Evaluating Seismic Provisions for FRP-Reinforced Circular Columns (Prepublished)

International Concrete Abstracts Portal

The International Concrete Abstracts Portal is an ACI led collaboration with leading technical organizations from within the international concrete industry and offers the most comprehensive collection of published concrete abstracts.

  


Title: Evaluating Seismic Provisions for FRP-Reinforced Circular Columns (Prepublished)

Author(s): Jahanzaib and Shamim A. Sheikh

Publication: Structural Journal

Volume:

Issue:

Appears on pages(s):

Keywords: code provisions; drift capacity; ductility; FRP; moment capacity; seismic performance; steel

DOI: 10.14359/51750572

Date: 2/27/2026

Abstract:
This study evaluates the seismic performance of circular columns reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, focusing on the efficacy of existing code provisions (ACI CODE-318-19, CSA A23.3-24, CSA S806-12, CSA S6-25) in predicting drift and moment capacities. A database of 38 full-scale columns tested under lateral cyclic loading with varying axial load levels, spiral pitches, and reinforcement types (GFRP/steel longitudinal bars) was analyzed to assess code provisions, confinement effectiveness, and strength enhancements. Results demonstrate that CSA S6-25, which incorporates updated FRP compressive strain limits (0.008Ef for spirals), outperformed other codes, aligning with about 85% of experimental data in ideal performance quadrants. Close spiral pitch (≤ 75 mm [2.95 in.]) and low axial loads were critical to achieving drift ratios ≥3% and moment capacity ratios (Mmax/Mo) exceeding 2.0. Replacing steel spirals with GFRP spirals did not result in substantial variation in the seismic performance of columns. Columns with GFRP longitudinal bars exhibited comparable ductility and observed a substantial increase in moment capacity (Mmax) compared to unconfined nominal moment capacity (Mo) due to delayed bar buckling under effective confinement. However, columns with GFRP longitudinal bars observed a softer response, and the determination of probable moment to calculate the shear demand still remains questionable and requires more analytical investigations.


ALSO AVAILABLE IN:

Electronic Structural Journal