longitudinal and transverse reinforcement (Mander et al., 1988a; Moehle & Cavanagh, 1985; B.

D. Scott et al., 1982; Sheikh & Uzumeri, 1980; Vallenas et al., 1977). Some of these tests
resulted in well-known analytical models to predict the stress-strain response of confined
concrete (Mander et al., 1988b; Sheikh & Uzumeri, 1982). These enlarged the already ample
library of confinement models described in (Sheikh, 1982), of which, the Kent and Park (1971)
and the Roy and Sozen (1965) models are two of the most reknown ones. Other popular models
among the engineering community comprise the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) model, as well as
the Paultre and Legeron (2008) model. More recently Moehle (2014) proposed a hybrid approach
that accounts for the formulations in (Mander et al., 1988b; Paultre & Legeron, 2008; Razvi &
Saatcioglu, 1999; Sheikh & Uzumeri, 1982) and is simpler to implement.

The Mander et al. (1988b) and the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) models are of interest
because have been specifically validated with rectangular cross sections. The Mander et al.
(1988b) analytical model is supported by the experimental work on thirty-one reinforced
concrete columns, of circular, square and recangular cross section contained in (Mander et al.,
1988a; B. D. Scott et al., 1982). The test decription of the rectangular walls is presented with
some detail in Section 1.2 of this document. The analytical model by Saatcioglu and Razvi
(1992) is based on the data collected in the experimental work of several researchers (Mander et
al., 1988a; Razvi & Saatcioglu, 1989; B. D. Scott et al., 1982; Sheikh & Uzumeri, 1980),
including eighty-five primatic specimens of rectangular, circular, and square cross sections. The
models propose expressions for the increase of the confined concrete strength f’cc as a function of
the confining pressure provided by the trasnverse reinforcement. Estimation of the confining
pressure accounts for differences in geometry and confinement characteristics in the two
orthogonal directions of rectangular sections. The expression proposed in (Saatcioglu & Razvi,
1992) is simple and has the form

f cc'  f c'  6.7 f le0.83 (4.1)

where f’c is the unconfined concrete strength and fle [MPa] is the equivalent uniform pressure,
which is a function of the transverse reinforcement ratio and the confinement steel strength. The
analogous expression for f’cc in (Mander et al., 1988b) also involves f’’c and a form of fle. Both
models account for arching action and confinement effectiveness by treating the confining
pressure as a three dimensional entity, highly effective near the ties or hoop legs and reduced

100