COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONFINED CONCRETE MODELS

Introduction

The reinforced concrete columns are the main load-bearing elements in reinforced concrete

(RC) structure, as the column has to with stand the entire load and transfer it to foundation .The

studies on the behaviour of RC short columns subjected to axial and eccentric loads were started

in the early 1900s (Considère 1902, 1903; Talbot 1906; and Withey 1911). The fundamental

concept of confinement was pioneered in 1927. Confinement enhances the load-carrying

capacity of concrete and its ductility. Depending on how confining stresses are provided to

concrete are categorized as being active or passive. Confinement applied by pre-stressing on a

concrete core is of active type. On the other side, lateral reinforcements such as spirals or ties

provide passive confinement activated by the expansion of concrete. In the University of Illinois

under the guidance of Richart et al. 1929 introduced the term lateral confining stress and

proposed a model to predict the confined concrete strength. From this point onwards many

linear and non-linear models were developed to represent the stress-strain behavior of confined

concrete.

Confining Mechanism

Confinement effect in concrete depends upon two factors the tendency of concrete to expand

and the lateral stiffness of the confining medium to resist the expansion of concrete. Ductility

increases in concrete on confinement effect. The basis of this approach is that the additional

ductility available in confined concrete is due to the energy stored in the confining medium. To

obtain lateral confining pressure it must satisfy two conditions the strain compatibility between

the concrete and the transverse ties and equilibrium of forces in the free-body diagram for any

1
sector of the confined section. The second condition leads to the following relationship between

the lateral confining stress ( 𝑓𝑙 ) and the yield strength of transverse steel ( 𝑓𝑦𝑡 ).

Fig.1.Lateral confining pressure provided by different arrangements of transverse

reinforcement (Source: N.Subramanian 2011)

Where 𝐴𝑠𝑡 - Area of transverse steel; S - center to center spacing of transverse ties; 𝑏𝑐 and 𝑑𝑐 -

cross-sectional dimension of column core measured to the outside edges of transverse

reinforcement composing area.

Confinement effect in RC column

The effectiveness of confinement in RC column depends on reinforcement arrangements and

concrete properties. The circular spiral confines concrete effectively because they provide

continuous confining pressure around the circumference of concrete. But square hoops can

apply only confining reaction near the corners of the load-bearing because the pressure of the

concrete against the sides of the hoops tends to bend the side outwards. Therefore a considerable

portion of the concrete cross-section may be unconfined. Because of internal arching between

the corners of the concrete is confined effectively only in the corners and central region of the

section. (Park and Paulay 1975)

2
 Fig.2. Effective confinement area of circular, square and rectangular ties.

(Source: ACI 440.2R-08)

Concrete confinement is a three-dimensional phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a sectional

level. Therefore, it is essential to consider the variation of lateral pressure along the member

length. The distance between the longitudinal bar should be minimum and it should be placed

tightly with the transverse steel or else it will reduce the effectiveness of confinement. Low-

grade concrete is more ductile in nature hence they have better confinement.

4. Confinement Models

Many researcher developed linear and nonlinear strain-Strain model based upon their

experimental results. Through we can clearly the understand the behavior internally

confined concrete such as peak confined concrete stress its corresponding strain and

ductility of the confined concrete. Some of the important models are discussed briefly

and some other models were listed in the table.

3
Richart et al. (1929) model was the first to capture lateral pressure greatly enhances the
maximum strength of confined concrete. A linear relationship was suggested to find
peak strength of passive confined concrete based on active confinement produced by
oil pressure through a hand pump.

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐+ 4.1 𝑓𝑙

Roy and Sozen (1964) conclude that the confinement provided by rectilinear ties does
not enhance the strength of the confined concrete and there was a considerable increase
in ductility of the concrete. They proposed a stress-strain curve of two straight line that
ascending branch meeting at peak concrete stress fc at corresponding strain of 0.002
and descending branch straight line meets 50% of peek concrete stress at defined strain

point 𝜀50 .
3 𝑝𝑠 𝑏
𝜀50 =
4𝑠
2(𝑏 + 𝑤)𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝑝𝑠 =
𝑏𝑤𝑠

Fig.3 Stress-Strain curve Proposed by Roy and Sozen (1964)

4
Kent and Park (1971) also assume that the strength of confined and unconfined
concrete is the same and proposed stress-strain model for confined and unconfined
concrete as suggested by Roy and Sozen (1964). They represented that the ascending
branch of the stress-strain curve start from origin then increases in form of second
degree parabola was not affected by confinement. The descending branch was a
function of lateral steel, spacing of ties and core concrete area. They concluded that
confinement effect of rectangular tie increases concrete strength is very small. The
confined stress and strain is calculated from following equation.

2 𝜀𝑐 𝜀𝑐
𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐 [( )−( )2 ] for ascending branch
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑜

𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐 [1 − 𝑍 (𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀𝑐𝑜 )] for descending branch

0.5
Z=
𝜀50 ℎ +𝜀50 𝑢 −𝜀𝑐𝑜

0.002 𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 3
𝜀50 𝑢 =
𝑓𝑢𝑐 − 103

3 𝑏
𝜀50 ℎ = 𝑝𝑠 √( )
4 𝑠

𝜀50 ℎ = 𝜀50 𝑐 − 𝜀50 𝑢

Fig.4 Stress-Strain curve Proposed by Kent and Park (1971)

5
Popovics (1973) proposed model to estimate of the complete stress-strain curve of the

unconfined concrete strength is influenced by testing condition and concrete properties. The

stress and strain is calculated from following equation.

𝜀𝑐 𝑛
𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐 (
𝜀𝑐𝑐
) ( 𝜀 )
𝑛 − 1 + (𝜀 𝑐 )𝑛
𝑐𝑐

4
𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 2.7 ∗ 10−4 √𝑓𝑐𝑐

𝑛 = 0.4 ∗ 10−3 𝑓𝑐𝑐 + 1

Fig.5 Stress-Strain curve Proposed by Popovics (1973)

Park and Paulay (1975) by Considering the equilibrium of the forces acting on the half-turn

of the spiral they get lateral confining pressure 𝑓𝑙.

2 𝑦ℎ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝑙 𝑠 𝑑𝑠 (2)

(3)

6
By substituting Eq. 3 in Eq. 1 and considering 0.85 as a factor for unconfined concrete strength

based on full-scale column tests (Richart and Brown 1934; Hognestad 1951). We get the axial

compressive strength of concrete by a spiral as

The nominal ultimate strength of a spiral column as

By replacing the spiral steel by an equivalent volume of longitudinal steel we get nominal

ultimate load as

The above Equation indicates that the spiral steel is approximately twice as effective as the same

volume of longitudinal steel in contributing to the strength of the column.

Scott, Park, Priestly (1982)……….

2 𝜀𝑐 𝜀𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑘𝑓𝑢𝑐 [( )−( )2 ] for 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 0.002k
0.002k 0.002k

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑘𝑓𝑢𝑐 [1 − 𝑍𝑚 (𝜀𝑐 − 0.002k)] for 𝜀𝑐 > 0.002k

𝑝𝑠 𝑓𝑦
𝐾 =1+
𝑓𝑐

0.5
𝑍𝑚 =
3+0.29 𝑓𝑐 3𝑝
+ 𝑠 √𝐵 −0.002𝑘
145 𝑓𝑐 −1000 4 𝑆

𝑓𝑦
𝜀𝑠85 = 0.004 + 0.9 𝑝𝑠 ( )
300

Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) proposed a stress-strain model based on effectively

confined concrete area which is less than the core concrete area enclosed by the center

7
line of the perimeter tie. They considered effect of longitudinal bars and tie spacing. A
stress-strain relationship for confined concrete proposed was contain ascending branch
upto 𝜀𝑠1 , is a second degree parabola, horizontal branch between 𝜀𝑠1 and 𝜀𝑠2 and the
descending branch is suggested upto 30 percent of the maximum stress after
which a horizontal line represents the concrete behavior.

2 𝜀𝑐 𝜀 2
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐𝑝 [(
𝜀𝑐𝑜
) − (𝜀 𝑐 ) ] for ascending branch 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜀𝑠1
𝑐𝑜

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝐾𝑠 0.85𝑓𝑢𝑐 for horizontal branch 𝜀𝑠1 > 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜀𝑠2

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐 [1 − 𝑍 (𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀𝑐𝑜 )] for descending branch 𝜀𝑠2 > 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜀𝑠30
,
𝑓𝑐𝑝 = 𝐾𝑠 𝑓𝑢𝑐
,
𝑓𝑢𝑐 = 0.85 𝑓𝑢𝑐
2 2
𝐵′ 𝑛𝐶′ 𝑠 2
𝐾𝑠 = 1 +
140 𝑃𝑜𝑐𝑐
[(1 − 2) (1 − 2𝐵′) ]√𝑝𝑠 𝑓𝑦
5.5𝐵′

𝑃𝑜𝑐𝑐 = 0.85𝑓𝑢𝑐 (𝐴𝑔 − 𝐴𝑠 )

𝜀𝑠1 = 0.0022 𝐾𝑠
𝜀𝑠2 0.81 𝑠 𝑝𝑠 𝑓𝑦
=1+ [1+5 ( )2 ]
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝑐′ 𝐵′ √𝑓𝑐

𝐵′
𝜀𝑠85 = 0.225 𝑝𝑠 √ + 𝜀𝑠2
𝑆

1
Z=
𝐵′
1.5 𝑝𝑠 √ 𝑆

8
 Fig.6 Stress-Strain curve Proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982)

Where B’ the center-to-center of lateral reinforcement, C’ the distance between

longitudinal reinforcement confined laterally by lateral reinforcement, 𝐾𝑠 the
magnification factor, n the number of ineffective parabolic area in concrete core, or the
number of longitudinal reinforcement confined laterally by lateral reinforcement.

Mander et al. (1994) proposed a unified stress-strain model for confined concrete subjected to

uniaxial compressive loading applicable to both circular and rectangular sections. The stress-

strain curve is based on an equation suggested by Popovics (1973). Effective confining pressure

and the confinement effectiveness coefficient was calculated similar to the one used by Sheikh

and Uzumeri (1980) where confining stress is fully developed due to arching action.

Confinement effectiveness for circular hoops.

Confinement effectiveness for circular spirals.

9
Where 𝐾𝑒 =confinement effectiveness, s′ = clear vertical spacing between Spiral or hoop bar

The lateral confining pressure is obtained by the equilibrium of force condition.

2 𝑦ℎ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝑙 𝑠 𝑑𝑠

By Substituting Eq. 3 into Eq. 4 and rearranging gives

By solving Eq.5 we get

Which is similar to determine lateral confining pressure by Park and Paulay (1975) The

effective lateral confining stress on the concrete is

Confined concrete stress(𝑓𝑐𝑐) is calculated by using following equation

And Confined concrete strain (𝜀𝑐𝑐) by using following equation

)]

Where 𝑓𝑢𝑐= unconfined concrete strength and 𝜀𝑐𝑜= unconfined concrete strain which is equal to

0.002.

𝜀𝑐𝑢 = 0.0035 + 0.4 x from Bouafia et al.

10
 Fig.7 Stress-Strain curve Proposed by Mander et al. (1994)

Saatcioglu et al. (1992) proposed an analytical model to construct a stress-strain relationship

for confined concrete based on equivalent uniform confinement pressure generated by the

reinforcement cage. Combination of lateral pressure and axial compression results in a triaxial

state of stress. Transverse strains caused by lateral pressure counteract the tendency of material

to expand laterally and result in increased strength.

𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓𝑢𝑐+ 𝐾1 𝑓l confined concrete strength for circular columns

𝐾1 = 6.7 (𝑓l)-0.17

𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 [1+ 5 K]

𝑓
K= 6.7( 𝑓𝑙 )−0.17 𝑓 𝑙
𝑢𝑐

11
 Table 1Confinement Models
MODEL
RESERARCHER
STRESS STRAIN

Richart 𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 4.1 𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝑙

𝜀𝑐𝑜 [ 1+ 20.1 ( )]
𝑓𝑢𝑐

0.002 𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 3
𝜀50 𝑢 =
2 𝜀𝑐 𝜀𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑐 − 103
𝑓𝑢𝑐 [( )−( )2 ]
𝜀𝑐𝑜 𝜀𝑐𝑜

3 𝑏
Kent and Park 𝜀50 ℎ = 𝑝𝑠 √( )
𝑓𝑢𝑐 [1 − 𝑍 (𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀𝑐𝑜 )] 4 𝑠
®
2(ℎ + 𝑏)𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝑝𝑠 =
Z=
0.5 ℎ𝑏𝑠
𝜀50 ℎ +𝜀50 𝑢−𝜀𝑐𝑜
𝜀50 ℎ = 𝜀50 𝑐 − 𝜀50 𝑢

Mander 𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝐶𝐶
𝑓𝑢𝑐 [2.254√1 + 7.94( ) − 2( ) − 1.254 𝜀𝑐𝑜 [ 1+ 5( − 1)]
𝑓𝑢𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑐

𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 6.7( 𝑓𝑙 )−0.17 𝑓𝑙

Saatcioglu and 𝜀𝑐𝑜 [ 1+ 5 K]
Ravi 𝑓𝑙
K= 6.7( 𝑓𝑙 )−0.17
𝑓𝑢𝑐

𝑓𝑙 0.7 𝑓𝑙 1..7
Cusson and 𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 2.1(
𝑓𝑢𝑐
) 𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 0.21(
𝑓𝑢𝑐
)

Paultre
3048 𝑓𝑙
𝑓𝑢𝑐 + [1.15 +( )]𝑓𝑙 1.027*10−7 𝑓𝑢𝑐 + 0.0296 ( )+
𝑓𝑢𝑐 𝑓𝐶𝐶
Fafitis and Shah 0.00195

0.734 𝑠 2
0.00265 + 0.0035(1 − )(𝑝𝑠 𝑓𝑦ℎ )3
0.245 𝑠 ′
𝑛 𝑑𝑠𝑡 𝐵
Yong et al. [(1+0.0091(1- ( ) (𝑝𝑠 + 𝑝𝑙 )
𝐵 8 𝑠 𝑑𝑠 √𝑓𝑢𝑐
𝑓𝑦ℎ
( ) ]𝑓𝑢𝑐
√𝑓𝑢𝑐

𝑓𝑙 𝑓𝑙
Assa et al. 𝑓𝑢𝑐 [1+3.36 ] 𝜀𝑐𝑜 [1+21.5 ]
𝑓𝑢𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑐

12
Application of confinement model

A analytical work was carried out for calculating stress- strain curve of various model
and to predict peak stress and strain of various models it required assumed input data
and assumption. Input data required such uniaxial compressive strength of concrete fc
and corresponding axial strain assumed to be 0.002, properties of longitudinal and
lateral steel, cross-sectional dimensions of specimens, amount of longitudinal steel,
diameter of lateral bar and spacing and by varying axial strain in concrete. To compute
the lateral confining pressure stress in lateral steel is assumed equal to its yield
strength.

The analysis procedure involves following steps

 Assume input data mentioned above.
 Calculate lateral confining pressure 𝒇𝒍

 Vary the axial strain in concrete from 𝜺𝟎 to 𝜺𝒄𝒐 and 𝜺𝒄𝒐 to 𝜺𝒄𝒖 .

 Obtain calculated confined concrete stress for corresponding strain values.

 Draw stress-strain curve and plot peak stress-strain point for linear
confinement models by above procedure.

Assumed data as follow uniaxial compressive strength of concrete 𝑓𝑢𝑐 = 30 MPa and yield
strength of lateral steel 𝑓𝑦 = 716 MPa , square cross-section of 150mmx150mm, 4
numbers of 12 mm dia. bar, 4mm diameter bar at 50 mm spacing and clear cover as 20
mm.

13
 Stress-strain curve comparsion
60

50 Roy and Sozen

Stress N/mm^2

40 KENT AND
PARK
Popovics
30
SCOTT PARK
PRIESTLY
20 Mander

10 Roy and Sozen

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Strain

Fig.8 Comparison of Stress-Strain curve

Comparison of peak stress and its corresponding strain

1.8

1.6
Richart
1.4
Enhanced stress ratio

Mander
1.2
Saatcioglu
1
Assa et al.
0.8
Fafitis and shah
0.6
Cusson and P
Paultre
0.4 kent and Park

0.2 Scott, Park and

Priestly
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009
Its corresponding strain

Fig.9 Comparison of peak stress at its corresponding strain

14
NOTATIONS

𝑓𝑢𝑐 Unconfined concrete stress

𝑓𝑐𝑐 Confined concrete stress

𝑓𝑟 Confining stress

𝑓𝑙 Lateral confining pressure

𝑓𝑦 The yield strength of the transverse steel

𝜀𝑐𝑜 Unconfined concrete strain

𝜀𝑐𝑐 Unconfined concrete strain

𝜀𝑙 Lateral strain of confining medium

𝜀ℎ 𝑟𝑢𝑝 rupture lateral strain of confining medium

𝐸𝑙 Lateral elastic modulus of confining medium

𝐴𝑔 Gross area of section

𝐴𝑠𝑡 Area of longitudinal steel

𝐴𝑐𝑐 Area of core concrete within centreline of perimeter of lateral bars

b The confined width (core) of the section

𝑑𝑠 The core diameter of the column

B’ Centre to centre distance between perimeter of tie

C’ Centre to centre distance between perimeter longitudinal bar

S Tie spacing

𝑃𝑠 Ratio of the volume of transverse confining steel to the volume of the

confined concrete core,

𝑃𝑐𝑐 Ratio of the area of longitudinal reinforcement to area of core of section.

15
Reference

1. Assa B., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. (2001). “New Approach for Modeling
Confined Concrete. I: Circular Columns.” J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 127(7), 743-750.
2. Bouafia, A. Iddir, M.S. Kachi and H. Dumontet, Stress – Strain relationship for
the confined concrete, 11th World Congress on Computational Mechanics.
3. Considère, A., ‘Compressive Resistance of Concrete Steel and Hooped Concrete,
Part I’, Engineering Record, 20 December 1902, pp. 581–3,‘Part II’, 27 December
1902, pp. 605–6.
4. Cusson and P Paultre, High-strength concrete columns confined by rectangular
ties, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 120(3), pp. 783– 804(1994).
5. El-Dash, K. M., and Ahmad, S. H. (1995). “A Model for Stress- Strain Relationship of
SpirallyConfined Normal and High-Strength Concrete Columns.” Mag. Concrete Res.,
47(171),177-184.
6. Fafitis A., and Shah, S.P. (1985). “Lateral Reinforcement for High-Strength
Concrete Columns”ACI Special Publication, SP 87-12, p.213-232.
7. Fujii, M., Kobayashi, K., Miyagawa, T., Inoue, S. and Matsumoto, T. (1988). “A
study on the application of a stress-strain relation of confined concrete,” Proc.,
JCA Cement and Concrete, Vol. 42, Japan Cement
8. Kent, D. and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural Members with Confined Concrete”
Journal of StructuralDivision. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. V.97, No.ST7, p1969-1990, July 1971.
9. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988). ”Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model for Confined Concrete” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V.114,
No. 8, p. 1827-1849, August 1988.
10. Park, R. and T. Paulay 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, p. 769.
11. Park, R., Priestley, M.J.N. and Gill,W.D.,(1982) “Ductility of square confined
concrete columns”, Pro& ASCE 108 (ST4) (1982) 929- 950.
12. Richart, F.E. and R.L. Brown 1934, An Investigation of Reinforced Concrete
Columns, University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin No.
267, p. 91.

16
13. Richart, F.E., A. Brandtzaeg, and R.L. Brown 1929, The Failure of Plain and
Spirally Reinforced Concrete in Compression, University of Illinois Engineering
Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 190, p. 74.
14. Roy, H. E. H. and Sozen, M. A. (1965). “Ductility of Concrete” Flexural
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American Concrete
Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers, Detroit, pp. 213-224.
15. Saatcioglu, M. and S.R. Razvi 2002, ‘Displacement-based Design of Reinforced
Concrete Columns for Confinement’, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp.
3–11.
16. Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and Ductility of Confined
Concrete.” J.Struct.Eng., 118(6), 1590-1607.
17. Sakai, K. and S.A. Sheikh 1989, ‘What Do We Know about Confinement in
Reinforced Concrete Columns? (A Critical Review of Previous Work and Code
Provisions)’, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 192–207.
18. Sargin, M. (1971). “Stress-Strain Relationships for Concrete and the Analysis of
Structural Concrete Sections” Solid Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo,
Study No. 4.
19. Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, N. (1982). “Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete
Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Law and High Strain Rates.” ACI J., 79(1),
13-27.
20. Sheikh S. A.(1982) “A comparative study of confinement models” (1982). ACI
Journal, 79(4),296-306.
21. Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1982). “Analytical Model for Concrete
Confinement in Tied Columns” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V.108,
No.ST12, P.2703-2722,December 1982.
22. Soliman, M. T. M. and Yu, C. W. (1967). “The Flexural Stress-Strain Relationship
of Concrete Confined by Rectangular Transverse Reinforcement” Magazine of
Concrete Research (London), V.19, No.61, pp. 223-28, Dec. 1967.
23. Talbot, A.N., Tests of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Columns, Bulletin No.
10, 1906, and Bulletin No. 20, 1907, University of Illinois, Urbana.

17
24. Withey, M.O., Tests on Reinforced Concrete Columns, Bulletin No. 300, 1910,
and Bulletin No. 466, 1911, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
25. Yong, Y-K, Nour, M.G. and Nawy, E.G. (1998). “Behavior of laterally Confined
High-Strength Concrete under Axial Loads” Journal of Structural Engineering,
V.114, No.2, P.332-351 ,February 1998.

18