Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Three-dimensional finite element modeling and theoretical analysis of

concrete confined with FRP rings
Jun-Jie Zeng a, Shu-Peng Chen a, Yan Zhuge b, Wan-Yang Gao c, Zhi-Jian Duan a, Yong-
Chang Guo a, *
a
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
b
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
c
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The confinement mechanism of concrete fully confined with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) jacket (FRP jacketed
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) concrete) is different from that of concrete partially confined with FRP (i.e., FRP ring-confined concrete and FRP
Confinement tie-confined concrete) in that the confinement in the latter is non-uniform along the longitudinal direction. In
Arching action
order to build a bridge between FRP jacketed concrete and FRP ring/tie-confined concrete, the current design of
Finite element (FE) analysis
concrete confined with FRP rings/ties relies on the “arching action” assumption, which is not necessarily ac­
FRP ring/tie-confined concrete
Stress distribution curate as it was proposed for concrete confined with steel stirrups. Moreover, the arching action assumption
usually adopts a hypothesis that the arching action angle equals to 45◦ , which has not been verified by any
theoretical or experimental evidence. To this end, a revised analysis model has been implemented in an advanced
finite element (FE) approach to study the axial stress distributions in concrete confined with FRP rings. The stress
distribution at the center level of two adjacent FRP rings/ties is obtained, and the relationship between the
arching action angle and controlling parameters (i.e., unconfined concrete strength, FRP width, FRP thickness
and clear spacing of FRP rings) is established based on a proposed theoretical model of arching action angle. A
new confinement effectiveness coefficient is then proposed, leading to a much more reliable prediction of the
FRP ring-confined concrete in circular columns. The results presented in the current study can be easily extended
to the concrete columns internally reinforced with FRP ties/spiral.

1. Introduction is confined with discontinuous FRP rings/ties. However, the design of

The use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites (wet lay-up
wrapping) for strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) columns has
gained increasing attention during the last three decades [1–12]. On the
other hand, construction of RC structures using FRP bars instead of steel
reinforcement has a promising future due to the excellent durability of
FRP bars under chloride ion exposure. The performance of the confined
concrete with FRP full wrapping (Fig. 1a) has been extensively investi­
gated (e.g., [1–9]), while FRP partial strengthening, usually applied by
discontinuous (spaced) FRP rings or using internal FRP ties (Fig. 1b and
c), is rarely investigated (e.g., [13–26]). The confinement mechanism of
the concrete confined with FRP rings (i.e., FRP ring-confined concrete,
herein abbreviated as FRCC) is similar to that of the confined concrete
with internal FRP stirrups in FRP-RC structures (i.e., FRP tie-confined
concrete structures as shown in Fig. 1c), as in both cases the concrete
the concrete confined with FRP rings/ties relies on the “arching action”
assumption [27–28,48], which is not necessarily accurate as it was
proposed for the concrete confined with steel stirrups (spirals or ties).
The “arching action” assumption is adopted to describe the stress-
strain behavior of concrete confined with steel stirrups [27–28]. This
assumption, which is well known for structural engineers, is adopted by
some design codes of FRP for construction [50–51] to account for the
confinement mechanism associated with the discontinuous FRP rings/
ties. Based on the “arching action” assumption, the vertical confinement
effectiveness coefficient is equal to the ratio between the effective
confinement area (Ae ) and the whole sectional area (Ag ) (Fig. 2), as can
be approximately computed as [50]:
2
Ae ( s’f )
kv = = 1− (1)
Ag 2D

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guoyc@gdut.edu.cn (Y.-C. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111966
Received 23 February 2020; Received in revised form 17 December 2020; Accepted 23 January 2021
Available online 15 February 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

(a) FRP jacket-confined concrete (b) FRP ring-confined concrete (c) FRP tie-confined concrete
Fig. 1. FRP-confined concrete with different confining systems.

(a) Arching action (b) Effective confinement area

Fig. 2. Effective confinement area in concrete confined with FRP rings/ties.

Therefore, the effective confining stress in FRCC can be described as: stress distribution is susceptible to the surface treatment and the in­
homogeneity of concrete, leading to some fluctuations in the recorded
ρf Ef εh
fl,a = kv σl = kv (2) stress distribution [29]. Therefore, such experimental difficulty for
2
stress measurements hinders the in-depth understanding of FCC with
where s’f is the clear spacing between two adjacent FRP rings, D is the non-uniform FRP confinement.
In order to overcome the shortcomings of the stress measurement
specimen diameter, ρf is the FRP volumetric ratio, Ef is the modulus of
method as mentioned above, finite element (FE) analysis was used as an
elasticity of FRP and εh is the hoop strain in FRP.
alternative and reliable approach to investigate the axial stress distri­
Based on the design method using the “arching action” assumption,
bution in concrete [30–46]. The internal stress or strain state in engi­
the axial compressive behavior of FRCC has a unique stress-strain curve
neering structures, which has proven to be hardly measured properly,
once the product of the vertical confinement effectiveness coefficient
can be simulated and predicted accurately by the FE analysis in many
and the FRP volumetric ratio are identical. However, the “arching ac­
cases [42–45]. More recently, several FE studies were conducted with
tion” assumption usually adopts a hypothesis that the arching action
respect to structural members associated with FCC [35–46]. In partic­
angle (θ) (see Fig. 2) equals to 45◦ , which has not been verified by any
ular, a revised constitutive law of the concrete damaged plasticity model
theoretical or experimental evidence. Teng et al. [29] has presented a
(CDPM), proposed and carefully validated by Yu et al. [32], was proved
novel method based on the Tekscan pressure mapping system for the
to be accurate in capturing behavior of FCC with non-uniform confine­
measurements of axial stress distribution in FRP-confined concrete
ment [29–30,42,44–45] because the model includes necessary elements
(abbreviated as FCC) with non-uniform FRP confinement. However, the

2
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Table 1
Details of design parameters and test results.
Specimen bf tf ρf s’f /D ρf k v fco
’ εco εh,rup fcc
’ εcc fcc
’
FE
εcc FE

H-20-40-3-1 20 0.501 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0155 54.38 0.0230 54.17 0.0176
H-20-40-3-2 20 0.501 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0123 51.86 0.0175 49.84 0.0135
H-30-33-2-1 30 0.334 0.42 0.22 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0129 55.46 0.0204 51.17 0.0142
H-30-33-2-2 30 0.334 0.42 0.22 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0134 55.29 0.0210 51.64 0.0146
H-40-40-2-1 40 0.334 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0126 57.43 0.0171 50.08 0.0144
H-40-40-2-2 40 0.334 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0132 56.81 0.0170 51.01 0.0148
H-30-25-3-1 30 0.501 0.73 0.17 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0126 71.53 0.0199 64.87 0.0205
H-30-25-3-2 30 0.501 0.73 0.17 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0122 70.45 0.0211 64.26 0.0200
H-35-40-4-1 35 0.668 0.83 0.27 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0108 68.37 0.0184 58.86 0.0177
H-35-40-4-2 35 0.668 0.83 0.27 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0125 70.79 0.0238 63.09 0.0209
H-40-44-4-1 40 0.668 0.85 0.29 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0136 70.01 0.0229 63.46 0.0218
H-40-44-4-2 40 0.668 0.85 0.29 0.62 38.93 0.0027 − 0.0115 64.81 0.0231 59.33 0.0186

Note: bf —— Width of the FRP rings; tf —— Thickness of the FRP rings; fco
’
—— Unconfined concrete strength; εco —— Axial strain of unconfined concrete at peak
stress; fcc’ —— Ultimate axial stress of confined concrete; εcc —— Ultimate axial strain of confined concrete; εh,rup —— Hoop rupture strain of FRP.

for modeling of FCC (i.e., a yield criterion related to the third deviatoric
stress invariant, a confinement-dependent hardening rule and a rate of
confinement increment-dependent non-associated flow rule).
In light of research demand, an advanced FE model was adopted to
investigate the axial stress distributions in the concrete confined with
FRP rings. The experimental evidences, including the stress-strain
curves, the failure mode and the ultimate axial stress and strain, are
compared among specimens with a given value of ρf ke to demonstrate
the presence of arching action between adjacent FRP rings. A revised
analysis model based on Teng et al.’s [20,47] model, which was capable
of providing accurate predictions of FRCC, was employed to generate
required concrete material parameters in the FE model. The complete
stress-strain curves used in the simulation are based on model of
Popovics [64]. The stress distribution at the center of two adjacent FRP
rings/ties can then be obtained based on numerical simulation, and the
detailed value of the arching angle can be back-calculated with an
assumption that the axial stresses in the effective confinement area are
higher than 85% of the sectional average axial stress being adopted. The
relationship between the arching angle and the confining parameters (i.
e., the FRP width and thickness, the unconfined concrete strength, the
clear spacing of FRP rings and the FRP hoop strain level) is obtained
based on a proposed theoretical model in order to achieve a better un­
derstanding of the confinement mechanism and a practical design of
concrete confined with discontinuous (i.e., spaced) FRP rings/ties in
circular columns. A new coefficient for describing the confinement ef­
ficiency is proposed for concrete confined with spaced FRP rings/ties.
The theoretical results based on the proposed confinement efficiency
coefficient are demonstrated to be reliable and accurate through
comparing with the test results. The proposed confinement efficiency
coefficient is able to be adopted in different confinement models and
may be easily extended to FRP tie-confined concrete with various cross
sections.
2. Problem of the current design method
2.1. Experimental testing
There are two objectives for the experimental investigation pre­
sented in this paper: to demonstrate the existence of the arching action
effect based on the measured stress-strain responses and to expand the
existing data base. To this end, two groups of FRCC cylinders were
conducted and the product of the vertical confinement effectiveness

80 80
Axial stress (MPa)

60
Axial stress (MPa)

60

40 40

H-30-25-3-1
H-20-40-3-1
H-30-25-3-2
H-20-40-3-2
20 20 H-35-40-4-1
H-30-33-2-1
H-30-33-2-2 H-35-40-4-2
H-40-40-2-1 H-40-44-4-1
H-40-40-2-2 H-40-44-4-2
0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

(a) =0.33 (b) =0.62

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curves of FRCC.

3
J.-J. Zeng et al.
Fig. 4. Arching action in a failed FRCC specimen: experimental evidence [14].
coefficient and the FRP volumetric ratio for each group was set as the
same value (0.33 or 0.62). To achieve a constant ρf ke , the column pa­
rameters (i.e., the FRP ring widths, the clear spacing of adjacent FRP
rings as well as the FRP thicknesses) were designed to have different
values, as shown in Table 1.
Each FRP-confined concrete column was assigned by a label with five
parts linked with a symbol ‘–’ (see Table 1). The first denotes the
wrapping scheme with an “H” representing “hoops/rings”. The
following number denotes the width of the FRP strip, followed by two
numbers representing the clear spacing of two adjacent FRP rings and
the number of FRP layers, respectively. A more detailed testing setup
and information of the tests can be found in the literature [20].
2.2. Results and discussion
The test set-up, failure modes are reported in a companion paper on
experimental study on FRCC [20], and many of the test results are not
restated in the current study. Fig. 3 shows the axial stress-strain curves of
confined concrete in the tested specimens, which all exhibit a monotonic
ascending behavior. Interestingly, it can be seen from Fig. 3 that the
concrete confined with FRP rings exhibit a slight difference, although all
the specimens in the same group had the same value of ρf ke . The dif­
ference includes two aspects: i) the slopes of the second portion of the
stress-strain curves are slightly different; ii) the discrepancy of the ul­
timate axial stresses and ultimate axial strains of each two specimens in
the same group is evident. This observation implies that the current
design guidelines, in which the non-uniform confinement of FRCC is
only defined as a function of the vertical confinement effectiveness co­
efficient (see Eqs. (1)–(2) for more details), are questionable and inac­
curate for confined concrete with discontinuous FRP ring confinement.
The above discussion suggests that it is of significance to establish a
reliable and accurate vertical confinement effectiveness coefficient for
FRP ring/tie-confined concrete.
4
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
The experimental investigations on FRP ring-confined concrete also
show that the concrete between two adjacent FRP rings is badly confined
and generally experiences crushing failure at ultimate (Fig. 4 [14]),
implying the center of the section of the level at the mid-way between
two adjacent FRP rings is the effective confinement area. This demon­
strates the existing of arching action experimentally.
3. Finite element modeling
3.1. Materials and three-dimensional FE model
Zeng et al. [20,23] demonstrated that the existing dilation models
were not accurate in predicting the dilation behavior of concrete with
FRP ring wrapping. Consequently, the following dilation model pro­
posed in Ref. [20] for FRCC is adopted in the present study to generate
required concrete material parameters in the FE model:
( ){[ ( ) ]0.7 [ ( )]}
εc σl − εh − εh
= 0.60 1 + 20 ’ 1 + 0.75 − exp − 7 (3)
εco fco εco εco
where εc is the axial strain, εh is the hoop strain, εco the ultimate axial
strain of unconfined concrete, σ l is the confining stress.
An improved versatile constitutive CDPM which was proposed by Yu
et al. [32] is adopted in the present study. As the original CDPM in
ABAQUS is generally unable to accurately account for the FRP-confined
concrete with nonuniform confinement, the following equivalent
confining pressure equation suggested by Yu et al. [32] is adopted in the
present study:
( )( )
2 σ2 + 0.039fco’ σ3 + 0.039fco’
σ l,eff = − 0.039fco’ (4)
σ2 +σ3 + 0.078fco
’
where σ 2 and σ3 are the second and third principal stresses respectively.
This modification (Eq. (4)) was successfully implemented in ABAQUS
software using the user-defined subroutine (USDFLD). In the modified
CDPM, the same constitutive law is used for both confined and uncon­
fined concrete and the hardening/softening rule and the flow rule are
related to user-defined field variables including the plastic strain, the
confining pressure and the rate of confinement increment. The required
concrete parameters, including required input properties at different
user-defined field variables, are based on the model of Teng et al. [47]
and the revised dilation model [20]. The detailed element and material
property definitions for the FRP and concrete can be seen in the authors’
paper [45].
Following Zeng et al. [45], a one-fourth column model was devel­
oped considering that circular columns have a symmetrical feature.
Fig. 5 shows the details of an FE model of a FRCC circular column by
taking Specimen H-20-40-2-1 as an example. Eight-node solid elements
(i.e., C3D8R) and four-node shell elements (i.e., S4R) were adopted for
the concrete and the FRP respectively, with symmetrical boundary
condition being employed. In the FE model, additional confinement by
means of implementing a two-layer FRP ring for each end has been
adopted. This is also in line with the test specimen prepared in the
laboratory, which was designed with additional end confinement to
avoid failure at the end region where the stresses are complicated and
not easy to be interpreted. The meshes of the concrete core and the
external FRP rings are shown in Fig. 5b–c, as per mesh convergence
studies. Mesh sensitivity study was conducted, and a mesh size of 10 mm
was selected at the beginning for both FRP and concrete in an FRP ring-
confined concrete model. Reduced size of elements were subsequently
been adopted to see if there was any difference in numerical results. By
using different sizes of elements, only slight difference was seen in axial
stress distribution of concrete, while the size of elements has little in­
fluence on the stress-strain curves of FRP ring-confined concrete. A
suitable mesh size (i.e., 6 mm) was finally selected (Fig. 5b) as such an
element size provided almost the same numerical results as those
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

(a) An FE model for an FRCC column and the boundary conditions

(b) Meshing of concrete (c) Meshing and material direction of FRP

Fig. 5. Details of FE model of an FRP ring-confined circular column.

80 80

60 60
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40
H-20-1-1 Test H-30-2-1 Test
H-20-1-1 FE H-30-2-1 FE
20 H-30-1-1 Test 20 H-35-2-1Test
H-30-1-1 FE H-35-2-1 FE
H-40-1-1 Test H-40-2-1Test
H-40-1-1 FE H-40-2-1 FE
0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

Fig. 6. Comparison of test results and FE predictions.

5
J.-J. Zeng et al.
(a) Ultimate axial stress
Fig. 7. Comparisons between test results and FE results.
obtained by the FE models with smaller mesh sizes. Note that similar
element size has also been adopted by Teng et al. [42] in FRP-confined
concrete columns. For model of FRCC in the FE analysis, the FRP ring/tie
is tied to the concrete, as has been widely adopted in previous studies (e.
g. [41–45]). The assumption that no slide between FRP and concrete
occurs during the loading process is based on the following facts: i) the
overlapping zone in FRP jacket/ring ensures that there is no slide be­
tween adjacent layers in the FRP jacket/ring [65]; ii) observations based
on experimental studies have shown that FRP-confined concrete in cir­
cular columns dilates uniformly in the radial direction, and no slide or
debonding can be seen between the FRP and the concrete [54–58].
Fig. 8. Stress distribution in a shaft section (X-Z section) (Specimen H-20-20-2-
30, εc = 0.01).
6
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
(b) Ultimate axial strain
3.2. Validation of the model
As expected, the predicted axial stress-strain curves agreed reason­
ably well with the testing results (see Fig. 6). Comparisons between test
results and FE results with respect to the ultimate axial stress and the
ultimate axial strain are shown in Fig. 7. More specifically, it can be seen
that the deviation between the FE approach and the experimental results
is small (within 10% for most of the specimens) in terms of the ultimate
axial stress, while the deviation is relatively high in terms of the ultimate
axial strain, as in line with findings reported by Yu et al. [32]. The
comparisons between the test results and the simulation results also
show that the stress at the transition point linking the first linear
segment and the second ascending segment is underestimated by the FE
model. This is because the stress at the transition point is generally equal
to the unconfined concrete strength (based on the experimental un­
confined concrete strength) in the simulation, while the stress at the
transition point based on the test is slightly larger than the corre­
sponding unconfined concrete strength due to FRP confinement. Addi­
tionally, the slope of the second segment of the predicted curves slightly
increases with the axial strain, while the test results have a reverse
tendency. This is because the confining stresses in concrete between two
FRP rings are strongly non-uniform and the CDPM model in Yu et al.
[32] is less accurate for non-uniformly confined concrete than the uni­
formly confined concrete. The errors are considered as systematic errors,
which leads to insignificant effect on the study of the axial stress dis­
tribution in FRP ring-confined concrete.
The numerical results show that the columns with an identical ρf ke
exhibit close but different stress-strain responses, indicating that it is not
reasonable if only the confinement effectiveness coefficient [50–51] is
directly used for FRCC. The small difference between numerical curves
is due to the fact that the model of Yu et al. [32] was not exactly accurate
for concrete with non-uniform confinement as mentioned previously,
while it has been demonstrated that the model of Yu et al. [32] is the
most accurate model among exiting plasticity models [44]. The model of
Yu et al. [32] is adopted in the present study for parametric studies and
the possible errors of the model of Yu et al. [32] regarding the axial
stress-strain curves may have little implication on study of the axial
stress distribution which is the main scope of the present paper.
Fig. 8 shows axial stress distributions based on the FE analysis in a
shaft (axial-radial) section of Specimen H-20-20-2-30 at an axial strain
of 0.01 (εc = 0.01). It is obvious that the axial stress distributions are
periodic along with the height of the column with a spaced length equal
to the center-to-center spacing of FRP rings. It is also seen from Fig. 8
that the axial stresses at the mid-plain of each FRP ring level are larger
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

100 100 100

80 80 80
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

60 60 60

40 40 40
H-20-20-2-30 H-20-40-2-30 H-20-60-2-30
H-40-20-2-30 H-40-40-2-30 H-40-60-2-30
H-60-20-2-30 H-60-40-2-30 H-60-60-2-30
20 H-20-20-4-30 20 H-20-40-4-30 20 H-20-60-4-30
H-40-20-4-30 H-40-40-4-30 H-40-60-4-30
H-60-20-4-30 H-60-40-4-30 H-60-60-4-30
0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

(a) Effect of FRP width on stress-strain curves

100
100 100

80
80 80

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)
Axial stress (MPa)

60 60
60

40 40
40
H-20-20-2-30 H-40-20-2-30 H-60-20-2-30
H-20-40-2-30 H-40-40-2-30 H-60-40-2-30
H-20-60-2-30 H-40-60-2-30 H-60-60-2-30
20 20 H-60-20-4-30
20 H-20-20-4-30 H-40-20-4-30
H-20-40-4-30 H-40-40-4-30 H-60-40-4-30
H-20-60-4-30 H-40-60-4-30 H-60-60-4-30
0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

(b) Effect of FRP clear spacing on stress-strain curves

100 100 100

80 80 80
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

60 60 60

40 H-20-20-2-30 40 H-40-20-2-30 40 H-60-20-2-30

H-20-20-3-30 H-40-20-3-30 H-60-20-3-30
H-20-20-4-30 H-40-20-4-30 H-60-20-4-30
20 H-20-60-2-30 20 H-40-60-2-30 20 H-60-60-2-30
H-20-60-3-30 H-40-60-3-30 H-60-60-3-30
H-20-60-4-30 H-40-60-4-30 H-60-60-4-30
0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

(c) Effect of FRP layer on stress-strain curves

120 120
120

100 100
100
Axial stress (MPa)
Axial stress (MPa)

80 80
Axial stress (MPa)

80

60 60 60

H-20-20-2-30 H-40-20-2-30 H-60-20-2-30

40 40 H-40-20-3-30 40
H-20-20-3-30 H-60-20-3-30
H-20-20-4-30 H-40-20-4-30 H-60-20-4-30
20 H-20-20-2-45 20 H-40-20-2-45 H-60-20-2-45
20
H-20-20-3-45 H-40-20-3-45 H-60-20-3-45
H-20-20-4-45 H-40-20-4-45 H-60-20-4-45
0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain Hoop strain Axial strain

(d) Effect of concrete strength on stress-strain curves

Fig. 9. Effects of various design parameters on stress-strain curves.

7
J.-J. Zeng et al.
C C
M M
FRP
(a) Concrete confined with FRP rings
Axial stress (MPa)
(c) Axial stress contour of section M-M (d) Axial stress distribution along a diameter path
Fig. 10. Axial stress distribution along the diameter.
than those in the middle of two adjacent FRP rings. This suggests the
plausibility of “arching action” between two adjacent FRP rings. Fig. 8
shows that the axial stresses (in absolute value) are smaller at the center
of the cylinder at both extremities. This is because each column end is
applied with an additional FRP ring, as has been mentioned in the
previous section.
3.3. Parametric study
The validated FE model was used to perform a parametric study to
obtain more numerical data of the axial stress distributions in the FRCC.
A diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm were used for the circular
columns in the parametric study. The effect of compressive strengths of
concrete (30 MPa and 45 MPa), FRP hoop strain level (i.e., 0.009, 0.012,
0.015), FRP ring width (i.e., 20 mm, 40 mm and 60 mm), FRP ring clear
spacing (i.e., 20 mm, 40 mm and 60 mm) and FRP ring thickness (i.e.,
0.167 mm, 0.334 mm and 0.501 mm) were investigated, as per the
experimental evidences reported by Zeng et al. [23]. The nominal
thickness of a single-layer FRP ring was 0.167 mm and the modulus of
elasticity was 223.7 GPa, which were identical to those adopted in the
aforementioned experimental study. In total, 216 numerical results of
FRCC were developed in the parametric study. Each specimen in the FE
analysis is given a label for ease of presentation and the components in
this label are similar to those of the nomination of the new tests, but the
nomenclature of specimens in the numerical study is different from that
of the experiments in that the nomenclature of specimens in the nu­
merical study includes the concrete strength as the last part of the label.
It should be noted that the predicted curves are terminated at a hoop
strain equal to the average FRP hoop rupture strain based on test results.
The aramid FRP (AFRP) generally has a largest ultimate tensile strain
among the conventional FRP composites and the tensile rupture of AFRP
8
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
(b) Section M-M
-30
-35
-40
M-M
-45
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Diameter (mm)
coupons is around 2.5% [61,62], an FRP hoop rupture strain of 1.5% is
adopted in the present study and this ratio is sufficiently large for dis­
cussions on CFRP/glass FRP (GFRP) ring-confined concrete. This leads
to an FRP hoop rupture strain ratio of around 0.6, which is in line with
the conclusion that the average value of the FRP hoop rupture strain
ratio varies significantly between 0.50 and 0.94 [59,60].
3.3.1. Effects of design parameters on stress-strain curves
Fig. 9a shows the effects of FRP width on the stress-strain behavior of
FRCC. As shown in the figure, both the ultimate axial stress and strain
increase with the increase of the FRP width, provided that the other
design parameters are the same. Fig. 9b shows that both the ultimate
axial stress and strain increase with the decrease of the clear spacing.
This observation is also applicable to the columns with different FRP
thicknesses (Fig. 9c). The increase in the unconfined concrete
compressive strength, however, leads to a decrease in the slope of the
second portion of the stress-strain curve (Fig. 9d), which is attributed to
the decrease in confinement stiffness associated with the concrete
strength enhancement. The above results have indicated that the
investigated parameters all have significant effects on the axial
compressive behavior of FRCC.
3.3.2. Axial stress distribution along the diameter and effects of section
level
To understand the stress distribution in FRP-confined concrete in the
middle between two adjacent FRP rings, the axial stress distribution
along the diameter of the mid-height section 1-1 (Fig. 10a) is obtained.
Fig. 10b shows an axial stress contour within a concrete core section in
the middle between two adjacent FRP rings, as an example. Note that
Fig. 10b is based on a full FRCC column model rather than a one-fourth
column model, however, all parameters were not unchanged. It can be
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

-20 -20
-20
180 (C -C) 200 (C- C)
200 (C-C)
190 210
-25 210 -25
200 (M -M) -25 220
220
210 230
230 (M-M)
220 (C -C) 240 (M- M)
-30

Axial stress (MPa)

-30
Axial stress (MPa)

-30

Axial stress (MPa)

-35 -35 -35

-40 -40 -40

-45 -45 -45

-50 -50 -50

-25 0 25 50 75 1 00 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 125 15 0 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 12 5 15 0 1 75
Diam eter (m m) Diam eter (m m) Diam eter (m m)

(a) H-20-20-2-30 (b) H-20-40-2-30 (c) H-20-60-2-30

-20 -20 -20
200 (C-C) 200 (C-C) 200 (M-M)
210 210 210
-25 220 -25 -25
220 220
230 (M-M) 230 230
240 (M-M) 240
-30
Axial stress (MPa)

-30 -30
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

250 (C-C)

-35 -35 -35

-40 -40 -40

-45 -45 -45

-50 -50 -50

-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm)

(d) H-40-20-2-30 (e) H-40-40-2-30 (f) H-40-60-2-30

-20 -20 -20
2 0 0 (C-C) 200 (M-M) 20 0 (C-C)
210 210 21 0
-25 -25 220 -25 22 0
220
230 230 23 0
2 4 0 (M-M) 240 24 0
Axial stress (MPa)

-30 -30 25 0
Axial stress (MPa)

-30 250 (C-C)

Axial stress (MPa)

26 0 (M-M)

-35 -35 -35

-40 -40 -40

-45 -45 -45

-50 -50 -50

-25 0 25 50 75 1 00 12 5 15 0 1 75 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 12 5 15 0 1 75

Diam eter (m m) Diameter (mm) Diam eter (m m)

(g) H-60-20-2-30 (h) H-60-40-2-30 (i) H-60-60-2-30

Fig. 11. Axial stress distribution along the diameter at different column heights.

seen that the lowest axial stress locates at the section edge in the middle distribution along the whole diameter path. The axial stress exhibits the
between two adjacent FRP rings. lowest absolute value (less than 70% of the peak axial stress) at both
However, it is not straightforward to find out the quantity variations ends of the path while it shows a plateau in the middle of the path (“at
in a contour figure (Fig. 10c). Therefore, the ‘path option’ in Abaqus was the effective confinement area”) through examining the axial stress
adopted, and the stress distribution along a diameter path was obtained distribution along the path in the M-M section. This implies that the
(e.g., the red line along the diameter path), as shown in Fig. 10b. The validation of an ineffective confinement zone between two adjacent FRP
detailed values of axial stress along a diameter at an axial strain of 0.01 rings, which demonstrates the presence of the effective confinement
(εc = 0.01) between two adjacent FRP rings (Fig. 10c and 10d) can thus area assumption. It should be noted that as the axial stresses have a
be seen clearly, showing the axial stress distribution along the diameter. negative value, the axial stress is believed to be higher if the absolute
Note that the axial stresses in the figures are taken to be negative. value is higher for discussions in the present study. Also, the highest
The values in the labels of Fig. 11 (e.g., 200, 210, 220, 230, etc.) axial stress value exhibits at the ‘C-C’ path, and the highest axial stress
represent the distances from the column bottom of the path, and the value generally increases with the increase of the width of FRP ring,
additional label ‘M-M’ denotes the path in the middle between two while the axial stress distribution at the center of each FRP ring shows
adjacent FRP rings and ‘C-C’ denotes the path at the center of an FRP another peak at both ends of a diameter (Fig. 11). The axial stress dis­
ring. The axial stress values in Fig. 11 are symmetrical in terms of the tributions of the paths between the ‘M-M’ path and the ‘C-C’ path are
center of the diameter, and therefore, the values of the axial stresses generally sandwiched. Fig. 11 shows that the difference of the peak
based on the one-fourth model were duplicated directly for the values between a M-M path and a ‘C-C’ path increase with the increase of

9
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

-20 -20 -20

-25 -25 -25

-30

Axial stress (MPa)

-30 -30
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

-35 -35 -35

-40 -40 -40

-45 H-20-20-2-30 -45 H-20 -40-2 -30 -45 H-20-60-2-30

H-40-20-2-30 H-40 -40-2 -30 H-40-60-2-30
H-60-20-2-30 H-60 -40-2 -30 H-60-60-2-30
-50 -50 -50
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 125 150 1 75 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Diameter (mm) Diam eter (mm) Diameter (mm)

(a) Effect of FRP width

-20 -20 -20

-25 -25 -25

-30
Axial stress (MPa)

-30

Axial stress (MPa)

-30
Axial stress (MPa)

-35 -35 -35

-40 -40 -40

-45 H -20-20-2-30 -45 H -4 0-2 0 -2-3 0 H- 60 -20 -2 -30

-45
H -20-40-2-30 H -4 0-4 0 -2-3 0 H- 60 -40 -2 -30
H -20-60-2-30 H -4 0-6 0 -2-3 0 H- 60 -60 -2 -30
-50 -50 -50
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 12 5 15 0 1 75 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 125 150 1 75
Diameter (mm) Diam eter (m m) Diameter (mm)

(b) Effect of FRP clear spacing

-20
-20 -20

-30 -30 -30

-40 -40 -40

Axial stress (MPa)
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

-50 -50 -50

-60 -60 -60

H -20-20-2 -3 0 H-4 0 -20 -2 -30 H -6 0-2 0 -2-3 0

-70 -70 -70 H -6 0-2 0 -3-3 0
H -20-20-3 -3 0 H-4 0 -20 -3 -30
H -20-20-4 -3 0 H-4 0 -20 -4 -30 H -6 0-2 0 -4-3 0
H -20-20-2 -4 5 H-4 0 -20 -2 -45 -80 H -6 0-2 0 -2-4 5
-80 -80
H -20-20-3 -4 5 H-4 0 -20 -3 -45 H -6 0-2 0 -3-4 5
H -20-20-4 -4 5 H-4 0 -20 -4 -45 H -6 0-2 0 -4-4 5
-90 -90 -90
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 12 5 15 0 1 75 -25 0 25 50 75 1 00 125 150 1 75
Diam eter (m m) Diam eter (m m) Diam eter (m m)

(c) Effect of concrete strength and FRP thickness

-20 -20 -20

-30 -30 -30

-40 -40 -40

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

-50 -50 -50

-60 -60 -60

H- 20 - 40 - 2- 3 0 H-40-40-2-30 h=0.009
h =0 .0 09 H- 60 -4 0 -2 -3 0 h =0.0 09
-70 H- 20 - 40 - 2- 3 0 -70 H-40-40-2-30 h=0.012
-70
h =0 .0 12 H- 60 -4 0 -2 -3 0 h =0.0 12
H- 20 - 40 - 2- 3 0 h =0 .0 15
H-40-40-2-30 h=0.015 H- 60 -4 0 -2 -3 0 h =0.0 15
H- 20 - 40 - 4- 3 0 h =0 .0 09
H-40-40-4-30 h=0.009 H- 60 -4 0 -4 -3 0 h =0.0 09
-80 -80 -80
H- 20 - 40 - 4- 3 0 h =0 .0 12 H-40-40-4-30 h=0.012 H- 60 -4 0 -4 -3 0 h =0.0 12
H- 20 - 40 - 4- 3 0 h =0 .0 15 H-40-40-4-30 h=0.015
H- 60 -4 0 -4 -3 0 h =0.0 15
-90 -90 -90
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm)

(d) Effect of FRP hoop strain

Fig. 12. Effect of design parameters on axial stress-distribution curves.

10
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

-10 -10
c= 0.003 = 0.003
c
c = 0.006 = 0.006
c

c
= 0.009 = 0.009
-20 = 0.012
-20 c

c c = 0.012
c
= 0.015 = 0.015
c
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

-30 -30

-40 -40

-50 -50

-60 -60
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Diameter (mm) Diameter (mm)

(a) H-20-20-2-30 (M-M) (b) H-20-60-4-30(M-M)

Fig. 13. Effects of different FRP hoop strain (axial strain) levels on the axial stress distribution.

60 -20

50
-30
Axial stress (MPa)

40
Axial stress (MPa)

30 -40

20

-50
10 H-20-20-2-D15 0H200 H-20-20-2-D150H20 0, c = 0.01
H-20-20-2-D15 0H400 H-20-20-2-D150H40 0, c = 0.01
H-20-20-2-D15 0H600 H-20-20-2-D150H60 0, = 0.01
c
0 -60
-0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Hoop strain Axial strain Diameter (mm)

(a) Effect of specimen height on axial stress-strain and axial stress distribution

60 -20

50

-30
Axial stress (MPa)

40
Axial stress (MPa)

30 -40

20

-50
10 H-20-25.0-3-30-D100H200 H-20-25.0-2-30-D100H200, c
= 0.01
H-30-37.5-3-30-D150H300 H-30-37.5-3-30-D150H300, c
= 0.01
H-40-50.0-3-30-D200H400 H-40-50.0-4-30-D200H400, = 0.01
c
0 -60
-0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Hoop strain Axial strain Diameter (mm)

(b) Effect of specimen size on axial stress-strain and axial stress distribution
Fig. 14. Comparison between different specimen sizes.

11
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

50

40

Axial stress (MPa)

30

20

10
FRP tie
FRP ring
0
-0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Axial strain
Fig. 15. Diagram of FRP tie-confined concrete model and comparison between FRP tie-confined concrete and FRCC.

the width of the FRP ring.
While this research aims to identify the shape function of the arching
action between two adjacent FRP rings, Fig. 12 shows the effects of the
FRP width, the FRP ring clear spacing, the FRP thickness, the unconfined
concrete compressive strength and the FRP hoop strain level on the axial
stress distribution in concrete confined with FRP rings at the M-M sec­
tion. An increase in FRP ring clear spacing or concrete compressive
strength generally leads to a decrease in the peak axial stress (an in­
crease in the absolute value), while an increase in FRP thickness or FRP
hoop strain level leads to an increase in the peak axial stress of the stress
path. The FRP ring width only has a slight influence on the peak axial
stress of the stress path. The FRP width, the concrete strength and the
hoop strain level have slight effects on the shape function of axial stress
distribution in the M-M section, while the FRP ring clear spacing has a
significant impact on the shape of axial stress distribution in the M-M
section (Fig. 12). This is because an increase in the FRP ring width, an
increase in the FRP ring thickness or an increase in FRP hoop strain only
leads to an increase in axial stress in the effective confinement area [45],
-30
-35
(0,y1)
Axial stress (MPa)
while variation of FRP ring clear spacing leads to some changes of the
shape function of axial stress distribution in the M-M section.
3.3.3. Effects of FRP hoop strain levels, specimen slenderness and specimen
size
Fig. 13a and b show the axial stress distributions at different FRP
hoop strain levels (represented by axial strain levels) in the M-M section
for specimens with strong confinement (H-20-20-2) and relatively weak
confinement (H-20-60-2), respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 13 that
the stress plateau at the effective confinement area increases with the
FRP hoop strain level. It is interesting to note that the stress at the edge
of the M-M section increases with the FRP hoop strain level for the
specimen with strong confinement (Fig. 13a) while the trend converses
for the specimen with relatively weak confinement (Fig. 13b), owing to
damage of the unconfined concrete at the edge of the M-M section. This
distribution phenomenon is believed to have little influence on the
derivation of the arching action angle, as will be discussed in the
following section. Fig. 14 shows the effects of the column length and the
column size on the axial stress distribution in the M-M section. It is
believed that the additional confinement at both ends of the column may
have different effects on the loading portion (mid-height region) for
columns with different lengths. Three column lengths (i.e., 200 mm,
400 mm and 600 mm) and three column diameters (100 mm, 150 mm
and 200 mm) were adopted in the present study to include the variations
of the parameters. The value after ‘D’ and ‘H’ of the specimen label in
Fig. 14 represent the diameter and the height of the specimen respec­
(D,y1)
tively. Note that the sizes in terms of three dimensions were scaled

simultaneously in the present study, while the axial stress distributions

of specimens with different sizes were drawn in the same figure by
-40
scaling the diameter axis of the figure. It can be seen from Fig. 14 that
(D/2,y3)
the specimen slenderness has little influence on the axial stress distri­
bution in the M-M section. The specimen size has a slight influence on
(x2,y2) (D-x2,y2)
the axial stress distribution in the M-M section due to the variation of the
-45
FRP ring clear spacing of the specimens.

FE results
Theoretical model
3.4. Comparisons between FRP tie-confined concrete and FRCC
-50
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Diameter (mm) As mentioned in the introduction section, the confinement mecha­
nism of FRCC and FRP tie-confined concrete is similar. An FRP tie-
Fig. 16. Theoretical model for axial stress distribution: H-20-20-2-30 (εc = confined concrete model was developed using the FE approach
0.01). (Fig. 15), in which the FRP ties were modeled by truss elements while

12
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

20 50

0
40
-20

-40 30

Predicted x2
Predicted y

-60

20
-80

-100
y1 AAE=0.03, SD=0.05, R2=0.98 10
-120 y2 AAE=0.02, SD=0.02, R2= 0.99
y3 AAE=0.02, SD=0.03, R2= 0.98 AAE=0.00, SD=0.00, R2=1.00
-140 0
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
FE y FE x2

(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Coefficients: FE results versus theoretical results (Version II).

the other properties of the model are referred to the model of FRCC
specified in the previous section. As an example, the comparison be­ y1 = 0.89s’f + 0.02s’f fl,w − 24.24 − 0.74fco’ − 0.93fl,w − 0.01s’2
f (7)
tween axial stress-strain curves and axial stress-hoop strain curves of
FRCC and FRP tie-confined concrete is given in Fig. 15. The FRP tie- x2 = 7.50 + 0.30s’f (8)
confined concrete has an identical FRP volumetric ratio and an iden­
tical center-to-center spacing with those of FRCC. It can be seen from y2 = 0.09s’f −
25.12fl,w
− 11.55 − 0.75fco’ − 0.01bf fl,w (9)
Fig. 15 that the stress-strain curves from the two specimens are close to s’f
each other, which proves that the results based on FRCC can be easily
extended for FRP stirrup-confined concrete. y3 = 0.01fco’ fl,w −
28.60fl,w
− fco’ − 0.02bf fl,w (10)
s’f
4. Theoretical models for axial stress distribution and arching
where x2 , y1 , y2 and y3 are coefficients. The coefficients are defined as
action angle
functions of the variables including bf (the width of FRP rings), s’f (the
4.1. General clear spacing of two adjacent FRP rings) and fl,w (the FRP working
confining stress in the FRP ring). All the parameters obtained based on
The axial stress distribution along a diameter path in the M-M section the FE parametric study are summarized in Table A1 of the Appendix A.
is symmetrical in terms of the center of the circle, and generally exhibits The FRP working confining stress is defined as:
a U-shaped parabola with a maximum value at the center of the diameter 2Ef εh tf
and a minimum axial stress value at both edges of the diameter. As fl,w = (11)
D
depicted in the previous section, the axial stress distribution is related to
the FRP ring width, the clear spacing between two adjacent FRP rings, An example of comparisons between theoretical model predictions of
the unconfined concrete strength and the level of FRP hoop strain. All
the above parameters are thus related to the shape of the axial stress
distribution along the diameter in the middle between two FRP rings. -20
The above analysis indicates that a parabolic or a bilinear curve can be
adopted to describe the axial stress distributions. -25
Axial stress (MPa)

4.2. Theoretical model for axial stress distribution in the middle between -30
two FRP rings
-35 Arch height (l)
The authors have tried to develop the axial stress distribution model
by both linear and parabolic curves. The results showed that the linear -40
curve model is simple in form and has a similar accuracy with the l
parabolic curve model. The equations of linear curves are developed for -45
the axial stress distribution along the path (i.e., diameter) in the middle
between two adjacent FRP rings, as derived from the numerical results -50
as follows:
y2 − y1 -55 Axial stress distribution along the diameter
y= x + y1 , x < x2 (5) 85% of the average axial stress
x2
-60
(y3 − y2 ) D 0 30 60 90 120 150
y= (x − x2 ) + y2 , x2 < x < (6) Diameter (mm)
(D/2 − x2 ) 2
Fig. 18. The arch height determination based on the FE analysis.

13
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

from the proposed coefficients. The AAE and the SD ratios between the
theoretical and the experimental values (theoi /expi ) are defined by the
following equations respectively:
⃒ ⃒
∑n ⃒⃒prei − testi ⃒⃒
i=1 ⃒ testi ⃒
AAE = (12)
n
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ [ ( ) ]2
√∑n testi
√ i=1 − test
√ prei pre
SD = aver
(13)
n− 1

where n is the number of data points; test i and prei are the ith experi­
mental value and theoretical value, respectively. The AAE represents the
average error magnitude of the model predictions, while the SD shows
the degree of variation or the magnitude of the associated scatters of
predictions. It can be seen from Fig. 17 that the proposed coefficients are
in close agreement with the results from the FE analysis.

4.3. Theoretical model for the arching action angle

Based on the detailed axial stress distribution along the diameter in

Fig. 19. Diagram of the arching action angle (θ) derivation.
the axial stress distribution along the diameter in the middle between
two adjacent FRP rings and those based on the FE analysis is shown in
Fig. 16, which shows a slight difference between them. Note that the
coefficients were based on a regression analysis of data from FE results.
Comparisons of coefficients based on the FE analysis and the predicted
values are reported in Fig. 17, indicating a high relevance between the
FE results and the results from the proposed theoretical model. Average
absolute values (AAEs) and standard deviations (SDs) [52–55] were
adopted to understand the accuracy and deviation of the predictions
the middle between two adjacent FRP rings predicted by the proposed
theoretical model, the effective confinement area in the FRCC can be
properly determined. Fig. 18 shows a typical example of the axial stress
distribution versus the coordinate of the specimen diameter, showing a
highest axial stress at the center of the section in the middle between two
adjacent FRP rings and a descending trend from the center to the section
edge. It is assumed that in the effective confinement area, the axial
stresses are larger than 85% of the average axial stress of the section. It
should be mentioned that the ACI code (ACI 318-08 [63]) suggests to
design axial strength of a section in pure compression to 85 or 80 percent
of the nominal strength to account for accidental eccentricities not
considered in the analysis and the concrete strength may be less than the
static strength under sustained high loads. Conversely, if the section is
designed to take its full capacity, the segment which a strength below
85% of the average strength may be in danger. Therefore, it is reason­
able to believe that each single segment of the concrete cross section
needs to ensure 85% of its strength. According to the above design
philosophy, the current study assumes that the axial stresses in the
effective confinement area are larger than 85% of the average stress of
the section.
Fig. 18 shows the location of critical points which are intersection
points of the horizontal line of the 85% of the average stress and the

25 120

100
20

80
15
Predicted l

60
Predicted

10
40

5
20

0
0
M=0.99, AAE=0.07, SD=0.12, R2=0.96 M=0.99, AAE=0.07, SD=0.12, R2=0.96
-5 -20
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
FE l FE

(a) Arch height (b) Arching action angle

Fig. 20. Comparison between FE results and theoretical predictions.

14
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

20 20

15 15

10 10

l (mm)
l (mm)

5 5

0 H-X-20-2-30 0 H-20-X-2-30
H-X-40-2-30-Prediction H-20-X-2-30-Prediction
H-X-40-2-30 H-40-X-2-30
-5 H-X-40-2-30-Prediction -5 H-40-X-2-30-Prediction
H-X-60-2-30 H-60-X-2-30
H-X-60-2-30-Prediction H-60-X-2-30-Prediction
-10 -10
20 40 60 20 40 60
FRP width (mm) FRP cle ar spacing (mm)

(a) Effect of FRP width (b)Effect of FRP clear spacing

20 20

15 15

10 10
l (mm)
l (mm)

5 5

0 0 H-20-20-2-X
H-20-20-X-30
H-20-20-X-30-Prediction H-20-20-2-X-Prediction
H-20-40-X-30 H-20-40-2-X
-5 H-20-40-X-30-Prediction
-5 H-20-40-2-X-Prediction
H-20-60-X-30 H-20-60-2-X
H-20-60-X-30-Prediction H-20-60-2-X-Prediction
-10 -10
1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60
FRP layers Concrete strength (MPa)

(c) Effect of FRP thickness (d) Effect of concrete strength

20

15

10
l (mm)

0
H-20-20-2-30
H-20-20-2-30-Prediction
H-20-40-2-30
-5 H-20-40-2-30-Prediction
H-20-60-2-30
H-20-60-2-30-Prediction
-10
0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018
FRP hoop strain

(e) Effect of FRP working confinement

Fig. 21. Effect of column parameters on arching action angle (εc = 0.01).

15
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

(a) Whole volume between two adjacent FRP rings ( ) (b) Reduced volumn in the arch
generatrix ( )
Fig. 22. Proposed confinement effectiveness coefficient ratio.

curve of the axial stress distribution. The arch height of the arching applications.
action equals to the distance between a critical point and the adjacent Fig. 21 shows the relationships between the predicted arch height
section surface (l), as shown in Fig. 18. The diagram of the arching angle and the influencing parameters. The letter “X” in each subfigure of
derivation is shown in Fig. 19, provided that l and s’f are known. The Fig. 21 denotes the variable of the comparisons (the title of the hori­
theoretical model (defined as a function of bf , fl,w fco
’
and s’f ) for the arch zontal axis) shown in each subfigure. The arching action angle is shown
to increase with the FRP width, the FRP thickness, the clear spacing and
height is proposed based on numerical results:
the FRP working confinement. The arching action angle is shown to be
6.71 × 101 1.37 × 102 independent to the concrete strength, as observed in Fig. 21(d).
l = 1.67 × 101 + 0.10bf − − − 0.10fco’ (14)
fl,w s’f

Subsequently, the arching angle can be derived easily based on the 4.4. Proposed confinement effectiveness coefficient for FRP ring/tie-
geometrical relationship in the arch (Fig. 19): confined concrete
4s’f l 180
◦

θ = asin( 2 ’2
) (15)
4l + sf π
The comparisons between the theoretical values and the FE results
are given in Fig. 20, and the proposed theoretical model of the arching
action angle provides close predictions with the FE results. It can be seen
that the arching action angle is not a constant value, primarily ranges
from 40◦ to 60◦ ; which is contradictory to the well-known assumption
that the arching action angle equals to 45◦ . Parametric study on the
lower and the upper bound values of the arching action angle suggests
that a reasonable value of arching action angle should be in the range of
20◦ –80◦ . This corresponds to a bf /s’f ratio of 1/6 (lower bound) and a bf /
s’f ratio of 3 (upper bound) with a sufficient FRP confinement. Further
change of the bf /s’f ratio outside the range of 1/6-3, however, leads to
little variation of the arching action angle and hardly occurs in practical
The confinement effectiveness coefficient for the reduced confine­
ment along the vertical direction specified in current design guidelines
[50–51] is empirical, and therefore, adopting it in existing stress-strain
models leads to errors in predicting the FRP ring/tie-confined concrete.
In most of the existing stress-strain models for FRP-confined concrete
with non-uniform vertical confinement, the empirical confinement
effectiveness coefficient is established based on the ratio between the
effective confinement area and the whole cross-sectional area, and it
neglects the section outside the effective confinement area. To this end,
a new confinement effectiveness coefficient (kv,new = Ve /Vv ), which is
the ratio between the reduced volume in the arch generatrix and the
whole volume between two adjacent FRP rings (Fig. 22), is proposed.
Fig. 23 shows the comparison of the ultimate confining stress ratio
(fl,a
’ ’
/fco ) based on the existing confinement effectiveness coefficient and
the new confinement effectiveness coefficient. It can be seen that the
proposed confinement effectiveness coefficient is slightly different from
the existing one in that more controlling parameters are considered in
the new confinement effectiveness coefficient.
To evaluate the reliability and capability of the new confinement
effectiveness coefficient, several typical existing models [51,56–57] for
FRCC were collected, as shown in Table 2. They were subsequently
assessed using the existing test results [20,21,23,58] in terms of ultimate

Table 2
Summary of existing stress-strain models for FRCC.
Model Ultimate strength Ultimate strain

fib 2001 [51] fcc

’ kv fl,a
’ 0.5
εcu Ec εh,rup kv fl,a
’ 0.5
= 0.2 + 3( ’ ) = 2 + 1.25( ’ )( ’ )
fco
’ fco εco fco fco
Pham et al. [56] fcc
’ fl,a
’ 2ktf ff εh,rup
= 1 + 3.3kv ’ εcu = εco +
D(fco + kv fcc )
fco
’ fco ’ ’

Wang et al. [57] fcc

’ fl,a
’
εcu fl,a
’
εh,rup
= 1 + 3.3kv ’ = 1.75 + 12kv ( ’ )( )
fco
’ fco εco fco εco
Proposed model fcc
’ kv,new fl,a
’ 1.25
εcu kv,new fl,a
’ 1.45

= 1 + 4.3( ) = 1 + 50( )
fco
’ fco
’ εco fco
’

Fig. 23. Relationship between new kv,new fl,a

’ ’
/fco and.kv fl,a
’ ’
/fco

16
J.-J. Zeng et al.
Fig. 24. Performance of existing stress-strain models by using different confinement effectiveness coefficient.
axial stresses and ultimate axial strains. It should be mentioned that the
model of Cascardi et al. [13] was also proposed for masonry columns
with discontinuous FRP strips, but this model is not applicable to con­
crete confined with FRP rings in the present study because this model
was based on test stress-strain curves with a strain softening post-peak
behavior for the second segment of the stress-strain curve and most of
the specimens in the databased of the present study exhibit a strain
hardening behavior. By using these models, two approaches were
adopted to determine the confinement effectiveness coefficient: (1)
using the confinement effectiveness coefficient specified in the existing
design codes [50–51]; (2) using the proposed confinement effectiveness
17
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
coefficient based on the new theoretical model in the present study. The
comparisons between the test results and the predictions are shown in
Fig. 24, in which the model with a new confinement effectiveness co­
efficient is marked with ‘New coefficient’ while that with the existing
confinement effectiveness coefficient is marked with ‘Old coefficient’.
The comparison shows that using the new confinement effectiveness
coefficient leads to a better prediction for FRCC, indicating that the
proposed confinement effectiveness coefficient is superior to the existing
one. Because the existing models have unique expressions for ultimate
axial stress and strain for FRCC, the enhancement in the accuracy of the
comparison can only be attributed to usage of the proposed confinement
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Old coefficient New coefficient

20 20
co

co
/

/
cc

cc
15 15
Pham et al. (2015)

Pham et al. (2015)

10 M=0.92 10 M=1.10
AAE=0.44 AAE=0.32
SD=0.35 SD=0.38
Zeng et al. [23] Zeng et al. [23]
5 5
Guo et al. [21] Guo et al. [21]
Zeng et al. [20] Zeng et al. [20]
Barros et al. [58] Barros et al. [58]
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Experimental strength enhancement ratio /
cc co
Experimental strength enhancement ratio cc
/ co

(b) Model of Pham et al. [56]

4 4
Old coefficient New coefficient

3 3
Wang et al. (2018) fcc/ fco

Wang et al. (2018) fcc' / fco'

'
'

2 2

M=1.24 AV=1.00
AAE=0.18 AAE=0.10
SD=0.22 SD=0.15
1 1
Zeng et al. [23] Zeng et al. [23]
Guo et al. [21] Guo et al. [21]
Zeng et al. [20] Zeng et al. [20]
Barros et al. [58] Barros et al. [58]
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Experimental strength enhancement ratio f / f '
cc
'
co
Experimental strength enhancement ratio fcc' / fco'
25 25
Old coefficient New coefficient

20 20
co

co
/

/
cc

cc

15
Wang et al. (2018)

15
Wang et al. (2018)

10 M=2.41 10 AV=1.19
AAE=0.53 AAE=0.24
SD=0.90 SD=0.36
Zeng et al. [23] Zeng et al. [23]
5 5
Guo et al. [21] Guo et al. [21]
Zeng et al. [20] Zeng et al. [20]
Barros et al. [58] Barros et al. [58]
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Experimental strength enhancement ratio cc
/ co
Experimental strength enhancement ratio cc
/ co

(c) Model of Wang et al. [57]

Fig. 24. (continued).

effectiveness coefficient. and the test results (see Fig. 25) show that it is of high accuracy in
To this end, proposed new equations (Table 2) for ultimate axial generating ultimate condition of FRCC in circular columns. The adop­
stress and strain of FRCC are proposed based on a regression analysis tion of the new confinement effectiveness coefficient also leads to a
with the new confinement effectiveness coefficient being used. The smaller value of average absolute error compared with that without
comparisons between the predicted results based on the proposed model using the new confinement effectiveness coefficient. It implies that the

18
J.-J. Zeng et al.
4 25
New coefficient
3
Proposed model fcc/ fco
'
'
2
AV=1.00
AAE=0.08
SD=0.10
1 Zeng et al. [23]
Zeng et al. [23]
Guo et al. [21]
Zeng et al. [20]
Barros et al. [58]
0 0
0 1 2 3
' '
Experimental strength enhancement ratio f / f
cc co
Fig. 25. Performance of the proposed model in predicting the ultimate axial stresses and ultimate axial strains.
new confinement effectiveness coefficient accurately reveals the
confinement mechanism of FRCC in circular columns. This new
confinement effectiveness coefficient is suggested to be adopted in
design codes for FRP ring/tie-confined concrete where the arching ac­
tion assumption is essential. The confinement effectiveness coefficient
can be implemented in different models, which depend whether the
softening post-peak behavior could be accurately generated. As most of
the specimens from the current research database exhibit a strain
hardening behavior because a sufficient confinement to concrete is
generally recommended by design guidelines. Further research is in
necessity to examine the accuracy of confinement models for FRP ring-
confined concrete with softening post-peak behavior.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented an experimental demonstration and a nu­
merical study on the arching action assumption by investigating the
axial stress distribution in concrete in the middle between two adjacent
FRP rings. The following conclusions are reached as per above study:
(1) The stress-strain behavior is slightly different, although the
product of the FRP volumetric ratio and the existing confinement
effectiveness ratio is identical for FRCC specimens. The existing
confinement effectiveness ratio based on the arching action
assumption is not necessarily accurate for FRCC.
(2) The numerical results show that the axial stress is very small (as
small as 70% of the peak axial stress) at the edge of the middle
section between two adjacent FRP rings while it maintains
around a large value at the center area of the section. This in­
dicates presence of the arching action assumption.
(3) The shape of the arch between two adjacent FRP rings for sepa­
rating the effective confinement area and ineffective confinement
area depends on several factors, including the FRP ring clear
spacing, the FRP width and thickness, the unconfined concrete
compressive strength and the FRP hoop strain level.
(4) A theoretical model for the axial stress distribution in the middle
of two adjacent FRP rings is proposed, and it provides reasonably
close predictions compared to the FE analysis results.
(5) The assumption that the axial stresses in the effective confine­
ment area are larger than 85% of the average stress of the section
is adopted. The proposed theoretical model for the arching action
angle provides close predictions with the FE results and the
arching action angle is not a constant value, which is contradic­
tory to the well-known assumption that the arching action angle
equals to 45◦ .
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
New coefficient
20
co
/
15
cc
Proposed model
10 AV=0.89
AAE=0.31
SD=0.35
5
Guo et al. [21]
Zeng et al. [20]
Barros et al. [58]
4 0 5 10 15 20 25
Experimental strength enhancement ratio /
cc co
(6) The existing ultimate condition models based on the proposed
confinement effectiveness ratio generally provide more accurate
predictions than the same model with the existing confinement
effectiveness ratio. The proposed confinement effectiveness ratio
associated with a proposed ultimate condition model provides
reasonably close predictions for ultimate condition of FRCC in
circular columns, which implies the applicability of the proposed
confinement effectiveness ratio for use in practical strengthening
design.
The conclusions based on the current investigation are easy to be
extended to the FRP tie-confined concrete and the FRP spiral-confined
concrete. Further studies on the arching action assumption for FRP tie-
confined concrete in both circular and non-circular columns need to
be conducted to obtain a reliable and accurate design of partial confined
concrete. It should be noted that the arching action is not only existed
between two adjacent rings in the vertical direction (referred to as
vertical arching action), but also valid for concrete in each level of
confining ring (referred to as horizontal arching action) for FRP ring-
confined square columns [49]. The interaction between the vertical
and the horizontal arching actions make the confinement mechanism of
FRP ring-confined square columns complicated. Therefore, the findings
based on the present study need to be thoroughly validated before they
can be applied to concrete with a square cross-section.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jun-Jie Zeng: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisi­
tion, Supervision, Project administration, Writing - original draft. Shu-
Peng Chen: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing.
Yan Zhuge: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Wan-Yang
Gao: Writing - review & editing. Zhi-Jian Duan: Investigation, Data
curation. Yong-Chang Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding
acquisition, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11872153
19
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

and 51908137), the Guangzhou Science and Technology Department

(No. 201904010163) and the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong
Province (Nos. 2019A1515011637 and 18ZK0183).

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
FE parameter study results.
Specimen εh fl,w a1 b1 c1 y1 x2 y2 y3 fcc
’ εcc l θ

H-20-20-2-30 − 0.0089 9.01 0.002 − 0.221 − 38.2 − 35.2 13.5 − 43.3 − 42.9 42.4 0.0115 1.4 15.9
− 0.0122 12.35 0.003 − 0.319 − 41.4 − 37.2 13.5 − 48.6 − 48.0 47.5 0.0159 4.0 43.6
− 0.0146 14.78 0.004 − 0.392 − 43.6 − 38.5 13.5 − 52.4 − 51.8 51.3 0.0190 5.2 54.9
− 0.0076 7.69 0.002 − 0.192 − 37.4 − 34.8 13.5 − 41.8 − 41.4 41.0 0.0103 0.7 8.0

H-20-20-3-30 − 0.0091 13.82 0.004 − 0.358 − 43.1 − 38.7 13.5 − 51.1 − 50.7 49.6 0.0155 4.0 43.6
− 0.0121 18.37 0.005 − 0.498 − 47.2 − 41.3 13.5 − 58.0 − 57.7 56.4 0.0206 5.7 59.4
− 0.0150 22.78 0.007 − 0.643 − 51.2 − 43.7 13.5 − 65.0 − 64.8 63.3 0.0257 6.7 67.6
− 0.0058 8.81 0.002 − 0.204 − 38.6 − 36.0 13.5 − 43.0 − 42.9 42.2 0.0098 1.6 18.2

H-20-20-4-30 − 0.0090 18.22 0.005 − 0.424 − 48.1 − 41.9 13.5 − 58.4 − 56.4 55.7 0.018 4.9 52.2
− 0.0122 24.70 0.007 − 0.663 − 53.8 − 45.6 13.5 − 68.4 − 66.0 65.3 0.0246 6.5 66.0
− 0.0150 30.37 0.009 − 0.832 − 58.8 − 49.0 13.5 − 77.2 − 74.8 74.1 0.0306 7.3 72.3
− 0.0045 9.11 0.002 − 0.162 − 39.7 − 37.5 13.5 − 43.9 − 42.9 44.4 0.0101 2.4 27.0

H-20-40-2-30 − 0.0087 8.81 0.004 − 0.325 − 29.8 − 28.1 19.5 − 36.8 − 35.8 35.4 0.0085 5.3 29.7
− 0.0120 12.15 0.004 − 0.406 − 30.6 − 28.2 19.5 − 39.4 − 39.2 37.8 0.0117 7.1 39.1
− 0.0151 15.28 0.005 − 0.506 − 31.4 − 28.3 19.5 − 42.5 − 42.1 40.5 0.0147 8.3 45.1
− 0.0100 10.12 0.004 − 0.350 − 30.2 − 28.0 19.5 − 37.9 − 37.3 36.3 0.0098 6.2 34.4

H-20-40-3-30 − 0.0089 13.51 0.005 − 0.470 − 31.3 − 28.8 19.5 − 41.6 − 40.8 39.2 0.0101 7.6 41.6
− 0.0119 18.07 0.007 − 0.632 − 31.3 − 28.9 19.5 − 45.8 − 45.1 43.0 0.0146 9.0 48.5
− 0.0153 23.23 0.009 − 0.847 − 32.7 − 28.8 19.5 − 50.8 − 50.3 47.5 0.0189 10.2 54.0
− 0.0079 12.00 0.005 − 0.421 − 31.1 − 28.7 19.5 − 40.1 − 39.1 38.1 0.0097 6.8 37.6

H-20-40-4-30 − 0.0089 18.02 0.007 − 0.638 − 32.2 − 29.2 19.5 − 46.0 − 45.3 42.8 0.0131 8.9 48.0
− 0.0118 23.89 0.009 − 0.869 − 33.0 − 29.3 19.5 − 51.6 − 51.1 47.7 0.0174 10.1 53.6
− 0.0150 30.37 0.012 − 1.160 − 33.3 − 28.8 19.5 − 57.8 − 57.9 53.4 0.0224 11.2 58.5
− 0.0069 13.97 0.005 − 0.479 − 31.7 − 29.1 19.5 − 42.0 − 41.3 39.5 0.0100 7.4 40.6

H-20-60-2-30 − 0.0091 9.21 0.004 − 0.377 − 25.8 − 25.6 25.5 − 33.9 − 33.4 32.3 0.0074 7.0 26.3
− 0.0124 12.55 0.005 − 0.454 − 25.7 − 24.8 25.5 − 35.7 − 36.4 33.7 0.0099 8.5 31.6
− 0.0147 14.88 0.005 − 0.521 − 25.6 − 24.5 25.5 − 36.9 − 37.7 35.0 0.0118 9.5 35.1
− 0.0124 12.55 0.004 − 0.449 − 25.4 − 24.8 25.5 − 35.1 − 36.4 33.7 0.0099 8.4 31.3

H-20-60-3-30 − 0.0092 13.97 0.005 − 0.530 − 26.0 − 25.2 25.5 − 37.5 − 37.1 34.9 0.0093 8.9 33.0
− 0.0122 18.52 0.007 − 0.667 − 25.8 − 24.7 25.5 − 40.3 − 40.2 37.3 0.0125 10.4 38.2
− 0.0151 22.93 0.008 − 0.818 − 25.5 − 24.2 25.5 − 43.1 − 43.2 39.8 0.0156 11.3 41.3
− 0.0098 14.88 0.006 − 0.555 − 25.9 − 25.2 25.5 − 38.0 − 37.8 35.3 0.0995 9.3 34.4

H-20-60-4-30 − 0.0091 18.42 0.007 − 0.678 − 25.9 − 25.2 25.5 − 40.5 − 40.2 37.2 0.0108 10.2 37.6
− 0.0122 24.70 0.009 − 0.888 − 25.3 − 24.5 25.5 − 44.4 − 44.2 40.4 0.0146 11.6 42.3
− 0.0151 30.57 0.011 − 1.110 − 24.4 − 23.6 25.5 − 48.1 − 48.4 43.6 0.0184 12.9 46.5
− 0.0086 17.41 0.007 − 0.642 − 26.0 − 25.2 25.5 − 39.9 − 39.6 36.7 0.0102 9.9 36.5

H-40-20-2-30 − 0.0091 9.21 0.004 − 0.382 − 40.1 − 36.7 13.5 − 47.0 − 47.8 46.8 0.0140 4.5 48.5
− 0.0123 12.45 0.006 − 0.535 − 43.3 − 38.6 13.5 − 52.9 − 54.2 52.9 0.0187 6.5 66.0
− 0.0149 15.08 0.007 − 0.667 − 46.0 − 40.3 13.5 − 57.9 − 59.6 58.1 0.0227 7.4 73.0
− 0.0065 6.58 0.003 − 0.26 − 37.4 − 35.2 13.5 − 41.9 − 42.4 41.8 0.0099 0.8 9.1
H-40-20-3-30 − 0.0089 13.51 0.005 − 0.489 − 46.0 − 40.2 13.5 − 55.6 − 55.4 54.3 0.0168 6.0 61.9
− 0.0120 18.22 0.008 − 0.489 − 46.0 − 43.1 13.5 − 64.1 − 64.5 62.9 0.0225 7.5 73.7
− 0.0152 23.08 0.010 − 0.934 − 55.0 − 46.0 13.5 − 72.4 − 73.5 71.7 0.0282 8.3 79.4
− 0.0054 8.20 0.003 − 0.267 − 40.3 − 37.2 13.5 − 45.4 − 45.3 44.7 0.0103 2.3 25.9

H-40-20-4-30 − 0.0089 18.02 0.009 − 0.891 − 49.3 − 42.8 13.5 − 64.7 − 67.7 64.2 0.0183 8.3 79.4
− 0.0122 24.70 0.013 − 1.270 − 55.1 − 46.6 13.5 − 76.3 − 81.4 76.7 0.0247 9.3 85.8
− 0.0151 30.57 0.017 − 1.612 − 59.9 − 50.0 13.5 − 86.2 − 93.4 87.7 0.0304 9.9 89.4
− 0.0049 9.92 0.005 − 0.441 − 41.5 − 38.4 13.5 − 49.0 − 50.7 48.7 0.0101 5.4 56.7

H-40-40-2-30 − 0.0093 9.41 0.006 − 0.567 − 29.9 − 28.1 19.5 − 40.9 − 40.5 39.2 0.0106 8.2 44.6
− 0.0120 12.15 0.008 − 0.717 − 30.4 − 28.1 19.5 − 44.3 − 44.6 42.4 0.0139 9.4 50.3
− 0.0147 14.88 0.009 − 0.883 − 30.7 − 28.0 19.5 − 47.7 − 48.5 45.7 0.0172 10.3 54.5
− 0.0086 8.71 0.006 − 0.536 − 29.8 − 28.1 19.5 − 40.2 − 39.1 38.5 0.0098 7.8 42.6

H-40-40-3-30 − 0.0089 13.51 0.009 − 0.795 − 30.8 − 28.7 19.5 − 46.2 − 46.2 43.7 0.0134 9.7 51.7
− 0.0122 18.52 0.012 − 1.098 − 31.1 − 28.5 19.5 − 52.1 − 52.9 49.3 0.0182 11.0 57.6
− 0.0149 22.62 0.014 − 1.368 − 30.9 − 27.9 19.5 − 56.9 − 58.6 54.0 0.0221 11.8 61.1
− 0.0068 10.32 0.007 − 0.604 − 30.5 − 28.7 19.5 − 42.2 − 41.8 40.1 0.0103 8.3 45.1

(continued on next page)

20
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Table A1 (continued )
Specimen εh fl,w a1 b1 c1 y1 x2 y2 y3 fcc
’ εcc l θ

H-40-40-4-30 − 0.0089 18.02 0.011 − 1.024 − 31.5 − 29.2 19.5 − 51.3 − 51.3 48.1 0.0155 10.7 56.3
− 0.0122 24.70 0.015 − 1.460 − 31.2 − 28.4 19.5 − 58.9 − 60.4 55.4 0.0210 12.0 61.9
− 0.0151 30.57 0.020 − 1.873 − 30.3 − 26.3 19.5 − 65.5 − 68.5 61.9 0.0257 12.8 65.2
− 0.0056 11.34 0.007 − 0.621 − 31.2 − 29.3 19.5 − 43.5 − 42.8 41.0 0.0099 8.3 45.1

H-40-60-2-30 − 0.0090 9.11 0.006 − 0.556 − 25.3 − 24.6 25.5 − 37.1 − 37.8 34.8 0.0088 9.3 34.4
− 0.0124 12.55 0.007 − 0.735 − 24.8 − 24.0 25.5 − 40.1 − 40.5 37.4 0.0120 9.9 36.5
− 0.0149 15.08 0.009 − 0.858 − 24.4 − 23.5 25.5 − 42.2 − 42.7 39.3 0.0144 14.0 50.0
− 0.0108 10.93 0.007 − 0.650 − 25.0 − 24.3 25.5 − 38.6 − 39.0 36.1 0.0104 9.0 33.4

H-40-60-3-30 − 0.0091 13.82 0.008 − 0.788 − 24.9 − 24.5 25.5 − 41.3 − 42.1 38.2 0.0111 11.0 40.3
− 0.0118 17.92 0.010 − 1.004 − 24 − 23.7 25.5 − 44.7 − 46.0 41.2 0.0143 12.2 44.3
− 0.0150 22.78 0.013 − 1.299 − 22.2 − 21.9 25.5 − 48.7 − 50.7 44.7 0.0182 13.6 48.8
− 0.0084 12.75 0.007 − 0.732 − 25.1 − 24.7 25.5 − 40.4 − 41.8 37.5 0.0102 10.7 39.3

H-40-60-4-30 − 0.0092 18.63 0.010 − 0.999 − 24.3 − 24.4 25.5 − 45.0 − 46.7 41.2 0.0131 12.3 44.6
− 0.0120 24.29 0.013 − 1.330 − 22.4 − 23.0 25.5 − 49.4 − 52.1 45.2 0.0171 14.0 50.0
− 0.0148 29.96 0.017 − 1.701 − 19.3 − 19.8 25.5 − 53.6 − 57.7 48.8 0.0210 15.3 54.0
− 0.0069 13.97 0.008 − 0.765 − 25.3 − 25.2 25.5 − 41.4 − 42.2 38.1 0.0099 10.8 39.6

H-60-20-2-30 − 0.0088 8.91 0.005 − 0.493 − 39.4 − 35.9 13.5 − 47.8 − 49.2 47.7 0.014 5.8 60.2
− 0.0120 12.15 0.007 − 0.681 − 42.4 − 37.7 13.5 − 53.9 − 56.0 54.4 0.0188 7.4 73.0
− 0.0152 15.39 0.009 − 0.869 − 45.5 − 39.5 13.5 − 60.0 − 62.9 60.7 0.0237 7.5 73.7
− 0.0063 6.38 0.004 − 0.337 − 36.9 − 34.6 13.5 − 42.6 − 43.6 42.5 0.0100 2.8 31.3

H-60-20-3-30 − 0.0089 13.51 0.008 − 0.777 − 44.5 − 39.4 13.5 − 57.2 − 59.6 57.3 0.0165 7.8 75.9
− 0.0121 18.37 0.012 − 1.074 − 48.9 − 42.2 13.5 − 66.3 − 70.0 67.0 0.0222 8.8 82.7
− 0.0149 22.62 0.014 − 1.338 − 52.5 − 44.5 13.5 − 73.8 − 78.9 75.4 0.0271 9.5 87.1
− 0.0053 8.05 0.005 − 0.453 − 39.2 − 36.6 13.5 − 46.3 − 47.8 46.5 0.0100 4.7 50.3

H-60-20-4-30 − 0.0092 18.63 0.014 − 1.260 − 48.3 − 41.9 13.5 − 67.8 − 73.2 68.7 0.0178 9.4 86.5
− 0.0121 24.50 0.018 − 1.679 − 53.2 − 45.1 13.5 − 78.8 − 86.8 80.9 0.0231 10.0 90.0
− 0.0152 30.77 0.022 − 2.109 − 57.8 − 48.3 13.5 − 89.5 − 100.4 93.2 0.0284 10.6 86.7
− 0.0050 10.12 0.007 − 0.671 − 40.9 − 37.7 13.5 − 51.0 − 53.7 51.4 0.0101 7.5 73.7
H-60-40-2-30 − 0.0090 9.11 0.007 − 0.652 − 29.6 − 27.8 19.5 − 42.1 − 42.9 40.4 0.0110 8.9 48.0
− 0.0123 12.45 0.009 − 0.897 − 29.8 − 27.6 19.5 − 46.6 − 47.9 44.8 0.0149 10.3 54.5
− 0.0150 15.18 0.012 − 1.108 − 29.6 − 27.1 19.5 − 50.2 − 51.9 48.4 0.0180 11.1 58.1
− 0.0083 8.40 0.006 − 0.606 − 29.5 − 27.8 19.5 − 41.2 − 42.3 39.6 0.0102 8.7 47.0
H-60-40-3-30 − 0.0087 13.21 0.010 − 0.910 − 30.4 − 28.4 19.5 − 47.9 − 48.9 45.4 0.0134 10.3 54.5
− 0.0120 18.22 0.013 − 1.284 − 30.1 − 27.8 19.5 − 54.1 − 55.8 51.5 0.0181 11.6 60.2
− 0.0154 23.38 0.018 − 1.701 − 29.0 − 26.3 19.5 − 60.1 − 63.1 57.7 0.0228 12.6 64.4
− 0.0066 10.02 0.007 − 0.673 − 30.4 − 28.6 19.5 − 43.6 − 44.7 41.4 0.0102 9.0 48.5
H-60-40-4-30 − 0.0091 18.42 0.014 − 1.293 − 30.0 − 28.8 19.5 − 53.4 − 55.2 51.0 0.0152 13.0 66.0
− 0.0122 24.70 0.019 − 1.804 − 28.5 − 27.4 19.5 − 60.0 − 64.0 58.2 0.0198 12.9 65.6
− 0.0148 29.96 0.024 − 2.309 − 26.0 − 24.0 19.5 − 65.6 − 71.8 64.3 0.0235 13.6 68.4
− 0.0057 11.54 0.008 − 0.759 − 30.6 − 29.3 19.5 − 45.1 − 45.8 42.7 0.0096 9.4 50.3
H-60-60-2-30 − 0.0088 8.91 0.006 − 0.694 − 24.3 − 24.0 25.5 − 39.0 − 42.8 36.6 0.0094 10.9 39.9
− 0.0120 12.15 0.008 − 0.889 − 23.3 − 22.9 25.5 − 42.0 − 48.1 39.4 0.0126 12.2 44.3
− 0.0151 15.28 0.010 − 1.115 − 21.9 − 21.0 25.5 − 45.1 − 52.5 42.3 0.0157 13.1 47.2
− 0.0096 9.72 0.006 − 0.738 − 24.1 − 23.9 25.5 − 39.8 − 44.7 37.4 0.0102 11.3 41.3
H-60-60-3-30 − 0.0089 13.51 0.008 − 0.920 − 23.8 − 23.7 25.5 − 43.3 − 49.8 40.3 0.0118 12.4 44.9
− 0.0120 18.22 0.011 − 1.227 − 21.9 − 21.8 25.5 − 47.5 − 56.1 44.2 0.0157 13.9 49.7
− 0.0154 23.38 0.014 − 1.585 − 19.0 − 18.6 25.5 − 51.7 − 62.6 48.0 0.0196 15.1 53.4
− 0.0076 11.54 0.007 − 0.796 − 24.5 − 24.3 25.5 − 41.5 − 47.5 38.7 0.0102 11.3 41.3
H-60-60-4-30 − 0.0089 18.02 0.010 − 1.122 − 23.2 − 23.6 25.5 − 46.7 − 54.3 43.3 0.0133 13.6 48.8
− 0.0123 24.90 0.014 − 1.558 − 19.9 − 20.6 25.5 − 52.0 − 63.1 48.3 0.0179 15.5 54.6
− 0.0153 30.97 0.017 − 2.005 − 15.0 − 15.5 25.5 − 56.1 − 71.1 52.0 0.0216 16.7 58.2
− 0.0066 13.36 0.008 − 0.861 − 24.6 − 24.6 25.5 − 43.0 − 48.8 39.9 0.0103 11.9 43.3
H-20-20-2-45 − 0.0092 9.31 0.003 − 0.279 − 50.2 − 46.5 13.5 − 56.5 − 55.9 55.5 0.0098 1.3 14.8
− 0.0118 11.94 0.003 − 0.291 − 52.8 − 48.7 13.5 − 59.7 − 58.6 58.7 0.0130 1.6 18.2
− 0.0147 14.88 0.004 − 0.352 − 55.5 − 50.7 13.5 − 63.8 − 62.5 62.8 0.0168 3.0 33.4
− 0.0097 9.82 0.003 − 0.262 − 51.1 − 47.6 13.5 − 57.1 − 56.3 56.2 0.0105 1.3 14.8
H-20-20-3-45 − 0.0089 13.51 0.004 − 0.365 − 55.3 − 50.8 13.5 − 63.3 − 62.8 62.0 0.0101 2.3 25.9
− 0.0119 18.07 0.005 − 0.490 − 59.1 − 53.5 13.5 − 69.7 − 69.3 68.4 0.0127 4.4 47.5
− 0.0149 22.62 0.006 − 0.612 − 63.0 − 56.5 13.5 − 76.0 − 76.0 75.0 0.0179 5.8 60.2
− 0.0074 11.24 0.003 − 0.319 − 53.4 − 49.4 13.5 − 60.3 − 59.8 59.1 0.0101 1.8 20.4
H-20-20-4-45 − 0.0087 17.61 0.005 − 0.425 − 60.1 − 53.9 13.5 − 70.8 − 68.5 67.9 0.0145 3.5 38.6
− 0.0120 24.29 0.006 − 0.587 − 66.2 − 58.2 13.5 − 80.3 − 77.7 77.2 0.0208 5.5 57.6
− 0.0149 30.16 0.008 − 0.746 − 71.4 − 62.1 13.5 − 88.8 − 86.0 85.8 0.0266 6.4 65.2
− 0.0063 12.75 0.004 − 0.341 − 55.7 − 51.2 13.5 − 63.8 − 62.8 61.8 0.0999 1.6 18.2
H-20-40-2-45 − 0.0091 9.21 0.004 − 0.455 − 39.3 − 37.6 19.5 − 48.8 − 50.6 47.5 0.0073 6.0 33.4
− 0.0124 12.55 0.004 − 0.406 − 40.7 − 38.0 19.5 − 50.0 − 50.5 48.4 0.0099 5.9 32.9
− 0.0152 15.39 0.005 − 0.456 − 42.0 − 38.6 19.5 − 52.3 − 52.1 50.7 0.0125 6.5 36.0
− 0.0124 12.55 0.004 − 0.350 − 30.2 − 38.0 19.5 − 50.0 − 50.5 48.4 0.0099 5.9 32.9
H-20-40-3-45 − 0.0093 14.12 0.006 − 0.566 − 41.8 − 39.5 19.5 − 53.5 − 54.0 51.6 0.0092 7.0 38.6
− 0.0121 18.37 0.006 − 0.607 − 43.4 − 39.8 19.5 − 56.5 − 55.8 54.1 0.0124 7.4 40.6
− 0.0151 22.93 0.008 − 0.737 − 44.6 − 40.1 19.5 − 60.5 − 59.4 57.8 0.0162 8.4 45.6
− 0.0099 15.03 0.006 − 0.571 − 42.2 − 39.5 19.5 − 54.2 − 54.3 52.0 0.0098 7.1 39.1
(continued on next page)

21
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Table A1 (continued )
Specimen εh fl,w a1 b1 c1 y1 x2 y2 y3 fcc
’ εcc l θ

H-20-40-4-45 − 0.0092 18.63 0.007 − 0.683 − 43.4 − 40.4 19.5 − 57.7 − 57.2 54.9 0.0110 7.8 42.6
− 0.0122 24.70 0.009 − 0.856 − 44.8 − 40.6 19.5 − 62.8 − 62.1 59.6 0.0154 8.9 48.0
− 0.0151 30.57 0.011 − 1.067 − 45.7 − 40.5 19.5 − 68.1 − 67.7 64.5 0.0198 9.8 52.2
− 0.0087 17.61 0.007 − 0.616 − 42.2 − 40.3 19.5 − 57.2 − 56.8 54.4 0.0104 7.7 42.1
H-20-60-2-45 − 0.0087 8.81 0.005 − 0.568 − 31.6 − 29.7 25.5 − 43.6 − 46.9 41.7 0.0064 7.9 29.5
− 0.0120 12.15 0.005 − 0.554 − 34.8 − 33.1 25.5 − 47.9 − 51.7 45.2 0.0089 8.8 32.7
− 0.0150 15.18 0.006 − 0.592 − 35.1 − 33.6 25.5 − 48.0 − 49.4 45.9 0.0111 8.5 31.6
− 0.0136 13.77 0.006 − 0.589 − 34.7 − 33.3 25.5 − 47.8 − 49.3 45.3 0.0100 8.4 31.3
H-20-60-3-45 − 0.0092 13.97 0.006 − 0.637 − 35.1 − 35.4 25.5 − 48.7 − 50.6 46.2 0.0075 8.8 32.7
− 0.0122 18.52 0.006 − 0.62 − 36.0 − 34.8 25.5 − 49.9 − 51.7 47.2 0.0102 8.8 32.7
− 0.0149 22.62 0.008 − 0.743 − 36.2 − 34.6 25.5 − 52.3 − 52.7 49.5 0.0128 9.5 35.1
− 0.0122 18.52 0.006 − 0.620 − 36.0 − 34.8 25.5 − 49.9 − 51.7 47.2 0.0102 8.8 32.7
H-20-60-4-45 − 0.0088 17.82 0.008 − 0.779 − 34.5 − 34.3 25.5 − 51.0 − 53.2 47.9 0.0082 9.8 36.2
− 0.0118 23.89 0.008 − 0.816 − 36.3 − 35.0 25.5 − 53.5 − 53.4 50.3 0.0115 9.6 35.5
− 0.0155 31.38 0.011 − 1.048 − 35.9 − 33.7 25.5 − 58.3 − 58.2 54.4 0.0161 10.7 39.3
− 0.0101 20.45 0.008 − 0.768 − 35.2 − 34.1 25.5 − 51.5 − 52.9 48.5 0.0096 9.7 35.8
H-40-20-2-45 − 0.0091 9.21 0.005 − 0.414 − 52.5 − 48.9 13.5 − 59.8 − 60.5 59.8 0.0115 2.6 29.1
− 0.0123 12.45 0.006 − 0.539 − 55.6 − 51.2 13.5 − 64.9 − 66.2 65.4 0.0163 5.2 54.9
− 0.0150 15.18 0.007 − 0.658 − 58.1 − 53.2 13.5 − 69.3 − 71.3 70.3 0.0202 7.1 70.7
− 0.0079 8.00 0.004 − 0.367 − 51.7 − 48.5 13.5 − 58.1 − 58.7 58.1 0.0099 1.5 17.1
H-40-20-3-45 − 0.0090 13.67 0.006 − 0.528 − 58.7 − 53.1 13.5 − 68.7 − 69.0 67.9 0.0145 4.9 52.2
− 0.0121 18.37 0.008 − 0.706 − 63.5 − 56.5 13.5 − 76.7 − 77.5 76.2 0.0204 6.8 68.4
− 0.0148 22.47 0.010 − 0.872 − 67.5 − 59.4 13.5 − 83.5 − 84.8 83.4 0.0254 7.7 75.2
− 0.0066 10.02 0.005 − 0.426 − 55.0 − 51.2 13.5 − 62.5 − 63.3 62.2 0.0103 2.2 24.8
H-40-20-4-45 − 0.0090 18.22 0.009 − 0.828 − 60.2 − 53.4 13.5 − 74.4 − 76.6 75.2 0.0179 6.3 64.4
− 0.0120 24.50 0.013 − 1.138 − 66.9 − 56.6 13.5 − 85.0 − 87.2 86.6 0.0240 7.2 71.5
− 0.0150 29.96 0.015 − 1.412 − 72.3 − 59.3 13.5 − 94.3 − 96.6 97.0 0.0283 7.7 75.2
− 0.0058 11.74 0.006 − 0.500 − 53.3 − 49.8 13.5 − 63.4 − 65.4 63.3 0.0106 4.3 46.5
H-40-40-2-45 − 0.0084 8.50 0.006 − 0.631 − 40.2 − 38.6 19.5 − 52.4 − 53.6 50.5 0.0080 7.3 40.1
− 0.0126 12.75 0.007 − 0.709 − 41.1 − 38.5 19.5 − 54.5 − 56.7 53.5 0.0123 8.1 44.1
− 0.0155 15.69 0.009 − 0.838 − 42.1 − 38.8 19.5 − 58.1 − 59.6 56.9 0.0155 8.8 47.5
− 0.0111 11.24 0.007 − 0.676 − 40.4 − 38.5 19.5 − 53.0 − 54.8 52.0 0.0106 7.7 42.1
H-40-40-3-45 − 0.0089 13.51 0.009 − 0.846 − 41.5 − 39.7 19.5 − 57.2 − 58.6 55.6 0.0109 8.8 47.5
− 0.0123 18.68 0.012 − 1.090 − 42.7 − 39.7 19.5 − 62.9 − 64.2 61.1 0.0159 9.8 52.2
− 0.0150 22.78 0.014 − 1.323 − 43.3 − 39.7 19.5 − 68.0 − 69.5 66.0 0.0199 10.5 55.4
− 0.0083 12.60 0.009 − 0.817 − 41.3 − 39.8 19.5 − 56.5 − 57.9 54.8 0.0101 8.7 47.0
H-40-40-4-45 − 0.0092 18.63 0.012 − 1.084 − 42.9 − 40.5 19.5 − 63.1 − 63.8 60.7 0.0136 9.8 52.2
− 0.0120 24.29 0.015 − 1.398 − 43.8 − 40.5 19.5 − 69.9 − 71.0 67.1 0.0185 10.7 56.3
− 0.0148 29.96 0.019 − 1.741 − 44.0 − 39.9 19.5 − 76.6 − 78.5 73.6 0.0233 11.5 59.8
− 0.0072 14.58 0.009 − 0.910 − 41.9 − 40.5 19.5 − 58.9 − 60.4 56.8 0.0103 9.2 49.4
H-40-60-2-45 − 0.0098 9.92 0.007 − 0.769 − 32.1 − 33.1 25.5 − 49.2 − 47.8 46.1 0.0082 8.0 29.9
− 0.0119 12.05 0.008 − 0.771 − 34.6 − 33.7 25.5 − 50.9 − 52.0 48.2 0.0100 9.6 35.5
− 0.0151 15.28 0.009 − 0.885 − 34.3 − 32.0 25.5 − 53.0 − 54.2 50.2 0.0129 10.1 37.2
− 0.0119 12.05 0.008 − 0.771 − 34.6 − 33.7 25.5 − 50.9 − 52.0 48.2 0.0100 9.6 35.5
H-40-60-3-45 − 0.0090 13.67 0.008 − 0.825 − 35.0 − 34.4 25.5 − 52.2 − 56.7 49.8 0.0089 10.0 36.9
− 0.0121 18.37 0.010 − 0.995 − 34.9 − 33.4 25.5 − 55.4 − 57.8 52.4 0.0123 10.6 38.9
− 0.0149 22.62 0.012 − 1.212 − 34.2 − 32.1 25.5 − 59.4 − 60.9 55.6 0.0156 11.6 42.3
− 0.0106 16.09 0.009 − 0.905 − 34.9 − 34.0 25.5 − 53.6 − 56.7 50.9 0.0106 10.2 37.6
H-40-60-4-45 − 0.0091 18.42 0.010 − 1.008 − 35.2 − 34.5 25.5 − 56.0 − 59.2 52.7 0.0107 10.6 38.9
− 0.0121 24.50 0.013 − 1.298 − 34.0 − 32.5 25.5 − 60.6 − 62.9 56.6 0.0150 11.7 42.6
− 0.0149 30.16 0.016 − 1.592 − 32.9 − 32.0 25.5 − 65.5 − 67.6 60.8 0.0190 12.9 46.5
− 0.0085 17.21 0.009 − 0.936 − 35.1 − 35.0 25.5 − 54.6 − 59.1 51.7 0.0099 10.6 38.9
H-60-20-2-45 − 0.0089 9.01 0.006 − 0.550 − 51.6 − 48.3 13.5 − 60.6 − 62.2 61.0 0.0116 4.5 48.5
− 0.0120 12.15 0.008 − 0.719 − 54.4 − 50.4 13.5 − 65.9 − 68.5 67.0 0.0165 6.7 67.6
− 0.0152 15.39 0.009 − 0.885 − 57.5 − 52.4 13.5 − 71.6 − 75.0 73.3 0.0212 7.7 75.2
− 0.0077 7.79 0.005 − 0.487 − 50.9 − 47.9 13.5 − 58.9 − 60.3 59.1 0.0100 3.3 36.5
H-60-20-3-45 − 0.0091 13.82 0.010 − 0.886 − 57.3 − 52.3 13.5 − 71.2 − 74.5 72.0 0.015 7.5 73.7
− 0.0119 18.07 0.012 − 1.121 − 61.0 − 55.1 13.5 − 78.5 − 83.3 80.1 0.0198 8.6 81.4
− 0.0151 22.93 0.015 − 1.400 − 65.4 − 58.2 13.5 − 86.9 − 93.4 89.7 0.0254 9.3 85.8
− 0.0064 9.72 0.007 − 0.648 − 53.5 − 50.1 13.5 − 63.6 − 66.0 64.0 0.0102 5.3 55.8
H-60-20-4-45 − 0.0093 18.83 0.015 − 1.374 − 61.6 − 55.2 13.5 − 82.4 − 89.0 84.1 0.0175 9.1 84.6
− 0.0119 24.09 0.018 − 1.733 − 65.8 − 58.3 13.5 − 91.7 − 100.8 94.6 0.0223 9.9 89.4
− 0.0149 30.16 0.023 − 2.161 − 70.4 − 61.8 13.5 − 102.2 − 114.4 107.0 0.0278 10.5 87.2
− 0.0052 10.53 0.008 − 0.731 − 54.8 − 51.1 13.5 − 66.1 − 68.9 66.4 0.0968 6.8 68.4
H-60-40-2-45 − 0.0088 8.91 0.007 − 0.744 − 39.9 − 38.9 19.5 − 53.5 − 55.8 52.6 0.0085 8.2 44.6
− 0.0120 12.15 0.009 − 0.861 − 40.8 − 38.5 19.5 − 56.7 − 58.2 55.6 0.0119 8.9 48.0
− 0.0148 14.98 0.011 − 1.030 − 41.5 − 38.3 19.5 − 60.6 − 62.1 59.3 0.0151 9.6 51.3
− 0.0105 10.63 0.008 − 0.800 − 40.3 − 38.6 19.5 − 54.9 − 56.9 54.0 0.0102 7.6 41.6
H-60-40-3-45 − 0.0087 13.21 0.009 − 0.923 − 41.5 − 39.3 19.5 − 58.8 − 62.5 57.3 0.011 9.3 49.9
− 0.0121 18.37 0.013 − 1.251 − 42.2 − 39.1 19.5 − 65.4 − 67.9 63.5 0.0159 10.4 54.9
− 0.0153 23.23 0.017 − 1.600 − 42.3 − 38.6 19.5 − 71.9 − 74.5 69.8 0.0207 11.1 58.1
− 0.0081 12.30 0.009 − 0.883 − 41.2 − 39.4 19.5 − 57.7 − 62.3 56.4 0.0101 9.1 48.9
H-60-40-4-45 − 0.0090 18.22 0.013 − 1.286 − 41.7 − 40.2 19.5 − 64.5 − 68.0 63.0 0.0134 10.5 55.4
− 0.0120 24.29 0.019 − 1.286 − 41.6 − 39.8 19.5 − 72.1 − 74.8 70.4 0.0183 11.3 58.9
− 0.0151 30.57 0.024 − 2.212 − 40.6 − 38.6 19.5 − 78.9 − 83.3 77.8 0.0230 12.3 63.2
− 0.0069 13.97 0.010 − 1.054 − 40.7 − 40.2 19.5 − 59.2 − 64.8 58.4 0.0100 10.0 53.1
(continued on next page)

22
J.-J. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966

Table A1 (continued )
Specimen εh fl,w a1 b1 c1 y1 x2 y2 y3 fcc
’ εcc l θ

H-60-60-2-45 − 0.0089 9.01 0.006 − 0.742 − 34.3 − 35.3 25.5 − 49.8 − 56.8 48.1 0.0080 10.5 38.6
− 0.0128 12.96 0.008 − 0.952 − 33.0 − 32.2 25.5 − 53.1 − 62.0 51.0 0.0115 11.3 41.3
− 0.0154 15.59 0.010 − 1.149 − 32.6 − 30.8 25.5 − 57.1 − 65.2 54.2 0.0140 11.8 42.9
− 0.0119 12.05 0.009 − 0.960 − 33.3 − 32.2 25.5 − 53.6 − 58.8 50.8 0.0106 10.8 39.6
H-60-60-3-45 − 0.0089 13.51 0.007 − 0.905 − 34.5 − 35.1 25.5 − 53.8 − 64.7 51.7 0.0099 11.9 43.3
− 0.0119 18.07 0.010 − 1.188 − 33.1 − 32.1 25.5 − 58.3 − 68.8 55.4 0.0133 12.0 43.6
− 0.0152 23.08 0.013 − 1.509 − 31.6 − 29.7 25.5 − 63.7 − 74.5 59.9 0.0172 12.8 46.2
− 0.0089 13.51 0.007 − 0.905 − 34.5 − 35.1 25.5 − 53.8 − 64.7 51.7 0. 0099 11.9 43.3
H-60-60-4-45 − 0.0089 18.02 0.009 − 1.105 − 34.4 − 34.2 25.5 − 58.1 − 69.8 55.2 0.0114 12.0 43.6
− 0.0119 24.09 0.013 − 1.471 − 32.7 − 31.7 25.5 − 63.9 − 75.2 60.1 0.0154 12.6 45.6
− 0.0152 30.77 0.017 − 1.895 − 29.8 − 28.5 25.5 − 69.9 − 82.9 65.3 0.0200 14.3 51.0
− 0.0076 15.39 0.007 − 0.932 − 35.1 − 35.7 25.5 − 55.8 − 68.7 53.2 0.0097 12.3 44.6

References [23] Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Gao WY, Li LJ, Chen WP. Stress-strain behavior of circular
concrete columns partially wrapped with FRP strips. Compos Struct 2018;200:
810–28.
[1] Bai YL, Yan ZW, Ozbakkaloglu T, Han Q, Dai JG, Zhu DJ. Quasi-static and dynamic
[24] Li PD, Wu YF, Gravina R. Cyclic response of FRP-confined concrete with post-peak
tensile properties of large-rupture-strain (LRS) polyethylene terephthalate fiber
strain softening behavior. Constr Build Mater 2016;123:814–28.
bundle. Constr Build Mater 2020;232:117241.
[25] Promis G, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Effect of external FRP retrofitting on reinforced
[2] Lai MH, Liang YW, Wang Q, Ren FM, Chen MT, Ho JCM. A stress-path dependent
concrete short columns for seismic strengthening. Compos Struct 2009;88(3):
stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete. Eng Struct 2020;203:109824.
367–79.
[3] Ozbakkaloglu T. Compressive behavior of concrete-filled FRP tube columns:
[26] Qin R, Lau D, Tam LH, Liu T, Zou D, Zhou A. Experimental investigation on
Assessment of critical column parameters. Eng Struct 2013;51:188–99.
interfacial defect criticality of FRP-confined concrete columns. Sensors. 2019;19
[4] Jiang T, Wang XM, Chen GM, Zhang JJ, Zhang WP. Behavior of recycled brick
(3):468.
block concrete-filled FRP tubes under axial compression. Eng Struct 2019;198:
[27] Sheikh BP, Uzumeri SM. Strength and ductility of tied concrete columns. J Struct
109498.
Divi ASCE 1980;106(5):1079–102.
[5] Yu T, Zhao HC, Ren T, Remennikov A. Novel hybrid FRP tubular columns with
[28] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
large deformation capacity: Concept and behaviour. Compos Struct 2019;212:
concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
500–12.
[29] Teng JG, Zeng JJ, Chen JF. Measurement of axial stress distributions in FRP-
[6] Wang YL, Chen GP, Wan BL, Cai GC, Zhang YW. Behavior of circular ice-filled self-
confined concrete columns using Tekscan pressure sensors. In: Proceedings, Joint
luminous FRP tubular stub columns under axial compression. Constr Build Mater
Conference of FRPRCS-12 & APFIS-2015, 14-16 December 2015, Nanjing, China.
2020;232(30):117287.
[30] Lin G, Teng JG. Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of FRP-confined circular
[7] Zeng JJ, Lin G, Teng JG, Li LJ. Behavior of large-scale FRP-confined rectangular RC
concrete columns under eccentric loading. J Compos Constr ASCE 2017;21(4):
columns under axial compression. Eng Struct 2018;174:629–45.
04017003.
[8] Pham TM, Hadi MNS. Stress prediction model for FRP confined rectangular
[31] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined concrete-I:
concrete columns with rounded corners. J Compos Constr ASCE 2014;18(1):
Drucker-Prager type plasticity model. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):665–79.
04013019.
[32] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined concrete-II:
[9] Ye YY, Liang SD, Feng P, Zeng JJ. Recyclable LRS FRP composites for engineering
Plastic-damage model. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):680–91.
structures: Current status and future opportunities. Compos Part B: Eng 2021:
[33] Lo SH, Kwan AKH, Ouyang Y, Ho JCM. Finite element analysis of axially loaded
108689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108689.
FRP-confined rectangular concrete columns. Eng Struct 2015;100:253–63.
[10] Ferrotto MF, Fischer O, Cavaleri L. A strategy for the finite element modeling of
[34] Ouyang Y, Kwan AKH, Lo SH, Ho JCM. Finite element analysis of concrete-filled
FRP-confined concrete columns subjected to preload. Eng Struct 2018;173:
steel tube (CFST) columns with circular sections under eccentric load. Eng Struct
1054–67.
2017;148:387–98.
[11] Micelli F, Cascardi A, Aiello MA. A study on FRP-confined concrete in presence of
[35] Gholampour A, Ozbakkaloglu T. Behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete-filled
different preload levels. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
FRP tube columns: Experimental results and a finite element model. Compos Struct
Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Civil Engineering—CICE, Paris,
2018;194:252–62.
France, pp. 17–19.
[36] Jiang JF, Wu YF. Identification of material parameters for Drucker-Prager plasticity
[12] Guo YC, Ye YY, Lin G, Lv JF, Bai YL, Zeng JJ. Effective usage of high strength steel
model for FRP confined circular concrete columns. Int J Solids Struct 2012;49
tubes: Axial compressive behavior of hybrid FRP-concrete-steel solid columns.
(3–4):445–56.
Thin-Walled Struct 2020;154:106796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[37] Jiang JF, Wu YF.Characterization of yield surfaces for FRP-confined concrete. J
tws.2020.106796.
Eng Mech, ASCE 140 (12) (2014) 04014096.
[13] Cascardi A, Lerna M, Micelli F, Aiello MA. Discontinuous FRP-confinement of
[38] Mohammadi M, Wu YF. Modified plastic-damage model for passively confined
masonry columns. Front Built Environ 2019;5:147.
concrete based on triaxial tests. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;159:211–23.
[14] Yang JL, Wang JZ, Wang ZR. Axial compressive behavior of partially CFRP
[39] Mohammadi M, Dai JG, Wu YF, Bai YL. Development of extended Drucker-Prager
confined seawater sea-sand concrete in circular columns–Part I: experimental
model for non-uniform FRP-confined concrete based on triaxial tests. Constr Build
study. Compos Struct 2020;246:112368.
Mater 2019;224:1–18.
[15] Mohamed H, Afifi M, Benmokrane B. Performance evaluation of concrete columns
[40] Hany NF, Hantouche EG, Harajli MH. Finite element modeling of FRP-confined
reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars and confined with FRP hoops and spirals
concrete using modified concrete damaged plasticity. Eng Struct 2015;125:1–15.
under axial load. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2014;19(7):04014020.
[41] Ribeiro F, Sena-Cruz J, Branco FG, Júlio E. 3D finite element model for hybrid FRP-
[16] Hales TA, Pantelides CP, Sankholkar P, Reaveley L. Analysis-oriented stress-strain
confined concrete in compression using modified CDPM. Eng Struct 2019;190:
model for concrete confined with fiber-reinforced polymer spirals. ACI Struct J
459–79.
2017;114(5):1263–72.
[42] Teng JG, Xiao QG, Yu T, Lam L. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of
[17] Triantafyllou GG, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AL. Axially loaded reinforced concrete
reinforced concrete columns with FRP and/or steel confinement. Eng Struct 2015;
columns with a square section partially confined by light GFRP straps. J Compos
97:15–28.
Constr ASCE 2015:04014035.
[43] Elchalakani M, Karrech A, Dong M, Ali MS, Mohamed BY. Experiments and finite
[18] Wei H, Wu Z, Guo X, Yi F. Experimental study on partially deteriorated strength
element analysis of GFRP reinforced geopolymer concrete rectangular columns
concrete columns confined with CFRP. Eng Struct 2009;31(10):2495–505.
subjected to concentric and eccentric axial loading. Structures 2018;14:273–89.
[19] Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Gao WY, Li JZ, Xie JH. Behavior of partially and fully FRP-
[44] Xiao QG. Computational Models for FRP-Confined Concrete and FRP-Confined RC
confined circularized square columns under axial compression. Constr Build Mater
Columns. Ph.D. Thesis. Hong Kong, China: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University;
2017;152:319–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.152.
2015.
[20] Zeng JJ, Duan ZJ, Guo YC, Li LJ. Novel fiber-reinforced polymer cross wrapping
[45] Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Li LJ, Chen WP. Behavior and three-dimensional finite element
strengthening technique: A comparative study, 2019. Adv Struct Eng 2020;23(5):
modeling of circular concrete columns partially wrapped with FRP strips. Polymers
979–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433219884451.
2018;10(3):253.
[21] Guo YC, Gao WY, Zeng JJ, Duan ZJ, Ni XY, Peng KD. Compressive behavior of FRP
[46] Farahmandpour C, Dartois S, Quiertant M, Berthaud Y, Dumontet H. A concrete
ring-confined concrete in circular columns: effects of specimen size and a new
damage–plasticity model for FRP confined columns. Mater Struct 2017;50. https://
design-oriented stress-strain model. Constr Build Mater 2019;201:350–68.
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1016-8.
[22] Mai AD, Sheikh MN, Hadi MNS. Investigation of the behaviour of partial wrapping
[47] Teng JG, Huang YL, Lam L, Ye LP. Theoretical model for fiber-reinforced polymer-
in comparison with full wrapping of square RC columns under different loading
confined concrete. J Compos Constr ASCE 2007;11(2):201–10.
conditions. Constr Build Mater 2018;168(2018):153–68.
[48] Zeng JJ, Zheng YW, Liu F, Guo YC, Hou C. Behavior of FRP ring-confined CFSTs
under axial compression. Compos Struct 2021;113166.

23
J.-J. Zeng et al.
[49] Guo YC, Xiao SH, Luo JW, Zeng JJ. Confined concrete in square columns partially
wrapped with FRP strips: axial compressive behavior and strain distributions by
particle image velocimetry sensing technique. Sensors 2018;12. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s18124118.
[50] CNR-DT 200 R1. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures, Advisory Committee on Technical
Recommendations For Construction, National Research Council, Rome, Italy; 2013.
[51] fib. Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC Structures. The International
Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2001.
[52] Teng JG, Zhu JY, Lin G, Chan TM, Zeng JJ. FRP-confined square concrete columns
with section curvilinearization under axial compression. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2020;24(2):04020004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000999.
[53] Zeng JJ, Gao WY, Duan ZJ, Guo YC, Bai YL, Ouyang LJ. Axial compressive behavior
of polyethylene terephthalate/carbon FRP-confined seawater sea-sand concrete in
circular columns. Constr Build Mater 2020;234:117383.
[54] Pour AF, Gholampour A, Ozbakkaloglu T. Influence of the measurement method on
axial strains of FRP-confined concrete under compression. Compos Struct 2018;
188:415–24.
[55] Zeng JJ, Ye YY, Gao WY, Smith ST, Guo YC. Stress-strain behavior of polyethylene
terephthalate fiber-reinforced polymer-confined normal-, high- and ultra high-
strength concrete. J Build Eng 2020;30:101243.
[56] Pham TM, Hadi MNS, Youssef J. Optimized FRP wrapping schemes for circular
concrete columns under axial compression. J Compos Constr, ASCE 19 (6) (2015)
04015015.
24
Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111966
[57] Wang WQ, Sheikh MN, Albaali AQ, Hadi MNS. Compressive behaviour of partially
FRP confined concrete: Experimental observations and assessment of the stress-
strain models. Constr Build Mater 2018;192:785–97.
[58] Barros JAO, Ferreira DRSM. Assessing the efficiency of CFRP discrete confinement
systems for concrete cylinders. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2008;12(2):134–48.
[59] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[60] Sadeghian P, Fam A. A rational approach toward strain efficiency factor of fiber-
reinforced polymer-wrapped concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2014;111(1):135–44.
[61] Xie ZH, Duan ZJ, Guo YC, Li X, Zeng JJ. Behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer-
confined high-strength concrete under split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) impact
compression. Appl Sci 2019;9:2830. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142830.
[62] Guo YC, Xiao SH, Zeng JJ, Zheng Y, Li X, Liu F. Fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete under high strain rate compression: Behavior and a unified dynamic
strength model. Constr Build Mater 2020;260:120460.
[63] ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA; 2008.
[64] Popovics S. Numerical approach to the complete stress-strain relation for concrete.
Cem Concr Res 1973;3(5):583–99.
[65] Lam L, Teng JG. Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2004;8(6):539–48.