Effects of Confinement in Circular Hollow

Concrete Columns
Xiao Liang, Ph.D. 1; and Sri Sritharan, Ph.D., M.ASCE 2
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: The strength and ductility of concrete can be improved by adding confinement, which helps RC structures to withstand extreme
loads in a ductile manner. However, the confined concrete behavior in hollow sections is not well understood, and thus this paper presents a
systematic computational study on the confinement effect in hollow sections using key parameters such as the concrete dilation and confining
pressure. Computational results show that the confinement effect on solid and hollow sections is very different. This difference is due to
variations in concrete dilation and the distribution of confining pressure across the cross section. It is further shown that for circular hollow
columns with a wall thickness ratio of 0.1, one layer of transverse reinforcement provides a satisfactory confining effect. For columns with
larger wall thickness ratios up to 0.2, two layers of reinforcement connected with crossties are more appropriate, with an inner∶outer reinforce-
ment ratio of 1∶9. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002151. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Seismic; Hollow; Concrete; Column; Confinement; Finite-element (FE) modeling; Design.

Introduction small-scale solid concrete members confined with transverse rein-

Hollow columns are frequently used in the construction of tall
and long-span bridges because of their high structural efficiency.
Although hollow concrete columns offer high effectiveness of sec-
tion properties, their ductility capacity is limited due to concrete
crushing developing on the inside concrete wall surface. To ensure
dependable seismic performance of hollow RC columns, their
potential plastic hinge regions must be designed with effective
transverse reinforcement to prevent brittle failure, enabling the col-
umns to reach a satisfactory ductility level.
Well-confined solid concrete members experience large axial
compressive concrete strains without significant degradation of con-
crete strength (Hines et al. 2002). The confinement reinforcement
in critical regions of these columns is typically designed using
confined concrete models developed primarily for solid concrete
sections, such as the model proposed by Mander et al. (1988). This
constitutive model has been verified to provide accurate predic-
tion of flexural response for RC columns when subjected to lateral
loading, such as that generated by an earthquake. Therefore, it has
been widely used in current seismic design practice of concrete
bridges (AASHTO 2012, 2014; California Department of Transpor-
tation 2013). In addition to the model proposed by Mander et al.
(1988), several other confined concrete models (Scott et al. 1982;
Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992; Hoshikuma et al. 1997) in the literature
characterize the increase of strength and ductility of solid concrete
sections due to lateral confinement reinforcement. These models
were also developed primarily based on experimental testing of
1 confirmed their hypothesis, and the test columns behaved in a duc-
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian
Univ., Tianjin 300384, China; formerly, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil,
Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
50010. Email: xliang@tcu.edu.cn
2
Wilkinson Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environ-
mental Engineering, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50010 (corresponding
author). Email: sri@iastate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 30, 2017; approved on
March 28, 2018; published online on July 4, 2018. Discussion period open
until December 4, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
forcement and subjected to concentric axial compressive loading.
Limited research exists in the literature for hollow sections, but
most of it has focused primarily on studying flexural and shear
behavior of hollow concrete columns through large-scale test units
(Table 1). Some researchers (Zahn et al. 1990; Hoshikuma and
Priestley 2000; Ranzo and Priestley 2001) tested hollow concrete
columns confined with a single layer of transverse reinforcement
placed near the outside concrete wall surface. Anticipating that
keeping the entire compression zone resulting from flexural action
within the wall thickness would lead to ductile column behavior,
previous researchers designed the wall thickness and transverse
reinforcement ratio for hollow columns with consideration of
the axial load and longitudinal reinforcement ratios. However, these
test columns exhibited limited ductile behavior, with failure caused
by the collapse of concrete wall on the inside concrete wall surface.
Other researchers (Mo et al. 2003; Yeh et al. 2001, 2002) tested
columns confined with two layers of transverse reinforcement.
These two layers of transverse reinforcement were distributed
equally close to the inside and outside surfaces of the concrete wall
and were connected with crossties. For these hollow columns, two
layers of longitudinal reinforcement were placed adjacent to the
transverse reinforcement for constructability, with one layer on
the inside of the outer reinforcement and the other layer on the
outside of the inner reinforcement. The size of the crossties was
selected to be the same as the transverse reinforcement for simplic-
ity. The researchers proposed that the inside concrete wall had to be
confined to achieve a higher axial strain capacity without experi-
encing unfavorable concrete crushing. The experimental results
tile manner with failure characterized by fracture of the outside
longitudinal reinforcement. However, a rationale was not pro-
vided for placing equal amounts of inside and outside transverse
reinforcement, nor were measurements taken to support this design
assumption. In addition, a drawback of hollow columns confined
with two layers of transverse reinforcement and crossties is that this
design significantly increases the construction and labor costs,
which offsets some of the advantages of using hollow columns.
Because of the aforementioned concerns with regard to the
hollow column design, and to promote the application of hollow

© ASCE 04018159-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

 Table 1. Summary of previous experimental studies on hollow RC columns
Longitudinal Transverse
Section Wall thickness:section Axial Aspect reinforcement reinforcement Confinement
Researchers type diameter/width ratio load ratioa ratio ratioa amount (ratioa) configurations
Zahn et al. (1990) Circular 0.14–0.24 0.05–0.28 4.5 2.56% 10–12 mm dia. One layer
@ 75–90 mm
(1.13–1.36%)
Kawashima (1992) Circular 0.18 0 3.1 0.8 and 1.3% 9 mm dia. One layer
@ 200 mm
(0.18%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hoshikuma and Priestley (2000) Circular 0.092 0.04 4.3 0.48 and 1.06% 6.35 mm dia. One layer
@ 35 mm
(0.22%)
Ranzo and Priestley (2001) Circular 0.097 0.02 2.5 0.49% 6.35 mm dia. One layer
0.091 0.05 0.8% @ 70 mm
(0.12%)
Yeh et al. (2002) Square 0.2 0.05 4.33.0 1.1% 13 mm dia. Two layers
@ 80 mm with crossties
10 mm dia.
@ 120 mm
(0.56–1.52%)
Mo et al. (2003) Square 0.2 0.12 4.0 0.7% 4 mm dia. Two layers
0.06 @ 40 mm with crossties
0.07 4 mm dia.
@ 80 mm
(0.45–0.9%)
a
Ratio based on gross section area.

concrete columns in seismic regions, this paper systematically in-
vestigates the confinement effect in hollow column sections
through finite-element (FE) analyses in three parts. First, the con-
finement effect in solid sections is examined using confining pres-
sure and concrete dilation as the key parameters. Second, validation
of finite-element models developed for solid and hollow sections
are presented. Next, the effectiveness of confinement in hollow
concrete sections is investigated using confinement configuration,
wall thickness, and transverse reinforcement ratio as the main var-
iables. Finally, appropriate suggestions to improve the design of
hollow columns with consideration to wall thickness ratio (t=d)
are presented.
Computation Approach
This study used a finite-element method (FEM) to model concrete
columns confined with transverse reinforcement and subjected to
concentric axial compressive loading. Using three-dimensional
(3D) nonlinear finite-element software ABAQUS/CAE 6.12, a set
of concrete columns was analyzed to establish their axial stress ver-
sus axial strain relationship, which included the softening branch
that occurs beyond the peak strength. The primary variables inves-
tigated herein are the confinement configuration, wall thickness,
and transverse reinforcement ratio. The following sections present
the material models and other details of the finite-element models
used in this study. After that, validation of the FE models is pre-
sented for both solid and hollow column behavior.
Material Models
The concrete damage plasticity model is the most appropriate con-
stitutive model available in ABAQUS (Hillerborg et al. 1976;
Lubliner et al. 1989; Lee and Fenves 1998) to predict the constit-
utive behavior of concrete because it uses the concepts of isotropic
damage elasticity and of isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity
to represent the inelastic behavior of concrete. Therefore, the con-
crete damage plasticity model was selected to define the concrete
behavior in all FE models for this study. This model assumes that
tensile cracking and compressive crushing of the concrete are the
two main failure mechanisms. Based on this assumption, two dam-
age variables (i.e., dt and dc ), corresponding to these two failure
mechanisms (i.e., tensile cracking and compressive crushing of
concrete), quantify the response beyond yielding and characterize
the degradation of the stiffness associated with the strain softening
branch of the stress-strain response. The values of damage varia-
bles, dt and dc , ranging from 0 to 1, represent the concrete damage
state from undamaged to total loss of strength. Different from the
brittle cracking model, the concrete damage plasticity model does
not contain a failure criterion and thus elements are not removed
during the analyses.
For compression behavior, the cover concrete was modeled as
unconfined concrete using the axial stress-strain model proposed
by Mander et al. (1988) with a specified concrete compressive
strength of 31 MPa (4,500 psi) [dashed line, Fig. 1(a)]. Because
the failure characteristic of confined concrete is different from that
of unconfined concrete, different damage variables were introduced
to the postpeak response of the unconfined concrete model simu-
lating the damage evolution and stiffness degradation of confined
concrete behavior. With this modeling approach, both the uncon-
fined and confined concrete models were for plain concrete and the
influence of transverse reinforcement on concrete was automati-
cally accounted for by the concrete damage plasticity model. This
approach has been shown to successfully capture the increase in
concrete strength and ductility due to the increased confining pres-
sure provided by the transverse reinforcement (Snyder et al. 2011).
The stress-strain behavior of plain concrete was defined using the
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in the elastic range. Beyond
the elastic range, the stress-strain behavior of plain concrete was
defined using compressive stress as a tabular function of inelastic
strain (Table 2). The inelastic strain was defined as the total strain
minus the elastic strain corresponding to the undamaged material.

© ASCE 04018159-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 1. Input concrete material model in ABAQUS: (a) uniaxial compression behavior of concrete; and (b) uniaxial tension behavior of concrete.
Table 2. Material model input used in finite-element analyses
Material Elastic Plasticity
Concrete Young’s modulus∶ E0 Dilation angle∶ 32
Poisson’s ratio∶ 0.2 Eccentricity∶ 0.1
fb0 =f c0 ∶ 1.16
k∶ 0.666
Viscosity parameter: 0
Reinforcing steel Young’s modulus: E
Poisson’s ratio∶ 0.3 Plastic strain: εs –f s =E
Concrete behavior under uniaxial tension was assumed to fol-
low a linear elastic relationship until reaching the failure point. This
failure point corresponded to the onset of microcracking in the con-
crete material and defined the peak stress, i.e., 3.7 MPa (530 psi).
Postfailure behavior was defined in terms of postfailure stress as a
function of cracking strain (Table 2). The cracking strain was de-
fined as the total strain minus the elastic strain corresponding to the
undamaged material. This behavior enabled tension stiffening of
the concrete to be modeled using a softening branch for the post-
crack response of concrete. Fig. 1(b) shows the plain concrete
behavior in uniaxial tension.
Additional required inputs such as dilation angle, eccentricity,
uniaxial∶biaxial stress ratio, stress variant, and viscosity parameters
used the default values as suggested by ABAQUS/CAE 6.12 to
completely define the concrete damage plasticity model (Table 2).
Previous research (Jankowiak and Lodygowski 2005; Nguyen and
Kim 2009; Obaidat 2011) confirmed the appropriateness of the de-
fault values; therefore, a parametric study was not conducted to
investigate their effect in the overall behavior of the model in
the study presented herein. Longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment behavior after elastic range was defined in terms of yield
stress versus plastic strain (Table 2).
Model Formulation
The outer diameter of all the hollow circular concrete columns was
taken as 304.8 mm (12 in.); the rest of the dimensions were ex-
pressed in terms of the diameter in order to generalize the results
for any column size. The scale used for the computational model
did not affect the computational results and the dimension selected
for the study presented herein was intended to compare with ex-
pected experimental data. The inner diameter was calculated based
on a series of preselected t=d values ranging from 0.1 to 0.2, where
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159
(b)
Plastic
Compressive behavior Tensile behavior
Compressive stress: f c Post-failure stress: Cracking strain:
Inelastic strain: εc –f c =E0 σt0 0
Damage variable, dc: 1 − fc =E0 =εc 0.8σt0 0.008
Yield stress: fs Yield stress: f s
Plastic strain: εs –fs =E
t=d is the ratio of the wall thickness to the outer diameter. The
height of the column was taken as 4 times the diameter, or
1,219.2 mm (48 in.), an aspect ratio of 4∶1. Following a set of sen-
sitivity analyses, hexahedral elements with a length of 9.5 mm
(0.375 in.) were selected to accurately capture the stress-strain var-
iations across the wall thickness. The longitudinal reinforcement
consisted of 20 #2 bars [db ¼ 6.35 mm (0.25 in.), where db is
the diameter of reinforcing bar], leading to a longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio of 0.87% based on gross area. The transverse reinforce-
ment included two sizes of circular hoops, db ¼ 4.5 and 3.2 mm
(0.177 and 0.125 in.), spaced at 25.4 mm (1 in.) along the entire
height of the column for simplicity, which resulted in ρs values of
0.41 and 0.21%, respectively. The reinforcement bar and spacing of
the hoops were carefully selected to obtain the longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement ratios that are commonly used in bridge
columns, i.e., 1–4% for longitudinal reinforcement and 0.2–1% for
transverse reinforcement.
Two element types were primarily used in the development of
all FE models: C3D8R and T3D2. The C3D8R element is a con-
tinuum three-dimensional (3D) eight-noded solid element with
three translational degrees of freedom at each node. This element
modeled the concrete. T3D2 is a three-dimensional two-noded truss
element which resists forces in the axial direction only, and was
used to model the embedded longitudinal and transverse reinforc-
ing bars. This element has two nodes with three translational de-
grees of freedom at each node.
The embedded region constraint option was used to define the
interaction between the concrete and steel reinforcement. This ap-
proach constrained translational degrees of freedom of the embedded
steel reinforcement element nodes to the degrees of freedom of
the surrounding concrete element nodes. Effects associated with
the steel reinforcement–concrete interface, such as bond slip, were
modeled approximately by introducing some tension stiffening into
04018159-3 J. Struct. Eng.
 y Uniform compressive
displacement w=0
z x u=0

Reinforcement – T3D2

Section Selected for

Recorded Results v=0
between Two Hoops Concrete – C3D8R
d d = 304.8 mm [12 in.]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Boundary and loading conditions of modeled hollow member (t=d ¼ 0.167).

the concrete modeling to simulate load transfer across cracks through
the steel reinforcement. The tension stiffening effect was presented
in the section of material models for concrete in uniaxial tension.
Fig. 2 shows the boundary and loading conditions of a hollow
circular column with t=d of 0.167 which was subjected to concen-
tric axial compressive loading. Because of triple symmetry (i.e.,
the hollow circular column was symmetric about the x-, y-, and
z-directions), only 1=8 of the column was modeled to reduce
the computational time (Fig. 2). For the following sections, the
computational results were recorded at the midsection between
two layers of the transverse reinforcement. Appropriate boundary
conditions were enforced on the symmetric planes, which were u,
v, and w ¼ 0 on the planes normal to the x-, y- and z-axes (Fig. 2).
The top horizontal planes were unrestrained and allowed displace-
ment to take place in the z-direction. This was done to capture the
uniaxial confined concrete compression behavior of an isolated
segment along the height of the column that was undisturbed from
boundary conditions at the member end. Uniform compressive dis-
placement in the z-direction was applied to the top concrete section
surface (Fig. 2).
Validation Using Solid Column Section
To validate the computational model, a solid column with two dif-
ferent sizes of confinement reinforcement spaced at 25.4 mm (1 in.)
was first modeled in ABAQUS/CAE 6.12; the column had the same
outer dimensions and was subjected to the same boundary and
loading conditions as the hollow columns demonstrated previously.
Fig. 3 compares the derived axial stress-strain relationships of con-
fined concrete from FEM and those obtained from the model de-
veloped by Mander et al. (1988). The confined concrete response
from FEM accurately matched the predictions obtained from the
model proposed by Mander et al. (1988) for both examples. This
observation confirmed that the modeling approach and the material
model satisfactorily characterized the confinement effect in terms
of enhanced strength and ductility characteristics of confined con-
crete members. For both cases, the ultimate concrete strain for the
model proposed by Mander et al. (1988) was calculated based on
the design equation
0
εcu ¼ 0.004 þ 1.4ρs fyh εsu =f cc ð1Þ
This equation was developed based on an energy balance ap-
proach, which equated the strain-energy capacity of the transverse
steel as it is strained to the ultimate reinforcement strain to the in-
crease in energy absorbed by the concrete due to confinement
reinforcement. Previous researchers suggested that this design
equation underestimates the experimentally quantified εcu by about
50%. In the current seismic design practice of RC columns, the
ultimate limit state is defined as either the fracture of longitudinal
reinforcing bars or the crushing of confined concrete, whichever
occurs first. A typical confined concrete strain limit used for ordi-
nary bridge columns with regular material properties was taken as
0.02 mm=mm (in:=in:), thus limiting the axial strains in Fig. 3 to
0.02 mm=mm (in:=in:).

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Comparisons of computational axial stress-strain responses of confined solid concrete columns with those obtained from Mander et al.’s model
(1988): (a) ρs ¼ 0.41%; and (b) ρs ¼ 0.21%.

© ASCE 04018159-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 4. Response of selected concrete elements in solid concrete column (ρs ¼ 0.41%): (a) selected section and concrete elements for recorded
results; (b) response in uniaxial direction; and (c) response in transverse direction.
Fig. 4 shows the derived concrete behavior in both the uniaxial
direction and the transverse direction for selected concrete elements
of the modeled solid column with a confinement reinforcement
ratio of 0.41%. Fig. 5 illustrates the resulting concrete dilation.
Fig. 4 shows that the concrete elements in a solid section do not
experience the same confining pressure. If the entire concrete solid
section is represented by a series of rings, the ring located in the
section center (i.e., Concrete Element 1) experiences the highest
Fig. 5. Concrete dilation for selected concrete elements in solid column
(ρs ¼ 0.41%).
© ASCE 04018159-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159
confinement effect and produces the largest peak stress [Fig. 4(b)].
The peak stress decreases within rings as their distance from the
section center increases. This is because a ring located closer to
the section center experiences a higher magnitude of radial stress
(i.e., confining stress) [Fig. 4(c)].
The reason for the decrease in confining pressure as the distance
of the ring from the section center increases can be realized using
dilation of concrete elements in the transverse direction. When sub-
jected to concentric axial compression strains, the concrete element
dilates in both the radial and circumferential directions that lie on a
plane perpendicular to the direction of compression, due to the
Poisson effect. For the elements in the outermost ring, the trans-
verse reinforcement restrains the dilation of these elements in
the outward transverse direction, which depends on the transverse
reinforcement ratio. For the elements in the ring adjacent to the
outer ring, restraining effects are provided by both the transverse
reinforcement and the outer ring concrete elements. The influence
of the outer ring elements stems from their outward movement
being restrained by the transverse reinforcement. The influence
of outer ring elements on inner ring elements accumulates toward
the center of column section, providing the highest confinement
effect at the center of column. Fig. 5 illustrates this, showing
the effective change in element length with respect to its original
dimension (i.e., effective concrete dilation) for the selected concrete
elements along the transverse direction. The concrete element lo-
cated in the outer ring (i.e., Concrete Element 15) experiences the
largest dilation and the smallest confinement effect.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Model validation for hollow column HF1 by Hoshikuma and Priestley (2000): (a) geometry and reinforcement details of HF1; and (b) lateral
force versus lateral displacement response comparisons. (Reprinted with permission from Hoshikuma and Priestley 2000.)

Validation Using Hollow Column HF1
The accuracy of the computational model was also evaluated using
the response of a hollow circular bridge column with a single layer of
transverse reinforcement placed near the outside concrete wall (HF1)
and subjected to a cyclic lateral load (Hoshikuma and Priestley
2000). This test unit was used to validate the FE model because
its response is representative of a hollow column with a single layer
of transverse reinforcement when subjected to a lateral load. In ad-
dition, the ability of the computational model to accurately represent
the local behavior of the hollow bridge system, in terms of failure
mode and damaged region, is discussed. HF1 had an outer diameter
of 1,524 mm (60 in.) and a wall thickness of 139.5 mm (5.5 in.). The
longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 34 bundles of two #4 bars
[db ¼ 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)], and the transverse reinforcement consisted
of W5 wire spiral [db ¼ 5.26 mm (0.207 in.)] spaced at 35 mm
(1.38 in.) in the critical regions, which corresponded to a volumetric
ratio of 0.48% for the longitudinal reinforcement and 0.22% for the
transverse reinforcement. Fig. 6(a) shows the geometry and rein-
forcement details of HF1. A 3D finite-element model of hollow
bridge column (HF1) was developed in ABAQUS/CAE 6.12. The
concrete damage plasticity model was selected to define the uniaxial

© ASCE 04018159-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

 Concrete compressive Concrete compressive
strain: E33 stress: S33
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Inside concrete face crushing: (a) FEM [predicted damage region is located 304.8–609.6 mm (12–24 in.) from column base]; and (b)
Experiment [N300 represents 300 mm (11.8 in.) measured from column base]. (Reprinted with permission from Hoshikuma and Priestley 2000.)

Table 3. Analyses matrix chosen for hollow columns with different confinement configurations
Solid Hollow, t=d ¼ 0.167
Two layers of confinement
One layer of One layer of
Section confinement confinement Without crossties With crossties
Inner layer of transverse reinforcement dia. (mm) — — 4.5 4.5
Outer layer of transverse reinforcement dia. (mm) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
3.2
Crossties dia. (mm) — — — 4.5
Gross (net) ratio of transverse reinforcement (%) 0.21 (0.41) 0.41 (1.23) 0.82 (2.46) 0.82a (2.46)
a
Excludes area of crossties.

compressive and tensile concrete material properties of HF1. of 0.005 mm=mm (in:=in:) [Fig. 7(a)]. Good comparisons for
Concrete in the foundation block was defined as a linear-elastic the global and local responses for the experimental and FEM results
material because the foundation structural elements had a much of HF1 further confirm that the chosen computational approach can
greater capacity than the column, and the foundation did not expe- characterize the hollow column response satisfactorily.
rience observable damage during the test. The hollow column and
the foundation were modeled using 3D continuum eight-node brick
elements (C3D8R), whereas the longitudinal reinforcement and Confinement Effects in Hollow Sections
transverse steel hoops were modeled using the 3D two-node linear
truss element (T3D2). Liang et al. (2015) provided more details To investigate the confinement effect in hollow columns, three
about this finite-element model. analysis matrixes were carefully chosen (Tables 3–5). The concrete
Fig. 6(b) compares the overall lateral force-displacement curve compressive strength was 31 MPa (4,500 psi) for the computational
from the FEM and the measured force-displacement envelope of study presented herein and the transverse reinforcement ratio was
defined based on the gross section. In order to better understand the
HF1. The FEM response shows a 7.8% lower ultimate resistance
influence of confinement configuration on the confined concrete
than the experimental response, but closely matches the overall
behavior of hollow columns, three different confinement configu-
force-displacement trend. The calculated lateral displacement when
rations (i.e., one layer of transverse reinforcement, two layers of
the inside face concrete crushed was about 88 mm (3.5 in.), which
is 2.3% higher than the measured displacement corresponding to
the inside face concrete crushing, i.e., 86 mm (3.4 in.). Compared
with the pushover response derived from the moment-curvature Table 4. Analyses matrix chosen for hollow columns with two layers of
analysis by Hoshikuma and Priestley (2000), which predicted the transverse reinforcement connected with crossties
failure of HF1 by the crushing of confined concrete at the outside Proportion of
face, the FEM presented here captured the failure mode accurately. Transverse outer to inner Outer Inner
In addition to the overall force-displacement response comparisons, reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement
some local comparisons were also made to ensure that the FEM can configuration amount bar area (mm2 ) bar area (mm2 )
simulate the HF1 response accurately. This column failed in the Two layers of 5∶5 (typical) 15.87 15.87
first push cycle to ductility 4.0 due to concrete crushing on the confinement 6∶4 19.05 12.7
inside surface over a height of 300–600 mm (11.8–23.6 in.) from with crossties 7∶3 22.22 9.52
the column base [Fig. 7(b)]. A similar failure region in the FEM 8∶2 25.39 6.35
experienced concrete crushing, which was assumed to occur, as 9∶1 28.57 3.17
10∶0 31.74 0
previously noted by Hoshikuma and Priestley (2000), at a strain

© ASCE 04018159-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

 Table 5. Analyses matrix chosen for hollow columns with single layer of reinforcement ratio than the solid column (i.e., 0.82% versus 0.41%
transverse reinforcement based on gross section). The single layer of transverse reinforce-
Transverse Gross (net) ratio ment experienced some reduction in the stress and strain capacities.
reinforcement Reinforcement of transverse Two layers of transverse reinforcement without crossties provided
configuration t=d bar area (mm2 ) reinforcement (%) the lowest confinement effect among the three confinement
One layer of 0.1 22.22 0.57 (2.83) reinforcement configurations studied (Fig. 8). Compared with
confinement 0.125 0.57 (2.27) the solid section with a confined concrete strength of 40.8 MPa
0.15 0.57 (1.89) (5,922 psi) based on the model developed by Mander et al. (1988),
0.167 0.57 (1.70) the confined concrete strength for hollow columns with a single
0.175 0.57 (1.62) layer of transverse reinforcement and two equally distributed layers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 0.57 (1.42)
0.15 10.97 0.28 (0.94)
15.48 0.40 (1.33)
22.22 0.57 (1.89)
28.39 0.73 (2.44)
transverse reinforcement connected with crossties, and two layers
of transverse reinforcement without crossties) were studied. Hollow
columns using two layers of transverse reinforcement (with and
without crossties) were investigated to rationalize the role of cross-
ties and placing of equal amount of confinement reinforcement
close to the inside and outside concrete wall surfaces. Finally, for
hollow columns with a single layer of transverse reinforcement,
wall thickness and transverse reinforcement quantity are the two
most influential variables and thus their influence was studied.
Influence of Confinement Configuration
Fig. 8 shows the stress-strain responses of axially loaded hollow
concrete columns with t=d ¼ 0.167 and the three different confine-
ment configurations in Table 3. Table 3 lists the transverse
reinforcement ratios for each confinement configuration. For refer-
ence purposes, a solid column with the same outer dimension, i.e.,
d ¼ 304.8 mm (12 in.) and a transverse reinforcement ratio of
0.41% was also analyzed using FEM. Fig. 8 includes this result
and the corresponding prediction obtained from the model pro-
posed by Mander et al. (1988).
The hollow column with two equally distributed layers of trans-
verse reinforcement and crossties presented the best confined
concrete behavior. This response was even better than that obtained
for the solid column, with a 23.5% higher peak stress. This is
primarily because the hollow column with this reinforcement ar-
rangement was effectively confined and it had a greater transverse
Fig. 8. Comparisons of axial stress-strain responses obtained for
hollow columns with different confinement configurations.
of transverse reinforcement without the crossties was 38.9 MPa
(5,644 psi) and 35.4 MPa (5,129 psi), respectively. This corre-
sponded to a reduction of confined concrete strength of 6.3%
and 13.8%. This indicated that the presence of the inner layer of
reinforcement did not help to improve the concrete behavior unless
it was tied to the outer layer of reinforcement with crossties. This
finding was consistent with that presented by Papanikolaou and
Kappos (2009). In an analytical study, they showed that if the inner
layer of transverse reinforcement was not connected to the outer
layer of transverse reinforcement effectively, the inner reinforce-
ment only confined the inside concrete cover, causing the concrete
region located outside this inner reinforcement to be negatively con-
fined. Fig. 9 further validates this observation using the confining
pressure distribution across the wall thickness.
Fig. 8 identifies the points at which the inner and outer layers of
transverse reinforcement reached the yield strain. The transverse
reinforcement acts as passive confinement, which means that its
response depends on the concrete dilation to activate the confine-
ment mechanism. Under concentric axial compressive loading, the
concrete outward dilation in the transverse direction causes the
transverse reinforcement to develop tensile stress. With this tensile
stress developed, the transverse reinforcements apply confining
pressure to the concrete core they embrace. According to Fig. 8,
the inner layer of reinforcement was not stressed to the yield strain
for the hollow column that had two equally distributed layers of
transverse reinforcement without crossties. However, both the inner
and outer layers of reinforcement were stressed to the yield strains
for the hollow column with two equally distributed layers of trans-
verse reinforcement connected with crossties. In addition, the outer
layer of reinforcement reached the yield strain prior to the inner
layer. This implied that the demand on the inner layer of reinforce-
ment was smaller than the outer layer, and the role of crossties was
to transfer the demand from the inner layer to the outer layer of
reinforcement.
To better illustrate the confinement effect in hollow columns
with the three different confinement configurations studied, Fig. 9
plots the radial stress (i.e., confining stress) distribution across the
wall thickness for the hollow columns with t=d ¼ 0.167 at different
axial concrete compressive strains. The negative radial stress
corresponds to positively confined concrete and the magnitude of
radial stress represents how well the concrete is confined. Fig. 9(a)
shows the selected section and concrete layers for the recorded re-
sults. For the hollow column with a single layer of transverse
reinforcement [Fig. 9(b)], Concrete Layer 8 experienced the maxi-
mum magnitude of radial stress, 2 MPa (290 psi). The magnitude of
radial stress decreased as the distance of the concrete layer from
the section center decreased. This observation was different from
the confining stress distribution across the solid column section,
which indicated that the confinement effect in hollow concrete
columns was different from that in solid columns. Because of
the void in the middle of the hollow column section, the concrete
elements were allowed to move toward the section center. There-
fore, the confining effect of the concrete layer provided by the
transverse reinforcement on the adjacent concrete layer decreased,

© ASCE 04018159-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

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

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Radial concrete stress with respect to each concrete layer for hollow columns (t=d ¼ 0.167) at axial strains between 0.002 and 0.01: (a) select
section and concrete elements for presented results; (b) one layer of transverse reinforcement; (c) two layers of transverse reinforcement without
crossties; and (d) two layers of transverse reinforcement with crossties.

and Concrete Layer 1 experienced the smallest confining stress,
0.2 MPa (27 psi). The reduction of radial stress from the outside
concrete wall to the inside concrete wall was more obvious for the
hollow column that has two equally distributed layers of transverse
reinforcement without crossties. The inner concrete wall section
(i.e., Concrete Layers 1, 2, and 3) experienced positive radial stress
[Fig. 9(c)] and thus these layers were negatively confined. The
maximum magnitude of the negative confining pressure was about
1.2 MPa (175 psi) [Fig. 9(c)], which is less than the tensile strength
of concrete. This observation was consistent with that found by
Papanikolaou and Kappos (2009) and justified the reduced con-
fined concrete strength of the hollow column with the reinforce-
ment arrangement in Fig. 8. In addition, the tension demand
developed in the inner layer of reinforcement was effectively trans-
ferred to the outer layer with the help of crossties, which caused the
concrete element embraced by the outer layer of reinforcement to
experience a higher magnitude of radial stress [Fig. 9(d)]. Based on
the preceding observations, two equally distributed layers of
reinforcement connected with crossties provide the best confining
effect to the concrete core of hollow columns, followed by a single
layer of reinforcement. Two equally distributed layers of reinforce-
ment without crossties are the least efficient confinement configu-
ration among the three types. As a result, the following discussion
focuses on hollow columns confined with two layers of transverse
reinforcement connected with crossties and hollow columns con-
fined with one layer of transverse reinforcement.
Two Layers of Transverse Reinforcement with
Crossties
As discussed previously, two equally distributed layers of reinforce-
ment connected with crossties are the most effective reinforcement
arrangement among the three confinement configurations studied.
However, the difference between the inner and outer layer of
reinforcement reaching the yield strain might come from applying
the equally distributed inner and outer layers of reinforcement in
the computational study, in terms of the same reinforcing bar size
and the same transverse spacing. Furthermore, the tension demand
developed in the inner layer is smaller than that in the outer layer, and
the role of crossties is to transfer the demand from the inner layer to
the outer layer of reinforcement. Considering this, hollow columns
with smaller amounts of inner reinforcement were analyzed while
maintaining the same confinement reinforcement ratio. Fig. 10
presents the derived axial stress and axial strain relationship compar-
isons for each wall thickness.
As the t=d increased, the peak stress enhancement due to two
layers of transverse reinforcement connected with crossties became
more significant compared with a single layer of transverse
reinforcement. For t=d ¼ 0.1, the hollow column confined with
a single layer of reinforcement reached a similar confined concrete
strength as that with a 4∶6 inner∶outer reinforcement ratio connected
with crossties. For t=d ¼ 0.125, the confined concrete strength for
hollow columns with two equally distributed layers of confinement
reinforcement and crossties increased only by 5% compared with

© ASCE 04018159-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

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

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Comparisons of axial stress-strain responses obtained for different inner∶outer confinement amount ratios: (a) t=d ¼ 0.1; (b) t=d ¼ 0.125;
(c) t=d ¼ 0.167; and (d) t=d ¼ 0.2.

that with a single layer of confinement reinforcement. However, for the inner layer should be much smaller than that for the
placing two layers of reinforcement connected with crossties within outer layer.
a thin wall may experience reinforcement congestion and impose Fig. 11 compares the radial stress experienced by the concrete
challenges when casting concrete. Although placing a single layer layer adjacent to the outer reinforcement for the three confinement
of transverse reinforcement is more likely to cause failure by crush- configurations with t=d ¼ 0.167. These confinement configurations
ing of concrete on the inside wall surface than by rupturing the included a single layer of reinforcement, two equally distributed
longitudinal reinforcement, and hence it will lead to moderate duc- layers of reinforcement (i.e., 5∶5) connected with crossties, and an
tility capacity, this may be acceptable in some seismic regions. For
example, Hoshikuma and Priestley (2000) found that a circular can-
tilever hollow column with an outside diameter of 8 m (26 ft.),
height of 30 m (98 ft.), and wall thickness of 0.6 m (2 ft.) expe-
rienced a peak displacement ductility demand of less than 2, regard-
less of its period, when it was subjected to the Sylmar record
from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In consideration of both the
constructability and ductility demand, it is suggested that hollow
columns be designed with a single layer of transverse reinforce-
ment when t=d ¼ 0.1.
For all the wall thickness ratios analyzed in this study (Fig. 10),
the axial stress and axial strain response of concrete followed a
similar initial ascending branch. The response started to deviate
after the confinement effect was activated when the axial strain
reached 0.002 mm=mm (in:=in:). For each wall thickness ratio,
the peak stress increased by approximately 15% as the inner:outer
reinforcement ratio changed from 5∶5 to 1∶9. This indicates that
the peak stress of confined concrete is predominately influenced
Fig. 11. Radial concrete stress comparisons for hollow columns
by the quantity of outer reinforcement for a given total transverse
(t=d ¼ 0.167).
reinforcement ratio, and that the required transverse reinforcement

© ASCE 04018159-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

 inner∶outer reinforcement ratio of 1∶9 with crossties. The transverse
reinforcement ratio was 0.41 and 0.82% based on gross section for a
single layer of reinforcement and two layers of reinforcement con-
nected with crossties, respectively. This figure clearly represents how
well the concrete layer was confined for each confinement configu-
ration. The hollow column with a single layer of reinforcement fol-
lowed a similar initial radial stress as the column with two equally
distributed layers of reinforcement connected with crossties, but
deviated after the axial strain reached 0.004 mm=mm (in:=in:) when
the transverse reinforcement yielded in the hollow column with a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

single layer of reinforcement. The magnitude of radial stress contin-

ued to increase for the hollow column with two equally distributed
layers of reinforcement connected with crossties until the outer
reinforcement reached the yield strain. It was found that the differ-
ence of radial stress between the single layer of reinforcement and Fig. 12. Concrete compressive stress obtained for different wall
two equally distributed layers of reinforcement connected with cross- thicknesses.
ties primarily came from the force being transferred through the
crossties. The hollow column with an inner:outer reinforcement ratio
of 1∶9 had a magnitude of radial stress twice that of the column with
a single layer of reinforcement, i.e., 4 MPa (580 psi) versus 2 MPa
(288 psi) (Fig. 11).
This observation confirms that (1) the demand on the inner layer
confinement reinforcement is small because it provides confine-
ment effect for smaller concrete area; (2) any demand on the inner
reinforcement is transferred to the outer reinforcement by the cross-
ties, and thus the quantity of crossties should be determined based
on the demand in the inner reinforcement; and (3) the entire wall
will dilate outward if the wall thickness is small, defeating the
purpose of using two layers of confinement reinforcement with
crossties.

One Layer of Transverse Reinforcement

This section investigates the behavior of hollow columns with
a single layer of confinement reinforcement using two critical
variables: (1) wall thickness, and (2) confinement reinforcement
amount.
Influence of Wall Thickness
Six different wall thicknesses, corresponding to t=d in a range
0.1–0.2, were analyzed for hollow columns confined with a single
layer of reinforcement. The same quantity of transverse reinforce-
ment, which corresponded to a transverse reinforcement ratio of
0.57% based on gross section in all cases, was placed near the
outside concrete wall surface. Additionally, a solid column with
the same outer diameter, i.e., d ¼ 304.8 mm (12 in.) and the same
transverse reinforcement ratio of 0.57%, was analyzed for better
comparison of the confinement effect between solid columns and
hollow columns with a single layer of transverse reinforcement.
Fig. 12 presents the concrete compressive stress as the axial strain
reached 0.005 for different wall thicknesses, and shows that the
wall thickness did not significantly affect the confinement effec-
tiveness for hollow columns with a single layer of transverse
reinforcement as the t=d varied between 0.1 and 0.2. In addition,
the confined concrete stress in hollow columns with a single layer
of transverse reinforcement was 3.6% lower than that in a solid
column at an axial strain of 0.005 mm=mm (in:=in:).
Fig. 13 shows the tensile strain developed in the transverse
reinforcement for each wall thickness at an axial concrete compres-
sive strain of 0.005. The tensile strain developed in the transverse
reinforcement increased with the increase of wall thickness. The
tensile strain experienced by the transverse reinforcement in the
solid column (i.e., t=d ¼ 1) was 0.003, which was significantly
greater than that in the hollow columns. This, as expected, indicates
that as the wall thickness increases, more confining pressure is
Fig. 13. Tensile strain of transverse reinforcement for each wall
thickness at 0.005 axial concrete compressive strain.
required to restrain the outward concrete dilation for a given axial
concrete compressive strain.
In addition to the axial behavior comparisons, Fig. 14 compares
the concrete outward dilations of the outermost layer for each wall
thickness and also for the solid column. The outward dilation of the
outermost concrete layer slightly increased with the increase in
concrete wall thickness, and the concrete outward dilation of the
solid column was 15% more than that of the hollow columns at
an axial concrete compressive strain of 0.005. Therefore, the con-
crete pushed the transverse reinforcement farther as the wall thick-
ness increased, which verifies the increase of tensile strain that
develops in the transverse reinforcement for hollow columns with
thicker walls. Although a single layer of transverse reinforcement
experiences reduced demand in hollow columns, the confined con-
crete behavior in these columns can be increased by providing
a greater amount of confinement reinforcement, which the next
section confirms.
Influence of Confinement Reinforcement Amount
To illustrate the effect of reinforcement amount on the confined
concrete behavior for hollow columns confined with a single layer
of transverse reinforcement, a 45.72-mm-wall (1.8-in.) hollow col-
umn (i.e., t=d ¼ 0.15), which had the same number of concrete
layers as the solid column over the 45.72-mm (1.8-in.) portion,

© ASCE 04018159-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159

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. 14. Concrete outward dilation of outermost layer for hollow
columns with one layer of same amount of transverse reinforcement.
Fig. 15. Comparisons of axial stress-strain responses obtained for
different confinement reinforcement amounts.
was selected for the computation. The 45.72-mm-wall (1.8-in.) hol-
low column was analyzed with different transverse reinforcement
amounts (Table 5). Fig. 15 presents the axial stress-strain relation-
ship comparison. The axial concrete stress corresponding to 0.005
axial concrete compressive strain increased as the confinement
reinforcement amount increased. The hollow column with 30%
more confinement reinforcement [28.39 mm2 (0.044 in:2 )] achiev-
ed a confined concrete stress similar to that of the solid column.
Fig. 16 shows the radial displacement (i.e., concrete dilation) for
the hollow columns with different confinement reinforcement
amounts and for the solid column. Compared with the solid column
with concrete dilation of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) over the 45.72-mm
(1.8-in.) concrete portion, the hollow column with the same con-
finement reinforcement ratio experienced a significantly greater
concrete dilation of 0.66 mm (0.026 in.). Additionally, as the con-
finement reinforcement amount increased, the concrete dilation of
the hollow column decreased, indicating a better confinement ef-
fect. Based on the discussion presented thus far, for circular hollow
columns with t=d ¼ 0.1, one layer of transverse reinforcement pro-
vides a satisfactory confinement effect, and failure is characterized
by the inside concrete wall crushing at an axial concrete strain of
0.005. For columns with larger wall thickness ratios, two layers of
reinforcement connected with crossties are more appropriate, with
an inner:outer reinforcement ratio of 1∶9, which will ensure ductile
© ASCE 04018159-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159
Fig. 16. Concrete dilation comparisons for hollow columns with
different confinement reinforcement amounts at 0.005 axial concrete
compressive strain.
response with failure controlled either by outer longitudinal
reinforcement rupture at a tensile strain of 0.07 or by crushing
of confined concrete at the outside concrete wall.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the computational investigation presented
in this study on confined concrete behavior in hollow bridge col-
umn sections, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Two layers of confinement reinforcement connected with cross-
ties provide the most effective confining effect for hollow col-
umns, and are recommended to be used when t=d is in the range
0.125–0.2.
2. The confined concrete strength for hollow concrete sections
confined with two layers of confinement reinforcement and
crossties improved 15% as the ratio between the inner and the
outer layer of confinement reinforcement amount changed
from 5∶5 to 1∶9. This is because the demand developed in
the inner confinement reinforcement is transferred to the outer
confinement reinforcement through crossties. Therefore, con-
trary to what has been suggested in the literature, the required
confinement reinforcement amount placed near the inside con-
crete wall surface should be much smaller than that required
near the outside concrete wall surface when t=d is in the range
0.125–0.2.
3. When t=d ¼ 0.1, the hollow section should be designed with a
single layer of confinement reinforcement, because placing
two layers of confinement reinforcement and crossties does
not increase the confining effect significantly, but may cause
reinforcement congestion and impose challenges for casting
concrete.
4. The confined concrete strength in hollow concrete sections con-
fined with a single layer of reinforcement is 3.6% smaller than
that experienced by solid columns with the same transverse
reinforcement ratio of 0.57% based on the gross section. This
confinement effectiveness reduction can be illustrated using the
concrete dilation as the key parameter.
5. Hollow concrete sections with a single layer of confinement
reinforcement experience 15% less outward concrete dilation
than that expected for solid concrete sections with the same out-
er dimension and the same transverse reinforcement ratio of
0.57% based on the gross section when the axial concrete com-
pressive strain is 0.005.
J. Struct. Eng.
 6. For hollow concrete sections with a single layer of confinement
reinforcement and a wall thickness ratio (t=d) between 0.1 and
0.2, the confined concrete strength increases as the confinement
reinforcement amount increases, but is not significantly influ-
enced by the wall thickness.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the California Department of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 08/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Transportation (Caltrans) for financing this research work. Sincere
appreciation is due to Dr. Charles Sikorsky of Caltrans, who served
as the manager and coordinator for this research project.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d = outer diameter of hollow column or dimaeter of solid
column;
d 0 = inner diameter of hollow column;
db = reinforcement bar diameter;
E = Young’s modulus of reinforcement;
E0 = Young’s modulus of concrete;
fb0 =f c0 = uniaxial:biaxial stress ratio;
f c = concrete compressive stress;
0 = compressive strength of confined concrete;
fcc
f s = reinforcement stress;
f yh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
k = stress variant;
t = wall thickness;
t=d = ratio of wall thickness to outer diameter; wall
thickness ratio;
εc = concrete compression strain;
εc0 = strain at peak stress for unconfined concrete;
εcu = ultimate compression strain in concrete;
εs = reinforcement strain;
εsu = ultimate reinforcement strain;
ρs = transvese reinforcement ratio; and
σt0 = concrete tensile strength.
References
AASHTO. 2012. AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge
design (2nd Edition) with 2012 interim revisions. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2014. AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge
design (2nd Edition) with 2014 interim revisions. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
California Department of Transportation. 2013. Caltrans seismic design cri-
teria version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Transportation.
Hillerborg, A., M. Modéer, and P. E. Petersson. 1976. “Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics
and finite elements.” Cem. Concr. Res. 6 (6): 773–781. https://doi.org
/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7.
Hines, E. M., F. Seible, and M. J. N. Priestley 2002. Seismic performance of
hollow rectangular reinforced concrete piers with highly-confined
© ASCE 04018159-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018159
boundary elements. Phase I: Flexure tests; Phase II: Shear test.
Rep. No. SSRP–99/15. San Diego: Structural Systems Research
Project, Univ. of California.
Hoshikuma, J., K. Kawashima, K. Nagaya, and A. W. Taylor. 1997.
“Stress-strain model for confined reinforced concrete in bridge piers.”
J. Struct. Eng. 123 (5): 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(1997)123:5(624).
Hoshikuma, J., and M. J. N. Priestley. 2000. “Flexural behavior of circular
hollow columns with a single layer of reinforcement under seismic load-
ing.” In Proc., Structural Systems Research Project. San Diego: Univ.
of California.
Jankowiak, T., and T. Lodygowski. 2005. “Identification of parameters of
concrete damage plasticity constitutive model.” Found. Civ. Environ.
Eng. 6 (1): 53–69.
Kawashima, K. 1992. “Dynamic strength and ductility of hollow circular
reinforced concrete bridge pier.” [in Japanese.] Civ. Eng. J. 34 (10):
34–39.
Lee, J., and G. L. Fenves. 1998. “Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading
of concrete structures.” J. Eng. Mech. 124 (8): 892–900. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892).
Liang, X., R. Beck, and S. Sritharan. 2015. Understanding the confined
concrete behavior on the response of hollow bridge columns.
Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Transportation.
Lubliner, J., J. Oliver, S. Oller, and E. Oñate. 1989. “A plastic-damage
model for concrete.” Int. J. Solids Struct. 25 (3): 299–326. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4.
Mander, J., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8): 1804–1826.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
Mo, Y. L., D. C. Wong, and K. Maekawa. 2003. “Seismic performance of
hollow bridge columns.” ACI Struct. J. 100 (3): 337–348.
Nguyen, H. T., and S. E. Kim. 2009. “Finite element modeling of push-out
tests for large stud shear connectors.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (10–11):
1909–1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.06.010.
Obaidat, Y. T. 2011. “Structural retrofitting of concrete beams using
FRP-debonding issues.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Construction Sci-
ences, Structural Mechanics, Lund Univ.
Papanikolaou, V. K., and A. J. Kappos. 2009. “Numerical study of confine-
ment effectiveness in solid and hollow reinforced concrete bridge piers:
Methodology.” Comput. Struct. 87 (21–22): 1427–1439. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.05.004.
Ranzo, G., and M. J. N. Priestley. 2001. Seismic performance of circular
hollow columns subjected to high shear. Rep. No. SSRP–2001/01. San
Diego: Structural Systems Research Project, Univ. of California.
Saatcioglu, M., and S. R. Razvi. 1992. “Strength and ductility of confined
concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 118 (6): 1590–1607. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1590).
Scott, B. D., R. Park, and M. J. N. Priestley. 1982. “Stress-strain behavior
of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.”
ACI J. Proc. 79 (1): 13–27.
Snyder, R., J. Vander Werff, Z. Thiemann, S. Sritharan, and J. Holombo.
2011. Seismic performance of an I-girder to inverted-T bent cap
connection. Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Transportation.
Yeh, Y. K., Y. L. Mo, and C. Y. Yang. 2001. “Seismic performance of
hollow circular bridge piers.” ACI Struct. J. 98 (6): 862–871.
Yeh, Y.-K., Y. L. Mo, and C. Y. Yang. 2002. “Full-scale tests on rectangular
hollow bridge piers.” Mater. Struct. 35 (2): 117–125. https://doi.org/10
.1007/BF02482111.
Zahn, F. A., R. Park, and M. J. N. Priestley. 1990. “Flexural strength and
ductility of circular hollow reinforced concrete columns without con-
finement on inside face.” ACI Struct. J. 87 (2): 156–166.
J. Struct. Eng.