Behavior of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete

Confined by Steel
Xiong Yang, S.M.ASCE 1; Pedram Zohrevand, A.M.ASCE 2; and Amir Mirmiran, F.ASCE 3

Abstract: Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) offers a superior alternative to normal-strength concrete (NSC) due to its significantly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

higher compressive and tensile strengths, improved ductility, and enhanced durability. This paper presents an experimental study of the stress-
strain behavior of UHPC confined by conventional transverse steel reinforcement. Test results are compared with two confinement models, as
well as a large amount of available data on steel-confined NSC and high-strength concrete (HSC), and limited data available for UHPC
confined by fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). The study shows a potential threshold of confinement ratio beyond which the confinement
effectiveness of UHPC exceeds that of HSC and nears that of NSC. This may have implications on the minimum level of confinement
reinforcement for UHPC. For the most part, steel reinforcement is more effective than FRP as the confining device for UHPC, except
for the very high end of confinement ratios, where FRP may become more effective. For the same confinement ratio, steel-confined UHPC
has a larger ultimate strain than FRP-confined UHPC. Of the two types of FRP, glass leads to a higher ultimate strain than carbon, primarily
due to its lower elastic modulus, and hence higher deformability. Additional research on larger-scale columns can help develop requirements
for confinement reinforcement of UHPC. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001623. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete; Confinement; Steel spiral reinforcement; Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC).

Introduction A number of stress-strain models exist for steel-confined NSC

Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) is a cementitious-based
composite material with short steel fibers, a compressive strength
exceeding 150 MPa (21.8 ksi), and a postcracking tensile strength
approaching 5 MPa (0.73 ksi). UHPC has a much better durability
in comparison to conventional and high-strength concretes, due in
part to its discontinuous pore structure (Graybeal 2011). To date,
UHPC has found its way into a variety of structural applications
around the globe, ranging from precast bridge girders and bridge
waffle decks to cast-in-situ joints between precast units (Russell
and Graybeal 2013).
Given its enhanced ductility, UHPC may prove ideal for column
applications in regions with expected large lateral loading, from
either high winds or high seismicity. However, knowledge on
the confinement behavior of UHPC is very limited. Zohrevand
and Mirmiran (2011) tested 16 UHPC-filled fiber-reinforced poly-
mer (FRP) tubes with four different thicknesses for glass FRP tubes
and two different thicknesses for carbon FRP tubes. Based on those
test results, Zohrevand and Mirmiran (2013) recalibrated two
existing stress-strain models of FRP-confined normal-strength con-
crete (NSC) to extend their applications to FRP-confined UHPC.
However, there is no parallel study for UHPC confined by conven-
tional transverse steel reinforcement.
1 lack of brittleness due to its fiber content. Lastly, this study
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Florida International Univ., Miami, FL 33174. E-mail: xyang010@fiu.edu
2
President, CES4, 150 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 300, Miami, FL 33131.
E-mail: pedram@ces4.com
3
Provost and Lindsey Chair, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texas
at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX 75799 (corresponding author).
E-mail: amirmiran@uttyler.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 15, 2015; approved
on February 23, 2016; published online on May 23, 2016. Discussion per-
iod open until October 23, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
(e.g., Scott et al. 1982; Mander et al. 1988a; Saatcioglu and Razvi
1992). These models, however, typically overestimate the confine-
ment effectiveness for high-strength concrete (HSC), which tends
to be more brittle than NSC. In contrast, Ahmad and Shah (1982),
Yong et al. (1988), Cusson and Paultre (1995), and Kim (2007)
have proposed confinement models specific to HSC. On the other
hand, few confinement models have focused on both NSC and HSC
applications (e.g., Li 1994; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1999; Assa
et al. 2001a, b). To date, the applicability of any of these existing
models to steel-confined UHPC has not been thoroughly examined.
Similarly, no such model has been developed for steel-confined
UHPC.
This paper presents a first-ever study of the stress-strain behav-
ior of UHPC confined by conventional transverse steel reinforce-
ment. It further evaluates the applicability of two existing models
(Mander et al. 1988a; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1999) to steel-confined
UHPC, with the former model originally developed specifically for
NSC and the latter model applicable to both NSC and HSC. Of
particular interest, this study provides an opportunity to assess
the effect of unconfined concrete strength on its confinement
behavior for a wide range of concrete strengths from NSC to
UHPC, traversing through the range of HSC. This study aims at
addressing an important question as to whether the confinement
behavior of UHPC is more similar to that of HSC given its ultrahigh
strength, or contrasts that of HSC given its higher deformability and
compares the behavior of FRP-confined and steel-confined UHPC
to determine which of the two confining devices may be more
effective for UHPC.
Experimental Program
Test Specimens and Materials
As shown in Table 1, the test matrix for this study included a total of
21 specimens, consisting of 3 unconfined (plain) UHPC and 18

© ASCE 04016113-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113

 Table 1. Test Matrix
Spiral wire Spiral wire Core diameter Volumetric ratio
Specimen Number of identical Spiral spacing/pitch, diameter, cross sectional to bar center of confinement
group specimens mm (in.) mm (in.) area [mm2 (in.2 )] [mm (in.)] reinforcement (ρs )
Plain 3 — — — — —
0.2W-2.0P 3 51 (2.0) 5.1 (0.2) 18 (0.03) 89 (3.5) 0.016
0.2W-1.0P 3 25 (1.0) 5.1 (0.2) 18 (0.03) 89 (3.5) 0.032
0.2W-0.5P 3 13 (0.5) 5.1 (0.2) 18 (0.03) 89 (3.5) 0.064
0.3W-1.5P 3 38 (1.5) 7.6 (0.3) 46 (0.07) 86 (3.4) 0.056
0.3W-1.0P 3 25 (1.0) 7.6 (0.3) 46 (0.07) 86 (3.4) 0.083
0.3W-0.5P 3 13 (0.5) 7.6 (0.3) 46 (0.07) 86 (3.4) 0.167
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

steel-confined UHPC specimens. None of the specimens included
any longitudinal reinforcement. The confinement was provided by
steel wire spirals with a yield strength of 414 MPa (60 ksi). Test
variables included wire diameter and spiral pitch. Two different
diameters of steel wires were used, i.e., 5.1 and 7.6 mm (0.2
and 0.3 in.). Similarly, four different pitch sizes of spiral were used,
ranging from 12.7 to 50.8 mm (1=2 to 2 in.). The volumetric ratio of
the confining steel (ρs ) varied between 0.016 and 0.167, represent-
ing a wide range given the very high strength of UHPC. Three iden-
tical specimens were prepared and tested for each group of
parameters to ensure repeatability of test results.
The UHPC material used in this study was a commercial prod-
uct, Ductal (Lafarge North America, Chicago, Illinois), composed
of premix powder, water, superplasticizer, and 2% steel fibers by
volume. The premix powder is made of cement, silica fume, ground
quartz, and sand. The steel fibers had an average length of 13 mm
(0.5 in.) and a tensile strength of 2,800 MPa (406 ksi). All 21 spec-
imens were cast using a single batch of UHPC to avoid any possible
variability in the control parameter, i.e., the compressive strength of
unconfined core.
Specimen Fabrication
Fig. 1(a) shows the 102 × 203 mm (4 × 8 in.) cylindrical molds
used for casting the specimens along with the small wooden frames
used to hold the steel spirals in place and to prevent any movement
during the casting process. The steel spirals were made deliberately
longer than the molds to ensure their proper placement from atop
without any lateral intrusions into the molds that may lead to pre-
mature spalling of cover concrete under loading. Few spacers
placed sparsely in between the mold and the spiral helped maintain
a clear cover of 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) throughout the length of each
specimen. All specimens were demolded 2 week after casting,
and the extra length of spirals above the top surface was cut, as
shown in Fig. 1(b). In order to prepare the specimens for compres-
sion tests, and since grinding of the top and bottom surfaces was not
feasible with the spiral arrangement, an additional layer of UHPC
was cast on the top and bottom of every confined specimen as a cap,
with an approximate thickness of 13 mm (1=2 in.). The top and
bottom UHPC caps were then grinded to create perfectly smooth
and plumb surfaces to ensure even distribution of axial loading and
to avoid premature failure.
Instrumentation and Test Set-Up
All specimens were tested under uniaxial compression using a
2,890 kN (650 kip) compression testing machine at the Titan Amer-
ica’s Pennsuco Concrete Laboratory in Medley, Florida. The load-
ing rate was maintained at about 133 kN=min (30 kip=min).
The experiments were conducted in load control, and therefore,
postpeak strain data represent the lower bounds of the ductility
of UHPC. One string potentiometer was attached to the platform
of the compression machine to measure the vertical displacement
of the specimen, as shown in Fig. 2. The axial compression load
and the vertical displacement were both measured at a constant fre-
quency of 1 Hz.
Test Observations
The typical failure modes for the unconfined (plain) and the
confined UHPC specimens with the highest volumetric ratio of

Fig. 1. Specimen preparation: (a) casting frame; (b) extra spirals removed

© ASCE 04016113-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113

 vertical direction. The specimens of this group also showed a
gradual load drop after the peak load. The other confined speci-
mens, on the other hand, did not exhibit a specific failure mode
or crack pattern, and only demonstrated a sudden load drop after
the peak load. Fig. 3(c) shows the facture of steel spirals, as visually
detected for one of the specimens in Group 0.2W-1.0P.

Stress-Strain Response
Table 2 summarizes test results, including maximum compressive
load, peak compressive strength, ultimate axial strain, confinement
ratio, and confinement effectiveness. The confinement ratio is de-
fined as the ratio of the effective lateral confining pressure (fl0 ),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

calculated from Eq. (1) (taken from Mander et al. 1988a) to the
0
unconfined compressive strength of plain UHPC (f co ), as
Fig. 2. Test setup 1
f’l ¼ ke ρs f yh ð1Þ
2
where fyh = yield strength of transverse steel; ρs = volumetric ratio
confinement (i.e., ρs of 0.167) are captured in Figs. 3(a and b), re- of transverse confining steel to confined concrete core; and ke =
spectively. The failure of unconfined UHPC was marked by a confinement effectiveness coefficient, as
gradual widening of multiple cracks in the vertical direction with
0
inconsequential concrete crushing or spalling. The steel fibers in 1 − 2d
s

the mix helped increase ductility of the specimen and prevented ke ¼ s

ð2Þ
1 − ρcc
any explosive failure. The failure of confined UHPC specimens,
Group 0.3W0-0.5P, occurred with the crushing of concrete around where ds = center-to-center diameter of spiral; s 0 = clear spacing
the midheight of the specimen along with some cracks in the (pitch) between spiral wires; and ρcc = ratio of area of longitudinal

Fig. 3. Typical failure modes: (a) plain UHPC; (b) Group 0.3W-0.5P; (c) spiral fracture

© ASCE 04016113-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113

 Table 2. Summary of Test Results
Confinement Maximum load Peak strength Confinement effectiveness
Specimen group ratio (fl0 =f co
0
) [kN (kip)] [MPa (ksi)] Ultimate strain 0
(f cc 0
=f co )
Plain — 1,223 (275) 151 (21.9) 0.0057 —
0.2W-2.0P 0.016 1,370 (308) 169 (24.5) 0.0074 1.12
0.2W-1.0P 0.039 1,465 (329) 181 (26.2) 0.0128 1.20
0.2W-0.5P 0.084 1,712 (385) 211 (30.6) 0.0113 1.40
0.3W-1.5P 0.063 1,349 (303) 166 (24.1) 0.0110 1.10
0.3W-1.0P 0.103 1,813 (408) 224 (32.4) 0.0145 1.48
0.3W-0.5P 0.222 2,098 (472) 259 (37.5) 0.0194 1.72
Note: All values represent the average for identical specimens in each group.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

steel to area of UHPC core, which in this case was zero. The con-
finement effectiveness is defined as the ratio of the compressive
0
strength of confined UHPC (f cc ) to its unconfined compressive
strength. The axial strain was calculated based on the displacement
data from the string potentiometer. Because in most cases, it was
very difficult to visually identify the first hoop fracture of the trans-
verse reinforcement, the ultimate strain was captured as the point
where the load dropped to 80% of the peak capacity, as suggested
by Park and Paulay (1975). The data for each testing group were the
average of three identical specimens. Compared to the unconfined
(plain) UHPC, confinement enhanced the peak strength of UHPC
by as much as 72% and increased its ultimate strain by as much
as 240%.
Fig. 4 shows the typical stress-strain response curve for the un-
confined (plain) UHPC. Unlike the normal-strength concrete, the
response is almost linear up to the peak strength, followed by a
sudden load drop. All test results for the confined UHPC specimens
are shown in Figs. 5(a–f), while maintaining the same scale for a
more clear comparison. The stress-strain response curves for almost
all confined specimens may be divided into three stages. The initial
stage is linear and quite similar to that of unconfined UHPC. At this
stage, it is primarily the UHPC core that resists the axial compres-
sion, as its lateral dilation is not yet adequate to activate the trans-
verse confining reinforcement. The second stage corresponds to a
nonlinear and nonelastic behavior with an increased dilation of the
UHPC core, which in turn activates the transverse confining steel.
The third and final stage is marked by either a gradual load decrease
or a sudden load drop after the specimen reaches its peak strength.
The nonelastic behavior in the second and third stages seems to
depend on the volumetric ratio of confinement reinforcement.
Fig. 4. Typical stress-strain response of unconfined UHPC
The higher the volumetric ratio of confinement reinforcement in
the specimen, the more plastic the response becomes.
Analytical Modeling
Stress-Strain Relationship
In addition to the test results, Figs. 5(a–f) show the predicted stress-
strain response curves for each group of specimens based on the
two existing confinement models developed by Mander et al.
(1988a) and Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999). Of the two models,
Mander’s was developed specifically for NSC, whereas the one by
Razvi and Saatcioglu was developed for both NSC and HSC ap-
plications for a range of compressive strengths from 30 to 130 MPa
(4.4 to 18.9 ksi) (Razvi and Satcioglu 1996).
The stress-strain response curves predicted by the Mander
model were stopped at the ultimate axial compressive strain based
on the model’s energy balance approach to identify the first hoop
fracture (Mander et al. 1988b). The figures also show another (more
conservative) ultimate compressive strain marked on the same
stress-strain response curve based on an approach suggested by
Paulay and Priestley (1992), integrated into the Mander model.
The stress-strain response curves predicted by the Razvi and
Saatcioglu model were all based on the in-member strength of
unconfined concrete, corresponding to 85% of the unconfined
strength of UHPC. As a result, the peak strength of the model also
represents an 85% reduction of the unconfined strength of UHPC,
leading to lower predictions than those of the Mander model. An-
other point of contrast between the two models is in the postpeak
descending branch of the response curve, which is linear and rather
sharp in the Razvi and Saatcioglu model, as compared to the more
gradual and curvilinear branch observed in the Mander model.
It appears that in general, the Mander model can predict rather
accurately the stress-strain response for confined UHPC up to its
peak strength, except for Group 0.3W-1.5P, which was overesti-
mated by about 18% on the peak strength. On the other hand,
the Razvi and Saatcioglu model generally underestimated both
the peak strength and the corresponding strain. Moreover, the
model did not capture the apparent deformability and plasticity
of confined UHPC as observed in the experiments. As for the post-
peak response, it appears that neither of the two models could ac-
curately predict the behavior of confined UHPC. The model of
Razvi and Saatcioglu underestimated the plastic behavior of con-
fined UHPC specimens with its linear postpeak prediction, whereas
the Mander model overestimated the ductility of the specimens
with its nearly plateau postpeak response. Of the two approaches
for estimating the ultimate strain of confined concrete in the
Mander model, the one suggested by Paulay and Priestley (1992)
seems to be more accurate than the energy balance approach em-
bedded in the model.

© ASCE 04016113-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Stress-strain responses and predictions for confined UHPC specimen groups: (a) 0.2W-2P; (b) 0.2W-1P; (c) 0.2W-0.5P; (d) 0.3W-1.5P;
(e) 0.3W-1P; (f) 0.3W-0.5P

Effect of Unconfined Concrete Strength on
Confinement Effectiveness
Fig. 6 shows confinement effectiveness versus confinement ratio
for a large number of previous test data of steel-confined NSC
and HSC from the literature, along with results of the present study
for steel-confined UHPC. To eliminate the effect of column shape,
only circular sections were included in this comparison. The
strength of unconfined concrete for previous tests ranged from
24 to 105 MPa (3.5 to 15.2 ksi). The figure includes limited data
available on fiber-reinforced HSC cylinders confined with steel ties
(Hsu and Hsu 1994). Their study showed little increase in confine-
ment effectiveness with the increase of fiber volume. Fig. 6 also
shows the prediction curves by the models of (1) Mander, and
(2) Razvi and Saatcioglu. In comparison, the model by Razvi

© ASCE 04016113-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Confinement effectiveness versus confinement ratio for steel-
confined concrete
and Saatcioglu is more conservative, particularly at higher confine-
ment ratio levels. On the other hand, both models provide a
reasonably good prediction of the confinement effectiveness for
a wide range of concrete strengths spanning from NSC to HSC
and UHPC. One may argue that the conservative nature of the
Razvi and Saatcioglu model may be more appropriate for
higher-strength concretes, although earlier discussions in the
previous section questioned its ability to accurately predict the
postpeak response.
Capitalizing on the data from Fig. 6, the effects of unconfined
concrete strength on its confinement effectiveness are shown in
Figs. 7(a and b) for two separate and narrow ranges of confinement
ratios, namely and respectively, a medium level of confinement
ratio (between 0.09 and 0.11, centering around 0.1), and a low
level of confinement ratio (between 0.04 and 0.06, centering
around 0.05). From Fig. 7(a), it can be seen that the confinement
Fig. 7. Confinement effectiveness versus unconfined strength for confinement ratio of (a) 0.09–0.11; (b) 0.04–0.06
© ASCE 04016113-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113
effectiveness decreases with the increase of unconfined concrete
strength up to around 100 MPa (14.5 ksi), but then it reverses
its direction and begins to increase at higher concrete strengths en-
tering into the range of UHPC. This suggests a contrasting behavior
between UHPC and HSC, which is statistically validated with the
coefficient of determination (R2 ) of 63%, shown in Fig. 7(a). There-
fore, one may conclude that the effectiveness of confinement for
UHPC is higher than that of HSC and closer to that of NSC.
On the other hand, Fig. 7(b) shows a generally linear and decreas-
ing trend of confinement effectiveness versus unconfined concrete
strength for the entire range from NSC to UHPC, albeit noncon-
clusive with its statistically low coefficient of determination (R2 )
of less than 1%. While there is certainly a need for additional re-
search in this area, preliminary data suggest that there may be a
threshold of confinement ratio beyond which the confinement ef-
fectiveness of UHPC exceeds that of HSC and nears that of NSC.
This may have implications in the building codes to prescribe a
minimum level of confinement reinforcement for UHPC.
Although data from Hsu and Hsu (1994) were not in the range of
confinement ratio to be included in Fig. 7, the confinement effec-
tiveness of UHPC may not be due to its higher strength but rather its
higher deformability and lack of brittleness, which indeed stems
from the presence of fibers in the UHPC mix. Further research
can help isolate the effects of fiber content and compressive
strength of concrete on its confinement effectiveness.
Comparison of Steel-Confined and FRP-Confined
UHPC
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of confinement effectiveness for steel-
confined UHPC of the present study and the FRP-confined UHPC
of an earlier study (Zohrevand and Mirmiran 2011). It appears that
steel reinforcement is generally more effective than FRP as the con-
fining device, except for the very high end of confinement ratios
(about 0.2). There again seems to be a threshold of confinement
ratio beyond which FRP serves as a more-effective confining de-
vice for UHPC as compared to steel. This too may have implica-
tions for building codes to prescribe a comparable confinement
ratio for FRP to lead to the same level of effectiveness as steel.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison of confinement effectiveness for steel-confined
versus FRP-confined UHPC
Fig. 9. Comparison of ultimate strains for steel-confined versus FRP-
confined UHPC
The figure also shows the confinement models of (1) Mander,
and (2) Razvi and Saatcioglu along with their coefficients of deter-
mination for predicting the test results of steel-confined and FRP-
confined UHPC. It appears that for both types of confining devices
(steel or FRP), the model of Razvi and Saatcioglu provides a more
accurate prediction of the confinement effectiveness for UHPC than
the Mander model does.
As a pseudomeasure of ductility, Fig. 9 shows a comparison
of the ultimate compressive strains of steel-confined and FRP-
confined UHPC, with either a glass or carbon jacket. The ultimate
strains shown in the figure are the average values of each group of
identical specimens. The figure shows that for the same confine-
ment ratio, steel-confined UHPC has a larger ultimate strain than
FRP-confined UHPC. This may be attributed to the elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior, and hence higher deformability of steel,
as compared with the linear elastic response of FRP. In addition,
glass FRP leads to a higher ultimate strain than carbon FRP. This
may stem from the lower elastic modulus, and hence higher de-
formability of glass as compared with carbon FRP.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113
Conclusions
An experimental study of the stress-strain behavior of UHPC
confined by conventional transverse steel reinforcement was pre-
sented. Test results were compared with two existing confinement
models for NSC and HSC, as well as a large number of data from
the literature on steel-confined NSC or HSC, and limited data avail-
able for FRP-confined UHPC. The following conclusions may be
drawn:
• Of the two available confinement models, the one by Mander,
although originally developed for NSC, predicts the stress-strain
response of steel-confined UHPC more accurately up to its peak
strength, compared to the one by Razvi and Saatcioglu. Neither
of the two models, however, could accurately predict the post-
peak behavior of confined UHPC. Of the two approaches for
estimating the ultimate strain in the Mander model, the one sug-
gested by Paulay and Priestley seems to be more accurate than
the energy balance approach embedded in the model.
• There seems to be a threshold of confinement ratio beyond
which the confinement effectiveness of UHPC exceeds that
of HSC and nears that of NSC. This may have implications
on the minimum level of confinement reinforcement for UHPC.
• For the most part, steel reinforcement is more effective than FRP
as the confining device for UHPC, except for the very high end
of confinement ratios (about 0.2), where FRP may become more
effective.
• For the same confinement ratio, steel-confined UHPC has a
larger ultimate strain than FRP-confined UHPC. This may be
attributed to the elastic-perfectly plastic behavior, and hence
higher deformability of steel, as compared with the linear elastic
response of FRP. Of the two FRP types, glass leads to a higher
ultimate strain than carbon, primarily due to its lower elastic
modulus, and hence higher deformability.
Further research can help understand more thoroughly the con-
finement behavior of UHPC with transverse steel reinforcement.
The experiments must extend to larger-scale columns with square
or circular cross sections covering practical ranges of confinement
reinforcement as well as longitudinal reinforcement for UHPC.
Further research can help isolate the effects of fiber content and
compressive strength of concrete on its confinement effectiveness.
Acknowledgments
This study was an extension on the project sponsored by the
NSF-Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research
(NEESR) program, as part of the completed multiuniversity Grant
No. CMS-0420347. The authors are also grateful to the support of
Lafarge, Inc. for providing the UHPC materials, Ductal; and the
Titan America Pennsuco Concrete Laboratory for availing their
high-capacity testing facility to this project. The first author is also
thankful to the Graduate School at Florida International University
for providing him with a Dissertation Year Fellowship to complete
his doctoral work. The views and findings reported here are those
of the authors alone, and not necessarily the views of supporting
agencies.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
ds = center-to-center diameter of spiral;
0 = compressive strength of confined UHPC;
fcc
0
fco = compressive strength of unconfined (plain) UHPC;
f l0 = effective lateral confining pressure of UHPC core;
04016113-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 f yh =
yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
ke =
confinement effectiveness coefficient;
s0 =
clear spacing (pitch) between spiral wires;
ρcc =
ratio of area of longitudinal steel to area of UHPC core,
which was zero in this study; and
ρs = volumetric ratio of transverse confining steel to confined
UHPC core.
References
Ahmad, S., and Shah, S. (1982). “Stress-strain curves of concrete confined
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by United Arab Emirates University on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by spiral reinforcement.” ACI J., 79(6), 484–490.
Assa, B., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. (2001a). “New approach for
modeling confined concrete. I: Circular columns.” J. Struct. Eng.,
127(7), 743–750.
Assa, B., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. (2001b). “New approach for
modeling confined concrete. II: Rectangular columns.” J. Struct.
Eng., 127(7), 751–757.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1995). “Stress-strain model for confined high-
strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 12(3), 468–477.
Graybeal, B. (2011). “Ultra-high performance concrete.” Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA.
Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T. T. (1994). “Stress-strain behavior of steel-fiber
high-strength concrete under compression.” ACI Struct. J., 94(4),
448–457.
Kim, S. (2007). “Behavior of high-strength concrete columns.” Ph.D.
dissertation, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Li, B. (1994). “Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete members and
frames constructed using high strength concrete.” Research Rep. No.
94-5, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 389.
© ASCE 04016113-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016113
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988a). “Observed
stress-strain behavior of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8),
1827–1849.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988b). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804–1826.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
New York.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic Design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1996). “Tests of high-strength concrete col-
umns under concentric loading.” Rep. No. OCEERC 96-03, Ottawa
Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Ottawa, 147.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1999). “Confinement model for
high-strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 125(3), 281–289.
Russell, H. G., and Graybeal, B. A. (2013). “Ultra-high performance
concrete: A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community.” Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of confined
concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 118(6), 1590–1607.
Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). “Stress-strain behavior
of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.”
ACI J., 79(1), 13–27.
Yong, Y. K., Nour, M. G., and Nawy, E. G. (1988). “Behavior of laterally
confined high-strength concrete under axial loads.” J. Struct. Eng.,
114(2), 332–351.
Zohrevand, P., and Mirmiran, A. (2011). “Behavior of ultra-high perfor-
mance concrete confined by fiber-reinforced polymers.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 23(12), 1727–1734.
Zohrevand, P., and Mirmiran, A. (2013). “Stress-strain model of ultra-high
performance concrete confined by fiber-reinforced polymers.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 25(12), 1822–1829.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.