Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Compressive behavior of FRP-confined reinforced concrete columns

Rami Eid a,⇑, Patrick Paultre b
a
Civil Engineering Department, SCE - Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Sheva 84100, Israel
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada

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

Article history: The evolution of earthquake-resistance standards has led to introduction of new design equations for the
Received 13 August 2015 amount of transverse steel reinforcement (TSR) to ensure ductile behavior of reinforced-concrete col-
Revised 18 November 2016 umns. In order to comply with the new codes’ TSR requirements there is a need to strengthen existing
Accepted 19 November 2016
columns. One of the methods to strengthen reinforced-concrete columns is by using fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites as confinement reinforcement. Critical reviews of existing studies pertaining
to the fundamental behavior and analytical modelling of FRP-confined concrete columns have indicated
Keywords:
that there are several aspects on which more research is required. These include, amongst others, the
Concrete columns
Stress strain relations
interaction between the internal transverse reinforcement confinement and the external FRP confine-
Seismic rehabilitation ment, and non-uniform confinement as found in FRP-confined square/rectangular sections. This paper
Internal confinement presents the development of a unified stress-strain model suitable to represent the axial behavior of cir-
External confinement cular and square/rectangular reinforced-concrete columns confined internally with TSR, externally with
Transverse steel reinforcement FRP, or both internally and externally with TSR and FRP, respectively. Moreover, experimental study of six
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites FRP-/TSR-confined square reinforced-concrete columns under compressive axial loading was conducted.
It is shown that stress-strain curves predicted by the proposed model are in good agreement with the
presented as well as published experimental results.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction axial behavior of FRP-confined concrete columns have been pro-

A large number of experiments have been conducted in order to
investigate the compressive behavior of circular [1–6] and square/
rectangular [7–15] concrete members confined with FRP. Most of
the available test results are based on plain unreinforced normal-
strength concrete (NSC) specimens. A number of tests were con-
ducted to study the behavior of concrete columns under constant
compressive axial load and reversed cyclic flexure [16–19], which
are important to understand the behavior of the confined rein-
forced concrete columns subjected to earthquake loading. Cyclic
behavior of FRP-confined concrete was modeled based on modified
stress-strain relationships [20,21]. Desprez et al. [20] validated
their damage mechanics-based model using experimental results
on columns subjected to cyclic and pseudo-dynamic loadings. It
should be noted that most of the available test results were
obtained from FRP-confined reinforced-concrete columns that con-
tain small amounts of transverse steel reinforcement (TSR), which
does not influence the behavior of the FRP-confined column. A
number of stress-strain models for predicting the compressive
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramiei@sce.ac.il (R. Eid).
posed in the last two decades (e.g., [22–30]). Except for the active
confinement-based analysis-oriented models, most of the available
FRP-confined concrete models cannot represent the behavior of
steel- or TSR-confined concrete columns. Thus, a notable disadvan-
tage of most available models is their limitation to one specific
confining material. On the other hand, most of the published
FRP-confined concrete models are not suitable for concrete col-
umns confined by both TSR and FRP composites. These models
are the basis for the predictive equations given in the current
design guides [31,32]. According to some review studies [28,33–
36] further research is required in the following areas: the interac-
tion between the internal transverse reinforcement confinement
and FRP confinement; FRP-confined square and other non-
circular sections; softening inelastic stress-strain behavior in regu-
lar large scale old-type columns; the premature failure of the FRP
composite in reinforced-concrete columns; FRP-confined high-
strength concrete (HSC); and FRP-confined reinforced concrete col-
umns under axial compressive and cyclic flexure loading. This
paper deals with the first two areas.
Only a few available recently proposed models are suitable to
represent the axial behavior of concrete columns confined with
both TSR and FRP composites [37–49]. The models of Chastre and
Silva [42], Lee et al. [43], Hu and Seracino [45], and Shirmohammadi

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.052
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530 519

Nomenclature

a; b; z parameters used to determine the axial stress-strain Kv vertical arching geometrical effectiveness coefficient of
prepeak curve of concrete steel reinforcement confinement
Ac total concrete cross-sectional area k1 ; k2 parameters controlling the shape of the postpeak
Acc cross-sectional area of concrete core branch of the stress-strain curve
Ag gross area of section k1;s ; k2;s parameters controlling the shape of the stress-strain
Ash total cross-section area of the transverse reinforcement postpeak branch of steel-confined concrete
within the tie spacing s Pc axial load sustained by concrete
Ashx cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement within Pc1 axial load sustained by concrete when concrete cover
spacing s and perpendicular to direction x spalls off
Ashy cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement within Pc2 axial load sustained by concrete when concrete core
spacing s and perpendicular to direction y reaches its maximum stress
b; h column’s cross-section dimensions (b 6 h) Pmax maximum axial load
c concrete core diameter measured center-to-center of P0c unconfined strength of the total concrete cross section
the ties P0cc unconfined strength of the total concrete core section
cx width of the column’s core parallel to the x direction rc radius of the cross-section corners
cy width of the column’s core parallel to the y direction s center-to-center transverse reinforcement spacing
D the full column diameter t FRP thickness
e thickness of continuous confinement envelop c axial concrete strain
Ect tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete 0c axial strain corresponding to concrete cylinder strength
secant modulus of elasticity of concrete ¼ f c =0c c50
0
E0c postpeak axial strain in unconfined concrete when
Ecu slope of the axial stress-strain postpeak curve of con- capacity drops to 50% of unconfined strength
crete 0cc axial strain at peak strength of confined concrete
Ef FRP modulus of elasticity cc;50 postpeak axial strain in confined concrete when capac-
Ef ‘ FRP lateral modulus ity drops to 50% of confined strength
Es modulus of elasticity of transverse reinforcement 0cc;s axial strain at peak strength of concrete confined by
Es‘ lateral stiffness of transverse reinforcement ¼ qsey Es steel
fc concrete axial stress cu ultimate concrete strain
fc
0
concrete cylinder compressive strength fu ultimate FRP tensile strain obtained from the flat cou-
0
f cc compressive peak strength of confined concrete pon test
0
f cc;s compressive peak strength of steel-confined concrete fu;a actual FRP rupture strain
f cu ultimate concrete strength hy yield strain of transverse reinforcement
fh stress in transverse reinforcement j1 ; j2 parameters used to determine whether yielding of the
f hy yield strength of transverse reinforcement lateral reinforcement occurs at peak strength of con-
f‘ lateral pressure due to passive confinement action fined concrete
f ‘e;s effective confinement lateral uniform pressure provided csf ratio of hy =fu
by transverse steel reinforcement m0cc secant Poisson’s ratio of concrete at peak stress
f ‘e;f effective confinement lateral uniform pressure provided mc0 Poisson’s ratio of concrete
by FRP qg ratio of area of longitudinal steel reinforcement to col-
I0e effective confinement index evaluated at concrete peak umn’s cross-sectional area
stress qs volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio
Ie50 effective confinement index evaluated at cc;50 qse effective sectional ratio of confinement reinforcement
Ie;max maximum effective confinement index g parameter used to determine the lateral strain at con-
Ke arching geometrical effectiveness coefficient of steel crete peak stress
reinforcement confinement n efficiency factor = fu;a =fu
Kf geometrical effectiveness coefficient of FRP confinement
Kh horizontal arching geometrical effectiveness coefficient
of steel reinforcement confinement

et al. [47] were proposed solely for circular sections. On the other
hand, the models of Wang et al. [44] and Faustino et al. [46] were
proposed solely for square sections. Harajli et al. [37], Ilki et al.
[40], Pellegrino and Modena [41], and Rousakis and Tourtouras
[49] proposed models for circular as well as square/rectangular sec-
tions. Rousakis and Tourtouras [49] proposed an iterative-based
model that imposes lateral strain compatibility. Other models do
not impose lateral strain compatibility and thus, the interaction
between FRP and steel confinement actions is not explicitly consid-
ered [41]. Moreover, the models are valid only when a sufficient
thickness of CFRP jacket is provided to maintain an ascending
branch in the stress-strain relationship after reaching compressive
strength of unconfined concrete [40], or using different calibrated
parameters for each case (circular, rectangular, with or without
transverse steel) with discontinuity in the stress-strain curve [41].
Eid and Paultre [38,39] have proposed two stress-strain models
that are suitable for describing the axial behavior of circular con-
crete columns confined with transverse steel reinforcement and
FRP composites. One model is semi-empirical [39] based on the
Légeron and Paultre [50] steel-confined concrete model, and the
other is fully analytically-derived based on the elasticity and plas-
ticity theories to cover the full range of the concrete behavior [38].
These models take into account the concrete dilation properties
and are suitable for normal- and high-strength concrete. This paper
presents a unified stress-strain model suitable to represent the
axial behavior of circular and square/rectangular reinforced-
concrete columns confined internally with TSR, externally with
FRP, or both internally and externally with TSR and FRP, respec-
tively. The proposed model is based on the Eid and Paultre [39]
model which was shown to provide good accuracy compared to
520 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530

experimental data of FRP-confined reinforced-concrete circular where

columns [45,47]. Moreover, experimental study of FRP-/TSR- 8
< K escAsh for circular columns
confined square reinforced-concrete columns under compressive
qse ¼ K e
Ashx þAshy  ð3Þ
axial loading was conducted. The test program was chosen mainly : for square=rectangular columns
s cx þcy
to study the effect of the dual confinement action due to the FRP
and TSR on the behavior of square reinforced-concrete columns where s is the TSR spacing, c is the concrete core diameter measured
subjected to axial load. center-to-center of the ties, Ash is the total cross-section area of the
transverse reinforcement within the tie spacing s, Ashx and Ashy are
2. Equivalent confinement pressure the total cross-section areas of the transverse reinforcement per-
pendicular to the x and the y directions, respectively, cx and cy are
Passive confinement pressure developed in a circular the widths of the column’s core parallel to the x and the y directions,
reinforced-concrete column, fully laterally restrained at its surface respectively, and K e is the geometric coefficient of confinement
by a tube of a stiffer material, can be simply derived using force effectiveness related to arching in the horizontal and vertical direc-
equilibrium on half cross section of the column as follows: tions (first proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri [51] and later modified
by Mander et al. [52]):
2efh 8
f‘ ¼ ð1Þ 
s0 n
D >
< 1  2c
P 0 for circular columns
where e is the thickness of the tube, D is the column’s diameter, and K e ¼ ð1  qcc Þ ð4Þ
>
:
f h is the lateral tensile stress in the tube. In this case of a fully con- KhKv P 0 for square=rectangular columns
fined column, the passive pressure is constant along the column’s
where n equals either to 1 or 2 for columns confined by steel spirals
cross section and height. On the other hand, the confining stress dis-
or by steel ties/hoops, respectively, s0 clear TSR spacing, qcc is the
tribution is complex in columns of different cross-section shape and
ratio between the longitudinal reinforcement area and the core sec-
confined with ties or spirals, since the lateral restraint of concrete
tion area, and K v and K h are the vertical and horizontal arching coef-
expansion is highly localized. Therefore, one technique is to replace
ficients, respectively:
the actual column with an equivalent circular column confined with


0 0
a continuous envelope [50] (see Fig. 1). The equivalent column has a 1  2cs x 1  2cs y
diameter equal to the size of the concrete core of the circular/rect- Kv ¼ P0 ð5Þ
angular column measured center-to-center of the outer tie in the ð1  qcc Þ
direction studied. To account for the reduced effectiveness of the
confining material (e.g., TSR or FRP) the passive confinement pres- Rw2i
Kh ¼ 1  ð6Þ
sure (as in Eq. (1)) is defined using confinement effectiveness coef- 6cx cy
ficients for circular and for square/rectangular columns as described
where w2i is the clear horizontal spacing between two adjacent lat-
below.
erally supported longitudinal bars (Fig. 1).
For TSR-confined concrete column:
For FRP-confined concrete column:
f ‘e;s ¼ qse f h ð2Þ
f ‘e;f ¼ Efl f ð7Þ

Fig. 1. Equivalent column concept [50].

 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530 521

where f is the circumferential strain at the FRP and Efl is a measure expression of the fractional relationship originally proposed by
of the stiffness of the FRP composite or the FRP lateral modulus. This Sargin [54]:
modulus is proposed as follows: ac
8 2tE fc ¼ for c 6 0cc ð10Þ
< f for circular columns 1 þ bc þ z2c
Efl ¼
D

 ð8Þ
: 2K f Ef 2t
for square=rectangular columns in which the expressions of a; b and z are:
cx þcy
Ect 2 Ect Ecu 0cc 1 Ect Ecu
a ¼ Ect ; b¼ 0  0 þ ; z¼  ð11Þ
where t is the thickness of the FRP, Ef is the elastic modulus of the f cc cc f
0 2
0cc 2 0 2
f cc
cc
FRP, and K f is the geometric coefficient of confinement effectiveness
recommended by ACI 440.2R-08 [53]: where Ect is the tangent elastic modulus of concrete, and Ecu is the
h i slope of the curve after the peak.
2 2
ðb=hÞðh  2rc Þ þ ðh=bÞðb  2rc Þ 0
The confined concrete strength, f cc , and its corresponding strain,
1  qg
3Ag cc , are derived based on the expressions proposed by Légeron and
0
Kf ¼
 P0 ð9Þ Paultre [50]:
1  qg
0
f cc 0 0:7
where b and h are the column’s cross-section dimensions (b 6 h), rc 0 ¼ 1 þ 2:4ðI e Þ ð12Þ
fc
is the radius of the corners, Ag is the gross area of concrete section,
and qg is the ratio of area of longitudinal steel reinforcement to col- 0cc 1:2
¼ 1 þ 35ðI0e Þ ð13Þ
umn’s cross-sectional area. Note that the coefficient K f is equal to 1 0c
for a circular reinforced-concrete column fully confined with FRP.
in which the confinement index at peak stress (the equivalent con-
finement pressure at peak stress normalized by the unconfined con-
3. Confinement model 0
crete strength), I0e ¼ ðf ‘e;s þ f ‘e;f Þ=f c , for TSR/-FRP-confined concrete
In the case of a column confined with both TSR (internal con- was developed based on force equilibrium and strain compatibility
finement) and FRP (external confinement) the passive confinement in the half cross-section [39]:
8
pressure is a function of the tensile strain developed in the TSR as > m0cc
>
>
> I0e1 ¼ 6 I0e2 if j1 > g ðj2  gÞ
well as in the FRP. To account for the two confinement actions, a >
> j 1 g
>
>
new stress-strain model is proposed. The model is suitable to pre- < m0cc f 0c þ j2 qse f hy
dict the behavior of circular as well as square/rectangular rein- 0
I0e ¼ Ie2 ¼ 6 Ie;max if j1 6 g and j2 > g
f c ðj2  gÞ
0
>
>
forced concrete columns confined with TSR, FRP, or both TSR and >
>
>
> qse f hy Ef ‘ fu n
FRP (Fig. 2). The model is based on the Eid and Paultre [39] model >
>
: Ie;max ¼ 0 þ 0 if j1 6 g ðj2  gÞ
which was derived and implemented for circular reinforced- fc fc
concrete columns. It was shown recently that Eid and Paultre ð14Þ
[39] model provides good accuracy compared to experimental data
and other available existing stress-strain models of FRP-confined where j1 and j2 are given by:
reinforced-concrete circular columns [45,47]. In this research 0
fc E0c
study the Eid and Paultre [39] model is modified to be suitable j1 ¼ ¼ ð15Þ
to predict the behavior of not only circular but also square/rectan-
q  þ Ef ‘ c Es‘ þ Ef ‘
0
se Es c
0

gular reinforced-concrete columns. The main modification made is 0

fc E0c
by introducing the equivalent lateral pressure developed by the j2 ¼ ¼ ð16Þ
TSR and the FRP in square/rectangular sections (see Eqs. (3), (8), 
Ef ‘ 0c Ef ‘
and (9)). The prepeak branch of the proposed model is a modified and,
g ¼ 29:8m0cc  3:56 ð17Þ
" #0:9
0
fc
mc0 6 m ¼ 10
0
6 0:5 ð18Þ
cc
Ef ‘ þ qse Es csf

The concrete’s initial secant Poisson’s ratio, mc0 , is equal to the

concrete’s Poisson’s ratio (can be taken as 0.15), csf is the ratio of
hy =fu and can be assumed as 0.133 for concrete column confined
with only lateral steel (based on the ultimate strain of the FRP used
in the experiments of [4]), m0cc is the concrete’s secant Poisson’s
ratio at peak stress, E0c ¼ f c =0c is the concrete secant modulus at
0

Fig. 2. Proposed stress-strain curve for TSR-/FRP-confined concrete.
peak stress, and Es‘ ¼ qse Es is the lateral steel stiffness. Studies have
shown that when the axial stress or strain exceeds certain respec-
tive limits, splitting cracks appear and thereafter the magnitude of
the lateral strain increases with the axial strain at a faster rate.
Consequently, the confining stress from the FRP becomes much lar-
ger, thus restraining the lateral expansion and increasing the
strength and ductility of the concrete [55–57]. This behavior is
taken into account in the proposed model by using the above con-
crete’s secant Poisson’s ratio at peak stress, which is a function of
the lateral stiffness of the FRP and the TSR.
522 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530

The postpeak branch of the stress-strain model is given by: qsey f hy Ef ‘ fu
8
 Ie50 ¼ 0 þ 0 ð26Þ
> fc fc
< f 0cc exp k1 ðc  0cc Þk2 þ Ecu ðc  0cc Þ for cu P c >  0
cc
fc ¼
 Moreover, the values of f cc;s ; 0cc;s ; k1;s , and k2;s (in Eq. 19) are
0
>
: f 0cc;s exp k1;s ðc  0cc;s Þk2;s for c > cu derived using the expressions of f cc ; 0cc ; k1 , and k2 , respectively,
0

ð19Þ for concrete confined with only transverse steel reinforcement.

Note that (0cc ; f cc ) defines the transition point at the stress-strain
0
where Ecu is defined by:
curve (see Fig. 2). At this stage the concrete gets into the plastic
0 0
f cu  f cc f cu  f c behavior phase for which the stress-strain curve can be of ascend-
Ecu ¼ 6 ðand Ecu P 0Þ ð20Þ
cu  0cc cu ing or descending nature depends on the FRP lateral stiffness (Efl ).
On the other hand, (cu ; f cu ) defines the point at the stress-strain
in which, curve when the FRP ruptures.
 2 !
f cu b qse f hy Ef ‘ fu f
0

0 ¼ 1 þ 3:3 0 þ 0  n P cc0 ð21Þ 4. Test program

fc h fc fc fc
! 0:45 The majority of the existing test results of square reinforced
cu q f hy Ef ‘ fu fu;a concrete columns confined with FRP composites include low FRP
¼ 1:56 þ 12 se0 2 þ 0  n ð22Þ
0c f cKh fc 0c confinement levels which are not sufficient to examine the accu-
racy of the proposed analytical model [35]. Moreover, most of
where n ¼ fu;a =fu is the efficiency factor, fu;a is the actual FRP rup- these results contain negligible amount of transverse steel rein-
ture strain, and fu is the ultimate FRP tensile strain obtained from forcement and, thus, cannot be used to study the interaction
the flat coupon test. It should be noted that Eqs. (21) and (22) are between the internal (i.e., TSR) and the external (i.e., FRP) confine-
based on the expressions proposed by Lam and Teng [58] for con- ments and to validate the proposed analytical model. This paper
crete columns confined by only FRP. introduces a test program which consists of six reinforced NSC
The parameters controlling the shape of the postpeak branch square specimens (150x150x300 mm) subjected to axial compres-
(Eq. 19), k1 and k2 , are defined as follows: sive loading. The specimens, tested in the laboratory of SCE - Sha-
lnð0:5Þ moon College of Engineering, were designed to verify the accuracy
k1 ¼ ; k2 ¼ 1 þ 25ðIe50 Þ2 ð23Þ of the proposed model and to examine the effect of the following
ðcc50  0cc Þk2
variables on the behavior of FRP-wrapped reinforced-concrete
where cc50 is the postpeak strain corresponding to the stress equal square columns subjected to axial compressive loading (Fig. 3):
to 50% of the confined concrete peak strength [50]: (1) the number of FRP layers, nFRP ; and (2) the TSR volumetric ratio,
cc50 qs . Table 1 and Fig. 3 present details of the test specimens. Carbon
¼ 1 þ 60Ie50 ð24Þ FRP was used in this study to wrap the columns in a wet lay-up
c50
process.
where c50 is the postpeak strain corresponding to stress equal to
50% of the unconfined concrete strength. If no experimental data 4.1. Material properties
is available, this strain can be taken as 0:004. While Eq. (24) is more
applicable to NSC, Cusson and Paultre [59] proposed the following 4.1.1. Concrete
0
expression especially for HSC (f c P 60 MPa) columns: Target concrete unconfined strength for the designed speci-
mens was set to 30 MPa. The concrete mix was prepared and sup-
cc50 ¼ c50 þ 0:15ðIe50 Þ1:1 ð25Þ
plied by a batch plant. The mixture had 0.5 water-cement ratio,
Moreover, note that the proposed TSR-/FRP-confined concrete aggregates (dolomite) of 14 mm and 9:5 mm maximum size, den-
model is not applicable to represent the behavior of ultra high- sity of 2389 kg=m3, air content of 3%, and a slump of 90 mm. Three
strength concrete (UHSC - with concrete strength over 100 MPa) 150 mm (diameter)  300 mm (height) concrete cylinders were
columns. The effective confinement index, Ie50 , evaluated at the tested under axial loading to determine the average maximum
postpeak strain, cc50 , and controls the parameters k1 and k2 , is rede-
0
strength of the concrete at 28 days (f c ¼ 32:2 MPa) and at the time
fined to include the influence of the FRP: of testing (Table 1).

Fig. 3. Reinforcing cage and instrumentation details.

 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530 523

Table 1
Details of reinforced concrete specimens.
0
Specimen no. f c a (MPa) hð¼ bÞ (mm) rc =h Longitudinal TSR FRP
reinforcement

f y (MPa) qs‘ (%) /h (mm) s (mm) f hy (MPa) qs (%) nFRP t (mm) Ef (GPa)

1 C30S100N0 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 100 258 0.90 0 0 65.4
2 C30S100N2 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 100 258 0.90 2 0.762 65.4
3 C30S100N4 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 100 258 0.90 4 1.524 65.4
4 C30S50N0 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 50 258 1.80 0 0 65.4
5 C30S50N2 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 50 258 1.80 2 0.762 65.4
6 C30S50N4 33.7 150 0.1 513 0.89 6 50 258 1.80 4 1.524 65.4
a
Time of testing.

4.1.2. Steel reinforcement

Four 8 mm diameter deformed steel bars were used for the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement (reinforcement ratio of qs‘ ¼ 0:89%). Ten-
sion tests were performed on steel samples for each batch of steel
bars. The average yield-strength values are presented in Table 1
and were calculated from at least three tension tests. Transverse
steel reinforcement was made with 6 mm diameter plain bars, hav-
ing an average yield strength of f hy ¼ 258 MPa, while the longitu-
dinal reinforcement yield-strength was f y ¼ 513 MPa.

4.1.3. Fiber-reinforced polymer

Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets with ply thick-
ness of 0:381 mm were used to provide the external confinement
(SikaWrap Hex 230C). The reinforced-concrete specimens were
wrapped with two or four FRP layers (see Table 1). The linear-
elastic FRP composite mechanical properties were provided by
the manufacturer: an elastic modulus of Ef ¼ 65:4 GPa, an ultimate
tensile strength of f fu ¼ 894 MPa, and an ultimate tensile strain of
fu ¼ 0:0133.

4.2. Test setup and instrumentation

After casting the concrete, the test specimens and the cylinders
used to determine the unconfined concrete strength were cured for
7 days under the same conditions. After at least 21 days, the FRP
layers were applied in a wet lay-up process and the test specimens
were tested at least 7 days after the FRP application. The FRP’s
overlap length was 150 mm for all specimens. Steel strain was
measured by electrical resistance strain gauges. Two strain gauges
were glued to longitudinal bars at the midheight of each specimen.
Six strain gauges were placed on two ties at specimen midheight,
four strain gauges were placed on each side of one tie and two
other stain gauges on the tie below it (see Fig. 3). Specimen axial
displacement was recorded using four Linear Displacement Trans-
ducers with a gauge length of 250–270 mm. Moreover, FRP tension
(lateral) strain was measured by strain gauges glued to the FRP.
Eight strain gauges were placed on the FRP at specimen midheight,
two on each side of the specimen (See Fig. 3). The strain gauges on
the FRP were placed at the stirrups level, however, it should be
noted that Triantafyllou et al. [15] reported variation of strains
along the column height in between stirrups. The specimens were
loaded on a rigid hydraulic press with load-controlled capabilities
and a maximum compressive load of 3000 kN (see Fig. 4).
5. Test results
The appearance after testing of the reinforced concrete column
specimens is shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 illustrates the axial total load
versus the average axial strain (calculated using the Linear Dis-
placement Transducers) for the column specimens. Fig. 6 also
shows that all the column specimens behaved similarly during
the initial part of loading, indicating that the passive confinement
Fig. 4. Test setup of the reinforced concrete column specimens.
action due to the transverse steel reinforcement and FRP does not
play a role at this stage. However, the behavior of the unwrapped
and the FRP-wrapped column specimens diverges at a strain level
close to the unconfined concrete strain, 0c , corresponding to the
0
peak unconfined concrete stress, f c . At this strain level, the
unwrapped concrete column specimens reached the peak load,
which corresponds to the spalling of the concrete cover. The axial
load carried by the concrete when the concrete cover spalls off is
defined as P c1 . At this stage, the passive confinement pressure
increases significantly resulting from the large lateral expansion
of the concrete. Hence, the concrete core gains strength, while
the concrete cover gradually disappears. Generally, for highly
TSR-confined specimens, the axial load reaches a second peak that
corresponds to the load P c2 when the concrete core reaches its
maximum stress. The value of Pc2 can be higher or lower than
the value of P c1 [60]. Fig. 6 shows that the unwrapped specimens
(C30S100N0 and C30S50N0) did not show a well defined second
peak due to the moderate TSR confinement and no significant
strength gain was recorded. At the end of testing, longitudinal bars
buckled, followed by a rupture of the transverse steel reinforce-
ment. It should be noted that slenderness of longitudinal bars
can affect the behavior of the FRP-confined columns [15]. It has
524 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530

Fig. 5. Appearance of the TSR-/FRP-confined concrete column specimens after testing.

been shown in large-scale square columns that intermediate bars

Fig. 6. Axial load versus axial strain curves for test specimens with transverse steel
reinforcement spacing of (a) s ¼ 100 mm; and (b) s ¼ 50 mm.
have buckled before reaching the peak load of the column and fur-
ther increased the local hoop strains on the FRP jacket [14].
Moreover, an analytical study [61] concerning the commonly
accepted approach to prevent premature buckling of slender bars
through full FRP wrapping has shown that bars of lower quality
may yield before extensive cracking of concrete and intensify
buckling effects. It was shown that in those cases passive FRP con-
finement is not yet fully mobilized to adequately enhance the bear-
ing capacity of the concrete core [15,61].
Unlike the unwrapped columns, the peak load of the FRP-
wrapped specimens, Pc1 , corresponds to the rupture of the FRP,
accompanied by the loss of the concrete cover. It was observed that,
for all FRP-wrapped specimens, the failure was due to rupture of
FRP composites accompanied by a loud sound. It was also observed
that no delamination of the FRP composite occurred in any of the
specimens tested. Table 2 shows that the actual FRP rupture strain
of all the concrete column specimens is smaller than the ultimate
tensile strain obtained from the standard coupon test, fu . It should
be noted that a measurement of strains in between stirrups could
have provided higher local strains. Generally, following the sudden
rupture of the FRP, the axial behavior of the specimen is similar to
that of the unwrapped specimen containing a similar amount of
TSR. Thus, after the FRP rupture, specimen behavior is influenced
solely by the amount of transverse steel reinforcement. At the
end of testing, longitudinal bars buckled, followed by rupture of a
the steel reinforcement ties. Note that P c1 and Pc2 were calculated
for each specimen by subtracting the load carried by the longitudi-
nal bars from the total load. The axial load carried by the longitudi-
nal bars was based on their total cross-sectional area, Ast , and on the
steel’s stress-strain curves obtained from tension tests.
Table 2 presents the experimental results obtained for the
reinforced-concrete column specimens. The maximum axial load,
Pmax , applied to each specimen during testing, varied between 664

Table 2
Experimental results of the reinforced-concrete specimens.

Specimen Axial loads Axial and lateral strains

P max (kN) Pmax
P0
P c1 (kN) Pc1
P0c
P c2 (kN) Pc2
P0cc
c1 c1
0c c2 c2
0c fu;a fu;a
fu

C30S100N0 664 0.90 561 0.89 544 1.25 0.0020 1.01 0.0024 1.21 – –
C30S100N2 985 1.34 882 1.39 – – 0.0136 6.78 – – 0.0101 0.76
C30S100N4 1373 1.87 1270 2.01 – – 0.0220 11.00 – – 0.0109 0.82
C30S50N0 803 1.09 700 1.11 666 1.53 0.0020 1.02 0.0034 1.70 – –
C30S50N2 1098 1.49 994 1.57 – – 0.0155 7.76 – – 0.0098 0.73
C30S50N4 1379 1.87 1276 2.02 – – 0.0187 9.33 – – 0.0097 0.73
 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530 525

Fig. 7. Experimental and analytical stress-strain curves for test specimens with
transverse steel reinforcement spacing of (a) s ¼ 100 mm; and (b) s ¼ 50 mm.
and 1379 kN. These maximum loads are compared with their corre-
sponding nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity computed
0
according to the ACI Code [62] as P 0 ¼ 0:85f c ðAg  Ast Þ þ f y Ast ,
where Ag is the gross area of concrete cross section, Ast is the total
area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement, and f y is the
yield stress of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. Note that, for
all the specimens, the calculation of P 0 is based on the unconfined
0
concrete strength, f c , without taking into account the confinement
due to the TSR or FRP composites. The ratio, Pmax =P0 , ranges from
0.90 to 1.87. The lowest ratio is observed for specimen
C30S100N0 that contains a small amount of TSR and without FRP
confinement. The highest ratio is observed for the
4-layer FRP-wrapped reinforced specimen (C30S50N4), which con-
tains the largest amount of the dual TSR-/FRP confinement
(qs ¼ 1:80% and t ¼ 1:143 mm).
Table 2 presents the first axial concrete peak load, P c1 ; its corre-
sponding strain, c1 ; the second axial concrete peak load obtained
in the unwrapped specimens, P c2 ; its corresponding strain, c2 ; and
the actual FRP rupture strain, fu;a . Table 2 also gives the compar-
ison of P c1 to the corresponding unconfined strength of the total
0
concrete cross section, P0c ¼ 0:85f c Ac , and the comparison of P c2
to the corresponding unconfined strength of the concrete core sec-
0
tion, P0cc ¼ 0:85f c Acc , where Acc is the concrete core area defined by
the centerline of the transverse reinforcement. Generally, the
results show that, increasing the level of confinement induced by
TSR, FRP, or both, results in increasing the ratios
Pc1 =P0c ; P c2 =P 0c ; c1 =0c , and c2 =0c .
The FRP rupture strain (also given in Table 2), varies from 73%
to 82%, with 76% average of the ultimate tensile strain obtained
from the standard tension coupon test, fu . The higher the FRP
rupture strain the higher the maximum axial load and axial strain

Table 3
Comparison between experimental and the proposed model results for square/rectangular columns.

Reference Specimen b=h r c =h f 0c FRP TSR f cu cu

no. (mm) (MPa)
t Ef fu n f hy s /h Test Model Error Test Model Error
(mm) (GPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%)

Current study C30S100N2 150/150 0.10 33.7 0.762 65.4 0.0133 0.76 258 100 6 39.9 44.2 10.8 0.0136 0.0106 21.9
Current study C30S100N4 150/150 0.10 33.7 1.524 65.4 0.0133 0.82 258 100 6 57.1 60.5 6.0 0.0220 0.0175 20.5
Current study C30S50N2 150/150 0.10 33.7 0.762 65.4 0.0133 0.73 258 50 6 44.8 44.0 1.8 0.0155 0.0140 9.5
Current study C30S50N4 150/150 0.10 33.7 1.524 65.4 0.0133 0.73 258 50 6 57.5 58.7 2.1 0.0187 0.0193 3.3
Lam and Teng [58] S2R15 150/150 0.10 33.7 0.330 257.0 0.0176 0.55 – – – 50.4 54.2 7.6 0.0087 0.0123 41.9
Lam and Teng [58] S3R15 150/150 0.10 24.0 0.495 257.0 0.0176 0.49 – – – 61.6 51.6 16.2 0.0180 0.0181 0.4
Lam and Teng [58] R4R15 150/225 0.07 41.5 0.660 257.0 0.0176 0.61 – – – 49.2 56.1 14.1 0.0123 0.0169 37.5
Lam and Teng [58] R4R25 150/225 0.11 41.5 0.660 257.0 0.0176 0.42 – – – 51.9 61.9 19.2 0.0104 0.0130 24.8
Harajli et al. [37]a,b C1SFP1 131.5/131.5 0.11 15.2 0.130 230.0 0.0152 – 400 100 6 557.3 572.5 2.7 0.0152 0.0140 7.5
Harajli et al. [37]a,b C1SFP2 131.5/131.5 0.11 15.2 0.260 230.0 0.0152 – 400 100 6 755.3 764.1 1.2 0.0209 0.0240 15.0
Harajli et al. [37]a,b C2SFP1 102/176 0.11 15.2 0.130 230.0 0.0152 – 400 100 6 505.8 527.2 4.2 0.0105 0.0137 30.5
Harajli et al. [37]a,b C2SFP2 102/176 0.11 15.2 0.260 230.0 0.0152 – 400 100 6 617.9 673.9 9.1 0.0221 0.0232 4.6
Wu and Wei [65] 1R-1.5 150/225 0.13 35.3 0.167 229.0 0.0184 0.65 – – – 38.39 39.0 1.5 0.0115 0.0085 26.4
Wu and Wei [65] 2R-1.5 150/225 0.13 35.3 0.134 229.0 0.0184 0.72 – – – 43.87 46.2 5.2 0.0149 0.0154 3.2
Wu and Wei [65] 1R-2.0 150/300 0.1 35.3 0.167 229.0 0.0184 0.53 – – – 37.44 38.2 1.9 0.0082 0.0064 22.2
Wu and Wei [65] 2R-2.0 150/300 0.1 35.3 0.134 229.0 0.0184 0.65 – – – 38.97 40.6 4.2 0.0124 0.0117 5.8
Wang and Wu [64] C30-1-r45 150/150 0.3 30.7 0.165 219.0 0.0199 0.70 – – – 43.7 50.2 15.0 0.0133 0.0142 6.2
Wang and Wu [64] C30-1-r60 150/150 0.4 31.8 0.165 219.0 0.0199 0.83 – – – 50 57.0 14.1 0.0182 0.0182 0.3
Wang and Wu [64] C30-2-r45 150/150 0.3 30.7 0.330 219.0 0.0199 0.79 – – – 68 75.3 10.7 0.0294 0.0295 0.5
Wang and Wu [64] C30-2-r60 150/150 0.4 31.8 0.330 219.0 0.0199 0.88 – – – 78.9 85.3 8.2 0.0263 0.0369 40.4
Ozbakkaloglu [66] A15R30L3 125/187.5 0.16 77.2 0.702 240.0 0.0155 0.38 – – – 81.3 91.3 12.3 0.0122 0.0103 15.3
Ozbakkaloglu [66] A15R30L5 125/187.5 0.16 79.6 1.17 240.0 0.0155 0.48 – – – 95.8 108.3 13.0 0.0162 0.0179 10.9
Ozbakkaloglu [66] A20R30L3 112.5/225 0.13 78.2 0.702 240.0 0.0155 0.39 – – – 78.4 85.7 9.2 0.0147 0.0100 32.0
Ozbakkaloglu [66] A20R30L5 112.5/225 0.13 78.2 1.17 240.0 0.0155 0.43 – – – 84.3 91.5 8.6 0.0179 0.0151 15.3
Mean error (%) – – 6.8 – – 1.8
Mean absolute error (%) – – 8.3 – – 16.5
a
n was not reported and assumed as 0.8 based on reported stress-lateral strain curves.
b
Test results are given in kN. For these specimens, the prediction load includes the longitudinal bars contribution.
526 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530

that can be achieved by a specimen. Consequently, it should be
noted that, although specimen C30S100N4 has a lower TSR
amount compared to specimen C30S50N4, the maximum axial
load recorded for these specimens was comparable due to the
higher actual FRP rupture strain achieved by specimen
C30S100N4, fu;a =fu ¼ 0:82, compared to that of specimen
C30S50N4, fu;a =fu ¼ 0:73. Moreover, and due to the same reason,
the axial strain corresponding to the maximum axial load, was
higher for specimen C30S100N4 (c1 ¼ 0:0220) compared to spec-
imen C30S50N4 (c1 ¼ 0:0187).

Fig. 8. Experimental and analytical axial stress (or load) versus axial strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete square/rectangular specimens taken from: (a–d) Lam and Teng
[58], (e–h) Harajli et al. [37], (i–l) Ozbakkaloglu [66], (m–p) Wu and Wei [65], and (q–t) Wang and Wu [64].
 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530 527

Fig. 8 (continued)

6. Effect of test variables on the behavior of confined concrete
In order to study the effect of each variable on the behavior
the confined concrete, the axial stress-strain response curves
the confined concrete of test specimens are compared in Fig.
with respect to each of the following variables: (1) number
FRP layers; (2) TSR amount.
The stress-strain response of the confined concrete was derived
as follows. The axial confined concrete stress-strain response of the
of unwrapped specimens coincides with the ascending part of the
of curve Pc =Ac , up to the sudden spalling of the concrete cover. When
7, the concrete cover no longer contributes to axial strength, the
of response of the confined concrete coincides with the higher curve
Pc =Acc . The transition between the two curves is estimated as a
528 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530
Fig. 8 (continued)
smooth curve. The response of the confined concrete of the
unwrapped reinforced-concrete column specimens is explained
in detail in Cusson and Paultre [60]. For the FRP-wrapped speci-
mens, the confined concrete cross-sectional area is defined by
the full cross-sectional area of the specimen up to the FRP rupture.
Thus, the pre-FRP rupture stress-strain response of the confined
concrete of the FRP-wrapped specimen coincides with the curve
Pc =Ac . After FRP rupture, the confined concrete cross-sectional area
is defined solely by the area bounded by the centerline of the TSR.
Therefore, the post-FRP rupture stress-strain response of the con-
fined concrete of the FRP-wrapped specimen coincides with the
curve of Pc =Acc . The transition between the pre-rupture and the
post-rupture curves is estimated as a linear curve. The response
of the confined concrete of the FRP-wrapped reinforced-concrete
specimens is explained in detail in Eid et al. [63].
6.1. Number of FRP layers
Fig. 7 shows that the higher the number of FRP layers, the
higher the axial concrete compressive strength and its correspond-
ing strain. This behavior is well documented in the literature
[26,33,35]. For example, it can be seen in Fig. 7(a) that the maxi-
mum concrete stress reached by specimen C30S100N2 was 1:18
0
times the unconfined concrete strength (f c ), while for a similar col-
umn with higher FRP layers, C30S100N4, the maximum concrete
0
stress reached was 1:70f c . Similar behavior is obtained when com-
paring the axial strain corresponding to the maximum stress of the
earlier two specimens: 0:0136 (6:780c ) for specimen C30S100N2
compared to 0:0220 (11:000c ) for specimen C30S100N4.
6.2. Transverse steel reinforcement - TSR
The test results and the behavior shown in Fig. 7 indicate that in
general, the higher the TSR volumetric ratio, the higher the axial
concrete compressive strength and its corresponding strain. For
example, the maximum concrete stress reached by specimen
0
C30S100N2 was 1:18f c , while for a similar column with higher
TSR volumetric ratio, C30S50N2, the maximum concrete stress
0
reached was 1:33f c . However, as mentioned earlier, the higher
the FRP rupture strain the higher the axial concrete compressive
strength and its corresponding strain that can be achieved by a
specimen. The higher actual FRP rupture strain reached by speci-
men C30S100N4, fu;a =fu ¼ 0:82, compared to that of specimen
C30S50N4, fu;a =fu ¼ 0:73 results in a similar axial compressive
0 0
strength (1:70f c for specimen C30S100N4 compared to 1:71f c for
specimen C30S50N4) and a lower corresponding strain for speci-
men C30S50N4 (c1 ¼ 0:0187) compared to specimen C30S100N4
(c1 ¼ 0:0220).
7. Prediction of test results
The predictions of the axial stress-strain behavior of all the
tested specimens are shown in Fig. 7 and reported in Table 3.
The figure and the Table show good agreement between the exper-
imental results and the analytical predictions obtained by the pro-
posed model. Moreover, Fig. 8 and Table 3 show comparison
between published test results of square and rectangular speci-
mens [37,58,64–66] and predicted curves. It is shown that a good
agreement is obtained for the concrete strength as well as for its
corresponding strain. Table 3 shows that the prediction of the
strength gain of confined concrete is in good agreement with the
test results with predicted-to-experimental mean error (error =
[Pred.  Exp.]/Exp.) of 6:8% and mean absolute error (error = abs
[Pred.  Exp.]/Exp.) of 8:3%. When compared with the experimen-
tal results, the predictions of the strain corresponding to the FRP
rupture, cu , yield mean error of 1:8% and mean absolute error of
16:5%. It should be noted that a temporary load drop is presented
in several tests [58,66,67]. This drop is common for internally un-
reinforced non-circular (mainly rectangular) low confined concrete
 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530
columns and is likely caused by to the delayed passive confine-
ment action developed after the stretching of the FRP [67]. The pro-
posed model does not predict the temporary load drop as can be
seen in Figs. 8(c) and (d) or Figs. 8(i)–(l) (HSC specimens). With
regards to the ultimate strain, it is worth noting that the strain
are strongly affected by the test setup and the length of the strain
measurement device used in each experimental program. It should
be also noted that the proposed model is identical to the Eid and
Paultre [39] model when dealing with the prediction of circular
columns behavior. As mentioned earlier, validation of the latter
model against experimental results of circular specimens is pre-
sented elsewhere [39,45,47,63]. Moreover, the proposed model
can be implemented in a sectional analysis program such as MNPhi
computer program [68]. The program, which is using a layer-by-
layer analysis, can compute the interaction axial load vs. bending
moment diagram of the FRP-confined reinforced-concrete section.
This can be of great interest for structural engineers. Note that the
confined section has two zones with different confinement levels:
the concrete core confined with TSR and FRP and the concrete
cover confined with FRP.
8. Conclusions
This paper presents a unified stress-strain model suitable to
represent the compressive behavior of circular and square/rectan-
gular reinforced-concrete columns confined internally with TSR
and/or externally with FRP. The proposed model is based on the
Eid and Paultre [39] model which was shown to provide good accu-
racy compared to experimental data of FRP-confined reinforced-
concrete circular columns [45,47]. In this model, the behavior of
confined concrete is related to the effective confinement index (a
nondimensional parameter), which takes into account the mechan-
ical and geometrical properties of the concrete, transverse steel
reinforcement, and FRP. Moreover, experimental study of FRP-/
TSR-confined square reinforced-concrete columns under compres-
sive axial loading was conducted. The test program was chosen
mainly to study the effect of the dual confinement action due to
the FRP and TSR on the behavior of square reinforced-concrete col-
umns subjected to axial load. It is shown that stress-strain curves
predicted by the proposed model are in good agreement with the
presented as well as published experimental results.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Israeli Ministry of National
Infrastructures (Grant No. 210-02-022). The authors would like to
thank Sika for gracefully providing the FRP sheets and the neces-
sary bonding material. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the collaboration of Dr. Rina Farhat, Dr. Nicolae Gluck, and Dr. Uri
Tzadka and the technical assistance of Dr. Guy Ben Hamu from the
Mechanical Engineering Department and Viktoriya Elkenbard, Shi-
mon Dabush, and Haim Dahan from the Civil Engineering Depart-
ment at SCE – Shamoon College of Engineering, for their role in the
test preparation and during the tests.
References
[1] Fardis MN, Khalili H. FRP-encased concrete as a structural material. Mag Concr
Res 1982;34(212):191–202.
[2] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber
composites. ASCE J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):583–90.
[3] Saafi M, Toutanji HA, Li Z. Behavior of concrete columns confined with fiber
reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Mater J 1999;96(4):500–9.
[4] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber
composite jackets. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2000;12(2):139–46.
[5] Lam L, Teng JG. Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. ASCE J Compos Construct 2004;8(6):539–48.
529
[6] Li G. Experimental study of FRP confined concrete cylinders. Eng Struct
2006;28:1001–-1008.
[7] Wang YC, Restrepo JI. Investigation of concentrically loaded reinforced
concrete columns confined with glass-fibre reinforced polymer jackets. ACI
Struct J 2001;98(3):377–85.
[8] Tamuzs V, Valdamanis V, Gylltoft K, Tepfers R. Behavior of CFRP-confined
concrete cylinders with a compressive steel reinforcement. Mech Compos
Mater 2007;43(3):191–202.
[9] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Substandard reinforced concrete members subjected
to compression: FRP confining effects. Mater Struct 2008;41:1595–611.
[10] Ozbakkaloglu T, Oehlers DJ. Concrete-filled square and rectangular FRP tubes
under axial compression. ASCE J Compos Construct 2008;12(4):469–77.
[11] Turgay T, Polat Z, Koksal HO, Doran B, Karakoc C. Compressive behavior of
large-scale square reinforced concrete columns confined with carbon fiber
reinforced polymer jackets. Mater Des 2010;31:357–64.
[12] Toutanji H, Han M, Gilbert J, Matthys S. Behavior of large-scale rectangular
columns confined with FRP composites. ASCE J Compos Construct 2010:62–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000051.
[13] De Luca A, Nardone F, Matta F, Nanni A, Lignola GP, Prota A. Structural
evaluation of full-scale FRP-confined reinforced concrete columns. ASCE J
Compos Construct 2011;15(1):112–23.
[14] Wang Z, Wang D, Smith ST, Lu D. CFRP-confined square RC columns. i:
Experimental investigation. ASCE J Compos Construct 2012;16(2):150–60.
[15] Triantafyllou G, Rousakis TC, Karabinis A. Axially loaded reinforced concrete
columns with a square section partially confined by light GFRP straps. ASCE J
Compos Construct 2015;19(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943–
5614.0000496.
[16] Nanni A, Norris MS. FRP jacketed concrete under flexure and combined
flexure-compression. Construct Build Mater 1995;9(5):273–81.
[17] Memon MS, Sheikh SA. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns
retrofitted with glass fiber-reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102
(5):774–83.
[18] Gu D-S, Wu G, Wu Z-S, Wu Y-F. Confinement effectiveness of FRP in
retrofitting circular concrete columns under simulated seismic load. ASCE J
Compos Construct 2010;14(5):531–40.
[19] Comert M, Demir C, Ghatte HF, Ilki A. Seismic performance of full-scale FRP
confined sub-standard columns subjected to high axial load. In: 7th
International conference on FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE 2014),
International Institute for FRP in Construction (IIFC), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
[20] Desprez C, Mazars J, Kotronis P, Paultre P. Damage model for FRP-confined
concrete columns under cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2013;48:519–-531.
[21] Yu T, Zhang B, Teng JG. Unified cyclic stress-strain model for normal and high
strength concrete confined with FRP. Eng Struct 2015;102:189–-201.
[22] Ahmad SM, Khaloo AR, Irshaid A. Behavior of concrete spirally confined by
fiberglass filaments. Mag Concr Res 1991;43(156):143–8.
[23] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Li MW. Strength and ductility of concrete
columns externally reinforced with fiber composite straps. ACI Struct J
1994;91(4):434–47.
[24] Karbhari VM, Gao Y. Composite jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression
– verification of simple design equations. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 1997;9
(4):185–93.
[25] Toutanji HA. Stress-strain characteristic of concrete columns externally
confined with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96
(3):397–404.
[26] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. ASCE J Compos
Construct 1999;3(3):143–50.
[27] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Construct Build Mater 2003;17(6&7):471–89.
[28] Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim JC, Vincent T. FRP-confined concrete in circular
sections: review and assessment of stress-strain models. Eng Struct
2013;49:1068–88.
[29] Lim JC, Ozbakkaloglu T. Unified stress-strain model for FRP and actively
confined normal and high-strength concrete. ASCE J Compos Construct
2014:04014072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000536.
[30] Dong CX, Kwan AKH, Ho JCM. Effects of confining stiffness and rupture strain
on performance of FRP confined concrete. Eng Struct 2015;97:1–14.
[31] Canadian Standard Association CSA S806. Design and construction of building
structures with fibre-reinforced polymers, Mississauga, Canada; 2012.
[32] European Standard EN 1998-3. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Brussels, Belgium;
2005.
[33] De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R. Comparative study of models on confinement of
concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. ASCE J Compos
Construct 2003;7(3):219–37.
[34] Teng JG, Lam L. Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2004;130(11):1713–23.
[35] Rocca N, Galati S, Nani A. Review of design guidelines for FRP confinement of
reinforced concrete columns of noncircular cross sections. ASCE J Compos
Construct 2008;12(1):80–92.
[36] Lim JC, Ozbakkaloglu T. Design model for FRP-confined normal- and high-
strength concrete square and rectangular columns. Mag Concr Res 2014;66
(20):1020–35.
[37] Harajli MH, Hantouche E, Soudki K. Stress-strain model for fiber-reinforced
polymer jacketed concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2006;103(5):672–82.
[38] Eid R, Paultre P. Plasticity-based model for circular concrete columns confined
with fibre-composite sheets. Eng Struct 2007;29(12):3301–11.
530 R. Eid, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 518–530
[39] Eid R, Paultre P. Analytical model for FRP-confined circular reinforced concrete
columns. ASCE J Compos Construct 2008;12(5):541–52.
[40] Ilki A, Peker O, Karamuk E, Demir C, Kumbasar N. FRP retrofit of low and
medium strength circular and rectangular reinforced concrete columns. ASCE J
Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(2):169–88.
[41] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Analytical model for FRP confinement of concrete
columns with and without internal steel reinforcement. ASCE J Compos
Construct 2010;14(6):693–705.
[42] Chastre C, Silva MAG. Monotonic axial behavior and modelling of RC circular
columns confined with CFRP. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2268–77.
[43] Lee J-Y, Yi C-K, Jeong H-S, Kim S-W. Compressive response of concrete
confined with steel spirals and FRP composites. J Compos Mater 2010;44
(4):481–504.
[44] Wang Z, Wang D, Smith ST, Lu D. CFRP-confined square RC columns. II: Cyclic
axial compression stress-strain model. ASCE J Compos Construct 2012;16
(2):161–70.
[45] Hu H, Rudolf Seracino R. Analytical model for FRP-and-steel-confined circular
concrete columns in compression. ASCE J Compos Construct 2014;18(3):1–7
[Special Issue: 10th Anniversary of IIFC – A4013012].
[46] Faustino P, Chastre IS, Paula R. Design model for square RC columns under
compression confined with CFRP. Compos Part B: Eng 2015;57:187–98.
[47] Shirmohammadi F, Esmaeily A, Kiaeipour Z. Stress-strain model for circular
concrete columns confined by FRP and conventional lateral steel. Eng Struct
2015;85:395–405.
[48] Faustino P, Chastre C. Analysis of load-strain models for RC square columns
confined with CFRP. Compos Part B: Eng 2015;74:23–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.01.002.
[49] Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS. Modeling of passive and active external
confinement of RC columns with elastic material. ZAMM J Appl Math Mech
2015;95(10):1046–57.
[50] Légeron F, Paultre P. Uniaxial confinement model for normal- and high-
strength concrete columns. ASCE J Struct Eng 2003;129(2):241–52.
[51] Sheikh SA, Uzumeri S. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
columns. ASCE J Struct Eng 1982;108(12):2703–22.
[52] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Seismic design of bridge piers. Tech. rep.,
research report 84-2. Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury; 1984.
[53] American Concrete Institute ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and
construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA; 2008.
[54] Sargin M. Stress-strain relationship for concrete and the analysis of structural
concrete section PhD thesis. Ontario Canada: University of Waterloo; 1971.
[55] Kwan AKH, Dong CX, Ho JCM. Axial and lateral stress-strain model for frp
confined concrete. Eng Struct 2015;99:285–95.
[56] Dong CX, Kwan AKH, Ho JCM. Axial and lateral stress-strain model for
concrete-filled steel tubes with FRP jackets. Eng Struct 2016;126:365–78.
[57] Kwan AKH, Dong CX, Ho JCM. Axial and lateral stress-strain model for circular
concrete-filled steel tubes with external steel confinement. Eng Struct
2016;117:528–-541.
[58] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete
in rectangular columns. J Reinf Plast Compos 2003;22(13):1149–86.
[59] Cusson D, Paultre P. Stress-strain model for confined high-strength concrete.
ASCE J Struct Eng 1995;121(3):468–77.
[60] Cusson D, Paultre P. High-strength concrete columns confined by rectangular
ties. ASCE J Struct Eng 1994;120(3):783–804.
[61] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. FRP strengthening of columns against bars buckling-
parametric finite element analyses. In: 9th International symposium on fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-9),
International Institute for FRP in Construction (IIFC), Sydney, Australia.
[62] American Concrete Institute ACI 318. Building code requirements for
structural concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA; 2014.
[63] Eid R, Roy N, Paultre P. Normal- and high-strength concrete circular elements
wrapped with FRP composites. ASCE J Compos Construct 2009;13(2):113–24.
[64] Wang L-M, Wu Y-F. Effect of corner radius on the performance of cfrp-confined
square concrete columns: Test. Eng Struct 2008;30:493–-505.
[65] Wu Y-F, Wei Y-Y. Effect of cross-sectional aspect ratio on the strength of CFRP-
confined rectangular concrete columns. Eng Struct 2010;32:32–45.
[66] Ozbakkaloglu T. Axial compressive behavior of square and rectangular high-
strength concrete-filled FRP tubes. ASCE J Compos Construct 2013;17
(1):151–61.
[67] Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS. RC columns of square section – passive and active
confinement with composite ropes. Compos Part B: Eng 2014;58:573–81.
[68] Paultre P. MNPhi: user manual, tech. rep. CRGP report 2001-01. Sherbrooke,
Canada: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke; 2001.