TECHNICAL NOTES

Stress-Block Parameters for Unconfined and Confined

Concrete Based on a Unified Stress-Strain Model
Madhu M. Karthik1 and John B. Mander2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 10/12/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Equations to obtain equivalent rectangular stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete are derived for rapid
共hand兲 analysis and design purposes. To overcome a shortcoming of existing commonly used stress-strain models that are not easy to
integrate, a new stress-strain model is proposed and validated for a wide range of concrete strengths and confining stresses. The efficacy
of the equivalent rectangular stress-block parameters is demonstrated for hand calculations in predicting key moment-curvature results for
a confined concrete column. Results are compared with those obtained from a computational fiber-element analysis using the proposed
stress-strain model and another widely used existing model; good agreement between the two is observed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲ST.1943-541X.0000294
CE Database subject headings: Concrete; Stress strain relations; Parameters.
Author keywords: Concrete; Stress strain; Stress blocks; Confined concrete; Moment curvature.

Introduction block approach could be used to analytically generate an entire

moment-curvature response.
The use of computational modeling in performance based engi- In this study, the stress-block parameters are derived from an
neering and structural design has become ubiquitous. Notwith- analytic stress-strain model that is proposed to be particularly
standing this widespread use it remains incumbent upon the useful for hand analysis checks of various computational
structural designer or analyst to make independent checks of com- moment-curvature solutions. Fig. 1 shows the general approach
puter analysis outputs. Unless such checks are conducted from with the material stress-strain rules.
time to time, the veracity of advanced computational modeling
remains in doubt. Commercial structural analysis software pro-
grams now provide the analyst the option of conducting moment- Proposed Simplified Stress-Strain Model
curvature analysis at critical sections. Although well verified
equations have been used in the software development, the ques- Fig. 1共b兲 presents the proposed stress-strain model for concrete in
tion may remain: For a given project, can the computational compression for both unconfined and confined concrete and is
analysis results be easily verified outside of the software? controlled by three sets of coordinates. For unconfined concrete,
Beyond the obvious cracking, yield and nominal ultimate mo-
ments, for conducting spot checks of moment-curvature analysis,
one can resort to the well-known stress-block approach. However, c cf’c ccf’cc

to do this it is desirable to have explicit closed form equations cc Fs1

s1 ccc cccc fs1 Cc
cc ccc Ccc
that can be related to the chosen maximum strain value and con- 
trol parameters for both unconfined and confined concrete. s2 Fs2
x fs2
Stress blocks have been used in design based on the early 
y
work of Whitney 共1942兲. However, these are normally for a spe- fs3 Fs3
s3
cific maximum strain. For example, ACI Committee 318 共2005兲 Strain Cover stress
Core and
steel stress
Forces

customarily uses ␧cu = 0.003 to define the nominal strength. How- (a) Equivalent rectangular stress-block analysis.

ever, as pointed out by Park and Paulay 共1975兲, stress blocks may f'cc Unconfined concrete
Confined concrete
be used across a spectrum of maximum strains. Indeed a stress- Esh
Concrete stress (fc)

f'c (su ,fsu)

Steel stress (fs)

fcu
1 (sh ,fy)
Graduate Assistant Researcher, Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136. fc1
2
Zachry Professor 1, Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M
Univ., College Station, TX 77843-3136 共corresponding author兲. Ec Es
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 2, 2009; approved co c1cc sp cu f
Concrete strain (c) Steel strain (s)
on August 23, 2010; published online on August 24, 2010. Discussion
(b) Concrete model (c) Reinforcing steel
period open until July 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Structural
Fig. 1. Stress-block approach and constitutive models for moment-
Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 2, February 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2011/2-270–273/$25.00. curvature analysis

270 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(2): 270-273

 Table 1. Default Values of the Parameters Used
Parameter Unconfined 共K = 1兲 共compression兲 Confined 共K ⬎ 1兲 共compression兲 Tension
Peak stress f c⬘ ⬘ = Kf c⬘
f cc f t⬘ = 0.625冑 f c⬘共MPa兲; f t⬘ = 7.5冑 f c⬘共psi兲
Peak strain ␧co = 0.0015+ f c⬘共MPa兲 / 70, 000a; ␧co = 0.0015+ f c⬘共psi兲 / 107 ␧cc = ␧co关1 + 5共K − 1兲兴b ␧ct = 0.1␧co
Ultimate stress f c1 = 12 MPa= 1.74 ksia f cu = 12+ f c⬘共K − 1兲c f t1 = f t⬘ / 3d
a c
Ultimate strain ␧c1 = 0.0036 ␧cu = 5␧cc ␧t1 = 2␧u / 9d
Failure straine ␧sp = 0.012− 0.0001f c⬘共MPa兲; ␧sp = 0.012− 7 ⫻ 10−7 f c⬘共psi兲 ␧ f = 0.004+ ␧cu ␧u = 18 G f / 共5f t⬘h兲d
a
Based on predicted stress-strain relation of normal-weight concrete 共Collins and Mitchell 1994兲.
b
Mander et al. 共1988a,b兲.
c
Based on reevaluation of data from Mander et al. 共1988a兲 and Li et al. 共2000兲.
d
Rots et al. 共1985兲, where G f = fracture energy= h ⫻ area under stress-strain softening diagram, and h = crack band width.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 10/12/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

e
Failure stress= 0 for all cases.

these are the peak strength 共␧co , f ⬘c 兲, at the termination of the customarily adopted to provide a dependable estimate for design.
postpeak branch 共␧c1 , f c1兲, and the failure strain 共␧sp , 0兲. Similarly, For “exact” analysis of existing reinforced concrete members, a
for confined concrete the corresponding principal control coordi- realistic stress-strain model should be adopted using expected val-
nates are 共␧cc , f ⬘cc兲, 共␧cu , f cu兲, and 共␧ f , 0兲. Using these coordinates ues of the control parameters. Fig. 1共c兲 represents such a model
as commencement and termination points, the proposed stress- and is conveniently cast in the form of a single equation as fol-
strain model has three branches—an initial power curve up to the lows:
peak stress, followed by a bilinear relation in the postpeak region.
E s␧ s

再 冏 冏冎
The expressions representing concrete stresses as a function of fs =
strain are E s␧ s 20 0.05
1+
0 ⱕ x ⬍ 1; f c = Kf ⬘c 共1 − 兩1 − x兩n兲 共1兲 fy

1 ⱕ x ⬍ xu ; f c = Kf ⬘c − 冉 冊
Kf ⬘c − f cu
xu − 1
共x − 1兲 共2兲
冋
+ 共f su − f y兲 1 −
兵兩␧su − ␧sh兩
兩␧su
20P
− ␧ s兩 P
+ 兩␧su − ␧s兩20P其0.05
册 共4兲

where

xu ⱕ x ⬍ x f ; f c = f cu 冉 冊
x − xf
xu − x f
共3兲 P=
Esh共␧su − ␧sh兲
共f su − f y兲
共5兲

in which f cu = stress corresponding to hoop fracture strain ␧cu; K in which f s, ␧s = stress and strain in steel; Es and Esh = Young’s
= confinement ratio and for confined concrete 共K ⬎ 1兲; x modulus of elasticity and strain hardening modulus, respectively;
= normalized strain, where x = ␧c / ␧cc; xu = ␧cu / ␧cc; and x f = ␧ f / ␧cc, f y and f su = yield strength and ultimate strength of reinforcing
where ␧cc and ␧ f = strain at maximum confined strength of con- steel; and ␧sh and ␧su = strain hardening strain and ultimate strain,
crete f ⬘cc = Kf ⬘c and final failure strain of confined concrete, respec- respectively.
tively; and n = Ec␧co / f ⬘c and n = Ec␧cc / f ⬘cc for unconfined and
confined concrete, respectively, where Ec = 5 , 000冑 f ⬘c 共MPa兲
= 60, 000冑 f ⬘c 共psi兲 = concrete modulus. For unconfined concrete Equivalent Rectangular Stress-Block Parameters
共K = 1兲, ␧cc = ␧co, ␧cu = ␧c1, ␧ f = ␧sp, and f cu = f c1 in all of the above
equations 关refer to Fig. 1共b兲兴. Stress-block parameters can be easily derived using Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲
In the present widely used Mander model 共Mander et al. for a wide range of maximum strains as shown in Fig. 2. The
1988b兲, the governing stress-strain relation lacks the necessary force in concrete 共Cc兲 for a known value of maximum strain can
control over the slope of the postpeak branch. This is particularly be expressed in terms of equivalent stress-block parameters ␣ and
the case for high-strength concrete as pointed out by Li et al. ␤ such that Cc = ␣f ⬘c ␤cb, where c = depth to the neutral axis from
共2001兲. It is for this reason and also the ease of algebraic manipu- the top concrete fiber in compression and b = breadth of the sec-
lation the above equations are proposed. Proposed default values tion as shown in Fig. 1共a兲. The stress-block parameters can be
for the parameters in Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲 are defined in Table 1. The found from taking the first and second moments of area of the
expression for f cu was calibrated using data from full-scale ex- stress-strain relations which lead to the following results:

冕
perimental results of Mander et al. 共1988a兲 and Li et al. 共2000兲 ␧c
and adjusted to essentially conform to the widely used original f cd␧c
Mander model. 0
For the stress-strain model of unconfined concrete in tension, ␣␤ = 共6兲
f ⬘c ␧c
the same model as described above for unconfined concrete in
compression can be used by replacing the terms 共␧to , f t⬘兲, 共␧t1 , f t1兲, and

冕
and 共␧u , 0兲 for their corresponding terms in compression. Mea- ␧c
sured values or as a good approximation the values from Table 1 f c␧cd␧c
may be used. 0
␤=2−2 共7兲
冕
In the analysis of moments and axial loads, two different mod- ␧c
els of the stress-strain performance of the reinforcing steel may be ␧c f cd␧c
adopted. For nominal design capacities, an elastoplastic model is 0

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 271

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(2): 270-273

 1 Mander model
UNCONFINED CONFINED

M/Mn = Dimensionless Moment

S1 S2
1.0 U
0.8 N Proposed stress-
Y block model
0.6 0.8
600
αβ

50
0.4 0.6
30 MPa 40 MPa k=2.0 k=1.75
k=1.50 k=1.25
0.2 50 MPa 60 MPa
0.4

600
70 MPa 80 MPa k=1.05 12mm @ 100
0
mm c/c
0.2
1.1 25mm bars
0.0
1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
0.9  D = Dimensionless Curvature
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 10/12/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.8
Fig. 3. Comparison of moment-curvature results
0.7

冉 冊
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 f cu
c/co c/cc A2 = 1+ 共17兲
2 Kf ⬘c
Fig. 2. Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete
n共n + 3兲
B1 = 共18兲
Carrying out the integration in Eqs. 共6兲 and 共7兲 using the 共n + 1兲共n + 2兲
stress-strain relations 共1兲–共3兲 gives the stress-block relations as
follows: B2 = 共x2u − 1兲 共19兲
1. For 0 ⱕ x ⬍ 1

␣␤ = 1 +
共1 − x兲n+1 − 1
x共n + 1兲
共8兲 B3 = 冉 f cu
Kf ⬘c
−1 冊冉 2x3u − 3x2u + 1
3共xu − 1兲
冊 共20兲

␤=2−
2
x2␣␤ 2
+ 冋
x2 x共1 − x兲n+1 共1 − x兲n+2 − 1
共n + 1兲
+
共n + 1兲共n + 2兲
册 共9兲 B4 =
Kf ⬘c
冉
f cu 3x f x2u − 2x3u − x3f
3共xu − x f 兲
冊 共21兲

2. For 1 ⱕ x ⬍ xu The stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete

␣␤ =
A1
−
x−1
x x共xu − 1兲
x
A2 − xu + 1 −
2
冋
f cu
Kf ⬘c
冉 冊册 共10兲
are shown in Fig. 2. Note that calculation of the strength enhance-
ment factor 共K兲 should be performed in accordance with any ac-
ceptable concrete model, for example, Mander et al. 共1988b兲 and

冋 冉 冊冉 冊册
Li et al. 共2001兲.
1 f cu 2x3 − 3x2 + 1
␤=2− B1 + 共x2 − 1兲 − 1 −
x ␣␤
2
Kf ⬘c 3共xu − 1兲
Numerical Example
共11兲
An example of the proposed stress-block approach for generating
3. For xu ⱕ x ⬍ x f moment-curvature results for a square column with the following

␣␤ =
A1
x
+ A2
xu − 1
x
+冉 冊 冉
f cu 共x − xu兲共x + xu − 2x f 兲
Kf ⬘c 2x共xu − x f 兲
冊 properties is performed. The section properties are breadth and
height= 600 mm, clear cover= 50 mm to the hoops of diameter
ds = 12 mm, and stirrup spacing s = 100 mm containing 12 sym-
共12兲 metrically placed longitudinal rebars of diameter db = 25 mm.
Concrete properties are 关refer to Fig. 1共b兲兴 f ⬘c = 30 MPa, ␧co

␤=2−
1
x ␣␤
2 冋
B1 + B2 + B3
= 0.0019, ␧sp = 0.009, f ⬘cc = 45 MPa, ␧cc = 0.00675, and Ec
= 27387 MPa 共the above parameters were calculated using the

冉 冊册
expressions presented earlier兲. The longitudinal reinforcing steel
f cu 3x f x2u − 2x3u + x2共2x − 3x f 兲 properties are 关refer to Fig. 1共c兲兴 f y = 430 MPa, Es
+ 共13兲
Kf ⬘c 3共xu − x f 兲 = 200, 000 MPa, f u = 650 MPa, ␧u = 0.12, ␧sh = 0.008, and Esh
= 8 , 000 MPa. The axial load on the column is 2 , 000 kN
4. For x ⱖ x f = 0.185f ⬘c Ag.

␣␤ =
A1
x
+ A2
xu − 1
x
+ 冉 冊 冉 冊
f cu x f − xu
Kf ⬘c 2x
共14兲
In the hand computations for the example considered above,
for a value of K = 1.5, and at the first yield strain of steel ␧y 共“Y”
in Fig. 3兲, the values of the stress blocks were ␣ = 0.828 and
␤ = 0.724 for unconfined concrete and ␣ = 0.470 and ␤ = 0.702 for
B1 + B2 + B3 + B4
␤=2− 共15兲 confined concrete. Hand computations were also performed at the
x2␣␤ following values of the strain: strain at the extreme cover concrete
In the above, the following coefficients are used: fiber ␧max = 0.003 and ␧sp 共“N” and “S1,” respectively in Fig. 3兲
and strain at the extreme confined concrete fiber ␧max = ␧sp and
n 2␧cc 共“S2” and “U,” respectively, in Fig. 3兲. In order to implement
A1 = 共16兲
共n + 1兲 the iterative computational procedure to obtain the moment-

272 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(2): 270-273

 curvature relation, a computer program was also developed. A References
comparison of the stress-block analysis results is presented in
Fig. 3. ACI Committee 318. 共2005兲. “Building code requirements for structural
The differences noted in the moment-curvature results be- concrete 共318-05兲 and commentary.” ACI 318R-05, Farmington Hills,
tween the proposed model and the classic model of Mander et al. Mich.
共1988b兲 are ascribed to differences in modeling the falling branch Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. 共1994兲. Prestressed concrete structures,
of the cover concrete of the latter. The hand computations per- Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
formed using the constitutive equations for the stress-block pa- Li, B., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 共2000兲. “Constitutive behavior of high-
rameters give an accurate match with the computational moment- strength concrete under dynamic loads.” ACI Struct. J., 97共4兲, 619–
curvature results. 629.
Li, B., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 共2001兲. “Stress-strain behavior of high-
strength concrete confined by ultra-high and normal-strength trans-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Illinois at Chicago on 10/12/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

verse reinforcements.” ACI Struct. J., 98共3兲, 395–406.

Closing Remarks
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988a兲. “Observed stress-
strain behavior of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲, 1827–
The proposed analytic stress-strain relation represents well the 1849.
behavior of both normal strength and high-strength concrete in Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988b兲. “Theoretical
their unconfined and confined states. The stress-strain relations stress-strain model of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲,
can be easily inverted to represent the strain as a function of 1804–1826.
stress. More importantly, the stress-strain model can also be con- Park, R., and Paulay, T. 共1975兲. Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
veniently integrated in order to obtain the stress-block parameters. New York.
The stress-block parameters were used in hand computations to Rots, J. G., Nauta, P., Kusters, G. M. A., and Blaauwendraad, J. 共1985兲.
obtain points on the moment-curvature relation and these results “Smeared crack approach and fracture localization in concrete.”
agree well with a computational fiber analysis. The approach Heron, 30共1兲, 1–48.
makes it possible to rapidly perform “spot checks” by hand analy- Whitney, C. S. 共1942兲. “Plastic theory of reinforced concrete design.”
sis to verify computational results, a necessary step in any formal Proc., ASCE, Transactions ASCE, Vol. 107, ASCE, New York, 251–
structural design verification. 326.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2011 / 273

J. Struct. Eng., 2011, 137(2): 270-273