Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Axial compressive behavior of UHPC confined by FRP

Zheng Dang a, b, Zhiyuan Li b, Peng Feng b, *
a
College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
b
MOE Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To improve the negative influence on the structural members from the failure brittleness of the ultra-high
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) performance concrete (UHPC) and enhance the load-bearing capacity and deformability of the structural
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) members, the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) confined UHPC columns have been proposed and are attractive in
Compressive behavior
practical engineering. The performance of the unconfined and FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under axial
Failure mechanism
Shear-slip deformation patterns
compressive load was investigated experimentally. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study. For
the FRP-confined UHPC cylinders with low, medium or high confinement levels, the stress-strain relations
showed three kinds of behavior. Based on the analysis of the lateral strains of FRP and the shear-slip deformation
patterns of UHPC cylinder, a three-stage failure mechanism for the FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under
compression was proposed in this paper, including: (I) the formation of microcracks, (II) the formation of shear
cracks, and (III) the formation and propagation of major shear cracks. Besides, design-oriented equations for
predicting the ultimate compressive strength and ultimate axial strain were proposed, in which the confinement
stiffness ratio and the strain ratio were considered as essential parameters.

1. Introduction
As concrete technology has advanced in recent decades, a kind of
innovative concrete material known as ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC) [1,2] has been developed and applied in a variety of civil en­
gineering fields. To optimize structural self-weight and reduce con­
struction cost, UHPC can be utilized in bridge engineering (as decks or
prestressed beams) [3,4] and building engineering (as columns, beams,
façades, stairs, balconies and roofs, etc.) [5,6]. In addition, airfield
runways [6], shell structural elements [7] and structural rehabilitation
[5] also adopt UHPC to fulfill special performance demands which
normal concrete cannot reach.
The broad application prospect of UHPC is mainly attributed to own
dense microstructure, which makes it have a series of outstanding ma­
terial properties compared with normal- and high-strength concretes,
including [6]:
(I) Ultra-high compressive strength. The compressive strength of UHPC
used in practical engineering generally ranges from 150 MPa to
200 MPa, which reaches the same order of magnitudes with
strength of the steel. Utilizing this advantage, the sectional
dimension and the self-weight of UHPC-adopted reinforced
concrete (RC) members can be reduced distinctly, while the span
of the structure can also be increased by using prestress
technology.
(II) Great elastic modulus. The compressive elastic modulus of UHPC
generally lies in the range of 45–55 GPa and even twice that of the
existing normal concrete. As such, in structural rehabilitation
engineering, the cross-section of components designed by UHPC
can bear and attract more forces to protect the existing compo­
nents, due to its higher stiffness. Moreover, this advantage of
UHPC is more suitable for infrastructures sensitive to vibration
and deformation, such as airfield runways and high-speed rail­
ways, etc.
(III) High tensile strength. The addition of the short steel fibers not only
enhance the tensile strength of UHPC, but also bring about a
distinct improvement in the post-peak tensile behavior. The
strength in uniaxial tension of UHPC can reach up to 11 MPa,
while the flexural tensile strength reaches even 40 MPa with less
brittleness. As a result, UHPC is appealing for the structural or
nonstructural members with higher demand for tensile perfor­
mance. Furthermore, the steel fibers can reduce the amount of the
steel reinforcements required.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dangzheng@cau.edu.cn (Z. Dang), lizhiyua18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (Z. Li), fengpeng@tsinghua.edu.cn (P. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116110
Received 11 January 2022; Received in revised form 2 July 2022; Accepted 12 August 2022
Available online 17 August 2022
0263-8223/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Dang et al.
(IV) Durability. Owing to the very dense microstructure, UHPC can
resist the penetration of aggressive media that attack and damage
concrete, and then provide the steel reinforcement with much
better protection against corrosion. Therefore, UHPC exhibit a
better environmental resistance than is the case with normal- or
high-strength concrete. This advantage is helpful for the appli­
cation of UHPC in marine environment.
In spite of the advantages above, it is well known that the concrete
matrix with higher compressive strength become more brittle. This ef­
fect is particularly evident with UHPC. That implies this material defect
in UHPC will seriously inhibit the application of UHPC [8]. Although the
toughness of UHPC can also be improved by adding steel fibers, the
improvement effect is so limited that the ultimate load-bearing capacity
of UHPC members cannot be greatly enhanced in practical engineering
[9]. Especially in regions of seismicity, when the vertical load-bearing
members with UHPC as main engineering material present sudden
failure, the consequences will be catastrophic for the whole structure.
Usually, high-strength concrete (the characteristic value of cube
compressive strength, fcu,k, is larger than 60 MPa according to the Chi­
nese Standard [10]) also suffers from the same disadvantage of the
brittleness, but the effective solution is to use the external confining
materials, like steel tubes [11], stirrups [12], fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) tubes [13] and sheets [14,44], and combinations of the above
materials [38,40,45]. The confining materials can limit the lateral
expansion of the confined cement-based material and enhance the
compressive strength and ductility of composite members. Therefore, it
can be inferred that UHPC members with confining materials can also
show better mechanical behavior and satisfy higher engineering
demands.
Among various kinds of the confining materials, FRP is a relatively
advanced material, characterized as persistent passive confinement
because of its linear elastic and high strength material properties. As a
result, the FRP-confined concrete (e.g., concrete filled FRP tubes or FRP
wrapped concrete) has a significant enhancement in strength and
deformability and shows the bilinear stress-strain behaviors without
descending branch, as opposed to a decay on the post-peak softening
branch of the steel-confined one [15]. Based on this unique behavior,
many researchers around the world had carried out all kinds of study on
the FRP-confined concrete, including testing specimens with different
concrete and FRP materials, proposing design-oriented or analysis-
oriented models or proposing novel structural members according to
the confinement mechanism. Mirmiran and Shahawy [16] investigated
the performance of concrete-filled FRP tubes under uniaxial compres­
sion and demonstrated the enhancement in strength and ductility of
concrete confined by FRP. The confinement with FRP, unlike steel, can
curtail the dilation tendency of concrete, which leads to the bilinear
compression behavior. Lam et al. [17] tested CFRP-wrapped concrete
cylinders under cyclic compression and investigated the damage
behavior of concrete during unloading/reloading cycles. The cyclic
compressive loading had little effect on the envelope curve of axial
stress-strain responses, except for a small enhancement of the FRP hoop
rupture strain. And a design-oriented stress-strain model was tested to be
available for predicting the envelope curve of FRP-confined concrete
under cyclic compression. Choi et al. [18,19] advocated using FRP wire
stretched with a pretension for external jackets to confine concrete
structures without using epoxy, which could eliminate the problem of
the gap or the slackness of the jackets of FRP sheets and improve the
effect of confining pressure on concrete cylinder. Yang and Feng [20,21]
proposed a 3-dimensional geometrical approach to interpret the general
theory of analysis-oriented models for FRP-confined normal- and high-
strength concrete. With this approach, a systematic methodology for
calibrating analysis-oriented models was demonstrated, and the major
concepts, parameters and formulas of design-oriented models were
justified theoretically.
However, the existing researches [13,14,22–24] on the axial
2
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
compressive behavior of FRP-confined UHPC specimen mainly focused
on analyzing the influence of the design parameters and proposing the
calculation formulas instead of explaining the failure mechanism. Zoh­
revand and Mirmiran [13] investigated the compressive behaviors of the
UHPC-filled FRP tube with different fiber types and tube thicknesses.
The experimental results showed that the compressive behavior of the
FRP-confined UHPC was similar to that of the FRP-confined conven­
tional concrete, but had a significant increase in both strength and
ductility in contrast with the FRP-confined high strength concrete
(HSC). It was also found that the existing confinement models tended to
underestimate the ultimate strengths at higher confinement and none of
them could predict accurately the ultimate strains. Oliveira et al. [23]
analyzed the confinement effects of the carbon and glass fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP and GFRP) wraps on normal-, high-, and ultrahigh-
strength concrete (NSC, HSC and UHSC) cylinders. It was found that,
different from FRP-confined NSC, both FRP-confined HSC and UHSC
displayed a distinct stress-strain behavior with a considerable strength
enhancement in the first branch of the stress-strain curve and a softening
or hardening in the transitional zone depending on the confinement
level. Lam et al. [24] tested the compressive behavior of the unconfined
and CFRP-confined UHPC cylindrical specimens and proposed predic­
tive equations for the compressive strength and ultimate axial strain
based on the test results from the own study and existing literature. And
an existing design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined con­
ventional concrete had been recalibrated for FRP-confined UHPC.
From the above mentioned, as the failure of UHPC under axial
compression has significant brittleness, which is a very unfavorable
failure mode and behavior, using UHPC confined by FRP is quite
necessary for applications to achieve ductile failure. Moreover, the ultra-
high compressive strength (150–200 MPa) and great elastic modulus
(45–55 GPa) of UHPC are obviously different from that of normal con­
crete in terms of material properties, which is likely to make the axial
compressive behaviors of FRP-confined UHPC different from that of
confined normal concrete, resulting in the existing model no longer
applicable. This inference comes from the fact that different axial
compressive behaviors occur in other types of confined cement-based
materials, such as the coral aggregate concrete [25] and Engineered
Cementitious Composite (ECC) [26]. Therefore, it is of great significance
to further study the axial compressive response and the mechanism of
FRP-confined UHPC cylinders.
In this paper, the specimens with different confining materials
(carbon fiber sheets and glass fiber sheets) and different confinement
levels were tested under monotonic and cyclic axial compressive load.
More importantly, the influence of the confinement on the mechanical
behavior and the failure mechanism of the specimens were investigated
and presented based on the analysis of the experimental data and phe­
nomena, as well the predictive equations for the ultimate state were
given.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen preparation
In total 16 cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 100 mm and a
height of 200 mm were prepared and tested in this paper, including 4
unconfined and 12 FRP-confined specimens. The experimental param­
eters included the FRP type (Glass fiber sheets (G), and Carbon fiber
sheets (C)) and the number of FRP layers (0, 2, 5 and 8) and the loading
mode (Monotonic loading (M) and Cyclic loading (C)). Each specimen
group in this test was given a name. For the FRP-confined specimens, the
group name starts with the letter “U” representing the UHPC specimens,
followed by the letter “G” or “C” and the number “2”, “5” or “8” indi­
cating the FRP type and the number of FRP layers, and ends with the
letter “M” or “C” representing the loading mode, and each group only
includes one specimen. For the unconfined specimens, the group name
also starts with the letter “U”, but followed by the number “0” indicating
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Table 1
Test matrix of the cylindrical specimens.
Specimen Cement-based materials Type of FRP Number of FRP layers Loading mode Number of specimens

U-0-M/C UHPC Unconfined 0 Monotonic and 4

U-G2-M/C GFRP 2 Cyclic 2
U-G5-M/C 5 2
U-G8-M/C 8 2
U-C2-M/C CFRP 2 2
U-C5-M/C 5 2
U-C8-M/C 8 2

Table 2
Mix proportions of UHPC (kg/m3).
Cement Silica fume Quartz sand Expansion agent Steel fibers Water Superplasticizer

884 221 1105 111 75 177 44

that the specimens were not wrapped by FRP jackets, and also ends with
the letter “M” or “C”. Each group of the unconfined specimens has two
identical specimens. A detailed test matrix is shown in Table 1.
The mixture proportions of the UHPC used in the study are shown in
Table 2. The cement-based materials were produced with P.O. 42.5 or­
dinary Portland cement, silica fume with an average particle size of
0.1–0.3 μm, and quartz sand with a maximum particle size of 0.42 mm as
fine aggregate. Expansion agent was used to reduce the shrinkage of
UHPC after setting and hardening. UHPC does not contain any coarse
aggregate, instead, 1% volume fraction of copper-plated plain short steel
fibers were added. The steel fibers are shown in Fig. 1 and their physical
and mechanical properties are listed in Table 3. The mixed water was
common domestic water, and the water-cementitious material ratio of
UHPC was 0.16. To ensure proper workability, a polycarboxylate
superplasticizer with a solid content of 20% was added as a high-range
water-reducing admixture.
According the mix proportions listed in the Table 2, the solid in­
gredients including cement, silica fume, quartz sand, and expansion
agent were mixed first, and then the water and superplasticizer were
added into the dry mixture and finally the steel fibers were added into
the mortar paste slowly and mixed until the fibers were well dispersed.
After mixing, the fresh UHPC mixtures were cast into molds. All the
specimens were cast in one batch to reduce possible dispersion of UHPC.
After casting, the UHPC specimens were cured in high temperature and
steamed environment. The temperature in the curing tanks where the
UHPC specimens were stored was gradually raised to 90 ◦ C [27] for 4 h,
then maintained at 90 ◦ C for 92 h, before naturally cooling to ambient
temperature of 20 ◦ C. The steam curing method with constant high-
temperature was conducive to the secondary hydration reaction of the
cementitious material, which can make the internal microstructure of
UHPC denser and the compressive strength higher. Then, the molds
were removed and the specimens were maintained under standard
curing conditions following the relevant Chinese standard [28] for 24
days in the laboratory. During this process, the temperature was kept
constant at 20 ± 2 ◦ C and the relative humidity was kept greater than
95%. Afterwards, the cylinders were placed in an outdoor ventilated
place to dry, which is necessary for ensuring the bond between the fiber
sheets and UHPC. Unidirectional fiber sheets impregnated with epoxy
resin were used to wrap the cylinders and the detailed operations were
introduced carefully in the previous paper [26] by the authors and
omitted in this paper. All of the FRP-confined cylinders were allowed to
cure for at least seven days before testing. The age of UHPC specimens
tested is 90 days.
2.2. Material properties
2.2.1. UHPC
Three coupons with cross-sectional dimensions of 20 mm × 100 mm
and a length of 200 mm [29] were tested to determine the tensile
properties of UHPC. The tensile load was applied at a displacement rate
of 0.15 mm/min. Axial strain in tension was measured by a pair of ex­
tensometers with gauge lengths of 50 mm. The uniaxial tensile stress-
strain curves of the UHPC coupons are shown in Fig. 2. The tensile

Fig. 1. Steel fibers.

Table 3
Physical and mechanical properties of the steel fibers.
Type of Section Diameter Length Tensile Density (g/
fiber (μm) (mm) strength (MPa) cm3)

Steel Round 220 13 2850 7.5

Fig. 2. Uniaxial tensile stress-strain curve of UHPC.

3
Z. Dang et al.
strength of UHPC had great discreteness with a maximum of 6.7 MPa
and a minimum of 3.7 MPa. Two of the specimens showed a linear
ascending branch, followed by a linear descending branch and an
approximate plateau softening branch, while the other had a linear
ascending branch with low tensile strength, followed by a nonlinear
ascending branch and an approximate plateau softening branch after the
peak. The difference in ascending branch and tensile strength depended
on the dispersion of cement matrix. The post-peak softening branch,
accompanied with a single crack which widened gradually, mainly de­
pends on the bridging effect of steel fiber. Generally, UHPC shows
obvious brittle failure but owing to the addition of the steel fibers, the
tensile toughness, the energy absorption of the material and the residual
strength are significantly improved. The cube compressive strength (fcu)
of the UHPC obtained from three standard cube specimens with a
dimension of 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm [30,31] was 142.1 ± 7.0
MPa.
2.2.2. FRP sheets
Tensile tests of FRP flat coupons were conducted in accordance with
ASTM D3039 [32] and GB/T 3354-2014 [33]. The detailed information
about the material property tests is the same with the tests in the pre­
vious paper [26] by the authors and is also omitted in this paper. The
elastic modulus of GFRP and CFRP were 91.1 GPa and 236.9 GPa,
respectively, and the ultimate tensile strains were 2.19% and 1.78%.
2.3. Test setup and loading regime
All the cylinders were tested under a universal testing machine with
a load capacity of 5000 kN. Both monotonic and cyclic loading were
carried out in the same force–displacement controlled manner. The load
was controlled by force and applied at a rate of 2 kN/s until the load
reached the peak strength displacement, which refers to the displace­
ment corresponding to the peak load of the unconfined cylinders. After
that, for the specimens under monotonic loading, the load was changed
to be controlled by displacement at a rate of 1 mm/min until failure. For
the specimens under cyclic loading, the peak strength displacement of
Fig. 3. Test setup of instrumentation and strain gauges.
4
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
the unconfined cylinders was served as a constant displacement incre­
ment for each cycle. Each specimen was first loaded to a specified axial
displacement level, which is an integer multiple of the peak strength
displacement, then unloaded to a target load level (approximate to the
value of 0 kN), and finally reloaded to the next specified displacement
level until failure. At each specified displacement level, only one
unloading–reloading cycle was employed. During the cycles, the
reloading/unloading was controlled with a displacement rate of 1 mm/
min.
The setup of the instrumentation and the strain gauges were shown
in Fig. 3. Four linear variable displacement transformers (LVDTs) with a
gauge length of 150 mm were attached to the middle of the cylinders via
a steel frame, spaced 90 degrees along the circumference of the cylin­
ders. For the unconfined specimens, two axial strain gauges (A-SGs) and
two lateral strain gauges (L-SGs) with a gauge length of 50 mm were
pasted on the surface of the UHPC at mid-height position of the speci­
mens, spaced 180 degrees along the circumference. And for the FRP-
confined specimens, two axial strain gauges (A-SGs) and four strain
gauges (L-SGs) with a gauge length of 15 mm were pasted on the surface
of the FRP jackets at mid-height position of the specimens, spaced 180
degrees and 90 degrees respectively along the circumference.
3. Test results
3.1. Axial stress-strain response
The axial stress-strain curves from the axial compression test are
shown in Fig. 4. The axial strain was calculated according to the average
displacement from the LVDTs. Considering the limited number of the
specimens, the experiment results under both monotonic and cyclic
loading modes were drawn in the same diagram to verify the repeat­
ability and correctness of the tests. The axial stres-strain responses of
UHPC without and with FRP confinement were presented and
compared. And the compressive behaviors of the FRP-confined cylinders
with different confinement levels (number of FRP layers) were
summarized.
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Fig. 4a and 4b show the axial stress-strain curves for the unconfined
specimens. The ascending branch showed distinct linear until the axial
stress reached about 90% of the peak strength. At the stage of 90%
~100% of the peak strength, the axial deformation increased rapidly
and the curves showed non-linear behaviors. After the peak, the cylinder
lost the load-bearing capacity too instantly to record, which could be
classified as brittle failure. The detailed test results of unconfined UHPC
cylinders under monotonic and cyclic compression are listed in Table 4.
The measured results of axial strain (εco), elastic modulus (Ec), and
Poisson’s ratio (νc) were calculated based on the data from the strain
gauge [34]. The average values of the compressive strength (f′ co) of the
unconfined UHPC cylinders reached larger than 130 MPa and the

Fig. 4. Axial stress-strain curves of unconfined and FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under monotonic and cyclic compression.

5
Z. Dang et al.
Table 4
Test results of unconfined UHPC cylinders under monotonic and cyclic compression.
Specimens f′ co (MPa) εco (με)
Measured Average Measured
U-0-M 150.7 136.1 2969
121.5 2837
U-0-C 126.8 135.9 2810
144.9 3141
Fig. 5. Typical axial stress-strain curves of the unconfined and FRP-
confined specimens.
corresponding axial strain (εco) reached up to 2900 με. The average
elastic modulus of UHPC was 45.7 GPa, which was much larger than that
of normal concrete (NC) reported in the previous paper [26]. While, the
Poisson’s ratio of UHPC was 0.19 and close to that of normal concrete. It
should be noted that the values of the compressive strength and the
corresponding axial strain for the unconfined UHPC specimens
mentioned in the subsequent analysis will be subject to the test results of
monotonic loading.
Fig. 4c-h show the axial stress-strain curves for the FRP-confined
specimens with different types and layers of FRP jackets. It could be
found that the skeleton of the stress-strain cyclic curves generally agreed
with the stress-strain curves under monotonic loading, and the speci­
mens tested under cyclic loading showed higher ultimate compressive
strength and lager ultimate axial strain, which was consistent with the
observations for NC and ECC specimens in the previous paper [26]. This
may be related to more fully crack propagation of UHPC and thus more
uniform deformation of the FRP jackets during the repeated unloading
and reloading cycles of the axial compression test. Due to the errors of
the LVDTs, it should be specially noted that the specimens U-G5-C and
U-G8-C were not loaded strictly following the cyclic loading regime in
Sections 2.3.
In view of the existing research model [23,35–37], through the
analysis of the axial compressive behaviors under monotonic loading,
the FRP-confined specimens could be classified into three group ac­
cording to the confinement level, including low confinement, medium
confinement and high confinement. The specimens in each group
showed different stress-strain behaviors, which were plotted in Fig. 5.
(I) Low confinement group. When the number of FRP layers was few,
the axial stress-strain curves first kept almost linear ascending
branch until the elastic ultimate was reached, and then the axial
strain increased rapidly until the first peak strength (f′ c1). After
the first peak point, there was an obvious stress descending in the
curves, followed by an ascending branch with a small slope.
Finally, the FRP jackets ruptured and the axial stress reached the
maximum axial compressive strength on second ascending
branch, i.e., ultimate compressive strength (f′ cc). Although the
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
Ec (GPa) νc
Average Measured Average Measured Average
2903 46.6 45.7 0.20 0.19
43.9 0.18
2976 44.2 0.19
47.9 0.20
axial stress could increase again after first peak point, the ulti­
mate compressive strength of the specimen was even less than the
first peak strength under low confinement level. Specimens U-G2-
M/C and U-C2-M/C belong to low confinement group.
(II) Medium confinement group. When the number of FRP layers in­
crease, basically, the axial stress-strain curves of this group were
similar with that of the low confinement group. The main dif­
ference between them were the degrees of the stress descending
and the relations between the first peak strength and the ultimate
compressive strength. For medium confinement group, the stress
descending was slight and the slope of the second ascending
branch was larger and thus the ultimate compressive strength
was not lower than the first peak strength. Specimens U-G5-M/C,
U-C5-M/C and U-G8-M/C belong to medium confinement group.
(III) High confinement group. As the number of FRP layers continued to
increase, the axial stress-strain curves of this group showed
distinct bilinear behaviors, which was characterized by the axial
stress kept continuous increasing with the increase of axial strain,
and there was no axial stress descending. The stress increased
with a relatively small slope in the second ascending branch and
the stiffness of the curve had an obvious turning at the yield point
determined by the farthest point method [38,39], and finally
reached the ultimate compressive strength. The ultimate
compressive strength was greater than the strength at yield point.
Specimens U-C8-M/C belong to high confinement group.
In addition, the stress-strain curves of the specimens belonging to
“Low confinement group” (e.g., U-G2-M and U-G2-C) decreased slowly
after the ultimate compressive strength. This is because the rupture of
FRP jackets initialed locally and developed gradually. As a result, the
confinement effect of FRP was lost slowly, and the axial stress decreased
slowly with the progressive failure of FRP. For the others, the FRP
jackets was suddenly ruptured and completely broken. Without the
confinement, the internal UHPC cylinders were no longer able to carry
the axial compressive load, finally leading in a sharp decline in the axial
stress.
3.2. Experimental observations and failure modes
Due to the difference of the confinement levels, the UHPC specimens
showed quite different failure modes, which determined the axial stress-
strain behaviors in Section 3.1. The typical failure modes of the un­
confined and FRP-confined UHPC specimens are discussed in this section
and are shown in Fig. 6. It should be emphasized here that Fig. 6 showed
the final failure mode of the specimen, not necessarily the damage
during loading.
For the unconfined UHPC specimens, once a few small vertical cracks
were formed under axial compression then would penetrate rapidly the
overall height of cylinders with the increase of principal tensile strain,
and resulted in a failure mode dominated by columnar splitting, as
shown in Fig. 6a. A similar phenomenon was also found in the study of
Wang et al. [14]. This sudden failure mode was related to the ultra-high
compressive strength of UHPC, that is, the axial stress of UHPC at
cracking was higher than that of ordinary strength concrete, which was
easy to lead to the rapid development of cracks and serious brittleness.
The failure process was so sudden that the bridging effect of steel fibers
6
Z. Dang et al.
Fig. 6. Typical failure modes of UHPC specimens.
could not work, and the specimens had lost their load-bearing capacity
instantly. But owing to the addition of steel fibers, the cylinders kept
compact instead of splashing, which was different from the NC cylin­
ders. Meanwhile, the conical failure surfaces at two ends observed in the
test of the NC cylinders were not found in the unconfined UHPC
specimens.
For the FRP-confined specimens under axial compression, the failure
modes of internal UHPC cylinders wrapped by external different layers
of FRP sheets could been shown in Fig. 6b. Under the axial compressive
load and the lateral confinement, UHPC cylinders were in triaxial
compressive conditions, in which the damage evolution depended
mainly on the shear stress. Due to the absence of coarse aggregate in
UHPC matrix, the diagonal shear cracks were resisted by the steel fibers
with weaker shear stiffness, and thus the small shear cracks tended to
cause the penetration of the whole specimens and split into two wedges,
forming a pair of shear fracture surfaces. As shown in Fig. 7, the fracture
surfaces slid with each other under shear and were relatively smooth,
and the steel fibers were pulled out under the tensile stress and parallel
to the sliding planes.
Whereas, the failure mode of the UHPC cylinders with different
confinement levels could vary, as shown in Fig. 6b. When the lateral
confinement stiffness was insufficient, the shear fracture surfaces were
easy to occur under shear stress, and the final failure mode of the
specimen was typical shear failure, as shown in specimens U-C2-M and
U-C5-M in Fig. 6b, corresponding to the low and medium confinement
groups. With the increase of the confinement stiffness, FRP jackets could
provide sufficient lateral confinement to limit the sliding of the wedges,
so that more new shear fracture surfaces occurred on the UHPC cylinder
under triaxial compression and finally formed some crisscross wedges
Fig. 7. Shear fracture surface of the confined UHPC cylinder.
7
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
with the multi-direction sliding planes, as shown in specimen U-C8-M in
Fig. 6b, corresponding to the high confinement group.
The failure modes described above were quite different from the
those of the FRP-confined NC or ECC specimens reported in the previous
paper [26]. The stress states of the confined UHPC, NC and ECC cylin­
ders were all in triaxial compressive condition and some shear cracks
caused by the shear stress appeared locally. However, the confined NC
and ECC cylinders showed a compressive failure mode with the
approximately circular lateral expansion in the mid-height of the spec­
imens, even with a low or medium confinement level, instead of the
shear failure mode on UHPC specimens characterized by diagonal
fracture surfaces through the whole height of the specimen and roughly
elliptical lateral deformation. This is caused by the material property
difference between the confined cement-based materials.
Meanwhile, be noted that, the final failure of all the specimens was
caused by the rupture of the FRP jackets. And the rupture patterns were
greatly affected by the crack patterns of internal cement-based cylin­
ders. The most significant difference was that, for FRP-confined UHPC
specimens, the rupture of FRP jackets occurred first near the ends of the
cylinder, which was roughly at the tips of the wedges, even if both ends
of the cylinder had been locally strengthened by additional FRP strips.
This damage phenomenon was particularly obvious in the specimens of
“Low confinement groups” and “Medium confinement groups”, such as
specimens U-G2-M, U-G5-C, U-C2-M and U-C5-M, as shown in Fig. 8a-d.
In each figure, the left is the comparison diagram of the specimen
without damage, the middle is the initial damage with visible rupture of
fiber sheets, and the right is the final failure mode of the concrete core
cylinder inside the FRP jackets. For the FRP-confined NC specimens,
however, the rupture of FRP jackets occurred first at the mid-height of
the cylinder, which corresponded to the area of the greatest lateral
expansion, as shown in Fig. 8e.
3.3. Stress-strain relationships
The axial stress versus axial and lateral strain curves of the uncon­
fined and FRP-confined UHPC specimens under monotonic loading are
plotted in Fig. 9, and some key results are extracted or calculated and
listed in Table 5. The lateral strains (εl) for the unconfined specimens
were the average values of the two L-SGs set on the surface and those for
the FRP-confined specimens were the average values of the three L-SGs
set outside the overlapping zone (L-SG2 ~ 4 shown in Fig. 3). Some
strain gauges were damaged during the tests and the lateral strains were
calculated based on the strain gauges remaining intact. These data are
plotted as dotted line in Fig. 9.
For the specimens with the same type of confinement materials, the
UHPC cylinders showed the following characteristics: 1) With the in­
crease of confinement levels, namely the actual confinement ratio (fl,a/
f′ co) or the confinement stiffness ratio (ρk = 2Efrpt/(f′ co/εco)/D) [35], the
ultimate compressive strength (f′ cc), the ultimate axial strain (εcu) and
the hoop rupture strain (εh,rup) increased. 2) The first peak strength (f′ c1)
(or the yield strength) was larger than the peak strength of the
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Fig. 8. Damage phenomena of the FRP-confined specimens with different cement-based materials.

Fig. 9. Monotonic compressive stress-strain relationships for UHPC cylinders.

Table 5
Test results of the FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under monotonic compression.
Specimens f′ cc (MPa) εcu (%) εh,rup (%) fl,a/f′ co ρk

U-G2-M # 139.5 0.77 1.44 0.065 0.013

U-G5-M 222.1 1.59 1.65 0.187 0.033
U-G8-M 290.6 1.78 1.91 0.346 0.053
U-C2-M # 156.7 0.85 1.04 0.080 0.022
U-C5-M 229.7 1.18 1.27 0.245 0.056
U-C8-M 329.9 1.81 1.24 0.383 0.090

Note: fl,a is the actual maximum confining pressure.

#
For the specimens U-G2-M and U-C2-M, due to low confinement level, the ultimate compressive strength was lower than the first peak strength. The first peak
strength and the corresponding strain (ε′ c1) were adopted in the data fitting to predict the ultimate state in Section 5, 149.8 MPa, 0.41% for the specimen U-G2-M, and
182.1 MPa, 0.45% for the specimen U-C2-M.

8
Z. Dang et al.
Fig. 10. Normalized lateral strain-axial strain relations (the CFRP-confined
specimens as examples).
unconfined specimens and increased with the increase of confinement
levels. 3) The first peak point (or the yield point) was followed by sharp
increase of the lateral strain and stress descending. The degrees of the
stress increase and the drop decreased with increasing confinement
levels. 4) With increasing confinement levels, the stiffness of the second
ascending branch of the axial stress-strain curves increased.
To better understand the compressive behavior of the FRP-confined
UHPC cylinders, the normalized lateral strain-axial strain curves are
drawn in Fig. 10, and the curves of the other cement-based materials (e.
g., NC and ECC) cylinders reported in the previous paper [26] were also
plotted and compared with those of the UHPC cylinders. Axial strain and
lateral strain in Fig. 10 were normalized by their own axial strain (εco)
corresponding to peak strength of the unconfined cylinders, and the
secant slope of the curve was the ratio of the lateral strain to the axial
strain, which was expressed as the lateral-to-axial strain rate (εl/εc), and
the tangent slope of the curve was expressed as the lateral strain growth
rate (dεl/dεc) with the axial strain.
For the specimens with low confinement levels (e.g., for specimen U-
C2-M and N-C2-M), before the axial strain reached the peak strain of the
unconfined cylinders (i.e., εc/εco = 1.0), the lateral strain growth rate
(dεl/dεc) of UHPC kept constant and the lateral-to-axial strain rate (εl/εc)
was at a low level, which was similar to that of NC. When the axial strain
approached and reached the peak strain of the unconfined cylinders, the
lateral strain growth rate of NC had increased obviously, but that of
UHPC had remained basically unchanged. Until the peak strain was
exceeded, that of UHPC began to increase slowly. At the first peak point
(or the yield point), the lateral-to-axial strain rate of UHPC and NC had
reached very high. And both of them develop rapidly with higher and
constant lateral strain growth rate after exceeding the first peak point.
Based on the above experimental observation in Section 3.2 and the
lateral-to-axial strain rate mentioned here, the development of the in­
ternal cracks of the confined specimens could be inferred. When
reaching the peak strain of the unconfined cylinders, a stable growth of
lateral strain illustrated that there were few cracks formation in NC and
UHPC specimens, and the increase of the lateral-to-axial strain rate near
the peak strain indicated the cracks initialed early in the NC cylinders.
After exceeding the peak strain of the unconfined cylinders, some di­
agonal cracks caused by the shear stress appeared and lead to the in­
crease of the lateral-to-axial strain rate of UHPC, but due to the existence
of the steel fibers, the development of diagonal cracks and lateral
expansion were still limited. This could be attributed to the “self-
confinement” effect [26] caused by steel fibers, in which the steel fibers
will limit the growth of lateral strain to a certain extent, and further
exacerbate the shear failure. A similar conclusion that the addition of
steel fibers could lead to higher first peak strength and consequent more
9
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
axial stress drop was also recorded by Wang et al. [14]. Until the first
peak point was reached, the shear cracks merged with each other and
penetrate rapidly the overall height of the UHPC specimens along the
diagonal sliding planes, finally resulting in shear failure. Thus, the
lateral deformation was relatively large, corresponding to the normal­
ized lateral strain εl/εco of 0.8. However, more cracks appeared and
propagated in the NC cylinders with the increasing lateral strain growth
rate, corresponding to a larger normalized lateral strain εl/εco of 1.3.
For the specimens with high confinement levels (e.g., specimen U-
C8-M and N-C8-M), the development trends of lateral-to-axial strain rate
for both UHPC and NC varied greatly with that of specimens with low
confinement levels. When reaching the peak strain of the unconfined
cylinders (corresponding to the normalized axial strain εc/εco of 1.0), the
lateral-to-axial strain rate of both UHPC and NC specimens remained at a
lower level than that of the specimens with low confinement levels,
especially for NC specimens, which indicated that the crack develop­
ment of NC was significantly limited under high confinement. Until close
to the respective yield point, the lateral strain growth rate of UHPC
specimen began to increase significantly, while the lateral strain growth
rate of NC specimen still maintained the same constant rate. Besides, it
should be noted that the lateral-to-axial strain rate of the UHPC speci­
mens exceeded that of the NC specimens at the yield point and the
lateral strain growth rate were higher than that of the NC specimens.
According to the experimental phenomenon, it could be inferred that
the UHPC cylinders kept complete and few cracks appeared, corre­
sponding to the slowly increasing lateral strain growth rate and lower
lateral-to-axial strain rate before the normalized axial strain εc/εco of
1.6, as shown in Fig. 10. Afterwards, the plastic deformation increased
gradually with the development of cracks, the lateral strain growth rate
increased obviously. Until the yield point (corresponding to a normal­
ized axial strain εc/εco of 2.0), the major shear cracks caused by the shear
stress appeared, resulting in a significant increase in lateral-to-axial
strain rate. The deformation patterns of UHPC specimens changed
from lateral expansion to shear sliding, which made the lateral-to-axial
strain rate of UHPC specimen increase to a higher level. Then, the shear-
slip deformation patterns continued to developing until the next in­
flection point. After the inflection point, the lateral strain growth rate
decreased a little, which could correspond to the phenomenon that the
shear-slip deformation alone the diagonal sliding planes was limited and
more shear fracture surfaces in other directions appeared under the high
confinement level, as shown by specimen U-C8-M in Fig. 6b. Because the
deformation pattern of NC specimen dominated by lateral expansion has
not changed essentially, the lateral strain growth rate remained constant
and the growth trend was stable under high confinement.
Generally, with the increase of the confinement level, the lateral
strain and the growth rate of lateral strain with the axial strain were
limited. However, the degrees of the influence of lateral confinement
level varied for different types of concrete. Compared with the speci­
mens with typical deformation patterns and failure modes (such as NC or
ECC cylinders), the influence on the lateral strain of UHPC cylinders
were less obvious, which was related to the shear-slip deformation
patterns. This meant that the shear-slip deformation was less affected by
lateral confinement and the effectiveness of the FRP confinement was
limited, but the lateral expansion deformation was greatly affected and
the effectiveness of the FRP confinement was higher.
3.4. Lateral strain distribution
The lateral strains of the FRP-confined specimens at different average
lateral strain levels (εl,ave = 0.001, 0.003, 0.005, 0.007 or 0.008) are
plotted in Fig. 11 to show the strain distribution in the hoop direction. The
average lateral strains used were determined according to the average of
the three strain gauges outside the overlap zone, i.e., L-SG2~4. It should
be noted that for the specimen U-G2-M, the lateral strain developed so
rapidly that the average lateral strain of 0.007 was not measured and the
data of the average lateral strain of 0.008 were plotted.
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Fig. 11. Lateral strain distribution in the FRP.

To illustrate the relations between the damage mechanism and the
lateral strain distribution well, the standard deviations of the lateral
strains at different average lateral strain levels were calculated and
drawn in Fig. 12a, b and the axial stress-lateral strain curves were
summarized as a simplified model with several branches, which was
based on the behavior characteristics of the test curve, as shown in
Fig. 12c. All the data bars in the Fig. 12a and 12b were marked with the
letter of the branches which the corresponding strain states belonged to.
The meaning of each branch in the model were explained below:
Branch a: the linear ascending branch. In this stage, microcracks are
initially formed, and the resulting lateral strain belongs to elastic
deformation.
Branch b: the non-linear ascending branch. In this stage, a few of
unrecoverable shear cracks appears, and the lateral strain belongs to

Fig. 12. Standard deviation of lateral strains and axial stress-lateral strain model.

10
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

plastic deformation.
Branch b′ : the plateau branch. This stage is a special case of branch b.
In essence, it is also the formation process of shear cracks. Only because
of the concentrated development of local lateral strain, the average
lateral strain increases rapidly, thus a stress platform is formed when the
axial stress remains constant.
Branch c (including c1 or c2): the descending branch. In this stage, the
small shear cracks are connected and merged with each other, and
finally form the major shear cracks penetrating through overall height of
the specimen. Due to the lack of sufficient lateral confinement, the axial
compressive load-bearing capacity decreases and the lateral strain in­
creases rapidly.
Branch d (including d1 or d2): the second ascending branch. In this
stage, as the lateral strains of UHPC cylinder increases, the lateral
confining pressure increases, and resulting in the increase of the axial
stress. Among them, due to existence of the major shear cracks and
sliding planes, “branch d1” occurs after “branch c”, which corresponds
to a low or medium confinement level. When the lateral confining
pressure is sufficient enough to limit the shear-slip deformation and
makes the axial stress increase again, “branch d2” occurs directly after
“branch b” and will not experience “branch c”, which corresponds to a
high confinement level.
According to the simplified model shown in Fig. 12c, the lateral
strain distribution of the all specimens shown in Fig. 12a, b was spe­
cifically analyzed as follows:
Specimen U-G2-M experienced “branch b’” when its average lateral
strain reached 0.3%-0.5%, so the lateral strain gauge L-SG2 had obvious
strain concentration as shown in Fig. 11a, resulting in a larger standard Fig. 13. Ratio of the average lateral strain to the ultimate tensile strain of FRP.
deviation. Specimen U-C2-M experienced “branch c1” when its average
lateral strain reached 0.3%-0.7%, however, since the major shear cracks tensile strain of FRP reached 59%-66%. For the specimens with medium
did not occur at the measurement position of lateral strain gauge, the confinement levels, the ratios reached approximately 59%-63%, which
lateral strain distribution was relatively uniform and the standard de­ meant that some local damages probably appeared in the FRP jacket. For
viation was small. Specimens U-G5-M, U-G8-M and U-C5-M in turn the specimens with high confinement levels, the ratios reached 41%,
experienced “branch c1” and “branch d1” when their average lateral which meant that the FRP jacket was basically intact and there was a
strain reached 0.3%-0.7% (or 0.8%), so the standard deviation of certain safety margin from fracture.
“branch d1” was greater than that of “branch c1” due to shear failure. Furthermore, the FRP efficiency factor [35] of all the specimens,
However, due to the increase of lateral confinement level, the standard which is defined as the ratio of the measured average hoop rupture
deviation of lateral strain was generally small, and the lateral strain strain of the FRP (εh,rup) to the ultimate tensile strain (εfrp) obtained from
distribution was more uniform. Specimen U-C8-M experienced “branch the material property tests, is shown in Fig. 14. It can be seen that the
d2” when its average lateral strain reached 0.3%-0.7%, so the shear-slip FRP efficiency factor of the UHPC specimens maintained a slight
deformation patterns of cylinder were strictly limited by the high increasing tendency with the increase of the confinement stiffness
confinement level, and the uniformity of lateral strain distribution was (2Efrpt/D). This was mainly attributed to the increase in confinement
good and the standard deviation was small. As can be seen above, since stiffness, resulting in more uniform strain distribution. Moreover,
there was only one specimen per case, the standard deviations of the compared with the FRP-confined NC specimens reported in the previous
lateral strains of the specimens showed different patterns with the paper [26], with the same confinement stiffness, the FRP efficiency
increasing average lateral strain level and were less repetitive when
numerous factors were present.
In conclusion, for each certain UHPC specimen, there was a signifi­
cant increase in standard deviation with increasing average lateral
strain, representing an aggravation of local lateral strain concentration,
which was related to the formation and propagation of the major shear
cracks. Besides, the standard deviation of the lateral strain decreased
with increase in the number of FRP layers, representing an improvement
of lateral strain uniformity, which was related to the shear-slip defor­
mation patterns were limited by the increasing confinement level.
To more clearly show the development of average lateral strain of
FRP-confined UHPC specimens under axial compression, the ratio of the
average lateral strain to the ultimate tensile strain of FRP with different
confinement stiffness (2Efrpt/D) as the axial strain increased ranging
from 0.001 to the failure for all the specimens is plotted in Fig. 13. The
Engineering Ultimate State (EUS) corresponding to the axial strain (εeu)
of 0.01 proposed by Feng et al. [40] was taken as the ultimate state in the
design of members with Post-Yield Hardening (PYH) behaviors. The
ratio of the EUS were calculated statistically in this paper. For the
specimens with low confinement levels, the external FRP jacket prob­
ably had ruptured, the ratio of the average lateral strain to the ultimate Fig. 14. Hoop rupture strains of FRP jackets.

11
Z. Dang et al.
Fig. 15. Diagram of the failure mechanism of FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under compression: (a) typical uniaxial tensile behaviors of UHPC; (b) compressive
failure process of FRP-confined UHPC cylinders including (I) formation of microcracks, (II) formation of shear cracks, and (III) formation and propagation of major
shear cracks; and (c) compressive failure modes of UHPC cylinder and corresponding lateral strain in FRP.
factors of FRP-confined UHPC specimens were less on the whole, which
might also be related to the shear-slip deformation patterns and
nonuniform strain distributions of UHPC specimens. The average value
of the FRP efficiency factor of UHPC specimens combined with GFRP
and CFRP data was only 71.3%, which nominally does not reach 100%
of the FRP material properties. In addition, the average value of the FRP
efficiency factor for CFRP-confined UHPC specimens was 66.5%, which
was lower than 76.1% of the GFRP-confined UHPC specimens. It implied
that the lateral strain distribution of specimens wrapped by GFRP sheets
was more uniform than that of CFRP confined specimens. This was
probably because the glass fiber fabric had greater plastic deformation at
fracture, so that the GFRP sheets were more prone to stress
redistribution.
4. Proposed failure mechanism
Based on the experimental results and analysis of the FRP-confined
UHPC cylinders under compression in Section 3, and the uniaxial ten­
sile behaviors of the UHPC, a failure mechanism of FRP-confined UHPC
cylinders under compression was proposed, as shown in Fig. 15. The
compressive failure process of specimens could be divided into the
following three stages: (I) formation of microcracks, (II) formation of
shear cracks, and (III) formation and propagation of major shear cracks.
Stage I: formation of microcracks
Before the axial stress reached about 90% of the compressive
strength (f′ co) of the unconfined cylinders (as point a in Fig. 15b), pri­
or to the axial strain (εco), some microcracks form at internal defect lo­
cations of the UHPC cylinders. In this stage, the lateral strains,
distributing uniformly along the hoop direction, mainly come from the
elastic deformation caused by Poisson’s effect and the lateral confine­
ment effect. Hence, the compressive behaviors of specimens are in the
linear ascending branch of the stress-strain curve, in which the damage
of materials is negligible. Meanwhile, the upper limit of lateral strain at
this stage is less than the first cracking strain (εcr) of UHPC.
Stage II: formation of shear cracks
12
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
As the compressive load increases, the confinement effect of the FRP
jackets work and the cylinder is under triaxial compressive conditions.
The principal tensile strain increases until reaching the first cracking
strain (εcr) of UHPC, as shown in Fig. 15a, the microcracks develop into
small shear cracks gradually under the shear stress, marking that the
unrecoverable plastic deformation appear. Moreover, owing to the
strain softening behavior in tensile of UHPC after cracking as shown in
Fig. 15a, the local shear cracks develop slowly and the axial stress in­
crease until the major shear cracks form, as shown by point b in Fig. 15b.
In this stage, the stress-strain relations show a nonlinear plasticity
ascending behavior and the lateral strains keep uniform along the hoop
directions.
Stage III: formation and propagation of major shear cracks
As the triaxial compressive load increases, the local small shear
cracks connect and merge with each other and finally form the major
shear cracks. The shear fracture surface penetrates the overall height of
the cylinders, leading a typical shear failure accompanied by the shear-
slip deformation. The special failure mode causes a distinct increase of
the lateral strains locating near the major shear cracks. This influences
the lateral confinement effects of the FRP jackets, resulting in an obvious
stress descending for the cylinders with insufficient confinement, which
corresponds to the first peak point shown by the point b in Fig. 15b, or
resulting in a smooth and continuous stiffness degradation process for
the cylinders with sufficient confinement, which corresponds to the
yielding point shown by the point b in Fig. 15b. Afterwards, the axial
stress continues to increase, with the gradual increase of lateral
confining pressure caused by lateral strain, then the axial stress-strain
relation of the cylinders appear a second ascending branch after point
b plotted in Fig. 15b. Finally, the FRP-confined UHPC specimens are
subjected to compression failure until the maximum lateral strain in the
FRP jackets reaches the ultimate tensile strain (εfrp) of FRP, as shown by
the point c in Fig. 15b. In this stage, local strain concentration occurs on
the FRP jackets at the locations of major shear cracks, resulting in a
nonuniform distribution of the actual lateral strain (εl,act) in the FRP. The
lateral strains at the major shear cracks are larger, while those away
Z. Dang et al.
from the major shear cracks are smaller. Hence, the average lateral
strain of FRP (εl,ave) is related to the measuring points arrangement of
strain gauges and the distribution position of cracks.
In general, for the UHPC cylinders with different confinement levels,
the internal cracking patterns could occur differently. When the
confinement was insufficient, the UHPC cylinder appeared the shear-slip
deformation patterns with a pair of shear fracture surfaces and the
rupture of the FRP jackets located near the ends of the specimens, that
was the tips of the wedge. However, in the triaxial compression test with
high confinement level, the cylinders will appear more shear fracture
surfaces and form the crisscross wedges, thus the rupture of the FRP
jackets tended to locate in the mid-height of the specimens. Therefore,
for the stages I and II before shear failure, the lateral deformation was
close to the uniform expansion along the circumference. For the stage III
after shear failure, the lateral deformation mainly developed along the
sliding planes of the wedges, or two or multiple wedges.
According to this proposed failure mechanism, first, the main reason
for the axial stress descending after first peak point of curves shown in
Fig. 4 can be explained. When the lateral confinement stiffness provided
by FRP jackets is insufficient, the UHPC cylinder under high compressive
load is prone to cause the shear fracture surfaces penetrate the overall
height of the cylinder, resulting in a brittle shear failure. Because the
FRP jackets wrapped outside fail to act as a confinement immediately,
the axial load-bearing capacity is lost suddenly. Minor reason was that
the addition of steel fibers caused the “self-confinement” effect [26] in
UHPC, which was more likely to cause shear failure.
Secondly, the variation trend in uniformity of lateral strain distri­
bution shown in Fig. 12 can be well explained. For the UHPC specimens
with a given confinement level, when the average lateral strain of FRP
initially develops, UHPC cylinder is in the formation stage of small shear
cracks and the lateral strain distribution is almost uniform. As the lateral
expansion increases gradually, the formation and propagation of the
major shear fracture surface reduces the uniformity of the lateral strain,
especially for the specimens with low confinement level. Since the
number of major shear cracks formed on the surface of the specimen is
less, the lateral strains which are distinctly large only located near the
major shear cracks and that in most areas away from major shear cracks
are small. As a result, the standard deviation of lateral strains is large but
only in the case that the strain gauges are set near the major shear cracks
the phenomenon can be observed (e.g., specimen U-G2-M). But in most
cases, the standard deviation of lateral strains is roughly small when the
strain gauges are set in the uncracked position.
Further, the result that the hoop rupture strain of FRP jackets less
than the ultimate tensile strain of FRP material shown in Fig. 14 can also
be explained. First, the development of the FRP lateral strain will
concentrate at the crack position on the surface of UHPC cylinders,
resulting in the local strain larger than that in other uncracked areas. In
view of the limited number of strain gauges and the fewer cracks on
UHPC cylinders, most of the strain gauges measure the strain outside the
local cracks, therefore, the measured hoop rupture strain must be less
than the maximal lateral strain at the FRP fracture location (i.e., the
ultimate tensile strain of FRP). Second, under the failure mode domi­
nated by shear, the local FRP will rupture along the diagonal sliding
planes, which makes the actual lateral strain measured by the strain
gauge arranged along the horizontal direction cannot reach the ultimate
tensile strain from the FRP material property test at all. Besides, the slip
deformation patterns can also lead to premature rupture of FRP jackets.
The ends of the wedges apply an out-plane force on the FRP jackets,
under which the out-plane strength of the FRP jackets is low. In this case,
the rupture near the ends of the cylinders instead of the mid-height and
thus the measured average lateral strain is much lower. Meanwhile,
according to the above analysis, with the increase of the confinement
level, more major shear cracks form and the local strain concentration is
improved, and thus the FRP efficiency factor shows a gentle growth
trend in Fig. 14 with the increasing confinement level. Consequently, as
summarized in the previous paper [26], the types of the confined
13
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
Fig. 16. Relationship between strength enhancement ratio and actual
confinement ratio.
cement-based material and the confinement levels of FRP jackets both
influence the compressive behavior and failure mechanism of the FRP-
confined cement-based materials.
5. Prediction of ultimate condition
As shown in Fig. 16, within the confinement range studied here, the
ultimate strength enhancement ratio (f′ cc/f′ co) of six FRP-confined UHPC
specimens in this test increased linearly with increasing the actual
confinement ratio (fl,a/f′ co). And in the database composed of the 6
specimens presented in this test and another 111 specimens with both
similar ultra-high compressive strength (ranging from 107.8 to 204.0
MPa) and confining materials (GFRP or CFRP) selected from the existing
literatures [13,14,22–24,41–43], as shown in Table 6, it could be proved
that the linear relationship between the ultimate strength enhancement
ratio and the actual confinement ratio was still valid. Therefore, the
relation between the ultimate strength enhancement ratio and the actual
confinement ratio takes the form of Eq. (1) which was suggested in the
previous paper [35]:
f ’cc /f ’co = 1 + k1 fl,a /f ’co = 1 + k1 ρK ρε (1)
where ρK is the confinement stiffness ratio, ρε = εh,rup/εco is the strain
ratio and k1 is the confinement effectiveness coefficient. In Fig. 16, based
on the fitting of experimental data from the 6 specimens in this test, the
coefficient k1 of the suggested equation was determined as 3.38, the
coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.953. But the value of coefficient
k1 fitted by the database with 117 specimens was determined as 2.74,
the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.805. This coefficient k1 of
2.74 obtained in this research was close to the fitting result of k1 = 2.8
for UHPC from the study of Lam et al. [24], and both were less than k1 =
3.3 in Lam and Teng’s model [35] for normal concrete.
To predict the ultimate axial strain (εcu), the equation adopted the
following form proposed by Teng et al. [36]:
εcu
= a + bρK c ρε d (2)
εco
where a, b, c and d are the fitted parameters.
Considering the brittleness of the unconfined UHPC cylinders after
the peak, it was not suggested to adopt the ultimate axial strain equa­
tions for the unconfined NC specimens (e.g., when unconfined, εcu/εco =
1.75 [36]). In this paper, the ratio of the ultimate axial strain to the peak
strain (εcu/εco) was assumed to be 1.0 when unconfined. As a result, the
constant term a in the Eq. (2) was taken as 1.0, then the proposed
equation could be used to predict the ultimate axial strain of the
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Table 6
Database from existing tests on FRP-confined UHPC cylinders.
NO. Paper Specimen εco (%) εcu (%) f’co (MPa) f’cc (MPa) fl,a (MPa)
a a
1 Berthet et al. [41] C2 0.233 0.451 112.6 141.1 15.44 a
a
2 Berthet et al. [41] C2 0.233 0.487 112.6 a 143.1 16.00 a
a
3 Berthet et al. [41] C5 0.233 0.723 112.6 a 189.5 40.63 a
a
4 Berthet et al. [41] C5 0.233 0.701 112.6 a 187.9 39.23 a
a
5 Berthet et al. [41] C2 0.324 0.665 169.7 a 186.4 9.95 a
a
6 Berthet et al. [41] C6 0.324 1.015 169.7 a 296.4 51.98 a
7 Almusallam [42] M6L1 0.261 0.276 107.8 116.2 1.45 a
8 Almusallam [42] M6L3 0.261 0.324 107.8 125.2 4.31 a
9 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] G2 0.39 0.40 188.2 188.4 0.99 a
10 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] G3 0.39 0.86 188.2 226.6 17.75 a
11 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] G4 0.39 1.06 188.2 273.5 26.62 a
12 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] G5 0.39 1.15 188.2 298.9 34.51 a
13 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] C2 0.39 0.68 188.2 254.1 18.40 a
14 Zohrevand and Mirmiran [13] C4 0.39 1.05 188.2 372.2 42.67 a
15 Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu [22] UH-W4-1 0.35 0.96 108.0 117.4 11.97 a
16 Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu [22] UH-W5-1 0.36 1.09 112.0 121.2 14.78 a
17 Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu [22] UH-W6-1 0.35 1.13 110.0 122.3 20.84 a
18 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C1-I 0.42b 0.55c 136 180.8 c 2.61
19 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C1-II 0.42b 0.50c 136 169.0 c 2.97
20 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C2-I 0.42b 0.58c 136 192.8 c 6.86
21 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C2-II 0.42b 0.52c 136 170.0 c 9.53
22 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C3-I 0.42b 0.56c 136 183.8 c 14.75
23 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C3-II 0.42b 0.58c 136 196.3 c 19.36
24 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C5-I 0.42b 1.99 136 250.7 35.08
25 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-C5-II 0.42b 2.11 136 244.0 35.85
26 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G3-I 0.42b 0.55c 136 180.2 c 12.30
27 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G3-II 0.42b 0.55c 136 170.9 c 11.97
28 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G5-I 0.42b 0.57c 136 185.6 c 20.28
29 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G5-II 0.42b 0.54c 136 181.9 c 19.83
30 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G9-I 0.42b 3.22 136 269.1 37.52
31 Wang et al. [14] UHPFRC-G9-II 0.42b 2.92 136 250.3 37.11
32 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-1a 0.42 0.46c 161 195c 7.74 a
33 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-1b 0.42 1.32 161 171 6.88 a
34 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-2a 0.42 2.16 161 262 19.38 a
35 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-3b 0.42 2.95 161 344 29.64 a
36 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-4a 0.42 0.42c 161 167c 2.74 a
37 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-6a 0.42 1.41 161 204 16.23 a
38 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-6b 0.42 2.26 161 209 13.04 a
39 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-1a 0.43 0.47c 204 222c 6.77 a
40 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-1b 0.43 0.49c 204 219c 6.29 a
41 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-2a 0.43 1.83 204 258 13.62 a
42 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-2b 0.43 1.71 204 243 21.73 a
43 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-3a 0.43 2.21 204 346 38.92 a
44 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-3b 0.43 2.76 204 361 40.22 a
45 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-4a 0.43 0.50c 204 226c 3.47 a
46 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-5a 0.43 0.45c 204 197c 7.69 a
47 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-6a 0.43 0.47c 204 219c 15.04 a
48 Oliveira et al. [23] UHSC-TC-6b 0.43 0.55c 204 234c 19.17 a
49 Lam et al. [24] C1-L6-1 0.343 2.83 151.1 343.2 75.67 a
50 Lam et al. [24] C1-L6-2 0.343 3.10 151.1 357.8 80.16 a
51 Lam et al. [24] C1-L6-3 0.343 3.05 151.1 370.3 81.44 a
52 Lam et al. [24] C2-L2-1 0.338 1.24 137.7 198.7 15.95 a
53 Lam et al. [24] C2-L2-2 0.338 1.13 137.7 187.2 21.52 a
54 Lam et al. [24] C2-L2-3 0.338 1.19 137.7 194.7 25.04 a
55 Lam et al. [24] C2-L4-1 0.338 1.23 137.7 268.7 40.07 a
56 Lam et al. [24] C2-L4-2 0.338 1.55 137.7 250.1 40.07 a
57 Lam et al. [24] C2-L4-3 0.338 2.20 137.7 250.6 44.89 a
58 Lam et al. [24] C2-L6-1 0.338 2.65 137.7 333.1 63.44 a
59 Lam et al. [24] C2-L6-2 0.338 2.19 137.7 306.4 51.76 a
60 Lam et al. [24] C2-L6-3 0.338 2.71 137.7 323.5 66.22 a
61 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V0-I 0.321 0.28c 127.85 117.46c 8.04
62 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V0-II 0.321 0.31c 127.85 128.71c 6.25
63 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V1-I 0.346 0.42c 136.33 155.18c 7.63
64 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V1-II 0.346 0.38c 136.33 161.47c 7.37
65 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V2-I 0.373 0.46c 148.90 168.42c 8.27
66 Liao et al. [43] S100-C1-V2-II 0.373 0.90 148.90 181.32 7.76
67 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V0-I 0.321 1.33 127.85 154.85 10.08
68 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V0-II 0.321 1.25 127.85 157.50 12.04
69 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V1-I 0.346 0.52c 136.33 175.04c 14.86
70 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V1-II 0.346 0.55c 136.33 176.69c 11.82
71 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V2-I 0.373 1.31 148.90 215.07 12.92
72 Liao et al. [43] S100-C2-V2-II 0.373 1.62 148.90 185.63 18.23
73 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V0-I 0.321 1.82 127.85 192.57 13.83
74 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V0-II 0.321 1.19 127.85 166.43 20.76
(continued on next page)

14
Z. Dang et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110

Table 6 (continued )
NO. Paper Specimen εco (%) εcu (%) f’co (MPa) f’cc (MPa) fl,a (MPa)

75 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V1-I 0.346 1.61 136.33 195.55 24.36

76 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V1-II 0.346 1.72 136.33 202.17 26.80
77 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V2-I 0.373 2.18 148.90 262.39 25.74
78 Liao et al. [43] S100-C3-V2-II 0.373 1.58 148.90 241.54 29.31
79 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V0-I 0.321 1.74 127.85 189.43 15.93
80 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V0-II 0.321 1.46 127.85 151.98 18.44
81 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V1-I 0.346 0.61c 136.33 178.70c 24.53
82 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V1-II 0.346 1.73 136.33 192.94 32.96
83 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V2-I 0.373 1.45 148.90 222.50 26.39
84 Liao et al. [43] S100-G6-V2-II 0.373 0.89c 148.90 214.18c 24.03
85 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V0-I 0.321 1.95 127.85 212.65 26.36
86 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V0-II 0.321 1.95 127.85 190.53 33.92
87 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V1-I 0.346 1.63 136.33 210.46 29.20
88 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V1-II 0.346 1.86 136.33 222.50 38.86
89 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V2-I 0.373 2.27 148.90 241.55 40.24
90 Liao et al. [43] S100-G8-V2-II 0.373 1.69 148.90 237.17 33.14
91 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V0-I 0.320 1.47 142.30 176.17 16.96
92 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V0-II 0.320 1.41 142.30 184.11 16.03
93 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V1-I 0.356 1.64 151.75 181.47 13.48
94 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V1-II 0.356 1.48 151.75 198.68 12.87
95 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V2-I 0.373 0.75 156.44 211.93 17.78
96 Liao et al. [43] S50-C1-V2-II 0.373 1.17 156.44 185.44 17.41
97 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V0-I 0.320 2.00 142.30 234.45 42.51
98 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V0-II 0.320 2.52 142.30 255.64 39.59
99 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V1-I 0.356 2.29 151.75 280.81 33.23
100 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V1-II 0.356 1.71 151.75 260.94 34.88
101 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V2-I 0.373 2.21 156.44 287.43 41.62
102 Liao et al. [43] S50-C2-V2-II 0.373 1.69 156.44 241.07 38.92
103 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V0-I 0.320 2.11 142.30 245.04 30.40
104 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V0-II 0.320 2.67 142.30 262.26 36.20
105 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V1-I 0.356 2.29 151.75 255.64 54.98
106 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V1-II 0.356 2.08 151.75 266.24 47.21
107 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V2-I 0.373 2.01 156.44 262.26 54.95
108 Liao et al. [43] S50-G4-V2-II 0.373 1.76 156.44 251.67 46.88
109 Liao et al. [43] S50-G6-V0-I 0.320 3.12 142.30 313.92 68.11
110 Liao et al. [43] S50-G6-V1-I 0.356 3.00 151.75 316.57 61.56
111 Liao et al. [43] S50-G6-V1-II 0.356 3.18 151.75 360.28 58.08

Note:
a
The data were calculated according to the parameters provided in the existing literature.
b
Due to the test value of the peak strain of the unconfined UHPC (εco) was unavailable in the paper of Wang et al. [14], it was calculated as εco = 0.0042 according to
the average elastic modulus determined by the initial peak stress and the corresponding strain (fc1, εc1) of FRP-confined UHPFRC from the existing literature, which was
based on the assumption that the initial elastic modulus of the unconfined specimen is approximately the same as that of the FRP-confined specimen.
c
Since the ultimate compressive strength was lower than the first peak strength, the first peak strength and the corresponding axial strain were adopted in the data
fitting to design the ultimate state [23].

unconfined UHPC cylinders. The fitted parameters of b, c and d could be

determined based on the database mentioned above, the equation was
fitted as follows:
εcu
= 1.0 + 17.4ρK 0.9 ρε 0.73 (3)
εco

and the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.656.

As shown in Fig. 17, the linear relationship between the strain
enhancement ratio and the confinement stiffness ratio (ρK) and the
strain ratio (ρε) was not much significant and the strain enhancement
ratio was more discrete than the strength enhancement ratio. The fitting
results were not good enough and the equation for predicting the ulti­
mate axial strain needed to be further improved.
In addition, it should be noted here that for the specimens U-G2-M
and U-C2-M in this test and some specimens in the database, whose
confinement levels were low, the ultimate compressive strength was
lower than the first peak strength. Therefore, for the prediction of the
ultimate state of confined UHPC specimens, the ultimate compressive
strength (f′ cc) and the corresponding ultimate axial strain (εcu) adopted
the data of the first peak point in the initial ascending branch [23] for
design.

Fig. 17. Relationship between strain enhancement ratio and the confinement
stiffness ratio and the strain ratio.

15
Z. Dang et al.
6. Conclusion
In this research, axial compression tests have been conducted on
FRP-confined UHPC cylinders. The following conclusions could be
drawn from this study:
(1) Brittleness of unconfined UHPC under compression was a short­
coming in engineering application, therefore, using FRP
confinement was quite effective and necessary to improve the
axial compressive behavior and failure mode of UHPC. Because of
the ultra-high compressive strength and elastic modulus of UHPC,
the confinement level of externally wrapped FRP needed to be
increased. Otherwise, the UHPC with insufficient confinement
was prone to axial compressive behavior with a post-peak
descending branch.
(2) For the FRP-confined UHPC specimens with different confine­
ment levels, the axial stress-strain curves showed three kinds of
behavior. For the specimens with low confinement, there was a
post-peak descending branch and the ultimate compressive
strength in the second ascending branch was lower than the first
peak strength. For the specimens with medium confinement,
there was also a post-peak descending branch but the ultimate
compressive strength in the second ascending branch was not
lower than the first peak strength. For the specimens with high
confinement, there was no post-peak descending branch and thus
no so-called “the first peak point”. The stiffness of the stress-strain
curve smoothly transferred to the second ascending branch at
yield point. And the ultimate compressive strength in the second
ascending branch was the maximum strength.
(3) When the FRP-confined UHPC specimens failed under compres­
sion, the major shear cracks were formed and penetrated the
overall height of the triaxially confined UHPC cylinders along the
diagonal sliding planes. This typical shear-slip deformation pat­
terns were different from that of other FRP-confined cement-
based materials, which were mainly lateral expansion near the
mid-height of the specimens. With the increase of the confine­
ment level, the failure modes of the triaxially confined UHPC
cylinders evolved from a pair of wedges with single sliding plane
to some crisscross wedges with the multi-direction sliding planes.
(4) Based on the analysis of the development and distribution of the
lateral strains before failure and the cracking patterns after fail­
ure, a three-stage failure mechanism for the FRP-confined UHPC
cylinders was proposed in this paper, including: (I) formation of
microcracks, (II) formation of shear cracks and (III) formation
and propagation of major shear cracks. The proposed failure
mechanism could explain the experimental observation well,
including the post-peak descending branch of the specimens with
insufficient confinement and the relatively low FRP efficiency
factor.
(5) Within the confinement range studied here, a set of design-
oriented equations for predicting the ultimate compressive
strength and axial strain was proposed, in which the confinement
stiffness ratio and the strain ratio were considered as essential
parameters. The fitted parameters in the equations were deter­
mined based on the database composed of the 6 specimens in this
test and 111 specimens in the existing literatures.
This paper mainly focuses on the compressive behavior and failure
mechanism of FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under monotonic loading.
The performance of the FRP-confined UHPC cylinders under cyclic
loading, such as stiffness degradation and damage evolution, needs
further study in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zheng Dang: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Formal
16
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Zhiyuan
Li: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Peng Feng:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China [Grant No. 51708331, 51978379, U2106219] and the
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [Grant No. 2017M610903]. The
authors are grateful to Ms. Min Du and Mr. Saravath Suong for their
assistances with the experiment.
Data availability statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
in the submitted article.
References
[1] Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cem Concr Res
1995;25(7):1501–11.
[2] Walraven J. High performance concrete: a material with a large potential. J Adv
Concr Technol 2009;7(2):145–56.
[3] Zhou M, Lu W, Song J, Lee GC. Application of ultra-high performance concrete in
bridge engineering. Constr Build Mater 2018;186:1256–67.
[4] Graybeal B, Brühwiler E, Kim BS, Toutlemonde F, Voo YL, Zaghi A. International
perspective on UHPC in bridge engineering. J Bridge Eng 2020;25(11):04020094.
[5] Hung CC, El-Tawil S, Chao SH. A review of developments and challenges for UHPC
in structural engineering: behavior, analysis, and design. J Struct Eng 2021;147(9):
03121001.
[6] Fehling E, Schmidt M, Walraven J, Leutbecher T, Fröhlich S. Ultra-high
performance concrete UHPC: fundamentals, design, examples. first edition. KG:
Ernst & Sohn GmbH & Co; 2014.
[7] Vicenzino E, Cuiham G, Perry VH, Zakariasen D, Chow TS. First use of UHPFRC in
thin precast concrete roof shell for Canadian LRT station. PCI Journal 2005;50(5):
50–67.
[8] Cai H, Xu L, Chi Y, Yan Y, Yu C, He C. Seismic performance of rectangular ultra-
high performance concrete filled steel tube (UHPCFST) columns. Compos Struct
2021;259:113242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113242.
[9] Hoang AL, Fehling E, Lai B, Thai D-K, Chau NV. Experimental study on structural
performance of UHPC and UHPFRC columns confined with steel tube. Eng Struct
2019;187:457–77.
[10] GB/T 50107-2010. Standard for evaluation of concrete compressive strength.
Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building Press; 2010.
[11] Wei J, Xie Z, Zhang W, Luo X, Yang Y, Chen B. Experimental study on circular steel
tube-confined reinforced UHPC columns under axial loading. Eng Struct 2021;230:
111599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111599.
[12] He S, Deng Z. Seismic behavior of ultra-high performance concrete short columns
confined with high-strength reinforcement. KSCE J Civ Eng 2019;23(12):5183–93.
[13] Zohrevand P, Mirmiran A. Behavior of ultrahigh-performance concrete confined by
fiber-reinforced polymers. J Mater Civ Eng 2011;23(12):1727–34.
[14] Wang W, Wu C, Liu Z, Si H. Compressive behavior of ultra-high performance fiber-
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) confined with FRP. Compos Struct 2018;204:
419–37.
[15] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. J Compos Constr 1999;3(3):
143–50.
[16] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):583–90.
[17] Lam L, Teng JG, Cheung CH, Xiao Y. FRP-confined concrete under axial cyclic
compression. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10):949–58.
[18] Choi E, Jeon J-S, Cho B-S, Park K. External jacket of FRP wire for confining
concrete and its advantages. Eng Struct 2013;56:555–66.
[19] Nguyen HD, Choi E, Min C. A constitutive model for gfrp-wire-confined concrete
with consideration of low and high confinement ratios. Compos Part B-Eng 2018;
152:58–70.
[20] Yang J-Q, Feng P. Analysis-oriented models for FRP-confined concrete: 3D
interpretation and general methodology. Eng Struct 2020;216:110749. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110749.
[21] Yang J-Q, Feng P. Analysis-oriented model for FRP confined high-strength
concrete: 3D interpretation of path dependency. Compos Struct 2021;278:114695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114695.
Z. Dang et al.
[22] Vincent T, Ozbakkaloglu T. Influence of concrete strength and confinement method
on axial compressive behavior of FRP confined high- and ultra high-strength
concrete. Compos Part B-Eng 2013;50:413–28.
[23] Oliveira DS, Raiz V, Carrazedo R. Experimental study on normal-strength, high-
strength and ultrahigh-strength concrete confined by carbon and glass FRP
laminates. J Compos Constr 2019;23(1):04018072.
[24] Lam L, Huang L, Xie J-H, Chen J-F. Compressive behavior of ultra-high
performance concrete confined with FRP. Compos Struct 2021;274:114321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114321.
[25] Wang J, Feng P, Hao T, Yue Q. Axial compressive behavior of seawater coral
aggregate concrete-filled FRP tubes. Constr Build Mater 2017;147:272–85.
[26] Dang Z, Feng P, Yang J-Q, Zhang Q. Axial compressive behavior of engineered
cementitious composite confined by fiber-reinforced polymer. Compos Struct
2020;243:112191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112191.
[27] T/CBMF 37-2018/T/CCPA 7-2018. Fundamental characteristics and test methods
of ultra-high performance concrete. Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building
Press; 2018.
[28] GB/T 50081-2019. Standard for test methods of concrete physical and mechanical
properties. Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building Press; 2019.
[29] Zhang J, Gong C, Guo Z, Zhang M. Engineered cementitious composite with
characteristic of low drying shrinkage. Cem Concr Res 2009;39(4):303–12.
[30] Graybeal B, Davis M. Cylinder or cube: strength testing of 80 to 200 MPa (11.6 to
29 ksi) ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 2008;105(6):
603–9.
[31] GB/T 31387-2015. Reactive powder concrete. Beijing, China: Standards Press of
China; 2015.
[32] ASTM D3039/D3039M-00.. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer
matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2000.
[33] GB/T 3354-2014. Test method for tensile properties of orientation fiber reinforced
polymer matrix composite materials. Beijing, China: Standards Press of China;
2014.
17
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116110
[34] ASTM C469/C469M-14.. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International; 2014.
[35] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6-7):471–89.
[36] Teng JG, Jiang T, Lam L, Luo YZ. Refinement of a design-oriented stress-strain
model for FRP-confined concrete. J Compos Constr 2009;13(4):269–78.
[37] Csuka B, Kollár LP. FRP-confined circular concrete columns subjected to concentric
loading. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29(23):3504–20.
[38] Feng P, Cheng S, Bai Yu, Ye L. Mechanical behavior of concrete-filled square steel
tube with FRP-confined concrete core subjected to axial compression. Compos
Struct 2015;123:312–24.
[39] Feng P, Qiang H, Ye L. Discussion and definition on yield points of materials,
members and structures. Eng Mech 2017;34(3):36–46.
[40] Feng P., Yang J.-Q., Li Z. Hybrid members incorporating FRP confined concrete
core. APFIS 2019-7th, Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures,
Australia. 2019; Proceedings (USB).
[41] Berthet JF, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Compressive behavior of concrete externally
confined by composite jackets. Part A: experimental study. Constr Build Mater
2005;19(3):223–32.
[42] Almusallam TH. Behavior of normal and high-strength concrete cylinders confined
with E-glass/epoxy composite laminates. Compos Part B-Eng 2007;38(5-6):
629–39.
[43] Liao J, Yang KY, Zeng J-J, Quach W-M, Ye Y-Y, Zhang L. Compressive behavior of
FRP-confined ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) in circular columns. Eng
Struct 2021;249:113246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113246.
[44] Ye Y-Y, Liang S-D, Feng P, Zeng J-J. Recyclable LRS FRP composites for
engineering structures: Current status and future opportunities. Compos Part B-Eng
2021;212:108689.
[45] Feng P, Cheng S, Yu T. Seismic performance of hybrid columns of concrete-filled
square steel tube with FRP-confined concrete core. J Compos Constr 2018;22(4):
04018015.