Uniaxial Confinement Model for Normal- and High-Strength

Concrete Columns
Frédéric Légeron1 and Patrick Paultre, M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a new confinement model based on strain compatibility and transverse force equilibrium. This new
approach is capable of predicting the effectiveness of transverse reinforcement, which is key in modeling the behavior of high-strength
concrete confined with high-yield-strength steel. The model is validated on test results from more than 200 circular and square large-scale
columns tested under slow and fast concentric loading. In addition, results from about 50 square and circular large-scale columns tested
under constant axial load and reversed cyclic bending were also used in the assessment of the model adaptability to seismic-type loading.
All the predictions are in very good agreement with the experimental results. The model is especially effective in assessing the effec-
tiveness of high-yield-strength steel.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:2共241兲
CE Database keywords: High-strength concretes; Concrete columns; Confinement; Models.

Need for a General Confinement Model for Concrete
Columns
With the development of performance-based design methods,
there is an increasing need for simplified but reliable analytical
tools capable of predicting the flexural behavior of reinforced
concrete members. In capacity design methods applied to multi-
story buildings, strong columns/weak beams ensure that no story
mechanisms develop. The ground floor columns must, however,
be capable of developing sufficient ductility. Bridges often rely
solely on the capacity of piers to sustain large displacements with-
out collapsing. Design offices will be faced more and more with
the need of predicting the deformation capacity of concrete mem-
bers. While predicting the flexural behavior of concrete members
is a simple matter nowadays, a general approach to account for
confinement of concrete columns is still needed. By general, we
mean that the model should be applicable to the various cases
engineers face in practice for seismic designs, i.e., different axial
load levels 共from beam-type to essentially gravity-frame col-
umns兲, a wide range of concrete strength available 共20 to 140
MPa兲, normal- or high-strength confinement steel 共300 to 1,400
MPa兲, and variable ductility demands 共from limited ductility to
fully ductile structures兲 to reach a given performance level. The
main objective of this paper is to propose a rational uniaxial
stress-strain model to account for confinement of concrete col-
umns with a wide range of concrete strength and transverse rein-
forcement yield strength.
1
Senior Bridge Engineer, Jacobs Civil, Iselin, NJ 08830.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sher-
brooke PQ, Canada J1K 2R1. E-mail: patrick.paultre@courrier.usherb.ca
Note. Associate Editor: Joseph M. Bracci. Discussion open until July
1, 2003. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on August 22, 2001; approved on
January 17, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 129, No. 2, February 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2003/2-241–252/$18.00.
The confinement models proposed in the past have limited
validity in terms of concrete strength, transverse reinforcement
yield strength, column geometry, or load conditions. A unified
model capable of adequately reflecting these various conditions is
needed. This model should be based on a rational approach to the
confinement phenomenon rather than on multicriteria statistical
analyses. Cusson and Paultre 共1995兲 have proposed a rational
model that was limited to square high-strength concrete columns.
The model was often considered too complex because it uses an
iterative procedure to predict the transverse reinforcement stress
at peak strength. This iterative procedure would not converge
toward realistic values when initial guesses of the transverse re-
inforcement strains were too far from the actual values 共Cusson
et al. 1996, 1998; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1998兲. Experimental and
analytical work carried out at the University of Sherbrooke in the
past decade on the behavior of concrete columns subjected to
concentric load as well as cyclic flexure and axial load 共Cusson
and Paultre 1994, 1995; Paultre and Légeron 1999; Légeron and
Paultre 2000; Paultre et al. 2001兲, combined with a number of
experimental data published in the past decade, allowed modifi-
cation of the Cusson and Paultre model to make it applicable to
square and circular columns made with normal- and high-strength
concrete and confined with normal- and high-strength steel. In the
process, the model has been simplified by removing the need to
predict the transverse reinforcement stress at peak strength by an
iterative procedure. This paper presents the theoretical basis of the
proposed model which has been validated on 210 square and
circular columns tested under concentric compression and 50
square and circular columns tested under reversed cyclic bending
and constant axial load.
Confinement Model
Circular Column Encased in a Continuous Envelope
It has long been known that confinement pressure increases the
capacity in compression 共Richart et al. 1928兲. In columns, con-
finement with hoops, spirals, or a steel casing is referred to as

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 241

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Equilibrium between confinement stress and stress in confin-
ing steel
passive, i.e., lateral steel reacts to the expansion of concrete.
When the concrete is not loaded, no expansion occurs and the
confinement pressure is zero; it increases when lateral expansion
due to Poisson’s effect and microcracking take place. Assuming
an elastic perfectly plastic confining steel, confinement stresses
reach a peak when the steel yields. Let us consider the case of a
circular column of diameter c, confined with a continuous enve-
lope of thickness e, which is small compared to c. In this column,
the confinement stress f ᐉ can be found considering force equilib-
rium and strain compatibility. Force equilibrium between the
stress in the envelope and the confining stress applied to the con-
crete core results in 共Fig. 1兲
2e f h
f ᐉ⫽ (1)
c and by Mander et al. 共1984兲. This coefficient reflects the effec-
where f h ⫽tensile stress acting in the envelope taken as positive
as well as the confinement stress.
From strain compatibility and assuming that the outer concrete
is strained the same amount as the envelope, the envelope’s strain
␧ h 共positive for tensile strain兲 can be written as
共 1⫺␯ cc 兲 f ᐉ
␧ h ⫽␯ cc ␧ cc ⫺ (2)
E cc
where ␯ cc ⫽secant Poisson’s coefficient and E cc ⫽secant modulus
of elasticity of confined concrete in the horizontal direction, both
variables being a function of the axial strain in the column ␧ cc ,
taken positive for compressive strain.
These two equations can be used to determine the confining
stress f ᐉ with the strain-stress relationship of the envelope and the
radial strain in the concrete, assuming that a three-dimensional
constitutive law for concrete is known. While a theoretical ap-
proach such as plasticity theory could be used for this purpose,
that is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on a simpli-
fied uniaxial method.
Application to Columns Confined with Ties and Spirals
The confining stress distribution is very complex in columns con-
fined with ties and spirals, since the lateral restraint of concrete
expansion is highly localized. Some studies on confinement based
on finite-element analysis provide a good picture of the variation
of confining stress in concrete. For example, Pallewatta et al.
共1996兲 studied the confinement stress pattern on a square columns
both horizontally and vertically. They showed that confining
stresses vary from a maximum at tie level to a minimum between
ties. To simplify, we replace the actual column with an ‘‘equiva-
lent’’ circular column confined with a continuous envelope 共Fig.
242 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252
Fig. 2. Equivalent column concept
2兲. The equivalent column has a diameter equal to the size of the
concrete core of the rectangular column measured center-to-
center of the outer tie in the direction studied. The confining steel
is adjusted to account for the reduced effectiveness of the trans-
verse steel resulting in the variation of confining stresses in the
rectangular concrete column as opposed to the equivalent circular
column, which has uniform lateral steel. For the effectiveness of
confinement steel, it is convenient to use the geometrical effec-
tiveness coefficient K e introduced by Sheikh and Uzumeri 共1982兲
tiveness of the transverse reinforcement in confining the concrete.
For instance, the more the steel is spread out along the column,
the more efficient it is. The thickness of the envelope of the
equivalent circular column is
A shy
e⫽K e (3)
2s
where A shy ⫽total cross section of the transverse reinforcement in
the y direction within the tie spacing s. The confinement stress
acting on the concrete core in the y direction is
2e f h A shy
f ᐉey ⫽ ⫽K e f (4)
c sc h
It must be emphasized that f h is a function of the axial strain
in the column ␧ cc . Let us define the effective sectional ratio of
confinement reinforcement in the y direction, ␳ sey
A shy
␳ sey ⫽K e (5)
sc
Eq. 共4兲 can be written
f ᐉey ⫽␳ sey f h (6)
The effective confinement stress f ᐉey varies from zero when
the stress in the confinement reinforcement is zero to a maximum
at yielding of the transverse reinforcement, i.e., f h ⫽ f hy . A mea-
sure of the level of confinement is the nondimentional effective
confinement index I e ⫽ f ᐉey / f ⬘c introduced by Cusson and Paultre
共1995兲.
The compatibility equation analogous to Eq. 共2兲 is
共 1⫺␯ cc 兲 f ᐉey
␧ h ⫽␯ cc ␧ cc ⫺ (7)
E cc

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Stress-strain relationship of confined concrete 共Cusson and
Paultre 1995兲
For spiral reinforcement, Eqs. 共3兲, 共6兲, and 共7兲 are valid, as-
suming s is the pitch of the spiral. For square and circular col-
umns with symmetric confinement reinforcement, it is practical to
use the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
2A sh
␳ s⫽ (8)
cs
where A sh ⫽total section of transverse reinforcement in x and y
directions. Hence, the effective volumetric ratio of transverse re-
inforcement is
2A sh
␳ se ⫽K e ␳ s ⫽K e (9)
cs
and the effective confinement stress is
1 Maximum Stress in Confined Concrete
f ᐉe ⫽ ␳ se f h (10)
2
The compatibility equation is not affected.
Response of Confined Column to Concentric
Compression
The following step-by-step approach may be used to predict the
response of a confined column to concentric compression:
1. Choose a value of axial strain;
2. Assume stress in confinement steel f h ⫽ f hy ;
3. Determine the confining stress, f ᐉey , from Eq. 共6兲;
4. Determine the strength and ductility enhancements;
5. Compute concrete stress f cc from the confined stress-strain
relationship of the concrete and determine E cc ⫽ f cc /␧ cc ;
6. Determine the strain in the confining reinforcement from
compatibility Eq. 共7兲;
7. Compute f h from the stress-strain relationship of the steel;
and
8. Repeat Steps 3 to 7 until convergence on f h .
The complete response of a confined concrete column can be
determined by repeating Steps 1 to 8 for different values of the
axial strain.
Such a method is described by Madas and Elnashai 共1992兲. To
avoid this incremental analysis, Cusson and Paultre 共1995兲 de-
fined a confined concrete stress-strain relationship that can ac-
count for the progressive nature of the passive confinement 共see
Fig. 3兲. This curve is completely defined given two points: 共1兲 the
confined compressive strength, f ⬘cc corresponding to the strain
␧ ⬘cc , and 共2兲 the postpeak axial strain ␧ cc50 in the concrete when
the capacity drops to 50% of the confined strength 共see Fig. 3兲.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 243
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252
The ascending branch of the stress-strain relationship of confined
concrete is based on a relationship originally proposed by Popov-
ics 共1973兲
f cc ⫽ f ⬘cc 冋 k 共 ␧ cc /␧ ⬘cc 兲
k⫺1⫹ 共 ␧ cc /␧ ⬘cc 兲 k 册 , ␧ cc ⭐␧ ⬘cc (11)
where the prime in a term indicates that it is evaluated at the peak
of the stress-strain curve. f cc is the stress in the confined concrete
corresponding to strain ␧ cc and k is a parameter controlling the
slope of the ascending branch and is given by
E ct
k⫽ (12)
E ct ⫺ 共 f ⬘cc /␧ ⬘cc 兲
where E ct ⫽tangent modulus of elasticity of the unconfined con-
crete.
The postpeak branch is a modification of an expression pro-
posed by Fafitis and Shah 共1985兲
f c ⫽ f ⬘cc exp关 k 1 共 ␧ cc ⫺␧ ⬘cc 兲 k 2 兴 , for ␧ cc ⭓␧ ⬘cc (13)
where k 1 and k 2 ⫽two parameters controlling the shape of the
stress-strain curve. Based on data from Cusson and Paultre
共1994兲, the following equations are used:
ln 0.5
k 1⫽ (14)
共 ␧ cc50⫺␧ ⬘cc 兲 k 2
k 2 ⫽1⫹25共 I e50兲 2 (15)
where I e50 is the effective confinement index evaluated at the
postpeak strain ␧ cc50 共Fig. 3兲. Equations for determining f ⬘cc , ␧ ⬘cc ,
and ␧ cc50 are presented in the following sections.
Let us consider the point of maximum confined concrete stress,
⬘ , f ⬘cc ). The stress in the confinement steel at this point is f h⬘ ,
(␧ cc
corresponding to a strain ␧ h⬘ . The effective confinement pressure
in the y direction is given by Eq. 共4兲
A shy
⬘ ⫽K e
f ᐉe f⬘ (16)
sc h
The strain in the confining steel is
共 1⫺␯ ⬘cc 兲 f ⬘ᐉe
␧ h⬘ ⫽␯ cc
⬘ ␧ cc
⬘⫺ (17)
E ⬘cc
where E ⬘cc and ␯ ⬘cc ⫽‘‘equivalent’’ secant modulus of elasticity
and Poisson’s coefficient of concrete evaluated at the peak stress,
respectively. Eq. 共17兲 relates ␧ h to ␧ ⬘cc and indirectly to f ⬘cc by
means of E ⬘cc . However, it is well-known that the strength and
ductility gains are related to the amount of confinement provided
to the columns and the stress in the confinement reinforcement
共Sheikh and Uzumeri 1982兲. This is an implicit problem, tradi-
tionally solved by assuming that the transverse reinforcement
reaches yield at the peak stress. However, Cusson and Paultre
共1994兲 as well as Li et al. 共1994兲 have shown that yield strength
may not be reached at peak, especially with low confinement or
transverse reinforcement made of high-yield-strength steel. Ob-
servation of earlier experimental data 共Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980兲
shows that yield is not always reached even with normal-strength
concrete. Hence, Cusson and Paultre 共1995兲 introduced an itera-
tive procedure that provides a numerical solution to the determi-
nation of the transverse reinforcement stress level at peak stress.
To help understand this iterative procedure, a graphical interpre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Relation between ␧ ⬘h /␧ ⬘c and I ⬘e Fig. 5. Relation between ␧ ⬘h /␧ ⬘c , I ⬘e and stress-strain relationship of
transverse reinforcement steel expressed in terms of I e and ␧ h /␧ ⬘c
tation is presented here, enabling a direct formulation in which
iteration is not necessary. Let us introduce the effective confine-
ment index at peak stress 共Cusson and Paultre 1995兲
Fig. 4 represents the strain compatibility condition in terms of
f ⬘ᐉe relation between I ⬘e and ␧ h⬘ /␧ ⬘c . It is convenient to plot the force
I ⬘e ⫽ (18) equilibrium on the same graph for a graphical solution. Using Eq.
f ⬘c
共6兲, the effective confinement index is given by
Strength and ductility enhancements are expressed as a function
fh
of this nondimensional effective confinement index. Based on the I e ⫽␳ sey (24)
work by Cusson and Paultre 共1995兲, new relations are introduced f ⬘c
that cover a wide range of concrete strength where f h is a function of ␧ h /␧ ⬘c . This expression shows that I e is
f ⬘cc a function of the stress-strain relationship of the confining steel.
⫽1⫹2.4共 I ⬘e 兲 0.7 (19) This relation is plotted in Fig. 5 for three column configurations
f ⬘c
confined with an elastic perfectly plastic steel. Eq. 共23兲 is also
␧ ⬘cc shown on the same graph. Since both Eqs. 共23兲 and 共24兲 should
⫽1⫹35共 I ⬘e 兲 1.2 (20) be satisfied simultaneously, the peak should occur at the intersect-
␧ ⬘c
ing point 关 (I ⬘e ) A for Column A, (I ⬘e ) B for Column B, and (I ⬘e ) C for
Dividing Eq. 共17兲 by ␧ ⬘c gives Column C兴. Indeed, the iterative procedure in the Cusson and
Paultre model 共1995兲 is intended to find this intersection point.
␧ h⬘ ␧ ⬘cc ⬘ 兲 f ᐉe
共 1⫺␯ cc ⬘ The abscissa of this point gives the effective confinement index at
⫽␯ ⬘cc ⫺ (21)
␧ ⬘c ␧ ⬘c E ⬘cc ␧ ⬘c the peak, I e⬘ . An analytical solution can also be found. The slope
of the line representing the elastic range of steel in Fig. 5 is
where ␯ ⬘cc and E ⬘cc are unknown, since they are ‘‘equivalent’’
values. Assume that E ⬘cc ⫽␣ f ⬘cc /␧ ⬘cc , where ␣⭓1 is a parameter f ⬘c
reflecting the ‘‘equivalent’’ column concept. Introducing Eqs. 共19兲 ␬⫽ (25)
␳ sey E s ␧ ⬘c
and 共20兲 into Eq. 共21兲, yields

冋 册
When ␬⭐10, there is no intersection of the two curves in the
␧ ⬘h ⬘
1⫺␯ cc I ⬘e elastic range, and steel yields at peak 共Case A in Fig. 5兲. Hence,
⫽ 共 1⫹35共 I e⬘ 兲 兲 ␯ ⬘cc ⫺
1.2
⫻ (22)
␧ ⬘c ␣ 1⫹2.4共 I ⬘e 兲 0.7 I ⬘e ⫽␳ sey f hy / f ⬘c . If ␬⬎10, there might be an intersection point in
the elastic range 共Case C in Fig. 5兲 or transverse reinforcement
Fig. 4 presents experimentally determined ␧ h⬘ /␧ c⬘ values ob-
may yield if steel yield strength is low enough 共Case B兲. This can
tained from about 80 columns tested under uniaxial compression
be summarized as

再
共Uzumeri 1980; Mander et al. 1984; Nagashima et al. 1992;
Sheikh and Toklucu 1993; Cusson and Paultre 1994兲. Fig. 4 also f hy if ␬⭐10
provides Eq. 共22兲 for ␯ ⬘cc ⫽0.43 and ␣⫽1.1. These values imply f ⬘h ⫽ 0.25f c⬘ (26)
that the column is in an average damaged state intermediate be- ⭓0.43␧ ⬘c E s ⬎ f hy if ␬⬎10
tween tie location and in between ties. Considering the high level ␳ sey 共 ␬⫺10兲
of uncertainties in the measurement of strain in ties, the predic- From this equation, it is evident that the more a column is
tions are in good agreement with experimental results. This pair confined, the more it is able to effectively use the yield strength of
of values represents a best fit of the data. The following simpler the transverse reinforcement. This fact is consistent with experi-
relation which provides good correlation with the test data is re- mental evidence 共Cusson and Paultre 1994兲.
tained 共Fig. 4兲: In the preceding, it was assumed that the transverse reinforce-
ment steel presented an elastic perfectly plastic stress-strain rela-
␧ h⬘
⫽0.25⫹10I e⬘ ⭓0.43 (23) tionship. Even though this is rarely the case, strain hardening
␧ ⬘c effects can be neglected for normal-strength steel because the

244 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Relation between ␧ ⬘h /␧ ⬘c , I ⬘e and stress-strain relationship of
transverse reinforcement steel expressed in terms of I e and ␧ h /␧ ⬘c and
accounting for strain hardening
onset of strain hardening is not usually reached at peak. This,
however, is not true for high-yield-strength steel presenting a
rounded stress-strain relationship with no marked yield stress.
The conventional yield strength defined for a 0.2% offset could
underestimate the confining stress for very well-confined columns
where strain could be well in excess of the conventional yield
strain. On the contrary, for lower confinement, the strain could be
well below the conventional yield strain but still in the curved
portion of the stress-strain curve, which means that the confining
stress could be overestimated. A more refined representation of
the behavior of the steel in computing the effective confinement
index at peak can be used in this case 共Fig. 6兲.
Postpeak Strain at 50% of Maximum Stress
The postpeak strain ␧ cc50 measured at 50% of the maximum stress
defines the postpeak shape of the stress-strain curve. The follow-
ing equation is proposed:
␧ cc50
⫽1⫹60I e50
␧ c50
where I e50⫽effective confinement index at ␧ cc50 共Fig. 3兲, and
␧ c50⫽corresponding postpeak strain in the unconfined concrete
measured at 0.5f ⬘c . The strain ␧ c50 is very difficult to measure
experimentally. It requires a very stiff testing machine, special
control, and instrumentation. Few experimental values are avail-
able in the literature. In the absence of data, it is possible to use
␧ c50⫽0.004 as suggested by Cusson and Paultre 共1995兲. It should
be noted that for high-strength concrete, lower values have been
reported 共Sheikh et al. 1994兲 depending on the type of aggregates
and mix proportioning, but in most cases, 0.004 is a reasonable
estimate for ␧ c50 .
Experimental evidence from concentric compressive tests of
tied columns shows that transverse ties do not always reach yield
at peak loads, especially when the ties are made of high-yield-
strength steel. However, the confining steel always yields at
␧ cc50 . This is due to the large concrete expansion that takes place
after the peak. Hence, I e50 is computed with f h ⫽ f hy and only the
force equilibrium is necessary
f hy
I e50⫽␳ sey
f ⬘c
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252
Fig. 7. Potential use of high-yield-strength steel
It should be noted that for very well-confined concrete, the
axial strain could reach values approaching 0.05. At this strain
level, strain hardening has generally begun and the confining
stress is underestimated when computed with the yield strength. It
is possible to use the strain compatibility to find the confined
stress at ␧ cc50 . For the sake of simplicity, f hy is used in all the
cases, regardless of the confinement level.
Use of High-Yield-Strength Steel
A case of particular importance is Column A in Fig. 5 which
represents a configuration in which yielding of the transverse re-
inforcement is always reached at peak load. For such columns,
the peak load in confined concrete is attained only when yielding
occurs in the ties. This is consistent with test results of concrete
columns confined with carbon-fiber casing. In these tests, there
are two possible failure modes: 共1兲 concrete failure for low con-
finement and 共2兲 casing failure with axial stress increasing up to
failure of the casing. The values of ␬⭐10 are then referred to as
the ‘‘unconditional yielding condition.’’ For practical applica-
(27) tions, it is of interest to know what effective sectional ratio of
transverse reinforcement is necessary to reach this unconditional
yielding condition. Setting ␬⫽10 in Eq. 共25兲, we can find the
critical sectional ratio of transverse reinforcement
f ⬘c
␳ sey ⫽ (29)
10E s ␧ c⬘
where ␧ ⬘c ⫽strain corresponding to f ⬘c and can be taken as
共Légeron 1998兲
␧ ⬘c ⫽0.0005共 f ⬘c 兲 0.4 (30)
Introducing Eq. 共30兲 in Eq. 共29兲 yields
共 f c⬘ 兲 0.6
␳ sey ⬇ (31)
1,000
When ␳ sey is larger than the value given by the right-hand side
term of Eq. 共31兲, the confinement steel yields at peak load regard-
less of the steel’s yield strength. For such columns, increasing the
confinement stress can be achieved by increasing the yield
strength of the steel while keeping the same volumetric ratio of
(28) transverse reinforcement. Consider, for example, a column made
of 100-MPa concrete 共Column A in Fig. 7兲 with ␳ sey ⫽0.025 and
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 245
 f hy ⫽400 MPa. Assuming ␧ ⬘c ⫽0.003 and ␬⫽6.35, the effective
confinement index is 0.025⫻400/100⫽0.1. If this confinement
index is not sufficient to ensure a given ductility demand, the ratio
of transverse reinforcement or the steel yield-strength can be in-
creased since the configuration of the column results in ␬⭐10. In
this case, the effective confinement index is proportional to the
steel yield strength. To obtain an effective confinement index of
0.25, steel with a yield strength of 1,000 MPa could be used
instead of increasing the confinement steel content. A second case
of interest is when high-yield-strength transverse steel can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

used in order to reduce the ratio of transverse steel while achiev-

ing the same ductility demand. This case is important in many
practical situations such as for congested columns leading to a
concreting problem and difficulties forming hoops made of large-
size diameter bars. There is, however, a limit at which increasing
the transverse reinforcement yield strength no longer translates
into strength and deformation gains at peak as illustrated in Fig. 7.
Let us assume a linear relationship between I ⬘e and f hy ; using a
1,000-MPa transverse reinforcement steel would result in ␳ sey
⫽0.01 共Column C in Fig. 7兲. The effective confinement index of
Column C is less than 0.1, since Column C is not sufficiently
confined to yield the transverse reinforcement at peak. From Fig.
7, one can determine that an optimal decrease of the transverse
reinforcement ratio can be obtained when ␬ B ⫽(0.25⫹10I ⬘e )/I e⬘
⫽1.25/0.1⫽12.5. For this value of ␬ B , we have ␳ sey
⫽ f c⬘ /(␬E s ␧ ⬘c )⫽0.0127 and f hy ⫽I e⬘ f c⬘ /␳ sey ⫽788 MPa. Hence,
one can reduce the amount of transverse reinforcement up to the
point when ␳ sey ⫽0.0127 by increasing f hy accordingly. For ␳ sey
⬍0.0127, increasing f hy while reducing the amount of confine-
ment reinforcement would not ensure that I ⬘e ⫽0.1 to reach a
given gain in strength and deformation at peak. It is possible to
relate the maximum usable yield strength of the transverse rein-
forcement steel to the required effective confinement index with
Eq. 共26兲
I ⬘e f ⬘c I ⬘e f ⬘c
共 f hy 兲 max⫽ ⫽ ⫽I ⬘e E s ␧ ⬘c ␬ opt
␳ sey f ⬘c
E s ␧ c⬘ ␬ opt
where
max共 0.25⫹10I ⬘e ,0.43兲
␬ opt⫽
I ⬘e
␬ opt determines the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement
steel to reach the target effective confinement index I ⬘e .
Fig. 8. Relation between maximum usable yield strength and effec-
tive confinement index at peak I ⬘e
Eq. 共32兲 is plotted in Fig. 8 with values for ␧ c⬘ given by Eq.
共30兲. An important conclusion that can be drawn from Fig. 8 is
that the higher the effective confinement index, the higher the
steel strength that can be used effectively. This conclusion con-
firms findings by Cusson and Paultre 共1994兲 that high-yield-
strength steel is more effective for highly confined columns.
Comparison of Prediction to Experimental Data
Axially Loaded Columns
The maximum stress that the confined concrete core of a column
can sustain is ␣ f ⬘cc where ␣ is a strength-reduction factor related
(32) to column shape and size and to the difference between the
strength of in situ concrete and the strength determined from stan-
dard cylinder tests, taken here as the commonly accepted value of
0.85 for columns under axial compression. The proposed model is
used to predict results from 210 concentrically loaded, large-scale
columns with concrete strengths ranging from 30 to 125 MPa and
(33) yield strengths of confining reinforcement ranging from 270 to
1,400 MPa 共Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980; Mander et al. 1984; Na-
gashima et al. 1992; Sheikh and Toklucu 1993; Cusson and
Paultre 1994; Li et al. 1994; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1997兲. Table 1

Table 1. Columns Tested under Concentric Compression

Researchers Dimensions 共mm兲 Number f c⬘ 共MPa兲 ␳ s 共%兲 f hy 共MPa兲 Gauge length 共mm兲
Square columns
Sheikh and Uzumeri 共1980兲 305⫻305 24 31– 41 0.76 –2.40 268 –725 300–360
Nagashima et al. 共1992兲 225⫻225 26 61–120 1.62–3.92 823–1414 400
Cusson and Paultre 共1994兲 235⫻235 30 52–123 1.45– 4.96 392–770 800
Li et al. 共1994兲 240⫻240 27 41–97 0.80–5.00 445–1318 300
Razvi and Saatcioglu 共1997兲 250⫻250 24 60–124 400–1000 300

Circular columns
Mander et al. 共1984兲 ␾500 15 27–31 0.60–2.52 307–340 450
Li et al. 共1994兲 ␾240 17 41–97 0.79–2.94 445–1318 300
Sheikh and Toklucu 共1993兲 ␾203–356 27 35–36 0.59–2.44 452– 629 250– 400
Razvi and Saatcioglu 共1997兲 ␾250 20 60–124 0.41–3.06 400–1000 300

246 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Prediction of stress in confinement steel at peak Fig. 11. Prediction of strain in confinement concrete at peak

Mander et al. 共1984兲 tested columns under high-strain rates.

summarizes the dimensions, number, concrete strength, volumet-
ric ratio, and strength of confining reinforcement of each speci-
men and the gauge length used to measure deformation.
All the experimental results were not always available. This is
the case of the stress in the confining steel at peak strength and
the postpeak strain at 50% of peak strength. When available, the
experimental curves provided by researchers were used to evalu-
ate the experimental values needed. For the 24 columns tested by
Sheikh and Uzumeri 共1980兲, postpeak strain at 85% of the maxi-
mum capacity was reported instead of 50%. ␧ cc85 is predicted
with the post-pic expression of the stress-strain curve given by
Eq. 共13兲.
The dynamic amplification factor proposed by Mander et al.
共1984兲 is used to account for the increase of the strength due to
this high-strain rate.
The prediction of the stress in the steel at peak are compared to
the available experimental results in Fig. 9. Overall, the predicted
and experimental values are in good agreement. Some variability
is observed, but this can be explained by the difficulty in measur-
ing strains on hoops and spirals. Indeed, measurements can differ
widely from one location to the other for a given hoop. The av-
erage ratio of experimental to predicted stress in confinement re-
inforcement at peak is 1.15. The underestimation of the stress in
the transverse reinforcement for some specimens 共Fig. 9兲 comes
from assuming the stress-strain curve of steel to be elastic per-

Fig. 10. Prediction of maximum stress in confined concrete Fig. 12. Prediction of postpeak strain at 50% of peak

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 247

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

 Table 2. Columns under Flexure and Constant Axial Compression
Writer Section Number f c⬘ ␳s f hy
University of Toronto
Sheikh and Khoury 共1993兲 305⫻305 6 31–33 1.30–3.06 464 –508
Sheikh et al. 共1994兲 305⫻305 3 54 –55 1.69– 4.25 464 –508
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1998兲 305⫻305 8 72–102 2.72–5.12 309– 402

University of Canterbury
Watson and Park 共1994兲 400⫻400 9 39– 47 0.58 – 4.34 255–388
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Li et al. 共1994兲 350⫻350 5 93–98 2.60– 4.64 453–1317

University of Sherbrooke
Légeron and Paultre 共2000兲 305⫻305 6 92–104 1.96 – 4.26 391– 418
Paultre et al. 共2001兲 305⫻305 6 79–110 2.27– 4.26 418 – 825
Robles et al. 共2001兲 ␾300 6 97–109 1.10– 4.20 440–560

fectly plastic, which is not a good assumption for high-yield- Columns under Flexure and Constant Axial Load
strength steel with rounded stress-strain curves.
Columns are rarely loaded under pure axial compression only.
The predicted strength of the confined concrete are compared
The model is therefore used to predict the behavior of columns
to the experimental results in Fig. 10. The figure shows that the
tested under constant axial load and reverse cyclic flexure simu-
predictions are in good agreement with the experiments. Consid-
lating earthquake loading, which is a classical application of con-
ering only columns with numerical data given by the authors 共168
finement. For convenience, the experimental results are grouped
columns兲, the average ratio of experimental to predicted values is
by university 共Table 2兲. Seventeen columns were tested at the
1.03.
University of Toronto 共Canada兲 by Sheikh and Khoury 共1993兲,
The predictions of the strain at peak strength are compared to
Sheikh et al. 共1994兲, and Bayrak and Sheikh 共1998兲; 14 at the
the experimental results in Fig. 11. The predictions are very good,
University of Canterbury 共New Zealand兲 by Watson and Park
with a ratio of experimental-to-predicted values of 1.10, when
共1994兲, Li et al. 共1994兲; and 18 at the University of Sherbrooke
only the values reported by the authors are considered 共168 col-
共Canada兲 关12 square columns by Légeron and Paultre 共2000兲 and
umns兲.
Paultre et al. 共2001兲, and six circular columns by Robles, Bouaa-
Predictions of the postpeak strain ␧ cc50 when the stress in the
nani, and Paultre 共2001兲兴. All the columns are connected to a
confined concrete is 50% of its maximum strength are compared
massive stub representing a footing or beams and slab, typical of
to experimental results in Fig. 12. The predictions are very good,
columns in the first story of a building. The concrete strength of
with a ratio of experimental-to-predicted values of 1.13 共for 147
the 47 columns ranged from 30 to 120 MPa; the yield strength of
columns with numerical values reported by the authors兲.
transverse reinforcement ranged from 400 to 1,400 MPa. For each
specimen, the complete moment-curvature response was com-

Fig. 13. Prediction of maximum moment Fig. 14. Prediction of ultimate curvature

248 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Prediction of moment curvature responses

puted with the MNPHI computer program 共Paultre 2001兲 with a
layer-by-layer analysis incorporating the proposed model. The
factor ␣⫽0.85 was not used in flexure. Fig. 13 compares the
experimental with the predicted maximum moments. The pre-
dicted values are in good agreement with the experimental results,
even for highly axially loaded columns in which the confinement
effect is the most sensitive. This is reflected by an overall mean
ratio between experimental and predicted maximum moment of
1.03 with very small variability. The predictions are slightly con-
servative since the stub effects at the column bases, which pro-
vide additional confinement to the tested columns, were not ac-
counted for. Fig. 14 compares the experimental with the predicted
ultimate curvature. The ultimate curvature is defined as the cur-
vature when bending capacity has dropped by 20% of the maxi-
mum moment. The general trend is very well predicted. The mean
ratio between experimental and predicted ultimate curvature is
0.96 with some scatter. However, the ultimate curvature is very
difficult to measure due to the localization of damage along a
certain length, buckling of longitudinal bars, and spalling of con-
crete cover. Finally, a small difference in the descending branch
of the experimental and the predicted moment-curvature diagram
leads to an important difference in ultimate curvature due to the
definition in loads of the ultimate curvature. This means that ex-
perimental error on moments 共or in the evaluation of the P⫺⌬
effect兲 is translated into a large error in ultimate curvature, spe-
cifically for well-confined columns.
Fig. 15 compares the predicted and experimental moment cur-
vature for six columns tested by Robles et al. 共2001兲. The col-
umns are circular and constructed with high-strength concrete of
about 100 MPa. The columns whose responses are presented on
the right side of Fig. 15 共C100SH100N15, C100SH100N25, and
C100SH100N40兲 are confined with high-yield-strength-steel with
f y ⫽560 MPa. It can be seen that the predictions of moment-
curvature response for circular columns are very good.
Fig. 16 presents the predicted and experimental horizontal
force-tip displacement diagrams for six columns tested by

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 249

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Prediction of force displacement responses
Légeron and Paultre 共2000兲 and by Paultre et al. 共2001兲. These
diagrams were obtained by integrating the moment-curvature dia-
gram predicted with the model and using the plastic hinge length
recommended by Priestley et al. 共1996兲. The predicted responses
are in very good agreement with the experimental results in terms
of moment capacity, maximum horizontal forces, and ductility.
Conclusions
This paper presents a uniaxial confinement model applicable to a
large range of concrete strength. In this model, the behavior of
confined concrete is related to a nondimensional parameter I e ,
which takes into account the amount of transverse confinement
reinforcement, the spatial distribution of the transverse and longi-
tudinal reinforcement, the concrete strength, and the transverse
250 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252
reinforcement yield strength. A direct procedure is proposed to
determine the stress in the transverse reinforcement at pic strength
of confined concrete. The effectiveness of the model was gauged
against test results from more than 200 columns tested under
concentric compression and 50 columns tested under constant
axial load and reversed cyclic flexure. Predictions were found to
be in very good agreement with the experimental results.
Acknowledgments
The writers acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Appendix: Use of Model
Two columns in the test series presented in Fig. 16 are selected to
illustrate the use of the model.
 Example 1-Specimen C80B60N40 Notation

f ⬘c ⫽78.7 MPa, ␧ ⬘c ⫽0.003, ␳ s ⫽4.26%, f hy ⫽438 MPa and K e The following symbols are used in this paper:
⫽0.688. A s ⫽ cross section of one leg of hoop;
1. Determine ␳ sey from Eq. 共5兲 A sh ⫽ area of transverse reinforcement within spacing s;
A shy ⫽ area of transverse reinforcement within spacing s
␳sey⫽ 12Ke␳s⫽ 21⫻0.688⫻0.0426⫽0.0147
and perpendicular to direction y;
2. Calculate ␬ from Eq. 共25兲 c ⫽ diameter of circular column, diameter of circular
f ⬘c 78.7 confined concrete core;
␬⫽ ⫽ ⫽8.9 c y ⫽ dimension of rectangular column in y direction;
␳seyEs␧c⬘ 0.0147⫻200,000⫻0.003
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

e ⫽ thickness of continuous confinement envelop;

␬⬍10, therefore f ⬘h ⫽ f hy ⫽438 MPa
E cc ⫽ secant modulus of elasticity in transverse direc-
3. Determine f ⬘ᐉe from Eq. 共6兲
tion;
⬘ ⫽␳sey f ⬘h⫽0.0147⫻428⫽6.29 MPa
f ᐉe E ⬘cc ⫽ secant modulus of elasticity in transverse direc-
4. Compute the effective confinement index I ⬘e tion at pic strength;
f ⬘ᐉe 6.29 E s ⫽ modulus of elasticity of transverse reinforcement;
Ie⬘⫽ ⫽ ⫽0.08 f ᐉe ⫽ passive lateral confinement pressure provided by
f ⬘c 78.7
reinforcement;
5. Determine f ⬘cc and ␧ ⬘cc from Eqs. 共19兲 and 共20兲 f ⬘ᐉe ⫽ passive lateral confinement pressure provided by
f ⬘cc⫽关1⫹2.4共 I ⬘e 兲 0.7兴 f ⬘c ⫽ 共 1⫹2.4⫻0.080.7兲 ⫻78.7⫽111 MPa reinforcement at peak strength;
f ᐉey ⫽ passive lateral confinement pressure provided by
␧ ⬘cc ⫽ 关 1⫹35共 I ⬘e 兲 1.2兴 ␧ ⬘c ⫽ 共 1⫹35⫻0.081.2兲 ⫻0.003⫽0.008
reinforcement in y direction;
6. Calculate I e50 from Eq. 共28兲 f cc ⫽ stress acting on confined concrete;
f hy f ⬘cc ⫽ compression strength of confined concrete;
Ie50⫽␳ sey
f ⬘c f ⬘c ⫽ concrete cylinder compression strength;
Assuming f h50⫽ f hy ⫽438 MPa, I e50⫽I ⬘e ⫽0.08. f h ⫽ stress in confinement reinforcement;
7. Compute ␧ cc50 from Eq. 共27兲 f hy ⫽ yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
f h⬘ ⫽ stress in confinement reinforcement at pic
␧ cc50⫽ 共 1⫹60I e50兲 ␧ c50⫽ 共 1⫹60⫻0.08兲 ⫻0.004⫽0.0232 strength;
I e ⫽ effective confinement index⫽ f ᐉe / f ⬘c ⫽␳ sey f h / f ⬘c ;
I ⬘e ⫽ effective confinement index evaluated at pic
strength;
Example 2-Specimen C100BH55N40 I e50 ⫽ effective confinement index evaluated at ␧ cc50 ;
K e ⫽ geometrical effectiveness coefficient of confine-
f ⬘c ⫽109.5 MPa, ␧ ⬘c ⫽0.0033, ␳ s ⫽3.30%, f hy ⫽825 MPa and K e ment reinforcement;
⫽0.697. k ⫽ parameter of confinement
1. Determine ␳ sey from Eq. 共5兲 model⫽E ct /(E ct ⫺E ⬘cc );
k 1 , k 2 ⫽ parameters controlling shape of post-pic portion
␳sey⫽ 12Ke␳s⫽ 21⫻0.697⫻0.033⫽0.0115
of stress-strain curve;
2. Calculate ␬ from Eq. 共25兲 ␣ ⫽ parameter reflecting the ‘‘equivalent’’ column
f ⬘c 109.5 concept ⭓1;
␬⫽ ⫽ ⫽14.4⬎10 ␧ cc ⫽ axial strain in confined concrete;
␳seyEs␧⬘c 0.0115⫻200,000⫻0.0033
␧ c50 ⫽ postpeak axial strain in unconfined concrete when
therefore f ⬘h ⫽min关 f hy,0.25f ⬘c /␳ sey (␬⫺10) 兴 ⫽541 MPa
capacity drops to 50% of unconfined strength;
3. Determine f ⬘ᐉe from Eq. 共6兲 ␧ cc50 ⫽ postpeak axial strain in confined concrete when
f ⬘ᐉe⫽␳sey f ⬘h⫽0.0115⫻541⫽6.22 MPa capacity drops to 50% of confined strength;
4. Compute the effective confinement index I ⬘e ␧ ⬘cc ⫽ axial strain at pic strength of confined concrete;
f ⬘ᐉe 6.22 ␧ ⬘c ⫽ axial strain corresponding to concrete cylinder
I⬘e ⫽ ⫽ ⫽0.057 strength;
f ⬘c 109.5 ␧ h ⫽ strain in transverse reinforcement;
5. Determine f ⬘cc and ␧ ⬘cc from Eqs. 共19兲 and 共20兲 ␧ ⬘h ⫽ strain in transverse reinforcement at pic strength;
f ⬘cc⫽关1⫹2.4共 I e⬘ 兲 0.7兴 f c⬘ ⫽ 共 1⫹2.4⫻0.0570.7兲 ⫻109.5 ␬ ⫽ parameter used to determine if yielding of trans-
verse reinforcement occurs at pic strength of con-
⫽145 MPa fined concrete;
␧ ⬘cc ⫽ 关 1⫹35共 I ⬘e 兲 1.2兴 ␧ ⬘c ⫽ 共 1⫹35⫻0.0571.2兲 ⫻0.0033⫽0.007 ␬ opt ⫽ value of ␬ determining the minimum amount of
transverse reinforcement steel to reach given ef-
6. Calculate I e50 from Eq. 共28兲
fective confinement index;
f hy ␯ cc ⫽ secant Poisson’s modulus in transverse direction;
Ie50⫽␳ sey
f ⬘c ␯ ⬘cc ⫽ secant Poisson’s modulus at pic strength,
Assuming f h50⫽ f hy ⫽825 MPa, I e50⫽I ⬘e ⫻825/541⫽0.087. ␳ sey ⫽ effective sectional ratio of confinement reinforce-
7. Compute ␧ cc50 from Eq. 共27兲 ment in y direction; and
␳ se ⫽ effective volumetric ratio of transverse reinforce-
␧ cc50⫽ 共 1⫹60I e50兲 ␧ c50⫽ 共 1⫹60⫻0.087兲 ⫻0.004⫽0.025 ment.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 251

J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252

 References
Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S. A. 共1998兲. ‘‘Confinement reinforcement de-
sign considerations for ductile HSC columns.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 124共9兲,
999–1010.
Cusson, D., De Larrard, F., Boulay, C., and Paultre, P. 共1996兲. ‘‘Strain
localization in confined high-strength concrete columns.’’ J. Struct.
Eng., 122共9兲, 1055–1061.
Cusson, D., De Larrard, F., Boulay, C., and Paultre, P. 共1998兲. ‘‘Closure
to ‘strain localization in confined high-strength concrete columns.’ ’’
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Struct. Eng., 124共9兲, 1092–1093.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 共1994兲. ‘‘High-strength concrete columns con-
fined by rectangular ties.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 120共3兲, 783– 804.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 共1995兲. ‘‘Stress-strain model for confined
high-strength concrete.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 121共3兲, 468 – 477.
Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P. 共1985兲. ‘‘Lateral reinforcement for high-
strength concrete columns.’’ ACI Spec. Publ., SP 87–12, 213–232.
Légeron, F. 共1998兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of structures made with normal
and high-performance concrete.’’ PhD thesis 共in French兲, Univ. of
Sherbrooke and École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Sherbrooke,
and Paris, 261.
Légeron, F. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic assessment and retrofit of bridges.’’ Rep.
7/1, European Union within the Vulnerabliy Assessment of Bridges
(VAB) Project, SETRA, Paris, 2001.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 共2000兲. ‘‘Behavior of high-strength concrete
columns under cyclic flexure and constant axial load.’’ ACI Struct. J.,
97共4兲, 591– 601.
Li, B., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 共1994兲. ‘‘Strength and ductility of rein-
forced concrete members and frames constructed using HSC.’’ Re-
search Rep. No. 94-5, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canter-
bury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Madas, P., and Elnashai, A. S. 共1992兲. ‘‘A new passive confinement
model for the analysis of concrete structures subjected to cyclic and
transient dynamic loading.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21, 409–
431.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1984兲. ‘‘Seismic design of
bridge piers.’’ Research Rep. No. 84-2, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Nagashima, T., Sugano, S., Kimura, H., and Ichikawa, A. 共1992兲. ‘‘Mono-
tonic axial compression tests on ultra-high-strength concrete tied Col-
umns.’’ Tenth World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid,
Spain, July 19–24, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 5, 2983–
2988.
252 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
J. Struct. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 241-252
Pallewatta, T. M., Irawan P., and Maekawa, K. 共1996兲. ‘‘Confinement
effectiveness of lateral reinforcement arrangements in core concrete.’’
Concrete Library of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, V27, 221–247.
Paultre, P. 共2001兲. ‘‘MNPHI: A program for sectional analysis of struc-
tural concrete—User manual.’’ CRGP Rep. No. 2001–01, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Paultre, P. and Légeron, F. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of high-strength
concrete tied columns.’’ High-Strength Concrete, First Int. Conf.,
ASCE, 159–172.
Paultre, P., Légeron, F., and Mongeau, D. 共2001兲. ‘‘Influence of concrete
strength and yield strength of ties on the behavior of high-strength
concrete columns.’’ ACI Struct. J., 97共4兲, 591– 601.
Popovics, S. 共1973兲. ‘‘A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain
curve of concrete.’’ Cem. Concr. Res., 3共5兲, 583–599.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York, 686.
Razvi R. R., and Saatcioglu, M. 共1997兲. ‘‘Tests of high-strength concrete
columns under concentric loadings.’’ Rep. No. 0CEERC 96-03, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa.
Razvi, S. R., and Saatcioglu, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Discussion of ‘Post-peak mod-
eling of strain localization in confined high-strength concrete col-
umns.’ ’’ J. Struct. Eng., 124共9兲, 1090–1092.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. 共1928兲. ‘‘A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.’’ Bulletin
No. 185, Engineering Experimental Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana,
104.
Robles, H. I., Bouaanani, N., and Paultre, P. 共2001兲. ‘‘Simulated seismic
load tests of circular HSC columns confined with high-strength trans-
verse reinforcement,’’ 共in French兲, CRGP Rep. No. 2001–02, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Sheikh, S. A., and Khoury, S. S. 共1993兲. ‘‘Confined concrete columns
with stubs.’’ ACI J., 90共4兲, 414 – 431.
Sheikh, S. A., Shah, D. V., and Khoury, S. S. 共1994兲. ‘‘Confinement of
high-strength concrete columns.’’ ACI J., 91共1兲, 100–111.
Sheikh, S. A., and Toklucu, M. T. 共1993兲. ‘‘Reinforced concrete columns
confined by circular spirals and hoops.’’ ACI J., 90共5兲, 542–553.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. 共1980兲. ‘‘Strength and ductility of tied
concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 106共5兲, 1079–1102.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. 共1982兲. ‘‘Analytical model for concrete
confinement in tied columns.’’ ASCE J. Struct. Div., 108共12兲, 2703–
2722.
Watson, S., and Park, R. 共1994兲. ‘‘Simulated seismic load tests on rein-
forced concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 120共6兲, 1825–1849.