Prediction of strength and ductility of confined

high-strength concrete
Antonius, 17 Agustus University, Indonesia
O R Munaf*, University of ITS, Indonesia
R Suhud, University of ITS, Indonesia
26th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 27 - 28 August 2001,
Singapore

Article Online Id: 100026015

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cipremier.com/100026015

Thisarticleisbroughttoyouwiththesupportof
SingaporeConcreteInstitute
www.scinst.org.sg

AllRightsreservedforCIPremierPTELTD
YouarenotAllowedtoredistributeorresalethearticleinanyformatwithoutwrittenapprovalof
CIPremierPTELTD
VisitOurWebsiteformoreinformation
www.cipremier.com

26 th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures: 27 - 28 August 2001, Singapore

Prediction of strength and ductility of confined

high-strength concrete
Antonius, 17 Agustus University, Indonesia
o R Munaf*, University of ITS, Indonesia
R Suhud, University of ITS, Indonesia

Abstract
Confinement has been suggested as a means to increase of strength and
ductility of concrete. In order to assess the safety of high-strength concrete columns,
adequate analytical models describing both column strength and ductility are
required. Several analytical models for confined high-strength concrete have been
developed by researchers based on experimental data, considering some that
influence the stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete. However, prediction from
various models differ significantly, especially in describing the behaviour of the
stress-strain curve during pre and post peak response. Therefore, until now, no
confinement model for high-strength concrete is widely accepted for design
reference. In this paper, a confinement model of high-strength concrete is
developed, based on the results of experimental investigation. The model also
proposed equation for calculating the stress in lateral reinforcement at peak
response. This model was the results of an intensive evaluation of a series of
monotonic compression loading from 35 high-strength concrete columns, consisted
of 9 unconfined and 26 confined concrete columns, covering a strength range
between 50 and 85 MPa. The proposed model is compared against a large number
of column tests. Comparisons include concentric and eccentric loading.
Keywords: confined concrete, stress-strain behaviour, confinement model
1.

Introduction
High-strength concrete (HSC) has gained acceptance in the construction industry, and has been
used successfully in number of building construction projects. HSC offers structural efficiency,
improved performance, and economy, especially when used in columns of multistory buildings. The
definition of HSC has changed over time and location [12]. For instance, in Australia, HSC is defined
as concrete having minimum 28-d compressive strength of 50 MPa. In Europe, CES defines HSC as
concrete having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 60 MPa. In North American practice,
HSC is usually considered to be concrete with a 28-day compressive strength of at least 41 MPa. In
this paper, 41 MPa is used to define the lower limit of HSC.
Although HSC offers advantages in terms of performance and economy of construction, the
brittle behaviour of the material remains a major drawback for seismic application. Since strength and
ductility of concrete are inversely proportional, higher-strength concretes are significantly more brittle
than the normal-strength concrete (NSC). The lack of ductility of plain HSC has been a major concern
regarding the safety of HSC columns. Confinement has been suggested as a means to increase
column ductility. However, it has been recognized that confinement is less effective for HSC columns

155

than for their NSC counterparts. In order to assess the safety of HSC columns, adequate analytical
models describing both columns strength and ductility are required. So far, a widely accepted model
for confined HSC does not exist.
In the present study, several analytical models for the stress-strain curve of confined highstrength concrete are compared and experimental results are used to evaluate the model
performance. Based on the comparison study, can also establish a better model and has known the
level of accuracy to the experiment.
The objective of this research is proposed the confinement model that can be to predict the
strength and ductility of confined high-strength concrete columns based on Indonesian materials. At
the first step, the existing of confinement models compared to the experimental results.
2.

Analytical Models for Confined High-Strength Concrete

Confinement models developed for normal-strength concrete may not be applicable to highstrength concrete. In fact, these models were shown to overestimate ductility when applied to highstrength concrete [9]. Several models have been proposed in order to account for the increased
strength and ductility of reinforced concrete columns [5,7,6,]. However, only a few were derived for
modelling HSC behaviour [8,9]. In most of the proposed models, the main parameters used to
describe concrete behaviour were calibrated for lower strength concretes, and consequently, good
results are not obtained when these models are automatically extended for higher concrete strength
ranges.
In the present study, the performances of the Fatifis & Shah [8, 9,10,11,13] models are
compared to the experiment. In the following sections, the main features of these models are
presented.
Table 1 shows an existing analytical model of confined HSC. Most of these models are only
applicable to either circular or square sections. Those developed by [8,11 and 13] are applicable to
circular and square columns, whereas others developed by [9 and 10] are applicable to square
columns.
The model proposed by [8] developed based on investigation of concrete specimens with
covering strength 20-65,5 MPa. A and K parameters which determine the shape of the curve in the
ascending and descending parts, respectively. The parameter A is the secant modulus at the peak
and K is a parameter that is a function of the lateral pressure. Fatifis & Shah assume that lateral
reinforcement has yield at peak response. This assumption can to result the prediction of lateral
stress is overestimate than the actual of lateral stress.
[9] proposed stress-strain model for square high-strength concrete columns. The model derived
based on experimental tests of 24 columns with concrete compressive strength from 83 to 95 MPa.
The Yong model assumes that the lateral reinforcement has been yield at the peak response.
The analytical model of confined high-strength concrete proposed by [10] developed to
applicable of square sections. Based on the model, the lateral stress has predicted by iteration of the
strain of lateral reinforcement at peak response, and then compute the stress that adequate on the
stress-strain curve.
The confinement model proposed by [11] developed based on tests of triaxial stress with active
confined. The main parameters of the model to simulate the stress-strain behaviour are peak stress,
strain at the peak stress, modulus of elasticity and residual stress. Prediction of the lateral stress
computed based on assumption that lateral reinforcement has been yield at peak response.
[13] proposed of confinement model based on experimental study of high-strength concrete
under triaxial compression. the tests were done on cylindrical specimens using Hoek triaxial cell. The
value of confinement factor (K) used to indicate the relative increase in ultimate compressive strength
of concrete confined by lateral stress. The effective lateral stress using the effectively confined core
area concept that developed by [7], and lateral reinforcement assumed has been yield at peak
response.

156

Table 1. Summary of previous stress-strain models for confined high-strength concrete

Stress-strain model for confined concrete
No

Researcher

Fatifis &
Shah (1985)

Peak response

f ~ '= fc '+( 1.15 + 3048

~t

Ascending branch

fc = fcc' [ 1 - ( 1 - EEe:'

r1

Descending branch

Applicable
crosssectional
shape
Circle

fc - f
cc' ex ~-

K(Ee -

Eec

'rs

.fllli.

Yong, Nour
& Nawy
(1988)

K = \ + O.009{ \_ 0.245.s )
h"
n.d").-.fv"
.( p"+-p
S.s.d

.Ji:

Cusson &
Paultre
(1993)

( f9

'

y=

Ax + Bx'
1+(A-2)x+(B+l)x'

fe
y=f"

feo'

feo'

x=~

Attard &
Setunge
(1996)

Imran,
Moestopo &
Suharwanto
(1999)

fe< =
feo

(~':
I

+ 1

K = f" ' = 1 + 4 4 ~
f, '
' fe'

Cx + Dx'
1 + (C - 2)x + (D + l)x'

Eo

=f

ec

'l k(XJ Jj

y =

Ax + Bx
1+

fc
Y=f"

_
1-

Square

In 0.5

(6 c:iOc

ECC )k2

k-l+(X

Eec

y=

fe = fcc' .explk l (Ee - Eec't' J

~=1+3 ~

Square

ex

k2 = 0.4 + 15( f
'" X
feo r

+ Dx

y =

x=~

Ax + Bx

Circle,
square

1 + Cx + Dx '

Eo

[ (r]

f = K.f: ~ _ _E_
Eec'

3.

En: '

=fcc' -

Z =

Z (a - ace')
,
,

0,15.f~

8 11 ,85

Circle,
square

Ece

Experimental Program
In this research, an experimental tests on the short columns was carried out to examine the
performance of the analytical models while demonstrated in table 1. A total of 35 circular specimens
consisting of nine unconfined and 26 confined concrete columns reinforced with spirals or hoops and
longitudinal steel were tested under monotonic concentric compression. The height of each specimen
was five times its diameter. Failure of the specimens was forced in the test region. Table 2 gives the
details of the specimens.
In determining the stress-strain curve of confined concrete based on two conditions. These are
the condition of cover concrete is in place and another condition that the cover concrete is considered
to be completely ineffective [14].
Besides of the experimental above, in this research also was done testing of columns under
eccentric loading. This work was carried out to simulated moment-curvature relationship that
compared with the confinement models. Test specimens are rectangular section with concrete
compressive strength is 51,7 and 72 M Pa.

157

Table 2. Columns design under concentric loading

No

Code of
specimens

Column
diameter
(mm)

Types
-

51.8

Spiral

488
466

6,25-35

4,38

CC1

CS1

CH1

Hoop

CC2

CS2

CS3

CS4

CC3

CS5

10

CS6

11

CS7

12

CH2

13

CH3

14

CH4

15

63,2

110

16

CS8
CS9

18

CH5

19

CH6

Spiral
-

Spiral
75,3

Hoop

CC4

17

Longitudinal reinforcement

Lateral reinforcement

fe'
(MPa)

51,2

Spiral

Hoop

$-spacing
(mm)

ps
(%)

fy
(MPa)

Reinf.
(mm)

P
(%)

6,25-35

4,38

325

5$9,3

3,6

325

5$ 9,3

3,6

325

5$ 9,3

3,6

488

6,25-35

4,38

315

5,5-35

3,19

315

5,5-55

2,03

488

6,25-35

4,38

587

6,25-35

4,38

587

6,25-55

2,79

466

6,25-35

4,38

567

6,25-35

4,38

567

6,25-55

2,78

402

10-35

4,72

365

10-35

3,01

400

10-35

4,72

359

10-55

2,01

8$12,1
8$12,1
400

8$12,1

1,87

8$12,1

21

CSO

22

CS10

320

11,7-35

6,14

23

CS11

320

11,7-55

3,91

24

CS12

400

10,3-35

4,76

8$12,1

25

CS13

320

11,7-35

6,14

12$12,1

2,81

26

CC6

320

11,7-35

6,14

320

11,7-55

3,91

305

10,3-35

4,76

320

11,7-35

6,14

12-35

6,52

20

CC5

27

CHO

28

CH7

29

CH8

30

CH9

31

CH10

32

CC7

33

CS14

34

CS15

35

fy
(MPa)

CH11

250

64

Spiral

67,1

Hoop

390
81,6

Spiral
Hoop

12-55

4,11

388

12-55

4,11

8$12,1
8$12,1
360

380

158

8$12,1

1,87

8$12,1
8$12,1
360

8$12,1

1,87

8$12,1

12$12,1

2,81

8$12,1
400

8$12,1
8$12,1

1,87

4.

Comparisons Between Confinement Models With Experimental

Comparisons between confinement models with test results of column under concentric loading
showed in figure 1 until 6. The comparison includes stress-strain and moment-curvature relationship.
Specimens discussed are CH1, CS5, CKS8, CS10, CH7 and CS14.
T------------- -------------- ---------------1

100

CH 1J'c'=5I,8 MPa

90 I
Stre
5S;

fcc
(M
Pal

,A

80

70

~IIO"'t'"

---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

120

CS5;fc'=75,3 MPa

,-

60
50
40

-r-Attard

30

-Eksp_

20
10

20
0,01

0,03

0,02

0,05

0,04

~IIO

_ _ inlll'

_Eksp.

0,06

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

axial strain
Axialstrain

Figure 1 Stress-strain curves for spesimen CH1

Figure 2 Stress-strain curves for spesimen CS5

100

120

')()

r------------------,
CS 10; tc'=64 MPa

CS8; fc'=51,2 MPa

JO()

'"
7n

-;;"-

(d)

Jl

50

in

4n
;\0

20

--iIE- Fa titis
--t---- Atta rei

In

- - 6 - bnran
_Eksp.

-+--Attard
---IS-- rora n

-Eksp_

n.o"

OJ)!

Figure 3 Stress-strain curves for

0,04

n,OOS

(Ull

IUl2

(J.O]5

O.1l25

Axial strain

spesimen csa

Figure 4 Stress-strain curves for

spesimen CS10

12() , - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,

140

CH7;tc'=67,1 MPa

CSI4, fc'=81,6 MPa

I()O

120
100

-;;-

"-

80

Jl

60

in

-+--Attard
_ _ Imrnn

40
20

--&-imran

20 .

_Eksp.

0,005

_Eksp_
0,01

0,015

0,02

0.025
0

Axial strain

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

Axial strain

Figure 5 Stress-strain curves for spesimen CH7

Figure 6 Stress-strain curves for spesimen CS14

Figure 1 until 6 shows that predictions of stress-strain based on Fatifis and Attard models does
not accurate in the peak stress, but the model proposed by Imran may be good correlation. When the
post peak response, the Fatifis, Attard and Imran models are differ significantly, especially if the
concrete compressive strength (fe') is higher, This phenomenon also indicates that the ductility
simulation of each model overestimate to the experimental results.
Based on difference between prediction based on confinement models with experimental results
above, it is need established the analytical model of confined high-strength concrete using
experimental data on columns under concentris loading.

159

5.

Proposed Model
Stress-strain curve of confined concrete idealized in figure 7. The ascending branch of the
stress-strain relationship, proposed by Popovics (1973), was adopted of the proposed model. The
mathematical expression for the curve is given below
[ CC

,(-~) r
t

__

Ee <
- Eee'

Gee

r _ 1+

(1)

(_G-,-;)r
Gee

where

where Ee=modulus of elasticity of concrete

The value of Ee is given below
Ee=3400 ;}fe' + 4800

(2)

; fe' in megapascals

The curve of descending branch assumed a straight line, and the mathematical expression is
follow:

[ e = f ee '- (G e

Gee

')

0,15'[ee'

(3)

,
(E85e - Eee )

The model of unconfined concrete adopted the Thorenfeld model (1987), with modification of the
prediction of strain at the peak stress.

f
l~c"

............ "................... ;

O.85f~c .......................

Confined

r!

,I u,,,ooLd

O,g5l;,:

';-Ilr r----------~!

concrete

o
Figure 7 Proposed model
Based on regression analysis to the results of experimental data, the value of confinement factor
(K=fee'/feo'), strain of confined concrete at peak stress, and strain of unconfined concrete at peak
response are as follows

O.9

= fcc = 1 + 3 7(~ J

E~e

f co '

k f

'

(4)

fco'

= E~o [1,94(K -1) + 1]

(5)
(6)

Eeo' = 0,0004 . (feo,)0,45

160

5.1. Confinement effectiveness

One important finding of the experimental results was the satisfactory performance of circular
hoops as confinement reinforcement. The hoops behaved as well as the spiral reinforcement. Spiral
and hoop stresses at maximum concrete stress were reasonably close in almost all the comparable
specimens [14].
Therefore, in this model the confinement effectiveness (ke ) derived only based on spiral. The
value ke proposed by [7] is used to calculate the confinement effectiveness.
The value of ke is :

-SI)
(1 2.d
c

k = --'---c-.----,,-'-

(7)

(l-PcJ

5.2. Stress in lateral reinforcement at peak response

From the experimental tests, the phenomenon was searched that the lateral reinforcement may
not yield at peak response, especially in higher strength of concrete. Therefore, the assumption of
steel yielding at peak concrete stress may not be accurate. A large volume of test data were
evaluated to derive an expression that relates in lateral reinforcement to experimentally observed
parameters. Equation (8) and (9) was derived for this purpose from regression analysis of test data.

(8)

(9)

where fe' in megapascals. Equation (8) is applied in circular section, and equation (9) in cross
section.
5.3. Ductility of confined concrete
Deformability of confined concrete beyond the peak stress is significantly affected by the value of
K. Regression analysis of test data indicates that the following expression can be used to establish
the strain at 85% strength level beyond the peak (esse).
eSSe

=eee, + 10.5 . E3,7K

(10)

The value of residual stress (fr) is proposed below

fr

=0,25 fcc'

(11 )

5.4. Verification of the proposed model to the experiment

Correlation the value of K of the proposed model to the experiments show that the coefficient of
variation (COV) is 6.7%. The comparison is shown in figure 8. Verification of stress-strain relationship
of the proposed model to the experiments are illustrated in figure 9 until 14. Figure 15 and 16 are
validation of the proposed model to the experiment under eccentric loading.

161

1.75
0;

u
;-,

'';::

0;

1.5

1.25

1.00

1.25

1.50

2.00

1.75

K (experiment)

Figure 8 Confined concrete strength

120

90
80

CS5; ('=75,3 MPa

CH1;fc'=51,B MPa

70

100

80

'2
"'-

60
50

40

"",0

0;-

_llO-t-

6u

~.

'"'"~

30

r:/J

60

20

---+- Proposed model

10

-t-

0.02

0.03

0,04

0.05

<B

40j

~
Ui

30

20

0,015

0,02

Axial strain

100
90

CSlO; f,'=64 MPa

80
70
'2
o.

60

50

<B

40

+-250 .,.

_ _ Proposed model

'"

30
20

_ _ Experiment

10

0,01

Figure 10 Verification of stress-strain behaviour

501

0,005

Axial

::1
~

_ _ Experiment

0,06

CS8;f,'=5 L2 MPa

c-

_ _ Proposed model

0.01

90 r----~-------

60

11O T

20

Experiment

Figure 9 Verification of~fMss-strain behaviour

40

c/i

_ _ Proposed model

+-2S() 'f"

_ _ Experiment

10
-----r-------

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Axial strain

0.005

0.01

0.Q15

0.02

0.025

0.03

Axial strain

Figure 11 Verification of stress-strain behaviour

162

Figure 12 Verification of stress-strain behaviour

r------------

120
140

CH7; ('=67,1 MPa

100

100

80

'i

"-

~
~

~
VJ

O --

40

"'~'"

Propo~ed model

60

'"

_ _ Expenment

20

80

6u

60

"'

CS14; ('=81,6 MPa

120

_ _ Experiment

-+-250 ..,..

20

0
()

0.005

___ Proposed model

40

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

---------------------~
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025

Axial strain

Axia I stra in

Figure 13 Verification of stress-strain behaviour

Figure 14 Verification of stress-strain behaviour

14,-__________________________- ,
f/~72

14
f:~51,7MP.

MP.

12

p~=1.435%

10

p=2.7S%
elIFO.2

eIh~.4

10

5
E

ps=2.87%
P=2.78%

12

::<

Experiment

--e- Proposed model

8
6
4

Proposed model
_

Experiment

0
0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

Curvature (11m)

Curvature (11m)

Figure 15 Verification of moment-curvature

behaviour

Figure 16 Verification of moment-curvature

behaviour

The proposed model has been verified by comparing analytical generated relationship with those
obtained from column tests. The comparisons include concentric and eccentric loading on circular and
square section with a wide range of confinement parameters and concrete strengths [14]. Sample
comparisons selected from figures above (figs. 9-16), indicate a good agreement between
experimental and analytical stress-strain and moment-curvature relationship.
6.

Conclusion
Five existing analytical models for high-strength concrete were studied. Then, a new confinement
model was developed using regression analysis involving a total of 35 column test data. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1. Previous models predict the ascending branch of the stress-strain curve fairly well, whereas the
predicted descending branch is differ significantly.
2. Behaviour of ductility of confinement model was derived from active confined is not applicable to
specimen with passive confined.
3. The proposed model is applicable to concretes confined by spirals, rectilinear hoops, crossties
and combination of these reinforcement.
4. The proposed model has been verified extensively against experimental data and shows good
correlations with stress-strain relationship established experimentally.
7.

Acknowledgement
This research program was supported through a funding from Collaboration Research Priority
Program Fiscal Year 1996 - 1999 funded by the Ministry of State for Research and Technology,
Republic of Indonesia.

163

8.

References

[1]

Australian Standards for Concrete Structures (AS 3600-1994), Standards Australia, North
Sydney.
CEB-FIP (1995); High strength concrete: State of the art report; Bullet. d'information No.197.
ACI 318-95/ACI 381R-95 (1995); Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and
commentary; Am. Concrete Inst., Detroit, Michigan.
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum (1991); Tata cara penghitungan struktur beton untuk bangunan
gedung, SNI T-15-1991-03.
Sheikh, SA and S.M. Uzumeri (1982); Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
columns, J. of Struct. Division, ASCE, V.108, No.ST12, December 1982, pp.2703-2722.
Saatcioglu, M. and S. Razvi (1992); Strength and ductility of confined concrete, J. of Struct. Eng.
ASCE, V.118, No.6, pp.1590-1607.
Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley and R. Park (1988); Theoritical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, J. of Structural Eng., V.114, No.8, August 1988, pp.1804-1824.
Fatifis, A. and S.P. Shah (1986); Lateral reinforcements for high strength concrete columns, ACI
Special Publication, SP-87, ACI, 1986, pp.213-232.
Yong, Y-K; M.G. Nour and E.G. Nawy (1988); Behaviour of laterally confined high strength
concrete under axial/oads; J. of Structural Eng. V114, No.2, February 1988, pp.332-351.
Cusson, D. and P. Paultre (1995); Stress-strain model for confined high-strength concrete, J. of
Structural Engineering, V.121, No.3, March 1995.
Attard, M.M. and S. Setunge (1996); Stress-strain relationship of confined and unconfined
concrete; ACI Materials Journal, V.93, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp.432-442.
Diniz, S.M.C. and D. M. Frangopol (1997); Strength and ductility simulation of high strength
concrete columns, J. of Structural Eng. V.123, NO.10, October 1997, pp.1365-1374.
Imran, I., M. Moestopo and Suharwanto (1999); Strength and deformation of confined high
strength concrete; 1st Int. Cont. On Adv. in Struct. Eng. And Mechanics, Seoul, Korea, August
23-25 1999, pp.373-378.
Antonius (2001); Behaviour of High-Strength Concrete Columns under Concentric and Eccentric
Loading, Dissertation, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Antonius, I. Imran, R. Suhud dan D.R. Munaf (1999); Response of high-strength concrete
columns under concentric loading; Proc. of National Conf. of Earthquake Eng., Bandung 4-5
November 1999, pp. IV19-IV29.

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]

Notation

de = core dimension measured center-to-center

Ei = modulus of elasticity of concrete
feo' = peak stress of unconfined concrete
fe' = compressive strength of standard cylinder test
fee = stress of confined concrete
fee' = peak stress of confined concrete
flat .= f2 = lateral stress
fy = yield stress of lateral reinforcement
fr = residual stress of confined concrete
K = strength enhancement coefficient
ke = confinement effectiveness
n = the number of longitudinal reinforcement (Yong model)
s = spacing of lateral reinforcement
eSSe = strain corresponding to 85% of peak stress of confined concrete on descending branch
Eeo' = strain corresponding to peak stress of unconfined concrete
Eee' = strain corresponding to peak stress of confined concrete
Ps = lateral reinforcement ratio
P = longitudinal reinforcement ratio
Pee= ratio of area longitudinal reinforcement to area of core of section

164