Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9622-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
FRP tube encased rubberized concrete cylinders
Guoqiang Li • Su-Seng Pang • Samuel I. Ibekwe
Received: 7 July 2009 / Accepted: 19 April 2010 / Published online: 27 April 2010
Ó RILEM 2010
Abstract In this study, FRP tube encased waste tire
rubber modified concrete cylinders were investigated.
Four batches of confined and unconfined concrete
cylinders with a diameter of 101.6 mm and a height
of 304.8 mm were prepared. Each batch contained
three confined cylinders and three unconfined cylin-
ders. The total number of effective cylinders prepared
was 24. Batches 1–3 were made of rubberized
concrete. In Batch 1, 15% by volume of coarse
aggregate was replaced by waste tire fibers or stripes;
in Batches 2 and 3, 15% by volume of sand and 30%
by volume of sand were replaced by crumb rubbers,
respectively. Batch 4 was a control batch with
conventional plain concrete. Uniaxial compression
tests were conducted on all the cylinders per ASTM
C39. Strain gages were installed on the encased
rubberized concrete cylinders to obtain local strain
distributions. The compressive strength and strain at
the peak load were compared with the predictions by
available design-oriented confinement models. It is
found that the FRP tube encased rubberized concrete
cylinders have higher confinement effectiveness,
ductility, and elastic regions than FRP tube encased
G. Li (&)  S.-S. Pang
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
e-mail: guoli@me.lsu.edu
G. Li  S. I. Ibekwe
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Southern
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA
conventional concrete cylinders. Waste tire fiber
modified concrete performs better than crumb rubber
modified concrete with a lower cost. Instead of
volume contraction, FRP encased rubberized con-
crete cylinders experience volumetric expansion. The
current design-oriented confinement models cannot
consistently predict the compressive strength and
strain of the encased cylinders. An 1-D coupon test
cannot uniquely determine the hoop tensile strength
of the FRP tubes which are subjected to a 2-D stress
condition.
Keywords FRP  Rubberized concrete 
Waste tire  Confinement  Cylinders
1 Introduction
The United States generates approximately 242 mil-
lion scrap tires per year, which represents 1.2% by
weight of all municipal solid waste [1]. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated
that 2–3 billion scrap tires had already accumulated
in illegal stockpiles or uncontrolled tire dumps
throughout the country, with millions more scattered
in ravines, deserts, woods, and empty lots. The waste
tire stream represents a significant environmental,
human health, and aesthetic problem. Innovative
solutions must be developed to solve this problem.
A number of studies have been conducted to use
shredded rubber chips, rubber fibers, or crumb
234
rubbers to modify cement concrete [2–8]. Laboratory
tests have shown that the introduction of waste tire
rubbers considerably increases toughness, impact
resistance, and plastic deformation of concrete,
offering a significant potential for the concrete to be
used in sound/crash barriers, retaining structures, and
pavements. However, almost all the previous studies
have observed a considerable decrease in concrete
strength. Sometimes the strength is so low that the
concrete loses its ability to carry any meaningful
structural load, making it impossible to use waste tire
rubber-filled concrete in major load carrying
structures.
It is well known that fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) confinement can significantly increase the
strength and ductility of concrete [9–11]. Therefore,
it is envisioned that if the waste tire rubber modified
concrete is encased by FRP tubes, the lower strength
problem of waste tire rubber modified concrete would
be solved and waste tire rubbers would be used in
primary load carrying structures. The objective of this
study is thus to investigate the structural behavior and
confinement effectiveness of FRP tube encased waste
tire rubber modified concrete cylinders through
testing and modeling.
2 Raw materials and test procedure
2.1 Raw materials and specimen preparations
Type I Portland cement, gravel, natural sand, water,
and superplasticizer DARAVAIR 1000 were used to
prepare concrete. The specific gravity of the gravel
was 2.68 g/cm3 with a maximum size of 19 mm and
the specific gravity of the sand was 2.65 g/cm3 with a
fineness modulus of 2.62. Concrete with compressive
strength of 35 MPa was designed as a control mix. The
mix design followed ACI Standard 211.1 (‘‘Standard’’
1991). Two types of waste tire rubbers were used. One
was a crumb rubber, with an average particle diameter
of 160 lm, and the other was a waste tire fiber or
stripe, with an average length of 50.8 mm, width of
5.08 mm, and height of 5.08 mm. Three batches of
rubberized concrete and one batch of control concrete
were prepared. In preparing the batch one (B1)
rubberized concrete, 15% by volume of coarse aggre-
gate (gravel) was replaced by waste tire fibers; for the
batch two (B2) concrete, 15% by volume of sand was
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
replaced by crumb rubbers; for the batch three (B3)
concrete, 30% by volume of sand was replaced by
crumb rubbers. The batch four (B4) concrete was a
control mix, i.e., without rubber replacement. The mix
proportion by weight for B1 concrete was cement:
water:gravel:waste tire:sand:admixture = 1:0.50:3.
34:0.16:1.88:0.001; the B2 concrete was cement:
water:gravel:crumb rubber:sand:admixture = 1:0.50:
3.50:0.09:1.79:0.001; the B3 concrete was cement:
water:gravel:crumb rubber:sand:admixture = 1:0.50:
3.50:0.17:1.71:0.001; and the B4 concrete was
cement: water:gravel:sand:admixture = 1:0.50:3.50:
1.88:0.001. From the mix proportion, it is seen that
the amount of waste tire fibers used in B1 concrete is
almost the same as the amount of crumb rubbers used
in B3 concrete. Therefore, the comparison of B1 with
B3 can be used to evaluate the relative effectiveness of
waste tire fibers and crumb rubbers.
The mixing started with adding the coarse aggre-
gate, sand, and rubber into a drum mixer for dry
mixing. After about 1 min of mixing, about one-third
of the water, with the superplasticizer dissolved in it,
was added to the dry mix for mixing. After another
minute of mixing, the cement was added to the mix
while blending. The remaining water dissolved with
the superplasticizer was gradually added to the mix
and the mixture was blended for about 5 min. After
resting for 5 min, the mixture was blended for about
1 min and the concrete was ready for use. Visual
inspection showed that the rubber fibers and crumb
rubbers were uniformly dispersed in the concrete.
The slump of the batches B1, B2, B3, and B4 was
respectively 12.2, 14.2, 13.8, and 14.6 mm.
For each batch, three effective cylinders with a
diameter of 101.6 mm and height of 304.8 mm were
prepared to determine their unconfined compressive
strength and stress–strain behavior. The total number
of unconfined concrete cylinders was 12. The test
results of the 28-day compressive strength, modulus
of elasticity, and strain at the peak stress per ASTM
C39 for each batch of concrete are given in Table 1.
The FRP tubes used were obtained by cutting
FIBERBONDÒ 20HV composite pipes. The pipes
were fabricated by winding vinyl ester wetted E-glass
fiber rovings onto a rotating mandrel, with fibers
orientated ±36° from the hoop direction. The pipes
had a wall thickness of 6.35 mm and an inner
diameter of 101.6 mm. Each tube of 304.8 mm long
was cut from the composite pipes using a diamond
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243 235

Table 1 28-Day
Batch Compressive strength (MPa) Strain at peak stress (%) Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
compressive strength, axial
strain at the peak stress, and Average SD Average SD Average SD
modulus of elasticity of
each batch of concrete B1 22.9 0.7 0.25 0.008 20.1 1.4
B2 21.2 0.5 0.26 0.01 19.3 1.2
B3 16.3 0.2 0.22 0.012 15.5 0.7
B4 34.8 0.9 0.23 0.007 27.0 1.6

Table 2 Mechanical properties of the FRP tubes pressed onto the cleaned surface under thumb pressure
and after about 1 min, the adhesive was cured.
Elastic properties EL (GPa) 39.8
ET (GPa) 8.5
2.2 Testing
GLT (GPa) 4.3
mLT 0.26
Each encased specimen was uniaxially compressed to
Strength (MPa) Axial tensile 57.9 about 40% of the ultimate strength of the unconfined
Hoop tensile 182.0 concrete and unloaded to guarantee close contact
Axial flexure 115.8 between each component and to reduce errors in
Axial compression 124.1 displacement measurement. Then the specimen was
reloaded until FRP failure. The compression tests
saw. Table 2 gives the mechanical properties of the were conducted using a FORNEY machine. This
FRP tubes provided by the manufacturer. machine has a capacity of 2,688 kN. The assembled
Before casting concrete, one end of the tube was computer data acquisition system can directly record
capped using a plastic tape. The concrete was then the load–displacement curves. The strain was
cast, compacted, finished, and cured for 28 days in a obtained using a Yokogawa DC100 Data Acquisition
standard wet curing room with a relative humidity of Unit. The compression test was conducted per ASTM
100%. Three encased cylinders were prepared for C 39. The loading rate was 0.23 MPa/s. The test set-
each batch of concrete. A total of 12 FRP tube up, with strain gages, is shown in Fig. 1.
encased concrete cylinders were prepared.
In order to gain an in-depth understanding of the
structural behavior of the composite, strain gages were
used to obtain local strain distributions. The strain
gages used were Vishay Micro-measurement SR-4
general purpose bondable foil strain gages. The grid
resistance was 350 X and the gage factor at 24°C was
2.105%. Before testing, two pairs of strain gages were
used for each FRP tube encased rubberized concrete
cylinder. Each pair contained two strain gages
mounted at the mid-height of the cylinder aligned
along the hoop and axial directions, respectively. The
two pairs were 180° apart along the hoop direction.
Before mounting the strain gages, surface-abrasion of
the FRP tube was conducted using the Silicon-Carbide
Paper SCP-3 400-grit. After that the surface was
cleaned using a solvent cleaner CSM-2 Degreaser
spray. Once the surface was dry, a drop of M-bond 200
adhesive was spread on the surface of the strain gage.
Both the cleaner and the adhesive were obtained from
Vishay Micro-measurement. The strain gage was then Fig. 1 Test specimen and test set-up
236
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Effect of waste tire rubber on the strength
and stiffness of concrete
From Table 1, it is evident that the introduction of
waste tire fibers and crumb rubbers has a significant
effect on the compressive strength and stiffness of
concrete. Compared with the control concrete, B4
(conventional plain concrete), the compressive
strength is reduced by 34.2% for the B1 concrete
(15% by volume of substitution of coarse aggregate),
39.1% for the B2 concrete (15% by volume of
substitution of sand), and 53.2% for the B3 concrete
(30% by volume of substitution of sand). For the
modulus of elasticity, the reduction is 25.6% for the
B1 concrete, 28.5% for the B2 concrete, and 42.6%
for the B3 concrete. This reduction in both compres-
sive strength and stiffness is similar to previous
observations in the literature [2–8]. Obviously, with
such a significant reduction, it is unrealistic or
economically unacceptable to use rubberized con-
crete as structural columns without confinement.
Although the rubberized concrete fails at much
smaller loads, the failure mode is ductile. Figure 2a
shows the failure mode of a B1 specimen and Fig. 2b
shows the failure mode of a B4 (control) specimen.
The failure of rubberized concrete is due to many
vertically propagating cracks. This represents a
distinct departure from the control concrete, which
Fig. 2 Failure mode a waste tire fiber modified concrete and b
control concrete
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
has a brittle failure mode by a major shear crack. This
type of ductile failure mode can be further evidenced
by the axial stress–strain curves of each type of
concrete, as shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, rubberized
concrete does not disintegrate after the peak load;
rather, it undergoes a significant post-peak deforma-
tion. This suggests that the ductility of the rubberized
concrete is increased considerably.
The reduction in strength and stiffness of rubber-
ized concrete is due to the smaller stiffness of the
waste tire fibers and crumb rubbers. They serve as
stress concentration centers or cause local strain
gradients. Micro cracks are easily formed once the
concentrated stress exceeds the strength of local
concrete. This reduces the overall strength and
stiffness of the rubberized concrete. Although the
B1 specimen and the B3 specimen contain almost the
same amount of rubbers, the strength (peak stress)
and the modulus of elasticity (slope of the stress–
strain curve) of the waste tire fiber modified concrete
are higher than those of the crumb rubber modified
concrete. From Fig. 3, the crumb rubbers are more
effective in enhancing the ductility of the concrete.
This may be due to the incorporation of small ductile
particles into the concrete. On the contrary, waste tire
fibers have a certain length embedded in the concrete.
A certain load can be transferred from the concrete to
the fiber through interfacial frictional force (the
interfacial bonding strength is very small). This
serves to retain the strength and stiffness of the
concrete matrix. It is well known that waste tire fibers
are much cheaper than crumb rubbers due to its ease
of manufacturing. The test result in this study
40
B4
30 B1
Axial stress (MPa)
B2
B3
20
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Axial strain (%)
Fig. 3 Typical axial stress–strain behavior of various types of
concrete
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
suggests that lower-cost waste tire fibers are more
effective than higher-cost crumb rubbers in retaining
the compressive strength and stiffness of the
concrete.
3.2 Confinement effectiveness
The confinement effectiveness (axial stress over
corresponding unconfined compressive strength of
concrete) versus axial strain for each type of FRP
confined rubberized concrete cylinders and a FRP
tube encased plain concrete cylinder is shown in
Fig. 4. For the FRP tube encased conventional
concrete cylinders, it was observed previously that
the confinement effectiveness decreases non-linearly
as the unconfined concrete strength increases [11,
12]. From Fig. 4, the confinement effectiveness of the
four types of confined cylinders at their failure axial
strain is 4.24, 5.25, 4.58, and 4.86 for the control
(B4), 15% waste tire fiber (B1), 15% crumb rubber
(B2), and 30% crumb rubber (B3) specimens,
respectively. Obviously, the confinement effective-
ness of the control specimen (B4) at failure is the
smallest and the confinement effectiveness of B3 is
higher than that of B2, indicating that the higher
the unconfined compressive strength of the concrete,
the lower the confinement effectiveness. However,
the waste tire fiber modified concrete (B1) has higher
confinement effectiveness than the crumb rubber
modified concrete (B2 and B3). This may be because
the waste tire fibers are more effective in reducing the
number of cracks and containing the cracks so that
6 higher elastic region than the regular FRP tube
5
Confinment effectiveness
4 that the transition zone occurs at a point when the
3
B3
2 B2
B1
1 B4
0 rubberized concrete core. The reason for this may
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain (%)
Fig. 4 Confinement effectiveness versus axial strain for
various types of FRP tube confined concrete
237
the FRP tube can more effectively confine the
concrete core. Based on the discussion in Sect. 3.1,
the waste tire fiber modified concrete has a higher
strength and stiffness than the crumb rubber modified
concrete. This section shows that FRP tube confined
waste tire fiber modified concrete cylinder (B1) has a
higher confinement effectiveness than crumb rubber
modified concrete cylinders (B2 and B3). Together
with the lower cost of waste tire fibers, it is concluded
that waste tire fibers should be used in modifying
concrete for structural applications. Using crumb
rubber to modify concrete is not an effective way for
FRP confined concrete cylinders.
3.3 Axial stress–strain behavior
Figure 4 also represents the axial stress–strain behav-
ior because the confinement effectiveness is defined
as the axial stress divided by the corresponding
unconfined concrete strength (constant for each
curve). It is seen that the confinement effectiveness
versus axial strain curves are typical bi-linear curves
connected by a transition zone, even for rubberized
concrete. It is known that, for conventional concrete,
the FRP tube does not provide confinement to the
concrete core until the unconfined concrete strength
is reached. This is due to the larger out-of-plane
Poisson’s ratio and lower axial stiffness of the FRP
tube than those of concrete [12]. In order to overcome
this problem, grid stiffened steel or FRP tube encased
concrete cylinders have been developed. It is found
that the mechanical interlocking developed between
the grid skeleton and the concrete core has resulted in
higher compressive strength, higher ductility, and
encased concrete counterparts [13, 14].
For the rubberized concrete in this study, it is seen
confinement effectiveness is around 2.5–3.0, which is
much higher than that of the conventional concrete
(slightly above 1.0) and is close to or above that of
the grid tube encased concrete cylinders. Therefore,
the FRP tube can more effectively confine the
be that the axial stiffness of the rubberized concrete is
12 14
smaller than that of the control concrete. Subjected to
the same load, the rubberized concrete core laterally
expands more. As a result, the FRP tube is activated
to confine the rubberized concrete core before the
238
concrete cracks. Owing to the early confinement (3-D
compressive stress condition), the cracking of the
rubberized concrete core (the start of the transition
zone) does not occur until the confinement effective-
ness is about 2.5–3.0.
This type of behavior is desired in practice because
it means that the elastic region of the FRP tube
encased concrete is increased. The confined rubber-
ized concrete cylinders can carry a higher load in the
elastic region than the confined conventional concrete
cylinders (the yield strength for the B1 specimens is
about 3.0 9 22.9 MPa = 68.7 MPa, while it is about
1.0 9 34.8 MPa = 34.8 MPa for the B4 specimens).
To achieve the same load carrying capacity, the
control concrete needs to work at the inelastic region,
causing damage in concrete.
In addition to the higher confinement effectiveness
in the elastic region, the confined rubberized concrete
cylinders have a much higher axial failure strain than
the confined control concrete cylinders. The higher
failure strain in confined rubberized concrete cylin-
ders is desired in some applications, for instance
columns or piles in bridges, buildings, waterfront
fenders, etc. in the earthquake region or hurricane
region, where larger failure strain contributes to
absorbing more dynamic energy.
From the above discussion it is clear that the FRP
encased rubberized concrete cylinders, in particular,
the confined waste tire fiber modified concrete
cylinders, have higher confinement effectiveness,
higher toughness, and higher elastic region. It is thus
concluded that FRP encasement may be an effective
way of recycling waste tires for structural
applications.
3.4 Volumetric strain behavior
In order to understand the dilatation behavior of the
rubberized concrete core, volumetric change with
load provides useful information. The volumetric
strain ev is determined from [15]:
ev ¼ eA þ 2eH ð1Þ
where eA (negative) and eH (positive) are the axial
strain and hoop strain, respectively. For such a sign
convention, a positive ev means dilatation and a
negative ev suggests volume contraction.
Using the strain gage measurement, Fig. 5 shows
the axial stress–volumetric strain behavior of three
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
80
60
Axial stress (MPa)
40
20 B1
B3
B2
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4
Volumetric strain (%)
Fig. 5 Axial stress–volumetric strain behavior of confined
cylinders
FRP confined rubberized concrete cylinders from
batches B1, B2, and B3, respectively. It is seen that
the three cylinders experience a small volumetric
contraction when the axial stress is small. Once the
axial stress comes up to its respective compressive
strength of the unconfined rubberized concrete
(22.9 MPa for B1, 16.3 MPa for B3, and 21.2 MPa
for B2), the volumetric strain becomes positive, i.e.,
volumetric expansion or dilatation. This represents a
distinct departure from FRP tube encased conven-
tional concrete cylinders, where a volumetric con-
traction is seen [15]. The reason for this may be that
the rubber is incompressible with a Poisson’s ratio of
almost 0.5. The introduction of rubber increases the
Poisson’s ratio of the concrete core before the
concrete cracks and the lateral strain after the
concrete cracks. As a result of the larger transverse
deformation, the confined cylinders experience vol-
ume expansion, instead of volume contraction. This
may also explain the increased elastic region of the
encased rubberized concrete cylinders. Due to the
larger lateral strain of the rubberized concrete core,
the core may always have a larger lateral expansion
than the FRP tube. Consequently, the FRP tube is
activated to confine the concrete core at early stage.
The concrete core is thus subjected to a 3-D
compressive stress condition well before the uncon-
fined concrete strength is reached. The transition zone
in the axial stress–axial strain curves does not occur
until the axial stress is much higher than the
unconfined concrete strength (in Fig. 4, 2.5–3 times
higher).
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243 239

This can be further validated by the dilatation

ratio. Define the dilatation ratio k as [15]:
eH
k¼ ð2Þ
eA
where eH is the hoop strain and eA is the axial strain.
Obviously, before the concrete cracks, k is equal to
the Poisson’s ratio.
Figure 6 shows the dilatation ratio change with
axial stress for the B1, B2, and B3 cylinders. From
Fig. 6, the dilatation ratio for the three cylinders is
\0.5 when the axial stress is small. Once the axial
stress exceeds a certain value, the dilatation ratio is
larger than 0.5, suggesting that volumetric expansion
would occur. It is interesting to note that for the B1
cylinder, the dilatation ratio is almost constant (about
0.6), while it is unstable for the B3 cylinder. This
means that the B3 cylinder has a higher volumetric Fig. 7 Failure mode of a FRP tube encased rubberized
strain than the B1 cylinder. The reason for this may be concrete cylinder
(1) the waste tire fibers can bridge over the concrete
cracks and contain or arrest the opening of crack, propagate along the fiber direction. This type of
reducing the lateral deformation; (2) the applied axial failure mode has been observed in FRP tube encased
load is carried by the concrete core and the FRP tube conventional concrete cylinders [11]. Understanding
collaboratively. Due to the very small stiffness of the of this type of failure mode must come from the
B3 concrete, the FRP tube has a higher share of axial detailed information on the longitudinal stress, trans-
load, resulting in larger axial strain and thus higher verse stress, and in-plane shear stress in the principal
lateral strain and higher volumetric expansion. materials’ coordinate system. Also, only a 2-D failure
criterion such as the Tsai–Hill criterion can predict
3.5 Failure mode the facture of the 2-D stressed FRP tube.

A typical failure mode of a B3 cylinder is shown in 3.6 Comparison with existing confinement
Fig. 7. Obviously, the failure is due to fracture of the models
FRP. Because of the 2-D stress condition in the FRP
tube (hoop tension and axial compression), the cracks 3.6.1 Compressive strength comparison

3.0 A key in designing FRP confined concrete cylinders

is to estimate their compressive strength and ultimate
2.5
B1 strain. This can be achieved by using confinement
B3 models. Currently, there are two types of confinement
Dilatation ratio λ

2.0 B2
models, design-oriented and analysis-oriented [16].
1.5 The design-oriented models are closed-form equa-
tions and are directly based on interpretation of
1.0
experimental results. The analysis-oriented models,
0.5
on the other hand, are generated using an incremental
numerical procedure, such as the one by Mander et al.
0.0 [17]. The advantage of design-oriented models is
0 20 40 60 80
their ease to use. The most common form of the
Axial stress (MPa)
design-oriented confinement models can be repre-
Fig. 6 Change of dilatation ratio with axial stress sented by the following expression:
240 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243

  m 
fcc0 fl 10
0
¼ 1 þ k 0
ð3Þ 1: Richart et al. [18] and Fardis and Khalili [11]
fco fco 2: Newman and Newman [19]
3: Cusson and Paultre [20] 1
4: Karbhari and Gao [21]
where, fcc0 is the compressive strength of the confined 5: Samaan et al. [15]
6: Toutanji [22]
0
concrete, fco is the compressive strength of the 8 7: Miyauchi [23]
8: Saafi et al. [24] 2

Confinement effectiveness
11
unconfined concrete, fl is the lateral confining 9: Lam and Teng [26] and Lin and Liao [27]
10: Cheng et al. [25] 6
pressure, (fcc0 =fco0
) is the confinement effectiveness, 11: Lam and Teng [16]
Test results
7
0
(fl =fco ) is the confinement ratio, k is the effectiveness 5
B1
coefficient and m is the power coefficient of the 6 10
confinement ratio. fl can be found using the following B4
9
equation: 8
4

2fFRP t 3
fl ¼ ð4Þ 4
D
B3
in which fFRP is the hoop tensile strength of the tube; t
is the wall thickness of the tube; and D is the inner B2

diameter of the tube. 2

Some representative design-oriented confinement
models from the literatures are listed in Table 3. The
confinement effectiveness as a function of the
confinement ratio for the listed confinement models
is shown in Fig. 8. The test results for the four types
of cylinders are also shown in Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, the existing design-oriented confine-
ment models vary significantly. This is because each
model is based on an interpretation or curve-fitting of
a particular set of experimental data. It is thus
understandable that they behave differently. There-
fore, there is a need to continuously expand the
current experimental database, in particular, for
different types of concrete, for instance, rubberized
concrete used in this study.
Compared with the test results in this study, it is
seen that the Richart et al. and Fardis and Khalili’s
model is close to the test results of the control
concrete (B4) and concrete having 15% by volume of
waste tire fibers (B1). For the concrete with 15% by
volume of crumb rubber (B2), Newman and New-
man’s model and Toutagi’s model yield the closest
estimation. For the concrete with 30% by volume of
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Confinement ratio
Fig. 8 Comparison of test results with confinement models for
FRP tube-encased concrete cylinders
crumb rubber (B3), the best prediction comes from
Miyauchi’s model. From the above comparison, no
individual model can consistently predict all the test
results. The reason for this can be discussed as
follows.
In addition to the small database used in deriving
the design-oriented confinement models, which has
been addressed previously [12, 16], and the fact that
the available models are based on conventional plain
concrete, another possible reason for the inconsistent
model prediction is the determination of the hoop
tensile strength in Eq. 4. It is noted that the hoop
tensile strength fFRP is not a material’s constant when
the FRP is subjected to a 2-D stress condition, i.e.,
hoop tension and axial compression in FRP tube
encased concrete cylinders. While this may not be a
problem in FRP repaired concrete cylinders, where

Table 3 A list of various representative design-oriented confinement models

Model Richard et. al. Newman Cusson Karbhari Samaan Toutanji Miyauchi Saafi Cheng Lam Lam and Teng
[18] and Fardis and and and Gao et al. [22] et al. [23] [24] et al. and [26] and Lin
and Khalili [11] Newman Paultre [21] [15] [25] Teng and Liao [27]
[19] [20] [16]

m 1.0 0.86 0.7 0.87 0.7 0.85 1.0 0.84 1.0 1.0 1.0
k 4.1 3.7 2.1 2.1 3.38 3.5 2.98 2.2 2.4 3.3 2.0
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
the FRP is primarily subjected to a hoop tension and
the fibers are primarily oriented in the hoop direction,
i.e., 1-D stress condition, the hoop tensile strength
cannot be uniquely determined in the FRP tube
encased cylinders due to its 2-D stress condition. The
hoop tensile strength depends on the level of the axial
stress. In order to demonstrate the dependence of the
hoop tensile strength on the axial stress, a 2-D failure
criterion such as Tsai–Hill criterion can be used.
Using Tsai–Hill failure criterion [28], the first ply
(the outermost ply) of the FRP tube will fracture if:
        
rL 2 rL rT rT 2 sLT 2
 þ þ ¼1
rLU rLU rLU rTU sLTU
ð5Þ
where rL, rT, and sLT are the longitudinal stress,
transverse stress, and in-plane shear stress in the
principal material’s coordinate system (L–T coordi-
nate system), respectively. The longitudinal strength
rLU and transverse strength rTU depend on the nature
of the corresponding stress in the numerator in each
term. If the corresponding stress is tensile, the tensile
strength will be used; otherwise the compressive
strength will be used. sLTU is the in-plane shear
strength.
As an example, assuming a differential element
from a laminated FRP tube is subjected to a hoop
tensile stress rH and an axial compressive stress rA.
The fiber orientation is 45° from the hoop direction.
The strength in the principal material’s coordinate
system (L–T) is rLU = 500 MPa (tensile) or
350 MPa (compressive), rTU = 10 MPa (tensile) or
75 MPa (compressive), and sLTU = 35 MPa. Using
the Tsai–Hill failure criterion, a failure envelope is
determined; see Fig. 9. It is clear that the hoop tensile
strength is not a material’s constant. Depending on
the level of the axial stress, the hoop tensile strength
varies from 35 MPa to 0 MPa. When the specimen is
subjected to an 1-D tensile stress (hoop tensile stress
only), the hoop tensile strength is 19.2 MPa. There-
fore, a significant deviation occurs if a 1-D tensile test
is used to determine the hoop tensile strength. It is
noted that this deviation may be smaller if the axial
stress is in a certain range. In Fig. 9, three small
regions are identified. When the axial stress is within
these regions, the predicted hoop tensile strength
based on the 2-D criterion will differ by less
than ± 10% as compared with that determined by
241
Fig. 9 Hoop strength dependence on axial stress
the 1-D test. Out of the three regions, the deviation
will be larger than ± 10%. When the axial stress
changes from about 3 MPa to about 52 MPa, the 1-D
test underestimates the hoop tensile strength by -10
to -82%; when the axial stress varies from 54 to
63 MPa, the 1-D test overestimates the hoop tensile
strength by 10–100%. Therefore, depending on the
level of the axial stress, the 1-D tensile test may yield
an acceptable hoop tensile strength. This is true for
FRP repaired concrete cylinders, which is almost a 1-
D (hoop) stress condition. For FRP tube encased
concrete cylinders, which are subjected to a 2-D
stress condition and the fibers are aligned in a
direction other than the hoop direction, it cannot be
avoided that 1-D test will lead to a considerable error.
Since the axial stress is not known before the FRP
tube fails, the deviation from 1-D tensile test cannot
be predicted in advance. Therefore, a full 2-D
analysis and test must be used. It is envisioned that
at least five types of tests—longitudinal tension and
compression tests, transverse tension and compres-
sion tests, and in-plane shear test (such as small-angle
off-axis coupon test) must be conducted and the 2-D
failure criterion must be used in order to obtain a
reliable estimation of the hoop tensile strength in
Eq. 4.
3.6.2 Ultimate axial strain comparison
A number of models have been proposed to predict
the ultimate axial strain of FRP confined concrete
cylinders. Three such models predictions and the
comparison with test results are listed in Table 4. In
242 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243

Table 4 Comparison of model prediction and test results of ultimate axial strain
Type of specimen Model prediction Test results
Richart et al. [18]: Saadatmanesh
 0 et al.
 [29]: Lam and Teng [30]:
EH t  0:7
e0cc ¼ 0:02 þ 0:001Df e0cc fcc 0
ecc
eco ¼ 1 þ 5 fco  1
fl
eco ¼ 2 þ 27 f 0
0
co
co

B1 6.26 5.65 7.97 8.93

B2 6.44 4.86 8.50 11.67
B3 7.53 4.38 8.32 11.53
B4 5.18 3.92 6.04 5.76

Table 4, e0cc is the ultimate axial strain, eco is the
strain at the peak stress of the unconfined concrete as
given in Table 1, EH is the hoop tensile modulus of
elasticity of the FRP tube [28]:
 
1 cos4 h sin4 h 1 1 2mLT
¼ þ þ  sin2 2h ð6Þ
EH EL ET 4 GLT EL
where EL, ET, and GLT are the longitudinal, trans-
verse, and in-plane shear modulus and mLT is the
major in-plane Poisson’s ratio, as given in Table 2.
h = 36° is the fiber orientation with respect to the
hoop direction. Other parameters are the same as in
Eqs. 3 and 4.
From Table 4, it is seen that for the control
concrete (B4) and the waste tire fiber modified
concrete (B1), the Lam and Teng’s model yields the
best prediction. All the models underestimate the
axial strain of crumb rubber modified concrete. One
primary reason is that the models are based on
conventional plain concrete. The dilatation behavior
of the crumb rubber modified concrete is fundamen-
tally different from that of plain concrete. The crumb
rubbers induce many microcracks; however, crumb
rubbers are not sufficient to contain or arrest the
microcracks and prevent them from propagating into
macroscopic cracks, resulting in excessive
deformation.
4 Conclusion
Based on the discussion of test results, the following
conclusions are obtained:
(1) The introduction of waste tire rubbers signifi-
cantly reduces the compressive strength and
stiffness of concrete. With almost the same
amount of rubbers, crumb rubber modified
concrete shows a much larger reduction in
strength and stiffness than waste tire fiber
modified concrete.
(2) The FRP encased rubberized concrete has a
higher confinement effectiveness and higher
ductility than FRP confined conventional plain
concrete. FRP tube encased rubberized concrete
cylinders may be a viable alternative for energy
absorbing cylinders.
(3) The axial stress–strain behavior of FRP con-
fined rubberized concrete cylinders is similar to
that of FRP confined conventional concrete
cylinder, i.e., a bi-linear curve connected by a
transition zone. However, rubberized concrete
exhibits a much higher elastic region.
(4) FRP confined rubberized concrete cylinders
show a significant volume expansion or
dilatation.
(5) The failure of FRP tube encased rubberized
concrete cylinders is due to the fracture of the
FRP tube, which is subjected to a 2-D stress
condition—hoop tension and axial compression.
A 2-D failure criterion must be used to predict
the failure mode.
(6) Compared to crumb rubber, waste tire fiber
results in lower reduction in strength and
stiffness, higher confinement effectiveness,
smaller volumetric expansion, and smaller and
more stable dilatation ratio. Together with its
lower cost, it is recommended that waste tire
fibers be used in FRP tube encased rubberized
concrete cylinders.
(7) No existing design-oriented confinement mod-
els can consistently predict all the test results of
FRP encased rubberized concrete cylinders. For
the FRP tube encased concrete cylinders, a 2-D
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:233–243
failure criterion must be used in determining the
hoop tensile strength of the FRP tubes.
It is noted that this study is preliminary in terms of
its scope. More experimental studies and theoretical
modeling such as using various types of rubberized
concrete with different mix proportions, increasing
the number of specimens in each batch, and devel-
oping design-oriented confinement models, are
needed.
Acknowledgements This study was partially sponsored by
an NSF/Louisiana Board of Regents Joint Faculty Appointment
Program (NSF/LEQSF(2000-01)-NCA-JFAP-10), NSF under
grant number HRD 0734845, and a Louisiana Board of
Regents/ITRS project (LEQSF(2004-07)-RD-B-05). The
specimens were prepared and the tests were conducted in the
Concrete Laboratory at the Louisiana Transportation Research
Center (LTRC). The FRP tubes were provided by EDO
Specialty Plastics. The assistance by Mr. Randy Young from
LTRC and Mr. Manu John at Louisiana State University is
greatly appreciated.
References
1. Douglah S, Everett JW (1998) Scrap tire disposal: I. Sur-
vey of state programs. J Solid Waste Technol Manag
25:40–50
2. Eldin NN, Senouci AB (1993) Rubber-tire practices as
concrete aggregate. J Mater Civ Eng 5:478–496
3. Khatib ZK, Bayomy FM (1999) Rubberized Portland
cement concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 11:206–213
4. Goulias DG, Ali AH (1998) Evaluation of rubber-filled
concrete and correlation between destructive and nonde-
structive testing results. Cem Concr Aggreg 20:140–144
5. Lee HS, Lee H, Moon JS, Jung HW (1998) Development
of tire-added latex concrete. ACI Mater J 95:356–364
6. Li G, Stubbelfield MA, Garrick G, Eggers J, Abadie C,
Huang B (2004) Development of waste tire modified
concrete. Cem Concr Res 34:2283–2289
7. Huang B, Li G, Pang SS, Eggers J (2004) Investigation into
waste tire rubber filled concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 16:187–
194
8. Li G, Garrick G, Eggers J, Abadie C, Stubblefield MA,
Pang SS (2004) Waste tire fiber modified concrete. Com-
pos B 35:305–312
9. Fardis MN, Khalili HH (1982) FRP-encased concrete as a
structural material. Mag Concr Res 34:191–202
10. Mirmiran A, Shahawy M (1996) A new concrete-filled
hollow FRP composite column. Compos B 27B:263–268
11. Li G, Torres S, Alaywan W, Abadie C (2005) Experi-
mental study of FRP tube-encased concrete columns.
J Compos Mater 39:1131–1145
243
12. Li G (2006) Experimental study of FRP confined concrete
cylinders. Eng Struct 28:1001–1008
13. Li G, Maricherla D (2007) Advanced grid stiffened FRP
tube encased concrete cylinders. J Compos Mater 41:1803–
1824
14. Li G (2007) Experimental study of hybrid composite cyl-
inders. Compos Struct 78:170–181
15. Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M (1998) Modeling of
concrete confined by fiber composites. J Struct Eng
124:1025–1031
16. Lam L, Teng JG (2003) Design-oriented stress–strain
model for FRP-confined concrete. Construct Build Mater
17:471–489
17. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical
stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng
114:1804–1826
18. Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL (1928) A study of
the failure of concrete under combined compressive
stresses, Engineering Experimental Station Bull. No. 185.
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
19. Newman K, Newman JB (1971) Failure theories and
design criteria for plain concrete. In: Proceedings of
international civil engineering material conference on
structure, solid mechanics and engineering design. Wiley
Interscience, New York, pp 936–995
20. Cusson D, Paultre P (1995) Stress–strain model for con-
fined high strength concrete. J Struct Eng 121:468–477
21. Karbhari VM, Gao Y (1997) Composite jacketed concrete
under uniaxial compression—verification of simple design
equations. J Mater Civ Eng 9:185–193
22. Toutanji HA (1999) Stress–strain characteristics of con-
crete columns externally confined with advanced fiber
composite sheets. ACI Mater J 96:397–404
23. Miyauchi K, Inoue S, Kuroda T, Kobayashi A (1999)
Strengthening effects of concrete columns with carbon
fiber sheet. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 21:143–150
24. Saafi M (2000) Design and fabrication of FRP grids for
aerospace and civil engineering applications. J Aerosp Eng
13:144–149
25. Cheng H-L, Sotelino ED, Chen W-F (2002) Strength
estimation for FRP wrapped reinforced concrete columns.
Steel Compos Struct 2:1–20
26. Lam L, Teng JG (2002) Strength models for fiber-rein-
forced plastic-confined concrete. J Struct Eng 128:612–623
27. Lin HJ, Liao CI (2004) Compressive strength of reinforced
concrete-column confined by composite materials. Compos
Struct 65:239–250
28. Jones RM (1999) Mechanics of composite materials, 2nd
edn. Taylor & Francis, Inc., Philadelphia
29. Saadatmanesh H, Ehasni MR, Li MW (1994) Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with
fiber composite straps. ACI Struct J 91:434–447
30. Lam L, Teng JG (2001) A new stress–strain model for
FRP-confined concrete. In Teng JG (ed) Proceedings of the
international conference on FRP composite in civil engi-
neering. Elsevier, Inc., Amsterdam