Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
External confinement by the wrapping of FRP sheets (or FRP jacketing) provides a very effective method for the retrofit of
reinforced concrete (RC) columns subject to either static or seismic loads. For the reliable and cost-effective design of FRP
jackets, an accurate stressstrain model is required for FRP-confined concrete. In this paper, a new design-oriented stressstrain
model is proposed for concrete confined by FRP wraps with fibres only or predominantly in the hoop direction based on a careful
interpretation of existing test data and observations. This model is simple, so it is suitable for direct use in design, but in the
meantime, it captures all the main characteristics of the stressstrain behavior of concrete confined by different types of FRP. In
addition, for unconfined concrete, this model reduces directly to idealized stressstrain curves in existing design codes. In the
development of this model, a number of important issues including the actual hoop strains in FRP jackets at rupture, the
sufficiency of FRP confinement for a significant strength enhancement, and the effect of jacket stiffness on the ultimate axial
strain, were all carefully examined and appropriately resolved. The predictions of the model are shown to agree well with test
data.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concrete; Fibre reinforced polymer; Confinement; Stressstrain model; Compressive strength; Ultimate strain; Design
1. Introduction
Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have
found increasingly wide applications in civil engineering
due to their high strength-to-weight ratio and high
corrosion resistance. One important application of FRPcomposites is as a confining material for concrete, in
both the retrofit of existing reinforced concrete (RC)
columns by the provision of an FRP jacket, and in
concrete-filled FRP tubes in new construction. As a
result of FRP confinement, both the compressive
strength and ultimate strain of concrete can be greatly
enhanced. In both types of applications, an accurate
axial stressaxial strain model (referred to simply as
stressstrain model hereafter) is required for FRPconfined concrete for reliable and cost-effective designs.
In early studies of FRP retrofit of RC columns, the
stressstrain model of Mander et al. for steel-confined
concrete w1x was directly used in the analysis of FRPconfined concrete columns w2,3x. Subsequent studies,
however, showed that this direct use is inappropriate.
This is because in Mander et al.s model w1x, a constant
*Corresponding author. Tel.: q852-2766-6012; fax: q852-23346389.
E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).
0950-0618/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0950-0618(03)00045-X
472
sht 2sht
s
R
d
(1)
(2)
473
2ffrpt
d
(3)
474
Table 1
Test results of FRP-wrapped concrete specimens
Source of data
d
L
(mm)
(mm)
(a) FRP properties from flat coupon tests by researchers
f9co
(MPa)
co
(%)
Fiber type
t
(mm)
f frp
(MPa)
Efrp
(GPa)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
34.9
34.9
34.9
34.9
38.0
39.4
39.5
42.0
42.0
42.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
33.7
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.8
55.2
55.2
55.2
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
HM carbon
HM carbon
HM carbon
Aramid
Aramid
Aramid
Carbon
Carbon
HM carbon
HM carbon
E-glass
E-glass
E-glass
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Aramid
Aramid
Aramid
Aramid
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
0.17
0.50
0.67
0.14
0.28
0.42
0.15
0.29
0.43
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.24
1.42
1.42
1.42
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.27
2.56
3.86
5.21
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
1.14
0.38
0.38
0.38
2716
2873
2658
1579
1824
1285
2589
2707
2667
2600
2600
1100
1100
363
363
363
1265
1265
1265
230
230
230
230
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
224.6
224.6
224.6
628.6
629.6
576.6
97.1
87.3
87.3
200.0
200.0
420.0
420.0
19.9
19.9
19.9
82.7
82.7
82.7
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
w21x
w21x
w21x
w21x
w21x
w21x
w21x
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
102
102
102
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
204
204
204
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
cc
(%)
0.60
0.39
0.28
0.28
0.41
0.31
cu
(%)
h,rup
(%)
f9cc
(MPa)
1.51
3.11
4.15
0.57
0.88
1.30
1.58
4.75
5.55
0.85
0.72
0.40
0.36
1.73
1.60
1.79
1.65
1.57
1.35
1.11
1.47
1.69
1.74
1.20
1.40
1.24
1.65
2.25
2.16
2.45
3.03
0.98
0.47
0.37
1.57
1.37
1.66
1.74
1.68
1.75
0.69
0.48
0.49
0.94
0.82
0.76
0.23
0.22
0.22
2.36
3.09
2.65
1.15
1.08
0.19
0.18
1.74
2.07
1.89
0.89
0.95
0.80
1.53
1.39
1.33
1.18
0.84
1.15
0.87
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.82
0.90
0.81
0.76
0.28
0.92
1.00
1.01
0.79
0.71
0.84
0.70
0.62
0.19
46.6
87.2
104.6
41.7
56.0
63.3
39.0
68.5
92.1
44.3
42.2
41.3
40.7
57.0
63.1
60.4
73.5
73.5
67.6
47.3
58.9
71.0
74.4
47.9
49.7
49.4
64.6
75.2
71.8
82.9
95.4
54.8
52.1
48.7
84.0
79.2
85.0
96.5
92.6
94.0
57.9
62.9
58.1
f9cu
(MPa)
fo
(MPa)
32.0
35.0
35.0
30.0
36.0
40.0
30.0
30.5
35.0
32.5
32.5
31.0
38.1
40.0
40.0
54.4
51.4
39.2
50.3
53.1
52.0
31.2
31.2
31.2
36.0
36.0
36.0
38.4
38.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
50.4
No.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
152
152
152
152
152
120
120
150
150
305
305
305
305
305
240
240
300
300
55.2
55.2
55.2
55.2
55.2
43
43
38
38
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
1.14
0.3
0.3
0.45
0.45
1577
1577
1577
1577
1577
1028
1028
1028
1028
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
152
191
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
102
102
152
152
152
152
200
200
150
150
304
788
300
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
600
204
204
610
610
610
610
600
600
300
300
39.7
27.1
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
37
32
26.2
26.2
26.2
26.2
27.9
27.9
29.8
29.8
Carbon
Carbon
Glass
Glass
Glass
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
HM carbon
HM carbon
HM carbon
Carbon
Glass
E-glass
E-glass
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
0.36
0.22
0.149
0.447
0.894
0.117
0.351
0.702
0.111
0.222
0.333
0.167
0.334
0.501
0.16
0.35
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.36
0.36
0.165
0.33
1266
3483
3000
3000
3000
3900
3900
3900
3700
3700
3700
3000
3000
3000
3790
1520
383
383
580
580
4400
4400
3550
3550
83.0
230.5
65.0
65.0
65.0
240.0
240.0
240.0
240.0
240.0
240.0
390.0
390.0
390.0
227.0
72.0
21.6
21.6
38.1
38.1
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.39
0.87
0.82
0.71
1.24
0.30
1.21
0.81
1.43
1.45
1.18
1.16
0.95
0.95
1.35
0.74
0.83
0.76
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.80
74.6
77.6
106.5
108.0
103.3
58.5
65.6
62
67.3
1.070
0.576
0.73
1.74
2.5
1.1
2.26
3.23
0.39
2.05
2.59
0.75
1.81
1.69
1.02
1.25
1.30
1.82
1.44
1.65
1.52
1.43
1.23
1.74
0.84
0.67
0.55
1.30
1.10
0.95
1.05
1.06
0.26
1.18
1.14
0.37
0.69
0.64
1.2
1.25
1.15
1.24
0.81
0.72
0.85
1.07
1.23
1.19
56.0
53.9
41.0
61
85
46
77
108
31.4
57.4
69.5
41.5
65.6
79.4
60
52
38.4
52.5
50.6
64.0
82.8
81.2
57.0
72.1
73.1
68.6
68.6
61.2
61.2
61.2
55.6
63.5
42.5
43.8
35.7
35.7
41.1
40.7
40.7
40.7
28.2
26.8
29.6
24
28.2
28.2
37
33
31.5
31.5
33.9
33.9
32.5
32.5
33
34
475
476
Table 2
Average hoop rupture strain ratios
Type of fibre
No. of
FRP material
specimens ultimate
tensile
strain
frp from
coupon
tests
CFRP
52
High modulus CFRP 8
AFRP
7
GFRP
9
Total
76
Ratio of hoop
rupture strain
to FRP
material
ultimate
tensile strain
h,rupyfrp (%)
Average S.D.
Average S.D.
0.0148
0.0045
0.0223
0.0280
0.0160
58.6
78.8
85.1
62.4
63.2
0.0015
0.0027
0.0068
0.0136
0.0080
15.3
16.8
9.5
36.4
20.5
2Efrpth,rup
d
(4)
477
vscqrquscq2r
little strength enhancement can be expected. The behavior of concrete with insufficient FRP confinement has
been observed in some tests conducted by Xiao and Wu
w11x and Aire et al. w22x. For those specimens with the
compressive strength reached before FRP rupture, Table
1 also provides the axial strain at the peak stress cc
and the stress of concrete at the ultimate strain f9cu where
available.
A set of stressstrain curves of concrete confined by
different amounts of FRP is shown in Fig. 4, using the
test data obtained by Xiao and Wu w11x, where the axial
stress is normalized by the unconfined concrete strength.
In Fig. 4, specimen A had an unconfined concrete
strength of 55.2 MPa and was wrapped with one layer
of CFRP (specimen 41 of Table 1a). Specimens B, C
and D had an unconfined concrete strength of 43.8 MPa
(5)
where uscircumferential strain and srslateral (radial) strain. It is commonly known that unconfined concrete in axial compression experiences a volumetric
reduction or compaction up to 90% of the peak stress,
but thereafter the concrete shows volumetric expansion
or dilation which becomes unstable after the peak stress
w34,35x. Unstable dilation has also been observed in
actively confined concrete in tri-axial compression tests
w36,37x. Recently, Mirmiran and his co-authors w6,35x
compared the volumetric responses of FRP-confined
concrete with those of plain concrete and steel-confined
concrete. They demonstrated that for steel-confined concrete, unstable dilation occurs when steel yields, but for
478
B 2R E
MCRsC
D
fl
D G f9co
c
(6)
479
scsf9cox
(7)
where sc and c are the axial stress and strain, respectively, and co is the axial strain at the peak stress of
concrete. However, the direct use of Hognestads parabola as adopted in Miyauchi et al.s model w7x cannot
reflect the process of gradual development of confinement. In fact, the FRP confinement is activated once
micro-cracks in concrete are initiated under loading.
Lillistone and Jolly w10x attempted to account for this
effect in their stressstrain model for concrete-filled
FRP tubes in which the first portion of the stressstrain
curve is described using Hognestads parabola plus an
additional term related to the hoop stiffness of the FRP
Fig. 7. Stress of concrete at ultimate strain vs. Xiao and Wus confinement stiffness parameter.
480
EcyE2.2
4fo
c2 for 0FcFt
(8a)
and
scsfoqE2c for tFcFcu
(8b)
ts
2fo
E
cyE2.
(9)
f9ccyfo
cu
(10)
481
Fig. 9. Stressstrain curves predicted by Spoelstra and Montis analysis-oriented model for concrete confined by different materials.
482
Table 3
Properties of confining materials used for predictions shown in Fig. 9
Confining
material
Elastic modulus
(MPa)
Rupture or yield
stress (MPa)
Rupture or yield
strain (%)
Thickness of confining
jacket (mm)
Steel
CFRP
CFRP
(actual rupture strain)
GFRP
2=105
2.35=105
2.35=105
300
3530
2115
0.15
1.5
0.9
4
0.34
0.567
462
2.0
2.6
23 100
1s
1 w
s1ynsecs2qs3.z~
Esec y
(11a)
2s
1
ws2ynsec(s1qs3)x
Esec
(11b)
3s
1 w
s3ynsecs1qs2.z~
Esec y
(11c)
csy
2
r 1ynsecy2nsec.sr
q
nsec
nsecEsec
(12)
(13)
Eseco
1q4Ay1.x
(14)
where Esecossecant modulus of elasticity at the compressive strength of unconfined concrete and sf9co y co;
As2 if the Hognestads w39x parabola is assumed for
the ascending part of the stressstrain curve of unconfined concrete; and x is given by
xsyJ2 yf9co.fy1y y3
(15)
(16)
483
xs
y3
Fs
D f9co G
EB
FC
D EsecoR GD
y3
h,rup
co
F
G
(17)
cu
h,rup
s
q
co nsecuco
B
=C
D
h,rup
co
2
1ynsec uy2nsecu
. B Efrpt
Fq
E2B
E2
(18)
fl,a
f9co
(21)
nsecu
y3
Efrpt
F C h,rup F
D EsecoR G D co G
=C
(20)
where csnormalized ultimate strain of unconfined concrete, k2sstrain enhancement coefficient, and a and b
are exponents to be determined. The effect of the secant
Poissons ratio nsecu is reflected by the choice of appropriate values for a, b and k2.
Eq. (20) explicitly accounts for the stiffness and the
actual ultimate condition of the jacket. If both a and b
are taken as unity, Eq. (20) reduces to
cu y coscqk2
D EsecoR G
nsecu
2
4k1y1. 1ynsecuy2nsecu
.
cu y coscqk2C
(19)
Fig. 11. Dependence of ultimate secant Poissons ratio on confinement
stiffness ratio.
484
Fig. 13a,b show that the trends of the test data are
similar for both CFRP and AFRP wraps. For HM CFRPwrapped specimens (Fig. 13c), if one of the three
specimens tested by Dias da Silva and Santos (2001) is
excluded (shaded) as a statistical outlier, the remaining
specimens also show a trend similar to those observed
for CFRP or AFRP wraps. A large scatter is observed
for GFRP-wrapped specimens (Fig. 13d), the cause of
which is difficult to pinpoint at the present, but the
predictions of Eq. (22) are well covered by the scatter
of the test data. When all test data are plotted together
(Fig. 13e), a close overall agreement between the test
data and Eq. (22) is observed. Eq. (22), therefore,
provides a unified expression for the ultimate strain of
FRP-confined concrete that is applicable to different
types of FRP. Obviously, more test data for GFRP wraps
should be obtained in the future for further verification
of Eq. (22).
7. Compressive strength of confined concrete
The compressive strength of FRP-confined concrete
has been discussed in detail in Lam and Teng (2002b).
In that paper, the compressive strength of FRP-confined
concrete f9cc is related to the nominal confinement ratio
through
Fig. 12. Strain enhancement ratio vs. actual confinement ratio. (a)
CFRP wraps; (b) AFRP wraps.
cu y cos1.75q12C
Bf
s1.75q12C
l,a
EB
FC
D f9co GD
h,rup
co
E0.45
F
G
f9cc
fl
s1q2
f9co
f9co
(23)
(24)
(22)
485
Fig. 13. Performance of proposed equation for the ultimate strain of FRP-confined concrete. (a) CFRP wraps; (b) AFRP wraps; (c) HM CFRP
wraps; (d) GFRP wraps; (e) all specimens.
(25)
1.0 and 1.2 in most cases, which appear to be independent of the confinement ratio. For the 63 specimens, for
which the values of the intercept are available, the
average ratio of fo yf9co is 1.09 with a standard deviation
of 0.13. It is, therefore, suggested for simplicity that in
the proposed model
fosf9co
(26)
486
cu y cos1.75q5.53C
l,a
EB
FC
frp
E0.45
D f9co GD co G
(27)
Fig. 15. Intercept of stress axis by the second linear portion vs. actual
confinement ratio.
487
Fig. 16. Comparison between proposed model and test stressstrain curves. (a) fl,ayf9cos0.048; (b) fl,ayf9cos0.150 ; (c) fl,ayf9cos0.281; (d)
fl,af9cos0.403.
488
w34x
w35x
w36x
w37x
w38x
w39x
w40x
w41x
w42x
w43x
w44x
w45x
w46x
w47x
w48x
489