Civil Engineering Department

Graduate Study
An-Najah National University

Advanced Reinforced Concrete

Assignment 1

Student Name: Ruba Sleet 12154800

Instructor Name: Mohammad Samaaneh
Problem 1:
Find typical stress-strain diagram for:
- UHPC
- FRCM-GFRP
- CFRP bars
- CFRP sheets
Talk about design methodology using the mentioned materials.

Problem 2:
Plot concrete stress-strain diagrams for concrete strength = 28 MPa using
unconfined and confined models.
Use two different models.
Problem 1:
UHPC
- From paper 1:

About ductility:

The compression constitutive behavior of UHPC materials vary from conventional and high
performance concretes. The material is assumed to have discrete steel fiber reinforcement capable
of bridging splitting cracks that develop during compression loading and provide a post-peak ductile
behavior.

Uniaxial Stress-Strain Trends in Compression:

The results show an initial linearly elastic behavior with stiffness equal to modulus of elasticity, Ec.
The stiffness begins to degrade as splitting cracks start to form resulting in a non-linear behavior
(Note: In a narrow region close to the peak strength) reaching the ultimate compressive strength of
the material f’c. As the material is strained beyond the strain at peak stress, ε’c, the fibers provide
confinement and improve the ductility of the compression response. For instance, the results of
Figure 3.1.1.1 show an average stress equal to 50% of the material ultimate capacity at post-peak
axial strain of 0.006.

Compressive strength gain with age was measured by Ahlborn et. al (2012) for non-thermally
treated specimens and specimens thermally-treated at various ages. Thermally-treated specimens
gained strength at the same rate as a non-thermally treated until the thermal treatment was applied
at which the compressive strength “locked-in” at 30 ksi. Non-thermally treated specimens continued
to gain strength beyond 28 days, eventually reaching 25 to 27 ksi. Graybeal (2005) conducted similar
tests and found that non-thermally treated specimens approached a strength of 22 ksi. The primary
difference was observed to be due to the time at which specimens were demolded. Graybeal
demolded specimens at 24 hours while Ahlborn et. al demolded specimens at 3 days.

Modulus of elasticity:
Ahlborn et. al (2011) found that regardless of curing regime or specimen age, UHPC consistently
achieved an ultimate modulus of elasticity of approximately 8,000 ksi (55 GPa) and a Poisson’s Ratio
of 0.21. Graybeal (FHWA-HRT-06-103) reported modulus of elasticity values between 6200 ksi (42.8
GPa) for untreated specimens and 7650 ksi (52.8 GPa) for steam treated values. Furthermore, the
following is recommended by FHWA for determining the modulus of elasticity, Ec, in lieu of test
results (FHWA-HRT-14-084).

𝐸𝑐 = 1500 √fc ′ for f’c in ksi

In Graybea’sl work, full compression stress-strain response was collected for each set of cylinders
under various curing regimes and at various ages (Figure 3.1.1.2.2.1). This data clearly shows the
change in the relationship between compressive strength and modulus of elasticity as curing time
proceeds.

Uniaxial Stress-Strain Trends in Tension:

Sample tensile uniaxial stress-strain behavior of UHPC in tension for UHPC containing 2%
fibers by volume are shown in Figure 3.1.2.1. The average trend is plotted as a thicker solid
line and a thin line for the individual results, calculated from ranges of axial stresses at one
value of axial strain. These tests were performed at the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) on a commercially available
UHPC and results can be found in Haber et al. (2018). The tests consisted of UHPC prisms,
having a square cross section of 2 in (51 mm) and a length of 17 in (432 mm), loaded in
tension at a constant displacement rate as described in Graybeal and Baby (2013). The
results show an initial linearly elastic behavior, with stiffness equal to the modulus of
elasticity, Ec. As the tensile strain increases, the behavior becomes non-linear until the first
discrete crack at which the material enters the multiple cracking phase. Discrete cracks start
to consecutively form and the strength is equal to or greater than the first cracking
strength. The multi-cracking phase ends with the localization of strains into a single crack at
which the material loses strength as strains increase.

Flexural Behavior:
Flexural strength is not a mechanical property commonly used in the design of structures
with UHPC. Only the tensile behavior as explained above is applicable.
In the flexural test, due to the disparity between the tensile and compressive response of
the UHPC mixtures, the behavior is dominated by the relatively weak tension response.
Cracking in tensile zone leads to loss of stiffness, however the fibers that intersect the
cracks pullout and stabilize the crack growth.

Therefore, in a flexural test the contribution of fibers to the resistance to crack propagation
is balanced against the superior performance of UHPC in compression. The net effect is that
the fibers intersecting the crack growth path provide bridging by forming a closing pressure
that resists crack opening and increase the material’s fracture toughness.
Flexural testing is the key experimental procedure to showcase the interaction between the
tensile and compressive behavior.
Figure 3.1.3. shows the flexural response of a UHPC plain specimen with a UHPC sample
containing 1% steel fibers by volume (Vf = 1% - red line). The unreinforced UHPC beam (Vf =
0% - blue line) behaves as a brittle material and the load-deflection response increases
linearly up to a load of about 4 kN (800 lbs), corresponding to an elastic equivalent flexural
stress of **** at a mid-span deflection of 0.1 mm (0.004 in). At this point, the failure is
imminent as a crack forms in a sample which propagates to the full depth of the specimen.
Due to the brittle response, the load carrying capacity is exhausted as a single crack
propagates without any resistance from the matrix. The flexural response of the beam
containing 1% fiber volume shows the significant ductility obtained with the fibers. This
ductility enhancement can be studied at various stages of load-deformation response, as
follows:
1) The crack initiation point in the fiber reinforced specimen is identified by the
nonlinearity in the ascending response and shown to be at higher loads as compared to the
plain unreinforced UHPC. This nonlinearity that takes place prior to reaching the maximum
load is quite distinct and corresponds to the stable growth of microcracks, which leads to
the accumulation of damage at the peak load.

2) The peak load for the fiber reinforced specimen (red line) is as high as 22% as compared
to the unreinforced control specimen (blue line).

3) The post-peak response is dominant in the fiber reinforced specimen and the sample is
able to carry a significant portion of the maximum load beyond the ultimate strength point.
- From paper 2:
As an advanced form of conventional concrete (normal concrete, high strength
concrete), UHPC has significantly enhanced properties. When fiber is added to its
composition, UHPC is referred to as UHPFRC (Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Concrete). The addition of fiber significantly increases the strength and durability of
UHPC. Besides the fact that it is considered to have a very high compressive strength,
which is ≥ 150 MPa, current research shows that UHPFRC is also believed to have a high
tensile strength, having a value that may reach 15 MPa. The high tensile strength in
UHPC/ UHPFRC is significant, as they have superior properties compared to
conventional concrete, and it also leads to higher ductility, leading to the possibility of
eliminating the need for reinforcement (i.e. bars, wire, mesh) with the consequent
flexibility in expanding the applications of UHPC to a wider range of structural shapes
and forms. The UHPFRC’s enhanced properties contribute to the total performance of
the structure, improve construction safety, offer a longer service life, and lower
maintenance costs.
Fiber in UHPFRC:
UHPC is brittle. Thus, to improve its ductility, as well as its tensile and flexural capacities,
a variety of types and amounts of fiber are added to its composition. Different types of
fiber can be used, e.g. steel fiber, plastic fiber, glass fiber, micro fiber.
 UHPFRC’s tensile strength values are generally higher than that of UHPC, due to the
addition of fiber to the UHPC. Unlike UHPC, which may suddenly fail after its first crack,
UHPFRC exhibits sustained tensile strength after the specimen reaches its first crack

- From paper 3:
UHPC exhibits an extremely high strength in compression, usually not less than 150
MPa. This property is one of the key design indices that influence the bearing capacity of
a concrete member; and so it is utilized as an advantage to design all UHPC members
with small dimensions. Studies have shown that the compressive strength of UHPC
specimens is enhanced by thermal curing. UHPC made using small size cube specimens
gives higher experimental compressive strength than bigger sizes and cylindrical ones.
UHPC behaves in a linear elastic manner up to about 80% of its compressive strength.
Concrete is generally believed to perform poorly in tension but UHPC’s strength in
tension is overwhelmingly high, usually not less than 7 MPa, when compared with
normal concrete. The tensile strength of UHPC is greatly enhanced by fiber presence
and described using its ductile behavior. UHPC specimen when subjected to uniaxial
tension test has four phases of response as shown in Figure 3B.
The strength of UHPC in flexure, provided mainly through steel fibers, is usually higher
than 40 MPa; and it is mainly influenced by fiber aspect ratio, fiber orientation and type
of aggregate.
UHPC’s Stress-Strain Relationship, Elastic Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio:
UHPC’s stress-strain relationship (shown in Fig. 4A and 4B) whether loaded in
compression or tension, depends on fiber presence and its orientation in the mix
composition. UHPC without fibers fails abruptly without prior signs with nearly linear
stress-strain diagram; but those with fibers have both elastic and strain hardening
phases with either a short or long descending curve after attaining its ultimate strength.
When UHPC contains high fiber quantity, its stress-strain curve usually has an inflection
point where the stress drops and rises again to its peak in a continuously repeated
pattern until the UHPC matrix-fiber bond is lost.
The modulus of elasticity of UHPC is usually in excess of 40 GPa, and it is influenced by
mixture design, type of aggregates and curing method. The poisson’s ratio of UHPC is in the
range of 0.19-0.24, and it is not affected by the curing method. Equations (13) and (14)
developed by Graybeal and Haber et al. can be respectively used to estimate the elastic
modulus and poisson’s ration of UHPC.

where, 𝐸𝑐 is the compressive elastic modulus, 𝑓𝑐 ′ is the compressive strength of UHPC, 𝑣 is

the poisson’s ratio, ɛ 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐,30 is the circumferential strain at 30% of peak load, ɛ𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐,10 is the
circumferential strain at 10% of peak load, ɛ𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙,30 is the axial strain at 30% of peak load,
ɛ𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙,10 is the axial strain at 10% of peak load.

- From paper 4:
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is an emerging class of fiber-reinforced
cementitious composites with superior durability and mechanical characteristics compared
to conventional concrete. Composed of a dense matrix with a discontinuous pore network
and reinforced with steel fibers, UHPC is characterized by a very low permeability, high
compressive strength, and tension ductility. A typical UHPC-class material has a compressive
strength greater than 21.7 ksi (150 MPa) and a ductile tensile behavior with a cracking
strength exceeding 1.0 ksi (6.9 MPa), sustained well into the post-cracking stress-strain
regime. Figure 1 shows the compressive and tensile stress-strain responses of UHPC
compared to that of conventional concrete. These enhanced mechanical properties make
UHPC exceptionally well suited for bridge applications. For prestressed girders, UHPC
permits the reduction in size of typical sections, allows bridge spans to extend longer
distances, and reduces the need of auxiliary steel reinforcement and shear stirrups. Such
advantages may reduce the structure dead load, eliminate the need for intermediate piers,
facilitate easier shipping and handling of precast elements, reduce construction time, and
reduce costs.
- Another source:
FRCM-GFRP
- From paper 1:
For all glass FRCM specimens, the bare fibers outside the composite bonded region were embedded
within an epoxy matrix to promote a uniform load distribution except for specimens
DS_G221S_330_60_1 and DS_G221S_450_60_1, which indeed exhibited failure of the bare fibers due to
the nonuniform distribution of the applied load. The load responses of specimens DS_G221S_330_60_2,
DS_G221S_330_60_3, and DS_G221S_450_60_2 are reported in Fig. 5a. Except for specimen
DS_G221S_450_60_3 that failed prematurely at a very low load level due to damage to the fibers during
specimen preparation, the remaining specimens with glass fibers failed due to fiber rupture inside the
cementitious matrix bonded area (Fig. 5b). The failure mode was similar to that observed for carbon
FRCM specimens and was characterized by slip of the fibers within the cementitious matrix. Fig. 5a
shows that the applied load increases linearly up to the onset of microdamage at the matrix-fiber
interface. After that the load response becomes nonlinear and attains the peak load P* when the
applied load attains a value close to the fiber strength. Observing the load responses (Fig. 5a) it is not
clear whether the debonding load, which corresponds to the debonding of the fiber from the matrix, is
attained or the fibers failed before the stress-transfer mechanism was fully established. The fiber failure
is characterized by the so-called telescopic behavior that, due to the different impregnation of the core
fiber filaments with respect to the external filaments, leads some filaments to fail before the others.
After P* the applied load decreased with increasing the global slip g until all filaments of the fiber
bundles failed. When all filaments failed, the friction between the debonded fibers and the surrounding
matrix is responsible for the residual applied load (Fig. 5a), which decreases as the global slip increases
and the contact area between fiber and matrix decreases (Fig. 5a).
 - From paper 2:
Three types of FRCM systems were considered, which are: Glass-FRCM, Carbon-FRCM, and PBO-FRCM.
To prepare the FRCM composite, the textile was embedded in its corresponding mortar in accordance
with the manufacturers’ recommendations. The amount of mixing water needed per 25 kg of mortar
was 5 liters for the Glass-FRCM and 7 liters for the Carbon- and PBO-FRCM systems. The mechanical
properties for each textile type as provided by the manufacturers are listed in Table 1, including the
textile area per unit width (𝐴𝑓), ultimate strain (𝜀𝑢), elastic modulus (𝐸), and tensile strength (𝜎𝑓𝑢), along
with the compressive strength of their associated mortars (𝑓𝑐).

Tensile characterization test results:

Figure 4 shows a representative stress–strain diagram for each FRCM system. In general, the stress–
strain diagram for a FRCM system is composed of two characteristic phases: (i) the prior-cracking stiff
section phase represented by a steep curve; followed by (ii) a reduced- slope curve indicating the
cracked section phase until failure. The initial stiffness of G-FRCM was observed to be lower than that of
PBO-FRCM and C-FRCM. This can be attributed to the lower elastic modulus of glass textile as compared
to that of PBO or carbon (Table 1).

Table 3 lists the mean ultimate strain (𝜀𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀,𝑢), tensile strength (𝜎𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀,𝑢), cracked tensile modulus of
elasticity (𝐸𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀), and failure mode for the FRCM coupons. To calculate 𝐸𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀, a segment was
considered between two data points at stress levels of 0.6 𝜎𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀,𝑢 and 0.9 𝜎𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀,𝑢 within the cracked-
section curve. The slope of the line connecting these two points represents the cracked modulus of
elasticity. The mean values of 𝐸𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀 for G-FRCM, PBO-FRCM, and C-FRCM are 60 GPa, 112 GPa, and 135
GPa, respectively.

The G-FRCM system exhibited a more brittle failure behavior than that observed for the C-FRCM and
PBO-FRCM counterparts. This can be evidenced by the harsh drop in the stress–strain diagram of G-
FRCM at failure (Figure 4). Such observation can be explained by the relatively lower tensile strength of
the glass textile compared to that of PBO or carbon (Table 1), which in turn results in the premature
rupture of the textile inside the G-FRCM coupons. On the other hand, the Carbon-FRCM and PBO-FRCM
systems generally showed a fabric-slippage type of failure. This explains the softening in the stress–
strain curve after exceeding 𝜎𝐹𝑅𝐶𝑀,𝑢.

All cracks were developed within the non-bonded area of the tensile coupons with no sign of slippage of
the epoxy-bonded metal plates. The carbon-FRCM and PBO-FRCM systems have generally shown a
higher number of cracks than that of the glass-FRCM counterpart. This can be probably attributed to the
lower loading capacity of the glass-FRCM coupon than that of the carbon-FRCM and PBO-FRCM
counterparts.

RC beam test results:

Table 4 presents a summary of the test
results for RC beam specimens. For each
specimen, the second and the third columns
of Table 4 list the ultimate load carrying
capacity (𝑃𝑢) and the gain in 𝑃𝑢 as compared
to that of the non-strengthened benchmark,
respectively. As for the deformational
characteristics, the deflection value (𝛿𝑢), the
𝛿𝑢⁄𝛿𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 ratio, and the flexural strain (𝜀𝑠)
measured at failure are listed in the fourth,
fifth, and sixth columns of Table 4,
respectively.
Load carrying capacity:
In general, the ultimate load carrying capacity for the
FRCM-strengthened beams was higher than that of
the benchmark specimen, demonstrating the
successful application of the FRCM strengthening
systems to enhance the structural capacity of shear-
critical RC beams. The average improvement of the
load carrying capacity after shear-strengthening was
86.2, 39.0, 46.6% for carbon, PBO, and glass FRCM
systems, respectively. Figures 5-(a), (b), and (c) show
the load–deflection diagrams for the beam
specimens strengthened with carbon-, PBO-, and
glass-FRCM systems, respectively. The carbon-FRCM
strengthening system generally showed better
improvement in 𝑃𝑢 than that of the PBO– and Glass-
FRCM systems. The RC beams with full-length
strengthening configuration exhibited significantly
higher enhancement in 𝑃𝑢 as compared to those
with the intermittent strengthening configuration.
This indicates the importance of the strengthening
material’s amount in the critical region. Furthermore,
it was observed that using carbon-FRCM
strengthening system was more effective in
increasing the load carrying capacity of RC beams as
compared to those with glass- and PBO-FRCM
strengthening systems.
 - From paper 3:
FRCM composites usually show bi- or tri-
linear behavior and their failure is
generally related to debonding or
delamination. The slope of the first line
of stress-strain curve depends mainly on
the properties of mineral matrix, the
third line is related to the fibers
properties only, while the second line
shows the moment of matrix cracking
and is an intermediate point of the
materials behavior. Depending on the
fibers used different material behaviors
and ultimate stresses are obtained as
shown in Fig. 2.

Such mechanical behavior of FRCM

composites leads to insufficient
utilisation of high-strength fibres. To
improve the performance of the fibres several ways of anchoring FRCM strengthening were proposed
for elements subjected to flexure and shear. The anchoring of the fibres allows the higher strains to be
obtained and hence improve the load bearing capacity of the composite. The research on the anchorage
of the composites on slab type RC elements under flexure is limited. There is no present research in this
field regarding FRCM composites, but the studies on the anchorage FRP strengthening of slab elements
show that the use of anchorage can delay the debonding of the composite. It leads to higher strength of
the RC slab and allows the element to gain much larger deformation.
The failure of the FRCM composites on slabs occurs due to slippage of the fibres in the matrix when one
layer of mesh is applied or due to delamination of whole composite when more layers of mesh are
applied. Similar results were obtained by the other researchers who have compared FRCM and FRP
strengthening of slab type elements. Despite the higher strengthening effect of the FRCM system, higher
deformations of the elements were observed at the same load level when compared to FRP
strengthening. The initial strength of the element, dependent on the reinforcement ratio, has an impact
on the strengthening effect. The more steel reinforcement is used in the element; the worse
strengthening effect is observed. Another interesting aspect of FRCM is connected with bi-directional
meshes that also work in transversal direction of one-way slab element. It might help in gaining more
load-bearing capacity and stiffness in strengthened RC slab. The present research results clearly show
that FRCM composites are a promising method of reinforced concrete elements strengthening. The
benefits of composite materials connected with high thermal resistance make it a very interesting
solution.
Load-deflection:
The load-bearing capacity increase finds its confirmation in the analysis of the load-deflection curves of
the element. Graphs obtained during the study are shown in Fig. 5. Reference element curve is marked
black, while the curves referring to two strengthened elements are marked in colour.

The behaviour of all the elements is almost identical before reaching the load level of reinforcing steel
yielding in reference element. FRCM strengthening does not show any noticeable effect in this range of
load forces in terms of load-deflection curves. After exceeding the load of around 140 kN the
unstrengthened element starts to deform rapidly, while the elements with FRCM composite attached
show stiffness even at higher loads. The slope of the curve in the last phase of the elements work is
more steep for the strengthened elements, what indicates the incorporation of external composite
stiffness to the stiffness of the whole element. The failure of FRCM strengthened elements occurs at
much smaller deflections of the slab (around 40 mm) compared to reference slab (around 55 mm). It
may suggest that with better anchorage or fabric adhesion the load-bearing capacity increase can be
even greater.

- From paper 4:
A decrease of the ultimate tensile strength σmax,y of about 8% and 25% was observed for AR glass yarns
exposed to saline (Yarn_S_40) and alkaline (Yarn_A_40) environments, respectively. The ultimate tensile
strain εu,y was also reduced, while the elastic modulus Ey remained almost unchanged. Glass yarns
exposed to freeze–thaw cycles (FT) showed a reduction in tensile strength of about 8%.
 - Another source:
Note that Glass FRCM has no ductility but has a large strength.

CFRP bars
- From paper 1:
The high cost of repairing reinforced or prestressed concrete structures due to steel corrosion has
driven engineers to look for solutions. Much research has been conducted over the last two
decades to evaluate the use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) in concrete structures. Structural
engineering researchers have been testing FRP to determine their usability instead of steel for
strengthening existing reinforced concrete structures, reinforcing new concrete members, and for
prestressed concrete applications. The high strength-to-weight ratio of FRP materials, especially
Carbon FRP (CFRP), and their non-corrosive nature are probably the most attractive features of
FRPs.

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strands or tendons are the most commonly used because
of their high strength and high axial modulus of elasticity compared with glass or Aramid FRPs.

What makes FRP attractive to structural engineers is its extremely high tensile strength, which is
about four times that of conventional steel reinforcement rebars. Furthermore, FRPs are
lightweight (about 20% that of steel), are made up of corrosion resistant material, are non-
magnetic, and are not sensitive to electricity. Compared to steel, FRP materials have higher
strength-to-weight ratio, higher stiffness-to-weight ratio, lower life cycle costs, but higher initial
costs. In terms of strength and modulus of elasticity, the stress-strain relationship for steel and
different type of FRPs are presented in Figure 1-1.

Despite all of the desired properties, FRP has some drawbacks. In general, the most common
drawback of FRP is that it is extremely weak in transverse direction. The transverse tensile strength
is as low as 2-4% of the longitudinal tensile strength, as shown in Table 1-1. Because FRP, unlike
steel, is anisotropic material, one of the obstacles of using FRP in civil engineering practice is
gripping this material, especially for prestressed concrete industry. In terms of flexural behavior of
structural components, the linear-elastic behavior of FRP materials until failure causes a lack of
ductility which leads to a non-preferred performance for concrete elements reinforced or
prestressed with FRP rods. Another disadvantage of FRP compared to steel is the very high initial
cost. Table 1-1, which is derived from Schmidt, Bennitz, Täljsten, Goltermann, and Pedersen, (2012),
summarizes the typical properties of the CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, and the prestressing steel (grade 270).
The linear elastic behavior of CFRP strands until failure creates a major concern for design engineers
in terms of safety. Since CFRP strands behaves linearly up to rupture, the prestressed beams using
CFRP strands are considered not ductile members compared to those prestressed with steel
strands.
The results from the four flexural tests showed that the main problem of CFRP strands, in addition to
their liner-elastic tensile behavior, was lack of adequate bonding between FRP and concrete. Poor
bonding resulted in early failure due to slippage between FRPs and concrete. As a result, a new
technique was developed in order to solve the bonding issues and improve the flexural response of
CFRP prestressed concrete beams. The new technique involved anchoring the CFRP strands at the
ends of the concrete beams using a new “steel tube” anchorage system. It was concluded that the new
technique solved the bond problem and improved the flexural capacity by about 46%.
A computer model was created to predict the behavior of prestressed beams pre-tensioned with
CFRP. The predicted behavior was compared to the experimental results. Finally, the experimental
results were compared to the behavior of prestressed concrete beams pre-tensioned with steel
strands as generated by the computer model. The CFRP beams showed higher strength but lower
ductility.

- From paper 2:
Reinforcing Bars and Spirals CFRP bars and newly
developed CFRP spirals were used to reinforce the
CFRP RC column specimens in the longitudinal and
transverse directions, respectively (Fig. 1). The CFRP
longitudinal bars and spirals were made of
continuous high-strength carbon fibers impregnated
with a thermosetting vinylester resin, additives, and
fillers. The CFRP reinforcement had a sand-coated
surface to enhance the bond performance between
the bars and the surrounding concrete. No. 5 CFRP
bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement for all
the CFRP RC columns; No. 3 CFRP spirals were used
as transverse reinforcement. The tensile properties
of the longitudinal CFRP bars were determined
according to ASTM D7205 (ASTM 2011). The mean
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of the
tested CFRP bars (No. 5) and CFRP spirals (No. 3)
were 1,680 and 1,562 MPa and 141 and 130 GPa,
respectively (Table 1). Two grade 60 steel bars were
used to reinforce the column specimens in the
second series. Deformed M15 steel bars (nominal
diameter of 16 mm) were used as longitudinal reinforcement, and No. 3 steel bars (nominal diameter of
9.5 mm) served as transverse spiral reinforcement. Table 1 summarizes the tensile properties of the
CFRP and steel reinforcement.
 - From paper 3:

Note that CFRP bars has no ductility compared to normal steel bars, but it has a large tensile
stress.
CFRP Sheets
- From source 1:
As we see, CFRP has higher strength, higher ductility and higher failure strain as number of
layers increase.
- From paper 1:
 - From paper 2:

Fig. 6 shows that all the columns specimens behaved similarly during the initial part of loading,
indicating that the passive confinement action due to the dual confinement (transverse steel
reinforcement and CFRP composite) does not play a role at this stage. Fig. 6 also indicates that, for both
pre-damaged and undamaged strengthened specimens, the stress-strain relationships change
significantly in a positive manner. As shown in this Figure, all CFRP strengthened specimens showed a
typical bilinear trend with a transition zone. Pre-damaged specimens, after being repaired and
strengthened with CFRP composite sheets, behaved in almost the same way as the strengthened
undamaged specimens. What is remarkable is that the predamaged concrete specimens, after being
repaired and strengthened, recovered their strength and ductility.
Problem 2:
Plot concrete stress-strain diagrams for concrete strength = 28 MPa using
unconfined and confined models.
Use two different models.

- From paper 1:
Concrete Model Proposed by Kent and Park Model (1971)
Kent and Park (1971) proposed a stress-strain equation for both unconfined and confined
concrete as shown in Fig. 5. In their model they generalized Hognestad’s (1951) equation to
more completely describe the post-peak stress-strain behavior.

In this model the ascending branch is represented by modifying the Hognestad second degree parabola
by replacing fc=fck and the part up to the peak of the curve (second degree parabola);

The post-peak branch was assumed to be a straight line whose slope was defined primarily as a function
of concrete strength;
where; 𝜎c =Concrete stress; b" = big size of the core concrete (area inside the stirrup), s = stirrup
spacing, ρs = stirrup percent density,

where a" = small size of the core concrete.

- From paper 2:
Concrete Model Proposed by Kent and Park Model (1971)
Kent and Park (1971) proposed a stress-strain equation for both unconfined and confined concrete. In
their model they generalized Hognestad’s (1951) equation to more completely describe the post-peak
stress-strain behavior. In this model the ascending branch is represented by modifying the Hognestad

second degree parabola by replacing by and by 0.002.

The post-peak branch was assumed to be a straight line whose slope was defined primarily as a function
of concrete strength.

in which
where = the strains corresponding to the stress equal to 50% of the maximum concrete strength
for unconfined concrete.

The Kent and Park model is represented in Figure 1a.

 - From paper 3:
Lam & Teng Model (2003)
Lam & Teng proposed a design-oriented model which describes the stress-strain relationship of FRP-
confined concrete. This model is only for uniformly confined concrete. The relationship is given by:

Where, fc & ԑc are the axial stress and the axial strain of confined concrete respectively, ԑt is the axial
strain at the transition point & E2 is the slope of the straight second portion.
The compressive strength of FRP-confined concrete f’cc is predicted using:

kԑ is the FRP efficiency factor and has a value of 0.586. Lam & Teng proposed that the ԑj should be taken
as the actual hoop rupture strain ԑh,rup measured in the FRP jacket and not the ultimate FRP tensile
strain ԑfrp as is assumed ideally. The ultimate concrete axial strain of uniformly confined concrete, ԑcu is
given by:

Here, the axial strain (ԑco) at the compressive strength of unconfined concrete is taken as 0.002.

- From paper 4:
Mander et al. (1988):
One of the most widely used models in analyzing reinforced concrete columns is Mander’s Model
(1988). The model is presented in Figure 2.3 for unconfined and confined concrete. fc-c relationship
and is expressed by Eq. 2.6
in which,

where is the modulus of elasticity of concrete; is a steel constant that accounts for the brittleness
of concrete; is the unconfined strain that can be approximated as being equal to 0.002; confined

concrete ultimate axial strain corresponding to ultimate compressive stress in confined concrete .
 - From paper 5:
Mander et al. (1988):

The longitudinal compressive stress fc is given by:

Where;
 - From another source:
Concrete Model Proposed by Kent and Park Model (1971)
Mander et al. (1988):
 - From paper 6:

The above hybrid approach for estimating confinement effectiveness is simple and conservative.
Combining Equations (10) to (17), the theoretical stress–strain curve of confined concrete in the column
core can be determined. Besides, the stress–strain relation for unconfined cover concrete can also be
determined by substituting f’1 =0 and ε0=0.002 into Equations (10) to (15). Mander, Priestley, and Park
(1988) suggested that Equations (10) to (15) can be used for unconfined cover concrete in the region of
εc < 2* ε0 =0.004. As shown in Figure 10, the falling branch in the region of εc > 0.004 is assumed to be a
straight line which reaches zero stress at the spalling strain.
The results:
The results and the plot of concrete stress-strain diagrams for
concrete strength = 28 MPa of two different unconfined and confined
models are in the Excel file.
References:
UHPC:
1- https://www.academia.edu/95164408/ACI_239C_Structural_Design_of_UHPC
2- https://www.academia.edu/100418023/Axial_tensile_strengths_of_UHPC_and_UHPFR
C
3- https://www.academia.edu/68985917/Classification_of_Ultra_high_Performance_Conc
rete_UHPC_
4- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336589390_The_Ultra_Girder_A_Design_Co
ncept_for_a_300-foot_Single_Span_Prestressed_UHPC_Bridge_Girder

FRCM-GFRP:
5- https://www.academia.edu/26094096/Experimental_Analysis_of_the_Bond_Behavior_
of_Glass_Carbon_and_Steel_FRCM_Composites
6- https://www.matec-
conferences.org/articles/matecconf/abs/2018/58/matecconf_iccrrr2018_09004/matecc
onf_iccrrr2018_09004.html
7- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336886231_Performance_of_GFRP_bar_anc
hored_PBO-FRCM_composite_on_one-way_RC_slabs_under_flexure
8- https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/9/1074

CFRP bars:
9- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309480044_BEHAVIOR_OF_PRESTRESSED_C
ONCRETE_BEAMS_WITH_CFRP_STRANDS/figures?lo=1
10- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306273063_Axial_Load-
Moment_Interaction_Diagram_of_Circular_Concrete_Columns_Reinforced_with_CFRP_
Bars_and_Spirals_Experimental_and_Theoretical_Investigations
11- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257933154_Modelling_of_flexural_behavio
ur_of_RC_beams_strengthened_with_NSM_CFRP_rods_including_serviceability

CFRP Sheets:
12- https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-accurate-stress-strain-model-for-FRP-
confined-on-Lim-Ozbakkaloglu/4dc261778ae29112f28926adcf5b1b42800cbe57
13- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268301210_CFRP-
confined_square_RC_columns_II_Cyclic_axial_compression_stress-strain_model
14- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320830562_Damage-based_stress-
strain_model_of_RC_cylinders_wrapped_with_CFRP_composites

Concrete models:
15- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276202656_MODELS_FOR_CONFINED_CON
CRETE_COLUMNS_WITH_FIBER_COMPOSITES
16- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45290048_Stress-
Strain_Model_of_Unconfined_and_Confined_Concrete_and_Stress-block_Parameters
17- https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/10784
18- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPaSqwdAhy4
19- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309179038_CIRCULAR_RC_COLUMNS_PART
IALLY_CONFINED_WITH_FRP
20- https://pdfcoffee.com/cumbia-theory-and-user-guide-3-pdf-free.html
21- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325835032_Behavior_and_modeling_of_hig
h-strength_concrete_tied_columns_under_axial_compression