ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 119-S79
Size Effect on Stress-Strain Model of Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Transverse Steel Reinforcement-
Confined Concrete
by Yun Tian, Jikai Zhou, Fengtong Bi, and Xiyao Zhao
The stress-strain relationship of concrete with carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) and transverse steel reinforcement
(TSR) is characterized by size effect. Uniaxial compression tests of
CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete cylinders in different sizes
under different confinements were carried out. It was found that
the stress-strain relationship of CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced
concrete has a noticeable size effect and constraint effect. The defor-
mation capacity of confined concrete improves with the increase of
constraint. When the specimen size is small, ductility improvement
is more evident due to the constraint effect. The confining effect of
CFRP and TSR cannot be linearly superimposed, and the interac-
tion must be considered to reflect the enhanced development of the
combined constraint. A stress-strain model of CFRP-TSR-confined
reinforced concrete considering size effect is proposed. It has been
proven to be applicable for single CFRP or TSR-confined condi-
tions and verified by existing literature data.
Keywords: carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP); reinforced concrete
cylinders; size effect; stress-strain model; transverse steel reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Lateral restraint can improve the strength and ductility of
concrete members. In addition to transverse steel reinforce-
ment (TSR), which is an effective material to provide lateral
restraint, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are
also widely used to strengthen existing reinforced concrete
columns.
Since the 1980s, scholars1-4 have paid close attention to
the bearing capacity of FRP-confined concrete columns and
established strength models for them. However, there has
been no uniform conclusion on the strength size effect of
FRP-confined concrete. In some experimental results,5-10 the
FRP-confined specimens did not exhibit obvious strength
size effect, while some other scholars11,12 proposed that the
size effect on the compressive strength could not be ignored
and put forward strength models of FRP-confined concrete
columns with varying specimen sizes.
In addition, size effect has also been considered in some
classical stress-strain models, such as the strength reduction
factor,13,14 though the factor cannot reflect the nonlinear
characteristics of bearing and deformation capacity of spec-
imens with the size variation. Jin et al.15,16 put forward a
stress-strain model of TSR-confined concrete under uniaxial
compression considering size effect. Zhou et al.12 established
a modified stress-strain model of FRP-confined concrete
considering size effect.
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
TECHNICAL PAPER
Most models for FRP-confined concrete columns are
limited to a specific confining material and do not consider
the confinement contribution from the internal transverse
steel reinforcement. In actual engineering, it is too conserva-
tive to ignore the restraint effect of internal transverse rein-
forcement when repairing the damaged concrete columns.
Most of the existing FRP-confined models are not suitable
for FRP-TSR-confined conditions.
To date, more attention has been paid to the stress-strain
relationship of TSR-FRP-confined concrete. A few avail-
able models are suitable to represent the uniaxial behavior
of TSR-FRP-confined concrete columns, most of which
have applicable restrictions on the type of column cross
section.17-23 Some scholars24-28 proposed a unified stress-
strain model for circular and square/rectangular sections,
and the model presented by Eid and Paultre28 is suitable for
concrete confined either internally with TSR or externally
with FRP, or both. Meanwhile, it should be noted that size
effect is not considered in these stress-strain models, and
the relative confining pressure of TSR and FRP are linearly
superimposed.
Zhou et al.29 carried out experimental research on the
bearing capacity of carbon FRP (CFRP)-TSR-confined rein-
forced concrete cylinders and established a strength model
considering size effect, which is suitable for TSR, CFRP,
and CFRP-TSR constraint conditions. This paper continues
to focus on the stress-strain relationship of CFRP-TSR-
confined reinforced concrete under uniaxial compression.
Uniaxial compression tests were carried out on different
sizes of CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete cylinders
under different confinements, based on which a stress-strain
model of CFRP-TSR-confined concrete is proposed, and
its main parameters give consideration to the size effect of
concrete.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
At present, there are few researches on the stress-strain
relationship of confined concrete with TSR and FRP. To
understand the factors influencing size effect, the exper-
imental study on uniaxial compression performance
ACI Structural Journal, V. 119, No. 4, July 2022.
MS No. S-2021-045.R2, doi: 10.14359/51734654, received November 3, 2021, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2022, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
85
Table 1—Geometric details of reinforced concrete cylinders
Specimens d, mm h, mm Unconfined concrete strength, MPa Steel reinforcement ρcc, % ρst, % CFRP layers
SL0-3 150 300 28.89 3ϕ8 + ϕ6/50 1.78 2.31 0 to 3
SH0-3 150 300 28.89 3ϕ8 + ϕ6/75 1.78 1.54 0 to 3
ML0-3 190 380 25.43 3ϕ10 + ϕ8/65 1.49 2.31 0 to 3
MH0-3 190 380 25.43 3ϕ10 + ϕ8/98 1.49 1.54 0 to 3
LH0-3 240 480 21.03 2ϕ12 + 1ϕ14 + ϕ10/75 1.34 2.31 0 to 3

Note: ρcc is ratio of area of longitudinal reinforcement to area of core of section; ρst is ratio of volume of transverse confining steel to volume of confined concrete core. Unconfined
concrete strength was determined according to Chinese code (GB 50081-2019). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Fig. 1—Reinforced concrete cylinder details.

of FRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete columns is
conducted to establish a more reasonable and accurate theo-
retical model and related design methods. The stress-strain
model of CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete and the
calculation formulas of its main parameters considering size
effect are proposed in the present paper, which provide a
theoretical basis for the engineering design of CFRP-TSR
confined reinforced concrete cylinders, which fills the
current gap.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
An experimental study of CFRP-TSR-confined rein-
forced concrete under uniaxial compression was proposed.29
Cylinders of different diameters (150, 190, and 240 mm
[5.910, 7.486, and 9.456 in.]) were produced under different
confinements (CFRP sheets of one, two, and three layers,
and TSR of 1.54% and 2.31% ratio). A stress-strain model
of CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete and calculation
formulas of its main parameters were established to consider
size effect.
Materials
The compressive strength of unconstrained concrete cylin-
ders with different sizes can be found in Table 1. The trans-
verse spirals reinforcement has an average yield strength
of fyt = 300 MPa (43,500 psi), and the yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcements is fy = 400 MPa (58,000 psi). The
mechanical properties of the CFRP sheets are as follows: ply
thickness, tfrp = 0.167 mm (6.580 × 10–3 in.); tensile strength,
ffrp = 3500 MPa (5.075 × 105 psi); and elastic modulus, Efrp =
242 GPa (3.509 × 107 psi).
Specimens
In the present test, a total of 20 sets of reinforced concrete
cylinders were cast, each of which corresponded to a
constraint condition under one size. Each group had three
specimens with a clear concrete cover of 20 mm (0.788 in.).
The geometric details of the specimens are shown in Table 1
and Fig. 1.
Test setup
The steel reinforcement cage was placed in a polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) tube before casting the concrete, and the
reinforced concrete specimens were cured for 28 days. Four
strain gauges were attached to the specimens, as shown in
Fig. 2. All the adjacent strain gauges were equally spaced.
All the strain gauges were sealed and insulated with silica
gel. CFRP was wrapped around the specimens after the
solidification of the silica gel.
The specimens were tested with two different appara-
tuses. The TSR-confined concrete cylinders were tested
with a 1000 kN (224.8 kip) hydraulic servo press, and the
CFRP-TSR-confined concrete cylinders were tested with
a 10,000 kN (2248 kip) hydraulic jack. The testing system
was calibrated before the test. Data are collected through
acquisition systems which could be integrated into the
testing apparatus. The loading procedure was controlled by
a hydraulic valve, which was the static loading method. The
loading speed was first set as 2 kN/s (0.45 kip/s) during the
elastic stage of the real-time curve. When the slope of the
curve declined, the loading speed was reduced to 1 kN/s
(0.22 kip/s). After specimens reached the critical state, which
was when an apparent expansion showed in the middle of

86 ACI Structural Journal/July 2022

Fig. 2—Strain gauge details.
Fig. 3—Stress-strain relationship of TSR-CFRP-confined reinforced concrete. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
the height, the loading speed was reduced to 0.5 kN/s until
failure.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
According to the average value of data collected by strain
gauges in each direction, the representative uniaxial pres-
sure-concrete strain curves are drawn in Fig. 3. The stress-
strain curve of CFRP-confined concrete under uniaxial
compression shows a feature of two stages. There are two
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
sets of key parameters in Fig. 4, which are turning point (fct,
ε1) and ultimate point (fcc′, εcu). Ec0′ and Ec′ are the secant
modulus at ultimate stress of unconfined concrete and
confined concrete, respectively, and interception strength fc,i′
is the interception point of the opposite extension line of the
strengthening stage (elastic modulus E2) in the stress-strain
curve on the stress axis. The ratio of interception strength to
the uniaxial compressive strength of unconfined concrete is
called the increase coefficient of interception strength fc,i′/fc0;
87
 spiral between bar centers; s is spacing between spiral or
hoop bars; and ρcc is steel ratio relative to the concrete core
section.
The test results of the related parameters are summarized
in Table 2, and a coefficient that can measure the specimen
deformation ability in the strengthening stage is given as
follows

δ = δu – δt (6)

where δu and δt are the ductility factor of the ultimate state

and turning point, respectively

ε cu ε
δu = ; δt = 1 (7)
εc0 εc0
where ε1 is strain of turning point of confined concrete; εcu
is ultimate strain of confined concrete; εc0 is ultimate strain
of unconfined specimen with the same size, adapted from
Fig. 4—Stress-strain model of CFRP-confined concrete.
Eurocode 2,31 with εc0 = (0.7/1000)fc′0.31; and fc′ is the stan-
fcc′ is the uniaxial compressive strength of confined concrete; dard cylinder compressive strength.
and the relative confining pressure is defined by the ratio According to Eq. (6) and (7), the strain data from Table 2
of lateral confinement pressure to the uniaxial compressive are processed in Fig. 5 to 7, where the x-axis of the (a)
strength of unconfined concrete, calculated as and (b) parts of each figure are the specimen diameter and
constraint ratio, respectively.
kv σ rs The ductility of the specimen has a considerable improve-
β rs = (1) ment when either increasing the TSR ratio or CFRP
f c′0
constraint. Taking the 150 mm (5.9 in.) diameter specimen as
an example, compared with 1.54% TSR ratio and two-layer
σ rf CFRP, the δu increment increases by 54% with three-layer
β rf = (2)
f c′0 CFRP, while the δu increment increases by 13% with a
where σrs and σrf are the radial constraint pressure of TSR 2.31% TSR ratio. It can be found that the CFRP constraint
and CFRP, given by Eq. (3) and (4); and kv is the confine- is more effective than the TSR constraint in improving the
ment effectiveness parameters of TSR,30 given by Eq. (5) deformation capacity of concrete.
It can be found that under the same constraint, the smaller
the specimen diameter, the faster the improvement of its
 2 E frp ε rf t frp
 for ε rf ≤ ε frp ductility. δ of 150 mm (5.9 in.) diameter specimens with a
d 2.31% TSR ratio under three-layer CFRP is 63% higher than
σ rf =  (3)
 2 f frp t frp that under two-layer CFRP confinement. In comparison, that
for ε rf ≥ ε frp
 d of 190 mm (7.4 in.) diameter specimens is 36%, and that
of 240 mm (9.4 in.) diameter specimens is 17%. When the
 2 E yt ε rs Ass1 diameter is smaller, the constraint effect on the ductility is
 for ε rs ≤ ε yt
 sd cor significantly improved.
σ rs =  (4)
Essentially, the ductility of confined concrete is related to
 2 f yt Ass1 for ε rs ≥ ε yt
 sd cor the constraint ratio, which is determined by the mechanical
properties of the restraint material and the specimen size.
where Efrp, εrf, εfrp, and ffrp are the elastic modulus, lateral failure For any size specimen in this test, increasing the constraint
strain, ultimate tensile strain, and ultimate tensile strength of ratio can significantly improve the ductility of the specimen.
the CFRP jacket, respectively; Eyt, εrs, εyt, fyt, and Ass1 are the
elastic modulus, lateral failure strain, ultimate tensile strain, ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
ultimate tensile strength, and section area of TSR, respec- Stress-strain model of CFRP-TSR-confined
tively; and dcor is the core diameter of the specimen concrete cylinders considering size effect
Zhou et al.12 proposed a stress-strain model of FRP-
 s 
n
confined concrete cylinders considering size effect, which
1 − 2d  is taken as a reference to propose a stress-strain model of
kv =
s
(5) TSR-CFRP-confined reinforced concrete considering size
1 − ρcc effect in this paper. The proposed model has five assumptions:
where n = either 1 or 2 for cylinders confined by spiral 1. The line type of the first stage curve is a parabola.
reinforcements or by hoops, respectively; ds is diameter of 2. The line type of the second stage curve is straight.

88 ACI Structural Journal/July 2022

Table 2—Test data of key parameters of stress-strain model
d, mm No. βrs βrf Ec0′, GPa Ec′, GPa Ec0′/Ec′ fc,i′, MPa fc,i′/fc0′ fcc′, MPa εcu ε1
SL0 0.052 0.000 14.548 11.027 1.319 — — 28.85 0.002257 —
SL1 0.052 0.270 14.548 6.502 2.238 28.76 1.00 53.64 0.007725 0.002148
SL2 0.052 0.540 14.548 7.149 2.035 28.84 1.00 79.44 0.010635 0.002341
SL3 0.052 0.809 14.548 5.317 2.736 29.60 1.03 93.88 0.016365 0.003198
150
SH0 0.093 0.000 14.548 9.874 1.473 — — 29.67 0.002666 —
SH1 0.093 0.270 14.548 4.575 3.180 27.86 0.96 57.17 0.011740 0.002542
SH2 0.093 0.540 14.548 7.123 2.043 28.91 1.00 89.15 0.012037 0.002833
SH3 0.093 0.809 14.548 4.956 2.936 29.42 1.02 95.38 0.018557 0.003572
ML0 0.061 0.000 12.806 13.792 0.929 — — 27.74 0.001769 —
ML1 0.061 0.242 12.806 6.833 1.874 27.88 1.10 48.93 0.006669 0.002108
ML2 0.061 0.484 12.806 6.555 1.954 27.01 1.06 68.93 0.009704 0.002200
ML3 0.061 0.726 12.806 5.833 2.196 34.18 1.34 82.64 0.013500 0.002535
190
MH0 0.107 0.000 12.806 13.093 0.978 — — 28.38 0.001924 —
MH1 0.107 0.242 12.806 5.366 2.387 23.62 0.93 51.27 0.008972 0.002114
MH2 0.107 0.484 12.806 5.711 2.242 29.07 1.14 71.73 0.011746 0.002357
MH3 0.107 0.726 12.806 5.302 2.415 26.61 1.05 86.65 0.015478 0.002706
LH0 0.134 0.000 10.590 15.123 0.700 — — 27.37 0.001633 —
LH1 0.134 0.232 10.590 10.336 1.025 21.34 1.02 50.08 0.004770 0.001997
240
LH2 0.134 0.463 10.590 5.667 1.869 22.42 1.07 56.43 0.009248 0.002272
LH3 0.134 0.695 10.590 6.049 1.751 32.86 1.56 67.63 0.010670 0.002528

Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145,000 psi.

Fig. 5—Influence of confinement on ductility at turning point.

3. The interception strength and turning point strain in the where n = 2 – (1/60)(fcu,k – 50) (n = 2 when n ≥ 2); fcu,k is
second stage are related to relative confining pressure. standard cube strength of concrete (MPa), 20 MPa ≤ fcu,k ≤
4. The curve is connected smoothly between the first stage 80 MPa; E2 = (fcc′ – fc,i′)/εcu; A and As are the area of the
and the second. specimen and longitudinal reinforcements, respectively; and
5. Peak strength and ultimate strain will be reached at the σs is the tensile stress of longitudinal reinforcement, which
end of the second-stage curve. is calculated according to Eq. (9) for low-strength steel bars
Based on the previous assumptions, the following stress- and Eq. (10) for high-strength steel bars
strain model is proposed
σ s = Es ε s for ε s ≤ ε y
(9)
  ε  n
A σs = f y for ε y ≤ ε s ≤ ε s ,u
σ cc = f c′,i 1 −  1 − cc   + E2 ε cc + σ s s 0 ≤ ε cc ≤ ε1
  ε1   A σ s = Es ε s for ε s ≤ ε y
(8)
A f s ,u − f y (10)
σ cc = f c′,i + E2 ε cc + σ s s
A
ε1 ≤ ε cc ≤ ε cu (
σs = f y + εs − ε y )ε − εy
for ε y ≤ ε s ≤ ε s ,u
s ,u

ACI Structural Journal/July 2022 89

Fig. 6—Influence of confinement on ductility at ultimate state.

Fig. 7—Influence of confinement on ductility in strengthening stage.

where εy and εs,u are the strain of the steel bar at the yield f c′,i 1 1
state and ultimate state, respectively. = 1+ −6
β rf + −6
β rs (14)
f c′0 d d
Zhou et al.29 established a strength model considering size 1 + 15   1 + 30  
effect, which is suitable for TSR, CFRP, and CFRP-TSR  d0   d0 
constraint conditions
 

 
f cc′ hd   hd 
ε1 = ε c 0 1 +
150
( ) 
1.7
= f c′0 + k s kv σ rs + k f σ rf = f c′0 +  2 − 0.1 kv σ rs +  3.5 − 0.1
1 σ rf β rs + β rf (15)
 h0 d 0   h0 d 0   2 
 1 + 75  d  
 (11)   d  
0

where fc0′ is uniaxial compressive strength of the unconfined Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12), the ultimate compres-
concrete cylinder; ks and kf are the confinement effectiveness sive strain of confined concrete can be obtained. For CFRP-
coefficient of CFRP and TSR, respectively; and h0 and d0 are TSR-confined concrete, the interaction between TSR and
the height and diameter of the standard specimen, respec- CFRP constraints needs to be considered, and the confinement
tively—h0 = 300 mm (11.8 in.) and d0 = 150 mm (5.9 in.). effects of the two materials are coupled, as shown in Eq. (16)
The ultimate compressive strain is calculated as follows
ε cu = ε c 0 1 + α (β rs + β rf ) 1 +  2 − 0.1 hd
( )   hd  
f cc′ E′ E′ E′  hd  β rs +  3.5 − 0.1 h d  β rf 
  
ε cu = = ε c 0 c 0 + k1ε c 0 c 0 β rs + k2 ε c 0 c 0 β rf (12) 0 0 0 0

Ec′ Ec′ Ec′ Ec′  (16)

By fitting the data in Table 2, the parameters Ec0′/Ec′, fc,i′/
fc0′, and ε1 are given by The interception strength of confined concrete is taken as
the following form
Ec′0

Ec′
(
= 1 + α β rs + β rf ; α = 2 ) (13)
f c′,i = f c′0 +
1
σ rf +
1
kv σ rs (17)
−6 −6
d d
1 + 15   1 + 30  
 d0   d0 

90 ACI Structural Journal/July 2022

Fig. 8—Comparison between tested curves and stress-strain model fitting curves.
Substituting Eq. (11), (15), (16), and (17) into Eq. (8),
the stress-strain model of CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced
concrete is established, and its main parameters consider the
size effect of concrete.
The comparison between the predicted curve and the test
curve is summarized in Fig. 8. To intuitively express the
strength growth of confined concrete, the Y-axis is treated
as σcc/fc0′, where the value of fc0′ is shown in Table 1. The
conditions of TSR constraint and CFRP-TSR constraint are
shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b) to (d), respectively.
It can be found in Fig. 8(a) that the model proposed for
CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete also applies well
on TSR constraint alone. For CFRP-TSR-confined spec-
imens, most errors between the predicted and measured
constitutive curves are within 10%. Though predictions of
SH1/SL3/LH2 are higher than the test values, the maximum
relative error is still within 20%. The stress-strain relation-
ships are well predicted for specimens with different restraint
conditions and different diameters.
It should be noted that an upper limit for the ultimate
compressive strain of confined concrete should exist, as it
cannot increase indefinitely along with the relative confining
pressure under triaxial compression. Yet, the experiments in
this paper could not determine the critical ultimate compres-
sive strain of confined concrete due to the limitation of the
test data. The value can be predicted by data from other liter-
ature cited in Table 3.
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
Comparison of ultimate strain calculation and
existing data
Table 3 summarizes the experimental results from work
published to date, including a paper about ultra-high-
performance concrete (UHPC) confined by TSR and CFRP.
Additionally, the concrete cylinders confined by FRP or
TSR only are also included in this experimental database
to examine the applicability of the stress-strain model when
applied to a case with single confinement.
From Table 3, it may be concluded that for the calcula-
tion formula of ultimate compressive strain proposed in this
paper, the value of α in different literatures mainly varies
between 1 and 10, and 5 appears most frequently, and the
value of α for UHPC is the largest. Compared with linearly
superimposing, coupling the two confining effects reflects
the enhanced effect of the combined constraint on the ulti-
mate compressive strain, as α is a positive value.
The variation of the relative confining pressure within a
certain range has little effect on the value of α in the same
literature. The tests19,33 considered five-layer CFRP and
3.02% TSR ratio conditions, and the ultimate compressive
strain test values are listed in Table 4. For specimens with
intensive restraint, the ultimate compressive strain will tend
to a constant value, and the average value of 0.036 in Table 4
is taken as the critical value. Equation (16) has been revised
to take 0.036 when the calculated strain exceeds 0.036.
The error between the calculated value from Eq. (16)
and the measured values of ultimate compressive strain is
91
Table 3—Summary of test database Table 4—Ultimate strain test data for specimens
d, h, TSR ratio-layer of
under intensive restraint effect
Research mm mm CFRP ρcc α Research TSR ratio-layer of CFRP εcu
TSR0.22%-CFRP2 5CFRP 0.031
150 750 TSR0.15%-CFRP2 0.96% 1.01%TSR-5CFRP 0.036
TSR0.445%-CFRP2 1.51%TSR-5CFRP 0.036
Chastre and Silva18 TSR0.33%-CFRP1 5 3.02%TSR 0.038
TSR0.33%-CFRP2 Lee et al.19 3.02%TSR-1CFRP 0.039
250 750 1.38%
TSR0.33%-CFRP3 3.02%TSR-2CFRP 0.036
TSR0.33%-CFRP4 3.02%TSR-3CFRP 0.034
CFRP1~5 3.02%TSR-4CFRP 0.038
TSR1.01%-CFRP1~5 3.02%TSR-5CFRP 0.043
Lee et al.19 150 300 0.0% 5
TSR1.51%-CFRP1~5 Shahawy et al. 33
5CFRP 0.034
TSR3.02%-CFRP1~5
Xiao and Wu32 152 305 CFRP1~3 0.0% 5
Shahawy et al. 33
152 305 CFRP1~5 0.0% 1
CFRP1/3 0.0% 2
Benzaid et al.34 160 320
TSR1.00%- CFRP1/3 2.25% 8
Yin et al.35
150 300 TSR1.416%-CFRP1~3 0.0% 8
TSR1.51%- CFRP2/4
Eid et al.36 300 1200 1.67% 6
TSR2.33%- CFRP2/4
TSR0.18%-CFRP3 1.08%
TSR1.18%-CFRP3 2.25%
TSR0.36%-CFRP3 3.20%

Demers and TSR0.59%-CFRP3 5.57%

300 1200 3
Neale37 TSR0.36%-CFRP3 1.08%
TSR0.59%-CFRP3 2.25%
TSR0.18%-CFRP3 3.20%
Fig. 9—Evaluation of proposed formula of ultimate compres-
TSR1.18%-CFRP3 5.57%
sive strain.
256 768 TSR1.26% 0.29%
For CFRP-confined conventional concrete cylinders (the
Du et al.38 384 1152 TSR1.26% 0.29% 5
SF0 series in Lee et al.,19 Xiao and Wu,32 Shahawy et al.,33
576 1728 TSR1.26% 0.29% and the PCC series in Benzaid et al.34), the predicted curves
CFRP2 are all in good agreement with the measured curves. It
TSR1.0%-CFRP2 can be concluded that the proposed stress-strain model of
CFRP-TSR-confined concrete is suitable for CFRP-confined
TSR1.2%-CFRP2
Chang et al.39 150 300 1.78% 10 conditions.
TSR1.4%-CFRP2 For TSR-confined conventional concrete cylinders (the
TSR1.6%-CFRP2 CA and CCA series in Du et al.38), the proposed model can
TSR2.0%-CFRP2 predict the stress-strain curve of 256 mm (10.1 in.) diam-
eter specimens well. Although this model has some errors in
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
predicting the stress at the turning point for larger-diameter
shown in Fig. 9. Most of the results distributed evenly on concrete cylinders, it can better predict the elastic stage and
both sides of the diagonal and within a reasonable error of peak stress.
±15% (dotted line). The calculated value/experimental value For CFRP-TSR-confined conventional concrete cylinders,
average value (AV) is 1.00, the standard deviation of calcu- the height-diameter ratio designed in References 18, 19, and
lated value/experimental value (SD) is 0.14, and the average 34 to 37 was between 2 and 5. Except for the prediction error
absolute error (AAE) is 12.12%. of some data from Lee et al.,19 Xiao and Wu,32 and Demers
and Neale37 being between 15 and 20%, the relative error
Prediction of confined conventional concrete between the prediction curve of this model and the measured
Figure 10 compares the curve predicted in this paper with curve of most literature is within 15%.
the curve collected from the literature in Table 3.

92 ACI Structural Journal/July 2022

Fig. 10—Evaluation of proposed stress-strain model for existing experimental study.
It can be considered that the proposed model can predict
most constrained conditions well. From the result, the stress-
strain model considering size effect for CFRP-TSR-confined
reinforced concrete cylinders is suitable for CFRP constraint
alone. This model is also accurate for specimens with a high
height-diameter ratio.
Prediction of CFRP-TSR-confined UHPC
Ordinary portland cement, silica fume, quartz sand, and
high-range water-reducing admixture were used by Chang
et al.39 to obtain two kinds of UPHC with different strengths.
High-strength steel bars were used as longitudinal bars. TSR
and CFRP were used as practical lateral constraints. The
uniaxial compression test of confined UHPC was carried out,
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
and the maximum compressive strength was 120.92  MPa
(17,530 psi).
The parameter formulas in the model proposed in this paper
are based on standard and experimental data of conventional
concrete (20 MPa ≤ fcu,k ≤ 80 MPa) even though the compres-
sive strength of UHPC was much higher than that, and their
difference in mechanical properties cannot be overlooked.
Therefore, Eq. (10), (14), (15), and (16) will no longer be
applicable, and only the applicability of the proposed stress-
strain model for confined concrete is concerned.
The test value of Chang et al.39 is substituted into
Eq. (8), where the value of n is calculated as fcu,k = 80 MPa
(11,600 psi), n = 1.5. Figure 11 shows the predicted curves
in Eq. (8) and the measured curves. It can be found that the
93
Fig. 11—Evaluation of proposed stress-strain model for CFRP-TSR-confined UHPC.
model proposed in this paper can predict the stress-strain
curve of confined UHPC in uniaxial compression. The
applicability of the proposed stress-strain model in confined
UHPC has been verified.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper is to understand the influence
of size effect on the stress-strain relationship of reinforced
concrete confined by carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) and transverse steel reinforcement (TSR). The
uniaxial compression tests of CFRP-TSR-confined rein-
forced concrete cylinders of different sizes under different
confinements were conducted to study the influence of
CFRP constraint, TSR ratio, and specimen size on the ulti-
mate compressive strain, turning point strain, and intercep-
tion strength in the stress-strain curve. Conclusions can be
drawn from the present study as follows:
1. It was found that the ductility of confined concrete is
essentially related to the constraint ratio, which is deter-
mined by the mechanical properties of the restraint mate-
rial and specimen size. For any specimen size in this test,
increasing the constraint ratio can significantly improve the
ductility of the specimen, and the CFRP constraint is more
effective than the TSR constraint.
2. The axial compression stress-strain model of CFRP-
TSR-confined reinforced concrete is proposed based on the
experimental data, reflecting the influence of the size effect
and constraint effect. For the ultimate compressive strain of
CFRP-TSR-confined reinforced concrete, the interaction
between TSR and CFRP constraint is considered to reflect
the enhancement effect of the combined restraint.
3. The reliability and rationality of the proposed model
are verified with the test data of the existing literature. It is
found that the model is not only applicable for CFRP-TSR-
confined conditions but also ideal for single CFRP- or
TSR-confined conditions, indicating a more comprehensive
range of applications. Based on literature data, it is consid-
ered that confined concrete has a limited ultimate strain, and
the ultimate compressive strain formula proposed in this
paper is revised.
AUTHOR BIOS
Yun Tian is a PhD Student at the College of Civil and Transportation Engi-
neering, Hohai University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China, where she
94
received her BS in 2017. Her research interests include engineering appli-
cation of composite materials.
Jikai Zhou is a Professor at the College of Civil and Transportation Engi-
neering, Hohai University, where he received his MS and PhD. He received
his BS from Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, People’s Republic
of China. His research interests include the basic theory and calculation
method of concrete structures.
Fengtong Bi was a Student at the College of Civil and Transportation Engi-
neering, Hohai University, where he received his MS in 2016. He received
his BS from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan,
People’s Republic of China, in 2013. His research interests include applica-
tion of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites.
Xiyao Zhao is a PhD Student at the College of Civil and Transportation
Engineering, Hohai University, where she received her BS in 2017. Her
research interests include dynamic mechanical properties of concrete.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 52079047 and No. 51479048) and the National Key Research
and Development Program of China (2017YFC0404902). The research was
also supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Univer-
sities (No. B200203082) and Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation
Program of Jiangsu Province (No. KYCX21_0492).
REFERENCES
1. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., “Design-Oriented Stress-Strain Model For
FRP-Confined Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 17,
No. 6-7, 2003, pp. 471-489. doi: 10.1016/S0950-0618(03)00045-X
2. Teng, J. G.; Jiang, T.; Lam, L.; and Luo, Y. Z., “Refinement of Lam and
Teng’s Design-Oriented Stress-Strain Model For FRP-Confined Concrete,”
IABSE Symposium Report, V. 92, No. 1, 2011, pp. 68-75.
3. Jiang, T., and Teng, J. G., “Analysis-Oriented Stress-Strain Models
For FRP-Confined Concrete,” Engineering Structures, V. 29, No. 11, 2007,
pp. 2968-2986. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.010
4. Harries, K. A.; Peck, A. J.; and Abraham, E. J., “Enhancing Stability
of Structural Steel Sections Using FRP,” Thin-Walled Structures, V. 47,
No. 10, 2009, pp. 1092-1101. doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2008.10.007
5. Thériault, M.; Neale, K. W.; and Claude, S., “Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Confined Circular Concrete Columns: Investigation of Size and
Slenderness Effects,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 8,
No. 4, 2004, pp. 323-331. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:4(323)
6. Matthys, S.; Toutanji, H.; Audenaert, K.; and Taerwe, L., “Axial
Load Behavior of Large-Scale Columns Confined with Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Composites,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.
2005, pp. 258-267.
7. Carey, S. A., and Harries, K. A., “Axial Behavior and Modeling of
Confined Small-, Medium-, and Large-Scale Circular Sections with Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 4,
July-Aug. 2005, pp. 596-604.
8. Yeh, F. Y., and Chang, K. C., “Confinement Efficiency and Size
Effect of FRP Confined Circular Concrete Columns,” Structural Engi-
neering and Mechanics, V. 26, No. 2, 2007, pp. 127-150. doi: 10.12989/
sem.2007.26.2.127
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
 9. Akogbe, R. K.; Liang, M.; and Wu, Z. M., “Size Effect of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of CFRP Confined Concrete Cylinders,” Interna-
tional Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, V. 5, No. 1, 2011,
pp. 49-55. doi: 10.4334/IJCSM.2011.5.1.049
10. Liang, M.; Wu, Z. M.; Ueda, T.; Zheng, J. J.; and Akogbe, R., “Exper-
iment and Modeling on Uniaxial Behavior of Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Confined Concrete Cylinders with Different Sizes,” Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, V. 31, No. 6, 2012, pp. 389-403. doi:
10.1177/0731684412439347
11. Wang, Y. F., and Wu, H. L., “Size Effect of Concrete Short Columns
Confined with Aramid FRP Jackets,” Journal of Composites for Construc-
tion, ASCE, V. 15, No. 4, 2011, pp. 535-544. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000178
12. Zhou, J. K.; Bi, F. T.; Wang, Z. Q.; and Zhang, J., “Experimental
Investigation of Size Effect on Mechanical Properties of Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Confined Concrete Circular Specimens,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 127, 2016, pp. 643-652. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.039
13. Park, R.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Gill, W. D., “Ductility of
Square-Confined Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 108, No. 4, 1982, pp. 929-950. doi: 10.1061/JSDEAG.0005933
14. Légeron, F., and Paultre, P., “Uniaxial Confinement Model for
Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 2, 2003, pp. 241-252. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(241)
15. Jin, L.; Li, P.; Du, X. L.; and Fan, L. L., “Size Effect on Nominal
Strength of Circular Stirrup-Confined RC Columns Under Uniaxial
Compression: Mesoscale Study,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 146, No. 3, 2020, p. 04019213. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002516
16. Jin, L.; Li, P.; and Du, X. L., “Compressive Stress-Strain Model for
Stirrup-Confined Concrete Columns Considering the Effect of Structural
Size,” Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, V. 42, No. 1, 2020,
pp. 81-89. (in Chinese)
17. Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Smith, S. T.; and Lu, D., “CFRP-Confined
Square RC Columns. II: Cyclic Uniaxial Compression Stress-Strain
Model,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 16, No. 2,
2012, pp. 161-170. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000246
18. Chastre, C., and Silva, M. A. G., “Monotonic Uniaxial Behavior
and Modelling of RC Circular Columns Confined with CFRP,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 32, No. 8, 2010, pp. 2268-2277. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.04.001
19. Lee, J. Y.; Yi, C. K.; Jeong, H. S.; Kim, S. W.; and Kim, J. K.,
“Compressive Response of Concrete Confined with Steel Spirals and
FRP Composites,” Journal of Composite Materials, V. 44, No. 4, 2010,
pp. 481-504. doi: 10.1177/0021998309347568
20. Hu, H., and Seracino, R., “Analytical Model for FRP-and-Steel-Con-
fined Circular Concrete Columns in Compression,” Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 3, 2014, pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000394
21. Shirmohammadi, F.; Esmaeily, A.; and Kiaeipour, Z., “Stress-Strain
Model for Circular Concrete Columns Confined by FRP and Conventional
Lateral Steel,” Engineering Structures, V. 84, 2015, pp. 395-405. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.005
22. Eid, R., and Paultre, P., “Plasticity-Based Model for Circular Concrete
Columns Confined with Fibre-Composite Sheets,” Engineering Structures,
V. 29, No. 12, 2007, pp. 3301-3311. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.09.005
23. Eid, R., and Paultre, P., “Analytical Model for FRP-Confined
Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 12, No. 5, 2008, pp. 541-552. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)12:5(541)
ACI Structural Journal/July 2022
24. Harajli, M. H.; Hantouche, E.; and Soudki, K., “Stress-Strain Model
for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Jacketed Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 103, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2006, pp. 672-682.
25. Ilki, A.; Peker, O.; Karamuk, E.; Demir, C.; and Kumbasar, N., “FRP
Retrofit of Low and Medium Strength Circular and Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 20,
No. 2, 2008, pp. 169-188. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:2(169)
26. Pellegrino, C., and Modena, C., “Analytical Model for FRP Confine-
ment of Concrete Columns with and without Internal Steel Reinforce-
ment,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 14, No. 6, 2010,
pp. 693-705. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000127
27. Rousakis, T. C., and Tourtouras, I. S., “Modeling of Passive and
Active External Confinement of RC Columns with Elastic Material,”
Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, V. 95, No. 10, 2015,
pp. 1046-1057.
28. Eid, R., and Paultre, P., “Compressive Behavior of FRP-Confined
Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Engineering Structures, V. 132, No. 1,
2017, pp. 518-530. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.052
29. Zhou, J. K.; Tian, Y.; Bi, F. T.; and Zhao, X. Y., “Size Effect on
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Cylinders Confined by Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer and Transverse Stirrup Reinforcement,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 118, No. 2, Mar. 2021, pp. 263-272.
30. Harajli, M. H., “Axial Stress–Strain Relationship for FRP
Confined Circular and Rectangular Concrete Columns,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 28, No. 10, 2006, pp. 938-948. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2006.07.005
31. EN 1992-1-1, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part
1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
32. Xiao, Y., and Wu, H., “Compressive Behavior of Concrete
Confined by Carbon Fiber Composite Jackets,” Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 12, No. 2, 2000, pp. 139-146. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2000)12:2(139)
33. Shahawy, M.; Mirmiran, A.; and Beitelman, T., “Tests and Modeling
of Carbon-Wrapped Concrete Columns,” Composites. Part B, Engineering,
V. 31, No. 6-7, 2000, pp. 471-480. doi: 10.1016/S1359-8368(00)00021-4
34. Benzaid, R.; Mesbah, H.; and Chikh, E. N., “FRP-Confined Concrete
Cylinders: Uniaxial Compression Experiments and Strength Model,”
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, V. 29, No. 16, 2010,
pp. 2469-2488. doi: 10.1177/0731684409355199
35. Yin, P.; Huang, L.; Yan, L.; and Zhu, D., “Compressive Behavior
of Concrete Confined by CFRP and Transverse Spiral Reinforcement. Part
A: Experimental Study,” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Construc-
tions, V. 49, No. 3, 2016, pp. 1001-1011.
36. Eid, R.; Roy, N.; and Paultre, P., “Normal- and High-Strength
Concrete Circular Elements Wrapped with FRP Composites,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 13, No. 2, 2009, pp. 113-124. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2009)13:2(113)
37. Demers, M., and Neale, K. W., “Confinement of Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Fibre-Reinforced Composite Sheets - An Experi-
mental Study,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 26, No. 2, 1999,
pp. 226-241. doi: 10.1139/l98-067
38. Du, M.; Jin, L.; Du, X.; and Li, D., “Size Effect Tests of Stocky
Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined by Stirrups,” Structural Concrete,
V. 18, No. 3, 2017, pp. 454-465. doi: 10.1002/suco.201600074
39. Chang, W.; Hao, M.; and Zheng, W. Z., “Compressive Behavior
of UHPC Confined by Both Spiral Stirrups and Carbon Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP),” Construction and Building Materials, V. 230, 2020,
p. 117007. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117007
95
CALL FOR ACTION
ACI Invites You To...
Do you have EXPERTISE in any of these areas?
• BIM
• Chimneys
• Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed by Wrapping
with Wire and Strand
• Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed with
Circumferential Tendons
• Concrete Properties
• Demolition
• Deterioration of Concrete in Hydraulic Structures
• Electronic Data Exchange
• Insulating Concrete Forms, Design, and Construction
• Nuclear Reactors, Concrete Components
• Pedestal Water Towers
• Pipe, Cast-in-Place
• Strengthening of Concrete Members
• Sustainability

Then become a REVIEWER for the

ACI Structural Journal or the ACI Materials Journal.
How to become a Reviewer:
1. Go to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Click on “Create Account” in the upper right-hand corner; and
3. Enter your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password, and
Area(s) of Expertise.

Did you know that the database for MANUSCRIPT

CENTRAL, our manuscript submission program,
is separate from the ACI membership database?
How to update your user account:
1. Go to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Log in with your current User ID & Password; and
3. Update your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password,
and Area(s) of Expertise.

QUESTIONS?
E-mail any questions to Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org.