Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper presents experimental results and theoretical analysis failure of these columns (Mirmiran and Shahawy 1997). Few
for buckling responses of concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer studies observed that instability of CFFT columns might
(FRP)-tube (CFFTs) columns. The purpose of the analysis was to occur at a lower slenderness ratio than that of ordinary reinforced
understand the effect of the slenderness ratio on the critical buckling
load of axially loaded CFFT columns. The effect of three parameters concrete (RC) columns (without FRP tubes); however, the
and the parameters’ interaction on the buckling behavior were ultimate capacity of the former might be higher than that of
investigated; namely, the FRP tube thickness, concrete compressive the latter. This attributed to the bilinear stress-strain behavior
strength, and slenderness ratio. The experimental program of the CFFT columns in which the buckling mode of failure
consisted of testing 22 circular CFFT columns with a total height initiated at the plastic branch of the curve, which was
ranging from 305 to 1520 mm (12 to 60 in.) and an internal tube characterized by a lower Young’s modulus (Yuan and
diameter of 152 mm (6 in.). The experimental results showed that the
uniaxial compressive strength of CFFT columns was reduced by 13 Mirmiran 2001). These results drew the conclusion that the
to 23% and increased the slenderness ratio from 4 to 20 depending increase of the slenderness ratio of CFFT columns might
on the three tested parameters. The analysis in this paper aimed to prevent such columns from attaining their ultimate load
correlate the slenderness ratio of the CFFT columns to various capacity. A questionable aspect is the design slenderness
material characteristics and geometric properties of the FRP tubes ratio of these columns to avoid buckling, as this topic has not
and concrete. It was found that a slenderness ratio of 12 gave a yet been included in any design guidelines. Further experimental
safe value for the design purposes. A more precise formula for
the slenderness ratio, however, was proposed to control the and theoretical studies are still necessary to better understand
buckling mode of failure. the buckling responses of CFFT columns and to correlate
their critical buckling loads to the material and geometric
Keywords: buckling; columns; composites; fiber-reinforced polymer; properties of the confining FRP tubes.
slenderness ratio; tube. The plastic behavior assumption is quite accurate to represent
the response before buckling, and it is widely accepted in the
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND stability analysis of CFFT columns using tangent, the Euler
Using fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets to confine formula, or the yield load. Some experimental results
concrete columns in the construction industry goes back to revealed that CFFT columns might have failed by buckling
the early 1980s owing to the distinct characteristics of FRP at a load level higher than the tangent Euler load. It was
materials. Various experimental results showed that using observed experimentally that CFFT columns started to
FRP tubes to confine concrete columns can enhance the deform at a load level corresponding to the tangent Euler
ultimate load-carrying capacity by 300% (Mirmiran and formula. With the further increase in the applied axial load,
Shahawy 1997; Fam and Rizkalla 2003; Mohamed and the lateral deformation increased as a result of the flexural
Masmoudi 2010). In addition to their structural advantages,
stiffness of the CFFT columns. The failure modes were
FRP tubes work to protect the plain concrete core from
environmental conditions and to prevent the internal steel nearly controlled by instability at load levels that were
bars from corrosion. Recently, various industrial projects higher than the tangent Euler critical load (Mirmiran et al.
have been noted in construction engineering in the form of 2001; Yuan and Mirmiran 2001). Despite the fact that a
piles, columns, girders, or bridge piers (Karbhari 2004; significant amount of valuable experimental research has
Fam et al. 2007). Numerous experimental investigations been carried out to understand the response of CFFT
have been conducted to understand the axial behavior of columns (Karbhari 2004), these studies were mainly
CFFT columns under pure axial load. Although these oriented to short columns without internal longitudinal
studies were of great interest to provide extensive results reinforcement. In this study, 18 CFFT columns of different
for the ultimate capacity and the ductility index of CFFT heights—305, 610, 914, 1219, and 1524 mm (12, 24, 36, 48,
columns, the buckling modes of failure of such columns and 60 in.)—and four control RC columns were tested under
have not been recorded in enough experimental work. Few uniaxial compression load.
studies have been conducted on large-scale columns under
different load combinations (Mirmiran et al. 2001; Sheikh
et al. 2007). ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 6, November-December 2010.
MS No. S-2009-225.R3 received November 24, 2009, and reviewed under Institute
The significant increase of the ultimate capacity of CFFT publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
columns highlights the fact that the slenderness ratio of such including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-
columns might be a critical factor that controls the mode of October 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2011.
5 failed at a load level that was much less then the ultimate
capacity of the corresponding cylinder (Series 1). The
where Ag is the column cross section (internal area of FRP
instability was evident in the shape of a single curvature
tubes). For each specimen, the failure mode is shown in the
mode at a load level of approximately 85% of the final
last column. The ultimate capacity of all of the specimens
failure load of each specimen. This indicated that these
was depicted versus the slenderness ratio in Fig. 2. In this
specimens behaved as long columns. Although the column
paper, the slenderness ratio kl/r was calculated based on the
started to buckle at a load level of 85% of the failure load, the geometric characteristics of the concrete, neglecting the
deflected column was still stable and carried more axial load. contribution of the FRP tubes (k and l are the column
Loading the specimens continued until the specimens could not effective length factor and height, respectively). The radius
maintain the applied axial force or until they reached the of gyration r is computed as I ⁄ Ag . This assumption was
maximum displacement capacity of the testing machine. The based on the small thickness of the FRP tubes besides the
recorded failure modes of the CFFT columns tested in fact that the fiber orientations of the tubes were oriented
Series 4 and 5 showed that the greater the slenderness ratio, the mainly toward the hoop direction rather than the axial
more significant the curvature of the FRP tube. As far as the direction. It was assumed that the specimens represent
mode of failure of the control specimens (columns that are the case of fixed-fixed columns, so that k = 0.5.
confined with internal transversal steel stirrups instead of FRP
Despite the fact that the two control specimens (Cont-A
tubes) are considered, Fig. 1(d) shows the modes of failure of and Cont-B in Series 6 with steel stirrups) purported to represent
the tested specimens with the two different concrete batches the same lateral confining pressure resulting from steel stirrups
(Series 6). The failure mode was typical for unconfined as that coming from the Type I FRP tubes, the ultimate capacity
concrete columns. It is characterized by concrete crushing of these two specimens was significantly lower than that of all of
with concrete cover splitting. The failure mode took place the other specimens. For example, for specimens with the same
once the internal steel bars yielded. slenderness ratio (kl/r = 12), the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of the control specimens (with steel stirrups) was
826 and 861 kN (185.85 and 193.72 kips) for Concrete
Batches A and B, respectively. Using the FRP tubes to
confine the same concrete columns instead of internal steel
stirrups, however, increased the ultimate capacity to 1600 and
2400 kN (360 and 540 kips), respectively. This can be
attributed to the continuity of the FRP tubes rather than the
discontinuity of the steel stirrups. In fact, this reflects the
superior confining behavior of FRP tubes compared to steel
stirrups to increase the ultimate load-carrying capacity of
concrete columns.
The specimens in Series 1 represent a case of short columns
without internal longitudinal reinforcement (concrete
cylinders). Although the mode of failure of the specimens in
this series was similar to that of the specimens in Series 2
(rupture in the FRP tubes), the ultimate capacity was
approximately 20% less than that of the specimens in Series 2.
The difference in the ultimate capacities between the specimens
Fig. 2—Experimental ultimate load-carrying capacity- of the two series resulted from the contribution of the internal
versus-slenderness ratios (kl/r). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; reinforcement bars (neglecting the size effect). Theoretically
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.) speaking, the main difference between the failure loads of the
Fig. 5—Effect of various parameters on ultimate strength of CFFT columns. (Note: 1 MPa =
0.145 ksi.)
where fufrp is the ultimate failure hoop strength of the FRP E t = E ct (MPa) (5)
tubes, which resulted from the split-disk test; and D and tfrp
are the internal diameter and thickness of the FRP tubes,
respectively (refer to Table 1). As shown in Fig. 5(b), the Buckling loads
increase in the confinement ratio, caused by the increase in The plastic responses of confined concrete columns mean
the FRP tube thickness, increased the ultimate capacity of that the critical or buckling loads of these concrete columns
the CFFT columns. are significantly less than the elastic Euler buckling load. For
columns that were too slender, it was impossible to exceed
THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION the initial yield limit before the column buckled. Thus, the
The main objective of this investigation is to understand critical buckling load is controlled by the elastic behavior of
the buckling and post-buckling behavior of CFFT columns the column (elastic Euler load with PE = π2EoI/(kl)2).
and to predict the critical slenderness ratio to avoid column Thus, the inelastic buckling load obviously becomes irrelevant
failure instability. The theoretical analysis is based on the for the design purposes. The inelastic buckling load is
confinement of the tested CFFT columns in the hoop direction important in the analysis for columns that are not too slender
only. As a result of the experimentally observed bilinear and not too short, where they can buckle after reaching the
uniaxial load-displacement relationship of CFFT columns yielding stress fco. The inelastic buckling load of confined
(Fig. 3(a) to (d)), the instability analysis of these columns is concrete columns can be determined using two formulas
different from RC columns. The response of the column is (Bažant and Cedolin 1991). The first buckling load is known
elastoplastic distinguished by a yielding limit (fco, plastic as the reduced modulus load Pr and the second buckling
limit stress, which is defined as the stress value corre- formula is computed according to the tangent modulus
sponding to the yield load) and is characterized by a tangent expression Pt. The earlier formula represents the upper
modulus Et in the hardening region, which is much smaller inelastic buckling load, whereas the former corresponds to
than the initial elastic modulus Eo. For such columns, one the lower buckling limit. Generally, the critical buckling
can assume that there is no damage during axial loading and load (maximum applied axial load) is located between the
that the columns have an unloading modulus of Eu equals Eo aforementioned two loads.
(Fig. 3). When the column starts to buckle due to the curvature of the
In the literature, various empirical relations have been deflected column, one face of the column undergoes unloading
developed to analytically model the effect of the confinement while the other face continues loading. This means that the
on the behavior of concrete and to find the corresponding buckling load could remain constant (Bažant and Cedolin
Young’s modulus values. The bilinear confinement model of 1991). The buckling load according to this assumption is
Samaan et al. (1998) was verified by many researchers and referred to as the reduced modulus load Pr . The reduced
showed a satisfactory accuracy to represent the uniaxial modulus load is computed as (Bažant and Cedolin 1991)
stress-strain curve of the concrete columns without internal
reinforcement (De Lorenzis and Tepfers 2003). In the 2
π Er I
formula, the concrete initial tangent Young’s modulus was P r = -------------
2
( kN ) (6)
expressed in SI units* as ( kl )
where
E co = 3950 f c′ (MPa)
Ef t frp (3)
E r = --- ---------- + ---------
0.2 1 1 1 –2
E ct = 245.61f c′ + 1.3456 ------------ (MPa)
D 2 E E t
u
where Ef is the modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction In this formula, it is assumed that columns buckle at a
(Ef = Ey, as shown in Table 1). constant load level where the cross section is subjected only
To account for the effect of internal reinforcement on the to incremental compressive axial strain. The tangent
initial and tangent Young’s modulus that are used afterward modulus load hypothesis assumes that both faces of the
in the stability analysis in the subsequent sections, the columns are subjected to incremental compressive strain;
equivalent cross-sectional Young’s modulus of the tested thus, they both underwent shortening with a tangent
*Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi. modulus. This is quite possible, as the tensile strain increment
This leads to
π E 2ξ
λ cr = --- ------t- ------------ (12)
S f cc′ ξ + 1
where Et and fcc′ are determined from Eq. (5) and (10),
respectively. In Eq. (12), S is the safety factor. The
AASHTO LRFD (2009) specification uses S = 2.12 to
control the buckling load limit and ξ = Eu/Et. The effect of the
concrete compressive strength and the lateral stiffness of the
FRP tubes are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively. With an
increase in the concrete compressive strength or a decrease in the
lateral stiffness of the FRP tubes, the critical slenderness
ratio (Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively) increases. This indicates
that the buckling behavior of CFFT columns significantly
depends on the properties of FRP and concrete. From Fig. 7,
the critical slenderness ratio of the CFFT columns depends
on the buckling load formula; that is, the tangent Euler
formula or the critical buckling load. The slenderness limit
observed in the experimental part of this research (λ = 12) or
that provided by Mirmiran et al. (2001) (λ = 11) is slightly
less than that predicted from the theoretical analysis (Fig. 7).
This can be ascribed to the influence of the size effect and
geometrical imperfections that have not yet been considered in
theoretical studies. In conclusion, a slenderness limit of 12
for CFFT columns is a safe value for the design purpose.
Equation (12) is relevant for the design purposes by dividing
the predicted slenderness ratio by an appropriate factor of
safety to account for the size effect and the geometric and
material imperfections.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper included both experimental and theoretical
Fig. 7—Critical slenderness ratio. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; investigations on the buckling responses of CFFT columns.
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 N/mm2 = 145 psi; 1 kN/mm = 68.54 kips/ft.) The experimental work included the testing of 22 CFFT and RC