Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FRP-confined concrete members: Axial compression experiments and

plasticity modelling
Theodoros C. Rousakis a,∗ , Athanasios I. Karabinis a , Panos D. Kiousis b
a Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete, Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace (DUTh), 67100 Xanthi, Greece
b Division of Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, United States

Received 3 March 2006; received in revised form 3 July 2006; accepted 7 August 2006
Available online 9 October 2006

Abstract
The behaviour and modelling of circular sections confined by Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcement have been examined extensively
recently. This study concentrates on FRP confined specimens with square sections under axial loading. An experimental programme was designed
in which 101 prismatic concrete specimens of different strengths were tested. The specimens had dimensions of 200 × 200 × 320 mm. They
were externally confined by carbon or glass FRP sheets in different confinement volumetric ratios. Monotonic as well as cyclic axial compressive
loads were applied. The testing results indicate that square concrete sections, properly confined by FRP reinforcement, can achieve high levels of
strength and ductility. It was found that glass FRP is less effective in terms of strength and ductility enhancement when compared with carbon
FRP confinement of same axial rigidity for low volumetric ratios. A plasticity model capable of reproducing hardening–softening behaviour is
also presented here to predict the response of the FRP confined specimens. The model generates the stress–strain curves for axially loaded square
columns confined by FRP sheets or tubes. The predicted curves are compared successfully to the present as well as other published experimental
data.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Confinement; Fibre-reinforced polymers; Cyclic loading; Energy absorption; Modelling; Plasticity

1. Introduction Concrete structures designed to resist earthquake motions

Most existing structures have been designed based on older
seismic code provisions, before the limit design approach
was incorporated. In light of modern seismic design codes,
these structures are often characterized as inadequate or even
dangerous, especially in high seismicity regions where a
future major earthquake is more probable. Thus, the necessity
for reliable retrofit of insufficient existing structures arises.
Retrofitting strategies are often guided by the fact that
strength and ductility of structural elements are typically
improved with confinement. Earlier research, mostly on
circular concrete sections, has demonstrated the effectiveness
of FRP confinement in the form of tubes [1–3] or sheets
[4–10]. Design considerations for the use of externally bonded
reinforcement have been published recently [11,12]. However,
the experimental evidence for FRP confined rectangular
concrete sections is limited.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2541079645; fax: +30 2541079638.
E-mail address: trousak@civil.duth.gr (T.C. Rousakis).
inelastically require reasonably accurate prediction of the
strength and ductility of structural members. A number of
empirical or semi-empirical models proposed originally for
circular sections have been modified to account for the assumed
unconfined regions and applied to predict the stress–strain
behaviour of FRP confined rectangular sections. Most of these
models are based on steel confinement, using the approach of
Mander et al. [13] for ultimate strength surface of concrete
subjected to compression under constant confinement with
proper adjustments to overcome the initial hypothesis of
constant lateral pressure exerted on concrete [3,14,8]. The
approach proposed by Spoelstra and Monti [14] using Mander
et al. model, is adopted by the fib recommendations [11] while
ACI 440, [12] suggests similar approach using Mander et al.
model exclusively for ductility estimation of FRP confined
noncircular sections under compression. Other proposed
models have been calibrated using tests from circular FRP
confined sections [1,2,15] and then modified for use in
rectangular sections. However as was demonstrated by Teng

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.006
1344 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353

and Lam [16] the prediction of strength and ductility of most

Nomenclature existing models over circular sections can diverge significantly
from published experimental data, depending on their data
f co compressive strength of unconfined specimen
reference, their empirical nature and the use of iterative
f cc compressive maximum stress of specimen (con-
methods. In a comparative study of existing models by De
fined or not)
Lorenzis and Tepfers [17] the minimum average absolute error
f cu compressive ultimate stress of specimen (con-
in strength prediction over circular sections was higher than
fined or not)
f ju tensile stress at failure of FRP sheet 13.4% while in ductility prediction the error was higher than
σg ju tensile stress at failure of glass FRP sheet 35% for FRP wrapped concrete. Reliable prediction of the
σcju tensile stress at failure of carbon FRP sheet behaviour of upgraded structural members (as component parts
σsu tensile stress at failure of steel of a complex construction) requires modelling that is based on
f cy elastic limit of unconfined concrete strength sound fundamental constitutive material behaviour. A plasticity
εco axial strain at peak stress of unconfined specimen theory model has successfully simulated the behaviour of
f co confined concrete for a variety of arrangements of steel stirrups
εlo lateral strain at peak stress of unconfined placed in circular and rectangular concrete sections [18,19].
specimen f co Application of the same model [18,19] calibrated for FRP
εcc axial strain at maximum stress of specimen confined cylinders was also very successful [20]. Finite element
(confined or not) implementations of Drucker–Prager type plasticity models have
εcu ultimate axial strain of specimen (confined or not) shown limited success in capturing the dilatation properties
εlc lateral strain at maximum stress f cc of concrete or softening behaviour met in sections with low
εlu ultimate lateral strain confinement [21]. Finite element analysis has been performed
ε ju strain at failure of FRP sheet for the study of eccentric loading by Parvin and Wang [22].
ρj FRP reinforcement volumetric ratio Finally, a compression field modelling approach in finite
En absorbed energy until failure of specimens element analysis combined with plasticity-type material models
Eno absorbed energy of unconfined specimen was adopted by Montoya et al. [23].
σ stress tensor In this paper, the behaviour of square concrete elements
E elastic constitutive matrix confined by carbon or glass FRP sheets of different volumetric
εe strain tensor for elastic deformations ratios (ρ j ) is presented. The specimens were subjected to
εp strain tensor for plastic deformations monotonic as well as cyclic (load–unload) axial compressive
F loading function of plasticity theory loading to failure. The behaviour of square sections was
κ hardening function of plasticity theory modelled using an elastoplastic constitutive model for concrete,
G potential function of plasticity theory linear elasticity to failure for the FRP, and compatibility of
J2D second invariant of deviatoric stress deformations between the two materials. The elastoplastic
J1 first invariant of stress concrete model of Karabinis and Kiousis [19] for rectangular
Sr expression of Lode’s angle of plasticity theory steel confined concrete sections with improved dilatation
J3D third invariant of deviatoric stress parameters is used here. As will be shown in the following
θ frictional parameter of plasticity theory sections, the correlation of experimental results and model
R damage function of plasticity theory simulations is very satisfactory.
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
ν poison ratio 2. Experimental programme
ε̂ plastic strain trajectory
D elasto-plastic constitutive matrix
2.1. Materials properties
ϕ angle of internal friction
β material parameter that controls the shape of
A total of 101 prismatic specimens were constructed using
deviatoric trace
ready-mixed concrete in four concrete batches, labelled A,
α dilatation of concrete
B, C and D, designed to provide a gradual increase in
K1 initial plastic modulus of the unconfined com-
compressive strength f co . The concretes consisted of Portland
pression stress–strain curve
cement, natural coarse and fine aggregates, sand and pozzolith
K2 post-peak slope of the unconfined compression
admixture. These batches were designed to provide a range of
stress–strain curve
compressive strengths between 25 MPa and 40 MPa. However,
ε̂1 plastic strain trajectory value at the beginning of
the measured strengths were as follows: Batch A: f co = 33
decreasing concrete damage
ε̂2 plastic strain trajectory value at the end of MPa; Batch B: f co = 34 MPa; Batch C: f co = 38 MPa; and
decreasing concrete damage Batch D: f co = 40 MPa. Due to the limitations of the loading
χ1 damage rate parameter at ε̂1 machine, the specimens only had cross-sectional dimensions of
χ2 damage rate parameter at ε̂2 200 × 200 mm and a height of 320 mm. Despite the limited
height of the specimens there was no evidence of significant
boundary effects due to the additional confinement imposed
 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353
Table 1
Mechanical properties of FRP sheets (before resin impregnation)
Label Tensile modulus (GPa) Strain at failure ε ju (h)
c 240 15.5
g 65 28
Data given by the manufacturer (S&P – Sintecno [28]).
Fig. 1. Instrumentation of specimens.
by the steel loading platens at the sulphur capped concrete
bases. As shown by Rousakis and Tepfers [9,10] the use of
anti-friction devices such as Teflon sheets influences mostly the
behaviour of unconfined concrete of high strength – changing
also the mode of failure to more columnar – while in normal
strength concrete especially under confinement, the effects are
insignificant, even more so after extensive cracking of concrete,
compared to confinement provided by the FRP material. Also
results from plain cylinders with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm
height (length to diameter ratio equal to 2, generally accepted
as the limit ratio for insignificant scale effects) of the same
experimental programme are similar to that of prisms revealing
crush-like failure. No formation of main shear failure plain or
relative strength gain was evidenced, that could be attributed
to significant scale effects. The cross-sectional corners were
rounded with a corner radius of 30 mm (Fig. 1).
Nine specimens were unconfined and were used as
reference. The remaining specimens were confined by carbon
or glass FRP wraps of various thicknesses. The mechanical
properties of the composites used in this study are presented
in Table 1.
The application of the composite sheets required a coat of a
two-component epoxy resin (primer) on the concrete surface.
After curing of the primer, the composite sheets were glued
together using a two-component epoxy resin. Rounding of the
cross-section corners, with a radius more than 25 mm, was
required to prevent premature failure of FRP sheet [11].
2.2. Investigated characteristics of confinement
To study the behaviour of concrete subjected to triaxial
compression due to FRP confinement, the following parameters
were considered: (a) plain concrete strength from 33 MPa to 40
MPa, (b) axial stiffness and strength of the confinement, and (c)
mode of axial loading. A total of 92 confined and 9 unconfined
concrete specimens were tested to investigate the effect of the
variation of the above parameters.
The stiffness of the composite reinforcement varied by the
modulus of elasticity of the fibres as well as by the number
1345
Type Thickness (mm)
Unidirectional carbon S&P C-sheet 240 0.117
Unidirectional glass S&P G-sheetE 90/10 0.138
of layers of the jackets. The FRP volumetric ratios ρ j for the
carbon-confined specimens were 0.234% for 1 layer, 0.70% for
3 layers and 1.17% for 5 layers. For the specimens wrapped by
the unidirectional glass, the volumetric ratios were 0.83% for
3 layers, 1.66% for six layers, and 2.49% for nine layers. The
volumetric ratios were designed so that the confining pressure
at failure provided by carbon and glass jacket (calculated
assuming full FRP strength utilization) to be approximately
the same for the high levels of confinement. For example, five
layers of carbon sheet provide similar confinement at failure as
nine layers of glass sheet. Also, comparison among specimens
having the same rigidity of confining material is feasible
(e.g. one or three layers of carbon sheet have similar rigidity
as three or nine layers of glass sheet correspondingly). The
wide range of confinement volumetric ratios, including higher
values than usually applied on columns, was also designed
so as to provide data for a sound calibration of the model’s
material parameters and for rigidity variation. All specimens
were wrapped in a continuous manner perpendicular to their
axis with an overlap of 200 mm on the flat portions of the
specimens to avoid premature failure due to overlap debonding.
The sheets were cut to 300 mm width to leave a 10 mm gap
between steel bearing plates of the loading machine and the
sheet so as to prevent direct axial loading of the jacket.
The effect of the mode of loading was also examined,
as some specimens were loaded to failure by monotonic
compressive loads, while others were subjected to compression
cycles of load–unload–reload. At least two identical specimens
for each different characteristic were tested.
The physical characteristics and the loading response of the
specimens are presented in Table 2. The identification of each
specimen as presented in column (1) of Table 2 is decoded
as follows: concrete batch (A, B, C or D), FRP confining
material (c for carbon sheet, g for glass sheet), number of
sheet layers (L1 for one layer etc), mode of loading (M for
monotonic or C for cyclic loading) and finally number of
identical specimens (for three identical specimens (3) etc). For
example, specimens AcL5M (3) were made using concrete
batch A. They were wrapped by five layers of carbon FRP.
Three identical specimens of this type were made.
2.3. Instrumentation of the specimens and test setup
All specimens were kept in controlled temperature and
humidity conditions for more than 35 days until their testing.
After FRP wrapping, specimens’ bases were sulphur capped.
Monotonic axial compressive load was applied under a
displacement control mode with a constant rate of strain of
3 × 10−5 mm/mm/s. Axial and lateral strains on the concrete
surface were measured using linear variable displacement
 1346
Table 2
Configuration of specimens and experimental results
Specimen Maximum Ultimate Axial Ultimate Lateral Ultimate Absorbed Strain FRP Normalized Normal. Normal. Normal. Normal. Normal. Ultimate Normal.
(identical stress stress strain axial strain lateral energy at rein- maxi- ulti- axial ulti- lateral ulti- lateral absorbed
sp.) f cc f cu at strain at strain until failure force- mum mate strain mate strain mate strain energy E/E o
(MPa) (MPa) maxi- εcu maxi- εlu failure of FRP ment stress stress at axial at lateral nor-
mum (h) mum (h) of sheet ratio f cc / f co f cu / f co maxi- strain maxi- strain mal-
stress stress speci- ε ju (h) ρ j (%) mum εcu /εco mum εlu /εlo ized to
εcc εlc mens stress stress failure
(h) (h) En(MJ/m3 ) εcc /εco εlc /εlo strain
of FRP
sheet
εlu /ε ju
A (3) 33.04 – 1.71 – 1.04 – 0.040 – – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – – 1.00

T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353

AcL1M (3) 38.44 38.03 4.50 4.79 2.33 2.78 0.14 15.50 0.23 1.16 1.15 2.63 2.80 2.24 2.67 0.18 3.39
AcL1C (2) 38.78 37.81 3.58 4.69 2.78 3.97 0.11 15.50 0.23 1.17 1.14 2.09 2.74 2.67 3.82 0.26 2.70
AcL3M (3) 45.90 45.54 7.74 10.08 3.95 5.43 0.33 15.50 0.70 1.39 1.38 4.53 5.90 3.80 5.22 0.35 8.27
AcL3C (2) 42.36 41.36 5.11 6.69 6.26 6.26 0.10 15.50 0.70 1.28 1.25 2.99 2.99 6.02 6.02 0.40 2.53
AcL5M (3) 55.64 55.36 11.04 11.11 8.01 8.15 0.49 15.50 1.17 1.68 1.68 6.46 6.50 7.71 7.83 0.53 12.16
AcL5C (3) 59.45 59.22 16.61 16.80 6.18 6.28 0.77 15.50 1.17 1.80 1.79 9.71 9.83 5.95 6.04 0.40 19.21
AgL3M (3) 42.55 39.03 4.22 5.98 1.79 5.42 0.12 28.00 0.83 1.29 1.18 2.47 3.50 1.72 5.21 0.19 2.92
AgL3C (2) 41.82 40.09 3.06 4.24 1.25 2.46 0.11 28.00 0.83 1.27 1.21 1.79 2.48 1.20 2.36 0.09 2.63
AgL6M (3) 44.41 43.75 7.74 9.81 4.99 6.76 0.29 28.00 1.66 1.34 1.32 4.53 5.74 4.80 6.50 0.24 7.28
AgL6C (2) 47.27 46.12 10.45 12.37 7.39 8.28 0.49 28.00 1.66 1.43 1.40 7.23 6.11 7.11 7.96 0.26 12.16
AgL9M (3) 51.90 50.98 10.38 11.24 7.51 8.54 0.44 28.00 2.49 1.57 1.54 6.07 6.58 7.22 8.21 0.30 11.10
AgL9C (3) 55.49 55.38 16.07 16.07 10.00 10.22 0.76 28.00 2.49 1.68 1.68 9.40 9.40 9.62 9.83 0.37 18.93
B (2) 34.20 – 1.86 – 1.22 – 0.036 – – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – – 1.00
BcL1M (4) 42.19 40.05 2.86 4.04 1.70 3.06 0.14 15.50 0.23 1.23 1.17 1.54 2.17 1.39 2.51 0.20 3.81
BcL1C (6) 41.91 39.56 3.89 5.93 1.79 3.59 0.22 15.50 0.23 1.23 1.16 2.09 3.19 1.47 2.94 0.23 6.05
BcL3M (4) 45.21 45.20 8.80 9.59 5.22 5.70 0.36 15.50 0.70 1.32 1.32 4.73 5.16 4.28 4.67 0.37 10.09
BcL3C (7) 45.67 45.05 8.36 9.55 3.72 5.03 0.36 15.50 0.70 1.34 1.32 4.50 5.13 3.05 4.13 0.32 10.07
BcL5M (4) 54.57 54.57 14.04 14.04 6.36 6.36 0.67 15.50 1.17 1.60 1.60 7.55 7.55 5.21 5.21 0.41 18.52
BcL5C (7) 54.94 54.94 10.70 10.70 5.84 5.84 0.50 15.50 1.17 1.61 1.61 5.75 5.75 4.79 4.79 0.38 13.90
C (2) 37.97 – 2.24 – 1.36 – 0.085 – – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – – 1.00
CgL3Ma (4) 40.36 34.37 3.70 5.79 2.86 4.22 0.19 28.00 0.40 1.06 0.91 1.65 2.59 2.11 3.10 0.15 2.29
CgL3Ca (3) 39.06 34.00 4.29 5.45 2.79 3.85 0.20 28.00 0.40 1.03 0.90 1.92 2.43 2.05 2.83 0.14 2.39
CgL6M (2) 52.83 52.49 9.32 9.37 5.75 5.83 0.45 28.00 1.66 1.39 1.38 4.16 4.18 4.23 4.28 0.21 5.33
CgL6C (2) 52.41 48.43 3.13 8.30 1.75 12.51 0.46 28.00 1.66 1.38 1.28 1.40 3.70 1.29 9.20 0.45 5.45
CgL9M (2) 59.76 58.00 20.57 22.12 11.73 13.66 1.13 28.00 2.49 1.57 1.53 9.18 9.88 8.62 10.04 0.49 13.24
CgL9C (2) 60.16 60.16 13.12 13.12 8.37 8.37 0.68 28.00 2.49 1.58 1.58 5.86 5.86 6.15 6.15 0.30 7.99
D (2) 39.91 – 1.465 – 1.16 – 0.060 – – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – – 1.00
DgL3Ma (3) 43.14 40.74 2.22 3.13 1.19 2.91 0.10 28.00 0.40 1.08 1.02 1.52 2.14 1.03 2.51 0.10 1.72
DgL3Ca (3) 37.70 33.73 9.66 12.39 2.42 4.13 0.38 28.00 0.40 0.94 0.85 6.59 8.46 2.09 3.56 0.15 6.39
DgL6M (1) 54.17 53.06 4.42 8.15 2.37 6.905 0.440 28 1.66 1.36 1.33 3.02 5.56 2.04 5.95 0.25 7.33
DgL6C (2) 47.14 45.77 15.32 16.03 9.87 10.38 0.63 28.00 1.66 1.18 1.15 10.46 10.94 8.50 8.95 0.37 10.42
DgL9M (2) 59.50 55.13 12.97 16.72 4.65 11.60 0.98 28.00 2.49 1.49 1.38 8.85 11.41 4.01 10.00 0.41 16.33
DgL9C (2) 61.50 57.54 7.05 11.12 4.86 7.55 0.68 28.00 2.49 1.54 1.44 4.81 7.59 4.19 6.51 0.27 11.25
a Specimens confined by bidirectional glass sheet S&P G-Sheet E 50/50 with mechanical thickness in hoop direction half of that of unidirectional sheet.
 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353 1347

Fig. 2. Specimens AcL5M-3 and AgL9C-4 after failure.

transducers (LVDTs) as illustrated in Fig. 1. Axial LVDTs

were attached on two metallic hoops measuring at a distance
of about 200 mm on the specimens. Lateral deformations
measured by the LVDTs at the middle of the sides of the
specimen typically result in overestimations of the transverse
strain. As has been shown by Harries and Carey [24], the lateral
strain on the FRP jacket measured at the middle of the side
is about 4.5 times higher than the strain at the edges of the
section. A grid of strain gauges is necessary to account for the
variable strain behaviour of the jacket around the perimeter of
the section. Nevertheless, the LVDT measurement provides a
qualitative, albeit overestimated, measurement of the transverse Fig. 3. Stress–strain behaviour of specimens wrapped by (a) glass (90/10)
deformation of all specimens enabling a comparative study sheet; and (b) carbon sheet, subjected to monotonic load.
of concrete behaviour when confined with a varying jacket
volumetric ratio.
The cyclic (load–unload) testing was designed based on
the behaviour of monotonic loaded specimens. The first three
cycles were load controlled to 0.5 f co , 0.8 f co and f co (where
f co is the plain concrete strength of specimen). Past this
point, in anticipation of eventual softening specimen response,
displacement control loading was selected. The axial strain
was successively increased to {εco + 0.33(εcu − εco )}, {εco +
0.66(εcu − εco )} and finally to failure, where εco is the strain
of unconfined specimens at peak and εcu is the strain at failure
under confined monotonic loading.

3. Experimental results

3.1. Observed behaviour

At the early stages of loading of the confined specimens, the

noise related to the microcracking of concrete core was evident.
At the latter stages of loading, a ‘plastic-like’ sound was
produced by the stretching of the FRP sheets. Just before failure
of the specimens, the plastic sound was more intense. Typical
failure occurred by a sudden, ‘explosive’ and noisy tensile
fracture of the FRP sheet. The fracture of the sheet, regardless
of the fibre material, was initiated out of the overlap region at a Fig. 4. Stress–strain behaviour of specimens wrapped by (a) glass (90/10) and
corner, at mid-height of the specimen as is clearly demonstrated (b) carbon sheet, subjected to repeated load–unload cycles.
by the carbon (left) and glass (right) FRP wrapped specimens
in Fig. 2. sheets in different volumetric ratios are presented in Fig. 3(a)
and (b) respectively. The corresponding curves for cyclic tests
3.2. Stress–strain behaviour are presented in Fig. 4. The significant enhancement of strength
and ductility of FRP confined concrete is evident even for low
Typical monotonic stress–strain curves for selected speci- volumetric ratios of confinement irrespectively of the mode of
mens from concrete batch A, confined by glass and carbon loading.
1348 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353

The observed stress–strain response can be divided in

three distinct regions. At the early stages of loading, the
behaviour is similar to plain concrete. A transition zone
follows, where the cracked concrete core fully interacts with
the elastic FRP jacket. Finally, the resulting new system of the
cracked concrete core and the FRP material, which prevents
the unstable expansion of the concrete core results in a new
linear but more compliant response. The average results for
every group of identical specimens are presented in Table 2. As
expected, the axial strains at failure increased with increasing
confinement, and strain ductility ratios (εcu /εco ) as high as
11.41 were observed. At the lower levels of confinement, some
post-peak loss of strength or softening was also observed.
The characteristic stress–strain values at the peak stress are
defined as ( f cc , εcc , εlc ). Similarly, the ultimate or failure
values are defined as ( f cu , εcu , εlu ). The failure value, for
confined specimens with softening, was taken 0.85 f cc . In
Table 2, the average stress, strain and absorbed energy values
at failure normalized to the unconfined ones, are also presented
to quantify the confining effect.
Execution of load–unload cycles in specific load and strain
levels in each of the distinct response regions related to
the monotonic specimen’s behaviour, caused in general no
additional degradation of stress–strain behaviour. Specimens
subjected to cyclic loading presented strength levels with
remarkable agreement to monotonically loaded specimens.
From the comparative investigation of strength response it Fig. 5. Effect of confinement on (a) axial strength and (b) axial strain of
is concluded that elastic FRP is not affected by the cyclic concrete.
load–unload and biaxial effects due to transverse tension and
axial compression even in high axial load levels. Considering
comparative strain response, although there is a scatter in
results the achieved deformational levels are about the same
as in monotonically loaded specimens. FRP jackets with their
elastic response up to failure can effectively restore mechanical
properties of the disintegrated concrete core during unloading
and provide a behaviour similar to the specimens subjected to
monotonic load.
The effects of the concrete strength f co , the type of confining
material (c or g) and the FRP volumetric ratio on the peak
strength f cc , the ultimate strains εcu and εlu , and the absorbed
energy are illustrated in Fig. 5 through 7 in a more qualitative
way. The concretes are grouped in two main batches for Fig. 6. Effect of confinement and failure criterion. Lateral strain of
the elaboration as the resulting strength variation between A concrete/failure strain of jacket of all specimens vs normalized jacket confining
and B or C and D is marginal. Thus the batch A&B with pressure.
f co = 33.5 MPa and batch C&D with f co = 39 MPa were
accounted. The range of achieved concrete strength is narrow;
however, its effect is qualitatively presented on strength of of concrete strength increases (marginally) with increasing
confined specimens. Both monotonic and cyclic loading results fiber stiffness (carbon vs glass) and decreasing unconfined
are presented in these figures. Data fitting for each group of compressive strength f co . In terms of increased axial strain
specimens with the same characteristics is included to indicate ductility of concrete (Fig. 5(b)), both materials proved to be
the behaviour tendencies. It can be observed from these figures equally effective. Confinement effectiveness in terms of energy
that the influence of the ‘normalized’ theoretical FRP confining absorption also seems to be similar for carbon or glass confined
force, F j = ρ j f ju / f co , on any of the examined properties concrete (Fig. 7). The above remarks are valid irrespectively of
decreases with increasing concrete compressive strength f co . the mode of compressive loading.
Nevertheless, the influence of the FRPs was found to be Fig. 6 indicates that all specimens failed at lateral
beneficial on all specimens that were tested here. As seen in deformations that were only a fraction of the FRP failure strain.
Fig. 5, the confinement effectiveness in terms of enhancement This is a known issue with FRP confined structural elements
 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353
Fig. 7. Effect of confinement on energy absorbed by confined specimens.
Normalized absorbed energy of all specimens vs jacket confining pressure.
and has been addressed by fib 2001 [11] recommendations,
where further experimental evidence has been recommended.
Several studies have shown the effect of the curvature of the
jacket, the crack pattern of concrete as well as the anchoring
overlap configuration to the rapture strain of FRP jacket [24,
25]. In addition, increasing the number of layers typically
exacerbates sheet deficiencies. However, comparative results
show enhancement of FRP jacket deformability for additional
sheet layers as despite the intensification of several degrading
parameters, increasing jacket thickness, the stress concentration
effects caused by the shape of the section or the crack pattern
of concrete are significantly weakened. In this study, it is
qualitatively evidenced that the carbon-confined specimens
achieve higher FRP efficiency, i.e. a higher fraction of its
strain capacity. Similar patterns of behaviour are revealed for
specimens subjected to monotonic or cyclic mode of loading
while the cyclic mode of loading does not seem to affect the
deformational behaviour of the FRP jacket.
In Figs. 5–7, specimens having confinement of the same
rigidity, e.g. one or three layers of carbon sheet versus three or
nine layers of glass sheet, can be compared. Glass sheet with
its higher elongation at failure (2.8%) can provide confining
forces at higher levels of concrete deformation. It can be
noticed that glass confinement results in higher strength of
confined concrete than carbon sheet. Ductility levels are similar
when comparing specimens with one layer of carbon and three
layers of glass, while glass becomes more effective when
comparing specimens with three layers of carbon and nine
layers of glass. It seems that for low confinement levels, glass
sheets are strongly affected by material irregularities and stress
concentrations that prevent the development of a higher fraction
of FRP deformability.
Considering overall cyclic behaviour of FRP confined
specimens with square sections, no additional degradation takes
place from the load–unload–reload of concrete in each of the
three regions of response (before and after formation of severe
cracks in confined concrete core). FRP jacket behaviour is
not affected by load–unload–reload although prior extensive
cracking of concrete is expected to impose additional stress
concentration effects. Monotonic stress–strain behaviour can
serve as an envelope curve of cyclic loaded specimens as the
behaviour is similar.
1349
Fig. 8. Confined zones of rectangular jacketed sections.
4. Analysis of confinement
As was demonstrated in previous publications [18,19],
the behaviour of confined circular concrete sections can be
accurately estimated using a Drucker–Prager type constitutive
model. The Karabinis and Kiousis model was recently applied
to reproduce the stress–strain response of FRP confined
concrete circular sections where isotropic confinement is
assumed [20]. In this paper, the plasticity model that was
applied successfully on rectangular steel confined concrete
sections [19] is used as the theoretical basis to provide results
for FRP confined concrete. The parameters of the above model
have been calibrated to incorporate the dilatation characteristics
of FRP confined concrete.
4.1. Variation of confined zones in square sections
The stresses within the confined concrete structural members
may vary across the cross-section and along the height,
depending on the section shape and the arrangement of the
confining reinforcement. It is assumed that the variations along
the height of the members are negligible, given the uniformity
of confinement over their entire height. However, the transverse
stresses are expected to vary across the cross-section, as will be
explained here. The application of axial compression results in
tendencies of transverse deformations within the core. These
deformations are resisted by the FRP layers, which are thus
placed in tension and in turn apply compressive stresses to
the concrete core in the form of corner forces (depending on
the tensile modulus and thickness of FRP) with components
parallel to the concrete core sides (Fig. 8(b)). These forces place
the concrete core in non-uniform confinement. The confinement
in outer regions is one-way or uniaxial (regions 1 and 2 in
Fig. 8(b)). The confinement of the inner core is two-way or
biaxial (region 3 in Fig. 8(b)). A further simplification of this
arrangement is presented in Fig. 8(c), where the region shapes
become simpler with no loss of accuracy as the areas values
remain the same. Note that for square cross-sections, regions
1 and 2 are identical. Simple free body diagram equilibrium
allows the calculation of the average stresses within each region
as a function of the confining forces (Fig. 8(d)), leading to
conservative values for confining stresses. The compatibility
of deformations, the equilibrium of forces and the constituent
equations for each material are used to calculate the internal
stresses within the FRP and the concrete core through an
iterative procedure. Naturally, the inner region of concrete
(region 3 in Fig. 8(b)), with its uniform confining stresses,
carries higher axial stresses than the outer regions (Regions
1350 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353

1 and 2 in Fig. 8(b)) which have one-way confinement and

thus approach failure faster, given that the axial normal strains
are approximately uniform through the entire cross-section.
Consequently an expression accounting for the stress-path
dependence in each region is necessary into the initial loading
function used for circular FRP confined sections [20].

4.2. Concrete modelling

Concrete is modelled as a pressure sensitive elastoplastic

material. The theory of plasticity provides the mathematical
background and physical interpretation for the hardening
and softening behaviour of concrete under a triaxial state
of stress. Important features of the model include nonlinear
stress–strain relation with hardening followed by softening,
pressure sensitivity, path dependency and non-associative Fig. 9. Concrete loading/failure function on deviatoric plane.
flow rule for better description of the material dilatation
characteristics. Use of plasticity theory is enabled by the fact • pressure sensitivity through θ,
that no sudden degradation in confined concrete behaviour • softening behaviour through a damage function that depends
(drop of bearing load etc) was evidenced before the specimen’s on the level of lateral stress R(σ3 ) = eχσ3
failure that could insert significant local effects (local crushing • dilatation behaviour through parameter α defined as α =
p
dI p
at the corners of concrete or local cutting of fibres) in analysis. q1 , where, I1 is the first invariant of the plastic strain
p
So the concrete core under FRP confinement is considered d I2D
p
macroscopically a ‘homogeneous continuous material’ before of concrete; and I2D is the second invariant of the plastic
failure, concerning the overall stress–strain response. deviatoric strain of concrete.
For the elastic response of concrete a linear behaviour is More details about the expression and components of
assumed, following Hooke’s law: the strain hardening–softening function κ can be found
elsewhere [27].
σ = Eε e (1)
The non-associated flow rule that provides the plastic strains
where, σ is the stress tensor, E is the elastic constitutive matrix, in the inelastic region:
ε is the strain tensor and the superscript e indicates elastic
dG
deformations. dε p = dλ (4)
dσ
The inelastic behaviour of concrete is described mathemati-
cally through classical plasticity theory concepts using a load- uses a Drucker–Prager type potential function (G):
ing function F, a hardening function κ and a potential function p
G = J2D + α J1 /6 (5)
G. The plasticity approach is summarized by the following set
of equations: where α is the dilatation parameter of concrete.
The loading function F is expressed as: The consistency equation is used to ensure that the stress
p increments that cause plastic deformations remain on the
F = J2D 4 1 − β Sr + θ J1 − κ = 0
p
(2) subsequent loading (yield) surfaces. The expression is:
where, J2D = 1/6([σ1 − σ2 ]2 + [σ2 − σ3 ]2 + [σ3 − σ1 ]2 ) is the ∂ FT ∂F
second invariant of the deviatoric stress and J1 = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 dF = dσ + _ d ε_ = 0. (6)
∂σ ∂ε
is the first invariant of the stress; β is a material parameter
The incremental stress–strain relationship is given by:
that accounts for stress-path dependence and controls the shape
of the deviatoric trace (Fig. 9); Sr is an indirect expression of dσ = Ddε (7)
Lode’s angle:
where the elastoplastic constitutive matrix D is obtained
J3D by combining the flow rule, the elasticity relation and the
Sr = 3/2
(3) consistency equation:
J2D
E ∂G ∂F T
where J3D = 1/27(2σ1 − σ2 − σ3 )(2σ2 − σ3 − σ1 )(2σ3 − σ1 ∂σ ∂σ E
D=E− . (8)
− σ2 ) is the third invariant of the deviatoric stress; θ is a
q
∂ F T ∂G ∂F ∂G T ∂G
frictional parameter to express the pressure sensitivity of the ∂σ E ∂σ + ∂ ε_ ∂σ ∂σ
material; and κ is a strain hardening–softening function. The Integration of Eq. (7) provides the stress–strain relation
hardening–softening function pκ is expressed in terms of the for concrete under any arbitrary loading and imposed strain
T
plastic strain trajectory ε̂ = dε p dε p and includes: increment through an iterative procedure.
R
 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353
Table 3
Material parameters for concrete, related to f co
f co (MPa) E c (MPa) ν f cy (MPa) ϕ(◦ ) β α
33 33 500 0.15 8.5 48 2.3 1.15
38 33 500 0.15 9.0 48 2.3 1.11
40 33 500 0.15 9.0 48 2.3 1.08
Fig. 10. Mechanical behaviour of various confining materials.
4.3. Modelling of FRP confining reinforcement
For all practical applications of external FRP confinement,
the composite jacket is considered loaded exclusively by the
lateral expansion of concrete. Compatibility of deformations is
assumed between the transverse deformations of concrete and
the FRP reinforcement. The FRP jacket is assumed to deform
uniaxially in tension with a response that is linearly elastic to
failure (similar to (1)) while conventional steel reinforcement
provides a constant lateral pressure on concrete core after
yielding (Fig. 10). The flexural stiffness and axial compression
of the FRP jackets are considered negligible. The compressive
axial strain of concrete at failure is reached when the lateral
strain of concrete equals the effective strain at failure of the
FRP jacket. In this study the measured failure transverse strain
was a fraction of FRP strain capacity under direct tension and
depending on the FRP material and its volumetric ratio. More
research is necessary on the deformational behaviour of FRP
jacket and its effective strain at failure taking into account shape
effect, as current approaches even for circular sections lead to
unsafe predictions. However iterative step by step procedure
of proposed model through integration of abovementioned
relations for concrete and incorporation of FRP jacket axial
rigidity provides the stress–strain response (axial and lateral)
before failure.
4.4. Calibration of concrete parameters
The elastoplastic model for concrete has a total of
13 material parameters. However, as was demonstrated by
Karabinis and Kiousis [19] these parameters are uniquely
related to the unconfined compression strength of concrete
f co . Some recalibration of the damage and dilatation
parameters was necessary since the original calibration was
based on the constant confinement provided by yielded
steel reinforcement, and thus could not provide accurate
1351
K 1 (GPa) K 2 (MPa) χ1 (MPa−1 ) χ2 (MPa−1 ) ε̂1 ε̂2
200 7000 0.12 0.25 0.001 0.018
200 7000 0.11 0.20 0.001 0.025
200 7000 0.10 0.19 0.001 0.025
dilatation-elastic confinement interrelation. The concrete model
parameters are listed in Table 3. The elastic behaviour of
concrete is determined by the Modulus of Elasticity E c , the
poisson ratio ν, and the elastic limit stress f cy . Plasticity
parameters K 1 and K 2 are used to reproduce the plastic
behaviour of plain concrete while the angle of internal friction
φ controls its pressure sensitivity. The softening behaviour of
concrete is taken into account through parameters χ1 , χ2 for
corresponding plastic strain trajectories ε̂1 and ε̂2 . All above
plastic parameters as well as the dilatation parameter α of
concrete are incorporated in the hardening–softening function
κ, while α is incorporated in potential function G. Parameter
β enables the model to reproduce biaxial or triaxial confining
stress states of concrete.
5. Performance of proposed model
The plasticity model was evaluated against available
experimental results. These included, among others, the
confined square concrete specimens selected from the
experiments presented in this paper with glass or carbon FRP
sheet wrapping (see Table 2 for FRP mechanical properties).
Additionally, specimens from the experiments published by
Hosotani et al. [26] were included. These have dimensions
200 × 200 × 600 mm and are confined by normal E-modulus
carbon FRP sheets of 230 GPa and 1.336% confinement
volumetric ratio (layer thickness of 0.167 mm) and high
E-modulus carbon FRP sheets of 392 GPa and 1.352% (layer
thickness of 0.163 mm) respectively. Finally the model was
compared with specimens confined by carbon FRP sheets of
82.7 GPa E-modulus and 1.5% failure strain (layer thickness of
0.3 mm) from the experiments by Rochette and Labossiére [7].
Selected experiments included specimens with at least 3 the
ratio of length to side, while these results are considered
similar with the results of presented experimental program
taking into account variation in plain concrete strength and FRP
confinement (compared to Fig. 5). The analytical stress–strain
curve was terminated to the ultimate experimental axial strain
in lack of reliable relation for the estimation of strain at failure
of FRP jacket.
The predictions of the model by Karabinis and Kiousis are
compared to experimental data for concrete of 33 MPa strength
confined by one carbon sheet layer (specimen AcL1M-3)
as well as five carbon sheet layers (specimen AcL5M-3) as
shown in Fig. 11. They are also compared to experimental data
for confinement by nine layers of glass sheet for concrete of
33 MPa strength (specimen AgL9M-2, Fig. 11), as well as
concrete specimens of 38 MPa strength (specimens CgL6M-2
and CgL9M-2, Fig. 12) and 39.9 MPa (specimens DgL6M-1
and DgL9M-2, Fig. 13). In Fig. 14 the model by Karabinis
1352 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353
Fig. 11. Evaluation of proposed model against specimens AcL1M-3, AcL5M-3
and AgL9M-2 (present study).
Fig. 12. Evaluation of proposed model against specimens CgL6M-2 and
CgL9M-2 (present study).
and Kiousis is evaluated based on experimental data provided
by Hosotani et al. [26] for confinement by four layers of
carbon sheet, of normal and high E-modulus, for concrete
of 34.5 MPa strength (specimen S12 and H8 respectively)
with 1% longitudinal reinforcement (SD 295) and a corner
radius of 30 mm in the section. Moreover the analytical
curves for unconfined specimen N6 and for specimen H5
with light confinement volumetric ratio (0.169%) have been
constructed to show the performance of the model in accounting
for strain softening behaviour of plain or confined concrete.
Finally, in Fig. 15 the proposed model is compared to the
experiment by Rochette and Labossiére [7]. Note that the
specimens presented here have five layers of carbon FRP, with a
volumetric content ρ j = 3.79%. The proposed model presents
a reasonable agreement with the experimental stress–strain
curves. It can reproduce the hardening-softening behaviour
of square concrete sections confined by FRP, in which the
confinement effectiveness is reduced due to the shape effect.
6. Conclusions
The behaviour of concrete elements with square sections
confined by FRP sheets was examined through an experimental
investigation. Prismatic specimens of four different batches of
concrete were confined by carbon or glass FRP sheets in various
volumetric ratios. The specimens were subjected to monotonic
as well as cyclic axial compressive loads.
The following conclusions can be drawn concerning the
effects of plain concrete strength, confinement characteristics
and mode of loading:
Fig. 13. Evaluation of proposed model against specimens DgL6M-1 and
DgL9M-2 (present study).
Fig. 14. Evaluation of proposed model against specimens S12, H8, H5 and N6
([26]).
Fig. 15. Evaluation of proposed model against specimen S38-C5 ([7]).
• External FRP confinement can substantially increase
strength and ductility of axially loaded concrete even in low
confinement volumetric ratios. Confinement effectiveness
was lower for higher concrete strength and lower volumetric
ratio of reinforcement. Carbon confinement was more
effective than glass in terms of strength enhancement when
designed to provide the same ultimate confining force to
concrete. Increase of concrete ductility was similar for either
of the two confining materials. Comparing specimens with
glass and carbon sheet confinement with the same axial
rigidity, it seems that for low confinement levels, glass sheets
are strongly affected by material irregularities and stress
concentrations that prevent the development of a higher
fraction of FRP deformability.
• The measured failure transverse strain was a fraction of FRP
strain capacity under direct tension and depending on the
FRP material and its volumetric ratio. The strain capacity of
the FRP jacket was better utilized when the jacket was stiffer.
For carbon and glass confinement providing about the same
lateral force at failure, the stiffer carbon was better utilized.
 T.C. Rousakis et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1343–1353
• The energy absorbed by the confined concrete as well as FRP
jacket is a representative estimator of the effectiveness of the
confinement. Its variation between glass and carbon confined
specimens was fairly small.
• Repeated load–unload cycles of axial compressive load in
each of the three distinct regions of FRP confined concrete
response caused no appreciable decrease of strength,
ductility or energy absorption of concrete. FRP jackets with
their elastic response up to failure can effectively restore
mechanical properties of the disintegrated concrete core
during unloading and provide a behaviour similar to the
specimens subjected to monotonic load.
The unique characteristics of the behaviour of FRP-
confined concrete were modelled by a pressure sensitive, path
dependent plasticity model with hardening/softening response
and nonassociative flow rule. The analytical predictions were
compared to several experimental data. The model reproduced
the behaviour of tested specimens with reasonable accuracy.
The plasticity model used in this study can also be used in
finite element analysis of FRP confined sections or structural
members reproducing the dilation characteristics of concrete
and hardening–softening behaviour.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Sintecno
Hellas SA by providing composite materials and Skarlatos SA
by providing concrete.
References
[1] Samaan M, Mirmiram A, Shahawy M. Model of concrete confined by
fiber composites. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(9):
1025–31.
[2] Saafi M, Toutanji H, Li Z. Behaviour of concrete columns confined
with fiber reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Materials Journal 1999;96(4):
500–10.
[3] Fam A, Rizkalla S. Confinement model for axially loaded concrete
confined by circular fiber-reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Structural
Journal 2001;98(4):451–61.
[4] Karabinis AI, Rousakis TC. Carbon FRP confined concrete elements
under axial load. In: FRP composites in civil engineering conference.
2001. p. 309–16.
[5] Matthys S, Taerwe L, Audenaert K. Tests on axially loaded concrete
columns confined by fiber reinforced polymer sheet wrapping. In: 4th
International symposium on fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for
reinforced concrete structures. 1999. p. 217–28.
[6] Pessiki S, Harries KA, Kestner JT, Sause R, Ricles JM. Axial behaviour
of reinforced concrete columns confined with FRP jackets. ASCE Journal
of Composites for Construction 2001;5(4):237–45.
[7] Rochette P, Labossiére P. Axial testing of rectangular column
models confined with composites. ASCE Journal of Compososites for
Construction 2000;4(3):129–36.
[8] Wang YC, Restrepo JI. Investigation of concentrically loaded reinforced
concrete columns confined with glass fiber-reinforced polymer jackets.
ACI Structural Journal 2001;98(3):377–85.
1353
[9] Rousakis TC, Tepfers R. Experimental investigation of concrete cylinders
confined by carbon FRP sheets, under monotonic and cyclic axial
compressive load. In: XII mechanics of composite materials conference.
2002. p. 172–81.
[10] Rousakis TC, Tepfers R. High Strength concrete confined by high-
E-modulus carbon FRP sheets subjected to monotonic and cyclic
axial compressive load. In: Composites in construction, international
conference, University of Calabria; 2003.
[11] Federation international du beton. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement
for RC structures. fib Bulletin 14. Lausanne; 2001.
[12] ACI Committee 440.2R-02. Guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures.
Michigan; American Concrete Institute: 2002.
[13] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for
confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Division 1988;107(ST11):
2227–44.
[14] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. ASCE Journal of
Composites for Construction 1999;3(3):143–50.
[15] Campione G, Miraglia N. Strength and strain capacities of concrete
compression members reinforced with FRP. Cement & Concrete
Composites 2003;25:31–41.
[16] Teng JG, Lam L. Behaviour and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-
confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(11):
1713–23.
[17] De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R. Comparative study of models on confinement
of concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. ASCE
Journal of Composites for Construction 2003;7(3):219–34.
[18] Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD. Effects of confinement on concrete columns:
Plasticity approach. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1994;
120(9):2747–67.
[19] Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD. Strength and ductility of rectangular cConcrete
columns – A plasticity approach. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
1996;122(3):267–74.
[20] Karabinis AI, Rousakis TC. Concrete confined by FRP material: A
plasticity approach. Engineering Structures 2002;24:923–32.
[21] Mirmiran A, Zagers K, Yuan W. Nonlinear finite element modeling of
concrete confined by fiber composites. Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design 2000;35:79–96.
[22] Parvin A, Wang W. Behaviour of FRP jacketed concrete columns under
eccentric loading. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction 2001;
5(3):146–52.
[23] Montoya E, Vecchio FJ, Sheikh SA. Numerical evaluation of
the behaviour of steel- and FRP-confined concrete columns using
compression field modeling. Engineering Structures 2004;26(11):
1535–45.
[24] Harries KA, Carey A. Shape and ‘gap’ effects on the behaviour of variably
confined concrete. Cement and Concrete Research Journal 2003;33(6):
881–90.
[25] Lam L, Teng JG. Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction 2004;8(6):
539–48.
[26] Hosotani M, Kawashima K, Hoshikuma J. A study on confinement effect
of concrete cylinders by carbon fiber sheets. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, vol. 1. 1997. p.
209–16.
[27] Kiousis PD, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Theory of plasticity for
the modeling of rectangular FRP confined concrete columns. In: fib-
symposium concrete structures in seismic regions. 2003. p. 120.
[28] Scherer J. S&P – sintecno, FRP — polymer fibers in strengthening. User
guide. Brunnen; 1999.