Behavior and Modeling of Fiber Reinforced

Polymer-Confined Concrete
J. G. Teng1 and L. Lam2

Abstract: One important application of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites in the retrofit of reinforced concrete structures is to
provide confinement to columns for enhanced strength and ductility. As a result, many theoretical and experimental studies have been
carried out on FRP-confined concrete. This paper provides a critical review of existing studies, with the emphasis being on the revelation
of the fundamental behavior of FRP-confined concrete and the modeling of this behavior. Aspects covered in this paper include stress–
strain behavior, dilation properties, ultimate condition, and stress–strain models. The paper concludes with a brief outline of issues which
require further research. Although the paper is explicitly limited to concrete confined by FRP jackets in which the fibers are oriented only
or predominantly in the hoop direction, many of the observations made in this paper are also applicable or relevant to concrete confined
by FRP jackets with a significant axial stiffness, as found in concrete-filled FRP tubes as new columns.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1713)
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymers; Concrete structures; Retrofitting; Ductility; Confinement; Stress strain
curves; Models.

Introduction (1988) model, a constant confining pressure is assumed, which is

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have found increas-
ingly wide applications in civil engineering due to their high
strength-to-weight ratio and high corrosion resistance. One impor-
tant application of FRP composites is as wraps or jackets for the
confinement of reinforced concrete (RC) columns for enhanced
strength and ductility. In FRP-confined concrete, the FRP is prin-
cipally loaded in hoop tension while the concrete is loaded in
triaxial compression, so that both materials are used to their best
advantages. Both the strength and the ultimate strain of concrete
can be greatly enhanced as a result of FRP confinement, while the
high tensile strength of FRP can be fully utilized. Instead of the
brittle behavior exhibited by both materials, FRP-confined con-
crete possesses greatly enhanced ductility.
In practical applications, reliable design of FRP jackets is only
possible if the stress–strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete is
well understood and accurately modeled. In early studies of FRP
retrofit of RC columns, the stress–strain model of Mander et al.
(1988) for steel-confined concrete was directly used in the analy-
sis of FRP-confined concrete columns (Saadatmanesh et al. 1994;
Seible et al. 1995). Subsequent studies however showed that this
direct use is inappropriate. This is because in Mander et al.’s
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong
Polytechinic Univ., Hong Kong, China. E-mail: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk
2
Senior Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong, China. E-mail:
cellam@polyu.edu.hk
Note. Associate Editor: Yan Xiao. Discussion open until April 1,
2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on September 23, 2003; approved on
January 5, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 130, No. 11, November 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2004/11-1713–1723/$18.00.
the case for steel-confined concrete when the steel is in plastic
flow, but not the case for FRP-confined concrete. Consequently,
many studies have been carried out on FRP-confined concrete in
the past few years, resulting in a large number of stress–strain
models of different levels of sophistication.
This paper provides a critical review of existing studies, with
the emphasis being on the revelation of the fundamental behavior
of FRP-confined concrete, and the modeling of this behavior. The
paper is limited to concrete confined by FRP jackets in which the
fibers are oriented only or predominantly in the hoop direction as
such jackets are commonly used in column retrofit. Nevertheless,
many of the observations made in this paper are also applicable to
concrete confined by FRP jackets with a significant axial stiffness,
as found in concrete-filled FRP tubes as new columns.
Basic Behavior of Fiber Reinforced
Polymer-Confined Concrete
Confining Action of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Jacket
When a concrete cylinder confined by an FRP jacket is subject to
an axial compressive stress ␴c, it expands laterally. This expan-
sion is confined by the FRP jacket which is loaded in tension in
the hoop direction. The confining pressure provided by the FRP
jacket increases continuously with the lateral strain of concrete
because of the linear elastic stress–strain behavior of FRP, in con-
trast to steel-confined concrete in which the confining pressure
remains constant when the steel is in plastic flow. Failure of FRP-
confined concrete generally occurs when the hoop rupture
strength of the FRP jacket is reached. The confining action in
FRP-confined concrete can be schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.
The lateral (radial) confining pressure acting on the concrete core
␴r is given by

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1713


Fig. 1. Confining action of fiber reinforced polymer jacket to
concrete
␴ ht
␴r = 共1兲
R per ply and a material ultimate strain of 1.52% from flat coupon
where ␴h = hoop stress in the FRP jacket; t = thickness of the FRP
jacket; and R = radius of the confined concrete core, respectively.
For FRP jackets with fibers only or predominantly in the hoop
direction, due to the linearity of FRP, the hoop stress in the FRP
jacket ␴h is related to the hoop strain ␧h by
␴h = Efrp␧h 共2兲
where Efrp = elastic modulus of FRP in the hoop direction. The
lateral confining pressure reaches its maximum value f l at the
rupture of FRP, with
␴h,rupt Efrp␧h,rupt
fl = = 共3兲
R R
where ␴h,rup and ␧h,rup = hoop stress and strain of FRP at rupture,
respectively, which are generally not the same as the ultimate
tensile strength and the ultimate tensile strain of the FRP respec-
tively from tensile tests of flat coupons as discussed in some
detail later in the paper. The ratio between the confining pressure
f l when the jacket ruptures (i.e., the maximum confining pressure)
and the compressive strength of unconfined concrete f ⬘co is an
important parameter and is referred to as the confinement ratio.
Axial Stress–Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete
Fig. 2 shows typical stress–strain curves of carbon FRP (CFRP)-
confined concrete and unconfined concrete, obtained by the
present authors (Lam and Teng 2003a, 2004; Lam et al. 2004)
from the compression tests of 152 mm⫻ 305 mm concrete cylin-
ders as well as those from compression tests conducted by Can-
dappa et al. (2001) on 100 mm⫻ 200 mm concrete cylinders with
active confinement at three different lateral pressures (4, 8, and
12 MPa). The stress–strain curve of unconfined concrete shown in
Fig. 2 is for a concrete with a compressive strength of 41 MPa at
an axial strain of 0.00258 (Lam et al. to be published). The cyl-
inders confined by one and two plies of CFRP had an unconfined
concrete strength of 35.9 MPa at an axial strain of 0.00203, while
the cylinder confined by three plies of CFRP had an unconfined
concrete strength of 34.3 MPa at an axial strain of 0.00188 (Lam
and Teng 2003a, 2004). The concrete cylinders tested with active
confinement had an unconfined concrete strength f ⬘co of 42 MPa at
an axial strain of 0.0024. For the purpose of comparison, the axial
stress ␴c is normalized by the compressive strength of the uncon-
1714 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004
Fig. 2. Axial stress versus axial and lateral strains of fiber reinforced
polymer-confined and actively confined concrete
⬘ while the axial strain ␧c or lateral strain ␧r is
fined concrete f co
normalized by the axial strain of the unconfined concrete at its
peak stress ␧co. The CFRP had a nominal thickness of 0.165 mm
tensile tests (ASTM 1995). The elastic modulus of the CFRP was
about 250 GPa based on the nominal thickness (Lam and Teng
2004).
All three axial stress–axial strain curves of CFRP-confined
concrete shown in Fig. 2 feature a monotonically ascending bilin-
ear shape. By contrast, the axial stress–axial strain curves of ac-
tively confined concrete feature a softening branch. This is be-
cause in the case of FRP-confined concrete, as the axial stress
increases, the confining pressure provided by the jacket also in-
creases instead of remaining constant. If the amount of FRP pro-
vided exceeds a certain threshold value, this confining pressure
increases fast enough to ensure that the stress–strain curve is
monotonically ascending. This bilinear phenomenon was also
previously observed by Xiao et al. (1991) for concrete stub col-
umns confined by steel tubes before the yielding of steel. His steel
tubes were primarily used as transverse reinforcement and were
not directly loaded in the axial direction. Monotonically ascend-
ing stress–strain curves have been observed in the majority of
existing tests on FRP-confined concrete. Naturally, if the amount
of FRP is small, a descending branch is possible and has been
observed in tests (Demers and Neale 1994; Xiao and Wu 2000;
Aire et al. 2001).
Dilation Properties
The dilation properties of unconfined concrete and actively con-
fined concrete have been well established (Chen 1982; Panta-
zopoulou 1995). Under axial compression, unconfined concrete
has an initial Poisson’s ratio (the absolute value of the lateral-to-
axial strain ratio at ␧c = 0) between 0.15 and 0.22 and experiences
a volumetric reduction or compaction up to 90% of the peak
stress. Thereafter the concrete shows volumetric expansion or di-
lation as a result of the rapidly increasing lateral-to-axial strain
ratio. Unstable dilation after the initial compaction has also been
observed in actively confined concrete in triaxial compression
tests, although at a higher confining pressure, the dilation is less
pronounced, as described by Pantazopoulou (1995).
A number of studies have been concerned with the dilation
properties of FRP-confined concrete (Mirmiran and Shahawy
1997a, b; Samaan et al. 1998; Xiao and Wu 2000; Harries and
Kharel 2002). Mirmiran and his co-workers (Mirmiran and Sha-
hawy 1997a, b; Samaan et al. 1998) compared the volumetric
responses of FRP-confined concrete with those of plain concrete

Fig. 3. Dilation properties of fiber reinforced polymer-confined and
actively confined concrete
and steel-confined concrete which behaves similarly to actively
confined concrete after the yielding of the confining steel. They
demonstrated that for steel-confined concrete, unstable dilation
occurs when steel yields, but for FRP-confined concrete, the lin-
early increasing hoop stress of the FRP jacket can eventually
curtail the dilation if the amount of FRP is large enough.
In Fig. 3, the lateral-to-axial strain ratio and the volumetric
response of FRP-confined concrete under axial compression are
compared with those of unconfined and actively confined con-
crete using the test data of the specimens of Fig. 2. In Fig. 3(a),
the lateral-to-axial strain ratio, given in absolute values, is plotted
against the normalized axial strain, while in Fig. 3(b), the normal-
ized axial stress is plotted against the volumetric strain ␧V, which
is given by
␧V = ␧c + 2␧r 共4兲
A positive volumetric strain indicates compaction while a nega-
tive value corresponds to dilation.
Fig. 3(a) shows that the lateral-to-axial strain ratio of FRP-
confined concrete eventually stabilizes at values that depend on
the amount of FRP provided. This is in contrast to unconfined and
actively confined concrete for which this ratio continuously in-
creases with the axial strain. Fig. 3(b) shows that for unconfined
and actively confined concrete, the change from compaction to
dilation occurs at different stress levels depending on the confin-
ing pressure, and thereafter the dilation tendency remains until
failure. This unchanged dilation tendency is only observed for one
of the three CFRP-confined concrete specimens under consider-
ation which is confined by a one-ply CFRP jacket. For the speci-
men confined by two plies of CFRP, dilation is taken over by
compaction at a normalized axial stress of about 1.5. For the
specimen with three plies of CFRP, no dilation is found during the
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1715
entire loading history. These distinct volumetric responses of
FRP-confined concrete are due to the linear elastic behavior of
FRP. The linearity of FRP leads to a continuously increasing con-
fining pressure until FRP rupture, and limits the lateral strain of
confined concrete to the hoop rupture strain of FRP. As a result,
concrete confined by a large amount of FRP may not show dila-
tion at all.
Ultimate Condition
As eventual failure of FRP-confined concrete is by the rupture of
FRP jacket, the ultimate condition of the confined concrete, often
characterized by its compressive strength and ultimate axial
strain, is intimately related to the ultimate tensile strain or tensile
strength of the confining FRP jacket in the hoop direction. In most
existing theoretical models for FRP-confined concrete, it has been
assumed that tensile rupture of FRP occurs when the hoop stress
in the FRP reaches its tensile strength from material tests, either
flat coupon tests (e.g., ASTM 1995) or ring splitting tests (e.g.,
ASTM 1992). However, extensive experimental results have
shown that the material tensile strength of FRP cannot be reached
in FRP-confined concrete as the hoop rupture strains of FRP mea-
sured in FRP-confined cylinder tests have been found to be con-
siderably smaller than those obtained from material tensile tests
(e.g., Shahawy et al. 2000; Xiao and Wu 2000; Pessiki et al.
2001).
This uncertainty with FRP hoop rupture strains has led to dif-
ficulties in predicting the ultimate condition of FRP-confined con-
crete, particularly the ultimate axial strain. This is because the
ratio between the FRP hoop rupture strain and the material tensile
strain varies with the type of FRP (Lam and Teng 2003b). De
Lorenzis and Tepfers (2003) showed that of the models they re-
viewed and assessed (Fardis and Khalili 1981; Saadatmanesh et
al. 1994; Miyauchi et al. 1997; Kono et al. 1998; Samaan et al.
1998; Saafi et al. 1999; Spoelstra and Monti 1999; Toutanji 1999;
Xiao and Wu 2000), none was able to predict the ultimate axial
strain with reasonable accuracy if the hoop strain in the FRP
jacket at rupture is taken to be equal to the ultimate material
tensile strain. Xiao and Wu (2000), based on their own test ob-
servations, suggested that 50% of the flat coupon ultimate tensile
strain be taken as the hoop rupture strain. Jin et al. (2003), how-
ever, suggested using 0.96 times the flat coupon ultimate tensile
strain. Moran and Pantelides (2002) suggested using the hoop
strain limits of 0.0085 for CFRP and 0.0125 for glass FRP
(GFRP). Lam and Teng (2003b) recently suggested that in devel-
oping confinement models, the actual hoop rupture strain ␧h,rup
measured in the FRP jacket should be used to evaluate the stress
in the FRP rather than simply using the FRP material tensile
strength f frp.
Several causes have been suggested for the difference in the
ultimate tensile strain between FRP tensile test specimens and
FRP jackets confining concrete (Spoelstra and Monti 1999; Sha-
hawy et al. 2000; Xiao and Wu 2000; Pessiki et al. 2001; Moran
and Pantelides 2002; De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003; Lam and
Teng 2003b). These suggestions are generally speculative without
sound experimental evidence. Lam and Teng (2003a, 2004) re-
cently conducted the first carefully planned study involving com-
parative experiments in an attempt to clarify the causes for the
reduced strain capacity of FRP when used to confine concrete.
The experimental program covered flat coupon tensile tests
(ASTM 1995) and ring splitting tests (ASTM 1992) on CFRP and
GFRP specimens, and compression tests on concrete cylinders
wrapped with one to three plies of CFRP and GFRP. Based on the
test observations, Lam and Teng (2004) concluded that the aver-
age hoop rupture strains of FRP measured in FRP-confined con-
crete cylinders are affected by at least three factors: (1) the cur-
vature of the FRP jacket; (2) the deformation nonuniformity of
cracked concrete; and (3) the existence of an overlapping zone in
which the measured strains are much lower than strains measured
elsewhere. The first factor results in a reduced strain capacity of
FRP in confined concrete cylinders. The second and third factors
result in a nonuniform strain distribution in the FRP jacket. While
the effect of curvature is material dependent, which means that
the curvature of the FRP jacket has a stronger detrimental effect
on CFRP than on GFRP in the context of their study, the nonuni-
formity of strain distribution is independent of the type of FRP.
In addition, Harries and Carey (2003) recently investigated the
effect of adhesive bonding on the hoop rupture strain ␧h,rup in a
GFRP jacket. Their test results showed that on the unbonded
specimens which contained a 0.08 mm thick plastic wrap between
the FRP jacket and the concrete, the hoop rupture strains were
nearly uniform around the circumference. However, the average
hoop rupture strains of these specimens did not appear to be
higher than those measured on the specimens with the FRP jacket
bonded to the concrete. Thus, the effect of bonding on reducing
the hoop rupture strain has not been established by these tests.
Stress–Strain Models
Classification of Models
From the large number of studies on FRP-confined concrete,
many stress–strain models have resulted. These models can be
classified into two categories: (1) design-oriented models, and (2)
analysis-oriented models. In the first category, stress–strain mod-
els are presented in closed-form expressions, while in the second
category, stress–strain curves of FRP-confined concrete are pre-
dicted using an incremental iterative numerical procedure. It
should be mentioned that a number of studies exist which have
been concerned with the nonlinear finite element analysis of FRP-
confined concrete (e.g., Rochette and Labossiere 1996; Mirmiran
et al. 2000; Parent and Labossiere 2000). These finite element
studies are not discussed in this paper.
Design-Oriented Models
Various simple stress–strain models in closed-form expressions
have been proposed based directly on test stress–strain curves of
FRP-confined circular concrete specimens. Most of the these
models predict only the increasing type of stress–strain curve, but
the models of Miyauchi et al. (1999), Jin et al. (2003), and Xiao
and Wu (2000) predict both the increasing and the decreasing
types of stress–strain curve. The model proposed by Shitindi et al.
(1998) was based on the test results of rectangular specimens
共100⫻ 200⫻ 400 mm兲 confined by FRP sheets and spirals. Their
model predicts only the descending type of stress–strain curves.
All these models are suitable for direct application in design cal-
culations by hand or spreadsheets and are thus referred to as
design-oriented models, although they may also be used in non-
linear computer analysis of structures with FRP confinement. In
addition, Moran and Pantelides (2002) proposed a stress–strain
model which may be classified as a design-oriented model as its
many parameters are directly based on test results, but the model
is far more complicated than other design-oriented models and
1716 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004
thus does not possess the necessary simplicity for direct design
application. This model also predicts stress–strain curves of both
the increasing and decreasing types.
Early stress–strain models for FRP-confined concrete (Fardis
and Khalili 1981, 1982; Ahmad et al. 1991; Saadatmanesh et al.
1994) were based on models for steel-confined concrete by Rich-
art et al. (1928, 1929), Ahmad and Shah (1982a, 1982b), and
Mander et al. (1988), respectively. These models do not feature
the characteristic bilinear shape of the stress-strain curves of FRP-
confined concrete. This might be due to the fact that the charac-
teristic bilinear stress–strain behavior was not clearly displayed in
the early tests, which were performed on concrete cylinders con-
fined by filament-wound FRPs (Fardis and Khalili 1981; Ahmad
et al. 1991). Bilinear stress–strain curves were observed in subse-
quent studies on concrete cylinders confined by wrapped FRP
sheets (e.g., Harmon and Slattery 1992; Demers and Neale 1994;
Howie and Karbhari 1994, Nanni and Braford 1995). Nanni and
Braford (1995) suggested that the stress–strain curves of FRP-
confined concrete be approximated using two straight lines, with
the transition point being at a stress equal to the compressive
strength of unconfined concrete and an axial strain of 0.003. This
suggestion was applied by Nanni and Norries (1995) to the analy-
sis of FRP-confined concrete under combined flexure and com-
pression, in which the ultimate point of the stress–strain curve
was determined using the equations of Fardis and Khalili (1982).
Such strictly bilinear models were also proposed by Karbhari and
Gao (1997) and Xiao and Wu (2000) for FRP-confined concrete.
Trilinear models have also been proposed recently by Wu et al.
(2003) and Chaallal et al. (2003), with the latter being for FRP-
confined concrete in rectangular sections only. In other existing
models, at least the first portion of the stress–strain curve is
curved. Two expressions have been used most frequently in mod-
eling FRP-confined concrete: the general expression proposed by
Sargin (1971) and the four-parameter stress–strain curve proposed
by Richard and Abbot (1975). Design-oriented models using these
two expressions are first summarized below, which is then fol-
lowed by the brief description of a recent model proposed by the
authors.
It should be mentioned that apart from models predicting the
stress–strain curve of FRP-confined concrete, a number of studies
have been concerned with only the ultimate condition of FRP-
confined concrete (Kono et al. 1998; Lin and Chen 2001; Vintzi-
leou 2001; Ilki and Kumbasar 2002, 2003; Lam and Teng 2002;
Pan et al. 2002; Shehata et al. 2002; De Lorenzis and Tepfers
2003).
Models Based on Sargin’s General Expression
The general expression proposed by Sargin (1971) has the follow-
ing form:
␴c
A␧c
␧co
+ 共D − 1兲冉 冊
␧c 2
␧co
冉 冊
= 共5兲
⬘
f co ␧c ␧c 2
1 + 共A − 2兲 +D
␧co ␧co
where A and D = constants controlling the initial slope and the
descending path of the stress–strain curve, respectively. Ahmad
and Shah (1982a, b) used Eq. (5) to model the stress–strain curve
of concrete confined by steel spirals. This equation has also been
used in Eurocode 2 (CEN 1991) to represent the stress–strain
curve of unconfined concrete for structural analysis. However, the
stress-strain curve for design use in the same document takes the
following form which is a special case of Eq. (5) with A = 2 and
Fig. 4. Use of Sargin’s general expression for stress–strain curves of
fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete
D = 0, which is usually referred to as Hognestad’s (1951) parabola
␴c
f ⬘co
冋 冉 冊册
=
2␧c
␧co
−
␧c
␧co
2
共6兲
where ␧co is assumed to be 0.002 in Eurocode 2 (CEN 1991).
Ahmad et al. (1991) modified the model of Ahmad and Shah
(1982a, b) for application to FRP-confined concrete, with f ⬘co and
␧co being replaced by the stress and strain at the peak stress of
FRP-confined concrete. As mentioned above, this model does not
feature a bilinear shape. Toutanji (1999) and Saafi et al. (1999)
characterized the stress–strain curve of FRP-confined concrete
using two segments with a smooth transition between them at a
lateral strain of ␧r = 0.002. These two models are identical in form
but were calibrated with test results of FRP-wrapped concrete
cylinders and concrete-filled FRP tubes respectively. The first seg-
ments in their models are described by modified versions of Eq.
(5) with ␴c / f ⬘co and ␧c / ␧co replaced by ␴c and ␧c, and with the
constants redefined. The second segments in their models are
given by separate equations for axial stresses and strains both of
which are functions of the lateral strain ␧r. Jin et al. (2003) pro-
posed a stress–strain model for concrete confined by wrapped
FRP in which the first segment of the stress–strain curve is de-
scribed by the same equation as given in Toutanji (1999) [i.e., a
modified version of Eq. (5)] while the second segment, which is
linear, may be ascending or descending. Miyauchi et al. (1997,
1999) used the Hognestad parabola to describe the first portion of
the stress–strain curve of concrete confined by wrapped CFRP
and a straight line to describe the second portion. Lillistone and
Jolly (2000) represented the first portion of the stress–strain curve
of concrete-filled FRP tubes using the Hognestad parabola plus an
additional term related linearly to the axial strain which accounts
for the contribution of the FRP tube. The second portion in this
model is linear, with the axial stress being that given by the same
additional term plus the unconfined concrete strength. It should be
mentioned that Lillistone and Jolly’s (2000) model predicts a con-
stant ultimate axial strain for any amount of confinement. Li et al.
(2003), however, used Eq. (6) for the response of FRP-confined
concrete until the confined concrete strength f ⬘cc is reached. Obvi-
ously, this model does not lead to a stress-strain curve of the
bilinear shape. The use of Eqs. (5) and (6) for modeling FRP-
confined concrete is illustrated in Fig. 4.
Models Based on Richard and Abbot’s Four-Parameter
Curve
The four-parameter curve of Richard and Abbot (1975), which
was proposed to describe the elastic–plastic behavior of structural
systems, is given by
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1717
Fig. 5. Richard and Abbot’s four parameter stress–strain curve
共E1 − E2兲␧
␴=
再 冏
1+
共E1 − E2兲␧
fo
冏冎n 1/n + E 2␧ 共7兲
where ␴ and ␧ = stress and the strain; f 0 = reference stress; E1
= initial modulus; E2 = plastic modulus; and n = shape parameter
controlling the transition from the first portion to the second por-
tion of the stress–strain curve. The definitions of f 0, E1, E2, and n
are shown in Fig. 5. This four-parameter curve was first used by
Samaan et al. (1998) for FRP-confined concrete. An advantage of
this four-parameter curve is that a bilinear stress–strain curve can
be simulated using a single expression. Consequently, a number
of models for FRP-confined concrete have been proposed using
this expression (Arduini et al. 1999; Yu 2001; Cheng et al. 2002;
Moran and Pantelides 2002; Xiao and Wu 2003), as well as a
model by Toutanji and Saafi (2002) for concrete confined by
FRP-reinforced polyvinyl chloride tubes. Some of these models
predict both axial stress–axial strain and axial stress–lateral strain
relationships (Samaan et al. 1998; Yu 2001; Moran and Pantelides
2002; Xiao and Wu 2003), but others predict only the axial
stress–axial strain relationship. A model proposed by Campione
and Miragia (2003) is also modified from Eq. (8), in which nor-
malized stresses and strains are used instead and no reference
stress is defined. While the model of Samaan et al. (1998) was
calibrated with test results of concrete-filled FRP tubes, the mod-
els of Arduini et al. (1999), Xiao and Wu (2003), and Campione
and Miragia (2003) were calibrated with test results of FRP-
wrapped concrete cylinders. The models of Yu (2001) and Moran
and Pantelides (2002) were calibrated with test results of both
types of FRP-confined concrete.
Lam and Teng’s Model
The present authors recently developed a design-oriented model
(Lam and Teng 2003b, c) based on a careful interpretation of a
large test database assembled by them from the open literature.
An earlier version of this model can be found in Lam and Teng
(2001). The new version (Lam and Teng 2003b, c) includes sev-
eral improvements over the previous version, including a more
accurate and rational definition of the ultimate condition based on
the actual hoop rupture strain and the explicit account taken of the
effect of jacket strain capacity on the ultimate axial strain. It can
be seen in Fig. 6 that this model consists of a parabolic first
portion with its initial slope being the elastic modulus of uncon-
fined concrete Ec, and a linear second portion which has a slope
⬘ . The parabolic first
E2 and intercepts the stress axis at f 0 = f co
portion meets the linear second portion with a smooth transition
at ␧t. This model allows the use of test values or values suggested
by design codes for the elastic modulus of unconfined concrete
Fig. 6. Lam and Teng’s design-oriented stress–strain model for fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete
and accounts for the effect of FRP confinement on the nonlinear
response of concrete before the transition point. It reduces to the
design stress–strain curve for unconfined concrete recommended
by Eurocode 2 (CEN 1991) provided the same initial elastic
modulus is used, which is an important advantage of the model in
practical applications. In addition, it is easily integrable, which is
a significant advantage for use in section analysis compared with
models with more complicated expressions.
Analysis-Oriented Models
A number of stress–strain models have been developed based on
an incremental iterative numerical approach in which the interac-
tion between the concrete core and the confining FRP is explicitly
accounted for. The use of an incremental approach makes it in-
convenient for these models to be adopted in hand or spreadsheet
calculations in design, but they are suitable for use in computer
analysis such as nonlinear finite element analysis, particularly if
the lateral strain of the confined concrete is also required in the
analysis. These models are referred to as analysis-oriented stress–
strain models.
Models Based on Active Confinement Model
The models of Mirmiran and Shahawy (1996), Spoelstra and
Monti (1999), Fam and Rizkalla (2001), Chun and Park (2002),
and Harries and Kharel (2002) are all based on the assumption
that the axial stress and axial strain of concrete confined by FRP
at a given lateral strain are the same as those of the same concrete
actively confined with a constant confining pressure equal to that
supplied by the FRP jacket. This assumption is equivalent to as-
suming that the stress path of the confined concrete does not
affect its stress–strain behavior. This assumption has not been
rigorously validated, but appears to be widely accepted as any
error caused by this assumption is believed to be small. Based on
this assumption, an active confinement model for concrete can be
used to evaluate the axial stress and axial strain of FRP-confined
concrete at a given confining pressure and the interaction between
the concrete and the FRP jacket can be explicitly accounted for by
equilibrium and radial displacement compatibility considerations.
As a result, the stress–strain curve of FRP-confined concrete
crosses a series of stress–strain curves for the same concrete with
different confining pressures, as demonstrated in Fig. 7 using
Spoelstra and Monti’s (1999) model. This approach has previ-
ously been used in studies on steel-confined concrete (Ahmad and
Shah 1982b; Madas and Elnashai 1992).
The four studies by Mirmiran and Shahawy (1996), Spoelstra
and Monti (1999), Fam and Rizkalla (2001), and Chun and Park
1718 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004
Fig. 7. Analysis-oriented models based on active confinement model
(2002) on FRP-confined concrete all adopted the model of
Mander et al. (1988) as the active confinement model. In Mander
et al.’s (1988) model, the stress–strain relationship of confined
concrete is described by a stress–strain equation proposed by Pop-
ovics (1973). The following equation is used to define a failure
surface for concrete under triaxial compressive stresses, which
was based on the “five parameter” multiaxial failure surface given
by William and Warnk (1975) and calibrated with data from tri-
axial tests
冉 冑
f ⬘cc = f ⬘co 2.254 1 + 7.94
fl
⬘
f co
fl
− 2 − 1.254
f ⬘co
冊 共8兲
where f ⬘cc = peak compressive stress of concrete under a constant
confining pressure f l. Harries and Kharel (2002) also used
Mander’s model, except that Eq. (8) was replaced by an equation
proposed by Mirmiran and Shahawy (1997a), which is given by
f ⬘cc = f co
⬘ + 4.269f 0.587
l 共MPa兲 共9兲
The lateral strain is determined by different means in the five
models mentioned above. In the models of Mirmiran and Sha-
hawy (1996) and Chun and Park (2002), a cubic polynomial equa-
tion developed by Elwi and Murray (1979) based on the results of
Kurfer et al. (1969) from biaxial tests of concrete is used to de-
termine the lateral strain. In the model of Spoelstra and Monti
(1999), the lateral strain is determined using a simple constitutive
model proposed by Pantazopoulou and Mills (1995), which de-
scribes the decrease of secant modulus of concrete with an in-
creasing area strain (or lateral strain). In the model of Fam and
Rizkalla (2001), an equation representing the change of secant
Poisson’s ratio with confining pressure was developed based on
the results of Gardener (1969) from triaxial tests of concrete. In
these four models, the lateral strain equations are based on test
results of unconfined or actively confined concrete. Harries and
Kharel (2002) instead based the lateral strains of their model on
the test results of FRP-confined concrete. In their model, separate
equations are used for predicting the lateral strains of CFRP and
GFRP confined concrete.
Models Based on Other Approaches
Apart from the above five models based on an active confinement
model, other approaches have also been used for modeling FRP-
confined concrete. Harmon et al. (1998) developed a model for
FRP-confined concrete based on the concept of crack slip and
separation in the concrete. An earlier version of this model was
presented by Harmon et al. (1995) and the application of this
model in column analysis was described by Harmon et al. (2002)
and Gould and Harmon (2002). In this model, it is assumed that
Fig. 8. Performance of design-oriented models using original
definitions of fiber reinforced polymer hoop rupture strain
concrete strains comprise of three components: the elastic strains,
the crack strains, and the void strains, with the last component
(void strains) neglected in the model. The crack strains are further
divided into two components: crack separation strains and crack
slip strains. The former lead to tensile strains in both directions,
but the latter lead to compressive axial strains and tensile lateral
strains. In this model, the relationship between lateral strain and
axial strain is not explicit but depends on the crack slip–
separation path.
Becque et al. (2003) proposed a model based on Gerstle’s
(1981a, b) octahedral stress–strain models with some modifica-
tions. The stress state of concrete in triaxial compression is de-
fined by the two octahedral stresses: the octahedral normal stress
␴0 and the octahedral shear stress ␶0. The lateral-to-axial strain
relationship in this model depends on the shear modulus G and
the bulk modulus K, through which the incremental octahedral
normal and shear stresses ⌬␴0 and ⌬␶0 are coupled with the in-
cremental normal and shear strains ⌬␧0 and ⌬␥0. Modifications to
Gerstle’s (1981a, b) original models were made by Becque et al.
(2003) by taking K to be a constant value, and defining the failure
surface using an equation proposed by Samaan et al. (1998) for
FRP-confined concrete which is given by
f ⬘cc = f co
⬘ + 6.0f 0.7
l 共MPa兲 共10兲
In addition, the plasticity model proposed by Karabinis and
Rousakis (2002) for FRP-confined concrete may also be classified
as an analysis-oriented model, although the numerical integration
required by the plasticity approach makes it more complicated
than other analysis-oriented models. Analysis-oriented models
predict not only the axial stress–strain behavior but also the axial
stress–lateral strain behavior. As a result, in such models the hoop
stress in the FRP jacket at any level of axial straining can be
predicted. Consequently, stresses in the FRP can be explicitly
evaluated throughout the loading process and compared with the
hoop rupture strength of FRP to determine the ultimate strength
and ultimate axial strain of FRP-confined concrete.
Assessment of Stress–Strain Models
Test Data
To assess the performance of existing analysis-oriented stress–
strain models, their predictions are compared with results from
tests on three CFRP- and two GFRP-wrapped concrete cylinders (
152 mm in diameter ⫻305 mm in height) recently conducted by
the authors (Lam and Teng 2004) in Figs. 8–10, where the test
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1719
Fig. 9. Performance of design-oriented models using test fiber
reinforced polymer hoop rupture strain
data are shown as light solid lines. These tests were carefully
conducted with hoop strains measured at eight points around a
circumference. The hoop strains used for comparison here were
averaged from strains measured outside the 150 mm overlapping
zone. These test results have not been used in developing any of
the existing stress–strain models, so they provide an independent
assessment of their performance. It should be noted that the con-
clusions reached in this section are in agreement with those
reached through similar comparisons undertaken by the authors
during the present study using the test data of Xiao and Wu
(2000) which are not reported here due to space limitation.
The material properties of the CFRP-confined concrete cylin-
ders are given earlier this paper when discussing Fig. 2. The three
CFRP-confined concrete specimens were wrapped with two plies
of CFRP and reached a hoop rupture strain of 0.982% on average.
The GFRP had an elastic modulus of 21,800 MPa and an ultimate
tensile strain of 2.315%, which were obtained from flat coupon
tensile tests (ASTM 1995) and calculated based on the nominal
thickness of 1.27 mm per ply. The two specimens used here had
an unconfined concrete strength of 38.5 MPa, were wrapped with
two plies of GFRP, and reached a hoop rupture strain of 1.718%
on average. In predicting the stress–strain curves, the elastic
modulus Ec and initial Poisson’s ratio ␯c of unconfined concrete
were either those specified in an individual model or taken to be
Ec = 4 , 730冑 f ⬘co (MPa) and ␯c = 0.18 if they are not specified in the
model. The axial strain at the compressive strength of unconfined
concrete ␧co was assumed a constant value of 0.002 for all mod-
els.
Design-Oriented Models
The models proposed by Samaan et al. (1998), Miyauchi et al.
(1999), Toutanji (1999), Saafi et al. (1999), Xiao and Wu (2003),

Fig. 10. Performance of analysis-oriented models using test fiber
reinforced polymer hoop rupture strain
Cheng et al. (2002), Moran and Pantelides (2002), Jin et al.
(2003), and Lam and Teng (2003b) are selected for comparison
with the test data. These models were identified in a preliminary
comparison as being the more accurate models. When more than
one model has been proposed by the same researchers (Miyauchi
et al. 1997, 1999; Xiao and Wu 2000, 2003), only their latest
model is included in the comparison. In Fig. 8, comparisons are
made for the CFRP-confined cylinders where the hoop strain or
stress in the FRP at rupture as defined in the original model is
used. For Xiao and Wu’s model, 50% of the FRP material tensile
strength is used. For Jin et al.’s (2003) model, a reduction factor
of 0.96 is used for the ultimate FRP strain. For Moran and Pan-
telides’ (2002) model, the CFRP hoop rupture strain is taken as
0.0085. For Lam and Teng’s model, the CFRP is assumed to reach
58.6% of the material tensile strength, based on the average value
of a large test database (Lam and Teng 2003b). For other models,
the FRP tensile strength from flat coupon tests is used. In Figs 9(a
and b), comparisons are made for both CFRP and GFRP-confined
concrete and the actual average hoop rupture strains obtained
from the confined concrete tests are used for all models.
It can be observed from Fig. 8 that if the hoop strain at the
rupture of the FRP jacket is assumed the value specified in the
original model, the three models using a substantially reduced
value for this rupture strain (Moran and Pantelides 2002; Lam and
Teng 2003b; Xiao and Wu 2003) perform better than other mod-
els. However, if the actual hoop rupture strain is used instead,
then the performance of the other models is improved. Among
these models, the models of Saafi et al. (1999), Moran and Pan-
telides (2002), Jin et al. (2003), Xiao and Wu (2003), and Lam
and Teng (2003b) give closer predictions of the shape of the
stress–strain curve and the ultimate condition (Fig. 9). This ob-
servation suggests that, central to a design-oriented model is an
accurate definition of the ultimate condition. Provided that the
1720 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004
ultimate condition of FRP-confined concrete is accurately de-
fined, the stress–strain curve can be closely matched using differ-
ent forms of equations.
Analysis-Oriented Models
The models of Harmon et al. (1998), Spoelstra and Monti (1999),
Fam and Rizkalla (2001), Chun and Park (2002), Harries and
Kharel (2002), and Becque et al. (2003) are considered here.
Mirmiran and Shahawy’s (1996) model is not included in this
comparison as some of its parameters are not clearly defined. The
predicted stress–strain curves terminate at the point when the av-
erage FRP hoop rupture strain from tests is reached. It can be seen
from Figs 10(a and b) that these models lead to very different
predictions. For the CFRP-confined concrete cylinders [Fig.
10(a)], the models of Spoestra and Monti (1999), Fam and Riz-
kalla (2001), and Chun and Park (2002) perform better than other
models. However, for the GFRP-confined concrete cylinders [Fig.
10(b)], none of the models provides reasonably close predictions
for the stress and strain at the ultimate point. The model of Har-
ries and Kharel (2002) predicts a nearly horizontal line for the
second portion of the stress–strain curve for both the CFRP- and
the GFRP-confined concrete, which greatly deviates from the test
curves. This is believed to be at least partly due to the use of an
incorrect failure surface. If the failure surface is redefined using
Eq. (10) which represents an improvement to Eq. (9) from the
same research group, the predicted results are in much better
agreement with test data. In addition, the accuracy of the lateral
strain equations in Harries and Kharel’s (2002) model are also in
doubt because according to this model, a three-ply CFRP jacket
does not lead to a higher compressive strength than a two-ply
jacket for the same concrete, which is clearly incorrect.
The key to analysis-oriented models is the lateral-to-axial
strain relationship for FRP-confined concrete, which does not ap-
pear to have been well understood and accurately captured in
existing analysis-oriented models. For models employing an ac-
tive confinement model, a properly defined failure surface is also
of importance, as illustrated by the dependence of the predictions
of Hurries and Kharel’s (2002) model on the defined failure sur-
face. Further research is required to develop a more accurate
analysis-oriented stress–strain model.
Concluding Remarks
The large number of studies on FRP-confined concrete have led to
a good understanding of its behavior. The main difference be-
tween FRP-confined concrete and actively confined concrete
(which approximates the behavior of steel-confined concrete)
arises from the linear elastic material behavior of an FRP jacket
which supplies a continuously increasing confining pressure as
the axial strain increases. As a result, the stress–strain curve of
FRP-confined concrete features a ascending bilinear shape, unless
the amount of FRP provided is rather small. The fact that the FRP
jacket ruptures at a hoop rupture strain considerably lower than
the ultimate tensile strain from material tests is another important
observation.
Based on existing test observations, many stress–strain models
have been developed for FRP-confined concrete. These stress–
strain models can be classified into two categories, design-
oriented models and analysis-oriented models. In the first cat-
egory, stress–strain models are presented in closed-form
expressions, while in the second category, stress–strain curves of
FRP-confined concrete are predicted using an incremental itera-
tive numerical procedure. The latest design-oriented model, pro-
posed by the authors, is more advantageous over other models in
several aspects including its accuracy and simplicity for direct use
in design. A number of analysis-oriented models are also avail-
able, but their accuracy still requires improvement, particularly in
predicting the lateral strain.
This paper has been concerned only with normal strength con-
crete uniformly confined by FRP jackets with which most existing
studies have been concerned. There are several other aspects of
FRP-confined concrete, on which much less information is avail-
able and much more research is required. These include: (1) FRP-
confined high strength concrete; (2) interaction between steel con-
finement and FRP confinement; (3) concrete with nonuniform
confinement as found in FRP-confined rectangular and other non-
circular sections and sections under nonuniform axial strains (e.g.,
bending); (4) FRP-confined concrete subject to cyclic loading;
and (5) concrete confined by hybrid FRP composites. Some of the
issues have already received considerable attention. For example,
several studies have examined the behavior of FRP-confined con-
crete in rectangular columns (Restrepol and De Vino 1996;
Mirmiran et al. 1998; Rochette and Labossiere 2000; Wang and
Restrepo 2001; Chun and Park 2002; Pulido et al. 2002; Tan
2002; Campione and Miragia 2003; Chaallal et al. 2003; Lam and
Teng 2003d; Maalej et al. 2003) and elliptical columns (Pan et al.
2002; Teng and Lam 2002), and limited testing has been carried
out on the cyclic behavior of FRP-confined concrete under com-
pression (Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997a; Rodrigues and da Silva
2001a; 2001b; Ilki and Kumbasar 2002; Jin 2002; Lam et al.
2004), and on concrete confined by hybrid FRP (Chang et al.
2000; Liu et al. 2000).
Acknowledgments
The writers are grateful for the financial support received from
the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR (Project No:
PolyU 5059/02E), the Natural Science Foundation of China (Na-
tional Key Project No. 50238030), and The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University provided through its Area of Strategic Develop-
ment (ASD) Scheme for the ASD in Urban Hazard Mitigation.
References
Ahamd, S. H., Khaloo, A. R., and Irshaid, A. (1991). “Behaviour of
concrete spirally confined by fibreglass filament.” Mag. Concrete
Res., 43(156), 143–148.
Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P. (1982a). “Complete triaxial stress-strain
curves for concrete.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108(4), 728–742.
Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P. (1982b). “Stress–strain curves of concrete
confined by spiral reinforcement.” ACI J., 79, 484–490.
Aire, C., Gettu, R., and Casas, J. R. (2001). “Study of the compressive
behavior of concrete confined by fiber reinforced composites.” Com-
posites in Constructions, Proc. of the Int. Conf., A. A. Balkema, Lisse,
The Netherlands, 239–243.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1992). “Standard
test method for apparent tensile strength of ring or tubular plastics and
reinforced plastics by split disk method.” Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, ASTM D 2290—92 Vol. 15.03, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995). “Standard
test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composites ma-
terials.” Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM D3039/D3039M–95,
Vol. 14.02, Philadelphia.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1721
Arduini, M., Di Tommaso, A., Manfroni, O., Ferrari, S., and Romagnolo,
M. (1999). “II: Confinement o passivo di elementi compressi in cal-
cetruzzo con fogli di materiale composito.” Ind. Ital. Cemento, 11,
836–841.
Becque, J., Patnaik, A. K., and Rizkalla, S. H. (2003). “Analytical models
for concrete confined with FRP tubes.” J. Compos. Constr., 7(1),
31–38.
Campione, G., and Miragia, N. (2003). “Strength and strain capacities of
concrete compression members reinforced with FRP.” Cem. Concr.
Compos., 25, 31–41.
Candappa, D. C., Sanjayan, J. G., and Setung, S. (2001). “Complete
triaxial stress-strain curves of high-strength concrete.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 13(3), 209–215.
Chaallal, O., Hassan, M., and Shahawy, M. (2003). “Confinement model
for axially loaded short rectangular columns strengthened with fiber-
reinforced polymer wrapping.” ACI Struct. J., 100(2), 215–221.
Chang, S., Ye, L., and Mai, Y. W. (2000). “A study on polymer compos-
ites strengthening systems for concrete columns.” Appl. Compos.
Mater., 7(2–3), 125–138.
Chen, W. F. (1982). Plasticity in reinforced concrete, McGraw–Hill, New
York.
Cheng, H. L., Sotelino, E. D., and Chen, W. F. (2002). “Strength estima-
tion for FRP wrapped reinforced concrete columns.” Steel Compos.
Struct., 2(1), 1–20.
Chun, S. S., and Park, H. C. (2002). “Load carrying capacity and ductility
of RC columns confined by carbon fiber reinforced polymer.” Proc.,
3rd Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructure (CD-Rom), Univ. of
Arizona, San Francisco.
De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R. (2003). “Comparative study of models
on confinement of concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced polymer
composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 7(3), 219–237.
Demers, M., and Neale, K. W. (1994). “Strengthening of concrete col-
umns with unidirectional composite sheets.” Development in Short
and Medium Span Bridge Engineering ’94, Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf.
on Short and Medium Span Bridges, A. A. Mufti, B. Bakht, and L. G.
Jaeger, eds., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 895–
905.
Elwi, A. A., and Murray, D. W. (1979). “A 3D hypoelastic concrete
constitutive relationship.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 105(4), 623–641.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (1991). “Design of con-
crete structures—part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, Euro-
code 2, ENV 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H. (2001). “Confinement model for axially
loaded concrete confined by circular fiber-reinforced polymer tubes.”
ACI Struct. J., 98(4), 451–461.
Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. (1981). “Concrete encased in fiberglass-
reinforced plastic.” ACI J., 78(6), 440–446.
Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. (1982). “FRP-encased concrete as a struc-
tural material.” Mag. Concrete Res., 34(121), 192–202.
Gardener, N. J. (1969). “Triaxial behavior of concrete.” ACI J., 66(2),
136–146.
Gerstle, K. H. (1981a) “Simple formulation of biaxial concrete behavior.”
ACI J., 78(1), 62–68.
Gerstle, K. H. (1981b) “Simple formulation of triaxial concrete behav-
ior.” ACI J., 78(5), 382–387.
Gould, N. C., and Harmon, T. G. (2002). “Confined concrete columns
subjected to axial load, cyclic shear, and cyclic flexure—Part II: ex-
perimental program.” ACI Struct. J., 99(1), 42–50.
Harmon, T. G., Gould, N. C., Ramakrishnan, S., and Wong, E. H. (2002).
“Confined concrete columns subjected to axial load, cyclic shear, and
cyclic flexure—Part I: analytical models.” ACI Struct. J., 99(1), 32–
41.
Harmon, T. G., Ramakrishnan, S., and Wang, E. H. (1998). “Confined
concrete subjected to uniaxial monotonic loading.” J. Eng. Mech.,
124(12), 1303–1308.
Harmon, T. G., and Slattery, K. T. (1992). “Advanced composite confine-
ment of concrete.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials
in Bridges and Structures, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
 299–306.
Harmon, T., Slattery, K., and Ramakrishnan, S. (1995). “The effect of
confinement stiffness on confined concrete.” Non-Metallic (FRP) Re-
inforcement for Concrete Structures, Proc., 2nd. Int. RILEM Symp.
(FRPRCS-2), L. Tarwe, ed., E&FN Spon, London, 584–592.
Harries, K. A., and Carey, A. (2003). “Shape and ‘gap’ effects on the
behavior of variably confined concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 33(6),
881–890.
Harries, K. A., and Kharel, G. (2002). “Behavior and modeling of con-
crete subject to variable confining pressure.” ACI Mater. J., 99(2),
180–189.
Hognestad, E. (1951). “A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members.” Bulletin Series No. 399, Engineering
Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Howie, I., and Karbhari, V. M. (1994). “Effect of materials architecture
on strengthening efficiency of composite wraps for deteriorating col-
umns in the North-east.” Infrastructure: New Materials and Methods
of Repair, Proc. 3rd Materials Engineering Conf., K. D. Basham ed.,
Material Engineering Division, ASCE, N.Y., 199–206.
Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2002). “Behavior of damaged and undam-
aged concrete strengthened by carbon fiber composite sheets.” Struct.
Eng. Mech., 13(1), 75–90.
Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2003). “Compressive behaviour of carbon
fiber composite jacketed concrete with circular and non-circular cross
sections.” J. Earthquake Eng., in press.
Jin, X. N. (2002). “Experimental study of the mechanical properties of
axisymmetrically confined concrete.” PhD thesis, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin, China (in Chinese).
Jin, X. N., Pan J. L., Liu, G. Y., and Lai, W. H. (2003). “Research of
stress–strain curve of concrete confined by fiber reinforced plastics
under axial compression.” J. Build. Struct., 24(4), 47–53 (in Chinese).
Karabinis, A. I., and Rousakis, T. C. (2002). “Concrete confined by FRP
materials: a plasticity approach.” Eng. Plast., 24, 923–932.
Karbhari, V. M., and Gao, Y. (1997). “Composite jacketed concrete under
uniaxial compression—Verification of simple design equations.” J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 9(4), 185–193.
Kono, S., Inazuni, M., and Kaku, T. (1998). “Evaluation of confining
effects of CFRP sheets on reinforced concrete members.” Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructures (ICCI ’98), Tucson, Ariz.,
343–355.
Kurfer, H. B., Hilsdorf, H. K., and Rusch, H. (1969). “Behavior of con-
crete under biaxial stresses.” ACI J., 66(8), 656–666.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2001). “A new stress–strain model for FRP-
confined concrete.” Proc., Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil En-
gineering, Hong Kong, 283–292.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2002). “Strength models for fiber-reinforced
plastic-confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(5), 612–623.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003a). “Hoop rupture strains of FRP jackets in
FRP-confined concrete.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Fibre-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, K. H. Tan, ed.,
Vol. 1, World Scientific, Singapore, 601–612.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003b). “Design-oriented stress-strain model
for FRP-confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17(6&7), 471–
489.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003c). “Stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete for design applications.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Fibre-
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, K.
H. Tan, ed., Vol. 1, World Scientific, Singapore, 99–110.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003d). “Design-oriented stress-strain model
for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.” J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos., 22(13), 1149–1186.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2004). “Ultimate condition of FRP-confined
concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 8(6).
Lam, L., Teng, J. G., Cheung, C. H., and Xiao, Y. (2004). “Behavior of
FRP-confined concrete under cyclic axial compression.” Proceedings
(CD-ROM), International Symposium on Confined Concrete, Chang-
sha, China, 12–14 June.
1722 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004
Li, Y. F., Lin, C. T., and Sung, Y. Y. (2003). “A constitutive model for
concrete confined with carbon fiber reinforced plastics.” Mech.
Mater., 35, 603–619.
Lillistone, D., and Jolly, C. K. (2000). “An innovative form of reinforce-
ment for concrete columns using advanced composites.” Struct. Eng.,
78(23/24), 20–28.
Lin, H. J., and Chen, C. T. (2001). “Strength of concrete cylinder con-
fined by composite materials.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 20(18),
1577–1601.
Liu, H. K., Tai, N. H., and Chen, C. C. (2000). “Compressive strength of
concrete columns reinforced by non-adhesive filament wound hybrid
composites.” Composites, Part A, 31, 221–233.
Maalej, M., Tanwongsval, S., and Paramasivam, P. (2003). “Modelling of
rectangular RC columns strengthened with FRP.” Cem. Concr. Com-
pos., 25, 263–276.
Madas, P., and Elnashai, A. S. (1992). “A new passive confinement model
for the analysis of concrete structures subjected to cyclic and transient
dynamic loading.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21, 409–431.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8),
1804–1826.
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy (1996). “A new concrete-filled hollow FRP
composite column.” Composites, Part B, 27(3–4), 263–268.
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1997a). “Behavior of concrete columns
confined by fiber composites.” J. Struct. Eng., 123(5), 583–590.
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1997b). “Dilation characteristics of con-
fined concrete.” Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater., 2, 237–249.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M., Samaan, M., and El Echary, H. (1998).
“Effect of column parameters on FRP-confined concrete.” J. Compos.
Constr., 2(4), 175–185.
Mirmiran, A., Zagers, K., and Yuan, W. (2000). “Nonlinear finite element
modeling of concrete confined by fiber composites.” Finite Elem.
Anal. Design, 35, 79–96.
Miyauchi, K., Inoue, S., Kuroda, T., and Kobayashi, A., (1999).
“Strengthening effects of concrete columns with carbon fiber sheet.”
Trans. Japan Concrete Inst., 21, 143–150.
Miyauchi, K., Nishibayashi, S., and Inoue, S. (1997). “Estimation of
strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete column.”
Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. (FRPRCS-3) on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures, Vol. 1, Sapporo, Japan, 217–224.
Moran, D. A. and Pantelides, C. P. (2002). “Stress-strain model for fiber-
reinforced polymer-confined concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(4),
233–240.
Nanni, A., and Braford, N. M. (1995). “FRP jacketed concrete under
uniaxial compression.” Constr. Build. Mater., 9(2), 115–124.
Nanni, A., and Norries, M. S. (1995). “FRP jacketed concrete under flex-
ure and combined flexure-compression.” Constr. Build. Mater., 9(5),
273–281.
Pan, J. L., Jin, X. N., Wang, F. L., Wang, Y. G., and Lai, W. H. (2002).
“Behavior of short reinforced concrete columns wrapped with FRP
under axial compression (in Chinese).” J. Harbin University Civil
Eng. Architecture, 35(3), 14–19.
Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1995). “Role of expansion on mechanical behavior
of concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 121(12), 1795–1805.
Pantazoupolou, S. J., and Mills, R. H. (1995). “Microstructural aspects of
the mechanical responses of plain concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 92(6),
605–616.
Parent, P., and Labossiere, P. (2000). “Finite element analysis of rein-
forced concrete columns confined with composite materials.” Can. J.
Civ. Eng., 27, 400–4111.
Pessiki, S., Harries, K. A., Kestner, J. T., Sause, R., and Ricles, J. M.
(2001). “Axial behavior of reinforced concrete columns confined with
FRP jackets.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(4), 237–245.
Popovics, S. (1973). “Numerical approach to the complete stress-strain
relation for concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 3(5), 583–599.
Pulido, C., Saiidi, M. S., Sanders, D., and Itani, A. (2002). “Experimental
validation and analysis of a CFRP-retrofit of a two-column bent.”
Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructure, (CD-Rom).
Restrepol, J. I. and De Vino, B. (1996). “Enhancement of the axial load-
 capacity of reinforced concrete columns by means of fiberglass-epoxy
jackets.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, M. M. El-Badry, ed., Montreal, 547–690.
Richard, R. M., and Abbott, B. J. (1975). “Versatile elastic-plastic stress-
strain formula.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 101(4), 511–515.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928). “A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.” Engineer-
ing Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1929). “The failure of
plain and spirally reinforced concrete in compression.” Bulletin No.
190, Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Rochette, P., and Labossiere, P. (1996). “A plasticity approach for con-
crete columns confined with composite materials.” Proc., 2nd Int.
Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures,
M. M. El-Badry, ed., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Mont-
real, 359–366.
Rochette, P., and Labossiere, P. (2000). “Axial testing of rectangular col-
umn models confined with composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 4(3),
129–136.
Rodriques, C. C., and Silva, M. G. (2001a). “Experimental investigation
of CFRP reinforced concrete columns under uniaxial cyclic compres-
sion.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Rein-
forced Concrete Structures, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, Lon-
don, 783–792.
Rodriques, C. C., and Silva, M. G. (2001b). “The behaviour of GFRP
reinforced concrete columns under monotonic and cyclic axial com-
pression.” Composites in Constructions, Proc., Int. Conf., Balkema,
Lisse, The Netherlands, 245–250.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Li, M. W. (1994). “Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fiber compos-
ite straps.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 434–447.
Saafi, M., Toutanji, H. A., and Li, Z. (1999). “Behavior of concrete col-
umns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes.” ACI Mater. J.,
96(4), 500–509.
Samaan, M., Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1998). “Model of concrete
confined by fiber composites.” J. Struct. Eng., 124(9), 1025–1031.
Sargin, M., (1971). “Stress-strain relationship for concrete and the analy-
sis of structural concrete section.” PhD thesis, Univ. of Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.
Seible, F., Burgueno, R., Abdallah, M. G., and Nuismer, R. (1995). “Ad-
vanced composite carbon shell systems for bridge columns under seis-
mic loads.” Proc., National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways,
San Diego.
Shahawy, M., Mirmiran, A., and Beitelman, T. (2000). “Test and model-
ing of carbon-wrapped concrete columns.” Composites, Part B, 31,
471–480.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2004 / 1723
Shehata, I. A. E. M., Corneiro, L. A. V., and Shehata, L. C. D. (2002).
“Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP sheets.”
Mater. Struct., 35, 50–58.
Shitindi, R. V., Kato, Y., Hattori, A., and Miyagawa, T. (1998). “Stress-
strain behaviour of concrete confined by FRP.” Mater. Sci. Res. Int.,
4(3), 163–170.
Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G. (1999). “FRP-confined concrete model.”
J. Compos. Constr., 3(3), 143–150.
Tan, K. H. (2002). “Strength enhancement of rectangular reinforced con-
crete columns using fiber-reinforced polymer.” J. Compos. Constr.,
6(3), 175–183.
Teng, J. G., and Lam, L. (2002). “Compressive behavior of carbon fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete in elliptical columns.” J. Struct.
Eng., 128(12), 1535–1543.
Toutanji, H. A. (1999). “Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns
externally confined with advanced fiber composite sheets.” ACI
Mater. J., 96(3), 397–404.
Toutanji, H., and Saafi, M. (2002). “Stress-strain behavior of concrete
columns confined with hybrid composite materials.” Mater. Struct.,
35, 338–347.
Vintzileou, E. (2001). “An empirical model for predicting the properties
of concrete confined by means of composite materials.” Proc., 5th Int.
Conf. on Fiber-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., Vol. II, Thomas Telford, London, 845–853.
Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I. (2001). “Investigation of concentrically
loaded reinforced concrete columns confined with glass fiber-
reinforced polymer jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 98(3), 377–385.
William, K. J., and Warnke, E. P. (1975). “Constitutive model for the
triaxial behaviour of concrete.” Proc., Int. Assoc. Bridge Structural
Eng., 19, 1–30.
Wu, G., Lu, Z., and Wu, Z. (2003). “Stress–strain relationship for FRP-
confined concrete cylinders.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Fibre-
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures
(FRPRCS-6), K. H. Tan, ed., Vol. 1, World Scientific, Singapore, 551–
560.
Xiao, Y., Tomii, M., and Sakino, K. (1991). “Triaxial behavior of con-
fined concrete (in Japanese).” Concrete Res. Technol., 2(1), 1–14.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2000). “Compressive behavior of concrete confined
by carbon fiber composite jackets.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 12(2), 139–
146.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2003). “Compressive behavior of concrete confined
by various types of FRP composites jackets.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.,
22(13), 1187–1202.
Yu, Q. (2001). “A study on the stress–strain relationship of FRP-confined
concrete in axial compression.” Ind. Constr., 31(4), 5–8 (in Chinese).