ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 102-S38
Influence of Concrete Strength on Confinement
Effectiveness of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Circular Jackets
by Siddhwartha Mandal, Andrew Hoskin, and Amir Fam
Confinement effectiveness of circular fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) jackets was studied for axial members with unconfined concrete
strength f′c ranging from 26 to 81 MPa. The study included two
large-scale concrete-filled FRP tubes and 59 plain and FRP-wrapped
concrete cylinders. The cylinders were wrapped with one layer of
glass FRP (GFRP) sheet, two layers of GFRP sheet, or one layer of
carbon FRP (CFRP) sheet. Specimens were tested to failure under
axial compression. The study showed that FRP tubes and wraps
provide a substantial increase in strength and ductility for low- to
medium-strength concrete, which shows a bilinear stress-strain
response with strain hardening. For high-strength concrete, however,
enhancement in strength is very limited, with hardly any improvement
in ductility. The response in this case shows a steep postpeak strain
softening. Several confinement models were examined and success-
fully captured a trend of reduction in confinement effectiveness
with the increase of fc′ . All of the models, however, failed to capture
the stress-strain behavior of confined high-strength concrete and
grossly overestimated its ultimate axial strain. A model is presented to
account for the effect of fc′ on ultimate strength and strain of FRP-
confined concrete. It is recommended to use lower-strength concrete
in filling FRP tubes used as axial members.
Keywords: concrete; confinement; fibers; high-strength concrete; polymer;
strain; stress.
INTRODUCTION
The application of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) jackets
in retrofitting circular reinforced concrete columns subjected
to axial compressive loading and seismic loading has been
investigated by several researchers.1-4 For new construction
of columns, piles, and bridge piers exposed to corrosive
environments, the application of concrete-filled FRP tubes
has also been explored by several researchers.5-11 In both
types of applications (FRP-wrapped columns and concrete-
filled FRP tubes), the FRP jacket is mainly used to confine
the concrete core. As a result, the concrete is capable of
reaching axial capacity beyond the unconfined strength fc′ .
To date, most of the research conducted on FRP-confined
concrete has focused on aspects related to the FRP jacket
itself, rather than the concrete core. The concrete strength fc′
is generally kept constant throughout a typical research
program. Additionally, low- to medium-strength concrete
(25 to 50 MPa) has mainly been used in these studies. The
parameters, commonly studied, included: 1) thickness of the
FRP jackets, governed by the number of plies; 2) laminate
structure in terms of orientation of fibers in each ply; 3) types
of fibers and resins; and 4) slenderness of the columns. Very
few studies have included FRP confinement of high-strength
concrete.12,13 The objectives of this study are to study the
confinement effectiveness of various FRP jackets for
circular concrete members of different concrete strengths
and to evaluate the applicability of existing confinement
models to high-strength concrete confined with FRP.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
While the subject of FRP confinement of circular concrete
columns has been extensively studied experimentally and
analytically, more emphasis has typically been put on the
characteristics of the FRP jackets, rather than the concrete
core. In this paper, the effect of the original (unconfined)
concrete compressive strength fc′ on the confinement effective-
ness of circular FRP jackets is explored. The study simulates
two applications, namely: wrapping of circular columns with
FRP sheets for retrofitting applications, and the use of
prefabricated circular FRP tubes as permanent formwork
and confining reinforcement in the concrete-filled FRP tube
system for new construction. Concrete with unconfined
strengths ranging from 26 to 81 MPa has been used to evaluate
the different levels of confinement induced by glass FRP
(GFRP) and carbon FRP (CFRP) jackets of different
thicknesses. Several existing models have been evaluated to
examine their applicability to high-strength concrete. A simple
confinement model is suggested for high-strength concrete.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental program consisted of testing two full-
scale concrete-filled FRP tubes (one tube filled with 26 MPa
concrete and the other with 60 MPa concrete) as well as 59
concrete cylinders, including 44 cylinders wrapped with
CFRP and GFRP sheets, and 15 plain concrete cylinders.
The unconfined concrete strength of the cylinders varied
from 31 to 81 MPa. All specimens were tested to failure
under uniaxial compression.
Materials
This section provides a description of the FRP sheets and
prefabricated tubes used in this study. The various concrete
mixtures used to achieve different concrete strengths are also
presented.
FRP tubes and sheets—The GFRP tubes used for the
concrete-filled FRP tubes were fabricated using the filament
winding technique and had a 51% fiber volume fraction. The
tubes had an outer diameter of 326 mm, a wall thickness of
6.4 mm, and consisted of [–88/+3/–88/–88/+3/–88/+3/–88/
+3/–88] angle-ply E-glass/epoxy laminate. The [–88] and
[+3] layers are oriented in the hoop and axial directions,
respectively. Carbon and E-glass fiber sheets were used to
wrap the concrete cylinders, where the fibers were all
oriented in the hoop direction. The thicknesses of the cured
CFRP and GFRP laminates (single ply) were 0.8 and 1.3 mm,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005.
MS No. 03-419 received October 6, 2003 and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2005.
383
 (26 to 81 MPa), as shown in Table 2. Mixtures 1 to 5 were
Siddhwartha Mandal is an MSc candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering
at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. He received his MEng from the prepared in the laboratory using a mechanical drum mixer
National University of Singapore in 2001 and his BSc from Bangladesh University and were used for the concrete cylinders wrapped with FRP
of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh, in 1997. His research interests sheets. Mixtures 6 and 7 were supplied by concrete suppliers
include the application of fiber-reinforced polymers in rehabilitation of old structures
and new construction. and were used to fill the FRP tubes.
Andrew Hoskin is an NSERC undergraduate researcher in the Department of Civil
Engineering at Queen’s University. Fabrication of test specimens
The following sections describe the fabrication process of
ACI member Amir Fam is an assistant professor and Canada Research Chair in Innovative the concrete-filled FRP tubes and the concrete cylinders
and Retrofitted Structures at Queen’s University. He is a member of ACI Committee 440,
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. His research interests include applications
wrapped with FRP sheets.
of fiber-reinforced polymer in reinforced and prestressed concrete structures and retrofit of Concrete-filled GFRP tubes—The details of the two
existing structures. concrete-filled FRP tubes, T1 and T2, tested in this program
are provided in Table 3. Identical GFRP tubes were used in
both specimens. The GFRP tubes, which were typically
respectively. The effective mechanical properties of the received in 5 m lengths, were placed in an inclined position
prefabricated GFRP tubes and the GFRP and CFRP sheets on a steel frame, and wooden plugs were installed at the top
used in this study are summarized in Table 1, based on and bottom ends of the tubes. The concrete was pumped
manufacturer data, calculations using classical lamination from a concrete truck into the tubes through a hole in the
theory, or coupon tests using ASTM D 303914 for tension upper plug, and an external vibrator, fixed to the steel frame,
tests and a modified ASTM D 3410-87 standard15 for was used to compact the concrete. After sufficient curing
compression tests.
Concrete mixtures—Seven concrete mixtures were used
to achieve the desired range of unconfined concrete strength Table 3—Details of test specimens
Concrete fc′ , Type of Material O. D.,* Height, No. of
Specimen mixture MPa jacket of jacket mm mm specimens
Table 1—Mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced T1 7 26 652 1
Tube GFRP 326
polymer jackets T2 6 60 980 1
GFRP laminate CFRP laminate GFRP C1 No — 100 3
Properties single-ply single-ply tube jacket
1 layer
Hoop tensile strength, MPa 575* 784* 401† C2 GFRP 103 3
Longitudinal compressive 5 31 200
94.5§ 76§ 343† 2 layers
strength,‡ MPa C3 Wraps GFRP 105 3
Elastic modulus in hoop 1 layer
direction, GPa 26.1* 47* 23.5† C4 102 3
CFRP
Elastic modulus in axial No
direction, GPa 4.64† 3.57† 21.7† C5 — 100 3
jacket
Ultimate tensile strain in 1 layer
hoop direction, % 2.2* 1.67* 1.97† C6 103 2
GFRP
4 46 200
Poisson’s ratio due to axial 2 layers
loading 0.055† 0.025† 0.09† C7 Wraps 105 3
GFRP
*
Manufacturer’s data. 1 layer
† C8 CFRP 102 3
Calculated using lamination theory.
‡
Normal to fiber direction for carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and glass fiber-reinforced No
polymer single ply. C9 — 100 3
§ jacket
Based on coupon test.
Note: GFRP = glass fiber-reinforced polymer; CFRP = carbon fiber-reinforced polymer.
C10 1 layer 103 3
GFRP
3 55 200
2 layers
Table 2—Concrete mixture proportions C11 Wraps GFRP 105 3
Mixture no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 layer
C12 102 3
Concrete strength fc′, MPa CFRP
81 67 55 46 31 60 26
C13 No — 100 3
Cement, kg/m3 505* 505* 469* 418* 385† 360† 178† jacket
Water, kg/m3 145 162 236 217 218 154 171 C14 1 layer 103 3
GFRP
Silica fume, kg/m 3 63 63 47 — — — — 2 67 200
C15 Wraps 2 layers 105 3
Fly ash, kg/m3 — — — — — — 119 GFRP
1 layer
Gravel/stone, kg/m3 1136 1136 1055 1121 1072 998 949 C16 CFRP 102 3
3 701 701 651 692 661 803 949
Sand, kg/m No
C17 — 100 3
High-range water-reducing jacket
24 20 — — — 5 —
admixture, kg/m3 C18 1 layer 103 3
3
GFRP
Expansive agent, kg/m — — — — — 89 — 1 81 200
C19 Wraps 2 layers 105 3
Air content, % — — — — — 5 — GFRP
w/c 0.25 0.28 0.46 0.52 0.57 0.34 0.58 1 layer
C20 CFRP 102 3
*Type 30 portland cement (high early strength).
†Type 10 portland cement. *
O. D. = outer diameter.

384 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005

time, Specimens T1 and T2 were cut from the long tubes
using a diamond-blade saw. The strengths of the unconfined
concrete at the date of testing of Specimens T1 and T2 were
26 and 60 MPa, respectively, based on cylinder tests of
concrete Mixtures 7 and 6. It should be mentioned that
shrinkage of the concrete core inside the tubes was not a
concern, as literature has shown that it is typically quite
negligible because the core is essentially sealed by the tube
from the environment.
FRP-wrapped cylinder specimens—A total of 59 100 x
200 mm cylinders were cast using five different concrete
mixtures. The cylinders were cast in plastic molds and were
demolded 24 h after casting. The specimens were moist-
cured for 3 weeks and then air-dried in the laboratory before
being wrapped with the FRP sheets. As such, any concrete
shrinkage mostly occurred before wrapping. The cylinders
were used to produce 20 sets of specimens, C1 to C20, as
shown in Table 3. Generally, each set contains three identical
specimens tested to provide reliable average values for the
test results. Specimens C1, C5, C9, C13, and C17 were plain
concrete cylinders, tested to provide the unconfined concrete
strength for Mixtures 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Specimens
C2, C6, C10, C14, and C18 were all wrapped with one layer of
GFRP. Specimens C3, C7, C11, C15, and C19 were all wrapped
with two layers of GFRP, and Specimens C4, C8, C12, C16,
and C20 were all wrapped with one layer of CFRP.
For the wrapped cylinders, the dry concrete surface was
first coated with a layer of epoxy resin. The sheets were
presaturated with resin and then applied to the resin-wetted
concrete surface such that the fibers were oriented in the
hoop direction and pressed with a roller in the fiber direction
to remove entrapped air and ensure proper bond with the
concrete. For each layer, a 50 mm overlap was used to ensure
adequate bond and continuity of the jacket in the hoop
direction. All wrapped cylinders were cured for a sufficient
period of time before testing, as prescribed by the manufac-
turer. Figure 1 shows samples of the wrapped cylinders.
Testing of concrete-filled FRP tubes—Axial and circum-
ferential strains were measured at midheight of Specimens
T1 and T2 using electrical resistance strain gauges. Additional
displacement transducers (commercially known as PI gauges),
mounted on the surface of the tube, were also used to
Fig. 1—Samples of fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped cylinders.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
measure the axial strains, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The specimens
were tested under axial compression using a 9000 kN testing
machine under displacement control at a rate of 0.18 mm/min.
The load was applied to the entire cross section, including
the concrete core and the GFRP tube, and a data acquisition
system was used to record data. To ensure uniform distribution
of stresses, a thin layer of quick-set plaster was placed
between the end faces of the specimens and both the loading
and supporting steel plates. Figure 2(a) shows the test setup
for Specimens T1 and T2.
Testing of FRP-wrapped concrete cylinders—Prior to
testing, all FRP-wrapped cylinders, as well as the plain
concrete cylinders, were capped with sulfur mortar at both
ends. A standard compressometer, including a 25 mm range-
displacement transducer, was attached directly to the test
specimens over a gauge length of 127 mm to measure the axial
deformations, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The specimens were tested
in a 1300 kN testing machine under displacement control
mode with a constant rate of 0.38 mm/min. The load was
applied to the entire cross section, including the concrete
core and the FRP jacket. A data acquisition system was used
to record data.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In the following sections, the test results are presented,
including the different stress-strain responses of the confined
concrete. Factors affecting the confinement effectiveness,
that is, unconfined concrete strength, hoop modulus, thickness
and tensile strength of the FRP jacket, and failure modes are
discussed for both concrete-filled FRP tubes and FRP-
wrapped cylinders.
Fig. 2—Instrumentation and test setup of test specimens.
385
Concrete-filled FRP tubes
General stress-strain response—Figure 3(a) shows the
axial stress-strain curves for the two concrete-filled GFRP
tubes, T1 and T2. The axial stress is plotted against the axial
and hoop strains. The figure shows that Specimen T1, which
is filled with a relatively low-strength concrete (26 MPa),
shows a distinct bilinear trend. This is attributed to the fact
that once the concrete reaches its unconfined strength, it
starts to dilate excessively due to the development of a
uniform network of internal microcracks, and the tube
becomes fully activated in confinement. The strains increase
rapidly as evident from the second slope of the stress-strain
curve. On the other hand, Specimen T2, which was filled
with relatively high-strength concrete (60 MPa), reached a
peak value, corresponding approximately to the unconfined
strength, and dropped slightly due to the development of a
major internal crack, accompanied by a loud noise. The peak
stress was gradually recovered, followed by another drop
due to the development of another major crack. The peak
strength was never recovered beyond this point, and the
specimen failed. It is evident that, due to the brittle nature of
the relatively high-strength concrete of Specimen T2, the
shape of the stress-strain curve of the confined concrete is
quite different from that of T1.
Effect of fc′ on confinement effectiveness—Figure 3(b)
shows the normalized axial stress-strain curves for the two
concrete-filled tubes, T1 and T2. The curves are normalized
with respect to their respective unconfined concrete
strengths fc′ and their corresponding strains ε′c to exclusively
study the effect of concrete strength on confinement
effectiveness (fcc ′ /fc′ ), defined as the ratio of maximum
strength of the confined concrete fcc′ to that of the unconfined
concrete fc′. It can be seen that for low-strength concrete
(T1), the effect of confinement is more pronounced and the
strength of the confined concrete is approximately 122%
higher than the corresponding unconfined strength. On the
other hand, for Specimen T2, filled with a relatively high-
strength concrete, the strength of the confined concrete
increased by only 12%. Unlike low- to medium-strength
Fig. 3—Stress-strain curves for tubes filled with concrete of
different strengths.
386
concrete, the brittle nature of the higher-strength concrete
core resulted in a limited lateral expansion and dilation under
high axial loading. Consequently, low confining pressure
was exerted by the tube, which resulted in a marginal
enhancement in strength. This phenomenon is also confirmed
by examining the axial stress-hoop strain behavior of Speci-
mens T1 and T2 in Fig. 3(a). At a given axial stress level, the
measured hoop strain in the FRP tube of Specimen T1 is
substantially higher than that in T2, which indicates that the
confinement pressure developed in T1 is certainly higher
than T2. It is evident from these observations that filling FRP
tubes with low-strength concrete, which is lower in cost than
high-strength concrete, is proven to be quite efficient. In fact,
Fig. 3(a) shows that both specimens achieved almost similar
ultimate strength despite the substantially different values of
their fc′.
FRP-wrapped concrete cylinders
General stress-strain response—Figure 4 shows the
measured stress-strain curves for the FRP-wrapped cylinders.
The specimens include cylinders wrapped with one or two
layers of GFRP sheets, or one layer of CFRP sheet. The
unconfined concrete strength ranged from 31 to 81 MPa.
Three experimental curves are shown in each graph that
represent the behavior of three identical specimens tested for
each case. Figure 4 also shows the predicted stress-strain
curves of FRP-wrapped cylinders using a number of
confinement models, which will be discussed in a following
section. For low- to medium-strength concrete, C2 to C8, the
stress-strain curves showed a typical bilinear trend with
strain hardening similar to that of the concrete-filled FRP
Tube T1 and that observed by other researchers.16,17
However, in medium- to high-strength concrete (C10 to C20)
as the unconfined concrete strength increases, the second
part of the bilinear curve gradually shifts from strain hard-
ening to a flat plateau, and eventually to a sudden strain soft-
ening with a drastically reduced ductility. From the trends
shown in Fig. 4, it is clear that, unlike low- to medium-
strength concrete, in high-strength concrete, confining the
cylinders with FRP sheets does not significantly change the
stress-strain behavior of confined concrete from that of
unconfined concrete except for a very limited increase in
compressive strength. It is also important to note that in low-
to medium-strength concrete, confining the cylinders with
FRP sheets results in a significant increase in both strength
and ductility, but in high-strength concrete, although a minor
increase in strength may occur, no significant enhancement
in ductility can be expected.
Effect of unconfined concrete strength fc′ —The details of
test results of both FRP-wrapped and unwrapped cylinders
(C1 to C20) are summarized in Table 4. Each set of C1 to
C20 specimens, except for C6, included three identical speci-
mens. The average values of peak strength and corre-
sponding strain are reported in Table 4. The confinement
′ /fc′ ) is also presented in the same table. For
effectiveness ( fcc
normal-strength concrete, such as Mixture 5 (31 MPa), the
strength of the confined concrete was found to increase by
77, 158, and 140% over its unconfined strength for one layer
of GFRP, two layers of GFRP, and one layer of CFRP
sheets, respectively. For high-strength concrete such as
Mixture 1 (81 MPa), however, the increase in strength was
only 27, 22, and 25%, respectively. In this case, it is clear
that the number of FRP layers and the type of fibers do not have
much influence on the strength gain.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
Fig. 4—Experimental and analytical stress-strain curves of fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped concrete cylinders.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005 387

 Figure 5 shows a plot of the confinement effectiveness
′ /fc′ ) versus the unconfined concrete strength fc′ for one
( fcc
and two layers of GFRP wrap and one layer of CFRP wrap.
Also shown in Fig. 5 are the predicted trends of the confinement
effectiveness, using a number of the existing confinement
models, which will be discussed in a following section. Each
point on the graph represents the average value of the three
cylinders tested under compression. It is evident that as the
unconfined concrete strength increases, the confinement
effectiveness decreases. The FRP-wrapped cylinders with
the least fc′ show the maximum increases in confined
strength. Figure 6 shows the effect of fc′ on the peak strain
′ of the confined concrete, normalized with respect to the
εcc
strain εc′ at fc′. The strain εcc
′ is always taken at the peak
strength fcc′ whether the specimens show strain-hardening or
strain-softening behavior. The experimental trend in Fig. 6
shows that, similar to the confinement effectiveness, the
strain εcc ′ is reduced as fc′ increases. This also reflects the
reduction of ductility effectiveness of FRP wraps in high-
strength concrete. Other curves in Fig. 6 represent predicted
strains using various models as will be discussed in a
following section.
Effect of jacket modulus, thickness, and strength (Et/R)
and (fu)—The circular FRP jacket hoop modulus E and
thickness-radius ratio (t/R), expressed as (Et/R), and its hoop
tensile strength fu affect the level of confinement pressure
exerted by the jacket on the concrete core. Figure 7 shows the
effect of (Et/R) on the confinement effectiveness (fcc′ /fc′ ). The
term (Et/R) is normalized with respect to fu and fc′ to take
into consideration the difference in tensile strength of the
GFRP and CFRP sheets. Figure 7 shows that, for relatively
low- to medium-strength concrete (31, 46, and 55 MPa), the
confinement effectiveness increases with increasing the
jacket modulus, thickness, and strength. This effect is,
however, insignificant in high-strength concrete (67 and
80 MPa), where only marginal increases (approximately
30%) in concrete strength are observed regardless of the
jacket modulus, thickness, or strength.

Fig. 5—Effect of unconfined strength of concrete on Fig. 6—Effect of unconfined strength of concrete on peak
confinement effectiveness. strains.

Table 4—Summary of experimental results of fiber-reinforced

polymer-wrapped cylinders
Fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped cylinders
Unconfined
cylinders GFRP—one layer GFRP—two layer CFRP—one layer
Mixture
no. ID fc′ ε c′ ′
ID fcc ε cc
′ fcc′ /fc′ ID ′
fcc ε cc
′ fcc
′ /fc′ ID ′
fcc ε cc
′ fcc′ /fc′
5 C1 30.7 0.0027 C2 54.5 0.0154 1.77 C3 79.3 0.0275 2.58 C4 73.8 0.0308 2.40
4 C5 46.3 0.0023 C6 58.5 0.0090 1.26 C7 83.8 0.0148 1.81 C8 77.1 0.0184 1.66
3 C9 54.5 0.0024 C10 63.5 0.0032 1.17 C11 84.1 0.0080 1.54 C12 72.1 0.0080 1.32
2 C13 67.1 0.0022 C14 86.8 0.0032 1.29 C15 95.0 0.0038 1.42 C16 90.0 0.0032 1.34
1 C17 80.6 0.0022 C18 102.7 0.0037 1.27 C19 98.3 0.0035 1.22 C20 100.4 0.0033 1.25

388 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005

Failure modes
The concrete-filled FRP tubes failed by fracture of the
tubes under a biaxial state of stress, as shown in Fig. 8(a).
The axial compressive stresses were due to the direct axial
loading on the tube, while the hoop tensile stresses resulted
from confinement of the dilating concrete under high axial
stresses. Inspection of the test specimens after failure
revealed that in Tube T2, filled with 60 MPa concrete, only
two or three major internal cracks had developed. This is
due to the very brittle nature of this relatively high-
strength concrete. On the other hand, in Tube T1, filled
with 26 MPa concrete, a large network of microcracks
uniformly distributed within the concrete mass was formed.
The FRP-wrapped concrete cylinders also failed by fracture
of the FRP wraps under hoop tensile stresses in the presence
of the axial compressive stresses, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
None of the specimens failed at the overlap location of the
jacket, which confirmed the adequate stress transfer over the
splice. In all wrapped specimens, noticeable discoloration of the
FRP jacket was observed, and large acoustic emission had taken
place at the time of failure, especially for the cylinders wrapped
with CFRP sheets.
ASSESSMENT OF CONFINEMENT MODELS
To evaluate the applicability of existing confinement
models to FRP-confined circular concrete members with a
wide range of concrete compressive strengths, four models
were chosen for their inherent capability of predicting the
full stress-strain response of confined concrete. Additionally,
the model proposed in the recent ACI 440.2R-02
document18 on retrofit of concrete structures using FRP is
also examined. In the following sections, a brief summary of
the models is provided and their capability of predicting the
stress-strain response for concrete of various strengths,
confined by FRP jackets, is also assessed.
Model by Toutanji17—The model predicts the full stress-
strain behavior, using empirical expressions to define two
distinct regions. The behavior in the second region is given
as a function of the jacket hoop strain and unconfined
concrete strength. The stress-strain curve is obtained by
increasing the hoop strain of FRP from 0.002 to the ultimate
value. The model was verified using test results where fc′
varied from 30 to 52 MPa.
Model by Fam and Rizkalla22—This model is also an
extension of the model by Mander, Priestley, and Park;21
however, it is not fully empirical. It adopts equilibrium and
radial displacement compatibility at the FRP jacket-concrete
interface to establish an expression for confining pressure,
which is a function of the concrete and jacket’s Poisson’s
ratios and moduli. The model is capable of detecting failure
of an FRP jacket under a state of biaxial stress by adopting
Tsai-Wu failure criterion. The criterion defines a failure
envelope in the biaxial stress plane, as shown in Fig. 9(a),
when the jacket is loaded axially with concrete, and hence,
subjected to axial compressive and hoop tensile stresses. The
model was verified for concrete-filled FRP tubes and
concrete cylinders wrapped with FRP sheets where fc′ varied
from 30 to 58 MPa.
ACI 440.2R-0218—In ACI 440.2R-02,18 the confined
concrete strength for a circular concrete member wrapped

Summary of models
Model by Samaan, Mirmiran, and Shahawy19—The
model predicts a bilinear response of FRP-confined
concrete. Empirical equations have been proposed for the
bilinear curve. The second slope of the curve is a function of
the unconfined concrete strength and FRP jacket hoop Fig. 7—Effect of fiber-reinforced polymer jacket modulus,
modulus and thickness. The ultimate strength and strain of thickness, and strength on confinement effectiveness in
the confined concrete are functions of the confining pressure, concrete with different fc′ .
which is dependent on the hoop strength of FRP jacket. The
model assumes that the FRP jacket is only subjected to hoop
stresses and that axial load is only applied to the concrete
core. Tests used to establish and verify the model were based
on concrete with fc′ of 30 to 40 MPa.
Model by Spoelstra and Monti20—This model is based on
empirical equations proposed by Mander, Priestley, and
Park21 that relate the strength of confined concrete to lateral
confinement pressure and unconfined concrete strength. The
model accounts for continuous interaction between the
jacket and concrete core through an iterative procedure used
to establish the full stress-strain curve. The model was
verified using test results from literature where fc′ varied
from 32 to 40 MPa. Approximate expressions for the ultimate
strength and corresponding strain have also been proposed
based on regression analysis for data on columns with fc′
ranging from 30 to 50 MPa. Although this model suggested
using a limited ultimate hoop strain in the jacket corresponding
to a multiaxial state of stress, no guidance was given on how Fig. 8—Typical failure modes of concrete confined with
to determine such strain without measuring it experimentally. fiber-reinforced polymer jackets.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005 389

with FRP sheets is given by Mander, Priestley, and Park’s
model21 as a function of the confining pressure that is
calculated in terms of the FRP reinforcement ratio and
effective hoop strain and modulus of the jacket. No guidance,
however, is given to determine the effective hoop strain,
except when the member is subjected to combined
compression and shear. In this case, the effective hoop strain
is limited to 0.004 or 0.75 times its ultimate tensile strain,
whichever is smaller. The model can predict the axial strength
of the confined concrete, but not the full stress-strain curve.
Application of models
The models discussed previously were used to predict the
behavior of the FRP-wrapped concrete cylinders. Figure 4
shows the experimental stress-strain curves along with the
predicted curves. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the existing
models can predict the stress-strain behavior with different
degrees of accuracy for the low- to medium-strength concrete
where the confined concrete shows a strain-hardening behavior.
For FRP-confined high-strength concrete, however, the existing
models, although they predicted the initial ascending parts of
the stress-strain curves well, they failed to predict the response
once the confined concrete reaches its peak strength. Beyond
this point, the experimental stress-strain curves show either a
plastic or steep descending behavior, while the predicted
curves show strain-hardening responses. As a result, all
models grossly overestimated the ultimate axial strain of the
confined high-strength concrete. As indicated previously, some
of the models do not address the phenomenon of biaxial
loading in the jacket, which overestimates the behavior.
Figure 5 shows the predicted confinement effectiveness
′ /fc′ ), using different models, compared with the experi-
(fcc
Fig. 9—Influence of biaxial state of stress in fiber-reinforced
polymer jacket on stress-strain response.
390
mental values for the different unconfined concrete
strengths. All of the models show the trend of reduction of
′ /fc′ ) as fc′ increases, similar to the experimental results.
(fcc
The model by Fam and Rizkalla provides a close agreement
with the experimental values for both types of fibers, glass,
and carbon. This is attributed to the fact that the model takes
into account the biaxial loading phenomenon of the FRP
jacket, which reduces its confining capacity, as the jacket
essentially fails before achieving its full hoop tensile
strength, obtained using uniaxial coupon tests. To illustrate
this point, the stress-strain response of Specimen C2 is
predicted twice using the model by Fam and Rizkalla in
Fig. 9(b). In the first case (Case A), the biaxial state of stress
in the FRP jacket is accounted for, while in the second case
(Case B), this phenomenon is ignored and the jacket is
assumed to develop its full hoop strength. Figure 9(a) shows
the Tsai-Wu failure envelope of the GFRP jacket as well as
both the biaxial stress path (Case A) and the uniaxial stress
path (Case B). Figure 9(b) shows the predicted response in
both cases. It is clear that the confined strength could be
highly overestimated by ignoring the biaxial state of stress in
the FRP jacket.
Figure 6 shows the ratio of peak strain of confined
concrete εcc ′ to that of unconfined concrete εc′ plotted
against fc′. Also shown in the figure are the ratios predicted
by different models. The ratio (εcc′ /εc′ ) from the test results
decreases with increasing fc′, and approaches unity for high-
strength concrete. Similar trends, showing a reduction of
′ /εc′ ), were obtained for the models by Spoelstra and
(εcc
Monti and Toutanji, while the other models by Fam and
Rizkalla and Samaan, Mirmiran, and Shahawy showed a
rather stable trend of (εcc ′ /εc′ ). In general, all models largely
overestimated the peak strains for high-strength concrete.
Fig. 10—Confinement model for fiber-reinforced polymer-
confined concrete of various unconfined strengths.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
Proposed model
A simple model is proposed to predict the peak strength
and strain of FRP-confined concrete of different unconfined
strengths based on regression of test data reported in this
paper. Figure 10 shows the confinement effectiveness (fcc ′ /fc′ )
plotted versus (Et/R), normalized with respect to both the
hoop tensile strength of the jacket fu and fc′ , similar to Fig. 7.
A second-order polynomial is used to fit the data, as given in
Eq. (1). The polynomial satisfies the condition that the
confinement effectiveness must equal unity when the term
((Et/R)(fu/fc′ )) equals zero. Figure 10 also shows the ratio of
strain at the maximum strength of confined concrete εcc ′ 6. The confinement models examined in this study
normalized with respect to the strain at fc′ , εc′ , which is also
plotted against the normalized jacket modulus. Another
second-order polynomial was used to fit the data, as given in
Eq. (2), and also satisfies the condition that (εcc ′ /εc′ ) equals
unity at zero ((Et/R)(fu/fc′ )). Figure 10 clearly shows that less
scatter of data points is observed for the strength ratio (fcc ′ /fc′ )
compared with the strain ratio (εcc ′ /εc′ ). Literature has also
confirmed that it is quite typical to see larger variations of
failure strains compared with failure strengths23
′cc
 f------- Et f 2 Et f
= 0.0017  ----- ----u- + 0.0232  ----- ----u- + 1
 f c′   R fc′   R f c′ 
 ε-------
′cc Et f 2 Et f
- = 0.0136  ----- ----u- + 0.0842  ----- ----u- + 1
 εc′   R fc′   R fc′ 
where E is the Young’s modulus of the jacket, in the hoop
direction, in GPa. Equation (1) and (2) can be used to predict
the peak strength and corresponding strain of FRP-confined
concrete of various unconfined strengths. It should be noted
that the data used to develop these equations are based on fc′
ranging from 31 to 81 MPa. The peak strength and strain of
each specimen were calculated using Eq. (1) and (2), and
were plotted in Fig. 4, in comparison with the predictions
using the other models described previously.
CONCLUSIONS
This study was mainly focused on evaluating the effect of
the unconfined concrete strength fc′ on confinement effec-
tiveness (fcc′ /fc′ ) of FRP circular jackets in axial concrete
members. The following conclusions are drawn based on the
experimental results and the assessment of a number of the
existing confinement models for a wide range of concrete
strengths:
1. In general, the confinement effectiveness reduces with
an increase in the unconfined concrete strength for both
concrete-filled FRP tubes and FRP-wrapped concrete cylinders;
2. The modulus, thickness, and tensile strength of the FRP
jacket in the hoop direction significantly influence the
confinement effectiveness for low- and medium-strength
concrete. They have little effect, however, on the strength of
confined high-strength concrete;
3. Filling prefabricated FRP tubes with low- to medium-
strength concrete is certainly more effective and economical
than using high-strength concrete. Similarly, wrapping low-
to medium-strength concrete columns with FRP sheets leads
to significant enhancement in strength and ductility. For
high-strength concrete, however, very little enhancement in
strength could be observed, and no enhancement in ductility
can be expected;
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
4. Both concrete-filled FRP tubes and FRP-wrapped
cylinders show distinct bilinear behavior for low- to
medium-strength concrete, and the slope of the second linear
part of the curve depends on the modulus and thickness of
the FRP jackets;
5. GFRP tubes filled with high-strength concrete show
near-plastic response with very little ductility once it passes
the unconfined concrete strength level. The stress-strain
response of the FRP-wrapped high-strength concrete cylinders
is quite similar to that of unconfined concrete, and lacks any
distinct postpeak strain-hardening behavior;
captured the trend of reduction in confinement effectiveness
as the concrete strength increases. They, however, varied
significantly in accuracy in predicting the confinement
effectiveness;
7. Accounting for the biaxial state of stress developed in
FRP circular jackets greatly influences the accuracy of
predicting the confinement effectiveness;
8. While existing models predict the full shape of stress-
strain curves of confined low- to medium-strength concrete
with various degrees of accuracy, none of the models
successfully predicted the stress-strain curves of high-
(1) strength concrete as they grossly overestimated the ultimate
axial strain; and
9. A simple model has been proposed to predict the
(2)
strength of FRP-confined concrete and corresponding strain
for concrete of various compressive strengths.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge financial support provided by the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
the Advisory Research Committee (ARC) of Queen’s University, and Fyfe
Co. LLC and Wabo® MBrace for providing the fiber-reinforced polymer
materials.
NOTATION
E = effective modulus of elasticity of FRP jacket in hoop direction
fc′ = peak strength of unconfined concrete
′
fcc = peak strength of confined concrete
fu = hoop tensile strength of FRP jacket
R = radius of FRP jacket
t = thickness of FRP jacket
ε′c = axial strain at peak compressive strength of unconfined concrete
εcc′ = axial strain at peak compressive stress of confined concrete
REFERENCES
1. Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M. R.; and Li, M. W., “Seismic Retrofit of
Circular Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 434-447.
2. Seible, F.; Priestley, M. J. N.; Hegemier, G. A.; and Innamorato, D.,
“Seismic Retrofit of RC Columns with Continuous Fiber Jackets,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 1, No. 2, May 1997, pp. 52-62.
3. Xiao, Y., and Ma, R., “Seismic Retrofit of RC Circular Columns Using
Prefabricated Composite Jacketing,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 123, No. 10, Oct. 1997, pp. 1357-1364.
4. Harries, K. A.; Kestner, J.; Pessiki, S.; Sause, R.; and Ricles, J., “Axial
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Retrofit with FRPC Jackets,”
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Composites in
Infrastructures (ICCI’98), Tucson, Ariz., Jan. 1998, pp. 411-425.
5. Mirmiran, A., and Shahaway, M., “A Novel FRP-Concrete Composite
Construction for the Infrastructure,” Proceedings of the 13th Structural
Congress, ASCE, New York, 1995, pp. 1663-1666.
6. Seible, F., “Advanced Composite Materials for Bridges in the 21st
Century,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Composites
in Infrastructure (ICCI’96), 1996, pp. 17-30.
7. Kanatharana, J., and Lu, L. W., “Strength and Ductility of Concrete
Columns Reinforced by FRP Tubes,” Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Composites in Infrastructures (ICCI’98), Tucson, Ariz.,
Jan. 1998, pp. 370-384.
391
 8. Burgueno, R.; Davol, A.; and Seible, F., “The Carbon Shell System for
Modular Bridge Components,” Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI’98), Tucson, Ariz., Jan.
1998, pp. 341-354.
9. Fam, A., and Rizkalla, S., “Behavior of Axially Loaded Concrete-
Filled Circular Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tubes,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001, pp. 280-289.
10. Fam, A.; Pando, M.; Filz, G.; and Rizkalla, S., “Precast Piles for
Route 40 Bridge in Virginia Using Concrete-Filled FRP Tubes,” PCI
Journal, V. 48, No. 3, May-June 2003, pp. 32-45.
11. Fam, A.; Flisak, B.; and Rizkalla, S., “Experimental and Analytical
Modeling of Concrete-Filled Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tubes Subjected to
Combined Bending and Axial Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 4, July-Aug. 2003, pp. 1-11.
12. Harmon, T. G., and Slattery, K. T., “Advanced Composite Confinement
of Concrete,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Sherbrooke, Quebec,
Canada, 1992, pp. 299-306.
13. Rousakis, T., “Experimental Investigation of Concrete Cylinders
Confined by Carbon FRP Sheets, Under Monotonic and Cyclic Axial
Compressive Load,” Research Report, Chalmers University of Technology,
Göteborg, Sweden, 2001.
14. ASTM D 3039/D 3039M-00, “Standard Test Method for Tensile
Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000, 13 pp.
15. ASTM D 3410-87, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties
of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, Pa., 1987, 16 pp.
392
16. Nanni, A., and Bradford, N. M., “FRP Jacketed Concrete under
Uniaxial Compression,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 9, No. 2,
1995, pp. 115-124.
17. Toutanji, H. A., “Stress-Strain Characteristics of Concrete Columns
Externally Confined with Advanced Fiber Composite Sheets,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 397-404.
18. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening of Concrete Structures
(ACI 440.2R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
2002, pp. 27-28.
19. Samaan, M.; Mirmiran, A.; and Shahawy, M., “Model of Concrete
Confined by Fiber Composites,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 8, Sept. 1998, pp. 1025-1031.
20. Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G., “FRP-Confined Concrete Model,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 3, No. 3, Aug. 1999,
pp. 143-150.
21. Mander, J. M.; Priestley, M. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1998, pp. 1804-1826.
22. Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H., “Confinement Model for Axially
Loaded Concrete Confined by Circular Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tubes,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug. 2001, pp. 451-461.
23. De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, T. R., “A Comparative Study of Models
on Confinement of Concrete Cylinders with FRP Composites,” Technical
Report No. 46, Publication No. 01:04, Department of Building Materials,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2001, 73 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.