

PnðB;CÞ ¼ Aðyt Þ3 þ Bðyt Þ2 þ Cðyt Þ þ D þ

Asi fsi

ð11Þ

MnðB;CÞ ¼ ½Eðyt Þ4 þ Fðyt Þ3 þ Gðyt Þ2 þ Hðyt Þ þ I þ

X

Asi fsi dsi

ð16Þ

A¼

bðEc E2 Þ2 eccu 2

12fc0

c

ð17aÞ

B¼

bðEc E2 Þ eccu

2

c

ð17bÞ

0

C ¼ bf c

0

D ¼ bcf c þ

E¼

Fig. 6. Representative simpliﬁed interaction diagram.

ð15Þ

ð17cÞ

bcE2

ðeccu Þ

2

bðEc E2 Þ2 eccu 2

16fc0

c

**h ðEc E2 Þ2 eccu 2 bðEc E2 Þ eccu
**

þ

F ¼b c

2

3

12fc0

c

c

ð17dÞ

ð17eÞ

ð17fÞ

1516

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

b

h ðEc E2 Þ eccu

G ¼ fc0 þ b c

2

2

2

c

ð17gÞ

h

0

H ¼ bf c c

2

ð17hÞ

I¼

2

2

bc 0

h

bc E2

bcE2

h

0

þ

ðeccu Þ

fc bcf c c

ðeccu Þ

c

2

2

2

3

2

ð17iÞ

**The values of fsi are calculated by similar triangles from the
**

strain distribution corresponding to points B and C, and depending

on the neutral axis position c, the sign of fsi will be positive for

compression and negative for tension.

According to ACI design philosophy, the nominal axial load

capacity under pure compression loading condition (point A in

the interaction diagram) of an RC column featuring ties as steel

transverse reinforcement is reduced to 80% to account for a

possible accidental eccentricity [21]. In the example application

presented in Appendix A and Fig. 6, this point is denoted as

A0 .

/PnðA0 Þ ¼ /0:8½0:85fcc0 ðAg Ast Þ þ fy Ast

ð18Þ

For a tied RC column, the strength reduction factors / as recommended by ACI318-05 [22] must also be considered. Since the portion of the interaction diagram corresponds to compressioncontrolled members, the value of / is 0.65 (Fig. 6).

The proposed design method consists of closed form equations

for the determination of the compression-controlled region of a

P–M diagram for the case of a rectangular FRP-wrapped RC column.

This portion of the interaction diagram is conservatively represented by two bilinear curves joining the previously deﬁned points

A0 , B, and C. Based on ACI design philosophy, the vertical coordinate

(axial force) of point A0 can be found with Eq. (18) (bending moment is zero). The coordinates for points B and C can be obtained

with Eqs. (15) and (16). The contribution of concrete within the

compression region of the cross-section is represented by polynomials of third and fourth order for the case of the nominal axial

capacity (Eq. (15)) and the nominal ﬂexural capacity (Eq. (16)),

respectively. These algebraic expressions result from mathematical

substitution and re-arrangement of terms resulting from the integrals given in Eqs. (11) and (12).

A ﬂow-chart illustrating the application of the proposed methodology for design purposes is shown in Fig. 8, and a practical

example application is presented in Appendix A.

Fig. 8. Flow chart for application of methodology.

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

**6. Summary and conclusions
**

This paper responds to the need for a simple and yet rational

design approach to FRP-wrapped RC columns subjected to combined axial force and bending. The proposed design approach that

follows ACI principles requires further validation with experimental test results of RC columns having geometry and properties similar to the ones found in practice.

The design method presented in the paper is based on the construction of a simpliﬁed interaction diagram for FRP-wrapped RC

columns stemming from a process that included the four steps

listed below:

(a) Collection of experimental data on FRP-wrapped circular

and non-circular RC columns with minimum diameter or

side dimension of about 300 mm (12 in.), maximum sideaspect ratio of 2, and featuring FRP ﬁber orientation perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the column.

(b) Construction of a theoretical P-M diagram based on principles of equilibrium and strain compatibility, equivalent to

that of conventional RC columns but considering the

stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete developed

by Lam and Teng.

(c) Partial validation of the theoretical P–M diagrams with the

experimental results.

(d) Simpliﬁcation of the P–M diagram to a series of straight lines

joining characteristic points only in the compression-controlled region of the diagram. This limitation recognizes that

capacity enhancement is signiﬁcant only if the combined

external actions are such that the FRP wrapping inﬂuences

the properties of the concrete.

The paper illustrates the proposed design method for the case of

a RC column of rectangular cross-section as an application example

(see Appendix A).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding and support

received from the National Science Foundation Industry/University

Cooperative Research Center on Repair of Buildings and Bridges

with Composites (RB2C) (supplement Grant No. 0453808).

**umn are shown in Fig. A.1. A method of strengthening the column
**

is sought.

Since the column is located in an interior environment, and

CFRP material will be used, according to Table 8.1 in the

ACI440.2R-02 guide [19], an environmental-reduction factor CE

equal to 0.95 will be used. Additionally, the application of a reduction factor wf equal to 0.95 as recommended by ACI440.2R-02 [19]

is taken into consideration. However, in this example application,

instead of applying the latter factor on the resulting conﬁned concrete compressive strength ðfcc0 Þ, it is applied to the sole contribution of the FRP (i.e., the conﬁnement pressure fl) as is the

approach that the revised version of the guide is considering.

The properties of the FRP system, as reported by the manufacturer, are shown in Table A.1.

Solution:

Step 1: Determine the simpliﬁed curve for the unstrengthened

column (n = 0 plies).Points A0 , B, and C can be obtained

by well-known procedures:

**/P nðA0 Þ ¼ 9281 kN; /M nðA0 Þ ¼ 0 kN m
**

/P nðBÞ ¼ 8266 kN; /M nðBÞ ¼ 874 kN m

/P nðCÞ ¼ 4127 kN; /M nðCÞ ¼ 1198 kN m

Step 2: Compute the design FRP material properties.

**ffu ¼ C E ffu ¼ 0:95 3792 MPa ¼ 3602 MPa
**

efu ¼ C E efu ¼ 0:95 0:0167 mm=mm ¼ 0:0159 mm=mm

Step 3: Determine the simpliﬁed curve for the strengthened column.A wrapping system composed of six plies will be

the starting point to construct the curve A–B–C and then

be compared with the position of the required Pu and Mu.

Points A0 , B, and C can be computed using Eqs. (18), (15)

and (16), where the coefﬁcients A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and

I are given by Eq. (17).

Point A0 :

Design axial capacity:

**uPnðA0 Þ ¼ u0:8½0:85fcc0 ðAg Ast Þ þ fy Ast
**

uPnðA0 Þ ¼ 0:65 0:8½0:85 56:96 MPa ð37; 612 9; 832 mm2 Þ

þ 414 MPa 9832 mm2

uPnðA0 Þ ¼ 11; 224 kN

**Appendix A. Example application
**

Given:

A 610 610 mm (24 24 in.) RC column is subjected to an ultimate axial compressive load Pu = 8451 kN (1900 kip) and to an ultimate bending moment Mu = 515 kN m (380 kip ft) (e = 0.1h). It is

required to increase the demand by 30% at constant eccentricity

(Pu = 10,987 kN, Mu = 670 kN m). Concrete and steel reinforcement

material properties as well as details of the cross-section of the col-

1517

where

**flfcc0 ¼ fc0 þ 3:3ja fl ¼ 44:8 MPa þ 3:3 0:425 8:67 MPa
**

2

Ae b

Ae

¼ 56:96 MPaja ¼

¼ ð0:425Þð1Þ2 ¼ 0:425

Ac h

Ac

¼

**1 ½ðb=hÞðh 2rÞ2 þ ðh=bÞðb 2rÞ2 =ð3Ag Þ qg
**

1 qg

Fig. A.1. Column cross-section details and materials’ properties.

1518

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

Ae 1

¼

Ac

**½ð1Þð610225 mmÞ2 þð1Þð610225 mmÞ2
**

2:65 102

337;612 mm2

2

yt ¼ c

1 2:65 10

c ¼ 559 mm

¼ 0:425

wf 2nt f Ef efe

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

fl ¼ p

2

2

b þh

fl ¼

e0t ¼

**0:95 2 6 0:33 mm 227; 527 MPa ð0:55 0:0159 mm=mmÞ
**

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2 ð610 mmÞ2

E2 ¼

fcc0 fc0

ð50:38 44:8 MPaÞ

¼ 1315 MPa

¼

eccu

4:23 103 mm=mm

**fcc0 ¼ 44:8 MPa þ 3:3ð0:425Þð3:97 MPaÞ ¼ 50:38 MPa
**

0:45 !

fl efe

eccu ¼ e0c 1:5 þ 12jb 0 0

f c ec

Point B:

Design axial capacity:

h

uP nðBÞ ¼ u ðAðyt Þ3 þ Bðyt Þ2 þ Cðyt Þ þ DÞ þ

X

Asi fsi

i

0:45 !

3:97 MPa 0:004 mm=mm

eccu ¼ 0:002 mm=mm 1:5 þ 12 0:425

44:8 MPa 0:002 mm=mm

kN

¼ 0:65 6:003 105

ð389 mmÞ3

mm3

þ70:14 MPað389 mmÞ2 27:32 kN=mmð389 mmÞ

**þ16; 215 kN þ 3277 mm2 ð414 MPaÞ
**

2

2

where

bðEc E2 Þ2 eccu 2

12fc0

c

A¼

**610mmð31; 685 1315MPaÞ2 4:23 103 mm=mm
**

559 mm

12 44:8 MPa

5

¼ 6:003 10

ja ¼ 0:425

jb ¼

uP nðBÞ ¼ 9829 kN

A¼

eccu ¼ 4:23 103 mm=mm

0:5

Ae h

¼ 0:425ð1Þ0:5 ¼ 0:425

Ac b

wf 2ntf Ef efe

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

fl ¼ p

2

2

b þh

0:95 2 6 0:33 mm 227; 527 MPa 0:004 mm=mm

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

fl ¼

2 ð610 mmÞ2

þ1639 mm ð414 MPaÞ þ 1639 mm ð257 MPaÞ

B¼

2fc0

2 44:8 MPa

¼

¼ 2:95 103 mm=mm

Ec E2 ð31; 685 1315 MPaÞ

fcc0 ¼ fc0 þ 3:3ja fl

¼ 8:67 MPa

uP nðBÞ

e0t

2:95 103 mm=mm

¼ 389 mm

¼ 559 mm

eccu

4:23 103 mm=mm

!2

kN

mm3

¼ 3:97 MPa

efe ¼ min½0:004; ðje efu ¼ 0:55 0:159 mm=mmÞ

¼ 0:004 mm=mm

Checking the minimum conﬁnement ratio:

fl =fc0 ¼ 3:97=44:8 ¼ 0:09 P 0:08 Ok!

bðEc E2 Þ eccu

2

c

!

610 mmð31; 685 1315 MPaÞ 4:23 103 mm=mm

B¼

2

559 mm

¼ 70:14 MPa

0

The strains in each layer of steel are determined by similar triangles in the strain distribution (Fig. 7). The corresponding stresses

are then given as follows:

**fs1 ¼ es1 Es ¼ 0:0038 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 414 MPa
**

fs2 ¼ es2 Es ¼ 0:0026 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 414 MPa

C ¼ bf c

fs3 ¼ es3 Es ¼ 0:0013 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 257 MPa

C ¼ 610 mm 44:8 MPa ¼ 27:32 kN=mm

fs4 ¼ es4 Es ¼ 0 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 0 MPa

bcE2

ðeccu Þ

2

D ¼ 610 mm 559 mm 44:8 MPa

0

D ¼ bcf c þ

Design bending moment:

**610mm 559 mm 1315 MPa
**

4:23 103 mm=mm

þ

2

D ¼ 16; 215 kN

For the calculation of the coefﬁcients it is necessary to compute

key parameters from the stress–strain model:

h

uMnðBÞ ¼ u ðEðyt Þ4 þ Fðyt Þ3 þ Gðyt Þ2 þ Hðyt Þ þ IÞ þ

Thickness per ply, tf

**Ultimate tensile strength, ffu
**

Rupture strain, efu

Modulus of elasticity, Ef

0.33 mm

3792 MPa

0.0167 mm/mm

227,527 MPa

0.013 in.

550,000 psi

0.0167 in./in.

33,000,000 psi

Asi fsi dsi

h

**uMnðBÞ ¼ 0:65 4:5 105 kN=mm3 ð389 mmÞ4
**

þ62 MPað389 mmÞ3 31:48 kN=mmð389 mmÞ2

**þ6939 kNð389 mmÞ þ 500; 175 kN mm
**

þ3277 mm2 ð414 MPaÞð254 mmÞ

Table A.1

Manufacturer’s reported FRP material properties – example application

X

**þ1639 mm2 ð414 MPaÞð85 mmÞ
**

i

1639 mm2 ð257 MPaÞð85 mmÞ

uMnðBÞ ¼ 924 kN m

i

1519

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

where

Table A.2

Summary of results – example application

bðEc E2 Þ eccu 2

E¼

16fc0

c

2

Point

!2

610 mmð31; 685 1315 MPaÞ2 4:23 103 mm=mm

E¼

559 mm

16 44:8 MPa

¼ 4:5 105 kN=mm3

**h ðEc E2 Þ2 eccu 2 bðEc E2 Þ eccu
**

F¼b c

þ

2

3

12fc0

c

c

A

A0

B

C

n = 0 plies (unstrengthened member)

n = 6 plies

/Pn (kN)

/Mn (kN m)

/Pn (kN)

/Mn (kN m)

11,601

9281

8266

4127

0

0

874

1198

14,030

11,224

9829

5870

0

0

924

1345

Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kN m = 0.738 kip ft.

**ð31; 685 1315 MPaÞ2
**

12 44:8 MPa

!2

4:23 103 mm=mm

610 mmð31; 685 1315 MPaÞ

þ

559 mm

3

!

4:23 103 mm=mm

¼ 62 MPa

559 mm

b

h ðEc E2 Þ eccu

G ¼ fc0 þ b c

2

2

2

c

F ¼ 610 mmð559 305 mmÞ

"

G ¼ 44:8 MPa 305 mm þ 610 mmð559 305 mmÞ

!#

**31; 685 1315 MPa 4:23 103 mm=mm
**

2

559 mm

G ¼ 31:48 kN=mm

h

0

H ¼ bf c c

2

H ¼ 44:8 MPa 610 mmð559 305 mmÞ ¼ 6939 kN

2

2

bc 0

h

bc E2

bcE2

h

0

I¼

þ

ðeccu Þ

fc bcf c c

ðeccu Þ

c

2

2

2

3

2

2

ð559 mmÞ

44:8 MPað559

2

305 mmÞð559 mmÞð610 mmÞ þ 1315 MPa 610 mm

ð559 mmÞ2

**4:23 103 mm=mm 1315 MPa 610 mm
**

3

559 mm

ð559 305 mmÞð4:23 103 mm=mmÞ

2

¼ 500; 175 kN mm

I ¼ 44:8 MPa 610 mm

The distances from each layer of steel reinforcement to the geometric centroid of the cross-section are shown below:

ds1 ¼ 254 mm

ds2 ¼ ds3 ¼ 85 mm

Point C:

Following the same procedure as for point B, the design axial

capacity is as follows:

uPnðCÞ ¼ 5870 kN

where

A ¼ 1:33 104 kN=mm3

B ¼ 104:4 MPa

Fig. A.2. Simpliﬁed interaction diagram – example application.

yt ¼ 262 mm

c ¼ 375 mm

The strains in each layer of steel are determined by similar triangles in the strain distribution (Fig. 7). The corresponding stresses

are then given:

**fs1 ¼ es1 Es ¼ 0:0037 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 414 MPa
**

fs2 ¼ es2 Es ¼ 0:0018 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 350:2 MPa

fs3 ¼ es3 Es ¼ 1:59 104 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 31:8 MPa

fs4 ¼ es4 Es ¼ 0:0021 mm=mm 200; 000 MPa ¼ 414 MPa

The design bending moment: uMn(C) = 1345 kN m where

E ¼ 9:98 105 kN=mm3

F ¼ 79 MPa

G ¼ 21:03 kN=mm

H ¼ 1928 kN

I ¼ 1; 315; 459 kN mm

Note:

The designer should bear in mind that for the case of pure compression, the effective strain in the FRP efe is limited by jeefu, and in

the case of combined axial and bending by efe = minimum (0.004,

jeefu).

Step 4: Comparison of simpliﬁed partial interaction diagram with

required Pu and Mu.

Table A.2 summarizes the axial and bending design capacities for the unstrengthened and strengthened members

at points A, A0 , B, and C. These points are plotted in

Fig. A.2.

C ¼ 27:32 kN=mm

D ¼ 10; 892 kN

For the calculation of the coefﬁcients it is necessary to compute

key parameters from the stress–strain model:

References

[1] Fardis MN, Khalili H. Concrete encased in ﬁberglass-reinforced plastic. ACI J

1981;78(6):440–6.

1520

S. Rocca et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 1508–1520

**[2] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Li MW. Strength and ductility of concrete
**

columns externally reinforced with ﬁber composite straps. ACI Struct J

1994;91(4):434–47.

[3] Nanni A, Norris M. FRP jacketed concrete under ﬂexure and combined ﬂexurecompression. Constr Build Mater 1995;9(5):273–81.

[4] Chaallal O, Shahawy M. Performance of ﬁber-reinforced polymer-wrapped

reinforced concrete column under combined axial-ﬂexural loading. ACI Struct

J 2000;97(4):659–68.

[5] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. West

Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2002.

[6] Di Nardo A, Faella C, Realfonzo R. A design procedure of FRP conﬁning systems

for upgrade R/C columns. In: Mirmiran A, Nanni A, editors, Third international

conference on FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE), Miami, USA, CDROM; 2006.

[7] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. A new concrete-ﬁlled hollow FRP composite column.

Compos Part B 1996;27B:263–8.

[8] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M. Strength and ductility of hybrid FRPconcrete beam-columns. ASCE J Struct Eng 1999;125(10):1085–93.

[9] Fam A, Flisak B, Rizkalla S. Experimental and analytical modeling of concreteﬁlled ﬁber-reinforced polymer tubes subjected to combined bending and axial

loads. ACI Struct J 2003;100(4):499–509.

[10] Nosho KJ. Retroﬁt of

rectangular reinforced concrete columns using

carbon ﬁber. Master’s Thesis. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington;

1996.

[11] Saadatmanesh M, Ehsani M, Jin L. Seismic strengthening of circular bridge Pier

models with ﬁber composites. ACI Struct J 1996;93(6):639–47.

[12] Walkup S. Rehabilitation of non-ductile reinforced concrete building columns

using ﬁber reinforced polymer jackets. Master’s Thesis. Bethlehem, PA, USA:

Lehigh University; 1998.

[13] Sheikh S, Yau G. Seismic behavior ofconcrete columns conﬁned with steel and

ﬁber-reinforced polymers. ACI Struct J 2002;99(1):72–80.

[14] Iacobucci R, Sheikh S, Bayrak O. Retroﬁt of square concrete columns with

carbon ﬁber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J

2003;100(6):785–94.

[15] Bousias S, Triantaﬁllou T, Fardis M, Spathis L, O’Regan B. Fiber-reinforced

polymer retroﬁtting of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with or

without corrosion. ACI Struct J 2004;101(4):512–20.

**[16] Elnabelsy G, Saatcioglu M. Seismic retroﬁt of circular and square bridge
**

columns with CFRP jackets, advanced composite materials in bridges and

structures (CD-ROM 8p). Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 2004.

[17] Harajli M, Rteil A. Effect of conﬁnement using ﬁber-reinforced polymer or

ﬁber-reinforced concrete on seismic performance of gravity load-designed

columns. ACI Struct J 2004;101(1):47–56.

[18] Memon M, Sheikh S. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retroﬁtted

with glass ﬁber-reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):774–83.

[19] American Concrete Institute, ACI 440.2R, Guide for the design and construction

of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening of concrete structures.

Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2002.

[20] MacGregor J. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle

River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Inc.; 1997.

[21] Bank LC. Composites for

construction: structural design with FRP

materials. Hoboken, N.J. NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons; 2006.

[22] American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-05. Building code requirements for

structural concrete. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute;

2005.

[23] Lam L, Teng J. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete.

Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6&7):471–89.

[24] Lam L, Teng J. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-conﬁned concrete

in rectangular columns. J Reinf Plast Compos 2003;22(13):1149–86.

[25] Rocca S. Experimental and analytical evaluation of FRP-conﬁned large size

reinforced concrete columns. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rolla, MO, USA: University of

Missouri-Rolla; 2007.

[26] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-conﬁned concrete model. ASCE J Compos Constr

1999;3(3):143–50.

[27] Carey S, Harries K. The effects of shape, ‘Gap’, and Scale on the behavior and

modeling of variably conﬁned concrete. Report No. ST03-05. Columbia, SC,

USA: University of South Carolina; 2003.

[28] Carey SA, Harries KA. Axial behavior and modeling of small-, medium- and

large-scale circular sections conﬁned with CFRP jackets. ACI Struct J

2005;102(4):596–604.

[29] Priestley M, Seible F, Calvi G. Seismic design and retroﬁt of bridges. New York,

USA: John Wiley and Sons; 1996.

[30] Concrete Society. Design guidance for strengthening concrete structures using

ﬁbre composite material. Technical Report 55. Crowthorne, UK; 2004.

- Calcs for Major Axis MomentUploaded byihpeter
- Property Relationships Used in en 338Uploaded byCsongor Biro
- 1 HSS 590 Strain Life FatigueUploaded byAdisa Tutusic
- Weld Stress CalculationsUploaded byKevin Baxter
- 5.4 Steel Column Base PlatetsUploaded bytiger_lxf
- ductilityUploaded bySaharAktham
- Final ReportUploaded byTommy Lu
- Lecture 14e Shear Walls 2slidesUploaded byAhmad Burqan
- 7-1-CHRColumnasUploaded byPauloAndresSepulveda
- C-90-1323-009_Rev 0Uploaded byajmain
- Weld StrengthUploaded byRUDHRA DHANASEKAR
- - -Concrete Engineering General Discussion - Eng-TipsUploaded byCarmel Navin
- Ansys Analisis - Eslabon 1Uploaded byJosue Emanuel Gavilanes Bajaña
- C-90-1323-011_Rev 0Uploaded byajmain
- <html> <head><title>400 Bad Request</title></head> <body bgcolor="white"> <center><h1>400 Bad Request</h1></center> <hr><center>nginx/1.2.6</center> </body> </html>Uploaded byBarnaby Ng
- Ductile Iron Pipe vs PVCO PipeUploaded bymagdyeng
- SCI Pub P126 - The Fire Resistance of Shelf Angle Floor Beams to BS5950 Part 8.pdfUploaded byAnonymous dAhcZpwI
- analysisUploaded bypandasunil
- Uk Guideline Appendix cUploaded bykkd108
- (15) Towards Deformation-based Capacity Design of RCS Beamc (3)Uploaded byEdwin Ramirez
- Design Stone material for construction of Mustafa Pasha Mosque ModelUploaded byjosif
- 08 Chapter 2Uploaded byAbhijit Sarkar
- Moment Connections2Uploaded byvarshasdm1987
- ASM Material Data Sheet (Aluminium Beam)Uploaded byMohammed Adnan
- 2012 - Compressive Strength of Concrete After Early LoadingUploaded byafuhciv
- 05bfa604-b567-4ed1-aaae-9cf2a14a8993.pdfUploaded bymuralihare
- WCEE2012_0072Uploaded byBajrang Gupta
- Balsawood Bridge ProjectUploaded byAgus Budiyanto
- Reparacion de Muros ChatosUploaded byAnonymous YH4jBAiDOq
- Column Design - As Per BS CodeUploaded byAreeb Ahmed

- Impermeabilização de Reservatórios de Concreto (SIKA) - Guia (3).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Inspección de las estructuras - Silabo del Curso (2).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Indirect Flexural Crack Control of Concrete Slabs & One-Way Slabs Reinforced with FRP Bars (2007) - Paper (9).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Informe Pericial de una Edificación con Problemas Estructurales (CONPAR) - Presentación (38).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Implementation of Infrared Nondestructive Evaluation in FRP Double-Web I-beams (2006) - Thesis (110).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Informe de Inspección Técnica de Evaluación Estructural de Edificio Sede Servicio Registro Civil Coyhaique (2008) - Informe (10).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Inspecciones de Seguridad Laboral. Programa de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales - Presentación (19).pptUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Health monitoring of FRP using acoustic emission and fibre optic techniques (2004) - Thesis (257).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Inspección Visual. Niveles I y II. Manual de Inspección (2006) .- Manual de Instrucción (192).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guía Práctica para Edificación y Rehabilitación. Manual Util sobre Productos y Sistemas (BASF The Chemical Company) - Guía (144).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Hormigón Sika WT-100. Aditivo para Hormigón Impermeable (SIKA) - Guía Técnica (4).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Homeowners's Guide to Retrofitting. 6 Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding (FEMA 312 June 1998) - Guide (173).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Inspección, Dirección y Supervisión de Obras Civiles. Control de Obras de Concreto - Texto (58).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Hybrid Members employing FRP Skin Reinforcement for Beams & Cladding Wall Applications (2008) - Thesis (105).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Inspección y Prevención de Incendios (Libros en la Red 2001) - Libro. Antonio Peinado Moreno (191).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- FRP shear strengthening of RC beams and walls (2008) - Thesis (202).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Fundamentos de Polímeros (ULA Venezuela 2004) - Texto. Francisco López Carrasquero (63).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guide Examples for Design of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars - Paper (20).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- High-Strength & Corrosion-Resistant Rebar. Designing Better Built Structures, More Efficiently (2014) - Paper (6).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guidelines for retrofitting of buildings. Retrofit for Safety... (UNDP Tamilnadu 2006) - Guide (45).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- GRP & FRP Pipeline - Presentation (49).pptxUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guidance for FRP Repair & Strengthening of Concrete Substructures (2002) - Guide (5).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Handbook for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings - Paper (7).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Gestión del Riesgo Sísmico en Rehabilitación Estructural en Territorio Santiaguero (Cuba 2005) - Paper (15).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guide for Certification of FRP Hydrocarbon Production Pipimng Systems (ABS 2011) - Guide (53).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-03) - Paper (6).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- FRP Wins the Respect of the Engineers, Contractors & Operators at Mexico's Altamira Complex - Presentation (41).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Health Buildings. Unhealthy Buildings. Unhealthy Materials. Unhealthy Practices (2004) - Presentation (41).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams Under Combined Torsion and Flexure (2013) - Paper (16).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán