Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


On an Analytical Model for FRP-and-Steel-Confined Circular Concrete Columns

in Compression

NOVEMBER 13, 2014

Oswaldo Russian, ID: 1299650
Reviewer comments:

This journal paper seeks to establish a new analytical model to describe de behavior of
FRP-wrapped concrete columns in compression, while accounting for the contribution of
the existing steel to this confinement, if such reinforcement is present in sufficient quantity
and favorable enough condition to provide so. The argument for the necessity of a new
model lies in the perceived weaknesses of existing models: some models do not take into
consideration the contribution of the existing steel confinement, even if existing and
competent; other models are deemed, in the authors opinion too convoluted to be
incorporated in design procedures; finally, the accuracy and general applicability of some
existing models is challenged by the authors. The data used to develop this model was
obtained through an experimental database comprised of a select group of previous
studies. That is, no experimental testing was conducted in this study. The key variable in
this study is the axial-to-lateral strain ratio (c/l). That is, this variable will be the
representative parameter of confinement: with better confinement, a higher strain ratio
will be obtained, and vice versa. These strains will be taken from the experimental
database at failure by FRP rupture and confinement pressure will be computed based
upon them.

With regards to the journal, the reviewers observations, recommendations and questions
are the following:

- There is a wide-ranging spectrum of factors that are known to influence the

behavior of FRP-wrapped columns under compression, whether steel confinement
contribution is accounted for or not. Some of these factors, as stated by Chen et
al. (2012) are: geometric (discontinuities, FRP overlap region, imperfections and
curvature of the FRP jacket), FRP material factors (fiber orientation, uneven
distribution of tension in the fibers, damage of fibers, etc.), concrete material
factors (non-uniform deformation in the concrete, strain localization in the concrete,
etc.), adhesive material factors (mechanical properties of the adhesive, geometric
details of the adhesive, non-uniform bonding and partial debonding of the FRP),
among others. Since no experimental tests were conducted in this study and data
was obtained from previous research, it is unlikely that test subjects had uniform
characteristics with regards to these factors. In the reviewers opinion, this is an
important factor in obtaining reliable trends. Most of the further commentary stems
from this particular issue.

- In the study, there is no mention of the concept of strain efficiency or the different
failure modes that exist within FRP rupture. There is not a comparison between
the ultimate FRP strains obtained from the literature and the expected ultimate
strains, given from the manufacturers data on material properties. Moreover, there
is no mention of the type of FRP used in each of the experimental models from
which data was obtained. It seems to the reviewer that the information regarding
stress and strain concentrations and the factors determining strain efficiency in
each model would be vital to design procedures. That is, intuitively, it appears
necessary to know how close to the expected rupture strain of the FRP each
configuration can get before stress and strain concentrations cause FRP rupture
with a reported ultimate strain that is less that expected.

- The fact that it was specimen S0F4 which presented the greatest value of the strain
ratio cu/lu as seen in table 3 with cu/lu=4.50, while being the only specimen
for which the model rendered a contribution to the total confining pressure by the
steel of 0%, as seen in table 2, seems to conflict with the general premise that not
taking into account steel confinement contribution is too conservative. Moreover,
it is unclear how the steel contribution to the total confining pressure could be 0%
when the specimen is confined by both FRP and steel. This is seen in table 1,
where the only specimen that is only confined by FRP is that by Xiao and Wu
(2000). In page 3, it is stated that the steel confinement decreases after steel
yields, which implies an increasing steel confinement contribution up to yielding.

- The reviewer does note that, assuming fy = 60 ksi and Es = 29000 ksi, the yield
strain of the steel is 0.002 and that all values of lu are greater than this, as shown
in table 3. Assuming, as was done in this study, that lf= ls (strain compatibility),
we see from table 3 that steel has yielded in every case, and comparing to table 2
that the closer lu is to y, the greater the steel contribution is. What is not clear,
however, is how this contribution is computed after yielding or which material
properties were used for the steel.

- In the study, no mention was made of initial strains in the FRP. Chen et al. (2012)
note that depending on the procedure for installation of the FRP, initial strains may
or may not be induced in the FRP. These researchers offer a simplified way of
determining these initial strains by considering that for a circular column of given
geometric properties, the curvature in the FRP is known. In design, it seems ideal
that an analytical mode could incorporate initial strains if they were to be present.

- While understanding that not every possible variable can be incorporated into a
model, and that modelling any physical phenomena in itself depends on making
acute simplifying assumptions that make reasonably representative solutions
viable, it is recommended that research be continued with more uniform
experimental testing, where it is clear which are the independent and dependent
variables. In doing so, it is possible that the findings will reveal that it is better to
develop several models for some known conditions rather than one all-
encompassing model.