Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

A comparison between the use of FRP, FRCM and HPM for concrete T
confinement
Jacopo Donninia,∗, Simone Spagnuolob, Valeria Corinaldesia
a
SIMAU Department, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy
b
Civil Engineering and Computer Science Engineering Department, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The use of new methods to strengthen and rehabilitate existing concrete and masonry structures is one of the
FRCM challenges that the engineering community is facing in recent years. In this field, composite materials are ac-
FRP quiring more and more success, due to lower invasiveness and ease of application if compared to more tradi-
HPM tional systems (e.g. steel plates or reinforced concrete jacketing).
Concrete
This work, based on experimental investigations, aims to propose a comparison between three different
Confinement
Fiber
methods as possible strengthening solutions for existing concrete elements. Twenty compression tests were
Strengthening conducted on reduced scale concrete columns, realized by using a low performance concrete, in order to re-
produce the poor mechanical properties of most existing structures. Two of them were left unconfined, while the
other ones were reinforced by using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP), Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Matrix
(FRCM) or High Performance Mortar (HPM) systems. The effectiveness of the different strengthening techniques
and the main differences in terms of structural response were investigated. Experimental results were then
compared with predictions deriving from guidelines and theoretical models from the literature.

1. Introduction meshes or grids, coupled with inorganic matrices, designed as Fiber

The possibility of reinforcing concrete elements by externally ap-
plying Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) systems has become a well-es-
tablished solution within the construction industry. Experimental evi-
dences have shown that FRP systems increase compressive strength, as
well as deformation capacity of concrete columns under vertical and
lateral loads [1–8]. In many cases the effectiveness of these systems has
also been validated by natural events, such as the latest earthquakes
that occurred in central Italy in 2016 and 2017. The possibility of using
these systems to reinforce existing structures was translated into design
guidelines by ACI in the USA [9], by CNR in Italy [10], by CSA in
Canada [11].
FRPs combine several advantages over more traditional reinforce-
ment systems, such as high strength-to-weight ratio, relative ease and
speed of application, cost effectiveness. However, the presence of the
organic resin (usually epoxy) results in some drawbacks and limita-
tions, such as poor fire and high temperature resistance, inapplicability
on wet surfaces, irreversibility, low compatibility with the substrate
and low breathability.
The attempt to overcome these limits has led to the development of
new composite materials consisting of fibers, in the form of fabric
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems. The inorganic matrix,
that is not necessarily cement based, but can also consists of lime-based
or geopolymer mortars, ensures higher compatibility with the masonry
or concrete substrates, guarantees better performances when exposed to
high temperature or in case of fire, it can be applied on wet surfaces and
is safer for operators [12–19].
FRCM are preferred to FRP systems when operating in high tem-
perature environments or when the substrate of the element to be re-
inforced is in a high humidity environment.
FRCM systems proved to be very effective as external reinforcement
for masonry or concrete elements, even though the adherence devel-
oped at the interface between fabric and mortar is not as high as in the
case of organic based systems (FRPs) [20–22]. Due to mortar viscosity
and granularity, in fact, the penetration of the latter within the bundle
of fibers (yarn) is not guaranteed. Although this can be considered a
characteristic of FRCM systems, which involve the use of dry fibers,
various coatings have been applied on the fibers surface or adhesion
promoters with the aim to enhance bond at the interface between fibers
and matrices [23–25].
Although the research community has put considerable efforts on
the study of the mechanical characterization of FRCM systems, both

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j.donnini@univpm.it (J. Donnini), spagnuolo@ing.uniroma2.it (S. Spagnuolo), v.corinaldesi@univpm.it (V. Corinaldesi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.111
Received 10 April 2018; Received in revised form 27 November 2018; Accepted 28 December 2018
Available online 30 December 2018
1359-8368/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
J. Donnini et al. Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

with dry and coated fibers, and their applicability to reinforce concrete Table 1
or masonry structures, there is still a lack of regulations and standards Test matrix.
that allows to design with these materials. ACI Committee 549 was the Element Reinforcement Label
first to address this issue by publishing a guide to design FRCM re-
inforcement systems [26] together with acceptance criteria and test Concrete cylinder Unreinforced Ref_1
(Height: 460 mm, Ref_2
methods by AC434.13 [27]. However, experimental studies on the be-
Diameter: 140 mm) Epoxy resin + Carbon sheet E_CS_1
havior of concrete elements reinforced with FRCM systems is still lim- E_CS_2
ited. Epoxy resin + Carbon fabric E_CF_1
The use of composite systems with inorganic matrices to confine E_CF_2
concrete columns was studied by Triantafillou et al. [28] in 2006. In Epoxy resin + PBO fabric E_PBO_1
E_PBO_2
this study 14 concrete cylinders reinforced with FRP and Textile Re-
Mortar 15 + Carbon fabric M15_CF_1
inforced Mortar (TRM) were tested in compression. They used carbon M15_CF_2
fiber textiles in 2 or 3 layers with a cement-based mortar of compressive Mortar 45 + PBO fabric M45_PBO_1
strength in the range from 15.24 to 21.18 MPa. The aim of the research M45_PBO_2
Mortar 45 + Carbon fabric M45_CF_1
was to determine the influence of the matrix and layer's number on the
M45_CF_2
axial strength. Experimental results showed a great enhancement in HPM + Fly Ash + Glass fibers HPM _FA_G_1
strength and ductility, with a hardening behavior of stress-strain curves. HPM _FA_G_2
Bournas et al. [19] carried out some tests on reinforced concrete HPM + Fly Ash + Steel fibers HPM _FA_S_1
columns strengthened both with TRM and FRP jackets. Results showed HPM _FA_S_2
HPM + Fly Ash + Glass HPM _SF_S_E_1
that TRM jackets are slightly less effective in terms of increasing
fibers + CaO HPM _SF_S_E_2
strength and deformation capacity by approximately 10%. An experi-
mental study on FRCM strengthening systems was carried out by Om-
bres [29], to analyze the performances of plain concrete elements possibility of combining different fibers and matrices, the effect of using
wrapped with PBO fiber meshes embedded into an inorganic matrix. epoxy resin or inorganic mortars, coupled with the same fabric re-
The fibers reinforcement ratio, fibers orientation and compressive inforcement on the compressive behavior of concrete columns are
concrete strength were the parameters investigated. The PBO-FRCM analyzed and discussed. In addition, a comparison of experimental re-
system showed to be effective in confining concrete by significantly sults with analytical predictions deriving from guidelines or theoretical
increase both the peak strength and axial strain. The observed failure models has been presented and discussed. Finally, a preliminary study
mode was due to a loss of compatibility and separation at the fabric to on the use of different HPMs as external jackets and their effect on the
matrix interface. compression behavior of the confined columns has been carried out.
De Caso et al. [16] carried out an experimental research on concrete
cylinders confined with a fiber reinforced composite system made of
2. Materials and methods
glass fiber sheets and hydraulic cement-based matrix. Despite the poor
fiber impregnation, the selected system allowed to obtain a substantial
The experimental investigation included 20 cylindrical concrete
increase in axial strength and deformability with respect to unconfined
cylinders having a diameter of 140 mm and height of 460 mm. Two
cylinders.
specimens were left unreinforced, while the others were strengthened
Trapko [30] in 2012 focused on the influence of the temperature on
by externally applying three different composite materials (FRP, FRCM
concrete columns confined with PBO fabrics coupled with an inorganic
and HPM). The application of the same fabric reinforcement, made of
matrix. The experimental activity proved that the initial heat treatment
carbon or PBO fibers, coupled with organic or inorganic matrices, was
did not change significantly the final experimental results.
investigated and results were compared with the aim to quantify their
Another possibility to reinforce existing concrete elements is the use
effectiveness. The use of HPM applied as external jacketing with a
of High Performance Mortar (HPM) jackets. HPM jackets are used when
thickness of 30 mm was also investigated. A test matrix summarizing all
the objective is to significantly increase the carrying capacity of a
types of applied reinforcements is reported in Table 1.
structural element or when the element is structurally deficient due to
damage, which may be caused by seismic events, from design or con-
struction faults, or due to material degradation. 2.1. Material properties
If compared to normal reinforced concrete jackets or steel jacketing,
the use of HPM results in many advantages: reduction in jacket size, A concrete with poor mechanical properties (Table 2) was used to
ease of execution, reduction or elimination of need for additional steel cast the cylinders, in order to reproduce the real conditions that can be
reinforcement and cost effectiveness [31–34]. found in most existing concrete structures in need for reinforcement.
Meda et al. [32] showed that by applying a high-performance Two FRCM mortars with different strength classes were used, de-
mortar jacket to existing concrete columns with corroded rebars, it is noted as M15 and M45, while a two-component epoxy resin was used
possible to increase the bearing capacity of the columns, reaching a for FRP systems. Mechanical properties of the inorganic matrices were
maximum strength greater than the one of the undamaged elements. determined on specimens 40 × 40 × 160 mm, after 28 days of curing at
The performance of HPM, as external reinforcement, strongly de-
Table 2
pends on the mortar mechanical properties and on the strength devel-
Mechanical properties of concrete and matrices.
oped at the interface between the mortar and the old concrete. HPM can
achieve compressive strength greater than 100 MPa and flexural Material Compressive strength (MPa) Flexural strength Elastic modulus
strength higher than 30 MPa. Mechanical characterization of HPM and (MPa) (GPa)

the improvement of the performances of cementitious matrices through Concrete 14 1.3 11.4
the addition of steel, glass or carbon fibers have been studied by Mortar M15 17 3.6 12.5
Corinaldesi and Donnini [35,36]. Moreover, the use of Calcium Oxide Mortar M45 50 6.2 34.5
showed to further improve the mechanical properties of fiber reinforced HPM _FA_G 91 13.1 45.3
HPM _FA_S 128 34.1 49.7
HPM [37].
HPM _SF_S_E 144 27.1 50.1
In this study, the use of FRP, FRCM and HPM jackets to reinforce Epoxy resin 59 48.0 1.9
scaled concrete columns has been investigated. In particular, the

587
J. Donnini et al.
Fig. 1. Carbon fabric, PBO fabric and carbon sheet.
RH = 50 ± 5% and T = 20 ± 2 °C, according to UNI EN 1015-
11:2007 [38]. Results are reported in Table 2.
The use of different fabric reinforcements was investigated. In the
case of FRCM, carbon or PBO fabrics were used (See Fig. 1). The PBO
fabric is formed by yarns with 10 mm and 20 mm spacing in the two
orthogonal directions, nominal equivalent thickness of 0.046 mm in the
longitudinal direction and 0.0224 mm in the transversal direction. The
carbon fabric has nominal thickness of 0.048 mm in the two orthogonal
directions and spacing between yarns of 20 mm. Mechanical properties
of the fabrics are reported in Table 3. The same fabrics were im-
pregnated and bonded to the concrete surface with an epoxy resin (FRP)
or with a cement-based matrix (FRCM). In the case of FRP, a uni-
directional carbon sheet (300 g/m2) coupled with epoxy was also ap-
plied.
Three HPM with different compositions and mechanical properties
were prepared, using a commercial Portland-limestone blended cement
type CEM I 52.5 R, according to the European Standards EN-197/1 [39]
and, as aggregate, a quartz sand with particle size up to 1.0 mm. A
water-reducing admixture constituted of a carboxylic acrylic ester
polymer was used to maintain a low water to cement ratio. A low-
calcium fly ash (ASTM C 618 Class F) produced by a thermal generating
station was used. The Blaine fineness of fly ash is 480 m2/kg and its
relative density (specific gravity) is 2.25. Finally, short fibers made of
brass-coated steel or glass, with nominal length of 13 and 12 mm re-
spectively, were used as randomly dispersed reinforcement for the three
HPM mixtures (see Fig. 2). The mixture proportions are reported in
Table 4.
Due to brittle behavior of the matrix and possible slippage of the
fabric within the mortar, it is important not to consider the mechanical
properties of the fabric, but rather those of the entire composite ma-
terial. Therefore, in this study, the FRCM mechanical properties have
been evaluated following the AC434.13 Annex A instructions.
Tensile tests on FRCM specimens were carried out in order to de-
termine the mechanical properties of the composite. Specimens pre-
paration and test setup have been described in previous works by the
authors [27]. Ultimate tensile strength σu, elastic modulus (or stiffness
modulus) in the cracked phase E2 and ultimate strain εu have been re-
ported in Table 5 and used to predict the confinement effectiveness of
the different FRCM systems.
Table 3
Mechanical and geometric properties of the fabrics.
Material Orientation/type Tensile strength (kN/m) Elastic modulus (GPa)
Carbon fabric (CF) Bi-directional 240 235
Carbon sheet (CS) Unidirectional 800 240
PBO fabric Unidirectional 264 270
588
Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594
Fig. 2. Glass and brassed steel fibers.
2.2. Specimens preparation and test setup
All specimens were manufactured by the same concrete batch, cast
into a cylindrical plastic formwork, demoulded after 7 days and cured
at laboratory conditions (70% RH, 20 °C) for 28 days. The external
surface of the specimens was smoothed with a sander and cleaned be-
fore the application of the reinforcement.
FRP reinforcements were applied by qualified personnel from the
manufacturer. First, the concrete surface was treated with an epoxy
filler to eliminate defects and a primer was applied in order to improve
the adhesion of the next resin layer. Then, carbon or PBO fabrics were
applied by using a two-component epoxy resin. Fabric overlap was
equal to 100 mm in each confined specimen.
FRCM systems were applied as indicated by the manufacturer,
manually spreading a first layer of mortar with a thickness of 4 mm and
applying the PBO or carbon fabric, slightly pressing it into the mortar.
Fabric overlap was equal to 150 mm in each confined specimen. The
second mortar layer was applied with the same thickness.
HPM were cast within a cylindrical plastic formwork, with an in-
ternal diameter equal to 200 mm, to ensure a reinforcement thickness of
30 mm. The high workability and self-compacting properties of the
HPM mixtures allowed to easily cast them inside the formworks,
without the need for vibration.
After strengthening, all specimens were cured at laboratory condi-
tions (70% RH, 20 °C) for 28 days. Top and bottom surfaces of all col-
umns were smoothed to assure parallel surfaces and uniform load dis-
tribution. All specimens were tested under uniaxial compression, using
Ultimate strain (%) Nominal thickness (mm) Fabric weight (g/m2)
1.5 0.048 172
1.8 0.164 300
2.5 0.046 146
J. Donnini et al. Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

Table 4
High Performance Mortars mixtures (kg/m3).
Mortar CEM I 52.5R Water Sand Fly ash Superpl. Brassed steel fibers Glass fiber CaO SRA

HPM _FA_G 960 240 960 250 96 – 66 – –

HPM _FA_S 960 240 960 250 96 192 – – –
HPM _SF_S_E 960 240 960 250 96 192 – 35 4

a 3000 kN compression machine, through monotonically applied

Table 5
loading at a rate of 0.3 mm/min. Applied loads were measured from a
FRCM tensile properties [According to AC434.13-Annex A].
load cell while axial displacements were measured by using external
FRCM system Ultimate tensile strength Elastic modulus Ultimate strain linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) mounted on two oppo-
σu (MPa) E2 (GPa) εu (%) site sides of the specimen (Fig. 3). The average deformations de-
M15_CF 846 79 0.93 termined through the relative displacements measured by two LVDTs
M45_CF 975 80 1.03 have been reported in Table 6. The peak strength of the unconfined
M45_PBO 1542 132 1.80 specimen fc0 was defined as the maximum load reached during the test,
divided by the net area of the concrete cylinder. In the case of re-
inforced specimens, the ultimate strength fcc was calculated considering
the maximum load reached in the post-cracking phase, divided by the
same net area of the cylinder.

3. Experimental results

Results of uniaxial compression tests for unreinforced (Ref) and

reinforced concrete specimens are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, while
stress-strain curves are reported in Fig. 4. The maximum load (Fmax),
peak strength (fcc) and strain (εcc) of reinforced specimens have been
reported. The average peak strength of the unconfined specimen fc0 was
equal to 11.40 MPa while the ultimate strain εc0 was 0.359%. In
Table 6, the values of the ratios between the peak strength of the
confined specimens fcc and that of the reference specimen fc0, and be-
tween the ultimate axial strain of the confined (εcc) and unconfined
(εc0) specimens are also reported. Results of tests are presented and
discussed in terms of stress-strain response, ductility and failure modes.
Test results showed that both FRP and FRCM were able to enhance
the performance of unconfined cylinders, with a significant gain in
strength and ductility.
In the case of FRP reinforcements, the stress strain curve is char-
acterized by three different stages. Initially, most of the load is carried
out by the concrete and the reinforcement is not activated; the stress
strain curves are almost linear (Fig. 4) and the slope is similar to that of
unconfined specimens. Once the concrete core starts to get damaged,
the external reinforcement is activated. The slope of the stress-strain
curves decreases, due to the lower elastic modulus of cracked concrete,
Fig. 3. Compression test setup.
and becomes linear up to failure. The carbon sheet (E_CS, 300 g/m2)
provided the best performing solution, by increasing the compressive

Table 6
Results of compression tests on concrete specimens.
Specimen Fmax (kN) fc0 (MPa) fcc (MPa) εc0 (%) εcc (%) fcc/fc0 εcc/εc0

Ref_1 170 11.05 – 0.346 – – –

Ref_2 181 11.76 – 0.372 – – –

E_CS_1 497 11.40 32.31 0.359 1.778 2.92 5.13

E_CS_2 477 11.40 31.01 0.359 1.742 2.72 4.85
E_PBO_1 330 11.40 21.45 0.359 1.271 1.94 3.67
E_PBO_2 321 11.40 20.87 0.359 1.259 1.83 3.51
E_CF_1 305 11.40 19.83 0.359 1.297 1.79 3.74
E_CF_2 297 11.40 19.31 0.359 1.107 1.69 3.08

M15_CF_1 205 11.40 13.32 0.359 0.566 1.20 1.63

M15_CF_2 215 11.40 13.98 0.359 0.550 1.23 1.53
M45_PBO_1 279 11.40 18.14 0.359 1.117 1.64 3.23
M45_PBO_2 265 11.40 17.27 0.359 1.062 1.51 2.96
M45_CF_1 213 11.40 13.85 0.359 0.488 1.25 1.41
M45_CF_2 207 11.40 13.46 0.359 0.481 1.18 1.34

589
J. Donnini et al. Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

Table 7 3.1. FRP vs FRCM

Results of compression tests on concrete columns confined with HPM.
Specimen Fmax (kN) fcc (MPa) εcc (%) fcc/fc0 εcc/εc0 Although FRCM systems offer considerable advantages if compared
to FRP, as previously reported, it has been recognized that FRCM are
HPM _FA_G_1 1200 38.23 0.451 3.45 1.30 slightly less effective than FRP, due to the difficulty of the inorganic
HPM _FA_G_2 1144 36.43 0.417 3.20 1.16
matrix to penetrate within the filaments of the reinforcement, and
HPM_FA_S_1 1640 52.23 0.777 4.71 2.25
HPM _FA_S_2 1601 50.99 0.730 4.47 2.03
therefore to the lower adhesion developed at the interface between
HPM _SF_S_E_1 1430 45.54 0.584 4.11 1.69 matrix and fibers [19,25].
HPM _SF_S_E_2 1356 43.18 0.504 3.79 1.40 The different behavior of concrete cylinders confined with FRP or
FRCM systems can be easily observed in the stress-strain curves of
Fig. 6. The first part of the stress-strain curves is almost the same for all
strength of about 2.7 times. Compressive strength of cylinders re- specimens.
inforced with PBO (E_PBO, 146 g/m2) and carbon (E_CF, 172 g/m2) In FRP systems, the slippage of the fabric (both carbon and PBO) is
fabrics increased by 1.8 and 1.7 times respectively. Specimens confined prevented by the resin and once the reinforcement has been activated,
with FRP systems failed abruptly when the fibers reached the ultimate the curve is almost linear up to failure.
strength (Fig. 5). Compression behavior of cylinders reinforced with FRCM systems is
Cylinders reinforced with FRCM systems showed a different beha- different: the slope of the curve changes when the perfect adhesion
vior under compression. In this case the stress strain curve can be di- between fabric and matrix is no longer guaranteed. The inorganic
vided into 4 stages. After the failure of the inner concrete core, the mortar starts to crack and the fabric slippage takes place. In this phase
specimen maintains high stiffness, due to the presence of the FRCM the FRCM effectiveness depends only on the friction between fabric and
inorganic matrix. At the end of this stage, the inorganic matrix starts to mortar. The molecular structure of PBO is capable of establishing
crack and the fabric reinforcement is activated. The third phase is chemical bonds with the inorganic mortar, which helps to improve the
characterized by the slippage of the fabric within the inorganic matrix. overall FRCM performance. The smooth surface of carbon fibers, the
This phenomenon has been clearly highlighted in other studies con- absence of strong chemical bonds at the interface fibers-mortar and the
cerning the mechanical characterization of FRCM systems [40–42]. The telescopic behavior of dry carbon yarns [20,22,23] do not allow the
slope of the curve in this stage depends on the friction developed at the composite material to fully develop its effectiveness. This phenomenon
interface between fabric and inorganic matrix. The failure of concrete can be observed by looking at the different slope of the stress-strain
cylinders confined with FRCM systems was more ductile than that of curves once the reinforcement has been activated. In the case of PBO-
FRP confined specimens, due to the formation of multiple cracks in the FRCM reinforcement, a strain-hardening behavior is observed during
matrix and to the slow slippage of the fabric within the mortar (Fig. 5). the fabric slippage, while, looking at the Carbon-FRCM systems, the
FRCM systems increased the compressive strength of the concrete cy- stress is almost constant and a plateau is exhibited before failure.
linders of 1.2 up to 1.6 times the initial strength. Nevertheless, best The reduction of the confinement ratio (fcc/fc0) passing from organic
performances were obtained by using a unidirectional PBO fabric to inorganic matrices was equal to 17% when using PBO fabrics and
coupled with an inorganic matrix specifically designed for concrete 30% in the case of dry carbon fabrics.
substrates. This system was able to significantly increase the ductility of Regarding the effect of the reinforcement on the strain ductility, the
the concrete element. Ultimate strain was 3 times higher than that of higher ductility ratio was attained by the E_PBO confined specimens,
the unreinforced specimen. Failure mode was always by fibers slippage with an increase of the ultimate strain of about 3.5 times while the
and breakage, after the formation of several longitudinal cracks on the M45_CF increased the ultimate strain of 1.38 times.
mortar surface.
FRCM confinement systems with dry carbon fabrics were less ef-
fective than those with PBO, due to lower mechanical properties of 3.2. HPM
carbon fibers and lower adhesion between fibers and matrix. The con-
finement ratio (fcc/fc0) was about 1.2. No substantial differences in the Experimental results of compression tests on concrete cylinders
peak load were noticed by changing the mortar strength class (passing confined with HPM are reported in Table 7. The experiments high-
from M15 to M45). This phenomenon was also observed by other au- lighted a significant strength improvement for cylinders confined with
thors [43] and could be expected by looking at the tensile properties of HPM. All mortars proved to be very effective in increasing the ultimate
the two FRCM systems (Table 5). compressive strength and axial stiffness of the unstrengthened spe-
cimen. However, cylinders reinforced with HPM showed a different

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of uniaxial compression tests on concrete cylinders.

590
J. Donnini et al. Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

Fig. 5. Concrete cylinders with different reinforcement systems at failure.

Fig. 6. Stress-strain behavior of concrete columns reinforced with FRP or FRCM systems subjected to uniaxial compression.

behavior with respect to FRP and FRCM confinement systems. The
compression load is carried out only by the external HPM, which is
more resistant and stiffer than the internal concrete. The stress strain
curve is almost linear up to reach the failure of the HPM (Fig. 7).
Failure in HPM strengthened cylinders under uniaxial load was due
to the compressive failure of the HPM layer (Fig. 8). As the load in-
creases, vertical cracks appear on the external reinforcement layer.
However, crack initiation did not cause a load reduction, nor a loss of
stiffness, due to the bridging effect of short glass and steel fibers. Once
the maximum load has been reached, the cracks continue to increase,
and a softening branch can be observed in the stress-strain curves
(Fig. 7).
Cylinders confined with HPM_FA_G failed due to the complete
breakage of the external mortar layer, which detached from the internal
concrete element. Specimens reinforced with HPM and steel fibers
(HPM_SF_S_E, HPM_FA_S) showed a higher peak load and a different
failure mode. In this case the HPM cracked but no debonding between
HPM jacketing layer and inner concrete was detected.

591
J. Donnini et al.
Fig. 7. Stress-strain behavior of concrete columns reinforced with HPM subject
to compression.
The experimental stress-strain curves of compression tests on cy-
linders strengthened with HPM and steel fibers (HPM_FA_S,
HPM_SF_S_E), showed a remarkable softening branch and a significant
deformation capability after the formation of multiple cracks, up to
complete failure of the specimen. Cylinders confined with HPM with
short glass fibers (HPM_FA_G) showed a more brittle failure. This
phenomenon can be attributed to the higher effectiveness in the brid-
ging action provided by steel fibers, when the HPM is subject to com-
bined compression-tensile biaxial stresses. The use of an expansive
agent within the HPM worsened the adhesion with the existing sub-
strate, leading to a detachment at the interface between HPM and
concrete and so the breakage occurred for loads lower than those ex-
pected (Fig. 9, HPM_SF_S_E).
On the contrary, better adhesion and no debonding were observed
in cylinders confined with HPM without the addition of expansive
agents (Fig. 9, HPM_FA_S).
4. Prediction of the reinforcement effectiveness
4.1. Confinement with FRP and FRCM
Different models have been formulated so far in the scientific
Fig. 8. Failure modes of concrete columns reinforced with HPM.
592
Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594
Fig. 9. HPM-concrete interface after failure.
literature to predict the confinement effects provided by FRP and FRCM
systems. Some of these models have been calibrated based on experi-
ments carried out with FRP reinforcements, such as the ones by
Spoelstra and Monti [44], Toutanji [45], Shehata [1]. In most cases,
due to lack of analytical models calibrated on FRCM systems, the same
formulas used for FRPs have been used with FRCM reinforcement.
However, the different nature of the matrix (organic or inorganic)
produces different micro-mechanical effects, different behavior at the
interface between matrix and fabric and different failure modes. In FRP
composites, the resin does not crack and the slippage of the fibers
within the matrix is avoided. In FRCM systems the cement-based matrix
cracks at low load levels and failure is often governed by fabric slippage
within the matrix. For this reason, the models proposed to predict the
response of concrete elements confined with FRP systems are not very
accurate and reliable in the case of FRCM reinforcements. Some re-
searchers proposed new analytical models to consider the different
behavior of inorganic based systems, such as the models proposed by
Triantafillou [28], Cascardi [46] and Ombres [47]. The American
guideline ACI549.4 R13 also provides analytical formulas to predict the
compressive behavior of concrete columns confined with FRCM sys-
tems. In this study, the models listed in Table 8 were applied to predict
the peak strength fcc and the ultimate axial strain εcc of the confined
columns. It is worth mentioning that mechanical properties of the
FRCM systems used in this study have been determined according to
AC434.13 [27].
The value f1,eff was determined:
f1, eff = ke f Ef fu
with f = 4t f / D .
In the analysis, the value ke = 0.5 was used, as indicated in Ref.
[10]. Predictions of each considered model and comparisons with ex-
perimental results in terms of peak strength (fccth/fccexp) and axial strain
(εcc,th/εcc,exp) are reported in Tables 9 and 10.
J. Donnini et al. Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594

Table 8
Analytical expressions for the maximum strength of confined concrete fcc and maximum axial deformation εcc.
Analytical expressions of fcc and εcc Model

f 1, eff 0.5 fcc [Spoelstra & Monti 1999]

fcc = 0.2 + 3 fc 0 cc = 1+5 1 c0
fc 0 fc 0

f 1, eff 0.85 fcc [Toutanji 1999]

fcc = 1 + 3.5 fc 0 cc = 1 + (1.9 + 310.57 fu ) 1 c0
fc 0 fc 0

fcc = (fc 0 + 2 f1, eff ) f1, eff f 0.5 [Shehata 2002]

cc
cc = 1 + 632 c0
fc 0 Ef

f 1, eff 1.27 f1, eff 1.44 [Triantafillou 2006]

fcc = 1 + 1.9
fc 0
fc 0 cc = 1+ ( )
0.046
c0 fc 0 c0

fcc = fco + 6.7 f 10.587 f1, eff 0.5 [Cascardi 2017]

, eff
cc = 1+ c0
fc 0

f 1, eff 2/3 f1, eff [CNR-DT200 R1/2013]

fcc = 1 + 2.6 fc 0 cc = 0.0035 + 0.015
fc 0 fc 0

[ACI 549.4 R13]

( )
fcc = fco + 3.1 a f1, eff f1, eff u
0.45
cc = 1.5 + 12kb c0
fc 0 c0

The analysis of results highlighted that, with reference to the peak
strength, the models proposed by Spoelstra, Shehata and Triantafillou
are very close to experimental results of columns confined with FRP
made of carbon sheet (E_CS), while DT200 overestimate the peak
strength of about 22%. The same models underestimate the peak
strength of columns confined with FRCM systems. The model proposed
by Cascardi slightly overestimates the ultimate peak strength (13–18%)
while the American guideline AC434 slightly underestimates it (4–8%).
DT200 is able to predict with reasonable accuracy the ultimate
strength and ultimate strain of confined specimens, providing that the
mechanical properties of FRCM are calculated according to AC434.
4.2. Confinement with HPM
For the preliminary evaluation of the compressive strength of col-
umns confined by HPM, the contribution of the inner concrete column
is neglected, thus considering the reinforcement section as a hollow
section. The net reinforcement area considered in the calculation is
equal to 16014 mm2 (HPM with a thickness of 30 mm).
(Arinf fcm, rinf )
fcc, th =
Atot
Theoretical and experimental compressive strength have been
compared and results are reported in Table 11.
The theoretical prediction overestimates the effective resistance of
about 25%. This fact is probably due to a slight eccentricity of the HPM
reinforcement with respect to the vertical axis of the specimen, pro-
duced during the casting of the self-compacting HPM. Specimens re-
inforced with HPM_SF_S_E reached compressive strength lower than the
one expected, due to premature failure at the interface between re-
inforcement and concrete column (Fig. 9). The presence of the ex-
pansive agent within the mixture did not improve the adhesion at the
interface HPM-concrete. Also, in this case a certain eccentricity can be
noticed by the formation of cracks on a limited portion of the specimen.
5. Conclusions
The confinement effect of FRP, FRCM and HPM was evaluated based

Table 9
Confined concrete strength (fcc): comparison of experimental results (fccexp) with theoretical models and design guidelines (fccth).
Specimen fcc/fc0 fccth/fccexp

Exp Spoelstra & Monti (1999) Toutanji (1999) Shehata (2002) Triantafillou (2006) Cascardi (2017) DT200 (2013) ACI549 (2013)

E_CS 2.82 1.09 1.50 0.99 0.95 – 1.22 –

E_PBO 1.89 1.20 1.49 1.03 0.91 – 1.38 –
E_CF 1.74 0.85 1.04 0.76 0.68 – 1.03 –
M15_CF 1.22 0.69 1.04 0.91 0.86 1.16 1.11 0.95
M45_PBO 1.56 0.84 1.06 0.82 0.74 1.13 1.09 0.92
M45_CF 1.22 0.72 1.06 0.91 0.87 1.18 1.13 0.96

Table 10
Confined concrete strain (εcc): comparison of experimental results (εcc,exp) with theoretical models and design guidelines (εcc,th).
Specimen εcc/εc0 εcc,th/εcc,exp

Exp Spoelstra & Monti (1999) Toutanji (1999) Shehata (2002) Triantafillou (2006) Cascardi (2017) DT200 (2013) ACI549 (2013)

E_CS 4.99 2.02 2.93 4.46 0.31 – 1.00 –

E_PBO 3.59 1.37 2.37 4.80 0.39 – 1.07 –
E_CF 3.41 1.50 1.88 2.97 0.35 – 0.82 –
M15_CF 1.58 1.48 1.45 5.67 0.82 0.90 1.37 1.19
M45_PBO 3.10 1.24 1.70 3.40 0.39 1.03 0.83 0.64
M45_CF 1.38 1.29 1.30 5.09 0.72 0.79 1.23 1.05

593
J. Donnini et al.
Table 11
Comparison of experimental results with theoretical predictions on concrete
columns confined with HPM.
Specimen fcc,exp fcc,th fcc,th/fcc,exp
HPM _FA_G 37.33 46.40 1.24
HPM_FA_S 51.61 65.25 1.26
HPM _SF_S_E 44.36 73.44 1.65
on uniaxial compression tests of concrete cylinders. All the composite
systems showed to be effective in increasing compressive strength and
ductility of the concrete elements, even if the mechanical behavior,
final performances and failure modes were different. Experimental re-
sults allowed to draw the following conclusions:
• FRCM systems proved to be less effective than FRP in concrete
confinement. The peak strength of cylinders confined with Carbon-
FRCM systems was about 30% lower than that of the same fabric
coupled with an epoxy resin and 17% lower when using PBO fabrics.
• Concrete cylinders confined with FRP failed due to fibers' breakage,
while the failure observed in FRCM confined specimens was due to
the slippage of the fabric within the inorganic matrix. This phe-
nomenon depends on the different ability of the organic (FRP) and
inorganic (FRCM) matrices to impregnate the carbon or PBO fabrics.
•
HPM jacketing layer of 30 mm thickness showed to significantly
increase the compressive strength, stiffness and ductility of the
concrete cylinders. The use of short steel fibers enhanced the post
peak response in compression loading.
• DT200 and ACI 549 furnished reliable predictions of the response of
FRP and FRCM confined concrete elements. In the case of FRCM
confined elements, it is fundamental to consider not only the
properties of the fabric, but especially those of the whole composite
material (consisting of a mortar coupled with a fabric), as suggested
by the American guideline AC434.13.
References
[1] Shehata IAEM, Carneiro LAV, Shehata LCD. Strength of short concrete columns
confined with CFRP sheets. Mater Struct 2002;35:50–8.
[2] Berthet JF, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Compressive behavior of concrete externally
confined by composite jackets. Part A: experimental study. Constr Build Mater
2005;19:223–32.
[3] Nanni A, Bradford NM. FRP jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression. Constr
Build Mater 1995;9(2):115–24.
[4] Ilki A, Peker O, Karamuk E, Demir C, Kumbasar N. FRP retrofit of low and medium
strength circular and rectangular reinforced concrete columns. J Mater Civ Eng
2008;20(2):169–88.
[5] Realfonzo R, Napoli A. Concrete confined by FRP systems: confinement efficiency
and design strength models. Compos B Eng 2011;42:736–55.
[6] Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim JC, Vincent T. FRP-confined concrete in circular sections:
review and assessment of stress-strain models. Eng Struct 2013;49:1068–88.
[7] Faella C, Martinelli E, Paciello S, Camorani G, Aiello MA, Micelli F, Nigro E.
Masonry columns confined by composite materials: experimental investigation.
Compos B Eng 2011;42:692–704.
[8] Faella C, Martinelli E, Paciello S, Camorani G, Aiello MA, Micelli F, Nigro E.
Masonry columns confined by composite materials: design formulae. Compos B Eng
2011;42:705–16.
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures –
ACI440.2R-08. Farmington Hills (MI): ACI; 2008.
[10] CNR-DT 200 R1/2013 National Research Council. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing structures -
CNR DT200, Rome, Italy. 2013.
[11] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code –
CAN/CSA-S6-06. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: CSA; 2006.
[12] Trapko T. Confined concrete elements with PBO-FRCM composites. Constr Build
Mater 2014;73:332–8.
[13] Colajanni P, De Domenico F, Recupero A, Spinella N. Concrete columns confined
with fibre reinforced cementitious mortars: experimental and modelling. Constr
Build Mater 2014;52:375–84.
[14] Trapko T. Stress-strain model for FRCM confined concrete elements. Composites
594
Composites Part B 160 (2019) 586–594
Part B 2013;45:1351–9.
[15] Corinaldesi V, Donnini J, Mazzoni G. Experimental study of adhesion between
FRCM and masonry support. Key Eng Mater 2015;624:189–96.
[16] De Caso y Basalo FJ, Matta F, Nanni A. Fiber reinforced cement-based composite
system for concrete confinement. Constr Build Mater 2012;32:55–65.
[17] Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Karlos K, Papathanasiou M. Textile-reinforced
mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: in-plane cyclic
loading. Mater Struct 2007;40(10):1081–97.
[18] Donnini J, De Caso y Basalo F, Corinaldesi V, Lancioni G, Nanni A. Fabric-reinforced
cementitious matrix behavior at high-temperature: experimental and numerical
results. Compos B Eng 2017;108:108–21.
[19] Bournas DA, Lontou PV, Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC. Textile-reinforced
mortar (TRM) versus FRP confinement in reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J
2007;104(6):740–8.
[20] Donnini J, Corinaldesi V, Nanni A. Mechanical properties of FRCM using carbon
fabrics with different coating treatments. Compos B Eng 2016;88:220–8.
[21] Naaman AE. Textile reinforced cement composites: competitive status and research
directions. Int RILEM Conf Mater Sci 2010;1:3–22.
[22] Hegger J, Voss S. Investigations on the bearing behaviour and application potential
of textile reinforced concrete. Eng Struct 2008;30(7):2050–6.
[23] Banholzer B, Brameshuber W, Jung W. Analytical simulation of pull-out tests – the
direct problem. Cement Concr Compos 2005;27:93–101.
[24] Nadiv R, Peled A, Mechtcherine V, Hempel S, Schroefl C. Micro- and nanoparticle
mineral coating for enhanced properties of carbon multifilament yarn cement-based
composites. Compos B Eng 2017;111:179–89.
[25] Donnini J, Lancioni G, Corinaldesi V. Failure modes in FRCM systems with dry and
pre-impregnated carbon yarns: experiments and modeling. Composites Part B
2018;140:57–67.
[26] ACI 549.4 R-13 American Concrete Institute. Guide to design and construction of
externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair
and strengthening concrete and masonry structures – ACI Committee 549. 2013.
[27] AC434-13. Acceptance criteria for masonry and concrete strengthening using
fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) composite systems. ICC Evaluation
Service; 2013.
[28] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolaou CG, Zissimopoulos P, Laourdekis T. Concrete con-
finement with textile-reinforced mortar jacket. ACI Struct J 2006;103(1):28–37.
[29] Ombres L. Concrete confinement with a cement based high strength composite
material. Compos Struct 2014;109:294–304.
[30] Trapko T. The effect of high temperature on the performance of CFRP and FRCM
confined concrete elements. Compos B Eng 2013;54(1):138–45.
[31] Rabehi B, Ghernouti Y, Li A, Boumchedda K. Comparative behavior under com-
pression of concrete columns repaired by fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) jacketing
and ultra-high-performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). J Adhes Sci
Technol 2014;28(22–23):2327–46.
[32] Meda A, Mostosi S, Rinaldi Z, Riva P. Corroded RC columns repair and strength-
ening with high performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Mater Struct
2015;49(5):1967–78.
[33] Beschi C, Meda A, Riva P. Column and joint retrofitting with high performance fiber
reinforced concrete jacketing. J Earthq Eng 2011;15(7):989–1014.
[34] Wang YC, Lee MG. Ultra-high strength steel fiber reinforced concrete for
strengthening RC frames. J Mar Sci Technol 2007;15(3):210–8.
[35] Corinaldesi V, Nardinocchi A, Donnini J. The influence of expansive agent on the
performance of fibre reinforced cement-based composites. Constr Build Mater
2015;91:171–9.
[36] Donnini J, Bellezze T, Corinaldesi V. Mechanical, electrical and self-sensing prop-
erties of cementitious mortars containing short carbon fibers. J Build Eng
2018;20:8–14.
[37] Corinaldesi V, Donnini J, Nardinocchi A. The influence of calcium oxide addition on
properties of fiber reinforced cement-based composites. J Build Eng 2015;4:14–20.
[38] UNI EN 1015–11. Metodi di prova per malte per opere murarie - determinazione
della resistenza a flessione e a compressione della Malta indurita. 2007.
[39] EN-197/1, cement – Part 1: composition. Specifications and Conformity Criteria for
Common Cements; 2000.
[40] Donnini J, Corinaldesi V. Mechanical characterization of different FRCM systems
for structural reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2017;145:565–75.
[41] Carozzi FG, Milani G, Poggi C. Mechanical properties and numerical modeling of
Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for strengthening of ma-
sonry structures. Compos Struct 2014;107:711–25.
[42] Arboleda D, Carozzi FG, Nanni A, Poggi C. Testing procedures for the uniaxial
tensile characterization of fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix composites. J
Compos Construct 2016;20(3).
[43] Minafò G, La Mendola L. Experimental investigation on the effect of mortar grade
on the compressive behaviour of FRCM confined masonry columns. Composites Part
B 2018;146:1–12.
[44] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-Confined concrete model. J Compos Construct
1999;3(3):143–50.
[45] Toutanji HA. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally confined
with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;3:397–404.
[46] Cascardi A, Aiello MA, Triantafillou T. Analysis-oriented model for concrete and
masonry confined with fiber reinforced mortar. Mater Struct 2017;50:202.
[47] Ombres L, Mazzuca S. Confined concrete elements with cement-based composites:
confinement effectiveness and prediction models. J Compos Construct 2017;21(3).