Finite-Element Modeling of Actively Confined

Normal-Strength and High-Strength Concrete

under Uniaxial, Biaxial, and Triaxial Compression
Jian C. Lim 1; Togay Ozbakkaloglu 2; Aliakbar Gholampour 3; Terry Bennett 4; and Reza Sadeghi 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A concrete strength-sensitive finite element (FE) model applicable to concrete subjected to various confining pressure levels and
conditions is presented. This paper focuses primarily on the failure surface and flow rule of concrete in multiaxial compression, which were
experimentally observed to vary with the unconfined concrete strength and level of confining pressure. To this end, a large experimental
database, which consists of more than 1,700 results of concrete specimens tested under biaxial and triaxial compression, was assembled
through an extensive review of the literature. This database was augmented with another test database of concrete in uniaxial compression that
consists of more than 4,000 test results. Based on the test database results, it was observed that the tangential slope of the failure surface
reduces with an increase in the unconfined concrete strength and confining pressure. The concrete dilation angle considered in the flow rule
was observed to be nonlinear throughout loading history. To incorporate the observed changes in the failure surface and flow rule of concrete
subjected to uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial compression, an extension of Lubliner’s concrete-damage plasticity model was proposed and pre-
sented in this paper. Comparisons with experimental test results show that the predictions of the extended model are in good agreement with
the test results of both normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-strength concrete (HSC). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001589.
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete; High-strength concrete (HSC); Confinement; Stress-strain relations; Uniaxial; Triaxial; Compression;
Plasticity; Finite element (FE); Analysis and computation.

Introduction models, which utilize evolutionary algorithms and computer

It is well established that lateral confinement of concrete enhances
its compressive strength and axial deformation capacity (Kent
and Park 1971; Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980; Mander et al. 1988;
Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2006;
Ozbakkaloglu et al. 2013). A comprehensive review of the litera-
ture that was undertaken as part of this paper and those previously
reported in Ozbakkaloglu et al. (2013) and Lim and Ozbakkaloglu
(2014b) revealed that more than 500 experimental studies have
been conducted on the axial compressive behavior of unconfined,
actively confined, and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)-confined
concretes, resulting in the development of more than 120 stress-
strain models. These models have been categorized into four main
categories: (1) design-oriented models presented in closed-form ex-
pressions; (2) analysis-oriented models, which predict stress-strain
curves by an incremental procedure; (3) soft computing-based
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining
Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia (corresponding
author). E-mail: togay.ozbakkaloglu@adelaide.edu.au
3
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining
Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
4
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
5
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining
Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 11, 2015; approved
on April 12, 2016; published online on June 23, 2016. Discussion period
open until November 23, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
programming to perform predictions; and (4) continuum mechanics
models, which predict the constitutive stress-strain behavior of
confined concrete. The use of a continuum approach is particularly
advantageous in the modeling of nonuniformly confined con-
crete as it is capable of capturing complex stress variations in the
concrete.
In attempts to model the continuum characteristics of confined
concrete, pure plasticity approaches (e.g., Drucker and Prager
1952) or combined damage and plasticity approaches (e.g., Lubliner
et al. 1989; Lee and Fenves 1998) have been used. Although the
majority of these models adopted the plasticity approach, compar-
isons with the test database results of concrete in triaxial and biaxial
compressions indicate that the failure surface described using
concrete-damage plasticity is more accurate.
A review of the existing literature revealed that existing con-
tinuum mechanics models for confined concretes are limited in
their application domains, defined by the parametric range of the
experimental results considered in their development. As a result of
this limitation, the dependency of the stress-strain behavior and
volumetric dilation behavior of confined concrete on the level of
confining pressure and unconfined concrete strength has not yet
been established accurately. Furthermore, in the modeling of
the stress-strain relationship and volumetric dilation behavior of
concrete, most of the existing models focus on normal-strength
concrete (NSC) without much attention given to high-strength con-
crete (HSC). A continuum model suitable for a wide range of ap-
plications of confined concrete should consider the variations in
concrete strength, confining pressure and include nonassociative
flow rule and strain hardening and softening rule. In this paper,
a continuum model satisfying these criteria is presented. The model
utilizes failure surface and flow rule that were carefully established
using comprehensive and up-to-date experimental databases.

© ASCE 04016113-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 Experimental Test Databases
The two carefully prepared test databases of unconfined and con-
fined concretes used in the model development are summarized
in this section. The database of unconfined concrete, presented
in Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014c), was assembled from 209 ex-
perimental studies and consisted of 4,353 test results of concrete
cylinders and prisms subjected to uniaxial compression. The spec-
imens had circular or square cross sections with dimensions [diam-
eters (D) or width (B)] varying from 50 to 406 mm, and heights
(H) varying from 25 to 1,016 mm. The unconfined compressive
0
strengths (fco ) and the corresponding axial strains (εco ) of the cir-
cular specimens varied from 5.3 to 171.1 MPa and 0.07 to 0.53%,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
respectively.
The second database, which consisted of the test results of con-
crete cylinders and prisms subjected to biaxial and triaxial com-
pression, is summarized in Table 1. The database was assembled
from 64 published studies, and it contained 1,752 test data sets.
The specimens had circular or square cross sections with dimen-
sions (D or B) varying from 50 to 200 mm, and heights (H) varying
from 12.7 to 558.8 mm. The unconfined concrete strength (fco 0 ) and
the corresponding axial strain (εco ), as obtained from concrete cyl-
inder tests, varied from 7.2 to 132.0 MPa and 0.15% to 0.40%,
respectively. The confinement ratio, defined as the ratio of the lat-
eral confining pressure to the compressive strength of the uncon-
fined concrete specimen (fl =f co 0
), varied from 0.004 to 21.67. As
indicated in Table 1, specimen tests under triaxial compression are
subcategorized into true triaxial tests and triaxial pressure vessel
tests. In true triaxial tests, cubical concrete specimens were tested
in conventional triaxial compression test machines through multi-
axial loading platens. In triaxial pressure vessel tests, cylindrical
concrete specimens were tested in Hoek cells by subjecting spec-
imens to fluid pressure through pressurized membrane. The part of
the database related to the triaxial pressure vessel tests can be found
in Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014b).
Fig. 1 shows typical axial stress-strain curves of unconfined
and actively confined concretes under different levels of confining
pressure for group U128 (with unconfined concrete strength of
128 MPa). As illustrated in the figure, the peak condition of uncon-
fined concrete is characterized by the uniaxial compressive strength
0 failure surface in the deviatoric plane and in the biaxial stress plane,
(fco ) and the corresponding axial strain (εco ); although the peak
condition of actively confined concrete is characterized by the con-
fined compressive strength (fcc ) and the corresponding axial strain
(εcc ); the residual condition is characterized by the residual stress
(fc;res ) and the corresponding axial strain (εc;res ). In this paper,
f c;res and εc;res were determined using the expressions given in
Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014c), which were established based
on a large database of actively confined concrete specimens.
Throughout this paper, compressive stresses (f c ) and strains (εc )
are defined to be positive.
Extended Concrete-Damage Plasticity Model for
Unconfined and Actively Confined Concrete
In the developments of constitutive models, many researchers have
used plasticity theory alone to characterize the stress-strain re-
sponse of concrete (Chen and Chen 1975; Willam and Warnke
1975; Karabinis and Kiousis 1994; Grassl et al. 2002; Li and
Crouch 2010; Yu et al. 2010a), whereas others have relied solely
on the continuum damage theory to model the nonlinear material
behavior (Loland 1980; Ortiz and Popov 1982; Lubarda et al. 1994;
Pijaudier-Cabot and Bazant 1987; Mazars and Pijaudier-Cabot
1989). These two approaches are complementary in a way: the
plasticity theory offers a good representation of ductile behavior
© ASCE 04016113-2
J. Struct. Eng., 04016113
under multiaxial compression whereas the continuum damage
theory captures the damage mechanics and stiffness degradation in
the concrete material. As was shown previously, plasticity-damage
models describe the failure surface of concrete more accurately
than the models based on only plasticity or damage (Lubliner et al.
1989; Lee and Fenves 1998; Yu et al. 2010b; Grassl et al. 2013).
Among the existing plasticity-damage models, the one proposed by
Lubliner et al. (1989) and later modified by Lee and Fenves (1998)
has been shown to provide particularly accurate predictions of con-
fined concrete (Grassl and Jirasek 2006; Omidi and Lotfi 2010;
Yu et al. 2010b). Accordingly, this model was adopted in this paper
for implementation of the failure surface and flow rule carefully
established from the up-to-date experimental databases, which was
done through the use of a finite element (FE) modeling software,
ABAQUS. Taking advantage of the axis symmetry in plan, only
a quarter of the concrete specimen was modelled in ABAQUS.
Boundary conditions were assigned to the axis-symmetric planes
and the ends of the specimens were modelled with pinned-end
boundary conditions. This is consistent with the approach used in
previous studies that focused on the material behavior of confined
concrete under axial compression (e.g., Montoya et al. 2004; Yu
et al. 2010b; Jiang and Wu 2012). To capture the post-peak soft-
ening behavior of concrete, axial compression was applied as uni-
form axial displacement to the nodes along the top of the specimen.
The proposed modifications to improve the concrete-damage plas-
ticity model are discussed in detail in the following sections.
Influence of Unconfined Concrete Strength on Failure
Surface of Confined Concrete
Failure of a concrete material is usually defined through its ultimate
load-carrying capacity. Hence, the influence of unconfined concrete
strength directly affects the shape of the failure surface. In this
paper, the failure surface is presented in the meridional and devia-
toric stress planes, which are defined by the cylindrical coordinates
of equivalent effective pressure (p̄), von Mises equivalent effective
stress (q̄), and Lode angle (θ) (see Appendix for definitions). Fig. 2
illustrates the failure surface of concrete in the meridional plane,
whereas Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the cross-sectional shapes of the
respectively. Fig. 5 shows the residual surface in the meridional
plane. As shown in Fig. 6, the failure surface encloses all the loading
surfaces and serves as a bounding surface. During strain hardening,
the initial loading surface expands and the subsequent loading sur-
face is then obtained by the uniform expansion of the initial one.
After the failure surface is reached, strain-softening occurs and
the loading surface contracts towards the residual surface. For con-
fined concrete, the strain hardening and softening rule is dependent
on the level of confining pressure (Karabinis and Kiousis 1994; Yu
et al. 2010a; Chen and Lan 2006).
To describe the plasticity of concrete subjected to these strain
hardening and softening rule and failure criterion, the concrete-
damage plasticity model proposed by Lubliner et al. (1989), and
later modified by Lee and Fenves (1998), is adopted (see Appendix
for the original model expressions). However, the original model
assumes linear trendlines for the compression and tensile meri-
dians, which do not match the curve-shape meridians obtained from
test database results, as evident in Fig. 2. As is shown from
the figure, the tangential slope of the normalized von Mises equiv-
0
alent stress (q=f co ) reduces with an increase in the normalized
equivalent pressure (p=fco 0 ). This can be attributed to the reduction
in the strength enhancement efficiency with an increase in the level
of confinement (Lim and Ozbakkaloglu 2014c). In Fig. 7, sorting
the test database results into different concrete strength groups
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Summary of Experimental Test Database of Concrete in Biaxial and Triaxial Compressions
Number D B H
0
Number Paper of data (mm) (mm) (mm) Confinement type f co (MPa) f l =f co
0

1 Ansari and Li (1998), Li and Ansari (1999) 14 101 — 202 Triaxial vessel 47.2–107.3 0.18–0.93
2 Balmer (1949) 51 152.4 — 304.8 Triaxial vessel 24.6 7.0–21.0
3 Bellamy (1961) 6 152.4 — 304.8 Triaxial vessel 29.5–33.8 0.28–1.29
4 Belloti and Ronzoni (1984) 3 N/A — N/A Triaxial vessel 59.5 0.33–0.66
5 Bellotti and Rossi (1991) 8 160 — 320 Triaxial vessel 53.5 0.09–0.73
6 Calixto (2002) 5 — 127 12.7 Biaxial 74.5 0.05–0.30
7 Candappa et al. (1999, 2001) 22 98 — 200 Triaxial vessel 41.9–103.3 0.04–0.29
8 Chern et al. (1992) 12 54 — 108 Triaxial vessel 20.5 0.49–3.41
9 Chinn and Zimmerman (1965) 41 152.4 — 304.8 Triaxial vessel 32.4–70.0 0.49–17.14
10 Cordon and Gillespie (1963) 71 152.4 — 304.8 Triaxial vessel 12.2–51.0 0.05–1.13
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11 Dahl (1992) 207 100 — 200 Triaxial vessel 9.8–108.8 0.20–13.85

12 Duke and Davis (1944) 16 76.2 — 152.4 Triaxial vessel 39.2–45.6 0.02–0.16
13 Endebrock and Traina (1972) 1 — N/A N/A Biaxial 18.6 1.15
14 Farnam et al. (2010) 3 75 — 150 Triaxial vessel 76.0 0.07–0.28
15 Ferrara (1967) 2 N/A — N/A Triaxial vessel 56.9 0.35–0.70
16 Gabet et al. (2008) 6 70 — 140 Triaxial vessel 30.0 1.67–21.67
17 Gardner (1969) 3 76.2 — 152.4 Triaxial vessel 29.0 0.30–0.89
18 Guo and Wang (1991) 218 — 70.7 70.7 Biaxial, true triaxial 7.6–38.3 —
19 Hammons and Neeley (1993) 4 53.6 — 88.9 Triaxial vessel 96.0 0.52–2.08
20 Hobbs (1974) 4 N/A — N/A Triaxial vessel 31.8–46.4 0.11–0.47
21 Hurlbut (1985) 4 54 — 108 Triaxial vessel 19.0 0.04–0.72
22 Hussein and Marzouk (2000) 24 — 150 40 Biaxial 38.1–96.0 0.20–1.19
23 Imran and Pantazopoulou (1996) 36 54 — 115 Triaxial vessel 21.2–73.4 0.04–1.00
24 Imran (1994) 2 54 — 115 Triaxial vessel 43.0 0.33–1.00
25 Jamet et al. (1984) 6 110 — 220 Triaxial vessel 26.0 0.12–3.85
26 Kotsovos (1979) 8 100 — 250 Triaxial vessel 21.7 0.25–1.70
27 Kotsovos and Newman (1978, 1980) 12 100 — 250 Triaxial vessel 31.7–62.1 0.23–1.49
28 Kupfer et al. (1969), Kupfer and Gerstle (1973) 39 — 200 50 Biaxial, true triaxial 19.3–59.3 0.26–1.18
29 Lahlou et al. (1992) 6 52 — 104 Triaxial vessel 46.0–113.0 0.07–0.49
30 Lan and Guo (1997) 47 — 70.7 70.7 Biaxial, true triaxial 24.0 0.30–3.50
31 Lan and Guo (1999) 13 — 100 40 Biaxial 24.0 0.25–1.46
32 Launay and Gachon (1972b, a) 61 — 70.1 70.1 Biaxial, true triaxial 35.9 0.20–5.64
33 Lee et al. (2004) 24 — 200 60 Biaxial 30.3–39.0 0.25–1.33
34 Li and Ansari (2000) 11 76.2 — 152.4 Triaxial vessel 69.9–103.5 0.07–0.99
35 Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014a) 31 63 — 127 Triaxial vessel 50.4–128.0 0.02–0.50
36 Linse and Aschl (1976) 17 — 10 10 True triaxial 26.5–34.7 0.41–1.48
37 Liu et al. (1972) 30 — 127 12.7 Biaxial 20.7–34.5 0.20–1.26
38 Lu and Hsu (2007) 13 100 — 200 Triaxial vessel 67.0 0.05–0.84
39 Mills and Zimmerman (1970) 107 — 57.2 57.2 Biaxial, true triaxial 23.0–36.1 0.04–3.14
40 Nawy et al. (2003) 1 — N/A N/A Biaxial 73.6 1.00
41 Nelissen (1972) 10 — N/A N/A Biaxial 34.2 0.11–1.28
42 Newman (1979) 24 100 — 250 Triaxial vessel 23.2–91.2 0.04–5.95
43 Newman and Newman (1972) 2 100 — 250 Triaxial vessel 73.3 0.91–1.84
44 Ottosen (1977) 41 — N/A N/A Triaxial
45 Palaniswamy and Shah (1974) 15 76 — 230 Triaxial vessel 22.1–54.1 0.25–2.50
46 Ren et al. (2008) 4 — 150 50 Biaxial 52.3 0.20–1.40
47 Richart et al. (1928) 77 101.6 — 203.2 –558.8 Biaxial, triaxial vessel 7.2–25.2 0.07–5.71
48 Rutland and Wang (1997) 48 50 — 100 Triaxial vessel 39.4 0.04–1.42
49 Schickert and Winkler (1977) 7 — N/A N/A Biaxial, true triaxial N/A N/A
50 Scholz et al. (1995) 42 — N/A N/A Biaxial N/A 0.05–1.50
51 Setunge et al. (1993), Attard and Setunge (1996) 60 100 — 200 Triaxial vessel 60.0–132.0 0.004–0.25
52 Sfer et al. (2002) 11 152 — 305 Triaxial vessel 35.8 0.04–1.68
53 Smith et al. (1989) 16 54 — 108 Triaxial vessel 22.1–44.1 0.02–1.00
54 Su and Hsu (1988) 4 — 152 38 Biaxial 42.9 0.20–1.30
55 Tan and Sun (2006) 6 100 — 300 Triaxial vessel 51.8 0.04–0.24
56 Tasuji et al. (1978) 10 — 127 12.7 Biaxial 33.3 0.23–1.23
57 Traina (1983) 1 — N/A N/A Biaxial 11.8 1.33
58 Traina and Mansour (1991) 3 — 76 76 Biaxial 40.2 0.50–1.17
59 Untiveros (2002) 9 150 — 300 Triaxial vessel 33.2–67.0 0.10–1.05
60 Van Mier (1984) — — 101.6 101.6 True triaxial 40.0–51.0 0.03–0.33
61 Vu et al. (2009) 6 70 — 140 Triaxial vessel 41.2 1.21–15.79
62 Wang et al. (1987) 151 — 101.6 101.6 Biaxial, true triaxial 7.6–14.3 0.06–4.20
63 Xie et al. (1995) 26 55.5 — 110 Triaxial vessel 60.2–119.0 0.01–0.50
64 Yin et al. (1989) 4 — 152 38 Biaxial 37.6 0.20–1.43

© ASCE 04016113-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 Normalized principal stress (σ2/f' co)
280 1.6
(f*cc, ε*cc) Confining pressure
σ1/f'co
Axial Stress (fc) (MPa) 240 f*l = 25 MPa
1.2
200 f*l = 20 MPa (f'bo, f'bo)

f*l = 15 MPa Data = 245

160 0.8
f*l = 10 MPa
120
f*l = 7.5 MPa 0.4 Yield surface
80 f*l = 5 MPa Biaxial test data

40 (fc,res, εc,res) f*l = 2.5 MPa 0

f'co = 128.0 MPa σ2/f'co
f*l = 0 MPa
0 -0.4
0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Axial Strain (εc) Normalized principal stress (σ1/f'co)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Axial stress-strain curves of concrete subjected to different Fig. 4. Failure surface of concrete in biaxial stress plane
levels of confining pressure (Group U128)

Normalized von Mises equivalent stress

6
Normalized von Mises equivalent stress

6 σ1 /f'co
Failure surface σ1 /f'co Failure surface
Triaxial test data Residual surface
4 Triaxial test data θ= 60°
4 Biaxial test data
θ= 60°
2

(q/f' co )
2
( /f'co )

0
0

2 θ= 0°
2 Data = 204
Data= 1325 σ2 /f'co = σ3 /f'co
σ2 /f'co = σ3 /f'co θ = 0°
4
4 -1 0 1 2 3
-1 0 1 2 3 4 Normalized equivalent pressure( p/f' co )
Normalized equivalent pressure( /f'co )
Fig. 5. Residual surface of concrete in meridional plane
Fig. 2. Failure surface of concrete in meridional plane
Normalized von Mises equivalent stress

4 4
σ2 /f'co θ = 0° σ1 /f'co
3 3
Surfaces
2 Failure surface
θ = 60° 2
Residual surface
1
Yield surface
(q/f' co )

p/f'co = 2.4 1
0
p/f'co = 1.8 0 Load paths
1 p/f'co = 1.2 Triaxial compression
1 Biaxial compression
2 p/f'co = 0.6
Uniaxial compression
2
3 Kc = 0.71f'co -0.025
4 Data = 183 3
σ3 /f'co -1 0 1 2 3 4
5 Normalized equivalent pressure( p/f' co )
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a)
Fig. 3. Failure surface of concrete in deviatoric plane
θ = 0°

σ2 σ1

θ = 60° θ = 60°
reveals that the meridians are also influenced by the unconfined
Load paths
concrete strength. It is evident from Fig. 7 that the tangential slope Triaxial compression
0 Kc = 1.0
of the normalized von Mises equivalent stress (q=fco ) reduces with Biaxial compression
an increase in the unconfined concrete strength (f co 0 ). To enable Non-uniform
θ = 0° θ = 0°
accurate prediction of changes in the compression and tensile meri-
dians, modifications of the original failure criterion to account for Kc = 0.71f'co-0.025
the influences of the confining pressure and unconfined concrete θ = 60°
strength are necessary. σ3
The experimental values of biaxial-to-uniaxial compressive (b)
0 0
strength ratio (f bo =fco ), as illustrated in Fig. 8, change with the
0 Fig. 6. Load paths of concrete subjected to different confined condi-
unconfined concrete strength (fco ). This ratio affects the intersect-
tions: (a) in meridional plane; (b) in deviatoric plane
ing point of the tensile meridian with the biaxial stress plane. The

© ASCE 04016113-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 No rmalized v o n M is es eq u ivalen t s tress
0−0.025
6
σ1 /f'co Original K c ¼ 0.71fco ð2Þ
Data = 766
4 Fig. 2 shows the meridians define the failure surface in the
θ = 60°
meridional plane that corresponds to Lode angle (θ) of 60° and
f'co = 10-30 MPa
2 Proposed 0°, respectively. To allow for the definition of curve-shape compres-
(q/f'co )

f'co = 30-50 MPa

q cm /f'co f'co = 50-70 MPa sion and tensile meridians while satisfying the original condition of
f'co = 70-90 MPa 0 =f 0 ratio defined by Eq. (20) in Lubliner’s model (i.e., when
fbo
0 co
q tm /f'co f'co = 90-110 MPa
f'co = 110-130 MPa the tensile meridian intersects the biaxial stress plane), the follow-
2 ing change is proposed to Lubliner’s dimensionless parameter, α, in
θ = 0°
σ2 /f'co = σ3 /f'co
this paper


4
k1 − 1 γ γ
0 1 2 3 4
α¼ þ1 − ð3Þ
Normalized equivalent pressure (p/f'co ) 2 þ k1 3 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Variation of failure surafaces with unconfined concrete strength which is obtained by rearranging the following equation, which
in meridional plane defines the secant slope of the compression meridian (φ)
k1 − 1 γ þ 3α
tan φ ¼ 3 ¼ γ ð4Þ
2 þ k1 3þ1
Biaxial-to-uniaxial stress ratio (f'bo/f'co)

1.6

where γ = dimensionless parameter in Lubliner’s model; and k1 =

Original
1.2 enhancement ratio of axial compressive stress (fcc ) of concrete
under uniform lateral pressure (σ2 ¼ σ3 ¼ f l ), expressed as
0.8
f'bo /f'co = 1.57f'co-0.09 Proposed
f cc − fco
0
k1 ¼  ð5Þ
Data = 52 fl
0.4
Biaxial-to-uniaxial stress relationship
To allow for the change in curvature of the compression merid-
Biaxial test data
ian, the expression given in Eq. (6), which was proposed by Lim
0 and Ozbakkaloglu (2014c) based on the database results of uncon-
0 20 40 60 80 100 fined and actively confined concrete, can be used in establishing the
Unconfined concrete strength f'co (MPa) relationship between the principal stresses (f cc and fl ) in Eq. (5).
This expression allows for a change in the strength enhancement
Fig. 8. Variation of biaxial-to-uniaxial compressive strengh ratio with
ratio (k1 ) with confining pressure (fl ) and unconfined concrete
uniaxial compressive strength 0 ), which in turn accounts for the curvature of the com-
strength (fco
pression meridian when substituted in Eqs. (3) and (5)

 a
tensile-to-compression meridian stress ratio (K c ), in contrast, af-  0 00.91 f l
fcc ¼ fco þ 5.2fco 0 ð6Þ
fects the shape of the cross section of failure surface in the devia- f co
toric stress plane (Fig. 3) and can take values from 0.5 (triangular 0−0.06
shape) to unity (circular shape). Based on the observed trend of the where a ¼ f co and fl and f co
0
are in MPa.
test results in Fig. 8, the relationship between biaxial-to-uniaxial
0 0
compressive strength ratio (f bo =fco ) and unconfined concrete Influence of Confining Pressure on Plastic Dilation
0
strength (fco ) was established as Eq. (1). This, in turn, resulted in Angle of Flow Rule
the tensile-to-compression meridian stress ratio (K c ) given in
0 0 For granular materials including concrete, the flow rule is nonas-
Eq. (2). As it is evident from Eqs. (1) and (2), the fbo =f co and
sociated, that is, the plastic potential surface (G) is different from
K c ratios are influenced primarily by the unconfined concrete
0 0 the yield surface (F). The consideration of this nonassociated flow
strength (f co ). It is recommended that the fco values applied to
is important for realistic modeling of the volumetric expansion of
these expressions be limited to the experimental validation ranges
concrete under compression. As the plastic strain vector (dεp ),
of 5 and 100 MPa. For the case of biaxial compression (i.e., θ ¼ 0°)
which represents a measure of the fraction of plastic volume
at high equivalent normalized pressures (i.e., more than 2), the pro-
change, governs the accumulation of the plastic volumetric strain,
posed model appears to provide less accurate estimates than the
it eventually controls the overall dilation behavior of confined con-
original model as shown in Fig. 7. However, there are only a
crete. To relate the experimentally observed dilation behavior of
few experimental results available within this range of equivalent
confined concrete to the flow rule of the present model, a hyper-
pressures. Furthermore, it is shown in Fig. 8 for θ ¼ 0° that the
bolic Drucker-Prager plastic potential function (G) is adopted (see
modified expression provides more accurate predictions of biax-
Appendix for definition). Based on Jiang and Wu (2012), the plas-
ial-to-uniaxial stress ratio. Therefore, according to Figs. 7 and 8,
tic dilation angle (ψ) of the plastic potential function (G) in the case
the modification of the original failure surface resulted in an overall
of uniformly confined concrete can be related to the axial and
improvement in the model performance under both biaxial and tri-
lateral components of the plastic strain vector (dεc;p and dεl;p )
axial stress conditions. However, additional tests are recommended
as follows:
at higher normalized equivalent pressures under biaxial compres-
sion to gain further confidence in the performance of the model 3ðdεc;p þ 2dεl;p Þ
within this range tan ψ ¼ − ð7Þ
2ðdεc;p − dεl;p Þ
0
f bo 0−0.09 Based on this approach, the plastic dilation angle (ψ) can be
0 ¼ 1.57f co ð1Þ
f co experimentally measured from test results. In the figures presented

© ASCE 04016113-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113


subsequently in this paper, the experimentally measured changes in
plastic dilation angles (ψ) of several groups of specimens are illus-
trated. It is shown from the figures that the plastic dilation angles
(ψ) do not remain constant but vary throughout the loading history.
This accords with the observations reported in several studies that
the dilation behavior of confined concrete is nonlinear with axial
strain increments (Lim and Ozbakkaloglu 2014b; Yu et al. 2010a;
Jiang and Wu 2012; Nemat-Nasser and Shokooh 1980; Dorris and
Nemat-Nasser 1982; Vermeer and de Borst 1984; Mirmiran et al.
2000).
To estimate the change in dilation behavior of confined con-
crete, the lateral strain–axial strain relationship of concrete pro-
posed by Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014b) based on the database
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0
to be calculated using Eq. (11). In Eqs. (8)–(11), fco is expressed
in MPa.
To ensure that the model is thermodynamically consistent, the
Clausius-Duhem dissipation inequality is considered (Meschke
et al. 1998; Cicekli et al. 2007):
σij ε̇ij − ρΨ̇ ≥ 0 ð12Þ
where σij , ε̇ij , ρ, and Ψ̇ = stress tensor, strain tensor, material den-
sity, and Helmholtz free energy, respectively. Fig. 9 shows the
variation of the dissipation rate with plastic strain; it is shown in
the figure that the dissipation rate asymptotically approaches zero
but never goes below zero, indicating that the proposed model is

results of unconfined and actively confined concrete can be used. thermodynamically consistent.
In the calculation of the plastic dilation angle (ψ) [Eq. (7)], the axial
and lateral components of the plastic strain vector (dεc;p and dεl;p ) Comparison of Model Predictions With Experimental
can be estimated from the relationship between axial strain (εc ) and Results
lateral strain (εl ) of concrete given in Eq. (8) (see Appendix for In this section, the stress-strain curves and dilation behavior of
strain decompositions). For detailed discussions on the parameters concrete predicted using the Lubliner’s model and the extended
influencing concrete dilation behavior, the reader is referred to Lim version proposed in this paper were compared with experimental
and Ozbakkaloglu (2014b) results. Details of the specimen groups used in the comparisons

 0.8 are summarized in Table 2. These specimens were classified into
−εl 0.7 f
εc ¼   −εl n 1 − 0.04εl 1 þ 21 0l ð8Þ three groups according to their unconfined concrete strengths
ν i 1 þ ν i εco n f co 0 ) as groups U21 (with f 0 of approximately 21 MPa), U35
(fco co
(with fco0 of approximately 35 MPa), and U103 (with f 0 of ap-
co
proximately 103 MPa). Figs. 10(a)–12(a) show the predictions of
ν i ¼ 8 × 10−6 fco
02 0
þ 0.0002fco þ 0.138 ð9Þ
the variation in axial stress-strain relationships of actively con-


 fined concrete with confining pressure using the Lubliner’s model.
00.225
fco 152 0.1 2D 0.13 The predictions of the corresponding plastic volumetric strain–ax-
εco ¼ ð10Þ
1000 D H ial plastic strain relationships of these specimens groups are
shown in Figs. 10(b)–12(b). As is shown from Figs. 10(a)–12(a),
0 the predicted axial stress-strain curves overestimate the axial
n ¼ 1 þ 0.03f co ð11Þ
stresses and underestimate the axial strains of confined concrete
where ν i = initial Poisson’s ratio of concrete, to be calculated using at the peak conditions. This can be attributed to the lack of con-
Eq. (9) as proposed by Candappa et al. (2001); εco = axial strain sideration of the dependency of the hardening and softening rule
corresponding to the compressive strength of unconfined concrete, and flow rule on the level of confining pressure in the original
to be calculated using Eq. (10); and n = curve shape parameter, Lubliner’s model. In addition, the significant overestimation of
the peak axial stresses of confined HSC [shown in Fig. 12(a)]
is caused by the lack of consideration of unconfined concrete
0.04
strength influence on the failure surface of confined concrete. In
Figs. 10(b)–12(b), the experimental test results show that the
0.03 change in the dilation behavior of the specimens from plastic
Dissipation

volumetric contraction to plastic volumetric expansion is influ-

0.02 enced significantly by the level of confining pressure. However,
the original Lubliner’s model is unable to predict the plastic volu-
0.01 metric contraction in confined concrete with an assumption of a
constant positive plastic dilation angle (ψ).
0
For the same specimen groups, the companion predictions
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 (using the extended Lubliner’s model proposed in this paper) are
εc,p shown in Figs. 13–15. As evident from the figures, the model
predictions are in good agreement with the test results. In
Fig. 9. Variation of dissipation rate with the plastic strain
addition to the axial stress-strain and plastic volumetric strain–axial

Table 2. Summary of Test Results Used in Figs. 1 and 10–15

0
Number D H fco
Group Paper of data (mm) (mm) Confinement type f lu;a or f l (MPa) (MPa)
U21 Imran and Pantazopoulou (1996) 4 54 115 Triaxial vessel 2.1, 4.2, 8.4, 14.7 21.2
Newman (1979) 1 100 250 Triaxial vessel 22.6 23.2
U35 Smith et al. (1989) 2 54 108 Triaxial vessel 6.9, 13.8 34.5
Sfer et al. (2002) 3 150 300 Triaxial vessel 1.5, 4.5, 9.0 35.8
U103 Candappa et al. (2001) 1 98 200 Triaxial vessel 12.0 103.3
Li and Ansari (2000) 5 76.2 152.4 Triaxial vessel 6.8, 20.6, 41.1, 61.7, 80.2 103.5
U128 Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014a) 8 63 127 Triaxial vessel 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 25.0 128.0

© ASCE 04016113-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 160 600
f'co = 21.2 – 23.2 MPa f'co = 103.3 – 103.5 MPa
140
500

Axial Stress (fc) (MPa)

Axial Stress (fc) (MPa)

f*l = 22.6 MPa
120
400
100
f*l = 14.6 MPa f*l = 80.2 MPa
80 300 f*l = 61.7 MPa
60 f*l = 41.1 MPa
f*l = 8.4 MPa
200 f*l = 20.6 MPa
40 f* l = 4.2 MPa f*l = 12.0MPa
f*l = 2.1 MPa Test results (U21) 100 Test results (U103)
20 f*l = 6.8 MPa
f*l = 0 MPa Lubliner's model Lubliner's model
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(a) Axial Strain (εc) (a) Axial Strain (εc)

0.05 0.03
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test results (U21) Test results (U103)

Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

0.04 f*l = 2.1 MPa Lubliner's model Lubliner's model

0.02 f*l = 6.8 MPa
0.03
f*l = 4.2 MPa f*l = 12.0 MPa
0.02 f*l = 20.6MPa
f* l = 8.4 MPa 0.01 f*l = 41.1MPa
0.01
f*l = 61.7 MPa
f*l = 14.6 MPa Expansion
0 f*l = 80.2 MPa Expansion
Contraction 0
Contraction
-0.01 f*l = 22.6 MPa
f'co = 21.2 – 23.2 MPa f'co = 103.3 – 103.5 MPa
-0.02 -0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p) (b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p)

Fig. 10. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric Fig. 12. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric
strain-axial plastic strain relationships of actively confined concrete strain-axial plastic strain relationships of actively confined concrete
specimens (Group U21) by Lubliner’s model specimens (Group U103) by Lubliner’s model

140
f'co = 34.5 – 35.8 MPa the change in the plastic dilation angle throughout the loading
120 history of confined concrete. The tangential slope of these plastic
Axial Stress (fc) (MPa)

100 f*l = 13.8 MPa volumetric strain-axial plastic strain curves represents the plastic di-
lation angle (ψ) at the given strain. As shown in Figs. 13(c)–15(c),
80
f*l = 9.0 MPa
the plastic dilation angle (ψ) changes sign from negative to positive,
60
f*l = 6.8 MPa
and it correspond to the change in plastic volumetric strain from
40 f*l = 4.5 MPa contraction to expansion in Figs. 13(b)–15(b). Based on the pro-
f* = 1.5 MPa
posed extension to the concrete-damage plasticity model, this
20 l Test results (U35)
Lubliner's model
nonlinear dilation behavior can be estimated accurately as shown
f*l = 0 MPa
0 in the comparison of model predictions with experimental results
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
in Figs. 13(c)–15(c). This accurate estimation of plastic dilation
(a) Axial Strain (εc)
angle (ψ), in turn, results in the accurate prediction of the dilation
0.05 characteristics of confined concrete [shown in Figs. 13(b)–15(b)].
f*l = 0 MPa Test results (U35)
Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

f*l = 1.5 MPa

0.04 Lubliner's model
f* = 4.5 MPa
l
f*l = 6.8 MPa
Limitations of the Proposed Model
0.03
f*l = 9.0 MPa The flow rule of the proposed model is based on test results of spec-
0.02 imens subjected to axial compression and uniform lateral confining
f* = 13.8 MPa
0.01
l
pressure in triaxial compression (i.e., Lode angle θ ¼ 60°). For
confined concrete subjected to nonuniform lateral confinement
Expansion
0 (i.e., Lode angle θ ≠ 60°), a further validation and modification
Contraction
f'co = 34.5 – 35.8 MPa of the flow rule is necessary. Time and heat dependencies of con-
-0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 fined concrete are also not considered by the proposed model. Fur-
(b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p) ther research in these areas is recommended in future studies.

Fig. 11. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric

strain-axial plastic strain relationships of actively confined concrete Conclusions
specimens (Group U35) by Lubliner’s model
This paper has presented the results of an investigation on the
confinement mechanisms of both unconfined and actively confined
plastic strain relationships shown in Figs. 13(a)–15(a) and concretes using FE modeling approach. Two large experimental
Figs. 13(b)–15(b), respectively; the plastic dilation angle–axial test databases, consisting of 4,353 test results of unconfined con-
plastic strain relationships of these specimen groups are shown crete specimens under uniaxial compression and 1,752 test re-
in Figs. 13(c)–15(c) to demonstrate the importance of considering sults of concrete specimens subjected to confinement, have been

© ASCE 04016113-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 120 120
f'co = 21.2 – 23.2 MPa f'co = 34.5 – 35.8 MPa
f*l = 22.6 MPa
100 100

Axial Stress (fc) (MPa)

Axial Stress (fc) (MPa)

f*l = 13.8 MPa
80 80
f*l = 14.6 MPa
f*l = 9.0 MPa
60 60
f*l = 8.4 MPa f*l = 6.8 MPa
40 40
f*l = 4.5 MPa
f*l = 4.2 MPa
20 f*l = 2.1 MPa Test results (U21) 20 f*l = 1.5 MPa Test results (U35)
f*l = 0 MPa Proposed model f*l = 0 MPa Proposed model
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(a) Axial Strain (εc) (a) Axial Strain (εc)

0.05 0.05
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f*l = 0 MPa Test results (U21) f*l = 0 MPa

Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

0.04 f*l = 1.5 MPa
f*l = 2.1 MPa Proposed model 0.04
f*l = 4.5 MPa
0.03 f*l = 4.2 MPa f*l = 6.8 MPa
0.03
0.02 f*l = 9.0 MPa
f*l = 8.4 MPa
0.02
0.01 f*l = 13.8 MPa
f*l = 14.6 MPa 0.01
0
f*l = 22.6 MPa 0 Test results (U35)
-0.01
f'co = 21.2 – 23.2 MPa f'co = 34.5 – 35.8 MPa Proposed model
-0.02 -0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p) (b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p)

Plastic Dilation Angle (ψ) (degrees)

80
Plastic Dilation Angle (ψ) (degrees)

80
f*l = 0 MPa f*l = 0 MPa
f*l = 1.5 MPa
f*l = 2.1 MPa 60 f*l = 4.5 MPa
60 f*l = 4.2 MPa f*l = 6.8 MPa
f*l = 8.4 MPa f*l = 9.0 MPa
40 40
f*l = 13.8 MPa
f*l = 14.6 MPa
20 20
f*l = 22.6 MPa
0 0

-20 -20

-40 Test results (U21) -40 Test results (U35)

f'co = 21.2 – 23.2 MPa Proposed model f'co = 34.5 – 35.8 MPa Proposed model
-60 -60
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(c) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p) (c) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p)

Fig. 13. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric Fig. 14. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric
strain-axial plastic strain; (c) plastic dilation angle-axial plastic strain strain-axial plastic strain; (c) plastic dilation angle-axial plastic strain
relationships of actively confined concrete specimens (Group U21) by relationships of actively confined concrete specimens (Group U35) by
proposed model proposed model

assembled from the published literature. Based on the test database Ī 1

p̄ ¼ where Ī 1 ¼ σ̄1 þ σ̄2 þ σ̄3 ð13Þ
results, the failure surface and flow rule of concrete in multiaxial 3
compression were observed to vary with the unconfined concrete
strength and level of confining pressure. To incorporate the ob- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðσ̄ − σ̄2 Þ2 þ ðσ̄2 − σ̄3 Þ2 þ ðσ̄3 − σ̄1 Þ2
served changes in the failure surface and flow rule, an extension q̄ ¼ 3J̄ 2 where J̄ 2 ¼ 1
6
to the concrete-damage plasticity model (originally developed by
Lubliner’s concrete-damage plasticity model) was proposed. This ð14Þ
extension enables the influence of concrete strength on the failure
surface and the influence of confining pressure on the dilation angle
pffiffiffi 
1 −1 3 3 J̄ 3
of flow rule to be estimated accurately, and, hence, improving the θ ¼ cos where
3 2 J̄ 3=2
2
overall model stress-strain and dilation predictions. Comparisons




with experimental test results show that the predictions of the ex- Ī Ī Ī
J̄ 3 ¼ σ̄1 − 1 σ̄2 − 1 σ̄3 − 1 ð15Þ
tended model are in good agreement with the test results of both 3 3 3
unconfined and actively confined concretes.
where Ī 1 , J̄ 2 , J̄ 3 = invariants of the effective stress tensors; and
σ̄1 , σ̄2 , σ̄3 = effective stresses, which are defined as follows (Yu
Appendix. Definitions et al. 2010b):

Definitions of equivalent effective pressure (p̄), von Mises equiv- σi

σ̄i ¼ ð16Þ
alent effective stress (q̄), and Lode angle (θ) 1−d

© ASCE 04016113-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 350
f'co = 103.3 – 103.5 MPa where σ̄min = minimum principal effective stress. The parameters α,
300 f*l = 80.2 MPa βðε̄p Þ, and γ are dimensionless parameters, which are defined in
Axial Stress (fc) (MPa) 250 f*l = 61.7 MPa
Eqs. (20)–(22). For more details on the derivation of the failure
criterion, the reader is referred to Lubliner et al. (1989) and Lee
200 f*l = 41.1 MPa
and Fenves (1998)
150 f*l = 20.6 MPa
0 0
fbo − fco
100 f*l = 12.0 MPa α¼ 0 0 ð20Þ
2fbo − f co
50 f* = 6.8 MPa Test results (U103)
l
Proposed model
0
σ̄c ðε̄c;p Þ
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
βðε̄p Þ ¼ ð1 − αÞ − ð1 þ αÞ ð21Þ
(a) Axial Strain (εc) σ̄t ðε̄t;p Þ
0.03
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3ð1 − K c Þ
Plastic Volumetric Strain (εv,p)

f*l = 6.8 MPa qtm

γ¼ where K c ¼ ð22Þ
0.02
f*l = 12.0 MPa 2K c − 1 qcm
f* l = 20.6 MPa
f*l = 41.1 MPa
where fbo 0 and f 0 = biaxial and uniaxial compressive strengths; σ̄
co c
0.01 f*l = 61.7 MPa and σ̄t = effective compressive and tensile cohesion stresses; ε̄c;p
f*l = 80.2 MPa and ε̄t;p = equivalent compressive and tensile plastic strains, respec-
0 tively; and K c = ratio of the second stress invariants on the tensile
Test results (U103) meridian (qtm ) to that of the compression meridian (qcm ).
f'co = 103.3 – 103.5 MPa Proposed model In the case of biaxial and triaxial compression under uniform
-0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 lateral pressure (σ2 ¼ σ3 ), the failure surface along the tensile and
(b) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p) compressive meridians reduces to Eqs. (23) and (24), respectively.
These meridians define the failure surface in the meridional plane
Plastic Dilation Angle (ψ) (degrees)

80
f*l = 6.8 MPa
that corresponds to Lode angle (θ) of 60° and 0°, respectively
60 f*l = 12.0 MPa
f*l = 20.6 MPa

f*l = 41.1 MPa 2
40 f*l = 61.7 MPa γ þ 1 q̄ − ðγ þ 3αÞp̄ ¼ ð1 − αÞσ̄c ;
f*l = 80.2 MPa 3
20
for tensile meridian ðtmÞ ð23Þ
0

-20

1
-40 Test results (U103) γ þ 1 q̄ − ðγ þ 3αÞp̄ ¼ ð1 − αÞσ̄c ;
f'co = 103.3 – 103.5 MPa Proposed model 3
-60
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 for compression meridian ðcmÞ ð24Þ
(c) Axial Plastic Strain (εc,p)
Definitions of plastic potential function (G) and the plastic strain
Fig. 15. Predictions of (a) axial stress-strain; (b) plastic volumetric vector (dεp )
strain-axial plastic strain; (c) plastic dilation angle-axial plastic strain
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
relationships of actively confined concrete specimens (Group U103) by
proposed model G ¼ ðϵf t0 tan ψÞ2 þ q̄2 − p̄ tan ψ ð25Þ

∂G
where σi and d = principal stress tensor components (i ¼ 1,2; 3) dεp ¼ λ ð26Þ
∂σ
and damage parameter, respectively.
For concrete under compression, the damage parameter is given where ψ = plastic dilation angle; ft0 = uniaxial tensile strength; and
by (Yu et al. 2010b) ϵ = eccentricity parameter that defines the rate at which the function
fc approaches the asymptote. The flow potential tends to approach a
d¼1− 0 ð17Þ straight line as the eccentricity approaches to zero.
fco
Definitions of strain decompositions under uniform confine-
where fc = axial stress at the descending branch and is obtained ment and monotonic loading
based on Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014c)
1
fcc − f c;res εc ¼ εc;e þ εc;p where εc;p ¼ εc − ðσ − 2νσl Þ ð27Þ
f c ¼ fcc −    ð18Þ E c
1 þ εεc;ic −εcc −2
−εcc

where εc;i = axial strain corresponding to the inflection point of the 1

εl ¼ εl;e þ εl;p where εl;p ¼ εl − ½ð1 − νÞσl − νσc  ð28Þ
descending branch of stress-strain curve. E
The failure criterion (F) proposed by Lubliner et al. (1989), and
modified by Lee and Fenves (1998), is defined as εv ¼ εc þ 2εl and εv;p ¼ εc;p þ 2εl;p ð29Þ
1
F¼ ðq̄ − 3αp̄ þ βðε̄p Þh−σ̄min i − γhσ̄min iÞ − σ̄c ðε̄c;p Þ ≤ 0 where εc , εl , εv = axial, lateral and volumetric strain; εc;p , εl;p ,
1−α εv;p = plastic axial, lateral and volumetric strain; E = concrete
ð19Þ elastic modulus; and ν = Poisson’s ratio of concrete.

© ASCE 04016113-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016113

 References
ABAQUS version 6.12 [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes Simulia,
Providence, RI.
Ansari, F., and Li, Q. B. (1998). “High-strength concrete subjected to
triaxial compression.” ACI Mater. J., 95(6), 747–755.
Attard, M. M., and Setunge, S. (1996). “Stress-strain relationship of
confined and unconfined concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 93(5), 432–442.
Balmer, G. G. (1949). “Shearing strength of concrete under high triaxial
stress-computation of Mohr’s envelope as a curve.” Structural Research
Laboratory Rep. No. SP-23, Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Reclama-
tion, Denver.
Bellamy, C. J. (1961). “Strength of concrete under combined stress.” ACI J.
Proc., 58(4), 367–380.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bellotti, R., and Ronzoni, E. (1984). “Results of tests carried out on cylin-
drical concrete specimens subjected to complex stress states: A critical
analysis.” Int. Conf. on Concrete under Multiaxial Conditions, RILEM,
Press de l’Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 9–19.
Bellotti, R., and Rossi, P. (1991). “Cylinder tests: Experimental technique
and results.” Mater. Struct., 24(1), 45–51.
Calixto, J. M. (2002). “Behavior of high-performance concrete subjected to
biaxial tension-compression stresses.” ACI Spec. Publ., 207, 1–14.
Candappa, D. C., Sanjayan, J. G., and Setunge, S. (2001). “Complete tri-
axial stress-strain curves of high-strength concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:3(209), 209–215.
Candappa, D. P., Setunge, S., and Sanjayan, J. G. (1999). “Stress versus
strain relationship of high strength concrete under high lateral confine-
ment.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29(12), 1977–1982.
Chen, A. C. T., and Chen, W. F. (1975). “Constitutive relations for
concrete.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 101, 465–481.
Chen, W.-F., and Lan, Y.-M. (2006). “Finite element study of confined
concrete.” ACI Spec. Publ., 223–234.
Chern, J. C., Yang, H. J., and Chen, H. W. (1992). “Behavior of steel
fiber reinforced concrete in multiaxial loading.” ACI Mater. J., 89(1),
32–40.
Chinn, J., and Zimmerman, R. M. (1965). “Behavior of plain concrete
under various high triaxial compression loading conditions.” Technical
Rep. WL TR 64-163, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Univ. of Colorado,
Boulder, CO.
Cicekli, U., Voyiadjis, G. Z., and Al-Rub, R. K. (2007). “A plasticity
and anisotrophic damage model for plain concrete.” Int. J. Plast.,
23(10–11), 1874–1900.
Cordon, W. A., and Gillespie, H. A. (1963). “Variables in concrete aggre-
gates and portland cement paste which influence the strength of
concrete.” ACI J. Proc., 60(8), 1029–1050.
Dahl, K. B. (1992). “A failure criterion for normal and high strength con-
crete.” Research Rep. Series No. 286, Dept. of Structural Engineering,
Technical Univ. of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Dorris, J. F., and Nemat-Nasser, S. (1982). “A plasticity model for flow
of granular materials under triaxial stress states.” Lnt. J. Solids Struct.,
18(6), 497–531.
Drucker, D. C., and Prager, W. (1952). “Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design.” Q. Appl. Math., 10(2), 157–165.
Duke, C. M., and Davis, H. E. (1944). “Some properties of concrete
under sustained combined stresses.” Proc. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.,
888–896.
Endebrock, E. G., and Traiana, L. A. (1972). “Static concrete constitutive
relations based on cubical specimens.” Technical Rep. No. AFWL-TR-
72-59, Air Force Weapon Lab, Kirtland Air Force Base, Kirtland AFB,
NM.
Farnam, Y., Moosavi, M., Shekarchi, M., Babanajad, S. K., and
Bagherzadeh, A. (2010). “Behaviour of slurry infiltrated fibre concrete
(SIFCON) under triaxial compression.” Cem. Concr. Res., 40(11),
1571–1581.
Ferrara, G. (1967). “Dispositivi di prova per l’analisi sperimentale del
comportamento do conglomerati cementizi sottoposti a stati triassaili di
sollecitazione.” 4th Associazione Italiana Annalisi Sollecitazione
Congress, Istituto Sperimentale Modelli e Strutture (ISMES), Bergamo,
Italy.
© ASCE 04016113-10
J. Struct. Eng., 04016113
Gabet, T., Malecot, Y., and Daudeville, L. (2008). “Triaxial behaviour of
concrete under high stresses: Influence of the loading path on compac-
tion and limit states.” Cem. Concr. Res., 38(3), 403–412.
Gardner, N. J. (1969). “Triaxial behavior of concrete.” J. Am. Concr. Inst.,
66(2), 136–146.
Grassl, P., and Jirasek, M. (2006). “Damage-plastic model for concrete
failure.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 43(22–23), 7166–7196.
Grassl, P., Lundgren, K., and Gylltoft, K. (2002). “Concrete in compres-
sion: A plasticity theory with a novel hardening law.” Int. J. Solids
Struct., 39(20), 5205–5223.
Grassl, P., Xenos, D., Nystrom, U., Rempling, R., and Gylltoft, K. (2013).
“CDPM2: A damage-plasticity approach to modelling the failure of
concrete.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 50(24), 3805–3816.
Guo, Z. H., and Wang, C. Z. (1991). “Investigation of strength and failure
criterion of concrete under multi-axial stresses.” China Civ. Eng. J.,
24(3), 1–14.
Hammons, M. I., and Neeley, B. D. (1993). “Triaxial characterization of
high-strength portland cement concrete.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1382,
73–77.
Hobbs, D. W. (1974). “Strength and deformation properties of plain con-
crete subject to combined stress. Part 3: Results obtained on a range of
flint gravel aggregate concretes.” Rep. 42.497, Cement and Concrete
Association, London.
Hurlbut, B. (1985). “Experimental and computational investigation of
strain-softening in concrete.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Colorado, CO.
Hussein, A., and Marzouk, H. (2000). “Behavior of high-strength concrete
under biaxial stress.” ACI Mater. J., 97(1), 27–36.
Imran, I. (1994). “Applications of nonassociated plasticity in modeling the
mechanical response of concrete.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Toronto,
Toronto.
Imran, I., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1996). “Experimental study of plain
concrete under triaxial stress.” ACI Mater. J., 93(6), 589–601.
Jamet, P., Millard, A., and Nahas, G. (1984). “Triaxial behaviour of a
micro-concrete complete stress-strain curves for confining pressures
ranging from 0 to 100 MPa.” RILEM-CEB Int. Conf. on Concrete Under
Multiaxial Conditions, INSA Toulouse, France, 133–140.
Jiang, J. F., and Wu, Y. F. (2012). “Identification of material parameters
for Drucker-Prager plasticity model for FRP confined circular concrete
columns.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 49(3–4), 445–456.
Karabinis, A. I., and Kiousis, P. D. (1994). “Effects of confinement on con-
crete columns: A plasticity theory approach.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:9(2747), 2747–2767.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined con-
crete.” J. Struct. Div., 97(7), 1969–1990.
Kotsovos, M. D. (1979). “Effect of stress path on the behavior of concrete
under triaxial stress states.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 76(2), 213–223.
Kotsovos, M. D., and Newman, J. B. (1978). “Generalized stress-strain
relations for concrete.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 104(4), 845–856.
Kotsovos, M. D., and Newman, J. B. (1980). “Mathematical description
of deformational behavior of concrete under generalized stress beyond
ultimate strength.” ACI J., 77(5), 340–346.
Kupfer, H., Hilsdorf, H. K., and Rusch, H. (1969). “Behavior of concrete
under biaxial stresses.” ACI J. Proc., 66(8), 656–666.
Kupfer, H. B., and Gerstle, K. H. (1973). “Behavior of concrete under
biaxial stresses.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 99(4), 853–866.
Lahlou, K., Aitcin, P. C., and Chaallal, O. (1992). “Behaviour of high-
strength concrete under confined stresses.” Cem. Concr. Compos.,
14(3), 185–193.
Lan, S., and Guo, Z. (1999). “Biaxial compression behavior of concrete
under repeated loading.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(1999)11:2(105), 105–115.
Lan, S. G., and Guo, Z. H. (1997). “Experimental investigation of multi-
axial compressive strength of concrete under different stress paths.” ACI
Mater. J., 94(5), 427–434.
Launay, P., and Gachon, H. (1972a). “Strain and ultimate strength of con-
crete under triaxial stress.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology, ACI, 23–34.
Launay, P., and Gachon, H. (1972b). “Strain and ultimate strength of con-
crete under triaxial stress.” ACI Spec. Publ., 34, 269–282.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Lee, J., and Fenves, G. L. (1998). “Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading
of concrete structures.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1998)124:8(892), 892–900.
Lee, S. K., Song, Y. C., and Han, S. H. (2004). “Biaxial behavior of plain
concrete of nuclear containment building.” Nucl. Eng. Des., 227(2),
143–153.
Li, Q. B., and Ansari, F. (1999). “Mechanics of damage and constitutive
relationships for high-strength concrete in triaxial compression.” J. Eng.
Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1999)125:1(1), 1–10.
Li, Q. B., and Ansari, F. (2000). “High-strength concrete in triaxial
compression by different sites of specimens.” ACI Mater. J., 97(6),
684–689.
Li, T., and Crouch, R. (2010). “A C2 plasticity model for structural con-
crete.” Comput. Struct., 88(23–24), 1322–1332.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Lim, J. C., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2014a). “Investigation of the influence of
the application path of confining pressure: Tests on actively confined
and FRP-confined concretes.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001177, 04014203.
Lim, J. C., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2014b). “Lateral strain-to-axial strain
relationship of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001094, 04014141.
Lim, J. C., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2014c). “Stress-strain model for normal-
and light-weight concretes under uniaxial and triaxial compression.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 71, 492–509.
Linse, D., and Aschl, H. (1976). “Versuche zum verhalten von beton
unter mehrachsiger beanspruchung.” Munchen durchgefuhrtes Teilpro-
jekt eines internationalen Vergleichsprogrammes, Versuchsbericht,
Lehrstuhl fur Massivbau, Technische Universitat Munchen, Munich,
Germany.
Liu, T. C. Y., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1972). “Stress-strain response
and fracture of concrete in uniaxial and biaxial compression.” ACI J.
Proc., 69(5), 291–295.
Loland, K. E. (1980). “Continuous damage model for load-response esti-
mation of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 10(3), 395–402.
Lu, X. B., and Hsu, C. T. T. (2007). “Stress-strain relations of high-strength
concrete under triaxial compression.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:3(261), 261–268.
Lubarda, V. A., Kracjinvovic, D., and Mastilovic, S. (1994). “Damage
model for brittle elastic solids with unequal tensile and compressive
strength.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 49(5), 681–697.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., and Onate, E. (1989). “A plastic-damage
model for concrete.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 25(3), 299–326.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1826.
Mazars, J., and Pijaudier-Cabot, G. (1989). “Continuum damage theory-
application to concrete.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1989)115:2(345), 345–365.
Meschke, G., Lackner, R., and Mang, H. A. (1998). “An anisopropic
elastoplastic-damage model for plain concrete.” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng., 42(4), 703–727.
Mills, L. L., and Zimmerman, R. M. (1970). “Compressive strength of plain
concrete under multiaxial loading conditions.” ACI J. Proc., 67(10),
802–807.
Mirmiran, A., Zagers, K., and Yuan, W. Q. (2000). “Nonlinear finite
element modeling of concrete confined by fiber composites.” Finite
Elem. Anal. Des., 35(1), 79–96.
Montoya, E., Vecchio, F. J., and Sheikh, S. A. (2004). “Numerical
evaluation of the behavior of steel- and FRP-confined concrete
columns using compression field modelling.” Eng. Struct., 26(11),
1535–1545.
Nawy, E. G., Lim, D. H., and McPherson, K. L. (2003). “Compressive
behavior of high-strength high-performance concrete under biaxial
loading.” ACI Spec. Publ., 213, 43–60.
Nelissen, L. J. M. (1972). “Biaxial testing of normal concrete.” Heron,
18(1), 1–90.
Nemat-Nasser, S., and Shokooh, A. (1980). “On finite plastic flows of
compressible materials with internal friction.” Int. J. Solids Struct.,
16(6), 495–514.
© ASCE 04016113-11
J. Struct. Eng., 04016113
Newman, J. B. (1979). Concrete under complex stress, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
Newman, J. B., and Newman, K. (1972). “The cracking and failure of
concrete under combined stresses and its implications for structural
design.” Deformations and Rupture of Solids Subjected to Multiaxial
Stresses, RILEM Int. Symp., Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Omidi, O., and Lotfi, V. (2010). “Finite element analysis of concrete struc-
tures using plastic-damage model in 3-D implementation.” Int. J. Civ.
Eng., 8(3), 187–203.
Ortiz, M., and Popov, E. P. (1982). “Plain concrete as a composite
material.” Mech. Mater., 1(2), 139–150.
Ottosen, N. S. (1977). “A failure criterion for concrete.” J. Eng. Mech. Div.,
103(4), 527–535.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., Lim, J. C., and Vincent, T. (2013). “FRP-confined
concrete in circular sections: Review and assessment of stress-strain
models.” Eng. Struct., 49, 1068–1088.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M. (2006). “Seismic behavior of high-
strength concrete columns confined by fiber-reinforced polymer
tubes.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:
6(538), 538–549.
Palaniswamy, R., and Shah, S. P. (1974). “Fracture and stress-strain rela-
tionship of concrete under triaxial compression.” J. Struct. Div., 100(5),
901–916.
Pijaudier-Cabot, G., and Bazant, Z. P. (1987). “Nonlocal damage
theory.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1987)113:10(1512),
1512–1533.
Ren, X., Yang, W., Zhou, Y., and Li, J. (2008). “Behavior of high-
performance concrete under uniaxial and biaxial loading.” ACI
Mater. J., 105(6), 548–577.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928). “A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.” Bulletin No.
185, Engineering Experimental Station, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign,
IL.
Rutland, C. A., and Wang, M. L. (1997). “The effects of confinement on the
failure orientation in cementitious materials experimental observations.”
Cem. Concr. Compos., 19(2), 149–160.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of con-
fined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:
6(1590), 1590–1607.
Schickert, G., and Winkler, H. (1977). “Results of test concerning strength
and strain of concrete subjected to multiaxial compressive stresses.”
Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin.
Scholz, U., et al. (1995). “Versuche zum Verhalten von Beton unter dreiach-
siger Kurzeitbeanspruchung.” Heft 447, Deutscher Ausschuss fur
Stahlbeton, Berlin.
Setunge, S., Attard, M. M., and Darvall, P. L. (1993). “Ultimate strength
of confined very high-strength concretes.” ACI Struct. J., 90(6),
632–641.
Sfer, D., Carol, I., Gettu, R., and Etse, G. (2002). “Study of the behavior of
concrete under triaxial compression.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2002)128:2(156), 156–163.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1980). “Strength and ductility of tied
concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 106(5), 1079–1102.
Smith, S. S., Willam, K. J., Gerstle, K. H., and Sture, S. (1989). “Con-
crete over the top, or: Is there life after peak?” ACI Mater. J., 86(5),
491–497.
Su, E. C. M., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1988). “Biaxial compression fatigue and
discontinuity of concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 85(3), 178–188.
Tan, K. H., and Sun, X. (2006). “Failure criteria of concrete under triaxial
compression.” ACI Spec. Publ., 238, 235–248.
Tasuji, M. E., Slate, F. O., and Nilson, A. H. (1978). “Stress-strain response
and fracture of concrete in biaxial loading.” ACI J. Proc., 75(7),
306–312.
Traina, L. A. (1983). “Experimental stress–strain behavior of a low strength
concrete under multiaxial states of stress.” Technical Rep. No. AFWL-
TR-72-59, Air Force Weapon Lab, Kirtland Air Force Base, Kirtland
AFB, NM.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Traina, L. A., and Mansour, S. A. (1991). “Biaxial strength and deforma-
tional behavior of plain and steel fiber concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 88(4),
354–362.
Untiveros, C. A. (2002). “Estudio experimental del comportamiento del
hormigón confinado sometido a compresión.” Ph.D. thesis, Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Valentini, B., and Hofstetter, G. (2013). “Review and enhancement of 3D
concrete models for large-scale numerical simulations of concrete struc-
tures.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 37(3), 221–246.
Van Mier, J. G. M. (1984). “Strain-softening of concrete under multiaxial
loading conditions.” Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven Univ. of Technology,
Netherlands.
Vermeer, P. A., and de Borst, R. (1984). “Non-associated plasticity for soils,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 06/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete and rock.” Heron, 29(3), 1–64.
Vu, X. H., Malecot, Y., Daudeville, L., and Buzaud, E. (2009). “Experi-
mental analysis of concrete behavior under high confinement: Effect
of the saturation ratio.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 46(5), 1105–1120.
© ASCE 04016113-12
View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., 04016113
Wang, C. Z., Guo, Z. H., and Zhang, X. Q. (1987). “Experimental inves-
tigation of biaxial and triaxial compressive concrete strength.” ACI Ma-
ter. J., 84(2), 92–100.
Willam, K. J., and Warnke, E. P. (1975). “Constitutive model for the triaxial
behaviour of concrete.” Proc., Int. Association for Bridge and Struc-
tural Engineering, Istituto Sperimentale Modelli e Strutture (ISMES),
Bergamo, Italy, 1–30.
Xie, J., Elwi, A. E., and Macgregor, J. G. (1995). “Mechanical properties
of three high-strength concretes containing silica fume.” ACI Mater. J.,
92(2), 135–145.
Yin, W. S., Su, E. C. M., Mansur, M. A., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1989). “Biaxial
tests of plain and fiber concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 86(3), 236–243.
Yu, T., Teng, J. G., Wong, Y. L., and Dong, S. L. (2010a). “Finite element
modeling of confined concrete—I: Drucker-Prager type plasticity
model.” Eng. Struct., 32(3), 665–679.
Yu, T., Teng, J. G., Wong, Y. L., and Dong, S. L. (2010b). “Finite element
modeling of confined concrete—II: Plastic-damage model.” Eng.
Struct., 32(3), 680–691.
J. Struct. Eng.