Applied Mechanics and Materials Online: 2013-10-15

ISSN: 1662-7482, Vols. 438-439, pp 187-193

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.438-439.187
© 2013 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland

Analysis and Comparison of Different Confined Concrete Models

Ping Yua, Qin Zhangb, Li Yangc and Jinxin Gongd
Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
a
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: confined concrete; column; constitutive model; load-deformation curve.

Abstract. Different confined concrete models and their influences on column lateral
load-deformation relations are compared and studied in this paper. The analytical results show that
models have remarkable discrepancies on the descending branch of constitutive curves, and these
discrepancies are weakened in predicting of column lateral load-defromation curves due to eccentric
compression of confined concrete.

Introduction
Stirrup plays a key role in improving the deformability and ductility of reinforced concrete, so the
study on the effect of stirrup confinement is very important. The first well-known experiment on
reinforced concrete with spiral stirrups was conducted by Richart et al [1] in 1928. Since then there
have been numerous experiments and studies on confined concrete, and many stress-strain models
have been proposed based on experiments and theoretical analysis [2-6]. However, these suggested
models exist obvious differences in formula due to the differences on shape and size of specimens.
Moreover, the effects on sectional analysis results using different confined concrete models are not
ignorable. In view of above, typical stress-strain models recommend by different researchers are
compared and analyzed. And, the influences of confined concrete constitutive relations are studied
through considering three types of stirrups arrangement on the load-deformation curves of reinforced
concrete column.

Confined Concrete Models

Confinement effect on core concrete is from lateral constrain provided by stirrups or spiral hoops. A
state of triaxial compressive stress is formed when the core concrete is confined by stirrups, so the
compressive strength and ductility of concrete has been improved, which is of great importance for
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures. A series of specified rules for confinement of
stirrups were set in codes for seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings in China or other
countries. In summary, Code for seismic design of buildings (GB50011-2010) [7] provides effective
provisions for stirrups arrangement according to different seismic intensity and anti-seismic level,
while similar codes in other countries generally adopt suitable confined concrete constitutive models
for seismic designing, and then the deformation of structures are estimated by the given models. Up to
now, more than 20 available confined concrete constitutive models are reported in literatures, and the
differences between these models should be concerned. In this study, several commonly used
confined concrete constitutive models are compared. Table 1 lists models investigated in this paper
and their key parameters. Note: ɛ and fc=concrete strain and the corresponding stress, respectively; fco
and ɛco=unconfined concrete compressive strength and the corresponding strain; fcc and ɛcc=confined
concrete compressive strength and the corresponding strain; ft=concrete tensile strength;
fyh=transverse reinforment yielding strength; s=stirrup spacing; sl=longitudinal bar spacing; bc=width
of core concrete, Pocc=bearing capacity of core concrete, n=number of ties between longitudinal bars,
fl =equivalent confining stress, ρ v=volumetric stirrup ratio.
It can be seen from Table1 that expressions and shapes of sketch graphs for these models are
considerably different. Moreover, some key parameters are defined differently in different models.
For ratio of stirrup, volumetric stirrup ratio is used in models suggested by Kent et al., Sheikh et al.,
Hoshikuma et al., Qian et al. and Mander et al., while stirrup ratio per unit area is used by Razvi et al.,

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications Ltd, www.scientific.net. (#628061730-24/11/23,20:39:02)
188 Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Infrastructure II

Table1 Summary of sketch graph and key parameters for each confined concrete model
Models Sketch graphs Descending branch expressions and key parameters
σ
f c = Kf c0 1 − Z m ( ε − 0.002 K )  , f cc = Kf c0 ,
f cc
f cc ρ v f yh
1) Kent-Park K = 1.0 + α
[8] f c0
f cc For circular section, α = 2.05 ;
ε
ε cc ε 85 ε 20 for square section, α = 1.00 .
σ
ε − ε s2
f c = 0.15 f cc + f cc , f cc = K s f c0
f cc ε s2 − ε s85
2) Sheikh-Uzumeri f cc
 s  
2
bc 2 nsl 2 
[9] K s = 1.0 +  1 − 2 
1 −   ρ v f yh
f cc 10.58Pocc  5.5bc  2bc  
ε
ε s1 ε s2 ε 85 ε 30 (British System)

f c = f cc exp  −k ( ε − ε 0 )  ,
1.15
σ
f cc  
 2100 
f cc = f c0 + 1150 +  fl
3) Fafitis-Shah  f c0 
[10] fl
ε cc = 1.491 × 10−5 f c0 + 0.0296 + 0.00195
ε
f c0
0 ε cc k = 25 f c0 exp ( −1.45 f l )
σ
f cc
f cc xr ε   f 
4) fc = ,x= , ε cc = ε co 1 + 5  cc − 1 
r −1+ x r
ε cc   f c0  
Mander-Priestley
[11]  7.94 f l f 
f cc = f c0  −1.254 + 2.254 1 + − 2 l 
 f c0 f c0 
ε
ε cc
σ
fcc

f = f cc ⋅ exp  k1 ( ε − ε cc ) 2 
k

 
5) Cusson-Paultre fcc
f cc / f c = 1.0 + 2.1( f l / f c )
0.7
[12]
ε cc = ε c + 0.21( fl / fc0 )
1.7
ε
ε cc ε c50c

σ
k
f A⋅ X + B ⋅ X 2 ε fcc  fl 
f cc = ,X = , =  + 1
6) Attard-Setunge f cc 1 + C ⋅ X + D ⋅ X 2
ε cc f c0  f t 
fi
[13] ε cc  f 
= 1 + (17 − 0.06 f c0 )  l 
f 2i
f residual
ε ε c0  f c0 
εcc εi ε2i
σ
f = f cc − Edes ( ε − ε cc ) ,
fcc

7) Hoshikuma- f cc ρ s f yh ρ f
= 1.0 + 3.8α , ε cc = 0.002 + 0.033β s yh
Kawashima fcc f co f co f co
[14] For circular section, α = 1.0 , β = 1.0 ;
ε
ε cc ε cu
for square section, α = 0.2 , β = 0.4 。
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 438-439 189

Table1(C) Summary of sketch graph and key parameters for each confined concrete model
Models Sketch graphs Descending branch expressions and key parameters
σ
ε − ε 01
f cc
f c = 0.15 f cc + f cc
8) Razvi-Saatcioglu
f cc
ε 01 − ε s85
[15] f cc = f c0 + k1 f l , k1 = 6.7( f l ) −0.17
f cc
ε
ε cc = ε 01 (1 + 5k3 K )
ε cc ε 85 ε 20
σ
f cc
fc ε ε cc
=
f cc (1 − 0.87λv ) α ( ε ε cc − 1)2 + ε ε cc
0.2
9) Qian-Cheng
[16] f cc = (1 + 1.79λv ) f c0 , ε cc = (1 + 3.50λv ) ε c0

ε
λv = ρ v f yh / f c0
ε cc

σ  ε −ε cc 
2

 
fcc fc f  f  f   ε i −ε cc 
= resedual + 1 − residual  ic  ,
10)Samani-Attard f cc f cc  f cc  f c0 
fi
[17] f residual k
f cc  f l  ε
=  + 1 , cc = ek
ε f c0  f t  ε c0
ε cc εi

Cusson et al., Attard et al., Samani et al. and Fafitis et al. in their models. In fact, volumetric stirrup
ratio is a reflection of confinement effect of transverse reinforcement, while stirrup ratio per unit area
reflects the effect of shear strength contribution by transverse reinforcement. Therefore, volumetric
stirrup ratio is more reasonable for confined concrete models.

Analyses of Columns Based on Different Confined Concrete Models

Reinforced Concrete Columns and Stirrups Arrangement. To analyze the effects of different
confined concrete stress-strain relation in Table 1 on load-deformation curve, three types of stirrup
confining, A, B and C, as shown in Figure1, are adopted in this study. The height of each column is
3.6 m, and the compressive strength of unconfined concrete fc=50MPa. Each column is reinforced by
12 deformed reinforcing bars with 25mm diameter, and the yield strength of longitudinal bars is
500Mpa. For transverse reinforcement, the diameter and spacing are variable parameters for each
type (types A, B and C) of stirrup confining, and the yield strength is 335Mpa. In this study, two axial
load ratios are used, and equal to 0.25 and 0.5, respectively. Details of column parameters are
presented in Table2. In the table, the column No. B8-100-0.25 stands for a column with stirrup
confining of Type B, stirrup diameter of 8 mm, stirrup spacing of 100 mm, and axial load ratio of 0.25.
Similarly, other column numbers denote columns with the corresponding design parameters.

(A) (B) (C)

Fig.1 Three types of stirrup confinement
Load-deformation Relationship. For well confined reinforced concrete columns, the behavior is
controlled by flexural and its horizontal deformation mainly consists of flexural deformation.
Traditional section analysis is conducted for calculating the lateral load-deformation relationship of
columns, and the effects of different confined concrete models on load-deformation relationship are
analyzed in this section.
190 Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Infrastructure II

Table 2 Details of column specimens

A8- A16 A8- A8- B8- B16 B8- B8- C8- C16- C8- C8-
Column No. 100- -100 50- 100- 100- -100 50- 100- 100- 100 50- 100-
0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.25
Stirrup diameter [mm] 8 16 8 8 8 16 8 8 8 16 8 8
Stirrup spacing
100 100 50 100 100 100 50 100 100 100 50 100
[mm]
Axial load ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25

In moment-curvature (M-φ) analysis, confined concrete models listed in Table1 are used for core
concrete, and unconfined concrete models are used for cover concrete. For longitudinal bars,
stress-strain relationship with a trilinear hardening region proposed by Esmaeily-gh et al [18] is used,
and the tensile and compressive characteristics are assummed the same.
The load-deformation relationship is predicted based on moment-curvature (M-φ) analysis and the
plastic hinge method, the deformation at the tip of column is calculated according to the following
equations:
 H2
φ φ ≤ φy
3
∆f =  2
. (1)

 y 3 ( y) p( p)
 φ H + φ − φ l H − 0.5l φ > φy
Where, H=the height of column; φ=the curvature of section, and the curvature distribution of
reinforced concrete column is shown in Figure2 (b); φy=the yield curvature; lp =plastic hinge length
at the end of column, caculated according to the model proposed by Priestley [19].
According to the analytical model of reinforced concrete column presented in Fig. 2 (a), the lateral
load can be calculated as follows:
(M − N ∆f )
F= . (2)
H
Where, N=the axial load, M=the moment of section.
∆f
N
F x
O
y

H H

lp
φy φ − φ y

(a) Analytical model (b) Curvature distribution

Fig. 2 Analytical model and curvature distribution of reinforced concrete column

Analysis Results and Discussion. Figure3-Figure8 show different confined concrete models
listed in Table 1 and the effects of these models on the lateral load-deformation relationship of
columns. The number of each model in fugures is in corresponding with that in Table 1. Comparisons
of 10 confined concrete constitutive models with different stirrups arrangement are shown in Fig. 3
(a)-Fig. 8 (a). It is noted that all models are consist of an asending branch (pre-peak branch) and a
descending branch, and there are scarce differences on the asending branch of models, but remarkable
discrepancies on the descending branch. The models suggested by Cusson-Uzumeri,
Hoshikuma-Kawashima, and Qian-Cheng have a steeper descending branch than others. The
differences of confined concrete models may be explained by the differences of material properties
and the uncertainty of measurement. Furthermore, the deformation of concrete specimen is relatively
uniform before the peak stress, but the ununiform deformation appears due to the local failure of the
concrete specimens in the post-peak region.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 438-439 191

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (b) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 3 Confined concrete constitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
A8-100-0.5

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (b) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 4 Confined concrete constitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
A16-100-0.5

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (b) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 5 Confined concrete constitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
B8-100-0.5

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (b) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 6 Confined concrete constitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
B8-50-0.5
The comparison of stress-strain relationships of confined concrete with different stirrup diameters
(i.e. A8-100-0.5 and A16-100-0.5, B8-100-0.5 and B16-100-0.5 and C8-100-0.5 and C16-100-0.5, as
shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) indicate that the peak stress of each model increases with the increasing of
the diameter of stirrups, as well as the corresponding strain. The slope of the desending branch
become smaller with the increase of the diameter of stirrups, and the ductility of the concrete is
improved remarkably. Similarly, the comparison of confined concrete constitutive curves of
A8-100-0.5 and A8-50-0.5, B8-100-0.5 and B8-50-0.5 and C8-100-0.5 and C8-50-0.5, as shown in
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, indicate that the decrease of stirrup spacing also improves the peak strength and
ductility of confined concrete. These suggest that the ductility of reinforced concrete member can be
192 Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Infrastructure II

improved by increasing the stirrup diameter and decreasing the stirrup spacing, and the adverse effect
of smaller stirrup diameter can be offset by decreasing the stirrup spacing.

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (b) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 7 Confined concrete c onstitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
C8-100-0.5

(a) Confined concrete constitutive curves (a) Column load-deformation curves

Fig. 8 Confined concrete constitutive curves and column load-deformation curves of column
C8-100-0.25
The comparison of lateral load-deformation curves of A8-100-0.5 and A8-100-0.25, B8-100-0.5
and B8-100-0.25 and C8-100-0.5 and C8-100-0.25, as shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, indicate that the
axial load ratio has a great influence on the shape of load-deformation curve. As the axial load ratio
decreases, the horizontal bearing capacity of columns increases, but the ultimate deformation and
ductility decreases. There is a difference between the load-deformation curves of reinforced concrete
columns predicted using different confined concrete models, especially in the post-peak range.
However, it is important to realize that the influences of different models on lateral load-deformation
relationship only should be concerned when the cloumns under high axial load level. This can be
explained that the confinement effect may be weakened as a result of the eccentric compression in
concrete and lower axial load level in the post–peak range of load-deformation relationship.

Conclusion
In this paper, confined concrete models proposed by different researchers, and the influences of these
models on the determination of lateral load-deformation relationship are compared and analyzed. All
models consist of an asending branch (pre-peak branch) and a descending branch, and there are little
differences on the asending branch of models, but remarkable discrepancies on the descending branch.
The influences of different models on load-deformation relationship in the pre-peak range are
relatively small and even ignorable, but the discrepancies on load-deformation relationship in the
post-peak range should be concerned, especially when the columns under high axial load level.
References
[1] Richart Frank E, A study of the failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses, R.
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 185 (1928).
[2] Baris Binici, An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of confined concrete, Engineering
Structures, 27 (2005) 1040-1051.
[3] Iyengar, K. T. Sundara Raja, Stress-strain characteristics of concrete confined in steel binders,
Magazine of Concrete Research, 22 (1970) 173-184.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 438-439 193

[4] Martinez, Salvador, Nilson Arthur H, Spirally reinforced high-strength concrete columns, ACI
Struct. Eng, 81 (1984) 431-442.
[5] J. Sakai, K. Kawashima, Modification of the Giuffre, Menegotto and Pinto model for unloading
and reloading paths with small strain variations, Journal of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake
Engineering, 738 (1997) 159-170.
[6] Q. Zhang, J. Gong, Loading-deformation relations of reinforced concrete columns under
flexural-shear failure, Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 27 (2010) 78-84.
[7] GB50011-2010, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China Building Industry Press, Beijing,
2010.
[8] R. Park, M. Priestley, Gill Wayne D, Ductility of square-confined concrete columns, Journal of
the Structural Division, 108 (1982) 929-950.
[9] Sheikh Shamim A, S. M. Uzumeri, Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied columns,
Journal of the Structural Division, 108 (1982) 2703-2722.
[10] A. Fafitis, S. Shah, Lateral reinforcement for high-strength concrete columns, ACI Special
Publication, 87 (1985) 213-232.
[11] J. B. Mander, Priestley M. J. Nigel, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, 114 (1988) 1804-1826.
[12] Cusson Daniel, Paultre Patrick, Stress-strain model for confined high-strength concrete, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 121(1995) 468-477.
[13]M. M. Attard, S. Setunge, Stress-strain relationship of confined and unconfined concrete, ACI
Materials Journal, 96 (1996) 432-442.
[14] J. Hoshikuma, K. Kawashima, et al, Stress-strain model for confined reinforced concrete in
bridge piers, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123 (1997) 624-633.
[15] Razvi Salim, Saatcioglu Murat, Confinement model for high-strength concrete, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 125 (1999) 281-289.
[16] J. R. Qian, L. R. Cheng, et al, Behavior of axially loaded concrete columns confined with
ordinary hoops, Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 42 (2002).
[17] Samani Ali Khajeh, Attard Mario M, A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined concrete
under compression, Engineering Structures, 41 (2012) 335-349.
[18] A. Esmaeily-Gh, Y. Xiao, Seismic Behavior of Bridge Column Subjected to Various Loading
Patterns, R. Berkeley, Peer, (2002).
[19] M. J. N. Priestley, R. Park, Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic
loading, ACI Structural Journal, 84 (1987) 61-76.