Materials and Structures (2018)51:44

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1169-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Analysis-oriented stress–strain model of CRFP-confined

circular concrete columns with applied preload
M. F. Ferrotto . O. Fischer . L. Cavaleri

Received: 13 December 2017 / Accepted: 23 February 2018

 RILEM 2018

Abstract The compressive behavior of FRP-con-
fined concrete is a current issue in the field of structural
retrofitting. The available models well predict the
stress–strain behavior under monotonic and cyclic
loads. However, in the practical applications, columns
that need an increasing of bearing capacity are often
strengthened under serviceability load conditions,
with a stress and strain state that could change the
response of the reinforced systems with respect to the
case of the unloaded state. In this paper, the compres-
sive behavior of circular FRP-confined concrete
columns with preload is analyzed with the introduc-
tion of a modified analysis-oriented model. Differently
from the classical formulations in which stress–strain
model is aimed to the evaluation of the confinement
capacity of non-preloaded elements in monotonic
regime, the proposed model is also suitable for the
determination of the combined response of unconfined
and confined concrete subjected to an established
stress/strain state in the unconfined state. The pro-
posed model is also compared with the experimental
M. F. Ferrotto (&)  L. Cavaleri
Department of Civil, Environmental, Aerospace,
Materials Engineering, University of Palermo, Viale delle
Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
e-mail: marcofilippo.ferrotto@unipa.it
O. Fischer
Chair of Concrete and Masonry Structures, Technical
University of Munich, Theresienstraße 90, 80333 Munich,
Germany
results available in the literature under different
assigned preloading levels.
Keywords Confinement  FRP-confined concrete 
Preloading  Strengthening  FRP
1 Introduction
The FRP reinforcement of concrete columns is an
important topic that has been the subject of numerous
researches in the last 20 years. Both in the experi-
mental and in the analytical and numerical terms, there
is now a wide range of proposals and experimental
results in the literature that analyze the benefits of FRP
bandage. In details, many available studies deal with
the compressive behavior and analyze the effects of
confinement on the increasing in axial and deforma-
tional capacity [1–11]. However, almost the totality of
the available models are not able to take into account
the presence of an existing stress/strain state in a
concrete column at the moment of application of the
fiber laminates. In some of the existing models,
although it could be possible to consider existing
loads/strains on concrete prior confinement through an
iterative procedure for dilating concrete, this aspect is
not deeply investigated [12, 13].
Very often, reinforcement interventions on existing
structures are performed under serviceability load
44 Page 2 of 16
conditions, applying FRP confinement when the
structural elements are subjected to the action of
gravitational loads. In some cases, hydraulic jacks are
used to unload columns but this strategy produces
generally only a partial unloading of the element to be
reinforced. In Fig. 1 three typical scenarios are
illustrated: on the left, due to serviceability conditions,
a column subjected to a critical compression stress
state; in the central position, a column where a FRP
bandage is applied after the column unloading using
hydraulic jacks; on the right, a column interested by
the application of FRP wraps under sustained load
conditions.
The goal of this paper is, therefore, to investigate
the differences in terms of load and deformational
capacity of strengthened columns when unloading is
not carried out or is not effective and to provide
prediction tools.
2 Literature review
Among the relevant studies available in the literature
carried out considering the preloading conditions, the
first study dates back to 2009 from Pan et al. [14]. The
authors analyze the compression behavior of square
columns without internal reinforcement and subjected
to different preload levels. The column cross sections
were 110 mm in length and 200 mm in height. The
Fig. 1 Typical scenarios for unreinforced and reinforced columns
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
concrete strength was 21.1 MPa while a preloading
between 20 and 80% of the strength of the unconfined
concrete fc0 was applied. The test sequence consisted
of a preloading of 24 h, after which an FRP wrapping
was applied. The preloading was maintained for
further 48 h, time necessary to make the reinforcement
effective. Finally, tests up to the collapse were carried
out. After the tests, the preloaded specimens showed
meanly a reduction (with respect to the case of non
preloaded specimens) of the axial stress and strain
capacity of the confined concrete with the increasing
of the preloading level.
In 2011 Pan et al. [15] provided an experimental
investigation on cylindrical concrete specimens (con-
crete strength of 21.8–28.8 MPa, having a cross-
section diameter of 110 mm and height of 200 mm.
The authors observed the difference between the
ultimate strength and strain of the specimens tested
with and without preloading.
In 2009, He and Shi [16] investigated the preload-
ing effects on FRP confined circular concrete columns
with and without internal reinforcement, modeled by
means of the finite elements modeling software
ABAQUS. The study was aimed to the evaluation of
the compressive behavior in terms of load-carrying
and strain capacity of the confined specimens respect
to the classical monotonic compressive behavior
characterized by the application of the reinforcement
on a no preloaded element. The proposed numerical
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
modeling neglects load–time dependent effects. The
authors stated that the load capacity reduction due to
preloading is very limited and, however, it can be
compensated by increasing the thickness of the FRP
sheets.
The same authors [17], by the same finite element
modeling strategy, presented a study in which ana-
lyzed the capacity of preloaded systems subjected to
lateral loads, performing push-over analysis on RC
columns first preloaded at different stress levels and
then laterally pushed until collapse. In this case the
results were in accordance with their previous studies.
In 2009 He et al. [18] presented an experimental
study on preloaded circular concrete columns with an
aspect ratio of 1:3 (150 mm diameter and 450 mm
height), reinforced with FRP, with and without
internal reinforcement. Specimens were characterized
by concrete with strength of 29.55 MPa. The test
procedure was similar to that used by Pan et al.
[14, 15], also for the temporal test sequence (FRP
bandage were leaved to dry for a time between 48 and
72 h, depending on the temperature conditions).
Preload levels varied from 20 to 85% of fc0. The
authors investigate the expansion ratio of the confined
concrete under preloading conditions. Later, in 2011,
He and Jin [19] presented further analyses about the
axial compressive behavior of the specimens tested in
[18].
However, in this case, results provided by the
authors are not in accordance with Pan et al. [14, 15].
The collapse loads of the preloaded specimens were
similar to that obtained without preloading. In addi-
tion, the authors found that preload levels influence
stress–strain response behavior, that is, the stress–
strain curve is higher with low preload levels and is
lower with high preload levels. The authors state that
this slightly positive effect on the response of low
preloaded specimens could be attributed to a better
compaction of concrete, in a compression range that
not cause damage in terms of cracking of the
unconfined concrete.
Morsy and El-Tony in 2012 [20] presented results
of compression tests on circular reinforced concrete
columns having dimensions of 160 mm in diameter
and 1000 mm in height. The specimens were pre-
loaded up to 85 and 100% fc0 and wrapped with FRP to
simulate retrofitting conditions of heavily damaged
structural elements. The results showed that the
specimens, preloaded up to 85% fc0, had a collapse
Page 3 of 16 44
load equal or slightly higher than that obtained in the
case of specimens non preloaded before wrapping.
Further, an increase of the ultimate strain was
observed. In the case of preloaded columns up to
100% of fc0, however, reduction in strength and strain
capacity with respect to the case of non preloaded
specimens occurred because of the high damage
undergone by the concrete.
In 2013, Ivorra et al. [21] discussed an experimental
campaign carried out on concrete cylindrical speci-
mens with a diameter of 150 mm and height 300 mm
(aspect ratio 1:2). Concrete had a compressive strength
of 40 MPa. The specimens were kept under compres-
sion for 24 h and then wrapped with carbon fiber
fabrics. After the wrapping, the load was held for
further 96 h. Axial and lateral strains during all the
intermediate steps were monitored, indicating that
creep induced load redistribution occurred. Results
obtained from the tests on the specimens subjected to
preloading showed a compression capacity higher than
that obtained for non preloaded specimens.
Pan et al. in 2015 and 2017 [22–24], according to
the experimental results obtained in [14, 15], proposed
analytical formulations that allowed obtaining the
stress–strain response of FRP-confined concrete and
preloaded FRP-confined concrete in which the ulti-
mate strength and strain in preloading conditions was
obtained by reduction coefficients evaluated by
regression of the experimental data. Further, in [23],
Pan et al. in 2017 proposed finite element modeling
with ANSYS software, performing numerical simula-
tions to reproduce the experimental data.
The last study available in the literature was carried
out in 2017 by Ferrotto et al. [25]. The authors
proposed an experimental investigation on cylindrical
plain concrete specimens, having an aspect ratio of
1:4, with dimensions of 150 mm in diameter and
600 mm in height, with concrete strength of 38.1 and
41.7 MPa. Unconfined specimens were subjected to
short-term preload. Unconfined specimens were pre-
loaded at levels ranging from 40 to 90% of fc0. The
load was kept constant for about 5 h before FRP
wrapping and for more than 40 h before the tests.
Differently from [22–24], but in agreement with
[16, 17, 19, 20], the tests on the preloaded specimens
showed a collapse load similar to that obtained on
wrapped but non preloaded specimens. Therefore,
despite the presence of high preload levels, there were
no reductions in strength capacity. Further the stress–
44 Page 4 of 16
strain responses showed that, as preloading levels
increased, similar stresses were obtained for higher
level of strain (reduction of the secant stiffness).
Based on the above described studies, very different
results and statements were found by several authors
on this subject that can be reassumed as follow:
• Strength and strain capacity in comparison with
specimens without preload: (a) reduction of
strength and strain capacity; (b) no significant
reductions; (c) no reduction of strength; (d) equal
failure loads and increasing of ultimate strain;
(e) higher failure loads respect to the case without
preload.
• Stress–strain behavior in comparison with speci-
mens without preload: (I) reduction of the secant
stiffness; (II) Increasing of secant stiffness with
low preload and decreasing with high preload; (III)
axial/lateral strain increase due to creep effects.
For an overall picture, the key aspects of the above-
discussed works are summarized in Table 1. Informa-
tion related to the type of specimens (circular, square),
the type of study (experimental, analytical, numerical)
and the temporal sequence of test procedure is also
provided for each study. Moreover, regarding the time
related to the reinforcement phase and the load failure
tests, the time of preloading before wrapping T1 and
time of preloading before failure test T2 are reported
for a more comprehensive information on the time-
dependent effects.
It is evident that the effects of confinement
observed by the various authors in the presence of
preload are not always the same. The only common
observation is the reduction of the secant stiffness
(with respect to the case of confined non preloaded
specimens) for high preload levels, indicating that at
the same axial strain, a reduction of the relative lateral
pressure occurs. The other aspects, about the strain ad
strength, remain in disagreement suggesting the need
of searching proofs for the formulation of reliable
models.
Hereinafter, the experimental investigation pro-
vided by Ferrotto et al. [25] will be assumed as a basis
for the subsequent formulation of a model for circular
confined preloaded concrete (in the next section, a
brief discussion on the experimental work carried out
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
by the authors is included). Moreover a comparison
with the experimental results available in the literature
will be done.
3 Experimental investigation [25]
The experimental procedure consisted in splitting the
compressive tests in a first phase in which the
specimens were preloaded to a fixed stress/load level
and a second one in which the preloaded specimens
were wrapped before the collapse tests carried out
after the ripening of the composite jackets.
Three different preloading levels were applied. In
particular, the preloading stress levels were:
• Lower preloading stress levels: 40–55% of fc0.
• Medium preloading stress levels: 60–70% of fc0.
• High preloading stress levels: 80–90% of fc0,
with fc0 representing the mean cylindrical strength of
the unconfined concrete.
The specimens had an aspect ratio of 1:4 with a
diameter equal to 150 mm and height of 600 mm.
Unidirectional carbon fibers with an elastic modulus
of 234 GPa and a nominal thickness of 0.131 mm
were used for the reinforcement sheets. Mechanical
characteristics of the materials, details of the preload-
ing levels and test results are summarized in Table 2
and Fig. 2. Specimen A1 was non preloaded and non
confined, while specimens AS1, AS2 and AS3 were
confined but non preloaded. Similarly, specimen B1
was non preloaded and non confined, while specimens
BS1 and BS2 were confined but non-preloaded, while
specimens AP# and BP# belong to the specimens with
preload.
Overall, comparisons between the results obtained
from the standard monotonic compressive tests and
the tests in the presence of preloading showed a similar
result for all the tested specimens. In particular, the
collapse load was almost the same, independently
from the preloading level applied to the specimens
before the wrapping, moreover, the ultimate hoop
strains were almost the same too. This means that the
maximum value of the lateral confinement pressure,
corresponding to the failure conditions, did not change
and, consequently, for specimens having strain-
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44 Page 5 of 16 44

Table 1 Current findings on the compressive behavior of preloaded FRP-confined concrete columns
Authors Type of study Type of section T1 Findings on strength Findings on
T2 (hours) and strain stress–strain behavior

Pan et al. [14] Experimental Square 24 a I

48
Pan et al. [15] Experimental Circular 24 a I
48
He and Shi [16] Numerical Circular Not included b I
He and Shi [17] Numerical Square Not included b I
He et al. [18] Experimental Circular 24 c II
72 ?
He and Jin [19] Experimental Circular 24 c II
72 ?
Morsy and El-Tony [20] Experimental Circular Not specified d I
Ivorra et al. [21] Experimental Circular 24 e III
96
Pan et al. [22] Analytical Circular Not included a I
Pan et al. [23] Analytical Circular and square Not included a I
Pan et al. [24] Numerical Circular and square Not included a I
Ferrotto et al. [25] Experimental Circular 5 d I
42

hardening behavior, the ultimate confined compres-
sive strength resulted similar, even in the case of high
preloading ratios (80–90% of fc0). Differences were
found in the load–strain response, with a reduction of
the secant stiffness evident with the increasing of the
preloading level index.
An interesting phenomenon was also that the
preloaded specimens showed a slightly higher value
of the ultimate strain. Particularly, the more preload-
ing level was high the more the ultimate strain
increased.
Analyzing experimental results [25], the following
consideration holds: since the collapse conditions are
related to the ultimate strain of the fibers (more or less
equal in all the tested specimens), and the FRP sheets
itself are applied after the preloading phase, the
following test is conditioned by the axial stiffness of
the concrete specimens (the more the preload is high
the more it reduces); the reduction of the secant
stiffness of the concrete in confined conditions could
be justified by the delayed application of the fibers.
This strain-lag causes, for a given value of axial strain,
a lower value of lateral pressure. Consequently, also
the of axial compressive stress results lower up to the
reaching of the ultimate strain that occurs for higher
values of concrete strain at the same values of the
lateral pressure and therefore of the confined concrete
strength.
4 Updating proposal for the compressive behavior
of FRP-confined non preloaded concrete
Based on the literature, it appears that almost the
totally of the provided models are proposed on the
basis of experimental observations on specimens with
an aspect ratio ranging from 1:2 to 1:3. These models
could be not able to reproduce the actual behavior of
confined concrete elements subjected to elastic pas-
sive confinement having aspect ratios different from
the above mentioned (as an example, the specimens
analyzed in the present paper have an aspect ratio of
1:4). Further, the above models could be a not
suitable basis for more complex models including
the effect of preloading (in terms of stress and strain).
For this reason, a new stress–strain model will be
proposed here that will be used as reference for taking
into account the effect of preloading.
To this aim and to obtain a better agreement
between the analytical formulation and the
44 Page 6 of 16 Materials and Structures (2018)51:44

Table 2 Specimens details and test results [25]

Specimen q = 4tj/D fc0 (MPa) Ecm (MPa) Preloading nP = rc/fc0 fcu (MPa) e*c (%) eh,rup (%)

A1 – – 37.93 0.200 0.092

AS1 0.01048 38.13 32,586 – 101.85 2.302 1.256
AS2 – 99.28 2.262 –
AS3 – 101.45 2.254 1.177
AP40-1 0.39 92.22 2.163 –
AP40-2 0.39 99.42 2.391 1.149
AP60-1 0.58 97.23 2.452 –
AP60-2 0.58 101.29 2.605 1.307
AP80-1 0.78 98.61 2.639 1.219
AP80-2 0.78 92.89 2.547 1.130
B1 – – 41.89 0.180 0.058
BS1 0.006987 41.7 35,253 – 75.39 1.622 1.04
BS2 – 78.71 1.671 1.047
BP55-1 0.55 77.28 1.773 1.067
BP55-2 0.55 77.62 1.789 1.069
BP70-1 0.71 81.29 1.740 1.043
BP70-2 0.71 79.11 1.622 1.056
BP90-1 0.88 84.44 2.172 –
BP90-2 0.88 77.83 1.916 1.079

Fig. 2 Experimental results [25]

experimental results, a modification of the parameters 4.1 Lateral confinement pressure

of the analysis-oriented stress–strain model provided
by Teng et al. [26] is discussed in the present work. In
particular, the lateral-to-axial strain relationship and
the failure criterion are modified to give a better
prediction of the deformational behavior in function of
the mechanical parameters of the confined concrete.
According to the traditional formulations available in
the literature, in case of circular sections, the ultimate
lateral confinement pressure can be obtained by the
following relationship:
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44 Page 7 of 16 44

2  tj  Ej  eh;rup 4.3 Axial stress–strain relationship

fl;max ¼ ð1Þ
D
As it was suggested in the previous studies, the ‘‘step-
in which tj is the thickness of the bandage, Ej is the
by-step’’ response can be obtained through an incre-
actual elastic modulus of the fibers, D is the diameter
mental process in which for a given value of axial or
of the section and eh,rup is the hoop strain correspond-
lateral strain, the corresponding stresses are deter-
ing to the rupture of the fibers. Several previous works
mined with reference to an equivalent active confine-
[27, 28] demonstrated that the value of eh,rup results
ment state. Therefore, the entire process is represented
greatly reduced respect to the nominal value eju
up to the failure of the specimens, that corresponds to
provided from the technical sheets. In this paper, the
the rupture of the fibers. In order to develop the entire
effective value of the rupture hoop strain is evaluated
load/strain process, an iterative process is required if
as a function of the concrete strength at the ultimate
the incremental step is performed for a given axial
nominal value, by the relationship proposed by Lim
strain value, because the corresponding value of lateral
and Ozbakkaloglu [28].
strain has to be determined in such a way the
eh;rup equilibrium conditions are satisfied. On the other
¼ kf ¼ 0:9  2:3  fc0  103  0:75  Ej  106
eju hand, if the incremental process is performed for a
ð2Þ given value of lateral strain, the corresponding value
of axial strain can be easily determined.
in which kf is the strain reduction factor, and fc0 is the The axial stress–strain law of the confined concrete
unconfined peak strength of the concrete. is therefore represented by the original equation
proposed by Popovics [29] for unconfined concrete
4.2 Lateral-to-axial strain relationship and used later by several authors to reproduce the
behavior of steel and FRP-confined concrete [12, 26]:
The original formulation proposed by Teng et al. [26]
r xc
results useful because it is applicable to unconfined, ¼ for 0  ec  ecu ð5Þ
actively confined and FRP-confined concrete: fcc c  1 þ xc
 
ec  eh ec Ec
¼U x¼ ; c¼ ð6Þ
ec0 (ec0 
ecc Ec  efcccc
   )
 eh C  eh
¼A 1þB  exp D ð3Þ Moreover, the following equations are proposed to
ec0 ec0
determine the peak strength fcc and the strain ecc at the
In Eq. (3) ec is the current axial strain, ec0 is the peak strength of the confined concrete corresponding
unconfined peak strain, and A, B, C, D are constants to a certain value of lateral confinement pressure:
originally proposed equal to 0.85, 0.75, 0.7 and 7   A1
fcc fl
respectively. Moreover, the author proposed a linear ¼ 1 þ k1 ð7Þ
fc0 fc0
function of the current confinement ratio to reproduce
the effect of the lateral confinement:  A1
ecc fl
    ¼ 1 þ 5 k1 ð8Þ
ec  eh fl ec0 fc0
¼ U 1þb ð4Þ
ec0 ec0 fc0
with k1 and A1 equal to 4.1 and 1.025 respectively.
In Eq. (4) fl is the current confinement pressure, and
b is a coefficient with a proposed value equal to 8. In 4.4 Comparison with experimental data [25]
the present work, the constant B of Eq. (3) and the
parameter b of Eq. (4) are recalibrated to give a better Validation of the analytical proposed model was
agreement with the test results, and the proposed performed in this section according to the results
values are 0.8 and 10, respectively. coming from the monotonic tests on non preloaded
specimens [25]. In this section the label AS 1-2-3
corresponds to cylinders having concrete strength of
44 Page 8 of 16
38.1 MPa and 3 layers of CFRP wraps, while, the label
BS 1-2 corresponds to cylinders with the concrete
strength of 41.7 MPa and 2 layers of CFRP wraps.
Both type of confined specimens showed a strain-
hardening behavior.
Comparisons between experimental and analytical
results (Fig. 3) show that Teng et al. [26] model tends
to underestimate strength and strain capacity, espe-
cially in the case of high confinement ratio (as in the
case of specimens AS 1-2-3), while a better agreement
was obtained with the results achieved from the
modified model. Also, lateral strain-to-axial strain
relationships are well reproduced in both examined
cases. The good prediction of the stress–strain behav-
ior was fundamental to have a more sensitive tool able
to grasp the changes due to the preloading effects, as
described in the next sections.
4.5 Validation with others available experimental
data
Additional comparisons between the proposed mod-
ified analytical model and experimental results of
compressive tests under monotonic standard load
conditions (without preloading) were performed in
order to evaluate the reliability of the proposed
modification. Several experimental data of circular
FRP-confined specimens with confinement factor
fl,max/fc0 ranging between 0.04 (low confinement ratio)
and 0.45 (high confinement ratio) were analyzed and
reproduced by implementation of the stress–strain
response. Geometrical and mechanical parameters of
the examined specimens are shown in Table 3 with the
respective analytical and experimental results. Each
Fig. 3 Comparisons between experimental results and analytical model for concrete elements without preload
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
specimen was classified in function of the author
references and the confinement ratio. In particular,
experimental data coming from [1–14, 19, 27, 30–35]
were considered for the comparisons in terms of peak
stress ratio (fcc/fc0) and peak strain ratio (ecc/ec0) with
the model prediction in function of the confinement
factor (fl,max/fc0) (see Fig. 4). The accuracy of the
failure criteria adopted in the present study was
evaluated with a similar approach of Nisticò et al.
[36] by defining the two parameters AAE and AR, that
are the average absolute error and the average ratio,
respectively.
PN PN
i¼1 Ei Xi
AAE ¼ ; AR ¼ i¼1 ð9Þ
N N
in which
jVTH  VEXP j VTH
Ei ¼ ; Ei ¼ ð10Þ
VEXP VEXP
where VTH and VEXP are the theoretical predicted
values and the experimental values respectively and
N is the number of specimens considered for the
comparisons. These values were determined for both
confined compressive strength ratio fcc/fc0 and the
corresponding strain ratio ecc/ec0. The value of AAE
returns the error of the analytical model respect to the
experimental data, while AR indicates if the model
provide overestimation (AR [ 1) or underestimation
(AR \ 1) respect to the experimental results.
Comparisons in Fig. 4 show prediction good
agreement between experimental and analytical val-
ues of the peak stress ratio (fcc/fc0), with an average
absolute error AAE of 15.42% and an average ratio AE
of 1.079 indicating a very good level of accuracy
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44 Page 9 of 16 44

Table 3 Details of the experimental-analytical comparisons

Authors Specimens Predicted Experimental
d 9 h (mm) ec0 fl/fc0 fcc/fc0 ecc/ec0 fcc/fc0 ecc/ec0

Matthys et al. [7] 150 9 300 0.0021 0.0439 1.1820 1.8327 1.3123 2.8571
Valdmanis et al. [32] 150 9 300 0.00225 0.0578 1.222 2.114 0.932 1.200
Rochette-Labossière [9] 150 9 300 0.002 0.0711 1.2996 2.3636 1.1000 5.5000
Picher et al. [2] 153 9 305 0.0025 0.1120 1.477 3.174 1.4100 4.2800
Matthys et al. [7] 150 9 300 0.0021 0.1172 1.4977 3.2768 1.3209 4.2857
Valdmanis et al. [32] 150 9 300 0.0017 0.1225 1.697 3.383 1.479 3.705
Lam-Teng [27] 152 9 305 0.0025 0.1228 1.477 3.389 1.397 5.000
Micelli-Modarelli [33] 150 9 300 0.00626 0.1257 1.489 3.446 1.657 2.620
Rusakis [11] 150 9 300 0.0029 0.1366 1.5776 3.6643 1.5408 1.5172
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.1391 2.105 3.715 2.250 3.750
Lam-Teng [31] 152 9 305 0.00256 0.1413 1.556 3.784 1.387 5.078
Matthys et al. [7] 153 9 305 0.002 0.1585 1.6839 4.1024 2.3000 3.1000
Miyuachi et al. [4] 100 9 200 0.0019 0.1608 1.6866 4.1500 1.6795 4.9737
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.1674 1.656 4.282 1.607 6.250
Watanabe et al. [3] 100 9 200 0.0025 0.1680 1.715 4.284 3.4635 16.6
Rusakis [11] 150 9 300 0.0035 0.1728 1.7569 4.3896 1.6794 7.0000
Micelli-Modarelli [33] 150 9 300 0.0049 0.1749 1.686 4.432 1.797 4.397
Valdmanis et al. [32] 150 9 300 0.0026 0.1757 1.697 4.485 1.480 3.692
Miyuachi et al. [4] 150 9 300 0.0022 0.1793 1.7774 4.5217 2.0154 9.1918
Harmon-Slattery [1] 52 9 102 0.0023 0.184 1.793 4.613 2.0975 16.000
Micelli et al. (2001) 100 9 200 0.0019 0.2114 1.9123 5.1677 1.5405 4.4737
Micelli et al. [10] 100 9 200 0.0019 0.2114 1.9123 5.1677 1.6757 5.7368
Benzaid-Mesbah [34] 160 9 320 0.00273 0.2141 1.846 5.230 1.520 4.615
Pan et al. [15] 110 9 200 0.0015 0.2172 2.179 5.290 2.113 9.550
He-Jin [19] 150 9 450 0.0025 0.2270 1.900 5.490 1.909 4.480
Toutanji [6] 76 9 305 0.0019 0.2359 2.0166 5.6653 1.9664 8.0526
Lam-Teng [27] 152 9 305 0.0025 0.2452 1.972 5.862 1.950 7.200
Benzaid-Mesbah [34] 160 9 320 0.00264 0.2488 1.976 5.885 1.493 3.940
Micelli et al. [10] 100 9 200 0.0015 0.2567 2.1092 6.0858 1.5000 5.8621
Micelli et al. [10] 100 9 200 0.0015 0.2567 2.1092 6.0858 1.6875 10.2759
Kono et al. [5] 100 9 200 0.0017 0.2557 2.1051 6.0655 1.5697 4.6176
Watanabe et al. [3] 100 9 200 0.0025 0.2583 2.1149 6.1194 1.3808 2.300
Rochette-Labossière [9] 100 9 200 0.002 0.2680 2.1674 6.3165 1.6100 6.7500
Rochette-Labossière [9] 100 9 200 0.002 0.2680 2.1674 6.3165 1.7500 8.000
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.2783 2.105 6.525 2.250 7.500
Rochette-Labossière [9] 150 9 300 0.002 0.2843 2.2407 6.6468 1.7300 8.700
Pan et al. [15] 110 9 200 0.0013 0.2965 2.179 6.896 2.113 12.73
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.3065 2.220 7.100 2.096 5.500
Toutanji [6] 76 9 305 0.0019 0.3024 2.3111 7.0167 3.0394 7.895
Lam-Teng [31] 152 9 305 0.0025 0.3088 2.240 7.203 2.056 8.400
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.3172 2.268 7.320 1.682 8.500
Berthet et al. [30] 160 9 320 0.002 0.3340 2.335 7.680 2.176 8.000
Lam-Teng [27] 152 9 305 0.0025 0.3850 2.540 8.720 2.620 9.200
44 Page 10 of 16 Materials and Structures (2018)51:44

Table 3 continued
Authors Specimens Predicted Experimental
d 9 h (mm) ec0 fl/fc0 fcc/fc0 ecc/ec0 fcc/fc0 ecc/ec0

Valdmanis et al. [32] 150 9 300 0.0026 0.3887 1.697 4.485 1.480 3.692
Toutanji [6] 76 9 305 0.0019 0.4302 2.8817 9.6350 3.0721 12.8947
Pan et al. [15] 110 9 200 0.0016 0.4344 2.744 9.722 2.545 12.98
Harmon-Slattery [1] 52 9 102 0.004 0.438 2.977 9.802 2.9475 2.75

4 20
ε /ε 1.025
Number of specimens 47 fcc / fc0=1+4.1(fl / fc0)1.025 (a) Number of specimens 47 c0=1+20.5(fl / fc0)
3.5
18
AAE=0.3736
cc
(b)
AAE=0.1542
AR=1.0791 16 AR=1.0147
3
14
2.5 12

c0
fcc / fc0

ε /ε
2 10

cc
8
1.5
6
1
4
0.5 Experimental data 2 Experimental data
Predicted fcc / fc0 Predicted εcc / εc0
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
fl,max / fc0 fl,max / fc0

Fig. 4 Comparison of model prediction of a peak stress ratio (fcc/fc0) and b peak strain ratio (ecc/ec0) with experimental results of
Table 3

compared to the many existing models available 5 Proposed constitutive model of preloaded FRP-
nowadays. Therefore, modification of the failure confined concrete
criterion according to the explanation made in the
previous section seems to be appropriate to obtain the The aim of the proposed model is to determine the
strength capacity of the FRP-confined concrete spec- confined response of the concrete subjected to a
imens under different confinement levels. delayed application of the bandage. In this way, the
Regarding the peak strain ratio (ecc/ec0) slightly axial stress–strain relationship is represented in two
higher dispersion is observed between analytical and steps: the first one characterized by the unconfined
experimental comparisons, with an average absolute properties of the concrete, and the second one that
error AAE of 37.36% and an average ratio AE of reproduces the confined response of the concrete.
1.015. However, the value of AAE resulted very To consider this effect, the analysis-oriented for-
similar to that obtained from the exiting models as mulation allows obtaining the stress–strain response
reported in Nisticò et al. [36]. through an incremental process, in which the confined
Therefore, the model resulted a good tool to capture capacity is evaluated by assigning an axial/lateral
the overall behavior of the FRP-confined concrete strain initial value. In this way, it is possible to obtain
without preloading. the unconfined response under an established preload-
ing stress level and to determine the delayed confined
response consequently when the confinement is con-
sidered in the analysis.
Furthermore, since load–time dependent effects
could induce significant change in the combined
response (as for creep-induced load redistribution or
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44 Page 11 of 16 44

creep-induced excessive micro-cracking on the plain 5.3 Lateral confinement pressure under preloaded
concrete [28, 29]), it could be considered that short- conditions
terms preload forces could avoid high damage on the
plain concrete. Therefore, the proposed model To evaluate the exact value of the lateral confinement
neglects time-dependent effects. pressure, it is necessary to detract from the current
hoop strain eh of the concrete, the strain e*h reached by
5.1 Preloading level index the concrete before confinement and therefore related
to the preload. In this way, the ‘‘step by step’’ value of
The preloading level index nP is defined as the ratio of the lateral pressure is correlated to the strain compat-
the preloading stress applied to the column before ibility of the preloaded stress/strain state. The value of
wrapping rP and the unconfined strength fc0 are hoop strain ehp to be used for the evaluation of the
defined, that is: lateral pressure in preload conditions will be therefore
rP lower than the concrete hoop strain eh (this condition is
nP ¼ ð11Þ identified as strain-lag).
fc0
 
2  tj  Ej  ehp 2  tj  Ej  eh  eh
flp ¼ ¼ ð16Þ
5.2 Axial-lateral strain relationship of unconfined D D
concrete and consequently, the confined strength and corre-
sponding strain can be determined by using Eqs. (9)–
When the concrete section is subjected to a certain (10) as:
stress level, the corresponding axial and lateral strains  1:025
can be obtained if the constitutive relationships are fcc flp
¼ 1 þ k1 ð17Þ
assumed. In the present study, the constitutive law fc0 fc0
proposed by Popovics [29] is adopted to describe the  1:025
axial compressive behavior of the unconfined concrete ecc flp
¼ 1 þ 5 k1 ð18Þ
up to the preload level index np. ec0 fc0
r xr Considering what above the stress–strain curve can
¼ for 0  ec  ecu ð12Þ
fc0 r  1 þ xr be obtained by the following simple procedure:
ec Ec fc0 • Fix the preloading ratio index np;
x¼ ; r¼ ; Esec ¼ ð13Þ
ec0 Ec  Esec ec0 • Evaluate the preloading axial stress of the uncon-
fined concrete through Eq. (11);
For a given value of axial strain, the corresponding
• Evaluate unconfined axial and lateral strain at the
lateral strain of the plain concrete can be determined if
fixed stress level Eqs. (12)–(15); to this point, at
the relationship between the two strains is known. To
each increment of lateral strain ehp ¼ ðeh  eh Þ
correlate the current lateral strain corresponding to the
evaluate the actual value (flP) using Eq. (16);
preload state, the relationship proposed by Kupfer
• Calculate the actual confined concrete strength and
et al. [37] allows obtaining the variation of the Poisson
axial corresponding strain by Eqs. (17)–(18);
ratio m of concrete under biaxial stress state and
• Determine the confined current stress and strain by
consequently the value of eh:
Eqs. (5)–(6);
eh ¼ ec  mðec Þ ð14Þ
The procedure is developed until ehp reaches the
   2
ec ec rupture value, defined by Eq. (2).
mðec Þ ¼ m0 þ 1 þ 1:38  5:36
ec0 ec0
 3 ð15Þ 5.4 Comparisons with the test data [25]
ec
þ 8:59
ec0
According to the aforementioned effects in the pres-
ence of preloading conditions, the stress–strain
response obtained from the analysis oriented model
44 Page 12 of 16
agree with the experimental results. Indeed, as the
preloading level index increases, a reduction of the
confined compressive stress value, corresponding to
the step-by-step value of the lateral confinement
pressure occurs (flP \ fl for each incremental step).
In the first phase (corresponding to the preloading
on the plain concrete), unconfined and confined
response results very similar, because, as it is well
known from the mechanism of passive confinement,
there are no difference between the stress–strain
curves up to relevant values of the lateral confinement
pressure and, therefore, the confined concrete is not
affected by an effective confinement level. This effect
is also noticed in the lateral strain-to-axial strain
relationship, that shows an analog trend for the
unconfined and confined concrete.
In the second branch (for compressive stress higher
than fc0), the curves of non-preloaded and preloaded
elements follow almost a parallel trend with hardening
stress–strain behavior. This branch is characterized by
lower values of the compressive stress for an assigned
strain in the presence of preloading due to the
reduction of the secant stiffness of concrete caused
by the preloading itself. Finally, failure conditions are
identified from the same value of the lateral confine-
ment pressure, and consequently, the same value of the
compressive strength of the confined concrete. The
value of ultimate axial confined strain results
improved in order to allow the achievement of the
rupture hoop strain eh,rup.
In Fig. 5, comparisons between analytical and
experimental results in terms of axial compressive
stress–strain curves and lateral pressure response are
shown in the case of low, medium and high preload
levels. It is important to state that in the case of low
preload levels (for a preloading stress ranging from 40
and 55% of fc0), differences between preloaded
elements’ response and non preloaded elements’
response are negligible. Differences are denoted
starting from medium preloading levels (specimens
AP 60, BP 70, AP 80, BP 90).
Considering the average values of the experimental
results, the absolute error Ei regarding the confined
strength and the corresponding axial strain were
evaluated according to Eq. (10). The results are shown
in Table 4.
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
6 Concrete elements with strain-hardening
and strain-softening behavior
Once the analytical model has been validated with
experimental results of short-term preloaded speci-
mens with confined concrete having strain-hardening
behavior, it can be assumed for further observations
including different cases. To this aim, in Fig. 6 results
of the above-described procedure are illustrated for
two theoretical cases which include FRP-confined
concrete with strain-softening and strain-hardening
behavior.
Results in terms of axial stress–strain and lateral
confinement pressure-to-axial strain relationships are
shown, comparing non preloaded and preloaded
elements for preloading levels equal to 50, 70 and
90% of the unconfined concrete strength fc0. Reference
mechanical characteristics identify two confinement
levels (fl,max/fc0) of 0.0378 for the case ‘‘a’’ and 0.0874
for the case ‘‘b’’.
Both theoretical scenarios confirm that, in the case
of preloading conditions, the efficiency of the con-
finement device is affected by a delayed response and
the strain tensile lag of the fibers causes a reduced
confinement pressure for a given value of axial strain.
These differences are highlighted by a reduction of the
secant stiffness of the axial stress–strain curves. When
the confined concrete provides strain-hardening
behavior, the effects of the preloading level index
does not change the ultimate conditions in terms of
strength of the confined concrete (this behavior was
compared and validated by means of experimental
results in the previous section).
This statement is not true for concrete elements
with strain-softening behavior. In this case, the
response is always affected by a stress reduction. Also
the lateral confinement pressure associated with the
failure conditions is not able to give an increasing of
strength respect to the unconfined concrete. Such
situations could be more usual in the case of square or
rectangular cross sections, in which lateral confine-
ment is less effective. In fact, although in the case of
square or rectangular sections the corners are rounded
to avoid stress concentration and improve confinement
efficiency, effective lateral pressure is always much
lower respect to circular section and strain-softening
behavior is often manifested. However, in this case,
the parametric study is aimed only to give a theoretical
example and further experimental investigations to
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44 Page 13 of 16 44

Fig. 5 Comparisons
between experimental (a)
results and analytical model
for confined specimens after
a low, b medium, c high
preloading levels

(b)

(c)
44 Page 14 of 16 Materials and Structures (2018)51:44

Table 4 Error in prediction of ultimate strength and strains

Specimens Strength fcc (MPa) Ultimate strain ecc (%)
Analytical Experimental (average) Absolute error (%) Analytical Experimental (average) Absolute error (%)

AS 1-2-3 97.181 100.86 3.647 2.325 2.273 2.302

BS 1-2 78.718 77.05 2.165 1.609 1.646 2.241
AP 40 1-2 96.125 95.82 3.187 2.376 2.277 4.335
BP 55 1-2 77.582 77.45 1.699 1.636 1.781 8.132
AP 60 1-2 95.571 99.26 3.716 2.385 2.528 5.655
BP 70 1-2 77.268 80.2 3.655 1.666 1.6810 8.657
AP 80 1-2 95.475 95.75 2.875 2.460 2.593 5.105
BP 90 1-2 76.881 81.135 5.242 1.742 2.044 1.477

Fig. 6 Monotonic non- 60 6

preloaded and preloaded
FRP-confined concrete with (b)
Reference
strain-softening behavior
(without preload)
(a) and strain-hardening
Compressive Stress (MPa)

behavior (b)

Lateral Pressure (MPa)

40 Reference 4
(a) (without preload)

Unconfined
20 2

Strain-lag
Preload 50%
Preload 70%
Preload 90%
0 0
0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Axial Strain

confirm the theoretical results should be performed,
especially when particular retrofitting technique are
used. Indeed, it is worth noting that in some case the
ultimate conditions could not related to the failure of
the confining device, as demonstrated by Rusakis for
confinement with vinylon fiber ropes (VFR) or
polypropylene (PPFR) [38, 39].
7 Conclusions
In the present paper, the confinement effects on FRP-
confined concrete were discussed, analyzing the
behavior of the concrete elements under non preloaded
and preloaded axial compressive state. According to
the available experimental results provided by Fer-
rotto et al. [12], an analysis-oriented model was
proposed starting from the theoretical basis provided
by Teng et al. [13] to reproduce the axial compressive
behavior of FRP-confined concrete elements inter-
ested or not by a stress–strain state before wrapping.
By the experimental campaign, it was found that, in
the presence of preloading conditions, the overall
response evidences a reduced secant stiffness due to a
lower value of the lateral confinement pressure for a
given value of axial strain. In this regard, an updating
of the standard analytical formulations has been
recognized as necessary to take into account the strain
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
compatibility effects according to the stress–strain
state of the unstrengthened elements.
The proposed model reproduces both ultimate
conditions (confined strength and strain) and the
reduction in secant stiffness dependent on the preload
level, in agreement with the findings of several
previous studies too.
Moreover, a theoretical parametric study was
performed to analyze the response of the FRP-
preloaded confined concrete in the case of strain-
hardening and strain-softening behavior and the
results indicated that even though in the case of
strain-hardening behavior, by varying the preloading
level, no reduction in terms of strength can be
observed. But if the confinement provides a strain-
softening behavior, a reduction of the ultimate condi-
tions is observable. Of coarse the latter case identifies
only a theoretical case for further considerations to be
verified by experimental–numerical investigations.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Harmon TG, Slattery KT (1992) Advanced composite
confinement of concrete. In: 1st international conference on
advanced composite materials in bridges and structures,
Sherbrooke, Que, Canada, pp 299–306
2. Picher F, Rochette P, Labossiére P (1996) Confinement of
concrete cylinders with CFRP. In: Proceedings on ICCI’96,
Tucson, Ariz., pp 829–841
3. Watanabe K, Nakamura H, Honda Y, Toyoshima M, Iso M,
Fujimaki T, Kaneto M, Shirai N (1997) Confinement effect
of FRP sheet on strength and ductility of concrete cylinders
under uniaxial compression. In: Proceedings on FRPRCS-3,
Sapporo, Japan, vol 1, pp 233–240
4. Miyauchi K, Nishibayashi S, Inoue S (1997) Estimation of
strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete
column. In: Proceedings on FRPRCS-3, Sapporo, Japan, vol
1, pp 217–224
5. Kono S, Inazumi M, Kaku T (1998) Evaluation of confining
effects of CFRP sheets on reinforced concrete members. In:
Proceedings on ICCI’98, Tucson, Ariz., pp 343–355
6. Toutanji H (1999) Stress-strain characteristics of concrete
columns externally confined with advanced fiber composite
sheets. ACI Mater J 96:397–404
7. Matthys S, Taerwe L, Audenaert K (1999) Tests on axially
loaded concrete columns confined by fiber reinforced
polymer sheet wrapping. In: Proceedings on FRPRCS-4,
Baltimore, pp 217–228
Page 15 of 16 44
8. Shahawy M, Mirmiran A, Beitelmann T (2000) Tests and
modeling of carbon-wrapped concrete columns. Compos B
31:471–480
9. Rochette P, Labossiére P (2000) Axial testing of rectangular
column models confined with composites. J Compos Constr
4:129–136
10. Micelli F, Myers JJ, Murthy S (2001) Effect of environ-
mental cycles on concrete cylinders confined with FRP. In:
Proceedings on CCC2001 international conference on
composites in construction, Porto, Portugal
11. Rousakis T (2001) Experimental investigation of concrete
cylinders confined by carbon FRP sheets, under monotonic
and cyclic axial compressive load. Research Rep., Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden
12. Spoelstra MR, Monti G (1999) FRP-confined concrete
model. J Compos Constr ASCE 3:143–150
13. Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS (2015) Modeling of passive and
active external confinement of RC columns with elastic
material. ZAMM J 95:1046–1057
14. Pan Y, Shuangyin C, Denghu J, Debao C (2009) Test and
analysis of the axial stress-strain relationship of square
section concrete columns confined by CFRP under preload.
China Civ Eng J 42:23–29 (In Chinese)
15. Pan Y, Shuangyin C, Denghu J, Zhao S (2011) Experimental
research on axially loaded circular concrete columns con-
fined by CFRP under preload. Adv Mater Res
255–260:694–698
16. Shi D, He Z (2009) Short-term axial behavior of preloaded
concrete columns strengthened with fiber reinforced poly-
mer laminate. In: Computational structural engineering,
pp 1089–1098
17. He Z, Shi D (2009) Effect of Sustained Load on Static
Lateral Responses of CFRP-Confined Columns. Pac Sci
Rev 11:144–149
18. He Z, Jin JP, Song JG (2009) Experimental study on the
expansion ratio of preloaded circular concrete columns with
CFRP confinement. Eng Mech 26:145–151 (In Chinese)
19. He Z, Jin JP (2011) Axial compressive behavior of CFRP-
confined concrete columns subject to short-term preloading.
Adv Mater Res 163–167:3830–3837
20. Morsy AM, El-Tony M (2012) Repair of pre-loaded R.C.
columns using external CFRP sheets and embedded longi-
tudinal steel reinforcement. In: 14th international confer-
ence structural faults and repair, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
21. Ivorra S, Estevan L, Adam JM (2013) Experimental study of
axial stress–strain relationship of cylindrical concrete ele-
ments confined by CFRP under a maintained preload. In:
2nd workshop on ‘‘The new boundaries of structural con-
crete’’. ISBN 978-88-904292-4
22. Pan Y, Wan L, Wu X (2015) Analysis-oriented stress–strain
model of CFRP confined concrete with preload. J Southwest
Jiaotong Univ 50:461–465 (In Chinese)
23. Pan Y, Wan L, Wu X (2017) Analysis-oriented stress–strain
model for FRP-confined concrete with preload. Compos
Struct 166:57–67
24. Pan Y, Wan L, Wu X (2017) Study on stress-strain relation
of concrete confined by CFRP under preload. Eng Struct
143:52–63
25. Ferrotto MF, Fischer O, Niedermeier R (2017) Experi-
mental investigation on the compressive behavior of short
44 Page 16 of 16
term CFRP-confined concrete columns. Struct Concr.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700072
26. Teng JG, Huang YL, Lam L, Ye LP (2007) Theoretical
model for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete.
J Compos Constr 11:201–210
27. Lam L, Teng JG (2004) Ultimate condition of fiber rein-
forced polymer-confined concrete. J Compos Constr
8:539–548
28. Lim JC, Ozbakkaloglu T (2015) Lateral strain-to-axial
strain relationship of confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE
141:04014141-1–0401414118
29. Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete
stress–strain curve of concrete. Cem Concr Res 3:583–599
30. Berthet J, Ferrier E, Hamelin P (2005) Compressive
behavior of concrete externally confined by composite
jackets. Part A: experimental Study. Constr Build Mater
19:223–232
31. Lam L, Teng JG, Cheung CH, Xiao Y (2006) FRP-confined
concrete under axial cyclic compression. Cem Concr
Compos 28:949–958
32. Valdmanis V, De Lorenzis L, Rousakis T, Tepfers R (2007)
Behaviour and capacity of CFRP-confined concrete cylin-
ders subjected to monotonic and cyclic axial compressive
load. Struct Concr 8:187–200
Materials and Structures (2018)51:44
33. Micelli F, Modarelli R (2013) Experimental and analytical
study on properties affecting the behaviour of FRP-confined
concrete. Compos B 45:1420–1431
34. Benzaid R, Mesbah HA (2013) Circular and square concrete
columns externally confined by CFRP composite: experi-
mental investigation and effective strength models. In: Fiber
reinforced polymers—the technology applied for concrete
repair, Intech, pp 167–201
35. De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R (2003) Comparative study of
models on confinement of concrete cylinders with fiber-
reinforced polymer composites. J Compos Constr
7:219–234
36. Nisticò N, Pallini F, Rousakis T, Wu YF, Karabinis A
(2014) Peak strength and ultimate strain prediction for FRP
confined square and circular concrete sections. Compos B
67:543–554
37. Kupfer H, Hilsdorf HK, Rush H (1969) Behavior of con-
crete under biaxial stresses. ACI Struct J 66:656–666
38. Rousakis T (2014) Elastic fiber ropes of ultrahigh-extension
capacity in strengthening of concrete through confinement.
J Mater Civ Eng 26:34–44
39. Rousakis TC (2016) Reusable and recyclable nonbonded
composite tapes and ropes for concrete columns confine-
ment. Compos B 103:15–22