Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Unified model for hollow columns externally confined by FRP

Alessio Cascardi, Francesco Micelli ⇑, Maria Antonietta Aiello
Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Salento, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy

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

Article history: Nowadays, the employment of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites in civil engineering field has
Received 27 February 2015 been successfully experienced. Different potential applications of solid concrete-filled FRP tubes are
Revised 9 November 2015 exploitable in marine piles, overhead sign structures, poles and posts, bridge columns and piers, girders,
Accepted 21 December 2015
large pipes and tunnels (mainly circular cross-section). This technique is also used for the confinement of
masonry columns, typically encountered in monuments and historical buildings (both rectangular and
circular cross-section); hence the need of providing formulas for the design of an appropriate strength-
Keywords:
ening. Several analytical models are available in the scientific literature for assessing the increase of
Confinement
Columns
strength and ductility of concrete or stone solid elements externally confined with FRP or for hollow col-
Modelling umns internally steal enclosed and externally FRP-confined but, there is still a lack of research about hol-
FRP low columns only externally confined. The presence of an empty core implies a different stress state in
Composites the inner cylindrical surface with respect to the outer one. Inwards deformations are more significant
Hollow core and this behaviour is not taken into account by available models.
Analysis oriented model The present study aims to illustrate a detailed summary of the existing analytical models and to pro-
Axial confinement modelling vide a unified procedure for concrete and masonry hollow columns valid for both circular and square
Masonry
cross-sections. An iterative method that updates the geometrical parameters according to step-by-step
Concrete
uniaxial compressed column is shown in order to capture the real deforming behaviour of the com-
pressed solid. This analytical approach has two important implications: the first is the ability of calculat-
ing the stress state of the column and of the external FRP reinforcement at each step; the second is that of
theorizing a procedure, which is independent on the type of material used for the column. The outputs of
the proposed method are then compared with experimental results currently available in the scientific
literature. A good matching is obtained between the available experimental results and the analytical
predictions in term of axial stress–strain curves.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mechanic phenomena, there is still a lack of information regarding

The analysis of un-confined solid columns, subjected to axial
compressive force, is well established in the scientific literature.
The development of stress–strain models for FRP confined columns
generally has been derived from the extension of the steel confined
columns models. Afterwards specific models were developed
based on test results obtained from FRP confined specimens. In
recent years a large number of numerical simulation of FRP con-
fined column have been produced; e.g. [1–11]. A plasticity model
(i.e. Drucker–Prager theory) is commonly adopted for catching the
stress–strain behaviour. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has been
demonstrated a useful tool in order to model the behaviour of
the compressed column with general cross-section (circular or
square) confined with FRP material. Due to the complexity the
⇑ Corresponding author.
the FEA of masonry column as well as hollow column. However,
despite several experimental, numerical and analytical investiga-
tions of the compressive behaviour of FRP confined columns, theo-
retical stress–strain models of general validity are not yet
provided.
Currently a large number of studies are available in scientific lit-
erature, where stress–strain relations are defined for FRP confined
solid columns. These models are valuable as a starting-point also for
assessing the mechanical behaviour of FRP confined hollow col-
umns. The mentioned stress–strain models can be classified into
two categories: design-oriented models and analysis-oriented mod-
els. Design-oriented models (e.g., [12–24]) provide closed-form
equations for predicting the compressive strength, empirically cal-
ibrated on the experimental results, the ultimate axial strain and
stress–strain behaviour of FRP-confined concrete; whereas
analysis-oriented models (e.g., [28–47]) consider the interaction
between the external confining jacket or strip and the internal

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.032
0141-0296/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
120 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130
Nomenclature
A area of the annular section
b void ratio
D damage coefficient (scalar)
ec general state of axial strain
ecc axial strain of confined solid at f cc
ec0 axial strain corresponding to the unconfined solid axial
strength
ecu axial strain of the confined solid at f cu
er general state of radial strain
m Poisson’s ratio
m0 Poisson’s ratio of the unconfined solid
mf Poisson’s ratio of the FRP jacket
q pressure acting on the cross section
rr radial stress
rh circumferential stress
E Young’s modulus
E0 Young’s modulus of the unconfined solid
Ef Young’s modulus of the FRP jacket
Fc compression force
el lower bound of the range values of the Rit
core, hence incremental, iterative numerical procedures are used
to solve the equilibrium and compatibility relationships between
the two elements.
2. Background
This section aims to review the ‘‘milestones” of the main topic of
this paper: the analysis-oriented models. The goal is to highlight
possible limits and useful advantages of the existing models; in
particular the capacity of the models to be adaptable to solid and
hollow columns, square and circular cross-section, concrete and
masonry columns is pointed out. Based on the detailed examina-
tion of the advantages and limits of the available analytical
approaches, the assessment of a new model has been considered
and proposed in this paper.
In 1988, Mander et al. [25] offered a unified stress–strain
approach for confined solid concrete members subjected to axial
compressive force. The model utilizes the equation given by Popo-
vics in 1973 [26]. It was originally developed in order to represent
the strain response of unconfined solid concrete. The stress–strain
behaviour crosses a group of hypothetical curves (each one consid-
ering different levels of constant confining pressure). The expres-
sion for the prediction of the axial strain at peak stress was the
one originally proposed by Richart and Abbottt [27]. The Mander’s
theory was capable of predicting the full response of an axially
loaded concrete under a constant confining pressure; such as can
be provided by a yielded steel jacket. It uses an energy balance
method to calculate the axial strain at failure.
Based on these important considerations, a large number of
studies were developed during the time by several researchers.
Mirmiran and Shahawy [28] proposed an empirical fractional
dilatation model for hollow concrete column with circular cross-
section. They reasoned that, as the first crack appears within the
core, concrete dilates and tensile forces develop in the confining
material; thus the confining pressure is applied to the core itself.
This theory is based on the development of a passive confinement
action for externally reinforced concrete columns that evaluates
the lateral stiffening effect of the jacket. The sensitive parameters
were the material properties of the FRP and the geometry of the
concrete core. Razvi and Saatcioglu [29] considered the confine-
ment effect as a force applied by a perfectly elastic and isotropic
er upper bound of the range values of the Rit
f cc peak axial compressive stress of the FRP-confined solid
f c0 peak axial compressive stress of the unconfined solid
f cu ultimate axial compressive stress of the FRP-confined
solid
fl effective equivalent average confining pressure
h height of the column
i outer iteration (step) index
le external side of the hollow square section
li internal side of the hollow square section
n inner iteration (step) index
q confining pressure exerted by the confinement jacket
Re external radius of the cross-section in n-round
Re external radius of the cross-section in i-round
Ri internal radius of the cross-section in n-round
Ri internal radius of the cross-section in i-round
Rit try internal radius value
t thickness of the confinement jacket
V volume of the column (cylindrical or tubular for solid or
hollow column, respectively)
material. Their model consisted of an exponential relationship
between the lateral confinement pressure and the peak confine-
ment strength. The main advantage of this approach was the abil-
ity to model both square and circular cross section for solid and
concrete columns. In 1999, Spoelstra and Monti [30] proposed a
modified Mander’s model that utilizes an iterative procedure based
on empirical equations (circular cross-section, solid and concrete
column). Following the iterative procedure a stress–strain curve
(at increasing confinement pressure) was obtained by crossing a
group of stress–strain curves (at constant confinement pressure).
This procedure calculates the lateral strain in the solid concrete
accounting for a variable strain related to the axial stress level
and compares the strain with the intensity of internal cracking.
The failure was attained when the lateral strain on the external
surface reaches the failure strain of the jacket. The Fam model
[31] was based on the equilibrium, the compatibility, and the biax-
ial strength failure criteria of FRP tubes. It considered the Mander’s
equations for concrete under the constant confining action at sev-
eral axial strain levels. In 2001 Fam and Rizkalla [32] refined the
model by considering a gradual reduction of the stiffness conse-
quent to the decay of the performance of the FRP layer. Chun and
Park [33] based their model on the passive confinement mecha-
nism previously proposed by Madas et al. (cited in [33]), which
provides the transversal confinement stress for a given axial strain
of a column subjected to cyclic loading. Harries and Kharel [34]
investigated on solid circular concrete columns subjected to con-
centric axial load and strengthened with FRP. They focused atten-
tion on the behaviour of the column under several levels of
confinement. In particular, they looked for the relation between
transversal and longitudinal deformation, varying the FRP stiffness.
Moran and Pantelides [35] distinguished in the stress–strain curve:
a softening part (considering internal crack propagation) and a
hardening one (considering the strength increase due to the con-
finement action through a ductility ratio, the function of the FRP
stiffness, which modifies the compressive strain of the column).
Becque et al. [36] analysed a hybrid section (core + reinforcement)
subjected to axial load. The model is based on the principle of equi-
librium and strain compatibility in the lateral direction between
the confining material and the column. The tri-axial state of stres-
ses in the concrete column was modelled using Gestle’s octahedral
constitutive relationships (cited in [36]). FRP failure under biaxial
 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130 121

stress state was predicted using the Tsa-Wu quadratic criterion. crete confined with FRP. The hoop action is commonly calculated
Marques et al. [37] proposed a formulation considering a uniaxial from the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions
constitutive relationship that takes into account the stiffness between the core and the jacket. The authors presented a new
degradation by a parameter linked to the material secant axial approach for estimating the difference in confining pressures at a
stiffness. The first attempt of generating an analytical expression given axialstressand strain between actively confined and FRP-
valid for confined masonry columns (square cross-section) dates confined concretes using test results from a large test database.
back to 2004 [38]. Because of the cross-section shape, confining This difference, called ‘‘pressure gradient”, allows adapting the con-
action is not uniformly distributed, thus two regions of different fining pressure as check variables of the iterative procedure. A
stress state were identified. Effectiveness coefficients in terms of schematic synthesis of the presented analysis-oriented models is
volume were adopted in order to model the phenomena in a real- provided in Table 1. The models are classified based on their adapt-
istic way. In 2005, Binici [39] assessed a stress–strain relationship ability to the case of Hollow/Solid column (H, S or both), Square/
for solid concrete columns with circular cross-section. It was Circular cross-section (S, C or both) and Concrete/Masonry (C, M
defined by an elastic region followed by a nonlinear curve descrip- or both).
tor using the Leon–Pramono fracture energy-based plasticity of After a careful bibliographic review of the analysis-oriented
plain concrete criterion, derived by a calibration of the stoke- model’s ability to predict the behaviour of fully FRP-confined col-
controlled tri-axial compression tests. In 2006, Shao et al. [40] pre- umns, a new model is proposed in the next section in order to
sented a new model for the compressive behaviour of FRP confined assess a unified theory that is independent on: the material of
hollow concrete columns. The constitutive model includes cyclic the internal core; the presence of cavities or solid cores and the
rules of loading and unloading, plastic strains, stiffness and geometry of the cross-section. In this perspective the present work
strength degradation. Shao’s model uses the stress–strain model wants to provide an innovative contribution in the field of FRP con-
of Samaan, Mirmiran and Shahawy [28] to predict the envelope fined columns, based on the assumption of elastic materials for
curve. In 2007, Albanesi et al. [41] presented an accurate constitu- both core and jacket. Details of the mechanical and geometrical
tive law for the FRP confined concrete hollow columns character- assumptions are described herein.
ized by two contributions in terms of stiffness. The first refers to
the unconfined concrete, while the second accounts for the interac-
tion concrete-FRP and a monotonic curve connects them. Innova- 3. Proposed FRP-confinement model
tive contribution consisted in buckling length consideration.
Equivalent stiffness for the reinforced solid (sum of the contribu- Confinement forces able to limit the lateral expansion of com-
tions provided by the column and the reinforcement) is calculated pressed solids have been used for centuries in order to increase
depending on geometrical parameters of the column and adopted the strength of elements subjected to axial forces. In the case of
in the classical Euler’s buckling load formula. Teng et al. [42] pro- stone or concrete columns, hooping has the function of limiting
posed a stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete (general the lateral expansion effect due to the vertical loads, and it is
cross-section) in which the responses of the concrete core and implemented by means of transversal metallic or composite rein-
the FRP jacket as well as their interaction are explicitly considered. forcement, which may envelops the entire height of the column.
The confinement efficacy was introduced. Jiang and Teng [43] When an FRP-confined column is subjected to axial compres-
revisited the Teng’s model [42]. A nonlinear equation for evaluat- sion, it tends to expand laterally, and this dilation is countered
ing the strain on the stress peak value was proposed in order to by the FRP reinforcement, which provides a confining pressure
improve the Teng’s model prediction capacity. Lignola et al. (passive confinement). Possible damage occurs when the compos-
[44,48] provided a unified theory for hollow and solid concrete col- ite material fractures due to the tensile stress arising in the circum-
umn with circular cross section. The model was proposed on the ferential direction. The column is uniformly confined in the case of
basis of the elastic interaction between the concrete and the con- circular cross section, while this does not happen in the case of a
fining device, by writing equilibrium conditions and radial dis-
placement compatibility. A step-by-step evolution of the Secant
Table 1
Young’s modulus and a linearized relationship for Poisson’s ratio Synthesis of the existing analysis-oriented models and comparison in terms of
were used to take into account the nonlinearity of the phenomena. Hollow/Solid (H, S or both), Square/Circular cross-section (S, C or both) and Concrete/
In 2010 Aire et al. [45] proposed an approach to correlate the axial Masonry (C, M or both).
stiffness of confined and unconfined concrete with the lateral Ref. Year Hollow/Solid Square/Circular Concrete/Masonry
strain produced by the compressive load. The model is based on
[28] 1997 H C C
an iterative procedure derived from the Spoelstra and Monti exam- [29] 1999 S Both C
ple [30]. In fact, a value of the lateral strain is supposed in order to [30] 1999 S C C
calculate the confining pressure. The nonlinearity of the column is [31] 2000 H C C
taken into account through an indication of the strain area of the [32] 2001 H C C
[33] 2002 S Both C
concrete (assumed equal to two times the lateral strain). Once
[34] 2002 S C C
the strain area is known, the value of the lateral strain allows find- [35] 2002 S C C
ing the new value of confining pressure via an iterative stress and [36] 2003 S Both C
strain calculation. This lateral stress is compared with the corre- [37] 2004 S Both C
[38] 2004 S S M
sponding value of the previous step up to a certain fixed tolerance
[39] 2005 S C C
is reached. In the same year, Xiao et al. [46] investigated on the [40] 2006 H C C
effect of FRP confinement on High-Strength Concrete (HSC) and pro- [41] 2007 H C C
posed a unified model for HSC and Normal Strength Concrete (NSC) [42] 2007 S Both C
based on a large experimental database collected from the scien- [43] 2007 S Both C
[44] 2008 Both C C
tific literature. They observed that at a given lateral strain, the axial
[45] 2010 S C C
compressive stress and strain of FRP-confined concrete are not the [46] 2010 S C C
same if HSC or NSC columns are considered, when confined by the [47] 2014 S C C
FRP jacket. Finally, in 2014, as for the Xiao model [46], Lim and Proposed model 2015 Both Both Both
Ozbakkaloglu [47] proposed a unified theory for HSC and NSC con-
122 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130
Fig. 1. Confining action of FRP jacket.
cross-section of any other form. The circular column, in fact, is sub-
jected to a tensile stress that is balanced by a circumferential uni-
form radial pressure (due to the FRP-reinforcement), which limits
the lateral expansion of the column as shown in Fig. 1. Slightly dif-
ferent is the case of the hollow column in which the stress state of
the outer face is different from that of the inner face. The solid, in
fact, tends to facilitate the inward expansion of the un-confined
wall, requiring thus, less energy to develop failure. The stress state
present on the outer wall of the column is quite similar to the case
of the solid column. Therefore, as soon as the longitudinal loading
increases step-by-step, the deformation consists in a more signifi-
cant reduction of the inner radius with respect to the increase of
the outer radius.
The same principle is also valid for prismatic columns (e.g.
square or rectangular sections), but in this case the confining pres-
sure is not uniform along the cross section since it has a maximum
value on the corners and decreases in the central regions. As soon
as the aspect ratio increases, the confining pressure tends to be null
far from the corners.
In the next section, a new analytical model is described based
on the hypothesis of elasticity and volume conservation, when a
complete FRP wrapping is used for the confinement of hollow-
core columns. The proposed model has been detailed for hollow
sections of any shape, however, it can be easily extended to solid
columns. It uses the resilience of the system on the basis of elastic
interaction between the column and the external confining device.
The model is able to predict step-by-step, until failure, the stress–
strain behaviour of the columns. For each value of the compression
force, the pressure exerted by the column on the FRP strips during
the transversal expansion, is self-balanced by the confinement
action due to the named hoop stress along the fibres. Imposing
congruence conditions and radial displacement compatibility at
the interface between the core cylinder and the outer jacket, the
effective stress and strain of the confined solid can be determined
as well as the stress in the jacket.
3.1. Model description
The flow chart of the proposed model is reported in Fig. 4, for
the case of circular cross-section hollow column. An elastic tube
is considered. FRP sheets are considered applied to the external
surface for the full height, while internal surface is free to deform.
A value of the compressive force Fc is applied to the hollow circular
cross-section. The authors suggest to use at least an initial force ten
times less than the maximum force applicable on the unconfined
column as starting value and to double it in each of the next n-
steps. At the first step (k = 0), geometric and mechanical character-
istics such as Ri0, Re0, e0, f0, m0 and E0, of the unconfined solid are
assumed, thus the following values can be calculated: the annular
area section of the column, Akn; the axial pressure qkn due to the
load and the corresponding axial strain ec,kn, through Eqs. (1)–(3):
Akn ¼ pðR2e;kn  R2i;kn Þ ð1Þ
F c;k
qkn ¼ ð2Þ
Akn
 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130 123

qkn
ec;kn ¼
Ek
Assuming that the volume remains constant during the whole
load phase, the congruence is expressed by Eq. (4). The strain ec
in the longitudinal direction produces a change of the height of
the cylinder. Eq. (6) relates the value of the height of the column
at the n-step with the one at the (n  1)-step.
V kn ¼ V kðn1Þ
where
V kn ¼ ðp  R2e;kn  hn Þ  ðp  R2i;kn  hn Þ
ð3Þ direction opposite to that of the external one. Since the column
is only externally confined, the internal radius will tend to deform
more than the outer one. To take into account this behaviour, the
procedure chooses as Rit, a value close to the el value. Hence, the
attempt value is physically admissible and the ‘‘Rit chose phase”
ends (Fig. 4). Using this new value the Eq. (7) is solved again, giving
the expected divergent values of Re and Ri (Iterative phase). At this
point, Re remains the only variable so the solution becomes unique.
ð4Þ The ‘‘iterative phase” (Fig. 4) allows the calculation of the radial
deformation er and the Poisson ratio mn (Eqs. (9) and (10).
Re;kn  Re;kðn1Þ
ð5Þ er;kn ¼ ð9Þ
Re;kðn1Þ

hn ¼ hn1 ð1  ec;kn Þ ð6Þ er;kn

vn ¼ ð10Þ
ec;kn
R2e;kn ð1  ec;kn Þ  R2i;kn ð1  ec;kn Þ  R2e;kðn1Þ þ R2i;kðn1Þ ¼ 0 ð7Þ
The deformation state at n-step should be consistent with the coef-
Eq. (7) has two variables and admits 11 solutions. On the other ficient of Poisson at (n  1)-step. Therefore, Eqs. (1)–(10) are
hand, it is possible to reduce the field of solutions by imposing sim- repeated until the following small tolerance is met:
ple limitations linked to physical and geometrical considerations. jmn  mn1 j 6 tolerance ¼ 1% ð11Þ
The volume of the tube is the product of an area for the height
but, fixing the height value of the column, several annular sections Once the iterative phase is concluded the active confining pres-
give the same result in terms of volume as shown in Fig. 2. In par- sure flk can be evaluated with Eqs. (12)–(15):
ticular Fig. 2(a) represents the initial configuration (un-deformed). mkn 
After loading, possible deformed configurations are the following: qk ¼ ec;kn
  ð12Þ
R2e;kn Ri;kn 2
ð1  mf Þ þ 1þmkn
ð1  2mkn Þ þ
Re;kn
the outer radius increases with a decrease of the inner radius Ef t Ek
 R2 R2i;kn Re;kn
e;kn
(Fig. 2(b)), both external and internal radiuses increase (Fig. 2(c)),
both internal and external radiuses decrease (Fig. 2(d)). Only the !
qk  R2e;kn R2i;kn
case shown in Fig. 2(b) is the real one with physically acceptable rr;k ¼ 1 ð13Þ
configuration due to dilatation. The Eqs. (1)–(7) can easily be R2e;kn  R2i;kn R2e;kn
adapted to the case of a solid column by considering the volume !
of a cylinder (Ri = 0) instead of the volume of the tube. qk  R2e;kn R2i;kn
As reported in Fig. 4, the internal iterative phase can be subdi- rh;k ¼ 1þ ð14Þ
R2e;kn  R2i;kn R2e;kn
vided in two further stages: in the former, (called ‘‘Rit chose phase”)
the aim is evaluating a Ri value physically possible, while the sec- rr;k þ rh;k
ond stage (called ‘‘Iterative phase”) allows the determination of the flk ¼ ð15Þ
2
deformed geometry at the n-step. Solving the Eq. (7) as function of
Ri the solution is presented in the following vector form: where qk is the confining pressure exerted by the confinement
jacket. flk is the effective equivalent average confining pressure pro-
½Ri ; f ðRi Þ ð8Þ vided by the FRP and it is expressed in Eq (15) according to Lignola
At the general n-step (n – 0), it obtained an upper bound of the et al. [44].
inner radius er ) Ri;n < Ri;n1 and a lower bound el as result of the The peak values of the stress and strain are calculated as pro-
posed by Razvi and Saatcioglu [29] by using the Eqs. (16) and
equation f ðRi;n Þ ¼ Re;n1 solved with respect to Ri,n (the aim is to
(17). Several formulations for peak stress and strain estimation
identify the situation described in Fig. 2(b)). The outer tube
are available in the scientific literature, (e.g., [1–10]). Razvi and
(transversal reinforcement) must have an inner radius slightly less
Saatcioglu proposal was adopted because it was calibrated refer-
than the outer radius of the inner tube (unconfined column); the
ring to geometrical parameters of the tested columns, as made in
difference between these dimensions is defined as ‘‘interference”.
the present study. In fact, the formulas given in Eqs. (16) and
This deformation is related to the contact between the cylinders.
(17) are most consistent with the objective of a unified theory of
The interference causes, in fact, a contact pressure between the
confined columns proposed herein.
two tubes that is perceived as external pressure from the inner
tube and vice versa for the exterior one. Referring to the column, 0:587
it is required that the deformation of the inner radius occurs in a
f cc;k ¼ f c0 þ ð6:7  flk Þ ð16Þ

Fig. 2. Possible geometric configurations of the annular cross-section due to the transversal expansion: (a) un-deformed, (b) outer radius increase and inner radius decrease,
(c) both radius increase, (d) both radius decrease.
124 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130

( "  12 #)
flk 4. Core size effect
ecc;k ¼ e0  1 þ 5  ð17Þ
f c0
The accuracy and sensitivity of the proposed model have been
The model considers the inelasticity of the hollow column studied by a parametric analysis that allows only one parameter
through a damage index D, reported in Eq. (18), affecting the value to vary once the others are given. In particular the ratio between
of the elastic modulus of the solid as shown in Eq. (19). It simulates the areas of the hollow core over the area of the whole cross sec-


the decay of elastic properties due to the damage of the column tion, here called b ¼ RRei , was taken as variable parameter, as it
subjected to an axial load, thus the D value quantifies the percent-
is the most relevant to the investigation performed.
age of a cracked solid. The scalar variable D ranges from 0, for the
A column sample with an unconfined compressive strength
virgin material, to 1, which represents the failure under homoge-
fc0 = 40 MPa, unconfined peak strain ec0 = 0.03, initial Poisson’s
neous strain condition as suggested by Mazars [54].
ratio m = 0.08 and values of Re = 200 mm and Ri = 100 mm was con-
8
<0 if ecc;kn 6 e0 sidered. The Elastic modulus and the ultimate uniaxial strength of
Dk mkn e e0 ð18Þ FRP are considered equal to 270 GPa and 2 GPa, respectively, with
: Re0
Re;kn
 0:5
cc;kn if ecc;kn > e0 a total thickness of 3 mm. The stress–strain response of FRP exter-
nally confined columns with the same FRP reinforcement ratio
(one layer of FRP) is shown in Fig. 5. The inner core remains con-
Ek ¼ E0  ð1  Dk Þ ð19Þ
stant (inner radius equal to 100 mm) while the exterior radius
The initial values can be updated and a further step of load can has expanded from 200 mm to 800 mm in order to detect the b
be applied up to (1  D) 6 tol, where tol is a tolerance fixed at 1% in ranging from 12 to 18. The diagram shows the expected reduction of
the present analysis. the peak axial strength with the increasing of the b value. It is
In order to analyse the case of the rectangular hollow section, an important to note also the variation of the slope of the post-peak
ideal circular equivalent cross-section is defined in Fig. 3 and in behaviour with increasing of b; in fact at the minimum value of
Eqs. (20) and (21). For this purpose, it is imposed as outer radius, b an abrupt drop of the axial stress is registered while when the
Re0 the radius of the circle, which circumscribes the hollow rectan- b value rises the axial stress decreases more gradually evidencing
gular section, and as inner radius, Ri0 the radius of the circumfer- the capacity of the column of maintaining a higher residual
ence t inscribed in the cavity of the rectangular section according strength. It is reasonable that the effect of confinement decreases
to Lignola et al. [48]. as the b coefficient increases; therefore the model appears able
to predict the behaviour of confined hollow columns.
li
Ri0 ¼ ð20Þ
2
pffiffiffi 5. Theoretical–experimental comparison
2  le
Re0 ¼ ð21Þ
2 After describing the behaviour of the model from the theoretical
This assumption makes the adaptation of the model to the case point of view, the paper proceeds validating the obtained results by
of hollow square cross-section simple; on the other hand it comparing them with some experimental data available in the lit-
involves an overestimation of the cross-section which, does not erature. The model has been applied to different concrete and
affect the predictive capacity of the proposed model. The analysis masonry columns with circular and square cross section. The refer-
then proceeds as was described in the hollow circular sections ence specimens were fully wrapped with FRP jackets and without
above. When Dk is equal to 1, the model ends and plots the spline internal confinement. The experimental versus analytical compar-
function which approximates the ðecc ; f cc Þ points. ison is shown in the diagrams from Figs. 6–14. The theoretical pre-
diction is represented by a continuous line crossing circular points,
(Eqs. (16) and (17)), while the experimental results are reported by
several square points (stress and strain measurements from labo-
ratory tests as published by the authors). The proposed model is
not built for the prediction of the real hoop strain; in fact the lat-
eral strain that is computed by the model represents an ideal value
that cannot be compared with the experimental ones. This is due to
the fact that the non-linear behaviour of the cracked confined core
is evaluated by modifying the value of the axial elasticity modulus.
In fact, the theoretical column is considered to be deformed step-
by-step maintaining the volume constant as well as its shape
(cylindrical or tubular). It means that the theoretical lateral strain
is uniform along the total height of the column itself. This
hypothesis makes the comparison with the experimental value
inconsistent because it is well known that column under compres-
sion do not have uniform lateral expansion along the height but
the lateral strain is higher in the regions were the column starts
to crack.
In the following, the results of the comparisons between the
analytical and the experimental data taken from any experimental
campaign are reported and discussed. The validity and the
accuracy of the proposed model of the mentioned comparison is
shown in terms of diagrams and results are also summarized in
Table 2, by comparing the experimental versus theoretical curves
Fig. 3. Report between the square and the circular cross-section. and data.
 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130 125

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the proposed model.

5.1. Experimental campaign by Fam [31] and by Fam and Rizkalla [32]
The experimental program was undertaken to study the struc-
tural performance of GFRP tubes totalled and partially filled with
concrete subjected to flexure or axial compression loading condi-
tions [31]. Twelve tubes totally and partially filled with concrete
were tested as short columns (stubs) under axial loads. The tubes
ranged in external diameter from 89 mm to 942 mm. Hollow sam-
ples, called ‘‘stub4” and ‘‘stub9”, FRP-confined along the total
height, were chosen for the comparison with the theoretical
results. They present an inner diameter of 95 mm and an outer
diameter of 168 mm and 219 mm, respectively. Two concrete
126 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130

Fig. 5. Core size effect.

Fig. 7. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Fam, stub9 – [31].

Fig. 6. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Fam, stub4 – [31].

Fig. 8. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Fam and Rizkalla, stub4 –
[32].

mixes were adopted for the whole experimental campaign, with

the values of the compressive strength ranging from 28 MPa to
eter. It was confined with an FRP on the outer surface of the col-
67 MPa. The samples stub4 and stub9 both presented compressive
umn. The shell had a thickness of 3.09 mm and an elastic
strength of 40 MPa. The stubs were confined with a GFRP jacket in
modulus of about 8.7 GPa. The concrete had an average compres-
the form of tubes, which had a thickness of 3.09 mm and an elastic
sive strength of 37.7 MPa. Analytical versus experimental compar-
modulus equal to 27.7 GPa. The stress versus axial strain response
ison is provided in Fig. 8. The pre-peak curve is perfectly
was predicted and compared with the measured test values as
superposed on experimental points up to the peak stress. The soft-
shown in Figs. 6 and 7. In particular, it is evident the full matching
ening curve is close enough to the experimental value; the main
between the theoretical curve and the registered experimental
differences are at the ultimate conditions, both in terms of stress
points. In this case, both the elastic range and the softening branch
and strain. The percentage error is about 6.55% for the ultimate
are well modelled, as also the peak point is well estimated. The
stress and 16.67% for the corresponding strain prediction.
ultimate stress is well predicted while, in terms of ultimate strain
a scatter of 11.18% has been found in the stub4 specimen while an
error of 3.45% is obtained from stub9 sample. 5.2. Experimental campaign by Wong et al. [49]
A total of twelve hybrid stubs was fabricated and subjected to
axial compression loads [32]. The analytical results of the proposed The results of significant experiments of the axial compression
model were consistent with the test data [32]; this is shown herein on short FRP-confined circular columns with an inner void are
for the sample called ‘‘stub4”. Its dimensions were 333 mm in reported in [49]. The authors were motivated by the need to under-
height, 168 mm in external diameter and 95 mm as internal diam- stand how the behaviour of the columns may change based on the
 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130
Fig. 9. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Wong et al., H37-A2-I –
[49].
Fig. 10. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Micelli and Modarelli,
CC8 – [50].
presence or not of the void core, which can be reinforced with a
steel tube or just externally confined with FRP sheet. The results
related to the sample called ‘‘H37-A2-I” were compared with the
proposed analytical model, showing a consistent matching. In par-
ticular, it had a void size of 42 mm and a void ratio of 0.28. The
concrete cylinder compressive strength was 36.7 MPa and the peak
strain value was 0.0027. The elastic Modulus of the concrete was
27.8 GPa while 80.1 GPa was that of the FRP layer, having a thick-
ness of 0.17 mm. The stress–strain relation is illustrated in Fig. 9
for both experimental and analytical curves. The global behaviour
of the compressed and FRP-confined hollow column is intercepted.
The theoretical elastic branch appears to be slightly less stiff while
the post peak curve perfectly overlaps the experimental data. The
accuracy of the prediction is quantified in Table 2.
127
Fig. 11. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Micelli and Modarelli,
CP4 – [50].
Fig. 12. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Yu and Teng, H37-A3-I –
[51].
5.3. Experimental campaign by Micelli and Modarelli [50]
In 2005, Micelli and Modarelli investigated the behaviour of
hollow concrete columns through an experimental campaign con-
ducted on 129 specimens, among them 85 were externally con-
fined with FRP [50]. Two types of concrete mixtures were used
with different grades. The first had an average nominal compres-
sive strength after 28 days of 28 MPa and the second a compressive
strength of 38 MPa, while the average experimental strength of
unreinforced compressed columns was 24.03 and 38.24 MPa,
respectively.
The hollow core specimens had an outer diameter varying
between 150 and 300 mm, the height of the columns was between
300 and 600 mm, different internal diameters were utilized.
Results chosen for comparison with the proposed model were
taken from the samples called ‘‘CC8”. They had height equal to
128 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130

500 mm, diameter equal to 250 mm, core diameter equal to

150 mm; they were confined with one layer of GFRP unidirectional
sheet, and fabricated with the lower grade concrete mixture. The
GFRP sheets had a nominal thickness of 0.165 mm, with the fibres
aligned at 90° respect to the main axis of the sample, and having an
elastic Modulus of 221 GPa. Fig. 10 shows the theoretical–experi
mental comparison. The proposed model over-estimates the stiff-
ness of the confined column in the elastic range, but shows a good
prediction of the peak coordinates. Post-peak slope of the experi-
mental data seems to be best matched by the theoretical curve.
The ultimate strain is over-estimated by the model, with a scatter
equal to 23.53%.
In the same paper, the authors report the experiments concern-
ing axial compressive tests on hollow concrete columns with
square cross section, fully wrapped with unidirectional FRP sheets.
A comparison with specimen called ‘‘CP4” is illustrated herein for
the model validation. The nominal dimensions of the sample were
300  150  150 mm with the hollow core dimension of
50  50 mm. The confinement was provided by one layer of CFRP
wrapping with a nominal thickness of 0.165 mm. Using the
assumption previously described, the model was applied to the
CP4 sample in order to estimate the capacity curve. The experimen-
Fig. 13. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Di Ludovico et al., G-1 – tal versus predicted response is reported in Fig. 11. As for the cir-
[52].
cular cross section case (CC8), the stress–strain curve is well
modelled since the ultimate conditions in terms of stress and strain
present an error of 5.60% and 5.00%, respectively. As expected, the
assumption made at the beginning of the procedure (Eqs. (20) and
(21)) does not affect significantly the results and, at the same time,
guarantees the adaptability of the model to FRP confined columns
for both square and circular cross section. For this reason, the pro-
posed theory seems to be accurate regardless of the cross-section
shape.

5.4. Experimental campaign by Yu and Teng [51]

In 2013 Yu and Teng investigated on the behaviour of hybrid

FRP-concrete-steel hollow columns with a square outer tube and
a circular inner tube in a compression test campaign. Four different
types of specimens were adopted for the purpose: a hollow circular
hybrid column (external FRP confinement and internal steel rein-
forcement), a square column with circular empty core with hybrid
reinforcement, a solid square column with FRP confinement and a
square column with circular cavity only FRP confined. The results
related to the sample called ‘‘H37-A3-I” were compared with the
proposed analytical model, showing a consistent matching. It pre-
sented an external side of 150 mm, an inner radius of 40 mm and a
height of 300 mm (void ratio of 0.21). The elastic Modulus, the peak
Fig. 14. Predicted response versus experimental outcome: Aiello et al., SAW-R2-1 – strain and stress of the unreinforced column were respectively
[53]. 32.8 GPa, 0.00309 and 37.5 MPa. The FRP tubes had a Young’s

Table 2
Experimental versus theoretical outcomes.

Ref. Sample Experimental Theoretical Scatter at peak Scatter at

point [%] ultimate point
[%]
fc0 [MPa] fcc [MPa] ecc [%] fcu [MPa] ecu [%] fcc [MPa] ecc [%] fcu [MPa] ecu [%] Stress Strain Stress Strain
[31] stub4 40.00 61.00 0.40 53.00 1.10 61.20 0.50 53.00 1.30 0.33 25.00 0.00 18.18
stub9 40.00 57.00 0.30 49.80 0.90 56.12 0.27 48.45 0.84 1.54 0.00 2.71 3.45
[32] stub4 37.70 66.80 0.40 55.00 1.20 66.40 0.44 58.60 1.40 0.60 0.00 6.55 16.67
[49] H37-A2-I 36.7 41.0 0.5 47.3 1.62 41.45 0.53 47.76 1.84 1.0 6.0 0.9 11.9
[50] CC8 11.50 26.90 1.00 26.00 1.7 26.28 1.10 23.67 3.80 2.30 9.00 8.96 23.53
CP4 16.90 30.30 3.00 30.20 4.00 30.12 1.60 28.51 3.80 0.59 46.67 5.60 5.00
[51] H37-A3-I 37.50 42.80 0.65 40.80 1.96 42.62 0.58 38.82 2.10 0.40 10.00 7.10 4.80
[52] G-1 2.55 3.91 0.50 4.31 2.27 3.83 0.64 4.50 1.98 2.00 21.90 4.32 14.64
[53] SAW-R2-1 6.13 11.50 1.50 9.00 5.00 11.62 1.30 10.25 4.60 0.87 13.33 13.89 8.00
 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130
Modulus of 80.1 GPa and a thickness of 2.5 mm. The analytical and
experimental curves are reported in Fig. 12. The global behaviour
of the specimen appeared to be well predicted in both pre and post
peak branches. The axial stiffness also appears to be correctly pre-
dicted, especially for the elastic range. The experimental peak val-
ues were 0.0065 and 42.8 MPa in terms of axial strain and stress
respectively; while ultimate conditions were 0.0196 and
40.8 MPa. The analytical prediction provides an average accuracy
of 98% for the strain and about 97% for the stress.
5.5. Experimental campaign by Di Ludovico et al. [52]
Di Ludovico et al. explored advanced materials for masonry col-
umns confinement, by using FRP or FRM (Fibre Reinforced Mortar)
as confining materials. The experimental results are reported in
[52] and the specimen named ‘‘G-1” was taken for the evaluation
of the quality of the proposed model. A total of of 12 square
cross-sections were prepared with tuff masonry. Inner core was
partially filled with one list of brick and mortar. The external side
average dimension was equal to 220 mm while the inner side was
about 120 mm long and a total height of 500 mm was reached. The
G series refers to GFRP wrapped specimens with a composite mate-
rial 0.48 mm thick and an elastic Modulus of 22.8 GPa. The
mechanical characteristics of the masonry were 8 GPa, 0.004 and
2.55 MPa for the compressive Modulus, the ultimate strain and
the average compressive strength respectively. The analytical pre-
diction of the stress–strain curve is shown in Fig. 13. It is reason-
able to assert that the behaviour of the compressed column
confined with GFRP is predicted with acceptable scatter as
reported in Table 2. The stiffer behaviour of the experimental sam-
ple, as shown in Fig. 13, can be due to the presence of a central line
of tuff bricks placed in the middle of the hollow core.
5.6. Experimental campaign by Aiello et al. [53]
In 2009, Aiello et al. performed a set of experiments on hollow
square masonry column, confined by GFRP sheets. The mechanical
characterization of masonry was done by compression tests on
natural masonry prisms built with three 100  150  30 mm
blocks and 10 mm mortar joints. Compression strength of
13.61 MPa resulted with a standard deviation of 1.00 MPa for lime-
stone masonry. A tensile strength of 1.60 MPa resulted from tensile
tests with a standard deviation of 147.00 MPa. The experimental
elastic modulus was 74.143 MPa, with a standard deviation of
4.683 MPa. The referenced specimen, so called ‘‘SAW-R2-1”, pre-
sented dimensions of 250  250  500 mm with hollow core
dimensions of 130  130 mm. The average tensile strength of the
GFRP was 803 MPa with a standard deviation of 39 MPa, while
the experimental elastic modulus was 40.170 MPa with a standard
deviation of 4.309 MPa. Fig. 14 shows the test results compared
with the model prediction. Pre-peak curve slightly over estimate
the real stiffness of the confined column but, the knee point at
the end of the pseudo-elastic range is well predicted both in terms
of stress and strain. Theoretical post-peak curve presents a
descending branch, which well models the softening experimental
values. In this case, the ultimate stress value presents an over esti-
mation around 13.89%, while the ultimate strain has an error of
about 8.00% in prediction. Clearly, the model worked with very
good prediction also in the case of masonry hollow columns
(square); this confirms that the proposed model can be considered
unaffected by the kind of material.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a review of design-oriented and analysis-oriented
confinement models for FRP-confined concrete is presented.
129
Models commonly refer to concrete columns with circular cross-
section and axially loaded. Only a small number of models refer
to hollow core columns, most of them are able to capture the cavity
effect on the confinement action. Unified theories like Razvi and
Saatcioglu [29], Chun and Park [33], Bacque et al. [36], Marques
et al. [37], Teng et al. [42] and Jiang and Teng [43] are able to model
both circular and square cross-section; in addition, Lignola et al.
[44] proposed a model to predict the stress–strain curves of both
solid and hollow columns. A new unified analysis-oriented model
able to carry out the axial stress-axial strain capacity curve of a col-
umn (made of concrete or stone) with general cross-section (circu-
lar or square) both with solid and hollow core, externally confined
with the continuous FRP jacket is also provided in this paper. It
consists in a step-by-step iterative procedure composed of an inner
circle and an outer one. The first one aims to model the deformed
configuration of the confined solid considered perfectly elastic,
while the second one introduces the damage ratio in order to take
into account the occurrence of cracking and its propagation. The
procedure ends when the damage ratio indicates total failure of
the column.
A large test campaign conducted on FRP-confined concrete
tubes [31,32,49,50], on FRP-confined concrete columns with
square cross-section and square or circular cavity [50,51] and on
FRP-confined masonry columns with square cross-section and
square cavity [52,53] were studied and summarized in order to
produce a consistent database for theoretical and experimental
comparison. The capacity of the procedure to capture the correct
behaviour curve shape both in the elastic and post-elastic range
is evident (in the longitudinal direction). The prediction of the ulti-
mate values of the axial stress and strain presents an average error
of 6.14% (standard deviation equal to 4.17) and 11.78% (standard
deviation equal to 7.46) respectively, with respect to the experi-
mental data. A parametric analysis was also reported in Section 4,
where cavity dimension effect was studied in order to test the sen-
sitivity of the proposed model.
References
[1] Gambarelli S, Nisticò N, Ozbolt J. Numerical analysis of compressed concrete
columns confined with CFRP: microplane-based approach. Compos Part B: Eng
2014;67:303–12.
[2] Jiang J, Wu Y, Zhao X. Application of Drucker–Prager plasticity model for
stress–strain modeling of FRP confined concrete columns. Proc Eng
2011;14:687–94.
[3] Karabinis AI, Rousakis TC, Manolitsi G. 3D finite element analysis of
substandard columns strengthened by fiber reinforced polymer sheets. ASCE
J Compos Constr 2008;12(5):531–40.
[4] Monti G, Nisticò N. Square and rectangular concrete columns confined by
CFRP: experimental and numerical investigation. Mech Compos Mater 2008;44
(3):289–308.
[5] Nisticò N, Monti G. R.C. square sections confined by FRP: analytical prediction
of peak strength. Composites 2013;45(1):127–37.
[6] Nisticò N. R.C. Square sections confined by FRP: a numerical procedure for
predicting stress–strain relationships. Composites Part B 2014;59:238–47.
[7] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Concrete confined by FRP material: a plasticity
approach. Eng Struct 2002;24:923–32.
[8] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD. FRP-confined concrete members: axial
compression experiments and plasticity modeling. Eng Struct
2007;29:1343–53.
[9] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD, Tepfers R. Analytical modelling of plastic
behaviour of uniformly FRP confined concrete members. J Compos Part B: Eng
2008;39(7–8):1104–13.
[10] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined
concrete-I: Drucker–Prager type plasticity model. Eng Struct 2010;32
(3):665–79.
[11] Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL. Finite element modeling of confined
concrete-II: plastic-damage model. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):680–91.
[12] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[13] Fardis MN, Khalili HH. FRP-encased concrete as a structural material. Mag
Concr Res 1982;34(121):191–202.
[14] Karbhari VM, Gao Y. Composite jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression
verification of simple design equations. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 1997;9
(4):185–93.
130 A. Cascardi et al. / Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 119–130
[15] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Model of concrete confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124(9):1025–31.
[16] Toutanji HA. Stress–strain characteristics of concrete columns externally
confined with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96
(3):397–404.
[17] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behaviour of concrete confined by carbon fiber
composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12(2):139–46.
[18] Park JH, Jo BW, Yoon SJ, Park SK. Experimental investigation on the structural
behaviour of concrete filled FRP tubes with/without steel re-bar. KSCE J Civ
Eng 2011;15(2):337–45.
[19] Realfonzo R, Napoli A. Concrete confined by FRP systems: confinement
efficiency and design strength models. Compos Part B: Eng 2011;42:736–55.
[20] Wang YF, Wu HL. Size effect of concrete short columns confined with aramid
FRP jackets. ASCE J Compos Constr 2011;15(4):535–44.
[21] Yu T, Teng JG. Design of concrete-filled FRP tubular columns: provisions in the
Chinese technical code for infrastructure application of FRP composites. J
Compos Constr 2011;15(3):451–61.
[22] De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R. Comparative study of models on confinement of
concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J Compos Constr
2003:219–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(219).
[23] Realfonso R, Napoli A. Confining concrete members with FRP systems:
predictive vs design models. Compos Struct 2013;104:304–19.
[24] Nisticò N, Pallini F, Rousakis T, Wu YF, Karabinis A. Peak strength and ultimate
strain prediction for FRP confined square and circular concrete sections.
Compos Part B: Eng 2014;67:543–54.
[25] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[26] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain curve of
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3:583–99.
[27] Richard RM, Abbottt BJ. Versatile elastic–plastic stress–strain formula. ASCE J
Eng Mech Div 1975;101(4):511–5.
[28] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. A new concrete-filled hollow FRP composite column.
Composites Part B 1996;27B(3–4):263–8.
[29] Razvi S, Saatcioglu M. Confinement model for high-strength concrete. Cem
Concr Res 1999;125(3):281–9.
[30] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. J Compos Constr 1999;3
(3):143–50.
[31] Fam AZ. Concrete-filled fibre-reinforced polymer tubes for axial and flexural
structural members. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of graduate
studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. National Library of Canada; 2000 [0-612-53056-6].
[32] Fam AZ, Rizkalla SH. Confinement model for axially loaded concrete confined
by circular fiber-reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):451–61.
[33] Chun SS, Park HC. Load carrying capacity and ductility of RC columns confined
by carbon fiber reinforced polymer. In: Proc 3rd int conf on composites in
infrastructure; 2002.
[34] Harries KA, Kharel G. Behaviour and modeling of concrete subject to variable
confining pressure. ACI Mater J 2002;99(2):180–9.
[35] Moran DA, Pantelides CP. Stress–strain model for fiber-reinforced polymer
confined concrete. ASCE J Compos Constr 2002;6(4):233–40.
[36] Becque J, Patnaik AK, Rizkalla SH. Analytical models for concrete confined with
FRP tubes. J Compos Constr ASCE 2003;7(1):31–8.
[37] Marques SPC, Marques DCSC, da Silva JL, Cavalcante MAA. Model for analysis
of short columns of concrete confined by fiber-reinforced polymer. J Compos
Constr ASCE 2004;8(4):332–40.
[38] Micelli F, De Lorenzis L, La Tegola A. FRP-confined masonry columns under
axial loads: analytical model and experimental results. Masonry Int J 2004;17
(3):95–108 [Ed. British Masonry Society].
[39] Binici B. An analytical model for stress–strain behaviour of confined concrete.
Eng Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.
[40] Shao Y, Zhu Z, Mirmiran A. Cyclic modeling of FRP-confined concrete with
improved ductility. Cement Concr Compos 2006;28(10):959–68.
[41] Albanesi T, Nuti C, Vanzi I. Closed form constitutive relationship for concrete
filled FRP tubes under compression. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(2):
409–27.
[42] Teng JG, Huang YL, Lam L, Ye LP. Theoretical model for fiber reinforced
polymer-confined concrete. J Compos Constr ASCE 2007;11(2).
[43] Jiang T, Teng JG. Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for FRP-confined
concrete. ASCE J Eng Struct 2007;29(11):2968–86.
[44] Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Unified theory for confinement of
RC solid and hollow circular columns. Composites: Part B 2008;39:1151–60.
[45] Aire C, Gettu R, Casas J, Marques S, Marques D. Concrete laterally confined with
fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP): experimental study and theoretical model.
Mater Constr 2010;60:297.
[46] Xiao Q, Teng JG, Yu T. Behaviour and modeling of confined high-strength
concrete. ASCE J Compos Constr 2010;14(3):249–59.
[47] Lim J, Ozbakkaloglu T. Unified stress–strain model for FRP and actively
confined normal-strength and high-strength concrete. J Compos Constr
2014:04014072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000536.
[48] Lignola GP, Nardone F, Prota A, De Luca A, Nanni A. Analysis of RC hollow
columns strengthened with GFRP. J Compos Constr 2011;15:545–56.
[49] Wong YL, Yu T, Teng JG, Dong SL. Behaviour of FRP confined concrete in
annular section columns. Composites: Part B 2008;39:451–66.
[50] Micelli F, Modarelli R. Experimental and analytical study on properties
affecting the behaviour of FRP-confined concrete. Composites: Part B
2013;45:1420–31.
[51] Yu T, Teng J. Behavior of hybrid FRP concrete-steel double-skin tubular
columns with a square outer tube and a circular inner tube subjected to axial
compression. J Compos Constr 2013:271–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943 5614.0000331.
[52] Di Ludovico M, Fusco E, Prota A, Manfredi G. Experimental behaviour of
masonry columns confined using advanced materials. In: The 14th world
conference on earthquake engineering, October 12–17, 2008 Beijing, China;
2008.
[53] Aiello M, Micelli F, Valente L. FRP confinement of square masonry columns. J
Compos Constr 2009:148–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(2009)13:2(148).
[54] Mazars J, Pijaudier-Cabot G. Continuum damage theory-application to
concrete. J Eng Mech 1989;115(2). ASCE. ISSN 0733-9399/89/0002-0345.
Paper No. 23187.