Accepted Manuscript

Analysis-oriented stress–strain model for FRP–confined concrete with preload

Yi Pan, Rui Guo, Hongyi Li, Hongyuan Tang, Jingxiang Huang

PII: S0263-8223(16)32443-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.01.007
Reference: COST 8140

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 7 November 2016

Revised Date: 31 December 2016
Accepted Date: 4 January 2017

Please cite this article as: Pan, Y., Guo, R., Li, H., Tang, H., Huang, J., Analysis-oriented stress–strain model for
FRP–confined concrete with preload, Composite Structures (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2017.01.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Analysis-oriented stress–strain model for FRP–confined concrete with preload

*
Yi Pana,b , Rui Guoa,b, Hongyi Lia, Hongyuan Tang c*, Jingxiang Huangc
a
Department of Building Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu
610031, China
b
Key Laboratory of High-speed Railway Engineering, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University,
Chengdu 610031, China
c
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China

Abstract: This paper is concerned with establishing an analysis-oriented stress-strain model for
FRP-confined concrete in circular-section or square-section with preload. The paper provided the
detail of the experimental results of 42 concrete columns confined with carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (CFRP) with different preload ratios, then, based on the test results, this paper proposed a
new failure surface theory about FRP-confined concrete considering the effect of preload. With
the help of this new proposed failure surface theory and the widely accepted incremental process
for actively-confined concrete which was used by most previous analysis-oriented models, a new
analysis-oriented model was established. Compared with the test data, the proposed model
provided a good correlation to the actual behavior. In addition, this paper also conducted the finite
element simulation to verify the accuracy of this model.
Key words: fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) confined concrete; stress-strain relationship;
analysis-oriented; preload

1. Introduction

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have been widely used in civil engineering due to:
(1) the high stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight ratios; and (2) an excellent durability in
aggressive environment. One important application of FRP composites is to enhance strength and
ductility of reinforced concrete (RC) columns by making as wraps or jackets for the confinement.
In practical application, since the reliable design of structural member necessitates an accurate
stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete, a number of related studies have been conducted in
the last decade. In general, these models are classified into two categories as design-oriented
models in closed-form expressions and analysis-oriented models in which the stress–strain curve
is generated via an incremental process Pan (2009). Although a number of studies associated with
this material has been conducted in the last decade, most of them concentrated on the
FRP-confined concrete without preload (i.e. loading the FRP-confined concrete until failure
without preload). Actually, in most situation, FRP sheets were used to retrofit the columns with
different extent of preload. Obviously, the preload will cause the micro cracks in concrete and the
strain-lag in FRP sheets (i.e. under the same lateral-strain of concrete, the stress of FRP with
preload will be lower than that of without preload). As shown in Fig. 1, both of them will cut
down the peak-stress and peak-strain in the FRP-confined concrete.

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: panyi@home.swjtu.edu.cn (Yi Pan)
E-mail address: tanghyseu@163.com (Hongyuan Tang)
1
 εl

F
R
P
s
t
r
e
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
C fc

εl o εc

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
curve 1-without preload

curve 2-with preolad

2 1 f frp
f
tp

f
tp
f
r
f
r
p

f
r
f
r
p
σfrp
Fig. 1a The micro-crack in concrete Fig. 1b The strain-lag in FRP

In this study, a total of 32 preloaded circular columns (110 mm × 200 mm) and 16 preloaded
square columns (100 mm × 200 mm) with fillet radius of 20 mm confined by CFRP sheets were
performed. Based on the test results, this paper proposed a design-oriented stress-strain model
about FRP-confined concrete columns in circular-section or square-section, respectively Pan
(2009).
However, the proposed design-oriented stress-strain model was directly derived from the test
results by a closed-form expression. Therefore, the accuracy of them depends greatly on the size
and reliability of the test databases as well as parameters of the test data. Furthermore, to the
knowledge of authors, the experiments about the FRP-confined concrete are extremely rare. Thus,
the analysis-oriented model needs to be more versatile and accurate. Through a comprehensive
discussion of FRP-confined concrete with preload, an analysis-oriented model for FRP-confined
concrete with preload was proposed in this paper. A finite-element simulation was also conducted
in order to not only extend and better understand the analysis-oriented model, but also verify the
accuracy of this proposed model.
Compared to previous models, the key novel feature of this analysis-oriented model is a more
comprehensive discussion of FRP confined-concrete columns in circular-section and
square-section with preload respectively, which was not taken into account by most previous
models. The prediction results of the model provided good correlation to the finite element
simulation.
2. Literature review
Previous investigators have pointed out that the strength and corresponding axial strain of the
concrete confined by an active hydrostatic pressure can be represented by the following
relationships respectively:

 =


+ 
(1)


 =
 (1 +   )

(2)

For the average values of coefficients  and  , Richart et al. (1928) recommended =4.1
and  =5 , and Richart et al. (1929) also found that the strength of concrete with active
confinement from the lateral pressure was approximately the same as that of the concrete confined
by circular steel hoops or spirals. This conclusion is for the steel-confined concrete because the
confining pressure remains basically unchanged after the steel yield, and it is also for the actively
confined concrete. Popovics (1973) has proposed a stress-strain model for the concrete under
monotonic compression, which can be represented as follows:
2
  ( / ) (3-1)
 ( / )

=
 

Where r is a constant which can be expressed as following:


r=


 −

(3-2)


Based on results of Richart et al. (1928; 1929) and Popovics (1973), Mander et al. (1988)
proposed a unified stress-strain approach for the steel-confined circular and rectangular concrete.
Meanwhile, according to the result, FRP composites remained linear elastic until final rupture, and
the lateral confining pressure in FRP-confined concrete continuously increased with loading.
These models were all built on the assumption that the axial stress and the axial strain of
concrete confined by FRP with a given lateral strain are the same as those of concrete actively
confined by a constant confining pressure equal to that supplied by the FRP jackets. Most of the
early analysis-oriented models Samaan and Mirmiran (1998); Mirmiran and Shahawy (1996;1997);
Spoelstra and Monti (1999); Fam and Rizkalla (2001); Chun and Park (2002); Harries and Kharel
(2002), which were proposed for FRP-confined concrete directly adopted the stress–strain models
developed from the model Mander et al. (1988), but with different lateral-to-axial strain relations.
There are other two models, the confinement model based on the concept of crack slip and
separation in the concrete Harmon et al. (1998), and the octahedral stress-strain model with some
modification for the FRP-confined concrete Becque et al. (2003).
The accuracy of analysis-oriented models depends much on the lateral-to-axial strain relation
and failure surface defined for the actively confined concrete. Teng et al. (2007) and Jiang et al.
(2007) assessed the accuracy of previous analysis-oriented stress-strain models for FRP-confined
concrete with a database of 48 tests, and verified the correctness of the basic assumption through
experimental results. Furthermore, they pointed out that the model of Mander et al. (1988) is not
appropriate for FRP-confined concrete.
Based on an overall review of 13 analysis-oriented models, Ozbakkaloglu (2013) pointed out
that Teng et al. (2007) is the most accuracy analysis-oriented model with the most accurate
active-confinement failure surface and lateral-to-axial strain relation, which can be represented by
the following relationships respectively:
The lateral-to-axial strain relationship
   

=0.85(1+ ){[1 + 0.75(  )]%.& − exp [−7(  )]} (4)
  

The peak-stress

 =


+ 3.5, (5)
The peak-strain


 =
 (1 + 17  )

(6)

where , is the confining pressure, which can be expressed by:

20 1
2
, =
3
(7-1)

Teng et al. (2007) and Jiang et al. (2007) presented the reliable lateral-to-axial strain
relationship and failure surface for FRP-confined concrete, however, Eq. 4-8 are merely available
for circular-sections without preload. As for the rectangular-section, obviously, there is the stress

3
concentration near corners of rectangular-section and uneven stress distribution along the side of
square-section. The most common way to deal with these problems in rectangular-section is to
introduce an equivalent circular column to analyze the rectangular-section as a circular-section,
thus, Eq. 7-1 can be modified for the rectangular-section as following:
20 1
2,4
,  =
34
(7-2)

With the equivalent circular column, the shape factor to consider the uneven distribution of
section shape was introduced. For the rectangular-section, Park et al. (1975) pointed out that the
confining pressure provided by FRP sheets varied in the cross section and only one part of the
concrete was effectively confined as shown in Fig. 2a. Hence, the effective of confinement is
reduced Mirmiran (1998). In order to take into account the effect of ineffective confinement area,
some stress-strain models for rectangular-sections Mirmiran (1998); Rochette and Labossiere
(2000); Pessiki et al. (2001); Jing (2006) adopted a shape factor 5 to discount the confining
pressure ,  to an effective confining pressure ,4 as follows:
,4 = 5 ∙ ,  (8)
Models Mirmiran (1998); Rochette and Labossiere (2000); Pessiki et al. (2001); Jing (2006)
shared the same approach, and the definition of 5 differed from each other. Some models defined
it as the ratio of the effective confinement area to the total cross-section area of concrete as
illustrated in Fig. 2a. These parabolas intersect edges at 45° which are derived from previous
studies on steel confined concrete. Fig. 2b presents a brief illustration of the effective confinement
area by Teng el al. (2002). Noting these parabolas intersect edges at a certain parallels with the
diagonal rather than 45° .

effective effective
confinement confinement
area area
D D

Fig. 2a The initial effective confinement area Fig. 2b The refined effective confinement area

Based on a comprehensive review of 70 FRP-confined concrete columns in rectangular-section,

Teng el al. (2002) proposed a new formula to calculate 5 , which is represented as follow:
= B
= < ?(=CBD )
;< ?(@ A )B  > HIJ
> EFG
9
5 = : =
(9a)
9 IJ

where KL is the cross-section area of the column. Eq. 9a is used in this paper to establish the
analysis-oriented stress-strain model for square section.
For square section, Eq. 9a can be simplified as:
B/E(=CBD )B
MB %.NOAB 
9:
5 = =
EFG (9b)
9 MB %.NOAB

4
 For circular section, experimental results shown that, in most cases, the tensile strength of FRP
materials did not reach the rupture of FRP (
0 ), but the strain of hoop reached the rupture of
FRP in circular-section (
@,0 ), which is lower than the former value Xiao and Wu (2000);
Rochette and Labossiere (2000).
@,0 can be related to
0 through an FRP effective factor
( ) defined by Pessiki et al. (2001).

@,0 =  ∙
0 (10)
Lam and Teng (2003) proposed an average value of 0.586 for CFRP with circular section. For
the rectangular concrete, the uneven stress distribution (as illustrated in Fig. 3) was accompanied
with the stress concentration in corners of the rectangular section, and will cause the hoop strain in
rectangular-section at FRP rupture
@,0 even lower.
Jing (2006) proposed a strain reduction coefficient  to consider the effect of the above
mentioned stress concentration and shape of the rectangular section, which is represented by the
following expression:
2P %.RN
 = 0.30 + 0.35( )
Q
(11)

Noting that  equals to 0.65 for the circular-section, this indicates that  can be understood as
a modified  which can take a further discount for rectangular columns. Hence, for the circular
section, the only difference between  =0.65 and  = 0.586 is numerical amount. The
effective confinement pressure for the rectangular-section column can be represented as
following:
20 1
@,4
,4 = 5 ∙  ∙
34
(12)

Eq. 12 is used to establish the analysis-oriented stress-strain model for square-section in this
paper.

3. Test database

3.1. General
A test database containing results of 42 FRP–confined concrete columns under the axial
compression was conducted in this paper. The main parameters were: (1) the nominal preload
ratios (the ratio of nominal preload value to the unconfined specimen strength) ranging from 0.2 to
0.7; (2) the concrete strengths (C20 or C30); and (3) the numbers of FRP piles (1 or 2). Among the
42 columns, there were 28 circular-section (diameter D = 110 mm and height H = 200 mm) and 14
square-section (Side length S= 100 mm and height H = 200 mm). For circular and square section,
4 and 2 control specimens of the same size were also tested at the same time, respectively.
The average value of the cubic concrete compressive strength at 28 days age were 21.1 MPa
and 28.8 MPa for C20 and C30 respectively. The CFRP nominal thickness was 0.111mm for each
pile, and the actual average tensile strength and elastic modulus were 4412 MPa and 236 GPa,
respectively.
Due to the stress relaxation of steel tie rod and stress loss of nuts during preload, the actual
preload value pressed on specimens was measured by a pressure transducer between the jack and
steel-plate, and was controlled by a hand-hold-strain-instrument. After 24 hours preloading, the
concrete columns were retrofitted with CFRP sheets. In order to prevent the local failure within
ends region of the column, the finishing end of each sheet overlapped the starting end of the sheet
by 150 mm, meanwhile, an additional CFRP sheet was applied on each end of the column over a
5
 length as 30mm. After 48 hours preloading, specimens were loaded by the jack again until the
concrete failed.

3.2. Specimens and instructions

All the FRP jackets only had hoop fibers, the experimental instrumentation and the distribution
of strain gauges are shown in Fig. 3. All strain gauges and dial indicators were distributed at the
mid-height of specimens. The axial strain and lateral strain listed in Table 1 were the average
values from longitudinal and transversal strain gauges. In addition, two dial indicators were placed
at 180º apart to proofread the axial strains.
Longitudinal-strain gauge

Dial indicator

Transversal-strain gauge

Transversal-strain gauge

Longitudinal-strain gauge

Transversal-strain gauge
Fig. 3a The experimental instrumentation Fig.3b The planar distribution of strain gauges

Table 1 The test database of FRP-confined concrete columns with preload







Actual
Section Specimen Group Concrete t
(U 10O )
preload
shape number number strength (MPa) (×10-6) (mm) (MPa)
Ratio
1 － C20 16.47 1304 － 16.47 1304
2 0 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 37.03 13875
3 0.22 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 36.56 14124
4 0.32 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 36.01 13741
1
5 0.43 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 35.19 13140
6 0.52 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 34.12 12762
7 0.64 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 32.97 12014
8 0.71 C20 16.47 1304 0.111 31.22 11742
9 － C20 16.72 1332 － 16.72 1332
10 0 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 54.89 22397

Circular 11 0.23 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 53.95 22458

12 0.31 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 52.87 22247
section 2
13 0.41 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 51.35 21045
14 0.54 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 49.53 20142
15 0.61 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 46.94 19014
16 0.7 C20 16.72 1332 0.222 43.94 18055
17 － C30 22.02 1497 － 22.02 1497
18 0 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 41.84 13944
19 0.24 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 41.28 14321
20 3 0.34 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 40.7 13125
21 0.44 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 39.89 12894
22 0.56 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 38.93 12014
23 0.62 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 37.72 11642

6
 24 0.72 C30 22.02 1497 0.111 35.99 11037
25 － C30 23.38 1571 － 23.38 1571
26 0 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 60.99 20486
27 0.23 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 59.87 21456
28 0.35 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 58.71 19241
4
29 0.46 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 57.08 18769
30 0.54 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 55.17 18003
31 0.63 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 52.74 17034
32 0.71 C30 23.38 1571 0.222 49.01 16987
33 － C20 16.78 1613 － 16.78 1613
34 0 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 32.21 13323
35 0.25 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 31.69 12870
36 5 0.34 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 31.27 12149
37 0.42 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 29.52 11805
38 0.51 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 27.44 11273
Square 39 0.63 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 26.20 11160
40 0.72 C20 16.78 1613 0.111 24.96 10581
section
41 － C30 17.61 1728 － 17.61 1728
42 0 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 47.85 19069
43 0.26 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 47.22 18689
44 0.33 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 46.29 18452
6
45 0.41 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 44.32 17710
46 0.54 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 40.80 16943
47 0.61 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 38.32 15718
48 0.71 C30 17.61 1728 0.222 35.42 15348
Based on the test results as shown in Table 1, formulas about the peak-stress (
 )
and
peak-strain (
 ) for circular and square concrete with preload were presented to consider the
effect that both the peak-stress and peak-strain will decrease, and the reduction amount will
increase with the preload ratios. The purposed formulas about the peak-stress (
 ) and peak-strain
(
 ) are shown as following.
3.2.1. The peak-stress (VWW )

 
=1.0+3.3 ∙  ∙
 
(13-1)
circular section

 

=1.0+5.56∙  ∙ : (13-2)
square section 

where  and  are preload-factors of stress for circular and square section, respectively,
which can be represented as the following relationship:
 = (1.0 − X .R Y )%.ZOO& (14-1)
 = (1.0 − X . )%.NO (14-2)
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the proposed expression about the peak-stress (
 ) and
the actual peak-stress. The deviation range is in the scope of 10% for the circular section, and 15%
for the square section.

7
 3.5 3.0

proposed fcc/fco

proposed fcc/fco
2.8
3.0
2.6

+10% 2.4 +15%

2.5

-10% 2.2
2.0
2.0 -15%

1.8
1.5
1.6
actual fcc/fco actual fcc/fco
1.0 1.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Fig. 4a The relationship between proposed Fig. 4b The relationship between proposed
peak-stress(VWW ) for circular section peak-stress(VWW ) for square section

3.2.2. The peak-strain ([WW )

  \
circular-section 
=1.0+7.04 ∙ 0 ∙ (  ). N ∙ (\ )%.] (15-1)
 

  %.]% \
=1.0+76 ∙ 0 ∙ ( ) ∙ (  )%.]N
  \
square-section (15-2)

where 0 and 0 are preload-factors of strain for circular and square section respectively, which
can be represented as the following relationship:
0 = (1.0 − X%.YO )%.NO (16-1)
0 = (1.0 − X.RO)%. N (16-2)
Fig. 5 shows the relationship between the proposed expression about the peak-strain (
 ) with
the actual peak-strain. The deviation range is in the scope of 20% for circular section, and 15% for
square section.
20 11
proposed εcc/εco
proposed εcc/εco

18 10

16
9
+20% +15%
14
8
12
7
10 -20% -15%
6
8

6 5

actual εcc/εco actual εcc/εco

4 4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Fig.5a The relationship between proposed Fig.5b The relationship between proposed
peak-strain( [WW) for circular section peak-strain([WW) for square section

Both Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 indicated that the prediction results of formulas about the peak-stress (
 )
and peak-strain (
 ) agree well with the test data. Hence, Eq.13-16 represented a new failure
surface of FRP-confined concrete under preload for the circular and square section respectively.

4. The analysis-oriented stress-strain model

4.1. General
With the help of a family of axial stress and strain curves (simply referred to as the axial
stress–strain curve hereafter) for the same concrete under different level of active confinement, the

8
axial stress and strain curve of the FRP-confined concrete can be generated through an
incremental process. The accuracy of analysis-oriented models depends on the accuracy of the
lateral-to-axial strain relationship and failure surface defined for the actively confined concrete.
The lateral-to-axial strain relationship of Eq. 4 is used here for two reasons: (1) Eq. 4 is based
on a comprehensive observation of test results Teng (2007) and Jiang (2007) and Eq. 4 has been
proved to be enough accurate for FRP-confined concrete; (2) Eq. 4 expresses the lateral-to-axial

strain relationship with the basic properties of concrete (i.e.
 and
 ), which might not change
with the external force. Hence, it is appropriate to be directly used in FRP-confined concrete with
different preload.
As mentioned above, Eq. 13-16 provide a new failure-surface of FRP-confined concrete with
preload. Once the lateral-to-axial strain relationship and failure surface are available, the axial
stress–strain curve of FRP-confined concrete can be predicted through the same approach as
adopted by many existing analysis-oriented models Mander et al. (1988); Samaan and Mirmiran
(1998); Mirmiran and Shahawy (1996;1997); Spoelstra and Monti (1999); Fam and Rizkalla
(2001); Chun and Park (2002); Harries and Kharel (2002); Teng et al. (2007) ;Jiang et al. (2007).
The brief process of conducting an analysis-oriented model with preload for the circular and
square section can be summarized as follows:
With the specified axial strain
 , (1) the corresponding lateral strain
can be found from Eq.
4; (2) the corresponding confining pressure , (,4 ) can be found from Eq. 8 or Eq. 12; (3) the
corresponding peak-stress and peak-strain can be found from Eq. 13-16; (4) the corresponding
axial-stress can be found from Eq. 3; (5) repeating above mentioned processes until
reaches the

@,^0 or
@,^0 .
With the specified axial-strain
, (1) the corresponding axial-strain
 can be found from Eq. 4;
(2) repeating the processes (2-5) with the specified axial-strain
 .
It is worthwhile to point out that
@,^0 (or
@,^0 ) provides a termination of the above
mentioned loop. And
@,^0 (or
@,^0 ) can be obtained by the lateral strain gauge, which was
used for greater accuracy in this paper or calculating
@,^0 (or
@,^0 ) from ,  (or ,  ).
Meanwhile, it is necessary to introduce the lateral confinement stiffness   for the circular
section, which can be defined by the following expression:
\ab ∙c∙∆ \ab c
  = ∆
/∆
=
d∙∆
=
d
(17-1)

Due to Eq. 17-1 is only available for circular section, an equivalent circular column was used to
calculate the lateral confinement stiffness   for the rectangular section. Based on the
experimental results of FRP-confined concrete with different P , Yang (2004) found that the
difference between elastic modulus measured from the actual experiment ( 0 ) and
horizontal-tensile experiment (0,@ ) can often be ignored, as illustrated in Fig. 6, therefore, it is
appropriate to assume that P influences the 0 little.

9
 10

(Efrp-Efrp,h)/Efrp(%)
7.5
5

-5

-10

-15 -12.5

-20

-25

-30

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2Rc/b

Fig. 6 (e Vfg − e Vfg,h )/eVfg against 2i W /j

Xiao (2003) studied the mechanical behaviors of FRP-confined concrete with different section
shapes, and found that the influence of section shape about   can’t be negligible.
According to the above discussion, it can be conclude that the expression of Jing (2006) is more
accurate to predict   , which can be represented as following:
20 10
  = 5 ∙
34
(17-2)

4.2 Program

Fortran 95 was used as the programming language in this paper, and the program flow chart is
illustrated in Fig. 7.

10
 Start
condition
number K

circular-section square-section

Input：f co,εco, Efrp Input：f co,εco,Efrp,

,εhc,rup,tfrp,D,p,K εhr,rup,tfrp,b,h
h,Rc,p,Κ

i=0 stress[i]=0.0 i=0 stress[i]=0.0

strain[i]=0.0 strain[i]=0.0

k=11 k=12 k=21 k=22

εc=0.0005i εh =0.0005i εc=0.0005i εh=0.0005i

calculate εc or εl,σl from calculate εc or εl,σel from

Eq. 4 and Eq.7-1 Eq. 4 and Eq.12

strain[i+1]=εc strain[i+1]=εc

calculate f cc from calculate f cc from

Eq. 13-1 Eq. 13-1

calculate εcc from calculate εcc from

Eq. 15-1 Eq. 15-1

calculate σc from calculate σc from

Eq. 3 Eq. 3

no no
i=i+1 εl≥εhc,rup εl≥εhr,frp i=i+1
yes yes

End
Fig. 7 The program flow

The compressive stresses and strains were set to be positive in concrete, and tensile stresses and
strains were positive in FRP. Therefore, the relationship between hoop strain of FRP
@ and
lateral strain of FRP
can be represented as following:

@ =-
(18)
Eq. 18 presented the lateral displacement compatibility between the confined concrete and FRP
sheets.

4.3 Comparison with test data

Fig. 8 shows the comparison between the proposed model and test data. As stress-strain curves

11
of the same preload ratio were similar to each other, this paper only presented four typical
stress-strain curves (i.e. stress-strain curve under preload ratio of 0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7) of every group
in order to facilitate observation and comparison.
40 60

axial-stress (MPa)
axial-stress (MPa)
35
50
30
40
25
NO.2: test NO.10: test
NO.2: predicted NO.10: predicted
20 30
NO.4: test NO.12: test
15 NO.4: predicted NO.12: predicted
NO.6: test 20 NO.14: test
10 NO.6: predicted NO.14: predicted
NO.8: test NO.16: test
10
5 NO.8: predicted NO.16: predicted
-6 -6
axial-strain (10 ) axial-strain (10 )
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Group 1 Group 2
45 65

axial-stress (MPa)
axial-stress (MPa)

60
40
55
35 50
30 45
NO.18: test 40
NO.26: test
25 NO.18: predicted 35 NO.26: predicted
20 NO.20: test 30 NO.28: test
NO.20: predicted 25 NO.28: predicted
15 NO.22: test NO.30: test
20
NO.22: predicted NO.30: predicted
10 NO.24: test 15
NO.32: test
NO.24: predicted 10
5 NO.32: predicted
-6 5 -6
axial-strain (10 ) axial-strain (10 )
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Group 3 Group 4
Fig. 8a Comparison with the test data for circular-section concrete columns
35 55
axial-stress (MPa)

axial-stress (MPa)

50
30
45
25 40
35
NO.34: test
20 30 NO.42: test
NO.34: predicted
NO.36: test NO.42: predicted
15 25 NO.44: test
NO.36: predicted
20 NO.44: predicted
No.38: test
10 NO.46: test
NO.38: predicted 15 NO.46: predicted
NO.40: test
10 NO.48: test
5 NO.40: predicted NO.48: predicted
-6 5 -6
axial-strain (10 ) axial-strain (10 )
0 0
0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.021

Group 5 Group 6
Fig. 8b Comparison with the test data for square-section concrete columns
For circular and square section, Fig. 8 shows that the proposed model can predict the axial
stress-strain responses of all specimens. The prediction results of peak-strains agree well with the
test results (except the peak-strain of specimen NO. 2) because the ultimate condition is
determined by
@ <
@,^0 (or
@,^0 ). Also, the prediction values of the peak-stress satisfy the
test results well, which further demonstrates the accuracy of the new failure surface which has
considered the preload effect. It is interesting to find that for Group 1 and Group 3 (both of them
are circular-section with one pile FRP), the proposed model tends to under-estimate the response
of FRP-confined concrete. However, for Group 2 and Group 4 (both of them are circular-section
with two piles FRP), the predicting model tends to over-estimate the response of FRP-confined

12
concrete. Noting that both  and 0 don’t consider the effect of the number of FRP files, thus,
in order to improve the accuracy of this model, further research should contain the number of FRP
piles in formulas of  and 0 .
For square section, the prediction response of the FRP-confined concrete satisfies the actual
response well too (except specimens NO. 34 and NO. 42, both of them are without preload). It is
also interesting to find that the predicted model tends to over-estimate the response before a
certain axial-strain value (different due to different preload ratios), but under-estimate the
response after this axial-strain, and the prediction curve and actual curve intersect with each other
at a point corresponding to this axial-strain. Meanwhile, the prediction tendency of the curves and
actual curves for specimens NO. 34 and NO. 42 will also intersect at the point with a certain
axial-strain beyond the
@,^0 if the FRP were not rupture at
@,^0 . The possible reason for this
phenomenon might be Eq. 5 was derived from the circular section, thus, it cannot be used for the
square section directly.

5. Finite-element simulation

5.1 General

In order to provide more accurate prediction about the FRP-confined concrete with preload, it is
necessary to perform some analysis with the number of FRP piles, which might effect
 and 0 as mentioned above, as a parameter. Firstly, some existing test data and
analysis-models were used to evaluate the accuracy of the finite-element simulation. Then, the
finite-element simulation ANASYS was used to analysis some parameters of the FRP-confined
concrete.
Elements SOLID65 and SHELL41 were used to simulate the concrete and FRP sheet
respectively. The common node was used as the bond between material concrete and FRP due to
there was no any debonding or slip during the experimental loading process. Drucker Prager yield
criterion was used to simulate the FRP-confined concrete, and the process of preloading was
simulated by birth-death element. The mesh generation and boundary conditions shown in Fig. 9
are for the circular and square section respectively.
Both the circular section and square section columns are axially symmetrical entities and
subjected to the axial pressure only. In order to improve the calculation speed and save the storage
space, only 1/4 of the structure was used in the finite element model. The symmetry constraints
were applied in the two symmetry planes. The mesh generation and constraint conditions for
circular section and square section columns are shown in Figure 9a and Figure 9b, respectively.

Fig. 9a The mesh generation and boundary conditions for circular-section

13
 Fig. 9b The mesh generation and boundary conditions for square-section

5.2 Comparison with the test data and proposed models

Fig. 10 shows comparison among the proposed models, test data and finite-element simulation.
As stress-strain curves of the same preload ratio were similar to each other, for easy to observation
and comparison, this paper only presented two typical stress-strain curves (i.e. stress-strain curve
with preload ratios 0.3, 0.7) of every group.
45 60
axial-stress (MPa)

55

axial-stress (MPa)
40
50
35 45
30 40
35
25
NO.2: Test 30 NO.12: Test
20 No.2: ANSYS 25 NO.12: ANSYS
NO.2: Model
15 20 NO.12: Model
NO.8: Test
15 NO.16: Test
10 NO.8: ANSYS
NO.16: ANSYS
NO.8: Model 10 NO.16: Model
5 -6
axial-strain (10 ) 5 -6
0 0 axial-strain (10 )
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Group 1 Group 2

50 65
axial-stress (MPa)

axial-stress (MPa)

45 60
55
40
50
35 45
30 40
35
25
NO.20: Test 30 NO.28: Test
20 NO.20: ANSYS 25 NO.28: ANSYS
NO.20: Model 20 NO.28: Model
15
NO.24: Test NO.32: Test
15 NO.32: ANSYS
10 NO.24: ANSYS
NO.24: Model 10 NO.32: Model
5 -6 5 -6
axial-strain (10 ) axial-strain (10 )
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.00000.00250.00500.0075 0.0100 0.0125 0.0150 0.0175 0.0200 0.0225

Group 3 Group 4
Fig. 10a Comparison with the test data and proposed models for circular-section concrete columns

14
 40 60

axial-stress (MPa)

axial-stress (MPa)
35
50
30

25 40

20 No.36: Test 30 NO.44: Test

NO.36: ANSYS NO.44: ANSYS
15 NO.40: Test NO.44: Model
NO.40: ANSYS 20
10
NO.48: Test
NO.36: Model NO.48: ANSYS
NO.40: Model 10 NO.48: Model
5
-6 -6
axial-strain (10 ) axial-strain (10 )
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Group 5 Group 6
Fig. 10b Comparison with the test data and proposed models for square-section concrete columns

As shown in Fig. 10, the finite-element simulation agrees well with the test data and prediction
model. Hence, the finite-element simulation is appropriate to analysis some parameters of
FRP-confined concrete. However, it should be mentioned that: (1) compared with the
double-linear model, the first portion of the parabola simulated by ANSYS program don’t meet
the second portion smoothly. The main reason of this phenomenon may be the property of
birth-death element which cannot simulate the initial stress redistribution between the FRP and
concrete when FRP sheets were wrapped; (2) finite-element simulations tend to under-estimate
 ,
the main reason for this phenomenon may be the limitation of Drucker Prager yield criterion
which is a typical elastic-plastic yield criterion. The FRP-confined concrete, however, is
characterized as a bilinear curve with an increasing second portion. The parameter
 will
increase with , , thus, the finite-element simulation which depends on Drucker Prager yield
criterion will under-estimate
 .

5.3 Effect of number of FRP piles

It is necessary to analysis the influence of the number of FRP piles when  ( ) and 0 (0 )
are taken into account. And this effect requires further verification with more reliable test results.
The finite-element simulation can provide numerical results with different number of FRP piles.
Fig. 11 shows relations of the peak-stress and peak-strain against the preload ratio, respectively,
both with different number of FRP piles.
εcc
fcc

0.040 1 pile
100 2 piles
1 pile 3 piles
90
2 piles 0.035
4 piles
3 piles
80 4 piles 0.030

70 0.025

60 0.020

50
0.015
40
0.010
30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 preload-ratio
preload-ratio
Fig. 11b The peak-strain against the preload ratio
Fig. 11a The peak-stress against the preload ratio with different number of FRP piles
with different number of FRP piles
15
 It is seen that both the strength and ductility will increase with the number of FRP piles. The
reason is that more FRP piles will provide more effective confinement around concrete columns.
However, with the same number of FRP piles, both the strength and ductility will decrease with
the increasing of preload ratios. And the reduced amount of peak-stress and peak-strain tends to
increase with the number of FRP piles, especially for specimens with 4 FRP piles. The main
reason for this phenomenon might be the effect of tensile strain lag is enlarged by the increasing
of the number of FRP piles.

6. Conclusion

This paper is concerned with the development of an analysis stress–strain model for circular and
square section FRP (only or predominant in hoop direction) confined concrete under preload. The
key novel feature of this model is a new failure surface for the FRP-confined concrete under
preload. The test data and finite element simulation were compared with predictions of the
proposed model to demonstrate its accuracy. Comparisons and discussions presented in this paper
allow the following conclusions to be drawn:
(1) The preload will decrease the peak-stress and peak-strain in the FRP-confined concrete, and
the decreased amount tends to increase with the increasing of preload ratio. The main reason
for this phenomenon is that there is micro crack in the concrete and tensile strain lag in FRP
sheets.
(2) An adjustable stress coefficient  (or k ) and strain coefficient 0 (or k 0 ) were introduced
in this paper to establish a new failure surface for FRP-confined concrete under preload. A
new analysis-oriented stress-strain model was proposed based on the new failure surface and
extant lateral-to-axial strain relationship. Results of this analysis-oriented model were
compared with the experimental results, and agree with the results well.
(3) Compared with the experimental and finite element simulation results, the analysis-oriented
model proposed in this paper was proved having enough accuracy to predict the peak-stress,
peak-strain and skeleton curves of the FRP-confined concrete under preload.
(4) With different number of FRP piles, different behaviours of FRP-confined concrete under
preload were found. Hence, the present author deduced that  (or k ) and 0 (or k 0 ) should
contain the explicitly factors which can represent the effect of FRP layer’s number. This
deduction was verified by the finite element simulation, but need more actual test results to
verify.

Acknowledgements
This study was generously funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 51108389) and Xihua University key fund (Grant No. z1120634). The authors are most
grateful to these organizations for their valuable support.

References

Becque, J., Patnaik, A.K., and Rizkalla, S. H.. Analytical models for concrete confined with FRP tubes. J. Compos.
Constr., 2003; 7(1):31–38.
Chun, S.S., and Park, H.C. (2002). Load carrying capacity and ductility of RC columns confined by carbon fiber
reinforced polymer. Proc.,3rd Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructure (CD-ROM).

16
Fam A.Z., Rizkalla S.H.. Confinement model for axially loaded concrete confined by circular fiber-reinforced
polymer tubes. ACI Structural Journal 2001; 98(4):451–61.
Harmon, T.G., Ramakrishnan, S., and Wang, E. H.. Confined concrete subjected to uniaxial monotonic loading. J.
Eng. Mech., 1998; 124(12), 1303–1309.
Harries, K.A., and Kharel, G.. Behavior and modeling of concrete subject to variable confining pressure. ACI
Mater. J., 2002; 99(2), 180–189.
Jiang, T, Teng, J.G. Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for FRP-confined concrete. ASCE J Eng Struct
2007;29(11):2968–86.
Jing, D.H. Researches on models of stress-strain and applications in rehabilitation for concrete confined by FRP.
China: Dissertation of Southeast University, 2006.
Lam, L, Teng, J.G.. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete. Constr. Build Mater. 2003;
17(6–7):471–89.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R.. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct.
Eng., 1988; 114(8), 1804–1826.
Mirmiran, A, Shahawy, M.. A new concrete-filled hollow FRP composite column. Composites, Part B, 1996;
27(3-4):263–268.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M.. Dilation characteristics of confined concrete. Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional
Materials 1997; 2(3):237–49.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M., Samaan, M. and El Echary, H.. Effect of Column Parameters on FRP-confined
Concrete. J. Compos. Constr., ASCE, 1998; 2(4): 175–185.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., Jian C. Lim, Thomas Vincent. FRP-confined concrete in circular sections: Review and
assessment of stress–strain models. Engineering Structures 2013; 49:1068-1088.
Pan, Y., Cao, S.Y., Jing, D.H., et al. Test and analysis of the axial stress-strain relationship of square-section
concrete columns confined by CFRP under preload. China Civil Eng. J., 2009; 42(1):23-29.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.,U.S.A.
Pessiki, S., Harries, K.A., Kestner, J.T., Sause, R. and Ricles, J.M.. Axial Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Confined with FRP Jackets. J. Compos. Constr., ASCE, 2001; 5(4): 237–245.
Popovics, S.. Numerical approach to the complete stress-strain relation for concrete. Cem. Concr. Res., 1973; 3(5),
583–599.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L.(1928). A study of the failure of concrete under combined
compressive stresses. Bulletin No. 185, Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, III.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L.(1929). The failure of plain and spirally reinforced concrete in
compression. Bulletin No.190, Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, III.
Rochette, P. and Labossiere, P. Axial testing of rectangular column models confined with composites. J Compos
Constr, ASCE 2000; 4(3):129 –36.
Samaan, M., Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M.. Model of concrete confined by fiber composites. J. Struct. Eng. 1998;
124:1025-1031
Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G.. FRP-confined concrete model. J. Compos. Constr., 1999; 3(3), 143–150.
Teng, J.G., Lam, L. Compressive behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete in elliptical
columns[J]. J. Struct. Eng., 2002; 128(12):1535-1543.
Teng, J.G., Huang, Y.L., Lam, L., Ye, L.. Theoretical model for fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete. ASCE
J Compos Constr., 2007; 11(2):201–10.
Xiao, J.Z., Long, H.Y., Shi, X.F., et al. Experimental study on behaviours of GFRP-confined concrete columns
with different section shapes. FRP/composites, 2003; 4: 21-26.

17
Xiao, Y., Wu, H.. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng
ASCE 2000; 12(2):139 –46.
Yang, X., Wei, J., Nanni, A. Shape effect on the performance of carbon fiber reinforced polymer wraps. J. Compos.
Constr., 2004; 8(5):444-451.

Notation
D Diameter of circular cross section p Strain reduction coefficient of square
concrete under preload
De Diameter of an equivalent circular for a H Length of a column
rectangular-section
S Side length of a square section column t Nominal thickness of FRP
,qrp Stress of FRP
qrp Ultimate strength of FRP
qrp Elastic modulus of FRP
s Axial strain of concrete
s Elastic modulus of unreinforced concrete
,s Stress of unconfined concrete
Radial strain of concrete
fl Confining pressure
ss Peak stress of FRP-confined concrete

ss Ultimate axial strain of unconfined
ss
 Ultimate axial strain of FRP-confined
concrete concrete

st

Peak stress of unconfined concrete
st Peak axial strain of unconfined concrete

u Circumferential strain of FRP
q Stress reduction coefficient of circular
qrp Ultimate strain of FRP sheet
concrete under preload
q Stress reduction coefficient of square p Strain reduction coefficient of circular
concrete under preload concrete under preload

@,^0 Rupture lateral-strain of a circular-section

@,^0 Rupture lateral-strain of a
column confined by CFRP sheet rectangular-section column confined by
CFRP sheet

18