Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Finite element modelling and dilation of FRP-conned concrete columns

Osama Youssf a, Mohamed A. ElGawady b,, Julie E. Mills a, Xing Ma a
a
b

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Missouri University of Science and Technology, MO, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 January 2014
Revised 30 July 2014
Accepted 31 July 2014

Keywords:
FRP-conned concrete
KC plasticity model
Concrete shear dilation
Finite element analysis
LS-DYNA

a b s t r a c t
Concrete dilation is one of the main parameters that controls the stressstrain behaviour of conned concrete. Several analytical studies have been carried out to predict the stressstrain behaviour of concrete
encased in bre-reinforced polymer (FRP), which is crucial for structural design. However, none of these
studies have provided a simple formula to determine the dilation parameter that is always required in the
nite element (FE) material modelling of concrete. This paper presents a simple empirical model predicting the conned concrete dilation parameter within the theoretical framework of a Karagozian and Case
type concrete plasticity model. A set of 105 FRP-conned specimens with different unconned concrete
strengths (f 0 c) and connement moduli (E1) was analysed using the LS-DYNA program. The model predictions of the conned ultimate strength (f 0 cc), conned ultimate axial strain (Ecc) and conned ultimate
hoop strain (Eh) were compared with the corresponding experimental database results for each specimen.
In addition, the model axial and hoop stressstrain curves of each specimen were developed and compared with the corresponding experimental ones. The proposed model was able to predict stressstrain
curves of the test specimens quite well .The proposed model was able to predict f0 cc with mean errors (M)
and standard deviations (SD) of 2.6% and 10.7%, respectively. Similarly, the model predicted Ecc with M
and SD values of 0.3% and 29.0%, respectively. Finally, the model was less successful in predicting Eh with
M and SD values of 13.7% and 26.3%, respectively.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, external connement of concrete columns by
bre reinforced polymer (FRP) has become increasingly popular.
This includes FRP-wrapping of existing columns (e.g. ElGawady
et al [1]) and concrete encased in FRP tubes for new column construction (e.g. ElGawady et al. [2], ElGawady and Shalan [3]). The
FRP-connement is able to increase the concrete ductility because
of the high tensile strain capacity of the FRP tubes in the hoop
direction which increases the axial strain capacity of the conned
columns.
The accuracy of a connement constitutive model depends on
how well it captures the interaction between the concrete dilation
(which depends on concrete material characteristics), the lateral
pressure (which depends on connement material characteristics),
and the amount of plastic volumetric strain. Numerous studies
have established analytical constitutive models for FRP-conned
concrete. Ozbakkaloglu et al. [4] conducted a comparative study
of 68 constitutive models for circular concrete cross sections

Corresponding author. Address: 1401 N. Pine Street, Rolla, MO, USA.

E-mail address: elgawadym@mst.edu (M.A. ElGawady).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.045
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

conned using FRP. The average absolute error (M) and standard
deviation (SD) in predicting the ultimate conned strengths (f0 cc),
using design-oriented models, were 18.6% and 18.9%, respectively.
Using analysis-oriented models, the M and SD in predicting f0 cc
increased slightly to 22.2% and 19.5%, respectively. However, the
predictions of ultimate conned axial strains (Ecc) were more challenging. The M and SD in predicting Ecc using design-oriented models were 53.0% and 57.1%, respectively, while they increased to
130% and 173%, respectively, using analysis-oriented models.
The behaviour of concrete as a pressure sensitive material can be
modelled using the theory of plasticity. In order to provide an accurate prediction of the behaviour of passively-conned concrete
(FRP-conned concrete), a plasticity model needs to have the following three features [5]: (1) a yield criterion that reects the effect of
the third deviatoric stress invariant; (2) a connement-dependent
hardening/softening rule; and (3) a connement-dependent ow
rule, in which the dilation parameter is related not only to the conning pressure but also to the rate of connement increase. Drucker
and Prager (DP) type plasticity models implemented in nite
element (FE) codes have been widely used in the literature to predict
the behaviour of FRP-conned concrete (e.g. [513]). However, a
conventional DP model does not include all three features
mentioned above [5].

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

The concrete plasticity ow rule relates to the angle of the plastic-deformation-rate vector to the yield surface. This angle can be
90 degrees or less [14]. The plastic ow that develops along a line
normal to the yield surface is known as an associative ow rule. If
an associative ow rule is used for the concrete model, too much
shear dilation tends to occur [15]. In the DP model, many
researchers (e.g. Lan [16], Fang [17], Mahfouz et al. [18]) adopted
an associative ow rule which led to an overestimation of the
lateral expansion of the conned concrete. Mirmiran et al. [7],
Shahawy et al. [19] and Wong et al. [20] used a non-associative
ow rule. This led to good predictions of the axial stressstrain
curves, but not the volumetric responses. In these cases the lateral
responses of the conned concrete were predicted reasonably well
but not with high accuracy [5].
While the dilation parameter is important in determining the
axial capacity and volumetric response of FRP-conned concrete,
only a few studies have attempted to quantify appropriate values
for the dilation parameter. Yu et al. [5], Jiang et al. [8], and Jiang
and Wu [6] demonstrated that the concrete axial plastic strain during the loading and the rate of connement increment affect the
shear dilation of concrete. They provided analytical models that
presented the variation of the concrete dilation parameter as a
function of the plastic strain and the connement lateral stiffness
ratio. These models could be used as a subroutine in FE programs.
However, these models were not able to provide close predictions
of FRP-conned concrete behaviour, and they were also cumbersome and complicated for use in practical design situations.
Rousakis et al. [21] and Karabinis et al. [9] developed a dilation
parameter for DP plasticity models that is a function of concrete
compressive strength (f0 c) and connement modulus (E1). The connement modulus is dened as the ratio of connement pressure
(fl) to hoop strain (Eh). [22]. Connement pressure, fl, can be calculated using the formula:

fl

2f t tf
D

71

Fig. 1. Effect of dilation parameter on axial stressstrain curve.

Fig. 2. Negative dilation parameter for high connement.

where ft is the ultimate tensile strength of the FRP material, tf is the

connement thickness, and D is the concrete core diameter. An analytical model for the dilation parameter in DP plasticity model as a
function of f0 c and E1 was provided by Rousakis et al. [21].
1.1. Shear dilation parameter
The concrete material model of Karagozian and Case (KC) is a
plasticity-based concrete material model implemented in the LSDYNA software package [23,24]. This model has the capability of
auto-generating the required model parameters based solely on
the concrete f0 c. It also incorporates many important features of
concrete behaviour such as tensile fracture energy. The KC concrete model overcomes the shortcomings of the DP plasticity
model [25]. It is a three invariant model that uses three shear failure surfaces: the initial yield surface, the maximum yield surface,
and the residual yield surface. In addition, the model adopts a
variable ow rule and shear dilation values which can take into
consideration the connement effects [25].
In the KC model, one approach to determine the appropriate
plastic volumetric strain is to control the shear dilation parameter
(x). This parameter is the fraction associativity dened as the initial ratio of the plastic volumetric strain increment to that would
occur if the plastic ow were fully associated in the hydrostatic
plane [26]. The value of x was recommended to vary between
0.0 for non-associative ow and 1.0 for associative ow
[15,27,28]. However, guidelines for selecting such shear dilation
parameters are scarce. Noble et al. [27] recommended a value of
x ranging between 0.5 and 0.7. The value of this parameter significantly affects the slope of the plastic behaviour zone of the

Fig. 3. Description of non-associative, partial-associative, and associative ow rules

[15].

FRP-conned concrete stressstrain curve. Fig. 1 shows the effect

of this dilation parameter value on the predicted axial stressstrain
behaviour of 41.6 MPa conned concrete using 1 layer of carbon
FRP. As shown in the gure, the increase of dilation parameter
increases the plastic behaviour slope. In this gure, a zero value
of x matched well with the experimental results. However, in high
connement cases (e.g. 6 layers of FRP), the appropriate values of
x could be negative values as shown in Fig. 2. Positive dilation of
concrete represents volume expansion. So, negative dilation

72

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Table 1
Experimental database used to develop the model.
Specimen No.

f0 c (MPa)

D (mm)

H (mm)

H/D

Fibre type

tf (mm)

Ef (GPa)

Ef (%)

E1 (MPa)

E1/f0 c

Source

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

33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
43.7
43.7
43.7
55.2
38.0
38.0
38.0
45.9
45.9
45.9
37.7
44.2
44.2
47.6
35.0
35.0
35.0
38.5
38.5
45.9
41.1
38.9
39.6
39.6
39.0
39.0
39.0

150

300

2.0

Carbon

0.38
0.38
0.76
1.14
0.38
0.76
1.14
0.76
0.68
1.02
1.36
0.17
0.34
0.51
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.17
0.33
0.50
1.27
2.54
0.51
0.17
0.33
0.34
0.51
0.40
0.40
0.60

105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
241
241
241
80
80
80
260
260
260
250
250
250
250
22
22
80
250
247
80
80
120
120
120

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.5

533
533
1066
1600
533
1066
1600
1066
2182
3273
4364
181
353
544
381
381
762
1102
551
1102
1653
369
738
544
550
1086
363
544
640
640
960

16
16
32
47
1
2
36
19
57
86
115
4
8
12
10
9
17
23
16
31
47
10
19
12
13
28
9
14
16
16
25

[22]

32
33
34
35

39.0
34.3
34.3
34.3

Carbon + Glass

0.60
2.63
2.44
2.83

120
18
19
13

2.5
2.0
2.0
1.4

960
634
618
490

25
18
18
14

Glass

Carbon

Glass

Carbon
Glass
Aramid

Glass

[36]

[34]

[36]
[35]
[37]
[39]

[32]

Table 2
Experimental database used to validate the model.
Specimen No.

f0 c (MPa)

D (mm)

H (mm)

H/D

Fibre type

tf (mm)

Ef (GPa)

Ef (%)

E1 (MPa)

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
43.7
43.7
43.7
43.7
55.2
55.2
55.2
55.2
55.2
38
38
38
45.9
45.9
37.7
44.2
47.6
47.6
35
35
35
35
35
35
38.5
38.5
41.1

150

300

Carbon

0.38
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
0.76
0.76
1.14
1.14
1.14
0.68
1.02
1.36
0.17
0.34
0.11
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.17
0.17
0.33
0.33
0.5
0.5
1.27
2.54
0.17

105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
241
241
241
80
80
260
260
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
22
22
250

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.3
1.5

533
1066
1066
1600
1600
1066
1066
1600
1600
1066
1066
1600
1600
1600
2182
3273
4364
181
353
381
762
1102
1102
551
551
1102
1102
1653
1653
369
738
550

Glass
Carbon

Glass
Carbon

E1/f0 c
16
32
32
47
47
24
24
36
36
19
19
29
29
29
57
86
15
4
8
10
17
23
23
16
16
31
3
4
47
10
19
13

Source
[22]

[36]

[34]

[35]

73

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Table 2 (continued)
Specimen No.

f0 c (MPa)

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

41.1
38.9
38.9
39.6
39.6
26
26
41.6
41.6
41.6
53.5
53.5
53.5
39.2
39.2
39.2
62.5
62.5
62.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
31.0
31.0
31.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0

D (mm)

H (mm)

H/D

Fibre type

Glass
160

320

Carbon

100

200

200

320

1.6

76

305

Glass
Carbon

152

435

2.8

Glass

Carbon

tf (mm)

Ef (GPa)

Ef (%)

E1 (MPa)

E1/f0 c

0.17
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.51
1.00
3.00
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.23
0.35
0.35
0.12
0.12
0.23
0.23
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.24
0.22
0.33
0.80
1.60
2.40
0.11
0.23
0.55

250
247
247
80
80
34
34
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
73
230
373
32
34
36
367
390
415

1.5
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.2
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.5
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.9

550
1086
1086
363
544
425
1275
598
1196
1794
598
1196
1794
598
1196
1794
598
1196
1794
561
842
842
280
280
561
561
842
842
842
458
1334
3237
335
713
1133
529
1177
2995

13
28
28
9
14
16
49
14
29
43
11
22
33
15
30
46
9
19
29
14
22
22
8
8
16
16
24
24
24
15
43
104
10
20
32
15
34
85

Source

[37]
[38]
[29]

[33]

[30]

[31]

Constrained in X and Y

Constrained in X, Y and Z

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. FE Geometry of the conned concrete core: (a) isometric view and (b)
elevation view.
Fig. 5. FE dilation parameter versus E1/f0 c.

represents volume contraction. At a given axial strain, increasing

the connement thickness decreases the specimen hoop strain
[29]. This reects expansions and contractions in the total volume
for the low and high conned concrete, respectively.
In LS-DYNA, the conned concrete dilation parameter mainly
depends on the ow rule of the constitutive model being used
[15]. The ow rule can be the non-associative, partial associative
or associative ow rule. A description of the various ow rule types
is shown in Fig. 3 [15]. In this gure, h is the ow angle, and hn is
the ow angle at which no shear dilation occurs.
This research develops a simple, yet efcient, empirical equation that takes into consideration the effect of connement to

determine the dilation parameter x in the KC model. A database consisting of the experimental constitutive stressstrain relationship of 35 FRP conned specimens was collected and modelled
using the LS-DYNA program. For each specimen, the best-t x
value was selected based on the equal energy concept and then a
regression analysis was carried out to develop an equation for x
as a function of f0 c and E1. Then, the developed expression for the
dilation parameter was implemented in LS-DYNA and was used
to predict the f0 cc, Ecc, and Eh of an additional 70 FRP-conned specimens, as well as the general behaviour of the stressstrain curves.

74

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

the FRP modulus of elasticity, Ef is the FRP rupture strain, and E1

is the connement modulus calculated using Eq. (2).

2. Experimental database
A large number of circular FRP-conned concrete test results
have been reported in the literature. However, most of the published data has not reported the full stressstrain curve but rather
has reported some critical values such as f 0 c, f 0 cc, Ecc, and Eh. During
the current study and to calibrate the dilation parameter, only published data that included full stressstrain curve data was considered. Hence, a database including 105 test results was collected
and reported in Tables 1 and 2. In these tables, D is the specimen
diameter, H is the specimen height, tf is the FRP thickness, Ef is

E1

2Ef tf
D

The data in the tables were collected from Toutanji [30], Sa et al.
[31]. Xiao and Wu [22], Zhang et al. [32], Karabinis and Rousakis
[33], Lam and Teng [34], Lam et al. [35], Jiang and Teng [36], Teng
et al. [37], Benzaid et al. [38], Ozbakkaloglu and Akin [39], and
Youssf et al. [29]. Of the total database, 35 specimens that had
slenderness ratios (H/D) of 2.0 were used for the calibration

Fig. 6. FE versus experimental results for low and high connement modulus: (a) volumetric strainaxial stress and (b) axial strainhoop strain.

Table 3
Predictions for the data used to develop the model.

Specimen No.

f0 cc EXP.

f0 cc Model

Error (%)

Ecc EXP.

Ecc Model

Error (%)

Eh EXP.

Eh Model

Error (%)

Source

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

49
48
73
94
54
84
95
77
110
136
161
48
55
66
49
50
65
85
52
69
92
52
76
6
55
79
56
64
68
67
88
88
51
58
52

48
48
82
116
62
76
86
87
104
121
136
48
56
64
47
53
63
77
51
64
88
53
69
64
57
68
52
61
68
69
81
82
53
52
45

2
0
11
24
13
10
9
14
5
11
15
0
1
3
4
5
3
9
1
8
4
2
8
2
5
13
7
3
0
3
7
7
4
11
13

12,760
12,760
21,850
29,410
8893
16,010
17,190
13,580
24,977
30,662
36,499
3011
12,357
18,796
9966
8029
11,357
16,542
12,550
16,640
23,980
13,010
24,300
15,226
10,690
20,450
19,220
21,810
22,920
23,070
30,420
30,940
18,353
26,263
15,297

11,985
11,985
26,049
33,491
11,651
12,763
13,295
12,700
19,701
24,960
22,165
3656
12,447
13,217
10,665
11,267
12,455
13,595
12,276
13,185
19,886
17,110
19,924
13,217
12,111
13,646
16,971
18,115
20,190
20,191
21,615
21,616
19,663
20,377
11,522

6
6
19
14
31
20
23
6
21
19
39
21
1
30
1
40
10
18
2
21
17
31
18
13
13
33
12
17
12
12
29
30
7
22
25

10,880
11,060
10,500
9600
5059
10,000
8118
7529
9583
9160
8454
4172
18,252
19,712
10,871
8255
10,660
10,301
10,120
9571
8834
14,410
17,310
15,749
10,500
11,290

8675
8675
13,631
14,075
4042
7429
6169
7745
7769
5966
6197
2024
12,239
10,858
12,083
10,279
8522
7820
9115
7076
8524
15,716
12,680
10,858
9551
7935

20
22
30
47
20
26
24
3
19
35
27
51
33
45
11
24
20
24
10
26
3
9
27
31
9
30

[22]

No data available.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

[36]

[34]

[36]
[35]
[37]
[39]

[32]

75

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Table 4
Predictions for the data used to validate the model.

Specimen No.

f0 cc EXP.

f0 cc Model

Error (%)

Ecc EXP.

Ecc Model

Error (%)

Eh EXP.

Eh Model

Error (%)

Source

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

50
71
75
83
86
78
84
92
96
74
78
107
106
102
107
129
158
46
53
50
63
85
83
51
54
70
72
85
97
58
77
57
57
82
81
55
66
39
66
66
90
108
78
113
137
62
89
113
76
106
138
55
67
52
42
40
49
51
63
67
65
61
100
93
53
66
83
56
68
96

48
82
82
116
116
76
76
86
86
87
87
99
99
99
104
121
136
48
56
47
63
77
77
51
51
64
64
88
88
53
69
57
57
68
68
52
61
38
57
67
85
104
80
104
121
63
75
101
89
115
133
56
63
63
43
43
51
51
59
59
59
50
68
65
44
65
80
51
69
97

4
15
9
40
35
3
9
6
10
17
12
7
6
3
3
6
14
4
5
6
0
9
6
0
5
9
11
3
9
9
10
0
0
17
15
4
7
4
12
2
5
3
3
8
12
2
16
10
17
8
3
2
7
21
2
7
6
1
7
12
10
18
33
30
16
2
4
9
1
1

12,050
21,500
22,320
24,690
23,150
13,400
15,770
16,600
17,310
11,310
8214
14,060
13,330
10,950
25,259
27,472
35,111
2712
11,890
9188
10,052
17,725
12,999
13,690
13,010
19,610
18,030
22,400
24,810
14,570
22,010
11,990
11,740
21,890
21,210
20,670
25,460
12,710
14,820
11,248
15,702
18,091
11,251
18,135
21,306
7451
14,559
18,376
7072
12,612
17,439
8667
17,440
9573
8394
12,300
10,300
10,740
16,880
16,880
16,810
15,660
28,070
14,750
19,300
24,630
30,220
10,470
16,270
22,580

11,985
26,049
26,049
33,491
33,491
12,763
12,763
13,295
13,295
12,700
12,700
14,054
14,054
14,054
19,701
24,960
22,165
3656
12,447
10,665
12,455
13,595
13,595
12,276
12,276
13,185
13,185
19,886
19,886
17,110
19,924
12,111
12,111
13,646
13,646
16,971
18,115
10,697
12,526
17,591
18,653
20,322
16,748
18,868
19,638
16,479
14,357
20,141
17,104
19,477
19,435
12,307
12,896
12,896
11,510
11,510
12,372
12,372
12,517
12,517
12,517
18,799
14,917
8591
14,772
17,908
20,006
12,323
14,571
15,744

1
21
17
36
45
5
19
20
23
12
55
1
5
28
22
9
37
35
5
16
24
23
5
10
6
33
27
11
20
17
9
1
3
38
36
18
29
16
15
56
19
12
49
4
8
121
1
10
142
54
11
42
26
35
37
6
20
15
26
26
25
20
47
42
23
27
34
18
10
30

8471
9059
9529
7765
8824
9647
8824
8235
7765
7294
8118
7882
8118
7529
9019
8877
8454
1982
16,687
8929
9295
10,038
9112
11,320
9847
9847
9202
8306
9571
19,030
16,560
10,630
10,630
11,210
11,380

8675
13,631
13,631
14,075
14,075
7429
7429
6169
6169
7745
7745
6469
6469
6469
7769
5966
6197
2024
12,239
12,083
8522
7820
7820
9115
9115
7076
7076
8524
8524
15,716
12,680
9551
9551
7935
7935

8220
5351

13,653
10,928
9360
12,152
7587
8654
14,276
11,379
9691

11,512
5292
1963
13,595
10,580
8688
8975
6414
3983

2
50
43
81
59
23
16
25
21
6
5
18
20
14
14
33
27
2
27
35
8
22
14
19
7
28
23
3
11
17
23
10
10
29
30

38
60

13
19
25
20
38
27
27
4
19

27
61
55
17
33
47
7
46
58

[22]

No data available.

*
*

13,310
13,230
*
*
*

12,114
13,570
12,522
10,094
12,183
11,786
11,198
11,906
11,968
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

15,710
13,570
4388
16,460
15,820
16,460
9658
11,960
9485

[36]

[34]

[35]

[37]
[38]
[29]

[33]

[30]

[31]

76

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Table 5
Statistical parameters for the errors in the proposed model.
Conned concrete property

Data used to develop the model

Data used to validate the model
All data

Ultimate strength (f0 cc)

Ultimate axial strain (Ecc)

Ultimate hoop strain (Eh)

M (%)

SD (%)

M (%)

SD (%)

M (%)

SD (%)

2.3
2.7
2.6

8.5
11.6
10.7

7.4
3.2
0.3

20
33.6
29

14.5
13.3
13.7

23.3
27.8
26.3

M: Mean. SD: Standard deviation.

Fig. 7. Experimental results versus model predictions for both calibration data (left) and validation data (right) of: (a) f0 cc, (b) Ecc and (c) Eh.

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

77

3. Finite element modelling

3.1. Model geometry

Fig. 8. Variation of effective rupture strain with respect to FRP rupture strain from
coupon test at constant E1/f0 c.

and development of the expression for x (see Table 1). A total of 70

additional specimens were then used to test the proposed model
(see Table 2). In the collected database, f0 c ranged from 26 to
62.5 MPa, E1 ranged from 181 to 4364 MPa, the specimens diameters ranged from 76 to 200 mm, and the specimens slenderness
ratios ranged from 1.6 to 4.0. The FRP connements in this study
were formed using carbon, glass, and aramid bres. Filament
wound tubes, and FRP wraps were considered in this study.
Researchers [40,41] reported that there was no difference in behaviour between concrete encased in these two different types of FRP
tubes.

The concrete core of a test cylinder was modelled using 8-node

constant stress solid hexahedron elements, which have six degrees
of freedom at each node. Single point volume integration was carried out by Gaussian quadrature. Hourglass control with an hourglass coefcient of 0.03, as recommended by LS-DYNA support
[42], was provided in order to avoid the zero energy modes. FRP
jackets were modelled using 4-node shell elements with six
degrees of freedom at each node. This element includes membrane,
bending and shear deformation capabilities. The section attribute
for this element was thickness alone. The shell thickness of a given
specimen was selected to be equal to the FRP thickness that was
reported in the database (Tables 1 and 2). The BelytschkoTsay
[43] element formulation was used for the shell elements, which
is the default theory for shell elements in LS-DYNA [44] due to
its computational efciency. It is based on a combined co-rotational and velocity strain formulation. The co-rotational portion
of the formulation avoids the complexities of non-linear mechanics
by embedding a co-ordinate system in the element [25].
Fig. 4 shows the geometry of a 150  300 mm specimen with its
boundary conditions. Each specimen was axially loaded with a displacement control using a rate of 0.01 mm/s. The displacement was
uniformly applied to all nodes at the top surface of the cylinder,
using the BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_ MOTION card, by linking them
together in a node set to simulate the rigid loading plate of the
compression testing-machine. For this node set, nodal constraints

Fig. 9. Effect of E1/f0 c on the % error of: (a) f0 cc, (b) Ecc and Eh.

78

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Fig. 10. Effect of E1 on the % error at f0 c = 3040 MPa (left) and at f0 c = 4050 MPa (right) of: (a) f0 cc, (b) Ecc and (c) Eh.

were applied for translation in the global X and Y directions,

whereas the nodes were free to translate in the Z direction, see
Fig. 4(b). Another similar node set was generated at the bottom
surface of the concrete cylinder and was constrained in the global
X, Y, and Z directions. The node-set constraint actions were dened
using the BOUNDARY_SPC_SET card.
In order to choose the optimum mesh size for the FE model, a
mesh sensitivity analysis was carried out on a 150  300 mm cylinder using element aspect ratios ranging between 1.0 and 3.0, the
number of solid elements ranging between 96 and 2100 and the

number of shell elements ranging between 64 and 400. Increasing

the number of elements was carried out using constant aspect
ratios which resulted in smaller element sizes. The FRP shell element mesh was modelled like the concrete outer surface element
mesh. The best t to the experimental results was achieved using
an aspect ratio of 1.5, 1024 solid elements and 256 shell elements.
The shell lengths in the circumferential and longitudinal directions
were about 469 mm and 296 mm, respectively. All other specimen
sizes were then modelled using the same procedures with an
element aspect ratio of 1.5.

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

79

Fig. 11. Effect of f0 c on the % error at E1 = 1811000 MPa (left) and at E1 = 10004000 MPa (right) of: (a) f0 cc, (b) Ecc and (c) Eh.

3.2. Material modelling

The KC model, *MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_RELIII, was used
for simulating the concrete material [45]. This model has the capability of auto-generating the required model parameters based
solely on the unconned compressive strength of concrete. It was
used in conjunction with an equation of state, EOS_TABULATED_
COMPACTION, which gives the current pressure, P, as a function
of current and previous volumetric strain. In this tabulated
compaction model, pressure P = C (Ev), where Ev is the volumetric

strain. The function C (Ev) was entered as a series of C, Ev pairs in

the keyword input le using the automatically generated values.
Once the pressure is known, the stress tensor can be calculated
as being a point of a moveable surface that can be a yield surface
or a failure surface. One of the features of this model is the ability
to control the fracture energy of the system which controls the
tension softening of the concrete. The fracture energy can be introduced using two different approaches. In the rst approach, the
user may select the input fracture energy. Alternatively, the KC
model can automatically generate the fracture energy for a given

80

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Fig. 12. Effect of slenderness ratio on the % error of: (a) f0 cc, (b) Ecc and Eh.

f 0 c using the recommendations of CEB. The second approach was

used throughout this study. More details and features of this material model can be found in [23,24].
The FRP jacket was modelled using the MAT_ORTHOTROPIC_ELASTIC_002 material model [44]. This is used to dene orthotropic materials such as unidirectional layers in composite shell
structures. In addition, it allows the user to control the FRP shell
properties in three dimensions and control the FRP-shell bre
direction. This material model adopts laminated shell theory for
the purpose of correcting the assumption of a uniform constant
shear strain throughout the thickness of the composite shell; thus,
avoiding very stiff results [46]. The MAT_ADD_ EROSION card was
used to control the failure strain of the FRP shell. The failure strain
was selected based on either the coupon test results or the manufacturers data, as reported by each individual study in the
database.
A perfect bond was assumed between the FRP jacket and the
concrete core by sharing the same nodes at the contact surface
as recommended by previous FE studies (e.g. Elsanadedy et al.
[25] and Mohammed [47]). In addition, the AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE card was used to model the interface between
the FRP shell elements and the concrete solid elements. The shell
elements were modelled as a slave segment set and the solid elements were modelled as master segment set.

4. Estimation of dilation parameter

The FE model described above was used to model the behaviour
of 35 standard conned concrete specimens. These specimens had

f 0 c ranging from 26 to 55.2 MPa and E1 ranging from 181 to

4364 MPa. For each specimen, the dilation parameter was changed
and the resulting axial stressstrain was used to calculate the
toughness. The toughness from the experimental results was then
compared to that from the FE analysis. The value of the dilation
parameter corresponding to the least root mean square errors in
the toughness was selected as the best t value for this specimen.
Calibration of the dilation parameter resulted in the relationship
presented in Eq. (3) and Fig. 5.

"
Dilation parameter x 0:195 ln

E1
0
fc

!#
0:6115

As shown in the gure, the shear dilation parameter decreased as

E1/f 0 c increased. This means for a given f0 c, by increasing the number


2E t
of FRP layers increasing E1 Df f the dilation of the concrete
decreased. In addition, the value of the dilation parameter
approached zero at E1/f 0 c = 23.0. Beyond that increasing E1/f 0 c led
to contraction rather than expansion in the specimen volume.
Fig. 6(a) shows an example of the volumetric behaviour for low
and high carbon FRP connement of 53.5 MPa concrete. As shown
in the gure, each specimens volume contracted until it reached
its f0 c. Beyond that, for the low connement (1-layer), the inadequate lateral restriction led the contraction to change to expansion.
But, for the relatively high connement (3-layers), the high lateral
restriction led to ongoing contraction. Selecting the appropriate
dilation parameter x is able to control the volumetric behaviour
(expansion or contraction) of the FE models to closely match the
experimental results. Fig. 6(b) shows the dilation rate, dened as

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

81

Fig. 13. Model verication versus Youssf et al. [29] experimental data: (a) f0 c = 41.6 MPa, (b) f0 c = 53.5 MPa and (c) f0 c = 62.5 MPa.

the rate of change of hoop strains with respect to axial strains

[29,48,49], of the same specimens. The relatively high dilation rate
of the low connement specimen conrms its relatively high
expansion compared to the higher connement specimen that
has lower dilation rate leading to lower expansion (or contraction)
as shown in Fig. 6(a).
5. Results and discussion
Results obtained from the FE modelling, using the proposed
dilation parameter model, were compared with those of the experimental results for the database specimens. Tables 3 and 4 show
the experimental results and the proposed FE model predictions,
using the proposed dilation parameter formula (Eq. (3)), for f0 cc,
Ecc, and Eh. In this table, the error % was calculated as:

Error %

EXP: result  FE result

 100
EXP: result

Table 5 summarizes the means and the standard deviations of

errors in the predicted f0 cc, Ecc, and Eh for both data used to develop
the model and data used to validate the model, as well as, the whole
database. The proposed model has mean errors of 2.6%, 0.3%, and
13.7% and standard deviations of 10.7%, 29.0%, and 26.3% in the predicted values of f0 cc, Ecc, and Eh, respectively, for the whole database.
Thus, the proposed model was able to predict f0 cc more accurately
compared to predictions of Ecc, and Eh.
Fig. 7 shows the experimental results versus the predicted ones
for f0 cc, Ecc, and Eh for both calibration data (left side) and validation

data (right side). The trend line is close to the neutral line in
Fig. 7(a) which indicates good predictions of f0 cc. However, most
of the data for Ecc, and Eh are below the neutral line which reveals
that the model underestimates Ecc, and Eh. The relatively high scatter in the Ecc and Eh predictions, Fig. 7(b and c), is attributed to the
issue of selecting the appropriate value of the effective rupture
strain for the FRP shell. The value of the effective rupture strain
is hard to predict because of its high variability in the available
experimental database. Fig. 8 shows the high scatter of Eh/Ef at constant E1/f0 c. The value ranges between 0.34 and 1.31. Some
researchers have recommended using a value of 0.500.85 of the
ultimate strain obtained from coupon tests [5054]. Most empirical models use average constant values with respect to the material properties of the FRP jacket. It is worth noting that the
effective rupture strain value that was used in the present FE analysis was the full value of material properties that were mentioned
in each individual study (Eh/Ef = 1).

6.1. Model errors

Fig. 9 shows the error variations of the proposed model predictions for f0 cc, Ecc, and Eh with respect to E1/f0 c. As shown in the gure,
there are no strong correlations between E1/f0 c and the error variation (low R2 values). The scattering in f0 cc errors was less than that
of Ecc, and Eh. Considering that errors of 20% are generally accepted
in concrete models, the proposed model was able to predict 94.2%,
51.4%, and 37.0% of the presented data in that range (Fig. 9) for f0 cc,

82

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Fig. 14. Model verication versus Xiao and Wu [22] experimental data: (a) f0 c = 33.6 MPa, (b) f0 c = 43.7 MPa and (c) and f0 c = 55.2 MPa.

Fig. 15. Model verication versus Lam and Teng [34] experimental data: (a) f0 c = 35.0 MPa and (b) f0 c = 38.5 MPa.

Ecc, and Eh, respectively. This demonstrates again that the model is
able to predict the ultimate strength well, and predict the ultimate
axial and hoop strains moderately well.
The factors affecting errors in the model predictions are those
related to the experimental work as well the numerical modelling.
During the experimental work, strain measurements are discrete at

few locations while FRP rupture may occur far from these locations. Hence, these strain measurements are less than the actual
ultimate strains. Many of the tested cylinders were wrapped in
FRP sheets where the quality of the wrapping and workman ship
play crucial role. For the numerical model, the FRP and concrete
characteristics signicantly affect the model performance. One of

83

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Fig. 16. Model verication versus Lam et al. [35] experimental data: (a) f0 c = 38.9 MPa and (b) f0 c = 41.1 MPa.

the main inaccuracies in modelling FRP is the assumed linear relationship. Many experimental tests on FRP coupons showed that
FRP is not perfectly linear especially close to failure and some nonlinear behaviour was observed. However, since this insignicant
nonlinearity does not affect the global (macro) performance of concrete encased in FRP, there is consensus among researchers to
ignore such nonlinearity. However, such nonlinearity may affect
the local (micro) behaviour
of concrete
encased in FRP. Fig. 10


2E t
shows the effect of E1 E1 Df f on the model errors at a given
f0 c. In addition, Fig. 11 shows the effect of f0 c on the model errors
at a given E1. As shown in the gures, there are no strong correlations between either E1 or f0 c and the error variation (as indicated
by low R2 values). In Fig 10, the model errors in f0 cc and Ecc predictions decrease as E1 increases for the f0 c ranging from 30 to 40 MPa,
Fig. 10(a and b). From Fig. 11, it can also be observed that increases
in f0 c have no signicant effect on the f0 cc predictions (most errors
are lower than 20%) at both low and high connement moduli,
Fig. 11(a). In addition, increasing f0 c does not have signicant effect
on the errors in predicting Ecc, and Eh at low connement modulus,
Fig. 11(b and c) left. However, it decreases the model errors for predictions of Ecc, and Eh at high connement modulus, Fig. 11(b and c)
right.
6.2. Effect of concrete slenderness ratio
The effect of the slenderness ratio (H/D) of the concrete specimen on the model prediction errors is shown in Fig. 12. The available range of H/D was from 1.6 to 4.0 (Table 1). This analysis was
carried out by comparing model results at similar E1/f0 c. As shown
in the gure, the errors do not have a strong correlation with different values of slenderness ratios (low R2 values). Nevertheless,
Fig. 12(a) shows no change in the error range of f0 cc predictions
up to H/D = 2.85. Beyond that, at H/D = 4.0, the model had relatively higher errors compared to other H/D ratios. Thus, there is
no signicant effect of changing cylinder slenderness ratio on the
model predictions.
6.3. Stressstrain predictions
The proposed model predictions, in terms of axial and hoop
stressstrain behaviours, were compared to the database experimental results. Figs. 1317 show some of the predicted stress
strain curves with respect to the corresponding experimental ones
which were provided by Youssf et al. [29], Xiao and Wu [22], Lam
and Teng [34], Lam et al. [35], and Teng et al. [37]. In these gures,
the positive axial strain values represent compressive strains and

Fig. 17. Model

(f0 c = 39.6 MPa).

verication

versus

Teng

et

al.

[37]

experimental

data

the negative hoop strain values represent tensile strains. As shown

in the gures, the proposed model closely predicted the stress
strain path for both axial and hoop strains, particularly with specimens in a normal concrete strength range of 3040 MPa, (see
Figs. 14a, 15a, b, 16a, and 17). Using f0 c ranging from 40 to
50 MPa resulted in underestimation of the plastic behaviour of
the axial stressstrain curve as shown in Figs. 13(a) and 14(b).
The level of underestimation depended on the connement ratio.
Increasing the value of the connement ratio decreases the ability
of the model to predict the plastic behaviour slope in the axial
stressstrain curve. However, the hoop stressstrain curves were
predicted well. In the case of using high strength concrete (f0 c > 50 MPa), the difculty of predicting the axial stressstrain plastic
behaviour slope increased, see Figs. 13(b and c) and 14(c).
6.4. Axial-hoop strain response
The experimental versus FE model predictions for the relationship between the axial strains and hoop strains of some conned
specimens are shown in Fig. 18. The dilation rate (R) is also shown
for each specimen in the gure. As shown in the gure, at a given
f0 c, increasing the value of the connement modulus decreased the
R value of the conned specimens for both experimental and FE
results. In addition, it decreased the error % in the FE model predictions for the R values. For example, by increasing the connement
modulus by 50% the model error % decreased by 23.1%, 72.1%,

84

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

Fig. 18. Axial strain versus hoop strain for conned specimens. (a) f0 c = 33.6 MPa, (b) f0 c = 43.7 MPa, (c) f0 c = 53.5 MPa and (d) f0 c = 62.5 MPa.

59.0%, and 19.2% for concrete with f0 c of 33.6 MPa, 43.7 MPa,
53.5 MPa, and 62.5 MPa, respectively.
Increasing the f0 c value showed no similar trend in the model
predictions of R values. Increasing f0 c by 22.4% increased the model
error by 65.1%, Fig. 18(b and c). However, increasing f0 c by 59.2%
decreased the model error by 51.0%, Fig. 18(a and c). It was
observed that the FE model gives the closest predictions for the
axialhoop strain response when f0 c = 43.7 MPa, Fig. 18(b).
7. Summary and conclusions
This study presents a simple to use empirical model to predict
the FRP-circular-conned-concrete dilation parameter which is
crucial for nite element modelling of concrete encased in FRP.
The proposed model can be used with plasticity models to predict
the volumetric behaviour of concrete encased in FRP tubes. Estimation of the dilation parameter was rst developed through calibration of nite element while results of 35 cylinders to those of
experimental results. During this process, the difference in toughness between the numerical and the experimental results were
minimized to determine the optimum values for the dilation
parameters. Once developed, the model was validated against the
experimental results of another 70 cylinders. The main conclusions
of this study are summarized in the following points:
 The proposed model provides a simple FRP-conned concrete
design tool for engineers in practical applications using only
the main material properties of the concrete and FRP sheets.
The proposed model closely predicted the stressstrain path
for both axial and hoop constitutive relationships, particularly
for concrete in the conventional strength range between 30




and 40 MPa. Beyond unconned concrete strength of 40 MPa,

the proposed model underestimated the post-elastic behaviour
of the axial stressstrain relationships. The level of underestimation depended on the connement ratio. Increasing the value
of connement ratio decreases the ability of the model to predict the plastic slope in the axial stressstrain curve. However,
the hoop stressstrain curves were predicted quite well. The
proposed model is able to predict the volumetric behaviour of
low and high FRP conned concrete.
The proposed model provides conservative predictions of the
ultimate strength. However, it underestimated the ultimate
axial and hoop strains.
The proposed model predicted the ultimate strength, ultimate
axial strain, and ultimate hoop strain with absolute mean errors
and standard deviations of: 2.6% and 10.7% for the ultimate
strength, 0.3% and 29.0% for the ultimate axial strain, and
13.7% and 26.3% for the ultimate hoop strain, respectively.
There was no signicant effect on the model predictions due to
increasing E1/f0 c.
The proposed model is not signicantly affected by changing
the cylinders slenderness ratio.

While the proposed model presents signicant improvements

over existing models in predicting the conned concrete strength
f0 cc, ultimate conned concrete strain Ecc, and FRP ultimate strain
Eh, the model still needs improvements to reduce the standard
deviation in predicting the ultimate strains of FRP and concrete.
A signicant contribution to the high values of the standard deviation is the high variability and inaccuracy in the experimental
work data. Improving the quality and quantity of the available
experimental work would help in developing more accurate

O. Youssf et al. / Engineering Structures 79 (2014) 7085

prediction of concrete dilation parameter. Using more advanced

systems such as image correlation system will certainly improve
the quality of the measured strains. Furthermore, this manuscript
focused on specimens loaded under pure axial loads, other specimens subjected to combined axial and exural loading, e.g.
[55,56], need to be considered for future studies.

References
[1] ElGawady M, Endeshaw M, McLean D, Sack R. Retrotting of rectangular
columns with decient lap splices. J Compos Constr 2010;14:2235.
[2] ElGawady M, Booker AJ, Dawood HM. Seismic behavior of posttensioned
concrete-lled ber tubes. J Compos Constr 2011;14:61628.
[3] ElGawady MA, Shalan A. Seismic behavior of self-centering precast segmental
bridge bents. J Bridge Eng 2011;16:32839.
[4] Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim JC, Vincent T. FRP-conned concrete in circular sections:
review and assessment of stressstrain models. Eng Struct 2012.
[5] Yu T, Teng J, Wong Y, Dong S. Finite element modeling of conned concrete-I:
DruckerPrager type plasticity model. Eng Struct 2010;32:66579.
[6] Jiang J-F, Wu Y-F. Identication of material parameters for DruckerPrager
plasticity model for FRP conned circular concrete columns. Int J Solids Struct
2012;49:44556.
[7] Mirmiran A, Zagers K, Yuan W. Nonlinear nite element modeling of concrete
conned by ber composites. Finite Elem Anal Des 2000;35:7996.
[8] Jiang J, Wu Y, Zhao X. Application of DruckerPrager plasticity model for
stressstrain modeling of FRP conned concrete columns. Procedia Eng
2011;14:68794.
[9] Karabinis A, Rousakis T, Manolitsi G. 3D nite-element analysis of substandard
RC columns strengthened by ber-reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos Constr
2008;12:53140.
[10] Salvador Ivorra RI, Luis Estevan, Jos Miguel Adam, Francisco J Pallars, Beln
Ferrer. DruckerPrager yield criterion application to study the behaviorof CFRP
conned concrete under compression. World Congress on Housing. Santander,
Spain; 2010.
[11] Eid R, Paultre P. Plasticity-based model for circular concrete columns conned
with bre-composite sheets. Eng Struct 2007;29:330111.
[12] Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF, Liang QQ. Behaviour of circular concrete-lled lean
duplex stainless steelcarbon steel tubular short columns. Eng Struct
2013;56:8394.
[13] Chen W-H. Three dimensional, nite deformation, elasticplastic nite
element analysis of ductile structures. Eng Struct 1982;4:2428.
[14] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. J. Ross Publishing; 2007.
[15] Malvar LJ, Simons D. Concrete material modeling in explicit computations. In:
Proceedings, workshop on recent advances in computational structural
dynamics and high performance computing, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS1996. p. 16594.
[16] Lan Y-M. Finite element study of concrete columns with ber composite
jackets [PhD]; 1998.
[17] Fang J-H. Finite element analysis of FRP-retrotted RC Beams [Master]; 1999.
[18] Sarkani S, Rizk T, Mahfouz I. An innovative FRP conning system for repairing
rectangular columns. Constr Mater Issues 2001:1625.
[19] Shahawy M, Mirmiran A, Beitelman T. Tests and modeling of carbon-wrapped
concrete columns. Compos B Eng 2000;31:47180.
[20] Wong Y, Yu T, Teng J, Dong S. Behavior of FRP-conned concrete in annular
section columns. Compos B Eng 2008;39:45166.
[21] Rousakis TC, Karabinis, Athanasios I, Kiousis, Panos D, Tepfers, Ralejs.
Analytical modelling of plastic behaviour of uniformly FRP conned concrete
members. Compos B Eng 2008;39:110413.
[22] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete conned by carbon ber
composite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12:13946.
[23] Simons D. Recent modications to DYNA3D model 16 for concrete. In:
Proceedings, DNACWE structural analysis meeting, Logicon RDA, Albuquerque,
NM; 1995. pp. 14157.
[24] Malvar L, Crawford J, Wesevich J, Simons D. A new concrete material model for
DYNA3D-Release II: shear dilation and directional rate enhancements. A
Report to Defense Nuclear Agency under Contract No DNA001-91-C-0059;
1996.
[25] Elsanadedy HM, Al-Salloum, Yousef A, Alsayed, Saleh H, Iqbal, Rizwan A.
Experimental and numerical investigation of size effects in FRP-wrapped
concrete columns. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:5672.

85

[26] Attaway SW, Matalucci RV, Key S, Morrill KB, Malvar LJ, Crawford JE.
Enhancements to PRONTO3D to Predict Structural Response to Blast. Sandia
National Laboratories Report SAND2000-1017; 2000.
[27] Noble C, Kokko E, Darnell I, Dunn T, Hagler L, Leininger L. Concrete model
descriptions and summary of benchmark studies for blast effects simulations.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA; 2005.
[28] Bush BM. Analytical evaluation of concrete penetration modeling techniques.
North Carolina State University; 2010.
[29] Youssf O, ElGawady MA, Mills JE, Ma X. An experimental investigation of
crumb rubber concrete conned by bre reinforced polymer tubes. Constr
Build Mater 2014;53:52232.
[30] Toutanji H. Stressstrain characteristics of concrete columns externally
conned with advanced ber composite sheets. ACI Mater J 1999;96.
[31] Saa M, Toutanji H, Li Z. Behavior of concrete columns conned with ber
reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Mater J 1999;96.
[32] Zhang S, Ye L, Mai Y-W. A study on polymer composite strengthening systems
for concrete columns. Appl Compos Mater 2000;7:12538.
[33] Karabinis A, Rousakis T. Concrete conned by FRP material: a plasticity
approach. Eng Struct 2002;24:92332.
[34] Lam L, Teng J. Ultimate condition of ber reinforced polymerconned
concrete. J Compos Constr 2004;8:53948.
[35] Lam L, Teng JG, Cheung CH, Xiao Y. FRP-conned concrete under axial cyclic
compression. Cement Concr Compos 2006;28:94958.
[36] Jiang T, Teng J. Analysis-oriented stressstrain models for FRPconned
concrete. Eng Struct 2007;29:296886.
[37] Teng J, Yu T, Wong Y, Dong S. Hybrid FRPconcretesteel tubular columns:
concept and behavior. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:84654.
[38] Benzaid R, Mesbah H, Chikh NE. FRP-conned concrete cylinders: axial
compression experiments and strength model. J Reinf Plast Compos
2010;29:246988.
[39] Ozbakkaloglu T, Akin E. Behavior of FRP-conned normal-and high-strength
concrete under cyclic axial compression. J Compos Constr 2011;16:45163.
[40] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, Echary HE, Mastrapa JC, Pico O. Effect of
column parameters on FRP-conned concrete. J Compos Constr 1998;2:
17585.
[41] Lam L, Teng J. Strength models for ber-reinforced plastic-conned concrete. J
Struct Eng 2002;128:61223.
[42] LS_DYNA
support.
<http://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/element/
hourglass>.
[43] Belytschko T, Lin JI, Chen-Shyh T. Explicit algorithms for the nonlinear
dynamics of shells. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1984;42:22551.
[44] Manual L-DKUs, Volume I. Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corp,
Livermore, CA, USA; 2007.
[45] Malvar L, Crawford J, Morrill K. K&C concrete material model Release III
automated generation of material model input. Karagozian and Case Structural
Engineers. Technical Report TR-99-243; 2000.
[46] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA3D theoretical manual. Livermore software technology
corporation; 1993.
[47] Mohammed TA. Reinforced concrete structural members under impact
loading: The University of Toledo; 2012.
[48] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Dilation characteristics of conned concrete. Mech
Cohes Frict Mater 1997;2:23749.
[49] Lim JC, Ozbakkaloglu T. Lateral strain-to-axial strain relationship of conned
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE; 2014, in press.
[50] Bisby L, Stratford T, In: Ye L, Feng P, Yue Q, editors. The ultimate condition of
FRP conned concrete columns: new experimental observations and insights,
Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg;
2011. p. 599602.
[51] De Lorenzis L, Tepfers R. Comparative study of models on connement of
concrete cylinders with ber-reinforced polymer composites. J Compos Constr
2003;7:21937.
[52] Lam L, Teng J. Design-oriented stressstrain model for FRP-conned concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17:47189.
[53] Carey A Shawn, Harries KA. Axial behavior and modeling of conned small-,
medium-, and large-scale circular sections with carbon ber-reinforced
polymer jackets. ACI Struct J 2005;102:596604.
[54] Committee ACIA. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded
FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. ACI 4402R-08; 2008.
[55] Dawood HM, ElGawady M. Performance-based seismic design of unbonded
precast post-tensioned concrete lled GFRP tube piers. Compos B Eng
2013;44:35767.
[56] ElGawady MA, Dawood HM. Analysis of segmental piers consisted of concrete
lled FRP tubes. Eng Struct 2012;38:14252.