Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental testing and analytical modeling of CFRP-confined large circular

RC columns subjected to cyclic axial compression
Zhenyu Wang a, Daiyu Wang a, Scott T. Smith b,⇑, Dagang Lu a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A physically informed analytical model which describes the cyclic axial stress–strain behavior of rein-
Received 4 June 2011 forced concrete (RC) columns confined with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite wraps is necessary
Revised 8 January 2012 for the non-linear analysis and seismic design of such columns. Although extensive studies have been
Accepted 11 January 2012
conducted on the monotonic axial behavior of small sized FRP-confined unreinforced concrete columns,
Available online 22 March 2012
there is a lack of research on FRP-confined RC columns and also their cyclic axial response. As a conse-
quence, there is a lack of cyclic axial stress–strain models which can enable seismic response to be reli-
Keywords:
ably simulated by numerical means. Due to such knowledge gaps, this study reports the results of thirty
Circular columns
Confinement
CFRP-confined large-scale unreinforced and RC circular columns subjected to monotonic and cyclic axial
Cyclic compression compression loading. The test results indicate that the overall shape of the stress–strain curves, the peak
FRP compressive stress and strain at failure, the unloading/reloading paths, and also the plastic strain of CFRP-
Reinforced concrete confined concrete are influenced by the CFRP wrap and internal hoop steel reinforcement. On the basis of
Stress–strain models the experimental results, a cyclic stress–strain model for CFRP-confined circular RC columns is then pro-
posed. The proposed model consists of three main components, namely (i) a monotonically ascending
portion to describe the envelope curve, (ii) a polynomial equation to describe unloading paths, and
(iii) a straight line to describe reloading paths. The influence of internal hoop reinforcement on the mono-
tonic model, as well as the unloading and reloading responses is also considered. The accuracy of the pro-
posed model is validated with the test data reported in this paper as well as other test results of relevance
extracted from the open literature.
Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction research on the interaction between internal steel reinforcement

Externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite
wrapping is an effective means with which to seismically retrofit
existing reinforced concrete (RC) columns. For the safe and eco-
nomical design of FRP-confined RC columns though, a thorough
understanding of their physical behavior as well as a robust axial
stress–strain model to describe such behavior under the influences
of both monotonic and cyclic axial compression is necessary.
Considerable experimental investigations have been conducted
to date on FRP-confined unreinforced (herein plain) concrete cylin-
ders and as a result many axial stress–strain models have been
developed. Most of these experimental and analytical investiga-
tions, however, have been directed towards plain concrete con-
fined with FRP wrap and subjected to concentric monotonic
loading [e.g. 1–13]. Practically speaking though, columns in build-
ings are reinforced with internal steel bars and hence research
attention of late has focused on the axial compressive behavior
of FRP-confined RC columns [e.g. 14–20]. Although there is some
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2241 5699; fax: +852 2559 5337.
E-mail address: stsmith@hku.hk (S.T. Smith).
and external FRP wrap, as well some research on the development
of monotonic stress–strain models, there is a general lack of infor-
mation on the cyclic axial response and the behavior of larger sized
specimens.
At present, limited experimental investigations have been con-
ducted on the cyclic stress–strain behavior of FRP-confined plain
concrete cylinders [21–23] and prisms [24] and there has been
even less research on FRP-confined circular RC columns [25]. The
majority of all this research has also been conducted on small scale
cylinder specimens. The need to develop a robust cyclic axial
stress–strain model for FRP-confined RC circular columns, which
is informed from large sized test specimens, is of particular impor-
tance in order to realize reliable seismic designs for practical
applications.
In light of research demands, this paper presents the results of
an experimental investigation on large-sized plain concrete and
RC columns of circular cross-section which have been confined with
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) wraps and subjected to
concentric monotonic and cyclic compression loading scenarios.
The main test parameters are (i) section size, (ii) volumetric
ratio of internal hoop steel reinforcement (also known as lateral

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.01.004
 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74 65

reinforcement but herein referred to as hoop reinforcement), (iii)
number of layers of CFRP wrap, and (iv) nature of loading (i.e.
monotonic or cyclic loading). The behavior of the test specimens
is presented in the context of physical observations and measured
stress–strain responses. From such results, a cyclic axial compres-
sion stress–strain model for FRP-confined circular plain and RC
columns is then proposed. The analytical model consists of three
main components, namely: (i) a monotonic ascending relationship
to describe the envelope curve, (ii) a polynomial expression to
describe unloading paths, and (iii) a straight line to describe reload-
ing paths. The accuracy of the proposed model is finally validated
with the experimental results reported in this paper as well as other
relevant test data collected from the open literature.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens
Thirty plain concrete and reinforced concrete columns of circu-
lar cross-section were fabricated and then tested under concentric
axial monotonic or cyclic compression loading regimes. The test
specimens were divided into two series denoted as C1 and C2 to
distinguish between the two different sized columns and complete
details of all specimens are given in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The speci-
mens are identified in Table 1 by the first letter C defining ‘‘circu-
lar’’ column, with the following numbers 1 or 2 referring to
different column diameters. The following letter H and number re-
fers to the volumetric ratio of hoop reinforcement with 0 denoting
plain concrete, while 1 and 2 refer to concrete reinforced with 0.5%
and 1.0% volumetric ratio of hoop reinforcement, respectively. The
third letter, L, and the number immediately following refers to the
number of layers of CFRP wrap. Finally, the last symbol M refers to
monotonic compression loading, while C and P refer to complete
Table 1
Specimen details and selected test results.
unloading/reloading and partial unloading/reloading cyclic load-
ing, respectively. In order to further investigate the effect of
unloading/reloading, two partial unloading levels P1 (50%) and
P2 (25%) were considered, in which the percentage levels refer to
the ratio of remaining load after partial unloading to the load at
the commencement of each unloading cycle.
Both test series had the same height (h) to diameter (D) ratio of
3.0. The C1 series consisted of 10 columns of 305 mm diameter and
915 mm height. The remaining 20 columns in series C2 were of
204 mm in diameter and 612 mm in height. For the RC columns,
the longitudinal steel consisted of eight 12 mm diameter hot-
rolled deformed bars for series C1 columns and six 10 mm diame-
ter bars for the series C2 columns. Also, 6 mm diameter plain bars
were used as hoop reinforcement for all columns. The longitudinal
steel reinforcement was maintained at a constant ratio of approx-
imately 1.5% for both series. Three different hoop reinforcement
volumetric ratios were utilized, namely (i) 0% for plain concrete,
(ii) 0.5% for deficiently confined concrete (also referred to light
hoop reinforcement), and (iii) 1.0% for normally confined concrete
(also referred to as normal hoop reinforcement). For the C1 series
columns, the center-to-center spacing of the hoop reinforcement
corresponding to 0.5% and 1.0% volumetric ratios was 80 mm and
40 mm, respectively. For the C2 series columns, these two volu-
metric ratios translated to hoop reinforcement spacings of
120 mm and 60 mm centers, respectively. In all RC column tests,
the thickness of the cover from the outside of the concrete to the
outside of the hoop reinforcement was 18 mm for the C1 series col-
umns and 12 mm for the C2 series columns.
2.2. Materials
All columns were cast in one batch using standard ready-mixed
concrete and cured at room temperature. The 28 day average com-
pressive strength obtained from standard cylinders in accordance

Specimen D (mm) h (mm) Longitudinal bars Hoop steel CFRP layers, n fcc (MPa) ecc (%) eh,rup (%) fcc/fc0 ecc/ec0 eh,rup/efu
C1H1L0M 305 915 8u12 u6@80 0 28.7 0.438 – 1.17 2.19 –
C1H2L0M 305 915 8u12 u6@40 0 29.1 0.639 – 1.19 3.20 –
C1H0L1M 305 915 – – 1 35.0 1.850 1.602 1.43 9.25 0.901
C1H0L2M 305 915 – – 2 55.3 3.255 1.615 2.26 16.28 0.908
C1H1L1M 305 915 8u12 u6@80 1 41.5 1.824 1.431 1.69 9.12 0.805
C1H1L1C 305 915 8u12 u6@80 1 43.1 1.961 1.446 1.76 9.81 0.813
C1H1L2M 305 915 8u12 u6@80 2 52.2 2.683 1.249 2.13 13.42 0.702
C1H1L2C 305 915 8u12 u6@80 2 61.8 3.223 1.554 2.52 16.12 0.874
C1H2L1M 305 915 8u12 u6@40 1 47.0 2.316 1.398 1.92 11.58 0.786
C1H2L2M 305 915 8u12 u6@40 2 62.1 3.298 1.520 2.53 16.49 0.855
C2H1L0M 204 612 6u10 u6@120 0 25.8 0.528 – 1.05 2.64 –
C2H2L0M 204 612 6u10 u6@60 0 30.1 0.663 – 1.23 3.32 –
C2H0L1M 204 612 – – 1 46.1 2.450 1.678 1.88 12.25 0.949
C2H0L1C 204 612 – – 1 42.3 1.938 1.469 1.73 6.69 0.826
C2H0L1P1 204 612 – – 1 46.5 2.400 1.398 1.90 12.00 0.786
C2H0L2M 204 612 – – 2 65.2 3.655 1.453 2.66 18.28 0.817
C2H0L2C 204 612 – – 2 66.8 3.817 1.357 2.73 19.09 0.763
C2H0L2P1 204 612 – – 2 64.6 3.407 1.085 2.64 17.04 0.610
C2H1L1M 204 612 6u10 u6@120 1 52.1 2.305 1.387 2.13 11.53 0.780
C2H1L1C 204 612 6u10 u6@120 1 49.9 2.382 1.534 2.04 11.91 0.862
C2H1L1P1 204 612 6u10 u6@120 1 45.6 1.730 1.181 1.86 8.65 0.664
C2H1L1P2 204 612 6u10 u6@120 1 54.5 2.715 1.308 2.22 13.58 0.735
C2H1L2M 204 612 6u10 u6@120 2 66.1 3.410 1.306 2.70 17.05 0.734
C2H1L2C 204 612 6u10 u6@120 2 68.9 3.394 1.328 2.81 16.97 0.747
C2H1L2P1 204 612 6u10 u6@120 2 67.4 3.194 1.522 2.75 15.97 0.856
C2H1L2P2 204 612 6u10 u6@120 2 77.4 3.892 1.738 3.16 19.46 0.977
C2H2L1M 204 612 6u10 u6@60 1 52.2 2.535 1.306 2.13 11.77 0.734
C2H2L1C 204 612 6u10 u6@60 1 57.0 2.806 1.504 2.33 14.03 0.846
C2H2L2M 204 612 6u10 u6@60 2 69.5 3.407 1.298 2.84 17.04 0.730
C2H2L2C 204 612 6u10 u6@60 2 75.0 4.033 1.538 3.06 20.17 0.865

Note: D = diameter of cross section; h = height of specimen; n = number of layers fiber sheet wrap; fcc = peak stress of confined concrete; ecc = strain corresponding to fcc;
eh,rup = average lateral fracture strain recorded from all CFRP hoop strain gauges; fc0 = peak stress of unconfined concrete; ec0 = strain corresponding to fc0; efu = ultimate tensile
strain capacity of flat CFRP coupon (1.78%).
66 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
Fig. 1. Specimen dimensions and reinforcement details.
Table 2
Tested mechanical properties of steel reinforcement and CFRP wrap.
Material Diameter/ Yield/peak Ultimate
nominal strength strength
thickness (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
Longitudinal ds = 10 fy = 312 fsu = 484
steel ds = 12 fy = 340 fsu = 520
Hoop steel ds = 6 fy = 397 fsu = 623
CFRP wrap tf = 0.167 – ff = 4340
with Ref. [26] was 23.9 MPa and the compressive strength was
24.5 MPa at the time of testing all columns. Upon the concrete
reaching an age of 28 days, uni-directional CFRP wraps were ap-
plied in the column hoop direction in a wet lay-up manner with
an overlap of 150 mm. In order to avoid premature failure, both
ends of the columns were strengthened by (i) additional hoop rein-
forcement spaced at 30 mm centers prior to concrete casting of all
column specimens (refer Fig. 1), and (ii) one additional layer of
CFRP wrap which extended 120 mm from each column end for
the CFRP-wrapped specimens.
The material properties of the CFRP wrap are summarized in Ta-
ble 2. They were obtained from tension tests on six flat coupons of
25 mm width and 200 mm length in accordance with ASTM D3039
[27]. Three of the coupon specimens contained one layer of carbon
fiber sheet of 0.167 mm nominal thickness while the other three
coupon specimens contained two layers of the same thickness car-
bon fiber sheet. All steel reinforcement materials were tested in
accordance with ACI 318 [26] from tension tests and the resulting
material properties are provided in Table 2.
2.3. Instrumentation and test protocol
The test set-up is shown in Fig. 2 and all tests were performed
using a 5000 kN capacity Amsler universal testing machine at a
loading rate of approximately 0.15 MPa/s. Fig. 2 also shows the
positioning of the various instrumentation. In particular, four elec-
tric resistance strain gauges of 30 mm gauge length were mounted
on the surface of the CFRP wrap at evenly spaced circumferential
distances in the hoop direction at column mid-height in order to
measure the lateral strains of the CFRP wrap (also referred to as
hoop strains). None of these strain gauges were mounted on the
overlap region though. The axial strain responses for all test col-
umns were calculated from two longitudinally oriented linear var-
iable differential transformers (LVDTs) positioned diametrically
Strain gauges on hoop reinforcement
Load cell
Elastic
modulus
Gauge length
(MPa)
Strain gauges
Steel frame
Es = 200,000
Es = 200,000
Es = 200,000 LVDTs
Ef = 244,000
Strain gauges on CFRP surface
Fig. 2. Test setup and instrumentation details.
opposite to each other. The gauge length of the LVDTs was approx-
imately equal to one-third of the height of the column and the
LVDTs were mounted on the columns by two steel frames which
were secured onto the test specimens. For the specimens contain-
ing hoop reinforcement, four strain gauges of 5 mm gauge length
were bonded onto the hoop steel in the hoop direction at column
mid-height. As shown in Fig. 2, the strain gauges bonded onto
the hoop reinforcement and the CFRP wrap were located at the
same circumferential position to each other. Finally, the axial load
was measured by a load cell placed upon the top of each column
specimen. An automatic data acquisition system of a sufficiently
high sampling frequency was then used to record the results of
the strain gauges as well as the LVDTs and the load cell throughout
the duration of each test.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Failure modes
Typical failure modes of the test specimens are shown in Fig. 3.
All confined columns failed by tensile rupture of the CFRP wrap in
the column mid-height region in a sudden explosive manner. In
addition, the axial strength of the columns was lost immediately
upon rupture of the CFRP wrap. After removal of the ruptured wrap
post-test, the severely crushed state of the concrete was evident
and the concrete failure plane was generally conical. For the
CFRP-confined RC columns, the hoop steel was found to have frac-
tured due to buckling of the longitudinal steel bars. The final failure
modes of all specimens were found to be similar for the different
loading patterns.
 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74 67

(a) Ruptured FRP wrap and (b) Ruptured FRP (c) Ruptured FRP wrap and fracture of (d) Ruptured FRP wrap and buckling
cracked concrete of C2H0L1C wrap of C1H0L2M hoop reinforcement of C1H2L1M of steel reinforcement of C2H1L1C

Fig. 3. Typical failure modes.

Fig. 4. Selected monotonic and cyclic axial stress–strain test results (cyclic loading: P, C = partial, complete unloading/reloading; M = monotonic loading).

3.2. Stress–strain responses
Selected monotonic and cyclic stress–strain responses are
shown in Fig. 4 and key strain and stress results for all specimens
are given in Table 1 (note that axial compressive stresses and
strains are denoted as positive and the tensile hoop strains are de-
noted as negative). In all cases the axial stress was obtained from
dividing the axial load by the column cross-sectional area, while
the axial strain was obtained from the average value of the two
longitudinally externally mounted LVDTs divided by their gauge
length. In addition, the hoop strain (also known as lateral strain)
was obtained from the average of all the CFRP mounted strain
gauge readings immediately prior to rupture of the wrap. In terms
of the key results in Table 1, the peak stress is the compressive
strength which occurs at CFRP rupture and is defined by fcc while
the corresponding strain is ecc. In addition, the average hoop strain
of the CFRP mounted strain gauges at rupture failure is denoted by
eh,rup, while fc0 refers to the unconfined strength of the concrete (i.e.
compressive cylinder strength) and ec0 is the corresponding strain.
The results contained in Table 1 and Fig. 4 reveal that the con-
finement provided by the CFRP wraps resulted in significant
enhancement both in the axial stress capacity and axial strain
capacity of the columns. In addition, the curves presented in
Fig. 4 show the similarity between the monotonically and cycli-
cally loaded specimens. It is also evident in Fig. 4 that the unload-
ing responses (also known as unloading paths) are non-linear and
this is particularly evident when the unloading stress is near zero.
The reloading paths, however, are described by largely linear re-
sponses (i.e. they resemble straight lines). In light of all these
observations, a schematic representation of an envelope curve in
addition to unloading and reloading paths of CFRP-confined circu-
lar RC columns is shown in Fig. 5. Expressions to calculate the var-
ious stresses and strains shown in this figure are discussed in
Section 4 of this paper.
3.3. Effectiveness of CFRP wrap
The results reported in the last column of Table 1 reveal that the
ratio of eh,rup to the tensile strain capacity of flat CFRP coupons (efu)
varies from 0.61 to 0.98. The average of the ratio eh,rup/efu for all test
specimens, which can also be referred to as the effective CFRP
strain coefficient ke, is equal to 0.80. In addition, the average value
68 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of proposed axial stress–strain response.
of ke is 0.83 for the larger C1 series columns of 305 mm diameter
and 0.79 for the smaller C2 series columns of 204 mm diameter.
The cross-sectional dimensions therefore have a small influence
on the effective strain of the CFRP wraps. In addition, the average
value of ke is 0.82 for the CFRP-confined plain concrete columns
while it is 0.80 for the CFRP-confined RC columns. It is hypothe-
sized that buckling of the longitudinal internal reinforcement
may have reduced the efficiency of the CFRP wrap in the reinforced
concrete specimens. Moreover, the confinement effectiveness of
the CFRP wraps was found to increase with additional layers of
CFRP wrap while it decreased with an increase of cross-sectional
size. Based on the results presented in Table 1 and the proceeding
discussion, ke in this study is taken as 0.80. This value is virtually
identical to the value of 0.81 as measured from an extensive array
of hoop oriented strain gauges mounted onto CFRP-confined plain
concrete cylinders of 250 mm diameter in Smith et al.’s [12] study.
In other studies, Lam and Teng [28] recommended a value of 0.586
based on CFRP-wrapped plain concrete cylinders of 100–200 mm
diameter while Carey and Harries [29] recommended values of
0.57 and 0.61 for FRP-confined medium- and large-scale plain col-
umns, respectively. In addition, for FRP-confined RC columns ke
was found to be closer to 0.73 by Benzaid et al. [18] while it varied
from 0.79 to 0.93 in Chastre and Silva’s [19] study. It is evident
there are factors contributing to the different confinement effec-
tiveness coefficients which have not been conclusively identified
to date. Detailed investigations are clearly required in order to
Fig. 6. Comparison of selected stress–strain curves with varying hoop reinforcement subjected to monotonic loading (H0 = no hoop reinforcement, H1 = light hoop
reinforcement, H2 = normal hoop reinforcement).
understand the various mechanics at play, however, such work is
outside the scope of this study and is therefore identified as neces-
sary future research.
3.4. Effect of internal steel reinforcement
The influence of the internal steel reinforcement is found to be
mainly affected by the amount of CFRP wrap and the size of the
columns as evident in the axial stress–strain responses. Fig. 6 in
turn shows selected stress–strain responses for a constant number
of layers of CFRP wrap within each of the two test series but with
varying amounts of hoop reinforcement. For the columns with the
least amount of CFRP wrap confinement (i.e. one layer of wrap in
Fig. 6a), the strength and strain capacity is significantly enhanced
upon an increase of hoop reinforcement volumetric ratio. The pres-
ence and amount of hoop reinforcement also affects the shape of
the stress–strain responses by increasing the extent of the soften-
ing response and the strain capacity (refer Fig. 6a). For the columns
confined with a greater amount of CFRP wrap (i.e. two layers of
wrap in Fig. 6b), the influence of hoop reinforcement is observed
to have a minimal effect. In addition, the softening response and
strain capacity of the stress–strain relationships is increased upon
the addition of hoop reinforcement although the amount of such
steel is not influential. Overall, the ratio of lateral confinement
pressure provided by the hoop reinforcement to the total lateral
confinement pressure (i.e. sum of confinement pressure provided
by the hoop reinforcement and CFRP wrap) decreases with an
increase in the number of layers of CFRP wrap. In addition, the
confinement effectiveness of the CFRP wrap reduces as the diame-
ter of the column is increased.
Fig. 6 also assists in explaining the response of the columns at
failure. Upon rupture of the CFRP wrap, the stress is rapidly lost
for the plain concrete columns. For the RC columns, strength is lost
upon rupture of the wrap, however, residual strength provided by
the original columns enables stress to be gradually unloaded.
Fig. 7 provides a comparison of the cyclic stress–strain behavior
of selected plain and RC columns confined with the same number
of layers of CFRP wrap within each graph. Series C2 specimens are
selected for consistency of comparison between groups. Inspection
of Fig. 7 reveals that the unloading/reloading paths were signifi-
cantly influenced by the internal steel reinforcement. Degeneration
of the unloading curves of the CFRP-confined plain concrete
columns was much larger than that of the CFRP-confined RC col-
umns, especially in the later stages of unloading when the axial
stress was near zero. As a result, the plastic strain capacity of the
 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
Fig. 7. Influence of hoop reinforcement on unloading/reloading paths subjected to cyclic loading (C) (H0 = no hoop reinforcement, H2 = normal hoop reinforcement, L1 = 1
layer of CFRP wrap, L2 = 2 layers of CFRP wrap).
CFRP-confined RC columns was larger than that of the CFRP-con-
fined plain concrete columns under the same load cycle. In addi-
tion, the reloading paths mainly resembled straight lines for the
confined RC columns, but the paths exhibited non-linear responses
with an increase of axial strain for confined plain concrete
columns.
In general, the influence of internal steel reinforcement on the
axial stress and strain responses (and capacity) should be consid-
ered when modeling the monotonic and cyclic stress–strain
responses of CFRP-confined RC columns. An analytical model is
therefore proposed in the following section which is informed from
the physical behavior and calibrated from the measurements of the
test specimens reported in this study.
4. Analytical modeling
The analytical model proposed in Fig. 5 is further developed in
this section. In particular, models for calculating the stress and
strain coordinates which correspond to key points on this idealized
representation are provided.
4.1. Effective lateral confinement pressure
The lateral confinement pressure (fl) resulting from external FRP
wraps to a circular section can be calculated by the following well
known expression [30]:
2Ef nt f efe
fl ¼
D
where Ef is the elastic modulus of the FRP (MPa), n is the number of
layers of FRP wrap, tf is the nominal thickness of a single layer of fi-
ber sheet (mm), efe is the effective rupture strain of the FRP wrap,
and D is the cross-sectional diameter (mm) of the circular section.
The results reported in Section 3 of this paper show that the effect
of hoop reinforcement is influential and its confinement effect
should not be ignored. As a direct consequence, the following mod-
ified lateral confinement pressure (f10 ) equation is proposed as fol-
lows which is similar in form to that proposed by Haralji [14].
f10 ¼ flf þ fls
2Ef nt f efe
flf ¼ ¼ 0:5qf Ef efe
D the tests reported herein, the confinement ratio was larger than
fls ¼ 0:5kes kv qst fyt
In Eq. (3) flf is the lateral confinement pressure provided by the FRP
wrap (refer to Eq. (1)) and fls is the lateral confinement pressure
69
provided by the hoop reinforcement. In determining flf, the effective
rupture strain, efe, is of most importance. As a result efe = keefu in
which efu is the ultimate tensile strain capacity of flat FRP coupons
and the efficiency factor ke is equal to 0.80 as discussed in Section 3
of this paper. For the calculation of fls, the volumetric ratio of the
hoop reinforcement, qst, is required in addition to the yield strength
of the steel, fyt, and the confinement effectiveness coefficient of the
hoop reinforcement in the horizontal plane kes. The coefficient kes is
the ratio of effectively confined concrete area to the confined area.
For circular columns, the effectively confined area is equal to the
confined area and hence kes = 1.0. The final factor to consider in fls
is the coefficient kv which accounts for the effectiveness of lateral
confinement provided by the hoop and longitudinal reinforcement
in the longitudinal direction between the transverse hoop reinforce-
ment. For circular concrete columns confined with circular hoop
reinforcement, kv is given as follows as originally proposed by
Mander et al. [31]:
 2
0
1  2dscor
kv ¼ ð5Þ
1  qcc
where s0 is the clear spacing between hoop reinforcement, dcor is the
diameter of the confined concrete core measured to the outside of
the hoop reinforcement, and qcc is the longitudinal steel ratio rela-
tive to the confined concrete core.
For circular concrete columns confined with steel spirals, kv is
ð1Þ given as follows as proposed in Mander et al. [31]:
0
1  2dscor
kv ¼ ð6Þ
1  qcc
Generally, the ratio of the lateral confinement pressure fl (based so-
lely upon confinement provided by the FRP wrap) to the peak
unconfined stress, fc0, is used to determine whether the response
of the stress–strain curve post-fc0 is ascending or descending. Based
on tests of FRP-confined plain concrete by Lam and Teng [28], the
ratio fl/fc0 should not be less than 0.08 in order to ensure a non-
ð2Þ
descending stress–strain response post-fc0. Similarly, for FRP-con-
fined RC columns, the ratio of the modified effective lateral confine-
ð3Þ ment f10 to the peak stress of unconfined concrete fc0 can be used. For
0.08 and all the axial stress–strain responses were of an ascending
ð4Þ
nature. Therefore, the limit proposed by Lam and Teng [28] to en-
sure a non-descending response is proposed to be retained for
FRP-confined RC columns.
70 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74

4.2. Peak axial stress fcc and axial strain ecc 4.3. Monotonic stress–strain response for envelop curve

The peak stress fcc and strain ecc refers to the stress and strain at
CFRP rupture failure, respectively, and they are two very important
parameters for a stress–strain model of FRP-confined concrete. For
confined circular columns, the peak stress for moderate to high
confinement ratios is higher than the unconfined concrete
strength. In addition, the stress–strain relationship is usually
ascending due to the uniform confinement around the circular
cross-section and a sufficient amount of confining material.
An equation relating the peak stress of FRP-confined concrete to
parameters that would impact upon its value is usually referred to
as a strength model. To date, researchers have found the ratio of fcc/
fc0 and fl/fc0 to be linearly related, as per the following equation
[e.g. 28], primarily based upon tests on FRP-confined plain con-
crete cylinders:
The test results presented in Section 3 of this paper show that
the envelope curves of the cyclic stress–strain responses are almost
identical to the monotonic stress–strain responses for specimens of
the same geometric configurations. This observation has also been
obtained and verified by others for FRP-confined plain concrete
cylinders [21–23]. Such an observation suggests that stress–strain
models for CFRP-confined RC columns developed from monotoni-
cally loaded test specimens can be used to predict the envelope
curve of cyclic stress–strain responses. As a result, a monotonic
stress–strain model for circular RC columns confined with FRP
wraps should be initially developed.
Based on test results, a monotonic ascending stress–strain mod-
el for FRP-confined circular plain and reinforced concrete is pro-
posed firstly as follows:

fcc fl Ax þ Bx2
¼ 1 þ k1 ð7Þ y¼ ð11Þ
fc0 fc0 1 þ Bx þ xr

In Eq. (7) fl is the confinement pressure provided by the FRP wrap
alone, k1 is a confinement effectiveness coefficient, and fc0 is the
compressive strength of the unconfined concrete. Note that Eq. (2)
can be used to calculate the confinement pressure, however, with-
out the presence of hoop reinforcement this equation reduces to
that of confinement provided solely by the FRP wrap as given in
Eq. (1). The results presented in Section 3 of this paper revealed that
the confinement provided by hoop reinforcement should not be
ignored for FRP-confined RC columns. Consequently, the peak stress
fcc should consider the confining influence of both the CFRP and
hoop reinforcement. Based on a multi-parameter regression analy-
sis of all 30 test results presented in this paper, the following equa-
tion for fcc is proposed in which the correlation coefficient (R2) is
0.956:
 0:57  0:95
fcc fls flf
¼ 1 þ 1:33 þ 3:54
fc0 fc0 fc0
This equation is applicable for CFRP-confined plain columns, CFRP-
confined RC columns, as well as unconfined RC columns. A compar-
ison between the simulated peak stress and strain results with the
test data from this paper and other data gathered from the open lit-
erature on FRP-confined RC circular columns [15,18,19] and FRP-
confined plain concrete circular columns [7], is shown in Fig. 8.
Similar to the strength model provided in Eq. (7), a commonly
recognized expression for the peak strain ecc is provided as follows
[e.g. 28]:
ecc fl
¼ 2 þ k2
ec0 fc0
where x = ec/ec0 and y = rc/fc0, ec and rc are particular levels of axial
strain and stress respectively, while ec0 = 0.002. The parameter A,
which is determined from the boundary condition of drc/dec = Ec
at ec = 0, can be obtained by substituting this boundary conditions
into Eq. (11). The resulting expression for A is given as follows:
Ec
A¼ ð12Þ
Ec0
pffiffiffiffi
where Ec ¼ 4736 fc0 (MPa) [26] is the elastic modulus of uncon-
fined concrete, fc0 is the concrete cylinder compressive strength,
and Ec0 = fc0/ec0 (MPa) is the secant modulus at the peak unconfined
concrete stress.
The parameter B is determined from the boundary condition of
rc = fcc at ec = ecc. Upon substituting this boundary conditions into
Eq. (11), the following expression is derived:
ð8Þ AX  X r Y  Y
B¼ ð13Þ
XY  X 2
where X = ecc/ec0 and Y = fcc/fc0.
The parameter r, as can be found in Eqs. (11) and (13), is of
particular importance because it influences the overall shape of
the monotonic stress–strain response. From a multi-parameter
regression analysis of each monotonic stress–strain test response
presented in Section 3 of this paper, the shape factor r can be
obtained for each curve. This exercise reveals that r is related to
the lateral confinement provided both by the hoop reinforcement
and the external CFRP wrap. Utilizing regression analysis, the
ð9Þ

where ec0 is the strain corresponding to the peak unconfined con- 150
Chastre and Silva [17]
crete stress, and k2 is a confinement effectiveness coefficient. In or- Benzaid et al. [16]
Theoretical value of fcc (MPa)

der to modify Eq. (9) to account for hoop reinforcement, the 120 Matthys et al. [14]
following equation for peak strain is proposed in which the correla- Jiang and Teng [7]
tion coefficient is 0.84 when calibrated with the same data used to 90
This article
calibrate Eq. (8).
 0:7 ! 60
ecc fls flf
¼ 2 þ 26:4 þ ð10Þ
ec0 fc0 fc0
30
2
In Eq. (10) the peak strain ec0 of unconfined concrete is taken as R =0.956
0.002. It is noted though that this proposed peak strain model is
approximately the same as the peak strain model proposed by Teng 0 30 60 90 120 150
et al. [32] for concrete columns confined by FRP tubes. The reason Experimental value of fcc (MPa)
for this is due to the effective rupture strain of FRP being close to
the ultimate tensile strain capacity of flat CFRP coupons. Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and predicted peak stress.
 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
following equation relating r to the ratio of flf/fc0 and fls/fc0 is pro-
posed in which the correlation coefficient is 0.90:
 0:14
fls flf
r ¼ 3:64 þ 1:26 ð14Þ
fc0 fc0
4.4. Verification of the monotonic model
Comparisons between the predictions of the proposed mono-
tonic stress–strain model with the test results presented in this pa-
per and other papers extracted from the open literature [i.e.
1,7,9,11,18] are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the proposed
model simulates the shape of the stress–strain curves well for both
FRP-confined plain concrete columns and FRP-confined RC con-
crete columns. The calculated peak stresses and strains are gener-
ally larger though than most test results because the expressions
for such stresses and strains were derived from the tests reported
in this paper on specimens failing with the CFRP wrap strain being
close to the flat coupon rupture strain of the material. A design ver-
sion of the model would, however, introduce safety. In some cases
though, the overall match between test and prediction is less con-
vincing. One example is the use of much higher strength concrete
in Cui and Sheikh’s [9] tests than the concrete strength used to
calibrate the model.
Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and predicted monotonic axial stress–strain relationships.
71
4.5. Plastic strain, epl
The plastic strain of concrete in this study refers to the residual
axial strain when the stress is unloaded to zero for each unloading
cycle. As a result, the plastic strain is a basic parameter for model-
ing the unloading/reloading response. Previous studies [e.g. 21–23]
on FRP-confined unreinforced concrete have shown the plastic
strain to be linearly related to the envelope unloading strain eun
(refer to Fig. 5 for definition of eun). By means of relevant modeling
approaches, Lam and Teng [23] proposed a linear relationship be-
tween epl and eun for FRP-confined plain concrete cylinders. Their
model was based on three assumptions, namely (i) epl = 0 when
eun 6 0.001, (ii) linear increase in epl when 0.001 6 eun 6 0.0035,
and (iii) an additional linear response for eun P 0.0035. The results
presented in Section 3 reveal that the linear relationship between
the plastic strain and the envelope unloading strain also exists
for CFRP-confined RC columns, as shown in Fig. 10. This figure also
reveals that the slopes of the lines differ for CFRP-confined plain
and RC columns. Using Lam and Teng’s [23] approach as a point
of reference, a regression analysis of all the test results on cyclically
loaded specimens presented in Section 3 was undertaken by relat-
ing the plastic strains and the corresponding unloading strains of
each unloading path. This translated to 109 unloading/reloading
curve results from 8 cyclically loaded test columns.
72 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74

0.04 5.0
2
FRP-confined reinforced concrete B1=-0.02(εun/εc0) +0.46εun/εc0+1.76 (for εun<0.02)
FRP-confined plain concrete 4.5 2
R =0.993
0.03
4.0
εpl=0.884εun-0.002 (εun>0.004)
Plastic strain εpl

2 3.5
R =0.999

B1
0.02
3.0
B1=0.09εun/εc0+2.5 (for εun<0.02)
2.5 2
R =0.925
0.01
εpl=0.815εun-0.002 (εun>0.004) FRP-confined reinforced concrete
2.0
2
R =0.999 FRP-confined plain concrete
1.5
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Envelope unloading strain εun εun/εc0

Fig. 10. Plastic strain versus various envelope unloading strains. Fig. 11. Unloading branch shape factor B1 versus eun/ec0.

 
The results reveal that the plastic strain epl = 0 when eun 6 0.001
eun
B1 ¼ 0:09 þ 2:5 for eun  0:02 ð21Þ
for both FRP-confined circular plain and RC columns. In the high ec0
strain range of response, the resulting equations of plastic strain
are given as follows: B1 ¼ 3:4 for eun > 0:02 ð22Þ
For FRP-confined RC columns:
For FRP-confined plain concrete columns, B1 is given as follows
epl ¼ 0:512eun  0:0005 for 0:001 6 eun 6 0:004 ð15Þ where the correlation coefficient is 0.993:
epl ¼ 0:884eun  0:002 for eun > 0:004 ð16Þ
 2  
eun eun
For FRP-confined plain concrete columns: B1 ¼ 0:02 þ 0:46 þ 1:76 for eun  0:02 ð23Þ
ec0 ec0
epl ¼ 0:42eun  0:0004 for 0:001 6 eun 6 0:004 ð17Þ
epl ¼ 0:815eun  0:002 for eun > 0:004 ð18Þ B1 ¼ 4:36 for eun > 0:02 ð24Þ

The regression analysis of the test results for B1 is shown in Fig. 11

4.6. Unloading path and the relationship between B1 to the ratio of eun/ec0 is evident.

To date, tests have shown [e.g. 21–23] that the unloading paths
of FRP-confined plain concrete columns are non-linear and this is 4.7. Reloading path
particularly so when the unloading stress is near zero. From the
test results of this study and others [i.e. 21,22], the unloading curve The test results presented in this paper have shown that the
is found to depend upon the unloading stress, run, the unloading reloading paths resemble straight lines and such an observation
strain, eun, and the plastic strain, epl. As a result, the following equa- has been made by other researchers as well [21–23]. As a result,
tion is proposed: the reloading path is modeled as a straight line herein in which
the reference stress, rnew, and strain, enew (as defined in Fig. 5),
 B1  
rc ec  epl ec  epl are used to define the intersection coordinates of the unloading
¼ B0 þ ð1  B0 Þ ð19Þ curves and reloading curves in each load cycle. The following equa-
run eun  epl eun  epl
tion is therefore proposed:
The parameters of each unloading curve (B0 and B1), which affect
rnew
the curvature of the curve, can be obtained from a multi-parameter rc ¼ ðe  e Þ ð25Þ
regression analysis of each unloading path for the same test results
enew  epl c pl
used to calibrate Eqs. (15)–(18). The results reveal that parameter
Based on a regression analysis of the same data used to calibrate
B1 influences the shape of the unloading curve more than parameter
Eqs. (15)–(18) and Eqs. (20)–(24), the following equations for the
B0. In addition, the parameters are influenced by the unloading
reference stress and strain are proposed;
strain as well as the internal reinforcement. As a means of calibra-
tion methodology, the parameters B0 and B1 were firstly obtained rnew ¼ 0:912run ð26Þ
for each unloading curve from a regression analysis of each test
enew ¼ eun ð27Þ
unloading curve. The parameters were then related to the unloading
strain as well as the lateral confinement provided by the internal where the correlation coefficient for rnew is 0.996 and that for enew is
hoop reinforcement and the CFRP wrap. The parameter B0 for both 0.999.
FRP-confined plain and RC columns is given as follows in which the
correlation coefficient is 0.887:
 0:07  0:04 4.8. Partial unloading/reloading path
flf fls
B0 ¼ 0:5 þ 0:3  0:1 ð20Þ
fc0 fc0 For columns subjected to partial unloading/reloading cycles, the
unloading path is represented by a portion of the complete unload-
The parameter B1 is found to be particularly dependent on the ing curve which originates from the unloading point to a predeter-
internal steel reinforcement. As a result, for FRP-confined RC mined stress level (epp, rpp), as illustrated in Fig. 5. The partial
columns, B1 is proposed as follows in which the correlation coeffi- reloading path is represented as a straight line which originates
cient is 0.925: from the reloading point and terminates at the envelope curve.
 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental and predicted cyclic stress–strain relationships.
4.9. Verification of the proposed cyclic stress–strain model
Fig. 12 presents the results of a comparison of the predictions of
the proposed cyclic stress–strain model to the test results of this
paper and also the results of Lam et al. [21]. It is evident that the
proposed model exhibits an overall acceptable performance for
the prediction of the peak stress and strain, in addition to the shape
of the envelope curve and the unloading/reloading paths both for
FRP-confined plain and RC circular columns.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the results of thirty CFRP-confined large plain and
RC circular columns were fabricated and tested to failure under
either monotonic or cyclic uniaxial compression loading patterns.
The stress–strain responses have been presented as well as a dis-
cussion on the effect of internal steel reinforcement, effective lat-
eral confinement and load pattern. Based on the test results, a
constitutive model is derived for the axial stress–strain response
of CFRP-confined plain and RC circular columns subjected to axial
monotonic and cyclic compression. The following conclusions are
drawn from this work:
(1) The confinement provided by the CFRP wraps resulted in
significant enhancement both in axial stress capacity and
axial strain capacity for CFRP-confined plain and RC circular
73
columns. The average effective strain coefficient of the CFRP
wrap was found to be equal to 0.80 and not noticeably influ-
enced by the internal steel reinforcement as well as the
cross-sectional dimensions. Size therefore was not deemed
to noticeably influence the behavior of the specimens.
(2) For the CFRP-confined RC columns, the internal steel rein-
forcement was found to influence the shape of the stress–
strain curve in addition to the unloading/reloading paths.
The internal steel was also found to influence the peak axial
stress and strain, as well as the effective lateral confinement.
Such influence should not be ignored in constitutive
modeling.
(3) The envelope curves of cyclic stress–strain response were
almost identical to the monotonic stress–strain responses
of geometrically equivalent specimens. A monotonic axial
stress–strain model was then developed based on mono-
tonic tests for the envelope curves of FRP-confined plain
and RC circular columns. The unloading paths were non-lin-
ear, while the reloading paths mainly resembled straight
lines. Polynomial and linear expressions were therefore used
to represent the unloading and reloading paths, respectively.
(4) A cyclic compression stress–strain model was developed by
combining the monotonic stress–strain model with the
unloading/reloading path model (i.e. also referred to as the
cyclic rules). The good agreement between the predictions
of the proposed model with the tests results of this paper
74 Z.Y. Wang et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 64–74
and other relevant tests extracted from the open literature
demonstrate the capability and accuracy of the proposed
model.
Acknowledgments
Support provided to the first author by the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51078109 and 50408010)
and also the Heilongjiang Provincial Foundation for the Returned
Overseas Scholars (Project No. LC2011C23) are acknowledged.
References
[1] Deimers M, Neale KW. Strengthening of concrete columns with unidirectional
composite sheets. In: Development in short and medium span bridge
engineering, proc, 4th int conf on short and medium bridges, Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Canada; 1994. p. 895–905.
[2] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, El-Echary HE, Mastrapa JC, Pico O. Effect
of column parameters on FRP-confined concrete. J Compos Constr
1998;2(4):175–85.
[3] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber
composite wraps. J Mater Civil Eng 2000;12(2):139–46.
[4] Binici B. An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of confined concrete.
Eng Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.
[5] Li GQ. Experimental study of FRP confined concrete cylinders. Eng Struct
2006;28(6):1001–8.
[6] Eid R, Paultre P. Plasticity-based model for circular concrete columns confined
with fibre-composite sheets. Eng Struct 2007;29(12):3301–11.
[7] Jiang T, Teng JG. Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for FRP-confined
concrete. Eng Struct 2007;29(11):2968–86.
[8] Wu YF, Wang LM. A unified strength model for square and circular concrete
columns confined by external jacket. J Struct Eng 2009;135(3):253–61.
[9] Cui C, Sheikh SA. Experimental study of normal- and high-strength concrete
confined with fiber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr 2010;14(5):553–61.
[10] Cui C, Sheikh SA. Analytical model for circular normal- and high-strength
concrete columns confined with FRP. J Compos Constr 2010;14(5):562–72.
[11] Demir C, Kolcu K, Ilki A. Effects of loading rate and duration on axial behavior
of concrete confined by fiber-reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos Constr
2010;14(2):146–51.
[12] Smith ST, Kim SJ, Zhang HW. Behavior and effectiveness of FRP wrap in the
confinement of large concrete cylinders. J Compos Constr 2010;14(5):573–82.
[13] Bisby LA, Chen JF, Li SQ, Stratford TJ, Cueva N, Crossling K. Strengthening fire-
damaged concrete by confinement with fibre-reinforced polymer wraps. Eng
Struct 2011;33(12):3381–91.
[14] Harajli MN. Axial stress–strain relationship for FRP confined circular and
rectangular concrete columns. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10):938–48.
[15] Matthys S, Toutanji H, Taerwe L. Stress–strain behavior of large-scale circular
columns confined with FRP composites. J Compos Constr 2006;132(1):123–33.
[16] Rougier VC, Luccioni BM. Numerical assessment of FRP retrofitting systems for
reinforced concrete elements. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1664–75.
[17] Eid R, Paultre P. Analytical model for FRP-confined circular reinforced concrete
columns. J Compos Constr 2008;12(5):541–52.
[18] Benzaid R, Mesbah H, Chikh NE. FRP-confined concrete cylinders: axial
compression experiments and strength model. J Reinf Plast Compos
2010;29(16):2469–88.
[19] Chastre C, Silva MAG. Monotonic axial behavior and modelling of RC circular
columns confined with CFRP. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2268–77.
[20] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Analytical model for FRP confinement of concrete
columns with and without internal steel reinforcement. J Compos Constr
2010;14(6):693–705.
[21] Lam L, Teng JG, Cheung CH, Xiao Y. FRP-confined concrete under axial cyclic
compression. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10):949–58.
[22] Shao Y, Zhu Z, Mirmiran A. Cyclic modeling of FRP-confined concrete with
improved ductility. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10):959–68.
[23] Lam L, Teng JG. Stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete under cyclic
axial compression. Eng Struct 2009;31(2):308–21.
[24] Abbasnia R, Ziaadiny H. Behavior of concrete prisms confined with FRP
composites under axial cyclic compression. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):648–55.
[25] Ilki A, Peker O, Karamuk E, Demir C, Kumbasar N. FRP retrofit of low and
medium strength circular and rectangular reinforced concrete columns. J
Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(2):169–88.
[26] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-02) and commentary. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills,
MI, USA; 2002.
[27] ASTM D3039/D3039M-08. Standard test method for tensile properties of
polymer matrix composite materials. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA; 2008.
[28] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[29] Carey SA, Harries KA. Axial behavior and modeling of small-, medium-, and
large-scale circular sections confined with CFRP jackets. ACI Struct J
2005;92(3):295–303.
[30] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening concrete structures. ACI 440.2R-08, American
Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 2008.
[31] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[32] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. West Sussex
(UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2002.