Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Effect of ultra-high lateral strain capability on the performance of damaged

concrete strengthening with PET-FRP: Test and modeling
Zhongfeng Zhu a, b, Yingwu Zhou a, b, *, Zengzhu Zhu a, Lili Sui a, b, Pengda Li a, b
a
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518000, China
b
Key Laboratory for Resilient Infrastructures of Coastal Cities (MOE), Ministry of Education, China

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

Keywords: The lateral confinement of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) has a significant impact on the deformability, strength,
Damaged concrete and energy dissipation of core concrete, especially for damaged concrete. To address the performance of
PET-FRP damaged concrete strengthened with the large rupture strain of FRP (LRS-FRP), the effects of damage degree,
Strengthening
confinement stiffness, and loading rate were analyzed. Results show that the strain efficiency factor of LRS-FRP
Strain efficiency factor
Stress–strain model
made of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) can be stabilized at a high value of 0.87 even with a high
damage degree when used for strengthening cylinders, which is larger than other FRP (BFRP and CFRP) and
agrees with PET confined undamaged concrete reported in existing papers. The test results indicated that the
increased initial damage degree result in a slight decrease in ultimate strain and ultimate strength. The loading
rates will improve the initial compressive strength of core concrete, this result in the increase of the reflection
point stress of LRS-FRP confined concrete from the elastic stage to the enhancement stage. But, the tangent
modulus of the enhancement stage is hardly affected by loading rates even though the core concrete is under
different initial damage conditions. One strength model with good performance after evaluation and a contin­
uous integrable and derivable model are incorporated into this new work, which predicts the performance of
damaged concrete strengthening with LRS-FRP.

1. Introduction [5–9]. Research on the performance of columns [7–24], beams [25–27],

Repair and retrofit of damaged reinforced concrete (RC) structures
has been an important research topic in recent years. The mechanical
behavior of concrete will deteriorate to varying degrees due to various
environmental factors and external loads in actual engineering. Fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) develops to be one popular composite mate­
rial in strengthening engineering and the performance improvement of
the structure is also obvious to all [1,2]. In recent years, “green” and
environmentally friendly promoted the development of plastic product
recycling technology, the large rupture strain FRP (LRS-FRP) [3,4],
usually makes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or Polyethylene
naphthalate (PEN), came into being and was gradually applied in en­
gineering. Its ultimate tensile strain could be larger than 5 % while the
traditional one’s rupture strain usually smaller than 2 %, making it
capable of absorbing more energy in the case of large deformation. This
also breaks the limitation of carbon FRP (CFRP) in seismic strengthening
due to insufficient ductility. Numerous papers clarified the property and
proposed corresponding models of concrete strengthened with FRP
and double-skin tubular members [28–33] strengthening with LRS-FRP
indicates that the ultra-high rupture strain of LRS-FRP has made a major
contribution to the improved ductility and energy dissipation of
strengthened members. For the cycling behavior of LRS-FRP confined
concrete, some scholars [12,34,35] also proposed stress–strain models
for LRS-FRP confined intact concrete, which could predict the cycling
behavior of FRP confined concrete. In addition, as is well known, ECC
has excellent tensile ductility [37–40,66] but limited compressive
strength. Some scholars investigate the mechanical properties of LRS-
FRP strengthening engineered cementitious composites (ECC) [36] to
explore whether the large strain of LRS-FRP can be fully utilized. The
results indicated that the confined ECC obtained larger deformation and
energy dissipation capacity but lower compressive strength than
confined normal concrete [36]. Meanwhile, compared with traditional
FRP confined ECC, LRS-FRP confined ECC obtained higher ultimate
compressive strain [36]. Above all, LRS-FRP performs well in high en­
ergy consumption and high deformation capacity when used for
strengthening members.

* Corresponding author at: Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518000, China.
E-mail address: ywzhou@szu.edu.cn (Y. Zhou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128717
Received 13 May 2022; Received in revised form 19 July 2022; Accepted 4 August 2022
Available online 29 August 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Currently, several researchers are investigating the performance of Table 1

damaged concrete, caused by earthquakes [41], fire [42], and pre- Specimen design.
damage [43–53], strengthened with traditional FRP. This is more suit­ Number of Preload (%)
able for practical engineering applications. Wu and Zhou’s strength PET-FRP layer
0 85 100 − 85 − 75 Total
model [43], proposed by our research group, is based on the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion which considers damage degree effects on the 0 3 3 3 3 3 15
1 2 3 3 3 3 14
ultimate strength of the strengthening specimen. To further enrich the 2 2 3 3 3 3 14
database, and improve the accuracy and application of this model, our Number of specimens 43
group conducted experimental research investigating the performance
of CFRP-confined undamaged and damaged concrete. A corresponding
ultimate state model which considers the parameters of the damage
Table 2
degree and a four-parameter continuous model were proposed [44]. Loading rates.
Subsequently, the corner radius of the rectangular specimen [52] was
Condition Load range Load rate
also adopted as one parameter in the base model [44]. Meanwhile, for
(kN)
basalt FRP (BFRP) strengthened damaged concrete, the results deter­ Load control Displacement control
(kN/s) (mm/min)
mined that pre-damage resulted in the ultimate concrete strength
decrease while having almost no effect on the ultimate strain [46,47]. It Pre-damage.plain 0–180 2 /
would be not safe to apply the existing FRP confined intact concrete for concrete 180–350 / 0.10
350–530 / 0.05
reinforcement design of FRP strengthening damaged concrete. In addi­ 530-End / 0.02
tion, Yan et al.’s test results [54] show that the ultimate strain and
strength of CFRP and LRS-FRP confined concrete increase with
PET strengthened 0–350 2 /
increasing strain rate (impact level). Cao et al.’s (2020) analysis [49] columns 350-End / 0.3 and 1.0
also indicates that the ultimate state and stress–strain behavior are
affected by loading rates (earthquake level). In addition, the cycling
performance of confined damaged concrete conducted by Cao et al. [50]
Table 3
indicates that the initial damage degree of core concrete affects the
Mix proportion of concrete.
unloading and reloading tangent modulus. After evaluating the perfor­
Component Value
mance of some existing models, Cao et al.’s analysis results also
confirmed that the strength model in [44] performs well for predicting 3
Water (kg/m ) 158
the ultimate state of confined damaged concrete with and without Cement (kg/m3) 280
Sand (kg/m3) 800
cycling. As mentioned earlier, the ultra-high strain of LRS-FRP that oc­
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1080
curs in strengthened damaged RC members makes a major contribution Additive (kg/m3) 6.80
to their seismic performance, which gives them good ductility and en­ Water cement ration (%) 0.56
ergy dissipation. However, the previous review also indicated that the Compressive strength with 150 mm3 cube (MPa) 38.3
pre-damage may result in the ultimate strength decrease. And different
strain rates also affect the stress–strain relationship and ultimate state of
damage of concrete, load and displacement control were finally adop­
confined concrete. For damaged concrete, the existing cracks may
ted in this test after the pre-experiment. Meanwhile, two load rates, 0.3
further promote the coordinated deformation of concrete and LRS-FRP.
mm/min and 1.0 mm/min, were used to explore whether different
This provides an opportunity for the ultra-high rupture strain of LRS-
loading rates will have an essential image on the mechanical properties
FRP to be further utilized. To provide an in-depth investigation of the
of PET strengthened columns, for example, does it affects the stress
contribution of LRS-FRP to the bear capacity, deformability and energy
when concrete changes from the elastic stage to the strain strengthening
dissipation of strengthening members, the effect of the LRS-FRP effi­
stage or the ultimate stress and strain. Details are provided in Tables 1
ciency factor, confinement stiffness, damage degree of core concrete,
and 2.
and loading rate should be investigated systemically.
In this paper, an analysis is presented of the strain efficiency factor of
PET-FRP, the ultimate state, and the stress–strain relationship of 2.2. Material properties
damaged concrete strengthened with PET-FRP, followed by an evalua­
tion of the performance of some existing strength models. A four- The experiment’s designed concrete strength was 30 MPa. The mix
parameter continuous model was validated for the strengthening proportion and 28-day average strength of concrete are shown in
design of PET-FRP confined damaged concrete. Table 3. The material properties of PET-FRP are summarized in Table 4
and Fig. 1. Table 4 presents the average data of five coupons with the
2. Experimental work geometry of 50 × 250 × 0.841 (nominal thickness, unit: mm) tested
refer to ASTM D3039 [57].
2.1. Specimen design
2.3. Specimen preparation
A total of 43 specimens with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of
300 mm were tested under axial compression; in which, 15 specimens 2.3.1. Damage applied
without strengthening were tested for obtaining the residual strength One of the important damage indices of concrete is its strength
after pre-damage, and 28 cylinders were repaired with PET-FRP. The reduction while experiencing different degrees of loading. Fig. 2a shows
primary variables were the damage levels, thicknesses of the PET-FRP, the pre-damaged level applied in this test, which was carried out by a
and load rate. To effectively compare the mechanical properties of 3000 kN mechanical testing and simulation (MTS) machine under
CFRP and LRS-FRP confined pre-damaged concrete and verify the controlled loading and displacement, as given in Table 2. Fig. 2b shows
effectiveness of Wu et al.’ model [55], similar damage levels with Wu the initial state of cylinders after experiencing different pre-damage.
et al.’s test were adopted. Loading control is adopted in Chinese stan­
dard (GB/T 50081-2002) [56]. To obtain the full stress–strain curves 2.3.2. Repairing damaged cylinders with LRS-FRP
and effectively control the damage level, especially for the post-peak As shown in Fig. 3a, the damaged surface was repaired first by high-

2
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Table 4
Properties of FRP.
FRP Types Tensile strength ff (MPa) Ultimate tensile strain εf (%) Modulus E1 (GPa) Modulus 2 (GPa) Nominal thickness tf(mm)

PET (Manufacturer) 810 9–11 10.7 / 0.841

PET (Coupon test) 818 8.72 18.0 8.30 0.841

was completely immersed in epoxy resin first, then it was wrapped

around the concrete cylinder, and the excess resin was removed with a
roller. The overlapping length is about 150 mm.

2.4. Instrumentation and test setup

As shown in Fig. 4, four linear variable differential transformers

(LVDTs) were attached to measure the axial deformation. In addition,

Fig. 1. Property of LRS-FRP.

strength mortar (water/cement 0.3) to make a smooth and round surface

for achieving a tight bonding of the FRP-concrete interface; then, one
day after the surface repair, a PET fiber fabric was used for FRP jacketing
to strengthen the repaired concrete. To avoid debonding failure, PET Fig. 4. Test setup.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Pre-load applied levels: (a) Definition of damage levels (b) Typical group of pre-damaged cylinders.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3. Strengthening damaged cylinders: (a) surface repair (b) brush glue (c) soaking FRP; (d) jacketing FRP; (e) strengthened cylinder; (f) leveling.

3
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Fig. 5. Failure modes.

make the bottom layer. The matte’s white spray paint is used to make
A the bottom layer and usually needs to be applied 3 to 10 times to ensure
FRP strengthening that it covers the measured area of the test piece; The second step is to
concrete make speckles. This test uses a stamp to press multiple times (5–10
times) in each small area.

A' ( 'cu, f'cu) 3. Test results and discussion

P P'
( co, fco) B ( ci, fci)
3.1. Failure modes

H ( cd, fcd) Fig. 5 presents failure modes of some strengthened specimens with
different initial damage degrees. All strengthened cylinders failed in
LRS-FRP rupture, and the damage degree of core concrete does not affect
Unconfined failure modes. Compared with the PET debonding of some two-layer (2-
ply) strengthening specimens, the one-layer (1-ply) ones present as the
concrete C rupture of PET. The thickness of PET is 0.841 per layer, which is about 5
times that of CFRP. It is preliminarily believed that the increase in PET
o R ( pl,0)
thickness reduces the fracture risk caused by stress concentration.
Fig. 5d also indicated that the overlapping length of PET should be
increased appropriately.
Fig. 6. Typical stress–strain curves.

3.2. Ultimate state

the lateral strain was measured by digital image correlation (DIC) except
for plain concrete. Four 20 mm length strain gauges were attached to
3.2.1. Damage definition
measure the lateral strain of plain concrete. The DIC speckles on the
As well known to all, the reloading peak strength has an attenuation
surface of the test piece were produced in two steps. The first step is to
relative to the unloading strength. The reloading peak strengths (fcd in

(a) 45 (b) 80 Previous study [42]

Preload 0%
40 Preload 85%
70 1-ply
2-ply
35 Preload 100%
60
Stress (MPa)

Preload -85%
30 Preload -75%
50
Actual damage

y=-0.0064x2+2.7195x-207.27
25 40
20 30
15
20
10
10
5 y=0.0285x
0
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Strain (%) Stress excursion
Fig. 7. Actual damage of specimens. (a) reloading curve; (b) stress excursion versus actual damage.

4
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

(a) 100 (b) 120

25%~75%
1.5IQR
90 Median
Mean 100
80

f cu ' (MPa)
f cu ' (MPa)
70 80

60
60 25%~75%
1.5IQR
50 Median
1-ply Mean 2-ply
40 40
0 85% 100% -85% -75% 0 85% 100% -85% -75%
Damage level Damage level
(c) 10 (d) 10

8 8
(%)

(%)
6
cu '

cu '
4 4

25%~75% 25%~75%
2 1.5IQR 2 1.5IQR
Median Median
Mean 1-ply Mean 2-ply
0 0
0 85% 100% -85% -75% 0 85% 100% -85% -75%
Damage level Damage level
Fig. 8. The ultimate state of all specimens. (a) and (b) are vertically measuring the specimens’ compressive strength (peak axial stress)fcu , while (c) and (d) are
′

measuring their corresponding axial strainεcu .

′

Table 5
Experimental data.
Specimen ID Pre-load level (%) FRP plies Stress excursion λ (%) fco (MPa) fcd (MPa) δ-test (%) f’cu (MPa) fcu
′
ε’cu (%) ′
εcu ε’rup (%)
fco εco
F1D0-1 0 1 0 38.2 38.2 0.0 65.0 1.70 7.62 – − 6.92
F1D0-2(a) 0 1 0 36.9 36.9 0.0 65.6 1.78 7.14 – − 8.50
F1D85-1(a) 85 1 85 39.3 38.3 2.4 67.1 1.71 7.35 1.00 − 8.53
F1D85-2 85 1 85 36.9 36.0 2.4 60.4 1.64 6.69 0.91 − 7.24
F1D85-3(a) 85 1 85 38.2 37.3 2.4 64.6 1.69 6.62 0.90 − 7.24
F1D100-1(a) 100 1 100 43.6 42.4 2.8 67.7 1.55 6.95 0.94 − 7.70
F1D100-2 100 1 100 36.9 35.9 2.8 56.9 1.54 8.47 1.15 − 7.68
F1D100-3 100 1 100 37.3 36.2 2.8 59.5 1.60 6.19 0.84 − 6.92
F1D-85–1(a) − 85 1 115 37.9 30.0 20.8 62.0 1.64 4.68 0.64 − 8.28
F1D-85–2 − 85 1 115 36.2 28.6 20.8 57.3 1.59 6.08 0.82 − 8.25
F1D-85–3(a) − 85 1 115 38.8 30.8 20.8 62.1 1.60 7.88 1.07 − 8.38
F1D-75–1 − 75 1 125 35.4 23.9 32.7 56.7 1.60 4.88 0.66 − 7.63
F1D-75–2 − 75 1 125 37.6 25.3 32.7 59.6 1.59 7.79 1.06 − 9.31
F1D-75–3(a) − 75 1 125 39.4 26.5 32.7 64.1 1.63 6.69 0.91 − 9.31

F2D0-1 0 2 0 37.9 37.9 0.0 96.0 2.54 7.22 – − 8.33

F2D0-2(a) 0 2 0 38.0 38.0 0.0 95.5 2.51 8.41 – − 8.33
F2D85-1 85 2 85 38.0 37.1 2.4 90.6 2.39 6.57 0.84 − 7.62
F2D85-2(a) 85 2 85 37.6 36.7 2.4 96.2 2.56 7.80 1.00 − 6.98
F2D85-3(a) 85 2 85 37.9 37.0 2.4 99.5 2.63 7.15 0.91 − 7.62
F2D100-1 100 2 100 36.0 34.9 2.8 81.0 2.25 6.37 0.82 − 6.47
F2D100-2(a) 100 2 100 38.7 37.6 2.8 90.2 2.33 6.04 0.77 − 6.38
F2D100-3(a) 100 2 100 38.2 37.1 2.9 85.0 2.22 5.83 0.75 − 6.47
F2D-85–1(a) − 85 2 115 36.1 28.6 20.8 85.1 2.36 6.91 0.88 − 6.73
F2D-85–2 − 85 2 115 37.4 29.6 20.8 90.6 2.42 7.97 1.02 − 9.12
F2D-85–3(a) − 85 2 115 38.8 30.7 20.8 99.0 2.55 8.64 1.11 − 7.30
F2D-75–1(a) − 75 2 125 38.5 25.9 32.7 86.6 2.25 7.69 0.98 − 6.34
F2D-75–2 − 75 2 125 36.4 24.5 32.7 86.2 2.37 7.58 0.97 − 7.06
F2D-75–3(a) − 75 2 125 40.2 27.1 32.7 88.9 2.21 6.85 0.88 − 6.51

(a) Represents the load rate is 1 mm/min.

5
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Fig. 9. Comparison of the ultimate state.

Fig. 6) of unconfined specimens were recorded as shown in Fig. 7a. The

previous study [44] defined the actual damage degree δ as relative to the
reloading strength, which is calculated with Eq.(1). In which, fco is the
strength of intact concrete.
fcd
δ = 1− (1)
cl'

cl'
fco

The stress excursion (λ) is defined as relative to the unloading strength

by [44], as shown in Eq. (2). In Eq. (2) σ = axial stress; εci = unloading
strain at point B as shown in Fig. 6; εco = strain corresponding to the
peak stress of intact concrete. Based on the previous tested data of CFRP
confined damage concrete [44], the calculations in Fig. 7b were pro­ Fig. 10. Lateral strain versus damage level.
posed to reflect the relationship between actual damage δ and stress
excursion λ. Meanwhile, as shown in Fig. 7b, the relationship of those under the same confinement level as being so similar, that they are
two parameters of LRS-FRP confined damaged concrete also matches barely affected by the actual damage. For the ultimate strain, as shown
well with this equation. in Fig. 9(d)–(f), the deformation capability of damaged concrete
⎧
fci confined with LRS-FRP is almost two times that of CFRP [44,50] and
⎪
∫ fci ⎪
⎪ when εci ⩽εco BFRP [47]. The ultimate strains of CFRP and BFRP confined concrete
|dσ | ⎨ fco
λ= 0
= (2) improve with the confinement stiffness increase while those for the LRS-
fco ⎪ fco − fci
⎪
⎪
⎩1 + when εci > εco FRP specimens are stable. Notably, those values for the LRS-FRP case
fco
show a higher discreteness than the others.
Fig. 10 also indicates that the ultimate lateral strains of LRS-FRP are
3.2.2. Ultimate strength and strain stable even concrete with different damage degrees. Fig. 11(a) shows the
As shown in Fig. 8 and Table 5, the ultimate strength improves with average strain efficiency factor of LRS-FRP as 0.87, which is similar to
the extra LRS-FRP layer of PET. The strength enhancement ratio is about the 0.85 factor reported in [3]. As the actual damage increases, the strain
45.5 % due to the additional layer of PET fabric. Meanwhile, with the efficiency of LRS-FRP does not change significantly (Fig. 11(a)), while
increasing damage degree, the ultimate strength decreases slowly, and Fig. 11(b) shows that CFRP [44,47,50] tends to decrease. The value of
the maximum attenuation ratio is 11 %. At the end of the experiment, the strain efficiency factor of CFRP for circular specimens is larger than
the ultimate strains for all specimens are stable with average values that 0.586. Here, the 0.586 value is the statistical mean value of CFRP
changed from 6 % to 8 %. The differences in results between 1-ply and 2- confined intact concrete [58]. The average value of the strain efficiency
ply specimens are limited. factor of BFRP protecting round specimens is 0.58, which is smaller than
To further analyze the characteristics of LRS-FRP confined damaged the 0.7 suggested by Sadeghian and Fillmore [59]. However, when
concrete, Fig. 9 compares the ultimate state between CFRP, BFRP, and dealing with rectangular CFRP specimens, Fig. 11(c) shows the CFRP
LRS-FRP confined damaged concrete. Fig. 9(a)–(c) verify that the strain efficiency factor obtained in [52] decreased with the increase of
enhancement ratios of the ultimate strength for the three types of FRPs the damage degree while increasing as the corner radius increased.

6
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Fig. 11. The strain efficiency factor of FRP versus actual damage.

Fig. 12. Stress–strain curve with different damage levels.

However, the call for special attention focuses on the CFRP strain effi­ Eqs. (3) and (4) decrease gradually with the increase of the damage
ciency values in Fig. 11(c), which are smaller than 0.4 and lower than degree. This matches well with the test results, and the mean relative
that of the CFRP-confined intact concrete [60]. error ω is 6.3 % and 4.8 %, respectively. This indicates that the strength
models proposed by our group for traditional FRP confined pre-damaged
concrete still have good applicability for the LRS-FRP case. In addition,
3.3. Stress–strain relationship
Fig. 14(c) and (d) present the ultimate strengths calculated by [47],
which are relatively larger than those recorded in the test results and the
Fig. 12 compares the relationship between axial/lateral strain and
mean relative error ω of 11.8 %. Considering the continuity of the model
axial stress of specimens with different damage. The stress–strain curves
establishment, Wu et al.’s model (Eq. (3)) [44] is still used in the sub­
of the + 85 % and + 100 % reported for damaged cylinders did not differ
sequent stress–strain model validation.
that much when compared to the intact concrete. However, the stress of
( )1.13
the inflection point decreases with the increasing damage degree ′
fcu fl
although the slopes of the hardening stage are almost the same. This also = 1 + 3.96 − 0.98δ (3)
fco fco
results in the attenuation of ultimate strength and initial axial and lateral
√(
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
modulus. ′ )
fcu fl 121.8 f 0.78 fl
Fig. 13 shows that different loading rates have little effect on the = + − co
+ (1 − δ) 2
(4)
fco fco f 0.78 121.8 fco
slope of the initial and hardening branches. The main change between co

the curves under different loading rates is the inflection point stress from ′ ( )
fcu ( ) fl
the elastic stage to the enhancement stage, which is caused by the = 1 − 0.34dc2 1 + 4.68 (5)
strength enhancement of core concrete due to the loading rates. fco fco

where, dc is the damage parameter of unconfined concrete defined in GB

4. Evaluating existing ultimate state models
4.1. Ultimate stress
The current research for both traditional FRP and LRS-FRP confined
concrete indicated that the ultimate strength is relative to the
compressive strength (fco ) of core concrete and the confinement (fl )
[3,7,63–63]. This is also adopted by two proposed models (Eqs. (3) and
(4)) of our group [44] and Ma et al.’s strength model (Eq. (5)) [47] for
CFRP and BFRP confined damaged concrete, respectively, while
considering the degree of damage. These models are compared here to
calculate the ultimate strength of LRS-FRP confined damaged concrete.
Fig. 14(a) and (b) show the strength enhancement ratios calculated with
50010–2010, China’s national code [64], and dc = 1 − ρc n/(n − 1 + ωn )
[ ] ( )
whenχ ⩽1, dc = 1 − ρc / αc (χ − 1)2 + χ whenχ > 1;ρc = fco / Eco εc,r ;n =
( )
Eco εco / Eco εco − fco ;χ = ε/εco ; αc is one material parameter related to
the compressive strength, and it is 1.65 for C35 grade concrete in [64],
Eco is the elastic Young’s modulus of unconfined intact concrete.
4.2. Ultimate strain
For the ultimate strain of intact concrete strengthened with LRS-FRP,
Bai et al. [7] proposed one effective model. However, for the damaged
concrete, no previous corresponding model has been proposed.

7
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Fig. 13. Stress–strain curves with different loading rates.

Meanwhile, only a few ultimate strain models [44,47] for traditional ′

( ( )0.8 )
FRP cases consider the effects of damage. This paper compared the
εcu fl
= βd 1 + 32.5 (7)
model results of both proposed by our group (Eq. (6)) [44] and Ma et al. εco fco
(Eq. (7)) [47] to predict the ultimate strain. Corresponding equations are
expressed as: where, εcu and εcu are the ultimate strain of confined damaged and intact
′

′ ( )2.82 concrete, respectively; f30 = 30 MPa; βd is the damage parameter, and is

εcu
= 1 − 0.3
fco
δ0.67 + 0.54δ (6) given as βd = 1.0 in [47].
εcu f30 Excluding the initial stage, Fig. 15 shows the relationship between
the axial strain and lateral strain to be linear. Meanwhile, the curves in

8
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

(a) 3.5 (b) 3.0

1-ply 2-ply =0.048 based on Eq.(4) [42]
based on Eq.(4) [42] =0.063 based on Eq.(3) [42]
3.0 based on Eq.(3) [42]

f 'cu /fco (Model)

2.5

2.5
f'cu/fco

2.0
2.0

1.5
1.5

1.0 1.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Actual damage (%) f 'co /fco (Test)

(c) 4.0
1-ply 2-ply (d) 3.5
=0.118 based on Eq.(5) [45]
1-ply based on Eq.(5) [45]
3.5 2-ply based on Eq.(5) [45]
3.0

3.0
2.5
fcu' / fco

f 'cu /fco

2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5

1.0 1.0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
damage parameter dc f 'cu /fco (Test)
Fig. 14. Effect of damage on ultimate strength.

(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Axial-lateral strain relationship.

Fig. 15 also indicate that the damage level scarcely affects the axial-
lateral strain relationship. However, Poisson’s ratio (εl /εc ) for 1-ply
specimens is larger than that of 2-ply specimens, which means jacket
confinement still plays an important role as a key parameter affecting
the axial-lateral strain relationship.
For the ultimate axial strain, as shown in Fig. 16 (a), the tested data
show some discreteness; moreover, with the increase of the damage
level δ, the ultimate strain ratio εcu /εcu decreases with an extremely
′

9
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

Fig. 16. Ultimate strain versus damage degree δ.

(a) 1.4
1-ply
(b) 1.6
2-ply
1.2 1-ply (Eq.(9) [16])
1.4
2-ply (Eq.(9) [16])
1.2
1.0

E'1 /E1

E'2 /E2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
1-ply
0.4 0.4 2-ply
1-ply (Eq.(10) [16])
2-ply (Eq.(10) [16])
0.2 0.2
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Actual damage (%) Actual damage (%)

(c) 1.2 (d) 3.0 1-ply LRS-FRP 2-ply LRS-FRP CFRP

1.1 2.5
Average: n=2.17
1.0 2.0
Average: n=1.58
f'0 /f0

0.9 1.5

n'
0.8 1.0
1-ply Average: n=0.56
0.7 2-ply 0.5
1-ply (Eq.11 [16])
2-ply (Eq.11 [16])
0.6 0.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Actual damage (%) (%)
Fig. 17. Four parameters of stress–strain relationship.
Fig. 18. Validation of parameter: (a) initial modulus validation; (b) strain-
hardening stage’s slope; (c) interaction stress; (d) analysis of the parameters n′ .
limited effect. Meanwhile, this ratio shows no obvious difference be­
tween 1-ply and 2-ply specimens. The calculated results based on [44]
[( ]( )
agree with the test results. Ma et al.’s model in [47] suggests that the
E1 εc E1 εc
fc = n − 1)fo e− nfo + fo + E2 εc 1 − e− nfo (8)
damage of concrete will not affect the ultimate strain. Fig. 16(b) shows
the ultimate axial strain calculated by Eq.(7) as consistent with the
change of damage degree. However, the calculated results are lower 5.1. Parameter validation
than the experimental results. Nevertheless, the results based on [44],
both the curve trend and the confinement stiffness effect on the ultimate 5.1.1. The initial modulusE1
′

strain consistently agree with the test data. Meanwhile, as shown in Based on an analysis of CFRP confined pre-damage concrete, our
Fig. 16(c), the mean relative error ω based on Wu et al. [44] and Ma et al. group [44] proposed one equation (Eq. (9)) for predicting the devel­
[47] models are 9.7 % and 61 %, respectively. Hence, Wu et al.’s model opment ofE1 /E1 . It also mentioned that this modulus should not be
′

for ultimate strain is adopted in the following stress–strain model. calculated with the equation for undamaged concrete with lower
compressive strength. More details are available in [44]. As shown in
5. Validation of the stress–strain model Fig. 18a, the ratios of E1 /E1 present a nonlinear decrease during the
′

increase of the damage level δ. Excluding a few minor points, the results
The one-segment continuous function proposed by Zhou and Wu [5] calculated by Eq. (9) are a good match with the test results.
is incorporated here to simulate the stress–strain relationship, which has
( )− 0.016
been successfully applied to reflect that of CFRP confined damaged f
′
(3.9δ1.38 − 1.65δ) fcol − 2.26δ0.76
concrete [44,52]. As shown in Fig. 17 and Eq. (8), four parameters E1, E1
=e (9)
E2, f0, and n are used to determine the behavior of the curves. Four E1
corresponding parameters,E1 ,E2 , f0 and n are used for the confined
′ ′ ′ ′

where, E1 is the elastic model of undamaged concrete, which can be

damaged concrete case. Additionally, the previously evaluated ultimate √̅̅̅̅̅̅
calculated by a widely acceptable expressionE1 = 4730 fco ; fl =
state model with excellent performance in [44] is incorporated.
2Ef (εf )tf εf /R is the confined stress of the wrapped LRS-FRP, in which
Ef (εf ) is the secant modulus of LRS-FRP corresponding to the strainεf ; R

10
Z. Zhu et al. Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717

(a) 120 (b) 120

100 100

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
Test (1-ply,85%) Test (1-ply,100%)
Model Model
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strain (%) Strain (%)
(c) 120 (d) 120 (e) 120
100 100 100

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20
Test (1-ply,-85%) Test (1-ply,-75%) Test (2-ply,85%)
Model Model Model
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)

Fig. 19. Comparison between calculated and experimental curves.

is the cylinder’s diameter and tf is LRS-FRP’s thickness. intersection strength ratio could be negligible. The calculated results
based on Eq. (11) matched well with the tested results.
5.1.2. The tangent modulus of the strain-hardening stageE2
′

As shown in Fig. 18b, with the increase of the damage level δ, the 5.1.4. The curvature parameter n’
value E2 /E2 decreases slightly, while the calculated one based on [44]
′ As shown in Fig. 18d, the main difference between LRS-FRP and
increased slightly. Because the results presented in [44] indicated that CFRP confined damaged concrete is the value of the curvature param­
eter n’. Based on the existing database analysis of numerous traditional
the ratio E2 /E2 improved with the increase of damage level δ when the
′

FRP strengthened concrete, 0.56 is considered to be a reliable value

concrete strength fco is 50 MPa. What should be mentioned here is that
[44,65]. However, as shown in Fig. 18d, its value for the LRS-FRP case
the values E2 /E2 in Fig. 18b are relatively discrete although they vary
′

presents a different phenomenon: the layers of wrapped LRS-FRP in­

between 0.8 and 1.2. However, due to the limited amount of test data in
fluence the value of parameter n, although its value is stable for each
this test, the coefficient of Eq. (10) will not be modified in this paper.
series. For 1-ply and 2-ply specimens, the n average value is 2.07 and
E2
′ ( )2.67δ
fco 1.58, respectively, which is much higher than 0.56. Based on the data­
= − 0.46δ (10) base analysis of LRS-FRP confined intact concrete [63], the values of this
E2 f30
parameter are related to the interception f0 and using Eq.(12) to
where, E2 is the tangent modulus of the strain-hardening stage of calculate. This equation is also matched well with the data in this test.
confined undamaged concrete. [ ( )− 1.47 ]
f0
n = max 3.25 ′ , 0.56 (12)
fc0
5.1.3. The stress of interactionf0
′

′ ( )2 ( )
f0 fco fco
= 1 − 0.3 δ − 0.12 δ (11)
f0 f30 f30 5.2. Model performance

where f0 and f0 are the stresses at the interaction between the tangent
′
Combining Eqs. (9)–(12) into Eq. (8), the results of the comparisons
line of the strain-hardening stage. They represent the stress axis of between experimental and calculated results are given in Fig. 19. The
confined damaged and intact concrete, respectively. As shown in degradation of the initial modulus, the tangent modulus of the strain-
Fig. 18c, the effect of confinement stiffness on the development of the hardening stage, intersection strength, and the ultimate state can all
be captured correctly by the model. Finally, the curvature parameter n

11
Z. Zhu et al.
makes sure the stress–strain curves correctly transfer from the initial
elastic stage to the strain-hardening stage.
6. Conclusions
The effects of damage degree, confinement stiffness, and loading rate
to the failure modes, ultimate state, and stress–strain behavior of
damaged concrete strengthening with LRS-FRP were investigated in this
paper. Some conclusions were obtained based on the analysis results as
follows.
1) With the addition of the PET layer, the ultimate strengths of the
strengthening specimen improved significantly. Meanwhile, the
increasing initial damage degree results in a slight decrease in ulti­
mate strain and ultimate strength.
2) The strain efficiency factor of PET-FRP can be stabilized at a high
value of 0.87 even with a high damage degree when used for
strengthening cylinders. As the great difference between the values
of this factor for CFRP confined pre-damaged cylinder and rectan­
gular, the value of LRS-FRP confined rectangular needs further
experimental research.
3) The loading rates will improve the initial compressive strength of
core concrete, this result in the increase of the reflection point stress
of LRS-FRP confined concrete from the elastic stage to the
enhancement stage. But, the tangent model of the enhancement stage
is not affected by loading rates even though the core concrete is
under different initial damage conditions.
4) The four-parameter continuous model proposed by our group has
good performance in predicting the stress–strain behavior of
damaged concrete strengthening with PET-FRP.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhongfeng Zhu: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing –
original draft. Yingwu Zhou: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing –
review & editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration. Zengzhu
Zhu: Validation, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation. Lili Sui:
Supervision, Visualization. Pengda Li: Investigation, Resources.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Yingwu Zhou reports financial support was provided by National Key
Research and Development Program of China. Yingwu Zhou reports
financial support was provided by National Natural Science Foundation
of China. Zhongfeng Zhu reports was provided by National Natural
Science Foundation of China. Yingwu Zhou reports financial support
was provided by Shenzhen City basic research project. Yingwu Zhou
reports administrative support was provided by Guangdong Provincial
Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China, China (2018YFE0125000), the Na­
tional Natural Science Foundation of China, China (Grants No.
51878414, 51978412, and 52108230), the Shenzhen City’s basic
research project, China (JCYJ20190808154805456), and the Guang­
dong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engi­
neering, China (SZU, 2020B1212060074).
12
Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717
References
[1] K. He, Y. Chen, W.T. Xie, Test on axial compression performance of nano-silica
concrete-filled angle steel reinforced GFRP tubular column, Nanotechnology
Reviews 8 (2019) 523–538.
[2] Y.W. Zhou, L. Zhuang, Z.H. Hu, B. Hu, X.X. Huang, S. Li, M.H. Guo, Z.F. Zhu,
Perforated steel block of realizing large ductility under compression: Parametric
study and stress–strain modeling, Reviews on Advanced Materials Science 61
(2022) 221–237.
[3] J. Dai, Y. Bai, J.G. Teng, Behavior and modeling of concrete confined with FRP
composites of large deformability, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (6) (2011) 963–973.
[4] Y.Y. Ye, S.D. Liang, P. Feng, J.J. Zeng, Recyclable LRS FRP composites for
engineering structures: current status and future opportunities, Compos. B Eng.
212 (2021).
[5] Y.W. Zhou, Y.F. Wu, General model for constitutive relationships of concrete and
its composite structures, Compos. Struct. 94 (2) (2012) 580–592.
[6] Y. Wei, Y. Wu, Unified stress–strain model of concrete for FRP-confined columns,
Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 381–392.
[7] Y.L. Bai, J.G. Dai, M. Mohammadi, G. Lin, S.J. Mei, Stiffness-based design-oriented
compressive stress-strain model for large-rupture-strain (LRS) FRP-confined
concrete, Compos. Struct. 223 (2019), 110953.
[8] Q. Han, W. Yuan, Y. Bai, X. Du, Compressive behavior of large rupture strain (LRS)
FRP-confined square concrete columns: experimental study and model evaluation,
Mater. Struct. 53 (4) (2020).
[9] H. Li, Mechanical behavior and constitutive model of LRS-FRP confined short
column, College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University,
China, 2020.
[10] H.F. Isleem, F. Peng, B.A. Tayeh, Confinement model for LRS FRP-confined
concrete using conventional regression and artificial neural network techniques,
Compos. Struct. 279 (2022).
[11] Z.W. Yan, Y.L. Bai, T. Ozbakkaloglu, W.Y. Gao, J.J. Zeng, Axial impact behavior of
large-rupture-strain (LRS) fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)-confined concrete
cylinders, Compos. Struct. 276 (2021).
[12] Y.L. Bai, S.J. Mei, P.D. Li, J.J. Xu, Cyclic stress-strain model for large-rupture strain
fiber-reinforced polymer (LRS FRP)-confined concrete, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021).
[13] J.J. Zeng, Y.Y. Ye, Y.C. Guo, J.F. Lv, Y. Ouyang, C. Jiang, PET FRP-concrete-high
strength steel hybrid solid columns with strain-hardening and ductile performance:
cyclic axial compressive behavior, Compos. B Eng. 190 (2020).
[14] M. Nain, M.M. Abdulazeez, M.A. ElGawady, Behavior of high strength concrete –
filled hybrid large – small rupture strains FRP tubes, Eng. Struct. 209 (2020).
[15] W.Y. Yuan, Q. Han, Y.L. Bai, A unified stress-strain model for LRS FRP-confined
concrete columns with square and circular cross-sections, Eng. Struct. 255 (2022).
[16] W.Y. Yuan, Y.L. Bai, Q. Han, S.M. Zhang, Large rupture strain FRP-confined
concrete columns of different sizes: experiments and stress-strain models,
J. Compos. Constr. 26 (4) (2022).
[17] M. Mohammadi, Y.L. Bai, H.L. Yang, G. Lin, J.G. Dai, Y.F. Zhang, FE modeling of
Non-circular LRS FRP-confined concrete columns, Compos. Struct. 286 (2022).
[18] P. Li, Y. Ren, Y. Zhou, Z. Zhu, Y. Chen, Experimental study on the mechanical
properties of corroded RC columns repaired with large rupture strain FRP, J. Build.
Eng. 54 (2022).
[19] J.J. Zeng, W.Y. Gao, Z.J. Duan, Y.L. Bai, Y.C. Guo, L.J. Ouyang, Axial compressive
behavior of polyethylene terephthalate/carbon FRP-confined seawater sea-sand
concrete in circular columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 234 (2020).
[20] J.J. Zeng, Y.Y. Ye, W.Y. Gao, S.T. Smith, Y.C. Guo, Stress-strain behavior of
polyethylene terephthalate fiber-reinforced polymer-confined normal-, high- and
ultra high-strength concrete, J. Build. Eng. 30 (2020).
[21] Y. Zhou, X. Chen, X. Wang, L. Sui, X. Huang, M. Guo, B. Hu, Seismic performance of
large rupture strain FRP retrofitted RC columns with corroded steel reinforcement,
Eng. Struct. 216 (2020).
[22] S. Saleem, A. Pimanmas, W. Rattanapitikon, Lateral response of PET FRP-confined
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 159 (2018) 390–407.
[23] S. Saleem, Q. Hussain, A. Pimanmas, Compressive behavior of PET FRP–confined
circular, square, and rectangular concrete columns, J. Compos. Constr. 21 (3)
(2017).
[24] A. Pimanmas, S. Saleem, Evaluation of existing stress-strain models and modeling
of PET FRP–confined concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (12) (2019).
[25] R.A. Hawileh, H.H. Mhanna, A. Al Rashed, J.A. Abdalla, M.Z. Naser, Flexural
behavior of RC beams externally bonded with polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates, Eng. Struct. 256 (2022).
[26] T. Jirawattanasomkul, J.-G. Dai, D. Zhang, M. Senda, T. Ueda, Experimental study
on shear behavior of reinforced-concrete members fully wrapped with large
rupture-strain FRP composites, J. Compos. Constr. 18 (3) (2014).
[27] Z. Ye, D. Zhao, L. Sui, Z. Huang, X. Zhou, Behaviors of large-rupture-strain fiber-
reinforced polymer strengthened reinforced concrete beams under static and
impact loads, Front. Mater. 7 (2020).
[28] L. Sui, Y. Liu, Z. Zhu, B. Hu, C. Chen, Y. Zhou, Seismic performance of LRS-
FRP–concrete–steel tubular double coupling beam, Appl. Sci. 11 (5) (2021).
[29] Y.L. Bai, Y.F. Zhang, J.F. Jia, Q. Han, W.Y. Gao, Compressive behavior of double-
skin tubular stub columns with recycled aggregate concrete and a PET FRP jacket,
Constr. Build. Mater. 332 (2022).
[30] J.J. Zeng, Y.C. Guo, J. Liao, S.W. Shi, Y.-L. Bai, L. Zhang, Behavior of hybrid PET
FRP confined concrete-filled high-strength steel tube columns under eccentric
compression, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022).
[31] L. Huang, S.S. Zhang, T. Yu, K.D. Peng, Circular hybrid double-skin tubular
columns with a stiffener-reinforced steel inner tube and a large-rupture-strain FRP
outer tube: Compressive behavior, Thin-Walled Struct. 155 (2020).
Z. Zhu et al.
[32] K. Peng, T. Yu, M.N.S. Hadi, L. Huang, Compressive behavior of hybrid double-skin
tubular columns with a rib-stiffened steel inner tube, Compos. Struct. 204 (2018)
634–644.
[33] T. Yu, S. Zhang, L. Huang, C. Chan, Compressive behavior of hybrid double-skin
tubular columns with a large rupture strain FRP tube, Compos. Struct. 171 (2017)
10–18.
[34] Y.L. Bai, Y.F. Zhang, J.F. Jia, S.J. Mei, Q. Han, J.G. Dai, Simplified plasticity
damage model for large rupture strain (LRS) FRP-confined concrete, Compos.
Struct. 280 (2022).
[35] P. Li, Y.F. Wu, R. Gravina, Cyclic response of FRP-confined concrete with post-peak
strain softening behavior, Constr. Build. Mater. 123 (2016) 814–828.
[36] W.Y. Yuan, Q. Han, Y.L. Bai, X.L. Du, Z.W. Yan, Compressive behavior and
modelling of engineered cementitious composite (ECC) confined with LRS FRP and
conventional FRP, Compos. Struct. 272 (2021).
[37] Y. Zhou, Y. Zheng, L. Sui, F. Xing, J. Hu, P. Li, Behavior and modeling of FRP-
confined ultra-lightweight cement composites under monotonic axial compression,
Compos. B Eng. 162 (2019) 289–302.
[38] Y.Z. Zheng, W.W. Wang, K.M. Mosalam, Q. Fang, L. Chen, Z.F. Zhu, Experimental
investigation and numerical analysis of RC beams shear strengthened with FRP/
ECC composite layer, Compos. Struct. 246 (2020).
[39] Z.F. Zhu, W.W. Wang, Y.X. Hui, S.W. Hu, G.Y. Men, J. Tian, H. Huang, Mechanical
behavior of concrete columns confined with CFRP grid-reinforced engineered
cementitious composites, J. Compos. Constr. 26 (1) (2022).
[40] Z.G. Zhang, F. Yang, J.C. Liu, S.P. Wang, Eco-friendly high strength, high ductility
engineered cementitious composites (ECC) with substitution of fly ash by rice husk
ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 137 (2020).
[41] S.F. Jiang, X. Zeng, S. Shen, X. Xu, Experimental studies on the seismic behavior of
earthquake-damaged circular bridge columns repaired by using combination of
near-surface-mounted BFRP bars with external BFRP sheets jacketing, Eng. Struct.
106 (2016) 317–331.
[42] A. Lenwari, J. Rungamornrat, S. Woonprasert, Axial compression behavior of fire-
damaged concrete cylinders confined with CFRP sheets, J. Compos. Constr. 20 (5)
(2016).
[43] Y.F. Wu, Y.W. Zhou, Unified strength model based on Hoek-Brown failure criterion
for circular and square concrete columns confined by FRP, J. Compos. Constr. 14
(2) (2010) 175–184.
[44] Y.F. Wu, Y. Yun, Y. Wei, Y. Zhou, Effect of predamage on the stress-strain
relationship of confined concrete under monotonic loading, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (12)
(2014).
[45] C.K. Ma, Y.H. Lee, A.Z. Awang, W. Omar, S. Mohammad, M. Liang, Artificial neural
network models for FRP-repaired concrete subjected to pre-damaged effects,
Neural Comput. Appl. 31 (3) (2017) 711–717.
[46] G. Ma, H. Li, L. Yan, L. Huang, Testing and analysis of basalt FRP-confined
damaged concrete cylinders under axial compression loading, Constr. Build. Mater.
169 (2018) 762–774.
[47] G. Ma, X. Chen, L. Yan, H.J. Hwang, Monotonic and cyclic axial compressive
properties and modeling of basalt FRP-retrofitted predamaged short columns,
J. Compos. Constr. 24 (4) (2020).
13
Construction and Building Materials 350 (2022) 128717
[48] G. Ma, X. Chen, L. Yan, H.J. Hwang, Effect of pre-damage on compressive
properties of circular RC columns repaired with BFRP composites: testing and
modeling, Compos. Struct. 247 (2020).
[49] Y. Cao, M. Liu, Y. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Yang, Effect of strain rates on the stress-strain
behavior of FRP-confined pre-damaged concrete, Materials (Basel) 13 (5) (2020).
[50] Y.G. Cao, C. Hou, M.Y. Liu, C. Jiang, Effects of predamage and load cyclic on
compression behavior of fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete, Struct. Concr.
22 (3) (2021) 1784–1799.
[51] Y. Guo, J. Xie, Z. Xie, J. Zhong, Experimental study on compressive behavior of
damaged normal- and high-strength concrete confined with CFRP laminates,
Constr. Build. Mater. 107 (2016) 411–425.
[52] P.D. Li, L.L. Sui, F. Xing, M.L. Li, Y.W. Zhou, Y.F. Wu, Stress–strain relation of FRP-
confined predamaged concrete prisms with square sections of different corner radii
subjected to monotonic axial compression, J. Compos. Constr. 23 (2) (2019)
04019001.
[53] G. Promis, E. Ferrier, P. Hamelin, Effect of external FRP retrofitting on reinforced
concrete short columns for seismic strengthening, Compos. Struct. 88 (3) (2009)
367–379.
[54] Z.W. Yan, Y.L. Bai, T. Ozbakkaloglu, W.Y. Gao, J.J. Zeng, Rate-dependent
compressive behavior of concrete confined with large-rupture-strain (LRS) FRP,
Compos. Struct. 272 (2021).
[55] Y.F. Wu, Y.C. Yun, Y.Y. Wei, Y.W. Zhou, Effect of predamage on the stress-strain
relationship of confined concrete under monotonic loading, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (12)
(2014) 04014093.
[56] MOHURD, Standard for test method of mechanical properties on ordinary
concrete, GB/T 50081-2002,, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
of People’s Republic of China, China, 2003.
[57] I. ASTM, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite
Materials, D 3039/D 3039M, 2000.
[58] L. Lam, J.G. Teng, Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 17 (6–7) (2003) 471–489.
[59] P. Sadeghian, B. Fillmore, Strain Distribution of Basalt FRP-Wrapped Concrete
Cylinders, Case Studies in Construction Materials (2018) S2214509518300548.
[60] L. Lam, J. Teng, Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete in
rectangular columns, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. Constr. 22 (13) (2003) 1149–1186.
[61] Y. Zhou, Y. Zheng, L. Sui, F. Xing, J. Hu, P. Li, Behavior and modeling of FRP-
confined ultra-lightweight cement composites under monotonic axial compression,
Compos. B Eng. 162 (2019) 289–302.
[62] P. Li, Y.F. Wu, Y. Zhou, F. Xing, Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete
subject to arbitrary load path, Compos. B Eng. 163 (2019) 9–25.
[63] Z. Zhu, Y. Zhou, Z. Li, H. Li, B. Hu, P. Li, A versatile continuous model for
predicting various post-peak patterns of FRP-confined concrete, Compos. Struct.
294 (2022), 115750.
[64] Code for design of concrete structures, GB50010-2010, Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, China, 2015.
[65] Y.F. Wu, C. Jiang, Effect of load eccentricity on the stress–strain relationship of
FRP-confined concrete columns, Compos. Struct. 98 (2013) 228–241.
[66] P. Zhang, Q.F. Li, J. Wang, Y. Shi, Y.F. Ling, Effect of PVA fiber on durability of
cementitious composite containing nano-SiO2, Nonotechnology Reviews 8 (2019)
116–127.