Effect of corner radius and aspect ratio

on compressive behavior of rectangular

concrete columns confined with CFRP

Davood Mostofinejad, Niloufar Moshiri

& Nasrin Mortazavi

Materials and Structures

ISSN 1359-5997

Mater Struct
DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0171-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by RILEM. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0171-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of corner radius and aspect ratio on compressive

behavior of rectangular concrete columns confined
with CFRP
Davood Mostofinejad • Niloufar Moshiri •

Nasrin Mortazavi

Received: 23 November 2012 / Accepted: 26 August 2013

Ó RILEM 2013

Abstract This paper investigates the behavior of
rectangular concrete columns confined with carbon
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites, consid-
ering the effect of corner radius and cross section
aspect ratio. Nonlinear behavior of confined concrete
and orthotropic behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) composite have been incorporated in the finite
element modeling. The CFRP rupture was modeled in
the state of biaxial stresses by using Tsai–Wu’s failure
criterion. Therefore, the effects of axial stresses on
rupture of FRP as well as the effects of hoop stresses
were taken into consideration. Furthermore, to provide
more precise modeling and analysis, Tsai–Wu’s
criterion and a modified Drucker–Prager plasticity
model were applied concurrently in simulating. The
finite element analysis was verified by simulating
CFRP confined cylindrical and rectangular columns.
Concrete columns with cross section aspect ratios of
1.00, 1.25, 1.54 and 2.00, and different corner radii
including 5, 15, 25 and 38 mm were modeled. Corner
radii of 45, 60 and 75 mm were also modeled in square
sections. Results showed that both decreasing the
corner radius and increasing the aspect ratio, decrease
the compressive strength and ductility enhancement of
D. Mostofinejad  N. Moshiri (&)  N. Mortazavi
Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University
of Technology (IUT), 84156-83111 Isfahan, Iran
e-mail: n.moshiri@cv.iut.ac.ir
D. Mostofinejad
e-mail: dmostofi@cc.iut.ac.ir
the confined column. Results of simulating rectangular
confined columns led to a design-oriented model for
predicting the compressive strength of these sections
with different corner radii. The proposed simple model
is shown to be in good agreement with the existing test
results in the literature, showing the applicability of
the model for design purposes for FRP-confined
concrete columns.
Keywords CFRP confinement  Rectangular
concrete column  Corner radius  Aspect ratio 
Finite element  Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion
1 Introduction
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) jackets have been
widely used for strengthening and retrofitting of
concrete structures. Confining reinforced concrete
columns improves their both load carrying capacity
and ductility. Cross sectional shape, corner radius and
side aspect ratio of columns are parameters that affect
the structural performance of confined column [1].
Most of research works carried out on confined
concrete, dealt with circular sections; though new
studies focus on rectangular columns. However, the
confinement effectiveness in rectangular columns is
reduced compared to circular sections, due to the non-
uniform confinement pressure across the cross-section
[1–3]. Furthermore, increasing the aspect ratio in a
 Author's personal copy
rectangular column, decreases the confinement effec-
tiveness and the strength enhancement [1, 3–6]; so that
in aspect ratio of more than 2, the strength enhance-
ment of confined column is insignificant [7].
Sharp corners of rectangular confined sections,
result in stress concentration at corners and thus
reduce the FRP efficiency in improving the structural
behavior of columns [8, 9]. Besides, maximum
confinement pressure for prismatic columns occurs
at corners of the section [10].
The unconfined concrete compressive strength of
columns is another parameter influencing the FRP
effectiveness. The axial strength enhancement due to
confinement increases with decrease in concrete com-
pressive strength either in rectangular [1, 2] or circular
sections [1, 11]. The ratio of FRP stiffness to the column
axial stiffness, affects the compressive strength of
column as well, as demonstrated by Chaallal et al. [2].
Different models have been proposed for predicting the
behavior of FRP-confined concrete, considering the
above-mentioned parameters [12–18].
Several studies have been conducted on numerical
analysis and finite element modeling of concrete
confined with FRP composite. Mirmiran et al. [19]
developed a nonlinear finite element model with a
non-associative Drucker–Prager plasticity for the
analysis of FRP-confined concrete. They reported
stress concentration around corners of square sections
and reduction of hoop stresses at these parts depending
on corner radius. They concluded that although their
model can be calibrated fairly well for predicting the
stress–strain response, it can not correctly demonstrate
the volumetric expansion tendency and stiffness
degradation of confined concrete under cyclic loading
[19].
Mostofinejad and Saadatmand [20] proposed
certain relationships for predicting the ultimate com-
pressive strength and the ultimate axial strain corre-
sponding to a given ultimate hoop strain in concrete
columns confined with FRP sheets. The presented
relationships were used for nonlinear finite element
analysis. They concluded that their model is properly
applicable for the parametric studies conducted on
confined concrete subjected to axial load and flexural
moment. They also showed that premature hoop
rupture of FRP composite can well be assessed
regarding Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion [20]. Yu et al.
[21] proposed a modified Drucker–Prager type con-
crete plasticity model to simulate actively-confined
Materials and Structures
and FRP-confined concrete. They presented a modi-
fied plastic-damage model as well, for modeling of
concrete in a number of stress states, including active
confinement, biaxial compression and FRP-confined
circular and square columns [22].
Mirmiran et al. [19] and Yang et al. [4, 23]
mentioned that stress concentration at corners of
rectangular sections is the main reason for premature
rupture of the FRP composite; however, the states of
biaxial stresses, axial compression and hoop tension,
have not been exactly investigated in their
researches. In the test method developed by Yang
et al. [4, 23] FRP composite is not bonded to
concrete surface. As a result, axial stresses could not
be transferred to the concrete substrate. On the other
hand, the effect of corner radius on distribution of
hoop stresses has been taken into consideration by
Mirmiran et al. [19]; however, they only considered
the effect of hoop stresses on FRP rupture [19];
though axial stresses may also affect the rupture of
FRP composites.
In the present paper, rectangular concrete columns
confined with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)
composites have been modeled by ABAQUS software
using finite element analysis and the effect of corner
radius and side aspect ratio on the compressive
behavior of columns are studied. Effects of axial
stresses on rupture of FRP composite, as well as
effects of hoop stresses are considered in modeling
through Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion; despite previous
studies in which only the effect of hoop stresses on
FRP performance of FRP-confined members has been
taken into account. Accordingly, a more accurate
simulating and more precise results are expected to be
achieved by modeling of CFRP rupture in the state of
biaxial stresses.
Drucker–Prager (DP) plasticity model is utilized in
concrete modeling in which the dilation angle of the
model is modified as suggested by Yu et al. [21] to
consider the confinement pressure. The Drucker–
Prager Model of the software is modified using the
facility of user-defined solution-dependent field vari-
ables (SDFV). Therefore, the material properties can
be defined dependent on the solution-dependent field
variables. A solution-dependent field variable is a field
variable that varies throughout the solution process
(such as the displacements and the stresses). For this
purpose, a computer program was developed to
produce the input material data. The modified DP
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures
plasticity model was used particularly for modeling of
rectangular columns; where the column section con-
fronts non-uniform confining pressure along the sides.
According to the FE analysis of the current study, a
simple model for predicting the compressive strength
of confined rectangular columns is proposed, which
can be used for design purposes. The effect of corner
radius is taken into account as its ratio to the large side
dimension of the cross section.
2 Finite element modeling
Due to symmetric geometry and loading, only one
quarter of each specimen is modeled using suitable
boundary conditions in planes of symmetry. Axial
loads are applied on the top of column using a
displacement control method. By using element sizes
of 5–25 mm in some primary analyses, element size of
10 mm was selected. In simulating the specimens with
different corner radii, smaller element sizes were
selected so that they can model the corner curvature.
The CFRP composite is defined as an orthotropic
material with linear elastic behavior up to failure.
Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion is utilized for precise
prediction of CFRP fracture under biaxial stresses
[20]. When CFRP is used for confining a column, both
axial and hoop stresses affect the rupture of composite.
The efficiency of CFRP composite under the action of
biaxial stresses is, therefore, much reduced than the
state of uniaxial hoop tension [24]. Having a more
realistic prediction of behavior of composite, as shown
by Mostofinejad and Saadatmand [20], Tsai–Wu’s
failure criterion is used in the current study to deal with
the influence of biaxial stresses on the rupture of CFRP
composite. Since this criterion cannot be used for
three-dimensional elements, CFRP layers are modeled
using 4-node shell elements. Concrete is modeled by
8-node three dimensional solid elements. For the
elastic behavior of concrete, the Poisson’s ratio, tc , is
assumed to be 0.18, and the modulus of elasticity, Ec,
is determined by suggestion of ACI 318 [25].
The plastic behavior of concrete is defined by
Drucker–Prager plasticity model. For determining the
dilation angle in Drucker–Prager model, it should be
noted that, actively confined concrete in triaxial
compression tests, exhibits unstable dilation after the
initial compaction [26]. Furthermore, volumetric
strain to axial stress curves of FRP-confined concrete
shows a distinct reversal of volumetric expansion
during loading [19]. Besides, in FRP-confined con-
crete, the linearly increasing hoop stress of the FRP
jacket can eventually curtail the dilation if the amount
of FRP is large enough [26]. Therefore, a constant
dilation angle cannot correctly model the volumetric
strains of confined concrete. Some researchers, how-
ever, have used a constant dilation angle [19, 27–29].
The main reason for relative success of their models is
that the utilized dilation angle is in the range of
dilation angle variations of the modeled specimen.
Although such dilation angle can predict the stress–
strain curve properly, it cannot show the lateral-to-
axial strain curve correctly. Consequently, some
researchers have defined the dilation angle to be a
function of plastic deformation [30]. The confining
pressure affects the dilation angle as well. Volumetric
strain, of which the dilation trend is reversed and
results in volumetric compaction, increases with an
increase in the confining pressure [26]. As a result, the
dilation angle of confined concrete is affected by
plastic deformation, the confining pressure and the rate
of confinement increment [21, 28]. To consider these
effects, Yu et al. [21] have suggested Eq. (1) for the
dilation angle, which is utilized in the present study;
pffiffiffi p
3 dec þ 2depl
w¼ ; ð1Þ
6 depc  2depl
where depc and depl are the plastic axial strain and
plastic lateral strain increment, respectively, and w is
the dilation angle. To predict the lateral and axial
strains, Teng et al.’s [14] model is used, which is given
by Eqs. (2) and (3);
(
   0:7
ec rl el
1 þ 8 0 ¼ 0:85  1 þ 0:75
eco fco eco
  )
el
 exp 7 ; ð2Þ
eco
2 Efrp tfrp
rl ¼ efrp ; ð3Þ
D
where ec and el are the axial strain and lateral strain,
0
respectively; fco is the compressive strength of
0
concrete; eco is the corresponding strain to fco ; rl is
the lateral confining pressure on a cylinder with a
diameter of D; and tfrp , Efrp and efrp are thickness,
elastic modulus and hoop rupture strain of FRP
composite, respectively.
 Author's personal copy
Some researchers have used a constant value for
hardening rule in the Drucker–Prager model which
represents an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior for
concrete [19, 27]. The true behavior of FRP confined
concrete, however, indicates strain hardening or soften-
ing [31]. Teng et al. [14] demonstrated that stress–strain
curve of FRP-confined concrete intersects the stress–
strain curves of actively confined concrete by different
constant pressure; however, the intersection points may
not be always the same as peak points of actively
confined concrete curves. By assuming an elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior for concrete, intersection
points are the maximum of actively confined concrete
curves and the stress in FRP-confined concrete is
overestimated. Furthermore, by using the plastic defor-
mation as the only variable in hardening rule, concrete
behavior is modeled by a single stress–strain curve either
in the presence or absence of confining pressure [14].
Yu et al. [21] simulated three specimens including
unconfined concrete and concrete confined by constant
active pressure of 6 and 12 MPa with the aforemen-
tioned model using uniaxial stress–strain curve. Their
results showed the same slope for the strain softening
branches of stress–strain curves of these specimens. But,
experimental observations demonstrate that post-peak
stiffness of stress–strain curve increases with an increase
in lateral confining pressure [32]. Some researchers
have ascertained that without considering the effect of
confining pressure in hardening rule, ductility of
confined concrete can not be predicted accurately [28,
33, 34]. In some of these studies, a modified hardening
rule taking account of confining pressure and also plastic
deformation, was proposed [28, 33]. To consider the
effect of lateral pressure, Yu et al. [21] have suggested
using a series of axial compressive stress–strain rela-
tionships of actively-confined concrete instead of one
axial stress–strain relationship. These relationships are
defined for various active confining pressure using Teng
et al.’s model [14]. In the current study, the suggestion of
Yu et al. [21] is utilized in FE modeling.
The tensile behavior of concrete is defined accord-
ing to Lin and Scordelis model [35]. In this model, the
tensile stress–strain curve consists of an initial linear-
elastic behavior with slope of Ec up to tensile strength
of concrete and a post-peak strain softening behavior
with tension stiffening.
The elastic behavior of steel reinforcement is
defined using the modulus of elasticity equal to
2 9 105 MPa and the Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.3.
Materials and Structures
Fig. 1 Stress–strain relationship of steel reinforcement
The stress–strain curve used for behavior of steel
reinforcement is shown in Fig. 1. It is inferred from
the figure that when the longitudinal column rein-
forcement passes the yield stress level in confined
columns, its modulus is zero up to a certain strain;
therefore, its influence on column stability should be
taken into account as it is discussed in [36, 37].
3 Verification of non-linear finite element
modeling
Three tests of Xiao and Wu [24] are simulated to verify
the adopted FE modeling using modified Drucker–
Prager (DP) plasticity model for concrete and Tsai–
Wu’s failure criterion for CFRP rupture. The simu-
lated specimens of Xiao and Wu include cylinders
with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm,
confined with one, two or three plies of CFRP. The
cylinder compressive strength of unconfined concrete
is 43.8 MPa. The CFRP jacket has an elastic modulus
of 105 GPa, a tensile strength of 1,577 MPa and an
ultimate tensile strain of 0.015; and its nominal
thickness is 0.381 mm per layer.
Figure 2 shows the experimental stress–strain
curves for each specimen compared with the predicted
ones obtained from the finite element analysis. The
curves to the left-hand side of the Y-axis present the
responses of the lateral strains versus the axial stresses,
whereas the curves to the right-hand side show the
responses of the axial strains versus the axial stresses.
The axial strains in FE, according to experimental
program by Xiao and Wu [24], are calculated from
dividing the axial deformations of the mid height
region of column by its length, which is 152 mm.
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures
Fig. 2 Comparison of predicted and experimental stress–strain
curves for FRP confined cylindrical specimens
Fig. 3 Comparison of predicted and experimental stress–strain
curves for FRP confined rectangular specimen
Figure 2 shows that the stress–strain curves of FE
analysis and test results are in close agreement.
A rectangular concrete column tested by Wu and Wei
[7], is also simulated to verify the FE modeling. This
specimen is 150 9 188 mm in cross section, and
300 mm high and has a corner radius of 30 mm. The
compressive strength of unconfined concrete is
33.57 MPa. This specimen is confined with 2 plies of
CFRP with a thickness of 0.167 mm per layer. Accord-
ing to the Manufacturer’s catalogue, the elastic modu-
lus, tensile strength and ultimate tensile strain of fibers
are 230 GPa, 3,400 MPa and 0.0148, respectively. The
fibers were impregnated with Sikadur-300 epoxy resin.
Figure 3 compares the predicted and experimental
stress–strain curves of this specimen. Note that Fig. 3
is plotted for the lateral strain of shorter side of the
specimen. It is observed in the figure that the FE model
provides accurate predictions of the stress–strain
responses for the selected rectangular specimen.
Fig. 4 Comparison of predicted and experimental stress–strain
curves for FRP-confined RC column
To verify the capability of the FE modeling
procedure in CFRP strengthened reinforced concrete
columns, a steel reinforced concrete column confined
with CFRP from Pessiki et al. [9] study is also modeled
and analyzed. This column with 508 mm diameter and
1,830 mm height contains eight Ø22 longitudinal
reinforcing bars (q = 1.9 %) and Ø9.5 transverse ties
on 356 mm centers; whereas the compressive strength
of concrete is 32.8 MPa. Three layers of CFRP are
used with tensile strength of 580 9 103 N/(m.ply),
tensile modulus of 38.1 9 103 kN/(m.ply) and ulti-
mate tensile strain of 1.5 %. Figure 4 shows the
stress–strain curves of this specimen obtained from FE
analysis and experiments which demonstrates a fairly
well agreement.
4 Case study
Nineteen square and rectangle specimens are simu-
lated using the aforementioned proposed model; the
specimens do not exist in the available experimental
literature in the present form. The parameters consid-
ered in this investigation include the aspect ratio, h/b,
and the corner radius to large side dimension ratio, r/h,
where h and b are dimensions of the longer and shorter
sides of the cross-section, respectively, and r is the
corner radius. Concrete columns with cross section
aspect ratios of 1.00, 1.25, 1.54 and 2.00, and corner
radii of 5, 15, 25 and 38 mm are modeled. In addition,
45, 60 and 75 mm corner radii are modeled in square
sections. All specimens have an unconfined compres-
sive strength of 40.0 MPa and are confined with 2 plies
of CFRP with 0.166 mm thickness per layer. Since the
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures

Table 1 Properties and FE results of selected specimens

No. b 9 h (mm 9 mm) h/b r (mm) r/h Confinement Maximum Ultimate Increase in Ultimate FRP
ratio stress (fcc0 , stress maximum axial rupture
MPa) (MPa) stress (%) strain strain

1 150 9 150 1.00 5 0.033 0.032 43.40 35.03 8.5 0.0120 0.0100
2 150 9 150 1.00 15 0.100 0.096 53.64 53.64 34.1 0.0140 0.0113
3 150 9 150 1.00 25 0.167 0.160 59.96 59.96 49.9 0.0160 0.0127
4 150 9 150 1.00 38 0.253 0.243 69.12 69.12 72.8 0.0190 0.0136
5 150 9 150 1.00 45 0.300 0.288 72.84 72.84 82.1 0.0200 0.0142
6 150 9 150 1.00 60 0.400 0.384 80.31 80.31 100.8 0.0220 0.0161
7 150 9 150 1.00 75 0.500 0.480 92.93 92.93 132.3 0.0275 0.0176
8 167.7 9 134.2 1.25 5 0.030 0.026 43.00 34.85 7.5 0.0122 0.0087
9 167.7 9 134.2 1.25 15 0.089 0.077 48.30 48.30 20.8 0.0137 0.0116
10 167.7 9 134.2 1.25 25 0.149 0.128 56.71 56.71 41.8 0.0167 0.0124
11 167.7 9 134.2 1.25 38 0.227 0.194 63.24 63.24 58.1 0.0180 0.0134
12 186.1 9 120.9 1.54 5 0.027 0.021 42.00 33.02 5.0 0.0120 0.0070
13 186.1 9 120.9 1.54 15 0.081 0.062 43.20 39.98 8.0 0.0134 0.0094
14 186.1 9 120.9 1.54 25 0.134 0.104 48.27 48.27 20.7 0.0162 0.0120
15 186.1 9 120.9 1.54 38 0.204 0.158 53.89 53.89 34.7 0.0170 0.0131
16 212 9 106 2.00 5 0.024 0.016 41.30 26.91 3.2 0.0080 0.0061
17 212 9 106 2.00 15 0.071 0.048 42.00 32.57 5.0 0.0090 0.0073
18 212 9 106 2.00 25 0.118 0.080 46.81 46.81 17.0 0.0107 0.0086
19 212 9 106 2.00 38 0.179 0.122 52.40 52.40 31.0 0.0123 0.0100

FRP efficiency factor, which is explained later, is
determined by simulating some tests of Wang and
Wu’s research, the mechanical properties of CFRP in
the current study is taken the same as Wang and Wu’s
[38]. The elastic modulus and ultimate tensile strain of
CFRP are 225.7 GPa and 0.0192, respectively, which
provides a tensile strength of 4,333 MPa [38]. Side
dimensions of specimens are selected so that cross
section areas are almost the same. The specimens’
properties and FE results are summarized in Table 1.
In this table, fcc0 is the compressive strength of confined
specimen.
Since the actual FRP hoop rupture strain in FRP-
confined concrete is not the same as FRP rupture strain
in flat coupon tests, an FRP efficiency factor, which is
defined as the ratio of these two strains, should be used
for calculating the FRP confining pressure (Eq. 3).
Lam and Teng [39] mentioned that the average FRP
efficiency factor for CFRP is 0.586; though there is a
considerable scatter in the efficiency factor deduced
from test results. Using data of the Lam and Teng’s
study for the specimens with close properties to those
of the present research, i.e. specimens with a diameter
in the range of 150–200 mm confined with CFRP with
elastic modulus in the range of 200–240 GPa, pro-
vides an average value of 0.67 for FRP efficiency
factor [39].
To define the FRP efficiency factor, a new approach
was used in the current study. In primary studies of the
current research, the CFRP rupture strain were
obtained by simulating 6 square specimens of Wang
and Wu [38] tests with 150 mm side dimension and
different corner radii. The actual CFRP hoop rupture
strain, efrp; a , and its ratio to the CFRP rupture strain of
flat coupon tests, 0.0192, are shown in Table 2. The
normalized strain ratios corresponding to circular
section of 75 mm radius which are used as normalized
efficiency factors are also shown in Table 2. Exper-
imental tests have indicated that the fracture of the
FRP jacket in confined square sections occurs at or
near the corners of the specimens [5, 7, 38, 40, 41].
Furthermore, the confining mechanism is fully acti-
vated at section corners while negligible confinement
exists outside these regions [31]. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the FRP rupture occurs at the region
between the point of change in curvature (the start
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures

Table 2 FRP hoop rupture strain and efficiency factors in simulated specimens of Wang and Wu [38]
Corner Point of change in curvature Center of corner
radius (mm) efrp; a efrp; a
efrp; a Normalized efrp; a Normalized
eflatcoupon tests efficiency factor eflatcoupon tests efficiency factor

0 – – – 0.00630 0.33 0.35

15 0.0113 0.59 0.63 0.00940 0.49 0.52
30 0.0139 0.72 0.77 0.01283 0.67 0.71
45 0.0154 0.80 0.85 0.01476 0.77 0.82
60 0.0175 0.91 0.97 0.01674 0.87 0.93
75 0.01804 0.94 1.00 0.01804 0.94 1.00

point of corner radius, T) and center of corner (C). The
FRP stains are determined at these two points (T and
C) at ultimate and are shown in Table 2. The average
of normalized efficiency factors is 0.78. It should be
pointed out that in FE analysis, the confining pressure
for each specimen is calculated based on the equiv-
alent circular section, in which the thickness of FRP
and the cross sectional area of the specimen remain the
same as those in the original rectangular section [22].
As a result, the normalized efficiency factor equal to
1.00 is used in the FE analysis which corresponds to
circular section. However, in the proposed model for
predicting the compressive strength of square and
rectangular sections which will be explained later, the
average value of 0.78 is used in calculating the
confinement pressure.
According to Mirmiran et al.’s [8] study, the
confinement ratio for square sections is defined by
Eq. 4, which is called the modified confinement ratio
in their study;
2 r 2Ete
confinement ratio ¼ 0
; ð4Þ
h h fco
where, h is the side dimension and r is the corner
radius of the cross section. Mirmiran et al. concluded
that the confinement ratio of more than 0.15 provides
an ascending stress–strain curve. Otherwise, the
stress–strain curve is followed by a post-peak descend-
ing branch after the first ascending part and the FRP is
not very effective in strengthening the concrete core;
so, no strength enhancement should be expected in this
case. For circular sections, the confinement ratio is 2Ete
hf 0
co
0
strength, fco . In the present study, the confinement
ratio suggested by Mirmiran et al. [8] is used. As stated
in Lam and Teng’s [43] study, h in Mirmiran et al.’s
research is the large side dimension in rectangular
sections.
Table 1 shows that the FRP performance signifi-
cantly depends on the cross sectional shape; the FRP
jacket is less effective in confining rectangular
sections compared to square sections, and by increas-
ing the aspect ratio, the confinement effectiveness
decreases; i.e. FRP rupture strain in rectangular
specimen with aspect ratio of 2.00 and corner radius
of 5 mm is 0.61 times its value in square specimen
with the same corner radius. Furthermore, Increasing
in cross section ratio decreases the ultimate strength;
i.e. in aspect ratio of 2.00, the strength enhancement is
less than half of that in square specimen with the same
corner radius. In specimens with h/b = 1.00 and
corner radii of 5–38 mm, the strength enhancements
are in the range of 8.5–72.8 %. For specimens with h/
b = 2.00, the strength enhancements are in the range
of 3.2–31.0 %. The ultimate axial strains of rectangu-
lar specimens with r = 15 mm and h/b = 1.25, 1.54
and 2.00 are 0.98, 0.96 and 0.64 times its value in
square specimen with the same corner radius. It is
worth mentioning that great shortening of columns
will result in imposed stresses in connecting concrete
members that may lead to their collapse. However, in
this paper the behavior of one column is investigated
individually and its effect on connecting members has
not been considered here.
Stress–strain curves of simulated rectangular speci-

which is equal to fl mens with different aspect ratios are presented in Fig. 5.
0 . Spoelstra and Monti [42]
fco
This figure clearly shows that confinement with CFRP
fl
demonstrated that 0
fco
of less than 0.07, results in an can enhance the performance of concrete. It can be
ultimate stress of less than unconfined concrete observed in Fig. 5 that increasing the corner radius
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 5 Stress–strain curves of rectangular columns with different aspect ratios confined with 2-ply CFRP
results in a higher ultimate strength and changes the
stress–strain behavior from an ascending-descending
curve to a completely ascending one. Furthermore,
increasing in corner radius, increases the ultimate axial
strain of the specimen. In addition, the ultimate axial
strains and stresses decrease as the aspect ratio increases.
In a fully ascending stress–strain curve, the ultimate
and maximum stresses are the same and the FRP is
effective enough in strengthening the concrete core, as
stated by Mirmiran et al. [8]. In specimens with a
lower ultimate stress than the maximum stress, the
stress–strain curve is followed by a post-peak descend-
ing branch after reaching the maximum stress. Com-
paring Table 1 and Fig. 5 demonstrates that in
specimens with a confinement ratio of less than 0.07,
the second branch of stress–strain curve is descending.
In rectangular sections with the same aspect ratio,
decreasing the corner radius results in stress
Materials and Structures
concentration at corners, decreasing the FRP rupture
strain and its performance. On the other hand,
increasing the aspect ratio in specimens with certain
corner radius increases the stress concentration at
corners (Fig. 6a). Furthermore, in specimens with
nearly identical r/h ratio, increasing the aspect ratio
decreases the FRP rupture strain as it can be seen in
specimen No. 2 compared to No. 18 in Table 1, or
specimen No. 3 compared to No. 19.
Figure 6b shows the effect of aspect ratio on the
effective confined area of rectangular specimens with
a corner radius of 25 mm. As expected, increasing the
aspect ratio at a certain corner radius decreases the
effective confined area of the cross section. Further-
more, the confining pressure at corners increases with
an increase in aspect ratio, which indicates the higher
stress concentration and results in reduction of FRP
efficiency (see Table 1).
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures
Fig. 6 Stress distribution (in MPa) in rectangular specimens with a corner radius of 25 mm and different aspect ratios: a axial stress;
b lateral confining stress
5 Developing a design-oriented model
for predicting the compressive strength
of confined concrete
As mentioned before, based on the results of the
present study, in specimens with a confinement ratio of
less than 0.07, the ultimate stress is less than the
maximum stress; thus, the stress–strain curve is
followed by a post-peak descending branch after the
peak point corresponding to the maximum stress.
Therefore, in this study no strength enhancement is
considered for such specimens. For specimens with a
confinement ratio of more than 0.07, the compressive
strength of confined concrete can be predicted by the
following method. According to the study of Teng
et al. [14], the compressive strength of FRP confined
circular sections can be determined by Eq. (5);
0
fcc ¼ fco þ 3:3 fl : ð5Þ
0
In Eq. (5), fco is the standard cylinder compressive
strength of concrete and fl is the confining pressure
calculated from Eq. (3) regarding the efficiency factor.
For active confinement, coefficient of 3.3 in Eq. (5) is
changed to 3.5. In this study, for considering the effect
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 7 Regression line for factor k in Eq. (6), respect to the ratio
of corner radius to side dimension for square specimens
of corner radius, it is suggested to use Eq. (6) to predict
the compressive strength of unconfined rectangular
sections;
fcc0 ¼ k fcc ;
where k is a factor to account for the effect of corner
radius, fcc0 is the confined concrete strength of the
rectangular specimen, and fcc is the confined concrete
strength of a circular section with a diameter equal to
large side dimension of the rectangular section,
calculated from Eq. (5). To determine the factor k,
the ratio of fcc0 to fcc versus the ratio of r/h for the
simulated square specimens is presented in Fig. 7. For
plotting Fig. 7, fcc0 is taken the specimen strength
obtained from FE analysis which is shown in Table 1,
and fcc is taken as the strength of specimen No. 7 in
Table 1. A linear relationship is observed between
fcc0 =fcc and r/h in Fig. 7. Equation (7) is obtained from
regression on the data points to determine the k factor,
where the regression coefficient, R2, is equal to 0.994;
r in the table if they were available. Note that the
k ¼ 1:027 þ 0:475:
h maximum stress in Table 3 is taken as the average
Comparing the results of proposed model and
results of FE analysis for the simulated specimens
demonstrates some discrepancies; however, adding a
correction factor of a = 1.03 to Eq. (6) as given in
Eq. (8) provides reasonable agreement,
fcc0 ¼ a k fcc :
Figure 8 compares the compressive strengths of the
simulated square and rectangular specimens obtained
from FE analysis and proposed model using Eqs. (5),
Materials and Structures
Fig. 8 Comparison of proposed model with FE results for
square and rectangular specimens
(7) and (8). It is observed in the figure that although the
factor k has been determined for square specimens, the
strengths obtained from FE and the proposed model
ð6Þ are in close agreement even for rectangular columns. It
is concluded, therefore, that the proposed model can
properly predict the compressive strength of confined
square and rectangular specimens with different
corner radii.
To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed model, 75
FRP confined concrete specimens including 56 square
and 19 rectangular sections are selected, and the
predictions of the model are compared with the
existing test results. The specimens’ dimensions and
characteristics as well as the results obtained from the
tests and the proposed model are presented in Table 3.
In this table, L is the height of concrete column and ffrp
is the ultimate tensile strength of the FRP composite
used for strengthening. Other parameters in Table 3
were defined before. Results of FRP tensile coupon
tests were used to determine the composite properties
ð7Þ
value of strengths of identical specimens in each
group, if available. In a fully ascending stress–strain
curve, the ultimate stress is taken equal to the
maximum stress; but in an ascending–descending
curve, the ultimate stress is determined based on the
available curve in the original reference. It should be
ð8Þ
pointed out that the proposed model is not applicable
for specimens with a confinement ratio of less than
0.07; therefore, this case is defined by NA in Table 3.
Figure 9 shows a favorable agreement between the
Table 3 Experimental properties and results of the proposed model for predicting the compressive strength
0
No. References b 9 h 9 L (mm 9 mm 9 mm) r (mm) h/b r/h fco Maximum Ultimate tfrp efrp Efrp ffrp Confinement Proposed Error
stress; fcc0 stress (mm) (GPa) (MPa) ratio model; fcc0 (%)a
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

1 Wu and Wei 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 34.14 41.23 41.23 0.167 0.0184 229 4192 0.110 40.85 0.92
2 [7] 150 9 188 9 300 30 1.25 0.160 33.57 38.77 38.77 0.167 0.0184 229 4192 0.071 34.77 10.32
Materials and Structures

3 150 9 225 9 300 30 1.5 0.133 36.17 38.39 33.04 0.167 0.0184 229 4192 0.046 NAb 2
4 150 9 263 9 300 30 1.75 0.114 37.3 37.68 25.14 0.167 0.0184 229 4192 0.033 NA 2
5 150 9 300 9 300 30 2.0 0.100 35.35 37.44 29.98 0.167 0.0184 229 4192 0.027 NA 2
6 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 34.14 60.37 60.37 0.334 0.0184 229 4192 0.220 57.77 4.30
7 150 9 188 9 300 30 1.25 0.160 33.57 51.36 51.36 0.334 0.0184 229 4192 0.142 47.45 7.61
8 150 9 225 9 300 30 1.5 0.133 36.17 43.87 43.87 0.334 0.0184 229 4192 0.092 43.09 1.77
9 150 9 263 9 300 30 1.75 0.114 37.3 40.51 35.13 0.334 0.0184 229 4192 0.065 NA 2
10 150 9 300 9 300 30 2.0 0.100 35.35 38.97 27.93 0.334 0.0184 229 3500 0.053 NA 2
11 Pessiki et al. 152 9 152 9 610 38 1.0 0.250 26.4 41.4 41.4 1.0 0.015 38.1 580 0.142 34.48 16.70
12 [9] 152 9 152 9 610 38 1.0 0.250 26.4 55.1 55.1 2.0 0.015 38.1 580 0.284 49.07 10.94
13 Al-Salloum 150 9 150 9 500 5 1.0 0.033 29.81 41.84 35.75 1.2 0.0125 75.1 935 0.034 NA 2
14 [44] 150 9 150 9 500 25 1.0 0.167 30.16 46.92 46.92 1.2 0.0125 75.1 935 0.166 45.80 2.38
15 150 9 150 9 500 38 1.0 0.253 29.00 55.96 55.96 1.2 0.0125 75.1 935 0.262 51.24 8.44
16 150 9 150 9 500 50 1.0 0.333 27.49 62.68 62.68 1.2 0.0125 75.1 935 0.364 55.69 11.15
17 Harajli et al. 131.5 9 131.5 9 300 15 1.0 0.114 18.3 29.2 29.2 0.13 0.015 230 3500 0.085 21.87 25.10
18 [45] 131.5 9 131.5 9 300 15 1.0 0.114 18.3 40.3 40.3 0.26 0.015 230 3500 0.170 32.58 19.16
19 131.5 9 131.5 9 300 15 1.0 0.114 18.3 43.4 43.4 0.39 0.015 230 3500 0.255 43.29 0.26
20 102 9 176 9 300 15 1.73 0.085 18.3 23.7 7.4 0.13 0.015 230 3500 0.047 NA 2
Author's personal copy

21 102 9 176 9 300 15 1.73 0.085 18.3 31.3 31.3 0.26 0.015 230 3500 0.095 25.81 17.56
22 102 9 176 9 300 15 1.73 0.085 18.3 36.8 36.8 0.39 0.015 230 3500 0.142 33.41 9.22
23 79 9 214 9 300 15 2.71 0.070 18.3 28.0 18.5 0.13 0.015 230 3500 0.032 NA 2
24 79 9 214 9 300 15 2.71 0.070 18.3 28.6 24.0 0.26 0.015 230 3500 0.064 NA 2
25 79 9 214 9 300 15 2.71 0.070 18.3 30.7 25.6 0.39 0.015 230 3500 0.096 28.55 7.02
26 Parvin and 108 9 108 9 305 8.26 1.0 0.0765 21.4 34.7 34.7 0.165 0.016 188.9 3022 0.068 NA 2
27 Wang [46] 108 9 108 9 305 8.26 1.0 0.0765 21.4 45.2 45.2 0.330 0.016 188.9 3022 0.130 33.95 24.89
Table 3 continued
0
No. References b 9 h 9 L (mm 9 mm 9 mm) r (mm) h/b r/h fco Maximum Ultimate tfrp efrp Efrp ffrp Confinement Proposed Error
stress; fcc0 stress (mm) (GPa) (MPa) ratio model; fcc0 (%)a
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

28 Wang L and 150 9 150 9 300 0 1.0 0.000 31.7 32.2 14.3 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.000 NA 2
29 Wu Y [38] 150 9 150 9 300 15 1.0 0.100 31.9 33.6 24.2 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.060 NA 2
30 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 32.3 39.8 20.7 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.119 39.93 0.33
31 150 9 150 9 300 45 1.0 0.300 30.7 43.7 19.3 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.187 44.67 2.22
32 150 9 150 9 300 60 1.0 0.400 31.8 50.0 50.0 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.241 51.53 3.06
33 150 9 150 9 300 75 1.0 0.500 30.9 55.8 55.8 0.165 0.0199 219 4364 0.310 56.59 1.41
34 150 9 150 9 300 0 1.0 0.000 31.7 32.2 22.2 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.000 NA 2
35 150 9 150 9 300 15 1.0 0.100 31.9 42.2 42.2 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.120 48.35 14.58
36 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 32.3 56.5 56.5 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.237 57.23 1.29
37 150 9 150 9 300 45 1.0 0.300 30.7 68.0 68.0 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.375 64.57 5.04
38 150 9 150 9 300 60 1.0 0.400 31.8 78.9 78.9 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.482 74.05 6.15
39 150 9 150 9 300 75 1.0 0.500 30.9 84.8 84.8 0.330 0.0199 219 4364 0.621 81.72 3.64
40 150 9 150 9 300 0 1.0 0.000 52.1 53.7 17.4 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.000 NA 2
41 150 9 150 9 300 15 1.0 0.100 54.1 55.8 36.1 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.035 NA 2
42 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 52 55.9 44.2 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.073 53.64 4.04
43 150 9 150 9 300 45 1.0 0.300 52.7 57.6 47.2 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.109 62.30 8.16
44 150 9 150 9 300 60 1.0 0.400 52.7 62.6 62.6 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.145 70.47 12.57
45 150 9 150 9 300 75 1.0 0.500 52.1 67.9 67.9 0.165 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.183 78.03 14.92
46 150 9 150 9 300 0 1.0 0.000 52.1 55.9 27.6 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.000 NA 2
47 150 9 150 9 300 15 1.0 0.100 54.1 59.4 52.2 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.070 61.39 3.36
Author's personal copy

48 150 9 150 9 300 30 1.0 0.200 52 63.0 61.5 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.147 70.84 12.44
49 150 9 150 9 300 45 1.0 0.300 52.7 80.3 80.3 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.217 82.09 2.23
50 150 9 150 9 300 60 1.0 0.400 52.7 89.3 89.3 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.289 92.86 3.99
51 150 9 150 9 300 75 1.0 0.500 52.1 99.3 99.3 0.330 0.0192 225.7 3788 0.366 103.02 3.74
52 Wang Y and 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 46.43 55.12 46.12 0.286 0.0177 118 2060 0.051 NA 2
53 Wu H [40] 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 46.43 62.02 59.72 0.572 0.0177 118 2060 0.103 64.22 3.55
54 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 46.43 88.03 88.03 0.858 0.0177 118 2060 0.154 82.52 6.26
55 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 78.50 97.57 97.57 0.572 0.0177 118 2060 0.061 NA 2
56 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 78.50 106.02 101.63 0.858 0.0177 118 2060 0.091 101.60 4.17
57 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 101.18 103.52 99.97 0.286 0.0177 118 2060 0.024 NA 2
58 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 101.18 113.03 101.42 0.572 0.0177 118 2060 0.047 NA 2
59 100 9 100 9 300 10 1.0 0.100 101.18 121.52 120.80 0.858 0.0177 118 2060 0.071 115.10 5.28
Materials and Structures
Table 3 continued
0
No. References b 9 h 9 L (mm 9 mm 9 mm) r (mm) h/b r/h fco Maximum Ultimate tfrp efrp Efrp ffrp Confinement Proposed Error
stress; fcc0 stress (mm) (GPa) (MPa) ratio model; fcc0 (%)a
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

60 Abbasnia and 152 9 152 9 305 29 1.0 0.191 30 58.86 58.86 0.528 0.0163 241 3943.5 0.231 69.28 17.70
61 Ziaadiny 152 9 152 9 305 29 1.0 0.191 27 61.76 61.76 0.528 0.0163 241 3943.5 0.257 67.21 8.82
[47]
Materials and Structures

62 Abbasnia 152 9 152 9 305 29 1.0 0.191 50 77.08 77.08 0.704 0.0163 241 3943.5 0.139 99.28 28.80
63 et al. [48] 90 9 152 9 305 17.5 1.69 0.115 30 52.76 52.76 0.528 0.0163 241 3943.5 0.140 61.26 16.10
64 Abbasnia 150 9 150 9 300 13.6 1.0 0.0907 33 44.51 44.51 0.176 0.0163 241 3944 0.101 45.66 2.58
65 et al. [49] 150 9 150 9 300 22.6 1.0 0.1507 33 48.70 48.70 0.176 0.0163 241 3944 0.168 50.61 3.93
66 150 9 150 9 300 34.5 1.0 0.23 33 49.81 49.81 0.176 0.0163 241 3944 0.257 57.16 14.76
67 150 9 150 9 300 42 1.0 0.28 33 55.40 55.40 0.176 0.0163 241 3944 0.313 61.29 10.63
68 Shehata et al. 150 9 150 9 300 10 1.0 0.067 23.7 27.4 - 0.165 0.015 235 3550 0.044 NA 2
69 [50] 150 9 150 9 300 10 1.0 0.067 29.5 40.4 27.7 0.165 0.015 235 3550 0.035 NA 2
70 94 9 188 9 300 10 2.0 0.053 23.7 25.8 2 0.165 0.015 235 3550 0.028 NA 2
71 94 9 188 9 300 10 2.0 0.053 28.8 32.0 26.6 0.165 0.015 235 3550 0.023 NA 2
72 150 9 150 9 300 10 1.0 0.067 23.7 36.5 2 0.330 0.015 235 3550 0.087 35.61 2.43
73 150 9 150 9 300 10 1.0 0.067 29.5 43.7 33.4 0.330 0.015 235 3550 0.070 38.86 11.07
74 94 9 188 9 300 10 2.0 0.053 23.7 33.2 2 0.330 0.015 235 3550 0.056 NA 2
75 94 9 188 9 300 10 2.0 0.053 28.8 38.7 31.5 0.330 0.015 235 3550 0.046 NA 2
0 
a f ðproposed modelÞ  fcc0 ðexp:Þ 
f 0 ðexp:Þ
Error ¼  cc  100
cc

b
NA, since the confinement ratio is less than 0.07
Author's personal copy
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 9 Comparison of proposed model for predicting the
compressive strength with test results
proposed model and test results, with an average error
of 8.51 %. Thus, it is concluded that the strength of
confined rectangular concrete columns, considering
the effect of corner radius, can be predicted by the
proposed model (Eq. 8) with reasonable accuracy.
6 Summary and conclusions
This paper studied the behavior and the compressive
strength of rectangular concrete columns confined
with CFRP composites using finite element analysis.
Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion was used for modeling the
CFRP rupture to take into account both the effect of
axial stresses on FRP performance and the effect of
hoop stresses. The accuracy of the selected procedure
for finite element analysis was verified by modeling
three circular and one rectangular confined specimens.
The effects of corner radius and side aspect ratio were
investigated by modeling 19 specimens. Concrete
columns with corner radii of 5, 15, 25 and 38 mm and
aspect ratios of 1.00, 1.25, 1.54 and 2.00 were
modeled. Square sections with 45, 60 and 75 mm
corner radii were also modeled. Distribution of axial
and lateral stresses in these specimens was studied. A
model for predicting the compressive strength of
confined concrete was proposed considering the effect
of corner radius. The predictions of the proposed
model were compared with available experimental
data to demonstrate its accuracy. Based on the results
of the present study, the conclusions can be summa-
rized as follows.
Materials and Structures
(1) The behavior of CFRP confined circular and
rectangular sections can be predicted using
appropriate non-linear FE analysis, considering
the effect of concrete strength, CFRP confining
pressure and the number of CFRP layers (jacket
stiffness). Results showed that simultaneous use
of the modified Drucker–Prager plasticity model
for concrete and Tsai–Wu’s failure criterion for
modeling the CFRP rupture provides accurate
prediction of stress–strain curves.
(2) In a certain aspect ratio of rectangular columns
confined with CFRP, as the corner radius
increases, the gain in strength and ultimate strain
increases; i.e. increasing the corner radius from
15 to 25 mm in rectangular specimens with an
aspect ratio of 1.54, results in 11.7 % increase in
compressive strength, 20.9 % increase in ulti-
mate axial strain of the specimen and 27.7 %
increase in CFRP rupture strain, indicating
improvement of CFRP efficiency.
(3) At a constant corner radius, strength and ultimate
axial strain is decreased by increasing the aspect
ratio. For example, it was observed that the
strength enhancement is 20.8 % for the specimen
with r = 15 mm and h/b = 1.25 (specimen No.
9 in Table 1), and 8.0 % for the specimen with
r = 15 mm and h/b = 1.54 (specimen No. 13 in
Table 1). Furthermore, increasing the aspect
ratio results in reduction of FRP rupture strain
indicating that the FRP efficiency is decreased;
i.e. in the two specimens mentioned above, the
FRP rupture strain decreases 19.0 % by increas-
ing the aspect ratio from 1.25 to 1.54.
(4) In rectangular sections, axial and lateral stresses are
considerably higher at corners than those at middle
of sides, resulting in stress concentration and
premature rupture of FRP at corners. For example,
in specimen with h/b = 2.00 and r = 15 mm, the
ratio of axial stress at corners to its value in the
middle of large side was 3.81 at the column mid-
height; this ratio for lateral stress was 2.56.
(5) The proposed model for predicting the compres-
sive strength of confined rectangular concrete
columns considering the effect of corner radius,
FRP stiffness and unconfined concrete strength
showed good accuracy in strength prediction of a
vast variety of available experimental tests;
showing the reliability of the model for design
applications.
 Author's personal copy
Materials and Structures
References
1. Harajli MH (2006) Axial stress–strain relationship for FRP
confined circular and rectangular concrete columns. Cem
Concr Compos 28(10):938–948
2. Chaallal O, Hassan M, Shahawy M (2003) Confinement
model for axially loaded short rectangular columns
strengthened with CFRP wrapping. ACI Struct J 100(2):
215–221
3. El Maaddawy T, El Sayed M, Abdel-Magid B (2010) The
effects of cross-sectional shape and loading condition on
performance of reinforced concrete members confined with
carbon fibre-reinforced polymers. Mater Des 31(5):2330–
2341
4. Yang X, Nanni A, Chen G (2001) Effect of corner radius on
performance of externally bonded FRP reinforcement. In:
Non-metallic reinforcement for concrete structures. Pro-
ceedings of the fifth international symposium on fiber
reinforced polymer for reinforce concrete structures
(FRPRCS-5), Cambridge, 16–18 July, p 197–204
5. Kumutha R, Vaidyanathan R, Palanichamy MS (2007)
Behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular columns
strengthened using GFRP. Cem Concr Compos 29(8):609–615
6. Maalej M, Tanwongsval S, Paramsivam P (2003) Modelling
of rectangular RC columns strengthened with FRP. Cem
Concr Compos 25(2):263–276
7. Wu Y-F, Wei Y-Y (2010) Effect of cross-sectional aspect
ratio on the strength of CFRP-confined rectangular concrete
columns. Eng Struct 32(1):32–45
8. Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, El-Echary H (1998)
Effect of column parameters on FRP-confined concrete.
ASCE J Compos Constr 2(4):175–185
9. Pessiki S, Harries KA, Kestner JT, Sause R, Ricles JM
(2001) Axial behavior of reinforced concrete columns
confined with FRP jackets. ASCE J Compos Constr 5(4):
237–245
10. Silva MAG (2011) Behavior of square and circular columns
strengthened with aramidic or carbon fibers. Constr Build
Mater 25(8):3222–3228
11. Mandal S, Hoskin A, Fam A (2005) Influence of con-
crete strength on confinement effectiveness of fiber-
reinforced polymer circular jackets. ACI Struct J 102(3):
383–392
12. Toutanji H (1999) Stress–strain characteristics of concrete
columns externally confined with advanced fiber composite
sheets. ACI Mater J 96(3):397–404
13. Saafi M, Toutanji HA, Li Z (1999) Behavior of concrete
columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes. ACI
Mater J 96(4):500–509
14. Teng JG, Huang YL, Lam L, Ye P (2007) Theoretical model
for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete. ASCE J
Compos Constr 11(2):201–210
15. Toutanji H, Han M, Gilbert J, Matthys S (2010) Behavior of
large-scale rectangular columns confined with FRP com-
posites. ASCE J Compos Constr 14(1):62–71
16. Chastre C, Silva MAG (2010) Monotonic axial behavior and
modelling of RC circular columns confined with CFRP. Eng
Struct 32(8):2268–2277
17. Tamužs V, Tepfers R, Spārninš E (2006) Behavior of con-
crete cylinders confined by a carbon composite 2. Prediction
of strength. Mech Compos Mater 42(2):109–118
18. Tamužs V, Tepfers R, Zı̄le E, Ladnova O (2006) Behavior
of concrete cylinders confined by a carbon composite 3.
Deformability and the ultimate axial strain. Mech Compos
Mater 42(4):303–314
19. Mirmiran A, Zagers K, Yuan W (2000) Nonlinear finite
element modeling of concrete confined by fiber composites.
Finite Elem Anal Des 35(1):79–96
20. Mostofinejad D, Saadatmand H (2010) A procedure for
predicting the behavior of FRP confined concrete using the
FE method. Sci Iran Trans A Civil Eng 17(6):471–481
21. Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL (2010) Finite element
modeling of confined concrete-I: Drucker–Prager type
plasticity model. Eng Struct 32(3):665–679
22. Yu T, Teng JG, Wong YL, Dong SL (2010) Finite element
modeling of confined concrete-II: plastic-damage model.
Eng Struct 32(3):680–691
23. Yang X, Wei J, Nanni A, Dharani LR (2004) Shape effect on
the performance of carbon fiber reinforced polymer wraps.
ASCE J Compos Constr 8(5):444–451
24. Xiao Y, Wu H (2000) Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by carbon fiber composite jackets. ASCE J Mater
Civ Eng 12(2):139–146
25. ACI Committee 318 (2011) Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318 M, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills
26. Teng TG, Lam L (2004) Behavior and modeling of fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng
130(11):1713–1723
27. Shahawy M, Mirmiran A, Beitelman T (2000) Test and
modeling of carbon-wrapped concrete columns. Compos B
Eng 31(6–7):471–480
28. Oh B (2002) A plasticity model for confined concrete under
uniaxial loading. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University
29. Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD (1996) Strength and ductility of
rectangular concrete columns: a plasticity approach. ASCE
J Struct Eng 122(3):267–274
30. Karabinis AI, Rousakis TC (2002) Concrete confined by
FRP material: a plasticity approach. Eng Struct 24(7):923–
932
31. ACI Committee 440 (2008) Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strength-
ening concrete structures. ACI 440.2R-08, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills
32. Yu T (2006) Structural behavior of hybrid FRP–concrete–
steel double-skin tubular columns. Dissertation, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University
33. Lan YM (1998) Finite element study of concrete columns
with fiber composite jackets. Dissertation, Purdue University
34. Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD (1994) Effects of confinement on
concrete columns: plasticity approach. ASCE J Struct Eng
120(9):2747–2767
35. Lin C-S, Scordelis AC (1975) Nonlinear analysis of RC
shells of general form. ASCE J Struct Div Civ Eng Database
101(3):523–538
36. Tamužs V, Valdmanis V, Gylltoft K, Tepfers R (2007) Behavior
of CFRP-confined concrete cylinders with a compressive steel
reinforcement. Mech Compos Mater 43(3):191–202
37. Tamužs V, Tepfers R, Zı̄le E, Valdmanis V (2008)
Mechanical behaviour of FRP-confined concrete columns
under axial compressive loading. American Society of Civil
Engineers, International Committee, Los Angeles Section,
 Author's personal copy
5th International engineering and construction conference
(IECC’5), Los Angeles, 27–29 Aug, pp 223–241
38. Wang L-M, Wu Y-F (2008) Effect of corner radius on the
performance of CFRP-confined square concrete column:
test. J Eng Struct 30(2):493–505
39. Lam L, Teng JG (2003) Design-oriented stress–strain model
for FRP-confined concrete. Constr Build Mater 17(6–7):
471–489
40. Wang Y-F, Wu H-L (2010) Experimental investigation on
square high-strength concrete short columns confined with
AFRP sheet. ASCE J Compos Constr 14(3):346–351
41. Chaallal O, Shahawy M, Al-Saad A (2000) Behavior of
axially loaded short rectangular columns strengthened with
CFRP composite wrapping. Technical Report. Structures
Research Center, Tallahassee
42. Spoelstra MR, Monti G (1999) FRP-confined concrete
model. ASCE J Compos Constr 3(3):143–152
43. Lam L, Teng J-G (2003) Design-oriented stress–strain
model for FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.
J Reinf Plast Compos 22(13):1149–1186
44. Al-Salloum YA (2007) Influence of edge sharpness on the
strength of square concrete columns confined with FRP
composite laminates. Compos B Eng 38(5–6):640–650
Materials and Structures
45. Harajli MH, Hantouche E, Soudki K (2006) Stress–strain
model for fiber-reinforced polymer jacketed concrete col-
umns. ACI Struct J 103(5):672–682
46. Parvin A, Wang W (2001) Behavior of FRP jacketed con-
crete columns under eccentric loading. ASCE J Compos
Constr 5(3):146–152
47. Abbasnia R, Ziaadiny H (2010) Behavior of concrete prisms
confined with FRP composites under axial cyclic com-
pression. Eng Struct 32(3):648–655
48. Abbasnia R, Ahmadi R, Ziaadiny H (2012) Effect of con-
finement level, aspect ratio and concrete strength on the
cyclic stress–strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete
prisms. Compos B Eng 43(2):825–831
49. Abbasnia R, Hosseinpour F, Rostamian M, Ziaadiny H
(2012) Effect of corner radius on stress–strain behavior of
FRP confined prisms under axial cyclic compression. Eng
Struct 40:529–535
50. Shehata IAEM, Carneiro LAV, Shehata LCD (2002)
Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP
sheets. Mater Struct 35(1):50–58