Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Slenderness effect of circular concrete specimens confined with SFRP sheets

Raafat El-Hacha ⇑, Khaled Abdelrahman
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

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

Article history: Experimental investigation of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) confined concrete is normally conducted on
Received 4 December 2011 relatively small-scale specimens, where the scaling effects of the specimen size are usually ignored. Few
Received in revised form 16 May 2012 researchers investigated the scaling effects of confined concrete with Carbon FRP (CFRP), Glass FRP
Accepted 12 June 2012
(GFRP) and Aramid FRP (AFRP) sheets. However, based on the authors’ knowledge, there is no information
Available online 21 June 2012
available in the literature on the slenderness effects of confined concrete with Steel FRP (SFRP) sheet. The
SFRP sheet is a new type of material recently introduced for strengthening applications of concrete struc-
Keywords:
tures. Thus, the main aim of this investigation is to quantify and access the axial strength, axial strain,
B. Buckling
B. Debonding
hoop strain, dilation and ductility performance of SFRP confined concrete with the increase in the slen-
B. Fibre/matrix bond derness of the specimens. The experimental program included eighteen specimens with varying slender-
B. Strength ness ratios (height-to-diameter ratio) of 2 (150 mm  300 mm), 4 (150 mm  600 mm), and 6
(150 mm  900 mm). Six specimens were constructed in each size, where three specimens were left
unwrapped as control specimens and three specimens were wrapped with SFRP sheets. All specimens
were loaded in uniaxial compression until failure. The specimens were also instrumented with a photo-
grammetric method termed Digital Image Correlation Technique to measure the hoop strains from the
surface of the SFRP confined concrete specimens. The experimental investigation showed that the effec-
tiveness of the SFRP sheets, measured in terms of the percentage increase in the ultimate axial strength,
axial and hoop strains, and the ductility was significantly enhanced compared to the unwrapped speci-
mens. The results also indicate that the overall performance of the SFRP wrapped concrete specimens
was reduced with the increase in the slenderness of the specimens, when compared to the standard size
cylinders. The study of three major design codes/guidelines to predict the ultimate SFRP-confined con-
crete compressive strength revealed that the FRP Building Code has the best confinement model when
compared with the experimental results.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the carbon/glass/aramid fibres. The SFRP sheet is about 11 times

Deterioration of concrete structures is becoming a serious issue
which requires immediate repair actions in order to meet the spec-
ifications of the upgraded design code/guidelines. Thus, the repair
of structural elements such as columns is established by wrapping
Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) sheet around the perimeter of the
column. Several experimental and analytical studies have shown
that the additional wrapping of bonded FRP sheets significantly en-
hances the strength and ductility of concrete columns [1–9]. Most
of these researches have been conducted on conventionally used fi-
ber composite materials such as Carbon FRP (CFRP), Glass FRP
(GFRP) and Aramid FRP (AFRP). However, a newly developed Steel
FRP (SFRP) sheet has been recently introduced for flexural and
shear strengthening applications of concrete members. The SFRP
system is similar in concept to externally-bonded CFRP/GFRP/AFRP
sheets, but high-strength galvanized steel wires are used instead of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 220 4817.
E-mail address: relhacha@ucalgary.ca (R. El-Hacha).
stronger than a typical steel plate [10]. However, limited research
has been performed using SFRP sheets for confining concrete col-
umns [11–14].
2. Research significance
Most of the conducted experimental research and the devel-
oped confinement models of FRP confined concrete are based on
relatively small-scale specimens and only few researchers ad-
dressed the slenderness effect of FRP confined concrete [15–21].
However, no information is available in the literature on the slen-
derness and scaling effect of confined concrete columns with SFRP
sheets. The objective of this paper is to quantify and access the ax-
ial strength, axial strain, hoop strain, dilation and ductility perfor-
mance of SFRP confined concrete with the increase in the
slenderness of the specimens.
One of the most critical research components of confined con-
crete is predicting the FRP-confined concrete compressive
strength. Three of the major design codes/guidelines are selected

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.014
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
for this study: the American Concrete Institute [22], the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code [23], and the Design and Construction
of Building Components with FRP [24]. However, all models are
calibrated against test results of small-scale CFRP/GFRP/AFRP
wrapped concrete cylinders. Therefore, the accuracy of these mod-
els to predict the maximum SFRP-confined concrete compressive
strength is compared with experimental results. A critical insight
into the strength and weaknesses of the design models are
presented.
3. Experimental program
3.1. Test matrix
To study the slenderness effects of circular concrete specimens
wrapped with SFRP sheets, the experimental program consisted of
eighteen circular plain concrete specimens each measuring
150 mm in diameter with varying heights of 300, 600 and
900 mm (Fig. 1). The dimensions of the specimens were selected
in order to obtain aspect ratios (H/D, where H and D are the height
and diameter of the specimen, respectively) of 2, 4 and 6. Each
group of aspect ratio contained six specimens, to ensure repeat-
ability three identical specimens were left unwrapped to act as
control specimens and three identical specimens were wrapped
Fig. 1. Dimension of the specimens: (a) H/D = 2, (b) H/D = 4, and (c) H/D = 6.
Table 1
Test matrix of the specimens.
Aspect ratio (H/D) Diameter D (mm) Height H (mm)
2 150 300
4 150 600
6 150 900
153
with one layer of SFRP sheet. The test matrix is presented in
Table 1.
The specimen ID shown in Table 1 can be described as follows:
the first two letters ‘‘AR’’ refers to aspect ratio, followed by the
number representing the category of the aspect ratio (2, 4 and 6),
followed by the letters representing the specimen type (‘‘CT’’ for
control specimens and ‘‘SFRP’’ for SFRP wrapped specimens), and
the last digit (1, 2 and 3) indicates the specimen number for the
same group to verify the repeatability of the results.
Since this research is the first of its kind to present the slender-
ness effects of SFRP wrapped concrete specimens, the fabrication of
the specimens and selection of the aspect ratios were based on
similar research performed on CFRP and GFRP wrapped concrete
specimens. Bisby and Stratford [15] investigated the slenderness
effects of CFRP wrapped specimens with dimensions of 150 mm
in diameter with varying heights of 300, 600 and 900 mm, which
yields to aspect ratios of 2, 4 and 6, respectively. The columns with
aspect ratio of 6 had a slenderness ratio of 24. Mirmiran et al. [18],
investigated the slenderness effects of GFRP wrapped concrete
specimens with dimensions of 145 mm in diameter with varying
heights of 305, 457, 610 and 762 mm, yielding to aspect ratios of
2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. The tallest column 145  762 mm had
a slenderness ratio of 21, which is less than the slenderness limit
of 22 specified for short column (ACI Committee 318 [25], and
the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [23]). Thériault et al.
[21] studied the slenderness effects of CFRP and SFRP wrapped
concrete specimens that were divided into two groups. The first
group had the dimensions of 152  304 mm and 152  902 mm
with aspects ratio of 2 and 6, respectively. The slenderness ratio
for the specimens with aspect ratio of 6 was 24. The second group
had the dimensions of 304  608 mm and 304  1824 mm with
aspect ratio of 2 and 6, respectively. The slenderness ratio for the
specimens with aspect ratio of 6 was 24. Thus, a common range
of aspect ratio for FRP confined concrete specimens found in the
literature range between 2 and 6, with a maximum slenderness ra-
tio of 24. On these bases, the aspect ratio and slenderness limit of
the SFRP confined concrete columns were selected for this study.
3.2. Slenderness ratio
An important factor which affects the behaviour of FRP confined
concrete specimens is the slenderness of the columns. In the case
of non-braced compression members under a sway-prevented sys-
tem, the slenderness effects shall be permitted to be neglected
according to the ACI Committee 318 [25] Clause 10.10.1 and the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [23] Clause 8.8.5.2 in the
following case:
klu
 22 ð1Þ
r
where k is the effective length factor (for un-braced frame,
1.0 < k < 1), [=1 in this study]; lu is the unsupported height of the
column, in mm (taken = 300, 600 and 900 mm for slenderness ratio
of 2, 4 and 6, respectively); r radius of gyration, in mm (0.25D for
circular sections), [taken = 37.5 mm in this study].
FRP type Number of specimens Column ID
Unwrapped 3 AR-2-CT-(1/2/3)
SFRP 3 AR-2-SFRP-(1/2/3)
Unwrapped 3 AR-4-CT-(1/2/3)
SFRP 3 AR-4-SFRP-(1/2/3)
Unwrapped 3 AR-6-CT-(1/2/3)
SFRP 3 AR-6-SFRP-(1/2/3)
154 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
Therefore, based on the column cross-section and the support
loading conditions, the specimens with aspect ratio of 2, 4 and 6
have a slenderness ratio of 8, 16 and 24, respectively. Based on
the slenderness limit ðklu =r  22Þ imposed by the ACI Committee
318 [25] and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [23], spec-
imens with the aspect ratio of 2 and 4 are considered to have typ-
ical short column behaviour, whereas the specimens with aspect
ratio of 6 are considered to be slender at loads near ultimate.
3.3. Material properties
All specimens were cast from the same concrete batch which
had a 28 days specified compressive strength of 40 MPa. The com-
position of the concrete mix consisted of a maximum aggregate
size of 20 mm, 1% air content and a water/cement ratio of 0.4.
Additional three cylinders (150  300 mm) were also cast to deter-
mine the average 28 days compressive strength according to ASTM
C39/C39 M [26], which was 37.8 MPa with a standard deviation of
±9.3 MPa.
The SFRP sheets used were made of ultra high strength unidi-
rectional brass coated twisted steel wires of type 3  2-20-12.
The 3  2 indicates the number of wire filaments per chord. The
formulation of the individual SFRP chord consists of three straight
filaments wrapped around by two filaments. The third digit (20)
indicates the number of wires per inch, followed by the width
(12 in.) of the SFRP sheet. The thickness of the SFRP sheets was
1.23 mm with a net cross-sectional area of 0.38 mm2/mm (42%
steel fiber content). The SFRP sheets have linear elastic stress–
strain relationship until failure. The material properties reported
Fig. 2. Strengthening procedure: (a) attaching a 20 mm strip of the SFRP sheets to the concrete surface to facilitate wrapping procedure, (b) applying epoxy to the SFRP sheets,
(c) wrapping of plastic mold tightened with clamps to hold the SFRP sheets in place, and (d) SFRP wrapped specimen.
by the manufacturer for the ultimate tensile strength, modulus of
elasticity and strain at failure were 986 MPa, 66100 MPa and
1.5%, respectively [10]. However, direct tension tests were per-
formed on three SFRP laminate coupon samples according to ASTM
D3039/D3039 M [27], and the laboratory test results for the ulti-
mate tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and strain at failure
along with their respective standard deviations were 878 MPa
(±50), 68800 MPa (±1400) and 1.38% (±0.077%), respectively. A
high strength, high modulus epoxy system was used to bond the
SFRP sheets to the concrete surface. According to the manufacturer,
the reported ultimate tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of
the epoxy system were 30 MPa and 3.8 GPa, respectively [28].
3.4. Specimen preparation, test set-up and instrumentation
The bond performance between the SFRP sheets and the con-
crete is a very critical issue, thus, all the concrete specimens were
cleaned and completely dried to ensure proper bonding of the SFRP
sheets to the concrete surface. The SFRP sheets were bonded to the
concrete using the wet lay-up method as shown in Fig. 2. Although
confining circular concrete columns with SFRP sheets using the
epoxy bonded wet-layup installation procedure is similar to the
CFRP or GFRP sheets, wrapping the SFRP sheets around the column
is relatively difficult in comparison to the CFRP or GFRP sheets due
to the non-flexible nature of the SFRP sheets. To facilitate the
wrapping process, epoxy was applied on a 20 mm strip of the SFRP
sheets (Fig. 2a) bonded on the concrete column and left to cure for
24-h. Then, a thin layer of epoxy was applied to the SFRP sheets
and the concrete surface (Fig. 2b); thereafter the sheet was
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
wrapped around the column. To ensure full saturation of the SFRP
sheet, a thin layer of epoxy was also applied to the exterior of the
SFRP sheet. After the wrapping process was complete, the speci-
mens were externally confined with plastic molds and tightened
with clamps in order to ensure that the SFRP sheets are in complete
contact with the concrete surface (Fig. 2c). After 7-days, the clamps
were untightened and the plastic molds were removed. The end re-
sult of the wrapping process is shown in Fig. 2d. It should be noted
that all specimens were wrapped with one layer of SFRP sheet. An
overlap length of 100 mm was provided to avoid any premature
failure of the SFRP wrapped concrete specimens at the overlap.
Due to lack of information available in the literature and from
the manufacturer on the recommended overlap length for SFRP
sheets, the authors used the same recommendation for CFRP sheets
[29]. Since the diameter of all the specimens was constant
(150 mm), the confinement pressure applied by the SFRP sheets
to the concrete was expected to be the same. The end surfaces of
the circular specimens were grinded to ensure uniaxial loading.
The specimens were instrumented at mid-height with conven-
tional foil strain gauges, which had a resistance of 120 X and a
gauge length of 6.5 mm. The unwrapped specimens were instru-
mented with one horizontal and one vertical strain gauge, whereas
the SFRP wrapped specimens were instrumented with two hori-
zontal and two vertical strain gauges located 180o from each other
to measure the hoop and axial strains, respectively. The strain
gauges were installed outside the overlap zone to avoid false inter-
pretation of the data based on twice the thickness present at the
overlap zone. A concentric uniaxial load was then applied to the
concrete specimens at a loading rate of 10 kN/s until failure.
In addition to the strain gauge instrumentation, the strain
deformation along the height of the columns was captured using
a Digital Image Correlation Technique (DICT). This method func-
tions by defining particular regions of interests on the captured
images of the tested specimen. The pictures were processed using
an image processing program called geoPIV. The program tracks
Fig. 3. (a) Schematic view and (b) test set-up of the concrete specimens.
155
these patches over subsequent images to provide the displace-
ments values, which are converted to strain deformations. Square
patches of size 200  200 pixels (53  53 mm) were selected as
the region of interest along the sides of the specimen to capture
the hoop strains. The gauge length between the two virtual points
was determined as 92 mm, which is an optimum gauge length to
provide good accuracy of the captured hoop strains. Images were
captured every 5 s (maximum frame rate) using two high resolu-
tions (15.1 and 18 megapixel) cameras until failure of the speci-
men. The specimens with aspect ratio of 2 and 4 had one camera
installed on each side of the specimen, since the entire height of
these specimens could be captured within the field of view from
one camera. However, one camera was not sufficient to capture
the entire height with reasonable accuracy for the columns with
aspect ratio of 6. Thus, two cameras were installed on one side of
these columns due to the limitations of the number of cameras
available. The set-up of the DICT testing the specimens is shown
in Fig. 3. All the SFRP wrapped columns were painted with white
colour and then sprayed with black colour to form a texture surface
that facilitated the tracking process by providing sufficient varia-
tion in the intensity and distribution of the pixel colours. More
technical information concerning the DICT can be found in Bisby
and Take [30], Bisby and Stratford [15], White and Take [31], White
et al. [32], Abdelrahman [11] and Abdelrahman and El-Hacha [12].
4. Experimental results and discussions
4.1. Failure modes
The failure mode of SFRP confined concrete columns is very
similar to the typical failure modes of CFRP, GFRP and AFRP con-
fined concrete specimens reported in the literature and explained
hereafter. At the initial stages of loading (30–40% of the ultimate
load), low cracking noises were heard which could be attributed
to the micro-cracking of the concrete. The increase in the hoop
strain of the concrete enforces tensile pressure on the SFRP sheet
that eventually leads to the matrix-cracking of the SFRP laminate
at loads very close to failure (80–90% of the ultimate load). Once
the ultimate hoop strain of the SFRP sheet was achieved, failure
of the concrete specimen occurred in an explosive manner with a
sudden release of the stored energy causing small pieces of con-
crete to be shattered in all directions.
The rupture location of the SFRP sheet varied depending on the
aspect ratio of the concrete specimen tested. The platen effects
dominated the failure mode of the specimens with aspect ratio of
2 enforcing the location of the fracture point to be at mid-height
of the cylinder. The increase in the height of the specimen reduced
the platen effects, which caused the failure point to deviate away
from the mid-height towards the end of the specimen with aspect
ratio of 4 and 6 (Fig. 4). The specimens with aspect ratio of 6
showed signs of bending which eventually failed by buckling of
the column at very high loads. The failure location of the speci-
mens with aspect ratio of 4 and 6 suggests that the placement of
the strain gauges at the mid-height of the column is not suitable
to capture the maximum hoop strain at failure which tends to oc-
cur towards the end of the specimen. Thus, the importance of the
DICT becomes very clear to capture the maximum hoop strain any-
where along the height of the specimen.
After failure of the specimens, all the loose concrete pieces were
removed and a typical conical concrete shape appearance was
clearly recognized. The delaminated SFRP sheets were also exam-
ined and it was found that some chunks of concrete were still at-
tached to the inner-layer of the SFRP sheet. This means that the
concrete-to-SFRP sheet grip is considered to have a very good
bond. The high stresses concentrated at the mid-height of the
156 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166

Fig. 4. Typical failure modes of the specimens: (a) H/D = 2, (b) H/D = 4, and (c) H/D = 6.

specimen with aspect ratio of 2 due to the platen effects, caused

the fracture point to occur at the location of the overlap. Based
on the investigation of the videos recorded during the tests and
the pictures taken during and after the failure of the specimens,
it was concluded that the failure mode at the location of the over-
lap was caused by tensile rupture of the SFRP sheets followed by
minor debonding of the SFRP sheet in the form of strips (Fig. 5).
However, since the platen effects are reduced with the increase
in the height of the specimens, no signs of debonding or failure
at the overlap were found in the columns with aspect ratio H/D
of 4 and 6.

4.2. Stress–strain behaviour

The stress–strain behaviour of SFRP wrapped concrete speci-

mens with H/D ratio of 2, 4 and 6 are presented in Figs. 6–8, respec- Fig. 5. Rupture and debonding of SFRP sheet.
tively. The figures include the axial and hoop strain each obtained
from one strain gauge. Although two strain gauges were installed vertical reading to measure the hoop and axial strains, respectively,
on the SFRP confined concrete specimens for each horizontal and the experimental data from only one strain gauge with the more
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
Fig. 6. Stress–strain behaviour of the specimens with H/D ratio of 2.
Fig. 7. Stress–strain behaviour of the specimens with H/D ratio of 4.
Fig. 8. Stress–strain behaviour of the specimens with H/D ratio of 6.
readings of strains captured until failure was presented to reflect
the maximum strain experienced by the concrete specimen. The re-
sults showed that the strain data obtained from two strain gauges
at similar orientation and elevation are very close, thus, for clarity
purposes, the data from one strain gauge seems reasonable to be
presented. However, all the results captured from the strain gauges
is presented in Appendix A. Similar concept was adopted for the
control (unwrapped) specimens, where only one specimen from
each group (AR-2-CT-1, AR-4-CT-2, and AR-6-CT-3) was presented.
The results showed that all the unwrapped specimens within the
same group had very similar stress–strain behaviour, thus, only
157
one control specimen from each group was presented for clarity
purposes. However, the stress–strain behaviour of all the un-
wrapped specimens can be found in Abdelrahman [11].
The general stress–strain behaviour of the SFRP wrapped con-
crete cylinders can be categorized into two regions connected
through a transition zone. The first region is very similar to the
behaviour of the unwrapped specimens up to the point where
the unconfined strength of the concrete was reached. After this
point, the transition zone occurs when significant hoop strain dila-
tion is experienced by the specimens, which activates the SFRP
sheets. The second region is defined as the point after the uncon-
fined concrete strength is reached until failure of the specimen.
Once the SFRP sheets are completely activated, the concrete be-
comes under a tri-axial state of stress which enhances the strength
and ductility of the SFRP confined concrete column.
The stress–strain curves of the specimens critically rely on the
conventional foil strain gauges to provide strain measurements
at localized points. However, concrete being a heterogeneous
material is composed of aggregate particles and cement paste
which contains significant variations along the concrete surface
and the magnitude of the strains captured depends on the location
of the strain gauge mounted to the surface. Thus, the dispersion of
the aggregates and the cement paste will vary between identical
specimens causing slight variations in the stress–strain results. In
addition, there is a high probability that the strain gauge might
coincide in front of an aggregate particle or cement paste, thus,
depending on the underlying material, the strain gauges readings
will differ significantly. Another major cause of variation between
identical specimens is the difficulty associated in ensuring that the
strain gauges are aligned perfectly as intended, or if the strain
gauges are located at the same position between the identical
specimens. Previous research conducted by Bisby and Stratford
[15] discussed the significant axial and hoop strain variation across
the height of the specimen and between specimens of the same
group. Thus, the results presented in Figs. 6–8 are expected to con-
tain variations in the stress–strain curves between the three iden-
tical specimens, however, the general trend, the ultimate axial
strength and strain, and the hoop strain results should only contain
slight variations between the identical specimens. It is important
to note that the axial strain gauges installed on the specimen AR-
2-SFRP-2 were damaged just after the unconfined strength of the
concrete was reached and any data after this point was ignored.
An important characteristic of the stress–strain curve is the sec-
ond region after the unconfined strength of the concrete was
reached. The specimens with H/D ratio of 2 and 4 showed similar
stress–strain behaviours where the curves were composed of a lin-
ear ascending branch until failure, in contrast to the non-linear
ascending branch possessed by the specimens with H/D ratio of 6.
These tall specimens experienced signs of axial bending captured
by the hoop strain gauge (AR-6-SFRP-2) or the axial strain gauge
(AR-6-SFRP-1, AR-6-SFRP-3) as a horizontal plateau in the stress–
strain curve. The failure eventually occurred by buckling, which
suggests the likelihood of these columns to be categorized as slen-
der. This slenderness effect was justified using the ACI Committee
318 [25] and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code [23] which
categorize the specimens with H/D ratio of 6 as slender columns.
4.3. Comparison between unwrapped and SFRP wrapped specimens
The ultimate axial concrete compressive strength, axial and
hoop strains at ultimate load of the tested specimens are shown
in Figs. 9–11, respectively, as average values and the results are
summarized in Table 2. The vertical line shown at the tip of the
bar in these figures represents the standard deviation (+1r) from
the repeatability tests for each group of columns tested. The
following observations are made:
158 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
Fig. 9. Ultimate axial strength of the tested specimens.
Fig. 10. Axial strain at the failure load of the specimens.
Fig. 11. Hoop strain at the failure load of the specimens.
 The ultimate axial strength of the specimens was significantly
increased with the SFRP wrapping by 131%, 118% and 111%
for the specimens with aspect ratio of 2, 4 and 6, respectively.
Thus, increasing the aspect ratio decreased the percent increase
in the ultimate strength.
 The percentage increases in the axial strain at ultimate load
achieved by SFRP wrapping were 650%, 794% and 700% for the
specimens with aspect ratio of 2, 4 and 6, respectively. It is
important to note that the axial strain results were reported
from the strain gauge results installed at the mid-height of
the specimen. However, the rupture point of these columns
did not occur at their mid-height and the interpretation of the
results from the strain gauges might be misleading causing
the actual trend of the axial strain to be altered. It is expected
that as the height of the column increases, the percentage
increase in the axial strain decreases. This trend would be very
clear if the comparison of the axial strain results was made at
the location of failure. One way to overcome this problem is
to instrument the columns with DICT to capture the maximum
axial strain achieved anywhere along the height of the column.
This will provide reliable and accurate analysis and interpreta-
tion of the results.
 The hoop strain was significantly increased with the SFRP
wrapping by factors (eh/euc, where eh is the hoop strain of the
FRP confined concrete specimen and euc is the hoop strain of
the unwrapped concrete specimen) of 37, 31 and 27 for the
specimens with aspect ratio of 2, 4 and 6, respectively. Thus,
increasing the aspect ratio decreased the percent increase in
the hoop strain.
4.4. Slenderness effect of the specimens
The slenderness effects is determined by comparing the results
of the specimens with aspect ratio of 4 and 6 with the results of the
specimens with aspect ratio of 2, as well comparing the results of
the specimens with aspect ratio of 6 with the results of the speci-
mens with aspect ratio of 4. Thus, based on the results presented in
Figs. 9–11 and Table 2, the following observations are made:
 Increasing the height of the unwrapped specimens reduced the
ultimate axial strength by 5% and 20% for the specimens with
aspect ratio of 4 and 6, respectively, whereas the axial strength
of the SFRP wrapped specimens was reduced by 11% and 31%,
respectively, when compared to the standard size cylinders
(aspect ratio of 2).
 The axial strain at ultimate load achieved by increasing the
slenderness of the unwrapped specimens by aspect ratios of 4
and 6 was reduced by 38% and 70%, respectively. However,
the axial strain at ultimate load of the SFRP wrapped specimens
was reduced by 15% and 59%, respectively, when compared to
the standard size cylinders.
 The hoop strain of the unwrapped specimens was reduced by
12% as the slenderness ratio was increased to 4 and 6, whereas
the hoop strain of the SFRP wrapped specimens was signifi-
cantly reduced by 32% and 54%, respectively, when compared
to the standard size cylinders.
 Increasing the height of the unwrapped columns from aspect
ratio of 4 to 6 decreased the ultimate strength, axial and hoop
strains at the ultimate load by 14%, 23% and 0%, respectively,
whereas the decrease for the SFRP wrapped columns was 18%,
38% and 16%, respectively. Compared to the axial strength and
strain, the hoop strain of the unwrapped concrete columns are
slightly affected by the slenderness effects of the columns since
the hoop expansion at failure is expected to be the same for all
the unwrapped columns.
The above results clearly show that increasing the height of the
SFRP wrapped columns reduced the ultimate strength, axial and
hoop strains at ultimate load. This means that the slenderness ratio
is a very important parameter to consider for design purposes to ac-
count for the reduced concrete performance of the larger columns.
4.5. Hoop strain results using DICT
DICT is a very reliable and accurate method that has been al-
ready validated by several researches (Bisby and Take [30], Bisby
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166 159

Table 2
Summary of the ultimate axial compressive strength, axial and hoop strains at ultimate load of the tested specimens.

H/D Column ID 0 Axial strain, ea (le) Hoop strain, eh (le) Ductility Index MN-mm/mm Hoop Strain from DICT, (le)
Axial Strength, fcu (MPa)

Ultimate Average ± At Ultimate Average ± At Ultimate Average ± Total Average ± Ultimate Average ±
(Std. Dev.) Load (Std. Dev.) Load (Std. Dev.) Ductility (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.)
2 AR-2-CT-1 44 42 ± (2) 3000 2200 ± (910) 380 380 ± (20) 1500 1000 ± (490) – –
AR-2-CT-2 40 1200 360 520 –
AR-2-CT-3 42 2300 400 1100 –
AR-2-SFRP-1 100 97 ± (2.9) 16,000 16500 ± (710) 15,000 14000 ± (2100) 21,300 31400 ± (17300) 30,000b 16500 ± (2100)
AR-2-SFRP-2 95 40,300a 16,000 51,400 18,000
AR-2-SFRP-3 95 17,000 12,000 21,500 15,000
4 AR-4-CT-1 40 40 ± (1) 1100 1600 ± (420) 400 340 ± (85) 570 760 ± (170) –
AR-4-CT-2 41 1800 NAa 810 –
AR-4-CT-3 39 2000 280 900 –
AR-4-SFRP-1 82 87 ± (4.4) 14,000 14300 ± (580) 10,000 10600 ± (1300) 14,600 15800 ± (1100) 5800 13600 ± (6900)
AR-4-SFRP-2 90 15,000 12,000 16,800 16,000
AR-4-SFRP-3 89 14,000 9700 16,000 19,000
6 AR-6-CT-1 31 35 ± (3.5) 1300 1300 ± (300) 290 340 ± (99) 440 550 ± (120) –
AR-6-CT-2 35 1000 270 670 –
AR-6-CT-3 38 1600 450 550 –
AR-6-SFRP-1 65 74 ± (8.3) 7700 10400 ± (3200) 11,000 9100 ± (2000) 5800 9400 ± (4000) 7200 10800 ± (5400)
AR-6-SFRP-2 77 9600 9400 6200 8300
AR-6-SFRP-3 81 14,000 7000 13,000 17,000

Std. Dev.: Standard deviation.

a
NA – Not Applicable because strain gauge damaged.
b
Excluded in the calculation of the average strain due to bending of the DICT cameras.

and Stratford [15], Bisby et al. [33], Barrington et al. [34], Islam
et al., [35], Fitzwilliam [36], Smith et al. [37], Abdelrahman [11]
and Abdelrahman and El-Hacha [12]). Abdelrahman and El-Hacha
[12] investigated the axial and hoop strain distribution along the
height of CFRP and SFRP confined concrete cylinders and the re-
sults showed reasonable accuracy between the experimental and
the DICT measured strains. However, for the purpose of this study,
the hoop strains were considerably more important than the axial
strains, thus, the hoop strains were captured using strain gauges
and the DICT, whereas the axial strain results captured from the
strain gauges was considered to be sufficient. This concept is in
agreement with a similar research performed by Bisby and Strat-
ford [15], which showed that the axial strain variation across the
height of CFRP wrapped concrete cylinders were less apparent
and they are considerably less important in terms of understanding
and modelling FRP confined concrete cylinders. Thus, discussion
concerning only the hoop strain of the FRP confined concrete spec-
imens is presented.
The maximum and average hoop strain of the SFRP confined
concrete specimens captured by the DICT is summarized in Table 2.
As explained earlier, the specimens with aspect ratio of 6 had the
cameras installed on one side of the specimen, thus, there is always
a probability that the maximum hoop strain experienced by these
specimens occur on the other side where the DICT was not in-
stalled. However, this problem was not encountered for the speci-
mens with aspect ratio of 2 and 4, since the DICT was instrumented
on both sides of the specimens. Another factor to consider is the
frame rate of 5 s which also means that there is a probability that
the failure of the specimen occur within the 5 s interval and in this
case, the maximum hoop strain of the specimen cannot be cap-
tured. It is important to note that during the testing of the speci-
men AR-2-SFRP-1, slight bending of the camera was noticed,
which affected the hoop strain readings. This specimen was ex-
cluded from the analysis and the bending was eliminated for the
rest of the tested specimens.
The average hoop strain of the specimens with aspect ratio of 2,
4 and 6 captured by the DICT was always higher than the strain
gauge results of their respective groups. This increase is expected
since the DICT captures the maximum hoop strain anywhere along
the height of the column. However, the strain gauges capture the
hoop strain readings at the ultimate load located at the mid-height
of the column, which in most cases do not correspond to the ulti-
mate hoop strain at failure of the tested SFRP wrapped specimen.
The difference between the strain gauge results at the mid-height
of the column and the maximum strain readings captured by the
DICT has reached up to 143%. Thus, the strain gauge results may
provide misleading conclusions about the hoop strain behaviour
of any FRP confined concrete specimen. It is also expected that
the hoop strain distribution captured by DICT have large scatter
of the data due to the heterogeneous nature of the concrete. Differ-
ent hoop strain distribution between identical specimens is very
likely to occur. The large scatter of the data can be justified by sim-
ilar research performed by Bisby and Take [30], where the hoop
strains over the surface of FRP confined concrete cylinders at fail-
ure vary by as much as 50% of the coupon failure strain.
Based on the results presented in Table 2, increasing the height
of the SFRP wrapped concrete specimen to aspect ratio of 4 and 6,
reduced the ultimate hoop strain by 21% and 53%, respectively,
when compared to the standard size cylinders (aspect ratio of 2).
However, increasing the height of the specimen from aspect ratio
of 4–6 reduced the hoop strain by 26%. Thus, as mentioned earlier,
increasing the height of the specimen reduced the ultimate hoop
strain achieved by the SFRP wrapped specimen.
4.6. Dilation behaviour
An important characteristic of FRP confined concrete is the dila-
tion behaviour. The dilation response (volumetric strain) of con-
crete subjected to tri-axial state of stress can be defined as the
volume change per unit volume. The following equation is used
to determine the dilation response of FRP confined concrete:
ev ¼ ea þ 2eh ð2Þ
where ev, ea and eh are the volumetric, axial and hoop strains, respec-
tively, in le.
The dilation response of the specimens with aspect ratio of 2, 4
and 6 are shown in Figs. 12–14, respectively. The negative and po-
sitive strains indicate volumetric expansion and reduction of the
concrete specimen, respectively. The results clearly show that
wrapping the concrete specimens with one layer of SFRP sheets
160 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166

It is important to note that the dilation response is a function of

the hoop and axial strains, which depends on the strain gauge re-
sults captured at a localized point within the mid-height region of
the specimen. As mentioned earlier, concrete is a heterogeneous
material with highly variable behaviour along the cross-section
of the specimen. Thus, the axial stress-volumetric strain curves
shown in Figs. 10–12 are expected to show variability in the dila-
tion behaviour between identical specimens, since the results crit-
ically depend on the location of the strain gauge installed.
However, the results also indicate significant variation in the dila-
tion behaviour between the specimens with aspect ratio of 6,
although these specimens were identical in terms of the concrete
material, SFRP sheet and the number of confinement layers. Due
to the slenderness effect of these relatively tall specimens, buckling
failure was encountered by these columns. Thus, the variation de-
pends on the buckling direction and the location of the strain
Fig. 12. Dilation response of the specimens with H/D ratio of 2.
gauge mounted onto the concrete surface to measure the axial
and hoop strains.
The axial stress-volumetric strain curves shown in Figs. 12–14
presents the dilation response at the strain gauge (hoop and axial)
instrumented at one side of the specimen. As the specimen is
loaded, the slenderness effects induce bending moments which
forces the column to buckle. During the buckling phase, one side
of the column is expanded whereas the other side is compressed
as a result of the bending moments. Accordingly, the dilation
behaviour of the specimen AR-6-SFRP-1 corresponds to the ex-
panded side where significant hoop expansion creates an expan-
sive volumetric behaviour of the column. However, the dilation
behaviour of the specimens AR-6-SFRP-2 and AR-6-SFRP-3 corre-
sponds to the compressed side of the buckled column where signif-
icant axial deformation causes volumetric reduction of the column
(Fig. 14). The above explanation is strictly related to the mid-height
of the column where the strain gauges were installed. Different
dilation behaviour is expected at the location of failure or any-
where along the height of the column.
Fig. 13. Dilation response of the specimens with H/D ratio of 4.

4.7. Ductility

80 1414 One of the most important parameters of the FRP confined con-
crete column is the ductility index. The ductility index defines the
70 1237
ability of a member to absorb inelastic energy without losing its
load capacity, which can be measured as the area under the axial
Axial Stress (MPa)

60 1060
Axial Load (kN)

load-axial strain curve up to the failure of the column. The ductility

50 884 index of all the tested unwrapped and wrapped specimens is pre-
40 707 sented in Fig. 15, and the results are summarized in Table 2. In
comparison with the ductility index of the unwrapped specimens,
30 530 wrapping the concrete specimens with SFRP sheets increased the
20 353
ductility index by a factor of 31, 21 and 15 for the specimens with
H/D ratio of 2, 4 and 6, respectively. Thus, increasing the height of
10 177 the column reduced the effectiveness of the SFRP sheets and re-
sulted in decreasing the ductility index.
0 0
-13000 -9000 -5000 -1000 3000 7000 11000 Increasing the height of the columns seems to significantly af-
Volumetric Strain ( ) fect the ductility of the unwrapped and SFRP wrapped concrete
specimens due to the slenderness effects. The unwrapped concrete
Fig. 14. Dilation response of the specimens with H/D ratio of 6. specimens with aspect ratio of 4 and 6 had a decrease in the duc-
tility index by 32% and 81%, respectively, whereas the ductility in-
dex of the SFRP wrapped columns was reduced by 99% and 277%,
could not provide adequate confinement pressure to curtail the respectively, when compared to the ductility index achieved by
dilation tendency of the concrete specimens with aspect ratio of the standard size cylinders (aspect ratio of 2). It is also important
2 and 4. Similar dilation response was also observed by Issa et al. to determine the effect of the ductility index by increasing the
[16], Shahawy et al. [19], Mirmiran et al. [18] and Mirmiran and height of the column from aspect ratio of 4–6. Accordingly, as
Shahawy [6]. The dilation behaviour of the concrete can be en- the height of the unwrapped and the SFRP wrapped specimens
hanced by wrapping the specimens with multiple numbers of lay- was increased, the ductility index was reduced by 90% and 355%,
ers to provide sufficient confinement pressure capable of curtailing respectively. Thus, these results clearly indicate a decrease in the
the dilation response and maintaining volumetric compaction of ductility index as the height of the columns increases. The reduced
the concrete specimen until failure. performance of the taller specimens is related to the fact that
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
35000
Ductility Index (MN-mm/mm)
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 respectively. Thus, comparing the strain efficiency values from
H/D = 2 H/D = 4
Column Category
Fig. 15. Ductility index of the unwrapped and SFRP wrapped concrete specimens.
20
Confinement Pressure (MPa)
15
10
5 samples. However, the slenderness effect of the specimens with as-
0 A premature prediction concerning the strain efficiency of the
H/D = 2 H/D = 4
Column Category
Fig. 16. Confinement pressure against the slenderness ratio of SFRP confined
concrete specimens.
slender columns experience buckling instability which reduces the
strength and ductility, and causes non-uniform confinement pres-
sure. The enhancement in the strength and ductility depends on
the amount of confinement pressure applied by the SFRP sheets
to the concrete column. Thus, the reduced strength and ductility
suggests a reduced confinement pressure with the increase in the
height of the column. This relationship can be verified by plotting
the confinement pressure versus the increase in height of the col-
umn. The confinement pressure is calculated from the equation
provided by the ACI Committee 440.2R [22] presented in Appendix
B. Clearly, the results presented in Fig. 16 shows that increasing the
height of the column reduces the confinement pressure applied by
the SFRP sheets, which in turn reduces the strength and ductility of
the column.
4.8. Strain efficiency
A fundamentally important parameter in the design of FRP con-
fined concrete specimen is the strain efficiency. The strain effi-
ciency ‘g’ for FRP is defined as the ratio of the tensile hoop strain
in the FRP sheets at failure to the average failure strain observed
in direct uniaxial tensile coupon tests [30]. Based on the ultimate
average hoop strain captured from the DICT, the strain efficiency
for the SFRP sheets was 1.2, 0.99 and 0.79 for the specimens with
aspect ratios of 2, 4 and 6, respectively. These results clearly indi-
cate that increasing the height of the specimens decreased the
strain efficiency of the SFRP wrapped concrete specimens. In
161
addition, the rupture strain reported by the manufacturer is 1.5%.
SFRP Wrapped Based on this value, the strain efficiency for the specimens with
Unwrapped H/D ratio of 2, 4 and 6 are 1.1, 0.9 and 0.72, respectively. It is
important to note that the rupture strain determined from the di-
rect tension coupon tests are based on an average of a series of test
results. Thus, the rupture strain of the SFRP sheet can be expected
to be higher or lower than the average rupture strain of 1.5% or
1.38% reported by the manufacturer and determined by the
authors from tension tests, respectively. Based on the abovemen-
tioned data, a strain efficiency of 1.2 and 1.1 can be reasonably con-
sidered to be acceptable. Ignoring the DICT results, the strain
efficiency values for the specimens AR-2-SFRP-1 and AR-2-SFRP-2
based on the conventional foil strain gauges were 1.08 and 1.16,
H/D = 6 the DICT and the conventional strain gauges, it was found that
the results are very similar.
The specimens with aspect ratio of 2 showed relatively high
strain efficiencies. The platen effects significantly altered the hoop
strain distribution of these specimens. As the specimen is loaded,
the friction created at the plates-concrete interface constrained
the expansion of the specimen ends. This behaviour forces the
specimen to form a barrel shape, which significantly increases
the hoop strain, specifically at the mid-height of the cylinder.
The specimens with aspect ratio of 4 are not affected by the platen
effects encountered by the cylinders or the slenderness effect expe-
rienced by the columns with aspect ratio of 6. Thus, the strain effi-
ciency of these specimens are very close to one, indicating that the
failure strain of these SFRP wrapped specimens are similar to the
failure strain determined from the tension tests on SFRP coupon
pect ratio of 6 reduced the failure strain of the SFRP sheets up to
75% of the rupture strain.
H/D = 6
SFRP sheets can be determined by averaging all the hoop strain re-
corded at the failure load of the SFRP wrapped concrete specimens.
Thus, the predicted strain efficiency of the SFRP sheets was deter-
mined to be 0.64. Jiang and Teng [38] suggested a strain efficiency
value of 0.5 for the CFRP sheets, whereas the ACI Committee 440
guideline [22] provides a strain efficiency value of 0.55 for any cir-
cular FRP wrapped column. Clearly, the strain efficiency value of
the SFRP wrapped columns is higher than the CFRP wrapped col-
umns. Further investigation is necessary to modify the strain effi-
ciency value provided by the ACI Committee 440 guideline to
incorporate the results of the SFRP confined concrete specimens,
which will definitely increase the strain efficiency parameter.
5. Prediction of confined concrete compressive strength
0
The ultimate SFRP-confined concrete compressive strength, fcu ,
is predicted using the equations from the ACI Committee 440
guidelines (ACI 440.2R-08) [22], the CAN/CSA S6-06 Bridge Design
Code [23], and the CAN/CSA S806-02 FRP Building Code [24]. The
predicted strengths are compared with the experimental results
to validate the accuracy of the various prediction models. In these
predictions, the ultimate SFRP-confined concrete compressive
strength is based on the maximum measured unconfined concrete
0
compressive strength fco in the corresponding test, and the maxi-
mum confinement pressure f‘. Details of the three models are given
in Appendix B.
To evaluate the accuracy of the different models for SFRP
wrapped specimens, a comparison between the predicted and
the experimental results in terms of the strength enhancement is
summarized in Table 3. The accuracy is measured as the percent-
age difference between the experimental and the predicted
strength enhancement. A positive percentage difference indicates
162 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166
Table 3
Prediction of the ultimate confined concrete compressive strength.
Column ID 0 ACI 440.2R-08 [22]
Exp. fcu (MPa)
0 Diff. (%)
fcu (MPa)
AR-2-SFRP 97 67 30
AR-4-SFRP 87 65 22
AR-6-SFRP 74 60 14
an overestimation and a negative percentage difference indicates
an underestimation of the ultimate axial strength.
The results presented in Table 3 show that the models used by
the ACI Committee 440 guidelines and the CAN/CSA S6-06 Bridge
Design Code underestimates, whereas the CAN/CSA S806-02 FRP
Building Code overestimates the ultimate axial strength of the
SFRP wrapped specimens, when compared to the experimental
results. Accordingly, these results indicate that the FRP Building
Code had the least percentage difference, the Bridge Design Code
in the second place, and the ACI Committee 440 guideline in the
third place.
A critical insight about each model is provided, to identify the
causes for the differences between the predicted and the experi-
mental results. The ACI model is the most conservative of the three
models used in this study. The confinement effectiveness coeffi-
cient k1 used by the ACI model is 3.3, which was derived empiri-
cally based on the experimental results performed on CFRP, GFRP
and AFRP wrapped concrete specimens. This coefficient is expected
to increase if the results from SFRP confined concrete specimens
are accounted for in the calibration process. The ACI model also in-
cludes an additional reduction factor wf of 0.95. This factor reflects
the conservative approach of the ACI model, which also suggests
that gaps concerning the behaviour of the conventional CFRP, GFRP
and AFRP confined concrete specimens, still exists. One method to
bridge this gap and further understand the behaviour of FRP con-
fined concrete is by implementing DICT to capture the nature of
the hoop strain variation across the height of the specimens and
account for the variability factor in the confinement models. A
strain efficiency parameter (je = 0.55) is used in the ACI model to
account for the variation between the rupture strain the FRP sheets
and tensile strain of the FRP sheets determined from direct tensile
coupon tests. This parameter is developed from CFRP, GFRP and
AFRP wrapped concrete specimens, and is expected to increase
for the SFRP wrapped concrete specimens.
The Bridge Design Code and the FRP Building Code models ac-
count for the confinement effect through an effectiveness coeffi-
cient k1 calibrated from CFRP and GFRP wrapped concrete
specimens. Therefore, this coefficient has to be re-calibrated to
incorporate test results from SFRP confined concrete specimens.
The confinement pressure calculated using these models is directly
dependent on the mechanical properties of the FRP sheets. A strain
efficiency parameter should be introduced to account for the dis-
crepancy between the experimental failure hoop strain and the
rupture strain of FRP coupon samples. A better representation to
approach this problem is to capture the maximum hoop strain
across the height of the column using DICT and implement this
data to determine the stain efficiency parameter of SFRP, CFRP,
GFRP and AFRP confined concrete specimens. There are two main
differences between the Bridge Design Code and the FRP Building
Code, the first is related to the confinement coefficient parameters
determined empirically from experimental results of FRP confined
concrete. This parameter depends on the experimental database,
type of FRP sheets, shape of the specimen and the number of FRP
layers. Thus, based on the prediction model results, it seems that
the FRP Building Code has accounted for all these factors and cap-
tures the behaviour more accurately than the Bridge Design Code
model. The second difference is related to the unconfined concrete
CAN/CSA S6-06 Bridge Design Code [23] CAN/CSA S806-02 FRP Building Code [24]
0 Diff. (%) 0 Diff. (%)
fcu (MPa) fcu (MPa)
71 26 97 0
69 18 95 +8
64 10 91 +17
strength. The Building FRP Code model accounts for the variability
in the concrete strength by adopting a conservative approach and
reducing the unconfined concrete strength by 15%.
It is important to note that the mechanical properties of the
SFRP sheets used in the prediction models are determined from
laboratory tension tests performed on three SFRP coupon samples.
These results are more representative of the actual behaviour of
the SFRP sheets when compared to the mechanical properties pro-
vided by the manufacturer. The maximum confined concrete stress
0 0
fcu was predicted based on the unconfined concrete strength fco in
the corresponding tests. However, for design purposes, the speci-
fied unconfined concrete strength is normally used for the predic-
tion of the confined concrete strength. The maximum percentage
difference between the specified compressive strength and the
experimental unconfined concrete strength was 13%, which will
have a very insignificant effect on the ultimate predicted confine-
ment strength.
6. Conclusions
An experimental investigation was reported on the slenderness
effect with the increases in the axial strength, axial and hoop
strain, dilation and ductility under uniaxial compression tests
achieved by wrapping circular concrete specimens of various as-
pect ratios (2, 4 and 6) with the newly developed SFRP sheets. Dif-
ferent models originally calibrated against test results of small-
scale CFRP/GFRP/AFRP wrapped concrete cylinders, were used to
predict the ultimate axial strength of the SFRP confined concrete.
Based on the current study, wrapping the concrete specimens
with SFRP sheets significantly enhanced the ultimate axial
strength, axial and hoop strains at ultimate load, and ductility,
when compared to the unwrapped specimens. The study of the
dilation behaviour showed that wrapping the concrete specimens
with one layer of SFRP sheets was not sufficient enough to curtail
the dilation behaviour of the concrete. Increasing the slenderness
of the specimens had an adverse effect on the behaviour of the
SFRP wrapped concrete specimens. Increasing the slenderness of
the specimens reduced the percentage increases of the ultimate
axial strength, axial and hoop strains, and strain efficiency of the
SFRP wrapped specimens. This indicates the reduced effectiveness
of the SFRP confinement due to the slenderness effects.
The analytical study revealed that all three investigated models
(ACI Committee 440.2R-08, Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA S6-06
and FRP Building Code CAN/CSA S806-02) had drawbacks in pre-
dicting the axial strength of the SFRP confined concrete. These
models are design based models, which means that the equations
are developed empirically from best fitting calibration based on
experimental data from CFRP, GFRP, and AFRP confined concrete
cylinders. Therefore, in order to accurately predict the ultimate
strength of SFRP confined concrete, the confinement models have
to be re-calibrated in order to incorporate experimental results
from SFRP confined concrete. However, the re-calibration process
is outside the scope of this study. However, with the current mod-
els used in this study, the FRP Building Code CAN/CSA S806-02 had
the best performance in terms of the comparison between the
experimental and the predicted results, compared to the ACI Com-
mittee 440.2R-08 and the Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA S6-06.
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166 163

Acknowledgements cross section; f‘ is the maximum confinement pressure due to FRP

given by:
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Lafarge
Canada for providing the ready-mix concrete, Hardwire for provid- 2nt f efe Ef
f‘ ¼ ðMPaÞ ðB2Þ
ing the SFRP sheets, and Sika Canada for providing the epoxy. The Dg
authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Luke Bisby
0
from University of Edinburgh to implement DICT and Dr. Andy with a minimum confinement ratio f‘ =fco of 0.08;n is the number of
Take from Queen’s University for providing the geoPIV program FRP layers; tf is the thickness of the FRP layer, in mm; Dg is the
to perform the analysis of DICT. The authors are also grateful for
the financial support provided by the University of Calgary towards
100 1767
this research project.

Appendix A 80 1414

Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Load (kN)

See Figs. A1–A12. 60 1060

Appendix B
40 707

B.1. ACI Committee 440 Model (ACI 440.2R-08) [22]

20 353
0 0
fcu ¼ fco þ wf 3:3ja f‘ ðMPaÞ ðB1Þ
0
where fco is the unconfined concrete compressive strength (MPa); 0 0
-18000 -14000 -10000 -6000 -2000 2000 6000 10000 14000
wf is an additional reduction factor = 0.95; ja is an efficiency shape
factor that account for the geometry of the section = 1.0 for circular FRP Strain ( )

Fig. A3. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-2-SFRP-2.

45 795

40 707 100 1767

35 619
Axial Stress (MPa)

80 1414
Axial Load (kN)

30 530
Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Load (kN)

25 442
60 1060
20 353

15 265
40 707
10 177

5 88 20 353

0 0
-800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200
0 0
Concrete Strain ( ) -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
FRP Strain ( )
Fig. A1. Stress–strain curve of the unwrapped concrete specimen with H/D ratio of
2.
Fig. A4. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-2-SFRP-3.

45 795

100 1767 40 707

35 619
Axial Stress (MPa)

80 1414
Axial Load (kN)
Axial Stress (MPa)

30 530
Axial Load (kN)

25 442
60 1060
20 353

40 707 15 265

10 177
20 353 88
5

0 0
0 0 -1300 -900 -500 -100 300 700 1100 1500 1900
-16000 -10000 -4000 2000 8000 14000 20000 Concrete Strain ( )
FRP Strain ( )
Fig. A5. Stress–strain curve of the unwrapped concrete specimen with H/D ratio
Fig. A2. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-2-SFRP-1. of 4.
164 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166

90 1590 40 707

80 1414 35 619
70 1237
30 530
Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Load (kN)

Axial Load (kN)

60 1060
25 442
50 884
20 353
40 707
15 265
30 530

20 353 10 177

10 177 5 88

0 0 0 0
-16000 -12000 -8000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 -600 -200 200 600 1000 1400 1800
FRP Strain ( ) Concrete Strain ( )

Fig. A6. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-4-SFRP-1. Fig. A9. Stress–strain curve of the unwrapped concrete specimen with H/D ratio of
6.

90 1590 70 1237

80 1414
60 1060
70 1237
Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Stress (MPa) 50 884

Axial Load (kN)

Axial Load (kN)

60 1060

50 884 40 707

40 707 30 530
30 530
20 353
20 353

10 177 10 177

0 0 0 0
-12000 -8000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 -10000 -7000 -4000 -1000 2000 5000 8000
FRP Strain ( ) FRP Strain ( )

Fig. A7. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-4-SFRP-2. Fig. A10. Stress–strain curve of the specimen with AR-6-SFRP-1.

90 1590

80 1414

70 1237
Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Load (kN)

60 1060

50 884

40 707

30 530

20 353

10 177

0 0
-16000 -12000 -8000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000
FRP Strain ( )
Fig. A11. Stress–strain curve of the specimen with AR-6-SFRP-2.
Fig. A8. Stress–strain curve of the specimen AR-4-SFRP-3.
Ce is the environmental reduction factor = 0.85 for exterior exposure
for SFRP. In this study, Ce is taken equal to 1.0 assuming no normal
exposure condition; ffu is the ultimate tensile strength of SFRP as re-
external diameter of the circular section, in mm; Ef is the tensile ported by manufacturer, in MPa; efu is the design rupture strain of
modulus of elasticity of FRP given by Hooke’s law:
SFRP given by:
Ef ¼ ffu =efu ðMPaÞ ðB3Þ
efu ¼ C e efu ðB5Þ
ffu is the design ultimate tensile strength of FRP given by:
efu is the ultimate rupture strain of SFRP as reported by manufac-
ffu ¼ C e ffu ðMPaÞ ðB4Þ turer; efe is the effective strain level in the FRP at failure given by:
 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166 165

[6] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Behaviour of concrete columns confined by fiber

composites. J Struct Eng ASCE 1997;123(5):583–99.
[7] Nanni A, Bradford NM. FRP jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression.
Constr Build Mater 1995;9(2):115–24.
[8] Toutanji H. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally
confined with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96(3):
394–404.
[9] Toutanji H, Deng Y. Strength and ductility performance of concrete columns
confined with AFRP composite sheets. Comps Part B-Eng 2002;33(4):255–61.
[10] Hardwire. Hardwire composite armor system; 2011. <http://hardwirellc.com>
Retrieved 21.02.11.
[11] Abdelrahman K. Effectiveness of steel-fibre reinforced polymer for confining
circular concrete columns. MSc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering.
Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary; 2011.
[12] Abdelrahman K, El-Hacha R. Validation of digital image correlation technique
on CFRP and SFRP wrapped cylinders subjected to freeze-thaw environmental
exposure. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on durability and
sustainability of fiber reinforced composites for construction and
rehabilitation (CDCC-4) conference, Quebec City, Canada; July 20–22, 2011,
p. 275–83.
[13] Mashrik MA, El-Hacha R, Tran K. Performance of SFRP-confined concrete
Fig. A12. Stress–strain curve of the specimen with AR-6-SFRP-3. columns. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on FRP
composites in civil engineering (CICE 2010) conference, Beijing, China;
September 27–29, 2010. vol. II. p. 638–41.
efe ¼ je efu ðB6Þ [14] Mashrik MA. Performance evaluation of circular and square columns wrapped
with CFRP and SFRP sheets. MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering.
Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary; 2011.
je is a strain efficiency factor taken equal to 0.55
[15] Bisby L, Stratford T. The ultimate condition of FRP confined concrete columns:
new experimental observations & insight. In: Proceedings of 5th international
B.2. CAN/CSA S6-06 Bridge Design Code Model [23] conference on FRP composites on FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE
2010) conference, Beijing, China; September 27–29, 2010. vol. II. p. 599–602.
[16] Issa MA, Alrousan RZ, Issa MA. Experimental and parametric study of circular
short columns confined with CFRP composites. J Comp Constr 2009;13(2):
135–47.
0 0
fcu ¼ fco þ 2f ‘ ðMPaÞ ðB7Þ [17] Masia MJ, Gale TN, Shrive NG. Size effects in axially loaded square section
concrete prisms strengthened using carbon fiber reinforced polymer
wrapping. Can J Civil Eng 2004;13(1):1–13.
2nt f /f f fu [18] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, Echary HE, Mastrapa HE, Pico O. Effect of
f‘ ¼ ðMPaÞ ðB8Þ
Dg column parameters on FRP-confined concrete. J Comp Constr 1998;2(4):
175–85.
with fco0
 50 MPa and 0:1fco 0 0
< f‘ < 0:33fco ;/f material resistance [19] Shahawy M, Mirmiran A, Beitelman T. Tests and modeling of carbon-wrapped
concrete columns. Comps Part B-Eng 2000;31(6–7):471–80.
factor for the FRP; equals to 1.0 to determine nominal strength [20] Silva MAG, Rodrigues CC. Size and relative stiffness effects on compressive
failure of concrete columns wrapped with glass FRP. J Mater Eng ASCE
B.3. CAN/CSA S806-02 FRP Building Code Model [24] 2006;18(3):334–42.
[21] Thériault M, Neale KW, Claude S. Fiber-reinforced polymer-confined circular
concrete columns: investigation of size and slenderness effects. J Comp Constr
2004;8(4):323–31.
[22] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of externally
0 0
fcu ¼ 0:85fco þ kl kc f‘ ðMPaÞ ðB9Þ bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. ACI 440.2R-08;
2008.
with [23] Canadian Standards Association. Canadian highway bridge design code. CAN/
CSA S6-06, Ontario, Canada; 2006.
kl ¼ 6:7ðkc f‘ Þ0:17 ðB10Þ [24] Canadian Standards Association. Design and construction of Building
components with fiber reinforced bridge design code. CAN/CSA S806-02,
R2007, Ontario, Canada; 2007.
2nt f /f f fu 2nt f Ef 0:004 [25] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
f‘ ¼ ðMPaÞ  ðMPaÞ ðB11Þ commentary. ACI 318-08 2008. USA: Farmington Hills; 2008.
Dg Dg [26] ASTM International. Standard test method of compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM C39/C39M 2010; 4(2). West
kc is the confinement coefficient = 1.0 for circular sections Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing Materials; 2010.
The CAN/CSA S806-02 FRP Building Code limits the effective FRP [27] ASTM International. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer
matrix composite materials. ASTM D3030/D3039M 2008; 15(3). West
hoop stress to 0.004 of its elastic modulus.
Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing Materials; 2008.
[28] SikadureÒ 330. Product data sheet: impregnation resin for fabric
References reinforcement (Edition 06.2010/v1); 2011. <http://ca01.webdms.sika.com/
fileshow.do?documentID=111> Retrieved 21.02.11.
[29] SikawrapÒ Hex 230C, Product Data Sheet: Carbon Fibre Fabric for Structural
[1] El-Hacha R, Green M, Wight G. CFRP wrapped concrete cylinders in severe
Strengthening System (Edition 06.2010/v1); 2011. <http://ca01.webdms.sika.
environmental conditions. In: Structural Faults + Repair 99, Proceedings of the
com/fileshow.do?documentID=582> Retrieved 21.02.11.
8th international conference and exhibition on extending the life of bridges,
[30] Bisby L, Take W. Strain localisations in FRP confined concrete: new insights.
Civil + Building structures conference, London, England; July 13–15 1999 [CD-
Struct Build 2009;162(5):301–9.
Rom, 12p.].
[31] White D, Take A. Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) software for use in
[2] El-Hacha R, Callery K, Green MF, Archibald J. Assessment of FRP wrapped and
Geotechnical testing 2002; CUED/D-SOILS/TR322; 2002. p. 1–14.
hybrid polyurethane/polyrea coated reinforced concrete columns under field
[32] White D, Take W, Bolton M. Soil deformation measurement using Particle
exposure conditions. In: Proceedings of the 4th middle east symposium on
Image Velocity (PIV) and Photogrammetry. Géotechnique 2003;53(7):619–82.
structural composites for infrastructure applications (MESC-4) conference,
[33] Bisby LA, Chen JF, Li SQ, Stratford TJ, Cueva N, Crossling K. Strengthening fire-
Alexandria, Egypt; May 20–23, 2005 [CD-Rom, 12p.].
damaged concrete by confined with fibre-reinforced polymer wraps. Eng
[3] El-Hacha R, Callery K, Green MF, Archibald J. Environmental effects on the
Struct 2011;33(12):3381–91.
behaviour of FRP wrapped and hybrid polyurethane/polyurea coated concrete
[34] Barrington J, Dickson D, Bisby L, Stratford T. Strain development and hoop
cylinders: laboratory evaluation. In: Proceedings of the international
strain efficiency in FRP confined square columns. Am Concr Inst (ACI)
conference on civil engineering infrastructure systems (CEIS 2006)
2011;255:1–20.
conference, Beirut, Lebanon; June 12–14, 2006 [CD-Rom-18p.].
[35] Islam MM, Choudhury MSI, Abdulla M, Amin AFMS. Confinement effect of fiber
[4] El-Hacha R, Green M, Wight G. Effect of severe environmental exposures on
reinforced polymer wraps in circular and square concrete columns. In: The 4th
CFRP wrapped concrete columns. J Comp Constr 2010;13(2):83–93.
annual paper meeting and the 1st civil engineering congress, Dhaka,
[5] Karbhari VM, Gao Y. Composite jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression
Bangladesh; December 22–24, 2011. pp. 359–62.
– verification of simple design equations. J Mater Eng ASCE 1997;9(4):185–93.
166 R. El-Hacha, K. Abdelrahman / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 152–166

[36] Fitzwillaim JM. Fibre-reinforced polymer wraps for slender eccentrically-
loaded reinforced concrete columns. MSc Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University; 2006.
[37] Smith ST, Kim SJ, Zhang H. Behaviour and effectiveness of FRP wraps in the
confinement of large concrete cylinders. J Compos Constr 2010;14(5):573–82.
[38] Jiang T, Teng JG. Strengthening of short circular RC columns with FRP jackets:
A design proposal. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on FRP
composites in civil engineering (CICE 2006), Miami, Florida, USA; December
13–15, 2006. pp. 187–92.