Kent and Park (1971) modified the model by Hognestad (1951), and proposed to vary the

stiffness of descending branch taking into account the confining effect of concrete by lateral
reinforcement;
εc εc
σ = σ [2 −( )2 ] for ε ≤ ε σ
c
εo εo
c o c o

σo Unconfined

σ c = σ o [1 − Z (ε c − ε o )] for ε c > ε o

but σ c ≥ 0.2σ o Confined

ε 50 h
0.5 0.5σ o
Z= εc
ε 50u + ε 50 h − ε o

0.021 +0.002σo 0.2σ o

ε 50u =
σ o + 6.89

3 b" ε o = 0.002 ε 50u ε 50 c ε 20

ε =( )p
50 h
4 s
sh Park and Kent Model, 1971

where p s : ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to volume of concrete core measured to

outside of hoops, b": width of confined core measured to outside of hoops, s h : spacing of hoops. The

strain ε o at maximum stress σ o is taken as 0.002.

Attard and Setunge (1996) proposed a stress-strain curve model for concrete applicable for
concrete strength range from 20 to 130 MPa. The main parameters employed to establish the
equation are Young’s modulus Ec , peak stress σ o , strain at peak stress ε o , and stress σ i and

ε i at the inflection point on the descending branch of the stress-strain curve;

ε ε
A( c ) + B( c )2
σc εo εo
=
σ o 1 + ( A − 2)( ε c ) + (B + 1)( ε c )2
εo εo
To allow for the difference between the in-situ uniaxial compressive strength and the cylinder strength,
the peak stress σ o may be taken as 0.9 times the cylinder strength. For the ascending branch of the
stress-strain curve,
Ecε o
A=
σo
( A − 1) 2
B= −1
0.55
and for descending branch;
 σ (ε
The values
Ec , ε o , σ i , ε i
may be determined from:.
where stresses and Young’s modulus are in MPa.

There have been many research works leading to proposals of mathematical or

phenomenological models for concrete under short-term uniaxial monotonic loading; e.g.,
Sargin (1971), Popovics (1970), and Buyukozturk et al. (1971).