Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–18
Novel fiber-reinforced polymer cross Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
wrapping strengthening technique: A sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219884451

comparative study journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Jun-Jie Zeng1,2 , Zhi-Jian Duan1, Yong-Chang Guo1, Zhi-Hong Xie3

and Li-Juan Li1

Abstract
This article presents a comparative study on behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer–confined concrete in axially loaded circular columns
strengthened using three different fiber-reinforced polymer partial wrapping strengthening schemes: the fiber-reinforced polymer ring
wrapping, the fiber-reinforced polymer strip helical wrapping, and the novel fiber-reinforced polymer strip cross helical wrapping. The
test results show that at an identical confinement ratio, the strength enhancement efficiency of the fiber-reinforced polymer strip heli-
cal wrapping is slightly weaker than those of the other two strengthening schemes, while the strain enhancement efficiency of the
fiber-reinforced polymer strip helical wrapping is the strongest among the three strengthening schemes. An analysis-oriented stress–
strain model is proposed for the confined concrete with fiber-reinforced polymer partial wrapping, and the comparisons show that
the model is capable to provide satisfactory predictions on stress–strain behavior of confined concrete with fiber-reinforced polymer
partial wrapping.

Keywords
confinement, cross helical wrapping, fiber-reinforced polymer, fiber-reinforced polymer–confined concrete, partial wrapping strength-
ening technique, stress–strain model

Introduction (FSHW) in this study. A valuable advantage of

Utilizing fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites
as external confining system for strengthening and
rehabilitating existing deteriorated reinforced concrete
(RC) structures has gained increasing acceptance (e.g.
Bai et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2011; Lin
et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2018c). In the
research community, behavior of confined concrete
with FRP full wrapping (Figure 1(a)) strengthening
technique (FFWST) (or in the form of concrete-filled
FRP tubes) has been investigated thoroughly (e.g.
Hadi et al., 2015; Lo et al., 2015; Ouyang et al., 2017;
Ozbakkaloglu and Lim, 2013; Teng et al., 2016, 2018a;
Wang et al., 2017, 2018a; Wei et al., 2019; Xiong et al.,
2018; Yu et al., 2016, 2017; Zeng et al., 2018d).
However, the FRP partial wrapping strengthening
technique (FPWST) is more practical if the former is
not easy to be implemented (e.g. columns with some
inevitable structural or functional joints). Generally,
FPWST is applied by FRP intermitted rings or FRP
intermitted helical strips (Figure 1(b) and (c)). The for-
mer is called as the FRP ring wrapping (FRW) and
the latter is called as FRP spiral helical wrapping
FSHW is that the FRP continuous strips can be
applied by robots, which allows automatized construc-
tion of this strengthening technique. While using FRW
is relatively less economical than the FSHW because
the former requires a proper amount of overlapping.
For some specific applications where bonding is sig-
nificant, the FSHW and FRW strengthening tech-
niques are of particular interest as these two
strengthening techniques allow bonding between inner
confining concrete and the outer structural
1
Structural Laboratory, School of Civil and Transportation Engineering,
Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
3
Navigational Engineering Department, Guangzhou Maritime University,
Guangzhou, China
Corresponding author:
Yong-Chang Guo, Structural Laboratory, School of Civil and
Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Room
203, No. 100 Waihuan Xi Road, Panyu District, Guangzhou 510006,
China.
Email: guoyc@gdut.edu.cn
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 1. FRP wet layup strengthening techniques: (a) FRP full
wrapping, (b) FRP ring wrapping, (c) FRP strip helical wrapping,
and (d) FRP strip cross helical wrapping.
components because part of concrete is not fully con-
fined by the FRP jacket. For instance, a novel steel-
free hybrid bar has recently been proposed by
Professor Jin-Gunag Teng at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University (Teng et al., 2018b) and he
pointed out that the FSHW and FRW are attractive
to be utilized as the outer confining system for the
hybrid bars where bonding between the hybrids and
the external concrete is significant. On the other
aspect, the uncovered concrete outside the FRP strips/
rings regions is a possible weak link where an evidence
of strain concentration is found for columns strength-
ened with FPWST (Zeng et al., 2018a). The possible
weak link can lead to an increase in axial deformation
capacity of concrete with only little sacrifice in the
axial load carrying capacity if proper design is pro-
vided. Consequently, one predominant advantage of
the FPWST is the adjustability between deformation
capacity and strength capacity and it is thus particu-
larly suitable for columns which need substantial
enhancement in axial deformation capacity and slight
enhancement in strength.
To take advantage of the merits of FSHW and to
further increase the confinement efficiency of FSHW,
the first author of this article proposed to use FRP
strip cross helical wrapping (FSCHW) strengthening
technique (Figure 1(d)). In the FSCHW, at least two
FRP strips are formed in different directions.
Obviously, FSCHW is one of the FPWSTs which is
very suitable to be achieved by a robot utilizing a con-
tinuous FRP strips. The confined concrete in cross
FRP strip-confined columns is referred to as cross
FRP strip-confined concrete or confined concrete with
FSCHW. Compared with the FSHW, the FSCHW is
expected to be more effective in enhancing the strength
of confined concrete at a given FRP volumetric ratio
because the area of bare concrete in the latter is much
smaller than that of the former. The compressive beha-
vior of confined concrete with FSCHW, however, has
never been investigated.
Behavior of concrete columns with FRW and
FSHW have been investigated to some extent (e.g.
Barros and Ferreira, 2008; Guo et al., 2018, 2019; Mai
et al., 2018; Matthys et al., 2005; Park et al., 2008;
Pham et al., 2015; Saljoughian and Mostofinejad,
2016; Triantafyllou et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018b;
Zeng et al., 2017, 2018a). The effect of discontinuity in
FPWST can be estimated by the ‘‘arching action’’
hypothesis (Hals et al., 2017; Mander et al., 1988;
Pantelides et al., 2013; Sheikh and Uzumeri, 1980;
Tobbi et al., 2014). For confined concrete with a cross
spiral FRP wrap and a spiral FRP wrap, the confine-
ment mechanism of the reduced confinement can also
be considered using the ‘‘arching action.’’ However,
the ‘‘arching action’’ hypothesis tells that the shape of
the effective confinement area is a circle (Figure 2(a)),
while for confined concrete with an FRP helical
wrap, the effective confinement area is likely to be an
ellipse (Figure 2(b)). The ‘‘arching action’’
hypothesis is also obviously inaccurate for FSCHW.
Therefore, the applicability of the ‘‘arching action’’
hypothesis needs to be testified for FSHW and
FSCHW.
Against this background, an experimental study has
been developed to study the compressive behavior of
cross FRP spiral–confined concrete, in which two
groups of cylinders with two actual FRP confinement
ratios were fabricated and tested. Comparisons
between three wrapping schemes (i.e. FRW, FSHW,
and FSCHW) were carefully elaborated. A well-known
analysis-oriented stress–strain model was revised, and
the modified model is utilized to generate the stress–
strain diagrams of the test specimens to examine the
accuracy of this model. The research outcomes on con-
fined concrete with FRP partial wrapping are also
valuable for confined concrete with FRP stirrups/
spirals.
Zeng et al.
Figure 2. Effective confinement area in circular columns with FRP partial wrapping: (a) FRP ring–confined concrete and (b) FRP
spiral–confined concrete.
Methodology
Specimens
The effect of three wrapping techniques, namely, the
FRP strip helical wrapping, the FSCHW, and the FRP
ring wrapping, was studied by 35 concrete cylinder spe-
cimens. These specimens were classified into three
series (i.e. Series R, Series I, and Series II). The speci-
mens in the Series R were unconfined reference speci-
mens, which were tested for the unconfined concrete
material properties. The specimens in Series I and
Series II had varied FRP volumetric ratios (rf ) and
confinement efficiency factors (ke ), but the products of
3
rf and ke of the specimens in each series are identical.
Note that ke is the confinement efficiency ratio which
is estimated by ke = ku kv ks . kv is the vertical confine-
ment efficiency ratio, and ks is the shape factor ks = 1
for circular sections; ku is the factor for fiber orienta-
tions which is calculated by ku = 1=1 + ( tan u)2 . rf is
the FRP strip volumetric ratio as can be obtained by
rf = 4  tf  bf =d  sf , in which n, tf , bf , and sf are the
number of FRP layers, the layer thickness of FRP
strip, the width of FRP strip, and the center-to-center
spacing of FRP strip respectively. The product of rf
and ke of the Series I specimens is 0.33 and that of the
Series II specimens is 0.62. To achieve a constant rf ke ,
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 1. Specimen details.

Series Specimen bf tf Number of rf s0f =D rf ke fco0 eco

FRP layers

R SC-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 37.84 0.0026

SC-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 39.33 0.0027
SC-3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 39.62 0.0028
I CS-30-1-1 30 0.334 2 0.39 0.26 0.33 38.93 0.0027
CS-30-1-2 30 0.334 2 0.39 0.26 0.33 38.93 0.0027
CS-40-1-1 40 0.334 2 0.41 0.32 0.33 38.93 0.0027
CS-40-1-2 40 0.334 2 0.41 0.32 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-20-1-1 20 0.501 3 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-20-1-2 20 0.501 3 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-30-1-1 30 0.334 2 0.42 0.22 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-30-1-2 30 0.334 2 0.42 0.22 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-40-1-1 40 0.334 2 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027
H-40-1-2 40 0.334 2 0.45 0.27 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-20-1-1 20 0.501 3 0.40 0.31 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-20-1-2 20 0.501 3 0.40 0.31 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-30-1-1 30 0.334 2 0.39 0.26 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-30-1-2 30 0.334 2 0.39 0.26 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-40-1-1 40 0.334 2 0.41 0.32 0.33 38.93 0.0027
S-40-1-2 40 0.334 2 0.41 0.32 0.33 38.93 0.0027
II CS-35-2-1 35 0.668 4 0.76 0.31 0.62 38.93 0.0027
CS-35-2-2 35 0.668 4 0.76 0.31 0.62 38.93 0.0027
CS-40-2-1 40 0.668 4 0.78 0.34 0.62 38.93 0.0027
CS-40-2-2 40 0.668 4 0.78 0.34 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-30-2-1 30 0.501 3 0.73 0.17 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-30-2-2 30 0.501 3 0.73 0.17 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-35-2-1 35 0.668 4 0.83 0.27 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-35-2-2 35 0.668 4 0.83 0.27 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-40-2-1 40 0.668 4 0.85 0.29 0.62 38.93 0.0027
H-40-2-2 40 0.668 4 0.85 0.29 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-30-2-1 30 0.501 3 0.69 0.19 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-30-2-2 30 0.501 3 0.69 0.19 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-35-2-1 35 0.668 4 0.76 0.31 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-35-2-2 35 0.668 4 0.76 0.31 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-40-2-1 40 0.668 4 0.78 0.34 0.62 38.93 0.0027
S-40-2-2 40 0.668 4 0.78 0.34 0.62 38.93 0.0027

FRP: fiber-reinforced polymer; NA: not applicable.

bf is the width of FRP rings;tf is the thickness of FRP rings; rf is the FRP volumetric ratio; s0f is the clear spacing of FRP strips; ke is the FRP
confinement efficiency factor; fco0 is the peak strength of unconfined concrete; and eco is the strain of unconfined at peak strength.

the column parameters (i.e. FRP thicknesses, FRP
strip widths, and fiber orientations) were designed to
have different values, as can be seen in Table 1. Note
that existing studies have found that rf and ke are the
main parameters influencing the behavior of confined
concrete, and the varied values of ke in this study were
realized by different FRP dimensions/clear spacings/
fiber orientations. All the columnar specimens had a
150-mm diameter and a 300-mm height.
The detailed description of the specimens is given in
Table 1. It is noteworthy that the fiber orientation
refers to the angle between horizontal line and the fiber
direction, as is shown in Figure 1. As has been men-
tioned in Zeng et al. (2018a), the FRP confinement
efficiency factor (ke ) can be evaluated by both the ver-
tical confinement effectiveness factor (fib, 2001) and
the fiber orientation factor (CNR-DT 200 R1, 2013).
The product of rf and ke determines the total confine-
ment efficiency of confined concrete with FRP partial
wrapping (CNR-DT 200 R1, 2013), and subsequently
the actual confinement ratio. Consequently, products
of rf and ke for each series are set to be identical, with
the aim to look at the difference between FSCHW,
FSHW, and FRW as comparisons are easily con-
ducted among specimens with an identical rf ke to
assess the other column parameters. In the specimen
preparation, both the ends of each columnar specimen
were applied with an extra layer of FRP with a width
of 30 mm. The overlapping zone length for FRW spe-
cimens was 150 mm, while there was no overlapping
zone for FSHW and FSCHW specimens.
Each column was assigned an insignia with four
parts linked with a symbol ‘‘-’’ (see Table 1). The first
part denoting wrapping scheme: ‘‘CS’’ represents
Zeng et al. 5

‘‘cross strips,’’‘‘H’’ represents ‘‘hoops/rings,’’ and ‘‘S’’

denotes ‘‘spirals.’’ The label following the wrapping
scheme is a number representing the width of the FRP
strip, followed by the third part—which is a digit
denoting the series. The last part is a number denoting
the number of repeated specimens. For instance, ‘‘CS-
30-2-1’’ represents the first sample confined with cross
FRP spirals which have a 30-mm width in Series II.

Material properties
Commercial concrete was utilized for specimen fabri-
cation. The unconfined concrete properties were iden-
tified from compression tests on the unconfined
cylinders (Series R) (see Table 1), as per ASTM C469
(2002). The FRP sheet material capacities were
obtained observing specifications documented in
ASTM standard (ASTM D3039, 2008). The tensile
rupture strain, a tensile strength, and a tensile elastic
modulus of the FRP are 0.0186 MPa, 4222.7 MPa,
and 231.4 GPa, respectively.

Axial compression tests Figure 3. Instrumentations of statically loaded specimens: (a)

Four linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) unconfined specimens and (b) schematic diagram of strain
gauges for FRP strains in the fiber and hoop directions.
were installed to measure the deformations of the speci-
mens (Figure 3). Two of them were measuring the mid-
height (measuring a 120-mm region of the sample)
displacements and the other two were measuring the
full-height deformations (see Figure 3). Two unidirec-
tional strain gauges (SGs) were applied for the axial
strains of each specimen. For specimens with a ring
FRP wrap, 12 unidirectional SGs on the ring at the
mid-height and the other two rings nearest to the mid-
height were installed for hoop strains in FRP. For the
specimens wrapped with FRP helical strips and cross
helical strips, two SGs were pasted on the strip posi-
tioned at the mid-height, with one being in the hoop
direction and the other being in the fiber direction (see
Figure 3(b)). Another four SGs were utilized for both
FRP hoop strains and fiber strains at 90° away (both
upper and lower from the mid-height). The specimens
were leveled using high-strength cement mortar at both
ends so the loads can be applied to the whole section.
The axial compression tests were realized in a hydraulic
compression machine with a loading speed of 0.50 mm/
min. Figure 4 shows the test setup of the specimens.

Test observations
Failure patterns Figure 4. Test setup.

The failure of unconfined concrete is characterized by

crushing failure with an obvious shear plane and num- failure patterns for columnar specimens wrapped with
bers of inclined cracks (Figure 5(a)). All the strength- different schemes are slightly different: (1) all FRP
ened specimens failed by FRP rupture, while the wrapped samples damaged due to FRP fracture (see
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 5. Typical failure modes: (a) SC-1, (b) CS-30-1-2, (c) CS-35-2-1, (d) H-20-1-2, (e) H-30-2-2, (f) S-30-1-1, and (g) S-30-2-1.
Figure 5); (2) the samples with FSHW experienced
more severe concrete crushing failure, while the con-
crete crushing failure for specimens with FSCHW is
the slightest. This is because most of the concrete in
cylinders wrapped with cross FRP spirals are covered
by the strengthening material (i.e. FRP) among the
three wrapping schemes at a given FRP volumetric
ratio and a strip width. In addition, the concrete spal-
ling failure occurred in a wider area for specimens with
a larger confinement efficiency factor.
Stress–strain responses
The axial strains were based on the mid-height
LVDTs, as has been adopted by some other research-
ers (e.g. Teng et al., 2018a). Figure 6 to 8 show that all
the axial stress versus the strain (axial strain and hoop
strain) curves of confined concrete exhibit a monotonic
ascending behavior. Note that the reported axial stress
versus the strain diagrams stop at the point FRP rup-
ture took place. Figure 9(a) and (b) show the axial
stress versus strain curves of specimens in Group I and
II, respectively. The difference of Group I and II is that
the value of rf ke is different, namely, the actual con-
finement ratios are different in each group, and thus
the comparisons between specimens with an identical
value of rf ke are not difficult. Figure 9 shows that the
FRW and FSCHW only exhibit slight difference, while
the FSHW provides a least enhancement in strength.
Besides, compared with the FSCHW and the FRW,
the FSHW generally leads to a slightly larger ultimate
axial strain. The reason for the better confinement effi-
ciency using the FRW and FSCHW is that for the
FRW and the FSCHW, the existing overlapping/bond-
ing between adjacent FRP strips may lead to an effi-
cient utilization of FRP composites. Conversely, the
FSHW easily experiences local failure as the FRP is
only anchored at the end regions.
Figure 9 also exhibits that the stress–strain
responses of specimens with the FSCHW obviously
have a better performance than those of the specimens
with the FSHW in that the stress versus strain dia-
grams of specimens with the FSCHW lie above those
of specimens with the FSHW. The above experimental
evidences indicate that (1) the confinement mechan-
isms for confined concrete with FRW, FSHW, and
Zeng et al.
Figure 6. Stress–strain curves of cross FRP spiral–confined
concrete: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62.
FSCHW are slightly different, although the actual
confining stresses for the three cases based on the cur-
rent design codes are identical; (2) the difference
between FRW and FSHW is that the fiber orientation
for FSHW is not horizontal and the fiber orientation
factor suggested by the current codes is very empirical;
(3) the difference between FSHW and FSCHW lies in
whether there is a bonding between two adjacent FRP
strips, and the strengthening scheme possessing a
bonding exhibits a slightly better performance. For
steel spiral–confined concrete, the effect of steel orien-
tation is generally not considered (e.g. Mander et al.,
1988), and the consequence is that the steel spiral–
confined concrete is expected to have a larger compres-
sive strength than the steel tie–confined concrete at a
given transverse steel reinforcing ratio. This contra-
dicts to the findings based on this study that the FRP
ring–confined concrete has a larger compressive
strength than that of the FRP spiral–confined con-
crete, which has also been reported by Matthys et al.
7
Figure 7. Stress–strain curves of FRP ring–confined concrete:
(a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62.
(2005). The reason for this diversity probably lies in
the spring effect of the steel spirals (i.e. the axial load
carrying contribution of the steel spirals), which leads
to larger compressive strength of the steel spiral–
confined concrete than that of the steel tie–confined
concrete, while this effect is negligible for FRP spirals
due to a weak bending stiffness of the FRP.
Key results with respect to the normalized peak
axial stresses (fcc0 =fco0 ) and so on are summarized in
Table 2. For specimens with an identical ke rf , fcc0 =fco0 of
a specimen with the FSCHW and the FRW are gener-
ally larger than that of a specimen with FSHW, while
normalized ultimate axial strain ecu =eco of specimens
with the FSHW are larger than the specimens with the
other wrapping schemes. Figure 10 shows the FRP
hoop fracture strains (eh, rup ) for all the test specimens.
Each of the wrapping scheme has a given symbol and
the effect of wrapping schemes can be clearly wit-
nessed. A horizontal curve indicating the averaged
FRP hoop rupture strains is drawn in Figure 10.
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 9. Stress–strain curves of specimens with an identical

Figure 8. Stress–strain curves of FRP spiral–confined FRP confinement ratio: (a) specimens in Group I and (b)
concrete: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62. specimens in Group II.

Figure 10 shows an independence between the FRP

hoop rupture strains and the FRP wrapping scheme,
given that there is only slight difference between FRP
hoop rupture strains with different wrapping schemes.
The FRP strain efficiency factor for each specimen can
also be seen in Table 2. Particularly, the specimens had
an average FRP strain efficiency factor of 0.70, which
is in the range of the FRP strain efficiency ratios
reported by some other scholars (e.g. Lam and Teng,
2003). For FRW, the amount of FRP overlapping
zone was not considered in the calculation of FRP
volumetric ratio.

Dilation behavior
The FRP confinement to the concrete is passive con-
Figure 10. FRP hoop rupture strains of the test specimens.
finement and the lateral dilation caused by the axial
deformation of concrete leads to the FRP confining
pressure. Consequently, the dilation behavior of con- understand the confinement mechanism of FRP-con-
fined concrete is of particular significance to fined concrete and it is generally characterized by
Zeng et al. 9

Table 2. Key test results.

Series Specimen fcc0 (MPa) ecu fcc0 =fco0 ecu =eco eh, rup ef , rup Energy (fco0 =fco0 )=fco0 rf (ecu  eco )=ecu rf
absorption

R SC-1 37.84 0.0028 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

SC-2 39.33 0.0028 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SC-3 39.62 0.0029 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
I CS-30-1-1 55.46 0.0158 1.42 5.85 20.0155 20.0128 0.7259 1.09 0.93 12.44 13.6
CS-30-1-2 57.15 0.0167 1.47 6.19 20.0148 20.0122 0.7859 1.20 13.30
CS-40-1-1 49.30 0.0187 1.27 6.93 20.0139 20.0111 0.8309 0.65 14.45
CS-40-1-2 51.61 0.0184 1.33 6.81 20.0143 20.0125 0.8232 0.79 14.18
H-20-1-1 54.38 0.0230 1.40 8.52 20.0155 NA 1.0932 0.88 0.95 16.71 14.0
H-20-1-2 51.86 0.0175 1.33 6.48 20.0123 NA 0.7797 0.74 12.18
H-30-1-1 55.46 0.0204 1.42 7.56 20.0129 NA 0.9749 1.01 15.61
H-30-1-2 55.29 0.0210 1.42 7.78 20.0134 NA 0.9807 1.00 16.14
H-40-1-1 57.43 0.0171 1.48 6.33 20.0126 NA 0.8082 1.06 11.85
H-40-1-2 56.81 0.0170 1.46 6.30 20.0132 NA 0.7836 1.02 11.77
S-20-1-1 50.92 0.0152 1.31 5.63 20.0125 20.0119 0.6632 0.77 0.71 11.57 14.5
S-20-1-2 51.61 0.0156 1.33 5.78 20.0119 20.0112 0.7040 0.81 11.94
S-30-1-1 50.59 0.0223 1.30 8.26 20.0139 20.0113 0.9857 0.77 18.61
S-30-1-2 49.18 0.0178 1.26 6.59 20.0122 20.0118 0.7868 0.68 14.34
S-40-1-1 50.02 0.0188 1.29 6.96 20.0164 20.0116 0.8329 0.69 14.54
S-40-1-2 47.17 0.0201 1.21 7.44 20.0134 20.0112 0.8689 0.52 15.72
II CS-35-2-1 68.40 0.0235 1.76 8.70 20.0112 20.0107 1.2836 1.00 0.90 10.14 9.0
CS-35-2-2 64.74 0.0176 1.66 6.52 20.0092 20.0087 0.9063 0.87 7.26
CS-40-2-1 63.66 0.0203 1.64 7.52 20.0112 20.0102 1.0464 0.81 8.36
CS-40-2-2 67.06 0.0245 1.72 9.07 20.0141 20.0126 1.3195 0.93 10.35
H-30-2-1 71.53 0.0199 1.84 7.37 20.0126 NA 1.0910 1.15 0.98 8.73 8.70
H-30-2-2 70.45 0.0211 1.81 7.81 20.0122 NA 1.1665 1.11 9.34
H-35-2-1 68.37 0.0184 1.76 6.81 20.0108 NA 0.9899 0.91 7.01
H-35-2-2 70.79 0.0238 1.82 8.81 20.0125 NA 1.3547 0.99 9.42
H-40-2-1 70.01 0.0229 1.80 8.48 20.0136 NA 1.3099 0.94 8.80
H-40-2-2 64.81 0.0231 1.66 8.56 20.0115 NA 1.2582 0.78 8.89
S-30-2-1 67.13 0.0237 1.72 8.78 20.0141 20.0126 1.2814 1.05 0.80 11.27 12.0
S-30-2-2 69.16 0.0215 1.78 7.96 20.0149 20.0127 1.1817 1.13 10.09
S-35-2-1 60.72 0.0268 1.56 9.93 20.0118 20.0104 1.3864 0.74 11.74
S-35-2-2 62.02 0.0307 1.59 11.37 20.0143 20.0118 1.6544 0.78 13.65
S-40-2-1 55.21 0.0272 1.42 10.07 20.0133 20.0101 1.3388 0.54 11.63
S-40-2-2 56.53 0.0316 1.45 11.70 20.0148 20.0128 1.1940 0.58 13.72

FRP: fiber-reinforced polymer; NA: not applicable.

fcc0 is the peak strength of confined concrete; ecu is the ultimate axial strain of confined concrete; fco0 is the peak strength of unconfined concrete; eco is the strain
of unconfined at peak strength; eh, rup is the FRP rupture in the hoop direction; and ef , rup is the FRP rupture strain in the fiber direction.

hoop-to-axial strain relation. The hoop-to-axial strain
curves of the selected test specimens are shown in
Figures 11 to 13 to examine the effects of different
wrapping schemes.
Generally, the following behaviors can be observed
from Figures 11 to 13: (1) the hoop strains in the FRP
are generally small at the initial loading stage, but start
to increase quickly when the strain is close to the ulti-
mate axial strain. (2) An increase in confinement
(increase in the value of rf ke ) generally leads to a
decrease in hoop strains at a given axial strain, for spe-
cimens with the FSCHW, FSHW, and FRW. (3) The
axial strain versus the hoop strain diagrams for speci-
mens with an identical wrapping scheme and an identi-
cal rf ke are close to each other (especially for FRP
ring-confined concrete), indicating that the axial
strain–hoop strain behavior of confined concrete with
FRP partial wrapping may depend on the wrapping
scheme and rf ke . Figure 11 shows the axial strain ver-
sus the hoop strain responses for concrete with
FSCHW. As is observed in this figure, at a given axial
strain, the hoop strain outside the overlapping zone is
larger than that in the overlapping zone. This is attrib-
uted to the stronger confinement from the FRP at the
overlapping area, which also explains why the confine-
ment efficiency of the FSCHW is better than that of
the FSHW. It is also clear from Figure 12 that for
FRP spiral–confined concrete, the hoop strain is gen-
erally larger than that of the tensile strain in the fiber
direction at a given axial strain. This is because the
axial deformation of the specimen neutralizes the ten-
sile strain in the fiber direction. Figure 14 shows the
10
Figure 11. Axial strain–hoop strain curves of cross FRP
spiral–confined concrete: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62.
effects of wrapping schemes on the axial strain-hoop
strain curves of the specimens. At a given FRP con-
finement ratio (rf ke ), the axial strain versus the hoop
strain curves lie closely, although FRP strip width is
increasing. This demonstrates that for columns with
FRP partial wrapping, the confinement effectiveness is
mainly dependent on the actual confinement ratio.
Energy assumption and economic analysis
The energy absorption capacity is estimated using the
area under the stress–strain curve of the specimen,
which is achieved by a simple integration using trape-
zoidal rule
ð The cost of each of the three FPWSTs can be briefly
W= sc dec
where sc and ec are the axial stresses and the axial
strains. Figure 15 shows the energy absorption versus
the FRP volumetric ratio relationship. In Figure 15,
CS/S/H represents FRP cross spiral/spiral/ring wrap-
ping, respectively.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 12. Axial strain–hoop strain curves of FRP spiral–
confined concrete: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62.
The FSHW and FSCHW are equally comparable in
terms of energy absorption at a given FRP volumetric
ratio (see Figure 15). For specimens wrapped with
FRP rings, the energy absorption is nearly identical to
those of specimens with the FSHW and the FSCHW,
but the FRP volumetric ratio for the former is slightly
larger than those of the latter two cases. The actual
FRP volumetric for specimens with FRW is even larger
than the theoretical value as the FRP amount in the
overlapping zone is ignored in the calculation. What
have been discussed above lead to a conclusion that,
from the energy absorption perspective, the confine-
ment efficiencies of FSHW and FSHW are essentially
identical and are slightly superior to that of FRW.
ð1Þ estimated by the ratio of strength enhancement per
unit FRP volume ((fcc0  fco0 )=fco0 rf ) and ratio of strain
enhancement per unit FRP volume ((ecc  eco )=eco rf ),
as can be seen in Table 2. Note that the mount of FRP
overlapping zone was not considered in calculating the
FRP volumetric ratio given in Table 2. Generally, the
ratios of strength enhancement per unit FRP volume
Zeng et al.
Figure 13. Axial strain–hoop strain curves of FRP ring–
confined concrete: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62.
for FRP ring wrapping and FSCHW are close to each
other, while the FRP ring wrapping needs to involve
an amount of FRP for the overlapping. This demon-
strates that the FSCHW is the most economical
strengthening technique in terms of strength enhance-
ment. For the strain enhancement, the FSCHW is
slightly worse than the FRP strip helical wrapping (see
Table 2).
Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for
confined concrete with FPWST
General
An accurate constitutive model is essential for a more
advanced analysis of concrete structures (e.g. generat-
ing concrete material properties for the finite element
analysis or section analysis utilizing fiber model). For
a reliable design of the RC columns with FPWST, an
accurate theoretical model needs to be established.
Models including the design-oriented models expressed
in closed-form equations (e.g. Lam and Teng, 2003;
11
Figure 14. Axial strain–hoop strain curves of specimens with
an identical FRP confinement ratio: (a) rf ke = 0:33 and (b)
rf ke = 0:62.
Lim and Ozbakkaloglu, 2014; Pantelides and Yan,
2007; Zhou and Wu, 2012) and the analysis-oriented
models (e.g. Li et al., 2018; Nisticò, 2014; Teng et al.,
2007) that describe the stress–strain behavior using an
incremental procedure have already been established
for FRP-confined concrete. Among the existing
analysis-oriented models which are regarded to be
more versatile, Jiang and Teng’s (2007) model has been
demonstrated to be more accurate than the other exist-
ing stress–strain models (e.g. Ozbakkaloglu et al.,
2013; Zeng et al., 2018a). Particularly, Zeng et al.
(2018b) have adopted an advanced finite element
model to generate the stress–strain curves of concrete
with FRW, while it was found by Zeng et al. (2018b)
that the accuracy of the finite element modeling is
highly dependent on the accuracy of the analysis-
oriented stress–strain model. However, Jiang and
Teng’s (2007) model has been demonstrated to be inac-
curate in modeling of concrete with FRW (Zeng et al.,
2018a). Consequently, to facilitate a proper design of
FPWST and obtain a more accurate basic confined
12 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

 1:2
ecc sl
= 1 + 17:5 0 ð5Þ
eco f co

k1 is a constant which is dependent on the triaxial tests

and a value of 3.5 is adopted in Teng et al. (2007).
Readers can refer to Jiang and Teng (2007) for more
details of the model. Existing studies have found that
the value of k1 varies between 2 and 5.3 in terms of test
results from different researchers (Candappa et al.,
2001; Popovics, 1973; Xiao et al., 2010). Other details
of this model can be found in Jiang and Teng (2007).
The following equation—proposed by Jiang and
Teng (2007)—was used to describe the hoop–axial
strain relationship
 
ec sl
= 0:85 1 + 8 0
eco f co
(  0:7   ) ð6Þ
eh eh
1 + 0:75  exp 7
eco eco

Actual confining stresses in concrete with FRP partial

wrapping
The ‘‘arching action’’ hypothesis was adopted for
design of columns with FRW and FSHW by existing
codes (CNR-DT 200 R1, 2013; fib, 2001). The vertical
confinement efficiency ratio can be determined by the
effective confinement area over the gross sectional area
of the column (Figure 2). For FRP ring–confined
concrete
 2
Figure 15. Energy absorption (unit: MPa mm/mm): (a) 1  s0 f
kv = ð7Þ
rf ke = 0:33 and (b) rf ke = 0:62. 2d

For FRP spiral–confined concrete

concrete properties, an accurate analysis-oriented  
stress–strain model that verified by test results of FRP 1  s0 f
kv = ð8Þ
partially wrapped specimen is of particular 2d
significance. where d is the diameter of the cylinders and s0f is the
clear spacing between two adjacent FRP strips. For
FRP cross spiral–confined concrete, the same vertical
A brief description of the model of Jiang and Teng
confinement efficiency ratio with the FRP spiral–
The actively confined concrete model adopted by Jiang confined concrete is assumed, although the effective
and Teng (2007) is depicted by the following equations confinement area for FRP cross spiral–confined con-
  crete may different from that of FRP spiral–confined
sc ec =ecc r concrete.
=  r ð2Þ
fcc0  r  1 + ec =ecc Utilizing the following equation, the actual confin-
ing stresses are found
Ec
r= ð3Þ
Ec  fcc0  =ecc r f E f eh
sl, a = ke sl = kv ks ku ð9Þ
2
fcc0  sl
= 1 + k1 0 ð4Þ where rf is the FRP strip volumetric ratio, kv is the ver-
f 0 co f co
tical confinement efficiency ratio, ks = 1 is the factor
Zeng et al.
for circular sections, ku is the factor for fiber orienta-
tions, and sl, a is the actual confining stresses.
Test database and a modified model
In this section, totally 103 axially loaded circular col-
umns with FRW, FSHW, and FSCHW was collected
from this study and the published literature (Barros
and Ferreira, 2008; Guo et al., 2019; Zeng et al.,
2018a). Note that the samples with the FSCHW are
only from this study. All the collected axially loaded
specimens had a circular cross-section and the FRPs
were installed by wet layup means. Among the 103
specimens, 32 of them are from this study (Table 2).
Details of the collected data from Zeng et al. (2018a),
Barros and Ferreira (2008), and Guo et al. (2019) are
listed in Table 3. It is noteworthy that the database
consists of confined concrete FRW, FSHW, and
FSCHW, which makes it of high generalization for
confined concrete with FRP partial confinement.
Zeng et al. (2018a) demonstrate that the existing
dilation is of low accuracy in predicting the dilation
behavior of concrete with FRW. Consequently, the
following dilation model that has a similar formula of
Teng et al. (2007) is proposed in this study for the con-
fined concrete with FRP partial wrapping through a
trial-and-error analysis
 
ec sl
= 0:60 1 + 20 0
eco f co
(  0:7   ) ð10Þ
eh eh
1 + 0:75  exp 7
eco eco
Comparisons
The precision of the modified model for confined con-
crete with FPWST is examined by comparing the pre-
dictions (containing the ultimate axial stresses and the
ultimate axial strains) with the collected test results.
The predictions are compared in Figure 16. The com-
parisons demonstrate that the modified model gives
satisfactory predictions with the test results, given that
the predicted versus test values are oscillated around
the y = x line. The relevance between test results and
predictions can be seen using the standard deviation
(i.e. SD) and average absolute error (i.e. AAE) between
them, as can be seen in Figure 16 and Table 4. The per-
formance of the proposed model for each of the three
strengthening techniques is evaluated by the AAE and
the SD, as is shown in Table 4, which indicates that the
proposed model possess the highest accuracy for pre-
dictions of the ultimate axial stresses and the ultimate
axial strain for confined concrete with FSCHW. The
axial stress–axial strain curves and axial stress–hoop
13
strain curves predicted by the modified model are pre-
sented in Figure 9, in which the hoop strains are equal
to the experimental average FRP hoop rupture strain.
Only one pair of predicted curves can be generated as
the values of the actual confinement in each group are
identical. The predicted stress–strain curves lie within
the experimental stress–strain curves, suggesting that
the modified model can generate close theoretical
stress–strain curves of confined concrete with FPWST.
In particular, the slope of the second portion is slightly
overestimated for some of the specimens (Figure 9),
while the overestimation is applicable for only one of
the two duplicated specimens. The predicted axial
strain–hoop strain curves are compared with the
experimental results, as can be seen in Figure 11 to 13.
The comparisons show that the modified dilation
model provides close predictions of axial strain–hoop
strain behavior of confined concrete with FRP partial
wrapping with all the wrapping schemes. However, the
existing stress–strain models (e.g. Lam and Teng, 2003;
Lim and Ozbakkaloglu, 2014; Zhou and Wu, 2012)
have been demonstrated to be inaccurate in predicting
the ultimate axial stresses as well as the ultimate axial
strain of confined concrete with FRP strip wrapping
(Zeng et al., 2018a). Nevertheless, the conclusion of
the assessment only suggests the model performance
against current database. The use of a larger database
will show some disadvantages of the previous models.
Conclusion
Axially loaded concrete columns with FRP ring wrap-
ping, FRP strip helical wrapping, and FSCHW have
been experimentally studied in this article. The differ-
ence between FRP ring wrapping, FRP strip helical
wrapping, and FSCHW is investigated. The accuracy
of a modified analysis-oriented stress–strain model has
been examined by the test results and the experimental
results from the available literature works. The
research outcomes on confined concrete with FRP par-
tial wrapping are also valuable for confined concrete
with FRP stirrups/spirals. The results yield the follow-
ing conclusions:
1. The effects of FRP strip helical wrapping,
FSCHW, and FRP ring wrapping are carefully
studied in this article. Experimental results find
that specimens wrapped with helical FRP strips
experienced more severe concrete crushing fail-
ure, while the concrete crushing failure for spe-
cimens wrapped with cross helical FRP strips is
the lightest.
2. The FRP ring wrapping and FSCHW only
exhibit slight difference, while the FRP strip
helical wrapping shows a least enhancement in
 14
Table 3. Existing test results on FRP-confined concrete in circular columns with FRP partial wrapping.

No. Source Name d H bf tf sf Ec fco0 eco fcc0 ecu eh, rup ef Ef ke

1 Barros et al. (2008) W15S5L3 150 300 15 0.528 60 25,907.3 30.0 0.28 29.7 0.78 0.88 1.46 230.0 0.72
2 Barros et al. (2008) W15S5L4 150 300 15 0.704 60 25,907.3 30.0 0.28 33.9 0.99 0.88 1.46 230.0 0.72
3 Barros et al. (2008) W15S5L6 150 300 15 1.056 60 25,907.3 30.0 0.28 37.5 1.20 0.88 1.46 230.0 0.72
4 Barros et al. (2008) W30S3L3 150 300 30 0.528 100 26,756.9 32.0 0.28 37.5 1.71 1.27 1.46 230.0 0.59
5 Barros et al. (2008) W30S3L5 150 300 30 0.88 100 26,756.9 32.0 0.28 43.5 2.05 0.24 1.46 230.0 0.59
6 Barros et al. (2008) W30S3L7 150 300 30 1.232 100 26,756.9 32.0 0.28 41.2 2.91 0.65 1.46 230.0 0.59
7 Barros et al. (2008) W30S4L3 150 300 30 0.528 75 29,157.7 38.0 0.28 57.1 2.39 0.74 1.46 230.0 0.72
8 Barros et al. (2008) W30S4L5 150 300 30 0.88 75 29,157.7 38.0 0.28 65.3 2.26 0.78 1.46 230.0 0.72
9 Barros et al. (2008) W45S4L3 150 300 45 0.528 75 29,840.3 39.8 0.28 71.9 2.43 0.49 1.46 230.0 0.81
10 Barros et al. (2008) W45S4L5 150 300 45 0.88 75 29,840.3 39.8 0.28 89.7 2.79 0.64 1.46 230.0 0.81
11 Barros et al. (2008) W60S3L3 150 300 60 0.528 100 29,915.1 40.0 0.28 65.3 2.78 1.12 1.46 230.0 0.75
12 Barros et al. (2008) W60S3L5 150 300 60 0.88 100 29,915.1 40.0 0.28 78.8 2.79 0.62 1.46 230.0 0.75
13 Barros et al. (2008) W60S3L7 150 300 60 1.232 100 29,915.1 40.0 0.28 83.6 2.93 0.61 1.46 230.0 0.75
14 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-25(1) 150 300 25 0.167 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 27.6 0.92 1.09 1.66 249.1 0.60
15 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-25(2) 150 300 25 0.167 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 26.4 0.92 1.15 1.66 249.1 0.60
16 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-30(1) 150 300 30 0.167 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 28.7 1.32 1.28 1.66 249.1 0.64
17 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-30(2) 150 300 30 0.167 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 29.1 0.99 1.04 1.66 249.1 0.64
18 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-35(1) 150 300 35 0.167 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 32.9 0.99 1.11 1.66 249.1 0.68
19 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-4-35(2) 150 300 35 0.167 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 33.6 1.17 1.18 1.66 249.1 0.68
20 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-25(1) 150 300 25 0.334 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 30.7 0.98 1.32 1.66 249.1 0.60
21 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-25(2) 150 300 25 0.334 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 35.0 1.06 1.12 1.66 249.1 0.60
22 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-30(1) 150 300 30 0.334 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 35.7 1.42 1.09 1.66 249.1 0.64
23 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-30(2) 150 300 30 0.334 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 36.0 1.54 1.07 1.66 249.1 0.64
24 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-35(1) 150 300 35 0.334 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 40.1 2.07 1.11 1.66 249.1 0.68
25 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-4-35(2) 150 300 35 0.334 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 40.2 1.61 1.10 1.66 249.1 0.68
26 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-25(1) 150 300 25 0.501 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 36.0 1.93 1.39 1.66 249.1 0.60
27 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-25(2) 150 300 25 0.501 91.7 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 35.9 2.48 1.16 1.66 249.1 0.60
28 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-30(1) 150 300 30 0.501 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 41.0 3.28 1.62 1.66 249.1 0.64
29 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-30(2) 150 300 30 0.501 90 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 40.4 2.80 1.39 1.66 249.1 0.64
30 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-35(1) 150 300 35 0.501 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 48.6 3.97 1.54 1.66 249.1 0.68
31 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-4-35(2) 150 300 35 0.501 88.3 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 45.0 4.48 1.64 1.66 249.1 0.68
32 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-25(1) 150 300 25 0.167 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 31.1 1.87 1.06 1.66 249.1 0.73
33 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-25(2) 150 300 25 0.167 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 28.9 1.77 1.10 1.66 249.1 0.73
34 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-30(1) 150 300 30 0.167 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 35.4 2.28 1.26 1.66 249.1 0.77
35 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-30(2) 150 300 30 0.167 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 36.2 2.24 1.38 1.66 249.1 0.77
36 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-35(1) 150 300 35 0.167 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 38.5 2.32 1.56 1.66 249.1 0.80
37 Zeng et al. (2018) S-1-5-35(2) 150 300 35 0.167 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 38.5 2.32 1.33 1.66 249.1 0.80
38 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-25(1) 150 300 25 0.334 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 42.5 3.65 1.37 1.66 249.1 0.73
39 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-25(2) 150 300 25 0.334 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 42.0 3.04 1.44 1.66 249.1 0.73
40 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-30(1) 150 300 30 0.334 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 42.0 2.38 1.20 1.66 249.1 0.77
41 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-30(2) 150 300 30 0.334 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 47.5 3.31 1.36 1.66 249.1 0.77
42 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-35(1) 150 300 35 0.334 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 51.6 2.87 1.43 1.66 249.1 0.80
(continued)
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Table 3. Continued

No. Source Name d H bf tf sf Ec fco0 eco fcc0 ecu eh, rup ef Ef ke

Zeng et al.

43 Zeng et al. (2018) S-2-5-35(2) 150 300 35 0.334 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 52.0 3.23 1.68 1.66 249.1 0.80
44 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-25(1) 150 300 25 0.501 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 48.0 5.07 1.34 1.66 249.1 0.73
45 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-25(2) 150 300 25 0.501 68.75 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 46.8 5.41 1.48 1.66 249.1 0.73
46 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-30(1) 150 300 30 0.501 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 58.8 3.81 1.40 1.66 249.1 0.77
47 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-30(2) 150 300 30 0.501 67.5 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 59.6 3.65 1.37 1.66 249.1 0.77
48 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-35(1) 150 300 35 0.501 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 64.7 4.22 1.57 1.66 249.1 0.80
49 Zeng et al. (2018) S-3-5-35(2) 150 300 35 0.501 66.25 22,880.7 23.4 0.28 63.2 3.69 1.41 1.66 249.1 0.80
50 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(1) 100 200 20 0.167 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 55.3 1.91 1.35 1.91 227.3 0.77
51 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(2) 100 200 20 0.167 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 56.3 2.19 1.13 1.91 227.3 0.77
52 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(1) 100 200 20 0.334 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 69.4 2.98 1.35 1.91 227.3 0.77
53 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(2) 100 200 20 0.334 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 72.4 3.48 1.37 1.91 227.3 0.77
54 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(3) 100 200 20 0.334 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 71.8 3.40 1.42 1.91 227.3 0.77
55 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(1) 100 200 20 0.501 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 92.6 5.22 1.28 1.91 227.3 0.77
56 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(2) 100 200 20 0.501 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 88.5 4.86 1.29 1.91 227.3 0.77
57 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-100-1(3) 100 200 20 0.501 45 28,596.0 36.6 0.32 88.5 4.73 1.54 1.91 227.3 0.77
58 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(1) 150 300 30 0.167 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 42.6 1.74 1.24 1.91 227.3 0.77
59 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(2) 150 300 30 0.167 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 43.2 1.33 1.16 1.91 227.3 0.77
60 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(1) 150 300 30 0.334 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 54.1 2.56 1.48 1.91 227.3 0.77
61 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(2) 150 300 30 0.334 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 53.6 2.13 1.49 1.91 227.3 0.77
62 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(1) 150 300 30 0.501 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 65.2 3.54 1.41 1.91 227.3 0.77
63 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-150-1(2) 150 300 30 0.501 67.5 28,596.0 37.6 0.31 64.7 3.91 1.30 1.91 227.3 0.77
64 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-200-1(1) 200 400 40 0.334 90 28,596.0 37.4 0.30 44.7 1.64 1.35 1.91 227.3 0.77
65 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-200-1(2) 200 400 40 0.334 90 28,596.0 37.4 0.30 44.6 1.47 1.29 1.91 227.3 0.77
66 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-200-1(1) 200 400 40 0.501 90 28,596.0 37.4 0.30 53.3 2.01 1.27 1.91 227.3 0.77
67 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-200-1(2) 200 400 40 0.501 90 28,596.0 37.4 0.30 57.4 1.63 1.36 1.91 227.3 0.77
68 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-200-1(3) 200 400 40 0.501 90 28,596.0 37.4 0.30 55.4 1.86 1.38 1.91 227.3 0.77
69 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-300-1 300 600 60 0.167 135 28,596.0 33.6 0.27 35.5 1.11 1.26 1.91 227.3 0.77
70 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-300-2 300 600 60 0.334 135 28,596.0 33.6 0.27 37.9 1.46 1.39 1.91 227.3 0.77
71 Guo et al. (2019) S-30-300-3 300 600 60 0.501 135 28,596.0 33.6 0.27 42.7 1.60 1.47 1.91 227.3 0.77

FRP: fiber-reinforced polymer.

d is the diameter of the specimen; H is the height of the specimen; ef , rup is the FRP tensile rupture strain; Ef is the modulus of elasticity of FRP; and sf is the FRP strip center-to-center spacing.
15
16 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 4. Performance of the proposed model for each of the three strengthening techniques.

Strengthening technique Ultimate axial stress Ultimate axial strain

AAE SD AAE SD

FSCHW 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.13

FRW 0.08 0.11 0.25 0.23
FSHW 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.20
Overall 0.09 0.12 0.23 0.24

AAE: average absolute error; SD: standard deviation; FSCHW: FRP strip cross helical wrapping; FRW: FRP ring wrapping; FSHW: FRP spiral helical
wrapping.

average FRP strain efficiency factor is 0.70 for

concrete cylinders with FPWST, aligning well
with the previous studies.
4. At a given actual FRP confinement ratio (rf ke ),
the axial strain–hoop strain curves are close to
each other, although FRP strip width is increas-
ing. The effect of FRP wrapping is highly
dependent on the actual confinement ratio,
which is estimated using the ‘‘arching action’’
assumption suggested in the current design
codes.
5. The FSCHW is the most economical strength-
ening technique in enhancing the concrete
strength, while the FRP strip helical wrapping
is the most economical strengthening in terms
of strain enhancement.
6. The modified analysis-oriented model provides
satisfactory predictions of the confined con-
crete with FRP ring wrapping, FRP strip heli-
cal wrapping, and FSCHW, although its
accuracy is highest for confined concrete with
the FSCHW.
7. The modified dilation model provides satisfac-
tory results on the axial strain versus the hoop
strain behavior of confined concrete with all the
three wrapping schemes. However, a modified
factor considering the effect of effective con-
finement area needs to be developed.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Figure 16. Performance of the new model in predicting the The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
ultimate axial stresses and the ultimate axial strains: (a) ultimate respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
axial stresses and (b) ultimate axial strains. article.

strength. Besides, compared with the FSCHW
and the FRP ring wrapping, the FRP strip heli-
cal wrapping generally leads to a slightly larger
ultimate axial strain.
3. The FRP hoop rupture strains have little rele-
vance with the FRP wrapping schemes. The
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port provided by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Nos 11872153, 51908137, and 11672076), the
Guangzhou Science and Technology Department (No.
Zeng et al.
201904010163), and the Natural Science Foundation of
Guangdong Province (No. 18ZK0183).
ORCID iD
Jun-Jie Zeng https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-6623
References
ASTM C469 (2002) Standard test method for static modulus
of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of concrete in
compression.
ASTM D3039 (2008) Standard test method for tensile prop-
erties of polymer matrix composite materials (D3039M).
Bai YL, Dai JG, Mohammadi M, et al. (2019) Stiffness-based
design-oriented compressive stress-strain model for large-
rupture-strain (LRS) FRP-confined concrete. Composite
Structures 223: 110953.
Barros JAO and Ferreira DRSM (2008) Assessing the effi-
ciency of CFRP discrete confinement systems for concrete
cylinders. Journal of Composites for Construction 12(2):
134–148.
Candappa DC, Sanjayan JG and Setunge S (2001) Complete
triaxial stress-strain curves of high-strength concrete.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 13(3): 209–215.
Chen C, Li X, Huang ZY, et al. (2019) Mechanism of surface
preparation on FRP-Concrete bond performance: a quan-
titative study. Composites Part B: Engineering 162:
289–302.
CNR-DT 200 R1 (2013) Guide for the design and construc-
tion of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening
existing structures.
Dai JG, Bai YL and Teng JG (2011) Behavior and modeling
of concrete confined with FRP composites of large
deformability. Journal of Composites for Construction
15(6): 963–973.
fib (2001) Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC
structures. The International Federation for Structural
Concrete, Lausanne.
Guo YC, Gao WY, Zeng JJ, et al. (2019) Compressive beha-
vior of FRP ring-confined concrete in circular columns:
effects of specimen size and a new design-oriented stress-
strain model. Construction and Building Materials 201:
350–368.
Guo YC, Xiao SH, Luo JW, et al. (2018) Confined concrete
in fiber-reinforced polymer partially wrapped square col-
umns: axial compressive behavior and strain distributions
by a particle image velocimetry sensing technique. Sensors
18(12): 4118.
Hadi MNS, Wang WQ and Sheikh MN (2015) Axial com-
pressive behaviour of GFRP tube reinforced concrete col-
umns. Construction and Building Materials 81: 198–207.
Hals T, Pantelides CP, Sankholkar P, et al. (2017) Analysis-
oriented stress-strain model for concrete confined with
fiber-reinforced polymer spirals. ACI Structural Journal
114(5): 1263–1272.
Jiang T and Teng JG (2007) Analysis-oriented stress-strain
models for FRP-confined concrete. Engineering Structures
29(11): 2968–2986.
17
Lam L and Teng JG (2003) Design-oriented stress-strain
model for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 22(13):
1149–1186.
Li YL, Teng JG and Zhao XL (2018) Theoretical model for
seawater and sea sand concrete-filled circular FRP tubular
stub columns under axial compression. Engineering Struc-
tures 160: 71–84.
Lim JC and Ozbakkaloglu T (2014) Design model for FRP-
confined normal- and high-strength concrete square and
rectangular columns. Magazine of Concrete Research
66(20): 1020–1035.
Lin G, Yu T and Teng JG (2015) Design-oriented stress-
strain model for concrete under combined FRP-steel con-
finement. Journal of Composites for Construction 20:
04015084.
Lo SH, Kwan AKH, Ouyang Y, et al. (2015) Finite element
analysis of axially loaded FRP-confined rectangular con-
crete columns. Engineering Structures 100(1): 253–263.
Mai AD, Sheikh MN and Hadi NS (2018) Investigation on
the behaviour of partial wrapping in comparison with full
wrapping of square RC columns under different loading
conditions. Construction and Building Materials 168:
153–168.
Mander JB, Priestley MJ and Park R (1988) Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering 114(8): 1804–1826.
Matthys S, Toutanji H, Audenaert K, et al. (2005) Axial
behavior of large-scale columns confined with fiber-
reinforced polymer composites. ACI Structural Journal
102(2): 258–267.
Nisticò N (2014) R.C. square sections confined by FRP: a
numerical procedure for predicting stress-strain relation-
ships. Composites Part B: Engineering 59: 238–247.
Ouyang LJ, Gao WY, Zhen B, et al. (2017) Seismic retrofit
of square reinforced concrete columns using basalt and
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets: a comparative
study. Composite Structures 162: 294–307.
Ozbakkaloglu T and Lim JC (2013) Axial compressive beha-
vior of FRP-confined concrete: experimental test data-
base and a new design-oriented model. Composites Part
B: Engineering 55: 607–634.
Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim JC and Vincent T (2013) FRP-con-
fined concrete in circular sections: review and assessment
of stress-strain models. Engineering Structures 49:
1068–1088.
Pantelides CP and Yan ZH (2007) Confinement model of
concrete with externally bonded FRP jackets or postten-
sioned FRP shells. Journal of Structural Engineering
133(9): 1288–1296.
Pantelides CP, Gibbons ME and Reaveley LD (2013) Axial
load behavior of concrete columns confined with GFRP
spirals. Journal of Composites for Construction 17(3):
305–313.
Park TW, Na UJ, Chung L, et al. (2008) Compressive beha-
vior of concrete cylinders confined by narrow strips of
CFRP with spacing. Composites Part B: Engineering
39(7–8): 1093–1103.
18
Pham TM, Hadi MNS and Youssef J (2015) Optimized FRP
wrapping schemes for circular concrete columns under
axial compression. Journal of Composites for Construction
19(6): 04015015.
Popovics S (1973) Numerical approach to the complete
stress-strain relation for concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research 3(5): 583–599.
Saljoughian A and Mostofinejad D (2016) Axial-flexural
interaction in square RC columns confined by intermit-
tent CFRP wraps. Composites Part B: Engineering 89:
85–95.
Sheikh BP and Uzumeri SM (1980) Strength and ductility of
tied concrete columns. Journal of Structural Division
106(5): 1079–1102.
Teng JG, Huang YL, Lam L, et al. (2007) Theoretical model
for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete. Journal of
Composites for Construction 11(2): 201–210.
Teng JG, Lin G, Wang ZH, et al. (2018a) Double-tube con-
crete columns with a high-strength internal steel tube: con-
cept and behaviour under axial compression. Advances in
Structural Engineering 21: 1585–1594.
Teng JG, Zhang B, Zhang SS, et al. (2018b) Steel-free hybrid
reinforcing bars for concrete structures. Advances in Struc-
tural Engineering 21(11): 2617–2622.
Teng JG, Zhao JL, Yu T, et al. (2016) Behavior of FRP-con-
fined compound concrete containing recycled concrete
lumps. Journal of Composites for Construction 20(1):
04015038.
Tobbi H, Farghaly AS and Benmokrane B (2014) Strength
model for concrete columns reinforced with fiber-
reinforced polymer bars and ties. ACI Structural Journal
111(4): 789–798.
Triantafyllou GG, Rousakis TC and Karabinis AI (2015)
Axially loaded reinforced concrete columns with a square
section partially confined by light GFRP straps. Journal
of Composites for Construction 19(1): 1–15.
Wang DY, Wang ZY, Yu T, et al. (2018a) Seismic perfor-
mance of CFRP-retrofitted large-scale rectangular RC
columns under lateral loading in different directions.
Composite Structures 192: 475–488.
Wang J, Feng P and Yue QR (2017) Axial compressive beha-
vior of seawater coral aggregate concrete-filled FRP
tubes. Construction and Building Materials 147: 272–285.
Wang WQ, Sheikh MN, Albaali AQ, et al. (2018b) Compres-
sive behaviour of partially FRP confined concrete:
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
experimental observations and assessment of the stress-
strain models. Construction and Building Materials 192:
785–797.
Wei Y, Cheng XY, Wu G, et al. (2019) Experimental investi-
gations of concrete-filled steel tubular columns confined
with high-strength steel wire. Advances in Structural Engi-
neering 22: 2771–2784.
Xiao QG, Teng JG and Yu T (2010) Behavior and modeling
confined high-strength concrete. Journal of Composites for
Constructions 14(3): 249–259.
Xiong Z, Deng J, Liu F, et al. (2018) Experimental investiga-
tion on the behavior of GFRP-RAC-steel double-skin
tubular columns under axial compression. Thin-Walled
Structures 132: 350–361.
Yu QQ, Gu XL, Zhao XL, et al. (2019) Characterization of
model uncertainty of adhesively bonded CFRP-to-steel
joints. Composite Structures 215: 150–165.
Yu T, Lin G and Zhang SS (2016) Compressive behavior of
FRP-confined concrete-encased steel columns. Composite
Structures 154: 493–506.
Yu T, Zhang SS, Huang L, et al. (2017) Compressive beha-
vior of hybrid double-skin tubular columns with a large
rupture strain FRP tube. Composite Structures 171:
10–18.
Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Gao WY, et al. (2017) Behavior of par-
tially and fully FRP-confined circularized square columns
under axial compression. Construction and Building Mate-
rials 152: 319–332.
Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Gao WY, et al. (2018a) Stress-strain beha-
vior of circular concrete columns partially wrapped with
FRP strips. Composite Structures 200: 810–828.
Zeng JJ, Guo YC, Li LJ, et al. (2018b) Behavior and three-
dimensional finite element modeling of circular concrete
columns partially wrapped with FRP strips. Polymers
10(3): 253.
Zeng JJ, Lin G, Teng JG, et al. (2018c) Behavior of large-
scale FRP-confined rectangular RC columns under axial
compression. Engineering Structures: 174: 629–645.
Zeng JJ, Lv JF, Lin G, et al. (2018d) Compressive behavior
of double-tube concrete columns with an outer square
FRP tube and an inner circular high-strength steel tube.
Construction and Building Materials 184: 668–680.
Zhou YW and Wu YF (2012) General model for constitutive
relationships of concrete and its composite structures.
Composite Structures 94: 580–592.