Materials and Structures

DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0068-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Concrete columns confined with CFRP wraps

Valerio Alecci Silvia Briccoli Bati

Giovanna Ranocchiai

Received: 5 September 2012 / Accepted: 21 March 2013

 RILEM 2013

Abstract Today, there is an increasing use of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) composites in civil engi-
neering as reinforcement of existing structures. In
particular, FRP composites offer higher strength and
Youngs modulus than traditional steel devices, also
easy handling and installation, excellent resistance to
corrosion and they can be plastered after application.
When FRP wraps are used to confine compressed
pillars, the effective contribution of the composite
cannot be accurately evaluated because it begins to
work as the stress state of the member grows. In the
present paper, some theoretical relationships available
in literature and in current international design guide-
lines, regarding the evaluation of confinement effect
on wrapped concrete columns, are analyzed and
compared with experimental test results. Based on
these considerations, we propose a new formula that is
in good agreement with the experimental test results
that were produced for the purpose and reported both
in the present paper and in a previously published
research study. Although empiric, the proposed
formula is able to reproduce the structural response
V. Alecci
Dipartimento di Architettura, University of Florence,
Piazza Brunelleschi 6, 50121 Florence, Italy
S. Briccoli Bati  G. Ranocchiai (&)
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Abientale,
University of Florence, via Santa Marta 3,
50139 Florence, Italy
e-mail: giovanna.ranocchiai@unifi.it
of wrapped specimens and the failure mode as
observed in the experimental tests.
Keywords FRP  Confinement  Triaxial tests 
Concrete
1 Introduction
Columns and pillars compressed along their length
exhibit a transverse expansion. It is commonly known
that cracks along the direction of the compression
force develop in masonry like materials when the limit
value of the transverse strain is exceeded. In the past,
the use of reinforced concrete jackets or iron bands
around the member were the main repairing and
retrofitting techniques for masonry or concrete pillars;
iron hoops were applied still hot as to produce a pre-
stress state within the compressed member.
In the recent years FRP reinforcement techniques
have been used increasingly because of their high
performances in strength enhancement and in the
repair of concrete columns in both seismic and
corrosive environments. The FRP wrap generally is a
passive reinforcement for compressed members
because, with the current technologies, it is not easy
to pre-stress it, so it begins to work as the stress state
and the induced transverse strain grow. However, in
literature some interesting experimental investigations

exist on concrete elements confined by pre-stressed
FRP wraps [16, 31].
The evaluation of the effective contribution of an
FRP wrap and the estimate of the ultimate strength of
the structure was the subject matter of several
experimental researches on concrete specimens [5,
11, 13, 21, 22, 25, 33, 36, 3941, 46, 50, 51] and on
brick masonry specimens [1, 3, 7, 18]. Concerning
concrete members, some researchers focus their
attention on the influence of the number of layers on
the increase of strength [18, 21, 37] and on the
influence of environmental conditions on the perfor-
mance of a wrapped compressed element [12, 46];
others investigate the mechanical behavior of com-
posite systems with resins and fibers of different kinds
and the cost-efficiency of each individual system [52].
Dai et al. [8] studied the behavior of concrete elements
confined with FRP composites of large deformability
formed by fibers made from recycled materials. Wei
et al. [48] presented an experimental study on concrete
columns with partially deteriorated strength confined
with CFRP to evaluate the effect of a partial confine-
ment, only on the part of the member with locally
deteriorated strength. Other experimental researches,
carried out on members with circular, square and
square with round corners cross-sections, studied
problems concerning the efficacy of reinforcement in
some critical regions [4, 5, 29, 30].
In the last years, design guidelines about the use of
FRP composites to repair concrete members were
developed in many countries. Concerning the com-
pressed elements confinement, these guidelines only
partially exploit the theoretical knowledge available in
literature. Recently, Rocca et al. [28] presented a
comparative study regarding four design guidelines
for FRP confined members of both circular and
prismatic cross sections.
In the present paper, the results of simple compres-
sion and triaxial experimental tests carried out on
wrapped or unwrapped concrete cylinders are
reported. Small scale concrete specimens were real-
ized with a reduced amount of binder to produce low
strength members, in order to simulate columns
requiring a retrofitting intervention. Different amounts
of fiber were used aiming to observe the variation of
strength, ductility and failure mode of the specimens.
The research study reported in this paper prosecutes
a previously published study focused on FRP confined
masonry members [1].
Materials and Structures
This paper is organized in the following way: the
main contributions available in the literature regarding
the evaluation of the confinement effect on concrete
compressed members are presented; the results of
simple compression and triaxial tests carried out on
wrapped and unwrapped concrete specimens are
presented; the results obtained are compared with
those determined by applying relationships available
in the literature or proposed by official guidelines and
are discussed; finally, a new formulation is proposed
able to fit experimental test values and taking into
account the effective failure mode of concrete col-
umns introducing a ductility parameter.
2 The confinement effect on compressed concrete
members
The early relationships available in literature for the
calculation of the effect of confinement on the strength of
FRP reinforced compressed members express the strength
as the sum of the strength of the unconfined element plus a
quota that depends on the confinement capability of the
wrap. The expression still in use to predict the peak stress
of a concrete element confined with a steel spiral was
originally proposed by Richart et al. [27]. This formula
was derived to fit the experimental values of the strength
of concrete cylinders loaded axially while subjected to
confining lateral pressure [26]:
fcc fco k0 f 0 1
where fcc is the strength of the confined specimen; fco
is the compressive strength of the unconfined speci-
men; f0 is the effective lateral uniform confining
pressure; k0 is the confinement coefficient indicated
with 4.1 in the first expression by Richart et al. [27].
Usually, f0 is computed from the lateral pressure
f and from the effectiveness coefficient ke:
f 0 ke f 2
this represents the part of the compressed cross-
sectional region; it depends on the transverse and
longitudinal distribution of the reinforcement and on
the shape of the cross-section.
f is related to the FRP circumferential force by
means of the formula:
N f R 3
obtained by simple equilibrium relationships on a
circular confined cross-section where R is the radius
Materials and Structures

and N is the normal force along the FRP wrap specimens wrapped by FRP sheets or encased in FRP
direction. tubes is presented by Rousakis et al. [32].
Richart et al. [27] found that Eq. (1) applies Other formulations were proposed by Legeron and
generally to concrete pillars confined by steel spirals Paultre [20] and by Fahmy and Wu [14]. The former
which are in an axial tension and provide a continuous report the following formula:
confining pressure around the cylinder. In Richarts
formula f0 is not the confining pressure corresponding  0 23
fcc f
to the fiber strength, but the effective confining 1 2:6 6
fco fco
pressure at the moment of pillar collapse.
Other experimental investigations employed the Legeron and Paultre [20] specify that the f0 value
formulation proposed by Richart et al. to predict the has to be adopted equal to the ultimate fiber strength
FRP reinforced member strength, assigning to f0 the only when the ratio of the concrete strength to the fiber
meaning of the confinement pressure corresponding to strength is lower than a fixed limit value. The Italian
the ultimate strength of the fiber. Having assumed this Guide Instructions (Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche,
meaning, they demonstrated that a value of k0 equal to CNR-DT200 2004) [6] employ the formula (6) but
4.1 in Eq. (1) does not well reproduce the strength of assuming f0 is equal to the fiber ultimate strength.
FRP confined elements; for this reason a halved value Fahmy and Wu [14] proposed the following
of the k0 coefficient was proposed by Campione and formulas:
Miraglia [5]. Toutanji and Deng [46] obtained a value
fcc f 00:7
for the k0 coefficient as a function of the confinement 1 4:5 7
fco fco
pressure corresponding to the ultimate strength of the
fiber f0 and the unconfined concrete compression fcc f 00:7
1 3:5 8
strength fco as follows: fco fco
 0 0:15
f where the k0 coefficient assumes different values when
k0 3:5 4 the unconfined concrete compressive strength fco is
fco
higher than 40 MPa (Eq. 8) or not (Eq. 7).
Substituting Eq. (4) in Eq. (1), it can be written as
Mander et al. [23] reported a relationship able to
follows:
evaluate the compression strength fcc of reinforced
 0 0:85 concrete elements confined with an effective pressure
fcc f
1 3:5 5 obtained from steel spirals or circular hoops:
fco fco
s !
In the successive literature, various estimates for 7:94f 0 f0
the k0 coefficient were proposed, based on Eq. (4), fcc fco 1:254 2:254 1 2
fco fco
where 3.5 and -0.15 values are varied. More specif-
ically, Karbhari and Gao [16] substituted these values 9
respectively with 2.1 and -0.13; Saaman et al. [35] This formula, as reported by Rocca et al. [28], was
substituted them with 6.0 and -0.3, Saafi et al. [34] included in the American Concrete Institute Guide in
substituted them with 2.2 and -0.15. Other values are 2002 [2].
reported, for example, by Wu and Zhou [49]. Lam and At the same time, this formulation was revised by
Teng [19], proposed a k0 coefficient value equal to 3.3, Spoelstra and Monti [38], to consider the confinement
on the basis of a large database of tests on FRP- effect produced by FRP materials:
confined circular concrete cylinders. Two modified s!
and more accurate versions of this model are presented f0
by Teng et al. [45]. A critical comparative review of fcc fco 0:2 3 10
fco
existing models is illustrated by Teng and Lam [44]
and by De Lorenzis and Tepfers [9]. A recent In this form, the relationship was included in the
comparative study referred to 20 existing empirical Design Recommendations provided by fib (2001) [15]
models over an extended database of 471 cylindrical as a practical formula.

Recently, a new mathematical form for strength
modeling of compressed confined members was
employed by Wu and Zhou [49], based on the Hoek
Brown failure criterion. Hoek and Brown developed
this failure criterion in 1980 for hard rock materials as
a result of an experimental campaign carried out by
means of a Hoek cell. Successively, the criterion was
extended to damaged rock materials and to concrete
with existing cracks.
s undamaged:
  0
fcc f0 16:7 fco 0:42 f P0
0:42
 1 11
fco fco fco 16:7 fco
The formulations proposed by Legeron and Paultre
[20] and by Fahmy and Wu [14], follow a new approach,
different from the Richart classical approach, based on
the effective material properties of constituents.
Equation (11), unlike previous formulas, allows the
maximum strength of confined elements, adding a
term that depends on confinement pressure f0 , to a
constant quantity that represents the same confinement
pressure rather than the unconfined specimen strength.
2.1 Stress state in the wrapped cylinder
In order to expound the physical meaning of these
formulas, let us assume a cylindrical reference system
for the description of the strain field inside the concrete
elements: axis z is taken along the main cylinder
dimension and r and h represent polar coordinates on a
transverse cross-sectional plane. The strain field on
axially loaded wrapped cylinders may be represented
by means of the following expressions:
(
ez Erctz  rmE
r rh
ct
2f
 EctPR2 p mE ct
er eh Erctr  rmE
z rh
 Efct mEctPR2 p mEf ct
ct
where P is the axial load; f is the lateral pressure
produced by the confining wrap; Ect is the Youngs
modulus of inner concrete; m = 1/m where m is the
Poissons ratio of concrete, R is the cylinder radius. On
the other hand, the strain field inside the FRP wrap,
considering Eq. (3), can be written as:
fR
eh
sEf
where s is the nominal fiber thickness and Ef is the
fiber Youngs modulus.
Materials and Structures
We can assume that strain corresponding to failure
for concrete is smaller than strain corresponding to
failure for carbon fiber:
ect \ef 14
where ect and ef are respectively the maximum strain of
the concrete and of the fiber. Based on a limit
condition where we reach the maximum positive
strain in concrete when the FRP wrap is still
eh er ect 15
mEct R2 p
where P0 is the maximum axial load of the unconfined
compression test; due to compatibility of strains, the
lateral pressure corresponding to the fracture of the
inner core can be computed as follows:
P0 fR
16
mEct R2 p sEf
The value of lateral strain that leads concrete to
fracture (and is expressed by (15)) is produced in the
wrapped cylinder by the super positioning of axial
stress state and circumferential lateral pressure, so,
equating the second of Eq. (12) to the left term of Eq.
(16), it follows:
P0 P f f
2
2
 17
mEct R p mEct R p Ect mEct
that is simplified as:
P P0 f m  1R2 p 18
where f is obtained by Eq. (16):
f
P0 sEf
19
mEct R3 p
12 Equation (18) is formally equal to Eq. (1); f does not
represent the confinement value corresponding to the
maximum fiber strength but the confinement pressure
produced by FRP reinforcement when the inner core
fractures.
Obviously, the hypothesis of linear elastic behav-
iour for concrete is an approximation.
A second limit condition can be assumed supposing
that, successively, concrete reduces to a disintegrated
13 granular mass confined by FRP wrap. In this case, we
neglect the residual strength of fractured material
within the wrapped cylinder, and suppose that the FRP
wrap fails when a hydrostatic or volumetric stress state
Materials and Structures
occurs in the column; in this case, the axial stress is
equal to the confinement pressure:
P
f 20 demand of codes; this is the case when concrete was not
A well manufactured or when codes have been modified
The maximum load of the column is reached when
the radial stress of the reinforcement reaches the
maximum value:
P fmax R2 p 21
In this formula fmax represents the confinement
value corresponding to the fiber ultimate strength. For
this reason, in Eq. (11), proposed by Wu and Zhou
[49], the first summand contains the confinement
pressure value: it can be noted that the minimum value
of the strength of the confined cylinder fcc represents
the strength of the unconfined cylinder when f0 is equal
to zero and the strength of the confined granular mass
when fco is equal to zero.
The value of P attained by Eq. (18) is not very
useful in practice, as it represents neither the maxi-
mum strength of the wrapped cylinder nor the load
corresponding to the maximum confinement transmit-
ted by the FRP wrap to the inside. Similarly, the value
of P attained by Eq. (21) represents a non realistic
result because, as observed during experimental tests,
specimens extracted after wrap failure were damaged
but they still had a low residual strength. It is also
confirmed by an experimental investigation on the
strength of concrete elements after wrap failure
presented by Valdmanis and Tepfers [47].
In Alecci et al. [1], some considerations concerning
the failure modes of scaled reinforced and unrein-
forced masonry cylinders are reported, and the effec-
tive contribution of FRP confinement is studied, based
on the mechanical properties of component materials.
In order to fully understand these aspects and to verify
the validity of such considerations on concrete mate-
rial, in a similar manner the Authors carried out
experimental tests on plain and FRP wrapped scaled
concrete cylinders.
3 Experimental program
45 concrete specimens were realized for the experi-
mental campaign. Composite wraps are used as a
reinforcement of compressed member in the emergency
(for example after a seismic damage) to increase the
strength of a damaged element, or to improve the
mechanical performances of a structural element made
of material which strength is not adequate to the
after the construction of the building. For this reason it
was decided to use a low strength concrete and the
cement amount was reduced by about 15 % maintain-
ing the same quantity for the other components of the
mixture. Considering a standard mixture (1:2:4,
cement: sand: coarse aggregates), the new mixing was
1:2.5:5. The size of the coarse aggregates was chosen in
order to reproduce the scale factor of the specimens.
The concrete was mixed uniformly in the mixer and
poured into a prismatic mould where it was manually
compacted and vibrated.
After 28 days of curing, every prismatic specimen
was cored with a laboratory coring machine (Controls
Mod-45 C0330) to attain cylindrical elements of
5.4 cm in diameter and 8.5 cm high (Fig. 1). Both the
small size and the height to diameter ratio of the
specimens are due to the necessity of testing some of
them by means of a triaxial compression device (Hoek
cell). Small size of specimens can induce scale effect
on the mechanical properties of specimens. In partic-
ular the small ratio between aggregate diameter and
specimen diameter can induce higher values of
average strength and higher scattering of experimental
results. For this reason coarse aggregates of 6 mm
maximum size were used. It cannot be excluded that
the test results were in some way influenced by size
effect (the specimens reproduce a 1:4 scaled concrete
column). However, Matthys et al. [20] observed that
some existing models for the evaluation of confined
compressed columns strength, based on small size
cylinder tests, predict fairly accurately the ultimate
strength of large scale confined columns.
The small slenderness (height to diameter ratio is
less than 2) affects the strength of cylinders (cubic
strength is usually believed about 20 % higher than
cylindrical strength obtained on cylinders with height
to diameter ratio equal to 2); for this reason, for the
sake of comparison, all tests were performed on
5.4 cm in diameter and 8.5 cm high specimens. In so
doing, both concrete compression strength and com-
pression strength of reinforced concrete elements will
be affected in the same extent.
A CFRP composite produced by BASF Construc-
tion Chemicals Italia Spa was used as reinforcement,

Fig. 1 Concrete cylindrical
specimens before testing
made of carbon fiber embedded in a matrix constituted
by primer and epoxy resin adhesive.
3.1 Tests on concrete unconfined members
Six of the 45 concrete specimens were axially
compressed without making use of strengthening
reinforcement. Tests were carried out using an Instron
Model 4400 universal testing machine with displace-
ment control system. The use of the displacement
control system permitted us to observe the whole
loading history, up to the point of a conventional test-
end corresponding to a residual strength equal to half
of the peak load. Displacement was applied so that the
maximum stress rate, in the linear ascending branch of
the load path, was 0.2 MPa/sec. The displacement of
the upper load plate was recorded by the testing
machine sensor.
As it could be expected, the fracture path is
characterized by vertical cracks. The results are shown
in Table 1, where r is the stress corresponding to the
peak load, K is the stiffness, lc is the kinematic
ductility and lcd is the kinematic available ductility.
Stiffness was determined in the linear range of the
loaddisplacement curve, in order to avoid the influ-
ence of the non linear start of the load path produced
by the contact between load plates and specimen
surfaces. Kinematic ductility was calculated as the
ratio of the displacement measured at the peak load, to
the displacement corresponding to the linear part of
Table 1 Results of tests on confined and unconfined (first data line) specimens; standard deviation in brackets
Fiber nominal thickness s (mm) K (N/mm)
0 45441 (12096)
0.02063 56496 (8318)
0.02750 52575 (9043)
0.04125 55764 (15076)
Materials and Structures
the load path; kinematic available ductility was taken
as the ratio of the ultimate displacement to the
displacement at the peak load. Kinematic ductility
and kinematic available ductility are not mechanical
parameters of materials but structure properties,
representing the capability of the specimen to generate
residual strength. They can be influenced by the
fracture path and by the material homogeneity, so
ductility parameters can suffer size effect. However, in
a comparison between specimens of the same shape
and dimensions, they are proportional to the capability
of material to dissipate mechanical energy up to the
point where the given specimen preserves its own
shape.
Dealing with brittle materials, the value of the
kinematic available ductility higher than 1 reveals the
presence of the softening branch, that is the capability
of the structural element to exhibit equilibrium states
even for load values lower than the peak load; in this
case the failure is highlighted by the fracture path and
the softening branch can be considered a safety
warranty.
3.2 Triaxial compression tests
Twenty-one of the 45 concrete specimens were tested
by triaxial compression by means of a Hoek cell. The
Hoek cell (Fig. 2) works like a soil triaxial test
machine. A uniform stress is produced and controlled
by a hydraulic pressure generator, and it is applied, in
r (MPa) lc lcd
11.14 (2.30) 1.29 (0.05) 1.69 (0.09)
30.66 (2.87) 1.27 (0.18) 1.13 (0.14)
30.89 (3.89) 1.27 (0.15) 1.14 (0.19)
38.04 (2.52) 1.46 (0.24) 1.05 (0.05)
Materials and Structures

the Hoek cell, to the lateral surface of a cylindrical probably damaged by lateral pressure, as it exhibited
specimen contained in a rubber tube. The device is very low axial strength. For this reason, in order to reach
able to produce cell pressure at a constant rate increase higher lateral pressure values, some of the concrete
and is able to maintain it constant for the set-up time. specimens were alternatively subjected to axial load and
The triaxial device was not conceived to produce the lateral pressure. Results of triaxial tests are reported in
collapse of the specimen for increasing lateral Table 2 and plotted in Fig. 3 where fcc is the normal
pressure, as, in this case, when the rubber tubing stress corresponding to the axial peak load and f0 is the
breaks, oil leaks out and the reading of the effective confinement lateral pressure produced by the Hoek cell.
breaking pressure is not reliable. After reaching the
desired value of the circumferential stress, the spec- 3.3 Tests on concrete confined members
imen is successively loaded to failure by means of an
increasing axial load. Eighteen of the 45 concrete specimens were wrapped
It is important to point out that the Heak cell just with a CFRP composite (Mbrace produced by BASF
gives the values of limit triaxial stress states of Construction Chemicals Italia Spa) with a different
concrete; it does neither reproduce the failure mode of amount of unidirectional carbon fiber. MBrace carbon
a fiber confined compressed member, nor of a steel fiber is a dry fabric composed of high strength carbon
confined compressed member. fibers held in a unidirectional alignment with
The specimens tested by triaxial compression were 0.165 mm of nominal thickness as reported by the
initially compressed by an axial load ranging from 500 to manufacturer data sheet.
20000 N in order to prevent oil leaks from the rubber In Table 3 the tensile strength rr and tensile
tubing and, subsequently, subjected to a lateral pressure Youngs modulus E of fiber and matrix as provided
different for each specimen, ranging from 1.5 to by the manufacturer are shown.
31.4 MPa. While maintaining the lateral pressure con-
stant, the axial load was increased with a stress rate of Table 2 Results of triaxial tests by Hoek cell
0.2 MPa/s, until failure occurred. After reaching the
rupture of the specimen, both axial load and lateral Specimen fcc f0
(MPa) (MPa)
pressure were released and the specimen was easily
extracted from the Hoek cell. Specimen P32 was P34 29.53 0.50
P12 33.08 1.00
P11 34.26 2.00
P13 39.03 3.00
P14 45.73 4.00
P15 49.38 5.00
P21 59.41 6.00
P22 59.03 7.00
P23 63.68 8.00
P24 67.76 9.00
P25 73.03 10.00
P31 77.95 12.00
P33 77.39 12.50
P35 78.23 12.75
P32 0.59 13.00
P16 78.88 13.00
P17 82.16 14.00
P26 83.53 14.00
P27 87.57 15.00
P36 96.02 18.20
P37 151.32 30.40
Fig. 2 Hoek Cell
 Materials and Structures

180 followed by one layer of spiral fibers was applied.

y = 4,5082x + 14
160 R = 0,9757 Ribbons were extracted from the unidirectional fabric
140 and distributed over one ribbon 2 cm wide. Particular
120 care was taken in handling fibers as it could affect
fcc (MPa)

100 reinforcement strength. One ribbon 2 cm wide was

80
60
40
20
0 spiral winding technique was preferred to cylindrical
0 5 10 15 20 25
f' (MPa)
Fig. 3 Axial strength versus confinement pressure curve for
concrete specimens: diamond experimental results; dash regres-
sion line; square results by Eq. (5); times results by Eq. (6);
triangle results by Eq. (7); circle results by Eq. (10); plus results
by Eq. (11)
As concrete cylinders reproduce a 1:4 scaled
concrete column, the amount of fiber was, then,
reduced to , in order to take into account the scale
factor. In fact, due to formula (3), maintaining the
same confinement pressure, on small scale specimens
the force on the wrap is reduced as a linear function of
the scale factor. In order to obtain the same values of
stress on fiber and, then, the same failure mechanism,
the nominal thickness of fiber was reduced as a
function of the scale factor. Six specimens were
confined with of the fiber of the commercial product
(nominal thickness 0.04125 mm, corresponding to
0,165 mm in full scale columns), six specimens were
confined with 1/6 (nominal thickness 0.02750 mm
corresponding to 0,11 mm in full scale columns) of the
fiber and six specimens were confined with 1/8
(nominal thickness 0.02063 mm corresponding to
0,0825 mm in full scale columns) of the fiber, so that
the specimen collapse was due to fiber failure rather
than to debonding between components. Specimen
surfaces were firstly cleaned and then the primer was
applied in order to obtain a good surface preparation
and to improve the adhesion. Finally an adhesive
Table 3 Mechanical characteristics of reinforcement compo-
nent materials
rr (MPa)
Primer 12
Adhesive 50
Carbon fiber 3430
realized with the proper fiber weight as to reproduce
the scaled amount of reinforcement previously set; a
precision balance was used to evaluate the weight of
the fiber extracted from the unidirectional fabric. A
30 35
winding in order to reduce the anchorage length in
small scale specimens. The inclination of the wrap was
about 6 degrees and slightly reduces the efficiency of
the reinforcement. However, this angle is neglected in
the calculations as it produces a deviation lower than
0.7 % on the evaluation of tensile fiber stress. The
concentration of fiber with respect to matrix was
approximately 45 % and was determined measuring
the thickness of composite wrap after the tests.
Mechanical tests were carried out on confined
specimens not earlier than one week after their
assemblage, following the same procedure adopted
for unconfined columns. The failure was characterized
by the rupture of the composite wrap in the central
zone of the specimen height while the concrete inner
core, although damaged, seemed to show a residual
structural capacity. Test results are shown in Table 1,
as a function of different fiber nominal thickness.
4 Results and comparisons
In Table 1, some data are shown for a comparative
analysis between the achieved results. In the first data
line the results obtained by unconfined specimens are
reported.
As it can be observed, concrete specimens increase
their strength when confined, even when fiber weight
is reduced to a nominal thickness of 0.02063. This is
confirmed by the observation of the loaddisplace-
ment paths shown in Fig. 4, concerning four repre-
sentative specimens. Note that the specimen
reinforced with 0.04125 mm nominal thickness is
equivalent, from the point of view of collapse
E (MPa) mechanism, to a real scale element confined with
0,165 mm nominal thickness and that the displace-
700
ment reported in Fig. 4 diagrams is not representative
3000
of the displacement obtained in tests on full scale
230000
specimens. However, it can be noted that the
Materials and Structures

ascending branches of confined specimens coincide

until load value exceeds about a half of the maximum
strength of unconfined concrete so as to suggest that
wraps scarcely collaborate with the concrete speci-
mens. It is possible that the rupture of concrete within
the wrapping occurs when load values are slightly
higher than P0.
It is important to note the reduction of the E
modulus when the unconfined strength level is
surpassed: the strengthening effect and the possible
problems related to slenderness of the concrete
columns, not analyzed in the present study, have been
specifically studied by some researchers [10, 42].
Formulas for the determination of the E modulus
when unconfined concrete strength is surpassed and
CFRP confinement is activated are provided by
Tamuzs et al. [43]. Fig. 5 Confined specimen after failure
All wrapped specimens reduced kinematic avail-
able ductility when increasing the amount of rein- specimens axial compressive strength) and represents
forcement, as is highlighted by the abrupt rupture of the confinement pressure necessary to reproduce the
the wrap (Fig. 5), therefore, the softening branch experimental strength of wrapped specimens. It is
disappears and, consequently, any warning of the known that f* value is lower than fmax.
impending collapse. In Table 5 the experimental values of maximum
In Table 4, confinement pressure values are compressive stress are compared with the values
reported for reinforced specimens, computed accord- deduced by Eqs. (5), (6), (7), (10), (11) and (18). r0 is
ing to three different relations: f was obtained by the unconfined specimen experimental peak stress;
Eq. (19) and represents the confinement pressure rexp is the confined specimen experimental peak
produced by FRP reinforcement when the inner core stress; r (5) is the maximum stress obtained according
breaks because of exceeding transversal limit strain; to Toutanji and Deng [46]; r (6) is the maximum stress
fmax represents the confinement corresponding to obtained according to Legeron and Paultre [20] by
maximum fiber strength, that is the confinement value Eq. (6) later included in Italian Guide Instructions [6];
usually denoted as f0 in the formulations available in r (7) is the maximum stress obtained according to
the literature; f* is determined as a linear interpolation Fahmy and Wu [14]; r (10) is the maximum stress
of the triaxial test results (corresponding to wrapped obtained according to Spoelstra and Monti [38] by
Eq. (10) included in Design Recommendations pro-
100000 vided by fib [15] as a practical formula; r (11) is the
90000 maximum stress obtained according to Wu and Zhou
80000
70000
[49]; r (18) is the load corresponding to the failure of
60000 the confined inner core. This last value, computed by
(N)

50000 Eq. (18), highlights that the concrete inner core fails
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 Table 4 Confinement pressures
0 1 2 3
(mm) Fiber (%) s (mm) f (MPa) fmax (MPa) f* (MPa)
unconfined specimen confined specimen 0.02063
confined specimen 0.02750 confined specimen 0.04125 12.5 0.021 0.143 2.620 0.658
16.7 0.028 0.191 3.494 0.692
Fig. 4 Load displacement curves for confined and unconfined 25.0 0.041 0.287 5.240 2.793
specimens

when the stress value is considerably lower than the
ultimate stress value of the whole confined specimen.
In Fig. 3, the diagrams describing the axial com-
pressive strength variation versus the confinement
pressure for triaxial tests are shown. When the
confinement pressure value is equal to zero, the
average compression value fco, as determined exper-
imentally on the unconfined specimens, was intro-
duced, but it was adjusted so as to balance the
discrepancy of cement ageing. The other values on the
graphs represent the strength of eighteen concrete
specimens, tested by the Hoek cell, as a function of the
different confinement pressure applied. The graph lies
on the plane r1 = r2 in the principal stress space.
A linear regression was carried out on data reported
in Fig. 3, the result is:
fcc fco 4:508f 0 22
it is represented as a straight line on the graph. The
initial value was imposed equal to fco; the regression
was modified because of the data concentration near to
the initial value. Specimen P32 was excluded from the
statistic. Eq. (22) is formally equal to Eq. (1) and the
value of the term corresponding to k0 falls within the
range determined by the first researchers that dealt
with steel hoop confined concrete members. These
points represent axial compressive strength values
obtained applying Eqs. (5), (6), (7), (10) and (11)
respectively.
All proposed formulations underestimate experi-
mental results, except Eq. (7) that, however, slightly
overestimates specimens with a low concentration of
reinforcement. Moreover, these formulas give back
strength values quite different from each other; they
are able to fit a definite sample of data, but cannot fit
well the whole of available experiments. The exper-
imental results reported in the present research may
suffer, in some extent, from the influence of scale
effect on concrete strength, from the influence of the
Table 5 Comparison between predicted strength values according to Eqs. (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (18) and experimental results
Fiber r0 rexp r Eq. (5) r Eq. (6)
(%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
25 11.14 38.04 31.68 28.66
16.7 11.14 30.89 25.69 24.51
12.5 11.14 30.65 22.53 22.18
Materials and Structures
small slenderness ratio on concrete strength and from
the influence of small reinforcement density. How-
ever, these parameters are not directly taken into
account in the analyzed formulas, where only con-
finement pressure f0 and compressive concrete strength
fcc are introduced. While testing wrapped and
unwrapped masonry specimens [1], we observed a
higher discrepancy between experimental and analyt-
ical results obtained through Eq. (5) and Eq. (6). All
the curves reported in Fig. 3, representing the formu-
lations available in the literature, faithfully reproduce
the non linear trend of experimental results but
underestimate their values; however, the triaxial
collapse mechanism produced by a Hoek cell is
substantially different from the collapse mechanism of
axially compressed confined specimens, where failure
happens at first because of reaching the limit of
transversal strain in the inner concrete core and
successively because of the rupture of the wrap
reinforcement.
The collapse fracture path is qualitatively different:
specimens extracted from the Hoek cell are reduced to
granular mass, while axially compressed wrapped
specimens, although fractured, still exhibit a coherent
inner core (Fig. 5).
We can assert that it is erroneous to use the first
formulation proposed by Richart et al. [27], misun-
derstanding the significance of the f0 term, even if
coefficients have been adapted to fit experimental
results, because it is not consistent with the failure
mode of reinforced compressed members.
5 Discussion
What we have evidenced is that the formulas available
in literature for the calculation of FRP reinforced
masonry [1] or concrete columns are based on the
formal adaptation of the formula proposed by Richart
r Eq. (7) r Eq. (10) r Eq. (11) r Eq. (18)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
37.96 25.15 26.89 13.72
34.41 20.94 22.30 12.86
32.18 18.44 19.84 12.43
Materials and Structures

et al. [27]. However, the failure mechanism driving the N srr

fmax 24
behavior of reinforced structural elements depends on R R
the ratio between strength and strain to failure of the
where s is the fiber nominal thickness. The comparison
materials, on the ductility of the inner core and on the
between strength data obtained by the experimental
amount of reinforcement. In fact, it was verified that
tests and the proposed formula is reported in the
tensile stress in FRP reinforcement is clearly lower
diagram plotted in Fig. 6, as a function of fiber
than the ultimate fiber stress. Recently, some authors
concentration.
have pointed out this phenomenon, distinguishing the
It is to be pointed out that the proposed formula is
domain of proposed formulas according to the com-
empirical in nature, at least in the second term, as it
pressive strength of inner core material [14, 20]. Wu
uses a parameter that describes indirectly the capabil-
and Zhou [49], correctly, try to consider the contribu-
ity of a material to produce a residual strength. The
tion of the damaged concrete core as an addition to the
validation of the proposed model against experimental
strength of completely disintegrated concrete confined
results is very limited because the information about
by FRP. However, it is unlikely to define a simple
post peak behaviour and ductility of concrete com-
formula able to take into account the residual strength
pressed members are not reported in other experimen-
of the inner core that depends, in turn, on the
tal campaigns. Moreover, kinematic ductility cannot
variability of the fracture path and on the damage of
be considered a material parameter, as it suffers scale
the inner core, both empirically fitting experimental
effect; for this reason direct measurements have to be
results and making use of damage formulations. The
obtained from specimens equal to the wrapped com-
ability of the inner core to contribute to the global
pressed members. It would be correct to validate
compressive strength of the confined element, after
Eq. (23) against experimental results obtained from
concrete or masonry have fractured, depends on the
specimens with different shapes, dimensions and
capability of the material to produce a jagged and not
material properties, provided that experimental values
uniform fracture path, able to indent the contiguous
of kinematic ductility were known.
parts and to produce a residual strength. This property
can be highlighted in a compression test by the
available kinematic ductility lcd, which cannot be
6 Conclusions
considered, however, a material property but a prop-
erty of the structure, as it is heavily dependent on size
The main formulas developed to evaluate the ultimate
and shape.
compressive strength of confined compressed mem-
A formula that considers all these problems can be
bers, often included into recommendations and stan-
conceived adding two terms: the first term is the axial
dards, have been revised: the Richart formula,
compression load corresponding to the failure of the
inner concrete core, that is represented by Eq. (18),
45
where the term f is calculated by Eq. (19) and
40
represents the confinement pressure corresponding to
35
the failure of the inner core; the second term is the
30
fcc (MPa)

contribution of the wrap strength, which depends

25
linearly on the amount of fiber in the wrap, as can be
20
observed from the experimental results (Fig. 6), and it 15
depends, also, on the kinematic available ductility. 10
The exponent of the kinematic available ductility has 5
been determined while fitting the experimental results 0
obtained on concrete compressed elements: 0 10 20 30
  fiber (% of commercial product)
sEf
fcc fco 1 m  1 fmax l3cd 23
REc Fig. 6 Comparison between strength data obtained by the
experimental tests (dots) and the proposed formula (line) for
fmax is the maximum confining contribution that the concrete specimens. Vertical lines represent ranges of variation
wrap is able to perform and it is: for experimental results

proposed in 1929, where the k0 term was computed
according to Toutanji and Deng [Eq. (4) [46]);
Legeron and Paultre (Eq. (6) [20] successively
included into Italian CNR Guide Instructions [6]);
Fahmy and Wu (Eq. (7) [14]); Eq. (10) proposed by
Mander et al. [23] and revised by Spoelstra and Monti
[38], included in different form into American Con-
crete Institute Recommendations [2] and into Design
Recommendations provided by fib [15].
Experimental uniaxial tests have been realized on
wrapped and unwrapped concrete specimens. The
comparison of uniaxial and triaxial compression test
results, jointly with the experience gained with
masonry specimens in the preceding investigation
[1], allow us to make the following final
considerations:
The formulas of the literature for the evaluation of
the ultimate strength of compressed pillars,
wrapped with FRP, generally underestimate exper-
imental strength results.
Such formulas are based mainly on the formal
adaptation of Richarts formula, introducing for f0
the maximum confinement pressure that can be
produced by the fiber wrap strength, corrected by
an appropriate factor in order to fit some experi-
mental results. Actually, it has been shown that,
upon failure, the tensile stress in the FRP wrap is
lower than ultimate fiber stress, just like it was
experimentally shown by Richart et al. [27],
dealing with steel reinforced concrete pillars.
The failure mode of triaxial compressed specimens
is completely different from the failure mode of
confined specimens, nevertheless, many formulas
of the literature well reproduce the test results.
A new formula is provided that, although empir-
ically, describes the failure phenomenon, based on
the actual failure mechanism. The contribution of
the wrap strength, which also depends on the
kinematic available ductility, is added to the
strength of the confined specimen corresponding
to the failure of the inner concrete core. In so
doing, the proposed formula wants to reproduce,
from a qualitative point of view, the compressive
strength of the confined column, being consistent
with its failure mode. The proposed formula needs
further validation against experimental results
obtained from specimens with different shapes,
dimensions and material properties.
Materials and Structures
References
1. Alecci V, Briccoli Bati S, Ranocchiai G (2009) Study of
brick masonry columns confined with CFRP composite.
J Compos Constr 13(3):179187
2. American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2002) Guide for the
design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems
for strengthening concrete structures. ACI 440.2R-02,
Farmington Hills, Mich
3. Borri A, Grazini A (2004) Masonry columns strengthening
with FRP materials. In: Ceriolo L, Zerbo, Cortina V (eds)
Proceedings of the 2nd congress on mechanics of masonry
structures strengthened with FRP-materials: modeling,
testing, design, control Venice, Italy, Padova, Italy,
pp 193202 (in Italian)
4. Campione G (2006) Influence of FRP wrapping techniques
on the compressive behavior of concrete prism. Cem Concr
Compos 28(1):497505
5. Campione G, Miraglia N (2003) Strength and strain
capacities of concrete compression members reinforced
with FRP. Cem Concr Compos 25(1):3141
6. CNR (2004) Guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP system for strengthening existing
structures. CNR-DT200/2004, CNR, Roma
7. Corradi M, Grazini A, Borri A (2007) Confinement of brick
masonry with CFRP materials. Compos Sci Technol
67(9):17721783
8. Dai JG, Bai YL, Teng JG (2011) Behavior and modeling of
concrete confined with frp composites of large deformabi-
lity. J Compos Constr 15(6):963973
9. De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R (2003) Comparative study of models
on confinement of concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced
polymer composites. J Compos Constr 7(3):219237
10. De Lorenzis L, Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Valdmanis V, Vilks U
(2004) Stability of CFRP-confined columns. Proceedings of
international congress on innovative materials and technol-
ogies for construction and restoration, Lecce, pp 327342
11. Eid R, Roy N, Paultre P (2009) Normal- and high-strength
concrete circular elements wrapped with FRP composites.
J Compos Constr 13(2):113124
12. Erdil B, Akyuz U, Yaman IO (2012) Mechanical behavior
of CFRP confined low strength concretes subjected to
simultaneous heating-cooling cycles and sustained loading.
Mater Struct 45:223233
13. Faella C, Realfonzo R, Rizzano G (2006) Experimental
behavior of R/C columns confined by FRP. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd fib congress, Napoli, Italy, Losanna, Switzerland
(CD-ROM)
14. Fahmy M, Wu Z (2010) Evaluating and proposing models
of circular concrete columns confined with different FRP
composites. Compos B 41(3):199213
15. Federation International du Beton (fib) (2001) Externally
bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. Bulletin No.
14, Technical Rep, Lausanne, Switzerland
16. Janke L, Czaderski C, Ruth J, Motavalli M (2009) Experi-
ments on the residual load-bearing capacity of prestressed
confined concrete columns. Eng Struct 31(10):22472256
17. Karbhari VM, Gao Y (1997) Composite jacketed concrete
under uniaxial compressionverification of simple design
equations. Mater Civ Eng 9(4):185193
Materials and Structures
18. Krevaikas TD, Triantafillou TC (2005) Masonry confine-
ment with fiber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr
9(2):128135
19. Lam L, Teng JG (2003) Design-oriented stress-strain model
for FRP-Confined concrete. Constr Build Mater 17(67):
471489
20. Legeron F, Paultre P (2003) Uniaxial confinement model for
normal- and high-strength concrete columns. J Struct Eng
129(2):241252
21. Li G, Hedlund S, Pang S-S, Alaywan W, Eggers J, Abadie C
(2003) Repair of damaged RC columns using fast curing
FRP composites. Compos B 34(3):261271
22. Maaley M, Tanwongsval S, Paramasivam P (2002) Mod-
eling of rectangular RC columns strengthened with FRP.
Cem Concr Compos 25(2):263276
23. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng
114(8):18041826
24. Matthys S, Toutanji H, Audenaert K, Taerwe L (2005) Axial
load behavior of large-scale columns confined with fiber-
reinforced polymer composites. ACI Struct Journal 102(2):
258267
25. Monti G, Nistico N, Isola R (2007) Experimental investi-
gation on square and rectangular concrete colums confined
by C-FRP. In: Proceedings of RELUIS workshopMate-
riali ed Approcci Innovativi per il Progetto e la Mitigazione
della Vulnerabilita Sismica delle Strutture, Salerno, Italy,
Polimetrica S.a.s International Scientific Publisher, Monza,
Italy, pp 99106
26. Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL (1928) A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.
Bulletin n. 185, Engineering Experimental Station, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, IL
27. Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL (1929) The failure of
plain and spirally reinforced concrete in compression.
Bulletin n. 190, Engineering Experimental Station, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, IL
28. Rocca S, Galati N, Nanni A (2008) Review of design
guidelines for FRP confinement of reinforced concrete
columns of noncircular cross sections. J Compos Constr
12(1):8092
29. Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI (2008) Substandard reinforced
concrete members subjected to compression:FRP confining
effect. Mater Struct 41(9):15951611
30. Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI (2012) Adequately FRP con-
fined reinforced concrete columns under axial compressive
monotonic or cyclic loading. Mater Struct 45(7):957975
31. Rousakis TC, Chi-Sang Y, De Lorenzis L, Tamuzs V,
Tepfers R (2003) Concrete cylinders confined by pre-
stressed CFRP filament winding under axial load. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th international symposium on fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures, Singapore, pp 581590
32. Rousakis TC, Rakitzis TD, Karabinis AL (2012) Design-
oriented strength model for FRP-confined concrete mem-
bers. J Compos Constr (Accepted for publication)
33. Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Li MW (1994) Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with
fiber composite straps. ACI Struct J 91(4):434447
34. Saafi M, Toutanji H, Li Z (1999) Behavior of concrete
columns confined with fiber reinforced polymer tubes. ACI
Mater J 96(4):500509
35. Saaman M, Shahawy M, Mirmiran A (1998) Model of
concrete confined by fiber composites. J Struct Eng 124(9):
10251031
36. Shahawy M, Mirmiran A, Beitelman T (2000) Tests and
modelling of carbon-wrapped concrete columns. Compos B
31(6):471480
37. Shehata IAEM, Carneiro LAV, Shehata LCD (2002)
Strength of short concrete columns confined with CFRP
sheets. Mater Struct 35:5058
38. Spoelstra MR, Monti G (1999) FRP-confined concrete
model. J Compos Constr 3(3):143150
39. Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Sang You C, Rousakis T, Repelis I,
Skruls V, Vilks U (2006) Behavior of concrete cylinders
confined by carbon-composite tapes and prestressed yarns.
1: experimental data. Mech Compos Mater 42(1):1332
40. Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Sparnins E (2006) Behavior of con-
crete cylinders confined by carbon-composite tapes and
prestressed yarns. 2: Prediction of strength. Mech Compos
Mater 42(2):109118
41. Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Zile E, Ladnova O (2006) Behavior
of concrete cylinders confined by carbon-composite tapes
and prestressed yarns. 3: deformability and the ultimate
axial strain. Mech Compos Mater 42(4):303314
42. Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Zile E, Valdmanis V (2007) Stability
of round concrete columns confined by composite wrap-
ping. Mech Compos Mater 43(5):445452
43. Tamuzs V, Tepfers R, Zile E, Valdmanis V (2008)
Mechanical behaviour of FRP-confined concrete columns
under axial compressive loading. In: Proceedings of the 5th
international engineering and construction conference.
American Society of Civil Engineering, International
Committee, Los Angeles Section, pp 223241
44. Teng JG, Lam L (2004) Behavior and modeling of fiber
reinforced polimer-confined concrete. J Struct Eng 130(11):
17131723
45. Teng JG, Jiang T, Lam L, Luo YZ (2009) Refinement of a
design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined con-
crete. J Compos Constr 13(4):269278
46. Toutanji H, Deng Y (2002) Strength and durability perfor-
mance of concrete axially loaded members confined with
AFRP composite sheets. Compos B 33(4):255261
47. Valdmanis V, Tepfers R (2010) Some special features of
compressed round CFRP confined concrete columns by
prestressed CFRP filament winding under axial load. In:
Proceedings of the 13th international congress on polymers
in concrete, Madeira, Portugal, pp 745752
48. Wei H, Wu Z, Guo X, Yi F (2009) Experimental study on
partially deteriorated concrete columns confined with
CFRP. Eng Struct 31(10):24952505
49. Wu YF, Zhou YW (2010) Unified strength model based on
Hoek-Brown failure criterion for circular and square con-
crete columns confined by FRP. J Compos Constr 14(2):
175184
50. Xiao Y, Wu H (2000) Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by carbon fiber composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng
12(2):139146
 Materials and Structures

51. Youssef MN, Feng MQ, Mosallam AS (2007) Stress-strain 52. Zhang S, Ye L, Wing Mai Y (2000) A study on polymer
model for concrete confined by FRP composites. Compos B composite strengthening system for concrete columns. Appl
38(5):614628 Compos Mater 7:125138