Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

For published article, see https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.
0002941
Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of

PET FRP-Confined Concrete
Amorn Pimanmas1, Shahzad Saleem 2
1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (amorn.pi@ku.th)
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan ( shahzad.saleem@uettaxila.edu.pk)
Abstract: The compressive response of confined concrete greatly depends on the mechanical properties of the confining material. Based on these
materials, various stress-strain models have been proposed in the past. Among these materials, the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites
is now considered a promising solution in improving the overall behavior of confined concrete. With the course of time, new materials are being
developed and used in the seismic strengthening/retrofitting applications. Without experimental evidence, applicability of existing stress-strain
models to new confining materials with different mechanical properties remains questionable. In first part of this paper, existing stress-strain models
which were mostly developed for steel and other FRPs with high elastic modulus and low rupture strain are assessed in predicting the ultimate
condition of concrete confined by polyethylene terephthalate (PET) FRP, which is a newly developed material with low elastic modulus and large
rupture strain (LRS). It is found that the ultimate strength was predicted in a good way by some of these models; however, the ultimate strain could
not be well predicted. Regarding the prediction of ultimate strain, some of those models performed relatively better in which the axial strain capacity
of FRP was considered. In second part of this paper, considering this discrepancy, a new simple stress -strain model is proposed for PET FRP-
confined concrete, which not only considers the ultimate conditions but also the control points in the course of stress-strain path. Then, based on
these control and ultimate points, stress-strain curves are generated using a well known base curve. Finally, the proposed model is verified in
predicting the ultimate condition of existing test data of PET FRP-confined concrete.
Keywords: Concrete; Confinement; PET FRP; Stress-Strain Models
Introduction Unlike the constant confining pressure of steel after yielding,

these FRPs provide an increasing confining pressure which is directly
The compressive response of confined concrete greatly depends on associated with the dilation of concrete core until their failure (e.g.,
the mechanical properties of the confining material. In the elastic Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997; Spoelstra and Monti 1999). In the s tart,
range, the concrete dilation is minimal due to the Poisson’s effect. As to predict the compressive response of FRP-confined concrete stress-
the stress increases to the unconfined peak value, the micro-cracks strain models developed for steel-confined concrete were applied
grow at a faster rate increasing the dilation of concrete core. The rate (e.g., Saadatmanesh et al. 1992). Later on, it was realized that these
of concrete dilation, hence the response of confined concrete models were unable to predict the response efficiently and needed
particularly after the peak value, is highly dependent on the stiffness further modification (e.g., Samaan et al. 1998; Spoelstra and Monti
of the confining device which provides a constraint to the lateral 1999; De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003). Even in FRP-confined
expansion. The external confinement which is gradually activated by concrete the compressive response is very sensitive to the mechanical
the dilation of concrete core becomes sufficiently active after the properties of FRP, particularly its modulus of elasticity and rupture
peak strength and assumes full control over the post-peak response strain.
until its failure. FRPs that have been used in the strengthening of plain and/or
Besides external confinement, other main factors controlling the reinforced concrete columns can be classified on the basis of their
response of confined concrete are the unconfined concrete strength, elastic modulus and rupture strain as FRPs with high modulus but
type of concrete and shape of cross-section, among others. For the low rupture strain, and FRPs with low modulus but large rupture
same confining device, for example, the compressive response of strain (LRS). The former class of FRPs generally includes Carbon
confined circular and non-circular concrete specimens may differ FRP (CFRP), Glass FRP (GFRP) and Aramid FRP (AFRP). It is to
from each other. In contrast to circular specimens, the concrete core be noted that most of the existing research and stress-strain models
is non-uniformly confined in non-circular specimens. Similarly, for are based on these FRPs. These FRPs usually have high strength and
the same confining stiffness, high strength concrete exhibits less modulus which means that, although the strength increment may be
improved compressive response compared to the low strength more, the increase in ultimate deformation is not as much significant
concrete. as in the case of latter class of FRPs which is developed recently and
To confine the structurally deficient reinforced concrete columns includes Polyethylene Terephthalate FRP (PET FRP), Polyethylene
constructed prior to the implementation of revised seismic codes, Naphthalate (PEN FRP) and Polyacetal FRP. The use of these FRPs
steel jackets were mostly used in the past. The confining pressure imparts high deformation capacity to confined concrete because of
provided by the steel jackets and/or internal steel reinforcement their LRS. Only few models are developed based on this type of LRS
becomes almost constant once the steel is yielded before entering the FRP confinement.
strain hardening range (e.g., Pantazopoulou 1995). Many stress-strain With the course of time, new materials are being developed and
models have been proposed to predict the response of steel-confined used in the seismic strengthening/retrofitting applications. Another
concrete (e.g., Richart et al. 1928; Mander et al. 1998; Saatcioglu and type of FRP made from basaltic rock known as Basalt FRP (BFRP) is
Razvi 1992; Cusson and Paultre 1995). Considering its high weight, becoming increasingly popular in the civil engineering applications
difficulty in installation and being prone to corrosion if not protected (e.g., Campione et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2015; Suon et al. 2018).
properly, other competitive materials with light weight, more ease, Recently, fiber ropes with ultrahigh-extension capacity like
speed of installation, and better resistance to corrosion have been polypropylene and composite tapes have been developed and used
introduced and successfully used in the last three decades. These successfully in confining the concrete columns (e.g., Rousakis 2016).
mainly include fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. Other than synthetic fibers, natural fibers obtained from different
plants like jute, sisal, hemp and flex have also been used in the recent
1
For published article, see https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002941
past in upgrading the performance of confined concrete; based on the A large number of existing stress-strain models developed for
test results some stress-strain models have already been proposed concrete confined by different materials for both circular and non-
(e.g., Yan et al. 2017; Pimanmas et al. 2018). circular cross-sections were collected from the literature to evaluate
Unlike circular columns, the effective confinement of FRP is their applicability to PET FRP-confined concrete specimens of this
highly non-uniform in non-circular columns. Furthermore, in non- study. It is to be noted that in a previous study by the authors (Saleem
circular columns there exists a stress concentration in FRP at the et al. 2017), the maximum strength and the ultimate strain of these
corner locations which acts like a knife and prematurely ruptures the specimens were evaluated using five different stress-strain models
FRP wrap resulting in reduced effective confinement, particularly in developed for circular, square and rectangular specimens. It was
specimens with sharp corners. In a recent study by Saleem et al. found that the maximum strength could be predicted in a good way
(2017), it was experimentally observed that the use of LRS FRPs can by some of these models; however, none of the considered models
efficiently delay the premature rupture of FRP at sharp corners and performed well in predicting the ultimate compressive strain. It is
significantly improved behavior can still be expected even from also to be noted that the square and rectangular specimens for which
rectangular sections with a cross-sectional aspect ratio of 2. The the ultimate strength was lower than their peak strength, their peak
confining action of LRS FRPs efficiently redistributes the internal strength was used in the evaluation of these models. In contrast, for
concrete damage which results in high ultimate deformation the purpose of design the ultimate conditions are more important and
capacities (Saleem et al. 2018; Pimanmas and Saleem 2018). these models, when applied to predict the ultimate strength of these
Majority of the existing stress-strain models for confined specimens, could not performed well, as shown in this study in the
concrete are based on the steel or FRPs with low rupture strain. The subsequent sections.
applicability of these models to concrete confined with LRS FRPs is On the basis of evaluation of few existing models, it would be
questionable. Dai et al. (2011) also found some existing models unjust to infer that the ultimate condition of PET FRP-confined
unable to predict the ultimate deformation capacity of LRS FRP- concrete cannot be well predicted by all the existing models. It is not
confined concrete. It is to be noted that, at the time of writing this claimed that all the existing stress-strain models are evaluated in this
paper, very few models were available for PET FRP-confined study; however, the models collected from the literature cover most
concrete (e.g., Dai et al. 2011; Bai et al. 2014). Recently, Bai et al. of the existing ones. The expressions of these models along with
(2017a,b,c) studied the bar buckling behavior in PET FRP-confined necessary details are given in Table A of Appendix, which may have
circular RC columns and presented a monotonic and cyclic stress- different symbols from those used in the original studies. Complete
strain model for embedded steel bars. Most recently, Ispir et al. details of these models can be found in their respective references.
(2018) investigated the behavior mechanism of concrete confinement Previously, a comprehensive review and reliability assessment of
formed with the hybridization of CFRP or GFRP and PET FRP. They various models developed to predict the axial stress-strain response
employed energy balance approach with existing models to predict of FRP-confined concrete in circular specimens, was presented by
the key points along the stress-strain path. It is to be noted that the Ozbakkaloglu et al. (2013) and Huang et al. (2016). It should be
above mentioned models of PET FRP were developed for circular noted that the main purpose of present study is not to discuss the
columns only. For non-circular columns, no attempt has been made design approach of these models, but only their capability in
yet. predicting the ultimate condition of PET FRP-confined concrete.
In first part of this paper, existing stress-strain models, which Furthermore, some models developed for a particular cross-section
were mostly developed for steel and other FRPs with high elastic were applied to other types of cross-section, only if they yield
modulus and low rupture strain, are assessed in predicting the reasonable results.
ultimate condition of concrete confined by PET FRP, which is a
newly developed material with bi-linear stress-strain response, low Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models
elastic modulus and LRS. In second part of this paper, a new simple
stress-strain model is proposed for PET FRP-confined concrete, In this section, prediction of normalized ultimate strength and strain
which not only considers the ultimate conditions but also the control capacities by the existing models are compared with the experimental
points in the course of stress-strain path. Based on these control and results of PET FRP-confined specimens of Saleem et al. (2017)
ultimate points, stress-strain curves are generated using a well known which are reproduced in Table 1. The performance of these models
base curve. Finally, the proposed model is verified in predicting the was evaluated using the statistical indicators of average absolute error
ultimate condition of existing test data of PET FRP-confined (AAE), average ratio (AR), standard deviation (SD) and coefficient
concrete. of variance (COV). Average absolute error (AAE) which is defined
by Eq. (1) gives the mean of the absolute value of the difference
Test Specimens between the predicted and experimentally observed value. Average
ratio (AR) which is defined by Eq. (2) gives the average
In this study, the specimens used to evaluate the existing stress-strain overestimation or underestimation of the model’s prediction. Average
models were 54 in total with a height of 300 mm tested under ratio higher than one means overestimation and vice versa.
monotonic axial compression. Cross-sectional shape of circular, Furthermore, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variance
square and rectangular; corner radius of 0, 13 and 26 mm, and (COV) for each model were also evaluated which were used to
number of PET FRP layers (one, two and three) were considered as quantify the scatter associated with each model and to compare the
the variables of this study. The details of specimens are given in degree of variation, respectively. Due to limited space, SD and COV
Table 1. The mechanical properties of PET FRP sheet used to confine of the best performing models are discussed where needed.
the concrete specimens are given in Table 2 and Fig. 1. Complete
details of specimen design, materials used, PET FRP wrapping, ∑ 𝑛𝑖=1 |𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 | (1)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
instrumentation and testing can be found elsewhere in Saleem et al. 𝐴𝐴𝐸 =
(2017). 𝑁
∑ 𝑛𝑖=1 ( 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ) (2)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
Existing Stress-Strain Models 𝐴𝑅 =
𝑁
In Eqs. (1) and (2), N is the total number of datasets.
2
Table 1. Details of test specimens
Specimen Dimension (mm) PET FRP Corner fco fc1 fc2 fcu ɛco ɛc1 ɛc2 ɛcu 𝒇𝒄𝒖 𝜺 𝒄𝒖
layers radius (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (%) (%) 𝒇𝒄𝒐 𝜺 𝒄𝒐
CL0 150 x 300 0 - 23.79 0.21
CL1 1 23.79 41.04 7.30 1.71 34.76
CL2 2 23.79 64.92 9.82 2.73 46.73
CL3 3 23.79 88.78 11.38 3.74 54.17
SR0 L0 150 x 150 x 300 0 0 25.62 0.20
SR0 L1 1 25.62 29.18 15.45 17.81 0.29 4.26 10.29 0.70 51.45
SR0 L2 2 23.45 28.60 17.43 34.43 0.38 1.37 13.69 1.47 68.45
SR0 L3 3 25.62 32.87 26.19 43.47 0.37 3.90 15.45 1.70 77.25
SR13 L0 0 13 23.45 0.20
SR13 L1 1 23.45 26.80 18.22 25.28 0.36 1.90 10.20 1.08 51.00
SR13 L2 2 23.45 29.26 23.03 38.69 0.42 1.60 12.70 1.65 63.50
SR13 L3 3 23.45 31.22 29.44 56.64 0.85 1.95 15.30 2.42 76.50
SR26 L1 1 26 25.62 29.47 22.00 28.70 0.54 2.63 9.83 1.12 49.15
SR26 L2 2 23.45 30.84 26.43 44.33 0.43 2.35 11.00 1.89 55.00
SR26 L3 3 25.62 37.10 36.94 60.64 1.65 2.29 13.46 2.36 67.30
RR0 L0 106 x 212 x 300 0 0 25.69 0.20
RR0 L1 1 25.69 29.77 10.79 16.18 0.41 2.29 15.00 0.63 75.00
RR0 L2 2 25.69 31.39 15.92 28.00 0.49 1.97 16.40 1.09 82.00
RR0 L3 3 25.69 33.32 19.68 37.25 0.64 2.90 17.62 1.45 88.10
RR13 L0 0 13 24.00 0.20
RR13 L1 1 24.00 28.94 14.28 20.40 0.42 2.62 13.20 0.85 66.00
RR13 L2 2 24.00 33.07 20.08 29.25 0.58 2.30 13.90 1.22 69.50
RR13 L3 3 24.00 33.12 24.45 37.68 0.50 2.93 14.80 1.57 74.00
RR26 L1 1 26 24.00 30.09 18.22 23.32 0.49 2.61 10.55 0.97 52.75
RR26 L2 2 24.00 31.53 24.05 34.20 0.61 2.13 12.60 1.43 63.00
RR26 L3 3 24.00 34.44 30.00 46.24 0.66 1.45 13.60 1.93 68.00
Table 2. Mechanical Properties of PET FRP and Epoxy Resin

Elastic modulus (GPa)
Material E1 E2 Ultimate strain ɛ fu (%) Tensile strength f f (MPa)
ɛo
Manufacturer Average SD Average SD (%) Manufacturer Average SD Manufacturer Average SD
PET 10 19.70 1.73 7.55 0.384 0.908 10 9.30 0.0078 740 781 63.23
FRP
Epoxy 2.5 40 - 45
resin
SD = standard deviation
length strain gauges, reported a very local behavior which resulted in
It is to be noted that in the calculation of maximum confining lower strain efficiency factor than that observed in rectangular
pressure applied by the external confining device, a definition of specimens. For further discussion, see Saleem et al. (2017).
ultimate hoop rupture strain is very important. It is well accepted that Considering the higher efficiency of FRP confinement in square
the actual hoop rupture strain of FRP is usually lower than that specimens than in rectangular ones, as demonstrated by the
obtained from its tensile testing or specified by the manufacturer. In experimental results in Table 1, (𝑘 𝜀,𝑎𝑣𝑔) of 0.58 for square
some studies, FRP hoop strain reduction factors or their expressions specimens seems unreliable to be used in calculating the maximum
have already been proposed for the calculation of actual confining confining pressure. In this study, an almost average of strain
pressure (e.g., Ozbakkaloglu and Lim 2013). However, in this study, efficiency factors for circular and rectangular specimens is assumed
for the purpose of comparison, ins tead of using strain reduction for square specimens, which is 0.80 and yields reasonable results.
factors that were proposed in previous models, strain reduction To visualize the performance of existing models considered in
factors experimentally observed for PET FRP-confined concrete were this study, AAE and AR associated with each model are shown in
used. Similarly, for those models in which the rupture strain values Figs. 2 to 9. Figs. 2 and 3 show the comparison of AAE and AR of
provided by the manufacturer were considered, PET FRP rupture strength models, while Figs. 4 and 5 compare the AAE and AR of
strain of 9.3% obtained from the tensile coupon test was used. In strain models applicable to circular specimens, respectively.
comparison, a rupture strain of 8.71% was observed for PET FRP in Similarly, Figs. 6 and 7 present the comparison of AAE and AR of
Dai et al. (2011). This difference might be due to the use of local strength models, while Figs. 8 and 9 compare the AAE and AR of
epoxy resin in present study. In previous literature, hoop strain strain models applicable to square and rectangular specimens of this
efficiency factor was generally observed to be significantly study. Because of limited space, Figs. 2 to 5 are split into two parts
influenced by the cross-section shape. In contrast to circular columns, for the sake of clarity.
lower strain efficiency factors have been observed in non-circular It can be seen in Fig. 3 that many existing strength models
columns. Moreover, increase in cross-sectional aspect ratio and/or predicted the ultimate strength of PET FRP-confined circular
decrease in corner radius also reduces the confinement efficiency of specimens in a good way. The AR associated with these models is
FRP. The experimentally observed average hoop rupture strain close to 1, which means that the average model prediction of ultimate
efficiency factors (𝑘 𝜀,𝑎𝑣𝑔) for PET FRP-confined circular, square strength is almost equal to the experimental value for the cons idered
and rectangular column specimens were 0.89, 0.58 and 0.73, number of specimens. These include the models of Karbhari and Gao
respectively, as reported in Saleem et al. (2017). It is to be noted that (1997), Spoelstra and Monti (1999), Saafi et al. (1999), Karabinis and
for some square specimens strain gauges with 5 mm gauge length Rousakis (2001), Ilki et al. (2002), Moran and Pantelides (2002),
were used on the flat sides. These small gauge length strain gauges Cheng et al. (2002), Ilki and Kumbasar (2003), Bisby et al. (2005),
measured strains over a small length and in contrast to long gauge Saiidi et al. (2005), Wu et al. (2006), Guralnick and Gunawan (2006),
3
Al-Salloum (2007)a, Shehata et al. (2007), Valdmanis et al. (2007), ultimate strength of lightly confined square and rectangular
Ilki et al. (2008), Vintzileou and Panagiotidou (2008), Girgin (2009), specimens with 0 mm corner radius. In general, it can be said that it
Al-Salloum and Siddiqui (2009), Wu and Wang (2009), Wu and predicted the ultimate strength of PET FRP-confined square and
Zhou (2010), Mohammad and Masmoudi (2010), Hu and Wang rectangular specimens with a good accuracy.
(2010), Wei and Wu (2012), Wu and Wei (2014), Girgin and Girgin Figs. 8 and 9 show the AAE and AR, respectively, of all the
(2015), Khan et al. (2016) and Al-Rousan and Issa (2016). considered strain models for the prediction of ultimate strain of PET
FRP-confined square and rectangular specimens. It can be seen in
Fig. 9 that most of the considered models underestimated the ultimate
strain capacity. Only one model predicted closely the experimental
values. The models with relatively better predictions are of Saiidi et
al. (2005), Harajli et al. (2006), Yan et al. (2006), Yan and Pantelides
(2011), Wu et al. 2007, Pantelides and Yan (2007) and Hu and Wang
(2010).
Among these models, the model with AR closest to 1.0 and
minimum AAE is of Pantelides and Yan (2007) (AR = 1.05, AAE =
15.30%). The SD and COV of this model are 0.25 and 23.85%,
respectively. The next good prediction was made by the model of Wu
et al. (2007). The AR and AAE of Wu et al. (2007) are 0.87 and
22.21%, respectively. The model of Pantelides and Yan (2007)
overestimated the ultimate strain of lightly confined square and
rectangular specimens with 0 mm corner radius. In general, the model
of Pantelides and Yan (2007) performed well among the other
considered models.
Analytical Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

Among these models, the model with AR closest to 1.0 is of
Bisby et al. (2005); however, the associated AAE is high (6.59%). It can be observed from the above comparison that the ultimate
The SD and COV of this model are 0.09 and 9.07%, respectively. strength and strain of PET FRP-confined circular specimens is
Similarly, the model with minimum AAE (3.5%) is of Wu and Wei predicted well by some of the existing models. On the other hand, for
(2014). The associated AR of this model is 1.03. For this model, SD PET FRP-confined square and rectangular specimens, very few
and COV are 0.04 and 3.86%, respectively. models predicted the ultimate strength with good accuracy. However,
Figs. 4 and 5 show the AAE and AR of all the considered strain their ultimate s train was predicted fairly only by the model of
models for the prediction of ultimate strain of PET FRP-confined Pantelides and Yan (2007). Although, this model provided the best
circular specimens. It can be seen in Fig. 5 that most of the results among the considered models, it overestimated the ultimate
considered models underestimated the ultimate strain capacity, while strain of lightly confined square and rectangular specimens with
some models overestimated it. Very few models predicted the sharp corners. Similar is the case with the model of Wu et al. (2007)
experimental results closely. These include the models of Shehata et that provided the best results for ultimate strength among the
al. (2002), Moran and Pantelides (2002), Lam and Teng (2003), considered models.
Campione and Miraglia (2003), Jiang and Teng (2006), Shehata et al. The overall compressive stress-strain response of PET FRP-
(2007), Binici et al. (2008), Yu and Teng (2011), Wei and Wu confined concrete in circular and non-circular sections is shown in
(2014), Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014), Dong et al. (2015), Khan et al. Fig. 10. On this curve, few control points are marked which define
(2016) and Eid and Paultre (2017). the whole stress-stress response. The stress-strain response of PET
Among these models, the model with AR closest to 1.0 is of FRP-confined concrete in circular section is bilinear, whereas in
Shehata et al. (2002); however, the associated AAE is high (13.11%). square and rectangular specimens it is tri-linear with a strength
The SD and COV of this model are 0.19 and 19.39%, respectively. softening region immediately after the first peak strength (Saleem et
Similarly, the model with minimum AAE (4.60%) is of Dong et al. al. 2017). After the maximum dropped strength, the curve ascends
(2015). The associated AR of this model is 0.95. For this model, SD again linearly up to the ultimate point. To draw the complete stress-
and COV are 0.04 and 3.81%, respectively. strain curve, determination of control points corresponding to peak
Figs. 6 and 7 show the AAE and AR associated with the ultimate strength, end of transition zone in circular sections, slope change in
strength models for PET FRP-confined square and rectangular strength softening region, dropped and ultimate strength is required.
specimens, respectively. It can be seen in Fig. 7 that many existing In the subsequent sections, simple equations for these controlling
strength models predicted the ultimate strength in a good way. The points are proposed based on the regressed data.
AR associated with these models is close to 1. These include the
models of Wang and Restrepo (2001), Lam and Teng (2003), Ilki and Confining Stress
Kumbasar (2003), Marques et al. (2004), Yan et al. (2006), Wu et al.
(2007), Wu and Wang (2009), Wu and Wei (2010), Wang and Wu For the calculation of actual ultimate confining stress (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ), definition
(2010), Wu and Zhou (2010), Yan and Pantelides (2011), Faustino et of the effectively confined area is necessary in non-circular sections
al. (2014), Dalgic et al. (2015), Hany et al. (2015), Cao et al. (2016), with different corner radii. For this reason, Eq. (3), proposed by Ilki
Hany et al. (2016) and Isleem et al. (2017). et al. (2004), is used.
Among these models, the model with AR closest to 1.0 are of
Yan et al. (2006) (AR = 1.0, AAE = 17.91%, SD = 0.22, COV = 𝜅𝑎 𝜌𝑓 𝜀𝑓𝑎 𝐸𝑓 (3)
22.41%) and Wu and Wei (2010) (AR = 1.0, AAE = 22.43%, SD = 𝑓𝑙𝑎 =
2
0.28, COV = 27.93%); however, the associated AAE is high.
Similarly, the model with minimum AAE (11.2%) is of Wu et al. In Eq. (3), 𝜅𝑎 is the efficiency factor which determines the
(2007). The associated AR of this model is 1.09. For this model, SD effectively confined area for non-circular sections. It is equal to the
and COV are 0.13 and 12.04%, respectively. The AAE of Wu and ratio of the effectively confined cross-sectional area to the total cross-
Wei (2010) model is relatively higher than the AAE of Wu et al.
(2007) model. The model of Wu et al. (2007) overestimated the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
sectional area. For circular section, it can be assumed equal to 1. For
square and rectangular sections, it can be calculated by Eqs. (4), (5)
and (6) as proposed by Wang and Restrepo (2001) and Ilki et al.
(2004).
𝜅𝑎 = 1 − 𝐴 1 − 𝐴 2 (4)
(𝑏 − 2𝑟)2 + (ℎ − 2𝑟)2 (5)

𝐴1 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃
3𝑏ℎ
4𝑟 2 − 𝜋𝑟 2 (6)
𝐴2 =
𝑏ℎ
In the above equations, b and h are the short and long sides of
rectangular section, respectively, while r is the corner radius, and 𝜃 is
the arching angle assumed as 45 degrees. In Eq. (3), 𝜌𝑓 is the FRP
reinforcement ratio calculated by Eqs. (7) and (8) for circular and
square/rectangular specimens, respectively. In Eq. (7), D is the
diameter of circular section.
4𝑛𝑓 𝑡𝑓 (7)
𝜌𝑓 =
𝐷
2𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 [(𝑏 − 2𝑟) + (ℎ − 2𝑟) + 𝜋𝑟] (8) For these equations, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 27.68%, 1.05,
𝜌𝑓 =
𝑏ℎ − (4𝑟 2 − 𝜋𝑟 2) 0.32 and 30.96% for square/rectangular specimens, and 5.80%, 1.04,
0.086 and 8.34% for circular specimens, respectively.
Furthermore, 𝐸𝑓 in Eq. (3) is the modulus of elasticity of FRP. In
this study, for simplicity, single modulus of elasticity of 8398 MPa is Strength Corresponding to Slope Change (𝒇𝒄𝒔)
used for PET FRP. Moreover, 𝜀𝑓𝑎 in Eq. (3) is the actual hoop
Eq. (14) is proposed for the strength (𝑓𝑐𝑠) corresponding to the
rupture strain given by Eq. (9), where 𝜀𝑓 is the hoop strain
change in slope of falling branch of PET FRP-confined square and
determined from tensile coupon test and 𝑘 𝜀 is the hoop strain
rectangular specimens.
efficiency factor suggested as 0.89, 0.80 and 0.73 for circular, square
and rectangular sections, respectively.
𝑓𝑐𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑎 ℎ 0.2 (14)
= 0.53 + 1.65 ( ) ( )
𝜀𝑓𝑎 = 𝑘 𝜀 𝜀𝑓 (9) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏
For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 5.23%, 1.0, 0.07
Peak Compressive Stress (𝒇𝒄𝟏) and 6.79%, respectively.
Eqs. (10) and (11) are proposed for the peak strength (𝑓𝑐1) of PET Strain Corresponding to Slope Change (𝜺𝒄𝒔 )
FRP-confined non-circular and circular specimens, respectively. For
circular specimens, the peak strength is defined as the start of Eq. (15) is proposed for the strain (𝜀𝑐2) corresponding to the change
transition zone. in slope of falling branch of PET FRP-confined square and
𝑓𝑐1 𝑓 0.5 ℎ 0.5 (10)
= 1 + 0.48 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) ( ) square/rectangular 𝜀𝑐𝑠 𝑓 ℎ −2 (15)
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 = 5.47 + 84.6𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) ( )
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏
𝑓𝑐1 𝑓 (11)
= 1 + 0.48 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) circular For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 15.24%, 1.03, 0.18
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
and 17.63%, respectively.
For these equations, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 2.24%, 1.0,
0.03 and 3.02% for square/rectangular specimens, and 1.81%, 1.0, Compressive Strength (𝒇𝒄𝟐)
0.024 and 2.4% for circular specimens, respectively.
Eq. (16) is proposed for the dropped compressive s trength (𝑓𝑐2) of
Peak Compressive Strain (𝜺𝒄𝟏 ) PET FRP-confined square and rectangular specimens.
𝑓𝑐2 𝑓 (16)
Eqs. (12) and (13) are proposed for the peak strain (𝜀𝑐1) of PET FRP- = 0.448 + 1.83 ( 𝑙𝑎 )
confined square/rectangular and circular specimens, respectively. 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝜀𝑐1 𝑓 (12) For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 5.57%, 1.0,
= 1 + 80𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) square/rectangular 0.08 and 8.25%, respectively. Eq. (17) is proposed for the
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
compressive strength (𝑓𝑐2) of PET FRP-confined circular specimens
corresponding to the end of transition zone.
𝜀𝑐1 𝑓𝑙𝑎 (13)
= 1 + 23.4𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( ) circular
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
11
𝑓𝑐2 𝑓 (17) Compared to the model of Dong et al. (2015) with AAE = 4.60%
= 1 + 0.98 ( 𝑙𝑎 )
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 and AR = 0.95, the AAE and AR of proposed model for circular
specimens are 6.54% and 1.01, respectively. Moreover, compared to
For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 2.88%, 1.01, the SD = 0.04 and COV = 3.81% of Dong et al. (2015), proposed
0.03 and 3.32%, respectively. model has SD = 0.09 and COV = 9.18%, which is a little higher.
Similarly, compared to the model of Pantelides and Yan (2007) with
Compressive Strain (𝜺𝒄𝟐) AAE = 15.30%, AR = 1.05, SD = 0.25 and COV = 23.85% for square
and rectangular specimens, the AAE and AR of proposed model are
Eq. (18) is proposed for the dropped compressive strain (𝜀𝑐2) of PET 9.77% and 0.99, respectively, along with SD and COV of 0.12 and
FRP-confined square and rectangular specimens. 11.79%. Overall, the prediction performance of proposed model is
relatively better than the existing ones, particularly for square and
𝜀𝑐2 𝑓 −0.5 (18)
= 1 + 45.91𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( 𝑙𝑎 )
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Stress-Strain Response
For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 29%, 0.98, After defining the control points, the complete stress-strain response
0.37 and 38.25%, respectively. of PET FRP-confined concrete, as shown in Fig. 10, can be plotted
Eq. (19) is proposed for the compressive strain (𝜀𝑐2) of PET with the help of base curves which consider both the ascending and
FRP-confined circular specimens corresponding to the end of descending trends.
transition zone.
First Ascending Branch
𝜀𝑐2 𝑓 (19)
= 1 + 82.97𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( 𝑙𝑎 )
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 For the first ascending part of the curve up to first peak strength ( fc1),
the pre-peak response is defined by the stress-strain curve proposed
For this equation, the AAE, AR, SD and COV are 8.88%, 0.94, by Hoshikuma et al. (1997) as Eq. (23).
0.14 and 14.88%, respectively.
1 𝜀 𝑛−1 (23)
𝑓𝑐 = 𝐸𝑐 𝜀𝑐 [1 − ( 𝑐 ) ] for 0 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀𝑐1
Ultimate Compressive Strength (𝒇𝒄𝒖) 𝑛 𝜀𝑐1
During the regression analysis, it was found that instead of using a where n is a coefficient and is given as
single expression, separate expressions for square/rectangular
specimens with sharp and rounded corners yielded better results. Eqs. 𝐸𝑐 𝜀𝑐1 (24)
(20) and (21) are proposed for the ultimate strength of PET FRP- 𝑛=
𝐸𝑐 𝜀𝑐1 − 𝑓𝑐1
confined specimens with sharp and rounded corners, respectively.
In Eq. (24), Ec is the initial tangent modulus of unconfined
𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 ℎ 0.85 (20)
= 0.23 + 5.54 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) ( ) sharp corners concrete, calculated as 4730 √𝑓𝑐𝑜. In Eqs. (23) and (24), fc1 and ɛc1
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏
are calculated using the Eqs. (10) and (12) for non-circular sections,
and by Eqs. (11) and (13) for circular sections, respectively.
𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 (21)
= 0.56 + 3.33 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) rounded corners
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Transition Region in Circular Section
In contrast to specimens with rounded corners, the ultimate For the transition region in circular sections, a linear relationship is
strength of confined specimens with sharp corners was found to be used in the form of Eq. (25).
directly influenced by the cross-sectional aspect ratio (ℎ⁄𝑏). For this
reason, the influence of cross-sectional aspect ratio is included in Eq. 𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐1 + 𝐸𝑡 (𝜀𝑐2 − 𝜀𝑐1) for 𝜀𝑐1 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀𝑐2 (25)
(20).
Compared to the model of Wu and Wei (2014) with AAE = In Eq. (25), Et is the slope of transition region given by Eq. (26).
3.5%, the AAE of proposed model for circular specimens is 2.60%
along with AR of 1.0. The SD and COV of proposed model are 0.037 𝑓𝑐2 − 𝑓𝑐1 (26)
and 3.69, respectively. Similarly, compared to the model of Wu et al. 𝐸𝑡 =
𝜀𝑐2 − 𝜀𝑐1
(2007) with AAE and AR of 11.2% and 1.09, respectively, for square
and rectangular specimens, the AAE and AR of proposed model are In Eqs. (25) and (26), fc2 and ɛc2 are calculated using the Eqs. (17)
4.93% and 1.02, respectively, along with SD and COV of 0.06 and and (19), respectively.
5.52. Overall, the prediction of proposed model is relatively better
than the existing ones, particularly for specimens with sharp corners.
Strength Softening Region in Non-circular Section
Ultimate Compressive Strain (𝜺𝒄𝒖) The strength softening region in non-circular sections is divided into
two parts; first part is the steep falling branch defined by the S aenz
Eq. (22) is proposed for the ultimate strain of PET FRP-confined (1964) curve up to point (fcs, ɛcs) at which the descending branch
concrete with circular and non-circular cross-sections. For circular
starts changing its slope and the other part is a linear relationship
sections, the effect of cross-sectional aspect ratio (ℎ⁄ 𝑏) and corner from this point to the maximum dropped strength ( fc2, ɛc2). The
radius (0.5 + 2𝑟⁄𝑏) should be ignored. general form of Saenz’ curve given by Eq. (27) is adopted from
Wong et al. (2013).
𝜀𝑐𝑢 𝑓 0.25 ℎ 0.4 2𝑟 −1.1 (22)
= 1 + 537𝜀𝑓𝑢 ( 𝑙𝑎 ) ( ) (0.5 + )
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝑏
12
𝜀 (27) 𝑓𝑐𝑢 − 𝑓𝑐2 (38)
𝐾𝑓𝑐1 (𝜀 𝑐 ) 𝐸𝑎 =
𝑐1 𝜀𝑐𝑢 − 𝜀𝑐2
𝑓𝑐 = for 𝜀𝑐1 < 𝜀𝑐
𝜀 𝜀 2 𝜀 3
1 + 𝐴 (𝜀 𝑐 ) + 𝐵 ( 𝜀 𝑐 ) + 𝐶 (𝜀 𝑐 )
𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1
< 𝜀𝑐𝑠 In Eqs. (37) and (38), fcu and ɛcu are calculated using the Eqs. (20-
21) and (22), respectively.
Fig. (11) compares the performance of proposed stress-strain
In Eq. (27), the parameters A, B and C are expressed as follows:
model with the experimental results. It can be seen that the overall
𝐴 = 𝐶 +𝐾 −2 (28)
stress-strain response of PET FRP-confined circular and non-circular
concrete specimens is predicted in a good way. Furthermore, the
𝐵 = 1 − 2𝐶 (29) post-peak softening behavior, particularly in specimens with sharp
corners and/or low effective confinement, is well predicted by the
(𝐾𝜎 − 1) 1 (30) Saenz’ model (Saenz (1964)). It should be noted that the Saenz’
𝐶 =𝐾 − model could be extended to the point of maximum drop ( fc2, ɛc2);
(𝐾𝜀 − 1)2 𝐾𝜀
however, it was found unable to capture well the point of slope
change (fcs, ɛcs) and the immediate recovery or stability of the falling
K is the stiffness ratio which compares the initial tangent modulus
slope. It should also be noted that the specimens for which the
(Ec ) to the secant modulus (Esec ) defined as Eq. (31).
predicted difference between the peak (fc1) and dropped strength (fc2)
𝐸𝑐 (31) was small, Saenz’ model could not be applied and a linear relation
𝐾= was assumed ignoring the slope change point, for example, in
𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐 specimens SR13L3 and SR26L3. For circular specimens, the
assumption of linear relationship between the peak (fc1) and the end
𝑓𝑐1 (32) of transition point (fc2), slightly underestimated the strength;
𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐 =
𝜀𝑐1 however, from the design considerations, well prediction of these and
Kɛ is the strain ratio which compares the post-peak strain (ɛcs) ultimate points makes the proposed model acceptable.
corresponding to the slope change point to the peak strain (ɛc1) and is Fig. 12 shows the results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test
given by Eq. (33). performed in XLSTAT (Addinsoft 2019) to compare the
experimental results to the proposed model predictions. Table 3
𝜀𝑐𝑠 (33) provides the K-S’ D static and p-value for the comparison difference
𝐾𝜀 =
𝜀𝑐1 at significance level of α = 0.05, where K-S’ D statistic is the highest
deviation occurring between the two curves. The higher is the D
Kσ is the stress ratio which compares the peak compressive stress (fc1) statistic, the lower is the p-value and the more significant is the
to the post-peak stress (fcs) corresponding to the slope change and is difference between the two distributions. As the computed p-value is
given by Eq. (34). greater than the significance level alpha=0.05, one cannot reject the
null hypothesis, which means that the two samples follow the same
𝑓𝑐1 (34) distribution.
𝐾𝜎 = To further verify the precision of proposed model, experimental
𝑓𝑐𝑠
results of LRS-FRP-confined circular specimens from the studies of
Dai et al. (2011), Ispir et al. (2014), and Bai et al. (2014; 2017) were
In the above equations, the stress (fcs) and strain (ɛcs) used. In these studies, the ultimate stress and strain of these
corresponding to the slope change point are calculated from Eqs. (14) specimens were reported; hence, Eqs. (21) and (22) were used to
and (15), respectively. For the next softening region up to the predict the ultimate condition. The details of specimens and their
maximum dropped strength, linear relationship is used in the form of experimental results along with the predictions of proposed model are
Eq. (35).
given in Table 4. For simplicity, as considered in the proposed model,
modulus of elasticity (Ef) for PET and PEN FRP with bilinear stress-
𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑠 − 𝐸𝑠 (𝜀𝑐2 − 𝜀𝑐𝑠 ) for 𝜀𝑐𝑠 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀𝑐2 (35) strain response is taken with respect to the ultimate condition of FRP.
Furthermore, in the s tudy of Ispir et al. (2014), PET FRP mechanical
In Eq. (35), Es is the slope of softening region after the slope change properties provided by the manufacturer were reported. For these
point and is given by Eq. (36).
specimens, the results of PET FRP coupon test of pres ent study were
used as the PET FRP material used in all these and present study was
𝑓𝑐𝑠 − 𝑓𝑐2 (36)
𝐸𝑠 = supplied by the same manufacturer with similar mechanical
𝜀𝑐2 − 𝜀𝑐𝑠 properties. This assumption is adopted because the proposed model is
based on the FRP rupture strain obtained from the flat coupon test.
In Eqs. (35) and (36), fc2 and ɛc2 are calculated using the Eqs. (16) The specimens of Bai et al. (2014) were tested in axial cyclic
and (18), respectively. compression. These specimens were included by considering that
their envelop curve is similar to the monotonic curve. For all the
Last Ascending Branch specimens, the unconfined concrete strain was calculated by Eq. (39)
proposed by Tasdemir et al. (1998).
For the last part of the curve, again linear relationship is used for both
2 ′
circular and non-circular sections and is given by Eq. (37). 𝜀𝑐𝑜 = (−0.067𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 29.9𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 1053 ) × 10 −6 (39)
𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐2 + 𝐸𝑎 (𝜀𝑐𝑢 − 𝜀𝑐2) for 𝜀𝑐2 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀𝑐𝑢 (37)

The last two columns of Table 4 give the ratio of model
In Eq. (37), Ea is the slope of last ascending part of the curve and is prediction to the experimental results. Fig. 13 graphically shows this
given by Eq. (38). comparison where the values above the line of equality shows
overestimation and vice versa. Fig. 13(a) shows the prediction of
ultimate compressive stress (fcu) by Eq. (21). In general, the
13
14
Table 3. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results In first part of this paper, existing strength and strain models
Stress Strain developed for different confining materials were evaluated in
D 0.062 D 0.074 predicting the ultimate strength and strain of PET FRP-confined
circular, square and rectangular concrete specimens. In the second
p-value 0.998 p-value 0.979
part, new equations were proposed based on the experimental data for
alpha 0.05 alpha 0.05
the control points and the whole stress-strain response was generated
using a base curve. From this study, the following conclusions can be
prediction of this equation is good and acceptable. The mean and
drawn:
standard deviation of the ratio (fcu,mod/fcu,exp) for all these specimens is
1. The ultimate strength of PET FRP-confined concrete in circular
1.00 and 0.11, respectively. For some specimens, Eq. (21) yielded a
section was well predicted by many existing strength models;
higher overestimation, for example in specimens of Dai et al. (2011)
the best prediction was made by the model of Wu and Wei
confined with PET900 sheet and in specimens 2P and 3P of Ispir et
(2014) with AAE and AR of 3.5% and 1.03, respectively.
al. (2014), see Table 4. For specimens confined with PET900 sheet,
2. The ultimate strain of PET FRP-confined concrete in circular
the possible reason could be the higher unconfined strength of
section was predicted in a good way by only a few existing
concrete, the effect of which is not considered in the proposed model.
strain models. Among them, best prediction was made by the
The other reason could be the failure by slippage of overlap. In case
model of Dong et al. (2015) with AAE and AR of 4.06% and
of specimens 2P and 3P of Ispir et al. (2014), the specimens also
0.95, respectively.
failed by the slippage of PET FRP sheet, therefore the experimental
3. For square and rectangular sections, the ultimate strength of PET
strength does not actually correspond to the FRP rupture.
FRP-confined concrete was predicted in a good way by the
Fig. 13(b) shows the prediction of ultimate axial strain (ɛcu) by
model of Wu et al. (2007) with AAE and AR of 11.02% and
the proposed Eq. (22). The mean and standard deviation of the ratio
1.09, respectively. However, for lightly confined specimens with
(ɛcu,mod/ɛcu,exp) for all these specimens is 1.20 and 0.22, respectively.
sharp corners, it overestimated the ultimate strength.
In general, this equation is slightly overestimating the ultimate axial
4. Among the considered models, only the model of Pantelides and
strain. For specimens confined with PET900 in Dai et al. (2011),
Yan (2007) predicted well the ultimate strain of PET FRP-
failure was observed by the slippage of FRP at overlap region,
confined concrete in square and rectangular sections with AAE
therefore for these specimens Eq. (22) yielded higher overestimation.
and AR of 15.3 and 1.05%, respectively; however, it
It is to be noted that in all the collected specimens the axial strain was
overestimated the ultimate strain of lightly confined square and
measured over the gauge length of about 200 mm in the middle
rectangular specimens with sharp corners.
height of specimens, whereas in the specimens of current study it was
5. Existing strain models, in which hoop rupture strain (ɛf or ɛfa)
measured over the entire height (300 mm) of specimens. It could also
was used, performed relatively better than those models in
be a reason of overestimation of strain by the proposed model.
which ultimate axial strain was related only to the confining
Overall, the prediction performance of Eq. (22) is acceptable because
pressure.
the measurement of axial strains at higher deformation level becomes
6. To capture the overall stress-strain response of PET FRP-
difficult, particularly when the measuring device is attached to the
confined concrete, control points in the course of stress-strain
specimens.
path were formulated from regression analysis of experimental
The above comparison shows a good performance of proposed
data.
model in predicting the ultimate condition of PET and PEN FRP-
7. The proposed model is simple and performs better than the
confined circular concrete specimens of other studies. The accuracy
existing ones, predicts the ultimate condition of lightly confined
of the proposed stress-strain model largely depends on the prediction
specimens with sharp corners in a better way and provides
capability of the stress-strain equations proposed for the controlling
overall good agreement with the experimentally observed stress-
points that were regressed from the experimental data which is
strain response.
limited in number at present. More experimental data, in particular
8. The performance of proposed model in predicting the ultimate
for square and rectangular specimens, is required to validate the
condition of PET and PEN FRP-confined circular concrete
accuracy of this model.
specimens of other studies is good and acceptable. However,
further experimental data, in particular for square and
Conclusions rectangular specimens, are required to validate or refine it in
future.
15
Table 4. Validation of proposed model for circular specimens
Study Specimen PET PET FRP fco fcu,exp fcu,mod ɛcu,exp ɛcu,mod 𝒇𝒄𝒖,𝒎𝒐𝒅 𝜺 𝒄𝒖,𝒎𝒐𝒅
FRP thickness (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) 𝒇𝒄𝒖,𝒆𝒙𝒑 𝜺 𝒄𝒖,𝒆𝒙𝒑
layers (mm)
Dai et al. (2011)
PET600-1 1 0.841 32.5 41.83 42.57 0.0477 0.0666 1.02 1.39
PET600-2 2 1.682 32.5 65.90 66.95 0.0713 0.0788 1.02 1.11
PET600-3 3 2.523 32.5 82.97 91.39 0.0706 0.0870 1.10 1.23
PET900-1 1 1.262 39.2 47.96 58.52 0.0489 0.0744 1.22 1.52
PET900-2 2 2.524 39.2 71.40 94.86 0.0660 0.0880 1.32 1.33
PET900-3 3 3.786 39.2 100.7 131.7 0.0835 0.0972 1.30 1.17
PEN-1 1 0.848 39.2 52.63 47.43 0.0368 0.0495 0.90 1.35
PEN-2 2 1.696 39.2 77.80 72.91 0.0420 0.0585 0.94 1.39
PEN-3 3 2.544 39.2 102.8 98.43 0.0539 0.0645 0.96 1.20
Ispir et al. (2014)
1P 1 1.262 24.1 50.10 52.05 0.0853 0.0860 1.04 1.04
2P 2 2.524 24.1 79.30 90.61 0.1011 0.1045 1.14 0.97
3P 3 3.786 24.1 109.4 129.27 0.1117 0.1210 1.18 0.92
Bai et al. (2014)
PET-b1-1-A 1 0.841 35.6 47.20 44.32 0.0486 0.0660 0.94 1.36
PET-b1-1-C 1 0.841 35.6 50.30 44.32 0.0624 0.0660 0.88 1.06
PET-b1-2-A 2 1.682 35.6 70.10 68.71 0.0798 0.0783 0.98 0.98
PET-b1-2-C 2 1.682 35.6 77.00 68.71 0.0804 0.0783 0.89 0.97
PET-b2-2-A 2 1.682 46.2 77.20 74.66 0.0660 0.0828 0.97 1.26
PET-b2-2-B 2 1.682 46.2 68.10 74.66 0.0730 0.0828 1.10 1.13
PET-b2-3-A 3 2.523 46.2 94.90 99.05 0.0749 0.0914 1.04 1.22
PET-b2-3-C 3 2.523 46.2 106.8 99.05 0.0853 0.0914 0.93 1.07
PEN-b1-1-A 1 1.272 35.6 61.20 58.17 0.0437 0.0535 0.95 1.22
PEN-b1-1-B 1 1.272 35.6 70.20 58.17 0.0560 0.0535 0.83 0.96
PEN-b1-2-A 2 2.544 35.6 102.1 96.48 0.0752 0.0633 0.94 0.84
PEN-b1-2-C 2 2.544 35.6 107.3 96.48 0.0796 0.0633 0.90 0.80
PEN-b2-1-A 1 1.272 46.2 63.50 64.13 0.0356 0.0567 1.01 1.59
PEN-b2-1-B 1 1.272 46.2 69.40 64.13 0.0443 0.0567 0.92 1.28
PEN-b2-2-A 2 2.544 46.2 112.3 102.4 0.0700 0.0671 0.91 0.96
PEN-b2-2-B 2 2.544 46.2 107.9 102.4 0.0697 0.0671 0.95 0.96
Bai et al. (2017)
PET-PC-1-m-a 1 0.841 31.0 33.92 35.65 0.0363 0.0601 1.05 1.66
PET-PC-1-m-b 1 0.841 31.0 37.23 35.65 0.0391 0.0601 0.96 1.54
PET-PC-2-m-a 2 1.682 29.5 56.56 53.10 0.0649 0.0706 0.94 1.09
PET-PC-2-m-b 2 1.682 29.5 58.09 53.10 0.0703 0.0706 0.91 1.00
PET-PC-1-c-a 1 0.841 31.5 34.61 35.94 0.0364 0.0603 1.04 1.66
PET-PC-1-c-b 1 0.841 31.5 36.56 35.94 0.0499 0.0603 0.98 1.21
PET-PC-2-c-a 2 1.682 30.2 53.34 53.45 0.0537 0.0709 1.00 1.32
PET-PC-2-c-b 2 1.682 30.2 57.30 53.45 0.0640 0.0709 0.93 1.11
16
Acknowledgement Partial financial support from the National Research University
Project of the Thailand Office of the Higher Education Commission
The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial financial support from is also acknowledged.
the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under Grant No. BRG5680015.
Appendix A
Table A. Existing stress-strain models

Model Ultimate stress Ultimate strain Applied to
Richart et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
=1 + 4.1 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1+ 5 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
(1928) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Newman et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.86 Circular

= 1 + 3.7 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(1971) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Fardis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝐸 𝑡 Circular

= 1 + 2.05 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.001 𝐷𝑓
Khalili (1981) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Fardis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 4.1 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.001 𝐷𝑓
Khalili (1982) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
– Richart
Fardis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.86 Circular
= 1 + 3.7 (𝑓 𝑙 )
Khalili (1982) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
- Newman
Fafities and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 21 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + (1.15 + 𝑓 ) 𝑓 𝑙
Shah (1985) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Ahmad and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑙 Circular

= 1 + 4.2556 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ≤ 0.68,
Shah (1986) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑙
= 1.7757 + 3.1171 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 > 0.68
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Mander et al. 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐
= 2.254 + √1 + 7.94 𝑓 𝑙 − 2 𝑓 𝑙 − 1.254
𝑓 𝑓 = 1 + 5 ( 𝑐𝑐 − 1)
(1988) 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Saatcioglu and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1𝑓𝑙𝑒 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑘1𝑓𝑙𝑒 Circular
= 1+5
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Razvi (1992) 𝑘 1 = 6.7(𝑓𝑙𝑒)−0.17, 𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 2𝑓𝑙 , 𝑘 2 = 1 for square, Square
𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑦𝑏𝑐𝑦 Rectangular
𝑓𝑙𝑒 = for rectangular , 𝑏𝑐𝑥 = longer side, 𝑏𝑐𝑦 =
𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑏𝑐𝑦
shorter side
Saadatmanesh 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐
= 2.254 + √1 + 7.94 𝑓 𝑙 − 2 𝑓 𝑙 − 1.254
𝑓 𝑓 = 1 + 5 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
et al. (1994) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Cusson and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7 1.7 Circular

], 𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 𝑒𝑓𝑙 , 𝐷 = (2𝑏ℎ ) 𝑓
= [ 1 + 2.1 (𝑓𝑙𝑒 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.21 (𝑓𝑙𝑒 )
Paultre (1995) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑏+ℎ 𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Frangou et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 1.125 + 1.25𝛼𝜔𝑤 𝛼𝜔𝑤 ≥ 0.1, 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 2.5𝛼𝜔𝑤 𝛼𝜔𝑤 ≤ 0.1,
(1995) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
2𝜋𝑟𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑓 4𝑏𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓
Square
𝜔𝑤 = for circular, 𝜔𝑤 = for square, 𝜔𝑤 = Rectangular
𝜋𝑟2𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏2𝑓𝑐𝑜
(2𝑏+2ℎ )𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝑒 𝑏2 ℎ2
for rectangular, 𝛼 = ,𝐴 = 𝑏ℎ − 2 ( 6 + ), 𝛼=
𝑏ℎ𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐴𝑐 𝑒 6
1
for square, 1 for circular
3
Attard and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑘 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= ( 𝑓𝑙 + 1) , 𝑘 = 1.25 (1 + 0.062 𝑓 𝑙 ) (𝑓𝑐𝑜)−0.21, 𝑓𝑡 = = 1 + (17 − 0.06𝑓𝑐𝑜)( 𝑓𝑙)
Setunge (1996) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐
𝑡 𝑐𝑜
0.9 × 0.32 (𝑓𝑐𝑜)0.67
Restrepol and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝛼1 𝛼2 𝑓𝑐𝑜, 𝛼1 = [2.254 √(1 + 7.94 𝑓𝑙𝑥 ⁄ 𝑓𝑐𝑜) − 2 𝑓𝑙𝑥 ⁄𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 1.254] 𝜀𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
De Vino = 1 + 5 ( 𝑐𝑐 − 1 )
𝑓 𝑓 2 𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
(1996) 𝛼2 = [ 1 − [ −1.4 𝑓𝑙𝑦 + 0.6 (𝑓𝑙𝑦 ) + 0.8 ] √ 𝑓𝑙𝑥 ], 𝑓𝑙𝑥 = 𝜌𝑥𝑓𝑓, 𝑓𝑙𝑦 = 𝜌𝑦𝑓𝑓, Rectangular
𝑙𝑥 𝑙𝑥 𝑐𝑜
𝑡 𝑡
𝜌𝑥 = 2 𝑓, 𝜌𝑦 = 2 𝑓, 𝑡𝑥 = strong direction, 𝑡𝑦 = weak direction
𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑥
Mirmiran 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓0 .587 2𝑡 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 4.269 𝑙𝑓 , 𝑓𝑙 = 𝐷𝑓 𝑓
(1996) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Pilakoutas and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1.125 + 2.5 𝑓𝑙 when 2 𝑓𝑙 ≥ 0.1 , 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 5 𝑓𝑙 when 2 𝑓𝑙 ≤ Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Mortazavi
(1997) 0.1
Karbhari and 2𝑡 𝐸 2𝑓 𝑡 2𝑡𝑓 𝐸𝑓
Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.1𝑓𝑐𝑜𝜈𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 + 𝑓 𝑓 , 𝜈𝑐 = 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 ′𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 1.004[1−
𝑓𝑐𝑜
−4.1𝑓𝑐𝑜𝜈𝑐 ]
Gao (1997)I 𝐷 𝐸𝑐 𝐷 𝐸𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐷 𝐸𝑐 𝐸𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 1 − 2 ,
[1+𝜀 𝑓]
17
𝐸𝑓𝐴𝑓 +𝐸𝑐𝐴𝑐
𝐸𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐴𝑓+𝐴𝑐
Karbhari and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑓 𝑡 0.87 𝑓 𝑓 2𝑓 𝑡 Circular
𝑓 𝑓
= 1 + 2.1 ( 𝐷𝑓 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.01 ( 𝐷𝑓 )
Gao (1997)II 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Miyauchi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐

= 1 + 3.485 (
𝑓𝑙
) 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 0.373 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 1 + 10.6 ( ) for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 30MPa
𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.525
= 1 + 10.5 (𝑓 𝑙 ) for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 50MPa
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Hoshikuma et 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝑙 Circular

= 1 + 3.8 ( ) for circular 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 0.00218 + 0.0332 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟
al. (1997) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓
=1 + 0.73 (𝑓 𝑙 ) for square 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 0.00245 + 0.0122 𝑓 𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Mirmiran et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 Square

= 0.169 ln 𝑀𝐶𝑅 + 1.32 for 𝑀𝐶𝑅 < 0.15
(1998) 𝑓𝑐𝑜
0.7 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 𝑓 2𝑟 𝑓𝑙
= 1 + 6 ( ) ( 𝑙 ) for 𝑀𝐶𝑅 > 0.15 , 𝑀𝐶𝑅 = ( )
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐷 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Kono et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1 + 0.0572𝑓𝑙 = 1 + 0.28𝑓𝑙 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(1998)
Samaan et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓0.7 𝑓𝑐𝑢−𝑓𝑜 Circular
= 1 + 6.0 𝑓𝑙 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = , 𝑓𝑜 = 0.872𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 0.371𝑓𝑙 +
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸2
(1998) 𝑐𝑜
6.258
0.2 𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓
𝐸2 = 245.61𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 1.3456 ( )
𝐷
Jolly and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑡 𝐸 𝜀 Circular
= 1 + 3.594 ( 𝐷𝑓 ) ( 𝑓𝑓 𝑓)
Lillistone 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
(1998)
Nakatsuka et 𝜀 𝜀 𝜀𝑅 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓𝐵 + 𝐸𝐵𝑇 𝜀𝐵 (𝜀 𝑇 − 1) + 𝐸𝑇𝑅 𝜀𝑇 (𝜀 𝑅 − 1 ) = (20𝜀𝑓 + 1.2) + (1000𝜀𝑓
al. (1998) 𝐵 𝑇 𝜀𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑓𝐵 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝐵
𝜀 𝜌 𝐸 𝜀
= 1 + 4𝐶𝑓𝐵 𝑓 , 𝜀 𝐵 = 1 + 10𝐶𝜀𝐵 𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝐵 𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 − 3)𝐶𝜀𝑅 2
𝜀𝑇 𝑓𝑐𝑜
= (−0.016𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 2.7) + (−10 −5𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 0.0016)𝐶𝜀𝑇𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓
𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝐸𝑇𝑅 0.55 𝐸 1.4
= −0.25 + 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 , 𝐵𝑇 = −0.4 + 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓
𝐸𝑂𝐵𝑇 𝐶 +1 𝐸𝑂𝐵𝑇 𝐶 +1
𝜀𝑇𝑅 𝜀𝐵𝑇
0.06𝑓2
𝑐𝑜 0.06𝑓2
𝑐𝑜
1
0.01 (1 − 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ) (𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 60 ) 1 (Circular)
𝜀𝑓𝐵 = { +1 , 𝐶𝑓𝐵 , 𝐶𝜀𝐵, 𝐶𝜀𝑇 = {
140 0.6 (Square)
0.003 (60 < 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 80 )
1 (Circular) 1 (Circular)
𝐶𝜀𝑅 = { , 𝐶𝜀𝐵𝑇 , 𝐶𝜀𝑇𝑅 = { ,
1 (Square) 0.4 (Square)
2𝑡𝑓
𝐸𝑂𝐵𝑇 = 1000 (6 − 0.43𝑓𝑐𝑜)[𝑀𝑃𝑎 ] , 𝜌𝑓 = , 𝐷
D= dia. Of circular specimen or side length of square
1
Spoelstra and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐸 𝑓 Circular
= 0.2 + 3.00 (𝑓 𝑙 )
2
= 2 + 1.25 𝑓 𝑐 𝜀𝑓 √𝑓 𝑙 , 𝐸𝑐 = 5700√𝑓𝑐𝑜
Monti (1999) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Razvi and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1𝑓𝑙𝑒 , 𝑘 1 = 6.7 (𝑓𝑙𝑒)−0.17, 𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 2𝑓𝑙 , 𝑘 2 = 1 for square, 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1 + 5𝑘 1𝑘 3
𝑓𝑙𝑒
, 𝑘3 =
40
≤1 Circular
Saaticioglu 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑦𝑏𝑐𝑦 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑙𝑒 = for rectangular, 𝑏𝑐𝑥 = longer side, 𝑏𝑐𝑦 = Square
(1999) 𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑏𝑐𝑦 Rectangular
shorter side
Toutanji 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.85 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 3.5 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + (310.57𝜀𝑓 + 1.9) (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
(1999) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜
Saafi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.84 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 2.2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + (537𝜀𝑓 + 2.6) (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1 )
𝑐𝑜
Miyauchi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐

= 1 + 2.98 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝜀𝑐𝑜 (15.87 − Circular
(1999) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 ( 0.246+0.0064𝑓𝑐𝑜)
𝑓
0.093𝑓𝑐𝑜)(𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑐𝑜
Xia and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 .𝐷 𝑓 2 𝜀 +0.0005 Circular
= 1.10 + [ 4.10 − 0.75 (2𝐸𝑐𝑜 𝑡 )] 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓 0.8
(2000) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓 𝑓 𝑐𝑜 𝑓 𝐷
7( 𝑐𝑜 )
2𝑡𝑓𝐸𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑐
Theriault and = 1 + 2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) circular , = 1+ ( 𝑓𝑙 ) square/rectangular Circular
Neale (2000) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Square
2𝑛𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝑡𝑓 (𝑏+ℎ)
𝑓𝑙 = square/rectangular Rectangular
𝑏ℎ
Lillistone and 𝑓𝑐𝑢 2𝐸 𝑓𝑡𝑓 Circular
= 0.83 + 0.05 ( )
Jolly (2000) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜
18
Karabinis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.87 Circular
=1 + 2.1 (𝑓 𝑙 )
Rousakis 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
(2001)
Wang and 𝑓 Square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝛼1 𝛼2 𝑓𝑐𝑜 , 𝛼1 = 1.25[1.8√(1 + 7.94 𝑓𝑙𝑥 ⁄𝑓𝑐𝑜) − 1.6 𝑓𝑙𝑥 ⁄ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 1] 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑜 [1 + 𝑅 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)]
Restrepo 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
2
𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝑅=5
(2001) 𝛼2 = [[ 1.4 𝑓𝑙𝑦 − 0.6 (𝑓𝑙𝑦 ) − 0.8 ] √𝑓𝑙𝑥 + 1], 𝑓𝑙𝑥 = 𝜌𝑥𝑓𝑓 , 𝑓𝑙𝑦 = 𝜌𝑦𝑓𝑓,
𝑙𝑥 𝑙𝑥 𝑐𝑜
𝑡𝑓 𝑡𝑓
𝜌𝑥 = 2 𝑡 , 𝜌𝑦 = 2 𝑡 , 𝑡𝑥 = strong direction, 𝑡𝑦 = weak direction
𝑦 𝑥
Lin and Chen 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

=1 +2( 𝑙 )
(2001) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Candappa et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 5 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 20 (𝑓 𝑙 )
Fam and 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓
= 2.254 + √1 + 7.94 𝑓 𝑙 − 2 𝑓 𝑙 − 1.254
𝑓 = 1 + 5 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
Rizkalla (2001) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Lam and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 2 + 15 (𝑓 𝑙 ) CFRP sheet
(2002), Teng et 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7
al. (2002) = 2 + 27 (𝑓 𝑙 ) GFRP tube
Ilki et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 0.735 Circular
=1 + 2.227 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 15.156 (𝑓 𝑙 )
Moran and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 Circular

= 1 + 𝑘1 ( ) = 1 + 𝑘2 ( )
Pantelides 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑘 1 = 4.14 for bonded shell, 𝑘 1 = 2.33 for unbonded shell 1 1
(2002) 𝑘2 ≈ 1 ≈ 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 , 𝜇 𝑡𝑢 ≈
2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 3 𝜀 𝑐𝑜𝜇𝑡𝑢( )
9.27×10−3( ) 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜
−2⁄
2𝐸 𝑡 3
4.635 ( 𝐷𝑓𝑓 𝑓 )
𝑐𝑜
Shehata et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.5 Circular
= 1 + 2 ( 𝑙 ) circular 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1 + 632 (𝑓𝑙
𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑐
) circular
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝐸 𝑓 Square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓
= 1 + 0.85 (𝑓 𝑙 ) square 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 = 1+ 13.5 𝑓 𝑙 square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓
= 1 + 0.7 ( 𝑙 ) rectangular 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 1+ 12.4 𝑓 𝑙 rectangular
Cheng et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
=1 + 2.4 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2002) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Harries and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 0 .587

𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 4.269 = 5 𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 4
Kharel (2002) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Legeron and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.2 Circular

= 1 + 2.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 35 (𝑓 𝑙 )
Paultre (2003) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Xiao and Wu 2 1.4 𝜀 𝑓+0.00047 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 .𝐷
= 1.10 + [4.10 − 0.45 (2𝐸𝑐𝑜 𝑡 )
𝑓
] 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 0.9
(2003) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓 𝑓 𝑐𝑜 10(
𝑓𝑐𝑜.𝐷
)
2𝑡𝑓𝐸𝑓
Campione and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 2𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + ∆𝜀 Circular

= 1 + 2.00𝑘 𝑒 (𝑓 𝑙 ) , 𝑓𝑙 = 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑙 =
Miraglia 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝐷 𝑓2 1
∆𝜀 = 2𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑟 2𝑓′+𝑘 𝑘 𝑓 Square
2𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑟 √2 2𝑟 √2
(2003) square with rounded corner, 𝑓𝑟 = 𝑓𝑓 [(1 − 𝑘) + 𝑘𝑖 ] 𝑓 𝑐 1 𝑒 𝑙
𝑏 2 𝑖 𝑏 2 2[2(𝑏−2𝑟)+𝜋𝑟]𝑡𝑓
√2𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑘 1 = 2, 𝜌𝑓 =
𝑓𝑙 = 𝑘 𝑖 square with sharp corner, 𝑘 𝑖 = 0.2121 𝜋𝑟2
𝑏 𝑏2 −4(𝑟2−( ))
4
De Lorenzes 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= Circular
𝜀 𝑐𝑜
and Tepfers 0.8 2𝐸 𝑡 −0.148
𝑓𝑙 𝑓 𝑓
(2003) 1 + 26.2 ( ) ( ) , FRP Wraps
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐷
{
𝑓 0.68 2𝐸 𝑡 𝑓 𝑓
−0.127
1 + 26.2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) ( ) , FRP Tubes
𝑐𝑜 𝐷
Lam and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝜀 0.45 Circular
=1 + 3.3 𝑓𝑙𝑎 when 𝑓 𝑙 ≥ 0.07 =
𝑓𝑎
1.75 + 12 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )(𝜀 )
(2003)a 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.45
=1 when 𝑓 𝑙 < 0.07 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝜀
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 = 1.75 + 5.53 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )(𝜀 𝑓 )
Li et al. (2003) 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛 2(45 + 𝜑⁄ ) 𝜀 𝑐𝑢

=
𝜑 𝑓
1 + 2.24𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 0 + 2 ) 𝑓𝑙𝑒 Circular
2 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓
𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 𝑐 𝑓𝑙, 𝑘 𝑐 = 0.95 for circular, 𝜑 = 36 + 1 ( 𝑐𝑜 ) ≤ 45
35
19
Lin and Li 𝜑 2 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛 (45 + ⁄2)
(2003) Square
𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 𝑐 𝑓𝑙, 𝑘 𝑐 = 0.95 for circular, 𝑘 𝑐 = 0.75 for rectangular,
𝑓𝑐 ′ Rectangular
𝑘 𝑐 = 0.60 for wall like rectangular, 𝜑 = 36 + 1 (35 ) ≤ 45
Ilki and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑏 𝑓 𝑓 𝑏 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 0.75 Circular
= [0.6 + 0.2 ℎ ] [1 + 2.23 𝑓 𝑙 ], 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = [0.6 + 0.2 ℎ ] [ 1 + = [ 1 + 15 ( ) ]
Kumbasar 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑓 0.87
(2003) 2.29 (𝑓 𝑙 ) ] Rectangular
𝑐𝑜
𝜅𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑓 (𝑏−2𝑟)2+ (ℎ−2𝑟)2
𝑓𝑙 = , 𝜅 = 1 − 𝐴1 − 𝐴2 , 𝐴1 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃
2 3𝑏ℎ
4𝑟2−𝜋𝑟2 2𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 ( 𝑏+ℎ )
𝐴2 = , 𝜌𝑓 =
𝑏ℎ 𝑏ℎ
Chaallal et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 4.12 × 10 5𝑘 , 𝑘 =
𝐸 𝑓×𝐴𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 103[3𝑘 − 150𝑘 2]⁄ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
(2003) 𝐸 𝑐𝑜×𝐴𝑐𝑜
Rectangular
Lam and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑏 2𝐴 ℎ 2𝐴 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀 𝑓𝑎 0.45 Square
= 1 + 3.3𝑘 𝑠1 , 𝑘 𝑠1 = ( ) 𝑒
, 𝑘 𝑠2 = ( ) 𝑒
, 𝐷 = √ℎ2 + 𝑏2 = 1.75 + 12𝑘 𝑠2 ( )
(2003)b 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ℎ 𝐴𝑐 𝑏 𝐴𝑐 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
( (𝑏 )(ℎ−2𝑟)2+(ℎ )( 𝑏−2𝑟)2)
𝐴𝑒 ℎ 𝑏
= 1−
𝐴𝑐 3𝐴𝑔
Ilki et al. 1.2 𝜅𝜌𝑓0.7𝜀 𝑓𝐸𝑓 0.5
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 ℎ 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) , 𝑓𝑙 = , 𝜅 = 1 − 𝐴1 − 𝐴2 , = 1 + 20 𝑏 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2004) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 2 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
(𝑏−2𝑟)2+ (ℎ−2𝑟)2 4𝑟2−𝜋𝑟2
𝐴1 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃, 𝐴 2 = Rectangular
3𝑏ℎ 𝑏ℎ
4𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 2𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 ( 𝑏+ℎ)
𝜌𝑓 = for circular, 𝜌𝑓 = for non − circular
𝐷 𝑏ℎ
Marques et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙0 .83 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 Circular
= 1 + 6.7 for circular , 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 0.0572𝑓𝑙𝑒 for rectangular = 1 + 5𝑘 1𝑘 2 𝑓 𝑙 , 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 0.28𝑓𝑙𝑒
(2004) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜
40
Square
𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑦𝑏𝑐𝑦
𝑓𝑙𝑒 = for rectangular, 𝑏𝑐𝑥 = longer side, 𝑏𝑐𝑦 = 𝑘 1 = 6.7𝑓𝑙−0.17, 𝑘 2 = 𝑓 ≤ 1 Rectangular
𝑏𝑐𝑥+𝑏𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑜
shorter side
Bisby et al. 0.911 𝑓 0.0240 𝐶𝐹𝑅𝑃
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.425 (𝑓 𝑙 ), 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 2.217 (𝑓 𝑙 ) , 𝑓𝑐𝑐 =1+ 𝑓𝑙
(2005) (241) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 2 ( ), 𝑘 2 = {0.0137 𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃
0.84 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓 0.0536 𝐴𝐹𝑅𝑃
3.587 ( 𝑙𝑓 )
𝑐𝑜
Rousakis et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 𝛼𝐸𝑓 10−6 Circular
= 1 +( )( + 𝛽) , α = -0.4142, β = 0.0248, 𝐸𝑓𝑢 =
(2005) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸 𝑓𝑢
10 MPa
Mandal et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝐸 𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓 2 𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐸 𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓 2 Circular
= 0.0017 ( ) + 0.0232 ( ) + 1 , 𝐸𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑃𝑎 = 0.0136 ( ) +
(2005) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓
0.0842 ( )+ 1
𝑅 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Saiidi et al. 0 .7 𝜀 𝑓𝑎
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 1 1 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = Circular
= 1 + 6.2 , 𝑓𝑙 = 𝑘 𝑒𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓𝑎 𝑡𝑗𝑓 [ + ] 0.1−0.25ln(
𝑓𝑙𝑎
)
(2005) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ℎ 𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Binici (2005) 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐
= √1 + 9.9 𝑓𝑙𝑎 + 𝑓𝑙𝑎
𝑓 𝑓 = 1 + 5 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
2
Berthet et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1𝑓𝑙𝑎 2𝐸 𝑡 Circular
(2006) 𝑘 1 = 3.45 if 20 MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 50 MPa 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + √2 ( 𝐷𝑓𝑓2 𝑓 )3 (𝜀𝑓𝑎 − 𝜈𝑐 𝜀𝑐𝑜)
𝑐𝑜
𝑘1 =
9 .5
1 if 50 Mpa ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 200 MPa
𝜈𝑐 = initial poisson′s ratio
(𝑓𝑐𝑜 )4
Guralnick and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 0.828 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓𝑙𝑎 0.5 Circular
= 1 + 2.2 ( ) , = 0.616 + + 1.57 ( + 0.06 )
Gunawan 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
(2006)
Harajli et al 𝑓 −0.5 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1(𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) , 𝑘 1 = 1.25 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) 2 ≤ 𝑘 1 ≤ 7, 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑜 [1 + 𝑘 2 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)]
(2006) 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
1.17ℎ⁄𝑏
𝑘𝑒𝑓 𝑘𝑣𝑓𝜌𝑓𝐸 𝑓 4𝑛𝑡𝑓 2𝑏ℎ 𝐴𝑒 (𝑤2𝑥+𝑤2𝑦) 25800𝑒
( ) 𝜀𝑓𝑎 , 𝜌𝑓 = ,𝐷= , 𝑘 𝑒𝑓 = = 1− , 𝑤𝑥 = 𝑘2 = ( 0.83 ) 𝜀𝑓𝑎 + 2.0 Rectangular
2 𝐷 (𝑏+ℎ) 𝐴𝑐 3𝑏ℎ (𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓)
ℎ − 2𝑟, 𝑤𝑦 = 𝑏 − 2𝑟
𝑘 𝑒𝑓 = 1 for circular column, 𝑘 𝑣𝑓 = 1 for continuous FRP sheets
Wu et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑓𝑢 −0.66
= 1 + 2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) (common modulus FRP - strain hardening) 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = , 𝜐𝑢 = 0.56 (𝑓𝑙 ) strain
(2006) 𝑐𝑜 𝜐𝑢 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 hardening
= 1 + 2.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) (high modulus CFRP – strain hardening)
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 = 1.3 + 6.3 𝑓 𝑙 strain
= 1 + 2.5 ( ) (FRP tube – strain hardening ) 𝜀𝑢 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 softening
20
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀𝑢
= 1 + 3.0 (𝑓 𝑙 ) (FRP strain by manufacturer – strain hardening)
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 = ultimate strain of unconfined concrete
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙
= 0.75 + 2.5 ( ) (for strain softening) = 0.0038
Jiang and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝜀 2𝐸 𝑡 2𝐸 𝑓𝑡𝑓 0.8 1.45 Circular
=1 + 3.50 (𝐷(𝑓 ⁄𝜀 ) − 0.01 )(𝜀 𝑙𝑎) 𝑖𝑓 𝐷(𝑓 𝑓⁄𝜀𝑓 ) ≥ 0.01 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1.65 + 6.5 (𝐷(𝑓 ) (𝜀 𝑙𝑎)
(2006) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 ⁄ )
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝐸 𝑡
=1 𝑖𝑓 𝐷(𝑓 𝑓⁄𝜀𝑓 ) < 0.01
Matthys et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.85 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 3.5 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) = 1 + (310.57𝜀𝑓 + 1.9) (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1)
𝑐𝑜
Tamuzs et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 2𝐸 𝑡 0.65 Circular

= 1 + 4.2 𝑓 𝑓
𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.17(𝜀𝑓𝑢 − 𝜈𝑐 𝜀𝑐𝑜 ) ( 𝐷𝑓 )
𝑐𝑜
Lu and Hsu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 4.0 𝑓 𝑙 = 1 + 19.21 𝑓 𝑙
Yan et al. 𝑓 𝑓 Circular

𝑓𝑐𝑐
= −4.322 + 4.721√1 + 4.193 𝑓𝑙𝑎 − 2 𝑓𝑙𝑎 when 𝑓𝑙𝑎 ≥ 0.2
𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 6𝜀𝑐𝑜 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 0.8) when 𝑓𝑙𝑎 ≥ 0.2
(2006) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑓𝑐𝑢(1+2𝛽𝑘𝜀𝜀 𝑓𝑎 ) 𝑓
−4.322+4.721√1+4.193
𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓
−2 𝑙𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = when 𝑓𝑙𝑎 < 0.2 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝐸𝑐 𝑐𝑜
= 𝑓𝑙𝑎 when < 0.2 𝑟
𝑓𝑐𝑜 0.0768ln(
𝑓𝑐𝑜
)+1.122 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.31 + 1.42 (𝑏 ) for square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑟 𝑟
= 1 when 𝑓𝑙𝑎 < 0.2 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.31 + 0.71 (ℎ + 𝑏 ) for rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑢
(𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) + 1.122 , 𝑓𝑙𝑎 1 2( 𝑏⁄𝑟−2)2
= 0.0768 ln = 2 𝑘𝑘 𝜀 𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓 𝑘 = 1− for square, 𝛽 =
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑜 3(𝑏⁄𝑟)2
𝑓 −0.8
190 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
𝑐𝑜
(ℎ−2𝑟)2+ (𝑏−2𝑟 )2
𝑘 = 1− for rectangular
3ℎ𝑏
Triantafillou et 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.79 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.082 𝑓 𝑙
al. (2006) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
(𝑏+ℎ) 𝑏′2+ℎ ′2
𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝑘 𝑒 𝑏ℎ 𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓, 𝑘𝑒 = 1 − , 𝑏′ = 𝑏 − 2𝑟, ℎ′ = ℎ − 2𝑟 Rectangular
3𝐴𝑔
Kumutha et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝜌𝑓 2(𝑏+ℎ ) 𝑡 Circular
= 1 + 0.93 (𝑓 𝑙 ) , 𝑓𝑙 = , 𝜌𝑓 =
(2007) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 2 𝑏ℎ
Square
Rectangular
Teng et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.2 Circular
= 1 + 3.5 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 1 + 17.5 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎)
Jiang and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.2 Circular

= 1 + 3.5 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 1 + 17.5 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎)
5
Youssef et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 0.003368 + Circular
(2007) = 1 + 2.25 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑢 )4 circular 1
Square
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓 𝑓𝑓 2
3 0.2590 (𝑓𝑙𝑢 )(𝐸 ) circular Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 1 𝑐𝑜 𝑓
= 1 + 1.225 (𝑓𝑙𝑢 )5 rectanular, 𝑓𝑙 = 2 𝜌𝑓 𝑓𝑓, 𝑓𝑙𝑢 = 𝑘 𝑒𝑓𝑙
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 0.004325 +
1
𝑓 𝑓 2
0.2625 (𝑓𝑙𝑢 )(𝐸𝑓 ) rectangular
𝑐𝑜 𝑓
Wu et. al. ′
𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 𝑘 3𝑓𝑐𝑢 ′ ′ 𝜀𝑓 𝑓𝑙 Circular
𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑘4 𝜀𝑐𝑢 , 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = ⁄𝜈 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ≥ 𝜆=
(2007) ′ 4 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝑓𝑙 Square
= 1+ 2.0 𝑓 𝑙 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ≥ 𝜆 = 0.13 0.13
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
𝑟
′
𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝑓𝑙 𝑘4 = (2 − 1.6𝛼) ℎ + 0.8𝛼 , 𝜈4 =
= 0.75 + 2.5 𝑓 𝑙 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 < 𝜆 = 0.13
𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑙 −0.66
𝑘3 =
𝑟
(2 − 𝛼) + 0.5𝛼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐸𝑓 ≤ 250 𝐺𝑃𝑎 0.56 ( )
𝑓𝑐𝑜
ℎ
′
𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝑓𝑙
= 1.3 + 6.3 𝑓′𝑙 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ′ < 𝜆 = 0.13
𝜀𝑢 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝜀𝑢 = 0.0038, 𝛼 = 30⁄𝑓𝑐𝑜
Ciupala et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑓 0.8 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑐𝑐 0.667 Circular
=1 + 1.7 ( 𝑙 ) = 1 + 6.7 ( − 1)
(2007) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Al-Tersawy et 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.81 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 0.34 Circular
= 1 + 1.96 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) = 1 + 8.16 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
al. (2007) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Al-Salloum 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 2.312 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2007)a 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Al-Salloum 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑏 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 3.14 (𝐷) 𝑓 𝑙
(2007)b 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
21
𝑟 2
2𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑝𝑡 2 (1−2 )
𝑏
𝑓𝑙 = 𝑘 𝑒, 𝐷 = √2𝑏 − 2𝑟(√2 − 1), 𝑘 𝑒 = 1 − 3 [ 𝑟 2
]
𝐷 1− (4−𝜋)( )
𝑏
Shehata et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.5 Circular
= 1 + 2.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1 + 632 (𝑓𝑙
𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑐
)
(2007) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝐸 𝑓
Tabbara and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ Circular

Karam (2007) = 0.598 (𝑓𝑐𝑐) , (𝑓𝑐𝑐 ) = √10.59 𝑓𝑙 + 1.10 + 𝑓𝑙
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
∗
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒
Pantelides and 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑐 (1+2𝛽𝑘𝜀𝜀 𝑓𝑎) Circular
Yan (2007) Ascending type ≥ 0.2, 𝑓𝑐𝑢 = −4.322 + 4.721√1 + 4.193 𝑓𝑙𝑎 − 2 𝑓𝑙𝑎 Ascending type 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝐸𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙𝑢 𝑓𝑐𝑐
Descending ( )
type 𝑓 < 0.2, 𝑓 = 0.0768 ln 𝑓 + 1.122 Descending type 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = Rectangular
𝐸𝑐−𝛽𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑢(1+2𝛽𝑘𝜀𝜀 𝑓𝑎 ) 𝑓 −0.8
𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = , 𝛽 = 190 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
−4.322+4.721√1+4.193 −2 𝑙𝑎 𝐸𝑐 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (( 𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) 𝑓𝑐𝑜, 𝑓𝑐𝑜)
0.0768ln( )+1.122 𝐸𝑐 = 5500√𝑓𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑘𝑒𝑘𝜀𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓 2(𝑏+ℎ )𝑡𝑓

𝑓𝑙𝑎 = , 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.5, 𝜌𝑓 =
2 𝑏ℎ
Valdmanis et 1⁄ Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 3 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝐸 𝑓
= 0.2 + 3√𝑓 𝑙 , 𝑓𝑙 = 0.5𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓 𝐶𝑟, 𝐶𝑟 = 0.5, 𝐸1𝑐 = 𝐸𝑐 (𝑓 𝑐𝑜 ) = 2 + 1.25 ( 𝑓1𝑐) 𝜀𝑓 𝐶𝑟√𝑓 𝑙
al. (2007) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑚𝑜
4
𝐸𝑐 = 2.15 × 10 MPa, 𝑓𝑐𝑚𝑜 = 10 MPa
Vintzileou and 𝑓𝑐𝑐
= 1 + 2.8 (
𝑓𝑙
) , 𝑓𝑙 = 0.5𝑘 𝑒𝜔𝑤𝑓𝑐𝑜 , k = number of FRP layers 𝑓𝑙 2 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝛾𝐹𝑅𝑃 [ 0.003 (1 + 2.8 ) ]
Panagiotidou 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑡 𝑓
(2008) 4 𝐷𝑓 𝑓𝑓 for cylinders 1.15 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝐹𝑅𝑃 Rectangular
1 𝛾𝐹𝑅𝑃 = {
, 𝑓𝑓𝑒 = 𝑓𝑓𝑘 − 4
𝑐𝑜
𝜔𝑤 = {2[(𝑏−2𝑟 ) +(ℎ−2𝑟) +𝜋𝑟]𝑡
1.95 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃
𝑓 𝑓𝑓
for prisms
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐴𝑔
Ikli et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝜅𝜌𝑓0.7𝜀 𝑓𝐸𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 ℎ 𝑓 0.53 Circular
( )
= 1 + 2.54 𝑓 , 𝑓𝑙 = ,𝜅 = 1 − 𝐴 1 − 𝐴 2, 𝐴 1 = = 1 + 𝑏 × (𝐿𝑇𝐹) × 19.27 × (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2008) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 2 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(𝑏−2𝑟)2+(ℎ−2𝑟)2 2𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 (𝑏+ℎ)
𝑐𝑜 Square
4𝑟2−𝜋𝑟2 4𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃, 𝐴 2 = 𝑏ℎ , 𝜌𝑓 = , 𝜌𝑓 = LTF = loading type factor; 1 for monotonic Rectangular
3𝑏ℎ 𝐷 𝑏ℎ
and 2 for cyclic
Rousakis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 −0.4142𝐸𝑓×10−6 2𝑟 Circular
= 1 +( )( + 0.0248)( 𝑏 ) , 𝐸𝑓𝜇 = 10 MPa
Karabinis 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸𝑓𝜇 Square
(2008)
0.17 0.3 0.45
Binici (2008) 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 𝜀 Circular
= 1 + 2.6 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 − 0.14 ) 𝑖𝑓 ≥ 0.14, 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1.8 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) 𝑖𝑓 < = 1.75 + 12 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )(𝜀 𝑙𝑎)
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
0.14
Wang and Hsu 𝐹 𝐹 Square
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑘 𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑜 , 𝑘 𝑐 = 𝛼1𝛼2 , 𝛼1 = 1.25 (1.8√1 + 7.94 𝑓 1 − 1.6 𝑓 1 − 1)
(2008) 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
𝑓 𝑓 2 𝐹
𝛼2 = [ 1.4 𝐹1 − 0.6 (𝐹1 ) − 0.8] √𝑓 1 + 1
1 1 𝑐𝑜
𝑡 𝑡𝑓
𝑓1,𝑓𝑥 = 𝜌𝑓𝑥 𝜀𝑓 𝐸𝑓 , 𝑓1,𝑓𝑦 = 𝜌𝑓𝑦 𝜀𝑓 𝐸𝑓 , 𝜌𝑓𝑥 = 2 𝑓, 𝜌𝑓𝑦 = 2
𝑏𝑦 𝑏𝑥
𝐹1 = the greater of the effective lateral confining pressure
𝑓1 = the smaller of the effective lateral confining pressure
Al-Salloum 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.312 (𝑓 𝑙 )
and Siddiqui 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
(2009)
Wu et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 Circular
= 1 + 3.2 ( ) = 1 + 9.5 ( )
Wu and Wang 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.73 0.96 Circular

= 1 + 2.23 ( 𝑏 ) ( 𝑓𝑙 )
(2009) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
Issa et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 0.85 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 0.30 Circular
= 1 + 3.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 10.2 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
Teng et al. = 1 + 3.50(𝜌𝜅 − 0.01 )𝜌𝜀 when 𝜌𝜅 ≥ 0.01, 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 when 𝜌𝜅< 0.01 = 1.75 + 6.5𝜌𝜅0.8𝜌1.45
𝜀
Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(2009) 𝑐𝑜
2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝜀 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓𝜀 𝑐𝑜 0.586𝜀 𝑓
𝜌𝜅 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 , 𝜌𝜀 = 𝜀 𝑓𝑎, 𝜀𝑓𝑎 = 0.586𝜀𝑓, 𝜌𝜅 = , 𝜌𝜀 =
𝐷 𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 2 +𝑚𝑓 𝑓 ) 0.5
(𝑠𝑓𝑐𝑜
Girgin (2009) = 𝑓𝑙 + 𝑐𝑜 𝑙
, s =1 for concrete elements (intact concrete) Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
m = 6.34 − 0.076𝑓𝑐𝑜 when 20 < 𝑓𝑐𝑜 < 82, m = 2.9 when 7 < 𝑓𝑐𝑜 < 18
m = 0.1 when 82 < 𝑓𝑐𝑜 < 108
22
Akiyama et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.647 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 +
𝑓
0.0766 (𝑓𝑙𝑒 ) Circular
= 1 + 2.28 (𝑓𝑙𝑒 ) , 𝑓𝑙𝑒 = 𝑘 𝑒𝑓𝑙
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Pellegrino and Peak stress Peak axial strain Circular
Modena (2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1 𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑓 −𝛼 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 2𝑟 Square
= 1 + 𝑘 1 𝑓 𝑙 , 𝑓𝑙 = 2 𝑘𝑓 𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓 , 𝑘 1 = 𝑘𝐴𝑘 𝑅, 𝑘𝐴 = 𝐴 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 0.55 + 1.5 ( 𝑏 ) → < 0.3
𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑏
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
2𝑟 3.55 (circular) −0.15 (circular) Ultimate axial strain
for ≥ 0.3, 𝐴 = { ,𝛼 = { 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓
𝑏 2.25 (rectangular) −0.25 (rectangular) = 2 + 𝐵 (𝑓 𝑙 )
2𝑟 2𝑟 2𝑟 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏 < 0.3, 𝑘 𝑅 = 1 − 2.5 (0.3 − 𝑏 ), 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏 ≥ 0.3, 𝑘 𝑅 = 1 23 (𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟)
𝐵 ={
Ultimate stress 23 (𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟)
𝑓𝑐𝑢 2𝑟 𝑓𝑐𝑢 2𝑟 2𝑟
= 1 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ≥ 0.3, = 0.55 + 1.5 ( 𝑏 ) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 < 0.3
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑏
2𝑟
𝑘𝑓 = 𝑘 𝛼 𝑘 𝑣𝑘 𝑒, 𝑘 𝛼 = 1, 𝑘 𝑣 = 1, 𝜀𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑘 𝜀 𝜀𝑓 , 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.25 + 0.25 ( 𝑏 )
Benzaid et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.2 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 2 + 7.6 𝑓𝑙𝑎
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓
= 1 + 1.6 𝑓 𝑙 = 2 + 5.5 𝑓 𝑙
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Mohamed and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7 Circular
= 0.7 + 2.7 ( 𝑙 )
Masmoudi 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
(2010)
Cui and Sheikh 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 0.6 𝜀 𝑐𝑐
=
𝑓
1 + [70 − 13 ln(𝑓𝑐𝑜)] (𝑓 𝑙 ) Circular
= (1 + 10 ) for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 < 60 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Fahmy and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙0 .7 𝑓𝑐𝑐−𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑚1 Circular

= 1 + 4.5 for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = , 𝐸2 = 𝑚2(245.61𝑓𝑐𝑜 +
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸2
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓0.7 0.6728𝐸𝑙)
=1 + 3.75 𝑓𝑙 for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≥ 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ′
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑚1 = 0.5, 𝑚2 = 0.83, 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎
′
𝑚1 = 0.2, 𝑚2 = 1.73, 𝑓𝑐𝑜 > 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 𝐸𝑙 =
2𝐸𝑓𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓
𝐷
Wu and Zhou Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 16.7 𝑓0 .42 𝑓
(2010) = 𝑓 𝑙 𝜌 0.85 + √((𝑓0.42 − 16.7
𝑐𝑜
) 𝑙 𝜌 0.85 + 1) Square
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓 𝑐𝑜
2𝑟
𝜌= 𝐷= ,
𝑏
diameter of circular column or breadth of square column
Chastre and 1.5+
𝐷
𝑓 0.7 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝐷 + 𝑘 1𝑓𝑙𝑎 , 𝑓𝐷 = 𝛼𝑓𝑐𝑜, 𝛼 = ( 𝐻
), 𝐻 = ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡, 𝜀𝑙𝑎 = 0.6𝜀𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 17.65𝜀𝑐𝑜 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
Silva (2010) 2 𝐷
Wu and Wang 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

= 1 + 3.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 9.5 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑏 ℎ [𝐴𝑓𝑘𝑠 𝑓𝑓2 +𝐸𝑓𝐴𝑐(𝜀 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑜+𝜀 𝑐𝑜𝑓𝑐𝑐)]

Hu and Wang 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.68 ( )( ℎ−2𝑟) 2+( )( ℎ−2𝑟)2 Circular
= 0.5 + 2.7𝑘 2.24 ( 𝑙) , 𝑘𝑠 = 1 − ℎ 𝑏 𝜀𝑐𝑢 =
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑠 𝑓 𝑐𝑜 3(𝑏ℎ−(4−𝜋)𝑟2) [𝐸𝑓𝐴𝑐(𝑓𝑐𝑜+𝑓𝑐𝑐)] Square
Rectangular
Xiao et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 0.8 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 1.06 Circular
= 1 + 3.24 ( ) = 1 + 17.4 ( )
Toutanji et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.1 ℎ 0.13 𝑓𝑙𝑎 2𝑏ℎ Circular
= 1 + 4 ( 𝐷) ( ) ( ) , 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝑘 𝑒𝑓𝑙, 𝜀𝑓𝑎 = 0.43𝜀𝑓 , 𝐷 = (𝑏+ℎ )
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
Rectangular
Di Ludovico et 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓𝑙𝑎 Circular
= 1 + 2.94 ( ) (GFRP) 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.037 ( )
al. (2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.85 𝑓 0.85
= 1 + 2.68 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) (GFRP) 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.034 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓
= 1 + 4.60 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) (BFRP) 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.029 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.85 𝑓 0.85
=1 + 3.35 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) (BFRP) 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.021 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
Ghernouti and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular
=1 + 2.038 ( ) (CFRP) = 1 + 10.56 ( 𝑙 )
Rabehi (2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓
=1 + 0.677 (𝑓 𝑙 ) (GFRP) = 1 + 12.57 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Wu and Wei 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.72 𝑓 1.87 ℎ −2.5𝑙 Square

= 1 + 3.9 ( 𝑏 ) ( ) ( )
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.72 0.94 ℎ −1.7 2𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝑡𝑓
= 1 + 2.2 ( 𝑏 ) ( 𝑓𝑙 ) ( ) , 𝑓𝑙 = , b = short
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝑏
23
dimension
Wang and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 2𝑓𝑓 𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 [𝑏2 − ( 4𝑟2−𝜋𝑟2)]−2(𝑏−2𝑟)2 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝜀 𝑓 2 Square
= 0.7 + 2.4 𝑓 = 𝑘𝑒 , 𝑘𝑒 = 3 = 𝜀𝑐𝑢𝑜 + 30 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2010) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑙 𝑏 𝑏2− ( 4𝑟2−𝜋𝑟2) 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝜀𝑐𝑢𝑜 =
ultimate compressive strain of unconfined concrete
Dai et al. 𝐸𝑓( 𝜀 𝑙)𝑡𝑓𝜀 𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 1.2 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.5𝑓𝑙 , 𝑓𝑙 = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑙 = 0.86𝜀𝑓 = [ 1 + 17.5 ( 𝑓𝑙 ) ]
Realfonzo and 0.86
𝑘𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐
1 + 3.49 ( 𝑓𝜀 𝑙 ) MSE
Napoli (2011) ={ 𝑐𝑜
, 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.6
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑘𝜀𝑓𝑙
1 + 3.57 MAPE
𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓
Wang and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑢 (1+5.54 𝑙 )𝑓𝑐𝑜 2𝑓𝑓 𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 ( 𝐷−2𝑟)2 Circular
(2011) = 𝑓𝑐𝑜
, 𝑓𝑙 = [1 − 2 ] Square
𝑓𝑐𝑜 (ℎ−𝐷) 𝑓𝑙 𝐷 3𝐷2
√1+ (1+1.49 )
353 𝑓𝑐𝑜
ℎ = height of column, 𝐷 = diameter or side length of column

Cevik (2011) 𝑓 𝑓 1.5 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = (𝑓𝑙 )1.5 + [ln(𝑓𝑐𝑜)]3 + 2 ln(𝑓𝑙 ) − 13.65 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = −93.53 + 2.44 (𝑓𝑙) + 40.11 ln(𝑓𝑐𝑜) − 27.03 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑐𝑜
Park et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 0.7 + 3.7 𝑙
Yu and Teng 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 0.8 Circular

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.5 (1 − 6.5 )𝜀
2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑎
𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 0.0033 + 0.6 ( ) 𝜀𝑓𝑎 1.45
(2011) 𝐷 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜
Bisby et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.71( 5𝑓𝑐𝑐−4𝑓𝑐𝑜) Circular
= 1 + 3.3 𝑓 𝑙 𝜀𝑐𝑢 =
(2011) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝐸𝑐
Yan and Same as Yan et al. (2006) Circular

Pantelides Square
(2011) Rectangular
Rousakis et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 𝛼𝐸𝑓 10−6 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 4𝐸𝑓 𝑡𝑓 −0.45𝐸 𝑓10−6 Circular
= 1 +( )( + 𝛽) = 1 + 24.8 ( +
(2012)a,b 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸 𝑓𝑢 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸𝑓𝑢 Square
𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 𝛼𝐸𝑓 10−6 −0.16
𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 40𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓
= 1 +( )( + 𝛽) ( 𝑏 ) 0.0223 )( )
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸 𝑓𝑢 𝐷𝐸𝑓𝑢
FRP sheets α = -0.336 and β = 0.0223, 𝐸𝑓𝜇 = 10 MPa
𝜀 𝑐𝑢
Wei and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑢 2𝑟 0.4 𝑓𝑙 0.73 ℎ −1 2𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝑡𝑓 = 1.75 + Circular
= 0.5 + 2.7 ( 𝑏 ) ( ) ( ) , 𝑓𝑙 = 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(2012) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝑏 Square
𝑓 0.75 𝑓30 0.62
b = diameter of circular column or smaller side of rectangular column 12 (𝑓 𝑙 ) ( ) (0.36 2𝑟 + Rectangular
𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏
ℎ −0.3
0.64 )(𝑏 )
Yan and Strength model is obtained from Lam and Teng (2002) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.21 𝜀 Circular
= 0.46 + 6.21 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 ) , 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 = 0.718 +
Chouw (2012) 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑓
5.385 𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑜
Wang et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.54 Square
= 0.2 + 3 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) for lightly confined (1)
(2012)a 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.46
= 0.2 + 1.81 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) for heavily confined, 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 0.5𝑘 𝑒𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓𝑎
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
(2)
Wang et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.64 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.07 Square
= 0.2 + 3.47 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) = 2 + 73.31 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 )
(2012)b 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
Ghernouti et al. 𝑓 = 𝑓 + 𝑡𝑔 2 (45𝑜 + 𝜙) 𝑓 Square
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑜 2 𝑙
(2012)
3 3−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 2𝑡
𝜙 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛 −1 ( ), 𝑐 = (𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 5√3) ,𝑓 = √2𝑏𝑓 𝑓𝑓
1+
0.4𝑓𝑐𝑜 6𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙 𝑙
√3
Ozbakkaloglu 𝐾 0.9 Circular

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑐 1𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.2(𝑓𝑙𝑎 − 𝑓𝑙𝑜), 𝑐 1 = 1 + 0.0058 𝑓 𝑙 , 𝑓𝑙𝑜 = 𝐾𝑙 𝜀𝑙1 , 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑐 2𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.27 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝐾 1.35
𝜀𝑓𝑎
and Lim 𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜
𝐾 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 1.65 ( 𝑓𝑐𝑜 −20)
(2013) 𝜀𝑙1 = (0.43 + 0.009 𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑜, 𝐾𝑙 = and 𝐾𝑙 ≥ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐2 = 2 − 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐2 ≥ 1
𝑐𝑜 𝐷 100
Nistico and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 2.09 𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑟
Monti (2013) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
2𝑟 𝜀 𝑓𝑎 0.31 + 2𝑟 0 ≤ 𝑟 ≤ 0.2
𝑟 = 𝐷, 𝜀 ={
𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑛 0.71 + 0.0875 (𝑟 − 0.2) 0.2 ≤ 𝑟 ≤ 1
Tan et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓∗ Circular
= 1 + 4.5 𝑓𝑙
(2013) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
24
𝑘𝑒 𝑏 2𝑛𝑡 𝐸 0.4𝜀
𝑓𝑙∗ = (1 + )( 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 (ℎ = 1) Rectangular
2 ℎ 𝑏 𝑏
𝑘𝑒 𝑏 2𝑛𝑡 𝐸 0.2𝜀
𝑓𝑙∗ = (1 + )( 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 (ℎ ≥ 2)
2 ℎ 𝑏 𝑏
Choi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 Circular
=1 + 3.71 𝑓𝑙𝑎 , 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 2.55 𝑓 𝑙
(2013) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Ozbakkaloglu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1(𝑘 𝑒1𝐾𝑙 − 𝐾𝑙𝑜 )𝜀𝑓𝑎 𝐾 0.9 Square

1.35
𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑐 2𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 2𝑘 𝑒2 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑓𝑎
T. (2013) −0.56 2𝑟 0.67 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
𝑘 1 = 4.1, 𝑘 𝑒1 = (ℎ ) ( ) , 𝐾𝑙 = , 𝐾𝑙𝑜 = 73.7𝑒 0.027𝑓𝑐𝑜, ℎ 0.22 2
𝑏 𝐷𝑒 𝐷𝑒 𝑘 2 = 0.27, 𝑘 𝑒2 = (𝑏 ) (2 − 2𝑟) (2𝑟),
𝐷𝑒 𝐷𝑒
(ℎ 2+𝑏2)
𝑘 𝜀 = 0.9 − 2.3𝑓𝑐𝑜 × 10 −3 − 0.75𝐸𝑓 × 10−6, 𝐷𝑒 = √ , 𝜀𝑓𝑎 = 𝑐 2 = 2 − ( 𝑐𝑜
𝑓 −20
) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐 2 ≥ 1
2
100
𝑘 𝜀 𝜀𝑓
Wei and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙0.86 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular
= 1 + 5.35 = 1.75 + 900𝜀𝑓 𝑓 𝑙
(2014) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Girgin and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑀 𝑓 𝐵 Circular

= (1 + 𝐵 𝑓 𝑙 ) , 𝐵 = 1 − 0.0172 (log𝑓𝑐𝑜)2, fco in kPa
Girgin (2014) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
2
𝑀 = 0.0035𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 0.056𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 2.83 (𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 7 𝑡𝑜 24 MPa)
2
𝑀 = 0.0003𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 0.076𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 5.46 (𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 25 𝑡𝑜 108 MPa)
Wu and Wei 0.9 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular
𝑓𝑐𝑢
= 0.75 + 2.7 (𝑓 𝑙 )
𝑓 = 1.75 + 140 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑓0.6
𝑐𝑜
Faustino et al. 2𝑟 2𝑡𝑓 5.29 (circular) 𝑓 0.7 Circular

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1 ( 𝑏 ) 𝑓𝑙𝑎 , 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑙𝑎 , 𝑘 1 = { 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 17.65𝜀𝑐𝑜 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) circular
(2014) 𝑏 3.7 (square) 𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑓
2𝑟 0.23 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 18.89𝜀𝑐𝑜 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) square, 𝜀𝑐𝑜 =
𝜀𝑙𝑎 = 0.6𝜀𝑓 (𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟), 𝜀𝑙𝑎 = 0.7 ( 𝑏 ) 𝜀𝑓 (𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒), b=D 𝑐𝑜
0.7
(𝑓 )0.31
1000 𝑐𝑜
Afifi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.39 𝑓 1.35 Circular
= 1.0 + 0.934 (𝑓 𝑙 ) 𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.009 (𝑓 𝑙 )
(2014) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Alecci et al. 𝑛𝐸𝑓 Circular

(2014) 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 (1 + (𝑚 − 1)) + 𝑓𝑙𝜇 3𝑐𝑑 , 𝑚 = 1, 𝜈 =
𝑟𝐸𝑐 𝜈
′
concrete poisson s ratio
𝜇 𝑐𝑑 = kinematic available ductility assumed as 1
Pham and Hadi 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑎 Square
= 0.68 + 3.91 𝑓𝑙𝑎 , ≥ 0.15
(2014) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑛𝑡𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝑎 𝑛𝑡𝑓𝐸𝑓
Rectangular
2𝑟
𝑓𝑙 = ,𝐴 = , b = short side, 𝑅 𝑠 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑟 𝑏𝑅𝑠 ( )𝑟
𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝜋𝑟
𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝑓𝑙 × 𝑘 𝑐 , 𝑘 𝑐 = 𝑏+ℎ−𝑟(4−𝜋), 𝑘 𝜀 = 0.5 + 0.0642ln 𝐴
Lim and 𝑘 𝑠1𝐾1 𝐾 0.9 Circular
Ascending Type ⁄𝐾 ≥ 1, 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1(𝑘 𝑠1 𝐾1 − 𝐾1𝑜 )𝜀𝑓𝑎 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑐 2𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 2𝑘 𝑠2 (𝑓 1 ) 1.35
𝜀𝑓𝑎
Ozbakkaloglu 𝑙𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
(2014) 𝑘 𝐾 0.9
Descending Type 𝑠1 1⁄𝐾 < 1, 𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 𝑘 1,𝑑𝑒𝑠(𝐾1𝑜 − 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝑐 2𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 2,𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑘 𝑠2,𝑑𝑒𝑠 (𝑓 1 )
𝐾 1.35
𝜀𝑓𝑎 Rectangular
𝑙𝑜 𝑐𝑜
𝑘 𝑠1,𝑑𝑒𝑠𝐾1)𝜀𝑓𝑎 ℎ 0.22 2𝑟 2 2𝑟
−0.5 2𝑟 0.67 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓
𝑘 2 = 0.27, 𝑘 𝑠2 = (𝑏 ) (2 − ) ( ),
(ℎ ) 0.027𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑒 𝐷𝑒
𝑘 1 = 4.1, 𝑘 𝑠1 = ( ) , 𝐾𝑙 = , 𝐾𝑙𝑜 = 73.7𝑒 ,
𝑏 𝐷𝑒 𝐷𝑒 𝑓 −20
𝑐 2 = 2 − ( 𝑐𝑜100 ) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐 2 ≥ 1, 𝑘 2,𝑑𝑒𝑠 =
(ℎ 2+𝑏2)
𝑘 𝜀 = 0.9 − 2.3𝑓𝑐𝑜 × 10 −3 − 0.75𝐸𝑓 × 10−6, 𝐷𝑒 = √ , 𝜀𝑓𝑎 = 0.27
2
2𝑟 −0.26 ℎ 0.22 2𝑟
𝑘 𝜀 𝜀𝑓 𝑘 𝑠2,𝑑𝑒𝑠 = ( ) ( ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ≥ 0.15
𝐷𝑒 𝑏 𝐷𝑒
2𝑟
𝑘 1,𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 4.5 , 𝑘 𝑠1,𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 𝑘 𝑠1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ≥ 0.15
𝐷𝑒
Gao et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.45 Circular
= 1 + 4.08 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 2 + 19.6 ( 𝑓𝑙𝑎)
Hany et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝐴 𝑏 0.92 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐴 ℎ 0.94 𝑓𝑙 Circular

= 0.7 + 4.62 (𝐴𝑒) (ℎ ) ( ) = 3.89 + 14.76 (𝐴𝑒) (𝑏 ) ( )
(2015) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑜 Square
𝑏 ℎ
𝐴𝑒 ( )(ℎ−2𝑟)2+( )(𝑏−2𝑟)2 𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓 4𝑡𝑓 Rectangular
ℎ 𝑏
= 1− , 𝑓𝑙 = ( ) 𝜀𝑓𝑎 , 𝜌𝑓 = ,𝐷=
𝐴𝑐 3𝐴𝑐 2 𝐷
2 2
√𝑏 + ℎ
Girgin and 2
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑙 + √(𝑠𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑚𝑓𝑐𝑜𝑓𝑙) (for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 7 to 108 MPa) CFRP, Based on fl Circular
Girgin (2015) 𝑓 𝑓𝑙
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 160 𝑓 𝑙 + 108 (for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 108 to 190 MPa) Ia - 15 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.11 ≤ ≤
𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑐𝑜
𝑠 = 1 for undamaged concrete 1.78
𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 2 𝑓
𝑚 = 2.9 (𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 7 to 18 MPa) = −2.77 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 12.67 (𝑓 𝑙 ) −
𝑚 = 6.34 − 0.076𝑓𝑐𝑜 (𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 20 to 82 MPa) 0.061𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 5.07
25
𝑚 = 0.1 (𝑓𝑐𝑜 = 82 to 108 MPa) Ib - 15 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.11 ≤ 𝑓 𝑙 ≤
𝑓
𝑐𝑜
1.78
= −4.42 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 15.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 2.23
II - 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 103 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.12 ≤
𝑓𝑙
≤ 0.58
𝑓𝑐𝑜
= −2.62 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 10.94 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 1.0
III - 109 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 170 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.07 ≤
𝑓𝑙
≤ 0.87
𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓
= 0.57 ( 𝑙 ) + 1.0
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Based on fl,a
IV - 20 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 103 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.03 ≤
𝑓𝑙 ,𝑎
≤ 1.01
𝑓𝑐𝑜
= −6 ( 𝑓𝑙 ,𝑎) + 20.15 ( 𝑓𝑙,𝑎) −
0.032𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.5
GFRP, Based on fl
𝑓
V - 18 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 50 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.09 ≤ 𝑓 𝑙 ≤
𝑐𝑜
2.0
𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 2 𝑓𝑙
= −1.85 ( ) + 8.62 ( )+ 4.4
𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑓
VI - 80 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 159 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.1 ≤ 𝑓 𝑙 ≤
𝑐𝑜
0.6
= −6.4 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 12.43 (𝑓 𝑙 ) + 0.9
Based on fl,a
VII - 18 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 111 𝑀𝑃𝑎, 0.013 ≤
𝑓𝑙 ,𝑎
≤ 1.958
𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝑙 ,𝑎 𝑙,𝑎
= −2.03 ( 𝑓 ) + 10.41 ( 𝑓 ) + 1.41
Dong et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 −1.19
= 1+ 0.0049 (𝑓𝑐𝑜)−0.56(𝑘 )0.86 when 𝑘 < 𝑘 2 = 1 + 0.57(𝑓𝑐′) (𝑘 )0.85 when 𝑘 < Circular
(2015) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑢𝑜
𝑓𝑐𝑢 0.84 𝑘2
= 1.07 + 1.84 (𝑓𝑐𝑜)−0.73(𝑘 − 𝑘 2)0.87 (𝜀𝑓 ) when 𝑘 ≥ 𝑘 2
𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑢
𝐸𝑓𝑟𝑝𝑡
𝑘 1 = 10.44 (𝑓𝑐𝑜)0.95, 𝑘 2 = 1.99(𝑓𝑐𝑜)1.21, 𝑘 = 𝜀𝑢𝑜
𝑅
= [150
+ 18.97𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0.043𝑓𝑐𝑜)(𝑘 )0.56+0.0034𝑓𝑐𝑜](𝜀𝑓 )
when 𝑘 ≥ 𝑘 2 , 𝜀𝑢𝑜 = 1.82 × 10−3(𝑓𝑐𝑜)0.14
Dalgic et al. Same as Ilki and Kumbasar (2003) Same as Ilki and Kumbasar (2003) Square
(2015) Rectangular
Islam et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑓 2𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 Square
= 1 + 2.35 𝑓 𝑙 ,𝑓𝑙 = 𝜐, 𝜐 = 1, 𝐷 = √ℎ2 + 𝑏2 = 1 + 6.9 𝑓
(2015) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝐷 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
Huang et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.63 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 0.6 Circular
= 1 + 1.69 (𝑓 𝑙 ) = 1 + 13.20 (𝑓 )
(2016) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜
Baji et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑘𝜀 𝑓𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 1 𝑘𝑓 2𝐸 𝑡 0.56 Circular

= 1.00 + 3.29 ( ) = 1.00 + ( ) ( 𝜀 𝑓 )( 𝑓 𝑓 )
(2016) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 5.1 𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜
Khan et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 1.126 2𝐸 𝑡 −0.461 Circular
= 1.0 + 2.52 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) , 𝑘 𝜀 = 1.03 − 0.0027𝑓𝑐𝑜 − 0.00085𝐸𝑓 , Ef = GPa = 1 + 685.1 (𝑓𝑙𝑎 ) (𝑓 𝑓
)
(2016) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝐷
𝑐𝑜
Cao et 1.03 2𝑟 0.81 𝑓 0.54 ℎ −1.9 𝜀 0.82 0.68

𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝐸 2𝐸 𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐸 2𝑟𝑒 Circular
= 1 + 8.34 (𝐸𝑙) ( 𝑒) ( 30 ) ( ) ( 𝑓) , 𝐸𝑙 = , = 1.75 + 9.45 (𝐸𝑙 ) (0.54 +
al.(2016) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐 𝑏 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑐 𝑏 Square
0.79 ℎ −0.64 𝜀 1.14
b = diameter of circular column, side length of square, shorter side of 𝑓
( 𝑓)
0.46 )(𝑓30 ) ( ) Rectangular
rectangular column 𝑐𝑜 𝑏 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
Hany et al. Same as Hany et al. (2015) Same as Hany et al. (2015) Circular
(2016) Square
Rectangular
26
Reyna et al. Same as Nakatsuka et al. (1998) Same as Nakatsuka et al. (1998) with Circular
(2016) modified coefficients Square
𝐴
𝐶𝜎𝐵 = 0.29 𝐴𝑒 − 0.38, 𝐶𝜀𝐵 = 0.6, 𝐶𝜀𝑇 =
𝑐
𝐴 𝐴
1.25 𝐴𝑒 − 0.34, 𝐶𝜀𝑅 = 2.62 𝐴𝑒 − 0.97
𝑐 𝑐
Al-Rousan and 4 Circular

Issa (2016) 𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + (−0.615 ln (𝜌𝑓 √𝑓 ) − 1.3 ) 𝑓𝑓𝜌𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 (1
𝑓
+ 0.40√ 𝑐𝑜
𝑓
𝜌 0.534 (𝑓𝑐𝑐 − 1 ))
𝑐𝑜 4 𝑓 𝑐𝑜
Wu and Cao 𝜀 𝑐𝑢
= 1.75 + Circular
𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(2017) 0.354 −0.165 1.16
𝑓 𝜀
( 𝐸𝑙 ) 𝐸𝑙
27.34 (𝑓30 ) ( 𝑓)
𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐+1.75𝐸2 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
2𝑡𝑓 𝐸𝑓𝑟𝑝 𝑓𝑐𝑜
𝐸𝑙 = , 𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐 = , 𝐸2 =
𝐷 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
𝑛1
𝑛2(245.6𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 0.6728𝐸𝑙), 𝑛1 = 0.5, 𝑛2 =
0.83 for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ≤ 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑛1 = 0.2, 𝑛2 = 1.73 for 𝑓𝑐𝑜 > 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎
Eid and Paultre 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑏 2 𝐸 𝑓𝑙 𝜀𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝜀 𝑓𝑎 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐸𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝜀 0.45 Circular
= 1 + 3.3 (ℎ ) ( 𝜉) ≥ ,𝜉= 𝐸𝑓𝑙 = = 1.56 + 12 ( 𝜉) ( 𝜀 )
(2017) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑜 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Square
2𝑡𝑓 𝐸𝑓
for circular Rectangular
𝐷
{ 2𝑡𝑓
2𝐾𝑓 𝐸𝑓 (𝑐 +𝑐 ) for square/rectangular
𝑥 𝑦
((𝑏 )( ℎ−2𝑟𝑐 )2+(ℎ )( 𝑏−2𝑟𝑐)2)

ℎ 𝑏
𝐾𝑓 = 1 − ( ), 𝐾𝑓 = 1 for circular column
3𝐴𝑔
Fossetti et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 Circular

= 3280.70𝜂−2.81𝜌 + 2.25𝜂 −0.17 (FRP)
(2017) 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Square
𝑓𝑐𝑐
= 6.46𝜂−0.86𝜌 + 3.47𝜂 −0.28 (FRCM)
𝑓𝑐𝑜
2𝑟 𝑏 𝐸𝑐 𝐸 4𝑛𝑡𝑓
𝜌= , 𝜂= = 𝜌 𝐸𝑐 , 𝜌𝑓 =
𝑏 4𝑛𝑡𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝑏
Isleem et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 Square
= 0.73 + 2.773𝑀𝐶𝑃𝑅 , 𝑀𝐶𝑃𝑅 =
(2017) 𝑓𝑐𝑜
Rectangular
0.239 2𝑟 0.069 𝑓 0.763 1.613
(2.262 (𝑏 ) ( 𝑐) ( 𝑙) )
ℎ 𝐷 𝑓𝑐𝑜
2𝐸 𝑓𝑛𝑡𝑓 𝜀 𝑓𝑎 4𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓
𝑓𝑙 = 𝑘𝑒 = 0.5𝑘 𝑒𝜌𝑓 𝐸𝑓 𝜀𝑓𝑎 , 𝐷 = √𝑏2 + ℎ 2, 𝜌𝑓 =
𝐷 𝐷
(( ℎ )( 𝑏−2𝑟𝑐) 2+(𝑏 )( ℎ−2𝑟𝑐) 2)
), 𝐴𝑔 = 𝑏ℎ − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟𝑐2
𝑏 ℎ
𝑘𝑒 = 1 − ( 3𝐴𝑔
ℎ 0.41
𝜀𝑓𝑒 = 𝜅𝜀 𝜀𝑓 , 𝜅𝜀 = 1 − 0.38 (100) 100 ≤ ℎ ≤ 400
Ates et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 3.15𝑓𝑙𝑎 𝑓 Square
𝜀𝑐𝑢,0.85 = 2.0𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.016 𝑓𝑙𝑎
(2017) (𝑏+ℎ) 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
𝑓𝑙𝑎 = 𝑘 𝑒 𝑡𝑓 𝑓𝑓, 𝐴𝑔 = 𝑏ℎ − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟 2
𝑏ℎ
Isleem et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.1 𝑏 0.49 𝑓𝑙 0.48 𝜀 𝑐𝑐
= 1.0 + (66.44 (𝑏 ) 𝑓 𝑙 )
ℎ 𝑓 Square
= 0.2 + 3.9 ( 𝐷 ) ( ) ( ) 𝜀 𝑐𝑜
(2018) 𝑓𝑐𝑜 ℎ 𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜 Rectangular
For fl, see Isleem et al. (2017)
2𝑡𝑓 𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓 2𝑡𝑓𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓𝑎 𝐴𝑒 ( 𝑏−2𝑟) 2+(ℎ−2𝑟)2 4𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓 2𝑛𝑓𝑡𝑓( 𝑏+ℎ )
𝑓𝑙 = , 𝑓𝑙𝑎 = , 𝑘𝑒 = = 1− , 𝜌𝑓 = (𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟), 𝜌𝑓 = (𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟), 𝐴𝑔 = 𝑏ℎ − (4 − 𝜋)𝑟 2
𝐷 𝐷 𝐴𝑐 3𝐴𝑔 𝐷 𝑏ℎ
References
Addinsoft (2019). “XLSTAT statistical and data analysis solution.” Al-Salloum, Y. A. (2007)a. “Compressive strength models of FRP-
Boston, USA. ⟨https://www.xlstat.com⟩ confined concrete.” Proc. Asia-Pacific Conf. of FRP in Structures
Afifi, M. Z., Mohamed, H. M., Chaallal, O., and Benmokrane, B. (APFIS 2007). S. T. Smith, ed., Univ. of Hong Kong, China, 175-
(2014). “Confinement model for concrete columns internally 180.
confined with carbon FRP spirals and hoops.” J. Struct. Al-Salloum, Y. A. (2007)b. “Influence of edge sharpness on the
Eng., 141(9), 04014219. strength of square concrete columns confined with FRP composite
Akiyama, M., Suzuki, M., and Frangopol, D. M. (2010). “Stress- laminates.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 38(5), 640-650.
averaged strain model for confined high-strength concrete.” ACI Al-Salloum, Y., and Siddiqui, N. (2009). “Compressive strength
Struct. J., 107(2), 179-188. prediction model for FRP-confined concrete.” Proc. 9th Int. Symp.
Al‐Rousan, R. Z., and Issa, M. A. (2016). “Stress–strain model and on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete
design guidelines for CFRP‐confined circular reinforced concrete Structures. Univ. of Adelaide, Sydney, Australia, 97-106.
columns.” Poly. Compos., DOI: 10.1002/pc.24262. Al-Tersawy, S. H., Hodhod, O. A., and Hefnawy, A. A. (2007).
“Reliability and code calibration of RC short columns confined
27
with CFRP wraps.” Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Cheng, H. L., Sotelino, E. D., and Chen, W. F. (2002). “Strength
Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Univ. of Patras, estimation for FRP wrapped reinforced concrete columns.” Steel
Patras, Greece. Compos. Struct., 2(1), 1-20.
Alecci, V., Bati, S. B., and Ranocchiai, G. (2014). “Concrete columns Choi, E., Jeon, J. S., Cho, B. S., and Park, K. (2013). “External jacket
confined with CFRP wraps.” Mater. Struct., 47(3), 397-410. of FRP wire for confining concrete and its advantages.” Eng.
Ates A.O., Tore E., Khoshkholghi S., and Ilki A., (2017). “Sprayed Struct., 56, 555-566.
textile reinforced GFRC for retrofitting of substandard non- Ciupala, M. A., Pilakoutas, K., and Mortazavi, A. A. (2007).
circular concrete columns.” Proc. 16th World Conf. on Earthquake “Effectiveness of FRP composites in confined concrete.” Proc.,
Engineering, 16WCEE 2017, Santiago Chile, Paper No. 538. 8th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for
Attard, M. M., and Setunge, S. (1996). “Stress-strain relationship of Concrete Structures, Univ. of Patras, Patras, Greece.
confined and unconfined concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 93(5), 432-442. Cui, C., and Sheikh, S. A. (2010). “Analytical model for circular
Bai, Y. L., Dai, J. G., and Teng, J. G. (2014). “Cyclic compressive normal-and high-strength concrete columns confined with
behavior of concrete confined with large rupture strain FRP FRP.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943- 5614.0000115, 562-572.
5614.0000386, 04013025. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1995). “Stress-strain model for confined
Bai, Y. L., Dai, J. G., and Teng, J. G. (2017)a. “Buckling of steel high-strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 121(3), 468-477.
reinforcing bars in FRP-confined RC columns: An experimental Dai, J. G., Bai, Y. L., and Teng, J. G. (2011). “Behavior and
study.” Constr. Build. Mater., 140, 403-415. modeling of concrete confined with FRP composites of large
Bai, Y. L., Dai, J. G., and Teng, J. G. (2017)b. “Monotonic stress– deformability.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
strain behavior of steel rebars embedded in FRP-confined concrete 5614.0000230, 963-973.
including buckling.” J. Compos. Dalgic, K. D., Ispir, M., and Ilki, A. (2015). “Cyclic and monotonic
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000823, 04017043. compression behavior of CFRP-jacketed damaged noncircular
Bai, Y. L., Dai, J. G., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2017)c. “Cyclic stress- concrete prisms.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
strain model incorporating buckling effect for steel reinforcing 5614.0000603, 04015040.
bars embedded in FRP-confined concrete.” Compos. Struct., 182, De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R. (2003). “Comparative study of
54-66. models on confinement of concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced
Baji, H., Ronagh, H. R., and Li, C. Q. (2016). “Probabilistic design polymer composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
models for ultimate strength and strain of FRP-confined 0268(2003)7, 219-237.
concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943- Di Ludovico, M., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2010). “Structural
5614.0000704, 04016051. upgrade using basalt fibers for concrete confinement.” J. Compos.
Benzaid, R., Mesbah, H., and Chikh, N. E. (2010). “FRP-confined Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000114, 541-552.
concrete cylinders: axial compression experiments and strength Dong, C. X., Kwan, A. K. H., and Ho, J. C. M. (2015). “Effects of
model.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 29(16), 2469-2488. confining stiffness and rupture strain on performance of FRP
Berthet, J. F., Ferrier, E., and Hamelin, P. (2006). “Compressive confined concrete.” Eng. Struct., 97, 1-14.
behavior of concrete externally confined by composite jackets: Eid, R., and Paultre, P. (2017). “Compressive behavior of FRP-
part B: modeling.” Constr. Build. Mater., 20(5), 338-347. confined reinforced concrete columns.” Eng. Struct., 132, 518-
Binici, B. (2005). “An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of 530.
confined concrete.” Eng. Struct., 27(7), 1040-1051. Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P. (1985). “Predictions of ultimate behavior
Binici, B. (2008). “Design of FRPs in circular bridge column retrofits of confined concrete columns subjected to large deformations.”
for ductility enhancement.” Eng. Struct., 30(3), 766-776. ACI J. Proc., 82(4), 423–433.
Bisby, L. A., Dent, A. J., and Green, M. F. (2005). “Comparison of Fahmy, M. F., and Wu, Z. (2010). “Evaluating and proposing models
confinement models for fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped of circular concrete columns confined with different FRP
concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 102(1), 62-72. composites.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 41(3), 199-213.
Bisby, L. A., Chen, J. F., Li, S. Q., Stratford, T. J., Cueva, N., and Fam, A. Z., and Rizkalla, S. H. (2001). “Confinement model for
Crossling, K. (2011). “Strengthening fire-damaged concrete by axially loaded concrete confined by circular fiber-reinforced
confinement with fibre-reinforced polymer wraps.” Eng. polymer tubes.” ACI Struct. J., 98(4), 451-461.
Struct., 33(12), 3381-3391. Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. (1981). “Concrete encased in fiberglass
Campione, G., and Miraglia, N. (2003). “Strength and strain reinforced plastic.” ACI J., 78(6), 440–446.
capacities of concrete compression members reinforced with Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. H. (1982). “FRP-encased concrete as a
FRP.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 25(1), 31-41. structural material.” Mag. Concr. Res., 34(121), 191-202.
Campione, G., La Mendola, L., Monaco, A., Valenza, A., and Fiore, Faustino, P., Chastre, C., and Paula, R. (2014). “Design model for
V. (2015). “Behavior in compression of concrete cylinders square RC columns under compression confined with
externally wrapped with basalt fibers.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 69, CFRP.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 57, 187-198.
576-586. Fossetti, M., Alotta, G., Basone, F., and Macaluso, G. (2017).
Candappa, D. C., Sanjayan, J. G., and Setunge, S. (2001). “Complete “Simplified analytical models for compressed concrete columns
triaxial stress-strain curves of high-strength concrete.” J. Mater. confined by FRP and FRCM system.” Mater. Struct., 50(6), 240.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:3(209). Frangou, M., Pilakoutas, K., and Dritsos, S. (1995). “Structural
Cevik, A. (2011). “Modeling strength enhancement of FRP confined repair/strengthening of RC columns.” Constr. Build. Mater., 9(5),
concrete cylinders using soft computing.” Expert Systems with 259-266.
Applications, 38(5), 5662-5673. Gao, C., Huang, L., Yan, L., Ma, G., and Xu, L. (2015).
Chaallal, O., Hassan, M., and Shahawy, M. (2003). “Confinement “Compressive behavior of CFFT with inner steel wire
model for axially loaded short rectangular columns strengthened mesh.” Compos. Struct., 133, 322-330.
with fiber-reinforced polymer wrapping.” ACI Struct. J., 100(2), Ghernouti, Y., and Rabehi, B. (2010). “FRP-confined short concrete
215-221. columns under compressive loading: experimental and modeling
Chastre, C., and Silva, M. A. (2010). “Monotonic axial behavior and investigation.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 30(3), 241-255.
modelling of RC circular columns confined with CFRP.” Eng. Ghernouti, Y., Li, A., and Rabehi, B. (2012). “Effectiveness of repair
Struct., 32(8), 2268-2277. on damaged concrete columns by using fiber-reinforced polymer
28
composite and increasing concrete section.” J. Reinf. Plast. Ispir, M., Dalgic, K. D., and Ilki, A. (2018). “Hybrid confinement of
Compos., 31(23), 1616-1629. concrete through use of low and high rupture strain
Girgin, Z. C. (2009). “Modified failure criterion to predict ultimate FRP.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 153, 243-255.
strength of circular columns confined by different materials.” ACI Issa, M. A., Alrousan, R. Z., and Issa, M. A. (2009). “Experimental
Struct. J., 106(6), 800-809. and parametric study of circular short columns confined with
Girgin, Z. C. (2014). “Modified johnston failure criterion from rock CFRP composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
mechanics to predict the ultimate strength of fiber reinforced 0268(2009)13:2(135).
polymer (FRP) confined columns.” Poly., 6(1), 59-75. Jiang, T., and Teng, J. G. (2006). “Strengthening of short circular RC
Girgin, Z. C., and Girgin, K. (2015). “A design-oriented combined columns with FRP jackets: a design proposal.” Proc., of 3rd Int.
model (7 MPa to 190 MPa) for FRP-confined circular short Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2006),
columns.” Poly., 7(10), 1905-1917. Florida Int. Univ., Miami.
Guralnick, S. A., and Gunawan, L. (2006). “Strengthening of Jiang, T., and Teng, J. G. (2007). “Analysis-oriented stress–strain
reinforced concrete bridge columns with FRP wrap.” Practice models for FRP–confined concrete.” Eng. Struct., 29(11), 2968-
Periodical Struct. Design Constr., 11(4), 218-228. 2986.
Hany, N. F., Hantouche, E. G., and Harajli, M. H. (2015). “Axial Jolly, C. K., and Lilistone, D. (1998). “The stress–strain behavior of
stress-strain model of CFRP-confined concrete under monotonic concrete confined by advanced fibre composites.” Proc. 8th BCA
and cyclic loading.” J. Compos. conference higher education and the concrete industry.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000557, 04015004. Southampton.
Hany, N. F., Hantouche, E. G., and Harajli, M. H. (2016). Karabinis, A. I., and Rousakis, T. C. (2001). “Carbon FRP confined
“Generalized Axial Stress-Strain Response of Rectangular concrete elements under axial load.” Proc., of Int. Conf. on FRP
Columns Confined Using CFRP Jackets and Anchors.” J. Composites in Civil Engineering, J. G. Teng ed., Hong Kong,
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000724, 309–316.
04016063. Karbhari, V. M., and Gao, Y. (1997). “Composite jacketed concrete
Harajli, M. H., Hantouche, E., and Soudki, K. (2006). “Stress-strain under uniaxial compression—Verification of simple design
model for fiber-reinforced polymer jacketed concrete equations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
columns.” ACI Struct. J., 103(5), 672. 1561(1997)9:4(185).
Harries, K. A., and Kharel, G. (2002). “Behavior and modeling of Khan, Q., Sheikh, M. N., and Hadi, M. N. (2016). “Axial
concrete subject to variable confining pressure.” ACI Mater. compressive behaviour of circular CFFT: Experimental database
J., 99(2), 180-189. and design-oriented model.” Steel Compos. Struct., 21(4), 921-
Hoshikuma, J., Kawashima, K., Nagaya, K., and Taylor, A. W. 947.
(1997). “Stress-strain model for confined reinforced concrete in Kono, S., Inazumi, M., and Kaku, T. (1998). “Evaluation of
bridge piers.” J. Struct Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- confining effects of CFRP sheets on reinforced concrete
9445(1997)123:5(624). members.” Proc., of 2nd Int. Conf. on Composites in
Hu, B. and Wang, J.G. (2010). “Unified model for calculating stress- Infrastructure ICCI’ 98, H. Saadatmanesh, and M. R. Ehsani, eds.,
strain relationship of circular and rectangular concrete columns Tucson, AZ, 343 – 355.
confined with FRP.” J. Xi’an Univ. Arch. Tech., 4, 394–406. Kumutha, R., Vaidyanathan, R., and Palanichamy, M. S. (2007).
Huang, L., Gao, C., Yan, L., Kasal, B., and Ma, G. (2016). “Behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular columns
“Reliability assessment of confinement models of carbon fiber strengthened using GFRP.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 29(8), 609-
reinforced polymer-confined concrete.” J. Reinf. Plast. 615.
Compos., 35(12), 996-1026. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2002). “Strength models for fiber-
Huang, L., Gao, C., Yan, L., Kasal, B., Ma, G., and Tan, H. (2016). reinforced plastic-confined concrete.” J. Struct.
“Confinement models of GFRP-confined concrete: Statistical Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:5(612).
analysis and unified stress–strain models.” J. Reinf. Plast. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003)a. “Design-oriented stress–strain
Compos., 35(11), 867-891. model for FRP-confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17(6),
Ilki, A., Kumbasar, N., and Koc, V. (2002). “Strength and 471-489.
deformability of low strength concrete confined by carbon fiber Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003)b. “Design-oriented stress-strain
composite sheets.” Proc. of 15th ASCE Eng. Mech. Conf., model for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.” J.
Columbia Univ., New York. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 22(13), 1149-1186.
Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2003). “Compressive behaviour of Legeron, F., and Paultre, P. (2003). “Uniaxial confinement model for
carbon fibre composite jacketed concrete with circular and non- normal-and high-strength concrete columns.” J. Struct.
circular cross-sections.” J. Earthquake Eng., 7(03), 381-406. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(241).
Ilki, A., Kumbasar, N., and Koc, V. (2004). “Low strength concrete Li, Y. F., Lin, C. T., and Sung, Y. Y. (2003). “A constitutive model
members externally confined with FRP sheets.” Struct. Eng. for concrete confined with carbon fiber reinforced plastics.” Mech.
Mech., 18(2), 167-194. Mater., 35(3), 603-619.
Ilki, A., Peker, O., Karamuk, E., Demir, C., and Kumbasar, N. Lillistone, D., and Jolly, C. K. (2000). “An innovative form of
(2008). “FRP retrofit of low and medium strength circular and reinforcement for concrete columns using advanced
rectangular reinforced concrete columns.” J. Mater. Civ. composites.” Struct. Eng., 78(23/24), 20–28.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:2(169). Lim, J. C., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2014). “Design model for FRP-
Islam, M. M., Choudhury, M. S. I., and Amin, A. F. M. S. (2015). confined normal-and high-strength concrete square and
“Dilation effects in FRP-confined square concrete columns using rectangular columns.” Mag. Concr. Res., 66(20), 1020-1035.
stone, brick, and recycled coarse aggregates.” J. Compos. Lin, H. J., and Chen, C. T. (2001). “Strength of concrete cylinder
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000574, 04015017. confined by composite materials.” J. Reinf. Plast.
Isleem, H. F., Wang, D., and Wang, Z. (2017). “A new numerical Compos., 20(18), 1577-1600.
model for polymer-confined rectangular concrete columns.” Proc. Lin, C. T., and Li, Y. F. (2003). “An effective peak stress formula for
Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build., 1-48. concrete confined with carbon fiber reinforced plastics.” Canadian
J. Civ. Eng., 30(5), 882-889.
29
Liu, H. X., Liu, G. J., Wang, X. Z., and Kong, X.Q. (2015). “Effect shells.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
of cross-sectional aspect ratio and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer- 9445(2007)133:9(1288).
confined number on axial compression behavior of short Park, J. H., Jo, B. W., Yoon, S. J., and Park, S. K. (2011).
columns.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 34(10), 782-794. “Experimental investigation on the structural behavior of concrete
Lu, X., and Hsu, C. T. T. (2006). “Behavior of high strength concrete filled FRP tubes with/without steel re-bar.” KSCE J. Civ.
with and without steel fiber reinforcement in triaxial Eng., 15(2), 337-345.
compression.” Cem. Concr. Res., 36(9), 1679-1685. Pellegrino, C., and Modena, C. (2010). “Analytical model for FRP
Mandal, S., Hoskin, A., and Fam, A. (2005). “Influence of concrete confinement of concrete columns with and without internal steel
strength on confinement effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
circular jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 102(3), 383. 5614.0000127.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical Pham, T. M., and Hadi, M. N. (2014). “Stress prediction model for
stress-strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. FRP confined rectangular concrete columns with rounded
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804). corners.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
Matthys, S., Toutanji, H., and Taerwe, L. (2006). “Stress–strain 5614.0000407, 04013019.
behavior of large-scale circular columns confined with FRP Pilakoutas, K., and Mortazavi, A. A. (1997). ‘‘Ductility through
composites.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- external confinement of RC members with FRP.’’ Non-metallic
9445(2006)132:1(123). (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, Japan Concrete
Mirmiran, A. (1996). "Analytical and experimental investigation Institute, Tokyo, 1, 225–232.
of reinforced concrete columns encased in fiberglass tubular Pimanmas, A., Hussain, Q., Panyasirikhunawut, A., and
jackets and use of fiber jacket for pile splicing." Final Rep. Rattanapitikon, W. (2018). “Axial strength and deformability of
Contract No. B-9135, Florida Dept. of Transp., Tallahassee, Fla. concrete confined with Natural Fibre Reinforced Polymers
Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1997). “Behavior of concrete (NFRP).” Mag. Concr. Res., 1-64.
columns confined by fiber composites.” J. Struct. Pimanmas, A., and Saleem, S. (2018). “Dilation Characteristics of
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(583). PET FRP–Confined Concrete.” J. Compos.
Mirmiran, A., Shahawy, M., Samaan, M., Echary, H. E., Mastrapa, J. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000841, 04018006.
C., and Pico, O. (1998). “Effect of column parameters on FRP- Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1999). “Confinement model for high-
confined concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090- strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
0268(1998)2:4(175). 9445(1999)125:3(281).
Miyauchi, K., Nishibayashi, S., and Inoue, S. (1997). “Estimation of Realfonzo, R., and Napoli, A. (2011). “Concrete confined by FRP
strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete column. ” systems: confinement efficiency and design strength
Proc. of 3rd Int. Symp. of Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for models.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 42(4), 736-755.
Concrete Structures, Sapporo, Japan, 217-224. Restrepo, J. I., and Vino, B. D. (1996). “Enhancement of the axial
Miyauchi, K., Inoue, S., Kuroda, T., and Kobayashi, A. (1999). load carrying capacity of reinforced concrete columns by means of
“Strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete fiber glass-epoxy jackets.” Proc., 2nd. Int. Conf. on Adv. Compos.
column.” Proc., Jpn. Concr. Inst., 21(3), 1453–1458. Mater. in Brid. Struct., The Canadian Society for Civil
Mohamed, H. M., and Masmoudi, R. (2010). “Axial load capacity of Engineering, Mont-real, 547–554.
concrete-filled FRP tube columns: Experimental versus theoretical Reyna R., Saito T., Matsui T. and Hayashi K., (2016). “Monotonic
predictions.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943- stress-strain relationship of concrete with carbon fiber sheet
5614.0000066. confinement.” Proc. Japan Concrete Institute Annual Convention,
Moran, D. A., and Pantelides, C. P. (2002). “Variable strain ductility Hakata, Japan.
ratio for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete.” J. Compos. Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928). “A study of
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:4(224). the failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.”
Nakatsuka, T., Kenichi K., and Kinya, T. (1998). “Stress–strain Bulletin no. 185, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign,
characteristics of confined concrete with carbon fiber sheet. ” College of Engineering. Engineering Experiment Station.
Concr. Res. Tech., 9(2), 65-78. Champaign, Ill.
Newman, K. and Newman, J. B. (1971). “Failure Theories and Rousakis, T. C. (2005). “Mechanical behaviour of concrete confined
Design Criteria for Plain Concrete,” Proc., Int. Civil Eng. Mater. by composite materials.” Ph.D. thesis, Democritus Univ. of
Conference on Structure, Solid Mech. and Eng. Des., Wiley Thrace, Civil Engineering Dept., Xanthi, Greece (in Greek).
Interscience, New York, 936–995. Rousakis, T. C., and Karabinis, A. I. (2008). “Substandard reinforced
Nisticò, N., and Monti, G. (2013). “RC square sections confined by concrete members subjected to compression: FRP confining
FRP: Analytical prediction of peak strength.” Compos. Part B: effects.” Mater. Struct., 41(9), 1595-1611.
Eng, 45(1), 127-137. Rousakis, T. C., Rakitzis, T. D., and Karabinis, A. I. (2012)a.
Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2013). “Behavior of square and rectangular ultra “Design-oriented strength model for FRP-confined concrete
high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes under axial members.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
compression.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 54, 97-111. 5614.0000295.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Lim, J. C. (2013). “Axial compressive Rousakis, T., Rakitzis, T., and Karabinis, A. (2012)b. “Empirical
behavior of FRP-confined concrete: Experimental test database Modelling of Failure Strains of Uniformly FRP Confined Concrete
and a new design-oriented model.” Compos. Part B: Eng, 55, 607- Columns.” Proc. 6th Int. Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
634. Engineering (CICE), Rome, Italy, 13–15.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., Lim, J. C., and Vincent, T. (2013). “FRP-confined Rousakis, T. C. (2016). “Reusable and recyclable nonbonded
concrete in circular sections: Review and assessment of stress– composite tapes and ropes for concrete columns
strain models.” Eng. Struct., 49, 1068-1088. confinement.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 103, 15-22.
Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1995). “Role of expansion on mechanical Saafi, M., Toutanji, H. A., and Li, Z. (1999). “Behavior of concrete
behavior of concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes.” ACI
9445(1995)121:12(1795). Mater. J., 96(4), 500-509.
Pantelides, C. P., and Yan, Z. (2007). “Confinement model of
concrete with externally bonded FRP jackets or posttensioned FRP
30
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of Toutanji, H., Han, M., Gilbert, J., and Matthys, S. (2009). “Behavior
confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- of large-scale rectangular columns confined with FRP
9445(1992)118:6(1590). composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
Saenz L. P. (1964). “Discussion of ‘Equation for the stress–strain 5614.0000051.
curve of concrete’ by P. Desay and S. Krishnan.” ACI J., Triantafillou, T. C., Papanicolaou, C. G., Zissimopoulos, P., and
61(9),1229–1235. Laourdekis, T. (2006). “Concrete confinement with textile-
Saiid S. M., Sureshkumar, K., and Pulido, C. (2005). “Simple carbon- reinforced mortar jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 103(1), 28-37.
fiber-reinforced-plastic-confined concrete model for moment- Valdmanis, V., De Lorenzis, L., Rousakis, T., and Tepfers, R. (2007).
curvature analysis.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090- “Behaviour and capacity of CFRP-confined concrete cylinders
0268(2005)9:1(101). subjected to monotonic and cyclic axial compressive load.” Struct.
Saleem, S., Hussain, Q., and Pimanmas, A. (2017). “Compressive Concr., 8(4), 187–200.
behavior of PET FRP–confined circular, square, and rectangular Vintzileou, E., and Panagiotidou, E. (2008). “An empirical model for
concrete columns.” J. Compos. predicting the mechanical properties of FRP-confined
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000754, 04016097. concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 22(5), 841-854.
Saleem, S., Pimanmas, A., and Rattanapitikon, W. (2018). “Lateral Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I. (2001). “Investigation of
response of PET FRP-confined concrete.” Constr. Build. concentrically loaded reinforced concrete columns confined with
Mater., 159, 390-407. glass fiber-reinforced polymer jackets”. ACI Struct. J., 98(3), 377-
Samaan, M., Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1998). “Model of 385.
concrete confined by fiber composites.” J. Struct. Wang, Y. C., and Hsu, K. (2008). “Design of FRP-wrapped
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:9(1025). reinforced concrete columns for enhancing axial load carrying
Shehata, I. A., Carneiro, L. A., and Shehata, L. C. (2002). “Strength capacity.” Compos. Struct., 82(1), 132-139.
of short concrete columns confined with CFRP sheets.” Mater. Wang, Y. F., and Wu, H. L. (2010). “Experimental investigation on
Struct., 35(1), 50-58. square high-strength concrete short columns confined with AFRP
Shehata, I. A. E. M., Carneiro, L. A. V., and Shehata, L. C. D. sheets.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
(2007). “Strength of confined short concrete columns.” Proc., 8th 5614.0000090.
Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Wang, Y. F., and Wu, H. L. (2011). “Size effect of concrete short
Concrete Structures, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, columns confined with aramid FRP jackets.” J. Compos.
Patras, Greece. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000178.
Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G. (1999). “FRP-confined concrete Wang, Z., Wang, D., Smith, S. T., and Lu, D. (2012)a. “CFRP-
model.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090- confined square RC columns. I: Experimental investigation.” J.
0268(1999)3:3(143). Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000245.
Suon, S., Saleem, S., and Pimanmas, A. (2018). “Compressive Wang, Z., Wang, D., Smith, S. T., and Lu, D. (2012)b. “CFRP-
Behavior of Circular Concrete Columns Confined by Basalt Fiber confined square RC columns. II: Cyclic axial compression stress-
Reinforced Polymer (BFRP).” In Key Eng. Mater., Trans Tech strain model.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
Publications,765, 355-360. 5614.0000246.
Tabbara, M., and Karam, G. (2007). “Modeling the strength of Wei, Y. Y., and Wu, Y. F. (2012). “Unified stress–strain model of
concrete cylinders with FRP wraps using the Hoek-Brown concrete for FRP-confined columns.” Constr. Build. Mater., 26(1),
strength criterion.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced 381-392.
Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Dept. of Civil Wei, Y., and Wu, Y. F. (2014). “Compression behavior of concrete
Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras, Greece. columns confined by high strength steel wire.” Constr. Build.
Tamuzs, V., Tepfers, R., Zile, E., and Ladnova, O. (2006). “Behavior Mater., 54, 443-453.
of concrete cylinders confined by a carbon composite 3. Wong, P.S., Vecchio, F.J., and Trommels, H. (2013). “Vector2 and
Deformability and the ultimate axial strain. ” Mech. Compos. Formworks user’s manual.” Second Edition. University of
Mater., 42(4), 303-314. Toronto.
Tan, K. H., Bhowmik, T., and Balendra, T. (2013). “Confinement Wu, G., Lü, Z. T., and Wu, Z. S. (2006). “Strength and ductility of
model for FRP-bonded capsule-shaped concrete columns.” Eng. concrete cylinders confined with FRP composites.” Constr. Build.
Struct., 51, 51-59. Mater., 20(3), 134-148.
Tasdemir, M. A., Tasdemir, C., Akyüz, S., Jefferson, A. D., Lydon, Wu, G., Wu, Z. S., and Lü, Z. T. (2007). “Design-oriented stress–
F. D., and Barr, B. I. G. (1998). “Evaluation of strains at peak strain model for concrete prisms confined with FRP
stresses in concrete: a three-phase composite model composites.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21(5), 1107-1121.
approach.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 20(4), 301-318. Wu, Y. F., and Wang, L. M. (2009). “Unified strength model for
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T., and Lam, L. (2002). “FRP- square and circular concrete columns confined by external
strengthened RC structures.” Wiley, New York. jacket.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
Teng, J., Huang, Y. L., Lam, L., and Ye, L. P. (2007). “Theoretical 9445(2009)135:3(253).
model for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete.” J. Wu, H. L., and Wang, Y. F. (2010). “Experimental study on
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(201). reinforced high-strength concrete short columns confined with
Teng, J. G., Jiang, T., Lam, L., and Luo, Y. Z. (2009). “Refinement AFRP sheets.” Steel Compos. Struct., 10(6), 501-516.
of a design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined Wu, H. L., Wang, Y. F., Yu, L., and Li, X. R. (2009). “Experimental
concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943- and computational studies on high-strength concrete circular
5614.0000012. columns confined by aramid fiber-reinforced polymer sheets.” J.
Thériault, M., and Neale, K. W. (2000). “Design equations for axially Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2009)13:2(125).
loaded reinforced concrete columns strengthened with fibre Wu, Y. F., and Wei, Y. Y. (2010). “Effect of cross-sectional aspect
reinforced polymer wraps.” Canadian J. Civ. Eng., 27(5), 1011- ratio on the strength of CFRP-confined rectangular concrete
1020. columns.” Eng. Struct., 32(1), 32-45.
Toutanji, H. A. (1999). “Stress-strain characteristics of concrete Wu, Y. F., and Zhou, Y. W. (2010). “Unified strength model based
columns externally confined with advanced fiber composite on Hoek-Brown failure criterion for circular and square concrete
sheets.” ACI Mater. J., 96(3), 397-404.
31
columns confined by FRP.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000062.
Wu, Y. F., and Wei, Y. (2014). “General stress-strain model for steel-
and FRP-confined concrete.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000511, 04014069.
Wu, Y. F., and Cao, Y. (2017). “Energy Balance Method for
Modeling Ultimate Strain of Confined Concrete.” ACI Struct.
J., 114(2), 373-381.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2000). “Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by carbon fiber composite jackets.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2000)12:2(139).
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2003). “Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by various types of FRP composite jackets.” J. Reinf.
Plast. Compos., 22(13), 1187-1201.
Xiao, Q. G., Teng, J. G., and Yu, T. (2010). “Behavior and modeling
of confined high-strength concrete.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000070.
Yan, Z., and Pantelides, C. P. (2006). “Fiber-reinforced polymer
jacketed and shape-modified compression members: II-
model.” ACI Struct. J., 103(6), 894.
Yan, L., and Chouw, N. (2013). “Behavior and analytical modeling
of natural flax fibre-reinforced polymer tube confined plain
concrete and coir fibre-reinforced concrete.” J. Compos.
Mater., 47(17), 2133-2148.
Yan, B., Huang, L., Yan, L., Gao, C., and Kasal, B. (2017).
“Behavior of flax FRP tube encased recycled aggregate concrete
with clay brick aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater., 136, 265-276.
Youssef, M. N., Feng, M. Q., and Mosallam, A. S. (2007). “Stress–
strain model for concrete confined by FRP composites.” Compos.
Part B: Eng., 38(5), 614-628.
Yu, T., and Teng, J. G. (2011). “Design of concrete-filled FRP
tubular columns: provisions in the Chinese technical code for
infrastructure application of FRP composites.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000159.
32

Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For published article, see https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.

Evaluation of Existing Stress-Strain Models and Modeling of

Introduction Unlike the constant confining pressure of steel after yielding,

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of PET FRP and Epoxy Resin

Analytical Modeling of PET FRP-Confined Concrete

(𝑏 − 2𝑟)2 + (ℎ − 2𝑟)2 (5)

𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐2 + 𝐸𝑎 (𝜀𝑐𝑢 − 𝜀𝑐2) for 𝜀𝑐2 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀𝑐𝑢 (37)

Table A. Existing stress-strain models

Newman et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.86 Circular

Fardis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 𝐸 𝑡 Circular

Fardis and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 Circular

Ahmad and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝑓𝑙 Circular

Cusson and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7 1.7 Circular

Miyauchi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐

Hoshikuma et 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝑙 Circular

Mirmiran et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 Square

Saafi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.84 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Miyauchi et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐

Lin and Chen 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Candappa et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Fam and 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Lam and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Moran and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓𝑙 Circular

Harries and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 0 .587

Legeron and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.7 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.2 Circular

Campione and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 2𝑡𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + ∆𝜀 Circular

Li et al. (2003) 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛 2(45 + 𝜑⁄ ) 𝜀 𝑐𝑢

Matthys et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 0.85 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

Tamuzs et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑎 2𝐸 𝑡 0.65 Circular

Lu and Hsu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

Yan et al. 𝑓 𝑓 Circular

Jiang and Teng 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑐 𝑓 1.2 Circular

Al-Salloum 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 Circular

Al-Salloum 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑏 𝑓 Circular

Tabbara and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ 𝑓∗ Circular

𝑘𝑒𝑘𝜀𝜌𝑓𝐸𝑓𝜀 𝑓 2(𝑏+ℎ )𝑡𝑓

Wu and Wang 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.73 0.96 Circular

Fahmy and Wu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑙0 .7 𝑓𝑐𝑐−𝑓𝑐𝑜 𝑚1 Circular

Wu and Wang 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝑓 Circular

𝑏 ℎ [𝐴𝑓𝑘𝑠 𝑓𝑓2 +𝐸𝑓𝐴𝑐(𝜀 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑜+𝜀 𝑐𝑜𝑓𝑐𝑐)]

Wu and Wei 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑟 0.72 𝑓 1.87 ℎ −2.5𝑙 Square

ℎ = height of column, 𝐷 = diameter or side length of column

Yu and Teng 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 𝐷𝑓𝑐𝑜 2𝐸𝑓𝑡𝑓 0.8 Circular

Yan and Same as Yan et al. (2006) Circular

Ozbakkaloglu 𝐾 0.9 Circular

Ozbakkaloglu 𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑜 + 𝑘 1(𝑘 𝑒1𝐾𝑙 − 𝐾𝑙𝑜 )𝜀𝑓𝑎 𝐾 0.9 Square

Girgin and 𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑀 𝑓 𝐵 Circular

Faustino et al. 2𝑟 2𝑡𝑓 5.29 (circular) 𝑓 0.7 Circular

Alecci et al. 𝑛𝐸𝑓 Circular

Hany et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝐴 𝑏 0.92 𝑓𝑙 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 𝐴 ℎ 0.94 𝑓𝑙 Circular

Baji et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 2𝑘𝜀 𝑓𝑓 𝜀 𝑐𝑢 1 𝑘𝑓 2𝐸 𝑡 0.56 Circular

Cao et 1.03 2𝑟 0.81 𝑓 0.54 ℎ −1.9 𝜀 0.82 0.68

Al-Rousan and 4 Circular

((𝑏 )( ℎ−2𝑟𝑐 )2+(ℎ )( 𝑏−2𝑟𝑐)2)

Fossetti et al. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 Circular

You might also like