Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined concrete under compression

Ali Khajeh Samani, Mario M. Attard ⇑
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Analytical models for the full stress–strain relationship of confined and unconfined concrete in compres-
Received 3 May 2010 sion are required for the numerical simulation of the structural behavior of reinforced concrete structural
Revised 10 March 2012 elements. There are many analytical models presented in the literature, which are generally empirical
Accepted 12 March 2012
and are based on tests either on plain concrete specimens or reinforced concrete columns. This paper
Available online 4 May 2012
reviews some widely used analytical models calibrated using triaxial test results on plain concrete and
compares their predictions with available test data on uniaxial and triaxial compression on specimens
Keywords:
with different specimen height, width or diameter and concrete strength. The model prediction’s for
High strength concrete
Stress strain model
the peak stress and corresponding strain due to confinement are also compared. The residual stress level
Fracture energy and the post-peak fracture energy under confinement are discussed. Estimates of the post-peak fracture
Size effect energy per unit area are obtained from available experimental data showing that the post-peak fracture
Residual strength energy varies with confinement. The size effect on the softening behavior of uniaxial and triaxially loaded
plain concrete specimens with different aspect ratios, heights and level of confinement, are also dis-
cussed. A new analytical model for unconfined and confined concrete is introduced which tries to address
the limitations in previous models. The proposed model is capable of predicting the behavior of normal
strength concrete, as well as high strength concrete and incorporates allowances for size effects depen-
dent on specimen height and aspect ratio. Comparisons are made between the proposed new model, the
models of others in the literature, and available compression triaxial and uniaxial test results.
Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ready-mixed high-strength concretes (HSCs) have wide spread
applications in reinforced concrete columns, core walls of multi-
storey structures, bridge piers and precast piles. Analytical models
for the full stress–strain relationship of confined and unconfined
concrete in compression is required for modeling the behavior of
these structural elements. Confinement provided by lateral rein-
forcement such as spirals or ties is passive and proportional to
the load level. Recently, new materials such as memory fiber mats
and shape memory alloys have also been used to provide confine-
ment (see Shin and Andrawes [1]). Much of the experimental data
on confinement has been provided by active testing using triaxial
cells, which use fluid to provide hydrostatic pressure on cylindrical
specimens. Usually, the hydrostatic pressure is applied and kept
constant during the testing cycle. The first well-known study on
the stress strain curve of concrete with and without confinement
was conducted by Richart et al. [2]. Since then there have been
numerous analytical models presented in the literature which have
been based either on tests on concrete specimens or columns with
reinforcement. The earliest analytical models are attributed to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 93855075.
E-mail address: m.attard@unsw.edu.au (M.M. Attard).
Hognestad [3] who used a parabolic expression for the stress strain
relationship. Popovics [4], Sargin [5], and Sargin et al. [6] proposed
a mathematical fractional function for the stress strain relationship
of the form shown in Eq. (1). Further improvements were devel-
oped by Wang et al. [7]. Many alternatives for the fractional form
of the stress strain relationship have been developed. Kent and
Park [8] used a fractional equation for the ascending part of stress
strain curve and a linear function for the descending part of the
curve. Park et al. [9] incorporated the effect of reinforcement when
looking at the behavior of reinforced concrete columns under
compression. Sheikh and Uzumeri [10] studied the effects of the
distribution and amount of longitudinal and lateral reinforcement,
as well as the spacing of lateral ties on the response of reinforced
concrete columns. Saatcioglu and Razvi [11] used a second order
parabola for the ascending branch, a linear descending branch
and a constant residual strength equal to 20% of peak strength.
Mendis et al. [12] extended Scott et al.’s [13] model to high
strength concretes. Many authors looked at the behavior of
reinforced concrete columns under compression and proposed
confinement models which took account of various parameters
such as tie spacing, reinforcement, column shape and concrete
strength. Some of the authors have been mentioned above, while
others include Carreira and Chu [14], Cusson et al. [15], Hoshikuma
et al. [16], Hsu and Hsu [17], Razvi and Saatcioglu [18], Wee and
Chin [19], Chung et al. [20], Mander [21].

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.027
336 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349
Nomenclature
a constant
A a constant defining the stress strain curve
B a constant defining the stress strain curve
c the softening parameter
C a constant defining the stress strain curve
D a constant defining the stress strain curve
Ec the secant modulus of concrete measured at a stress
level of fpl (MPa)
Es constant (MPa)
Eti the initial tangent modulus at zero stress (MPa)
f the stress level at the strain of e
fi the stress level at the inflexion point on descending
branch of a confined sample (MPa)
fic The stress level at the inflexion point on descending
branch of a unconfined sample (MPa)
fpl Proportional limit assumed to be 0.45f0 before which
the concrete behavior is assumed elastic (MPa)
fresidual the residual stress level (MPa)
fsp split cylinder tensile strength (MPa)
ft tensile strength of concrete (MPa)
f1e the stress level at the linear elastic limit of concrete
behavior (MPa)
f2i the stress level at the e2i (MPa)
Gfc shear the localized fracture energy dissipated in the shear
band
Gft the tensile fracture energy
Gfcu the uniaxial post-peak compressive fracture energy
h the height of the specimen
hd the damage zone height taken as 2–2.5 times the width
or diameter of the specimen
hr the reference cylinder height of hr = 200 mm
k constant
kh hardening parameter
Attard and Setunge [22] presented results from standard normal
loading, triaxially determined stress–strain relationships for later-
ally confined high strength concretes with uniaxial compressive
strengths of between 60 and 130 MPa and low confining pressures
between 1 and 20 MPa. They presented an analytical model based
on the fractional function of Sargin [6]. Two sets of parameters
were used, one for the ascending curve and one set for the descend-
ing curve. The analytical model is applicable to a range of concrete
strengths between 20 and 130 MPa. The main application of the
analytical stress–strain relationship is in the analysis for the
load-deformation response and ductility of reinforced concrete col-
umns or concrete-filled steel tube columns. Attard and Setunge’s
[22] model has proven robust and is well cited. The major limita-
tions of the Attard and Setunge [22] model, is that, (i) the parame-
ters used were calibrated for low confinement, (ii) the residual
under confinement does not exhibit a brittle ductile transition for
high confinement, (iii) no account of size effects were included
and, (iv) there was no guarantee that for some combinations of
material properties, the denominator in the fractional analytical
model would not be zero thereby causing a numerical singularity.
The third major form for the stress strain model for concrete in
compression uses an exponential function for the softening part of
the curve (see Binici [23], Cusson [15], Hsu and Hsu [17], Shah et al.
[24]). Binici [23] derived a stress strain relationship for the soften-
ing curve which assumes that the post-peak fracture energy per
unit area under confinement is the same as in the uniaxial state
and hence independent of confinement pressure. In this paper,
the post-peak compressive fracture energy for confined specimens
lc the characteristic length of the specimen in the loading
direction
m constant
r constant
w the specimen width or diameter
wpc the localized inelastic axial displacement due to shear
band fracture
wpcu the ultimate localized inelastic axial displacement due
to shear band fracture
Win the energy absorptions per unit volume before peak
stress
Ws the energy absorptions per unit volume associated with
longitudinal tensile cracking
X strain ratio as e/e0
a a calibrating parameter
at Eti/Ec
e the (reference) strain at the stress of f
0
ec the strain at the peak stress, f c , in uniaxial test
ed the additional inelastic strain in the damaged zone
associated with longitudinal tensile cracking
edu the ultimate inelastic strain due to longitudinal cracking
eh the adjusted total strain
ei the strain at the inflexion point on descending branch of
a confined sample (MPa)
eic the strain at the inflexion point on descending branch of
a unconfined sample (MPa)
e0 the strain at the peak stress f0
e1e the strain at the linear elastic limit of concrete behavior
e2i 2e i  e0
q the surface dry unit weight (kg/m3)
is estimated from available experimental data in which the stress
strain results extend to the residual load level. The results show
an increasing fracture energy with increasing confinement until a
0
limit is reached, at a confinement ratio f r =f c of about 0.1–0.2 after
which it decreases until it becomes zero. At low confinement, ten-
sile cracking is nullified and hence the peak strength and fracture
energy increases above the uniaxial level. As the confinement is
further increased, the mode of failure is dominated by barreling
dispersed cracking, until the transition point between ductile and
brittle behavior is reached, beyond which there is no compressive
fracture energy due to fracture within the shear band. The experi-
mentally determined post-peak fracture energy is shown to vary
with confinement pressure.
A new model for the stress strain behavior of uniaxial and con-
fined concrete is presented which addresses the limitations of the
models by Attard and Setunge [22] and Binici [23]. The new pro-
posed model is shown to provide good predictions for the stress
versus strain response for both uniaxial and triaxial compression,
for normal strength and high strength concretes, for low to high
levels of confinement and to take account of the size effects do
to specimen height and aspect ratio. The proposed stress strain
model can be used for the prediction of the behavior of axial loaded
columns reinforced with steel bars and/or wrapped with FRP
sheets. To use the stress strain relationship obtained from actively
confined concrete, requires an iterative procedure to estimate the
confinement level. Details of such an iteration procedure can be
found in Cui [25], Teng and Lam [26], Campione and Minafò [27],
Lam and Teng [28].
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 337

2. Uniaxial and triaxial experimental data
Van Mier et al. [29], in his significant work on strain softening of
concrete under compression, identified several experimental
parameters, which affected the measured softening behavior. Van
Mier et al. [29] tested a series of uniaxial and multi-axial tests on
cubes or prisms. The size effect tests were carried out on prisms
with different heights to width ratios. The key experimental
parameters as detailed in Van Mier et al. [30] included the fric-
tional restraint between the loading platen and the specimen, the
rotation of the loading platen during the experiment, the gauge
length of the control LVDT, the stiffness of the testing machine,
the type of feed-back signal, the loading rate, the shape and size
of the test specimen and the concrete composition. It is therefore
important when using experimental data for verification and com-
parison, that the experimental parameters are fully listed. In this
section, some baseline experimental data on the uniaxial and/or
triaxial loading of concrete under compression are summarized.
Table 1 lists some of the key experimental parameters such as
specimen dimensions, concrete compressive and tensile strength,
cement additive and range of confinement stress for the experi-
mental work cited in this paper on uniaxial and triaxial compres-
sive testing of concrete.
Vonk [31], a student of Van Mier, extended Van Mier’s work by
providing further studies on the effect of loading platen boundary
conditions and size effects on the compressive softening curve.
Vonk [32] found that the compressive fracture energy and the soft-
ening behavior was influenced by shear band localization and a
contribution from longitudinal tensile cracking while Van Mier
[29] results indicated perfect shear band localization. Van Geel
[33] also studied the localization of concrete under compression.
He observed that macroscopic cracks initiate near the peak stress
and that these macroscopic cracks form a shear band on the
descending branch while the rest of the specimen remained intact
and a continuum. Based on photographic observations along the
different stages of the softening branch of the stress strain curve,
he concluded that localization occurred after the peak and that
on the steeper part of the descending branch, the macroscopic
cracks start to extend toward the center of the specimen. On the
more gentle part of the descending branch near the tail of the soft-
ening branch, the macroscopic cracks congeal. Van Geel [33] stud-
ied cubical specimens mounted with strain gauges at different
locations along the height. It was clear that outside the shear zone
the specimen was unloading almost uniformly. It was also ob-
served, that the concrete continuum does not unload at peak but
will only start unloading after a certain post-peak deformation.
Van Geel [33] reached a similar conclusion to that of Vonk [31],
in that the compressive softening behavior was influenced by both
a shear band localization and by volume dependent longitudinal
tensile cracking.
Dahl [34,35] was one of the first to provide the full stress strain
response for high strength concretes under uniaxial compression.
The concrete strengths varied between 14.75 MPa and 112 MPa.
Wang et al. [7] also conducted uniaxial compression tests but on
normal and lightweight concretes. The normal weight concrete cyl-
inders had ultimate compressive strengths of 21–77 MPa while the
light weight concrete cylinders had strengths from 21 MPa to
56 MPa.
Nakamura and Higai [36] investigated the influence of speci-
men height on the compressive softening behavior of concrete

Table 1
Summary of triaxial and uniaxial experimental parameters.
0
Researchers Test Dimensions (mm) Additive f c (MPa) ft (MPa) fr (MPa)

Richart et al. [2] Bi-axial 100  600 – 7–25 – 1.24–28.2

Triaxial 100  200
100  600
Gardner [38] Triaxial 76  152 – 29 – 8.6–25.9
Wang et al. [7] Uniaxial 75  150 Fly ash 21–77 – –
Jamet et al. [39] Uniaxial 110  220 – 26 – 3–100
Triaxial
Hurlbut [40] Dir. Ten. 54  108 – 22 2.53 0.69–13.8
Uniaxial 76  152
Triaxial 54  108
Smith et al. [66] Uniaxial 54  108 – 34.5 – 0.69–34.4
Triaxial
Dahl [35] Uniaxial 100  200 Silica fume Fly ash 14.75–112.34 – –
Xie et al. [41] Notch beam 100  100  800 (Prisms) Silica fume 60, 92, 119 5, 6.4, 7.4 2.3–60
Dir. Ten. 150  300
Uniaxial 100  200
Triaxial 55.5  110
Imran and Pantazopoulou [42] Uniaxial 54  108 – 29, 47, 73 – 1–50
Triaxial
Attard and Setunge [22] Triaxial 100  200 Silica fume 45–110 – 1–20
Ansari and Li [43], Li and Ansari [44] Dir. Ten. 101  203 Silica fume Fly ash 42, 69, 103 3.1, 4, 5.6 8.3–83
Uniaxial
Triaxial
Li and Ansari [45] Uniaxial 76  152 Silica fume Fly ash 69, 103 8.3–83
Triaxial
Jansen and Shah [37] Uniaxial D = 100 Silica fume 45, 90 – –
H = 200, 250, 300, 350, 450, 550
Newman [50] Uniaxial – 23–91 – 0–138
Triaxial
Sfer et al. [48] Triaxial 150  300 – 30 0–60
Candappa et al. [46], Candappa et al. [47] Uniaxial 100  200 – 40, 60, 75, 100 – 4, 8, 12
Triaxial
Lu and Hsu [49] Uniaxial 100  200 Sika 67 – 0–56
Triaxial
Bellotti and Rossi [51] Uniaxial – – 53 – 0–39.2
Triaxial
338 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

testing two series of cylindrical concrete specimens in uniaxial f

compression. They investigated the effect of specimen height and
aspect ratio, as well as, aggregate grading and maximum aggregate
f0 Softening
size. Jansen and Shah [37] carried out uniaxial compression tests
on specimens with compressive strengths of 45 MPa and 90 MPa,
and also undertook a study of the effect of specimen height on
the post-peak softening behavior. Cylindrical specimens were cast
fi
with a diameter of 100 mm and heights of either 200 mm, 500 mm
or 600 mm. The cylinders were cut to obtain specimens with a f2i
height to diameter ratio of 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5. fresidual
One of the earliest tests on confined specimens are those con-
ducted by Richart et al. [2]. The active confinement in the triaxial
Ec Ec
tests was provided by liquid pressure in a hydraulic pressure
chamber. Most of the test results only covered the concrete behav- ε0 εi ε2i ε
ior in the elastic and hardening part of the stress strain curve and
Fig. 1. Stress strain curve under compression.
do not show the concrete behavior in the softening region. Gardner
[38] used a similar apparatus as used in triaxial soil tests to test
concrete specimens. As in the case of the results by Richart et al.
[2] only the pre-peak results were obtained. Table 1 lists some of In the above, Eti is the initial tangent modulus at zero stress and Ec is
the cited references in this paper on triaxial testing of concrete the secant modulus of concrete measured at a stress level of fpl
and include Jamet et al. [39], Hurlbut [40], Xie et al. [41], Imran (usually 0.45f0). The secant modulus is defined by Eq. (3) for
and Pantazopoulou [42], Attard and Setunge [22] Ansari and Li crushed aggregates or Eq. (4) for mixes containing weaker aggre-
[43], Li and Ansari [44] and Li and Ansari [45], Candappa et al. gates, such as vesicular basalt.
[46] and Candappa et al. [47], Sfer et al. [48], Lu and Hsu [49], New- qffiffiffiffi
man [50] and Bellotti and Rossi [51]. Ec ¼ 0:043q1:5 fc0 ð3Þ
In the triaxial tests of Li and Ansari [45], the specimens were
qffiffiffiffi  q 1:5
jacketed by rubber membranes, which the authors believed in-
Ec ¼ ð3320 fc0 þ 6900Þ ð4Þ
creased the concrete strength by approximately 7%. The final 2320
strength results were therefore modified to deduct this unwanted
where q is the surface dry unit weight in kg/m3 in SI units and fc0 is
membrane confining effect. It is doubtful whether this additional
the uniaxial compressive strength. The four constants A, B, C and D
membrane confining effect can be assumed to occur with active
for the ascending branch are therefore:
confinement. This places some doubt on the reported triaxial
strengths, which were modified by the assumed 7%. The uniaxial Eti e0 ðA  1Þ2 A2 ð1  at Þ
A¼ B¼  þ  1
compression tests results conducted in the same machine as the f0 fpl
at 1  f0 a2t ffpl0 1  ffpl0
triaxial tests showed an unexplained residual strength of about
8 MPa, which is contrary to expectations, as the residual for a uni- C ¼ ðA  2Þ D ¼ ðB þ 1Þ with either B P 0 or jBj < A ð5Þ
axial compression test should approach zero. Li and Ansari [45] re-
sults for the uniaxial compression test for the 103 MPa concrete With at = Eti/Ec. If it is assumed that Eti  Ec and fpl = 0.45f0 then the
grade specimens of 76 mm diameter and 152 mm height, dis- constants A and B simplify to:
played softening snap back behavior, which wasn’t observed for Ec e0 ðA  1Þ2
the larger specimens of diameter 101 mm and height 203 mm of A¼ ; B¼ 1 ð6Þ
f0 0:55
the same concrete strength. This is contrary to expectations, as
the longer specimens would have the greater tendency to display For the descending part, the boundary conditions depend on
snap back behavior. whether there is confinement. Three of the boundary conditions
are:

3. The stress strain model of Attard and Setunge [22] df

f ¼ f0 ; ¼ 0 f ¼ f0 ; e ¼ e0 f ¼ fi ; e ¼ ei ð7Þ
de
Attard and Setunge [22] used a fractional model as shown in Eq. For the uniaxial condition, the residual stress level fresidual at infinite
(1) for broad range of normal and high strength concretes with strain is set to be zero lim fresidual ¼ 0 while for the confined state, an
e!1
varying low confinement ff 0r 6 0:2:
c extra point is defined on the descending curve at f = f2i, e = e2i =
f A  X þ B  X2 e f 2ei  e0 (see Fig. 1). The resulting expressions for the four constants
¼ where X ¼ 8X P 0 0 6 6 1 for the descending branch for the uniaxial state are:
f0 1 þ C  X þ D  X 2 e0 f0
ð1Þ fic ðeic  ec Þ
A¼ B¼0 C ¼A2 D¼1 ð8Þ
In the above equation, f is the stress at strain e while f0 is the peak ec eic fc  fic
stress at strain e0 (see Fig. 1). Attard and Setunge [22] gave separate where ec is the strain at peak stress fc0 , which can be estimated using
values for the constants A, B, C and D for unconfined and confined the equations below:
conditions. Two sets of constants are used, one set for the ascending
and one set for the descending branch of the stress strain curve. The fc0 4:26
ec ¼ pffiffiffiffi Crushed Aggregates
constants are determined by looking at the boundary conditions of Ec 4 fc0
the stress strain behavior. The considered boundary conditions for f 0 3:78
the ascending branch are: ec ¼ c p ffiffiffiffi Gravel Aggregates ð9Þ
Ec 4 fc0
df df f
f ¼ 0; ¼ Eti f ¼ f0 ; ¼ 0 f ¼ f0 ; e ¼ e0 f ¼ fpl ; e ¼ ð2Þ The terms eic and fic are the strain and stress for the inflexion point
de de Ec on the descending branch, respectively, and are estimated using:
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 339

eic fic In which, e1e and f1e represent the linear elastic limit of concrete be-
¼ 2:5  0:3 lnðfc0 Þ ¼ 1:41  0:17 lnðfc0 Þ fc0 P 20 MPa ð10Þ
ec fc0 havior and Ec is the modulus ofpelasticity
ffiffiffiffi of concrete estimated
using ACI-318-02 [54] (Ec ¼ 4750 fc0 in MPa). The term r is defined
For the descending branch under confinement, the constants
by:
are defined by:
     Ec f0  f1e
e2i  ei e2i Ei 4ei E2i Ei 4E2i r¼ Es ¼ ð21Þ
A¼   B ¼ ðei  e2i Þ Ec  Es e0  e1e
e0 ðf0  fi Þ ðf0  f2i Þ ðf0  fi Þ ðf0  f2i Þ
C ¼ A  2 D ¼ B þ 1 with B P 0 and either A > 0 or jAj < B The parameter a is calibrated so that the area under the softening
ð11Þ region (including the elastic unloading portion) as shown in Fig. 2,
is equal to the uniaxial post-peak compressive fracture energy Gfcu
fi f 2i
where Ei ¼ ei ; E2i ¼ e2i . To derive the values of the constants, requires (see Van Mier et al. [30], Vonk [31], Van Mier [55], Van Mier [56],
estimates of several parameters which were calibrated by Attard Van Mier [57], Van Mier and Man [58]) from an uniaxial compres-
and Setunge [22] using available experimental triaxial results. The sion test divided by the characteristic length of the specimen in
ultimate strength of confined concrete f0 proposed was: the loading direction lc. Integration of the expression for the soften-
 k   ing branch Eq. (20), and equating the area to the post-peak com-
f0 fr fr
¼ þ 1 k ¼ 1:25ðfc0 Þ0:21 1 þ 0:062 0 ð12Þ pressive fracture energy, an expression for the parameter a, was
fc0 ft fc
given as:
Here, ft is the tensile strength of concrete which can be estimated !
from the split cylinder tensile strength fsp, as the tensile strength 1 2Gfcu ðf0  fresidual Þ2
a ¼ pffiffiffiffi  ð22Þ
of concrete is approximately 0.9 times the split cylinder strength. pðf0  fresidual Þ lc Ec
The split cylinder strength can be estimated from the uniaxial com-
pressive strength thus: The strain at the peak stress under confinement, was estimated
using:
fsp ¼ 0:32ðfc0 Þ0:67 No Silica Fume  
qffiffiffiffi f0
e0 ¼ 5ec  0:8 ð23Þ
f sp ¼ 0:62 fc0 Silica Fume ð13Þ fc0

The strain at peak stress e0 is given by the following expression: while the strain ec, at the peak stress under uniaxial compression,
  was estimated from tests carried out by Tasdemir et al. [59] and
e0 fr
¼ 1 þ ð17  0:06fc0 Þ 0 ð14Þ given by:
ec fc
where fr is the confinement stress. The stress and strain at the in- ec ¼ ð0:067fc02 þ 29:9fc0 þ 1053Þ106 ð24Þ
flexion point, fr, ei, can be estimated from:
The values f1e, f0 and fresidual were estimated using the loading/fail-
fic e
fi fc
1 ei ec  2
ic
ure surface suggested by Pramono and Willam [60] defined by:
¼  0:57 þ1 ¼  0:26 þ2 ð15Þ
f0 fr
5:06 fc þ1
e0 1:12 fr þ1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  2 !
fc0 fr fr fr f0  f0
f ¼ fc0 kh c þ m 0  ð1  kh Þ 0 þ 0 m¼ c 0 0t ð25Þ
Substituting Eq. (10) into the above gives: fc fc fc fc ft
fi 0:41  0:17 lnðfc0 Þ ei 0:5  0:3 lnðfc0 Þ Here, kh is a hardening parameter taken as 0.1 at the elastic limit
¼  0:57 þ1 ¼ þ 2 fc0 P 20 MPa
f0
5:06 ffcr þ1
e0 1:12fr 0:26 þ 1 and is equal to 1 at the peak stress and within the softening region;
fc0
c is the softening parameter taken as 1 in the hardening region and
ð16Þ zero at the residual level.
The stress corresponding to a strain of e2i, f2i is estimated from: In Binici’s [23] confinement model, in order to consider size ef-
fects, the post-peak compressive fracture energy is assumed to be
f2i 0:45  0:25 lnðfc0 Þ
¼  0:62 þ1 ð17Þ constant and independent of confinement pressure. In other words,
f0
6:35 ffr0 þ1 Binici [23] assumes that the post-peak compressive fracture energy
c
for a confined specimen is the same as for the uniaxial case. This as-
sumption is examined in the following section, where the post-peak
4. The stress strain model of Binici [23] compressive fracture energy for confined specimens was estimated
from available experimental data in which the load deflection
Binici [23] proposed a model which is split into a linear elastic
portion, the hardening ascending phase and the softening branch.
The hardening phase has similarities to the model proposed by
Mander et al. [52] and later by Razvi and Saatcioglu [18]. For the
descending branch, Binici [23] used an exponential function simi- f0 Softening
lar to that used by Cusson and Paultre [53] but incorporated the
softening fracture energy to allow his model to include size effects.
Binici’s [23] model is defined by: f
f ¼ Ec e e 6 e1e ð18Þ ( fo − f ) Gfc
Ec lc
 
ee1e
r e0 e1e fresidual
f ¼ f1e þ ðf0  f1e Þ  r e1e 6 e 6 e0 ð19Þ ε −εo
r1þ ee1e
e0 e1e
Ec
 
e  e0 2
 ε0 ε
f ¼ fresidual þ ðf0  fresidual Þ exp  e0 6 e ð20Þ
a Fig. 2. Confined concrete stress strain curve.
340
results extend to the residual load level. Several important proper-
ties of the stress strain behavior under uniaxial and confined com-
pression are discussed in the following section.
5. Critical parameters that define the stress strain relationship
for uniaxial and/or confined concrete under compression
The concrete softening or descending branch of the stress strain
relationship under uniaxial and/or confined compression can be
characterize by the peak strength level and the corresponding axial
strain, the residual strength level and either several points along
the softening branch, as in the model developed by Attard and
Setunge [22], or the compressive fracture energy measured from
the peak stress level as used by Binici [23]. In this section, several
of these parameters are discussed and estimated from available
experimental results and compared to the predictions used in the
analytical models of Attard and Setunge [22] and Binici [23]. A
new stress strain model is then proposed in Section 6.
5.1. Compressive fracture energy
5.1.1. Compressive fracture energy in uniaxial compression
Fig. 3 shows the compressive fracture energy per unit area for
the uniaxial case estimated for different concrete strengths using
the experimental results in Dahl [35], Jamet et al. [39], Xie et al.
[41], Ansari and Li [43], Wang et al. [61], Wischers et al. [62].
The plotted data for the compressive fracture energy per unit area
shows an increasing trend with compressive strength. In the uniax-
ial case, localization initiates at the peak stress. In the softening re-
gion, the damaged or failure zone continues to strain while the
undamaged zone elastically unloads. The undamaged zone only ex-
ists if the length of the specimen is greater than the damaged zone
length. In the Compression Damage Zone (CDZ) model proposed by
Markeset and Hillerborg [63], the softening behavior in the da-
maged zone is due to a combination of longitudinal tensile crack-
ing and the formation of a localized inclined shear band (see Fig.
4). In the CDZ model, the post-peak uniaxial compressive fracture
energy per unit area is subdivided into:
Gfcu ¼ Gfc shear þ hd W s hd 6 2:5w
where Gfc_shear is the localized fracture energy dissipated in the
shear band, hd is the length of the damaged zone, w is the specimen
width or diameter and Ws is the energy absorption per unit volume
associated with longitudinal tensile cracking (refer to Fig. 4). Fig. 5
100
lc = 200 mm
80
Gfcu Nmm/mm 2
60
40
20
0 by Binici [23] which states that the compressive fracture energy
0 20 40 60 80
f'c MPa
Ansari et al. [43] Xie et al. [41]
Wischers [62] Jamet et al [39]
Fig. 3. Post-peak uniaxial compression fracture energy per unit area.
A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349
shows the test results taken from Vonk [31] based on compression
testing of prisms of two different widths and various heights, as
presented by Markeset and Hillerborg [63]. Fig. 5 shows a linear
trend and then a constant plateau after reaching the full damaged
zone length, in agreement with Eq. (26). The full or maximum da-
maged zone length was estimated to be approximately 2.5 times
the width of the specimen. For a specimen with a length greater
than 2.5 times the width of the specimen, the post-peak uniaxial
compressive fracture energy per unit area was approximately con-
stant. A similar conclusion was reached by Jansen and Shah [37]
who tested cylindrical specimens with a nominal diameter of
102 mm and heights varying from 2 to 5 times the diameter. They
concluded from observations, that the fracture or full damaged zone
length was 2 or more times the specimen diameter. Based on test
results, Nakamura and Higai [36], found that the length of the frac-
ture zone and the compressive fracture energy of concrete under
uniaxial compressive stress, was constant regardless of the size
and the shape of the tested specimens, while the maximum aggre-
gate size, aggregate grading and compressive strength, influence the
length of the fracture zone and the fracture energy. Fig. 6 shows the
ratio of the post-peak fracture energy per unit area to the uniaxial
compressive strength versus the height of cylindrical specimens
with diameters of either 100 mm or 150 mm taken from Nakamura
and Higai [36] tests for their G15 concrete mix. Although there is a
significant scatter, Nakamura and Higai [36] conclude that the com-
pressive fracture energy of concrete was constant regardless of the
size and the shape of the tested specimens. This conclusion does not
agree with the results of Vonk [31] and the CDZ model of Markeset
and Hillerborg [63] which indicate that for the uniaxial case, the
compressive fracture energy per unit area for specimens of the
same aspect ratio greater than or equal to 2 but of different heights,
will not be the same. Watanabe et al. [64] also carried out uniaxial
tests on low strength concrete to study the size effect on concrete
stress strain curves.
Carpinteri et al. [65] proposed an analytical model to predict the
stress strain curve of concrete in the uniaxial condition including
size effect. In their model, the deformation was composed of an
elastic strain, a pre-peak plastic strain and a cracking displacement
component which in some ways is similar to the CDZ concept. The
cracking displacement was essentially due to the deformation
ð26Þ
within the shear band. In their model, the pre-peak plastic strain
was assumed to be constant.
5.1.2. Compressive fracture energy under confinement
In the case of confined concrete, softening behavior starts at the
vicinity of the peak axial stress and extends to a residual stress le-
vel representing either friction within a localized shear band or for
high confinement beyond the transition point, (defined later) bar-
reling. The confinement level only needs to be a small percentage
of the concrete strength, to nullify the longitudinal tensile cracks
observed in uniaxial compression test. Hence, for low levels of con-
finement, the peak strength and the compressive fracture energy
will increase beyond the uniaxial levels. This is confirmed in Fig.
7, which shows the confined post-peak compressive fracture en-
ergy per unit area Gfc estimated from several uniaxial and triaxial
experimental results plotted as a function of the confinement ratio.
An important observation in Fig. 7 is that the post-peak com-
pressive fracture energy is not constant but varies with the level
of confinement. Fig. 7 therefore contradicts the assumption made
100 120 140 per unit area is independent of confinement. Fig. 7 shows a trend
where at increasing confinement the compressive fracture energy
Wang et al. [61] Dahl [35] increases and then reaches a limit at a confinement ratio fr =fc0 of
Proposed Model
about 0.1–0.2, after which it decreases until it becomes zero. This
can be explained by our earlier observation, that at low confine-
ment, tensile cracking is nullified and hence the peak strength
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 341

σc

f'c
σc Win

f'c
Ws =k.Win
h hd

ε du εd

f'c Gfc_shear

σc
Wpcu Wpc(mm)

Fig. 4. The CDZ model showing tensile splitting and shear band under uniaxial compression by Markeset and Hillerborg [63].

30
150.0
lc = 200 mm
25 125.0
G fc Nmm/mm 2

100.0
Gfcu Nmm/mm 2

20
75.0
15
50.0

10 25.0

Width 50 mm Vonk [31] Tests 0.0

5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Width 100 mm Vonk [31] Tests fr /f'c
0 Xie et al.[41], f'c=60.2MPa Xie et al. [41], f'c=92.2MPa Xie et al. [41], f'c=119MPa
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Smith et al. [66], f'c=21,35,44MPa Jamet et al. [39], f'c=26 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=96-132MPa
Specimen Height Attard et al. [22], f'c=60MPa Proposed Model 20MPa Proposed Model 60MPa
Proposed Model 100MPa Proposed Model 120MPa

Fig. 5. Post-peak uniaxial compression fracture energy versus specimen height

based on tests of, Vonk [31], Markeset and Hillerborg [63]. Fig. 7. Post-peak compression fracture energy versus confinement ratio.

and the fracture energy increase above the uniaxial level. As the
confinement is further increased, the mode of failure is dominated
2.5 by barreling dispersed cracking. Van Mier [57] stated that barreling
starts once the confinement is high enough to diffuse the micro-
cracks across the specimen’s volume so that a localized shear band
2
no long forms. At this level the peak strength and the residual
Gfcu /f'c (mm)

stress level coincide and the compressive fracture energy due to

1.5
fracture within the shear band no longer exists.

1
D=100 mm 5.2. Residual stress level
D=150 mm
0.5
The test results of Smith et al. [66], Xie et al. [41], Ansari and Li
[43] and Hurlbut [40] allow the residual stress level to be quanti-
0 fied as a function of confinement and concrete strength. Based on
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
these results, Willam et al. [67], Pivonka et al. [68] and Binici
Height (mm)
[23], as well as Van Mier [57], suggested that under high confine-
Fig. 6. Effect of specimen height on fracture energy for cylindrical specimens with ment, concrete compressive behavior changes from brittle to duc-
diameters of 100 mm and 150 mm, Nakamura and Higai [36]. tile beyond a transition point. The transition to ductile behavior is
342 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

often taken at a confining stress equal to approximately 30% of the 1.1

uniaxial strength. After the transition point (TP), the failure surface 1
and the residual strength surface coincide, as shown in Fig. 8. Binici 0.9
[2] assumed that the TP is at a confinement level of approximately 0.8
40% of the uniaxial concrete strength. However, the suggested 0.7
equation for the residual stress level, Eq. (25), does not show con- f residual 0.6
tinuous hardening at the suggested TP and gives predictions which fo 0.5
tend to be higher than the experimentally measured residual levels 0.4
at low confinement, as illustrated in Fig. 9. 0.3
It should be noted, that the definition of the residual stress level 0.2
in concrete varies in different studies. Smith [66] considered the 0.1
axial stress being carried by the specimen at a radial strain of 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.03 in/in but Xie et al. [41] defined the residual point as the point
fr
on the descending branch of the stress strain curve where the slope
f c'
of the remaining part of the descending curve is less than 2% of the
slope of the initial rising part of the stress–strain curve. Hurlbut Ansari et al. [43] Smith et al. [66]
Xie et al. [41] Attard et al. [22]
[40] considered the residual strength to be the strength when Binici [23] Eq. Attard et al. [22] Eq.
the displacement reaches the equivalent of 700% of the displace- Proposed Model 20 MPa Proposed Model 120 MPa

ment at the peak load. Since the definition of the residual stress le-
Fig. 9. Normalized residual stress versus normalized confinement stress.
vel in different studies varies, the end points of stress strain curve
were taken as the residual level, which in most cases was close to
the reported residual stress values. Fig. 9 also compares the resid-
ual predicted by the models of Attard and Setunge [22], Binici [23]
and the new model developed in a later section. Attard and 12
Setunge’s [22] model predicts softening regardless of the confine- 10
ment level and as a result predicts lower levels for the residual
8
as compared to the test results. Attard and Setunge’s [22] softening
fo
prediction was only calibrated for low confinement and therefore 6
f c'
loses its accuracy for high confinement. 4

2
5.3. Normalized peak stress and corresponding strain
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figs. 10–12 shows experimentally obtained normalized peak fr
strength versus confinement levels and comparisons with the pre- f c'
diction of Attard and Setunge [22] and those of Binici [23], for nor-
0 0 Ansari et al. [43], f'c=48MPa Candappa et al. [47], f'c=40-100 MPa
mal strength ðf c 6 50 MPaÞ, high strength ð50 < f c 6 100 MPa and Gardner [38], f'c=29MPa Imran et al. [42],f'c=29,47,73MPa
0
very high strength concretes ð100 MPa < f c Þ. The peak strength Richart et al. [4], f'c=18,25MPa Smith et al. [66], f'c=21,34.5,44 MPa
values under high confinement obtained by Ansari and Li [43] Xie et al. [41],f'c=60,92,119 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=58-132MPa
Sfer et al. [48], f'c=32.8,38.8MPa Newman [50], f'c=23MPa
are generally lower than other comparable results and the model Attard et al.[22] Eq. f'c=35 MPa Binici[23] Eq. f'c=35MPa
predictions. As discussed earlier, Ansari and Li [43] reduced the tri-
axial concrete strength by about 7% to take account of an addi- Fig. 10. Failure envelope for normal strength concretes fc0 < 50.
tional confinement due to the protective membrane used in the
triaxial cell. As can be seen, both the models by Attard and Setunge
[22] and Binici [23] compare reasonably well with the plotted test
results for the peak strength. Figs. 13–15 show experimental re- 10
sults for the axial strain measured at the peak strength level versus
the confinement ratio. Binici’s model provides a better prediction 8
than Attard and Setunge’s for high confinement. Also shown in
fo 6
f c' 4
Failure Envelope 2
Residual Envelope
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
fr
fo
f c'
f c' Transition Point
Ansari et al. [43], f'c=71.1MPa Candappa et al. [47], f'c=60MPa
Attard et al. [22], f'c=58MPa Imran et al. [42], f'c=73.4MPa
Brittle Continuous Hardening
Xie et al [41], f'c=60MPa Candappa et al. [47], f'c=75MPa
Attard et al. [22], f'c=96MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=99MPa
Xie et al [41], f'c=92.2MPa Newman [50], f'c=73 MPa
fr Xie et al [41], f'c=119MPa Bellotti et al. [51]
f c' Attard et al. [22] Eq. for f'c=75MPa Binici [23] Eq. for f'c=75MPa

Fig. 8. Relationship between peak and residual stress and confinement. Fig. 11. Failure envelope for concrete strength 50 < fc0 6 100.
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 343

6 20

4 15
fo
ε 0 10
'
fc
2 εc

5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
fr 0
' 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
fc
fr
Ansari et al. [43], f'c=107.3MPa Candappa et al. [47], f'c=100MPa
Attard et al. [22], f'c=100MPa Xie et al [22], f'c=119MPa
f 'c
Attard et al. [22], f'c=118MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=120MPa
Attard et al. [22] Eq. for f'c=75MPa Ansari et al. [43], f'c=71MPa
Attard et al. [22], f'c=120MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=126MPa
Attard et al. [22], f'c=132MPa Attard et al. [22] Eq. f'c=120 Candappa et al. [47], f'c=60,75,100MPa Imran et al. [42], f'c=73.4MPa
Binici [23] Eq. f'c=120MPa Xie et al. [41], f'c=60,92MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=58,96,99,100MPa
Binici [23] Eq. for f'c=75 Proposed Model for f'c=75 MPa
Fig. 12. Failure envelope for high strength concretes fc0 > 100.
 
e0
Fig. 14. Normalized strain ec versus confinement ratio (ffr0 ) for 50 < fc0 6 100.
c

60

50 20

40
15
ε0
30
εc ε0
10
20 εc

10 5

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0
fr 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f
' fr
c
'
fc
Attard et al. [22] Eq. f'c=35MPa Ansari et al. [43], f'c=48MPa
Candappa et al. [47], f'c=40MPa Gardner [38], f'c=29MPa Attard et al. [22] Eq. for f'c=120MPa Ansari et al. [43], f'c=107MPa
Imran et al. [42], f'c=29,47MPa Smith et al. [66], f'c=21,35,44MPa Xie et al. [41], f'c=119MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=111MPa
Sfer et al. [48], f'c=32.8,38.8MPa Richart et al. [4] Attard et al. [22], f'c=118MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=120MPa
Binici [23], Eq. f'c=35MPa Proposed Model f'c=35MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=126MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c=132MPa
    Binici [23] Eq. for f'c=120MPa Proposed Model f'c=120MPa
e0 fr
Fig. 13. Normalized strain ec versus confinement ratio fc0
for normal strength
concretes (fc0 < 50).  
e0
Fig. 15. Normalized strain ec versus confinement ratio (ffr0 ) for high strength
c
concretes (fc0 > 100).

these figures are the results for a proposed empirical relationship

developed in this paper for the strain at the peak stress, detailed
in a later section.
5.4. Model comparison
The stress strain prediction using the Attard and Setunge [22]
model is compared with the test results of Xie et al. [41] for a con-
0
crete mix with f c ¼ 119 MPa in Fig. 16. As mentioned earlier, Attard
and Setunge’s [22] model was not calibrated for high confinement
and hence is only expected to make reasonable predictions for
low confinement levels. The Attard and Setunge [22] model did
show good consistency with the test results for low levels of con-
finement. Binici’s [23] model was also compared to Xie et al. [41]
test results shown in Fig. 17. To plot Binici’s [23] model, in addition
to the concrete uniaxial strength, the uniaxial compressive fracture
energy is needed (it is not clear in, Binici [23] how the compressive
fracture energy is to be obtained for different concrete strengths).
Since Xie et al. [41] gave results for uniaxial compression, a numer-
ical integration was used to obtain the uniaxial compressive
fracture energy, Gfcu = 33.7 N mm/mm2. This estimated compres-
sive fracture energy was used in Binici’s [23] model.
Fig. 18 compares the Attard and Setunge’s [22] model with
their experimental results for a concrete with a uniaxial com-
pressive strength of 132 MPa and as expected, shows very good
comparison. Binici’s [23] model was also compared to Attard and
Setunge’s [22] test results for a concrete with a uniaxial com-
pressive strength of 132 MPa, in Fig. 19. Two estimated compres-
sive fracture energies were used, Gfcu = 25 and 35 N mm/mm2.
The comparisons with Binici’s model do not show a good match
for the strain at the peak stress or the stress strain curve,
generally.
6. New model for stress strain relationship
In order to improve the stress strain predictions a new model is
proposed here. It is noted, that for the ascending branch of the
Attard and Setunge [22], C = A  2 and D = B + 1, hence in our
proposed model the following is used for the ascending branch:
344 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

Fig. 19. Comparison between Attard and Setunge’s [22] test results and Binici’s [23]
model for 132 MPa strength concrete.

Fig. 16. Comparison between Xie et al. [41] test results and Attard and Setunge’s
[22] model.
1

0.9

400
fi 0.8
350 fr=60 f c'
0.7
300
Axial stress MPa

fr=48
0.6
250
fr=36
200 fr=30 0.5
fr=24 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
150 fr=18 fr
fr=12 f c'
100
fr=6 Attard et al. [22], f'c = 58 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c = 96 -100 MPa
50 Attard et al. [22], f'c = 110 -120 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c = 126 -132 MPa
Mander et al. [21], f'c = 20 -50 MPa Prediction f'c = 20 MPa
fr=0 Prediction f'c = 50 MPa Prediction f'c = 100 MPa
0 Prediction f'c = 130 MPa
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Axial strain Fig. 20. Comparison of experimental results with proposed model prediction for
inflexion point stress ratio.

f A  X þ B  X2 e
Fig. 17. Comparison between Xie et al.’s [41] test results and Binici’s [23] model. ¼ where X ¼ and 0 6 e 6 e0
f0 1 þ ðA  2ÞX þ ðB þ 1ÞX 2 e0
0 6 f 6 f0 ð27Þ

With the constants A and B defined in Eqs. (5) and (6). For the soft-
250 ening descending branch, a power function is used with the condi-
tion that the stress strain curve passes through a point on the
fr=15
200 softening branch here taken as the so-called inflexion point as used
in Attard and Setunge’s [1] model. The proposed post-peak soften-
Axial Stress MPa

fr=10
ing function is:
150
 2
fr=5    e  e0
100 f fresidual fresidual fic ei  e0
¼ þ 1 e P e0 ð28Þ
f0 f0 f0 fc0
50 The inflexion point stress ratio is defined by:
  
fi fresidual fresidual fic
0 ¼ þ 1 ð29Þ
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 f0 f0 f0 fc0
Axial Strain
In the above, fic is the uniaxial inflexion point as defined by Eq. (10).
A comparison of the prediction and test results for fi are given in Fig.
20. The above function sets limits for the inflexion point between
Fig. 18. Comparison between Attard and Setunge’s [22] test results and model for the uniaxial case, in which the residual stress is taken as zero,
132 MPa strength concrete. and hence the inflexion stress corresponds to the uniaxial inflexion
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 345

stress value fic, and the fully ductile state under high confinement, 2
where the residual stress and the inflexion point stress are both
equal to the peak stress. The post-peak softening branch for the uni- 1.8
axial state is therefore:
 2 ε i 1.6
  eec
f fic eic ec
ε0
¼ ec 6 e ð30Þ 1.4
fc0 fc0
1.2
eic
¼ 2:76  0:35 lnðfc0 Þ ð31Þ
ec 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
The strain at the inflexion point at the uniaxial case has been reca-
librated and is different to that originally proposed in Eq. (10). The fr
uniaxial strain at peak stress ec, is found using Eq. (9). Fig. 22 shows f c'
a comparison of the proposed stress strain relationship for the uni- Attard et al. [22], f'c = 58 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c = 96 -100 MPa
axial case for the 100  200 cylindrical specimens tested by Dahl Attard et al. [22], f'c = 110 -120 MPa Attard et al. [22], f'c = 126 -132 MPa
Mander et al. [21] f'c =20 -50 MPa Prediction f'c = 20 MPa
[35]. The comparison uses the experimental secant modulus and Prediction f'c = 50 MPa Prediction f'c = 100 MPa
the peak stresses and corresponding strains. The uniaxial softening Prediction f'c= 130 MPa

behavior for a wide range of concrete strengths is predicted very

Fig. 21. Comparison of experimental results with proposed model prediction for
well. inflexion point strain ratio.
The strain at peak stress under confinement e0, has been recali-
brated using linear regression, and is given here by the following
expression: magnitude. The post-peak fracture energies estimated from the
 ½0:3124þ0:002fc0  work of Xie et al. [41] for high confinement (above 0.3), are higher
e0 fr than the experimental estimates. This can partly be explained, by
¼ ek k ¼ ð2:9224  0:00367fc0 Þ 0 ð32Þ
ec fc the fact that the specimen height used by Xie et al. [41] were smal-
Figs. 13–15 compare the prediction of the above equation for var- ler being 108 mm than the characteristic length used in the model
ious experimental data for normal and high strength concretes. A si- predictions and the experimentally estimated fracture energies
milar interpolation function to that in Eq. (29) can be devised for were truncated because the residual was not reached in the experi-
the inflexion point strain ratio, that is: mental results for the high confinement levels (see Figs. 28–30).
   A problematic question is how to estimate the stress strain re-
ei fresidual fresidual eic 2:89 sponse of specimens with different heights and perhaps different
¼ kþ 1 k ¼ 1:26 þ pffiffiffiffi ð33Þ
e0 f0 f0 ec fc0 aspect ratios. For instance, the triaxial results of Attard and Se-
tunge [22] used cylindrical specimens of height 200 mm and diam-
where the parameter k in the equation above defines the limiting eter 100 mm, while the triaxial tests conducted by Xie et al. [41]
value for the inflexion point ratio as fresidual ? f0. Fig. 21 shows a used cylindrical specimens of the same aspect ratio as those of At-
comparison for the inflexion point strain prediction and test results. tard and Setunge [22], but with a diameter of 54 mm and a height
Eqs. (28), (29), and (33) require an expression defining the residual of 108 mm. If compression fracture is purely localized into a shear
stress level. The expression for the residual stress level ratio is pro- band then specimens with different heights would have the same
posed as: plastic or inelastic displacements (displacements which are non-
fresidual 1 recoverable on unloading) but different calculated strains in the
¼ 1   k a ¼ 795:7  3:291fc0 softening or descending region of the stress strain curve. The re-
f0 fr
a f0 þ 1 sults of Vonk [31] shown in Fig. 5 and the CDZ model of Markeset
c
 0:694 !
and Hillerborg [63] indicate that for the uniaxial case, the compres-
fr
k ¼ 5:79 0 þ 1:301 ð34Þ sive fracture energy per unit area for specimens of the same aspect
fc
ratio greater than or equal to 2 but of different heights, will not be
Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the proposed residual strength predic- the same. Although it has been common practice to assume that in
tion with experimental test results. Integration of the softening compression testing, specimens with the same aspect ratio will
branch of the stress strain relationship gives for the compressive
fracture energy per unit area under uniaxial loading as: 120
pffiffiffiffi
Gfcu 1
2
pðeic  ec Þfc0 12 ðfc0 Þ2 100
¼p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiþ ð35Þ
lc lnðfc0 Þ  lnðfic Þ Ec
Axial Stress MPa

80
While under confinement, the expression would be:
pffiffiffiffi 60
Gfc 12 pðei  e0 Þðf0  fresidual Þ 12 ðf0  fresidual Þ2
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ ð36Þ
lc lnðfc0 Þ  lnðfic Þ Ec
40
Figs. 3 and 7 show a comparison of the post-peak compressive frac-
ture energy per unit area predicted by Eqs. (35) and (36) with those 20
estimated from experimental results. When using Eqs. (35) and
(36), a characteristic length of 200 mm was used as this represents 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
the most typical specimen height used in the compressive testing of
Axial strain
concrete. The predictions based on Eqs. (35) and (36) are shown as
solid lines in Figs. 3 and 7. In summary, the comparison is generally Fig. 22. Comparison of the uniaxial test results of Dahl [35] with proposed new
very good showing the same trends and of a comparable order of model.
346 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

generally give the same stress strain response, this cannot be true longitudinal tensile cracking. A power function is adapted to de-
because of fracture localization. scribe the strain softening behavior with the following equation
To adjust the proposed model to incorporate size effects, firstly used:
consider Fig. 2. The total strain e can be divided into its inelastic
and elastic components, such that  0 0:8  0 0:8
fc  f 2kGft fc  f
    ed ¼ edu ¼ f 6 fc0 ð42Þ
f w þe h f fc0 rð1 þ kÞfc0 fc0
e ¼ e0  0 þ pc d d þ h > hd
Ec h Ec
    ð37Þ
f w f The proposed model based on Eq. (39) is compared to the results of
e ¼ e0  0 þ pc þ ed þ h 6 hd
Ec h Ec Vonk [31], Nakamura and Higai [36], Jansen and Shah [37]. These
comparisons demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model
In which, wpc is the localized inelastic axial displacement due to
in predicting the post-peak behavior of uniaxial compression test
shear band fracture, ed is the additional inelastic strain in the dam-
with various specimen dimensions. Figs. 23 and 24 compare the
aged zone associated with longitudinal tensile cracking, h is the
predictions with the results of Vonk [31] for prisms of width
height of the specimen and hd is the damage zone height taken as
50 mm and 100 mm, for various heights. The results of Jansen and
2 times the width or diameter of the specimen. As was discussed
Shah [37] are compared in Fig. 25 for normal strength concrete with
previously, the inelastic axial displacement and hence the post-
fc0 ¼ 45 MPa and in Fig. 26 for a high strength concrete with
peak compressive fracture energy per unit area, for a specimen of
fc0 ¼ 90 MPa. The aspect ratios were 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5. Jansen
height greater than the damage zone, will be independent of the
and Shah [37] used cylindrical specimens with a nominal diameter
specimen height. Hence, if the proposed model is used to calculate
of 100 mm. The damaged zone height was taken as 200 mm. The
a reference strain e, based on a reference cylinder height defined by
comparisons are generally very good and importantly display the
Attard and Setunge [22] of hr = 200 mm, then from Eq. (37) it is
snap-back phenomenon observed in the tests for the high strength
possible to back-calculate an expression for the localized inelastic
concrete although only for aspect ratios greater than 2.5. The results
displacement, that is:
of Nakamura and Higai [36] are compared in Fig. 27 and again show
ðf0  f Þ reasonable comparisons although the snap-back behavior of the
wpc ¼ ðe  e0 Þhr þ hr  ed hr ð38Þ
Ec longest specimen is not well predicted.
For the case of confinement, it is firstly assumed that the ulti-
Using the above, the adjusted total strain eh for a specimen of height
mate inelastic strain given in Eq. (40) is nullified by increasing con-
h is:
finement and hence
   
hr ðf  f0 Þ hr hd hr
eh ¼ e0 þ ðe  e0 Þ þ 1 þ ed  h > hd
h Ec h h h 2kGft ðf0  fresidual Þ 2kGft
    edu ¼ ¼ ð43Þ
hr ðf  f0 Þ hr hr rð1 þ kÞðf0  fresidual Þ f0 rð1 þ kÞf0
eh ¼ e0 þ ðe  e0 Þ þ 1 þ ed 1  h 6 hd
h Ec h h
ð39Þ Eq. (42) is then rewritten as:

To use the above equations, an expression for the additional inelas-  0:8
tic strain in the damaged zone associated with longitudinal tensile 2kGft f0  f
ed ¼ f residual 6 f 6 f0 ð44Þ
cracking is needed. Markeset and Hillerborg [63] suggested that the rð1 þ kÞf0 f0  fresidual
ultimate inelastic strain due to longitudinal cracking for the uniax-
ial case, assuming a linear stress versus inelastic strain diagram Figs. 28–34 show comparisons of the proposed model incorporating
could be estimated from: size effect adjustments for the height of the specimen with selected
2kGft experimental results from Attard and Setunge [22], Hurlbut [40],
edu ¼ ð40Þ Xie et al. [41], Lu and Hsu [49], Smith [66]. The proposed model pre-
rð1 þ kÞðfc0 Þ
dictions are generally excellent and demonstrate the capability of
where Gft is the tensile fracture energy, r is a parameter with the di- the proposed model for a wide range of compressive strengths, con-
mension of length proportional to the average distance between fining pressures and specimen dimensions.
successive longitudinal cracks and k is a material constant. The va-
lue of r was estimated to be about 1.25 mm for a maximum aggre-
gate size of 16 mm with r increasing with increasing maximum 50
Vonk [31] Proposed Model
aggregate size. The value of k was taken as approximately 3 for nor- 45
Prisms with width=50mm
mal density concrete and 1 for light weight aggregate concrete. Van
40
Mier [56] gives an expression for the tensile fracture energy as a
function of the uniaxial compressive: 35
Stress (MPa)

30 h=50mm
Gft ¼ 0:00097fc0 þ 0:0418 N=mm ð41Þ
25
It needs to be noted that Eq. (41) only gives an estimate of the ten-
20
sile fracture energy which has been shown to be affected by many
h=200mm
h=100mm
variables including the aggregate size, type and property (see Van 15
Mier [56]). Although Eq. (41) is here used for confined and uncon- 10
fined specimens there is evidence, at least for rocks that the tensile
5
fracture energy is affected by confinement, see Fialko and Rubin
[69]. 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Markeset and Hillerborg [63] illustrated the applicability of
Strain
their CDZ model by assuming a linear softening description. The
assumption here is that there is a nonlinear softening behavior Fig. 23. Comparison of the uniaxial compression results for prisms with a width of
for the inelastic strain in the damaged zone associated with 50 mm and different specimen heights of Vonk [31] of with proposed new model.
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349 347

50 25
Vonk [31] Proposed Model
45
Prisms with width=100mm
40 20
35
Stress (MPa)

Axial stress MPa

30
15
25
20
h=100mm
h=50mm 10
15
h=200mm
10
5 5

0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Strain 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Fig. 24. Comparison of the uniaxial compression results for prisms with a width of Axial strain
100 mm and different specimen heights of Vonk [31] of with proposed new model.
Fig. 27. Comparison of the uniaxial compression test results for series G10-3 of
Nakamura and Higai [36] with proposed new model.

50

45

40 400
f'c = 119MPa
35 350 Ec = 33000MPa
Axial stress MPa

fr=60 Specimens:
55.5 mm x 110 mm
30 300
Axial stress MPa

fr=48

25 250
fr=36
20 200 fr=30
fr=24
15 150
fr=18

10 100 fr=12

50 fr=6
5

0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Axial strain Axial strain
Xie et al. [41] Exp.
Fig. 25. Comparison of the uniaxial compression test on cylinders of different Proposed Model
aspect ratios of Jansen and Shah [37] with proposed new model for a normal
strength concrete. Fig. 28. Comparison between Xie et al.’s [41] test results and proposed model.

100

90
f'c = 92MPa
80 Ec = 29000MPa
Specimens:
70
Axial stress MPa

55.5 mm x 110 mm

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Axial strain
Xie et al. [41] Exp.
Fig. 26. Comparison of the uniaxial compression test on cylinders of different Proposed Model
aspect ratios of Jansen and Shah [37] with proposed new model for a high strength
concrete. Fig. 29. Comparison between Xie et al.’s [41] test results and proposed model.
348 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349

200 180
fr=29.3 f'c=34.5 MPa fr=34.5
f'c = 60MPa Ec=13000 MPa
Ec = 20000MPa 160 Specimens:
fr=23.3 fr=27.6
Specimens: 54 mm x 108 mm
150 fr=20.3 55.5 mm x 110 mm 140
Axial stress MPa

Axial stress MPa

fr=20.7
fr=14.3 120

fr=11.3 100 fr=13.8

100
fr=8.3
80
fr=5.3 fr=6.9
60
50 fr=2.3
40
fr=0.81 fr=3.5
20
0 Uniaxial fr=0.7
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0
Axial strain 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Axial strain
Xie et al. [41] Exp.
Proposed Model

Fig. 30. Comparison between Xie et al.’s [41] test results and proposed model.
Fig. 33. Comparison between Smith et al.’s [66] test results and proposed model.

300
f'c=68 MPa fr=56
Ec=24000 MPa
Specimens:
250 250 100mm x 200 mm
Axial stress MPa

f'c = 132 MPa

Ec = 43770 MPa fr=42
200
200 Specimens: 100 mm x 200 mm
fr=28
150
Stress (MPa)

fr=15 fr=14
150
100
fr=10 fr=7
100 fr=3.5
50
fr=0
fr=5
50 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Axial strain
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 Lu et al. [49] Exp.
Strain Proposed Model

Attard et al. [22] Exp. Fig. 34. Comparison between Lu and Hsu’s [49] test results and proposed model.
Proposed Model

Fig. 31. Comparison between Attard and Setunge’s [22] test results and proposed
model. 7. Conclusion

A review of the confined stress strain model of Attard and

Setunge [22], revealed that despite its wide usage, the model is
limited to low confinement, the residual under confinement does
not exhibit a brittle ductile transition, no adjustment is made for
90 the size effects on compressive softening and the denominator in
fr=13.76
80 the fractional analytical model could cause a singularity for certain
70 f'c = 19MPa combinations of material parameters. The model by Binici [23]
Ec = 16000 MPa does make allowance for size effects but is based on the assump-
Specimens: 54 mm x 108 mm
Stress (MPa)

60 tion of a constant post-peak compressive fracture energy per unit

fr=6.89
50 area regardless of confinement. Estimates of the post-peak fracture
40 fr=3.45 energy based on experimental data, in which the stress strain re-
sults extend to the residual load level, were shown to vary with
30 the confinement pressure. The results show an increasing fracture
20 fr=.689 energy with increasing confinement until a limit is reached, at a
confinement ratio fr =fc0 of about 0.1–0.2 after which it decreases
10
fr=0 until it becomes zero. At low confinement, the post-peak volume
0 dependent longitudinal tensile cracking under compression is
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
overcome by confining pressure, which results in an increased
Axial strain
peak strength and fracture energy above the uniaxial level. With
further confinement, the mode of failure is dominated by barreling
dispersed cracking, at which point there is no compressive fracture
Fig. 32. Comparison between Hurlbut’s [40] test results and proposed model. energy due to localization within the shear band.
 A.K. Samani, M.M. Attard / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 335–349
A new model for the stress strain response of uniaxial and con-
fined concrete is presented which addresses the limitations of
other models. The new proposed model is shown to provide good
predictions for the stress versus strain response for both uniaxial
and triaxial compression, for normal strength and high strength
concretes, for low to high levels of confinement and to take ac-
count of size effects due to varying specimen height and aspect
ratio.
References
[1] Shin M, Andrawes B. Experimental investigation of actively confined concrete
using shape memory alloys. Eng Struct 2010;32:656–64.
[2] Richart F, Brandtzæg A, Brown R. A study of the failure of concrete under
combined compressive stresses. Univ Illinois Bull 1928:185.
[3] Hognestad E. Study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced concrete
members; 1951.
[4] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain curve of
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3:583–99.
[5] Sargin M. Stress–strain relationships for concrete and the analysis of structural
concrete sections: Solid mechanics division. University of Waterloo; 1971.
[6] Sargin M, Ghosh S, Handa V. Effects of lateral reinforcement upon the strength
and deformation properties of concrete. Mag Concr Res 1971;23:99–110.
[7] Wang P, Shah S, Naaman A. Stress–strain curves of normal and lightweight
concrete in compression. ACI; 1978.
[8] Kent D, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete’. ASCEJ Struct Div
1971;97:1964–90.
[9] Park R, Priestley M, Gill W. Ductility of square-confined concrete columns. J
Struct Div 1982;108:929–50.
[10] Sheikh S, Uzumeri S. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
columns. J Struct Div 1982;108:2703–22.
[11] Saatcioglu M, Razvi S. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J Struct Eng
1992;118:1590–607.
[12] Mendis P, Pendyala R, Setunge S. Stress–strain model to predict the full-range
moment curvature behaviour of high-strength concrete sections. Mag Concr
Res 2000;52:227–34.
[13] Scott B, Park R, Priestley M. Stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI; 1982.
[14] Carreira D, Chu K. Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in compression.
ACI; 1985.
[15] Cusson D, De Larrard F, Boulay C, Paultre P. Strain localization in confined
high-strength concrete columns. J Struct Eng 1996;122:1055–61.
[16] Hoshikuma J, Kawashima K, Nagaya K, Taylor A. Stress–strain model for
confined reinforced concrete in bridge piers. J Struct Eng 1997;123:624–33.
[17] Hsu L, Hsu C. Complete stress–strain behaviour of high-strength concrete
under compression. Mag Concr Res 1994;46:301.
[18] Razvi S, Saatcioglu M. Confinement model for high-strength concrete. J Struct
Eng 1999;125:281–9.
[19] Wee T, Chin M. Stress–strain relationship of high-strength concrete in
compression. J Mater Civil Eng 1996;8:70.
[20] Chung H, Yang K, Lee Y, Eun H. Stress–strain curve of laterally confined
concrete. Eng Struct 2002;24:1153–63.
[21] Mander J. Seismic design of bridge piers; 1984 [February].
[22] Attard M, Setunge S. Stress–strain relationship of confined and unconfined
concrete. ACI Mater J 1996:93.
[23] Binici B. An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of confined concrete.
Eng Struct 2005;27:1040–51.
[24] Shah S, Fafitis A, Arnold R. Cyclic loading of spirally reinforced concrete. J
Struct Eng 1983;109:1695–710.
[25] Cui C. Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete confined with fibre
reinforced polymers (FRP). University of Toronto; 2009.
[26] Teng J, Lam L. Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 2004;130:1713.
[27] Campione G, Minafò G. Compressive behavior of short high-strength concrete
columns. Eng Struct 2010.
[28] Lam L, Teng J. Stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete under cyclic axial
compression. Eng Struct 2009;31:308–21.
[29] Van Mier J. Strain-softening of concrete under multiaxial loading conditions.
The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology; 1984.
[30] Van Mier J, Shah S, Arnaud M, Balayssac J, Bascoul A, Choi S, et al. Strain-
softening of concrete in uniaxial compression. Mater Struct 1997;30:195–209.
[31] Vonk R. Softening of concrete loaded in compression. PhD thesis. Eindhoven
University of Technology, The Netherlands; 1992.
[32] Vonk R. A micromechanical investigation of softening of concrete loaded in
compression. Heron 1993;38:1–94.
[33] Van Geel E. Concrete behaviour in multiaxial compression: experimental
research. Eindhoven University; 1998.
349
[34] Dahl KKB. a constitutive model for normal and high strength concrete.
Danmarks Tekniske Højskole, Afdelingen for Bærende Konstruktioner; 1992.
[35] Dahl KKB. Uniaxial stress–strain curves for normal and high strength concrete.
Afdelingen for Bærende Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske Højskole; 1992.
[36] Nakamura H, Higai T. Compressive fracture energy and fracture zone length of
concrete. In: Shing P-sB, Tanabe I, editors. Modeling of inelastic behavior of RC
structures under seismic loads; 2001. p. 471–87.
[37] Jansen D, Shah S. Effect of length on compressive strain softening of concrete. J
Eng Mech 1997;123:25–35.
[38] Gardner N. Triaxial behavior of concrete. ACI; 1969.
[39] Jamet P, Millard A, Nahas G. Triaxial behaviour of micro-concrete complete
stress–strain curves for confining pressures ranging from 0 to 100 MPa. In:
RILEM-CEB International conference concrete under multiaxial conditions, vol.
1; 1984. p. 133-40.
[40] Hurlbut B. Experimental and computational investigation of strain-softening
in concrete. University of Colorado; 1985.
[41] Xie J, Elwi A, MacGregor J. Mechanical properties of three high-strength
concretes containing silica fume. ACI Mater J 1995:92.
[42] Imran I, Pantazopoulou S. Experimental study of plain concrete under triaxial
stress. ACI Mater J 1996;93:589–601.
[43] Ansari F, Li Q. High-strength concrete subjected to triaxial compression. ACI
Mater J 1998:95.
[44] Li Q, Ansari F. Mechanics of damage and constitutive relationships for high-
strength concrete in triaxial compression. J Eng Mech 1999;125:1–10.
[45] Li Q, Ansari F. High-strength concrete in triaxial compression by different sizes
of specimens. ACI Mater J 2000:97.
[46] Candappa D, Setunge S, Sanjayan J. Stress versus strain relationship of high
strength concrete under high lateral confinement. Cem Concr Res
1999;29:1977–82.
[47] Candappa D, Sanjayan J, Setunge S. Complete triaxial stress–strain curves of
high-strength concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 2001;13:209.
[48] Sfer D, Gettu R, Etse G. Study of the behavior of concrete under triaxial
compression. J Eng Mech 2002;128:156.
[49] Lu X, Hsu C. Stress–strain relations of high-strength concrete under triaxial
compression. J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19:261.
[50] Newman J. Concrete under complex stress. In: Lydon F, editor. Developments
in concrete technology – I; 1979. p. 151–219.
[51] Bellotti R, Rossi P. Cylinder tests: experimental technique and results. Mater
Struct 1991;24:45–51.
[52] Mander J, Priestley M, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26.
[53] Cusson D, Paultre P. Stress–strain model for confined high-strength concrete. J
Struct Eng 1995;121:468.
[54] ACI-318-02. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02)
and commentary (ACI 318R-02). American Concrete Institute Farmington Hills,
MI; 2002.
[55] Van Mier J. Multiaxial strain-softening of concrete. Mater Struct
1986;19:179–90.
[56] Van Mier J. Fracture processes of concrete. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1996.
[57] Van Mier J. Framework for a generalized four-stage fracture model of cement-
based materials. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:5072–86.
[58] Van Mier J, Man H. Some notes on microcracking, softening, localization, and
size effects. Int J Damage Mech 2009;18:283.
[59] Tasdemir M, Tasdemir C, Akyuz S, Jefferson A, Lydon F, Barr B. Evaluation of
strains at peak stresses in concrete: a three-phase composite model approach.
Cem Concr Compos 1998;20:301–18.
[60] Pramono E, Willam K. Fracture energy-based plasticity formulation of plain
concrete. J Eng Mech 1989;115:1183–204.
[61] Wang P, Shah S, Naaman A. Stress–strain curves of normal and lightweight
concrete in compression. ACI 1978:75.
[62] Wischers G. Aufnahme und Auswirkungen von Druckbeanspruchungen auf
Beton. Betontechn Berichte 1978;19:31–56.
[63] Markeset G, Hillerborg A. Softening of concrete in compression—localization
and size effects. Cem Concr Res 1995;25:702–8.
[64] Watanabe K, Niwa J, Yokota H, Iwanami M. Experimental study on stress–
strain curve of concrete considering localized failure in compression. J Adv
Concr Technol 2004;2:395–407.
[65] Carpinteri A, Corrado M, Paggi M. An analytical model based on strain
localisation for the study of size scale and slenderness effects in uniaxial
compression tests. Strain 2011.
[66] Smith S, Willam K, Gerstle K, Sture S. Concrete over the Top–Or, is there life
after peak? ACI Mater J 1989:86.
[67] Willam K, Sture S, Gerstle K. Constitutive driver for triaxial response behavior
of plain concrete. Technical report. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Colorado, Boulder; 1989.
[68] Pivonka P, Lackner R, Mang H. Numerical analyses of concrete subjected to
triaxial compressive loading. In: European congress on computational
methods in applied mechanics, Barcelona; 2000.
[69] Fialko YA, Rubin AM. Numerical simulation of high-pressure rock tensile
fracture experiments: evidence of an increase in fracture energy with
pressure? J Geophys Res 1997;102:5231–42.