See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279594470

Stress-strain model for fiber-reinforced polymer jacketed concrete columns

Article in Aci Structural Journal · September 2006

CITATIONS READS
119 951

3 authors, including:

Mohamed H. Harajli Elie G. Hantouche

American University of Beirut American University of Beirut
55 PUBLICATIONS 2,229 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 511 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elie G. Hantouche on 18 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S69
Stress-Strain Model for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Jacketed Concrete Columns
by Mohamed H. Harajli, Elie Hantouche, and Khaled Soudki
The stress-strain behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
confined concrete columns was experimentally and analytically
investigated, with particular emphasis on rectangular column
sections. A new design-oriented model of the stress-strain response
of FRP confined columns was developed and an experimental
study was carried out for deriving the model characteristic
parameters. The test variables included the volumetric ratio of the
FRP jackets, the aspect ratio of the column section, and the area of
longitudinal and lateral steel reinforcement. It was found that
jacketing rectangular column sections with FRP sheets increases
their axial strength and ductility. In reinforced concrete columns,
the FRP jackets prevent premature failure of the concrete cover
and buckling of the steel bars, leading to substantially improved
performance. The corresponding improvements become less
significant as the aspect ratio of the column section increases. The
rate of increase in concrete lateral strain with axial strain is
influenced by the stiffness of the FRP jackets and aspect ratio of
the column sections. Based on the results of this investigation, the
main parameters that control the stress and strain characteristics
of FRP-confined rectangular column sections were discussed, and
a general design model of the stress-strain response of FRP-
confined concrete was generated. The results predicted by the
model showed very good agreement with the results of the current
experimental program and other test data of FRP-confined circular
and rectangular columns reported in the literature.
Keywords: columns; confined concrete; ductility; fiber-reinforced
concrete; polymer; stress; strain.
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Many experimental and analytical investigations have
been conducted in recent years to evaluate the axial load
capacity and stress-strain response of concrete confined with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates (ACI Committee 440
2002). These investigations have clearly demonstrated
that confining concrete with FRP jackets leads to
substantial improvement of the axial strength and energy
absorption capacity of concrete columns under both
static and cyclic loading.
Several confinement models were proposed in the literature
to evaluate the axial strength and to describe the stress-strain
response of FRP jacketed columns. A comprehensive review
and assessment of existing models has been recently
presented by Teng and Lam (2004). According to Teng and
Lam, proposed stress-strain models of FRP-confined
concrete can be classified mainly into two major categories:
design-oriented and analysis-oriented models. In the design-
oriented models, the stress-strain curve is generated using a
simple closed form solution based on evaluation and
interpretation of experimental data. In the analysis-oriented
models, the stress-strain curve is generated more rigorously
using an iterative procedure by considering interaction
between the concrete core and the confining FRP. Because of
672
TECHNICAL PAPER
their relative complexity, analysis-oriented models are only
suitable for incorporation in numerical computer analysis.
Irrespective of their classification, most of the proposed
stress-strain relationships are based on the following
confinement model proposed by Richart et al. (1928, 1929)
from tests conducted on concrete specimens confined with
hydrostatic pressure
f′
f cc′ = f c′ ⎛ 1 + k 1 ----l-⎞ (1)
⎝ f c′ ⎠
f cc′
ε cc = ε o ⎛ 1 + k 2 ⎛ ------
- – 1⎞ ⎞
(2)
⎝ ⎝ fc ′ ⎠⎠
where fcc′ and εcc are the confined concrete compressive
strength and corresponding strain, respectively; fc′ and εo are
the compressive strength and corresponding strain for
unconfined concrete; k1 is the confinement effectiveness
coefficient and fl′ is the lateral hydrostatic pressure. Based
on their test results, Richart et al. (1928, 1929) found values
for k1 = 4.1 and k2 = 5.
Among the well-known expressions for evaluating the
effect of confinement on the axial strength of concrete
columns is the one proposed by Mander et al. (1988) for steel
confined concrete. In this expression, the confined concrete
compressive strength fcc′ and corresponding strain εcc, calcu-
lated at the onset of yielding of the transverse steel, are
expressed as a function of the effective constant lateral
confining pressure fl as follows
⎛ 7.94f f ⎞
f cc′ = f c′ ⎜ – 1.254 + 2.254 1 + --------------l – 2 ----l-⎟ (3)
⎝ f c′ f c′ ⎠
f cc′
ε cc = ε o 1 + 5 ⎛ ------
- – 1⎞ (4)
⎝ fc ′ ⎠
Different expressions were generated by Mander et al.
(1988) for calculating fl depending on the shape of the
column section and configuration of longitudinal and
lateral steel.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 5, September-October 2006.
MS No. 04-261 received September 6, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-August
2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2007.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006
 Table 1—Summary of proposed expressions for k1
ACI member Mohamed H. Harajli is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the American
University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. He is a member of ACI Committees 408, Bond Reference k1
and Development of Reinforcement, and 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
His research interests include the design and behavior of reinforced, prestressed, and Mander et al. (1998) 2.254 f
fiber-reinforced concrete members, and strengthening and repair of concrete structures. ----------------- 1 + 7.94 ----l- – 1 – 2.0
(for steel-confined concrete) ( f l ⁄ f c′ ) f c′
Elie Hantouche is a Consultant Engineer, Samir Khairalla and Partners, Lebanon.
He received his MS from the American University of Beirut.
Karbhari and Gao (1997) 2.1(fl /fc′ )–0.13
Samaan et al. (1998) 6.0(fl )–0.3
ACI member Khaled Soudki is the Professor and Canada Research Chair in Innovative
Structural Rehabilitation at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Miyauchi et al. (1997) 2.98
He is a member of ACI Committees, 215, Fatigue of Concrete; 222, Corrosion of
Metals in Concrete; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and 546, Repair Saafi et al. (1999) 2.2(fl /fc′ )–0.16
of Concrete. He is also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 550, Precast Con-
crete Structures. His research interests include prestressed concrete, durability of Toutanji (1999) 3.5(fl /fc′ )–0.15
concrete, rehabilitation, and strengthening of concrete structures using fiber-rein-
Lam and Teng (2003a,b) 3.3
forced polymer composites.

Unlike confinement by steel hoops where the confinement

pressure becomes theoretically constant beyond yielding of
the hoops, the linear stress-strain behavior of the FRP causes
the confining pressure in FRP-confined concrete, associated
with concrete dilation, to increase continuously with
increasing lateral or axial strain. Provided there is a good
bond between the concrete surface and FRP, the lateral strain
in the FRP is often assumed to be equal to the lateral strain
in concrete. Consequently, for FRP-confined circular
column sections, the lateral confining pressure fl is calculated
as a function of the volumetric ratio ρ f and lateral strain εl of
the FRP using the requirements of lateral strain compatibility
and force equilibrium between the concrete and confining
FRP jacket as follows

ρ f E f⎞
f l = ⎛ ---------
- ε (5) Fig. 1—Stress-strain model proposed by Lam and Teng
⎝ 2 ⎠ l (2003a,b).

where Whereas the stress-strain behavior of FRP confined

4n f t f
ρ f = ----------
- (6)
D because of the many unknowns associated with the behavior
in which nf is the number of applications (layers); tf is the
design thickness of the FRP fabric; and D is the column
diameter. Whereas it does not recognize increases in strength
for FRP-confined rectangular column sections, ACI
Committee 440 recommends evaluating the axial strength of
FRP-jacketed circular columns using the expression of
Mander et al. (1988) (Eq. (3)) in which the lateral confining
pressure fl is calculated using Eq. (5) corresponding to an
effective lateral strain εl = εfe = 0.004 ≤ 0.75εfu, where εfu is the
ultimate tensile strain of the FRP material.
Numerous analytical and experimentally based confinement
models were proposed to calculate the confinement
effectiveness coefficient k1 (refer to Eq. (1)) for FRP
confined concrete. A summary of some of the proposed
expressions, including the k1 equivalence of Eq. (3), is given
in Table 1. Furthermore, whereas the confinement coefficient k2
is constant for steel confined concrete (refer to Eq. (4)) in
developing a stress-strain relationship for FRP-confined
circular columns, Toutanji (1999) considered, based on the
experimental results of Rey (1997), that it varies in proportion to
the lateral strain in the FRP as follows
k2 = 310.57εl + 1.9 (7)
concrete in circular columns has been extensively studied
(Saadatmanesh et al. 1994; Samaan et al. 1998; Spoelstra
and Monti 1999; Toutanji 1999; Fam and Rizkalla 2001),
of FRP-confined rectangular columns, only few analytical
models have been proposed to evaluate their stress-strain
response (Rochette and Labossiere 2000; Wang and
Restrepo 2001; Lam and Teng 2003a,b).
Concerned in this study with the development of a design-
oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete, to
the best of the authors’ knowledge, the latest design-oriented
model to describe the stress-strain response of FRP-jacketed
circular or rectangular columns is the one proposed by Lam
and Teng (2003a,b). Because of its relevance to the current
investigation and its simplicity in application, the model of
Lam and Teng is presented in this study for comparative
purposes. Shown schematically in Fig. 1, the model is
composed of a parabolic first portion with its initial slope
being the elastic modulus of unconfined concrete Ec, and a
linear second portion with a reduced slope E2 that intersects
the stress axis at fc = fc′ , where fc′ is the axial strength of
unconfined concrete. The model can be expressed in the
following general form
( Ec – E2 ) 2
2
f cc = E c ε cc – ------------------------ε cc for 0 ≤ ε cc ≤ ε t
4f c′ (8)
= f c′ + E 2 ε cc for ε t ≤ ε cc ≤ ε cu

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006 673

where εt is the axial strain at the intersection point between value of ks1 = fla /fc′ is less than 0.07. Lam and Teng verified
the first and second portions. The strain εt and the slope E2 the accuracy of their model by comparing with their own test
are calculated as data of rectangular column sections. Also, in its application
to circular columns, Teng and Lam (2004) concluded that
2f c′ their stress-strain model is more advantageous than the other
ε t = ----------------
- (9) available models in several aspects including accuracy and
Ec – E2 simplicity for direct use.
In this study, experimental and analytical investigations
f cu – f c′ were carried out for evaluating the stress-strain behavior of
E 2 = ----------------
- (10) FRP-jacketed columns with particular emphasis on the
ε cu
response of rectangular column sections. Based on the
results of this investigation, a new design-oriented stress-
in which fcu′ and εcu are the axial stress and corresponding strain model of FRP-confined concrete is proposed. The
axial strain at ultimate. For the general case of rectangular model, which represents an improvement over an earlier
columns, fcu′ and εcu are expressed taking into account the approximate stress-strain model proposed by the first author
reduced efficiency of rectangular sections as follows for evaluating the axial load-moment interaction capacity of
FRP-confined columns (Harajli 2005), takes into account
f cu′ f la most of the geometric and material properties that influence
-------- = 1 + k 1 k s1 ----
- (11) the stress-strain response. Verification of the model accuracy
f c′ f c′
has been made by comparing with the experimental results
obtained in this study and other experimental data reported
ε cu f la ⎛ ε h, rup⎞ 0.45 in the literature.
------- = 1.75 + k 2 k s2 ----
- ------------- (12)
εo f c′ ⎝ ε o ⎠
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The results of this experimental and analytical investigation
where
allow better understanding of the parameters that influence the
stress-strain response of rectangular column sections when
2E f n f t f confined with FRP laminates. The stress-strain model
- ε h, rup
fla = --------------- (13)
D developed in this study can be used for evaluating the axial
strength and deformation capacity of FRP-jacketed circular or
in which ks1 and ks2 are shape factors; k1 = 33 and k2 = 12.0; rectangular columns and can be employed for analyzing the
εo = 0.002; and εh,rup is the hoop rupture strain of the FRP. load-deformation response of FRP-confined concrete under
According to Lam and Teng (2003a,b), due to the effect of different types of load applications.
nonuniform stress distribution and curvature in the FRP
jacket, the rupture strain of the FRP confinement is lower THEORETICAL STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP
than the ultimate tensile strain determined from direct A two-stage relationship of the stress-strain (fcc-εcc)
coupon tests. Based on evaluation of experimental data, Lam response of FRP confined concrete is proposed. In the first
and Teng suggested using a value of εh,rup for CFRP, GFRP, stage, because the lateral strains and the consequent lateral
and AFRP equal, respectively, to 58.6, 62.4, and 85.1% of confinement pressure are small, the shape of the stress-strain
the ultimate tensile strain of the FRP material. For rectangular response can be described using the ascending branch of the
sections, the term D in Eq. (13) is the diameter of an equivalent stress-strain equations developed earlier for unconfined or
circular column given as D = h 2 + b 2 , where b is the short steel confined concrete (Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980, Scott
side and h is the long side of the section. Finally, the shape et al. 1982, and Mander et al. 1988). In this study, the stress-
factors are expressed as a function of the ratio of effectively strain response in the first stage is assumed, for simplicity, to
confined concrete area Ae to the cross sectional area Ag follow a second-degree parabola similar to the one suggested
by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1980) or Scott et al. (1982). The
corresponding two-stage fcc-εcc relationship, taking into
b 2A
k s1 = ⎛ ---⎞ -----e (14) account confinement by internal steel ties or hoops, can be
⎝ h⎠ A g
described in the following general form

h 0.5 A 2ε cc ⎛ ε cc⎞ 2
k s2 = ⎛ ---⎞ -----e (15) f cc = f co ---------
- – ------- for εcc ≤ εco (17)
⎝ b⎠ A g ε co ⎝ ε co⎠

A
2
1 – ( ( b ⁄ h ) ( h – 2r ) + ( h ⁄ b ) ( b – 2r ) ) ⁄ ( 3A g ) – ρ s
2 fcc = F ε cc = G ( ε l ), ρ f E f , ρ st fyt , section geometry (18)
-----e- = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (16)
Ag 1 – ρs
≤ fcu for εcu ≥ εcc ≥ εco
in which r is the radius of the corner, and ρs is the ratio of
longitudinal steel reinforcement in the section. Note that for in which fco and εco are the stress and strain at the intersection
circular sections, the model remains exactly the same except point between the first stage (Eq. (17)) and the second stage
that the shape factors ks1 = ks2 = 1.0. According to Lam and (Eq. (18)); εcc = G(εl) is the relationship between the axial
Teng (2003b), in using the previous model for rectangular strain and lateral strain in the FRP sheets; εcu and fcu are the
sections, strength enhancement should not be expected if the maximum limiting concrete strain and corresponding stress,

674 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006

respectively; ρst and fyt are the volumetric ratio and yield
strength of transverse confining steel, respectively.
In the second stage of the response, including the intersection
point between the first and second stage (εcc = εco; fcc = fco),
which is assumed to correspond to a lateral strain in the FRP
sheets εl = εlo = 0.002 (Toutanji 1999), the confined concrete
compressive strength fcc and the relationship between the
axial strain and lateral FRP strain, εcc = G(εl ), can be expressed
explicitly as a function of the amount of reinforcement and
material properties by making use of the concept of Eq. (1)
and (2) as follows
A cc⎞
f cc = f c′ + k 1 ⎛ f lf + f ls ------- (19)
⎝ Ag ⎠
f cc ⎞
ε cc = ε o 1 + k 2 ⎛ ----- –1 (20)
⎝ f c′ ⎠ by Lam and Teng (2003a).
where Acc is the area of the concrete core confined with
internal transverse hoops, measured to the centerline of the
perimeter hoop, and εo is taken equal to 0.002. The terms flf
and fls are the effective lateral confining pressure exerted
by FRP and ordinary transverse steel on the concrete
section, respectively
k ef k vf ρ f E f⎞
f lf = ⎛ ----------------------
- εl (21)
⎝ 2 ⎠
k es k vs ρ st⎞
f ls = ⎛ -------------------- f (22)
⎝ 2 ⎠ yt
where
ke(kef, kes) = Ae /Acc (23)
in which ρf is calculated using Eq. (6) where the equivalent
value of D for rectangular column sections is taken in
accordance with ACI Committee 440 (2002) as D = 2bh/(b + h).
The terms ke (kef or kes) and kv (kvf or kvs) account for the
effectiveness of the lateral reinforcement in confining the
concrete along the horizontal plane, and the concrete
between transverse ties or FRP strips, respectively; and Ae is
the effectively-confined concrete area. For circular columns,
kef = kes = 1.0. For columns confined with continuous FRP
sheets kvf = 1.0. Expressions for the coefficients ke and kv are
given in Fig. 2 for rectangular columns based on the
approach proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1980), and more
recently by Mander et al. (1988) and ACI Committee 440
(2002) (for evaluating the ductility of FRP confined
sections). More details on the development of the expressions for
kv and ke and also expressions for calculating kv for circular
column sections are described by Mander et al. (1988).
It should be noted that in the previously described theoretical
stress-strain model, it is assumed that the stiffness of the FRP
jackets is sufficiently large to produce a monotonically
ascending stress-strain response until rupture of the FRP
sheets. For insufficiently confined concrete, the stress-strain
curve may experience a post-peak descending branch
whereby the ultimate compressive strength is reached before
the FRP ruptures, producing only slight or no increase in
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006
Fig. 2—Confinement effectiveness coefficients: (a) using
FRP; and (b) using hoops.
strength. Threshold values proposed by different investigators
for the effective FRP confinement above which the stress-
strain curve experiences ascending behavior were discussed
For unconfined concrete or for the concrete cover of
sections confined only internally with ordinary steel and for
the purpose of validating the proposed model through
comparisons with experimental data, the stress-strain
relationship in the descending branch of the unconfined
concrete stress-strain response is assumed to follow the
equation proposed by Scott et al. (1982)
fc = fc′ [1 – Z(εc – εo)] ≥ 0.2fc′ for εc ≥ εo (24)
where
0.5
Z = ---------------------------------------------------
- (25)
3 + 0.29f c′
-------------------------------- – 0.002
145f c ′ – 1000
Using the previously proposed model, the stress-strain
response in the second stage of the response can be generated
by incrementally increasing the lateral strain beyond εl = εlo,
and then calculating the compressive stress and corresponding
strain from Eq. (19) and (20), respectively.
In this study, the characteristic parameters k1 and k2 of the
proposed stress-strain model were determined using the test
data of an experimental program designed specifically
for the purpose of this investigation, as described in the
next section.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test parameters and test specimens
Twenty-four small-scale column specimens of 300 mm
height were tested. Section dimensions, specimens designation,
and reinforcement details are provided in Table 2 and Fig. 3.
The parameters investigated included the aspect ratio of the
column sections (h/b of 1, 1.7, and 2.7, respectively), the
area of FRP jackets, and the area of longitudinal and lateral
steel reinforcement. The specimens were divided into
three series depending on their aspect ratio. For each
section aspect ratio, two groups of specimens were
tested, one group corresponding to plain concrete and
another group corresponding to reinforced concrete. In each
group, four specimens were tested, one control specimen
(without FRP) and three specimens with different areas of
FRP jackets. While the specimens in the various test series
have different aspect ratios, all column sections have
675
Table 2—Summary of test parameters and axial load capacity results
Measured axial
Test series Column specimen Longitudinal steel As Transverse steel Ast No. of FRP layers nf ρf Ef ,* MPa ρst load capacity, kN
C1 — — — 0.0 0.0 323.1
C1FP1 — — 1 910 0.0 499.1
Series I C1FP2 — — 2 1820 0.0 689.4
b = 131.5 mm
h = 131.5 mm C1FP3 — — 3 2730 0.0 742.7
C1S 4φ8 mm φ6 mm — 0.0 0.0106 296.7
Aspect ratio
h/b = 1.0 C1SFP1 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 1 910 0.0106 557.3
C1SFP2 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 2 1820 0.0106 755.3
C1SFP3 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 3 2730 0.0106 931.0
C2 — — — 0.0 0.0 342.7
C2FP1 — — 1 926 0.0 420.4
Series II C2FP2 — — 2 1852 0.0 555.9
b = 102.0 mm
h = 176 mm C2FP3 — — 3 2778 0.0 653.4
C2S 4φ8 mm φ6 mm — 0.0 0.011 305.7
Aspect ratio
h/b = 1.7 C2SFP1 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 1 926 0.011 505.8
C2SFP2 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 2 1852 0.011 617.9
C2SFP3 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 3 2778 0.011 771.5
C3 — — — 0.0 0.0 359.3
C3FP1 — — 1 1036 0.0 468.7
Series III C3FP2 — — 2 2072 0.0 478.5
b = 79.0 mm
h = 214.0 mm C3FP3 — — 3 3108 0.0 512.7
C3S 4φ8 mm φ6 mm — 0.0 0.012 317.2
Aspect ratio
h/b = 2.7 C3SFP1 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 1 1036 0.012 432.3
C3SFP2 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 2 2072 0.012 490.2
C3SFP3 4φ8 mm φ6 mm 3 3108 0.012 607.1
*
ρf = 2nf tf (b + h)/bh.

epoxy resin. The design properties of the sheets as provided

Fig. 3—Specimen dimensions, reinforcement details, and
instrumentation.
approximately identical areas. Also, in conformity with
ACI 440.2R-02 (2002) recommendations, round corners
of 15 mm radius were provided in all specimens for FRP
applications. Note that while the effect of corner radius on
the stress-strain response is accounted for in the analytical
modeling, the influence of this parameter on the test results
was not evaluated in the current experimental program.
The FRP system consisted of monofilament carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) flexible sheets with impregnating
by the manufacturer are as follows: tf = 0.13 mm per layer,
Ef = 230,000 MPa, rupture strain εfu = 0.015, and ultimate
strength ffu = 3500 MPa. Preparation of the concrete surface,
mixing of the epoxy resin, and application of the epoxy
soaked FRP sheets were all carried out in accordance with
the manufacturer specifications. Each FRP sheet was
wrapped transversely around the circumference of the
section with 100 mm overlap.
The longitudinal reinforcement in all the reinforced
specimens consisted of four φ8 mm deformed Grade 60
steel (actual yield strength of 596 MPa), producing a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the column sections of
approximately 1.0%. The concrete cover over the longitudinal
bars was maintained at 20 mm in all specimens. The
transverse reinforcement in the same specimens consisted of
plain 6 mm Grade 40 bars spaced at 100 mm, with the first
tie located 50 mm from the top of the specimen, producing
volumetric ratio ρst of the transverse steel (volume of ties per
spacing to volume of concrete core measured to outside of
tie) equal to approximately 1.1% for all specimens. The
modulus of elasticity of both the longitudinal and the
transverse steel is estimated at 2 × 105 MPa.
The plain concrete specimens and the reinforced specimens
were cast together in two separate batches. The concrete
mixture consisted of coarse aggregate having 10 mm
maximum size, beach sand, and portland cement (Type I).
The concrete compressive strength determined using three
150 x 300 mm cylinders for each batch was 18.3 MPa for the
plain concrete specimens and 15.2 MPa for the reinforced
specimens. Note that the selection of a relatively low

676 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006

Fig. 4—Typical mode of failure of specimens.
concrete strength is necessitated by the limitation of the
available test facilities.
All specimens were capped using a 5 mm thick sulfur
layer. The average axial strain was measured using two linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) attached on
either side over a 200 mm gauge length in the middle portion
of the specimens (refer to Fig. 3). The average longitudinal
strain was also measured using one LVDT connected
between the actuator head and base of the specimens.
Average lateral concrete strains were measured using two
LVDTs attached on either side parallel to the long dimension at
the midheight of the specimens. The gauge lengths of the
LVDTs were 75, 115, 150 mm for the specimens of aspect
ratio 1.0, 1.7, and 2.7, respectively.
Discussion of experimental results
All specimens mobilized monotonically increasing stress-
strain response until fracture of the FRP sheets, except
Specimens C3FP1, C3FP2, C3FP3, and CS3FP1. Because of
their high aspect ratio, these specimens experienced a post-
peak descending branch before tensile breaking of the FRP
sheets. Fracturing of the FRP sheets, which took place
mostly at the junction between the corners and the flat sides
of the specimens (refer to Fig. 4), resulted in a sudden and
almost total loss of axial strength. Typical load or stress
versus axial strain and average lateral strain responses are
given in Fig. 5. It should be indicated that because of the
large curvature of the FRP sheets at the corners, it is likely
that the actual FRP strains at the location where the sheets
fractured (at the corners) are lower than the ultimate material
tensile strain. This observation is even true for circular
column sections and represent the basis upon which the
design-oriented model proposed by Lam and Teng (2003a,b)
is developed (Eq. (8) to (16)).
Some of the important and direct observations that can be
drawn from the test results are: a) increasing the area of FRP
reinforcement increased the axial stress and axial strain that
can be mobilized at failure of the column sections; b)
improvements in axial strength and strain were most significant
for square columns and tended to decrease as the aspect ratio
of the column section increased (refer to Table 2). For
instance, considering the plain concrete specimens confined
with three FRP wraps, the stress attained a 230, 190, and
143% increase for the column sections with aspect ratios of
1.0, 1.7, and 2.7, respectively; and c) For the steel reinforced
specimens, external confinement by FRP prevented spalling
of the concrete cover and premature buckling of the longitudinal
steel bars that would otherwise occur, leading to superior
improvements of the axial load and axial strain capacities
when compared with the control unconfined specimens in
the same test series. For the steel reinforced columns
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006
Fig. 5—Typical stress or axial load versus strain of specimens.
confined with three FRP wraps, the axial strength attained a
sizable 330, 252, and 190% increase for the specimens with
aspect ratio of 1.0, 1.7, and 2.7, respectively.
One of the most important observations in the current
experimental study, which will be analyzed in more detail, is
that the rate of increase of the measured average lateral strain
with the axial strain tended to decrease as the aspect ratio of
the column section and also as the area or stiffness of the
FRP jacket increased. This observation, which is similar to
the observation reported earlier by Chaallal et al. (2003) and
which has been disregarded in the development of earlier
stress-strain models, has a substantial implication on the
derivation of the characteristic parameters k1 and k2 of the
proposed stress-strain model as illustrated in the following.
PROPOSED EXPRESSIONS FOR k1 AND k2
Using the experimentally measured axial stress and lateral
strains, values of k1 for the various FRP-confined specimens
were estimated in the second stage of the response (beyond
εl = εlo = 0.002) from Eq. (19) as a function of the proposed
confinement parameters flf and fls(k1 = [fcc – fc′]/[flf + flsAcc /Ag])
and plotted as a function of fl/fc′= ([flf + flsAcc /Ag]/fc′) , as
shown in Fig. 6. Shown also in Fig. 6, for the purpose of
comparison, are the predictions of the various expressions
summarized in Table 2. For the equation proposed by
Samaan et al. (1998), a value of fc′ = 18.3 MPa, to correspond to
the plain concrete specimens in the current investigation,
is assumed.
It can be observed in Fig. 6 that the magnitude of k1
decreases consistently from a relatively high value in the
early stage of the response during which the effective lateral
confining pressure is low, to a value close to 2.0 as the
confining pressure increases. Note that the magnitudes of k1
at low values of fl /fc′ were slightly lower for the reinforced
specimens in comparison with the plain concrete specimens.
Part of this difference may be attributed to the fact that the
677
Fig. 6—Variation of confinement parameter k1 with lateral
strain.
Fig. 7—Axial strain versus lateral strain: (a) h/b = 1.0; (b)
h/b = 1.7; and (c) h/b = 2.7.
values of fcc for the plain specimens are extracted directly
from the experimental data, while the values of fcc for the
reinforced specimens had to be estimated indirectly by
taking into account the force carried by the longitudinal
steel. It can also be seen in Fig. 6 that, while the experimental
data falls well within the range of the predictions of the
various expressions proposed in the technical literature, it
agrees best with the value of k1 = 2.0 derived earlier by Lam
678
Fig. 8—Variation of confinement parameter k2 with lateral
strain: (a) h/b = 1.0; (b) h/b = 1.7; and (c) h/b = 2.7.
and Teng (2002) based on statistical analysis of experimental
data, particularly at high values of fl /fc′ .
The use of regression analysis of the data presented in
Fig. 6 produced a best-fit expression for k1 given by k1 =
1.13( fl /fc′ )–0.69 with a coefficient of correlation of 0.88 for
the plain specimens, and k1 = 1.3(fl /fc′ )–0.41 with a coefficient of
correlation of 0.63 for the reinforced specimens. Based on
regression analysis of all the data combined, the following
equation is proposed for calculating the confinement
effectiveness coefficient k1 (refer to Fig. 6)
f lf + f ls A cc ⁄ A g⎞ –0.5
k 1 = 1.25 ⎛ ---------------------------------
- (26)
⎝ f c′ ⎠
where 2 ≤ k1 ≤ 7.
Figure 7 shows a variation of measured concrete lateral
strain with axial strain and Fig. 8 shows a variation of k2
calculated from the experimental results using Eq. (20) (k2 =
[εcc /εco – 1]/[fcc /fc′ – 1]) with measured lateral strain beyond
εlo = 0.002 for the specimens with different section
aspect ratios.
The results presented in Fig. 7 show that, irrespective of
the aspect ratio of the column sections or area of the FRP
jackets, the rate of increase of lateral strain with axial strain
(slope of the εl-εcc relationship) was small in the early stage
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006
of the response but experienced a large increase and,
consequently, a change of behavior beyond a lateral strain of
approximately 0.002. Hence, the selection of a lateral strain
εl = εlo = 0.002 to correspond to the intersection point
between the two stages of the stress-strain response as
suggested in the study of Toutanji (1999) and as adopted in
this study appears to be reasonably validated. Beyond a
lateral strain of 0.002, all specimens, including the control
unconfined specimens, mobilized an approximately linear
(εl-εcc) relationship. Because the FRP confinement curtails
the dilation rate of concrete (Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997),
however, the rate of increase in lateral strain with axial strain
tended to decrease as the area of FRP jackets increased
(mostly evident for the specimens with h/b = 1 and 1.7).
Another interesting observation in Fig. 7 is that while the rate
of increase in lateral strain with axial strain for the unconfined
control specimens was not influenced by the shape of the
column section, it dropped noticeably for the FRP confined
specimens as the aspect ratio of the section increased.
Similar to the (εl-εcc) behavior shown in Fig. 7, the results
in Fig. 8 clearly demonstrate that the magnitude of k2
increases almost linearly with the increase in lateral strain.
Also, it can be seen in Fig. 8 that the rate of increase in k2
with lateral strain tends to decrease with increase in the
volumetric ratio of the FRP jackets but increases significantly
with increase in the aspect ratio of the column section. Based
on these observations, accurate evaluation of the stress-strain
response or ultimate load capacity of FRP confined columns
should take into account that the confinement coefficient k2 Fig. 9—Comparison of model predictions with current test
is not constant or only a function of the lateral strain as results of plain concrete specimens.
suggested in Eq. (7) but also a function of the volumetric
ratio and modulus of elasticity of the FRP jackets, and most fcc/fc′ (28)
importantly, the aspect ratio h/b of the column section. At
present and until more data becomes available to develop a
more accurate relationship between the axial strain and ( k ef ρ f E f ⁄ 2 )ε l + ( k es k vs ρ st A cc ⁄ 2A g )f yt
= 1 + 1.25 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
lateral strain as a function of the stiffness of the FRP jacket f c′
and aspect ratio of the column section, the trend of the
experimental results presented in Fig. 8 is only consistent
enough to allow the generation of the following approximate, ⎛ 25,800e 1.17h ⁄ b ⎞ f cc ⎞
- ε l + 2.0⎟ ⎛ -----
ε cc = ε o 1 + ⎜ --------------------------------- –1 (29)
⎠ ⎝ f c′ ⎠
mathematically simple, and yet reasonably accurate expression
⎝ ( ρf Ef ) 0.83
for estimating k2 as a function of the control parameters

⎛ 25,800e 1.17h ⁄ b⎞ Because of the limitation imposed on the value of k1 in

-⎟ ε l + 2.0
k 2 = ⎜ ---------------------------------
⎝ ( ρ f E f) 0.83 ⎠
In which Ef is expressed in MPa. Note that Eq. (27) is
applicable within the range of values of the experimental
parameters used in this investigation, that is, h/b ≤ 2.7 and is
assumed to be applicable for circular column sections for
values of h/b = 1.0. It is interesting to point out that for
circular sections (h/b = 1), and for a value of ρf Ef = 840 MPa,
Eq. (27) coincides with the experimentally-based equation
(Eq. (7)) used by Toutanji (1999) to derive a stress-strain
model for circular columns.
Replacing the values of k1 and k2 from Eq. (26) and (27)
and the values of flf and fls from Eq. (21) and (22), respectively,
into Eq. (19) and (20) leads to the following general expressions
for generating the stress-strain relationship of FRP-confined
concrete in the second stage of the response, including the
intersection point between the first and second stage (εl =
εlo = 0.002; εcc = εco; fcc = fco)
(27) Eq. (26), the value of (fcc/fc′ – 1) calculated using Eq. (28) shall
not be taken less than 2.0[flf + fls]/fc′ or more than 7.0[flf +
fls]/fc′ . The stress-strain curve in the second stage can be
generated by incrementally increasing εl and calculating fcc
from Eq. (28), and then calculating the corresponding εcc
from Eq. (29). Because it is well established that the actual
rupture strain in FRP is lower than the ultimate tensile strain
of the FRP materials (Lam and Teng 2003a), it is recommended
to estimate the ultimate axial stress fcu and corresponding
ultimate axial strain εcu using Eq. (28) and (29) by substituting a
value for the lateral strain εl = Fεfu, where F is a strain
reduction factor equal to 0.6 for CFRP and GFRP and 0.85
for AFRP in accordance with the values derived by Lam and
Teng (2003a).
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED MODEL
WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The predictions of the proposed stress-strain model were
compared with the experimental data of the current investigation
as well as the predictions of the design-oriented model of Lam and

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006 679

 Table 3—Experimental data for circular and
rectangular columns
Column Concrete
Section dimension, strength Fiber ρf Ef ,
Reference Specimen type mm fc′ , MPa type MPa
Nanni et al. A1 Circular 150 41 Aramid 4274
(1994) A2 Circular 150 41 Aramid 914
Harmon et al. — Circular 50 64.0 Glass 2760
(1995)
Pitcher et al. — Circular 152 39.7 Carbon 786
(1996)
GE Circular 76 31.0 Glass 917
Toutanji C1 Circular 76 31.0 Carbon 2670
(1999)
C5 Circular 76 31.0 Carbon 6475
1CFRP1/1 Square* 180 21 Carbon 860
Cole and 1GFRP1/1 Square 180 21 Glass 563
Belarbi
(2001) 2GFRP1/1 Square 180 21 Glass 1126
3GFRP1/1 Square 180 21 Glass 1689
Series I Circular 152 † Carbon 1140
Teng and 39.0
Lam (2002) Series II Circular 152 37.7† Carbon 800
‡
Lam and S2R25 Square 150 33.7† Carbon 2260
Teng (2003b) S3R15 Square§ 150 24.0† Carbon 3390
*
Corner radius for FRP application = 22.5 mm; As = four No. 4 (Grade 40); ρst = 0.006.
†
Cylinder strength fc′ is assumed equal to 80% of reported cube strength fcu.
‡
Corner radius for FRP application is equal to 25 mm.
§
Corner radius for FRP application is equal to 15 mm.

reproducing the experimental results when compared with

the design-oriented model developed in this study.

Fig. 10—Comparison of model predictions with current test
results of steel-reinforced concrete specimens.
Teng (2003a,b) presented in Eq. (8) corresponding to the plain
concrete specimens. Results are shown in Fig. 9 and 10.
Despite some discrepancy, the analytical results predicted
using the proposed model are generally in good agreement
with the experimental stress-strain response of the specimens in
the current investigation. Because the FRP-confined plain
concrete specimens with aspect ratio h/b = 2.7 experienced a
post-peak descending branch before fracturing of the FRP
sheets, the agreement between the analytical predictions and
the test data was not as good in comparison with the
remaining specimens.
The analytical model was also compared with test results
of circular column specimens and rectangular specimens
reported in the technical literature as shown in Fig. 11. A
summary of test parameters for the specimens is provided in
Table 3. It can be seen from the comparisons that the
proposed model was able to reproduce other test data with
reasonable accuracy. Note that while the model of Lam and
Teng (Eq. (8)) is easier to apply and allows more direct use
for design applications, it was generally less accurate in
CONCLUSIONS
The stress-strain response of FRP-confined rectangular
concrete column sections was experimentally and analytically
investigated. A theoretical stress-strain model is developed and
an experimental study was carried out to derive the model
characteristic parameters. Based on this investigation, the
following conclusions and observations can be drawn:
1. Confining rectangular columns with FRP jackets leads
to substantial improvement in the axial strength and ductility
of compression failure of the columns. For square column
sections without longitudinal reinforcement (plain
specimens), the increases in axial strength were 154, 213,
and 230% for the specimens confined with one, two, or three
CFRP wraps, respectively;
2. The improvement of column axial strength and ductility
due to FRP confinement becomes less significant as the
aspect ratio (h/b) of the column section increases. For the
plain column sections with aspect ratio of 2.7, the increases
in axial strength were 133, 133, and 143% for the specimens
confined with one, two, or three CFRP wraps, respectively;
3. For reinforced concrete columns, external confinement
by FRP jackets prevents premature compression failure of
the concrete cover and buckling of the longitudinal steel bars
that normally occur in steel confined concrete, leading to
substantial improvement in axial strength. For the square
steel reinforced columns, the increase in axial strength in
comparison with the control unconfined specimen in the same
series attained a sizable 188, 255, and 310% increase for
the specimens confined with one, two, or three CFRP
wraps, respectively;
4. For a given aspect ratio of rectangular column section,
the rate of increase in lateral strain with axial strain decreases

680 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006

 Fig. 11—Comparison of model predictions with experimental data.
as the stiffness ρf Ef of the FRP jackets increases. Also, for a
given ρf Ef of the FRP jackets, the rate of increase of lateral
strain with axial strain decreases with increase in the aspect
ratio of the section; and
5. Irrespective of the h/b of the column section or ρf Ef of
the FRP jackets, the stress-strain response of FRP confined
columns experiences a considerable increase in lateral strain,
and, consequently, a distinct change in behavior, beyond a
confined lateral strain of approximately 0.002.
Based on the results of the experimental investigation,
analytical expressions for the characteristic parameters that
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006
influence the stress and strain behavior were derived and a
general analytical model for generating the stress-strain
response and evaluating the ultimate axial strength and
deformation capacity of FRP-jacketed columns was
developed. The model takes into account almost all the
design variables that control the axial stress and strain
characteristics of FRP-confined columns. Results
predicted by the model were generally in good agreement
with the experimental results of the current investigation
and other test data of FRP-confined circular and rectangular
column sections reported in the literature.
681
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 9, No. 1, pp. 4-14.
This research was supported by the Lebanese National Council for Scientific Harmon, T.; Slattery, K.; and Ramakrishnan, S., 1995, “The Effect of
Research (LNCSR). The authors are grateful for that support and to the Faculty Confinement Stiffness on Confined Concrete,” Non-Metallic (FRP)
of Engineering and Architecture at the American University of Beirut for Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the 2nd International
providing the test facilities. RILEM Symposium (FRPRCS-2), pp. 584-592.
Karbhari, V. M., and Gao, Y., 1997, “Composite Jacketed Concrete
Under Uniaxial Compression—Verification of Simple Design Equations,”
NOTATION Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 9, No. 4, pp. 185-193.
Acc = area of concrete core
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., 2002, “Strength Models for Fiber-Reinforced
Ae = area of effectively confined concrete section
Plastic-Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Ag = area of gross section
V. 128, No. 5, May, pp. 612-623.
As = area of column longitudinal reinforcement
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., 2003a, “Design-Oriented Stress-Strain Model
b = section short dimension
for FRP-Confined Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 17,
D = diameter or equivalent diameter of column section
pp. 471-489.
Ec = modulus of elasticity of unconfined concrete
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., 2003b, “Design-Oriented Stress-Strain Model
Ef = modulus of elasticity of transverse FRP
for FRP-Confined Concrete in Rectangular Columns,” Journal of Reinforcing
fc = stress in unconfined concrete
Plastics and Composites, V. 22, No. 13, pp. 1149-1186.
fc′ = compressive strength of unconfined concrete
Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Theoretical
fcc = stress in confined concrete
Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural
fcc′ = compression strength of confined concrete Engineering., ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug., pp. 1804-1826.
fco = stress at intersection point between first and second stage of
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M., 1997, “Behavior of Concrete Columns
stress-strain curve
Confined by Fiber Composites,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
fcu = stress corresponding to a limiting strain εcu V. 123, No. 5, May, pp. 583-590.
ffu = rupture stress of FRP sheets
Miyauchi, K.; Nishibayashi, S.; and Inoue, S., 1997, “Estimation of
fl = effective lateral confining pressure
Strengthening Effects with Carbon Fiber Sheet for Concrete Column,”
fl′ hydrostatic confining pressure Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of
flf = effective lateral confining pressure provided by FRP the 3rd International RILEM Symposium, Sapparo, Japan, V. 1, pp. 217-224.
fls = effective lateral confining pressure provided by steel hoops Nanni, A.; Norris, M. S.; and Bradford, N. M., 1994, “Lateral Confinement
fyt = yield stress of transverse hoops of Concrete Using FRP Reinforcement,” Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
h = section long dimension Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-138, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan,
k1, k2, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 193-209.
ke , kv = confinement effectiveness coefficients Picher, F.; Rochette, P.; and Labossiere, P., 1996, “Confinement of Concrete
nf = number of transverse FRP layers Cylinders with CFRP,” Fiber Composites in Infrastructure, Proceedings of the
r = corner radius 1st International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, H. Saadetmanesh
s′ = clear spacing between transverse hoops and M. R. Ehsani, eds., University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., pp. 829-841.
tf = thickness of one FRP layer Rey, F. J., 1997, “Durability and Long Performance of Concrete Structural
w = clear distance between adjacent longitudinal bars Elements Strengthened with FRP Sheets,” MS thesis, University of Puerto
wxi, wyi = i-th clear distance between adjacent longitudinal bars along Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
horizontal x- and y-dimensions, respectively Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1928, “A Study of the
x, y = concrete core dimensions to center line of peripheral hoop Failure of Concrete Under Combined Compressive Stresses,” Bulletin 185,
εc = axial strain in unconfined concrete University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Champaign, Ill.
εcc = axial strain in confined concrete Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1929, “The Failure of
εco = concrete strain at intersection point between first and second Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in Compression,” Bulletin 190,
stage of stress-strain curve University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Champaign, Ill.
εcu = limiting concrete strain Rochette, P., and Labossiere, P., 2000, “Axial Testing of Rectangular
εfe = effective lateral strain in FRP Column Models Confined with Composites,” Journal of Composites for
εfu = ultimate tensile strain of FRP material Construction, ASCE, V. 4, No. 3, pp. 129-136.
εh,rup = hoop rupture strain of FRP sheets Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M. R.; and Li, M. W, 1994, “Strength and
εl = lateral concrete strain Ductility of Concrete Columns Externally Confined with Fiber Composite
εlo = lateral concrete strain at intersection point between first and Straps,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 434-447.
second stage of stress-strain curve Saafi, M.; Toutanji, H. A.; and Li, Z., 1999, “Behavior of Concrete Columns
εo = strain at maximum stress for unconfined concrete Confined with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Tubes,” ACI Materials Journal,
εyt = yield strain of transverse hoops V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 500-509.
ρcc = steel ratio relative to concrete core section Samaan, M.; Mirmiran, A.; and Shahawy, M., 1998, “Model for Concrete
ρf = volumetric ratio of FRP reinforcement Confined by Fiber Composites,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ρs = ratio of column longitudinal reinforcement ASCE, V. 124, No. 9, pp. 1025-1931.
ρst = volumetric ratio of hoop reinforcement Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, “Stress-Strain
Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High
REFERENCES Strain Rates,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan., pp. 13-27.
ACI Committee 440, 2002, “Design and Construction of Externally Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1980, “Strength and Ductility of Tied
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),” Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 106, No. 5,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 45 pp. pp. 1079-1102.
Chaallal, O.; Shahawy, M.; and Hassan, M., 2003, “Performance of Axially Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G., 1999, “FRP-Confined Concrete
Loaded Short Rectangular Columns Strengthened with Carbon Fiber- Model,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 3, No. 3, Aug.,
Reinforced Polymer Wrapping,” Journal of Composites for Construction, pp. 143-150.
ASCE, V. 7, No. 3, pp. 200-208. Teng, J. G., and Lam, L., 2002, “Compressive Behavior of Carbon Fiber
Cole, C., and Belarbi, A., 2001, “Confinement Characteristics of Rectangular Reinforced Polymer-Confined Concrete in Elliptical Columns,” Journal of
FRP-Jacketed Columns,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, Dec., pp. 1535-1543.
on Fiber-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Cambridge, Teng, J. G., and Lam, L., 2004, “Behavior and Modeling of Fiber
UK, July 16-18, pp. 823-832. Reinforced Polymer-Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Elwi, A. A., and Murray, D. W., 1979, “A 3D Hypoelastic Concrete ASCE, V. 130, No. 11, pp. 1713-1723.
Constitutive Relationship,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Toutanji, H. A., 1999, “Stress-Strain Characteristics of Concrete Column
V. 105, No. 4, pp. 623-641. Externally Confined with Advanced Fiber Composite Sheets,” ACI Materials
Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H., 2001, “Confinement Model for Axially Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June, pp. 397-404.
Loaded Concrete Confined by Circular Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tubes,” Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I., 2001, “Investigation of Concentrically
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 451-461. Loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with Glass Fiber
Harajli, M. H., 2005, “Behavior of Gravity Load-Designed Rectangular Reinforced Polymer Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, Mar.-
Concrete Columns Confined with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets,” Apr., pp. 377-385.

682 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2006

View publication stats