Confinement Effectiveness of FRP in Retrofitting Circular

Concrete Columns under Simulated Seismic Load

Dong-Sheng Gu1; Gang Wu2; Zhi-Shen Wu3; and Yu-Fei Wu4

Abstract: The results of a research program that evaluated the confinement effectiveness of the type and the amount of fiber-reinforced
polymer 共FRP兲 used to retrofit circular concrete columns are presented. A total of 17 circular concrete columns were tested under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

combined lateral cyclic displacement excursions and constant axial load. It is demonstrated that a high axial load level has a detrimental
effect and that a large aspect ratio has a positive effect on drift capacity. Compared with the performance of columns that are monotoni-
cally loaded until failure, three cycles of every displacement excursion significantly affect drift capacity. The energy dissipation capacity
is controlled by FRP jacket confinement stiffness, especially under a high axial load level. The fracture strain of FRP material has no
significant impact on the drift capacity of retrofitted circular concrete columns as long as the same confining pressure is provided, which
differs from the common opinion that a larger FRP fracture strain is advantageous in seismic retrofitting. The amount of confining FRP
greatly affects the length of the plastic hinge region and the drift capacity of FRP-retrofitted columns. A further increase in confinement
after a critical value causes a reduction in the deformation capacity of the columns.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CC.1943-5614.0000105
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer; Concrete columns; Seismic effects; Rehabilitation; Ductility; Cracking.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymer; Column; Seismic retrofitting; Ductility; Fracture strain.

Introduction havior of FRP-confined concrete specimens under concentric load

The damage caused by recent earthquakes shows that many ex-
isting reinforced concrete structures built before the modern de-
sign code may be insufficiently constructed to survive a severe
earthquake. During severe earthquakes, column hinging cannot be
avoided in many structures, particularly for bridge columns. Con-
crete columns designed and constructed without adequate con-
finement reinforcement in potential plastic hinge regions are
particularly vulnerable. Therefore, retrofitting concrete columns is
of paramount importance in the rehabilitation of existing struc-
tures 共Wu et al. 2006b兲.
In recent years, fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 jacketing has
become popular to retrofit existing deficient columns. Many ex-
perimental studies have demonstrated that FRP confinement can
significantly increase column energy absorption and ductility
共Lam and Teng 2003; De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003; Wu et al.
2006a兲. An extensive review of the literature shows that the be-
1
College of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Jiangnan Univ.,
Wuxi 214122, China; and Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nan-
jing 210096, China.
2
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of
the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China 共cor-
responding author兲. E-mail: g.wu@seu.edu.cn
3
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of
the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China.
4
Dept. of Building and Construction, City Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 13, 2009; approved
on January 25, 2010; published online on February 3, 2010. Discussion
period open until March 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0268/2010/5-531–540/$25.00.
conditions has been studied extensively. In contrast, relatively
limited data have been reported on FRP-confined columns under
simulated seismic load 共Sheikh and Li 2007; Wu et al. 2006b兲.
The influences of the type and the amount of confining FRP on
the behaviors of confined columns under concentric load are well
characterized; however, the deformation capacity and energy dis-
sipation capacity of FRP-retrofitted columns under simulated seis-
mic load are still not very clear. For example, it is commonly
believed that FRPs with larger fracture strain will be advanta-
geous in seismic retrofitting 共Binici 2008; Elsanadedy and Haroun
2005; Seible and Priestley 1997兲; however, seismic experimental
results of square concrete columns retrofitted with carbon-fiber-
reinforced polymers 共CFRP兲 and GFRP demonstrated that the ef-
fectiveness of FRP in enhancing column ductility is closely
related to its ultimate tensile strength, and FRP fracture strain has
almost no influence on the curvature capacity of the sections
共Sheikh and Li 2007兲. Whether FRPs with larger fracture strain
will be advantageous in retrofitting circular concrete columns is
not clear from available test results. Moreover, the energy dissi-
pation capacity of FRP-retrofitted square concrete columns under
seismic load has been well studied 共Colomb et al. 2008兲, but the
parameters that are most significant and define the capacity of
retrofitted circular concrete columns require further study.
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the confine-
ment effectiveness of the type and the amount of FRP used to
retrofit circular concrete columns. The test results of a compre-
hensive experimental investigation conducted to investigate the
seismic performance of FRP-retrofitted circular concrete columns
are reported. The objectives of this program are: 共1兲 to clarify the
effects of axial load level and aspect ratio; 共2兲 to study the effects
of the lateral load path; and 共3兲 to evaluate the effects of the type
and the amount of confining FRP.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 531

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540

 Experimental Program

Specimen Details
A total of 17 specimens were tested. All specimens were tested
under lateral cyclic load reversals while simultaneously being
subjected to constant axial load throughout the test. The specimen
represented the part of a bridge column or a building column from
the section of the maximum moment to the point of contraflexure.
The test specimens were divided into two groups according to
their diameters. The diameter, D, of the first group was 300 mm,
and the diameter of the second group was 360 mm.
The first group included nine specimens. One specimen was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tested under the “as-built” condition, while the others were tested
after being retrofitted with FRP jacketing. The height of the speci-
mens H, measured from the top of the footing to the application
point of the horizontal force, was 850 mm 关Fig. 1共a兲兴. The aspect
ratio H / D was 2.8. The specimens were reinforced with 12 de-
formed 19-mm diameter bars, and the yield stress was 400 MPa.
The longitudinal steel bars were evenly distributed in a circle with
a constant clear cover of 20 mm. Hoops 共diameter= 6.5 mm,
yield stress= 350 MPa兲 spaced at 160 mm were used as trans-
verse reinforcement. The equivalent cylinder strength f ⬘c was 28.0
MPa, which was calculated by f ⬘c = 0.8f ⬘cu, where f ⬘cu was the 28-
day mean compressive strength of 10 cubes 共150⫻ 150
⫻ 150 mm兲 cast along with the specimens. The axial load was
100 kN, and the axial load ratio n = P / 共Ag f ⬘c 兲 was 0.05, where
Ag = gross area of the column.
The second group included eight specimens. The height H, of
four of the specimens was 1,100 mm 关Fig. 1共b兲兴, and that of the
other four specimens was 800 mm, resulting in aspect ratios of
3.1 and 2.2, respectively. Two specimens were tested under the
as-built condition. The columns were reinforced with 12 de-
formed 25-mm diameter bars, and the yield stress was 382 MPa.
The clear cover was 25 mm. Hoops 共diameter= 6.5 mm, yield
stress= 320 MPa兲 spaced at 150 mm were used as transverse re-
inforcement. The region of 100 mm from the stub face was
strengthened with additional deformed 25-mm diameter bars, and
the 10-mm ties were placed at a spacing of 30 mm within this
region to minimize the chances of failure at the section adjacent
to the stub face. The equivalent concrete cylinder strength was
Fig. 1. Details of specimen 共unit: mm兲
34.9 MPa. All material mechanical properties were tested using
the same standard as the first group. The axial load was 1,200 kN,
and the axial load ratio was 0.36. In this test program, the axial with the mixed epoxy, and a coat of epoxy was applied to the
load was applied via steel strands running through the center of prepared surfaces of the columns, which were smoothed using
the column, so a plastic pipe with a diameter of 32 and 80 mm sandpaper. The saturated fabrics were then wrapped around the
was installed at the center of first group and second group col- column such that the fiber was oriented in the circumferential
umns, respectively 共Fig. 1兲. direction. The thickness of the epoxy was not strictly controlled,
and any air bubbles were squeezed out using a roller brush. The
FRP Application fiber was wrapped along the whole length of the columns, and the
overlap length in the circumferential direction was 150 mm.
Two types of fabrics were used in this test series: CFRP and The type of fabric and the number of layers used for each
Dyneema FRP 共DFRP兲. DFRP has a large fracture strain and a specimen, which are shown in Table 2, were designed to study a
low elastic modulus compared with those of CFRP. A flat coupon
test was conducted to determine the mechanical properties of
FPR. Two strain gauges were set at midlength on the two sides of Table 1. Material Properties of Fibers
the test coupon. At least three flat coupons of each type of FRP Ultimate Ultimate Young’s
were tested, and the average results are shown in Table 1. The Thickness strength strain modulus
thickness of CFRP used to the first group specimens and the sec- FRP 共mm兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共GPa兲
ond group specimens was 0.111 and 0.167 mm, respectively. The
CFRP-a 0.111 4,232 1.84 230
stress-train relationship of composite material shows linear-elastic
CFRP-b 0.167 3,945 1.52 260
behavior up to rupture. The epoxy consisted of two components,
DFRP 0.258 1,832 3.05 60
A and B, in a volume ratio of 3:1. The FRP sheets were saturated

532 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540

 Table 2. Details of Test Specimens
D L f c⬘ El
Specimen 共mm兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲 n FRP treatment Test mode 共GPa兲 ␭f
J0 300 850 28.0 0.05 — Test 1 — —
J1 300 850 28.0 0.05 1 layer DFRP Test 1 0.103 0.113
J2 300 850 28.0 0.05 1 layer CFRP-a Test 1 0.169 0.111
J3 300 850 28.0 0.05 1 layer CFRP-a Test 2 0.169 0.111
J4 300 850 28.0 0.05 2 layers DFRP Test 2 0.206 0.225
J5 300 850 28.0 0.05 2 layers CFRP-a Test 2 0.337 0.222
J6 300 850 28.0 0.05 1 layer CFRP-a + 1 layer DFRP Test 2 0.272 0.223
J7 300 850 28.0 0.05 0.5 layer CFRP-a + 1 layer DFRP Test 2 0.188 0.168
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J8 300 850 28.0 0.05 1 layer CFRP-a + 2 layers DFRP Test 2 0.375 0.336
CH0 360 1,100 34.9 0.36 — Test 1 — —
CH1 360 1,100 34.9 0.36 0.5 layer CFRP-b + 1 layer DFRP Test 1 0.207 0.127
CH2 360 1,100 34.9 0.36 2.5 layers DFRP Test 1 0.215 0.188
CH3 360 1,100 34.9 0.36 1.5 layers CFRP-b Test 1 0.362 0.157
CL0 360 800 34.9 0.36 — Test 1 — —
CL1 360 800 34.9 0.36 4 layers DFRP Test 1 0.344 0.300
CL2 360 800 34.9 0.36 2.5 layers CFRP-b Test 1 0.603 0.261
CL3 360 800 34.9 0.36 3.5 layers CFRP-b Test 1 0.844 0.366

range of parameters and their effects on column behavior. When The displacement control sequence consisted of three cycles each
0.5 layer of fabric was used, 20-mm wide CFRP bands were of 1␦, 2␦, 3␦, and so on, until the specimen was unable to main-
wrapped at a clear spacing of 20 mm; for DFRP, one-half of the tain the applied lateral load. In order to study the effect of load
fiber was drawn out from the sheet, and then the remnant fiber history on the seismic performance of an FRP-wrapped column,
was wrapped around the column. The effect of CFRP and DFRP some specimens wrapped with FRP were tested with a different
hybrid fiber was also studied in this program. When hybrid FRP
lateral load history. The lateral loading sequence of these speci-
was used, CFRP was wrapped first, and then the DFRP was
mens was controlled by the displacement increment. Two cycles
wrapped outside. It was reported that the most extensively dam-
aged region always shifted about 150 mm away from the column- of the displacement corresponding to the drift ratios of 1/800,
footing interface due to the additional confining effect of the 1/400, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, and 1/20 were conducted. Then,
footing 共Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2006; Sheikh and Yau the specimens were monotonically pushed to failure. The first
2002兲. Thus, in order to ensure that the section adjacent to the load sequence is termed “Test 1,” and the second load sequence is
footing will not damage for all the columns, three layers of addi- termed “Test 2” in Table 2.
tional 100-mm wide CFRP bands were wrapped at the end of The strain gauge locations are shown in Fig. 3. Strain gauges
every column. It was assumed that this does not affect the lateral were bonded to each side of the FRP surface to record the FRP
displacement capacity of the columns. strain. Two strain gauges were bonded on the longitudinal rein-
forcement. The column lateral displacement was measured by one
Testing and Instrumentation LVDT at the height of the horizontal actuator.
The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The first group of specimens
was tested at the University Ibaraki of Japan, and the second
group of specimens was tested at the Southeast University of
China. The axial load was applied via high-strength steel strands
running through the center of the column and anchored to a plate
underneath the test specimen. This applied axial load method has
been reported previously 共Belarbi et al. 2008兲. The tension force
applied by the jack can be controlled with a calibrated pressure
gauge. The numerical analysis of the confined section shows that
the hole will be located in the tension zone after the section
yields. Thus, it can be assumed that the hole will have no obvious
influence on the performance of the specimens. The stub base was
anchored onto ground with four large diameter steel bars to en-
sure a firm support at the base 共Fig. 2兲.
The lateral force was applied by an MTS actuator. All speci-
mens were subjected to inelastic cyclic loading while carrying a
constant axial load throughout the test. The lateral loading se-
quence was controlled by lateral force or displacement incre-
ments. In the load control phase, the load increment was 20 kN.
In the displacement control phase, the increment ␦ was defined as
1.5 times the displacement when the first longitudinal bars yield. Fig. 2. Test setup

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 533

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Locations of strain gauges
Test Observations and Results
Test Observations
The three as-built columns had very little lateral reinforcement
and were designed to suffer shear failures. Since they have similar
failure mechanisms, Specimen J0 was selected as a representative
sample. It was observed that the first horizontal flexural crack
occurred at the tension side when the lateral displacement reached
a drift ratio, ⌬ / H, of about 0.3%, which is defined by the lateral
displacement divided by the column length. Then, fine inclined
cracks appeared. The tensile reinforcement yielded before the lat-
eral resistance reached the peak. When the second cycle with
2.8% drift was imposed on column, diagonal cracks suddenly
opened up and extended almost from corner to corner, which
resulted in the lateral load-carrying capacity dropping from the
maximum load. The column could no longer support the axial
load. The lateral reinforcement fractured when the column failed.
The behavior was similar to that of Specimen CL0, and it sud-
denly lost its load-carrying capacity when it was pushed to the
first cycle of 1.5% drift. The failure mode of Specimen CH0 was
somewhat different from those of Specimen J0 and CL0. It lost its
load-carrying capacity before the displacement control mode was
conducted. The lateral resistance continued to increase before
failure occurred. Fig. 4共a兲 shows a typical column at the end of
testing, which illustrates the failure mode and the steep crack
inclination.
The shear failure that occurred in the as-built columns was
entirely prevented by composite wrapping for the retrofitted col-
umns. The composite wrapping was able to provide additional
shear capacity, and wrapping at the potential plastic hinge region
allowed the specimens to undergo large inelastic displacement.
The failure modes for all specimens were dominated by flexural
effects. Each of the retrofitted columns exhibited similar behav-
iors under revised cyclic loading, so Specimen J2 was selected as
a representative sample. There were no visual signs of damage to
the column until the lateral drift reached about 2.0%, when an
obvious horizontal crack was found. The position of the first
crack was about 100 mm above the column-footing interface. As
the applied lateral displacement increased, horizontal flexural
cracks developed evenly above the first crack and were spaced by
534 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010
J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540
Fig. 4. Views of specimen failures
about 50 mm. The opening of the first crack was significant,
whereas the other horizontal flexural cracks openings did not ap-
pear to increase much as the lateral displacement excursion in-
creased. About 10-mm thick strips of fiber first ruptured where the
first horizontal crack developed when the lateral displacement
reached about 6.8% drift. This local fiber rupture did not signifi-
cantly influence the column lateral load-carrying capacity. When
the third cycle of 9.2% drift was imposed on the column, more
fiber ruptured, while the concrete was crushed and the longitude
reinforcement buckled. The column could no longer support the
axial load and lateral load, and the test was terminated. The most
extensive damage was concentrated within a segment 100–400
mm from the column-footing interface, which coincides with the
location of the initial fiber rupture. The plastic hinge shift from
the column-footing interface was attributed to the confining effect
of the footing and the additional three CFRP bands. Similar ob-
servations were previously reported 共Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcio-
glu 2006; Sheikh and Yau 2002兲.
The columns, which were monotonically pushed to failure
after the lateral displacement reached 5% drift, showed similar
behavior. Thus, Specimen J3 is chosen as a representative sample.
Specimen J3 and Specimen J2 had identical test parameters and
were both retrofitted with one layer of CFRP. Specimen J3 ini-
tially behaved very similarly to Specimen J2 共up to 5% drift兲.
Then, Specimen J3 was monotonically loaded in the push direc-
tion. The lateral resistance continuously increased as the lateral
displacement increased. The local fiber rupture occurred at 7.2%
drift. At this time, the column lateral resistance dropped about 14
kN, and could still increase as the lateral displacement increased.
When the lateral drift reached about 10.8%, an explosive rupture
occurred in the CFRP, which resulted in a significant reduction of
lateral load; subsequently, the test was stopped. Fig. 4 shows dif-
ferent specimen failures.
 Test Results
The hysteresis loops of these specimens are shown in Fig. 5. As
can be seen from the hysteresis loops, the strength and stiffness
degradation of as-built columns was particularly severe, and the
deformation capacity was very limited. For the retrofitted col-
umns the displacement ductility was significantly increased; how-
ever, the increase in load-carrying capacity was relatively low
compared with the increase in ductility.
A summary of the test results for all test specimens is pre-
sented in Table 3. The maximum lateral load, Fmax, was defined as
the average of the maximum lateral loads in the push and pull
directions. The column was considered to have failed when one of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the following two limit conditions was reached: 共1兲 the lateral
load at either the positive or negative peak of the last cycle was
reduced to 0.85 Fmax and 共2兲 the column could not sustain an axial
load and lateral load due to FRP rupture. The ultimate displace-
ment, ⌬u, was defined as the maximum usable drift, beyond
which the column failed. It was found that only ⌬u of Specimen
CH2 was controlled by Condition 共1兲 because of the strength
degradation in the pull direction. The yield displacement was de-
termined according to Fig. 6, using the following equation 共El-
wood and Eberhard 2009兲:

Fi
⌬y = ⌬⬘ 共1兲
Fy y
where Fy = first yield force obtained using standard sectional
analysis procedures at the first point where the longitudinal rein-
forcement yields in tension or the extreme concrete reaches a
maximum compressive strain of 0.002, whichever came first; Fi
= calculated ideal flexural capacity based on the extreme concrete
compressive strain of 0.004 共Elwood and Eberhard 2009兲; and
⌬⬘y = average of the measured displacements corresponding to Fy
in the push and pull loading directions, which was obtained from
the experimental force-displacement relationship. It was found
that the confinement form FRP does not obviously affect the yield
state of the columns 共Binici 2008兲, so the ⌬y of the columns with
the same axial load ratio and aspect ratio can be averaged to
eliminate the difference existing in test results which came from
material property scatter. The determined ⌬y, the ultimate drift
ratio 共␪u = ⌬u / H兲 and displacement ductility 共⌬u / ⌬y兲 of every col-
umn are presented in Table 3.

Analysis of Test Results

When evaluating the behavior of FRP-confined concrete, two pa-

rameters are often used: 共1兲 the confinement ratio ␭ f , a ratio of
confinement pressure over the unconfined concrete strength, de-
fined as ␭ f = f l / f ⬘c = 2E f t f ␧ f / 共Df ⬘c 兲 and 共2兲 the confinement stiffness
El, a measure of the stiffness of the confining FRP, defined as
El = 2E f t f / D 共De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003兲, where f l = lateral
confining pressure exerted by FRP; E f = modulus of the FPR; t f
= FRP jacketing thickness; and ␧ f = rupture strain of FRP. The cal-
culated ␭ f and El of every column are listed in Table 2.

Fig. 5. Column response curves

Effect of Axial Load Level
It has been widely recognized that high axial loads have detri-
mental effects on the deformation capacity of columns under seis-
mic load condition. The test results of specimens under different
axial load ratios can be used to study the effect of axial load on
FRP-retrofitted columns. The aspect ratios of Specimens J2 and
CH3 are 2.8 and 3.1, respectively. These two specimens were
both retrofitted with CFRP. The axial load ratios of Specimens J2
and CH3 were 0.05 and 0.36, respectively. Thus, the responses of
these two specimens are compared to evaluate the effects of axial

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 535

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540

 Table 3. Summary of the Test Results
⌬⬘y 共+兲 ⌬⬘y 共⫺兲 ⌬y Fmax ⌬u Drift ratio, ␪u
Specimen 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共kN兲 共mm兲 ⌬u / ⌬ y 共%兲
J0 6.4 6.3 9.8 155.2 23.4 2.4 2.8
J1 6.9 3.7 9.8 179.2 72.3 7.4 8.5
J2 5.8 5.0 9.8 195.3 73.1 7.5 8.6
J3 5.7 5.1 9.8 199.4 91.5 9.3 10.8
J4 4.8 4.7 9.8 254.6 134.3 13.7 15.8
J5 5.3 4.8 9.8 238.2 119.0 12.1 14.0
J6 5.2 5.3 9.8 229.0 133.0 13.6 15.6
J7 5.2 4.9 9.8 213.6 115.7 11.8 13.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J8 5.2 4.9 9.8 260.2 106.3 11.8 12.5

CH0 5.1 5.0 7.3 260.0 8.7 1.2 0.8
CH1 4.4 4.2 7.3 411.3 55.0 7.5 5.0
CH2 6.2 5.2 7.3 420.4 99.0 13.6 9.0
CH3 5.7 5.1 7.3 451.5 88.0 12.1 8.0
CL0 2.5 2.3 3.5 424.3 8.2 2.3 1.0
CL1 2.7 2.6 3.5 565.5 54.0 15.4 6.8
CL2 2.4 2.5 3.5 634.4 48.0 13.6 6.0
CL3 2.4 2.6 3.5 664.8 48.0 13.7 6.0

load level. In order to achieve the same drift capacity, the amount displacement than that of Specimen J2. The same observation was
of confining CFRP of Specimen CH3 was increased, and the con- found in reinforced concrete columns 共Bae and Bayrak 2008b兲.
finement ratios of Specimens J2 and CH3 were 0.111 and 0.157,
respectively 共Table 2兲. The ultimate drift ratios of Specimens J2
and CH3 were 8.6 and 8.0%, respectively. The test results indi- Effect of Aspect Ratio
cated that, although Specimen J2 had a significantly lower con- The effect of aspect ratio can be investigated by comparing the
finement ratio, the ultimate drift ratio of Specimen J2 was larger
behavior of Specimen CH2 with that of CL1 and the behavior of
than that of Specimen CH3. Considering that Specimen J2 had a
CH3 with that of CL2. The former specimens had larger aspect
smaller aspect ratio than that of Specimen CH3, it is expected that
ratios than that of the latter ones in each set of specimens. Al-
the ultimate drift ratio of Specimen J2 should be even larger if
though the DFRP used in Specimen CH2 had 2.5 layers, which is
they have the same aspect ratio. This is because an increase in the
less than that used in CL1 共four layers兲, the ultimate drift ratio of
aspect ratio will cause an increase in its drift capacity 共Kowalsky
Specimen CH2 was larger than that of CL1. The ultimate drift
2000兲. This indicates the adverse effect of the high axial load
ratios were 9.0 and 6.8%, respectively. The same trend can be
level to the column drift capacity. More confining FRP is required
found in Specimens CH3 and CL2. The CFRP used in Specimens
for columns resisting a high axial load than for those subjected to
CH3 and CL2 had 1.5 layers and 2.5 layers, respectively, and the
a lower axial load to obtain similar drift capacity. The drift capac-
ultimate drift ratios were 8.0 and 6.0%, respectively. Therefore in
ity of Specimen CH3 is less than that of Specimen J2; however,
these two sets of specimens, the specimens with less amount of
the displacement ductility of Specimen CH3 is larger than that of
FRP had a larger drift capacity because of their larger aspect
Specimen J2. The displacement ductility factors of Specimens
ratios. Thus, it is evident that an increase in aspect ratio results in
CH3 and J2 are 12.1 and 7.5, respectively 共Table 3兲. This is be-
an increased ultimate drift ratio. This agrees well with the con-
cause the high axial load of Specimen CH3 resulted in lower yield
clusion that the drift ratio increases as the aspect ratio increases in
reinforcement concrete columns 共Kowalsky 2000兲.

Effect of Load Path

Fig. 6. Definition of ductility
The hysteresis loops of the specimens, which were monotonically
pushed to failure after the lateral displacement reached 5% drift,
are displayed in Fig. 5共d兲. It can be found from the figure that the
initial stiffness, stiffness degradation, and unloading stiffness of
these specimens were generally similar before the lateral dis-
placement reached 5% drift. When they were monotonically
loaded in the push direction after the lateral displacement reached
5% drift, the type and the amount of FRP used significantly in-
fluenced the ultimate displacement and maximum lateral load.
The behavior of Specimens J2 and J3 can be compared to inves-
tigate the influence of different lateral load paths. Specimens J2
and J3 were identical in all respects except that the lateral load
paths were different. The test observation showed that the crack
patterns, stiffness degradation, and failure modes of these two

536 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Energy dissipation of cyclically loaded columns
specimens were similar. The ultimate drift ratios of Specimens J2
and J3 are 8.6 and 10.8%, respectively. The maximum lateral
loads, Fmax, of Specimens J2 and J3 are 195.3 and 199.4 kN,
respectively. It can be seen that, compared with a monotonically
load in the push direction, three cycles of every displacement
excursion had no obvious influence on lateral maximum load but
significant influenced the ultimate drift capacity. Column defor-
mation capacity can be impaired by a large number of lateral load
reversals. More tests are needed to study the cumulative damage
in FRP-retrofitted columns subjected to a series of simulated
earthquake excitations.
Energy Dissipation
The energy dissipation versus the lateral displacement for all the
cyclic response curves of retrofitted specimens is given in Fig. 7.
The energy dissipated per cycle is given by the area enclosed by
a load-displacement loop. The energy dissipation of the first cycle
of every displacement excursion is introduced here. From the fig-
ure, we can see the energy dissipation significantly increased
when the lateral displacement reached about 1% drift. This dem-
onstrates that plastic deformation occurred at this level of lateral
displacement. The type of FRP was generally believed to have
significant influence on the energy dissipation capacity of FRP-
retrofitted columns. From Fig. 7, this influence is related to the
axial load level. When the axial load level is low, this influence is
insignificant, which can be seen from energy dissipation of Speci-
mens J1 and J2. These two specimens were retrofitted with dif-
ferent types of FRPs, yet they had almost the same energy
dissipation as the lateral displacement increased. When the axial
load level increased, the FRP influence became significant, which
can be seen from the energy dissipation of two sets of specimens
under a high axial load level: Specimens CH2 and CH3 and
Specimens CL1 and CL2. The specimens in each set were iden-
tical in all respects except for the FRP used. Before the lateral
displacement reached approximately 4% drift, the energy dissipa-
tion of specimens in each set were similar. As the displacement
increased further, the energy dissipation of Specimen CH3 was
larger than that of CH2, and that of CL2 was larger than that of
CL1 at the same lateral displacement. From Table 2, we can see
Specimens CH3 and CL2 had greater confinement stiffness, El,
but a lower confinement ratio, ␭ f than that of the counterpart in
each set. Thus, it can be concluded that the energy dissipation of
FRP-retrofitted columns is controlled by FRP confinement stiff-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 537
J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540
ness, and the FRP jacket with larger confinement stiffness will
result in larger energy dissipation capacity at the same lateral
displacement excursion.
The effect of confinement stiffness to energy dissipation may
be explained as: under high axial load level, the bond between the
concrete and the reinforcement at the plastic hinge region was
damaged when the lateral displacement reached about 4% drift;
and this damage was unfavorable for energy dissipation. The FRP
jacket with larger confinement stiffness could mitigate this local
damage, and hence is beneficial to energy dissipation. This can
also be observed from the hystereses loops. The hystereses loops
of the columns with larger confinement stiffness indicated typical
well-rounded curves under a high axial load level, but a certain
extent of pinching existed in the hystereses loops of the columns
with lower confinement stiffness. The behavior of Specimens
CH2 and CL1 as presented in Fig. 5 are an example of pinching
existed in the hystereses loops. This result clearly demonstrates
that greater confinement stiffness is useful for energy dissipation
when columns sustain a high axial load level. Furthermore, the
energy dissipation will be faster when the amount of confining
FRP increases, which can be seen from the results of Specimens
CL2 and CL3 presented in Fig. 7.
It is worth noting that the energy dissipation capacity dis-
cussed here is the energy dissipation at a certain lateral displace-
ment excursion, not the cumulative energy dissipation when a
column fails. The latter is also related to the deformation capacity
of a column. The influence of the type and the amount of FRP on
the column deformation capacity will be discussed in the follow-
ing section.
Effect of the Fracture Strain of FRP
The effectiveness of CFRP and DFRP in drift capacity enhance-
ment of deficient columns can be evaluated by comparing the
behavior of three sets of Specimens: J1/J2, CH2/CH3, and CL1/
CL2. The columns in every set of specimens were identical in
every aspect except for the type of confining FRP. The confine-
ment ratio of Specimens J1 and J2 was identical, and the axial
load ratio was 0.05. From the hysteresis loops presented in Fig. 5,
we can see that they behaved in a very similar manner. The ulti-
mate drift ratio of these two specimens was almost identical, al-
though the CFRP fracture is obviously less than that of the DFRP.
The last two sets of specimens 共CH2/CH3 and CL1/CL2兲 were
tested under a high axial load 共n = 0.36兲. This time, the confine-
ment ratio of DFRP-retrofitted columns was a little larger than
that of the CFRP-retrofitted columns. In order to compare the
deformation capacity directly, the normalized ultimate drift, ␨, is
introduced here, which can be defined as
␥
␨= 共2兲
␭f
where ␥ = ratio of the ultimate drift ratio ␪u of a retrofitted column
to that of the corresponding unretrofitted column. ␨ reflects the
effectiveness of different types of FRPs in enhancing column drift
capacity. The ␨ of Specimens CH2/CH3 and CL1/CL2 are calcu-
lated to be 59.8/63.7 and 22.7/23.0, respectively. The ␨ of Speci-
mens J1/J2 is also calculated to be 26.9/27.8. The values are very
close to each other in every set, which means the confinement
effectiveness of FRP in enhancing column drift capacity under
simulated seismic load is closely related to the confinement ratio,
and the FRP fracture strain has no significant influence. This con-
clusion can further be confirmed by the test results of hybrid
FRP-retrofitted columns with that of columns retrofitted with a
 single type of FRP. Specimen J6 was retrofitted with one layer of
CFRP and one layer of DFRP, whose confinement ratio was al-
most identical to that of Specimens J4 and J5, which were retro-
fitted with two layers of DFRP and CFRP, respectively.
Specimens J6 and J4 had almost the same ultimate drift ratio,
which demonstrates that hybrid FRP will have the same retrofitted
effectiveness as a single type of FRP when the confinement ratio
is identical. The ultimate drift ratio of J5 is a little less than that of
Specimens J6 and J4 共Table 3兲. This may be due to the scatter of
material properties.
It is commonly believed that under a concentric load the type
of FRP with larger fracture strain will have greater efficiency in
confining concrete. The test results have demonstrated that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ultimate strain of FRP-confined concrete will be influenced by

FRP fracture strain when different types of FRPs are used. The
larger FRP fracture strain will result in a greater ultimate strain of
confined concrete when the confinement ratio remains constant
共Lam and Teng 2003; De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003; Wu et al.
2006a兲. Based on this observation, the type of FRP with larger
fracture strain is commonly believed to have better efficiency in
retrofitted columns under seismic load 共Binici 2008; Elsanadedy
and Haroun 2005; Seible and Priestley 1997兲. However, the test
results of this experiment are contradictory to this conclusion.
From the literature review, it can be found that the previous test
results conducted on square concrete columns under simulated
seismic load have demonstrated that the efficiency of FRP in en-
hancing column ductility directly relates to the FRP confinement
ratio, and the fracture strain of FRP has very limited influence
共Sheikh and Li 2007兲. This opinion was based on the test results
of square concrete columns with different axial load levels 共Ia-
cobucci 2001; Memon 2002兲. The test results of the measured
section curvature and ultimate drift ratio of the retrofitted square
concrete columns reported previously 共Iacobucci 2001; Memon Fig. 8. Test results of square concrete columns 共Iacobucci 2001;
2002兲 are displayed in Fig. 8. We find that the type of FRP and the Memon 2002兲
FRP fracture strain had no obvious influence on the column de-
formation capacity as long as the confinement ratio remains con-
stant. Thus, it can be concluded that the fracture strain of FRP has mately linearly increased with the lateral displacement, and DFRP
no obvious impact on the drift capacity of retrofitted columns as developed higher strain compared to CFRP. Thus, the ratio of
long as the confinement ratio remains constant. DFRP strain to CFRP strain remained approximately constant at
If we carefully study the deformation capacity of steel con- every displacement excursion. To Specimens J1 and J2, the ratio
fined concrete columns, similar conclusion can also be drawn. of DFRP strain to CFRP strain at the same displacement excur-
When high grade of steel is used to confine columns, although the sion is about 1.5:1, which is very close to the inverse value of the
stress-strain relationship of concrete under concentric load is dif- ratio of confinement stiffness for the two specimens 共1:1.6兲. To
ferent to that of concrete confined by normal steel 共Razvi and Specimens CL1 and CL2, the ratio of DFRP strain to CFRP strain
Saatcioglu 1999兲, the drift capacity of columns under simulated is about 1.7:1, and the ratio of confinement stiffness for the two
seismic load is very similar to that of columns confined by normal specimens is 1:1.8. Because the confining pressure is the product
steel, provided that the two columns having the same ␭s 共Razvi of the confinement stiffness and FRP strain, our results indicate
and Saatcioglu 1994; Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999兲, where ␭s is that the confining pressure applied by FRP at the same displace-
defined as ␭s = ␳s f yl / f ⬘c , ␳s = volumetric ratio of confining rein- ment excursion remains approximately unchanged when different
forcement and f yl = yield stress of confining reinforcement. The types of FRPs are used. This means that the drift capacity of
parameter ␭s is similar to the confinement ratio of FRP, both FRP-retrofitted columns was controlled by the confining pressure
expressing the ratio of confining pressure to the strength of un- of the FRP jacket when the FRP ruptured, and the fracture strain
confined concrete. of FRP had no obvious influence. The difference in the effect of
The foregoing conclusion can be further verified by the strain FRP fracture strain under seismic load is probably caused by the
data of two sets of Specimens 共J1/J2 and CL1/CL2兲 measured in uneven distribution of FRP strain under lateral load, which is
the test, as shown in Fig. 9. The strain gauges, whose readings are different from the uniform distribution of FRP strain under axial
reported, were located 150 mm above the column-footing inter- load 共Binici and Mosalam 2007兲.
face, where most of the damage was concentrated when the col-
umns failed. Only the strain data at the first cycle of every
Effect of the Amount of Confining FRP
displacement excursion are displayed. The strain data of Speci-
men J2 could not be measured after the lateral displacement The relationship between the ultimate drift ratio and confinement
reached 52 mm. This was attributed to the local fiber rupture ratio of all retrofitted columns is displayed in Fig. 10. The dash
around the strain gauge. It can be seen that the strain approxi- lines in the figure are the trend lines from polynomial regression.

538 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. FRP strain at a section height of 150 mm
This figure clearly reveals how the ultimate drift ratio responds to
increases in the amount of confining FRP. When the amount of
confining FRP is low, an increase in the amount of confining FRP
can result in a significant increase in the ultimate drift ratio; for
example, this is demonstrated by the response of the CH series
specimens and J series specimens when the confinement ratio was
below 0.25. When the amount of confining FRP continued to
increase, the drift capacity became insensitive to further changes.
For example, one more layer of CFRP used in Specimen CL3
than Specimen CL2 resulted in no improvement in the ultimate
drift ratio 共Table 3兲. Furthermore, the drift capacity may decrease
Fig. 10. Confinement ratio-drift ratio relationships
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 / 539
J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540
Fig. 11. Influence of the amount of FRP on damaged region length
as the amount of confining FRP increases. For example, an addi-
tional layer of CFRP used in Specimen J8 共compared to Specimen
J4兲 decreased the ultimate drift ratio from 15.8 to 12.5%.
It is found from the test observations that the amount of con-
fining FRP can influence the length of the damaged region. The
behavior of the failure zone of Specimens CH3, CL2, and CL3 is
illustrated in Fig. 11. Specimens CL2 and CL3 were identical in
every respect except for the amount of confining FRP: an addi-
tional layer of FRP was used in Specimen CL3. As can be seen in
the figure, the length of the damaged region of Specimen CL3 is
significantly less than that of Specimen CL2. This observation has
been reported previously: larger amounts of confining FRP will
result in a smaller damaged region 共Iacobucci 2001; Ozbakkalo-
glu and Saatcioglu 2006兲. This decrease of the length of the dam-
aged region resulted in more serious local damage, such as
rupture of the local FRP and crushed concrete, which could im-
pair the deformation capacity of columns. The figure also shows
that the length of the damaged region of Specimen CH3 was
obviously larger than that of Specimen CL2. This is reasonable
because Specimen CH3 had a greater aspect ratio and less con-
fining FRP than Specimen CL2.
The significant influence of the amount of confining FRP on
the length of the damaged region demonstrates that the plastic
hinge length of FRP-retrofitted columns should be influenced by
the amount of confining FRP, because the length of the damaged
region is closely related to the plastic hinge length 共Bae and
Bayrak 2008a兲. Thus, the plastic hinge length is not a constant,
but a function of the confinement ratio. The mechanism of the
phenomena is that the FRP wrapping increases the frictional bond
between the concrete and the longitudinal bars. In two adjacent
cross sections near the base, even a small increase in the bond
stress produces a significant reduction in the strain of the longi-
tudinal bar at the upper cross section after the longitudinal bar
yields because a large change in strain is required to produce a
small change in stress after the bar yields. Clearly, greater con-
finement causes a significantly larger difference in the strain of
the longitudinal bar between the base and the upper section.
When the strain variation is large, the difference in curvature
between adjacent sections is also large. As a result, the base cur-
vature is applicable to a smaller length for columns with a larger
confinement ratio, indicating a smaller plastic hinge length. More-
over, the plastic hinge length greatly influences the drift capacity
of columns. Thus, although the sectional curvature capacity can
always improve as the amount of confining FRP increases, the
drift capacity of retrofitted columns may be improved or impaired
with this increase, as presented in Fig. 10. This is a result of the
fact that the section curvature and plastic hinge length combine to
influence the columns drift capacity. This finding is interesting
and important for a better understanding of the plastic hinge
length of RC columns.
 From Fig. 8共b兲, we can see the drift capacity of retrofitted
square concrete columns increases almost linearly with the con-
finement ratio. This is reasonable because the confinement effect
is less for square concrete columns compared with that for circu-
lar ones 共Wu and Wang 2009兲; thus the influence of the amount of
FRP on the plastic hinge length of square concrete columns will
be less significant than that of circular concrete columns.
Conclusions
Results from an experimental study are presented in which 17
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Nevada - Reno on 02/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
columns were tested under constant axial load and cyclic lateral
displacement excursions that simulated earthquake conditions.
The effect of axial load level, aspect ratio, the amount of confin-
ing FRP, and the type of confining FRP were extensively studied.
The following conclusions are drawn:
1. The axial load level and aspect ratio influence the drift ca-
pacity. A high axial load level is detrimental to the drift ca-
pacity of FRP-retrofitted columns. More confining FRPs are
required for columns resisting a high axial load to obtain the
desired drift capacity. Furthermore, a larger aspect ratio in-
creases the drift capacity.
2. Compared with the performance of columns tested mono-
tonically to failure, three cycles of every displacement excur-
sion significantly influence column drift capacity.
3. Energy dissipation of retrofitted circular concrete columns is
influenced by FRP jacket confinement stiffness. When the
axial load level is low, this influence is insignificant. When
the axial load level is high, greater confinement stiffness al-
lows more energy dissipation.
4. The ultimate fracture strain of FRP material does not impact
the drift capacity of FRP-retrofitted circular concrete col-
umns as long as the confinement ratio remains constant. The
FRP with larger fracture strain is not advantageous in en-
hancing column ductility under seismic load.
5. The amount of confining FRP great affects the drift capacity
of FRP-retrofitted columns. Confinement at low levels will
increase the drift capacity of the columns; however, after a
critical value, a further increase in confinement will reduce
the deformation capacity of the columns.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge financial support from the
National Basic Research Program of China 共973 Program兲 共Grant
No. 2007CB714200兲, the National Natural Science Foundation of
China 共Grant Nos. 50608015 and 50908102兲, and National Key
Technology R&D Program of China in the 11th Five-Year Period
共Grant No. 2006BAJ03B07兲. Supplementary support was pro-
vided by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China 共Project No. CityU 122106兲, and
the research fund of key laboratory of concrete and prestressed
concrete structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ.,
China.
540 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010
J. Compos. Constr., 2010, 14(5): 531-540
References
Bae, S. J., and Bayrak, O. 共2008a兲. “Plastic hinge length of reinforced
concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 105共3兲, 290–300.
Bae, S. J., and Bayrak, O. 共2008b兲. “Seismic performance of full-scale
reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 105共2兲, 123–133.
Belarbi, A., Silva, P. F., and Bae, S. W. 共2008兲. “Retrofit using CFRP
composites of RC bridge columns under combined loads.” Proc., 4th
Int. Symp. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE) 共CD-
ROM兲, EMPA, Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Binici, B. 共2008兲. “Design of FRPs in circular bridge column retrofits for
ductility enhancement.” Eng. Struct., 30共3兲, 766–776.
Binici, B., and Mosalam, K. M. 共2007兲. “Analysis of reinforced concrete
columns retrofitted with fiber reinforced polymer lamina.” Compos-
ites: Part B, 38共5–6兲, 598–613.
Colomb, F., Tobbi, H., Ferrier, E., and Hamelin, P. 共2008兲. “Seismic
retrofit of reinforced concrete short columns by CFRP materials.”
Compos. Struct., 82共4兲, 475–487.
De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R. 共2003兲. “Comparative study of models
on confinement of concrete cylinders with fiber-reinforced polymer
composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 7共3兲, 219–237.
Elsanadedy, H. M., and Haroun, M. A. 共2005兲. “Seismic design guide-
lines for squat composite-jacketed circular and rectangular reinforced
concrete bridge columns.” ACI Struct. J., 102共4兲, 505–514.
Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O. 共2009兲. “Effective stiffness of rein-
forced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 106共4兲, 476–484.
Iacobucci, R. D. 共2001兲. “Seismic upgrade and repair of square reinforced
concrete columns with carbon FRP jackets.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto.
Kowalsky, M. J. 共2000兲. “Deformation limit states for circular reinforced
concrete bridge columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 126共8兲, 869–878.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. 共2003兲. “Design-oriented stress-strain model for
FRP-confined concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17共6–7兲, 471–489.
Memon, M. S. 共2002兲. “Seismic behaviour of square concrete columns
retrofitted with glass fibre reinforced polymers 共GFRPs兲.” M.S. thesis,
Univ. of Toronto, Toronto.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M. 共2006兲. “Seismic behavior of high-
strength concrete columns confined by fiber-reinforced polymer
tubes.” J. Compos. Constr., 10共6兲, 538–549.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. 共1994兲. “Strength and deformability of
confined high-strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 91共6兲,
1–10.
Razvi, S. R., and Saatcioglu, M. 共1999兲. “Confinement model for high-
strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共3兲, 281–289.
Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D. 共1999兲. “Circular high-strength concrete
columns under simulated seismic loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共3兲,
272–280.
Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1997兲. “Seismic retrofit of RC columns
with continuous carbon fiber jackets.” J. Compos. Constr., 1共2兲, 52–
62.
Sheikh, S. A., and Li, Y. M. 共2007兲. “Design of FRP confinement for
square concrete columns.” Eng. Struct., 29共6兲, 1074–1083.
Sheikh, S. A., and Yau, G. 共2002兲. “Seismic behavior of concrete col-
umns confined with steel and fiber-reinforced polymers.” ACI Struct.
J., 99共1兲, 72–81.
Wu, G., Lù, Z. T., and Wu, Z. S. 共2006a兲. “Strength and ductility of
concrete cylinders confined with FRP composites.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 20共3兲, 134–148.
Wu, Y. F., Liu, T., and Oehlers, D. J. 共2006b兲. “Fundamental principles
that govern retrofitting of reinforced concrete columns by steel and
FRP jacketing.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 9共4兲, 507–533.
Wu, Y. F., and Wang, L. M. 共2009兲. “Unified strength model for square
and circular concrete columns confined by external jacket.” J. Struct.
Eng., 135共3兲, 253–261.