Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Monotonic axial behavior and modelling of RC circular columns confined with

CFRP
Carlos Chastre ∗ , Manuel A.G. Silva
Department of Civil Engineering, FCT/UNIC, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

article info abstract

Article history: The retrofit of reinforced concrete columns with FRP jackets has received considerable attention in
Received 5 November 2008 recent years. The advantages of this technique compared to other similar techniques include the high
Received in revised form strength-weight and stiffness-weight ratios of FRP (Fibre Reinforced Plastics), the strength and ductility
4 March 2010
increase of RC columns confined with FRP jackets as well as the fact that FRP external shells prevent or
Accepted 1 April 2010
Available online 10 May 2010
mitigate environmental degradation of the concrete and consequent corrosion of the steel reinforcement.
Furthermore, this method also reduces the column transversal deformation and prevents the buckling of
Keywords:
longitudinal reinforcement.
CFRP Twenty five experimental tests were carried out on reinforced concrete columns confined with CFRP
FRP composites, and subjected to axial monotonic compression. In order to evaluate the influence of several
Reinforced concrete parameters on the mechanical behavior of the columns, the height of the columns was maintained,
RC columns while changing other parameters: the diameter of the columns, the type of material (plain or reinforced
Confinement concrete), the steel hoop spacing of the RC columns and the number of CFRP layers.
Retrofitting Predictive equations, based on the experimental analysis, are proposed to estimate the compressive
Strengthening strength of the confined concrete, the maximum axial load and the axial or the lateral failure strain of
Composite materials
circular RC columns jacketed with CFRP. A stress–strain model for CFRP confined concrete in compression,
Experimental tests
Numerical model which considers the effect of the CFRP and the transversal reinforcement on the confined compressive
strength of the column is also proposed. The curves, axial load versus axial or lateral strain of the RC
column, are simulated based on the stress–strain model and include the longitudinal reinforcement effect.
The results demonstrate that the model and the predictive equations represent very well the axial
compression behavior of RC circular columns confined with CFRP. The applicability of this model to a
large spectrum of RC column dimensions is its main advantage.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Core confinement of RC columns provided by transverse
reinforcement has been extensively studied and specified in Codes,
although some procedures are still under debate. It has been
indicated, for instance, that the response of cylinders subjected to
equivalent levels of pressure depends on how that lateral pressure
is transmitted, and not on its magnitude alone [1]. It is noted that
the stiffness of the FRP jackets is of great importance and has to be
accounted for in the modelling, so the common practice needs to be
revised [2]. It also raises questions on the applicability of Mander’s
et al. model [3] extension to FRP confinement.
The strengthening of existing RC columns using steel or FRP
jacketing is based on the well-established fact that the lateral con-
finement of concrete can substantially enhance its axial compres-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 21 2948580; fax: +351 21 2948398.
E-mail addresses: chastre@fct.unl.pt, chastre@gmail.com (C. Chastre).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.001
sive strength and ductility [3–5]. Since the pioneering experimen-
tal work [6], many studies have been conducted on compressive
strength and stress–strain behavior of FRP [6–38]. These stud-
ies have shown that FRP-confined concrete behaves differently
from steel-confined concrete [1,14,32–38], so design recommen-
dations for steel-confined concrete columns cannot be applied to
FRP-confined columns. Several models have been proposed to
estimate the confined compression strength and the correspond-
ing strain [1,13,16,17,25,28,29,31,32,39] and some of these mod-
els result from the adjustment to FRP of the reinforced concrete
model of Mander et al. [3]. Others, like Samaan et al. [1], assume
a stress–strain relationship of bi-linear type for the concrete con-
fined with FRP under monotonic actions, based on a versatile ex-
pression of four parameters (E1, E2, f 0, n) initially proposed by
Richard and Abbott [40] and with the different parameters cali-
brated according to the experimental results.
Toutanji [17] presented an incremental model. The author
considers that throughout the loading the lateral strain is equal
to the strain present in the FRP composite and at rupture the FRP
reaches its tensile strength. The stress–strain curve is composed
 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277
750 mm
Ø3//150 Ø3//100
150 mm 150 mm
6Ø6 6Ø6
Ø3//150 Ø3//100
Fig. 1. Reinforcement details.
of two branches. In the first branch, with slopes E1a or E1` , it is
assumed that the behavior is similar to the non-confined concrete
and in the second branch, with slopes E2a or E2` , it is assumed that
the composite is already stressed and its behavior is conditioned by
the FRP stiffness. The intersection point between the two branches
occurs for ε` = 0.2% and the second branch starts with the lateral
strain at 0.2%. The value of ε` is successively increased and the
values of fc and εc are calculated.
In the model proposed by Spoelstra and Monti [32] the
stress–strain curve is based on Popovic’s expressions [41]. For
the confined compression strength, fcc , the authors [32] propose
the use of Mander’s et al. expression [3] modified by Karbhari
and Gao [13]. Mander’s et al. model [3] represents correctly the
behavior of reinforced concrete confined with steel, except in
the first stage when the steel has an elastic behavior. However,
FRP’s linear behavior is elastic until rupture, which implies a
continuous increment of lateral pressure. Spoelstra and Monti [32]
adopted results from Pantazopoulou and Mills [42] and proposed
an iterative procedure to take the increase of confining action into
consideration.
Much of the available data have been obtained for specimens
with low values of the aspect ratio, λ = height/diameter, typically
λ = 2 [2], and small diameters that raise some doubts on the
generalisation of those results. Besides, well known shortcomings
of such scaling for compressive tests – based on which failure
modes are to be analysed – the relative stiffness of the outer
composite shell vs. concrete seems to be overestimated. The aspect
ratio for the tests reported in this paper is λ = 3–5 and the
proposed model to simulate the behavior of columns jacketed
with FRP composites is based on tests of CFRP reinforced concrete
columns with the diameter varying between 150 and 400 mm.
Some factors such as scale and shape effects, jacket stiffness,
jacket strain at rupture, existing steel reinforcement, concrete
2269
Ø3//50 Ø6//150
150 mm 250 mm
6Ø6 6Ø12
Ø3//50 Ø6//150
quality or creep effects and their influence on column behavior are
still being discussed. An objective of this paper is to contribute to
a better understanding of some of these aspects.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Description of test columns
In order to study the behavior of reinforced concrete columns
confined with FRP composites, an extensive research program was
developed at Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), which included
45 monotonic or cyclic tests on short columns (Ø0.15 m or Ø0.25 m
for 0.75 m of height) and 12 tests on circular columns (Ø0.25 m and
a headway of 1.5 m above the foundation of 1.2 m × 0.5 m × 0.6 m)
subjected to axial compression and to horizontal cyclic actions.
The experimental results of twenty five tests of this research
program will be presented in this paper. These tests were carried
out for monotonic axial compression concrete columns retrofitted
with CFRP composites. The column height of 750 mm was kept
constant while other parameters were altered in order to evaluate
their influence on the mechanical behavior: the relative change of
diameter, the type of material (plain or reinforced concrete), the
transversal reinforcement of concrete columns and the number of
CFRP layers. Table 2 presents the columns’ characteristics and the
main results of the experimental tests.
The details of the steel reinforcement are shown in Fig. 1.
Reinforcement of the columns with 150 mm diameter is composed
of 6Ø6 mm longitudinal steel, and Ø3 mm stirrups spaced at 5, 10 or
15 cm. Reinforced concrete columns with 250 mm diameter have
6Ø12 mm longitudinal steel, and Ø6 mm stirrups spaced at 15 cm.
The vertical reinforcement ratio is 1% for the columns with 150 mm
diameter and 1.4% for the other columns with 250 mm diameter.
2270 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277
H2
V1 V2
H1
150 mm
Fig. 2. Details of strain gauge position in columns with Ø150 mm or Ø250 mm.
Table 1
Material properties.
Material Type fc0 (MPa) fy (MPa)
1st series 38.0
Concrete – –
2nd series 35.2
Ø3 323
Steel Ø6 – 391
Ø12 458
A 0.167
CFRP – –
B 0.176
Two different CFRP materials were used: carbon fibers Replark
30 (type A) for the columns with 150 mm and carbon fibers MBrace
C1–30 (type B) for columns with 250 mm diameter. As proposed
by the manufacturers, carbon fibers Replark 30 were applied with
epotherm resin-L700S and carbon fibers MBrace C1–30 with resin
MBrace Saturate. For both materials, the overlap length of CFRP
wraps was half of the perimeter of the column.
2.2. Testing setup
Axial tests were conducted with a 5000 kN press at the Por-
tuguese National Laboratory of Civil Engineering (LNEC). A HBM
Centipede 100 (UPM100) Data Logger was used with software Cat-
man 4.0. Tests were displacement controlled at a speed of 10 µm/s
and continued beyond failure to record the stress–strain curves un-
til a force of solely 150 kN was attained.
Three vertical displacement transducers (TML-CDP100), as
well as several strain gauges (120 ), were placed around the
column as shown in Fig. 2 to measure the column’s vertical and
circumferential deformation.
2.3. Material characterization
Tests were made in accordance with standards (ASTM-39-
86 1993; ASTM-D 3039/D3039M 1995; NP-EN10002-1 1990).
The average cylindrical compressive strength at the time of the
concrete column tests, was fc0 = 38.0 MPa, for 150 mm diameter
columns (1st series) and fc0 = 35.2 MPa for 250 mm diameter
columns (2nd series). The yield strength of the steel reinforcing
bars was 323 MPa for Ø3, 391 MPa for Ø6 and 458 MPa for Ø12 [36].
Mechanical tests of the carbon fibers type A led to Ef = 226 GPa,
ffu = 3339 MPa and strain for the maximum force (εfu ) equal
to 1.44% for coupons with 2 plies of CFRP and ply thickness of
tply = 0.167 mm. Lab tests of carbon fibers type B led to Ef =
241 GPa, ffu = 3937 MPa and strain for the maximum force
(εfu ) equal to 1.54% for coupons with 2 plies of CFRP and tply =
0.176 mm [36].
Table 1 summarizes the results of material characterization.
H3
H1 H2
H1
250 mm 250 mm
tply (mm) Ef (GPa) ffu (MPa) εfu (%)
– – –
– – – –
226 3339 1.44
241 3937 1.54
3. Test results
The RC columns have confined concrete in the core region and
unconfined concrete in the cover region. During the compression
tests and after reaching the compressive strength of unconfined
concrete we have rupture of concrete in the cover region. After
that, depending on the level of confinement given by lateral steel,
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the column may
take place. In the RC columns confined with CFRP all concrete is
confined and the bars work together with the concrete until the
CFRP jacket fails. After the rupture of the column and depending
on the confinement given by the hoops, we can have residual
strength with buckling of the longitudinal bars taking place if that
confinement is not enough to prevent it.
Table 2 summarizes the results obtained in the monotonic axial
compression tests of the plain or reinforced concrete columns
jacketed with CFRP. It is shown that on the whole there is a
noticeable improvement of strength or ductility of the plain or
reinforced concrete columns associated with the confinement
provided by the CFRP.
Typical axial load vs. strain curves of specimens with 150 and
250 mm of diameter, as well as some photos with the general
aspect observed on columns after rupture are shown in Figs. 4 and
6. For each test performed, the same diagram contains two graphs,
one with the axial load vs. axial strain (εc ) and another with the
axial stress vs. lateral strain (ε` ).
Axial strain is obtained from displacement transducers, whereas
the lateral strain is measured from strain gauges placed at the spec-
imen’s periphery. The lateral strain indicated on diagrams (Figs. 3
and 5) corresponds to the average of the values obtained from the
set of the strain gauges placed at the mid-height of the specimen.
Fig. 3 shows the curves corresponding to the specimens
monotonically tested and confined with two layers of CFRP in plain
(C4) or reinforced concrete with steel hoop spacing of 0.15 m
(C15); 0.10 m (C10 and 11) or 0.05 m (C19). Fig. 4 shows the
aspect of the columns after rupture. By comparing the plain and
reinforced concrete specimens confined with CFRP, it is observed
that, independently of the confined compression strength, the
first branch of these curves coincides. Furthermore, the slope of
the second branch of the axial load–strain curves of the different
 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277 2271

Table 2
Tests summary of axial compression of columns.
Ø (mm) Specimens N o CFRP layers Steel reinforcement Maximum axial load (kN) εcc (%) ε`u (%)
C1 – – 406.6 0.14 –
C2 – – 427.3 – –
C3 – – 563.3 0.22 –
C4 2 – 1339.6 1.28 0.85
C5 2 – 1219.2 0.99 0.47
C6 2 – 1481.2 1.25 0.92
C28 3 – 1904.2 1.87 1.22
C7 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.10 455.6 0.20 –
150 C8 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.10 535.4 0.20 –
C9 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.10 426.5 0.23 –
C13 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.15 454.9 0.20 –
C14 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.15 524.2 0.17 –
C17 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.05 533.9 0.19 –
C18 – 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.05 576.4 0.22 –
C10 2 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.10 1485.7 1.31 0.90
C11 2 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.10 1375.8 1.18 0.67
C15 2 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.15 1480.9 1.50 0.99
C19 2 6Ø6 + Ø3//0.05 1492.3 1.35 0.16
C29 – – 1713.7 0.22 –
C33 2 – 3326.2 1.11 0.81
C30 – 6Ø12 + Ø6//0.15 1917.3 0.27 –
250 C41 1 6Ø12 + Ø6//0.15 2766.7 0.91 0.85
C34 2 6Ø12 + Ø6//0.15 3741.6 1.55 0.93
C43 3 6Ø12 + Ø6//0.15 3966.8 1.66 0.79
C44 4 6Ø12 + Ø6//0.15 4828.3 2.25 0.80

Fig. 3. Axial load vs. strain curves of plain or RC columns (C4, C10, C11, C15 and C19) confined with 2 CFRP layers and subjected to monotonic loadings.

specimens is the same and changes with the increment of the steel
transversal rate.
In terms of confined compression strength of the specimens
with 150 mm diameter with two layers of CFRP, the average value
in the reinforced concrete columns (C10, C11, C15 and C19) is
1458.7 kN and in the plain concrete columns (C4, C5 and C6) it is
1346.7 kN. This increase of 112 kN may be partially explained by
the effect of the longitudinal steel reinforcements (6Ø6) and the
transversal confinement by the steel stirrups (Ø3 mm spaced at 5,
10 or 15 cm). Considering that the longitudinal steel reinforcement
reaches the yielding stress (458 MPa) since the axial concrete strain
of the specimens is about 1.4%, this means an addition of strength
capacity in the specimen of 77.7 kN for which only the existing
longitudinal reinforcements (6Ø6) is responsible.
The influence of the number of CFRP layers on the behavior
of the 250 mm diameter reinforced concrete columns, keeping
constant the column diameter, the concrete quality, as well as the
longitudinal steel reinforcements (6Ø12) and the 6 mm diameter
steel hoop spacing (Ø6//0.15) was studied. Fig. 5 shows the axial
load vs. strain curve of the plain concrete specimen (C30) and the
curve of the plain concrete specimen confined with two layers
of CFRP (C33), the axial load vs. strain curves of the reinforced
concrete columns monotonically tested and confined with one
(C41), two (C34), three (C43) or four CFRP layers (C44) as well.
The axial load vs. strain curves remain bi-linear with a first branch
almost entirely coincident in every specimen and a second branch
on which the slope increases with the number of CFRP layers, both
for the axial load vs. axial or lateral strain curve. In Fig. 6 a general
aspect of the columns after rupture can be observed.
The axial load vs. strain curves for the columns confined with
2 CFRP layers are almost coincident. The main difference between
the plain and the reinforced concrete specimens is found in their
2272 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277

C4 C10 C11 C15 C19

Fig. 4. Rupture aspect of plain or RC columns (Ø150) confined with 2 CFRP layers.

Fig. 5. Axial load vs. strain curves of plain or RC columns (Ø250) subjected to monotonic loadings and confined with 1, 2, 3 or 4 CFRP layers.

C41 C34 C43 C44

Fig. 6. Rupture aspect of the reinforced RC (Ø250) confined with 1, 2, 3 or 4 CFRP layers.
 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277 2273

axial load and corresponding strain. The average lateral strain

at mid-height of the reinforced concrete columns confined with
CFRP ranges from 0.79% to 0.93%, whereas the axial strain varies
between 0.91% (in the column confined with one layer) to 2.25% (in
the column confined with four layers), corresponding to an average
increase of strain of 0.45% per layer of CFRP.
The axial load varies from 2766.7 kN for one layer of CFRP to
4828.3 kN for four layers of CFRP, corresponding to an average
increase per layer of CFRP, in the reinforced concrete specimens,
[43]
of about 687 kN. [24]

Comparing the columns strengthened with CFRP and (i) [44]

[43]
with steel reinforcement (C10, C11, C34) and (ii) without steel [20]
[44]
reinforcement (C4, C33) in Figs. 3 and 5, it is observed that the
presence of steel reinforcement provides an increase in the axial
load and in the corresponding axial strain of the column and
u
restricts the lateral expansion of the concrete. Consequently, there
D
is a decrease in the lateral strain of CFRP for the same level of axial
load if compared with a column jacketed with CFRP (without steel Fig. 7. Relationship between fcc , fD and f`u . Columns with D between 150 and
reinforcement). This means that the longitudinal and transversal 400 mm, confined with CFRP.
reinforcement influences the behavior of the column strengthened
with CFRP and cannot be neglected if the modelling of the columns or the axial load vs. strain curves simulating the behavior of the
is intended to be achieved. column confined with CFRP is necessary it can be obtained through
the numerical model proposed next.
4. Numerical model for RC columns confined with CFRP under A large number of the existing models was developed based on
monotonic compression tests of concrete cylinders of Ø150 with an aspect ratio of λ =
H /D = 2, jacketed in most cases without reinforcement. That
In this section two different approaches will be presented. The makes it difficult to compare those results with the present study.
first is related to predictive equations, based on the experimental The model described below also considers the results from CFRP
analysis and the second to the stress–strain model for confined retrofitted circular columns with 150 to 400 mm diameter and H /D
concrete in compression and the corresponding axial load vs. strain between 3 and 5.
of the RC column.
In the first approach, equations are submitted to predict the 4.1. Proposed predictive equations
compressive strength of the confined concrete (fcc ), the maximum
axial load in the column (Ncc ) and the corresponding axial strain The compressive strength of the confined concrete (fcc ) can be
(εcc ) and lateral strain (ε`u ) at rupture. In the second approach, the related to the compressive strength of the concrete column (fD ) and
confined concrete stress (fc ) vs. axial strain (εc ) and the confined the lateral confining pressure (f`u ) through:
concrete stress (fc ) vs. lateral strain (ε` ) curves of the model are
fcc = fD + k1 f`u (MPa). (1)
proposed as well as the axial load (Nc ) vs. axial strain (εc ) and axial
load (Nc ) vs. lateral strain (ε` ) curves, limited by the values of the Eq. (1) includes the contribution of the confinement given by
proposed predictive equations at rupture. the lateral reinforcement and by the FRP jacket, and considers
The numerical model proposed for the simulation of the superposed effects at rupture. This Eq. (1) was calibrated for CFRP
behavior of large-scale reinforced concrete columns jacketed (k1 = 5.29) through experimental tests (Fig. 7) presented in
with CFRP under monotonic compression was validated by the previous section and experimental data from other studies
experimental data shown in the previous section [43] and other [20,21,24,44].
experimental data from studies by other researchers [20,21,24,44]. The compressive strength of the concrete column (fD ) is given
The inclusion of other studies had as its main objective to include a by:
wider range of the following parameters: (i) aspect ratio: λ = H /D fD = α fc0 (MPa). (2)
(from 3 to 5); (ii) column diameter: D (from 150 to 400 mm) and
(iii) longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio: ρs = As /Ac (from 0% to Scale effects on the compressive strength obtained from column
1.4%). The model assumes that the entire section of the column is tests vs. the standard cylindrical compressive strength (fc0 ) [45]
under compression. are introduced by α :
For the modelling process it is necessary to know the basic data !
related to the column geometry and the materials characteristics. 1.5 + D
α= H
(3)
The diameter of the column (D) and its corresponding height 2
(H ) are necessary for the definition of the column geometry. The
compressive strength (fc0 ) and strain (εc0 ) of the plain concrete, where D and H are respectively the diameter and the height
the thickness of the CFRP (tply ), its Young modulus (Ef ) and failure of the column. The lateral confining pressure (f`u ) assuming the
strain (εfu ) are necessary for the definition of the concrete and FRP aforementioned superposed effects at rupture of the FRP jacket
characteristics. For the steel reinforcement the following values (fju ) and the steel hoops (fshu ) confinement is defined by:
are required: the steel cross section (As , Asw ), the Young modulus
f`u = fju + fshu (MPa) (4)
(Es ), the yielding strength (fy , fyw ), the hoop diameter (dw ) and the
spacing between hoops (s).
2t
The compressive strength of the confined concrete (fcc ), the fju = Ef ε`u (5)
axial (εcc ) or the lateral (ε`u ) failure strain and the maximum axial D
load in the column (Ncc ) are then evaluated through the proposed 2Asw
Eqs. (1), (8), (9) and (10). If the stress–strain curves (axial or lateral) fshu = fsw (6)
dw s
2274 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277

[43]
[24]
[44]
[43]
[20]
[44]

Fig. 9. Proposed model for monotonic actions.

u
4.2. Proposed stress–strain model for CFRP confined concrete in
D
compression
Fig. 8. Relationship between εcc /εc0 and fcc /fD . Columns with D between 150 and
400 mm, confined with CFRP. The model proposed for the CFRP confined concrete stress–
strain curve of circular sections subjected to monotonic axial
where t, is the thickness; Ef , the Young modulus and ε`u the lateral compression is based on the stress–strain law depicted in Fig. 9.
failure strain of the FRP jacket. Asw is the steel cross section of the For the monotonic actions, the stress–axial strain relationship
hoops, dw the steel hoop diameter and s the spacing between steel is of bi-linear type for the concrete confined with CFRP (Fig. 9) and
hoops. The tensile strength of the steel hoop (fsw ) depends on the is based on a versatile expression of four parameters (E1 , E2 , f0 , n)
lateral strain of the column (ε`u ) and the Young modulus (Es ) until initially proposed by Richard and Abbott [40]:
steel yielding:
(E1 − E2 ) εc
fc = h n i 1n + E2 εc ≤ fcc (13)

dw D
ε`u for ε`u < εy

Es ×
 (E1 −E2 )εc
1+

D dw f0
fsw = (7)
D
for ε`u ≥ εy . with the parameters calibrated according to available experimen-

fy

dw tal results:
The lateral failure strain (ε`u ) of the jacket is less than the failure  p
E1 = 3950 fD (a)
strain (εfu ) of the CFRP. Several authors such as Saaman et al. [1],



 s
Lam and Teng [30] and Matthys [20] confirm this experimental

f`u
evidence. Matthys et al. [21] propose a reduction factor, β = 0.6, E2 = 0.8Ecc (b) (14)
fD
to obtain the jacket lateral failure strain (ε`u ), a proposal coherent




f0 = fD + 1.28f`u . (c)

with results found in the present study:
ε`u = β × εfu = 0.6εfu . (8) Ecc can be estimated applying Eqs. (1) and (9) to the following
expression:
The axial strain in rupture (εcc ) is given by:
0.7 fcc
Ecc = (MPa). (15)

f`u
εcc = k2 εc0 (9) εcc
fD
The axial stress–lateral strain curve is also bi-linear:
where εc0 is adapted from Eurocode 2 [46]:
(E1` − E2` ) ε`
0.7 fc = h n` i n1 + E2` ε` ≤ fcc (16)
εc0 = (fc0 )0.31 . (10)

(E1` −E2` )ε` `
1000 1+ f0`

Eq. (9) was obtained for CFRP (k2 = 17.65) by regression

of experimental data (Fig. 8) of columns with the diameter (D)
between 150 and 400 mm, confined with CFRP.
The maximum axial load in the reinforced concrete column
(Ncc ) is obtained by:
Ncc = Ac fcc + As fs
where Ac and As are respectively the total area of the column
and the total longitudinal reinforcement of the cross section. The
compressive strength of the confined concrete (fcc ) is given by Eq.
(1) and the compressive strength of the steel (fs ) is defined by:
Es × εcc for εcc < εy

fs =
fy for εcc ≥ εy
where εcc is the axial strain in rupture of the column given by
Eq. (9), Es is the Young modulus, fy the yield stress and εy is the
corresponding strain of the longitudinal reinforcement.
with:
E

E1` = 1
 (a)
ν 1.16 −0.16 (17)
E2` = 510(f`u ) (fD )
 (b)
f0` = 1.25fD + 0.5f`u . (c)
(11)
In the axial stress–axial strain curve, the slope of the first
branch is considered identical to the one of the plain concrete,
as the FRP jacket has a passive behavior and is only activated for
a level of lateral deformation similar to the maximum stress of
the non-confined concrete. It is defined by Eq. (14)(a) as in [5],
with fD and E1 in MPa. The slope of the second branch, E2 (Eq.
(12)
(14)(b)), is experimentally calibrated (Fig. 10) in function of the
slope of the confinement of several columns of 150–400 mm
diameter, confined with CFRP. The calibration of curves through
the experimental tests (Fig. 11) made it possible to estimate the
stress value f0 (Eq. (14)(c)) and the parameter n = 2.
 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277 2275

[43]
[43]
[24]
[24]
[44]
[44]
[43]
[43]
[20]
[20] [44]
[44]

u
u
D
D

Fig. 13. Parameter f0` —experimental calibration with columns of 150–400 mm

Fig. 10. Parameter E2 —experimental calibration with columns of 150–400 mm
diameter, confined with CFRP.
diameter, confined with CFRP.

and is given by Eq. (17)(a). The parameter n` was assumed to be

n` = 2. The slope of second branch, E2` (Eq. (17)(b)) and the
parameter f0` (Eq. (17)(c)) were determined after experimental
calibration, as shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
The proposed procedure to model the stress–strain curve of the
confined concrete in compression is summarized as follows:
i. Fix the lateral failure strain (ε`u ), for example, using Eq. (8);
ii. Apply Eqs. (16), (17)(a), (b) and (c) in order to obtain the
stress–lateral strain curve. The compressive strength of the
confined concrete (fcc ) is obtained when the lateral strain (ε` )
[43]
[24]
reaches the lateral failure strain (ε`u );
[44] iii. Apply Eqs. (13), (14)(a), (b), (c) and (15) in order to obtain the
stress–axial strain curve. The axial failure strain (εcc ) occurs
[43]
[20]
[44]
when the stress (fc ) reaches the compressive strength of the
confined concrete (fcc ).
u To simulate the behavior of reinforced concrete columns with
D circular sections confined with CFRP composites and subjected to
monotonic axial compression equation (18) can be used:
Fig. 11. Parameter f0 —experimental calibration with columns of 150–400 mm
diameter, confined with CFRP. Nc = Ac fc + As fs (18)
where Nc is the axial load, Ac and As are respectively the total area
of the column and the total longitudinal reinforcement of the cross
section. The stress fc , is given by Eq. (13) or (16) and the steel stress,
[43]
[24] fs , is defined by:
[44]
[43]

E s × εc for εc < εy
[20]

[44]
fs = (19)
fy for εc ≥ εy
or
εy

 E s × ε` × ν
 for ε` <
fs ≈ ν (20)
εy
f y
 for ε` ≥
ν
where εc and ε` are, respectively, the axial and the lateral strain in
the column. Es is the Young modulus, fy is the steel yield stress and
εy is the corresponding strain of the longitudinal reinforcement.
u

D 4.3. Comparison of the model proposed with the experimental results

Fig. 12. Parameter E2` —experimental calibration with RC columns of 150–400 mm
confined with CFRP.
In the axial stress–lateral strain curve, the slope of the first
branch, E1` , is dependent on the concrete Poisson ratio (ν = 0.2)
In order to check the proposed model, four different 250 mm
diameter RC columns, confined with one to four CFRP layers were
tested. Fig. 14 shows (in bold) the axial load vs. strain curves of
four reinforced concrete columns tested with 250 mm diameter
and 750 mm height confined with one to four CFRP layers (C41,
2276 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277
Fig. 14. Comparison of the axial load vs. strain curves obtained from the proposed model with their corresponding experimental models.
C34, C43 and C44). The points that define the axial load vs. strain
curves, obtained through the proposed model, are also plotted.
The determination of ε`u is based on Eq. (8). The Young modulus
of CFRP (241 GPa) and the average compressive strength of the
unconfined concrete (35.2 MPa), were experimentally determined.
The design thickness of each FRP layer of the jacket is 0.176 mm.
The results from the proposed model follow very closely the
results experimentally obtained, in terms of the axial load vs. axial
or lateral strain curve and also on the estimation of the maximum
axial load or their corresponding axial or lateral strain of the CFRP
jacket.
5. Conclusions
Results of the experimental tests of columns subjected to mono-
tonic axial compression were presented. The columns (750 mm
height) were of plain or reinforced concrete, with different
transversal sections and steel hoop spacing. They had previously
been strengthened with an outer jacket of polymeric matrix rein-
forced with carbon fibers (CFRP) and tested under monotonic axial
compression. Some specimens were tested in an attempt to char-
acterize the behavior of the plain concrete and reinforced concrete
confined with FRP.
A numerical model was also proposed to simulate the behavior
of circular reinforced concrete columns strengthened with CFRP
composites.
Finally, a comparison between the results obtained experimen-
tally and the simulation made with the numerical model was es-
tablished.
5.1. Experimental tests
In general there is a considerable improvement in terms of
strength or ductility when the plain or reinforced concrete columns
are strengthened with a CFRP composite. The following conclu-
sions were drawn from the parameters studied:
i. Geometry of the column
It is known that the geometry of the section has a great in-
fluence on the behavior of columns strengthened with FRP [24].
The diameter of the column strongly influences the com-
pression strength of confined columns. For the same number
of CFRP layers, the increase of the column diameter implies a
lower confinement by the jacket. Thus, the models with larger
diameter show a significant reduction of compression strength
when compared with smaller ones.
ii. Effect of the longitudinal reinforcement
The existence of reinforcement bars on the columns in-
creased their strength capacity. The comparison between the
results obtained in the columns of 150 and 250 mm diameter
strengthened with CFRP confirms that it is possible to add the
strength effect of the reinforcement bars to the confined com-
pressive strength of the plain concrete column confined with
FRP.
iii. Confinement provided by the transverse steel hoops
The different steel hoop spacing 50, 100 and 150 mm on
the columns of 150 mm diameter influence the performance
of the stress–strain curve, not only on the columns with no
CFRP, but also on those strengthened with 2 layers of CFRP.
A shorter spacing of the steel hoops corresponds to a larger
translation to the top on the second branch of the stress–strain
curve. A softer descending branch on the stress–strain curve
of the non-strengthened reinforced concrete columns is shown
for the columns with less spaced steel hoops. Although the tests
were carried out only on columns with 150 mm diameter, it can
be inferred that a shorter spacing of the steel hoops contributes
to an improved behavior of the column strengthened with FRP.
iv. FRP type of confinement
The two different types of CFRP used reveal a good perfor-
mance.
v. Number of CFRP layers
On the columns with 250 mm diameter the first layer led to a
strength increment of 44% compared to the non-strengthened
model and the next layers led to an increment of 35% of the
strength capacity relative to that of the non-strengthened col-
umn for each layer of additional CFRP.
5.2. Numerical model
Predictive equations were proposed to estimate the compres-
sive strength of the confined concrete (fcc ), the axial strain (εcc ) and
the maximum axial load (Ncc ) in the reinforced concrete circular
columns jacketed with CFRP.
A model for CFRP confined concrete in compression is also pro-
posed, based on a stress–strain bi-linear curve of four parameters
(E1 , E2 , f0 , n), calibrated according to the experimental results. This
 C. Chastre, M.A.G. Silva / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2268–2277
model considers the effect of the CFRP and the transversal rein-
forcement on the lateral confining pressure of the column. The
curves axial load vs. axial or lateral strain of the RC column are
simulated based on the stress–strain model and include the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement effect.
The model proposed enables a new approach to the design of
reinforced concrete columns confined with CFRP composites under
axial compression. It takes into consideration both the effect of
the longitudinal and transversal reinforcement on the mechanical
behavior of the column. Another advantage is its applicability
to a large spectrum of RC column dimensions, as it has been
developed based on columns tested with aspect ratios from 3 to
5 and diameters varying from 150 to 400 mm.
This model represents very well the behavior observed
experimentally, both in terms of the performance of the axial load
vs. strain curves, as well as the estimation of the compressive
strength of the confined concrete or their corresponding axial or
lateral strain on the CFRP jacket.
References
[1] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Model of concrete confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng 1998;124(9):1025–31.
[2] Silva MAG, Rodrigues CC. Size and relative stiffness effects on compressive
failure of concrete columns wrapped with glass FRP. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;
18(3):334–42.
[3] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[4] Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under
combined compressive stresses. In: Engineering experiment station bulletin.
Univ. of Illinois; 1928.
[5] Ahmad SH, Shah SP. Stress–strain curves of concrete confined by spiral
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 1982;79(6):484–90.
[6] Fardis MN, Khalili H. FRP-encased concrete as structural material. Mag Concr
Res (Wexham Springs) 1982;34(121):191–202.
[7] Ahmad SH, Khaloo AR, Irshaid A. Behavior of concrete spirally confined by
fiberglass filaments. Mag Concr Res 1991;43(156):143–8.
[8] Demers KW. The strengthening of structural concrete with an aramid woven
fiber/epoxy resin composite. 1995.
[9] Harmon TG, Slattery KT. Advanced composite confinement of concrete.
In: Advanced composite materials in bridges and structures. Can. Soc. for C.
E.; 1992. p. 299–306.
[10] Howie I, Karbhari VM. Effect of materials architecture on strengthening
efficiency of composite wraps for deteriorating columns in the north-east.
In: Basham KD, editor. Infrastructure: new materials and methods of repair,
proc. 3rd materials engineering conf.. NY: Material Engineering Division,
ASCE; 1994. p. 199–206.
[11] Saadatmanesh H. Fiber composites for new and existing structures. ACI Struct
J 1994;91(3):346–54.
[12] Nanni A, Bradford NM. FRP jacketed concrete under uniaxial compression.
Constr Build Mater 1995;9(2):115–24.
[13] Karbhari VM, Gao Y. Composite jacketed concrete under uniaxial
compression—verification of simple design equations. J Mater Civ Eng
1997;9(4):185–93.
[14] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):583–90.
[15] Demers M, Neale KW. Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with fibre-
reinforced composite sheets—an experimental study. Can J Civ Eng 1999;
26(2):226–41.
[16] Saafi M, Toutanji H, Li Z. Behavior of concrete columns confined with fiber
reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Mater J 1999;96(4):500–9.
[17] Toutanji H. Stress–strain characteristics of concrete columns externally
confined with advanced fiber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96(3):
397–404.
2277
[18] Rochette P, Labossiere P. Axial testing of rectangular column models confined
with composites. J Compos Constr 2000;4(3):129–36.
[19] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber
composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12(2):139–46.
[20] Matthys S. Structural behavior and design of concrete members strengthened
with externally bonded FRP. In: Faculty of applied sciences. Ghent: Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, Ghent University; 2000. p. 345.
[21] Matthys S, Toutanji H, Taerwe L. Stress–strain behavior of large-scale circular
columns confined with FRP composites. J Struct Eng 2006;132(1):123–33.
[22] Chastre Rodrigues C, Silva MG. The behavior of GFRP reinforced concrete
columns under monotonic and cyclic axial compression. In: CCC2001,
composites in construction. Porto: A.A. Balkema; 2001.
[23] Chastre Rodrigues C, Silva MG. Experimental investigation of CFRP reinforced
concrete columns under uniaxial cyclic compression. In: FRPRCS-5, fibre-
reinforced plastics for reinforced concrete structures. Cambridge: Thomas
Telford; 2001.
[24] Paula RF, Silva MG. Sharp edge effects on FRP confinement of RC square
columns. In: ICCI 02—third international conference on composites in
infrastructure. 2002.
[25] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete
in rectangular columns. J Reinf Plast Compos 2003;22(13):1149–86.
[26] Lam L, Teng JG. Strength models for fiber-reinforced plastic-confined concrete.
J Struct Eng 2002;128(5):612–23.
[27] Fam A, Rizkalla S. Large scale testing and analysis of hybrid concrete/composite
tubes for circular beam–column applications. Constr Build Mater 2003;
17(6–7):507–16.
[28] Teng JG, et al. Theoretical model for fiber-reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. J Compos Constr 2007;11(2):201–10.
[29] Teng JG, Lam L. Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 2004;130(11):1713–23.
[30] Lam L, Teng JG. Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. J Compos Constr 2004;8(6):539–48.
[31] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[32] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. J Compos Constr 1999;
3(3):143–50.
[33] Wang Y-C, Hsu K. Design of FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns for
enhancing axial load carrying capacity. Compos Struct 2008;82(1):132–9.
[34] Alper I, et al. FRP retrofit of low and medium strength circular and rectangular
reinforced concrete columns. J Mater Civ Eng 2008;20(2):169–88.
[35] Yan Z, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Posttensioned FRP composite shells for
concrete confinement. J Compos Constr 2007;11(1):81–90.
[36] Chris PP, Zihan Y. Confinement model of concrete with externally bonded FRP
jackets or posttensioned FRP shells. J Struct Eng 2007;133(9):1288–96.
[37] Saenz N, Pantelides CP. Strain-based confinement model for FRP-confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 2007;133(6):825–33.
[38] Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI, Kiousis PD. FRP-confined concrete members: axial
compression experiments and plasticity modelling. Eng Struct 2007;29(7):
1343–53.
[39] Hosotani M, Kawashima K, Hoshikuma. Stress–strain model for confined
reinforced concrete in bridges piers. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):624–33.
[40] Richard RM, Abbott BJ. Versatile elastic–plastic stress–strain formula. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1975;101(4):511–5.
[41] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress–strain curve of
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3(5):583–99.
[42] Pantazopoulou SJ, Mills RH. Microstructural aspects of the mechanical
response of plain concrete. ACI Mater J 1995;92(M62):605–16.
[43] Chastre C. Comportamento às acções cíclicas de pilares de betão armado
reforçados com materiais compósitos. Ph.D. thesis. Lisbon: Faculdade de
Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa; 2005. p. 428.
[44] Braga A. Reforço de pilares de betão simples com mantas de CFRP—influência
do diâmetro do pilar, das características do betão existente e da quantidade
de fibras no efeito de confinamento. M.Sc. thesis. Lisbon: Instituto Superior
Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa; 2005.
[45] CS-11. Technical rep. no. 11—concrete core testing for strength. Concrete
Society; 1976.
[46] EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1–1: general
rules and rules for buildings. CEN. Editor. 2004.