Monotonic and Cyclic Axial Compressive Behavior of

CFRP-Confined Rectangular RC Columns

Haytham F. Isleem 1; Zhenyu Wang, A.M.ASCE 2; Daiyu Wang 3; and Scott T. Smith 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The majority of experimental and analytical investigations on the stress-strain behavior of rectangular concrete columns externally
confined with carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites have concentrated largely on unreinforced concrete columns of small size.
However, research investigating the influence of larger cross-sectional size and internal steel reinforcement on the stress-strain behavior of
CFRP-confined rectangular RC columns under axial compression loading has been limited. Therefore, the first part of this paper aims to
present the results of experimental tests on 28 larger-sized rectangular plain and reinforced concrete (RC) columns confined with CFRP
wraps. The primary test parameters were (1) cross-sectional size and aspect ratio; (2) number of CFRP composite layers; (3) volumetric ratio
of hoop steel reinforcement; and (4) nature of loading (i.e., monotonic and cyclic). The experiments showed that the stress-strain curves of the
monotonically loaded CFRP-confined columns exhibited a softening second branch followed by an ascending or almost flat third branch. All
the confined columns experienced a significant enhancement in axial strain but only a slight enhancement in axial strength. An important
finding of the study was that the internal longitudinal and hoop steel reinforcement influenced the shapes of the axial stress-strain envelope
curves, the unloading and reloading paths, and the plastic strain values. A model was finally proposed for predicting the ultimate strength of
CFRP-confined rectangular RC columns. The performance of the proposed model was validated against the results of current and existing
experiments. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000860. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Confined; Fiber-reinforced polymer; Compression; Reinforced concrete; Reinforced concrete (RC) columns; Cyclic;
Stress-strain curves.

Introduction
In earthquake-prone regions, a major portion of existing reinforced
concrete (RC) columns that are usually designed or constructed
based on the old codes may suffer from a lack of adequate lateral
reinforcement. The performance of these columns under seismic
loads may be insufficient due to some well-known deficiencies, such
as insufficient displacement ductility, and hence they may experience
major damages under severe seismic loads. Fiber-reinforced polymer
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Key Laboratory of Structures Dynamic Behavior and
Control of the Ministry of Education, Kay Laboratory of Smart Prevention
and Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute
of Technology, Harbin 150090, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-4826-7420. Email: haythamisleem@hit.edu.cn
2
Professor, Key Laboratory of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Con-
trol of the Ministry of Education, Kay Laboratory of Smart Prevention and
Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin 150090, China (corresponding author). Email:
zhenyuwang@hit.edu.cn
3
Assistant Professor, Key Laboratory of Structures Dynamic Behavior
and Control of the Ministry of Education, Kay Laboratory of Smart Pre-
vention and Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of
Industry and Information Technology, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China. Email: daiyuwang@hit
.edu.cn
4
Professor, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern
Cross Univ., Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Email: scott.smith@scu
.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 24, 2017; approved on
February 26, 2018; published online on June 8, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 8, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
(FRP) composites have been widely used for retrofitting or upgrad-
ing such RC columns. For a proper and safe design of FRP-confined
concrete columns, the stress-strain behavior of confined concrete
under cyclic axial compression loading needs to be properly inves-
tigated and modeled. The model can then be used as the constitutive
law for the seismic analysis of FRP-confined RC columns on the
basis of the fiber model (Valipour and Foster 2010) or finite-element
analysis (Mazzoni et al. 2003; Konstantinidis et al. 2007).
Therefore, many experimental and analytical studies on the
stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined unreinforced and reinforced
concrete under axial monotonic loading have been conducted
(e.g., Lam and Teng 2003; Hantouch 2004; Anselm 2005;
Wu et al. 2007; Kumutha et al. 2007; Rocca 2007; Ilki et al. 2008;
Toutanji et al. 2010; Pellegrino and Modean 2010; Wu and Wei
2010; Abbasnia and Ziaadiny 2015; Pham and Hadi 2014;
Coonan 2016). There is, however, a limited number of studies
available on the stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete
under cyclic axial compression (e.g., Shao et al. 2006; Lam
et al. 2006; Lam and Teng 2009; Abbasnia and Ziaadiny 2010;
Ozbakkaloglu and Akin 2012; Abbasnia et al. 2012, 2013; Bai
et al. 2014; Demir et al. 2015; Dalgic et al. 2015). To date, the
studies have focused largely on small-scale unreinforced concrete
column sections. Among these limited studies, Abbasnia and
Ziaadiny (2010) have performed tests on square prisms with a
cross-sectional dimension of 152 × 152 mm and a height of
305 mm, which were confined with CFRP wraps and tested under
monotonic and cyclic compression. The test results of the study
showed that the envelope curves of cyclic stress-strain responses
approximately follow the monotonic responses, and the plastic
strains are in a linear relationship with the envelope unloading
strains. Further experimental evaluation of the effects of parameters
such as the level of confinement and aspect ratio on concrete
prisms of sizes 152 × 152 × 305 mm, 90 × 152 × 305 mm, and

© ASCE 04018023-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 120 × 152 × 305 mm was carried out by Abbasnia et al. (2012).
This study demonstrated that the plastic strain and the shape of
the unloading and reloading paths are almost independent of the
variation of the number of FRP layers and the cross-sectional aspect
ratio. A more recent study of Hany et al. (2015) conducted on
CFRP-confined plain concrete specimens of square 160 × 160 ×
500-mm and rectangular 140 × 180 × 500-mm and 130 × 200 ×
500-mm columns involved two approaches for investigating and
modeling their cyclic stress-strain behavior. The tested specimens
demonstrated postpeak ascending and descending behaviors, which
were dependent on the level of FRP confinement as well as the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
shape and the dimension of sections. This study has also reached
similar conclusions to those reported by Abbasnia et al. (2012) re-
garding the effects of the level of FRP confinement and aspect ratio
on the cyclic stress-strain results.
Although concrete columns with internal longitudinal and hoop
reinforcement steel bars are the most common structural elements
used in practice, most of the experimental and analytical investiga-
tions reported in the literature have been focused on FRP-confined
plain concrete. Only a very limited number of studies have been
reported for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete in square sections
(e.g., Azizinamini et al. 1994; Tanaka et al. 1994). Most of the mod-
els reported in the studies were based mainly on the approach of
Richart et al. (1929) that does not consider the influence of internal
hoop reinforcement on the confined ultimate strength. A recent
study carried out by Wang et al. (2012a) contained a series of mon-
otonic and cyclic compressive tests on CFRP-confined square RC
columns of sizes 204 × 204 × 612 mm and 305 × 305 × 915 mm.
The contribution of the steel confinement to the enhancement of the
axial strength capacity was further evaluated. In addition to the con-
clusions reached by Abbasnia and Ziaadiny (2010), Wang et al.
(2012a, b, c) recently concluded that the longitudinal and hoop
steel reinforcement influenced the shapes of the monotonic
stress-strain curves and the unloading/reloading paths, as well as
the plastic strains. Based on such observations and their own test
results, predictive expressions that consider the contribution of the
internal steel reinforcement were proposed.
An extensive review of the available literature has revealed that
most of the studies have focused on square and rectangular plain
concrete column specimens of small size (i.e., cylinders and prisms),
with limited experiments on square RC columns of large scale.
Research concerned with the cyclic axial behavior of large-size
FRP-confined rectangular RC columns has been limited. Previous
studies on the strength of plain concrete have revealed a significant
size effect (e.g., Bazant 1984, 1997, 1999; Kim et al. 1999; Masia
et al. 2004; Rocca 2007; Zhou 2010; Wang et al. 2016). For example,
Masia et al. (2004) investigated the axial compressive behavior of 30
square-sectioned columns with three different section sizes (100,
125, and 150 mm). The study reported that the effectiveness
of the FRP confinement decreases as the cross-sectional size in-
creases. Rocca (2007) tested larger-sized FRP-confined square
RC columns with cross-sectional widths of 324, 457, and 648 mm.
Clear differences in the axial stress-strain responses of the smaller-
and larger-sized specimens were observed. Wang et al. (2016)
concluded that specimen size has no apparent effect on the axial
stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined columns of cross-sectional
size equal to or less than 300 mm. However, the axial stress-strain
response exhibited a significant difference when the specimen’s size
increased, especially for large-scale columns (i.e., with a cross-
section width ≥350 mm). In their study, it was found that the actual
confinement was not the same for the larger and smaller-sized spec-
imens with a constant confining pressure. The majority of models
available in the literature for FRP-confined rectangular concrete sec-
tions have been proposed based on bilinear test results of small-sized
© ASCE 04018023-2
J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023
unreinforced specimens (i.e., the diameter or width of cross section =
100–200 mm; height of specimen = 300–500 mm). Three field-size
square (355 × 355-mm) and rectangular (250 × 500-mm) columns
were subjected to monotonic axial compression (Toutanji et al.
2010). Based on the results of the columns, existing models for
the ultimate axial stress and strain capacities, which were developed
based on small-scale prismatic specimens, were evaluated. The com-
parisons provided in their study indicated that some models are inad-
equate in predicting the axial stress-strain response of the large-scale
columns. Furthermore, comparisons made by Wang et al. (2012a)
between the analytical and test results of unreinforced and reinforced
square columns indicated that the models proposed based on test
results of columns without internal steel reinforcement are not accu-
rate in quantifying the contribution of the confinement provided by
the CFRP wraps and the hoop steel reinforcement on the strength
enhancement achieved for the RC columns. A clear understanding
of the confinement mechanism and an acceptable number of tests on
larger-sized rectangular columns can lead to the development of a
well-informed and calibrated model.
In light of research demands, the first part of this paper presents a
pool of experimental results from monotonic and cyclic compressive
tests on 28 CFRP-confined rectangular unreinforced and reinforced
concrete columns. The key parameters of the tests were aspect ratio
and size of the cross-section, ratio of internal hoop steel reinforce-
ment, FRP confinement level, and compression loading type. Differ-
ent aspects of the strength and compressive behavior of the tested
specimens are examined and presented. The paper also provides dis-
cussions regarding the influences of the test variables on the stress
and strain test results of the specimens. The discussions further in-
cludes a comparison of the experimental ultimate strengths with the
predictions of existing models. Based on a regression analysis of
the test data from the current experiments, together with other data
extracted from the available studies, a new model for the accurate
prediction of the ultimate strength of CFRP-confined rectangular
RC columns is finally provided.
Experimental Program
Test Specimens
Twenty-eight rectangular plain and reinforced concrete columns
having a height of 1,000 mm and cross-sectional dimensions of
200 × 300 mm and 200 × 400 mm were fabricated and tested under
monotonic and cyclic concentric loads. Fig. 1 shows the cross-
section dimensions and steel reinforcement details of the specimens,
while Table 1 displays their identification designations, section di-
mensions, and confinement details. The test program included two
series of specimens, according to their aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0,
respectively. According to the designation used in Table 1 and all of
the subsections of this paper, R represents the rectangular cross sec-
tion of specimens, while 1.5 and 2.0 correspond to side-aspect ratios
of 1.5∶1 and 2∶1. H refers to the volumetric ratio of hoop reinforce-
ment. The following number 0 denotes unreinforced concrete,
whereas the numbers 1 and 2 denote a hoop reinforcement of 0.33
and 0.67% volumetric ratio, respectively. The unloading/reloading
and monotonic loading patterns are labeled by C and M, respec-
tively. Finally, the last symbol L and the number following it
correspond to the number of layers of carbon fiber sheet used to form
the CFRP confinement.
All columns were designed to represent building columns
because of the need for evaluating realistic column sections
(Turgay et al. 2010). To ensure that the slenderness ratio is not
a test variable, the height to cross-sectional width ratio (H=b) is
J. Compos. Constr.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Geometry and steel reinforcement details (units are in milli-
meters): (a) R1.5 series; and (b) R2.0 series.
maintained constant at 5.0 for all columns. For the RC columns,
the longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 16-mm-diameter hot-
rolled deformed steel bars, whereas the transverse reinforcement
consisted of 8-mm-diameter plain steel bars. The ratio of the
longitudinal reinforcement was approximately 2.0%, whereas the
volumetric ratios of the hoop reinforcement were either 0.33 or
0.67%. The center-to-center spacing of the steel hoops correspond-
ing to 0.33 and 0.67% volumetric ratios were 180 and 90 mm for
the R1.5 specimens and 200 and 100 mm for the R2.0 specimens,
respectively. These ratios represent columns with either a deficient
or normal amount of hoop steel reinforcement. For the unreinforced
columns, the hoop reinforcement ratio was 0%. The concrete cover
outside the steel hoops was 25 mm for all the RC columns.
Material
All test specimens were formed in wooden molds with 12.5-mm-
thick plywood. Also, quarter-circular slices of an iron sheet were
accurately mounted in the four corners of the molds to provide
rounded corners that can prevent stress concentration at or near
the corners of the cross section. It is well known that the effectiveness
of FRP confinement for a rectangular concrete column depends
mainly on the corner radius and aspect ratio of its cross section. This
is because the effective confined area ratio Ae =Acc [i.e., Eq. (4) given
in the section “Proposed Ultimate Strength Model” of the present
paper] will change with the variation of these factors. For example,
the Ae =Acc ratio increases with an increase in the rc =h ratio
(defined as the corner radius divided by the cross-sectional depth),
resulting in an increase in the ultimate axial strength and strain
capacities (e.g., Pessiki et al. 2001; Masia et al. 2004;
Al-Salloum, 2007). In the studies of Wang et al. (2012a, b), corner
© ASCE 04018023-3
J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023
radii of 20 and 30 mm were, respectively, used for columns with
square cross sections 204 × 204 mm and 305 × 305 mm. This is
to ensure that the rc =h of 0.1 has the same influence on their com-
pressive stress-strain behaviors. Also, the rc =h ratio for square cross
sections of widths 100 (rc ¼ 15 mm), 150 (rc ¼ 22.5 mm), 175
(rc ¼ 26 mm), 200 (rc ¼ 30 mm), 300 (rc ¼ 45 mm), 350
(rc ¼ 52.5 mm), and 400 mm (rc ¼ 60 mm) was maintained
constant at 0.15 (Wang et al. 2016). In the study of Abbasnia and
Ziaadiny (2015), at a constant rc =h ratio (i.e., 0.15, 0.23, and 0.28),
specimens with different aspect ratios (h=b ¼ 1, 1.5, and 2.0)
were prepared to investigate the influence of the aspect ratio on both
square- and rectangular-sectioned specimens. At a constant rc =h
ratio, it was observed that the gain in the ultimate strength for spec-
imens with higher aspect ratios is much smaller than those of square-
sectioned specimens. For the current tests, to also investigate the
influence of the aspect ratio, the rc =h of 0.1 was considered for both
the R1.5 and R2.0 test specimens. Respectively, the corner radii were
30 and 40 mm, as reported in Table 1.
All specimens were cast using one batch of ready-mixed con-
crete. Based on axial compressive tests on a total of 15 concrete
cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm,
the average 28-day cylinder strength was 44.3 MPa, whereas its
strength was 46.3 MPa at the time of the actual test. The specimens
were externally wrapped with different numbers of CFRP layers,
which are identified in Table 1, by using the manual lay-up process
recommended by the manufacturer. Only the final layer of the
wraps was extended by a sufficient overlap length of 150 mm
to ensure a full confinement around concrete. To avoid undesirable
failures outside the tested region, both ends of each tested specimen
were reinforced by (1) an additional CFRP layer and (2) steel hoops
spaced at 30 mm (Fig. 1). The mechanical properties of the CFRP
declared by the manufacturer and the test properties of the internal
longitudinal and hoop steel bars are provided in Table 2.
Instrumentation and Testing Procedure
The instrumentation and test setup layout are shown in Fig. 2. All
specimens were tested by using an Amsler universal compression
machine with a capacity of 5,000 kN. Each specimen was internally
instrumented with strain gauges with a length of 2 mm that were
bonded to the internal longitudinal and hoop steel bars to monitor
the strains at their midheights. All confined specimens were exter-
nally instrumented at their midheights with strain gauges having a
gauge length of 10 mm to monitor the hoop strains of the CFRP at
the centers of the four corners and the middle of the side faces of the
cross sections. Axial displacements were measured by four linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) placed adjacent to their
corners using two steel frames installed over a 400-mm gauge
length. The applied axial loads were recorded using a load cell
placed on the top of each test specimen. All specimens were first
tested using a load control manner at a slow load rate before the
peak load was reached. Once the softening in the axial load-
displacement response was observed, the specimens were then
loaded in a displacement control manner. This loading was in-
creased in prescribed increments until the rupture of CFRP wraps.
Test Results and Discussions
Failure Modes
Fig. 3 shows typical failure modes of the unconfined and confined
concrete columns. The failure of the unconfined RC columns first
initiated with diagonal cracks, as Fig. 3(a) shows. Afterward, the
maximum load carrying capacity was reached, followed by spalling
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 1. Specimen details and their key experimental results
Specimens b (mm) h (mm) rc (mm) Longitudinal bars Hoop bars n fl =f co (%) ft (MPa) εt (%) f cc (MPa) εcc (%)
R1.5H2ML0 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@90 0 2.39 50.4 0.279 — 0.458
R1.5H1ML0 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@180 0 0.52 48.1 0.260 — 0.441
R1.5H2CL2 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@90 2 6.68 52.9 0.295 45.5 1.110
R1.5H2CL3 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@90 3 8.82 57.2 0.383 57.3 1.944
R1.5H1CL2 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@180 2 4.79 54.1 0.318 46.6 1.270
R1.5H1CL3 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@180 3 6.94 54.7 0.353 54.3 1.309
R1.5H2ML2 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@90 2 6.68 53.1 0.340 46.9 1.344
R1.5H2ML3 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@90 3 8.82 55.3 0.430 55.4 2.747
R1.5H1ML2 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@180 2 4.79 52.2 0.268 44.9 0.771
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R1.5H1ML3 200 300 30 6Φ16 Φ8@180 3 6.94 54.3 0.309 54.2 1.520
R1.5H0ML2 200 300 30 — — 2 4.34 45.0 0.208 36.0 0.824
R1.5H0ML3 200 300 30 — — 3 6.50 45.6 0.256 40.0 0.949
R1.5H0CL2 200 300 30 — — 2 4.34 46.6 0.238 43.6 1.142
R1.5H0CL3 200 300 30 — — 3 6.50 47.5 0.279 47.4 1.439
R2.0H2ML0 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@100 0 2.49 51.6 0.281 — 0.356
R2.0H1ML0 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@200 0 0.49 48.6 0.263 — 0.485
R2.0H2CL3 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@100 3 7.01 54.4 0.403 40.7 1.471
R2.0H2CL4 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@100 4 8.52 57.8 0.393 48.4 2.415
R2.0H1CL3 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@200 3 5.02 53.7 0.303 38.4 1.601
R2.0H1CL4 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@200 4 6.52 53.9 0.321 42.5 2.493
R2.0H2ML3 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@100 3 7.01 55.4 0.336 40.3 2.652
R2.0H2ML4 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@100 4 8.52 56.9 0.440 46.3 2.798
R2.0H1ML3 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@200 3 5.02 53.7 0.358 39.5 2.291
R2.0H1ML4 200 400 40 8Φ16 Φ8@200 4 6.52 53.6 0.369 44.5 2.696
R2.0H0ML3 200 400 40 — — 3 4.57 44.4 0.229 30.0 0.837
R2.0H0ML4 200 400 40 — — 4 6.09 45.1 0.251 34.0 1.510
R2.0H0CL3 200 400 40 — — 3 4.57 42.1 0.254 33.1 1.333
R2.0H0CL4 200 400 40 — — 4 6.09 44.5 0.251 35.4 1.510
Note: R1.5 and R2.0 = rectangular-sectioned columns with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0, respectively; b = width of cross section; h = depth of cross section;
rc = corner radius; reo. = reinforcement; n = number of layers of carbon fiber sheet used to form CFRP wraps; fl =fc0 = ratio of effective lateral pressure
to unconfined concrete strength; f t = peak axial stress at the junction of the parabolic first and linear second branch; εt = axial strain corresponding to f t ;
f cc = axial stress at a point on the third branch, which represents the stress at rupture of CFRP; εcc = axial strain corresponding to f cc .

Table 2. Mechanical properties of longitudinal and hoop steel reinforcement and CFRP
Material Diameter/thickness (mm) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (MPa)
Longitudinal steel ds ¼ 16 f y ¼ 360 f su ¼ 390 Es ¼ 200,000
Hoop steel ds ¼ 8 f yt ¼ 373 f su ¼ 424 Es ¼ 200,000
CFRP wraps tf ¼ 0.167 — f f ¼ 4,340 Ef ¼ 240,000

of concrete cover and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement bars
[Fig. 3(b)]. In the case of confined RC columns, buckling of the
longitudinal steel reinforcement was, however, prevented until
the eventual rupture of the CFRP wraps. At the midheight of
the specimens, the rupture of the wraps originated around the cor-
ners of the column sections. As previously reported in other re-
search studies (e.g., Wang and Wu 2008; Abbasnia et al. 2012),
this phenomenon is mainly attributed to the stress concentrations
in these regions. On the whole, all the confined specimens exhib-
ited similar behaviors, which indicate that the cyclic and monotonic
loading patterns have no effect on the failure mode of the
specimens.
Axial Stress-Strain Behavior
A selection of typical monotonic and cyclic axial stress-strain re-
sponses for each series of specimens is presented in Fig. 4. The
stress and strain test results of the remaining 12 specimens are pre-
sented in several subsections of this paper and hence are not shown
in this figure due to space limitation. A summary of the test results
of axial stress and strain capacities for all specimens is provided in
Table 1. In all cases, the axial stress of each specimen was obtained
from dividing the axial load capacity by the cross-sectional area. In
addition, the axial strain was averaged from the four LVDT read-
ings divided by the 400-mm gauge length. The terms f t and εt are
respectively the peak axial stress and axial strain, whereas f cc and
εcc are the ultimate axial stress and corresponding axial strain, re-
spectively. As shown in Fig. 5, the peak stress for confined concrete
corresponds to the transition point located between the parabolic
first and strength-softening second regions, whereas the ultimate
stress corresponds to a point at which the CFRP wraps starts to
fracture. The ultimate stress of the unconfined RC columns is
equivalent to 80% of the peak stress. To evaluate the confinement
effect for different wrapped columns, the table further included the
confinement ratios expressed as f l =f co ¼ ðflf þ fls Þ=fco , where
flf = effective confining pressure provided by the CFRP wraps,
and f ls = effective confining pressure provided by the hoop steel
reinforcement.

© ASCE 04018023-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 Strain gauges on CFRP wrap
(e.g., Ozbakkaloglu and Oehlers 2008; Ozbakkaloglu 2013a;
Hany et al. 2015). For example, examination of the test results
of Hany et al. (2015) revealed that the increase in the ultimate strain
varied from 3.75 to 11.3 times that of the unconfined concrete.
2. With an almost equal amount of hoop confinement, columns
with different aspect ratios almost reached similar peak
strengths but different ultimate strengths, for example, as found
for R1.5H2CL3 and R2.0H2CL4. Relevant information is
further provided in the next subsection.
Strain gauges on hoop steel bars
3. The CFRP-confined unreinforced columns experienced signifi-
cant gains in the ultimate strains, whereas there was no observed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

enhancement in their ultimate strengths. For example, the ulti-

Load cell
Steel plate
Steel frame
LVDTs
Fig. 2. Instrumentation and test setup details.
Regarding the axial compressive stress and strain capacities,
examination of the experimental results presented in Table 1 and
Fig. 4 lead to the following discussions:
1. The confinement by the CFRP wraps led to an increase in the
axial strength capacity but with a very low rate compared to that
of the axial strain. For example, the averaged peak strength and
ultimate strain capacities for all the confined RC columns
were increased by about 10%, as compared with the unconfined
specimen. The increase in the ultimate axial strain varied
from 3.86 to 14.0 times that of the unconfined concrete (εco ¼
0.002), and this result can be consistent with other test results
mate strains of the unreinforced R1.5H0ML2 and R2.0H0ML3
with cross sections 200 × 300 mm (f l =f co ¼ 4.34%) and
200 × 400 mm (f l =f co ¼ 4.57%) were 3.96 and 3.66 times
their peak strains, respectively. In addition, the decreases in their
ultimate strengths were approximately 20 and 32.5% as com-
pared with their peak strengths, respectively. The decrease of
32.5% in strength was also found by Wang et al. (2012a) for
the 305 × 305-mm square unreinforced columns with a low
level of confinement (f l =f co ¼ 2.98%). According to the stu-
dies by Wang et al. (2012a) and Ozbakkaloglu (2013a, b), only
the well-confined specimens experienced enhancement in the
ultimate strengths; however, the enhancement in strength capa-
city was highly sensitive to the effectiveness of confinement,
and FRP with low confinement effectiveness does not provide
sufficient confinement to allow the specimens to maintain their
strengths after the peak strengths are attained.
4. For a constant aspect ratio and amount of hoop steel reinforce-
ment, the axial strength and strain capacities increase as the
number of CFRP layers increases. For example, the increase
in the axial strain for the four-layered specimen R2.0H2CL4
(h=b ¼ 2.0) was about 64.2% over that of the three-layered con-
fined specimen. Another example is that the ultimate strain of
R1.5H1ML3 (h=b ¼ 1.5) confined with three CFRP layers
exhibited an increase of about 97.1% compared to that of the
two-layered confined specimen R1.5H1ML2.
With reference to Fig. 4, the stress-strain responses show that the
upper boundaries of the responses of specimens under cyclic loading
follow the stress-strain curves for the identically confined specimens
under monotonic loading. Typical observations were also reported
by others (e.g., Lam et al. 2006; Lam and Teng 2009; Abbasnia
et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012a, b, c; Hany et al. 2015). As also shown,

R2.0H2ML0 R1.5H1ML0 R2.0H1ML3 R1.5H1ML2 R2.0H2CL4 R1.5H2CL3

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3. Typical failure modes.

© ASCE 04018023-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 60 60 60

50 50 50

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20
R1.5H1ML0
10 R1.5H2ML0 10
10 R1.5H1ML2 R1.5H0ML0
R1.5H2ML3
R1.5H2CL3 R1.5H1CL2 R1.5H0CL3
0 0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Axial strain (mm/mm) (b) Axial strain (mm/mm) (c) Axial strain (mm/mm)

60 60 60
R2.0H2ML0 R2.0H2ML0 R2.0H0ML3
R2.0H2ML4
50 R2.0H2ML3 50 R2.0H2CL4 50 R2.0H0CL3
R2.0H2CL3
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
(d) Axial strain (mm/mm) (e) Axial strain (mm/mm) (f) Axial strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 4. Axial stress-strain test responses: (a–c) series R1.5; and (d and e) series R2.0.

strengths, respectively. It is believed, independently of the variation

First transition point f cc in the amount of lateral confinement, that such a column’s behavior
ft significantly depends on the variation in the geometry of the cross
sections. It is evident from Table 1 that the confinement ratio of the
fdt three-layered R2.0H0L3 (fl =fco ¼ 4.57%) is slightly higher than
Strength softening region

second transition point that of the two-layered confined R1.5H0L2 (f l =f co ¼ 4.34%). How-
Ascending first region

ever, Figs. 4(c and f) clearly show that the reduction in the axial stress
Linear third portion
Axial stress

εt
Fig. 5. Illustration of different stages of axial stress-strain response.
the envelope monotonic stress-strain response of the confined col-
umns can be characterized by a three-stage response known as a
postpeak softening behavior, followed by a small increase in the ax-
ial stress. This is similar to the results observed by Yan (2005), Rocca
(2007), Wang et al. (2012a, b), and Ozbakkaloglu (2013a, b). During
testing, the confined specimens exhibited a reduced strength in the
second region, starting at a transition point close to the peak stress on
the axial stress-strain responses. This is mainly due to the low resis-
tance of the CFRP wrap against the dilation and lateral expansion of
the concrete core. The analysis of the test data revealed that the R1.5
and R2.0 test specimens lost approximately 15 and 30% of their peak
for the specimen R2.0H0L3 was much larger than that of specimen
R1.5H0L2. As already reported by Yan (2005) and Wu and Wei
(2010), this means that the strength softening is largely influenced
by the increase of the cross-section aspect ratio. After generating a
level of confinement pressure that was high enough to sufficiently
confine the concrete, the axial stress and strain of the specimens in-
creased linearly until failure, leading to a third branch of the stress-
strain response. This branch is an ascending [Fig. 4(f)] or almost flat
response [Fig. 4(d)].
ε dt ε cc
Effect of Cross-Sectional Aspect Ratio
Axial strain
The aspect ratio of a rectangular section is one of the key parameters
for modeling the axial stress-strain response of confined concrete. As
reported in studies by Anselm (2005), Yan (2005), Wu and Wei
(2010), Toutanji et al. (2010), Abbasnia et al. (2012), and Abbasnia
and Ziaadiny (2015) on the stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined
concrete under axial monotonic loading, the efficiency of FRP con-
finement decreases as the aspect ratio increases. The influence of this
parameter on the current experimental results at different confine-
ment levels is depicted in Fig. 6, in which the vertical axis denotes
the ratio of the confined strength at a second peak point (fdt =fco )
[Fig. 6(a)] and ultimate point (f cc =f co ) [Fig. 6(b)] to the unconfined
strength. For the purpose of presenting comparisons, two successive
columns in these two figures represent specimens having approxi-
mately similar confinement ratios but different aspect ratios. It is gen-
erally clear from Fig. 6 that, due to the influence of the aspect ratio,
the increments of strength achieved by the specimens of series R1.5

© ASCE 04018023-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 1.4 the axial stress-strain response (refer to Fig. 5). Only the R1.5 test
specimens with an aspect ratio of 1.5 having a sufficient amount of
1.2 f dt = f co
FRP wraps (i.e., R1.5H2L3) experienced a strength enhancement at
1.0 the second transition point. These observations are consistent with
other conclusions reported by Ozbakkaloglu (2013a, b) for confined
0.8 unreinforced concrete in noncircular sections. Regarding the test re-
fdt / fco

sults provided in Fig. 6(b), at a constant confinement ratio of approx-

0.6
imately 4.9% (on average) for specimens R1.5H1L2 and R2.0H1L3,

fl / fco= 8.52 %
fl / fco= 7.01 %

fl / fco= 8.82 %
fl / fco= 5.02 %

fl / fco= 6.94 %
fl / fco= 4.79 %

0.4 the value of f cc =fco decreased from 0.99 to 0.84, a reduction of

about 15.2%. Within the range of (5.02 ≤ f l =f co < 8.52%) confine-
0.2 ment ratios, only the specimens with the aspect ratio of 1.5 could,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

among other specimens, experience enhancement in the ultimate

0.0 strengths, whereas those from the series R2.0 experienced a reduc-
tion in the ultimate strengths (f l =f co < 1.0). The test results in
3

4
2

3
1L

2L
1L

2L
1L

2L
H

H
H

H
H

Table 1 and Fig. 6(b) indicated that while a 17.2% increase in the
.0

.0
.5

.0
.5

.5
(a)
R2

R2
R1

R2
R1

R1 ultimate strength over the unconfined (original) strength was

1.4 observed for R1.5H1L3, a 12.5% decrease was for the correspond-
ing R2.0H2L3. Comparison of the test results of R1.5H2L3 and
1.2 f cc = f co R2.0H2L4, which had almost similar confinement ratios (8.67%),
indicates that the R1.5H2L3 experienced a significant enhancement
1.0 in its strength and the corresponding R2.0H2L4 reached typically
the value of fco when confined with four layers of CFRP wraps.
0.8
This result is typical to that reported in previous studies conducted
fcc / fco

0.6 on FRP-confined unreinforced concrete sections having an aspect

fl / fco= 7.01 %

fl / fco= 8.52 %
fl / fco= 8.82 %
fl / fco= 5.02 %

fl / fco= 6.94 %
fl / fco= 4.79 %

ratio of 2.0 (e.g., Yan 2005; Wu and Wei 2010).

0.4 The monotonic axial stress-strain curves of the selected four
specimens with the same confinement ratios but varying aspect
0.2 ratios are shown in Fig. 7. As discussed above, the R1.5 test spec-
imens exhibited higher ultimate strengths than those achieved by
0.0
the R2.0 specimens. Refer to Table 1; the confined strength of
3

4
2

3
1L

2L
1L

2L
1L

2L

R1.5H1ML3 was 34.5% higher than that of R2.0H2ML3. It is

H

H
H
H

.0

.0
.0
.5
.5

.5

(b) an interesting observation that since the effectiveness of CFRP

R2

R2
R1

R2
R1

R1

wraps is less in the case of sections with an aspect ratio of 2.0 com-
Fig. 6. Effect of aspect ratio on axial strength capacity: (a) for softening pared to sections with an aspect ratio of 1.5, the enhancement in the
strength (at second transition point shown in Fig. 5); and (b) for ultimate ultimate axial strains was more pronounced for the R2.0 test spec-
strength. imens. The ultimate strain of specimen R2.0H1ML3 increased by
197.1% with reference to R1.5H1ML2. These are consistent with
the results reported in earlier studies on FRP-confined concrete col-
umns (e.g., Ilki et al. 2008; Abbasnia and Ziaadiny 2015). Ilki et al.
were higher compared with those achieved by the R2.0 test speci- (2008) have confirmed that the higher axial strain is due to the less
mens. The test results provided in Fig. 6(a) indicated that the aspect effective confinement provided to larger rectangular sections.
ratio influenced the magnitude of the strength softening experienced Above all, the influence of the variation of aspect ratio on the axial
by the specimens, and the specimens with the aspect ratio of 2.0 stress-strain behavior of CFRP-confined rectangular columns
experienced a small loss in strength along the second region of should be taken into account. Accordingly, only a few analytical

60 60
R1.5H2ML2 R1.5H1ML2
R2.0H2ML3 R2.0H1CL3
50 f l f co = 6.68% 50 f l f co = 4.79%
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40

30 30 f l f co = 5.02%
f l f co = 7.01%

20 20

10 10

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
(a) Axial strain (mm/mm) (b) Axial strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 7. Axial stress-strain relationships of RC columns with same confinement ratios but varying aspect ratios: (a and b) are, respectively, for columns
with steel hoops at spacing 90–100 mm and 180–200 mm.

© ASCE 04018023-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 60 60 60

50 50 50

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 R1.5H1ML3 10 R2.0H1ML3 10 R2.0H1ML4

R1.5H2ML3 R2.0H2ML3 R2.0H2ML4
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Axial strain (mm/mm) (b) Axial strain (mm/mm) (c) Axial strain (mm/mm)
60 60 60

50 50 50

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20
R1.5H0ML3 R2.0H0ML3 R1.5H0ML2
10 R1.5H2ML3 10 R2.0H1ML3 10 R1.5H1ML2
R1.5H2ML3 (subtracted LB) R2.0H1ML3 (subtracted LB) R1.5H1ML2 (subtracted LB)
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
(d) Axial strain (mm/mm) (e) Axial strain (mm/mm) (f) Axial strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 8. Influence of internal hoop steel reinforcement on axial stress-strain response.

models that quantify the effects of the aspect ratio have been pro-
vided (e.g., Lam and Teng 2003; Ilki et al. 2008; Hany et al. 2015).
Effect of Internal Steel Reinforcement
The influence of the internal hoop steel reinforcing bars was found
to be mainly dependent on the cross-sectional size and the number
of CFRP layers. Figs. 8(a–c) provide comparisons of the monotonic
axial stress-strain responses selected from the R1.5 and R2.0 test
results. The stress-strain test results correspond to specimens con-
fined with a similar number of layers of CFRP wrapped RC col-
umns with different amounts of internal hoop reinforcement. By
comparing the axial stress-strain curves of the smaller-sectioned
specimens R1.5H1ML3 and R1.5H2ML3 confined with three
layers of CFRP wrap, independently of the compressive strength
at peak, it is clearly seen that the first parabolic branch of these
curves coincides. In addition, the increase of the ratio of hoop steel
reinforcement influences the shape of the stress-strain envelope
curve of specimen R1.5H2ML3 by greatly decreasing the softening
region and increasing the extent of the linear third branch, with
respect to R1.5H1ML3. For a certain section’s size and a number
of CFRP layers, the difference between the peak strength value
and that corresponding to the end point of the softening branch
for specimens R1.5H1ML3 and R1.5H2ML3 decreased from 7.8
to 2.42 MPa, respectively. On the contrary, because of the variation
in the amount of hoop reinforcement from H1 to H2, no major im-
pact on the shape of the stress-strain envelope curves was, however,
observed for the specimens of series R2.0 when confined with
the same number of CFRP composite layers [Fig. 8(b)]. In the case
of the four-layered confined specimen R2.0H2ML4, only the
strength-softening region was slightly decreased due to the increase
of the amount of hoop steel reinforcement, as compared with
R2.0H1ML4 [Fig. 8(c)]. The aforementioned findings are consis-
tent with the fact that the effectiveness of CFRP confinement
decreases as the size of the cross section is increased and increases
with additional CFRP layers (Wang et al. 2012c).
Overall, inspection of Fig. 8 indicates that the increase of the
hoop reinforcement ratio influences the shape of the axial stress-
strain envelope curve by increasing the stress and strain capacities.
Based on the results shown in Table 1 and Fig. 8(d), the hoop
reinforcement enhanced the peak and ultimate strains of the rein-
forced specimen R1.5H2ML3 by about 67.9 and 189.5%, respec-
tively, as compared with the unreinforced R1.5H0ML3. The
contribution of the hoop reinforcement to the enhancement of the
compressive strengths of confined RC columns selected from both
test series is further assessed by subtracting the contribution of the
longitudinal reinforcement by considering the axial stress-strain re-
lationship of the deformed steel bars. Tensile tests were performed in
order to obtain the stress-strain relationships for the steel bars that
were ultimately assumed to be an elastic–perfectly plastic material.
Comparisons of stress-strain curves before and after subtracting
the contribution of the longitudinal bars (LBs) are presented in
Figs. 8(d–f). Analysis of the test data presented in these figures
revealed the peak strength of the confined RC columns (after the
subtraction of LB) to be 19.4% (on average) greater than that of
the confined unreinforced columns. As a result, the influence of
the steel bars on the axial stress-strain behavior should be taken into
account when modeling the axial strength and strain capacities of the
CFRP-confined RC columns.
Figs. 9 and 10 provide a clear comparison of the reloading and
unloading paths, respectively, for the confined unreinforced and re-
inforced concrete specimens selected from both test series. The
shape of the reloading paths for the RC columns is always linear
in all stages, whereas the shape of the unreinforced columns exhib-
ited nonlinear behavior, especially in the later loading stage (Fig. 9).
Unlike the reloading paths, it is evident from Fig. 10 that at zero
unloading stress the unloading path of the RC columns had a larger
slope than that of the plain columns, especially in the later loading
stage. The difference slope is based on two main reasons: (1) the
degradation of the unloading path of the unreinforced concrete is
larger than that of the reinforced concrete, and (2) the difference

© ASCE 04018023-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 60 60
R1.5H2CL3 R2.0H2CL3
R1.5H0CL3 R2.0H0CL3
50 50

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
(a) Axial strain (mm/mm) (b) Axial strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 9. Influence of internal steel reinforcement on reloading path: (a and b) are, respectively, for columns with aspect ratios 1.5 and 2.0.

60 60
R1.5H2CL3 R2.0H1CL4
R1.5H0CL3 R2.0H0CL4
50 50
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20
Plastic strain
10 10 ε pl

0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
(a) Axial strain (mm/mm) (b) Axial strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 10. Influence of internal steel reinforcement on unloading paths: (a and b) are, respectively, for columns with aspect ratios 1.5 and 2.0.

between their plastic strains’ values. The plastic strains were ob- 0.024
served to increase due to the presence of the internal longitudinal CFRP-confined reinforced concrete
and hoop steel reinforcement. To further investigate this effect, a CFRP-confined unreinforced concrete
0.020
plot of the variation of the plastic strains versus the unloading
Plastic strain (mm/mm)

strains for all test specimens is shown in Fig. 11. The trend lines
in this figure do not coincide. For specimens without internal steel 0.016
reinforcement, it is clearly seen that the plastic strains during re-
peated compression loading increase linearly with the increase 0.012
of the unloading strains. While the variation of plastic strains of
confined RC columns with reference to the unloading strains is 0.008
linear, the values of plastic strains are higher with respect to the
unreinforced columns. All the aforementioned findings are in
complete agreement with those recently reported by Wang et al. 0.004
(2012a, b, c). As a result, the influence of the internal steel reinforce-
ment on the unloading and reloading paths and plastic strain values 0.000
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.024
should be considered for good modeling of the cyclic axial stress-
strain response of CFRP-confined rectangular RC columns. Envelope unloading strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 11. Plastic strain versus envelope unloading strain.

Lateral Pressure and Hoop Strain of CFRP
The definition of lateral confinement pressure is a key to the predic-
tion of the strength increment for FRP-confined concrete (Teng and
Lam 2004). According to a study conducted by Yan (2005), the con-
fining pressure strongly depends on the rupture strain of the CFRP
and varies depending on two major variables including the shape and
the size of the cross section. In noncircular sections, the confining
pressure is mainly concentrated at the corner regions rather than over
the perimeter of the cross section (Rocca 2007). Considering the ef-
fect of section geometry, Yan (2005) performed tests on concrete
columns with different cross-sectional shapes (i.e., rectangular).
For the smaller- and larger-dimensioned rectangular columns, the
ratios of CFRP rupture strain to the actual tensile strain of the jacket
were 60 and 40%, respectively (50% on average). Likewise, it has

© ASCE 04018023-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 Table 3. Experimental CFRP hoop strain at corners and strain reduction that the average ratio of the corner rupture strain to the maximum
factor tensile strain recommended by the manufacturer is approximately
Number Specimen εfe (%) kε 35% for both the R1.5 (h ¼ 300 mm) and R2.0 (h ¼ 400 mm) test
specimens.
1 R1.5H2CL2 0.267 0.148
2 R1.5H2CL3 0.619 0.342
To better understand the variation of lateral confinement around
3 R1.5H1CL2 — — the perimeter of the section, the distribution of the CFRP hoop
4 R1.5H1CL3 — — strain is further investigated. The mean values of the CFRP strains
5 R1.5H2ML2 0.439 0.243 at different load levels for selected specimens are plotted in Fig. 12.
6 R1.5H2ML3 1.234 0.682 The horizontal axes of these figures represent the load levels,
7 R1.5H1ML2 0.162 0.089 whereas the vertical axes represent the mean values of the CFRP
8 R1.5H1ML3 0.589 0.326 strains recorded by the strain gauges positioned at either the corners
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 R1.5H0ML2 0.816 0.451 or the lateral sides of the cross sections. It should be noted that the
10 R1.5H0ML3 0.658 0.364 strains measured at the overlapping regions were not considered.
11 R1.5H0CL2 1.110 0.614
Fig. 12 shows that the strains at the corner regions and the lateral
12 R1.5H0CL3 0.901 0.498
13 R2.0H2CL3 0.255 0.141
sides of the cross sections are approximately identical at low load
14 R2.0H2CL4 0.807 0.446 levels (before the peak load). As the axial load was increased up to
15 R2.0H1CL3 0.472 0.261 the peak load, the strains increased and only a slight increase in the
16 R2.0H1CL4 0.541 0.299 strains at peak stress f t was achieved (see Position 3). This indi-
17 R2.0H2ML3 1.005 0.556 cates that a minimal confining pressure could be provided by the
18 R2.0H2ML4 0.727 0.402 CFRP wrap to all specimens when their peak stresses are reached.
19 R2.0H1ML3 0.493 0.273 When the confined concrete is loaded beyond the peak point, the
20 R2.0H1ML4 0.669 0.370 hoop strains recorded either at the corners or the section’s sides
21 R2.0H0ML3 0.419 0.232 increase dramatically (i.e., Position 4 represents the maximum axial
22 R2.0H0ML4 — —
stress fcc ). A similar change in the condition of the CFRP strains
23 R2.0H0CL3 0.513 0.284
24 R2.0H0CL4 — — when the load level changed from the peak to the ultimate was also
reported in other studies (e.g., Wang and Wu 2008). An important
Note: εfe = averaged CFRP strain mounted on the corners of each test result that is seen at Position 4 in Fig. 12 is the slightly higher
specimen; kε = strain reduction factor. strains recorded at the lateral sides than those at the corner regions.
As reported by Yan (2005) and Wang et al. (2012a, 2016), this find-
ing proves that the confinement provided by the CFRP wrap is
been found by Wang et al. (2012a, b) that the average CFRP rupture more effective at the corner regions than that on the lateral sides.
strains for medium-sized (150 < b < 300 mm) and large-sized Fig. 13 clearly shows that the strains at corners increase with the
(b > 300 mm) square-sectioned columns were 60 and 40% of the decrease of the cross-section size. For example, for specimens with
ultimate tensile strain, respectively. The test results in Table 3 reveal the same number of layers of CFRP and hoop reinforcement ratio,

1.0 1.0 0.4

Load level Load level Load level
1 = 30.0 MPa 1 = 30.1 MPa 1 = 29.90 MPa
0.8 0.8 2 = 39.7 MPa 2 = 39.9 MPa
2 = 40.5 MPa 0.3
3= 57.2 MPa [Peak] 3 = 47.5 MPa [Peak] 3 = 52.2 MPa [Peak]
εCFRP %
εCFRP %

0.6 0.6 4 = 47.4 MPa [Ultimate]

εCFRP %

4 = 57.3 MPa [Ultimate] 4 = 44.9 MPa [Ultimate]

5= 30.0 MPa 5 = 30.0 MPa 0.2 5 = 41.4 MPa
0.4 Lateral-sides 0.4 Lateral-sides Lateral-sides
Corners Corners Corners
0.1
0.2 R1.5H2CL3 0.2 R1.5H0CL3 R1.5H1ML2

0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Load level (b) Load level (c) Load level
1.2 1.2 1.2
Load level Load level Load level
1.0 1 = 30.0 MPa 1.0 1 = 30.5 MPa 1.0 1 = 30.0 MPa
2 = 40.2 MPa 2 = 40.3 MPa 2 = 40.2 MPa
0.8 3 = 53.7 MPa [Peak] 0.8 3 = 44.4 MPa [Peak] 0.8 3 = 57.8 MPa [Peak]
4 = 48.4 MPa [Ultimate]
εCFRP %

εCFRP %

εCFRP %

4 = 39.5 MPa [Ultimate] 4 = 30.0 MPa [Ultimate]

0.6 5 = 25.0 MPa 0.6 5 = 29.0 MPa 0.6 5 = 25.5 MPa
Lateral-sides Lateral-sides Lateral-sides
0.4 Corners 0.4 Corners 0.4 Corners
R2.0H1ML3 R2.0H0ML3 R2.0H2CL4
0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(d) Load level (e) Load level (f) Load level

Fig. 12. Hoop strain distribution on CFRP wraps at different load levels.

© ASCE 04018023-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 60 60

50 50

Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20
R1.5H2ML3
10 R1.5H1ML3
10 R2.0H2ML3
R2.0H1ML3
0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
(a) Averaged CFRP corners strain (%) (b) Averaged CFRP corners strain (%)

60 60
R1.5H0CL3
50 R2.0H0CL3 50
Axial stress (MPa)

Axial stress (MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 R1.5H2CL3
R2.0H2CL3
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(c) Averaged CFRP corners strain (%) (d) Averaged CFRP corners strain (%)

Fig. 13. Relationship between the averaged corner rupture strain and axial stress considering the influence of section size: R1.5 ¼ h=b ¼ 1.5,
R2.0 ¼ h=b ¼ 2.0, H0 = plain concrete, H1 and H2 = reinforced, L3 = 3 layers of CFRP wraps.

the average value of the corner strains of specimen R1.5H2CL3
was 2.4 times that of R2.0H2CL3 [refer to Fig. 13(d) and Table 3].
This indicates that the strains of the wrap at rupture increase with a
decrease of the cross-section size, leading to the postponement
of the failure of the specimens by delaying the rupture of the CFRP
wraps.
The discussions outlined in the preceding subsection lead to the
conclusion that the CFRP rupture strain is not equal to the ultimate
strain capacity provided by the manufacturer. This is due to the non-
uniformity of the FRP confinement (e.g., Wang and Wu 2008; Wang
et al. 2012a; Hany et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2016). The hoop strains
recorded at the corner regions were lower compared to those at the
section’s sides as also reported by others (e.g., Barrington et al.
2011). Furthermore, the smaller sections revealed larger strains at
failure than those recorded for the larger sections. Therefore, it is
reasonable to express the confining pressure by the CFRP wrap
in terms of the effective hoop strain at failure in relation to the
cross-sectional size. The effective rupture strain should be obtained
from averaging the strains of the gauges mounted at the corner re-
gions. The ratio of the effective CFRP strain at the rupture to the
ultimate tensile strain of the CFRP wrap declared by the manufac-
turer can be expressed by a factor that is well known as a strain
efficiency factor, described in Eq. (1). For the purpose of analytical
modeling provided in this paper, Wang et al. (2016) have analyzed a
test database for square-sectioned columns with varying cross-
section dimensions in an attempt to obtain a simple form for deter-
mining the strain efficiency factor. The experimentally calibrated
equation is provided as follows:

0.41
εfe b
kε ¼ ¼ 1 − 0.38 for 100 ≤ b ≤ 400 mm ð1Þ
εfu 100
As the current paper deals with a rectangular geometry, b (the
width of the square section) is replaced with h (the depth of the
rectangular section). By applying the above expression, the ratios
between the CFRP rupture strain εfe and the actual tensile strain εfu
were equal to 40 and 33% for the R1.5 and R2.0 test specimens,
respectively. These ratios are almost equal to those displayed in
Table 3.
Evaluation of Existing Ultimate Strength Models
The ultimate strength is an essential parameter for achieving a safe
design of the confined concrete columns under axial compression.
It is therefore important that it is modeled well. Many analytical
models have been proposed to predict the strength of the concrete
when confined with FRP wraps (e.g., ACI 2002; Hantouch 2004;
Anselm 2005; Wu et al. 2007; Kumutha et al. 2007; Ilki et al. 2008;
Wu and Wei 2010; Toutanji et al. 2010; Pellegrino and Modena
2010; Pham and Hadi 2014). Anselm (2005) first evaluated the
models of Restrepol and De Vino (1996), the ACI committee
(2002), Lam and Teng (2003), and Hantouch (2004). These models
were inconsistent when compared with test results of speci-
mens with cross sections (125 × 125 mm, 125 × 175 mm, and
125 × 200 mm). As reported by Anselm (2005), the shortcoming
of the models is usually due to the assumption made for the effec-
tive rupture strain of FRP. For example, the ACI Committee (2002)

© ASCE 04018023-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 Table 4. Experimental and theoretical ultimate strength of confined unreinforced columns
Current Proposed Kumutha et al. Wu et al. Ilki et al. Wu and Wei Pham and Hadi
Specimens experiments model ACI (2002) (2007) (2007) (2008) (2010) (2014)
R1.5H0ML2 36.0 36.7 62.6 46.5 75.3 56.1 49.4 53.7
R1.5H0ML3 40.0 42.6 69.5 46.7 89.8 61.0 53.2 63.3
R2.0H0ML3 30.0 33.9 67.5 46.6 85.4 56.9 50.3 59.9
R2.0H0ML4 34.0 37.5 73.3 46.7 98.5 60.4 53.2 68.2

Table 5. Experimental and theoretical ultimate strength of confined reinforced columns

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Current Proposed Hantouch Anselm Ilki et al. Toutanji et al. Pellegrino and Modena
Specimens experiments model (2004) (2005) (2008) (2010) (2010)
R1.5H1ML2 44.9 44.7 53.2 69.3 62.0 51.8 60.5
R1.5H2ML2 46.9 46.8 55.4 69.3 66.2 51.8 61.9
R1.5H1ML3 54.2 50.6 56.4 80.7 69.2 54.5 66.0
R1.5H2ML3 55.4 52.7 58.6 80.7 73.4 54.5 67.1
R2.0H1ML3 39.5 41.9 54.5 76.8 64.8 55.5 63.5
R2.0H2ML3 40.3 44.1 57.1 76.8 69.4 55.5 64.8
R2.0H1ML4 44.5 45.5 57.1 87.0 70.6 58.6 68.0
R2.0H2ML4 46.3 47.7 59.6 87.0 75.2 58.6 69.1

100 100

90 90

80 80
fcc(MPa) (Analytical)
fcc(MPa) (Analytical)

70 70

60 60

50 ACI Committee (2002) 50

Wu et al. (2007) Hantouch (2004)
Kumutha et al. (2007) Anselm (2005)
40 40 Ilki et al. (2008)
Ilki et al. (2008)
Wu and Wei (2010) Toutanji et al. (2010)
30 30 Pellegrino and Modena (2010)
Pham and Hadi (2014)
20 20
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(a) fcc(MPa) (Experimental) (b) fcc(MPa) (Experimental)

Fig. 14. Performance of existing models in predicting the ultimate axial strength: (a) and (b) are, respectively, for unreinforced and reinforced
concrete columns.

assumed the rupture strain in the FRP wraps to be taken as a con- For a case in which not all these parameters are incorporated into
stant (0.004 < 0.75εfu ). The assumption made in the model of Ilki the existing models, a new model is presented in the following
et al. (2008) is εfe ¼ 0.85εfu . Mostly, the values taken into consid- discussions.
eration in all the existing models are larger than those found in the
current study. The experimental and theoretical ultimate strength
results for the CFRP-confined specimens tested in this study are Proposed Ultimate Strength Model
presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, for the unreinforced
and reinforced concrete columns. The accuracy of the selected
Confinement Provided by CFRP Wraps
models was verified through comparison of the theoretical incre-
ments of confined strength with test data in Fig 14. Over the wide The effective confining pressure f lf provided by the CFRP wraps
range of parameters of the current experiments, the comparisons can be calculated by the following expression originally proposed
reveal that almost all the experimental results are significantly over- by the ACI Committee (ACI 2002) and later modified by many
estimated by the models. It was concluded by Wang et al. (2012a, researchers to account for the effect of the shape of the cross section
2016) that the existing models were limited to small-sized FRP- (i.e., rectangular):
confined concrete specimens and did not consider the influence
of larger section size (b or h > 200 mm). In conclusion, the param- 2Ef ntf εfe
eters that have a significant effect on the ultimate strength of FRP- f lf ¼ kef ¼ 0.5kef ρf Ef εfe ð2Þ
D
confined rectangular RC columns are the size and aspect ratio of
cross sections, corner radius, hoop steel reinforcement ratio, and
in particular the effective hoop strain at the rupture of FRP wraps. εfe ¼ kε εfu ð3Þ

© ASCE 04018023-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 where Ef = tensile elasticity modulus of CFRP composites (MPa);
n = number of CFRP layers; tf = nominal thickness of CFRP wraps
(mm); εfe = effective rupture strain of CFRP wraps; and εfu =
ultimate rupture strain of CFRP material declared by the manufac-
turer. The volumetric ratio of the CFRP wraps is found using
ρf ¼ 4ntf =D, where D is the equivalent diameter for a rectangular
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
section, calculated as D ¼ b2 þ h2 , first introduced by Lam and
Teng (2003) and later adopted by several researchers to propose
their models (e.g., Wang et al. 2012a, b; Hany et al. 2015). kε
is the CFRP strain efficiency factor defined in the section “Lateral
Pressure and Hoop Strain in CFRP” of this paper [refer to Eq. (1)].
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The shape factor kef is addressed herein to account for the rectan-
gular cross section with rounded corners, as seen in Fig. 15(a),
given as kef ¼ Ae =Acc . The following expression for the kef was
originally suggested by Lam and Teng (2003):
 
ðh=bÞðb−2rc Þ2 þðb=hÞðh−2rc Þ
1− 3Ag − ρsc
A
kef ¼ e ¼ ð4Þ
Acc 1 − ρsc
where rc = corner radius; ρsc = ratio of longitudinal steel reinforce-
ment; Ag = gross cross-section area of a rectangular-sectioned
column with rounded corners and can be given in the following
form, originally proposed by the ACI Committee (ACI 2002) and
later adopted by Wang et al. (2012a, b) to propose their compres-
sive strength models:
Ag ¼ bh − ð4 − πÞr2c ð5Þ
Confinement Provided by Internal Steel Hoops
As illustrated in the “Effect of Internal Steel Reinforcement” sub-
section of this paper, the internal hoop reinforcement can contribute
to the ultimate strength enhancement by confining the concrete
[Fig. 15(b)]. The confinement can be estimated at each ratio of
hoop reinforcement by using the following well-known expression:
f ls ¼ kes kv ρeff fyt ð6Þ
where f yt = yield stress of hoop reinforcement. According to
El-Dash and Ahmad (1994), the effect of steel confinement in the
x- and y-directions is superimposed through the following equiv-
alent volumetric ratio parameter:
ρ x cx þ ρ y cy
ρeff ¼ ð7Þ
cx þ cy
Ashx
ρx ¼ ð8Þ
scy
Fig. 15. Confinement effectiveness parameters: (a) using FRP; and
(b) using hoops.
© ASCE 04018023-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023
Ashy
ρy ¼ ð9Þ
scx
where Ashx and Ashy = total cross sections of the hoop steel bars in
the x- and y-directions, respectively; and cx and cy = distances be-
tween the centerlines of the perimeter hoop in these two directions,
respectively [Fig. 15(b)].
Referring to Eq. (6), the two coefficients kes and kv are, respec-
tively, used to quantify the effective confinement induced by the
steel hoops in the lateral and longitudinal directions. These coef-
ficients can be calculated by using the following two expressions
(Sheikh and Uzumeri 1982):
P
1 − ðw2xi þ w2yi Þ=6xy
kes ¼ ð10Þ
1 − ρcc
kv ¼ ð1 − s 0 =2xÞð1 − s 0 =2yÞ ð11Þ
where wxi and wyi = clear distances between adjacent longitudinal
bars along the horizontal x- and y-directions, respectively, in the
cross-section plane; lengths x and y = concrete core dimensions
to the centerline of the peripheral hoop reinforcement, as shown
in Fig. 15(b); s 0 = clear spacing between the steel hoops; and
ρcc = longitudinal steel reinforcement area divided by the area
of the inner concrete core, ρcc ¼ Ast =ðcx × cy Þ.
Combined Confinement Provided by CFRP and Internal
Steel Hoops
Based on a multiparameter regression analysis of the current exper-
imental results and those reported by Lam and Teng (2003), Wang
et al. (2012a), Abbasnia and Ziaadiny (2015), and Hany et al.
(2015), Eq. (12) was finally suggested to consider the lateral con-
fining stresses due to CFRP and steel hoops. It should be noted that
these data were only considered due to the unavailability of exper-
imental test results about rectangular RC columns of large size. The
expression is typical in form to the one proposed by Wang et al.
(2012b) with several modifications. The main similarity is that if
the lateral confining pressure induced by the CFRP material or
hoop reinforcement equals zero, the confined strength is equal
to 20% of the f co value. This result was reported by Park and
Paulay (1975) for the unconfined concrete at high strain as follows:

0.1
0.49
0.48
0.15 
2rc b flf f
fcc ¼ f co 0.2 þ 3.9 þ 0.39 ls
D h fco fco
ð12Þ
The performance of the above expression was evaluated against
225 data from the current experiments as well as those reported
in the studies listed in Table 6. The model was evaluated
using
P the average absolute error (AAE), which is defined as
½ ni¼1 jðmodi − expi Þ=expi j=N, in which (modi − expi ) is the dif-
ference between the value given by the model and that experimen-
tally obtained for specimen i, and N is the total number of test data.
The compiled experiments cover a wide range of test parameters.
Among these, the compressive strength of the unconfined concrete
ranged from 15.2 to 55.2 MPa, and the cross-sectional area ranged
from 100 to 1,600 cm2 . In addition, the tensile strength of the FRP
material ranged between 780 and 4,364 MPa, the modulus of elas-
ticity ranged between 60 and 373 GPa, and the thickness of single
FRP composite layer varied from 0.12 to 1.23 mm. The comparison
provided in Fig. 16 generally shows that the model can predict the
test results of fcc with a reasonable correlation.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 6. Summary of current and published experiments
Papers Confinement technique Square specimens Rectangular specimens Total number
Abbasnia et al. (2013) CFRP 6 6 12
Al-Salloum (2007) CFRP 8 — 8
Anselm (2005) Steel hoops/CFRP 6 7 13
Current work Steel hoops/CFRP — 24 24
Hantouch (2004) CFRP 6 6 12
Hany et al. (2015) CFRP 3 6 9
Ilki and Kumbasar (2003) CFRP 6 6 12
Rousakis et al. (2007) CFRP/GFRP 13 — 13
Shehata et al. (2002) CFRP 4 — 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tastani et al. (2006) Steel hoops/CFRP/GFRP 27 — 27

Toutanji et al. (2010) Steel hoops/CFRP 2 1 3
Wang et al. (2012a) Steel hoops/CFRP 30 — 30
Wang et al. (2016) CFRP 10 — 10
Wang and Wu (2008) CFRP 48 — 48

120 was more pronounced for the test specimens with the larger
Average Absolute Error = 10.9 %
aspect ratio.
3. An increase of the internal hoop steel reinforcement ratio or the
100
225 Test Results number of CFRP layers influences the shape of the envelope
Analytical, fcc (MPa)

stress-strain curve due to the increase in the values of axial stress

80
60
40
20
0 strain from material tests equaled 0.38 for columns of sectional
0 20 40 60 80
Experimental, fcc (MPa)
Fig. 16. Comparison of proposed model with results of tests summar-
ized in Table 6.
Conclusions
This paper has presented the results of an experimental study on the
axial behavior of CFRP-confined rectangular unreinforced and re-
inforced concrete columns of large size subjected to monotonic and
cyclic compression. The main parameters of the test program were
(1) size of cross section (200 × 300 mm, 200 × 400 mm) and as-
pect ratio (h=b ¼ 1.5, 2.0); (2) amount of internal hoop steel
reinforcement; (3) number of CFRP layers (n ¼ 2, 3, 4); and
(4) monotonic/cyclic loading. Based on the discussions and test
results provided in this paper, the following main conclusions
can be drawn.
1. For large-sized rectangular columns, the current tests confirm
that confinement provided by the CFRP wraps resulted in a sig-
nificant increase in axial strain but only a slight increase in
strength. In addition, the stress-strain test curves of monotoni-
cally loaded columns exhibited a softening second branch that is
followed by an almost flat or ascending third branch, depending
mainly on the CFRP confinement level.
2. The cross-sectional aspect ratio has a significant influence on
the shape of the second and third branches of the stress-strain
curve. The results of the tests have confirmed that specimens
with an aspect ratio of 1.5 reached higher strengths, while no
significant enhancement was observed for specimens with an
aspect ratio of 2.0. However, the deformability enhancement
and strain. The presence of the internal steel reinforcement also
influences the plastic strains and the shapes of the unloading and
reloading paths.
4. Based on the discussions of this paper, it was confirmed that the
hoop strains of the wraps at the corners are lower than those
recorded at the middle side regions. In addition, the confinement
effectiveness decreases as the sectional size increases. The aver-
age ratio of the corner strain at rupture of CFRP to the ultimate
100 120 size (200 × 300 mm) and 0.33 for columns of sectional
size (200 × 400 mm).
5. A model that can provide better predictions of the ultimate
strength is therefore proposed. The model considers the effects
of several test parameters, including cross-sectional size and as-
pect ratio, hoop steel reinforcement ratio, effective rupture strain
of CFRP, and corner radius. The accuracy of the model was
validated against the experimental results of 260 specimens
reported in several studies.
In this paper, the conclusions have been drawn based on limited
experimental tests. Further tests that may consider a wider range of
parameters (i.e., unconfined concrete strength, large section size,
confinement ratio, configuration of hoop reinforcement, etc.) on
FRP-confined RC structural columns subjected to both axial and
lateral seismic loads are most desirable.
Acknowledgments
This study is financially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51408153, 51478143, and
51278150); the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant
Nos. 2014M551252 and 2015T80354); and the Guangdong Pro-
vincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering,
Shenzhen University (GDDCE16-09).
References
Abbasnia, R., R. Ahmadi, and H. Ziaadiny. 2012. “Effect of confinement
level, aspect ratio and concrete strength on the cyclic stress-strain
behavior of FRP-confined concrete prisms.” Compos. Part B 43 (2):
825–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.11.008.

© ASCE 04018023-14 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023

 Abbasnia, R., F. Hosseinpour, M. Rostamian, and H. Ziaadiny. 2013.
“Cyclic and monotonic behavior of FRP confined concrete rectangular
prisms with different aspect ratios.” Constr. Build. Mater. 40: 118–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.10.008.
Abbasnia, R., and H. Ziaadiny. 2010. “Behavior of concrete prisms con-
fined with FRP composites under axial cyclic compression.” Eng.
Struct. 32 (3): 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.11
.011.
Abbasnia, R., and H. Ziaadiny. 2015. “Experimental investigation and
strength modeling of CFRP-confined concrete rectangular prisms under
axial monotonic compression.” Mater. Struct. 48 (1–2): 485–500.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0198-y.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2002. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. ACI 400.2R-02. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Al-Salloum, Y. A. 2007. “Influence of edge sharpness on the strength of
square concrete columns confined with FRP composite laminates.”
Compos. Part B 38 (5): 640–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2006.06.019.
Anselm, E. 2005. “Stress-strain behavior of rectangular concrete columns
confined with FRP sheets.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville.
Azizinamini, A., S. S. B. Kuska, P. Brungardt, and E. Hatfield. 1994. “Seis-
mic behavior of square high-strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J.
91 (3): 336–345.
Bai, Y. L., J. G. Dai, and J. G. Teng. 2014. “Cyclic compressive behavior of
concrete confined with large rupture strain FRP composites.” J. Com-
pos. Constr. 18 (1): 04013025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC
.1943-5614.0000386.
Barrington, J., D. Dickson, J. Bisby, and T. Stratford. 2011. “Strain devel-
opment and hoop strain efficiency in FRP confined square columns.”
ACI Spec. Publ. 1 (275): 147–166.
Bazant, Z. P. 1984. “Size effect in blunt fracture: Concrete, rock, metal.” J.
Eng. Mech. 110 (4): 518–535.
Bazant, Z. P. 1997. “Size effect in compression fracture: Splitting crack
band propagation.” J. Eng. Mech. 123 (42): 162–172.
Bazant, Z. P. 1999. “Size effect on structural strength: A review.” Arch.
Appl. Mech. 69 (9–10): 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s004190050252.
Coonan, R. M. 2016. “Experimental testing of realistically sized and loaded
FRP-confined prismatic reinforced concrete columns.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Bath.
Dalgic, K. D., M. Ispir, and A. Ilki. 2015. “Cyclic and monotonic compres-
sion behavior of CFRP-jacketed damaged noncircular concrete prisms.”
J. Compos. Constr. 20 (1): 04015040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000603.
Demir, C., K. Darilmaz, and A. Ilki. 2015. “Cyclic stress-strain relation-
ships of FRP confined concrete members.” Arabian J. Sci. Eng.
40 (2): 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1517-5.
El-Dash, K. M., and S. H. Ahmad. 1994. “A model for the stress-strain
relationship of rectangular confined normal and high strength concrete
columns.” Mater. Struct. 27 (10): 572–579. https://doi.org/10.1007
/BF02473125.
Hantouch, E. 2004. “Axial stress-strain behavior of FRP jacketed rectan-
gular concrete columns.” M.S. thesis, American Univ. of Beirut.
Hany, N. F., E. G. Hantouche, and M. H. Harajli. 2015. “Axial stress-strain
model of CFRP-confined concrete under monotonic and cyclic load-
ing.” J. Compos. Constr. 19 (6): 04015004. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000557.
Ilki, A., and N. Kumbasar. 2003. “Compressive behaviour of carbon fiber
composite jacketed concrete with circular and non-circular cross-
sections.” J. Earthquake Eng. 7 (3): 381–406. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460309350455.
Ilki, A., O. Peker, E. Karamuk, C. Demir, and N. Kumbasar. 2008. “FRP
retrofit of low and medium strength circular and rectangular reinforced
concrete columns.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2): 169–188. https://doi.org
/0.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:2(169).
Kim, J. K., S. T. Yi, C. K. Park, and S. H. Eo. 1999. “Size effect on com-
pressive strength of plain and spirally reinforced concrete cylinders.”
ACI Struct. J. 96 (1): 88–94.
© ASCE 04018023-15
J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023
Konstantinidis, D. K., A. Kappos, and B. A. Izzuddin. 2007. “Analytical
stress-strain model for high-strength concrete members under cyclic
loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (4): 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:4(484).
Kumutha, R., R. Vaidyanatha, and M. S. Palanichamy. 2007. “Behavior of
reinforced concrete rectangular columns strengthened using GFRP.”
Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (8): 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconcomp.2007.03.009.
Lam, L., and J. G. Teng. 2003. “Design-oriented stress-strain model for
FRP-confined concrete in rectangular columns.” J. Reinf. Plast. Com-
pos. 22 (13): 1149–1186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684403035429.
Lam, L., and J. G. Teng. 2009. “Stress-strain model for FRP-confined con-
crete under cyclic axial compression.” Eng. Struct. 31 (2): 308–321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.08.014.
Lam, L., J. G. Teng, C. H. Cheung, and Y. Xiao. 2006. “FRP-confined
concrete under axial cyclic compression.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
28 (10): 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.07.007.
Masia, M. J., T. N. Gale, and N. G. Shrive. 2004. “Size effects in axially
loaded square-section concrete prisms strengthened using carbon fiber
reinforced polymer wrapping.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31 (1): 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1139/l03-064.
Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2003. Open system
for earthquake engineering simulations user manual. Berkeley, CA:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California.
Ozbakkaloglu, T. 2013a. “Axial compressive behavior of square and
rectangular high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes.” J. Compos.
Constr. 17 (1): 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000321.
Ozbakkaloglu, T. 2013b. “Behavior of square and rectangular ultra
high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes under axial compression.”
Compos. Part B 54: 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb
.2013.05.007.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and E. Akin. 2012. “Behavior of FRP-confined normal-
and high-strength concrete under cyclic axial compression.” J. Compos.
Constr. 16 (4): 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000273.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and D. J. Oehlers. 2008. “Concrete-filled square and rec-
tangular FRP tubes under axial compression.” J. Compos. Constr.
12 (4): 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)
12:4(469).
Park, R., and T. Paulay. 1975. Reinforced concrete structures. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Pellegrino, C., and C. Modena. 2010. “Analytical model for FRP confine-
ment of concrete columns with and without internal steel reinforce-
ment.” J. Compos. Constr. 14 (6): 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000127.
Pessiki, S., K. A. Harries, J. T. Kestner, R. Sause, and J. M. Ricles. 2001.
“Axial behavior of reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP
jackets.” J. Compos. Constr. 5 (4): 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5:4(237).
Pham, T. M., and M. N. S. Hadi. 2014. “Stress prediction model for FRP
confined rectangular concrete columns with rounded corners.” J.
Compos. Constr. 18 (1): 04013019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC
.1943-5614.0000407.
Restrepol, J. I., and B. De Vino. 1996. “Enhancement of the axial load car-
rying capacity of reinforced concrete columns by means of fiberglass-
epoxy jackets.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite
Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-II), 547–690. Montréal,
QC, Canada.
Richart, F. E., A. Brandtzaeg, and R. L. Brown. 1929. The failure of plain
and spirally reinforced concrete in compression. Bulletin 190. Cham-
paign, IL: Univ. of IIIinois Engineering Experimental Station.
Rocca, S. 2007. “Experimental and analytical evaluation of FRP-confined
large size reinforced concrete columns.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Missouri-Rolla.
Rousakis, T. C., A. I. Karabinis, and P. D. Kiousis. 2007. “FRP-confined
concrete members: Axial compression experiments and plasticity mod-
elling.” Eng. Struct. 29 (7): 1343–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2006.08.006.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Shao, Y., Z. Zhu, and A. Mirmiran. 2006. “Cyclic modeling of FRP-
confined concrete with improved ductility.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
28 (10): 959–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.07.009.
Shehata, I. A. E. M., L. A. V. Carneiro, and L. C. D. Shehata. 2002.
“Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP sheets.”
Mater. Struct. 35 (1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482090.
Sheikh, S. A., and S. M. Uzumeri. 1982. “Analytical model for concrete
confinement in tied columns.” J. Struct. Div. 108 (12): 2703–2722.
Tanaka, H., Y. Sato, R. Park, and N. Kani. 1994. “High strength concrete
columns with longitudinal reinforcement of mixed steel grades.” ACI
Spec. Publ. 149: 391–412.
Tastani, S. P., S. J. Pantazopoulou, D. Zdoumba, V. Plakantaras, and E.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Akritidis. 2006. “Limitations of FRP jacketing in confining old-
type reinforced concrete members in axial compression.” J. Compos.
Constr. 10 (1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(2006)10:1(13).
Teng, J. G., and L. Lam. 2004. “Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced
polymer-confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (11): 1713–1723.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1713).
Toutanji, H., M. Han, J. Gilbert, and S. Matthys. 2010. “Behavior of large-
scale rectangular columns confined with FRP composites.” J. Compos.
Constr. 14 (1): 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000051.
Turgay, T., Z. Polat, H. O. Koksal, B. Doran, and C. Karakoc. 2010. “Com-
pressive behavior of large-scale square reinforced concrete columns
confined with carbon fiber reinforced polymer jackets.” Mater. Des.
31 (1): 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.008.
Valipour, H. R., and S. J. Foster. 2010. “Nonlinear static and cyclic analysis
of concrete-filled steel columns.” J. Const. Steel. Res. 66 (6): 793–802.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.12.011.
© ASCE 04018023-16
J. Compos. Constr., 2018, 22(4): 04018023
Wang, D. Y., Z. Y. Wang, S. T. Smith, and T. Yu. 2016. “Size effect on axial
stress-strain behavior of CFRP-confined square concrete columns.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 118: 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2016.04.158.
Wang, L. M., and Y. F. Wu. 2008. “Effect of corner radius on the perfor-
mance of CFRP-confined square concrete columns: Test.” Eng. Struct.
30 (2): 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.04.016.
Wang, Z. Y., D. Y. Wang, S. T. Smith, and D. G. Lu. 2012a. “CFRP-
confined square RC columns. I: Experimental investigation.” J. Com-
pos. Constr. 16 (2): 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000245.
Wang, Z. Y., D. Y. Wang, S. T. Smith, and D. G. Lu. 2012b. “CFRP-con-
fined square RC columns. II: Cyclic axial compression stress-strain
model.” J. Compos. Constr. 16 (2): 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000246.
Wang, Z. Y., D. Y. Wang, S. T. Smith, and D. G. Lu. 2012c. “Experimental
testing and analytical modelling of CFRP-confined large circular RC
columns subjected to cyclic axial compression.” Eng. Struct. 40:
64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.01.004.
Wu, G., Z. S. Wu, and Z. T. Lu. 2007. “Design-oriented stress-strain model
for concrete prisms confined with FRP composites.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 21 (5): 1107–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2005.12.014.
Wu, Y. F., and Y. Y. Wei. 2010. “Effect of cross-sectional aspect ratio on the
strength of CFRP-confined rectangular concrete columns.” Eng. Struct.
32 (1): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.012.
Yan, Z. H. 2005. “Shape modification of rectangular columns confined with
FRP composites.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Utah.
Zhou, H. 2010. “Experimental study on size effect on concrete strength.”
[in Chinese.] M.S. thesis, Dalian Univ. of Technology.
J. Compos. Constr.