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

net/publication/240504795

Comparative Study of Models on Confinement of Concrete Cylinders with Fiber-

Reinforced Polymer Composites

Article  in  Journal of Composites for Construction · August 2003

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(219)

CITATIONS READS

246 1,414

2 authors:

Laura De Lorenzis Ralejs Tepfers

Technische Universität Braunschweig Chalmers University of Technology
164 PUBLICATIONS   5,120 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   1,113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reproducing Sneddon's solution using fracture PhF formulations accurately is not easy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura De Lorenzis on 03 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparative Study of Models on Confinement of Concrete
Cylinders with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites
Laura De Lorenzis1 and Ralejs Tepfers2

Abstract: The use of fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 composites for strengthening and/or rehabilitation of concrete structures is gaining
increasing popularity in the civil engineering community. One of the most attractive applications of FRP materials is their use as confining
devices for concrete columns, which may result in remarkable increases of strength and ductility as indicated by numerous published
experimental results. Despite a large research effort, a proper analytical tool to predict the behavior of FRP-confined concrete has not yet
been established. Most of the available models are empirical in nature and have been calibrated against their own sets of experimental
data. On the other hand, the experimental results available in the literature encompass a wide range of values of the significant variables.
The objective of this work is a systematic assessment of the performance of the existing models on confinement of concrete columns with
FRP materials. The study is conducted in the following steps: the experimental data on confinement of concrete cylinders with FRP
available in the technical literature are classified according to the values of the significant variables; the existing empirical and analytical
models are reviewed, pointing out their distinct features; the whole set of available experimental results is compared with the whole set
of analytical models; and strengths and weaknesses of the various models are analyzed. Finally, a new equation is proposed to evaluate
the axial strain at peak stress of FRP-confined concrete cylinders.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0268共2003兲7:3共219兲
CE Database subject headings: Comparative studies; Columns; Fiber reinforced polymers; Ductility; Concrete structures;
Rehabilitation; Confinement.

Introduction in the circumferential direction is very large and essentially inde-

Being a frictional material, concrete is sensitive to hydrostatic
pressure. As early as 1906, Considère recognized the beneficial
effect of lateral stresses on the concrete strength and deformation
共Considère 1906兲. Since then, further research has made generally
accepted the fact that, when uniaxially loaded concrete is re-
strained from dilating laterally, it exhibits increased strength and
axial deformation capacity.
In the last two decades, the use of fiber-reinforced polymer
共FRP兲 composites has been gaining increasing popularity in the
civil engineering community, due to the favorable intrinsic prop-
erties possessed by these materials 共extremely high strength-to-
weight ratio, good corrosion behavior, electromagnetic neutral-
ity兲. One of FRPs’ most attractive applications is their use in the
form of filaments, wraps, or tubes to achieve confinement of con-
crete columns. Their use in place of steel for this application
offers several advantages. If the ratio of circumferential to axial
fibers is large, the FRP axial modulus is small, allowing the con-
crete to take essentially the entire axial load; the tensile strength
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Innovation Engineering, Univ. of Lecce,
via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy.
2
Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Building Materials, Chalmers Univ. of
Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on August 9, 2001; approved on March 19, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 7, No.
3, August 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2003/3-219–237/$18.00.
pendent from the value of the axial stress; ease and speed of
application result from their light weight; their minimal thickness
does not produce any change in the shape and size of the strength-
ened elements; and the good corrosion behavior of FRP materials
makes them suitable for use in coastal and marine structures.
After the early attempts by Kurt 共1978兲 and Fardis and Khalili
共1981, 1982兲, a remarkable amount of experiments have been
performed to investigate the behavior of concrete columns con-
fined with FRP spirals 共Ahmad et al. 1991; Nanni and Bradford
1995兲, wraps 共Harmon and Slattery 1992; Picher et al. 1996;
Watanabe et al. 1997; Miyauchi et al. 1997; Kono et al. 1998;
Toutanji 1999; Matthys et al. 1999; Shahawy et al. 2000;
Rochette and Labossiére 2000; Micelli et al. 2001; Rousakis
2001兲, and tubes 共Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997; Saafi et al. 1999;
La Tegola and Manni 1999; Fam and Rizkalla 2000兲. Despite this
large research effort, a proper analytical tool to predict such be-
havior has not yet been established. Early investigations at-
tempted to extend to FRP confinement the analytical models pre-
viously in use for steel 共Fardis and Khalili 1981; Saadatmanesh
et al. 1994兲, but it was soon stated that this operation yielded
unaccurate and often unconservative results 共Mirmiran and Sha-
hawy 1996兲. Since then, various models specifically suited for
FRP-confined concrete columns have been proposed 共Miyauchi
et al. 1997; Kono et al. 1998; Toutanji 1999; Saafi et al. 1999;
Samaan et al. 1998; Spoelstra and Monti 1999; Xiao and Wu
2000兲. Most of these models are empirical in nature and have
been calibrated against their own sets of experimental data. On
the other hand, the experimental results available in the technical
literature encompass a wide range of values of the significant
variables and can therefore be used for a systematic assessment of
the effectiveness of the existing models.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 219

Objective
The objective of this work is a systematic assessment of the per-
formance of the existing models on confinement of concrete col-
umns with FRP materials. For the time being, only the case of
circular columns has been considered, due to the limited set of
experimental data available for the case of noncircular columns.
Rather than ‘‘columns,’’ it would be more correct to use the term
‘‘cylinders,’’ since the large majority of the specimens tested thus
far in the laboratories have been concrete cylinders of limited size
with no internal steel longitudinal nor transverse reinforcement.
This raises two fundamental problems: the size effect, and the
interaction between internal steel reinforcement and external FRP
wraps or tubes. These two questions are not taken into consider-
ation in this study and need specific investigations. However, re-
cent studies have shown no appreciable influence of the specimen
size on performance of FRP-confined concrete 共Thériault et al. Fig. 1. Scheme of confinement action
2001; De Lorenzis et al. 2002兲.
The assessment has focused on the prediction of the ultimate
axial stress and strain of the confined concrete, rather than on its tained when the circumferential strain in the FRP reaches its ul-
whole stress-strain relationship. Ultimate stress and strain of the timate strain and the fibers rupture leading to brittle failure of the
confined columns are the most significant parameters from a de- cylinder
sign standpoint. Furthermore, accuracy in prediction of the coor- 2 f f u nt
dinates of the peak point 共which in FRP-confined concrete in p u ⫽E l •␧ f u ⫽ (3)
D
most cases coincides with the ultimate point兲 has a major influ-
ence on the proximity of the predicted stress-strain curve to the Steel confinement is based on the same mechanics. However, a
experimental one. fundamental difference is due to the stress-strain behavior of
This study is conducted in the following steps: the experimen- steel, which after the initial linearly elastic phase displays the
tal data on confinement of concrete cylinders with FRP available yielding plateau. Therefore, after reaching the maximum value
in the technical literature are collected and classified according to corresponding to the yielding stress, the confinement pressure re-
the values of the significant variables; the existing empirical and mains constant 共neglecting strain hardening兲. Another difference
analytical models are reviewed; the whole set of available experi- is the greater stiffness of steel when compared to FRP 关especially
mental results is compared with the whole set of analytical mod- to glass FRP 共GFRP兲, whereas carbon FRP 共CFRP兲 may reach
els; and strengths and weaknesses of the various models are ana- even higher values of elastic modulus兴. Both differences are re-
lyzed. Finally, a new equation is proposed to evaluate the axial flected in the typical axial stress-strain behavior of steel-confined
strain at peak stress of FRP-confined concrete cylinders. and FRP-confined concrete, illustrated in Fig. 2. Stresses and
strains are normalized with respect to the unconfined concrete
strength and peak strain. The steel-confined concrete follows an
Review of Experiments approximately linear trend before reaching the peak stress ( f ⬘cc )
after which it follows a gradual postpeak descending branch,
Observed Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer- ⬘ ) is lower than the peak stress.
therefore, the ultimate stress ( f cu
Confined Cylinders For columns confined with steel spirals or ties with effective con-
figurations, if the amount of ‘‘effective’’ confinement is large
The confinement action exerted by the FRP on the concrete core enough, and for steel-encased columns, the gain in strength and
is of the passive type, that is, it arises as a result of the lateral ductility over the unconfined concrete can be substantial. As pre-
expansion of concrete under axial load. As the axial stress in-
creases, the corresponding lateral strain increases and the confin-
ing device develops a tensile hoop stress balanced by a uniform
radial pressure which reacts against the concrete lateral expan-
sion. Assuming deformation compatibility between the confining
wrap or tube and the concrete surface, the lateral strain ␧ l of the
confined cylinder equals the strain ␧ f of the FRP composite. The
lateral stress p acting on the concrete as a result of the confine-
ment action can then be obtained by equilibrium of forces 共see
Fig. 1兲
p⫽E l •␧ l ⫽E l •␧ f (1)
where
2E f nt
E l⫽ (2)
D
E l , sometimes called confinement modulus or lateral modulus, is
Fig. 2. Axial stress-strain behavior of confined concrete 关from
a measure of the stiffness of the confining device. The maximum
Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲兴
value of the confinement pressure that the FRP can exert is at-

220 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

viously mentioned, the peak point corresponds to yielding of the
confining device, unless high-strength concrete is confined with
high-strength steel ties 共Cusson and Paultre 1995兲. The FRP-
confined concrete displays a distinct bilinear response with a
sharp softening and a transition zone at the level of its unconfined
strength ( f ⬘co ), after which the tangent stiffness stabilizes at a
constant value until reaching the ultimate strength. Thus the peak
point coincides with the ultimate point and they both correspond
to tensile rupture of the FRP confining device. It has been noted
that the strain measured in the confining FRP at rupture is in most
cases lower than the ultimate strain of the FRP tested in uniaxial
tension 共see, for example, Matthys et al. 1999; Shahawy et al.
2000; Rousakis 2001兲. This phenomenon considerably affects the
accuracy of the existing models and will be examined later.
The ever-increasing response is associated to the absence of
yielding. The decrease in stiffness at the level of the concrete
unconfined strength is due to the lower stiffness of the FRP con-
fining device with respect to steel 共in Fig. 2 it can be seen that it
is more pronounced for GFRP than for CFRP confinement, the
latter being very close to the response of the steel-confined col-
umn兲. From the observed behavior, it has been noted that the
value of the confined strength is essentially dependent on the
maximum confining pressure that the FRP may apply, whereas the
slope of the second branch of the stress-strain relationship 共and,
as a consequence, the value of the strain at peak stress兲 is mainly
related to the confinement stiffness. This will be reflected by most
of the examined models.
Classification of the Experimental Data
Results of about 180 tests from 17 different experimental sets
documented in the published literature have been collected. Table
1 shows the range of variation of the variables in each experimen-
tal set, for a complete classification see De Lorenzis and Tepfers
共2001兲. Other variables whose influence is either weak or ques-
tionable are discussed as follows and reported in Table 2 for com-
pleteness.
The resin type used in the various specimens should not exert
an appreciable influence on the confining effect, as shown for
example in Nanni and Bradford 共1995兲. Inadequate length of the
overlap at the end of the wrapping may result in premature failure
due to debonding of the overlapped region preceding fiber rup-
ture. Specimens failed by this mechanism have not been included
in the survey. The overlap length, provided that it is enough to
avoid failure by debonding, should not influence the behavior of
the confined specimens. Friction at the loading platens is one of
the sources for the size effect. Rousakis 共2001兲 has adopted Teflon
layers to reduce such friction, whereas other researchers make
explicit mention not to have used any antifriction device. Unfor-
tunately, most authors do not give any information on this detail.
It might be expected that, the other parameters being the same,
specimens with less friction at the loading platens display lower
strength values. The axial load may or may not be applied di-
rectly on the FRP. Direct axial loading may result in local buck-
ling of the composite in the axial direction close to the loaded
surfaces. The buckling portions expand outward, which results in
less contact pressure with concrete. Therefore, direct loading of
the FRP should yield a lower confinement effectiveness, as re-
cently shown by Fam and Rizkalla 共2001兲. The latter authors also
attribute the reduced effectiveness to the biaxial stress state 共axial
compression and radial tension兲 to which the tube 共in their case兲
is subjected when directly loaded. The mechanical properties of
the confining FRP are of great influence on the behavior of the
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 221
concrete cylinders, therefore, their correct evaluation is funda-
mental for an accurate prediction of such behavior. While some
authors rely upon the manufacturer specifications, others carried
out their own tensile or split-disk tests to measure tensile strength
and modulus of elasticity of the FRP in the hoop direction. The
fact that, sometimes, values notably different from those declared
by the manufacturer were found emphasizes the need for accurate
and standardized tensile characterization of FRP laminates. The
number of repetitions is the number of identical specimens of
which the reported values represent the average. The failure mode
of almost all cylinders included in the survey was tensile rupture
of the FRP. In some cases, a combined FRP rupture-concrete
shear failure has been observed, especially in specimens with
high strength concrete.
Review of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Confinement
Models
Steel-Based Confinement Models
The steel-based confinement models extend to FRP the formula-
tions of Richart et al. 共1928兲; Newman and Newman 共1972兲; and
Mander et al. 共1988兲. Such formulations are based on ultimate
strength surfaces modeled on triaxial test data, and therefore they
predict the enhancement in strength of the confined concrete as a
function of one value of confining pressure, assumed to be con-
stant throughout the loading history.
Fardis and Khalili 共1981兲 applied the triaxial strength enve-
lopes proposed by Richart et al. 共1928兲 and Newman and New-
man 共1972兲 to the case of confinement with FRP, using for p 共the
constant triaxial pressure兲 the maximum confinement pressure
that the FRP can exert before rupturing in tension. The resulting
equations 共see Table 3兲 were checked against the experimental
results obtained by the authors on small size (75⫻150 and 100
⫻200 mm) cylinders wrapped with fiberglass balanced or unbal-
anced woven rovings. Most specimens had a p u / f ⬘co ratio ranging
between 0.1 and 0.6. For these values of p u / f ⬘co , a reasonable
agreement was observed. The equation giving the axial strain at
peak stress was calibrated empirically with a value of ␧ co equal to
0.002. No comparison was shown between experimental and the-
oretical strains. The lateral strain of the tested cylinders at failure
was shown to be in most cases within a range of plus/minus one
standard deviation around the average ultimate strain of the FRP.
Saadatmanesh et al. 共1994兲 extended to FRP the well-known
confinement model by Mander et al. 共1988兲, proposed for steel-
confined concrete. Mander’s model suggests a nonlinear relation-
ship between the confined strength and the confinement pressure
based on the ultimate strength surface developed by Elwi and
Murray 共1979兲. The whole stress-strain relationship is based on an
equation proposed by Popovics 共1973兲, with the ultimate strain
␧ cu determined through an energy balance approach, that is,
equating the additional ductility available when concrete is con-
fined to the energy stored in the confining device. Saadatmanesh
et al. applied Mander’s equations to the case of FRP confinement
using p given by Eq. 共3兲 共see Table 3兲, whereas ␧ cc and the stress-
strain curve are given by the same equations valid for steel con-
finement and the ultimate strain ␧ cu is determined through the
energy balance approach. This model was not compared by the
authors with any experimental result but was only used for a
parametric study.
Table 1. Experimental Data 共Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Wraps兲
Classification data Geometry Fiber-reinforced polymer properties Concrete properties
Specimen Specimen Fiber D⫻H nt Ef f fu ␧fu ⬘
f co ␧ co E co
Reference code type type 共mm兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲
共a兲 Fiber-reinforced polymer wraps
Harmon and Slattery HA1-7 Wrap CFRP 51⫻102 0.089– 235,000 3,500 1.489 41.00– 0.23–0.4 N/A
共1992兲 0.689 103.00
Picher et al. 共1996兲 PI1 Wrap CFRP 153⫻305 0.36 83,000 1,266 1.525 39.70 0.25 N/A
Watanabe et al. 共1997兲 WA1-9 Wrap CFRP 100⫻200 0.14 –0.67 223,400– 2,728.5– 1.221– 30.20 0.25 22,200
611,600 1,562.7 0.256
Miyauchi et al. 共1997兲 MI1-10 Wrap CFRP 100⫻200– 0.11–0.33 230,500 3,481 1,510 31.20– 0.190– N/A
150⫻300 51.90 0.219
Kono et al. 共1998兲 KO1-17 Wrap CFRP 100⫻200 0.167– 235,000 3,820 1.626 32.30– 0.170– 24,400–
0.501 34.80 0.234 28,425
Toutanji 共1999兲 TO1 Wrap GFRP 76⫻305 0.236 72,600 1,518 2.091 30.93 0.190 N/A
TO2-3 CFRP 76⫻305 0.22–0.33 230,500– 3,485– 1.512– 30.93 0.190 N/A
372,800 2,940 0.789
Matthys et al. 共1999兲 MA1-2 Wrap CFRP 150⫻300 0.117– 220,000– 2,600– 1.182– 34.90 0.210 N/A
0.235 500,000 1,100 0.220
Shahawy et al. 共2000兲 SH1-9 Wrap CFRP 153⫻305 1.25–0.36 82,700 2,275 2.751 19.40– 0.200 16,376 –
49.00 22,409
Rochette and Labossière RL1-3 Wrap CFRP 100⫻200 0.6 82,700 1,265 1.530 42.00 N/A N/A
共2000兲 RL4-7 AFRP 150⫻300 1.26 –5.04 13,600 230 1.691 43.00 N/A N/A
Micelli et al. 共2001兲 MC1-4 Wrap GFRP 100⫻200 0.35 72,400 1,520 2.099 32.00 0.145 25,400
MC5-8 CFRP 100⫻200 0.16 227,000 3,790 1.670 37.00 0.190 30,608
Rousakis 共2001兲 RO1-48 Wrap CFRP 150⫻300 0.169– 118,340 2,024 1.710 25.15– 0.290– 16,802–
0.845 82.13 0.350 37,040
共b兲 Fiber-reinforced polymer filaments and tubes
Ahmad et al. 共1991兲 AH1-3 Filament GFRP 102⫻203 1 48,300 2,070 4.286 38.99– 0.22–0.27 N/A
Wound 64.20
Nanni and Bradford NB1-15 Filament GFRP 150⫻300 0.3–2.4 52,000 583.3 1.122 36.30 N/A N/A
共1995兲 Wound
Saafi et al. 共1999兲 SA1-3 Tube GFRP 152⫻435 0.8 –2.4 32,000– 450–560 1.406 – 35.00 0.250 30,000
36,000 1.556
SA4-6 CFRP 152⫻435 0.11–0.55 367,000– 3,300– 0.910– 35.00 0.250 30,000
415,000 3,700 0.892
Mirmiran and Shahawy MS1-22 Tube GFRP 153⫻305 1.44 –2.97 37,233– 524 – 641 1.407– 29.64 – N/A N/A
共1997兲 40,749 1.573 31.97
La Tegola and Manni LM1-10 Tube GFRP 150⫻300 4.28 –5.9 25,250– 652– 670 2.582– 25.61 N/A N/A
共1999兲 25,450 2.633
Fam and Rizkalla 共2000兲 FR1-3 Tube GFRP 219⫻438– 3.73–3.08 33,400– 548 –398 1.641– 58.00– 0.200 N/A
100⫻200 23,000 1.730 37.00

Empirical or Analytical Models
The other models, except the one by Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲,
are empirically based: they use best fitting of experimental data to
correlate the stress-strain behavior of confined cylinders 共particu-
larly the enhancement in strength and ultimate strain兲 to the val-
ues of the parameters believed to be significant. The equations are
reported in Table 3.
The equation proposed by Miyauchi et al. 共1997兲 to estimate
the strengthening effect of the FRP confinement differs from
Richart’s equation 共with the active pressure substituted by the
confining pressure at FRP rupture兲 by the only addition of the
empirical ‘‘effectiveness coefficient’’ k e . Such coefficient was
calibrated by the authors from their own experimental results and
was set equal to 0.85. The experiments were conducted on speci-
mens with values of the p u / f ⬘co ratio ranging from 0.1 to 0.5. The
two empirical equations suggested for the computation of ␧ cc
were calibrated using the experimental values of ␧ co . Lateral
strains were not measured, therefore, it was not possible to check
whether the FRP hoop strain at failure was equal or less than its
uniaxial ultimate tensile strain. However, it is very likely that
‘‘premature’’ tensile failure of the FRP occurred in Miyauchi’s
specimens such as in most wrapped specimens of the available
literature. If so, the empirical equations incorporate such phenom-
enon in themselves, since they have been calibrated using the
uniaxial tensile strength of the FRP. The complete axial stress-
strain relationship of the confined concrete was proposed, based
on the observed behavior, as consisting of a parabolic branch,
modeled by the same equation of the unconfined concrete, fol-
lowed by a straight line tangent to the parabola at the intersection
point.
Kono et al. 共1998兲 developed two empirical equations for the
evaluation of peak stress and corresponding strain of confined

222 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

Table 1. 共Continued兲
Confinement properties Test results
El pu ⬘ ( គf cu
f cc ⬘)
គ ␧ cc (␧គ cu
គ) ␧fr
Reference 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 ⬘
p u / f co 共MPa兲 ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ 共%兲 ␧ cc (␧គ cu
គ )/␧ co 共%兲 ␧ f r /␧ f u
共a兲 Fiber-reinforced polymer wraps
Harmon and Slattery 820– 6,350 12.22– 2.31– 86.00–303.60 5.88 –1.27 3.600–1.100 15.65–2.75 1.130– 0.76 –0.13
共1992兲 94.57 0.24 0.200
Picher et al. 共1996兲 392 5.98 0.15 55.98 1.41 1.070 4.28 0.840 0.55
Watanabe et al. 共1997兲 748 – 36.56 – 4.38 1.21– 104.60– 3.46 –1.38 4.151–0.575 16.60–2.30 1.000– 0.55–0.98
5,137 0.14 41.70 0.167
Miyauchi et al. 共1997兲 338 – 5.11– 0.11– 52.40– 1.31–2.62 0.945–2.013 4.32–10.32 N/A N/A
1,014 15.32 0.49 104.60
Kono et al. 共1998兲 785– 12.76 – 0.37– 50.70– 1.46 –3.16 0.785–2.490 4.08 –10.87 0.960– 0.59–0.38
2,355 38.28 1.19 110.10 0.610
Toutanji 共1999兲 451 9.43 0.30 60.82 1.97 1.530 8.05 1.630 0.78
1,334 – 20.18 – 0.65– 95.02– 3.07–3.04 2.450–1.550 12.89– 8.16 1.250– 0.83–0.70
3,237 25.53 0.83 94.01 0.550
Matthys et al. 共1999兲 343– 4.06 –3.45 0.12– 46.10– 1.32–1.31 0.900–0.600 4.29–2.86 1.260– 1.07–1.41
1,567 0.10 45.80 0.310
Shahawy et al. 共2000兲 1,356 – 37.30– 1.92– 33.80– 4.13–1.21 3.560–0.620 17.80–3.10 0.570– 0.21–0.27
390 10.74 0.22 112.70 0.730
Rochette and Labossière 992 15.18 0.36 67.62– 1.61–1.75 1.350–1.600 N/A 0.800– 0.52–0.62
共2000兲 73.50 0.950
228 –914 3.86 – 0.09– 47.30– 1.10–1.73 1.110–1.740 N/A 1.550– 0.92–0.70
15.46 0.36 74.39 1.180
Micelli et al. 共2001兲 507 10.64 0.33 48.00– 1.50–1.69 0.850–1.494 5.87–10.32 0.990– 0.47–0.71
54.00 1.500
726 12.13 0.33 57.00– 1.54 –1.68 0.900–1.090 4.74 –5.74 1.070– 0.64 –0.81
62.00 1.350
Rousakis 共2001兲 267– 4.56 – 0.06 – 38.75– 1.14 –2.79 0.44 共0.46兲–2.45 1.42–7.66 0.095– 0.06 –0.45
1333 22.80 0.54 137.93 0.770
共b兲 Fiber-reinforced polymer filaments and tubes
Ahmad et al. 共1991兲 951 40.75 1.05–0.63 115.30 – (109.4) 2.81–2.15 1.13 – (1.77) 8.05–7.15 N/A N/A
145.59(137.8) 1.24(1.83)
Nanni and Bradford 208 – 2.33– 0.06 –0.51 41.20–107.91 1.13–2.97 1.889– N/A N/A N/A
共1995兲 1,664 18.67 5.453
Saafi et al. 共1999兲 336 – 4.72– 0.13–0.50 52.80– 1.51–2.37 1.90–3.00 7.60–12.0 1.650– 1.21–1.09
1,134 17.64 83.00 1.700
530– 4.76 – 0.14 –0.76 55.00– 1.57–2.77 1.00–2.22 4.00– 8.88 1.300– 1.45–1.01
2,995 26.71 97.00 0.900
Mirmiran and Shahawy 703– 9.90– 0.31–0.84 53.66 – 1.74 –3.87 2.900– N/A 1.150– 1.36 –0.80
共1997兲 1,587 24.97 114.66 5.330 1.940
La Tegola and Manni 1,441– 37.21– 1.45–2.06 71.00– 2.77– 4.31 4.100– N/A N/A N/A
共1999兲 2,002 52.71 110.30 9.900
Fam and Rizkalla 1,483– 18.52– 0.32–0.66 90.00– 1.17–2.19 1.350– 6.75–5.15 1.200– 0.73–0.95
共2000兲 1,129 24.52 68.00 1.030 1.650

concrete cylinders. In these equations, the ratios f ⬘cc / f ⬘co and
␧ cc /␧ co are linearly correlated with the ultimate pressure p u
rather than with the ratio p u / f ⬘co . The equation giving the strain
at peak stress was obtained using the experimental values of ␧ co .
The experiments from which the previous equations were cali-
brated are characterized by p u / f ⬘co ratios ranging from 0.37 to
1.19, that is, rather high compared to those on which the preced-
ing models were based. The concrete unconfined strength ranged
between 32.3 and 34.8 MPa. The lateral strains were measured
and results indicated that only a percentage of the FRP ultimate
strain ranging from 38 to 59% was developed at failure. There-
fore, Kono’s equations incorporate such ‘‘premature’’ failure phe-
nomenon in themselves.
Saaman et al. adopted and calibrated the four-parameter stress-
strain relationship by Richard and Abbott 共1975兲 to model the
bilinear response of FRP-confined concrete, for more details see
the original paper 共Saaman et al. 1998兲. The expression of the
confined strength was calibrated on experimental results obtained
by the authors on FRP-encased specimens with p u / f ⬘co ratios
ranging from 0.31 to 0.84. The recorded FRP hoop strains at
failure were very close to the ultimate tensile strain of the FRP
tube and, therefore, the model does not incorporate the ‘‘prema-
ture’’ failure phenomenon. In this model as in those by Fardis,
Toutanji, and Saafi, ␧ cc depends not only on the ultimate confine-
ment pressure but also on the stiffness of the confining device.
Besides, it is no more related to the unconfined strain at peak ␧ co .

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 223

Table 2. Other Variables
Resin Overlap Presence of Axial load Tensile Number Failure
Code type 共mm兲 antifriction device applied on fiber-reinforced polymer character of repetitions mode
AH1-3 Polyester N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Fiber rupture
NB1-15 Polyester/Vinyl N/A No N/A N/A 1 Fiber rupture
HA1-7 Epoxy N/A No N/A No N/A N/A
PI1 Epoxy 100 N/A N/A N/A 3 Fiber rupture
WA1-9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 3 N/A
MI1-10 Epoxy 60 共outer layer兲 N/A N/A N/A 1 Fiber rupture
40 共inner layer兲
KO1-17 MMA N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Fiber rupture
TO1-3 Epoxy 76 N/A N/A N/A 4 Fiber rupture
MA1-2 Epoxy 150 N/A N/A Yes 3 Fiber rupture
SH1,6 Epoxy 50 N/A No Yes 5 Fiber rupture
SH2,7 100
SH3,8 150
SH4,9 200
SH5 250
RL1-3 Epoxy 100 N/A N/A Yes 1 Fiber rupture
RL4-7 N/A
MC1-8 Epoxy 50.8 No No No 1 Fiber rupture
RO1-48 Epoxy 150 Yes No Yes 1 Fiber rupture
SA1-3 Polyester N/A N/A N/A No 3 Fiber rupture
SA4-6 Fiber rupture/shear
MS1-22 Polyester N/A No No Yes 1 Fiber rupture
LM1-10 Polyester N/A N/A No Yes 1 Fiber rupture
FR1-3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Fiber rupture

Table 3. Summary of Models

‘‘Premature’’
fiber-reinforced polymer
rupture
Model ⬘
Theoretical f cc Theoretical ␧ cc is incorporated?
Fardis and Khalili ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹4.1(p u / f co
⬘ ); ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹3.7(p u / f co
⬘) 0.86
⬘)
␧ cc ⫽␧ co ⫹0.0005(E l / f co No

Saadatmanesh et al. f cc ⬘ ⫽2.254冑1⫹7.94(p u / f co

⬘ / f co ⬘ )⫺2(p u / f co
⬘ )⫺1.254 ␧cc No
共Mander兲 ⬘ /f co
⫽1⫹5共 f cc ⬘ ⫺1兲
␧co
Miyauchi et al. ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹3.485(p u / f co
⬘) ␧cc N/A
⬘ 兲 0.373
⫽1⫹10.6共 p u / f co ⬘ ⫽30 MPa兲
共 f co
␧co
␧ cc
⬘ 兲 0.525
⫽1⫹10.5共 p u / f co ⬘ ⫽50 MPa兲
共 f co
␧ co
Kono et al. ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹0.0572p u ␧ cc /␧ co ⫽1⫹0.280p u Yes
Saaman et al. ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹6.0(p 0.7 ⬘)
u / f co ⬘ ⫺ f o /E 2 )
␧ cc ⫽( f cc No
f 0 ⫽0.872 f co ⬘ ⫹0.371p u ⫹6.258
E 2 ⫽245.61f co ⬘ 0.2 ⫹0.6728E l
Toutanji ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹3.5(p u / f co
⬘ ) 0.85 ␧cc No
⬘ / f co
⫽1⫹共310.57␧ f u ⫹1.90兲共 f cc ⬘ ⫺1 兲
␧co
Saafi et al. ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1⫹2.2(p u / f co
⬘ ) 0.84 ␧cc No
⬘ / f co
⫽1⫹共537␧ f u ⫹2.6兲共 f cc ⬘ ⫺1 兲
␧co
Spoelstra and Monti ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽0.2⫹3(p u / f co
⬘ ) 0.5 ␧cc E co No
共approximate兲 ⫽2⫹1.25 ␧ 冑p / f ⬘
␧co ⬘ f u u co
f co
Xiao and Wu ⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘ ⫽1.1⫹ 关 4.1⫺0.75( f co
⬘ 2/E l ) 兴 p u / f co
⬘ ␧ fu⫺0.0005 No
␧cc⫽
⬘ /E l 兲 0.8
7 共 f co

224 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

 The model by Toutanji 共1999兲 provides a stress-strain curve
characterized by two different regions. In the first region, the
behavior of the confined cylinder does not appreciably differ from
that of the unconfined concrete. In the second region, two equa-
tions 共obtained by regression analysis on results of tests con-
ducted by the author兲 are proposed giving the axial stress and the
axial strain as functions of the lateral strain. The axial stress-strain
curve can be obtained by combining these equations, where the
lateral strain ␧ l increases from 0.002 to the ultimate strain of the
composite. Assuming that failure occurs by FRP rupture, the ex-
pressions of the peak stress and strain 共coinciding with the ulti-
mate stress and strain兲 follow immediately by setting the lateral
strain equal to the ultimate FRP strain.
Saafi et al. 共1999兲 proposed a model identical to that by
Toutanji, with the only exception that regression analysis was
conducted on experimental results obtained by FRP-encased
rather than wrapped cylinders. Different values of the coefficients
were found and the discrepancy was attributed to the bond be-
tween FRP sheets and concrete being stronger as compared to that
of FRP tubes. The distinct feature of these two models is that the
equations giving f ⬘cc and ␧ cc as functions of the respective rel-
evant parameters have not been obtained by best fitting of the
experimental values of f ⬘cc and ␧ cc . Instead, they have been found
by extrapolating to ultimate conditions 共that is, ␧ l ⫽␧ f u ) the equa-
tions giving the current axial stress and strain as functions of the
current lateral strain, such equations being obtained by best fitting
of experimental results. This is an expedient through which the
ever-increasing confinement pressure exerted by the FRP is ac-
counted for. In other words, the triaxial failure envelope is ob-
tained assuming that the state of the confined concrete core is
represented by a point on the envelope at each current value of
axial stress and strain. Although the specimens tested by Toutanji
failed for a lateral FRP strain lower than its ultimate tensile strain,
the model does not incorporate such phenomenon due to its cali-
bration on the current values of lateral strain.
The model by Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 is based on a com-
bination of different ‘‘ingredients,’’ without any empirical param-
eter calibration, and is implemented by means of an iterative ap-
proach. Such ‘‘ingredients’’ are a constitutive model for
unconfined concrete under uniaxial compression by Pantazopou-
lou and Mills 共1995兲, whose equations are rearranged to yield a
relationship between lateral and axial strain, and Mander’s con-
finement model. The basic idea is to apply the latter for each
current value of lateral pressure exerted by the FRP. Such pres-
sure is related by equilibrium and compatibility to the concrete
current lateral strain. This is turn depends on the current axial
strain and at the same time on the confinement pressure itself,
which prevents the concrete from expanding laterally as much as
it would in unconfined conditions. Therefore, the most critical
aspect of modeling is the choice of the relationship that links the
lateral strain to the axial strain and to the confining pressure. This
is accomplished by means of the model by Pantazopoulou and
Mills 共1995兲. The complete axial stress-strain of the confined con-
crete, computed through an iterative procedure, can be regarded
as a curve crossing a family of Mander’s curves, each one per-
taining to the level of confining pressure corresponding to the
current lateral strain. While the model adopts Mander’s failure
envelope, it does not assume that the current state of the concrete
core is always represented by a point on the envelope. On the
contrary, for the current value of axial strain, f ⬘cc and ␧ cc compet-
ing to the corresponding lateral pressure are calculated, and then
the current axial stress is derived from Popovics equation, there-
fore, it is always lower than the current value of f ⬘cc . This is true
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 225
also for the ultimate stress, which is always lower than f ⬘cc corre-
sponding to the maximum FRP confinement pressure. Another
distinct feature of the model is that, as opposed to the others, it is
able to predict stress-strain curves with a descending branch, and
even losses of strength with respect to the unconfined case, which
has actually been observed for very low FRP volumetric ratios.
Closed-form expressions for the confined ultimate axial strain and
stress are obtainable from the model, see Spoelstra and Monti
共1999兲 or De Lorenzis and Tepfers 共2001兲. From the ‘‘exact’’
formulation of the model, the authors carried out regression
analysis to provide ‘‘approximate’’ and more readily applicable
expressions of the ultimate axial stress and strain, reported in
Table 3. The analysis was conducted using the assumptions that
␧ co ⫽0.002 and that the concrete elastic modulus can display a
20% variation with respect to the reference value 5,700冑 f ⬘co for a
range of f ⬘co ⫽30– 50 MPa.
Xiao and Wu 共2000兲 proposed a bilinear axial stress-strain
relationship for confined concrete. The equations giving confined
strength and strain at peak stress were calibrated empirically on
experimental results obtained by the authors on FRP-wrapped
specimens with p u / f ⬘co values ranging from 0.14 to 0.7. The re-
corded FRP hoop strains corresponding to failure ranged from
about 50 to 80% of the rupture strains obtained for the tensile
coupons. However, calibration of the equations was based on the
measured lateral strains and therefore such equations do not in-
corporate the premature tensile failure of the FRP.
Discussion
Steel-Based and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Confinement
Models
Many authors have raised towards the steel-based confinement
models the objection that they do not account for the profound
difference in uniaxial tensile stress-strain behavior between steel
and FRP 关see Saaman et al. 共1998兲; and Spoelstra and Monti
共1999兲, among others兴. According to these authors, while the as-
sumption of constant confining pressure is still realistic in the
case of steel confinement in the yield phase, it cannot be extended
to FRP materials which do not exhibit any yielding and therefore
apply on the concrete core a continuously increasing inward pres-
sure. However, it should be noted that, in the case of steel con-
finement and for normal-strength concrete and steel, the peak
stress corresponds to yielding of the confining device. Therefore,
even though the confining pressure remains constant afterwards,
the coordinates of the peak points should be predicted on the basis
not of the yielding pressure but of a continuously increasing in-
ward pressure due to a passive confinement effect. In other words,
up to the instant of steel yielding, there is no difference in the
mechanics of confinement between steel and FRP because they
both behave linearly elastic. Hence the success of the active con-
finement models in predicting the peak stress of columns pas-
sively confined with steel is to be attributed not to the fact that
pressure is constant, but rather on the path-independency of the
compressive strength of concrete under triaxial stresses 共note that
so far we are only discussing strength and not deformability兲.
Already Richart et al. 共1928兲, when comparing results of actively
and passively confined specimens, found the behavior similar.
Bažant and Tsubaki 共1980兲, when comparing standard triaxial
tests 共where the hydrostatic pressure is applied first and the axial
stress is then increased keeping the lateral pressure constant兲 with
proportional triaxial tests, observed that the first stress path
should produce stiffer response and less damage in a concrete
specimen than the second. This is because the hydrostatic pres-
sure applied at first prevents the growth of microcracks due to
shear. On the other hand, the hydrostatic loading itself also causes
some collapse of the microstructure in concrete. The authors 共Ba-
žant and Tsubaki 1980兲 concluded that the experimental informa-
tion on the differences in response between standard and propor-
tional triaxial tests was not consistent enough at that time to draw
a conclusion. More recently, Imran and Pantazopoulou 共1996兲
performed triaxial tests with four different load paths and found
that the concrete strength was essentially path-independent
whereas the deformation behavior was path-dependent. Similar
results were found by Lan and Guo 共1997兲.
The consequence is that ultimate strength surfaces based on
triaxial strength data should be valid and successful for FRP-
confined concrete as they are for steel confined concrete. As
shown in the following sections, this is actually the case for
Mander’s model, but not for the expressions by Richart et al.
共1928兲 and Newman and Newman 共1972兲. The reason is probably
that such expressions overestimate the effectiveness of high con- Fig. 3. Comparison of models in prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co
fining pressures and especially so for medium to high strength
concretes 共Imran and Pantazopoulou 1996兲. This becomes par-
ticularly evident in the comparison with FRP-confinement tests, Toutanji 共1999兲; Saafi et al. 共1999兲; and Spoelstra and Monti
where the confining pressure can attain unusually high values 共up 共1999兲 共approximate兲, the lateral modulus in the model by Saa-
to about twice the unconfined strength兲 due to the high tensile man et al., 共1998兲, and both in the model by Xiao and Wu 共2000兲.
strength of the FRP. Yet, the formula by Newman and Newman is Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the prediction curves of the various
very similar to that by Toutanji, the latter being developed on the models for f ⬘cc / f co
⬘ and ␧ cc /␧ co , respectively. The comparison can
basis of FRP confinement tests 共Table 3兲. only be partial since not all models introduce the same significant
For the computation of the ultimate strain of the confined con- variables, especially in computation of the peak strain. As for the
crete, path dependency cannot be ignored any longer and the pas- prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co , the highest curve is that based on Richart’s
sive confinement mechanism must be taken into account. While formula. The models by Fardis and Khalili 共based on Newman
Fardis and Khalili proposed an empirically based equation, and Newman兲, Miyauchi et al., and Toutanji yield very similar
Saadatmanesh et al. continued to follow Mander’s model in the curves, due to the similar value of the coefficient multiplying the
computation of both the strain at peak stress and the ultimate ratio p u / f ⬘co and to the weak influence of the exponents, close to
strain, not accounting for the experimental evidence that in FRP- the unity, in the respective formulas. Rather close to each other
confined specimens these two values coincide. This approach is are also the curves by Saadatmanesh 共Mander兲, Saafi et al., and
evidently inappropriate, as shown by Mirmiran and Shahawy Spoelstra and Monti 共approximate兲, the first one predicting higher
共1997兲 and Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 among others. Equally values of strength at lower pressures and lower values at higher
inappropriate is the use of Popovics’ equation for the complete pressures than the others. The equations by Saaman et al. 共1998兲
axial stress-strain curve. and Kono et al. 共1998兲 have been plotted for two different values
of unconfined strength, namely, 20 and 60 MPa. The first model
Significant Variables predicts a lower confinement effectiveness for higher strength
As for the strength enhancement, almost all models relate f ⬘cc / f ⬘co concrete at a given p u / f co ⬘ ratio, whereas the opposite trend is
to the ratio p u / f ⬘co , except for the models by Kono, which ex- suggested by Kono’s model.
press f ⬘cc / f ⬘co as a function of p u only, Saaman et al., which ex-
press f ⬘cc / f ⬘co as a function of p u and f co
⬘ separately, and Xiao and
Wu, which include the ratio f 2co /E l as a significant variable. Most
models yield expressions very similar to each other, note, for
example, the similarity not just qualitative but numerical between
the equations proposed by Toutanji and Fardis and Khalili 共the
latter taken from the triaxial tests by Newman and Newman兲,
although derived differently. The fact that none of the models
共except for Xiao and Wu兲 includes the confinement stiffness as
significant variable is another evidence of the path independency
of the confined concrete strength mentioned in ‘‘Steel-Based and
FRP Confinement Models.’’
Conversely, the ductility enhancement, as expressed by the
ratio ␧ cc /␧ co , appears to be related not just to the strength prop-
erties but also to the stiffness of the confining device, which is
coherent with the path-dependency shown by the deformation be-
havior of concrete. This was recognized already in the Fardis
model, which expresses ␧ cc as a function of the ratio of the lateral
modulus to the unconfined concrete strength E l / f ⬘co , and con-
firmed by most of the subsequent formulations. For the same
Fig. 4. Comparison of models in prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co
purpose, the ultimate FRP strain is introduced in the models by

226 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

 Table 4. Evaluation of Models in Prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co
⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共wraps兲 ⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共tubes兲 ⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共overall兲
Average Average Average
absolute Coefficient of absolute Coefficient absolute Coefficient
Sample error Standard variation Sample error Standard of variation Sample error Standard of variation
Model number 共%兲 deviation 共%兲 number 共%兲 deviation 共%兲 number 共%兲 deviation 共%兲
Fardis and Khalili 139 31.2 31.5 100.9 41 共31a兲 58.7 共35.6a兲 46.4 共22.8a兲 79.0 共64.0a兲 180 37.5 37.2 99.1
共Richart兲
Fardis and Khalili 139 31.2 26.7 85.6 41 共31a兲 50.5 共34.7a兲 34.2 共21.1a兲 67.8 共60.8a兲 180 35.6 29.6 83.3
共Newman兲
Saadatmanesh 139 23.0 19.0 82.6 41 共31a兲 22.6 共23.4a兲 17.2 共18.3a兲 76.2 共78.2a兲 180 22.9 18.5 81.0
Saaman 139 13.6 10.5 76.9 41 共31a兲 12.4 共7.9a兲 13.6 共11.1a兲 109.9 共140.4a兲 180 13.4 11.3 84.2
Miyauchi 139 23.1 24.0 103.7 41 共31a兲 42.6 共23.6a兲 37.9 共18.3a兲 89.1 共77.7a兲 180 27.6 28.8 104.7
Kono 139 17.9 16.5 91.9 41 共31a兲 17.1 共20.6a兲 13.9 共14.1a兲 81.3 共68.8a兲 180 17.8 15.9 89.6
Toutanji 139 28.1 24.6 87.8 41 共31a兲 44.9 共30.5a兲 31.8 共20.2a兲 70.7 共66.3a兲 180 31.9 27.3 85.5
Saafi 139 13.6 9.5 69.3 41 共31a兲 14.2 共9.1a兲 14.6 共11.9a兲 102.7 共130.8a兲 180 13.8 10.8 78.4
Spoelstra and Monti 139 16.0 9.8 61.3 41 共31a兲 12.5 共9.5a兲 13.6 共13.0a兲 109.2 共136.5a兲 180 15.2 10.8 71.4
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 227

‘‘approximate’’
Spoelstra and Monti 113 19.4 17.3 89.2 8 共8a兲 22.4 共22.4a兲 17.0 共17.0a兲 76.0 共76.0a兲 121 19.6 17.2 87.9
‘‘exact’’
Xiao and Wu 139 32.0 26.2 81.8 41 共31a兲 47.5 共24.7a兲 43.7 共16.3a兲 92.0 共66.1a兲 180 35.6 31.6 88.9

Table 5. Evaluation of Models in Prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co with Effective Rupture Strain of FRP
⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共wraps兲 ⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共tubes兲 ⬘ / f co
Prediction of f cc ⬘ 共overall兲
Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of
Model number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲
Fardis and Khalili 105 19.0 11.5 60.4 30 35.0 9.6 27.4 135 22.6 12.9 57.2
共Newman and Newman兲
Saadatmanesh et al. 105 18.7 11.6 62.0 30 22.2 11.2 50.2 135 19.5 11.6 59.3
Saaman et al. 105 19.8 13.6 68.9 30 6.8 5.1 75.7 135 16.9 13.4 79.4
Miyauchi et al. 105 19.7 14.0 71.2 30 22.8 9.1 40.0 135 20.4 13.1 64.3
Kono et al. 105 26.2 15.8 60.4 30 16.1 6.9 43.0 135 23.9 14.9 62.2
Toutanji 105 18.6 11.8 63.6 30 30.7 9.2 30.0 135 21.3 12.3 58.0
Saafi et al. 105 21.8 14.7 67.2 30 5.6 5.1 92.0 135 18.2 14.8 81.2
Spoelstra and Monti 105 32.2 19.5 60.5 30 6.5 5.5 85.1 135 26.5 20.4 77.0
‘‘approximate’’
Spoelstra and Monti 94 19.0 12.2 64.4 7 19.0 7.5 39.6 101 19.0 11.9 62.8
‘‘exact’’
Xiao and Wu 105 21.6 14.0 64.8 30 24.6 10.7 43.2 135 22.3 13.4 59.9
228 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

Table 6. Evaluation of Models in Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co

Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共wraps兲 Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共tubes兲 Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共overall兲
Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of
Model number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲
Fardis and Khalili 113 45.8 90.5 197.5 8 37.1 34.0 91.7 121 45.3 87.9 194.1
Saadatmanesh et al. with theoretical 113 49.3 34.6 70.2 8 29.2 12.4 42.4 121 47.9 33.9 70.7
⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘
Saadatmanesh et al. with experimental 113 24.1 16.5 68.7 8 33.3 22.3 67.0 121 24.7 17.0 69.0
⬘ / f co
f cc ⬘
Saaman et al. 113 139.5 113.3 81.2 8 56.2 72.9 129.7 121 134.0 112.8 84.2
⬘ ⫽30 MPa
Miyauchi et al. with f co 113 66.4 55.9 84.2 8 30.0 14.1 47.2 121 64.0 54.9 85.8
⬘ ⫽50 MPa
Miyauchi et al. with f co 113 42.3 35.7 84.5 8 22.7 12.3 53.9 121 41.0 35.0 85.4
Kono et al. 113 37.7 36.5 96.9 8 37.4 22.6 60.3 121 37.7 35.7 94.8
⬘ / f co
Toutanji with theoretical f co ⬘ 113 118.0 96.2 81.6 8 39.3 38.3 97.6 121 112.8 95.4 84.6
Toutanji with experimental f cc ⬘ / f co
⬘ 113 50.2 41.3 82.4 8 25.4 18.5 72.9 121 48.5 40.6 83.7
⬘ / f co
Saafi et al. with theoretical f cc ⬘ 113 125.6 101.7 81.0 8 40.8 40.8 100.0 121 120.0 101.0 84.2
Saafi et al. with experimental f cc ⬘ / f co
⬘ 113 119.6 81.9 68.4 8 27.9 17.7 63.5 121 113.6 82.4 72.6
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘approximate’’a 113 91.4 65.1 71.2 8 22.9 17.9 78.0 121 86.9 65.3 75.2
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘approximate’’b 113 104.0 76.8 73.8 8 35.0 37.7 107.7 121 99.5 76.7 77.1
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘exact’’a 109 131.6 80.2 61.0 8 32.1 14.7 45.8 117 124.8 81.5 65.3
Xiao and Wu 113 93.3 80.5 86.2 8 56.0 53.5 95.6 121 90.8 79.4 87.4
Proposed equation 113 19.8 17.0 85.9 8 18.2 18.7 103.0 121 19.7 17.0 86.5
a
With E co according to Ahmad and Shah (E co ⫽3,950冑 f co
⬘ ).
b
With E co according to ACI (E co ⫽5,700冑 f co
⬘ ).

Table 7. Evaluation of Models in Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co with Effective Rupture Strain of FRP

Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共wraps兲 Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共tubes兲 Prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co 共overall兲
Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of Sample Average absolute Standard Coefficient of
Model number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲 number error 共%兲 deviation variation 共%兲
Saadatmanesh et al. 97 28.2 15.7 55.8 7 28.0 12.9 46.1 104 28.2 15.5 55.0
Saaman et al. 97 51.0 37.3 73.0 7 44.1 44.8 101.8 104 50.6 37.6 74.4
⬘ ⫽30 MPa
Miyauchi et al. with f cc 97 35.6 28.3 79.3 7 27.7 19.4 70.1 104 35.1 27.8 79.1
⬘ ⫽50 MPa
Miyauchi et al. with f co 97 22.5 17.3 76.9 7 23.0 12.5 54.2 104 22.6 17.0 75.3
Kono et al. 97 46.8 18.1 38.8 7 33.3 23.4 70.2 104 45.9 18.7 40.8
⬘ / f co
Toutanji with experimental f cc ⬘ 97 18.1 13.7 75.5 7 18.7 16.0 85.8 104 18.2 13.8 75.8
⬘ / f co
Saafi et al. with experimental f cc ⬘ 97 28.6 24.3 85.0 7 35.0 23.6 67.3 104 29.0 24.2 83.3
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘approximate’’a 97 29.4 19.8 67.3 7 37.7 33.5 88.8 104 29.9 20.8 69.6
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘exact’’a 93 37.0 25.5 68.7 7 59.4 35.1 59.1 100 38.6 26.6 69.0
Xiao and Wu 97 53.3 22.8 42.8 7 48.2 31.1 64.5 104 52.9 23.3 44.0
Proposed equation 113 19.8 17.0 85.9 8 18.2 18.7 103.0 121 19.7 17.0 86.5
a
With E co according to Ahmad and Shah (E co ⫽3,950冑 f co
⬘ ).
 In prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co , the models show more different
trends. When plotting the equations by Toutanji 共1999兲 and Saafi
et al. 共1999兲, since ␧ cc /␧ co is also related to f ⬘cc / f co
⬘ , the latter
has been calculated according to the respective models. In this
way, the curves appear to be very similar, irrespective of the value
of FRP ultimate strain. However, due to the remarkable difference
between the two models in predictions of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co , very different
results would be obtained if ␧ cc /␧ co had to be computed with the
same set of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co values. Both models yield lower values of
␧ cc /␧ co for FRP with lower ultimate strain, that is, for a given
strength, with higher modulus of elasticity. The model by Kono
et al. is very sensitive to the concrete unconfined strength, and
predicts higher strains for higher concrete strengths at a given
p u / f ⬘co ratio. The same trend is displayed by Miyauchi’s model at
high values of p u / f ⬘co , although with less sensitivity. The model
by Saadatmanesh 共of which the expression of the strain at peak
has been considered, using the f ⬘cc / f ⬘co value predicted by the
model itself兲 is rather close to Miyauchi’s curves, and predicts
lower values of strains if compared to the models by Saafi et al.
and Toutanji. The other models have not been included, being
dependent on too many parameters.
Fig. 5. Experimental-theoretical comparison of f ⬘cc / f co
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 229
Performance Analysis of the Existing Models
Introduction
In this section, the experimental confined concrete strength, f ⬘cc ,
and axial strain at peak stress ␧ cc , both divided by the respective
unconfined values, are compared with the predictions of the
analytical/empirical models reviewed in the previous section to
assess their accuracy. Since different models may involve differ-
ent parameters, the comparison was graphically made by plotting
experimental versus theoretical values, with the 45° line corre-
sponding to perfect agreement between prediction and experi-
ments. Points falling in the upper part of the graph indicate con-
servative predictions, whereas points falling below the line result
from theoretical values being higher than the experimental ones.
Also plotted in each graph were a straight line based on regres-
sion analysis of experimental versus theoretical results with the
least-squares method, and the corresponding 95% confidence
band. The trend of the regression line with respect to the 45° line
can give information on the tendency of the models to overesti-
mate or underestimate experimental results in different ranges of
⬘
 Fig. 6. Average absolute error in prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co

measured values. A 45° line lying completely into the 95% con- with the highest values of the ratio p u / f ⬘co . This may be due to
fidence band would indicate very good agreement between theory the use of formulas that overestimate the effectiveness of high
and experiments. Due to limited space, only a few of these graphs lateral pressures 共Fardis and Khalili 1981兲 or to the empirical
are reported in Fig. 5, for the complete set see De Lorenzis and calibration being conducted on specimens with low ultimate
Tepfers 共2001兲. The accuracy of the models has been also quan- confinement pressures 共Miyauchi et al. 1997; Toutanji 1999;
titatively evaluated computing the average absolute percent error Xiao and Wu 2000兲.
as follows: • For the models previously mentioned, the prediction is less
accurate for the tube-encased cylinders, which typically have
兺 i⫽1
N
兩 E i兩
E av⫽ higher values of the ratio p u / f ⬘co due to the greater thickness
N of the tube compared to the wrap. The experimental set with
(4)
⬘
f cciTHEO ⬘ P
⫺ f cciEX ␧ cciTHEO ⫺␧ cciEX P the highest p u / f co⬘ values is that by La Tegola and Manni, with
E i⫽ •100 or E i⫽ •100 ⬘ ranging from 1.45 to 2.06. If this set is excluded, the
p u / f co
⬘ P
f cciEX ␧ cciEX P
average absolute error decreases approaching the value rela-
⬘ or ␧ cc relative to
where E i ⫽ percent error in the evaluation of f cc tive to the wrapped specimens.
the ith data point and N⫽ total number of data points. The latter • The remaining models give better predictions of the confined
may differ depending on the parameter ( f ⬘cc or ␧ cc ) and on the strength, with no appreciable difference between wrapped and
model under investigation. Average values, standard deviations, encased specimens. It is interesting to note that the models by
and coefficients of variation of the absolute percent errors of the Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 ‘‘exact’’ and by Saadatmanesh
various models in the prediction of strengths and strains are re- 共Mander兲 yield very similar results: the ratio between f ⬘cc / f co⬘
ported in Tables 4 –7. computed by the two models has an average value of 0.9637
with a standard deviation of 0.0347 共coefficient of variation
3.6%兲. This supports what was observed in the previous dis-
⬘
Prediction of f cc
cussion.
Fig. 5 illustrates the performance of some of the models in the • The model by Kono is penalized by the fact that it relates the
prediction of f ⬘cc . Fig. 6 summarizes results by showing the av- strength enhancement to the value of p u rather than to the
erage absolute error of the various models in the prediction of f ⬘cc p u / f ⬘co ratio. Since the empirical calibration was conducted on
for specimens confined by FRP wraps and tubes 共the specimens data with concrete unconfined strengths ranging between 32.3
confined by filaments are included in the wrapped ones兲. It ap- and 34.8 MPa, the model tends to overestimate f ⬘cc / f ⬘co for test
pears that: results with higher concrete strengths and to underestimate it
• The models by Fardis and Khalili 共1981兲; Miyauchi et al. for lower concrete strengths. This effect is superposed to the
共1997兲; Toutanji 共1999兲; and Xiao and Wu 共2000兲 largely over- ‘‘premature failure’’ effect. Since the model incorporates the
estimate the strength of most confined cylinders. The error is premature failure phenomenon with a reduction factor 共ratio of
larger for cylinders with heavy confinement, that is, for those the measured tensile strain in the FRP at failure to its uniaxial

230 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003

 Fig. 7. Average absolute error in prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co
ultimate strain兲 of about 0.5, it should be conservative when
applied to data with a reduction factor greater than 0.5, and
unconservative for the data with reduction factors smaller than
0.5.
• The three most accurate models are those by Saaman et al.
共1998兲; Saafi et al. 共1999兲; and Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲
‘‘approximate,’’ whose average absolute errors on the whole
set of specimens are 13.4, 13.8, and 15.2%, respectively.
Prediction of ␧ cc
In most models, the expression of the axial strain at maximum
stress, ␧ cc , involves the respective unconfined value ␧ co . There-
fore, in order for the experimental–theoretical comparison to be
carried out, the value of ␧ co must be known. Furthermore, appli-
cation of the model by Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 also requires
the initial modulus of elasticity of concrete, E co . Since the values
of ␧ co and E co are not always reported by the authors of experi-
mental studies, an attempt was made to correlate them to the
concrete strength 共as traditionally done at least for the elastic
modulus兲 on the basis of the available data. Such correlation can-
not be more than approximated, since other factors such as the
type of aggregate and its proportion within the mix also play a
considerable role. For the elastic modulus, the equation by Ahmad
and Shah 共1982兲 (E co ⫽3,950冑 f ⬘co ) was found to give the most
accurate prediction among several available ones, whereas the
others overestimated the concrete elastic modulus. Therefore, it
was decided that, when not available, the initial elastic modulus
of concrete be computed as a function of the unconfined strength
according to the formula by Ahmad and Shah. For the value of
␧ co , none of the available equations reasonably interpolated the
experimental data, nor can the usual value of 0.002 be used with-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 231
out considerably affecting the accuracy of the prediction. There-
fore it was decided that only the data sets for which ␧ co was
known were suitable for comparison of the ␧ cc values with the
theoretical ones. This implies that the global data set used to
assess the prediction of ␧ cc is narrower than that used for the
assessment on f cc . Fig. 7 shows the average absolute error of the
various models in the prediction of ␧ cc for specimens confined by
FRP wraps 共or filaments兲 and tubes. It appears that:
• The errors in the prediction of ␧ cc are much larger than those
in the prediction of f cc . This result was also found from pre-
vious researchers assessing the accuracy of models on steel-
confined concrete. This may partly be due to the larger scatter
of strain data as compared to strength data, but also to the
higher accuracy required when modeling the deformation
characteristics of concrete rather than simply its strength prop-
erties. As previously discussed, the deformability of concrete
under triaxial stresses is path-dependent, and therefore the
stiffness of the confining device has a remarkable influence on
the strain behavior. Furthermore, parameters such as type and
size of aggregates, mix proportions, and moisture content may
exert an influence and yet are very difficult to include in a
model suitable for design purposes.
• In most cases, the error results from overestimating the strain
at peak stress. This is unconservative as the ductility of the
confined cylinder is overestimated.
• Unlike the prediction of f ⬘cc , that of ␧ cc is less accurate for
wrapped than for encased cylinders. This is due to the fact
that, in wrapped cylinders, the experimental value of the lat-
eral strain in the FRP at tensile failure is mostly lower than the
FRP ultimate strain in uniaxial tension. This discrepancy af-
fects the accuracy in the prediction of ␧ cc , in fact, the models
that mostly show a difference in accuracy between wrapped
 and encased specimens are the most sensitive to the value of
the FRP ultimate strain 共or stress兲. Such discrepancy is not
registered in encased specimens, as will be shown later.
• The model by Saadatmanesh 共Mander兲 has been applied for
the prediction of the strain at peak stress, which in most cases
coincides with the ultimate strain of the FRP confined cylinder.
However, Saadatmanesh intended to compute the ultimate
strain with the energy balance approach suggested by Mander,
which is not appropriate for FRP confinement. Since the ex-
pression of ␧ cc suggested by Mander is related to the ratio
f ⬘cc / f ⬘co , the comparison has been made both with the theoret-
ical and experimental values of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co . In the latter case, the
error is smaller.
• A similar approach has been adopted for the models by
Toutanji and Saafi, which also relate ␧ cc /␧ co to the f ⬘cc / f ⬘co
ratio. Fig. 7 presents the average absolute error of the two
models when the experimental and theoretical f ⬘cc / f ⬘co are in-
troduced into the formula. Both models are very inaccurate in
predicting ␧ cc for wrapped cylinders, especially when the the-
oretical f ⬘cc / f ⬘co values are used. The model by Toutanji gives a
better prediction when the experimental f ⬘cc / f ⬘co are used 共the
error decreases from 118 to 50%兲, whereas the error of the
Saafi model remains approximately the same 共decreases from
126 to 120%兲. This results from the fact that the Saafi model is
more accurate in predicting the confined strength, and thus the
difference between experimental and theoretical f ⬘cc / f ⬘co is
small and does not influence much the error in the prediction
of ␧ cc /␧ co . Conversely, the error of the Toutanji model in the
prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co is in large part a consequence of its
overestimating f ⬘cc / f co ⬘ . Summarizing, of the two models,
which differ only in the calibration of the parameters, the Saafi
one is more accurate in the strength prediction whereas the
Toutanji model is more accurate in predicting the strain at
peak.
• The expression of ␧ cc /␧ co in the model by Spoelstra and
Monti contains the concrete initial elastic modulus. Fig. 7
shows that the prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co is more accurate when the
elastic modulus is derived by the formula of Ahmad and Shah,
whereas the ACI formula overestimates E co and therefore ␧ cc .
Note that, as in the prediction of f cc ⬘ / f co
⬘ , also in that of
␧ cc /␧ co , the ‘‘approximate’’ model performs better than the
‘‘exact’’ one.
• The three models that perform best in the prediction of f ⬘cc
关that is, the ones by Saaman et al. 共1998兲; Saafi et al. 共1999兲;
and Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲兴 do not perform equally well
when it comes to ␧ cc . It appears that no model is able to
predict the strain at peak stress of the confined cylinders with
reasonable accuracy.
Effective Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Ultimate Strain
It has already been mentioned that failure of the confined cylin-
ders occurs when the FRP confining device ruptures in hoop ten-
sion, and that, in wrapped cylinders, the experimental value of the
hoop strain in the FRP at tensile failure is usually lower than the
FRP ultimate strain in uniaxial tension. The object of this section
is to formulate some observations on this phenomenon based on
the available experimental database.
In the following, the ratio of the measured hoop strain in the
confining FRP at tensile failure to the FRP ultimate strain in
uniaxial tension is termed ‘‘reduction factor.’’ Unfortunately, this
factor is not available for all specimens, since some authors did
not measure the hoop strain in the confined cylinders or did not
232 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003
report its ultimate value. In some cases, the axial stress versus
lateral strain curve of the cylinder was given but it was not pos-
sible to get the value of the ultimate strain from the graph with
sufficient accuracy. As a result, the reduction factor is available
for three sets of experiments regarding FRP-encased specimens
and nine sets with wrapped specimens.
For FRP-encased cylinders, Table 1 shows that the reduction
factor oscillates around the unity value, the average of all speci-
mens being 1.073 with a standard deviation of 0.195 and a coef-
ficient of variation of 18%. The fact that values greater than one
are reached may be attributed to scatter in the FRP tensile
strength and in the strain measurement. This result seems to indi-
cate that FRP-encased specimens do not display ‘‘premature’’ ten-
sile failure of the confining device but are able to exploit the full
strength of the composite material. The situation is very different
for wrapped specimens, with the reduction factor ranging from
more than 1 to less than 0.1.
In order for the ‘‘premature’’ tensile failure to be predicted, the
parameters that exert an influence on it must be identified. The
possible reasons for this phenomenon have been suggested by
Matthys et al. 共1999兲: the multiaxial stress state existing in the
FRP even when undirectly loaded, due to some degree of bond to
the concrete; nonhomogeneous deformations in the cracked con-
crete at high load levels, which may cause local stress concentra-
tions in the FRP reinforcement; the curved shape of the wrapping
reinforcement, especially at corners with small radius; the quality
of the execution 共degree of fiber alignment, presence of voids, or
local protrusions兲; and size effect when applying multiple layers.
The different behavior between encased and wrapped cylinders
seems to suggest that the reduction factor is mostly affected by
those of the above-mentioned causes that are typical of wrapped
rather than encased specimens. For example, the application of
FRP wraps by hand lay-up, as opposed to the automated manu-
facturing of the tubes, raises the problem of the quality of execu-
tion. Local misalignments or wavings may lead to unequal
stretching of the fibers, so that the most stretched ones reach
failure before the hoop strain is globally equal to the ultimate
tensile strain of the laminate. Rupture of some fibers would ini-
tiate failure in the second most stretched ones, and so forth in a
progressive fashion that finally leads to catastrophic failure of the
specimen. This phenomenon is witnessed by the progressive
crackling noise that is typically heard during tests of confined
cylinders. For a given difference in fiber stretching, high-modulus
wraps should display higher differences in load taking, and there-
fore progressive failure is likely to be more pronounced for high-
modulus fibers 共Tepfers 2001兲. Conversely, FRP tubes are manu-
factured with an automated filament winding technique, and
therefore a nearly equal stretching of all fibers should be ex-
pected. Furthermore, the smaller thickness of the wraps as com-
pared to the tubes makes them more sensitive to local damage and
stress concentrations and facilitates the asymmetries along the
section perimeter. Size effect due to overlap of more layers can be
intended in two ways: from the standpoint of the strain measure-
ment, the hoop strain measured on the external surface of the
specimen is somewhat lower than the strain in the innermost FRP
layer; and from the standpoint of the execution quality, the over-
lap of more layers is detrimental due to its manual difficulty and
to the fact that, for example, at each protruding or wavy spot on
the first layer will correspond a larger defect on the second layer
and so forth. The first type of size effect, if present in the wrapped
specimens, is a fortiori present in the encased ones due to the
greater thickness of the tubes, whereas the second source of size
effect is typical of the hand lay-up technology and therefore of
Fig. 8. Comparison of average absolute errors in prediction of f ⬘cc / f ⬘co based on uniaxial and effective fiber-reinforced polymer rupture strain
共fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped specimens兲
wrapped specimens. The multiaxial stress state in the FRP con-
fining device is common to both wrapped and encased specimens.
Even if load is not applied directly on the FRP, part of the axial
load acting on the concrete is transmitted to the FRP by means of
bond stresses at the contact surface. However, the bond between
wraps and concrete is ensured by the impregnating resin whereas
that between the tube and the concrete surface is essentially based
on friction and might be affected by shrinkage of the inner con-
crete. Finally, the radius of curvature of the FRP should have an
influence on its tensile strength for both wraps and tubes. The
effect of corner radius on the tensile performance of FRP sheets
has been experimentally investigated by Yang et al. 共2001兲. Re-
sults indicated that the tensile strength of the laminate decreased
with decreasing corner radius and was approximately equal to
66% of the reference strength for the highest radius investigated,
equal to 51 mm 共diameter equal to 102 mm兲. To the writers’
knowledge, no analogous studies are currently available for the
case of FRP tubes.
The previous considerations seem to indicate that the most
important parameters affecting the ‘‘premature’’ tensile failure of
the confining wraps are the number of overlapping layers, the
elastic modulus of the wrap, and the radius of curvature, that is,
for cylindrical specimens, the radius of the cylinder. All these
parameters are present in the confinement stiffness, E l . The same
parameters were identified, although through different thinking,
by Matthys 共2001兲. However, other parameters may be influential
on the phenomenon: the quality of workmanship, the degree of
straightness of the FRP fibers in the laminate, the type of laminate
used for wrapping 共for instance, prepregs might be easier to apply
than dry sheets兲, and possibly the quality, thickness, and unifor-
mity of the resin layer. Unfortunately such parameters are very
difficult to evaluate quantitatively and so is their influence on the
premature rupture. De Lorenzis and Tepfers 共2001兲 attempted to
find a quantitative correlation between the three chosen param-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 233
eters and the reduction factor. They developed a tentative equa-
tion based on the experimental data reported in this study. Such
equation gave an average absolute error of 24.7%, versus the 87%
average absolute error given by a previous equation 共Matthys
2001兲.
⬘ with the Effective Fiber-Reinforced
Prediction of f cc
Polymer Ultimate Strain
Fig. 8 shows the average absolute error of the various models in
predicting f ⬘cc for wrapped specimens when the experimental
value of the FRP hoop strain at failure 共which from now on will
be called ‘‘effective ultimate strain’’兲 and the uniaxial ultimate
strain 共which will also be termed ‘‘reference ultimate strain’’兲 are
introduced into the equations. However, it should be kept in mind
that the database used in the assessment with the ultimate FRP
strain is wider that used in the assessment with the effective
strain, as only part of the authors reported the experimental hoop
strain values. The following conclusions can be drawn:
• For FRP-wrapped specimens, since using the effective FRP
ultimate strain results in lower theoretical values of f ⬘cc , the
average absolute error decreases 共as compared to that obtained
with the reference ultimate strain兲 for the models that were
previously found to be unconservative, that is, those by Fardis,
Miyauchi, Toutanji, and Xiao. Conversely, the models that
were previously found to be the most accurate become too
conservative and their absolute error increases. The data sets
that mostly influence results are those by Shahawy et al.
共2000兲 and Rousakis 共2001兲, both characterized by very low
values of the reduction factor, and partly those by Harmon and
Slattery 共1992兲 and Kono et al. 共1998兲. The points representa-
tive of these results are clustered on the upper side of the 45°
line and deviate more and more from it as the theoretical
f ⬘cc / f ⬘co increases. This is because, for tests with a given FRP
Fig. 9. Comparison of average absolute errors in prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co based on uniaxial and effective fiber-reinforced polymer rupture strain
共fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped specimens兲
elastic modulus, the FRP axial stiffness and the p u / f ⬘co ratio
both increase with the thickness of the confining layer. Ac-
cordingly, f ⬘cc / f ⬘co increases and the reduction factor decreases,
making theoretical predictions more and more conservative.
• For FRP-encased specimens, since the reduction factor is close
to the unity, no appreciable differences are noticed. The com-
parison has to be made excluding the data by La Tegola and
Manni 共1999兲. Since these authors have not reported the val-
ues of the FRP hoop strain, their data cannot be included in the
models assessment when the effective FRP strains are used.
On the other hand, it has been noticed that including such data
共characterized by the highest degree of confinement of the
whole database兲 in the assessment with the reference ultimate
strain leads to higher prediction errors for the models that
overestimate the effect of high lateral pressures. Therefore, if
the effect of the FRP ultimate strain being used in the compu-
tation has to be evaluated, the database on which the assess-
ment is made must be the same.
• If the effective rupture strain of the FRP wrap were known in
advance, predictions of the strength enhancement by the exist-
ing models would not necessarily be more accurate than they
are using the reference ultimate strain. Based on the overall
average absolute percent error, the most accurate models are
now those by Saaman et al. 共1998兲; Saafi et al. 共1999兲; and
Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 ‘‘exact’’ and Saadatmanesh et al.
共1994兲, with average errors 16.9, 18.2, 19.0, and 19.5%, re-
spectively.
234 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003
Prediction of ␧ cc with the Effective FRP Ultimate Strain
Fig. 9 shows the average absolute error of the various models in
predicting ␧ cc for wrapped specimens with both the ultimate and
effective FRP hoop strains. Also in this case, it should be kept in
mind that the database used in the assessment with the ultimate
FRP strain is wider than that used in the assessment with the
effective strain. It appears that:
• For wrapped specimens, the average absolute error of all mod-
els shows a remarkable decrease when the FRP effective strain
is inserted in the equations. This confirms what was antici-
pated previously, that the accuracy in the prediction of ␧ cc is
influenced by the premature rupture of the FRP. Such influence
is stronger than for the prediction of f ⬘cc , because of the higher
sensitivity of the equations giving ␧ cc /␧ co to the value of p u
and because of the wider range of percent variation of ␧ cc /␧ co
when compared to f ⬘cc / f ⬘co 共see Figs. 3 and 4兲. Since all models
overestimate ␧ cc when using the reference ultimate strain of
the FRP wrap, using the effective one always results in de-
creasing error.
• For encased specimens, since the reduction factor is close to
the unity, only small differences are noticed due to the differ-
ent databases used for the two predictions.
• If the effective rupture strain of the FRP wrap were known in
advance, the model by Toutanji would be the most accurate in
predicting ␧ cc , with an average absolute error of about 18%.
 However, this model has been applied using the experimental
value of the ratio f ⬘cc / f ⬘co rather than that calculated by the
model itself.
Proposition of a New Equation
In the previous sections, it was observed that: the confined con-
crete strength depends mainly on the maximum confinement pres-
sure and not on the path followed to attain it 共hence not on the
⬘ / f co
stiffness of the confining device兲; f cc ⬘ is best predicted by
three models: Saaman et al. 共1998兲; Saafi et al. 共1999兲; and
Spoelstra and Monti ‘‘approximate’’ 共1999兲, using the nominal
tensile strength of the FRP for the computation of p u . The aver-
age absolute error ranges from 13.4 to 15.2%; the confined con-
crete strain at peak depends not only on the maximum confine-
ment pressure, but also on the confinement stiffness; prediction of
␧ cc /␧ co by the available models is not satisfactory. It would im-
prove if the effective ultimate strain of the FRP were known in
advance and, for some models, if the predicted confined strength
were equal to the experimental one. However, none of these two
conditions is met at present.
As previously mentioned, a tentative equation for the reduc-
tion factor was developed by De Lorenzis and Tepfers 共2001兲.
However, its degree of accuracy is not yet sufficient to allow an
improvement of accuracy in prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co . Note that the
confinement stiffness, which is of influence on ␧ cc /␧ co due to the
path dependency of the concrete deformations, is also of influence
on the reduction factor 共as previously shown兲, which in turn
strongly affects the prediction of ␧ cc /␧ co . Hence, the simplest
approach to predict ␧ cc /␧ co seems to be to ‘‘lump’’ the effect of
the reduction factor into the dependency of ␧ cc /␧ co on E l .
A new equation is then proposed for predicting ␧ cc /␧ co . The
form of the equation was chosen as follows:
␧ cc
␧ co
⫽1⫹c 1
pu
⬘
f co冉 冊 c2
c
El 3 (5)
The constants c 1 , c 2 , and c 3 were chosen by minimizing the
average absolute percent error between experimental results and
predictions of Eq. 共5兲. The following results were found:
冉 冊
␧ cc pu 0.80
⫽1⫹26.2 E l⫺0.148 for FRP wraps (6a)
␧ co f ⬘co
␧ cc
␧ co
⫽1⫹26.2 冉 冊
pu
f ⬘co
0.68
E l⫺0.127 for FRP tubes (6b)
Eq. 共6兲 provides a more accurate estimate of the experimental
␧ cc /␧ co compared to that of the available models, with an average
absolute error of less than 20%.
Conclusions
The objective of this work was a systematic assessment of the
performance of the existing models on confinement of concrete
cylinders with FRP materials. Results of about 180 tests from 17
different experimental sets were collected and classified. Then,
the existing empirical and analytical models were reviewed and
the whole set of experimental results was compared with the
whole set of analytical models. The following conclusions were
drawn.
It has often been remarked that steel-based models are not able
to capture the behavior of FRP-confined concrete due to the fact
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 235
that the FRP confining device exerts a continuously increasing
pressure as opposed to steel in the yield phase. However, attain-
ment of the confined strength corresponds in both steel- and FRP-
confined concrete to the end of the linear-elastic phase, with the
different behavior coming afterwards. Therefore, triaxial strength
curves based on a unique value of confining pressure should be
neither valid for steel nor for FRP. The reason they are 共and,
hence, they are for both兲 is to be attributed to the path indepen-
dency of the strength properties of concrete under triaxial stresses
already documented in the literature. This explains the high simi-
larity observed in this study between empirical strength curves
developed for concrete under triaxial stresses, steel-confined and
FRP confined concrete: compare the formula by Newman and
Newman 共1972兲 with that by Toutanji 共1999兲 and the predictions
of the confined strength by Mander et al. 共1988兲 and by Spoelstra
and Monti ‘‘exact’’ 共1999兲. The case of the deformation properties
is different, because for them path-dependency is observed and
hence the stiffness characteristics of the confining device become
crucial.
In most experimental studies, the FRP confining wraps have
been observed to rupture at a tensile strain lower than the uniaxial
ultimate tensile strain. On the basis of the experimental database
collected in this study, the ‘‘premature’’ failure problem has been
analyzed. It appears that this phenomenon mostly interests FRP
wraps, applied with the manual lay-up technique, whereas FRP
tubes seem to fail at values of tensile strain close to the predicted
ones. Number, thickness, and elastic modulus of overlapping lay-
ers and radius of curvature were identified as the most significant
parameters.
When using the nominal values of p u , the strength of the
confined cylinders was rather accurately predicted by some of the
existing models, particularly those by Saaman et al. 共1998兲; Saafi
et al. 共1999兲; and Spoelstra and Monti 共1999兲 ‘‘approximate,’’
with an average absolute error ranging from 13.4 to 15.2%. Using
the reduced values of p u resulted in lower predictions for the
confined strength, therefore, it improved the accuracy for models
found unconservative with the nominal p u and it made the others
more conservative and less accurate.
Using the nominal values of p u and ␧ f u , the errors in the
prediction of the strain at peak stress of the confined cylinders
were significantly larger than those on the prediction of f cc and in
most cases on the unconservative side. No model was able to
predict ␧ cc with reasonable accuracy, especially so for wrapped
specimens and for models particularly sensitive to the value of
␧ f u , due to the premature failure phenomenon. When the FRP
effective strain was inserted into the equations, the average abso-
lute error of all models showed a remarkable decrease for
wrapped specimens, whereas for encased cylinders only small
differences were noticed since the reduction factor was close to
the unity.
A new equation was proposed to evaluate the strain at peak
stress as a function of the ultimate confinement pressure and of
the confinement stiffness. This equation provides a more accurate
estimate of the experimental ␧ cc /␧ co ratio compared to that of all
available models, with an average absolute error lower than 20%.
Accuracy of the models on FRP confinement of concrete still
needs to be improved. For this purpose, a standardized test
method for the evaluation of the tensile properties of FRP lami-
nates is urgently needed. Stiffness and strength characteristics of
FRP materials are not as obvious to determine as those of homo-
geneous hysotropic materials, and test procedures are very influ-
ential on results. Furthermore, the premature failure phenomenon
of FRP wraps confining concrete cylinders still needs investiga-
tions from both a qualitative and quantitative standpoint. These
two research needs are strictly interrelated, since a reliable evalu-
ation of the reduction factor cannot be accomplished without a
reliable tensile characterization.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
D ⫽ diameter of concrete cylinder;
E av ⫽ average absolute percent error;
E co ⫽ initial modulus of elasticity of concrete;
E f ⫽ modulus of elasticity of FRP laminate;
E i ⫽ percent error relative to ith data point;
E l ⫽ confinement modulus or lateral modulus;
E 2 ⫽ second slope of axial stress-strain curve of
confined cylinder in Saaman’s model;
f ⬘cc ⫽ compressive strength of confined concrete
cylinder;
f ⬘cciEX P ⫽ experimental strength of confined cylinder (ith
data point兲;
⬘
f cciTHEO ⫽ theoretical strength of confined cylinder (ith
data point兲;
⬘ ⫽ compressive strength of unconfined concrete
f co
cylinder;
f ⬘cu ⫽ ultimate stress of confined concrete cylinder;
f f u ⫽ tensile strength of FRP laminate;
f o ⫽ parameter in Saaman’s model;
H ⫽ height of concrete cylinder;
k e ⫽ effectiveness coefficient in Miyauchi’s model;
N ⫽ total number of data points;
n ⫽ number of FRP layers;
p ⫽ confinement pressure;
p u ⫽ ultimate confinement pressure;
t ⫽ thickness of each FRP layer;
␧ cc ⫽ axial strain at peak stress of confined
concrete cylinder;
␧ cciEX P ⫽ experimental axial strain at peak stress of
confined cylinder (ith data point兲;
␧ cciTHEO ⫽ theoretical axial strain at peak stress of
confined cylinder (ith data point兲;
␧ co ⫽ axial strain at peak stress of unconfined
concrete cylinder;
␧ cu ⫽ axial strain at ultimate stress of confined
concrete cylinder;
␧ f ⫽ hoop strain of FRP laminate;
␧ f r ⫽ hoop strain of confining FRP at rupture;
␧ f u ⫽ ultimate tensile strain of FRP laminate; and
␧ l ⫽ lateral 共hoop兲 strain.
References
Ahmad, S. M., Khaloo, A. R., and Irshaid, A. 共1991兲. ‘‘Behavior of con-
crete spirally confined by fiberglass filaments.’’ Mag. Concrete Res.,
43共156兲, 143–148.
Ahmad, S. M., and Shah, S. P. 共1982兲. ‘‘Stress-strain curves of concrete
confined by spiral reinforcement.’’ J. Am. Concr. Inst., 79共6兲, 484 –
490.
Bažant, Z. P., and Tsubaki, T. 共1980兲. ‘‘Total strain theory and path-
dependence of concrete.’’ J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
106共6兲, 1151–1173.
Considère, A. 共1906兲. Experimental researches on reinforced concrete, L.
S. Moisseiff, translator, McGraw, New York.
236 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 共1995兲. ‘‘Stress-strain model for confined
high-strength concrete.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 121共3兲, 468 – 477.
De Lorenzis, L., Micelli, F., and La Tegola, A. 共2002兲. ‘‘Influence of
specimen size and resin type on the behavior of FRP-confined con-
crete cylinders.’’ Proc., ACIC-2002, Southampton, 2002.
De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R. 共2001兲. ‘‘A comparative study of models
on confinement of concrete cylinders with FRP composites.’’ Publi-
cation No. 01:04, Dept. of Building Materials, Chalmers Univ. of
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Elwi, A. A., and Murray, D. W. 共1979兲. ‘‘A 3D hypoelastic concrete
constitutive relationship.’’ J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
105共4兲, 623– 641.
Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H. 共2000兲. ‘‘Concrete-filled FRP tubes for
flexural and axial compression members.’’ Proc., ACMBS-3, Ottawa,
Canada, 315–322.
Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H. 共2001兲. ‘‘Behavior of axially loaded
concrete-filled circular fiber-reinforced polymer tubes.’’ ACI Struct. J.,
98共3兲, 280–289.
Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. 共1981兲. ‘‘Concrete encased in fiberglass-
reinforced-plastic.’’ J. Am. Concr. Inst. Proc., 78共6兲, 440– 446.
Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. 共1982兲. ‘‘FRP-encased concrete as a struc-
tural material.’’ Mag. Concrete Res., 34共121兲, 191–202.
Harmon, T. G., and Slattery, K. T. 共1992兲. ‘‘Advanced composite confine-
ment of concrete.’’ 1st Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, Sherbrooke, Qué, Canada, 299–306.
Imran, I., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. 共1996兲. ‘‘Experimental study of plain
concrete under triaxial stress.’’ ACI Mater. J., 93共6兲, 589– 601.
Kono, S., Inazumi, M., and Kaku, T. 共1998兲. ‘‘Evaluation of confining
effects of CFRP sheets on reinforced concrete members.’’ Proc.,
ICCI’98, Tucson, Ariz., 343–355.
Kurt, C. E. 共1978兲. ‘‘Concrete filled structural plastic columns.’’ J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 104共1兲, 55– 63.
Lan, S., and Guo, Z. 共1997兲. ‘‘Experimental investigation of multiaxial
compressive strength of concrete under different stress paths.’’ ACI
Mater. J., 94共5兲, 427– 434.
La Tegola, A., and Manni, O. 共1999兲. ‘‘Experimental investigation on
concrete confined by fiber reinforced polymer and comparison with
theoretical model.’’ Proc., FRPRCS-4, Baltimore.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988兲. ‘‘Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲,
1804 –1826.
Matthys, S. 共2001兲. ‘‘Structural behavior and design of concrete members
strengthened with externally bonded FRP reinforcement.’’ Doctoral
thesis, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Ghent, Belgium.
Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., and Audenaert, K. 共1999兲. ‘‘Tests on axially
loaded concrete columns confined by fiber reinforced polymer sheet
wrapping.’’ Proc., FRPRCS-4, Baltimore, 217–228.
Micelli, F., Myers, J. J., and Murthy, S. 共2001兲. ‘‘Effect of environmental
cycles on concrete cylinders confined with FRP.’’ Proc., CCC2001 Int.
Conf. on Composites in Construction, Porto, Portugal.
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. 共1996兲. ‘‘A new concrete-filled hollow
FRP composite column.’’ Composites, Part B, 27B共3-4兲, 263–268.
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Behavior of concrete columns
confined by fiber composites.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 123共5兲, 583–590.
Miyauchi, K., Nishibayashi, S., and Inoue, S. 共1997兲. ‘‘Estimation of
strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete column.’’
Proc., FRPRCS-3, Sapporo, Japan, Vol. 1, 217–224.
Nanni, A., and Bradford, N. M. 共1995兲. ‘‘FRP jacketed concrete under
uniaxial compression.’’ Constr. Build. Mater., 9共2兲, 115–124.
Newman, K., and Newman, J. B. 共1972兲. ‘‘Failure theories and design
criteria for plain concrete.’’ Proc., Int. Engineering Materials Conf. on
Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design, Southampton,
1969, Wiley Interscience, New York, Part 2, 963–995.
Pantazopoulou, S. J., and Mills, R. H. 共1995兲. ‘‘Microstructural aspects of
the mechanical response of plain concrete.’’ ACI Mater. J., 92共6兲,
605– 616.
Picher, F., Rochette, P., and Labossiére, P. 共1996兲. ‘‘Confinement of con-
crete cylinders with CFRP.’’ Proc., ICCI’96, Tucson, Ariz., 829– 841.
Popovics, S. 共1973兲. ‘‘A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain
 curves for concrete.’’ Cem. Concr. Res., 3共5兲, 583–599.
Richard, R. M., and Abbott, B. J. 共1975兲. ‘‘Versatile elastic-plastic stress-
strain formula.’’ J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 101共4兲, 511–
515.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. 共1928兲. ‘‘A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.’’ Engineer-
ing Experiment Station Bulletin No. 185, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Rochette, P., and Labossiére, P. 共2000兲. ‘‘Axial testing of rectangular
column models confined with composites.’’ J. Compos. Constr., 4共3兲,
129–136.
Rousakis, T. 共2001兲. ‘‘Experimental investigation of concrete cylinders
confined by carbon FRP sheets, under monotonic and cyclic axial
compressive load.’’ Research Rep., Chalmers Univ. of Technology,
Göteborg, Sweden.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Li, M. W. 共1994兲. ‘‘Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fiber compos-
ite straps.’’ ACI Struct. J., 91共4兲, 434 – 447.
Saafi, M., Toutanji, H. A., and Li, Z. 共1999兲. ‘‘Behavior of concrete
columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes.’’ ACI Mater. J.,
96共4兲, 500–509.
Samaan, M., Mirmiram, A., and Shahawy, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Model of concrete
confined by fiber composites.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 124共9兲, 1025–1031.
Shahawy, M., Mirmiran, A., and Beitelmann, T. 共2000兲. ‘‘Tests and mod-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2003 / 237
View publication stats
eling of carbon-wrapped concrete columns.’’ Composites, Part B,
31共6-7兲, 471– 480.
Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G. 共1999兲. ‘‘FRP-confined concrete model.’’
J. Compos. Constr., 3共3兲, 143–150.
Tepfers, R. 共2001兲. ‘‘Compatibility related problems for FRP and FRP
reinforced concrete.’’ Int. Workshop Composites in Construction: A
Reality, Capri, Italy.
Thériault, M., Claude, S., and Neale, K. W. 共2001兲. ‘‘Effect of size and
slenderness ratio on the behaviour of FRP-wrapped columns.’’ Proc.,
FRPRCS-5, Vol. 2, Cambridge, U.K., 765–772.
Toutanji, H. 共1999兲. ‘‘Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns
externally confined with advanced fiber composite sheets.’’ ACI
Mater. J., 96共3兲, 397– 404.
Watanabe, K., Nakamura, H., Honda, Y., Toyoshima, M., Iso, M., Fuji-
maki, T., Kaneto, M., and Shirai, N. 共1997兲. ‘‘Confinement effect of
FRP sheet on strength and ductility of concrete cylinders under
uniaxial compression.’’ Proc., FRPRCS-3, Sapporo, Japan, Vol. 1,
233–240.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. 共2000兲. ‘‘Compressive behavior of concrete con-
fined by carbon fiber composite jackets.’’ J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 12共2兲,
139–146.
Yang, X., Nanni, A., and Chen, G. 共2001兲. ‘‘Effect of corner radius on the
performance of externally bonded FRP reinforcement.’’ Proc.,
FRPRCS-5, Cambridge, U.K.