General Stress-Strain Model for Steel- and

FRP-Confined Concrete
Yu-Fei Wu 1 and Yang Wei 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A new and general stress-strain model for concrete confined by steel or fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is developed in this work.
One additional variable and one constant are added to the well-known Popovics model to control the type and the shape of the stress-strain
curve. The proposed model has one simple, continuous, and explicit expression and can exhibit either hardening or softening types of re-
sponses. This general model provides a unified platform for modeling stress-strain of concrete confined by different materials, such as steel or
FRP, and help to overcome inconsistency or complexity. The parameters of the stress-strain model are determined by analytical study and data
regression using a large and up-to-date test database. The proposed stress-strain model is validated with experimental results and compared
with existing models; it shows good performance and superior flexibility and versatility of the model. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000511. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete; Columns; Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP); Steel; Stress-strain relationship; Confinement; General model.

Introduction different parts. Usually, a nonlinear curve, i.e., parabola, is used to

The strength and the strain capacity of concrete columns can be
greatly enhanced by lateral confinement using different materials
such as stirrups, steel jackets, and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
wraps. The stress-strain behavior of confined concrete under com-
pression is affected not only by the degree of confinement but
also by the type of confining material (Wu et al. 2006b). Numerous
stress-strain models have been proposed for steel- and FRP-
confined concrete in the past. Most of these models originated
from a few classical expressions. A typical stress-strain curve of
steel-confined concrete exhibits an ascending trend followed by
a post-peak descending behavior, which is often modeled with
one continuous expression (Ahmad and Shah 1982; Mander et al.
1988a) or two discontinuous expressions (Hoshikuma et al. 1997;
Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992; Shah et al. 1983). In early studies of
FRP-confined concrete, the difference between FRP confinement
and steel confinement was not clearly recognized and the stress-
strain model of Mander et al. (1988a) for steel-confined concrete
was directly adopted for FRP-confined concrete columns (Fardis
and Khalili 1982; Priestley and Seible 1995; Saadatmanesh et al.
1994). Recognizing that the confining pressure provided by FRP
keeps increasing until rupture, rather than remaining constant after
yielding of steel, in subsequent studies, numerous stress-strain
models were developed for characterizing the behavior of FRP.
Similar to steel-confined concrete, stress-strain models can be
categorized into two main types. The first type utilizes a single and
continuous expression (Moran and Pantelides 2002; Richard and
Abbott 1975; Samaan et al. 1998; Xiao and Wu 2003) and the
second type models the whole stress-strain curve with two or more
1
Associate Professor, Dept of Civil and Architectural Engineering,
City Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China (corresponding author).
E-mail: yfwu00@cityu.edu.hk
2
Associate Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Forestry
Univ., Nanjing 210037, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 9, 2014; approved on
June 25, 2014; published online on October 2, 2014. Discussion period
open until March 2, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/04014069(14)/$25.00.
simulate the first ascending part of the curve and a straight line
is adopted to describe the other ascending or descending parts
(Chaallal et al. 2003; Lam and Teng 2003; Saafi et al. 1999; Teng
et al. 2009; Toutanji 1999; Wu et al. 2006a; Youssef et al. 2007).
Through years of studies on the stress-strain behavior of con-
fined concrete, the authors have realized that the stress-strain
behavior of both steel- and FRP-confined concrete can be unified
under one common, yet simple framework, featuring all character-
istics of both. Unified models have been developed previously for
FRP-confined concrete. One work unified the strength models for
circular and square columns (Wu and Wang 2009), which was later
extended to include rectangular columns (Wu and Wei 2010). The
other work unified the stress-strain models of concrete for circular,
square, and rectangular columns (Wei and Wu 2012). However, no
unification of models for steel- and FRP-confined concrete has
been reported in extant literature, so far as is known. In this work,
a new general stress-strain model for confined concrete is devel-
oped, with a single continuous mathematical expression. By
assigning different values to model parameters, the general model
can exhibit different forms that feature the behavior of steel- or
FRP-confined concrete.
Characterizing Steel and FRP-Confined Concrete
Behavior of Steel and FRP-Confined Concrete
Concrete is a load path dependent material that displays different
load-deformation behaviors under different load paths (Jiang and
Wu 2012). Confining concrete with different materials such as
steel and FRP results in different load paths, due to different load-
deformation characteristics of the confining materials, as shown in
Fig. 1(a). As a result, the stress-strain response of concrete varies
with different confining materials [Fig. 1(b)]. Steel-confined con-
crete invariably exhibits a softening behavior after the first ascend-
ing part of the stress-strain curve due to a constant confining
pressure provided by steel after yielding. Owing to the linear-elastic
properties of FRP, its confinement of concrete always increases
when deformation increases, until rupture of the FRP. Depending

© ASCE 04014069-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 on the magnitude of the confining pressure, the stress-strain curve
of FRP-confined concrete may exhibit a softening or hardening
behavior, after its first ascending part. If the level of confinement
is smaller than a certain threshold, the stress-strain curve exhibits
a softening behavior after its peak (Wu and Wei 2010); otherwise,
a hardening behavior occurs [Fig. 1(b)].
Stress-Strain Models
Several classic models are often adopted for steel- and FRP-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
confined concrete, as discussed in this section.
Sargin’s Model
Sargin proposed a stress-strain model for unconfined concrete in
1971 (Sargin 1971), which has the following form:
fc Aðεεc0c Þ þ ðD − 1Þðεεc0c Þ2
¼ ð1Þ
f c0 1 þ ðA − 2Þðεεc Þ þ Dðεεc Þ2
c0 c0
where εc and fc are the strain and the corresponding stress of
concrete with peak value of εc0 and f c0 , respectively; A and D are
two constants controlling the ascending region and the descending
region of the stress-strain curve, respectively.
This model was modified by Ahmad and Shah (1982) as the
stress-strain curve of concrete confined by steel spirals, where the
peak stress and peak strain of unconfined concrete were replaced by
those of the steel-confined concrete. Eq. (1) cannot model harden-
ing behavior and hence Sargin’s model is often used as the ascend-
ing part of the stress-strain curve of confined concrete. When A ¼ 2
and D ¼ 0, the model becomes a special case as given by Eq. (2),
and is known as Hognestad’s model (Hognestad 1951)

   2 
fc 2εc εc
¼ − ð2Þ
fco εco εco
Eq. (2) is used as the ascending part of the stress-strain curve in
Hognestad’s model and a linear model is often used for the strain-
softening or hardening parts. Sargin’s model was later modified by
Saafi et al. (1999) and Toutanji (1999) for FRP-confined concrete,
as given by Eq. (3)
Aεc
fc ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ Cεc þ Dε2c
where parameters A, C, and D are determined by the boundary
conditions and slopes of the ascending part and the post-peak part,
respectively. Although Eq. (3) can depict a hardening trend after the
first ascending part, the equation cannot match the linear hardening
Fig. 1. Typical stress-strain curves: (a) confinement materials; (b) confined concrete
© ASCE 04014069-2
J. Compos. Constr.
characteristics of FRP-confined concrete and hence can only be
used for the first ascending part of the stress-strain relationship.
Popovics Model
Popovics (1973) proposed Eq. (4) as the complete stress-strain
curve of unconfined concrete, which can predict many kinds of
softening curves by varying the parameter a
fc x·a
¼ ð4Þ
fcc a − 1 þ xa
where x is the normalized strain given by x ¼ εc =εcc in which εcc
and fcc are the peak strain and the corresponding stress, respec-
tively. Mander et al. (1988a) extended the model for steel-confined
concrete in which the peak point was replaced by the peak stress
and peak strain of steel-confined concrete.
There is only one parameter a that controls the entire stress-
strain curve in the Popovics model. Parameter a determines both
the ascending part and the descending part. Because of its simplic-
ity and versatility, it can be used to predict different stress-strain
curves of concrete and, therefore, the model has been widely used
for both unconfined and steel-confined concrete. Popovics model
has also been used to model the stress-strain curves of FRP-
confined concrete (Fardis and Khalili 1982; Priestley and Seible
1995; Saadatmanesh et al. 1994). However, the bilinear character-
istics of the stress-strain curves of FRP-confined concrete with
hardening behavior cannot be appropriately modeled. For FRP-
confined concrete with softening behavior, it also has difficulty
in adequately modeling the different descending trends caused by
different degrees of confinement stiffness.
Richard-Abbott Model
Richard and Abbott (1975) proposed a four-parameter equation
[Eq. (5)] to describe the elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship,
using a continuous function
ðE − E Þε
f c ¼   ðE1 −E Þε2  c þ E2 εc ð5Þ
1þ 1 fo 2 c n 1=n
where E1 = initial elastic modulus; E2 = hardening/
softening modulus; f0 = reference plastic stress; and n = shape
parameter. Because the Richard-Abbott model can feature the
bilinear characteristics of a stress-strain curve, it has been widely
used for FRP-confined concrete with hardening behavior by many
researchers (Moran and Pantelides 2002; Samaan et al. 1998; Xiao
and Wu 2003).
The prominent advantages of this model are its continuity with a
single expression and versatility for different types of stress-strain
J. Compos. Constr.
 2.0 5
a=1.5 b=-0.1, c=-0.6 c=0.2 a=2, b=-0.1
a=2.0 c=-0.2

Nomalized axial stress

Nomalized axial stress

4
1.5 a=2.5 c=-0.4
a=3.0 c=-0.6
a=4.0 3
c=-0.8
1.0
2
0.5
1

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Nomalized axial strain (b) Nomalized axial strain

Fig. 2. Variation of stress-strain curves: (a) effect of coefficient a; (b) effect of coefficient c


curves, although there are as many as four parameters, E1 , E2 , f 0 , dðf c =fcc Þ a
f 0 ð0Þ ¼ ¼ ð7Þ
and n. Parameter E2 dominates the hardening/softening slope dðεc =εcc Þ x¼0 a − 1
and parameter n mainly affects the curvature of the transition region
connecting the two portions of the curve. When E2 > 0, the a εcc
Eq. (7) can be rewritten as Ec ¼ a−1 f cc , or
Richard-Abbott model shows a hardening slope and when E2 < 0
it exhibits strain softening after the peak. However, it has not been Ec
a¼ ð8Þ
used to model strain softening behavior, as it is difficult to control Ec − Esec
the descending branch and the transition region by evaluating the
parameters. where Esec is the secant modulus of confined concrete at peak
stress, given by
fcc
Proposed Stress-Strain Model Esec ¼ ð9Þ
εcc

Mathematical Modeling Ec is the elastic modulus that depends on concrete compressive

strength and can be calculated using Eq. (10) [ACI 318-95
Through an extensive review of the literature, it has been concluded (ACI 1999)]
that no existing model has the required versatility for modeling pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
stress-strain curves for both steel- and FRP-confined concrete. Ec ¼ 4,730 f c0 ðin MPaÞ ð10Þ
By carefully analyzing different models and the effect of the model
parameters, the following mathematical function is found to have Based on Mander et al. (1988a), coefficient a determined
the required versatility: by Eq. (8) is sufficient to control the shape of the entire stress-
strain curve of concrete confined by steel. It can be seen from
fc x·a Eqs. (8)–(10) that there are only two parameters, f cc and εcc , for
fðxÞ ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
f cc a − 1 þ xaðxþδÞb þc the stress-strain relationship (fco not considered as parameter).
When the failure point needs to be determined, another parameter
where x and a = identical to those in Popovics model; b and c = two
εcu (or f cu ) is required.
additional coefficients providing versatility; and δ = small constant
For FRP-confined concrete, the ascending part can similarly be
such as 0.01 to avoid singularity of the equation at x ¼ 0
determined by parameter a from the peak point (f cc , εcc ) using
when b is negative. Eq. (6) is a variation and extension of Popovics
Eqs. (8)–(10). The end point of a stress-strain curve can be used
model with two additional coefficients of b and c.
When b ¼ c ¼ 0, Eq. (6) reduces to Popovics model that can be
used for modeling steel-confined concrete in a way similar to General stress-strain model
Mander et al. (1988a). Coefficient b can significantly affect the fc x⋅a
=
shape and slope of the post-peak curve. Based on experimental b
fcc a −1 + xa( x+0.01) +c
curves of FRP-confined concrete, a constant value of b ¼ −0.1
is found suitable to model the stress-strain curves with both hard-
ening and softening behavior. There are two coefficients, a and c, Steel-confined concrete FRP-confined concrete
in this case. The effects of these two coefficients on the curve are b=-0.1, softening or
illustrated in Fig. 2. When b ¼ −0.1, c ¼ −0.6 and a varies from b=c=0, softening Hardening
4–1.5, the shape changes from a softening to a hardening curve
[Fig. 2(a)]. If b ¼ −0.1 and a ¼ 2, the shape of the curves changes
similarly when c changes [Fig. 2(b)]. For the convenience of stress- fc x⋅a fc x⋅a
= = −0.1
strain modeling, a can be used to control the ascending part of the fcc a −1 + xa fcc a −1 + xa( x+0.01) +c
curve. When a is determined, the c value can be adjusted to suit the
second part of the curve.
Parameters Parameters
Parameters of the Model fcc, cc, cu fcc, cc, fcu, cu

Taking derivative with respect to x on both sides of Eq. (6) and

Fig. 3. Flowchart for application of the general model
letting x ¼ 0 gives

© ASCE 04014069-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Summary of Database

Number of Diameter Length

© ASCE
Author specimens FRP type D (mm) L (mm) fco (MPa) fl =f co El =f0.5
c0 f cc =f co εcc =εco f cu =fco εcu =εco Curves
Aire et al. (2010) 16 C,G 150 300 42.0–69.0 0.09–1.06 16–541 0.98–1.90 1.25–2.08 0.90–3.14 1.00–13.17 14
Almusallam (2007) 12 G 150 300 47.7–107.8 0.09–0.59 49–203 0.99–1.24 1.11–1.93 1.04–2.10 1.01–8.84 8
Benzaid et al. (2009) 3 G 160 320 56.7 0.04–0.15 17–70 1.04–1.09 1.13–1.25 1.31–1.68 4.67–7.83 0
Benzaid et al. (2010) 6 C 160 320 25.9–61.8 0.11–0.81 49–228 1.01–1.53 0.95–1.45 0.76–2.55 1.15–5.55 5
Berthet et al. (2005) 42 C,G 160 320 25.0–52.0 0.11–1.32 32–600 1.14–2.27 0.99–3.28 1.12–4.16 2.30–13.5 12
Bullo (2003) 12 G,HM 150 300 32.54 0.20–0.80 70–451 — — 1.62–4.17 3.36–19.53 0
Cui and Sheikh (2010) 64 C,G,HM 152 305 45.6–111.8 0.06–0.70 38–483 0.96–1.59 1.12–2.43 0.75–3.38 1.20–13.92 41
Dai et al. (2011) 9 A 152 305 39.2 0.21–0.64 41–123 0.98–1.38 1.21–2.04 1.42–3.01 7.14–17.07 9
De Lorenzis et al. (2002) 4 C 120 240,300 38.0–43.0 0.11–0.16 69–89 — — 1.29–1.77 3.96–5.80 0
Demers and Neale (1994) 8 C 152 305 32.2–43.7 0.09–0.34 24–149 — — 0.96–1.72 1.12–9.14 0
Elsanadedy et al. (2012) 6 C 50–150 100–300 41.1–53.8 0.27–0.82 161–482 1.31–1.73 1.46–2.25 1.86–3.51 3.52–7.81 6
Harries and Kharel (2002) 10 C 152 305 32.1 0.06–0.95 24–359 — — 1.02–1.87 1.43–4.93 0
Howie and Karbhari (1994) 21 C 152 305 38.6 0.08–0.66 47–247 — — 1.09–2.33 — 0
Ilki and Kumbasar (2002) 5 C 150 300 32 0.24–1.18 89–447 — — 1.48–3.37 7.20–24.8 0
Ilki and Kumbasar (2003) 7 C 150 300 23.5–33.3 0.23–1.61 88–522 — — 1.46–4.57 4.65–20.10 0
Ilki et al. (2004) 12 C 150 300 6.2 1.22–7.30 203–1219 1.31–2.63 1.45–5.00 3.13–17.47 13.00–52.00 10
Issa and Karam (2004) 9 C 150 300 30.5 0.22–0.66 68–203 — — 1.17–2.48 — 0
Jiang and Teng (2007) 23 G 152 305 33.1–47.6 0.09–1.29 26–699 1.04–1.79 1.11–2.58 0.88–4.24 3.33–17.05 23
Karabinis and Rousakis (2002) 18 C 200 320 34.8–39.7 0.11–0.38 45–143 1.00–1.28 1.05–1.88 1.05–1.94 1.26–8.99 13
Karbhari and Gao (1997) 4 C 152 305 38.4 0.40–1.57 159–632 — — 1.17–2.33 4.72–10.29 0
Kono et al. (1998) 15 C 100 200 32.3–34.8 0.37–1.19 134–414 — — 1.46–3.16 4.08–10.87 0
Lam and Teng (2004) 13 C,G 152 305 35.9–38.5 0.21–0.80 59–279 1.04–1.36 1.18–2.27 1.31–2.84 5.53–12.82 13
Lam et al. (2006) 6 C 152 305 38.9–41.1 0.22,0.42 85, 172 1.05–1.22 1.21–1.76 1.28–2.03 3.52–8.32 6
Lee et al. (2010) 5 C 150 300 36.2 0.18–0.91 61–305 1.15–1.46 1.25–2.50 1.01–2.88 4.17–12.92 5

04014069-4
Liang et al. (2012) 12 C 100–300 200–600 22.7–26.0 0.42–0.48 161–172 — — 2.40–3.04 7.77–11.27 12

J. Compos. Constr.
Lin and Chen (2001) 16 G,HM 100,120 200,240 23.9,32.7 0.20–1.31 86–459 — — 1.52–3.91 — 0
Lin and Li (2003) 27 C 100–150 200–300 17.0–24.9 0.25–1.60 69–370 — — 1.92–5.23 — 0
Mandal et al. (2005) 15 C,G 102–105 200 30.7–80.6 0.15–0.93 73–233 — — 1.17–2.58 1.33–11.41 0
Micelli et al. (2013) 2 G 150 300 28.4–38.2 0.13–0.20 27,82 — — 1.64–1.88 6.39–8.79 0
Miyauchi et al. (1997) 10 C 150 300 31.2–51.9 0.11–0.68 50–262 — — 1.45–3.26 4.32–10.32 0
Miyauchi et al. (1999) 9 C 100,150 200,300 23.6–33.7 0.22–0.87 70–297 — — 1.55–3.26 8.83–13.24 0
Ozbakkaloglu and Akin (2012) 4 A 152 305 39 0.39–0.59 101–152 1.10–1.20 1.57–1.90 1.72–2.25 10.95–14.81 4
Rochette and Labossiere (2000) 7 C,A 100 200 42.0–43.0 0.09–0.37 35–153 1.14–1.20 1.38–1.59 1.10–1.75 4.63–7.25 2
Rousakis (2001) 20 HM 150 300 25.2–51.8 0.19–1.19 119–594 — — 1.41–2.67 2.22–7.88 0
Rousakis et al. (2003) 6 C 150 300 20.4,49.2 0.20–1.50 76–352 — — 1.61–3.09 2.06–5.46 0
Saenz and Pantelides (2006) 4 C 152 304 40.3–47.5 0.34–0.80 177–354 — — 1.72–2.68 4.58–7.39 0
Shahawy et al. (2000) 9 C 152 305 19.4–49.0 0.30–3.84 77–616 1.06–1.73 1.45–3.10 1.21–4.13 3.10–17.80 9
Shehata et al. (2002) 4 C 150 300 25.6–29.8 0.26–0.61 95–204 1.17–1.27 1.33–1.57 1.71–2.42 5.86–8.29 2
Shehata et al. (2007) 6 C 150,225 300,450 34.0–61.7 0.13–0.46 59–177 — — 1.24–2.41 3.00–5.50 0
Silva and Rodrigues (2006) 7 G 150,250 300–750 29.6–31.2 0.30–0.53 77–133 — — 1.79–3.03 4.54–11.33 0
Smith et al. (2010) 4 C 250 500 35 0.19 75 — — 1.43–1.69 — 0
Song et al. (2013) 12 C 100 300 22.4–40.9 0.17–1.42 64–391 0.97–2.01 1.13–2.01 1.40–5.30 3.66–16.25 12
Suter and Pinzelli (2001) 16 A,C,G,HM 150 300 33.3–54.0 0.14–0.67 42–485 — — 1.14–3.06 0.96–7.36 0
Teng et al. (2007) 6 G 152 305 39.6 0.10–0.31 28–85 1.03–1.08 1.11–1.53 0.98–1.66 3.16–9.73 6
Thériault et al. (2004) 5 C 51–304 102–608 18,37 0.41–1.56 164–351 — — 1.73–3.89 — 0
Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu (2013b) 6 A 152 305 49.4 0.46 135 1.13–1.17 1.42–1.75 2.09–2.23 13.42–15.54 6
Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu (2013a) 20 C 150 300 35.5–112 0.09–0.38 47–214 1.02–1.28 1.00–1.56 0.72–1.74 2.11–7.86 17
Wang and Wu (2008) 12 C 150 300 30.9–52.1 0.16–0.62 69–173 1.01–1.17 1.12–1.41 1.28–2.77 4.43–14.40 12

J. Compos. Constr.
 Curves
to determine the second parameter c. Substituting the end point,

0
5
4
0
12

4
27

300
283
(εcu , fcu ), into Eq. (6) gives

fcc εcu ·a   −0.1

2.48–24.13

7.84–11.85

4.44–13.89
1.53–13.42
2.56–14.24
ln −aþ1 ε

3.12–9.73
f cu εcc
c¼ − a cu þ δ ð11Þ
εcu =εco

581
495
ln εcu − ln εcc εcc

—
Therefore, the value of c can be calculated from Eq. (11). In
other words, the stress-strain curves of FRP-confined concrete have
1.29–3.05
1.03–1.73
1.92–3.01
1.69–6.82
1.94–3.55
0.89–2.83
1.44–4.32
f cu =fco

four parameters, f cc , εcc , f cu , and εcu . These parameters are evalu-

706
667
ated in the following sections through data regressions. Fig. 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shows the overall design of the general stress-strain model.

1.31–1.71

1.19–1.81
1.10–2.23
1.29,1.64
εcc =εco

Model Parameters for Steel-Confined Concrete

300
283
—

A recent modeling by Wei and Wu (2014) of steel-confined con-

crete can be used to determine the parameters of the general model
for steel-confined concrete. In that work, the existing stress-strain
1.02–1.09

1.13–1.47
1.04–1.41
1.18,1.27
f cc =f co

models for ordinary steel-confined concrete were extended to pre-

300
283
—

dict the stress-strain behavior of both ordinary steel and high

strength wire-confined concrete. The peak stress f cc , peak strain
εcc , and ultimate strain εcu of steel-confined concrete can be calcu-
39–974
28–89
96–187
89–475
79–447
71–271
28–550

lated by Eqs. (12)–(14), respectively (Wei and Wu 2014)

El =f0.5
c0

—
—

f cc f0.86
¼ 1 þ 5.35 l ðin MPaÞ ð12Þ
fc0 fc0
0.23–1.52
0.10–0.33

0.25–1.75
0.31–0.82
0.14–0.70
0.12–1.22
0.26,0.50
fl =f co

εcc f
—
—

¼ 1 þ 20.6 l ð13Þ
εc0 f c0

εcu
fco (MPa)

f
36.5–46.7
28.7–30.1
20.6–36.7

33.7–55.2
29.4–44.9

¼ 1.75 þ 900εsu l ð14Þ

εc0 f c0
—
—
30.2

23.1

where f c0 and εc0 are the compressive strength and the correspond-
ing strain of unconfined concrete, respectively; and εsu = ultimate
305,813
200
305
300
300
300
305
L (mm)
Length

strain of transverse reinforcement. The peak strain can be calcu-

—
—

lated with the following equation proposed by Popovics (1973),

when test result of this value is unavailable:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Diameter

152,406
100
152
150
150
150
152
D (mm)

εc0 ¼ 0.000937 4 fc0 ðin MPaÞ ð15Þ

—
—
C,G,A,HM,HS,PF

Test Database
FRP type
C,A,HM

To evaluate the parameters of the proposed model for the case of

C,G
—
—
G
C
C

FRP-confined concrete, an extensive database is built for model

regression by collecting available test results from the literature.
The collected test specimens are summarized in Table 1 and
provided in the supplemental data Table S1 that is available online
in the ASCELibrary (http://www.ascelibrary.org). An effort is made
Number of
specimens

to collect all available and relevant data reported in accessible

9
11
4
34
12
27
40
706
667

literature. The collected tests specimens satisfy the following

conditions: (1) circular cross section; (2) plain concrete without
reinforcing bar; (3) FRP confinement only; and (4) length-to-
diameter (L=D) ratio below 3.0. The database contains 706 tests
with concrete strength from 6.2–111.8 MPa, different FRP types,
including aramid (AFRP), carbon (CFRP), glass (GFRP), high
Number of collected data

strength carbon (HS), high modulus carbon (HM), and PBO (PF),
Watanabe et al. (1997)
Table 1. (Continued.)

Wu and Jiang (2013b)

Wu and Jiang (2013a)

Number of used data

of which 300 tests contain entire stress-strain curves. The confine-

Youssef et al. (2007)
Xiao and Wu (2000)
Wong et al. (2008)

ment ratio fl =f co varies from 0.04–7.3, with the resulting ultimate

Wu et al. (2008)

strength ratio fcu =f co and ultimate strain ratio εcu =εco from
0.76–17.47 and 1.00–52.00, respectively. The confinement stiff-
ness factor El =f 0.5
co that reflects the lateral confinement stiffness
Author

with respect to concrete modulus varies from 17–1,217. For spec-

imens with a softening response curve, the peak strength ratio

© ASCE 04014069-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 f cc =fco and peak strain ratio εcc =εco vary from 0.96 to 2.63 and X jExpe:i − Theo:i j 
AAE ¼ n ð19Þ
0.95 to 5.00, respectively. A few data points that largely deviate jExpe:i j
from the general trends (difference more than 40% for fcu =fco
and 100% for εcu =εco ) are excluded in the modeling, as specified where Theo:i and Expe:i are theoretical and experimental results of
in Table 1 and highlighted in Table S1. specimens i, respectively; and n is the total number of specimen.

Ultimate Stress f cu and Ultimate Strain εcu

Evaluation of Parameters For FRP-confined circular concrete columns, the ultimate failure is
FRP rupture and the failure point can easily be identified from the
The confinement strength f l and confinement stiffness El are
stress-strain curves. Numerous models have been proposed in the
defined as follows:
literature to predict the ultimate strength and strain of circular-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2f s As confined columns (Appendix). Most of these models are only appli-

fl ¼ ðsteel confinedÞ ð16aÞ cable for sufficiently confined columns with a hardening curve (the
Ds
maximum stress ¼ f cu ). Generally, the ultimate strength is mod-
eled as a linear or nonlinear function of the confinement ratio
2f f t 2Ef εfu t (Wu and Wang 2009; Wu and Zhou 2010). Careful analyses of
fl ¼ ¼ ðFRP confinedÞ ð16bÞ the collected test results show that enhancement of the ultimate
D D
strength by FRP confinement decreases nonlinearly as the confine-
ment ratio increases; however, the nonlinearity effect is not severe
2Ef t (Fig. 4) and is often overestimated in existing models. Through the
El ¼ ð17Þ
D regression of test results, Eq. (20) is obtained for evaluating the
ultimate strength of FRP-confined circular concrete columns.
where f s and As are the strength and cross-sectional area of hoop The correlation factor of R2 of Eq. (20) is 0.95. Eq. (20) is appli-
steel, respectively; s = center to center spacing of hoop steel; t, Ef , cable for columns with both hardening and softening curves
f f , and εfu are the thickness, elastic modulus, tensile strength, and  0.9
ultimate strain of FRP, respectively; and D = diameter of column. fcu fl
¼ 0.75 þ 2.7 ð20Þ
In the following studies, the mean value (AV) and average ab- fco f co
solute error (AAE) (Ozbakkaloglu et al. 2013; Wei and Wu 2014,
2012), as defined below, are used to evaluate the performance of It is well understood in the literature that the ultimate strain of
models, in addition to the standard deviation (SD) and the corre- FRP-confined concrete columns is related to concrete strength,
lation factor R2. confinement pressure, as well as the strain capacity of FRP material
(Wei and Wu 2012). Many believe that the hoop rupture strain of
X
AV ¼ ðTheo:i =Expe:i Þ=n ð18Þ FRP material is directly related to the ultimate column strain and
hence includes the strain capacity of FRP in the ultimate strain
model (Ozbakkaloglu and Lim 2013; Teng et al. 2009; Wu et al.
18
2006a; Youssef et al. 2007). Careful study of the database confirms
that all the three factors of concrete strength, confinement pressure,
16
fcu f
0.9 and FRP strain capacity have a significant effect on the ultimate
14 = 0.75 + 2.7 l
fco f co strain. Through careful model regressions using the database,
12
the following ultimate strain model is proposed:
f cu/f co

10
 
8 εcu fl 0.6
¼ 1.75 þ 140 ε ð21Þ
6 εco f co fu
4
2 where εfu = rupture strain of FRP. The constant 1.75 relates the
0 ultimate strain to the peak strain for unconfined concrete, recom-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 mended by Eurocode 2 (European Committee for Standardization
fl /f co 1991) and Teng et al. (2009).
Performances of the ultimate strength and strain models are
Fig. 4. Ultimate strength model
assessed in Fig. 5 using the database. Comparisons with other

18 30
0.9 ε cu fl
16 fcu = 0.75 + 2.7 fl = 1.75 + 140 ε 0.6
25 ε co
fu
f co f co fco
14
Predicted fcu/fco

20 AV =1.07
Predicted εcu/εco

12 AV =1.00 AAE=0.31
AAE=0.13
10 15
8
6 10
4 5
2
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
(a) Experimental fcu/fco (b) Experimental εcu/εco

Fig. 5. Performance of models for ultimate point: (a) ultimate stress; (b) ultimate strain

© ASCE 04014069-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 2. Evaluation of Existing Models of FRP-confined Concrete
Prediction of f cu =f c0 (667 data points used) Prediction of εcu =εc0 (495 data points used)
Average Average Standard Coefficient Average Average Standard Coefficient
Model value absolute error deviation of variation value absolute error deviation of variation
Samaan et al. (1998) 1.09 0.16 0.20 0.18 2.20 1.23 1.21 0.55
Toutanji (1999) 1.35 0.35 0.22 0.16 1.98 0.98 0.83 0.42
Lam and Teng (2003) 0.97 0.15 0.18 0.19 1.45 0.51 0.57 0.39
Wu et al. (2006a) 0.94 0.13 0.15 0.16 1.14 0.35 0.60 0.53
Youssef et al. (2007) 0.94 0.15 0.18 0.19 1.13 0.32 0.43 0.38
Teng et al. (2009) 0.91 0.15 0.16 0.18 1.23 0.37 0.53 0.43
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fahmy and Wu (2010) 0.94 0.17 0.19 0.20 1.06 0.35 0.47 0.44
Wei and Wu (2012) 0.96 0.13 0.15 0.16 1.14 0.33 0.42 0.37
Ozbakkaloglu and Lim (2013) 1.01 0.15 0.19 0.19 1.10 0.29 0.39 0.35
Proposed model 1.00 0.13 0.16 0.16 1.07 0.31 0.40 0.37

1.6 2.0
FCC2A a = 1.72,c=-0.32 C3011 a = 1.79,c=-0.49
1.4

Normalized axial stress

Normalized axial stress

1.2 1.5
1.0
0.8 1.0
0.6
0.4 0.5
0.2 Experimantal Experimantal
Analytical Analytical
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Normalized axial Strain (b) Normalized axial Strain

Fig. 6. Curve fitting to test curve: (a) specimen FCC2 A (data from Teng et al. 2007); (b) specimen C3011 (data from Wang and Wu 2008)

2.8 5.5
f cc El ε El
f co
= 1 + 0.0015
f co0.5 5.0 ε cc = 1 + 0.003 f 0.5
co co
2.4 2 4.5
R =0.77 2
4.0 R =0.68
2.0 3.5
εcc/εco
fcc/fco

3.0
1.6 2.5
2.0
1.2
1.5
1.0
0.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0.5 0.5
(a) El/f co (b) El/f co

Fig. 7. Models of peak point for FRP-confined concrete: (a) peak stress; (b) peak strain

existing models are made in Table 2. These model evaluations in- 0.4
dicate that the proposed models are in good agreement with the test 283 curves
results and have a superior performance compared with other mod- 0.0
els. In particular, the ultimate strength model has a more accurate
-0.4
Predicted c

prediction for specimens with high confinement levels and the ul-
timate strain model is superior for those with a large FRP strain
-0.8
capacity. It is noted that the ultimate strain model proposed
by Ozbakkaloglu and Lim (2013) exhibits a minimum average -1.2
absolute error.
-1.6
Strain εcc and Stress f cc -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4
For an experimentally measured stress-strain curve with softening, Experimental c
the peak point (εcc , fcc ) can be directly identified from the test
Fig. 8. Model of parameter c
curve. For a stress-strain curve with hardening, the identification

© ASCE 04014069-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 of εcc and fcc is not straightforward. The following process is used 2. Assume the values of εcc and fcc . An initial value can be easily
to identify εcc and f cc from a test curve: obtained from the turning point of the curve.
1. Determine the ultimate points of the curve, εcu and fcu , from 3. Calculate a using Eqs. (8)–(10).
the curve. 4. Calculate c with Eq. (11).

70 320
Experimental
60 Proposed Model 280
Mander al.(1988a)
Manderetetal. (1988)
50 Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) 240
Hoshikuma et al. (1997) 200
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
40 Shah et al. (1983)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

160
30 80-M-19
Unit 1 120
20 Mander et al. (1988a)
80 (1988)
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)
10 40 Experimental Hoshikuma et al. (1997)
Proposed Model Shah et al. (1983)
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
(a) Axial Strain (b) Axial Strain

Fig. 9. Models for steel-confined concrete: (a) unit 1 (data from Mander et al. 1988b); (b) 80-M-19 (data from Assa et al. 2001)

200
100
180
MC3L C40-C12
160
80
MC2L 140
C40-C9
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

60 120
100
MC1L C40-C4
40 80
60 C40-C2
20 40 C40-C1
Experimantal Experimantal
Analytical 20 Analytical
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
(a) Axial Strain (b) Axial Strain

100 110
C50 2 plies
90 Specimens 46, 47,48 100
80 90
70 80
C30 2 plies
70 C50 1 ply
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

60 Specimens 44, 45
60
50 50
Specimens 40, 41 C30 1 ply
40 40
30 30
20 20
Experimantal Experimantal
10 Analytical 10 Analytical
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(c) Axial Strain (d) Axial Strain

200 80
180 M1C3B
M1C3A 70
160
M1C2A 60 N-W2-1,2,3
140
M1C2B
Stress (MPa)

50
Stress (MPa)

120 N-W1-1,2,3
100 M1C1B
40
80 30
60 M1C1A 20
40 Experimantal 10 Experimantal
20 Analytical Analytical
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
(e) Axial Strain (f) Axial Strain

Fig. 10. Comparison with test results for FRP-confined concrete data from: (a) Xiao and Wu (2000); (b) Berthet et al. (2005); (c) Jiang and Teng
(2007); (d) Wang and Wu (2008); (e) Cui and Sheikh (2010); (f) Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu (2013a)

© ASCE 04014069-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 5. Calculate the total error as the summation of the differences in εcc E
¼ 1 þ 0.003 0.5l ð23Þ
y coordinate between the test curve and the theoretical curve εco fco
[Eq. (6)] at designated points (Fig. 6).
6. Adjust the values of εcc and fcc until the total error is in which the units of Eqs. (22) and (23) are N and mm. The cor-
minimized. relation factor R2 for the peak stress and the peak strain are 0.77 and
Through the above regression process, a pair of εcc and f cc can 0.68, respectively.
be determined from one test curve. A total of 283 test curves out of
the 300 available curves are used to generate 283 pairs of εcc and
f cc . The selected tests have different FRP confinements and both Performance of the Proposed Model
hardening and softening curves. The 17 curves excluded from the
regression of εcc and f cc either have a very short post-peak part or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wobbling post-peak branches (Cui and Sheikh 2010). The obtained
results are used to derive the models for εcc and f cc .
It is clear that the point (εcc , fcc ) depends on not only the
confinement pressure but also the lateral dilation of concrete at
the corresponding confinement pressure. These two aspects are
only governed by FRP stiffness and concrete grade. For a certain
FRP stiffness, the confining pressure developed at (εcc , fcc ) de-
pends on lateral dilation of concrete. With a higher concrete grade,
the lateral dilation is smaller. Therefore, εcc and fcc are functions of
FRP stiffness and unconfined concrete strength. Based on a com-
prehensive analysis of the obtained test results, it can be found that
a combined factor, the confinement stiffness factor El =f 0.5 co , has a
critical effect on εcc and f cc , and no other factor has significant
effect on them. Similar conclusions have been reached by others
before (Wu et al. 2006a; Youssef et al. 2007).
Using the total 283 data points, it is found that the strength ratio
f cc =fco and the strain ratio εcc =εco are both linear to confinement
stiffness factor El =f 0.5
co (Fig. 7), from which the following models
are obtained:
fcc E
¼ 1 þ 0.0015 0.5l
fco fco
Substituting εcu , fcu , εcc , and fcc into Eq. (11), the value of c
can be calculated. On the other hand, coefficient a can be calcu-
lated from Eqs. (8)–(10). With a given a coefficient c can be de-
termined directly by regressing Eq. (6) to a test curve. The directly
determined c is compared with that from Eq. (11) in Fig. 8, as a
crosscheck. The crosscheck in Fig. 8 verifies the performance of the
parameter models.
The performance of the proposed model is evaluated in
Figs. 9–11, by comparing with typical test curves and other mod-
els. Fig. 9 shows the results for steel-confined concrete columns,
where the specimen Unit 1 [fco ¼ 29 MPa and f s ¼ 340 MPa,
tested by Mander et al. (1988b)] represents columns with normal
strength concrete confined by ordinary steel stirrups and specimen
80-M-19 [f co ¼ 83 MPa and f s ¼ 1296 MPa, tested by Assa
et al. (2001)] represents high strength concrete confined with
high-strength steel. The stress-strain curves of the proposed model
are generally similar to those of Mander et al. (1988b), but the
latter provides a larger ultimate strain compared with the test result
for specimen Unit 1. In general, the proposed model provides bet-
ter predictions of the stress-strain responses compared with other
models. The descending trend of the stress-strain curves and the
ð22Þ ultimate strain corresponding to the first hoop fracture are all well
predicted.

140 120
Xiaoand
Xiao andWu
Wu (2001) Jiang and Teng (2007)
120 100
Specimen 47
100
Stress (MPa)

MC3L-1
Stress (MPa)

80
80
60
60 Experimantal Experimantal
Proposed model 40 Proposed model
40
Samaan et al. (1998) Samaan et al. (1998)
20 Toutanji (1999) 20 Toutanji (1999)
Teng et al.(2009) Teng et al.(2009)
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
(a) Axial Strain (b) Axial Strain

80 200
Wang and Wu (2008)
180 Cui and Sheikh (2010)
60 160 M1C3A
C30 One-ply 140
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

120
40 100
Experimantal 80 Experimantal
Proposed model 60 Proposed model
20 Samaan et al. (1998) Samaan et al. (1998)
40
Toutanji (1999) Toutanji (1999)
Teng et al.(2009) 20 Teng et al.(2009)
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
(c) Axial Strain (d) Axial Strain

Fig. 11. Comparison between models for FRP-confined concrete data from: (a) Xiao and Wu (2000); (b) Jiang and Teng (2007); (c) Wang and Wu
(2008); (d) Cui and Sheikh (2010)

© ASCE 04014069-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 The stress-strain curves for FRP-confined concrete columns
tested by different researchers (Berthet et al. 2005; Cui and
Sheikh 2010; Jiang and Teng 2007; Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu
2013a; Wang and Wu 2008; Xiao and Wu 2000) are compared with
the proposed model in Fig. 10. Parameters of the selected speci-
mens vary over wide ranges, with unconfined concrete strength
from 30.9–79.9 MPa, different FRP types (CFRP and GFRP)
and FRP layers (1 ∼ 12) and confinement ratio from 0.09–1.32. The
comparisons show that the proposed model matches the test stress-
strain curves well, for both ascending and descending branches.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
parameters in their model. The Toutanji model seems to always
overestimate the post-peak slope and the ultimate points of the
stress-strain curves. The Teng et al. (2009) model has a sharper
transition region, which affects its performance in the post-peak
phase. In addition, these existing models can only be used for
modeling stress-strain curves with hardening behavior. Compared
with other models, the proposed model matches overall
experimental curves well and hence, it is capable of predicting
complete stress-strain behavior and characteristic points satisfac-
torily. Moreover, the proposed model gives the complete stress-

Therefore, the model can predict the stress-strain behavior with
very good accuracy.
In Fig. 11, predictions of the proposed model and three other
models (Samaan et al. 1998; Toutanji 1999; Teng et al. 2009)
are compared with the experimental curves. It can be seen
that the curves predicted by Samaan et al. (1998) are far away
from the experimental curves in the transition region because
the shape of the transition region is difficult to control by the
strain curve with a single and continuous mathematical
expression.
Parametric Study
A parametric study using the proposed model is carried out to in-
vestigate the effects of the model parameters on the behavior of

80 100

80
60
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
60
40
C30-1.5 40 C50-1.5
C30-3 C50-3
20 C30-6 C50-6
20
C30-9 C50-9
C30-12 C50-12
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
(a) Axial Strain (b) Axial Strain

120 140

100 120
100
80
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

80
60
C30C0.5 60 C50C0.5
40 C30C1 C50C1
40
C30C2 C50C2
20 C30C3 20 C50C3
C30C4 C50C4
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
(c) Axial Strain (d) Axial Strain

80 100

80
60
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

60
40
C30G0.5 40 C50G0.5
C30G1 C50G1
20 C30G2 C50G2
20
C30G3 C50G3
C30G4 C50G4
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
(e) Axial Strain (f) Axial Strain

Fig. 12. Effect of parameters on stress-strain curves: (a) grade 30 concrete confined by steel; (b) grade 50 concrete confined by steel; (c) grade 30
concrete confined by CFRP; (d) grade 50 concrete confined by CFRP; (e) grade 30 concrete confined by GFRP; (f) grade 50 concrete confined by
GFRP

© ASCE 04014069-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 confined concrete. For concrete confined with steel, the parameters
are mild steel (εsu ¼ 0.15), unconfined concrete strength 30 MPa or
50 MPa, fl from 1.5 to 12 MPa. Figs. 12(a and b) show the
predicted stress-strain curves of the steel-confined concrete col-
umns, where the first number following the letter C gives the un-
confined concrete strength and the second one shows the confining
pressure. It can be seen from the figure that the peak strength
and strain as well as the ultimate strain of steel-confined concrete
increase as the confining pressure increases. These trends are
consistent with the existing conclusions reported in the literature
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
A general stress-strain model for concrete confined by steel or FRP
is reported in this paper. The model is an extension of the well-
known Popovics model in which one additional variable and one
constant are added to control the type and the shape of the stress-
strain curve. The most novel features of this model are its versatility
and continuity, without losing simplicity. The proposed model
provides a single continuous curve with an explicit form and
can predict the stress-strain curve of steel- as well as FRP-confined

(Ahmad and Shah 1982; Assa et al. 2001; Mander et al. 1988a, b;
Wei and Wu 2014).
For FRP-confined concrete, the parameters are: diameter of
column 300 mm, unconfined concrete strength 30 MPa or
50 MPa, FRP properties Ef ¼ 240 GPa and ff ¼ 3,700 MPa
(CFRP) or Ef ¼ 80 GPa and f f ¼ 2,000 MPa (GFRP), number
of FRP plies 0.5–4 (0.165 mm=ply). A response curve is desig-
nated by a label that indicates the grade of concrete, followed by
FRP type (C for carbon fiber and G for glass fiber) and ply num-
ber. As shown in Figs. 12(c–f), with the increase in the number of
FRP layers, the ultimate stress and ultimate strain corresponding
to FRP fracture increase. For a certain confinement, a higher un-
confined concrete strength results in lower enhancement effects.
Compared with CFRP-confined concrete, GFRP-confined con-
crete exhibits a smaller ultimate stress and a smaller post-peak
slope. As the number of FRP layers increases, the stress-strain
curve after the peak changes from softening to hardening and
the slope of the post-peak branch increases gradually. These phe-
nomena correctly reflect the actual responses of FRP-confined
concrete (Aire et al. 2010; Benzaid et al. 2009; Berthet et al.
2005; Cui and Sheikh 2010; Ilki et al. 2004; Jiang and Teng
2007; Micelli and Modarelli 2013; Ozbakkaloglu and Lim
2013; Shahawy et al. 2000; Vincent and Ozbakkaloglu 2013b;
Youssef et al. 2007).
concrete with both hardening and softening behavior. This unique
feature unifies the stress-strain curves of concrete confined by dif-
ferent materials to a unified platform.
The general model has three coefficients a, b, and c. For steel-
confined concrete, b ¼ c ¼ 0 and the general model reduces to
Popovics model that has only one coefficient a, determined by
the peak point of a stress-strain curve, (εcc , fcc ). For FRP-confined
concrete, b ¼ −0.1 and the general model has two coefficients a
and c that are functions of the peak point (εcc , f cc ) and the ultimate
point (εcu , f cu ). Models for evaluating the peak point (εcc , f cc ) and
ultimate point (εcu , f cu ) are developed in this work. In applications,
a stress-strain relationship is obtained by simply substituting the
models of the peak and ultimate points into the general model.
The performance of the general model is assessed by comparing
the model predictions with typical test results reported by different
researchers, as well as existing models developed by others. Eval-
uations of the models show that the proposed model is capable of
predicting the characteristic points and the whole stress-strain
curves well for both steel- and FRP-confined concrete, with either
a hardening or softening curve after the peak, and demonstrates a
superior performance compared with other models. A parametric
study indicates that the proposed model shows reasonable trends
in peak and ultimate points as well as post-peak slope of the re-
sponses when the parameters change.

Appendix. Existing Models of FRP-confined Concrete

Model Ultimate strength Ultimate strain

Samaan et al. (1998) f cu ¼ 0
f co þ 6.0f 0.7 f 0 − fo
l εcu ¼ cc
E2
 0.85  
f cu fl εcu f
Toutanji (1999) 0 ¼ 1 þ 3.5 0 ¼ 1 þ ð310.57εfu þ 1.90Þ cu 0 − 1
f co fco εco f co
 0.45
f cu f l;a εcu f εh;rup
Lam and Teng (2003) 0 ¼ 1 þ 3.3 0 ¼ 1.75 þ 12 l;a
0
f co f co εco f co εco
 −0.66
εfu f εcu f
Wu et al. (2006a) f cu fl εcu ¼ v ¼ 0.56k4 0l ¼ 1.3 þ 6.3 0l
0 ¼ 1 þ 2.0 0 for strain hardening vu u f co εu f co
f co f co
f cu fl
0 ¼ 0.75 þ 2.5 f 0 for strain softening
f co co
 1.25  
f cu fl f l ffu 0.5
Youssef et al. (2007) 0 ¼ 1 þ 2.25 0 εcu ¼ 0.003368 þ 0.2590 0
f co fco fco Ef
 0.8  

    εcu E εh;rup 1.45
Teng et al. (2009) f cu El εh;rup εh;rup ¼ 1.75 þ 6.5 0 l
0 ¼ 1 þ 3.5 0 =ε − 0.01 ≥ 0.01 εco f co =εco εco
f co fco co εco εco
f cu εh;rup
0 ¼1 < 0.01
f co εco f cu − f o
Fahmy and Wu (2010) f cu ¼ f co þ 4.5f 0.7
0 0
l f co ≤ 40 MPa
εcu ¼
0 0.7 0 E2
f cu ¼ f co þ 3.75f l fco > 40 MPa

© ASCE 04014069-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 Appendix. (Continued.)
Model Ultimate strength
 
f cu f l 0.73
Wei and Wu (2012) 0 ¼ 0.5 þ 2.7 0 ¼ 1.75 þ 12 0l
f co f co
 
Ozbakkaloglu and E 0 þ 3.2ðf − f Þ
Lim (2013) f cu ¼ 1 þ 0.0058 0l f co l l0
 f co  fco
E 01.65
f l0 ¼ El 0.43 þ 0.009 0l εco ; El ≥ fco
f co
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The work that is described in this paper was fully supported by the
grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China [Project No. CityU 124113] and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51208262).
Supplemental Data
Table S1 is available online in the ASCELibrary (http://www.
ascelibrary.org).
References
Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P. (1982). “Stress-strain curves of concrete
confined by spiral reinforcement.” ACI J., 79(6), 484–490.
Aire, C., Gettu, R., Casas, J. R., Marqués, S., and Marques, D. (2010).
“Concrete laterally confined with fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP): Ex-
perimental study and theoretical model.” Materiales de Construcción,
60(297), 19–31.
Almusallam, T. H. (2007). “Behavior of normal and high-strength concrete
cylinders confined with E-glass/epoxy composite laminates.” Compos.
Part B, 38(5), 629–639.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1999). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” 318-95, Farmington Hills, MI.
Assa, B., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. (2001). “New approach for
modeling confined concrete. I: Circular columns.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:7(743), 743–750.
Benzaid, R., Chikh, N. E., and Mesbah, H. (2009). “Study of the compres-
sive behavior of short concrete columns confined by fiber reinforced
composite.” Arabian J. Sci. Eng., 34(1B), 15–26.
Benzaid, R., Mesbah, H., and Chikh, N. E. (2010). “FRP-confined concrete
cylinders: axial compression experiments and strength model.” J. Reinf.
Plast. Comp., 29(16), 2469–2488.
Berthet, J., Ferrier, E., and Hamelin, P. (2005). “Compressive behavior of
concrete externally confined by composite jackets. Part A: Experimen-
tal study.” Constr. Build. Mater., 19(3), 223–232.
Bullo, S. (2003). “Experimental study of the effects of the ultimate strain of
fiber reinforced plastic jackets on the behavior of confined concrete.”
Proc., Int. Conf. Composites in Constructions, D. Bruno, G. Spadea,
and R. N. Swamy, eds., Univ. of Calabria, Cosenza, Italy, 465–470.
Chaallal, O., Shahawy, M., and Hassan, M. (2003). “Performance of axially
loaded short rectangular columns strengthened with carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer wrapping.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2003)7:3(200), 200–208.
Cui, C., and Sheikh, S. A. (2010). “ Experimental study of normal- and
high-strength concrete confined with fiber-reinforced polymers.” J.
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000116, 553–561.
Dai, J. G., Bai, Y. L., and Teng, J. G. (2011). “Behavior and modeling of
concrete confined with FRP composites of large deformability.” J. Com-
pos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000230, 963–973.
De Lorenzis, L., Micelli, F., and La Tegola, A. (2002). “ Influence of
specimen size and resin type on the behavior of FRP-confined concrete
cylinders.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. Advanced Polymer Composites for
© ASCE 04014069-12
J. Compos. Constr.
Ultimate strain
   
εcu f 0.75 f 30 0.62
0
εco f co fco
 0.9
E
εcu ¼ c2 εco þ 0.27 0l ðεh;rup Þ1.35
f 0 − 20
c2 ¼ 2 − co ≥1
100
Structural Applications in Construction, Thomas Telford, London,
U.K., 231–239.
Demer, M., and Neale, K. W. (1994). “Strengthening of concrete columns
with unidirectional composite sheets.” Proc., Developments in Short
and Medium Span Bridge Engineering, A. A. Mufti, B. Bakht, and
L. G. Jaeger, eds., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal,
QC, Canada, 895–905.
Elsanadedy, H. M., Al-Salloum, Y. A., Alsayed, S. H., and Iqbal, R. A.
(2012). “Experimental and numerical investigation of size effects in
FRP-wrapped concrete columns.” Constr. Build. Mater., 29(4), 56–72.
European Committee for Standardization. (1991). “Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures—Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings.” ENV
1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Fahmy, M. F., and Wu, Z. (2010). “Evaluating and proposing models of
circular concrete columns confined with different FRP composites.”
Compos. Part B Eng., 41(3), 199–213.
Fardis, M. N., and Khalili, H. H. (1982). “FRP-encased concrete as a struc-
tural material.” Mag. Concrete Res., 34(121), 191–202.
Harries, K. A., and Kharel, G. (2002). “Behavior and modeling of concrete
subject to variable confining pressure.” ACI Mater. J., 99(2), 180–189.
Hognestad, E. (1951). “A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members.” Bull. Series No. 399, Engineering
Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Hoshikuma, J., Kawashima, K., Nagaya, K., and Taylor, A. W. (1997).
“Stress-strain model for confined reinforced concrete in bridge piers.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(624), 624–633.
Howie, I., and Karbhari, V. M. (1994). “Effect of materials architecture on
strengthening: Efficiency of composite wraps for deteriorating columns
in the North-East.” Proc., 3rd Materials Engineering Conf., K. D.
Basham, ed., ASCE, Reston, VA, 199–206.
Ilki, A., and Kumbasa, N. (2003). “Compressive behaviour of carbon fibre
composite jacketed concrete with circular and non-circular cross-
sections.” J. Earthquake Eng., 7(3), 381–406.
Ilki, A., and Kumbasar, N. (2002). “Behavior of damaged and undamaged
concrete strengthened by carbon fiber composite sheets.” Struct. Eng.
Mech., 13(1), 75–90.
Ilki, A., Kumbasar, N., and Koc, V. (2004). “Low strength concrete mem-
bers externally confined with FRP sheets.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 18(2),
167–194.
Issa, C., and Karam, G. (2004). “Compressive strength of concrete cylin-
ders with variable widths CFRP wraps.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Ad-
vanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jiang, J. F., and Wu, Y. F. (2012). “Identification of material parameters for
Drucker-Prager plasticity model for FRP confined circular concrete
columns.” Int. J. Solids. Struct., 49(3–4), 445–456.
Jiang, T., and Teng, J. G. (2007). “Analysis-oriented stress-strain models for
FRP-confined concrete.” Eng. Struct., 29(11), 2968–2986.
Karabinis, A. I., and Rousakis, T. C. (2002). “Concrete confined by FRP
material: a plasticity approach.” Eng. Struct., 24(7), 923–932.
Karbhari, V. M., and Gao, Y. Q. (1997). “Composite jacketed concrete
under uniaxial compression—Verification of simple design equa-
tions.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1997)9:4(185),
185–193.
Kono, S. I. M., and Kaku, T. (1998). “Evaluation of confining effects of
CFRP sheets on reinforced concrete members.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
J. Compos. Constr.
 Composites in Infrastructures, H. Saadatmanesh and M. R. Ehsani,
eds., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 343–355.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003). “Design-oriented stress-strain model for
FRP-confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17(6–7), 471–489.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2004). “Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced
polymer-confined concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2004)8:6(539), 539–548.
Lam, L., Teng, J. G., Cheung, C. H., and Xiao, Y. (2006). “FRP-confined
concrete under axial cyclic compression.” Cem. Concr. Compos.,
28(10), 949–958.
Lee, J. Y., Yi, C. K., Jeong, H. S., Kim, S. W., and Kim, J. K. (2010).
“Compressive response of concrete confined with steel spirals and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FRP composites.” J. Compos. Mater., 44(4), 481–504.
Liang, M., Wu, Z. M., Ueda, T., Zheng, J. J., and Akogbe, R. (2012).
“Experiment and modeling on axial behavior of carbon fiber reinforced
polymer confined concrete cylinders with different sizes.” J. Reinf.
Plast. Comp., 31(6), 389–403.
Lin, C. T., and Li, Y. F. (2003). “An effective peak stress formula for
concrete confined with carbon fibre reinforced plastics.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 30(5), 882–889.
Lin, H. J., and Chen, C. T. (2001). “Strength of concrete cylinder confined
by composite materials.” J. Reinf. Plast. Comp., 20(18), 1577–1600.
Mandal, S., Hoskin, A., and Fam, A. (2005). “Influence of concrete
strength on confinement effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymer cir-
cular jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 102(3), 383–392.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988a). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1826.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988b). “Observed stress-
strain behavior of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1827), 1827–1849.
Micelli, F., and Modarelli, R. (2013). “Experimental and analytical study
on properties affecting the behaviour of FRP-confined concrete.”
Compos. Part B, 45(1), 1420–1431.
Miyauchi, K., Inoue, S., Kuroda, T., and Kobayashi, A. (1999). “Strength-
ening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete column.” Trans. Jpn.
Concr. Inst., 21(3), 143–150.
Miyauchi, K., Nishibayashi, S., and Inoue, S. (1997). “Estimation of
strengthening effects with carbon fiber sheet for concrete column.”
Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. of Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Sapporo,
Japan, 217–224.
Moran, D. A., and Pantelides, C. P. (2002). “Stress-strain model for
fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:4(233), 233–240.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Akin, E. (2012). “Behavior of FRP-confined normal-
and high-strength concrete under cyclic axial compression.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000273, 451–463.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Lim, J. C. (2013). “Axial compressive behavior of
FRP-confined concrete: Experimental test database and a new design-
oriented model.” Compos. Part B, 55(12), 607–634.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., Lim, J. C., and Vincent, T. (2013). “FRP-confined
concrete in circular sections: Review and assessment of stress-strain
models.” Eng. Struct., 49(4), 1068–1088.
Popovics, S. (1973). “A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain
curve of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 3(5), 583–599.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (1995). “Design of seismic retrofit mea-
sures for concrete and masonry structures.” Constr. Build. Mater., 9(6),
365–377.
Richard, R. M., and Abbott, B. J. (1975). “Versatile elastic-plastic stress-
strain formula.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 101(4), 511–515.
Rochette, P., and Labossiere, P. (2000). “Axial testing of rectangular
column models confined with composites.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:3(129), 129–136.
Rousakis, T. (2001). “Experimental investigation of concrete cylinders
confined by carbon FRP sheets under monotonic and cyclic axial com-
pressive load.” Research Rep. No. 44, Division of Building Technology,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Rousakis, T., You, C., De Lorenzis, L., and Tamuzs, V. (2003). “Concrete
cylinders confined by carbon FRP sheets subjected to monotonic and
© ASCE 04014069-13
J. Compos. Constr.
cyclic axial compressive loads.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on FRP
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, K. H. Tan, ed., Singapore,
571–580.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Li, M. W. (1994). “Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fiber-composite
Straps.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 434–447.
Saafi, M., Toutanji, H. A., and Li, Z. J. (1999). “Behavior of concrete
columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes.” ACI Mater. J.,
96(4), 500–509.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of confined
concrete.” J Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:
6(1590), 1590–1607.
Saenz, N., and Pantelides, C. P. (2006). “Short and medium term durability
evaluation of FRP-confined circular concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:3(244), 244–253.
Samaan, M., Mirmiran, A., and Shahawy, M. (1998). “Model of concrete
confined by fiber composites.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(1998)124:9(1025), 1025–1031.
Sargin, M. (1971). “Stress-strain relationships for concrete and the analysis
of structural concrete sections.” Study, No. 4, Solid Mechanics Division,
Univ. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Shah, S. P., Fafitis, A., and Arnold, R. (1983). “Cyclic loading of spirally
reinforced-concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)
109:7(1695), 1695–1710.
Shahawy, M., Mirmiran, A., and Beitelman, T. (2000). “Tests and modeling
of carbon-wrapped concrete columns.” Compos. Part B Eng., 31(6),
471–480.
Shehata, I. A. E. M., Carneiro, L. A. V., and Shehata, L. C. D. (2002).
“Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP sheets.”
Mater. Struct., 35(245), 50–58.
Shehata, I. A. E. M., Carneiro, L. A. V., and Shehata, L. C. D. (2007).
“Strength of confined short concrete columns.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp.
on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras, Greece, 1–10.
Silva, M. A., and Rodrigues, C. C. (2006). “Size and relative stiffness
effects on compressive failure of concrete columns wrapped with glass
FRP.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006)18:3(334),
334–342.
Smith, S. T., Kim, S. J., and Zhang, H. (2010). “Behavior and effectiveness
of FRP wrap in the confinement of large concrete cylinders.” J. Com-
pos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000119, 573–582.
Song, X. B., Gu, X. L., Li, Y. P., Chen, T., and Zhang, W. P. (2013).
“Mechanical behavior of FRP-strengthened concrete columns subjected
to concentric and eccentric compression loading.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000351, 336–346.
Suter, R., and Pinzelli, R. (2001). “Confinement of concrete columns with
FRP sheets.” Proc., 5th Symp. on Fibre Reinforced Plastic Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures, C. Burgoyne, ed., Cambridge, U.K.,
791–802.
Teng, J. G., Jiang, T., Lam, L., and Luo, Y. Z. (2009). “Refinement of a
design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete.” J.
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000012, 269–278.
Teng, J. G., Yu, T., Wong, Y. L., and Dong, S. L. (2007). “Hybrid
FRP-concrete-steel tubular columns: Concept and behaviour.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 21(4), 846–854.
Theriault, M., Neale, K. W., and Claude, S. (2004). “Fiber-reinforced
polymer-confined circular concrete columns: Investigation of size and
slenderness effects.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(2004)8:4(323), 323–331.
Toutanji, H. A. (1999). “Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns
externally confined with advanced fiber composite sheets.” ACI Mater.
J., 96(3), 397–404.
Vincent, T., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2013a). “Influence of concrete strength
and confinement method on axial compressive behavior of FRP
confined high- and ultra high-strength concrete.” Compos. Part B,
50(7), 413–428.
Vincent, T., and Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2013b). “Influence of fiber orientation
and specimen end condition on axial compressive behavior of FRP-
confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 47(10), 814–826.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Wang, L. M., and Wu, Y. F. (2008). “Effect of corner radius on the
performance of CFRP-confined square concrete columns: Test.” Eng.
Struct., 30(2), 493–505.
Watanable, K., et al. (1997). “Confinement effect of FRP sheet on strength
and ductility of concrete cylinders under uniaxial compression.” Proc.,
3rd Int. Symp. of Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Sapporo, Japan,
233–240.
Wei, Y., and Wu, Y. F. (2014). “Compression behavior of concrete columns
confined by high strength steel wire.” Constr. Build. Mater., 54,
443–453.
Wei, Y. Y., and Wu, Y. F. (2012). “Unified stress-strain model of concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for FRP-confined columns.” Constr. Build. Mater., 26(1), 381–392.
Wong, Y. L., Yu, T., Teng, J. G., and Dong, S. L. (2008). “Behavior of FRP-
confined concrete in annular section columns.” Compos. Part B-Eng.,
39(3), 451–466.
Wu, G., Lü, Z., and Wu, Z. (2006a). “Strength and ductility of concrete
cylinders confined with FRP composites.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
20(3), 134–148.
Wu, G., Wu, Z., Lu, Z., and Ando, Y. (2008). “Structural performance of
concrete confined with hybrid FRP composites.” J. Reinf. Plast. Comp.,
27(12), 1323–1348.
Wu, Y. F., and Jiang, C. (2013a). “Effect of load eccentricity on the
stress-strain relationship of FRP-confined concrete columns.” Compos.
Struct., 98, 228–241.
© ASCE 04014069-14
J. Compos. Constr.
Wu, Y. F., and Jiang, J. F. (2013b). “Effective strain of FRP for confined
circular concrete columns.” Compos. Struct., 95, 479–491.
Wu, Y. F., Liu, T., and Oehlers, D. J. (2006b). “Fundamental principles that
govern retrofitting of reinforced concrete columns by steel and FRP
jacketing.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 9(4), 507–533.
Wu, Y. F., and Wang, L. M. (2009). “Unified strength model for square and
circular concrete columns confined by external jacket.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:3(253), 253–261.
Wu, Y. F., and 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.
Wu, Y. F., and Zhou, Y. W. (2010). “Unified strength model based on
Hoek-Brown failure criterion for circular and square concrete columns
confined by FRP.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000062, 175–184.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2000). “Compressive behavior of concrete confined
by carbon fiber composite jackets.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2000)12:2(139), 139–146.
Xiao, Y., and Wu, H. (2003). “Compressive behavior of concrete confined
by various types of FRP composite jackets.” J. Reinf. Plast. Comp.,
22(13), 1187–1201.
Youssef, M. N., Feng, M. Q., and Mosallam, A. S. (2007). “Stress–strain
model for concrete confined by FRP composites.” Compos. Part B:
Eng., 38(5), 614–628.
J. Compos. Constr.