Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Axial behavior of circular CFFT long columns internally reinforced with steel T
or carbon and glass FRP longitudinal bars
Asmaa Abdeldaim Ahmeda, Mohamed Hassana,b, Hamdy Mohamedb,a, Ahmed Abouziedc,
⁎
Radhouane Masmoudia,
a
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada
b
Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
c
Department of Civil Engineering at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the test results of an experimental study aimed at investigating the behavior of concrete-
Columns filled fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) tube (CFFT) long columns internally reinforced with longitudinal steel or
FRP carbon and glass FRP bars tested under axial compression loading. A total of ten reinforced concrete (RC) and
CFFT CFFT columns measuring 1900-mm in height and 213-mm in diameter were constructed and tested until failure.
Tube
The test parameters were: (1) internal reinforcement type and amount; (2) GFRP tube thicknesses; and (3) nature
Loading
Confinement
of axial loading (i.e. monotonic and cyclic). The experimental results showed that the GFRP-reinforced CFFT
Slender columns had comparable ultimate axial strength and strain capacities compare to their counterparts reinforced
Plastic strain with steel bars. As expected, an increase in the FRP tube thickness (or stiffness) resulted in an increase in the
strength and strain enhancement ratios. The results also indicated that the residual plastic strain of FRP-re-
inforced CFFT columns is linearly related to the envelope unloading strain, and this relationship is not influenced
significantly by the FRP confinement level but strongly influenced by the internal reinforcement amount and
type, particularly when the envelope unloading strain (> 0.0035). The presented study showed the applicability
of exclusively reinforcing the CFFT columns with FRP bars and subjected to axial compression load. However,
further experimental investigations on the axial cyclic behavior of CFFT columns internally reinforced with FRP
bars are required to establish such key relationships.

1. Introduction
The construction industry is expressing great demand for innovative
and durable structural members. Fiber-reinforced-polymers (FRPs)
have recently gained wide acceptance as a viable construction material
for repair, rehabilitation, or new construction of the aging infra-
structures particularly those exposed to harsh environment conditions.
Some of the most important applications of FRP composites in civil
engineering are as a confining material for concrete, both in the seismic
retrofit of existing reinforced concrete (RC) columns and in the con-
struction of concrete-filled FRP tubes (CFFTs) as earthquake-resistant
columns in new construction [27], or as an internal reinforcing bars for
concrete members.
The CFFT technique has been successfully used in different concrete
structure elements such as pier column and girder for bridges and also
as fender piles in marine structures [12]. The FRP tube acts as a stay-in-
place structural formwork, a noncorrosive reinforcement for the
concrete in flexure and shear using the multidirectional fiber orienta-
tion, provides confinement to the concrete in compression, and protects
the concrete core from intrusion of moisture with corrosive agents (ACI
440. R-07 2007). Few studies reported on the seismic behavior of CFFT
columns have demonstrated the ability of CFFTs to develop very high
inelastic deformation capacities, making them an attractive alternative
for construction of new high-performance columns [26,30,14]. The
majority of existing studies have been focused on the monotonic axial
stress–strain behavior of FRP-confined unreinforced concrete, which
have led to the development of over 80 stress–strain models (e.g.
[32,38,11,18,10,37]. Meanwhile, there is a distinct lack of research on
the axial cyclic stress–strain behavior of full-scale CFFT columns with
internal reinforcement bars. It is worth mentioning that the existing
stress–strain models of FRP-confined concrete were developed almost
exclusively based on results of specimens with height-to-diameter ratio
(H/D = 2) [28]. It is, therefore, important to examine the stress–strain
behavior of full-scale CFFT columns reinforced with and without

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Asmaa.Ahmed@USherbrooke.ca (A.A. Ahmed), Mohamed.Hassan@USherbrooke.ca (M. Hassan), Hamdy.Mohamed@USherbrooke.ca (H. Mohamed),
Ahmed.Abouzied@USherbrooke.ca (A. Abouzied), Radhouane.Masmoudi@USherbrooke.ca (R. Masmoudi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.037
Received 7 September 2015; Received in revised form 11 October 2017; Accepted 14 November 2017
0141-0296/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Table 1
Tensile properties of the GFRP, CFRP, and steel bars.
Reinforcement type Nominal diameter Nominal area Modulus of elasticity
(mm) (mm2) (GPa)
GFRP 9.5 71 45.4
15.9 199 48.2
CFRP 9.5 71 128
Wire (mild steel) 3.4 9 200
15 M (deformed) 16 200 200
internal bars with high (H/D) ratios and develop new analytical models
to describe this behavior under axial cyclic compression loading.
Lam et al. [19] performed an experimental study on the behavior of
FRP-confined concrete cylinders under axial cyclic compression. The
test results indicated that unloading/reloading cycles had little effect on
the envelope curve of stress–strain responses of FRP-confined concrete,
except for a small enhancement of the FRP hoop rupture strain. Also,
the plastic strain of FRP-confined concrete was linearly related to the
envelope unloading strain, but was independent of the amount of FRP-
confinement. This observation was then supported by that of [27],
which were based on an experimental investigation of CFRP-confined
NSC square prisms and cylinders. It should be noted that the authors
have been reached the above conclusions on the basis of tests conducted
on small-scale specimens (i.e. standard cylinders). Size effects may exist
and such effects should be examined using full-scale specimens in the
future [19]. Meanwhile, the slenderness ratio of such columns might be
a critical factor that controls the mode of failure. Few studies observed
that instability of CFFT columns might occur at a lower slenderness
ratio than that of ordinary RC columns (without FRP tubes); however,
the ultimate capacity of the former might be higher than that of the
latter. This attributed to the bilinear stress–strain behavior of the CFFT
columns in which the buckling mode of failure initiated at the plastic
branch of the curve, which was characterized by a lower Young’s
modulus. Therefore, [40] recommended that the current slenderness
limit of 22 for steel RC columns bent in single curvature be reduced to
11 for CFFT columns.
Nowadays, FRP bars as an alternative to steel bars have emerged as
a realistic and cost-effective solution to overcome the corrosion pro-
blems. FRP bars offer many advantages over conventional steel bars,
including a density of one-quarter to one-fifth that of steel, greater
tensile strength than steel, and no corrosion even in harsh chemical
environments [29,9,6]. Previous experimental studies indicated that
the compression behavior of concrete columns reinforced with glass-
FRP (GFRP) reinforcements has been similar to that with steel, but with
less contribution of FRP longitudinal bars to strength capacity
[34,8,35,3,25]. These studies also showed the applicability of ex-
clusively reinforcing the columns with FRP bars and subjected to con-
centric load. Using FRP bars, therefore, instead of conventional steel
bars in the CFFT columns can provide a step forward to develop a
promising totally corrosion-free new structural system. Nonetheless, the
axial behavior of FRP bars as longitudinal reinforcement in compres-
sion members has been quite limited, especially for the CFFT columns.
To the best knowledge of the authors, no study in the literature to date
addressing the behavior of FRP-reinforced full-scale CFFT columns
under axial cyclic compression loading. This paper reports on an ex-
perimental investigation that was undertaken to address this important
research gap. The main objective of this study is to introduce a pre-
liminary investigation on the behavior and strength of FRP-reinforced
CFFT columns under axial cyclic compression. This paper presents the
test results of ten full-scale RC and CFFT columns reinforced long-
itudinally with steel or GFRP and CFRP bars tested under monotonic
and cyclic axial compression loads. All columns had 1900-mm in height
and 213-mm in diameter with (H/D = 8.9). The effect of internal re-
inforcement type and amount, GFRP tube thicknesses, and natural of
axial loading (i.e. monotonic and cyclic) are addressed.
268
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
Yield strength Ultimate strength Yield strain Ultimate strain (%)
(MPa) (MPa) (%)
– 856 – 1.89
– 751 – 1.60
– 1431 – 1.20
675 850 0.30 0.43
419 686 0.21 0.34
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties
2.1.1. Concrete
All columns were cast on the same day with a ready-mixed normal-
strength concrete. The concrete strength was determined using six
standard concrete cylinders measuring 150 × 300 mm. The average
concrete compressive strengths after 28-days were measured between
42.1 and 46.0 MPa. Hence, the design concrete resistance (f′c) was
taken as 44 MPa for all columns.
2.1.2. Steel bars
In this study, steel and FRP bars were used to reinforce the CFFT and
control specimens. Two types of steel bars (Grade 60) were used: de-
formed steel bars 15 M (16 mm-in diameter) as longitudinal reinforce-
ment and 3.4 mm-in diameter mild steel bars as spiral reinforcement.
The mechanical properties of steel bars were determined from the
standard test according to the ASTM [5] based on five representative
specimens. The average yield tensile strengths (fy) were 419 and
675 MPa and ultimate tensile strengths (fsu) were 686 and 850 MPa for
steel bars 15 M and 3.4 mm diameters, respectively.
2.1.3. FRP bars
Two types of sand-coated FRP bars were used as longitudinal re-
inforcement: Glass-FRP (GFRP) bars No. 3 and No. 5 (9.5 mm and
15.9 mm in-diameter, respectively) and Carbon-FRP (CFRP) bars No. 3
(9.5 mm-in diameter). The ultimate tensile strength and modulus of
elasticity were 856 and 751 MPa and 45.4 and 48.2 GPa for the GFRP
bars No. 3 and No. 5 and 1431 MPa and 128 GPa for the CFRP bars
No.3, respectively. Table 1 reports the mechanical properties for steel
and FRP bars, as determined from testing.
2.1.4. FRP tubes
Two types of GFRP tubes; namely Type A and B; were used in this
investigation as structural stay-in-place formwork for the CFFT col-
umns. The GFRP tubes type A and B were standard products with the
same internal diameter of 213 mm and different wall thicknesses of 2.9
and 6.4 mm. Tubes type A and B were consisted of six and twelve FRP
layers with stacking sequences of [60/90/90/90/90/60] and [60/60/
90/90/60/60/90/90/90/90/90/90], respectively. The GFRP tubes
were fabricated using filament-winding technique; E-glass fiber and
Epoxy resin with different fiber angles respect to the longitudinal axis of
the tubes. The fiber orientations of the tubes were mainly in the hoop
direction and no fibers in the longitudinal direction. Coupon tensile
tests were performed according to ASTM D638-14 [4] standard on five
specimens from each tube to determine the mechanical properties in
the axial direction. The ultimate tensile strengths, Young’s modulus,
and ultimate tensile strains in the axial direction were 55.2 and
59.2 MPa, 8865 and 7897 MPa, and 0.0062 and 0.0075 (microstrains)
for FRP tubes type A and B, respectively. While the mechanical prop-
erties in hoop direction were determined theoretically using the clas-
sical laminate theory through Laminator software. Table 2 reports the
mechanical properties for each tube in the hoop and axial directions.
More details regarding the standard tests of these tubes can be found
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Table 2
Dimension and mechanical properties of GFRP tubes.
Tube type Din (mm) t frp (mm) No. of layers Stacking sequence
A 213 2.90 6 [60/90/90/90/90/60]
B 213 6.40 12 [60/60/90/90/60/60/90/90/90/90/90/90]
Note: Din and tfrp are internal diameter and thickness of FRP tubes, respectively; fFRPU, εFRPU, and EFRPU are ultimate strength, ultimate tensile strain, and Young’s modulus in the hoop
(transverse) direction; and fX, εX, and Ex are ultimate strength, ultimate tensile strain, and Young’s modulus in the axial direction, respectively.
a
Calculated using lamination theory.
b
Based on coupon test.
elsewhere [23].
2.2. Test matrix and specimens’ preparation
A total of ten RC and CFFT circular columns internally reinforced
with steel or GFRP and CFRP bars were fabricated and tested under
axial compression loading. All columns had the same height (H) of
1900 mm with an internal diameter (D) of 213 mm (H/D = 8.9). The
effective slenderness ratio (kH/r), where H = unbraced length of the
column; k = effective length factor for the compression element (as-
sume k = 0.5 “fixed–fixed end conditions”); and r = radius of gyration
(=0.25 times the diameter D for circular columns), was 17.0 which can
be classified as short columns according to Canadian Standards
Association (CSA-A23.3 M-14) [7] (< 22). The following test para-
meters were considered: (i) GFRP tube thickness (2.9 and 6.4 mm); (ii)
internal reinforcement type (steel; GFRP; or CFRP bars) and amount;
and (iii) natural of axial loading (i.e. monotonic or cyclic). The test
matrix was divided into two series. Series I includes three control RC
specimens, one specimen reinforced with longitudinal steel bars (6
M15) and two identical specimens reinforced with sand-coated GFRP
bars (6 No. 15), had the same internal reinforcement ratio (ρL) equal to
3.4%. As such, specimen S-G(3.4)-C, similar to specimen S-G(3.4)-C∗,
served as a duplicate to confirm repeatability of test results. All speci-
mens were reinforced in transverse direction with steel spiral stirrups
(3.4 mm- in diameter) at a pitch (s) equal to 50.6 mm. In order to study
the effect of the GFRP tube, the axial behavior of the control specimens
S-S(3.4)-C or S-G(3.4)-C was compared with specimens A-S(3.4)-C or A-
G(3.4)-C. The pitch s of the steel spirals in this series was determined by
equating the stiffness of the GFRP tube (A) of specimen A-S(3.4)-C or A-
G(3.4)-C in the circumferential direction (Ef(hoop)tf/Rf) to that of the steel
spirals in specimens S-S(3.4)-C or S-G(3.4)-C, as given in Eqs. (1) and (2):
Es ts Ef (hoop) t f
=
Rs Rf
ts = As / s
where As = cross-sectional area of steel spiral, Es = elastic modulus
of steel spiral, Rs = radius of steel spiral, Ef(hoop) = hoop modulus of the
FRP tube, Rf = radius of FRP tube to the middle of the wall thickness,
tf = thickness of FRP tube, and ts = thickness of a fictitious steel.
Series II consists of seven CFFT columns internally reinforced with
different longitudinal bars and transversally confined with GFRP tubes
(Type A or B). Table 3 shows the test specimens’ details. All specimens
were tested under single complete unloading/reloading cyclic axial
compression loading, except for specimen B-G(1.2)-M which was tested
under monotonic axial compression loading. Four specimens were
transversally confined with tube type A and longitudinally reinforced
with different internal reinforcement type (steel or CFRP and GFRP).
Two CFFT columns, A-G (3.4)-C and A-C(1.2)-C, reinforced with 6 GFRP
bars No. 5 with reinforcement ratio (ρL = 3.4%) and 6 CFRP bars No. 3
(ρL = 1.2%), respectively, whereas the axial stiffnesses were similar for
the test specimens. One identical specimen A-C(1.2)-C∗ similar to A-
C(1.2)-C served as a duplicate to confirm repeatability of test results. One
specimen was internally reinforced with deformed steel bars (6 M15; ρL
= 3.4%) for comparisons. Besides, three specimens were transversally
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
fFRPUa (MPa) εFRPUa (%) EFRPUa MPa) fXb (MPa) εXb (%) EXb (MPa)
548 1.70 32260 55.2 0.62 8865
510 1.69 30200 59.2 0.75 7897
confined with tube type B and longitudinally reinforced with different
internal reinforcement ratio and axial loading pattern. Two specimens,
B-G(3.4)-C and B-G(1.2)-C, were reinforced with 6 GFRP bars No. 5 and
No. 3 with ρL = 3.4 and 1.2%, respectively, while the last specimen B-
G(1.2)-M was reinforced with the same longitudinal reinforcement ratio
as for specimen (B-G(1.2)-C) but was tested under axial monotonic
loading.
All longitudinal bars were uniformly distributed inside the cross
section (see Fig. 1). For the CFFT columns, two steel stirrups were used
at the top and bottom of each specimen to fix the bars in their positions
during casting. Fig. 1 shows typical details of the reinforcement layout.
The specimens in Table 3 were labeled as follows: the first letter S, A, or
B is defining “the transverse reinforcement type: steel spiral stirrups,
GFRP tube type (A), or tube type (B), respectively” then followed by a
letter S, G, or C indicating “the longitudinal reinforcement type: steel,
GFRP, or CFRP bars”, respectively. The number between brackets in-
dicates “the longitudinal reinforcement ratio”. The final letter refers to
the natural of loading type “M for monotonic or C for complete un-
loading/reloading cyclic loading”. For instance, the specimen (A-S(3.4)-
C) was laterally confined with GFRP tube type (A), reinforced internally
with steel bars with a reinforcement ratio of 3.4%, and tested under
cyclic axial compression loading.
2.3. Instrumentations and testing procedures
Two displacement transducers (DTs) were used to measure the axial
deformation of the column over the full height, as shown in Fig. 2.
Additionally, two in-plane linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) were located at the mid-height to record the lateral displace-
ments of each column. Several strain gauges were mounted onto the
internal reinforcement bars prior concrete casting and onto concrete or
tube surface before testing. Two strain gauges were bonded on two
(1) longitudinal bars at 180° degree apart at the mid-height of each column.
Eight strain gauges were located at the column mid-height in both axial
(2) and horizontal directions to measure the axial and hoop strains, re-
spectively. A thin layer of high strength sulphur was capped on both
ends of all specimens to ensure uniform load distribution during testing.
Before testing, both ends of each column were further confined with
bolted steel collars made from 10 mm thick steel plates to prevent
premature failure at the ends. The specimens were loaded under axial
compression load using a 6000-kN capacity-testing machine. Loading
and unloading in compression tests were achieved with load control at a
rate equal to 2.3 kN/s. During the test, load, axial and lateral dis-
placements, and strain gauges were recorded automatically using a data
acquisition system connected to the computer. Fig. 2 shows different
placing of strain gauges bonded on the reinforcing bars and tubes sur-
face, schematic of test setup and different sensors locations.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Mode of failure
Fig. 3 shows different mode of failure of the control and CFFT tested
columns. For the control columns reinforced with steel or GFRP bars
269
A.A. Ahmed et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278

Table 3
Test specimens’ details.

Series number ID Tube type or spiral stirrups H (mm) D (mm) fc′ (MPa) Longitudinal bars

Type Amount

I S-S(3.4)-C ϕ3.4@50.6 1900 213 44.1 Steel 6 M 15

S-G(3.4)-C ϕ3.4@50.6 GFRP 6 No. 5
S-G(3.4)-Ca ϕ3.4@50.6 GFRP 6 No. 5
II A-S(3.4)-C A Steel 6 M 15
A-G(3.4)-C A GFRP 6 No. 5
B-G(3.4)-C B GFRP 6 No. 5
B-G(1.2)-C B GFRP 6 No. 3
B-G(1.2)-M B GFRP 6 No. 3
A-C(1.2)-C A CFRP 6 No. 3
A-C(1.2)-Ca A CFRP 6 No. 3

a
X-Y(aa)-Z*: X = lateral reinforcement type, where S = Steel spiral stirrups; A = GFRP tube type A; and B = GFRP tube type B; Y = longitudinal reinforcment type, where S = steel
bars; G = GFRP bars; and C = CFRP bars; aa = longitudinal reinforcment ratio; Z = loading type, where C = cyclic axial loading; and M = monotonic axial loading; * identical specimens
(if any).

Fig. 1. Typical details for the test specimens and

reinforcement layout: (a) CFFT columns; (b)
control columns.

behaved similarly and exhibited relatively initial elastic behavior. The
failure was typically initiated with vertical cracks started to appear at
approximately 85% of their peak load. The vertical cracks gradually
increased and widened as the column load increased up to the peak
point. While concrete dilation and lateral deformation of transverse and
longitudinal reinforcement leads to concrete cover spalling. Finally,
concrete core crushed and spiral stirrups fractured after buckling of the
longitudinal bars. In addition, inclined diagonal shear surface was ob-
served leading to a separation of the concrete core into two column
parts as indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 3. On the other hand, re-
inforced CFFT columns showed different failure mode compared to that
occurred for the control columns. The mode of failure of the reinforced
CFFT specimens were characterized by loss of stability associated with
considerable bending of the specimens. The instability was evident in

270
A.A. Ahmed et al.
(a) (b)
Bolted steel plate
LVDT
Bolted steel plate
c) d)
the shape of a single curvature mode at a load level ranged between 80
and 85% of the final failure load. This indicated that these specimens
behaved as long columns. Although the column started to buckle at a
load level ranged between 80 and 85% of the failure load, the deflected
column was still stable and carried more axial load. Loading the spe-
cimens continued until localized failure occurred near the mid height of
the column on the outmost compression side due to secondary bending
moment or until the specimens reached the maximum displacement
capacity of the testing machine. The final failure on the outmost com-
pression side of the column was characterized by FRP tube rupture,
concrete crushing, and local buckling of steel bars or crushing of the
FRP bars as illustrated in Fig. 3. This observation is in agreement with
the previous tests conducted on slender FRP-confined columns
[22,24,13,21].
3.2. Axial and lateral stress-strain responses
Fig. 4 depicts the cyclic and monotonic stress–strain relationships
for reinforced control and CFFT columns. In Fig. 4, the axial stress and
strain are presented as positive and the lateral strain as negative. The
axial stress was obtained from dividing the axial load by the concrete
gross area (Ag). The axial and lateral stress–strain curves were plotted
from the maximum recorded strain gauge of each column bonded in the
vertical and hoop directions at the column mid-height. The key ex-
perimental results of the tested columns are shown in Table 4. In this
Table 4, the experimental ultimate load (Pu), the confined concrete
compressive strength (fcc′)-that is the maximum compressive strength at
271
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
Fig. 2. (a) Reinforcement bars instrumentations
[23]; (b) vertical and horizontal strain gauges on
the GFRP tube surface; (c) schematic of test setup;
and (d) Test setup and testing sensors.
DT sensor
LVDT
the ultimate load (=Pu/Ag), the corresponding axial strain (εcc′), the
unconfined concrete compressive strength (fc′) from cylinders and the
corresponding axial strain of unconfined concrete (εco′) are reported. As
shown in Fig. 4 the stress–strain diagrams for all columns exhibited
almost similar initial stiffness with a relatively linear slope in the elastic
range of the stress–strain curves, indicating that the elastic axial stiff-
ness is not affected by confinement, regardless the investigated tested
parameters. [18] and [16] also noted that in the elastic range when
axial strain values smaller than 0.002, the confinement of FRP-confined
concrete is negligible. As seen in Fig. 4 that in all reinforced CFFT
columns the maximum compressive strain at failure exceeded the
elastic axial strain limit (taken as 0.002) indicating inelastic overall
buckling of the reinforced CFFT columns [16]. On the other hand, the
stress–strain responses of the GFRP-reinforced control columns initially
behaved similar to that of the steel-reinforced control column up to
their peak load. However, the peak axial stress for steel-reinforced
column was slightly higher than that of their counterpart reinforced
with GFRP bars by on average of 11%.
The envelop curves of the reinforced CFFT columns, represent the
upper boundary of the cyclic axial stress–strain responses, showed bi-
linear responses with a transition zone in the vicinity of the unconfined
concrete (fc′) followed by nearly stabilization of the load carrying ca-
pacity at the end due to excessive lateral buckling until failure (i.e. B-
G(3.4)-C and B-G(1.2)-C). The initial slope was almost identical for all the
specimens while the second slope is highly governed by GFRP tubes
stiffness rather than the internal reinforcement type and amount, par-
ticularly in thicker tube thickness (see Fig. 4). The axial stress–strain
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Buckled
GFRP bar
Spiral stirrups
rupture Spiral stirrups
rupture
a) S-G(3.4)-C b) S-G(3.4)-C
d) B-G(3.4)-C e) B-G(1.2)-C
curves for GFRP and steel-reinforced CFFT columns showed similar
shapes of the hysteresis loops for the unloading/reloading paths.
However, the steel-reinforced CFFT column hysteresis loop starts to
open after the yielding of steel bars. The unloading paths for the CFFT
columns reinforced with steel or FRP bars exhibited non-linear beha-
vior. The degree of the non-linearity increases as the unloading axial
strain increases. Moreover, the reloading paths could be resembled as
straight lines. It can be also observed that the FRP-reinforced CFFT
columns exhibited lower residual plastic strains compared to that of the
steel-reinforced CFFT columns after yielding of steel bars, when the
load is removed. This is due to the lack of yield plateau in GFRP bars
which results in a much lower residual strains. In addition, due to the
fact that the steel bars have very low tangent modulus after yielding
and therefore are more susceptible to buckling under compression than
GFRP bars which maintain their modulus of elasticity throughout the
entire duration of loading.
3.3. Plastic strains
The plastic strain (εpl) is, one of the primary parameters for mod-
eling the unloading/reloading cycles, defined as the residual axial
strain when the stress unloaded to zero stress of each unloading path.
The relationship between the plastic strain and envelop unloading
strain (εun,env.) is an important aspect of cyclic behavior and has been
investigated in a number of studies for unconfined, steel-confined, and
FRP-confined concrete cylinders and square prisms (e.g., [31,36,27]).
The key parameters of cyclic stress–strain curves of FRP-confined con-
crete are illustrated in Fig. 5. Previous studies on FRP-confined concrete
without internal reinforcement demonstrated that the residual plastic
strain of FRP-confined concrete is linearly related to the envelope un-
loading strain, and this relationship does not appear to be influenced
significantly by the amount of confinement, the type of FRP; or the
unconfined concrete strength ([27]). Lam and Teng [20] suggested that
272
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
Fig. 3. Typical mode of failure for the CFFT and
control specimens.
c) A-G(3.4)-C
f) A-C(1.2)-C
for FRP-confined concrete circular specimens, when εun,env < 0.001,
the plastic strain is approximately equal to zero. They also observed
that for εun,env > 0.001, the relationship between εun,env and εpl is
linear and presented two different equations for envelope unloading
strains greater and less than 0.0035. In the present study, in order to
evaluate the effect of confinement level and internal reinforcement type
and ratio on the plastic strains, the correlations between the plastic
strain versus unloading envelope strains of specimens in each cycle, are
plotted in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, the envelope unloading strains were divided
into three ranges when εun,env < 0.001, 0.001 ≤ εun,env ≤ 0.0035, and
εun,env > 0.0035 as adopted by Lam and Teng [20]. A number of im-
portant observations can be made from examination of the trend lines
shown in Fig. 6.
It can be observed that the plastic strains of the reinforced CFFT
columns when εun,env < 0.001, the plastic strain is negligible. While
the trend line at unloading envelope strain ranged between 0.001 and
0.0035 almost coincide, which suggests that the residual plastic strain
has little or no influence on the reinforced CFFT specimens, regardless
the investigated tested parameters. Also, a linear relationship between
the plastic strains and envelope unloading strain is observed. This ob-
servation is also in a good agreement with pervious tests conducted on
FRP-confined unreinforced concrete cylinders and steel-reinforced
square prisms [20,1,27,36]. Nevertheless, when the envelope unloading
strains (εun,env > 0.0035), it was found that the plastic strains of the
FRP-reinforced CFFT columns is linearly proportional to the envelop
unloading strains. The relationship is slightly dependent on level of
confinement but strongly on the longitudinal reinforcement amount
and type. The statistical characteristics of the trend lines for reinforced
CFFT columns showed different trends. The slope of the trend lines of
the CFFT columns reinforced with GFRP bars decreases linearly with
increasing the FRP longitudinal reinforcement ratio (seeFig. 7).
A.A. Ahmed et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278

Fig. 4. Axial cyclic stress-strain curves of the tested specimens.

3.4. Stress deterioration
This section is concerned with the new stress on a reloading path at
the reference strain for envelope cycles (see Fig. 6a). Previous studies
on FRP-confined concrete cylinders and square prisms showed that the
axial cyclic behavior under unloading/reloading cycles are subjected to
stress deterioration [20,1,2,36]. Lam et al. [19] showed that for en-
velope cycles, the ratio of the new stress at the reference strain fnew,n to
the reference stress ful,env is independent of the envelope unloading
strain and has an average value of 0.916. This ratio was found by Shao
et al. [33] to be 0.9 based on his tests on FRP-confined concrete cy-
linders. This ratio is referred to as the stress deterioration ratio (β). A

273
A.A. Ahmed et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278

Table 4
Test results.

Series number ID P u (kN) ′ a (MPa)

fcc ′ / fc′
fcc εcc (µε) εcc/εco εh, min (µε) εh, aver. (µε) εh, max.(µε)

I S-S(3.4)-C 1948 54.60 1.23 −2510 1.04 377 599 836

S-G(3.4)-C 1575 47.20 1.08 −2711 1.12 653 935 1144
S-G(3.4)-C* 1606 48.64 1.10 −2379 0.99 270 457 605

II A-S(3.4)-C 2402 67.38 1.53 −13749 3.83 2442 5630 9707

A-G(3.4)-C 2603 73.06 1.66 −13718 4.63 5172 8087 9610
B-G(3.4)-C 3455 96.97 2.20 −15578 5.49 4435 9745 15135
B-G(1.2)-C 3272 91.82 2.08 −15563 5.96 4305 13787 16113
B-G(1.2)-M 3068 86.09 1.95 −15514 5.15 3156 11356 16090
A-C(1.2)-C 2086 58.55 1.33 −15486 4.65 4190 8240 11913
A-C(1.2)-C* 2039 57.23 1.30 −15475 5.10 2738 8024 12947

a
fcc′ = Pu/Ac.

general expression of it is given by:

fnew,n
βn = ( n= 1,2,3,⋯⋯)
ful,env (3)

where βn is the stress deterioration ratio for the nth unloading/re-

loading cycle, with β1 being for the envelope cycle; fnew;n is the new
stress at the reference strain on the nth reloading path; and ful,env,;n is
the envelop unloading stress for the nth reloading path (see Fig. 6a). In
this study, in order to evaluate the degree of stress deterioration for the
unloading/reloading paths of each cycle for the reinforced CFFT tested
columns, the relationship between β and εul,env, is plotted in Fig. 6b. As
shown in Fig. 6b, for small envelope unloading strains
(εun,env < 0.001), β is almost equal to 1, and strength degradation is
almost negligible. Because the concrete has not yet been damaged, it
behaves almost elastically before the strain reaches about 0.001. As the Fig. 6. Plastic strain versus envelop unloading strain relationships of test specimens.
envelop unloading strains increase, β gradually decreases and reaches
approximately a constant value of about 0.91, with a standard deviation
equal to 0.009 at εun,env ≥ 0.002. This observation is in agreement as ⎧1 0 ≺ εun,env ≤ 0.001 ⎫
suggested by [33] and [20] for FRP-confined concrete cylinders. [17] βn = 1−110(εun,env−0.001) 0.001 ≺ εun . env ≺ 0.002
⎨ ⎬
and Sakai J, Kawashima 2006 showed through tests on steel confined ⎩ 0.91 εun,env ≥ 0.002 ⎭ (4)
concrete that for the first unloading/reloading cycle from the envelope
curve, the position of common points where the unloading portion It is worth mentioning that the preliminary suggested equations for
crosses the reloading portion is independent of the reloading stress of the plastic strains and stress deterioration are based on limited ex-
the cycle. For these reasons, [19] assumed that for envelope cycles, the perimental data in this paper and further experimental investigations
new stress at the reference strain is independent of the stress level at on the axial cyclic behavior of CFFT columns internally reinforced with
reloading. On the basis of test results, the following equation was FRP bars are required to establish these key relationships. In addition,
proposed for βn: research on the influence of cyclic loading history on the stress–strain

Fig. 5. Key parameters of cyclic stress-strain curves of

FRP-confined concrete..
adopted from [20]

Envelop unloading strain point

Plastic strain point

274
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Stress deterioration in the first cycle [1] and (b) stress deterioration ratio (β1) versus envelop unloading strain.
behavior is also desirable [36].
3.5. Stress-strain responses of longitudinal reinforcement
Fig. 8 shows the axial stress–strain relationships for the longitudinal
bars of the test specimens. In this figure, the strain values recorded from
the electrical resistance strain gauges located at the column mid-height
of each specimen. Unfortunately, not all strain gauges were plotted in
Fig. 8 because some gauges were damaged before testing. As shown in
this figure the axial stress–strain curves for steel and GFRP-reinforced
control specimens (S-S(3.4)-C and S-G(3.4)-C) exhibited a linear as-
cending branch up to approximately a strain level of 2100 µε followed
by a softening stress–strain response until failure. At the peak load
level, the average axial strains for the GFRP and steel bars were 2495
and 2100 µε, respectively. The load carried by the reinforcement
(computed by multiplying the area of the longitudinal reinforcement by
the average axial strain and modulus of elasticity of the material) in-
dicated that the GFRP and steel bars contributed to the ultimate load
capacity of the columns by 10 and 15%, respectively. This confirms the
integration of the GFRP bars used as the steel bars in compression for
the tested columns [25].
For steel-reinforced CFFT column (A-S(3.4)-C), the envelop stress–-
strain curve for steel bars showed a linear response until yielding stress
at a stain approximately equal to 2100 µε. After yielding, the axial
stress- steel strain increased progressively in the horizontal direction
until failure. It was observed that the yield load occurred at load level
83% of the ultimate capacity. This indicated that, for long CFFT
column, specimen (A-S (3.4)-C) did not show much enhancement in the
ultimate capacity after yielding stage as a result of buckling failure load
and column instability occurred before initiation of the confinement
lateral pressure. This behavior was similar to those reported by
Mohamed et al. [24]. On the other hand, the GFRP-reinforced CFFT
column exhibited initially similar response as steel-reinforced ones
before steel yielding stage. The bend point on the curve occurred at a
strain level (approximately 2100 µε), the same yielding strain for steel-
reinforced CFFT column. Thereafter, the slope of axial stress–strain
curve in the second region continued to increase slightly until failure.
This can be attributed to the linear behavior of the FRP material. It
should be noted that both specimens (A-S(3.4)-C and A-G(3.4)-C) at the
same longitudinal ratio (ρ = 3.4%) achieved similar axial strength and
strain capacity. This indicated that the contribution of the GFRP bars in
the axial capacity of the CFFT column is comparable to that of the steel
bars [21].
The amount of longitudinal reinforcement bars was more pro-
nounced for the specimens confined with thinner tube (Type A) rather
275
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
than that of the thicker tube (Type B). The specimens A-C(1.2)-C and A-
G(3.4)-C designed with similar axial stiffness, did not maintain similar
axial strength. Specimen A-G(3.4)-C with higher reinforcement ratio
exhibited higher axial capacity by 26%. On the other hand, increasing
the longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 1.2 to 3.4% in the test spe-
cimens (B-G(1.2)-C and B-G(3.4)-C) showed slightly an increase in the
axial load carrying capacity by only 5%. It is worth mentioning at a
high level of confinement such as in specimens (B-G(1.2)-C and B-G(3.4)-
C) can greatly enhance the compressive strength of concrete which lead
to excessive lateral deflections and loss of stability as seen Fig. 8.
However, loading the specimens continued until localized failure oc-
curred near the mid height of the column on the outmost compression
side.
3.6. GFRP tube thickness effect on confinement
Table 3 shows the strength and strain enhancement ratios ( fcc′ / fc′ and
εcc / εco ). As reported in Table 3 increasing the GFRP tube thickness from
2.9 to 6.4 mm is not only enhanced the axial strength but also the ul-
timate strain capacity of the tested CFFT columns. The ultimate
strength and strain ratios were increased by 25% and 12%, respectively.
This can be attributed to the enhancement of lateral confinement as
results from increasing the GFRP tube stiffness. Since the confinement
effect is strongly enhanced as the number of 90° wound layers’ is in-
creased. It is worth mentioning that the fiber orientation of the FRP
tubes used in this study were mainly orientated in the hoop direction at
90° (respect to the longitudinal axis of the column) while few FRP
wound layers were orientated at 60° which may relevant an effect on
the overall lateral confinement pressure of the tubes.
Despite to the fact that the two control specimens (S-G (3.4)-C and S-
S (3.4)-C with steel stirrups) purported to represent the same lateral
confining pressure resulting from steel stirrups as that coming from the
Type A FRP tubes, the ultimate capacity of these two specimens was
significantly lower than that of specimens (A-G(3.4)-C and A-S(3.4)-C).
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 [24].
Fig. 9shows typical distribution of hoop strain over the perimeter of
the GFRP tube recorded at mid-height. The vertical axis indicates hoop
strain, whereas the horizontal axis represents the position of the strain
gauges. In general, lateral strain values were small and uniform in the
elastic range, indicating insignificant confinement and increased ra-
pidly beyond the elastic limit. As the load was increased, the hoop
strains also increased and quite large variation in strain can be observed
up to the peak load as a result of buckling and second-order effects on
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Fig. 8. Axial stress-strain relationships for longitudinal bars of the tested columns.
the CFFT columns. The minimum, average, and maximum lateral
strains in the FRP tube at failure are reported in Table 4.
3.7. Effect of loading pattern
Fig. 4 shows the cyclic and monotonic axial stress–strain curves of
276
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
specimens (B-G(1.2)-C and B-G(1.2)-M). As shown in Fig. 4, the envelop
curve of the GFRP-reinforced CFFT column (B-G(1.2)-C) subjected to
cyclic loading was notable close to the axial stress–strain response of
the monotonically loaded specimen (B-G(1.2)-M), which has been pre-
viously reported by [19,20,27,39]. Generally, the ultimate axial strain
of the cyclic loading specimen was slightly larger than that of the
A.A. Ahmed et al.
Fig. 9. Typical lateral strain distribution on FRP tube at column mid-height.
specimen subjected to monotonic loading. Besides, the average ultimate
lateral strains of specimen (B-G(1.2)-C) were 18% (on average) higher
than the specimen (B-G(1.2)-M). [20] and [39] also reported the higher
FRP ultimate lateral strains for cyclically loaded cylinders.
4. Conclusions and future research
The axial behavior of FRP bars as longitudinal reinforcement in
compression members has been quite limited, especially for the CFFT
columns. This paper reported the test results of ten full-scale RC and
CFFT columns reinforced longitudinally with steel or GFRP and CFRP
bars tested under monotonic and cyclic axial compression loads.
Examination of the test results has led to a number of significant con-
clusions in regards to the general behavior, plastic strains and stress
deterioration of steel or FRP-reinforced CFFT columns. On the basis of
the experimental test results and discussions of this research, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
1. The CFFT columns behaved as long columns. The mode of failure
characterized by loss of stability associated with considerable
bending of the specimens.
2. As expected, an increase in the FRP tube thickness (or stiffness)
results in an increase in the strength and strain enhancement ratios
( fcc′ / fc′and εcc / εco ).
3. In general, the envelop curves for the CFFT tested specimens showed
bilinear responses with a transition zone near of the peak strength of
the unconfined concrete (fc′). The slope of the second branch is
highly governed by GFRP tube stiffness rather than the longitudinal
reinforcement amount and type.
4. The residual plastic strain of FRP-reinforced CFFT columns is line-
arly related to the envelope unloading strain, and this relationship is
not influenced significantly by the FRP confinement level but
strongly influenced by the internal reinforcement amount and type,
particularly when the envelope unloading strain (εun,env > 0.0035).
5. The FRP-reinforced CFFT columns showed lower residual plastic
strains compared to that of the steel-reinforced CFFT columns after
yielding of steel bars, when the load is removed. This can be due to
the lack of yield plateau in GFRP bars which results in a much lower
residual strains. As a result, the influence of internal reinforcement
on cyclic loading should be considered when modeling the
277
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
unloading/reloading cyclic axial stress–strain response.
6. Strength deterioration ratio (β) for small envelope unloading strains
(εun,env < 0.001) is negligible. As εul,env increase, β tends to de-
crease and reaches a constant value of about 0.91 at εul,env = 0.002.
This observation is in agreement with pervious tests for FRP- con-
fined concrete cylinders.
7. The envelope stress–strain curve of cyclically loaded FRP-reinforced
CFFT column closely follows the stress–strain curve of the mono-
tonically loaded specimen, which is consistent with observations for
FRP-confined concrete cylinders in the literature.
8. The GFRP-reinforced CFFT columns showed comparable ultimate
axial strength and strain capacities compare to their counterparts
reinforced with steel bars. This proves the applicability of ex-
clusively reinforcing the CFFT columns with FRP bars and subjected
to axial compression load. However, a wide range of investigated
parameters such as concrete strength, FRP reinforcement ratio,
slenderness ratio, loading history etc. are necessary to complete
understating the behavior of FRP-reinforced CFFT columns.
Acknowledgements
The reported research in this paper was partially sponsored by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
The authors also acknowledge the contribution of the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for the infrastructure used to conduct
testing. Special thanks to the manufacturer (FRE Composites, QC,
Canada) for providing FRP tubes.
References
[1] Abbasnia R, Ahmadi R, Ziaadiny H. Effect of confinement level, aspect ratio and
concrete strength on the cyclic stress–strain behavior of FRP-confined concrete
prisms. Composites B 2012;43(2012):825–31.
[2] Abbasnia R, Hosseinpour F, Rostamian M, Ziaadiny H. Cyclic and monotonic be-
havior of FRP confined concrete rectangular prisms with different aspect ratios.
Constr Build Mater 2013;40(2013):118–25.
[3] Afifi Z, Mohamed M, Benmokrane B. Axial capacity of circular concrete columns
reinforced with glass-FRP bars and spirals. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2014;18(1):04013017.1–04013017.11.
[4] ASTM D638-14. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics”. D638-14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D0638-14, West Conshohocken, Pa; 2014.
[5] ASTM A615/A615M-09, ASTM 2009. Standard specification for deformed and plain
A.A. Ahmed et al.
carbon steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken, Pa; 2009.
[6] Benmokrane B, El-Salakawy E, El-Ragaby A, El-Gamal S. Performance evaluation of
innovative concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer bars.
Can J Civ Eng 2007;34(3):298–310.
[7] Canadian Standards Association (CSA-A23.3 M-14). Design of concrete structures
for buildings. Ontario (Canada): Rexdale; 2014. p. 240.
[8] De Luca A, Matta F, Nanni A. Behavior of full-scale glass fiber-reinforced polymer
reinforced concrete columns under axial load. ACI Struct J 2010;107(5):589–96.
[9] El-Salakawy E, Benmokrane B, Desgagné G. FRP composite bars for the concrete
deck slab of Wotton Bridge. Can J Civ Eng 2003;30(5):861–70.
[10] Fahmy M, Wu Z. Evaluating and proposing models of circular concrete columns
confined with different FRP composites. Composites B 2010;41(3):199–213.
[11] Fam AZ, Rizkalla S. Behavior of axially loaded concrete-filled circular fiber re-
inforced polymer tubes. ACI Struct J 2001;98(3):280–9.
[12] Fam A, Greene R, Rizkalla S. Field applications of concrete-filled FRP tubes for
marine piles. ACI Special Publication SP-215-9 (Field Application of FRP
Reinforcement: Case Studies); 2003. p. 161–80.
[13] Fitzwilliam J, Bisby L. Slenderness effects on circular CFRP confined reinforced
concrete columns. J Compos Construct 14(3), 280–288.
[14] Idris Y, Ozbakkaloglu T. Seismic behavior of high-strength concrete-filled FRP tube
columns. J Compos Constr 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000388,04013013.
[16] Karimi K, Tait M, El-Dakhahkni W. Influence of Slenderness on the behavior of a
FRP-enclosed steel-concrete composite column. J Compos Construct, 2012. ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0268/2012/1-100-109.
[17] Karsan ID, Jirsa JO. Behavior of concrete under compressive loadings. J Struct Eng
Div ASCE 1969;95(ST12):2543_63.
[18] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain models for FRP-confined concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[19] Lam L, Teng JG, Cheung JG, Xiao Y. FRP-confined concrete under axial cyclic
compression. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10);949_58.
[20] Lam L, Teng JG. Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete under cyclic axial
compression. Eng Struct 2009;31(2):308–21.
[21] Masmoudi R, Mohamed H. Axial behavior of slender-concrete-filled FRP tube col-
umns reinforced with steel and carbon FRP bars. In: 10th International symposium
on fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete structures, Tampa, Florida,
April 2011, ACI-SP-275.
[22] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Beitleman T. Slenderness limit for hybrid FRP concrete
columns. J Compos Construct ASCE 2001;5(1):26–34.
[23] Mohamed H. Axial and flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete-filled FRP tubes:
experimental and theoretical studies. University of Sherbrook, PhD thesis; 2010. p.
296.
[24] Mohamed H, Abdel Baky H, Masmoudi R. Nonlinear stability analysis of CFFT
columns: experimental and theoretical investigations. ACI Struct J
2010;107(6):699–708.
[25] Mohamed H, Afifi M, Benmokrane B. Performance evaluation of concrete columns
reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars and confined with FRP hoops and spirals
278
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 267–278
under axial load. J Bridge Eng © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/04014020(12); 2014.
[26] Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M. Seismic behavior of high-strength concrete columns
confined by fiber reinforced polymer tubes. J Compos Constr 2006. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006) 10: 6(538), 538-549.
[27] Ozbakkaloglu T, Akin E. Behavior of FRP-confined normal- and high-strength
concrete under cyclic axial compression. J Compos Constr 2012;2012(16):451–63.
[28] Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim J, Vincent T. FRP-confined concrete in circular sections: re-
view and assessment of stress–strain models. Eng Struct 2013;49(2013):1068–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.010.
[29] Rizkalla S, Hassan T, Hassan N. Design recommendations for the use of FRP for
reinforcement and strengthening of concrete structures. Progr Struct Eng Mater
2003;5(1):16–28.
[30] Saatcioglu M, Ozbakkaloglu T, Elnabelsy G. Seismic behavior and design of re-
inforced concrete columns confined with FRP stay-in-place formwork. ACI special
publication, SP257-09, vol. 257; 2008. p. 149–70.
[31] Sakai J, Kawashima K. Unloading and reloading stress strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 2006;132(1):112–22.
[32] Samaan M, Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. Modeling of concrete confined by fiber
composites. J Struct Eng 1998;124(9):1025–31.
[33] Shao Y, Zhu Z, Mirmiran A. Cyclic modeling of FRP confined concrete with im-
proved ductility. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28(10):959–68.
[34] Sharma UK, Bhargava P, Kaushik SK. Behavior of confined high strength concrete
columns under axial compression. J Adv Concr Tech 2005;3(2):267–81.
[35] Tobbi H, Farghaly AS, Benmokrane B. Concrete columns reinforced longitudinally
and transversally with glass fiber-reinforced polymers bars. ACI Struct J
2012;109(4):1–8.
[36] Wang Z, Wang D, Smith S, Lu D. CFRP-confined square RC columns. II:
Experimental investigation. J Compos Constr 16(2); 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN
1090–0268/2012/2-150-160.
[37] Wei YY, Wu YF. Unified stress–strain model of concrete for FRP-confined columns.
Constr Build Mater 2012;26(1):381–92.
[38] Xiao Y, Wu H. Compressive behavior of concrete confined by carbon fiber com-
posite jackets. J Mater Civ Eng 2000;12(2):139–46.
[39] Xia Y, Xian G, Wang Z, Li H. Static and cyclic compressive properties of self-com-
pacting concrete-filled flax fiber-reinforced polymer tubes. J Compos Constr 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000706.
[40] Yuan W, Mirmiran A. Buckling analysis of concrete-filled FRP tubes. Int J Struct
Stab Dyn 2001;1(3):367–83.
Further reading
[15] Ilki A, Kumbasar N. Compressive behavior of carbon fiber composite jacketed
concrete with circular and non-circular cross sections. J Earthquake Eng
2003;7(3):381–406.