Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Concrete confinement with a cement based high strength composite

material
Luciano Ombres
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, Italy

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

Article history: The performances of plain concrete elements wrapped with PBO (short of Polypara-phenylene-benzo-bis-
Available online 29 October 2013 thiazole) fiber meshes embedded into an inorganic stabilized cementitious matrix (Fiber Reinforced
Cementitious Mortar, FRCM) are analyzed, both theoretically and experimentally, in the paper. The aims
Keywords: of the paper are (i) to evaluate the effectiveness of the confinement of the concrete strengthened with the
Confinement PBO-FRCM system, and, (ii) to define analytical relationships able to characterize the stress–strain
Reinforced concrete response of the PBO-FRCM confined concrete.
Fiber
An experimental investigation, carried out on cylindrical specimens confined with the PBO-FRCM sys-
Composites
Cement based system
tem, varying the fibers reinforcement ratio, the fibers orientation and the compressive concrete strength,
is described. Results of tests are, then, utilized to compare experimental results against predictions both
of some guidelines and theoretical models proposed for the analysis of confined concrete elements.
Results of the comparison were presented and discussed in the paper.
A simple semi-empirical model to predict axial peak strength and associated axial strain in PBO-FRCM
confined concrete is also proposed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Different solutions to design cement based strengthening sys-

The upgrading of reinforced concrete (RC) elements through
jacketing of columns by using Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) is
becoming a very widespread technique in a large number of reha-
bilitation both seismic and non-seismic of deficient, damaged or
deteriorated existing structures. Several advantages are related to
the use of FRPs to strengthen existing RC structures; among these
the high strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, ease and
speed of application, and minimal change of geometry. Despite
all these advantages, the FRP retrofitting technique has a few
drawbacks mainly attributed to the organic epoxy resins used to
bind the fibers; poor fire resistance; high costs; inapplicability on
wet surfaces or at low temperatures; hazards for the manual work-
er; diffusion tightness, poor thermal compatibility with the base
concrete; susceptibility to UV radiation and low reversibility.
To avoid some of these problems, cement based composite sys-
tems consisting of fibers in form of fabric meshes or grids embed-
ded into a cementitious bonding agent can be used. The use of
fabric meshes and grids is needed to improve the bond between
the reinforcing fibers and the mortar; due to its granularity, in fact,
the mortar is unable to penetrate and wet individual composite
fibers.
E-mail address: luciano.ombres@unical.it
tems for concrete structures have been proposed; among these
the Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC), the Textile Reinforced Mor-
tar (TRM), the Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC), the Mineral Based
Composites (MBC) and the Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Mortar
(FRCM).
The TRC consists of multi-axial textile fabrics bonded to con-
crete surfaces with a fine-graided, high strength concrete; the
TRM uses textile fabrics and polymer modified mortar as a bonding
agent; the FRC consists of fibers impregnated with a cement matrix
that results in a thin composite sheet while the MBC is made by a
fiber composite grid bonded to concrete surface by a cementitious
binder and a concrete surface primer. The FRCM system consists of
fabric meshes with fibers disposed along two orthogonal directions
bonded to concrete surfaces with cement based mortar. Studies
and researches on the behavior of concrete structures strength-
ened with cement based composite materials have been limited.
The majority of these studies concerns with the flexural and shear
strengthening of beams [1–8]; obtained results, evidenced that
properly designed fibers combined with cement-based mortars
have a great potential as strengthening materials of concrete
members.
The use of fiber composites in combination with cementitious
mortars for the confinement of concrete was analyzed by Trianta-
fillou et al. [9]. In this study the behavior of plain concrete speci-
mens confined by TRM was experimentally investigated and it
was compared with that of specimens confined with FRP jackets

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.037
 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304
of equal stiffness and strength. Main results were that: (a) TRM jac-
keting provides a substantial increase in compressive strength and
deformation capacity of plain concrete; and (b) compared with
their FRP counterparts, TRM jackets may result in slightly reduced
effectiveness.
Bournas et al. [10] analyzed the effectiveness of the TRM system
as a means of confining reinforced concrete (RC) columns. Tests
were carried out on reinforced concrete columns with limited
capacity due to buckling of the longitudinal bars, strengthened
both with TRM and FRP jackets. Results showed that TRM confining
jackets provide substantial gain in compressive strength and defor-
mation capacity by delaying buckling of the longitudinal bars. In
comparison with FRP jackets of equal stiffness and strength, results
of compression tests on short prisms evidenced that the TRM jack-
ets are slightly less effective in terms of increasing strength and
deformation capacity by approximately 10%. On the contrary tests
on nearly full-scale columns under cyclic uni-axial flexure showed
that TRM jacketing has the same effectiveness of FRP jackets of
equal strength and stiffness.
A feasibility study on a sustainable, compatible and reversible
FRC strengthening system was made by De Caso y Basalo et al.
[11]. An experimental investigation carried out on concrete cylin-
ders in compression confined with two types of glass fiber archi-
tecture (unidirectional sheets and meshes) bonded to concrete
with different types of grouts as inorganic matrices, indicated that
the tested FRC systems produced noticeable increases in both
strength and deformability of concrete cylinders.
The influence of the geometry on the efficiency of TRC as con-
finement system was recently analyzed by Ortlepp et al. [12] by
testing columns with square and circle cross sections with differ-
ent fillet radiuses.
The performances of the C-FRCM (Carbon FRCM) system as a
confinement system were analyzed by the author in a previous pa-
per [13]. Cylindrical and prismatic (square and rectangular cross-
sections) concrete specimens were tested under uni-axial loads
varying the amount of fibers reinforcement. The influence of the
temperature on the strength and ductility of C-FRCM confined
specimens was also analyzed by tests carried out under different
temperature values in the C-FRCM jacket ranging from 25 °C to
90 °C. Obtained results evidenced that: (i) the use of the FRCM sys-
tem (fiber meshes and cementitious mortar) as confining system of
the concrete is very effective in terms both of strength and ductil-
ity; (ii) for low values of the C-FRCM reinforcement ratios the
structural response of concrete elements is described from a strain
softening while increasing the fiber reinforcement a strain harden-
ing was observed, and (iii) the increase of the temperature inside
the FRCM jacket produces a reduction of the strength of concrete
confined elements; on the contrary the influence on the strain val-
ues is negligible.
The FRCM system was, recently, improved by using ultra-high
strength fiber meshes such as the Polypara-phenylene-benzo-bis-
thiazole (PBO) fibers. Mechanical properties of the PBO fibers are,
in fact, fairly higher than that of the high strength type of carbon
fibers; in addition they have great impact tolerance, energy absorp-
tion capacity superior than the other kind of fibers, high creep and
fire resistance and high chemical compatibility with the cementi-
tious mortar [14]. The use of the PBO fabric meshes to make a
FRCM system is still under investigation; as a consequence, re-
searches on the use of PBO-FRCM in the upgrading of concrete
structures are very limited.
The performances of the PBO-FRCM confined plain concrete
specimens are analyzed and discussed in the paper with reference
to results of experimental investigations carried out on small scale
plain concrete specimens confined with PBO-FRCM jackets.
In particular the analysis of the effectiveness of the PBO-FRCM
as confinement system of the concrete and the characterization
295
of the stress–strain behavior of the PBO-FRCM confined concrete,
accounting for all geometrical and mechanical involved parame-
ters such as the fibers reinforcement ratio and the fibers orienta-
tion i.e. fibers spirally installed with an angle h respect to the
member cross-section [21], are the main issues focussed in the
paper.
Some tests on un-reinforced, small scale cylindrical confined
concrete specimens under concentric, monotonic axial load were
carried out. The investigation was conducted varying the fibers
reinforcement ratio, the fibers orientation inside the jackets and
the compressive strength of the concrete. Experimental results
were compared against predictions both of some guidelines and
theoretical models proposed for the analysis of confined concrete
elements. Results of the comparison were presented and discussed
in the paper. In addition, a simple semi-empirical model to predict
axial peak strength and associated axial strain in PBO-FRCM con-
fined concrete is proposed.
2. Experimental investigation
A total of twenty cylindrical concrete specimens has been
tested: two specimens were un-confined, while the remaining
specimens were confined with different configurations. The fiber
reinforcement ratio qf = 4tf/D being D the specimen’s diameter
and tf the thickness of the PBO-FRCM reinforcing system, and the
angle, h, between the longitudinal fibers direction and the axis of
the specimen, were parameters characterizing each confining con-
figuration. For tested specimens qf values were 0.1184%, 0.2368%,
0.3550% and 0.4740% corresponding to one, two, three and four
layers of PBO fabric meshes, respectively, while h values were,
h = 30°, 45°, corresponding to configuration where fibers are spi-
rally installed, and 90°. Details on geometrical dimensions and con-
figurations of tested specimens have been reported in Table 2.
2.1. Materials
The strengthening system considered in the present study basi-
cally consists of a brand new type of composite material made out
of PBO fabric meshes embedded within a cementitious mortar
working as a matrix. The PBO fabric mesh is formed by rovings
10 mm and 20 mm spacing in the two orthogonal directions
(Fig. 1); the nominal equivalent thickness in the two fibers direc-
tions are 0.0455 mm (longitudinal direction) and 0.0224 mm
(transversal direction).
The fabric mesh is impregnated and bonded to concrete with a
cement based matrix made of composite high fineness cement bin-
der, adhesion promoter, inorganic nanoparticles, micro-aggregates
and new generation high effectiveness polycarboxylic water-
reducing admixtures. The main mechanical properties of such
strengthening system are collected in Table 1; properties of the
PBO fibers were provided by the manufacturer while the mean
Fig. 1. PBO fabric mesh.
296 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304

Table 1
Mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the PBO-FRCM strengthening materials.

PBO fiber mesh Cement based matrix

2
Tensile strength (N/mm ) 5800 –
Compressive strength (N/mm2) – 30.40
Young modulus (GPa) 270 6.10
Failure strain (%) 2.00 –
Nominal thickness (mm) 0.0455 longitudinal 0.0224 transversal –

value of the compression strength of the mortar (30.4 MPa) was

determined by tests on five standard cubic specimens in accor-
dance with the EN-1015-11 [22].
In order to reproduce members with low and normal concrete
strength, specimens were cast using two different concrete mix
design; the average compressive strength of the concrete, fc0,
reported in Table 2, was determined by standard tests at 28 days
from casting.

2.1.1. Instrumentation of the specimens and test setup

All specimens were kept in controlled temperature and humid-
ity conditions for more than 30 days until their testing. The speci-
mens were divided in two series, called ‘‘Series I’’ and ‘‘Series II’’
respectively; the two series were manufactured with different
concrete batches. Each series included 10 specimens, one control
specimen without wrapping and nine specimens wrapped with a
variable number of PBO-FRCM plies (see Table 2 for details).
The first step of the wrapping of specimens was the application
on the concrete surface of the first layer of cement-based mortar
with a thickness of 3 mm (as suggested by the manufacturer);
after, the first ply of PBO mesh was applied and slightly pressed
into the mortar. The next mortar layer with a thickness of 3 mm,
covered the PBO mesh completely, and the operation was repeated
until all PBO plies were applied and covered by mortar.
In addition, to prevent premature debonding failure of fibers, an
overlap length of 100 mm was provided in each confined
specimen.
All specimens were tested under uni-axial compression through
monotonically applied loading at a rate of 0.005 mm/s. Applied
loads were measured from a load cell. Axial displacements were
measured by using external linear variable differential transducers
(LVDT) mounted on two opposite sides of the specimen. Lateral
displacements were measured by 9 LVDTs in the horizontal
Fig. 2. Test set-up.
direction: three at the upper, three at the bottom and three at half
height of the confining jacket (see Fig. 2).
2.2. Test results and discussion
Tests were performed at different curing times (120 days for
Series I specimens and 270 days for those of Series II). Results of
tests are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Different values of peak strength, fc0, and strain, ec0, were re-
corded for unconfined specimens; in particular for control speci-
men of the Series I (CRP0-I) fc0 = 15.40 MPa and ec0 = 0.003675
while for control specimen of the Series II (CRP0-II) fc0 = 29.26 MPa
and ec0 = 0.0074.
For confined specimens the peak stress fcc, the peak strain ecc
and the ultimate strain eccu, conventionally assumed as the strain

Table 2
PBO-FRCM confined concrete specimens.

Series Label No plies h fc0 (MPa) qf (%) fcc (MPa) fcc/fc0 ec0 eccpeak Energy index (MPa le)
I CRP0-I – – 15.40 – 15.40 1.00 0.0037 0.0037 33.20
CRP1-I 1 90 15.40 0.1184 24.69 1,60 0.0037 0.0115 255.77
CRP2-I 2 90 15.40 0.2368 35.00 2.27 0.0037 0.0200 531.50
CRP3-I 3 90 15.40 0.3550 41.45 2.69 0.0037 0.0290 855.91
CRP4-I 4 90 15.40 0.4740 49.24 3.20 0.0037 0.0264 901.74
CRP5-I 1 45 15.40 0.1184 16.19 1.05 0.0037 0.0136 108.94
CRP6-I 2 45 15.40 0.2368 16.98 1.10 0.0037 0.0210 155.27
CRP7-I 3 45 15.40 0.3550 17.40 1.13 0.0037 0.0314 221.16
CRP8-I 2 30 15.40 0.2368 17.45 1.13 0.0037 0.0244 339.24
CRP9-I 3 30 15.40 0.3550 21.69 1.41 0.0037 0.0232 435.67
II CRP0-II – – 29.26 – 29.26 1.00 0.0074 0.0074 132.90
CRP1-II 1 90 29.26 0.1184 43.55 1.49 0.0074 0.0080 193.06
CRP2-II 2 90 29.26 0.2368 47.00 1.61 0.0074 0.0148 509.24
CRP3-II 3 90 29.26 0.3550 56.60 1.93 0.0074 0.0193 825.93
CRP4-II 4 90 29.26 0.4740 56.23 1.92 0.0074 0.0216 980.00
CRP5-II 1 45 29.26 0.1184 31.68 1.08 0.0074 0.0067 102.80
CRP6-II 2 45 29.26 0.2368 33.79 1.15 0.0074 0.0081 106.25
CRP7-II 3 45 29.26 0.3550 35.72 1.22 0.0074 0.0088 122.32
CRP8-II 2 30 29.26 0.2368 35.42 1.21 0.0074 0.0096 162.42
CRP9-II 3 30 29.26 0.3550 39.52 1.35 0.0074 0.0111 203.12
 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304 297

Table 3 60

Stress (MPa)
CRP3-II
Strains at failure of PBO-FRCM confined concrete specimens. CRP3-II
CRP4-II
50
Label qf (%) ec0 ecc ecc/ec0 efl efl/efu
CRP2-II CRP4-II

CRP0-I – 0.0037 0.0037 1.00 – – CRP1-II 40

CRP1-I 0.1184 0.0037 0.0115 3.11 0.00882 0.418 CRP2-II

CRP2-I 0.2368 0.0037 0.0200 5.40 0.00990 0.471

30
CRP3-I 0.3550 0.0037 0.0290 7.84 0.01100 0.520 CRP0-II
CRP1-II
CRP4-I 0.4740 0.0037 0.0264 7.13 0.00871 0.414
CRP5-I 0.1184 0.0037 0.0136 3.67 0.00863 0.402 20 CRP0-II

CRP6-I 0.2368 0.0037 0.0210 5.68 0.00866 0.403

CRP7-I 0.3550 0.0037 0.0314 8.49 0.01074 0.500 10
CRP8-I 0.2368 0.0037 0.0244 6.59 0.01386 0.644
CRP9-I 0.3550 0.0037 0.0232 6.27 0.01072 0.498 0
CRP0-II – 0.0074 0.0074 1.00 – – -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0 0,01 0,02 0,03
CRP1-II 0,1184 0.0074 0.0080 1.08 0.00625 0.298 Radial strain (mm/mm) Axial strain (mm/mm)
CRP2-II 0,2368 0.0074 0.0148 2.00 0.01093 0.520
CRP3-II 0,3550 0.0074 0.0193 2.61 0.01117 0.532 Fig. 4. Stress–strain curves for Series II tested specimens (h = 90°).
CRP4-II 0,4740 0.0074 0.0216 2.92 0.01735 0.826
CRP5-II 0.1184 0.0074 0.0067 0.90 0.00863 0.335
CRP6-II 0.2368 0.0074 0.0081 1.09 0.00866 0.506
CRP7-II 0.3550 0.0074 0.0088 1.19 0.01074 0.559 40,00
CRP8-II 0.2368 0.0074 0.0096 1.30 0.01386 0.523
CRP9-II 0.3550 0.0074 0.0112 1.50 0.01072 0.485 35,00

30,00 CRP7-II

Axial stress (MPa)

recorded at 95% of the peak strength on the descending branch of 25,00 CRP6-II

the stress–strain relationship, were recorded. Table 2 reports the 20,00 CRP5-II
values of the ratios between the peak strength attained in the con- CRP7-I

fined configuration, fcc and that achieved in the control specimen, 15,00
CRP5-I CRP6-I
fc0 (confinement ratio) while the ratios between the ultimate axial 10,00
strain of the confined specimens, eccu, and that recorded on the
5,00
control specimen, ec0, are reported in Table 3 for each confinement
scheme. 0,00
In Table 3 are also reported experimental average hoop strains 0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03 0,035

at failure, efl; this values was determined as the average value of Axial strain (mm/mm)
the hoop strains recorded by the 9 LVDTs, mounted in the horizon-
Fig. 5. Stress–strain curves for tested specimens (h = 45°).
tal direction, at the 95% of the peak strength, fcc, on the descending
branch of the stress–strain relationship.
Finally, average ratios efl/efu, being efu ultimate strains of the
PBO provided by flat coupon tension tests, are reported in the last 45
column of Table 3.
40
In the following results of tests are presented and discussed in CRP9-II
35
terms of stress–strain response, ductility and failure modes.
Axial stress (MPa)

30
2.2.1. Stress–strain response 25 CRP8-II
The stress–strain curves of tested specimens are reported in
20
Figs. 3–6. Curves drawn in Figs. 3 and 4 refer to specimens confined CRP9-I

with fiber meshes aligned along the vertical axis (h = 90°); in the 15
CRP8-I
same graphs are reported both axial stress–axial strain and axial 10

0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 0,03 0,035 0,04
60 Axial strain (mm/mm)
Stress (MPa)

50 Fig. 6. Stress–strain curves for tested specimens (h = 30°).

CRP4-I CRP4-I

40
CRP3-I
CRP3-I stress–lateral strain graphs recorded for specimens of the series I
30
CRP2-I
and II, respectively.
CRP1-I CRP1-I
CRP2-I
Curves axial stress versus axial strain, reported in Figs. 5 and 6
20
were recorded for specimens wrapped with fibers direction in-
CRP0- CRP0-I
clined of 45° and 30° respect to the vertical axis of specimens,
10
respectively.
The response of the confined concrete specimens described by
0
-0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
the stress–strain curves, is characterized by three different stages.
Initially, most of the load is carried out by the concrete and the PBO
Radial strain (mm/mm) Axial strain (mm/mm)
mesh is not activated; the stress–strain curve is almost linear and
Fig. 3. Stress–strain curves for Series I tested specimens (h = 90°). its slope is similar to that of un-confined specimen.
298 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304

Once the curve reaches the peak stress of the unconfined con-
crete, fc0, the concrete core gets damaged and loses its load bearing
capacity while the confining pressure of PBO mesh gets activated
gradually and contributes to the load carrying capacity; in this
phase the stress–strain curve is represented by a non-linear
ascending branch until to the peak stress fcc. The extension and
the slope of this branch is depending both on the number of PBO
layers used for the reinforcement and on the fibers orientation.
After the peak, the concrete core is completely crushed inside
the jacket and the lateral dilatations increase drastically until the
rupture of the confining system; the stress–strain curves is repre-
sented by a descending branch.
By analyzing results reported in Table 2 and stress–strain
curves reported in Figs. 3–6 it is possible to put in evidence the
influence of parameters characterizing the confining configuration
(qf, h) on the efficiency of the PBO-FRCM confinement system.
2.2.1.1. Peak strength. With regard to the peak strength it appears
as its values are strongly influenced both on the number of PBO
layer used inside the confining jacket and on the fiber orientation.
In particular the better response was obtained for h = 90° i.e. for
specimens confined with PBO meshes in which fibers in the longi-
tudinal direction are aligned with the axis of the specimen.
This result is evidenced by Figs. 7 and 8 where for specimens
confined with two PBO-FRCM layers, are drawn stress–strain
curves recorded for h = 30°, 45° and 90°. For specimens of the Series
I the peak strength values obtained for h = 30° was 17.45 MPa
while those obtained for h = 45° (CRP6-I) and for h = 90° (CRP2-I)
were 16.98 MPa and 35.00 MPa, respectively. With respect to the
peak strength of the unconfined specimen CRP0-I, the increase of
the peak value was 13% for h = 30° (CRP8-I), 10% for h = 45°
(CRP6-I) and 127% for h = 90° (CRP2-I).
50
45
40
CRP6-II
Axial stress (MPa)
A similar behavior was observed for specimens of the Series II
(see Fig. 8); the increase of the peak strength was 15% for h = 30°
(CRP8-II), 21% for h = 45° (CRP6-II) and 61% for h = 90° (CRP2-II).
In all cases the better response in term of peak strength was ob-
tained for h = 90°.
An increase of the peak strength values were recorded, for all
examined confinement configuration (i.e. for all h values), with
the increase of the number of PBO layers (i.e. the qf values) used
inside the confining jacket,
With reference to the configuration with h = 90°, for specimens
of the Series I, in fact, the peak strength increases from the initial
value obtained on the unconfined specimen fc0 = 15.40 MPa
(CRP0-I) to 24.69 MPa for the specimen confined with one layer
of PBO (CRP1-I), 35.00 MPa for the specimen confined with two
layers of PBO (CRP2-I), 41.45 MPa and 49.24 MPa for specimens
confined with three and four layers of PBO, respectively. The in-
crease of the peak strength for specimens of the Series II was more
limited than that recorded for specimens of the Series I. The peak
strength of the unconfined specimen CRP0-II was, in fact,
29.26 MPa while values recorded for confined specimens were
43.55 MPa (CRP1-II) in presence of one layer of PBO, 47.00 MPa
(CRP2-II) when two layers of PBO were used, 56.60 MPa (CRP3-II)
and 56.23 MPa (CRP4-II) when three and four layers of PBO, respec-
tively, were used.
Increasing qf values from 0.1184% to 0.474%, the confinement
ratio, that is the ratio between the peak strength of the confined
specimens, fcc, and that of unconfined ones, fc0, was ranging from
1.60 to 3.20 for specimens of the Series I and from 1.49 to 1.92
for specimens of the Series II.
Values of the confinement ratio for configurations with h = 30°
were in the range 1.13–1.41 for specimens of the Series I and
1.21–1.35 for specimens of the Series II; in both Series qf varies be-
tween 0.2368% and 0.355% (two and three layers of PBO,
respectively).
Considering the configuration with h = 45°, the increase of the
confinement ratio was less pronounced than that observed for
h = 90° and h = 30°. Increasing qf values from 0.1184% to 0.355%,
CRP2-II
in fact, the confinement ratio was ranging from 1.09 to 1.13 and

35
CRP8-II
30 from 1.08 to 1.22 for specimens of the Series I and II, respectively.
25
20 CRP0-II
2.2.1.2. Axial strain. The variation of ultimate axial strains with the
15 confinement configuration, is described by results reported in Ta-
10
bles 2 and 3. With regard to the ratio between the conventional
ultimate axial strains ecc (measured on the descending branch of
5
the stress–strain curves at the 95% of the peak strength) and that
0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 of the unconfined specimens ec0, it appears as its values are
Axial strain (mm/mm) increasing with qf. Results reported in Table 3 evidence, in fact,
that ecc/ec0 ratios are in the ranges 3.62–7.21 and 1.08–3.08 for
Fig. 7. Stress–strain curves for tested specimens varying h Series II. specimens of Series I and II, respectively. Values of ecc/ec0 ratios
are significant also for specimens of the Series I with configurations
h = 45° (ecc/ec0 values in the range 3.67–8.48) and h = 30° (ecc/ec0
40
values in the range 6.27–6.59); less significant are values obtained
for specimens of the Series II where ecc/ec0 ratios ranging from 0.90
35
CRP2-I to 1.19 for h = 45° and from 1.30 to 1.50 for h = 30°.
30 By examined results it is evident that better performances of
Axial stress (MPa)

25 confined specimens were obtained, both in terms of peak strength

and axial strains, for configuration schemes with h = 90° and for
20
CRP0-I CRP8-I concrete with low ultimate compressive strength (Series I
15 specimens).
CRP6-I
10

5
2.2.1.3. Hoop strains. The failure of all confined specimens occurred
when the composite layers ruptured in the hoop direction before
0
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
reach their capacity of ultimate deformation.
The average hoop strain measured in the reinforcement at ten-
Axial strain (mm/mm)
sile failure, efl, represents, then, the most significant parameter to
Fig. 8. Stress–strain curves for tested specimens varying h – Series I. evaluate the confinement effectiveness.
 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304 299

The hoop strains were measured by strain gages at three differ- 1200

Ductility energy index (MPa mm/mm 103)

ent specimen levels (bottom and upper line, half and upper line, ½
of specimen height). Average values of efl were evaluated at each 1000 θ=90, Series II
level; results obtained on some of tested specimens, reported in
θ=90, Series I
Table 4, evidence that its values are not homogeneous along the 800

specimen’s height even if the maximum values were measured

for all tested specimens at half line (½ of specimen height). 600

The ratio ke = efl/efu between the hoop strain at failure efl and the θ=30, Series I
400
ultimate strain of composite layer obtained from coupon tests, efu,
denoted as a strain efficiency factor, was in every cases less than 1
200
confirming that premature failure of reinforcement due to local- θ=45, Series I θ=30, Series II

ized brittle ruptures, occurred. This phenomenon is typical of FRP
confined concrete and, as reported in previous study [15], is mainly
dependent on the quality of confinement execution, and on the
concentration of local stress due to concrete cracking.
Values of the strain efficiency factor, ke, evaluated with refer-
ence to maximum hoop strains recorded at failure for all tested
specimens, are reported in Table 3. For specimens with configura-
tion h = 90°, ke values are ranging from 0.414 to 0.520 (mean 0.456,
COV = 0.11) for the Series I specimens and from 0.298 to 0.826
(mean 0.544, COV = 0.40) for the Series II specimens, while for
specimens with h = 30° and h = 45°, ke varies between 0.416 and
0.6444 (Series I) and between 0.355 and 0.559 (Series II).
The ke values recorded in PBO-FRCM confined concrete are, gen-
erally, lesser than those obtained in FRP confined concrete [15–16];
this effect is due to cracking of mortar which increases the possibil-
ity of local stress concentration.
2.2.2. Ductility
The ductility of tested specimens was quantified by the ‘‘energy
index’’ determined as the area under the stress–strain curve up to
ultimate stress. The energy ductility indices of all tested specimens
are shown in the last column of Table 2; the variation of the energy
with qfEf for each confinement configuration, is drawn in Fig. 9.
By results it is evident that for the same concrete compressive
strength (Series I and II), the ductility indices increase as the num-
ber of PBO layers increases, and for the same number of PBO layers
the ductility indices increase with the concrete compressive
strength. The highest values of the energy ductility indices were
evaluated for configurations h = 90° while lowest values were eval-
uated for h = 45°; in addition, for each configuration the variation
of the energy fracture was almost linear with qfEf, i.e. with the
number of PBO layers.
For specimens of the Series I with h = 90°, the ratio, n = Gf/Gf0,
between the energy ductility indices of confined specimens, Gf,
θ =45, Series II
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
ρf Ef
Fig. 9. Energy index versus qfEf curves.
and that of unconfined one Gf0, was in the range 7.7–27.7 varying
qf between 0.001184 (one PBO layer) and 0.00474 (four PBO lay-
ers); n values were in the range 3.28–3.66 varying qf from
0.001184 to 0.00355 for specimens with h = 45° and in the range
6.21–7.37 varying qf from 0.00355 to 0.00474, for specimens con-
fined with h = 30°.
Values of the above mentioned ratio, n, for specimens of the Ser-
ies II were in the range 1.45–7.37 for h = 90° while n varies between
0.77 and 0.92 for h = 45° and between 1.22 and 1.53 for h = 30°.
From obtained results it appears as the gain in ductility of confined
specimens is relevant for specimens of the Series I (concrete with
low compressive strength) while it is limited for specimens of
the Series II.
2.2.3. Failure modes
The failure modes of wrapped specimens were different for
each confining configuration as described in the following.
Specimens with h ¼ 90
During the tests on wrapped specimens two main vertical cracks
started in correspondence of the overlapping zones and propagated
rather slowly and symmetrically along the jacketed cylinder sur-
face; once peak strength was achieved, such vertical cracks became
gradually wider until jacket failure was induced.
The failure was gradual for all tested specimens; it was charac-
terized from a combination of PBO sheet rupture and debonding at
the interface fiber/matrix. In particular for specimens of the Series I

Table 4
Hoop strain values at failure.

Upper line Half line Bottom line

Mean value Mean value Mean value Mean value, eflav
CRP1-I 0.002631 0.008825 0.001745 0.004400
CRP2-I 0.002404 0.009901 0.001967 0.004750
CRP3-I 0.001410 0.011000 0.004416 0.005610
CRP4-I 0.003002 0.008711 0.001000 0.004230
CRP5-I 0.001363 0.008635 0.003490 0.004496
CRP6-I 0.007157 0.008657 0.000910 0.005575
CRP7-I 0.000190 0.010742 0.007950 0.006294
CRP8-I 0.000583 0.013856 0.017482 0.010640
CRP9-I 0.005625 0.010724 0.004651 0.007000
CRP1-II 0.005506 0.006253 0.004025 0.005261
CRP2-II 0.003864 0.010932 0.007948 0.007581
CRP3-II 0.004625 0.011172 0.009652 0.008483
CRP4-II 0.010375 0.017356 0.015156 0.014296
CRP5-II 0.001628 0.007212 0.003125 0.003988
CRP6-II 0.000623 0.011300 0.007640 0.008390
CRP7-II 0.002102 0.012020 0.006925 0.007791
CRP8-II 0.000891 0.011230 0.010270 0.007463
CRP9-II 0.000920 0.010430 0.005260 0.005537
Fig. 10. Failure of specimens with h = 90°.
300 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304

the sheet rupture was predominantly while the debonding be-
tween PBO fiber meshes and cementitious mortar in correspon-
dence of the overlapping zone characterized the failure of the
Series II specimens (Fig. 10). In addition, in almost all the wrapped
cylinders a conical mode of failure of concrete was observed.
Specimens with h ¼ 45 and h ¼ 30
The failure pattern of specimens confined with PBO fibers inclined
of 45° and 30° respect to the vertical axis, was characterized from
some short vertical cracks at the bottom and upper sides of speci-
mens. In these zones a wide lateral deformation of the confining
jacket together with a progressive damage of the cementitious mor-
tar (Fig. 11) was observed. As a consequence, after the peak strength
was achieved, at the end sides of specimens, a progressive reduction
of the confining action of PBO-FRCM jacket occurred until to failure
of specimens.
Obtained results put in evidence that for specimens confined
with configuration h = 90° the failure was due to rupture or deb-
onding of fiber sheets while for specimens with configurations
h = 45° and h = 30° the failure was due to a progressive reduction
of the confining action due to the damage of the confining jacket
at the ends of specimens.
axial stress and strain of FRP-confined concrete at a given lateral
strain is the same as that of actively confined concrete with con-
stant pressure, which is calculated from the lateral strain in the
FRP jacket. However, being the relationship between the lateral
strain and the axial strain not fully understood, the effectiveness
of the model can be limited.
In spite of their accuracy, none of the existing models is able to
predict satisfactorily the response of FRP confined concrete.
A very limited number of experimental results are, actually,
available on the performances of concrete elements confined with
FRCM; as a consequence any specific prediction model was pro-
posed. Generally the response of FRCM confined concrete is predict
by using models calibrated by experimental data [9,12].
Some of the above described models, together with the model
proposed in the Italian Guidelines [21], were investigated to pre-
dict the response of the PBO FRCM confined concrete. The analyti-
cal expression proposed by each author to predict peak strength fcc
and ultimate axial strain, ecc, were reported in Table 5.
To evaluate predictions of models the value of flu was deter-
mined by the relation
flu ¼ ke fl ¼ ke qf Ef efu ð1Þ

in which ke is the strain efficiency factor. In the analysis, the mean

3. Prediction of confinement effects
value of ke = eflmax/efu = 0.492, determined by tests and reported in
the last column of Table 3, was used. Predictions of each considered
A relevant number of studies, both theoretical and experimen-
model and experimental values in terms of peak strength and axial
tal, have been conducted to analyze the behavior of FRP confined
strain are drawn in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively, together with the
concrete members and several stress–strain models have been pro-
regression line. The ratios predictions/experimental peak strength
posed to predict the response of confined concrete; among those
and ultimate axial strain values calculated for each tested specimen
the models of Miyauchi et al. [17], Toutanji [18], Lam and Teng
are reported in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. The analysis of results,
[19], Spoelstra and Monti [20]. All predictions models refer to
puts in evidence that: (i) predictions of the majority of models de-
two-part stress–strain curve: the first portion describes the re-
fined for FRP confined concrete overestimate the peak strength of
sponse of the concrete before the activation of the confining effect
PBO-FRCM confined concrete. With reference to peak strength,
while the second one describes the concrete response until the
mean values of predictions furnished by SM (Spoelstra and Monti
peak strength.
[20]), TO (Toutanji [18]) and DT (Italian Guidelines [21]) models
In the model of Miyauchi et al. [17] the first portion of the stress
were in the range 25–28% higher than experimental values. The
strain curve is described by a parabola while a straight line de-
peak strength predictions obtained by the TL (Lam and Teng [19])
scribes the second portion. A stress–strain curve with two seg-
model are very closed with experimental values while those deter-
ments of a parabola with a smooth transition was suggested by
mined by TR (Triantafillou et al. [9]) and OLC (Ortlepp et al. [12])
Toutanji [18] and Teng and Lam [19]. Both models were calibrated
models underestimate experimental values. Predictions of the last
against experimental data; the difficulty to predict the ultimate
two models, TR and OLC, calibrated on the basis of results of tests
point with accuracy, especially in presence of a stress–strain
made on Carbon FRCM confined concrete specimens, are, approxi-
response with a descending branch, represents the major
mately, 25% below the results obtained in the experiments; these
limitation of the effectiveness of these models.
discrepancies are probably due to the different mechanical proper-
An incremental iterative numerical approach was adopted in
ties of materials (matrices and fabric mesh) used for the strengthen-
the model of Spoelstra and Monti [20]; this model is founded on
the assumption that the relationship between the incremental

Table 5
Prediction models.

Model Analytical expressions

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  
Spoelstra and fcc
¼ 2:254 1 þ 7:94 ffc0lu  2 ffc0lu  1:254; ecc fcc
fc0 ec0 ¼ 1 þ 5 fc0  1
Monti (1999)
(SM model)
 
Teng et al. (2002) fcc
¼ 1 þ 2:15 ffc0lu ; ecc flu
fc0 ec0 ¼ 1:715 þ 10 fc0
(TL model)
Triantafillou et al.  1:27   1:44
fcc
¼ 1 þ 1:9 flu ecc 0:046 flu
(1997) (TR fc0 fc0
; ec0 ¼ 1 þ ec0 fc0

model)
Toutanji (1999)  0:85  
fcc flu ecc fcc
(TO model) fc0
¼ 1 þ 3:5 fc0
; ec0 ¼ 1 þ ð1:9 þ 310:57efu Þ fc0  1
 2=3  qffiffiffiffi
National Research flu ecc
fcc
fc0
¼ 1 þ 2:6 fc0
; 1
ec0 ¼ ec0 0:0035 þ 0:015 ffc0lc
Council
– DT 200 (2004)
(DT model)
Ortlepp et al.  2  3
fcc
fc0
¼ 1 þ 0:27 ffc0lu þ 5:55 f1u
fc0
 3:51 ffc0lu
(2011)
(OLC model)
Fig. 11. Failure of specimens with h = 45°.
 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304 301

3,50 3,50
3,00 3,00

Predicted f cc /fc0

Predicted f cc /fc0
2,50 2,50
2,00 2,00
1,50 1,50
1,00 1,00
0,50 0,50
0,00 0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
Experimental f cc /f c0 Experimental f cc /f c0

(a) SM model (b) TO model

3,50
3,50
3,00
3,00

Predicted f cc /fc0
Predicted f cc /fc0

2,50
2,50
2,00
2,00
1,50 1,50

1,00 1,00
0,50 0,50
0,00 0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
Experimental f cc /f c0 Experimental f cc /f c0

(c) TL model (d) TR model

3,50 3,50
3,00 3,00
Predicted f cc /fc0

Predicted f cc /fc0

2,50 2,50
2,00 2,00
1,50 1,50
1,00 1,00
0,50 0,50
0,00 0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
Experimental f cc /f c0 Experimental f cc /f c0

(e) OLC model (f) DT model

Fig. 12. Predicted-experimental peak strength comparison.

ing layers in the tests of Triantafillou et al. (1997) and Ortlepp et al. mens confined with PBO fibers aligned along the axis (h = 90°)
(2011) and the tests presented in this paper; (ii) all models are un- and that corresponding to specimens confined with PBO fibers
effective to predict the axial strain of PBO-FRCM confined concrete. inclined respect to the axis (h = 30°, h = 45°); both regression lines
In particular axial strain are strongly overestimated by SM and TO are straight confirming that the variation between fcc and flu can be
models; predictions of the TL model are on average 40% higher than represented by a linear relationship. To take into account the
those experimental. On the contrary predictions of DT and TR model influence of the fiber orientation the expression of flu represented
underestimate experimental values; predictions of both models are, by the Eq. (1) is modified as:
in fact, 30–35% below the results of tests.
flu ¼ ke fl ¼ ke kh qf Ef efu ð2Þ
4. A simple model to predict axial strength and axial strain where kh = 1/(1 + 3 tan h).
As a consequence the best fitting curve of experimental peak
Experimental data reported in Tables 6 and 7 can be used to de- strength values (Fig. 15) is expressed as:
fine simple analytical relationships to predict the response of con-
crete elements confined with PBO-FRCM both in terms of axial fcc =fc0 ¼ 1 þ 5:268ðflu =fc0 Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:9426Þ ð3Þ
strength and associated axial strain.
As reported in Table 5, axial strength fcc and axial strain ecc of The variation of experimental axial strain values, ecc/ec0, with the ra-
confined concrete are, typically, modeled as functions of the con- tio flu/fc0, reported in Fig. 16, puts in evidence that the main param-
fining pressure flu exerted by confining jackets. By results of tests eter influencing the axial strain is the concrete strength; in addition
reported in Table 6, in Fig. 14 is shown the variation of the confine- the regression curves reported in the figure for both tested series of
ment ratio fcc/fc0 with the ratio flu/fc0 (flu is evaluated by the Eq. (1)). concrete specimens, are non-linear.
The analysis of the figure evidences that the response of the Considering the axial strain of unconfined specimens as repre-
confined specimens is almost linear with the number of PBO plies sentative of the concrete strength, the best fitting curve of experi-
while it is strongly variable with the fiber orientation, h. In the mental axial strain values (Fig. 17), is expressed by the following
figure are reported the regression lines corresponding to speci- analytical relationship
302 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304

10,00
15,00

8,00 12,50

Predicted ε cc/ε c0

Predicted ε cc/ε c0
6,00 10,00

7,50
4,00
5,00
2,00
2,50

0,00 0,00
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 0,00 2,50 5,00 7,50 10,00 12,50 15,00
Experimental ε cc / ε c0 Experimental ε cc / ε c0

(a) SM model (b) TO model

10,00 10,00

8,00 8,00
Predicted ε cc/ε c0

Predicted ε cc/ε c0
6,00 6,00

4,00 4,00

2,00 2,00

0,00 0,00
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00

Experimental ε cc / ε c0 Experimental ε cc / ε c0

(c) TL model (d) TR model

10,00

8,00
Predicted ε cc/ε c0

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00
Experimental ε cc / ε c0

(e) DT model
Fig. 13. Predicted-experimental axial strain comparison.

Table 6
Theoretical and experimental comparison.

Specimen fcc/fc0 fccth/fccexp

Exp SM model TL model TO model TR model DT model OLC model
CRP1-I 1,60 0.9848 0.7624 0.9399 0.6906 0.9804 0.6762
CRP2-I 2,27 0.8758 0.6342 0.8407 0.5521 0.8381 0.5539
CRP3-I 2,69 0.8590 0.6170 0.8484 0.5292 0.8114 0.5591
CRP4-I 3,20 0.8042 0.5874 0.8241 0.5033 0.7602 0.5622
CRP5-I 1.05 1.5000 1.1618 1.4323 1.0524 1.4939 1.0304
CRP6-I 1.10 1.8074 1.3089 1.7348 1.1393 1.7296 1.1431
CRP7-I 1.13 2.0450 1.4688 2.0190 1.2599 1.9844 1.3308
CRP8-I 1.13 1.7595 1.2741 1.6880 1.1090 1.6837 1.1127
CRP9-I 1.41 1.6387 1.1771 1.6904 1.0000 1.5481 1.0667
CRP1-II 1.49 0.8935 0.7488 0.8671 0.7023 0.8770 0.6912
CRP2-II 1.61 0.9938 0.7649 0.9481 0.6907 0.9866 0.6764
CRP3-II 1.93 0.9470 0.6980 0.9031 0.6553 0.9176 0.6081
CRP4-II 1.92 1.0550 0.7619 1.0150 0.6616 1.0070 0.6669
CRP5-II 1.08 1.2320 1.0330 1.4356 0.9690 1.2691 0.9537
CRP6-II 1.15 1.3913 1.0709 1.3273 0.9669 1.3812 0.9469
CRP7-II 1.22 1.4984 1.1043 1.4287 0.9734 1.4516 0.9620
CRP8-II 1.21 1.3223 1.0178 1.2615 0.9190 1.3127 0.9000
CRP9-II 1.35 1.3540 0.9979 1.2911 0.8796 1.3118 0.8693
Mean 1.2756 0.9549 1.2496 0.8457 1.2413 0.8505
c.o.v. 0.2937 0.2785 0.2969 0.2734 0.2913 0.2756
 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304 303

Table 7 10,00
Theoretical and experimental comparison. Series I

Specimen ecc/ eccth/eccexp 8,00

ec0
Exp SM TL TO DT TR 6,00

ε cc /ε c0
model model model model model
CRP1-I 3.11 1.2470 0.8916 1.6357 0.7210 0.4714 4,00
CRP2-I 5.40 1.1000 0.7029 1.5495 0.5147 0.4194
Series I I
CRP3-I 7.84 0.9634 0.6146 1.4540 0.4071 0.4168 2,00
CRP4-I 7.13 1.2440 0.8192 2.0030 0.4963 0.6217
CRP5-I 3.67 1.0567 0.7555 1.3860 0.6110 0.3995
0,00
CRP6-I 5.68 1.0460 0.6682 1.4730 0.4893 0.3988 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
CRP7-I 8.49 0.8896 0.5675 1.3427 0.3759 0.3849 flu /fc0
CRP8-I 6.59 0.9015 0.5759 1.2697 0.4218 0.3437
CRP9-I 6.27 1.2046 0.7684 1.8181 0.5090 0.5212 Fig. 16. Experimental ecc/ec0 versus flu/fc0.
CRP1-II 1,08 2.4597 2.1188 3.1190 0.8733 1.0116
CRP2-II 2.00 2.0000 1.4133 2.6349 0.5690 0.6255
CRP3-II 2,61 1.9693 1.2892 2.6923 0.4933 0.5550
CRP4-II 2,92 2.0986 1.0593 2.9780 0.4841 0.5757 10,00
CRP5-II 0.90 2.9515 2.5420 3.7428 1.0480 1.2139
CRP6-II 1.09 3.6697 2.5932 4.8347 1.0440 1.1480 8,00
CRP7-II 1.19 4.3193 2.8276 5.9050 1.0820 1.2185
CRP8-II 1.30 3.0769 2.1743 4.0540 0.8754 0.9623
6,00
CRP9-II 1.50 3.4267 2.2433 4.6847 0.8583 0.9667

ε cc /ε c0
Mean 1.9790 1.368 2.6987 0.6596 0.6808
c.o.v. 0.5532 0.5913 0.5266 0.3643 0.4593 4,00

2,00

0,00
0 50 100 150 200 250
3,50
0.25
(kθ flu /fco ) /ε c0
3,00

Series I, II Fig. 17. Experimental points and model to predict ecc/ec0.

2,50

2,00
fcc /fc0

Series I, II θ =30°, 5. Conclusions

1,50

1,00 The effectiveness of the PBO-FRCM as confinement system of

the concrete and the characterization of the stress–strain behavior
0,50
of the PBO-FRCM confined concrete, accounting for all geometrical
0,00 and mechanical involved parameters such as the fibers reinforce-
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 ment ratio and the fibers orientation, are analyzed in the paper
f lu /f c0 by means of results of an experimental investigation. Obtained re-
sults allow draw the following concluding remarks:
Fig. 14. Experimental fcc/fc0 versus flu/fc0.

 The PBO-FRCM strengthening system, made by high-strength

fabric mesh embedded into a cement based matrix, is effective
4,00
in confining concrete; a significant increase both of peak
strength and axial strain was obtained by tests on confined
specimens.
3,00
 The failure mode of tested specimens was loss of compatibility
in the external reinforcement due to fiber–matrix separation.
fcc /fc0

2,00  Axial strain and peak strength values of PBO FRCM confined
concrete are influenced both on the number of PBO layers used
1,00
inside the confining jacket and on the fiber orientation. The best
performances were obtained in specimens confined with PBO
fibers aligned with the axis of specimens (h = 90°).
0,00
 Due to cracking of mortar, which increases the possibility of
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50
local stress concentration, the strain efficiency factor, ke, deter-
kθ flu /fc0
mined by experimental hoop strains values measured in the
Fig. 15. Experimental points and model to predict fcc/fc0. PBO reinforcement, was less than that of FRP confined concrete.
For tested specimens, the average value of ke was near to 0.5.
 The ductility of PBO FRCM confined concrete, measured by the
ecc =ec0 ¼ 0:041ðflu =fc0 Þ0:25 =ec0  1:02 ðR2 ¼ 0:8588Þ ð4Þ ‘‘energy index’’, increases with the number of PBO layers. The
maximum ductility values were reached in specimens confined
It is emphasized that the semi-empirical models presented (Eqs. (3) by fibers aligned with the axis of specimens.
and (4)) are supported by a limited number of experimental results,  The models defined for the FRP confined concrete overestimate
and further research is needed to refine and verify their both the peak strength and the axial strains of PBO FRCM con-
formulations. fined concrete. Models defined on the basis of tests results on
304 L. Ombres / Composite Structures 109 (2014) 294–304
FRCM confined concrete specimens, even if underestimate
experimental results, furnish reliable predictions of the
response of PBO FRCM confined concrete.
 The semi-empirical models, derived from experimental results
and proposed to predict axial peak strength and associated
strain of PBO FRCM confined concrete, are supported by a
limited number of experimental results, and, consequently, fur-
ther researches are needed to refine and verify their
formulations.
Even if further analyses both theoretical and experimental are
needed, from results described in the paper, clearly emerges that
the PBO FRCM strengthening system is effective in confining the
concrete and it allow to obtain significant performances both in
terms of strength and ductility.
References
[1] Bruckner A, Ortlepp R, Curbach M. Textile reinforced concrete for
strengthening in bending and shear. Mater Struct RILEM 2006;39:741–8.
[2] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolau CG. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM) jackets. Mater Struct RILEM
2006;39(1):85–93.
[3] Taljisten B, Blanksvard T. Mineral-based bonding of Carbon FRP to strengthen
concrete structures. J Compos Constr 2007;11(2):120–8.
[4] Blanksvard T, Taljisten B. Strengthening of concrete structures with cement
based bonded composites. Nordic Concr Res Nordic Concr Federation
2008;2(38):133–53.
[5] D’Ambrisi A, Focacci F. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with cement based
composites. J Compos Constr 2011;15(5):707–20.
[6] Ombres L. Failure modes in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with PBO
fiber reinforced cementitious mortars (FRCM). In: Oehlers DJ, Griffith MC,
Seracino R, editors. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on fibre
reinforced polymers for reinforced concrete structures (FRPRCS-9), Sydney,
Australia; 2009.
[7] Ombres L. Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with a
cement based high strength composite material. Compos Struct
2011;94:143–55.
[8] Ombres L. Shear capacity of concrete beams strengthened with cement based
composite materials. In: Proceedings of the CICE 2012 international
conference, Rome; 2012.
[9] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolaou CG, Zissimopoulos P, Laourdekis T. Concrete
confinement with textile-reinforced mortar jackets. ACI Struct J
2006;103(1):28–37.
[10] Bournas DA, Lontou P, Papanicolau CG, Triantafillou TC. Textile-reinforced
mortar versus fibre-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced concrete
columns. ACI Struct J 2007;104(6):740–8.
[11] De Caso y Basalo F, Matta F, Nanni A. Fiber reinforced cement-based composite
system for concrete confinement. Constr Build Mater 2012;32:55–65.
[12] Ortlepp R, Lorenz A, Curbach M. Geometry effect onto the load bearing
capacity of column heads strengthened with TRC. In: Proceeding of the fib
Symposium, Prague; 2011. ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6.
[13] Ombres L. Confinement effectiveness in concrete strengthened with fiber
reinforced cement based composite jackets. In: Proceedings of FRPRCS-8, 8th
international symposium on fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for
concrete structures, Patras, Greece; 2007.
[14] Wu ZS, Iwashita K, Hayashi K, Higuchi T, Murakami S, Koseki Y. Strengthening
PC structures with externally prestressed PBO fiber sheets. In: Teng J, editor.
Proceedings of international conference on FRP composites in civil
engineering, CICE2001. Honk Hong: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 1085–92.
[15] De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R. Comparative study of models on confinement of
concrete cylinders with fibre reinforced polymer composites. J Compos Constr
2003;7(3):219–37.
[16] Realfonzo R, Napoli A. Concrete confined by FRP systems: confinement
efficiency and design strength models. Composites: Part B 2011;42:736–55.
[17] Miyauchi K, Nishbayashi S, Inoue S. Estimation of strengthening effects with
carbon fiber sheet for concrete column. In: Proceedings of the FRPRCS-3
international symposium. Sapporo, Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 2007. p.
217–24.
[18] Toutanji H. Stress–strain characteristics of concrete columns externally
confined with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J
1999;96(3):397–404.
[19] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[20] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. J Compos Constr
1999;3(3):143–50.
[21] National Research Council. Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing structures – CNR DT200, Rome,
Italy; 2004.
[22] EN 1015–11. Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: determination
of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar; 1999.